Optimal Hybridization of Battery, Engine and Motor for PHEV20
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) relies on relatively larger storage batteries than conventional hybrid electric vehicles. The characteristics of PHEV batteries, as well as hybridization of the PHEV battery with the engine and electric motor, play an important role in the design and potential adoption of PHEVs. To exhaustively evaluate all the possible combinations of available types of batteries, motors and engines, the total computational time is prohibitive. This work proposed an integrated optimal design strategy to address this problem. The recently developed Pareto set pursuing (PSP) multi-objective optimization approach is employed to perform optimal hybridization. Each PHEV with chosen battery, motor and engine is designed for optimal component sizing using the Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit (PSAT) software. The methodology is demonstrated with the Toyota Prius PHEV20: PHEV version sized for 20 miles (32.1 km) of all electric range (AER). Fuel economy, operating cost, and green house gases emissions are simultaneously optimized from 4,480 possible combinations of design parameters: 20 batteries, 14 motors, and 16 engines. The hybridization optimization is performed on two different drive cycles—Urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS) and Winnipeg weekday duty cycle (WWDC). It was found that battery, motor, and engine work collectively to define an optimal hybridization scheme and the optimal hybridization scheme varies with each driving cycle. The proposed method and software platform could be applied to optimize other powertrain designs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".