Compact Thermal Modeling of Magnetic Components Using an Admittance Matrix Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike semiconductor devices, the thermal modeling of magnetic components has not been standardized. Due to this lack of standardization in the academic community, most proposed magnetic component thermal models have not been evaluated for boundary condition independence. Hence, they cannot be classified as Compact Thermal Models (CTMs). In this study, CTMs of a PQ 30/40 inductor are developed using an admittance matrix-based approach. First, a Detailed Thermal Model (DTM) of the inductor under direct current excitation is developed and validated using experimental test results for power dissipation varying from 2.6 to 11.9 W. Following this, a single heat source CTM is developed from the DTM data using the admittance matrix approach. The thermal performance of the deduced CTM is evaluated for fifteen different boundary condition scenarios with surface heat transfer coefficients varying between 1 and 200 W/m2K. The surface temperature and heat flux predictions were within ±5% of the DTM results, while the junction temperature error was ±10%. Most magnetic components like transformers and inductors have multiple loss sources. Hence, the DTM and CTM were reevaluated for multiple heat sources. The resulting multi-heat source CTM was also observed to accurately predict surface temperatures and heat fluxes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it