Connect with us

half bridge drive oscillatory gate

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by legg, Apr 27, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. legg

    legg Guest

    In a mosfet half bridge, the on-coming switch Vds is held at the
    supply potential while reverse recovery current flows in the
    free-wheeling arrm's diode. There's nothing to stop gate voltage from
    exceeding the turn-on threshold by some volts as only Ciss is active.

    When freewheeling Trr ends, The mosfet is already gate-enhanced to
    exceed the peak Irr. This may equal or exceed the inductive load
    current. The resulting dv/dt brings Crss into the act, but not in the
    tame manner of resistive load current. The gate voltage may actually
    be driven below a threshold of equilibrium by dv/dt induced gate
    currents, producing oscillatory behavior.

    This appears to be agravated by buffered pull-down in the drive, even
    with a high impedance gate drive source.

    Any advice on beating this? reduce the effectiveness of the pull-down

  2. James Arthur

    James Arthur Guest

    Your question isn't clear. There are two FETs, same or different
    polarities, at least four diodes that could free-wheel (body+clamping
    diodes), and many combinations and connections possible.

    Might you mean this:

    .. Vdd
    .. -+-
    .. |
    .. +-----.
    .. Q1 | |
    .. ||--'-. | ^
    .. ||<-. ^ - | =======
    .. __||--+-' ^ | i.1 .-.-.-. load
    .. | D1| \____ | | | |
    .. +-----+------->>---' '--.
    .. Q2 | | |
    .. ||--'-. | ===
    .. ||<-. ^ -
    .. __||--+-' ^ D2
    .. | |
    .. +-----'
    .. |
    .. ===

    where the load is flying back through D1, and Q2 is just being
    driven on?

    If so, I don't understand:
    The gate driver prevents it!

    James Arthur
  3. legg

    legg Guest

    .. Vdd
    .. -+-
    .. |
    .. +-----.
    .. Q1 | |
    .. ||--'-. | ^
    .. ||<-. ^ - | =======
    .. __||--+-' ^ | i.1 .-.-.-. load
    .. | D1| \____ | | | |
    .. +-----+------->>---' '--.
    .. Q2 | | |
    .. ||--'-. | ===
    .. ||<-. ^ -
    .. __||--+-' ^ D2
    .. | |
    .. +-----'
    .. |
    .. ===
    The gate threshold is exceeded without the effects of Crss during
    reverse recovery. When Crss begins to affect the gate, it does so
    severely enough to turn off the fet temorarily, initiating

    That's the interesting thing. The gate drive is fairly high impedance,
    though assisted at the gate with pnp active pull-down.

    The oscillation of interest is 4MHz, , source current with slow' rise
    fast reduction, with peaks exceeding the inductive load current by a
    factor of ~2.

    The oscillation can be sustained for many microseconds, and the
    resulting EMI confuses nearby electronics. Very lossy and heading
    towards valhalla, if not disabled promptly, by a reduction of load.

  4. James Arthur

    James Arthur Guest

    Okay, that's because you're driving Q2 'on', right?
    Then the drive isn't stiff enough. You need a heftier driver, one
    that can overcome the Miller capacitance * dV/dt.

    If it oscillates even with a stiff driver then the problem is likely
    parasitics and you need damping: a small gate resistor or a ferrite
    bead. That's not your problem though.
    James Arthur
  5. Fred Bloggs

    Fred Bloggs Guest

    That's your problem: you do not have enough channel enhancement margin
    at the instant of diode recovery and the FET is going high gain linear.
    The nonlinear diode reverse recovery I-V and a bunch of phase delays
    equate to oscillation. A possible fix is to reduce the high frequency
    linear gain with an R+C snubber from the load to GND.
  6. legg

    legg Guest

    On 27 Apr 2007 17:32:41 -0700, James Arthur <>

    The gate drive is already a combination of the two techniques you
    recommend. As the reverse recovery of the freewheeling diode/fet has
    to be handled, fast turn on with a stiff driver is not an option in
    the bridge. The low impedance turn-off provides stiff drive, when
    Yes..... exactly the problem.
    If gate drive modifications are the only option, then degrading the
    turn-off circuit is one logical step, with efficiency implications of
    it's own.

  7. legg

    legg Guest

    Probably agravated by the upper mosfet's reciprocating the behavior.

    Isn't turn on, accompanied by stable gate waveform threshold plateaus
    also 'linear'?

    An original functional circuit using STW18NB40 had performance that
    was only degraded at higher power levels by the introduction of
    assisted turn-off.

    Substituting IRFP360LC into the modified circuit produced the
    oscillations, at very modest power levels, although the physical
    characteristics of the devices are very similar.

    Two backwards steps.

    Output snubbing, at 47pF, is probably only symbolic at present. In
    high voltage circuits, snubbers are easy ways to throw away power, but
    I can probably double it. Compared to Coss of >400pF, it's a

  8. James Arthur

    James Arthur Guest

    But I understood the followin passage to mean the gate was only
    pulled _down_ hard, but not so when driven high:

    If the gate is not driven hard 'high,' then why not? Normally, it
    should be.

    It sounds like your driver is instead gently goosing the FET into its
    linear region, and the FET, possessing a reactive load, proceeds to
    Why? The standard approach is to just brute-force rip the charge
    out of that freewheeling diode, i.e., damn the torpedoes, turn Q2 on
    hard and fast. That's why gate driver ICs put out _amps_--to rapidly
    traverse the danger zone, avoiding this very problem.

    How fast are you switching anyhow? You haven't mentioned any
    numbers. How do we know irr is a problem?

    If you can't abide shoot-through currents, a ferrite bead on
    Q2(drain) would allow quick transitions despite D1.
    Really, you have two kinds of options: to keep the FET from getting
    and staying linear in the first place (i.e, avoid lingering in the
    linear region during transitions), or to prevent it from oscillating
    when it does (Fred's suggestions).
    That doesn't help--the load still flies back into D1, and D1
    recovery still applies.

    If you're worried about irr(D1), what kind of diode are you using
    for D1, how much freewheeling current is it passing. and how fast are
    the transitions (i.e., what are the trr requirements)? Might there be
    better diode choices? These are all things to ponder.
    Best wishes,
    James Arthur
  9. legg

    legg Guest

    Thanks for the advice.

    At 100KHz, >300V switching losses account for close to 3/4 of the
    losses in the mosfets. As faster switching would not reduce the qrr,
    this is considered a fixed loss, as irr simply increases linearly with

    Any modest increase in fall time that resulted would be expected to
    aggravate EMI, which is one of the features of this pre-existing
    circuit that I have been assigned to correct. As it fits into a family
    of others, both more and less complex and with more and less capacity,
    the choice of options is limited by expectations concerning pricing,
    volume, complexity and IP.

    This is particularly the case when it comes to modifying a power train
    that has been demonstrated functional in the application. The assisted
    turn-off was intended only to assist in reducing dissipation in the
    driver, who's body is being down-sized in a move to SMT.

    The exact topology is not as straight forward as originally outlined,
    but the devices involved in the oscillation refered to in the OP are
    accurately represented by function during the relevant period of time.

  10. James Arthur

    James Arthur Guest

    Ah hah, the motivation for the slow turn-on emerges: EMI. The plot

    A ferrite bead on Q2's drain then? Q2 could switch quickly
    (avoiding oscillation), but at low current (and low EMI). The current
    ramp-up would follow, with a slew rate controlled by the bead,
    lowering EMI. Q2's switching losses would be low.

    Two more comments: a) the main EMI problem could be from the
    oscillation; fast switching might be okay, b) I agree the fact that
    the oscillation lasts so long _does_ suggest rectification or some
    other interaction within the driver (even a wimpy driver should slew
    through the linear region, even if/while the FET oscillates) .

    James Arthur
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day