0
\$\begingroup\$

In a reference design form Texas instrument for a SEPIC architecture:

enter image description here

I noticed there is a specific consideration for connection between HVGND and PGND for LM3488 as follows:

enter image description here

At the same time that they have connected PGND and HVGND with a 0 Ω resistor, they also have used L29 and C161 and L44 and C244, so what would be the point of other components, once when have short the GNDs with a 0 Ω resistor?

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What is PGND? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 1 at 12:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Tim Williams Based in the datasheet it is Power ground pin. \$\endgroup\$
    – Andromeda
    Commented Jul 1 at 13:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ No, the IC PGND (pin) is wired to the net HVGND. What is the PGND net connected to? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 1 at 15:08

1 Answer 1

2
\$\begingroup\$

This only makes sense when looking at the copper pour, not at the schematic. The point of this is to keep the power ground isolated from the regular ground, so that the pour areas are only connected at a single point carefully chosen layout-wise, for EMC purposes. The point is to keep the high currents of the SEPIC hot loop away from your general ground.


Not directly related to your question, here's some notes from a "concerned citizen":

However, following TI guide lines only gets you so far. I had multiple competent power designers working with LM3478, many years back by now (disclaimer: I'm not a power electronics engineer myself but was the lead engineer/project manager). Everything worked fine in terms of efficiency & stability etc working in a wide range between 11-30V for a stable 24V out. The only problem was radiated emissions, which we never could manage to keep down no matter what we tried. On top of that, TI tech support was and remains non-existent - truly horrible.

As with many parts coming from the old "National" side of TI, the solution was to get rid of it and switch to another brand. We went with LT3759 instead, again following guide lines from the manufacturer, same EE designers did the new design. And then all EMC problems were instantly gone. At which point I'd quite confidently say that the problem was the IC and not the design. LT also had great support back then (nowadays AD).

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Vow thanks, super useful, it was very very very helpful, I appreciate it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Andromeda
    Commented Jul 1 at 13:17
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Andromeda You are welcome & hopefully I managed to steer you away from TI. Although in case you decide to remain there, this part has a newer generation in full production by now. Maybe they fixed it - I wouldn't know, I'm done with TI. \$\endgroup\$
    – Lundin
    Commented Jul 1 at 13:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks a lot gain, I will try to use LT3759, I want to get +/- 70 V form 4 V, so , I will look if I can find SEPIC simulation for LT3759, then after simulation I make the PCB. \$\endgroup\$
    – Andromeda
    Commented Jul 1 at 13:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Andromeda Ok this very part I used might not be ideal in your case then. You could give AD support a try though. Name input voltage, output voltage and current and see what they propose. There's a search feature somewhere on the AD site for that too. \$\endgroup\$
    – Lundin
    Commented Jul 1 at 13:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.