[Amps] LDMOSFET questions for insiders

[Daniel Artaud F6BRD]

Manfred,

Your project is a great task, congratulations.

During more than 40 years working in the RF world I always heard about 
transistors failing.
But for now, reliability has increased to a reasonable level because of 
manufacturer's improvements but it had taken much time and meanwhile 
given much work with pain to the designers.

The main cause of transistors' failing is drain (collector) over-voltage 
which often translates by over-current or avalanche.
It is very difficult to limit over-voltage even if you limit the input 
power, you have to take care of load impedance (swr), overshoot of ALC, 
spurious signals, di/dt. The second: Temperature, in amateur use, must 
not be a problem in a well designed amplifier.

Some were so flimsy that a 50ns (nanosecond) pulse over Vds max was able 
to burn a cell and short gate to source.
This was done per example when disconnecting the input connector with RF 
present in CW. With a controlled rise/fall-time electronic switch  there 
was no problem.
Quick external SWR also affected the transistor in spite of a quick 
500ns responding protection.

Some manufacturers recognize the weakness afterwards. You are not lucky 
if you use them!
https://mwexpert.typepad.com/freescale/ : What defines LDMOS Ruggedness: 
Obsolete VSWR Tests gives way to “Fast Times at Doherty High”

Then we used from another manufacturer a as spec said "rugged 
transistor" all the problems were gone. But when one failed it was not a 
single cell failure but we were seeing all black cells inside as usually.

The problems with SWR are: that with a sudden SWR (open or short antenna 
feeder), before the security device begins to respond,the transistor 
sees infinite SWR.
And when we asked different manufacturers "how much time your device can 
sustain an infinite vswr" their response where elusive.
During this High SWR does the transistor see high voltage or drains high 
current. High current is not a problem but high voltage is.

Your idea to monitor vds is paramount and rather easy up to few hundred 
MHz with a well shielded resistive divider terminated with 50 ohm 
connected to an RF cold ground.

VLF to MW band transmitters which use switched amplifiers in class D 
monitor the sign of the reactance to protect mosfets.

I have also seen MRF157s failing in the driver of a big SW broadcast 
transmitter when there was a flash in the tube. The tube was protected 
by switching off the solid state modulator. (Formerly protection used 
ignitrons)
A clipper was then added at each transistor drain to limit induced 
voltage under Vds max and problems were gone.

Before connecting your PWM modulator make a full DC sweep of your 
amplifier because I remember when we began to design with envelope 
tracking (not doing EER or Kahn but tracking few volts above the 
strictly necessary drain voltage; the amplifier being in class AB) the 
transistor was going into oscillation around 20V DC.
This mosfet (the same generation as the one you planed to use, but he 
was climbing to 900 MHz) went into oscillation when the bias was applied 
before drain voltage.
Usually the bias is applied when the drain voltage is about 80% under 
nominal value to prevent that, but here it is not possible.
I advice you to do the test using the current control of your power 
supply to sweep the all range voltage while controlling the stability.
Don't forget to design with the decoupling capacitors compatible with 
your PWM filter; you may decrease their values severely leading  perhaps 
to instabilities.

I think you will need some linearity correction mostly for low voltages. 
>From 20 V to 50 V the linearity is fair.

Concerning overdrive as I remember (5 to 6 years ago) in Digital TV 
(OFDM) there was around 6 dB clipping and RF peaks always around 2x Vd 
while  with adaptive linearity correction peaks were beyond vgs max!.

Due to fast acting, your primary protection MUST be hardware for SWR, 
over-voltage, over-current and overdrive or ALC. The microcontroller is 
for flavor and management of the slow events.
Even the digital Icoms 7300, 7610 use direct analog control for ALC and SWR.

Also, you can dig interesting informations here:

http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=47&Itemid=145
https://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Dec10/HFE1210_Brounley.pdf
http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Apr04/HFE0404_Brounley.pdf
http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Sep08/HFE0908_Grebennikov.pdf
http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Jun10/HFE0610_Andrei_Part2.pdf
https://www.microsemi.com/document-portal/doc_view/133846-vswr-testing-of-rf-power-mosfets

And if you have classical amps and want to play with:
http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Jun04/HFE0604_Gutierrez.pdf
At least it works with old Mosfets like BLF 278 in class AB

I hope this helped you a little.
And for the end, if you need some devices tell me in PM

73 and good luck.
Daniel, F6BRD


Le 23/11/2018 à 22:48, Manfred Mornhinweg a écrit :
> Doug, Jeff,
>
>> Ampleon has published on the topic, and is one of the few 
>> semiconductor companies who specify their avalanche energy at least 
>> for the BLF188XR LDMOS dual. They still use the UIS test which 
>> demonstrates that their LDMOS transistor has substantially better 
>> absorbed single pulse energy than a comparable VDMOS device. It also
>>  shows as you suspected, that avalanching the device has implications
>>  beyond thermal. You might find the following white paper has some 
>> useful information: 
>> https://www.ampleon.com/documents/white-paper/AMP-WP-2017-0329.pdf
>
> Thanks, Doug. At least I get a number from that paper: Roughly 3 joule
> for single event avalanching, at the highest current I might have. But
> they stress that the single-pulse avalanching data is not valid when
> bias is applied, so it's moot. Both for being single pulse, and for
> being at zero bias. I will have to work from the SWR testing instead,
> but that's much harder.
>
>> They also discuss the gate ESD diode's effects on class of operation
>>  when it is forced into conduction - could possibly move a class C to
>>  A!
>
> Yes, but I'm not worried about that effect in my project. The drive
> voltage I will use, along with the bias and the gate protection clamping
> voltages of the devices considered, should not result in significant
> gate protection current. Also I'm using a nice low impedance bias supply.
>
> That paper mentions several other points that worry me. I always though
> that the parasitic bipolar transistors in MOSFETs only turned on from
> excessive drain voltage dv/dt. But this paper contains something that
> confuses me. It says:
>
> "The drain-source diode clamps the voltage across the LDMOS and the
> parasitic bipolar sinks the excess current to the
> substrate. For large sink currents, however, the drain-source voltage
> exceeds the diode breakdown voltage and the parasitic
> bipolar transistor can be triggered."
>
> I cannot make full sense of this. I think there is a mix-up of several
> things.
>
> That paper contains several other strange things too. One is the 41MHz
> reference design, which claims obtaining 1200W output with 1:4 impedance
> transformation on the output, and 50V supply. Even if the circuit
> operates with a square wave, including all harmonics in the power
> measurement, and if the MOSFET has zero RDSon, this would still only
> allow 800W into a 50 ohm load. In practice, I wouldn't expect more than
> 700W saturated output, square wave. So if they actually get 1200W from
> this circuit, they must be doing some additional impedance matching with
> the PCB traces and capacitors at the drains, and there are some
> capacitors visible in the photos that suggest this is the case - but
> they don't mention it.
>
>> There are academic publications searchable through Google Scholar, 
>> but I found all the IEEE Explore articles wanted mucho dinero, and 
>> others wanted a registration and login to read more than the abstract...
>
> I have found the same, and been put off by it.
>
> Also many scholar publications read like a mathematical treatise rather
> than a book about electronics.
>
>> The voltage rating is high enough to handle 100% reflected with any 
>> phase angle in 20% duty cycle pulse operation.
>
> Jeff, the paper linked by Doug says Ampleon uses 10% duty cycle for the
> SWR testing. Freescale's datasheet for the MRF1K50N instead indeed uses
> 20%. Anyway it's hard for me to derive the actual continuous avalanching
> ruggedness from this data.
>
>> Effectively, as long as the High SWR trip can operation as fast the 
>> on pulse time, the amplifier is rugged to 100% reflected.  I forget 
>> the rep rate of the pulses, but the trip circuit has 10's of msec.
>
> The testing uses 50 or 100 microseconds, which means that the protection
> circuit should be able to completely shut down the amplifier in less
> than that time after the high SWR condition starts, to be certain to
> make the device survive.
>
> Also this data is valid for a specific test circuit, with the device on
> a watercooled block, in low duty cycle mode, so it's very cool during
> the SWR testing. But in ham amp it might be much hotter when the SWR
> suddenly skyrockets. That forces the protection to be even faster.
>
> So it's not 10's of milliseconds, but less than 0.1 millisecond!
>
> Doing dynamic thermal impedance calculations, I arrive at typically 1ms
> allowable reaction time, but that's assuming that the dissipation
> capability is the same with and without avalanching - and now I know
> that this isn't the case! So it seems that the <100 microsecond figure
> is the one we should take, to be safe against destruction from 
> avalanching.
>
>> Avalanche can occur unevenly across the die and result in uneven 
>> heating.  The power limit is not total dissipated, rather quite a bit
>>  less, due to the risk of localized damage.
>
> Yep. And from the data above, intuitively it looks like this effect
> causes roughly a tenfold reduction in safe dissipation capability, when
> avalanching happens.
>
>> An amp with fast trip will not need know the details of that.
>
> If it's faster than 100 microseconds, yes. It seems reasonably easy to
> make a protection circuit as fast as that. My problem is that my project
> goes far beyond this! I do NOT want to make an amp that always has to
> work into a 1:1 SWR, with the help of an antenna tuner, and shuts down
> instantly when the SWR is, say, 1.3:1. My point is that any given SWR
> can be caused by an infinite number of different impedances, and many of
> them do not result in dangerous operating conditions. So I want to know
> what the actual operational limits are for LDMOSFETs, and design my
> protection circuit so that it allows operation into significantly higher
> SWR, as long as the specific load impedance does not result in
> overstressing the transistor. I think that this would be far more
> practical for everyday ham use, instead of requiring very low SWR for
> operation.
>
> As things look now, it seems that I will have to add a rectifier at the
> drains to sense the peak drain voltage, and use this as one more input
> into the protection circuit. Shutting down the amp quickly if the drain
> voltage peaks get close to the breakdown voltage, by allowing operation
> even at higher SWR, as long as neither the drain voltage nor the drain
> current nor the dissipation exceed safe levels - where the maximum safe
> dissipation depends on the cooling system used.
>
>> Body diodes in switching power supply MOSFETs are slow.  LDMOS is 
>> presumable the same.  So, not fast enough for 100 KHZ switching PS 
>> and not nearly fast enough for RF.
>
> That's what I suspect too, but it would be nice to know for certain.
>
>> A MOSFET with gate drive will conduct in both directions, negative 
>> current is not a problem...presumably LDMOS is the same.
>
> Yes - but with a reactive load it's very possible that the load plus LP
> filter forces a negative drain current at a part of the waveform where
> the drive has turned the MOSFET off, or the gate voltage is already too
> low to conduct the drain current forced by the load plus filter. This
> can result in turning on the body diode, and I did it on purpose with a
> test amplifier using cheap switchmode MOSFETs on 80 meters. The
> observable symptom is very high current consumption with little power
> output, and thus very high dissipation.
>
> Since big LDMOSFETs are expensive, I would like to know as much as
> possible in theory, before starting experiments with them. I'm quite
> happy using $1 switchmode FETs in possibly destructive testing, but not
> $200 LDMOSFETs.
>
>> The FET can handle 100% reflected with any phase angle, one of those 
>> is max drain current.
>
> There is yet another trouble with my project: The manufacturer's
> ruggedness testing relies on strictly limited drive. Some use 3dB
> overdrive, others perhaps 5dB overdrive. Perhaps some LDMOSFETs are
> tested with no overdrive. In any case, the drive limits the maximum
> current the devices can possibly conduct. So, as long as the drive is
> kep low enough, overcurrent is impossible. But my project requires
> considerable overdrive, and all tolerances in drive power across bands
> need to be from about 5dB overdrive upwards, to keep my amp nicely
> saturated and efficient. A worst case on some band might end up with
> 10dB overdrive, far exceeding the level used in the manufacturer's
> ruggedness testing. That's why max drain current is important to me. I
> need to have a fast current sensor, and shut down the amp if the drain
> current exceeds the safe level. For that I need to know what the safe
> level is.
>
>> Just stay within the pulse limits.
>
> Not desirable in my project. I want a "contoured" protection scheme,
> that allows operation in all SWR conditions that are safe, even some
> pretty high SWR ones.
>
>> The RF current does not distribute evenly acoss the 1000's of
>> parallel FETs, but over the thermal time constant of the die,
>> differential heating and negative temp coefficient provides the
>> feedback to balance the currents.  But instantaneously, localized
>> heating can blow up a corner of the die.
>
> The simple question is: How much. The feeling I get is that continuous 
> avalanching dissipation might have to be limited to roughly 10% of 
> normal dissipation, but probably this depends on many factors.
>
> > I hope this helps.
>
> Yes, it does, in more ways than what's obvious. An important one is 
> triggering more thoughts.
>
> As a refresher, the amp I'm talking about is the final stage of an SDR 
> using envelope tracking, to achieve high efficiency. So the final 
> stage operates in saturation, the drive level is always about 6dB 
> higher than  where clipping starts, and the 50V supply goes through a 
> modulator circuit (in class D).
>
> My current plan for a protection scheme is this: Having fast current 
> sensors at the power supply, used to measure power input (at fixed 
> 50V), and after the modulator (measuring drain current). Also a 
> directional coupler delivering forward and reflected voltage signals. 
> And now I see that I need to add drain peak voltage detectors. These 
> five signals go into the protection processor, which is a small 
> microcontroller because I need several multiplications and divisions, 
> which are cheaper to do in a microcontroller than in analog multipliers.
>
> This processor can do the following:
>
> - Calculate forward and reflected power, by squaring the voltages 
> delivered by the directional coupler;
>
> - Calculate effective power delivered to the load, as the difference 
> between forward and reflected power;
>
> - Calculate actual power dissipation, as supply power minus effective 
> output power.
>
> And now it can reduce drive, or shutdown the transmitter, whenever the 
> dissipated power, drain current or drain peak voltage get close to 
> critical.
>
> It can also calculate SWR, and shut down at a certain SWR leve, but 
> this would not be strictly necessary, allowing operation under some 
> conditions of elevated SWR.
>
> To have a chance of implementing this without burning out several $200 
> LDMOSFETs during testing, I need to get as much info about their 
> absolute maximum ratings as possible! Since I have more time and 
> patience than $$$, I hope to achieve it without burning out any device.
>
> Manfred
>
>
> ========================
> Visit my hobby homepage!
> http://ludens.cl
> ========================
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps