MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952885090 · doi:10.1049/joe.2018.9271

Droop control method in power converter system for balancing state‐of‐charge of energy storage units in EV

2019· article· en· W2952885090 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsVoltage droopInterfacingState of chargeBattery (electricity)Computer sciencePower (physics)MATLABEnergy storageMicrogridAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineeringVoltageControl theory (sociology)Control (management)EngineeringVoltage sourceComputer hardwareOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A proficient power management between proposed multiple battery units in an EV is entailed to achieve the prolonged lifespan of batteries and to impede these from overcharging and overburdening during operation. At first, system configuration with three batteries has been developed for BEV architecture. Based on availability of their state‐of‐charge (SoC), power‐sharing among these battery units is realised by applying a droop control method on power converter system (PCS), which acts as interfacing between battery units and powertrain of EV. To get optimal use of these supplies, balancing of SoCs among these parallel modules is performed by gradual equalisation of power using droop control. Droop control is implemented for both charging and discharging modes of operation using a bi‐directional converter. SoC‐based droop control method is performed on MATLAB/Simulink model included three energy storage units (ESUs) with PCS and simulation results at the constant speed of EV are shown to demonstrate and verify the approach.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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