Comparative Analysis of Duty Cycle and Dual Phase Shift Control for CC/CV Wireless Charging in EVs Employing an Asymmetric Magnetic Coupler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative study of two control methodologies for achieving constant-current/constantvoltage (CC/CV) charging in a level 1 wireless electric vehicle (EV) charging system employing a novel asymmetric magnetic coupler. The coupler consists of a rectangular receiver coil and two double-layer asymmetric triangular transmitter coils, each driven by a half-bridge inverter, the receiver can be a diode or an active rectifier. Both control strategies are implemented on an S-S compensated topology operating at 85 kHz with a rated power of 3.7 kW. The DPS control achieves a peak efficiency of 96% under aligned conditions and maintains 90.6% efficiency under extreme misalignment of 150 mm with negligible fluctuation in output voltage and current. In comparison, duty-cycle control achieves a peak efficiency of 90.62% under aligned conditions and 88.60% under extreme misalignment. The results demonstrate that the proposed asymmetric coupler, combined with appropriate control strategies, provides a reliable and efficient solution for level 1 wireless EV charging applications
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".