Comparing Fuel Consumption and Emission Levels of Hybrid Powertrain Configurations and a Conventional Powertrain in Varied Drive Cycles and Degree of Hybridization

Hybrid electric powertrains in automotive applications aim to improve emissions and fuel economy with respect to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. Variety of design scenarios need to be addressed in designing a hybrid electric vehicle to achieve desired design objectives such as fuel consumption and exhaust gas emissions. The work in this paper presents an analysis of the design objectives for an automobile powertrain with respect to different design scenarios, i. e. target drive cycle and degree of hybridization. Toward these ends, four powertrain configuration models (i. e. internal combustion engine, series, parallel and complex hybrid powertrain configurations) of a small vehicle (motorized three wheeler) are developed using Model Advisor software and simulated with varied drive cycles and degrees of hybridization. Firstly, the impact of vehicle power control strategy and operational characteristics of the different powertrain configurations are investigated with respect to exhaust gas emissions and fuel consumption. Secondly, the drive cycles are scaled according to kinetic intensity and the relationship between fuel consumption and drive cycles is assessed. Thirdly, three fuel consumption models are developed so that fuel consumption values for a real-world drive cycle may be predicted in regard to each powertrain configuration. The results show that when compared with a conventional powertrain fuel consumption is lower in hybrid vehicles. This work led to the surprisingly result showing higher CO emission levels with hybrid vehicles. Furthermore, fuel consumption of all four powertrains showed a strong correlation with kinetic intensity values of selected drive cycles. It was found that with varied drive cycles the average fuel advantage for each was: series 23 %, parallel 21 %, and complex hybrids 33 %, compared to an IC engine powertrain. The study reveals that performance of hybrid configurations vary significantly with drive cycle and degree of hybridization. The paper also suggests future areas of study.

1. Huang Y., Surawski N. C., Organ B., Zhou J. L., Tang O.H.H., Chan E.F.C. (2019) Fuel consumption and emissions performance under real driving: Comparison between hybrid and conventional vehicles. Science of The Total Environment, 659, 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.349

2. Silvaş E., Hofman T., Steinbuch M. (2012) Review of optimal design strategies for hybrid electric vehicles. IFAC Proceedings, 45 (30) 57–64. https://doi.org/10.3182/20121023-3-FR-4025.00054

3. Silvas E. (2015) Integrated Optimal Design for Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Available at: https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/integrated-optimal-design-for-hybrid-electric-vehicles

4. World Health Organization (2017). Powered two and three wheeler safety: A road safety manual for decisionmakers and practitioners. World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/ptw_manual/en/

5. Christensen J., Bastien C. (2016) Introduction to General Optimization Principles and Methods. Nonlinear Optimization of Vehicle Safety Structures. Elsevier Inc., 107–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417297-5.00003-1

6. Çaǧatay Bayindir K., Gözüküçük M. A., Teke A. (2011) A comprehensive overview of hybrid electric vehicle: Powertrain configurations, powertrain control techniques and electronic control units. Energy Conversion and Management, 52 (2), 1305–1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.09.028

7. O’Keefe M. P., Simpson A., Kelly K. J., Pedersen D. S. (2007) Duty Cycle Characterization and Evaluation Towards Heavy Hybrid Vehicle Applications. SAE Technical Paper Series, 2007-01-0302. https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-0302

8. Karbowski D., Pagerit S., Kwon J., Rousseau A., von Pechmann K.-F.F. (2009) “Fair” Comparison of Powertrain Configurations for Plug-In Hybrid Operation Using Global Optimization. SAE Technical Paper Series, 2009-01-1334. https://doi.org/10.4271/2009-01-1334

9. Taymaz I., Benli M. (2014) Emissions and fuel economy for a hybrid vehicle. Fuel, 115, 812–817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.04.045

10. Al-samari A. (2017) Study of emissions and fuel economy for parallel hybrid versus conventional vehicles on real world and standard driving cycles. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 56 (4), 721–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.04.010

11. Karaoğlan M. U., Kuralay N. S., Colpan C. O. (2019) The effect of gear ratıos on the exhaust emıssıons and fuel consumptıon of a parallel hybrid vehicle powertrain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1033–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.065

12. Wipke K. B., Cuddy M. R. (1996) Using an Advanced Vehicle Simulator ( ADVISOR ) to Guide Hybrid Vehicle Propulsion System Development. NESEA sustainable transportation and S/EV symposium, New York City, 16-18 Sep 1996, 120–126. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy96/21615.pdf

13. Same A., Stipe A., Grossman D., Park J. W. (2010) A study on optimization of hybrid drive train using Advanced Vehicle Simulator (ADVISOR). Journal of Power Sources, 195 (19), 6954–6963. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.03.057

14. Markel T., Brooker A., Hendricks T., Johnson V., Kelly K., Kramer B., O’Keefe M., Sprik S., Wipke K. (2012) ADVISOR: a systems analysis tool for advanced vehicle modeling. Journal of Power Sources, 110 (2), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00189-1.

15. Turkmen A.C., Solmaz S., Celik C. (2017) Analysis of fuel cell vehicles with advisor software. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1066–1071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.011

16. Hofman T., van der Tas S. G., Ooms W., van Meijl E.W.P., Laugeman B. M. (2009) Development of a Micro-Hybrid System for a Three-Wheeled motor taxi. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 3 (3), 572–580. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj3030572

17. BAJAJ. BAJAJ RE 4s Specifications. GlobalBajaj.com. Available at: https://www.globalbajaj.com/global/english/brands/intracity/re/re-4s/specifications/

18. Wipke K., Cuddy M., Bharathan D., Burch S., Johnson V., Markel A., Sprik S. (1999) Advisor 2.0: A Second-Generation Advanced Vehicle Simulator for Systems Analysis. Golden, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.2172/5023

19. Bokare P. S., Maurya A. K. (2016) Study of Acceleration Behaviour of Motorized Three Wheeler in India. Transportation Research Procedia, 17, 244–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.088

20. National Renewable Energy Laboratory(2019) NREL DriveCAT Chassis Dynamometer Drive Cycles. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/drive-cycle-tool

21. Robinson B., Eastlake A. (2014) Development of Test Cycles and Measurement Protocols for a Low Carbon Truck Technology Accreditation Scheme.