Comparative Analysis of Alternative Hybrid Systems for Automotive Applications

The main objective of this work was to investigate the impact of different hybridization concepts and levels of hybridization on fuel economy of a standard road vehicle where both conventional and non-conventional hybrid architectures are treated exactly in the same way from the point of view of overall energy flow optimization. Hybrid component models were developed and presented in detail as well as the simulations results mainly for NEDC cycle. The analysis was performed on four different parallel hybrid powertrain concepts: Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV), High Speed Flywheel Hybrid Vehicle (HSF-HV), Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle (HHV) and Pneumatic Hybrid Vehicle (PHV). In order to perform equitable analysis of different hybrid systems, comparison was performed also on the basis of the same usable system energy storage capacity (i.e. 625kJ for HEV, HSF and the HHV) but in the case of pneumatic hybrid systems maximal storage capacity was limited by the size of the systems in order to comply with the packaging requirements of the vehicle. The simulations were performed within the IAV Gmbh - VeLoDyn software simulator based on Matlab / Simulink software package. Advanced cycle independent control strategy (ECMS) was implemented into the hybrid supervisory control unit in order to solve power management problem for all hybrid powertrain solutions. In order to maintain State of Charge within desired boundaries during different cycles and to facilitate easy implementation and recalibration of the control strategy for very different hybrid systems, Charge Sustaining Algorithm was added into the ECMS framework. Also, a Variable Shift Pattern VSP-ECMS algorithm was proposed as an extension of ECMS capabilities so as to include gear selection into the determination of minimal (energy) cost function of the hybrid system. Further, cycle-based energetic analysis was performed in all the simulated cases, and the results have been reported in the corresponding chapters.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Retrofit Options to Support Decision Making

How to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repair/retrofit intervention vs. demolition/replacement and what level of shaking intensity can the chosen repairing/retrofit technique sustain are open questions affecting either the pre-earthquake prevention, the post-earthquake emergency and the reconstruction phases. The (mis)conception that the cost of retrofit interventions would increase linearly with the achieved seismic performance (%NBS) often discourages stakeholders to consider repair/retrofit options in a post-earthquake damage situation. Similarly, in a pre-earthquake phase, the minimum (by-law) level of %NBS might be targeted, leading in some cases to no-action. Furthermore, the performance measure enforcing owners to take action, the %NBS, is generally evaluated deterministically. Not directly reflecting epistemic and aleatory uncertainties, the assessment can result in misleading confidence on the expected performance. The present study aims at contributing to the delicate decision-making process of repair/retrofit vs. demolition/replacement, by developing a framework to assist stakeholders with the evaluation of the effects in terms of long-term losses and benefits of an increment in their initial investment (targeted retrofit level) and highlighting the uncertainties hidden behind a deterministic approach. For a pre-1970 case study building, different retrofit solutions are considered, targeting different levels of %NBS, and the actual probability of reaching Collapse when considering a suite of ground-motions is evaluated, providing a correlation between %NBS and Risk. Both a simplified and a probabilistic loss modelling are then undertaken to study the relationship between %NBS and expected direct and indirect losses.