• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Answers 2 answers
  • Subscribers 63 subscribers
  • Views 177 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.

TPS543B20: TPS543B20RVFT (1V35) Layout Verification

Nachiketh Karanth
Intellectual 520 points
Part Number: TPS543B20

Hi,

Please verify the attached layout for TPS543B20RVFT, Vin-12V, Vout-1.35V. Schematics is attached for reference.

Thanks

/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/196/TPS543B20RVFT_2D00_1V35_5F00_1.pdf

/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/196/TPS543B20RVFT_2D00_1V35.brd

  • 0
    TI__Expert 4985 points

    Hello,

    Britton will respond to this after the holidays.

    Thanks,

    Calan

  • 0 in reply to Calan Elaya
    TI__Expert 5446 points

    Hello,

    Is this design intended for 50A total load current? If so, the 63.4kOhm ILIM setting is not large enough to support 25A on each phase. I recommend something closer to a 76kOhm ILIM resistor.

    I also recommend including a unpopulated placeholder for a feedforward capacitor and resistor in parallel with the top resistor in the feedback divider. This may not be required for stability but is worthwhile to include as a precautionary measure.

     For the layout, please ensure there is a short trace that connects the AGND pin to the thermal pad. This should be the only connection between AGND and PGND.

    Best regards,

    Britton

  • 0 in reply to Britton Jones
    Intellectual 520 points

    Hi Britton,

    Please explain why 63.4K ohm is not large enough?

    Thanks

  • 0 in reply to Nachiketh Karanth
    TI__Expert 5446 points

    Hello Nachiketh,

    My apologies for the confusion. 63.4kOhm is okay for this application (ILIM is approximately 27A). I had accidentally used a 100nH inductor in my calculations instead of 180nH. I have updated your accompanying thread as well to reflect this.

    Best regards,

    Britton