Post Go back to editing

Charging Problem(Charging Time)

Thread Summary

The user designed a board similar to the DC2464A-B evaluation board but experiences a significantly longer charging time (24 seconds vs 2.4 seconds). The final answer suggests checking the charge current, which can be affected by the total resistance between ISNS_CHG and ISNSM, the load, and the inductor ripple current. The layout should closely match the demo board, and the current sense resistors should be Kelvin connected to avoid incorrect readings. Noise in the current sense resistor and the shunt regulator turning on due to cell voltage approaching the shunt regulation voltage (2.7V default) can also reduce the charge current.
AI Generated Content
Category: Hardware
Product Number: LTC3351

Hello,

I designed a board that is almost identical to the DC2464A-B evaluation board.

The components are the same as well.

During testing,it takes about 24 seconds to fully charge,whereas the DC2464A-B completes charging in about 2.4 seconds.

I’m investigating the cause but haven’t found it yet.

If anyone knows, please tell me:the LTC3351 has registers.I’m configuring them with the QuikEval software.Is that sufficient by itself? Or is QuikEval alone not enough?

Also, please let me know other areas I should check.

Best Regards,

HiroSchna

Parents
  • Hello,

    Thank you for your response.
    I didn’t expect to hear back so quickly. I appreciate it.
    Also, thank you for the advice.

    Regarding the PCB layout, I intended to design it almost the same as the evaluation board, but when I double-checked, I noticed that the Kelvin connection at the sensing resistor (RSNSC1), which controls the charging current to the capacitors, is shared. I’ve attached an excerpt of the layout drawing. I believe this section should be corrected—what do you think?

    I also measured the actual current through the sensing resistors with a multimeter and, at the same time, monitored the charging voltage and current with the QuikEval software. I’ve attached the data. The input voltage is 20 V.

    • RSNSI1–RSNSH1: about 5.9 mV, so 0.37 A.
    • RSNSC1: about 3.9 mV, so 0.78 A.

    Comparing this with the information from QuikEval, the input current is almost consistent, but the capacitor charging current is quite different. Is this likely due to the Kelvin connection issue you pointed out?

    Today, I plan to cut the traces and rewire to implement a proper Kelvin connection to RSNSC1, then perform an operational check. I will report back with the results.

    Best Regards,

    HiroSchna

Reply
  • Hello,

    Thank you for your response.
    I didn’t expect to hear back so quickly. I appreciate it.
    Also, thank you for the advice.

    Regarding the PCB layout, I intended to design it almost the same as the evaluation board, but when I double-checked, I noticed that the Kelvin connection at the sensing resistor (RSNSC1), which controls the charging current to the capacitors, is shared. I’ve attached an excerpt of the layout drawing. I believe this section should be corrected—what do you think?

    I also measured the actual current through the sensing resistors with a multimeter and, at the same time, monitored the charging voltage and current with the QuikEval software. I’ve attached the data. The input voltage is 20 V.

    • RSNSI1–RSNSH1: about 5.9 mV, so 0.37 A.
    • RSNSC1: about 3.9 mV, so 0.78 A.

    Comparing this with the information from QuikEval, the input current is almost consistent, but the capacitor charging current is quite different. Is this likely due to the Kelvin connection issue you pointed out?

    Today, I plan to cut the traces and rewire to implement a proper Kelvin connection to RSNSC1, then perform an operational check. I will report back with the results.

    Best Regards,

    HiroSchna

Children
No Data