Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/76448
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNiti Kammuang-lueen_US
dc.contributor.authorJirawat Boonjunen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-16T07:10:15Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-16T07:10:15Z-
dc.date.issued2021-11-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn23524847en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85107669867en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.egyr.2021.05.054en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85107669867&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/76448-
dc.description.abstractThe objectives of this study are to compare the energy consumption rate (ECR) of battery electric bus (BEB) simulated from international driving cycles and a real-world driving cycle in Chiang Mai (CMDC) and to define the ECR multiplier to convert the simulated ECR obtained from international driving cycles to the CMDC. Four international driving cycles were chosen. Each driving cycle was separately considered for two cases, one with air resistance and one without. It was concluded that the ECR obtained from the EPA heavy duty urban dynamometer driving schedule (EPA HDUDDS) is most similar to the CMDC but the ECR obtained from the regulation of the worldwide harmonized light vehicles test procedure (WLTP) differs the most. The ECR multipliers used for correcting the simulated ECR were in a range between 0.839 and 1.711.en_US
dc.subjectEnergyen_US
dc.titleEnergy consumption of battery electric bus simulated from international driving cycles compared to real-world driving cycle in Chiang Maien_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleEnergy Reportsen_US
article.volume7en_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.