Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Push-pull Transformer Design

Status
Not open for further replies.

Easy peasy

Advanced Member level 6
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
4,690
Helped
1,399
Reputation
2,798
Reaction score
1,910
Trophy points
1,393
Location
Melbourne
Activity points
25,938
A short article on the design of the push-pull transformer:

These are very problematic for newbies in power electronics,

principally because in a classic topology there are 2 issues that dominate, namely;

1) leakage inductance &,

2) flux balance in the core - i.e. stair-casing of flux / Imag to failure.

Many newbies simply can't appreciate the effect of leakage, or coupling, from the two pri windings to each other - and/or to the output winding ( if there is one ).

Addressing 1): Reducing leakage requires a fundamental understanding of transformer design & construction - multi layering (interleaving - with careful choice of wire sizing) to reduce proximity effect and to lower Llk - and how this - when done well on the primaries - leads to vastly reduced turn off stress (on the mosfets) as the current at turn off can now commute easily & quickly to the other fet (backwards) leading to improved behaviour (see more below**).

Reducing leakage to the output winding(s) has a marked effect on power transfer and wire losses in the Tx, lower leakage = higher coupling = lower proximity effect in the wires = cooler wire temps = maximal power flow for given Cu area.

Too high a leakage L prolongs the time the current takes to (reverse &) ramp up in the secondaries - and so effectively reduces the actual power pulse width seen at the secondary - reducing maximum power transfer for that design.

High Llk also increases stress on the output rectifiers - requiring larger heat dissipating RC snubbers to keep Vrev-pk under control.


Addressing 2): Flux balance in a push-pull requires that the peak flux B, is about the same for each excursion - and does not run way ....

This is pretty easy to do (approximately) in a peak current mode design as the [load-I + Imag] is measured in a CT or common source resistor and the fets are turned off when a pre-determined current level is hit.

In reality, because Imag is not directly controlled, the locus of the magnetising flux excursion ( the B-H loop in the core ) can bounce around a fair bit from near saturation one way to ditto the other way - when it does get near sat one way it tends to help trip the peak current circuit a bit earlier, shortening the "volt.seconds" applied to the core in that direction thus a negative feedback occurs (self correcting - which is why pk I mode works).

This B-H loop meandering is sometimes why you can hear random noise in a push-pull Tx. Slope compensation of the peak current mode signal assists in keeping the B-H locus more bounded - and gives less of the pseudo-random bouncing around ...

But - what do you do for a non peak I mode design? Well you are kinda in trouble, what you can do is:


* make everything as symmetric as possible - on both sides of the Tx...!

* make the Tx symmetric too - in every detail...! ( and the fets ... )

* try to keep noise out of your controller - esp the ramp - or do a discrete design where all the signals are larger and thus much more immune.

* keep the magnetics as far away from the control as possible...!

* Use a fair amount of dead-time in the control** this with low pri leakage allows the Tx windings to fly-back quickly & self-reset, applying opposite volt.seconds to the core in the dead time which works to restore the centrality of the B-H loop.

* Have a decent output choke that does not saturate even under start-up and/or transient overload conditions.

* Don't skimp on Tx design - keep the Bpk well away from the B saturation point at 100 deg C...!

* Use input voltage feed-forward on the ramp - due to the reflective action of the power stage - if the Vin goes up - so does the current (including Imag) - so modulating the ramp with Vin helps (just use Vin on a resistor string to provide the current for the ramp cap). Also gives way better 100/120Hz line rejection.

* OK - you can gap the core too - but the Imag goes up - heating the copper a little - and this approach is just a wee bit agricultural - in the view of some. It really relies on the increased Imag causing I^2R losses, IR drop, in the pcb wiring, fet R etc ... to work.

* Another agricultural approach is source resistors - they reduce gate drive as the Tx tends towards saturation - a somewhat inelegant feedback effect - but it does work.

Lastly - if you have access to pri current information - use it..! add it to the ramp to help keep Bmax bounded - of course if you have this current information you might as well run a peak I - mode - but there it is
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top