MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990794218 · doi:10.1109/ias.2019.8912447

Analysis and Design of Three-Phase Interleaved Buck-Boost Derived PFC Converter

2019· article· en· W2990794218 on OpenAlexaff
Sivanagaraju Gangavarapu, Akshay Kumar Rathore

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced DC-DC Converters
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuck converterBoost converterComputer sciencePhase (matter)Buck–boost converterElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringPhysicsVoltageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A three-phase interleaved two-channel buck-boost derived power factor correction (PFC) converter for more electric aircraft application (MEA) is presented in this paper. Typically, the converters operated in continuous conduction mode (CCM) require two control loops (inner current, outer voltage), and five sensors to implement PFC control algorithm. As the supply frequency in MEA is variable, the controller has to be designed for a wider bandwidth, which complicates the controller design, and also complicates the phase-locked-loop (PLL) design. On the other hand, the discontinuous conduction mode (DCM) operation realizes the natural power factor correction at mains supply without any current control loop. Further, the DCM operation eliminates four sensors, and makes the system more reliable and robust. Hence, the proposed converter is designed to operate in DCM. A simple voltage control is implemented for output voltage regulation. The converter steady state operation and its design are presented in detail. The converter analysis and design are validated with the simulation results from PSIM. Further, the advantages of the proposed converter are demonstrated by comparing the proposed interleaved two-channel converter with single-channel three-phase buck-boost derived PFC converter.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced DC-DC ConvertersFrench-language works237,207