# A Smart Approach to Electric Vehicle Optimization via IoT-Enabled Recommender Systems
## 4 Numerical Results and Discussion
### Discussion  
The proposed model's efficacy was validated by creating and assembling a simulation prototype designed explicitly for two-phase operation with switching frequencies of 5 kHz and 10 kHz. This prototype operates within a supply voltage range of 0 to 5 volts, utilizing a nominal voltage of 5 V to drive the converter. The output voltages at 5 and 10 kHz switching frequencies across different duty ratios are considered. Notably, as the load voltage increases, the duty ratio also experiences a corresponding rise. The evaluation of output current, voltage, and power at these two switching frequencies reveals that the load \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Standard Converter Model [24]** & **Traditional Converter Model [25]** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Proposed Model with** \\ Routing Protocol** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Voltage (I/P) (V) & 200 & 200 & 200 \\ \hline Voltage (O/P) (V) & 300 & 300 & 600 \\ \hline Total phases & 1 & 5 & 7 \\ \hline Power (O/P) (kW) & 20 & 25 & 35 \\ \hline Frequency (kHz) & 30 & 15 & 25 \\ \hline Current (A) & 200 & 200 & 185 \\ \hline Inductor (\(\mu\)H) & 350 & 50 & 70 \\ \hline Capacitor (\(\mu\)H) & 750 & 190 & 170 \\ \hline Duty cycle & 0.5 & 0.6 & 0.5 \\ \hline Current Ripple (A) & 13 & 13 & 10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of existing approaches. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**No. of Phases** & **Power Loss (W)** & **Input Power (kW)** & **Output Power (kW)** & **Efficiency (\%)** \\ \hline
2 & 3.2 & 51 & 47 & 94 \\ \hline
3 & 3.5 & 50 & 48 & 94.5 \\ \hline
4 & 3.6 & 50 & 48.5 & 94 \\ \hline
6 & 3.1 & 50.3 & 47.5 & 94.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Total power loss and efficiency (i/p voltage 20 V). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**No. of Phases** & **Power Loss (W)** & **Input Power (kW)** & **Output Power (kW)** & **Efficiency (\%)** \\ \hline
2 & 268 & 6.2 & 5.9 & 96 \\ \hline
3 & 266 & 6.3 & 6 & 96.5 \\ \hline
4 & 267 & 6.3 & 6.5 & 96.7 \\ \hline
6 & 270 & 6.5 & 6.8 & 96.78 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Total power loss and efficiency (i/p voltage 200 V). voltage reaches a higher 13.2 V at a switching frequency of 5 kHz. The output voltage at 10 kHz is 0.94 times lower than this particular output value. It is observed that with an increase in the supply voltage, the output current also rises, resulting in a greater output power at the 5 kHz switching frequency compared to the 10 kHz switching frequency. Table 7 shows comparison of the efficiency performance with other related metrics of those proposed with traditional buck-boost and fly back methods. Based on the comparison, it is shown that the efficiency of the proposed model is 99%, which is higher than the buck-boost with 96% and 97% for fly back approaches, respectively, where the input voltage is 25 V, No. of phases is 6, switching frequency is 25 kHz and duty cycle is 0.6. Figure 6 depicts the anticipated efficiency measure of the proposed EV model under three successive distance metrics: 25 Km, 40 Km and 60 Km. The efficiency is plotted versus speed. The figure shows that better efficiency is achieved when the distance and speed are higher. The electric vehicle runs in a more stable and optimized range at higher speeds and longer distances, which reduces energy losses and improves overall efficiency. Similarly, Figure 7 shows the efficiency measure due to power transfer. The transmitted power plus accepted power and efficiency are analyzed with respect to speed that ranges from 80 to 150 km/h. It can be observed that the power conversion efficiency decreases with speed.