Performance Evaluation of DAB-Based Partial- and Full-Power Processing for BESS in Support of Trolleybus Traction Grids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energy transition toward greater electrification leads to incentives in public transportation fed by catenary-powered networks. In this context, emerging technological devices such as in-motion-charging vehicles and electric vehicle charging points are expected to be operated while connected to trolleybus networks as part of new electrification projects, resulting in a significant demand for power. To enable a significant increase in electric transportation without compromising technical compliance for voltage and current at grid systems, the implementation of stationary battery energy storage systems (BESSs) can be essential for new electrification projects. A key challenge for BESSs is the selection of the optimal converter topology for charging their batteries. Ideally, the chosen converter should offer the highest efficiency while minimizing size, weight, and cost. In this context, a modular dual-active-bridge converter, considering its operation as a full-power converter (FPC) and a partial-power converter (PPC) with module-shedding control, is analyzed in terms of operation efficiencies and thermal behavior. The goal is to clarify the advantages, disadvantages, challenges, and trade-offs of both power-processing techniques following future trends in the electric transportation sector. The results indicate that the PPC achieves an efficiency of 98.58% at the full load of 100 kW, which is 1.19% higher than that of FPC. Additionally, higher power density and cost effectiveness are confirmed for the PPC.
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".