Pamvec PHD - Thesis Editado

Parametric Modelling Of Energy Consumption
In Road Vehicles
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at

The University of Queensland in February 2005
Andrew G. Simpson
Sustainable Energy Research Group
School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering

ii
Candidate's Statement of Originality
The work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original, except
as acknowledged in the text, and has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, for a
degree at this university or any other university.
Andrew G. Simpson
……………………………………………………………
Dr Geoffrey R. Walker – Principal Advisor
……………………………………………………………
Copyright © 2005 by Andrew G. Simpson
iii
iv
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted under a postgraduate research scholarship funded by the School
of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering.
Thanks to my advisory team – Dr Geoff Walker and Dr Gordon Wyeth – for their guidance
and faith in my ability to pursue this largely self-initiated research topic.
Thanks also to Prof. Simon Kaplan, Kathleen Williamson, Helen Lakidis and Maureen
Shields for their ongoing financial and administrative support.
Special thanks to close friends/colleagues for their interest and support of my research, their
thought-provoking discussions and feedback on my work, and contribution to my overall
development as a researcher and engineering professional:
• Dr Geoff Walker, Dr Andrew Dicks, Paul Sernia, David Finn, Matthew Greaves, Ben
Guymer, Justin Bray and Larry Weng – The University of Queensland
• Deborah Andrews – South Bank University, London
• Karin Öhgren – Lund University, Sweden
• Mark Northage and Campbell James – HybridAuto Pty Ltd
• Dr Conrad Stacey, Dr Peter Gehrke, Dr Nick Agnew, Colin Eustace, Dr Matthew
Bilson and Jodi Meissner – Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd
Finally, the greatest thanks to Mum, Dad, Catherine and Belinda for their love, understanding
and encouragement.
v
vi
List of Publications and Presentations
Publications and Presentations by the Candidate Relevant to the Thesis
Simpson A.G. (2004) “Modelling and Simulation of Vehicle Performance and Energy
Consumption”, presented at the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, December 10,
Golden, CO, USA.
Simpson A.G. & Walker G.R. (2004) “A Parametric Analysis Technique for Design of Fuel
Cell and Hybrid-Electric Vehicles”, paper no. 2003-01-2300, Transactions of the SAE –
Journal of Engines, Society of Automotive Engineers International, Warrendale. Also printed
in “Hybrid Vehicle and Energy Storage Technologies”, publication no. SP-1789, Society of
Automotive Engineers International, Warrendale. Also presented at the 2003 SAE
International Future Transportation Technology Conference, June 23-25, Costa Mesa, CA,
USA.
Simpson A.G. (2004) “Full-cycle assessment of alternative fuels for light-duty road vehicles
in Australia”, Proceedings of the 2004 World Energy Congress – Youth Symposium,
September 5-9, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Additional Publications and Presentations by the Candidate Relevant to

the Thesis but not Forming Part of it
Simpson A.G. (2004) “Comparing Future Alternative Fuels and Powertrain Technologies for
Vehicles in Australia”, Proceedings of the ARC Centre for Functional Nanomaterials
Hydrogen Workshop, November 5, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Vehicles in Australia”, Environmental Engineering Division Seminar, 21 September, The
University of Queensland, Australia.
vii
in Australia”, Proceedings of the 7th Environmental Research Conference (EERE 2003),
Marysville, VIC, Australia.
Vehicles”, School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering Seminar, November
6, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Vehicles”, presentation to the ANZSES Sustainable Transport Forum, October 20, Brisbane,
QLD, Australia.
Simpson A.G., Greaves M.C. & Walker G.R. (2003) “Electric Power Source Selection for the
UltraCommuter”, Proceedings of the Regional Inter-University Postgraduate Electrical and
Electronic Engineering Conference (RIUPEEEC), Hong Kong.
Simpson A.G. (2003) “Comparison of power source technologies for electric-drive vehicles”,
Sustainable Energy Research Group Seminar, May 27, The University of Queensland,
Australia.
Simpson A.G. & Andrews S.D. (2002) “Future Directions for the Sustainability of the
Australian Automobile”, Proceedings of the 6th Annual Environmental Engineering Research
Event, Blackheath, NSW, Australia.
Simpson A., Walker G., Greaves M., Finn D. & Guymer B. (2002) “The UltraCommuter: A
Viable and Desirable Solar-Powered Commuter Vehicle”, Proceedings of the 2002
Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Simpson A.G. (2001) “Automotive Propulsion Technology for the 21st century”, presentation
to Energy Systems Research Group Meeting, November 5, School of Information Technology
and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Simpson A.G. (2001) “Design Approaches for Electric-drive Hybrid Vehicle Propulsion
Systems”, Ph.D Confirmation of Candidature Seminar, November 13, School of Information
Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Australia.
viii
Abstract
This thesis presents a novel approach to modelling energy consumption in road vehicles – the
Parametric Analytical Model of Vehicle Energy Consumption (PAMVEC).
The technique is offered as a complement to existing vehicle modelling tools, the majority of
which are dynamic vehicle simulators such as ADVISOR. Dynamic vehicle simulators are
powerful modelling tools with high precision and accuracy (error typically <5%), and this
makes them ideally suited to detailed simulation, testing and refinement of vehicle designs as
part of a design process. However, they can be disadvantaged by their complexity, their need
for detailed powertrain component models (which often are not publicly available), and
excessive computational requirements due to their inherently iterative nature. In the context
of vehicle technology assessment where many vehicles or technologies may need to be
compared, these attributes can make dynamic simulators quite costly and time-consuming to
use. Furthermore, dynamic vehicle simulators rely upon deterministic driving cycles to
represent the driving pattern. Existing cycles have been shown in the literature to be quite
unrepresentative of real-world driving patterns, and this deterministic approach is particularly
unsuited to the modelling of uncertainty. Again, these attributes are not desirable for the
purposes of vehicle technology assessment.
In contrast, the PAMVEC tool is designed to be particularly well-suited to vehicle technology

assessment. Relative to dynamic simulators, the PAMVEC lumped-parameter models are
easier to analyse and interpret, requiring only minimal input data to produce a result, and the
calculations are performed nearly instantaneously. Furthermore, with its parametric
construction, PAMVEC is ideally-suited to performing sensitivity analyses and modelling of
uncertainty. Its features include:
• Parametric analytical expressions for predicting vehicle energy consumption that are
derived from the well-known road load equation
• Parametric analytical expressions to size powertrain components implicitly in terms of
specified performance targets that include driving range
• A novel parametric driving pattern description that encompasses the multiple
dimensions of real-world driving patterns, but is also well-suited to the modelling of
uncertainty
ix
• Simple component models based on parametric inputs for efficiency and specific
power/energy
• Transparent implementation in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with calculations that
occur almost instantaneously.
The convenience of the PAMVEC model is enabled by the central simplifying assumption
that tractive power flow that is reversible (due to vehicle inertia) can be modelled separately
from irreversible power flow (due to vehicle drag). However, this assumption is also the
primary cause of error in the predictions of vehicle energy consumption. PAMVEC
consistently overestimates vehicle energy consumption with errors of <20%. While this error
is large compared to that of dynamic simulators (<5%), it must be considered in the context of
vehicle technology assessment where uncertainties are so great. In contrast, PAMVEC’s
estimates of relative fuel economy are quite accurate, with errors typically <5%. Another
limitation of the PAMVEC tool is that it does not model powertrain component efficiencies
(since these are specified as inputs). Therefore, some important powertrain system
interactions such as the dependence of component efficiency on component size and/or the
driving pattern are not captured in the model.
However, the development of any vehicle modelling tool involve a compromise between
attributes, and the author believes that the development of PAMVEC is well-justified based
on the attributes of existing modelling tools. The thesis commences with a detailed review of
existing vehicle modelling tools and a discussion of their capabilities and limitations. It then
documents the derivation of the PAMVEC model including its key simplifications and
assumptions. The next chapter validates PAMVEC against vehicle test data and benchmarks
it against the ADVISOR dynamic vehicle simulator. In the final chapter, to demonstrate its
suitability to vehicle technology assessment, PAMVEC is applied in a well-to-wheel analysis
to predict the energy consumption of thirty-three vehicles with alternative fuels and
powertrain technologies.
x
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. TOOLS FOR MODELLING VEHICLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION 5

2.1 Attributes of Vehicle Modelling Tools 5
2.2 Approaches to Modelling Vehicle Energy Consumption 8

2.2.1 Dynamic Vehicle Simulators 8
2.2.2 Lumped-Parameter Models 13
2.3 Approaches to Modelling Vehicle Performance 15

2.3.1 The Link between Vehicle Performance and Energy Consumption 15
2.3.2 Models of Vehicle Performance 16
2.4 Factors Affecting the Choice and Use of Vehicle Modelling Tools 22
2.5 Outcomes of Literature Review 25
3. THE PARAMETRIC ANALYTICAL MODEL OF VEHICLE ENERGY

CONSUMPTION (PAMVEC) 27
3.1 The Parametric Road Load Equation 28
3.1.1 Average Road Load Power 28
3.1.2 Average Braking Losses 30
3.2 Driving Pattern Parameters 35
3.3 Powertrain Losses 42

3.3.1 Generic Powertrain Architecture 42
3.3.2 Fuel Cell Hybrid-Electric Vehicles 51
3.3.3 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles 53
3.3.4 Series Hybrid-Electric Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles 54
3.3.5 Parallel Hybrid-Electric Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles 55
3.3.6 Conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles 56
3.3.7 Battery Electric Vehicles 57
3.4 Vehicle Performance 58

3.4.1 Top Speed 59
3.4.2 Gradability 59
3.4.3 Driving Range 60
3.4.4 Acceleration 60
3.5 Powertrain Component Sizing Strategies and Mass Compounding 73

3.5.1 Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicles 74
3.5.2 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles 76
3.5.3 Conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles 76
3.5.4 Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicles 77
3.5.5 Series Hybrid Electric Vehicles 78
3.5.6 Battery Electric Vehicles 78
3.6 Implementation of the PAMVEC Model 79
xi
4. PAMVEC VALIDATION 81
4.1 Validation with Published Vehicle Test Data 81
4.1.1 Acceleration performance for the GM HydroGen3 FCEV 81
4.1.2 Fuel consumption for the Holden Commodore ICV 82
4.1.3 Fuel consumption for the Virginia Tech. ZEburban FCHEV 83
4.2 Benchmarking against ADVISOR 84

4.2.1 Vehicle Platform and Driving Pattern 85
4.2.2 Benchmarking Results 87
4.3 Benchmarking for other driving patterns and vehicle platforms 96

4.3.1 Dependence of Error on Vehicle Platform and Driving Pattern 96
4.3.2 Benchmarking Results for Other Driving Patterns 99
4.3.3 Benchmarking Results for Other Vehicle Platforms 102
4.4 Validation Summary 103

4.4.1 Component Sizing and Total Vehicle Mass 103
4.4.2 Vehicle Energy Consumption 104
5. PAMVEC APPLICATION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 107

5.1 Energy Consumption Comparison 107
5.1.1 Powertrain Architectures 107
5.1.2 Vehicle Platform 108
5.1.3 Driving Pattern 108
5.1.4 Performance Specifications 109
5.1.5 Component Technologies and Energy Consumption Results 109
5.2 Sensitivity Analysis 113

5.2.1 Vehicle Platform Sensitivity 114
5.2.2 Component Specific Power/Energy Sensitivity 116
5.2.3 Component Efficiency Sensitivity 117
5.2.4 Driving Pattern Sensitivity 119
5.2.5 Vehicle Performance Sensitivity 120
5.3 Summary 125
6. CONCLUSION 127
6.1 Future Work 129
REFERENCES 131
APPENDIX A – DRIVING CYCLE PARAMETERS 139
APPENDIX B – VALIDATION STUDY RESULTS 141

Published Vehicle Data 141
Holden Commodore Sedan 141
Virginia Tech ZEburban 142
ADVISOR Benchmarking 143

NEDC 143
UDDS 155
HWFET 166
US06 179
NYCC 191
xii
NEDC – High MDR 203
HWFET – High MDR 215
APPENDIX C – TANK TO WHEEL ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR VARIOUS

FUELS/POWERTRAINS 227
Petrol ICV 227
LPG ICV 228
LNG ICV 229
CNG ICV 230
Diesel ICV 231
BioDiesel ICV 232
E10 ICV 233
E85 ICV 234
M85 ICV 235
GH2 ICV 236
LH2 ICV 237
Petrol PHEV 238
LPG PHEV 239
LNG PHEV 240
CNG PHEV 241
Diesel PHEV 242
Biodiesel PHEV 243
E10 PHEV 244
E85 PHEV 245
M85 PHEV 246
GH2 PHEV 247
LH2 PHEV 248
Petrol FCEV 249
Methanol FCEV 250
LH2 FCEV 251
GH2 FCEV 252
Petrol FCHEV 253
Methanol FCHEV 254
LH2 FCHEV 255
GH2 FCHEV 256
VRLA BEV 257
NiMH BEV 258
Li-Ion BEV 259
xiii
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: A comparison of vehicle fuel economy of conventional and hybrid-electric

vehicles for various acceleration performances (Plotkin et al, 2001)............... 16
Figure 2-2: The explicit vs. implicit approaches to powertrain component sizing.............. 17
Figure 2-3: The effects of mass-compounding due to vehicle performance ....................... 18
Figure 2-4: The effects of mass-compounding due to vehicle performance including
driving range..................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-5: The relative fuel economy of different BEV technologies for various driving
ranges calculated for a Ford Escort-style vehicle in Delucchi (2000) .............. 21
Figure 3-1: The PAMVEC model........................................................................................ 28
Figure 3-2: PAMVEC’s decoupling of drag and inertial power flows in the estimation of
braking losses.................................................................................................... 34
Figure 3-3: Overestimation of average braking losses in a representative vehicle platform
for a section of the UDDS driving cycle........................................................... 35
Figure 3-4: Errors in the estimate of Pdrive −out (equation 3-19) over a range of mass-to-drag
ratios for several contrasting driving patterns................................................... 36
Figure 3-5: A hypothetical driving pattern with parameter values of vavg = 10m/s, Λ = 1.1
and a~ = 0.1m/s2 ................................................................................................. 37
Figure 3-6: A hypothetical driving pattern with parameter values of vavg = 10.5m/s (5%
increase), Λ = 1.1 and a~ = 0.1m/s2 ................................................................... 38
Figure 3-7: A hypothetical driving pattern with parameter values of vavg = 10m/s, Λ =
1.155 (5% increase) and a~ = 0.1m/s2................................................................ 39
and a~ = 0.105m/s2 (5% increase)...................................................................... 39
Figure 3-9: Velocity ratio ( Λ ) vs. average velocity ( v avg ) for the driving cycles presented
in Appendix A................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3-10: Characteristic acceleration ( a~ ) vs. average velocity ( v avg ) for the driving
cycles presented in Appendix A ....................................................................... 41

Figure 3-11: Generic powertrain architecture........................................................................ 42
drivetrain losses ................................................................................................ 46
xv
Figure 3-13: Error in the estimate of Pdrive−in across a range of mass-to-drag ratios for several
different driving cycles......................................................................................47

Figure 3-14: Efficiency vs. load curves for some hypothetical HSED technologies.............49
Figure 3-15: Thermostatic losses due to the cycling of energy through the HSPD ...............50
Figure 3-16: Powertrain architecture for fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicle.............................51
Figure 3-17: Powertrain architecture for fuel cell electric vehicle.........................................53
Figure 3-18: Powertrain architecture for series hybrid-electric vehicle.................................54
Figure 3-19: Powertrain architecture for parallel hybrid-electric vehicle..............................55
Figure 3-20: Powertrain architecture for conventional internal combustion engine vehicle .57
Figure 3-21: Powertrain architecture for battery-electric vehicle ..........................................57
Figure 3-22: The generic shape of the torque-speed curve for a drivetrain ...........................62
Figure 3-23: Torque-speed characteristic of the UQM Technologies PowerPhase 100kW
drive system.......................................................................................................63
Figure 3-24: Modelled vs. actual torque-speed curves for the UQM Technologies drive.....66
Figure 3-25: Modelled vs. actual torque-speed curves using the effective power for the
UQM Technologies drive..................................................................................67
Figure 3-26: Torque-speed curves for (a) a Saturn 1.9L DOHC engine and (b) Siemens 33
kW permanent magnet motor/controller ...........................................................68
Figure 3-27: Torque-speed curve for a drivetrain consisting of the engine shown in Figure 3-
26a combined with a 5-speed transmission.......................................................69
Figure 3-28: Average torque approximation of the engine shown in Figure 3-26.................69
Saturn 1.9L engine (Figure 3-26a) and 5-speed transmission...........................71
Honda EV Plus drive.........................................................................................72
Figure 4-1: The New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)......................................................86
Figure 4-2: Error in the estimate of Pdrive−in (equation 3-22) for several different driving
patterns across a range of mass to drag ratios assuming (a) no regenerative
braking and (b) full regenerative braking..........................................................97
Figure 5-1: Comparison of equivalent fuel consumption for the 33 vehicles....................112
Figure 5-2: Net powertrain efficiency vs. total vehicle mass for the 33 vehicles ..............113
Figure 5-3: NSFs for vehicle platform parameters.............................................................115
Figure 5-4: NSFs for component specific power/energy parameters.................................116
Figure 5-5: Mass breakdowns for seven vehicles considered in the sensitivity analysis...117
Figure 5-6: NSFs for component efficiency parameters ....................................................118
xvi
Figure 5-7: NSFs for driving pattern parameters............................................................... 119
Figure 5-8: NSFs for vehicle performance parameters...................................................... 121
Figure 5-9: Variation in BEV energy consumption across a range of battery specific
energies and driving range targets .................................................................. 123
Figure 5-10: Variation in H2 FCHEV energy consumption across a range of battery specific
energies and driving range targets .................................................................. 124
xvii
xviii
List of Tables
Table 2-1: A range of existing vehicle modelling tools (listed alphabetically) ..................... 6
Table 2-2: Some prominent, recent vehicle technology assessment studies and the
modelling tools that were used (listed chronologically)....................................... 7
Table 2-3: Comparison of specific energy (Wh/kg) and energy density (Wh/L) values for
various fuel/energy storage systems ................................................................... 21
Table 3-1: Driving pattern parameters for some well-known driving cycles ...................... 40
Table 3-2: Values for E1 and E2 in equation 3-60 as presented by Delucchi (2000) ........... 61
Table 3-3: Errors in the estimates of acceleration power using equation 3-67.................... 64
Table 3-4: Predicted acceleration power requirements using various methods................... 73
Table 3-5: Component technology parameters used in PAMVEC’s model for powertrain
component sizes and mass compounding........................................................... 74
Table 4-1: Technical specifications for the GM HydroGen3 FCEV ................................... 81
Table 4-2: HydroGen3 parameter values assumed in the prediction of motor power ......... 82
Table 4-3: Vehicle parameters assumed for the Holden Commodore sedan ....................... 83
Table 4-4: Technical Specifications for the Virginia Tech. ZEburban FCHEV.................. 83
Table 4-5: Estimated technical parameters for the Virginia Tech. ZEburban FCHEV ....... 84
Table 4-6: Comparison between estimated and reported road load power requirements for
the Virginia Tech. ZEburban FCHEV................................................................ 84
Table 4-7: Predicted and reported fuel economies for the Virginia Tech. ZEburban.......... 84
Table 4-8: Vehicle platform parameters assumed for the ADVISOR benchmarking ......... 86
Table 4-9: Component technology parameters for the ICV................................................. 87
Table 4-10: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the ICV........ 87
Table 4-11: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the ICV............................. 88
Table 4-12: Component technology parameters for the PHEV ............................................. 89
Table 4-13: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the PHEV .... 89
Table 4-14: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the PHEV ......................... 89
Table 4-15: Component technology parameters for the SHEV ............................................. 90
Table 4-16: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the SHEV .... 90
Table 4-17: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the SHEV ......................... 91
Table 4-18: Component technology parameters for the FCEV ............................................. 91
Table 4-19: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the FCEV .... 92
Table 4-20: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the FCEV ......................... 92
xix
Table 4-21: Component technology parameters for the FCHEV ...........................................93
Table 4-22: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the FCHEV ..93
Table 4-23: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the FCHEV.......................93
Table 4-24: Component technology parameters for the BEV ................................................94
Table 4-25: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the BEV .......94
Table 4-26: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the BEV............................95
Table 4-27: Summary of validation results for the NEDC cycle ...........................................95
Table 4-28: Summary of validation results for the UDDS cycle ...........................................99
Table 4-29: Summary of validation results for the HWFET cycle.......................................100
Table 4-30: Summary of validation results for the US06 cycle ...........................................100
Table 4-31: Summary of validation results for the NYCC cycle .........................................101
Table 4-32: Powertrain component sizes (kW) for the various cycles.................................101
Table 4-33: Powertrain component efficiencies for the various driving cycles ...................102
Table 4-34: Validation results for the high MDR platform on the NEDC ...........................103
Table 4-35: Validation results for the high MDR platform on the HWFET ........................103
Table 5-1: Transmission, electric motor and HEV battery technologies for the various
powertrain architectures considered in the comparison....................................108
Table 5-2: Physical parameters for the 2003 Holden VY Commodore sedan platform.....108
Table 5-3: Performance constraints for the vehicles in this comparison............................109
Table 5-4: Fuel/powertrain technology parameters and predicted energy consumption
results for the 33 vehicles in this comparison ...................................................111
xx
List of Abbreviations
BEV battery electric vehicle

BioD biodiesel
CNG compressed natural gas
DC direct current
DOH degree of hybridisation
DOHC doubled overhead cam
EUCAR European Council for Automotive Research & Deveopment
EV electric vehicle (includes BEVs, SHEVs, FCEVs and FCHEVs)
E10 10% ethanol / 90% petrol fuel blend
E85 85% ethanol / 15% petrol fuel blend
FCEV fuel cell electric vehicle
FCHEV fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicle
FCV fuel cell vehicle (includes FCEVs and FCHEVs)
GH2 gaseous hydrogen
GM General Motors
HEV hybrid electric vehicle (includes PHEVs, SHEVs and FCHEVs)
HSED high specific energy device
HSPD high specific power device
HWFET Highway Fuel Economy Test
IEA International Energy Agency
ICE internal combustion engine
ICV conventional internal combustion engine vehicle
LBST L-B-Systemtechnik GmbH
LH2 liquid hydrogen
LNG liquefied natural gas
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
MDR mass to drag ratio
MeOH methanol
MPG miles per gallon
mpgge miles per gallon gasoline equivalent
M85 85% methanol / 15% petrol fuel blend
NEDC New European Driving Cycle
xxi
NiMH nickel metal hydride (battery)
NSF normalised sensitivity factor
NYCC New York City Cycle
OEM (automotive) original equipment manufacturer
OTA Office of Technology Assessment
PAMVEC Parametric Analytical Model of Vehicle Energy Consumption
PC personal computer
PEM proton exchange membrane
PHEV parallel hybrid-electric vehicle
PKE positive kinetic energy
SHEV series hybrid-electric vehicle
SOC state of charge
UDDS Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
ULP unleaded petrol
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
US FTP United States Federal Test Procedure
VRLA valve-regulated lead acid (battery)
xxii
1. Introduction
The light-duty vehicle sector is mostly fuelled by liquid hydrocarbon fuels derived from crude
oil. However, growing concern over the environmental impacts and oil-dependence
associated with widespread automobile use has prompted the investigation of alternative
propulsion technologies for motor vehicles. A variety of candidate alternative fuels and
powertrain technologies are currently being considered for their ability to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases and regulated air pollutants and promote energy independence through the
displacement of oil imports. Candidate fuels include petrol / gasoline, Diesel, liquefied
petroleum gas, natural gas, hydrogen, methanol, ethanol, biodiesel and electricity. Candidate
powertrains include advanced internal combustion engine vehicles, hybrid-electric vehicles,
fuel cell-electric vehicles and battery-electric vehicles, as well as many other novel
alternatives.
Each of these alternative transport energy pathways has unique characteristics in terms of its
potential for emissions reduction and promotion of energy independence. In performing
vehicle technology assessments to determine the potential for each technology, a central
variable is the vehicle energy consumption:
“Energy use is a central variable in economic, environmental, and engineering analyses of

motor vehicles. The energy use of a vehicle directly determines energy cost, driving range,
and emissions of greenhouse gases, and indirectly determines initial cost and performance. It
therefore is important to estimate energy use as accurately as possible.” Delucchi (2000)
Many studies have performed techno-economic comparisons of alternative fuels and

powertrain technologies for vehicles (see Table 2-2 for examples). A defining characteristic
of each study is the methodology used to estimate absolute or relative vehicle energy use for
the technologies concerned. Some studies have surveyed data in the literature to produce their
estimates of vehicle energy use (e.g. IEA (1999), Louis (2001), Wang (2002) and Ogden et al
(2004)), but by far the most common approach has been to calculate vehicle energy using
various modelling tools, with the most popular tools being dynamic vehicle simulators.
Dynamic simulators are powerful modelling tools offering high precision and accuracy and
this makes them ideally suited to detailed simulation, testing and refinement of vehicle
designs as part of a design process. However, they can be disadvantaged by their complexity,
1
their need for detailed input data (which often is not publicly available), their reliance on
deterministic driving cycles to describe driving patterns, and excessive computational
requirements resulting from their inherently iterative nature. In the context of vehicle
technology assessment where many vehicles or technologies may need to be compared, these
attributes can make dynamic simulators costly and time-consuming to use and this thesis
argues that alternative modelling approaches may be better suited to the task.
Therefore, this thesis commences in Chapter 2 with a detailed review of existing vehicle
modelling tools and a discussion of their capabilities and limitations. In particular, this
chapter proposes that, relative to dynamic simulators, a tool that was better suited to the
purposes of technology assessment would:
1. Use a less deterministic description of driving patterns i.e. avoid driving cycles by
using a probabilistic/statistical description of driving patterns
2. Be tailored to the use of publicly available technology/component data i.e. utilise
simple input parameters to avoid the need for detailed component models.
3. Be less computationally intensive i.e. avoid iterative dynamic simulation by using
lumped-parameter style models of vehicle energy consumption and performance
To address these issues, this thesis presents a novel approach to modelling energy
consumption in road vehicles – the Parametric Analytical Model of Vehicle Energy
Consumption (PAMVEC). PAMVEC is a lumped-parameter-style model incorporating a
number of unique features that are designed to reduce its complexity, input data and
computational requirements relative to dynamic simulators, but also to provide greater
precision and accuracy than previous lumped-parameter approaches. These include:
• Parametric analytical expressions for predicting vehicle energy consumption that are
derived from the well-known road load equation
• Parametric analytical expressions to size powertrain components implicitly in terms of
specified performance targets that include driving range
uncertainty
power/energy
2
Chapter 3 documents the derivation of the PAMVEC model including its key simplifications
and assumptions. The simplicity of the PAMVEC model is enabled by the central assumption
that tractive power flow that is reversible (due to vehicle inertia) can be modelled separately
from irreversible power flow (due to vehicle drag). However, this assumption also introduces
error in the predictions of vehicle energy consumption. Therefore, Chapter 4 validates
PAMVEC against real vehicle test data and benchmarks it against the ADVISOR dynamic
vehicle simulator to test the accuracy of its predictions. While the errors are found to be
larger than those observed in dynamic simulators, this thesis argues that PAMVEC is still
sufficiently accurate for the purposes of technology assessment (where uncertainties tend to
be very large).
In the final Chapter 5, to demonstrate its suitability to vehicle technology assessment,

PAMVEC is applied in a well-to-wheel analysis to predict the energy consumption of 33
vehicles with alternative fuels and powertrain technologies. The results of this study are also
used to conduct an input-parameter sensitivity analysis that further highlights the capabilities
and limitations of the PAMVEC model.
3
4
2. Tools for Modelling Vehicle Energy Consumption
The literature details a great many vehicle modelling tools that have been used for vehicle
design studies and technology assessment. A list of many of these tools is provided in Table
2-1, and Table 2-2 lists some prominent recent studies including the tools that were used.
This chapter provides a critical review of the capabilities of existing vehicle modelling tools.
It commences by outlining the attributes that qualify the capabilities of a vehicle modelling
tool. It then reviews approaches to modelling vehicle energy consumption and performance
that have been employed in existing tools, and discusses their suitability to the purposes of
technology assessment. Limitations of the existing approaches are identified, and this
provides justification for the development of the parametric approach presented in this thesis.
2.1 Attributes of Vehicle Modelling Tools
The qualities of vehicle modelling tools can be defined in terms of various attributes, such as:
• Accuracy – the error in a model’s predictions of vehicle energy consumption and
performance
• Precision – the level of detail employed in a model’s representation of physical effects
in the vehicle and its powertrain
• Computation – the computer hardware/software requirements for the use of a model
and the time taken to extract a result, which translate to costs for computer
hardware/software and the time of designers/analysts occupied in using a model.
• Input data – the amount of information required to characterise the vehicle and its
powertrain components and other aspects of a model
• Complexity/transparency – the amount of embedded functions and “hidden layers”
in a model that give rise to complex interactions that may not be obvious to the user.
Models that are less-complex/more-transparent are easier to “debug” and their results
are likely to be easier to analyse and interpret
• Versatility – the flexibility of a model in its ability to model different vehicles with
different performances utilising varying technologies operating over different regimes.
5
Table 2-1: A range of existing vehicle modelling tools (listed alphabetically)
Vehicle Modelling Tool Type
ADVISOR (Wipke et al, 1999) Dynamic simulator (backward/forward)
Åhman (2001) Lumped parameter model
Delucchi (2000) Dynamic simulator (backward)
EVSIM (Chau et al, 2000) Dynamic simulator (backward/forward)
HPSP (Weber, 1998) Dynamic simulator (backward)
Louis (1999) Lumped parameter model
MARVEL (Marr & Walsh, 1992) Dynamic simulator (backward)
Moore (1996) Lumped parameter model
OSU-HEVSIM (Wasacz, 1997) Dynamic simulator (forward)
Plotkin et al (2001) Lumped parameter model
PSAT (ANL, 2004) Dynamic simulator (forward)
QSS Toolbox (Guzella & Amstutz, 1999) Dynamic simulator (backward)
Ross (1997) Lumped parameter model
SIMPLEV (Cole, 1993) Dynamic simulator (backward)
Sovran & Blaser (2003) Lumped parameter model
Sovran & Bohn (1981) Lumped parameter model
Steinbugler (1998) Dynamic simulator (backward)
Thomas et al (1998) Dynamic simulator (backward)
V-ELPH (Butler et al, 1999) Dynamic simulator (forward)
VSP (Van Mierlo & Maggetto, 1996) Dynamic simulator (backward)
Some of these attributes are obviously interrelated. Nevertheless it is important to recognise

the attributes of vehicle modelling tools since vehicle designers and technology analysts,
when they choose a particular tool for a particular problem, must inevitably compromise
between attributes. For example, the most precise and accurate models tend to have the
greatest input data and computation requirements, thereby being more costly to use. In the
following sections, existing approaches to modelling vehicle energy consumption and
performance are reviewed including a discussion of their relevant attributes.
6
Table 2-2: Some prominent, recent vehicle technology assessment studies and the modelling
tools that were used (listed chronologically)
Study (Reference) Modelling Tool
Advanced Automotive Technology: Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Sovran & Bohn
Car (OTA, 1995) (1981)
Analysis of the Fuel Economy Benefits of Drivetrain Hybridization ADVISOR
(Cuddy et al, 1997)
Manufacturing and Lifecycle Costs of Battery Electric Vehicles, Direct- Delucchi (2000)
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, and Direct-Methanol Fuel Cell Vehicles
(Lipman, 2000)
On the Road in 2020: A Lifecycle Analysis of New Automotive QSS Toolbox
Technologies (Weiss et al, 2000)
Well-to-wheel efficiency for alternative fuels from natural gas or biomass ADVISOR
(Ahlvik & Brandburg, 2001)
A Lifecycle Emissions Analysis: Urban Air Pollutants and Greenhouse- Delucchi (2000)
Gases from Petroleum, Natural Gas, LPG, and Other Fuels for Highway
Vehicles, Forklifts, and Household Heating in the U.S. (Delucchi, 2001)
Well-to-Wheel Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced HPSP
Fuel/Vehicle Systems – North American Analysis (GM et al, 2001)
Comparing the Benefits and Impacts of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Options ADVISOR
(Graham, 2001)
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology Assessment: Methodology, ADVISOR
Analytical Issues, and Interim Results (Plotkin et al, 2001)
GM Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas HPSP
Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems – A European Study
(LBST, 2002)
Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in ADVISOR
the European Context (EUCAR et al, 2003)
A New Road: The Technology and Potential of Hybrid Vehicles ADVISOR
(Friedman, 2003)
Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars (Weiss et al, 2003) QSS Toolbox
7
2.2 Approaches to Modelling Vehicle Energy Consumption
At the most fundamental level, there are two basic approaches to modelling vehicle energy
consumption. The first involves the use of dynamic simulation, whereas the second involves
the use of static “lumped-parameter” models.
2.2.1 Dynamic Vehicle Simulators
Dynamic vehicle simulators are by far the most widely-used tools for modelling vehicle
energy consumption. Popular examples from Table 2-1 include ADVISOR and PSAT.
These tools utilise hypothetical driving cycles (of vehicle velocity vs. time) to simulate
dynamic vehicle operation and the corresponding dynamic power flows and energy losses
within the powertrain. Dynamic simulators can be further classified into two generic groups –
forward facing and backward-facing simulators – based on the way in which the dynamic
calculations are performed. Excellent discussion of the two approaches is provided in Wipke
et al (1999), Miller et al (1999) and Guzella & Amstutz (1999), however, a brief summary is
also provided here.
Backward-facing simulators take the driving cycle as the actual vehicle speed and, using the
physical equations governing vehicle motion, calculate the tractive force required at the
vehicle wheels. The calculation then proceeds upstream (backwards relative to the flow of
tractive power) calculating the required output speed/torque/power of each component,
culminating in a calculation of the required energy input to the powertrain. In contrast,
forward-facing simulators take the driving cycle as the target vehicle speed and, using a
control loop or “driver model”, provide a throttle signal (and energy) input to the powertrain.
The calculation then proceeds downstream determining the output speed/torque/power of each
component, culminating in the calculation of a new vehicle speed, which is fed back to the
controller and compared to the target driving cycle. Both methods perform these calculations
over discrete time intervals.
As a result of their different calculation procedures, backward and forward facing simulators
have a number of contrasting attributes
8
• The backward facing approach is enabled by the availability of component
performance maps that detail efficiency or loss vs. output speed/torque/power, but
these are normally produced through steady-state testing of components and therefore
do not model dynamic effects. In contrast, proper dynamic models are readily utilised
by the forward approach.
• The backward approach assumes the speed vs. time trace is “followed”. Therefore it
is not suited to predicting best-effort performance under component limited
conditions. In contrast, the forward approach is ideal for this.
• The backward facing approach does not deal with real measurable quantities in a
vehicle (i.e. throttle position) so is not well suited to control system design, whereas,
forward approach models actual control signals and actual (not required)
torques/speeds/powers in the powertrain so it is ideally suited to development of
hardware and control system.
• The backward facing approach provides faster calculations using simpler integration
routines with larger time steps, whereas, the forward approach relies on calculation of
vehicle states that must be calculated through integration with higher-order routines
using smaller time steps and requiring more computation.
What both forward- and backward-facing simulators have in common is that they are capable
of great accuracy, and the validation of existing dynamic vehicle simulation tools has been
well documented in the literature. Guzella & Amstutz (1999) quote errors of <5% in the
estimation of vehicle fuel economy using QSS-Toolbox. Miller et al (1999) quote errors of
<3% for vehicle performance and <15% for vehicle fuel economy using OSU-HEVSIM. GM
et al (2001) report that HPSP predicts fuel economies that are “consistently within 1%” of
those measured in vehicles using a variety of powertrains. Several studies have validated
ADVISOR’s accuracy. Wipke et al (1999) quote errors of <1% for vehicle performance and
<2% for vehicle energy use. Senger et al (1998) and Ogburn et al (2000) quote errors in fuel
economy estimates of <10%. In EUCAR et al (2003), the validity of ADVISOR was checked
“against the in-house simulation codes of a number of European manufacturers and found to
deliver analogous results”. Similarly, Wipke et al (1999) have benchmarked ADVISOR
against a number of proprietary vehicle simulation models used by the automotive industry.
Unfortunately, despite their wonderful accuracy, the dynamic vehicle simulators have some
common limitations also.
9
Driving Cycles
Firstly, all dynamic vehicle simulators are reliant on driving cycles. The benefits that driving
cycles provide in being able to simulate powertrain dynamics over seemingly realistic driving
patterns cannot be overstated. Furthermore, standardised driving cycles are essential for
controlled dynamometer testing of vehicle fuel economy and emissions, and these same
cycles allow simulation tools to be validated with real-world results and provide a meaningful
basis for virtual comparison of vehicle technologies. However, “the choice of a suitable
driving cycle is not a trivial matter” states Rizzoni et al (1999). All driving cycles are totally
arbitrary and there is significant evidence to suggest that, despite over 30 years of driving
cycle research and development, existing cycles are quite unrepresentative of real-world
driving conditions (Milkins & Watson, 1983; Burba, 2000). This is particularly evidenced by
the “correction factors” used by the US EPA (2005) to estimate real-world fuel economies
based on dynamometer test results (tested urban/highway fuel economy values (MPG) are
reduced by 10%/22% respectively). Furthermore, it is common practice to scale the velocities
of existing cycles in order to “intensify” them such that they produce more realistic fuel
economies (Moore, 1996; Thomas et al, 1998; Friedman, 1999). It is likely that automotive
OEMs have developed their own proprietary cycles that are more-representative of real-world
conditions, but these are certainly not available in the public domain.
Another issue that arises from driving cycles is the concept of “off-cycle performance”. It is
quite possible for vehicle designs to be so optimised for a particular cycle that it becomes
detrimental to their operation in other conditions. Bullock (1982) suggests that this has in fact
occurred for production vehicles due to regulatory pressures and mandatory fuel consumption
labelling. The issue was explored through simulation by Wipke et al (2001) for the optimal
design of fuel cell hybrid vehicles, including the sizing of powertrain components and
determination of control strategy parameters. The results showed that the vehicle fuel
economy could increase by more than 30% when using designs optimised for another cycle.
Burba (2000) provides a convenient summary of the issues:

“Although the present practice in the industry is to utilise “driving cycles” as a metric, these
cycles are notoriously inaccurate and can lead to nonoptimized product design...The
engineering response to these errors has been to search for a better or correct drive cycle or
use “fudge factors” to adjust the results. These pursuits are neither scientific nor accurate.”
10
Ultimately, the problems inherent to driving cycles stem from the difficulty experienced in
creating them. Firstly, large quantities of data must be collected from instrumented vehicles
operating in real-world traffic conditions – a process that in itself is prone to significant
human error due to the presence of the driver (Johnson et al, 1975). Then by using
sophisticated statistical analysis, the real-world data (often hundreds or thousands of hours of
driving) must be distilled into cycles that, for practical purposes, rarely exceed 30 minutes in
length. Significant information may be lost and error potentially introduced throughout the
process. Despite all this effort, the resulting cycles “cannot account for the variability in
driving styles and locations encountered by a market population” (Burba, 2000).
Component Models
Another limitation of dynamic simulators stems from their need for detailed component
models. Existing simulators use a variety of component models to predict dynamic (time-
varying) component efficiencies and operating limits. A common approach is the use of
“quasi-static” performance maps to describe component efficiency or loss (Wipke et al,
1999). A more generic approach is the Willans Line Concept featured in QSS-Toolbox
(Rizzoni et al, 1999). However, the most-detailed models can be fully-scaleable, dynamic
models derived from first principles, such as the diesel engine model utilised by Assanis et al
(1999). Whichever component models are used, analysts have two possible avenues for
obtaining them:
1. Models can be developed and validated through testing of hardware by the analysts
themselves.
2. Models that are publicly available can be obtained from the literature or by contacting
component manufacturers.
Unfortunately, the availability of detailed, well-validated component models is somewhat

limited. Firstly, manufacturers of proprietary component technologies are understandably
reluctant to publish details of their technology, or provide component samples to allow
independent testing, modelling and verification. General Motors (2001) avoided publishing
any details of the powertrain technologies considered in their well-to-wheels studies for this
very reason. Analysts that do succeed in gaining access to proprietary information are
normally bound by confidentiality. For example, when Wipke et al (2001) published their
optimisation study for a fuel-cell hybrid vehicle they were unable to disclose the fuel cell or
11
motor/controller models used in the simulations. Furthermore, when component technology
data is released to the public domain, it is normally in the form of simple performance metrics
such as specific energy (Wh/kg), power density (W/L), specific cost ($/kW or kWh) or peak
efficiency. Data of this kind is good for publicising and comparing technologies, and
potentially for use in lumped-parameter models, but it does not lend itself to use of dynamic
vehicle simulation tools.
Secondly, the cost of obtaining powertrain components and test-bed facilities in order to
develop and validate component models presents a significant barrier to research groups with
limited resources. Furthermore, some research groups withhold their models from the public
domain in order to realise their commercial value or increase competitive advantage. For
example, the author’s primary source of powertrain component models was data files
provided with freely available versions of ADVISOR. However, the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory recently granted an exclusive license to AVL Powertrain Technologies to
commercialise ADVISOR, with the result that future component models will no longer be
freely available (PRNewswire, 2003).
If validated, up-to-date component models are not available to analysts, they may need to
limit the scope of their studies, or utilise inappropriate or out-of-date component models.
Either way, this constitutes a major inconvenience for the users of dynamic simulators.
Computational Requirements
A final limitation of dynamic simulation tools relates to their computational intensity. The
discrete time-step calculations performed by dynamic simulators are inherently iterative,
making them computationally intense. It has already been noted that forward-facing
simulators are more computationally intensive than backward simulators due to their need for
more-precise integration. However, there are other factors that may give rise to additional
computational requirements.
The ADVISOR simulation tool provides two convenient examples (Wipke et al, 1999).
Firstly, there is the need for state-of-charge (SOC) balancing. When a hybrid vehicle
completes a driving cycle, the delta-SOC of the energy storage may be non-zero and in
calculating the equivalent fuel use of the vehicle, this delta-SOC should be accounted for.
One approach is to adjust the fuel consumption based on the delta-SOC and the mean
12
efficiency of the powertrain components, such as the method proposed in Simpson (1999).
Alternatively, ADVISOR provides a convenient zero-delta-SOC routine that iterates on the
initial SOC until the final SOC is within some tolerance of it (e.g. 0.5%). Markel et al (2002)
report that 5-10 drive cycle iterations are typically required to meet the zero-delta SOC
tolerance, which essentially increases the computational requirements by an order of
magnitude. Secondly, there is the opportunity for control strategy optimisation in hybrid
vehicles. This thesis has discussed the issues associated with excessive control optimisation
and off-cycle performance, but for the same reasons, it is equally important that a control
strategy receive some fine tuning. Therefore, an analyst may choose to utilise ADVISOR’s
control strategy optimisation feature. On the author’s PC, the use of this feature required a
computation time of up to an hour. From these examples, it is easy to see how the
computation requirements can quickly add up when using dynamic simulators. Later
discussion in this thesis will also show how studies of component sizing and vehicle
performance can further increase the computational intensity of dynamic simulators.
Some might argue that, with the high processing power available in modern PC technology at
a relatively low cost, computational intensity is a trivial problem that may be readily
overcome. For the most part this may be correct, but there are several examples cited in the
literature where analysts have required the use of high-end workstations and/or parallel
computing to complete their vehicle simulations within a reasonable amount of time (Miller et
al, 1999; Wipke et al, 2001; Markel et al, 2002). Certainly, the greater investment in such
high-end computing would need to be weighed against the overhead & manpower costs of
longer-running vehicle simulations.
Overall, despite their limitations, dynamic simulators have proven to be immensely popular in
the vehicle design and analysis community, and this is evidenced by the large number of
vehicle simulators that have been developed around the world (Table 2-1).
2.2.2 Lumped-Parameter Models
The alternative approach to dynamic simulation is the use of lumped-parameter models for
vehicle energy consumption. These are much simpler models that avoid the need for dynamic
simulation by using “estimates of engine and motor characteristics and other variables that are
averages over a driving cycle” (OTA, 1995), and they often involve the use of empirical
13
correlations. Examples of lumped-parameter models include those employed by Moore
(1996), Åhman (2001), Louis (2001) and Sovran & Blaser (2003).
In contrast with dynamic simulators, lumped-parameter models are far less complex and much
easier to apply and interpret. They involve simple calculations that are readily implemented
in a spreadsheet and can often be performed quickly by hand. Since the models are usually
constructed in parametric form, they obviate the need for detailed component models or
performance maps.
Precision and Accuracy
However, the primary limitation of lumped-parameter models is their lack of precision and
resulting loss of accuracy. The inaccuracy can arise from simplifying assumptions that
facilitate a more convenient model but introduce error. Alternatively, inaccuracies can arise
since lumped-parameter models do not normally include a model of the driving pattern, and
therefore cannot model dynamic effects that would easily be reproduced with a driving cycle.
For example, the lumped-parameters models employed by Moore (1996), Åhman (2001),
Louis (2001) and Sovran & Blaser (2003) all require the energy consumption at the wheels of
the vehicle as an input and therefore cannot readily consider the dependence of this quantity
on the nature of the driving pattern.
Certainly, parametric models can be quite useful for demonstrating system trade-offs in
vehicle design, but their accuracy in making absolute predictions of energy consumption
cannot be compared to that of dynamic simulators. For example, Moore’s spreadsheet model
includes a notation to its user that the correlations employed are “not highly accurate”.
Unfortunately, to the author’s knowledge, the literature contains no documented validation
studies for lumped-parameter models to quantify their accuracy. However, errors in the range
of 10-20% (or even more) would certainly not be unexpected.
14
2.3 Approaches to Modelling Vehicle Performance
2.3.1 The Link between Vehicle Performance and Energy Consumption
Most tools for modelling vehicle energy consumption also include models for predicting
vehicle performance, and such tools allow vehicle designers and analysts to make trade-offs
between vehicle performance and energy consumption. This is necessary because vehicle
performance and energy consumption are inextricably linked through the sizing of powertrain
components. As a general rule, larger powertrain components lead to an improvement in
vehicle performance (although not always). However, the relationship between component
size and vehicle energy consumption is more complicated. Component sizes can affect
vehicle energy consumption in two ways:
1. Mass-related effects – increasing the size of a powertrain component increases its
mass. Furthermore, additional structural mass would normally be required to support
the extra mass of the component. The increase in total vehicle inertia increases the
road load with a resulting increase in energy consumption.
2. Component efficiency effects – a change in the size of a component changes its
loading fraction (the ratio of operating load to peak load) which affects its operating
efficiency. Whether this has a positive or negative influence on component efficiency
depends upon the shape of the component’s efficiency vs. load curve. There are also
higher-order effects to consider. For example, the change in road load that results
from a change of component size/mass will also produce a change in component
operating load fraction.
The link between vehicle performance and energy consumption is quite apparent for
conventional vehicle technologies. It is generally well-known that vehicles with larger
engines have better peak acceleration but worse fuel economy in ordinary driving conditions.
This is due to the combined efforts of the two effects described above. The larger engine is
obviously heavier. But since ICEs tend to operate with maximum efficiency near their peak
power, the larger engine also operates at a lower load fraction with substantially lower
efficiency. These tradeoffs are clearly demonstrated in the results of Plotkin et al (2001) who
compared fuel economy vs performance for both conventional and hybrid vehicles (Figure 2-
1). For other powertrain technologies, the link between vehicle performance and energy
15
consumption is less clear. For example, Friedman (1999) suggests that the fuel economy of a
fuel cell vehicle can be improved by using a larger fuel cell due to the natural shape of a fuel
cell’s efficiency vs. load curve. It is also possible that vehicle performance and energy
consumption can be simultaneously improved via hybridisation. These examples do however
serve to demonstrate the link between vehicle energy consumption and performance and the
need to model these in tandem.
Figure 2-1: A comparison of vehicle fuel economy of conventional and hybrid-electric

vehicles for various acceleration performances (Plotkin et al, 2001)
2.3.2 Models of Vehicle Performance
Each of the forward dynamic simulators reviewed in this thesis has an ability to predict
vehicle performances (including ADVISOR with its hybrid backward/forward approach
(Wipke et al, 1999)). Since vehicle performance tests are essentially full-throttle events, they
are easily replicated in forward simulators via a full throttle command to the powertrain
model. In contrast, backward simulators are particularly unsuited to simulating component-
limited operation and performance tests. As noted by GM et al (2001), it is possible to predict
vehicle performance with a backward simulator by iterating on the vehicle’s acceleration
response, but this is a relatively cumbersome approach that in the literature has only been
utilised with the HPSP model. All of the other backward simulators reviewed in this thesis do
not have a built-in capability to predict vehicle performance.
16
Other approaches to modelling vehicle performance include that employed by Moore (1996)
who included a forward-style calculation of acceleration time in his lumped-parameter
spreadsheet model. Delucchi (2000) has utilised approximate empirical formulae to predict
vehicle acceleration time in his spreadsheet model. However, many analysts have reversed
the component size/performance relationship in an effort to predict the component sizes that
are required to produce a certain level of performance. For example, Ehsani et al (1997) and
Plotkin et al (2001) have derived simple analytical expressions for predicting the drivetrain
power to produce a certain level of acceleration (and this approach has been developed
considerably further in this thesis). Some analysts have even chosen other metrics – such as
vehicle specific power or power-to-weight ratio – as surrogates for vehicle performance, with
examples being found in OTA (1995), Thomas et al (1998), Weiss et al (2000) and Sovran &
Blaser (2003).
On this basis, the various approaches to relating vehicle performance and component size can
be categorised according to whether the component sizes are defined explicitly or implicitly
(Figure 2-2). The explicit approach is that employed by dynamic simulators to predict the
vehicle performance based on a definition of the powertrain component sizes. The implicit
approach involves the powertrain component sizes being defined in terms of vehicle
performances or surrogate metrics. Of course, an explicit performance model becomes
implicit if it is mated with a routine to iterate the powertrain component sizes until a target
level of performance is achieved. An example of such a feature can be found in ADVISOR’s
Autosize routine (Wipke et al, 1999). However, for dynamic simulators this requires
additional computations that, as discussed in Section 2.2.1, may be undesirable.
Explicit Approach
Powertrain Predicted
component Vehicle performance model vehicle
sizes performance(s)
Implicit Approach
Predicted
Target vehicle component
performance(s) Vehicle performance model
sizes
Figure 2-2: The explicit vs. implicit approaches to powertrain component sizing.
17
A feature of the implicit approach is that it results in the phenomenon commonly known as
mass compounding. Mass compounding occurs as follows: for better performance (say
increased acceleration), a vehicle requires a larger engine. But the larger engine is heavier
and also requires additional structural support. Therefore, the vehicle becomes heavier, and
the engine size must be further increased to achieve the target level of performance. The
process continues in an upward spiral with the mass compounding until the vehicle design
converges. Similarly, a reduction in a target level of vehicle performance can result in mass-
decompounding.
Figure 2-3 provides a diagrammatic representation of mass compounding for a model of

vehicle energy consumption using the implicit performance approach, and the feedback loop
that gives rise to mass compounding is clearly indicated. Obviously, this mass compounding
effect is most-pronounced for arduous performance goals and technologies with low specific
powers (W/kg).
Performance Performance model &

targets component sizing strategy Mass
Compounding
Component sizes
Vehicle
platform
Mass balance Vehicle energy

consumption
Component
technologies Total vehicle mass
Driving Component efficiency and vehicle

pattern energy consumption model
Figure 2-3: The effects of mass-compounding due to vehicle performance
The Significance of Driving Range as a Performance Target
For those studies using an implicit approach to component sizing, the most common
performance targets have included acceleration, gradability and top speed. What is important
to note about these performance targets is that they determine the power output requirements
18
for components in the powertrain. Several studies have also adopted a driving range target,
but this target is unique in that it determines an energy storage requirement for the
powertrain. Consequently, a driving range target will also result in mass-compounding
effects, but the feedback loop is different. Figure 2-4 demonstrates range-induced mass-
compounding effects. In addition to the original mass-compounding feedback loop due to
vehicle performance, note that there are now two additional feedback loops due to vehicle
energy consumption – one via the effects of component sizes on total vehicle mass, and
another via the effects of component sizes on powertrain efficiency.

targets component sizing strategy Mass
compounding
power
Component sizes
Vehicle energy
platform

consumption
Component
Driving Component efficiency and vehicle

pattern energy consumption model
Figure 2-4: The effects of mass-compounding due to vehicle performance including range
Despite this interaction, it is surprising to find that many studies have ignored range-induced
mass-compounding effects. Furthermore, many of the vehicle modelling tools surveyed by
this thesis do not have an ability to predict driving range, and only one (Delucchi, 2000) has
the built-in capability to size components and predict vehicle energy consumption based on
performance targets that include driving range. From the literature, it is not clear why this is
the case, but there is certainly a practical issue involved. As previously noted, dynamic
simulators are the most popular modelling tools and they use an explicit approach to
component sizing and must therefore be mated with iterative routines to enable the implicit
approach. These iterative routines would normally structure the component sizing problem as
a bounded optimisation, with the performance targets providing the constraints and the
objective being to minimise total vehicle mass or energy consumption. If driving range IS
19
NOT included as a performance constraint, then the iterations to predict vehicle performance
and size powertrain components can be performed independent of the energy consumption,
and then a single driving cycle simulation can be performed to estimate the vehicle energy
consumption (and the resulting driving range). In addition, if a control strategy optimisation
is required, this can be performed separate to the component sizing. This is the approach
employed by ADVISOR with its Autosize routine, with each iteration taking approximately
20 seconds on the author’s PC. If driving range IS included as a performance constraint, then
each iteration of the optimisation routine must also include a prediction of the vehicle energy
consumption, which may need to be delta-SOC-corrected. Using ADVISOR on the author’s
PC, the result is an increase in time per iteration to up to 3 minutes. Furthermore, there is
now an additional optimisation variable (the size of the fuel/energy storage) and control
strategy parameters that might also need to be optimised (since they affect the energy
consumption), which could easily double the number of design variables. Due to these large
increases in computation requirements, analysts may have chosen to neglect range-induced
mass-compounding effects primarily for the sake of convenience when using existing
modelling tools.
But since so few studies have considered range-induced mass compounding effects, it is not
clear from the literature whether these can be legitimately neglected or not. Obviously, the
effect will be most pronounced for fuel/energy storage technologies with low specific
energies (Wh/kg). For example, Delucchi (2000) has examined the sensitivity of BEV energy
consumption to driving range and his results (reproduced in Figure 2-5) show a large
sensitivity to driving range. In contrast, the high specific energy of liquid hydrocarbon fuels
should make conventional vehicle technologies relatively insensitive to driving range. But,
apart from batteries, there are other fuel/energy storage technologies – most notably hydrogen
– which can have order-of-magnitude lower specific energy storage than that of conventional
fuels (Table 2-3). The sensitivity of energy consumption to driving range in vehicles using
these technologies should be explored much further. But such studies are not facilitated by
the existing dynamic simulation tools.
20
800%
700%
600%
Relative fuel economy
500%
ICE
Pb-Acid
400% NiMH Gen2
NiMH Gen4
Li-Ion
300%
200%
100%
0%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Driving range (miles)
Figure 2-5: The relative fuel economy of different BEV technologies for various driving
ranges calculated for a Ford Escort-style vehicle in Delucchi (2000)
Table 2-3: Comparison of specific energy (Wh/kg) and energy density (Wh/L) values for
various fuel/energy storage systems.
Fuel/Energy Storage Specific Energy (Wh/kg) Energy Density (Wh/L)
1
Gasoline/Petrol 10400 7000
Diesel 1 10400 8000
Biodiesel 1 8900 7000
LPG 1 5800 4600
LNG 1 7400 3900
CNG 1 2100-4300 2000
Ethanol 1 6300 4600
Methanol 1 5400 4000
Gaseous Hydrogen (5000psi) 2 3700 800
Gaseous Hydrogen (10000psi) 2 3300 1200
Liquid Hydrogen 2,3 2600-2700 1200
Sodium Boro-Hydride 2 1100 1100
Metal Hydride (high temp) 2,3 1000-1100 900-1500
Metal Hydride (low temp) 3 400 1000
Zinc-Air Battery5 200 220
Lithium-Ion Battery4 140 290
NiMH Battery4 70 165
VRLA Battery4 35 90
Table References:
1) IEA (1999)
2) TIAX (2002)
3) Wicke (2002)
4) Data from various papers presented at the 17th Electric Vehicle Symposium, Montreal.
5) Goldstein et al (1999)
21
2.4 Factors Affecting the Choice and Use of Vehicle Modelling Tools
The two primary uses of vehicle modelling tools are for 1) vehicle design studies and 2)
vehicle technology assessment, and it is interesting to consider how the requirements of a
vehicle modelling tool differ for each purpose.
Vehicle design studies are typically concerned with one (or at most only a few) vehicle design
concept(s) and the goal is normally for design simulation, testing and refinement. In terms of
the attributes listed in section 2.1, this naturally puts greater emphasis on precision and
accuracy in the modelling approach, even if this comes at the expense of greater complexity,
more-detailed input data requirements, greater computation or less versatility. Dynamic
simulators (especially forward simulators) are therefore ideally suited to this purpose.
In contrast, technology assessment often involves wide-ranging comparisons of many

different vehicles, powertrains and component technologies. This naturally puts greater
emphasis on versatility, simplicity, transparency and reduced input data requirements and
computation in the modelling approach, and analysts might be willing to forgo some precision
and accuracy for the sake of these other attributes. This suggests lumped-parameter models as
a better choice for the purposes of technology assessment, which is confirmed by the opinion
of analysts such as the OTA (1995):
“OTA’s projections of advanced vehicle performance used approximate vehicle models based
on well-known equations of vehicle energy use. These models are “lumped parameter”
models – that is, they use estimates of engine and motor characteristics and other variables
that are averages over a driving cycle. Ideally, a performance analysis of complex vehicles
such as hybrids should be based on detailed engine and motor maps that are capable of
capturing the second-by-second interactions of all of the components. Such models have been
developed by auto manufacturers and others. Nevertheless, OTA believes that the
approximate performance calculations give results that are adequate for our purposes. In
addition, the detailed models require a level of data on technology performance that is
unavailable for all but the very-near term technologies.”
Ross (1997) also argues the case for lumped parameter models:
22
“The spirit of the analysis is a physicist's, rather than that of an engineer who is responsible
for a vehicle's performance. I want to describe the energy flows accurately enough for
general understanding and perhaps conceptual design, not for designing an actual vehicle.
The approach is to develop simple algebraic expressions motivated by physical principles, in
contrast to the now pervasive analysis based on numerical arrays. Creating an energy
analysis in, hopefully, transparent terms should make the issues accessible to non-specialists
with technical background.”
But a survey of recent studies (Table 2-2) shows that the vast majority of analysts have
chosen dynamic simulators in preference to lumped-parameter models for the purposes of
technology assessment, presumably due to their greater accuracy. However, a number of
important issues arise when using dynamic simulators for technology assessment purposes.
Firstly, dynamic simulators are sophisticated engineering tools and policy makers will often
take the results from such tools as being “absolute” without appreciating the assumptions or
uncertainties embodied in the analysis. Approaches to promoting a better understanding of
uncertainties include conducting sensitivity analysis on key inputs and assumptions, or
propagating uncertainty through the entire analysis using, for example, fuzzy set theory
(Lipman, 1999). However, driving cycles create a particular challenge here due to their
deterministic nature. If existing driving cycles are unrepresentative of real-world conditions,
what cycle(s) should analysts choose to use for the base case “best estimate”? If a sensitivity
analysis is to be performed, how can analysts modify a driving cycle? Certainly, the “velocity
scaling” technique is an option, but this one-dimensional variation cannot possibly
encapsulate the multiple dimensions of real-world driving patterns. If driving pattern
uncertainty is to be carried through the entire analysis, how can analysts model the uncertainty
in a deterministic driving pattern?
It seems clear that deterministic driving cycles are particularly unsuited to the modelling of
uncertainty and that alternative representations of driving patterns might be considered. One
approach, suggested by Bullock (1982), Milkins & Watson (1983), Burba (2000) and others,
is to represent driving patterns as joint/cumulative probability functions of vehicle speed and
acceleration. However, it is difficult to see how these might be incorporated into a model of
vehicle energy consumption. Another approach might be to parameterise a driving pattern in
terms of meaningful physical metrics such as average speed or average acceleration, and use
these parameters to derive a lumped-parameter style model of vehicle energy consumption.
23
In the author’s view, this approach has considerable potential and is further explored in this
thesis as an alternative to modelling vehicle energy consumption in dynamic simulators using
deterministic driving cycles.
The second problem with using dynamic simulators for technology assessment is the amount
of costly resources that must be invested to produce a result. The resource intensity manifests
itself in three ways – computational requirements, input data requirements and sheer
manpower. This is best exemplified by three monumental well-to-wheels studies that have
been performed by automotive companies in recent years – GM et al (2001), LBST (2002)
and EUCAR et al (2003). These three studies are characterised by the large number of
vehicle technologies considered (GM – 15, LBST – 22 and EUCAR – 43) and the level of
detail in which the vehicles were modelled (all three studies used dynamic simulators).
Although it was not specifically reported in the studies’ documentation, it can reasonably be
assumed that all three studies involved large amounts of computation. This firstly stems from
the large number of cases considered and secondly from the use of dynamic simulators. To
further increase the computation requirements, each study notes that some degree of control
strategy optimisation was performed. Furthermore, all three studies utilised an implicit
approach to component sizing, increasing the computation even more. The control strategy
optimisation can be viewed as an optional component of these studies (in that it probably
wasn’t strictly necessary). In contrast, the implicit component-sizing approach seems to have
become a standard feature of recent vehicle technology assessment studies. This is because it
allows alternative vehicles to be compared on a basis of equal functionality, and as was
previously demonstrated, vehicle performance can have a major effect on vehicle energy
consumption. Overall, it seems clear that the manpower and computational resources needed
to complete such large numbers of simulations could have amounted to a significant cost.
The only option for reducing these costs is to consider alternative modelling tools that do not
have the inherent computational intensity of dynamic simulators i.e. lumped-parameter
models.
The input data required to support these studies must have also been large, since appropriate
component models and data needed to be provided for the dynamic simulation of each vehicle
technology. Fortunately, the automaker-funded studies could take advantage of their own
libraries of proprietary component models (GM et al, 2001). However, technology
assessment is an ongoing process, and as vehicle technologies evolve, studies will need to be
24
repeated. In future, it is unlikely that such large-scale studies as GM’s will be justified on a
regular basis. More likely, ongoing studies will be performed by smaller teams of researchers
with reduced technological scope and access to far less resources. They will probably not
have access to enormous libraries of detailed component models (such as those held by the
automakers). Therefore, obtaining suitable component data and models for use with dynamic
simulators will continue to be a challenge. Alternatively, through the use of appropriate
modelling tools, analysts could tap into the relative abundance of simple component
technology parameters available in the public domain and use this information to conduct
technology assessments of vehicle fuel economy. Again, this suggests a lumped-parameter
modelling approach.
2.5 Outcomes of Literature Review
In summary, compared to existing dynamic simulators, a tool that is better suited to the
purposes of technology assessment might have the following characteristics:
1. Use a less deterministic description of driving patterns i.e. avoid driving cycles by
using a probabilistic/statistical description of driving patterns
2. Be tailored to the use of publicly available technology/component data i.e. utilise
simple input parameters to avoid the need for detailed component models.
3. Be less computationally intensive i.e. avoid iterative dynamic simulation by using
lumped-parameter style models of vehicle energy consumption and performance
Each of these characteristics is consistent with the attributes of a lumped-parameter model.

However, if a new tool with these characteristics was developed, the key issue then becomes
accuracy. Existing lumped-parameter models have not been well-validated in the literature
but, with their simplifying assumptions and limited precision (in particular their lack of a
driving pattern model), they have potential to be far less accurate. Any new tool that was
developed would need to incorporate sufficient precision in its modelling approach for
analysts to be confident that key system interactions were being captured, and it would also
need to be well-validated to quantify its accuracy. These issues provide the justification for
the work presented in this thesis.
This thesis details a new vehicle modelling tool – the Parametric Analytical Model of Vehicle
Energy Consumption (PAMVEC). Its intended use is primarily for technology assessment,
25
although it could also be used to complement more detailed modelling tools as part of a
vehicle design process. Strictly speaking, PAMVEC is a lumped-parameter model. However,
it incorporates a number of unique features that, relative to dynamic simulators, are designed
to reduce its complexity and input data and computational requirements but also to provide
greater precision and accuracy than previous lumped-parameter approaches. These features
of PAMVEC include:
• A parametric driving pattern description that captures key attributes of the driving
pattern, but is also well-suited to the modelling of uncertainty
power/energy
• Implicit component sizing on the basis of specified performance parameters (which
include driving range)
• Derived analytical expressions for vehicle performance and energy consumption
The following chapters document the derivation of the PAMVEC tool and its validation
against test data and benchmarking against the ADVISOR modelling software. Lastly, an
example of the use of PAMVEC is provided to demonstrate its suitability for the purposes of
technology assessment.
26
3. The Parametric Analytical Model of Vehicle Energy
Consumption (PAMVEC)
A schematic representation of the PAMVEC model is provided in Figure 3-1, which shows
that there are three main components to the model:
1. The energy consumption model that predicts vehicle energy consumption on the basis
of a parametric driving cycle description, total vehicle mass, other attributes of the
vehicle platform (such as drag coefficients and accessory loads) and the powertrain
component efficiencies. Note that component sizes do not feed into the energy
consumption model (i.e. the component efficiencies do not depend on their size). This
is the primary limitation of the PAMVEC tool discussed further in Section 5.2.
2. The vehicle performance and component sizing model that determines the powertrain
component sizes on the basis of input performance constraints, vehicle mass and drag,
and powertrain component efficiencies.
3. A mass balance that predicts total vehicle mass based on the powertrain component
sizes, the component specific powers/energies, and vehicle platform parameters (the
glider mass and passenger/cargo mass)
INPUTS MODEL OUTPUTS

targets component sizing strategy
Component sizes
Vehicle
platform

consumption
Component
Driving Vehicle energy

pattern consumption model
Figure 3-1: The PAMVEC model
27
This chapter explains each component of the model in detail. Firstly, it outlines the derivation
of the energy consumption model, which includes a parametric formulation of the road load
equation, a novel parametric driving pattern description, and architecture-specific parametric
expressions for powertrain losses. It then details the model of vehicle performance, which
uses an implicit approach to predict the powertrain output powers and energy storage that are
required to achieve the target levels of performance. The implicit performance model is an
extension of the performance equations developed by Ehsani et al (1997). Finally, the
architecture-specific mass balances and component sizing strategies are outlined.
3.1 The Parametric Road Load Equation
3.1.1 Average Road Load Power
The parametric approach to modelling vehicle energy consumption is founded upon a

parametric description of the well-known road load equation (3-1):
Proad = Paero + Proll + Paccel + Pgrade (3-1a)
= 12 ρC D Av 3 + C RR mtotal gv + k m mtotal av + mtotal gZv (3-1b)
where Proad is the road load power (W), v is the vehicle speed (m/s), a is the vehicle
acceleration (m/s2), ρ is the density of air (~1.2kg/m3), C D is the aerodynamic drag

coefficient, A is the frontal area (m2), C RR is the rolling resistance coefficient, mtotal is the
total vehicle mass (kg), g is the gravitational acceleration (9.81m/s2), Z is the road gradient
(%) and k m is a factor to account for the rotational inertia of the powertrain (Plotkin et al
(2001) use a value of km = 1.1 while Moore (1996) uses a value of km = 1.2).
The road load equation consists of four components as shown in Equation 3-1a. The first two
of these components represent the irreversible power losses due to aerodynamic and rolling
drag. However, the second two components – powers for vehicle acceleration and hill-
climbing – represent kinetic and potential energy storage in the vehicle inertia and in theory
are fully recoverable (subject to the availability and efficiency of energy recovery and storage
mechanisms in the vehicle). In order to parameterise the road load equation, the following
28
simplifying assumption is made: a vehicle’s journey is defined as including the return trip
to its point of departure. Following this assumption it can be assumed that over the journey
the terms Paccel and Pgrade in equation (3-1a) integrate to zero. Defining the total trip time as
T , this is written mathematically as:
T
∫0
k m mtotal avdt = 0 (3-2)
T
∫0
mtotal gZvdt = 0 (3-3)
Expressions 3-2 and 3-3 are valid since over the journey the vehicle returns to its point of
departure and the net change in speed and elevation is zero. On this basis, it is therefore
possible to define the average road load power as follows:
Proad = 12 ρC D Av rmc + C RR mtotal gv avg

3
(3-4)
In equation 3-4, vrmc and vavg represent the average and root-mean-cubed velocities,
respectively, over the driving pattern and are calculated as follows:
1 T
T ∫0
v avg = vdt (3-5)
1 T
v rmc = 3
T ∫
0
v 3 dt (3-6)
Furthermore, the driving pattern velocity ratio ( Λ ) can be defined:
v rmc
Λ= (3-7)
v avg
A more-detailed discussion of these driving pattern parameters is given in Section 3.2. Using
equations 3-4 and 3-7, the average road load power can also be expressed as:
Proad = 12 ρC D AΛ3 v avg + C RR mtotal gv avg

3
(3-8)
29
Equations 3-4 and 3-8 represent a departure from conventional thought which normally
accounts for inertial and gravitational energy losses as a part of the vehicle road load. In fact,
these losses are actually due to inefficient energy recapture mechanisms in the vehicle
powertrain and should be considered as such. This point is well-illustrated by the parametric
expression which can be derived for the average vehicle braking losses.
3.1.2 Average Braking Losses
The function of friction brakes is to dissipate some of the kinetic and gravitational potential
energy stored within the inertia of the vehicle. Therefore, to calculate the average braking
losses we must determine the average rate of energy storage within the vehicle inertia which
is matched by an equal and opposite rate of energy dissipation and/or recapture. To derive an
expression for the average rate of energy storage, we begin with the recoverable component of
the road load:
Pre cov erable = k m mtotal av + mtotal gZv = mtotal (k m a + gZ )v (3-9)
Note that the acceleration and gradient components can be represented by a single equivalent
acceleration term:
a e = k m a + gZ (3-10)
However, as a simplification, this thesis neglects gradient effects in its analysis and there are
several justifications for doing so:
1. Gradient data is rarely available for use in vehicle analysis (Bullock, 1982) and, to the
author’s knowledge, there are no standard driving cycles used for estimating and
comparing vehicle energy consumption that include road gradient data.
2. In comparing the relative fuel economy of different vehicle technologies, the inclusion
of gradient effects does not necessarily add much value to the comparison. Equation
3-10 suggests that likely gradient effects can be qualitatively inferred from the effects
produced by the acceleration characteristics of a driving pattern.
3. Finally, Bullock (1982) suggests that fluctuations in gradient tend to manifest
themselves as fluctuations in velocity anyway i.e. motorists tend to let speed fluctuate
over undulating terrain, rather than trying to hold the speed constant. This means that
30
gradient effects are most likely entrained within recorded velocity profiles, and the
error from neglecting gradient in the analysis is small.
By using equation 3-9 and assuming a gradient of zero, an expression for the average rate of
energy storage in the vehicle inertia can be written:
1 T k m mtotal T
Pinertia =
T ∫0
k m mtotal av a ≥0 dt =
T ∫0
av a ≥0 dt (3-11)
However, to proceed further with the analysis requires that we develop a parametric
expression for the integral in equation 3-11. Fortunately, previous driving pattern research
provides a convenient solution. The average rate of energy storage in a vehicle mass can be
characterized by a parameter known as PKE – the positive acceleration kinetic energy per unit
distance – which is a measure of the acceleration work required in a driving pattern (Milkins
& Watson, 1983). PKE is defined as the sum of the differences between the squares of the
final and initial velocities in successive acceleration manoeuvres, divided by total trip
distance, and has units of acceleration (m/s2):
∑ (v ) = ∑ (v )
2 2 2 2
− vinitial − vinitial
PKE =
final final
T
(3-12)
D
∫ 0
vdt
By making use of equation 3-5, equation 3-12 can be rearranged to give:
∑ (v ) = PKE × v
2 2
final − vinitial
avg (3-13)
T
1
Multiplying both sides of equation 3-13 by 2 k m mtotal gives:
∑( k m mtotal v final − 12 k m mtotal vinitial )=

1 2 2
2 1
2 k m mtotal v avg PKE (3-14)
T
By inspection we see that the left-hand-side of equation 3-13 represents the average rate of
kinetic energy storage in a vehicle mass during a driving pattern. Therefore, equation 3-11
can be written as:
31
Pinertia = 12 k m mtotal v avg PKE (3-15)
Equation 3-15 is sufficient as a parametric expression for the average rate of energy storage
within the vehicle inertia; however, the author prefers a more meaningful form of 3-15 that is
consistent with the form of Paccel in the road load equation (3-1a & 3-1b). This is achieved by
defining the characteristic acceleration ( a~ ) of the driving pattern:
a~ = 12 PKE = ×
(
1 ∑ v final − vinitial
2 2
) (3-16)
2 v avg T
Equation 3-15 can now be written as:
Pinertia = k m mtotal a~v avg (3-17)
Again, see Section 3.2 for a detailed discussion of the driving pattern parameters. Equation 3-
17 provides a fully parametric expression for the average rate of energy storage in the vehicle
inertia over the driving pattern (assuming level road), which is matched by an equal and
opposite rate of energy dissipation and/or recovery. A fraction of this rate of energy
dissipation and/or recovery will be absorbed by the vehicle’s friction brakes. The average
braking losses can be defined using the regenerative braking fraction ( k regen ):
Pbraking = (1 − k regen )Pinertia = (1 − k regen )k m mtotal a~v avg (3-18)
The average road load (3-8) and average braking losses (3-18) can then be combined to give
the average power requirement at the output of the driveshaft(s) on the driven axle(s) of the
vehicle:
Pdrive −out = Proad + Pbraking = 12 ρC D AΛ3 v avg + C RR mtotal gv avg + (1 − k regen )k m mtotal a~v avg (3-19)
3
Note that as k regen tends to one the braking losses tend to zero. Under this scenario all of the
stored kinetic and potential energy is returned to the powertrain for recapture and, if the
energy recapture & storage mechanism were to be 100% efficient, there would be no energy
32
consumption due to inertial nor gravitational affects. However, powertrain inefficiencies and
inefficient braking technologies and strategies (with k regen <1) result in energy losses that are
more-appropriately attributed to the choice of powertrain technology rather than the vehicle
platform (which defines the road load).
Equation 3-18 is in fact only an approximate estimate of the braking losses since it assumes
that all vehicle deceleration is produced by braking. In reality a certain portion of vehicle
deceleration results from aerodynamic and rolling drag forces. The PAMVEC approach
models the irreversible drag losses and reversible inertial power flows as separate,
independent power flows in the powertrain, whereas in reality the two components add
together to give to net power flow (and when the net power flow is negative during
deceleration, its magnitude is reduced by the positive drag power). Therefore, equation 3-18
will always overestimate the average braking losses and in this manner is consistently
conservative.
This decoupling of irreversible and reversible power flows (Figure 3-2) is a central
assumption of the PAMVEC modelling approach, since it provides simplicity in the model
and enables the use of the novel parametric driving pattern description. However, it is also
the primary cause of modelling error. Figure 3-3 demonstrates the overestimation of average
braking losses for a section of the UDDS driving cycle, using a representative vehicle
platform with the following characteristics:
Mass: 1550kg
Drag-area (CDA): 0.8m2
Rolling resistance coefficient (CRR): 0.01
Regenerative braking fraction (kregen): 0.0
The braking loss error of 44% in the example in Figure 3-3 may seem large, but it must be
taken in the context of estimating the energy consumption for the entire vehicle. The braking
losses represent only a fraction of the total energy consumption and the significance of this
error in the total estimate will be reduced by the same fraction. Furthermore, the error in the
braking loss estimate is a function of the vehicle mass-to-drag ratio and the characteristics of
the driving pattern.
33
60
Road Load
40
20
Power (kW)
0
-20
-40
-60
Drag Power Decoupling Inertial Power

60 60
40 40
20 20
Power (kW)
Power (kW)
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
Braking Losses
60
Estimated braking losses

Actual braking losses
50
40
Power (kW)
30
20
10
60
Drivetrain Output
Estimated drive output
50 Actual drive output
40
Power (kW)
30
20
10
braking losses
34
100
Speed (km/h) 50
0
260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330
4
x 10
2.5
2 Proad Pdrag-avg = 2.23kW
1.5 Pbrake-avg = -1.60kW
1 Pdrag Pbrake-avg-est = -2.30kW
0.5
Power (W)
-0.5
-1
-1.5 Paccel
-2
Braking loss overestimated
-2.5
260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330
Time (s)
Figure 3-3: Overestimation of average braking losses in a representative vehicle platform for
a section of the UDDS driving cycle
To demonstrate these interrelationships, Figure 3-4 presents errors in the estimate of Pdrive −out
(equation 3-19) over a range of mass-to-drag ratios for several contrasting driving patterns.
This better illustrates the contribution of the error in the braking loss estimate to the error in
the estimate of total energy consumption, and the error in Pdrive−out is generally less than 20%
across the full range of driving patterns and vehicle platforms. In practice, there are other loss
components such as powertrain inefficiencies and accessory loads which will further reduce
the contribution of the braking loss estimate error.
3.2 Driving Pattern Parameters
The previous section derived a parametric formulation of the road load equation. A novel
feature of this parametric approach is the use of only three parameters to fully characterise the
driving pattern – the average velocity (vavg), the velocity ratio ( Λ ) and the characteristic
35
acceleration ( a~ ). Mathematical definitions of these three parameters are provided in
equations 3-5, 3-7 and 3-16 respectively.
Errors in the estimate of Pdrive-out for various driving patterns

22
20 HWFET
US06
18
UDDS
16
Error (%)
14
NYCC
12
10 NEDC
8
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Vehicle mass-to-drag ratio (kg/m2)
Figure 3-4: Errors in the estimate of Pdrive −out (equation 3-19) over a range of mass-to-drag
ratios for several contrasting driving patterns
In the context of driving pattern research, this set of parameters offers two important benefits.
Firstly, all three parameters can be calculated directly from a measured velocity profile. They
do not require the use of accelerometers (which are sensitive to higher-frequency vibration
onboard a vehicle) or differentiators (which are sensitive to noise in the measured velocity
profile) to provide acceleration data with which to quantify a driving pattern. The other key
benefit of this set of parameters is that they form an orthogonal (or independent) coordinate
set that quantify multiple dimensions of a driving pattern. In layman’s terms, these
dimensions are:
• Average velocity – the fundamental driving pattern attribute that describes how
quickly a vehicle will complete its journey.
• Velocity ratio – quantifies the range of speeds at which a vehicle has travelled during
its journey, but contains no information about the rate at which vehicle speed has
changed. A journey that includes periods of both low-speed, urban driving and high-
36
speed, highway driving will have a large velocity ratio. The minimum-possible value
for velocity ratio is unity, which corresponds to constant speed driving.
• Characteristic acceleration – quantifies the rate at which vehicle speed changes
throughout the journey, without providing any information regarding the range of
speeds at which the vehicle travels. The minimum-possible value for characteristic
acceleration is zero1, which corresponds to constant speed driving.
To better illustrate the physical meaning of each parameter, Figures 3-5 to 3-8 provide
examples of a hypothetical velocity profiles in the shape of a sine wave. Figure 3-5 presents
the base-case driving pattern with parameter values of v = 10m/s, Λ = 1.1 and a~ = 0.1m/s2.
avg
Figures 3-6 to 3-8 show the resulting driving patterns when each parameter is increased by
5% independent of the other parameters. This ability to vary each parameter independent of
the others is a confirmation of their orthogonality, but also demonstrates their physical
meaning.
60
50
40
speed (kph)
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time (s)
and a~ = 0.1m/s2
In Figure 3-6, v avg has been increased by 5%. However, to maintain the same value for Λ the
amplitude of the sine wave is also increased by 5%. But this increases the acceleration of the
1
By definition, a characteristic acceleration greater than zero implies a velocity ratio greater than unity, and vice
versa.
37
vehicle (sine wave slope) by 5% - therefore the frequency of the sine wave must be decreased
(and the period increased) by 5% to keep a~ constant. In Figure 3-7, the amplitude of the sine
wave has been increased in order to increase Λ by 5%, whereas, the average speed is
unchanged. Therefore, the period of the sine wave is increased to produce the same a~ as the
base case. In Figure 3-8, the average speed and sine wave amplitude are unchanged such that
the values of v and Λ are the same. However, to increase a~ by 5% the frequency of the
avg
sine wave must be increased (and the period decreased) by 5%.
60
50
40
speed (kph)
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time (s)
Figure 3-6: A hypothetical driving pattern with parameter values of vavg = 10.5m/s (5%
increase), Λ = 1.1 and a~ = 0.1m/s2
Of course, the sine wave velocity profiles in Figures 3-5 to 3-8 are poor examples of realistic
driving patterns. They do serve, however, to demonstrate the physical meaning of the driving
pattern parameters. To demonstrate parameter values that might be expected in more-realistic
driving patterns, Table 3-1 presents the average velocities, velocity ratios and characteristic
accelerations for some well-known driving cycles. Further driving pattern parameters are
presented in Appendix A.
38
60
50
40
speed (kph)
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time (s)
(5% increase) and a~ = 0.1m/s2
60
50
40
speed (kph)
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time (s)
and a~ = 0.105m/s2 (5% increase)
39
Table 3-1: Driving pattern parameters for some well-known driving cycles
Cycle Average Root-mean-cubed Velocity ratio Characteristic
velocity (km/h) velocity (km/h) acceleration (m/s2)
v avg v rmc Λ a~
NYCC 11.4 20.6 1.81 0.293

NEDC 33.0 53.6 1.62 0.112
UDDS 31.4 44.5 1.42 0.171
US06 76.9 91.2 1.19 0.190
HWFET 77.2 80.0 1.04 0.069
Figure 3-9 plots the velocity ratio ( Λ ) versus the average velocity ( v avg ) for the driving cycles
presented in Appendix A. The curve fitted to this data suggests that there may be a definable
relationship between the velocity ratio and average speed. Qualitatively speaking, driving
cycles with a lower average speed tend to have a higher velocity ratio. This may be due to the
fact that during high-average-speed driving patterns (e.g. highway driving) a vehicle spends
most of its time travelling at velocities near the posted speed limit. In contrast, low-average-
speed driving patterns (e.g. stop-start urban driving) tend to involve significant periods of
travel at a wide range of speeds anywhere between standstill and the posted (albeit lower)
speed limit.
In contrast, there seems to be no relationship between average speed and characteristic

acceleration observed in driving patterns, as plotted in Figure 3-10. Driving patterns can have
large or small characteristic accelerations at both low and high average speeds.
40
Velocity ratio vs. Average velocity
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
kph
Figure 3-9: Velocity ratio ( Λ ) vs. average velocity ( v avg ) for the driving cycles presented in
Appendix A
Characteristic acceleration vs. Average velocity
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
m/s^2
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
kph
Figure 3-10: Characteristic acceleration ( a~ ) vs. average velocity ( v avg ) for the driving
cycles presented in Appendix A
41
3.3 Powertrain Losses
The parametric approach can also be extended to model the powertrain losses in a vehicle.
However, there are subtle differences in the manner in which powertrain losses occur in
different powertrain architectures. Such powertrain architectures include:
• Conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICVs)
• Parallel hybrid-electric internal combustion engine vehicle (PHEVs)
• Series hybrid-electric internal combustion engine vehicles (SHEVs)
• Fuel cell-electric vehicles (FCEVs)
• Fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicles (FCHEVs)
• Battery electric vehicles (BEVs)
Therefore, this thesis firstly derives a model for the powertrain losses in generalised
powertrain architecture. Then, by using a series of simplifications and/or modifications, this
model is applied to the specific architectures listed above.
3.3.1 Generic Powertrain Architecture
A diagram of the generic powertrain architecture is shown in Figure 3-11.
FUEL HSPD BRAKES
HSED DRIVE
To axle/wheels
Figure 3-11: Generic powertrain architecture
It is clearly a hybrid vehicle in that it includes two power sources:

• A high specific energy device (HSED) that provides the energy required to complete a
driving pattern. The HSED is typically capable of handling monodirectional power
flows only.
42
• A high specific power device (HSPD) that provides peak power capability in addition
to that of the HSED and also acts as a energy buffer/storage mechanism to smooth the
load experienced by the HSED. The HSPD is typically capable of handling bi-
directional power flows.
The generic powertrain architecture also includes a bi-directional drivetrain component that
transfers power between the power sources and wheels of the vehicle. With the bi-directional
power capabilities of the drivetrain and HSPD, the vehicle can achieve a certain fraction of its
braking via regenerative braking, with the remainder performed by friction brakes. In
accordance with equations 3-18 and 3-19, the average rate of power absorbed by the
powertrain due to regenerative braking will be:
Pregen = k regen Pinertia = k regen k m mtotal a~v avg (3-20)
However, due to inefficiencies in the drivetrain and HSPD, a certain fraction of this
regenerative power will be lost rather than being stored in the HSPD. Similarly, the
inefficiencies of the HSPD and drivetrain create losses during acceleration manoeuvres and
general cruising.
Drivetrain Losses
There are three components that must be considered in order to calculate the drivetrain losses:
• Proad – the average power required to overcome drag forces on the vehicle (equation
3-8). This component can be considered as representing the average drivetrain power
required for vehicle cruising.
• Pinertia – the average rate of kinetic energy storage in the vehicle inertia (equation 3-
17). This component represents the average drivetrain power required for vehicle
acceleration.
• Pregen - the average rate of kinetic energy absorbed by the drivetrain (equation 3-20).
This component represents the average power absorbed by the drivetrain during
regenerative braking.
Each of these components cause losses in the drivetrain, however, it is important to note they
are not separate driving “modes” but rather are time-averaged quantities that must be
43
considered simultaneously. Furthermore, the direction of the Pregen power flow is opposite to
that of the other components which results in a slightly different definition of the losses in that
component. The average drivetrain losses are given by
1 − η drive
Pdrive −loss = (P + Pinertia ) + (1 − η drive )Pregen (3-21)
η drive
road
where η drive is the mean efficiency of the drivetrain over the driving pattern. Again, the
PAMVEC model assumes a decoupling of the drag and inertial power flows (Figure 3-12) and
similar to the expression for braking losses, equation 3-21 is an approximate overestimate of
the drivetrain losses since in reality some fraction of vehicle braking is produced by vehicle
drag. To explore the significance of the error in the drivetrain loss estimate, we must first
define the average drivetrain input power:
Pdrive −in = Pdrive−out + Pdrive −loss
1 − η drive
= Proad + Pbraking + (P + Pinertia ) + (1 − η drive )Pregen
η drive
road
=
(
Proad + 1 − η drive k regen Pinertia
2
) (3-22)
η drive
Figure 3-13 plots the error in the estimate of Pdrive −in across a range of mass-to-drag ratios for
several different driving cycles (assuming CRR = 0.009, kregen = 50% and ηdrive = 80%). In all
cases the error in the estimate is less than 15%.
HSPD Losses
For a given vehicle platform and driving pattern, equation 3-22 calculates the average power
that must be supplied to the input of the drivetrain. This also represents the average power
that must be supplied by the vehicle’s power sources – the HSED and HSPD. However, as
previously noted, the function of the HSPD is to supply/absorb peak powers and filter the
loading on the HSED. The result is that small packets of energy are continuously being
transferred in and out of the HSPD, with losses occurring due to its inefficiencies. In
acknowledgement of this fact, the efficiency of HSPD technologies is commonly quoted in
terms of round-trip efficiency, rather than the throughput efficiency that is typical of other
44
powertrain components. Round-trip efficiency defines the losses in the HSPD as a fraction of
the energy that is temporarily stored in it. Therefore, to determine the average losses in the
HSPD, the average rate of energy storage in the HSPD must first be estimated.
Unfortunately, calculating the average rate of energy storage in the HSPD is a particularly
difficult task since it depends not only on the nature of the driving pattern, but also on the
power control strategy that shares the drivetrain power demands between the HSED and
HSPD. To overcome this difficulty, the PAMVEC model makes the following assumptions:
• The power control strategy is assumed to be charge-sustaining i.e. the net rate of
power flow from the HSPD is zero such that it is never discharged.
• The HSED supplies the average powertrain power requirement (including HSPD
losses) given as:
PHSED =
( 2
)
Proad + 1 − η drive k regen Pinertia
+ PHSPD −loss + Paccessory (3-23)
η drive
These assumptions may not be true in reality, but they provide a set of convenient
simplifications that allow the average rate of energy storage in the HSPD to be estimated.
Recall that the average drivetrain input power (equation 3-22) consists of three components –
the average road load, the average braking losses and the average drivetrain losses. Equation
3-23 implies that the HSED is dedicated to supplying the power for these components.
However, no account has been made for the power that must be supplied by the power sources
in order to store kinetic energy in the vehicle inertia. Similarly, a fraction of the stored kinetic
energy is returned to the powertrain via regenerative braking and this energy must be
absorbed by the power sources. Since the HSED is assumed to be otherwise occupied, the
natural consequence is to assume that these power demands are met by the HSPD.
The average power the HSPD must supply in order to store kinetic energy in the vehicle mass
at the rate of Pinertia is:
PHSPD− accel = Pinertia (3-24)
45
60
Road Load
40
20
Power (kW)
0
-20
-40
-60
Decoupling
60
Drag Power 60
Inertial Power
40 40
20 20
Power (kW)
Power (kW)
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
6
Drag Losses 6
Inertial Losses
5 5
4 4
Power (kW)
Power (kW)
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
Total Losses
6
Estimated Loss
Actual Loss
5
4
Power (kW)
drivetrain losses
46
Errors in the estimate of Pdrive-in for various driving patterns
15
UDDS
14
US06
13 HWFET
12
NYCC
Error (%)
11
10
8 NEDC
7
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Figure 3-13: Error in the estimate of Pdrive −in across a range of mass-to-drag ratios for
several different driving cycles
Equation 3-24 makes no allowance for drivetrain losses because these are already being
supplied by the HSED. Similarly, the average power the HSPD must absorb from
regenerative braking is:
PHSPD −braking = k regen Pinertia (3-25)
Ideally, the quantities calculated by equations 3-24 and 3-25 should be identical in order to
satisfy the constraint of a charge-sustaining control strategy. Therefore, to estimate the
average rate of energy charge/discharge in the HSPD we take the average:
PHSPD −accel + PHSPD −braking 1 + k regen

PHSPD = = Pinertia (3-26)
2 2
The average HSPD losses will then be:
47
(1 − η HSPD )(1 + k regen )
PHSPD −loss = Pinertia (3-27)
2
where η HSPD is the HSPD round-trip efficiency.
Control Strategy Issues
For hybrid vehicles, the spectrum of powertrain control strategies is defined by two extremes:
1) a power-assist or load-following strategy where the HSED tries to follow the road load
whenever possible; and 2) a thermostatic control strategy where the HSED load is completely
buffered by the HSPD (Anderson & Pettit, 1995). The constant HSED power assumption in
equation 3-23 is clearly idealistic and realistic control strategies combine elements of the
thermostatic and load-following approaches. In developing an optimised control strategy, a
trade-off must be made between increased losses in the HSPD vs. reduced operating
efficiency of the HSED. A thermostatic approach makes the most sense when the HSED can
be operated at its optimum point (in terms of power or torque/speed). Therefore, the optimum
control strategies for FCHEVs and SHEVs tend to display a thermostatic characteristic, since
in these architectures the HSED is electrically de-coupled from the road load (Anderson &
Pettit, 1995; Cuddy & Wipke, 1997; Moore, 1997; Wipke et al, 2001). In PHEVs, the engine
is coupled to the wheels via the transmission and can rarely be operated at its optimum point –
therefore, the optimum control strategy tends to forgo some engine efficiency for the sake of
reduced losses in the battery by operating the engine over a wider range of torques/speeds
with more of a load-following approach (Anderson & Pettit, 1995; Cuddy & Wipke, 1997;
Moore, 1997). Practical differences in the control strategies of the difference HEV
architectures are discussed further in Sections 3.3.2, 3.3.3 and 3.3.5.
The thermostatic-style control strategy gets its name from the fact that for some HSED
technologies the average power requirement determined by equation 3-23 is so low that, if the
HSED were to operate at this power level, its efficiency would be prohibitively low. Figure
3-14 demonstrates for some hypothetical HSED technologies how there is typically an
optimum operating power level below which the HSED efficiency can fall quite rapidly.
In these situations, it is preferable to operate the HSED in a thermostatic manner, with the
HSED operating at its optimal power level when switched on. The duty ratio (D) of this
48
on/off cycle is chosen such that the average HSED output power equates to that calculated in
equation 3-23:
PHSED
D= ∗
(3-28)
PHSED
∗
where PHSED is the HSED optimal operating power level. Unfortunately, this thermostatic
operation results in additional HSPD losses as large packets of energy are cycled in and out of
the HSPD, as demonstrated in Figure 3-15.
Efficiency
Power
Figure 3-14: Efficiency vs. load curves for some hypothetical HSED technologies
In these cases, the HSPD losses include an additional term as follows:
(1 − η HSPD )(1 + k regen )

PHSPD −loss = Pinertia + PHSPD −loss −thermostatic (3-29)
2
PHSPD −loss −thermostatic = D(1 − η HSPD )(PHSED

∗
− PHSED ) (3-30)
Therefore, thermostatic control strategies will produce larger HSPD losses, however, they do
have the advantage of allowing the HSPE to operate at higher efficiency. For further
49
discussion of the practical implications of various control strategies, the reader is directed to
the work of Anderson & Pettit (1995), Cuddy & Wipke (1997), Moore (1997) and Wipke et al
(2001).
100
Ptotal
Phse
50 Phsp
Power (kW)
-50
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)
0.06
0.04
HSP SOC
0.02
-0.02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)
Figure 3-15: Thermostatic losses due to the cycling of energy through the HSPD
HSED Losses and Fuel/Energy Input to the HSED
The average output power requirement of the HSED is calculated using equation (3-23).
From this average output power, the HSED losses and fuel energy input requirements are
calculated as follows:
1 − η HSED
PHSED −loss = PHSED (3-31)
η HSED
1
Pfuel = PHSED (3-32)
η HSED
where η HSED is the driving pattern-averaged operating efficiency of the HSED.
50
This completes the derivation of a model for the losses of generalised powertrain architecture.
In the following sections, the generic powertrain energy loss model is applied to the following
specific powertrain architectures:
• Conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICVs)
• Parallel hybrid-electric internal combustion engine vehicle (PHEVs)
• Series hybrid-electric internal combustion engine vehicles (SHEVs)
• Fuel cell-electric vehicles (FCEVs)
• Fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicles (FCHEVs)
• Battery electric vehicles (BEVs)
The fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicle is considered first, as its architecture most-closely
resembles that of the generic powertrain. Then, through the use of appropriate analogies and
assumptions, the application of the generic model is extended to the other powertrain
architectures.
3.3.2 Fuel Cell Hybrid-Electric Vehicles
The powertrain architecture of a fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicle (Figure 3-16) is a close
match with the generic powertrain architecture. Therefore, the generic powertrain energy loss
model can be applied directly using the following equivalencies:
• HSED = fuel cell (and reformer if applicable)
• HSPD = battery (or sometimes an ultra capacitor)
• DRIVE = motor/controller and transmission
Fuel Battery
To axle/
Fuel Cell/ Motor/ Single-speed wheels
Reformer Controller Transmission
Figure 3-16: Powertrain architecture for a fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicle
For all powertrain architectures, the expression for drivetrain output power (3-19) is the same.
Therefore, we commence with the expression for drivetrain losses. Using the above
equivalencies, we may write:
51
η drive = η trans × η mc (3-32)
where η trans is the transmission efficiency and η mc is the combined motor/controller

efficiency. Using equation (3-21) the expression for drivetrain losses becomes:
1 − η transη mc
Pdrive−loss = (P + Pinertia ) + (1 − η transη mc )Pregen (3-33)
η transη mc
road
For the battery, we may use its HSPD equivalency and assume a thermostatic control strategy
(equations (3-29) and (3-30)) to write the following expression for battery losses:
(1 − η )(1 + k )
Pbattery −loss = Pinertia + Pbattery −loss −thermostatic
battery regen
(3-34)
2
Pbattery −loss −thermostatic = D (1 − η battery )(PFC

∗
− PFC ) (3-35)
where ηbattery is the battery efficiency, PFC

∗
is the optimum fuel cell operating power, and PFC
is the average fuel cell power requirement, written as:
PFC = Pdrive−out + Pdrive−loss + Pbattery −loss + Paccessory (3-36)
Using the above HSED equivalency and equation (3-32), we may then write the following
expression for the average fuel energy flow:
1
Pfuel = PFC (3-37)
η reformerη FC
where η reformer is the average reformer efficiency, and η FC is the average fuel cell efficiency.
52
3.3.3 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
The key difference in the powertrain architecture of a fuel cell electric vehicle (Figure 3-17)
and fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicle (Figure 3-16) is the lack of an HSPD component (battery
or ultra capacitor). Otherwise, the same equivalencies hold.
Fuel
To axle/
Fuel Cell/ Motor/ Single-speed wheels
Reformer Controller Transmission
Figure 3-17: Powertrain architecture for a fuel cell electric vehicle
However, the lack of an HSPD component does have a significant impact on the expressions
for the losses in the powertrain, since it prevents the use of regenerative braking which forces
the values of k regen and Pregen to zero. Firstly, using equation (3-19), this results in a different
expression for the average drivetrain output power:
Pdrive−out = 12 ρC D AΛ3 v avg + C RR mtotal gv avg + k m mtotal a~v avg

3
(3-39)
Secondly, using equation (3-21) we may write the following expression for drivetrain losses:
1 − η transη mc
Pdrive−loss = (P + Pinertia ) (3-40)
η transη mc
road
There will obviously be no HSPD losses in a fuel cell electric vehicle. Therefore, the average
fuel cell power requirement will be:
PFC = Pdrive−out + Pdrive−loss + Paccessory (3-41)
The average fuel energy flow (power) will be as derived in equation (3-38).
53
3.3.4 Series Hybrid-Electric Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
Schematically, a series hybrid-electric vehicle (Figure 3-18) is nearly identical to a fuel cell
hybrid-electric vehicle, with the following exception:
• HSED = engine/generator
Otherwise the same equivalencies hold.
Fuel Battery
To axle/
Engine/ Motor/ Single-speed wheels
Generator Controller Transmission
Figure 3-18: Powertrain architecture for a series hybrid-electric vehicle
Therefore, in a SHEV, the expression for drivetrain losses is the same as for the FCHEV:
1 − η transη mc
Pdrive−loss = (P + Pinertia ) + (1 − η transη mc )Pregen (3-42)
η transη mc
road
So too is the expression for battery losses, with the exception of the thermostatic battery loss
component:
(1 − η )(1 + k )
Pbattery −loss = Pinertia + Pbattery −loss −thermostatic
battery regen
(3-43)
2
Pbattery −loss −thermostatic = D(1 − η battery ) PGen

∗
− PGen ( ) (3-44)
∗
where PGen is the optimum generator output power, and PGen is the average generator power
requirement, written as:
PGen = Pdrive−out + Pdrive−loss + Pbattery −loss + Paccessory (3-45)
54
Lastly, the average fuel flow (power) will be:
1
Pfuel = PGen (3-46)
η Gen
where η Gen is the combined efficiency of the engine/generator.
3.3.5 Parallel Hybrid-Electric Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
While in theory the power flows within a PHEV (Figure 3-19) are similar to those in a SHEV,
in practice there are a few important differences. Firstly, the motor/controller only handles
power flows in/out of the battery. Furthermore, of all the hybrid-electric powertrain
architectures, the PHEV is unique in that the HSED speed is coupled to the wheel speed via
the transmission and for this reason a power-assist style control strategy is normally preferred
(see section 3.3.1).
Battery
Fuel
Motor/
Controller
To axle/
Engine/ Multi-speed wheels
Clutch Transmission
Figure 3-19: Powertrain architecture for parallel hybrid-electric vehicle
Therefore, in PHEVs a substantial fraction of Pinertia tends to be provided by the engine with
the motor/battery providing power assist. During regenerative braking, the motor/battery is
still used to the maximum extent possible. These factors lead to some subtle differences in the
expression for drivetrain losses within a PHEV (equation 3-47). The drivetrain losses due to
regenerative braking ( Pregen ) are unchanged. The change in losses due to drag forces ( Proad )
reflects the fact that motor/controller only handles power flows in/out of the battery. Lastly,
the losses due to vehicle acceleration ( Pinertia ) reflect the fact that the motor/controller only
handles part of this load component (with the remained provided by the engine). The exact
55
fraction of inertial load handled by the motor/controller is, of course, control strategy and
driving pattern dependent, but for convenience the PAMVEC model assumes that it is
proportional to the degree-of-hybridisation (DOH) defined in section 3.5.4.
1 − η trans 1 − η mc Pinertia
Pdrive −loss = (P + Pinertia ) + DOH × + (1 − η transη mc )Pregen (3-47)
η trans η mc η trans
road
Similarly, there are subtle differences in the expression for battery losses:
(1 − η )(DOH + k )
Pbattery −loss =
battery regen
Pinertia (3-48)
2
The average engine power requirement is given as:
PICE = Pdrive−out + Pdrive −loss + Pbattery −loss + Paccessory (3-49)
Lastly, the average fuel flow (power) will be:
1
Pfuel = PICE (3-50)
η ICE
where η ICE is the average efficiency of the engine.
3.3.6 Conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
Just like the non-hybridised FCEVs, conventional internal combustion engine vehicles
(Figure 3-20) do not have a load-levelling HSPD component. Therefore, the expression for
the average drivetrain output power in an ICV is the same as for a FCEV:
Pdrive −out = 12 ρC D AΛ3 v avg + C RR mtotal gv avg + k m mtotal a~v avg

3
(3-51)
56
Fuel
To axle/
Engine/ Multi-speed wheels
Clutch Transmission
Figure 3-20: Powertrain architecture for a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle
Furthermore, compared to a FCEV an ICV only has one component – the multi-speed
transmission – in its drivetrain. Therefore, the expression for drivetrain losses is:
1 − η trans
Pdrive −loss = (P + Pinertia ) (3-52)
η trans
road
The expression for the average engine power in an ICV is the same as for a FCEV:
PICE = Pdrive −out + Pdrive −loss + Paccessory (3-53)
The average fuel energy flow (power) will be as presented in equation (3-50).
3.3.7 Battery Electric Vehicles
Of all the powertrain architectures, the BEV (Figure 3-21) is unique in that its power source
(the battery) simultaneously fulfils the dual roles of HSED and HSPD.
Charger
To axle/
Battery Motor/ Single-speed wheels
Controller Transmission
Figure 3-21: Powertrain architecture for a battery-electric vehicle
57
The expression for drivetrain losses is the same as for the other electric-drive vehicles:
1 − η transη mc
Pdrive −loss = (P + Pinertia ) + (1 − η transη mc )Pregen (3-54)
η transη mc
road
So too is the expression for HSPD losses, with the exception that there is no thermostatic
component:
(1 − η )(1 + k )
Pbattery −loss =
battery regen
Pinertia (3-55)
2
However, equation (3-55) only accounts for the micro-cycling of power through the battery
during acceleration and braking manoeuvres. During a driving pattern, the battery in a BEV
also experiences a net rate of discharge:
PBattery = Pdrive −out + Pdrive −loss + Pbattery −loss + Paccessory (3-56)
At the end of the journey, the BEV will need to be recharged. Therefore, the expression for
the average electrical power input to a BEV includes parameters that account for the battery
and charger efficiencies during recharging:
1
Pelec = PBattery (3-57)
η Ch arg erη Battery
where η Ch arg er is the efficiency of the charger, and Pelec is the average electric power for
charging the BEV.
3.4 Vehicle Performance
An important component of the parametric model developed by this thesis is the expressions
that relate vehicle performance to the size of powertrain components. These can be used to
predict vehicle performance on the basis of specified components (explicit method) or, more
importantly, to estimate the size of components are required to meet a series of vehicle
58
performance targets (implicit method). In this way, different powertrain technologies can be
compared on the level playing field of equivalent performance.
This thesis considers four separate performance metrics, although the approach can readily be
extended to include other performance criteria:
• Top Speed
• Gradability
• Driving Range
• Standing acceleration time (typically from 0-100kph/0-60mph)
3.4.1 Top Speed
For all vehicles, a simple expression relates the drivetrain output power to the top speed
performance criterion. Assuming the road load is represented by equation 3-1, and assuming
no road gradient, the required drivetrain output power at the top speed is:
− out = 2 ρC D Av topspeed + C RR mtotal gv topspeed

topspeed 1 3
Pdrive (3-58)
where vtopspeed is the required continuous top speed of the vehicle.
3.4.2 Gradability
For all vehicles, a simple expression relates the drivetrain output power to the continuous
gradability performance criterion. Assuming the road load is represented by equation 3-1, and
assuming no acceleration, the required drivetrain output power for gradability:
− out = 2 ρC D Av grade + C RR mtotal gv grade + mtotal gZ grade v grade

grade 1 3
Pdrive (3-59)
where Z grade is the required gradability (as a fraction e.g. 1/10) at the speed of v grade .
59
3.4.3 Driving Range
The driving range constraint for a vehicle specifies the size of its fuel storage system. For
vehicles with a fuel tank, the size of the energy storage system (in Wh) is related to the
average flow of fuel (equations 3-37, 3-45 & 3-50) as follows:
Pfuel
Fuel (Wh ) = Range × (3-60)
v avg − kph
where Range is the driving range constraint (km), and vavg − kph is the average speed of the
driving pattern (kph). For BEVs, the required energy storage relates to the average power
output of the battery as follows:
Pbattery
Energy (Wh ) = Range × (3-61)
v avg − kph
3.4.4 Acceleration
One novel aspect of the PAMVEC model is the parametric expression(s) used to determine
powertrain output power requirements due to vehicle acceleration performance. As noted in
Section 2.3.2, several analysts have previously developed parametric expressions of this kind,
with examples being found in Delucchi (2000), Plotkin et al (2001) and Ehsani et al (1997).
Assuming level road, Delucchi’s expression for the acceleration power required at the wheels
of the vehicle is:
⎡⎛ v accel ⎞ 1 ⎤
⎢⎜⎜ mtotal ⎟⎟ + 4 ρC D Av accel 2 + C RR mtotal g ⎥ v accel
⎝ t accel ⎠
P=⎣ ⎦ (3-62)
2k
where t accel is the time taken to accelerate to the terminal speed v accel , and k is an adjustment
factor to account for differences in the torque-speed characteristics of different technologies
(e.g. engines vs. electric motors), given as:
60
E2
⎡ ⎛v ⎞⎤
k = ⎢min⎜⎜ accel ,1⎟⎟⎥ (3-63)
⎣ ⎝ 2 E1 ⎠⎦
Values for E1 and E2 in equation 3-60 are provided in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Values for E1 and E2 in equation 3-60 as presented by Delucchi (2000)
ICE EV
E1 30 20
E2 0.55 0.20
Plotkin et al (2001) derived the following expression for the acceleration power required at
the wheels of the vehicle by assuming that the vehicle’s acceleration response (speed vs. time)
was a hyperbolic function.
P = amtotal + b (3-64a)
v accel ⎡⎛ t accel + ∆t ⎞ ⎤
2 x
a= ⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1⎥ + C RR gv accel (3-64b)

∆t ⎢⎝ t accel ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎣
b = 12 ρC D Av accel
3
(3-64c)
where ∆t is some very small time increment (say 0.01s) and x ranges between 0.5-0.66 for
zero to 100kph/60mph acceleration times of 8-13 seconds. Plotkin et al use a value of x =
0.5 for all EVs and x = 0.56 for PHEVs. Presumably, a value of x = 0.66 corresponds to
ICVs, although this was not indicated in their documentation.
The equations used by Delucchi (2000) and Plotkin et al (2001) are quite reliant on empirical
factors to describe the torque-speed characteristics of a drivetrain. In contrast, Ehsani et al
(1997) handle this issue by assuming a generic shape for the torque-speed curve of a
drivetrain shown in Figure 3-22. This consists of a region of constant maximum torque up to
the “base speed”, followed by a region of constant power up to the maximum speed. The
shape is characterised by a parameter known as the over-speed ratio – define as the ratio of
the maximum and base speeds. In practice, this torque-speed characteristic is produced with
the use of a multi-speed transmission, or in some electric drives through field-oriented control
61
techniques (field weakening). Figure 3-23 demonstrates the “overspeed” torque-speed
characteristic for a 100kW UQM Technologies drive system (UQM, 2001).
Torque Constant torque
Max Constant power

Torque
Speed
Base Max
Speed Speed
Figure 3-22: The generic shape of the torque-speed curve of a drivetrain
For the ideal case where aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance and road gradient are zero,
Ehsani et al (1997) derived the following expression for vehicle acceleration power in terms
of the drivetrain overspeed ratio N :
N 2 + 1 mtotal v accel
2
P= × (3-65)
N2 2t accel
Intuitively, this expression makes a lot of sense in that the required peak drivetrain power
during the acceleration event is simply the maximum kinetic energy divided by the
acceleration time, corrected by an over-speed-ratio-dependent factor to account for the period
of acceleration at constant torque. (In the limit that N = ∞ the entire acceleration would
occur at constant power and the required power would simply be the kinetic energy divided
by the acceleration time.) Unfortunately, the realistic case including drag losses cannot be
integrated analytically due to nonlinearities and this is one issue with this approach.
Furthermore, in reality the torque-speed characteristics of actual drivetrains (both electrical
and mechanical) deviate from the idealised curve in Figure 3-22. However, because of its
potential ability to model the different torque-speed characteristics of various drivetrain
technologies (rather than relying on empirical relationships), the author chose to develop the
approach of Ehsani et al (1997) further by attempting to address these issues. Another issue
that is unaddressed by any of the previous approaches is the effect that vehicle top speed can
62
have upon acceleration power requirements, but this has also been accounted for in the
PAMVEC model.
Figure 3-23: Torque-speed characteristic of the UQM Technologies PowerPhase 100kW

drive system
Vehicle Drag Effects
It is possible to devise a convenient approximation that accounts for drag effects (and any
other frictional loss mechanisms) in the acceleration power requirement. Firstly, it is noted
that the drag power at zero speed is zero. Secondly, at the terminal speed vaccel the
drag/frictional losses will be at their maximum. If the drag/frictional losses are represented by
equation (3-1), then the power loss at the terminal speed will be:
Pdrag −vaccel = 12 ρC D Av accel + C RR mtotal gv accel

3
(3-66)
To incorporate these losses into equation (3-65), a simple approach is to assume that the drag
losses vary linearly with time between zero and Pdrag −vaccel during the acceleration. This
1
implies that the average drag losses during the manoeuvre will be 2 Pdrag −vaccel , leading to the
following expression:
N 2 + 1 k m mtotal v accel
2
Pdrag −vaccel
P accel
drive − out = × + (3-67)
N2 2t accel 2
63
Although equation (3-67) may seem a crude estimate of the required drivetrain power for
acceleration, it is surprisingly accurate. Table 3-3 compares errors in the estimates of
acceleration power using equation 3-67 for a mid-range value of N = 2 with CDA = 0.8 and
CRR = 0.01.
Table 3-3: Errors in the estimates of acceleration power using equation 3-67
0-100kph acceleration time (s)
6 8 10 12
Mass to drag ratio 1000 1.4% 1.8% 2.1% 2.4%
2 2000 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0%
(kg/m )
3000 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%
The Effect of Top Speed Performance
It is normally the case that a vehicle’s top speed is greater than the terminal speed used to
define acceleration performance criteria (e.g. 180kph top speed vs. 0-100kph in 10 seconds).
The result is that only a lower portion of the drivetrain’s torque-speed curve is used to
complete the prescribed acceleration manoeuvre. The consequence is that the drive train over
speed ratio N in equation 3-67 must be reduced as follows:
v accel
N accel = N drive × (3-68)
vtopspeed
N accel + 1 k m mtotal v accel

2 2
Pdrag −vaccel
− out = × +
accel
Pdrive 2
(3-69)
N accel 2t accel 2
For example, consider a hypothetical drivetrain with N drive = 3. If the vehicle top speed
constraint (eg. 200kph) is double the terminal speed specified by the acceleration constraint
(eg. 100kph), then N accel = 1.5 in equations 3-68 and 3-69. Therefore, the top speed
performance criterion for a vehicle has a secondary influence on the acceleration
performance. For a fixed value of N drive , as the top speed criterion increases, the value of
N accel decreases which increases the drivetrain power output required to satisfy the
acceleration criteria.
64
To apply equation 3-69 to real vehicle powertrains, it must be considered how the torque-
speed curves of real drivetrains differ from the idealised model considered so far.
Drivetrains with Field Weakening
The powertrain architectures that fall under this category are the all-electric drives – the
BEVs, SHEVs, FCEVs and FCHEVs. Field-oriented control techniques (including field
weakening) can be utilised with some electric motor technologies to produce a torque-speed
characteristic similar to that of Figure 3-22. Motor technologies that are suited to this
approach include induction motors, switched-reluctance motors, and some brushless-DC
permanent magnet motors.
An example of a field-weakened torque-speed curve was provided for the UQM Technologies
drive shown in Figure 3-23. To apply equation 3-69, we must consider how this curve
deviates from the ideal (Figure 3-22) and calculate an effective over-speed ratio. The simplest
approach is as follows:
1. An effective base speed is calculated as the quotient of the motor’s peak power and
torque
2. The over speed ratio is then calculated as the ratio of the maximum and effective base
speeds
For the UQM Technologies drive, the maximum speed is ω max = 4400rpm, the peak torque is
Tmax = 550.6 Nm and the peak power is Pmax = 101.5kW (UQM, 2001). Therefore, the
effective base speed is calculated as 1761rpm corresponding to an effective over speed ratio
of N drive−eff = 2.5. Figure 3-24 plots the actual torque-speed curve against the effective torque
speed curve that is modelled with this approach. Note that the actual curve (the solid line) is
completely bounded by the modelled curve (the dotted line). Therefore, this approach
consistently underestimates the required motor power.
If torque-speed curves are available for an electric drive, then a better estimate of the
“effective” peak power and over-speed ratio can be produced. An effective maximum power
can be estimated by averaging the power-speed curve over all speeds greater than the
effective base speed. Then, by substituting the effective power for the maximum power, the
above procedure can be used to predict a new effective base speed and over-speed ratio. For
65
the UQM Technologies drive, this results in an effective peak power of Peff = 93.9kW and an
effective over speed ratio of N drive−eff = 2.7. Figure 3-25 plots the actual torque-speed curve
against the effective torque speed curve that is modelled with these parameters. The values
can be used in equation 3-69, but the calculated power requirement must be adjusted by the
ratio of maximum and effective powers:
P ⎡ N accel −eff 2 + 1 k m mtotal v accel 2 Pdrag −vaccel ⎤

P accel
drive − out = max ⎢ 2
× + ⎥ (3-70)
Peff ⎢⎣ N accel −eff 2t accel 2 ⎥⎦
Pmax
For the example of the UQM Technologies drive considered here, = 1.08.
Peff
600
Actual
500 Model
Torque (Nm)
400
300
200
100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Speed (rpm)
120
Actual
100 Model
80
Power (kW)
60
40
20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Speed (rpm)
Figure 3-24: Modelled vs. actual torque-speed curves for the UQM Technologies drive
Drivetrains with Multi-Speed Transmissions
Typically, multi-speed transmissions are used in conjunction with engines/motors that have a
torque-speed curve that is relatively flat. Examples are provided for an engine (Saturn 1.9L
DOHC engine – ADVISOR data file FC_SI95.m) and electric motor (Siemens 33 kW
66
permanent magnet motor/controller – ADVISOR data file MC_PM33.m) in Figure 3-26.
Through appropriate selection of ratios in the design of a transmission, a desirable torque-
speed profile similar to that of Figure 3-22 can be achieved. Figure 3-27 provides an example
for the engine shown in Figure 3-26, using a 5-speed transmission with a 5:1 ratio between 1st
and 5th gears.
600
Actual
500 Model
Torque (Nm)
400
300
200
100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Speed (rpm)
120
Actual
100 Model
80
Power (kW)
60
40
20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Speed (rpm)
Figure 3-25: Modelled vs. actual torque-speed curves using the effective power for the UQM
Technologies drive
The simple procedure for calculating the effective over-speed ratio of a drivetrain with multi-
ratio transmission is slightly more complicated than for an electric drive:
1. The over-speed ratio of the transmission alone is calculated as the ratio of the
maximum and minimum gear ratios.
2. The effective over-speed ratio of the engine/motor alone is calculated using the
procedure outlined for electric drives. This step accounts for the fact that the torque-
speed curve of the engine/motor may not be flat. This is particularly relevant to
parallel hybrid vehicles in which the combined torque-speed curve of the motor and
engine (without transmission) may exhibit an over-speed characteristic.
67
3. The effective over speed ratio of the total drivetrain is calculated as the multiple of the
two ratios calculated in steps 1 & 2 above.
200 100
180 90
160 80
140 70
120 60
Torque (rpm)
Torque (rpm)
100 50
80 40
60 30
40 20
20 10
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Speed (rpm) Speed (rpm)
(a) (b)
Figure 3-26: Torque-speed curves for (a) a Saturn 1.9L DOHC engine and (b) Siemens 33
kW permanent magnet motor/controller
As an example, consider the engine/transmission combination shown in Figure 3-27. The

transmission over speed ratio is already given as N trans = 5. For the engine alone, ω max =
6000rpm, Tmax = 165.4 Nm and Pmax = 95.1kW. Using the quoted peak power and torque, the
effective base speed of the engine is calculated as 5491rpm. This gives an engine over speed
ratio of 1.09. Combining the two values calculates the over speed ratio of the drivetrain as a
whole to be N drive−eff = 5.45. Once again, note that the actual torque-speed curve is bounded
by the modelled curve, as shown in Figure 3-27. Again, this will underestimate the required
engine power.
To avoid underestimating the engine power, we must find an effective peak power for the
engine/transmission, similar to that which was developed above for electric drives. However,
there is the added complication of the step-changes in torque and power between gears.
Therefore, the author has devised the following procedure for approximating the shape of the
engine/transmission curve. Firstly, the torque-speed curve of the engine alone is
approximated by a flat line corresponding to the average torque, as shown in Figure 3-28. For
the example engine, this average torque is calculated as Tavg = 153.3Nm. This value is then
used to calculate the peak power of the averaged torque-speed curve, Pavg = Tavg × ω max =
96.3kW.
68
1000
800
Torque (Nm)
600
400
200
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Speed (rpm)
100
80
Power (kW)
60
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Speed (rpm)
Figure 3-27: Torque-speed curve for a drivetrain consisting of the engine shown in Figure 3-
26a combined with a 5-speed transmission
200
Actual
Model
180
160
140
120
Torque (rpm)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Speed (rpm)
Figure 3-28: Average torque approximation of the engine shown in Figure 3-26
69
To account for the step change in torque and power between gears, we assume the gear ratios
follow a geometric progression. For a geometric progression, the step change in power is the
same for each gear change, as shown in Figure 3-29. Therefore, a logical value to choose for
the effective power is the mid-way point in the step change, as shown in Figure 3-29. This
effective power can be calculated analytically as:
r +1
Peff = Pavg (3-71)
2r
where r is the ratio between gears which, assuming the gear ratios follow a geometric series,
is calculated as:
r = G −1 N trans (3-72)
where G is the number of gears in the transmission. The effective over speed ratio of this
approximate power-speed curve can also be expressed in terms of r:
2r
N drive−eff = N trans (3-73)
r +1
For the example engine, the effective power was calculated as Peff = 80.4kW and the effective
over-speed ratio was N drive−eff = 6.0. These values can be used in equation 3-70, including the
Pmax
adjustment factor = 1.18.
Peff
With multi-speed transmissions, another factor that must be considered is the time taken to
change gears. When the acceleration manoeuvre is subject to a certain time constraint, this in
effect reduces the time available to accelerate the vehicle inertia. Also, because vehicles tend
to have large mass-to-drag ratios, it is assumed that no speed is lost during the coasting time
when the gear is being changed. Therefore, to account for gear shifting, a slightly modified
form of equation 3-69 is used:
70
N accel −eff + 1 k m mtotal v accel 2 Pdrag −vaccel
2
accel
= × +
2(t accel − t shift )
Pdrive − out 2
(3-74)
N accel −eff 2
where t shift is the time occupied by gear changes. Obviously, t shift depends on two factors –
the time taken per shift (which depends on the transmission technology), and the number of
gearshifts required during the acceleration manoeuvre. Mathematically, the number of
gearshifts is calculated as:
Numshifts = trunc(log r N accel ) + 1 (3-75)
100
Actual
Model
90
80
70
60
Power (kW)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Speed (rpm)
Saturn 1.9L engine (Figure 3-26a) and 5-speed transmission
Comparison of Methods for Predicting Acceleration Power Requirements
Acceleration power predictions were performed for hypothetical ICVs and EVs to compare
the methods of Delucchi (2000), Plotkin et al (2001) and PAMVEC. The vehicle platform
assumed was representative of a large sedan, with the following parameters: mtotal = 1686kg;
CDA = 0.8m2; CRR = 0.01. The acceleration performance target was 0-100kph in 9.0 seconds.
71
For the ICVs, the assumed engine was that from the above example, but with a 5-speed
transmission with a realistic ratio between 1st and 5th gears of 4.74:1. The resulting
Pmax
parameters for the drive were: N drive−eff = 6.0; = 1.18. The ICV top speed was assumed
Peff
to be 200kph. For the EVs, two different drives were considered. The first was the 100kW
Unique Mobility drive from the above example. The second drive considered was the 49kW
BLDC drive used in the Honda EV Plus (ADVISOR data file MC_PM49.m) (Figure 3-30)
Pmax
with the following parameters: N drive−eff = 5.0; = 1.0. For the EVs, the top speed was
Peff
assumed to be less at 150kph.
300
Actual
250 Model
Torque (Nm)
200
150
100
50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Speed (rpm)
50
Actual
Model
40
Power (kW)
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Speed (rpm)
Honda EV Plus drive
The predicted acceleration power requirements from the three methods are shown in Table 3-
4. There is a good correlation between the predicted powers for the ICVs. There is also a
good correlation between the predicted powers for the EVs when using data for the Honda
drive, but the predicted EV power is clearly sensitive to the characteristics of the drive. The
72
UQM drive has a much lower over-speed ratio (2.7) than the Honda drive (5.0), and we can
only assume that the correlations used by Delucchi and Plotkin et al are based on EV drives
with large over-speed ratios. Regardless, the PAMVEC model is capable of accounting for
these differences in torque-speed characteristic, and this is a definite advantage over the other
models.
Table 3-4: Predicted acceleration power requirements using various methods

Acceleration Power (kW)
Method
ICE EV
Plotkin et al 110.1 87.0
Delucchi 117.8 83.0
PAMVEC 111.3 110.2 86.3
UQM Honda
3.5 Powertrain Component Sizing Strategies and Mass

Compounding
Total vehicle mass is an important factor in the road load equation (3-1) and a key contributor
to overall energy consumption. Therefore, a crucial element in the parametric modelling
technique is to relate the total vehicle mass to the performance criteria outlined in the previous
section. This allows mass-compounding effects to be captured in the sizing of powertrain
components and prediction of the overall energy consumption of the vehicle.
The key inputs to the model for component sizing and total vehicle mass are the component
technology attributes for specific power/energy and efficiency (Table 3-5), and the
performance-based drivetrain output powers calculated in the previous section.
The expression for the total mass of a vehicle is:
mtotal = m glider + mc arg o + k struct m powertrain (3-76)
In equation 3-76, the parameters mglider and mc arg o can be considered constant. However,
since different powertrain architectures utilise different components, the expressions for
m powertrain are clearly different. The parameter k struct accounts for the mass of additional
structural support that may be required to support the powertrain. For k struct , Ogden et al
73
(1999) use a value of 115% while Delucchi (2000) uses a value of 110%, after citing values in
the literature ranging from 107-111%.
Table 3-5: Component technology parameters used in PAMVEC’s model for powertrain
component sizes and mass compounding
Component Specific power Specific energy Efficiency
(W/kg) (Wh/kg) (%)
Transmission SPtrans --- η trans
Motor/Controller SPmc --- η mc
Generator SPgen --- η gen
Battery SPbatt SEbatt η batt

Engine SPice --- η ice
Fuel Cell SPfc --- η fc
Reformer SPref --- η ref
Fuel Storage --- SE fuel ---
3.5.1 Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicles
The powertrain mass in a fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle includes contributions from the
energy storage (fuel tank), the fuel cell and (if applicable) the reformer, the battery, the
motor/controller and the transmission:
m FCHEV
powertrain = m fuel + mref + m fc + mbatt + mm / c + mtrans
E fuel Prefmax Pfcmax max

Pbatt Pmcmax max
Ptrans
= + + + + + (3-77)
SE fuel SPref SPfc SPbatt SPmc SPtrans
The transmission power rating is defined as the maximum of the drivetrain output powers
(due to performance constraints) calculated in the previous section:
max
Ptrans (
= max Pdrive
grade accel topspeed
− out , Pdrive − out , Pdrive − out ) (3-78)
74
The motor/controller power is then calculated from the transmission power and efficiency:
max
Ptrans
Pmcmax = (3-79)
η trans
Similarly, the drivetrain input power is calculated from the motor/controller power and
efficiency:
Pmcmax
Pmax
mc −input = (3-80)
η mc
With hybridisation, there are many valid strategies for the sizing of the fuel cell and battery,
however, a universally conservative approach is to size the fuel cell to meet the maximum
continuous power requirement – either from gradability or top speed, combined with
accessory requirements.
Pfcmax =
max Pdrive(
grade topspeed
− out , Pdrive − out )+ P (3-81)
η transη mc
accessory
If applicable, the peak reformer power is calculated from the fuel cell peak power and
efficiency:
Pfcmax
Prefmax = (3-82)
η fc
The peak battery output power is that required to provide, in combination with the fuel cell,
the peak drivetrain input power:
max
Pbatt = Pmcmax−input + Paccessory − Pfcmax (3-83)
75
3.5.2 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
The powertrain mass in a fuel cell electric vehicle includes contributions from the energy
storage (fuel tank), the fuel cell and (if applicable) the reformer, the motor/controller and the
transmission:
m FCEV
powertrain = m fuel + mref + m fc + mmc + mtrans
E fuel Prefmax Pfcmax Pmcmax P max

= + + + + trans (3-84)
SE fuel SPref SPfc SPmc SPtrans
The expressions for transmission power and motor/controller power are the same as for the
FCHEV. But due to the lack of a battery, the peak fuel cell power is defined as:
Pfcmax = Pmcmax−ipnut + Paccessory (3-85)
The expression for the reformer peak power, if applicable, is also the same as for the FCHEV.
3.5.3 Conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
The powertrain mass in a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle includes

contributions from the energy storage (fuel tank), the engine and the transmission:
m ICV
powertrain = m fuel + mice + mtrans
E fuel Picemax P max

= + + trans (3-86)
SE fuel SPice SPtrans
The transmission size is as defined in equation 3-78. The peak engine output power will be
defined in terms of the transmission power and efficiency, and the accessory load:
max
Ptrans
P max
= + Paccessory (3-87)
η trans
ice
76
3.5.4 Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicles
The powertrain mass in a parallel hybrid electric vehicle includes contributions from the
energy storage (fuel tank), the engine, the battery, the motor/controller and the transmission:
m PHEV
powertrain = m fuel + mice + mbatt + mmc + mtrans
E fuel Picemax Pbatt

max
P max P max
= + + + mc + trans (3-88)
SE fuel SPice SPbatt SPmc SPtrans
The transmission size will be as defined in equation 3-78. Again, in this hybrid architecture,
the engine is sized to meet the maximum continuous power requirement:
P max
=
(
grade
max Pdrive topspeed
η trans
ice accessory
The motor/controller size will be that required, in combination with the engine, to meet the
peak power input to the transmission:
max
Ptrans
Pmcmax = + Paccessory − Picemax (3-90)
η trans
The model of powertrain losses for the PHEV refers to the degree of hybridisation (DOH),
which is defined here in terms of the engine and motor/controller powers:
Pmcmax
DOH = (3-91)
Picemax + Pmcmax
The battery size will be defined by the peak input power requirement to the motor/controller:
Pmc − max
Pbatt − max = (3-92)
η mc
77
3.5.5 Series Hybrid Electric Vehicles
The powertrain mass in a series hybrid electric vehicle includes contributions from the energy
storage (fuel tank), the engine and generator, the battery, the motor/controller and the
transmission:
m SHEV
powertrain = m fuel + mice + m gen + mbatt + mmc + mtrans
max
E fuel Picemax Pgen P max P max P max
= + + + batt + mc + trans (3-93)
SE fuel SPice SPgen SPbatt SPmc SPtrans
The transmission and motor/controller sizes will be as defined in equations 3-78 and 3-79,
and the maximum input power to the motor/controller will be as defined in equation 3-80.
Again, in this hybrid architecture, the generator is sized to meet the maximum continuous
power requirement – either from gradability or top speed, combined with accessory
requirements.
P max
=
(
grade
max Pdrive topspeed
η transη mc
gen accessory
The peak engine power is then defined in terms of the generator power and efficiency:
Pgen − max
Pice− max = (3-95)
η gen
The peak battery output power is as defined in equation 3-83.
3.5.6 Battery Electric Vehicles
The powertrain mass in a battery electric vehicle includes contributions from the energy
storage (the battery), the motor/controller and the transmission:
m BEV
powertrain = mbatt + mmc + mtrans
78
Ebatt P max P max
= + mc + trans (3-96)
SEbatt SPmc SPtrans
The transmission and motor/controller sizes are as defined in equations 3-78 and 3-79, and the
battery is sized based on the driving range constraint, as defined in equation 3-61.
3.6 Implementation of the PAMVEC Model
The expressions for vehicle performance and energy consumption outlined in previous
sections are coupled by total vehicle mass, and therefore must be solved simultaneously to
properly capture mass-compounding effects. A convenient approach is to utilize spreadsheet
software that allows circular referencing and iterative calculations, such as Microsoft Excel.
A spreadsheet implementation also allows parameters and expressions to be defined, modified
and solved quickly and the author has had great success with this method. Examples of the
implementation of PAMVEC in Microsoft Excel are provided in Appendices B & C. At the
time of writing, the author was working to make Microsoft Excel spreadsheet templates for
the PAMVEC model publicly available as soon as possible.
This concludes the description of the PAMVEC modelling approach. In the following
chapter, the accuracy of PAMVEC’s predictions of powertrain component sizes, total vehicle
mass and vehicle energy consumption is validated with published vehicle test data and
through benchmarking against the ADVISOR modelling tool.
79
80
4. PAMVEC Validation
This chapter documents the validation exercises that were performed to test the accuracy of
PAMVEC’s predictions of powertrain component sizes, total vehicle mass, and vehicle
energy consumption. PAMVEC was validated both from published vehicle test data and also
through benchmarking against the ADVISOR dynamic simulation software.
4.1 Validation with Published Vehicle Test Data
Published vehicle test data from the literature was used to validate PAMVEC’s predictions of
vehicle performance and energy consumption. Three examples are provided below.
4.1.1 Acceleration performance for the GM HydroGen3 FCEV
The GM HydroGen3 is a prototype fuel cell electric vehicle built on the Opel Zafira minivan
platform. Table 4-1 presents technical specifications for the HydroGen3 as given by Jost
(2002).
Table 4-1: Technical specifications for the GM HydroGen3 FCEV

Curb mass 1590kg
Top speed 150kph
Acceleration time: 0-100kph 16.0s
Peak motor power 60kW
Peak motor torque 215Nm
Peak motor speed 12,000rpm
Transmission ratio 8.67:1
The motor power required to achieve the acceleration performance given in Table 4-1 can be
predicted using equation 3-69. Firstly, the over-speed ratio for use in equation 3-69 is
calculated using the methods described in Section 3.4.4:
100kph 12000rpm
N accel = × = 3.0
(
150kph 60kW
215 Nm
)
81
The motor power was then predicted using equation 3-69 and by assuming the parameter
values listed in Table 4-2. Using these values, the required motor power was predicted as
63kW – an error of 5%.
accel
3 2 + 1 1.1× 1670kg × (27.8m / s ) 0.5 × 1.2 × 0.8m 2 × (27.8m / s ) + 0.01× 1670kg × 9.81m / s 2 × 27.8m / s
2 3
Pdrive − out = × +
32 2 ×16s 2
= 62.9kW
Table 4-2: HydroGen3 parameter values assumed in the prediction of motor power
Drag area (CDA, estimated1) 0.8m2
Rolling resistance coefficient (CRR) 0.01
Vehicle inertia factor 1.1
Cargo mass 80kg (1 passenger)
Transmission efficiency 90%
1
Based on CD = 0.33, width = 1.74m, height = 1.63m (CARtoday.com, 2005) and area fill
factor = 85% to give frontal area = 2.41m2
4.1.2 Fuel consumption for the Holden Commodore ICV
The Holden Commodore sedan was the most popular passenger car sold in Australia in 2003
and has a published fuel consumption value of 11.1 L/100km (AGO, 2005). This value is
obtained through dynamometer testing on the NEDC according to Australian standards
(AGO, 2003).
The fuel consumption of a Holden Commodore over the NEDC was predicted using the
PAMVEC energy consumption model outlined in Chapter 3. Table 4-3 lists the vehicle
parameters that were assumed for the estimate. Driving pattern parameters for the NEDC
were provided in Table 3-1. Note that a range for engine efficiency was assumed based on
the author’s experience with similar vehicles operating over similar driving patterns. Using
the PAMVEC model, the predicted fuel consumption ranged from 11.8-12.5 L/100km – an
error of 6-12%.
82
4.1.3 Fuel consumption for the Virginia Tech. ZEburban FCHEV
The Virginia Tech. ZEburban fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicle is based upon the Chevy
Suburban platform, and is powered by a Honeywell PEM fuel cell, hybridized with a Hawker
Genesis battery pack (Gurski & Nelson, 2002). The vehicle has four-wheel-drive, driven by
GE induction motors on both the front and rear axles. Table 4-4 presents some selected
technical specifications for the Virginia Tech ZEburban.
Table 4-3: Vehicle parameters assumed for the Holden Commodore sedan
Curb mass 1560kg
Total vehicle mass 1640kg (one 80kg passenger)
Aerodynamic drag coefficient 0.32
Frontal area 2.5m2
Drag-area 0.8m2
Rolling resistance coefficient 0.01
Engine efficiency 17-18%
Table 4-4: Technical Specifications for the Virginia Tech. ZEburban FCHEV
Curb mass 3090kg
Fuel cell Honeywell PEM, 49kW net peak
Battery Hawker Genesis, 336V, 26Ah
Motor(s)/controller(s) 2 x GE induction motor/inverters (front/rear), 170kW total,
efficiency > 90%
Transmission 2 x single stage reduction (front/rear)
Hydrogen storage Quantum Technologies, 35MPa, 3kg H2, 7.5% by weight
To predict the energy consumption for the ZEburban, several other technical parameters were
estimated for the vehicle (Table 4-5).
The selected values for drag-area and coefficient of rolling resistance produced road-load
characteristics that showed a good correlation with those reported, as shown in Table 4-6.
The fuel cell efficiency of 45% was chosen based upon the efficiency map and operational
characteristics reported for the fuel cell system (Gurski & Nelson, 2002). Since no mention
83
was made of the braking characteristics of the vehicle, a mid-range estimate of 50% was
chosen for the regenerative braking fraction. Estimates for the other parameters were made
based upon the author’s experience.
Table 4-5: Estimated technical parameters for the Virginia Tech. ZEburban FCHEV
Drag-area (CDA) 1.3m2
Fuel cell efficiency 45%
Battery energy efficiency 80%
Regenerative braking fraction 50%
Average accessory load 1000W
Table 4-6: Comparison between estimated and reported road load power requirements for the
Virginia Tech. ZEburban FCHEV
Cruise velocity 65mph 81mph
Reported power 28.8kW 50.0kW
Estimated power 29.3kW 49.9kW
Gurski and Nelson (2002) present gasoline-equivalent (mpgge) fuel economy results for both
city (UDDS) and highway (HWFET) cycles and Table 4-7 compares these with the predicted
fuel economies resulting from the PAMVEC model. There is good correlation between the
results.
Table 4-7: Predicted and reported fuel economies for the Virginia Tech. ZEburban.
Driving cycle Reported fuel economy Predicted fuel economy Error
(mpgge) (mpgge) (%)
City (UDDS) 23.3 24.9 +6.9
Highway (HWFET) 25.2 27.6 +9.5
4.2 Benchmarking against ADVISOR
It proved difficult to validate PAMVEC against test data for a large number of vehicles since
very few publications included sufficient technical data to allow a precise comparison to be
84
made. Furthermore, published fuel/energy consumption data for vehicles rarely provides a
breakdown of losses in the powertrain that might be compared with the breakdown of losses
in the PAMVEC model to identify major sources of error. Therefore, the majority of the
PAMVEC validation process focused on benchmarking it against the ADVISOR advanced
vehicle simulation software. ADVISOR was chosen as the benchmarking too since it is well-
known and widely used, its accuracy has been well validated and it was freely available.
Validation runs were performed for a small sedan platform using six different powertrain
architectures – ICV, PHEV, SHEV, FCV, FCHEV and BEV. For each vehicle, the validation
procedure was as follows:
1. An ADVISOR simulation was performed to predict vehicle performance and
equivalent fuel consumption. SOC correction was used (zero-delta algorithm with
0.5% tolerance) to guarantee an accurate prediction of the equivalent fuel
consumption. Vehicle performance was predicted in terms of 0-100kph (0-60mph)
acceleration time, 88.5kph (55mph) gradability and continuous top speed. For hybrid
architectures, the gradability and continuous top speed performances were predicted
with the battery disabled. These vehicle performances were then used as performance
constraints in the PAMVEC model
2. Using input/output data from the ADVISOR simulation, the specific power (W/kg)
and net cycle operating efficiency of each powertrain component was calculated. For
drivetrain components (motor/controllers and/or transmissions), appropriate values for
over speed ratios were calculated as well. These values were then used as component
technology parameters in the PAMVEC model.
3. PAMVEC was used to predict powertrain component sizes, total vehicle mass and
vehicle energy consumption, based on the performance parameters and component
technology parameters obtained from steps 1 and 2.
4. The PAMVEC and ADVISOR results were compared including a detailed analysis of
sources of error.
4.2.1 Vehicle Platform and Driving Pattern
The six vehicles were simulated in operation over the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC),
shown in Figure 4-1.
85
The vehicle platform was a hypothetical small car, based on the 1994 Saturn SL1 vehicle
(ADVISOR data file: VEH_SMCAR.m). Relevant physical parameters for this platform are
presented in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8: Vehicle platform parameters assumed for the ADVISOR benchmarking
Glider mass (mglider) 592 kg
Drag area (CDA) 0.67 m2
Wheel radius 0.282 m
Cargo mass (mcargo) 136 kg
Accessory load 700 W
Speed & Acceleration vs Time

120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (s)
0.2
0.1
Acceleration (g)
-0.1
-0.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (s)
Figure 4-1: The New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)
86
4.2.2 Benchmarking Results
Conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICV)
The component technology parameters for the ICV are presented in Table 4-9. The predicted
vehicle performances from the ADVISOR simulation were as follows:
0-100 kph acceleration time: 10.0 s

88.5 kph gradability: 15.2 %
Continuous top speed: 194 kph
The predicted powertrain component sizes and total vehicle masses for the ICV are compared
in Table 4-10. The size and mass of the engine has been slightly underestimated (by approx.
6%) in the PAMVEC model. However, this result produces only a small underestimate of the
total vehicle mass of approx. 1%.
Table 4-9: Component technology parameters for the ICV.

Component Specific power Efficiency Over-speed ADVISOR data file Notes
(W/kg) ratio
based on Geo 1.0L (41kW) SI
Engine 385 17% --- FC_SI41_emis
engine
Transmission --- 87% 4.74 TX_5SPD default 5-speed, 114kg
Fuel/Tank --- --- --- --- gasoline, 24.6kg
Table 4-10: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the ICV
Component Power (kW) Mass (kg)
ADVISOR PAMVEC ADVISOR PAMVEC
Engine 82 77 213 199
Transmission --- --- 114 114
Fuel/Tank --- --- 25 25
Glider --- --- 613 613
Cargo --- --- 136 136
Total --- --- 1101 1087
The predicted energy consumptions for the ICV are compared in Table 4-11, including a
detailed breakdown of the loss components and errors. Table 4-11 also indicates the
proportion each loss component contributes to the total energy consumption in the ADVISOR
model. The road load has been slightly underestimated - a result of PAMVEC’s slight
underestimation of total vehicle mass. The error in the braking losses is relatively large at
36%, although this is consistent with expectations based on the discussion in Section 3.1.2. In
87
contrast, the error in drive losses is quite small but there is no obvious explanation for this
accuracy. The error in the engine losses can be attributed to the cumulative errors of the
preceding four loss components (since the engine efficiency is the same in both models, the
engine losses can only differ due to the average engine load). Overall, at 10%, the total error
in the estimate of vehicle energy consumption is reasonable.
Table 4-11: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the ICV

Energy consumption (Wh/km)
ICV
ADVISOR Proportion PAMVEC Error
Road load 67.7 9% 66.9 -1%
Braking losses 24.9 3% 33.8 36%
Drive losses 14.2 2% 14.5 2%
Accesory load 21.1 3% 21.2 1%
Engine losses 616.4 83% 682.1 11%
Total 744.2 100% 818.5 10%
Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)
The component technology parameters for the PHEV are presented in Table 4-12. The
predicted vehicle performances from the ADVISOR simulation were as follows:

The predicted powertrain component sizes and total vehicle masses for the PHEV are
compared in Table 4-13. Note that the size/mass of the engine has been underestimated by
approx. 2%. The motor/controller has been underestimated by 57%, however this is likely
due to differences in the component sizing strategies employed by the ADVISOR and
PAMVEC models. In contrast, the size/mass of the battery has been slightly overestimated –
one possible explanation for this result may be that the battery specific power (444W/kg)
reported in the ADVISOR data file is too low (battery power is often reported at low SOC,
but in practice batteries operate at higher SOC with more power available). In balance,
however, the error in the estimate of total vehicle mass is small at only -1%.
The predicted energy consumptions for the PHEV are compared in Table 4-14. Again, the
road load has been slightly underestimated as a result of PAMVEC’s slight underestimation
of total vehicle mass. The errors in the braking and drivetrain losses are significant at 34%
88
and 12%, respectively, although this is consistent with expectations based on the discussion in
Sections 3.1.2 and 3.3.1. These components contribute most of the total error. The error in
battery losses is very large, but these contribute a negligible amount to the total. Again, the
error in the engine losses can be attributed to the cumulative errors of the preceding five loss
components. Overall, at 6% the total error in the estimate of vehicle energy consumption is
quite acceptable.
Table 4-12: Component technology parameters for the PHEV

(W/kg) ratio
Engine 385 24% 3.21 FC_SI41_emis
engine
based on Westinghouse 75-
Motor/Controller 1482 62% 3.21 MC_AC75 kW (continuous) AC induction
motor/inverter
based on Ovonic 28Ah NiMH
Battery 444 96% --- ESS_NIMH28_OVONIC
HEV battery
Table 4-13: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the PHEV
Engine 29 28 75 74
Motor/Controller 76 33 51 22
Battery 46 53 104 119
Fuel/Tank --- --- 25 25
Glider --- --- 600 600
Cargo --- --- 136 136
Total --- --- 1105 1090
Table 4-14: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the PHEV

PHEV
Road load 67.8 13% 66.9 -1%
Drive losses 33.2 6% 37.2 12%
Battery losses 0.5 0% 1.4 180%
Engine losses 406.8 75% 434.2 7%
Total 539.5 100% 574.6 6%
Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle (SHEV)
The component technology parameters for the SHEV are presented in Table 4-15. The
89
The predicted powertrain component sizes and total vehicle masses for the SHEV are
compared in Table 4-16. The sizes/masses of the engine/generator, motor/controller and
battery have been slightly underestimated (by approx. 14%, 7% and 20% respectively) in the
PAMVEC model. Overall, however, the error in the estimate of total vehicle mass is small at
only -4%.
Table 4-15: Component technology parameters for the SHEV

(W/kg) ratio
Engine/Generator 257 29% --- FC_SI41_emis/GC_ETA95 engine, sample
generator/controller
motor/inverter
HEV battery
Table 4-16: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the SHEV
Engine/Generator 36 32 144 124
Battery 58 46 130 104
Fuel/Tank --- --- 25 25
Glider --- --- 601 601
Cargo --- --- 136 136
Total --- --- 1134 1084
The predicted energy consumptions for the SHEV are compared in Table 4-17. Again, the
of total vehicle mass. The error in the braking loss is relatively large at 30%, although this is
consistent with expectations based on the discussion in Section 3.1.2. The drive loss error is
much smaller at 10%. Together, these components contribute most of the total error. The
error in battery losses is very large, but contributes a negligible amount to the total. Again,
the error in engine/generator losses can be attributed to the cumulative errors of the preceding
90
five loss components. Overall, at 7% the total error in the estimate of vehicle energy
consumption is quite reasonable.
Table 4-17: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the SHEV

SHEV
Road load 68.5 14% 66.8 -2%
Drive losses 37.5 8% 41.2 10%
Generator losses 341.8 71% 365.9 7%
Total 484.7 100% 518.7 7%
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV)
The component technology parameters for the FCEV are presented in Table 4-18. The

The predicted powertrain component sizes and total vehicle masses for the FCEV are
compared in Table 4-19. The size of the fuel cell has been predicted very accurately,
whereas, the motor/controller size has been slightly underestimated (5%). Overall, the error
in the estimate of total vehicle mass is small at less than 1%.
Table 4-18: Component technology parameters for the FCEV

(W/kg) ratio
based on Ballard 68kW (net)
Fuel cell 309 43% --- custom
hydrogen fuel cell engine
based on Honda 49 KW
Motor/Controller 812 86% 4.99 MC_PM49 (continuous), permanent
magnet motor/controller
Fuel/Tank --- --- --- --- compressed hydrogen, 73.4kg
The predicted energy consumptions for the FCEV are compared in Table 4-20. Again, the
91
of total vehicle mass. The error in the braking loss is large at 53%, although this is consistent
with expectations based on the discussion in Section 3.1.2. The drive loss error is much
smaller at 9%, and together these components contribute most of the total error. The error in
fuel cell losses can be attributed to the cumulative errors of the preceding four loss
components. Overall, at 11% the error in the estimate of energy consumption is acceptable.
Table 4-19: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the FCEV
Fuel Cell 77 77 249 249
Fuel/Tank --- --- 73 73
Glider --- --- 592 592
Cargo --- --- 136 136
Total --- --- 1186 1181
Table 4-20: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the FCEV

FCEV
Road load 69.7 20% 69.2 -1%
Drive losses 34.9 10% 38.0 9%
Fuel cell losses 195.4 57% 218.9 12%
Total 345.2 100% 384.0 11%
Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicle (FCHEV)
The component technology parameters for the FCHEV are presented in Table 4-21. The

The predicted powertrain component sizes and total vehicle masses for the FCHEV are
compared in Table 4-22. Note that the sizes/masses of the engine/generator, motor/controller
and battery have been underestimated (by approx. 6%, 15% and 31% respectively) in the
92
PAMVEC model. Overall, however, the error in the estimate of total vehicle mass is small at
only -5%.
Table 4-21: Component technology parameters for the FCHEV

(W/kg) ratio
based on Ballard 68kW (net)
Fuel cell 309 47% --- custom
hydrogen fuel cell engine
motor/inverter
HEV battery
Fuel/Tank --- --- --- --- compressed hydrogen, 73.4kg
Table 4-22: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the FCHEV
Fuel Cell 34 32 110 103
Battery 62 43 140 96
Fuel/Tank --- --- 73 73
Glider --- --- 601 601
Cargo --- --- 136 136
Total --- --- 1161 1103
The predicted energy consumptions for the FCHEV are compared in Table 4-23. Again, the
of total vehicle mass. The error in the braking loss is relatively large at 28%, although this is
consistent with expectations based on the discussion in Section 3.1.2. The drive loss error is
much smaller at 8%. Together, these components contribute most of the total error. The error
in battery losses is relatively small at 7%. Again, the error in fuel cell losses can be attributed
to the cumulative errors of the preceding five loss components. Overall, at 3% the total error
in the estimate of vehicle energy consumption is quite good.
Table 4-23: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the FCHEV

FCHEV
Road load 69.1 23% 67.3 -3%
Drive losses 38.4 13% 41.5 8%
Fuel cell losses 158.8 53% 164.6 4%
Total 300.3 100% 310.6 3%
93
Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
The component technology parameters for the BEV are presented in Table 4-24. The

The predicted powertrain component sizes and total vehicle masses for the BEV are compared
in Table 4-25. Note that the size/mass of the motor/controller has been underestimated (by
approx. 20%) in the PAMVEC model. In contrast, the battery size/mass has been
significantly overestimated – again this may be due to an underestimate of the battery’s
specific power. The reader should also note that in BEVs, the battery is normally sized on the
basis of energy storage (for driving range), rather than power, therefore this inaccuracy would
not normally be present. Overall, however, the error in the estimate of total vehicle mass is
small at only 3%.
Table 4-24: Component technology parameters for the BEV

(W/kg) ratio
motor/inverter
HEV battery
Table 4-25: Comparison of component size and vehicle mass predictions for the BEV
Battery 56 76 143 193
Glider --- --- 592 592
Cargo --- --- 136 136
Total --- --- 1012 1044
The predicted energy consumptions for the BEV are compared in Table 4-26. This time, the
road load has been slightly overestimated as a result of PAMVEC’s slight overestimate of
total vehicle mass. The errors in braking and drive losses are relatively large at 41% and 18%
94
respectively, although this is consistent with expectations based on the discussion in Section
3.1.2 and 3.3.1. The error in battery losses is also quite large at 30%. Together, these
components contribute a sizeable amount to the total error. Overall, at 10% the total error in
the estimate of vehicle energy consumption is acceptable.
Table 4-26: Comparison of energy consumption predictions for the BEV

BEV
Road load 65.5 43% 65.8 0%
Drive losses 45.3 29% 53.4 18%
Total 153.9 100% 170.1 10%
Summary of Results
A summary of the results of the validation study is presented in Table 4-27. Generally, the
errors in the estimate of total vehicle mass are quite small at less than 5%. The errors in
vehicle energy consumption are also quite acceptable at approximately 10% or less. As was
noted for all six powertrain architectures, the major source of error in the energy consumption
estimate was due to the overestimation of braking and/or drivetrain losses. Table 4-27 also
presents the errors in the estimates of relative fuel economy, using the predicted ADVISOR
ICV as the reference. The relative errors across the six powertrains are quite good, at
approximately 5% or less.
Table 4-27: Summary of validation results for the NEDC cycle

NEDC ADVISOR PAMVEC Error Relative
Mass L/100km Mass L/100km Mass L/100km error
Conv ICE 1100 8.4 1087 9.2 -1% 10% ---
Parallel HEV 1106 6.1 1090 6.5 -1% 6% -3%
Series HEV 1134 5.5 1084 5.9 -4% 6% -3%
Fuel Cell 1185 3.9 1181 4.3 0% 11% 1%
Fuel cell HEV 1161 3.4 1103 3.5 -5% 3% -6%
EV 1012 1.7 1044 1.9 3% 11% 0%
95
4.3 Benchmarking for other driving patterns and vehicle platforms
The PAMVEC validation results presented thus far are valid for a specific small-sedan vehicle
platform operating on the NEDC. Therefore, it is pertinent to consider how the errors vary for
different vehicle platforms and driving patterns.
4.3.1 Dependence of Error on Vehicle Platform and Driving Pattern
Previous results have showed that errors in estimating inertial power flow are the primary
cause of error in PAMVEC’s energy consumption estimate. Two factors contribute to the
significance of this error:
1. The relative magnitude of drag power flow to inertial power flow – if the drag power
is large relative to the inertial power, the error in the estimate of inertial power will be
large
2. The relative magnitude of inertial power losses to the total power consumption – if the
inertial power loss constitutes a large fraction of the total power consumption, then
any error in the estimate of inertial power flow will result in significant error in the
energy consumption estimate. Conversely, if the inertial loss fraction is low, then
even if the inertial flow error is large, it will not result in significant error in the energy
consumption estimate.
To highlight the significance of these factors, Figure 4-2 plots the error in the estimate of
Pdrive −in (equation 3-22) for several different driving patterns across a range of mass to drag
ratios (MDRs). The small sedan platform used for the validation study has a relatively low
MDR of approx. 1640 kg/m2. Typical MDR values can be as high as 5000-6000 kg/m2 for
tractor-trailer combinations, or for the low-drag battery electric vehicles studied in Delucchi
(2000).
96
Errors in the estimate of Pdrive-in for various driving patterns: k regen = 0
25
HWFET
20
US06
UDDS
15
NYCC
Error (%)
10 NEDC
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
(a)
Errors in the estimate of Pdrive-in for various driving patterns: k regen = 1
12
NYCC
10
UDDS
8
US06
HWFET
Error (%)
NEDC
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
(b)
Figure 4-2: Error in the estimate of Pdrive −in (equation 3-22) for several different driving
patterns across a range of mass to drag ratios assuming (a) no regenerative braking and (b)
full regenerative braking
97
Equation 3-22 can be used to derive a parametric expression for the ratio of the inertial and
total power components of Pdrive −in :
Inertia power loss

=
(
a~ 1 − η drive k regen
2
) (4-1)
ρΛ3 v avg 2
Total power loss
2MDR
(
+ C RR g + a~ 1 − η drive k regen
2
)
where MDR is the mass-to-drag-ratio (kg/m2). Clearly, as MDR tends to zero, equation 4-1
also tends to zero. Looking at the curves in Figure 4-2, this is obviously the dominant factor
for low MDRs, since the errors all tend to zero for zero MDR. Similarly, equation 3-22 can
be used to derive a parametric expression for the ratio of the drag and inertial power flow
components of Pdrive−in :
ρΛ3 v avg 2
+ C RR g
Drag power flow
= 2 MDR~ (4-2)
Inertia power flow a
As MDR tends to infinity, equation 4-2 tends to the following value:
Drag power flow C RR g

= (4-3)
Inertia power flow MDR →∞
a~
It can be seen that as the MDR tends to large values, the power losses become increasingly
dominated by the inertial component (equation 4-1), but the error in the estimate of inertial
power flow depends on the ratio of the rolling resistance coefficient and characteristic
acceleration (equation 4-3). For example, consider the HWFET which, of the five cycles
considered, has the lowest characteristic acceleration (0.069m/s2). This results in a ratio of
1.3 in equation 4-3, so it comes as no surprise that the error for the HFWET increases
significantly as the MDR increases. In contrast, the NYCC has the highest characteristic
acceleration (0.293m/s2) resulting in a ratio of 0.3 in equation 4-3, and its error falls
substantially as the MDR increases.
Finally, in comparing the plots of error in Figure 4-2 for different kregen values, note that the
absolute errors values for full regenerative braking (kregen = 1) are substantially lower. This is
98
because regenerative braking reduces the inertial loss fraction (equation 4-1) whereas the ratio
of drag to inertial power flow remains unchanged.
For differing MDRs, there can also be a peak error point resulting from the interplay of
aerodynamic and rolling drag losses and inertial power flows, however it is beyond the
capabilities of this simple parametric analysis to explain its location and/or relative
magnitude. Also, note that this simple parametric error analysis cannot explain the relative
magnitudes of errors between different cycles, as these are dependent on the transient
velocity/acceleration histories of each driving cycle.
4.3.2 Benchmarking Results for Other Driving Patterns
The results of Figure 4-2 suggested that PAMVEC would be most-accurate for the NEDC
cycle. Therefore, it was necessary to repeat the six-powertrain validation exercise for the
other four cycles in order to observe the (possibly larger) errors for these driving patterns.
UDDS
Compared to the NEDC, the UDDS is statistically quite similar (with a very similar average
speed and somewhat similar velocity ratios and characteristic accelerations). However, the
errors observed for the UDDS were slightly higher (around 15%) compared to the NEDC
(around 10%), while the relative errors were again low (<5%).
Table 4-28: Summary of validation results for the UDDS cycle

UDDS ADVISOR PAMVEC Error Relative
Conv ICE 1100 8.4 1087 9.5 -1% 14% ---
Parallel HEV 1106 6.0 1092 6.9 -1% 15% 1%
Series HEV 1134 5.1 1095 5.7 -3% 13% -1%
Fuel Cell 1185 3.9 1189 4.5 0% 16% 2%
Fuel cell HEV 1161 3.3 1112 3.7 -4% 10% -3%
EV 1012 1.8 1055 2.0 4% 12% -2%
HWFET
Compared to the NEDC, the HWFET represents a higher speed cycle with significantly lower
characteristic acceleration. Together with the UDDS, this cycle forms part of the US FTP
99
composite cycle for predicting vehicle fuel economy and emissions (55% UDDS, 45%
HWFET). The errors observed for the HWFET were slightly greater than those for the
NEDC, but slightly less than for the UDDS. Again, the relative errors were consistently low
(<5%).
Table 4-29: Summary of validation results for the HWFET cycle

HWFET ADVISOR PAMVEC Error Relative
Conv ICE 1100 6.0 1087 6.6 -1% 10% ---
Parallel HEV 1106 5.2 1075 5.5 -3% 5% -4%
Series HEV 1134 4.6 1071 5.1 -6% 12% 2%
Fuel Cell 1185 3.3 1174 3.8 -1% 14% 4%
Fuel cell HEV 1161 3.1 1093 3.2 -6% 6% -4%
EV 1012 1.6 1029 1.8 2% 11% 1%
US06
Compared to previous cycles, the US06 is quite aggressive as evidenced by its high average
speed and high characteristic acceleration. In the broad spectrum of driving patterns, it can be
considered one of the extremes. The errors observed for the US06 were similar to previous
cycles (<15%), but the relative errors were a bit larger. Also, ADVISOR modelling of the
PHEV over the US06 proved to be a challenge since the zero-delta-SOC-correction routine
was unable to find a solution. Therefore, the simulated PHEV operated as a charge-depleting
HEV and the result quoted is a gasoline-equivalent value hand-calculated by the author using
the ADVISOR results and the method outlined in Simpson (1999). Therefore, limited
significance should be given to this result.
Table 4-30: Summary of validation results for the US06 cycle

US06 ADVISOR PAMVEC Error Relative
Conv ICE 1100 8.1 1087 9.2 -1% 14% ---
Parallel HEV 1106 8.3 1053 8.0 -5% -3% -15%
Series HEV 1134 7.7 1077 8.0 -5% 4% -9%
Fuel Cell 1185 5.1 1173 5.8 -1% 14% 0%
Fuel cell HEV 1161 5.0 1097 5.2 -5% 5% -8%
EV 1012 2.5 1021 2.7 1% 10% -4%
NYCC
The NYCC is a low average speed, high characteristic acceleration cycle designed to simulate
stop-start driving in dense traffic in downtown New York. Therefore it can be considered
100
another “extreme” in the spectrum of driving cycles. The accuracy of PAMVEC was by far
the worst for the NYCC, showing the largest absolute and relative errors. Firstly, the non-
regenerative powertrains (ICV & FCEV) show a significant overestimation of vehicle energy
consumption, due to overestimation of braking losses. Secondly, the FCEV and BEV show a
significant overestimation of total vehicle mass, due to the over-sizing of their fuel
cell/battery as a result of uncharacteristically low motor/controller efficiency (see Tables 4-32
and 4-33). Finally, the PHEV shows an underestimate of energy consumption due to error in
the motor/controller efficiency (66%) specified in the PAMVEC model (ADVISOR quotes
two values for motor/controller efficiency under motoring [32%] and generating [78%] with
the author using an energy-weighted average of the two in the PAMVEC model).
Table 4-31: Summary of validation results for the NYCC cycle

NYCC ADVISOR PAMVEC Error Relative
Conv ICE 1100 20.8 1087 25.8 -1% 24% ---
Parallel HEV 1106 16.4 1081 15.2 -2% -7% -25%
Series HEV 1134 9.5 1176 10.8 4% 13% -9%
Fuel Cell 1185 7.8 1332 9.5 12% 21% -3%
Fuel cell HEV 1161 6.5 1182 7.1 2% 9% -13%
EV 1012 3.5 1178 4.1 16% 17% -6%
Table 4-32: Powertrain component sizes (kW) for the various cycles
Driving Cycle
NYCC NEDC UDDS HWFET US06 ADVISOR
ICV Engine 77 77 77 77 77 82
Engine 28 28 28 28 28 29
PHEV Battery 49 53 54 47 38 46
Motor/controller 33 33 33 32 32 76
Generator 44 32 33 30 31 36
SHEV Battery 65 46 48 44 45 58
Fuel cell 121 77 79 75 75 77

FCEV
Fuel cell 44 32 33 30 31 34
FCHEV Battery 60 43 45 41 42 62
Battery 126 76 80 70 67 56
BEV
101
Table 4-33: Powertrain component efficiencies for the various driving cycles
Driving Cycle
NYCC NEDC UDDS HWFET US06
Engine 9% 17% 16% 22% 24%
ICV
Transmission 86% 87% 87% 87% 87%
Engine 16% 24% 24% 26% 26%

Battery 94% 96% 97% 96% 96%
PHEV
Motor/controller 66% 62% 61% 69% 85%
Transmission 83% 87% 87% 87% 87%
Generator 31% 29% 31% 31% 29%

Battery 91% 93% 92% 92% 92%
SHEV
Transmission 88% 87% 87% 86% 86%
Fuel cell 41% 43% 43% 46% 46%

FCEV Motor/controller 61% 86% 84% 88% 88%
Transmission 86% 86% 86% 85% 85%
Fuel cell 44% 47% 47% 48% 48%

Battery 95% 94% 95% 95% 95%
FCHEV
Transmission 88% 87% 87% 86% 86%
Battery 93% 92% 93% 91% 91%

BEV Motor/controller 53% 79% 75% 84% 84%
Transmission 86% 86% 87% 86% 86%
4.3.3 Benchmarking Results for Other Vehicle Platforms
The six-powertrain validation exercise was also repeated for a different vehicle platform to
examine its affect on PAMVEC’s accuracy. The original small sedan vehicle platform had a
relatively low MDR of approximately 1640kg/m2 (approx. 1100kg total vehicle mass and
CDA = 0.67). Therefore, the vehicle’s drag area was reduced by a factor of 4 to simulate a
vehicle with a relatively high MDR. This new vehicle was validated for two driving cycles –
firstly, the NEDC to compare with the original results, and secondly the HWFET since Figure
4-1 suggests that much larger errors can be expected for high MDR vehicles on this cycle.
The high MDR validation results for the NEDC are presented in Table 4-34. Compared to the
original low MDR results, the errors have varied slightly, but overall the accuracy of
PAMVEC has not changed for better or worse for the high MDR platform on this cycle. The
high MDR validation results for the HWFET are presented in Table 4-35. For this cycle,
there is an observable increase in the errors for the high MDR case relative to the low MDR
102
case (as expected), but even for this extremely high MDR platform the errors remain less than
approximately 20%.
Table 4-34: Validation results for the high MDR platform on the NEDC
Conv ICE 1100 7.5 1056 8.0 -4% 7% ---
Parallel HEV 1106 4.9 1080 5.3 -2% 9% 1%
Series HEV 1134 4.1 1069 4.2 -6% 2% -5%
Fuel Cell 1185 3.2 1196 3.6 1% 10% 2%
Fuel cell HEV 1161 2.7 1091 2.7 -6% -1% -8%
EV 1012 1.4 1038 1.5 3% 3% -4%
Table 4-35: Validation results for the high MDR platform on the HWFET
Conv ICE 1100 4.6 1056 5.2 -4% 14% ---
Parallel HEV 1106 3.3 1084 3.9 -2% 19% 5%
Series HEV 1134 3.1 1061 3.4 -6% 10% -3%
Fuel Cell 1185 2.4 1200 2.9 1% 21% 7%
Fuel cell HEV 1161 2.0 1084 2.2 -7% 9% -4%
EV 1012 1.1 1032 1.2 2% 16% 2%
4.4 Validation Summary
4.4.1 Component Sizing and Total Vehicle Mass
Generally speaking, PAMVEC’s predictions of powertrain component sizes are less accurate
than the estimates of total vehicle mass and vehicle energy consumption. This can be partly
attributed to inaccuracies in the PAMVEC model, however, it is also important to note that
the powertrain component sizing strategy employed by PAMVEC is not necessarily the same
as that of ADVISOR (or any other model). Even when performance constraints are satisfied,
there are still degrees of freedom in the sizing of powertrain components. For example, in a
SHEV architecture, the acceleration performance of the vehicle may be limited by the
motor/controller size, or alternatively, by the battery size. If the performance is limited by the
motor/controller, then the battery may be “oversized” without affecting the vehicle
performance (apart from the 2nd-order effect of the added mass), or vice versa. Therefore, the
difference in component sizes between the two models does not necessarily constitute an
“error”.
103
The PAMVEC predictions of total vehicle mass are quite good, generally within 5% of the
ADVISOR values. This is despite the differences in component sizes, which have a limited
effect due to the high specific power of powertrain components and the low powertrain-mass-
fraction (the total powertrain mass as a fraction of total vehicle mass) of the vehicles in
general.
4.4.2 Vehicle Energy Consumption
The PAMVEC predictions of vehicle energy consumption are consistently overestimated

relative to the ADVISOR values, however, the errors are consistently less <20% and mostly
<15%. This overestimation is to be expected, based on PAMVEC’s approach to modelling
inertial power flows within the powertrain, which inevitably leads to an overestimation of
braking and drivetrain losses. The results presented above for the six powertrain architectures
confirm that, for the most part, it was errors in the braking and drivetrain losses that resulted
in the errors in vehicle energy consumption. The sensitivity of PAMVEC’s accuracy was also
tested across a wide range of driving patterns and vehicle platforms. Even for extreme cases,
the accuracy of PAMVEC remained quite tolerable at <20%.
Adopting the predicted ICV energy consumption as the reference value, the error in
PAMVEC’s predictions of relative fuel economy are normally quite low at <5%. This
suggests that PAMVEC is better suited as a tool for performing comparative studies of
relative fuel economy for multiple vehicles, rather than to produce absolute estimates of fuel
economy for individual vehicles.
The errors in PAMVEC’s predictions of vehicle performance and energy consumption are
clearly larger than those produced by dynamic simulation tools. This is not unexpected since
the PAMVEC model was designed to sacrifice some precision and accuracy in favour of
greater convenience in use. However, in the context of vehicle technology assessment,
consideration must be given to the uncertainty in estimates of vehicle energy consumption.
To predict vehicle energy consumption, analysts must make so many assumptions about
driving patterns, vehicle performances, vehicle platforms and component technologies that the
result is a high degree of uncertainty. For example, the PAMVEC model requires the
definition of approximately 30 technical parameters – each with their own uncertainty – so it
104
can be argued that errors <20% are well-within the bounds of the combined uncertainty. On
this basis, the author maintains that PAMVEC, despite its reduced accuracy compared to
dynamic simulators, is still sufficiently accurate for the purposes of vehicle technology
assessment.
105
106
5. PAMVEC Application and Sensitivity Analysis
In Simpson (2004), PAMVEC was used to perform a detailed energy consumption

comparison of 33 vehicles using different alternative fuels and powertrain technologies. This
comparison of vehicle energy consumptions constituted the “tank-to-wheel” stage of a larger
well-to-wheel comparison performed by the author. In this chapter, the comparison from
Simpson (2004) is reproduced2 as an example of the application of PAMVEC to a real-world
problem, and to demonstrate its suitability to the purposes of technology assessment. This
chapter also presents an input parameter sensitivity analysis for a selected group of the 33
vehicles in order to provide better insight into the inner-workings of the PAMVEC tool and
highlight its capabilities and limitations.
5.1 Energy Consumption Comparison
PAMVEC was used to compare 33 different vehicle technologies on the basis of equivalent
performance, using a common vehicle platform and driving pattern.
5.1.1 Powertrain Architectures
The powertrain architectures included in the comparison included internal-combustion-engine

vehicles (ICVs), internal-combustion-engine parallel hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs), fuel
cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), fuel cell hybrid-electric vehicles (FCHEVs) and battery
electric vehicles (BEVs).
Transmission, electric motor and HEV battery technologies were kept consistent for all
vehicles, and the relevant technical parameters for these components are presented in Table 5-
1. These technical parameters were derived from previous modelling conducted by the author
using ADVISOR. All EVs and HEVs were assumed to have 60% regenerative braking.
2
Some revisions have occurred in the PAMVEC model since the publication of this study so, although the same
input data were used, there are some minor differences between the results in Simpson [REF] and those
presented here.
107
5.1.2 Vehicle Platform
The 2003 Holden VY Commodore sedan (Holden, 2003) was chosen as a representative
Australian passenger vehicle platform for the comparison. Table 5-2 presents relevant
physical data for this platform.
Table 5-1: Transmission, electric motor and HEV battery technologies for the various
powertrain architectures considered in the comparison
Component Powertrain Architecture Specific Power (W/kg) Efficiency
1
Transmission ICVs and HEVs (5 speed) 1300 87%4
FCEVs, FCHEVs and BEVs (1 speed) 16251 87%4
Electric Motor ICVs --- ---
3
& Controller HEVs 1400 70%4
FCEVs, FCHEVs and BEVs 10273 86%4
HEV Battery ICVs, FCEVs and BEVs --- ---
HEVs 4442 96%4
FCHEVs 4442 95%4
Notes:
1
From Plotkin et al (2001)
2
Based on Ovonic 28Ah NiMH HEV battery (ADVISOR data file ESS_NIMH28_OVONIC.m)
3
From EUCAR et al (2003)
4
Author estimates
Table 5-2: Physical parameters for the 2003 Holden VY Commodore sedan platform
Curb mass 1550 kg
Glider mass (estimated) 830 kg
Aerodynamic drag coefficient 0.32
Frontal area (estimated) 2.5 m2
Rolling resistance coefficient 0.01
Wheel radius 320 mm
Accessory load 1000 W
5.1.3 Driving Pattern
The driving pattern assumed for the comparison was the New European Driving Cycle
(NEDC) from test procedures specified in United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
108
Regulation 83 (Figure 4-1). From January 2003, these test procedures have been used to
measure fuel consumption and emissions for the purposes of labelling production vehicles for
the Australian market (AGO, 2003).
5.1.4 Performance Specifications
All vehicles in the comparison were intended to have identical performance capabilities, in
accordance with the specifications for acceleration, gradability, top speed and driving range
presented in Table 5-3 which have been assumed as being representative of a Holden
Commodore sedan. This approach distinguishes this comparison from previous work, in
which certain performance constraints have often been relaxed for particular vehicle
technologies. There are, however, two exceptions in this study. The NiMH and VRLA BEVs
have reduced driving ranges (250km and 125km respectively) since the achievement of
500km driving range is not technically feasible for these technologies.
Table 5-3: Performance constraints for the vehicles in this comparison

Top speed 180 km/h
Acceleration 0-100 kph in 9.0s
Gradability 6.5% at 100 kph
Driving range 500km
5.1.5 Component Technologies and Energy Consumption Results
Table 5-4 presents the 33 powertrain technologies included in the comparison. The data was
collected from a variety of sources and represents predictions of component technical
specifications for the 2010 timeframe. The technologies include:
• Spark-ignition ICVs fuelled with unleaded petrol (ULP), liquid petroleum gas (LPG),
compressed natural gas (CNG) at 3600psi, liquid natural gas (LNG), compressed
gaseous hydrogen (GH2) at 5000psi, liquid hydrogen (LH2), an 85% methanol / 15%
petrol blend (M85), an 85% ethanol / 15% petrol blend (E85), and a 10% ethanol /
90% petrol blend (E10)
• Compression-ignition ICVs for Diesel and biodiesel (BioD)
• Spark-ignition PHEVs for ULP, LPG, CNG, LNG, GH2, LH2, M85, E85 and E10
109
• Compression-ignition PHEVs for Diesel and Biodiesel
• Fuel cell/reformer EVs for ULP and pure methanol (MeOH)
• Fuel cell EVs for GH2 and LH2
• Fuel cell/reformer HEVs for ULP and MeOH
• Fuel cell HEVs for GH2 and LH2
• BEVs with lithium-ion (Li-Ion), nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) and valve-regulated
lead-acid (VRLA) batteries
In Table 5-4, the results of the PAMVEC modelling are presented in terms of curb mass, net
powertrain efficiency and vehicle energy consumption. The ULP ICV is chosen as the
reference vehicle technology for the comparison.
The curb masses of the ICVs are somewhat similar, with some variation (~10%) due to
differences in the specific energy of fuels and specific power of engines. The HEVs are
slightly heavier than their ICV counterparts, which reflect the lower specific power of HEVs’
motor plus battery combination relative to engines. The non-hybrid FCEVs are relatively
heavy due to the low specific power of fuel cell systems (particularly reformers), whereas the
FCHEVs are less heavy due to the higher specific power of batteries relative to fuel cells. As
expected, the BEVs are particularly heavy due to their low specific energy battery packs.
The net powertrain efficiency correlates closely with engine/fuel cell efficiency, although the
non-hybridised ICVs and FCEVs do have the additional efficiency penalty of no regenerative
braking. On average, the HEVs are approximately 40% more efficient than their ICV
counterparts. The reformer-based, non-hybrid FCEVs show no efficiency advantage over
HEVs using the same fuels, whereas the H2-fuelled FCEVs are approximately 25% more
efficient than H2-fuelled HEVs. FCHEVs with reformers are approximately 15% more
efficient than their FCEV counterparts, whereas the H2-fuelled FCHEVs are only 8% more
efficient than non-hybrid variants. The battery EVs’ high efficiencies (more than three times
that of the reference vehicle) must be considered in light of the fact that no fuel conversion
occurs onboard the vehicle.
110
Table 5-4: Fuel/powertrain technology parameters and predicted energy consumption results
for the 33 vehicles in this comparison
Fuel Powertrain Fuel Engine / Fuel Engine / Fuel Curb Mass Powertrain Energy
specific Cell / Battery Cell / Battery (kg) efficiency Consumption
energy specific power efficiency (%) (%) (MJ/km)
(MJ/kg) (W/kg)
ULP ICV 37.3 1 642 7 22.5 8 1260 10.6 2.78
LPG ICV 20.7 1 642 7 23.7 8,9 1299 11.2 2.69
1 7 8
CNG ICV 15.6 531 25.8 1371 12.1 2.54
1 7 8
LNG ICV 26.6 531 25.8 1320 12.2 2.49
GH2 ICV 12.7 2 642 7 27.7 8 1337 13.0 2.33
2 7 8
LH2 ICV 9.5 642 27.7 1383 13.0 2.37
M85 ICV 22.2 3 642 7 24.5 8,9 1290 11.5 2.59
3 7 8,9
E85 ICV 24.8 642 23.9 1282 11.3 2.64
E10 ICV 35.8 3 642 7 22.5 8 1262 10.6 2.79
Diesel ICV 37.3 1 510 7 28.5 8 1307 13.4 2.24
1 7 8
BioD ICV 31.9 510 28.5 1315 13.4 2.25
ULP HEV 37.3 1 642 7 30.5 8 1378 15.0 2.05
1 7 8,9
LPG HEV 20.7 642 32.1 1403 15.8 1.96
CNG HEV 15.6 1 531 7 33.0 8 1455 16.2 1.95
LNG HEV 26.6 1 531 7 33.0 8 1422 16.2 1.92
GH2 HEV 12.7 2 642 7 37.7 8 1427 18.5 1.69
2 7 8
LH2 HEV 9.5 642 37.7 1455 18.5 1.70
3 7 8,9
M85 HEV 22.2 642 33.2 1397 16.3 1.90
E85 HEV 24.8 3 642 7 32.4 8,9 1393 16.0 1.94
3 7 8
E10 HEV 35.8 642 30.5 1380 15.0 2.05
Diesel HEV 37.3 1 510 7 34.8 8 1416 17.1 1.82
1 7 8
BioD HEV 31.9 510 34.8 1421 17.1 1.82
1 7 8
ULP FCEV 37.3 259 37.8 1810 15.2 2.31
MeOH FCEV 19.5 1 259 7 41.5 8 1857 16.6 2.14
2 7 8
GH2 FCEV 12.7 375 56.6 1568 23.1 1.42
LH2 FCEV 9.5 2 375 7 56.6 8 1601 23.0 1.43
1 7 8
ULP FCHEV 37.3 259 39.2 1679 17.3 1.95
MeOH FCHEV 19.5 1 259 7 42.6 8 1712 18.8 1.81
2 7 8
GH2 FCHEV 12.7 375 55.6 1541 24.7 1.31
2 7 8
LH2 FCHEV 9.5 375 55.6 1570 24.7 1.32
Li-Ion BEV 0.50 4 420 4 95.0 4 2325 39.6 1.01
5 5 5
NiMH BEV 0.26 393 92.0 2406 37.9 1.08
VRLA BEV 0.13 6 300 6 90.0 6 2466 36.8 1.13
Notes:
1. From International Energy Agency (1999)
2. From TIAX (2002)
3. For fuel blends, values are calculated in proportion to the constituent fuels.
4. Based on 140Wh/kg and 420W/kg lithium-ion (Li-Ion) batteries (SAFT, 2003)
5. Based on 70Wh/kg and 220W/kg nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) batteries (Ovonic Battery Co., 2000)
6. Based on 35Wh/kg and 300W/kg valve-regulated lead-acid (VRLA) batteries (Japan Storage Battery Co., 2000)
7. From EUCAR et al (2003)
8. From L-B-Systemtechnik (2002)
9. Efficiency adjusted for octane rating of fuel based on data in International Energy Agency (1999)
111
Overall, the vehicle energy consumption (which combines the effects of curb mass and
powertrain efficiency) is the most-important comparison (Figure 5-1). The higher efficiency
of HEVs relative to ICVs is slightly offset by their greater mass, with a reduction in energy
consumption of approximately 25%. Relative to ICVs, the higher efficiency of reformer
FCEVs is substantially offset by their much-higher mass (reduction in energy consumption of
only 15%), whereas the H2 FCEVs offer a 40% reduction in energy consumption from their
ICV counterparts. In contrast, the hybridisation of FCEVs offers both efficiency and mass-
reduction benefits – the reformer FCHEVs and H2 FCHEVs offer 15% and 8% less energy
consumption, respectively, than their non-hybrid counterparts. The large curb mass of the
BEVs is more-than compensated for by their superior efficiency, resulting in approximately
60% less energy consumption than the reference vehicle.
From these results it seems clear that improvements in vehicle energy consumption are
primarily due to greater powertrain efficiency, although large increases in curb mass can
substantially detract from efficiency gains. Furthermore, the energy consumption of non-
hybrid vehicles shows a heightened sensitivity to curb mass due to their lack of regenerative
braking. These factors are explored more thoroughly in the sensitivity analysis in the
following section.
Equivalent Fuel Consumption of Various Fuel/Powertrain Technologies
10.00
9.00 8.65 8.65

8.34
8.20
8.05
7.88
8.00 7.72
7.37
7.24 7.17
Petrol-equivalent fuel consumption (L/100km)
6.98 6.96
7.00 6.64
6.36 6.37
6.10 6.05 6.01 6.04
5.98 5.89
6.00 5.66 5.65 5.62
5.29 5.24
5.00
4.45 4.40
4.11 4.07
4.00
3.50
3.35
3.14
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
V
LN V
oD V
EV
EV
EV
EV
E1 V
LP V
E8 V
LP V
EV
LP EV
EV
LN EV
M EV
EV
EV
EV
LA V
V
LH V
se V
EV
EV
V
IC
BE
IC
IC
IC
IC
PU HE
VR HE
BE
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
PU IC
eO CE
BE
H
H
H
H
H
H
FC
FC
H
lH
FC
eO CH
G
85
oD
LP
l
0
FC
FC
FC
F
se
n
85
2
0
2
G
H
N
-Io
LH
E1
E8
2
H
2
LP
iM
M
N
PU
Bi
G
ie
C
LH
H
G
Bi
ie
2
H
LP
C
D
Li
N
LH
G
H
D
PU
G
M
Figure 5-1: Comparison of equivalent fuel consumption for the 33 vehicles
112
5.2 Sensitivity Analysis
An analysis of the sensitivity of these vehicle energy consumption results to input parameters
in the PAMVEC model is important because 1) it shows technology analysts which
parameters need to be most-accurately specified in the comparison, and 2) it shows vehicle
designers which component technologies to target in order to produce designs with minimised
energy consumption. Furthermore, by comparing the sensitivity results across a range of
powertrain architectures and component technologies, we can also obtain greater
understanding of the inner-workings of the PAMVEC model and highlight its benefits and
limitations.
It was beyond the scope of this thesis to perform an input parameter sensitivity analysis for all
of the vehicles compared in the previous section. Rather, a selection of technologies were
included that spanned the full extents of the design space. The earlier analysis of energy
consumption results identified two key factors in determining overall vehicle energy
consumption – net powertrain efficiency (including regenerative braking effects) and total
vehicle mass. Figure 5-2 plots these factors against one another for the 33 vehicles compared
in the previous section.
Mass vs Efficiency
45.0%
40.0%
BEVs
35.0%
30.0%
Net powertrain efficiency H2 FCVs
ICVs
25.0%
PHEVs
HEVs FCEVs
FCHEVs
20.0%
BEVs
15.0%
Reformer FCVs
10.0%
ICVs
5.0%
0.0%
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600
Total vehicle mass
Figure 5-2: Net powertrain efficiency vs. total vehicle mass for the 33 vehicles
113
The different powertrain architectures can be seen to group roughly into five clusters.
Therefore, the following seven vehicles were chosen for the sensitivity analysis as a
representative selection from the five groups (both FCEV and FCHEV variants were included
from the H2 FCV and Reformer FCV groups to consider the effects of regenerative braking
and FCV hybridisation):
• Petrol ICV
• Petrol HEV
• Petrol FCEV
• GH2 FCEV
• Petrol FCHEV
• GH2 FCHEV
• Li-Ion BEV
In the following sections, these seven vehicles are used to test the sensitivity of vehicle energy
consumption to PAMVEC input parameters for 1) the vehicle platform, 2) component specific
powers/energies, 3) component efficiencies, 4) the driving pattern and 5) vehicle
performance. The sensitivities are expressed as normalised sensitivity factors (NSFs), defined
as:
⎛ ∆output ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟
⎝ output ⎟⎠
NSF = (5-1)
⎛ ∆input ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ input ⎠
By definition, a NSF of 1 means that a 1% change in the input parameter produces a 1%

change in the output (in this case vehicle energy consumption).
5.2.1 Vehicle Platform Sensitivity
The vehicle platform parameter sensitivities are shown in Figure 5-3. Sensitivity to glider
mass ranges between values of 0.35-0.5. In contrast, sensitivity to drag-area (CDA) is slightly
lower ranging between 0.3-0.45. The non-hybrid vehicles (ICVs and FCEVs) show a greater
sensitivity to glider mass than drag-area because of their lack of regenerative braking and
114
resulting braking losses. For regenerative vehicles, sensitivities to glider mass and drag-area
are somewhat similar. The FCEVs show the highest sensitivity to glider mass because of
their low specific power powertrain and mass-compounding effects through acceleration
performance requirements.
Vehicle Platform Sensitivities
0.60
0.50
0.40
Mglider
CdA
0.30 Crr
Kregen
Pacc
0.20
0.10
0.00
ULP ICV ULP HEV ULP FCEV H2 FCEV ULP FCHEV H2 FCHEV Li BEV
Figure 5-3: NSFs for vehicle platform parameters
The sensitivity to rolling resistance coefficient is typically lower, ranging between 0.2-0.3,
except for the BEV which has a heightened sensitivity (0.5) to rolling resistance because of its
impact on battery energy storage requirements due to driving range. The BEV also has a
higher sensitivity (0.2) to regenerative braking fraction because of its large mass. For other
vehicles, the sensitivity to kregen is low at approximately 0.1. For all vehicles, the sensitivity
to accessory load is generally low at around 0.15.
In discussing these sensitivity factors, it is important to consider which vehicle system effects
are captured by the model. Firstly, changes to the vehicle platform will affect powertrain
component sizes through the vehicle performance model. The resulting change in total
vehicle mass, in conjunction with changes to the vehicle platform, will vary the road load.
The direct consequence of this variation in the road load is a change in the vehicle energy
consumption, which is captured by the model. However, a higher-order effect that is NOT
captured by the PAMVEC model is the change in the mass-to-drag ratio of the vehicle and the
affect this has on component efficiency. For example, consider an increase in the glider mass.
Assuming vehicle acceleration is the dominant performance constraint, the powertrain
115
component sizes will increase roughly in proportion to the increase in mass (since
acceleration power is dominated by the inertial component proportional to vehicle mass).
Furthermore, the road load will increase roughly in proportion to vehicle mass also, since the
transient road load power requirements also tend to be dominated by the inertial component.
Therefore, in this situation, both the component sizes and their operating torques/powers are
increasing roughly in proportion with vehicle mass such that their operating load fraction
should not change significantly. On this basis, it can be argued that the higher-order affects of
vehicle platform on component efficiency are probably not significant, and that the vehicle
platform sensitivity factors produced by the PAMVEC model are representative values for
what occurs in reality. As a confirmation of this, the vehicle platform sensitivities presented
here are generally consistent with those determined by Cuddy & Wipke (1997).
5.2.2 Component Specific Power/Energy Sensitivity
The component specific power/energy parameter sensitivities are shown in Figure 5-4. For
most powertrain components in most vehicles, the energy consumption is relatively
insensitive (NSF<0.1) to changes in component technology specific power/energy. This can
generally be attributed to the relatively high specific power/energy of the vehicle powertrain
components, resulting in component masses that are a low fraction of total vehicle mass (see
the mass breakdowns presented in Figure 5-5).
Component Specific Power/Energy Sensitivities
0.60
0.50
0.40
Fuel Wh/kg
HSE W/kg
0.30 HSP W/kg
MC W/kg
Trans W/kg
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figure 5-4: NSFs for component specific power/energy parameters
116
Total vehicle mass breakdown for various powertrains
2500
2000
Structure
1500
Transmission
Motor/controller
Mass (kg)
Battery
Engine/Fuel cell
Fuel storage
Cargo
1000
Glider
500
0
Figure 5-5: Mass breakdowns for the seven vehicles considered in the sensitivity analysis
The exceptions, however, are the specific energy storage (Wh/kg) for the BEV and the fuel
cell/reformer specific power (W/kg) for the FCVs. The specific energy of the Li-Ion batteries
is more than an order of magnitude lower than the other fuel technologies, resulting in the
large sensitivity. Similarly, the low specific power of fuel cell systems (particularly those
including reformers) gives rise to the large sensitivity for the FCVs.
For the component specific power/energies, PAMVEC’s predictions of NSF should be quite
valid. Again, the changes in total vehicle mass (including mass compounding effects), the
road load and component sizes are captured by the model. There will be some higher-order
effects (relating to component efficiency) but again these can be assumed to be relatively
insignificant.
5.2.3 Component Efficiency Sensitivity
The component efficiency parameter sensitivities are shown in Figure 5-6. Generally
speaking, the component efficiency sensitivities are quite high for all vehicles. The HSED
sensitivities are approximately 1 which is to be expected since all fuel consumed is subject to
the HSED efficiency. In hybrid vehicles, the HSPD sensitivity is only a fraction of 1, since
only part of the power flow is subject to this efficiency. Similarly, in the PHEV, the
117
motor/controller efficiency sensitivity is much less than 1. However, for other vehicles it is
greater than 1, which reflects not only the motor/controller’s contribution to net powertrain
efficiency, but also its affect on component sizing and subsequent mass compounding.
Similarly, the transmission sensitivities are greater than 1. The BEV energy consumption
shows high sensitivities (of almost 2) to all component efficiencies, which reflects mass
compounding effects in the battery energy storage, in addition to the effects on powertrain
efficiency and drivetrain component sizing. Overall, these component efficiency sensitivities
are generally consistent with the findings of Cuddy & Wipke (1997).
Component Efficiency Sensitivities
2.50
2.00
1.50
HSE
HSP
MC
Trans
1.00
0.50
0.00
Figure 5-6: NSFs for component efficiency parameters
In the PAMVEC model, component efficiencies are specified as an input, but in reality
component efficiency depends upon many factors, which amongst other things include the
driving pattern, the component technologies and sizes and the powertrain control strategy.
Therefore, the component efficiency NSFs provide the most value by identifying which
efficiency parameters need to be specified most-accurately to produce accurate predictions
from the PAMVEC tool. For example, the NSFs suggest that hybrid vehicle energy
consumption is relatively less sensitive to battery efficiency (and also motor/controller
efficiency in the PHEV). Therefore, analysts can define these parameters with less precision
because an error is not likely to have a major bearing on the result. However, all the other
component efficiencies show NSFs ≥ 1, which means that care must be taken when specifying
these parameters. Ultimately, when specifying component efficiencies, the analysts must
exercise a degree of technical judgement that accounts for subtleties of the driving pattern,
118
component technologies, etc. However, it does not need to be pure guesswork. As
demonstrated in this thesis, the analyst can be guided by the results of dynamic simulators or
by the many studies in the literature that quote component efficiencies under realistic
operating conditions. Nevertheless, in light of these large component efficiency NSFs, the
inability of PAMVEC to model component efficiency is its primary limitation and analysts
should be mindful of it.
5.2.4 Driving Pattern Sensitivity
The driving pattern parameter sensitivities are shown in Figure 5-7. Since the driving pattern
parameters contribute directly to the road load (and vehicle energy consumption), it comes as
no surprise to find that their NSFs are generally high. The sensitivity to average velocity
ranges between 0.4-0.6, and the sensitivity to characteristic acceleration between 0.25-0.45.
The sensitivity to average velocity is lowest in the heavy fuel cell vehicles since their energy
consumption is more-dominated by mass-dependent loss components such as rolling
resistance. In contrast, the sensitivity to average velocity is high in the electric vehicle
because of mass-compounding in the sizing of the battery. Not surprisingly, the sensitivity to
characteristic acceleration is lowest for the vehicles with regenerative braking, except for the
BEV which shows the highest sensitivity to characteristic acceleration due to mass-
compounding effects in the battery sizing.
Driving Pattern Sensitivities
1.20
1.00
0.80
Vavg
0.60 Vratio
Achar
0.40
0.20
0.00
Figure 5-7: NSFs for driving pattern parameters
119
The sensitivity to velocity ratio is consistently high for all vehicles with values approaching
NSF = 1 for most vehicles (expect for the BEV with NSF = 1.15). This is no doubt due to the
cubic dependence of aerodynamic drag on vehicle velocity.
These driving pattern sensitivities do account for the direct effects of driving pattern on
vehicle energy consumption, but they do not include effects on component efficiency. Unlike
parameters for the vehicle platform and component specific power/energy, driving pattern
parameters do not affect component sizing (apart from fuel/energy storage). Therefore, the
changes in road load resulting from changes in the driving pattern can have a significant
impact upon component efficiency, and as was demonstrated in the previous section, vehicle
energy consumption can be quite sensitive to component efficiency.
Fortunately, the results in Table 4-33 provide an opportunity to test the sensitivity of
component efficiency to the driving pattern. Clearly, the efficiency of some powertrain
components was not very dependent on the driving cycle. For example, the transmission
efficiency varied little across cycles and the use of a constant, representative value (e.g. 87%)
would introduce very little error into the estimates of vehicle energy consumption (the error
magnitude can be estimated using the NSFs presented in Figure 5-6). The same can be said
for battery efficiency in the PHEV, FCHEVs and BEV. The engine/fuel cell efficiencies in
SHEV, FCEV and FCHEV architectures showed a reduced dependence on driving pattern
because these components are decoupled from the road load by the all-electric powertrain. In
contrast, for engines and motor/controllers, different driving patterns force these components
to operate in different regions of their torque-speed envelope, resulting in substantial
variations in efficiency. However, it is interesting to note that the efficiency of these
components generally improved for the higher average speed cycles, and this would act to
reduce the average velocity sensitivities shown in Figure 5-7. In contrast, increasing the
characteristic acceleration (e.g. moving from the NEDC to the UDDS) tended to reduce the
efficiency of motor/controllers (due to operation at higher torques) and this would act to
increase the characteristic acceleration NSFs shown in Figure 5-7.
5.2.5 Vehicle Performance Sensitivity
The vehicle performance parameter sensitivities are shown in Figure 5-8. The sensitivity to
various performance constraints is quite varied across the vehicles examined. Acceleration
120
sensitivities vary by an order of magnitude from <0.05 for the PHEV to almost 0.5 for the
ULP FCEV. Sensitivity to top speed varies from <0.05 for the ULP ICV to almost 0.4 for the
ULP FCHEV. However, the influence of the component sizing strategy can be seen quite
clearly in these results. Acceleration is clearly the dominant performance target for the non-
hybrid vehicles, and acceleration sensitivity is highest for low specific power components
(e.g. ULP FCEV). For the hybrid vehicles, where the HSED is not sized according to
acceleration requirements, top speed becomes the dominant constraint. Gradability was not
an active constraint for any of the vehicles considered; therefore its NSFs are all zero.
Vehicle Performance Sensitivities
0.60
0.50
0.40
Top speed
Acceleration
0.30
Gradability
Range
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figure 5-8: NSFs for vehicle performance parameters
Apart from the BEV, the vehicles are consistently insensitive to the range target with NSFs <
0.05. Range is clearly the most significant constraint for the BEV (NSF ~0.5), while the other
constraints are relatively insignificant given that its battery has been sized for energy storage,
and not power delivery.
In calculating these performance sensitivities, the main system effect captured by the
PAMVEC model is mass-compounding, since the model is unable to capture the effects of
performance constraints on component efficiency (via the component sizing). Unfortunately,
several studies have shown that vehicle energy consumption can be quite sensitive to
performance requirements via component efficiency effects. For example, the analysis of
Plotkin et al (2001) (Figure 2-1) suggests that ICV sensitivity to acceleration should be
approximately 0.8, not 0.1, due to the poor-part load efficiency of internal combustion
121
engines. For PHEVs, the same study predicts sensitivity to acceleration of NSF = 0.2 (not
0.05). Simple statistical analysis of reported fuel economy predictions by Santini et al (2002)
predicts sensitivities to acceleration of NSF = 0.9 for ICVs and NSF = 0.5 for HEVs. Clearly,
the PAMVEC model does not capture key system effects relating to the efficiency of engines
and the result is a significant underestimation of the sensitivity to acceleration for both ICVs
and PHEVs.
In contrast, the PAMVEC tool is ideally suited to predicting sensitivities to driving range,
since these are predominantly due to mass-compounding effects. Figure 5-9 shows the
variation in energy consumption for the BEV across a range of battery specific energies and
driving range targets. The minimum energy consumption in Figure 5-9 is 2.42 L/100km and
note that, for the vehicle (acceleration) performance assumed in this analysis, the vehicle
energy consumption is quite insensitive to the driving range for battery specific energies
greater than approx. 250 Wh/kg. In these cases, the battery would be sized according to
power rather than energy requirements. Unfortunately, most battery technologies have
specific energies much lower than 250Wh/kg (see Table 2-3) therefore it can be concluded
that BEV energy consumption will typically be quite sensitive to the driving range target.
Figure 5-10 presents an identical comparison for a H2 FCHEV. For this vehicle, the
minimum energy consumption is 4.0 L/100km and the energy consumption is also quite
insensitive to driving range for hydrogen specific energy storages greater than approx. 1000
Wh/kg (3% by weight H2). Most hydrogen storage technologies have specific energies
greater than this value (see Table 2-3) so it can be concluded that, despite the low specific
energy storage of hydrogen relative to conventional fuels, H2 FCHEV energy consumption
will typically be relatively insensitive to the driving range target. Such comparisons are not
easy to perform using existing vehicle modelling tools, but they are readily performed with
the PAMVEC model.
122
Battery EV: Energy Consumption vs. Driving Range and Specific Energy Storage
10
Equivalent fuel consumption (L/100km)

8
0
500
400
300
0
200 100
200
100 300
400
0 500
Driving range (km) Specific energy storage (Wh/kg)
(a)
Battery EV: Energy Consumption (L/100km) vs. Driving Range and Specific Energy Storage
500
450
400
350
Specific energy storage (Wh/kg)
300 2.5
250
5
2.
200
150 3
2.5
100 3
4 5
50 2.5 3 4 5 10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Driving range (km)
(b)
Figure 5-9: Variation in BEV energy consumption across a range of battery specific energies
and driving range targets
123
Fuel Cell HEV: Energy Consumption vs. Driving Range and Specific Energy Storage
10
Equivalent fuel consumption (L/100km)
0
500
400
300
0
200 1000
2000
100 3000
4000
0 5000
Driving range (km) Specific energy storage (Wh/kg)
(a)
Fuel Cell HEV: Energy Consumption (L/100km) vs. Driving Range and Specific Energy Storage
5000
4500
4000
1
4.
3500
Specific energy storage (Wh/kg)
3000
4.1
2500
2000
1500 1
4.
1000
4.5
500 5
4.5
4.1 5 6
4. 5 5 6 10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Driving range (km)
(b)
Figure 5-10: Variation in H2 FCHEV energy consumption across a range of battery specific
energies and driving range targets
124
5.3 Summary
This chapter has demonstrated the use of PAMVEC in a topical and relevant vehicle
technology assessment: the prediction of vehicle energy consumption as part of a well-to-
wheels study. The versatility of the PAMVEC model allowed it to be applied to seven
different powertrain architectures utilising a variety of alternative fuels (33 vehicles in total).
Despite this large number of vehicles, the study was completed in a relatively small amount of
time since the PAMVEC model avoided the significant computation time that would
otherwise have been incurred using existing dynamic vehicle simulation tools. Furthermore,
the input data for the modelling (particularly relating to component technologies) was
obtained relatively easily from public-domain sources. Lastly, PAMVEC’s unique modelling
capabilities allowed the use of a driving range constraint for the comparison, which was
particularly valuable since the scope of the study included BEVs for which the vehicle energy
consumption was shown to be quite sensitive to driving range.
An input parameter sensitivity analysis was also performed for the PAMVEC model using
data from the well-to-wheels study. This revealed the parameters that were of greatest
significance to the study outcomes (and also to vehicle energy consumption in general) and in
many cases the sensitivity coefficients correlated well with those reported in other studies.
However, the analysis also highlighted the primary limitation in PAMVEC’s modelling
capabilities, which is its inability to model the dependence of powertrain component
efficiency on the driving pattern and/or component sizes. This aspect of the PAMVEC model
may limit its applicability to some studies.
125
126
6. Conclusion
This thesis has presented a novel approach to modelling energy consumption in road vehicles
– the Parametric Analytical Model of Vehicle Energy Consumption (PAMVEC).
PAMVEC is fundamentally a lumped-parameter model, but it offers a unique combination of

attributes intended to occupy a niche between the capabilities of existing dynamic simulators
and previous lumped-parameter models. PAMVEC’s unique features include:
uncertainty.
• Parametric analytical equations for predicting vehicle energy consumption that are
derived from the well-known road load equation. These models have the simplicity
and minimal input data requirements of a lumped-parameter model but, in
combination with the novel driving pattern description, can model some driving-
pattern-dependent phenomena (such as braking losses) without the need for the
iterative computations of dynamic simulators.
• Parametric analytical equations to size powertrain components implicitly in terms of
specified performance targets that include driving range, without the need for the
iterative component sizing routines of dynamic simulators. The model takes full
account of the mass-compounding effects that arise through the sizing of powertrain
components due to various performance constraints. The component sizing equations
also include a novel acceleration performance model that accounts for differences in
the torque/power vs. speed characteristics of various drivetrain technologies.
The simplicity of the PAMVEC model is enabled by a central simplifying assumption that
tractive power flow that is reversible (due to vehicle inertia) can be modelled separately from
irreversible power flow (due to vehicle drag). This assumption can arguably be justified
based on the fact that transient inertial power flows are typically an order of magnitude larger
than drag powers. However, this assumption does introduce error into the energy
consumption model (particularly in the estimate of drivetrain losses) and this was quite
apparent in the benchmarking against the ADVISOR advanced vehicle simulator. Errors in
predicted vehicle energy consumption of <20% (typically <15%) were observed across a wide
range of vehicle platforms and driving patterns, and the overestimation of drivetrain losses (in
127
the brakes, transmission and/or motor/controller) was identified as the major contributor to
this error. While this error is large compared to that of dynamic simulators (<5%), it can still
be considered satisfactory in the context of vehicle technology assessment where uncertainties
are so great. Generally speaking, the errors in PAMVEC’s predictions of relative fuel/energy
consumption were much lower (typically <5%), suggesting that the tool is better suited to
relative predictions, such as those that might be required in a comparative vehicle technology
assessment.
From a systems perspective, the primary limitation in the capabilities of the PAMVEC model
is that it does not model component efficiencies, but rather, requires the user to specify mean
component efficiencies as an input. The model is therefore unable to predict variations in
component efficiencies due to changes in component sizes or driving pattern. Fortunately for
the user, there are large amounts of published data in the literature to indicate the operating
efficiency of powertrain components under various conditions. When coupled with some
engineering judgement, this source of data is sufficient to support the use of a tool such as
PAMVEC. However, the component efficiency model limitation will inevitably be
experienced when conducting parametric sensitivity analysis such as those presented in
Chapter 5.
This thesis has provided at least five examples of the use of the PAMVEC model to predict
vehicle energy consumption for various purposes:
1. To estimate the performance and energy consumption of existing production-model
and prototype vehicles with a variety of powertrain technologies based on published
data for those vehicles.
2. To benchmark PAMVEC’s predictions of component sizes, total vehicle mass and
vehicle energy consumption against those of ADVISOR
3. To predict the energy consumption of 33 hypothetical vehicles as part of a well-to-
wheels analysis
4. Parametric studies such as the input parameter sensitivity analysis in Chapter 5, and
5. An examination of the sensitivity of vehicle energy consumption in BEVs and
FCHEVs to their specific energy storage and driving range.
These examples demonstrate the suitability and versatility of the PAMVEC model and it is
the author’s hope that this modelling approach will become a valued complement to existing
tools in the vehicle technology research community.
128
6.1 Future Work
For a modelling tool such as PAMVEC to benefit the research community, it must be
distributed to other users so they may gain experience in order to appreciate its capabilities
and limitations. At the time of writing, the PAMVEC spreadsheet model was not publicly
available. Therefore, the author’s next task will be to release a public version of PAMVEC
containing MS Excel spreadsheet templates for various powertrain architectures. Further
journal publications are also currently being written to promote PAMVEC and demonstrate its
uses, and to disseminate the novel concepts embodied in its modelling approach. Hopefully,
other researchers and analysts will choose to apply PAMVEC to their own vehicle technology
studies, or adapt novel elements of the model (such as the parametric driving pattern
description) for other purposes.
While the validation exercise documented in this thesis was quite thorough, it is by no means
complete. Further, ongoing validation of PAMVEC can definitely be justified, especially as
more published data becomes available for various prototype and production vehicles with
alternative powertrain technologies. In particular, the applicability of PAMVEC to heavy-
duty vehicles (e.g. buses and trucks) should be verified even though, based on the validation
presented in this thesis, there are no reasons to doubt its suitability for these vehicle platforms.
To try to address PAMVEC’s inability to model component efficiency, the author hopes to
investigate alternative modelling approaches that offer this capability while retaining some of
PAMVEC’s beneficial attributes (such as non-time-iterative calculations). Empirical
correlations can readily be used to model the relationships between component size and
efficiency, but the dependence of component efficiency on the driving pattern presents a
greater challenge. One possible approach was alluded to in Section 2.4, which is to model
driving patterns as joint velocity-acceleration probability distributions that can then be
mapped to a powertrain torque-speed distribution and coupled with component efficiency
maps to predict component efficiency with much greater precision. When combined with the
powerful matrix-algebra capabilities of software such as MATLAB, this approach could lead
to energy consumption models with high accuracy and fast calculation relative to dynamic
simulators. Such an energy consumption model could also be mated with an implicit
performance model such as that employed by PAMVEC to limit the need for iterative
129
component sizing against performance constraints (although iteration cannot be avoided if
driving range is employed as a constraint).
Finally, the capabilities of PAMVEC inspire many interesting parametric vehicle studies that
the author hopes to pursue on an ongoing basis.
130
References
Ahlvik P. & Brandberg Å. (2001) “Well-to wheel efficiency for alternative fuels from natural
gas or biomass”, report for the Swedish National Road Administration, Ecotraffic ERD AB.
Åhman M. (2001) “Primary energy efficiency of alternative powertrains in vehicles”, Energy,

vol. 26, pp. 973-989.
Anderson C. & Pettit E. (1995) “The Effects of APU Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid
Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles”, paper no. 950493, Society of Automotive
Engineers International, Warrendale.
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) (2004) “Powertrain Systems Analysis Toolkit (PSAT):
A Flexible, Reusable Model for Simulating Advanced Vehicles”, product fact-sheet available
at: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/MC/303.pdf.
Assanis D., Delagrammatikas G., Fellini R., Filipi Z., Liedtke J., Michelina N., Papalambros
P., Reyes D., Rosenbaum D., Sales S. & Sasena M. (1999) “Optimization Approach to Hybrid
Electric Propulsion System Design”, Mechanical Structures and Machines, vol. 27, no. 4, pp.
393-421.
Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) (2003) “About the fuel consumption label”, available
at: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/fuellabel/label.html, accessed Oct 13.
Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) (2005) “Green Vehicle Guide”, available at:
www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au, accessed Jan 17.
AuYeung F., Heywood J.B. & Schafer A. (2001) “Future Light-Duty Vehicles: Predicting
their Fuel Consumption and Carbon-Reduction Potential, paper no. 2001-01-1081, Society of
Automotive Engineers International, Warrendale.
Bullock K.J. (1982) “Driving Cycles”, paper no. 82147, SAE-A/ARRB 2nd Conference on
Traffic Energy and Emissions, Melbourne.
131
Butler K.L., Ehsani M. & Kamath P. (1999) “A Matlab-Based Modeling and Simulation
Package for Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Design”, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1770-1778.
Burba J.C. (2000) “Rethinking the Drive Cycle”, Proceedings of the 17th International
Electric Vehicle Symposium, Montreal.
Cartoday.com (2005) “Opel Zafira”, accessed Feb 9, available at:

http://www.cartoday.com/content/car_magazine/special_reports/2001/delta/index6.asp
Chau K.T., Wong Y.S. & Chan C.C. (2000) “EVSIM – A PC-based simulation tool for an
electric vehicle technology course”, International Journal of Electrical Engineering
Education, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 167-79.
Chau K.T. & Wong Y.S. (2001) “Hybridization of energy sources in electric vehicles”,
Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 42, pp. 1059-1069.
Cole G.H. (1993) “SIMPLEV: A Simple Electric Vehicle Simulation Program Version 2.0”,
report no. DOE/ID-10293-2, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
Cuddy M.R. & Wipke K.B. (1997) “Analysis of the Fuel Economy Benefit of Drivetrain
Hybridization”, paper no. 970289, Society of Automotive Engineers International,
Warrendale.
Delucchi M. (2000) “Electric and Gasoline Vehicle Lifecycle Cost and Energy-Use
Model”, report no. UCD-ITS-RR-99-4, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of
California, Davis.
Delucchi M. (2001) “A Lifecycle Emissions Analysis: Urban Air Pollutants and Greenhouse-
Gases from Petroleum, Natural Gas, LPG, and Other Fuels for Highway Vehicles, Forklifts,
and Household Heating in the U.S.”, World Resource Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 25-51.
EUCAR, CONCAWE and JRC/IES (2003) “Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive

Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context”, available at:
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/Download/eh
132
Ehsani M., Rahman K.M. & Toliyat H.A. (1997) “Propulsion System Design of Electric and
Hybrid Vehicles”, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 19-27.
Friedman D.J. (1999) “Maximizing Direct-Hydrogen PEM Fuel Cell Vehicle Efficiency – Is
Hybridization Necessary?”, paper no. 1999-01-0530, Society of Automotive Engineers
International, Warrendale.
Friedman D.J., Lipman T., Eggert A., Ramaswamy S. & Hauer K. (2000) “Hybridization:
Cost and Efficiency Comparisons for PEM Fuel Cell Vehicles”, paper no. 2000-01-3078,
Society of Automotive Engineers International, Warrendale.
General Motors Corporation (GM), Argonne National Laboratory, BP, ExxonMobil & Shell
(2001) “Well-to-Wheel Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced
Fuel/Vehicle Systems – North American Analysis”.
Goldstein J., Brown I. & Koretz B. (1999) “New Developments in the Electric Fuel Zinc-Air
System”, Proceedings of the 21st International Power Sources Symposium, Brighton.
Graham R. (2001) “Comparing the Benefits and Impacts of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Options”,
report no. 1000349, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto.
Gurski S. & Nelson D.J. (2002) “Design and Integration Challenges for a Fuel Cell Hybrid
Electric Sport Utility Vehicle”, paper no. 2002-01-0095, Society of Automotive Engineers
Guzella L. & Amstutz A. (1999) “CAE Tools for Quasi-Static Modeling and Optimization of
Hybrid Powertrains”, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1762-
1769.
Holden (2003) “Commodore Range Technical Data”, available at: www.holden.com.au,

accessed Oct 13.
International Energy Agency (IEA) (1999) “Automotive Fuels for the Future: The Search for
Alternatives”, Paris.
133
Japan Storage Battery Company (2000) “SER60 VRLA battery module”, product data sheet.
Johansson B. & Åhman M. (2002) “A comparison of technologies for carbon-neutral

passenger transport”, Transportation Research Part D, vol. 7, pp. 175-196.
Johnson T.M., Formenti D.L., Gray R.F. & Peterson W.C. (1975) “Measurement of Motor
Vehicle Operation Pertinent to Fuel Economy”, paper no. 750003, Society of Automotive
Jost K. (2002) “Fuel-cell commercialization”, Automotive Engineering International,

September, p. 30.
L-B-Systemtechnik GmbH (LBST) (2002) “Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Energy Use and

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems – A European Study”,
Ottobrunn.
Lipman T.E. (1999) “Zero-Emission Vehicle Scenario Cost Analysis Using a Fuzzy Set-
Based Framework”, PhD Thesis, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California,
Davis.
Lipman T.E. (2000) “Manufacturing and Lifecycle Costs of Battery Electric Vehicles, Direct-
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, and Direct-Methanol Fuel Cell Vehicles”, Proceedings of the
35th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, pp. 1352-1358, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Louis J.J.J. (2001) “Well-To-Wheel Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Various
Vehicle Technologies”, paper no. 2001-01-1343, Society of Automotive Engineers
Markel T., Wipke K. & Nelson D. (2002) “Vehicle Systems Impacts of Fuel Cell System
Power Response Capability”, paper no. 2002-01-1959, Society of Automotive Engineers
134
Marr W.W. & Walsh W.J. (1992) “Life-cycle cost evaluations of electric/hybrid vehicles”,
Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 849-853.
Milkins E. & Watson H. (1983) “Comparison of Urban Driving Patterns”, paper no. 830939,
Society of Automotive Engineers International, Warrendale.
Miller T, Rizzoni G. & Li Q. (1999) “Simulation-Based Hybrid-Electric Vehicle Design

Search”, paper no. 1999-01-1150, Society of Automotive Engineers International,
Warrendale.
Moore T.C. (1996) “Tools and Strategies for Hybrid-Electric Drivesystem Optimization”,
paper no. 961660, Society of Automotive Engineers International, Warrendale.
Moore T.C. (1997) “HEV Control Strategy: Implications of Performance Criteria, System
Configuration and Design, and Component Selection”, Proceedings of the American Control
Conference, Albuquerque, pp. 679-683.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1995) “Advanced Automotive Technology:

Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Car”, report no. OTA-ETI-638, U.S. Congress,
Washington.
Ogburn M.J., Nelson D.J., Wipke K. & Markel T. (2000) “Modeling and Validation of a Fuel
Cell Hybrid Vehicle”, paper no. 2000-01-1566, Society of Automotive Engineers
Ogden J.M., Steinbugler M.M. & Kreutz T.G. (1999) “A comparison of hydrogen, methanol
and gasoline as fuels for fuel cell vehicles: implications for vehicle design and infrastructure
development”, Journal of Power Sources, vol 79, pp. 143-168.
Ogden J.M., Williams R.H. & Larson E.D. (2004) “Societal lifecycle costs of cars with
alternative fuels/engines”, Energy Policy, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 7-27.
Ovonic Battery Company (2000) “EV NiMH battery module”, product data sheet.
135
Plotkin S., Santini D., Vyas A., Anderson J., Wang M., He J. & Bharathan D. (2001) “Hybrid
Electric Vehicle Technology Assessment: Methodology, Analytical Issues, and Interim
Results”, report no. ANL/ESD/02-2, Argonne National Laboratory.
PRNewswire (2003) “AVL Selected to Commercialize, Refine FreedomCAR Vehicle

Simulation Software”, press release, March 4.
Rizzoni G., Guzella L. & Baumann B.M. (1999) “Unified Modeling of Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Drivetrains”, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 246-257.
Ross M. (1997) “Fuel Efficiency and the Physics of Automobiles”, Contemporary Physics,
vol. 38, pp. 381-394.
SAFT (2003) “High Energy Lithium Ion VL 45 E Cell”, product data sheet.
Santini D.J., Vyas A.D. & Anderson J.L. (2002) “Fuel Economy Improvement via
Hybridization vs. Vehicle Performance Level”, paper no. 2002-01-1901, Society of
Automotive Engineers International, Warrendale.
Senger R.D., Merkle M.A. & Nelson D.J. (1998) “Validation of ADVISOR as a Simulation
Tool for a Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle”, paper no. 981133, Society of Automotive
Simpson A.G. (1999) “Power Control Strategies for Hybrid Vehicle Drivetrains”, Honours
Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland.
in Australia”, Proceedings of the 2004 World Energy Congress – Youth Symposium, Sep 5-9,
Sydney.
Sovran G. & Blaser D. (2003) “A Contribution to Understanding Automotive

Fuel Economy and Its Limits”, paper no. 2003-01-2070, Society of Automotive Engineers
136
Sovran G. & Bohn M. (1981) “Formulae for the Tractive Energy Requirements of Vehicles
Driving the EPA Schedules, paper no. 810184, Society of Automotive Engineers
Steinbugler M. (1998) “Modeling of PEM fuel cell vehicles”, PhD Thesis, Princeton
University Center for Energy and Environmental Studies.
TIAX LLC (2002) “Advanced Hydrogen Storage: A Systems Perspective and Some Thoughts
on Fundamentals”, presented at U.S. Department of Energy Workshop on Hydrogen Storage,
Argonne National Laboratory, August 14-15.
Thomas C.E., James B.D., Lomax F.D. Jr & Kuhn I.F. Jr (1998) “Integrated Analysis of
Hydrogen Passenger Vehicle Transportation Pathways”, Proceedings of the 1998 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
UQM Technologies (2001) “PowerPhase™ 100 EV/HEV Traction Drive or HEV

Starter/Generator System”, product data sheet, Golden.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2005) “Fuel Economy Guide - How Vehicles
are Tested”, available at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml, accessed Feb
10.
Van Mierlo J. & Maggetto G. (1996) “Multiple Purpose Simulation Program for Electric and
Hybrid Vehicles: Simulation vs. Experimental Results”, Proceedings of the 13th International
Electric Vehicle Symposium, Osaka.
Wang M. (2002) “Fuel choices for fuel-cell vehicles: well-to-wheels energy and emission
impacts”, Journal of Power Sources, vol. 112, pp. 307-321.
Wasacz B. (1997) “Development and Application of a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Simulator”,

Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Weber T. (1988) “Analysis of Unconventional Powertrain Systems”, Proceedings of the 1988

FISITA World Automotive Congress, Dearborn.
137
Weiss M.A., Heywood J.B., Drake E.M., Schafer A. & AuYeung, F. (2000) “On the Road in
2020: A life-cycle analysis of new automobile technologies”, report no. MIT EL 00-003,
Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Weiss M.A., Heywood J.B., Schafer A. & Natarajan V.K. (2003) “Comparative Assessment
of Fuel Cell Cars”, report no. MIT LFEE 2003-001, Laboratory for Energy and the
Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Wicke B.G. (2002) “General Motors Hydrogen Storage Requirements for Fuel Cell
Vehicles”, presented at U.S. Department of Energy Workshop on Hydrogen Storage, Argonne
National Laboratory, August 14-15.
Wipke K.B., Cuddy M.R. & Burch S.D. (1999) “ADVISOR 2.1: A User-Friendly Advanced
Powertrain Simulation Using a Combined Backward/Forward Approach”, IEEE Transactions
on Vehicular Technology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1751-1761.
Wipke K., Markel T. & Nelson D. (2001) “Optimizing Energy Management Strategy and
Degree of Hybridization for a Hydrogen Fuel Cell SUV”, Proceedings of the 18th
International Electric Vehicle Symposium, Berlin.
138
Appendix A – Driving Cycle Parameters
Source: ADVISOR 2002 driving cycle data files
Cycle Average Root-mean- Velocity Characteristic
velocity cubed velocity ratio acceleration
(km/h) (km/h) (m/s2)
v avg v rmc Λ a~
MANHATTAN 10.93 19.11 1.75 0.269

NYCC 11.36 20.61 1.81 0.293
NYCTRUCK 12.10 25.99 2.15 0.234
NYCCOMP 14.03 24.89 1.77 0.186
WVUCITY 13.53 26.20 1.94 0.155
NURMBERGR36 14.28 24.09 1.69 0.235
CSHVR_VEHICLE 21.74 34.91 1.61 0.162
INDIA_URBAN_SAMPLE 23.28 32.07 1.38 0.170
1015 25.69 38.80 1.51 0.125
WVUSUB 25.75 39.89 1.55 0.138
UDDSHDV 30.17 51.88 1.72 0.124
UDDS 31.35 44.49 1.42 0.171
NEDC 33.04 53.62 1.62 0.112
SC03 34.36 46.81 1.36 0.200
LA92 39.40 57.72 1.47 0.217
UNIF01 40.88 62.39 1.53 0.172
IM240 47.00 58.15 1.24 0.198
INDIA_HWY_SAMPLE 47.33 52.02 1.10 0.149
WVUINTER 54.50 70.11 1.29 0.067
ARB02 69.68 85.90 1.23 0.187
US06 76.88 91.20 1.19 0.190
HWFET 77.23 79.99 1.04 0.069
REP05 82.45 91.87 1.11 0.138
HL07 85.44 97.02 1.14 0.143
US06_HWY 97.60 102.56 1.05 0.113
139
140
Appendix B – Validation Study Results
Published Vehicle Data
Holden Commodore Sedan
Fuel type n/a Top Speed n/a kph

Fuel spec energy n/a Wh/kg Acceleration: 0 to n/a kph in n/a sec
Fuel energy density n/a Wh/L Gradability: maintain n/a kph on a grade of n/a
Fuel energy storage n/a Wh Driving range n/a km
Fuel mass n/a kg
Fuel volume n/a L glider mass n/a kg
CdA 0.8
HPU type n/a Crr 0.01
HPU specific power n/a W/kg R n/a m
HPU power n/a W G n/a
HPU mass n/a kg Trans. efficiency 90%
HPU efficiency 17.0% Kregen 0
Powertrain mass n/a kg
LLD type none Curb mass 1560 kg
LLD specific power n/a W/kg cargo mass (1 person) 80 kg
LLD max power n/a W Total mass 1640 kg
LLD mass n/a kg
LLD efficiency n/a Drive Cycle NEDC
Average speed 33.04 kph
Root-mean-cubed speed 53.62 kph
MC type none Characteristic acceleration 0.112 m/s^2
MC specific power n/a W/kg
MC max power n/a W Average wheel power 3063 W 92.7 Whpkm
MC mass n/a kg Average brake power 1686 W 51.0 Whpkm
MC efficiency n/a Average drive losses 528 W 16.0 Whpkm
MC base speed n/a rpm Accessory power 1000 W 30.3 Whpkm
MC max speed n/a rpm Average LLD losses 0 W 0.0 Whpkm
MC N (overspeed ratio) n/a Average HPU power 6276 W 190.0 Whpkm
MC N for accel spec n/a Average HPU losses 30641 W 927.4 Whpkm
Average fuel flow 36917 W 1117.4 Whpkm
12.49 L/100km_eq
18.8 MPG_eq
141
Virginia Tech ZEburban
Urban (UDDS)
Fuel mass n/a kg
CdA 1.3
HPU type Fuel Cell Crr 0.012
HPU efficiency 45.0% Kregen 0.5
LLD type Pb-Acid Curb mass 3090 kg
LLD mass n/a kg
LLD efficiency 80% Drive Cycle UDDS
MC type GE Characteristic acceleration 0.171 m/s^2
MC efficiency 90% Average drive losses 2667 W 84.9 Whpkm
9.44 L/100km_eq
24.9 MPG_eq
Highway (HWFET)
Fuel mass n/a kg
CdA 1.3
HPU type Fuel Cell Crr 0.012
HPU efficiency 45.0% Kregen 0.5
LLD type Pb-Acid Curb mass 3090 kg
LLD mass n/a kg
LLD efficiency 80% Drive Cycle HWFET
MC type GE Characteristic acceleration 0.069 m/s^2
MC efficiency 90% Average drive losses 5431 W 70.3 Whpkm
8.52 L/100km_eq
27.6 MPG_eq
142
ADVISOR Benchmarking (Various Powertrain Architectures)
NEDC
ICV
Fuel Storage System Vehicle Platform Performance Targets
Fuel spec energy 12800 Wh/kg glider mass 613 kg Top Speed 194 kph
Fuel energy storage 409239 Wh Km 1 Acceleration: 0 to 100 kph in 10.0 sec
Fuel mass 24.60 kg CdA 0.67 Gradability: maintain 88.5 kph on a grade of 15.2%
Crr 0.009 Driving range 500 km
Hybrid Power Unit R 0.282 m Top speed ICE limited 240.73 kph
HPU specific power 385 W/kg G 2.52
HPU efficiency 16.7% Kregen 0%
HPU power 76719 W Kstruct 1 Drive Cycle NEDC
HPU mass 199.5 kg Powertrain mass 338 kg Average speed 33.04 kph
Curb mass 951 kg Root-mean-cubed speed 53.62 kph
Total Propulsion system cargo mass (1 person) 136 kg Characteristic acceleration 0.112 m/s^2
Total mass 1087 kg
Mass 338 kg Effective inertial mass 1087 Average wheel power 2209 W 66.9 Whpkm
Power 76019 W Average brake power 1117 W 33.8 Whpkm
Energy 59602 Wh Transmission Average drive losses 479 W 14.5 Whpkm
Trans. efficiency 87% Accessory power 700 W 21.2 Whpkm
Spec power 225 W/kg Trans spec power 1000 W/kg Average HPU power 4505 W 136.4 Whpkm
Spec energy 176 Wh/kg Trans power 76019 W Average HPU losses 22537 W 682.1 Whpkm
Trans mass 114.0 kg Average fuel flow 27043 W 818.5 Whpkm
ICE max speed 5,700 rpm 9.24 L/100km_eq
No of gears 5 25.4 MPG_eq
time per shift 0.2 INPUTS
Trans N (overspeed ratio) 4.74 OUTPUTS
Trans N accel for shifts 1.97
Inter-gear ratio 1.47520028
No. of shifts 2.00
Shifting time 0.4
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 2.35
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15 0.15
143
144
PHEV
Hybrid Power Unit R 0.282 m Top speed due ICE speed 246.20
Load-Leveling Device cargo mass (1 person) 136 kg Characteristic acceleration 0.112 m/s^2
LLD specific power 444 W/kg Total mass 1090 kg
LLD efficiency 96% Effective inertial mass 1090 Average wheel power 2212 W 66.9 Whpkm
LLD max power 53021 W Average brake power 452 W 13.7 Whpkm
LLD mass 119.3 kg Transmission Average drive losses 1229 W 37.2 Whpkm
Total Propulsion system Trans spec power 1000 Average LLD losses 47 W 1.4 Whpkm
Trans power 60601 Average HPU power 4640 W 140.4 Whpkm
Mass 354 kg Trans mass 114.0 Average HPU losses 14345 W 434.2 Whpkm
Power 60601 W Trans max speed 5,700 rpm Average fuel flow 18984 W 574.6 Whpkm
Energy 61087 Wh No. of gears 5 6.48 L/100km_eq
time per shift 0.2 36.2 MPG_eq
Spec power 171 W/kg Trans N (overspeed ratio) 4.74 INPUTS
Spec energy 173 Wh/kg Trans N for shifts calc 1.92 OUTPUTS
Motor/Controller No. of shifts 2.00
MC type Shifting time 0.4
MC specific power 1482 W/kg ICE/motor overspeed 3.21
MC max power 32873 W N drive eff 15.20
MC mass 22.2 kg N accel eff 6.17
MC efficiency 62% Pmax/Peff 1.0685
Min DOH 30%
DOH 54%
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
145
146
SHEV
Hybrid Power Unit R 0.282 m Top speed due EM 188.98
HPU frac 16% Curb mass 948 kg Root-mean-cubed speed 53.62 kph
HPU opt frac 50% cargo mass (1 person) 136 kg Characteristic acceleration 0.112 m/s^2
HPU opt power 15862 Total mass 1084 kg
HPU duty 31.8% Effective inertial mass 1084 Average wheel power 2207 W 66.8 Whpkm
Average brake power 449 W 13.6 Whpkm
Transmission Average drive losses 1360 W 41.2 Whpkm
Load-Leveling Device Trans. efficiency 87% Accessory power 700 W 21.2 Whpkm
LLD specific power 444 W/kg Trans spec power 1000 Average LLD losses 84 W 2.6 Whpkm
LLD efficiency 93% Trans power 65600 Average bus power 4801
LLD max power 46152 W Trans mass 50.0 LLD thermo losses 246 7.5 Whpkm
LLD mass 103.9 kg Total LLD losses 330.9 10.0 Whpkm
LLD energy Motor/Controller Average HPU power 5047 W 152.8 Whpkm
LLD specific energy MC type Average HPU losses 12091 W 365.9 Whpkm
MC specific power 1463 W/kg Average fuel flow 17138 W 518.7 Whpkm
Total Propulsion system MC max power 65600 W 5.85 L/100km_eq
MC mass 44.9 kg 40.1 MPG_eq
Mass 347 kg MC efficiency 85% INPUTS
Power 65600 W MC max speed 10,000 rpm OUTPUTS
Energy 56288 Wh MC N (overspeed ratio) 3.81
MC N for accel spec 2.01
Spec power 189 W/kg Pmax/Peff 1.0003
Spec energy 162 Wh/kg
0.3
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
147
148
FCEV
Hybrid Power Unit R 0.282 m Top speed due EM 159.31 kph
Total mass 1181 kg
Spec power 145 W/kg Trans spec power 1000 Average HPU power 5456 W 165.1 Whpkm
Spec energy 134 Wh/kg Trans power 65530 Average HPU losses 7232 W 218.9 Whpkm
Trans mass 50.0 Average fuel flow 12687 W 384.0 Whpkm
4.33 L/100km_eq
Motor/Controller 54.2 MPG_eq
MC type INPUTS
MC specific power 812 W/kg OUTPUTS
MC max power 65530 W
MC mass 80.7 kg
MC efficiency 86%
MC max speed 8,500 rpm
MC N (overspeed ratio) 4.99
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
149
150
FCHEV
LLD max power 42810 W Trans mass 50.0 LLD thermo losses 0 0.0
LLD mass 96.4 kg Total LLD losses 74 2.2
Motor/Controller Average HPU power 4824 W 146.0 Whpkm
Total Propulsion system MC type Average HPU losses 5439 W 164.6 Whpkm
Mass 366 kg MC max power 62857 W 3.51 L/100km_eq
Power 62857 W MC mass 43.4 kg 67.0 MPG_eq
Energy 53856 Wh MC efficiency 85% INPUTS
MC max speed 10,000 rpm OUTPUTS
Spec power 172 W/kg MC N (overspeed ratio) 3.81
Spec energy 147 Wh/kg MC N for accel spec 2.01
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
151
152
BEV

Fuel spec energy Wh/kg glider mass 592 kg Top Speed 169 kph
Fuel energy storage Wh Km 1 Acceleration: 0 to 100 kph in 9.9 sec
Fuel mass kg CdA 0.67 Gradability: maintain 88.5 kph on a grade of 18.9%
HPU specific power W/kg G 5.63
HPU efficiency Trans. efficiency 90%
HPU power W Kregen 60% Drive Cycle NEDC
HPU mass kg Kstruct 1 Average speed 33.04 kph
Powertrain mass 316 kg Root-mean-cubed speed 53.62 kph
Load-Leveling Device Curb mass 908 kg Characteristic acceleration 0.112 m/s^2
LLD specific power 393 W/kg cargo mass (1 person) 136 kg
LLD specific energy 71 Wh/kg Total mass 1044 kg Average wheel power 2174 W 65.8 Whpkm
LLD efficiency 92% Effective inertial mass 1044 Average brake power 429 W 13.0 Whpkm
LLD max power 75911 W Average drive losses 1765 W 53.4 Whpkm
LLD energy 13756 Wh Transmission Accessory power 700 W 21.2 Whpkm
LLD mass 193.2 kg Trans. efficiency 86% Average LLD losses 102 W 3.1 Whpkm
Charger 95% Trans spec power 1000 Average LLD power 5170 W 156.5 Whpkm
Total Propulsion system Trans power 59666 Average LLD losses 450 W 13.6 Whpkm
Trans mass 50.0 Total LLD losses 551 16.7
Mass 316 kg Average electricity 5619 W 170.1 Whpkm
Power 47208 W Motor/Controller 1.92 L/100km_eq
Energy 8555 Wh MC type 122.4 MPG_eq
MC specific power 824 W/kg INPUTS
Spec power 150 W/kg MC max power 59666 W OUTPUTS Charger
Spec energy 27 Wh/kg MC mass 72.4 kg 179.0 Whpkm
MC efficiency 79% 2.00 L/100km_eq
MC max speed 10,000 rpm 117.4 MPG_eq
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
0.9 0.8
0.85
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.9
0.70.75
0.8 0.85 0.8
0.85
153
154
UDDS
ICV
HPU power 76719 W Kstruct 1 Drive Cycle UDDS
Total mass 1087 kg
No. of shifts 2.00
Shifting time 0.4
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 2.35
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15 0.15
155
156
PHEV
Spec power 170 W/kg time per shift 0.2 34.0 MPG_eq
Spec energy 180 Wh/kg Trans N (overspeed ratio) 4.74 INPUTS
Trans N for shifts calc 1.92 OUTPUTS
Motor/Controller Inter-gear ratio 1.47520028
MC type No. of shifts 2.00
MC specific power 1482 W/kg Shifting time 0.4
MC max power 32938 W ICE/motor overspeed 3.21
MC mass 22.2 kg N drive eff 15.20
MC efficiency 61% N accel eff 6.17
Min DOH 30% Pmax/Peff 1.0685
DOH 54%
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
157
158
SHEV
0.3
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
159
160
FCEV
Total mass 1189 kg
4.51 L/100km_eq
MC type INPUTS
MC mass 81.2 kg
MC efficiency 84%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
161
162
FCHEV
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
163
164
BEV

HPU power W Kregen 55% Drive Cycle UDDS
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
0.9 0.8
0.85
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.9
0.70.75
0.8 0.85 0.8
0.85
165
166
HWFET
ICV
Total mass 1087 kg
No. of shifts 2.00
Shifting time 0.4
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 2.35
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15 0.15
167
168
PHEV
DOH 54%
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
169
170
SHEV
0.3
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
171
172
FCEV
Total mass 1174 kg
3.80 L/100km_eq
MC type INPUTS
MC mass 80.3 kg
MC efficiency 88%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
173
174
FCHEV
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
175
176
BEV
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
0.9 0.8
0.85
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.9
0.70.75
0.8 0.85 0.8
0.85
177
178
US06
ICV
Total mass 1087 kg
No. of shifts 2.00
Shifting time 0.4
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 2.35
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15 0.15
179
180
PHEV
DOH 53%
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
181
182
SHEV
0.3
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
183
184
FCEV
Total mass 1173 kg
5.81 L/100km_eq
MC type INPUTS
MC mass 80.2 kg
MC efficiency 88%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
185
186
FCHEV
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
187
188
BEV
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
0.9 0.8
0.85
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.9
0.70.75
0.8 0.85 0.8
0.85
189
190
NYCC
ICV
Total mass 1087 kg
No. of shifts 2.00
Shifting time 0.4
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 2.35
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15 0.15
191
192
PHEV
DOH 54%
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
193
194
SHEV
0.3
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
195
196
FCEV
Total mass 1332 kg
9.49 L/100km_eq
MC type INPUTS
MC mass 90.1 kg
MC efficiency 61%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
197
198
FCHEV
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
199
200
BEV
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
0.9 0.8
0.85
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.9
0.70.75
0.8 0.85 0.8
0.85
201
202
NEDC – High MDR
ICV
Total mass 1056 kg
No. of shifts 2.00
Shifting time 0.4
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 2.35
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15 0.15
203
204
PHEV
DOH 50%
0.25 0.3 0.25
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
205
206
SHEV
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.2
0.15 0.15
207
208
FCEV
Total mass 1196 kg
3.56 L/100km_eq
MC type INPUTS
MC mass 82.2 kg
MC efficiency 83%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
209
210
FCHEV
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
211
212
BEV
HPU power W Kregen 61% Drive Cycle UDDS
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
0.85
0.8
0.80.85
0.9
0.75
0.8 0.75
0.7
0.85 0.9
0.
0.8
0.7
213
214
HWFET – High MDR
ICV
HPU power 64706 W Kstruct 1 Drive Cycle HWFET
Total mass 1056 kg
No. of shifts 2.00
Shifting time 0.4
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 2.35
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
0.25 0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15 0.15
215
216
PHEV
DOH 50%
0.25 0.3 0.25
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
217
218
SHEV
0.25
0.25
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.15
219
220
FCEV
Total mass 1200 kg
2.87 L/100km_eq
MC type INPUTS
MC mass 82.5 kg
MC efficiency 82%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
221
222
FCHEV
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
223
224
BEV
HPU power W Kregen 67% Drive Cycle HWFET
Pmax/Peff 1.0003
0.85
0.8
0.80.85
0.9
0.75
0.8 0.75
0.7
0.85 0.9
0.
0.8
0.7
225
226
Appendix C – Tank to Wheel Energy Consumption for Various Fuels/Powertrains
Petrol ICV
Fuel energy density 7010 Wh/L Km 1.1 Acceleration: 0 to 100 kph in 9.0 sec
Fuel energy storage 386633 Wh CdA 0.8 Gradability: maintain 100 kph on a grade of 6.5%
Fuel mass 37.32 kg Crr 0.01 Driving range 500 km
Fuel volume 55.2 L R 0.32 m
G 3.82
Hybrid Power Unit Kregen 0%
HPU specific power 642 W/kg Kstruct 1.15 Drive Cycle NEDC
HPU efficiency 22.5% Powertrain mass 294 kg Average speed 33.04 kph
HPU power 98306 W Curb mass 1124 kg Root-mean-cubed speed 53.62 kph
HPU mass 153.2 kg cargo mass (1 person) 136 kg Characteristic acceleration 0.112 m/s^2
Total mass 1260 kg
Total Propulsion system Effective inertial mass 1372 Average wheel power 2720 W 82.3 Whpkm
44.09850828 Average brake power 1411 W 42.7 Whpkm
Mass 294 kg Transmission Average drive losses 617 W 18.7 Whpkm
Power 84656 W Trans. efficiency 87% Accessory power 1000 W 30.3 Whpkm
Energy 75683 Wh Trans spec power 1300 W/kg Average HPU power 5748 W 174.0 Whpkm
Trans power 84656 W Average HPU losses 19800 W 599.3 Whpkm
Spec power 288 W/kg Trans mass 65.1 kg Average fuel flow 25549 W 773.3 Whpkm
Spec energy 257 Wh/kg ICE max speed 5,700 rpm 8.65 L/100km_eq
VSP 67.18783906 time per shift 0.2 INPUTS
Trans N (overspeed ratio) 4.74 OUTPUTS 10.6%
PMF 0.261559303 Trans N for shift calcs 2.63
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
227
LPG ICV
G 3.82
Total mass 1299 kg
Trans N for shift calcs 2.63
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
228
LNG ICV
G 3.82
Total mass 1320 kg
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
229
CNG ICV
G 3.82
Total mass 1371 kg
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
230
Diesel ICV
G 3.82
Total mass 1307 kg
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
231
BioDiesel ICV
G 3.82
Total mass 1315 kg
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
232
E10 ICV
G 3.82
Total mass 1262 kg
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
233
E85 ICV
Fuel energy density 4995.5 Wh/L Km 1.1 Acceleration: 0 to 100 kph in 9.0 sec
G 3.82
Total mass 1282 kg
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
234
M85 ICV
G 3.82
Total mass 1290 kg
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
235
GH2 ICV
G 3.82
Total mass 1337 kg
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
236
LH2 ICV
G 3.82
Total mass 1383 kg
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
N drive eff 5.6
N accel eff 3.14
Pmax/Peff 1.1215
237
Petrol PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1378 kg
Load-Leveling Device Effective inertial mass 1503 Average wheel power 2827 W 85.6 Whpkm
LLD specific power 444 W/kg 61.84203474 Average brake power 618 W 18.7 Whpkm
LLD efficiency 96% Transmission Average drive losses 1244 W 37.6 Whpkm
LLD max power 50812 W Trans. efficiency 87% Accessory power 1000 W 30.3 Whpkm
LLD mass 114.4 kg Trans spec power 1300 Average LLD losses 46 W 1.4 Whpkm
Total Propulsion system Trans mass 63.3 Average HPU losses 13066 W 395.5 Whpkm
Trans max speed 5,700 rpm Average fuel flow 18801 W 569.0 Whpkm
Mass 412 kg No. of gears 5 6.36 L/100km_eq
Power 82272 W time pershift 0.2 36.9 MPG_eq
Energy 75495 Wh Trans N (overspeed ratio) 4.74 INPUTS
Spec power 200 W/kg Trans N for shifts calc 2.63 OUTPUTS 15.0%
Spec energy 183 Wh/kg Inter gear ratio 1.47520028
VSP 59.69195905 No. of shifts 3.00
PMF 0.331873776 Shifting time 0.6
Motor/Controller ICE/motor overspeed 3.21
MC type N drive eff 15.20
MC specific power 1484 W/kg N accel eff 8.45
MC max power 35568 W Pmax/Peff 1.0685
MC mass 24.0 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
238
LPG PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1403 kg
LLD specific power 444 W/kg Average brake power 629 W 19.0 Whpkm
Spec power 220 W/kg Trans N for shifts calc 2.63 OUTPUTS 15.8%
Spec energy 201 Wh/kg Inter gear ratio 1.47520028
No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.0 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
239
LNG PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1422 kg
Trans N for shifts calc 2.63 OUTPUTS 16.2%
Spec power 214 W/kg Inter gear ratio 1.47520028
Spec energy 193 Wh/kg No. of shifts 3.00
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.1 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
240
CNG PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1455 kg
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.1 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
241
Diesel PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1416 kg
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.0 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
242
Biodiesel PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1421 kg
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.1 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
243
E10 PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1380 kg
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.0 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
244
E85 PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1393 kg
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.0 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
245
M85 PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1397 kg
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.0 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
246
GH2 PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1427 kg
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.1 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
247
LH2 PHEV
G 3.82
Total mass 1455 kg
Shifting time 0.6
MC mass 24.1 kg
MC efficiency 70%
Min DOH 30%
DOH 30%
248
Petrol FCEV
G 5.70
Total mass 1810 kg
Energy 90740 Wh Trans spec power 1625 Average HPU power 8014 W 242.6 Whpkm
Trans power 103451 Average HPU losses 13187 W 399.1 Whpkm
Spec power 123 W/kg Trans mass 63.7 Average fuel flow 21201 W 641.7 Whpkm
Spec energy 108 Wh/kg 7.17 L/100km_eq
VSP 57.16050806 MC type INPUTS
MC specific power 1027 W/kg OUTPUTS 15.2%
PMF 0.504133702 MC max power 118910 W
MC mass 100.6 kg
MC efficiency 86%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
249
Methanol FCEV
G 0.00
Total mass 1857 kg
MC type INPUTS
MC mass 103.2 kg
MC efficiency 86%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
250
LH2 FCEV
G 0.00
Total mass 1601 kg
MC type INPUTS
MC mass 89.5 kg
MC efficiency 86%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
251
GH2 FCEV
G 5.70
Total mass 1568 kg
VSP 57.54306234 MC type INPUTS
PMF 0.420360039 MC max power 103705 W
MC mass 87.8 kg
MC efficiency 86%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
252
Petrol FCHEV
G 5.70
HPU frac 8% Total mass 1679 kg
HPU opt frac 10% Effective inertial mass 1833 Average wheel power 3098 W 93.8 Whpkm
HPU opt power 9225 106.9702809 Average brake power 754 W 22.8 Whpkm
HPU duty 75.9% Transmission Average drive losses 1962 W 59.4 Whpkm
Trans spec power 1625 Average LLD losses 101 W 3.0 Whpkm
Load-Leveling Device Trans power 96304 Average bus power 6914
LLD specific power 444 W/kg Trans mass 59.3 LLD thermo losses 88
LLD efficiency 95% Average HPU power 7002 W 211.9 Whpkm
LLD max power 37469 W Motor/Controller Average HPU losses 10860 W 328.7 Whpkm
LLD mass 84.4 kg MC type Average fuel flow 17861 W 540.6 Whpkm
MC specific power 1027 W/kg 6.04 L/100km_eq
Total Propulsion system MC max power 110695 W 38.9 MPG_eq
MC mass 93.7 kg INPUTS
Mass 713 kg MC efficiency 86% OUTPUTS 17.3%
Power 96304 W MC max speed 8,500 rpm
VSP 57.35350721
PMF 0.462133974
253
Methanol FCHEV
G 0.00
HPU opt power 9246 Average brake power 769 W 23.3 Whpkm
254
LH2 FCHEV
G 0.00
HPU opt power 9153 Average brake power 704 W 21.3 Whpkm
255
GH2 FCHEV
G 5.70
HPU opt power 9134 86.24485751 Average brake power 691 W 20.9 Whpkm
VSP 57.59313021
PMF 0.409238254
256
VRLA BEV
Fuel energy storage Wh Km 1.1 Acceleration: 0 to 100 kph in 9.0 sec
Fuel mass kg CdA 0.8 Gradability: maintain 100 kph on a grade of 6.5%
Crr 0.01 Driving range target 125
Hybrid Power Unit R 0.32 m Driving range 125 km
HPU efficiency Kregen 60%
HPU power W Kstruct 1.15 Drive Cycle NEDC
HPU mass kg Powertrain mass 1500 kg Average speed 33.04 kph
LLD specific energy 35 Wh/kg Effective inertial mass 2698 Average wheel power 3806 W 115.2 Whpkm
LLD efficiency 90% Average brake power 1110 W 33.6 Whpkm
LLD max power 187188 W Transmission Average drive losses 2633 W 79.7 Whpkm
LLD energy 37183 Wh Trans. efficiency 87% Accessory power 1000 W 30.3 Whpkm
Charger 95% Trans power 139306 Average LLD power 8845 W 267.7 Whpkm
Total Propulsion system Trans mass 85.7 Average LLD losses 983 W 29.7 Whpkm
Average electricity 9828 W 297.5 Whpkm
Mass 1304 kg Motor/Controller 3.33 L/100km_eq
Power 126049 W MC type 70.7 MPG_eq
Energy 25038 Wh MC specific power 1027 W/kg INPUTS
MC max power 160122 W OUTPUTS Charger
Spec power 97 W/kg MC mass 155.9 kg 313.1 Whpkm
Spec energy 19 Wh/kg MC efficiency 86% 3.50 L/100km_eq
MC N for accel spec 2.77 36.8%
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
257
NiMH BEV
Crr 0.01 Driving range target 250 km
LLD efficiency 92% Average brake power 1083 W 32.8 Whpkm
Pmax/Peff 1.0005
258
Li-Ion BEV
Crr 0.01 Driving range target 500 km
LLD efficiency 95% 203.8023166 Average brake power 1046 W 31.7 Whpkm
VSP 128.8564959 MC N (overspeed ratio) 4.99
PMF 0.620776359 Pmax/Peff 1.0005
259

Pamvec PHD - Thesis Editado

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pamvec PHD - Thesis Editado

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parametric Modelling Of Energy Consumption

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at

Sustainable Energy Research Group

School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering

Dr Geoffrey R. Walker – Principal Advisor

Copyright © 2005 by Andrew G. Simpson

Publications and Presentations by the Candidate Relevant to the Thesis

Additional Publications and Presentations by the Candidate Relevant to

In contrast, the PAMVEC tool is designed to be particularly well-suited to vehicle technology

2. TOOLS FOR MODELLING VEHICLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION 5

2.2 Approaches to Modelling Vehicle Energy Consumption 8

2.3 Approaches to Modelling Vehicle Performance 15

2.5 Outcomes of Literature Review 25

3. THE PARAMETRIC ANALYTICAL MODEL OF VEHICLE ENERGY

3.2 Driving Pattern Parameters 35

3.3 Powertrain Losses 42

3.4 Vehicle Performance 58

3.5 Powertrain Component Sizing Strategies and Mass Compounding 73

3.6 Implementation of the PAMVEC Model 79

4.2 Benchmarking against ADVISOR 84

4.3 Benchmarking for other driving patterns and vehicle platforms 96

4.4 Validation Summary 103

5. PAMVEC APPLICATION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 107

5.2 Sensitivity Analysis 113

5.3 Summary 125

APPENDIX A – DRIVING CYCLE PARAMETERS 139

APPENDIX B – VALIDATION STUDY RESULTS 141

ADVISOR Benchmarking 143

APPENDIX C – TANK TO WHEEL ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR VARIOUS

Figure 2-1: A comparison of vehicle fuel economy of conventional and hybrid-electric

cycles presented in Appendix A ....................................................................... 41

different driving cycles......................................................................................47

BEV battery electric vehicle

“Energy use is a central variable in economic, environmental, and engineering analyses of

Many studies have performed techno-economic comparisons of alternative fuels and

In the final Chapter 5, to demonstrate its suitability to vehicle technology assessment,

2.1 Attributes of Vehicle Modelling Tools

Some of these attributes are obviously interrelated. Nevertheless it is important to recognise

2.2.1 Dynamic Vehicle Simulators

Burba (2000) provides a convenient summary of the issues:

Unfortunately, the availability of detailed, well-validated component models is somewhat

2.2.2 Lumped-Parameter Models

Precision and Accuracy

2.3.1 The Link between Vehicle Performance and Energy Consumption

Figure 2-1: A comparison of vehicle fuel economy of conventional and hybrid-electric

2.3.2 Models of Vehicle Performance

Figure 2-3 provides a diagrammatic representation of mass compounding for a model of

Performance Performance model &

Mass balance Vehicle energy

Driving Component efficiency and vehicle

Figure 2-3: The effects of mass-compounding due to vehicle performance

The Significance of Driving Range as a Performance Target

Performance Performance model &

Mass balance Vehicle energy

Driving Component efficiency and vehicle

In contrast, technology assessment often involves wide-ranging comparisons of many

2.5 Outcomes of Literature Review

Each of these characteristics is consistent with the attributes of a lumped-parameter model.

INPUTS MODEL OUTPUTS

Performance Performance model &

Mass balance Vehicle energy

Driving Vehicle energy

Figure 3-1: The PAMVEC model