1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. TC1410 MOSFET driver problems

TC1410 MOSFET driver problems

I just recently received eight SMT PC boards for a boost converter for 12 VDC nominal to 750 mA into a series high power LED string that may drop 24 to 40 VDC. It uses a Microchip 16F684 with 100 kHz PWM output, a TC1410 driver, and a Fairchild HUF75645 MOSFET, with a 10 uH inductor and a 100V

6A Schottky to drive the LEDs. In my prototype, the TC1410 shorted to Vdd when I raised the input voltage to about 16 VDC with a poorly filtered supply, and I figured it probably had voltage surges above its 20V maximum. I replaced the IC with a 3 transistor driver, and it worked fine ever since.

When testing the new board, the PWM seemed to work OK for an instant, and then the TC1410 failed. Several others also failed, sometimes with output shorted to ground, sometimes to Vdd. I added a 100 ohm resistor to the output, and it failed again. I added anothe 100 ohm resistor to the Vdd supply, and it survived, but did not properly drive the MOSFET.

The HUF75645 has a gate capacitance of 3800 pF, which is much higher than the 500 pF for which the driver is characterized, but its internal resistance of 16 ohms should have limited the output current to less than 1 ampere. It is rated at 500 mA, so I suspect this is the problem. However, even a smaller MOSFET with 350-400 pF will also draw the same peak current, although for a much shorter time. Simulating it in LTspice shows only about

100 mW total gate power for the 3800 pF gate. I have ordered some TC1413 drivers, rated at 3 amps, and characterized for 1500 pF, but they have 2.7 ohm resistance, so they would see pulse current of 6 amps at 16 VDC. The app notes show direct connection to the MOSFET gate.

I can add 20-30 ohms to the gate and still get reasonable switching times, while limiting the peak current to 500 mA for the existing device. However, I'm fairly certain that the one driver failed with 100 ohms. The Vdd supply is isolated from the main 10-16 VDC supply with a diode, and bypassed with

100 uF and 1 uF. The main supply is bypassed with 0.47 uF. I am very concerned about reliability, as these boards will be potted in an assembly that will not be repairable. It is a high power LED diving flashlight that will have a parts cost of well over $100.

I'm waiting on a response from Microchip, but I am concerned that these drivers may have reliability problems. I am considering redesign of the boards to use the simple three-transistor driver that has been working for a while in my rough prototype. Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen
Loading thread data ...

On 11 Mar, 03:51, "Paul E. Schoen" wrote: [...] Try #2.

PWM is too high. Most of the driver chips fall over beyond 30kHz. Pushed one chip to 100kHz, ran but was taking 1A while smoking.

Reply to
john

The test circuit in the data sheet is a 100 kHz square wave. The rise and fall times of the IC are 25-40 nSec. While the circuit was working, the driver stayed cold, and my simulation showed less than 100 mW. The three-transistor driver has rise and fall times of about 200 nSec. The Microchip App Note shows a 250 kHz example with 16 mW driver power.

I think there is something else wrong. I have not heard back yet from Microchip. I have also requested samples of some TI parts that have an output stage consisting of MOSFETs in parallel with bipolars, which provides better drive through the transition area where the MOSFET actually switches.

Thanks for your comments.

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen

Yes. I missed the 100kHz test diagram. Just spiced it myself though and am seeing roughly 100ma rms gate drive but more interestingly (at switch off) there's a 10V peak, delayed negative voltage pulse feeding back to the driver (about 200nS wide). Seems the driver's reverse limit is 5V. john

Reply to
john

My reply from Microchip:

Problem Resolution: I suspect the problem is that you are driving too much current. Since we don't know what the impedance of the mosfet is, we don't offer parts with built in limiting, but you can do this as you obsereved by adding a resistor.

You will need a driver with more current output. More current output translates to more speed. Also, reducing the capacitance of the gate will also help to decrease time, since there is less capacitor to charge.

To know what currents are being driven, put a scope probe on either side of the series resistor into the mosfet gate and put the scope in differential mode. You will then see the spike of current driven by the driver. If it exceeds the maximum spec, you will need a larger resistor to properly protect the mosfet.

You can figure out the worst case resistor size with ohms law. For example

16V into ground is a 16V difference, with a 500 mA drive, is 32 ohms. So your 100 ohms is more than enough protection assuming these cases. However, its probably overkill for this part. In either case, you said you were migrating to a 3A part, so 1/6th the resistance should provide adequate protection, or about 6 ohms.

==============================================================================

I ran a simulation with their TC1413 3 amp driver, and it seems that the current is limited to 2.5 amps using 3 ohm driver resistance. The gate resistance of the transistor seems to be only 0.8 ohms. Much depends on the actual rise and fall times before being lowered by the capacitor as shown on the test circuit. I used 20 nSec, but if I use 10 nSec the current peak is 3.5 amps, again over the spec. I have a hard time believing a 10 nSec transient 20% over specified peak would destroy the device. Also, I am fairly sure I first put a 100 ohm limiter on the output and it still failed.

I did not see the negative voltage pulse you describe. I am modeling the gate very simply with a 9 nF inductance, and the 3800 pF capacitance. I have a model for the HUF75645, which I will try. I think I will be safe using the 3 A drivers and a smaller MOSFET with 350 pF gate, but I am leery of the Microchip parts now, and I may try the TI TPS2817, which has a much beefier output stage.

If you do see a negative spike that may cause the problem, I'd appreciate a copy of your LTSpice ASC file.

Thanks,

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen

John has most likely identified the culprit. Bugger spice, measure the actual circuit. Spice wont tell you your circuit parasitics. and ultimately you dont care what spice says, you care what your circuit does.

many FET drivers used to get real pissy of their output was pulled below (or above) the supply. this was usually sneakily "mentioned" in app notes by schottky diode clamps on the outputs, often sans explanation. Some better FET driver chips specifically mention reverse poer flow protection, and that schottky clamps arent needed. Just to make life fun, tacking them on might not help, if there is too much L in series with the clamps.

also the 3n8 capacitance probably doesnt include Cmiller. but 100mW is unlikely to make it a thermal problem (even if it were out by a factor of 3), your finger test confirms this, so that makes it a transient problem.

I cant see ABSE, but if you want to email me a pic of your layout, I can have a quick squiz for you (I can read protel and pads directly, otherwise a PDF, JPG etc).

Cheers Terry

Reply to
Terry Given

Terry:

Thanks for your reply. I have sent an email to YourName at ieee dot org. However, it bounced. You may email me directly. Mine is real.

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen

Paul, I sent you an email. you missed the underscore in mine, which conveniently hides beneath the underline

my_name @ ieee.org

Cheers Terry

Reply to
Terry Given

On 15 Mar, 05:19, "Paul E. Schoen" wrote:

[=2E..]

ry

a

Rough and dirty, I cobbled basic bits together based on extrapolated driver details and picked a FET with a big Cgs Cgd. Unknown item was load capacitance, it's size is important for the transient.

LT circuit is ...

Version 4 SHEET 1 1136 680 WIRE 816 -80 720 -80 WIRE 720 -64 720 -80 WIRE 816 -48 816 -80 WIRE 720 32 720 16 WIRE 816 96 816 32 WIRE 864 96 816 96 WIRE 960 96 928 96 WIRE 1024 96 960 96 WIRE 816 112 816 96 WIRE 960 176 960 96 WIRE 1024 176 1024 96 WIRE 528 192 512 192 WIRE 768 192 608 192 WIRE 448 208 352 208 WIRE 352 224 352 208 WIRE 816 304 816 208 WIRE 960 304 960 240 WIRE 1024 304 1024 256 FLAG 352 304 0 FLAG 816 304 0 FLAG 720 32 0 FLAG 1024 304 0 FLAG 960 304 0 SYMBOL voltage 352 208 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 3 22 94 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 15 0 10n 10n 5u 10u) SYMBOL Digital\\\\buf 448 144 R0 WINDOW 3 -71 -8 Left 0 WINDOW 123 -71 -29 Left 0 SYMATTR Value vhigh=3D15 vlow=3D0 trise=3D200n tfall=3D100n SYMATTR InstName A1 SYMATTR Value2 td=3D100n SYMBOL nmos 768 112 R0 SYMATTR InstName M1 SYMATTR Value FDR4420A SYMBOL ind 800 -64 R0 SYMATTR InstName L1 SYMATTR Value 10=B5 SYMBOL voltage 720 -80 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName V2 SYMATTR Value 15 SYMBOL schottky 864 112 R270 WINDOW 0 32 32 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 0 32 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName D1 SYMATTR Value MBR745 SYMATTR Description Diode SYMATTR Type diode SYMBOL res 1008 160 R0 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 60 SYMBOL cap 944 176 R0 SYMATTR InstName C1 SYMATTR Value 10n SYMBOL res 624 176 R90 WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 15 TEXT 632 304 Left 0 !.tran 1000u TEXT 960 80 Left 0 ;Led stuff

Reply to
john

[...]

Rough and dirty, I cobbled basic bits together based on extrapolated driver details and picked a FET with a big Cgs Cgd. Unknown item was load capacitance, it's size is important for the transient.

LT circuit is ... [snip] ========================================================================

I tried the simulation, and saw the transient. However, it was caused mostly by the small value of load capacitor. I have a 0.47 uF in parallel with 47 uF, which is needed to absorb the inductive energy without excessive voltage. The 30 volt MOSFET was breaking down, as was the 45 volt Schottky. I am using a 100 V transistor and diode. For simulation I used STB120NF10 and MBR20100CT.

It is possible that the problem could have been caused by the opening of the 47 uF capacitor in my circuit (it was installed backwards). The 0.47 uF should have been OK, but 47 nF is not enough.

The rise and fall times of your driver are probably 5 times slower than the TC1410. The drive current in your simulation peaks at less than 500 mA.

Thanks for your interest. I look forward to hearing from Terry, and perhaps a second reply from Microchip.

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.