This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Figures-of-Merit (FOMs) are widely-used to compare power semiconductor materials and devices and to motivate research and development of new technology nodes. These material- and device-specific FOMs, however, fail to directly translate into quantifiable performance in a specific power electronics application. Here, we combine device performance with specific bridge-leg topologies to propose the extended FOM, or X-FOM, a Figure-of-Merit that quantifies bridge-leg performance in multi-level (ML) topologies and supports the quantitative comparison and optimization of topologies and power devices. To arrive at the proposed X-FOM, we revisit the fundamental scaling laws of the on-state resistance and output capacitance of power semiconductors to first propose a revised device-level semiconductor Figure-of-Merit (D-FOM). The D-FOM is then generalized to a multi-level topology with an arbitrary number of levels, output power, and input voltage, resulting in the X-FOM that quantitatively compares hard-switched semiconductor stage losses and filter stage requirements across different bridge-leg structures and numbers of levels, identifies the maximum achievable efficiency of the semiconductor stage, and determines the loss-optimal combination of semiconductor die area and switching frequency. To validate the new X-FOM and showcase its utility, we perform a case study on candidate bridge-leg structures for a three-phase 10 kW photovoltaic (PV) inverter, with the X-FOM showing that (a) the minimum hard-switching losses are an accurate approximation to predict the theoretically maximum achievable efficiency and relative performance between bridge-legs and (b) the 3-level bridge-leg outperforms the 2-level configuration, despite utilizing a SiC MOSFET with a lower D-FOM than in the 2-level case.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anderson et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: