MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405092735 · doi:10.1109/tte.2024.3512370

Optimal Deployment of Overhead Catenary Charging for Electric Bus Transit Systems

2024· article· en· W4405092735 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Shehabeldeen, Moataz Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCatenarySoftware deploymentOverhead (engineering)Transit (satellite)Computer scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringTransport engineeringPublic transportStructural engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating in-motion charging into battery electric bus (BEB) transit systems offers a promising solution to address challenges associated with stationary charging, including resource limitations, extended charging durations, and higher battery costs. This study develops a generic optimization model integrating overhead catenary charging (OCC) facilities with overnight charging to minimize BEB system costs (capital and operational). Capital costs are reduced by optimizing OCC deployment, BEB battery capacity, and depot charging configurations. Simultaneously, operational costs are minimized by optimizing charging schedules considering electricity time-of-use (ToU) tariffs, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity (tCo2e), and BEB battery degradation costs. Application of our model to a real-world transit network highlights substantial reductions in on-peak hours electricity demand (56%), GHG emissions (13%), and overall charging costs (27%). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis explains the impact of OCC infrastructure costs on the total system cost. However, increasing the charging power of OCC facilities yields notable cost savings (28%).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Transportation ElectrificationSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207