TIDUBY9 December   2021

 

  1.   Description
  2.   Resources
  3.   Features
  4.   Applications
  5.   5
  6. 1System Description
    1. 1.1 Key System Specifications
  7. 2System Overview
    1. 2.1 Block Diagram
      1.      10
    2. 2.2 Highlighted Products
      1. 2.2.1 DRV5056
      2. 2.2.2 DRV5032
      3. 2.2.3 TPS709
      4. 2.2.4 SN74HCS00
      5. 2.2.5 TPS22917
      6. 2.2.6 SN74AUP1G00
      7. 2.2.7 TLV9061
    3. 2.3 Design Considerations
      1. 2.3.1 Design Hardware Implementation
        1. 2.3.1.1 Hall-Effect Switches
          1. 2.3.1.1.1 U1 Wake-Up Sensor Configuration
          2. 2.3.1.1.2 U2 Stray-Field Sensor Configuration
          3. 2.3.1.1.3 U3 and U4 Tamper Sensor Configuration
          4. 2.3.1.1.4 Hall Switch Placement
            1. 2.3.1.1.4.1 Placement of U1 and U2 Sensors
              1. 2.3.1.1.4.1.1 U1 and U2 Magnetic Flux Density Estimation Results
            2. 2.3.1.1.4.2 Placement of U3 and U4 Hall Switches
              1. 2.3.1.1.4.2.1 U3 and U4 Magnetic Flux Density Estimation Results
          5. 2.3.1.1.5 Using Logic Gates to Combine Outputs from Hall-Effect Switches
        2. 2.3.1.2 Linear Hall-Effect Sensor Output
          1. 2.3.1.2.1 DRV5056 Power
          2. 2.3.1.2.2 DRV5056 Output Voltage
          3. 2.3.1.2.3 DRV5056 Placement
        3. 2.3.1.3 Power Supply
        4. 2.3.1.4 Transistor Circuit for Creating High-Voltage Enable Signal
      2. 2.3.2 Alternative Implementations
        1. 2.3.2.1 Replacing 20-Hz Tamper Switches With 5-Hz Tamper Switches
        2. 2.3.2.2 Using Shielding to Replace Tamper Switches and Stray Field Switch
        3. 2.3.2.3 Replacing Hall-Based Wake-Up Alert Function With a Mechanical Switch
  8. 3Hardware, Software, Testing Requirements, and Test Results
    1. 3.1 Hardware Requirements
      1. 3.1.1 Installation and Demonstration Instructions
      2. 3.1.2 Test Points and LEDs
      3. 3.1.3 Configuration Options
        1. 3.1.3.1 Disabling Hall-Effect Switches
        2. 3.1.3.2 Configuring Hardware for Standalone Mode or Connection to External Systems
    2. 3.2 Test Setup
      1. 3.2.1 Output Voltage Accuracy Testing
      2. 3.2.2 Magnetic Tampering Testing
      3. 3.2.3 Current Consumption Testing
    3. 3.3 Test Results
      1. 3.3.1 Output Voltage Accuracy Pre-Calibration Results
      2. 3.3.2 Output Voltage Accuracy Post-Calibration Results
      3. 3.3.3 Magnetic Tampering Results
      4. 3.3.4 Current Consumption Results
  9. 4Design and Documentation Support
    1. 4.1 Design Files
      1. 4.1.1 Schematics
      2. 4.1.2 BOM
    2. 4.2 Tools and Software
    3. 4.3 Documentation Support
    4. 4.4 Support Resources
    5. 4.5 Trademarks

3.3.2 Output Voltage Accuracy Post-Calibration Results

Figure 3-6 shows the DRV5056 output voltage versus trigger displacement distance after calibration.

Figure 3-6 DRV5056 Output Voltage vs Trigger Displacement Distance (After Calibration)
Figure 3-7 DRV5056 Output Voltage % Error vs Trigger Displacement Distance (After Calibration)

Table 3-3 shows the worst observed error in Figure 3-7. The post-calibration error is affected by noise, linearity error, and possible magnet positioning errors. To reduce the impact of linearity error, calibration was done using multiple points and lines. Additional averaging of the sample data can be done to reduce noise.

Table 3-3 Post-Calibration Worst Observed Error
CONDITION ABSOLUTE VALUE OF WORST OBSERVED ERROR
Simulated (1 line, 2-point) 0.363%
Calculated (1 line, 2-point) 0.372%
Simulated (1 line, 3-point) 0.289%
Simulated (2 line, 2-point) 0.184%
Simulated (4 line, 2-point) 0.0789%

From the results, the 1 line, 3-point calibration provides a reduced worst-observed error than the 1 line, 2-point calibration. Note that the utilized best-fit line algorithm works by minimizing the sum of the squared errors instead of minimizing the worst observed error. As a result, using more points for the best-fit line may not always result in a reduction of the worst observed error as it did in this case.

In addition, increasing the number of lines from 1 to 2 to 4 also reduces the worst observed error.