Important powertrain dynamics for developing models for control of connected and automated electrified vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAV) technology presents significant opportunities for energy saving in the transportation sector. CAV technology forecasts vehicle and powertrain power needs under various terrain, ambient, and traffic conditions. Integration of the CAV technology in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) provides the opportunity for optimal vehicle operation. Indeed, Hybrid Electric Vehicle powertrains present high degrees of flexibility and possibility for choosing optimum powertrain modes based on the predicted traction power needs. In modeling complex CAV powertrain dynamics, the modeler needs to consider short-time scale powertrain dynamics, such as engine transients, and hysteresis of mode-switching for a multi-mode HEV. Therefore, the powertrain dynamics essential for developing powertrain controllers for a class of connected HEVs is presented. To this end, control-oriented powertrain dynamic models for a test vehicle consisting of full electric, hybrid, and conventional engine operating modes are developed. The resulting powertrain model can forecast vehicle traction torque and energy consumption for the specified prediction horizon of the test vehicle. The model considers different operating modes and associated energy penalty terms for mode switching. Thus, the vehicle controller can determine the optimum powertrain mode, torque, and speed for forecasted vehicle operation via utilizing connectivity data. The powertrain model is validated against the experimental data and shows prediction error of less than 5% for predicting vehicle energy consumption. The model is used to create energy penalty maps that can be used for CAV control, for example fuel penalty map for engine torque changes (10–40 Nm) at each engine speed. The results of model-based optimization show optimum switching delays ranging from 0.4 to 1.4 s to avoid hysteresis in mode switching.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".