Connect with us

Circuit ideas for undervoltage protection?

Discussion in 'Electronic Components' started by Dirk Leber, Aug 15, 2005.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Dirk Leber

    Dirk Leber Guest

    I recently became aware of a problem which I believe is seriously
    underestimated in a lot of designs:
    For most standard integrated circuits manufacturers rate the min/max
    voltage levels at the pins with something like -0.3V to Vcc + 0.3V,
    which is probably derived from the idea of having schottky diodes,
    either internal or external, clamping the pin to the above levels. Which
    seems so obvious proves problematic when taking a closer look at various
    schottky diode datasheets. The forward voltage drop is heavily depending
    on the forward current which can easily result in voltage drops of more
    than 1 volt. Inacceptable with the above mentioned absolute maximum
    ratings for the "protected" integrated circuit.
    Only very few schottky diodes guarantee Vfw values of less than 0.3 Volt
    even at very low forward current. Apparently there seem to be two
    qualities of a schottky diode that seem to be incompatible. Low forward
    voltage drop values are apparently not achievable together with high
    maximum reverse voltages, which resembles a problem anywhere close to
    things like driver lines. How about an example:

    TI's hot swap controller TPS249x can safely drive a FET as high side
    switch by survising the drain-source current via a shunt resistor and
    additionally doing something like a power calculation for the FET by
    multiplying the current by the drain-source voltage drop. For measuring
    this voltage drop it uses an additional pin OUT which has to be
    connected to source. So far for the background.
    The pin in question (OUT) since being connected directly to "the world
    outside" will have to withstand all the nasty things like surge/burst
    pulses, reversed polarity caused by users etc. As a little help, you
    might want to add maybe a suppressor diode together with a small serial
    resistance to limit currents. Not to forget the must-have schottky diode
    to ground against erroneous negative voltages applied to the drivers
    outside.
    Still, since you cannot spend too much voltage drop over that serial
    resistor, the resulting current through the schottky diode will grow to
    something like 1.3 ampere when applying negative voltages up to the
    suppressor diodes clamping voltage (let's say 40 volt), limited by a
    serial resistance of 30 ohm.
    The question now is, which schottky diode to choose:
    For example Vishay's SS2H10 that is able to stand a reverse voltage of
    up to 100V would have a forward voltage drop of approx. 0.68 Volt. The
    OUT pin would be driven far out of spec.
    The opposite direction would be something like Vishay's SL44 whith a
    impressing forward voltage of only approx. 0.31 Volt at 1.3 ampere. The
    problem here is the low reverse voltage of only 28 Volt.

    Did anybody solve this quest in the past? Any alternative protective
    circuit ideas?

    Cheerio,
    Dirk Leber
    HEITEC AG
     
  2. Tilmann Reh

    Tilmann Reh Guest

    I think it's rather derived from the internal structures of the chips.
    These specs are to avoid triggering of internal parasitic SCRs, which
    would lead to latch-up and possibly destruction of the chip.
    Most probably there also is a spec about the maximum *current* at the
    OUT pin to prevent latchup, and most probably you can safely stay within
    these specs by using a reasonable schottky diode *and* an additional
    resistor between that diode and the OUT pin.
    I didn't look at the data sheet, so I can't tell you if that spec is
    contained therein, but I'm pretty sure TI *knows* about this. :)

    Did you already ask TI about this detail? I guess their "PIC" should be
    able to provide detailed application information, as well as more
    detailed information about how to understand the voltage and current
    limits provided in the data sheet (if not already in the KB):
    <http://www-k.ext.ti.com/sc/technical-support/email-tech-support.asp?AAP>
     
  3. Someone

    Someone Guest

  4. legg

    legg Guest

    The spec sheet for this series gives voltage compliance limits for the
    four pins - VCC, SENSE, EN, OUT- of -0.3 and +100V.

    In normal operation, the OUT pin is fairly well protected by power
    components natural to the application, being clamped to the source
    or output ground, as well as these rails can be, by standard power
    supply components.

    Large filter capacitors allow both input and output rails to exhibit
    low impedance to pulse disturbances.

    Revere polarity on the input side can obviously be defeated by
    conventional means, if hardware is designed to allow the condition to
    be physically possible.

    On the output side, the whole load takes the hit - and there are
    likely some pretty hefty reverse conduction paths on any power supply
    rail - but you have to ask yourself if this is a likely user-generated
    fault. Is the node even accessible via an unkeyed interconnection?

    This is not a good example of specific IC pin protection
    requirements.

    In all cases where the VCC +/- x volts limitation apply, the actual
    threat has to be evaluated and dealt with.

    RL
     
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

-