AN-980
IGBTs vs HEXFET Power MOSFETs
For Variable Frequency Motor Drives
(HEXFET is a ademnark of International Rectifier)
by Ajit Dubhashi, Brian Pelly
‘Summary
‘This application note compares
International Rectifier IGBTs. and
HEXFET power MOSFETs for eff
‘renies as Wel a SyStem COSTS. fOr a
range of 3-phase sinusoidal PWM
‘motor drives, Losses are calculated for
‘wo different cartier frequencies and
the system costs. include heatsink
costs. Aluminum vs, silicon tradeoff is
discussed along with relevant exam:
ples. Results are presented ina graph:
tal format, allowing designers. 10
choose an optimum device for thei
‘motor drive application
Introduction
Insulated Gate Ripolar Transistors
AGBTS have recently entered the field
(of power electronics as serious con:
tenders for power processing sockets.
‘The IGBT has shed its image as an
unreliable lab curiosity and is now
‘beginning to compete seriously with
established devices such asthe power
MOSFET. Designers are concerned
with the choices available based on
complet, efficiency, and overall sys
{em cost. The aim of this application
‘ole is to compare MOSFETs and
IGBTS in terms of system costs and
efficiencies in typical 3-phase 220V
fle ontosppationsregng
from one quarter horsepower to Shp.
The first section compares the
characensues and the structures of
fntermational Rectier devies. The
next section deals with the assump
‘ots made and the methods used in
the comparison, The results of the
‘comparison ae then provided graph
aly. Tiss fllowed by a closer lok
ta couple ofspeific power ratings
‘Tais application note concludes with
a chart showing te tradeoffs between
Gost and efficiency across the board,
indicating the “optimum” devices for
each horsepower range, and a set of
‘general conclusions.
Background
‘The field of phase 220V PWM
motor dives has had manly biolars
and power MOSFETs competing wth
ne anaes, Power MOSPETe have
Ue hl of pve: ees
ines, especialy at power lve
trio Sp boca of theese of te
their raged operason. Since
Fen i ei es
‘hey require only very smal gate cur
rent pubes totum them of and on
‘The average currents necessary for
comroling the device state are ten
fis ver tan sree
by bipolar devies of similar ratings.
Whats more, the FETS wide swith
ing safe operating, area (SOA).
detonthe an dv paisa
icant, ten pt
vantage ove polars. The RDS
Of the FET oes, however. Ne
exponentially with voltage rane
‘The IGBT combines the best of
both worlds. [risa voltagecontrolled
device dike the MOSFET) allowing
designers to greatly simplify their drive
cérouils. It 9 rugged device with a
‘square switching SOA and high peak
current capability. In addition, it
exhibits low forward voltage charac
teristics similar to bipolas, reducing
the conduction lass. Also, i it des
nol have an internal reverse diode,
designers can choose an external fast
recovery diode to suita specific appli:
‘ation. All this indicates that the
IGBT will be the device of choice for
applications requiring high current
desties at high voltages coupled with
switching frequencies up to 20 to 50
‘Comparison of the Device Structures
‘The IGBT isa spinoff from power
MOSFET technology. Both devices
have similar crass sections as can be
seen from Figures Ja aud 1b. Eat
shares a similar gate structure with
foto ete ses and wel with
bs. The N type material under the
wells form the drain region for the
HEXFET power MOSFEL and «ts
resistivity is responsible for its BV gos
rating, Consequently, as the required
breakdown voltage for HEXFETS
ep, so does the resistivity of this
region, leading (0 an exponential
increase in the on-resistance of the
device. The manner in which the
IGBT differs from the HEXFET
power MOSFET ie that it has 10
additional layers under the high
resistivity N region. The firsts 2 thin
N-+ region for decreasing the lifetime
Figure ta, HEXFE cos secton |
|
[Figure 10.1687 cress seenonFigure 2. Equivalent cuit
of stored charges. The second is 2 P
region which responsible for the low
omstate voltage drop. This P region
floods the N’ region with carriers
Whenever the device is :urned on and
this process of conductivity modula-
tion lowers the normally high
resistivity of the N region. Figure 2
shows the approximate equivalent
Circuit which can be used to describe
the operation of the device. The
structure is similar 10 a FET input
Darlington with a PNP output device,
As is evident from the device struc:
{ut the hase region ofthe PNP is not
brought out of the device and, conse
quently one cannot actively get rid of
the carriers in the base region to effect
a fast turn-off. This s why the N+
layer is required to reduce the lifetime
of carriers. It ao serves to reduce the
again of the output PNP structure
yc impocant to preven device
lach-up.
Figure 3 shows a comparison of
forward. voltage characteristics of
600V-rated devices. An IGBT of the
same size as that of a MOSFET would
have nearly one tenth the conduction.
losses. This reduced on-state drop is,
however, atthe expense ofan increase
in switching energy as the IGBT
sisplays a distinctly slower turnoff
Another feature of the IGBT is the
ex SECO EER vas
Figure 8. Comparison of forwars wotages
——————————
Table 1
tcoTs
MOSFETs
1. Minoritymajority
carrier Conduction
Majority Carrier Conduction
2, Low Forward Drop
For similar die size, voltage rating and current
High Fos(on)
8. Tumoff time 500 ns
Turmeoft time <100 ns MHz
‘operation possible.
4. No internal diode
Reverse internal parasitic diode
5. Mayer device
‘SHayer device
SE
absense of an inherent diode, whose
recovery losses add to the total los,
as in the case of a power MOSFET.
D>signers, however, can scket a
excmal reverse diode to suit the
application. Table 1 summarizes the
comparison between IGBTs and
MOSFETs.
‘Comparison of Losses in a Three-
Phase AC Drive Application
For various applications the relative
importance of switching loss and
conduction loss can be very different.
This application note compares the
performance of IGBTs and MOSFETs
in 3-phase motor drive applications,
where a 3-phase sinusoidal waveform
is constructed using a PWM tech-
nique. The devices. are assumed to
operate from a rectified 22DV line.
Various _horsepowers from one-
quarter to 5 hp are analyzed. Each hp
iS evaluaied at PWM. switching
‘requencies of kHz and 20 kHz. Var-
ious die sizes are evaluated at every
‘current rating to yield the most cost
elfective solution. External fast recov:
ry freewheeling diodes arc assumed
around the IGBTs (HEXFETs already
hhave a builtin reverse diode)
‘The total losses are calculated over
a.cycle. These include the ennluction
losses in the device, the conduction
losses in the diode, the turn-on and
tumoff loses due to the device, and
the switching loses acsociated with
the Qrr and tgp of the diode.
To caleulate conduction losses over
a cycle (with 2 sinusoidally varying
“chopped up” current waveform a
shown in Figure 4) a knee voltage +
dynamic resistance type of model is
assumed for all the switches. For
HEXFET power MOSFETs which
are purely resistive (unlike the IGBTS
(or the diodes) the knee voltage is zero.
As the die size goes up, the dynamic
resistance decreases proportionately
and thus the conduction losses
decrease,
‘The turn-on and turn-off losses are
assumed to be linearly dependent on
‘curtent. The losses related 10 try and
‘Qrr depend on the current in non
linear way, and thus a linearization is
resorted 1 for easier manipulation of
the equations
The resulting conduction and
switching losses are converted into a
bar graph format, Figures Sb thru 17b,
here losses for all devices evaluated
ata particular hp can be compared.
The bars are divided into switching
‘and conduction losses for ease of
‘comparison.
‘The next stepis to evaluate the costs
of the various solutions as itis usually
the prime criterion for device selection,
‘The user costs assumed forthe devi
are projected mature high volume
market prices.
To the device costs is added the vost
of the heatsink required 10 cool the
devioe to a maximum Tj of 110°C at
normal full oad operating power. The
heatsink cost represents a significant
part ofthe total costs and, infact, can
often result in a targer size of silicon
being chosen to reduce the heatsink
size and cost, a5 will be seen later.
Mounting and Wwirng costs have not
been included.Fly h ot ination it
ingtoeach hp spur tgetern a
mk arn fora, igure Sr
Waa ala to that fr los. The
‘oss are si pint er unit dis
Gets Dose ee HEREC and per
Unit easiness tat the wee
an appre the sgifeace of the
Fea con, Th th fran
peed the eo a *
roves edie ith prety
Of ches that can be execs.
‘A Closer Look at the 0.75 HP
Example
A tol of four diferent devioes as
shown in Figures 7a and 7b (two
HEXFETs and two IGBT® are inves
tigated at each frequency. As would
be expected, the total loses decrease
a the devie size wes up. Obviously,
increasing the slicon content implies
increasing device oss, bu this can be
off by decreasing heatsink cost. Ths
implies that the smallest slicon sze
fay not automatically be the lowest
ost solution.
Forexample. an IRF830 HEXFET
can be tsed n'a 073 hp inverer at
SU EPL bot ars shown i the chars
ihe power dsipated sso are that a
hugh heatsink required to feep the
be temperature within design its
‘The IRFEHO HEXFET tums ot tbe
{Eich more ienpensin soon,
tv the added advantage of increas
ing the sytem eficency. However,
the IGBT Isic device turns ou fo be
ven ks expensive than HEXFET
power MOSFETs at 20 KH, with
ren better sytem efi),
‘The picture i slightly diferent at 5
KHz as the IRF830 can handle the
power loss with a relatively smaller
teasnk ost which turns ut tobe
the lowest cost solution though the
one With che highest oss. Looking
Ae IRFS4O ars, apart hat
the price penalty 1 be pat for go
fom § His 20 Kis le a
48, which snot very siican in
terms af the overl dive cost.
Crossover Point for IGBTS and
HEXFETs.
If the cost figures are normalized
ith respect ro their horsepower rat
ings andarangedasshomin gues
13 and “14, “the crossover pois
peween IGBTS and MEXFETS
becomes apparent. ALS kHz, IGHTS
tend to be the lowest cost solution
above | hp and HEXFETs are most
‘ast effective below I hp. At 20 KEL
Me cusover point sis doi aid
IGBTS tend to be most cost effective
above 0.75 hp. This is because the
TRF830, the device of choice at 5 kHz,
ceangotfandle the extra svatching los
23 20 Elle and therefore, cannot be
used. The nent higher di size costs
‘more than the IGBT solution, making
the IGBT the most cost effective so:
tion at 20 kHz. The crossover points
trea function of device and host
‘rng avaiable tothe designer, nthe
mediate fuure they wil probably be
abit higher than 1 bp.
Cost Efficiency Trade Off
In most designs, cost as well ase
ciency is very important. This app
tation rte has atterpted to provide
compete overview of the. cast
eiricieney tradeott for the designer.
Figures 15 and 16 present the sum:
‘mary ofthis exercise, Each set of bar
raph represent two different sic
Ingfrequencies. On the Xaxisare the
gure 4a. Ououtvrane
| afl /
sovoun onspotgrs anon th ¥
2 ae the efficercies tat can be
achieved with various implementa
tonsa those borsepowers, Each hp
column as two su Bars Te et one
Tepe the HEXFET solsuon and
the right one represents the 1GBT
Solution. Aa there are usually 180 or
the de Sizes being evaluate, these
re represented by several Horizontal
efcons cd Eich rant ine
ono) etl ine
fsa number asocated whe which
represents the normalize cost
sscoced with that implementation
Foreremle. i a dsipner woul Nee
owes companion a device a hp
naps to use 20 Hsing fre
Suey, he would se that three HEX
FET dieses have een evaluate,
4.3) and ewo IGBTS 2) ave eet
Gialuated. The lowest cat solution
‘would be the [GBT 2 with 137 pet
Unt olla cost at about 58% aft
ceny, THe IGBT 2 solution 8 is
expensive than the [OBT | solatonas,
the Heatsink cost has booed the
te eat tilting the tet owas
Shon ether than sluminum, This
fue even forthe FETS where the
HEX‘ Sotution 241 er uni da
[ns more exonomieal han HEX:
‘Foon ft 81 per unt dors
Conclusions
‘There are two main conclusions
resulting from this companson analy
sis of insulated gate bipolar vanssors
versus power MOSFETs:
1L_ For mast power conversion ap
atons, there ext # radeot beeen
siicon and aluminum ie..a smaller die
size could be used (wath its higher
losses and poorer thermal. perfor:
‘mance coupled witha bg heatsink o”
ATTarger di size cou be used lead
ing 10 lower loses and beter Rij)
sd a smaller heatsink. The chee
Gepends upon the relative costs ofthe
components, and any constraints on
test weet or csc te sy
tem. Often tis more cst effective to
‘eae silicon rather than alumiaum.
2. IGBTs tend to be more cost effec
tive than MOSFETs in motor drivel
UPS applications above T hp. This
study has focused on inverter consist
ing of discrete components to arrive at
the 1 hp erossover point. However,
al the poner comnts were he
packaged together nas le
the erossover point could, in fact, be
at a lower power because a much
Smaller IGBT can do the job of a
HEXFET power MOSFET: AS the
cost ofa module signticanty depends
nits size, an IGBT module cout be
Jess expensive than # HEXFET mod
ie this ding the erosover ot
oven.