MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201022438 · doi:10.1109/tie.2021.3109519

3-D Analytical Model of Bipolar Coils With Multiple Finite Magnetic Shields for Wireless Electric Vehicle Charging Systems

2021· article· en· W3201022438 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhichao Luo, S. Nie, Mehanathan Pathmanathan, Wei Han, Peter W. Lehn

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Power Transfer Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFinite element methodSuperposition principleShieldsInductanceElectric vehicleMaximum power transfer theoremTransmitterWireless power transferElectromagnetic shieldingElectronic engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringTopology (electrical circuits)Electromagnetic coilVoltageChannel (broadcasting)Power (physics)PhysicsStructural engineeringMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bipolar pad is one of the most promising topologies in inductive power transfer (IPT) systems for electric vehicles. However, there is scant literature on the analytical model of the bipolar pad. In this article, a three-dimensional (3-D) analytical model of the IPT system including a bipolar transmitter and a square receiver is developed based on the superposition of two 2-D subdomain analytical models. Ferrite and the aluminum shields with finite dimension are taken into account on the transmitter and receiver sides. An analytical calculation of the mutual inductance is then carried out with respect to the main parameters of the IPT system, namely the dimension of the coils, the conductivity, and the permeability of the shield. Three study cases are demonstrated to highlight how the proposed method can accelerate speed up the pad design process. Calculation results of the proposed model are compared with both a finite-element analysis (FEA) model and experimental measurements, demonstrating that the proposed model is nine times faster than the FEA method. When comparing with the experimental results, computational error of the proposed model is less than 6% in most of the study cases.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial ElectronicsSame topicWireless Power Transfer SystemsFrench-language works237,207