Overview and Comparative Assessment of Single-Phase Power Converter Topologies of Inductive Wireless Charging Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acquisition of inductive power transfer (IPT) technology in commercial electric vehicles (EVs) alleviates the inherent burdens of high cost, limited driving range, and long charging time. In EV wireless charging systems using IPT, power electronic converters play a vital role to reduce the size and cost, as well as to maximize the efficiency of the overall system. Over the past years, significant research studies have been conducted by researchers to improve the performance of power conversion systems including the power converter topologies and control schemes. This paper aims to provide an overview of the existing state-of-the-art of power converter topologies for IPT systems in EV charging applications. In this paper, the widely adopted power conversion topologies for IPT systems are selected and their performance is compared in terms of input power factor, input current distortion, current stress, voltage stress, power losses on the converter, and cost. The single-stage matrix converter based IPT systems advantageously adopt the sinusoidal ripple current (SRC) charging technique to remove the intermediate DC-link capacitors, which improves system efficiency, power density and reduces cost. Finally, technical considerations and future opportunities of power converters in EV wireless charging applications are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".