www.fairchildsemi.com AN-9066 UniFET™ — Optimized Switch for Discontinuous Current Mode Power Factor Correction Abstract This application note discusses merits of planar technology power MOSFET in discontinuous current mode power factor correction application. In most test conditions it is cost competitive and gives performance benefits compared to a super-junction technology device. The benefits are verified through the mathematical simulation and systemlevel experiments. A new planar technology power MOSFET from Fairchild shows faster switching characteristics that contribute to higher efficiency and lower device temperature. Introduction Switch-mode power supplies are increasingly being designed with an active power factor correction at the input stage to meet international regulations for harmonics. The boost topology in discontinuous current mode (DCM) is most suitable power factor correction (PFC) method for converters with less than 300W power rating[1]. In this topology, the switching-on power loss of boost switch is negligible, and the major power losses are the switching-off losses and conduction losses. After the super-junction devices have been introduced, they are often considered as optimized switches for active power factor correction because of extremely low on-resistance and highly nonlinear capacitance curves. In the discontinuous current mode power factor correction, however, the conventional planar devices can compete against the powerful super-junction family. This article shows that Fairchild’s UniFET™ power MOSFET can provide performance superior to the superjunction devices in the discontinuous current mode power factor correction applications. Power MOSFET Technologies The super-junction technology utilizes deep P-type pillar structure in the body of the power MOSFET. The effect of the pillars is to confine the electric field in the lightly doped epitaxial region of the power MOSFET. Thanks to this Ppillar, the resistivity of N-epi can be reduced compared to the conventional planar technology, while maintaining the same breakdown voltage. Therefore, typical on-resistance of the super-junction MOSFETs is only one third of the conventional planar power MOSFETs at the same chip size. Most commercially available super-junction devices adopt multiple epi-layers to build the deep P-pillar structure. The multi-epi process, however, has some disadvantages, such © 2009 Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Rev. 1.0.1 • 4/3/09 as increased process steps and higher manufacturing cost. In contrast, the UniFET™ power MOSFET utilizes a planar double-diffused metal-oxide semiconductor (DMOS) process that is very mature and highly cost competitive. Moreover, it has improved ring terminations and optimized active cell structures compared to the conventional planar power MOSFETs. The resulting specific on-resistance of the UniFET is even close to some super-junction devices at 500V of breakdown voltage range. The planar power MOSFETs also have higher reliability than the super-junction MOSFETs under unclamped inductive switching (UIS) condition, which can occur during power supply power-up or AC line transient. The devices can enter breakdown, and even be destroyed, in the worst situations. Typically, the planar MOSFETs are much better than the super-junction devices in UIS mode. The newest super-junction technology enabled equivalent UIS rating to the planar MOSFETs at unit area; however, its practical rating as a single device is still inferior to planar MOSFETs because of smaller die size. The UIS ruggedness of UniFET is also far better than previous generations of planar technology. For an example, a 265mΩ, 500V UniFET shows more than 80A of avalanche current under low coil UIS test. Moreover, it does not fail at all in the test. On the contrary, a conventional planar MOSFET with same on-resistance failed at around 40A. The improved ruggedness ensures enhanced reliability. In terms of switching performance, a gate charge is one of the benchmarks to compare different devices. The UniFET has a smaller gate charge, faster switching characteristics, and reduced switching power losses than the conventional planar MOSFETs. Some typical electric characteristics benchmarks are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Gate Charge and Parasitic Capacitance Benchmark Data FDB12N50 FQB12N50 FDA16N50 FQA16N50 QG COSS CISS CRSS 22nC 39nC 32nC 60nC 140pF 220pF 235pF 325pF 985Pf 1550pF 1495pF 2300pF 12pF 25pF 20pF 35pF Note: 1. FDB12N50 and FDA16N50 are UniFET™. FQB12N50 and FQA16N50 are QFET®, is a previous generation of planar power MOSFET. www.fairchildsemi.com AN-9066 APPLICATION NOTE Discontinuous Current Mode Power Factor Correction Simulation and Experimental Results Generally, power factor correction circuits have used a boost topology because it is simple and low costs. There are two modes of the power factor correction boost circuit operation. One is continuous current mode (CCM) that has continuous inductor current. This mode has many benefits, like lower core loss and ripple current and a smaller input filter; but it requires very fast reverse recovery diode as the boost diode since the boost switch in being switched on while the inductor current is not zero. The discontinuous current mode switches on the boost switch when the inductor current is zero, allowing less expensive diodes to be used. The turn-on loss of the boost switch is also negligible. Usually, the discontinuous current mode is used for small power supplies, 300W or less, that have relatively small inductor current, but are very sensitive to cost constraints. Conduction loss is easy to evaluate because the RDS(on) value is clearly stated in datasheets, but the switching loss varies greatly by the circuit conditions. To compare the switching performance in the system, one UniFET and one superjunction device are selected and evaluated. An inductive switching test board was used to measure switching loss at turn-off transient. In this way, it is possible to keep the important test variables, like drain current and external series gate resistor, under control. Figure 1 shows the energy loss curves with different conditions of the series gate resistor and the drain-current. The solid traces indicate the losses of the UniFET and the dotted traces are losses of the super-junction device. There are four different lines per device, according to the pre-set drain current levels. The drain current levels are 20A, 10A, 6.5A, and 1.8A from top to bottom. 450 Switching-off Energy Loss [µJ] 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 External Series Gate Resistance [Ω] © 2009 Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Rev. 1.0.1 • 4/3/09 www.fairchildsemi.com 2 www.fairchildsemi.com 450 Switching-Off Enery Loss [µJ] 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 External Series Gate Resistance[Ω] Figure 1. Energy Losses During Switching-Off Transition © 2009 Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Rev. 1.0.1 • 4/3/09 www.fairchildsemi.com AN-9066 APPLICATION NOTE It is obvious that the UniFET has far less energy loss than the super-junction device at high current condition. Also, the UniFET outperforms the super-junction device as gate resistance becomes larger. The only test point where the super-junction device does better than the UniFET is at the lowest current and the smallest gate resistor. The power loss during switching-on transition has not been evaluated because it is negligible in the DCM PFC. Based on the switching performance evaluation results, a simulation was preformed to analyze system-wide performance. A 200Wrated DCM PFC was assumed for the simulation and simulation time has set to a single cycle of AC input. The simulated conduction losses are shown in Figure 2. The lower RDS(on) makes the less conduction loss. Clearly, the low RDS(on) is the most significant benefit of the superjunction devices. Figure 3 shows combined loss curves at external series gate resistance of 15Ω. In Figure 3, the estimated performance of the UniFET is better than the super-junction device due to its fast switching characteristics. The distortion at zero-crossing current regions is due to convergence error of the simulation. With more switching energy loss data, the convergence error can be reduced. Figure 2. Simulated Conduction Losses In Watt When lowered to 4.4Ω gate resistor, the super-junction device is slightly better than the UniFET in Figure 4. As shown in Figure 1, there are not much difference in switching-off power losses with small resistor and low drain current conditions. Figure 3. Simulated Combined Losses with RG=15Ω To verify simulation results, both devices are evaluated using a state-of-the-art game console power supply. The devices are applied to DCM PFC block of the power supply and the test conditions are set as VIN=110VAC/60Hz, POUT=225W, RG(on)=22Ω, and RG(off)=3.3Ω. Figure 4. Simulated Combined Losses with RG=4.4Ω © 2009 Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Rev. 1.0.1 • 4/3/09 www.fairchildsemi.com 4 AN-9066 APPLICATION NOTE In Figure 5, an IR camera was used to measure device temperature. Three measurement points are a PFC diode and two paralleled PFC MOSFETs. Even with small gate resistor, the UniFET temperature is lower than the superjunction device by around 10 degrees. The reason for this lower temperature is smaller switching losses, as shown in Figure 6. The UniFET switching-off energy loss at the peak of AC input voltage is less than a half of the super-junction device switching loss. There is a little plateau in the drain current of the super-junction that makes switching-off loss bigger. There was no such waveform in the bench test. Perhaps it is due to different gate drive circuitry and printed circuit board layout. interleaving technique can reduce the total system cost compared to CCM topology. Although it requires a pair of boost inductors, boost switches, and rectifiers, it can use small-sized filters, smaller high-voltage aluminum electrolytic capacitor, a less-expensive 500V-rated boost switches, and slower rectifiers. In addition, making the flat panel TV slim is a trend and the smaller components are a crucial requirement for a low-profile switching power supply. As the interleaving PFC is also operated in discontinuous current mode, the UniFET can be quite competitive with the super-junction device. To compare system performance, the UniFET and the super-junction device were tested with an interleaved DCM PFC evaluation board. The evaluation was done using an interleaved CRM controller with phase management. Two RURP860 ultrafast rectifiers are applied as boost diodes. The test conditions are set as RG(off)=3.9Ω, room VIN=115VAC/60Hz,RG(on)=10Ω, temperature without fan, and an external bias for controller supply voltage. Recently, dedicated controllers for the interleaved discontinuous current mode power factor correction were introduced to the market. The interleaved CRM PFC technique is a good alternative solution to implement highdensity, cost-effective converters with an extended input power range. It quickly became mainstream topology in switching power supplies for flat panel displays because the (b) UniFET™ (a) Super-Junction Device Figure 5. Device Temperature (Not Same Scale) (a) Super-Junction Device Figure 6. Switching-Off Energy Loss © 2009 Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Rev. 1.0.1 • 4/3/09 (b) UniFET™ www.fairchildsemi.com 5 AN-9066 APPLICATION NOTE 98 Efficiency [%] 97 96 95 94 UniFET, 20A/500V Super-junction, 21A/500V 93 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Output Power [W] Figure 7. Efficiency Curves with 115V AC Input The efficiency results are shown in Figure 7. There is not much difference in efficiency when in heavy load. Basically, the super-junction device has lower RDS(on) than the UniFET at same drain current rating and therefore will have more conduction loss advantage as the load becomes heavier. The smaller switching loss of the UniFET compensates its higher RDS(on) well in heavy load area and the UniFET shows slightly better performance. In the lightload area, the switching loss dominates the power losses and the UniFET surpasses the super-junction device. © 2009 Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Rev. 1.0.1 • 4/3/09 Conclusion The performance of the UniFET™ was evaluated at both device level and system level. It showed good results against the super-junction device and can be an optimum solution in DCM PFC application as long as required breakdown voltage of the boost switch is 500V. The interleaved DCM PFC is gaining attention recently and this is another application where the UniFET can be considered as a high-performance, cost-effective boost switch. www.fairchildsemi.com 6 AN-9066 APPLICATION NOTE Table 2. 500V UniFET™ Line-up Part Number BVDSS RDS(ON) Max (W) at VGS = 10V Qg Typ. (nC) at VGS = 5V ID (A) QRR Typ. (nC) at diF/dt=100A/µs Package FDD5N50U FDD5N50F FDD5N50 FDPF5N50FT FDP5N50 FDPF5N50T FDD6N50F FDU6N50 FDD6N50 FDPF7N50F FDP7N50 FDPF7N50 FDB12N50U FDB12N50F FDPF12N50FT FDB12N50 FDP12N50 FDPF12N50T FDPF13N50FT FDB15N50 FDP15N50 FDH15N50 FDP16N50 FDPF16N50T FDA16N50 FDP18N50 FDPF18N50 FDPF18N50T FDA18N50 FDP20N50F FDPF20N50FT FDA20N50F FDP20N50 FDPF20N50T FDA20N50 FDA24N50 FDA24N50F FDA28N50 FDA28N50F FDH44N50 FDH45N50F FDA50N50 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 2.000 1.550 1.400 1.550 1.400 1.400 1.150 0.900 0.900 1.150 0.900 0.900 0.800 0.700 0.700 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.540 0.380 0.380 0.380 0.390 0.380 0.380 0.265 0.265 0.265 0.265 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.230 0.230 0.230 0.190 0.200 0.155 0.175 0.120 0.120 0.105 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 15.0 12.8 12.8 15.0 12.8 12.8 21.0 21.0 21.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 30.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 45.6 45.6 45.6 65.0 65.0 80.0 80.0 90.0 105.0 105.0 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 10.00 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 12.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 16.00 16.00 16.50 18.00 18.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 20.00 22.00 20.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 24.00 28.00 28.00 44.00 45.00 48.00 33 120 1800 120 1800 1800 150 1700 1700 150 1700 1700 100 370 370 3500 3500 3500 450 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5400 5400 5400 5400 500 500 500 7200 7200 7200 8100 1400 8000 1380 14000 640 10000 TO-252(DPAK) TO-252(DPAK) TO-252(DPAK) TO-220F TO-220 TO-220F TO-252(DPAK) TO-251(IPAK) TO-252(DPAK) TO-220F TO-220 TO-220F TO-263(D2PAK) TO-263(D2PAK) TO-220F TO-263(D2PAK) TO-220 TO-220F TO-220F TO-263(D2PAK) TO-220 TO-247 TO-220 TO-220F TO-3P TO-220 TO-220F TO-220F TO-3P TO-220 TO-220F TO-3P TO-220 TO-220F TO-3P TO-3PN TO-3PN TO-3PN TO-3PN TO-247 TO-247 TO-3P © 2009 Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Rev. 1.0.1 • 4/3/09 www.fairchildsemi.com 7 AN-9066 APPLICATION NOTE Reference [1] Fairchild application note, AN-42047 Power Factor Correction Basics Author Won-suk Choi and Sung-mo Young, Application Engineer. HV PCIA PSS Team / Fairchild Semiconductor Phone +82-32-680-1839 Fax +82-32-680-1823 Email [email protected] DISCLAIMER FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO ANY PRODUCTS HEREIN TO IMPROVE RELIABILITY, FUNCTION, OR DESIGN. FAIRCHILD DOES NOT ASSUME ANY LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICATION OR USE OF ANY PRODUCT OR CIRCUIT DESCRIBED HEREIN; NEITHER DOES IT CONVEY ANY LICENSE UNDER ITS PATENT RIGHTS, NOR THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. LIFE SUPPORT POLICY FAIRCHILD’S PRODUCTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED FOR USE AS CRITICAL COMPONENTS IN LIFE SUPPORT DEVICES OR SYSTEMS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION. As used herein: 1. Life support devices or systems are devices or systems which, (a) are intended for surgical implant into the body, or (b) support or sustain life, or (c) whose failure to perform when properly used in accordance with instructions for use provided in the labeling, can be reasonably expected to result in significant injury to the user. © 2009 Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation Rev. 1.0.1 • 4/3/09 2. A critical component is any component of a life support device or system whose failure to perform can be reasonably expected to cause the failure of the life support device or system, or to affect its safety or effectiveness. www.fairchildsemi.com 8