MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385525158 · doi:10.1109/tte.2023.3300669

Loss Modeling and Testing of 800-V DC Bus IGBT and SiC Traction Inverter Modules

2023· article· en· W4385525158 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Allca-Pekarovic, Phillip J. Kollmeyer, John Reimers, Parisa Mahvelatishamsabadi, Tissaphern Mirfakhrai, Payam Naghshtabrizi, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies
Canadian institutionsGeneral Motors (Canada)McMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulated-gate bipolar transistorInverterSilicon carbideJunction temperatureMaterials scienceBipolar junction transistorVoltageElectrical engineeringTraction (geology)TransistorElectric vehicleAutomotive engineeringElectronic engineeringEngineeringPhysicsThermalPower (physics)Mechanical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates efficiency gains achieved using an 800 V DC bus and wideband gap silicon carbide (SiC) semiconductors for a light-duty electric vehicle (EV), rather than an insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) inverter with a 400 V bus as is commonly used for EVs. Analytical inverter loss models with 600 V and 1200 V IGBTs, and 1200 V hybrid SiC and 1200 V All-SiC semiconductors are incorporated into a Chevrolet Bolt EV model and simulated over standard drive cycles. Battery pack voltage variations throughout the drive cycles, as well as variations in junction temperature, resulted in 16 to 27 % increased loss compared to fixed voltage and temperature assumptions. To validate the models, experimental testing was performed on a 1200 V IGBT inverter and a 1200 V SiC inverter both powering 160+ kW rated traction machines. Experimentally measured loss was typically within 100 W of the model, demonstrating its accuracy. Going from a 400 V to an 800 V DC bus with IGBTs, EV range was modeled to increase 1.2 %, while an 800 V bus and all SiC inverter results in a range increase of 5.0%. An empirical loss model fitted to measured inverter data shows the analytical model estimates range within 6 km.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Transportation ElectrificationSame topicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207