23 research outputs found
AS λ²νΈλ₯Ό μ΄μ©ν λΌμ°ν° ν¬μλ© ν μ΄λΈμ κ³ μ κ°±μ
Thesis (master`s)--μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ :μ κΈ°Β·μ»΄ν¨ν°κ³΅νλΆ,2001.Maste
Vehicle Plant Modeling and Simulation to Optimize Mild Hybrid 48V BAS (Belt-driven Alternator Starter) System Controller Algorithm Design
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ (μμ¬)-- μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ : 곡νμ λ¬Έλνμ μμ©κ³΅νκ³Ό, 2018. 2. μ°¨μμ.It has already been 20 years since Toyota introduced a hybrid vehicle call βPriusβ. Many Hybrid vehicles have been produced since then, but even so many years have passed.7 There is still a long way to the popularization of the hybrid vehicle. It is still very low compared to the total number of vehicles.
Why? That is probably due to the cost of the Hybrid system being added.21 Even though Hybrid vehicles are eco-friendly and high fuel efficiency, the cost of producing the vehicle is too high compared to the benefits to the customer.18 The cost is about 800.20
The problem in research and development organization of our company is that it is difficult to understand the development contents because we outsourced the various modeling to universities and professional developers. In order to solve this problem, we set it as a GSEP project.
The basic model was based on the EV (electric car) model that was previously performed in our company. And then the necessary parts from the 48V BAS have been added. The main point of this project is the vehicle modeling that is the target of the high level controller βEDU. Generation of the input variable (output variable) which required for high level controller was simulated.Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 Study Background 1
1.1.1 Needs for EV 1
1.1.2 Why especially 48V Mild Hybrid EV 2
1.1.3 Mild Hybrid Technology trend 3
1.2 Purpose of This Project 6
Chapter 2. System Configuration 7
2.1 Mild Hybrid 48V BAS Architecture 7
2.2 48V Power Network 8
2.3 Vehicle and EDU Modeling 9
2.4 Configuration of HILS and RCP17 10
2.5 Configuration of the interface between the Controller 11
Chapter 3. Vehicle System Modeling 13
3.1 Input & Output Variable 13
3.2 Vehicle Modeling 18
3.2.1 Plant: EV (Electric vehicle) Model Analysis 18
3.2.2 Plant_CAN: MEV Block 20
3.2.3 Combination of MEV Block and Autonomie Model 21
3.2.4 Battery(ESS) function update 24
3.2.5 Dynamics (Wheel + Chassis) function update 26
3.2.6 CAN communication set up 28
3.3 EDU Logic Modeling 30
Chapter 4. The Result for Simulation 32
4.1. Simulation based on driving cycle 32
4.1.1. Analysis result of UDDS driving cycle 32
4.1.2. Analysis result of NEDC driving cycle 35
4.1.3. Analysis result of WLTC running cycle 38
4.2. Actual vehicle verification 42
Chapter 5. Conclusion 44
Bibliography 45
κ΅λ¬Έ μ΄λ‘ 50Maste
λ―Έκ΅ νΉνμμ‘μμ ν©λ¦¬μ μΈ μ€μλ£(reasonable royalty)μ κΈ°μ΄ν μν΄λ°°μμ‘ μ°μ λ°©μμ μ°κ΅¬
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ (μμ¬)-- μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ : λ²νκ³Ό(μ§μμ¬μ°μ 곡), 2012. 2. κΆμμ€.λ―Έκ΅ νΉνμΉ¨ν΄ μμ‘μ μμ΄μ μν΄λ°°μμ‘μ μ°μ μ λΉν΄ νΉνκΆκ³Ό κ΄λ ¨νμ¬ ν립λ μ€μλ£κ° μλ €μ Έ μλ€λ©΄ μ΄ ν립λ μ€μλ£μ λ°λ₯Έ μν΄λ°°μμ΄ νμ©λλ€. μ¬νλΆλ ν립λ μ€μλ£λ₯Ό κ·Έλλ‘ μν΄λ°°μμΌλ‘ μΈμ©νμ§ μκ³ μ΄λ₯Ό μ¬μμ΄ μ²ν μν©μ λ°λΌ μ‘°μ ν μ μλ μ¬λκΆμ κ°μ§λ€. λ§μ½ ν립λ μ€μλ£κ° μλ €μ Έ μμ§ μλ€λ©΄ κ²½μμ€μλ£λ₯Ό μ°μ νκΈ° μν΄ μ€μλ£ κΈ°μ΄(Royalty Base)μ μ€μμμ¨(Royalty Rate)μ μ°μ νλ€. μ€μλ£ κΈ°μ΄λ₯Ό μ°μ νκΈ° μν΄ μ΄ μμ₯κ°μΉ ν¬ν¨μ λ²λ¦¬(EMVR : Entire Market Value Rule)μ μ μ©μ κ²ν νλ€. λ§μ½ EMVRμ μ μ©μ΄ κΈμ λλ©΄ μΉ¨ν΄λ μ²κ΅¬νμ κΈ°μ¬λ λ°λͺ
μ ꡬμ±νλ λΆνλ€μ΄ μ€μ§μ μΌλ‘ μμλ₯Ό μΌκΈ°νλ κ²½μ° μ 체 μ ν νΉμ κ΄λ ¨ μ νλ€μ 맀μΆμ΄ ν¨κ» μ€μλ£ κΈ°μ΄λ‘ λ μ μλ€. EMVRμ μ μ©μ΄ λ°°μ λλ©΄ μΉ¨ν΄λ μ²κ΅¬νμ κΈ°μ¬λ ꡬμ±μμλ€μ 맀μΆμ΄ μ€μλ£μ κΈ°μ΄λ‘ λλ€. μ΄νμ μ€μμμ¨μ κ²°μ νλ€. Uniloc μ΄μ μλ μΌλ°©μ μΌλ‘ 25% κ·μΉμ΄ μ μ©λμ΄ μ€μλ£ κΈ°μ΄κ° λλ ν맀 μ΄μ΅μ 25%λ₯Ό κ³±ν κ°μ΄ μν΄λ°°μμ‘μ μΆλ°μ μ΄ λμλ€. κ·Έλ¬λ μ°λ°©μνλ²μμ μ΄ κ·μΉμ νκΈ°νμκ³ μ΄μ μκ³ λ ν΄λΉ μ°μ
λΆμΌμμ ν΄λΉ νΉνκΆκ³Ό μ μ¬ν κΈ°μ μ λν΄ μ΄λ μ λμ λΉμ¨μ μΌλ°μ μΈ, μ¦ μ‘°μ§μ-νΌμν½ μμμ κ³ λ € μ΄μ μ ν΅μ©λλ λΉμ¨λ‘ ν κ²μΈμ§λ₯Ό μ μν΄μΌ νκ³ , νΌκ³ λ μ΄λ₯Ό λ°λ μ
μ¦μ ν΅ν΄ λ
Όλ°ν¨μΌλ‘μ λ€ν¬κ² λ κ²μ΄λ€.
μ΄λ κ² λΉν΄ λΆμΌμ μΌλ°μ μΈ μν©μ λ§μΆμ΄ μ°μΆλ κ²½μμ€μλ£λ μ‘°μ§μ-νΌμν½ μμ(GP factor)μ λν΄ μ‘°μ ν¨μΌλ‘μ¨ λΉν΄ μ¬μμ νΉμμ±μ΄ λ°μλλ€.In calculating damages in a patent litigation, compensation based on an established royalty is allowed if any. Court has the discretion to adjust the compensation according to circumstances specific to the case. If no established royalty is known, the damage expert has to show royalty base and royalty rate to prove a running royalty. To calculate royalty base, the Entire Market Value Rule is considered. If EMVR rule is applicable, for example, when the patent-related feature is the basis for customer demand of the entire apparatus, the sales of entire apparatus stands as the basis for calculation of damages. If not, only the sales of the components that related to the patented features could serve as the basis for the calculation of damages. Then, royalty rate is determined. Prior to the Uniloc case, 25% rule had been regarded as a established rule in determining royalty rate. As this rule is aboished by CAFC in Uniloc case, now a complaint seeking remedies should show a reasonable starting point of royalty rate by, for example, showing a established royalty rate in comparable licensing case and reasoning based on differences between two circumstances. Then, this royalty rate is adjusted by considering Georgea-Pacific factors.Maste
Assessing functional connectivity from brain signals during general anesthesia
Doctorλ§μ·¨ μ€ κΈ°λ₯μ μ°κ²°μ±μ λν μ΅κ·Ό μ°κ΅¬λ€μ μ λμ½-λμ μ½ νΌλλ°± μ°κ²°μ±μ΄ μμμ λν μ κ²½μκ΄μ(neural correlates of consciousness) μΌ κ²μ΄λΌ μμΈ‘νκ³ μλ€. λν λμμμ μ 보νλ¦μ λ°©ν₯μ΄ λ λ€νΈμν¬μ μκΉμ(topology)μ κΈ°μΈνλ€λ κ²μ΄ λͺ¨λΈλ§ μ°κ΅¬λ‘λΆν° μλ €μ‘λ€. νΉν μΈκ°μ λμμλ λμ μ½ μμμ νλΈλ€μ΄ λ§μ΄ λΆν¬νμ¬ μ΄ μμμ΄ μ 보λ₯Ό ν‘μνλ κ²½ν₯μ΄ κ°νλ―λ‘, μ λμ½-λμ μ½ νΌλλ°± μ°κ²°μ±μ΄ μ°μΈν μ μλ€. κΈ°μ‘΄ μ°κ΅¬λ€μ μ’
ν©νκ³ , λν νλΈ λ
Έλλ€μ μ 보νλ¦μ μμ΄μμ μ€μμ±μ κ³ λ €νμ¬ μ°λ¦¬λ λ§μ·¨μ κ° λ λ€νΈμν¬μ νλΈ λ
Έλλ€μ μν₯μ μ€ κ²μ΄λΌ κ°μ€μ μΈμ λ€. ννΈ, κΈ°λ₯μ μ°κ²°μ±κ³Ό κΈ°λ₯μ λ€νΈμν¬ λΆμμ μ μ©νκΈ°μ μμμ μ°λ¦¬λ λ κ°μ§ λ°©λ²λ‘ μ λ¬Έμ μ μ§λ©΄νμλ€. λ°λ‘ μ νκΈΈμ΄(finite size)μ μ ννΌν©(linear mixing)μ λ¬Έμ μ΄λ€. μ°λ¦¬λ μ΄ λ¬Έμ λ₯Ό 극볡νκΈ° μν λ°©λ²μ μ μνμκ³ , λ§μΉ¨λ΄ μ μ λ§μ·¨ μ€ EEG μ νΈμ κΈ°λ₯μ λ€νΈμν¬ λΆμμ μ μ©ν μ μμλ€.
κΈ°λ₯μ μ°κ²°μ± λΆμμ μ΅κ·Ό 10μ¬λ
κ° λ μ°κ΅¬μ μμ΄μ λ§μ΄ μμ©λκ³ μμ§λ§, λ§μ μ£Όμκ° νμνλ€. μ²«μ§Έλ‘ μ€μ μ°λ¦¬κ° μ¬μ©νλ λ°μ΄ν°μ κΈΈμ΄λ μ νν μ λ°μ μλλ°, μ΄ λλ¬Έμ μ€μ λ³΄λ€ κΈ°λ₯μ μ°κ²°μ±μ΄ κ°νκ² μΈ‘μ λ μ μλ€. μ΄λ¬ν μ νκΈΈμ΄ν¨κ³Ό(finite size effect)λ μκ³μ΄μ νμμ€ννΈλΌμ΄ μκ°μ λ°λΌ λ³νλ κ²½μ° λμ± μ¬κ°ν΄ μ§λ€. μλ₯Ό λ€μ΄, λ§μ·¨ μ΄κΈ°μλ μ½ λ² ν μ£Όνμ μμ(13-25 Hz)μμ νμ μ¦κ°κ° λνλλλ° λ§μ·¨μ λλκ° μ¦κ°ν μλ‘ μν μ£Όνμ μμ(8-13 Hz)μΌλ‘ νμκ° μ΄λνκ² λλ€. μ°λ¦¬λ 무μμ λ°μ΄ν°λ₯Ό μ΄μ©νμ¬ μ νκΈΈμ΄λ¬Έμ λ₯Ό 극볡νμλ€. μ μλ λ°©λ²λ‘ μ μ νκΈΈμ΄ν¨κ³Όλ‘ μΈν΄ μ¦κ°λ μμλκΈ°ν(phase synchronization)μ κ±°μ§μ±λΆ(spurious component)κ³Ό μ€μ μ±λΆ(genuine component)μ ꡬλΆν μ μμλ€. λͺ¨λΈμ ν΅ν΄ κ²μ¦λ λ°©λ²λ‘ μ λ§μ·¨ μ EEG μ€νλ°μ΄ν°μ μ μ©λμλ€. λλ²μ§Έλ‘, EEG λ°μ΄ν°μμ νν 보μ¬μ§λ μ ννΌν©(linear mixing)μ΄ μμ μ μκ² λ€. μ ννΌν©λ¬Έμ μ κ΄λ ¨νμ¬ λ°©ν₯μ±μ΄ μλ κΈ°λ₯μ μ°κ²°μ±(undirected functional connectivity)μ λν λ§μ μ°κ΅¬κ° μμμ§λ§, λ°©ν₯μ±μ΄ μλ κΈ°λ₯μ μ°κ²°μ±(directed functional connectivity)μ λν΄μλ κ±°μ μ°κ΅¬κ° λμ§ μμλ€. μ°λ¦¬λ λ°©ν₯ κ°μ€μΉ μμμ°¨ μ§μ(directed weighted phase lag index)λ₯Ό μ μνμλ€. λ°©λ²μ μ ν©μ±μ λΆμκ²°κ³Ό(analytic results)μ λͺ¨λΈ μκ³μ΄μ ν΅νμ¬ ν
μ€νΈ λμλ€. κ·Έλμ μΈκ³Όμ§μ(Granger causality), λΆνΈμ λ¬μνΈλ‘νΌ(symbolic transfer entropy), μμκΈ°μΈκΈ°μ§μ(phase slope index), κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ λ°©ν₯ μμμ°¨ μ§μ(phase lag index)μ λΉκ΅νμ¬ μ μλ λ°©λ²λ‘ μ κ°μ λ κ²°κ³Όλ₯Ό 보μ¬μ£Όμλ€. λ°©λ²λ‘ μ EEG μ€νλ°μ΄ν°μ μ μ©λμκ³ , κΈ°μ‘΄μ λ³΄κ³ λ λ§μ·¨ μ κ°μνλ μ λμ½-λμ μ½ νΌλλ°± μ°κ²°μ±μ΄ μν μ£Όνμμμ λλ ·μ΄ λνλ¨μ κ΄μ°°νμλ€.
λ§μ§λ§μΌλ‘ κΈ°λ₯μ λ€νΈμν¬ λ°©λ²λ‘ μ λ§μ·¨ μ EEG λ°μ΄ν°μ μ μ©νμλ€. κΈ°λ₯μ μ°κ²°μ±μ μΈκΈ°(strength)보λ€λ λ€νΈμν¬μ μκΉμ(topology)κ° μμμ λ³νμ μκ΄κ΄κ³κ° μμλ€. νκ· κ²½λ‘κΈΈμ΄(average path length), λ°μ§μ§μ(clustering coefficient), κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ λͺ¨λμ§μ(modularity)λ λͺ¨λ λ§μ·¨ ν μ¦κ°νλ κ²½ν₯μ 보μλλ°, λ λ€νΈμν¬ μμμμ κΈ΄ μ°κ²°μ±μ΄ νκ΄΄λλ κ²κ³Ό μ°κ΄μ΄ μμ κ²μ΄λ€. νΉλ³ν, νλΈ λ
Έλμ μ€μ¬λκ° λλλ¬μ§κ² κ°μνμλ€. λν, μ λμ½-λμ μ½ μ¬μ΄μ κΈ°λ₯μ μ°κ²°μ±μ κ°μμ νλΈ λ
Έλμ μ΄λμ΄ ν¨κ» κ΄μ°°λμλ€. λ€νΈμν¬ μκΉμμ λ³νκ° λ λ΄μ μ 보νλ¦μ λ³νμ κΈ΄λ°μ΄ μ°κ΄ μμλ€. ν₯ν μ°κ΅¬μμλ λ λ€νΈμν¬μ μκΉμ, μ 보νλ¦μ λ°©ν₯μ±μ΄ μμμμ€κ³Ό μ΄λ»κ² μ°κ΄μ΄ λμ΄ μλμ§ μ€λͺ
ν΄ μ€ μ μμ κ²μ΄λΌ κΈ°λνλ€.Recent studies of directed functional connectivity regarding general anesthesia have suggested frontal-to-parietal feedback connectivity as a potential candidate of neural correlates of consciousness. Moreover it has been shown with neural mass modeling that topological structure determined the direction of information flow in the brain. Thus dense posterior parietal hub structure in the human brain might play a role as a βsinkβ of information flow that attract information flow from prefrontal cortex by which dominant frontal-to-parietal feedback connectivity is achieved. Considering the essential role of hub structures for efficient information transmission, we hypothesized that anesthetics have an effect on the hub structure of functional brain networks. Before applying functional connectivity and functional network analysis, we challenged two methodological issues, finite size and linear mixing effect. We suggested methods to attenuate these problems and finally analyzed electroencephalogram data during general anesthesia.
Despite of its popular uses in recent brain study, caution is required when estimating functional connectivity. First finite size of time series inevitable in real world data gives spurious functional connectivity. This finite size effect becomes more problematic when power spectral content changes across time. For instance, during propofol anesthesia, initial increase in beta activity (13-25 Hz) moves to alpha band (8-13 Hz) regime as anesthetic concentration increases. A computational approach based on randomized dataset was proposed. The method could successfully separate spurious and genuine phase synchronization strength from a model. At the end, the genuine phase synchronization was measured in empirical electroencephalogram data during general anesthesia. Second, linear mixing effect hinders estimating functional connectivity especially in electroencephalogram recording. Although this linear mixing effect on undirected functional connectivity has been extensively explored in a past decade, influence of linear mixing on directed functional connectivity has been barely investigated. In this thesis we introduced a directed weighted phase lag index improving directed phase lag index. The robustness of a method was shown both with analytic results and simulation model. Compared to other directed functional connectivity measures, such as Granger causality, symbolic transfer entropy, phase slope index, and directed phase lag index, the directed weighted phase lag index was able to successfully suppress the effect of linear mixing in a model time series. A method was applied in electroencephalographic data during general anesthesia. Inhibition of frontal-to-parietal feedback connectivity was observed in alpha frequency bandwidth.
Finally we conducted functional network analysis on electroencephalogram data during general anesthesia. Topology rather than connection strength of functional networks correlated with states of consciousness. The average path length, clustering coefficient, and modularity significantly increased after administration of propofol, which disrupted long-range connections. In particular, the strength of hub nodes significantly decreased. The primary hub location shifted from the parietal to frontal region concurrent with decrease in frontal-to-parietal feedback connectivity. Changes in network topology are closely associated with states of consciousness and may be the primary mechanism for the observed loss of frontal-to-parietal feedback during general anesthesia
Comparing Robustness of Directed Functional Connectivity Measures on the Linearly Mixed Time Series
2
Assessing Performance of Directed Functional Connectivity Measures in the Presence of Common Source
1