Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis

Yunus Kizilarslan; Oğuzhan Arı

doi:10.70395/cunas.1895778

Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis

Abstract

In this study, the impact of different battery voltage architectures on energy efficiency, driving range, and charging performance of urban electric buses was analyzed using a MATLAB/Simulink-based simulation model. The objective was to comparatively evaluate the effects of 600 V and 800 V battery systems on overall vehicle energy management. The model consisted of vehicle dynamics, electric motor, battery system, and charging subsystems. Three scenarios were investigated: (S1) a 600 V system with 350 kWh capacity, (S2) an 800 V system with 490 kWh capacity, and (S3) an 800 V system with 352 kWh capacity. All scenarios were simulated under the SORT-1 driving cycle between 100% and 20% state of charge. Results showed that the 800 V architecture achieved approximately 1.1% lower normalized energy consumption (Wh/ton·km) compared to the 600 V system with similar capacity. Increasing battery capacity from 350 kWh to 490 kWh extended the driving range by about 39%. Charging analysis indicated comparable charging durations for equal energy transfer, while the 800 V system enabled lower current levels, reduced transmission losses, and improved fast-charging efficiency. The findings demonstrate that battery voltage level and pack configuration play a critical role in the energy efficiency and operational performance of urban electric buses.

Keywords

References

[1] Abdelaty, H., Mohamed, M. (2021). A prediction model for battery electric bus energy consumption in transit. Energies; 14:2824. [https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102824](https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102824)
[2] Aghabali, I., Bauman, J., Kollmeyer, P.J., Wang, Y., Bilgin, B., Emadi, A. (2021). 800-V electric vehicle powertrains: review and analysis of benefits, challenges, and future trends. IEEE Trans Transp Electrification; 7(3):927–948. doi:10.1109/TTE.2020.3044938
[3] Lajunen, A. (2014). Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric city buses. Transportation Research Part C; 38:1–15. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.008)
[4] De Cauwer, C., Van Mierlo, J., Coosemans, T. (2015). Energy consumption prediction for electric vehicles based on real-world data. Energies; 8:8573–8593. [https://doi.org/10.3390/en8088573](https://doi.org/10.3390/en8088573)
[5] Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Sun, R. (2021). Data-driven estimation of energy consumption for electric bus under real-world driving conditions. Transportation Research Part D; 94:102807.
[6] Deb, N., Singh, R. (2023). An 800V end to end SiC powertrain to accommodate extremely fast charging. Journal of Energy and Power Technology; 5:1-19. [https://doi.org/10.21926/jept.2301007](https://doi.org/10.21926/jept.2301007)
[7] Gao, Z., Lin, Z., LaClair, T.J., Liu, C., Li, J.M., Birky, A.K., Ward, J. (2017). Battery capacity and recharging needs for electric buses in city transit service. Energy; 122:588–600.
[8] Federal Transit Administration (2023). Guidebook for Deploying Battery Electric Buses. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. [https://doi.org/10.21949/1527667](https://doi.org/10.21949/1527667)

[9] Hjelkrem, OA., Lervåg, KY., Babri, S., Lu, C., Sodersten, CJ. (2021). A battery electric bus energy consumption model for strate-gic purposes: Validation of a proposed model structure with data from bus fleets in China and Norway. Transportation Research Part D; 94:102804. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102804](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102804)
[10] International Electrotechnical Commission (2023). IEC 61851-23: Electric vehicle conductive charging system – Part 23: DC electric vehicle supply equipment. IEC, Geneva.
[11] Kammuang-lue, N., Boonjun, J. (2021). Energy consumption of battery electric bus simulated from international driving cycles compared to real-world driving cycle in Chiang Mai. Energy Reports; 7:344–349. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.016)
[12] Konakati, N., Ravichandran, B., Nukala, S., S, A. (2022). A case study for evaluating pantograph-based charging systems for electric bus. SAE Technical Paper 2022-28-0044. [https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-28-0044](https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-28-0044)
[13] Das, S. (2025). Analysis of high-voltage options (400V vs 800V) in electric vehicle architecture. Journal of Emerging Technolo-gies and Innovative Research; 12(9):b404–b409.
[14] International Association of Public Transport (2004). SORT – Standardised On-Road Test Cycles. UITP, Brussels.
[15] Rogge, M., Wollny, S., Sauer, D.U. (2015). Fast charging battery buses for the electrification of urban public transport—A feasi-bility study focusing on charging infrastructure and energy storage requirements. Energies; 8:4587–4606. [https://doi.org/10.3390/en8054587](https://doi.org/10.3390/en8054587)
[16] Lajunen, A., Lipman, T. (2016). Lifecycle cost assessment and carbon dioxide emissions of diesel, natural gas, hybrid electric, fuel cell hybrid and electric transit buses. Energy; 106:329–342. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.075](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.075)
[17] Hassani Sadi, M.H., Sadeghi, Z., Bauman, J. (2025). A comprehensive review of universal fast-charging techniques for 400-V and 800-V electric vehicles. IEEE Access; 13:153212–153233. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3603845
[18] Kivekäs, K., Vepsäläinen, J., & Tammi, K. (2018). Stochastic driving cycle synthesis for analyzing the energy consumption of a battery electric bus. IEEE Access, 6, 77738–77752. [https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2871574](https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2871574)
[19] Romano, E., Petersen, M., Madsen, I. (2025). Machine learning-based energy consumption prediction and optimization for electric vehicles. Academic Journal of Earth Sciences; 3:27–32. [https://doi.org/10.61784/ajes3012](https://doi.org/10.61784/ajes3012)
[20] Yiğit, BH. (2024). Selection of powertrain of 25 m and bi-articulated electric bus rapid transit for Istanbul bus rapid transit line. PhD Dissertation. Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa, Türkiye.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Electrical Engineering (Other), Energy

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Yunus Kizilarslan ^*
0009-0000-5016-8643
Türkiye

Oğuzhan Arı
0009-0002-4196-9435
Türkiye

Publication Date

June 30, 2026

Submission Date

February 23, 2026

Acceptance Date

June 5, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 5 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.70395/cunas.1895778

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA46BX39TH

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Kizilarslan, Y., & Arı, O. (2026). Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis. Cukurova University Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, 5(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.70395/cunas.1895778

AMA

1.Kizilarslan Y, Arı O. Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis. CUNAS. 2026;5(1):17-34. doi:10.70395/cunas.1895778

Chicago

Kizilarslan, Yunus, and Oğuzhan Arı. 2026. “Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis”. Cukurova University Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences 5 (1): 17-34. https://doi.org/10.70395/cunas.1895778.

EndNote

Kizilarslan Y, Arı O (June 1, 2026) Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis. Cukurova University Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences 5 1 17–34.

IEEE

[1]Y. Kizilarslan and O. Arı, “Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis”, CUNAS, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 17–34, June 2026, doi: 10.70395/cunas.1895778.

ISNAD

Kizilarslan, Yunus - Arı, Oğuzhan. “Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis”. Cukurova University Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences 5/1 (June 1, 2026): 17-34. https://doi.org/10.70395/cunas.1895778.

JAMA

1.Kizilarslan Y, Arı O. Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis. CUNAS. 2026;5:17–34.

MLA

Kizilarslan, Yunus, and Oğuzhan Arı. “Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis”. Cukurova University Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, vol. 5, no. 1, June 2026, pp. 17-34, doi:10.70395/cunas.1895778.

Vancouver

1.Yunus Kizilarslan, Oğuzhan Arı. Comparative Evaluation of 600 V and 800 V Battery Architectures for Urban Electric Buses: Energy Efficiency and Range Analysis. CUNAS. 2026 Jun. 1;5(1):17-34. doi:10.70395/cunas.1895778