MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2207165743 · doi:10.1109/vppc.2015.7352976

Modeling and Simulation of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Powertrain System for Different Vehicular Application

2015· article· en· W2207165743 on OpenAlexafffund
Rui Cheng, Zuomin Dong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsPowertrainAutomotive engineeringPlug-inDSPACEElectric vehicleMATLABHybrid vehicleKey (lock)Computer scienceAutomotive industryEngineeringTorquePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) presents the new trend of clean energy vehicle development due to their advantage of all electric driving, allowable external charging, lower emissions, and lower petroleum fuel consumption, comparing to the maturing HEV. Applications of advanced plug-in hybrid powertrain system technology to different type of vehicles lead to the need to identify the key characteristics of these different vehicular applications, and to develop more systematic and effective powertrain design methods. In this work two different types of PHEV powertrain architecture were investigated: a) pre-trans series-parallel multiregime plug-in hybrid electric commercial vehicle (SPMRPHEV), and b) post-trans parallel plug-in hybrid electric formula racing car. Model-based design (MBD) methods were used for powertrain system modelling of the two PHEV applications. With the powertrain system models developed using MATLAB Simulink and dSPACE Automotive Simulation Models (ASM), the powertrain configurations, control strategies and key features were investigated. The simulation results on standard driving cycles for each model using different rule-based control strategies were compared. The differences and key features of two types of vehicle in design and calibration were presented and analyzed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207