envproduction·api/v1·backendcommongnd.org·checking…build
[ §1 · power stage ]

IGBT or MOSFET, and why SiC is not an upgrade here

DRSSTC

One choice that sets both the frequency you can run and how long the bridge lives. And SiC is not the automatic upgrade it looks like.

One choice, and it sets both the frequency you can run and how long the bridge lives.

What decides it

A MOSFET's conduction loss is I²·R, quadratic in current. An IGBT's is V_ce·I, linear. So at hundreds of amps in short pulses the IGBT wins, and at moderate current and high frequency the MOSFET does.

Everything below is that one sentence meeting a datasheet.

What you decide

Which type

Criterion: the current, and then the frequency.

  • An SSTC takes MOSFETs. There is no resonant primary, the current is modest, the switching frequency is the same, and an IGBT's current tail becomes the dominant loss.
  • A DRSSTC takes IGBTs. Hundreds of amps in a tank, in short bangs, is exactly their ground.

Which family, within the type

Field-stop IGBTs are the de facto standard for QCW. The old trench bricks without field-stop, the CM300 and CM600 family and their relatives, are good for an ordinary DRSSTC and lose on long ramped pulses both thermally and on switching.

Superjunction MOSFETs are poor in a high frequency resonant circuit. Their non-linear Coss gives voltage overshoot and low efficiency even under soft switching.

Whether to parallel

Criterion: whether the gate drives are identical, because that is what decides sharing.

Budget no more than fifty per cent extra for a pair, and only when three things are true: the devices are matched, they share a heatsink, and their gate drives are identical. Different gate delay means one of them takes all the current.

What will get you

The numbers

  • The crossover: I²R against V_ce·I. Hundreds of amps in pulses favours the IGBT; moderate current at high frequency favours the MOSFET.
  • IGBT frequency ceiling: a few hundred kilohertz.
  • TO-247 dependable peak: 250 to 300 A, and 250 for a long ontime.
  • Paralleling: budget 1.5 times one device, not 2.
  • SiC body diode forward drop: about 3.3 V.
  • Voltage margin: about a third. From 320 V, 600 V parts.

What people actually fit, for a QCW at 420 kHz and up, from one builder's bench and worth checking on yours: IXXH75N60C3D1 and STGWA75H60DFB2 gave a strange waveform and were unreliable; AOK75B60D1, AOK60B65H2AL, FGA60N65SMD and IRGP50B60D1 worked.

What goes wrong

  • Devices die weeks in, for no visible reason, well below Tjmax. Not the peak temperature: the size of the swing. It tears bond wires and die attach over thousands of cycles, and it is covered with the bridge.
  • A paralleled pair where one device is much hotter. Gate drive mismatch. One of them is taking the current.
  • An IGBT that will not turn off. Latch-up from a high collector current.
  • Voltage overshoot and poor efficiency despite soft switching. Superjunction Coss non-linearity. Wrong family for a resonant circuit.
  • A SiC upgrade that performed worse. The body diode is in the resonant path every half cycle.
  • A device that survived the bench and died on the arc. The datasheet number was a hard-switched millisecond pulse, not your duty.

Where next


Every department diagram draws the bridge out rather than boxing it, because whether it is a full bridge or a half is the first decision, and what is in each leg is the second.

more in DRSSTC