Why do BLDC motor (1 kW) controllers have so many MOSFETs?












12












$begingroup$


I have a 1 kW three-phase BLDC motor from China, and I was developing the controller myself. At 48 Vdc, the maximum current should be about 25 Amps and a peak current of 50 Amps for short durations.



However when I researched BLDC motor controllers, I came across 24-device MOSFET controllers which have four IRFB3607 MOSFETs per phase (4 x 6 = 24).



The IRFB3607 has an Id of 82 Amps at 25 °C and 56 Amps at 100 C. I can't figure out why controllers will be designed with four times the rated current. Keep in mind that these are cheap Chinese controllers.



Any ideas?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You should include a link to an example of mentioned BLDC controller.
    $endgroup$
    – Bimpelrekkie
    17 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Mosfets in parallel will reduce the effective Rds_on. Lower power dissipation in the controller and better efficiency.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Karlsen
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "24 tube Mosfet controllers" Tube?
    $endgroup$
    – winny
    16 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Stall current is also likely to be about 10x rated current or about 250A. 4 * 82A per phase sounds quite reasonable.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Drummond
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Consider how many MOSFETs are on a typical PC motherboard VRM. A high-end desktop board designed to cope with a heavily-overclocked 16+ core processor pulling upwards of 500W will have eight high-end MOSFETs at minimum, and possibly 12 to 16. When you look at it this way, a motor that can pull nearly 1 kW continuously needs similarly beefy power delivery.
    $endgroup$
    – bwDraco
    1 hour ago


















12












$begingroup$


I have a 1 kW three-phase BLDC motor from China, and I was developing the controller myself. At 48 Vdc, the maximum current should be about 25 Amps and a peak current of 50 Amps for short durations.



However when I researched BLDC motor controllers, I came across 24-device MOSFET controllers which have four IRFB3607 MOSFETs per phase (4 x 6 = 24).



The IRFB3607 has an Id of 82 Amps at 25 °C and 56 Amps at 100 C. I can't figure out why controllers will be designed with four times the rated current. Keep in mind that these are cheap Chinese controllers.



Any ideas?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You should include a link to an example of mentioned BLDC controller.
    $endgroup$
    – Bimpelrekkie
    17 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Mosfets in parallel will reduce the effective Rds_on. Lower power dissipation in the controller and better efficiency.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Karlsen
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "24 tube Mosfet controllers" Tube?
    $endgroup$
    – winny
    16 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Stall current is also likely to be about 10x rated current or about 250A. 4 * 82A per phase sounds quite reasonable.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Drummond
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Consider how many MOSFETs are on a typical PC motherboard VRM. A high-end desktop board designed to cope with a heavily-overclocked 16+ core processor pulling upwards of 500W will have eight high-end MOSFETs at minimum, and possibly 12 to 16. When you look at it this way, a motor that can pull nearly 1 kW continuously needs similarly beefy power delivery.
    $endgroup$
    – bwDraco
    1 hour ago
















12












12








12





$begingroup$


I have a 1 kW three-phase BLDC motor from China, and I was developing the controller myself. At 48 Vdc, the maximum current should be about 25 Amps and a peak current of 50 Amps for short durations.



However when I researched BLDC motor controllers, I came across 24-device MOSFET controllers which have four IRFB3607 MOSFETs per phase (4 x 6 = 24).



The IRFB3607 has an Id of 82 Amps at 25 °C and 56 Amps at 100 C. I can't figure out why controllers will be designed with four times the rated current. Keep in mind that these are cheap Chinese controllers.



Any ideas?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I have a 1 kW three-phase BLDC motor from China, and I was developing the controller myself. At 48 Vdc, the maximum current should be about 25 Amps and a peak current of 50 Amps for short durations.



However when I researched BLDC motor controllers, I came across 24-device MOSFET controllers which have four IRFB3607 MOSFETs per phase (4 x 6 = 24).



The IRFB3607 has an Id of 82 Amps at 25 °C and 56 Amps at 100 C. I can't figure out why controllers will be designed with four times the rated current. Keep in mind that these are cheap Chinese controllers.



Any ideas?







mosfet brushless-dc-motor heat switching






share|improve this question









New contributor




Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 34 mins ago









Dwayne Reid

17.9k21948




17.9k21948






New contributor




Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 17 hours ago









Sujoy BhattacharyaSujoy Bhattacharya

613




613




New contributor




Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You should include a link to an example of mentioned BLDC controller.
    $endgroup$
    – Bimpelrekkie
    17 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Mosfets in parallel will reduce the effective Rds_on. Lower power dissipation in the controller and better efficiency.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Karlsen
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "24 tube Mosfet controllers" Tube?
    $endgroup$
    – winny
    16 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Stall current is also likely to be about 10x rated current or about 250A. 4 * 82A per phase sounds quite reasonable.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Drummond
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Consider how many MOSFETs are on a typical PC motherboard VRM. A high-end desktop board designed to cope with a heavily-overclocked 16+ core processor pulling upwards of 500W will have eight high-end MOSFETs at minimum, and possibly 12 to 16. When you look at it this way, a motor that can pull nearly 1 kW continuously needs similarly beefy power delivery.
    $endgroup$
    – bwDraco
    1 hour ago
















  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You should include a link to an example of mentioned BLDC controller.
    $endgroup$
    – Bimpelrekkie
    17 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Mosfets in parallel will reduce the effective Rds_on. Lower power dissipation in the controller and better efficiency.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Karlsen
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "24 tube Mosfet controllers" Tube?
    $endgroup$
    – winny
    16 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Stall current is also likely to be about 10x rated current or about 250A. 4 * 82A per phase sounds quite reasonable.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Drummond
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Consider how many MOSFETs are on a typical PC motherboard VRM. A high-end desktop board designed to cope with a heavily-overclocked 16+ core processor pulling upwards of 500W will have eight high-end MOSFETs at minimum, and possibly 12 to 16. When you look at it this way, a motor that can pull nearly 1 kW continuously needs similarly beefy power delivery.
    $endgroup$
    – bwDraco
    1 hour ago










3




3




$begingroup$
You should include a link to an example of mentioned BLDC controller.
$endgroup$
– Bimpelrekkie
17 hours ago




$begingroup$
You should include a link to an example of mentioned BLDC controller.
$endgroup$
– Bimpelrekkie
17 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
Mosfets in parallel will reduce the effective Rds_on. Lower power dissipation in the controller and better efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Peter Karlsen
16 hours ago




$begingroup$
Mosfets in parallel will reduce the effective Rds_on. Lower power dissipation in the controller and better efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Peter Karlsen
16 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
"24 tube Mosfet controllers" Tube?
$endgroup$
– winny
16 hours ago




$begingroup$
"24 tube Mosfet controllers" Tube?
$endgroup$
– winny
16 hours ago












$begingroup$
Stall current is also likely to be about 10x rated current or about 250A. 4 * 82A per phase sounds quite reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Stall current is also likely to be about 10x rated current or about 250A. 4 * 82A per phase sounds quite reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
Consider how many MOSFETs are on a typical PC motherboard VRM. A high-end desktop board designed to cope with a heavily-overclocked 16+ core processor pulling upwards of 500W will have eight high-end MOSFETs at minimum, and possibly 12 to 16. When you look at it this way, a motor that can pull nearly 1 kW continuously needs similarly beefy power delivery.
$endgroup$
– bwDraco
1 hour ago






$begingroup$
Consider how many MOSFETs are on a typical PC motherboard VRM. A high-end desktop board designed to cope with a heavily-overclocked 16+ core processor pulling upwards of 500W will have eight high-end MOSFETs at minimum, and possibly 12 to 16. When you look at it this way, a motor that can pull nearly 1 kW continuously needs similarly beefy power delivery.
$endgroup$
– bwDraco
1 hour ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















22












$begingroup$

The reason to use multiple MOSFETs is to lower power dissipation resulting in a cheaper design.



Yes one MOSFET can handle the current but it will dissipate some power as it does have some resistance, typically 9 mohm for the IRFB3607.



At 25 A that means 25 A * 9 m ohm = 225 mV drop



At 25 A that means 25 A * 225 mV = 5.625 W of power dissipation



A heatsink for that would need to be substantial.



Now let's do the same calculation for 4 IRFB3607 in parallel:



Now 9 mohm is divided by 4 because of 4 parallel devices:



9 m ohm / 4 = 2.25 mohm



At 25 A that means 25 A * 2.25 m ohm = 56.25 mV drop



At 25 A that means 25 A * 56.25 mV = 1.41 W of power dissipation



That 1.41 W is for all MOSFETs together so less than 0.4 W per MOSFET which they can handle easily without any extra cooling.



Above calculation does not take into account that the 9 mohm Rdson will increase when the MOSFETs heat up. That makes the single MOSFET solution even more problematic as an even larger heatsink is required. The 4 MOSFET solution might "just manage" as it still has some margin (the 0.4 W could increase to 1 W and that would still be OK).



If 3 MOSFETs are cheaper than one heatsink (for dissipating 6 Watt) then the 4 MOSFET solution is cheaper.



Also production costs might be slightly lower for placing 4 MOSFETS compared to 1 MOSFET + Heatsink as the MOSFET has to be screwed or clamped to the heatsink, that's manual work so adds cost.



An added benefit is that reliability becomes better as those 4 MOSFETs are by far not "worked" as hard as a the single MOSFET.



Could we use a "4x" bigger, 2.25 mohm MOSFET?



Sure, if you can find it ! 9 mohm is quite low already. It gets increasingly difficult (and more expensive) to get lower as the influence of bonding wires comes into play. Also for sure four "middle of the road" MOSFETs are cheaper than one big fat MOSFET.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Also a saving on the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the system.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian Ringrose
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @IanRingrose I doubt the designer cares much about that because they don't pay the electricity bill
    $endgroup$
    – Chris H
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You also get more passive cooling from having the power dissipated spread over a larger area (4 parts and their required board space)
    $endgroup$
    – W5VO
    13 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @ChrisH but buyer pays electricity bill, and designer cares about his design to sell well. Or at least should care...
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ChrisH going "green" and educing carbon footprint is fashionable now, so marketing departments of such companies are more and more interested indeed - even if percentage is quite low, it increases. Similar for private users. Don't have any statistics. From my point of view this trend is visible, even if it's negligible overall.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    12 hours ago



















0












$begingroup$

For almost all electrical components, lifetime decreases exponentially with increasing temperature. This is especially true with capacitors, which are found in BLDC motor drivers to decrease electrical noise and high-current peaks.



Let's say that the controller with 4 FETs per phase increased in temperature by 10°C at the rated load. Assuming an ambient temperature of 30°C, the controller would be running at 40°C. At this temperature, even standard-temperature range aluminum electrolytic capacitors could last over 120,000 hours.



If the same controller were to be built with 1 FET per phase instead of 4, the resistance would increase by a factor of 4 and the I^2R losses would also increase by the same amount. With the same heat-sink, the controller would experience 4 times the heating above ambient. It would now be running at 70°C. This would cut the lifetime of the capacitors by around a factor of 10, and would also decrease the life of other components similarly. To counteract this, a larger heatsink would be required, and it would be cheaper (and smaller) to just use more FETs.





share









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
    StackExchange.schematics.init();
    });
    }, "cicuitlab");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "135"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423363%2fwhy-do-bldc-motor-1-kw-controllers-have-so-many-mosfets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    22












    $begingroup$

    The reason to use multiple MOSFETs is to lower power dissipation resulting in a cheaper design.



    Yes one MOSFET can handle the current but it will dissipate some power as it does have some resistance, typically 9 mohm for the IRFB3607.



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 9 m ohm = 225 mV drop



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 225 mV = 5.625 W of power dissipation



    A heatsink for that would need to be substantial.



    Now let's do the same calculation for 4 IRFB3607 in parallel:



    Now 9 mohm is divided by 4 because of 4 parallel devices:



    9 m ohm / 4 = 2.25 mohm



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 2.25 m ohm = 56.25 mV drop



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 56.25 mV = 1.41 W of power dissipation



    That 1.41 W is for all MOSFETs together so less than 0.4 W per MOSFET which they can handle easily without any extra cooling.



    Above calculation does not take into account that the 9 mohm Rdson will increase when the MOSFETs heat up. That makes the single MOSFET solution even more problematic as an even larger heatsink is required. The 4 MOSFET solution might "just manage" as it still has some margin (the 0.4 W could increase to 1 W and that would still be OK).



    If 3 MOSFETs are cheaper than one heatsink (for dissipating 6 Watt) then the 4 MOSFET solution is cheaper.



    Also production costs might be slightly lower for placing 4 MOSFETS compared to 1 MOSFET + Heatsink as the MOSFET has to be screwed or clamped to the heatsink, that's manual work so adds cost.



    An added benefit is that reliability becomes better as those 4 MOSFETs are by far not "worked" as hard as a the single MOSFET.



    Could we use a "4x" bigger, 2.25 mohm MOSFET?



    Sure, if you can find it ! 9 mohm is quite low already. It gets increasingly difficult (and more expensive) to get lower as the influence of bonding wires comes into play. Also for sure four "middle of the road" MOSFETs are cheaper than one big fat MOSFET.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Also a saving on the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the system.
      $endgroup$
      – Ian Ringrose
      14 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @IanRingrose I doubt the designer cares much about that because they don't pay the electricity bill
      $endgroup$
      – Chris H
      14 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      You also get more passive cooling from having the power dissipated spread over a larger area (4 parts and their required board space)
      $endgroup$
      – W5VO
      13 hours ago






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @ChrisH but buyer pays electricity bill, and designer cares about his design to sell well. Or at least should care...
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      13 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @ChrisH going "green" and educing carbon footprint is fashionable now, so marketing departments of such companies are more and more interested indeed - even if percentage is quite low, it increases. Similar for private users. Don't have any statistics. From my point of view this trend is visible, even if it's negligible overall.
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      12 hours ago
















    22












    $begingroup$

    The reason to use multiple MOSFETs is to lower power dissipation resulting in a cheaper design.



    Yes one MOSFET can handle the current but it will dissipate some power as it does have some resistance, typically 9 mohm for the IRFB3607.



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 9 m ohm = 225 mV drop



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 225 mV = 5.625 W of power dissipation



    A heatsink for that would need to be substantial.



    Now let's do the same calculation for 4 IRFB3607 in parallel:



    Now 9 mohm is divided by 4 because of 4 parallel devices:



    9 m ohm / 4 = 2.25 mohm



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 2.25 m ohm = 56.25 mV drop



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 56.25 mV = 1.41 W of power dissipation



    That 1.41 W is for all MOSFETs together so less than 0.4 W per MOSFET which they can handle easily without any extra cooling.



    Above calculation does not take into account that the 9 mohm Rdson will increase when the MOSFETs heat up. That makes the single MOSFET solution even more problematic as an even larger heatsink is required. The 4 MOSFET solution might "just manage" as it still has some margin (the 0.4 W could increase to 1 W and that would still be OK).



    If 3 MOSFETs are cheaper than one heatsink (for dissipating 6 Watt) then the 4 MOSFET solution is cheaper.



    Also production costs might be slightly lower for placing 4 MOSFETS compared to 1 MOSFET + Heatsink as the MOSFET has to be screwed or clamped to the heatsink, that's manual work so adds cost.



    An added benefit is that reliability becomes better as those 4 MOSFETs are by far not "worked" as hard as a the single MOSFET.



    Could we use a "4x" bigger, 2.25 mohm MOSFET?



    Sure, if you can find it ! 9 mohm is quite low already. It gets increasingly difficult (and more expensive) to get lower as the influence of bonding wires comes into play. Also for sure four "middle of the road" MOSFETs are cheaper than one big fat MOSFET.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Also a saving on the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the system.
      $endgroup$
      – Ian Ringrose
      14 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @IanRingrose I doubt the designer cares much about that because they don't pay the electricity bill
      $endgroup$
      – Chris H
      14 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      You also get more passive cooling from having the power dissipated spread over a larger area (4 parts and their required board space)
      $endgroup$
      – W5VO
      13 hours ago






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @ChrisH but buyer pays electricity bill, and designer cares about his design to sell well. Or at least should care...
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      13 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @ChrisH going "green" and educing carbon footprint is fashionable now, so marketing departments of such companies are more and more interested indeed - even if percentage is quite low, it increases. Similar for private users. Don't have any statistics. From my point of view this trend is visible, even if it's negligible overall.
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      12 hours ago














    22












    22








    22





    $begingroup$

    The reason to use multiple MOSFETs is to lower power dissipation resulting in a cheaper design.



    Yes one MOSFET can handle the current but it will dissipate some power as it does have some resistance, typically 9 mohm for the IRFB3607.



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 9 m ohm = 225 mV drop



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 225 mV = 5.625 W of power dissipation



    A heatsink for that would need to be substantial.



    Now let's do the same calculation for 4 IRFB3607 in parallel:



    Now 9 mohm is divided by 4 because of 4 parallel devices:



    9 m ohm / 4 = 2.25 mohm



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 2.25 m ohm = 56.25 mV drop



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 56.25 mV = 1.41 W of power dissipation



    That 1.41 W is for all MOSFETs together so less than 0.4 W per MOSFET which they can handle easily without any extra cooling.



    Above calculation does not take into account that the 9 mohm Rdson will increase when the MOSFETs heat up. That makes the single MOSFET solution even more problematic as an even larger heatsink is required. The 4 MOSFET solution might "just manage" as it still has some margin (the 0.4 W could increase to 1 W and that would still be OK).



    If 3 MOSFETs are cheaper than one heatsink (for dissipating 6 Watt) then the 4 MOSFET solution is cheaper.



    Also production costs might be slightly lower for placing 4 MOSFETS compared to 1 MOSFET + Heatsink as the MOSFET has to be screwed or clamped to the heatsink, that's manual work so adds cost.



    An added benefit is that reliability becomes better as those 4 MOSFETs are by far not "worked" as hard as a the single MOSFET.



    Could we use a "4x" bigger, 2.25 mohm MOSFET?



    Sure, if you can find it ! 9 mohm is quite low already. It gets increasingly difficult (and more expensive) to get lower as the influence of bonding wires comes into play. Also for sure four "middle of the road" MOSFETs are cheaper than one big fat MOSFET.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    The reason to use multiple MOSFETs is to lower power dissipation resulting in a cheaper design.



    Yes one MOSFET can handle the current but it will dissipate some power as it does have some resistance, typically 9 mohm for the IRFB3607.



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 9 m ohm = 225 mV drop



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 225 mV = 5.625 W of power dissipation



    A heatsink for that would need to be substantial.



    Now let's do the same calculation for 4 IRFB3607 in parallel:



    Now 9 mohm is divided by 4 because of 4 parallel devices:



    9 m ohm / 4 = 2.25 mohm



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 2.25 m ohm = 56.25 mV drop



    At 25 A that means 25 A * 56.25 mV = 1.41 W of power dissipation



    That 1.41 W is for all MOSFETs together so less than 0.4 W per MOSFET which they can handle easily without any extra cooling.



    Above calculation does not take into account that the 9 mohm Rdson will increase when the MOSFETs heat up. That makes the single MOSFET solution even more problematic as an even larger heatsink is required. The 4 MOSFET solution might "just manage" as it still has some margin (the 0.4 W could increase to 1 W and that would still be OK).



    If 3 MOSFETs are cheaper than one heatsink (for dissipating 6 Watt) then the 4 MOSFET solution is cheaper.



    Also production costs might be slightly lower for placing 4 MOSFETS compared to 1 MOSFET + Heatsink as the MOSFET has to be screwed or clamped to the heatsink, that's manual work so adds cost.



    An added benefit is that reliability becomes better as those 4 MOSFETs are by far not "worked" as hard as a the single MOSFET.



    Could we use a "4x" bigger, 2.25 mohm MOSFET?



    Sure, if you can find it ! 9 mohm is quite low already. It gets increasingly difficult (and more expensive) to get lower as the influence of bonding wires comes into play. Also for sure four "middle of the road" MOSFETs are cheaper than one big fat MOSFET.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 12 hours ago

























    answered 16 hours ago









    BimpelrekkieBimpelrekkie

    49.4k241111




    49.4k241111








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Also a saving on the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the system.
      $endgroup$
      – Ian Ringrose
      14 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @IanRingrose I doubt the designer cares much about that because they don't pay the electricity bill
      $endgroup$
      – Chris H
      14 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      You also get more passive cooling from having the power dissipated spread over a larger area (4 parts and their required board space)
      $endgroup$
      – W5VO
      13 hours ago






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @ChrisH but buyer pays electricity bill, and designer cares about his design to sell well. Or at least should care...
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      13 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @ChrisH going "green" and educing carbon footprint is fashionable now, so marketing departments of such companies are more and more interested indeed - even if percentage is quite low, it increases. Similar for private users. Don't have any statistics. From my point of view this trend is visible, even if it's negligible overall.
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      12 hours ago














    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Also a saving on the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the system.
      $endgroup$
      – Ian Ringrose
      14 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @IanRingrose I doubt the designer cares much about that because they don't pay the electricity bill
      $endgroup$
      – Chris H
      14 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      You also get more passive cooling from having the power dissipated spread over a larger area (4 parts and their required board space)
      $endgroup$
      – W5VO
      13 hours ago






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @ChrisH but buyer pays electricity bill, and designer cares about his design to sell well. Or at least should care...
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      13 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @ChrisH going "green" and educing carbon footprint is fashionable now, so marketing departments of such companies are more and more interested indeed - even if percentage is quite low, it increases. Similar for private users. Don't have any statistics. From my point of view this trend is visible, even if it's negligible overall.
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      12 hours ago








    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    Also a saving on the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the system.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian Ringrose
    14 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Also a saving on the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the system.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian Ringrose
    14 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @IanRingrose I doubt the designer cares much about that because they don't pay the electricity bill
    $endgroup$
    – Chris H
    14 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @IanRingrose I doubt the designer cares much about that because they don't pay the electricity bill
    $endgroup$
    – Chris H
    14 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    You also get more passive cooling from having the power dissipated spread over a larger area (4 parts and their required board space)
    $endgroup$
    – W5VO
    13 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    You also get more passive cooling from having the power dissipated spread over a larger area (4 parts and their required board space)
    $endgroup$
    – W5VO
    13 hours ago




    5




    5




    $begingroup$
    @ChrisH but buyer pays electricity bill, and designer cares about his design to sell well. Or at least should care...
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    13 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @ChrisH but buyer pays electricity bill, and designer cares about his design to sell well. Or at least should care...
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    13 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @ChrisH going "green" and educing carbon footprint is fashionable now, so marketing departments of such companies are more and more interested indeed - even if percentage is quite low, it increases. Similar for private users. Don't have any statistics. From my point of view this trend is visible, even if it's negligible overall.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    12 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @ChrisH going "green" and educing carbon footprint is fashionable now, so marketing departments of such companies are more and more interested indeed - even if percentage is quite low, it increases. Similar for private users. Don't have any statistics. From my point of view this trend is visible, even if it's negligible overall.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    12 hours ago













    0












    $begingroup$

    For almost all electrical components, lifetime decreases exponentially with increasing temperature. This is especially true with capacitors, which are found in BLDC motor drivers to decrease electrical noise and high-current peaks.



    Let's say that the controller with 4 FETs per phase increased in temperature by 10°C at the rated load. Assuming an ambient temperature of 30°C, the controller would be running at 40°C. At this temperature, even standard-temperature range aluminum electrolytic capacitors could last over 120,000 hours.



    If the same controller were to be built with 1 FET per phase instead of 4, the resistance would increase by a factor of 4 and the I^2R losses would also increase by the same amount. With the same heat-sink, the controller would experience 4 times the heating above ambient. It would now be running at 70°C. This would cut the lifetime of the capacitors by around a factor of 10, and would also decrease the life of other components similarly. To counteract this, a larger heatsink would be required, and it would be cheaper (and smaller) to just use more FETs.





    share









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      For almost all electrical components, lifetime decreases exponentially with increasing temperature. This is especially true with capacitors, which are found in BLDC motor drivers to decrease electrical noise and high-current peaks.



      Let's say that the controller with 4 FETs per phase increased in temperature by 10°C at the rated load. Assuming an ambient temperature of 30°C, the controller would be running at 40°C. At this temperature, even standard-temperature range aluminum electrolytic capacitors could last over 120,000 hours.



      If the same controller were to be built with 1 FET per phase instead of 4, the resistance would increase by a factor of 4 and the I^2R losses would also increase by the same amount. With the same heat-sink, the controller would experience 4 times the heating above ambient. It would now be running at 70°C. This would cut the lifetime of the capacitors by around a factor of 10, and would also decrease the life of other components similarly. To counteract this, a larger heatsink would be required, and it would be cheaper (and smaller) to just use more FETs.





      share









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        For almost all electrical components, lifetime decreases exponentially with increasing temperature. This is especially true with capacitors, which are found in BLDC motor drivers to decrease electrical noise and high-current peaks.



        Let's say that the controller with 4 FETs per phase increased in temperature by 10°C at the rated load. Assuming an ambient temperature of 30°C, the controller would be running at 40°C. At this temperature, even standard-temperature range aluminum electrolytic capacitors could last over 120,000 hours.



        If the same controller were to be built with 1 FET per phase instead of 4, the resistance would increase by a factor of 4 and the I^2R losses would also increase by the same amount. With the same heat-sink, the controller would experience 4 times the heating above ambient. It would now be running at 70°C. This would cut the lifetime of the capacitors by around a factor of 10, and would also decrease the life of other components similarly. To counteract this, a larger heatsink would be required, and it would be cheaper (and smaller) to just use more FETs.





        share









        $endgroup$



        For almost all electrical components, lifetime decreases exponentially with increasing temperature. This is especially true with capacitors, which are found in BLDC motor drivers to decrease electrical noise and high-current peaks.



        Let's say that the controller with 4 FETs per phase increased in temperature by 10°C at the rated load. Assuming an ambient temperature of 30°C, the controller would be running at 40°C. At this temperature, even standard-temperature range aluminum electrolytic capacitors could last over 120,000 hours.



        If the same controller were to be built with 1 FET per phase instead of 4, the resistance would increase by a factor of 4 and the I^2R losses would also increase by the same amount. With the same heat-sink, the controller would experience 4 times the heating above ambient. It would now be running at 70°C. This would cut the lifetime of the capacitors by around a factor of 10, and would also decrease the life of other components similarly. To counteract this, a larger heatsink would be required, and it would be cheaper (and smaller) to just use more FETs.






        share











        share


        share










        answered 2 mins ago









        Thor LancasterThor Lancaster

        613




        613






















            Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Sujoy Bhattacharya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423363%2fwhy-do-bldc-motor-1-kw-controllers-have-so-many-mosfets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Accessing regular linux commands in Huawei's Dopra Linux

            Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down

            Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Exception in Interrupt