4.6 Article

Low Thermal Resistance (0.5 K/W) Ga2O3 Schottky Rectifiers With Double-Side Packaging

Journal

IEEE ELECTRON DEVICE LETTERS
Volume 42, Issue 8, Pages 1132-1135

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LED.2021.3089035

Keywords

Ultra-wide bandgap; gallium oxide; packaging; Schottky barrier diodes; thermal resistance

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [ECCS-2100504]
  2. Center for PowerElectronics Systems HighDensity Integration IndustryConsortium at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the thermal resistance of a Ga2O3 Schottky barrier diode, demonstrating the importance of proper thermal management for ensuring device reliability and performance in high-power applications.
The low thermal conductivity of Ga2O3 has arguably been the most serious concern for Ga2O3 power and RF devices. Despite many simulation studies, there is no experimental report on the thermal resistance of a large-area, packaged Ga2O3 device. This work fills this gap by demonstrating a 15-A double-side packaged Ga2O3 Schottky barrier diode (SBD) and measuring its junction-to-case thermal resistance (R-theta JC) in the bottom-side- and junction-side-cooling configurations. The R-theta JC characterization is based on the transient dual interface method, i.e., JEDEC 51-14 standard. The R-theta JC of the junction- and bottom-cooled Ga2O3 SBD was measured to be 0.5 K/W and 1.43 K/W, respectively, with the former R-theta JC lower than that of similarly-rated commercial SiC SBDs. This low R-theta JC is attributable to the heat extraction directly from the Schottky junction instead of through the Ga2O3 chip. The R-theta JC lower than that of commercial SiC devices proves the viability of Ga2O3 devices for high-power applications and manifest the significance of proper packaging for their thermal management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available