MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097077432 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3031693

Modeling of Conducted Emissions for EMI Analysis of Power Converters: State-of-the-Art Review

2020· article· en· W3097077432 on OpenAlexafffund
Fatemeh Abolqasemi Kharanaq, Ali Emadi, Berker Bilgin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Noise Suppression
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEMIConvertersElectromagnetic interferenceComputer scienceElectronic engineeringNoise (video)Common-mode signalPower (physics)Time domainMode (computer interface)EngineeringElectrical engineeringVoltagePhysicsDigital signal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electromagnetic interference issues are associated with high-speed switching of power converters. EMI modeling is an essential tool to study and control the EMI emission, enabling more efficient solutions. A comprehensive review and comparison of different modeling approaches for conducted emissions are provided in this paper, which can be used as a design guideline for engineers. For a motor drive application, common mode and differential mode conducted emissions are studied, and dominant noise production mechanisms are identified. Moreover, a review of various modeling techniques is presented for the main parasitic components of the system. Finally, time domain and frequency domain analysis approaches are explored along with the equivalent circuits which enable fast prediction of EMI emissions. This paper intends to help the reader develop an organized understanding of conducted emission modeling to assist them with a more efficient and electromagnetically-compatible design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations92
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Noise SuppressionFrench-language works237,207