Comprehensive Performance and Magnetic Analysis of 3.3kW Inductive Wireless Power Transfer System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of a 3.3 kW Inductive Power Transfer (IPT) wireless charger system with special focus on the comparison of two widely implemented compensation topologies: Series–Series (SS) and LCC–Series (LCC S). The objective is to determine the optimal compensation strategy for mid-level Electric Vehicle (EV) applications by comparing performance and thermal characteristics. The study investigates three different magnetic coupling coefficients (k = 0.32, 0.265, and 0.227) consecutively in relation to their effect on the overall system efficiency, power stability, and different behavior of the two-compensation network under different alignment conditions.This work integrates electric optimization with thermal design to develop a design approach. A thermal model is built to predict power losses in passive and switching components to enable suitable heat sink sizing under realistic working conditions. The multi-topology, multi-k analysis is used for selecting compensation topologies for actual WPT implementation. The methodology includes a scalable approach that makes trade-offs between electromagnetic performance and thermal reliability for wireless EV charging.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".