Iacdrive|Automation Solution

How to get confidence while powering ON an SMPS prototype?

I never just put power to a first prototype and see what happens. Smoke and loud sounds are the most likely result and then you just know that something was not perfect. So how would you test the next prototype sample?

A good idea is to put supply voltage to your control circuit from an external supply first – often something like 12V. Check oscillator waveform, frequency, gate pulses etc. If possible, use another external power supply to put a voltage to your output. Increasing this voltage slowly, you should see the gate pulses go from max. to min. duty cycle when passing the desired output voltage. If this does not happen, check your feedback path, still without turning main power on.

If everything looks as expected, remove the external supply from the output but keep the control circuit powered from an external source. Then SLOWLY turn up the main input voltage while using your oscilloscope to monitor the voltage waveforms in the power circuit and a DC voltmeter to monitor output voltage etc. Keep an eye on the ampere-meter on the main power source. If something suspicious occurs, stop increasing input further and investigate what’s happening while the circuit is still alive.

With a low load you should normally expect the output voltage to hit the desired value soon, at least in a flyback converter. Check that this happens. Then check what happens with a variable load – preferably electronic.

If you did not calculate your feedback loop, very likely you will see self oscillation (normally not destructive). If you don’t, use the step load function in your electronic load to check stability. If you see a clear ringing after a load step, you still have some work to do in your loop. But feedback and stability is another huge area which Mr. Ridley has taught us a lot about.

And yes – the world needs powerful POWER ENGINEERS desperately!

Avoid voltage drop influence

My cable size and transformer size should give me maximum 3% on the worst 6% to 10%. If it is the single only equipment on the system then maybe you can tolerate 15%. If not, dip factor may affect sensitive equipment and lighting.

This is very annoying for office staff each time a machine starts lights are dimming. It does not matter what standard you quote I cannot accept 10%- 15% make precise calculation and add a 10% tolerance to avoid.

In most cases, this problem comes from cable under sizing so we have to settle with a Standard giving 15% Max.

Just recently I had to order a transformer and cable change for a project which was grossly undersized.
I have had to redesign the electrical portion of a conveyor and crushing system to bring the system design into compliance with applicable safety codes. The site was outdoor at a mine in Arizona where ambient temperatures reach 120F. The electrical calculation and design software did not include any derating of conductor sizes for cable spacing and density within cable trays, number of conductors per raceway, ambient temperature versus cable temperature rating, etc. Few of the cables had been increased in size to compensate for voltage drop between the power source and the respective motor or transformer loads.

Feeder cables to remote power distribution centers were too small, as voltage drop had not been incorporated in the initial design. The voltage drop should not be greater than 3%, as there will be other factors of alternating loads, system voltage, etc. that may result in an overall drop of 5%.

The electrical system had to be re-designed with larger cables, transformer, MCCS, etc, as none of the design software factors in the required deratings specified in the National Electric Code NFPA70 nor the Canadian Electric Code, which references the NEC.

Experience: Power Supply

My first big one: I had just joined a large corporation’s central R and D in Mumbai (my first job) and I was dying to prove to them that they were really very wise (for hiring me). I set up my first AC-DC power supply for the first few weeks. Then one afternoon I powered it up. After a few minutes as I stared intently at it, there was a thunderous explosion…I was almost knocked over backwards in my chair. When I came to my senses I discovered that the can of the large high-voltage bulk cap had just exploded (those days 1000uF/400V caps were real big)…the bare metal can had taken off like a projectile and hit me thump on the chest through my shirt (yet it was very red at that spot even till hours later). A shower of cellulose and some drippy stuff was all over my hair and face. Plus a small crowd of gawking engineers when I came to. Plus a terribly bruised ego in case you didn’t notice. Now this is not just a picturesque story. There is a reason why they now have safety vents in Aluminum Caps (on the underside too), and why they ask you never never to even accidentally apply reverse polarity, especially to a high-voltage Al cap. Keep in mind that an Al Elko is certainly damaged by reverse voltage or overvoltage, but the failure mechanism is simply excessive heat generation in both cases. Philips components, in older datasheets, used to actually specify that their Al Elkos could tolerate an overvoltage of 40% for maybe a second I think, with no long-term damage. And people often wonder why I only use 63V Al Elkos as the bulk cap in PoE applications (for the PD). They suggest 100V, and warn me about surges and so on. But I still think 63V is OK here, besides being cheap, and I tend to shun overdesign. In fact I think even ceramic caps can typically handle at least 40% overvoltage by design and test — and almost forever with no long term effects. Maybe wrong here though. Double check that please.

Another historic explosion I heard about after I had left an old power supply company. I deny any credit for this though. My old tech, I heard, in my absence, was trying to document the stresses in the 800W power supply which I had built and left behind. The front-end was a PFC with four or five paralleled PFC FETs. I had carefully put in ballasting resistors in the source and gates of each Fet separately, also diligently symmetrical PCB traces from lower node of each sense resistor to ground (two sided PCB, no ground plane). This was done to ensure no parasitic resonances and good dynamic current sharing too. There was a method to my madness it turns out. All that the tech did was, when asked to document the current in the PFC Fets, placed a small loop of wire in series with the source of one of these paralleled Fets. That started a spectacular fireworks display which I heard lasted over 30 seconds (what no fuse???), with each part of the power supply going up in flames almost sequentially in domino effect, with a small crowd staring in silence along with the completely startled but unscathed tech (lucky guy). After that he certainly never forgot this key lesson: never attempt to measure FET current by putting a current probe in its source— put it on the drain side. It was that simple. The same unit never exploded after that, just to complete the story.

Maximum permissible value of grounding resistance

For grounding in the US it typically goes like this: Utility transformer has one ground rod. Then from the utility to the building you typically have three phase conductors and one neutral/ground conductor landing on the main panel with the utility meter. At that point we drive a ground rod. And we bond the ground rod to the water pipes (generally). And we bond the ground rod to the building steel (generally). Water pipes are generally very well connected to ground and the building steel is a nice user ground. With all these connections you typically have a good ground reference. Now, if that utility neutral wire is bad or too small, then you can have poor reference to ground between phases (a normal sign of that is flickering lights even when the load is not changing much).

Grounding impedance of the transformer and building ground rods is mainly for voltage stabilization and under normal conditions should have nothing to do with our return ground fault current. See NEC 250.1 (5) “The earth shall not be considered as an effective ground-fault current path.”

Let’s say we have a system with the building transformer and panel to ground impedance of 1000 ohms (we built this place on solid rock). Okay, we have a poor 277V reference and we will have flickering lights (that 277 voltage will bounce all over the place). But now, in our system above, if we take a phase wire and connect it to a motor shell, which is also connected to our grounding wire, will the upstream breaker trip? The answer is yes. If our phase-to-ground fault impedance is low we will trip the upstream feeder breaker no matter what the main panel ground rod impedance is. My point here is that is does not matter what our transformer grounding is or what our panel grounding is (ground rod is not important in this case). The breaker must trip because our circuit is complete between the phase conductor and the transformer wye leg.

As long as we have a utility main transformer to panel neutral conductor of proper size to handle our fault current and we size our grounding conductors properly and they are properly connected at each subpanel and each motor in our case, we will apply nearly full phase to ground voltage because our real ground fault path is from that motor, through the grounding conductor, through our sub panels, to our main panel, than back to the transformer. That ground current must flow through our building grounding conductor to the main panel and back to the transformer through that utility neutral wire which is connected to the wye leg of the transformer. And it does not matter what the transformer to ground rod connection is. We could take that out the transformer to ground rod connection and the main panel to ground rod connection completely and we are still connecting that phase wire, through the motor metal to the grounding conductor back to the wye leg of that utility transformer, which will complete our electrical circuit. Current will flow and the breaker will trip.

Power supply prototype failures

I remember my very first power supply. They threw me in the deep end in 1981 building a multi-output 1 kW power supply. I was fresh from college, thought i knew everything, and consumed publications voraciously to learn more. Exciting times.

But nothing prepared me for the hardware trials and tribulations. We built things and they blew up. Literally. We would consume FETs and controllers at an alarming rate. The rep from Unitrode would come and visit and roll his eyes when we told him we needed another dozen controllers since yesterday.

The reasons for failure were all over the map . EMI, heat, layout issues, design issues, bad components (we had some notorious early GE parts – they exited the market shortly afterwards.)
Some of the issues took a few days to fix, some of them took weeks. We had two years to get the product ready, which was faster than the computer guys were doing their part, so it was OK.

90% of the failure issues weren’t talked about in any paper, and to this day, most of them still aren’t.

So, fast forward to today, 32 years later. I still like to build hardware – you can’t teach what you don’t practise regularly, so I keep at it.

With all the benefit of 3 decades of knowledge I STILL blow things up. Everything progresses along fine, then i touch a sensitive circuit node, or miss some critical design point and off it goes. I’m faster now at finding the mistakes but I still find there are new ones to be made. And when it blows up with 400 V applied, it’s a mess and a few hours to rebuild. Or you have to start over sometimes, if the PCB traces are vaporized.

So my first prototype, while on a PC board, always includes the controller in a socket because I know I will need that. Magnetics too, when possible, I know I’ll revise them time and again to tweak performance. PC boards will be a minimum of two passes, probably three.

Is it worth to built-in batteries in electric cars

Energy storage is the issue. Can we make batteries or super caps or some other energy storage technique that will allow an electric car to have a range of 300-500 miles. Motors and drives are already very efficient, so there is not much to be gained by improving their efficiency. As far as converting the entire fleet of cars to electric, I don’t expect to see this happen any time soon. The USA has more oil than all the rest of the world put together. We probably have enough to last 1000 years. Gasoline and diesel engines work very well for automobiles and trucks and locomotives. The USA also has a huge supply of coal, which is a lot cheaper than oil. Electricity is cheaper than gasoline for two reasons: Coal is much cheaper than oil, and the coal fired power plants have an efficiency of about 50%. Gasoline engines in cars have a thermal efficiency of about 17%. Diesel locomotives have an efficiency of 50%+.

I don’t believe the interchangeable battery pack idea is workable. Who is going to own the battery packs and build the charging stations? And what happens if you get to a charging station with a nearly dead battery and there is no charged battery available?

Who is going to build the charging stations; the most logical answer is the refueling station owners as an added service. The more important question is about ownership of the batteries. If as an standard, all batteries are of same size, shape, connectors as well as Amp-Hour (or kWh) rating and a finite life time, lets say 1000 recharging. The standard batteries may have an embedded recharge counter. The electric car owners should pay the service charges plus cost of the kWh energy plus 1/1000 of the battery cost. By that, you pay for the cost of new batteries once you buy or convert to an electric car and then you pay the depreciation cost. This means you always own a new battery. The best probable owner of the batteries should be the battery suppliers or a group or union of them (like health insurance union). The charging stations collecting the depreciation cost should pass it on to the battery suppliers union. Every time a charging station get a dead battery or having its recharge counter full, they will return it to the union and get it replaced with a new one. So, as an owner of electric car you don’t need to worry about how old or new replacement battery you are getting from the charging station. You will always get a fully charged battery in exchange. The charging stations get their energy cost plus their service charges and the battery suppliers get the price of their new battery supplies.

Buddies, these are just some wild ideas and I am sure someone will come up with a better and more workable idea. And we will see most of the cars on our roads without any carbon emission.

Heavily discontinuous mode flyback design

With a heavily discontinuous mode flyback design, the transformer’s ac portion of current can be larger than the dc portion. When a high perm material is used for the transformer core, the required gap can be quite large in order to reach the low composite permeability required while the core size will likely be driven by winding and core loss considerations rather than just simply avoiding saturation. Normally the gap is put in the center leg only (with E type topology cores) in order to minimize the generation of stray fields. However, in designs such as yours (high ac with a high perm core) the needed core gap can lead to a relatively large fringing zone through which foil or solid wire may not pass without incurring excessive, unacceptable loss. Possible solutions are to use Litz wire windings or inert spacers (e.g., tape) around the center leg in order to keep the windings far enough away from the gap (the rule of thumb is 3 to 5 gap lengths, which can eat up a lot of the window area).

It is mainly for these reasons that placing half the gap in an E type core’s outer legs might be worth the trouble of dealing with the magnetic potential between the core halves (and you have seen first hand what trouble an ill designed shield band can be).

To avoid eddy current losses, the shield band should be spaced well away from the outer leg gap, probably 5 gap lengths or more. Also to be a really effective magnetic shield, it should be 3 to 5 gap lengths thick.

Bear in mind that with a high frequency, high ac current inductor design proximity effects in the winding may become very significant. This is why many of these type of inductors have single layer windings or winding wound with Litz wire (foil is the worst winding type here). One advantage of an equally gapped E type core design is that the proximity effect on the windings is significantly less because there are two gaps in series (a quasi distributed gapped core design). Not only layer-to-layer, but turn-to-turn proximity effects can sometimes be problematic in an ac inductor (or flyback) design. Just as with the gap, these are reduced by adding appropriate spacing, for example making the winding coil loose or winding it bifilar with a non-conductive filament.

Remote diagnostic

Remote diagnostic is a must now a days. All CNC machines must be able to undergo remote access to undergo diagnostic and it must be two way. The problem mostly with remote diagnostic is it has to be two way and you have to have a qualified technician or an operator who is well verse with machine operations and its features, always on your machine he must be trained on how to be able to recover from lost of communication and the most important is to be able to engage E-stop when needed. The remote operator is a trained technician as well and knows a procedures and protocols that will help prevent accidents that can harm both man and machine. Mostly remote access is good for updates and upgrades, training and assistance needed. We offer the first year as free to make sure we can get the customer up an about during the learning curve on how to familiarize with control functions. We also need a land line or cell phone to be able to have a voice interchange. We use Webex for remote and another pc laptop or desktop as a dedicated bridge with controls that run with older versions of Windows such as windows XP. The dedicated PC is primarily secured as level four security compliance and must be turned off when remote diagnostic is needed. You can add assign a dedicated that is level four compliant as part of the control you will have two computers one on standby for remote diagnostic primiraly use for remote diagnostic, another for CNC function.

In regards to data collection new CNC’s are monitoring activities such as error messages that are categorized in different areas. This can be with the communication between PLC’s, CNC and station cards, lost of communication or timing problems errors common with the system, CNC errors due to plc warnings and prompts, operator prompts to name a few. Mostly this is error messages have a day and time stamp so it can easily be cyphered if the condition of errors are intermittent or consistent. We can all set up the option of recording what nc programs are run and how long it took to complete a job. It can also be set to count the number of hours the tools is used. Since this is a text format you design a spread sheet that can put them in named cells. The extent of data is a chosen through the logging option and in our case is stored in the Logging directory. It helps with monitoring intermitent problems and monitor if this is a NC program error, System error, human error, machine problem etc. It is a must now a days for ease of data gathering for management and troubleshooting.

flyback & boost applications

For flyback & boost applications, powder cores such as Kool-mu, Xmu, etc… are usually best performing and lowest cost. Even these may need to be gapped and if CCM operation is required, a “stepped-gap” is preferred to allow a large load compliance. Center stepped gaps reduce the fringe flux greatly as there is never a complete gap, only localized saturation. This permits the inductor’s value to “swing” more and accommodate the required operation.
With only the center leg with a gap, the outer copper band can be applied without significant loss.

To explore further, dissimilar core materials can be used in parallel, ferrite & powdered types, such that different materials provide function at different operating points within the same construction. Some decades ago, we had some high power projects that utilized fixed magnets within a ferrite’s gap to provide a flux bias offset for a forward topology.

Abe Pressman wasn’t big on exploring magnetic losses, however he operated at lower frequencies than are typical today. MPPs are great with large DC bias, but suffer high loss if AC swing is large and fast. Toroids also have the least efficient winding window, however, they are best to mitigate emi.

Switching frequency selection

Switching frequency selection is actually a tradeoff, and follows the below guidelines:

Lower frequency (Eg 30kHz) means bulkier magnetics and capacitors; Higher frequency (Eg 1Mhz)) means smaller parts, hence more compact PSU.
Stay away from exact 150kHz as this is the low end of any EMI compliance; So, if your frequency happens to be exactly 150kHz, then your PSU will be a strong emitter; For many commercial low cost PSUs, 100 KHz has been used for many years, which is why many inductors and capacitors are specified at 100kHz.
Higher frequency >/= 1MHz converters provide for better transient response. Obviously, the control IC should be capable of supporting. There are plenty of resonant converters available.
Higher frequency results in higher switching losses; To control that, you will need faster switching FETs, Diodes, capacitors, magnetics and control ICs.
Higher frequency MAY result in more broadband noise; its not always true, since noise can be controlled by good PCB layout and good magnetics designs.

Board power DC/DC converters are commonly built using 1MHz switchers.
Chassis power Telecom/Server PSUs seem to stay with 100-300KHz range.

Manufacturers are able to achieve exceptional density by virtue of High frequency resonant topologies, but they have to achieve high efficiencies too; Else, they will generate so much heat that they cannot meet UL/IEC safety requirements.
In some cases, they will leave the thermal problem to the user. Usually, the first few paragraphs of any reference design discusses the tradeoffs.