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.

TPS4811-Q1: High Side Bidirectional Switch MOSFET Driver with Short Circuit Protection

Part Number: TPS4811-Q1
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: INA237, INA238, INA228, LM5066I, LM5069, TPS2490, LM5060

I am currently using a high-side MOSFET driver and an INA237 to manage a 60V, 40A bidirectional switch (100% duty cycle), but I now need to add bidirectional hot-short protection.

The INA237 alert fault is too slow to keep the MOSFET within the SOA (need under 10us detection) and the existing gate driver does not have fast enough off-time.  MOSFETs are IAUT300N10S5N015 with a gate charge of 216 nC each.

Enable is controlled by a microprocessor that also handles the minimum start-up which is 42V.  Load can be capacitive, so a pre-charge circuit for dv/dt control is required, but can be a separate circuit.

Accuracy of the current and voltage sensing is important for energy measurements and should be as accurate as possible, so in most cases the INA237 (or upgrade to INA238 or INA228) will stay.

Requirements:

  • 60VDC operating voltage
  • < 10us short-circuit protection (bidirectional)
  • common source bidirectional switch support
  • Bidirectional current monitor output if replacing the INA237

I am having trouble finding a suitable solution that supports bidirectional current measurement.  Are there any options that I am missing in the list below?

TPS48111-Q1

Short circuit protection is 1.2us.  Has precharge circuit which is a bonus.  Bidirectional switch is supported.  Current monitor output is not bidirectional and if the block diagram is accurate, the short circuit protection is not bidirectional, so I would need to put two of them in series and based upon the internal block diagram, it looks like I would need a shunt resistor for each.  I would keep the INA237 in this case and hopefully use one of the driver current shunts instead of adding a third shunt.

LM5066I

Has Vds and Id measurement to stay within SOA for short circuit protection.  Has dv/dt control for starting capacitive loads, so may not need the pre-charge circuit.  Current measurement is not bidirectional, so I would need to put two in series and use a shunt resistor each.  I would keep the INA237 in this case and hopefully use one of the driver current shunts instead of adding a third shunt.

LM5069

Has Vds and Id measurement to stay within SOA for short circuit protection.  Has dv/dt control (extra circuit) for starting capacitive loads, so may not need the pre-charge circuit.  Current measurement is not bidirectional, so I would need to put two in series and use a shunt resistor each.  I would keep the INA237 in this case and hopefully use one of the driver current shunts instead of adding a third shunt.

TPS2490

Appears to be the same as the LM5069 from a functionality standpoint.

LM5060

Nice chip that doesn't require a shunt resistor, but is not recommended for short-circuit operation.

Looking forward to some ideas I have not yet considered.

  • Hi Eric,

    Thanks for reaching out and exploring the options from our portfolio.

    All these controllers provide protection only in forward direction. You need to connect two of them in back-to-back configuration to achieve bi-directional protection. 

    TPS48111-Q1 is the preferred/recommended candidate as it has strong gate drive, accurate current monitoring and fast short-circuit response time.

    Best Regards,

    Rakesh

  • I was afraid of that.  The TPS48111-Q1 is currently not available.  Did you have updated timing on the chip availability?

    Also, would common-drain be a valid approach for using a single current shunt for the TPS48111-Q1 (or any of the other chips mentioned in my originl post)?

  • Hi Eric,

    How many samples are needed for evaluation. ? Do you have local TI sales contact to help with the material. If not - let me know.

    With two TPS48111-Q1 controllers, common-drain configuration is possible like the way you drawn. I don't see any concern in that configuration.

    Best Regards,

    Rakesh

  • Thanks Rakesh.  I have sent you a private message with sample quantity and FAE details.

  • I have replied Eric. Closing this thread as we will continue discussion on samples and other over email.