Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronic 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.

Register Log in

Flyback LED driver with unusual error amplifer connection is poor?

Status
Not open for further replies.

treez

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
7,602
Helped
561
Reputation
1,125
Reaction score
538
Trophy points
1,393
Location
cambridge
Activity points
76,160
Hello,
We have got a contractor to do a 100W flyback led driver for us, and we believe that he has not done a very good job. The circuit works but we believe that its performance is compromised in the way that he has done it.

The circuit schematic and LTspice simulation are attached.

He has used an external current sense error amplifier with a 0 to 5V supply, and strangly he has used ground as the reference voltage into this error amplifier.

His current sense signal is then going below ground as the current builds up, and he has biased this signal up so that the led driver is in regulation when the inverting and non-inverting inputs of the error amplifier are both at 0V.

The problem is, the opamp’s negative supply is the 0V rail, and when the input to the inverting input of the error amplifier goes below zero, then the opamp does not “know” what this voltage is, because it is supplied from a 0 to 5V supply.

So what I am saying is that the opamp will not respond as strongly as it might to the feedback signal going too high negatively. The feedback circuit in this setup means that the opamp will not be as able to develop sufficient over-drive in order to regulate against higher-than-wanted LED currents.

Do you agree?
 

Attachments


SunnySkyguy

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
6,743
Helped
1,675
Reputation
3,348
Reaction score
1,643
Trophy points
1,413
Location
Richmond Hill, ON, Canada
Activity points
50,727
There is nothing wrong with using Bottom rail for CM & DM reference; that is what it is designed to work with on this chip, but there may be CMRR penalties for noise below ground.

The use of ground on both sides of transformer and then use an optoisolator is wrong.

The bigger problem could be your lack of requirement specs for all PSU designs. Ingress, egress, safety leakage, hipot, environment, efficiency etc etc etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: treez

    treez

    points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating

treez

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
7,602
Helped
561
Reputation
1,125
Reaction score
538
Trophy points
1,393
Location
cambridge
Activity points
76,160
yes but when the input voltage on the inv pin goes below ground, the opamp is not biased to be able to deal properly with that...its dynamic performace will surely be affected?....(also the ground thing is just to get the simulation going)
 

FvM

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
47,489
Helped
14,048
Reputation
28,351
Reaction score
12,706
Trophy points
1,393
Location
Bochum, Germany
Activity points
276,162
As long as one of the OP inputs doesn't swing below the negative rail, the basic OP function will be maintained. In so far there's no problem with this circuit. By working of overall feedback, the OP input voltage stays at negative rail. Input bias current is increased at low common mode voltage, causing an additional offset. This may a be problem in precision amplifiers, but not for the present circuit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treez

    treez

    points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating

E-design

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
2,014
Helped
507
Reputation
1,016
Reaction score
407
Trophy points
1,363
Activity points
14,195
Feedback compensation values look good in my simulation results, but R9 seems a bit high in value for my liking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treez

    treez

    points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating

treez

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
7,602
Helped
561
Reputation
1,125
Reaction score
538
Trophy points
1,393
Location
cambridge
Activity points
76,160
As long as one of the OP inputs doesn't swing below the negative rail, the basic OP function will be maintained. In so far there's no problem with this circuit. By working of overall feedback, the OP input voltage stays at negative rail
The opamp inout on the inv pin can swing below the negative rail.

The point is, how does the opamp know that the inv input has gone below the non-inv input if the non-inv is clamped to the negative supply rail?..it cannot.....this is surely not a proper setup for a regulating circuit?

I know the circuit works....but the dynamics are surely affected to the point where the transfer function calculation for this opamp will not be true, and a proper gain phase margin in the overall smps feedback loop cannot accurately be worked out.?
 

FvM

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
47,489
Helped
14,048
Reputation
28,351
Reaction score
12,706
Trophy points
1,393
Location
Bochum, Germany
Activity points
276,162
You considerations about negative input swing are essentially wrong.

As long as the feedback loop is active, the OP has zero input differential voltage and the inverting input stays a negative rail. A negative input voltage can occur while the OP is in saturation. As in any other regular OP circuit, the OP will recover from saturation by working of the feedback loop, pulling the input differential voltage back to zero. It's however important that the OP doesn't show phase reversal while the common range is exceeded, which apparently doesn't happen with this OP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treez

    treez

    points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Status
Not open for further replies.
Toggle Sidebar

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top