Connect with us

5x7 LED matrix driver

Discussion in 'Electronic Basics' started by Jon Kirwan, Mar 3, 2013.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    I'm considering a 5x7 LED digit module design to work with a
    microcontroller with these two simple ideas:

    (1) Constant current drive for the LEDs, settable by a single
    external resistor. This will set the maximum (100%) LED
    current. PWM (or PFM) will be used to individually reduce the
    effective brightness on an LED by LED basis, referenced to
    this maximum setting.

    (2) A microcontroller Vcc rail, from 2.5V to 5.0V.

    (3) Separate LED power supply rail, which can be higher than,
    but not less than, the Vcc rail. The LED rail can be up to
    15V, though dissipation issues will dictate that it be as low
    as possible. I may, in the case of RGB, want three such
    rails. The idea is to keep dissipation as low as reasonable,
    but to allow flexibility, too. (2 LEDs in series, for
    example, or blue vs red, etc.)

    (4) Muxing is done with 5x, placing 7 LEDs per row, 5 rows,
    and with 5x the average current. Since I may use 20mA LEDs,
    this means 100mA peak LED current (as set by the external
    resistor.)

    (5) 5% variation in LED current across active LEDs in a row.

    Variations in LED V vs I yield unacceptable differences in
    brightness (noticeable) when operated in parallel.

    I developed a tentative schematic (without slew rate limits),
    but I'm using 64 BJTs to manage 35 LEDs. It works and none of
    the transistors deal with more than Ic=100mA, neither the row
    nor column ones. But that's a lot of BJTs and I'm betting I'm
    missing something terribly obvious. (I'm using cheap 0.3 and
    0.4 cent BJTs, so it's not expensive. Everything else is what
    costs money.)

    These 5x7 displays will be about 3" high, by the way, and I'm
    using the 3d printer to make the black grids for mounting 5mm
    LEDs.

    Here's a portion that gets my mental state (bad as it may be)
    across:

    http://www.infinitefactors.org/schematics/portion of 5x7 driver.png

    What am I missing about simplifying this without putting LEDs
    in parallel to each other during muxing?

    Jon
     
  2. If I understand your schematic well, you're driving each LED individually.
    By muxing you only need 5+7=12 lines and 12 transistors, maybe 5 more for
    driving the high side. You select one digit at a time together with all
    segments you want to light for that particular digit. Off course the
    correspoding segments of the other digits are selected as well but they do
    not light as those digits are not selected.

    petrus bitbyter
     
  3. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    An entire row is enabled at a time, just to be clear.

    Muxing in the usual way would drive the LEDs in a ROW (0 to 7
    of them) in parallel to each other. This isn't good as some
    LEDs will hog the current. I want to know that if I set 100mA
    as the peak current, that each LED will ACTUALLY have 100mA
    as its peak (100% duty cycle) current.

    I know that what I've done in the schematic has been done in
    commercial products, because I've contracted to do work on
    them before. OSRAM built 16x16 RGB modules, self-contained,
    for OEM sales which actually used the technique I show (with
    lots more transistors, but the idea is right.)

    I'm just hoping for a simpler method to achieve precision (5%
    worst case variation during a row-enable) current control of
    each LED and not have them all with individual BJTs... but I
    suspect that isn't possible. Going to RGB, which I intend on
    also doing, only adds 14 more transistors per color, do 28
    more for a total of 92 BJTs for 105 LEDs. So it scales better
    than it looks.

    Jon
     
  4. Daniel Pitts

    Daniel Pitts Guest


    I use a Constant Current Sink (not Source) to power a Common Cathode LED
    matrix.

    The Constant Current Sink pins are controlled via a shift register.
    Then I use a 1-of-8 demuxer to select which "column" to use.

    So, each column is powered by one state of the Constant Current chip,
    then I disable all current, set up the next column in the shift
    register, then move to the next column and enable current on the rows
    that need it. This means each LED has its own independent current
    controller.

    BTW, I do this 16x60Hz so that I basically use PWM for intensity control
    (16 levels of brightness) and the entire display updates 60 times a second.
     
  5. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    The design I illustrated in the link I provided also uses
    constant current sinks. But in contast to what you write
    below, I enable or disable all at once.
    Okay. So if I follow you on the above, unlike the design I
    illustrated, you have individual control of each of the
    current sinks. Then you simply enable the high side switch.
    So you have, in this way, individual control of each current
    because you can enable/disable each driver.

    So if I instead redesign the discrete circuit to permit
    individual control of each current sink (more transistors
    per, plus a shift register), then I could go to a common
    anode structure.

    Thanks, I'll consider that one more carefully. I think it's
    something I didn't take time to consider and I need to do
    that. Very much appreciated criticism.

    Jon
     
  6. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Hmm. This makes the single programming resistor circuit a
    little more complex, using discrete design. Looks like a
    constant current sink chip with an external setting resistor
    and up to 8 outputs and a shift register is the way to go,
    then.

    I suspect that there are constant current chips with built in
    shift register enables. Know of any commonly used ones?

    Thanks,
    Jon
     
  7. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    I'm pretty much finding this $1 part:

    TLC5916/5917, 3-5.5V operation, 5ma to 120mA, max 17V LED

    Looks okay for my goals.

    Jon
     
  8. Daniel Pitts

    Daniel Pitts Guest

    For reference, I used 3 of TI's tlc5917 [1] chip as the current sink,
    and a single 54HC238 [2] chip as the column selector. My MCU was an
    ATTiny84 [3] (basically, a scaled down Arduino core), and the LED matrix
    I used was equivalent to the one available from SEEED studio [4].

    [1] <http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tlc5917-q1.pdf>
    [2] <http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd54hc238.pdf>
    [3] <http://www.atmel.com/Images/doc8006.pdf>
    [4] <http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/datasheet/2088RGBMatrix.pdf>
     
  9. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    I did tester and optical calibration systems for OSRAM's OWM
    parts.

    But they are unobtainium for me.

    What do you think of:

    TLC5916/5917, 3-5.5V operation, 5ma to 120mA, max 17V LED

    http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tlc5916-q1.pdf

    Seems more than decent. 3% between LEDs and 6% between LEDs
    on different ICs. I could live with that.

    Jon
     
  10. Daniel Pitts

    Daniel Pitts Guest

    Yup, that's the one I used. I replied to my earlier message with the
    list of components I used for my project (sans resistors and the 20MHz
    oscillator).
     
  11. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    I'm dedicating one micro per digit, to modularize this, for
    now. So I have enough pins and don't need to worry about
    more. And yes, I'm seeing the 5916/5917 as the best option
    right now. ($1 each in small qtys.) MUCH less wiring results,
    so worth the extra part cost over lots of half-penny BJTs.

    Did you feel a need for the special error detection in the
    5917 vs the 5916?

    Thanks,
    Jon
     
  12. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Yes, given a boosted current mirror design, with differing
    numbers of active current mirror sinking BJTs enabled, that
    seems about the best I could expect with a simple BJT design
    (I computed about 4% variation by hand _without_ taking into
    account variations in discrete BJTs.) On an IC, I assume they
    have more transistors (to improve on it) and better
    uniformity (to also improve on it) so that 6% across ICs
    seems like a comfortable design margin.

    Jon
     
  13. Daniel Pitts

    Daniel Pitts Guest

    Yes, and the Shift Register+Latch aspect of it give you some advantages
    as well. My MCU only needs 6 output pins to drive 192 LEDs. 3 for Column
    Select, 1 for shift data, 1 for shift clock, and 1 pin which alternately
    updates the latch and enables output.

    The 74238/54HC238 has a way to do output-enable with either high or low
    input, depending on which pin you connect to. I tied the "Latch" pin on
    the 5196's to each other and to the "Output Enabled" pin on the 54HC238.
    So that disabling the display latches the data. This seems to work
    really well, but I'm pretty newbie so there might be some problem
    lurking I don't know about

    As far as "part cost", if you're hand building something, include the
    time-cost of assembly and trouble-shooting.
    No. As a matter of fact, I think I have the 5916. I was quoting the part
    number based on the URL I used here :).

    I could see the error handling as more of a "professional" set up, where
    I would want to alert an operator of a failure so they could replace the
    module. Nothing I'd be working on.

    Good luck. Let me know how it turns out.
     
  14. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Yeah, there is that of course. And board space required for
    all those holes and traces. It's much more attractive this
    way.

    Still.... if I were doing up a LOT of these as a commercial
    product ... I can get the BJTs at 0.003 and .004 per in to-92
    -- probably cheaper in smt. They are very common and will
    NEVER go away. Multisource everywhere. Part cost would be
    low, but I suspect placing and board space would make up for
    it. So yeah, I can't win with that crazy approach.

    However... doing up discrete BJT current drivers that are
    individually controlled, rather than the way I did it, would
    cost more BJTs per... but instead of 35 BJTs for each LED, it
    would be 7 sets of controllable drivers. So just the basic
    idea you pointed at would also reduce the discrete count,
    too.

    I'm glad I sat down and learned something doing that up in
    the first place, at least.
    Okay! I think I save 20 cents or more that way. (I'm finding
    them at 85 cents each in ones as opposed to 1.04 for the '17.
    Yeah. Same here.
    Okay. I guess here, then.

    The makerbot ABS module is very pretty, by the way. Makes a
    very nice looking unit. And weather proof besides.

    Jon
     
  15. So I understand you to activate one or more whole rows at once. But as
    you're multiplexing I suppose you activate only one column at a time. This
    way only one LED of each row can light, all others of that row are in other
    columns. So why not tie all cathodes of the LEDs of one row together using
    only one transistor to drive them? You can still control the brightness of
    every single LED. For instance you set the rate of column activation to 5ms
    and vary the row activation from 0 up to 5ms depending on the brightness
    required for that particular LED.

    petrus bitbyter
     
  16. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    No. I can operate more than one LED at a time with the
    schematic I laid out. Anywhere from 0 to 7 of them. So I only
    need to do 5x scanning for the display.
    I think Dennis identified my stupidity, already, pointing out
    the use of a x8 controller like the TLC5916. I had avoided
    setting up completely separate and individually controllable
    current sinks in the silly idea of reducing BJT count, while
    actually doing the opposite. Although it takes more BJTs to
    do individually controllable current sinks, it takes a lot
    less of them to do the job. So it's a win. I just missed it
    while taking my first shot at this. Which is why I posted, to
    get my head bashed in. Dennis did that perfectly. Made
    absolute sense the way he wrote so clearly to me.

    Jon
     
  17. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Sorry!!! That is Daniel!!!!

    Jon
     
  18. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Just ordered 25 of the DIP from arrow at .81 each, plus about
    $5 shipping, which brings them to about $1 each.

    Jon
     
  19. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Just arrived this morning! Much fun ahead.

    Thanks.
    Jon
     
  20. Daniel Pitts

    Daniel Pitts Guest

    Good luck!
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-