2086
3, JULY 2005
Parameter Determination for Modeling System
Transients—Part VII: Semiconductors
IEEE PES Task Force on Data for Modeling System Transients of IEEE PES Working Group on Modeling and Analysis
of System Transients Using Digital Simulation (General Systems Subcommittee)
B. Johnson, H. Hess, and J. A. Martinez
Abstract—Power-electronics converters are presently used at
all voltage levels. The representation of power converters and
their control units in transient simulations may be made using
different modeling levels, from a detailed representation of each
semiconductor device to an average representation of the con-
verter without explicitly modeling semiconductor devices at all.
When semiconductors are included, data specification can be a
critical step. Gathering data required to model power converters
in transient simulations can be a difficult task. This paper deals
with data requirements for modeling power semiconductors when
using an EMTP-like tool. The document includes a summary of
guidelines for modeling power converters, proposes a procedure
for creating approximate semiconductor models and includes a
detailed study of two common semiconductor devices. A discus-
sion on the application of very detailed models using specialized
software packages is also included.
Index Terms—Modeling, power system transients, semiconduc-
tors, simulation.
I. INTRODUCTION
P OWER converters are used in many applications in power
systems, both in the power delivery system and as part
of end-use applications [1], [2]. Power delivery applications
include HVdc transmission, flexible ac transmission system
(FACTS) devices at the transmission level, and custom power
devices at the distribution level [1], [3]. Many distributed gen-
eration and storage devices also incorporate power-electronic
interfaces. Load-based applications include motor drives, unin-
terruptible power supplies, and reactive compensators.
Power converters and their controls need to be modeled for
transient simulations using the appropriate degree of detail as
is the case with other power system components [4], [5]. The
switching of power-electronic devices introduces nonlineari-
ties to the computer simulation. Representing this nonlinear
behavior in sufficient detail to produce results with the desired
degree of accuracy represents a significant challenge. In many
cases, approximations in the converter modeling can be made
without degrading accuracy too significantly. In other cases,
more detailed modeling is needed. In some situations, sufficient
data to appropriately model the power semiconductor devices
and related components lack. Often, this results from using a
converter built and installed by another party who prefers the
Manuscript received March 1, 2004; revised August 27, 2004. Paper no.
TPWRD-00108-2004.
Task Force Members: J. A. Martinez (Chairman), D. Durbak, B. Gustavsen,
B. Johnson, J. Mahseredjian, B. Mork, R. Walling.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2005.848764
0885-8977/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO.
user to view it as a “black box.” In some transient simulations,
detailed modeling of the power semiconductor devices is re-
quired to accurately assess switching transients, device stresses,
and losses. However, in many cases, simpler, “ideal” switch
models can be used for modeling the power semiconductor
devices [1], [4].
The objective of this paper is to present the data requirements
for modeling power-electronic devices within power converters
for transient simulation studies. Different levels of models for
power converters and their power-electronic devices will be pre-
sented along with guidelines for choosing the appropriate level
of modeling detail. As part of this discussion, detailed device
models will be presented. This will be followed by a discus-
sion on where to get appropriate device data for different levels
of modeling and how to convert these data for use in the device
models. This paper targets applications of power semiconductor
devices commonly used in medium-to-high-power applications:
power diodes, insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs), thyris-
tors (SCR), and gate turn-off thyristors (GTOs). Low-power,
single-phase loads are beyond the scope of this paper.
II. CONVERTER MODELS
A. Nonswitching Models
For many studies, averaged or steady-state models of the
converters can be used. The power semiconductor devices are
not modeled explicitly in these studies; although the internal
device characteristics can be incorporated into the converter
model. Instead, an averaged behavioral model for the converter,
based on terminal characteristics, is developed. The converter
is often represented as either a dependent current source or a
dependent voltage source. In some cases, the converter will
be viewed as a current source when seen from one side and a
voltage source when seen from the other direction. For example,
a voltage-source converter (VSC) will appear as a controlled
current source when viewed from the dc bus and a controlled
voltage source when viewed from the ac load. An example of
this is the VSC-driven induction motor equivalent circuit model
in Fig. 3.19 on page 132 of [6]. These models are typically used
for steady-state operation and to study the response of slower
converter control schemes for power system dynamic studies
where large simulation time steps are often preferred. Exam-
ples include fundamental component and harmonic component
models for converters under steady-state and slow transient
conditions, where the transient response of the converter and
its faster controls are not the focus of the simulation [7].
JOHNSON et al.: PARAMETER DETERMINATION FOR MODELING SYSTEM TRANSIENTS. PART VII: SEMICONDUCTORS 2087

TABLE I
SEMICONDUCTOR CHARACTERISTICS

B. Switching Models are within an order of magnitude of the switching frequencies.

The degree of detail in the converter model often depends on
the relationship between the frequency of interest in the sim-
ulation results and the switching frequencies in the converter.
Switching models are needed when the frequencies of interest
For example, when seeking the dynamic or transient response
of the converter, a converter model that represents the switching
of the power-electronic devices is used. The control model must
now include the gating circuits and the synchronization scheme.
In some cases, a model of the snubber circuits is also appro-
2088
priate. In other cases, the snubber circuit can be ignored, al-
though a numerical snubber may be needed as part of the switch
model with some transients programs. An example is any of the
standard library diode models in SPICE-based simulators; to en-
able the dc analysis requires a numerical snubber.
Similarly, the degree of detail in the power-electronic device
model depends on the relationship between the time periods
of the frequencies of interest and the switch transition times
of the power semiconductor devices. The latter are usually
much shorter than the intervals between converter switching
operations. There will be transients associated with these
turn-on/turn-off transitions. If these transients (or transients
with similar frequencies) are of interest, then more detailed
device models will be required. When the slowest transition
time of the power semiconductor device (which is often at
turn-off) approaches the period between switch operations,
more detailed device turn-on and turn-off models are required.
Use of these models also requires more detail in modeling the
parasitic inductances and capacitances in the converter.
Simpler or aggregate device models can be used in many
cases when performing most power systems transients simula-
tions [1]. In these cases, the converter can be reduced to a sim-
pler equivalent as discussed in Section IV-a.
III. POWER SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
The following power semiconductor devices are most
common in power system simulations:
• power diodes;
• thyristors;
• GTO thyristors;
• IGBTs.
The following semiconductor devices may see increased use
in the near future:
• gate commutated thyristors (GCT/IGCTs);
• MOS-controlled thyristors (MCTs);
• MOS turn-off thyristors (MTOs);
• static induction transistor/thyristor (SIT/SiTh).
Each type of device listed above has specific turn-on and
turn-off characteristics that are visible in the voltage and current
characteristics. See Table I for typical characteristics of some
commonly used devices. Each will have conduction losses while
the device is turned on. In some devices, the conduction losses
are best modeled as a steady-state voltage drop; in others, it
appears more as a somewhat nonlinear, temperature-dependent
resistance.
Models representing these characteristics can be added to
EMTP-like programs. However, some degree of approximation
will be necessary in most cases to work within the constraints
of these programs. In some cases, resistances, inductances, and
dependent voltage sources are sufficient to represent device be-
havior. In other cases, more detailed equations describing de-
vice behavior are used to create device models to include in the
circuit.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 3, JULY 2005
IV. SWITCH MODELING
A. Ideal Device Models
The converter terminal characteristics are often sufficient for
many simulations involving power converters. In such cases,
it is often appropriate to model series and parallel-connected
power-electronic devices as one or two equivalent devices. For
example an HVdc converter could have 60 thyristors connected
in series in each switch location, but the converter could be rep-
resented with a single thyristor modeled in each switch loca-
tion. It is sometimes sufficient to represent a converter made
up of many converter modules as a simpler converter. For ex-
ample, a 48-pulse VSC could be represented with a simpler,
lower pulse-order model if the response is sufficient for the
studies to be performed. If the converter is connected to a system
where the time scales of the dynamic response of interest are
very long compared to the device turn-on and turn-off times,
ideal switch models can be used [1]. In this case, the power-elec-
tronic device is assumed to open or close in one time step, as the
simulation progresses (essentially instantaneously as far as the
external system is concerned).
The behavior of an ideal switch device models can be sum-
marized as follows (Table I and [1]):
• when the device is off, it behaves as an open circuit;
• when the device is on, it behaves as a short circuit;
• the device turns on at the next time step after a firing com-
mand;
• the device turns off at the next time step after a firing com-
mand, or for diodes and thyristors at the next time step
after the next current zero crossing;
• switch transition time is equal to one simulation time step.
These models can be applied when:
• frequencies of interest are much slower than switch
turn-on and turn-off times;
• series/parallel combinations of devices into one equivalent
switch are acceptable;
• converter losses, device voltage stresses, and device cur-
rent stresses are not important.
B. Detailed Device Models
More detailed device models are required in other circum-
stances, usually in cases where the transient response of the con-
verter and the immediate converter subsystems are of interest.
Examples of situations where more detailed switch models are
needed include:
• studies for switching and conduction loss prediction;
• simulations to evaluate voltage and current stresses on the
power-electronic devices;
• simulations of converters with high switching frequencies
and slow devices;
• electromagnetic-interference (EMI) studies;
• thermal analysis;
• design of device protection.
In these cases, a reasonably accurate switch model is critical
to the performance of the study. Note that the cases mentioned
above are usually of more interest to the converter designer.
JOHNSON et al.: PARAMETER DETERMINATION FOR MODELING SYSTEM TRANSIENTS. PART VII: SEMICONDUCTORS
More detailed switch models are also important for studies on
the impact of device switching transients on machine or trans-
former insulation. The device turn-on and turn-off for IGBT-
based VSCs produce repetitive steep wavefront transients that
can interact with cable impedances and lead to insulation fail-
ures in motors [8], [9]. As VSCs move to more custom power
and distributed generation applications, it could become neces-
sary to perform insulation coordination studies for these appli-
cations, especially for stresses experienced by transformers.
Detailed switch models can also be used to evaluate the
efficiency of converters used for reactive compensation or to
study the round-trip efficiency of power converter-based energy
storage systems if they become more widespread.
More accurate device models must include device turn-on/
turn-off behavior and conduction behavior while the device is
on or off. In addition, if one is going to the effort to model
the characteristics of the switching devices, then more detail in
other aspects of the switching circuit is also needed, including:
parasitic inductances and capacitances, wire and lead resistance,
snubber circuit characteristics, and accurate gate circuit models.
Also, smaller simulation time steps are needed when more ac-
curate device models are used in the case of faster devices, such
as IGBTs and metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors
(MOSFETs), than would be the case if ideal switch models are
used.
The type of detailed device model used will vary with the
device in question. The appropriate degree of detail also varies
with the application and the capabilities of the software tool.
Very detailed power semiconductor device models are available
as precompiled libraries for software tools, such as SPICE and
Saber. These models can be largely viewed as a “black box”
from the user’s point of view [10]–[12].
V. EMTP MODELING
A. EMTP Built-In Models
There are several built-in models in EMTP-like programs that
can be used for switching models of power converters. Most
EMTP-like programs have a switch model that can be used to
model either a diode or a thyristor (when a controlled gate pulse
is added). The switch can carry current in only one direction and
will normally turn off like a diode. The original model was de-
veloped for the BPA EMTP to represent the mercury arc valves
in the HVdc Pacific Intertie. This is largely an ideal switch with
some ability to approximate the nonideal behavior of mercury
arc valves. The user can specify a minimum ignition voltage
(with a default value of zero), a minimum holding current for
maintaining continuous conduction, and a deionization time. Of
these, the minimum ignition voltage can be useful when mod-
eling diodes to ensure the device does not turn on before the for-
ward voltage exceeds the device’s forward voltage rating. How-
ever, the voltage drop across the switch drops to zero after it
turns on, so this may not adequately represent the on-state for-
ward voltage drop.
This switch model can be used with or without gate pulses ap-
plied (some EMTP-like programs refer to this as a grid signal,
again using terminology from mercury arc valves). If no gate
signal is applied to the switch, the switch model will behave as
2089
Fig. 1. Forward model of a diode [16].
an ideal diode, with a turn-on time of one time step when it is for-
ward biased (voltage greater than setting for ignition voltage).
The switch model will turn off at the next time step after cur-
rent through the switch passes zero, and can exhibit the same
problems with numerical oscillations as seen with conventional
switch models turning off at natural a current zero. This switch
model can also behave as an ideal thyristor when a gate pulse
is applied. This model implements a latching device, so a short
pulse is sufficient to turn the device on, and it will stay on as
long as the conduction conditions are met. The switch will nor-
mally turn off like the diode model. However, most EMTP-like
programs also have the ability to add a second pulse to force
turn off at the next time step and interrupt current, representing
the action of an ideal self-commutating switch such as a GTO
or an IGBT.
In addition, another controlled switch model is available to
represent a self-commutated switch. This switch model is able
to turn on or turn off immediately at the next time step following
application of a gate command, thus interrupting current. Since
the interruption in current always occurs at a simulation time
step, this switch does not create numerical oscillation problems.
This switch model will carry current in both directions.
B. Creating Approximate Models
More accurate device representations can be implemented
through some simple approximations without implementing a
highly detailed switch model [13]–[15]. These approximations
can also be made using data readily available from the manu-
facturer’s specifications and do not require extensive device test
data.
A very simple, but imperfect approximation to represent the
device forward voltage drop is implemented by adding a resis-
tance or a constant voltage source in series with a switch model.
For example, such a model of a diode is shown in Fig. 1. Adding
either element has limitations. A linear resistance is not an accu-
rate representation of the forward voltage drop in many devices,
where the resistance will vary with current. This type of model
will tend to be accurate only over a narrow range of currents. The
series voltage source also poses some problems if the forward
voltage drop varies with current. The voltage source should only
represent a voltage drop as a loss component; it must not be able
to supply power to the circuit [16].
A somewhat better approximation for the device on-state
model would be to use a controlled voltage or current source
to represent the switch. Now the user can include turn-on
and turn-off times from a look-up table to control the source
behavior. The challenge with this representation is creating
an approximation that is valid over the voltage and current
operating ranges of interest. A well-known example of this is
the small-signal model of a bipolar junction transistor (BJT)
that PSPICE uses. A circuit representation is shown in Fig. 2.
This model is suitable only for a fairly narrow operating range
2090
Fig. 2. Small-signal PSPICE model of a BJT [17].
of voltage, current, and frequency. Again, another challenge is
to ensure that these sources do not supply energy to the rest
of the system, unless they actually do. The controlled voltage
source shown in Fig. 1 should not supply energy to the system,
but instead consumes energy because its current only flows in
the direction indicating energy consumption. The controlled
current source in the BJT model shown in Fig. 2 does supply
energy to the system, drawing that energy from the dc biasing
network of its parent circuit.
A better approximation is to model the device using a
nonlinear passive circuit element, either in combination with
an ideal switch or as a stand-alone element that has a large
impedance while the device is off. This nonlinear circuit ele-
ment incorporates feedback of circuit conditions and possible
gate signals. The most common built-in nonlinear circuit ele-
ments were designed to represent either magnetic saturation or
the resistance of a surge arrester, and are not well suited to this
sort of model. Some EMTP-like programs allow the user to
insert a nonlinear circuit element based on user-specified data.
Such an element is essential to creating this class of an approx-
imate device model. The nonlinear element approximates the
device characteristic more appropriately, especially the on-state
voltage drop. With a little more effort, modifications could be
made to include turn-on and turn-off. The nonlinear element
can be an extension of an ordinary circuit element. For ex-
ample, Hefner’s IGBT model uses three nonlinear capacitances
to better approximate charge storage phenomena [18]. He also
uses nonlinear resistances that are a function of input current
level to model the effects of conductivity modulation. The
nonlinear element can also be a switch, either passive or active.
The diode model shown in Fig. 1 is an example of the former;
the circuit model shown in Fig. 3 is a simple circuit model to
address the problem of latch-up of an IGBT [2].
More accurate modeling of turn-on and turn-off behavior usu-
ally requires greater care in designing and supervising the sim-
ulation. For example, more accurate modeling, in general, re-
quires a significantly smaller time step, often in the tens of
nanoseconds when modeling fast devices such as IGBTs. Par-
asitic circuit elements, particularly inductances, become some-
what more significant and must be modeled carefully.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 3, JULY 2005
Fig. 3. Switching circuit model of an IGBT.
VI. GATHERING MODEL DATA
A. Introduction
The first step is to determine the level of detail needed for the
simulation studies to be performed. For studies of the impact
of the power converter on real or reactive power flows, voltage
magnitude control, or motor control, ideal device models are
often sufficient [1]–[4]. In such studies, the choice of appro-
priate converter topology and control scheme to model is the
main concern. EMTP-like programs have built-in switch models
adequate to represent diodes, thyristors, and self-commutating
devices such as IGBTs, GTOs, and GCTs.
If studies requiring detailed converter and device models are
to be performed, obtaining device data can be more difficult.
Simulations conducted by the parties designing and building
the converter include knowledge of the specific devices used,
and the manufacturers’ specification sheet values of resistance,
inductance, and capacitance for the passive components added
to the circuit. Manufacturers provide tabular data describing
turn-on and turn-off behavior and on-state conduction behavior.
The turn-on and turn-off characteristics are generally approx-
imated with piecewise linear approximations of the curves or
with equation models. It will also be necessary to include the ex-
ternal snubber circuits, along with any circuits to control voltage
sharing in series-connected devices and current sharing in par-
allel connected devices.
The data necessary to model the power converters for detailed
transient simulations can be difficult to obtain without access to
the details of the converter topology and design. In some cases,
the devices themselves are visible in the package or on design
drawings. Then model data can again be determined by looking
at the device manufacturer’s specifications. However, data on
the resistances, inductances, and capacitances may be more dif-
ficult to obtain without contacting the converter manufacturer.
Approximations can be made, but these values can have a signif-
icant impact on voltage and current stresses seen by the devices
and external circuit.
If the device data are lacking, it may be possible to develop a
reasonable approximation based on converter voltage and cur-
rent ratings. With this knowledge, one can estimate the voltage
and current ratings of the devices and look up the specifications
for similar devices. This approximation can lead to significant
errors, depending on how well matched the substitute models
are.
JOHNSON et al.: PARAMETER DETERMINATION FOR MODELING SYSTEM TRANSIENTS. PART VII: SEMICONDUCTORS
Fig. 4. Approximate diode reverse recovery characteristics.
B. Diode Model
For modeling a diode, much of the necessary data are readily
available from the manufacturers’ data sheets. The following
items are appropriate for models that have sufficient detail for
most modeling and simulation.
a) Forward voltage drop: A nominal value is usually given
among the numerical specifications on the data sheet. Ex-
cept in the case of Shottky diodes, this value is typically
somewhat greater than the 0.7 V that is considered nom-
inal for signal diodes. The forward voltage drop of a power
diode is sensitive to temperature and, in particular, to cur-
rent level. Often, data sheets will show a graph of this
voltage versus current characteristics, usually with con-
tours for different operating temperatures.
b) Reverse recovery: Power diodes exhibit a significant re-
verse recovery transient, drawing a large reverse current
while their stored charge is being removed and recom-
bined at turn-off. Data sheets list several quantities to de-
scribe this behavior. The reverse recovery characteristic
may be approximated as shown in Fig. 4. Peak reverse cur-
rent and total recovery time are found on most
power diode data sheets. Both values are sensitive to the
slope of the current. Nominal conditions of measurement
are usually given with these values. Total recovery time
is often divided into two time intervals and , as
shown in Fig. 4. Data sheets often give a snap factor, which
is the ratio of to . Data sheets may also show a total
charge , the area within the - triangle. This is
often given as a function of the initial slope of the current
transient.
Nonswitching diode models can be expressed using esca-
lating levels of complexity. Normally, only the forward conduc-
tion portion of the diode’s behavior is considered for detailed
modeling. Leakage currents are usually small enough to be ig-
nored, making the reverse model merely an open circuit. The
ideal model is the simplest forward conduction model: a short
circuit. The next level of complexity includes a constant forward
voltage. A further step in complexity is to include a series resis-
tance with the voltage source; in other words, a linear Thevenin
2091
Fig. 5. Detailed diode model.
approximation. The value of the resistance is computed by a
linear approximation of the slope of the diode’s voltage versus
current characteristic. The forward voltage, in that case, is the
intercept on the voltage axis of the same linear approximation.
Some data sheets will list values for the slope, though most will
give a graph from which the user can calculate a value appro-
priate for the application. Further complexity can be added in the
form of series inductance, typically 2.5 nH/mm of lead length.
Junction capacitance, both forward and reverse, is also given in
most data sheets and can be added in parallel with the junction
model. Fig. 5 illustrates a circuit model of a diode with these
circuit elements.
Because this model is linear, it fits nicely into an ordinary
circuit model of the power converter topology at hand. A strict
Boltzmann model of a power diode tends to be inaccurate.
Power diodes usually have an lightly doped or intrinsic center
layer between the and layers, a center layer that exhibits a
dominant resistive behavior. For this reason, most power diodes
exhibit a nearly linear voltage versus current behavior for all
but the very smallest forward current levels.
From these models, currents and voltages can be readily
calculated using linear circuit theory. Calculation of losses is
a matter of finding the product. For example, conduction
losses in the case of periodic excitation are the product of the
forward voltage , the forward current , and the duty
cycle ratio of conduction time to the excitation period
(1)
The time is the time that the diode conducts or the product
of the duty ratio and period for the switching cycle .
Voltage overshoots are dominated by the behavior due
to the lead inductance. Reverse recovery losses are cal-
culated using (2), which is derived from an approximation of the
typical timing and levels of diode voltage and current during re-
verse recovery. and are the peak forward and reverse volt-
ages during recovery, respectively. and are the charges
stored in the and portions of the recovery time shown in
Fig. 4, and is the switching frequency
(2)
In the event that data for the device at hand are not available,
then some approximations may still yield reasonable results.
Most diodes have a particular application or class of applica-
tions: fast recovery, rectifier, etc. Values of most parameters tend
to be within a fairly narrow range in each class of diode. Hence,
2092
Fig. 6. IGBT circuit model using voltage and current sources [19].
reasonable approximations may be obtained by comparing the
values for several devices within the appropriate class. If a diode
is paired with an active switch, as is the case in the common
six-switch inverter topology, then a reasonable approximation of
the diode turn-off speed is a value slightly faster than the turn-on
time of the respective switch.
C. IGBT Model
The IGBT is a hybrid device, behaving at its input like a
MOSFET and at its output, like a BJT. Hence, the models tend
to be the same as common models for those two devices as il-
lustrated in Fig. 3. The IGBT turns on by first turning on the
MOSFET section of the device, which draws a base current
through the IGBT section. (The parasitic BJT shown in Fig. 3
is normally not conducting and will turn on only at very high
values of current through the main IGBT.) To turn the IGBT
off, a similar procedure to turn-on occurs. The MOSFET sec-
tion is gated off, which extinguishes the base current in the BJT
section. An ideal device model may be appropriate in situations
described in Section IV of this paper.
Piecewise linear RC models are common. Appropriate
switching models of this nature are found in [1]. A fairly simple
example of an IGBT model in forward conduction, illustrating
voltage- and current-source models, is shown in Fig. 6. A
circuit model of the input of an IGBT under turn-on conditions
is shown in Fig. 7. There are four sequential modes of operation
during turn-on; conduction progresses from one mode to the
next depending on the state of charge of the two capacitors.
The model and the degree of complexity chosen depends upon
what behaviors the user wants to simulate.
As was the case for the diode, it is also true that most of the
necessary data is available from data sheets. Forward voltage
drops are usually given both as nominal values and as a graph
against current with temperature contours. Because device pro-
tection methods often use forward voltage drop as an indicator
of overcurrent, it is important to capture a good representation
of the voltage versus current behavior, particularly for slight to
moderate overcurrents. Rise and fall times of the currents are
prominently listed on IGBT data sheets. These are more signif-
icant than voltage rise and fall times because current behavior
is normally so much slower as to render voltage rise and fall
times nearly instantaneous. For most IGBT models, current rise
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 3, JULY 2005
Fig. 7. Turn-on input models for MOSFET and IGBT.
and fall is approximated as being linear with time. Occasionally,
two time segments are employed [1], but data sheets ordinarily
do not give enough information for such a model. Such data may
be gathered empirically if needed [1].
Because the IGBT exhibits MOSFET behavior on its gate
side, gate capacitance may be important in finding storage be-
haviors. A simple series RC model formed by the gate-emitter
capacitance of the IGBT and the series resistance of the
drive circuit may be appropriate. is the input capacitance
on some data sheets. Some gate drive models also use the
Miller capacitance ( on the data sheet). Fig. 7 illustrates
these elements. The notation is similar to MOSFETs, and the
circuit is the same.
Model calculations are a sequence of piecewise linear circuit
calculations. As conditions are met for transition from one cir-
cuit approximation to the next, the appropriate changes in the
linear circuit models must be made. Otherwise, calculations are
governed by linear circuit theory. Under blocking conditions, for
example, the small leakage current allows an IGBT to be mod-
eled as an open circuit. During turn-on, current rise is modeled
as a ramp current source. Rise transients may be influenced by
antiparallel diodes, particularly during diode reverse recovery
and also in the case in which the diode is significantly slower
than the IGBT. Transitions between piecewise linear modes can
be governed by a number of conditions or inputs, for example
• passive switching (as shown in the diode model of Fig. 5);
• active switching (as shown in the case of the parasitic BJT
in Fig. 3);
• conditions on circuit elements (such as the charge on the
capacitors of Fig. 7);
• recognition of crossing a current or voltage level (such as
what terminates most turn-on or turn-off piecewise linear
modes).
As was the case for the diode, average conduction losses in
the IGBT are the product of the switching frequency (or the
JOHNSON et al.: PARAMETER DETERMINATION FOR MODELING SYSTEM TRANSIENTS. PART VII: SEMICONDUCTORS
switching period T, which is the inverse of the switching fre-
quency), the forward voltage drop , the forward current
, and the duty cycle
(3)
The time the product of the duty ratio and the switching
period . cuit behavior. Loss estimates and voltage and current transients
Switching losses are the product of the IGBT output voltage
and the IGBT collector current during switching
(4)
where and are the rise time and the fall time of the current
through the device during turn-on and turn-off, respectively.
If a constant bus voltage and a linear rise and fall of current
are assumed, then the average switching losses are the product
of the bus voltage, the load current, and half the sum of the rise
and fall times. Instantaneous losses are, as always, the product
of the device voltage and current at hand.
Thyristors and GTOs tend to exhibit behaviors of both passive
and active switches. The concepts in building models for them
appear as a combination of the models for the diode and IGBT.
In the interest of brevity, the details are presented in Chapters
23 and 24 of [1].
VII. MORE DETAILED MODELS
If piecewise linear models are inadequate for finding switch
behavior and its effect upon system behavior, more detailed
models exist in specialized software packages, such as SPICE
and Saber. Both of these programs can utilize variable time step
numerical integration models that are better suited to the accu-
rate modeling of turn-on and turn-off behavior of power semi-
conductor devices than a fixed time step method. SPICE also
serves as the engine for several circuit capture software pack-
ages, such as Electronics Workbench. Most device manufac-
turers will send a SPICE or Saber model upon request; some
post the most commonly requested models to their company
websites. These models tend to be “plug and play.” The inter-
face is usually quite simple, often merely being an icon in a
schematic capture. The specifics of how these models were de-
veloped sometimes appears in the literature, such as when stan-
dards agencies develop the models [13]–[15]. Unfortunately,
this information is more often proprietary when developed by
private individuals or companies. Nonetheless, a little under-
standing of the fundamental purposes and methods of the sim-
ulation software at hand lends a great deal of flexibility to the
simulation. For example, understanding a SPICE netlist yields
an ability to modify the model under changing conditions (e.g.,
temperature, voltage,and current levels, etc.). An understanding
of the underlying simulation algorithms helps one to identify
artifacts and numerical errors. Knowing the history of simula-
tion software packages can help one to select the appropriate
tools. For example, simulators employing SPICE engines work
best on electronic circuits because its developers intentionally
employed algorithms and formulations that were suited to the
typical behaviors of such circuits. ACSL works best on systems
2093
expressed as a set of nonlinear first-order differential equations.
MATLAB/SIMULINK works best on simulations of system dy-
namics and control algorithms. These simulators work on other
types of problems and often do quite well, but their power is
usually best manifested within the class of problems for which
they are designed.
These models provide remarkably accurate predictions of cir-
obtained from simulations based on these models are usually
quite good and match up with experimental results closely.
The most significant tradeoff involved in using these detailed
models, as one might expect, is the simulation time required.
It does not require many devices in a circuit to lengthen the
simulation time excessively. It is often necessary (and worth
the effort) to simplify the rest of the circuit as much as possible
to reap the benefits of the detailed models and sophisticated
simulation techniques available in these software packages.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Several different levels of detail are available when mod-
eling power-electronic converters. In some cases, average, non-
switching models will suffice. However, switch-based models
are required in many cases. The ideal switch models available in
most EMTP-like programs are sufficient for most power system
simulations requiring switching models.
In cases where a more detailed switch model is required,
the user can employ an approximate model or a highly de-
tailed equation-based model. Several options for implementing
approximate models were described. Approximate models
are often easier to implement in fixed time-step simulation
packages.
These approximations may also be sufficient since the appro-
priate data on the devices, passive circuit elements, and controls
for a specific converter may be difficult to obtain. When the spe-
cific device type and model numbers are known, parameter data
for the devices are available through the manufacturers specifi-
cation sheets. If the specific device model numbers are not avail-
able, model data can be approximated by assuming: 1) the kind
of device, 2) voltage, current, speed class of the device, and then
using data for similar devices. Very detailed device models are
available for Saber and SPICE, but these models will not port
to EMTP-like programs easily and will require very small inte-
gration time steps.
However, approximate device models are often adequate
for most applications where EMTP-like programs will be
used. Keys for the program user are 1) know the application
and define the level of detail well and 2) if a detailed power
semiconductor device model is used, is the rest of the model
accurate enough now?
REFERENCES
[1] N. Mohan, T. M. Undeland, and W. P. Robbins, Power Electronics: Con-
verters, Applications, and Design, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1995.
[2] P. T. Krein, Elements of Power Electronics. London, U.K.: Oxford
Univ. Press, 1998.
[3] N. G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS: Concepts and
Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems. New York: IEEE
Press, 2000.
2094
[4] IEEE TF on Power Electronics (L. Tang, Chairman), “Guidelines for
modeling power electronics in electric power engineering applications,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 505–514, Jan. 1997.
[5] N. Mohan, W. P. Robbins, T. M. Undeland, R. Nilsen, and O. Mo, “Simu-
lation of power electronics and motion control systems—An overview,”
Proc. IEEE, vol. 82, no. 8, pp. 1287–1302, Aug. 1994.
[6] D. W. Novotny and T. A. Lipo, Vector Control and Dynamics of AC
Drives. London, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996.
[7] D. W. Novotny and T. King, “Equivalent circuit representation of current
driven synchronous machines,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-
100, no. 6, pp. 2920–2926, Jan. 1981.
[8] R. J. Kerkman, D. Leggate, and G. L. Skibinski, “Interaction of drive
modulation and cable parameters on AC motor transients,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 722–731, May/Jun. 1997.
[9] M. Melfi, A. M. J. Sung, S. Bell, and G. L. Skibinski, “Effect of surge
voltage risetime on the insulation of low-voltage machines fed by
PWM converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 766–775,
Jul./Aug. 1998.
[10] J. A. Martinez-Velasco, R. Abdo, and G. Capolino, “Advanced represen-
tation of power semiconductors using the EMTP,” in Proc. IPST, Lisbon,
Portugal, Sep. 3–7, 1995, pp. 505–510.
[11] C. Wong, “EMTP modeling of IGBT dynamic performance for power
dissipation estimation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 64–71,
Jan./Feb. 1997.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 3, JULY 2005
[12] R. Kraus and H. J. Mattausch, “Status and trends of power semiconduc-
tors device models for circuit simulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 452–465, May 1998.
[13] D. W. Berning and A. R. Heffner Jr., “IGBT model validation,” IEEE
Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 23–34, Nov./Dec. 1998.
[14] A. R. Heffner Jr. and D. M. Diebolt, “An experimentally verified IGBT
model implemented in the saber circuit simulator,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 532–542, Sep. 1994.
[15] A. R. Heffner Jr., “Modeling buffer layer IGBT’s for circuit simulation,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 111–123, Mar. 1995.
[16] M. Rashid, Microelectronic Circuits: Analysis and Design. Boston,
MA: PWS-Kent, 1999.
[17] M. H. Rashid, SPICE for Circuits and Electronics Using PSPICE, 2nd
ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
[18] A. Hefner, “An investigation of the drive circuit requirements for the
power insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT),” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 208–219, Apr. 1991.
[19] K. Sheng, S. J. Finney, and B. W. Williams, “New analytical IGBT
model with improved electrical characteristics,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 98–107, Jan. 1999.