Systematic approach to construct and assess power electronic conversion architectures using graph theory and its application in a fuel cell system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the proliferation of renewable energy generations, power conversion systems (PCSs) are becoming much more complex; it is becoming challenging to search all possible power conversion architectures (PCAs) and find the best optimisation in terms of different objectives. Therefore, this study investigates a systematic approach to construct and evaluate PCAs using graph theory. First, the components in PCSs are graphically modelled as either nodes or edges. Then, a generalised PCA deduction methodology is proposed, and all possible PCAs can be mathematically deduced by modifying elements in adjacency matrices. For a fuel cell (FC) generation system, 45 possible PCAs are found with the proposed method. Furthermore, an evaluation methodology based on graph theory is proposed. The performance indices of the deduced PCAs, including costs, efficiency, and reliability, are calculated. Then, an optimisation approach is applied to finding the best architecture compromise, where the one with the shortest distance to the ideal architecture is considered the best architecture compromise. For the FC demo system, with the proposed assessment methodology, the best architecture compromise (dc‐bus structure) is found among 45 possible architectures. Finally, the experimental platform, which adopts the dc‐bus optimised architecture, is built and experimental results validate the architecture selection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".