Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “vehicle”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

PyChargeModel (Oriented Programming Based Electric Vehicle and Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Charging Model in Python) [SWR-22-39]

The PyChargeModel creates two classes called "ElectricVehicles" and "evse_class", which can be used to create multiple instances of electric vehicles (EVs) and electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE or charging ports) and simulate charging behavior. These objects can be instantiated with several properties such as battery chemistries, battery pack sizes, cell sizes, charging port power, dc or ac chargers etc. The objects can communicate with each other by calling different methods built within the classes. Through these methods, each EV object can be assigned to an EVSE, charged either using a default protocol or using setpoint values communicated from a site controller via the EVSE object.

Mishra, Partha↗
DOE OSTI2024

Development and Demonstration of Advanced Engine and Vehicle Technologies For Class 8 Heavy Duty Vehicle (Supertruck II)

The PACCAR SuperTruck II program has completed the planned technical work on the project. This work includes the planned vehicle demonstrator showing a greater than 100% improvement in vehicle freight efficiency (on a ton-mile-per-gallon basis) relative to a 2009 baseline, and an engine system demonstration achieving a greater than 55% engine brake thermal efficiency at a 65-mph cruise point on a dynamometer. Both program targets were exceeded by PACCAR with robust margins. Finally, PACCAR used technologies that have a possible route to production, with no specialty or unrealistic solutions proposed.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains

In order to accurately compare the costs of two vehicles, the total cost of ownership (TCO) should consist of all costs related to both purchasing and operating the vehicle. This TCO analysis builds on previous work to provide a comprehensive perspective of all relevant vehicle costs of ownership. In this report, we present what we believe to be the most comprehensive explicit financial analysis of the costs that will be incurred by a vehicle owner. This study considers vehicle cost and depreciation, financing, fuel costs, insurance costs, maintenance and repair costs, taxes and fees, and other operational costs to formulate a holistic total cost of ownership and operation of multiple different vehicles. For each of these cost parameters that together constitute a comprehensive TCO, extensive literature review and data analysis were performed to find representative values in order to build a holistic TCO for vehicles of all size classes. The light- and heavy-duty vehicles selected for analysis in this report are representative of those that are on the road today and expected to be available in the future. Important additive analyses in this study include systematic analysis of vehicle depreciation, in-depth examination of insurance premium costs, comprehensive maintenance and repair estimates, analysis of all relevant taxes and fees, and considerations of specific costs applicable to commercial vehicles. We find that cars depreciate faster than light trucks and that older plug-in electric vehicles have a greater depreciation rate than newer electric vehicles. Light-duty vehicle (LDV) insurance costs show comparable costs for different powertrains, and lower costs for larger size classes. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) insurance costs vary significantly by vocation. Electric and electrified powertrains have lower maintenance and repair costs than internal combustion engine (ICE) powertrains for all vehicle sizes, relative to vehicle price. MHDV maintenance and repair costs depend heavily on vocation and duty cycle. LDV taxes and fees are comparable across powertrain types and size classes, though marginally higher registration fees exist for alternative fuel vehicles. MHDV fees depend on the vocation, weight rating, and state. Many electric tractor trailers would be affected by additional battery weight, reducing the available payload capacity, and this cost can be substantial. Electric vehicle charging for commercial vehicles can be time-consuming; labor rates can cause this cost to dominate TCO. With improved knowledge of each of the cost components, we calculate a lifetime TCO for comparison across vehicles of different types and attributes. For a simulated small sport utility vehicle in 2025, modeled using Autonomie, the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) has the lowest cost, followed by the conventional ICE vehicle. For MHDV, TCO can be drastically different depending on the vocation. Long-haul vehicles typically have the lowest per-mile costs. Excluding labor costs, the class 4 delivery has a comparable TCO to the day cab. Vocational trucks, refuse trucks, and transit buses have a high per-mile cost of ownership due to maintenance and insurance. For all of these vehicles, the cost of operating the vehicle is heavily weighted by the labor of the driver, followed by the fuel costs. While the HEV begins as the lowest cost powertrain for passenger vehicles, fuel cells are forecast to reach cost parity by 2030 when hydrogen prices reach $\$ 5$/kg while battery electric vehicles (BEV) reach cost parity by 2035 at a battery cost of $\$ 98$ per usable kWh of capacity, with these two technologies being the lowest cost in 2050. For the class 8 day cab tractor, the HEV and ICE vehicle begin as the lowest cost powertrains, and the 250-mile BEV reduces in cost from the most expensive to the least expensive by 2030.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

DOE EV Data Collection - Vehicle Data

Vehicle data consist of electric vehicle performance data collected directly from the vehicle during standard operations. Data were collected using onboard data loggers that were either installed by the project team or preinstalled by the original equipment manufacturer. Data recorded by the data loggers were made accessible via an online web portal or an application programming interface. Different data loggers were used (HEM, ViriCiti, and Geotab), and the method for each vehicle is defined in the vehicle attributes file. Some systems collected data on a “trip-level” basis, in which each row of a table represents a single trip (the period between a key-on and key-off event), whereas other data were collected on a per-day basis, in which each row represents a single day of operation. Data were collected over a range of data collection periods, depending on the project. Data have been anonymized by removing information or decreasing information resolution as necessary so that fleets are not identifiable. Due to the wide range of vehicle types represented and variation in data collection, data parameters and frequencies differ between vehicles and fleets The **Performance Data Daily/Trip Data Dictionaries** contain definitions for each available parameter associated with a vehicle’s operations, aggregated at either a daily or trip level. The parameters available will vary from vehicle to vehicle, but every possible parameter will be defined. The **Vehicle Attributes Data Dictionary** contains definitions for each available parameter associated with a vehicle’s physical and functional attributes and fleet context. The **Vehicle Attributes** table contains specific vehicle characteristics, coded to an anonymous Vehicle ID. This Vehicle ID can be used as a key between vehicle data and vehicle attribute tables. The **Vehicle Data** tables contain the data from each vehicle’s operations, aggregated at either a daily or trip level, coded to an anonymous Vehicle ID. This Vehicle ID can be used as a key between vehicle data and vehicle attribute tables. Data is being uploaded quarterly through 2023 and subject to change until the conclusion of the project.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Profile Images and Annotations for Vehicle Re-identification Algorithms (PRIMAVERA)

This dataset contains 636,246 profile images of vehicles representing 13,963 unique vehicles. The data was collected by a set of roadside sensors over the course of three years. Each time a vehicle passed by one of the sensors, a series of images was collected. The images were processed to detect and localize each vehicle, and a license plate reader collocated with the sensor was used to provide a unique ID for the vehicle. Actual license plate numbers have been obfuscated by replacing with an arbitrary numerical ID for each vehicle. After localizing the vehicle in each image, the original RGB image was rotated, scaled, and shifted to produce a new RGB image of size 234x234 pixels such that the outermost two wheels are located at predetermined pixel locations in the image. In this way, all vehicle images are aligned to one another. This registration process occasionally results in a portion of certain vehicles being cutoff at the edges of the image. The dataset has been partitioned into two sets called training and validation. The two partitions no common vehicles, i.e., a vehicle present in one partition is guaranteed not to be present in the other. In this way, an algorithm can be validated against a set of new vehicles that were not seen during the training process. The training set contains 543,926 images from 64,440 vehicle passes representing 11,918 unique vehicles, while the validation set contains 92,320 images from 10,991 vehicle passes representing 2,045 unique vehicles. Vehicle images are organized by directories corresponding to unique vehicles. The file naming scheme is as follows: veh_{vehID}_tr_{passID}_{frameID}_{elevation}_{timeofday}.jpg where {vehID} is the vehicle ID (unique across the entire dataset), {passID} is an identifier for each tracked vehicle pass (unique across the entire dataset), {frameID} is the index of the frame within the given vehicle pass starting at 0, {elevation} is a two-letter string indicating whether the sensor was elevated (el) or at ground-level (gl), and {timeofday} is a two-letter string indicating whether the image was captured during daytime (dt) or nighttime (nt).

image↗
DOE OSTI2022

A Comprehensive Simulation Study to Evaluate Future Vehicle Energy and Cost Reduction Potential

Under the umbrella of EERE’s Office of Sustainable Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO) seek to develop sustainable, affordable, and efficient technologies for transportation of goods and people. Translating investments in advanced transportation component technologies and powertrains to estimate the potential for vehicle-level fuel savings is critical to understanding DOE’s impact and success in this mission For this study, Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) simulated technologies funded by VTO and HFTO for light-duty vehicles across the following: Powertrain configurations (conventional, power-split hybrid electric vehicle, extended-range electric vehicle, battery electric drive, and fuel-cell vehicles); Vehicle classes (compact car, mid-size car, small sport utility vehicle [SUV], mid-size SUV, and pickup truck); Fuels (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen, and battery electricity). We assessed each technology for five different timeframes: laboratory years 2015 (reference), 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2045. We assumed a delay of 5 years between laboratory year and model year (i.e., the year the technology is introduced into production). Finally, we included uncertainties for both technology performance and cost by considering two cases (note that these cases are not intended as predictions of future performance): Low case , aligned with DOE technology manager estimates of expected original equipment manufacturer (OEM) improvements based on business as usual regulatory and market environments; High case , aligned with aggressive technology advancements based on research and development (R&D) targets developed through support by VTO and HFTO. We estimated the energy and cost impact of different technologies using Autonomie (Argonne undated), a state-of-the-art vehicle system simulation tool developed by Argonne and used to assess the energy consumption, performance, and cost of multiple advanced vehicle technologies. The tool comprises a complete set of vehicle models to assess impacts across a wide range of classes (from light- to heavy-duty), powertrain configurations (from conventional to hybrid electric vehicles [HEVs], fuel cell electric vehicles [FCEVs], plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [PHEVs], and battery electric vehicles [BEVs]), components, and control strategies, including vehicle-level and component-level controls developed and calibrated using dynamometer test data. Autonomie has been used to support a wide range of studies: analyzing various component technologies, sizing powertrain components to meet different vehicle requirements, comparing the benefits of powertrain configurations, optimizing both heuristic and route-based vehicle energy control, and predicting transportation energy use when paired with a traffic modeling tool such as POLARIS. This report documents the assumptions made and the vehicle-level energy consumption benefits and associated technology costs estimated for various types of light-duty vehicles. Details regarding vehicle assumptions and simulation results are available in the spreadsheets accompanying this report.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

Projecting California Light-Duty Vehicle Attributes (2019-2035)

In this report, we estimated a set of future vehicle attribute scenarios for new light-duty vehicles for the California market using the Automotive Deployment Options Projection Tool (ADOPT). ADOPT starts simulations with all existing vehicle makes and models and endogenously creates new vehicle models over time based on assumed technology improvements and market conditions. For this study, we simulated four scenarios with varied technology, policy, and electric vehicle infrastructure assumptions. We aggregated simulation results into up to 30 vehicle classes (covering size and price classifications) for each powertrain, for six powertrains. We simulated model years 2019 to 2035. We present results for four vehicle attributes: vehicle acceleration, fuel economy (including electric and gasoline for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [PHEVs]), vehicle range, and vehicle purchase price. We also present results showing the estimated number of vehicle models available in each vehicle class over time. In the Mid scenario, which contains conditions between our most conservative and most optimistic assumptions for emerging electric and hydrogen technologies, we observe improvements in acceleration, range (for battery-electric vehicles [BEVs]), and vehicle purchase price for electric and hydrogen powertrains. In some cases, we project that consumer preferences lead to trade-offs between vehicle attributes, such as reduced fuel economy in exchange for improved acceleration. Conventional vehicles show modest improvements in fuel economy in these scenarios due to the high numbers of BEV and PHEV sales, which reduce the improvements required in conventional vehicles to meet fleet fuel economy standards. In scenarios with advanced technology assumptions (including reduced battery price and improved energy density), we observe further improvements in BEV range and price relative to the improvements in the Mid scenario.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗