The growing concerns about the environmental issues caused by vehicles and a strive for better fuel economy, urge the legislators to introduce conservative regulations on vehicle testing and homologation procedures. To have accurate evaluations, driving cycles that can sufficiently describe the vehicles' conditions experienced during driving is a prerequisite. In current driving cycles there are still some issues which are disregarded. The aim of the presented work is to study the contribution of chassis and vehicle dynamics settings on tyre rolling loss in comparison with the original assumptions made in the NEDC, FTP and HWFET driving cycles. A half-car model including a semi-physical explicit tyre model to simulate the rolling loss is proposed. For the chosen vehicle and tyre characteristics, depending on the specific chassis settings and considered driving cycle, considerable difference up to 7% was observed between the energy consumption of the proposed-and conventional approach. The current work aims to provide the legislators with a better insight into the real effects of chassis and vehicle dynamics during the certification process to further improve the test related procedures required for homologation such as generation of road load curves. I.e., the aim is not to provide a new homologation process, since there are also other effects such as road roughness and tyre temperature that need to be considered. The results are also of interest for the vehicle manufacturers for further considerations during test preparation as well as in the development phase in order to reduce the environmental impacts.
With increasing attention to climate change, the penetration level of renewable energy sources (RES) in the electricity network is increasing. Due to the intermittency of RES, gas-fired power plants could play a significant role in backing up the RES in order to maintain the supply–demand balance. As a result, the interaction between gas and power networks are significantly increasing. On the other hand, due to the increase in peak demand (e.g., electrification of heat), network operators are willing to execute demand response programs (DRPs) to improve congestion management and reduce costs. In this context, modeling and optimal implementation of DRPs in proportion to the demand is one of the main issues for gas and power network operators. In this paper, an emergency demand response program (EDRP) is implemented locally to reduce the congestion of transmission lines and gas pipelines more efficiently. Additionally, the effects of optimal implementation of local emergency demand response program (LEDRP) in gas and power networks using linear and non-linear economic models (power, exponential and logarithmic) for EDRP in terms of cost and line congestion and risk of unserved demand are investigated. The most reliable demand response model is the approach that has the least difference between the estimated demand and the actual demand. Furthermore, the role of the LEDRP in the case of hydrogen injection instead of natural gas in the gas infrastructure is investigated. The optimal incentives for each bus or node are determined based on the power transfer distribution factor, gas transfer distribution factor, available electricity or gas transmission capability, and combination of unit commitment with the LEDRP in the integrated operation of these networks. According to the results, implementing the LEDRP in gas and power networks reduces the total operation cost up to 11% and could facilitate hydrogen injection to the network. The proposed hybrid model is implemented on a 24-bus IEEE electricity network and a 15-bus gas network to quantify the role and value of different LEDRP models.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.