Current Sharing Analysis of Interleaved LCLC Resonant Converter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current sharing in multiphase resonant converters is a serious concern as any small tolerance in the resonant tank components of different phases can lead to a large imbalance in the voltage gain and hence the load current imbalance. An interleaved LCLC resonant converter with four resonant components for wide input voltage range applications is studied in this paper. Because of the sharp voltage gain curve of the LCLC resonant converter, traditional current balancing approaches are not so successful. In this topology, the resonant tank impedances of each phase are tuned by a Switch-Controlled Capacitor (SCC) that is implemented in the resonant tank in both phases resulting in precise load current balancing among paralleled phases. The effect of different imbalance conditions on the interleaved LCLC resonant converter is studied, a minimum operating angle for the SCC circuit is identified and a control strategy is proposed for a reliable current sharing. The performance of the interleaved LCLC converter is validated by both computer simulation and experimental results of a two-phase 1kW prototype with 250V-400V input voltage. Further, a flat high-efficiency profile is achieved with different input voltage conditions over a wide load range.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".