Comparison of SiC MOSFET Hard and Soft Switching Losses in SIMetrix and PLECS Simulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a comparative study of two simulation tools for evaluating switching and conduction losses in SiC MOSFETs within a synchronous boost converter is presented. Unlike traditional Double Pulse Test methods, this paper analyses losses under continuous operating conditions in a power converter, including both Hard Switching (HS) and Zero Voltage Switching (ZVS) modes. The converter is simulated using identical parameters in both simulation tools, SIMetrix and PLECS ®. The simulation results are validated experimentally using a laboratory prototype (boosting the voltage from 200V to 400V and managing a power of 1kW). SIMetrix, based on SPICE models, offers high-fidelity waveform analysis but requires longer simulation times. In contrast, PLECS uses look-up table-based models that enable fast and efficient loss estimation with minimal computational cost. Despite differences in waveform resolution, both tools estimate similar power losses. Experimental results confirm the accuracy of both tools, with minor discrepancies attributed to parasitic effects and measurement limitations. This work demonstrates that PLECS is suitable for rapid system-level analysis, while SIMetrix is preferred for detailed device-level studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".