## 3 Use Case Demonstration Overview
### Simulation Output  
Figure 3 compares the energy requirements determined from the simulation of the measurement data of the demonstrations to those from the UC simulations in [5], while Figure 4 illustrates the effects of the various ECO-features in reducing the energy consumption of the bus. For the remainder of the article, the baseline energy requirement is defined as the average energy requirement found from the UC simulations in [5] using the standard driving cycle. Figure 3 shows, as expected, that in Barcelona the energy requirements are significantly higher for the demonstrations compared with the baseline. However, the opposite is true for Osnabruck, where the energy requirements are significantly lesser than the baseline. This can be explained by the simple fact that in Barcelona, the average and maximum speeds of the buses in the demonstration are much higher than the baseline. Thus, the buses in the demonstration experience higher aerodynamic drag, leading to greater energy requirements compared with the baseline. In the case of Osnabruck, the opposite was true; for the 12 m bus, the average and maximum speeds of the demonstrations were less than those of the baseline, thus lesser energy was required than for the baseline. In the case of the 18 m bus, the average and maximum speeds are comparable between the demonstrations and the baseline; thus, the energy requirement between the baseline and demonstration is similar. For Gothenburg, the average velocity is less than the average velocity of the baseline, even if the maximum velocity is higher. Thus, the bus expends less energy on average compared to the baseline. From the results, it can also be deduced that normal acceleration and deceleration have a low impact on the rate of energy expenditure of the vehicle; this can be explained by the fact that the vehicle is an electric  
Figure 2: Comparison between the measured driving cycle from the demonstrations and standard driving cycles.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**City and Bus Type** & **Demonstration Profile Characteristics** & **Standard Profile Characteristics** \\ \hline GOT, 12 m * (3 demos) & Avg. vel. 7.99–12.6 km/h & GOT, Route R55, 12 m bus: \\ Max. vel. 70.9–82.4 km/h & Avg. vel. 18.3 km/h \\ Max acc. 4.99–5.33 m/s\({}^{2}\) & Max. vel. 57.2 km/h \\ Max. acc. 0.98 m/s\({}^{2}\) & Max. acc. 0.98 m/s\({}^{2}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* BCN: Barcelona, OSN: Osnabruck, GOT: Gothenburg; 12 m and 18 m refers to the bus length.  
\end{table}
Table 3: _Cont._bus with an efficient energy recovery system (via regenerative braking), thus 70% to 80% of the traction energy expended during acceleration is recovered during braking [7]. The amount of energy recovered depends on several factors including the momentum of the vehicle during braking, SoC of the battery, and capability of the battery to accept the power influx. For small EVs such as the Renault Zoe, the cutoff velocity beyond which energy recovery can efficiently occur during braking is 5 m/s [7], but for heavy-duty vehicles such as buses, the regeneration can occur from a lower velocity due to their larger masses resulting in greater braking momentum. Thus, regenerative braking in an urban scenario with low speeds and heavy traffic is more suitable for electric buses and trucks.  
Figure 4: Effects of the ECO-features of the energy requirements (**top row**) and impact on the electricity grid (**bottom row**).  
Figure 3: Comparison of the energy requirement for 12 m and 18 m buses in Barcelona, Osnabruck, and Gothenburg between the standard and actual driving cycles.