## 3 Results  
In this section, the results of the analyses are presented according to the set of simulations carried out for the L7e vehicle considered in the STEVE project [23] and based on a dataset made of thirty driving missions recorded during an experimental testing campaign held in Turin (IT). For simplicity, only a sub-set of four different velocity profiles were employed for assessing the performance of the vehicle model. The real driving missions are reported in Figure 11 while their relative battery SoC trajectories are shown in Figure 12. An acronym \"DMOX\" will be used for identifying the driving missions, with \"XX\" standing for the acquisition number of the driving mission during the testing campaign. As can be seen in Figure 11, different distances were covered during the experimental driving tests, and a maximum velocity was achieved at roughly 50 km/h. The shape of the velocity trajectory differed from one test to the other as the road, traffic and driver behaviour could change. In terms of battery SoC trajectories, multiple SoC starting points were included in the study. The validation of the model presented in Section 2.2 has been performed based on the experimental battery SoC profiles and employing the vehicle velocity trajectories as inputs of the backward-facing approach. Such an operation was the achievement of a fundamental milestone, before stepping into the application of the model presented in Section 2.3. Figure 11: Velocity trajectories of the four experimental driving missions considered for the validation of the model. Figure 12: Battery state of charge trajectories of the four experimental driving missions considered for the validation of the model. To give a more comprehensive view of the whole experimental dataset, some of the main characteristics of each acquired driving mission were statistically processed and are reported through the charts of Figure 13, where the histograms show the distribution of travelled distance, mean velocity, maximum acceleration and maximum SoC variation achieved throughout the driving missions. The vehicle specifications and model parameters considered in the analyses are reported in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. With regard to the model parameters, a small sub-set of data (Table 3, highlighted rows) had to be assumed from the literature because of an uncertainty in the original data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**General Specifications**} \\ \hline Vehicle homologation class & L7 \\ Kerb weight [kg] & 650 \\ Vehicle front/rear weight distribution [\%] & 54/46 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Vehicle dimensions**} \\ \hline Wheelbase [mm] & 1815 \\ Width [mm] & 1500 \\ Height [mm] & 1565 \\ Minimum ground clearance [mm] & 165 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Motor-generator**} \\ \hline Peak power [kW] & 12 \\ Rated power [kW] & 6.3 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Battery**} \\ \hline Battery voltage [V] & 72 \\ Battery capacity [Ah] & 140 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Vehicle technical specifications. Figure 13: Distribution of the travelled distance, mean velocity, maximum acceleration and battery state of charge variations for any driving mission in the entire experimental dataset. A preliminary validation of the model was performed by comparing the experimental and estimated battery discharges along the different driving missions. To this end, the evaluation of the residual driving range has not been included in this first analysis. The results obtained by the application of the model on the experimental missions DM09, DM15, DM20 and DM25 are reported in Table 4 considering the model parameters of Table 3. In the table, for each DM the experimental (\(SoC_{T}^{exp}\)) and estimated (\(SoC_{T}^{sim}\)) battery SoC final values are reported in the second and third columns, respectively, together with their relative difference in percentage (last column).