MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164308501 · doi:10.1109/pesc.2007.4342227

Optimal Design of Current Source Gate Driver for a Buck Voltage Regulator Based on a New Analytical Loss Model

2007· article· en· W2164308501 on OpenAlexaff
Zhiliang Zhang, Wilson Eberle, Zhihua Yang, Yan‐Fei Liu, Paresh C. Sen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInductanceCurrent sourceGate driverVoltage sourceElectronic engineeringBuck converterComplex programmable logic deviceDriver circuitVoltageComputer scienceEngineeringElectrical engineeringEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The superior advantages of a new current-source resonant driver are verified thoroughly by the analytical analysis, simulation and experimental results. A new accurate analytical loss model of the power MOSFET driven by a current-source resonant gate driver is developed. Closed-formed analytical equations are derived to investigate the switching characteristics due to the parasitic inductance. The modeling and simulation results prove that compared to a voltage driver, a current-source resonant driver significantly reduces the propagation impact of the common source inductance during the switching transition at very high switching frequency, which leads to a significant reduction of the switching transition time and the switching loss. Based on the proposed loss model, a general method to optimize the new resonant driver is proposed and employed in the development of a 12V synchronous buck voltage regulator (VR) prototype at 1MHz switching frequency. The level-shift circuit and digital implementation of complex programmable logic device (CPLD) are also presented. The analytical modeling matches the simulation results and experimental results very well. Through the optimal design, a significant efficiency improvement is achieved. More importantly, compared to other state of the art VR approaches, the current-source driver is very promising from the standpoints of both performance and cost-effectiveness.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207