# Target State Optimization: Drivability Improvement for Vehicles with Dual Clutch Transmissions
## 5 Results
### Test Vehicle
In Figure 16b, an inconsistency of the engine speed is observable, but the engine does not drop and hence it does not influence the evaluation negatively. Figure 17b illustrates two local minima of the clutch torque (marked red). The minimum at timestamp 1.18 s is clearly observable compared to the one at timestamp 1.96 s. Additionally, the measured reaction time of 0.59 s is out of the tolerance which upper threshold would be at 0.55 s. In contrast, the maximum acceleration of 3.24 m/s\({}^{2}\) is within the tolerance. The reward is \(-\)2.31 and hence the launch failed. To illustrate the ability to generalize, the algorithm is also applied to another vehicle with a three-cylinder Otto engine, but this time equipped with a conventional DCT. However, first for comparison, again the NSGA-II algorithm is used to optimize the driving behavior. In contrast to Figure 14 in Figure 18b one successful launch has been determined which could not be reproduced in the optimization progress. Figure 19 illustrates that the TSO algorithm still outperforms the NSGA-II algorithm, but it is also observable that the optimization objectives should have been adjusted to the different powertrain configuration since a successful launch has not been achieved as often as in Figure 15.  
To verify the ability of the algorithm to solve the optimization problem in any vehicle, the algorithm is tested in another vehicle. This time, only the TSO algorithm is tested in a vehicle with a four-cylinder diesel engine and a 7-speed HDT. Again, the target state of Table 7 is used with a reference acceleration of 3.25 m/s\({}^{2}\) and a reference reaction time of 0.5 s.  
Figure 16: (**a**) Successful launch (TSO: iteration 11 of Figure 15), (**b**) failed launch (NSGA-2: iteration 0 of Figure 14a); Engine Speed (red); Input-shaft speed (green). Figure 17: Clutch torques of the different launches accordingly to Figure 14:0 (**a**), desired clutch torque behavior (**b**) clutch torque with local minima. Figure 20 illustrates that the optimization targets have not been reached by the algorithm. Using a four-cylinder diesel engine comes with the side-effect of having a different behavior of the engine torque compared to Otto-engines, as well as having comparably more power by having a fourth cylinder (the accelerator pedal positions has been set to the same value as in the other tests). The differences in the physical behavior of the other engine configuration leads to the fact that the former targets cannot be reached with this engine-transmission combination. Therefore, different optimization targets are tested within vehicle with the diesel engine. The results are illustrated in Figure 14:1  
Figure 14:2 Results of the TSO algorithm tested in a test vehicle with a conventional DCT and a three–cylinder Otto engine. Figure 14:3 Results of the TSO algorithm tested in a test vehicle with an HDT and a four–cylinder diesel engine (Acceleration target: 3.25 m/s\({}^{2}\), reaction time target: 0. 5 s). Table 8 illustrates that an acceleration target of 3.5 m/s\({}^{2}\) and a reaction time target of 0.3 s for this engine-transmission combination and this load come with the greatest number of successful launches. A higher reaction time with the same acceleration can also be reached by the system behavior, but a too high or too low chosen acceleration target lead to poor results. The different tests illustrate that the TSO algorithm is in general able to optimize the behavior of a vehicle launch by avoiding discomfort (torque and engine speed inconsistencies), but obviously only if the acceleration and reaction time targets (customer requirements) are reachable.