• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 10 replies
  • Answers 2 answers
  • Subscribers 63 subscribers
  • Views 1733 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.

TPS65217: Compliance with EN/UL 62368-1 standard

Antoine Ferran
Prodigy 250 points
Part Number: TPS65217
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TPS65218D0, BQ24045

Hi,

We are using a TPS65217C in our product and we have to be EN 62368-1 certified.

Do you know if the componant complies with that standard?

If yes, where could we find the certificate?

Thanks,

Antoine

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 30310 points

    Antoine,

    Like most standards, IEC-62368-1 is a system-level specification and the entire system must be in compliance. Individual components from TI will not be listed as IEC-62368-1 because it can be misleading to our customers and imply that using our product will ensure the system is compliant (which cannot be guaranteed by TI).

    If you have specific questions about the TPS65217 that we can answer, I will be happy to help.

  • 0 in reply to Brian Berner
    Prodigy 250 points

    Hi Brian,

    Thanks for your answer. When we tried to pass the EN 62368-1 the lab tried to fault the system by shorting the VUSB and VBAT pin from the TPS65217C resulting in 5V being directly delivered from USB to the Battery (Li-ion 4.2V single cell). The test is then failed because it's over the battery 4.2V voltage. 

    Does that mean that we need to put a DCDC regulator between the USB and the TPS65217C to limit the entry voltage to 4.2V on the VUSB pin? How do other products based on TPS65217C do to comply with EN 62368-1?

    Best Regards,

    Antoine

  • 0 in reply to Antoine Ferran
    TI__Mastermind 30310 points

    Antoine,

    I do not know if this test is required by the IEC 62368-1 specification:

    Short VUSB to VBAT.

    What is the purpose of this test? What is the definition in the spec?

    This will not damage the TPS65217 device, so I am not sure why the test failed.

    Antoine Ferran said:
    Does that mean that we need to put a DCDC regulator between the USB and the TPS65217C to limit the entry voltage to 4.2V on the VUSB pin? How do other products based on TPS65217C do to comply with EN 62368-1?

    No, this does not sound like it would help. TPS65217 uses a linear regulator. If the input voltage is 4.2V then there will be a drop from VUSB to VBAT and the battery cannot charge. Anyway, based on the test you outlined would mean that you short from VIN,DCDC to VBAT and you would still have the same problem.

  • 0 in reply to Brian Berner
    Prodigy 250 points

    Hi Brian,

    I don't know what is the purpose of this test, but the lab says it is required for EN 62368-1... Unfortunately, I don't have access to the formal definition in the spec, but from what I understood, the test says that if one shorts any 2 pins of the IC, the result should not exceed the battery specifications.

    However, it seems that if the IC itself is already EN 62368-1 certified, then the test is not applicable.

    Do you know about another PMIC for Sitara processor AM335x  that would allow us to charge a standard Li-ion 4.2v battery with USB and be in compliance with EN 62368-1?

    Thanks,

    Antoine

  • 0 in reply to Antoine Ferran
    TI__Mastermind 30310 points

    Antoine,

    Your company should be able to obtain a copy of the specification for you to review.

    TI rarely claims that any IC is compliant with safety standards, but occasionally our products will be tested by compliance company such as UL and a certificate will be available verifying that the IC (or PCB containing the IC) meets the standard.

    I am not aware of any PMCs that have a certificate for passing IEC 62368-1 criteria.

    Antoine Ferran said:
    the test says that if one shorts any 2 pins of the IC, the result should not exceed the battery specifications.

    My understanding would be that any 2 externally facing pins of the system could be shorted together, so the test would only apply to the BAT pin if you have a battery pack which is removable by the end customer. Please discuss internally with someone who has access to the spec to clarify the test procedure required for the TPS65217 device.

  • 0 in reply to Antoine Ferran
    TI__Mastermind 30310 points

    Antoine,

    Antoine Ferran said:
    Do you know about another PMIC for Sitara processor AM335x  that would allow us to charge a standard Li-ion 4.2v battery with USB and be in compliance with EN 62368-1?

    My advice would be to consider using a 2-chip solution:

    1. A battery charger that meets the IEC 62368-1 spec, which contacts externally facing pins in the system
    2. The TPS65218D0 PMIC, which would be internal to the system and not contact the input voltage or battery directly, to provide power to AM335x

    I am not sure which battery chargers meet IEC 62368-1 spec, but you can refer to BQ24045 and the below e2e Thread as a starting point:

    https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management/f/196/t/887673?BQ24045-IEC-62368

  • 0 in reply to Brian Berner
    Prodigy 250 points

    Hi Brian,

    We bought the IEC 62368-1 spec so we could check ourselves and according to section "B.4 Simulated single fault conditions":

    – except for integrated circuit current limiters complying with Clause G.9, a component
    failure simulated by short-circuiting any two leads and open-circuiting any one lead of the
    component one at a time     

    Could you check if the TPS65217C is complying with Clause G.9 and provide us with the appropriate test plan?

    Otherwise that would mean that the TPS65217C can't be use to charge a standard LI-ion 4.2v single cell battery anymore and that would be weird because I thought that was the purpose of this PMIC.

    Thanks,

    Antoine

     

    Simulated single fault conditions



  • 0 in reply to Antoine Ferran
    TI__Mastermind 30310 points

    Anotoine,

    Antoine Ferran said:
    except for integrated circuit current limiters complying with Clause G.9

    Please refer to IACLIMIT and IUSBLIMIT in the TPS65217 datasheet. IAC[1:0] = 11b by default --> 2500mA current limit. IUSB[1:0] = 01b by default = 500mA

    I cannot say if this is compliant with Clause G.9, but the Power Path Management of the PMIC ensures current limiting on all power supplies.

  • 0 in reply to Brian Berner
    Prodigy 250 points

    Hi Brian,

    Thanks for the details. Is there an EN 62368-1 expert at TI that could look into this?

    In the meantime, I will share that information with the testing lab and hope that we won't have to redesign out product.

    Best Regards,

    Antoine

  • 0 in reply to Antoine Ferran
    TI__Mastermind 30310 points

    Antoine,

    The TI engineer () who answered this question appears to be an expert because he works specifically with battery chargers:

    https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management/f/196/t/887673?BQ24045-IEC-62368

    If you determine which battery chargers (BQ2xxxx devices) are compliant with EN 62368-1 then it is possible we could say TPS65217 is exempt by similarity (re-use of existing PowerPath Management architecture).