纯电动物流车电动空气压缩机布置方案研究

电动空气压缩机为纯电动物流车提供压缩气源,以供整车制动及辅助用气装置的使用.文章基于整车性能的受影响程度进行电动空气压缩机布置的多方案分析,从多个维度进行客观评价,选取适合于整车的最优方案.此方法亦可用作其他关键件的布置校核.     

基于效率最优的四驱纯电动转矩分配仿真分析

文章针对前、后双电机动力分布式纯电动汽车,以优化能量消耗为目标,如何合理的动态分配前、后轴转矩的问题进行了研究。首先依照制动法规、驱动电机动态响应和车辆纵向平顺性等要求,提出切实可行的分配计算与优化方法,并且区分驱动和制动两种工况。之后采用循环工况仿真验证的方法,进行能耗分析。通过与固定分配方法结果的对比,验证了所提分配方法有效性。     

汽车电动真空泵设计及应用

电动真空泵是电动汽车真空制动系统重要的零件,该文介绍电动真空泵的结构、工作原理,以及电动真空泵的三个重要性能;通过真空制动系统对真空源的需求,探讨电动真空泵的选型和整车布置。     

纯电骡子车开发及试制新方法应用

通过对比燃油汽车与纯电动汽车整车架构,分析燃油车改制纯电动骡子车的可行性。利用现有车型完成纯电动骡子车改制,不仅可以节省开发成本,还可以加快新产品升级换代。同时基于两种车型的差异性,制定相应的车型改制方案。阐述常见的改制内容与创新方法应用,为后续同平台新车型开发提供参考。     

纯电动物流车用PMSM降开关损耗控制

物流车是城市内部运送货物的重要交通工具,具有运行距离短、启停频率高、运行时间长的特点。城市内部物流车都逐步采用纯电动物流车代替传统的燃油车。针对物流车运行特点,文章对电动物流车电机控制算法进行优化,在考虑不同工况下使用不同的开关频率,降低开关损耗,减少控制器发热。通过对降低开关损耗控制方法与传统控制方法在不同车辆运行工况下对比,电机控制器发热均有所降低,同时电机控制器效率有所增加。     

电辅助驱动技术研究

文章提供一种第二轴采用传统驱动桥作为主驱动、第三轴采用电驱动桥作为辅助驱动的驱动力复合并联混合动力三轴车型方案,结合提升轴空气悬架控制技术,该方案在运营经济性方面比传统双后轴驱动车型更优。     

《电加热道岔融雪系统设备》TB/T3539-2018解读

解读《电加热道岔融雪系统设备》与《客运专线铁路信号产品暂行技术条件汇编——电加热道岔融雪系统设备》标准的共性部分,并从编制背景、标准定位、技术要求、试验方法和检验规则等方面,分析两者之间的差异性.     

纯电动商用车电池热管理技术研究

能源危机和环境污染问题已成全球关注的焦点,新能源汽车顺势而为,纯电动汽车采用纯电驱动,更加节能、环保。随着纯电动汽车的发展,车辆的安全性、续航里程能力得到了关注,动力电池的性能很大程度上影响着整车性能,为了提升动力电池系统性能,避免热失控,研究高性能动力电池热管理系统至关重要。     

Using GPS-data to determine optimum electric vehicle ranges: A Michigan case study

Fuel-switching personal transportation from gasoline to electricity offers many advantages, including lower noise, zero local air pollution, and petroleum-independence. But alleviations of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are more nuanced, due to many factors, including the car’s battery range. We use GPS-based trip data to determine use type-specific, GHG-optimized ranges. The dataset comprises 412 cars and 384,869 individual trips in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. We use previously developed algorithms to determine driver types, such as using the car to commute or not. Calibrating an existing life cycle GHG model to a forecast, low-carbon grid for Ann Arbor, we find that the optimum range varies not only with the drive train architecture (plugin-hybrid versus battery-only) and charging technology (fast versus slow) but also with the driver type. Across the 108 scenarios we investigated, the range that yields lowest GHG varies from 65 km (55+ year old drivers, ultrafast charging, plugin-hybrid) to 158 km (16–34 year old drivers, overnight charging, battery-only). The optimum GHG reduction that electric cars offer – here conservatively measured versus gasoline-only hybrid cars – is fairly stable, between 29% (16–34 year old drivers, overnight charging, battery-only) and 46% (commuters, ultrafast charging, plugin-hybrid). The electrification of total distances is between 66% and 86%. However, if cars do not have the optimum range, these metrics drop substantially. We conclude that matching the range to drivers’ typical trip distances, charging technology, and drivetrain is a crucial pre-requisite for electric vehicles to achieve their highest potential to reduce GHG emissions in personal transportation.     

Electric vehicle charging station locations: Elastic demand,station congestion,and network equilibrium

Battery-only electric vehicles (BEVs) generally offer better air quality through lowered emissions, along with energy savings and security. The issue of long-duration battery charging makes charging-station placement and design key for BEV adoption rates. This work uses genetic algorithms to identify profit-maximizing station placement and design details, with applications that reflect the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining service equipment, including land acquisition. Fast electric vehicle charging stations (EVCSs) are placed across a congested city's network subject to stochastic demand for charging under a user-equilibrium traffic assignment. BEV users’ station choices consider endogenously determined travel times and on-site charging queues. The model allows for congested-travel and congested-station feedback into travelers’ route choices under elastic demand and BEV owners’ station choices, as well as charging price elasticity for BEV charging users.Boston-network results suggest that EVCSs should locate mostly along major highways, which may be a common finding for other metro settings. If 10% of current EV owners seek to charge en route, a user fee of $6 for a 30-min charging session is not enough for station profitability under a 5-year time horizon in this region. However, $10 per BEV charging delivers a 5-year profit of $0.82 million, and 11 cords across 3 stations are enough to accommodate a near-term charging demand in this Boston-area application. Shorter charging sessions, higher fees, and/or allowing for more cords per site also increase profits generally, everything else constant. Power-grid and station upgrades should keep pace with demand, to maximize profits over time, and avoid on-site congestion.