Short circuit output protection scheme

tool49 · 12th November 2005, 08:04 PM

Hi there!

I've been playing around with a new amp design and while researching I noticed that most emitter follower amplifier with output short circuit monitor the voltage drop in the emitter resistor of the output stage.

While this might be alright for an amp with very little limitation required, when more effect is needed, the value of those resistors need to be increased. Now this seems somewhat not very desirable. It means more wasted power in the emitter resistors and an increase in Zout of the amp.

I was wondering if anyone had tried to instead monitor the drivers. In the emitter follower output stage, the drivers are usually also linked to out with resistors. These resistors are usually of higher value thus giving more swing for the protection to kick in faster.

Now, I might just be looking at the problem with my nose sticked to it and not be seing the big picture. Do you guys see any disadvantage at using the driver's emitter resistors? What am I missing?

Thanks,
Sébastien

Nigel Goodwin · 12th November 2005, 08:48 PM

The important thing you need to measure is the current through the output transistors, it's those that provide all the high current. Monitoring the drivers is only protecting the drivers, and not the output transistors - the current relationship between the drivers and output devices isn't going to be constant.

I don't quite understand your concern though?

Quote:

While this might be alright for an amp with very little limitation required, when more effect is needed, the value of those resistors need to be increased.

The value of the resistors is dependent on the output current you wish to monitor, a smaller amp requires larger resistors, in order to drop the same voltage.

The output impedance of the amplifier shouldn't be affected very much, as the resistors are inside the negative fedback loop.

tool49 · 12th November 2005, 08:57 PM

Hi Nigel,

Quote:

the current relationship between the drivers and output devices isn't going to be constant.

I tought it would be since the ratio of the emitter resistors is constant. I shall have to think about this one some more.

Quote:

The value of the resistors is dependent on the output current you wish to monitor, a smaller amp requires larger resistors, in order to drop the same voltage.

I'm trying to build something around 500Wrms@4ohm. With 0.1ohm I can't get the protection to kick in early enough. I need at least 0.33ohm which dissipate quite a lot of power and also diminish the amp's ability to swing within a volt or so of the supply.

I'm going back to my simulation!

Thanks,
Sébastien

johnnyx · 12th November 2005, 09:11 PM

Use a potential divider across the output transistor to raise the voltage a bit. ie sense the v drop across the 0.1 ohm resistor + a bit of the voltage across the transistor. In this way, when the output voltage is low (eg. with a short circuit load) the current limit is at one level to prevent overheating, and when the output voltage is high (peak output level) the current limit level is increased because less is dropped across the output transistor, and allows higher peak currents.
Hope this makes sense, hard to do without a picture. You will see this scheme in other designs though, eg Doug Self.

AndrewT · 13th November 2005, 08:44 PM

Hi Tool,
send me an Email address if you can use excel.

tool49 · 14th November 2005, 01:57 AM

Hey guys!

I hope I got what you meant right johnnyx. Anyway this is what I came up with from what you had written as a protection scheme. (R28-R36 + D1-D4 + C8-C9 + Q8-Q9)

I works quite good at limiting the current output.

The amp simulates quite good at low freq but at high frequency, it is horrible!

Look:
100Hz

10KHz

How would I go around to improving the high frequency response? (I suspect insufficient slew rate in the input stage but I might be wrong!)

Thanks,
Sébastien

AndrewT · 14th November 2005, 07:57 AM

Hi,
email sent.
Try reducing or eliminating the Miller compensation cap. I am not a fan of this stability sorter.
Have you got balance in the LTP pairs.
33k gives about 2.5mA tail current but 1.25mA through the 1k5 LTP load gives 1.93V. This seems very high and would require a VAS Iq =8.5mA to achieve LTP balance.
Add a capacitor to q8 base to output and q9 base to output. Just in case the sim is protecting the outputs on fast slopes.
r6 & r7 are injecting PSU ripple into the non inverting input. Have a look at KSA50 to see how Krell did it.

12th November 2005, 08:04 PM	#1
tool49 diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Montreal	Short circuit output protection scheme Hi there! I've been playing around with a new amp design and while researching I noticed that most emitter follower amplifier with output short circuit monitor the voltage drop in the emitter resistor of the output stage. While this might be alright for an amp with very little limitation required, when more effect is needed, the value of those resistors need to be increased. Now this seems somewhat not very desirable. It means more wasted power in the emitter resistors and an increase in Zout of the amp. I was wondering if anyone had tried to instead monitor the drivers. In the emitter follower output stage, the drivers are usually also linked to out with resistors. These resistors are usually of higher value thus giving more swing for the protection to kick in faster. Now, I might just be looking at the problem with my nose sticked to it and not be seing the big picture. Do you guys see any disadvantage at using the driver's emitter resistors? What am I missing? Thanks, Sébastien

14th November 2005, 01:57 AM	#6
tool49 diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Montreal	Amplifier knowledge required! Hey guys! I hope I got what you meant right johnnyx. Anyway this is what I came up with from what you had written as a protection scheme. (R28-R36 + D1-D4 + C8-C9 + Q8-Q9) I works quite good at limiting the current output. The amp simulates quite good at low freq but at high frequency, it is horrible! Look: 100Hz 10KHz How would I go around to improving the high frequency response? (I suspect insufficient slew rate in the input stage but I might be wrong!) Thanks, Sébastien

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
short circuit protection	roofingboom	Solid State	109	1st May 2012 02:28 PM
Overload and Short Circuit Protection	space2000	Solid State	17	5th March 2009 10:26 PM
Short circuit protection	MiiB	Solid State	0	16th May 2006 06:48 AM
short-circuit protection in mosfet's amp...??	csl113	Solid State	8	31st January 2005 06:10 PM
Short circuit protection	JBL	Solid State	20	5th August 2002 07:27 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

12th November 2005, 09:11 PM	#4
johnnyx diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: manchester	Use a potential divider across the output transistor to raise the voltage a bit. ie sense the v drop across the 0.1 ohm resistor + a bit of the voltage across the transistor. In this way, when the output voltage is low (eg. with a short circuit load) the current limit is at one level to prevent overheating, and when the output voltage is high (peak output level) the current limit level is increased because less is dropped across the output transistor, and allows higher peak currents. Hope this makes sense, hard to do without a picture. You will see this scheme in other designs though, eg Doug Self.

13th November 2005, 08:44 PM	#5
AndrewT diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Scottish Borders	Hi Tool, send me an Email address if you can use excel.

14th November 2005, 07:57 AM	#7
AndrewT diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Scottish Borders	Hi, email sent. Try reducing or eliminating the Miller compensation cap. I am not a fan of this stability sorter. Have you got balance in the LTP pairs. 33k gives about 2.5mA tail current but 1.25mA through the 1k5 LTP load gives 1.93V. This seems very high and would require a VAS Iq =8.5mA to achieve LTP balance. Add a capacitor to q8 base to output and q9 base to output. Just in case the sim is protecting the outputs on fast slopes. r6 & r7 are injecting PSU ripple into the non inverting input. Have a look at KSA50 to see how Krell did it.