Timeline for LTspice simulation of a fluxgate excitation circuit with H bridge driver, Op-Amp and comparator not behaving as expected
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2023 at 16:51 | comment | added | Ste Kulov | @Zhi I prefer LTspice, since it can do things unique to LTspice and at the same time offers a great deal of PSpice compatibility. So it's the most versatile in my opinion. I've also been using it for 13 years so I'm biased. There will be times a model will only work on PSpice, especially PSpice-encrypted ones, so then you're "stuck" using that unless you build your own model. But there are also manufacturers who release LTspice-only encrypted files and then you can only use those on LTspice. So it cuts both ways. | |
| May 21, 2023 at 15:12 | comment | added | Zhi | From your experience, which one is better in general between LTspice and Pspice? | |
| May 21, 2023 at 15:11 | comment | added | Zhi | Great explaination. I think I understand now. | |
| May 19, 2023 at 17:31 | comment | added | Ste Kulov | @Zhi If TI releases a PSpice model, they have only tested it on PSpice. If they only release a TINA-TI model, they only tested it on TINA-TI. LTspice has tons of undocumented PSpice cross-compatibility because its main competitor is PSpice and wants to be able to claim that PSpice is unnecessary so you should use always use LTspice instead. But it's never 100%, and that would apply to any other model written and tested for any of the other SPICE-based simulators out there. Here are a couple examples: electronics.stackexchange.com/a/637834 electronics.stackexchange.com/a/621858 | |
| May 19, 2023 at 17:19 | comment | added | Ste Kulov | @Zhi No, that's not what I meant. I meant that models are only tested/validated on certain platforms. And not just the platform itself, but a specific version of a specific platform. A TINA-TI model has the capability to run on many SPICE platforms, but models are like code and if you don't write the code with cross-compatibility in mind it might not work on another platform. It's just like web browsers. Websites should work on all browsers, but certain web developers are too lazy or don't have the resources to test on anything except Chrome, so several sites don't run properly on my Firefox. | |
| May 19, 2023 at 11:20 | comment | added | Zhi | Thanks for the advice. I will make sure to do that in the future. As for the model, I take it that you mean that there are not compatibility problems between native Pspice models and LTspice, but only when the Pspice model was ported from a TINA-TI spice macro? | |
| May 18, 2023 at 16:41 | comment | added | Ste Kulov | @Zhi Gotcha. In the future, it'll be a good idea to include those details in the question and also post the export as a code block so someone can duplicate without having to download and install additional software. Not many people (especially LTspice users) have TINA-TI installed since it is known to have issues. Also, for what it's worth, I think there's a reason why TI doesn't post the model encapsulated within the TINA macro as a separate PSpice model. They probably couldn't get it to run properly on native PSpice without any significant tweaking. | |
| May 18, 2023 at 16:08 | comment | added | Zhi | I looked up a tutorial on how to convert TINA-TI spice models to Pspice models, which could be done by opening it with TINA-TI spice and exporting it as Pspice model and that's what I've done. If that's backporting then yes. | |
| May 17, 2023 at 14:07 | comment | added | Ste Kulov | @Zhi OK, so you tried backporting the TINA-TI model to LTspice? Is that what happened? | |
| May 17, 2023 at 13:14 | comment | added | Zhi | Thank you. Mine was from the LMV331 page, and there is only a TINA-TI model. | |
| May 17, 2023 at 13:12 | vote | accept | Zhi | ||
| May 16, 2023 at 16:43 | comment | added | Ste Kulov | @Zhi I added my schematic as text so you can "download" it if necessary. | |
| May 16, 2023 at 16:42 | history | edited | Ste Kulov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added schematic as text so it can be "downloaded"
|
| May 16, 2023 at 16:32 | comment | added | Ste Kulov | @Zhi I found the link on TI's page for the LMV331-N (which is the National Semiconductor version of the part since National got absorbed by TI in 2011). Where did you get your LMV331 model from? | |
| May 16, 2023 at 12:23 | comment | added | Zhi | Also, where did you find the Pspice model for LMV331? I checked the page for LMV331 and was only able to find the TINA-TI spice model. | |
| May 16, 2023 at 12:21 | comment | added | Zhi | Thank you for actually recreating the circuit. I used the LMV331 model in the link you provided and was able to get the hysteresis comparator to work, just like shown in your graphs. Then I also realized that The TL07XH is not a current sense amplfier nor is rail-to-rail, therefore it is not suitable for current sensing on RSHUNT. This might explain the strange behavior shown in the first post. Therefore I tried with a current sense amplifier INA181, and was able to get the simulation to show expected results. | |
| May 15, 2023 at 18:18 | history | answered | Ste Kulov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |