A hierarchical energy efficiency optimization control strategy for distributed drive electric vehicles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed drive electric vehicle with four in-wheel motors is widespread with various characteristics, such as performance potentials for independent wheel drive control and energy efficiency. However, in future, one of the biggest obstacles for its success in the automotive industry would be its limited energy storage. This paper proposes a hierarchical control method that involves a high-level motion controller that uses sliding mode control to calculate the total desired force and yaw moment and a low-level allocation controller in which an optimal energy-efficient control allocation scheme is presented to provide optimally distributed torques of four in-wheel motors in all the normal cases. A practicable motor energy efficiency model as a motor actuator is proposed by incorporating the electric motor efficiency map based on measured data into the motor efficiency experiment and a current closed-loop motor model. Moreover, both tracking performance and energy-saving are carried out in this research and evaluated via a co-simulation approach using MATLAB/Simulink and CarSim. A ramp maneuver at a constant speed and New European Driving Cycle and Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule maneuvers have been conducted. To conclude, it is demonstrated that distributed drive electric vehicle with four in-wheel motors can reduce total power consumption and enhance tracking performance compared with a simple control allocation in which the torques are the fixed ratio distribution.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it