## 5 Simulation and Experimental Verification  
### Simulation Verification  
The proposed multi-output inverter and its performance were simulated and verified in MATLAB/Simulink 2023b. The simulation model is shown in Figure 13 and the simulation parameters are shown in Table 4. The first and third outputs of the inverter were connected to the LCC-S compensation network, and the second and fourth outputs were connected to the S-S compensation network. Figures 14 and 15 show the simulated waveforms of the drive signals of the four power switches and four output voltages of the proposed inverter at different duty cycles. When \(U_{dc}\) = 50 V and \(D\) = 0.5 were set, the amplitude of the inverter output voltages was 100 V, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** & **Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline \(f_{0}\) & 85 kHz & \(M_{1}\), \(M_{2}\), \(M_{3}\), \(M_{4}\) & 35 uH \\ C & 100 uF & \(C_{a1}\), \(C_{a2}\) & 30 nF \\ \(L\) & 229 uH & \(C_{p2}\), \(C_{p4}\) & 20 nF \\ \(L_{a1}\), \(L_{a2}\) & 117 uH & \(C_{p1}\), \(C_{p3}\) & 60 nF \\ \(L_{p1}\), \(L_{p2}\), \(L_{p3}\), \(L_{p4}\) & 175 uH & \(C_{s1}\), \(C_{s2}\), \(C_{s3}\), \(C_{s4}\) & 20 nF \\ \(L_{s1}\), \(L_{s2}\), \(L_{s3}\), \(L_{s4}\) & 175 uH & \(R_{1}\), \(R_{2}\), \(R_{3}\), \(R_{4}\) & 10 \(\Omega\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: System parameters. Figure 13: Simulation model. which was consistent with the theoretical analysis. When \(D_{1}=D_{2}=0.2\) and \(D_{1}=D_{2}=0.3\) were set separately, the operating states of power switches and the inverter output voltages exhibited different waveforms, but the overall complementarity between the output voltage waveforms was present, and the amplitude remained consistent. In addition, by adjusting different duty cycles, the inverter output voltages could be controlled to match the design. Figure 16 shows the simulated waveforms corresponding to each output of the inverter when \(D=0.5\) and \(D_{1}=D_{2}=0.25\), including the inverter output voltage, the load voltage, the transmitting coil current, and the load current. Define the \(q\)-th (\(q=1\), \(2\), \(3\), \(4\)) transmitting coil current as \(i_{pq}\), the load voltage as \(u_{Rq}\), and the load current as \(i_{Rq}\). It can be seen that in the first and third outputs using the LCC-S topology, the phases of the inverter output voltage, load voltage, and load current remained consistent, and the transmitting coil current lagged behind by \(90^{\circ}\). When the input voltage was set to \(50\) V, the amplitude of the inverter output voltage reached \(100\) V. Meanwhile, the RMS of the load voltage, transmission coil current, and load current were \(8.42\) V, \(0.52\) A, and \(0.84\) A, respectively. The second and fourth outputs using S-S topology maintained the same phase of load voltage and load current, and the leading inverter output voltage and transmission coil current were \(90^{\circ}\). The RMS of the load voltage, transmission coil current, and load current were \(16\) V, \(1.02\) A, and \(1.6\) A, respectively. It can be inferred that all four outputs of the inverter achieved wireless power transmission. Figure 14: Simulation waveforms when \(D=0.5\) and \(D_{1}=D_{2}=0.2\). (a) Drive signals of power switches. (b) Inverter output voltages. Figure 15: Simulation waveforms when \(D=0.5\) and \(D_{1}=D_{2}=0.3\). (a) Drive signals of power switches. (b) Inverter output voltages. Figure 17 shows the simulated waveforms of load switching under different resonant compensation networks, where the load resistor switched from 10 \(\Omega\) to 5 \(\Omega\). From the simulation results, it can be concluded that for the LCC-S topology, when the load was switched, the transmitting coil current remained constant. At the same time, the load current increased as the load decreased, reaching a new stable state after a brief transition period.