MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500994681 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2015.7129387

Improving inverter efficiency at low power by reducing switching frequency

2015· article· en· W1500994681 on OpenAlexafffund
Tahsina Hossain Loba, David Wood, E.P. Nowicki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInverterPower (physics)Pulse-width modulationComputer scienceElectronic engineeringRenewable energyElectrical engineeringEngineeringVoltagePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inverter is a major component of a renewable energy system and its performance affects the overall performance of the system. For typical household applications in remote areas, often there is need to operate at low power conditions where inverter efficiency can drop dramatically. Efficient operation at low power is important especially for stand-alone applications in developing countries where system cost must be kept low. In this paper, we investigated the impact of switching frequency upon switching loss for a single-phase Sinusoidal Pulse Width Modulation (SPWM) inverter. Results show that reducing the switching frequency reduces switching loss at low power levels thus improving inverter efficiency. This may result in a reduced PV module size requirement and thus lower system cost. In addition, efficient low power inverters would allow the continued operation of essential lighting when the battery bank is nearly discharged. A mathematical model is given to calculate the major loss components (i.e. switching loss, conduction loss) in the system. The inverter is operated in the range of 200W rated power to 9W (4.5 % of the rated power) along with the change in frequency from 20 kHz to 200 Hz.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207