MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889439252 · doi:10.1109/itec.2018.8450135

Topological Overview on Solid-state Transformer Traction Technology in High-speed Trains

2018· article· en· W2889439252 on OpenAlexaff
Deepak Ronanki, Sheldon S. Williamson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced DC-DC Converters
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformerConvertersTrainElectrical engineeringPower densityElectronic engineeringPropulsionTraction power networkComputer scienceEngineeringNetwork topologyAutomotive engineeringVoltagePower (physics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modern trend towards high-speed trains (HST) with distributed propulsion systems, demands high efficiency and high-power density traction systems. Line frequency transformers (LFTs) in railway traction systems are heavy and bulky, quite often necessitating power density to be compromised to achieve maximum efficiency of typically 90-92%. The advancements in power converter topologies, power switching devices and magnetic materials makes it possible to substitute massive LFTs with a new technology called solid-state transformers (SST) (also known as power electronic transformers (PET) or medium frequency transformers (MFT)) traction technology. This technology enables high power density systems with comparatively lower noise emissions which provide essential functionality without compromising efficiency. However, there are still major challenges to overcome associated with power converter connection on the high-voltage (HV) side, architecture modification and the compactness of the transformer design. This paper reviews the existing architectures and also introduces the new research possibilities especially in the power conversion stages, and the power switching devices. Finally, the design guide lines for high-power converters are presented.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced DC-DC ConvertersFrench-language works237,207