Energy 96 (2016) 684e698

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Life-cycle analysis of energy and greenhouse gas emissions of

automotive fuels in India: Part 1 e Tank-to-Wheel analysis
S. Gupta, V. Patil, M. Himabindu, R.V. Ravikrishna*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As part of a two-part life cycle efficiency and greenhouse gas emission analysis for various automotive
Received 4 December 2014 fuels in the Indian context, this paper presents the first part, i.e., Tank-to-Wheel analysis of various fuel/
Received in revised form powertrain configurations for a subcompact passenger car. The Tank-to-Wheel analysis was applied to 28
29 October 2015
fuel/powertrain configurations using fuels such as gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, liquefied
Accepted 3 November 2015
petroleum gas and hydrogen with various conventional and hybrid electric powertrains. The gasoline-
Available online 22 December 2015
equivalent fuel economy and carbon dioxide emission results for individual fuel/powertrain configura-
tion are evaluated and compared. It is found that the split hybrid configuration is best among hybrids as
Keywords:
Tank-to-Wheel analysis
it leads to fuel economy improvement and carbon dioxide emissions reduction by 20e40% over the
Hybrid powertrain Indian drive cycle. Further, the engine efficiency, engine on-off time and regenerative braking energy
Modelling and simulation assessment is done to evaluate the causes for higher energy efficiency of hybrid electric vehicles. The
Tank-to-Wheel energy efficiency hybridization increases average engine efficiency by 10e60% which includes 19e23% of energy recovered
CO2 emissions at wheel through regenerative braking over the drive cycle. Overall, the Tank-to-Wheel energy use and
efficiency results are evaluated for all fuel/powertrain configurations which show Battery Electric
Vehicle, fuel cell vehicles and diesel hybrids are near and long term energy efficient vehicle
configurations.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The transportation sector, powered by various transportation
fuels accounted for 22% (76 million tons of oil equivalent) of India's
total energy use (314 million tons of oil equivalent) in 2012 [1] and
projected to grow with average 5.5% per year compared to world
average of 1.4% [2]. Similarly, it accounted for 8% (216 million tons of
CO2 eq.) of India's total GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions (2887
million tons of CO2 eq.) in 2012 [3] of which 99.1% were CO2
emissions, 0.7% N2O and rest CH4 emissions [4]. The road transport
dominates the overall transport scenario in India with 87% of total
GHG emissions share (from among all modes: road, rail, sea and air)
[4].
A lifecycle analysis of energy consumed and emissions gener-
ated is especially important for technologies that employ fuels with
different primary energy sources and fuel production processes.
The fuel lifecycle analysis, also known as WTW (well-to-wheel)
analysis is vital for selecting vehicle fuels and technologies for the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ravikris@mecheng.iisc.ernet.in (R.V. Ravikrishna).
future. The WTW analysis is often separated into two parts, WTT
(well-to-tank) analysis and TTW (tank-to-wheel) analysis. The WTT
part comprises processes related to the production of feedstock and
fuel, evaluates the energy and emissions associated with the pro-
duction of fuel from the feedstock to the delivery of fuel into the
vehicle tank. The TTW part involves vehicle operation activities and
analyses the energy and emissions associated with fuel used during
vehicle operation. It accounts for the energy expended and the
associated emissions emitted in vehicle operation by the vehicle-
fuel combinations. It covers various activities for energy flow
from fuel in the tank to the energy at wheels. The various power-
train configurations have different energy flow paths with their
associated efficiencies, which result in different TTW energy effi-
ciencies for individual powertrain configurations.
Several automotive WTW studies are available in the literature
for various countries such as USA, Europe, China, Switzerland and
Norway. A majority of these studies have done TTW analysis using
vehicle simulation tools for the selected vehicle technologies on the
predefined drive cycle to calculate TTW fuel economy and GHG
emissions. The WTW study for North America by General Motors
et al. [5] considered a pick-up truck (2010 Model Year) and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.031
0360-5442/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698
Nomenclature (abbreviations)
BEV battery electric vehicle
BSFC brake specific fuel consumption
EV electric vehicle
FC fuel cell
HEV hybrid electric vehicle
HWFET highway fuel economy test
ICE internal combustion engine
IDC Indian drive cycle
NEDC New European Drive Cycle
PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
SOC state of charge
TTW Tank-to-Wheel
UDDS urban dynamometer driving schedule
WTT well-to-tank
WTW well-to-wheel
simulated fuel economy results on EPA Urban and Highway drive
cycles. This study considered vehicles with gasoline, diesel, E85,
CNG (compressed natural gas), hydrogen, methanol and ethanol
fuels. Representing present and future powertrain configurations,
conventional, hybrid and fuel cell powertrains were considered. It
was estimated that hybridization of gasoline vehicle reduced fuel
consumption by 20% whereas hybridization for the more efficient
diesel and hydrogen engines gave somewhat smaller fuel con-
sumption benefits (14% for diesel and 16% for hydrogen engines).
The non-hybrid fuel cell vehicle reduced gasoline equivalent fuel
consumption by 58% over baseline gasoline ICE (internal combus-
tion engine) vehicle. Also, hybridization of hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle showed lowest fuel consumption benefit (4%) over non-
hybrid hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. However, this study did not
consider BEVs (battery electric vehicles) or PHEVs (plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles). Therefore, the impact of full electrification of
vehicle on TTW and WTW energy use and emissions could not be
known from this study.
Another major study for total life cycle energy and GHG emis-
sions with wide range of fuel-powertrains was first published by
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), USA, in year 2000
with predictions for 2020 [6] and updated in 2008 with predictions
for 2035 [7]. In these studies, a mid-sized passenger car was
considered as a base vehicle and TTW performance was evaluated
on US Federal Urban and Highway driving cycles. The updated 2008
study has also considered a light truck vehicle. The updated study
(MIT-2008) analysed vehicles with powertrain technologies of
current and 2035 versions of gasoline-powered, naturally-aspi-
rated SI (spark ignition) engine, gasoline-powered turbocharged SI
engine, diesel CI (compression ignition) engine and gasoline HEV
(hybrid electric vehicle). It was found that vehicle weight and size
reduction could significantly reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions. It was estimated that if a buyer were to choose a small
car instead of a midsize and midsize instead of large car, vehicle's
weight could be reduced by 9%e12% which can cut fuel con-
sumption by around 7%. It was also stated that the gasoline hybrid
electric vehicle offers a promising path to cost-effectiveness re-
ductions in fuel use and GHG emissions.
In the European context, the JEC consortium has recently pub-
lished version-4 of their WTW study based on 2010 vehicle-fuel
specific data with predictions for the period beyond the year
2020 [8,9]. This study considered a C-segment 5-seater sedan as a
reference vehicle and simulated vehicles on NEDC (New European
685
Drive Cycle) for TTW evaluations. For TTW analysis, a wide range of
fuel-powertrain combinations were considered. The major fuels
considered were: gasoline, diesel, LPG (liquefied petroleum gas),
CNG, gasoline-ethanol blends, DME (dimethyl ether), Fisher
Tropsch-Diesel, and hydrogen. The powertrains considered were:
conventional vehicles with PISI, DISI and DICI engine technologies,
parallel HEVs, Range Extended Electric Vehicles, PHEVs, Hydrogen
FC (fuel cell) vehicle, Hydrogen FC series hybrid and BEV. The TTW
results showed that electrification of conventional ICE vehicles
through hybridization lowers TTW energy use and GHG emissions.
Also, fuel cell vehicles showed substantially lower energy use with
near zero GHG emissions in TTW operation.
A few research papers have been published in the last few years
concerning country-specific WTW analyses. A study by Shen et al.
[10] focused on a WTW analysis of alternate fuel and vehicle
technologies for China. This analysis was for 2010 as a base year and
projected results for 2020. This study considered a passenger
vehicle in the 1280e1430 kg weight class as the platform vehicle
(Model Year 2010) and evaluated fuel consumption and GHG
emissions based on NEDC. The major fuel-powertrains technologies
include: PISI gasoline, DISI gasoline, DISI NG, DISI E85, DICI diesel,
gasoline HEV, diesel HEV, gasoline PHEV, BEV and hydrogen FC. It
was estimated that HEV can improve fuel consumption and reduce
GHG emissions by 33% per km travelled as compared to the PISI
baseline vehicle. A similar WTW analysis for Switzerland is done by
Yazdanie et al. [11]. This study considered a 1350-kg passenger car
(Model Year 2010) as the reference vehicle and considered vehicle
manufacture specified consumption rate for base vehicle and
applied performance factor as per a previous reference [12] to
determine consumption rate for alternate drivetrains. The analysis
for ICE vehicle and HEV using alternate fuels particularly biogas and
CNG resulted in remarkable reductions in WTW energy demand
and GHG emissions along with electric and fuel cell drivetrains.
Therefore, it was stated that alternate fuel sources in addition to
alternate drivetrain technologies play a key role in improving WTW
energy demand and GHG emissions. A WTW analysis was con-
ducted by Svensson et al. [13] for medium-sized passenger car in
the Norwegian energy system. It was stated that significant
improvement in energetic and environmental impacts can be
achieved by hybridization of ICE vehicles for city driving. It was also
concluded that hydrogen must be produced from renewable sour-
ces or from NG (natural gas) including CO2 capture and storage, for
fuel cell cars to be superior to the hybridized gasoline/diesel cars in
terms of energy consumption and emissions. A lifecycle analysis of
IC engine, electric and fuel cell vehicles for China for the base year
2009 and predictions for the year 2020 was reported by Wang et al.
[14]. It was concluded that EVs (electric vehicles) and FCVs (fuel cell
vehicles) using hydrogen from electrolysis of water powered by
Chinese electricity grid and by coal-fired energy cannot achieve
energy saving and emission reduction over ICEVs. This analysis
recommended FCVs powered by hydrogen from NG reforming from
the point of view of energy consumption, carbon emissions and
WTW efficiency, because FCVs using hydrogen from NG reforming
are less dependent on the electricity mix in China.
There are a few studies which have evaluated vehicles from
economic considerations in addition to the WTW analysis. An en-
ergy, environmental and economic assessment of various fuel-
powertrains for the European market was reported by Torchio
et al. [15]. A WTW global index was proposed as a basis for com-
parison of various fuel-powertrains. A cost evaluation and WTW
analysis on carbon emission/oil use for alternate fuels and
advanced light duty vehicle technologies using a compact car
platform (Model Year 2012) in the North American context was
performed by Elgowainy et al. [16]. This study also forecasted for
the years 2030 and post-2050 based on UDDS (urban dynamometer
686 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698
driving schedule) and HWFET (highway fuel economy test) drive
cycles. It was found that NG vehicles, FCVs and BEVs can achieve
greater reduction in GHG emissions and oil consumption than
conventional gasoline and diesel ICEVs. However, it was stated that
extent of reduction in FCVs and BEVs depends on availability and
affordability of low-carbon pathways of hydrogen and electricity.
Another work by Scha €fer et al. [17] presented a 25-year life cycle
assessment for future fuel cell and ICE technologies. This analysis
found that for next 20 or more years, hybrid vehicles with advanced
IC Engines can achieve similar levels of reduction in energy use and
GHG emissions as compared to hydrogen FC vehicles, if hydrogen is
derived from natural gas. Therefore, it was stated that hydrogen
fuel and FC vehicles can become potentially important in the long
term, only if hydrogen is produced using a much lower carbon
emission pathway. Cost effectiveness of alternate powertrains for
reduced energy use and CO2 emissions across nine UK passenger
vehicles segments has been quantified by Bishop et al. [18]. This
study used a WTW approach to estimate energy use and CO2
emissions to internalize life cycle impacts and concluded that hy-
bridization reduces the difference in energy use between vehicles
with slow and fast acceleration. Also, it was highlighted that fuel
cell and electric vehicles are not as cost-effective in reducing
emissions as advanced combustion technologies and hybridization
with parallel technology.
In studies specific to TTW methodology, a TTW analysis was
presented by Silva et al. [19] concerning energy and emission pre-
dictions of conventional and alternate fuel vehicles. This study
demonstrated the potential of integrating vehicle fuel consumption
and emission results with lifecycle software for WTW analysis.
Another study by An et al. [20] reported a comparative TTW
assessment of advanced vehicle technologies from previously
published WTW studies. This study provides rules and tools for
TTW analysis and comparison of TTW results with different studies.
A similar study by Ahluwalia et al. [21,22] reported fuel economy
calculations for hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid fuel cell vehicles. It
was stated that fuel economy of hydrogen fuel cell light duty
vehicle is projected to be 2.5e2.7 times the fuel economy of the
conventional gasoline ICE vehicle on the same platform. Also, hy-
bridization of fuel cell was observed to increase fuel economy by
27% on stop-and-go urban cycle and up to 15% on the combined
(urban þ highway) driving cycle.
In summary, a number of country-specific WTW studies has
been conducted with a wide range of fuel-powertrain consider-
ations. For TTW analysis, a reference vehicle platform was selected
for comparison of various fuel-vehicle options. The major vehicle
platforms considered were light-duty truck, mid-size passenger car
and compact passenger car. The fuel consumption and GHG emis-
sions were evaluated on predefined drive cycles e.g. UDDS and
HWFET from USA, NEDC from Europe. These studies have found
that both, alternative fuel and powertrain technologies play
important role reducing energy use and GHG emissions. Also, hy-
bridization of conventional vehicles and vehicle weight reduction
of conventional vehicles have shown higher potential for reduction
in energy use and GHG emissions. Similarly, hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle and its hybrid version have shown significantly higher fuel
economy with near zero GHG emissions in the TTW analysis. BEVs
were found to be most efficient in the TTW analysis with zero GHG
emissions, however their effectiveness in reducing WTW energy
use and GHG emissions depends upon the electricity generation
pathway.
The present study addresses following three main gaps in the
literature, other than being part of the first comprehensive country-
specific WTW study for India.
1. There is no study till date which considers a subcompact (B-
segment) car. Table 1 shows a comparison of characteristics of
vehicle platform and drive cycles considered in the major
studies from various countries with those of the current study. It
is important to note that earlier studies have shown that vehicle
weight reduction can reduce energy consumption and GHG
emissions, however, there is no study which evaluates energy
use and GHG emissions for small passenger cars with different
fuel-powertrain technology options.
2. Earlier studies have found that hybridization has high potential
in reducing energy use and GHG emissions. However, hybridi-
zation of ICEV can be done in a number of ways. There are
typically three major types of hybrid architectures considered.
These are: parallel, series and split hybrids. The fuel economy
improvement and emission reduction is a function of the mode
of hybridization used. Therefore, the mode of hybridization used
can significantly impact TTW & WTW evaluations. There is no
comprehensive study to date which considers all three types of
hybrid configurations in the WTW analysis.
3. Very few studies have considered hybrid configurations for CNG,
LPG and hydrogen-fuelled vehicles. The extent of improvement
in fuel economy due to hybridization for gasoline and diesel fuel
vehicle may be quantitatively different from those of alternate
fuels. Therefore, there is a need to assess effect of hybridization
for alternate fuel vehicles.
Therefore, this study is novel in terms of the following four
aspects.
1. This is the first study to consider TTW analysis for a subcompact
(B-segment) passenger car. Moreover, this study uses the Indian
drive cycle for TTW energy use and CO2 emission evaluation,
which is again a first.
2. The current work deals with all three types of hybrids power-
trains (Series, Parallel and Split) for not only gasoline and diesel,
but for alternate fuels such as CNG, LPG, and hydrogen.
3. This analysis uniquely quantifies engine efficiency, regenerative
braking and engine-off time for different types of hybrids for
various fuels. These results would provide valuable insight to
evaluate potential of each hybrid powertrain on various fuel
vehicles with respect to fuel economy improvement and CO2
emission reduction strategy.
4. This study includes a comparison of TTW energy use and CO2
emissions from the present analysis with those of earlier studies
for passenger cars. This comparison provides valuable insight on
the extent of downsizing of engine/vehicle on TTW energy use
and CO2 emissions.
In summary, the current two-part study considers various fuels
and powertrain technologies for a typical passenger car and rep-
resents the first such WTW study for India. Specifically, in this
paper which is the first of the two-part study, the TTW analysis is
used to simulate fuel economy and CO2 emissions for various
combinations of alternative fuels and advanced powertrain
configurations.
2. Fuel/powertrain vehicle configurations
India is one of the largest automotive markets in the world. The
annual sales of four-wheelers during the financial year 2014e15
include 2.6 million passenger cars [23]. India's demand for auto-
mobiles is growing rapidly and projected annual demand by 2020
for passenger cars and commercial vehicles is 10 million and 2.7
million, respectively [24]. Compact, subcompact and mini-compact
passenger cars comprise around 60% of passenger vehicles [25].
 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698 687

Table 1
Characteristics of vehicle platform and drive cycle in various WTW studies.

Parameter MIT [7] Elgowainy et al. [16] JRC consortium [9] Shen et al. [10] Current study

Geographical area USA USA Europe China India

Vehicle class Mid-size passenger car Compact e Sedan C-segment e Sedan Mid-sized passenger car Subcompact car (B-Segment)
Model year 2006 2012 2010 2010 2013
Vehicle weight (kg) 1571 1250 1310 1280e1430 1000
a
Base-engine (kW) 119 94 90 48
Frontal area (m2) 2.49 a
2.2 a
2.1
a a
Drag coefficient (Cd) 0.288 0.3 0.39
a a
Rolling resistance (f) 0.009 0.007 0.006
a
Engine CC (L) 2.5 1.4 1.8 1.2
Drive cycle for TTW analysis US e FTP 75 þ HWFET US e UDDS þ HWFET NEDC NEDC IDC
a
Data not available.

Therefore, the subcompact passenger car would be best represen- also be used in a fuel cell to generate electricity which can power
tative four-wheeler in the Indian automotive sector for evaluation electric motor for automotive use. Hence, two possible powertrain
of alternate fuel-powertrain concepts. Various petroleum based configurations for fuel cell, with and without energy storage, have
fuels like gasoline, diesel, CNG and LPG fuels are generally used for been chosen. Also, the battery-based vehicle configuration which
vehicles in India. The battery electric vehicle is considered as an relies on external charging (electric vehicle) is considered. Hence, a
alternative for depleting petroleum based fuels. Hydrogen is total of 28 powertrains as listed in Table 2, namely, five each for
considered as promising future fuel and can be used with IC engine gasoline, diesel, CNG, LPG and hydrogen SI (spark ignition) fuel, two
and efficient fuel cell technology. with hydrogen fuel cell and one with battery power are modelled
The hybridization of present vehicles has potential in improving and simulated.
fuel economy and reducing emissions. There are three major types
of hybrid configurations used: series, parallel and split configura-
tions [26]. The series configuration is propelled solely by electric 3. Vehicle modelling and simulation
energy from the battery. The engine is used to charge the battery
using a generator. Its main advantage is that the engine is decou- Autonomie, a plug-and-play powertrain architecture developed
pled from the vehicle speed, allowing an operating condition at or by ANL (Argonne National Laboratory) is used for modelling and
close to its most efficient point [27]. In addition to conventional simulation [33]. It is a forward-looking vehicle modelling tool, in
vehicle components, the series configuration includes a motor, which the driver model sends an accelerator or brake pedal com-
generator and large battery, which adds weight leading to loss of mand to different powertrain and component controllers (e.g.,
efficiency on this count. In the parallel configuration, the wheels throttle for engine, displacement for clutch, gear number for
can be directly propelled by either electrical power from battery or transmission, or mechanical braking for wheels) in order to follow
mechanical power from the engine. A direct connection between the desired vehicle speed trace. The driver model will then modify
the energy source (battery/engine) and the wheel leads to lower its command depending upon how close the trace is followed. As
powertrain losses as compared to that in a series configuration
[28,29]. However, since the speed at which all the components Table 2
operate are linked to the vehicle speed, the engine cannot Fuel/powertrain configurations taken up for study.
constantly be operated close to its best efficiency point.
Fuel Powertrain Configurations
In the split configuration, the engine and two electric machines
are connected to a planetary gear set (power split device) which Gasoline Conventional vehicle with manual transmission
Conventional vehicle with automatic transmission
divides engine power to charge the battery and drive the wheel
Series hybrid electric vehicle
simultaneously. Thus, it allows both parallel and series operation. Parallel hybrid electric vehicle
The main feature is that the speed at which all components operate Split hybrid electric vehicle
are decoupled allowing a higher degree of control and therefore, Diesel Conventional vehicle with manual transmission
Conventional vehicle with automatic transmission
engine runs close to its efficient zone [30]. The power split can be of
Series hybrid electric vehicle
input-split or output-split type. In the input-split type, the engine Parallel hybrid electric vehicle
power is input to planetary gear set where it splits into two power Split hybrid electric vehicle
flows, one going through first or second motor and other to the CNG Conventional vehicle with manual transmission
output shaft directly [31]. In the output-split type, the engine po- Conventional vehicle with automatic transmission
Series hybrid electric vehicle
wer re-circulates by charging through a motor/generator and dis-
Parallel hybrid electric vehicle
charging through a second motor at low vehicle speed and splits at Split hybrid electric vehicle
high vehicle speed [32]. As the input-split type is known to offer LPG Conventional vehicle with manual transmission
improved efficiency in overall shifting ranges as compared to the Conventional vehicle with automatic transmission
output-split, the current study uses the input-split configuration Series hybrid electric vehicle
Parallel hybrid electric vehicle
[31]. Split hybrid electric vehicle
The five powertrain configurations chosen for gasoline fuel are Hydrogen Conventional IC engine vehicle with manual transmission
conventional vehicle with manual transmission, conventional Conventional IC engine vehicle with automatic transmission
vehicle with automatic transmission, series hybrid vehicle, parallel Series IC engine hybrid electric vehicle
Parallel IC engine hybrid electric vehicle
hybrid vehicle and split hybrid vehicle. These powertrains are
Split IC engine hybrid electric vehicle
either in use or under extensive R&D worldwide. The same five Fuel cell vehicle
configurations are considered for diesel, CNG, LPG and hydrogen Fuel Cell series hybrid vehicle
fuels with IC engine vehicle technologies. Alternately, hydrogen can Electricity Battery electric vehicle
688 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698

components react to the commands, these models take into ac-

count transient effects (such as engine starting, clutch engagement/
disengagement, or shifting). This software is being extensively used
for simulating a wide range of advanced drivetrain configurations
[34].
The Matlab/Simulink based mathematical model of vehicle is
developed and simulated through Autonomie for various perfor-
mance predictions. The acceleration performance, gradability per-
formance and vehicle top speed are predicted to meet performance
criteria. The fuel economy and CO2 emission results are predicted
for each vehicle configuration over predefined standard drive cycle
pattern. All vehicles are simulated over the IDC (Indian Drive Cycle)
which is shown in Fig. 1. The IDC is used by ARAI (Automotive
Research Association of India) for fuel economy and emissions
evaluation for passenger cars in India [35]. The energy flow with
percentage energy use for various functionalities over the IDC in
conventional gasoline vehicle with manual transmission is shown Fig. 2. Energy flow in a conventional gasoline-powered vehicle over the Indian Drive
Cycle.
in Fig. 2. Engine losses contribute highest due to lower average
engine operating efficiency over the IDC and about 17% of fuel
energy is used to overcome resistances to drive the vehicle over the
0 to 100 kmph with electrical assistance for hybrids was the first
IDC. The vehicle fuel economy mainly depends on drag force, rolling
criterion used in the study. This time was selected as 23 s based on
resistance, grade, drive cycle, powertrain configuration and vehicle
the performance of the base vehicle. A minimum 5% gradability at
mass [36,37]. The drag force, rolling resistance, grade and drive
100 kmph with electrical assistance for atleast 30 min for hybrids
cycle parameters are kept same for all configurations so as to study
was used to test the gradability of the vehicles. Finally, a maximum
the effect of powertrain alone on fuel economy. However, the
speed of 140 kmph without electrical assistance for hybrids was the
vehicle mass is powertrain dependent, and hence is left uncon-
third criterion for which the powertrains were modelled.
strained [38]. The conventional gasoline vehicle with manual
transmission is considered as the base vehicle for all configurations.
3.2. Component sizing
This has been done to keep the drag force and rolling force pa-
rameters same for all the models. In other words, only the pow-
Since each powertrain contains a different set of components,
ertrain configuration has been changed inside the base vehicle. This
the sizing assumptions are powertrain-specific. Whenever either
is equivalent to studying the performance of base vehicle with 27
engine or electric motor alone is present for propulsion, it has been
different configurations of subcompact passenger car including
sized in terms of meeting performance criteria. In case of contri-
conventional with automatic transmission, series HEVs, parallel
bution from both, the electric motor has been sized to capture all
HEVs, split HEVs, fuel cell and battery-powered configuration.
the regenerative braking energy available over the Indian drive
cycle and then the engine is sized to meet the performance criteria.
3.1. Performance criteria Scaling of the engine involves simultaneously changing the fuel
flow and torque, for producing desired power while maintaining
The powertrains are sized to meet the same performance the same efficiency [40].
criteria so as to have a good comparison of all vehicles on a common
basis. This study uses acceleration, grade and maximum speed 3.2.1. Assumptions for sizing various powertrains
criteria. These are standard performance criteria used in the various The 1.2-L, four-cylinder, port-fuelled multipoint injection gaso-
WTW studies [17,20,26,39]. The time required to accelerate from line SI engine with a compression ratio of 10 is considered for the

100

90

80

70
Speed (kmph)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (sec)

Fig. 1. Indian Drive Cycle. Note: IDC is similar to New European Driving Cycle (NEDC), except that the maximum speed in IDC is reduced to 90 kmph.
 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698 689

Fig. 3. Gasoline-equivalent fuel economy (L/100 km) for the various fuel/powertrain configurations.

100

90

80

70

60

50
%

40

30

20

10

Fig. 4. Average fuel convertor* efficiency (%) over the Indian Drive Cycle for the various fuel/powertrain configurations. *Fuel convertor refers to engine/fuel cell/battery-motor in
BEV.

base vehicle technology. This gasoline engine is having peak effi-
ciency of 35%. Similarly, 43%, 40%, 32% and 40% [33] are the peak
engine efficiencies of Diesel, CNG, LPG and Hydrogen engines
respectively. The engine peak power has been scaled to obtain the
desired performance criteria for conventional configuration with
manual and automatic drive. In case of series hybrid, the electric
motor has been sized for desired performance criteria as it solely
drives the wheels and then engine and generator are sized with
peak power equal to the motor. For the parallel hybrid configura-
tion, the electric motor has been sized to capture all available
regenerative braking energy over the Indian drive cycle and engine
is then sized to meet the performance criteria. In case of the split
hybrid configuration, Toyota Prius (2004 Model) has been used as
reference vehicle for sizing. The Prius specifications are scaled so as
to satisfy the performance criteria while maintaining the same
hybridization ratio. The HR (hybridization ratio) [41] defined as:
690 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698

Fig. 5. Operating points on an engine torque-speed diagram indicating normalized brake specific fuel consumption contours for the conventional gasoline vehicle configuration
(manual transmission) over the Indian Drive Cycle.


decoupled for hybrids [44]. This condition can be satisfied by

HR ¼ PMotor PMotor þ PEngine
where, PMotor is peak motor power and PEngine is peak engine power.
The electric motor in fuel cell vehicle configuration has been
sized for the desired performance criteria as it solely drives the
wheels. However, the fuel cell needs to generate peak power equal
to that of electric motor. In the battery electric vehicle configura-
tion, the electric motor has been sized for the desired performance.
In case of gaseous fuel vehicles, we assumed 25 kg [42], 50 kg [43]
and 100 kg [33] weight of onboard empty tank for LPG, CNG, and
hydrogen fuel, respectively. The battery in HEVs and BEV is speci-
fied with energy density of 136 Wh/kg, power density of 700 W/kg
and peak efficiency of 95% [33].
3.3. Fuel economy calculation for hybrids
As this analysis does not consider plug-in hybrid electric vehi-
cles, the effect of electric energy on fuel economy needs to be
maintaining SOC (state-of-charge) balance for the storage battery.
Thus, hybrid vehicles are simulated over the IDC for fuel economy
calculation maintaining SOC of battery at beginning of drive cycle is
same as that at the end of drive cycle.
4. Results and discussion
All vehicle models assessed in this study are simulated over
IDC for predicting fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions.
The vehicle fuel economy, carbon dioxide emissions, TTW energy
use in MJ/100 km and TTW efficiency results are presented and
discussed. The fuel economy results with fuels other than gasoline
need to be compared on a common basis. The gasoline fuel is used
as base fuel and fuel economy results of other fuels are converted
to a gasoline-energy equivalent fuel economy. The gasoline-
equivalent fuel economy in L/100 km is calculated using the
following relation:

Total energy of fuel consumed  100

Gasoline  equivalent fuel economy of a fuel ¼
ðkm distance travelledÞ  ðCalorific value of 1 litre of gasolineÞ
 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698
Fig. 6. Operating points on an engine torque-speed diagram indicating normalized brake specific fuel consumption contours for the gasoline-powered series hybrid electric vehicle
configuration over the Indian Drive Cycle.
The CO2 emissions for all vehicles are calculated by the
standard carbon balance method. The TTW energy use results
signify energy used by vehicle for unit distance travelled over
the IDC. The TTW efficiency is calculated as ratio of energy
required at wheel to fuel energy used to drive the vehicle over
the IDC.
4.1. Fuel economy
The gasoline-equivalent fuel economy results for all power-
trains are shown in Fig. 3. The fuel economy for diesel-powered
vehicles is expectedly better (3.2e4.7 L/100 km) as compared to
vehicles powered with gasoline, CNG, LPG and hydrogen. This is
due to the higher efficiency of the CI engine technology (43% peak)
when compared to SI engine (32e40% peak). The average brake
efficiency of fuel convertors (engine/fuel cell/battery-motor in
BEV) for all vehicle configurations over the IDC is presented in
Fig. 4. The fuel cell vehicles show significantly improved fuel
economy results as compared to vehicles using SI and CI tech-
nology due to the higher energy conversion efficiency (51%) of the
fuel cell. The BEV (battery electric vehicle) shows the lowest
gasoline-equivalent fuel consumption which is around 1.25 L/
100 km. A recent study on electric vehicles quantified the con-
sumption of two-, three- and four-wheelers and showed that the
consumption depended significantly on the driving patterns un-
der city driving conditions [45]. However, the main challenge in
691
BEV commercialization is the battery cost for higher energy
requirement [41].
Conversely, the conventional automatic powertrain shows the
highest fuel consumption which is about 6.29 L/100 km. The
higher fuel consumption for the conventional vehicle with auto-
matic transmission as compared to that of the conventional
vehicle with manual transmission is due to the higher energy
losses (about 5%) in the torque convertor. The hybrid vehicles
show significant reduction (18e41%) in fuel consumption over
conventional powertrains. The split hybrid powertrain configu-
rations give the best fuel economy among the hybrid configura-
tions for all fuels.
The improvement in fuel economy and TTW efficiency for
hybrid vehicles can be attributed to the three main reasons as
discussed below:
a) Increase in average engine operating efficiency
Engines of hybrid vehicles operate in the higher efficiency zones
for more time on an average as compared to conventional vehicles,
and hence the average engine efficiency of HEVs (26e39%) is higher
than that of conventional vehicles (19e32%). The series HEV engine
can operate independently in an efficient zone. Hence, it shows the
highest average engine efficiency (near to peak) among all hybrid
vehicle engines. A comparison of Figs. 5 and 6 clearly indicates that
the engine is operating in lower BSFC (brake specific fuel
692 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698
Fig. 7. Operating points on an engine torque-speed diagram indicating normalized brake specific fuel consumption contours for the gasoline-powered parallel hybrid vehicle
configuration over the Indian Drive Cycle.
consumption) zones in case of the series HEV as compared to en-
gine in conventional vehicle with manual transmission. Similarly,
the engine operating points for the parallel HEV running on gaso-
line are shown in Fig. 7. Some of the operating points for the parallel
HEV running on gasoline engine are in relatively lower BSFC zones,
while some are in higher BSFC zones. It clearly shows that engine is
not operating always in the high efficiency zone. Hence, the parallel
HEV shows lower average engine efficiency (28.1%) as compared to
the series (33.3%) and the split configurations (32.7%). The engine
operating points for the split gasoline HEV are shown in Fig. 8. The
engine in the split gasoline HEV is operating in lower BSFC zones
with lower engine speed bands. These lower speed operating
points consume less fuel for engine operation as compared to
relatively high speed operating points in series HEV. Hence, with
approximately the same engine efficiency (about 33%), the split
HEV offers lower fuel consumption than the series HEV. Similar
trends are observed with engines operated on other fuels.
b) Reduced engine operating time
The internal combustion engine in hybrid vehicles is not needed
to operate during the complete vehicle operation time. Fig. 9 shows
percentage engine-on time over the IDC. The engine-off leads to
reduced fuel consumption associated with idle engine losses. The
engine is shut down for a significant amount of time (53e65% of
time) in hybrids, thus reducing fuel consumption. Among the HEVs,
the series HEV engine is operating for the least time (36e38% of
time). The series engine is operating in a higher power zone and
consequently supplies the total energy demand in a lesser duration.
As the IC engine is the primary energy source for the parallel HEV,
the engine is operating for a higher duration (42e47% of time) as
compared to that for the series and split hybrid vehicles (36e42% of
time).
c) Regenerative braking
The kinetic energy of the vehicle is lost in friction during the
braking operation in conventional vehicles. This kinetic energy can
be recovered through an electric motor available in HEVs. The en-
ergy delivered at wheel and regenerative braking energy recovered
at battery is shown in Fig. 10. The regenerative braking energy is in
the range of 19e23% of energy delivered at wheel. The regenerative
braking energy is stored in the battery pack and utilized for vehicle
operation. This reduces energy requirement from the engine which
ultimately reduces fuel consumption. Regenerative braking energy
available at the wheel is dependent on the total vehicle weight and
drive cycle. It is independent of vehicle powertrain configuration.
Thus, the figure clearly depicts that regenerative energy recovered
does not vary much with different vehicle configurations.
4.2. CO2 emissions
The CO2 emissions results are presented in Fig. 11. The diesel and
CNG powered vehicles are less emitting than gasoline and LPG
 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698
Fig. 8. Operating points on an engine torque-speed diagram indicating normalized brake specific fuel consumption contours for the gasoline-powered split hybrid electric vehicle
configuration over the Indian Drive Cycle.
powered vehicles. The diesel vehicles emit lesser CO2 emissions
(10e32% less) due to their inherent lower specific fuel consumption
as compared to that of gasoline and LPG-fuelled engines. The lower
CO2 emissions associated with CNG vehicles (25e32% less) are due
to the low carbon content in the CNG fuel as compared to that of
gasoline, diesel and LPG fuels. The hydrogen-powered IC engine
vehicle, fuel cell vehicle and battery electric vehicle do not emit any
CO2 in the TTW part due to the absence of carbon in the hydrogen
fuel and electrical energy pathway.
4.3. TTW energy use
The TTW energy use results are shown in Fig. 12. Conventional
configuration for IC engine vehicles have higher energy require-
ment for on-road unit distance travel. The energy use values for
conventional vehicles with SI engine fuels are in the range of
170e230 MJ/100 km whereas for diesel vehicles, they are in the
range of 130e150 MJ/100 km. LPG fuelled vehicles are the highest
energy consuming (230 MJ/100 km) among all conventional vehi-
cles. This is due to the lower engine efficiency using LPG (about
20%) as compared to other fuels (23e32%). The engine efficiency is a
major influencing parameter for TTW energy use. The higher en-
gine efficiency for diesel vehicles (32%) gives a lower TTW energy
use value when compared to SI engine fuel vehicles (20e25%). The
TTW energy use for hybrid vehicles is in the range of 100e150 MJ/
100 km. The fuel cell vehicles show a significantly lower energy use
693
in the range of 80e100 MJ/100 km. This is due to higher energy
conversion efficiency (51%) of the fuel cell. The higher energy
conversion efficiency for the Battery-electric motor system (80%) as
compared to an engine and fuel cell leads to the least TTW energy
use (41 MJ/100 km) for the battery electric vehicle.
4.4. TTW energy efficiency
The TTW energy efficiency results are shown in Fig. 13. Con-
ventional vehicles exhibit lower TTW efficiency. It is observed that
hybridization can increase TTW energy efficiency by about 5e12%.
The TTW efficiency of IC engine (both conventional and hybrids)
vehicles are in the range of 15e32%. LPG and gasoline fuel vehicles
show a lower TTW energy efficiency primarily due to the lower
engine efficiency. A comparison of engine efficiencies and TTW
efficiencies clearly depict that engine efficiency has major influence
on TTW energy efficiency. Correspondingly, the higher engine ef-
ficiencies for diesel vehicles lead to higher TTW efficiency. The
combined effect of increase/decrease in engine efficiency and lower
energy efficiency in the torque convertor of the automatic trans-
missions affects the TTW efficiency of conventional configuration,
with automatic transmission as compared to the same with manual
transmission. Though hydrogen is considered as a promising future
fuel for automobiles, the TTW energy efficiency of the hydrogen IC
engine vehicle is lower than that of a corresponding diesel vehicle
configuration. The fuel cell vehicles exhibit TTW efficiency in the
694 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698

100

90

80

70

60

50
%

40

30

20

10

Fig. 9. Percentage fuel convertor-on time for all fuel/powertrain configurations.

Fig. 10. Energy delivered at the wheel showing the ‘regenerative braking energy’ recovered at battery (light shade) and the ‘net energy use’ (dark shade) and for all fuel/powertrain
configurations. Thus, net energy use ¼ energy delivered at wheel e regenerative braking energy recovered.

range of 33e37% and as expected, the most efficient is the battery
electric vehicle with 72% efficiency. Fuel cell vehicles are more
energy efficient than IC engine vehicles due to the higher energy
conversion efficiency of the fuel cell. The battery electric vehicle is
most energy efficient due to availability of high grade energy in the
storage battery. However, the overall scenario will only emerge
after combining the WTT and TTW parts of the analysis to generate
the WTW energy use and emissions.
4.5. Comparison of present study with other studies
A comparison of TTW energy use and CO2 emission results from
the current study and various studies from literature is presented in
Figs. 14 and 15, respectively. Overall, the comparison shows that the
sub-compact (B-segment compact) car in the Indian context ex-
hibits lower TTW energy use and CO2 emissions as compared to
those from other studies. This is attributed to the lower weight class
 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698 695

Fig. 11. CO2 emissions (g/km) for all fuel/powertrain configurations.

Fig. 12. TTW energy use (MJ/100 km).

and downsized engine vehicle. It is observed that downsized ve-
hicles show higher potential in reducing fuel consumption and
GHG emissions. It can also be observed that hybridization of the
downsized vehicles further reduces fuel consumption and GHG
emissions.
4.6. Effect of drive cycle on TTW results for hybrids
If the subcompact car considered in this study is simulated on
other driving cycles especially on highway drive pattern (HWFET
drive cycle from USA), the improvement in values for hybrids are
lower than those for other urban driving cycles. Fig. 16 shows TTW
energy use results simulated on various driving cycles. In the drive
cycles considered, IDC and NEDC are combined drive cycles which
includes both urban and highway drive whereas UDDS is US urban
drive cycle and HWFET is US highway drive cycle. The comparison
is done for a conventional gasoline vehicle with manual trans-
mission and a gasoline-powered split HEV. It is clear that the split
HEV shows substantial improvement (38e45%) for city driving
patterns over the conventional ICE vehicle. On the other hand, for
the highway cycle, this improvement is limited to 15%. This in-
dicates that hybrids are best suited for Indian driving pattern as
696 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698

80

70

60

50

40
%

30

20

10

Fig. 13. TTW energy efficiency (%) for all fuel/powertrain configurations.

Fig. 14. TTW energy use result in various WTW studies. Note: 1. For MIT-USA [7], energy use values of FCV and BEV are for 2035 þ forecasts as study has not evaluated FCV and BEV
for current case scenario. 2. For present study e India, HEV results are for split-HEV configuration.

compared to that of countries such as the USA. Therefore, in the 5. Conclusions

short term, hybrids of conventional fuelled vehicles may show a
large potential in reducing WTW energy use and GHG emissions.
This will get further clarified by perusing results from the WTW
analysis presented in the Part-2 paper.
This work reports results of the first part of a two-part study on
WTW analysis of automotive fuels in India. Specifically, this paper
focuses on the TTW analysis which involves estimation of fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions for a wide range of fuel/power-
train combinations evaluated over the Indian Drive Cycle.
 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698 697

Fig. 15. TTW CO2/GHG* emissions result in various WTW studies. *Emissions are reported in terms of CO2 emissions for JEC-Europe [9] and Present Study (India), whereas it is GHG
emissions for other studies. Note: 1. For MIT-USA [7], GHG emission values of FCV and BEV are for 2035 þ forecasts as study has not evaluated FCV and BEV for current case scenario.
2. For present study e India, HEV results are for split-HEV configuration.

Downsizing of vehicle has higher potential in reducing energy use

and GHG emissions. Hybridization of downsized vehicle is further
effective. Hybrids are best suited on city driving and therefore,
hybridization has higher potential on Indian driving conditions in
reducing TTW energy use and GHG emissions. The results of this
TTW analysis are combined with WTT results presented in Part-2 to
arrive at a detailed WTW assessment of various automotive fuels in
India.

References

Fig. 16. TTW energy use results of subcompact car on various drive cycles.
Mathematical models of 28 powertrain configurations of a typical
Indian subcompact car were developed and simulated using
Autonomie software. The results indicate that gasoline and LPG-
powered vehicles are less efficient having TTW efficiency in the
range of 15e27% due to the relatively lower engine efficiency. The
diesel vehicles are most efficient with 25e32% TTW efficiency
among the IC engine-powered vehicles due to its inherent high
engine efficiency. The TTW analysis expectedly shows that the fuel
cell and electric powertrains are significantly efficient as compared
to IC engine powertrains and thus translates into a higher TTW
efficiency for the fuel cell and battery powered electric vehicles.
The results also indicate that hybrid vehicles show significant
improvement in fuel economy and CO2 emissions. Among the
hybrid configurations, the split hybrid is observed to be the most
efficient powertrain configuration. The factors leading to
improvement in fuel economy for hybrid vehicles have been
identified as: increased average engine operating efficiency,
regenerative braking energy recovery and reduced engine-on time.
[1] TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute). TERI energy and environment data
directory and yearbook 2014/2015. New Delhi: TERI; 2015.
[2] European Business and Technology Centre. Report on transport and energy in
India e energy used by Indian transport systems and consequent emissions:
the need for quantitative analysis (well to wheel, life cycle). March 2013.
Available online at: http://ebtc.eu/pdf/130925_REP_Report-on-Transport-
and-Energy-in-India_Web.pdf.
[3] International Energy Agency (IEA). CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (2014
edition). Paris, France: OECD/IEA; 2014. Available online at: http://data.iea.
org/ieastore/statslisting.asp.
[4] Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. India: greenhouse
gas emissions 2007. 2010. Retrieved from: www.moef.nic.in/downloads/
public-information/Report_INCCA.pdf.
[5] General Motors Corporation, Argonne National Laboratories, BP, ExxonMobil
and Shell. Well-to-wheels analysis of advanced fuel/vehicle systems e a North
American study of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and criteria
pollutant emissions. May 2005.
[6] Weiss MA, Heywood JB, Drake EM, Schafer A, AuYeung FF. On the road in 2020
e a life cycle-analysis of new automobile technologies. Energy Laboratory
Report EL 00e003. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2000.
[7] Bandivadekar A, Bodek K, Cheah L, Evans C, Groode T, Heywood J, et al. On the
road in 2035 e reducing transportation's petroleum consumption and GHG
emissions. Laboratory for Energy and Environment, Report No. LFEE 2008-05
RP. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2008. Available online at:, http://
web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/otr2035/index.html.
[8] Edwards R, Hass H, Larive  J, Lonza L, Mass H, Rickeard D. Well-to-wheel
analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context.
JRC technical reports. Well-to-wheels report version 4.a. 2014. Available on-
line at:, http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/sites/iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu.about-
jec/files/documents/wtw_report_v4a_march_2014_final.pdf.
[9] Huss A, Maas H, Hass H. Well-to-wheel analysis of future automotive fuels and
powertrains in the European context. JRC Technical Reports. Tank-to-Wheels
698 S. Gupta et al. / Energy 96 (2016) 684e698
report Version 4. 2013. Available online at:, http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-
jec/sites/iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu.about-jec/files/documents/report_2013/ttw_
report_v4_july_2013_final.pdf.
[10] Shen W, Han W, Chock D, Chai Q, Zhang A. Well-to-wheels life-cycle analysis
of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies in China. Energy Policy 2012;49:
296e307.
[11] Yazdanie M, Noembrini F, Dossetto L, Boulouchos K. A comparative analysis of
well-to-wheel primary energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions for the
operation of alternative and conventional vehicles in Switzerland, considering
various energy carrier production pathways. J Power Sources 2014;249:
333e48.
[12] Noembrini FG. Modeling and analysis of the Swiss energy system dynamics
with emphasis on the interconnection between transportation and energy
conversion [A dissertation submitted to ETH ZURICH, DISS. ETH NO. 18469].
2009.
[13] Svensson AM, Møller-Holst S, Glo €ckner R, Maurstad O. Well-to-wheel study of
passenger vehicles in the Norwegian energy system. Energy 2007;32(4):
437e45.
[14] Wang D, Zamel N, Jiao K, Zhou Y, Yu S, Du Q, et al. Life cycle analysis of in-
ternal combustion engine, electric and fuel cell vehicles for China. Energy
2013;59:402e12.
[15] Torchio MF, Santarelli MG. Energy, environmental and economic comparison
of different powertrain/fuel options using well-to-wheels assessment, energy
and external costseEuropean market analysis. Energy 2010;35(10):4156e71.
[16] Elgowainy A, Rousseau A, Wang M, Ruth M, Andress D, Ward J, et al. Cost of
ownership and well-to-wheels carbon emissions/oil use of alternative fuels
and advanced light-duty vehicle technologies. Energy Sustain Dev 2013;17:
626e41.
[17] Scha€fer A, Heywood JB, Weiss MA. Future fuel cell and internal combustion
engine automobile technologies: a 25-year life cycle and fleet impact
assessment. Energy 2006;31(12):2064e87.
[18] Bishop Justine DK, Martin Niall PD, Boies Adam M. Cost-effectiveness of
alternative powertrains for reduced energy use and CO2 emissions in pas-
senger vehicles. Appl Energy 2014;134:44e61.
[19] Silva CM, Gonçalves GA, Farias TL, Mendes-Lopes JMC. A tank-to-wheel
analysis tool for energy and emissions studies in road vehicles. Sci Total En-
viron 2006;367:441e7.
[20] An F, Santini D. Assessing tank-to-wheel efficiencies of advanced technology
vehicles. Argonne National Laboratory; 2003. 2003-01-0412.
[21] Ahluwalia RK, Wang X, Rousseau A, Kumar R. Fuel economy of hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles. J Power Sources 2004;130:192e201.
[22] Ahluwalia RK, Wang X, Rousseau A. Fuel economy of hybrid fuel-cell vehicles.
J Power Sources 2005;152:233e44.
[23] Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures (SIAM), Retrieved from: http://
www.siamindia.com/statistics.aspx?mpgid¼8&pgidtrail¼14.
[24] Department of Heavy Industry. Ministry of heavy industry and public enter-
prises, Government of India. 2012. National Electric Mobility Mission Plan
2020.
[25] Shende V. Analysis of research in consumer behavior of automobile passenger
car customer. Int J Sci Res Publ 2014;4(2). ISSN 2250e3153.
[26] LO Edward WC. Review of configurations of hybrid electric vehicles. In: 3rd
International Conference on Power Electronics Systems and Applications;
2009. Digital Reference: K210509002.
[27] Bayindir KÇ, Go €züküçük MA, Teke A. A comprehensive overview of hybrid
electric vehicles: powertrain configurations, powertrain control techniques
and electronic control units. Energy Convers Manag 2011;52:1305e13.
[28] Katrasnik T. Hybridization of powertrain and downsizing of IC engine e a way
to reduce fuel consumption and pollutant emissions e Part 1. Energy Convers
Manag 2007;48:1411e23.
[29] Katrasnik T. Hybridization of powertrain and downsizing of IC engine e analysis
and parametric study e Part 1. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48:1424e34.
[30] Ahn K, Papalambros PY. Engine optimal operation lines for power-split hybrid
electric vehicles. Proc IMechE Vol 223 Part D J Automob Eng 2009. JAUTO1124.
[31] Yang H, Cho S, Kim N, Lim W, Cha S. Analysis of planetary gear hybrid pow-
ertrain system part 1: input split system. Int J Automot Technol 2007;8(6):
771e80.
[32] Yang H, Kim B, Park Y, Lim W, Cha S. Analysis of planetary gear hybrid
powertrain system part 2: output split system. Int J Automot Technol
2009;10(3):381e90.
[33] Autonomie, Argonne National Laboratory http://www.autonomie.net.
[34] Rousseau A, Sharer P, Besnier F. Feasibility of reusable vehicle modeling:
application to hybrid vehicles. SAE International, SAE04-454. 2004.
[35] The Automotive Research Association of India. Indian emission regulations:
limits, regulations & measurement of exhaust emissions and calculation of
fuel consumption. 2011.
[36] Gillespie TD. Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics. SAE International, ISBN 978-
1-56091-199-9.
[37] Husain I. Electric and hybrid vehicle design fundamentals. CRC Press; 2003,
ISBN 0 8493 1466 6.
[38] Pagerit S, Sharer P, Rousseau A. Fuel economy sensitivity to vehicle mass for
advanced vehicle powertrains. Society of Automotive Engineers; 2006. 2006-
01-0665.
[39] Rousseau A, Sharer P. Comparing apples to apples: well-to-wheel analysis of
current ICE and fuel cell vehicle technologies. SAE International, 2004-01-
1015. 2004.
[40] Marc N, Prada E, Sciarretta A, Anwer S, Vangraefschepe F, Badin F, et al. Sizing
and fuel consumption evaluation methodology for hybrid light duty vehicles.
World Electr Veh J 2010;4:249e58.
[41] Kromer MA, Heywood JB. Electric powertrains: opportunities and challenges
in U.S. light e duty vehicle fleet. Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Laboratory for
Energy and Environment, Publication No. LFEE 2007-03 RP, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; 2007.
[42] Auto Gas Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved from: http://www.autogasenergy.
com/gas.html.
[43] Tata Motors Limited. Retrieved from: http://www.tatamotors.com.
[44] Automotive Research Association of India, CMVR TAP Booklet, Part 14,
Chapter 16. Retrieved from: https://www.araiindia.com/CMVR_TAP_
Documents/Part-14/Part-14_Chapter16.pdf.
[45] Saxena S, Gopal A, Phadke A. Electric consumption of two-, three- and four-
wheel light-duty electric vehicles in India. Appl Energy 2014;115:582e90.