Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of 1700-V SiC-MOSFET and Si-IGBT Modules Under Identical Test Setup Conditions

Fuentes, Carlos D., Kouro, Samir, Bernet, Steffen·2019·IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
DOI 10.1109/tia.2019.2934713
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article, a detailed hard switching behavior comparison between a 1700-V silicon carbide metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect-transistor and a 1700-V silicon insulated-gate bipolar-transistor module was performed in an identical low inductance commutation circuit for comparable driving conditions. To accomplish this, devices using same module formats were used and carefully selected to match thermal characteristics in the exact same commutation circuit. Furthermore, a simulation of the modules in inverter operation based on the experimental results and complimented by datasheet based on-state values and Foster thermal models has been performed to study losses, junction temperatures, and current utilization. These results are further discussed highlighting advantages and limitations regarding these state-of-the-art SiC devices versus relative cost when contrasted with a comparable Si-based device.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tia.2019.2934713

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. 10.1109/TPEL.2018.2834345 · DOI
  2. rabkowski, 0, Comparison of the power losses in 1700?V Si IGBT and SiC MOSFET modules including reverse conduction, Proc 17th Eur Conf Power Electron Appl, 1
  3. rodrigues, 0, Characterization of 1.7 kV SiC MOSFET modules for medium/high power current source inverter in photovoltaic applications, Proc Int Exhib Conf Power Electron Intell Motion Renewable Energy Energy Manage, 1
  4. acharya, 0, Comparison of 1.7?kV, 450?A SiC-MOSFET and Si-IGBT based modular three phase power block, Proc IEEE Energy Convers Congr Expo, 5119
  5. 2007, Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
  6. schon, 2013, The Measurement of High Impulse Voltage and Currents, 69
  7. 10.1109/TPEL.2017.2655491 · DOI
  8. 10.1109/TIE.2017.2721882 · DOI
  9. negishi, 0, 3.3 kV all-SiC power module for traction system use, Proc Int Exhib Conf Power Electron Intell Motion Renewable Energy Energy Manage, 1
  10. ishikawa, 2017, Development of rolling stock inverters using SiC, Hitachi Rev, 66, 155
  11. mcbryde, 0, Performance comparison of 1200?V silicon and SiC devices for UPS application, Proc 36th Annu Conf IEEE Ind Electron Soc, 2657
  12. wang, 0, Performance comparison of 1200?V 100?A SiC MOSFET and 1200?V 100?A silicon IGBT, Proc IEEE Energy Convers Congr Expo, 3230
  13. catellani, 0, Characterization of 1.2?kV silicon carbide (SiC) semiconductors in hard switching mode for three-phase current source inverter (CSI) prototyping in, Proc Int Exhib Conf Power Electron Intell Motion Renewable Energy Energy Manage, 1
  14. 10.1109/ITEC.2016.7520242 · DOI
  15. 10.1109/TPEL.2013.2279950 · DOI
  16. 10.1109/INTLEC.2015.7572439 · DOI
  17. wintrich, 2015, Application Manual Power Semiconductors
  18. 10.1109/63.602562 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Fuentes, C. D., Kouro, S., & Bernet, S.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2019-11
Volume
55
Issue
6
Pages
7765-7775
ISSN
  • 0093-9994
  • 1939-9367
DOI
10.1109/tia.2019.2934713
Cited by
52
References
0
Licence
Funders
  • Conicyt (CONICYT-PCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2015-21151279)
  • AC3E (CONICYT/FB0008)
  • Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (CONICYT/FONDAP/15110019)
  • Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (1191532)
  • Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.