MTBF comparison of cutting edge medium voltage drive topologies for
oil & gas applications
Copyright Material PCIC Europe
Paper No. PCIC Europe (PCIC LO 115)
Stephan Busse Dr. Marc Hiller
Siemens AG Siemens AG
Nuremberg Nuremberg
Germany Germany
Abstract – As process interruptions can be very
expensive, reliability and availability values of a variable
frequency drive (VFD) are often two of the most important
requirements when selecting a drive. Reliability figures
are hard to compare because methods and values
depend on suppliers using different assumptions and
definitions of failures. The main medium voltage VSI
(voltage source inverter) topologies (3-level, 5-level,
multilevel) for oil & gas applications will be compared with
respect to their main power components (semiconductors,
capacitors, PCBs, etc.) considering component stress and
field data experience. The total reliability of these drive
systems (including transformers, recooling unit, control
cabinet) will be calculated using the same methods and
assumptions.
Index Terms — Reliability, MTBF, Medium-voltage
drives, Topology, Availability.
I. INTRODUCTION
Interruptions of "critical-to-service" processes can be
expensive if they happen unexpectedly. Because of this,
reliability and availability are often two of the most
important criteria for a customer to consider when
specifying and selecting equipment. In general terms, the
reliability states the probability that the drive will perform
its intended function for a specified amount of time without
failure. On the other hand, the availability is an indicator
for productive uptime.
A review of several leading oil & gas companies’
specification reveals requirements for mean time between
failures (MTBF) between 4 to 6 years and target
availability figures of more than 99% are specified. Quite
often there are also references to redundant (e.g. n+1)
components as part of the quest for improved reliability.
Specifications often require evidence to back up vendor
quoted MTBF calculations or data based on field
experience.
The numerical definition of MTBF and availability imply
a high degree of transparency and clarity, but the
procedure on how these values are derived is not
harmonized and therefore specific to the particular
supplier. Even the definition of a failure can be interpreted
in many ways, and therefore might differ. In addition,
other assumptions such as operating hours per year,
ambient conditions and maintenance intervals as well as
the degree of detail (main or all components) might vary
significantly.
To avoid some of the above mentioned problems, this
paper compares the main medium voltage VSI topologies
Patrick Himmelmann Dr. Klemens Kahlen
Siemens AG Siemens AG
Nuremberg Nuremberg
Germany Germany
for high power compressor applications by using the
same methods and assumptions for all topologies as far
as possible.
As a result, the same assumptions for the converter
control, the recooling unit and line-side transformers have
been made because the available technologies for these
system components are state-of-the-art and can be
applied to all different topologies.
The main differences between the topologies are the
type, arrangement and number of the main components
in the power section (e.g. power semiconductors, power
section-related PCBs, DC link capacitors, other passive
elements).
The total silicon area has been calculated in order to
allow an objective comparison of the quantity of power
semiconductors used in each topology. This allows a
comparison that is independent of the semiconductor
packaging. An example illustrates this: two 1200A-IGBT
modules containing 2x 12 silicon chips are equal to one
2400A-IGBT module with 24 silicon chips. Applying a
semiconductor-technology-specific relative reliability (in
2
FIT per cm of silicon area) allows an objective
comparison of the considered topologies which use very
different semiconductor technologies.
The benefit of this approach is that a physical
parameter gives a higher degree of transparency
compared to a pure number count approach, which
heavily depends on manufacturer-dependent
arrangement of switches. The common basis of the failure
rates of semiconductors and PCBs is based on the
experience and field data obtained by several generations
of products in recent decades using LV IGBTs, HV IGBTs
and IGCTs.
In case of the DC link capacitors, the energy (in kJ)
stored in the film caps has been calculated to evaluate the
reliability of the total quantity of capacitors in each
topology. Independent of the nominal voltage, the same
FIT/kJ-value for all topologies has been assumed.
II. TYPES OF FAILURES
There are several root causes for failures, and it is
important to distinguish between certain ones (see also
IEC 60050-191). In this paper, the word “failure” is used to
describe that a component (e.g. a semiconductor) doesn’t
fulfill its original function. This basic failure will cause a
failure of the whole device and subsequently the whole
drive system if the basic component or the device is not
implemented with redundancy.
 When it comes to calculating system figures, it is
important to distinguish between different failure causes.
x Statistical random failures
ƒ During the regular lifetime of components,
a small quantity will fail due to “non-
reproducible” events. Here it is called
“random” because the time when it occurs
is not defined. Random failures are
caused by accidental events such as
particle radiation, voltage transients, and
damage caused when carrying out service
work, leading to momentary excessive
stress. This type of failure is not related to
the length of service or the age of the
device [12].
x Systematic and operating errors
ƒ Improper design in development and
engineering phase, incorrect handling/
manufacturing, transport, installation/
commissioning, etc.
ƒ Improper operation, use in an unapproved
application, an inadmissible ambient or
environmental conditions, etc.
ƒ End of lifetime of single elements or a
whole device, etc.
The comparison of the different topologies do not
contain systematic failures, as they are considered to be
avoidable and should be addressed and prevented by
using good quality systems, correct installation
procedures, inspections, tests, operating and
maintenance strategies, etc. IEC 61508-4, which deals
with functional safety, states the following in Chapter 3.6.5
(random failures): “A major distinguishing feature between
random hardware failures and systematic failures (see
3.6.6), is that system failure rates (or other appropriate
measures), arising from random hardware failures, can be
predicted with reasonable accuracy, but systematic
failures, by their very nature, cannot be accurately
predicted. That is, system failure rates arising from
random hardware failures can be quantified with
reasonable accuracy, but those arising from systematic
failures cannot be accurately quantified statistically
because the events leading to them cannot easily be
predicted.” [13]
Fig. 1: Typical failure rate – also called “bathtub curve”
In the “bathtub curve” the failure rate during operation
time is assumed as a constant to simplify the
mathematical calculations of a system.
In addition to the above mentioned failures, there are
also failures that are either tolerable or negligible and
therefore can be excluded.
Tolerable failures do not result in a stop or shutdown
but may result in (a partial) deviation of performance; e.g.
if a UPS (uninterrupted power supply) fails, it can’t provide
a backed up supply voltage, which is tolerable as long as
the normal power supply is stable. If this is not tolerable,
the system has to be designed in a different way.
Negligible failures of single elements will not cause a
stop (failure) of the drive system. As an example: an
operator panel is required for commissioning and
adapting parameters. If this panel fails there is no need to
stop the drive and it can still be accessed by other
channels (e.g. PROFINET communication).
Using proven hardware, components and concept as
well as thorough testing combined with good quality
systems and continuous field observations help to avoid
many failure types.
III. TERMINOLOGY
It is important to define the “key words” and
abbreviations used in this paper, because mathematical
and statistical calculations have to be interpreted and can
only be compared if there is a common understanding of
the key figures and data. IEC standard 60050-191
describes most of the terms (but sometimes there are
special definitions e.g. for the software industry)
A. Failure rate
A failure rate can be determined, based on statistics of
failed components over a certain time interval and a
certain quantity of elements. The “failures in time” (FIT) is
a common unit for the failure rate, defined as the
9
expected number of failures per 1 billion (10 ) hours.
Number of failures
FIT
10 9 h
Failure rates are either provided by suppliers or
manufacturers for each component or need to be
obtained based on recorded failure data from the field. To
know the failure rate over time is also important for
predicting the life time of a device.
In order to combine the theoretical FIT values of each
component or subsystem, the logical structure of the
system must be modeled. For non-redundant systems a
model and calculation can be done by a simple fault tree
with only one OR-gate. This means that one single failure
of a component will cause a failure of the device and also
of the system. In this case the overall failure rate can be
obtained as follows:
 ௡
For example, an MTBF of 7 years for a product means
ߣ௢௩௘௥௔௟௟ ൌ ෍൫ߣ௖௢௠௣௢௡௘௡௧ ൯௜ that if 100 products start to operate at the same time, then
௜ୀଵ statistically 63% (ൌ ݁ ିଵ ) of them will have failed after 7
where years.
Ooverall overall failure rate
Ocomponent
component failure rate

For redundant elements, when different sequences of

failures may lead to different effects on a system level, the
system model will be more complex as more states (see
also Fig. 3), and their probabilities, need to be taken into
consideration. For example, systems such as these can
be described and calculated using Markov models.

There are several global standards and guidelines (e.g.

IEC 61709) that are the base for development and
evaluation of components and products. Failure rates
often need to be adjusted as they are dependent on
several factors such as ambient conditions (temperature,
humidity, installation altitude, etc.) and operating
conditions (voltage stress, load cycles, etc.).
In many cases, it is reasonable to combine the first
method (based on FIT data provided by suppliers or
Fig. 2: Reliability curve of a system with a MTBF of 7
years
If a system consists of n+x identical components where
only N components must be running for proper system
operation and x additional components for redundancy,
the reliability can be calculated as follows:

¦  ˜ R t 
manufacturers) and the second method (based on system x
failure data from the field) to obtain a system failure rate.
This can be the case, for example, if the values based on
field data are still not available, or the amount of field data
is too small. This can be the result of products often being
used in many different applications, industries and
countries leading to field data which cannot necessarily
be transferred to other applications.
In real life, it is easier to determine statistical statements
if units are produced in high quantities, as is the case for
consumer electronics or automotive parts.
B. Mean time between failures (MTBF)
Rsystem t  ˜ 1  RC t 
n x n  x i i
i C
i 0
This formula only applies if the failure of one
component does not affect other components.
The following diagram describes a system with two
components, where at least one component must be in
operation (n=1 and x=1). Four states are possible for such
a simple system. Three of them do not lead to system
failure; however, one state, where both subcomponents
have failed, causes the system to fail.

The mean time between failures (MTBF) is defined as:

The expectation of the (operating) time between failures
[1]. In cases where the failure rate is constant, the MTBF
can be derived from the failure rate:

1
MTBF
O
C. Reliability

The probability that an item can perform a required

function under given conditions for a given time interval
[1]. The probability R(t) that a component survives from
the start of operation (t=0) until time t is

Rt  e O˜t

The survival probability decreases with increasing time.

It is also called the reliability function. Fig. 3: Possible states of an system consisting of two
components with an (n+1) redundancy; the reliability Rc(t)
The following formula can only be used if the failure indicates the probability that the component is still in
rate is constant: operation
t
R t  e MTBF
 As the next diagram shows, the reliability of a system The mean down time in hours per year of a system is
with redundant components significantly increases the the weighted sum of the mean times to repair of all of the
probability of survival. After an operating time of 5 years, components involved.
the redundant system has a 50% higher probability of
survival compared to the non-redundant system. This n
§ MTTRi ·
value can even be increased if components are able to be MDTsystem MTBFsystem ˜ ¦ ¨¨ ¸¸
i 0 © MTBFi ¹
repaired during operation (e.g. pumps of recooling unit),
or if planned service intervals are scheduled. The shorter
the planned service interval, the higher the reliability of the
system. In the following example, a system with two different
components (A and B) with two different MTTR values is
assumed.

Fig. 6: System with two components and different FIT

and MTTR values

In the case of a failure, the system is down for 10.9

hours.

Fig. 4: Reliability curve of three different systems

§ MTTR A MTTRB ·
MDTSystem MTBFSystem ¨¨  ¸¸
D. Mean time to restoration (MTTR)
© MTBFA MTBFB ¹
§ 80h 4h ·
The MTTR is defined as: The expectation of the time to MDTSystem 9.09 years ˜ ¨¨  ¸¸
restoration [1]. In case of failure, it is not just the repair © 100 years 10 years ¹
time has to be considered but also all other factors that
will cause additional delay and extend the downtime. To MDTSystem 10.9h
evaluate and influence this figure, the service and
maintenance concept has to be considered.
F. Availability

Availability is defined as: The ability of a device to be in

Fig. 5: Aspects influencing the mean time to restoration
(example only)
E. Mean downtime (MDT)
The MDT is defined as: The expected downtime [1]. For
detailed analysis it has to be considered that there is a
combination of planned and unplanned downtime. The
planned downtime depends highly on the application and
the operator, and therefore it cannot be estimated in
general.
a state to perform the required function under given
conditions at a given instant of time or over a given time
interval assuming that the required external resources are
provided [1]. Availability does not mean that a product
may not fail. It only describes the relationship between
uptime and total uptime and downtime assuming that
other intervals are not considered (e.g. planned service
intervals). Otherwise, in the formula below, MTTR has to
be replaced by MDT. In this paper only the electric drive
train is considered. In many applications mechanical
elements (e.g. gas turbines) often have shorter scheduled
maintenance cycles, and are the cause for lower
availability. In well designed overall service concepts the
service and maintenance measures are aligned to
minimize the downtime.
MTBF
Availabilit y
MTBF  MTTR
or
1
Availabilit y
1  O ˜ MTTR
 Fig. 7: Overview of main medium voltage topologies
IV. MAIN DRIVE TOPOLOGIES
Fig. 7 shows the main medium voltage drive topologies
for high power ratings in industrial applications. Over the
last few decades the voltage source inverter (VSI)
topologies have become the predominant converter
technology. This is the reason why this paper only
focuses on these topologies. Nevertheless thyristor
converters are still frequently used for higher power
ratings and to address special applications [2-4].
Because of the various applications, the wide voltage
and power range for medium voltage drives and the rapid
development of the power semiconductor devices that are
now available, numerous different voltage source inverter
topologies have been developed for medium voltage
applications in recent decades. Unlike the low voltage
range, where the two level (2L) voltage source inverter
has become the dominant concept, a large number of
different converter topologies are available in the medium
voltage drive market. The spectrum includes IGBT
converters with low and high voltage IGBTs as well as
IGCT-based converters including both 3-level, 5-level and
multilevel drives with more than 9 levels.
In the case of compressor drives in the power range of
10-15 MW, the predominant motor voltage is 6.0 to 6.6
kV, which is the cost optimum for the complete drive
system, consisting of switchgear, line transformer,
converter, cables and motor.
Common semiconductor devices used in VSIs with an
output voltage of 6.6 kV are asymmetrically blocking turn
off devices, which are
x 1.7 kV IGBTs in a module package for cell
based modular converters (M2C, SC-2L-H
bridge),
x 4.5 kV IGBTs (also called IEGT) in a press
pack package and
x 4.5 kV or 6 kV IGCTs in a press pack package.
The following topologies have been chosen to compare
failure rates and availability levels:
A. Modular Multilevel Converter (M2C)
The modular multilevel converter (see Fig. 8) is the
latest topology to enter the high power medium voltage
drive market. Depending on the motor voltage and the
corresponding number of cells, the M2C is a 7-level up to
17-level drive. It uses simple, two terminal cells equipped
with 1.7 kV IGBTs and state-of-the-art polypropylene film
capacitors. These technologies are well established in the
low voltage converter industry. Since the low voltage
drives market is 80-90 % of the total drives market, these
components are manufactured in very high quantities.
This ensures the highest possible quality at reasonable
costs. Furthermore, all new technologies (e.g. new IGBT
and diode generations, new module technologies with
higher load cycling capabilities) are first introduced into
the LV market. All these developments are driven by high
volume applications, such as the wind power industry
requiring very high quality standards. Therefore, MV
drives using LV technologies can benefit from these
applications, leading to a long-term availability of spare
parts, fast innovation cycles and high reliability.
On the line-side, the M2C can be connected to any
conventional 12 to 36-pulse diode rectifier using press-
pack diodes and RC snubbers. This technology has been
employed for many decades and has reached a very high
quality standard.
Due to the modularity of the M2C topology, redundancy
can easily be implemented in the motor-side inverter. By
adding 6 (or 12) additional cells and bypass switches to
all the cells an n+1 (or n+2) redundancy can be realized.
This kind of redundancy covers a complete cell including
semiconductors, capacitors, heat sinks, PCBs and power
supply. Having this type of redundancy, the drive voltage
and current capability does not have to be reduced in
case of a cell failure. One advantage of cell-based
topologies that should be noted is that a cell bypass
allows operation with reduced power, even if no
redundant cells have been implemented that would allow
the process to remain operational.

Fig. 8: Modular multilevel converter (M2C) topology
B. Series connected (SC) 2L-H bridge converter
Just the same as the M2C, the SC-2L-H bridge
converter (see Fig. 9) uses the same LV components for
IGBTs and capacitors, which are manufactured in high
volumes. Depending on the motor voltage and the
number of 2-level cells connected in series per phase,
drives with a 7-level up to 15-level output behavior can be
realized.
Additionally, the line-side rectifier can use LV line
diodes on the cell input side. By phase shifting the line
transformer secondaries, e.g. 30-pulse or 36-pulse line-
side performance is possible.
In the SC-2L-H bridge topology, redundancy can be
implemented by adding 3 (or 6) additional cells and
bypass switches to all the cells enabling an n+1 (or n+2)
redundancy. Having this type of redundancy means that
the drive voltage and current capability do not have to be
reduced when a cell fails. This technology also allows the
drive to remain operational with reduced power even if no
redundant cells have been implemented.
Fig. 9: SC-2L-H bridge topology
C. 3L neutral point piloted converter (3L-NPP)
The 3L neutral point piloted converter (3L-NPP, Fig. 10)
is derived from the conventional 3L neutral point clamped
converter (3L-NPC, Fig. 11). Due to the high DC link
voltages, this topology requires MV IGBTs connected in
series [7]. Today 4.5 kV IGBTs offer the best compromise
between the number of devices connected in series and
semiconductor performance.
Compared to the 3L-NPC topology, the IGBT switching
losses can be reduced in the 3L-NPP concept as twice
the number of IGBTs connected in series are employed
for blocking half the DC link voltage during switching. This
allows a higher power rating, which is the reason why the
3L-NPP topology was selected for the additional
comparisons made in this paper.
MV IGBTs are available in either single-side cooled
module packages or double-side cooled press pack
packages. While IGBT modules are usually also used in
other applications (e.g. traction drives), IGBT press pack
devices are usually single-source devices and their usage
is currently limited to fewer applications. The single-
source situation might result in problems regarding spare
parts availability over the long term. Due to the low
production quantities, innovation cycles take longer and
the amount of feedback from problems in the field is
limited as there is a lower number of devices in operation.
Due to the centralized DC link capacitor, the amount of
the total installed film capacitor energy of the 3L-NPP is
lower than in the cell-based drives mentioned before.
Even though the total capacitance is less, the value of the
total capacitance, and therefore stored energy, in a single
location, is many times greater than in topologies that are
based on a distributed power architecture design.
On the line-side, the 3L-NPP can also be connected to
any conventional 12-pulse to 36-pulse diode rectifier
using press-pack diodes and RC snubbers.
The press-pack IGBTs and diodes in the 3L-NPP mean
that devices can be simply connected in series without
excessive stray inductances that would otherwise result in
high switching losses. Furthermore, the conduct-on-fail
capability of press pack devices is the deciding factor for
this type of application.
By adding
x 12 (24) additional press pack IGBTs and
x 12 (24) additional press pack diodes
an n+1 or (n+2) redundancy can be realized with no
decrease in voltage and current in case of a failure.
The series-connected press pack IGBTs require
isolated gate driver circuits connected to the emitter
potential of the corresponding IGBT for controlling the
gate-emitter voltage. In contrast to the LV cell-based
topologies, gate driver failures cannot be covered by this
kind of redundancy. This is because a failed driver does
not necessarily result in a short-circuited IGBT, i.e. the
IGBT gate drivers are still potential single points of failure
and can cause a drive to be shut down.
 The required off-state voltage of the power
semiconductors directly depends on the DC link voltage.
Therefore, continuous operation with reduced motor
power without using additional hardware components
(semiconductors, drivers) is not possible. This is different
to the LV cell-based topologies where the cells that are
still in operation are not affected by the bypassed cells in
any way.
Fig. 10: 3L-NPP (neutral point piloted) topology
Fig. 11: 3L-NPC (neutral point clamped) topology
D. Series-connected (SC) 3L-H bridge converter
Regarding its cell-based design the series-connected
3L-H bridge converter is similar to the 2L-H bridge
converter. The cells are individually fed by galvanically
isolated transformer secondary windings. The required
installed capacitor energy is higher than in concepts
having a centralized DC link because of the single phase
cell output.
Fig. 12: SC-3L-H bridge topology
Commercially available converters use press pack
semiconductors (4.5 kV IGBTs/IEGTs in [8]; 4.5 or 6 kV
IGCTs/GCTs in [6] and [9]) with a maximum of two cells
per phase, i.e. max. 6 cells in total. This results either in a
5-level (3 cells in total) or a 9-level drive (6 cells in total).
Just the same as the press-pack IGBTs, the IGCTs are
specifically designed to address certain applications. Due
to the limited market, these kinds of devices are usually
single-source components.
On the line side, each cell can be equipped with a 12-
pulse diode rectifier using press-pack diodes and RC
snubbers, resulting in a 36-pulse line-side performance
for 3-cell configuration.
Due to the high number of additional devices a
redundant operation of the SC-3L-H bridge topology is not
reasonable, and therefore not available on the market.
V. COMPARISON OF RELIABILITY OF VARIOUS
DRIVE SYSTEMS
The MV drive systems have been compared for the
topologies and components listed in TABLE I. Only water
cooled drives with a nominal motor voltage of 6.0 or 6.6
kV that are available in the market have been considered.
 TABLE I
6.6 KV MV DRIVE TOPOLOGIES THAT HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED
Topology Circuit arrangement without Output filter Number of Redundancy Line-side
redundancy requirement Output levels rectifier
Power PCBs in power for DOL phase to phase (n+1) (n+2)
Semiconductors section motors
M2C 72 1.7 kV IGBT 36 PCBs with red. none 25 (w/o red.) 6 additional 12 additional 12-36 pulse
modules internal power 29 (n+1) cells per drive cells per drive
supply 33 (n+2) 1 bypass switch per cell

SC-2L-H 60 1.7 kV IGBT 15 PCBs with none 21 (w/o red.) 3 additional cells per drive 30 pulse for
bridge modules internal power 25 (n+1, n+2) 15 cells
supply 36 pulse for
18 cells
1 bypass switch per cell

3L-NPP 36 4.5 kV PP- 36 IGBT gate sine wave 5 12 additional 24 additional 12-36 pulse
IGBTs with units with filter IGBTs/diodes IGBTs/diodes
internal chip- separate central per drive per drive
diodes power supply
SC-3L-H 24 4.5 kV PP- 24 IGCT gate dv/dt filter 9 Not feasible and therefore not 3x12 pulse
bridge IGCTs units with available on the market (36 pulse
(5-level separate central total)
converter) 48 4.5 kV PP- power supply
diodes
24 4.5 kV PP- 24 IGBT gate units
IGBTs with separate
central power
36 4.5 kV PP- supply
diodes

The reliability of the drives is calculated and compared This is possible because each topology requires a
at a drive system level. The drive system (Fig. 13) used comparable number of components for the control unit,
for the comparison includes I/O units, current/voltage transformers, circuit breakers,
x the line-side transformer sensors, etc.
x the line-side rectifier and motor-side inverter
The same is true for the recooling unit due to the fact
x the recooling unit that the drive efficiency – and therefore the size of
x the converter control recooling unit – are comparable for every drive topology
The motor is not considered. having the same power rating. Furthermore, an increase
in motor power resulting in larger pumps and water/water
heat exchangers does not significantly impact the failure
rate.

Furthermore, special features such as redundant

control systems, sensors and transducers or power
supplies are not considered if not explicitly mentioned).
Theoretically, such a feature could be used for every drive
concept, and are not specific for any of the different
topologies. The selected product defines as to whether
the feature is available.

As a result the emphasis of the comparison is put on

the individual motor inverter concepts including their
related system components. The following components
have been considered in the comparison:

Fig. 13: Major drive system components

For the recooling unit and the converter control the

same reliability has been assumed for all drive topologies.
Motor inverter:
x Power section-related PCBs, i.e. cell control
boards with internal (redundant) power supply,
MV IGBT or IGCT gate units with an isolated
common power supply
x IGBTs, IGCTs, freewheeling/snubber diodes,
passive snubber components
x DC link capacitors
x Additional components specific for any of the
considered topologies (e.g. the M2C arm
inductors, fuses to connect the SC-2L-H bridge
cells to the line transformer, thyristor crowbar
components)
System components:
x Line transformers
x Line-side rectifier acc. to TABLE I incl. diodes
and snubbers
Not included:
x dv/dt or sine-wave filters
The failure rates used in the comparison have been
obtained from
x very long term field experience with LCI, CC
and VSI drives in all industries, traction drives
and energy applications including both press
pack and module-based power semiconductors
x supplier datasheets and application notes
x MTBF calculation tools (e.g. for PCBs) in
conjunction with field experience
x the voltage level regarding the chip and edge
termination technology
x the design margin, i.e. the typical device
utilization in the particular topologies with
regard to the thermal and electrical limits [11]
x the complexity of the packaging
x and the market volume, i.e. the maturity and
the level of experience with the technology in
the field
2
This results in different FIT rates (in FIT per cm Si area)
for the power semiconductor technologies listed in TABLE
I.
According to [5], the FIT rates of the power
semiconductors are considered to be proportional to the
total silicon surface area. This is already known from FIT
rates based on the effects of cosmic rays, where the
multiplicand (“C3”) is proportional to the Si area and has a
direct linear impact on the FIT rate of the device
independent of the altitude, DC link voltage and
temperature [5]. This method is extended to include other
statistical random failure mechanisms related to
semiconductor like e.g.
x bond wire fatigue failures and chip
delamination in IGBT modules
x loss of blocking capability due to failures in the
edge termination
x device failures (e.g. caused by transient
operation outside the safe operation area
(SOA)) on the chip/wafer

Usually, it is very difficult to precisely calculate the

MTBF of such complex drive systems. By assuming the
same environmental conditions (e.g. ambient
temperature, humidity, pollution, vibration) for all drive
concepts, a relative comparison becomes possible. Only
the technologies used, the number of components,
requirements relating to special topologies and the
redundancy options impact the MTBF comparison.

Due to their importance for the reliability and availability

of the drive topologies the influence of the power
semiconductors, the DC link capacitors and the
redundancy options are discussed in detail in the
following sections.

A. Power semiconductors: comparison of the silicon

area

Instead of simply counting the switches in the circuit

diagram, the reliability of the power semiconductors
(IGBTs, IGCTs, diodes) is evaluated according to the
installed silicon area, i.e. the real surface area of the
installed IGBT and diode chips or wafers, including the
edge terminations. This method achieves a higher
Fig. 14: Chip layout of a typical IGBT module (top) and
transparency as it is based on a physical parameter.
press pack IGBT device (with integrated free-wheeling
diode; bottom) (source: Infineon, [14])
The calculation basis for the reliability of the different
2
power semiconductor technologies (in FIT per cm Si
area) is taken from experience in numerous industrial,
energy and traction applications and considers not only
the failure rate due to the effects of cosmic rays but also
 TABLE II switch off current of the IGCT itself, i.e. several thousand
POWER RATING, SILICON AREA AND FIT RATE OF THE amps.
POWER SEMICONDUCTORS OF THE 6.6 KV WATER-
COOLED MV DRIVE TOPOLOGIES BEING CONSIDERED
The gate units in the cell-based multilevel topologies are
(W/O LINE-SIDE RECIFIER DIODES)
integrated in cell control boards (CCB), having an internal
Nom. Nom. Total Total Si FIT rate (redundant) power supply, which is fed by the cell DC link.
motor motor Si area per MVA Therefore, no external power supply with galvanic
voltage current isolation is required. As a result, the gate power supply as
w/o w a single point of failure is eliminated. Typical FIT rates of
per GU/ GU/ the GUs and CCBs are in the range of 100-250 FIT,
[V] [A] MVA CCB CCB depending on their above mentioned complexity.
M2C 6600 1200 94% 35% 86%
TABLE II also shows the relative total Si FIT rate per
SC-2L-H 6600 1250 66% 24% 57%
MVA including the corresponding gate units (GU) or cell
bridge control boards (CCB). In general, the cell-based drives
benefit from their highly reliable LV IGBTs. Regarding the
3L-NPP 6600 1100 100% 100% 100% GU/CCB reliability, the IGBT-based SC-3L-H bridge drive
benefits from its relatively low number of simple IGBT
gate units.
SC-3L-H 6600 1250 90% 59% 85%
bridge
(IGCT)
B. Capacitor comparison
SC-3L-H 6000 1925 73% 69% 57%
bridge
(IGBT) Like the power semiconductors, the reliability of the DC
capacitors is evaluated according to the amount of
TABLE II shows the required total Si surface area per capacitor energy installed in the drive. The capacitor
MVA for the drive concepts in TABLE I. As an example, energy is a direct linear measure for the amount (volume)
an 11MW compressor drive has been chosen. The of the required polypropylene film, which is causing the
considered drives are commercially available and suitable statistical random failures of the capacitors.
for this application. Depending on the drive concept, the
maximum available peak power for a single unit might be All capacitors have been considered with the same
higher. relative reliability, i.e. the nominal voltage does not affect
the reliability. This is reasonable because the film
In general the installed Si area per MVA is nearly capacitors available on the market are operated with
independent of the topology and mainly depends on comparable electrical field strengths in the polypropylene
x the required switching frequency (defined by dielectric at all nominal voltage levels. Furthermore, it is
the desired THD of the motor voltage and if an assumed that the capacitors in all of the topologies are
output filter is used) operated under the same environmental conditions
including the same ratio of average operating voltage to
x the package design (single-sided cooling in nominal voltage and the same hot spot temperature inside
insulated IGBT modules vs. double-sided the capacitor.
cooled press pack devices)
x the semiconductor technology (LV/HV-IGBTs, Whereas prismatic film capacitor packages (high
IGCTs) and commercially available packages. number of internally parallel connected windings in a large
The higher LV IGBT Si area for the M2C concept package) benefit from the reduced number of connections
compared to the SC-2L-H bridge is as a result of the to the DC busbars, the cylindrical capacitors (low number
symmetrical semiconductor design (i.e. IGBT/diode ratio) of windings in a small package) have advantages due to
both for motor and regenerative operation in the their increased cooling surface resulting in lower hot spot
considered design version, whereas the other topologies temperatures.
are only optimized for motor operation. Furthermore, the
resulting switching frequency is higher compared to all As a result, it is assumed that the required amount of
other concepts. capacitor energy only defines the capacitor reliability.

As a result, the cell-based drives using LV IGBTs have
a lower relative Si FIT rate per MVA (see Total Si FIT rate
per MVA w/o GU/CCB in TABLE II) compared to the
drives using higher blocking press pack devices (4.5 kV)
which show a higher FIT rate due to their more complex
electrical and mechanical structure.
In addition to the power semiconductors, the
corresponding PCB-based driver technology has a
considerable impact on the reliability of the power section.
While IGBT gate units (GU) are designed for a very low
gate power to control the MOS gate of the IGBT, an IGCT
gate unit has to provide a gate current in the range of the
In all cell-based topologies, the DC link capacitor has to
be designed according to the reactive power oscillating
with twice the electrical motor frequency provided by the
single-phase cells to the motor. Only the 3L drives (Fig.
10, Fig. 11) have a central DC link, where the total
reactive power adds up to zero due to the symmetrical 3-
phase structure. This results in a considerably lower
installed capacitor energy per MVA for the 3L-NPP drive.
The cell-based drives – including the SC-3L-H bridge
concept – require a relatively high installed capacitor
energy to compensate for the energy pulsation caused by
the single-phase structure of the cells. Furthermore, the
nominal DC link capacitor voltage of all topologies, except
the M2C, has to cover line voltage tolerances (e.g. +/-10%
at the PCC) under all load conditions. In the M2C reciprocal of the failure rate, a higher percentage
topology, the DC link topology can be controlled represents a longer MTBF.
independently from the rectified line voltage leading to an
optimized capacitor rating. Noredundancy
TABLE III 110% 102%
101% 100% 95%
INSTALLED CAPACITOR ENERGY AND FIT RATE OF 100%
85%
CAPACITORS OF THE 6.6 KV MV DRIVE TOPOLOGIES 90%
BEING CONSIDERED 80%
Nom. Nom. Total FIT rate 70%

relativeMTBF
motor motor avg. cap of total 60%
voltage current energy caps per
50%
[V] [A] per MVA MVA
40%
M2C 6600 1200 239% 309%
30%
20%
SC-2L-H 6600 1250 394% 489% 10%
bridge 0%
M2C SCͲ2LͲHͲbridge 3LͲNPP SCͲ3LͲHͲ SCͲ3LͲHͲ
3L-NPP 6600 1100 100% 100% bridge(IGCT) bridge(IGBT)

Fig. 15: Relative MTBF for the different drive topologies

SC-3L-H 6600 1250 300% 300% (no redundancy)
bridge
(IGCT) A service interval of five years is assumed. Comparing
SC-3L-H 6000 1925 300% 300% the MTBF of the drive concepts without redundancy the
bridge cell-based designs using LV IGBTs have a slight reliability
(IGBT)
advantage. Even in case of cells with a higher current (>
1100A) as shown in TABLE I, the MTBF of the cell-based
topologies does not decrease significantly. This can easily
C. Relative MTBF comparison without redundancy
be achieved as the MTBF for the recooling unit, the
converter control components, the rectifier, the PCBs and
TABLE IV gives the relative failure rates for the
the transformer basically do not increase with a higher
considered drive topologies for the major system
output current. The impact of a larger Si area and a larger
components (see Fig. 13). For the SC-H bridge topologies
capacitor in a power cell is small as these components
the line-side rectifier failure rate is included in the line
contribute less than 20% to the overall FIT rate of the LV
transformer – although the rectifier is part of the cells. A
IGBT-based multilevel drives (referring to drive listed in
higher failure rate for the power infeed up to the motor
TABLE I).
inverter is assumed due to the more complex structure of
these concepts.
D. Relative MTBF comparison with redundancy
In TABLE IV, no redundancy in the power section has
been considered. The recooling unit and the converter
A general limitation of the approach using FIT rates to
control have been considered with identical failure rates
evaluate the reliability of a drive is that only random
for all drive concepts.
failures are included but no systematic failures (see also
chapter TYPES OF FAILURES). And even from the
TABLE IV
RELATIVE FAILURE RATES FOR EACH TOPOLOGY random failures (e.g. operational failures) not all failures
WITHOUT REDUNDANT COMPONENTS have to be included in the failure rate if the supplier
System Line Re- Con- Total defines them as a fault associated with other parties. In
component transformer cooling verter addition, even the number of components considered
FIT rate diode unit control might vary significantly from one vendor to the other. This
share rectifier is the reason why often the “average” failure rate
motor experienced in real life might be higher than the expected
inverter
drive MTBF provided by some vendors (e.g. 20 years).
M2C 53.1 % 99.0 %
(24p rectifier)
Redundancy is an important lever to cope with such
effects in real live operating situations.
SC-2L-H 52.0 % 97.9 %
bridge (30p rectifier) Implementing an (n+1) redundancy increases the
MTBF of the cell-based drive systems (except for the SC-
3L-NPP 54.1 % 24.3 % 21.6 % 100 % 3L-H bridge drives where redundancy is not possible in
(36p rectifier) the power section) significantly. The benefit of an (n+1)
redundancy in the 3L-NPP concept is limited. This is
SC-3L-H 59.6 % 105.5 % because of the limited reliability of how redundancy is
bridge (36p rectifier)
achieved. Example: In a series connection of IGBTs in the
(IGCT)
SC-3L-H 72.3 % 118.2 %
3L-NPP concept, redundancy is only successful in case of
bridge (36p rectifier) a short-circuit (conduct-on-fail) of the IGBT itself. In case
(IGBT) of a malfunction of the associated gate unit, redundancy
Fig. 15 shows the relative MTBF for the drive topologies is not necessarily successful, i.e. there is a certain
being considered at the system level. As the MTBF is a probability that the drive will trip.
 The benefit of a full (n+1) cell redundancy with max. six
Noredundancy n+1 n+2 cell failures in the M2C and max. one cell failure in the
250% SC-2L-H bridge concept exceeds the benefit of a
redundant control in the non-cell based topologies.
Combining both redundant control and (n+1) redundancy
197%
200% in the power section further enhances the reliability, and
179%
171% might be a more economical alternative to solutions with a
143%
full converter redundancy.
150%
relativeMTBF

124%
115%
101% 102% 100%
100% 95% VI. CONCLUSION
85%

The goal of the paper is to reduce some of the supplier

notapplicable

notapplicable
50% specific definitions and interpretations and obtain a clearer
understanding of MV drive topologies with respect to their
reliability and redundancy capability. A comparison based
0%
M2C SCͲ2LͲHͲbridge 3LͲNPP SCͲ3LͲHͲ SCͲ3LͲHͲ
on just the parts count would lead to wrong conclusions.
bridge(IGCT) bridge(IGBT) The approach described in this paper used as many
common assumptions as possible, and only differed with
Fig. 16: Relative MTBF for the different drive topologies
respect to components that are specific to each topology.
(including cell/IGBT redundancy)
As a result, it can be seen that nearly all drive
Beyond the associated costs, the step from (n+1) to
topologies have a comparable system MTBF (without
(n+2) redundancy does not significantly increase the
redundancy). Due to the existing uncertainty of the MTBF
reliability of the cell-based concepts. In other words, the
data (i.e. few devices installed in the field are comparable
benefit of (n+2) redundancy does not significantly exceed
to other consumer goods) the small differences between
the disadvantage due to the increased component count.
the topologies are negligible.
In the 3L-NPP, the effect of the reduced total reliability
Other benefits that specific topologies (e.g. lower
due to the increased component count already exceeds
harmonics of multilevel drives, superior fault behavior of
the theoretical advantage of the (n+2) vs. the (n+1)
decentralized DC concepts) can offer, and which can also
redundancy. This is why the MTBF for the (n+2) is lower
increase the availability (e.g. time to repair, serviceability)
than for (n+1) redundancy.
have not been considered but are further differentiating
factors.
nored.Ctrl. withred.Ctrl.
noCell/IGBTred. noCell/IGBTred.
nored.Ctrl. withred.Ctrl. A second result is that topologies allowing an (n+1)
(n+1)Cell/IGBTred. (n+1)Cell/IGBTred.
250% redundancy to be implemented have a significantly higher
216%
reliability when compared to drives without redundancy.
200%
179%
For all topologies, except the SC-3L-H bridge, an (n+1)
167% redundancy in the power section can be implemented.
150% 143% 145% This leads to an MTBF that significantly higher (factor 1.4
relativeMTBF

117%
124% to 1.8) as without redundancy, but only for the cell-based
115%
101% 102% 106%
100%
107% topologies (M2C, SC-2L-H bridge). The benefit of an
95% 95%
100% (n+1) redundancy in the 3L-NPP concept is limited.
85%

50% In addition to reliability, availability is another important

0%
M2C SCͲ2LͲHͲbridge
Fig. 17: Relative MTBF for the different drive topologies
(including (n+1) cell/IGBT redundancy and redundant
control)
Fig. 17 shows the influence of a redundant converter
control including redundant CPUs, interfaces between
control and power section, current and voltage sensors,
power supplies etc. According to extensive field
experience with state-of-the-art control electronics the
reliability of such components is already very high.
Theoretical calculations (e.g. acc. to IEC 61709) result in
very conservative reliability data, whereas field data show
results that are better by a factor of 5-10.
factor for the productivity of a system. Therefore, the
overall service and maintenance concept has a high
impact on the availability.
3LͲNPP SCͲ3LͲHͲ SCͲ3LͲHͲ
bridge(IGCT) bridge(IGBT)
In addition, reliability is also influenced by the
application-specific operating conditions, such as ambient
and cooling water temperature, mechanical stress and air
pollution. All of the values mentioned above are based on
conservative assumptions. Therefore, the MTBF in a
specific application can be significantly higher under
advantageous operating conditions.
 VII. REFERENCES VIII. VITA

[1] IEC 60050-191 International electrotechnical
vocabulary; chapter 191: dependability and quality
of service
[2] M. Hiller, S. Sommer, M. Beuermann; “Converter
topologies and power semiconductors for
industrial medium voltage converters”; Industry
Applications Society Annual Meeting, 2008. IAS
'08. IEEE 5-9 Oct. 2008 Page(s):1 - 8, Edmonton,
Canada
[3] M. Hiller, D. Krug, R. Sommer, S. Rohner, „A New
Highly Modular Medium Voltage Converter
Topology for Industrial Drive Applications“,
EPE2009, Barcelona, Spain
[4] M. Hiller, R. Sommer, M. Beuermann; „Medium-
Voltage Drives - An overview of the common
converter topologies and power semiconductor
devices”; IEEE Industry Applications Magazine;
Mar/Apr 2010
[5] ABB Switzerland Ltd. Semiconductors;
Application Note 5SYA 2042-04 “Failure rates of
HiPak modules due to cosmic rays”
Stephan Busse graduated from the
University of Applied Science in
Nuremberg (Germany) in 2004 with a
degree in electrical engineering. He has
been working as Medium Voltage Drive
Product Manager for many years.
Marc Hiller graduated from the
University of Federal Armed Forces
Munich (Germany) with a PhD degree
from the faculty of electrical engineering.
He has been an R&D and project
manager for industrial Medium Voltage
Drives for 10+ years.
Patrick Himmelmann graduated from
the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
(Germany) in 2011 with a degree in
electrical engineering. He has been
working as an R&D Engineer for Medium
Voltage Drives for three years.

[6] ABB website: http://new.abb.com/drives/medium-

voltage-ac-drives/acs5000 Klemens Kahlen graduated from the
RWTH Aachen University (Germany)
[7] GE Power Conversion website:
with a PhD degree from the faculty of
http://www.gepowerconversion.com/product-
electrical engineering and information
solutions/medium-voltage-drives/mv7000
technology. He has been a technical
[8] TMEIC website TMdrive-XL75: consulting engineer for medium voltage
http://www.tmeic.com/TMEIC%20Global/66- drive systems for many years.
Product%20Power%20Electronics%20TMd%20X
L75-357
[9] TMEIC website TMdrive-XL85:
http://www.tmeic.com/TMEIC%20Global/80-
Product%20Power%20Electronics%20TMd%20X
L85-27
[10] P. Wikström, L. A. Terens, H. Kobi; “Reliability,
Availability, and Maintainability of High-Power
Variable-Speed Drive Systems“; IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 36, No.
1, Jan/Feb 2000
[11] S. Alvarez Hidalgo; “Characterisation of 3.3 kV
IGCTs for Medium Power Applications”; Thesis,
Laboratoire d’Electrotechnique et d’Electronique
Industrielle, LEEI, Toulouse, France, 2005
[12] Dinesh Chamund, Colin Rout; “Reliability of High
Power Bipolar Devices”; Application note, DYNEX
SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, 2009
[13] IEC 61508-4, Functional safety of
electrical/electronic/programmable electronic
safety-related Systems, Part 4: Definitions and
abbreviations, 2010
[14] Nicholas D. Benavides, Timothy J. McCoy,
Michael A. Chrin: “Reliability Improvements in
Integrated Power Systems with Pressure-Contact
Semiconductors;
https://www.navalengineers.org/SiteCollectionDoc
uments/2009%20Proceedings%20Documents/AD
%202009/Papers/Benavides_McCoy_Chrin.pdf