• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 2 answers
  • Subscribers 64 subscribers
  • Views 365 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

UCC28051: UCC28051 on PMP9640 design

Ray Vincent Aranzaso
Genius 15825 points
Part Number: UCC28051
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: PMP9640, UCC28019, UCC28180, UCC28019A, PMP

Hi,

Good Day. I have a customer who is working with UCC28051. Please see below the response of our customer to your query. Thank you very much. 

I have decided the model UCC28051 (works in TM) for the UCC28019 (works in CCM) and UCC28180 (works in CCM) could you certify me if they are equivalent for the PMP9640 design, both I select are Boost type PFC controllers or do I have to simulate them to verify them.

Best Regards,

Ray Vincent

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 32300 points

    Hello Ray,

    Thank you for your question.  I have some confusion about the wording, but I'll do my best to interpret it.

    The PMP9640 semi-bridgeless-PFC design is structured and optimized for the UCC28051 TM boost-PFC controller.  Although UCC28019 and UCC28180 are also boost-PFC, their operating modes require extensive changes to the topology parameters and structure.  They cannot be easily "dropped in" into the PMP9640 without many changes: 

    1.  The UCC28051 (TM) current sense uses a positive voltage signal; the UCC28019 and UCC28180 (CCM) current sense require a negative voltage signal.
    2.  The TM current-sense relies on controlling the peak inductor current only during the switch on-time, while the CCM current-sense controls the total average inductor current during the entire switching cycle. 
    3.  The current-sense signals are scaled differently for TM vs. CCM.
    4.  The output voltage-sense references are significantly different for TM vs. CCM.
    5.  The boost inductor values are significantly different for TM vs. CCM.
    6.  The loop-compensation values will be different for TM vs. CCM.

    I could not find a reference design for a bridgeless-PFC using the UCC28019 or UCC28180 controller, but I think either could be made to work with suitable redesign of PMP9640 according to their datasheets and adapted to the bridgeless topology.  However, I do recommend simulating it first to verify the new design.  I suggest to also consider the UCC28019A, which is an upgrade to the UCC28019.

    Regards,
    Ulrich

  • 0 in reply to Ulrich Goerke
    TI__Genius 15825 points

    Hi Ulrich,

    Good Day. Please see below the latest response of our customer to your reply. Thank you very much.

    1) If my PSpice for TI application time expires, which PSpice simulator do you recommend? I read in the forum that it must be a version higher than 16.00, could you suggest me one in particular that has no expiration time.
    2) I suggested the UCC2019, I will adapt it according to its datasheet for the PMP640, by simulation this is feasible to observe if its behavior in the input and output, voltage / current / power are adequate? Later a live test will be done with protoboard, is this feasible?
    3) There are components inside the PMP9640 model that are available in the pdf document tidrak4 there I observe that the components L1 and L4 in their terminals 5 are not connected to anything, could you corroborate me this information and if so tell me which is the right way or that is or I observe their behavior?

    Best Regards,

    Ray Vincent

  • 0 in reply to Ray Vincent Aranzaso
    TI__Mastermind 32300 points

    Hello Ray,

    1.  I am not aware of an expiration time for a PSpice for TI application. If there is one, I suggest to apply again. Aside form that, since PSpice for TI is based on Cadence PSpice, I suggest looking into Cadence as an alternative simulation tool.

    2.  Yes, I believe it is very feasible to use simulation to observe behavior of the controller in your application topology.  Once proven in simulation, it is feasible to construct a prototype board for live testing.

    3.  The PMP9640 uses coupled inductors that were originally used for a different PFC design, and were re-purposed for use on this PMP design. The original design probably used the 5-6 winding to generate a ZCD signal for the previous controller. In this PMP9640, ZCD is generated by an R-C network from the MOSFET drain, so the 5-6 winding is not used.  The PMP designer chose to ground pin 6 simply to give the unused winding a reference level to prevent it's voltage from flying around due to capacitive coupling to the main inductor winding.  Winding 5-6 can be ignored.  A different inductor without this winding can also be used, both in simulation and in prototype as long as the new inductor properties are the same as winding 1-3 of RLTI-1109.

    Regards,
    Ulrich