Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 3. The effects of traffic load, desired speed and cruise control on energy consumption
60mph (100 k/hr.)
50mph (80 k/hr.)
Flow (VPH)
No cruise
Cruise
No cruise
2000
1.20
1.11
0.91
3000
1.18
1.11
0.89
4000
1.16
1.11
0.89
5000
1.15
1.09
0.88
6000
1.13
1.09
0.87
From Table 3 and Fig. 6, it can be seen that the vehicles travelling in cruise control
use significantly lower energy than the vehicles travelling without cruise. The fluctua-
tions in acceleration/deceleration and hence the speed results in higher energy
consumption for vehicles which are not using cruise control. The drop in energy con-
sumption with increase in flow values is directly related to the drop in speeds as the
flow conditions become congested. It should also be noted that the energy consump-
tion and its variation remains fixed across different flow values when the cruise
control is set to 50mph. But, in the case of cruise control at 60mph, there is a larger
statistical variance in energy usage (dotted lines diverge) as the flow values increase.
This is because at high flows, the vehicles are unable to maintain a cruise speed of
60mph due to the increase in flow density. But, the vehicles seem to maintain a cruise
speed of 50mph even when the traffic flow increases.
Fig. 6. The effect of traffic load on energy consumption both with and without cruise control
driver models is demonstrated for 125 vehicles
3.2
Urban Highway
The results show the mean energy required by a battery electric vehicle to travel the 6
mile stretch. The main difference between an urban road and a freeway would be the
stop-go behaviour of the vehicles at traffic signals. As a result, because of the regen-
erative capability of a battery electric vehicle, the energy consumed per mile will be
Search WWH ::




Custom Search