MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147908447 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3069448

A Review of Bidirectional On-Board Chargers for Electric Vehicles

2021· review· en· W3147908447 on OpenAlexaff
Jiaqi Yuan, Lea Dorn-Gomba, Alan Dorneles Callegaro, John Reimers, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryNetwork topologySmart gridElectric vehicleComputer scienceWirelessGridAutomotive electronicsElectrical engineeringAutomotive engineeringPower (physics)TelecommunicationsEngineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fast development of electric vehicles (EVs) provides significant opportunities to further utilize clean energies in the automotive. On-board chargers (OBCs) are widely used in EVs because of their simple installation and low cost. Limited space in the vehicle and short charging time require an OBC to be power-dense and highly efficient. Moreover, the possibility for EVs to deliver power back to the grid has increased the interest in bidirectional power flow solutions in the automotive market. This paper presents a comprehensive overview and investigation on the state-of-the-art solutions of bidirectional OBCs. It reviews the current status, including architectures and configurations, smart operation modes, industry standards, major components, and commercially available products. A detailed overview of the promising topologies for bidirectional OBCs, including two-stage and single-stage structures, is provided. Future trends and challenges for topologies, wide bandgap technologies, thermal management, system integration, and wireless charging systems are also discussed in this paper.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations359
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207