## 4 Discussion
Considering the parameters in Table 2, the following times are evaluated: \(t_{r}\) = 22.5 ns and \(t_{f}\) = 12.4 ns for IPPB009N03L, \(t_{r}\) = 24.48 ns and \(t_{f}\) = 16.32 ns for PSMN1R440 YLD. According to these values, it is expected to find worse performances using PSMN1R440 YLD. In Figure 8, the input voltage evaluated as a trapezoidal function is compared with the input voltage provided by the MOSFET full-bridge reproduced in the Simulink environment. The waveforms are slightly different; this is due to the different calculation process, which is very simplified in the case of the trapezoidal waveform, and for this reason much easier to be elaborated from the computational point of view. The proposed converter model takes in account, as discussed in Section 2, the first harmonic of the blue waveforms in Figure 8. The performances of the proposed model are compared with Simulink evaluating in both cases the impact of MOSFETs' behavior on the converter output voltage. The results are compared with the output voltage, theoretically achievable by the converter considering ideal switches; to obtain these values, the same model presented in Section 2 has been adopted, imposing a pure square wave input voltage. The comparisons among models have been performed considering different input voltage and load resistance values. The following ranges have been considered: 10 V-30 V for the input voltage (recommended MOSFET working range according with producers) and 10 \(\Omega\)-50 \(\Omega\) for the load resistance. Results are presented in Figures 9 and 10. Several considerations can be made observing these results. First of all, the impact of the MOSFETs' behavior on the converter performances is more important, as can be expected, when the current in the circuit increases. Indeed, the Simulink values are nearer to the ones of the proposed model when the input voltage increases, as shown in Figure 9 (particularly highlighted in Figure 9b, coherently with the expectations) and for low resistance values, as shown in Figure 10 (more evident in Figure 10b, coherently again with the expectations). Secondly, the values predicted with the proposed model are very similar to the ones calculated in Simulink; with reference to Figure 10, the percentage error between model and Simulink is always under 3.5% in Figure 10a and under 5.5% in Figure 10b. Finally, the proposed model realizes a slight underestimation of the results. This means that, considering Simulink as the most reliable value, using the ideal model and the proposed \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Model** & **Q\({}_{\text{GD}}\)** & **V\({}_{\text{gp}}\)** & **V\({}_{\text{GS}}\)** & **R\({}_{\text{g}}\)** \\ \hline IPPB009N03L (Infineon) & 24 nC & 2.9 V & 4.5 V & 1.5 \(\Omega\) \\ PSMN1R440 YLD (Nexperia) & 19.5 nC & 2.7 V & 4.5 V & 2.25 \(\Omega\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Electric parameters for the two considered commercial MOSFETs. Figure 8: Comparison of the input voltage calculated as trapezoidal function or using MOSFET full-bridge (considering parasitic capacitances) in the Simulink environment (V\({}_{\text{dc}}\) = 30 V). (**a**) IPPB009N03L (Infineon) MOSFET full-bridge. (**b**) PSMN1R440 YLD (Nexperia) MOSFET full-bridge. As can be seen, the prediction made by averaging the ideal and the proposed models is almost superimposed with the Simulink trend. So, the combination of these two models allows for exploring lots of working conditions (different input voltages and loads) in a paltry computational time (fractions of seconds) and granting reliable results. As a last consideration, observing the trends in Figure 11, the maximum power achievable, according to Simulink, is 1.2 kW in Figure 11a and 1.14 kW in Figure 10b; in correspondence of these values, the ideal model predicts, respectively, 1.27 kW and 1.26 kW. The MOSFET switching losses cause a 5.8% output power drop using IPPB009N03L and a 10.5% output power drop using PSMN1R440 YLD, confirming the expectations.