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.

UCC28780: ucc28780

Part Number: UCC28780


There seems to be some disconnect with my posts.

So I created a "new question" post.

Pl see below:

Hello Ulrich

I reported earlier that I could not make the CPC3909 Depletion FET to "turn OFF". As a result, the resistor & the zener will heat up to the point of smoking out.

Comparing the CPC with the Eval kit BSS126H6327XTSA2( last few char have no significance), I notice some difference which I thought was not important but clearly the difference IS significant.

In fact, my statement of " not turning OFF: is not the correct terminology for these devices,wouldn't you think so?

One should say that the device would not go into limiting current delivery to the SWS pin as you increase VBULK with CPC3909. Clearly BSS126 does.

The only graph given by IXYS for this device useful here is Ids vs Rds. Seems there is no way to limit current in the low range in the range of values of HVG . CPC is characterized in sub-amp range with Rds quite low.

On the other hand, BSS126 is characterized in 10mA or less range as well.  With Rds in range of 300 Ohm

Surprisingly, it seems even if HVG goes lower than SWS, the current limit does not drop much.

But maybe the startup circuit works only if the charge controlling FET provides several hundred Ohms. This is not going to happen with CPC.

Am I correct in this understanding?..and been barking up the wrong tree for a whole week?

In any event, I ordered BSS126 FETs for overnight delivery: there is no other reason that my circuit is not starting up safely & allow me to go above brown-in/out range & then to full VBULK.

Appreciate your reviews on this.

robin

  • Ulrich

    We have now exact same response as TI eval kit with BSS126H6327 depletion FET in our proto board.

    So finally, I woke up to the critical difference between CPC3909 & BSS126 .... too bad I did not notice the difference until cornered to the wall .. should have noticed it though given that I had the eval kit..but I had bought BOM from god knows which version of TI BOM!...& wrongly thought SOT89 pkg will be "better" HV support etc...bigger is clearly not better...

    Past is past : we are very excited ...hopefully, now I can take it to full 400V VBULK & enjoy an active ride.

    thnx for your help.

    Pl ignore ALL posting for last few days...they may be helpful to the forum folks for educational purposes...

    robin

  • Hello Robin,

    Sorry for my delayed response(s); I've been very busy on some tasks.

    I do not fully concur on your assessment of the "non-working" aspect of the CPC3909 device in this application. 
    True, we have not used this part and have no experience with its particular "quirks", yet I would expect that it can work as expected for both start-up and for Vsw detection. The fact that it doesn't/didn't in your design may be a matter of fully understanding the difference between it and the BSS126 part.

    First of all, although the CPC has saturated On-resistance of 6R vs >300R for the BSS, I don't think it is relevant.  Because the part is not saturated when used for start-up.  Assuming say 2mA at 400V bulk, both parts should have an effective resistance of 200KR.  The current is not limited by the max Rds(on) of the part, but by the -Vgs threshold voltage established by the source current through the total series resistance between the source and HVG during start-up.  For example, if CPC has -2Vgs and this is across the 120R external and ~1K internal, you'll get ~1.8mA current to charge up VDD.  Any higher current would increase the -Vgs and pinch off the depl-Fet more, so it is self limiting. 

    I think the main problem may be that the junction capacitances of the larger CPC may make it to slow to turn off once the VDD reaches 17.5V.  HVG shifts to an 11-V voltage regulator with a pull-down to drop down to the 11-V Vsw sensing threshold (see Figure 17 vs. Figure 16 of the datasheet)(also Figure 29).  But the pull-down is weak and it may not be able to shut off the Fet fast enough due to its larger Ciss, so the Fet continues to conduct into the SWS protection Zener and over dissipate it before HVG can manage to pull it down.   

    As I said, we have not tested operation with larger depl-Fets, but I'm thinking this may account for your experience with Zener failure.  
    And if that proves, true, the other higher capacitances, Crss and Coss, may also have some unforeseen drawbacks for switching operation, even if the start-up issue can be mitigated.

    I'm glad the BSS126 part is working as expected for you. 

    Regards,
    Ulrich

      

  • Hello Ulrich!

    We understand...no problem: can never complain about your support!

    Your points about CPC are well made - indeed, possible high charges may not change the On state of the CPC but BSS 26 works like a charm... so we stick with it. We have 2 protos now: both behave well up to this phase.

    So moving on to the next hurdle: I do not get PWML.

    Startup at SWS , HVG & VDD at controller are  just like the Evalk kit: but no cigar.

    Why?

    May be current sense resistor ( from SLUC664 C) 1 Ohm may be too high. My previous experience with UCC287x tells me it is possible: in UCC2870x, I had to end up with half the calculate/ estimated Rcs.

    Doing it now.

    Then AUX winding. Polarity of the xmfr? This we have tested BEFORE putting in the circuit. Ours is a super-planar xmfr. Once it is built, you cannot miswire it. Yet, will test in-situ.

    - Bear in mind, before putting the controller in, we tested with external PWM on  NV6117 lower/upper switching thru resistor hook up to HV. This checks NV soldering, isolation chain etc.

    FYI: we have our own PnP & reflow oven.. thnx to Covid shutdown, we had to go to this extreme measure. We have no one traveling back & forth to assembly plants to Timbaktu.

    All in one roof.

    So we are always a bit suspicious about soldering- alignment & under the part pads ...so we check everything to verify parts are soldered fully & aligned.

    Values of all parts around UCC28780 are from SLUC664 rev C, See attached. Our assembly uses these values.

    This is almost a May Day May Day call!

    Appreciate any help to get if going with PWML.

    See attached xl.eq30proto_vbrin_150vcalc.xlsx

  • Hello Robin,

    You should eb getting at least 1 PWML pulse after the VDD reaches ~17.5V peak and starts dropping.

    If you don't get any at all, I suspect some pin fault such as in Table 3 (page 35 of datasheet).

    In particular, I suspect you are getting an "RTZ-pin-open" fault based on the 680K value shown in the calculator.
    I've never seen a value that high, and I believe it is exceeding what the designers expected for a value.
    The "open" fault is actually detected by comparing the current out of the RTZ pin at start-up to an internal minimum reference, which I think is about 5uA.
    But this value is uncharacterized, so it can be +/- something. Nevertheless, 3.4Vrtz / 680kR = 5uA, so I think that it is it.

    Try reducing Rrtz by 25% to see if PWML appears.  It can be tuned up later, but getting pulses is more important at this point.    

    Regards,
    Uli

  • Ulrich

    Thnx: let me check. Some entry int he 664  xl file is surely giving this wrong value.

    FYI: we do get several glitches in the VDD pin as it hits peak during startup phase- but nothing on the Vsws node.

    Let me first fix RTZ.

    robin

  • Ulrich

    We did put in RTZ  with -25% approx.

    Some pulses do appear then vanish.

    So something else id no right.

    Is  there any way we can get  any pulses out of the controller by manipulating feedback pin? ( the way they used to in 1526...I was one time at TI- Irvine, CA witnessing this open-loop pulse...but now I am dating myself from vintage times..)..?

    Or apply VS from an external source?....sync the controller with it of course...

    -robin

  • Hi Robin,

    The good thing is that you are getting PWML pulses now.  But it's not that easy to run this device open-loop. 

    Here is where this document will come in handy:

      Debug ACF Start-up Issues SLUA982.pdf

    Please use this as a guide to get beyond the first few pulses.

    While its not staying on and merely recycling, it may be useful to trigger your scope on REF or RUN going high to see other signals at the moment of attempted running. These will be going up and down during the attempts.

    Once it is running continuously, REF is always high (5V) and RUN is always high during AAM so you lose their trigger value then, but during ABM and lower RUN is a good trigger source.

    Regards,
    Ulrich

  • Ulrich:

    let me read through.

    thnx so much.

    Here are a few things to note : 

    - wee KNOW mfr values are right on the money: NP,NS, NA. Polarity in-situ is correct. Lpri, Laux & Lsec all as expected from Lpri of 650 uH.

    We know all connections from xmfr to the controller are correct. 

    -some resistor values differ slightly( RTZ 388K, RDM 91.9K ETC0..). But going to get closer. Rcs is 500 m Ohm , calculated value is 800 mOhm, does it matter at this phase?

    thnx thnx!

    robin

  • Hello Robin,

    Using 500mR for an 800mR application will allow a lot more output power than necessary, and will situate your main power level mostly in the ABM region rather than AAM.  You'll be better off with Rcs closer to 800mR.   

    That said, it does not matter at this phase.  I've answered a separate posting concerning an overloaded REF during start-up as the prime suspect for recent lack of PWML.  As it is I think there are too many postings with the same heading "UCC28780:UCC28780".
    Let's close this one and keep it closed. 

    We'll go forward with the other one which has the .pptx file and REF waveform.

    Note: if you reply to this one, it will re-open the thread again. So, let's please avoid having more than one thread open.

    Regards,
    Ulrich