Economic Payback Time of Battery Pack Replacement for Hybrid and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the economic viability of replacing the high-voltage battery pack of a power-split hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) and a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) by estimating the impact of battery aging on the fuel economy, drivability capability, and electric range. The HEV is modeled first, an optimal energy management strategy based on dynamic programming is then implemented, and experimental characterization data for the battery cell is presented. The batteries are tested to a heavily aged state, with up to an 84% loss of capacity. The battery pack payback period is estimated by assessing the vehicle operative costs in terms of fuel and electricity as obtained through numerical simulations as a function of battery aging. Replacing the battery pack at the conventional end-of-life limit of 80% residual capacity is suggested not to be convenient from an economic standpoint for both the HEV and the PHEV. On the other hand, acceptable payback periods (i.e., 2–5 years) can be achieved for the battery pack when being replaced at 20% to 40% residual capacity. The proposed methodology can be implemented to advise an HEV or PHEV user regarding the benefit of replacing the battery pack due to excessive aging.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".