## 4 Experiment Verification  
To verify the results of the hybrid-topology switching model's theoretical analysis, we established a 1.4 kW experimental prototype based on the circuit diagram, as expressed in Figure 5. The established experimental prototype can provide a 12A CC input and a 120 V CV input to the battery. The experimental parameters are presented in Table 1. An LCR meter (IM3536, HIOKI) was used for measurements. Figure 14 shows the experimental prototype established according to Figure 5. The switching device used in the experiment was a SiC MOSFET (C3M0030090K, WOLPSPEED), which is used for the composition of  
Figure 12: The proposed hybrid LCC-LCC topology’s input phase angle, voltage transfer gain, and transconductance gain: (a) CC mode; (b) CV mode. Figure 13: (a) Control logic for \(S_{1}\) and \(S_{2}\) for the proposed IPT system; (b) logic circuit diagram of switching. HFI and ACSs, controlled by a DSP (TMS320F28335). A [PERSON] diode (IDW20G120C5B) was used for the rectifier. Dynamic load variations were simulated using Chroma 63200A. In a high-frequency magnetic field, a Litz wire is often adopted to overcome the skin effect, ensuring uniform current distribution through the LCT's cross-section. There is an error of about 1% between the measured and calculation values, and the value setting conformed to the IPT1 standard of SAE J2954, as shown in Table 2. The wireless transmission distance between the transmitting coil and receiving coil was 150 mm. The size of the transmitting coil was 650 \(\times\) 500 mm, and the size of the receiving coil was 335 \(\times\) 335 mm. Figure 15a presents the curves of the output voltage \(U_{b}\) and output current \(I_{b}\) of the proposed IPT charger with respect to the load. As shown, the charging voltage initially linearly increased with the load, and the charging current remained essentially unchanged, indicating that the IPT system operated in the CC mode. When the output voltage reached \(U_{REF}\), the IPT charger switched to the CV charging mode. In contrast to the CC mode, the output voltage remained constant when the IPT charger operated in the CV mode. However, the output current nonlinearly decreased with the increasing load, indicating that a CV output was achieved. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Symbols** & **Value** & **Symbols** & **Value** \\ \hline \(k\) & 0.206 & M & 8.45 \(\mu\)H \\ \(L_{p}\) & 41.63 \(\mu\)H & \(R_{\text{LP}}\) & 36.64 m\(\Omega\) \\ \(L_{s}\) & 40.41 \(\mu\)H & \(R_{\text{Ls}}\) & 41.98 m\(\Omega\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Measured parameters of the LCT. Figure 15: The measured battery-charging process under load variation: (**a**) charging voltage and current; (**b**) system efficiency and power. The IPT charger's efficiency was measured by adopting a power analyzer (HIOKI PW6001) as displayed in Figure 15b. On the left side of the CC/CV modes switching point (\(R_{\text{L}}\) = 10.2 \(\Omega\)), the IPT charger efficiency increased with power. At the mode switching point, the charging efficiency corresponding to the maximum output power of 1.4 kW was 92.2%. On the right side of the mode switching point, the system efficiency increased slightly to maximum efficiency of 92.3%, and then gradually decreased to 75% as the load increased. To verify the experimental results under the load's dynamic variation, an oscilloscope (Teledyne LeCroy, HDO4034A) was adopted to view the experimental waveforms; this is shown in Figures 16 and 17. Figure 16 presents the experimental waves of the input and output voltages and currents (\(U_{AB}\), \(I_{AB}\), \(U_{b}\), and \(I_{b}\)) when the resistance variations ranged from 6 to 10 \(\Omega\) in the CC mode. As shown, \(U_{AB}\) and \(I_{b}\) remained constant while \(I_{AB}\) and \(U_{b}\) changed with respect to the loads. Figure 17 presents the experimental waveforms of the resistance changing from 12 to 17 \(\Omega\) in the CV mode.