2024-02-01 14:39:34 +01:00
|
|
|
\documentclass[10pt]{article}
|
2024-01-31 20:07:33 +01:00
|
|
|
\usepackage[english]{babel}
|
2024-02-03 11:37:17 +01:00
|
|
|
% \usepackage[a4paper,top=2cm,bottom=2cm,left=2cm,right=2cm,marginparwidth=1.75cm]{geometry}
|
|
|
|
\usepackage[a4paper, total={7in, 10in}]{geometry}
|
2024-01-31 20:07:33 +01:00
|
|
|
\usepackage{multicol}
|
|
|
|
\usepackage{lipsum}
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
\usepackage{caption}
|
2024-02-01 14:39:34 +01:00
|
|
|
\usepackage{graphicx}
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
\usepackage{enumitem}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\newenvironment{Figure}
|
|
|
|
{\par\medskip\noindent\minipage{\linewidth}}
|
|
|
|
{\endminipage\par\medskip}
|
2024-02-01 14:39:34 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\graphicspath{{images/}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\title{B00st converter}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\author{
|
|
|
|
van Iterson, Arne\\
|
|
|
|
Student Number: 1800000
|
|
|
|
\and
|
|
|
|
Selier, Tom\\
|
|
|
|
Student Number: 1808444
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2024-01-23 14:48:33 +01:00
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
2024-02-01 14:39:34 +01:00
|
|
|
\maketitle
|
|
|
|
\begin{multicols}{2}
|
2024-02-03 11:37:17 +01:00
|
|
|
\section{Introduction}
|
|
|
|
\lipsum[1-2]
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 11:37:17 +01:00
|
|
|
\section{Circuit Description}
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
% Filler image, don't get attached
|
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{SCHEMATIC_FULL.png}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:schematic_full}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
2024-02-03 11:37:17 +01:00
|
|
|
\lipsum[3-4]
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
\section{Methodology} \label{section:methodology}
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
To characterize the system, several tests have been performed. The
|
|
|
|
characteristics of interest are the following:
|
|
|
|
\begin{enumerate}[nosep]
|
2024-02-03 11:37:17 +01:00
|
|
|
\item Efficiency
|
|
|
|
\item Noise
|
|
|
|
\item Ripple characteristics
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
\item Start up
|
2024-02-03 11:37:17 +01:00
|
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
In this section a test or measurement will be described for each of the above
|
|
|
|
characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each of the characteristics have been tested at two different output voltages
|
|
|
|
and various load currents. The different voltages are $7V$ and $3.3V$. The
|
|
|
|
chosen load currents are $10$, $20$, $30$, $40$ and $50 mA$. These values
|
|
|
|
were chosen to give characterize the circuit over a broad range of conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
\subsection{Efficiency} \label{section:efficiency}
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{SCHEMATIC_EFFICIENCY.png}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:schematic_efficiency}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
|
|
|
To measure the efficiency of the circuit, four measurements were taken.
|
|
|
|
A current and a voltage measurement were taken at the supply and load
|
|
|
|
respectively. The measurements were taken as shown in figure
|
|
|
|
\ref{fig:schematic_efficiency}. The energy used by the supply and the load
|
|
|
|
can be calculated using the equation \ref{eq:power}. Then, using equation
|
|
|
|
\ref{eq:efficiency}, efficiency can be calculated.
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
|
|
\label{eq:power}
|
|
|
|
P [W] = U[V] \cdot I[A]
|
|
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
|
|
\label{eq:efficiency}
|
|
|
|
\eta[\%] = \frac{P_{load}[W]}{P_{supply}[W]} \cdot 100\%
|
|
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Noise}
|
|
|
|
To measure the noice of the circuit an oscilloscope probe was placed on the
|
|
|
|
variable resistor in figure \ref{fig:schematic_full}. Over the period of 1
|
|
|
|
millisecond, 20,000 points were measured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noise has several metrics in which it can be quantized. Two metrics were
|
|
|
|
calculated, the standard devation (SD) and the peak to peak noise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Peak to peak}\label{section:peak_to_peak}
|
|
|
|
Peak to peak is the simplest way to look at noise. The signal has a stationary
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
mean over the period of 1 millisecond. Thus, the highest measured value can be
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
subtracted from the lowest measured value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Standard Deviation}\label{section:standard_devation}
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
The second metric used to measure noise was the standard deviation.
|
|
|
|
Unlike, peak to peak it givesa better impression of the noise over a longer
|
|
|
|
signal. SD can be calculated using equation \ref{eq:sd}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
|
|
\label{eq:sd}
|
|
|
|
\sigma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N}\sum^{N-1}_{i=0}(x[i] - \mu)^2}
|
|
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where $x[i]$ is each voltage measurement, $\mu$ is the mean of the signal and
|
|
|
|
$N$ is the total amount of samples.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 16:08:35 +01:00
|
|
|
\subsection{Ripple characteristics} \label{section:ripple}
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{RIPPLE.png}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:ripple}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
|
|
|
A significant source of the noise was caused by a specific ripple, shown in
|
|
|
|
figure \ref{fig:ripple}.
|
|
|
|
This ripple coincided with the MOSFETs opening or closing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To further characterize this behaviour a close up measurement was taken.
|
|
|
|
The oscilloscope was set to AC-coupling and the settigns were adjusted
|
|
|
|
for the ripple to be full screen. Then, two additional characteristics can
|
|
|
|
be calculated. The ripple's peak to peak voltage and the ripple's (most prevalent)
|
|
|
|
frequency. The peak to peak value can be calculated using the method described in
|
|
|
|
section \ref{section:peak_to_peak}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To measure the frequency of the signal using an FFT, it had to be pre-processed
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
first using a Hamming window, this eliminates sharp edges at the edge of the
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
measurement, causing unwanted frequencies to appear in the frequency domain.
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
|
|
\label{eq:hamming}
|
|
|
|
% 0.54 - 0.46 * cos(2*np.pi*(n/N))
|
|
|
|
w(i) = 0.54 - 0.46 \cdot cos \left(2 \pi \frac{i}{N} \right)
|
|
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
Where $i$ is the current sample and $N$ is the total amount of samples. Each
|
|
|
|
sample in the signal can be multiplied by the corresponding value in the window,
|
|
|
|
preparing the signal for the FFT.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 16:08:35 +01:00
|
|
|
\subsection{Start up} \label{section:start_up}
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
The last characteristics is the start up, specifically the different rise times
|
|
|
|
under load. The voltage was measured at the output as the supply was turned on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Different rise times can be defined. First off, $\tau$ and $2 \tau$ were
|
|
|
|
defined as $63\%$ and $95\%$ respectively. Further more, 'rise time' was defined
|
|
|
|
as $90\%$, a metric used often in control theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One problem that occured during the measurements, is that the aforementioned
|
|
|
|
ripples and noise would cause erroneous readings. As such, the signal was
|
|
|
|
filtered using a low pass filter, reducing the high frequencies from the
|
|
|
|
measurement.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 11:37:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
\section{Results}
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
In this section the results from section \ref{section:methodology} will be
|
|
|
|
discussed, as well as discuss some probable causes for unknown or unintended
|
|
|
|
results.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 16:08:35 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
\subsection{Efficiency}
|
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{EFFICIENCY_PERCENTAGE.jpg}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:efficiency}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\noindent The results for the efficiency measurements, as described in section
|
|
|
|
\ref{section:efficiency} are displayed in figure \ref{fig:efficiency}.
|
|
|
|
The $7V$ measurements follow a predictable curve, however, the $3.3V$ makes
|
|
|
|
an unexplained jump back to a higher percentage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 16:08:35 +01:00
|
|
|
\subsection{Noise} \label{section:result_noise}
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{SNR_LOADVSPKPK.jpg}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:noise_pkpk}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
2024-02-03 16:08:35 +01:00
|
|
|
\noindent The results for the noise measurements, as described in section
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
\ref{section:peak_to_peak} are displayed in figure \ref{fig:noise_pkpk}.
|
|
|
|
The peak to peak voltage is a significant fraction of the output voltage,
|
|
|
|
with $3V$ peaking at $33\%$. It seems there is a relation between peak to
|
|
|
|
peak voltage and the output voltage as well, as $7V$ has more noise than
|
|
|
|
$3.3V$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{SNR_LOADVSSD.jpg}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:noise_sd}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
2024-02-03 16:08:35 +01:00
|
|
|
\noindent The results for the noise measurements, as described in section
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
\ref{section:standard_devation} are displayed in figure \ref{fig:noise_sd}.
|
2024-02-03 16:08:35 +01:00
|
|
|
Although the voltage peaks are high, the standard deviation of the noise is
|
|
|
|
in the range of millivolts. The trend that a higher output voltage has more
|
|
|
|
noise is continued in this graph.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 11:37:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 15:27:40 +01:00
|
|
|
\subsection{Ripple}
|
2024-02-03 16:08:35 +01:00
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{RIPPLE_LOADVSPKPK.jpg}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:ripple_pkpk}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\noindent The results for the ripple measurements, as described in section
|
|
|
|
\ref{section:ripple} are displayed in figure \ref{fig:ripple_pkpk}. The
|
|
|
|
voltage level in the graph seems to confirm that the peak to peak noise,
|
|
|
|
seen in section \ref{section:result_noise} is caused by the ripple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{RIPPLE_LOADVSFREQ.jpg}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:ripple_freq}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\noindent The frequency of the ripple is roughly $38 MHz$ and independant of
|
|
|
|
the load. To figure out if this ripple is caused by the combination of the
|
|
|
|
inductor and the capactitor the following equation can be used.
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
|
|
f = \frac{1}{2 \pi \sqrt{LC}}
|
|
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
Using the values from figure \ref{fig:schematic_full}, the resonating frequency
|
|
|
|
of the circuit should be around $27KHz$. Thus, this cannot be the cause of
|
|
|
|
the high frequency. As the frequency of the ripple is magnitudes higher
|
|
|
|
than the LC-circuit's resosonant frequency, what is seen is most likely the
|
|
|
|
Self Resonating Frequency (SRF) of the inductor. Typically the SRF is
|
|
|
|
$>10 MHz$, so that could be a probable source of the high frequencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Start Up}
|
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{TRANSIENT_RISE_10_MA.jpg}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:start_10}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{Figure}
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{TRANSIENT_RISE_50_MA.jpg}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{figure}{WIP}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:start_50}
|
|
|
|
\end{Figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{table}{$10 mA$}
|
|
|
|
\label{table:start_10}
|
|
|
|
\begin{tabular}{llll}
|
|
|
|
Metric & $\tau$ & $2\tau$ & Rise time \\
|
|
|
|
Percentage [$\%$] & 63 & 95 & 90 \\
|
|
|
|
Time [$s$] & 0.031 & 0.075 & 0.053 \\
|
|
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
|
|
\captionof{table}{$50 mA$}
|
|
|
|
\label{table:start_50}
|
|
|
|
\begin{tabular}{llll}
|
|
|
|
Metric & $\tau$ & $2\tau$ & Rise time \\
|
|
|
|
Percentage [$\%$] & 63 & 95 & 90 \\
|
|
|
|
Time [$s$] & 0.033 & 0.048 & 0.043 \\
|
|
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\noindent The results for the start up measurements, as described in section
|
|
|
|
\ref{section:start_up} are displayed in figure \ref{fig:start_10} and
|
|
|
|
\ref{fig:start_50}, and table \ref{table:start_10} and \ref{table:start_50}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counterintuitively, the rise time is shorter with a higher load.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 11:37:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-03 13:12:57 +01:00
|
|
|
\section{Conclusion}
|
|
|
|
\lipsum[3-4]
|
2024-02-01 14:39:34 +01:00
|
|
|
\end{multicols}
|
|
|
|
\end{document}
|