MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206904992 · doi:10.3390/asi4040078

Soft Sensors for State of Charge, State of Energy, and Power Loss in Formula Student Electric Vehicle

2021· article· en· W3206904992 on OpenAlexaff
Kanishkavikram Purohit, Shivangi Srivastava, Varun Nookala, Vivek Joshi, Pritesh Shah, Ravi Sekhar, Satyam Panchal, Michael Fowler, Roydon Fraser, Manh‐Kien Tran, Chris Shum

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied System Innovation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean squared errorState of chargeAutoregressive modelElectric vehicleArtificial neural networkParametric statisticsControl theory (sociology)Power (physics)Battery (electricity)Computer scienceEngineeringSimulationMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proliferation of electric vehicle (EV) technology is an important step towards a more sustainable future. In the current work, two-layer feed-forward artificial neural-network-based machine learning is applied to design soft sensors to estimate the state of charge (SOC), state of energy (SOE), and power loss (PL) of a formula student electric vehicle (FSEV) battery-pack system. The proposed soft sensors were designed to predict the SOC, SOE, and PL of the EV battery pack on the basis of the input current profile. The input current profile was derived on the basis of the designed vehicle parameters, and formula Bharat track features and guidelines. All developed soft sensors were tested for mean squared error (MSE) and R-squared metrics of the dataset partitions; equations relating the derived and predicted outputs; error histograms of the training, validation, and testing datasets; training state indicators such as gradient, mu, and validation fails; validation performance over successive epochs; and predicted versus derived plots over one lap time. Moreover, the prediction accuracy of the proposed soft sensors was compared against linear or nonlinear regression models and parametric structure models used for system identification such as autoregressive with exogenous variables (ARX), autoregressive moving average with exogenous variables (ARMAX), output error (OE) and Box Jenkins (BJ). The testing dataset accuracy of the proposed FSEV SOC, SOE, PL soft sensors was 99.96%, 99.96%, and 99.99%, respectively. The proposed soft sensors attained higher prediction accuracy than that of the modelling structures mentioned above. FSEV results also indicated that the SOC and SOE dropped from 97% to 93.5% and 93.8%, respectively, during the running time of 118 s (one lap time). Thus, two-layer feed-forward neural-network-based soft sensors can be applied for the effective monitoring and prediction of SOC, SOE, and PL during the operation of EVs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations90
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied System InnovationSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207