A Comparative Study of Two Buck-Type Three-Phase Single-Stage AC–DC Full-Bridge Converters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost all previously proposed single-stage, three-phase ac-dc converters are based on the boost converter, and the strengths and weaknesses of boost-based single-stage converters are well known. This is not the case for buck-based single-stage converters as little, if any, comparable research has been performed on these converters. The authors have previously investigated a three-phase ac-dc, single-stage buck-type converter that can simultaneously perform power factor correction and dc-dc conversion using the standard phase-shift pulse-width modulation technique for dc-dc full-bridge converters. This paper is a continuation of that work as its main focus is a comparison of the performance and characteristics of this converter with those of a modified version of the same converter. In this paper, the fundamental principles of both the converters are explained, the modes of operation of the modified converter are explained in detail and a procedure for the design of this converter is demonstrated with an example. Experimental results obtained from a prototype of the modified converter are presented and based on these results; the two converters are compared in terms of parameters such as input power factor and efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".