Differentiated Speed Planning for Connected and Automated Electric Vehicles at Signalized Intersections considering Dynamic Wireless Power Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deploying the dynamic wireless power transfer (DWPT) equipment at intersections can improve the transportation efficiency and decrease the energy consumption. It can easily turn the disadvantages of waiting time for red phase into the advantages of charging benefits for electric vehicles (EVs). This study develops a multiobjective speed planning model with differentiated charging strategy to optimize the EV’s trajectory at signalized intersections with DWPT. To mitigate the negative impact of DWPT, the proposed model is divided into charging priority driving (C-eco-driving) mode and time priority driving (T-eco-driving) mode for connected and automated electric vehicles (CAEVs) to apply different scenarios. Meanwhile, a widely applied car-following model, i.e., the Intelligent Driver Model (IDM), has been calibrated with the ground-truth dataset to meet the intersection characteristic for EVs in mixed traffic. The efficiency and robustness of two eco-driving modes were validated in single-vehicle and mixed traffic based on MATLAB simulation. For single vehicle, the electricity benefits of the C-eco-driving mode and T-eco-driving mode increase about 0.0867 kWh and 0.0532 kWh, respectively. T-eco-driving mode reduces 2.5 s of travel time. For mixed traffic, the C-eco-driving mode provides more charging benefits about 51~73% than no-control strategy. In contrast, the T-eco-driving mode provides significant time benefits of 2.6 s and slight electricity benefits of 12~30% than no-control strategy. The increment of market penetration rate and wireless charging length can significantly improve the charging benefits. When charging length has the same value, the closer the DWPT facilities to the intersection, the more obvious the charging benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".