Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Hybrid Parallel Collaborative Simulation Framework Integrating Device Physics with Circuit Dynamics for PDAE-Modeled Power Electronic Equipment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a hybrid-parallel dynamic-iteration framework can solve the coupled device-physics and circuit-dynamics PDAE system for power electronic equipment up to 60 times faster than leading commercial simulator software…

desk verdict Solid engineering advance: 160-device PDE+circuit co-simulation with 60x speedup, but dynamic-iteration convergence is asserted, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10063 v1 pith:SWXET4RI submitted 2025-01-17 eess.SY cs.SY

Qingyuan Shi , Chijie Zhuang , Jiapeng Liu , Bo Lin , Xiyu Peng , Dan Wu , Zhicheng Liu , Rong Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords powerelectronicssimulationPDAEdynamiciterationhybridparallelcomputingsemiconductordevicephysicsdrift-diffusionmodelRB-IGCTconverterdesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a simulation framework for power electronic equipment that keeps the full partial-differential-equation physics of semiconductor devices while also solving the surrounding circuit's dynamics. The central claim is that the resulting coupled partial-differential-algebraic system can be split by a Gauss-Seidel dynamic iteration into separate device and circuit subproblems, then solved in parallel on clusters with a hybrid process-thread scheme, giving speeds up to 60 times faster than a leading commercial device simulator while preserving carrier-level accuracy. The authors demonstrate this on three real engineering workflows for a high-voltage converter built from reverse-blocking IGCTs: device optimization, converter voltage-equalization design with 160 devices in series, and failure analysis that matches measured waveforms. If correct, the framework moves full-fidelity device physics from single-device studies to equipment-scale design and failure analysis.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Gauss-Seidel dynamic iteration, which separates the discretized device PDEs and circuit DAEs into two subsystems coupled only through electrode voltages and currents. Each outer iteration solves the device system with the latest circuit boundary conditions, then solves the circuit system with the updated device response, exchanging values until the coupled solution converges. The device's effect on the circuit is represented by an equivalent conductance $G_{ij} = -\left(\partial I_i^e/\partial x_D\right)^T (J_D)^{-1} \partial f_D/\partial V_j^e$ and a parallel current source, derived from the implicit derivative of device terminal current with respect to electrode voltage. This keeps the circuit Jacobian sparse and lets the PDE solves for many devices run independently in parallel. A scheduler synchronizes the Gauss-Seidel stages across processes and threads, cutting the linear-system complexity from $\sim O(n^3)$ for the monolithic system to $\sim O(k(n/k)^3)$ where $k$ is the number of partitioned subsystems.

What would settle it

Implement the same 160-device H-LCC turn-off case and solve it two ways: by the Gauss-Seidel dynamic iteration, and by a monolithic Newton solve of the fully coupled PDAE system, with the same mesh and tolerances; if the converged terminal voltage and current waveforms differ by more than the stated relative tolerance of $10^{-5}$, the paper's claim that the iteration introduces no additional error is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the coupled PDAE system—drift-diffusion PDEs inside each power semiconductor device plus circuit DAEs—can be solved efficiently by decoupling it through dynamic iteration, where the device subsystem and circuit subsystem alternate solving and exchanging boundary voltages and currents until convergence. From the circuit's perspective, each device is replaced by an equivalent conductance plus a current source computed from the device Jacobian, which keeps the coupling sparse and well conditioned. This decoupling, combined with physics-based partitioning and hybrid process-thread parallelization, allows hundreds of PDE-modeled devices to be simulated together. In the experiments, the framework reproduces carrier-level failure behavior that circuit simulators miss, and it reduces a 160-device series turn-off simulation from more than five days to under two hours, a 60-fold speedup over the commercial multi-physics solver. The paper emphasizes that the full PDAE system is solved without simplification; the iteration is carried to convergence, so no extra error is introduced.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's practical speed and accuracy rest on the Gauss-Seidel dynamic iteration converging to the true coupled solution of the stiff nonlinear PDAE system within a modest number of sweeps; the paper reports good observed convergence but provides no convergence theorem or error bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Full-wafer or multi-device simulations with carrier-level physics become practical for design-of-experiments and optimization loops, not just one-off analysis.
  • Converter design can capture manufacturing-variability effects, such as 10% doping variations across 160 series devices, that small-model studies underestimate.
  • Failure mechanisms driven by internal carrier dynamics, such as the cell-to-cell loop-current induced erroneous turn-off, become analyzable at equipment level rather than only in isolated device studies.
  • The equivalent-conductance circuit representation is a universal interface that can be applied to other device types and to multiple hierarchy levels in a power electronic system.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the dynamic iteration convergence can be proven or its convergence rate bounded for stiff PDAE systems under practical conditions, the framework's speedup would rest on firmer ground than the current empirical evidence.
  • The equivalent-conductance interface could be reused as a model-order-reduction primitive: the device's external behavior is summarized by a few conductance values, so the method might combine with compact models for speed without losing carrier detail at critical moments.
  • The approach suggests a natural test for other semiconductor device types (IGBTs, SiC MOSFETs) with the same equivalent-conductance coupling, assuming the device PDE solver is available.
  • Since the paper reports that the most time-consuming PDE solves are what is parallelized, one could extrapolate that the speedup over a monolithic solver increases with the number and mesh size of devices, making larger converter models the most promising target.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Hybrid-Parallel Collaborative (HPC) simulation framework for power electronic equipment modeled as coupled partial differential-algebraic equations (PDAEs), where power semiconductor devices are described by drift-diffusion PDEs and the surrounding circuit by DAEs. The two subsystems are decoupled through a Gauss-Seidel-type dynamic iteration with boundary-condition exchange, and a hybrid process/thread parallelization scheme is used to solve many PDE-modeled devices together. Three engineering scenarios are presented: full-wafer IGCT turn-off optimization (10 PDE-modeled cells), converter voltage-equalization optimization with 160 series devices, and RB-IGCT failure reproduction. The authors report speedups of about 10x and 60x over commercial Sentaurus TCAD, with accuracy compared against Sentaurus waveforms and experimental measurements.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the framework would be a practically important step toward equipment-level simulations that retain carrier-level device physics, enabling design-of-experiments, safe-operating-area studies, and failure analysis that are currently infeasible with commercial TCAD. The paper's strengths are its realistic benchmark scenarios, use of external references (Sentaurus and hardware measurements) rather than only self-comparison, and the large speedups achieved on substantial problems. The principal weakness is that the outer dynamic-iteration convergence is asserted rather than demonstrated; without residual data or a defined stopping criterion, the 'full PDAE without simplification' claim and the reported speedups are not fully verifiable. The failure-analysis experiment also relies on a manually adjusted doping parameter, so the accuracy evidence is partly qualitative.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II-B/C, Eq. (5), Fig. 3] The claim that 'no additional error is introduced because the whole system is solved iteratively until the convergence is achieved' rests on a convergence test that is never defined: the threshold epsilon_conv in Fig. 3 is not specified, and no outer-iteration counts or residual histories are reported. Since the 60x speedup is measured against a possibly inexact outer iteration, these omissions are load-bearing. Please define the convergence criterion precisely, report how many Gauss-Seidel sweeps were needed per time step in each experiment, and validate the converged solution against a fully coupled reference (or a much tighter tolerance) for at least one turn-off event.
  2. [Section IV-D, Fig. 20] The failure reproduction is obtained after setting the p+ base peak doping concentration of GCT1 to 5.5e17 cm^-3, i.e., 10% above the design value, but this parameter is not independently measured or justified, and no sensitivity analysis is given. The agreement with experiment is described only qualitatively ('agree satisfactorily'), with discrepancies attributed to unspecified factors. Please report quantitative waveform error measures and a sensitivity study over the doping offset; otherwise the failure-analysis case reads as a fitting exercise rather than a validation of predictive capability.
  3. [Section IV-C, Fig. 17] The 60x speedup comparison against 'Commercial Software (Sentaurus)' needs methodological clarification for the 160-device case. It is unclear how Sentaurus is configured to solve the coupled 160-device PDAE system, whether the comparison uses the same number of cores and total computational resources for both codes, and whether the commercial baseline performs a sequential device-by-device workflow. If part of the speedup comes from running more devices in parallel or from a different workflow structure, that should be stated explicitly. Please specify the exact commercial setup, hardware allocation, and provide a time breakdown per component (circuit solve, device solves, communication/synchronization).
  4. [Section IV-B, Fig. 14] The 10-cell optimization experiment reports a 10x speedup but does not show a direct quantitative accuracy comparison between the HPC results and Sentaurus for the cell currents or voltages. The text asserts that precision is not compromised because the full PDAE is solved without simplification, but this is precisely the point that needs empirical support. Please include error norms or overlaid traces for representative variables (e.g., cell anode currents, total anode voltage) to substantiate the 'carrier-level accuracy' claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Gauss-Siedel' should be 'Gauss-Seidel'.
  2. [Section IV-C, first paragraph] The phrase 'repeatedly repeated trial-and-error computations' is redundant; please remove one 'repeatedly'.
  3. [Section III, complexity estimate] The complexity statement O(k(n/k)^3) simplifies to O(n^3/k^2) under equal-sized subsystems; the text should clarify that this assumes ideal load balance and neglects synchronization and communication overhead, which are relevant to the reported parallel efficiency.
  4. [Section II-C, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The sign convention for the equivalent conductance G_ij is unclear: Eq. (8) defines it via positive derivatives but Eq. (9) subtracts G12(V1-V2) from I2. Please state the reference-direction convention for electrode currents and voltages so that Eqs. (8) and (9) are consistent.
  5. [Table II] The absolute tolerance for the Poisson equation is given as 10^-26 C; since the discretized Poisson residual is an integral quantity, please confirm the unit and clarify whether this is a charge residual rather than a potential residual.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework's accuracy is benchmarked against external TCAD and experimental measurements, and the speedup is a measured runtime comparison.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: the HPC framework is measured to be up to 60x faster than Sentaurus TCAD under the same error tolerances and mesh settings, and its waveforms are compared against Sentaurus TCAD and experimental measurements. The PDAE formulation (Eq. 4), the dynamic-iteration decoupling (Eq. 5), and the equivalent-conductance derivation (Eqs. 6-9) follow from the stated equations rather than being assumed from the conclusion. The convergence of the Gauss-Seidel iteration is asserted based on experiments rather than proved, but an unproven convergence property is a correctness risk, not a circular step. The failure-analysis case study imports its device parameter (the 10% higher p+ base doping in GCT1) from prior work [14], which is a self-citation with overlapping authors, but [14] is an externally published experimental and simulation study, and the doping value is an input boundary condition rather than a fitted output of this paper. No prediction or claimed result in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard semiconductor physics and numerical methods, plus one load-bearing convergence assumption that is asserted from experiments rather than proven. The failure-analysis scenario introduces one device parameter (p+ base doping offset) whose value is not independently measured. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • p+ base peak doping concentration of GCT1 = 5.5e17 cm^-3 (10% above design)
    Set in the failure-analysis scenario to represent manufacturing deviation; no independent measurement is reported. The framework's central speedup claim does not depend on this value, but the failure-reproduction claim does.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The drift-diffusion model (Eq. 1) with the listed physical models (Fermi-Dirac, Philips mobility, SRH/Auger, impact ionization) accurately describes device behavior.
    Adopted from standard semiconductor literature [2], [30]; the accuracy of the claimed carrier-level results depends on these models.
  • domain assumption The Gauss-Seidel dynamic iteration converges to the coupled PDAE solution.
    Invoked in Section II-B; the paper states experiments show good convergence but provides no theorem. This is the weakest assumption.
  • domain assumption Physics-based partitioning into weakly coupled subsystems and further domain splitting with negligible flux coupling introduces no significant error.
    Section III relies on weak physical coupling to distribute tasks; no quantitative coupling measure or error analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption The RB-IGCT geometry, doping profiles (Table III) and circuit parameters from prior references represent the real devices.
    Case-study accuracy depends on these inputs, many of which are taken from earlier papers [38], [41], [42] rather than measured here.
  • standard math The finite volume Scharfetter-Gummel discretization yields a stable and convergent discretization of the convection-dominated device PDEs.
    Standard method from [2]; no grid-convergence study is presented in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Parallel Collaborative Simulation Framework Integrating Device Physics with Circuit Dynamics for PDAE-Modeled Power Electronic Equipment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWXET4RI

@misc{pith2026250110063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Parallel Collaborative Simulation Framework Integrating Device Physics with Circuit Dynamics for PDAE-Modeled Power Electronic Equipment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWXET4RI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10063}
}
read the original abstract

Optimizing high-performance power electronic equipment, such as power converters, requires multiscale simulations that incorporate the physics of power semiconductor devices and the dynamics of other circuit components, especially in conducting Design of Experiments (DoEs), defining the safe operating area of devices, and analyzing failures related to semiconductor devices. However, current methodologies either overlook the intricacies of device physics or do not achieve satisfactory computational speeds. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a Hybrid-Parallel Collaborative (HPC) framework specifically designed to analyze the Partial Differential Algebraic Equation (PDAE) modeled power electronic equipment, integrating the device physics and circuit dynamics. The HPC framework employs a dynamic iteration to tackle the challenges inherent in solving the coupled nonlinear PDAE system, and utilizes a hybrid-parallel computing strategy to reduce computing time. Physics-based system partitioning along with hybrid-process-thread parallelization on shared and distributed memory are employed, facilitating the simulation of hundreds of partial differential equations (PDEs)-modeled devices simultaneously without compromising speed. Experiments based on the hybrid line commutated converter and reverse-blocking integrated gate-commutated thyristors are conducted under 3 typical real-world scenarios: semiconductor device optimization for the converter; converter design optimization; and device failure analysis. The HPC framework delivers simulation speed up to 60 times faster than the leading commercial software, while maintaining carrier-level accuracy in the experiments. This shows great potential for comprehensive analysis and collaborative optimization of devices and electronic power equipment, particularly in extreme conditions and failure scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10063 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed HPC framework. II. MULTISCALE MODELING OF POWER ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT USING PDAE Power electronic equipment is a circuit system that incorpo￾rates power semiconductor devices, encompassing character￾istics across multiple scales of interest depending on different applications and scenarios—from carrier-level processes to circuit module transients. To effectively capture these charac￾teristics… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Finite volume Scharfetter-Gummel discretization for the device model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flowchart of the Gauss-Seidel type iteration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Circuit perspective for Gauss-Siedel type dynamic iteration. Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A simplified illustration of a converter with 3 levels of equivalent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of conventional and proposed parallel computation ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the proposed physics-based system partitioning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The synchronization for Gauss-Seidel type dynamic iteration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of the H-LCC converter, RB-IGCT device, GCT wafer and one GCT cell, where red and blue areas represent P-type and N-type regions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A mesh of an RB-IGCT cell used in the experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Circuit used for the lateral optimization of IGCT, based on a topology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: An illustrative example of full-wafer optimization by 10-cell PDAE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Circuit for H-LCC bridge arm voltage equalization analysis with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the time for a single turn-OFF simulation for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Voltage equalization analysis. Left: underestimated results simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_16.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison with experiment and circuit-based solvers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Comparison with experiment and multi-physics solver. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Comparison of the Anode voltage and Anode, Gate currents of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Loop current through the dual-cell experiment at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Status and trends of power semiconductor device models for circuit simulation,

    R. Kraus and H. Mattausch, “Status and trends of power semiconductor device models for circuit simulation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 452–465, 1998

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Selberherr, Analysis and simulation of semiconductor devices

    S. Selberherr, Analysis and simulation of semiconductor devices . Springer Science & Business Media, 1984

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Discrete state event-driven frame- work with a flexible adaptive algorithm for simulation of power electronic systems,

    Y . Zhu, Z. Zhao, B. Shi, and Z. Yu, “Discrete state event-driven frame- work with a flexible adaptive algorithm for simulation of power electronic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 11 692–11 705, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Behavioral device-level modeling of modular multilevel converters in real time for variable-speed drive applications,

    N. Lin and V . Dinavahi, “Behavioral device-level modeling of modular multilevel converters in real time for variable-speed drive applications,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1177–1191, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Multiarea hybrid equivalent for power electronics system,

    C. Jin, K. Liu, J. Zhao, Z. Ji, W. Chen, and X. Guo, “Multiarea hybrid equivalent for power electronics system,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 12 331–12 336, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    An automatic circuit partitioning strategy for accelerated simulation of power electronic systems,

    Z. Yu, Z. Zhao, B. Shi, and H. Xu, “An automatic circuit partitioning strategy for accelerated simulation of power electronic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 5619–5625, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A region-folding electro- magnetic transient simulation approach for large-scale power electronics system,

    C. Jin, Z. Ji, K. Liu, W. Chen, and J. Zhao, “A region-folding electro- magnetic transient simulation approach for large-scale power electronics system,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 9755–9766, 2023. 11

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Large-scale nonlinear device-level power electronic circuit simulation on massively parallel graphics pro- cessing architectures,

    S. Yan, Z. Zhou, and V . Dinavahi, “Large-scale nonlinear device-level power electronic circuit simulation on massively parallel graphics pro- cessing architectures,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 4660–4678, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Modeling for complex modular power electronic transformers using parallel computing,

    M. Feng, C. Gao, J. Xu, C. Zhao, and G. Li, “Modeling for complex modular power electronic transformers using parallel computing,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 2639–2651, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Defining standard performance levels for power semiconductor devices,

    I. Budihardjo, P. Lauritzen, K. Wong, R. Darling, and H. A. Mantooth, “Defining standard performance levels for power semiconductor devices,” in IAS’95. Conference Record of the 1995 IEEE Industry Applications Conference Thirtieth IAS Annual Meeting, vol. 2. IEEE, 1995, pp. 1084– 1090

    1995

  3. [11]

    [Online]

    Sentaurus TCAD version Q-2019.12 , Synopsys, Inc. [Online]. https://www.synopsys.com/manufacturing/tcad/device-simulation/ sentaurus-device.html

    2019

  4. [12]

    A novel converter- breaker integrated voltage source converter based on high-surge igct and fault self-clearing strategy for dc grid,

    C. Xu, B. Zhao, Z. Chen, J. Liu, Q. Song, and Z. Yu, “A novel converter- breaker integrated voltage source converter based on high-surge igct and fault self-clearing strategy for dc grid,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 12 668–12 672, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    A novel mixture solid-state switch based on igct with high capacity and igbt with high turn-off ability for hybrid dc breakers,

    X. Zhang, Z. Yu, B. Zhao, Z. Chen, G. Lv, Y . Huang, and R. Zeng, “A novel mixture solid-state switch based on igct with high capacity and igbt with high turn-off ability for hybrid dc breakers,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 4485–4495, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Abnormal turn-on phenomenon of large-size and high-voltage reverse blocking igct,

    C. Ren, J. Liu, J. Wu, J. Pan, B. Zhao, Z. Yu, and R. Zeng, “Abnormal turn-on phenomenon of large-size and high-voltage reverse blocking igct,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 12 337– 12 341, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Soft switching behavior of igct for resonant conversion,

    D. Stamenkovic, U. R. Vemulapati, T. Stiasny, M. Rahimo, and D. Dujic, “Soft switching behavior of igct for resonant conversion,” in 2019 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), 2019, pp. 2714–2719

    2019

  8. [16]

    A refinement multilevel turn- off method for dynamic latch-up and tail current suppression in dc breaker ultra-high current switch applications,

    J. Wang, G. Liang, X. Zhang, and L. Qi, “A refinement multilevel turn- off method for dynamic latch-up and tail current suppression in dc breaker ultra-high current switch applications,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 2177–2187, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Ultra-low on-state voltage igct for solid-state dc circuit breaker with single-switching attribute,

    J. Liu, Z. Yu, W. Zhou, Z. Chen, C. Ren, B. Zhao, F. Wang, W. Ji, M. Li, and R. Zeng, “Ultra-low on-state voltage igct for solid-state dc circuit breaker with single-switching attribute,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 3292–3303, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Optimal design of reverse blocking igct for hybrid line commutated converter,

    C. Ren, J. Liu, X. Li, Y . Song, L. Xu, Z. Wang, B. Zhao, Z. Yu, J. Wu, and R. Zeng, “Optimal design of reverse blocking igct for hybrid line commutated converter,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 13 957–13 965, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Deciphering the effect of corrugated p-base on reverse blocking igct,

    C. Ren, J. Liu, J. Wu, B. Zhao, Z. Yu, F. Wang, W. Ji, M. Li, and R. Zeng, “Deciphering the effect of corrugated p-base on reverse blocking igct,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5059–5067, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Future of power electronics from tcad perspective,

    T. Ma, “Future of power electronics from tcad perspective,” in 2020 International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices (SISPAD). IEEE, 2020, pp. 7–10

    2020

  13. [21]

    Integrated gate commutated thyristor: From trench to planar,

    U. Vemulapati, T. Stiasny, T. Wikstr ¨om, N. Lophitis, and F. Udrea, “Integrated gate commutated thyristor: From trench to planar,” in 2020 32nd International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs (ISPSD), 2020, pp. 490–493

    2020

  14. [22]

    Modular design methodology of dc breaker based on discrete metal oxide varistors with series power electronic devices for hvdc application,

    X. Zhang, Z. Yu, Z. Chen, Y . Huang, B. Zhao, and R. Zeng, “Modular design methodology of dc breaker based on discrete metal oxide varistors with series power electronic devices for hvdc application,” IEEE Trans- actions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 7653–7662, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Hybrid line commutated converter with fast commutation characteristic based on igct for hvdc application: Topology, design methodology, and experiments,

    C. Xu, Z. Yu, B. Zhao, Z. Chen, Z. Wang, C. Ren, and R. Zeng, “Hybrid line commutated converter with fast commutation characteristic based on igct for hvdc application: Topology, design methodology, and experiments,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , vol. 38, no. 4, pp....

    2023

  16. [24]

    Accelerated model of modular multilevel converters in pscad/emtdc,

    J. Xu, C. Zhao, W. Liu, and C. Guo, “Accelerated model of modular multilevel converters in pscad/emtdc,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 129–136, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    An experimentally verified igbt model implemented in the saber circuit simulator,

    A. R. Hefner and D. M. Diebolt, “An experimentally verified igbt model implemented in the saber circuit simulator,” IEEE transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 532–542, 1994

    1994

  18. [26]

    Physics-based compact model of integrated gate-commutated thyristor with multiple effects for high-power application,

    G. Lyu, C. Zhuang, R. Zeng, T. Long, and P. R. Palmer, “Physics-based compact model of integrated gate-commutated thyristor with multiple effects for high-power application,” IET Power Electronics, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1239–1247, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Experimental investigation on the turn-off failure mechanism of igct,

    J. Liu, J. Pan, J. Wu, L. Meng, F. Liu, Y . Zhu, X. Xu, Z. Chen, Z. Li, and R. Zeng, “Experimental investigation on the turn-off failure mechanism of igct,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 13 062–13 070, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Igct low-current switching—tcad and experimental characterization,

    D. Stamenkovi ´c, U. R. Vemulapati, T. Stiasny, M. Rahimo, and D. Duji´c, “Igct low-current switching—tcad and experimental characterization,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 6302– 6311, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Enhancing turn-off performance in igct-based high power applications—part i: Anomalous high current turn-off mode and safe operating area expansion at ultra-low voltage,

    J. Wang, L. Chen, X. Zhang, J. Liu, B. Zhao, Z. Yu, J. Wu, and R. Zeng, “Enhancing turn-off performance in igct-based high power applications—part i: Anomalous high current turn-off mode and safe operating area expansion at ultra-low voltage,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electr...

    2024

  22. [30]

    S. M. Sze, Y . Li, and K. K. Ng, Physics of semiconductor devices. John wiley & sons, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    A local discontinuous galerkin method for 1.5- dimensional streamer discharge simulations,

    C. Zhuang and R. Zeng, “A local discontinuous galerkin method for 1.5- dimensional streamer discharge simulations,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 219, no. 19, pp. 9925–9934, 2013

    2013

  24. [32]

    An efficient and accurate mpi-based parallel simulator for streamer discharges in three dimensions,

    B. Lin, C. Zhuang, Z. Cai, R. Zeng, and W. Bao, “An efficient and accurate mpi-based parallel simulator for streamer discharges in three dimensions,” Journal of Computational Physics , vol. 401, p. 109026, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    A robust hybridizable discontinuous galerkin scheme with harmonic averaging technique for steady state of real-world semiconductor devices,

    Q. Shi, Y . Cai, C. Zhuang, B. Lin, D. Wu, R. Zeng, and W. Bao, “A robust hybridizable discontinuous galerkin scheme with harmonic averaging technique for steady state of real-world semiconductor devices,” Journal of Computational Physics , vol. 519, p. 113422, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    R. J. LeVeque, Finite volume methods for hyperbolic problems . Cam- bridge university press, 2002, vol. 31

    2002

  27. [35]

    S. C. Brenner, The mathematical theory of finite element methods . Springer, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    The modified nodal approach to network analysis,

    C.-W. Ho, A. Ruehli, and P. Brennan, “The modified nodal approach to network analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems , vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 504–509, 1975

    1975

  29. [37]

    Pdaes in refined electrical network model- ing,

    A. Bartel and M. G ¨unther, “Pdaes in refined electrical network model- ing,” SIAM Review, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 56–91, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    A novel hybrid line commutated converter based on igct to mitigate commutation failure for high-power hvdc application,

    C. Xu, Z. Yu, B. Zhao, Z. Chen, Z. Wang, C. Ren, and R. Zeng, “A novel hybrid line commutated converter based on igct to mitigate commutation failure for high-power hvdc application,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 4931–4936, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Integrated gate commutated thyristor-based modular multilevel converters: A promising solution for high-voltage dc applications,

    R. Zeng, B. Zhao, T. Wei, C. Xu, Z. Chen, J. Liu, W. Zhou, Q. Song, and Z. Yu, “Integrated gate commutated thyristor-based modular multilevel converters: A promising solution for high-voltage dc applications,” IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 4–16, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    The stripe fortified gct: A new gct design for maximizing the controllable current,

    N. Lophitis, M. Antoniou, F. Udrea, I. Nistor, M. Arnold, T. Wikstr ¨om, J. V obecky, and M. Rahimo, “The stripe fortified gct: A new gct design for maximizing the controllable current,” in 2014 IEEE 26th International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices & IC’s (ISPSD) , ...

    2014

  33. [41]

    Optimization for cell arrangement design of gate-commutated thyristors based on whole wafer model and tabu search,

    G. Lyu, C. Zhuang, J. Liu, B. Zhao, Z. Yu, R. Zeng, and X. Zhang, “Optimization for cell arrangement design of gate-commutated thyristors based on whole wafer model and tabu search,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 4938–4946, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Analysis and design for voltage equalization in rb-igct based hybrid commutated converter applications,

    Z. Wang, Z. Yu, C. Ren, L. Qu, C. Xu, J. Liu, B. Zhao, and R. Zeng, “Analysis and design for voltage equalization in rb-igct based hybrid commutated converter applications,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2024, doi:10.1109/TIE.2024.3488328

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.