Parameter Extraction for a Physics-Based Circuit Simulator
IGBT Model
X. Kang, E. Santi, J.L. Hudgins, P.R. Palmer* and J.F. Donlon**
Department of Electrical Engineering
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208, USA
santi@engr.sc.edu
Abstract- A practical parameter extraction method is
presented for the Fourier-based-solution physics-based IGBT
model. In the extraction procedure, only one simple clamped
inductive load test is needed for the extraction of the eleven and
thirteen parameters required for the NPT and PT IGBT models,
respectively. Validation with experimental results from various
structure IGBTs demonstrates the accuracy of the proposed
IGBT model and the robustness of the parameter extraction
method. *
Keywords—power semiconductor modeling, IGBT, Model,
Parameter extraction
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the characteristics of IGBTs have been
improved greatly. For example, with the application of
advanced lifetime killing technology and structure
development [1], the 4th generation IGBTs (trench-gate
punch-through), which have been available in the market for
some time, exhibit fast turn-off speed and low saturation
voltage. The application of light punch through technology
[2] in the CSTBT (Carrier Stored Trench Bipolar Transistor)
IGBT now offers the new 5th generation IGBT with superior
characteristics. Field-Stop IGBTs [10] also exhibit tail-free
turn-off current under high voltage conditions. These
external characteristics, brought about by internal device
design changes, can only be accurately modeled by a physics-
based (analytical) IGBT model. However, in spite of the
accuracy of analytical IGBT models, either overly complex
or inaccurate parameterization often discourages electronic
engineers from attempting to use IGBT models in their
system designs.
Reviewing the IGBT circuit model parameter extraction
methods described in the literature shows that further work
must be done in the field. The parameter extraction provided
for the accurate and comprehensive Hefner model [3] is so
complex that it is not practical for electrical engineers. The
extraction method proposed in [4] is only for the lumped-
charge IGBT model. In [5], the parameter extraction for
Hefner model was further developed with seven very precise
but complex experiments. The parameters extracted in [6]
*
This work was supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research under Grant
N00014-00-1-0131.
0-7803-7768-0/03/$17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
*Department of Engineering **Powerex, Inc
University of Cambridge 200 Hillis Street
Trumpington Street Youngwood, PA 15697, USA
Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK jdonlon@pwrx.com
and [7] are used for the IGBT behavioral models. In [8], the
parameter extraction lacks detail.
In this work, we will provide a practical parameter
extraction methodology to extract eleven and thirteen
parameters for the non-punch-through (NPT) and punch-
through (PT) physics-based IGBT model presented in
previous work [9]-[11]. In the parameter extraction
procedure, as in the model itself, the better trade-off between
accuracy and simplicity is pursued. Therefore, without
affecting the simulation accuracy, only one simple clamped
inductive load switching experiment is needed to extract
several key parameters, while most parameters are extracted
directly from the manufacturer’s datasheet, or estimated
according to empirical value ranges and relations with
already known parameter values.
With parameter values obtained through the extraction
procedure mentioned above, the PSpice IGBT model
accurately simulated the hard-switching behavior of IGBTs
having various structures. Comparison between the
simulated and experimental results validates the proposed
circuit model and the parameter extraction method.
II. IGBT PHYSICS-BASED CIRCUIT SIMULATOR IGBT MODEL
A. Categorization of Analytical IGBT Models
Being a conductivity-modulated power device, the
behavior of an IGBT depends heavily on the carrier
distribution in its wide drift region. Under high-level
injection conditions, the Ambipolar carrier Diffusion
Equation (ADE) (1) describes the carrier dynamics in the
majority of this region,
∂ 2 p( x, t ) p( x, t ) ∂p( x, t ) (1)
D = +
∂x 2 τ ∂t
where D is the ambipolar diffusion coefficient, τ is the high-
level carrier lifetime within the drift region and p(x,t) is the
excess carrier concentration.
Therefore, most physics-based IGBT circuit simulator
modeling approaches focus on the simulation of the drift
region, and consequently implement the modeling of the
ADE. However, it would be difficult and would also lead to
potential convergence problems to directly implement the 2nd
order partial differential equation in the circuit simulator
946
 without any simplification. Consequently, various Further mathematical simplification allows the n-drift
mathematical simplifications have been proposed for the region to be modeled as an RC equivalent circuit as shown in
implementation of analytical IGBT models. Depending on Fig.1. The details are given in [13].
the type of mathematical simplification technique used to The representation requires the width of the undepleted
solve the ADE, analytical models can be categorized into four base region and the hole and electron currents at the
groups, as listed in Table I for example models, in which the boundaries of the region (x1 and x2), which corresponds to the
right column shows the simplified equations representing the gradients of the carrier concentrations, f(t) and g(t), at x1 and
mathematical method used in each modeling approach. x2, respectively. The functions f(t) and g(t) are defined as
follows:
Table I. Physics-Base IGBT Models 1  I n1 I p1 
 ∂p( x , t ) 
f (t ) =   =  −  (6)
IGBT Model Simplification  ∂t  x1 2 qA  Dn D p 

Hefner Model dp ( x , t )  ∂p( x, t )  1  I n2 I p2 

(Hefner) [3]
dt
= ∑ h (t ) * f ( x )
i i
(2) g(t ) =   = 
 ∂t  x2 2qA  Dn Dp 
−  (7)

Fourier Based Solution where A is the active cross-sectional area of the device, Dn
p( x, t) = p0 (x, t) + ∑ gi (t) * fi (x) (3) and Dp, the electron and hole diffusion coefficients, In1 and
Model (Leturcq-Palmer) [9]
Ip1, the electron and hole currents at x = x1 (p+ side), and In2
and Ip2 the electron and hole currents at x = x2 (p-body side).
Lumped Charge Model dp ∆Q (4)
qA → Clearly, the success of the approach now depends solely upon
(Lauritzen-Ma) [4] dx ∆x developing the appropriate boundary conditions.

Laplace Transformation d 2 p'

D = p '(s + 1 / τ )
Model (Strollo) [10] dx 2
p ' = p ( x , t ) − p ( x ,0 ) (5)

The Fourier-based-solution (FBS) model is adopted in

this research. By modeling the non-quasi-static characteristic
of the carrier distribution, this approach preserves the
essentials of the distributed nature of charge dynamics within
the drift region and offers reasonable simulation speed while
preserving satisfactory accuracy.

B. Fourier-Based-Solution IGBT Model

By applying a Fourier transformation, the ADE is
simplified to a set of first order discrete linear equations, as
shown in equation (3).
Fig.1 Equivalent circuit diagram modeling the storage charge
of the n drift region
Fig.2 Definition of variables and typical carrier distribution under
forward conduction of the PT IGBT
Therefore, in order to establish the boundary conditions,
hole and electron currents at the edges of the drift region are
needed. Fig. 2 defines some of relevant variables used in the
analysis for PT IGBT (no n+-buffer layer for the NPT IGBT).
Since by current continuity
I A = I n1 + I p1 = I n 2 + I p 2 (8)
the sum (IA) of the hole (Ip1 & Ip2) and electron currents (In1 &
In2) is known, it is sufficient to find one current component at
each edge. At the right side of the drift region, WB, (the
MOS-channel edge), the electron current In2 is the channel
current and it can be found as a function of the gate-source
voltage using the well-known MOSFET equation. Current Ip2
can then be calculated using (8). At the left side of the drift
region, different equations are used for the NPT and PT
IGBT due to the structural differences. The details of the
respective boundary conditions are given in [10] and [11].

947
 For the NPT IGBT, equation (9) is used to calculate the
electron current element in the junction between the p+ layer
and the n-drift region.
I n1 = qAh p p L2 0
where hp is the hole recombination parameter at the p+ layer
[14].
For the PT IGBT, equation (10) is used to obtain the hole
current component at the junction between the n buffer layer
and the n drift region.
qADpH W determined by experiment, which also need to be simple.
I p1 = [PH 0 − PHW cosh( H )] + I QH
W L pH
L pH sinh( H )
LpH
where LPH and DPH are the diffusion length and mobility of
the hole carrier in the buffer layer, respectively, and other
variables are defined in Fig.2. Finally, substituting the results
of (9) and (10) into (8) gives the boundary conditions for
each case.
III. PARAMETER EXTRACTION
The Fourier-based-solution IGBT model requires eleven
and thirteen non-silicon parameters for the NPT and PT
structure IGBTs respectively. Table II lists the parameters,
which are classified into three categories based on the related
device part: MOS-gate, geometry, and collector body. The
parameter extraction procedure presented below is also
divided into three parts according to this division.
Generally, there are three kinds of parameter extraction
methodologies, which include: 1) Simple estimation based on
the empirical value range, 2) Extrapolation according to the
manufacturer’s datasheet, and 3) Extraction with simple
(9)
experiments. To make the extraction procedure practical, the
three methods are often employed jointly.
Most parameters listed in Table II can be obtained from
the datasheet or calculated based on textbook equations, so
there is no need to use measurement for their extraction.
Extra measurement can be used to verify the mathematical
results. But some parameters, like carrier lifetime, have to be
(10)
Accordingly, the clamped inductive load test experiment is
used.
A. Extraction of MOS-gate parameters
Because a behavioral MOSFET model is used for the
IGBT MOS gate, the relevant parameters can be extracted
following the extraction procedure for a MOSFET. The
information given in the manufacturers’ datasheets is enough
to extract these five parameters.
The first three parameters: MOS threshold voltage (Vth),
Transconductance Coefficient (Kpl), and short channel
parameter (λ), can be obtained from the known I-V
characteristic curve, shown in Fig. 3.

Table II. IGBT Model Parameter List

Part Symbol Description
Vth (V) MOS threshold voltage
2
Kpl (A/V ) MOS transconductance coefficient
MOS
λ Short-channel parameter Fig. 3 Forward I-V characteristics of the IGBT
Gate
Cge (nF) Gate-emitter capacitance Gate-emitter capacitance Cge can be directly obtained
Cox (nF) Oxide capacitance from the input capacitance Cies (measured gate-emitter
capacitance when collector is shorted to emitter) provided in
A (cm2) Effective die area the datasheet. Since the input capacitance Cies is the sum of
Geom. the Cge and the Miller capacitance, and the former is much
a_i Ratio of Inter-cell to total die area
larger than the latter at higher voltages, Cge can be chosen
WB (cm) N drift region width equal to Cies at 10V.
NB (cm-3) Doping concentration of N drift region

τHL (µs) Carrier high-level lifetime in N drift

Collector hp Hole recombination coefficient in emitter (NPT)

Body
NH (cm-3) Doping concentration of N buffer Layer (PT)
WH (cm) Width of n+ buffer layer (PT)
τBF (µs) Carrier lifetime in N buffer layer (PT)

Fig. 4 IGBT capacitance diagram

948
 In this case, we can assume that Cce is proportional to the
As shown in Fig.4, the MOS oxide capacitance Cox, area under the emitter terminal while Cgc is proportional to
together with the series-connected depletion capacitance the area under the gate terminal. The constants of
Cdep, determines the gate-collector capacitance Cgc, which is proportionality are assumed to be the same since the
also called the reverse transfer capacitance Cres in datasheets depletion layer is quite far out from the gate and emitter
and is commonly referred to as the Miller capacitance terminals, and has, by this time, merged into one simple 1-D
between gate and collector. Obviously, Cox is the maximum depletion layer. Thus:
value of the Miller capacitance when the depletion region C gc
Ai (13)
under the gate area has not formed (Cdep = 0). That point a _i = ≈
corresponds to the maximum point of the Cres curve in the A C gc + C ce
datasheet. Therefore, Cox can be written as: Data sheets provide the reverse capacitance, Cres, and the
C ox = max( C res ) (11) output capacitance, Coes, which is the measured capacitance
between collector and emitter when the gate is shorted, and
can be written as:
B. Extraction of geometry parameters
Instead of employing the destructive visual C oes = ( C gc + C ce ) (14)
Vge = 0
measurement, which is commonly used, the active die area A
As discussed above, we have
can be extracted based on the empirical range of IGBT
maximum current density J. Therefore, the active die area C res = C gc (15)
can be roughly estimated as:
Therefore, the intercell ratio can be obtained as
I (12)
A = CM
J C res
a_i ≈ (16)
where ICM is the peak collector current from the RBSOA C oes
curve given in the datasheet. Practically, the ICM value is
Eq. (16) is only valid under the condition that the
decided by a multitude of factors, not only the chip but also collector-emitter voltage Vce is sufficiently high to allow for
the package and heat extraction. Nevertheless, the range of an approximately uniform space-charge layer capacitance
current density J generally is 100 A/cm2-150 A/cm2. over the whole crystal area. In this case, the minimum values
of Coes and Cres in the datasheet should be chosen, as
sufficiently high Vce is reached at that point.

C. Extraction of BJT body parameters

There are several different ways to extract the carrier
doping concentration of the drift region NB. The first is the
direct estimation based on the normal range of the drift region
background doping, which is from 6 × 1013 to 2 × 1014 cm-3
for the IGBT device. The typical value, 1 × 1014 cm-3, is
generally chosen as the doping concentration NB during the
simulation. The second way is based on the relation between
the doping concentration and the breakdown voltage [4] using
equation (17).
4
 60 ( Eg ) 3 / 2  (17)
N = 3  1 .1  10 16
Fig. 5 Capacitance distribution diagram for a trench gate IGBT
B
 V BR 
 

The ratio of inter-cell area to total die area a_i can be
extracted based on the capacitances in the datasheet. From
above figure of the capacitance distribution, it can be seen
that the displacement current due to the variation of the
depletion region flows through two branches: one is the
collector-emitter capacitance, Cce, branch under the emitter
terminal, while the other is the Miller capacitance branch,
which includes the collector-gate capacitance, Cgc. When the
gate is shorted to the emitter (Vge = 0), the latter branch only
includes Cgc.
where VBR is the breakdown voltage value from the
manufacturer’s data sheet plus about 150V-200V typical
margin for general IGBTs, and Eg is the energy band gap
value of silicon.
Besides the above simple but rough extraction method,
the extrapolation based on the Coes and Cres versus collector-
emitter voltage curves in the datasheet can also lead to a
reasonable extraction value of NB.
Assuming breakdown in the bulk, an abrupt junction, and
no mobile carriers in the depletion region (no leakage
current), the depletion layer width is given as:

949
 2 ε V CE (18) occurs under a constant collector-emitter voltage after the
x dep =
qN B collector-emitter voltage reaches the clamp voltage.
Therefore, the two-stage turn-off characteristic makes it easy
where x dep is the depletion width and Vce is the collector- to identify the current tail interval from the current and
emitter voltage. voltage waveforms.
From the capacitance analysis given above, the collector- Based on the theory in [3], the decay time constant of the
emitter capacitance Cce is due to the depletion region under IGBT current tail portion for a constant collector voltage is
the emitter region: given by:
ε A (1 − a _ i ) (19) d ln(ic (t )) 1 I
C =
ce =− (1 + c ) (24)
x dep dt τ HL Ik
Substituting (18) into (19) leads to a linear relationship where ic (t ) is the collector current, I c is the DC collector
between 1 and Vce. current, and I k is the current value at the starting point of the
( C ce ) 2
current tail. The high level lifetime τ HL can be obtained from
1 2 (20)
= V ce the curve of the decay rate − d ln( i c ( t )) versus the collector
( C ce ) 2 ε ( A (1 − a _ i )) 2 qN B dt
Furthermore, substituting the relation Cce = Coes − Cres current. Fig.6 shows the measured results of a Dynex NPT
into (20) leads to IGBT with a 90A current rating. Notice that the effective
lifetime is approximately independent of the collector current,
1 2 (21) therefore the collector current level used to extract the high-
= Vce
(Coes − Cres ) 2 ε ( A(1 − a _ i )) 2 qN B level lifetime τ HL is unimportant.
Eq. (21) reminds us that the capacitance versus voltage
20
curves provided by manufacturers can be used to extract the
doping concentration in the drift region NB. With a linear 18

regression applied to the curve for 1 /(Coss − C rss ) 2 versus Vce 16

[13], we can get the slope of this curve, which we will call 14
Effective lifetime (us)

Vcslope. 12

Vcslope = 2 /(qεN B (1 − a _ i)2 A2 ) (22) 10

8
Therefore, NB can be obtained from the slope value
6
equation (22).
The extraction for the remaining parameters in this 4

section is different for the NPT and PT IGBT cases. 2

Collector Current Ic (A)

0
a) Parameter Extraction for the NPT IGBT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Fig. 6. High-level lifetime extraction for the NPT IGBT

(The x-axis is collector current, 10A/div, and the y-axis is time, 2µs/div)
Under the triangular shape of the electrical field
distribution in the NPT IGBT, the standard breakdown
voltage equation gives: The classic value of the recombination coefficient hp
2 [14] is given by:
V BR = qN B (W B ) (23)
2ε 1 Dn (25)
hp =
Substituting NB into (23) will give the drift region width NA τn
WB.
where N A is the acceptor carrier concentration of the high
Since the carrier high-level lifetime dominates the IGBT doped p+ collector region, and τ n is the minority carrier
2nd stage turn-off current, the turn-off tail current decay will
be used to extract the high-level lifetime τ HL . lifetime. Generally, the recombination coefficient hp can be
selected based on the empirical value 1~2 *10-14 cm4 s-1 for
However, the current tail of latest-generation IGBTs is abrupt junction.
becoming less and less obvious than previous generation
IGBTs, due to the application of advanced lifetime killing b) Parameter Extraction for the PT IGBT
and other semiconductor technologies. Compared with other
test circuit setups, the clamped inductive load test circuit is
Like the WB extraction in the NPT case, using NB
more suitable for lifetime extraction, especially for the
current IGBTs with smaller lifetime. During IGBT turn-off previously known into (26), the equation of the trapezoidal
in the clamped inductive load circuit, the IGBT current tail

950
electric field at breakdown for the PT structure, will give the value range. The typical PT IGBT buffer layer width WH is
extraction value of the drift region WB. about 4~10 um. The normal range of the doping
1 qN (26) concentration N H is 1016~1017 cm-3. For the 5th generation
VBR = Ec.WB − . B .WB2
2 ε CSTBT IGBT and the Field-stop IGBT, smaller W H and N H
where Ec is the critical electrical field value for the silicon. values should be chosen.
For the lifetime extraction of the PT IGBT, a method
similar to the NPT case can be used, which is based on IV. VALIDATION OF THE IGBT MODEL AND PARAMETER
EXTRACTION
−
d ln( I c ( t )) versus the collector current in the clamped
dt
In order to validate the analytical IGBT model and its
inductive load circuit. The difference is that the effective parameter extraction method discussed above, the IGBT
lifetime τ eff , instead of the high-level lifetime τ HL in the model with extracted parameters was used to simulate the
NPT case, is used in (24) for the PT case. The effective switching behavior of various structure IGBTs from different
lifetime is function of the high-level lifetime in the drift manufacturers. They are listed in Table III. The validation
region and low-level lifetime in the buffer layer τ BF . experiment with the 5th generation CSTBT IGBT is still in
Moreover, τ eff is dependent on the clamp voltage, unlike process and will be included in the presentation at the
conference.
τ HL in the NPT case, which is independent of the voltage. Table III. IGBT Device Lists
Therefore, lifetime extraction for the PT IGBT needs to be
IGBT Structure Rating Manufacturer
performed under several clamp voltages. The effective
lifetime extraction under clamp voltage condition is the same A Trench PT 600V/600A Powerex
as in the NPT case. Fig. 7 shows the curve of the effective B DMOS PT 1200V/600A Powerex
lifetime τ eff versus the clamp voltage based on the test results
C DMOS NPT 1200V/100A Dynex
for a PT IGBT. Notice that Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 have different x-
D Trench Field Stop 1200V/80A Infineon
axes: in Fig. 7 the x-axis is the collector-emitter voltage,
whereas in Fig.6 the x-axis is the collector current. The high-
level carrier lifetime τ HL corresponds to the low-voltage τ eff In order to avoid the effects brought by the external
circuit, the validation experiments were performed under a
value, while the low-level carrier lifetime in the buffer layer simple hard switching environment, including resistive and
τ BF is equal to the τ eff value at high clamp voltage since clamped inductive load test circuit. The current generation of
IGBTs generally has very fast switching speeds and becomes
the drift region is depleted under that condition.
sensitive to the circuit parameters, so these parameters, such
as parasitic inductance and connection resistance, have to be
0.3
τ HL precisely measured and accounted for in the simulation.
The comparison between the experimental and simulated
0.25 results for various IGBTs at turn-off under clamped inductive
load circuit is seen in Figs. 8, 9, 10, and 11, in which the red
and pink curves are experimental voltage and current, and the
Effective Lifetime (us)

0.2

black and blue curves are simulation voltage and current.

0.15 The time scale is 200ns per division.

600 650
0.1

τBF 500 550

0.05

400 450
Collector-Emitter Voltage (V)
0 Ic
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
300 350
Current (A)

Voltage (V)

Fig. 7. Effective lifetime extraction under different clamped voltages Ic_Exp

Ic_Sim
for the PT IGBT (The x-axis is collector-emitter voltage, 50V/div, and the y- 200 Vce_Exp 250
Vce_Sim
axis is time 0.05µs/div)
Vce
The accuracy of the Fourier-based-solution IGBT
100 150

modeling approach critically depends on the accuracy of the

0 50
drift region parameters, but it is less sensitive to other device 1.35E-05 1.40E-05 1.45E-05 1.50E-05 1.55E-05 1.60E-05

parameters. Therefore, upon the consideration of simplicity -100

Time (S)
-50
and negligible loss of accuracy, the remaining parameters of Fig. 8. Comparison of experiment and simulation for the IGBT_A
the buffer layer can be obtained based on their empirical turn off transient under 400V/300A

951
 parameter extraction method is provided for the Fourier-
300 900
based-solution analytical IGBT model. Since the extraction
procedure is general in nature, some methods used in the
250 750
research are also suitable for the extraction of some
Ic

200 600
parameters needed for other kinds of IGBT models in Table I.
By jointly using three general parameter extraction
150 Ic_exp 450
methods  empirical-value-based extraction, datasheet-
Current (A)

Voltage (V)
Ic_Sim
Vce_exp
Vce_Sim
based extrapolation, and simple-test-based extraction  the
100 300
total extraction procedure only needs a simple clamped
50 150
inductive load test for the extraction of the eleven and
thirteen parameters needed for the NPT and PT IGBT
0
Vce
0
models, respectively.
1.65E-05 1.70E-05 1.75E-05 1.80E-05 1.85E-05 1.90E-05 1.95E-05 2.00E-05

Finally, the validation with the experimental results from

Time (s)
-50 -150
various structure IGBTs demonstrates the accuracy of the
Fig. 9. Comparison of experiment and simulation for the IGBT_B proposed IGBT model and the parameter extraction method.
turns off transient under 600V/200A
The validation with the 5th generation CSTBT IGBT, which is
100 500 still in process, will be provided at a later time.

IV. ACKNOWLEDGE
80 400

Ic
The authors would like to thank Angus Bryant of the
60
Ic_exp
300
University of Cambridge for many interesting discussions
Ic_sim
Vce_exp and valuable suggestions.
Vce_sim
Current(A)

Voltage(V)

40 Vce 200
REFERENCES
[1] “Powerex Product Selector Guide" Powerex, Inc
20 100 [2] Junji Yamada, Yoshiharu Yu, Y. Ishimura, Mitsubishi Electric
corporation, JAPAN; John F. Donlon and Eric R. Motto, Powerex
Incorporated “Low Turn-off Switching Energy 1200V IGBT Module”,
0 0 IEEE APEC Annual Mtg. Rec., March 2002.
0.0E+00 2.0E-07 4.0E-07 6.0E-07 8.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.2E-06 1.4E-06 1.6E-06 1.8E-06 2.0E-06
[3] A.R. Hefner “Modeling buffer layer IGBTs for the Circuit Simulation”,
Time(Sec) IEEE Trans.P.E , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 111-123, 1995.
-20 -100 [4] Peter O. Lauritzen, “A Basic IGBT Model with Easy Parameter”, IEEE
Fig. 10. Comparison of experiment and simulation for the IGBT_C PESC Rec., June 2001
turns off transient under 400V/90A [5] A. Claudio, M.Cotorogea and M.A.Rodriguz “Parameter Extraction for
Physics-based IGBT models By Electrical Measurement”, IEEE PESC,
80 840
Proceeding. 2002.
[6] S. Musumeci, A.Raciti and M.Sardo etc “PT-IGBT PSpice Model with
70 735
New parameter Extraction for life-time and Epy Dependent Behavior
Simulation,” IEEE PESC Annual Mtg. Rec., pp. 1682-1688, 1996.
60 630
[7] Antonio G.M. Strollo “A New IGBT Circuit Model for Spice
Simulation” IEEE PESC Rec. 1997
50 525 [8] J. Sigg, P. Turkes and R. Kraus, “Parameter Extraction Methodology
and Validation for an Electro-Thermal Physics-Based NPT IGBT
Model”, IEEE IAS Rec., Oct. 1997
Voltage (V)
Current (A)

40 420

[9] P.R. Palmer, J.C. Joyce, P.Y. Eng, J.L. Hudgins, E. Santi, and R.
Ic_Exp
30 Ic_Sim 315 Dougal, “Circuit simulator models for the diode and IGBT with full
Vce_Exp
Vce_Sim
temperature dependent features,” IEEE PESC Rec., June 2001.
20 210 [10] X. Kang, A. Caiafa, E. Santi, J.L. Hudgins and P.R. Palmer “Low
Temperature Characterization and Modeling of IGBTs,” IEEE PESC
10 105 Annual Mtg. Rec., in press, June. 2002.
[11] X. Kang, A. Caiafa, E. Santi, J.L. Hudgins and P.R. Palmer
0 0 “Characterization and Modeling of High-voltage Field-stop IGBTs,”
9.80E-06 1.00E-05 1.02E-05 1.04E-05 1.06E-05 1.08E-05 1.10E-05 1.12E-05 1.14E-05 1.16E-05 1.18E-05
IEEE IAS Annual Mtg. Rec., in press, Oct. 2002.
Time (S)
-10 -105 [12] Antonio G.M. Strollo “A New IGBT Circuit Model for Spice
Fig. 11. Comparison of experiment and simulation for the IGBT_D Simulation” IEEE PESC Rec. 1997
turns off transient under 600V/60A [13] Ph. Leturcq, J-L. Debrie and M.O.Berraies, “A Distributed Model of
IGBTs for Circuit Simulation”, pp.1494-1501, EPE’97
[14] H.Schlangenotto and W. Gerlach “On the Effective Carrier Lifetime in
p-s-n Rectifiers at High Injection Levels”, Solid-State Electronics. 1969
III. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION [15] R.A. Kokosa and R.L. Davies, “Avalanche breakdown of diffused
silicon p-n junctions,” IEEE Trans. ED, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 874-881,
After review and comparison of current analytical IGBT 1966.
modeling approaches and their parameterization, a practical

952