IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO.

X, X 2023 1

Bidirectional On-Board Chargers for Electric

Vehicles: State-of-the-Art and Future Trends
Hans Wouters, Student Member, IEEE and Wilmar Martinez, Senior Member, IEEE

90
Abstract—Electric vehicles (EVs) are vital in the transi-
Converter control
tion toward a sustainable and carbon-neutral future. However, 80 Converter design
the widespread adoption of EVs currently depends on the Energy management

Number of publications
70
convenience of the charging process and the availability of
their charging infrastructure. Consequently, on-board chargers 60 3×
more publications
(OBCs), offering an AC-charging solution built into most electric on bidirectional
50 on-board chargers
vehicles, have gained significant attention. Furthermore, bidi- in 4 years time
rectional OBCs enable reverse power flow, whereby the EV 40
battery can be used to power various devices, homes, or even
30
the electric grid. However, as the trend towards bidirectional
OBCs becomes evident, new power converter design challenges 20
arise, intensifying the need for high-efficiency, compact and cost-
10
competitive solutions. This paper extensively reviews the state-
of-the-art bidirectional on-board chargers by analysing over 0
500 publications, identifying the key trends, challenges, and 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

research opportunities that will influence the development of Publication year

next-generation bidirectional OBCs. Hence, various strategies to
achieve cutting-edge performance are deducted. This includes the
rise of high-voltage batteries, the integration of powertrains, the
growing adoption of wide-bandgap semiconductors, and the use
of integrated planar magnetic components, all aiming to enhance
efficiency and power density. This paper is accompanied by a
CSV file recording all pertinent references to support future
research, statistical analysis, and other contributions.
Index Terms—Bidirectional Chargers, Charging Infrastruc-
ture, Conductive Charging, DC-DC converter, Electric Vehicle,
Integrated Charger, Magnetic Components, On-Board Charger,
Power Density, Power Electronics, Smart Charging, Vehicle-to-
Grid, Wide Bandgap Devices.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Fig. 1. Annual publications regarding bidirectional on-board chargers in IEEE
Xplore, MDPI, and Springer, dated between inception and June 19th, 2023,
identified using search-string queries and categorised based on their main
contribution.
the growing number of publications regarding bidirectional on-
board chargers in literature, depicted in Fig. 1.
The on-board charger (OBC), charging hardware present in
most electric vehicles, provides convenient charging through
an AC grid connection at home, work, public parking, etc. [6].
Hence, using the EV’s power converter makes the required
charging infrastructure minimal and cost-effective. Fig. 2(a)
contextualises the OBC in the electric powertrain. Typical
OBCs comprise a two-stage power converter where the first

E LECTRIC vehicles are increasingly considered a promis-

ing alternative to those powered by internal combustion
engines. In Europe, ambitious goals are set in the Green Deal
to become carbon-neutral by 2050, solidified by the legally
binding European Climate Law [1], [2]. Meanwhile, in the
United States, the Inflation Reduction Act allocates nearly
$400 billion in funding towards reduced carbon emissions [3].
Such incentives have resulted in record levels of EV adoption,
as most major car manufacturers accelerate their electrifica-
tion plans and target an electric future [4], [5]. Enormous
progress in battery technologies has caused price reductions
and, therefore, a significant increase in the battery size of
EVs. However, to maintain convenient charging times and
ensure availability, charging solutions have become the critical
bottleneck for widespread EV adoption. This is reflected by
Manuscript received June 27, 2023; revised August 28, 2023; accepted 24
September, 2023.
This work was supported in part by the European Union’s Horizon Europe
under Grant No. 101056857, PowerDrive.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT)
of the KU Leuven and EnergyVille, 3000 Leuven, Belgium (e-mail
hans.wouters@kuleuven.be; wilmar.martinez@kuleuven.be).
stage is responsible for the rectification and power factor
correction (PFC), ensuring that grid power quality standards
are met. The second stage is a galvanic isolated DC-DC
converter that provides the battery with the requested charging
voltage and current. Off-board DC chargers bypass the OBC
and connect directly to the HV battery, as depicted in Fig. 2(a)
[4], [7].
Bidirectional chargers grant EV owners access to the large
battery capacity by expanding the functionality of an electric
vehicle beyond transportation. Charging modes can be cat-
egorised as uncoordinated and coordinated charging modes.
In uncoordinated charging, the charging process is initiated
immediately upon plugging the car in or after a user-adjustable
time delay. Conversely, coordinated charging controls and
schedules the charging to optimise pre-defined objectives, such
as optimal grid utilisation, minimal cost, or minimal energy
losses. This is also referred to as smart charging and relies
on an extra degree of metering and communication with the
EV [8]. Many smart charging algorithms are proposed in the
literature and implemented in charging stations [9]–[13]. As
a subset of coordinated charging, bidirectional charging is
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 2

Development Power Level Semiconductors Battery

Level-1 Si
Motor Inverter
Academia 400V
On-Board Charger SiC Battery
EMI Filter AC/DC DC/DC LV Battery Level-2
HV Battery
Industry
LV DC/DC 800V
GaN
EVs Level-3 Battery

Fig. 3. Sankey diagram representation of the surveyed literature, demon-

DC Fast strating the interconnections among several categorisations of the on-board
1Φ 3Φ 3Φ Charger chargers, considering their development (by academia, industry, or EV man-
ufacturers), power levels, semiconductor materials, and battery voltages.
(a)

Meanwhile, frequent charging and discharging of the EV relies

on high-efficiency conversion to avoid excessive power losses.
Furthermore, bidirectional converter topologies often imply the
use of extra components or different component selections,
for instance, favouring transistors over unidirectional diodes.
Thus, the design of cost-competitive bidirectional chargers is
paramount to ensure their adoption in the EV market.
For these reasons, the development of bidirectional on-board
chargers is growing rapidly in both industry and academic
research. This is quantified in Fig. 1, showing the growth of
bidirectional OBC-related publications in IEEE Xplore, MDPI
and Springer between inception and June 19th, 2023. To meet
the strict demands of governmental policies and the automo-
tive industry, on-board chargers will keep evolving towards
(b) higher power density, higher efficiency, lower cost, and better
EMI Filter reliability. This paper aims to support these developments
DC/DC through a comprehensive analysis of the current state-of-the-
56 mm

Converter
AC/DC 27
Converter 0m
m publications from leading research institutions and companies,
m 3) snowballing or reverse-citation-searching all the references
m
0 of these publications. In total, over 500 papers are reviewed
11
(c)
Fig. 2. (a) EV powertrain architecture displaying the main on-board charger
conversion stages, direct off-board charging to the high-voltage (HV) battery,
low-voltage (LV) battery charger, inverter, and motor systems. (b) Unidirec-
tional 11 kW Audi e-tron and Porsche Taycan (2020) on-board charger tear-
down of commercial EVs. (c) Bidirectional 6.6 kW on-board charger 3D
render of [16], highlighting the EMI filter and two conversion stages.
intriguing for its ability to transform EVs from transportation
tools into flexible energy storage units [14], [15].
While a trend towards bidirectional chargers is evident in
the EV market [4], this poses new challenges on the on-board
charger design. The automotive industry is notoriously strict
when it comes to size, weight, and packaging requirements.
art (SOA), the implemented strategies that lead to these results,
and future trends in the development of electric vehicle on-
board chargers.
This literature review consists of three approaches: 1) a
systematic search for all, to the knowledge of the authors, pub-
lications pertaining to bidirectional on-board chargers based
on search strings, 2) an exhaustive search for all relevant
to identify the state-of-the-art on-board chargers, promising
innovations, key trends, and future research opportunities in
power electronics for OBCs. Data collection is performed until
June 19th, 2023, to collect all relevant resources to the best
of the authors’ knowledge. This paper is accompanied by a
CSV record of all relevant references for future research and
contributions, see [17]. A visual overview of the included
literature is presented in Fig. 3, illustrating where the OBCs are
developed (in academia, industry, or by OEM electric vehicle
manufacturers), the related power levels, semiconductor mate-
rials, and battery voltage systems. Each category’s connecting
lines and size represent the number of respective publications.
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure has been subjected
to several reviews. In [18], global trends in high power on-
board chargers were identified. Yet, its inclusion criterion
of only ≥7.4 kW prototypes excludes many state-of-the-art
chargers, especially as 6.6 kW chargers are popular both in
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 3

industry and academia. Besides, many reviewed topologies are TABLE I

unidirectional. Broad overviews of EV charging infrastructure AVAILABILITY OF BIDIRECTIONAL CHARGING FEATURES IN THE
CURRENTLY EV MARKET [25].
are delivered in [19], [20], yet these works do not emphasise
nor extensively detail bidirectional on-board chargers and their Model Year Connector Bidirectional
dedicated power electronic design. In [21], a select number of Nissan Leaf 2013 CHAdeMO V2G, V2H ∗
Hyundai Ioniq 5 2021 CHAdeMO/CCS V2L (3.6kW)
bidirectional on-board chargers are discussed, limited to re- Kia EV6 2021 CCS V2L (3.6kW)
porting the power density of four industrial OBCs. In contrast, Genesis GV60 2022 CCS V2L (3.6kW)
this paper provides power density data of over 50 OBCs. Be- BYD Atto 3 2022 CCS V2L (2.2kW)
Ford F150 Lightning 2022 CCS V2H, V2L (9.6kW)
sides, academic developments are not described in detail, while MG ZS EV 2022 CCS V2L (2.2kW)
the current state-of-the-art has evolved significantly. Integrated Sono Sion 2023 CCS V2L (3.7kW)
on-board chargers with the electric machine are analysed in GMC Hummer EV 2024 CCS V2L, V2V (6kW)
∗ Only through DC charging, no V2X-compatible hardware is installed.
[22] focusing on the impact on the powertrain, while [23]
is dedicated to 800 V powertrains and their related benefits,
challenges, and trends. Control details for all topologies extend 2 20
Uncoord. charging load
V2G charging load

Total power demand (GW)

beyond this review’s scope; further specifics can be found in
the referenced articles.
Consequently, a comprehensive review encapsulating the
current state-of-the-art bidirectional on-board chargers is ab-
sent. This paper seeks to address this gap and review all rele-
vant publications on bidirectional on-board chargers, focusing
on power electronics design that targets high power density
and efficiency. Furthermore, its contributions include quan-
tified comparisons of all publications while identifying the
implemented strategies for achieving state-of-the-art perfor-
mance. The paper is, therefore, structured as follows: Section
II introduces the main bidirectional charging modes, their op-
erating principle, and related challenges. Section III discusses
the design considerations for on-board chargers, such as power
levels, topologies, and standards, and contextualises these in
the current and future EV market. Section IV then gives a
comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art bidirectional
on-board chargers, DC-DC converters, and AC-DC converters.
Topologies, specifications, and key innovations are discussed.
Based on the SOA and statistical analyses, Section V then
identifies trends, challenges and future research opportunities
for these developments. Finally, Section VI offers a conclusion
and summary.
II. B IDIRECTIONAL EV C HARGING M ODES
Overall, bidirectional smart charging modes are referred
to as vehicle-to-X (V2X) charging [24]. Table I provides an
overview of V2X-capable EVs on the market. This number is
increasing, and most prominent EV manufacturers now include
this feature in their roadmaps [5].
1) Vehicle-to-Load (V2L): V2L enables the use of the EV
battery to power various electric devices. Typically, a standard
AC socket is made available either at a fixed location inside
the vehicle or using an adapter for the charging port. This
functionality is beneficial in diverse practical cases, such
as power outages or at remote locations like campsites or
construction sites. Currently, multiple vehicles on the market
offer V2L-powered AC sockets, such as the Hyundai Ioniq 5
and the Ford F150 Lightning [25]–[27].
2) Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V): V2V specifically applies to the
energy exchange between vehicles in a local grid. This form of
charging can be particularly beneficial when an EV runs out of
charge and will help alleviate range anxiety among EV owners.
EV power demand (GW)
Total load
1.5 15
1 C 10
0.5 B 5
A
0 0
V2G
-0.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Time of day (h)
Fig. 4. EV charging load with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) versus uncoordinated
charging relative to the total load based on projections for the Belgian grid in
2030 [6], featuring (A) charging at low demand, (B) charging with renewable
energy, and (C) discharging during peak demand.
Furthermore, V2V increases the resilience of the electric
vehicle fleet, especially where access to charging infrastructure
is limited. It does, however, bring about challenges regarding
the payment between individuals and security protocols as
it potentially exposes the vehicle’s systems to unauthorized
access or malware [15], [28], [29].
3) Vehicle-to-Home (V2H): V2H connects the vehicle to
a local home grid or building (V2B). Here, it can be in-
terconnected with other assets like solar panels, loads, and
stationary energy storage. This way, V2H allows homeowners
to leverage this flexible energy storage to reduce the cost and
CO2 emissions related to their electricity use. Specifically,
they can increase their self-sufficiency and self-consumption,
i.e. lowering their demand for grid energy while utilising
more of their self-generated energy. Despite its potential, the
implementation of V2H faces several challenges, including
uncertainties regarding battery degradation, additional control
systems, and region-dependent regulations [15], [30].
4) Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G): V2G connects the vehicle to the
electric grid as a flexible storage unit. Thus, it enables the
exploitation of the untapped energy capacity of the growing
EV fleet. In doing so, EVs can support the grid through ancil-
lary services such as system balancing, peak shaving, and fre-
quency regulation. This increases the resilience and stability of
the electric grid, which is especially important as the share of
intermittent, unpredictable, and weather-dependent renewable
energy sources increases [15]. However, implementing V2G
requires complex energy management and demand response
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
TABLE II
P OWER LEVELS CATEGORIES OF EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE .
Power Levels Charging Time Charging Current
Category
[kW] @60kWh [h] @400V [A]
Level-1 ≤ 3.7 ≥ 16.2 ≤ 9.3
Level-2 3.7 ∼ 22 16.2 ∼ 2.7 9.25 ∼ 55
Level-3 AC 22 ∼ 43.5 2.7 ∼ 1.4 55 ∼ 108.8
Level-3 DC ≤ 350 ≥ 0.24 ∗ ≤ 875 ∗
∗ Indication, fast charging depends on the battery and charger characteristics.
mechanisms based on forecasts and real-time grid information.
Furthermore, a reliable battery management system (BMS) is
essential, including accurate state-of-charge predictions [31].
An example case for V2G is shown in Fig. 4, which shows
the possible impact of V2G charging on the Belgian electricity
demand in 2030, compared to uncoordinated charging [6].
It indicates how EVs can be smart charged at night at low
demand (arrow A), i.e., valley-filling, or during the day when
energy predominantly comes from renewable sources (arrow
B). When electricity demand and prices peak in the evening,
the EV can discharge some of its surplus energy (arrow C)
[31].
However, V2G faces critical challenges that are yet to be
addressed. The main obstacles include uncertainties about the
impact on battery degradation, cyber security threats related
to the large-scale and decentralised interconnection of EVs,
complex pricing mechanisms, and the required policy frame-
works. Nevertheless, V2G can offer greater grid stability to
enable the increase of renewable energy sources in the energy
mix and more grid resilience to support the ongoing growth
of the EV fleet [6], [15], [30]–[32].
III. BACKGROUND AND D ESIGN C ONSIDERATIONS
This section establishes the essential design considerations
for bidirectional on-board chargers. The key constraints and
specifications of present and future EV chargers are described,
providing the necessary background in this research area.
Starting from a high level, architectures and topologies are
discussed, followed by power and voltage levels, component
considerations, relevant key performance indicators (KPIs),
and applicable standards.
A. Power Levels
With the growing average battery capacity in electric vehi-
cles, charging powers have increased accordingly to maintain
reasonable charging times. While the average EV battery
capacity was 43 kWh in 2021, four out of the five most sold
EVs in Europe during 2022 already offered >60 kWh batteries
[25], [33], [34]. Thus, higher charging powers are necessary to
keep the charging times constant or achieve even faster times,
making EVs more competitive compared to fuel cars [35].
Charging powers are categorised as levels 1 to 3. Level-
1 charging is done at powers up to 3.7 kW using a 1ϕ
AC connection [36]. While level-1 chargers are low cost, the
power is typically insufficient for overnight charging of EVs.
Therefore, most EVs on the market offer level-2 charging,
4
100
90
Ef�iciency (%)
80
Low Ef�iciency
Smart Charging
70
3.3kW OnSemi OBC (TND6327D)
60
6.6kW Texas Instr. OBC (PMP22650)
11kW In�ineon OBC (DAB11KIZSICSYS)
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Power (kW)
Fig. 5. On-board charger efficiencies as a function of the output power for
three commercially available OBCs of varying rated powers [16], [45], [46].
with power levels of 3.7 to 22 kW [37], [38]. The selected
power largely relies on the trade-off between the charging time
and the converters’ size and cost. With level-2 charging, most
commercial EVs can facilitate a full overnight charge. Level-
2 comprises both 1ϕ and 3ϕ grid connections, the former for
up to 7 kW of power. At present, 6.6 kW is widely used,
which charges a 60 kWh battery from 20 to 80% in 5.5 hours.
As illustrated in Table III, most higher-end EVs with larger
battery capacities offer 11 kW charging [25]. Further optional
upgrades to 22 kW OBCs are available, for instance, in the
Porsche Taycan and Audi e-Tron GT [25]. Finally, level-3
charging is subdivided into level-3 AC or DC charging. Level-
3 AC charging covers powers of 22 to 43.5 kW using a 3ϕ AC
voltage. The Renault Zoe Q210 offered a 43 kW OBC until
2017, after which it was discontinued due to its high cost and
volume. Furthermore, the grid connection, fuses, and auxiliary
charging infrastructure need to match these increasing powers,
often limiting the maximum current. Notably, many EVs limit
the minimum charging current to 6 A in compliance with the
IEC 61851-1 standard. Level-3 DC charging powers can be
significantly higher, up to 350 kW in the CCS standard. Such
DC fast chargers use off-board converters that connect directly
to the battery, omitting the OBC (see Fig. 2(a)). Fast and rapid
charging is widely covered in the literature [39]–[44] and is
considered outside the scope of this paper.
The operating power’s influence on the charging efficiency
is a critical attribute of the OBC. However, power converters
are typically designed to be most efficient at their rated power.
Therefore, reduced efficiency is often observed at low power,
as illustrated in Fig. 5 [47], [48]. Here, the efficiency curves for
three commercially available on-board chargers are compared
[16], [45], [46]. As smart charging typically involves extended
periods of low-power charging, the converter’s design must
adequately factor in the light-load behaviour.
B. Voltage Levels
Currently, most electric vehicles use a 400 V battery system,
which has a voltage in the 150∼450 V range, depending on the
state-of-charge of the cells. However, since the introduction
of the Porsche Taycan in 2019, 800 V powertrains have
emerged [49], [50]. In 800 V systems, the voltage range
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
is around 650∼920 V, determined by the battery chemistry.
Importantly, this sets the requirements for the entire high-
voltage powertrain, including the OBC, low-voltage DC-DC
converter, electric motor, and inverter (see Fig. 2(a)).
A standout characteristic of 800 V batteries is its reduction
of all related DC charging currents. By reducing the currents
in the DC charging process, higher powers become achiev-
able, given that currents are the present bottlenecks. This is
particularly relevant in fast DC chargers such as the Megawatt
Charging System, which require up to 3 kA [51]. Given that
the weight constraints of the cables and connectors currently
limit the achievable DC charging power, DC charging drives
the momentum towards high-voltage powertrains. Even though
the AC charging currents, governed by the grid voltage, remain
unaffected by the battery voltage, the OBC needs to follow
the trend to charge the high-voltage batteries. Furthermore,
the quadratic relationship between copper losses and current
implies a drastic reduction of the associated copper losses.
Besides these technical advantages, a long-term cost reduction
and higher sustainability are expected benefits of 800 V
systems, as less copper is required [18], [40], [50], [52].
While the prospect of 800 V batteries holds great promise,
the associated challenges need to be addressed. The catalogue
of 400 V components is well established, whereas 800 V
compatible components lack maturity. This is particularly true
for automotive-qualified and semiconductor components [18].
Whilst 1.2 kV SiC components have been on the market for
years and 1.2 kV GaN devices are in development, the higher
voltages inherently imply higher ON resistances (Rdson ) [50],
[52]. Alternative, multi-level topologies are needed, increasing
the component count. Meanwhile, isolation requirements are
naturally more challenging, and the increased voltage on the
high-frequency (HF) transformers results in increased flux
densities and losses [52].
In response to the need for faster charging times, 800
V powertrains are becoming more prevalent in commercial
EVs. Currently, commercially available 800 V powertrains
include the Porsche Taycan, Lucid Air Dream, Audi e-tron
GT, Maserati GranTurismo Folgore, Lotus Eletre, and BYD
Seal alongside all other BYD models on the e-platform 3.0
[25]. In fact, the European Union is already pushing towards
1200 V powertrains, for instance, in the 2ZERO Partnership
[53]. This again drives the entire powertrain, including the
OBC, to follow this trend.
C. Converter Architectures
In essence, the on-board charger is an isolated AC-DC
converter. However, this can be achieved using various system
architectures, categorised in this section.
1) Single-Stage versus Two-Stage Architectures: On-board
chargers can be differentiated into single-stage or two-stage
systems according to the number of conversion stages. An
example of each is provided in Fig. 6. Single-stage OBCs
convert the grid AC voltage to the required DC voltage
level in a single step, merging functionalities of the AC-
DC and DC-DC converters. This can lead to more compact
and cost-efficient solutions by eliminating the need for bulky
5
AC/DC Stage DC/DC Stage
EMI Filter
Iac
Vbat
Vac Vdc Vtx
(a)
AC/DC Stage
EMI Filter
Iac
Vac Vbat
Vtx
(b)
Fig. 6. (a) Two-stage converter converting mains AC voltage and current to a
DC-link voltage, regulated by the isolated DC-DC stage to the battery voltage
and current. (b) Single-stage converter, which directly converts the AC mains
to a high-frequency voltage, rectified to the required battery voltage.
and potentially unreliable DC-link capacitors. However, the
complexity of the design and control typically pays a toll. On
the other hand, two-stage OBCs separate these two functions,
simplifying the design and control but potentially resulting in
increased size, cost, and power loss. These trade-offs will be
addressed in the subsequent sections of this paper.
2) Integrated versus Non-Integrated Architectures: The in-
tegration of powertrain systems refers to either mechanical
integration, whereby the housings are combined or assembled
onto each other, or functional integration, by which compo-
nents and functions are shared among systems. Conventional
integration strategies relate to the combination of power con-
verters, such as the traction inverter or the low-voltage DC-DC
converter for auxiliary loads. This approach can lead to better
utilization of the components and increased overall system
efficiency. Nevertheless, it also adds complexity to the thermal
management. On the other hand, non-integrated architectures
keep the OBC independent, simplifying the design at the
expense of potential redundancy of components. While this
paper discusses the integration with power electronic systems,
the possible integration with motor windings is considered
outside the scope of this review, as it requires a holistic design
for a specific electric motor. This is extensively reviewed in
[18], [22], [54].
3) Modular Converter Architectures: OBCs can be de-
signed following a modular approach, splitting the converter
into parallel modules that can be designed or controlled
independently. A modular approach can introduce redundancy
to improve the system’s reliability. It also allows scalabil-
ity in power and better thermal management as the heat
is distributed across multiple modules. Importantly, it also
allows manufacturers to use their designs in different vehicle
models. Hence, modularity is mostly seen in industrial OBCs.
Modular converters also stand out as a versatile solution
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 6

S1 S3 S5 S7
Lk Tx
Vdc Vbat
EMI AC DC
Vac Vdc
Filter DC DC
S2 S4 S6 S8

(a)
(a)

S1 S3 S5 S7
AC DC Crp Crs
Vac EMI Vdc
Lrp Tx Lrs
Vdc Vbat
Filter DC DC

(b) S2 S4 S6 S8

(b)
DC/HFAC HFAC/DC Lrp1 Lrs1
EMI AC Tx1 S7
Vac Vdc S1 S3 S5 S9 S11
Filter DC Crp1 Crs1

Lrp2 Tx2 Lrs2

(c) Vdc Vbat
Crp2 Crs2

DC/HFAC HFAC/DC Lrp3 Tx3 Lrs3

EMI AC
Vac Vdc S2 S4 S6 S10 S12
Filter Crp3 Crs3
DC S8
(d) (c)

Fig. 7. Modular converter approaches: (a) fully modular OBC, (b) modular Fig. 8. Isolated DC-DC converter topologies for two-stage on-board charg-
power conversion stage, (c) multi-winding transformer with modular high- ers, including (a) dual active bridge converter, (b) 1-phase CLLC resonant
frequency rectification stages, (d) Modular transformers using multiple cores. converter, (c) 3-phase CLLC resonant converter.

for manufacturers to meet the varied demands, standards,
and regulations of EV chargers. One such challenge is the
adaptability to different input voltages. Globally, 1ϕ grids are
commonly available but offer limited charging power. Thus,
3ϕ charging infrastructure is increasingly used, especially
in Europe, where most houses have a 3ϕ grid connection.
For international OEMs, universal charger designs that align
with various standards and grid connections can be profitable.
However, with the added flexibility also comes the task of
controlling various power processing paths and the potential
increase of the system’s cost and size.
As can be seen in Fig. 7, modularity can be implemented in
various parts of the on-board charger. Firstly, modularity can
be introduced over the entire power conversion, as in Fig. 7(a)
or one of the power stages, shown in Fig. 7(b). As such, higher
power ratings can be obtained using lower power- and current-
rating components. Alternatively, a multi-winding transformer
can be implemented with several high-frequency AC (HFAC)
rectification stages, illustrated in Fig. 7(c). Finally, one can
divide the HF transformer, indicated in Fig. 7(d). Examples of
each type will be discussed in this paper.
D. Converter Topologies
As electric vehicle chargers are an emerging subject in
power electronics research, certain converter topologies are
proven to be well-suited for the specific requirements of power
density, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneously, the
topologies must facilitate demanding and diverse conditions
such as wide-voltage and -load operation, high power levels,
modularity, safety, and reliability. Bidirectional topologies
differ from their unidirectional counterparts in several aspects.
Diodes are substituted by transistors along with their gate
driver circuits. Furthermore, bidirectional topologies often
demand additional components and control strategies to enable
the reverse power flow.
1) DC-DC Converter Topologies: The DC-DC converter
has the vital role of providing galvanic isolation and regu-
lating the power to meet the requirements of the battery’s
charging profile. First introduced in [47], [55], the dual-active
bridge (DAB) converter has become a cornerstone of high-
frequency isolated DC-DC converters. Its circuit is presented
in Fig. 8(a), with an optional additional series inductor to
increase the transformer’s leakage inductance. The bridges
are operated with a relative phase shift, which governs the
transmitted power. The voltage difference is applied to the
series inductance Lk at each moment, which serves as energy
storage to charge and discharge the parasitic capacitance of the
switches, enabling zero voltage switching (ZVS). However, the
ZVS range is limited at light loads, causing the efficiency to
drop significantly. Various models and control strategies have
been suggested to extend the ZVS range and minimise the
total losses [56]–[60].
While LLC resonant converters can be found in many com-
mercial OBCs, their asymmetrical tank is unfit for bidirectional
chargers. Its bidirectional counterpart is the CLLC resonant
converter, which can be designed and operated similarly. Con-
trary to the DAB, the CLLC operates at a variable switching
frequency, which regulates the voltage gain of the resonant
tank. Soft switching can be achieved by the energy stored
in the transformer’s magnetising inductance as it charges and
discharges the parasitic capacitance of the switches. The CLLC
resonant converter can inherently achieve ZVS in the entire
load range without the efficiency decrease of a DAB converter.
However, wide-voltage ranges require operation far from the
resonant frequency, whereby losses will increase [61]–[63].
Both the DAB and CLLC resonant converters can be im-
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 7

S1 S3 S1 S3 S5 S7 S1 S5 S9
Lg Lg S13 S16
Vac Vac
Vdc Vdc S2 S6 S10 Lk
Lg Tx
Vac Cdc Vbat

S2 S4 S2 S4 S6 S8
S3 S7 S11
S14 S17
(a) (b)
S4 S8 S12
S1 S3 S5 S1 S3 S5
(a)
Lg Vac Lg
Vac Vdc
Vdc
S1 S3 S5 S7 S9
Lg1 Tx
S2 S4 S6 Vac Vbat
S2 S4 S6 Cdc
Lg2

(c) (d)
S2 S4 S6 Cf S8 S10

Fig. 9. AC-DC PFC converter topologies for two-stage on-board chargers, (b)
including (a) totem-pole PFC, (b) 3-channel interleaved totem-pole PFC, (c)
2-channel interleaved totem-pole PFC, (d) 3ϕ boost PFC.
Fig. 10. Isolated single-stage topologies for on-board chargers, (a) matrix-
type DAB 3ϕ rectifier (IMDAB3R), (b) interleaved boost DAB converter.

plemented as 1-phase or 3-phase converters, as exemplified

5
in Fig. 8(c). A multi-phase configuration can significantly in-
Si

Material properties
crease the power handling capability, reduce the current ripple 4 SiC
and current stress on components, minimise EMI filters by GaN
3
reducing harmonic content, and potentially increase the overall
2
efficiency [55]. Naturally, these benefits must be balanced
with the additional need for components, related costs, and 1
a potential increase in size. 0
gap ) wn on al ift
2) AC-DC Converter Topologies: Most bidirectional on-
do ) ctr y erm y Dr ty
nd Ele bilit )
Ba (eV eak V/cm Th tivit ) oci
board chargers implement some variation of the bridgeless r
B M
( mo /V⋅s c
du m⋅K vel m/s)
c
totem-pole (TP) boost AC-DC converter. It provides the �ie
ld ² con W/c (10
7
(cm (
mandatory power factor correction for the converter to be
connected to the grid. The elementary configuration shown Fig. 11. Comparison of the key material properties of Si, SiC, and GaN.
in Fig. 9(a) shows its two switching legs, a fast-switching
leg operating as a boost converter switching cell and a slow-
switching leg operating at grid frequency, responsible for ics. These WBG materials, primarily silicon carbide (SiC) and
the rectification [16]. Illustrated in Fig. 9(b) and Fig. 9(c), gallium nitride (GaN), offer superior properties compared to
2-channel and 3-channel interleaved totem-pole PFCs can conventional silicon, as shown in Fig. 11. Therefore, they are
further improve the efficiency, reduce the output voltage ripple, increasingly adopted in power electronic applications, notably
and distribute the power among more switching cells. Here, in the automotive sector. On the one hand, SiC MOSFETs are
WBG devices are typically required for their fast recovery used in high-power converters due to their superior breakdown
characteristics, critical at the zero crossings of the AC voltage. voltage and thermal conductivity. For instance, they can be
Various 3ϕ PFC topologies are also adopted, such as the 3ϕ used in 800 V battery systems without the need for multilevel
boost PFC topology illustrated in Fig. 9(d), as detailed in [64]. topologies, as breakdown voltage ratings between 600∼1700
3) Single-Stage Converter Topologies: Single-stage con- V are commercially available. Furthermore, they are easier
verter topologies vary a lot in topologies, as there are many to drive compared to GaN devices [67], [68]. On the other
ways to combine the PFC, isolation, and power regulation of hand, GaN switches are widely researched for their high
the OBC. Fig. 10 shows two examples: the isolated matrix- electron mobility and fast reverse recovery, making them
type DAB 3-phase rectifier (IMDAB3R) and the interleaved optimal for high-frequency and compact power converters
totem-pole boost DAB converter. These are discussed in detail with miniaturised passive components [21], [67], [69]. On-
in section IV-B. Single-stage converter design implies many board chargers are located in the cross-section of the SiC and
technical challenges, including the complexity of their control GaN application field, whereby both are considered potential
methods, which often rely on intricate four-quadrant control. candidates, albeit each with a specific set of merits [70].
Furthermore, optimising the converter for wide operating con- WBG devices have already made their mark in the EV
ditions is more difficult with only a single stage. Moreover, the market as numerous OEMs, such as Tesla, use SiC MOSFETs
double-line frequency ripple proves difficult to control without for their traction inverters. Meanwhile, the Lucid Air Dream
an energy storage unit to absorb it [65], [66]. Edition is the first and only EV to date to adopt WBG devices
in the on-board charger [71]. Their potential in the automotive
E. Switching Devices industry, especially in power electronics, remains an area of
The introduction of wide bandgap (WBG) semiconductor active research. Yet, while it is predicted that WBG devices
devices offers breakthrough advancements in power electron- will become more common [18], silicon remains the industry
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
Fig. 12. Magnetic components in the commercial OBC of an Audi e-tron
and Porsche Taycan (2020) based on a tear-down analysis.
standard and should not be overlooked, particularly given the
persistent research into improving the performance of Si-based
devices. In fact, Tesla announced its plans to reduce the use
of SiC by 75% [72].
F. Magnetic Components
In Fig. 12, the transformers of the commercial Audi e-tron
on-board charger are highlighted, which account for a third of
the size of the OBC. This aligns with the general finding that
magnetic components are often the main contributor to the
size, weight, and cost of modern on-board chargers. While
high-frequency WBG devices allow for the design of smaller
passive components, this downsizing is typically thermally
limited by the increased magnetic losses that occur at high
frequencies. Consequently, the heat from the winding and
magnetic core losses must be extracted; otherwise, it will
limit the converter’s power [73], [74]. In the on-board charger,
this applies mainly to the PFC boost inductors in the AC-DC
stage, the high-frequency transformer in the isolated DC-DC
converter, and other inductors in the EMI filter and resonant
tank [75].
Magnetic design has been an active field of research for
decades, and WBG devices have emphasised the challenges
of high-frequency magnetics even further. To reduce winding
losses, litz and foil windings have traditionally been used.
The thin cross-sectional areas alleviate skin-effect losses, while
twisted parallel strands in litz wire reduce the proximity effect
[76]–[79]. However, as operating frequencies reach several
hundreds of kHz and the power of OBCs increases, even
litz wire losses become prominent. Planar magnetic devices
using PCB windings and flat magnetic cores offer low winding
losses due to the minute thickness of the copper tracks and the
possibility of introducing various interleaving methods. In ad-
dition, PCB windings are easy to manufacture, cost-effective,
and have slim tolerances compared to litz windings. Planar
magnetics also offer highly controllable parasitic components
and increased heat dissipation due to their high surface-to-
volume ratio [80], [81]. In conclusion, well-designed high-
frequency magnetic components are paramount for compact
8
and efficient on-board chargers that balance the key trade-
offs between core and winding losses, and between leakage
inductance and interwinding capacitance [52], [75], [82]–[86].
G. Thermal Management
Thermal management is a critical aspect in the design of
compact on-board chargers. Proper cooling allows the compo-
nents to operate in acceptable temperature ranges. This impacts
their functionalities, lifetime, and safety. Furthermore, high
power density converters are only possible if the components’
heat is extracted sufficiently [87]. Hence, accurate estimations
of power losses in the components, coupled with reliable
modelling of thermal resistances, are vital steps in converter
design. In on-board chargers, both air cooling and liquid
cooling are valid options. Air cooling relies on convective
heat transfer between a hot component surface and ambient
air, often aided by heat sinks and/or forced airflow from fans.
While air cooling is adequate for level-1 chargers, level-2
chargers, with higher heat outputs, generally necessitate liquid
cooling [87], [88]. In liquid cooling, the coolant is in direct or
indirect contact with the device. Many coolants are available,
mainly based on water or oil [87], [88].
H. Target KPIs
In power electronics design, various key performance in-
dicators (KPIs) can be targeted; this is no different in the
field of EV chargers. Meanwhile, every designer will create
a different solution to a given set of requirements. Therefore,
clearly defining the targets, requirements, and constraints is
a pivotal starting point. Common targets that currently drive
research and development of on-board chargers are therefore
listed: 1) High power density [kW/l, W/in³]: to comply with
the strict packaging limitations of the automotive industry,
while delivering fast charging times. 2) High efficiency [%]:
to ensure minimal energy losses, which translates to cheaper
charging and improved thermal behaviour. 3) Bidirectional
capability: to make a future-proof solution aligned with most
of the automotive industry’s road maps. 4) Flexibility: to allow
wide ranges of operating conditions such as battery voltages,
output power, and input voltages. 5) Modularity: to enable the
adaptation of the design for various applications, e.g., to in-
crease the power level with multiple modules. 6) Reliability: to
meet the demanding reliability requirements of the automotive
industry. 7) Safety: to comply with stringent safety standards
in electric vehicles. 8) Sustainability: to design converters
with a reduced carbon footprint through the minimal use of
components and conscious material selection, and considering
sustainable production processes and end-of-life management.
9) Cost density [ C/kW]: to make industrial products, whereby
cost becomes the driving factor of development. Table III
shows numerous on-board chargers in electric vehicle models
on the market with their respective power density-related
properties. Notably, achieving stringent efficiency and power
density targets can be more demanding with bidirectional
chargers, given the possible need for more expensive or
additional components. The European Commission’s 2ZERO
 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 9

TABLE III
O N - BOARD CHARGER SPECIFICATIONS OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE ELECTRIC VEHICLES [25], [91], [92].

Dimensions Volumetric Power Gravimetric Power

Model Year Power [kW] Mass [kg] Volume [litre]
[mm3 ] Density [kW/l] Density [kW/kg]
Chevy Volt 2015 3.3 9.3 330x280x130 12.0 0.3 0.4
Tesla Model S 2016 10 16 500x300x100 15.0 0.7 0.6
Renault Zoe 2019 22 10.8 355x245x180 15.6 1.4 2.0
Audi e-tron 2020 11 8.9 295x200x100 5.9 1.2 1.9
Porsche Taycan 2020 11 8.9 295x200x100 5.9 1.2 1.9
Tesla Model X 2021 11 - 566x360x90 18.3 0.6 -
Volkswagen ID.4 2021 11 8.7 470x315x102 15.1 0.7 1.3
Lucid Air Dream Edition 2022 19.2 21.4 - - - 0.9

TABLE IV Council (IEC), Guobiao Standards (GB), Underwriters Lab-

O N - BOARD CHARGER TARGET SPECIFICATIONS FOR 2025 ACCORDING TO oratories (UL), and International Organisation for Standard-
[89], [90] (PD: POWER DENSITY ).
ization (ISO), each contributing to regional and international
Ref. EU 2ZERO (2025) US Drive (2025) norms [18], [21], [93].
KPI
(2020) Rel. Abs. Rel. Abs. For connector interfaces, the IEC 62196, SAE J1772,
Cost [ C/kW] 50 −20% 40 −40% 30
Efficiency [%] 97 +20% 97.8 +33% 98
CHAdeMO, and GB/T 20234 standards predominate in Eu-
Vol. PD [kW/l] 3.5 - - +31% 4.6 rope, the US, Japan, and China, respectively. The North
Grav. PD [kW/kg] 3 - - +33% 4 American Charging Standard (NACS) has been developed and
implemented globally (except in Europe) by Tesla. While
EUROPE GLOBAL
the CCS Combo and NACS plugs combine an AC and DC
and global
USA JAPAN CHINA excl. EU
SAE J1772 Type 1
connection, CHAdeMO is exclusive to DC charging, and GB/T
relies on different plugs. Lastly, the novel Megawatt Charging
IEC 62196 Type 2 L1 N SAE J1772 Type 1 GB/T 20234-2 NACS (Tesla) Standard (MCS) is planned for implementation in 2024 [51],
AC CHARGING

CP PP PP CP CC CP

N PE L1
PE L1 N
L1 PE N
L1 N [94]–[96].
L3 L2
PP CP
L2 L3
Power quality standards stipulate harmonic injection limits
SAE J3068 Type 2 PE PP PE CP

CP PP
and are crucial for grid stability. Key standards are SAE J2894,
N PE L1 IEC 61000, and GB/T 14549 [18], [21], [97]. For instance,
L3 L2 total harmonic distortion (THD) should remain below 7% to
comply with the IEEE 519 standard. Safety and operational
CCS Combo 2 CCS Combo 1
standards are integral to EV charging infrastructure. Therefore,
CP PP CHAdeMO GB/T 20234-3 NACS (Tesla)
most OBCs require galvanic isolation for safety, adhering to
DC CHARGING

L1 N FG
N PE L1 S+ CC S-

L3 L2
PP CP
NC
DCP
SS
CC DC+ DC- UL 2202 and IEC 60950 standards. Bidirectional charging
PE DC+ DC-
DC+ DC- introduces new standardisation challenges as the vehicle is
PP A+ PE A- PP PE CP
CL CH to inject power into a (local) grid. When EVs function as
DC+ DC- DC+ DC- SS
a power source, their charger must comply with microgrid
inverter standards such as IEEE 1547, IEEE 2030, IEC 62109,
Fig. 13. Standardised or recommended charging connectors for AC and DC UL 1741, and NB/T 33015. As electric vehicles increasingly
charging by geographical region. serve as energy sources, the need for more stringent and well-
defined standards is expected to grow [18], [21], [97].
Partnership and the US Drive Partnership set targets for on-
IV. S TATE - OF - THE -A RT B IDIRECTIONAL OBC S
board charger KPIs towards 2025 in [89], [90]. These are
represented in Table IV. A. Methodology
A comprehensive state-of-the-art (SOA) review is con-
ducted based on three approaches: 1) state-of-the-art review
I. Relevant Standards of leading research groups and industrial players, 2) snow-
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure is governed by a balling or backwards citation searching the references in the
range of standards, varying in different regions of the world. state-of-the-art publications, and 3) systematic review in IEEE
These are implemented to ensure safety, interoperability, and Xplore, Springer and MDPI using search strings regarding
grid stability, among others. As public charging infrastructure bidirectional on-board chargers. Over 500 references were
is still limited, uniform standards such as the Combined evaluated based on the following inclusion criteria: A) features
Charging System (CCS) in Europe facilitate universal charging galvanic isolation, B) demonstrates an experimental setup
at any station. Other prominent standardisation bodies include on which measurements are performed (at least operating
the CHAdeMO Association (Japan), North American Charging efficiency), C) prototype at a rated power of ≥1 kW, D) allows
Standard (NACS), Nippon Electric Company (NEC), Society bidirectional operation, E) published in English language, F)
of Automotive Engineers (SAE), International Electrochemical published in a peer-reviewed paper or the manufacturer’s
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 10

7 Academic bidir. OBCs Seoul '22 [114]

Industry bidir. OBCs
OEM electric vehicle OBCs Seoul '22 [114]
Single-stage bidir. OBCs
6
Seoul '22 [114]
Seoul '20 [115]
5 Seoul '22 [113]
Power density (kW/l)

Michigan ‘18 [127]

4 Texas Instr ‘21 [16]
Flint '17 [133] Zurich '20 [98]
Toyota ‘14 [111] Nanjing '20 [124]
Toyota '20 [110] Virginia '22 [102] GaN Systems '18 [130]
Nanjing '18 [125]
SAL '22 [118]
3 Fraunhofer '17 [131]
Virginia '18 [103] In�ineon '20 [46]
Nanjing '19 [123] Wolfspeed '16 [101]
Virginia '17 [105] Flint '15 [134]
BRUSA '13 [138] Virginia '17 [104,107,108] Wolfspeed '19 [100]
2
Fraunhofer '14 [132] Eindhoven '16 [135]
OnSemi '20 [121] VALEO '16 [109]
Zurich '18 [99]
Tesla '16 [89] Aachen '20 [140] Delta '17 [137]
1 Tesla '20 [112]
Renault '13 [120] Chevrolet '17 [90] Nanjing '21 [122]
Myongji '11 [126]
Guimarães '18 [129] Delta-Q '17 [136] Aalborg '21 [139] Maryland '18 [128]
Seoul '17 [116, 117]
0
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Peak ef�iciency (%)

Fig. 14. State-of-the-art bidirectional on-board chargers based on reported peak efficiency and power density. Comparison between two-stage bidirectional
on-board chargers from academia and industry, single-stage bidirectional on-board chargers, and unidirectional on-board chargers from original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) of electric vehicles. [16], [46], [91], [92], [98]–[140]

Coupled Integrated
documentation. This yielded 145 included references, which Inductors Transformer
Cr1 Cr2
Lr1 Tx Lr2
were reviewed, categorised and quantified in detail. In [17], all Vac Vdc Cdc Vbat
references, as well as a summary of the included publications, Lg

are made available as BibTeX and CSV files respectively.

Fig. 14 provides a comprehensive overview of the current
state-of-the-art in bidirectional on-board chargers. The power
density and peak efficiency, as reported in each publication,
are provided for academia and industrial converter manufactur-
ers. Several commercially available electric vehicle OBCs by
OEMs such as Tesla and Renault are also included to contextu-
alise the state-of-the-art, albeit by unidirectional OBCs. Impor-
tant to note is that the analysis exclusively considers the peak
efficiency and power density as reported by the authors. There
may be discrepancies in test methods and what is included
in the size calculation. For instance, industrial products and
prototypes commonly prioritize reliability, whereas academic
prototypes sometimes exclude additional circuitry, complete
cooling systems, safety features, or connectors. Detailed pa-
rameters of the prototypes will be summarised in Table V and
Table VI of the closing part of this section.
B. State-of-the-Art Two-Stage OBCs
As can be derived from Fig. 14, the state-of-the-art bidirec-
tional on-board chargers comprise both academic and industry
developments. Below, a selection of state-of-the-art chargers
is discussed in detail with regard to their specifications and
innovative aspects.
Fig. 15. Two-stage bidirectional OBC by Texas Instruments: 2-channel
interleaved totem-pole PFC and CLLC resonant converter [16].
1) Texas Instruments [16]: A higher power density 6.6 kW
charger is presented in [16], with a power density of 3.8 kW/l
(62 W/in³), including EMI filters, safety fuses, and the cold
plate. This high density is achieved using GaN HEMTs with
integrated drivers in a bridgeless totem-pole PFC with CLLC
resonant converter topology, see Fig. 15. A 200∼800 kHz
range offers the required voltage regulation in the CLLC stage,
controlled by a digital signal processor (DSP). An integrated
transformer combines the series resonant inductors on primary
and secondary sides in a compact design. Liquid cooling
enables compact packing, with a cold plate connected to the
components with the most losses, like the transformer, PFC
boost inductor, and switches.
2) Virginia Tech (CPES) [103]–[108]: A 6.6 kW two-
stage on-board charger is proposed in [104] for 400 V battery
charging, depicted in Fig. 16(a). The first stage employs an
interleaved totem-pole PFC operated in critical conduction
mode (CRM) at over 300 kHz. The second stage is a CLLC
resonant converter operating at a nominal frequency of 500
kHz, interconnected by a high voltage variable DC link of
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
2× Integrated
Transformer
Coupled Cr1
Inductors Tx1
Lk11
Vac
Vdc
Lg Tx2
Lk21
Variable Vdc
(a)
Integrated Coupled Inductors Integrated Matrix
and Return Path Windings
500-850V
Transformer
Lg1
Cr11
Lg2
Vac Vdc
Cr21
LEMI
Cr31
(b)
Fig. 16. Two-stage bidirectional OBCs by Virginia Tech (CPES): (a) 2-
channel interleaved totem-pole PFC and 1P CLLC resonant converter with 2P
secondary side [103]–[108], (b) 4-channel interleaved totem-pole PFC with
return path windings and 3P CLLC resonant converter [102].
500∼850 V. A detailed comparison between a fixed 400 V DC
link, a variable 400∼450 V voltage, and a variable 500∼850 V
is conducted. Comparing their total efficiency, the high voltage
variable DC link offers not only the highest efficiency (up
to 1.3% higher) but also a flat curve for the entire voltage
range. Both SiC and GaN devices are used. The PFC and
primary side of the DC-DC converter use 1.2 kV SiC MOS-
FETs that can directly operate at the high DC voltage. The
secondary side of the DC-DC converter employs 650V GaN
E-Mode GaN-on-SiC devices. The paper introduces a simple
yet novel PI-based control strategy that ensures wide-voltage
efficient operation by following double the battery voltage
in the DC link. Besides, advanced magnetic structures also
downsize the converter. Although a comparison between litz
wire inductors and coupled PCB winding inductors indicated
a 30% loss reduction using litz wire, PCB windings are still
adopted for their manufacturability and the controllability of
their parasitics. Furthermore, a matrix transformer using PCB
windings and 3F36 ferrite material is implemented in the
CLLC converter. The series resonant inductors are integrated
into the transformer using EI-cores. The required leakage
inductance is tuned by designing a leakage path through the
centre leg, supported by FEA simulations.
The converter in [104] achieves a peak efficiency of 96.2%
at a moderate power density of 2.3 kW/l (38 W/in³). In [103],
the same converter is presented with an improved matrix
transformer using DMR51W ferrite, an improved winding
shape compared to [106], and a controlled leakage inductance
based on variations in the cross-sectional area of the centre
leg instead of the air gap. Combined with an improved circuit
layout, the converter increases the power density to 2.7 kW/l
(44 W/in³). Another variation of this OBC is presented in [105]
with a focus on the control strategy. Four control loops are
implemented for the following functions: 1) achieving CRM
operation and power factor correction, 2) voltage regulation,
3) eliminating 2nd harmonic output current ripple, and 4)
setting a predefined charging profile. In [107], [108], the first
11
prototypes of this converter are presented, including an in-
Cr12
Cdc1
depth comparison of the selection of switching devices.
Lk12
Vbat
3) Virginia Tech (CPES) [102]: A novel 11 kW on-board
charger is presented in [102] with a focus on the magnetic
Lk22
Cr22
Cdc2 design. Fig. 16(b) shows the two-stage topology supplied by
a 1ϕ AC grid connection, now charging an 800 V battery.
This is followed by a 4-channel interleaved totem-pole PFC
working in CRM. Return path windings are implemented as a
Tx1
balancing technique, offering CM noise reduction [141]. These
Lk11 Lk12 return path inductors are integrated with the coupled PFC
Cr12
Tx2 boost inductors to only need two cores instead of eight. The 3-
Cdc Vbat
Lk21 Lk22 phase CLLC resonant converter is selected for its high power
Cr22
Tx3 delivery, with a primary delta connection for its current sharing
Lk31 Lk32
Cr32 and fast startup control features. The boost-PFC provides a
variable high-voltage DC link equal to the battery voltage,
whereby the CLLC converter can always operate at its resonant
frequency to maximise the total efficiency. Both stages use 1.2
kV SiC devices for the high DC voltages, working at 350 kHz
in the PFC and 500 kHz in the DC-DC stage. Instead of three
discrete transformers, a matrix transformer that integrates them
reduces the size. Furthermore, all resonant inductors are also
integrated, whereby only one integrated matrix transformer is
needed for the entire DC-DC stage. Each stage can operate
at ≥98% efficiency, resulting in 96% peak efficiency for a
wide voltage range. Due to its compact magnetic components,
a high power density of 3.2 kW/l (52 W/in³) is obtained.
4) Silicon Austria Labs (SAL) [118], [119]: A 1ϕ 7 kW
high power density multiport converter is presented that meets
most automotive safety and EMI standards. Still, a power den-
sity of 3.1 kW/l (51 W/in³) is reached using liquid cooling (4
kW/l without cooling) at a peak efficiency of 97.5%. Further-
more, an 11 kW 3ϕ forced air-cooled version is built. Its power
density is reduced by 32%, demonstrating the potential impact
of liquid cooling on compactness. Notably, the converter
integrates the on-board charger, which charges the high voltage
(HV) battery, with the low-voltage DC (LVDC) charger that
powers 12 V auxiliary devices such as electric windows. As
shown in Fig. 17, the modular topology comprises one or three
1ϕ interleaved totem-pole PFCs and the primary side of a
CLLC resonant converter. The number of modules depends
on the power level. Through a multi-winding transformer, the
secondary side of the CLLC resonant converter connects to
the HV battery. Another secondary winding connects to the
LVDC converter via an additional interleaved buck stage. A
Monte Carlo parameter sweep is used to obtain the optimal
converter parameters based on analytical models and circuit
simulations. Furthermore, the implemented control reduces
the required DC-link capacitors [142]. Topside cooled SiC
MOSFETs are operated at 77 kHz, indicating that a proper
design can combine high power density and efficiency even at
≤100 kHz.
5) Nanjing [123]–[125]: A bidirectional LLC converter is
presented in [123], [124], which overcomes the challenges
of an LLC resonant converter in reverse operation where the
voltage gain of an LLC converter is below unity. To over-
come this constraint, a high-voltage DC link is implemented
that can be varied between 400∼700 V, complemented by
a voltage gain control strategy. Using a DSP-based digital
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
Multiwinding
AC/DC DC/DC
Transformer
3 Lg
2 Vac
1 Cr2
Lr2
Cr1
Lg Lr11
Vdc
Vac
OBC
Module
Cr3
Lr3
LVDC
Fig. 17. Two-stage bidirectional OBC by Silicon Austria Labs (SAL): modular
multiport CLLC resonant converter with integrated LVDC buck stage [118],
[119].
control method, the system addresses high dv/dt oscillations,
making it well-suited for high-voltage and high-frequency use.
Complementary SiC MOSFETs are used that can withstand
this high voltage while operating at 300 kHz. Compared to
the CLLC resonant converter, the topology omits a capacitor
and inductor in the resonant tank. However, it does use two
additional SiC MOSFETs in parallel in the totem-pole PFC.
The first prototype presented in [123] achieves a peak effi-
ciency of 95.6% with a size of 277mm×254mm×35mm (2.7
kW/l, 44 W/in³). The improved prototype in [124] measures
230mm×240mm×35mm, enhancing the power density by
26% owed to streamlined packaging, minimized magnetics,
and smaller DC link capacitors. In [125], another modified
bidirectional LLC converter is presented. It features a mode
switch relay that changes the operating mode between charg-
ing and discharging. In charging mode, the totem-pole PFC
is directly followed by the LLC resonant converter, mirroring
a typical unidirectional OBC architecture. However, switching
the relay to discharging mode introduces a boost stage between
the LLC and PFC stages. Essentially, the OBC becomes a
three-stage converter, where the boost converter can increase
the voltage to reach the required AC peak voltage. The
additional conversion stage penalises both the efficiency and
power density, yet it offers an innovative solution to create a
bidirectional LLC converter.
6) Wolfspeed [101]: The two-stage Wolfspeed OBC pre-
sented in [101] again comprises a totem-pole PFC and CLLC
resonant converter. The topology only differs from the afore-
mentioned Texas Instruments [16] OBC in that the PFC is not
interleaved. Instead of GaN HEMTs, it employs 650V SiC
MOSFETs in a TO-247 package with an Rdson of 60mΩ.
The totem-pole PFC is operated at 67 kHz, whereas the CLLC
converter operates between 148∼300 kHz, significantly lower
than the GaN HEMTs of [16]. It produces up to 6.6 kW at
a power density of 3.2 kW/l (52 W/in³) with an efficiency
of 97%. Furthermore, custom-tooled heatsinks connect to the
SiC MOSFETs and magnetics for forced air cooling. In [100],
the design is improved by adopting liquid cooling, TO-263
SiC MOSFETs, and a ceramic-embedded (AlN) inlay PCB
for increased isolation and thermal conductivity, albeit at a
higher cost. Lastly, 385∼680 V variable DC-link control is
12
Parallel SiC MOSFETs
Cr
Lr Tx
HV Vdc Cdc Vbat
Battery
VHV
LV (a)
Battery Variable HV Vdc
Mode Switch Relay
Lb Lg D1 Cr
Lr Tx
VMV Vac Vbat
Vdc1 D2 Lb Vdc2 Cdc
VLV
Non-Isolated
Boost Converter
(b)
Fig. 18. Two-stage bidirectional OBCs by Nanjing University: (a) 2-channel
interleaved totem-pole PFC and bidirectional LLC resonant converter [123],
[124], (b) 2-channel interleaved totem-pole PFC with mode switch boost
converter and LLC resonant converter [125].
introduced to operate the CLLC around its resonant frequency
independent of the voltage gain. Notably, the older design
of [101] was significantly more compact, partly due to its
customised heatsink.
C. State-of-the-Art Single-Stage OBCs
In terms of power density and efficiency, the SOA review
indicates that single-stage converters currently achieve the
maximum performance. Furthermore, the trade-off between
power density and efficiency is visible here, e.g., by comparing
the high-efficiency design of [98] to the high-density design
of [114]. In two-stage converters, the highest reported power
density is 3.8 kW/l (62 W/in³) [16] compared to 7.3 kW/l
(120 W/in³) in single-stage converters [114], a 92% difference.
Although the features included in these power densities (safety,
cooling, filters) may differ, it still represents a remarkable
discrepancy. Furthermore, the highest reported peak efficiency
is 98.1% compared to 99.0% for two-stage and single-stage
converters, respectively. This clearly indicates the potential
improvements that the single conversion step can achieve.
1) Seoul Tech [114]: The interleaved boost DAB converter
of [114] depicted in Fig. 10(b) presents an ultra-compact
converter with 7.3 kW/l (120 W/in³) power density at lower
peak efficiency of 97.1%. It should be noted, however, that
there is no mention of its EMI filter and cooling systems in
the paper. The design adopts integrated magnetic components,
whereby a number of discrete inductors and/or transformers
can be combined in a single magnetic core. Here, the boost
inductors of the PFC are integrated with the series leakage
inductors of the DAB converter. A comparison between PCB
windings and litz wire is also presented, whereby the latter
achieves higher efficiency at a fixed switching frequency of
150 kHz. Moreover, the magnetic integration implements AC
flux cancellation, meaning that the AC fluxes of the different
windings cancel each other out in the centre leg. Thus, the
core loss is reduced, being a dominant loss at a low current
operation. As such, the importance of high-frequency magnetic
design for achieving SOA results is demonstrated.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 13

TABLE V
C OMPARISON TABLE OF STATE - OF - THE - ART BIDIRECTIONAL ON - BOARD CHARGERS

Power Voltage Freq. Eff. PD Semicon S/D L C TX

Reference Topology Year
(kW) (Vdc) (kHz) (%) (kW/l) Type # # # #
Texas Instruments [16] TP PFC, CLLC 2021 6.6 400 120/500 96.5 3.8 GaN 14 2 4 1
Virginia [102] TP PFC, 3P CLLC 2022 11 800 350/500 96.0 3.2 SiC 22 2 8 1
Virginia [104], [107], [108] TP PFC, 2P CLLC 2018 6.6 400 350/500 96.2 2.3 SiC/GaN 18 1 6 2
Virginia [103] TP PFC, 2P CLLC 2018 6.6 400 350/500 96.2 2.7 SiC/GaN 18 1 6 2
SAL [118] Modular Integr. TP PFC, CLLC 2022 7.0 400 77 97.5 3.1 SiC 41 9 10 1
Nanjing [124] TP PFC, Bidirectional LLC 2020 6.6 400 300 96.0 3.4 SiC 16 3 3 1
Nanjing [125] TP PFC, Bidirectional LLC 2018 6.6 400 300 94.7 3.3 SiC 16/2 4 4 1
Wolfspeed [100] TP PFC, CLLC 2019 6.6 400 67/200 97.0 2.2 SiC 12 3 4 1
Wolfspeed [101] TP PFC, CLLC 2016 6.6 400 67/300 97.0 3.2 SiC 12 3 4 1
Seoul [114] Single-Stage TP PFC and DAB 2022 3.7 700 150 97.1 7.3 SiC 10 2 2 1
Zürich [98] Single-Stage IMDAB3R 2020 8.0 700 31 97.1 7.3 SiC 10 2 2 1
GaN Systems [130] Single-Stage Modular PFC-DAB 2018 22 400 500 99.0 4.0 SiC 16 1 1 1

Modular Converter 14
Academia
3 Virginia '22 [150] Virginia '21 [151]
2 Industry
1
12 Virginia '21 [149]
Lk1 Tx1
ORNL '18 [152]
Vdc1 Cdc1 Vbat
10 Virginia '18 [147]

Power density (kW/l)

Vac
Virginia '22 [148]
Zurich '22 [146]
Virginia '19 [83]
8
Virginia '17 [105] Wolfspeed '20 [155]
Arizona '20 [52] Delta '23 [156]
Fig. 19. Single-stage bidirectional OBC by GaN Systems: modular PFC-DAB 6 ORNL '18 [152]
converter [130]. CNRS '22 [153] Virginia '18 [103]
Virginia '17 [105]
Virginia '18 [104,108]
4 ORNL '18 [152]
2) ETH Zürich [98]: Achieving state-of-the-art efficiency, In�ineon '20 [46]
Brussels '22 [144]
the 8 kW isolated matrix-type DAB 3-phase rectifier 2
Wolfspeed '16 [154]
(IMDAB3R) in [98] charges a 400 V battery efficiently at
Maryland '17 [143]
99.0% (peak) and 98.7% at 10% input voltage. The topology 0
is as previously presented in Fig. 10(a), using a 3ϕ 400 Vac 95.5 96 96.5 97 97.5 98 98.5 99 99.5
connection. As seen, its circuit diagram is similar to the DAB Peak ef�iciency (%)
converter, but it directly links the HF transformer’s primary
Fig. 20. State-of-the-art bidirectional isolated DC-DC converters for on-board
winding to the AC grid voltage in a matrix converter configu- chargers based on reported peak efficiency and power density from academia
ration. The converter utilises 900V SiC MOSFETs operating and industry [52], [83], [103]–[106], [108], [143]–[148] [46], [149]–[156].
at a nominal frequency of 31 kHz cooled by heatsinks and
fans. The IMDAB3R converter minimises conduction losses
through an optimised soft switching modulation scheme. The converter, each module operating at 1ϕ grid voltage and 7.4
required switching times, derived analytically for discontinu- kW. This way, a 22 kW 3ϕ modular on-board charger is
ous conduction mode (DCM) and by numerical optimisation constructed. A triple phase-shift modulation is implemented,
for continuous conduction mode (CCM), ensure sinusoidal eliminating the need for an active EMI filter since the 3ϕ
grid currents with sufficiently low THD. Noteworthy is its pre- configuration neutralises the double line frequency ripple. The
calculated 3D lookup table (3D LUT) control strategy for op- OBC uses top-cooled E-mode GaN HEMTs at up to 500 kHz
timised switching times, facilitating fast operation responses. to deliver 97% efficiency and 3.3 kW/l power density.
This combination of control techniques thus enhances the
efficiency of the IMDAB3R converter. Yet the power density D. State-of-the-Art Isolated DC-DC Converters for OBCs
is still considerable at 4 kW/l (66 W/in³), partly due to the Fig. 20 provides an overview of the state-of-the-art isolated
integration of the series inductor with the transformer. DC-DC converters for two-stage on-board chargers.
3) GaN Systems [130]: A modular single-stage converter is 1) Virginia Tech (CPES) [83], [103], [145], [147]–[151],
demonstrated based on the topology and modulation presented [157], [158]: All Virginia Tech references operate at 500
in [57]. As is typically the case in single-stage converters, kHz resonant frequency using SiC MOSFETs. The topology
the bulky DC-link capacitors are reduced to the ∼ µF level. proposed in [150] consists of a 1-phase CLLC converter rated
However, it typically requires back-to-back switches as in Fig. at 11 kW, using a three-core integrated matrix transformer to
10(a) to follow the envelope of the AC grid voltage. The charge 800 V batteries. This is represented in Fig. 21(a). Em-
topology and control method of [57] eliminates this need. In ploying three EI-cores in a transformer significantly reduced
[130], three such stages are put in parallel to form a modular core losses compared to a single-core design, which was then
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 14

Cr1 Cr2
integrated with the series resonant inductors in a 6-leg matrix Tx1
Lr11 Lr12
transformer. The resulting CLLC resonant converter reports a Vdc Tx2 Cdc Vbat
Lr21 Lr22
peak efficiency of 97.9% and a high power density of 14.6 Tx3
Lr31 Lr32
kW/l (240 W/in³). In [157], a 4-leg variation of the integrated
transformer is designed with a focus on the controllability of (a) 4-Ch. Interleaved
Integrated Matrix Buck Converter
the leakage inductance. Transformer
Integrated
In [151], [158], the 3-phase CLLC converter is presented as Tx1 Coupled
Lr11 Lr12 Inductors
shown in Fig. 8(c). A novel phase-shedding control modulation Cr11 Cr12 Lb1
Tx2
is presented in [158] to improve the light-load efficiency of a Vdc
Lr21 Lr22
Cdc1
Lb2
3-phase CLLC converter. The prototype achieves a high peak Cr21 Cr22
Tx3 Cdc2 Vbat
efficiency of 98.4% and still reaches 98.1% at 20% load by Lr31 Lr22
operating only one out of three phases. Furthermore, [151] Cr31 Cr32

proposes a soft start-up for 3-phase CLLC converters based (b)

on a state trajectory control method. By representing the 3-

Fig. 21. Bidirectional isolated DC-DC converter by Virginia Tech (CPES): (a)
phase circuit as a conventional full-bridge during startup, its 1P CLLC resonant converter with three modular transformers [150], [157], (b)
complex analysis is simplified. It adopts a similar magnetic 3P CLLC resonant converter and 4-channel interleaved buck converter [145].
design, and the high-power 12 kW prototype reaches 12.2
kW/l (200 W/in³). HV
Furthermore, [149] suggests a novel custom core shape for Vdc
Lk Tx
VHV
Battery
the 6-leg transformer, which further reduces core losses by
28% according to 3D FEA simulations. This results in a peak
efficiency of 98.6% at a power density of 11.0 kW/l (180 LV
Battery
W/in³). In [145], this 3-phase CLLC resonant converter is Multiwinding DC
VLV
Transformer DC
followed by a 4-channel interleaved buck converter for a very Buck Converter
wide output voltage range of 200∼800 V, as illustrated in Fig.
21(b). This penalises the size and efficiency of the converter, Fig. 22. Bidirectional isolated DC-DC converter by Oak Ridge National Lab
as the prototype sits at 6.1 kW/l (100 W/in³) and the peak (ORNL): DAB converter with integrated LVDC stage [152].
efficiency is reduced by 0.9%.
An alternative topology is presented in [83], which has Stacked Half- Full-Bridge Stacked Half-Bridge
Bridge Inverter Recti�ier Voltage Doubler
been described previously in the full OBC prototype of [103], LCL-T
Cdc1 Network Cdc1 Cr2
see Fig. 16(a). This CLLC resonant converter with 2-phase
Lr1 Lr2 Tx Lr1 Lr2 Tx
GaN secondary bridges reaches 97.8% efficiency with a power Vdc
Cr11 Cr2
Vdc Cr11
Cr12 Vbat Cr12 Vbat
density of 8.0 kW/l (130 W/in³). [147] presents a variation Cdc2 400V Cdc2 800V
with a 3-phase secondary side to the CLLC converter to
accommodate a 12.5 kW prototype. The increased power (a) (b)
rating significantly improves the power density to 9.5 kW/l
(155 W/in³), albeit at the expense of a 0.5% reduction in peak Fig. 23. Bidirectional isolated DC-DC converters by Delta Electronics: (a)
multilevel stacked-half-bridge with LCL-T network and full-bridge rectifier
efficiency. Lastly, [148] proposes a high-power single-phase using parallel switches, (b) multilevel stacked-half-bridge with LCL-T net-
CLLC resonant converter of 18 kW using 1.2 kV SiC, shown work and voltage-doubler rectifier [156].
in Fig. 8(b). The reduced number of components leads to a
power density of 10 kW/l (160 W/in³) with a peak efficiency
of 98.7%, though this could compromise reliability. both WBG converters is 0.6% higher despite operating at a
2) Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) [152]: A comprehen- 2.5 times higher switching frequency. Notably, the importance
sive comparison of Si, SiC and GaN switching devices for of optimal packaging is emphasised in the compact GaN
DC-DC converters of level-2 on-board chargers is conducted prototype.
in [152]. The selected topology is a three-port DAB converter 3) Wolfspeed [155]: The 22 kW CLLC resonant converter
featuring an additional buck converter tapped from the HF is capable of delivering full power over a wide output voltage
transformer. This functions as the low-voltage DC converter range of 200∼800 V. It is designed for a variable DC link
powering 14 V auxiliary loads. Custom planar transformers voltage PFC, so the CLLC can always operate around its
and heatsinks are designed for each converter to optimise resonant frequency, in a range between 135∼250 kHz. Using
the power densities. The Si converter is rated at 5.4 kW 1.2 kV SiC MOSFETs in a TO-247 package, it achieves a
and operates at only 40 kHz, offering a peak efficiency of high peak efficiency of 98.5% and a power density of 8 kW/l
98.4% and a relatively low power density of 3.9 kW/l (64 (130 W/in³).
W/in³). On the other hand, the ∼6.6 kW SiC and GaN chargers 4) Delta Electronics [156]: The concept of universal EV
significantly improve the performance while operating at 100 chargers, accommodating a broad range of EV powertrain
kHz. The GaN-based charger achieves a volume reduction of specifications, is gaining in popularity with the growing di-
53% and a 170% increase in power density. The weight is versity of EVs and battery voltages in the market. In [156],
reduced even more, by 79%. Meanwhile, the efficiency of such a bidirectional DC-DC converter is presented, comprising
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
12
Academia
Industry
Virginia '22 [164] Texas Instr '22 [160]
10
Power density (kW/l)
Virginia '18 [163]
8 3) Wolfspeed [161]: A 3.6 kW totem-pole PFC using SiC
Wolfspeed '22 [161]
6 Virginia '18 [103] Virginia '17 [105]
Virginia '17 [107]
Virginia '16 [108]
Virginia '18 [104]
4
Texas Instr '19 [159]
2 GaN Systems '18 [162]
0
97.5 98 98.5 99
Peak ef�iciency (%)
Fig. 24. State-of-the-art bidirectional PFC AC-DC converters for on-board
chargers based on reported peak efficiency and power density from academia
and industry [103]–[105], [107], [108], [159]–[164].
an LCL-T resonant network and a multilevel stacked-half-
bridge (SHB) converter. This multilevel approach is required
when using GaN switches for battery voltages of ≥800 V. The
SHB configuration is selected for its reduced capacitor current
stress, while two topologies are proposed on the secondary side
of the HF transformer. For 400 V batteries, the authors present
a full bridge rectifier with parallel GaN switches; for 800 V
batteries, the half bridges are stacked as a voltage-doubler.
These are illustrated in Fig. 23. The 6.6 kW DC-DC converter
with wide voltage operation yields a peak efficiency of 98.2%
and power density of 7.3 kW/l (120 W/in³). The optimal design
and the required control modulation are described in detail in
[156].
E. State-of-the-Art AC-DC PFC Converters for OBCs
Fig. 24 overviews the state-of-the-art AC-DC converters
designed for two-stage on-board chargers.
1) Texas Instruments [160]: A high power density AC-DC
converter for bidirectional OBCs is presented in [160]. The
selected topology is a totem-pole bridgeless PFC in CCM,
followed by a boost converter to reduce the size of the
DC link capacitor. All switching devices are top-side cooled
GaN switches with integrated drivers at a moderate switching
frequency of 65 kHz. It converts up to 3.6 kW at an efficiency
of 98.7% (peak). Using forced air cooling, a compact converter
of 11.0 kW/l (180 W/in³) is demonstrated.
2) Virginia Tech (CPES) [164]: To strive for higher power
densities, [164] investigates the use of embedded switching
devices in the PCB, enabling high integration, low parasitic
inductances, and low profile converters. A detailed comparison
with TO-247 SiC devices highlights the potential performance
increase. This is validated in a 3ϕ 2-channel interleaved totem-
pole PFC, with return path windings that employ similar bal-
ancing techniques to the aforementioned ones in [141]. Here,
the coupled inductors and respective return path windings are
also integrated into a single PCB-winding planar inductor,
leading to a high power density of 11.1 kW/l (180W/in³). As
15
such, the PCB-embedded SiC MOSFET half-bridge modules
are used to build a high-power 22 kW PFC. The CRM soft-
switching modulation achieves 98.2% peak efficiency due to
the low turn-on and turn-off losses.
MOSFETs is presented, operating in continuous conduction
mode at a 60 kHz switching frequency. It achieves a notable
peak efficiency of 99.0% at a moderate power density of
5.6 kW/l (92 W/in³), including an EMI filter and fuses for
overcurrent protection. With the aim of minimizing the box
volume, a compact framework is achieved where, for example,
the DC link capacitors are placed horizontally.
99.5 F. Summary and Discussion
Table V offers a summary of the discussed converters,
their main specifications, and the number of discrete com-
ponents regarding switches (S), diodes (D), inductors (L),
capacitors (C) and transformers (T). Similarly, VI summarises
the isolated DC-DC and PFC AC-DC stages. Note that the
number of components excludes the EMI filters, includes
the output capacitors, and does not reflect the size of the
components. E.g., the analysis highlighted significant size
variations in DC link capacitors and magnetic components.
Moreover, integrated magnetic components are shown as one
entity in this table.
This summary indicates that state-of-the-art designs are not
confined to a single strategy, as reflected by the wide variety
of design approaches. Each comes with unique constraints,
merits, and a different combination of design decisions. For
instance, the modular converter of [118] uses a high number of
switching devices. Yet, it still achieves high power density and
efficiency by using top-side cooled SiC devices and compact
packaging. Both the AC-DC and DC-DC stages can achieve
peak efficiencies of ∼99% and power densities of ∼10 kW/l
(164 W/in³), yet their co-design is essential to obtain a state-
of-the-art bidirectional on-board charger.
Despite the potential increase in efficiency and power
density, this study recognises that single-stage converters are
underrepresented in industry adoption and academic literature
compared to two-stage OBCs. This is largely attributed to the
complexities in design, challenging control requirements, and
potential component stress. The inertia to adopt new methods
is also driven by the preference of designers and OEMs
towards conventional methodologies for which knowledge and
proficiency have accumulated over the years.
V. T RENDS , C HALLENGES , AND R ESEARCH
O PPORTUNITIES
From this comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art bidi-
rectional electric vehicle on-board chargers, trends, challenges,
and opportunities for further development can be deducted.
These are discussed in the following sections.
A. High Efficiency Converters
Fig. 25 presents the trend of reported peak efficiencies in
full on-board chargers over the years, from 2011 until 2023. A
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 16

TABLE VI
C OMPARISON TABLE OF STATE - OF - THE - ART BIDIRECTIONAL DC-DC AND AC-DC CONVERTERS FOR TWO - STAGE ON - BOARD CHARGERS

Power Voltage Freq. Eff. PD Semicon S/D L C TX

Reference Topology Year
(kW) (Vdc) (kHz) (%) (kW/l) Type # # # #
Virginia [150] 1P CLLC 2022 11 800 500 97.9 14.6 SiC 8 0 3 3
Virginia [158] 3P CLLC 2022 11 800 500 98.4 - SiC 12 0 7 1
Virginia [151] 3P CLLC 2021 12 800 500 98.4 12.2 SiC 12 0 7 1
Virginia [149] 3P CLLC 2021 12.5 800 500 98.6 11.0 SiC 12 0 7 1
Virginia [145] 3P CLLC, 4-CH Interl. Buck 2021 12.5 800 500 97.7 11.0 SiC 12 0 7 1
Virginia [83] CLLC with 2P Secondary 2019 6.6 400 500 97.8 8.0 SiC/GaN 12 0 5 2
Virginia [147] CLLC with 3P Secondary 2018 12.5 400 500 97.3 9.5 SiC/GaN 12 0 5 2
Virginia [148] 1P CLLC 2022 18 400 500 98.7 10.0 SiC 8 0 3 1
ORNL [152] 3-Port Integrated DAB 2018 5.4 400 40 98.4 3.9 Si 8 1 1 1
ORNL [152] 3-Port Integrated DAB 2018 6.8 400 100 99.0 6.7 SiC 8 1 1 1
ORNL [152] 3-Port Integrated DAB 2018 6.6 400 100 99.0 10.5 GaN 8 1 1 1
Wolfspeed [155] CLLC 2020 22 800 250 98.5 8.0 SiC 8 2 3 1
Delta [156] Multilevel SHB with LCL-T 2023 6.6 400/800 500 98.2 7.3 GaN 8 2 6/7 1
Texas Instr [160] 1ϕ TP PFC, Boost 2022 3.6 400 65 98.7 11 GaN 7/1 2 2 0
Virginia [164] 3ϕ 2-CH TP PFC 2022 22 800 300 98.2 11.1 SiC 12 3 5 0
Wolfspeed [161] 1ϕ TP PFC 2022 3.6 400 60 99.0 5.6 SiC 4 1 1 0

B. High Power Density Converters

98
The trend of increasing power densities in on-board chargers
96
Peak ef�iciency (%)

is visualised in Fig. 27. Between 2011 and 2023, it shows all

94
92
90
88
86
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Year
Fig. 25. Peak efficiency of bidirectional on-board chargers reported in the
literature between 2011 and 2023.
clear increase can be seen in the trend line, as efficiencies are
increasing. The same applies to the highest recorded efficien-
cies over time. A key factor in this development has been the
introduction of WBG semiconductors and the improvements in
the semiconductor field. Various soft-switching topologies and
control strategies have leveraged their strengths, accompanied
by intricate magnetic designs. Nevertheless, increasing the
efficiency further naturally becomes harder, especially in two-
stage converters. Here, we see the efficiency of each stage
approaching the 99% mark, leading to 98% efficient on-
board chargers. Single-stage converters allow for even higher
efficiency systems, as exemplified in [98], which reaches this
99% efficiency threshold.
Still, improvements can be made not only in the peak effi-
ciency but also in the efficiency over the entire charging cycle
of the EVs. In particular, an efficient low-power operation is
of interest for smart charging, while an efficient wide-voltage
operation enables compatibility for different battery and grid
voltages. Therefore, the mission profile of the EV charging
sessions should be considered when developing future OBCs.
recorded power densities of full on-board chargers found in the
literature. The trend indicates that power densities increased
by factor three in just over ten years, from around 1 kW/l (16
W/in³) to around 3 kW/l (50 W/in³). Through the exhaustive
Academia analysis of literature, strategies for developing high power
Industry density OBCs are summarised in Fig. 26, from material and
Trendline
component level to system level. Critical components that
2022 dictate the converter’s operation are the switching devices,
where WBG semiconductors and reduced switching losses
allow for increased switching frequencies [127], [152], [165],
[166]. In magnetic design, low-loss materials combined with
novel design methods and/or integrated components enable
the downsizing of these critical components [52], [83], [102],
[102]. These advances are aided by optimised cooling methods
that allow for compact 3D packaging of the OBC [16],
[101], [118], [137]. At the same time, increased power and
voltage levels create new possibilities for high power density
designs [99], [102], [130], [146], [155]. On a system level,
single-stage converters show state-of-the-art results, whereas
modular designs are of particular interest in industry [119],
[130]. Finally, drastic size reductions are achievable through
functional and mechanical integration of different powertrain
systems [119], [139], [152].
C. Wide-Bandgap Semiconductors
Fig. 28 clearly proves the aforementioned increasing em-
ployment of WBG devices in on-board chargers. Between
2010∼2016, more than half of the SOA converters recorded
in this study were based on silicon MOSFETs or IGBTs. Only
31% were based on SiC, whereas just 11% of the prototypes
used GaN. Furthermore, most of the WBG prototypes originate
from the end of this period. In the successive period of
2017∼2023, the tides have shifted. In research, more than six
out of ten prototypes used SiC MOSFETs. Meanwhile, the
share of GaN grew to 31%, with only the remaining 9% of
the prototypes reporting the use of Si devices. This trend is
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 17

Increased Power Density

Switching Magnetic Cooling & Power & Topologies & Powertrain

Devices Components Packaging Voltage Levels Architectures Integration

WBG High Low-Loss Integrated Optimised Custom Compact New High-Voltage Single- EMI Variable Modular Functional Mechanical
Devices Frequency Materials Magnetics & Planar Optimised Optimised High-Power Converters Stage Reduction DC link Designs Integration Integration
[16],[127], Operation [86],[102], [16],[83], Design Cooling Packaging Components [102],[155], [98],[114], [102],[107], [100],[104], [118],[130], [118],[152], [112],[118],
[152],[164] [153],[157], [103],[104] [128],[147] [52],[81], [101],[119], [16],[52], [45],[46], [156],[158] [130],[135] [130],[161] [108],[155] [150],[157] [139],[164] [139],[152]
[165],[166] [102],[128] [137],[152] [118],[146] [101],[155]

Material & Component Level System Level

Fig. 26. Strategies for increasing the power density of bidirectional on-board chargers, categorised and ordered from material and component level to system
level, with example publications.

Academic OBCs
6 Academia Industry OBCs
8
Single-Stage OBCs
Power density (kW/l)

0
Industry Academic DC-DC [114]

50
[153] Trendline

Power Density OBC (kW/l)

Industry DC-DC 7

(kHz)1
5 Trendline Trendline [114]

[165]
6 [114]
[115]
4

Switching Frequency
[113]
5

0
00
[98]

1
[16]
3 4 [127]
[111]

2 3
0
50
2
1
1
0
0 0
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 0 100 200 300 400 500
Year Year Switching Frequency (kHz)
(a) (b)
Fig. 27. Power density of bidirectional on-board chargers reported in the
literature between 2011 and 2023. Fig. 29. Switching frequency of the DC-DC stage for bidirectional on-board
chargers reported in the literature between 2010 and 2023, (b) Correlation
2010~2016 2017~2023 between reported power density and switching frequency of the DC-DC stages
or single-stage OBCs.
GaN GaN
11% 31%
(4/36)
(29/94)

of ≥1 MHz has been reported as of 2020 in [165], while [153]

(11/36)
(21/36) (8/94) demonstrates a 1.5 MHz DAB converter for 11 kW chargers.
(57/94)
Si The relationship between the switching frequency of a
SiC 9% SiC
Si 61% converter and its power density is a highly discussed topic
31%
58%
within the field of power electronics. Based on the collected
Fig. 28. Comparison of Si, SiC, and GaN switching devices used in data, Fig. 29(b) shows the correlation between the frequency
bidirectional on-board chargers, based on literature (a) between 2010 and of the DC-DC converter or single-stage OBC and the power
2016, (b) between 2017 and 2023. density of the OBC. A standout finding is that the data
suggests only a moderately positive correlation between these
two parameters. This is partly caused by the high power
expected to continue, whilst the share of GaN converters is densities of single-stage converters at relatively low switching
expected to grow due to the stringent packaging requirements frequencies (≤200 kHz). Hence, the trend becomes more
of the automotive sector. pronounced when these single-stage converters are excluded,
although large disparities between the power densities remain.
This underlines the multifaceted nature of compact converter
D. High Switching Frequencies
design, as previously discussed. For instance, [16] not only
Based on the large number of publications reviewed in implements a high switching frequency but combines it with
this paper, the trend towards increasing switching frequencies planar integrated magnetics, liquid cooling, WBG devices,
in bidirectional OBCs is quantified in Fig. 29(a). Here, the and compact packaging. In conclusion, while the literature
switching frequency of the DC-DC stage is depicted over time. indicates a positive impact of the switching frequency on
In fact, a clear increase in the trendline is visible between 2010 the power density of bidirectional OBCs, a holistic approach
and 2023, although 500 kHz has been consistently featured in is needed, and compact converters can still be obtained at
bidirectional OBCs since 2014. A bidirectional OBC converter moderate frequencies.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023 18

2010~2016 2017~2023
Level-3 Level-3
2% 1%

(24/40)
(69/90)
(29/90)
(15/40)

Level-1 Level-2 Level-1 Level-2

38% 60% 29% 70%
Fig. 30. Case study comparison of a conventional 150 kHz high-frequency
transformer using litz wire (80mm × 78mm × 65mm) compared to a 300 Fig. 31. Comparison of level-1, level-2, and level-3 charging levels used
kHz planar transformer using PCB windings (95mm × 65mm × 10mm), in bidirectional on-board chargers, based on literature (a) between 2010 and
both designed for a 6.6 kW on-board charger. 2016, (b) between 2017 and 2023.

Use in OBC Converters (%)

400V battery
100 800V battery
E. Optimised and Advanced Magnetic Design
80

Upon studying the state-of-the-art, it is inevitable to recog- 60

nise the importance of magnetic devices in on-board chargers.
The high-frequency transformers and PFC inductors can limit 40
33% 34%
converters’ power and power density or, when done well, 20
advance the design into the state-of-the-art. This relies on 3%
extensive modelling, simulations, and innovative design ap- 0
011 13 15 17 19 21 23
proaches. 0-2 2 -20 4-2
0
6-2
0
8 -20 0-20 2 -20
2 01 2 01 2 01 2 01 2 01 2 02 2 02
One trend in magnetic design is the increased use of PCB Publication year
windings. While litz wire has historically reduced the AC
winding losses by eliminating the skin effect, it requires a Fig. 32. Comparison of 400V versus 800V battery systems used in bidirec-
high number of strands for high-frequency and/or high-power tional on-board chargers, based on surveyed literature between 2010∼2023.
magnetics. This, in turn, increases the AC losses due to
the proximity effect, as described in detail in [167]. PCB
windings are inherently thin and, therefore, well suited for F. Increasing Power and Voltage Levels
high-frequency converters. The case study in Fig. 30 illustrates On the component level, advancements in semiconductors
the potential size difference. Furthermore, PCB windings offer and multi-phase transformers are addressing challenges for
good manufacturability and control of the parasitic compo- higher power. Meanwhile, on the system level, modular con-
nents. Finally, various interleaving methods exist that work verters or topologies such as the 3-phase DAB and CLLC
around the inherent trade-offs of magnetic design, delivering resonant converters play pivotal roles. Their successful imple-
efficient magnetic components well-suited for their target mentation has been proven in SOA converters such as [102]
converters. and [147]. Fig. 31 summarises the power levels used in OBC
One can see that integrated magnetic components are well- development. Clearly, level-2 chargers of 3.3∼22 kW are most
represented in the state-of-the-art. Yet, their implementation popularly researched, followed by low-power level-1 chargers.
must be carefully considered. Indeed, properly integrating Over time, the percentage of level-3 prototypes has decreased
discrete magnetic devices in a single core can introduce merits slightly, although their share in the EV market has increased.
such as flux cancellation, size reduction, and reduced costs. This is due to the nature of prototypes and proof of concepts
However, these devices are harder to model due to the inho- in the literature. It is anticipated that level-2 chargers remain
mogeneous flux distributions, whereby conventional models the most popular category for bidirectional OBCs.
no longer apply and 2D or 3D FEA simulations are needed. Fig. 32 confirms the trend towards higher voltage batteries
Furthermore, their optimised design often requires custom in on-board charger developments. While 400 V battery sys-
cores, which are expensive and challenging to manufacture. tems remain dominant, an increased share of research is spent
In [52], the authors consciously decide not to integrate the on 800 V systems. This is expected to continue in the future,
series inductor with the transformer. A planar transformer is as even >1 kV powertrains are starting to be evaluated [53].
optimised based on analytical models and various interleav- Topologies that enable these high battery voltages either rely
ing methods. The resulting transformer is flat and compact, on switches with high breakdown voltages, such as 1.2 kV
whereby the discrete series inductor can be placed on top of the SiC MOSFETs in [145], or multilevel topologies as presented
transformer while staying within the bounds of the converter’s in [156]. Safety and isolation standards like UL 2202 and IEC
box volume. This indicates the importance of an application- 60950 must follow these advancements to ensure safe and
centred view when designing SOA magnetic components. reliable operation. Finally, interoperability becomes a growing
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
Fig. 33. Exploded view of a BYD integrated powertrain which combines
several power electronic systems in a single unit, adapted from [168].
challenge in the heterogeneous ecosystem of EV chargers,
especially regarding the variation in battery and grid voltages.
G. Powertrain Integration and Modularity
Efforts towards the integration will continue in the coming
years, as EV manufacturers are looking in this direction.
Integration prospects for the OBC include the integrated
LVDC converter, integration with the inverter or battery pack,
using motor windings to replace discrete magnetic devices,
and combining different existing cooling circuits inside the EV.
As such, an ”all-in-one” power electronics box is a promising
solution for high-power converters that remain compact and
cost-effective. Fig. 33 gives an example of an 8-in-1 power-
train, in which most of the power electronics are combined in a
single housing. Comprehensive reviews of integrated chargers
are provided in [22], [54].
Modular converters hold great promise for manufacturers
to gain more adaptability in the broad landscape of EV
chargers. In literature, they have been adopted for various
reasons. Firstly, [113], [169]–[171] demonstrate OBCs with
both 1ϕ and 3ϕ compatibility, which, as mentioned in Section
III, can be commercially valuable in the global charging
landscape. In [118], [119], [130], 3ϕ chargers are designed
using 1ϕ modules, accelerating and simplifying the design
process. Modular 3-phase converters are commonly used to
achieve higher power ratings [145], [147], while partial power
processing techniques can improve the light-load efficiency
[146], [158], [172] or enable soft-startup [151].
H. Wireless Power Transfer
Interest in wireless power transfer (WPT) for electric ve-
hicle charging is growing. WPT offers a convenient and safe
solution as there is neither a need for a physical connector
and cable nor to initiate the charging process manually. Fur-
thermore, it can extend the system’s lifespan by reducing wear
on cables and connectors. Extensive research on this topic is
19
available and summarised well in [173]–[176]. These balance
the optimisation of the design parameters while ensuring
compliance with automotive standards and constraints. Current
trends suggest that efforts towards optimised coil design for
inductive WPT and increased power levels in capacitive WPT
for electric vehicles present promising opportunities for future
research.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
The existing state-of-the-art bidirectional on-board chargers
for electric vehicles are comprehensively reviewed in this
paper. A systematic analysis identified new trends, challenges,
and opportunities for the next generation of EV chargers.
These can be summarised as follows.
1) Increased battery size, leading to higher charging powers
to maintain convenient (overnight) charging times.
2) Higher battery voltages of ≥800 V that facilitate fast
charging, setting the requirements for the OBC and the
rest of the powertrain.
3) Bidirectional on-board chargers to enable bidirectional
smart charging modes (V2X) and expand the use of EVs
beyond transportation.
4) Higher power density OBCs to charge faster and meet the
strict packaging requirements of the automotive sector.
5) Integrated powertrains that combine multiple systems in
a single package to save costs, volume, and weight.
6) Modular converter systems that are easily adaptable for
the needs of multiple electric vehicles, speeding up de-
velopment and decreasing costs.
7) Wireless power transfer for convenient and safe charging.
8) Advances in semiconductors and the increasing use of
WBG devices to pave the way for highly efficient and
compact converters.
9) Further developments in planar and integrated magnetic
components to further gain efficiency and power density,
especially at high frequency.
An overview of the state-of-the-art bidirectional on-board
chargers is provided, both in single- and two-stage converters.
A systematic overview quantified trends in OBC design, such
as an increasing frequency growing towards 99%, power den-
sities increasing by around factor 3 in the past ten years, and
significant increases in the adoption of WBG devices and 800
V battery systems. Furthermore, two-stage converters remain
the standard in the industry, even though the gap to single-
stage converters in terms of power density and efficiency is
significant. Popular topologies are CLLC resonant converters,
DAB converters, and variations of the totem-pole boost PFC.
Especially in industry, these are often constructed as modular
designs, optionally with an integrated LVDC converter.
As the development of bidirectional on-board chargers
grows rapidly, the evolution towards improved OBC perfor-
mance is projected to continue. Especially in the context of
the ambitious goals of governments and automotive companies
towards carbon neutrality, the power density, efficiency, cost,
sustainability, and reliability of the electric powertrain must
improve further. This paper supports these developments by
comprehensively analysing the current state-of-the-art and
future trends in bidirectional on-board chargers.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
R EFERENCES
[1] “A European Green Deal.” [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/
info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal en
[2] “EU transport policy: European Parliament.” [On-
line]. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/
123/common-transport-policy-overview
[3] “Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Energy.” [Online]. Available: https:
//www.whitehouse.gov/cleanenergy/inflation-reduction-act-guidebook/
[4] IEA, “Global EV Outlook 2023: Catching up with climate
ambitions,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/
global-ev-outlook-2023
[5] I.E.A., “Global EV Outlook 2022: Securing supplies for an
electric future,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/
global-ev-outlook-2022/trends-in-charging-infrastructure
[6] ELIA, “Accelerating to net-zero: redefining energy and
mobility.” [Online]. Available: https://www.elia.be/en/publications/
studies-and-reports
[7] M. Yilmaz and P. T. Krein, “Review of Battery Charger Topologies,
Charging Power Levels, and Infrastructure for Plug-In Electric and
Hybrid Vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 5, pp.
2151–2169, May 2013.
[8] K. Clement-Nyns, E. Haesen, and J. Driesen, “The Impact of Charging
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles on a Residential Distribution Grid,”
IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 371–380, Feb. 2010.
[9] E. Sortomme, M. M. Hindi, S. D. J. MacPherson, and S. S. Venkata,
“Coordinated Charging of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles to Min-
imize Distribution System Losses,” IEEE Trans Smart Grid, vol. 2,
no. 1, pp. 198–205, Mar. 2011.
[10] O. Frendo, N. Gaertner, and H. Stuckenschmidt, “Open Source Al-
gorithm for Smart Charging of Electric Vehicle Fleets,” IEEE Trans
Smart Grid, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 6014–6022, Sep. 2021.
[11] A. Bilh, K. Naik, and R. El-Shatshat, “A Novel Online Charging
Algorithm for Electric Vehicles Under Stochastic Net-Load,” IEEE
Trans Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1787–1799, May 2018.
[12] M. Yasko, H. Wouters, A. Baling, J. Driesen, and W. Martinez,
“EV Charging Evaluation Using Real-World Datasets: a Case Study
of Energy Consumption, Peak Power, Self-Consumption and Self-
Sufficiency,” in CIRED 2023, Rome, Jun. 2023.
[13] L. Gan, U. Topcu, and S. H. Low, “Optimal decentralized protocol for
electric vehicle charging,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp.
940–951, May 2013.
[14] W. Kempton and S. E. Letendre, “Electric vehicles as a new power
source for electric utilities,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 157–175, Sep. 1997.
[15] C. Liu, K. T. Chau, D. Wu, and S. Gao, “Opportunities and Challenges
of Vehicle-to-Home, Vehicle-to-Vehicle, and Vehicle-to-Grid Technolo-
gies,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 101, no. 11, pp. 2409–2427, Nov. 2013.
[16] T. Instruments, “GaN-Based, 6.6-kW, Bidirectional, Onboard Charger.”
[Online]. Available: https://www.ti.com/tool/PMP22650
[17] H. Wouters, “Literature Review SOA References Table (19/06/2023).”
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48804/SXEQCL
[18] A. Khaligh and M. D’Antonio, “Global Trends in High-Power On-
Board Chargers for Electric Vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 3306–3324, Apr. 2019.
[19] S. S. G. Acharige, M. E. Haque, M. T. Arif, N. Hosseinzadeh, K. N.
Hasan, and A. M. T. Oo, “Review of Electric Vehicle Charging
Technologies, Standards, Architectures, and Converter Configurations,”
IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 41 218–41 255, 2023.
[20] S. A. Q. Mohammed and J.-W. Jung, “A Comprehensive State-of-
the-Art Review of Wired/Wireless Charging Technologies for Battery
Electric Vehicles: Classification/Common Topologies/Future Research
Issues,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 19 572–19 585, 2021.
[21] J. Yuan, L. Dorn-Gomba, A. D. Callegaro, J. Reimers, and A. Emadi,
“A Review of Bidirectional On-Board Chargers for Electric Vehicles,”
IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 51 501–51 518, 2021.
[22] Jaman, S. and et al., “Review on Integrated On-Board Charger-Traction
Systems: V2G Topologies, Control Approaches, Standards and Power
Density State-of-the-Art for Electric Vehicle,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 15,
p. 5376, Jan. 2022.
[23] I. Aghabali, J. Bauman, P. J. Kollmeyer, Y. Wang, B. Bilgin, and
A. Emadi, “800-V Electric Vehicle Powertrains: Review and Analysis
of Benefits, Challenges, and Future Trends,” IEEE Trans. Transp.
Electrification, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 927–948, Sep. 2021.
[24] J. Tomić and W. Kempton, “Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for
grid support,” J. Power Sources, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 459–468, Jun.
2007.
20
[25] “EV Database.” [Online]. Available: https://ev-database.org/
[26] C. Corchero and M. Sanmarti, “Vehicle- to- Everything (V2X): Benefits
and Barriers,” in 2018 EEM, Jun. 2018, pp. 1–4.
[27] R. Khezri, D. Steen, and L. A. Tuan, “A Review on Implementation
of Vehicle to Everything (V2X): Benefits, Barriers and Measures,” in
2022 IEEE IEEE ISGT Europe, Oct. 2022, pp. 1–6.
[28] K. Bao, H. Valev, M. Wagner, and H. Schmeck, “A threat analysis
of the vehicle-to-grid charging protocol ISO 15118,” Comput Sci Res
Dev, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 3–12, Feb. 2018.
[29] C. Alcaraz, J. Lopez, and S. Wolthusen, “OCPP Protocol: Security
Threats and Challenges,” IEEE Trans Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 5, pp.
2452–2459, Sep. 2017.
[30] J. G. Pinto, V. Monteiro, H. Gonçalves, B. Exposto, D. Pedrosa,
C. Couto, and J. L. Afonso, “Bidirectional battery charger with Grid-to-
Vehicle, Vehicle-to-Grid and Vehicle-to-Home technologies,” in IEEE
IECON 2013, Nov. 2013, pp. 5934–5939.
[31] J. A. P. Lopes, F. J. Soares, and P. M. R. Almeida, “Integration of
Electric Vehicles in the Electric Power System,” Proceedings of the
IEEE, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 168–183, Jan. 2011.
[32] W. Kempton and J. Tomić, “Vehicle-to-grid power implementation:
From stabilizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy,”
J. Power Sources, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 280–294, Jun. 2005.
[33] “Predicted average battery capacities in EVs worldwide 2017-
2025.” [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/309584/
battery-capacity-estimates-for-electric-vehicles-worldwide/
[34] “Best-selling PEV models in Europe YTD 2022.”
[Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/972845/
electric-vehicles-leading-models-europe/
[35] IEA, “Global EV Outlook 2021: Trends and de-
velopments in electric vehicle markets,” 2021. [On-
line]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021/
trends-and-developments-in-electric-vehicle-markets
[36] “J1772 201210: SAE Electric Vehicle and Plug in Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler - SAE International.” [Online].
Available: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1772 201210/
[37] “IEC 62196-1:2022: Plugs, socket-outlets, vehicle connectors and
vehicle inlets - Conductive charging of electric vehicles Part 1,” 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/59922
[38] “GB/T 20234.1-2015: Connection set for conductive charging of
electric vehicles,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.cec.org.cn/
[39] M. Yilmaz and P. T. Krein, “Review of the Impact of Vehicle-to-Grid
Technologies on Distribution Systems and Utility Interfaces,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 5673–5689, Dec. 2013.
[40] H. Tu, H. Feng, S. Srdic, and S. Lukic, “Extreme Fast Charging
of Electric Vehicles: A Technology Overview,” IEEE Trans. Transp.
Electrification, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 861–878, Dec. 2019.
[41] M. Etezadi-Amoli, K. Choma, and J. Stefani, “Rapid-Charge Electric-
Vehicle Stations,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1883–
1887, Jul. 2010.
[42] C. Suarez and W. Martinez, “Fast and Ultra-Fast Charging for Battery
Electric Vehicles – A Review,” in 2019 IEEE ECCE, Sep. 2019, pp.
569–575.
[43] D. Aggeler, F. Canales, H. Zelaya-De La Parra, A. Coccia, N. Butcher,
and O. Apeldoorn, “Ultra-fast DC-charge infrastructures for EV-
mobility and future smart grids,” in 2010 IEEE ISGT Europe, Oct.
2010, pp. 1–8.
[44] M. A. H. Rafi and J. Bauman, “A Comprehensive Review of DC
Fast-Charging Stations With Energy Storage: Architectures, Power
Converters, and Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrification, vol. 7,
no. 2, pp. 345–368, Jun. 2021.
[45] OnSemi, “OnSemi TND6327-D On-Board Charger.” [On-
line]. Available: https://www.onsemi.com/solutions/automotive/
vehicle-electrification/on-board-charger-obc#reference-designs
[46] I. Technologies, “11 kW bi-directional CLLC DC-DC
converter with 1200 V and 1700 V CoolSiC MOS-
FETs.” [Online]. Available: https://www.infineon.com/cms/en/product/
evaluation-boards/ref-dab11kizsicsys/
[47] R. De Doncker, D. Divan, and M. Kheraluwala, “A three-phase
soft-switched high power density DC/DC converter for high power
applications,” in 1988 IEEE IAS Annu. Meet., Oct. 1988, pp. 796–805
vol.1.
[48] A. K. Jain and R. Ayyanar, “Pwm control of dual active bridge:
Comprehensive analysis and experimental verification,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1215–1227, Apr. 2011.
[49] “Taycan, Taycan 4S, Turbo and Turbo S – The charging process
- Porsche Taycan.” [Online]. Available: https://media.porsche.com/
mediakit/taycan/en/porsche-taycan/das-laden#
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
[50] C. Jung, “Power Up with 800-V Systems: The benefits of upgrading
voltage power for battery-electric passenger vehicles,” IEEE Electrifi-
cation Magazine, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 53–58, Mar. 2017.
[51] “Megawatt Charging System (MCS).” [Online]. Available: https:
//www.charin.global/technology/mcs/
[52] Z. Zhang, C. Liu, M. Wang, Y. Si, Y. Liu, and Q. Lei, “High-
Efficiency High-Power-Density CLLC Resonant Converter With Low-
Stray-Capacitance and Well-Heat-Dissipated Planar Transformer for
EV On-Board Charger,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 35, no. 10,
pp. 10 831–10 851, Oct. 2020.
[53] European-Commission, “Integration and testing of next generation
post-800V electric powertrains (2ZERO Partnership).” [Online]. Avail-
able: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/
screen/opportunities/topic-details/horizon-cl5-2024-d5-01-02
[54] M. Y. Metwly and et al., “A Review of Integrated On-Board EV Battery
Chargers: Advanced Topologies, Recent Developments and Optimal
Selection of FSCW Slot/Pole Combination,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp.
85 216–85 242, 2020.
[55] R. De Doncker, D. Divan, and M. Kheraluwala, “A three-phase soft-
switched high-power-density DC/DC converter for high-power appli-
cations,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 63–73, Jan. 1991.
[56] F. Krismer and J. W. Kolar, “Efficiency-Optimized High-Current Dual
Active Bridge Converter for Automotive Applications,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 2745–2760, Jul. 2012.
[57] J. Everts, F. Krismer, J. Van den Keybus, J. Driesen, and J. W. Kolar,
“Optimal ZVS Modulation of Single-Phase Single-Stage Bidirectional
DAB AC–DC Converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 8,
pp. 3954–3970, Aug. 2014.
[58] G. G. Oggier, G. O. GarcÍa, and A. R. Oliva, “Switching Control
Strategy to Minimize Dual Active Bridge Converter Losses,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1826–1838, Jul. 2009.
[59] F. Krismer and J. W. Kolar, “Closed Form Solution for Minimum
Conduction Loss Modulation of DAB Converters,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 174–188, Jan. 2012.
[60] G. Oggier, G. O. Garcı́a, and A. R. Oliva, “Modulation strategy to
operate the dual active bridge DC-DC converter under soft switching
in the whole operating range,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26,
no. 4, pp. 1228–1236, Apr. 2011.
[61] Z. U. Zahid, Z. M. Dalala, R. Chen, B. Chen, and J.-S. Lai, “Design of
Bidirectional DC–DC Resonant Converter for Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G)
Applications,” IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrification, vol. 1, no. 3, pp.
232–244, Oct. 2015.
[62] B. Lu, W. Liu, Y. Liang, F. Lee, and J. van Wyk, “Optimal design
methodology for LLC resonant converter,” in 2006 IEEE APEC, Mar.
2006, pp. 6 pp.–.
[63] W. L. Malan, D. M. Vilathgamuwa, and G. R. Walker, “Modeling
and Control of a Resonant Dual Active Bridge With a Tuned CLLC
Network,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 7297–
7310, Oct. 2016.
[64] A. Mallik and A. Khaligh, “Control of a Three-Phase Boost PFC
Converter Using a Single DC-Link Voltage Sensor,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 6481–6492, Aug. 2017.
[65] B. Li, “High Frequency Bi-directional DC/DC Converter with Inte-
grated Magnetics for Battery Charger Application,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2018.
[66] L. Xue, “GaN-Based High-Efficiency, High-Density, High-Frequency
Battery Charger for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Sep. 2015.
[67] J. Millán, P. Godignon, X. Perpiñà, A. Pérez-Tomás, and J. Rebollo, “A
Survey of Wide Bandgap Power Semiconductor Devices,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 2155–2163, May 2014.
[68] E. A. Jones, F. F. Wang, and D. Costinett, “Review of Commercial
GaN Power Devices and GaN-Based Converter Design Challenges,”
IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 707–719,
Sep. 2016.
[69] M. Parvez, A. T. Pereira, N. Ertugrul, N. H. E. Weste, D. Abbott,
and S. F. Al-Sarawi, “Wide Bandgap DC–DC Converter Topologies
for Power Applications,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1253–1275,
Jul. 2021.
[70] I. T. AG, “Wide Bandgap Semiconductors (SiC/GaN) - Infineon
Technologies.” [Online]. Available: https://www.infineon.com/cms/en/
product/technology/wide-bandgap-semiconductors-sic-gan/
[71] “SiC MOSFETs from ROHM chosen by Lucid for efficient
on-board charging.” [Online]. Available: https://www.rohm.com/
news-title=news lucid
[72] “Tesla 2023 Annual Shareholder Meeting,” Apr. 2023. [Online].
Available: https://ir.tesla.com/
21
[73] C. R. Sullivan, B. A. Reese, A. L. F. Stein, and P. A. Kyaw, “On size
and magnetics: Why small efficient power inductors are rare,” in 2016
3D-PEIM, Jun. 2016, pp. 1–23.
[74] S. Kimura, Y. Itoh, W. Martinez, M. Yamamoto, and J. Imaoka,
“Downsizing Effects of Integrated Magnetic Components in High
Power Density DC–DC Converters for EV and HEV Applications,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 3294–3305, Jul. 2016.
[75] V. C. Valchev and A. Van den Bossche, Inductors and Transformers
for Power Electronics, 1st ed. CRC Press, Oct. 2018.
[76] C. Sullivan, “Cost-constrained selection of strand diameter and number
in a litz-wire transformer winding,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 281–288, Mar. 2001.
[77] P. Papamanolis, T. Guillod, F. Krismer, and J. W. Kolar, “Minimum
Loss Operation and Optimal Design of High-Frequency Inductors for
Defined Core and Litz Wire,” IEEE J. Power Electron., vol. 1, pp.
469–487, 2020.
[78] P. L. Dowell, “Effects of eddy currents in transformer windings,”
Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, vol. 113, no. 8,
pp. 1387–1394, Aug. 1966.
[79] J. Ferreira, “Improved analytical modeling of conductive losses in
magnetic components,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 9, no. 1,
pp. 127–131, Jan. 1994.
[80] Z. Ouyang and M. A. E. Andersen, “Overview of Planar Magnetic
Technology—Fundamental Properties,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 4888–4900, Sep. 2014.
[81] Z. Ouyang, O. C. Thomsen, and M. A. E. Andersen, “Optimal Design
and Tradeoff Analysis of Planar Transformer in High-Power DC–DC
Converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 2800–2810,
Jul. 2012.
[82] M. A. Saket, N. Shafiei, and M. Ordonez, “LLC Converters With Planar
Transformers: Issues and Mitigation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 4524–4542, Jun. 2017.
[83] B. Li, Q. Li, and F. C. Lee, “High-Frequency PCB Winding Trans-
former With Integrated Inductors for a Bi-Directional Resonant Con-
verter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 6123–6135,
Jul. 2019.
[84] C. Fei, F. C. Lee, and Q. Li, “High-efficiency high-power-density
380V/12V DC/DC converter with a novel matrix transformer,” in 2017
IEEE APEC, Mar. 2017, pp. 2428–2435.
[85] M. Noah, S. Kimura, S. Endo, M. Yamamoto, J. Imaoka, K. Umetani,
and W. Martinez, “A novel three-phase LLC resonant converter with in-
tegrated magnetics for lower turn-off losses and higher power density,”
in 2017 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2017, pp. 322–329, iSSN: 2470-6647.
[86] M. Noah, S. Kimura, J. Imaoka, W. Martinez, S. Endo, M. Yamamoto,
and K. Umetani, “Magnetic Design and Experimental Evaluation of a
Commercially Available Single Integrated Transformer in Three-Phase
LLC Resonant Converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 54, no. 6, pp.
6190–6204, Nov. 2018.
[87] E. Laloya, Lucı́a, H. Sarnago, and J. M. Burdı́o, “Heat Management in
Power Converters: From State of the Art to Future Ultrahigh Efficiency
Systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 7896–7908,
Nov. 2016.
[88] E. Abramushkina and et al., “A Thorough Review of Cooling Concepts
and Thermal Management Techniques for Automotive WBG Inverters:
Topology, Technology and Integration Level,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 16,
p. 4981, Jan. 2021.
[89] “US Drive, Electrical and Electronics Technical Team Roadmap.”
[Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/
us-drive-electrical-and-electronics-technical-team-roadmap
[90] “2ZERO: Nextgen EV Components.” [Online]. Avail-
able: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/
screen/opportunities/topic-details/horizon-cl5-2024-d5-01-02
[91] “A2MAC1.” [Online]. Available: https://www.a2mac1.com/
[92] D. Cesiel and C. Zhu, “A Closer Look at the On-Board Charger: The
development of the second-generation module for the Chevrolet Volt,”
IEEE Electrification Magazine, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 36–42, Mar. 2017.
[93] European Court of Auditors., “Infrastructure for charging electric
vehicles,” Publications Office, LU, Tech. Rep., 2021. [Online].
Available: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2865/651152
[94] “Alternative Fuels: European Alternative Fuels Observatory.”
[Online]. Available: https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/
general-information/recharging-systems
[95] “J1772 201710: SAE Electric Vehicle and Plug in Hybrid Electric Ve-
hicle Conductive Charge Coupler - SAE International,” 2017. [Online].
Available: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1772 201710/
[96] CharIN, “CCS Charging Map.” [Online]. Available: https://www.
charin.global/technology/dashboard/
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
[97] Sathiyan, S. P. and et al., “Comprehensive Assessment of Electric
Vehicle Development, Deployment, and Policy Initiatives to Reduce
GHG Emissions: Opportunities and Challenges,” IEEE Access, vol. 10,
pp. 53 614–53 639, 2022.
[98] L. Schrittwieser, M. Leibl, and J. W. Kolar, “99% Efficient Isolated
Three-Phase Matrix-Type DAB Buck–Boost PFC Rectifier,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 138–157, Jan. 2020.
[99] L. Schrittwieser, P. Cortés, L. Fässler, D. Bortis, and J. W. Kolar,
“Modulation and Control of a Three-Phase Phase-Modular Isolated
Matrix-Type PFC Rectifier,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 33,
no. 6, pp. 4703–4715, Jun. 2018.
[100] C. Wei, J. Shao, B. Agrawal, D. Zhu, and H. Xie, “New Surface
Mount SiC MOSFETs Enable High Efficiency High Power Density
Bi-directional On-Board Charger with Flexible DC-link Voltage,” in
2019 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2019, pp. 1904–1909.
[101] Wolfspeed, “6.6 kW High Power Density Bi-Directional EV On-
Board Charger.” [Online]. Available: https://www.wolfspeed.com/
crd-06600ff065n-k/
[102] P. H. Pham, A. Nabih, S. Wang, and Q. Li, “11-kW High-Frequency
High-Density Bidirectional OBC with PCB Winding Magnetic Design,”
in 2022 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2022, pp. 1176–1181, iSSN: 2470-6647.
[103] R. Gadelrab, Y. Yang, B. Li, F. Lee, and Q. Li, “High-Frequency High-
Density Bidirectional EV Charger,” in 2018 IEEE ITEC, Jun. 2018, pp.
687–694.
[104] B. Li, Q. Li, F. C. Lee, Z. Liu, and Y. Yang, “A High-Efficiency
High-Density Wide-Bandgap Device-Based Bidirectional On-Board
Charger,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron., vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 1627–1636, Sep. 2018.
[105] B. Li, F. C. Lee, Q. Li, and Z. Liu, “Bi-directional on-board charger
architecture and control for achieving ultra-high efficiency with wide
battery voltage range,” in 2017 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2017, pp. 3688–3694.
[106] B. Li, Q. Li, and F. C. Lee, “A novel PCB winding transformer with
controllable leakage integration for a 6.6kW 500kHz high efficiency
high density bi-directional on-board charger,” in 2017 IEEE APEC,
Mar. 2017, pp. 2917–2924.
[107] Z. Liu, B. Li, F. C. Lee, and Q. Li, “High-Efficiency High-Density
Critical Mode Rectifier/Inverter for WBG-Device-Based On-Board
Charger,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 9114–9123,
Nov. 2017.
[108] Z. Liu, B. Li, L. Lee, and L. Qiang, “Design of CRM AC/DC converter
for very high-frequency high-density WBG-based 6.6kW bidirectional
on-board battery charger,” in 2016 IEEE ECCE, Sep. 2016, pp. 1–8.
[109] G. Yang, E. Draugedalen, T. Sorsdahl, H. Liu, and R. Lindseth, “Design
of High Efficiency High Power Density 10.5kW Three Phase On-board-
charger for Electric/hybrid Vehicles,” in PCIM 2016, May 2016, pp.
1–7.
[110] K. Itoh, M. Ishigaki, N. Kikuchi, T. Harada, and T. Sugiyama, “A
Single-Stage Rectifier with Interleaved Totem-pole PFC and Dual
Active Bridge (DAB) Converter for PHEV/BEV On-board Charger,”
in 2020 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2020, pp. 1936–1941.
[111] B. Whitaker, A. Barkley, Z. Cole, B. Passmore, D. Martin, T. R.
McNutt, A. B. Lostetter, J. S. Lee, and K. Shiozaki, “A High-Density,
High-Efficiency, Isolated On-Board Vehicle Battery Charger Utilizing
Silicon Carbide Power Devices,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29,
no. 5, pp. 2606–2617, May 2014.
[112] M. Yamamoto, “Discussion of SiC/Gan Power Semiconductor
Devices from Model 3 (Tesla) Disassembled Analysis,” 2021.
[Online]. Available: https://psma.com/sites/default/files/uploads/node/
6843/is093-discussion-sicgan-power-semiconductor-devices.pdf
[113] H. Kim, J. Park, S. Kim, R. M. Hakim, H. Belkamel, and S. Choi,
“A Single-Stage Electrolytic Capacitor-Less EV Charger With Single-
and Three-Phase Compatibility,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 37,
no. 6, pp. 6780–6791, Jun. 2022.
[114] R. Muhammad, H.-P. Kieu, J. Park, L. Tat-Thang, S. Choi, H. Jung, and
B.-K. Yoon, “Integrated Grid Inductor-Transformer Structure with Re-
duced Core Loss and Volume for E-Capless Single-Stage EV Charger,”
in 2022 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2022, pp. 873–878.
[115] H. Kim, H. Belkamel, J. Park, R. M. Hakim, and S. Choi, “Modular
Three-phase Single-stage Isolated AC-DC Converter for Electrolytic
Capacitor-less EV DC Charging,” in 2020 IEEE IPEMC ECCE Asia,
Nov. 2020, pp. 1573–1578.
[116] M. Kwon and S. Choi, “An Electrolytic Capacitorless Bidirectional EV
Charger for V2G and V2H Applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 6792–6799, Sep. 2017.
[117] M. Kwon, S. Jung, and S. Choi, “A high efficiency bi-directional EV
charger with seamless mode transfer for V2G and V2H application,”
in 2015 IEEE ECCE, Sep. 2015, pp. 5394–5399.
22
[118] F. Vollmaier, A. Connaughton, I. Recepi, T. Langbauer, M. Pajnic,
W. Konrad, and C. Mentin, “Tiny Power Box - Exploiting Multiport
Series Resonant Topologies for Very High Power Density Onboard
Chargers,” in PCIM Europe 2022, May 2022, pp. 1–9.
[119] C. Mentin, I. Recepi, and P. Matzick, “Tiny Power Box - Thermal
Investigations for Very High Power Density Onboard Chargers,” in
2022 THERMINIC, Sep. 2022, pp. 1–6.
[120] “Renault ZOE Q210 2013 on-board charger analysis,” Dec. 2021.
[Online]. Available: https://canze.fisch.lu/category/car/zoe/
[121] OnSemi, “6.6 kW On Board EV Charger (SiC Model)
Evaluation Board.” [Online]. Available: https://www.onsemi.com/
design/tools-software/evaluation-board/sec-6d6kw-obc-sic-gevb
[122] S. Wang, H. Li, Z. Zhang, M. Li, J. Zhang, X. Ren, and Q. Chen,
“Multifunction Capability of SiC Bidirectional Portable Chargers for
Electric Vehicles,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron., vol. 9,
no. 5, pp. 6184–6195, Oct. 2021.
[123] H. Li, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, J. Tang, X. Ren, and Q. Chen, “A SiC
Bidirectional LLC On-Board Charger,” in 2019 IEEE APEC, Mar.
2019, pp. 3353–3360.
[124] H. Li, Z. Zhang, S. Wang, J. Tang, X. Ren, and Q. Chen, “A 300-kHz
6.6-kW SiC Bidirectional LLC Onboard Charger,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 1435–1445, Feb. 2020.
[125] H. Li, L. Bai, Z. Zhang, S. Wang, J. Tang, X. Ren, and J. Li, “A 6.6kW
SiC bidirectional on-board charger,” in 2018 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2018,
pp. 1171–1178.
[126] H. J. Chae, W. Y. Kim, S. Y. Yun, Y. S. Jeong, J. Y. Lee, and H. T.
Moon, “3.3kW on board charger for electric vehicle,” in 2011 IEEE
ECCE Asia, May 2011, pp. 2717–2719.
[127] A. Taylor, J. Lu, L. Zhu, K. H. Bai, M. McAmmond, and A. Brown,
“Comparison of SiC MOSFET-based and GaN HEMT-based high-
efficiency high-power-density 7.2 kW EV battery chargers,” IET Power
Electronics, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1849–1857, 2018.
[128] S. Zou, J. Lu, A. Mallik, and A. Khaligh, “Modeling and Optimization
of an Integrated Transformer for Electric Vehicle On-Board Charger
Applications,” IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrification, vol. 4, no. 2, pp.
355–363, Jun. 2018.
[129] R. S. Leite, J. L. Afonso, and V. Monteiro, “A Novel Multilevel
Bidirectional Topology for On-Board EV Battery Chargers in Smart
Grids,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 12, 2018.
[130] J. Lu, K. Bai, A. R. Taylor, G. Liu, A. Brown, P. M. Johnson, and
M. McAmmond, “A Modular-Designed Three-Phase High-Efficiency
High-Power-Density EV Battery Charger Using Dual/Triple-Phase-
Shift Control,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 8091–
8100, Sep. 2018.
[131] S. Endres, C. Sessler, S. Zeltner, B. Eckardt, and T. Morita, “6 kW
Bidirectional, Insulated On-board Charger with Normally-Off GaN
Gate Injection Transistors,” in PCIM Europe 2017, May 2017, pp. 1–6.
[132] J. Schmenger, S. Endres, S. Zeltner, and M. März, “A 22 kW on-board
charger for automotive applications based on a modular design,” in
2014 IEEE CENCON, Oct. 2014, pp. 1–6.
[133] J. Lu, G. Liu, H. Bai, A. Brown, P. M. Johnson, M. McAmmond,
and A. R. Taylor, “Applying Variable-Switching-Frequency Variable-
Phase-Shift Control and E-Mode GaN HEMTs to an Indirect Matrix
Converter-Based EV Battery Charger,” IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrifi-
cation, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 554–564, Sep. 2017.
[134] J. Lu, Q. Tian, K. Bai, A. Brown, and M. McAmmond, “An indirect
matrix converter based 97%-efficiency on-board level 2 battery charger
using E-mode GaN HEMTs,” in 2015 IEEE WiPDA, Nov. 2015, pp.
351–358.
[135] J. Everts, “Design and Optimization of an Efficient (96.1%) and
Compact (2 kW/dm3) Bidirectional Isolated Single-Phase Dual Active
Bridge AC-DC Converter,” Energies, vol. 9, no. 10, 2016.
[136] D. Gautam, F. Musavi, M. Edington, W. Eberle, and W. G. Dunford,
“An automotive on-board 3.3 kW battery charger for PHEV applica-
tion,” in 2011 IEEE VPPC, Sep. 2011, pp. 1–6.
[137] S. Bolte, C. Henkenius, J. Böcker, A. Zibart, E. Kenig, and H. Figge,
“Water-cooled on-board charger with optimized cooling channel,” in
EPE’17 ECCE Europe, Sep. 2017, pp. P.1–P.9.
[138] K. Stengert, “On-board 22 kW fast charger “NLG6”,” in 2013 EVS27,
Nov. 2013, pp. 1–11.
[139] H. V. Nguyen, D.-C. Lee, and F. Blaabjerg, “A Novel SiC-Based Mul-
tifunctional Onboard Battery Charger for Plug-In Electric Vehicles,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 5635–5646, May 2021.
[140] R. Kondo, P. Schülting, A. H. Wienhausen, and R. W. De Doncker,
“An Automated Component-Based Hardware Design of a Three-Phase
Dual-Active Bridge Converter for a Bidirectional On-Board Charger,”
in 2020 IEEE ECCE, Oct. 2020, pp. 850–857.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. X, NO. X, X 2023
[141] S. Wang, F. C. Lee, and Q. Li, “Improved Balance Technique for
Common-Mode Noise Suppression of PCB-Based PFC,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 4174–4182, Apr. 2022.
[142] T. Langbauer, A. Connaughton, F. Vollmaier, M. Pajnic, and
K. Krischan, “Closed-Loop Control of a Three-Port Series Resonant
Converter,” in 2021 IEEE COMPEL, Nov. 2021, pp. 1–7.
[143] S. Zou, J. Lu, A. Mallik, and A. Khaligh, “3.3kW CLLC converter with
synchronous rectification for plug-in electric vehicles,” in 2017 IEEE
Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, Oct. 2017, pp. 1–6.
[144] M. T. Tran, H. Rasool, D. D. Tran, M. E. Baghdadi, P. Lataire,
and O. Hegazy, “Design of a GaN-Based Reconfigurable Resonant
Converter for High Frequency On-Board Charger of Battery Electric
Vehicles,” in EPE’22 ECCE Europe, Sep. 2022, pp. 1–8.
[145] F. Jin, A. Nabih, C. Chen, X. Chen, Q. Li, and F. C. Lee, “A
High Efficiency High Density DC/DC Converter for Battery Charger
Applications,” in 2021 IEEE APEC, Jun. 2021, pp. 1767–1774.
[146] Y. Cao and et al., “Design and Implementation of an 18-kW 500-kHz
98.8% Efficiency High-Density Battery Charger With Partial Power
Processing,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron., vol. 10, no. 6,
pp. 7963–7975, Dec. 2022.
[147] B. Li, Q. Li, and F. C. Lee, “A WBG based three phase 12.5
kW 500 kHz CLLC resonant converter with integrated PCB winding
transformer,” in 2018 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2018, pp. 469–475.
[148] Y. Cao, M. Ngo, R. Burgos, A. Ismail, and D. Dong, “Switching
Transition Analysis and Optimization for Bidirectional CLLC Resonant
DC Transformer,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 37, no. 4, pp.
3786–3800, Apr. 2022.
[149] F. Jin, A. Nabih, Q. Li, and F. C. Lee, “A Three Phase CLLC Con-
verter with Improved Planar Integrated Transformer for Fast Charger
Applications,” in 2021 IEEE ICDCM, Jul. 2021, pp. 1–5.
[150] F. Jin, A. Nabih, Z. Li, and Q. Li, “A Single Phase CLLC Resonant
Converter with a Novel Matrix Integrated Transformer,” in 2022 IEEE
ECCE, Oct. 2022, pp. 1–8.
[151] A. Nabih, F. Jin, Q. Li, and F. C. Lee, “Soft Start-up of Three Phase
CLLC Converter Based on State Trajectory Control,” in 2021 IEEE
APEC, Jun. 2021, pp. 1927–1932.
[152] G.-J. Su, “Comparison of Si, SiC, and GaN based Isolation Converters
for Onboard Charger Applications,” in 2018 IEEE ECCE, Sep. 2018,
pp. 1233–1239.
[153] V. Rigot, T. Phulpin, J. Sakly, and D. Sadarnac, “An Automotive
High-Frequency Coreless Transformer of 11kw Dual Active Bridge
Converter,” in PCIM Europe 2022, May 2022, pp. 1–6.
[154] Wolfspeed, “20 kW full bridge LLC resonant converter using
1kV SiC MOSFET.” [Online]. Available: https://www.wolfspeed.com/
crd-20dd09p-2/
[155] W. Inc., “22kW Bi-directional High Efficiency DC-DC Converter.”
[Online]. Available: https://www.wolfspeed.com/crd-22dd12n/
[156] S. Mukherjee, J. M. Ruiz, and P. Barbosa, “A High Power Density Wide
Range DC–DC Converter for Universal Electric Vehicle Charging,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1998–2012, Feb. 2023.
[157] F. Jin, Z. Li, A. Nabih, and Q. Li, “Controllable Built-in Leakage
Inductance for A Novel Matrix Integrated Transformer,” in 2023 IEEE
APEC, Mar. 2023, pp. 3248–3254, iSSN: 2470-6647.
[158] F. Jin, A. Nabih, and Q. Li, “Light Load Efficiency Improvement
of Three Phase CLLC Resonant Converter for On-Board Charger
Applications,” in 2022 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2022, pp. 1–7, iSSN: 2470-
6647.
[159] X. Gong, G. Wang, and M. Bhardwaj, “6.6kW Three-Phase Interleaved
Totem Pole PFC Design with 98.9% Peak Efficiency for HEV/EV
Onboard Charger,” in 2019 IEEE APEC, Mar. 2019, pp. 2029–2034.
[160] “PMP23069 reference design | TI.com.” [Online]. Available: https:
//www.ti.com/tool/PMP23069
[161] “3.6kW Bridgeless Totem-Pole PFC Reference Design.” [Online].
Available: https://www.wolfspeed.com/crd-03600ad065e-l/
[162] G. S. , “High Efficiency CCM Bridgeless Totem Pole PFC Design
using GaN E-HEMT.” [Online]. Available: https://gansystems.com/
wp-content/uploads/2018/01/GS665BTP-REF-rev170905.pdf
[163] Z. Huang, Z. Liu, F. C. Lee, and Q. Li, “Critical-Mode-Based Soft-
Switching Modulation for High-Frequency Three-Phase Bidirectional
AC–DC Converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34, no. 4, pp.
3888–3898, Apr. 2019.
[164] J. Knoll, G. Son, C. DiMarino, Q. Li, H. Stahr, and M. Morianz,
“Design and Analysis of a PCB-Embedded 1.2 kV SiC Half-Bridge
Module,” in 2021 IEEE ECCE, Oct. 2021, pp. 5240–5246.
[165] Y. Park, S. Chakraborty, and A. Khaligh, “A Bare-die SiC-based
Isolated Bidirectional DC-DC Converter for Electric Vehicle On-board
Chargers,” in 2020 IEEE ITEC, Jun. 2020, pp. 49–54.
23
[166] P. He, A. Mallik, A. Sankar, and A. Khaligh, “Design of a 1-MHz
High-Efficiency High-Power-Density Bidirectional GaN-Based CLLC
Converter for Electric Vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68,
no. 1, pp. 213–223, Jan. 2019.
[167] R. P. Wojda, “Winding resistance and power loss for inductors with litz
and solid-round wires,” in 2016 IEEE PEMC, Sep. 2016, pp. 860–865.
[168] “BYD ATTO 3.” [Online]. Available: https://www.byd.com/eu/car/atto3
[169] H. Zhao, Y. Shen, W. Ying, S. S. Ghosh, M. R. Ahmed, and T. Long,
“A Single- and Three-Phase Grid Compatible Converter for Electric
Vehicle On-Board Chargers,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 35,
no. 7, pp. 7545–7562, Jul. 2020.
[170] J. Ye, C. Shi, and A. Khaligh, “Single-Phase Charging Operation of
a Three-Phase Integrated Onboard Charger for Electric Vehicles,” in
2018 IEEE ITEC, Jun. 2018, pp. 681–686.
[171] N. Bodo, E. Levi, I. Subotic, J. Espina, L. Empringham, and C. M.
Johnson, “Efficiency Evaluation of Fully Integrated On-Board EV
Battery Chargers With Nine-Phase Machines,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 257–266, Mar. 2017.
[172] S. A. Arshadi, M. Ordonez, W. Eberle, M. Craciun, and C. Botting,
“Three-Phase LLC Battery Charger: Wide Regulation and Improved
Light-Load Operation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 36, no. 2,
pp. 1519–1531, Feb. 2021.
[173] D. Patil, M. K. McDonough, J. M. Miller, B. Fahimi, and P. T. Balsara,
“Wireless Power Transfer for Vehicular Applications: Overview and
Challenges,” IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrification, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3–
37, Mar. 2018.
[174] S. Y. Choi, B. W. Gu, S. Y. Jeong, and C. T. Rim, “Advances
in Wireless Power Transfer Systems for Roadway-Powered Electric
Vehicles,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron., vol. 3, no. 1, pp.
18–36, Mar. 2015.
[175] V. Cirimele, M. Diana, F. Freschi, and M. Mitolo, “Inductive Power
Transfer for Automotive Applications: State-of-the-Art and Future
Trends,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 4069–4079, Sep.
2018.
[176] H. K. Bai, D. Costinett, L. M. Tolbert, R. Qin, L. Zhu, Z. Liang, and
Y. Huang, “Charging Electric Vehicle Batteries: Wired and Wireless
Power Transfer: Exploring EV charging technologies,” IEEE Power
Electronics Magazine, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 14–29, Jun. 2022.
VII. B IOGRAPHY S ECTION
Hans Wouters received his B.S. and MSc degree in
Electromechanical Engineering from the University
of Hasselt and KU Leuven in 2019 and 2020,
respectively. Currently, he is working towards a
Ph.D. degree at the KU Leuven EnergyVille Power
Electronics research group in the Department of
Electrical Engineering (ESAT). His research inter-
ests centre around electric vehicle charging, with a
focus on efficient and compact magnetic design for
bidirectional on-board chargers.
Wilmar Martinez received his B.S. degree in Elec-
tronics Engineering and the MSc degree in Electrical
Engineering from Universidad Nacional de Colom-
bia in 2011 and 2013, and the PhD degree in Elec-
tronic Function and System Engineering from Shi-
mane University, Japan, in 2016. He was a postdoc-
toral researcher at the Toyota Technological Institute,
Japan, in 2016, and at Aalto University, Finland, in
2017. In 2018, he joined KU Leuven, Belgium, as an
Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
Engineering (ESAT), and he has held the position of
Associate Professor since 2023. Additionally, he serves as the Coordinator of
the Research Line Power Electronics at EnergyVille in Belgium. His current
research interests include power conversion for energy and transportation
systems, battery charging infrastructure, and electric powertrain development
through the multi-objective optimization of power converters, evaluation of
magnetic losses, and studies of SiC and GaN switching devices.