DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

전기자동차 연비시험 방법 비교

A Comparison of the Fuel Economy Test Method on Electric Vehicles (EVs)

  • 이민호 (한국석유관리원 석유기술연구소) ;
  • 김성우 (한국석유관리원 석유기술연구소) ;
  • 김기호 (한국석유관리원 석유기술연구소)
  • LEE, MIN-HO (Research Institute of Petroleum Technology, Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority) ;
  • KIM, SUNG-WOO (Research Institute of Petroleum Technology, Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority) ;
  • KIM, KI-HO (Research Institute of Petroleum Technology, Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority)
  • 투고 : 2017.05.31
  • 심사 : 2017.06.30
  • 발행 : 2017.06.30

초록

EVs manufacturers typically target a range of 300 km on a fully charged battery. Many studies have been conducted to improve these disadvantages. As a results, the mileage of EVs is expected to increase significantly. However, as the distance traveled by EVs increases, current test method (SCT) have many difficulties. The biggest problem is that it takes a lot of time to test an EVs and greatly increases the error rate during the test period. In order to solve these problems, this paper discusses the fuel economy test method of EVs for energy efficiency and mileage. The comparison of test methods was achieved by chassis dynamometer test about EVs. These review of test methods are intended to both improve testing efficiency and provide a practical testing methodology that can be easily adapted to accommodate future testing enhancements. In conclusion, the results of MCT mode and SCT mode comparison show similar results within 3 %, confirming that the test method is appropriate. Also, as the CSCM distance becomes shorter in the MCT mode, the mileage becomes longer and the fuel economy becomes lower. As a result, the error from the SCT test results is expected to increase. In order to minimize the error of SCT measurement fuel economy, it is recommended to maximize the CSCM driving distance. However, since the timing of the EOT is not clearly known, it is reasonable to define the allowable range of the CSCE to be within 20 % of the MCT total mileage.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Y. Woo, Y. Lee, and O. Kwon, "Energy consumption characteristics of gasoline hybrid electric vehicles under cold ambient conditions", 2011 KSAE Annual conference, 2011, pp.368-371.
  2. J. Lim, H. Lee, C. Kim, Y. Sin, and Y. Park, "A study of energy consumption test method for electric vehicles", 2011 KSAE Annual conference, 2011, pp. 2629-2635.
  3. Y. Woo, J. Jang, C. Cho, G. Kim, O. Kwon, and Y. Lee, "Energy consumption characteristics of an electric vehicle under real world driving conditions", 2012 KSAE conference, 2012, pp. 25-28.
  4. R. Carlson, H. Lohse-Busch, M. Duoba, and N. Shidore, "Drive Cycle Fuel Consumption Variability of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Due to Aggressive Driving", SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-1335, 2009.
  5. "Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles : Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates", EPA Final Technical Support Document, 2006.
  6. "Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles : Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates : Final Rule", EPA 40 CFR Parts 86 and 600, 2006.
  7. "Battery electric vehicle energy consumption and range test procedure", SAE J1634, 2012.
  8. C. Choi, I. L. Hanna, W. Kim, and J. Jang, ""Comparison of MCT and SCT mode based on the vehicle parameters in influencing the BEV driving range", EVS 28 International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition, 2015.