[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: Yair Darshan <YairD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:12:22 +0200
- Cc: "'stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx'" <stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Many thanks for your reply. See my comments below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Dwelley [SMTP:ddwelley@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: ε, ιεπι 15, 2001 6:23 PM
> To: Yair Darshan; 'Karl Nakamura'; 'Donald S. Stewart'; 'R karam'; 'Rick
> Brooks'; 'Lynch, Brian'; 'Peter Schwartz'; 'scott_burton@xxxxxxxxx';
> 'Steve Carlson'; 'rk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'mike_s_mccormack@xxxxxxxxxxx';
> 'bruce.inn@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'henryhinrichs@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Jetzt, John J'
> Cc: 'stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: Startup and PD input cap
> Yair -
> Your numbers look good. I've been off-line for awhile, but I'm back now,
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> of a typical 470u cap?
[Yair Darshan] Around 10-20% for low cost solutions.
> * 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.
> don't believe them.
> Now I'm going to take off my technical hat and put on my system design
> I still think it's a mistake to allow unlimited-inrush PDs!
[Yair Darshan] Dave: all PD's that I have checked that are using
other power source are not contain inrush current limiter since technically
it is not required since
the current which is equal to C*dV/dT is easily handled by the input
cap and the wiring connection. It is vanished within microseconds if the
source is a low impedance one and several tenth of ms if the source is
limited. (See as an example HDSL modules which are remote feeding units and
the remote unit (which is the PD in our case) works fine with out any
Usually inrush current limiters are used in devices that are usually
hot swapped or are connected to high input voltage such as mains (110V,
Our PD is not belong to any of these families of products.
> There are
> several complications that such devices bring up, like memory in the PD
[Yair Darshan] Memory problem can be in the PD if you have inrush
current limit in the PD (pending of how it is implemented) however if you
inrush current limit in the PD but only standard input circuit
(wire, diode, cap, UVLO , DC/DC converter etc. in this order) you should not
have problem it is pretty straight forward design. Can you show example of
such a problem?
> UVLO circuit
[Yair Darshan] You need UVLO in any case.
> , long short circuit timeouts in the PSE,
[Yair Darshan] Thermally it can handled as shown in the above
> possible large dv/dt
> on the wire when the PD UVLO comes on,
[Yair Darshan] How inrush current limit in the PD solve this.
Actually you have big caps in both sides and the impedance is low and the
dV/dT is very slow.
> and very large peak currents at the
> PD end of the wire (and the PD end RJ45 jack) when the PD UVLO comes on
[Yair Darshan] Dave: The normal operating current is 350mA average
max. The peak inrush current during startup is 0.4A, only 50mA difference.
In addition, in normal operating mode we allow repetitive current of
0.4Apeak for 50mSec. Here we are talking on non repetitive current. There
for I don't see where is
the problem. Please advise if I miss something.
> (before the PSE current limit circuit kicks in).
[Yair Darshan] Any current limit has limited time response whether
it is in the PSE or in the PD.
> I agree that the circuity
> in the phone is cheaper this way (slightly, and even less down the road),
[Yair Darshan] Accurate an real implementations have shown that up
to several hundreds uF in the PD, the system cost is the lowest if inrush
current limit is in the PSE. It is not estimations. It facts. It is based on
real implementations that are checked by chip vendors and by system
designers and most important by the customers. When it comes to putting a
tag price on each options we keep getting the same answers as I state above.
> 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
[Yair Darshan] The PD and the PSE will have test set up that will
ensure meeting the spec and prevent inter-operate problems.
(Like we do for any parameter and function.
However the system will be more robust if the inrush current limit
will be in the PSE since it is the closest definition to an unlimited source
compared to other alternatives. This is a major point and we must understand
I, as a system designer, seek for a power source that will supply
the power even if I have current transients through the Line and I don't
want the PSE to shut off under such events since these events are natural
phenomena (Due to PSE voltage changes, Induction, Load changes etc.)
As I have mentioned many times, PD users are looking for the same
quality and reliability from their power source as they where used to get
prior the Power Over MDI technology, and the technology that we are trying
to specify should not be inferior.
> If we mandate inrush control in the PD in all cases, nearly every one of
> the above problems goes away,
[Yair Darshan] If we will have inrush current limit in the PD and
we will have current transients due to PSE output changes (at normal
the PSE will shut off !! The only way to prevent it is to use
unlimited power source. since we cant use unlimited power source we need to
use limited power source which is time dependent. And the guy that can do
the job is a PSE output with inrush current limiter that allows transient
current above the normal operating current (0.4A-0.5A) for limited time
How inrush current limiter in the PD can solve this problem?
> 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.
[Yair Darshan] If you have numbers that are based on actual
implementations I would be happy to review them since this is an important
The numbers that I have are showing the opposite and they are based
on real implementations and a lot of data from the field.
> It's the right
> thing to do - even though it now has no impact on my ability to integrate
> PSE chip.
> 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
> on the bus.
[Yair Darshan] Please continue to plead for this if I haven't
succeed to convince you. I believe that it is a major issue and I can
support it with a lot of data
and actual and well working implementations
> 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
> >Target: To make it possible to define more than 50uF as
> >point in which the responsibility for inrush current limiting is moved
> >the PSE to the PD.
> >Incentive: 1. Low cost PD power supply implementations works
> >100KHZ. for 10-12W power supply, max. 470uF is needed. for 5W power
> > is needed.
> > Caps lower that 50uF requires high
> >switching power supply (around 500KHZ) which costs much more.
> > 1.1 50-60% of the applications are 5-8Watts.
> >are 10-12Watts. It means that around 95% of the applications will need
> >to 470uF.
> > (Data based on PD power requirement survey
> >during the last 6 month)
> > 2. In order to meets system stability criteria
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >for a
> > given inductor size. In order to implement
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >charging time.
> >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:
> >Vport=57V max.
> >Ip=0.5A max
> >Emax=1Joule (as per Dave data)
> >Assuming that in 8 port device only one port is performing the startup
> >(we can control the timing) and there is a cooling time until the 2nd
> >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
> >3. Ip*Tc=Cin*Vp
> >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
> >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
> >PD spec.
> >Under the above numbers the PD will be specified as follows.
> >1. Up to 350uF at PD input, PD designer have the following
> >2. Ip=0.4A min for 50mSec min.
> >For caps greater than 350uF, the PD designer will take care of limiting
> >inrush current to be 0.4A max (i.e. < 0.4A)
> >Darshan Yair
> >Chief Engineer
> > > 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
> >Fax: +972-9-775-5111
> > > E-mail: <mailto:yaird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
> > > http://www.powerdsine.com
> > >
> > >
> > >