7
\$\begingroup\$

I'm designing a precharge circuit which will carry 200A when closed. I'd like to use MCO150 Silicon Controlled Rectifiers, but they won't handle the current. Two in parallel looks like the most cost-effective way to handle the current I need. However, I'm concerned about thermal runaway.

The effective impedance of any device will vary with temperature. If that impedance rises with temperature, two devices in parallel will share reasonably well. The device carrying more current heats up more, and its fraction of the total current drops. But if the impedance of the device drops as temperature rises, the device carrying more current starts carrying even more. Sharing fails, and one device hogs the current until it dies.

The datasheet for this SCR doesn't seem to address the issue of temperature coefficient. Is it just assumed that SCRs have a temperature coefficient in one direction or the other? If the temperature coefficient is negative, is there a way to force the two SCRs to share anyway? Or should I try another approach, like a single device or a large contactor?

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ More details: I need to carry 200A when on, and block 900V when off. Like most devices I've seen, the price difference between an SOT-227 SCR and the next package size up is quite dramatic. Paralleling two small devices is frequently much cheaper than using one larger device. Cost-wise, my best choice appears to be a relay. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 18, 2013 at 1:11

1 Answer 1

7
\$\begingroup\$

SCRs do not parallel well. Semiconductor junctions, like those in SCRs, diodes, and bipolar transistors, have a forward voltage drop that decreases with temperature. The hotter SCR will therefore draw more of the current making it even hotter, drawing more of the current, etc.

Why do you think you need SCRs? Their main attributes is their latching behavior and the fact that they can be produced with large current capabilities. If you just want the latter, several MOSFETs in parallel would work. These have a positive temperature coefficient so don't exhibit thermal runaway. Still, you need to derate from assuming each of the FETs will share the current equally.

Since FETs look mostly resistive when on, parallelling them not only decreases the dissipation on each, but also the total dissipation. At 200 A, only 5 mΩ will cause a 1 V drop and 200 W dissipation. That won't be trivial to design to no matter what you use as the switch. It will help if this 200 A is only in short pulses with a much lower averge. Take a look at the SCR datasheet and see the forward drop at 200 A. It won't be all that nice either, and you'll have to deal with significant dissipation with the SCR too.

Fortunately 5 mΩ is not that far fetched for a few FETs in parallel. 4 FETs with maximum Rdson of 20 mΩ would do it, and each would dissipate only 50 W if they were to share the current equally. I'd probably derate to 100 W per FET when designing the thermal system.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'll comment more about my application in a while, but I just wanted to ask: you say that semiconductor junctions have a forward drop that decreases with temperature, but that's not true of a large number of IGBTs I've evaluated. Are they fundamentally different? Designed purposefully to achieve that specific effect? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 15, 2013 at 17:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Remiel: I don't know about IGBTs as I haven't looked at them that closely. However, there is a FET in them, and on state voltage drop doesn't come totally from a forward biased silicon junction. Note that it doesn't at all in a regular bipolar transistor. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 15, 2013 at 17:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've just heard from Infineon that IGBTs in general have positive temperature coefficients, it's not just the ones I've looked at. "Why" is probably deeper magic than I can hold in my head for long without using it. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 16, 2014 at 22:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.