Post Go back to editing

ADuM6210 radiated emissions

I apologize in advance for the length of this post! I have a quite a few questions here, so feel free to respond to them individually.

We’re designing a product that will use the ADuM6210 with 5V input and 5V output to power another digital isolator (ADuM3482) and a few ADC chips. Our max output current will be 24mA. App note AN-0971 describes a number of concerns about high frequency emissions that would affect our certification and layout techniques to address them, but for practical reasons we won’t be able to follow those recommendations exactly, and I’m wondering what the consequences of that will be. We’ll also need to meet the tightest emissions requirements as we’ll be certifying this product internationally:

  1. AN-0971 is based on an ADuM540x series chip running at 100mA. The graphs show a linear relationship between mA output and emissions levels. We're using an ADuM621x chip that will run at a max current output of 24mA. Will the emissions of this chip be consistent with those shown in the app note for the ADuM540x running at 30mA output? Specifically I'm referring to Figures 22 and 23 in the app note.
    1. My guess is that this will be true for the 360MHz emissions (250MHz for the 621x which switches at 125MHz instead of 180MHz) because according to the app note, those are directly related to the output current and hopefully the relationship is the same for the 621x. But for the 180MHz emissions (125MHz for the 621x) I'm worried that they will be the same as they would be at 77mA for the 540x because these are based more on the duty cycle, which would be 77% in our case (the 621x’s max output current is 30mA). Of course, the input current should be lower on the 621x, but it isn’t exactly clear how much of a effect that would have on the emissions.
  2. Will the different switching frequency of the 621x (125 MHz instead of the 180MHz of the 540x) have any effect on the magnitude of the emissions?
  3. Does the edge guard need to cover the entire board to be effective, or can it be limited to the region immediately surrounding the isolators? We’re planning to put it on both the primary and secondary side to be conservative.
  4. Can the noise-cancelling effect of inter-plane capacitance be realized on a 4 layer board by placing layers 1 and 2 close to each other and layers 3 and 4 close to each other (ie. thin pre-preg and thick core) and making layer 1 Signal/GND FIll, Layer2 PWR Fill, Layer3 GND Fill, Layer 4 Signal/PWR Fill? We want to do this to minimize the emissions from other higher frequency traces in different regions on our product, but the recommendation in AN-0971 is to place layers 2 and 3 close together.
  5. I understand that stitching capacitance is the most effective way to reduce the emissions, but given our board geometry and safety requirements, our max dimensions for the overlap area are: L=60mm, w=20mm, d=0.5-1.0mm, which gives us a best case capacitance of only 45pF to 90pF, using FR4 as our core material. Looking at Figure 20 of AN-0971, this small of a capacitance offers almost no improvement for the 180MHz emissions (which would be 125MHz in our case) and only about 10 dBuV/m of attenuation for the 360MHz emissions (which would be 250MHz in our case and hence would probably see even less attenuation). Would a width of 20mm still be beneficial, or does the benefit of extra width decrease once the width is beyond that of the chip (about 6mm)?
  6. We could also add a discrete safety capacitor, but according to the app note, they have limited effectiveness over 200MHz, so we'd only be able to rely on that for attenuating the 125MHz emissions on our board. Does the effect of these capacitors tend to stack as more capacitors are added? Or does the inherent inductance in the pads, vias, etc. limit their effectiveness such that there's no point in adding more than one?
  • Chennig:  I will investigate your questions and respond shortly.

    Regards, Brian

  • Chennig: Answers below:

    1. There are some diferences between the two isoPower products but the emissions of the ADuM6210 should be similar to the emissions of the ADuM540x for same output current and voltage.

    2. The lower switching frequency of the ADuM621x which has a 250MHz rectifying frequency Vs the 360MHz of the ADuM540x, means there may be less of a noise cancelling effect in the use of stitching capacitance at 250MHz since stitching capacitance is more effective above 200MHz. Stitching capacitance should be used as it will still reduce emissions, just not quite as much.

    3. The edge guarding should cover the board edge, and is more effective on the primary side where there are higher currents driving the primary side coils.

    4. Stitching capacitance is used on the inner layers, not the top or bottom layers, since the stitching capacitance is located in the isolated keep out area. 

    5. Stitching capacitance is most effective above 200MHz and even 90pF will reduce high frequency emissions by about 14dBuV per figure 20.

    6. Also adding a safety capacitor is a good idea, and are best located next to the isolator, and you could add one or more to span each side of the isolator. Stacking more capacitors will reduce the effective inductance.

  • Thanks Brian, that clears things up for us and gives us more confidence that we should be able to pass certification with our design. Just two more questions for you:

    1. I understand edge guarding should cover the board edge, but can it also be effective if it only covers a square region around the isolator (on the primary side)? On the primary side, we'll also have an RF section and antenna, and I'd like to prevent these emissions from reaching that part of the board. I guess another option would be to put one edge guard around the board edge and another around the RF portion of the board.
    2. Is there any limit to how wide the stitching capacitor should be (ie. how far the primary reference plane should extend onto the secondary side), or does more width always equal more capacitance? We're thinking of 20-30mm of overlap, but I think the app note only ever mentions about 4-8mm, and the chip itself has a width of about 8mm. I'm wondering if extra overlap beyond the width of the chip is still effective.

    Thanks,
    Chris

  • Chris:These are good questions.

    1. We discussed this here, and it may be best to keep it simple.  If you can put an edge guard that cuts off the primary side of the ADuM6210 from the RF section, this would be best.If not, an edge guard around the RF section may help shield it from the ADuM6210 edge emissions.  It is also important for the board power connections to the ADuM6210 primary side to be away from the RF section.

    2. There is not a real limit to how wide the stitching capacitance can be, but it needs to at least have some area underneath the ADuM6210, and for the width to spread out from under the ADuM6210.

    Regards, Brian

  • Thanks for looking into these questions Brian.

    1. On our board, the RF section is away from the ADuM6210 primary side, so placing an edge guard that separates the two shouldn't be a problem. We'll give this a try, and if we run into emissions issues, we might try adding another edge guard around the RF portion of the board.
    2. Good to hear that we can make the capacitor as wide as we can, because we don't have much length to use on the board. We'll make sure there's overlap under the ADuM6210.

    Thanks again for your help with this.  It sounds like we should be able to make this work for our product.