4.5 Article

A Comprehensive Loss Model and Comparison of AC and DC Boost Converters

Journal

ENERGIES
Volume 14, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en14113131

Keywords

DC power transmission; power converter; AC-DC power conversion; DC-DC power conversion; losses

Categories

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. DOE [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  3. DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Office Emerging Technologies Program
  4. U.S. China Clean Energy Research Center, Building Energy Efficiency (CERC-BEE) program
  5. Energy Design and Scoping Tool for DC Distribution Systems

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study derived loss models of DC/DC and AC/DC PFC boost converters with identical components, showing that DC boost converters are more efficient than AC boost converters. Though boost converters are a small fraction of electronics in buildings, these loss models can lay the foundation for a comprehensive analysis based on full-building models.
DC microgrids have become a prevalent topic in research in part due to the expected superior efficiency of DC/DC converters compared to their AC/DC counterparts. Although numerous side-by-side analyses have quantified the efficiency benefits of DC power distribution, these studies all modeled converter loss based on product data that varied in component quality and operating voltage. To establish a fair efficiency comparison, this work derives a formulaic loss model of a DC/DC and an AC/DC PFC boost converter. These converters are modeled with identical components and an equivalent input and output voltage. Simulated designs with real components show AC/DC boost converters between 100 W to 500 W having up to 2.5 times more loss than DC/DC boost converters. Although boost converters represent a fraction of electronics in buildings, these loss models can eventually work toward establishing a comprehensive model-based full-building analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available