Modeling, Control, and Simulation of Regenerative Braking Systems in Electric Vehicles

by

Michael Fisher, Youji Ma, and Ping Yu

December, 1999

ABSTRACT
Facing serious global environmental and energy challenges, the automotive industry must develop new generations of low-emission, efficient automobiles. Regenerative braking is already accepted as one of the best ways to improve the overall energy efficiency of these vehicles.

A complete regenerative braking system for both EVs and HEVs is designed and modeled, combining regenerative braking with supplemental hydraulic braking and ABS. In designing the control strategy, tremendous efforts are made to recover maximum kinematic energy, while still ensuring safe braking.

The 3-tier system, comprehensively covering a variety of input/output variables, is constructed based on a half-car vehicle model using Simulink. Simulation results of different driving scenarios show that the system is very efficient in recovering braking energy, and is also very responsive to hazardous conditions such as panic braking and slippery road surface. A final simulation demonstrates 86% brake energy recovery efficiency in ECE-15 Fuel Economy testing cycles.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1

1.1. Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicles 1.2. Technical Challenges 1.3. Modern EVs

6 9

Chapter 2. Regenerative Braking System Design 2.1. Regenerative Braking 2.2 General Principles

9 10

2.3 System Design Overview 12 2.4. Brake System 14

2.5. Motor/Inverter Torque Characteristics during Regen Braking 16 2.6. Priorities in Control Design 18

2.7. Brake Torque Blending 19 Chapter 3. System Modeling 24 3.1. Tier 1 module 24 27

3.2. Vehicle subsystem

3.3. Front and rear axle hydraulic pressure modulator subsystems 30 3.4. Regen controller subsystem Chapter 4. Model Analysis 31

33 33 35 37 38

4.1. Scenario 1: From 55mph to 0mph with small braking force 4.2. Scenario 2: From 55mph to 0mph with moderate braking force 4.3. Scenario 3: From 55mph to 0mph with large braking force

4.4. Scenario 4: From 55mph to 0mph with large braking force on slippery road 4.5. Scenario 5: From 35mph to 0mph with small braking force 4.6 Scenario 6: 35mph coasting 15% downhill

41

42

4.7. Scenario 7: ECE-15 fuel economy testing cycle 44 Chapter 5. Conclusions References 46

47

1. Introduction
1.1. Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicles The technology for electric vehicles (EVs) has been available since the turn of the century. In the early 1900s EVs were just as popular as their gasoline or steampowered counterparts. However, the abundance of petroleum soon allowed internal combustion engines (ICEs), which operate using fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel, to dominate the worlds automobile market. The noisiness and lower reliability of ICE vehicles were soon outweighed by their lower cost and better range (32). Continued development of the ICE engine over the last 80 years has made it so sophisticated that no other options have posed real challenges to it.

However,

as

easily-recoverable

petroleum

deposits

dwindle,

automobile

populations soar, and cities become choked with combustion by-products, the ICE is increasingly becoming the victim of its own success. In the next five decades the auto industry will face a crucial test how to meet the challenges of the exponentially growing world population, the increasing wealth of developing countries with large populations, the deteriorating global environment and the per capita energy being consumed. It is estimated that the population will continue to explode, reaching 9 billion in 2050. Combined with greater overall wealth, more energy will be demanded per person, so we may expect far greater pollution due to automobile emissions unless we stop abusing our precious energy in todays manner. Automobiles must become cleaner and more energy efficient.

Over the past three decades there has been resurgence in the development of electric vehicle technology and the desire to once again produce electrically powered vehicles for mass market. The renewed interest in EVs is due largely to the realization that our reserves of oil may soon be depleted, as well as a growing concern to make automobile travel as environment-friendly as possible.

California, with a sizable share of the automobile market and the worst pollution problem in the country, has been particularly effective at passing such mandates and is responsible for driving much independent EV research (22). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) had originally set a quota of 2% for all vehicles sold by 1998 to be zero-emission vehicles, which primarily includes EVs (15). Although this mandate was reconsidered, a quota of 10% by the year 2003 still stands, applying to the 7 biggest car manufacturers in the state (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota) (15, 22). Legislative activity is also being seen in Massachusetts and New York, though not as aggressive as in California (22).

EVs have only three primary components - the electric motor, motor controller, and battery - making them much simpler than ICE vehicles which contain an engine, transmission, exhaust, fuel-injection system, and muffler (18). With fewer moving parts and without complicated fluid systems, EVs today are more reliable than conventional vehicles (8,18). They require no emission tests, oil changes, tune-ups, and less general maintenance, meaning less time spent with a mechanic in the repair shop (8,32). In addition, electric vehicles provide a more comfortable ride, with less noise and no gear shifting (21,22). And likely the greatest advantage of EVs is their energy flexibility and potential independence of oil (18).

Yet along with the many advantages of electric vehicles come serious disadvantages, which must be overcome if EVs are to again own a sizeable portion of the automobile market. The bottleneck is that the battery technology that has not offered an inexpensive option with large storage capacity, greatly limiting the range of an affordable EV and preventing them from competing on an equal level with ICE vehicles (2,6).

1.2 Technical Challenges

The auto industry and governments worldwide must commit to supporting the development of next generation tools for mass and personal transportation. The technical

challenges are achievable. Current technology has already nurtured the options of pure electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs including serial and parallel) and fuel cell hybrid vehicles. Figure 1 shows an approximate comparison of CO2 emissions of these options versus a conventional gasoline car and a compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle. It should be noted that CO2 emissions can roughly represent the levels of energy consumed to propel a car without external electric charging port. In the case of EVs which generate zero emissions, emissions are instead produced at the power plant, though non-mobile emissions are normally easier to control than mobile emissions.

Projected CO2 Emissions

EV (Power Plant) Fuel Cell Hybrid Series Hybrid CNG Vehicle Parallel Hybrid Gasoline (26MPG) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 1. Projected CO2 emissions It is easy to show the projected scenario through a series of improvements from a series of innovations. For example, in most centralized metropolises, city driving is one of the largest energy wasting sectors. Assuming we have a car with traditional gasoline engine, drive line and aerodynamics, of 100 units of total energy input to an engine, only 15 are eventually converted to driving wheels (Figure 2-a).

Standby 19.0

Accessories 2.0

Kinetic Energy 9.0

100 Engine 21.0 Transmission 15.0

Rolling Friction 3.5

Engine Losses 58.0

Drivetrain Losses 6.0

Aero 2.5

Figure 2-a. Baseline fuel economy

By adding a 50%-efficient regenerative braking system with a small motor (generator) and small energy reservoir (battery), we can recall 3.7 units of energy which will result in nearly a 20% saving at the input end (Figure 2-b).

Standby
19.0

Accessories
2.0

7.5 -- Through Regenerative Braking

Battery
Electric Motor

Kinetic Energy 9.0

Braking 0
No brake heat

3.7*
*Assume 50% efficient

80.4

15.8

15.0
Rolling friction 3.5 Rolling friction 1.0

Engine

Transmission

11.3

Drivetrain Losses Engine Losses

43.6 4.5
Aero 2.5 Aero 0.5

Fuel Economy = +24.4% Figure 2-b. Energy flow with regenerative braking

We can improve powertrain and drive-line as well. We can add idle fuel cut-off, improve transmission efficiency by removing torque converter, and make the car into a

semi-parallel HEV. With this configuration we will need 62% of the energy to do the same job (Figure 2-c).

Standby
9.0

Accessories
2.0

7.5
Battery E. Motor 3.7
Kinetic Energy 9.0

Braking 0

61.9

Engine

13.5

Transmission 11.3 Drivetrain Losses

15.0

Rolling friction 3.5

Rolling friction 1.0

Engine Losses
37.3

2.2

Aero 2.5

Aero 0.5

Fuel Economy = +61.6% Figure 2-c. Energy flow of a parallel HEV

Next, convert the car to a Full-Series HEV with no idle waste but higher fuel efficiency, load leveling, regenerative braking and electric accessories. This requires only 55.7% of the original energy (Figure 2-d) and the fuel economy has 79.5% improvement.
Accessories
Kinetic Energy 9.0

2.0

Braking 0

Generator

55.7

3.7
E. Motor

Engine

15.0 11.3

16.1
Battery Engine Losses

Rolling friction 3.5

Rolling
F riction

1.0

Aero 2.5

Aero 0.5

37.6 Fuel Economy = +79.5%

Figure 2-d. Energy flow of a serial HEV

Finally, we convert the car to a pure electric vehicle by replacing the heat engine by a power plant and a inductive charger. There is loss of power transmission through the network-charger-battery. We will still have the same energy efficiency but greatly save the cost of the car over 75% of improvement on fuel efficiency (Figure 2-e).

Accessories 2.0

Kinetic E nergy 9.0

B raking 0

19.4 Charger

3.7 E. Motor 11.3

Battery
Aero 2.5 Aero 0.5

15.0

R olling 3.5

R olling 1 .0

57.0

Fuel Economy = +75.4%

Figure 2-e. Overall energy consumption of a pure EV

This saving is not achieved by sacrificing the comfort (size, weight) of the car, but by changing the energy management. Of greater saving is the further reduction of vehicle weight and improvement of aerodynamics which will reduce the energy requirement at the output end. Indeed, there is huge potential for us to improve the overall energy efficiency of automotive transportation, especially in those areas with lowspeed, stop-go traffic conditions.

1.3 Modern EVs

Nearly every car manufacturer today offers an electric vehicle in their product line, though sales are generally limited to specific regions of the country and to specific markets. Every model that we studied, described in further detail below, features

regenerative braking. Indeed this shows how the industry values regenerative braking, and how integral such a feature has become on all electric vehicles.

One of the first available for general sale was GMs EV1, which was part of a $350 million development project by that company (35). Research for the EV-1 began in 1988, and it was brought to market nine years later, as the most energy efficient automobile ever (11). Each member of this project group test drove the EV-1, and evaluated its regenerative braking system. In most cases, there is no noticeable

difference from conventional braking; there is an audible click when regenerative braking is engaged but the effect cannot be felt otherwise. Unfortunately, the EV-1 can only be rented or purchased in Arizona or southern California because cold weather elsewhere adversely affects its lead-acid battery (35). Today there are 34 retailers in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay area, Sacramento, Phoenix and Tucson, who lease and service the EV-1 (28).

About two years ago Chevrolet came public with the S-10 electric pick-up truck, which also uses a lead-acid battery (24). In 1997, Hondas EV PLUS became the first EV on the market to use NiMH batteries, giving it a relatively high range of 125 miles (29). Honda also advertises its regenerative braking system, claiming it makes stop-andgo rush hour traffic smooth and effortless, and recovers energy spent climbing up hills on the way down (29).

Fords production line also now offers two electric vehicles. The Ranger EV is another pick-up truck and the Ecostar is a two-passenger van intended for use in delivery service (26,27). Both feature power-assisted hydraulic braking and regenerative braking.

The Toyota RAV4 EV is the only electric sport-utility vehicle in todays automobile market, currently on sale in Japan for about $45,000 (33). The RAV4 EV uses disc brakes on the front wheels, drum brakes on the rear, with additional regenerative function on the rear wheels (25). Nissans Altra EV makes use of original electric vacuum-pump assisted regenerative braking combined with ABS (31).

Regenerative braking and ABS are also standard on the Chrysler Electric Powered Interurban Commuter (EPIC) Electric Minivan (30).

Anticipating no major breakthrough in battery technology in the near future, the solution has to be HEVs, which contain both an electric motor and small internal combustion engine (23). Toyota Prius is the first commercially available HEV with features a semi-parallel configuration, and Honda will soon market its first HEV, the Insight, in the United States. The Big Three in the US are also expected to debut their first generation of HEVs in 2000 Detroit Auto Show.

2. Regenerative Braking System Design

2.1. Regenerative Braking

To improve performance of EV and HEVs, researchers are active in developing batteries that store more energy, and in reducing energy consumption though advanced aerodynamics and weight minimization. Successful attempts have also been made in recovering energy that the vehicle loses during braking, and this continues to be a major area of research. Figure 3.a shows the regenerative braking system layout of GMs EV1.

Figure 3.a. Brake system of GMs EV1

Regenerative braking seeks to harness energy that would otherwise be dissipated as heat when a vehicle decelerates. Conventional braking utilizes friction to effectively decelerate a vehicle, but wastes the large amount of kinetic energy that a rapidly moving automobile may possess. For example, a 1500kg vehicle traveling at 70km/h has 300kJ

of kinetic energy, which drops to zero as the vehicle comes to rest. If properly harnessed, this is enough to propel that same vehicle for 1.8 km at 70km/h (7). With regenerative braking, the motor is made to function as a generator when a vehicle decelerates, funneling energy back into the battery (1). The effect is significant energy recovery leading to increased vehicle range.

Regenerative braking is also meaningful for ICE vehicles. If adequate additional energy storage measures can be employed, such as pressure energy storage or highvoltage (42V) accessory power battery, a hydraulic or an electric motor can serve as the regenerative braking generator.

2.2 General Principles

An important ratio in evaluating regenerative braking performance is E2/E1 which shows the percentage of energy that is returned to the vehicle by using regenerative braking (34). E1 is the energy total energy lost (kinematic and potential) during braking process, while E2 is the energy recovered and returned to the battery. Braking energy can be calculated by integrating the braking power:
Eb = Pb dt

(1)

E2/E1 is typically expressed for an entire driving cycle, or can be studied during braking only (we use the latter). Also important is the equation for braking power:
Pb = V dV 1 mg sin( ) mg cos( ) f r a C D A f V 2 (kW) m 1000 dt 2

(2)

where m is mass in kg, V is speed in m/s, fr is rolling resistance, a is air density, is the grade angle (uphill positive), CD is aerodynamic drag, and Af is frontal area. Braking power is extremely important in regenerative braking controller design, as regenerative braking should only be applied within a certain power limit as well as depending on the

10

battery state of charge (7,34). High power values present a danger to the battery because recharging too fast lowers a batterys life.

In all cases that we studied, electrical braking was combined with hydraulic, friction braking. This is because regenerative braking is not adequate in all situations, especially when rapid deceleration is necessary. Design of sophisticated braking

controllers that combine regenerative braking with hydraulic braking is thus necessary to maintain safety, provide the driver with adequate feel, and recover as much energy as possible. The strategy for a controller is generally to first achieve desired deceleration without locking either wheels, especially the rear wheels (7). Second comes the goal of maximizing energy recovery. In the past 10 years patents have been awarded to several automobile manufacturers including Ford, General Motors, and Mitsubishi, for regenerative braking controllers (5, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17).

During emergency braking, with deceleration near 1g, a very high energy recovery rate is theoretically possible with regenerative braking. For example, in slowing down a 1500kg vehicle from 70km/h at 0.8g, braking power can reach 250kW (7). Such high rates are potentially harmful to a battery, and all energy in excess of 20kW should be handled by other means. Although it may be diverted to a flywheel storage device (also for regeneration), in todays EVs excess energy is typically dissipated by friction brakes (34). Hydraulic braking is thus used in conjunction with electric braking for rapid deceleration, past the point of maximum energy recovery (1). Fortunately, everyday driving seldom involves emergency braking; in normal driving cycles, regenerative braking is responsible for most of the vehicles deceleration.

In front wheel driven EVs energy can only be recovered at the front axle, with the rear axle using friction braking. There exists an ideal curve for the distribution of braking force on the front and rear wheel axles (to avoid rear-wheel lockup) that a braking controller must strive to achieve (7). Typically, this means that about 35% of the energy that is dissipated at the rear wheels is unavailable for regeneration (1).

11

Another goal of braking controllers is to provide braking feel similar to that of conventional hydraulic brakes, as this is what most drivers are familiar with. Todays electric vehicles have such advanced braking controllers which strive to simulate such braking feel that in these authors test drives of GMs EV-1, no difference in braking was noticeable. Indeed there have been many patents awarded for controllers that make efforts to ensure adequate feel by, for example, varying the time lag between depression of the brake pedal and application of regenerative braking (10, 14).

Recently, regenerative braking has been integrated with anti-lock braking to provide electric vehicles with superior deceleration performance (1). Anti-skid control systems require that regenerative braking be momentarily deactivated when slip is detected, so that the wheels are allowed to unlock (3,10). In this way safety is not compromised, and some energy can still be recovered.

Regenerative braking can recover 25-30% of the kinetic energy lost during braking. Depending on the particular driving cycle, this can result in as much as a 20% recovery of total energy, effectively increasing the vehicle range by the same amount. In electric vehicles, where range is the primary limitation, a 20% increase is extremely valuable. In the following pages we present our own model of a regenerative braking system, and discuss implementation and performance of various braking controllers.

2.3 System Design Overview

In this class project, our model is built based on a configuration that is most popular among current commercialized OEM systems: Regen (a popular abbreviation in the industry for regenerative braking) in the braking system with supplemental hydraulic braking and ABS. Toyotas RAV-4, Electric SUV, GMs EV1 and Fords Ranger EV all use this configuration. The GM EV1 also employs an additional rear electric braking to reduce the total size and weight of braking system but the brake torque controls strategy is the same. This type of system can achieve brake torque management by optimized

12

blending between Regen and friction braking as well as optimized torque distribution between front and rear, so it is widely applied to the current design of EV and HEVs.

In order to ensure brake safety, the system is constructed based on a X dualcircuit hydraulic system that groups the 4-wheel disc brakes in to LF-RR and RF-LR lines. The car is front wheel drive so the motor only receives regenerative braking torque from the front axle. The Braking Torque Control Module (BTCM) manages the braking torque blending between the two torque sources. It also implements ABS when the wheels are locked up.

To simplify the system a bicycle model is applied in this class project but the strategy of torque blending between hydraulic and Regen, and that of torque split between front and rear, are equal to the full-car model. The design specifications of the EV or HEV are shown in Table 1.

13

Table 1. Vehicle Specifications

Testing Mass (with one driver) Length Width Height Height of Center of Gravity (CG) Wheelbase Front Axle to CG (a) Rear Axle to CG (b) Frontal area Coefficient of Aerodynamics Top Speed 1510 kg (Curb 1450kg, Driver 60kg) 4,300 mm. 1,760 mm. 1,300 mm. 600 mm 2,500 mm. 1,100 mm 1,400 mm 1.89 m . 0.19 128Km/Hr (80 Mile/Hr.), electronically regulated Tire 175/65R14 High Pressure, Low Resistance, Rolling Radius 0.31m Reduction Gear Ratio Top Motor Speed 10:1 11,000rpm @ 80MPH
2

2.4. Brake System

As shown in Figure 3b, the heart of the system is the Brake Torque Control Module that manages brake torque distribution and blending. Based on a variety of inputs, the BTCM calculates the demanded vehicle deceleration and total braking torque, and divides them into the Regen demand and hydraulic torque. The hydraulic torque is again split for the front and rear axles.

14

BTCM
Battery SOC

Battery Pack

Regen On/Off Switch

Regen Controller

Regen Torque Command Vehicle Speed

Power Inverter AC/DC

AC Motor
Front Wheel Speed

Reduction Gear

Line Pressure Transducer Brake Padel Mstr Brk Cylinder Proportional Pressure Valve

Front Axle Hydraulic Pressure Modulator Rear Axle Hydraulic Pressure Modulator

Front Hydro Brake Rear Wheel Speed Rear Hydro Brake

Frt. Whl. Cylinder

Rr. Whl . Cylinder

Figure 3b. Brake system layout

Inputs to the BTCM include: Master Cylinder Line Pressure -- The brake line pressure transducers sense line pressure at the outlet of the master cylinder, and send the pressure signal to the BTCM.

Regenerative Braking On/Off the customer has a choice to enable or disable regenerative braking.

Battery State of Charge the Battery State of Charge is read via the serial link between battery control module and BTCM. BTCM uses SOC signal to calculate the torque limit of Regen braking.

15

Vehicle Speed Vehicle speed is read from the output shaft of motor. Since there is a fixed reduction ratio between motor and wheel the output shaft speed is proportional to vehicle speed.

Wheel speed the wheel speed sensors feed wheel speed signal to the BTCM for judgement of tire slip ratio and lock-up.

Outputs from the BTCM include: Pressure reduction command to the Front Axle Hydraulic Pressure Modulator reduces hydraulic braking torque on the front axle to maximize Regen braking portion and to avoid wheel lock-up.

Pressure reduction command to the Front Axle Hydraulic Pressure Modulator serves solely for ABS pressure release to avoid lock-up at the rear axle.

Regen Torque command tells the motor/inverter assembly how much regenerative braking torque to apply.

2.5. Motor/Inverter Torque Characteristics during Regen Braking

The braking torque characteristics of an HEV/EV electric motor is like a flipped driving torque curve. However, it not only depends on the speed of the motor but also depends on the State Of Charge (SOC) of the battery.

16

1800 SOC=0% 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 SOC=60% 600 400 200 0 SOC=100%, Torque=0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 SOC=80% SOC=40% SOC=20%

Figure 4. Motor/Inverter torque characteristics

Figure 4 shows the brake torque characteristics of GMs EV1 motor, which is representative of an electric vehicle motor in braking. We have borrowed this model in our project. Clearly the brake torque shows different relations to the motor speed in three speed bands -- low speed, mid speed and high speed, with linear saturation by SOC.

1. Low Speed Band (0-10mph) At very low speed, from 0 to 10mph, the braking torque increases with motor speed.

T = 170 * V*(1-SOC), 0<V<=10mph T Torque, Nm V Vehicle Speed, mile/hour SOC Battery State of Charge, 100% is full and 0% is empty

2. Mid Speed Band (Torque Saturation): The medium speed band is where the motor can fully utilize its torque capacity but the torque is saturated by the inverters capacity. Therefore the torque is a constant but at a high level of output.

17

T = 1700(1-SOC), 10<V<=30mph

3. High Speed Band (Power Saturation): In the high speed band the torque is limited by the limit of power output of the motor/inverter system. It initially decreases rapidly, but the decreasing rate slows down. The EV has a maximum speed of 80m/h corresponding to the red line speed of 11,000 rpm of motor, which is also a cutoff line of Regen torque. The polynomial approximation in this band is: T = -0.0119V3+4.3578V2317.4946V + 7840, 30<V80mph

2.6. Priorities in Control Design

1. Avoid wheel lock-up under any circumstances and ensure full ABS function in emergency wheel lock-up is one of the most hazardous conditions for the occupants in a vehicle. In Regen braking system most of the wheel lock-up happens with high brake torque demand, which requires assistance of friction braking. However, in the case of very low road traction, such as road coefficient of friction as low as 0.1, only motor braking torque will be high enough to lock up front wheels. The real wheels will not provide any brake force so that the vehicle will lose steering and stop in an excessively large distance. Therefore, the controller has to disable regenerative

braking and brake entirely by friction. This allows the sophisticated ABS brake system to maintain stability and maneuverability of the vehicle and also provide the maximum braking force.

2. Meet drivers brake demand, to the extent of road surface traction.

3. Achieve maximum regeneration gain in all conditions -- as mentioned before, the efficiency of regenerative braking should be targeted as high as possible. However, there are constraints from the motor brake torque characteristics and the desired deceleration.

18

4. Protect battery from overcharge or spike-charge and ensure safety continuous over charging, or transient charging spikes are undesirable since they will damage the battery. Three measures have to be applied: 1) The regenerative brake torque has to abide the SOC limit of battery, by not exceeding the torque limit of certain SOC. 2) During ABS activation, Regen has to be disconnected to protect the battery and the circuit from the abrupt voltage change. 3) At very low speeds the current output from the AC motor will oscillate at low frequency so the DC output will become spiky. Additional charging output may be lower than the battery voltage so the vehicle will be reversed. Regen has to be disabled to avoid the above scenarios.

2.7. Brake Torque Blending Table 2. Regen Control Logic

Regen (1) ABS activation Cut-off Front Hydraulic BTCM Torque Command (2) Regen capacity greater than the sum of demanded front and rear, with exception of (1) (3) Regen Capacity greater than front demanded torque, with exception of (1) (4) Regen Capacity greater than less than front demanded torque, with exception of (1) Activated Tdemand= TRegen+THydro, rear Energy Recall Efficiency Lower than (2) Activated Tdemand= TRegen+ THydro, front + THydro, rear Energy Recall Efficiency Lowest Activated Activated Deactivated Activated Activated TRegen=Tdemand Energy recall efficiency high Deactivated Rear Hydraulic BTCM Torque Command Deactivated

Under normal brake conditions without wheel lock-up, the brake torque is distributed to the front and rear at a constant ratio of 2:1, which approximately

19

corresponds to a conventional brake design, with 0.6 road surface coefficient of friction. In implementing Regen braking, the brake torque is blended according to the logic shown in Table 2.

Two scenarios are shown in the following discussion explain the torque management of the system.

(1). Brake Torque Demand can be lower than the Regen Capacity Limit. As shown in Figure 5, assuming a battery SOC at 40%, with speed of 52MPH, the BTCM sensed a brake line pressure that corresponds to a constant brake torque request of 1200N-m. At this speed the Regen torque upper limit is as low as only 200N-m, so most of the torque has to be generated by the hydraulic system to obtain an overall front/rear brake torque ratio of 2:1. As the vehicle slows down the Regen torque continue to increase following the polynomial curve and the hydraulic front brake torque decreases at the same rate to maintain the torque demand. At 37MPH the Regen not only has taken over the duty of front hydraulic but also partially the rear. At around 34MPH where the Regen torque meets the total torque demand, all the brake duty is taken over by Regen and the hydraulic brakes of both front and rear are deactivated). This situation will last until the Regen torque decrease again in the low speed band and the capacity limit again becomes lower than the torque demand. During the time when all brake is Regen, the vehicle recalls energy from braking at the highest efficiency because no friction braking is used.

20

Motor&Inverter Brake Torque Characteristics 1800

1600

1400

1200

Brake Torque, Nm

SOC=40% 1000

800

Torque Demand = 1200Nm

Rr Hydro = 200Nm 600 Regen Torque = Torque Demand @ 15MPH Frt Hydro = Rr Hydro=0 Front Hydro =333Nm 200 Vehicle Slows Down 0 Regen Torque = 200 Nm @ 52 MPH 0 10 20 30 40 Vehicle Speed, Mile/Hour 50 60 70 80

400

Figure 5. Brake torque blending in scenario one

(2). In the case of a fairly high brake torque demand which always exceeds the Regen braking capacity limit, such as 1200N-m at 40% SOC, although the Regen is kept at the highest output, the hydraulic brakes have to be applied to assist attaining brake torque demand. In this case, as shown in Figure 6, from initial speed of 37 MPH to the end speed of 15MPH, the Regen brake torque varies with its capacity limit and the remaining is obtained from front and rear hydraulic brakes.

21

Motor&Inverter Brake Torque Characteristics 1800

1600

1400

1200

Torque Demand = 1200Nm Rr Hydro=180Nm Frt Hydro= 0 Rr Hydro = 400Nm Rr Hydro = 400Nm SOC=40%

Brake Torque, Nm

1000

800 Frt Hydro=200Nm 600 Front Hydro =600Nm 400 Regen Torque = 1020Nm

200 Vehicle Slows Down ...... 0

Regen Torque = 600 Nm @ 37 MPH

Regen Torque = 200Nm Nm @ 52 MPH 60 70 80

10

20

30

40 Vehicle Speed, Mile/Hour

50

Figure 6 Brake torque blending in scenario two

22

Regenerative Braking System for Electric Vehicle

ME568-Vehicle Control Systems Term Project by Youji Ma, Ping Yu, and Michael Fisher December, 1999 Double click for more information

time
electric power

+ Battery state of charge

motor/ generator
demanded torque motor torque

Vehicle Initial speed (mph)

Regen controller

gear
pressure reduction

Vehicle final speed (mph)

axle toque

Regen On/Off switch

pressure reduction front pressure

Front axle hydraulic pressure modulator

pressure

torque

Vehicle

front axle disc brake

rear axle torque

-KBrake pedal force (N) Master cylinder propotional valve

rear pressure

Rear axle hydraulic pressure modulator

pressure

Slippery road factor rear axle disc brake Road % slop

speed

speed

Double click to plot vehicle speed Double click to run model Run the model first

Double click to plot f, r, regen torques Run the model first

Double click to plot regen power & energy Run the model first

Double click to plot wheel speed & slip Run the model first

3. System Modeling
3.1. Tier 1 module

Matlab and Simulink were used to model the regenerative braking system. The whole system includes 7 files:

Rbs.mdl Runrbs.m Rbsdata.m Plot_vs.m Plot_t.m Plot_e.m Plot_s.m

Main Simulink model file M file that is called by rbs.mdl, can also run directly in Matlab. M file that specify system parameters, is called by rbs.mdl for initialization M file that plot vehicle speed, is called by rbs.mdl M file that plot braking torques, is called by rbs.mdl M file that plot regenerative braking power and energy, is called by rbs.mdl M file that plot wheel speed and slip, is called by rbs.mdl

The Simulink model of the system is shown in Figure 7 (previous page). All the masks that have green background are model inputs or parameters that can be adjusted to simulate different driving scenarios. When they are double clicked, the user will be prompted to input values. All the input values are real numbers except Regen on/off switch, which is a check box. The icons of the input masks and their meanings are listed as follows:

Battery state of charge. 1 means full and 0 means empty. Its Simulink model is shown in Figure 8. Regen on/off switch, toggle on to activate regenerative braking, toggle off to turn it off. Driver braking force. Under normal road condition and 0 inclination angle, the braking force/ deceleration ratio is roughly 38 N/ 0.1g.

24

Vehicle initial speed before braking.(mph)

Vehicle final speed after braking.(mph)

Slippery road factor. 1 means ideal dry road. Percentage road grade. 0 is flat road, positive means uphill and negative means downhill.

Figure 8. Simulink model of battery state of charge subsystem

All the masks that have red drop shadows are executable. Their icons and meanings are listed as follows.

Double click to run the model

Double click to plot vehicle speed (must run the model first)

Double click to plot front hydraulic, rear hydraulic, and regenerative braking torques (must run the model first)

25

Double click to plot regenerative braking power and energy vs. vehicle kinematic and potential energy, or instantaneous and overall efficiency (must run the model first) Double click to plot front and rear wheel speed and slip (must run the model first) Double click to show help information and acknowledgements

There are other masked components in the model including:

The master cylinder is a proportional gain which transfer the driver braking force into hydraulic braking pressure. The disc brake is also a proportional gain which transfer hydraulic braking pressure into braking torque. The gear connects the motor to the front axle. In electric vehicle the transmission usually is a constant ratio gear set. In the model, the gear is also a proportional gain that transfer motor torque to front axle torque. The motor/generator generate braking torque and electric power during regenerative braking, its Simulink model is shown in fig.

Figure 9. Simulink model of motor/generator subsystem

26

The model is created such that the depth of subsystem hierarchy is controlled within three layers. The major four subsystems of the model are vehicle subsystem, front axle hydraulic pressure modulator subsystem, rear axle hydraulic pressure modulator subsystem, and Regen controller subsystem.

3.2. Vehicle subsystem The Simulink model of vehicle subsystem is shown in Figure 10 (separate page). Bicycle model is used. The function of the vehicle subsystem is to model the dynamics of front axle, rear axle, and vehicle. It also includes modules that calculate vehicle kinematic and potential energy and their rate of change so that the efficiency of regenerative braking can be evaluated. It can also evaluate the program termination criteria (from current speed and vehicle final speed) for stopping model execution.

The major subsystems within vehicle subsystem include:

Front and rear slip calculation subsystem. Its Simulink model is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Simulink model of front and rear slip calculation subsystem

27

1 vehicle initial speed (mph) 4

1.6*

m/s

1/rw 1/rw1

mph to m/s

This block is used to calculate the dynamics of vehicle and front and rear axles

rear torque

rw rw1

-K1/2/Jwr

1 s rear wheel speed 1 s front wheel speed 1/rw lower limit 1 s f(u) 1 s distance speed lower limit1 1 speed lower limit2

3 front torque rw rw 5 slippery road factor 6 Road % slop Mu-sllip friction curve atan(u[1]/100) Theta sin
front & rear mu

-K1/2/Jwf

Fxf & Fxr Fxf & Fxr cos

fxf

-1/m
fxr Rx

1 s Vehicle speed

-1/m f(u)

m*g*f m*g*f wind resistance m*g m*g

k_energy k_power

kinematic energy lost rate 1 s

p_energy p_power

front & rear slip

Calculate front & rear slip Calculate front & rear slip 2 vehicle final speed (mph) 1.6*
m/s

1/rw 1/rw2

mph to m/s1 u(3)

Switch 0

STOP

vehicle speed

Mu-slip calculation subsystem, which use a polynomial curve fitting to calculate the friction coefficients of front and rear axles. Its Simulink model is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Simulink model of mu-slip calculation subsystem

Fxf & Fxr calculation subsystem. Its Simulink model is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Simulink model of Fxf & Fxr calculation subsystem

29

3.3. Front and rear axle hydraulic pressure modulator subsystems

The models of front axle hydraulic pressure modulator and rear axle hydraulic pressure modulator are very similar. The Simulink model of front modulator is shown in Figure 14. Its functions include pressure modulation for anti-lock purpose and pressure modulation for regenerative braking purpose. For the anti-lock part, it is basically a rule-based controller which includes low speed cutoff.

Figure 14. Simulink model of front axle hydraulic pressure modulator subsystem

30

3.4. Regen controller subsystem

The model of Regen controller is shown in Figure 15. The function of this subsystem is to determine the distribution of braking torques among Regen braking, front axle hydraulic braking, rear axle hydraulic braking. Its inputs are driver demand (through a pressure transducer on the output port of the master cylinder) and Regen torque capability (through a subsystem). It is basically a rule based controller that applies different control strategies for three different scenarios: 1. Regen braking capability is larger than the sum of front and rear axle demand torque 2. Regen braking capability is larger than the demand torque of front axle but less than the sum of front and rear axles 3. Regen braking capability is less than the demand torque of front axle

Figure 15. Simulink model of Regen controller subsystem The major subsystems within Regen controller subsystem include:

31

The Simulink model of Regen on/off controller subsystem is shown in Figure 16. Its function is to determine whether the regenerative braking system should be turned on based on driver switch and wheel slip. If lock happens to either front or rear wheel, the regenerative braking is automatically turned off so that the braking pressure modulator systems can execute anti-lock control.

Figure 16. Simulink model of Regen on/off controller subsystem The Simulink model of Regen torque capability subsystem is shown in Figure 17. Its function is to determine the torque capability of regenerative braking based on battery state of charge and motor speed (vehicle speed since the gear ratio is constant) through three sections of polynomial curve fitting.

Figure 17. Simulink model of Regen torque capability subsystem

32

4. Model Analysis
Different braking scenarios are run on the model. Unless otherwise specified, the parameters used in the model are: Battery state of charge is 0.5 Regen is on Slippery road factor is 1 Percentage road grade is 0

4.1. Scenario 1: From 55mph to 0mph with small braking force The braking force is 50 N. Figure18 shows the brake distribution among the Regen braking, front and rear hydraulic braking. The Regen braking takes over all the hydraulic braking over a period of time.
Brake torques 600

500

regen front hydraulic rear hydraulic

400 Torque(Nm)

300

200

100

10 12 Time(secs)

14

16

18

20

Figure 18. Torque distribution in scenario 1

Figure 19 shows the Regen power and vehicle energy losing rate. The instantaneous efficiency of regenerative braking can be seen. The effect of the Regen torque capability on the two ends of vehicle speed can be clearly seen.

33

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 power (W) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

4 x 10 regen power vs. vehicle energy lost rate (Kinematic & potential)

regen vehicle

10 12 Time(secs)

14

16

18

20

Figure 19. Regen power in scenario 1

Figure 20 shows the Regen energy and vehicle lost energy. The overall efficiency of regenerative braking is about 66.1%.
4.5 4 3.5 3 energy (J) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 regen vehicle x 10
5

regen energy vs. vehicle lost energy (Kinematic & potential)

10 12 Time(secs)

14

16

18

20

Figure 20. Regen energy in scenario 1

Due to there is torque transfer between the front and rear axles. The wheel slips will also change. Figure 21 shows the wheel slips of front and rear axles.

34

Front wheel slip 0 0

Rear wheel slip

-0.005

-0.002

-0.01 Slip Slip -0.015

-0.004

-0.006

-0.02

-0.008

-0.025

10 Time(secs)

15

20

-0.01

10 Time(secs)

15

20

Figure 21. Front and real wheel slips in scenario 1

4.2. Scenario 2: From 55mph to 0mph with moderate braking force

The braking force is 100 N. Figure 22 shows the brake distribution among the Regen braking, front and rear hydraulic braking. The Regen braking takes over all the front hydraulic braking over a period of time but never takes over all the rear hydraulic braking.
Brake torques 900 800 700 600 Torque(Nm) 500 400 300 200 100 0 regen front hydraulic rear hydraulic

5 6 Time(secs)

10

Figure 22. Torque distribution in scenario 2

Figure 23 shows the Regen power and vehicle energy lost rate.

35

9 8 7 6 power (W) 5 4 3 2 1 0

4 x 10 regen power vs. vehicle energy lost rate (Kinematic & potential)

regen vehicle

5 6 Time(secs)

10

Figure 23. Regen power in scenario 2

Figure 24 shows the Regen energy and vehicle lost energy. The overall efficiency of regenerative braking is about 42.6%.
4.5 4 3.5 3 energy (J) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 regen vehicle x 10
5

regen energy vs. vehicle lost energy (Kinematic & potential)

5 6 Time(secs)

10

Figure 24. Regen energy in scenario 2

Due to there is torque transfer between the front and rear axles. The wheel slips will also change (figures not shown).

36

4.3. Scenario 3: From 55mph to 0mph with large braking force

The braking force is 150 N. Figure 25 shows the brake distribution among the Regen braking, front and rear hydraulic braking. The Regen braking never takes over the front hydraulic braking and the rear hydraulic braking torque never changes.
Brake torques 1200 regen front hydraulic rear hydraulic

1000

800 Torque(Nm)

600

400

200

3 4 Time(secs)

Figure 25. Torque distribution in scenario 3

Figure 26 shows the Regen power and vehicle energy lost rate.
14
4 x 10 regen power vs. vehicle energy lost rate (Kinematic & potential)

regen vehicle 12

10

power (W)

3 4 Time(secs)

Figure 26. Regen power in scenario 3

Figure 27 shows the Regen energy and vehicle lost energy. The overall efficiency of regenerative braking is about 28.3%.

37

4.5 4 3.5 3 energy (J) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

x 10

regen energy vs. vehicle lost energy (Kinematic & potential)

regen vehicle

3 4 Time(secs)

Figure 27. Regen energy in scenario 3

Since there is no torque transfer between front and rear axles, the wheel slips remain unchanged.

4.4. Scenario 4: From 55mph to 0mph with large braking force on slippery road (enough to lock the wheels)

The inputs are the same as the ones in scenario 3 except the road slippery factor is 0.5. Figure 28 shows the brake distribution among the Regen braking, front and rear hydraulic braking. Since lock-up happens first to the front wheel, the Regen system is shut off and ABS takes over the control of front and rear hydraulic pressure and then, braking torques.

38

Brake torques 1200

1000 regen front hydraulic rear hydraulic

800 Torque(Nm)

600

400

200

4 Time(secs)

Figure 28. Torque distribution in scenario 4

Figure 29 shows the Regen power and vehicle energy lost rate. Regen is shut off for most of the time.
12
4 x 10 regen power vs. vehicle energy lost rate (Kinematic & potential)

regen vehicle 10

8 power (W)

4 Time(secs)

Figure 29. Regen power in scenario 4

Figure 30 shows the Regen energy and vehicle lost energy. The overall efficiency of regenerative braking is about 0.2% because the top priority is safety rather than efficiency under the conditions.

39

4.5 4 3.5 3 energy (J) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

x 10

regen energy vs. vehicle lost energy (Kinematic & potential)

regen vehicle

4 Time(secs)

Figure 30. Regen energy in scenario 4

The front and rear wheel speeds are shown in figure 31(a). The front and real wheel slips are shown in figure 31(b).
Vehicle speed and front wheel speed 80 70 60 Speed(rad/sec) 50 40 30 20 10 0 Speed(rad/sec) vehicle speed front axle speed 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 vehicle speed rear axle speed Vehicle speed and rear wheel speed

4 Time(secs)

4 Time(secs)

Figure 31(a). Front and rear wheel speed in scenario 4

Front wheel slip 0 0 Rear wheel slip

-0.2

-0.05

-0.4 Slip Slip -0.6

-0.1

-0.15

-0.8

-0.2

-1 0 2 4 Time(secs) 6 8

-0.25 0 2 4 Time(secs) 6 8

Figure 31(b). Front and rear wheel speed in scenario 4

40

4.5. Scenario 5: From 35mph to 0mph with small braking force

The braking force is 50 N. Figure 32 shows the brake distribution among the Regen braking, front and rear hydraulic braking. The Regen braking takes over all the hydraulic braking almost all the time.
Brake torques 600

500 regen front hydraulic rear hydraulic

400 Torque(Nm)

300

200

100

6 Time(secs)

10

12

Figure 32. Torque distribution in scenario 5

Figure 33 shows the Regen power and vehicle energy lost rate.
3
4 x 10 regen power vs. vehicle energy lost rate (Kinematic & potential)

regen vehicle 2.5

2 power (W)

1.5

0.5

6 Time(secs)

10

12

Figure 33. Regen power in scenario 5

Figure 34 shows the Regen energy and vehicle lost energy. The overall efficiency of regenerative braking is about 91.4%.

41

18 16 14 12 energy (J) 10 8 6 4 2 0

x 10

regen energy vs. vehicle lost energy (Kinematic & potential)

regen vehicle

6 Time(secs)

10

12

Figure 34. Regen energy in scenario 5

4.6. Scenario 6: 35mph coasting 15% downhill

The braking force is 53.7N. Figure 35 shows the speed of the vehicle. Figure 36 shows the brake torque distribution among the Regen braking, front and rear hydraulic braking. The Regen braking takes over all the braking all the time.
Vehicle speed 50 45 40 35 Speed(mph) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time(secs) 7 8 9 10

Figure 35. Vehicle speed in scenario 6

42

Brake torques 1000 900 800 700 Torque(Nm) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 regen front hydraulic rear hydraulic

5 6 Time(secs)

10

Figure 36. Torque distribution in scenario 6

Figure 37 shows the Regen power and vehicle energy lost rate.
3.5
4 x 10 regen power vs. vehicle energy lost rate (Kinematic & potential)

2.5

regen vehicle

power (W)

1.5

0.5

5 6 Time(secs)

10

Figure 37. Regen power in scenario 6

Figure 38 shows the Regen energy and vehicle lost energy. The overall efficiency of regenerative braking is about 91.0%.

43

3.5

x 10

regen energy vs. vehicle lost energy (Kinematic & potential)

3 regen vehicle 2.5

energy (J)

1.5

0.5

5 6 Time(secs)

10

Figure 38. Regen energy in scenario 6

4.7. Scenario 7: ECE-15 fuel economy testing cycle

ECE-15 (ECE R84) fuel economy testing cycle has 15 working conditions as shown in Fig. Four of the fifteen working conditions in the cycle are decelerations that are highlighted in the Figure 39.
ECE-15 Fuel Economy Testing Cycle
60

50

40 speed (km/h)

30

20

10

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 time(second) 120 140 160 180

Figure 39 ECE fuel economy testing cycle

44

The specifications for the four decelerating conditions are: Vehicle speed 1 2 3 4 15km/h - 0km/m (9.375mph - 0mph) 32km/h - 0km/m (20mph - 0mph) 55km/h - 35km/m (34.375mph 21.875mph) 35km/h - 0km/m (21.875mph 0mph) Time 5 seconds 11 seconds 8 seconds 12 seconds

The performances of regenerative braking in each deceleration condition and its overall performance are listed in following table. Force 1 2 3 4 Overall 29.5 N 28.5 N 23.9 N 28.7 N Recovered Energy 1.0266104 J 4.8725104 J 8.4344104 J 5.8433104 J 2.0177105 J Vehicle lost energy 1.2239104 J 5.5703104 J 9.7491104 J 6.6637104 J 2.3207105 J Efficiency 83.88% 87.47% 86.51% 87.69% 86.94%

The efficiency of regenerative braking is very high in the ECE-15 fuel economy testing cycle. This is due to that the speed in the cycle is moderate. In all the four decelerating conditions the regenerative braking provides all the braking torque for most of the time.

45

5. Conclusions

Our system model shows that performance of regenerative braking varies depending on various driving conditions. The energy recovery efficiency is highest within a speed band of 10 to 40 mph. The energy recovery efficiency is highest in cases of relatively low battery state of charge. The energy recovery efficiency is highest in cases of relatively low deceleration, where friction braking or ABS are unnecessary.

In all cases, our system was able to provide adequate brake force, combining regenerative braking with friction braking and ABS, where appropriate. Safety was not compromised, but high recovery rates were still attained.

Our recommendations for future work include addition of feedback for the battery state of charge, which changes considerably during a lengthy driving cycle. Effort could be invested in obtaining a more comprehensive model of the motor/inverter assembly and, for more complete accuracy, a full car model should be considered. Also, sensor data to monitor any disturbances and inherent noise could be incorporated.

46

References 1) Brooke, Lindsay. Stop Electric Cars. Automotive Industries. May, 1992.

2) Carriere, W. M., W. F. Hamilton & L. M. Morecraft. Synthetic Fuels for Transportation: Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. 1982.

3) Cikanek, S. R. Electric Vehicle Regenerative Antiskid Braking and Traction Control System. United States Patent. #5,450,324. Sep. 12, 1995.

4) Cikanek, S. R., K. E. Bailey, R. C. Baraszu & B. K. Powell. Control System and Dynamic Model Validation for a Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle. Proceedings of the American Control Conference. June, 1999.

5) Davis, R. I. Adaptive Controller for Regenerative and Friction Braking System. United States Patent. #4,962,969. Oct. 16, 1990.

6) Electric Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1975, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration of the Committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives, on H.R. 5470, Washington, June 3-6, 1975.

7) Gao, Y., L. Chen & M. Ehsani. Investigation of the Effectiveness of Regenerative Braking for EV and HEV. SAE Paper 1999-01-2910.

8) Hamilton, William. Electric Automobiles. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1980.

9) Kade, A., A. J. Walenty & K. G. Lappek. Regenerative and Friction Brake Blend Control. United States Patent. #5,511,859. Apr. 30, 1996.

47

10) Kidston, K. S. & B. M. Conlon. Electric Vehicle with Regenerative and Anti-Lock Braking. United States Patent. #5,615,933. Apr. 1, 1997.

11) Kobe, Gerry. GM EV-1. AI. October, 1996.

12) Koga, H., N. Kumagai, T. Owada, N. Furukawa, M. Kato & N. Kawamura. Braking Control System for Electric Automobile. United States Patent. #5,775,784. Jul. 7, 1998.

13) Koga, H., N. Kumagai, T. Owada, N. Furukawa, M. Kato & N. Kawamura. Braking Control System for Electric Automobile. United States Patent. #5,839,800. Nov. 24, 1998.

14) Koga, H., T. Owada, M. Kato, N. Kawamura, N. Kumagai & N. Furukawa. Regenerative Control Apparatus of Electric Vehicle. United States Patent. #5,879,062. Mar. 9, 1999.

15) Moore, Taylor. The Road Ahead for EV Batteries. EPRI Journal. March/April, 1996.

16) Ohori. H. Brake Control System of Electric Vehicle. United States Patent. #5,253,929. Oct. 19, 1993.

17) Patinet, D. J. & J. R. Phipps. Maximized Regenerative Braking Vehicle Braking Controller. United States Patent. #5,378,053. Jan. 3, 1995.

18) Pratt, G. A. EVs: On the Road Again. Technology Review. August/September, 1992.

19) Proceedings of the Symposium and Workshop on Advanced Battery Research and Development, March 22-24, 1976, Argonne National Labs., Argonne, Ill., ANL-76-8.

48

20) Shacket, S. R. The Complete Book or Electric Vehicles. Domus Books, Chicago. 1979.

21) Unnewehr, L.E. & S. A. Nasar. Electric Vehicle Technology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 1982.

22) Wilkinson, Sophie. Electric Vehicles Gear Up. Chemical & Engineering News. October 13, 1997.

23) Wouk, Victor. Hybrid Electirc Vehicles. Scientific American. October, 1997.

24) www.chevrolet.com/csv/index.htm

25) www.dnai.com/~ev/vehicles/toyota.html

26) www.ford.com/electricvehicle/ecostar.html

27) www.ford.com/electricvehicle/ranger.html

28) www.gmev.com/project/project.htm

29) www.hondaev.org/home.html

30) www.media.chrysler.com/wwwfacts/26d6.htm

31) www.nissan-na.com/1.0/1-2-1d.html

32) www.radix.net/~futurev/facts.html

33) www.toyota.co.jp/Lighthouse/august_96/electric_toyotas/index.html

49

34) Wyczalek, F. A. & T. C. Wang. Regenerative Braking Concepts for Electric Vehicles. SAE Paper 920648.

35) Zorpette, Glenn. A Golf Cart, It Isnt. Scientific American. April, 1997.

50