MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Model Predictive Control Approach for CC-CV Operation of an Off-Board Battery Charger

2024· article· en· W4403724064 on OpenAlexaff
Durga Prasad Pilli, Deepak Ronanki, Apparao Dekka

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattery (electricity)Model predictive controlBattery chargerComputer scienceControl (management)Control theory (sociology)PhysicsArtificial intelligencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increase in adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), there is a significant demand for battery chargers with high power capacity. Typically, the off-board chargers have high power capability and are designed with a three-phase AC-DC converter and a DC-DC converter stage to charge the EV battery from the AC grid. Therefore, these chargers have to meet the grid codes, such as unity power factor operation and low current harmonic distortion (less than 5%) on the AC grid side. On the other hand, it is also expected to have a ripple-free current and voltage to charge the EV battery during constant current (CC) and constant voltage (CV) modes of operation, respectively. To handle these objectives, a model predictive control (MPC) framework is developed for an off-board charger under the CC-CV mode of operation. To implement the MPC, the discrete-time models of the charger are derived from the continuous-time models. The steady-state and transient performance of the proposed MPC for a 50 kW off-board charger is validated through MATLAB simulations. The MPC performance is further compared with the proportional-integral (PI)-based linear control method by considering performance indices such as AC grid current total harmonic distortion, current tracking error, DC-link voltage ripple, battery current ripple, and battery voltage ripple.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207