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.

Bridgeless UCC28070

Other Parts Discussed in Thread: UCC28070

We are looking at the SLUA517 App Note on Bridgeless Design.  We are trying to understand this design.  A couple of things seemed odd to me about what the paper describes.

  • On page 7 in figure 8 they show a schematic where the mosfet for the line-side is connected to GDA and that current sense transformer is connected to CSA.  Similarly, the neutral-side is connected to GDB and CSB.  Most bridgeless designs are intended to be controlled by a single phase part, and both mosfets are just switched by the same signal.  During each half cycle, one mosfet is already conducting through its body-diode so switching it has little effect, the other side is the only one that controls incoming current.  It seems like you could still use just one phase to control the circuit shown on that page.  And still use the UCC28070 to control two bridgeless phases, instead of using one UCC28070 for each phase.
  • On page 4 in the text they indicate that you can use two smaller inductors.  Presumably, they are saying that since each inductor is still active you only need half the inductance in each one to have the same total inductance.  However it seems like the return path inductance is going to be useless.  If the current is reducing the inductor is supposed to create a voltage difference across it to oppose that change.  However as soon as the voltage difference exceeds 1V the current will just flow through the return diode instead.
I've looked at bridgeless designs before.  This paper does a nice job of laying out most of the designs I've seen.  On the second page of that document (p166) it shows the same two inductor design in figure 6.  But the text indicates that only one inductor is active at a time so you need two, full-sized inductors.  If they were half-sized each, they would cost half as much and be half as big, so doubling the count wouldn't really have much effect on anything. If they need to be two full-sized inductors that design doesn't make sense for us, since the inductor is probably the biggest, most expensive part on our board.
  • For semi-bridge PFC you still need two power stages.  You might be able to use a single phase controller but still would need to gate drivers.  If you are going to use this topology you might as well use a part like the UCC28070 that has two gate drivers.  I prefer interleaved PFC over semi-bridgeless PFC due to the overall reduction in conduction losses and smaller inductor magnetic volume.  I agree with you that semi-bridgeless PFC inductors inductor size will be larger than a traditional single stage PFC using a bridge rectifier and a boost stage.  The benefit of this topology over the traditional design is just removing rectifier losses.

  • I have looked at the application note SLUA517 which takes the 300W interleaved demo board and makes it into a 200W semi bridgeless circuit.  The puzzle is that the reported efficiency at 200W and 110VAC input is lower with the bridgless circuit that it is for the interleaved circuit.

    Is the demo board hardware is not optimised for the semi bridgless circuit?

    Or is it that the interleaved circuit isa  higher efficiency layout due to lower component stress so that the semi bridgeless circuit no longer represents an efficiency increase?

    If we need best possible efficiency, is there a way of using a pair of interleaved circuits, one in each half of the semi bridgless layout?

    Does the use of interleaved circuits where the inductor current is allowed to drop to zero each switching cycle improve the efficiency still further?

    Thanks.

  • Hi Mike O':
    I'm working on a 1800W power application, the restriction of space to power unit is not that wide enough to making too much heavy components into power supply. 1400W power supply is my last project with UCC28070 designing, but 1800W I facing, should I use bridgeless PFC or still interleave CCM PFC. Can you give some advise? At full road with better efficiency is my first consideration.

    Very appreciate your advise.

    KevinLiu
  • Hello KevinLiu,
    Since the original question is closed, can you please open a new thread and we will try to answer your question.
    Regards,
    John Griffin