4.7 Article

Bidirectional LCC-LCC-Compensated 20-kW Wireless Power Transfer System for Medium-Duty Vehicle Charging

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TTE.2021.3049138

关键词

Bidirectional wireless charging system (WCS); electric vehicle (EV) charging; LCC compensation; wireless power transfer

资金

  1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory by UT-Battelle, LLC, through the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC05-00OR22725]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces the design and demonstration of a bidirectional 20-kW wireless charging system with a significantly large air gap and asymmetrical input-output voltage levels. Analytical and experimental sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the optimal operating region, while a variety of technologies were utilized in the design to improve efficiency and power density.
This article presents the design and demonstration of a bidirectional 20-kW wireless charging system (WCS) with a significantly large air gap (11 in) and asymmetrical input-output voltage levels. Analytical and experimental sensitivity analyses of the WCS resonant tank were conducted to verify the optimal operating region under the load and frequency variation. The inverter and rectifier were designed with switching components, the charging pads were designed with double-D (DD) coils, and the tuning networks were designed with an LCC - LCC tuning circuit. The grid and vehicle side tuning circuits were designed separately to achieve a similar to 1:2 gain for the asymmetrical input (800 V-dc) and output (350 V-dc) voltages. The proposed WCS was designed, simulated, and tested to veri fj the efficiency, power transfer capacity, and sensitivity under load variation. The experimental results show that, at 20-kW output power, the achieved grid-to-vehicle dc - dc efficiency was 96.1%, and the vehicle-to-grid dc - dc efficiency was 96.2%. The proposed system is the largest-air gap bidirectional WCS with the highest efficiency and power density.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据