2019 Fourteenth International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER)

Efficiency Comparison between Series Hybrid Bike

and Traditional Bike

Edgar TOURNON1,2,3, Pascal VENET2, Bertrand BARBEDETTE1, Adrien LELIEVRE3, Judicaël AUBRY4, Ali SARI2
1
ESTACA’LAB Dpt. of On-board Energy and Systems for Transportation (S2ET), rue Georges Charpak 53061 Laval, France
2
Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Ecole Centrale de Lyon, INSA Lyon, CNRS, Ampère, F-69007 Lyon, France
3
STEE, 181 rue de Picardie, 45160 Olivet, France
4
IUT de Rennes, Université Rennes 1, 35704 Rennes, France
e-mail: edgar.tournon@univ-lyon1.fr

Abstract— Series Hybrid Bike (SHB) offers a complete savings considering the amount of time lost in traffic jam, less
decoupling between the bike motion and the power given to the functioning costs and a healthy way to travel (see table 1).
system by the cyclist thanks to an Energy Storage System (ESS).
The main advantage for the cyclist is to pedal with a minimum Mean of transport Travel cost ($/(p.km))
of torque and power variations to optimize its own physiological
energy. On the other hand, one major drawback of the SHB is bicycle 1.11
the systems’ efficiency. This paper focuses on determining the
minimum overall efficiency the system shall have in order to car 2.3
compete with Conventional Chain Bike (CCB) on a regular city
bus 1.5
ride.
Keywords— Electric bike, Series Hybrid Bike, Efficiency Table 1: travel cost comparison for the user : cost per person and
kilometer ($/(p.km)) [2]
Variables-
Despite those advantages, bicycles do have some
ࢂ࢑  Bike’s speed (݉Ȁ‫)ݏ‬
drawbacks that limit its expansion. Some surveys have tried
ࡼࢎ࢛࢓ࢇ࢔  Rider power (ܹ)
to analyze the brakes off buying bicycles [3], [4]. This has
ࢃ࢑ ESS’ energy (‫)ܬ‬
shown that fatigue, transpiration and distance are part of the
ࢃ࢘ࢇ࢚ࢋࢊ ESS’ total energy (‫)ܬ‬ major obstacles that prevent people to buy bicycles. One
ࡾ࢝ࢎࢋࢋ࢒  Wheel’s radius (݉) solution to solve those issues could be to build a Series
࣋ Air mass (݇݃Ǥ ݉ିଷ ሻ Hybrid Bike.
ࢍ Gravitational force (݉Ǥ ‫ି ݏ‬ଶ ሻ
SOE State of energy (no unit)
E Global kinetic energy (J)
ࡼࡱࡿࡿ ESS power (W)
ઢ࢚ Time between two states (‫)ݏ‬
‫ܜ‬ Time elapsed since start (‫)ݏ‬
ઢࢄ Distance between states (݉)
ࢄ Distance since start (݉)
۱‫ܚ‬ Rolling resistance (no unit)
ࢀ࢓࢕࢚ Torque at the rear wheel (ܰ݉)
‫ ܜܗܜۻ‬ Rider and bike’s mass (݇݃)
઺ CCB gear ratio (no unit)
ࢀࢎ࢛࢓ࢇ࢔ Cyclist’s torque (ܰ݉)
ࢀ࢓ࢇ࢞ Maximum cyclist’s torque (ܰ݉)
࡮ࡹ Braking mode (no unit)
Figure 1: Series Hybrid Bike architecture, associated efficiencies
ࣁࡿࡴ࡮ ǡ ࣁ࡯࡯࡮ ǡ ࣁࢍࢋ࢔ ǡ ࣁ࢓࢕࢚ ǡ ࣁࢉ࢕࢔࢜ ǡ ࣁࡰ࡯ࡰ࡯ ǡ ࣁࡱࡿࡿ  System’s
and possible power flows (see section V.B)
efficiencies (respectively the entire SHB, the CCB, the
generator, the machine, converters, the DCDC converter, the Series Hybrid Bikes (SHBs) are chainless bicycles. The
ESS) (no unit) mechanical energy from the user is first converted into
I. INTRODUCTION electrical energy thanks to an electrical generator located
around the crankshaft. Moreover, the motion is created by a
Bicycle economy is a growing market with new trends motor located in the wheel which is using the energy produced
and needs coming out. Indeed, bicycles are very efficient by the user and/or the one stored in the Energy Storage System
vehicles as they consume very little energy per kilometer (ESS) [5], [6]. The powertrain architecture of SHB is
compared to other mean of transport such as car, bus… [1]. described in the figure 1. Electrical machines (motor and
Moreover, they are attractive for the daily use as they promise

978-1-7281-3703-2/19/$31.00©2019 European Union

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BUCARAMANGA (UNAB). Downloaded on September 07,2021 at 01:14:48 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 generator) could evenutally include a gearbox. This gearbox mainly recorded in town which is in this case considered as
will not be further described in this paper. flat.
SHB are part of the hybrid series vehicles category. Measurements were taken on two different e-bikes. The
Indeed, it presents a complete decoupling between the input following data were recorded at a 10 ‫ ݖܪ‬rate: speed (ܸ௞ ‫׷‬
power source and the output power device. The case presented ݉Ǥ ‫ି ݏ‬ଵ ) and battery current (‫)ܣ ׷ ܫ‬. This dataset does not allow
in this paper proposes a human as the input power source but to perceive the power produced by the human ( ܲ௛௨௠௔௡ ).
other device could replace it by an internal combustion engine However, battery current shall be close to zero when the
(ICE) or a fuel cell thus transforming the bicycle into another cyclist is not pedalling (by law). This last fact permits
type of vehicle. determining the percentage of pedalling time (current is zero
if the driver is not pedalling or if the speed reach
The cyclist is the system power source and this last is
ʹͷ݇݉Ǥ ݄ିଵ ).
considered to be constant during the complete journey
(ܲ௛௨௠௔௡ ). Indeed, the SHB architecture enables the cyclist to
pedal in a fixed manner regardless of the road conditions
thanks to the removal of the chain. This study considers that a
classic cyclist produce a 100W constant power which was
proved to be sustainable for long rides and therefore would
reduce fatigue and transpiration that mainly appears while
producing a high intensity effort at a reduced speed [7], [8].
On the other hand, driving conditions are fluctuating
(slopes, traffic lights…). In order to compensate for the energy
variations at the rear wheel and keep the effort low during all
the driving phases, an ESS is needed. This project foresees to
use supercapacitors to store energy. Indeed, the ESS interest
in SHB is not comparable to an e-bike battery that needs to be
recharged. On a SHB, the cyclist will manage his own energy,
never recharge the ESS on the grid and will therefore need a
lower storage capacity.
Figure 2: Speed data analysis method
This last requirement underlines the importance of the
system energy efficiency. Indeed, with around 95% In order to extract reliable data from the speed profile, a
mechanical power transmission efficiency, Conventional window filter was applied in order to separate driving phases
Chain Bikes (CCBs) which are the most common bicycles and stop phases. Figure 2 shows how this work (driving
have a structural advantage compare to SHBs [9]. However, phases are represented with a ʹͲ݇݉Ǥ ݄ିଵ that is not
SHBs can rely on other advantages: energy recovery and representative of the real speed, and stop phases modelized
eventually a constant travel speed. At last, measurements (see with the speed equals to zero). The output profile can then be
table 2) show that in a city ride people aren’t pedalling for treated to know the average time stopped, and the average
around 40% of the time due to freewheeling phases, stops... distance between stops.
[10]. SHBs may allow the cyclist to pedal during those phases The following information have been extracted out of the
(then storing energy) and considerably increase its dataset (see table 2).
performances. In order for the cyclist to reach 100% of
pedalling time, the bike shall be stable and have therefore at
least three wheels. Percentage of driving
Average distance
Average time stopped time where the rider
This paper focuses on the comparison between a CCB and between stops
doesn’t pedal
a SHB. The final goal is to find out the efficiency requirements 250 m 12 s 40%
on the powertrain system of a SHB in order to reach better
performances than a CCB but with a constant physical effort.
To compare them, a normalized journey was created based on Table 2: Extracted information from dataset [10]
experimental data, then a forward bike model was developed
and applied to dynamic programming (further explanations in The drive cycle is therefore a 10 km flat land drive (the
section II.B) to find out optimum travel times. distance is represented by the variable ܺ) with 4 stops every
II. METHODOLOGY kilometre. The bike is stopped for 12 second each time.

A. Normalized driving cycle ݉‫݀݋‬ሺܺǡ ʹͷͲሻ ൌ Ͳ ֜ ܸ௞ ሺܺሻ ൌ Ͳ (1)

To compare both bikes, a driving cycle representative of a B. Dynamic Programming

daily use was created. To do so, the data collected by Arnaud Dynamic Programming (DP) is a tool based on Bellman
Devie on classic e-bikes were analysed [10]. The dataset principles to find, in a numerical way, an optimal control
represents around 2000km driven by 24 persons with different solution. The program tries to minimize a cost function using
driving skills (trained, untrained, men, women). The data were the control variables of the system. In order to achieve this,

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BUCARAMANGA (UNAB). Downloaded on September 07,2021 at 01:14:48 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 the program minimizes the cost function for a part of the Running both bikes on the same driving cycle and varying
problem. Then, it calculates the solution step by step by some input variables allow to compare both structures.
increasing progressively the size of the problem until it does
reach the fully complete solution.[11]
Moreover, the system is defined by states that varies and
have to stay between boundaries. DP is ever given an initial
state, and a final one. The DP’s definition used is summarized
in table 3. DP finally run a backward and a forward phase in
order to compute the optimal solution verifying all the
conditions [12]. For imposing stops, meaning the speed is zero
(see equation 1), the DP only consider the solution as valid if
the speed condition is met at the required position. It is
possible for the DP not to find any solution. In this case, it is
necessary to change the constrains or the problem’s settings.
The problem exposed in this paper proposes to minimise
the travelling time ( ‫ݐ‬௘௡ௗ ) along the drive cycle. This is
expressed in table 3 as the cost function (‫ܬ‬௞ ). Minimising the
travelling time also means to optimize the energy spent by the
cyclist on the entire ride (‫ܧ‬௧௥௜௣ ) as the power produced is kept
constant at all time.
‫ܧ‬௧௥௜௣ ൌ ܲ௛௨௠௔௡ ‫ݐ‬௘௡ௗ (2)
‹ሺ‫ܬ‬௘௡ௗ ሻ ՜ ݉݅݊ሺ‫ݐ‬௘௡ௗ ሻ ՜ ‹൫‫ܧ‬௧௥௜௣ ൯ȁ௉೓ೠ೘ೌ೙ୀ௖௦௧  (3)
The control of the system is made thanks to only one
variable: the motor torque (ܶ௠௢௧ ). This last can be positive
thus moving the bicycle forward or negative, thus braking the
bicycle.

Initial and final

Cost function State variables Control
conditions

Speed: ܸ௞ ܱܵ‫ܧ‬௜௡௜ ൌ ͲǤͷ

Minimise time Motor
ܱܵ‫ܧ‬௘௡ௗ ൌ ሾͲǤͷǡ ͳሿ Figure 3: Calculation process
‫ܬ‬௞ ൌ ‹ሼ‫ݐ‬௞ ൅ ‫ܬ‬௞ାଵ ሻ
State of Energy: Torque: ܶ௠௢௧
ܱܵ‫ܧ‬ ܸ௜௡௜ ൌ ܸ௘௡ௗ ൌ Ͳ
The figure 3 shows the high-level algorithm used to
Table 3: DP problem statement compare the structures.
Secondly, changing the efficiency (ߟௌு஻ ) leads to travel
In order to explore all feasible solutions, the DP uses a time variations (see equation 12 and 14). Indeed, having a
finite input set. Therefore, the state variables as well as the better efficiency leads to higher speed and a reduced use of
control variables are discretized in ܰ values. Decreasing the the ESS. The simulation is run on the SHB for constant
quantum improves precision, however, the DP running time efficiencies ߟௌு஻ ‫ א‬ሾͲǤͳͲǤʹǤ Ǥ ǤͲǤͻͳሿ. Outputs are travelling
for this application is a function of ܰ ଶ as the problem have times that are compared to CCB travelling times on the same
two state variables [12]. Therefore, increasing ܰcan lead to cycle in order to determine an efficiency criterion on SHBs
very high calculation times. architecture.
O. Sundstrom & al. addressed uncertainties and DP III. BICYCLE MODEL
precision issues [12]. However, as it will be shown later,
(figure 6) results are consistent as the curve fitting between The DP runs the model on the discretized drive cycle
results has a low error level. (sampling step: ȟܺ ൌ12.5 meters).
C. Proceeding In order to calculate the time spent by the CCB and the
SHB to drive along the previous path, a simple model based
In order to compare both structures, the DP was on dynamic mechanical laws was implemented. The speed is
extensively used to evaluate the SHB performances whereas updated at every step using the variations of the kinetic
a classical forward model was used to estimate CCB’s energy:
performances.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BUCARAMANGA (UNAB). Downloaded on September 07,2021 at 01:14:48 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ‫ܧ‬௞ାଵ ൌ ‫ܧ‬௞ ൅ ܲ௞ ȟ‫ݐ‬ (4)
்೘೚೟ ௏ೖ
ܲ௞ ൌ െ σ ‫ܨ‬௘௫௧ ܸ௞ (5)
ோೢ೓೐೐೗

Those variations are due to a change of power (ܲ௞ ሻ created

by the bicycle (ܶ௠௢௧ ሻ, and external forces (‫ܨ‬௘௫௧ ሻ.
External forces are mainly due to the rolling resistance
(‫ܥ‬௥ ሻ and the drag area (ܵ‫ܥ‬௫ ሻ (see equation 6). The bicycle and
the driver are modelized as a unique mass (‫ܯ‬௧௢௧ ).
ఘ
‫ܨ‬௘௫௧ ൌ ‫ܯ‬௧௢௧ ݃‫ܥ‬௥ ൅ ܵ‫ܥ‬௑ ܸ௞ଶ (6)
ଶ

Finally, ‫ܪ‬ሺܶ௠௢௧ ሻȟܺ and ‫ܩ‬ሺܵ‫ܥ‬௑ ǡ ‫ܥ‬௥ ሻȟ are the related
discretized energies expressions spent over a calculation step
ȟܺ. They are detailed in equations 9 and 10. In addition ߛ is
a constant depending on the bike’s parameters and on the
simulation settings. J. Aubry & al [13] wrote that the speed at
step k+1 equal to:
ଶ୼௑
Figure 4: Part of the DP result on the chosen drive cycle for a
ܸ௞ାଵ ൌ ɀටܸ௞ଶ ൅ ቀ‫ܪ‬ሺܶ௠௢௧ ሻ െ ‫ܩ‬൫ܵ‫ܥ‬௑ ǡ ‫ܥ‬௥ ൯ቁ (7) SHB (ߟௌு஻ ൌ ͲǤͻ) with (red, fill line) and without (blue, dashed
ெ೟೚೟
line) pedaling while stopped
భ
ଵ ି
మ
ߛ ൌ ቀͳ ൅ ߩܵ‫ܥ‬௑ ȟܺቁ (8) for travelling this drive cycle with this specific configuration.
ଶெ೟೚೟
The ESS is covering the energy difference between the power
்೘೚೟ produced by the cyclist and the one required by the machine.
‫ܪ‬ሺܶ௠௢௧ ሻ ൌ (9)
ோೢ೓೐೐೗ In this way, the cyclist never experiences load variations.
ଵ
‫ܩ‬ሺܵ‫ܥ‬௑ ǡ ‫ܥ‬௥ ሻ ൌ ‫ܯ‬௧௢௧ ݃‫ܥ‬௥ ൅ ߩܵ‫ܥ‬௑ ܸ௞ଶ  (10) The subfigure 4.b shows that the SHB with pedaling while
ସ
stopped is faster as the time difference increases. Indeed, the
On a CCB, ܶ௠௢௧ is directly linked to the torque given by energy stored during the breaks (12 second each time) enables
the rider at the crank through the chain gear ratio (ߚ): the bicycle to drive faster. Moreover, the time evolution is not
ܶ௠௢௧ ൌ ߚܶ௛௨௠௔௡ (11) constant because the DP run a calculation step each ȟܺ which
leads to variations of ȟ‫ ݐ‬depending on the speed.
On a SHB, ܶ௠௢௧ is produced by the motor in the wheel and
have no direct relation with the torque produced by the cyclist. B. Classic Forward output for a CCB
The time spent between two steps is then expressed as: The CCB is a straightforward process using equations 7
and 11. Indeed, all the variables are known and, especially,
ଶ୼௑
ȟ‫ ݐ‬ൌ (12) the torque is directly calculated as the ratio of power by speed
௏ೖశభ ା௏ೖ
as the human power is considered to be constant.
Finally, the State Of Energy (SOE) of a ܹ௥௔௧௘ௗ pack is ఎ಴಴ಳ ௉೓ೠ೘ೌ೙ ோೢ೓೐೐೗
commonly considered to be the percentage of energy left in ܶ௠௢௧ ൌ (15)
௏ೖ
the ESS, the energy left in the storage system being ܹ௞ . The
SOE variations are calculated using the difference between the
constant energy produced by the cyclist (ܲ௛௨௠௔௡ ȟ‫ݐ‬ሻ and the
் ୼௑
mechanical energy asked by the machine ( ೘೚೟ ሻcombined
ோೢ೓೐೐೗
with an efficiency.
ௐೖ ଵ
ܱܵ‫ܧ‬௞ ൌ ൌ ܱܵ‫ܧ‬௜௡௜ െ ‫ܲ ׬‬ாௌௌ ݀‫ݐ‬ (13)
ௐೝೌ೟೐೏ ௐ௥௔௧௘ௗ

ଵ ்೘೚೟
ܱܵ‫ܧ‬௞ାଵ ൌ ቀܲ௛௨௠௔௡ ȟ‫ ݐ‬െ ȟܺቁ ൅ ܱܵ‫ܧ‬௞ (14)
ௐೝೌ೟೐೏ ோೢ೓೐೐೗ ఎೄಹಳ

IV. DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING TYPICAL OUTPUT

A. DP output for the Drive Cycle
Figure 4 shows typical results of the DP run on the drive
cycle resented in section II.A. The SOE is varying according Figure 5: Classical speed output for CCB
to the variation of speed. Especially, the ESS is recharged
thanks to the energy recovery braking by applying a negative A torque limit (ܶ௠௔௫ ) was also implemented for low speed
torque. The subfigure 4.d displays the optimal control torque cases as the maximum torque a user can produce cannot

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BUCARAMANGA (UNAB). Downloaded on September 07,2021 at 01:14:48 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 overgo a torque limit depending on the person’s physical
abilities. This limit is usually found between 80 to 130 Nm
according to Grossoleil and al. [7]
ܶ௠௢௧ ൌ ݉݅݊ሺߚܶ௛௨௠௔௡ ǡ ܶ௠௔௫ )
Running a CCB on our drive cycle leads to user torque
variations as it can be seen in figure 5. Those torque
variations cause fatigue for the user. One major advantage for
the SHB is to remove those power peaks.
V. RESULTS
Results were computed on the chosen drive cycle in 4
different cases:
™ The SHB with pedalling while stopped, meaning
there is recharging of the ESS during those phases.
™ The SHB with no pedalling while stopped, meaning
energy is gotten back by energy recovery only.
™ A CCB with a constant efficiency of 0.97 and an
infinite braking power ( ‫ܯܤ‬ǡ „”ƒ‹‰‘†‡ሻ (see
figure 5) meaning he stops instantaneously. This
solution is the fastest a CCB could achieve (best
CCB).
™ A CCB with a constant efficiency of 0.9 and no
braking power ( ‫ܯܤ‬ǡ „”ƒ‹‰‘†‡ሻ meaning it
uses freewheel until stopping. This is considered as
the worst case that a CCB could achieve.
All the tests were led using a constant human power
coupled with a 120 Nm torque limit [7]. Moreover, a 5 W
power consumption was added to the SHB accounting for the
control system consumption (DCDC converter control,
electronic speed controllers (ESC), driver inputs). Indeed, this
can be considered as an auxiliary power consumption.
A. Result for the drive cycle
Figure 6 shows the time spend by each bicycle case
describe above to execute the drive cycle depending on ߟௌு஻ .
This allows to find out minimum performances requirements.
Figure 6: comparison between different bikes
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BUCARAMANGA (UNAB). Downloaded on September 07,2021 at 01:14:48 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The extracted requirements may vary according to compared
cases.
The results are showing interesting performances.
(16) Enhance, on this typical town ride, a SHB with no pedalling
while stopped will be faster than every CCB if the efficiency
of the entire powerchain on the SHB is ߟௌு஻ ൐ ͲǤ͹ʹ ((a) in
fig. 6). Considering the worst performance for the CCB, this
efficiency requirement could drop down to ߟௌு஻ ൐ ͲǤͷʹ ((b)
in fig. 6).
The case with the SHB and pedalling while stopped is also
showing interesting features. Despite the fact such a bicycle
shall have at least three wheels to stand while stopped and
force riders to change their behaviours (it is not common to
pedal while not moving), this case is showing better
performances than every CCB if ߟௌு஻ ൐ ͲǤ͸ͳ ( (c) in fig. 6).
This enables to reduce constrains on the design thanks to the
possibility to decrease the system’s performances.
B. Result analysis
Finally, the power may flow through the system in
different ways enumerate below. Each power flow lead to
different efficiencies.
It is important to note that efficiencies are not constant but
are varying according to the functioning points (for example
torque ( ܶ௠௢௧ ) and speed ( ܸ௞ ) for machines). All those
efficiencies can be mapped. Maps and detailed models will be
discussed and presented in a future study by using [14].
Efficiencies will be here considered as constant.
The first power flow assume that the energy is directly
transferred from the generator to the wheel. In this
configuration, the power flows through the machines
(ߟ௚௘௡ ǡ ߟ௠௢௧ ) and the converters (ߟ௖௢௡௩ ) (see figure 1: Direct
power flow). Then the direct efficiency ( ߟௗ௜௥௘௖௧ ሻ can be
expressed as:
ଶ
ߟௗ௜௥௘௖௧ ൌ ߟ௚௘௡ ߟ௖௢௡௩ ߟ௠௢௧ (17)
Moreover, if the energy produced by the user is directly
stored into the ESS, the efficiency shall also include DCDC
losses (ߟ஽஼஽஼ ) and supercapacitor losses (ߟாௌௌ ) (see figure 1:
Storing power flow). In this configuration the energy is finally
stored. Then the storing process efficiency (ߟ௦௧௢௥௜௡௚ ) can be
expressed as:
ߟௌ௧௢௥௜௡௚ ൌ ߟ௚௘௡ ߟ௖௢௡௩ ߟ஽஼஽஼ ߟாௌௌ (18)
Finally, energy may also be stored while recovering
energy. In this case, the power is flowing through the motor
(by applying a negative torque thus braking the bike) and is
directly stored into the ESS through the DCDC converter (see
figure 1: Recovery power flow). This flow can also be reversed
in order to use the energy stored in the ESS for driving the
motor. Both cases (saving energy or discharging the ESS for
powering the machine) have the same efficiency expression.
The recovery power flow efficiency ( ߟ௥௘௖௢௩௘௥௬ ሻ can be
 expressed as:
ߟ௥௘௖௢௩௘௥௬ ൌ ߟ௠௢௧ ߟ௖௢௡௩ ߟ஽஼஽஼ ߟாௌௌ
Equations 17,18 and 19 are describing the different modes
the energy can travel through the system. However, the real
energy efficiency will ever be a combination (Ȟ) of the cases
described depending on the ride and rider.
ߟௌு஻ ൌ Ȟሺߟ௥௘௖௢௩௘௥௬ ǡ ߟௗ௜௥௘௖௧ ǡ ߟ௦௧௢௥௜௡௚ ሻ
In a more global way, the overall energy efficiency
(ߟ௘ௌு஻ ) can be defined as the ratio between the output energy
and the input energy. This can be compared to an averaged
efficiency. As we can observe variations of SOE during the
ride, the final overall efficiency could take the SOE difference
into account.
భ
‫் ׬‬೘೚೟ ௏ௗ௧ିሺௌைா೐೙೏ ିௌைா೔೙೔ ሻௐೝೌ೟೐೏
ೃೢ೓೐೐೗
ߟ௘ௌு஻ ൌ
௉೓ೠ೘ೌ೙ ௧೐೙೏
Finally, a first global performance requirement estimation
can be found considering the following:
™ Our machines (generator and motor) have similar
performances, thus ߟ௚௘௡ ൌ ߟ௠௢௧ .
™ The ESS, based on supercapacitor have a very high
efficiency, thus implying ߟாௌௌ ൎ ͳ, and having an
equal initial and final state of energy.
™ All the converter (Machines and DCDC converters)
are considered ideal or having high enough
efficiencies in order to neglected, thus ߟ஽஼஽஼ ൎ
ߟ௖௢௡௩ ൎ ͳ
Equations 17, 18 and 19 can then be simplified and
ଶ
equation 20 then have a solution: ߟௌு஻ ൌ ߟ௚௘௡ .
This paper has shown that ߟௌு஻ shall reach 0.72 in order
to equal CCBs performances. It is then possible to write, using
equation 17, that machines associated with their additional
optional gearbox shall have an average efficiency of ߟ௚௘௡ ൌ
ඥߟௌு஻ ൎ ͲǤͺͷǤ
C. Work extension
This work focuses on the determining the efficiency a
SHB shall have in order to travel as fast as a CCB on a
normalized drive cycle. However, other optimisation cost
functions as time could have been chosen.
It also has been mentioned that producing a constant
power at a fixed convenient cadence shall reduce user fatigue
compared to a CCB ride (see figure 5).
Indeed, reducing the fatigue may be one of the most
critical feature of a SHB. One of our next work is to propose
a cyclist fatigue model and show that SHB can not only
reduce driving time but also reduce user fatigue.
Another part of the future work is to verify the required
performances on other type of cycle. Indeed, it is relevant to
test cases where a hill crossing is involved for example.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BUCARAMANGA (UNAB). Downloaded on September 07,2021 at 01:14:48 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Moreover, efficiencies considerations shall be examined
in a more precise way thanks to the result presented in this
(19)
paper in order to optimise the bike structure. This assume to
model the entire SHB and run performances analysis on the
model using equation 21 for example.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the end, this works shows it is possible to realize a SHB
(20) to travel as fast as on a CCB. This aim to realize a powertrain
efficiency of around 0.7-0.8 which is possible considering the
two electric machines [5].
This paper has also shown that it is possible to gain a lot
of time (or the possibility to considerably reduce the average
cycling power) by biking while stopped. This case is more
favourable to the SHB as the global efficiency could be as
low as 0.6 to equal a CCB.
(21)
Beside getting as fast as a CCB, the major advantage of
the SHB is to reduce the cyclist’s fatigue by proposing him
to pedal under constant load. Determination of power fatigue
is one of the major results that still has to be explored.
Finally, this study shall be completed considering two
aspects that are the non-constant efficiency of machines that
completely changes their performances at low speed for
example, and considering other type of ride with less stops
and more hills to analyse differences.
This conclusion is an important result for designing the
whole bike and shall guilt as a starting point for optimising
the system.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Papon, “La marche et le vélo: quels bilan
economiques pour l’individu et la collectivité?,”
TRANSPORTS, no. 412, pp. 1–35, 2002.
[2] N. C. Smith, D. W. Veryard, R. P. Kilvington, and R.
K. Consulting, “Relative costs and benefits of modal
transport solutions,” NZ Transport Agency, no. 393,
pp. 1–76, Dec-2009.
[3] J. Dekoster and U. Schollaert, Cycling: the way ahead
for towns and cities. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Commission, 1999.
[4] Club des villes et territoires cyclables, Ed., “Les
francais et le vélo en 2012.” Jan-2013.
[5] J. Aubry and B. Barbedette, “Evaluation de l’interêt
d’une hybridation serie pour un vehicule a propulsion
humaine. Pre-dimensionnement d’une generatrice-
pedalier,” Symp. Genie Electrique, 2014.
[6] J. Guanetti, S. Formentin, M. Corno, and S. M.
Savaresi, “Optimal energy management in series
hybrid electric bicycles,” Automatica, vol. 81, pp. 96–
106, Jul. 2017.
[7] D. Grossoleil, “Etude de l’hybridation d’énergie
humaine, synthèse de commandes minimisant
l’énergie consommée par un vélo à assistance
électrique,” PhD thesis of Université de Limoges,
2014.
 [8] A. Coggan and A. Hunter, Training and Racing with
a Power Meter, 2nd ed. Velopress, 2010.
[9] B. Rohloff and P. Greb, “Efficiency Measurements of
Bicycle Transmissions - a neverending Story?,”
Human power, no. 55, pp. 11–15, 2004.
[10] A. Devie, “Caractérisation de l’usage des batteries
Lithium-ion dans les véhicules électriques et hybrides.
Application à l’étude du vieillissement et de la
abilité,” PhD thesis of Université Claude Bernard
Lyon 1, 2012.
[11] A. Chauvin, A. Sari, A. Hijazi, and E. Bideaux,
“Optimal sizing of an energy storage system for a
hybrid vehicle applied to an off-road application,” in
IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced
Intelligent Mechatronics, Besancon, 2014, pp. 775–
780.
[12] O. Sundstrom and L. Guzzella, “A generic dynamic
programming Matlab function,” in 2009 IEEE
International Conference on Control Applications, St.
Petersburg, Russia, 2009, pp. 1625–1630.
[13] J. Aubry, I. Miladi, B. Barbedette, and T. Azib,
“Optimisation de la gestion d’énergie d’un véhicule à
propulsion humaine à asistance électriqsue
autonome,” Symp. Génie Electrique, p. 8, Jun. 2016.
[14] R. Trigui, B. Jeanneret, and F. Badin, “Modélisation
systémique de véhicules hybrides en vue de la
prédiction de leurs performances énergétiques et
dynamiques. Construction de la bibliothèque de
modèles VEHLIB,” Rech. - Transp. - Sécurité, vol.
21, no. 83, pp. 129–150, 2004.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BUCARAMANGA (UNAB). Downloaded on September 07,2021 at 01:14:48 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.