%0 Journal Article
%T Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) or Range Extended Electric Vehicle (REEV)? ¡ªDeciding Between Different Alternative Drives Based on Measured Individual Operational Profiles V¨¦hicule ¨¦lectrique ¨¤ batteries (BEV) ou v¨¦hicule ¨¦lectrique ¨¤ prolongateur d¡¯autonomie (REEV) ? ¡ª Choisir entre diff¨¦rents entra nements alternatifs sur la base de profils op¨¦rationnels individuels mesur¨¦s
%A Marker S.
%A Rippel B.
%A Waldowski P.
%A Schulz A.
%J Oil & Gas Science and Technology
%D 2013
%I Institut Fran?ais du P¨¦trole
%R 10.2516/ogst/2012103
%X In recent years, a large number of concepts for drive train electrification and a corresponding broad variety of available drive train configurations were presented to the public. They all have their pros and cons for the customer. This paper discusses a tool enabling the customer to select the drive train which is best suited to his individual purposes. The presented approach focuses on BEV and REEV and is characterized by a three-step procedure: the customer¡¯s individual driving behaviour is measured: individualized driving cycles and operational habits including the daily kilometrage are derived; numerical models of the alternative drive train concepts are run to simulate the energy consumption by applying these individualized cycles. The study reveals that battery sizing is the most important component. It would be more efficient to use a REEV with a smaller battery instead of a BEV: at a given range of 50 km the BEV covers 50% of the kilometers (corresponding to 90% of all daily distances) while the REEV covers 100% of all daily distances, out of it 70% on electric driving. This leads to less CO2 emission compared to the combined use of BEV and conventional cars. The REEV with the smallest battery is amortized first referred to conventional cars. The influence of the individual usage pattern can be translated to operational costs. The REEV urban driver covers 85% by electric driving and has thus lower operational costs than the REEV inter-urban driver with 64% electric driving. R¨¦cemment, un grand nombre de concepts d¡¯¨¦lectrification des groupes motopropulseurs et une large vari¨¦t¨¦ correspondante de configurations disponibles ont ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦s au public. Tous poss¨¨dent des avantages et des inconv¨¦nients pour le client. Cet article traite d¡¯un outil permettant au client de s¨¦lectionner le groupe motopropulseur le plus adapt¨¦ ¨¤ ses besoins individuels. L¡¯approche pr¨¦sent¨¦e se focalise sur les v¨¦hicules BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle ¡ª v¨¦hicule ¨¦lectrique ¨¤ batteries) et REEV (Range Extended Electric Vehicle ¡ª v¨¦hicule ¨¦lectrique ¨¤ prolongateur d¡¯autonomie) et est caract¨¦ris¨¦e par une proc¨¦dure en trois ¨¦tapes : le comportement individuel au volant du client est ¨¦valu¨¦ ; les cycles de conduite individualis¨¦s et les habitudes op¨¦rationnelles comprenant le kilom¨¦trage journalier sont d¨¦termin¨¦s ; en appliquant ces cycles individualis¨¦s, des mod¨¨les num¨¦riques de concepts de groupe motopropulseur alternatif sont r¨¦alis¨¦s afin de simuler la consommation d¡¯¨¦nergie. L¡¯¨¦tude r¨¦v¨¨le que le dimensionnement de la batterie constitue l¡¯¨¦l¨¦ment le plus important. Un
%U http://dx.doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2012103