Mosfet reliability in Class D amplifiers - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Class D

Class D Switching Power Amplifiers and Power D/A conversion

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 3rd March 2005, 11:49 AM   #11
Kenshin is offline Kenshin  China
diyAudio Member
 
Kenshin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: China
Quote:
Originally posted by analogspiceman


One should never say "never", but the mosfet dv/dt problem generally only occurs in a totem pole structure where one of the mosfets' body diodes is first conducting substantial current at the end of dead time and then is immediately (i.e., before it fully recovers) forced, by sudden turn on of the other mosfet, to support too much voltage too quickly, thereby inducing a destructive secondary breakdown in the parasitic bipolar/diode region of the mosfet. Turn off drive speed to the totem pole's "passive" device simply doesn't matter because its voltage is pinned by the current flowing in the reverse direction through its own body diode.
when the low side FET is pulling in current to VSS, turn it off suddenly, and the output voltage of switching stage will rise to VDD suddenly due to the output inductor ...does this matter?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2005, 12:32 PM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
No it does indeed help switching in some cases. But we have to keep two cases in mind:

1.)
The output current is lower than the idle current (i.e the triangular current flowing in the output coil when an input signal is absent - maybe someone knows a better expression for this ) and then the inductor helps us with switching and even the body diode of the FET that is switching off doesn't fet into conduction. Only the body diode of the FET that is about to turn on gets some foprward voltage and therefor some current flowing. But this is not a problem because this current is taken over by the FET itself and it is therefore harmless.

2.)
The inductor current is exceeding the peak value of the aforementioned "idle current". In this case it can happen that the body diode of the FET that is turned off is getting into conduction, which is causing a reverse-recovery current-spike.

This spike can be minimised (or even completely eliminated in theory) by clever timing of the FET drive-signals.

Regards

Charles
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th March 2005, 06:20 PM   #13
Pierre is offline Pierre  France
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Paris
Following the discussion about mosfet selection, I have been surprised that Hypex's Ucd400 amplifiers use the "very advanced power mosfet" (in their own words) FDP42AN15A0.
When I have read its datasheet, I have found that it is the kind of mosfets that look perfect in the datasheet but isn't completely rated for avalanche nor dv/dt. It is rated at 150V, so one could say they have skimped a bit, as the maximum voltage of the module is about +/-65V if I am not wrong.

Yes, it has low gate charge and Rds(on), but its _single pulse_ avalanche energy is 90mJ, compared with the 460mJ rated in the IRFB38N20D, for example.

Surprisingly though, the module seems to be reliable.

So, how can one know "a priori" if one mosfet is going to be suitable and reliable for a Class-D amplifier?

One thing that has been cleared is that one mustn't go to dV/dt higher than the rating for the body diode (that isn't present in a lot of datasheets, on the other hand).


Thanks!
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2005, 08:07 AM   #14
Pierre is offline Pierre  France
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Paris
Adding more info on the issue, LCAudio ZAP Pulse 2.0 modules seemed to use IRF640N from IR, right?

They have a higher Rds(on), about 150mohms, but have very low gate charge, etc, _AND_ are avalanche rated and have a 5V/ns dv/dt. They are rated at 200V instead of 150V.
From the reliability point of view, I think they are a good choice, although the Rds is a bit high.

However, perhaps the newer modules have other mosfet, could anyone tell what are they using?

Thanks!
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2005, 11:08 AM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
They have a higher Rds(on), about 150mohms, but have very low gate charge
This is still better than the original 640 (without suffix N) that had even 180 milli Ohms. The types with suffix N of the 530, 540 and 640 have all slightly improved Rds(on), trr and dV/dt values compared to the "original" ones.

Regards

Charles


P.S. How is your amp, Pierre ? If you want to try to "fry" some 640s (without suffix N) then I'd have some in my drawer that you can have if you like.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2005, 12:50 PM   #16
Pierre is offline Pierre  France
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Paris
A lot of thanks for the offering, Charles. You are really kind.
They are quite cheap and easy to get here, however, I would like to try another ones with lower Rds(on).
Nevertheless, I suspect that my current mosfets (FQP46N15) are quite good, they have dV/dt=6V/ns, and are avalanche rated (if I am not wrong) with single and repetitive energies of 650 and 21mJ, respectively. They have acceptable gate charge (around 70-100nC) and very low Rds(on). Looking at theif datasheet, they seem very roughed, don't they?

One question that has just come to my mind: When the amp failed, I had two modules running at +/-40V on 4 ohm speakers, and I have 7A fuses in each rail. Is it possible that the failure was caused by _one_ blown fuse that produced a misbehaviour in the circuit, causing a shoot-through current and destroyed both mosfets? Just thinking loud, that shouldn't cause both mosfets to fail and only in one of the modules...

My amp works very well apart from that esporadic and inexplicable failures. :-(

Best regards,
Pierre
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2005, 01:20 PM   #17
subwo1 is offline subwo1  United States
diyAudio Member
 
subwo1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North American Continent
Pierre, since it sounds like you were driving two speakers independently rather than in parallel or series from a bridge amp, I tend to think that one amp failure should not cause the other to fail. But one possible though unlikely explanation is that if you send the signal through a set of mono amplifiers out of phase to counter power supply pumping, then one amp not operating could cause the other to pump a supply up, leading to the MOSFETs breaking down and passing avalanche current.
__________________
USMPS
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/switchmode/
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2005, 01:34 PM   #18
Pierre is offline Pierre  France
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Paris
No, both amps were operated with independent speakers and with stereo signal, not out of phase.
The supply was +/-45V at idle, and my mosfet were 150V, I haven't experienced problems with pumping so far.

Anyway, I was only thinking loud, I don't think it was due to a failing fuse as one of the amps survived without damage, and I can't find a way in that blowing a fuse can lead to failure of BOTH mosfets. BTW: the one that survived had FQP46N15 mosfets, the other had NTP32N15 from On-Semi.
BUT: the one that failed had previously broken a pair of FQP46N15 in the lab, but as I didn't have more, I put the NTPs. Perhaps the FQPs failed due to an accidental short in the lab... perhaps not! Some more tests are needed!

The thing is: do that mosfets seem rough enough to you?

BTW: The speakers were quite big, a pair of 2x15"+tweeter JBL's TR225.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2005, 01:36 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
The supply pumping could indeed lead to such a failure if both amps are fed in parallel. This could even happen to a single amp as well if I do a little more thinking. This could only be prevented by having capacitors of significant size AFTER the fuses AND under-/over- voltage lockout.

Regards

Charles
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2005, 01:51 PM   #20
Pierre is offline Pierre  France
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Paris
Next time I will monitor the VCC and VSS rails to see if they grow, but I am afraid they don't do too much.
I used 22.000uF per rail (after the fuses, of course) and music (normal LF content, not 20Hz sines or the like :-) Anyway, climbing from 45V to 75V seems too much to me, mainly because I haven't seen that: even in my lab tests with resistive loads, I got 20Hz at 265W while observing that the rails _decreased_ due to transformer losses and 50Hz ripple, instead of having overvoltage.

Besides, the logical thing is that overvoltage should have lead to failure of both modules, right?

Thanks for your help
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Car Amplifiers Class D anselhu Car Audio 2 9th May 2009 04:59 PM
Mosfet monoblock amplifiers DocLorren Swap Meet 2 10th September 2007 04:53 PM
Class A reliability greg788 Solid State 8 30th June 2007 03:34 AM
Class D amplifiers and ESL's jmateus Planars & Exotics 19 22nd January 2006 08:51 PM
protecting high-powered mosfet amplifiers.. carelforum Solid State 11 5th January 2005 03:09 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2