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.

TPS7B4254-Q1: SPICE (PSpice and TINA) model of this component show odd behaviour

Part Number: TPS7B4254-Q1

Hi,

Whilst designing with this tracker regulator I needed to test a situation where Vout rises above Vin. This is an expected circuit condition and needs to be analysed. However I discovered that the model of the TPS7B4254 generates a current out of the VIN pin under certain conditions. It seems to be related not just to the VOUT VIN differential voltage but in some way to the collapse of the REF voltage whilst VIN is higher than VOUT. Under these conditions VIN rises uncontrolled to a voltage higher than any source present elsewhere else in the simulation. I thought maybe it was the PFETs switching off and discharging into the source, but the macro model is using VSWITCHs rather than true PMOS simulations and regardless this is a large amount of energy. So I assume a current source in the model is misbehaving.

The TINA schematic I have attached shows the issue, but this is not as dramatic as when simulated under LTSpice, in this case I see VIN rise to well over 100V and drives 4A into the source supply for over 500uS. Is this really possible?

I realise that this is perhaps considered a corner case, but the datasheet for the part makes quite a big deal out of describing and promoting this protection feature, indicating reverse protection within 1mS of Vout>Vin. This is a critical part of my design, but because of the model behaviour I just spent several hours trying to track down why I was seeing huge reverse currents flowing under these conditions. In fact the series input didoe was exceeding its max reverse voltage and avalanching into the shorted input supply.

I thought I would draw your attention to the issue, and please if you can confirm, I will proceed with caution and a assuming I am correct, a fixed model would be appreciated. But of course better still would be clarification that this is not in fact expected behavioTPS7B4254-Q1_OUT_TO_IN_Woops.tscur?

All the best

Aidan

  • Hi Aidan,

    Since this part has reverse current protection circuitry, I made a slight tweak to your schematic by removing the protection diode at the input so that the TPS7B4254 will immediately see the change in input voltage. See a screenshot of the modified schematic below.

    I ran the same transient analysis you had set up, and the results are shown below.

    A couple things to note here:

    1)      The input and output currents both spike to -30A which will not happen because of the reverse current protection circuitry

    2)      The output voltage after the transient effects settle stays at about 33V even with no input voltage

    For these reasons I am inclined to believe that the model is not able to accurately simulate this case where the input voltage quickly drops to 0V. 

    I think the reason you are seeing a large rise in Vin in your simulation is that the model incorrectly has current flowing in the reverse direction and the protection diode restricts that current to stay and accumulate on the input capacitor C2, which results in the sharp rise in voltage. This is also the reason you don't see that rise in Vin when the protection diode is not there. Again, this is not expected behavior because of the reverse current protection circuitry. 

    Regards,

    Nick

  • Hi Nick, can't see your pictures, but hey.

    Yes the input diode I added really in order that I eliminated the path for any reverse current (that I was not expecting) but clearly any reverse protection is never instantaneous, so it will stay in place regardless I dont have high loads on the regulator anyway. As you say this does seem like a model failure, and I didn't expect magic voltages to appear at the input. 

    To overcome the problem during simulation only I placed a schottky on the output of the regulator before the out cap and FB circuit, this eliminates the problem, but I clearly don't plan on doing this is reality, no doubt instability will be a likely outcome.

    Bottom line is I'm sure you came to the same conclusions as me. I suppose I just live with it and ignore the imperfections, but I have to say its these subtle model behaviours that I rely upon to feel confident that I have not overlooked something.

    Anyway thanks for your efforts.

    Aidan

  • Hi Aidan,

    I'm glad to help!

    Regards,

    Nick