l298n parallel output

Anything wrong with connecting L298Ns in parallel?

Ask QuestionAsked todayActive todayViewed 56 times0

Although L298Ns are very inefficient, they’re very cheap. I have two motors that require 4A+ current at load combined. Can I connect multiple L298Ns in parallel in this way to increase the overall current output? Am I going to run into any problems? arduinomotormotor-controllerShareCiteEditFollowFlagasked 12 hours agoTausif322 bronze badges

  • 1How can you guarantee they will share the load current equally? (Hint – you can’t). – Andy aka 12 hours ago 
  • 4Tip: the illustration you have posted is referred to here as a “cartoon” or wiring diagram. A schematic diagram reveals the schema or purpose of the circuit with part numbers and pin designations and is the “language” of circuits. Meanwhile your diagram shows us that you have a breadboard, two motors, an Arduino, a red PCB and a green thing. Most of the cartoon generators have schematic export functions although you will need to spend some time laying out the components sensibly and untangling the mess of wires they generate. – Transistor 12 hours ago
  • 1you should probably not be running the current for motors through breadboard traces. – Hearth 12 hours ago
  • You could probably bolt them to a common heatsink (so as they heat due to their horrible performance they more-or-less heat together) and get a slight (maybe 30-50%) improvement in output current, but they are really horrible parts. Did I mention they are horrible? – Spehro Pefhany 12 hours ago
  • This is just a rough thought. Instead of asking just a question in plain text, I thought I should make a rough diagram of what I’m trying to do to better explain things. I’m definitely not going to run 5A through a breadboard. Was just curious if stacking L298Ns in parallel to increase current output was possible or not. – Tausif 12 hours ago 
  • 1this sounds like a very bad idea: instead of parallelling three 1970s, very inefficient (since high-loss) motor controllers, why not simply spend a fraction of the money on something modern? If L298N is the answer, then the question started with “Let’s book time travel to the year 1978…” – Marcus Müller 12 hours ago

Add a comment

2 Answers



Anything wrong with connecting L298Ns in parallel?


Nothing wrong. Hobbyists do it. Engineers can also do it. It all depends on cost/benefit/risk hobbyist/engineer trade offs.

Let me explain, starting with ULN2803, then L298N.

Part A – ULN2803A Case

ULN2803A Darlington Transistor Arrays – TI

From datasheet – Section 3 Description

The ULN2803A device is a 50V, 500 mA Darlington transistor array. The device consists of eight NPN Darlington pairs that feature high-voltage outputs with common-cathode clamp diodes for switching inductive loads. The collector-current rating of each Darlington pair is 500 mA.

The Darlington pairs may be connected in parallel for higher current capability.

Part B – L298N Case

L298N Datasheet – ST

By the same ULN2803 token, L298N can also parallel output for bigger current. Since the BJTs to be paralleled are from the same die, they should very nicely selfie balancing out the load current.

l298n 1

l298n 2

Part 3 – L298N Dual Full Bride DC Motor Driver Module Case

AliExpress L298N Dual Full H Bridge DC Motor Driver Module – US$1

The very popular cheapy L298N motor driver modules are for driving two 4A DC motors. For a bigger motor, say 8A, we can parallel two drivers into one big driver.

Warning: me just friendly hobbyist. No guarantee no nothing would melt down or blow up.

Part 4 – Discussion and Recommendation

L298N output paralleling for bigger output current is a good newbie workaround. For ninjas, I would recommend forgetting the little old guy L298N, and go instead for the 40A big guy BTN7971B.

For more details on BTN7971B, see Refs 11.4, 11.5, and 11.6 of my answer to the following motor driver Q&A.

DC Motor Driver Q&A – EESE

ShareCiteEditDeleteFlagedited 4 mins agoanswered 40 mins agotlfong011,58411 gold badge66 silver badges1111 bronze badgesAdd a comment0

I am not endorsing wiring the L298Ns in parallel, but simply discussing the issues involved, and how it might be accomplished. As others have pointed out, an easier solution is to purchase a more robust driver.

Simply wiring the L298Ns in parallel will cause problems. A partial schematic of one of the motors, and one of the drivers, driven in one direction looks like this:


simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab

With multiple drivers connected in parallel, a partial circuit would look like this:


simulate this circuit

A big problem with this arrangement is that the currents through the transistors may be unbalanced. Suppose Q2A is slightly warmer than Q2B or Q2C. It is likely to conduct more than 1/3 of the current. Conducting more current means that it will get hotter than Q2B and Q2C. Which will cause it conduct more of the current, etc.

If you are willing to trade some motor speed (voltage) for torque (current), you can balance the transistors to some extent by adding small value resistors between the transistors and the tie-points to the motor, like so:


simulate this circuit

The larger the resistors, the more voltage you will lose, and hence the lower the maximum rpm of your motor. However, the larger the resistor, the greater the current balance you can achieve. Sufficient balance, and you can safely connect multiple drivers to drive your motor, thus increasing your torque. However, this only works to a point. Obviously too large a value for the resistors, and you will lose more power in the resistors than you gain by having extra transistors.

You say that the two motors will require 4A combined. You don’t say whether the motors will ever require more than 2A individually. (It could be that only one motor operates at a time, and when it does it requires 4A). I will assume that you only need 2A. (BTW the L298 is advertised as capable of 4A total (for 2 drivers), so if the modules actually behaved as advertised, you could get the 4A out of a single module, but that is another story).

Assuming each transistor needs to conduct, say 0.7A, and you want, say 0.3V across each resistor, the resistor values should be 0.3/0.7 = 427mΩΩ or something in that vicinity. Although they should only dissipate 210mW, I would use 1/2 watt rated resistors. The resistors need to be matched. Tight tolerance 0.5ΩΩ, 0.5W resistors are commercially available.

That takes care of the issue of transistor balancing.

There is another issue that must be addressed. Shoot-through. If both transistors in a half-bridge are on simultaneously, shoot-through will occur. A large current will flow through the transistors without encountering the impedance of the motor. This is bad, so you want to ensure that shoot-through doesn’t occur. By connecting the modules in parallel, you increase the possibility that a high side transistor in some module is on, while a low side transistor on the same side of the motor, but perhaps in a different module, is also on. It is important when changing voltage directions, that there is sufficient “dead-time”, so that all of the transistors are off, before any new transistor is turned on. It is your responsibility to ensure that.

Once again, I am only explaining how wiring the modules in parallel might be accomplished, but I am not endorsing this as a solution to the higher level problem of how to drive the motors.ShareCiteEditFollowFlagedited 6 hours agoanswered 6 hours agoMath Keeps Me Busy4,59533 gold badges77 silver badges3030 bronze badgesAdd a comment

Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.