Driver-in-the-Loop Drivability and Energy Efficiency Analysis of Regenerative Braking Strategies for Electric Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates different regenerative braking strategies applied to Battery Electric Vehicles, such as series and parallel brake blends. The comparison includes energy efficiency assessment using homologation and real-world drive cycle and objective and subjective drivability evaluation. Multiple simulations are performed using a one-dimensional (1D) vehicle model developed in Simulink and a static driving simulator. The driving simulator provides a fair comparison of real-world driving since it creates repeatable highway and urban traffic conditions. These simulations compare the system energy efficiency by looking at the battery's state of charge (SOC). The drivability is assessed on top of consumption by using the static driving simulator. It is objectively measured by calculating the longitudinal acceleration change ratio over time, which occurs during the regeneration ramp-in and ramp-out, for different pedal positions and pedal gradients. The drivability is also subjectively evaluated by assessing the system's smoothness and absence of shakes during braking maneuvers and the deceleration feels while “freely” coasting at high speeds. This study clarifies the utilization of a driving simulator integrated with a model-based design apporoach to develop regenertive braking controls and braking system architectures for electrified vehicles. In the study case presented in this paper, the Series regenerative braking shows better efficiency and better drivability, especially for conditions of low accelerations lower than 0.3g.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".