• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 63 subscribers
  • Views 140 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.

TPS2660: Do TPS26602 shall include EMI filter at its input in noisy environment or is it ok ?

Laurent FACCHINETTI
Prodigy 30 points
Part Number: TPS2660

Hi,

We have some conversations with engineers and I think that eFuse TPS26602PWPR might be influenced negatively by Bulk current injection tests of the DO160. I think that there should be a minimum of LC filtering before the eFuse to avoid unwated behavior of the device (untimely switching to OFF for instance). Some people thinks that only bypass capacitors shall be sufficient. What do you think ? Do you suggest a "CLC" filtering at eFuse input or only "C" should be enough ?

Thanks.

  • 0
    TI__Guru 54840 points

    Hi Laurent,

    Can you share more details of test condition ? I think you should go with CLC filtering. 

    Regards

    Kunal Goel

  • 0 in reply to Kunal Goel
    Prodigy 30 points

    Hi Kunal,

    Thanks for your reply.

    We are about to make DO160 testing (emissions, susceptibility, and BCI) on this device and this component protects the main power line. For me the CLC filter at the eFuse input is obvious but some of my teammates think that the filter should be located at the eFuse output (because the filter is not protected at eFuse input). With the CLC filter at eFuse output, I think that the eFuse operating could be altered by the spurious frequencies present on the power line (and it may have inadvertently mosfet OFF situation if it is susceptible to some frequencies). For me the eFuse is like an classical IC and it is likely to be susceptible to radio frequencies.

    Having a CLC filter at the input is not a problem for me as you can filter with coil and ceramic capacitors with Voltage rating of at least 100V. Since we have bulk TVS at the equipment input, there should be no problem.

    Best regards.

  • 0 in reply to Laurent FACCHINETTI
    Prodigy 30 points

    To add some more information: the levels of the DO160 are not very high. That's why my colleagues think that only decoupling capacitors at the eFuse input should be sufficient. But the price of a power coil (or a common mode choke) is not that high for me and it does not justify that we use the C filter instead of a CLC filter.

  • +1 in reply to Laurent FACCHINETTI
    TI__Guru 54840 points

    Hi Laurent,

    I agree with you using at input side is better and since TVS is present so it should not be a problem.

    Regards

    Kunal Goel

  • 0 in reply to Kunal Goel
    Prodigy 30 points

    Thanks Kunal for your opinion. In the past I remember that I had problems with eFuses ICs for aerospace applications and we had inadvertently IC turn OFF during BCI and conducted tests at some frequencies (as far as I remember it was between 400MHz and 2.5GHz). But our levels were very high. It was like 500mA in BCI and # 1KV/m for electric fields. Susceptibilities were fixed by adding "L" elements in series at the equipment power input and thus, the eFuse input.

    Even if we don't have that high levels today I keep thinking that CLC filter at the input helps you pass emission measurements and susceptibility tests.

    Take care.