Cost-effectiveness of alternative powertrains for reduced energy use and CO2 emissions in passenger vehicles

This work analysed the cost-effectiveness of avoiding carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions using advanced internal combustion engines, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell vehicles and electric vehicles across the nine UK passenger vehicles segments. Across all vehicle types and powertrain groups, minimum installed motive power was dependent most on the time to accelerate from zero to 96.6km/h (60mph). Hybridising the powertrain reduced the difference in energy use between vehicles with slow (t z - 60 > 8 s) and fast acceleration (t z - 60 < 8 s) times. The cost premium associated with advanced powertrains was dependent most on the powertrain chosen, rather than the performance required. Improving non-powertrain components reduced vehicle road load and allowed total motive capacity to decrease by 17%, energy use by 11%, manufacturing cost premiums by 13% and CO2 emissions abatement costs by 15%. All vehicles with advanced internal combustion engines, most hybrid and plug-in hybrid powertrains reduced net CO2 emissions and had lower lifetime operating costs than the respective segment reference vehicle. Most powertrains using fuel cells and all electric vehicles had positive CO2 emissions abatement costs. However, only vehicles using advanced internal combustion engines and parallel hybrid vehicles may be attractive to consumers by the fuel savings offsetting increases in vehicle cost within two years. This work demonstrates that fuel savings are possible relative to today's fleet, but indicates that the most cost-effective way of reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions is by advanced combustion technologies and hybridisation with a parallel topology. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

An experimental study on the load carrying capacity of cold-formed steel studs and panels

A full-scale experimental study on the structural performance of load-bearing wall panels made of cold-formed steel frames and boards is presented. Six different types of C-channel stud, a total of 20 panels with one middle stud and 10 panels with two middle studs were tested under vertical compression until failure. For panels, the main variables considered are screw spacing (300 mm, 400 mm, or 600 mm) in the middle stud, board type (oriented strand board - OSB, cement particle board - CPB, or calcium silicate board - CSB), board number (no sheathing, one-side sheathing, or two-side sheathing), and loading type (1, 3, or 4-point loading). The measured load capacity of studs and panels agrees well with analytical prediction. Due to the restraint by rivet connections between stud and track, the effective length factor for the middle stud and the side stud in a frame (unsheathed panel) is reduced to 0.90 and 0.84, respectively. The load carrying capacity of a stud increases significantly whenever one- or two-side sheathing is used, although the latter is significantly more effective. It is also dependent upon the type of board used. Whereas panels with either OSB or CPB boards have nearly identical load carrying capacity, panels with CSB boards are considerably weaker. Screw spacing affects the load carrying capacity of a stud. When the screw spacing on the middle stud in panels with one-side sheathing is reduced from 600 mm to 300 mm, its load carrying capacity increases by 14.5 %, 20.6% and 94.2% for OSB, CPB and CSB, respectively.