• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 63 subscribers
  • Views 158 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

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.

BQ76952: BQ77915 with BQ76952

Alec Fremier
Intellectual 270 points
Part Number: BQ76952
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: BQ77216, BQ77915

Tool/software:

We are designing a configurable BMS for packs that can be 4s, 8s, or 16s with redundant active protection (as per UL1973) - so we were looking at the BQ76952 and BQ77216. While the BQ77216 is designed to work with the BQ76952, the BQ77216 has only voltage and temperature protections. We require a design that has redundant voltage, temperature, OCC and OCD protections.
Diving deeper on TI battery protectors, it seems like a stackable BQ77915 could serve as a replacement for the BQ77216. This chip has voltage, temperature protections, and OCD and OCC. This is exactly the redundancy we are looking for. However, the BQ77915 is designed as a standalone protector rather than for direct integration with the BQ76952. 
Are there any design recommendations that would look similar to the one described in the BQ77216 datasheet, shown below? This is the configuration we would like to use, however it seems like the BQ77915 is designed for lowside FET control, so we need gate driver ICs as well. My concern is having to ensure that all the protection limits align correctly between the BQs, as we would prefer the BQ76952 to be the primary protector, and then have the stackable BQ77915 as a redundant secondary protector.
  • 0
    TI__Genius 17915 points

    Hello Alec,

    Alec Fremier said:
    Are there any design recommendations that would look similar to the one described in the BQ77216 datasheet, shown below?

    We do not have any design references to refer to with BQ77915 as a secondary protector. BQ77915 could theoretically be connected for high side, however, this has not been something we have tested on our end. The image below shows an example of how the connection could be done with another one of our low-side FET driver protectors.

    Alec Fremier said:
    My concern is having to ensure that all the protection limits align correctly between the BQs


    BQ77915 should be fine to use as a secondary protector. It may require testing to make sure the protection limits align correctly between the BQs. Another option potentially is to use another BQ76952 as a secondary protector as well. 

    Best Regards,
    Alexis