- #1
EE4me
- 17
- 1
- TL;DR Summary
- Why is it said that full-bridges are fault tolerant compared to half-bridge
Why is it said that full-bridges are fault tolerant compared to half-bridge?
Where is that said ?EE4me said:Why is it said that full-bridges are fault tolerant compared to half-bridge?
One example is this paper..."Open-Circuit Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Strategies for Full-Bridge DC-DC Converters".Baluncore said:Where is that said ?
I think this part was added after I replied. I'm not sure if those are fault tolerant as well because that's actually part of my question. I guess it is not clear though so I apologize. What is fault tolerance and how is a full bridge when a half bridge is not?Baluncore said:Is it said about rectifier bridges, amplifier H bridges, or Wheatstone bridges.
I think it has more to do with it offering protection for the load. In the event of a fault, you can circulate the high current through the bridge to save the load. Thats about as far as my understanding goes, which is why I need to learn more. But it is possible as you mentioned because you can re else polarity.berkeman said:They may just mean that a full-bridge DC input circuit is polarity insensitive (it makes the correct DC output voltage no matter which way the +/- input is wired). A simple half-bridge DC input circuit blocks the input for the wrong polarity of input connection.
We use full-bridge inputs for our low voltage AC/DC power inputs on our modules.
I'm not referring to just redundancy. Here is a quote directly from the paper "Baluncore said:Two half bridges make a full bridge. It seems sensible to throw out half bridges as they fail. By gating of the control signals the circuit is restructured and the power is reduced, which results in a limp mode.
That sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo that makes no sense.EE4me said:In the event of a fault, you can circulate the high current through the bridge to save the load.
Maybe you can help me with a simpler more elegantAveragesupernova said:That sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo that makes no sense.
This also sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. Here's the thing: Until you can define what "fault current from the convertor" actually is, your questions are somewhat pointless.EE4me said:...how it protects from the dc fault current of the converter?
Thats the way that its worded in all of the papers that I've read regarding the MMCs that mention the benefit of the full bridges fault tolerance. So it seems like the community reading it understand what's meant and we do not. Thanks for trying to help. Now I don't feel like I'm missing something obvious since you all don't get it either. Thanks for the responses.Averagesupernova said:This also sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. Here's the thing: Until you can define what "fault current from the convertor" actually is, your questions are somewhat pointless.
Don't leave us hanging. If you find out more info, please share. The word 'bridge' in the context you've set here could mean several things. My mind goes to the bridge rectifiers in a power supply, or an H-bridge of mosfets that drive transformer or motor, etc.EE4me said:Thats the way that its worded in all of the papers that I've read regarding the MMCs that mention the benefit of the full bridges fault tolerance. So it seems like the community reading it understand what's meant and we do not. Thanks for trying to help. Now I don't feel like I'm missing something obvious since you all don't get it either. Thanks for the responses.
Sorry, I didn't realize there was confusion on what full bridge was referring to. It is referring to totem pole MOSFETS...or any other active semiconductor switches I suppose.Averagesupernova said:Don't leave us hanging. If you find out more info, please share. The word 'bridge' in the context you've set here could mean several things. My mind goes to the bridge rectifiers in a power supply, or an H-bridge of mosfets that drive transformer or motor, etc.
-
Concerning the phrase 'fault current', that's pretty broad. Fault current refers to current that flows that shouldn't be flowing due to a short between a conductor and something else conductive.
Full-bridge and half-bridge fault tolerance are two different approaches to ensuring the reliability and availability of a system in the event of a failure. Full-bridge fault tolerance involves having a complete backup system that can take over in case the primary system fails, while half-bridge fault tolerance only has a partial backup system that can handle some of the functions of the primary system.
The answer depends on the specific needs and requirements of the system. Full-bridge fault tolerance offers a higher level of redundancy and can handle complete system failures, but it is also more expensive and complex to implement. Half-bridge fault tolerance is more cost-effective and simpler to implement, but it may not be able to handle all types of failures. Ultimately, the best approach will depend on the specific needs and priorities of the system.
Full-bridge fault tolerance offers several advantages, including a high level of redundancy, the ability to handle complete system failures, and minimal downtime in case of a failure. Additionally, full-bridge fault tolerance can provide better performance and scalability compared to half-bridge fault tolerance.
While half-bridge fault tolerance can be a cost-effective and simple solution, it also has some limitations. It may not be able to handle all types of failures, and there may be a longer downtime in case of a failure compared to full-bridge fault tolerance. Additionally, half-bridge fault tolerance may not provide the same level of performance and scalability as full-bridge fault tolerance.
Yes, it is possible to combine full-bridge and half-bridge fault tolerance in a system. This approach is known as hybrid fault tolerance and can offer the benefits of both approaches. However, it can also be more complex and expensive to implement, so it should only be used if necessary for the specific needs of the system.