SLUAAM7A december 2022 – july 2023 TPS561201 , TPS561208 , TPS561243 , TPS561246 , TPS562201 , TPS562208 , TPS562243 , TPS562246 , TPS563201 , TPS563208 , TPS563252 , TPS563257 , TPS564201 , TPS564208 , TPS564242 , TPS564247 , TPS564252 , TPS564255 , TPS564257 , TPS565201 , TPS565208 , TPS565242 , TPS565247 , TPS566242 , TPS566247

5 Experimental Verification

This topic gives experimental verification of Type 2 co-layout design. The BOM of the co-layout board is the same as TI EVM board.

Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show the board layout for the co-layout design.

Figure 5-1 Co-layout Design Top Layer

Figure 5-2 Co-layout Design Bottom Layer

Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 shows the output voltage ripple of EVM board and co-layout board with TPS565242. Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6 shows the output voltage ripple of EVM board and co-layout board with TPS565201. The results show that co-layout board with both TPS565201 and TPS565242 can work well.

Figure 5-3 EVM Board with TPS565242 Output Ripple, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, I_OUT = 5 A

Figure 5-4 Co-layout Board with TPS565242 Output Ripple, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, I_OUT = 5 A

Figure 5-5 EVM Board with TPS565201 Output Ripple, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, I_OUT = 5 A

Figure 5-6 Co-layout Board with TPS565201 Output Ripple, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, I_OUT = 5 A

Efficiency comparison between EVM and co-layout board which are tested at 1.05 V_out and 5 V_out are shown in Table 5-1. From the effciency results, it shows that the efficiency of co-layout board is slightly lower than EVM board.

Table 5-1 Efficiency Comparison between EVM and Co-layout Board, V_IN = 12 V, I_OUT = 5 A

	V_out (V)	Efficiency	V_out (V)	Efficiency
TPS565242 EVM board	1.05	84.2%	5	94.8%
TPS565242 Co-lay board	1.05	83.5%	5	94.4%
TPS565201 EVM board	1.05	77.3%	5	92.3%
TPS565201 Co-lay board	1.05	77.0%	5	92.2%

Switching spike voltage comparison between EVM and co-layout board which are tested at 1.05 V_out are shown in Table 5-2. From the switching spike results, it shows that co-layout board is slightly worse than EVM board.

Table 5-2 Switching Spike Comparison between EVM and Colay Board

	V_in (V)	V_out (V)	I_out (A)	Switching spike voltage (V)
TPS565242 EVM board	12	1.05	5	12.0
TPS565242 Co-lay board	12	1.05	5	12.4
TPS565201 EVM board	12	1.05	5	13.2
TPS565201 Co-lay board	12	1.05	5	14.7

Figure 5-7 EVM Board with TPS565242 Switching Spike, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, I_OUT = 5 A

Figure 5-8 Co-layout Board with TPS565242 Switching Spike, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, I_OUT = 5 A

Figure 5-9 EVM Board with TPS565201 Switching Spike, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, I_OUT = 5 A

Figure 5-10 Co-layout Board with TPS565201 Switching Spike, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, I_OUT = 5 A

Figure 5-15 and Figure 5-12 shows the co-layout board with TPS565242 transient response with 0.1 A to 2.5 A and 1.25 A to 3.75 A. The current steps slew rate is set as 0.8 A/us.

Figure 5-11 Co-layout Board with TPS565242 Transient Response, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, 0.1 A - 2.5 A

Figure 5-12 Co-layout Board with TPS565242 Transient Response, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, 1.25 A - 3.75 A

Figure 5-15 and Figure 5-12 shows the co-layout board with TPS565201 transient response with 0.1 A to 2.5 A and 1.25 A to 3.75 A. The current steps slew rate is set as 0.8 A/us.

Figure 5-13 Co-layout Board with TPS565201 Transient Response, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, 0.1 A - 2.5 A

Figure 5-14 Co-layout Board with TPS565201 Transient Response, V_IN = 12 V, V_OUT = 1.05 V, 1.25 A - 3.75 A