Power Electronics Design & Analysis for EV Applications
Analyze and optimize power electronics topologies for EV drivetrains and charging systems
What You Can Do
You can evaluate converter topologies (buck, boost, bidirectional, LLC architectures), calculate component losses and thermal performance across operating conditions, perform derating analysis for MOSFETs/IGBTs/diodes, identify failure modes and stress points, and generate efficiency maps and thermal specifications. This skill accelerates design validation and helps you compare trade-offs between cost, efficiency, size, and thermal performance before detailed simulation.
Features
evaluate buck, boost, bidirectional, and LLC converter architectures with SiC vs IGBT trade-off analysis
calculate junction temperatures, thermal resistance networks, and heatsink requirements for power devices
compute conduction and switching losses across load and voltage operating ranges
validate semiconductor selection against datasheet limits and operating stress
identify FMEA points, stress concentrations, and reliability concerns in proposed designs
generate efficiency curves across multiple operating conditions for performance validation
compare cost, efficiency, size, and thermal performance alternatives
create detailed design review documentation and thermal/electrical specifications for development teams
Example Output
Example 1: Topology Selection for 11 kW Onboard Charger
- Evaluated three topologies: Interleaved Boost + LLC, Totem-Pole PFC, and Bridgeless Boost
- Recommended Totem-Pole with SiC MOSFETs: 96.2% efficiency at rated power, 15°C lower junction temperature vs IGBT variant
- Identified critical stress point: High dV/dt across output capacitors; recommended film capacitors with 1.5× voltage derating
Example 2: Thermal Analysis for DC-DC Converter (400V to 12V)
- Calculated total losses: 18W conduction + 12W switching at full load
- Thermal path: Tj = 85°C with proposed aluminum heatsink (0.5 K/W) in natural convection
- Recommended thermal interface material: 0.5 mm silicone pad (3 W/mK) to reduce interface resistance
Example 3: Failure Mode Assessment
- Identified gate-to-source voltage stress during switching transients; recommended 10Ω gate resistance for snubbing
- Derating analysis: MOSFETs operating at 78% of rated Vds; adequate margin for 150°C ambient condition
What's Included
- SKILL.md instruction file with detailed skill methodology:
- Topology Evaluation Framework: comparison matrix template for converter architectures with efficiency/cost/thermal trade-offs
- Thermal Analysis Worksheet: loss calculation templates, thermal resistance network model, and junction temperature calculator
- Component Derating Checklist: semiconductor stress validation against datasheet parameters
- Failure Mode Analysis Template: FMEA-style assessment for identifying critical failure points and mitigation strategies
- Design Review Documentation Template: structured format for presenting analysis results to engineering teams
Who It's For
- Power electronics design engineers working on EV drivetrain converters and onboard chargers
- Automotive electrical engineers optimizing DC-DC converters and power distribution systems
- Hardware validation engineers conducting early-stage thermal and reliability assessments
- EV systems engineers comparing topology options and design trade-offs during concept phase
- Technical leads preparing design reviews and component selection justifications
Best For
- Evaluating converter topology options (buck, boost, bidirectional, LLC) for new EV applications
- Performing thermal and efficiency calculations for power device selection validation
- Identifying failure modes, stress points, and derating requirements in proposed designs
- Generating efficiency maps and thermal specifications for heatsink development
- Creating design trade-off comparisons (cost vs efficiency vs size vs thermal performance)
- Validating component selections against datasheet limits and operating conditions
You might also like
You can validate AUTOSAR software architectures across multiple compliance dimensions—layer separation, component interfaces, port definitions, service interfaces, and communication semantics. The skill identifies structural violations, missing documentation artifacts, and compliance gaps early in the design phase, helping you catch issues before formal gates and functional safety audits. It generates architecture compliance reports and documentation needed for ISO 26262 functional safety reviews.
You can design complete AUTOSAR 4.x system architectures by automating component allocation across abstraction layers, modeling port interactions and service interfaces, and validating compliance with AUTOSAR standards. Claude helps you create standardized architecture documentation, detect circular dependencies and interface mismatches, and generate port interaction matrices—accelerating ECU architecture development while ensuring standards adherence.
You can analyze FEA thermal simulation data to identify motor hotspots, calculate heat generation from motor losses across operating points, evaluate competing cooling solutions quantitatively, and troubleshoot excessive temperature rise during dyno testing. The skill helps you validate thermal management design margins, assess motor lifetime degradation risk, and optimize cooling loop efficiency—enabling data-driven thermal design decisions before building prototypes.
You can efficiently diagnose complex NVH concerns by working through a structured framework that correlates customer symptoms with potential powertrain failures. This skill helps you narrow diagnostic possibilities, recommend targeted testing sequences, distinguish between component failures and tuning issues, and substantiate warranty claims with technical evidence.
You can evaluate simulation scenarios against functional safety and SOTIF requirements, identify untested edge cases and high-risk operational design domains, map failure modes to root causes, and generate traceability matrices linking requirements to validation results. This skill transforms raw simulation data into defensible technical documentation that demonstrates test completeness and readiness for real-world deployment.
You can pinpoint the exact source of sensor fusion failures—whether they stem from misaligned camera/LiDAR/radar extrinsic calibration, timestamp desynchronization, data validation gaps, or algorithmic issues. This skill decomposes multi-modal perception errors into sensor-specific contributions and generates quantifiable diagnostic reports that directly guide calibration and testing teams toward fixes rather than blind troubleshooting.
You can quantify sensor fusion performance across object detection, classification, tracking, and localization using standardized metrics. The framework helps you identify systematic failure modes in diverse environmental conditions, document safety-critical gaps, and generate structured evidence packages for ISO 26262 and SOTIF compliance. This enables you to benchmark sensor configurations, define perception KPIs, and support regulatory submissions with rigorous performance documentation.
You can analyze multi-dimensional steering system performance including torque characteristics, self-alignment torque, steering angle feedback, road feel transmission, and torque vectoring effects. Extract actionable insights from simulation and test data to identify root causes of steering feel issues, then develop tuning recommendations for steering gear ratios, EPS algorithms, suspension geometry effects, and torque vectoring control strategies.