Comparison of IGBT and SiC Inverter Loss for 400V

and 800V DC Bus Electric Vehicle Drivetrains

Alexander Allca-Pekarovic1 Phillip J. Kollmeyer1 Parisa Mahvelatishamsabadi1
allcapa@mcmaster.ca kollmeyp@mcmaster.ca mahvelap@mcmaster.ca
Tissa Mirfakhrai2 Payam Naghshtabrizi2 Ali Emadi1
tissaphernmirfakhrai@eaton.com payamnaghshtabrizi@eaton.com emadi@mcmaster.ca
1 McMaster Automotive Resource Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
2 Eaton Research Laboratories, Southfield, MI, USA

Abstract — Improving inverter selection for electric vehicles
is a must when tackling overall vehicle efficiency and reduction
of traction system losses. This paper investigates the efficiency
benefits achieved by using an 800V dc bus voltage and wideband
gap SiC carbide devices rather than a conventional IGBT
inverter and a 400V dc bus. Inverters utilizing 600V IGBTs,
1200V IGBTs, 1200V hybrid silicon carbide (SiC) devices, and
1200V full SiC devices are modeled. The modeled loss for each
inverter type is incorporated into a full electro-mechanical
vehicle model as a way of accurately representing their behavior
in an application. Measured data from experimental testing of a
180kW traction machine and a 1200V IGBT inverter were also
used in developing and verifying the validity of the inverter
model. Simulation results show around a 5% reduction in an
electric vehicle’s energy consumption, and consequently a 5%
increase in range, when a full SiC inverter is used. All results are
normalized to a 600V IGBT inverter, showing that all the 1200V
devices are more efficient and that the SiC devices show the most
improvement overall.
Keywords—electric vehicles, full SiC inverter, hybrid SiC
inverter, IGBT inverter, traction machine
I. INTRODUCTION
Moving forward with improving electric vehicles requires
increasing efficiency of existing vehicle components as well
as implementing new devices. One such area of interest is that
of the power electronics. SiC devices have already proven to
have significant benefits for automotive applications. These
range from higher traction inverter power density [1,2],
reduction of dc/dc converter losses [3], increased on-board
charger efficiency [4,5], and the ability to use many times
higher switching frequencies [6]. In terms of thermal
considerations, SiC devices also have superior thermal
properties, allowing the development of automotive inverters
with junction temperatures of 250°C [7]. Increased traction
system efficiency has also been noted with the use of SiC
devices for a simulated hybrid electric vehicle drivetrain [8].
The cost of a high power silicone-carbide inverter might
be of concern when considering the implementation of these
devices. However, it has been shown that even with their
higher initial cost, as compared to IGBT based inverters, their
higher efficiency can offset the long term costs when
considering daily use over the course of the life of the
application [9]. These findings lead to the assumption that
SiC devices will likely be increasingly used in production
electric vehicles (EVs) in the future, as is already being seen
with the Tesla Model 3 [10].
Another trend in vehicle electrification is towards the use
of 800V battery packs, which is uncommon in the automotive
industry where 400V battery packs are used almost
universally for electric vehicles. The only production car to
date to utilize an 800V bus is the Porsche Taycan [11], which
has implemented this higher voltage system with benefits
ranging from shorter battery charge times of 22.5 minutes
[12] to decreased power cable size due to the doubling of
voltage. These improvements, along with a potential for
improved inverter efficiency as is investigated in this paper,
make 800V dc bus system systems worth investigating as
they also have potential to become commonplace among EVs
in the future.
Overall, the implementation of SiC devices and an 800V
dc bus will improve the efficiency of EVs and allow the use
of a somewhat smaller and less costly battery. An important
step towards adopting these inverters and higher bus voltages
in practice is to prove these assumptions using a detailed
whole vehicle model. In this paper, a Chevrolet Bolt EV is
modeled with a conventional 400V IGBT inverter with 600V
rated semiconductors, similar to what is in the production
vehicle, and with 800V IGBT, hybrid SiC, and full SiC
inverters with 1200V rated semiconductors. To ensure an
accurate assessment of inverter losses, the inverter loss model
is experimentally verified for one of the inverter types. The
analysis highlights the benefits of both higher bus voltages
and wideband gap devices on vehicle range and energy
consumption. The inverter loss modeling is performed in
section II, the impact on vehicle range is presented in section
III, and in section IV the reduction in vehicle energy
consumption due to downsizing the vehicle battery pack is
investigated.
II. INVERTER SEMICONDUCTOR LOSS MODELING
A. Inverter Semiconductor Modules Selected for Analysis
As previously mentioned, four different inverter module
types were selected for investigation including 600V and

978-1-7281-5826-6/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 6338

Authorized licensed use limited to: Kwame Nkrumah Univ of Science and Technology. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 18:43:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I. INVERTER MODULE RATINGS AND DATASHEET PARAMETERS
SKiM SEMiX SEMiX SKM
Parameter Unit 909GD066HD 603GB12E4p 603GB12E4SiCp 350MB120SCH17
Inverter type - IGBT IGBT Hybrid SiC Full SiC
Rated voltage (VCES) Vdc 600 1200 1200 1200
Rated current (ICnom) A 900 600 600 523 (Id)
Transistor turn on+off energy dissipation
mJ 124 149 89 16.6
(Eon+off)
Transistor collector emitter threshold voltage
V 0.85 0.77 0.77 02
(VCE0(Tj))1
Transistor on-state slope resistance (rCE(Tj))1 mΩ 0.94 2.1 2.1 9.5 (RDS)
Diode energy dissipation during reverse
J 29 40 03 03
recovery (Err)
Diode forward threshold voltage (VF0(Tj)) 1 V 0.85 1.08 0.8 0.8
Diode on state slope resistance (rF(Tj)) 1 mΩ 0.80 1.67 3.3 4.5
1 2
Values for a junction temperature Tj of 150°C SiC transistors are MOSFETs and have a threshold voltage of 0V 3SiC Schottky barrier diodes used have effectively zero switching loss

1200V rated and IGBT to Full SiC modules. Modules are 1 ∙

selected which can provide sufficient phase current for the
modeled electric vehicle, 450 Arms for the 600V modules or
225 Arms for the 1200V modules. The selected modules are
all manufactured by SEMIKRON and are from the SKiM,
SEMiX, and SEMITRANS product lines. Table I provides
selected parameters for each module and demonstrates that
the full SiC module has much lower turn on + off energy
dissipation, and therefore much lower switching losses than
the other module types. The conduction losses are also quite
reasonable for the higher voltage modules compared to the
600V module, as indicated by the collector-emitter Threshold
voltage and the on-state slope resistances. The hybrid SiC
module and full SiC module also both utilize SiC Schottky
barrier diodes, which have effectively zero switching loss,
contributing to the lower loss of both modules compared to
the IGBT modules.
B. Inverter Semiconductor Module Loss Modeling
For each module, a set of equations governing IGBT and
SiC device losses [13] were used to calculate total inverter
loss at various motor operating conditions. The standard
equations below express losses as a function of junction
temperature, power factor, phase current, dc bus voltage, and
modulation factor. Product datasheets provided necessary
data to accurately determine the values for the temperature
dependent terms in each of these loss equations. The
transistor conduction loss (Pcond_T), transistor switching loss
(Psw_T), diode conduction loss, (Pcond_D), and diode switching
loss (Psw_D) are defined as follows:
1 ∙
_ = + ∙
2 8
1 ∙
+ ∙
8 3
√2
_ = ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
1+ ∙ −
_ = − ∙ ∙ +
2 8
1 ∙ (3)
− ∙ ∙
8 3
√2
= ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
_
(4)
1+ ∙ −
where m is the modulation factor, φ is the power factor, fsw is
the switching frequency, Iout is the rms ac phase output
current, Iref is the rms ac reference current, VCC is the dc link
bus voltage, Vref is the transistor/diode dc reference voltage,
Kv is the switching loss voltage dependency exponent, TCEsw
is the switching loss temperature coefficient, Tref is the
reference temperature, VCE0 is the transistor collector emitter
threshold voltage, rCE is the transistor on-state slope
resistance, VF0 is the diode forward threshold voltage, rF is
the diode on-state forward slope resistance, Err is the diode
reverse recovery energy dissipation, Ki is the switching loss
current dependency exponent, and TCErr is the diode reverse
recovery energy dissipation temperature coefficient. Inverter
loss is calculated using typical datasheet values for the
Semikron modules, the switching loss voltage dependency
exponent and the switching loss current dependency
exponent values from the Semikron application manual [13].
To demonstrate how the loss compares for each module
type, loss versus three phase inverter total output power
(kVA) and current is plotted and shown in Fig. 1a. A line to
line voltage of 192Vll-rms and bus voltage of 300Vdc is used
for the 600V IGBT module and 384Vll-rms and 600Vdc is used
for the 1200V full SiC, Hybrid SiC, and IGBT modules to
∙ +
provide an equal comparison of the 600V and 1200V
(1)
∙ modules. In other words, to keep the comparison equal half
the current and double the voltage are used for the 1200V
modules. Additional parameters for the calculations include
∙ a power factor of 0.85, switching frequency of 12kHz, and a
(2)
liquid cooled heatsink temperature 80⁰C. Fig. 1a shows the
Full SiC module has considerably lower loss than the other

6339
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kwame Nkrumah Univ of Science and Technology. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 18:43:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

a) Inverter loss versus phase current and total power for fixed AC output
voltage
b) Inverter loss vs total power normalized to 600V IGBT
Figure 1 Modeled inverter losses
options, especially at light loads (0 to 50kVA) where a
traction machine inverter would often be operating.
Fig. 1b shows the loss normalized to the 600V IGBT
module, showing that the hybrid SiC module has less than
half the loss of the 600V IGBT module, and the Full SiC
module has just 20% the losses of the 600V IGBT module at
50kVA or less. Additionally, the 1200V IGBT module is
shown to have about 25% less loss than the 600V modules,
but this difference would be somewhat less if a 1200V IGBT
module rated for half the current of the 600V module were
compared instead.
C. Inverter Efficiency for an IPM Traction Machine
To characterize the inverter module performance for the
Chevy Bolt EV traction application considered in this study,
the inverter loss was calculated as a function of torque and
speed for an IPM traction machine with similar capabilities
to the Chevy Bolt EV machine. Bus bar and dc bus capacitor
loss are neglected for all calculations, since they would
typically account for no more than 5 to 10% of inverter loss
at the highest load cases, and less at lighter loading, and the
inverter loss as presented throughout the paper is considered
to only consist of semiconductor losses. Circuit parameters
assumed for the 4 inverters are a 12kHz switching frequency,
6340
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kwame Nkrumah Univ of Science and Technology. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 18:43:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
a) 600V IGBT b) 1200V IGBT
c) 1200V Hybrid SiC d) 1200V Full SiC
Figure 2 Modeled inverter efficiencies for driving a 135kW traction
machine
a fixed heatsink temperature of 80°C, and a power factor of
0.85. The DC link bus voltage for the 600V inverter was
assumed to be 300Vdc, while the 1200V inverters were
assumed to be 600Vdc. The inverter loss was calculated for
each torque and speed operating point as a function of the
phase current.
The machine was also assumed to be wound such that for
the 600V module case a peak of 450Arms was required and
225Arms for the 1200V module case, both of which are well
within the capabilities of the inverter modules. The IPM
machine used for the calculations was a prototype 460Nm,
135kW, 7kRPM peak, 450Arms traction machine [14], which
compares well with the 360Nm, 150kW, 8800RPM,
400Arms machine used in the Bolt EV [15]. The efficiency
for each inverter module driving the prototype traction
machine is calculated and shown in Fig. 2. The Full SiC
module inverter is shown in Fig. 2d to have a peak efficiency
of 99.5% in the region from just under 2000RPM to about
5000RPM, and up to about 175Nm. Fig. 2 also shows an
increasing peak efficiency per module as the voltage rating is
increased and as the module leans more towards being a full
SiC device.
D. Impact of switching fre quency and junction temperature
on semiconductor loss
The loss graphs such in Fig. 1 focus on loss as a function
of total power and current, however there are several other
parameters which effect loss as well. For the investigated
semiconductor modules power factor and modulation index
have proven to have little effect on the loss, likely due to the
diodes and transistors having similar forward voltage drop
and slope resistance. However, switching frequency and
junction temperature have a significant impact on
semiconductor loss. Fig. 3 shows that total module loss
increases by a factor of two or more for the IGBT and Hybrid
SiC devices when increasing from 4kHz to 20kHz switching
frequency, and that the Full SiC module loss changes very
little with switching frequency. For this plot, as well as that

Figure 3 Inverter loss as a function of switching frequency for phase
current of 450Arms (600V devices) or 225Arms (1200V devices)
Figure 4 Inverter loss as a function of temperature for phase current of
450Arms (600V devices) or 225Arms (1200V devices)
in Fig. 4, all modules were assumed to have a power factor of
0.85 and a modulation index of 1. The 600V IGBT module’s
circuit parameters were held constant at a DC bus link voltage
of 300Vdc, a phase voltage of 200Vll-rms, and a phase
current of 450Arms. The other 1200V modules’ circuit
parameters were assumed to be supplied a DC bus link
voltage of 600V, a phase voltage of 400Vll-rms, with a phase
current of 225Arms. In summary, the switching frequency
plot shows that there is substantial benefit to using lower
switching frequencies for IGBT devices, for example through
using variable switching frequency or even six step control,
while Full SiC devices can enable a higher switching
frequency with minimal impact on loss.
Inverter diode and transistor losses are also highly
dependent on the module’s junction temperatures, as shown
in Fig. 4 for a switching frequency of 12kHz. The junction
temperature during operation is affected by the heat
conduction from the ambient environment through the
heatsink. For all the devices, loss increases by about 50% as
temperature increases from 30⁰C to 150⁰C. This shows that
a more effective cooling system, which keeps junction
temperature lower, will not just enable operation at higher
currents without exceeding the maximum junction
temperature rating but will also reduce loss and further help
to extend vehicle range.
III. INVERTER IMPACT ON VEHICLE RANGE
A. Drivetrain Modeling
A 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV, with the traction inverters and
electric machine defined in section II, is modeled to give
insight into the impact of inverter loss on vehicle range. The
6341
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kwame Nkrumah Univ of Science and Technology. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 18:43:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE II. 2017 CHEVROLET BOLT EV SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Load (passenger &
80 kg
gear mass)
Vehicle mass 1625 kg
Road load A B C
parameters 126.3 N 2.008 N/(m/s) 0.4336 N/(m/s2)
Gearbox Ratio 5.61
Gearbox efficiency 98 %
Wheel radius 0.32 m
Accessory Power 200 W
model’s mechanical parameters and assumptions are detailed
in Table II.
The vehicle was modeled using the manufacturer’s
specifications for vehicle mass and tire diameter. The gear
ratio of 5.61:1 was selected to provide a top speed of 95mph
at the modeled traction machine’s top speed of 7000RPM.
This is the same top speed achieved by the production Bolt
EV with its 7.05:1 gear ratio and 8810RPM traction machine.
Vehicle road load coefficients were obtained from open
source data compiled by the EPA on light duty vehicles [16].
Vehicle longitudinal forces, Flong, can be calculated with the
road load equation (5) and the mechanical power, Pmech, with
(6) as follows
= + + (5)
= ∙ + ∙ ∙ (6)
where coefficients A, B, and C, capture the vehicle’s rolling
resistance, viscous driveline and velocity dependent rolling
resistance, and aerodynamic drag, and where mveh, aveh, and
vveh are the vehicle mass, acceleration, and velocity. The
accessory power of 200W is based off the measured
accessory power for a 2017 Bolt EV when the HVAC system
is off. The gearbox efficiency of 98% was selected such that
the predicted range for the model with the 600V IGBT
inverter matches the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) range of 238 miles.
For the inverter loss modeling, the same assumptions as
in section III, subsection C are used, namely 12kHz switching
frequency, 80⁰C heatsink temperature, and 300 or 600V dc
bus voltage, which represents the nominal loaded voltage of
a vehicle with a 400V or 800V pack. The model could be
improved by including varying DC bus voltage calculated
with a battery model and junction temperature calculated with
a transient thermal model, but this is considered beyond the
scope of this work.
The total power the vehicle battery must supply is the sum
of the mechanical power, gearbox loss, traction machine loss,
inverter loss, and accessory power. The inverter loss and the
total power and energy which the battery pack must supply is
calculated for different drive cycles with the vehicle model
and presented for a single drive cycle in section B and several
different drive cycles in section C.
B. Inverter loss for HWFET drive cycle
To illustrate how each inverter performs for a drive cycle,
the vehicle model defined in the prior subsection is used to
calculate performance for the HWFET drive cycle and the
 TABLE III. INVERTER COMPARISON FOR VARIOUS DRIVE CYCLES
Parameter Drive Cycle
Inverter Loss
(Wh/mi) UDDS HWFET LA92 US06
Full SiC 1200V 3.0 1.0 3.7 3.5
Hybrid SiC 1200V 7.7 3.1 8.6 7.9
a) Vehicle speed versus time IGBT 1200V 12.8 5.3 14.3 12.9
IGBT 600V 17.8 7.2 19.9 18.1
Consumption
(Wh/mi) UDDS HWFET LA92 US06
Full SiC 1200V 143 200 198 271
Hybrid SiC 1200V 148 202 202 275
IGBT 1200V 153 204 207 280
IGBT 600V 158 206 212 285
b) Traction machine power versus time % Range Increase
(IGBT 600V ref) UDDS HWFET LA92 US06
Full SiC 1200V 10.0% 3.1% 7.1% 4.8%
Hybrid SiC 1200V 6.6% 2.0% 4.8% 3.4%
IGBT 1200V 3.1% 0.9% 2.4% 1.7%
Range (mi) UDDS HWFET LA92 US06 EPA
Full SiC 1200V 419 300 303 221 256
Hybrid SiC 1200V 406 297 297 218 250
c) Traction machine phase current versus time
IGBT 1200V 393 294 290 214 244
IGBT 600V 381 291 283 211 238

d) Phase current versus time

Figure 5 Time domain plots of HWFET simulation results
pertinent results are shown in Fig 5. These plots show the
speed profile of the drive cycle in a), traction machine power,
including propelling and regenerative power, in b), and the
motor phase current for the 600V and 1200V inverter
modules in c). The phase current for the 1200V modules is
simply half that for the 600V modules, because it is assumed
the machine is wound for double the voltage and half the
current.
Loss for each inverter during the HWFET drive cycle is
shown in Fig. 5 d). Observation of this plot shows that the full
SiC inverter has very low loss, averaging around 50W and
never exceeding 200W. A clear trend is also visible with
higher voltage and SiC including modules having less loss,
showing that the higher efficiency of these modules as shown
in Fig. 2 translates to significantly lower loss values.
C. Inverter loss and vehicle range for several drive cycles
The drivetrain with each inverter module option was
simulated for 4 different drive cycles: UDDS, HWFET,
LA92, and US06. For each drive cycle, the inverter loss and
energy consumption from the battery was recorded, and a
comparison of the reduction in inverter loss, with the IGBT
600V module as baseline, was calculated. Vehicle range was
also calculated, assuming 60kWh of usable energy supplied
by the battery pack. As seen in Table III, the results show
that the Full SiC 1200V has dramatically lower loss than the
other modules, resulting in a range increase of 3.1% for the
Figure 6 Vehicle range for each inverter type
highway HWFET cycle and 10% percent for the lower speed
UDDS drive cycle, which operates mostly in the peak
efficiency area of the SiC inverter. The EPA range, EPArange
is also calculated as follows
= 0.7 0.55 + 0.45 (6)
which is specified in the EPA Test Procedures for Electric
Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrids [17]. Range for UDDS is
shown in Table III and Fig. 6 to increase by 38 miles, and the
EPA range is shown to increase from 238 to 255 miles, an
increase of 7.3% or 18 miles. This is quite significant
considering that a new, more energy dense battery chemistry
was required to achieve an increase in range of 21 miles for
the 2020 Bolt EV.
D. Reduction in battery pack size to maintain equal range
for each inverter case
While the higher voltage and SiC containing inverters result
in increased vehicle range for a fixed battery pack size, they
can likewise allow the battery pack to be downsized such that
the same range is achieved but with a smaller pack. Updated
battery pack sizes which each achieve the same range were

6342
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kwame Nkrumah Univ of Science and Technology. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 18:43:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE IV. BATTERY PACK SIZED FOR FIXED VEHICLE RANGE
600V 1200V 1200V 1200V
1200V IGBT
IGBT IGBT Hybrid SiC Full SiC Traction Machine Inverter
Battery Energy (kWh) 60.0 58.7 57.2 55.9
Battery Cost Reduction1 $0 $202 $417 $613
Vehicle Mass (kg) 1625 1615 1605 1595
EPA Range (mi)2 238.3 238.5 238.6 238.7
1
Assuming $150/kWh battery pack cost, neglecting additional cost for 800V pack
2
EPA range increase due to effect of reduced vehicle mass

calculated based on the vehicle energy consumption values in

Table III, and the new battery capacity values are shown in
Table IV. Assuming a battery pack cost of $150/kWh, the
a) Traction machine and inverter on dyno
cost of the battery pack is reduced by $613 for the full SiC
module, which is likely enough to pay for the difference in 400A Fuse
cost between a SiC and IGBT module. Additionally the new Rinehart
vehicle mass is calculated for each case based on the 435 kg Inverter
[18] mass of the Bolt EV pack, and it is shown in Table IV
that this results in a 30kg reduction in vehicle mass for the
full SiC case. The vehicle’s EPA range was then recalculated
Pump
considering the reduction in vehicle mass for each case, and
it was found that the 30kg reduction in mass for the full SiC
case results in 0.4 miles of additional range compared to the
600V IGBT case, showing the vehicle mass has a modest Fan & Radiator
impact on vehicle range.
IV. INVERTER TESTING AND MODEL VERIFICATION b) Inverter and Cooling System
Figure 7 Experimental lab setup
To verify the inverter loss model, testing is performed on
an inverter which has the 1200 V Semikron IGBT module
1200 Modeled
modeled in section 2. The empirical data is collected through
a series of tests with different phase currents and traction 1000
Inverter Loss (W)

machine speeds. The lab room is fitted with an AVL electric 500 RPM
machine dynamometer rated for 250 kW and 500 Nm. The test 800 (Measured)
machine is mounted to the dyno via a mounting plate and the 600 1000 RPM
inverter is wall mounted with orange high voltage cables (measured)
running from its three phase terminals to the motor, as seen in 400 1500 RPM
Fig. 7a. An adjacent battery testing lab feeds dc power to the (Measured)
200 1800 RPM
inverter via a high power bidirectional power supply which
0 (Measured)
supplies the inverter with a fixed dc voltage.
All testing was done with the dyno motor in speed control 0 50 100 150
mode, with torque commands being sent to the inverter via Phase Current (Arms)
CAN communication. The tested inverter, a Rinehart Figure 8 Modeled & measured inverter losses versus traction machine
PM150DZR as shown in Fig. 7b, is rated for a continuous AC phase current
phase current of 225 Arms and a peak of 400 Arms. The model and actual inverter module, and since the same
maximum rated operating bus voltage is 720 Vdc, and a modeling methodology was used for the other three inverter
voltage of 320 Vdc is used for the tests here [19]. The test module types it gives confidence in the modeled results for
machine, a REMY HVH250-090S is a 10-pole, 3-phase IPM them as well.
traction machine rated for a continuous phase of 200Arms
and a peak phase current of 300Arms [20] and is simply used V. CONCLUSIONS
as a load for the testing in this work. This comparison of lower dc bus voltage and higher dc
Inverter and traction machine testing was performed at bus voltage IGBT, hybrid SiC, and full SiC inverter modules
speeds of 500RPM, 1000RPM, 1500RPM, and 1800RPM
has expanded on previous work in this area, proving that there
with traction machine in motoring mode. The inverter loss
is a significant benefit in utilizing architectures with 800V
was measured with a high accuracy (0.15%) power analyzer
(0.15%) and high accuracy (0.1%) current sensors. Results for battery packs and SiC devices. Simulation results show that
the testing are shown in Fig. 8, along with the modeled 1200V the use of SiC devices with a higher bus voltage increases the
IGBT loss curve for 12kHz switching as is used in the inverter. EPA range of a Chevrolet Bolt EV by 7.3% (18 mi). The
The empirical data matches the modeled loss trend with an battery pack could alternatively be downsized to achieve the
acceptable variance over the tested phase currents from 0 to same range as the 600 V IGBT reference case, reducing the
150 Arms. These results suggest good alignment between the vehicle mass by 30kg and the battery pack cost by around

6343
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kwame Nkrumah Univ of Science and Technology. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 18:43:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 $600 for the full SiC case. The presented findings show that [9] S. Ozdemir, F. Acar and U. S. Selamogullari, "Comparison of silicon
carbide MOSFET and IGBT based electric vehicle traction inverters,"
overall, the implementation of an all SiC traction inverter 2015 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and
results in the greatest range, efficiency, and least amount of Informatics (ICEEI), Denpasar, 2015, pp. 1-4, doi:
losses. One concern is the cost of these devices though. 10.1109/ICEEI.2015.7387215.
Lower cost hybrid SiC devices, which utilize a SiC diode and [10] J. Reimers, L. Dorn-Gomba, C. Mak and A. Emadi, "Automotive
Traction Inverters: Current Status and Future Trends," in IEEE
Si transistors, still result in a significant EPA range Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 3337-3350,
improvement of 4.9% (12 mi) and can serve as an interim April 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVT.2019.2897899
choice until full SiC device prices decrease sufficiently. [11] Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG
“PAG_Taycan_Technology_PM_EN.pdf,” Available:
https://newsroom.porsche.com/dam/jcr:93483663-c12b-43ca-98f5-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS b1b8b845e321/PAG_Taycan_Technology_PM_EN.pdf.PDF
[Accessed: 22-Jan-2020].
This work has been supported, in part, by Eaton Research [12] E. Loveday, “Porsche Taycan 4S Revealed: Offers Two Battery
Laboratories. Sizes,” InsideEVs, 14-Oct-2019. [Online]. Available:
https://insideevs.com/news/376127/porsche-taycan-4s-debut/.
[Accessed: 22-Jan-2020].
[13] A. Wintrich, U. Nicolai, W. Tursky, and T. Reimann, SEMIKRON
REFERENCES Application manual power semiconductors. Ilmenau: ISLE-Verl.,
[1] X. Ding, M. Du, T. Zhou, H. Guo, and C. Zhang, “Comprehensive 2015.
comparison between silicon carbide MOSFETs and silicon IGBTs [14] P. J. Kollmeyer et al., "Real-Time Control of a Full Scale Li-ion
based traction systems for electric vehicles,” Applied Energy, vol. 194, Battery and Li-ion Capacitor Hybrid Energy Storage System for
pp. 626–634, 2017. a Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle," in IEEE Transactions on Industry
[2] C. Zhang, S. Srdic, S. Lukic, Y. Kang, E. Choi, and E. Tafti, "A SiC Applications, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 4204- 4214, July-Aug.2019. doi:
Based 100 kW High-Power-Density (34kW/L) Electric Vehicle 10.1109/TIA.2019.2911057
Traction Inverter," in 2018 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and [15] Momen, F., Rahman, K., Son, Y., and Savagian, P., "Electric Motor
Exposition (ECCE), 2018, pp. 3880-3885. Design of General Motors’ Chevrolet Bolt Electric Vehicle," SAE Int.
[3] D. Han, J. Noppakunkajorn, and B. Sarlioglu, "Comprehensive J. Alt. Power. 5(2):286-293, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-
Efficiency, Weight, and Volume Comparison of SiC and Si-Based 1228.
Bidirectional DC-DC Converters for Hybrid Electric Vehicles," [16] “Annual Certification Data for Vehicles, Engines, and
Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. PP, no. Equipment,” EPA, 31-Oct-2019. [Online]. Available:
99, pp. 1-1, 2014. https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/annual-
[4] G. Liu et al., "Comparison of SiC MOSFETs and GaN HEMTs based certification-data-vehicles-and-engines. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2020].
high-efficiency high-power-density 7.2kW EV battery [17] D. Good, “EPA Test Procedures for Electric Vehicles and Plug-in
chargers," in 2017 IEEE 5th Workshop on Wide Bandgap Power Hybrids”, US Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 14, 2017.
Devices and Applications (WiPDA), 2017, pp. 391-397. Available:
[5] G. Su, "Comparison of Si, SiC, and GaN based Isolation Converters for https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%20for
Onboard Charger Applications," in 2018 IEEE Energy Conversion %20EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf
Congress and Exposition (ECCE), 2018, pp. 1233-1239. [18] “2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV.” [Online]. Available:
[6] R. A. Wood and T. E. Salem, "Evaluation of a 1200-V, 800-A All-SiC https://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/bolt-
Dual Module," in IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 26, no. ev/2017.tab1.html. [Accessed: 15-Jun-2020].
9, pp. 2504-2511, Sept. 2011, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2108670. [19] “PM Family (Low Volume),” Cascadia Motion. [Online]. Available:
[7] B. Wrzecionko, D. Bortis and J. W. Kolar, "A 120 °C Ambient https://www.cascadiamotion.com/pm-family-low-volume.html.
Temperature Forced Air-Cooled Normally-off SiC JFET Automotive [Accessed: 23-Jan-2020].
Inverter System," in IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 29, [20] AM Racing AMR 250-90 Single AC Motor - Liquid Cooled, Permanent
no. 5, pp. 2345-2358, May 2014, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2013.2294906. Magnet - Remy Cartridge, EV West - Electric Vehicle Parts,
[8] M. Chinthavali, P. Otaduy and B. Ozpineci, "Comparison of Si and SiC Components, EVSE Charging Stations, Electric Car Conversion Kits.
inverters for IPM traction drive," 2010 IEEE Energy Conversion [Online]. Available:
Congress and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, 2010, pp. 3360-3365, doi: https://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=297.
10.1109/ECCE.2010.5618319. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2020].

6344
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kwame Nkrumah Univ of Science and Technology. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 18:43:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.