Comparison of Phase-Shifted and Phase-Disposition PWM Schemes in an Asymmetrical Cascaded H-Bridge Converter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a detailed and comprehensive performance comparison between phase-disposition (PD) and phase-shifted (PS) pulse-width-modulation (PWM) schemes. The comparison is carried out in a single-phase, two-cell asymmetrical cascaded H-bridge (ACHB) converter that uses DC-voltage sources chosen according to a geometric progression with a factor of two and three. The converter controlled by each PWM method is designed to generate an output voltage waveform with 7 and 9 levels under 2:1 and 3:1 DC voltage ratios, respectively. The paper analyzes the effects of PWM-induced harmonic components of each method on the converter’s output current and voltage waveforms. The comparison is conducted on Typhoon HIL-based real-time simulation and lab prototype experimental results at different operating conditions. The comparative performance includes the spectra and THDs of the converter output voltages and currents, as well as the electromagnetic interference (EMI) noise emission. The single-phase ACHB demonstrates improved harmonic performance and 56% lower THD values when utilizing the PS-PWM technique compared to the PD-PWM method. The PS-PWM method operates at 6 times higher frequency than the PD-PWM method, leading to high switching losses, EMI noise emission, and lower efficiency. In contrast, the PD-PWM method lowers switch stress and reduces switching losses as less heat is generated.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".