Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

From DIY contraptions to sophisticated FreeEMS-specific designs! Plus general hardware development!
DaWaN
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:35 am
Location: Benschop, Netherlands

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by DaWaN »

TheRevva wrote: The way I 'read' the schematic, it will protect the +5vSwitched from over voltage (and, as has been mentioned, the 5v6 Zener looks somewhat superfluous now).
However, it will NOT protect the +5vTPS and +5vAux lines at all.
Correct, as the +5V TPS and +5V AUX lines go directly to the connector to the EMS. From the connector these two lines directly power sensors on the engine.
You do not want any kind of crowbar in this situation as current would only be limited by external fuses.
The internal 5V is protected by this circuit and if someone connects 12V to those external lines the polyfuses protect the EMS from damage.
If external sensors break from 12V...that is out of the scope of the EMS.
TheRevva wrote: Thus, if some IDIOT (like me) somehow connected +battery to the +5vTPS line, this line WOULD shoot up to battery (and therefore the actual TPS wiper input would jump up accordingly possibly causing the TPS analog input protection to activate.
(The TPS would still function, but it would be 'read' as full scale from about 5/12 of its wiper travel through to WOT)

I'm not 100% certain what is connected on the +5vAux line. My 'assumption' is that it's for external Hall Effect / Opto sensors.
As far as I'm aware, the majority of such sensors will quite happily survive on full battery voltage and for those that cannot, it's NOT the fault of the EMS!!!
Furthermore, I understand that most such sensors use an open collector type output and as such they would not affect the corresponding EMS input.
However, there _are_ some sensors with internal pull ups that might feed +battery back into the unit (thereby activating the OVP on the associated input)
Both digital and analog inputs have their own OVP :)
User avatar
Dan
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by Dan »

Yep DaWan is correct. I should be testing in the next 24hours or so :-)
User avatar
Dan
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by Dan »

Testing is still to be done, i have been busy with other matters. I hope to have it done soon though as i have all the required components now.
User avatar
Dan
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by Dan »

Testing has commenced! :-)
User avatar
Dan
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by Dan »

Testing completed.

It has been concluded that the proposed 431 + PNP clamp be set to 5.1V and the linear reg configuration stays as it currently is via the schematics.
User avatar
DeuceEFI
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:57 am
Location: Gosport, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by DeuceEFI »

I can confirm that the circuit as designed in Dan's last post with the picture of the TL431 and the PNP transistor (minus the 5.6v zener) does indeed keep the 5v supply at a safe level (I measured 5.4vdc on the rail) when I applied 12vdc to the 5vdc rail.
User avatar
Dan
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by Dan »

Did you use it with the pnp clamp? What voltage did you tie the ref pin of the 431 to? As I drew it in my last schematic post in this thread is incorrect as that was with 2.5v at the ref pin. The solution is to set the ref pin to 2.6v so that the clamp triggers at 5.1v. I am keen to Skype with you Andy if you need further clarification? Either that or wait for the next push of RavAGE schematics which should be in the next 24hours.
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by Fred »

Andy, how did you apply 12V to the rail? Directly? Or through a resistor? If directly, it's amazing that it didn't let smoke out. If through a resistor 5.4 is pretty high, though it depends how low of a value you used. If through standard 470ohm input current limit on an ADC then that's not really acceptable as it would mean 5.7 on the pin. Or did you mean on the pin, in which case you got 5.1 on the rail. Help, I'm lost! :-)

+1 re 5.1 vs 5.0 setting, too.

Dan, I dunno about 24hours, I only got to bed at nearly 5am, so I'm running low on time today too. But before the end of the week for sure, and the sooner the better. Will advise.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
TonyS
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:18 pm

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by TonyS »

5.4V is about as low as you can go. Any lower and you run the risk of trying to regulate the regulator (the regulator output voltage may be as high as ~ 5.30V).
Thanks,
Huff
User avatar
Dan
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Power Supply Design - Input Protection Scheme

Post by Dan »

regulator output voltage is approx 5.02V when using correctly spec'd resistors (attention paid to tolerance)

should never ever get to 5.30V.
Post Reply