[802.3af] Re: Startup and PD input cap
- To: Yair Darshan <YairD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Karl Nakamura'" <karln@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Donald S. Stewart'" <dsstewart@xxxxxxxxx>, "'R karam'" <rkaram@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Rick Brooks'" <ribrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Lynch, Brian'" <brian_lynch@xxxxxx>, "'Peter Schwartz'" <Peter.Schwartz@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'scott_burton@xxxxxxxxx'" <scott_burton@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Steve Carlson'" <scarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'rk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <rk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'mike_s_mccormack@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <mike_s_mccormack@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'bruce.inn@xxxxxxxxxx'" <bruce.inn@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'henryhinrichs@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <henryhinrichs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Jetzt, John J'" <jetzt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [802.3af] Re: Startup and PD input cap
- From: Dave Dwelley <ddwelley@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:23:15 -0700
- Cc: "'stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx'" <stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx>
- In-Reply-To: <E41E8344567CD411A71A00D0B723EDA594D71C@SUN>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your numbers look good. I've been off-line for awhile, but I'm back now, at
least briefly. Here's how I see it (technical first, political second):
The 1J number is pretty rough - it's taken off the SOA curves from a couple
of typical, SO8 package FETs.* It does seem to be about right (or even a
little conservative) for the type of packages that a PSE chip might be
packaged in. Since we removed the requirement that multiple ports power up
simultaneously at St. Louis, you're correct in saying that the "N" number
in your equation is 1, not 8. My old 50uF number (actually 77uF) was based
on N=8 - no longer necessary.
Energy in the cap = 0.5*C*V^2
Max cap for 1J = 2/V^2 = 2/57^2 = 615uF, same as Yair's number.
It's pretty clear that we can ramp this cap up in well under a second,
leaving lots of time for detection and classification. Note also that we're
not spec'ing ramp time to 57V (in the worst case) - only to 44V. If max I
is 400mA and C=470u+20%, then:
ramp up time = C*V/I = 564u*44/0.4 = 62ms
Total energy (this time to 57V, which is what the FET could see worst case:
energy = 0.5*564u*57^2 = 0.92J, under 1J (barely).
470u + 20% is OK from a thermal point of view if N=1. What is the tolerance
of a typical 470u cap?
* Note that I've seen several SOA curves which appear to be VERY
conservative, based on a single time constant model. They suggest that the
FET is a constant power device below 100ms, not a constant energy device. I
don't believe them.
Now I'm going to take off my technical hat and put on my system design hat...
I still think it's a mistake to allow unlimited-inrush PDs! There are
several complications that such devices bring up, like memory in the PD
UVLO circuit, long short circuit timeouts in the PSE, possible large dv/dt
on the wire when the PD UVLO comes on, and very large peak currents at the
PD end of the wire (and the PD end RJ45 jack) when the PD UVLO comes on
(before the PSE current limit circuit kicks in). I agree that the circuity
in the phone is cheaper this way (slightly, and even less down the road),
but I think the corresponding drawbacks make the spec weaker, and invite
creative interpretation by marginal PD vendors that will cause
interoperability problems and may hinder widespread acceptance of the spec.
If we mandate inrush control in the PD in all cases, nearly every one of
the above problems goes away, and interoperability is virtually assured (at
least with regards to power!). There is additional cost in the PD, but it
isn't much... and it the incremental cost will only drop. It's the right
thing to do - even though it now has no impact on my ability to integrate a
This is the last time I'm going to plead for this - if the consensus is
that the cost savings in the PD is worth the hassle of PSE inrush, I'll get
on the bus.
At 10:13 PM 6/14/2001 +0200, Yair Darshan wrote:
>I would like to have your comments for the following summary of the
>calculation procedure for setting the max. PD input cap to be handled by the
>Target: To make it possible to define more than 50uF as the
>point in which the responsibility for inrush current limiting is moved from
>the PSE to the PD.
>Incentive: 1. Low cost PD power supply implementations works at
>100KHZ. for 10-12W power supply, max. 470uF is needed. for 5W power supply
> is needed.
> Caps lower that 50uF requires high frequency
>switching power supply (around 500KHZ) which costs much more.
> 1.1 50-60% of the applications are 5-8Watts. 30-35%
>are 10-12Watts. It means that around 95% of the applications will need 220uF
> (Data based on PD power requirement survey done
>during the last 6 month)
> 2. In order to meets system stability criteria as
>discussed over the reflector during the last 3 weeks, we need to keep low
>L/C ratio at the PD power
> supply input. Stability criteria requires that
>L/(ESR*C)<< Zin, L inductance, C=Capacitance of the
> EMI filter, ESR is the equivalent series
>resistance of the Cap.(There are additional stability criteria, however this
>one concerns the EMI filter
> connected to negative resistance network) It
>means that we need to allow low inductance for a given Cap size or Large cap
> given inductor size. In order to implement the
>EMI filter we need the inductor to have 10-500uH (pending on topology,
>switching frequency and EMI
> requirements) therefor we need Larger Caps.
> Although (2) can be achieved when the inrush current
>limiting is in the PD, It will be cost effective to the system to allow
>larger cap in the PD allowing
> the PSE to be responsible to limit the inrush
>current pending that it will allow the integrated chip in the PSE.
>Vport= Port voltage
>Iport = Port current limit level
>N= Number of active ports per device(active port=at startup mode).
>Tc= The time that the port is in current limit situation = The PD capacitor
>Emax= Max energy aloud on the device.
>1. Assuming Emax=0.5*N*Vport*Iport*Tc, Energy dissipated on the device
>during startup mode
>For the following max. values:
>Emax=1Joule (as per Dave data)
>Assuming that in 8 port device only one port is performing the startup mode
>(we can control the timing) and there is a cooling time until the 2nd port
>will be in startup mode.
>N=1. (Remember that it is non repetitive operation.)
>2. Tc max = Emax/(0.5*N*Vport*Iport) = 1Joule/(0.5x1*57V*0.5A)=70.16mSec
>4. Cin max=Ip*Tc/Vp=0.5A*70.16mSec/57V = 615uF
> >From eq. 4 we can have 615uF instead of 50uF.
>Since the above numbers are worst case calculation, we have the following
>The PSE can be set to 0.4A min. (The calculation in eq-2 was for 0.5A)
>Tc max can be set to 50mSecmin (The result of eq-2 was 70.16mS)
>According to the above margin Cin max would be: Cin
>Therfore we have 615uF/350uF ==> 75% margin.
>In addition, the above calculations assumes repetitive operation which is
>not the case for startup, hence much larger margin, with no effect on power
>supply loss, cable loss etc.
>We can utilize the numbers that we have used for the normal powering mode
>and use them as a private case for the startup mode:
>During startup, the PSE will limit its output current to:
>1. Ip min=0.4 Ipmax=0.5
>2. Time duration: 50mSec min. 70mSec max.
>3. Period: 1 sec min. ( To allow low average power in order to have
>enough cooling time. It is similar to the timings of the normal operating
>Under the above numbers the PD will be specified as follows.
>1. Up to 350uF at PD input, PD designer have the following resources:
>2. Ip=0.4A min for 50mSec min.
>For caps greater than 350uF, the PD designer will take care of limiting the
>inrush current to be 0.4A max (i.e. < 0.4A)
> > PowerDsine Ltd. - Powering Converged Networks
> > 1 Hanagar St., P.O. Box 7220
> > Neve Ne'eman Industrial Zone
> > Hod Hasharon 45421, Israel
>Tel: +972-9-775-5100, Cell: +972-54-893019
> > E-mail: <mailto:yaird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
> > http://www.powerdsine.com