A Case Study on Automotive Battery System Design - Title Page - MIT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

accuracy beyond the initial study using publically available demand and sales forecast data. Theresults of the Monte Carlo simulation for all four architectures are presented in Figure 6.2.Figure 6.2: NPV Comparison of Thermal Architectures Under UncertaintyThe simulation results indicate that Architecture 2, 3, and 4 have better NPV cumulativedistribution curves than Architecture 1. This result is caused by two factors. First,Architecture2, 3, and 4 can be used for PHEVs and BEVs as well as FHEVs, capturing future sales withoutadditional engineering cost that would be required for architecture 1. Second, Architecture 2, 3,and 4 are associated with positive consumer willingness-to-pay values due to secondary effects.Additionally, architecture 4 has less components than 2 and 3, further driving down the unit cost,making it the leading choice among the four alternatives.48
Another interesting observation is that the flexibility rule for dominant vehicle type has a smallimpact. The model shows that customer preference for FHEV vs. PHEV or BEV will havelimited impact on design flexibility due to the strong influence of willingness-to-pay valuation.Figure 6.3 shows a simulation of NPV without the added value of the customer comfort andconvenience feature, to better understand the impact of assigning a secondary effect value to thethermal architecture. It is clear that architecture 2 has a small advantage over architecture 1 dueto flexibility in this case (i.e. the impact of NRE and tooling costs during a FHEV to PHEV/BEVtransition). The results again indicate unit cost as the core driver to favor architecture 4valuation.Figure 6.3: NPV Comparison of Thermal Architectures Under Uncertainty without Willingness toPayThis second simulation illustrates a key challenge to conclusions based upon the macroeconomicDeleted: finalmodel. Although the flexibility analysis clearly indicates that architecture 4 is the most valuable49
Page 1 and 2: SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE DECISIONS UNDER
Page 4 and 5: SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE DECISIONS UNDER
Page 7 and 8: Figures and TablesTable 4.1: Curren
Page 9 and 10: untested, unknown technology like h
Page 11 and 12: Chapter 2: Literature Survey—Flex
Page 13 and 14: solutions, with a discussion of how
Page 15 and 16: may have extension beyond those pro
Page 17 and 18: Meyer defines the steps to product
Page 19 and 20: The methodology used by de Weck has
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 3: Flexibility Valuation Mo
Page 23 and 24: action; the analyst continues to de
Page 25 and 26: 3.2: The Garage Case</stron
Page 27 and 28: The Garage Case is
Page 29 and 30: In a financial analysis, the engine
Page 31 and 32: outcome may have, optimistically, a
Page 33 and 34: ehavior, presenting the risk of exp
Page 35 and 36: ) Voltage/current may be different
Page 37 and 38: An FHEV or PHEV has different contr
Page 39 and 40: limited capacity for expansion, cau
Page 41 and 42: Chapter 6: Battery Thermal ControlH
Page 43 and 44: In fact, vehicles in the market alr
Page 45 and 46: 6.2: Flexibility Valuation Modeling
Page 47: This simulation’s primary assumpt
Page 51 and 52: wide range of uncertainties in both
Page 53 and 54: process with less risk. An investme
Page 55 and 56: Beyond the existing model, there ar
Page 57 and 58: Chapter 7: SummaryThe choices made
Page 59 and 60: Clayton, M. (2012, March 5). Chevy
Page 61 and 62: Stenquist, P. (2011, 1 28). New Yor
Page 63: Font: 11 ptPage 6: [22] Formatted M

A Case Study on Automotive Battery System Design - Title Page - MIT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?