Innovations in DeSign:”“
`
`
`
`
`
`1993 Ford Hybrid
`
`
`Electric Vehicle
`
`Challenge
`
`i
`
`SP-980
`
`
`
`
`
`GLOBAL MOBILITY DATABASE
`
`
`
`All SAE papers, standards. and selected
`
`
`
`
`
`
`books are aestmcted and indexed in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global Mobil/(y Database
`
`
`
`
`Published by:
`
`
`Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`400 Commonwealth Drive
`Warrendale, PA 15096-0001
`
`
`
`USA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phone: (412) 776-4841
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAMAR UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
`Fax: (33335332
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘
`
`;
`
`E
`
`[
`
`I :
`
`L
`
`I I 5
`
`.
`
`I 5
`
`I I
`
`I
`I
`
`t
`I
`
`
`
`Page 1 Of 11
`Page 1 of 11
`
`

`

`FORWARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The papers in this Special Publication were originally developed as submittals for the Technical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Report event at the 1993 Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Challenge. Held June 1 through June 6 in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dearbom, Michigan, the 1993 HEV Challenge was sponsored by a partnership of the Ford Motor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Company, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This competition was another in a series of Engineering Research Competitions supported by DOE and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`part of the Collegiate Engineering Design Competition Series sponsored by SAE. The papers presented
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`here are enhanced and expanded versions of those prepared in advance of the competition by teams of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`participating student engineers. They describe the design elements and construction details of the largest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`field of I-[EVs yet assembled from some of the best engineering schools in North America. Special thanks
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and recognition are extended to the Ford Motor Company for its outstanding support of this competition,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thirty colleges and universities from the US and Canada were selected to participate in this
`HEV competition to explore the potential of this cutting-edge technology through a Request for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proposals process initiated in January, 1992. A letter announcing and soliciting interest in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`competition was sent to all accredited engineering programs and two-year technical schools in both
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`countries. It described the nature of the events and the two available classes in the competition: one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`required constructing a HEV from the ground-up and the other required converting a 1992 Ford Escort
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wagon to hybrid operation. Sixty-seven schools submitted proposals that were evaluated by a team of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`judges from industry and government experts. From these proposals, twelve schools were selected to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`participate in the Ground-Up class and eighteen schools in the Escort Conversion class. Twenty-six of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`these schools were able to pass technical and safety inspections and qualify for the actual competition in
`
`
`June, 1993.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Challenge consisted of a series of static and dynamic events designed to assess the quality of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the student's efforts. The dynamic events measured the performance of the vehicles constructed by the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teams of student engineers and the static events
`
`
`
`
`
`evaluated their engineering and communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`skills. Each event was assi ned a ortion of the
`1 000 available oints in mg com I(:tition accordin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`t, T bl
`1 Th pT h '
`]R r}:
`t
`d b gth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a e
`e
`ec nica
`even serve
`.
`o
`epo
`o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as a way to emphasize the importance of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communicating the content of and rationale for the
`,
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`team‘ S de'SIgn as we“ as '50 dpcumthr'ltlthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`ECCIficatlonj 0fthe COME}??? ve ti: es. Thet'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e ore
`eport was ue one mon
`e compe ition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to allow time to judge them. Teams ofjudges were
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assembled from industry and government sources to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`read and score the reports. At least five judges
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evaluated each re ort' their scores were normalized
`p
`-
`;
`75
`t
`d th
`d t
`t
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pom scoring ange an
`en average
`O a
`0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determine a rank order of schools in each class.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Points were then assigned to the schools according
`to a pre—published schedule that allocated points
`
`
`
`
`
`
`'
`'
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`according to the vehicle class and the school s
`overall rank.
`
`
`
`Points
`
`
`\l £11
`
`
`
`150
`
`£11 0
`
`
`
`100
`
`
`150
`
`
`150
`
`
`9.) £11
`
`\l £11
`
`
`3 5 1
`
`
`
`Total Points
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1,000
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`
`:9 E ('9 l" O O E
`
`
`CD FF '3 O = '1 9.. = Hm
`
`
`
`'5
`
`
`
`vent Description
`
`
`
`Technical Report
`
`
`
`Engineering Design Event
`
`
`
`Oral Presentation
`
`
`
`Acceleration Event
`
`
`
`
`Emissions Event
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Commuter Challenge Event
`
`
`
`
`APU Efficiency Event
`
`
`
`Range Event
`
`
`
`Electric Efficiency Event
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Overall Efficiency Event
`
`Cost Assessment Event
`
`
`
`
`
`£11
`
`
`£11
`
`25
`
`
` T E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Permission to photocopy for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`clients, is granted by SAE for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Center (CCC), provided that the base fee of $5.00 per article is paid directlyto CCC, 222 Rosewood
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Special requests should be addressed tothe SAE PublicationsGroup.
`
`1-56091-388-6/94$5.00.
`
`.
`.
`.
`_
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No part of this publication may_ be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`othervvtse, Without the priorwritten permission of the publisher.
`
`
`
`ISBN 1 -56091-388-6
`
`
`SAE/SP-94/980
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 93-84469
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Copyright 1994 Society of Automotive Engineers, inc.
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 2 of 11
`Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Positions and opinions advanced in this pa-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`perare those 0f the author(s) and ”91 neces-
`
`
`
`
`
`sarily those 0f SAE- The author IS SOIGIY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`responsible for the content oflthe paper. A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`processi:available by which discussions will
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e prm e mm the paper 'f 't '5 published '”
`
`
`
`
`
`SAE Transactions. For permission to pub-
`Iish this paper in fun or in part, contact the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`.
`
`
`SAE Publications GroUp.
`5
`
`Persons wishing to submit papers to be con-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`Sideredforpresentation orpublicationthrough
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`word abstract of a proposed manuscript to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Printed in USA
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The complete results from the 1993 HEV Challenge, including the scores from the Technical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Report event, can be found in Table 2 for the Ground—Up Class and Table 3 for the Escort Conversion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Class, Many technical achievements and performance benchmarks for HEVs were set during this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`competition; a complete description of the competition's structure and outcomes, as well as an analysis of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the results, will be published as a separate SAE paper.
`
`
`
`On behalf of all the sponsors of the 1993 HEV Challenge, I thank you for your interest in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1993 HEV Challenge. The impressive accomplishments of the teams of student engineers contained in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this publication speak for themselves. If the reader has any questions concerning the organization of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`competition or its outcomes, please contact me at 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Building 362-B209, Argonne,
`
`
`
`Illinois, 60440, USA.
`
`
`
`
`
`Final Scores for the
`1993 Ford/DOE/SAE
`
`
`
`
`HEV Challen e
`g
`
`
`
`TechnicalReport
`
`
`
`Table 2.
`
`
`Ground-Up Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`California Polytechnic - Pomona
`
`
`
`OralPresentation
`
`
`
`EmissionsEvent
`
`
`
`CommuterChallenge
`
`v-"‘\lm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4300Nw.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RangeEvent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TotalPoints
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"‘4;Qu....a!!!EngineenngDesumEvent
`.—-NU)..EHHHIIEElectricEflimencvEvent
`
`
`
`NNN—.
`
`’—O—l
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NQU-43
`
`
`4; \0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO—IO—I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NN
`
`
`
`
`O—I O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`r—r—.—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9) U1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Qr—
`
`
`NN
`
`
`p—IAWQ
`
`p—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`004>Q43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`84
`
`
`
`w 0\
`
`
`n n
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Califomia Polytechnic-San Luis Obispo
`
`m
`Cornell University
`
`
`
`a
`Lawrence Technological University
`
`
`
`
`124
`Michigan State University
`m 124
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`New York Institute of Technology "u an n
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UniversityofCahfomiaDavis
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WU'I
`p—
`
`
`
`
`
`University of California - Santa Barbara
`
`
`University of Idaho/Washington Staten- 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Tennessee
`17
`University of Texas - Arlington ---n
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`29
`50
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Tulsa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert P. Larsen
`Center for Transportation Research
`
`
`
`
`_
`
`
`
`ArgmneNat‘Ona‘LaboramW
`
`1
`‘
`i
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 11
`Page 3 of 11
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`
`

`

`Table 3.
`
`
`
`
`Final Scores for the
`
`
`
`
`1993 Ford/DOE/SAE
`
`
`
`
`HEV Challenge
`
`
`
`Ford Escort Conversion
`Class
`
`
`
`
`TechmcalReport
`
`
`
`
`
`Enzineen'ngDesignEvent
`
`
`
`OralPresentation
`
`
`
`AccelerationEvent
`
`
`
`EmissionsEvent
`
`
`
`CommuterChallenge
`
`5>
`L1}
`E.2
`9,
`51::
`LL]
`E
`
`
`
`RanzeEvent
`
`
`
`
`
`ElectricEfficiencyEvent
`
`
`
`
`
`OverallEfficiencyEvent
`
`
`
`
`
`CostAssessmentEvent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lo.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Design Reports
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Alberta ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`University of California, Davis ....................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of California, Irvine ....................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of California, Santa Barbara ........................................................................ 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`California State University Northridge .......................................................................... 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`California State Polytechnic, Pomona .......................................................................... 61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo .......................................... 71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Colorado School of Mines ............................................................................................. 79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Colorado State University .............................................................................................. 87
`
`
`
`
`
`Concordia University ..................................................................................................... 99
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PenaltyPoints
`
`
`
`TotalPoints
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO\U-i—N\Ib):—y—aLn)—4:-\ILIIO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`—b—r—N
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wr—r—Ir—nD—I00MA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(240) 2327
`
`
`III
`
`
`55
`70
`
`
`
`490
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0
`r—I
`
`18
`
`
`
`lllllfllnllll
`
`
`Northridge
`Colorado School of Mines W 460
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`concoyaiaMy
`III-II-IInmI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jordan College Energy Institute nun-M- 301
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pemsyyyanyastateUm-yeyety “mm-“n sis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`seameyyniyeysiyy
`[II-W60”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`00
`Stanford University
`---- 360
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Texas Tech University
`“mum5)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Naval Academy "m
`460
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Alberta n.- 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of California - Irvine "n
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University ofIllinois
`University of Wisconsin "a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Washington University -
`St. Louis
`
`
`
`\I\l00Ln
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`N00M
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`u.4:-"‘soox
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`r—>—
`
`
`)— )— LII
`
`00A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wayne State University
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Weber State University
`
`
`
`
`West Virginia University
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`C\
`
`\0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 11
`Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cornell University ......................................................................................................... 115
`
`
`
`
`University of Idaho and Washington State University ............................................... 127
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign .............................................................. 141
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jordan College Energy Institute .................................................................................. 157
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lawrence Technological University ............................................................................ 163
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michigan State University ........................................................................................... 175
`
`
`
`
`
`
`New York Institute of Technology .............................................................................. 191
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Seattle University ......................................................................................................... 207
`
`
`
`
`
`Stanford University ..................................................................................................... 219
`
`
`
`
`University of Tennessee .............................................................................................. 229
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Texas at Arlington .................................................................................. 243
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Texas Tech University ................................................................................................. 257
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Tulsa ....................................................................................................... 265
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`
`

`

`United States Naval Academy ..................................................................................... 277
`
`Wayne State University ................................................................................................ 289
`
`Weber State University ................................................................................................ 303
`
`I
`I
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison ............................................................................... 311
`West Virginia University .............................................................................................. 321
`
`Page 5 of 11
`Page 5 of 11
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`United States Naval Academy, AMPhibian
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gregory W. Davis, Gary L. Hodges, Frank C. Madeka, Jason L. Pike,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph Greeson, Dennis Klein, and John Boone
`United States Naval Academy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The U. S. Naval Academy's entry for the Hybrid Electric
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vehicle Challenge is a 1992 5door Ford Escort LX Wagon with a
`manual transmission which has been converted to a series drive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hybrid electric vehicle(HEV). A DC motor, coupled to the existing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transaxle provides propulsion. Lead-acid batteries are used to store
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the electrical energy. The auxiliary power unit(APU) consists of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`small gasoline engine connected to a generator. The AMPhibian is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`designed to be a feasible HEV, for use in near term applications. To'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accomplish this, all components are based upon existing technology.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, this vehicle was designed to retain, to the greatest degree
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`possible, the basic driving characteristics of a conventional gasoline
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`powered vehicle.
`The major performance design goals for the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMPhibian include 1) the ability to travel 64 Km as a zero emissions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vehicle(ZEV) using battery power alone, 2) operating in hybrid mode,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ability to travel 320 Km while meeting the transitional
`low
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`emissions vehicle(TLEV) air pollution standards, 3) achieve a time of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`under 15 seconds when accelerating from 0 to 70 Kph, and 4) climb
`
`
`
`
`
`a minimum of a 15% grade.
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The USNA midshipmen accepted the HEV Challenge as an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`extension of their commitment to serve their country -- in this case,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to help America preserve its
`resources.
`The vehicle name,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMPhibian, was chosen by the midshipmen because, just as a real
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`amphibian spends time both on land and in the water, by analogy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the vehicle will operate using electrical energy from the battery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system, and at other times with electrical energy derived from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gasoline powered generator. As a reminder that electricity will be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the primary power source for the vehicle, the first three letters of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMPhibian were capitalized to represent the ampere, the basic unit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of electric current. Finally, the name also acknowledges the military
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`role provided by the Navy and Marine Corps amphibious team.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The dual nature of a hybrid electric vehicle also led the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`midshipmen team to choose "96" as the vehicle's number. The
`number can be read from two different directions with the same
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`result, just as the AMPhibian can be easily driven by stored electrical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`energy from the batteries or by generated electrical energy from the
`
`
`
`auxiliary power unit.
`
`DESIGN OBJ ECTIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The U. S. Naval Academy HEV, AMPhibian, was designed to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be a feasible HEV for use in near term applications. The challenge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`involves many aspects including cost effectiveness, acceleration,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`range, safety, and emissions. These design goals were considered
`
`
`
`
`when designing the vehicle.
`
`
`
`to be
`COST - Since
`the AMPhibian was designed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`economically feasible, minimizing cost was considered to be a major
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A" design decisions were made only after the
`design goal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`associated costs were analyzed.
`To help attain this goal, all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`components were to be based upon existing, available technology.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PERFORMANCE AND EMISSIONS - The major performance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and emissions design goals for the AMPhibian include 1) the ability
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to travel 64 Km as a zero emissions vehicle(ZEV) using battery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power alone, 2) operating in hybrid mode, the ability to travel 320
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Km while meeting the transitional low emissions vehicle(TLEV) air
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pollution standards, 3) achieve a time of under 15 seconds when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accelerating from 0 to 70 Kph, and 4) climb a minimum of a 15%
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`grade. The vehicle was also to maintain driving characteristics as
`
`
`
`
`
`similar
`to that of conventional gasoline powered vehicles as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`possible(e.g. one brake pedal, shift gears normally, etc.).
`RELIABILITY AND DURABlLITY - The AMPhibian was to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have reliability and durability similar
`to that of a conventional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gasoline powered vehicle. Using existing components would not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only help to limit the costs, but also to help ensure reliable and
`
`
`
`
`
`durable operation of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAFETY - Occupant safety was a prime concern. The frontal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`impact zone and original vehicle bumpers were to be maintained to
`provide sufficient collision protection. The original power-assisted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`277
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`FORD EXHIBIT 1016
`
`
`
`my"'9!r7:;‘-
`
`Page 6 of 11
`Page 6 of 11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`braking system was also to remain intact to ensure proper braking.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A fire suppression system was to be added to the vehicle and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`battery compartments, as well as to the engine bay to minimize the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`chances of injury and equipment damage. Due to the additional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vehicle weight, the roof structure was to be augmented to provide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`additional protection in case of a vehicle roll-over.
`Finally,
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`competition niles required the use of a five point harness system for
`
`
`
`
`
`both the driver and passenger.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEIGHT - One major disadvantage of electric vehicles has
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`traditionally been the large weight due to the propulsion batteries
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`required to provide the energy storage capability for extended range.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`An advantage of the HEV concept is to allow for less energy storage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capability of the batteries by replacing some of these batteries with a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`small auxiliary power unit(APU) which provides the equivalent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`amount of energy with less weight. However, battery weight was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`still considered to be a major concern, requiring the team to consider
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`all options for reducing vehicle weight. The AMPhibian was to be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`designed to weigh less than the gross vehicle weight rating(GVWR)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the 1992 Escort LX Wagon plus an additional 10%. This results
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in a maximum allowable vehicle mass of 1729 kg.
`Further,
`to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`maintain acceptable handling,
`the side-to-side bias must remain
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`within 5% of neutral, and the front-to-rear bias must not drop below
`about 40%l60%.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PASSENGERS AND CARGO - The HEV was to carry one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`driver and one passenger, along with a volume of cargo(50 cm by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`100 cm by 25 cm). The total combined weight of people and cargo
`
`
`
`
`
`was a minimum of 180 kg.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BATTERY CHARGING - The HEV charging system was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`designed to recharge the battery pack in six hours. This should
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reduce daytime charging demand on electrical utilities. Daytime
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`charging, if necessary, could be accomplished using the APU. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`charging system was to accept either 110V or 220V, 60 Hz AC
`
`power.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STYLING - Vehicle styling changes were to be minimized to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`maintain continuity with existing vehicle designs. No external glass
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or body sheet metal was to be modified except to provide additional
`ventilation.
`
`
`VEHICLE DESIGN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`studied, and
`The relationship of
`the design goals was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compromises were made to provide near optimal system design,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`given the severe budgetary and time constraints.
`This process
`
`
`
`
`
`resulted in
`selection and design of
`the major
`the
`i/ehicle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`components. The following discussion details the design decisions,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`followed by a summary table of
`theactual vehicle
`this
`is
`
`components.
`"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POWERTRAIN - The AMPhibian is propelled using a series
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`drive configuration. That is, the only component that is mechanically
`connected to the drive-train of the vehicle is the electric motor. This
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangement is depicted in figure 1, located in the appendix. This
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangement was considered to be superior to the parallel drive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangement,
`in which both the electric motor and the APU can
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`propel the vehicle, for the following reasons. The series drive would
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`require less structural change to install, and thus provide a lower
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The parallel drive system would also require a more
`cost.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sophisticated control system to minimize driveability problems such
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as those associated with the transition from electric vehicle(EV)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mode to hybrid electric vehicle(HEV) mode. This would, again,
`
`Page 7 of 11
`Page 7 of 11
`
`278
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`result in higher cost, and, possibly, reliability problems due to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`added complexity. The parallel drive is enticing because it has the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`potential to provide improved acceleration since both the APU and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the electric motor are used to propel the vehicle. However, when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the battery is discharged, the parallel system cannot easily be used
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to recharge the system,
`thus the potential
`for daytime use of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electrical energy for charging is increased. Overall, the series drive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was seen to be the best choice to meet the design goals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The conversion to a series drive system required the removal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the standard Escort engine. Since the Escort has front-wheel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`drive, the standard engine is mounted transversely in a transaxle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangement. Thus, the transaxle was left intact so that a new axle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would not need to be designed. The electric motor was attached
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`directly to the existing bell-housing and flywheel. This arrangement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`also allows full use of the existing transmission, thus allowing for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`variable gear ratios. This was considered an advantage since it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would allow the electric motor to be operated closer to its preferred
`
`
`
`
`
`
`operating speed over varying vehicle speeds.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior vehicle testing and simulation indicated that the vehicle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would require a power of approximately 9 kW in order to maintain a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`steady 80 Kph. Acceleration from a stand still to 72 Kph in less than
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15 seconds would require a peak power of 32 kW(at approximately
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35 Kph) for a short duration. Motor controller cost and availability
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`became the critical design factor for the selection of both the type of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`motor and the system operating voltage. The use of an AC motor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`investigated due to its
`inherently higher power density
`was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compared to a DC system. However,
`it was rejected due to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cost, availability, size, and weight of the associated motor controller.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A series wound, 15.2 kW(@ 90 VDC) DC motor was chosen instead
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`since DC motor controllers are more widely available, less costly,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and lighter in weight. The combination DC motor and controller
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`weighs approximately 82 kg, the engine that was removed weighed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`113 kg, thus resulting in a net weight savings of 31 kg. Although the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`steady state rating is less than the peak incurred during the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`acceleration,
`the motor can provide a peak power 2-3 times its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`steady state rating for short duration. To provide maximum torque, a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`high system voltage is required. Cost, size and the ready availability
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a proven motor controller dictated the controller choice.
`A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`controller rated at 120 VDC(160 V peak) was chosen,
`thus this
`
`
`
`
`
`determined the system operating voltage.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BATTERY SELECTION - USNA AMPhibian has two battery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power systems. One system is at 12V and one at 120V. The 12V
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system is used to power the 12V lighting and accessories. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`120V primary battery powers the prime mover and supplies power to
`
`
`
`
`recharge the 12V battery.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USNA AMPhibian battery selection was overwhelmingly driven
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by cost considerations. Secondary considerations included:
`1) the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HEV Challenge constraint of 400V or less battery stack voltage, 2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the motor controller rating of 120V, 3)
`the HEV Challenge constraint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of no more than 20 kW-hr capacity at a 3 hr discharge rate, 4)
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`gross
`vehicle weight
`constraints
`5)
`practical
`rating
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`considerations.
`In general, an inexpensive,
`small,
`lightweight
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`battery having high specific power and high specific energy is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`desired for use in the AMPhibian. Additional considerations included
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the desire to maximize voltage thereby minimizing |2R losses due to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lower operating currents.
`Also,
`to help to maximize KW-hrs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capacity, and, therefore, ZEV capabilities, the amp-hr battery rating
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`should be maximized. Since the maximum rating for the motor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`controller is 120V, 120V was selected. This enabled, AMPhibian to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determine an orderof-magnitude calculation of the costs of batteries
`
`
`
`
`
`
`having characteristics superior to those of conventional
`lead-acid
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`batteries. Results of this analysis lead the AMPhibian design team
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to limit battery selection considerations to off-the-shelf lead-acid
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`batteries. For example, Nickel-Iron batteries were found at a cost of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$1800 per six volt battery or $36,000 for a 120V battery stack.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nickel-Cadmium were found at a cost of $964 per six volt battery or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$19,280 for a 120V battery stack. Both estimates far exceeded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMPhibian budget constraints, hence, the self-imposed limitation to
`lead-acid.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Discussions with EV enthusiasts,‘ battery suppliers,"
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`professional EV converters'" helped team AMPhibian to focus on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`several battery features. These features included the following: wet-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`celled batteries can provide a slightly higher capacity, are typically
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`less expensive than, and require a less complex charging system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`titan gelcelled batteries; however, gel-celled batteries do require
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`less maintenance than wet-celled batteries; “flag" or
`'L'
`type
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`terminal configurations have proven to be more reliable and durable,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and provide greater contact surface area(he|ping to minimize
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`corrosion problems) than standard automotive post type terminals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the battery stack would be composed of
`individual,
`Ideally,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`replaceable cells to facilitate replacement of only bad cells as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`opposed to the replacement of entire multi-celled, batteries having
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only one bad cell. AMPhibian decided to go with 12V batteries for
`
`
`
`
`cost and weight considerations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The task of battery selection was complicated due to the
`
`
`
`
`
`lack of published,
`comprehensive,
`technical
`battery
`general
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`performance data covering an extensive number of battery models
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and manufacturers which had been verified by an independent
`source. This limited information is shown in the following figures.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From figures 2 and 3 of the appendix, the selection of batteries was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reduced by eliminating those batteries exceeding 20 kahrs at a 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hour discharge rate and those batteries which would exceed an
`
`
`
`
`