Multitarget Evaluation of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Powertrain Architectures Considering Fuel Economy and Battery Lifetime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) powertrains are characterized by a complex design environment as a result of both the large number of possible layouts and the need for dedicated energy management strategies. When selecting the most suitable hybrid powertrain architecture at an early design stage of HEVs, engineers usually focus solely on fuel economy (directly linked to tailpipe emissions) and vehicle drivability performance. However, high voltage batteries are a crucial component of HEVs as well in terms of performance and cost. This paper introduces a multitarget assessment framework for HEV powertrain architectures which considers both fuel economy and battery lifetime. A multi-objective formulation of dynamic programming is initially presented as an off-line optimal HEV energy management strategy capable of predicting both fuel economy performance and battery lifetime of HEV powertrain layout options. Subsequently, three different HEV powertrain architectures are considered as test cases for the developed HEV assessment methodology including parallel P2, series-parallel P1P2 and power-split layouts. A comparison of numerical results for the three HEV powertrain test cases is then performed in terms of optimal fuel economy capabilities while ensuring a specific battery lifetime over several defined driving missions. Engineers could thus adopt the developed methodology to enhance the evaluation of HEV design options by considering fuel economy and battery lifetime at the same time.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".