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.
Tool/software:
Dear team,
I am referring to the TI design guide titled ±50A Current Sensor Using Closed-Loop Compensated Hall Element (www.ti.com/.../TIPD180) and have the following queries:
In the design, a 10 Ω shunt is used with the compensation coil, which is correct as per calculations. However, Appendix A mentions a parallel 1 kΩ resistor, making the total resistance approximately 9.901 Ω. Is this parallel network added solely for resistance correction?
Regarding the 7th point "modification "in the document:
To design a higher range closed-loop current sensor (±1500 A max), apart from adjusting the shunt resistor value and compensation coil turns/inductance, are there other factors to consider? Can the same PCB layout be used with just component value changes?
Gain Selection:
The IC provides three configurable gain modes:
My doubts are:
Hello,
Thank you for your post.
In the design, a 10 Ω shunt is used with the compensation coil, which is correct as per calculations. However, Appendix A mentions a parallel 1 kΩ resistor, making the total resistance approximately 9.901 Ω. Is this parallel network added solely for resistance correction?
Regarding the 7th point "modification "in the document:
To design a higher range closed-loop current sensor (±1500 A max), apart from adjusting the shunt resistor value and compensation coil turns/inductance, are there other factors to consider? Can the same PCB layout be used with just component value changes?
The IC provides three configurable gain modes:
My doubts are:
I hope this helps,
Joe
Dear sir,
Thank you for the guidance!
I now have clarity on the shunt, gain settings, and high-current sensing. I’ve also reviewed the reference schematic for a high-current driver using the OPA454 op-amp, as you mentioned. Additionally, I analyzed the 100A Closed-Loop Current Sensor design (link:https://www.ti.com/tool/TIPD184), which uses the OPA237 op-amp—a more cost-effective option than the OPA454.
While reviewing the TIPD184 schematic, I observed several connections to the VSS pin (VSS = -30V max). My understanding is that this pin should be at 0V , which has led to some confusion. Could you clarify the correct connection for VSS?
Key observations from the TIPD184 schematic:
Your insights on this matter would be highly appreciated.
Hello,
I will provide you with an update tomorrow.
Thank you for your patience,
Joe
Hello,
Please see my inline responses:
While reviewing the TIPD184 schematic, I observed several connections to the VSS pin (VSS = -30V max). My understanding is that this pin should be at 0V , which has led to some confusion. Could you clarify the correct connection for VSS?
This is a good question. Using the TPS79850 LDO, a 5V supply is created with respect to the VSS voltage. So the VSS can be -15V for example and the supply for the DRV411 would be -10V. This is a floating supply for the DRV411.
Key observations from the TIPD184 schematic:
I believe now that you know that VSS is the GND for the DRV411, the above observations should make sense.
I hope this helps,
Joe
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your clarification—it helped me understand the schematic better. The concept you introduced regarding the floating load of the voltage regulator was new to me and very insightful! Your guidance has been immensely helpful, and I can now confidently start laying out my PCB based on your suggestions.
Out of curiosity, I initially considered using the LD1117 voltage regulator to reduce costs, as it is significantly cheaper than the recommended regulator. Would using the LD1117 impact performance? Additionally, would the VSS and ground connections remain the same as in the TPSxx IC, or would the schematic need changes?
Thanks again for your valuable support.
Hello,
This is great to hear and I am here to help on anything DRV4xx related :)
Your regulator question is another important design consideration.
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with these two devices as I specialize in the DRV411.
I would suggest that you reach out to the group responsible for the LD1117 and the TPS79850 for those trade-offs.
I hope this helps,
Joe
Thank you for your kind and helpful response regarding the DRV411. I greatly appreciate your guidance and the time you took to assist me.
I will connect with the appropriate teams to address my queries about the LD1117 and TPS79850. If I have any further questions about the DRV411, I will be sure to reach out to you.
Once again, thank you for your support!