Scholarlink

<p>The energy consumption characteristics of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) differ fundamentally due to their distinct powertrain architectures. With the increasing adoption of BEVs, a direct and consistent comparison of ICEV and BEV energy consumption has become essential for understanding their respective energy performance. This study introduces a unified evaluation framework using speed and acceleration metrics—including quantified deceleration—to capture the distinct energy use patterns of both vehicle types. Simulations were conducted under diverse driving conditions, considering factors such as powertrain efficiency, battery and driveline losses, aerodynamic drag, and rolling resistance. Under the urban UDDS cycle, the ICEV showed a thermal efficiency of 25.1% and consumed 733 Wh/km (based on fuel LHV), while the BEV consumed 115 Wh/km (based on battery output) and recovered approximately 30% of energy through regenerative braking. In the highway HWFET cycle, ICEV efficiency increased to 29.0%, reducing energy use, whereas BEV consumption rose due to limited energy recovery. Across all cycles, BEV energy consumption increased linearly with speed due to aerodynamic drag, while ICEV consumption followed a U-shaped trend with optimal efficiency at 60–80&#xa0;km/h. Based on these insights, representative energy consumption factors were developed, enabling consistent comparisons between ICEVs and BEVs across varying driving conditions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Deriving Comparable Energy Consumption Factors for Battery Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles Using Propulsion and Braking Phase Analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月26日

查看全文
  • Jigu Seo

摘要

The energy consumption characteristics of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) differ fundamentally due to their distinct powertrain architectures. With the increasing adoption of BEVs, a direct and consistent comparison of ICEV and BEV energy consumption has become essential for understanding their respective energy performance. This study introduces a unified evaluation framework using speed and acceleration metrics—including quantified deceleration—to capture the distinct energy use patterns of both vehicle types. Simulations were conducted under diverse driving conditions, considering factors such as powertrain efficiency, battery and driveline losses, aerodynamic drag, and rolling resistance. Under the urban UDDS cycle, the ICEV showed a thermal efficiency of 25.1% and consumed 733 Wh/km (based on fuel LHV), while the BEV consumed 115 Wh/km (based on battery output) and recovered approximately 30% of energy through regenerative braking. In the highway HWFET cycle, ICEV efficiency increased to 29.0%, reducing energy use, whereas BEV consumption rose due to limited energy recovery. Across all cycles, BEV energy consumption increased linearly with speed due to aerodynamic drag, while ICEV consumption followed a U-shaped trend with optimal efficiency at 60–80 km/h. Based on these insights, representative energy consumption factors were developed, enabling consistent comparisons between ICEVs and BEVs across varying driving conditions.