[802.3af] RE: Startup and PD input cap
- To: "'Dave Dwelley'" <ddwelley@xxxxxxxxxx>, 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: "Lynch, Brian" <brian_lynch@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:43:22 -0400
- Cc: "'stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx'" <stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dave, Roger, and all,
Thanks for bringing up the PD vs. PSE inrush issue.
(At least it wasn't me this time!)
I agree that in the long term, the cost difference
between the two approaches will approach zero.
With that issue aside, putting inrush limiting in the PD gives
us a more robust specification, and far less chance for
interoperability issues in the future.
Either method will work. Yair has shown that. The question arises
whether 5 years from now, with all the "conditions" placed on
the designs, whether inrush limiting in the PSE will be robust.
With PD inrush limiting We know the answer will be yes.
Roger, since you are impartial, how about taking a poll as Don has done?
>From: Dave Dwelley [mailto:ddwelley@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:23 PM
>To: Yair Darshan; 'Karl Nakamura'; 'Donald S. Stewart'; 'R
>Brooks'; 'Lynch, Brian'; 'Peter Schwartz'; 'scott_burton@xxxxxxxxx';
>'Steve Carlson'; 'rk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'mike_s_mccormack@xxxxxxxxxxx';
>'bruce.inn@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'henryhinrichs@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Jetzt, John J'
>Subject: Re: Startup and PD input cap
>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
>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
>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
>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
>(before the PSE current limit circuit kicks in). I agree that
>in the phone is cheaper this way (slightly, and even less down
>but I think the corresponding drawbacks make the spec weaker,
>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
>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
>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
>> is needed.
>> Caps lower that 50uF requires
>>switching power supply (around 500KHZ) which costs much more.
>> 1.1 50-60% of the applications are
>>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
>>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
>>means that we need to allow low inductance for a given Cap
>size or Large cap
>> given inductor size. In order to
>>EMI filter we need the inductor to have 10-500uH (pending on topology,
>>switching frequency and EMI
>> requirements) therefor we need
>> 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
>>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) =
>>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 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
>>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
>>Under the above numbers the PD will be specified as follows.
>>1. Up to 350uF at PD input, PD designer have the
>>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