topology suggestions for 3.5kW batt charger?

In other words, we need a voltage of about 26*24 = 624, or so, as a maximum?

The manufacturer, Genesis, recommends charging them at the 0.4C

240 * sqrt(2) = ABOUT 340V

As a result, we need to about double the voltage. This smells like a transformer based design not a simple booster.

Just for fun I'll suggest this:

------------+---->!---------+---+--- ( ! ! ! L1 T1 ( !!- ! --- ----(((((---------+ G1-!!- ! --- ( !!--[sense]-GND ! ! ( ! GND ------------+---->!--------- ! !!- G2-!!- !!--[sense]-GND

At the wareform peak, the G1 and G2 are running almost as a squareware converter with only a small dead time when both are off.

When both devices are off, the L1 voltage springs up to the battery voltage to ramp down the current in L1. When either is on (Vin-Vbat/

2) ramps the current up. In this way, near the peak, L1 is working to buck the input.

As you come off the peak of the mains AC, the duty cycle of the G1 and G2 increases. At some point, their conduction overlaps. When this happens, L1 begins to boost because the center tap pulses to zero volts while both are on.

The core of L1 never has to store huge amounts of energy. The core of T1 also isn't storing lots of energy because it is working as a transfomer.

L1 and T1 can be merged into a single core if you are willing to do some creative winding.

"Tesseract"

** Not true at all. ** Ok - here is your *simplest* solution.

Use a 240 volt to 40 volt transformer, rated at say 25 amps to boost the AC supply to 280 volts rms.

A 40 amp metal bridge on that will give 400 volt peaks at 100Hz.

400/26 =15.4 volts a piece = just about right for end of charge.

Install a DC amp meter ( say 30 amp FS) in series with the battery bank.

Use a 1kW Variac to control the input to the boost transformer so you can adjust the charge rate to a nice number like 15 amps.

Keep your fingers off the damn batteries ( ie wear gloves) and keep all spectators at bay with a safety fence around the vehicle !!!!

....... Phil

how about a dozen PC power supplies ? just modify them to work in current limit mode. they should then share the laod ok.

Colin =^.^=

Hello Jeff,

When a switching topology is a mandatory, mi first thoughts go to a full bridge forward converter with zero voltage switching where the current limit is determined by the leakage inductance of the transformer (probably a very large set of U cores). This is inherently short circuit proof and you have plenty of time to shut it down. The voltage waveform at the bridge is trapezoidal. dV/dt at the switches is limited by the external capacitors.

Instead of one unit, I would use (depending on components available) 2 or three units. In that case, main charging is done by (for example) 3 units in parallel. As the voltage reaching final level, one or two units are switched of. When you can make one, you can also make three units.

Main advantage for a full bridge circuit is the ripple current in both the primary rectifier and secondary rectifier. There is also efficient utilization of the semiconductors. High dI/dt is avoided because of the leakage inductance of the transformer. The transformer design is somewhat tricky. You might use a separate coil for dI/dt limiting.

Because of the required large sized magnetics, you are limited in maximum operating frequency because of risk on bad flux distribution due to field propagation issues inside the magnetics.

You can drive the IGBT's or MOSFETs with one transformer (with 4 secondary windings).

Best regards,

Wim PA3DJS

Sorry - I wasn't clear about that: it is, in fact, two independent 312V nom. battery banks that, as far as my "eyeball" reverse engineering reveals, are selected via contactors. I can only *guess* at the reasoning behind this, but I imagine thermal management is a factor...

This is a very interesting idea, Moosefet. It sort of looks like half of a phase-shifted bridge. L1 makes it inherently a current-fed topology which is, of course, immune to short circuits. Any references, or at least a "proper name" would be most appreciated.

-Jeff

--
Message posted via http://www.electronicskb.com

An even simpler but similar idea is my "backup" solution. Specifically, I would connect a 120V input Variac to one leg and neutral of the 240V line then take the output from the Variac tap and the other leg of the 240V line to get anywhere from 240 to 360Vrms. Add a bridge, a good chunk of capacitance, season to taste and voilla, a cheap, quick and dirty battery charger. The filter capacitance is a nod towards battery life - they apparently really hate pulsating DC... Big downside here is the terrible power factor which limits the actual charging current that can be delivered to the batteries before tripping the breaker.

Colin - you're idea is nuts, but not totally out of the question. If the PC power supplies have PFC and use current-mode control then this is plausible. No PFC and the same problem as above creeps in. Voltage mode control instead of current mode and paralleling is a dicey situation no matter what. I doubt any halfway reliable PC power supply made today uses voltage mode control, but you never know what an OEM will stoop to when the very depths of the price/performance ratio are trolled.

-Jeff

--
Message posted via ElectronicsKB.com
http://www.electronicskb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/design/200707/1

I agree completely - when you need more than about 300-400W of *isolated* power then the full bridge topology, in any of its many variants, is the way to go. Setting aside line isolation considerations for the moment, though, I don't see any advantage over a much more simpler boost PFC, especially if designed to operate in quasi- or fully resonant modes.

Transformer design is *always* tricky, especially with regards to managing leakage inductance. Current-fed might be the way to go here, but I suspect that (quasi-)resonant operation will still give you the best combination of low-emi and switching stress and excellent current-limiting response.

Once again, if I was going to design the charger for approval then full- bridge would be the way to go, and in order to make maximum use of the available RMS current PFC circuit is pertty much mandatory. In fact, if you eliminate the bulk filter capacitor from the output of a boost PFC then feed a full bridge you automatically get short-circuit-proof current-fed mode, IIRC.

Excellent comments, though, Wim.

-Jeff

--
Message posted via ElectronicsKB.com
http://www.electronicskb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/design/200707/1

** Err - did you want ideas supplied from others OR others to verbally m*******te over your insane ones ?

Just be upfront, pal - it saves everyone lotsa time .......

** If you have 60 Hz, 3 phase, 240 volts available - you failed to tell us.

BTW the phase to phase voltage is 415 - not 360.

Add a bridge, a good chunk of

** Dirtier than Dirty Harry

How lucky do you feel - punk ??

This man is ON the edge ....

........ Phil

Oh come on - it's a *given* that you already *have* lotsa time or you wouldn't be reading (and replying) to the posts here.

Actually, I really want ideas from others. No pud-pulling necessary.

Thanks for pointing this out - helping identify stupid, fireball-forming mistakes *before* I make them is the whole point of posting. This *is* residential 240V, so your implying that 3ph. would be needed caused me to go back and actually sketch out a schematic. Once I did that the fatal flaws in my backup plan became obvious. I should've kept TANSTAAFL in mind...

Now I agree that your suggestion - wiring a transformer in standard boost configuration - makes the most sense as the simplest solution. Unfortunately, I don't have any 240V Variacs so I may have to go with a voltage doubler. Fortunately, I do have two 6,000uF/400V caps that will serve nicely here. Well, once I make sure the dielectric is fully formed on them as they haven't seen voltage in quite a while.

-Jeff

--
Message posted via ElectronicsKB.com
http://www.electronicskb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/design/200707/1

Yeah I hadnt given it a thought that it would be high voltage, was thinking of car battery charger voltages lol.

I did say to modify them to current mode, becuase most PC supplies go into burp mode if they sense overcurrent, rather than refering to the PWM topology.

I doubt if they have PFC though, wich i gues is needed for the full power.

however for the high voltage parallel isnt desirable. and series conection is fraught with problems.

maybe if you put one psu acros each 1 x 12v bank if you had access to mid points.

At least PC PSUs are abundant in landfill sites. its quite easy to rewind some of them so they have just one very high power output, and strip the unused components.

as was said elsewhere multiple phases would make things easier, and add some backup. boost PFC followed by resorvoir cap, followed by fwd resonant phase shifting full bridge, folowed by full wave rectifier (posibly synchronous if you want to be fancy)

• LC filter.

but you can go through a LOT of components getting a high power SMPS design debuged.

also the output voltage is still so high as to be lethal, so it needs to be heavily protected from careless fingers etc, so why bother with isolation wich is 80% of the work ?

just have a step down converter after the resorvoir cap wich does the current/voltage limiting.

Colin =^.^=

** Wrong answer, pal - that one labels you as a troll for sure.

The saved time alluded to would be that time span between one merely suspecting YOU were yet another totally mad troll and being completely certain of it.

** Not a familiar acronym to me.... ** You have now acquired near genius status.

Asking for exact details of my proposed anti-spectator HV electrical safety fence would have resulted in mucho bonus points.

** Sloppy impedance cap dominated regulation = baaaaaaaaddddddd !!! ** Those spectators need to be wearing safety goggles and steel lined flack jackets.

Bits of flying electro & lead acid battery are significant shrapnel.

....... Phil

How about calling it "KenSmith's Idea"?

This circuit is certainly not immune to a short. There is a DC path from the Vin to the Vout so short circuit currents have a path through even with the transistors off.

It is a "current fed" design in that the L1 limits the current rise. Basically it is a current fed forward converter where the transformer in an autotransformers. The sliding between the overlapping and non- overlaping conduction requires a bit of custom controller design.

I was involved in the design of the 10kWt subwoofer amplifier (powered from the primary power source of 14.4V). Actually, I designed the DSP/PWM controller for it; the power part was designed by the other guy. There is absolutely nothing fancy about the topology: a classic MOSFET push-pull voltage mode buck running at 24kHz. The magnetics for it was quite a challenge. The size of the whole thing is 50x30x10cm. It works just fine. For the battery charger, you will need to output the regulated current rather then voltage; it should not be a problem.

Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

ElectronicsKB.comhttp://www.electronicskb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/design/200707/1

Hi Jeff,

I forgot Power Factor Correction.

You may design an active power factor correction circuitry. Your application probably doesn't require power factor of 0.99. When a power factor of about 0.9 is sufficient, you may use the CLC passive topology where the first Capacitor is at the AC side of the bridge, the inductor is between the bridge and the DC output storage capacitor.

This document describes various passive and active power factor topologies.

I think when I was in your position; I would use the passive PFC and fully concentrate on the zero voltage full bridge design with leakage inductance. I like this thing because you don't have to measure the momentary current, the transformer may have large leakage inductance (so safety insulation is easy to obtain) and there is low dV/dt and DI/ dt (radiated emission).

Off course he disadvantage for passive PFC is the bulky L and Mains capacitor. Maybe you can get some inspiration from the document. I do not have experience with zero voltage or zero current switching PFC.

Best regards,

Wim PA3DJS

The solution to this seems obvious to me: don't post to this thread.

--
Message posted via http://www.electronicskb.com

I'm liking this idea of your's more and more, Colin. I found a 600W PC power supply with active PFC on eBay for $25, incl. shipping. That's definitely cheap enough to play around with. Heck, the Litz wire I'll need for the secondary will probably cost more than the power supply itself!

If an SMPS uses current mode control, though, paralleling two or more together is trivial, even if Vo is high. I totally agree that no matter what the control scheme you are asking for trouble when you try to put supplies in series (dueling feedback loops).

That's the truth, and the components that blow up tend to be expensive ones...

This was precisely my reasoning for just going with a straight boost PFC design.

Thanks for the input - I'm definitely going to try this on one supply even if the total output from one PC supply isn't enough to make a practical charger (I need to keep the total charge time for the two banks under 12 hours for it to be at all practical, which means I need at least 2.6kW). Still, as a quick and dirty charger it has lots of merit (and it will be isolated, anyway).

-Jeff

--
Message posted via ElectronicsKB.com
http://www.electronicskb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/design/200707/1

** YOU do not get to contol a thread or any person on a NG - ASSHOLE.

...... Phil

"Vladimir Vassilevsky"

** Oh dear - that is very poor advice. ** Explains a lot.

....... Phil

Fair enough. Still, with no prior art to study one would have a lot of pain and misery to look forward to before getting a new topology working, much less optimized.

What I meant by this is that a short circuit will not cause immediate destruction of the switch(es). L1 will saturate, of course, and a circuit breaker will trip, but once the short is removed and power restored the circuit should resume operating.

I still think you could probably use half of the outputs of a phase-shifted full bridge controller IC to manage this topology (eg - UCC3895).

-Jeff

--
Message posted via ElectronicsKB.com
http://www.electronicskb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/design/200707/1