Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author | Pajares-Ferrando, Alberto | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Blasco, Xavier | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Herrero Durá, Juan Manuel | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Simarro Fernández, Raúl | es_ES |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-05-24T04:25:07Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-05-24T04:25:07Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10251/102504 | |
dc.description.abstract | [EN] A design problem is usually solvable in different ways or by design alternatives. In this work, the term concept is used to refer to the design alternatives. Additionally, it is quite common that a design problem has to satisfy conflicting objectives. In these cases, the design problem can be formulated as a multiobjective optimization problem (MOP). One of the aims of this work was to show how to combine multiobjective requirements with concepts comparisons, in order to attain a satisfactory design. The second aim of this work was to take advantage of this methodology to obtain a battery model that described the dynamic behavior of the main electrical variables. Two objectives related to the model accuracy during the charge and discharge processes were used. In the final model selection, three different concepts were compared. These concepts differed in the complexity of their model structure. More complex models usually provide a good approximation of the process when identification data are used, but the approximation could be worse when validation data are applied. In this article, it is shown that a model with an intermediate complexity supplies a good approximation for both identification and validation data sets. | es_ES |
dc.description.sponsorship | This work was partially supported by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Spain), Grant Numbers: DPI2015-71443-R and FPU15/01652. | en_EN |
dc.language | Inglés | es_ES |
dc.publisher | MDPI AG | es_ES |
dc.relation.ispartof | Energies | es_ES |
dc.rights | Reconocimiento (by) | es_ES |
dc.subject | Multiobjective optimization | es_ES |
dc.subject | Concept evaluation | es_ES |
dc.subject | Battery model | es_ES |
dc.subject.classification | INGENIERIA DE SISTEMAS Y AUTOMATICA | es_ES |
dc.title | Using a Multiobjective Approach to Compare Multiple Design Alternatives An Application to Battery Dynamic Model Tuning | es_ES |
dc.type | Artículo | es_ES |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.3390/en10070999 | es_ES |
dc.relation.projectID | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MINECO//DPI2015-71443-R/ES/DESARROLLO DE HERRAMIENTAS AVANZADAS PARA METODOLOGIAS DE DISEÑO Y OPTIMIZACION MULTIOBJETIVO EN INGENIERIA DE CONTROL. APLICACION A SISTEMAS MULTIVARIABLES./ | es_ES |
dc.relation.projectID | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MECD//FPU15%2F01652/ES/FPU15%2F01652/ | es_ES |
dc.rights.accessRights | Abierto | es_ES |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas y Automática - Departament d'Enginyeria de Sistemes i Automàtica | es_ES |
dc.description.bibliographicCitation | Pajares-Ferrando, A.; Blasco, X.; Herrero Durá, JM.; Simarro Fernández, R. (2017). Using a Multiobjective Approach to Compare Multiple Design Alternatives An Application to Battery Dynamic Model Tuning. Energies. 10(7):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10070999 | es_ES |
dc.description.accrualMethod | S | es_ES |
dc.relation.publisherversion | https://doi.org/10.3390/en10070999 | es_ES |
dc.description.upvformatpinicio | 1 | es_ES |
dc.description.upvformatpfin | 19 | es_ES |
dc.type.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | es_ES |
dc.description.volume | 10 | es_ES |
dc.description.issue | 7 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1996-1073 | es_ES |
dc.relation.pasarela | S\341129 | es_ES |
dc.contributor.funder | Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte | es_ES |
dc.contributor.funder | Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad | es_ES |