MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206778448 · doi:10.1109/tte.2022.3143092

Power Sharing Control Algorithm for Direct Integration of Fuel Cells in a Dual-Inverter Electric Vehicle Drivetrain

2022· article· en· W4206778448 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehanathan Pathmanathan, Sepehr Semsar, Caniggia Viana, Peter W. Lehn

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBattery (electricity)Power (physics)InverterDrivetrainElectric vehicleAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineeringVoltageComputer scienceEngineeringTorquePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuel cell (FC)-battery hybrid electric vehicles (EVs) are an alternative to emergent battery EVs. Normally, a dc–dc converter is used to connect the low-voltage dc output of the FC to the high-voltage EV battery and ensure that a slow-changing unidirectional power flow is maintained from the FC. This article proposes to directly integrate the FC as one of the two energy sources in a dual-inverter-based EV drive. A conventional EV battery is used as the second energy source. A power sharing algorithm is introduced, which allows the dual-inverter drive to be modulated such that unidirectional power flow is maintained from the FC. In addition, power flow is controlled such that the minimum FC power to avoid its unnecessary shutdown is maintained under all operating points of an EV drive cycle, including regenerative braking. A key aspect of this algorithm is the injection of motor reactive current as a means to achieve desired FC power transfer during fast mechanical power reduction transients or when low mechanical power is required from the drive. This method allows for the motor to achieve fast mechanical power transients while respecting the slowly changing power reference of the FC.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Transportation ElectrificationSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207