Overview#
OptiMOS™ 5 IQDH29NE2LM5CGSC.
What surprised me most wasn’t the topology — but how much performance is hidden in a very small package. According to the datasheet, this device can handle extremely high pulsed currents when used correctly, which pushed me to dig deeper into pulse conditions, thermal limits, and PCB layout rather than just headline numbers. I designed the PCB, reviewed the datasheet in detail, and validated assumptions using LTspice (electrical + thermal behavior).
Technical Highlights#
- Reviewed datasheet in detail
- Designed PCB layout
- Simulated electrical and thermal behavior in LTspice
- Validated pulse conditions
Key Lessons#
- Layout is part of the circuit
- Simulation prevents optimistic assumptions
- “Overkill” often means uncalculated margin
Technologies#
- Infineon OptiMOS™ 5 (25 V)
- LTspice
- PCB layout and parasitic control
- Pulse stress analysis
- Thermal behavior simulation
Flowchart
flowchart TD
A[Review datasheet limits] --> B[Build LTspice switching model]
B --> C[Simulate pulse and thermal stress]
C --> D[Iterate PCB layout]
D --> E[Prototype validation]
E --> F{Margins acceptable}
F -->|No| B
F -->|Yes| G[Release candidate design]
Details
This work focused on device behavior under pulsed operating conditions instead of treating the MOSFET as an ideal switch.
The workflow combined datasheet boundary analysis, PCB parasitic awareness, and LTspice stress simulation. The purpose was to quantify margin before hardware validation.
Special attention was given to gate drive quality, current slew control, and thermal rise during repetitive pulses. These factors dominated stability more than nominal on-resistance values.
Layout choices were evaluated as first-order electrical parameters. Trace inductance and return-path geometry directly impacted switching waveform quality and thermal spread.
Result: safer operating envelopes and fewer surprises during bring-up, with design decisions backed by measured and simulated evidence.
Gallery
4 images