Cited by 52Multilevel Inverters and ConvertersReliability and Maintenance OptimizationSilicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies

A Comparative Reliability Study of Three Fundamental Multilevel Inverters Using Two Different Approaches

Open access
Alavi, Omid, Hooshmand Viki, Abbas, Shamlou, Sadegh·2016·Electronics

Abstract

The reliability of power electronic devices and components is very important to manufacturers. In recent years, many researchers have conducted reliability assessments of power electronic devices, yet the reliability of numerous circuits used widely has not been evaluated. This paper presents a comprehensive reliability evaluation of fundamental multilevel inverters. The reliability of the multilevel inverters is analyzed by calculating the mean time to failure for each component. The calculation was performed by two methods (approximate and exact) to achieve better comparisons. The approximate method is similar to the parts count method used in MIL-HDBK-217 reliability standard, and the exact method exhibits the parts stress method. In the exact method, due to the direct relationship between component failure and temperature, we used Matlab Simulink to determine power losses in diodes and switches taking into account the temperature factor. The results determined by the approximate method showed that the three-level cascade H-bridge was the most reliable of the inverters considered. Although the exact method validates those results, and shows that cascade H-bridge (CHB) had a longer lifespan, but the calculated values are different. Therefore, using different approaches for evaluating reliability results in different outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/electronics5020018

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • CHB has the highest reliability among FC, NPC, and CHB structures.

    “A comparison of reliability has been conducted in [80] between FC, NPC, and CHB structures. The large number of capacitors has resulted in the highest failure rate for FC structure, while CHB has the highest reliability between the three.”
  • In a reliability comparison between FC, NPC, and CHB structures, the large number of capacitors resulted in the highest failure rate for the FC structure.

    “A comparison of reliability has been conducted in [80] between FC, NPC, and CHB structures. The large number of capacitors has resulted in the highest failure rate for FC structure, while CHB has the highest reliability between the three.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Lee, Y.; Hwang, D. A study on the techniques of estimating the probability of failure. J. Chungcheong Math. Soc. 2008, 21, 573-583.
  2. Birolini, A. Reliability Engineering, 5th ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007.
  3. Lyu, M.R. Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering; IEEE Computer Society Press & McGraw-Hill: Hightstown, NJ, USA, 1996.
  4. Ramachandran, P. Limitations of the MTTF Metric for Architecture-Level Lifetime Reliability Analysis. Master's Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA, 2007.
  5. Goel, A. A New Approach to Electronic Systems Reliability Assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA, 2007.
  6. Denson, W.A. Tutorial: PRISM. RAC J. 1999, 7, 1-6.
  7. Graovac, D.; Pürschel, M. IGBT Power Losses Calculation Using the Data-Sheet Parameters; Infineon Application Note; Infineon Technologies AG: Neubiberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 1-17.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alavi, O., Hooshmand Viki, A., & Shamlou, S.
Affiliations
  • K. N. Toosi University of Technology (IR)
  • Department of Electrical Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, P.O. Box 16315-1355 Tehran, Iran
Corresponding author
Alavi, Omid
Venue
Electronics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2016-04-15
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
18
ISSN
2079-9292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2335984176
Cited by
52
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Electronics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Multilevel Inverters and Converters
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Silicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies
Keywords
multilevel inverter, reliability analysis, mean time to failure, MIL-HDBK-217, power electronics reliability

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