Search Results

Reducing the weight of the M1A2 tank by lightweighting hull, suspension, and track results in 5.1%, 1.3%, and 0.6% tank mass reductions, respectively. The impact of retrofitting with lightweight components is evaluated through primary energy demand (PED), cost, and fuel consumption (FC). Life cycle stages included are preproduction (design, prototype, and testing), material production, part fabrication, and operation. Metrics for lightweight components are expressed as ratios comparing lightweighted and unmodified tanks. Army-defined drive cycles were employed and an FC vs. mass elasticity of 0.55 was used. Depending on the distance traveled, cost to retrofit and operate a tank with a lightweighted hull is 3.5 to 19 times the cost for just operating an unmodified tank over the same distance. PED values for the lightweight hull are 1.1 to 2 times the unmodified tank. Cost and PED ratios decrease with increasing distance.

The problem of accessibility to public transit is well-documented in transportation theory and network literature, and is known as the last mile problem. A lack of first and last mile transit services impairs access to public transit causing commuters to opt for private modes of transit over public modes. This paper analyzes the implications of a shared autonomous vehicle (AV) taxi system providing last mile transit services in terms of environmental, cost, and performance metrics. Conventional public transit options and a hypothetical last-mile shared autonomous vehicle (SAV) system are analyzed for transit between Ann Arbor and Detroit Wayne County Airport for life cycle energy, emissions, total travel time, and travel costs. In the case study, energy savings from using public transit options with AV last mile service were as high as 37% when compared to a personal vehicle option. Energy and greenhouse gas burdens were very sensitive to vehicle powertrain and ridership parameters.

As lightweight materials and advanced combustion engines are being used in both conventional and electrified vehicles with diverse fuels, it is necessary to evaluate the individual and combined impact of these technologies to reduce energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This work uses life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the total energy and GHG emissions for baseline and lightweight internal combustion vehicles (ICVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) when they are operated with baseline and advanced gasoline and ethanol engines. Lightweight vehicle models are evaluated with primary body-in-white (BIW) mass reductions using aluminum and advanced/high strength steel (A/HSS) and secondary mass reductions that include powertrain re-sizing. Advanced engine/fuel strategies are included in the vehicle models with fuel economy maps developed from single cylinder engine models.

Automakers have the opportunity to utilize bio-based composite materials to lightweight cars while replacing conventional, nonrenewable resource materials. In this study, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to understand the potential benefits and tradeoffs associated with the implementation of bio-based composite materials in automotive component production. This cradle-to-grave approach quantifies the fiber and resin production as well as material processing, use, and end of life for both a conventional glass-reinforced polypropylene component as well as a cellulose-reinforced polypropylene component. The comparison is calculated for an exterior component on a high performance vehicle. The life cycle primary energy consumption and global warming potential (GWP) are evaluated. Reduced GWP associated with the alternative component are due to the use of biomass as process energy and carbon sequestration, in addition to the alternative material component's lightweighting effect.

In 1998 the United States Automotive Materials Partnership published the life cycle inventory of a generic US family sedan. Several years later, researchers at the University of Michigan expanded this analysis to consider the dynamic replacement decisions over the vehicle lifetime that would optimize energy and emissions performance of generic family sedan ownership. The present study provides further analysis of this vehicle by examining the life cycle cost profile for generic sedan ownership and determining the optimal replacement intervals for this vehicle based on economics. Life cycle cost for a generic vehicle was estimated as $0.37/mile for a ten year life cycle and $0.31/mile for a twenty year life cycle. This study found that while less than 10% of the generic vehicle life cycle energy (20 year) is consumed during material production and manufacturing, 43% of the total life cycle cost is associated with vehicle purchase and depreciation.

A novel application in the field of Life Cycle Assessment is presented that investigates optimal vehicle retirement timing and design life. This study integrates Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) with Dynamic Replacement Modeling and quantifies the energy tradeoffs between operating an older vehicle versus replacing it with a new more energy efficient model. The decision to keep or replace a vehicle to minimizes life cycle energy consumption is influenced by several factors including vehicle production energy, current vehicle's fuel economy and its deterioration with age, the improvement in fuel economy technology of new model vehicles and annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Model simulations explore vehicle replacement under incremental improvements in vehicle technology and leapfrog technology improvements such as with the PNGV (Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles).