World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol.

7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA Page WEVJ7-0101

Goyang, Korea, May 3-6, 2015

An Accessible Pre-design Calculation Tool to Support the

Definition of EV Components
Topic: Electric Vehicle, Presentation preference: Lecture session

Roche, Sabrià, Mammetti

Marina Roche Arroyos, Applus IDIADA group, marina.roche@idiada.com
Dídac Sabrià, Applus IDIADA group, didac.sabria@idiada.com
Marco Mammetti, Applus IDIADA group, mmammetti@idiada.com

Abstract
The new freedoms in design that electric powertrains offer lead to a wide variety of configurations to
consider when developing an electric vehicle (EV) from scratch. Furthermore, the strong relation of the
battery size with vehicle weight, range and performances leads to a set of interrelated dependencies that
can result in many design loops to fulfil the targets and regulations simultaneously.
The paper presents a tool that integrates the main relations regarding vehicle targets, market and
regulations constraints and plots them as restrictions for vehicle development. As a result, the tool depicts
a set of feasible vehicle configurations that could fulfil the targets. Furthermore, to better assist selection,
it also provides a sensitivity analysis of the performances and the user can introduce a cost function
depending on vehicle weight and battery size. The tool is aimed at providing an overview of specifications
for component selection avoiding detailed vehicle modelling in the early pre-design phase in which vehicle
characteristics and even powertrain architecture are unknown.
Finally, the tool is evaluated by modelling one of its solutions for passenger car for three different
architectures in the simulation software vemSim. Furthermore, for one of the architectures, two control
strategies were simulated, leading to a total of four simulations. The results of the simulations are
compared to the solution of the pre-design tool to evaluate the level of fidelity and the deviations in the
final result that can appear depending on the architecture, components and control strategy.

Keywords: design, energy consumption, definition, simulation, performances

1 Introduction areas with high traffic volumes, polluted

Nowadays, transportation faces higher energy
costs and continuously increasing restrictive
emission targets, aiming at 95 g/km CO2 by the
year 2020. This implies the need for a significant
change in road vehicle propulsion technologies.
This need is especially patent in dense urban
atmosphere and high noise levels. Fully electric
vehicles (EVs) offer the potential to be locally
emission free and recover energy through
regeneration while meeting the individual mobility
demand of passenger cars as well as fleet vehicles.
In recent years, IDIADA has participated in
several EV research and development projects,

EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 1

World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA
namely ELVA, Electric Race Car, More Zero,
IMPROVE and Puma Mind (European Co-
funded projects), eTruck and VeLoW (locally co-
funded projects), and iShare, iTorque, eValuate
and vemSim (internally funded projects) as well
projects for clients. Based on the knowledge
obtained in these projects, IDIADA has
developed an interactive tool aimed at assisting
EV design in the very first development steps.
The main advantage of this tool is that it
interconnects calculations that typically involve
different departments in a loop; for example, the
target range and battery chemistry influence the
battery size, which affects the package and
vehicle weight, and thus the consumption and
range in an iterative loop. The tool was intended
to avoid the need to use complex simulation
models at the first stages of the design when the
components characteristics are not available. For
this purpose it provides the user a first insight
from a design point of view and sufficient
orientative information on the vehicle
requirements to fulfil the target performance and
package. A first approximation of a vehicle
solution which fulfils all these targets and the
market and regulation constraints is crucial to
speeding up the development process and
selecting the best powertrain architecture and
components for packaging, performances and
cost.
The paper is structured in three main parts: the
first describes the interactive tool that models the
constraints for the vehicle development and
illustrates it through a result example. In the
second, the same example vehicle is further
designed for three different architectures by
modelling each configuration in the in-house
developed simulation software vemSim. The
required vehicle specifications are re-calculated
in more detail for each architecture of EV.
Finally, the results from the pre-design tool and
the detailed simulation models are compared to
show that the pre-design tool can provide a good
guideline for component selection when the
package and the architecture are still to be
decided.
2 Pre-design tool
The pre-design tool was aimed at defining the
problem of EV development from an integrated
point of view to link the results that are
commonly obtained from longitudinal simulation
(consumption, performances, range) with the
package and regulations constraints. Commonly
EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition
Page WEVJ7-0102
a powertrain is defined with the eye on
consumption and is modified due to packaging
leading to a loop of iterations among departments
that whose modifications affect other departments.
The aim of the tool, despite its simplicity, is to
provide sufficient information on the vehicle
requirements to fulfil the different targets
simultaneously in order to reduce the iterations and
to avoid developing a complex longitudinal
simulation model at the first stage of development.
The solution suggested by the tool can be used as a
specification to select feasible components and
start the development saving many design loops.
Figure 1: Interface with highlighted inputs.
The pre-design tool (Figure 1) was developed in
Matlab. The process to find a solution is focused
on the design and package concerns: what volume
should I keep for the battery? What is my mass
target? How much will the battery weight? In the
tool GUI inputs area the user receives a hint of
typical, minimum and maximum values of each
input for the selected vehicle segment as a guide.
The dynamic GUI is programmed so the result of
the calculation is refreshed instantaneously when
the user modifies an input value. The interface
permits to input the main targets and parameters
that affect vehicle longitudinal dynamics [1]:
- 𝑖: Vehicle segment
- battery type: default chemistries [2, 3]
- εbat : battery vol. energy density (kWh/l)
- ρbat : battery density (kg/l)
- πbat : battery vol. power density (kW/l)
- η̅: average powertrain efficiency (%)
- Af : aerodynamic frontal area (m2)
- Cx: aerodynamic drag coefficient
- PAux: auxiliaries power consumption (W)
- f: rolling resistance [4] (kg/ton)
- x: motor torque characteristic (see Figure 3)
- Reg: recovered energy in deceleration (%)
- Irot: rotating parts equivalent inertia (%)
- mload : payload mass (kg) (if applies)
2
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA
- R1−3 : vehicle range targets in up to three
cycles (loaded or unloaded)
- vmax: target vehicle speed (m/s)
- t a : target 0-100 km/h acceleration (s)
- tan⁡(α): gradeability target (%)
- 𝐶 : Cost function as a function of battery
capacity and vehicle mass
- red. Finally, the restrictions caused by the range
The results that the tool provides mainly consist
of a plot of the deterministic development
constraints that can be calculated through
physical laws, a plot that represents an estimated
cost comparison of the different solutions and a
sensitivity plot that shows the impact of
improving some inputs in consumption.
2.1 Deterministic constraints plot
As all the main design parameters are interrelated
(range - battery size - vehicle weight –
consumption - power required, etc.) and lead to
iterations, an effort was made to express the
requirements due to the targets and regulations as
a function of two single constraints: battery
volume and vehicle mass. The solution is
presented in terms of this two variables in a two-
dimensional plot. The principle of linear
programming was used to apply linear inequation
constraints to check whether there is a set of
solutions that fulfil all the requirements and, if
not, which limitations should be modified. If
there is a solution, the feasible solutions region is
a convex polyhedron, which is defined by the
intersection of the half spaces defined by linear
inequations representing the battery volume and
vehicle mass constraints as shown in Figure 2. In
this example, there is a set of configurations that
could lead to feasible solutions.
Figure 2: Internal tool result with numbered
constraints.
EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition
Page WEVJ7-0103
It can be observed that the half spaces defined by
the constraints are coloured for better
understanding: the restrictions regarding mass (due
to market practices, structural feasibility or
regulations) are coloured in dark blue, the
constraints coming from performance targets or
power limitations in regulations are coloured in
targets are coloured in cyan.
The possibility to dynamically modify the inputs
and obtain a picture of the feasible solutions is
helpful in determining the most restrictive
requirements and for decision-making in vehicle
development. It must be noted that the restrictions
applied by the inputs are deterministic, and all of
them can be expressed in the form of inequations.
The equations describing the 13 constraints are
defined in the following paragraphs in terms of
vehicle mass (𝒎) and/or battery volume (𝑽). The
list of all the abbreviations used can be consulted
at the end of the paper.
1.1.1 Vehicle segment constraints
The following equations describe the constraints
caused by the market practices, structural
feasibility and mass restrictions in regulations.
 Maximum battery volume: it is restricted by the
possible available space per segment (ineq. 1).
⁡⁡⁡𝑽 < 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(1)
 Minimum battery volume: it must fulfil a
consistent minimum defined per segment (ineq. 2).
⁡⁡⁡𝑽 > 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑖 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(2)
 Maximum battery mass: for each vehicle mass
there is a battery mass limit for structural
feasibility. The minimum feasible mass without
battery (𝑚𝑊/𝑂 ) for each segment leads to a battery
mass and volume limit (ineq. 3).
(𝒎−𝑚𝑊/𝑂,𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑖 ⁡)
⁡⁡⁡𝑽 < ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(3)
𝜌𝑏𝑎𝑡
 Maximum vehicle mass: it must be consistent
with the vehicle segment (ineq. 4).
⁡⁡⁡𝒎 < 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(4)
For light duty vehicles, if a payload is selected, the
vehicle mass is also limited by the maximum
Gross Vehicle Weight of 3500 kg specified in
regulations [5] (ineq. 5).
⁡⁡⁡𝒎 < 𝑚𝑖𝑛⁡(⁡𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 ⁡, (3500 − 𝑚𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 ))⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(5)
 Minimum vehicle mass: it is defined to allow
structural feasibility (ineq. 6).
⁡⁡⁡𝒎 > 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑖 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(6)
 Quadricycle mass limit: the mass without
battery is limited in regulations [6] to 350 kg and
400 kg for light and heavy quadricycles, which
implies a minimum battery mass and volume if the
vehicle mass is high (ineq. 7).
3
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA Page WEVJ7-0104

⁡⁡⁡𝑽 >
(𝒎−𝑚𝑊/𝑂,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 ⁡)
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(7) relevance of 𝑥 is stated since motors with very
𝜌𝑏𝑎𝑡 different torque can provide the same acceleration
performance.
1.1.2 Power constraints
The power constraints [1] are defined by the
battery power limitations and the vehicle power
requirements to fulfil the targets. The auxiliary
variables defined in eq. (8-13) are required for
the calculations.
1
⁡⁡⁡𝐹2 = 2 · 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 · 𝐶𝑥 · 𝐴𝑓 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(8)

⁡⁡⁡𝑘 = 1 + 𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑡 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(9)

⁡⁡⁡𝑚𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎 = 𝑚𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 + 𝑚𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(10)
⁡⁡⁡𝑚 𝑇 = 𝒎 + 𝑚𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(11)
⁡⁡⁡𝐹0 = 𝑓 · (𝑚𝑇 (𝒎)) · 𝑔⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(12)
⁡⁡⁡𝑚𝑒𝑞 = 𝒎 · 𝑘 + 𝑚𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(13)
 Maximum speed: the power required at a
reference grade depends on the vehicle mass and
payload (eq. 14) and leads to a battery volume
requirement to provide the power (ineq. 15).
3 governed by a constant power limitation and
⁡⁡⁡𝑃𝑣 = 𝐹2 · 𝑣max + 𝑚 𝑇 (𝒎) · 𝑔 · 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 ·
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(𝑓 · cos(𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) + sin(𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑓 ))⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(14)
𝑃𝑣 (𝒎)⁡
(
𝜂𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘
+𝑃𝐴𝑢𝑥 )
⁡⁡⁡𝑽 > ⁡ 𝜋𝑏𝑎𝑡
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(15)
 Gradeability: this target mainly influences the
torque requirement which is an output of the tool
because it does directly affect the battery size and
vehicle mass iterations. Even though, the
gradeability target at a reference speed implies a
power delivery that depends on the vehicle mass
(eq. 16) and entails a battery volume requirement
(ineq. 17).
3
⁡⁡⁡𝑃𝛼 = 𝐹2 · + 𝑚 𝑇 (𝒎) · 𝑔 · 𝑣𝑟𝑒𝑓 ·
𝑣𝑟𝑒𝑓
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(𝑓 · cos(𝛼) + sin(𝛼))⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(16)
Figure 3: Different possible motor characteristic curves
for same 0-100 km/h acceleration time.
For combustion vehicles, acceleration usually
requires to be simulated in time steps, which is not
suitable to provide instantaneous results in a pre-
design tool. However, the maximum torque curve
of an electric motor can be simplified in constant
torque region and a decreasing torque region
therefore the calculation can be divided in two
steps. This hypothesis allowed the calculation of
the power and torque requirement at vehicle level
with a simplified equation obtained through
integration of Newton’s second law under the
assumption of average drag power as specified in
[7]. Consequently, the power needed to reach the
acceleration target is calculated through the eq.
(19-22).
2
(𝑣𝑏′ +𝑣𝑎2 )
⁡⁡⁡𝐸⁡ = ⁡ ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(19)
2·𝑡𝑎
2
⁡⁡⁡𝐹⁡ = 5 · 𝐹2 · 𝑣𝑎3⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(20)
2
⁡⁡⁡𝐺⁡ = ⁡⁡ 3 · 𝑣𝑎 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(21)
⁡⁡⁡𝑃𝑎 ⁡ = 𝐸 · 𝑚𝑒𝑞 (𝒎)⁡ + 𝐹 + 𝐺 · 𝐹0 (𝒎)⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(22)

(
𝑃𝛼 (𝒎)⁡
+𝑃𝐴𝑢𝑥 ) Where the values of 𝑣𝑎 and 𝑣𝑏′ used depend on the
𝜂𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘
⁡⁡⁡𝑽 > ⁡ ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(17) vehicle characteristics (eq. 23-24). 𝑣𝑎 is the target
𝜋𝑏𝑎𝑡
speed to which the vehicle must accelerate (100
 Acceleration time 0–100 km/h: this target km/h unless the vehicle is limited) and 𝑣′𝑏 is the
implies a power demand that depends on the base speed unless it is higher than 𝑣𝑎 .
motor characteristic𝑥 . In an electric motor the
⁡⁡⁡𝑣𝑎 = ⁡min⁡(𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 100)⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(23)
base speed is known as the speed in which the ′
motor switches from a constant torque operation ⁡⁡⁡𝑣𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 = ⁡min⁡(𝑣𝑎 , 𝑣𝑏 )⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(24)
to a constant power operation (eq. 18) [7]. Finally, the battery volume constraint due to
𝑣
⁡⁡𝑥 = ⁡ 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑣
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(18) acceleration target can be calculated (ineq. 25).
𝑏
𝑃𝑎 (𝒎)⁡
For a better understanding of this magnitude, ( +𝑃𝐴𝑢𝑥 )⁡
𝜂𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘
Figure 3 depicts different motors torque ⁡⁡⁡𝑽 > ⁡ ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(25)
𝜋𝑏𝑎𝑡
characteristics that performed the same 0-100
km/h acceleration time in simulation. The

EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 4

World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA Page WEVJ7-0105

 Quadricycle continuous power limit: this divided into two coefficients: one that depends
limitation is defined in regulations [6] as 4 kW only on the cycle selected and one that depends
for light quadricycles and 15 kW for heavy just on the vehicle characteristics as specified in
quadricycles. The power limit defines a mass eq. (30), where 𝐵 is the energy consumption and 𝑅
that, if exceeded, the performance targets cannot the regeneration factor.
be reached within the regulations framework. For 1
each power requirement (speed, gradeability and ⁡⁡𝐵 = · (𝐹0 (𝒎) · 𝐶1 + 𝐹2 · 𝐶2 + 𝑚𝑒𝑞 (𝒎) · 𝐶3 ) +

̅
acceleration) this limit mass is calculated (eq. 26- ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡
̅ · 𝑅 · (𝐹0 (𝒎) · 𝐶4 + 𝐹2 · 𝐶5 + 𝑚𝑒𝑞 (𝒎) · 𝐶6 ) +
28) to lead to the restriction in ineq. (29).
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡𝑃𝐴𝑢𝑥 · 𝐶7 (30)
3
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 −𝐹2 ·𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 ⁡
⁡⁡⁡𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑣 = 𝑣 − Thus, the cycle dependent coefficients are defined
𝑚𝑎𝑥 ·(𝑓·cos(𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑓 )+sin(𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑓 ))·𝑔
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡𝑚𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎⁡ ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(26) in eq. (31-40) where 𝜒⁡represents a step function.
Since the maximum vehicle speed can be decided
3
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 −𝐹2 ·𝑣𝑟𝑒𝑓 by the user, the cycle’s speed profiles 𝑣(𝑡) are also
⁡⁡⁡𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝛼 = 3 ⁡⁡ −
𝑣𝑟𝑒𝑓 ·(𝑓·cos(𝛼)+sin(𝛼))·𝑔 modified consequently [5] under the speed limit to
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡𝑚𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(27) calculate the cycle coefficients.
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 −𝐹−(𝐸+𝐺·𝑓·𝑔)·𝑚𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎 ⁡
⁡⁡⁡𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑎 ⁡ = ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(28) 𝐶1 = ∫ 𝑣(𝑡) · 𝜒1 (𝑡) · 𝑑𝑡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(31)
(𝐸·𝑘+𝐺·𝑓·𝑔)
⁡⁡⁡𝐶2 = ∫ 𝑣(𝑡)3 · 𝜒1 (𝑡) · 𝑑𝑡 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(32)
⁡⁡⁡𝒎 < min(𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑣 ,⁡𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝛼 , 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑎 )⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(29) 𝑑𝑣(𝑡)
⁡⁡⁡𝐶3 = ∫ 𝑣(𝑡) · 𝑑𝑡
· 𝜒1 (𝑡) · 𝑑𝑡 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(33)
1.1.3 Energy constraints 𝑑𝑣(𝑡)
1, 𝑑𝑡
≥ 0⁡
Range in cycle 1: The vehicle must be ⁡⁡⁡where⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡𝜒1 (𝑡) = { 𝑑𝑣(𝑡)
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(34)
dimensioned to provide a consumption [5, 8] 0, 𝑑𝑡
<0
with which the target range in the specified
regulations or duty cycle can be satisfied. The ⁡⁡⁡𝐶4 = ∫ 𝑣(𝑡) · 𝜒2 (𝑡) · 𝑑𝑡 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(35)
connection between battery volume and vehicle ⁡⁡⁡𝐶5 = ∫ 𝑣(𝑡)3 · 𝜒2 (𝑡) · 𝑑𝑡 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(36)
weight is very noticeable in terms of energy 𝑑𝑣(𝑡)
⁡⁡⁡𝐶6 = ∫ 𝑣(𝑡) · 𝑑𝑡
· 𝜒2 (𝑡) · 𝑑𝑡 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(37)
constraints, because a bigger battery to increase
the range also increases the weight and thus, 𝑑𝑣(𝑡)
0, 𝑑𝑡
≥ 0⁡
consumption. where⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡𝜒2 (𝑡) = { 𝑑𝑣(𝑡)
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(38)
To properly simulate an accurate consumption, a 1, 𝑑𝑡
<0
longitudinal dynamics simulation of a vehicle
⁡⁡⁡𝐶7 = ∫ 𝑑𝑡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(39)
model with components’ submodels is required.
However, this simulation cannot be executed in ⁡⁡⁡𝐷 = ∫ 𝑣(𝑡) · 𝑑𝑡 ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(40)
the pre-design tool interactive interface due to its The simplification stated in eq. (30-39) allows
runtime (>2s) and the lack of component quick characterization of the relative importance of
characteristics inputs at the first development the three main consumption sources in different
phase. cycles that can be used to perform a sensitivity
analysis (Figure 6). Through the simplified
Therefore, the tool was aimed at overcoming this
formula, the consumption is modelled as a function
obstacle during pre-design. One of the most
of the vehicle mass, and with the target range, the
remarkable contributions of the tool was the
battery volume requirement can be related to the
parameterization of the consumption in a specific
vehicle mass (ineq. 41).
cycle with a single formula that requires just
𝑅1 ⁡
simple vehicle characteristic inputs. This formula 𝑽 > 𝐵(𝒎) ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(41)
is based on a backward-looking vehicle model in ·𝜀𝑏𝑎𝑡 ·𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚
𝐷
which the main consumption sources were Range in cycles 2 and 3: extra range
classified in inertia (also considering requirements for other cycles.
regeneration), rolling resistance and aerodynamic
resistance forces. The main assumption that the
2.2 Non-deterministic constraints
user has to make is the average working
efficiency of the powertrain (inverter + motor + The constraints specified in the previous
transmission), to which reference information is paragraphs can be expressed through physical
provided. Assuming that the average efficiency equations and limit the possible feasible solutions.
input is correct, each consumption source can be However, how to select an optimal solution within

EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 5

World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA Page WEVJ7-0106

the viable region is not ruled by deterministic Table 1: Main vehicle inputs for the pre-design tool
equations. The cost objective function commonly Aerodynamic drag coefficient (Cx) 0.28
used in linear programming is not Frontal area (m2) 2.19
straightforward for this situation, as it depends on Tire consumption class [4] C
discrete and non-linear characteristics such as the Auxiliaries consumption (W) 450
powertrain architecture, the components selected, Battery vol. energy density (Wh/l) 0.24
the usage or not of high-technology lightweight Battery mass energy density (Wh/kg) 0.132
materials, the development costs and the vehicle Motor torque characteristic ⁡𝑥 3
manufacturing volume and procedure. The Battery State Of Charge limit 10%
weighting of all these factors in the final cost to
make a final decision requires a proper market The tool also needs some powertrain estimations to
study, interaction among departments, internal be performed by the user to calculate the result.
company knowledge and direct contact with These estimations are the average working
TIERs for components quotations. efficiency of the whole powertrain (motor +
transmission), the amount of brake torque that is
To better assist the decision-making inside the performed by the regenerative brake and the ratio
viable region, the pre-design tool allows of the inertia of the rotating parts to the total
introducing two cost functions, one that is vehicle mass. The values used for the example are
dependent on the battery capacity and one that is the default values of the tool for a C-segment
dependent on the mass of the vehicle without the (Table 2) and are representative of the market.
battery, and represents the cost of the rest of the
material. The total cost function is then defined Table 2: Powertrain assumptions for the pre-design tool
by equation 42. The specific coefficients that rule Rotating parts equivalent inertia 5%
each cost function have to be decided based on Powertrain average efficiency 75%
the know-how, the production volume, the Amount of regenerative brake 85%
manufacturing process and the market. Figure
5shows an example of application of a cost The main development targets for the example
function to the feasible results area. vehicle are presented in Table 3. The WLTP cycle
𝑪 = 𝑓(𝑽 · 𝜀𝑏𝑎𝑡 ) + 𝑓(𝒎 − 𝑽 · 𝜌𝑏𝑎𝑡 )⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(42) (Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test
Procedures) [9] of Figure 4 was selected as target
cycle in which to achieve 200 km range.
2.3 Sensitivity analysis
Table 3: Main vehicle targets for the pre-design tool
In some cases and depending on the background
of the user, it is difficult to predict in advance WLTP Range (km) 200
which modifications will improve consumption Max Speed (km/h) 140
and, furthermore, which will affect consumption Gradeability 30%
more. For this purpose, once the user selects a 0-100 km/h acceleration (s) 10.5
point inside the feasible region, a sensitivity 150

analysis can be performed to show the magnitude

in which different parameters 𝑛 affect
consumption 𝐵 (eq. 43) for the first selected 100
Velocity (km/h)

cycle as shown in Figure 6. The sensitivity

analysis is a good overview of the influence of
50
different parameters on consumption to evaluate
the most cost-effective measure.
∆𝑩⁄ ⁡
𝑩
𝑆𝒏 = ∆𝒏⁄ ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(𝟒𝟑)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
𝒏 Time (s)

Figure 4: WLTP cycle profile [9]

2.4 Pre-design Tool Use Example
In this section, the pre-design tool was used to
estimate the main specifications of a C-segment
passenger car. The main inputs regarding vehicle
characteristics are presented in Table 1 and are in
accordance with the market values for a C-
segment vehicle.
The cost function of the battery and the vehicle
mass without the battery were determined based on
two studies [10, 11]. As discussed in these studies,
the battery was considered to have a linear cost
increase with the capacity and the weight of the
vehicle was considered to have a non-linear trend.
The lightweight design implies less amount of

EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 6

World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA Page WEVJ7-0107

materials but also more development costs and torque are calculated regardless of the vehicle
more expensive high-technology materials, architecture and thus are indicated at wheel level.
namely aluminium or carbon fibre. However, an With these specifications the user can evaluate if a
increase of the mass due to a low investment in specific architecture, motor and transmission can
design also causes a cost increase due to the need fulfil the performance targets taking into account
to use more kilograms of steel. Therefore, the the motor characteristic and the transmission ratio
function of the mass-dependent cost has a local and efficiency.
minimum. Figure 5 shows the feasible region Table 4: Pre-design tool specifications result
obtained for a C-segment vehicle with the
characteristics of Tables 1 and 2 and the targets Vehicle mass (kg) 1550
of Table 3. It can be observed that the battery Battery mass (kg) 252
size for this case is determined by the target Battery volume (l) 139
range (cyan area) and not by the power that the Battery power (kW) 110
battery has to deliver for the target acceleration Battery capacity (kWh) 33.3
(red area). Furthermore, it is also visible how the Tractive power on the wheel (kW) 81.8
battery size requirement increases (capacity and Tractive torque on the wheel (Nm) 2020
battery volume) with the vehicle weight because Max rotating wheel speed (rpm) 1160
it implies more consumption and, therefore, a Consumption (Wh/km) 150
bigger battery to achieve the same range.
Finally, a sensitivity analysis can be performed
which modification would have a higher impact on
consumption for the specific case study (Figure 6).
It is notable, that for EV, an increase of 5% in the
average powertrain efficiency has more than 5%
positive impact on the total consumption. This
phenomenon occurs because when the powertrain
is more efficient, not only does the vehicle
consume less in traction mode (almost 5% less),
but it also regenerates more when braking (almost
5% more), leading to an impact higher than the
relative improvement.

Figure 5 Feasible for a C-segment vehicle and cost

function
Figure 5 also shows the cost function for the
different combinations of vehicle mass and
battery size. The optimal is to select the
minimum battery that allows the range (line
limiting with the cyan area) because a bigger
battery would increase the range over the target
but also the cost. Over the minimum battery line,
the cost function has a local minimum around Figure 6: Sensitivity analysis in WLTP
1500 kg. A lower mass would increase the cost
of the materials, and a higher mass would 3 Simulation with vemSim
increase the size of the battery and the amount of
The pre-design example specification results were
material required.
used to define three concept vehicles with different
For this example a mass of 1550 kg was
powertrain architectures. A longitudinal simulation
considered a good approach for the vehicle. The
model was developed for each concept vehicle to
results that the pre-design tool provided for this
accurately simulate the performances and
case are presented in Table 4. The results that
consumption of each vehicle with the combined
the tool provides in terms of tractive power and

EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 7

World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA Page WEVJ7-0108

backward/forward simulation method of vemSim 3.2 Longitudinal Architecture

[12], a vehicle longitudinal dynamic simulation The first powertrain architecture considered was a
software in Matlab/Simulink environment longitudinal front wheel drive architecture with
developed by IDIADA. one motor of 85 kW and 270 Nm, a single-stage
The objective of the detailed simulation is to reducer and a differential. This case study is very
obtain more accurate performance and close to a conventional ICE architecture. Figure 7
consumption values based on components shows the corresponding simulation model.
characteristics and the dynamic behaviour of the
vehicle. However, for the simulation models the
vehicle mass and battery size are inputs, so the
simulation models have to be run in an iterative
loops to recalculate the battery capacity and thus
the vehicle total mass until a range of 200 km in
WLTP is achieved. Finally, the battery capacity
and vehicle mass simulated for each model after
the iterative loop can be compared to the
estimation provided by the pre-design tool to
assess the level of fidelity that can be obtained Figure 7: Longitudinal architecture model in vemSim
with the tool.
After iteration, the simulation results obtained
3.1 Calculation Input when the 200 km WLTP range target was fulfilled
are summarized in Table 6. The distribution of the
The inputs used that are common with the pre-
operative points of the efficiency map in which the
design tool example were the vehicle
motor works is shown in Figure 8. It can be
characteristics of Table 1 and a target range of
observed that the motor usually operates in low
200 km in WLTP. The tractive specifications on
efficiency points.
the wheel provided as a result by the tool were
also used. As the tool provides the tractive power Table 6: Longitudinal architecture simulation results
required at wheel level, not at motor level, a total Powertrain mass (kg) 60
motor power of 85 kW was used as input. The Battery mass (kg) 252
motor instantaneous efficiency during the Total vehicle mass (kg) 1512
operation in the WLTP cycle was calculated Battery capacity (kWh) 33.8
based on a motor 2D efficiency map as a Battery volume (l) 141
function of speed and torque. The same reference Consumption (Wh/km) 153
efficiency map representative of the market 0-100 km/h acceleration (s) 10.2
values was used for the three architectures to Average powertrain efficiency 75.6 %
compare them in a common framework. For Amount of regenerative brake 90%
Rotating parts equivalent inertia 4.79%
better comparison, it was considered that the base
vehicle mass (without battery and powertrain) of
the three models was the same and that the final
mass differed in the powertrain and battery mass.
The summary of the inputs used is listed Table 5.
Table 5: Extra inputs for simulation models
Base vehicle mass (kg) 1200
Total motor power (kW) 85
Total motor torque (Nm) 270
Motor efficiency 2D map
Dynamic wheel radius (m) 0.32
Single-stage reducer ratio 3.5
Single-stage reducer efficiency 98%
Differential radio 2.2 Figure 8: Longitudinal architecture motor operative
Differential efficiency 95% points and efficiency map
Two-stage reducer ratio 7.7
Two-stage reducer efficiency 96% It can be observed that the results obtained for this
architecture after iteration are very close to those
obtained with the pre-design tool. The assumption

EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 8

World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA
of powertrain average efficiency, amount of
recovered energy and rotating parts inertia that
was required as input for the pre-design tool
(Table 2), is also very close to the results
obtained after simulation for this configuration.
3.3 Two motors-to-wheel architecture
The second architecture consisted of a front
wheel drive vehicle with two motors connected
directly to the wheels (without differential)
through two-stage reducers. This configuration
makes use of the new freedoms in design that
electric powertrains provide. The motors used for
simulation had 42.5 kW and 135 Nm to provide a
total power of 85 kW. Figure 9 shows the
corresponding simulation model.
Figure 9: Two motors to wheel model in vemSim
After iteration, the simulation results obtained for
a 200 km WLTP range are summarized in Table
7. The distribution of the operative points in
which the motor works is very similar to the one
shown in Figure 8 because the torque split
between the motors in longitudinal condition is
50%.
Table 7: Longitudinal architecture simulation results
Powertrain mass (kg)
Battery mass (kg)
Total vehicle mass (kg)
Battery capacity (kWh)
Battery volume (l)
Consumption (Wh/km)
0-100 km/h acceleration (s)
Average powertrain efficiency
Amount of regenerative brake
Rotating parts equivalent inertia
The powertrain weight is higher than in the
previous case because of the two motors and two
reducers. However, the average powertrain
efficiency is better because the two-stage reducer
efficiency is higher than the one of the single-
stage reducer and differential. Therefore, in
overall the consumption and the battery size is
EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition
Page WEVJ7-0109
lower and the total vehicle mass is just 12 kg
higher.
3.4 Four motors-to-wheel architecture
The third case was an all-wheel drive (AWD)
configuration with four motors and reducers to
wheel (Figure 10). Each motor can provide 21.25
kW and 67.5 Nm.
Figure 10: AWD architecture model in vemSim
This configuration allows implementing an energy
management operating strategy to optimize the
torque delivery among the front and rear motors to
minimize consumption without compromising
performance. To do this, a controller was included
in the model to calculate when it is more efficient
to deliver the torque with just two motors or to
split it between the four motors. The motor
operative points distribution that are obtained with
no operation strategy (25% torque for each motor)
are very similar to the ones depicted in Figure 8.
However, when the optimized strategy is
implemented, the motors work at higher efficiency
points (Figure 11) and strong average efficiency
improvements can be achieved (Table 7).
80
244
1524
32.7
136
153
10.65
77.9 %
90%
6.26%
Figure 11: AWD architecture with energy management
strategy front motors (blue) and rear motors (yellow)
operative points
An optimized control strategy yields higher
average powertrain efficiency and thus lower
9
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA Page WEVJ7-0110

consumption, smaller battery and lower vehicle assumption was very close to the value obtained
mass that also has an effect in consumption. with the longitudinal architecture. However, the
Table 8 compares the results that are obtained for average efficiency is higher for the configurations
this configuration without an operating strategy without differential because the pinion crown used
and with the optimized controller. With the to change the direction of the torque delivery from
optimized strategy, even though the vehicle mass longitudinal to transversal is no longer required.
increases due to the extra powertrain The optimized operating strategy for four motors
components, the vehicle consumption and battery to wheel also increases the average efficiency from
size is lower than the one obtained with the other 78% to 81%.
architectures. Thus, this reduction in battery size
may compensate the cost increase due to the
more complex architecture.
Table 8: Longitudinal architecture simulation results
Torque split 25% Optimized
Powertrain mass (kg) 137 137
Battery mass (kg) 250 235
Total vehicle mass (kg) 1587 1571
Battery capacity (kWh) 33.5 31.4
Battery volume (l) 140 131
Consumption (Wh/km) 151 142
0-100 km/h acceleration (s) 11.2 11.1
Average powertrain efficiency 78.2 % 81.3% Figure 12: Average efficiency of the powertrain for each
Amount of regenerative brake 89% 90% configuration and comparison with the pre-design tool
Rotating parts inertia 9.18% 9.27%
In the next paragraphs, the results estimated with
the pre-design tool and the simulated ones are
4 Simulation and Pre-design compared to study the level confidence of the tool
for each architecture even though the differences
Tool Results Comparison in powertrain efficiency. In Figure 13 the vehicle
The four solutions calculated with the vehicle mass results is compared. It shows that the use of
longitudinal dynamics models were compared to four motors and reducers implies an increase of the
the estimation suggested by the pre-design tool to powertrain mass, but that the two motors
assess the level of accuracy that can be achieved configuration implies only a small increase with
with this tool when the architecture is not even regard to the longitudinal configuration because
defined. the differential is removed. A difference in mass is
The most critical assumption when using the pre- also observed for the AWD configuration with
design tool is the average efficiency of the optimized operating strategy because the battery
powertrain. The efficiency has a big impact in size is reduced. The pre-design tool estimation was
consumption as shown in Figure 6 and thus in close to the final results in a +- 4% interval, which
battery size and vehicle weight. However, the can be considered a good estimation taking into
average efficiency of the powertrain is hard to account the low level of complexity of the inputs.
estimate because it includes the efficiency of the
transmission (that depends on the architecture
that is not defined in the pre-design phase), the
efficiency map of the motor (that is not selected)
and the distribution of the operative points that
depends on the energy management strategy, the
cycle and the motor vehicle power among others.
For the example presented on the paper, an
average efficiency of 75% was selected as a
representative value for a longitudinal or
transversal powertrain. Figure 12 shows the
efficiency obtained through simulation for each
vehicle architecture in comparison with the input
to the pre-design tool and the absolute error that
was performed with the pre-design tool for each Figure 13: Total mass for each configuration and
case. It can be observed that the initial comparison with the pre-design tool

EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 10

World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA
Figure 14 shows the kilometric consumption,
which is an effect of the vehicle weight and the
powertrain average efficiency among other
sources. In this case, even though the AWD
configuration implies a higher vehicle mass, the
kilometric consumption and thus, the battery
size, can be reduced if an optimized operation
strategy is implemented. The results provided by
the pre-design tool were very close to the
simulation and the main difference appears for
the last configuration due to the difference in
average efficiency.
Figure 14: Consumption for each configuration and
comparison with the pre-design tool
The same trend can be observed in Figure 15 for
the battery capacity required for each
configuration to achieve 200 km range. The
configuration with four motors to wheel and an
optimized operating strategy requires less battery
capacity than the other configurations, which
could compensate for the extra-cost required by
the more complex powertrain.
Figure 15: Battery capacity required for each
configuration and comparison with the pre-design tool
The 0-100 km/h acceleration time presented in
Figure 16 shows that the pre-design tool can also
provide a good guide in this field. The simulated
acceleration time depends on the final vehicle
mass (the tool estimation was 1550 kg) and the
power on the wheel that was 79.1 kW for the
longitudinal configuration, 81.6 kW for the other
EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition
Page WEVJ7-0111
configurations and 81.8 kW what the tool
calculated. It can be observed that even though the
mass and power difference the tool estimation is
within the +-6% error interval.
Figure 16: 0-100 km/h acceleration time for each
configuration and comparison with the pre-design tool
Conclusion
This paper has presented a pre-design tool to assist
the electric vehicle development process. The
advantage of the tool is its capability to represent
the different development constraints that are
affected by regulations and the decision-making of
various departments in a single dynamic plot in an
interactive interface. The tool makes use of the
equations that are used to perform longitudinal
dynamic simulations. However, these equations
were studied to obtain simple approximations to
avoid performing step-by-step simulations and
produce instantaneous results. The main advantage
of this tool is that it interconnects calculations that
typically involve various departments in a loop to
reduce the iterations in the pre-design phase. The
tool was intended to provide the user a first insight
from a design point of view and sufficient
information on the vehicle requirements to fulfil
the performance targets regardless of the
powertrain architecture. The main equations and
assumptions introduced in the tool to obtain these
targets are explained in this paper. Finally, the
usage of the tool is illustrated through one example
that is then further developed in three different
powertrain architectures and simulated in the
software vemSim to assess the level of accuracy
that can be achieved with the estimation that the
pre-design tool provides.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to
the powertrain and design departments of Applus
IDIADA.
11
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA Page WEVJ7-0112

References Mr Dídac Sabrià holds an Industrial

Engineering degree and a diploma in
1. Robert Bosch GmbH, “Bosch Automotive Automotive Engineering. He joined
Handbook”, ISBN 0470519363, 9780470519363, IDIADA in 2014 as a powertrain
2008 integration engineer for research in
2. Dávila, A., Romero, E., Roche, M., Mammetti, vehicle modelling and software
M. et al., "The ELVA Project's EV Design development. He has also undertaken
Support Tool," SAE Technical Paper 2014-01- research on two-wheeler fuel cell
1967, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-1967. vehicles at the Politechnic University
3. Dávila, A., Romero, E., Gutiérrez, J., Mammetti, of Catalonia.
et al., “ELVA Project – Innovative Approaches
for Electric Vehicle Design,” FISITA 2014 World Dr Mammetti holds a PhD in
Automotive Congress, Maastricht, The Mechanics and an Aeronautical
Netherlands, F2014-MVC-032. degree. Since 2009 he has worked in
4. UN/ECE Regulation No. 1222/2009, “Labelling IDIADA as powertrain integration
of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other Product Manager. Recent activities
essential parameters”. include powertrain conversions for
5. Regulation No 83 of the Economic Commission consumption reduction or full
for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE), electrification. In 2006 he was
“Uniform provisions concerning the approval of responsible for powertrain integration
vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants at Maserati and before for engine
according to engine fuel requirements”. performance, calibration and
6. Directive 2002/24/EC relating to the type innovation at Ferrari.
approval of two or three wheel motor vehicles
7. Ehsani, M., Gao, Y., Gay, S. E., Texas A&M
University, Ali Emadi, Illinois Institute of
Abbreviations
Technology, “Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, 𝛼 Gradeability target (º)
and Fuel Cell Vehicles, Fundamentals, Theory, 𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑓 Reference grade for speed target (º)
and Design,” 2005 by CRC Press LLC. p.108. 𝜒1 (𝑡) True when positive or null acceleration in a
8. ISO 2416:1992; Passenger cars – Mass cycle
distribution; 1992 𝜒2 (𝑡) True when negative acceleration in a cycle
9. UN/ECE, Informal document No.WLTP-01-03, 𝜀𝑏𝑎𝑡 Battery volumetric energy density (kWh/l)
“Status of the work of the motor industry with 𝜂𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 Peak powertrain efficiency (%)
respect to a global technical regulation on 𝜋𝑏𝑎𝑡 Battery volumetric power density (kW/l)
Worldwide Harmonized Light-duty Test 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 Air density (kg/m3)
Procedures (WLTP)”. 𝜌𝑏𝑎𝑡 Battery density (kg/l)
10. Redelbach, M., Klötzke, M., Friedrich, H. E., 𝐴𝑓 Aerodynamic frontal area (m2)
“Impact of lightweight design on energy 𝐵 Consumption in a specific cycle (kWh)
consumption and cost effectiveness of alternative 𝐶 Cost function as a function of battery
powertrain concepts”, EEVC, Brussels 2012. capacity and vehicle mass
11. Mckinsey & Company, “Lightweight, heavy 𝐶1−7 Coefficients to compute the contribution of
impact”. different consumption sources in a cycle
12. Roche, M., Mammetti, M. “An Innovative 𝐶𝑥 Aerodynamic drag coefficient
Vehicle Behaviour Modelling Methodology for 𝐷 Distance overtook during a cycle (m)
Model-Based Development”, SAE Technical 𝐸 Coefficient to compute the inertia
Paper 2015-01-0165, 2015. contribution to the acceleration power
requirements (kW/kg)
Authors 𝐹 Coefficient to compute the drag contribution
to the acceleration power requirements (kW)
Ms Marina Roche holds Mechanical 𝐹0 Coast Down coefficient to compute the
and Industrial Engineering degrees constant resistance forces (N)
both with honours. In 2012 she joined 𝐹2 Coast Down coefficient to compute the
IDIADA to undertake research in square-speed dependent resistance forces
vehicle modelling, Wavelet NVH (N/(m2/s2))
analysis and software development. 𝐺 Coefficient to compute the constant
She has previously carried out resistance forces contribution to acceleration
research at the University of Zaragoza power (m/s)
on modelling the combustion of 𝑓 Tire rolling resistance (kg/t)
gaseous fuels in IC engine.
𝑔 Gravity constant (m/s2)

EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 12

World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 7 - ISSN 2032-6653 - ©2015 WEVA Page WEVJ7-0113

𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑡 Relation of rotating parts equivalent inertia

to vehicle mass (%)
𝑖 Segment selected
𝑘 Vehicle inertia coefficient
𝒎 Vehicle mass (kg)
𝑚𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 Driver mass (kg)
𝑚𝑒𝑞 Equivalent total mass considering inertia
(kg)
𝑚𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎 Extra mass applied (driver + load) (kg)
𝑚𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 Payload mass (kg)
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 ⁡⁡ Upper vehicle mass limit per segment (kg)
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑖 Lower vehicle mass limit per segment (kg)
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑎 Quadricycles: acceleration target mass
limit (kg)
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝛼 Quadricycles: gradeability target mass limit
(kg)
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑣 Quadricycles: speed target mass limit (kg)
𝑚𝑇 Total mass (vehicle + driver + load) (kg)
𝑚𝑊/𝑂,𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑖 Lower limit to vehicle mass without battery
(kg)
𝑚𝑊/𝑂,𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑖 Quadricycles: upper limit to vehicle mass
without battery (kg)
𝑛 Parameter used for sensitivity analysis
𝑃𝐴𝑢𝑥 Auxiliaries power consumption (kW)
𝑃𝑎 Acceleration power requirement (kW)
𝑃𝛼 Gradeability power requirement (kW)
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 Quadricycles: upper power limit
𝑃𝑣 Speed power requirement (kW)
𝑅1−3 Vehicle range targets for three cycles (m)
𝑅 Relation of recovered to recoverable
energy in deceleration (%)
𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚 Battery State Of Charge lower limit (%)
𝑆𝑛 Sensitivity of consumption to the variation
of parameter 𝑛 (%)
𝑡 Time (s)
𝑡𝑎 Acceleration time target (s)
𝑽 Battery volume (l)
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 Upper limit to battery volume (l)
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑖 ⁡ Lower limit to battery volume (l)
𝑣(𝑡) Speed profile in a cycle (m/s)
𝑣𝑎 Speed to achieve in acceleration target
(m/s)
𝑣𝑏 Transition speed from constant torque to
constant power in an electric motor (m/s)
𝑣𝑏′ Corrected base speed for acceleration (m/s)
𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 Target vehicle speed (m/s)
𝑣𝑟𝑒𝑓 Reference speed for gradeability target
(m/s)
𝑥 Motor torque curve characteristic

EVS28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 13