Review on Power Cycling Reliability of SiC Power Device

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for providing your review article on power cycling tests (PCT) for assessing the reliability of SiC devices. It introduces various packaging designs and discusses PCT methods, failure mechanisms, and monitoring parameters. Challenges in standardization are highlighted, along with statistical analysis of packaging lifetimes under PCT.

Your article is well written and it is broadly based on the current state of research and development. Interested researchers can easily find further reading on the topics covered in the references you provide.

I generally support the publication of the article. Before releasing it for publication, your own analyses should be made more specific, more quantitative and more clearly justified in order to offer the reader greater added value. Please see my specific comments on the text passages and illustrations.

Sincerely,

Your reviewer.

 

 

Specific comments:

 

Line 73:             

Initial values can also be set after a “burn-in” phase of the DUT in the PCT.

 

Lines 89-90: 

I do not understand how this sentence relates to the content of the section.

 

 

Fig. 1:  

All image sources of the shown power semiconductors should be given.

 

Fig. 2 and its description in the text:
Should be moved to the introductory section since they fit better there.

 

Line 233:

The 5% increase of V_ds should be specified more precisely: 5% with respect to which reference value? At which time instant(s) during a PCT pulse period is the V_ds increase determined?

 

Figure 10:

Figure 10 shows a very qualitative comparison between different temperature-sensitive parameters (TSP) of SiC devices. The y axis description and scaling have no meaning. For a reader whose intention is to select a TSP for monitoring the junction temperature, this figure is not helpful. Significantly more information would be provided if:

- four individual (sub-) figures (a: linearity / b: stability / c: self-heating / d: online deployment difficulty) would be shown,

- each individual figure should have a quantitative y axis scale of the relevant physical quantity (where applicable),

- more information should be given in the main text.

 

Figure 12:

Please remove the trendline since it implicates the presence of a certain statistical distribution type which is not applicable.
A non-compulsory recommendation from my side: It would provide additional information to the reader if not only the Tj swing is shown, but also Tj,max. 

 

Fig. 13 a & b:

It is difficult to directly compare PCT lifetimes of DUTs from different tests, as it is done here. A comparison is only valid if: (1) t_on and t_off times of the individual tests are in a comparable range; (2) T_vj,max of the individual tests are comparable; (3) DUT packaging technologies are comparable. To make Fig. 13 valid, these aspects have to be reasoned. Furthermore, the mathematical equation of the fit curve, including fit parameters should be given. Does the fit function correspond to eq. (3) ?
Optional: In how far are the fitting parameters comparable (or not) to the Coffin-Manson curves of other power semiconductor types?

 

Fig. 14:

The y axis should be logarithmic to allow a more precise allocation of all data points.

 

Lines 494-509 and Fig. 15:

I do not understand how this passage is relevant / related to PCT. Please justify or delete this paragraph.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work introduces existing low thermal resistance packaging design structures, then summarizes the reliability under power cycling test for Planar packaging with dual heat dissipation, press-pack packaging, three-dimensional packaging and hybrid packaging. Based on statistical methodology, the lifetimes of various packaging structures are analyzed and compared. This review provides a comprehensive understanding for peer-researchers and application engineers. Here are some minor revision suggestions:

(1) There are some errors on figures, such as: in Fig.2, the label of thermal conductivity is wrong; in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, some labels cannot be seen clearly; in Fig.7 (b), the annotation is wrong, should be PWM-PCT.

(b) I suggest that authors include an organizational sentence at the end of the introduction for each subsequent section. Without a clear organizational overview, it can be difficult for readers to navigate through the entire review, especially given the typically lengthy nature of such papers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for addressing my review comments in your revised manuscript. From my side, your manuscript can be published.

Sincerely,

your reviewer.