2015 IEEE International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC) 2015
DOI: 10.1109/intlec.2015.7572399
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fundamental efficiency limits in power electronic systems

Abstract: In this paper, the efficiency limits of power electronic converters are investigated from a semiconductor point of view. The approach is presented on the example of a hard switching half bridge while taking Si, SiC and GaN devices into account. Beside parasitic effects of the semiconductors itself, further converter non-idealities and limits from a thermal point of view are discussed. All in all, the obtained results act as a design guideline and allow for an easy comparison of different semiconductor technolo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This D-FOM does not require knowledge of the die area of the device, as R ′ on C ′ oss,Q = R on C oss,Q , and the D-FOM for a given semiconductor therefore can be determined from nonproprietary datasheet parameters. Similar device FOMs that depend on R ′ on and the differential C ′ oss [6] and energyequivalent output capacitance C ′ oss,E [10,36,37] have been reported, but the C oss,Q dependency proposed here is the correct metric to determine the minimum hard-switching losses of a half-bridge. Finally, we can rewrite (8) compactly as:…”
Section: Optimal Power Semiconductor Losses For Two-level Bridgementioning
confidence: 55%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This D-FOM does not require knowledge of the die area of the device, as R ′ on C ′ oss,Q = R on C oss,Q , and the D-FOM for a given semiconductor therefore can be determined from nonproprietary datasheet parameters. Similar device FOMs that depend on R ′ on and the differential C ′ oss [6] and energyequivalent output capacitance C ′ oss,E [10,36,37] have been reported, but the C oss,Q dependency proposed here is the correct metric to determine the minimum hard-switching losses of a half-bridge. Finally, we can rewrite (8) compactly as:…”
Section: Optimal Power Semiconductor Losses For Two-level Bridgementioning
confidence: 55%
“…However, since the capacitance as a function of voltage u (and not x) is desired, by integrating the voltage u over x (see (36)) and solving for x with use of (31):…”
Section: B Switching Losses: C ′mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• Device figure-of-merit (DFOM) [94]; this FOM includes the correct capacitive loss contribution in hard-switching bridgelegs, leveraging the charge-equivalent output capacitance C oss,Q defined in [74], as opposed to the energy-equivalent one used in [91]- [93]:…”
Section: B Review Of Existing Fomsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the contours in Figure 3b, there is an optimum chip size for each switching frequency, which does not necessarily result in the lowest on-state resistance. The authors in [40] found that this optimum is located at the intersection of the dynamic losses P dyn and static losses P stat for the respective chip size, and depends on the transistor current and the switching frequency. With increasing switching frequency, the optimum chip size decreases, i.e., the on-state resistance R DSon rises and the output capacitance decreases.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Pfc Topologymentioning
confidence: 99%