Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Analysis of the Regenerative Braking Efficiency
of a Latest Electric Vehicle
Alberto Boretti
RMIT University
ABSTRACT
Kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS) placed on one axle
coupled to a traditional thermal engine on the other axle is
possibly the best solution presently available to dramatically
improve the fuel economy while providing better
performances within strict budget constraints. Different
KERS may be built purely electric, purely mechanic, or
hybrid mechanic/electric differing for round trip efficiency,
packaging, weights, costs and requirement of further research
and development. The paper presents an experimental
analysis of the energy flow to and from the battery of a latest
Nissan Leaf covering the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule (UDDS). This analysis provides a state-of-the-art
benchmark of the propulsion and regenerative braking
efficiencies of electric vehicles with off-the-shelve
technologies. While the propulsion efficiency approaches
90%, the round trip regenerative braking efficiency reaches
the 70%, values previously achieved only with purely
mechanical systems, few percentage points below the round
trip efficiencies of todays' best mechanical system.
INTRODUCTION
The electric car is a nice idea that despite the environmentally
friendly reputation is not actually that good not only in
economy but also for the environment. If we do consider the
opportunity to move from the internal combustion engine
transport to the electric transport today, this would translate
in a disaster under all the relevant criteria. If we do consider
the electricity production in the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries of 2012
[1], 60% of the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels,
but a 20% contribution is from nuclear often criticised as true
renewable. Therefore, the not-renewable electricity in OECD
2013-01-2872
Published
11/27/2013
Copyright © 2013 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2013-01-2872
countries is at the best 80% of the total. If we do consider
Australia, in 2012 almost 90% of the electricity was
generated by burning fossil fuels. Therefore, the move to an
electric transport would require additional power stations to
be built, a novel infrastructure, and a generation of more
electricity mostly by burning fossil fuels, in a quite negative
big picture despite the zero tailpipe emission claims.
Therefore, even before considering the battery issue
translating in weight, load and especially range and
recharging penalties and in significantly larger economic and
environmental costs to produce and dispose of the vehicle,
the electric mass transport is not presently competitive with
the internal combustion engine mass transport.
Having said that, vehicles powered by internal combustion
engines may certainly have their fuel economy drastically
improved adopting simple kinetic energy recovery systems
having a target low cost compatible with the present financial
melt-down rather than moving to full hybrids where the
thermal engine is completely integrated with the electric
motor but at the price of significantly increased costs.
Different KERS may be built purely electric, purely
mechanic, hybrid mechanic/electric differing for the round
trip efficiency, the packaging and the costs. The Audi R18 e-
tron Quattro Le Mans [5] is possibly the most succesful
example of non driveline KERS. Driveline kinetic energy
recovery systems have become popular since the introduction
in F1 racing of 2009, both in the fully mechanical and fully
electrical flavours. The mechanical system is made of a
clutch and a continuously variable transmission plus a
flywheel. The electric system is made of an electric motor/
generator and a traction battery. Non driveline KERS may
have the advantage of being potentially a much cheaper
product also permitting four wheels drive performances with
a two wheels drive thermal power train. A fully mechanical
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Figure 1. Audi R18 e-tron Quattro KERS (from [5]). Recuperation and boost mode of operation.

non driveline KERS has been proposed in [6] and [7] acceleration. The thermal engine transfers its power to the
delivering theoretical round trip efficiencies above 80%. rear wheels. The two systems complement one another.

Audi's R18 e-tron quattro marks the successful return of the
four driven wheels to the race tracks coupled with the novelty
of the hybridization of the power train with a mixed
mechanical/electric system. The hybrid system is made of an
electric flywheel accumulator maximum 500 KJ energy
storage, and a Motor Generator Unit (MGU) on the front
axle, water cooled with integrated power electronics, of 2 ×
75 kW power. Kinetic energy is recovered on the front axle
during the braking phase. This energy is fed into an electric
flywheel accumulator before being released during
The selection of a flywheel accumulator system is due to the
high power density is crucial during regenerative braking and
re-acceleration. The system is comprised of two drive shafts,
the MGU including planetary gears, an electronic flywheel
accumulator alongside the driver, plus the monitoring and
control systems. The planetary gears adapt the transmission
ratio during acceleration and braking. During braking the
wheels drive the MGU. The MGU accelerates electrically a
carbon-fibre flywheel running in a high-vacuum. When the
driver re-accelerates the system delivers the energy to the
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Tuesday, May 19, 2015
front axle. The energy to be transferred to the front wheels
between two braking phases is set by the regulations to the
previously mentioned 500 kJ. The two independently
powered axles on the e-tron quattro are synchronized by the
electronic control unit (ECU) without driver intervention. The
charging process is controlled by the deceleration of the car
subject to the accumulator's state of charge. The discharging
process is defined by the minimum speed of 120 km/h set by
the regulations, the race strategy, the throttle pedal movement
and the acceleration of the car. The type of drive is rear wheel
drive, traction control (ASR), with the option of four-wheel
drive e-tron quattro from 120 km/h.
The core component of the Audi KERS is the Williams
Hybrid Power (WHP)'s electric flywheel energy storage [9]
working as an electro-mechanical battery or, equally, as an
ultra-high-speed electric motor/generator having a high
inertia, composite rotor. The unit connects using only
electrical cables to transmit the energy back and forth,
allowing the same vehicle packaging freedom as a traction
battery.
The Audi technology is further explained in [9]. While the
round trip efficiency of the Audi system [5] is unrated, the
mechanical non-driveline KERS [6, 7] has a round trip
efficiency estimated at above 80%. Subject of this paper is to
compare this efficiency with the efficiency of a non-driveline
fully electric KERS that could be assembled using the latest
Nissan Leaf electric vehicle technologies, certainly a giant
step forward in production electric vehicles. Similar results to
the Nissan Leaf results are expected to be delivered by the
Ferrari Hy-KERS [8].
NISSAN LEAF ENERGY RECOVERY
The Nissan Leaf (acronym for Leading, Environmentally
friendly, Affordable, Family car) is an electric car introduced
in December 2010 [3]. The Leaf uses an 80 kW (110 hp) and
280 N·m (210 ft·lb) synchronous electric motor driving the
front axle, powered by a 24 kW·h (86 MJ) lithium ion battery
pack rated to deliver up to 90 kilowatts (120 hp) power. The
2012 Nissan Leaf has been recently tested at Argonne [4].
The results are analysed here to provide the energy flow of
the vehicle covering the UDDS cycle. The EPA Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) [5] is commonly
called the “LA4” or “the city test” and represents city driving
conditions. It is used for light duty vehicle testing. The tests
made in Argonne [4] provide the battery power vs. time for
the car covering a prescribed velocity schedule. We do
consider here only the UDDS cycle cold (CS) and hot (HS) at
20 and 72 F test cell temperature. The 20 F UDDS CS is the
first cycle of the series of tests with the battery fully charged,
and the regenerative braking is therefore limited. The results
of Argonne [4] include the HV Battery Voltage w/500A max
clamp [V] and the HV Battery Current w/500A max clamp
[A]. The HV battery power Pb is then computed as the
product of the two. Small differences are found using the HV
Battery Voltage w/200A max clamp [V] and the HV Battery
Current w/200A max clamp [A] traces of [4].
To analyse the energy flow, propulsive and braking energies
have to be computed from the velocity schedule. This is done
by using a simplified car equation only accounting for the
mass of the car and the aerodynamic and rolling resistances.
Accessory loads are disregarded. If FP/B is the propulsion or
the braking force and FR is the retarding force due to the
aerodynamic drag and the rolling resistance in N, then (FP/B-
FR)=m·a, where m is the mass of the car in kg and a is the
acceleration in m/s2. The weight of the car during tests is
taken as 1701 kg. For what concerns the aerodynamic drag,
the aerodynamic drag force is ½·ρ·v2· CD·A, where ρ is the
air density, CD is the drag coefficient and A is the frontal car
area. We take ρ=1.29 kg/m3, CD=0.29 when width is 1.77 m
and height is 1.55 m for a reference area A=2.74 m2. For
what concern the rolling resistance, we take the rolling force
as 0.01·m·g·(v/44.69+1) where g is the gravity acceleration
9.81 m/s2 and v is the velocity in m/s. The propulsive and
braking powers are the product of propulsive and braking
forces by velocity PP/B=FP/B·v, with P in W. This analysis
returns the “reference” propulsion and braking forces and
powers from the velocity schedule and the above
environmental variables. From the propulsion and braking
powers, then the propulsive and braking energies are
computed by time integration with values in J.
The UDDS velocity schedule with the above environmental
variables returns reference propulsive and braking energies of
6.41 MJ and −2.41 MJ. The UDDS cycle has a length of 7.44
mi or 11971 m. Figure 2 presents the velocity schedule v(t)
and v(s), where t is the time and s the distance covered, and
the resulting acceleration schedule a(s) and the computed
“reference” propulsive (positive) and braking (negative)
power Pw(s). The test and analysis results are summarized in
Table 1.
20 F (6.7 °C) Tests
The battery powers for the CS and HS tests with test cell
temperature of 20 F are presented in Figure 3. The energy
consumption listed in [4, 5] for the CS is 418 W·h/mi or total
3.11 kW·h corresponding to 11.2 MJ, and 371 W·h/mi or
total 2.76 kW·h corresponding to 9.94 MJ for the HS. The
voltage and ampere traces give a battery energy out of 11.99
MJ and battery energy in of −0.72 MJ for a total battery
energy balance of 11.27 MJ for the CS, and a battery energy
out of 11.19 MJ and a battery energy in of −1.12 MJ for a
total battery energy balance of 10.07 MJ for the HS. The
reference propulsive and braking energies are 6.41 MJ and
−2.41 MJ. The UDDS CS performed with the battery fully
charged has a regenerative braking efficiency wheels-to-
battery of 30%. In the UDSS HS with the battery partially
discharged, the regenerative braking efficiency wheels-to-
battery is 46.5%. Considering the battery energy output to
cover the UDDS CS is 11.99 MJ and 11.27 MJ for the UDDS
HS, the regenerative braking efficiency wheels-to-battery-to-
wheels is therefore assessed at 16 and 26.6%. The propulsion
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Figure 2. UDDS velocity schedule v(t) and v(s) and acceleration schedule a(s) and computed reference propulsive and braking
power Pw(s).

Figure 3. Measured HV battery power PHV vs. distance. UDDS CS on the left, UDDS HS on the right. Test cell temperature 20
F.

efficiency battery-to-wheels is 53.5% and 57.3% respectively
for the UDDS CS and HS.
72 F (22.2 °C) Tests
The battery powers for the CS and HS tests with test cell
temperature of 72 F are presented in Figure 4. The energy
consumption listed in [4, 5] for the CS is 209 W·h/mi or total
1.55 kW·h corresponding to 5.60 MJ, and 194 W·h/mi or
total 1.44 kW·h corresponding to 5.20 MJ for the HS. The
voltage and ampere traces give a battery energy out of 7.29
MJ and battery energy in of −1.68 MJ for a total battery
energy balance of 5.62 MJ for the CS, and a battery energy
out of 7.15 MJ and a battery energy in of −1.91 MJ for a total
battery energy balance of 5.25 MJ for the HS. The reference
propulsive and braking energies are 6.41 MJ and −2.41 MJ.
The UDDS CS now performed with the battery discharged
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Figure 4. Measured HV battery power PHV vs. distance. UDDS CS on the left, UDDS HS on the right. Test cell temperature 72
F.

has a regenerative braking efficiency wheels-to-battery of some other minuses in weight, packaging and the reduced
69.5%. In the UDSS HS the regenerative braking efficiency round trip efficiency [10].
wheels-to-battery is 79% of the braking energy. Considering
the battery energy output to cover the UDDS CS is 7.29 MJ Table 1. Test and analysis results, UDDS cycle.
and 7.15 MJ for the UDDS HS, the round trip regenerative
braking efficiency wheels-to-battery-to-wheels is therefore
assessed at 61.1 and 70.8%. The propulsion efficiency
battery-to-wheels is 87.9 and 89.6% respectively for the
UDDS CS and HS.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The use of a kinetic energy recovery system on the non-
motored wheels of a vehicle with a thermal engine powering
the other wheels is the latest “best option” in hybrid racing
[5] that hopefully will become popular also for mass
transport.

The drive line of a latest Nissan Leaf is of great interest to

benchmark the different kinetic energy recovery system
solutions. The energy flow in a latest Nissan Leaf has been
analysed to assess the single propulsive trip battery-to-wheels
and the regenerative braking round trip wheels-to-battery-to-
wheels.

The Nissan Leaf has round trip regenerative braking

efficiency wheels energy - to - battery - to - wheels of almost
70% for the operation 72 F. This round trip efficiency is
almost double the value of the electric kinetic energy
recovery systems (KERS) used in hybrid thermal electric
vehicles of one decade ago, but still less than the best
mechanical KERS rated at above 80% in applications to non-
motored wheels [6, 7].

The electric KERS (E-KERS) has the advantage vs. the

mechanical KERS (M-KERS) and the electro-mechanical
KERS (EM-KERS) of the more developed technology, with
however the battery the Achilles' heel of the E-KERS, and
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Tuesday, May 19, 2015

The mechanical KERS (M-KERS) [6,7,10,11,12,13,14,15] is (2013) Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the
certainly better in weight and packaging and the reduced ASME, 135 (6), art. no. 061001.
round trip efficiency, but suffers from the less mature
12. Boretti, A., “F1 2014: Turbocharged and downsized Ice
technology still requiring substantial research and
and Kers boost”, (2013) World Journal of Modelling and
development, and the less flexible utilization of the recovered
Simulation, 9 (2), pp. 150-160.
energy that must be used within a short period of time.
13. Bottiglione, F., Carbone, G., De Novellis, L.,
REFERENCES Mangialardi, L., Mantriota, G., “Mechanical hybrid KERS
based on toroidal traction drives: An example of smart
1. International Energy Agency (2012), Monthly Electricity tribological design to improve terrestrial vehicle performance
Statistics. July 2012. www.iea.org/stats/surveys/MES.XLS (2013) Advances in Tribology, art. no. 918387.
2. Wikipedia (2012), Nissan Leaf - Wikipedia, the free
14. Boretti, A.A., “Improvements of vehicle fuel economy
encyclopedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf
using mechanical regenerative braking”, (2011) International
3. Argonne (2012), Advanced Powertrain Research Facility - Journal of Vehicle Design, 55 (1), pp. 35-48.
Downloadable Dynamometer Database (D3) 2012 Nissan
Leaf. www.transportation.anl.gov/ 15. Murphy, I., “Key factors in optimising the performance
D3/2012_nissan_leaf_electric.html of flywheel hybrid systems”, (2009) Institution of Mechanical
Engineers - Low-Carbon Vehicles 2009, pp. 75-86.
4. EPA (2012), Dynamometer Drive Schedules.
www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamometer.htm
5. Audi media services (2012), R18 e-tron. www.audi-
mediaservices.com/
6. Boretti A., “A Novel Mechanical Kinetic Energy
Recovery System to Improve the Performances and Reduce
the Fuel Consumption and the Pollutant Emissions”, FISITA
EUROBRAKE 2012 Conference, 16-18 April 2012, Dresden,
Germany. www.fisita.com/publications/papers?id=7660
7. Boretti, A., Scalzo, J., “Novel crankshaft mechanism and
regenerative braking system to improve the fuel economy of
passenger cars”, (2013) Lecture Notes in Electrical
Engineering, 189 LNEE (VOL. 1), pp. 19-44.
8. Ferrari (2013), La Ferrari. www.laferrari.com/en/
9. Williams Hybrid Power (2013), The technology.
www.williamshybridpower.com/technology/the_flywheel/#
%2Ftechnology
10. Tawadros P., Zhang N., Boretti A., “Integration and
performance of regenerative braking and energy recovery
technology” in “Alternative fuels and advanced vehicle
technologies towards zero carbon transportation”, in
Alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technologies for
improved environmental performance: Towards zero carbon
transportation. Edited by Folkson R, Richard Folkson
Automotive, UK. Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy No.
57. ISBN 0 85709 522 6, ISBN-13: 978 0 85709 522 0,
March 2014, 570 pages.
11. Bottiglione, F., Mantriota, G., “Effect of the ratio spread
of CVU in automotive kinetic energy recovery systems”,

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. SAE Customer Service:
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Fax: 724-776-0790
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191 SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA