Under pressure from rising fuel costs, emissions constraints, and new government regulations on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, hybrid technologies for these classes of vehicles are becoming more prevalent. A variety of technologies have been proposed to meet these requirements including power-assist hybrid electric and hybrid hydraulic systems. Although there has been great discussion about the benefits surrounding each of the technologies individually, no direct comparisons are available on the basis of economics and fuel economy. This study focuses on comparing these power-assist technologies on these bases as well as determines the ability of these technologies to fulfill the newly adopted fuel economy regulations.
In order to accomplish this goal, three computational models of vehicle dynamics, thermal behavior and fuel economy were created and validated to simulate the conventional vehicle and hydraulic and electric hybrids. These models were simulated over the Heavy-Duty Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule, the HTUF Class 4 Parcel Delivery Cycle, and the Orange County Bus cycle. These drive cycles were chosen on their ability to characterize the variety of operating conditions observed in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Using these models, cross technology comparisons were constructed comparing commercially available systems, systems with a fixed mass, and systems with a fixed incremental cost.
The results of the commercially available systems showed that the Azure Dynamics HEV provided greater fuel economy improvement than the Lightning Hybrids HHV for drive cycle kinetic intensities less than 3.19 miles -1. Although this system showed a cost of fuel savings over the HHV, it was seen that the incremental cost of the HEV exceeded the cost of fuel savings over the HHV. The fixed mass comparison case, which compared vehicles with equal cargo carrying utility, showed similar results to that of the commercially available case. Although the increase in incremental cost for the varying HEV systems designed for the fixed mass case correlated to an improvement in fuel savings, the cost associated with the systems surpassed the savings seen. Lastly, the fixed cost case provided results which were also similar to the commercially available case. Due to the fixed system cost, it was seen that for these systems, the fuel economy benefits and associated cost showed the greatest benefits for the HEV.
This study concluded that given the evaluation, the HEV was the only power-assist hybrid technology which could fulfill the regulated fuel economy improvement of 15%. Although the HEV was the only technology which could fulfill the requirements, the HHV showed an improvement upwards of 7% greater than the HEV for the Orange County Bus Drive Cycle.
|Advisor:||Bradley, Thomas H.|
|Commitee:||Bandhauer, Todd M., Sega, Ronald M.|
|School:||Colorado State University|
|School Location:||United States -- Colorado|
|Source:||MAI 53/06M(E), Masters Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Automotive engineering, Mechanical engineering|
|Keywords:||Electric hybrids, Heavy-duty vehicle, Hybrid, Hydraulic hybrid, Medium-duty vehicle|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be