Elsevier

Microelectronics Reliability

Volume 78, November 2017, Pages 65-71
Microelectronics Reliability

Comparison of the electro-thermal constraints on SiC MOSFET and Si IGBT power modules in photovoltaic DC/AC inverters

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2017.07.087Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Si IGBT and SiC MOSFET with same current and voltage ratings are compared.

  • Junction temperatures in a photovoltaic inverter are estimated over one year.

  • Temperature swings and average temperatures are higher in the case of IGBT.

Abstract

This article presents a comparative study between SiC MOSFETs and Si IGBTs regarding changes in their junction temperature in a PV inverter application. The estimation of these variations is made by introducing the current mission profiles extracted from a photovoltaic plant over one year into a calculation tool. The latter is based on a losses model and a thermal model including a coupling between them. The calculation of the losses in SiC MOSFETs in the 3rd quadrant is detailed. The results are the mission profiles of the junction temperature of semiconductors, which allow for determining and comparing the thermal constraints in SiC MOSFET and Si IGBT power modules.

Introduction

Silicon carbide (SiC) semiconductor components are being used increasingly in power electronic applications, mainly because of their high switching speeds which improve the overall efficiency and/or the compactness of the inverters [1] [2] [3].

In the case of photovoltaic installations, the inverter has the highest failure rate and the anticipation of its breakdowns is an important issue. Moreover, few studies have been conducted on the reliability of this type of converter using SiC MOSFETs [4].

In this context, the junction temperature TJ of the semiconductors and its variations over time ΔTJ contribute to accelerating the ageing of the DC/AC inverter [5] [6] [7]. Many studies have proposed methods to estimate this temperature especially for IGBT power modules using thermal models [8] [9].

The aim of our study is to compare the junction temperature swings in a SiC MOSFET and in a Si IGBT power module used in a 2 level photovoltaic inverter, having the same current and voltage ratings. A numeric tool is used to estimate the junction temperature from current mission profiles.

Knowing the temperature and its variations over time, coupled with the study of degradation modes and mechanisms as well as the mission profiles, will allow to estimate the lifetime of these semiconductors in photovoltaic applications.

In this paper, the method used to estimate the junction temperature of the devices is described. This model is composed of several sub-models, the main ones being the losses estimation model and the thermal model. These two models can be coupled in order to take into account the variation of the losses depending on the temperature of the components. Temperature, estimated as a function of time, is then injected into a cycle counting algorithm named “Rainflow” that allows to obtain, for a given temperature profile, the number of occurrences for each value of  TJ [10]. This approach is shown in Fig. 1, where I is the current profile, P the losses profile for a given semiconductor component, TJ the junction temperature profile, ∆ TJ the variation of this temperature,  TJM the mean temperature and TA the ambient one. All the calculations are made with analytical models and are implemented in Matlab software.

Section snippets

Selection of the components

The direct comparison of SiC and Si technologies is not obvious. In fact, the electro-thermal stresses on the packaging depend a lot on the chosen configuration. For example, using the same technology, these stresses are different when changing the current rating of the devices: the maximum temperature and the thermal management system will change. Furthermore these stresses depend a lot on the application (current level, switching frequency…). The cost would also be an important point. Thus,

Considerations for the calculation

The evolution of the losses in the semiconductor components as function of time is estimated using the mission profile presented above. Due to the large number of samples (one sample every 20 ms as explained in Section 2.2) throughout the year, the calculations are simplified using only the value of the average losses on the fundamental period Tbf. Therefore, the temperature variations within each fundamental period in our calculations [11] are not taken into account.

In the following paragraphs

Electro-thermal coupling

The electro-thermal coupling is used to take into account the dependence of some electrical parameters on the junction temperature. This coupling exists in the case of an IGBT, but its effect is much more important in the case of MOSFET, in particular for RDSon. Fig. 12 shows the temperature dependence of RDSon issued from the manufacturers' datasheets, plus its dependence on the current IT. The same work was done to estimate the variation of the parameters ET, RT, E0 and RD of the IGBT power

Modeling methodology

The thermal model has, as input, the losses profile. In this model, the thermal impedances ZthCH (Case-Heatsink), ZthHA (Heatsink-Ambient) and ZthJC (Junction-Case) are used. The latter is given by the following equation according to the Foster model [13]:ZthJC=i=1i=NRthi1etτiwhere Rthi is one elementary thermal resistance of the model, τi one elementary time constant, at the point i, and N the number of RC cells in the model.

Usually, the use of Foster models is only possible if the

Integration of the models and Rainflow algorithm

“Rainflow” is a cycle counting algorithm (cycles contained in a mission profile) [15] [16].The TJM profiles of the various modules are the entries of this algorithm, which gives as output the number of occurrences N of each value of ∆ TJ at a given level of average TJ (TJM), represented in form of tables and histograms N = f (TJM, ΔTJ)  [17] [18] [19].

By applying this algorithm on the temperature profiles obtained in Fig. 14, comparative histograms of TJM(Fig. 16) and of ∆ TJ (Fig. 17) in the case of

Conclusions

In this article, a model was used in order to estimate the junction temperature (losses estimation model + thermal model), to compare its evolution between two power module technologies using a current profile measured over a year in a photovoltaic plant. These modules use Si IGBTs and SiC MOSFETs with the same current and voltage ratings.

The obtained temperature profile is then injected into an algorithm named “Rainflow”. The results allows to observe that the average junction temperature and

Acknowledgments

This project has received support from the State Program Investment for the Future bearing the reference (ANR-10-ITE-0003).

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (20)

  • Mission profiles and hygrothermal conditions: Its effects on the reliability of a soft switching converter

    2020, Microelectronics Reliability
    Citation Excerpt :

    An example is the high gain DC-DC converter described in [5], which exhibits a maximum efficiency of 97%, and 96% at rated power. Another approach to improve efficiency is to employ switching devices with better characteristics, such as silicon carbide (SiC) diodes and transistors, which are commercially available in high voltage and current ratings [6]. For instance, a T inverter rated at 60 kW, built with SiC devices, achieved a peak efficiency of 99.2% [7].

  • Mission profile resolution impacts on the thermal stress and reliability of power devices in PV inverters

    2018, Microelectronics Reliability
    Citation Excerpt :

    Thus, the reliability prediction results (e.g., estimated failure rate) may deviate considerably for different mission profile resolutions. In the previous studies, various time-resolutions of mission profiles have been applied in the reliability analysis of PV inverters, ranging from below 1 min to 1 h [3–15]. According to the literature survey, the most commonly used mission profile resolution is in the range of a few minutes (e.g., 1–10 min).

  • Simplified selective harmonic elimination PWM for three-level five-phase T-NPC inverter

    2023, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text