Range comfort zone of electric vehicle users – concept and assessment

Abstract

Enhancing usable range and the range-related user experience in battery electric vehicle (BEV) use is an essential task in advancing electric mobility systems. The authors suggest the concept of comfortable range (i.e., the users' range comfort zone or range safety buffer) as a benchmark variable for evaluating range-optimisation strategies. A methodology for assessing comfortable range was developed over the course of three BEV field trials. Here the final methodology is described and evaluated which consists of the comfortable range scenario task (CRST) which indirectly assesses comfortable range as well as several single-item indicators that directly ask respondents for comfortable trip distances or range safety buffers. Results show that the developed comfortable range indicators have good psychometric characteristics (internal consistency, factorial structure and testretest reliability), are able to depict the known effect of behavioural adaptation to limited range, and correlate with actual range utilisation behaviour. The CRST performs more robust than the single-item indicators within this evaluation.

Which Factors Can Protect Against Range Stress in Everyday Usage of Battery Electric Vehicles? Toward Enhancing Sustainability of Electric Mobility Systems

“…A framework that describes user interaction with a low-resource system is the adaptive control of range resources (ACOR) model (Franke, Günther, Trantow, Rauh, & Krems, 2015; Franke & Krems, 2013a, 2013b), which draws from concepts of different control models (Fuller, 2005; Hancock & Warm, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Summala, 2007) to account for drivers’ interaction with limited BEV range (see Figure 1). The fundamental assumption of this model is that BEV drivers continuously manage (i.e., monitor and control) the fit of (1) available range resources (i.e., displayed range) to (2) their actual range resource needs (i.e., trip lengths) with the goal of keeping the available range resource buffer within their individual comfort zone (Franke, Günther et al, 2015). The higher the discrepancy becomes between this available buffer and drivers’ preferred safety buffer (i.e., similar to the safety margin concept of Summala, 2007), the more likely drivers will experience discomfort and, finally, stress (see also Hancock & Warm, 1989).…”

“…Third, the factor with the most direct effect on range appraisal (and therefore range stress), and found to show particularly high interindividual variance, is individual tolerance of low-resource situations (e.g., as signified by the individual range safety buffer—that is, comfortable range; Franke, Günther et al, 2015).…”

Assessing the Influence of Different Goals in Energy Communities’ Self-Sufficiency—An Optimized Multiagent Approach

“…For EV, one of the most common models in the market was reproduced (40 kWh battery capacity and a charging power of 6.6 kW). For the static battery, the minimum SoC was defined as 20% whereas for the EV this value was set at 26% (based on the results obtained in [75]). A minimum final (at the departure time) SoC was set to 75%, while the ideal SoC at the end of the charging process was defined as the full charge (100%), for EV and static batteries.…”

A Review of Range Extender Technologies in Electric Vehicles

“…The main concerns deterring potential buyers from purchasing BEV are the high initial cost and range limitation. Even the official driving range published by the manufacturers are often based on a standard driving cycle, which is almost always too optimistic [16]. This concern is justifiable since recharging BEV cannot be done in an instant and will not be a viable option in a hurry.…”