Journals / International Journal of Automotive Engineering and Technologies / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 3

Economic trade-off of regenerative braking in hybrid vehicles: recovered-energy value versus accelerated battery degradation, with a worked case study for Turkish operating conditions

Hibrit Araçlarda Rejeneratif Frenlemenin Ekonomik Dengesi: Geri Kazanılan Enerji Değeri ve Hızlanan Batarya Ömrü Arasındaki Denge, Türkiye İşletme Koşulları İçin Örnek Bir Vaka Çalışması

Kadir Aydın(OSTİM TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1583-9605
Pages
127–138
Publication Date
2026-09-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The net value is robustly positive, narrowing only to extreme C-rates, high cell temperatures, or with expensive chemistries.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), regenerative braking converts part of the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electricity that is stored and later reused, displacing fuel.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This recovered energy is effectively free, because its only alternative is dissipation as heat in the friction brakes; however, the extra charge throughput and the high charge-rate (C-rate) pulses associated with braking accelerate battery aging, which carries a replacement cost.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The net value is robustly positive, narrowing only to extreme C-rates, high cell temperatures, or with expensive chemistries.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Rejeneratif frenleme · hibrit elektrikli araç · batarya bozulma maliyeti

Abstract

In a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), regenerative braking converts part of the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electricity that is stored and later reused, displacing fuel. This recovered energy is effectively free, because its only alternative is dissipation as heat in the friction brakes; however, the extra charge throughput and the high charge-rate (C-rate) pulses associated with braking accelerate battery aging, which carries a replacement cost. This paper presents a transparent, parameterized methodology that evaluates the net economic value of regenerative braking as the difference between two opposing cash flows: the monetized value of the recovered energy and the levelized cost of the accelerated battery degradation it causes. The benefit branch is built from the powertrain round-trip efficiency chain and an equivalent-fuel valuation; the cost branch from a power-law capacity-fade model and a levelized degradation cost, cdeg = cpack/NEFC. The two branches are unified in marginal-value and net-present-value (NPV) terms and examined with tornado and Monte-Carlo analyses. A case study is developed for a representative C-segment full hybrid under Turkish conditions at a gasoline price of 1.40 USD/L. The braking-energy input is validated against urban and extra-urban driving-cycle simulations that bracket the adopted value (0.028-0.058 kWh/km). For 15,000 km/yr the model recovers about 233 kWh/yr of usable traction energy, saving roughly 87 L of gasoline (≈ 121 USD) per year against a degradation cost of only ≈ 11 USD/yr, a benefit-to-cost ratio near 11:1. For a realistic 15-year service life (≈ Turkish fleet average) the discounted lifetime NPV is ≈ 840 USD per vehicle; longer horizons add little because of discounting. A Monte-Carlo analysis returns a positive NPV in essentially 100% of cases. The net value is robustly positive, narrowing only to extreme C-rates, high cell temperatures, or with expensive chemistries.

Özet

Hibrit elektrikli araçlarda (HEV), rejeneratif frenleme, aracın kinetik enerjisinin bir kısmını depolanan ve daha sonra yeniden kullanılan elektriğe dönüştürerek yakıtın yerini alır. Bu geri kazanılan enerji, tek alternatifi sürtünmeli frenlerde ısı olarak dağılması olduğundan, fiilen ücretsizdir; ancak, frenlemeyle ilişkili ekstra şarj akışı ve yüksek şarj oranı (C-oranı) darbeleri, pilin eskimesini hızlandırır ve bu da bir değiştirme maliyeti getirir. Bu makale, rejeneratif frenlemenin net ekonomik değerini iki zıt nakit akışı arasındaki fark olarak değerlendiren şeffaf, parametrelendirilmiş bir metodoloji sunmaktadır: geri kazanılan enerjinin parasal değeri ve neden olduğu hızlandırılmış pil bozulmasının seviyelendirilmiş maliyeti. Fayda dalı, güç aktarma organı gidiş-dönüş verimlilik zincirinden ve eşdeğer yakıt değerlemesinden; maliyet dalı ise bir güç yasası kapasite-azalma modelinden ve seviyelendirilmiş bozulma maliyetinden (cdeg = cpack/NEFC) oluşturulmuştur. İki dal, marjinal değer ve net bugünkü değer (NPV) açısından birleştirilmiş ve tornado ve Monte-Carlo analizleriyle incelenmiştir. 1,40 USD/L benzin fiyatıyla Türkiye koşullarında temsili bir C segmenti tam hibrit araç için tam olarak belirlenmiş bir vaka çalışması geliştirilmiştir. Model, yılda yaklaşık 233 kWh kullanılabilir çekiş enerjisi geri kazanımı sağlayarak, yılda yaklaşık 87 litre benzin (≈ 121 USD) tasarrufu sağlarken, bozulma maliyeti sadece ≈ 11 USD/yıl olup, fayda-maliyet oranı 11:1'e yakındır. Türkiye'deki uzun araç filosu ömrünü yansıtacak şekilde, 15-30 yıllık ufuklar analiz edilmiştir; 25 yıllık temel senaryo, araç başına yaklaşık 1003 USD'lik iskonto edilmiş ömür boyu NPV değeri vermekte, bu değer yaklaşık 20-25 yıla kadar hızla yükselmekte ve iskonto nedeniyle doygunluğa ulaşmaktadır. Monte-Carlo analizi, vakaların neredeyse %100'ünde pozitif bir net bugünkü değer (NPV) vermektedir. Net değer, yalnızca aşırı C oranlarında, yüksek hücre sıcaklıklarında veya pahalı kimyasallarda daralma göstererek, güçlü bir şekilde pozitiftir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydın, K. (2026). Economic trade-off of regenerative braking in hybrid vehicles: recovered-energy value versus accelerated battery degradation, with a worked case study for Turkish operating conditions. International Journal of Automotive Engineering and Technologies, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 3, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.18245/ijaet.1980022

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. E. M. Szumska, “Regenerative braking systems in electric vehicles: a comprehensive review of design, control strategies, and efficiency challenges”, Energies, 18, 10, 2422, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18102422
  2. J. Wang, P. Liu, J. Hicks-Garner, E. Sherman, S. Soukiazian, M. Verbrugge, H. Tataria, J. Musser, and P. Finamore, “Cycle-life model for graphite–LiFePO₄ cells”, Journal of Power Sources, 196, 8, 3942–3948, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.11.134
  3. B. Xu, A. Oudalov, A. Ulbig, G. Andersson, and D. S. Kirschen, “Modeling of lithium-ion battery degradation for cell life assessment”, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 9, 2, 1131–1140, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2016.2578950
  4. J. Zuo, Q. Chai, J. Zuo, and G. Li, “Control strategy of electric vehicle regenerative braking integrating fuzzy control and PSO”, Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering, 11, 1697447, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2025.1697447
  5. J. Guo, Y. Li, K. Pedersen, and D.-I. Stroe, “Lithium-ion battery operation, degradation, and aging mechanism in electric vehicles: an overview”, Energies, 14, 17, 5220, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175220
  6. M. Petit, E. Prada, and V. Sauvant-Moynot, “Development of an empirical aging model for Li-ion batteries and application to assess the impact of Vehicle-to-Grid strategies on battery lifetime”, Applied Energy, 172, 398–407, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.119
  7. M. Jafari, A. Gauchia, S. Zhao, K. Zhang, and L. Gauchia, “Electric vehicle battery cycle aging evaluation in real-world daily driving and vehicle-to-grid services”, IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, 4, 1, 122–134, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTE.2017.2764320
  8. M. Etxandi-Santolaya, A. Mora-Pous, L. Canals Casals, C. Corchero, and J. Eichman, “Quantifying the impact of battery degradation in electric vehicle driving through key performance indicators”, Batteries, 10, 3, 103, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries10030103
  9. BloombergNEF, “Lithium-ion battery pack prices see largest drop since 2017, falling to $115 per kilowatt-hour”, https://about.bnef.com/insights/commodities/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-see-largest-drop-since-2017-falling-to-115-per-kilowatt-hour-bloombergnef/, 10/12/2024.
  10. BloombergNEF, “Lithium-ion battery pack prices fall to $108 per kilowatt-hour, despite rising metal prices”, https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-fall-to-108-per-kilowatt-hour-despite-rising-metal-prices-bloombergnef/, 09/12/2025.
  11. M. Masih-Tehrani, M.-R. Ha’iri-Yazdi, V. Esfahanian, and A. Safaei, “Optimum sizing and optimum energy management of a hybrid energy storage system for lithium battery life improvement”, Journal of Power Sources, 244, 2–10, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.04.154
  12. Z. Song, J. Li, J. Hou, H. Hofmann, M. Ouyang, and J. Du, “The battery-supercapacitor hybrid energy storage system in electric vehicle applications: a case study”, Energy, 154, 433–441, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.148
  13. N. Vukajlović, D. Milićević, B. Dumnić, and B. Popadić, “Comparative analysis of the supercapacitor influence on lithium battery cycle life in electric vehicle energy storage”, Journal of Energy Storage, 31, 101603, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101603
  14. M. B. F. Ahsan et al., “Lithium-ion battery and supercapacitor-based hybrid energy storage system for electric vehicle applications: a review”, International Journal of Energy Research, 46, 14, 19826–19854, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.8439
  15. L.-H. Björnsson and S. Karlsson, “The potential for brake energy regeneration under Swedish conditions”, Applied Energy, 168, 75–84, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.051
  16. M. Ehsani, Y. Gao, S. Longo, and K. M. Ebrahimi, “Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles”, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018.
  17. GlobalPetrolPrices.com, “Turkey gasoline prices”, https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Turkey/gasoline_prices/, 26/06/2026. 18. J. B. Heywood, “Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals”, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.
  18. Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), “Average age of vehicles registered to the traffic”, Turkish Environmental Indicators, Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change, https://cevreselgostergeler.csb.gov.tr/en/average-age-of-vehicles-registered-to-the-traffic-i-86040, 26/06/2026.
  19. UNECE Regulation No. 83 (NEDC: ECE-15 urban + EUDC extra-urban driving cycles); cycle definitions summarized by DieselNet, “Emission Test Cycles: ECE 15 + EUDC / NEDC”, https://dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/ece_eudc.php, 26/06/2026.