MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FPGA Model of Multi-Active-Bridge-Based Cascaded Solid-State Transformer for Real-Time HIL Tests

2023· article· en· W4378843570 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Chalangar, Kevin-Rafael Sorto-Ventura, Xuekun Meng, Wei Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)Opal-Rt Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayHardware-in-the-loop simulationTest benchReal-time simulationRangingComputer scienceElectronic engineeringTransformerGate arrayVoltageEngineeringEmbedded systemElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method for modeling and real-time (RT) hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation of the multi-active bridge (MAB)-based cascaded solid-state transformer (SST). These types of circuits are challenging for the realm of RT HIL simulation testing due to their high switching frequency, large circuit size, and the high number of switches. The proposed method uses an equivalent circuit and switching function approach to model MAB-based SST. The model is implemented on a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) and achieves time steps ranging from 130 ns to 370 ns, depending on the circuit size and allows switching frequencies ranging up to 150 kHz. To demonstrate the effectiveness and performance of the model, a multi-rate HIL RT test bench is developed. A 3-phase three-stage ac-ac system including 100 kHz 5-winding MABs is considered as a case study. To test both HIL and rapid control prototyping simulation, the plant and controller run on two independent real-time simulators, and fiber optic cables are established to exchange measurements and gating pulses. The developed test bench showed high model fidelity and real-time performance in various circuit conditions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207