WEBENCH® Tools/TPS65400: How to Simulate TPS65400-Q1 today 17. Sept. 2020

Hi Dimiti,

Thank you for your interest in WEBENCH. Currently WEBENCH has limited support for PMU devices. Also transient simulation is not enabled in WEBENCH for this device  - we only have bode plot. I updated the panel in design and development section (https://www.ti.com/product/TPS65400-Q1#design-development) to allow for selection of PMU channel during design creation.

We strongly encourage you to use the PSPICE / TINA-TI model available in the "Design and Development" section of the product folder to perform SPICE simulations and optimize your design.

Regards,

Srikanth Pam

Hello Srikanth,

thank You for advise.

I tried in the last few days to implement performance simulation. But..

According to this post from 

John Tucker

it is just impossible....  So... 

Can You please provide an PSpice project i can reach my goals (optimize inductor vs. switching frequency, power losses and compensation network) or

Can I get an unencrypted Spice-Model of 65400 to simulate it on LTSpice?

Thanks.

Dimitri,

I agree with John on that - SPICE simulations may not capture efficiency accurately - especially the switching losses, reverse recovery losses etc. Typically the internal FETs and Drivers are not modeled to such level of accuracy. But you should get a fairly good estimate for output ripple, input ripple, load and line transient performance, stability, startup behavior etc from SPICE simulations.

You can still use WEBENCH with each channel to get an approximate idea on efficiency / power dissipation and use SPICE simulations to compliment that.

Webench team is not responsible for SPICE models - so I will move this post to the appropriate team so you can get help on the un-encrypted model.

Thank you.

Regards,

Srikanth Pam

Online Design Tools

Hi, Dimitri 

1. Please note the "Application notes" in the TINA model: #6 and #7, see below. 

2. There is no unencrypted Spice-Model, suggest to apply for one EVM to optimize your design. 

Hello Zhao,

thank You for this information. To use an EVM with predefined inductors (coils) is not effective for me. I need to use another coils et cetera.

An average waveform is "enough" to roughly simulate the efficiency. And compensation network can be simulated - it is what I want.

But this model have troubles to run with 4.5 Vin! My goal 5.3 Volt.

It is an simple way to simulate efficiency on PSpice with this or improved model of TPS65400 at 5.3 Volt ? 

To use an EVM is not effective for my requirements and the timeline.

Thank You.

Hi, Dimitri 

I agree with what Pam said: 

"SPICE simulations may not capture efficiency accurately - especially the switching losses, reverse recovery losses etc. Typically the internal FETs and Drivers are not modeled to such level of accuracy. " 

This average model doesn't have switching, so it doesn't include switching loss, so we cannot use this average model to simulate efficiency. 

It think it is good to do the loop analysis(AC simulation) for compensation network. 

You can refer the efficiency @ "7.9 Typical Characteristics: System Efficiency" in datasheet for your application. 

Still no way to do proper simulation with a goal optimize inductor vs. switching frequency, power losses and compensation network for TPS65400.

Hi, Dimitri 

Yes, there is no proper model to do this. 

Could you tell me your application? Vin=? Vout=? loading=? 

I can give you the recommended design.