Four-Channel Buck Converter in Asymmetrical Continuous Current Conduction Mode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is concerned with the asymmetrical control strategies of a four-channel dc/dc buck converter in the continuous current conduction mode (CCM). The converter has two input and four output channels. Energy equations of the converter are studied, and asymmetry of input voltages, output voltages, and loads are examined in the CCM. The proposed control strategy allows us to directly control the power flow in each channel without any unwanted consequences for the rest of the channels among these conditions. The main advantage is the direct control of the total transferred power by the positive sequence of the capacitor voltage, the power exchange among the input channels by the negative sequence of the capacitor voltage, and the power exchange among the output channels by the inductor currents. Calculating these currents also helps to determine whether the converter at a certain point operates in the CCM or in the boundary mode (where zero current switching is possible). Feasibility of zero-voltage switching is simplified by this method. Converter efficiency is showed to be 83% at asymmetrical output voltages in the CCM. Theoretical studies are confirmed by both numerical simulations and laboratory experiments on a 100-W prototype. The studied converter can be applied in supplying multilevel inverters.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".