I P
`
`Future. Car'
`
`Page 1 of 13
`aoe1 of 13
`
`'
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`” FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`
`1996-
`
`240
`
`.A14
`
`1887
`
`

`

`1996 Future Car
`Challenge
`
`SP-1234
`
`GLOBAL MOBILITY OATABI\SE
`
`All SAE papers, standards, and selected
`books are abstracted and indexed in the
`Global Mobility Database.
`
`Published by:
`Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
`400 Commonwealth Drive
`Warrendale, PA 15096-0001
`USA
`Phone: ( 412) 776-4841
`Fax: (412) 776-5760
`February 1997
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`
`Page 2 of 13
`
`

`

`TL 240 .A141887
`
`1998 Future Car Challenge
`
`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 $7.00 per article is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood
`Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Special requests should be addressed to the SAE Publications Group.
`1-56091-946-9/97$7.00.
`
`Any part of this publication authored solely by one
`or more U.S. Government employees in the course
`of their employment is considered to be in the
`public domain, and is not subject to this copyright.
`
`No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or
`otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
`
`ISBN 1-56091-946-9
`SAE/SP-97 /1234
`Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 96-71843
`Copyright 1997 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
`
`Positions and opinions advanced in this pa(cid:173)
`per are those of the author(s) and not neces(cid:173)
`sarily those of SAE. The author is solely
`responsible for the content of the paper. A
`process is available by which discussions will
`be printed with the paper if it is published in
`SAE Transactions. For permission to publish
`this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE
`Publications Group.
`
`,.t'.•
`
`Persons wishing to submit papers to be con(cid:173)
`sidered for presentation or publication through
`SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
`word abstract of a proposed manuscript to:
`Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
`
`Printed in USA
`
`Page 3 of 13
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`
`

`

`PREFACE
`
`The papers in this Special Publication were originally written to fulfill competition requirements
`of the 1996 FutureCar Challenge. These papers document the design, construction, performance,
`and planned improvements of 12 high-efficiency vehicle designs, which represent the results of
`the first of two years of this competition. A paper describing the competition's individual events,
`results, and successful designs has also been included.
`
`The 1996 FutureCar Challenge was held at Ford Motor Company's Dearborn Proving Grounds
`and at the Environmental Protection Agency's National Fuels and Emissions Laboratory in Ann
`Arbor, Michigan during June of 1996. The 1996 FutureCar Challenge was jointly sponsored by
`the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research. The mission of
`the Challenge was to develop and demonstrate advanced fuel-efficient vehicles that parallel the
`technology development path of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)
`program. The PNGV development path culminates in a mid-size car having up to three times the
`fuel efficiency while maintaining the performance, safety, and affordability oftoday's production
`vehicles. At the same time as contributing to achieving the objectives of the Partnership, the
`FutureCar Challenge was to help improve engineering education and foster practical learning
`through the development of solutions to real-world engineering problems.
`
`The FutureCar Challenge is a goal-oriented competition. With the exception of specific
`performance and safety standards, the teams were left to solve the problems of producing a
`highly efficient vehicle themselves. This resulted in a wide variety of technologies with the
`potential for solving some of the technical problems associated with radically increasing the fuel
`efficiency oftoday's vehicles. While most of the teams chose to convert their donated Luminas,
`Intrepids, and Tauruses to hybrid electric vehicles, some chose other directions. Some vehicles
`were fueled with alternative fuels, while some used reformulated gasoline or low-sulfur diesel
`fuel.
`
`The dedication of the students and faculty in constructing these highly efficient vehicle
`prototypes cannot be fully conveyed within the scope of these papers. On behalf of all of the
`participants and organizers of the FutureCar Challenge, we extend many thanks to the
`participants and to those companies without whose support, whether through financial
`contributions or in-kind, the 1996 FutureCar Challenge could not have been brought to such a
`successful culmination.
`
`C. Scott Sluder
`Robert P. Larsen
`Center for Transportation Research
`Argonne National Laboratory
`
`Page 4 of 13
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Evaluation of High-Energy-Efficiency Powertrain Approaches:
`The 1996 Future Car Challenge ........................................................................................ 1
`
`1996 Future Car Challenge
`
`Concordia University ................................................................................. 9
`
`Lawrence Technological University ....................................................... 23
`
`Michigan Technological University ........................................................ 31
`
`The Ohio State University ........................................................................ 39
`
`University of California, Davis ................................................................ 53
`
`University of Maryland ............................................................................. 65
`
`University of Michigan ............................................................................. 77
`
`University of Wisconsin- Madison ......................................................... 87
`
`Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ............................ 101
`
`West Virginia University ........................................................................ 113
`
`Page 5 of 13
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`
`

`

`Design and Development of Hyades, a Parallel Hybrid
`Electric Vehicle for the 1996 FutureCar Challenge
`The Lawrence Technological University FutureCar Team including:
`James Swan, Ivan Menjak
`
`ABSTRACT
`Lawrence Technological University is one of twelve
`universities selected to compete in the 1996/1997 FutureCar
`Challenge. The FutureCar Challenge is the premiere, inter(cid:173)
`collegiate engineering design competition to date and is
`sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the
`United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR).
`Twelve competing universities each received either a 1996
`Chevrolet Lumina, a 1995 Dodge Intrepid, or a 1996 Ford
`Taurus. The vehicle was modified to meet the goals of the
`Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)
`program, to develop enabling technologies leading to the
`production of mid-sized vehicles achieving three times the
`current average fuel economy while maintaining the
`performance, utility, and affordability oftoday's sedans.
`Lawrence Tech will try to meet these goals by implementing a
`parallel diesel-electric hybrid powertrain in a 1996 Ford Taurus.
`
`HEY DEFINED
`As stated in the 1996 FutureCar Challenge Rules and
`Regulations, a Hybrid Electric Vehicle is defined as a vehicle
`that can draw propulsion power from both of the following
`sources of energy: ( 1) consumable fuel and (2) an energy
`storage system (e.g., batteries) that is capable of being charged
`by an on-board generator or an off-board source. The systems
`may be combined in any configuration (e.g., series or parallel).
`An HEY is considered to be charge depleting (SAE Draft
`J 1711) if during vehicle operation over a given driving schedule,
`electrical energy originally supplied from an off-board source is
`depleted during the same time that the on-board consumable fuel
`
`Advisors: Prof. Nicholas Brancik, Dr. Gregory Davis,
`Dr. Richard Johnston, Prof. Charles Schwartz
`
`Lawrence Technological Univ.
`
`is consumed. While the State of Charge (S.O.C.) of the energy
`storage system may be rising or falling instantaneously during
`this type of operation, not enough on-board charging occurs
`during the driving to prevent the S.O.C. from progressively
`depleting when measured over a sufficiently long series of
`repeated driving cycles. As a result, a hybrid vehicle that is
`charge-depleting on a given driving schedule can be treated as
`operating on both 'fuels' (off-board charged) electricity and a
`consumable fuel simultaneously.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The challenge faced by the twelve universities in the
`FutureCar Challenge was to modify an existing production
`vehicle, without changing the structure of the vehicle, to achieve
`a fuel economy of 34 km per liter and a range of 400 kilometers.
`Space for five passengers and 100 liters of luggage storage
`space was to be provided. At every design stage, effort was
`made to reduce the weight of each component through the use of
`lightweight, high strength materials. Efficiency of each vehicle
`component was considered so that overall system efficiency is
`improved. Improvements in the vehicle's aerodynamics were
`made through the addition of prismatic mirrors, wheelskirts and
`an aerodynamic foil. Through the use of sound engineering
`design, the team feels that the combination of these components
`and their use in a parallel hybrid system offer the most potential
`for meeting the PNGV goals in the near term. Computer studies
`led the team to select the parallel hybrid as the most feasible
`short term option at the lowest cost, using existing engines,
`transmissions, batteries, motors, and electronic components.
`
`Page 6 of 13
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`
`23
`
`

`

`

`

`electric. To meet zero emission requirements the diesel engine
`is declutched from the transaxle and shut down. All power
`to the wheels is now derived from the traction motor. The
`traction motor system features include a high efficency, liquid
`cooled design, 18 pole permanent magnet neodymium iron
`boron magnets, 4 quadrant operation, and a microprocessor
`based controller with closed loop torque control. This mode is
`selected when the driver elects to eliminate the consumption of
`diesel fuel and thereby, reduce on-board vehicle emissions. The
`advantages of using the traction motor as the sole power source
`are smoothness, reduced noise and no emissions output. The
`disadvantages of this mode are modest acceleration due to the
`weight of the vehicle in relation to the power of the traction
`motor and a limited range of approximately II 0 km.
`In Engine Mode of operation for the vehicle the diesel
`engine is the only source of motive power. This mode will only
`be used in an emergency situation as in the event of an electrical
`system failure or low State Of Charge (S.O.C.) in the main
`battery pack that could not be remedied by emergency on-board
`recharging.
`Regeneration is the ability to use the kinetic energy of
`the vehicle to capture energy in the form of electricity which
`would normally be lost as heat by friction brakes. The electrical
`traction system is used as an alternator for the main battery pack.
`Regeneration is invoked whenever the accelerator pedal is
`released for more than 1.5 seconds (i.e. coastdown) or when the
`brake pedal is depressed. Normal engine braking during
`coastdown in a conventional vehicle is simulated by regeneration
`during deceleration. Upon application of the brake pedal,
`regeneration content approaches I 00 Amperes to recover a high
`percentage of the kinetic energy; in many instances use of the
`service brakes will not be required to stop the vehicle. Only
`about 12-20% of the available energy will be recovered. To
`maximize the amount of energy recovered the PLC sends a
`signal to the transmission to downshift. By downshifting the
`transmission, higher motor speeds are maintained. Recharging
`the batteries by regeneration thereby extends the range of the
`pack while minimizing the weight, size, and cost of the pack.
`Finally, the PLC utilizes regenerative braking during all modes
`except Engine Mode.
`If the main battery pack is at a dangerously low S.O.C.,
`the PLC will activate the Recharge Mode, an emergency charge
`algorithm. The driver is informed of the condition through
`audible/visual warning signals. At what would normally be an
`idle period the transmission is automatically shifted to neutral
`and the diesel engine speed is raised to approximately 2000 rpm
`(which is in the range of peak thermal efficiency) to continue
`recharging at a high rate. When the accelerator pedal is
`depressed, the PLC disengages the clutch, returns the engine to
`800 rpm (idle speed), and electronically shifts the transmission
`back into drive.
`
`Transmission Modifications
`The stock Taurus AX4S automatic transmission has
`been extensively modified, including the elimination of the
`torque convertor. An opening in the transmission housing was
`provided to allow the motor drive belt to connect to the input
`shaft of the transmission. The diesel engine is coupled to the
`transmission with a single dry plate clutch that is engaged and
`disengaged with a hydraulic servo mechanism automatically
`controlled by the PLC. To reduce the amount of flow required
`
`25
`
`through the transmission, high performance seals have been
`incorporated to reduce internal leakage. The Transmission
`Control Module (TCM) controls a variable force solenoid (VFS)
`which is an input to the main regulator valve. This valve
`controls the pump bore ring which has been modified to act as a
`pressure regulator. The hydraulic and electric circuitry has been
`modified to allow the PLC to select neutral without driver
`intervention. When the throttle is opened the solenoid will be
`energized to re-engage the forward clutch. The shift points were
`determined by selecting the gear which has the highest torque
`output at any point in time while minimizing absolute fuel
`consumption. This system improves overall drivetrain
`efficiency while maintaining the ease of operation of a stock
`automatic transmission.
`The Final Drive Ratio (FDR) was changed to achieve
`maximum powertrain efficiency. Final drive ratios below 3.37
`were excluded because of the noise, vibration, and harshness
`(NVH) expected when the transmission is coupled with the
`diesel engine. A ratio of 3 .3 7 was selected for use which
`represents a very modest decrease in acceleration compared to
`the stock FDR of3.77. With the new FDR a 5% increase in fuel
`economy is obtained. The vehicle is capable of climbing a 33
`percent grade even though the electric traction motor is the
`initial motive power source until the vehicle reaches a speed of
`12 kph.
`
`PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLLER
`The PLC, with inputs from the stock Enhanced Electronic
`Engine Control Module (EEEC V) and the Electronic Diesel
`Control module (EDC), is responsible for real-time processing
`of all input comands and updating system outputs. The system
`power requirement is 24 VDC, supplied from the traction
`battery pack via DC-DC converters. All input, output cards are
`grounded to the vehicle common. The PLC hardware is
`described further in the appendix.
`
`Operator Interface
`The Operator Interface unit is a graphic, user-interface panel,
`inputs to which consist of a numeric keypad, system function
`keys, and user-defmed function keys. The panel output is a
`back-lit liquid crystal display. All screens are interlaced through
`manipulation of global function control (Fl is return to previous
`screen). The Interface Panel has memory storage independent
`from the PLC. File execution allows user input to the PLC via a
`serial data stream. The unit is powered by the same 24 VDC
`supply as the PLC. Vehicle drivers will be able to select the
`mode of vehicle operation as well as monitor vital vehicle signs
`through the operator interface.
`
`Programming Strategy
`All Hyades' control programs are written in ladder logic because
`of the graphic user interface on-line programming features. The
`unique design of the CPU architecture dictates the use of block
`programming. This programming style allows the programmer
`to create a small main line program to run a continual
`housekeeping and update routine. All other function 'blocks' are
`called into the main line program as certain criteria are met.
`The ladder program consists of a main routine program and
`eight subroutines. The main program is a series of calls to the
`function subroutines. A conditional return to the mainline
`program is contained in each function subroutine which was
`
`Page 8 of 13
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`
`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`
`
`Taurus
`
`
`conomy o fH b "d C 1y1 rl
`
`om pare d t Stock
`IE Table 1 F a: ue
`0
`c.
`
`City Fuel
`Economy
`(km!L)
`
`Highway
`Fuel
`Economy
`(km!L)
`
`Stock
`
`Hybrid
`
`0.32
`
`0.32
`
`8.03
`
`12.04
`
`16.45
`
`23.38
`
`'d e uc aon on F IE
`t"
`f C R d
`T bl lb Efli t
`conomy
`ec o
`ue
`:
`a e
`c.
`City%
`Highway%
`Reduction
`
`Component
`Added
`
`Combined
`Fuel
`Economy
`(km!L)
`
`Prismatic
`Mirrors
`
`Wheel
`Skirts
`
`0.013
`
`0.30
`
`0.89
`
`21.99
`
`0.006
`
`0.11%
`
`0.68%
`
`21.91
`
`AirFoil
`
`0.007
`
`Interior
`Antenna
`
`0.003
`
`0.16%
`
`0.07%
`
`0.34%
`
`0.20%
`
`21.93
`
`21.89
`
`0.291
`
`0.64
`
`1.91
`
`22.22
`
`
`
`T able 2 Efli a:
`
`
`ect o fW. h R d eagl t e uctaon on F ue
`
`
`IE conomy
`
`Component
`
`Weight
`Savings
`(kg)
`
`City%
`
`Highway%
`
`Combined
`Fuel
`Economy
`(km!L)
`
`24.13
`
`1.29
`
`0.53
`
`26.64
`
`to installation into the engine compartment. This entire
`assembly can then be mounted to the cross member and installed
`from underneath the vehicle in a manner similar to that used on
`the current production vehicle.
`Aluminum components were used extensively
`throughout the vehicle. Some examples of this include: front
`fenders, wheels, front and rear disk brake assemblies,
`transmission bridge, and the traction motor-to-intermediate shaft
`drive pulleys. The advantages of selecting aluminum for these
`components instead of another material is that manufacturers
`already make use of aluminum throughout production vehicles
`and, thus, are extremely familiar with its manufacturing process
`and mechanical properties. Further, most of these components
`are drop-in replacements for their production steel counterparts,
`requiring few or no vehicle assembly changes. The door
`windows have been replaced with polycarbonate plastic, which
`is currently available in mass production. This material is
`readily vacuum formed into duplicate replacements for the glass
`components, requiring little modification of the assembly
`process other than the greater care required to prevent scratching
`during assembly.
`The steel hood was replaced using a Carbon
`fiber/KlegecelVCarbon fiber(CKC) composite. Rear fender
`skirts, added to reduce aerodynamic drag, were also fabricated
`from CKC. Such composite structures are fabricated using a
`process similar to that for fiberglass, making it suitable for large
`scale manufacturing.
`Aluminum/ Aluminum/ Aluminum(AAA) and
`Fiberglass/ Aluminum/Fiberglass(F AF) Honeycomb material
`was used in the construction of the two propulsion battery
`compartments. These materials, chosen for their extremely high
`strength to weight ratios, are used extensively in the aerospace
`industry. Honeycomb components can be assembled using
`automated equipment and bonded with rapid-cure adhesive,
`making their use compatible with high volume production
`techniques. Finally, the entire electrical control system consists
`of off-the-shelf components to minimize cost and enhance
`reliability. This system currently includes an industrial
`Programmable Logic Controller(PLC) for development
`purposes. However, once the logic has been fully developed, the
`control could be incorporated into an application-specific
`integrated circuit( ASIC) or its functionality could be
`incorporated into the existing electronic engine control module
`code.
`
`Hyades is a practical family sedan that offers the
`reliability of several operating modes. Conventional automotive
`controls are used throughout the vehicle so that little or no
`training is necessary to drive it.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE VEHICLE MODIFICATION
`The tables summarize the vehicle modifications and
`the resultant efficiency improvements. Table la shows that the
`combined city/highway fuel economy is doubled with the
`addition of a hybrid powertrain. Table 1 b shows an
`improvement of9% in the coefficient of drag. The net overall
`improvement in the drag coefficient, when body and suspension
`modifications are taken into consideration, is 12%. Table 2a
`and Table 2b show the effect each component has on fuel
`economy. Table 2c summarizes the overall component weight
`reduction of the vehicle to be 94.26 kg, which leads to an
`improvement in fuel economy of approximately 3. 7%.
`
`29
`
`Front Seats
`
`Rear Seat
`
`13.88
`
`Carpet
`
`Lexan
`Windows
`
`4.54
`
`6.35
`
`Misc. Body
`
`3.61
`
`Hood
`
`Front
`Fenders
`
`15.42
`
`6.35
`
`Spare Tire
`
`20.41
`
`9.07
`
`Power
`Widow
`Mechanism
`
`0.74
`
`0.24
`
`0.34
`
`0.19
`
`0.83
`
`0.34
`
`1.09
`
`0.49
`
`0.31
`
`0.10
`
`0.14
`
`0.08
`
`0.34
`
`0.14
`
`0.45
`
`0.20
`
`26.55
`
`26.47
`
`26.48
`
`26.46
`
`26.57
`
`26.49
`
`26.61
`
`26.51
`
`Total
`
`103.76
`
`5.55
`
`2.29
`
`27.33
`
`Page 12 of 13
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`
`

`

`I W . h
`f Add"f
`T bl 2b Effi
`a e
`:
`ec o
`I IODa
`t
`
`
`conomy
`
`e1~1 ton F ue IE
`
`Appendix I: PLC Hardware
`
`The rack consists of the following components:
`CPU 3 14
`Central Processor
`SM 321
`16 Direct Input Card
`(2) SM 322
`8 Relay Output Card
`(2) SM 332
`4 Analog Output Card
`SM 331
`8 Analog Input Card
`
`•
`
`Input-Output Table:
`Ignition Switch
`Mode Select
`Idle Switch
`Wide Open Throttle Switch
`Accelerator Position Potentiometer
`Accumulator Pump Pressure Switch
`Vehicle Speed
`Motor Speed
`Brake Switch
`Low State of Charge Alert
`Motor Controller Enable
`EDC Enable
`Percent of Assist
`Percent of Regen
`Motor Temperature
`Clutch Engage
`Neutral Activate @ Idle
`Systems GO
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`Component
`
`Weight
`Gain(kg)
`
`City%
`
`Highway%
`
`Combined
`Fuel
`Economy
`(km!L)
`
`Wheel
`Skirts
`
`AirFoil
`
`Prismatic
`Mirrors
`
`4.10
`
`0.86
`
`4.54
`
`-0.22
`
`-0.09
`
`26.40
`
`-0.05
`
`-0.24
`
`-0.02
`
`-0.10
`
`26.43
`
`26.40
`
`Total
`
`9.50
`
`-0.51
`
`-0.21
`
`26.35
`
`T bl 2
`a e c:
`
`f
`P d. t d W . ht R d
`re IC e
`e UC IOD
`et~
`
`Component
`
`Weight
`Reduction/
`Gain (kg)
`
`City%
`
`Highway
`%
`
`Combined
`Fuel
`Economy
`(km!L)
`
`II Ail
`
`-94.26
`
`5.04
`
`2.08
`
`27.25
`
`IE
`T bl 3 P d. t d F
`conomy
`a e :
`re IC e
`ue
`
`City
`
`Highway
`
`Combined
`City/Highway
`
`Increase in Fuel
`Economy
`
`5.68%
`
`3.99%
`
`4.92%
`
`***All results in the above tables are based on Component
`Modifications with the Hybrid Powertrain
`
`BIBLIOGRAPHY
`
`I. J.B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals,
`McGraw Hill, New York, 1988.
`
`2. R. Buchheim, et at, "Necessity and Premises for Reducing
`the Aerodynamic Drag of Future Passenger Cars", SAE 810185.
`
`3. R.M. Santer, M.E. Gleason, "The Aerodynamic
`Development of the Probe IV Advanced Concept Vehicle", SAE
`831000.
`
`4. H. Fukuda, et at, "Improvement of Vehicle Aerodynamics by
`Wake Control", JSAE Review 16(1995) 151-155.
`
`Page 13 of 13
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1017
`
`30
`
`