Power Transfer Efficiency Evaluation of Different Power Pads for Electric Vehicle’s Wireless Charging Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction of wireless charging systems for electric vehicles (EVs) is a revolutionary step in the field of electrified transportation. Misalignments between transmitting and receiving power pads significantly affect the overall power transfer efficiency of EV wireless charging systems. In this paper, three power pads are evaluated for power transfer efficiency in wireless charging systems with respect to various vertical and horizontal misalignments. They are circular power pads, double D (DD) power pads, and a new power pad designed in this research named as double D circular (DDC). Circular and DD power pads are designed following the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice J2954 using the software, ANSYS Maxwell 3D. The new DDC power pad is designed by combining a circular power pad and a DD power pad. The power transfer efficiency among the three types of power pads is compared in the paper. The new DDC power pad has 14.48% and 18.03% improved performance compared to the circular power pad at 150mm vertical misalignment and 115mm horizontal misalignment, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".