`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 19
`Pagey1of19
`
`'
`
`.
`
`_
`
`,
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`‘FORDEXHIBIT1121
`
`

`

`1997 FutureCar
`Challenge
`
`SP-1359
`
`GLOBAL MOBILITY DATABASE
`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: (724)776-4841
`Fax: (724) 776-5760
`February 1998
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`Page 2 of 19
`
`

`

`Permission to photocopy for internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by SAE
`for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), pro-
`vided 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. 0-7680-0179-X/9857.00.
`
`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 sys-
`tem or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
`
`ISBN 0-7680-0179-X
`SAE/S P-98/1359
`Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 97-81274
`Copyright@ 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
`
`Positions and opinions advanced in this
`paper are those of the author(s) and not
`necessarily those of SAE. The author is
`solely responsible for the content of the
`paper. A process is available by which
`the discussions will be printed with the
`paper if is is published in SAE Transac-
`tions. For permission to publish this paper
`in full or in part, contact the SAE Publica-
`tions Group.
`
`Persons wishing to submit papers to be
`considered for presentation or publication
`through SAE should send the manuscript
`or a 300 word abstract to: Secretary,
`Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
`
`Printed in USA
`
`Page 3 of 19
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`

`

`PREFACE
`
`The papers in this Special Publication, 1997 FutureCar Challenge (SP-1359), were
`originally written to fulfill competition requirements from the 1997 FutureCar
`Challenge. These papers document the design, construction, and performance of ten
`advanced technology vehicles, which represent the second year of the FutureCar
`Challenge sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Council on
`Automotive Research (Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors). The sponsors invited
`these universities to use the most advanced vehicle technologies available to them to
`modify a mid-size vehicle that approaches 80 miles per gallon (mpg) while still
`offering the same comfort, safety, and affordability that consumers expect from
`conventional vehicles. The goals of the competition mirror those set by the
`Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle program, a cooperative effort between
`the federal government and the domestic automobile industry.
`
`Beginning with a conventional Lumina, Intrepid, or Taurus, each university team
`made whatever modifications were necessary within the constraints of the existing
`vehicle to approach 80 mpg. Most teams made dramatic changes to the powertrain,
`added energy storage capability, improved aerodynamics, and attempted to reduce
`vehicle weight. Safety, energy efficiency, improved emissions characteristics,
`affordability, and the use of advanced technologies are the cornerstones of the
`FutureCar Challenge. These vehicles represent some of the most innovative
`advanced technology vehicles ever attempted. The technical reports that were a
`scored event in this competition are presented in this volume to record design
`rationale, engineering features, and performance of these unique vehicles. The
`vehicle’s technical specifications and performance summary from the competition are
`shown in Table A; the results summary is shown in Table B.
`
`These teams competed in a series of dynamic and static events at the GM Technical
`Center in Warren, Michigan. Emissions testing and fuel economy assessment took
`place at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel
`Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The teams then embarked on an over-the-road
`endurance event from Warren to Washington, DC, where they participated in a
`vehicle display and awards ceremony on Capitol Hill.
`
`The papers in this publication cannot fully convey the dedication and considerable
`effort demonstrated by the students and faculty to design and build not only an
`advanced car, but a concept for a new generation of vehicles. On behalf of all the
`participants and organizers of these competitions, we extend many thanks to those
`companies that made these competitions possible through financial contributions, in-
`kind support, and the dedication of their staffs.
`
`Key Sponsors of the 1997 FutureCar Challenge included the U.S. Department of
`Energy, United States Council for Automotive Research, Chrysler Corporation, Ford,
`and General Motors. Other sponsors included the U.S. Environmental Protection
`
`Page 4 of 19
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`

`

`Agency, Allied-Signal Automotive, Natural Resources Canada, Detroit Edison, and
`National Science Foundation. Acknowledgments go to the American Society for
`Engineering Education and the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne
`National Laboratory for organizing the competition.
`
`Shelley Launey
`Office of Advanced Automotive Technologies
`U.S. Department of Energy
`
`Page 5 of 19
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`

`

`Table A.
`
`1997 FutureCar Challenge Technical Specifications and Performance Summary Sheet
`
`~chool Name
`
`Virginia Tech
`
`Model
`
`Luraina
`
`[Vehicle
`\\’eight
`(lb) Powertrain Fuel
`
`4050 Series HEV Propane
`Parallel
`
`Electric
`Peak
`Engine Size (cc) Power Motor
`General
`
`Pack
`Peak
`Power Battery Voltage
`Hawker
`
`Capacity
`(A-hr)
`
`Suzuki
`
`1000
`
`41 kW
`
`Electric
`
`85 kW
`
`Energy’
`
`336
`
`4.0 kWh for c/2
`
`Generator
`Fisher
`Technology
`
`Power
`Rating
`
`20 kW
`
`Battery
`Charger
`Hughes Magne
`Charge
`
`Concordia University
`
`Intrepid
`
`3872
`
`HEV Diesel
`
`Volkswagen! 1900
`
`65 kW
`
`,,Vest Virginia University.’
`
`Lumina
`
`4114 Series HEV CNG
`Parallel
`
`Saturn
`
`1900
`
`Hawker
`22 kW Genesis
`
`I Hawker
`55 Kw ! Genesis
`
`155
`
`46 Ahr for c/20
`
`180
`
`4.2 kWh for c12
`
`N/A
`Unique
`Mobility’
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`18 kW
`
`Ovonics
`
`16.25 kwh for
`
`Faculty Advisor
`/Phone
`Doug Nelson
`
`540/231-4324
`
`Dr. Henry Hong
`
`514/848-3154
`
`Chris Atkinson
`
`304/293-4111
`Nick Brancik
`
`Solectria
`Unique
`12-t hp Mobili~’
`Unique
`
`La\\ rence Tech
`Univ. of Michigan~ Ann
`
`Taurus
`
`3828
`
`HEV
`Parallel
`
`Diesel
`
`Volkswagen
`
`1900
`
`67 kW Mobili~
`
`64 kW
`
`Batte~,
`
`171
`
`c/20
`
`Arbor
`
`Taurus
`
`3771
`
`HEV
`
`Diesel
`
`Volkswagen
`
`1900
`
`65 kW
`
`Fisher
`
`22 kW
`
`SAFT
`
`120
`
`3.8 kWh for c/2
`
`Unix’. of Californ!a, Davis
`
`Taurus
`
`3348
`
`HEV
`
`RFG
`
`Parallel
`
`Honda
`Today’
`Mercury
`
`660
`
`Intrepid
`
`3688 Series HEV RFG
`
`Marine
`
`500
`
`Ovonics
`48 kW Battery
`
`16.6 kWh for
`c/20
`
`172
`
`312
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`24 kW
`
`Hobart
`Lockheed
`Martin
`
`810/204-2567
`Valdis Leipa
`
`313/747-3625
`Andrew Frank
`
`916/752-8120
`
`Michigan Tech
`
`University of Maryland
`
`Intrepid
`
`3952 Series HEV
`Parallel
`
`E85
`
`Suzuki
`
`1000
`
`Unique
`36 kW Mobility
`Unique
`Hawker
`Energy
`22 kW Mobility
`Northrop
`Hawker
`41 kW Grumman 98.5 kW Energy,
`Unique
`
`53 kW
`
`N/A
`Fisher
`Electronics
`Northrop
`Grumman
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`17 kW
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Zivan
`Hughes Magne
`Charge
`Hughes Magne
`Charge
`
`N/A
`Hughes Magne
`Charge
`
`N/A
`
`3.6 kWh for c/2
`
`324
`
`7.1 kWh for c12
`
`300
`
`7.2 kW for c13
`
`333
`
`2.8 kWh for c/2
`
`Carl Anderson
`906/487-3020
`David Holloway
`301/405-5259
`Dr. Tim Fox
`818/885-2197
`W. Milestone
`608/262-3204
`
`M. Y. Choi
`
`Hawker
`Energy’
`
`Hawker
`Energy’
`
`CA State Univ., Northridge
`Univ. of Wisconsin,
`Madison
`
`Intrepid
`
`Taurus
`
`Lurnina
`
`3726
`
`HEV
`Parallel
`
`RFG
`
`BMW
`
`1100
`
`61 kW Mobility
`
`74 kW
`
`3709
`
`HEV
`
`Diesel
`
`Volkswagen
`
`1900
`
`66 kW
`
`Baldor
`
`35 kW
`
`CNG
`
`Daihatsu
`
`850
`
`N/A
`
`Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
`
`Ohio State University
`
`Lumina
`
`3456 Non-HEV
`Parallel
`HEV
`
`3238
`
`B-20
`
`Volkswagen
`
`1900
`
`71 hp
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`Hawker
`66kW KoIlmorgen 20kW Energy
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`[ .84 kWh for
`c120
`
`I
`
`...- 3.!.2
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Kollmorgen
`
`20 kW
`
`N/A
`N/A= Charge
`Sustaining
`
`312/996-5150
`Dr. Rizzoni
`
`614/292-3331
`
`Energy Efficiency
`
`City
`
`Highway
`
`School Name
`
`SOC MethodI (MPGE) SOC Method I (MPGE) (MPGE)
`[ Combined
`30.46
`
`25.84
`
`SOC Adjusted Emissions
`
`Acceleratior
`
`Handling
`
`Consumer
`
`MetDyno
`
`Trace?
`
`NOx [
`(g/mi)
`
`0.497
`
`CO
`
`(g/mi)
`
`3.338
`
`PMI0
`
`BestTime
`
`BestTime
`
`Accep. Dyn.
`
`Other Awards
`
`(seconds)
`
`(seconds)
`
`(score)
`
`11.224
`
`32.75
`
`50.00
`
`1st Place
`
`Virginia Tech.
`
`Concordia University
`
`West Virginia University
`
`CS/Z
`
`CS/H
`
`CS/Z
`
`19.97
`
`40.86
`
`CD/H
`
`22.25
`
`CS/H
`
`CS/H
`
`CS/Z
`
`CS/H
`
`38.98
`
`31.73
`
`52.63
`
`45.89
`
`23.97
`
`45.43
`
`28.96
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`2.882
`
`0.077
`
`0.509
`
`0.183
`
`0.469
`
`10.725
`
`(g..m)
`[ NMHC
`0.177
`
`0.061
`
`0.004
`
`0.261
`
`..
`N)A
`
`0.197
`
`N/A
`
`1.375
`
`15.494
`
`15.263
`
`13.492
`
`37.85
`
`35.69
`
`43.88
`
`34.09 Znd Place
`
`15.35 3rd Place
`
`10.00 lth Place
`
`Unix,. of CA, Davis
`
`Virginia Tech
`
`Univ. of WI, ivladison
`
`West Virgii~ia Unix’.
`
`Lawrence Technological Unix’.
`
`Unix’. of Michigan, Ann Arbor
`
`DNS
`
`DNS
`
`Univ. of Callfomia, Davis
`
`CD/H
`
`41.72
`
`DNS
`CD/H
`
`DNS
`
`62.8
`
`Nlichigan Technological Unix’.
`
`CS/Z
`
`24.61
`
`CD/H
`
`25.34
`
`DNS
`
`49.14
`
`24.93
`
`DNS
`
`DNS
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`0,053
`
`25.96
`
`DNS
`
`9.642
`
`t 6.859
`
`DNS
`
`0,588
`
`4.821
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`DNS
`
`12,545
`
`t 1.644
`
`DNF
`
`DNS
`
`32.03
`
`34.06
`
`DNS
`
`DNS 5th Place
`
`19,45 5th Place
`
`Ohio State Unix’.
`
`Michigan Tech. Univ.
`
`22.76
`
`Best App, of Adv. Tech.
`
`Unix,. of CA, Davis
`
`DNS
`
`Best Consumer Acc,
`
`Virginia Tech
`
`University of Niaryland
`
`Cal. State Unix’., Northridge
`
`Unix’. of Wisconsin-Madison
`
`DNF
`
`DNS
`
`CS/H
`
`DNS
`
`19.7
`
`DNF
`
`DNS
`
`CS/H
`
`DNF
`
`DNF
`
`DNS
`
`46.3
`
`DNF
`
`DNF
`
`DNS
`
`26.57
`
`DNF
`
`Yes
`
`DNS
`
`Yes
`
`DNF
`
`DNS
`
`t.038
`
`DNF
`
`DNF
`
`DNS
`
`DNF
`
`DNS
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`0.224
`
`0.417
`
`0.109
`
`12.366
`
`DNS
`
`12,645
`
`23.798
`
`DNS
`
`32.t3
`
`DNS
`
`DNS
`
`Best Technical Report
`
`Unix,. of CA, Davis
`
`37.09
`
`Best Quality & Execution
`
`Univ. of WI, Madison
`
`DNS
`
`Best Mfg. Pot. & Cost
`
`Michigan Tech. Unix’.
`
`Univ. of lllin,ois at Chicago
`
`Ohio State Unix’.
`
`DNF
`
`N/A
`
`DNF
`
`36.33
`
`Stock Chevrolet Lumina
`
`:.::
`
`: .: ::.
`
`22.2
`
`Stock Dodge Intrepid (3.5 Liter)
`
`Stock Ford Taurus
`
`:~
`
`, 21.1
`22.2
`
`N/A
`
`53.63
`
`37,2
`
`34.6
`
`35.9
`
`42.5
`
`27.1
`
`25.6
`
`26,8
`
`CS = Charge Sustaining - MPG result reflects on board fael usage only
`
`CD = Charge Depleting - Power plant efficiencies applied for depleted electrical energy
`
`Z = "Added ZEV Miles" SOC Correction method, see rules
`
`H = HEV mode test used for SOC Correction SOChi and SOClow, see rules
`
`Page 6 of 19
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`1.339
`
`DNF
`
`0.145
`
`...........................
`
`DNF
`
`N/A
`
`0,046
`
`0,065
`
`11,683
`
`34,59
`
`36.46
`
`Best App. Adv. Materials
`
`Univ. of CA, Davis
`
`10.467
`
`10.373
`
`11.323 a }} {{{i }>’[;::=.=~
`
`Lowest Driving Losses
`
`Univ. of CA, Davis
`
`HVAC Eval. & Review
`
`Ohio State Unix’.
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`

`

`Table B. 1997 FutureCar Challenge Results Summary
`
`Qualifying Written
`
`Quality &
`
`Application of
`
`Manufacturing
`
`Total
`
`Energy
`
`Energy
`
`Tests
`
`Technical
`
`Execution
`
`Advanced
`
`Potential & Cost
`
`Consumer
`
`Economy Economy
`
`City
`
`Highway
`
`Total
`
`Readiness
`
`(Pass/Fail)
`
`Report
`
`Review
`
`Technology
`
`Review
`
`Acceptabilit~
`
`Score
`
`Score
`
`Emissions Total HVAC
`
`Acceleration
`
`Handling
`
`Endurance
`
`Penalties
`
`Total
`
`FCC
`
`Score
`
`I020.00
`
`20.00
`
`9,00
`
`70.00
`
`70.00
`
`70.00
`
`68.51
`
`Pass
`
`130,00
`
`130.00
`
`100.00
`
`74.22
`
`100.00
`
`[30,00
`
`10000
`
`100.00
`
`30.00
`
`130.00
`
`100.00
`
`60.00
`
`40.59
`
`50.00
`
`50.00
`
`60.00
`
`38.00
`
`11.00
`
`829.99
`
`School Name
`
`Available Points
`
`Univ. of California, Davis
`
`Virginia Tech.
`
`Univ. of’Wisconsin-Madison
`
`West Virginia UniversiW
`
`Dhlo State Univ.
`
`20.00
`
`15.00
`
`20.00
`
`0.00
`
`Pass
`
`Pass
`
`Pass
`
`Pass
`
`56.21
`
`63.93
`
`32.76
`
`39.66
`
`67.77
`
`70,00
`
`53.17
`
`50.78
`
`99.73
`
`89.82
`
`88.17
`
`49.64
`
`50.22
`
`90.22
`
`51.11
`
`39.56
`
`63.57
`
`100.00
`
`55.00
`
`49.13
`
`69.45
`
`26.00
`
`64.76
`
`47.37
`
`64.21
`
`49.47
`
`19.74
`
`21.43
`
`21.18
`
`53.46
`
`125.94
`
`78.28
`
`100.00
`
`6.10
`
`80.42
`
`60.00
`
`39.12
`
`12,00
`
`47.18
`
`49.61
`
`35.66
`
`28.00
`
`60.00
`
`40.00
`
`0.00
`
`0.00
`
`5.00
`
`8.00
`
`718.87
`
`708.57
`
`691.64
`
`644.82
`
`Michigan Technological Univ.
`
`Concordia University of" Montreal
`
`University of Maryland
`
`Lawrence Technological Univ.
`
`15.00
`
`I 1.00
`
`20.00
`
`0.00
`
`Pass
`
`Pass
`
`Fail
`
`Pass
`
`40.21
`
`36.62
`
`64.76
`
`68.93
`
`61.81
`
`41.10
`
`68.36
`
`64.49
`
`97.25
`
`26.00
`
`104.13
`
`100.00
`
`58.22
`
`60.89
`
`88.44
`
`60.53
`
`104.54
`
`50.97
`
`80.49
`
`49.19
`
`20.00
`
`27.28
`
`33.65
`
`34.63
`
`19.50
`
`15.00
`
`55.79
`
`20,00
`
`38.95
`
`0.00
`
`23.68
`
`9.18
`
`20.21
`
`19.11
`
`53.25
`
`53.83
`
`12.00
`
`12.00
`
`39.97
`
`42.04
`
`27.19
`
`0.00
`
`55.00
`
`18.00
`
`60.00
`
`12.00
`
`5.00
`
`7.00
`
`1.00
`
`572.48
`
`465.70
`
`429.38
`
`Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
`
`Cal. State Univ., Northridge
`
`Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor
`
`2.00
`
`0.00
`
`0.00
`
`Pass
`
`Fall
`
`Fail
`
`34.41
`
`53.72
`
`14.00
`
`43.18
`
`48.40
`
`14.00
`
`67.81
`
`59.55
`
`62.03
`
`80.19
`
`60.00
`
`52.89
`
`20.00
`
`35.41
`
`28.53
`
`47.92
`
`35.84
`
`26.00
`
`20.00
`
`37.44
`
`10.00
`
`0.00
`
`0.00
`
`0,00
`
`0.00
`
`24.47
`
`0.00
`
`0.00
`
`0.00
`
`22.26
`
`6.00
`
`14.05
`
`7.45
`
`26.67
`
`12.00
`
`0.00
`
`0.00
`
`10.00
`
`0.00
`
`0.00
`
`0,00
`
`33.00
`
`12.00
`
`12.00
`
`12.00
`
`141.00
`
`371.93
`
`6.00
`
`40.00
`
`4.00
`
`304.99
`
`240.$3
`
`153,64
`
`Page 7 of 19
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS _ :~0,- 13 S~-i
`
`1997 FutureCar Challenge
`
`California State University Northridge ............................................. 1
`Concordia University ..................................................................... 13
`Lawrence Technological University ............................................... 29
`Michigan Technological University ................................................ 41
`University of California, Davis ........................................................ 53
`University of Illinois, Chicago ........................................................ 67
`University of Maryland ................................................................... 75
`University of Wisconsin ................................................................. 87
`Virginia Tech ................................................................................. 99
`West Virginia University .............................................................. 115
`
`Page 8 of 19
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`

`

`Design and Development of Hyades, a Parallel Hybrid
`Electric Vehicle for the 1997 FutureCar Challenge
`
`James Swan, Jenny Spravsow, Greg Davis, Nick Brancik, Eric Beattie, John Dombrowski,
`Brenda Settle, Robert Day, Paul Kornosky, Fabio Okubo, Richard Silas, Richard Johnson,
`Craig Hoff
`Lawrence Technological University
`
`Copyright © 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`The task given to the twelve universities in the 1997
`FutureCar Challenge was to modify an existing
`production mid-sized vehicle to me the goals set for the
`Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV).
`These goals included achieving a fuel economy of 34 km
`per liter, a range of 400 kilometers, and space for five
`passengers. The Lawrence Technological University
`entry is a charge depleting parallel hybrid electrical
`vehicle, built on a 1996 Ford Taurus chassis. The power
`train consists of a 32 kW Unique Mobility brushless DC
`motor with a Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) battery pack
`and a 1.9 L Volkswagen TDI engine, coupled to a Ford
`Taurus SIlO manual transmission. The transmission is
`shifted automatically using an electro-hydraulic control
`unit developed by team.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Lawrence Technological University was one of twelve
`universities selected to compete in the 1996/1997
`FutureCar Challenge. The FutureCar Challenge is the
`premiere, inter-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 received 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, to achieve three times the current
`average fuel economy, and to maintain the performance,
`utility, and affordability of modern sedans. To try to meet
`these goals LTU will implement a parallel Hybrid Electric
`Vehicle in a 1996 Ford Taurus.
`
`A Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) 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 HEV is
`considered to be charge depleting (SAE Draft J1711) 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 is used.2
`
`VEHICLE DESIGN
`
`The overall design goals were to produce a vehicle with
`increased fuel efficiency and reduced emissions while
`retaining the reliability and driveabUity of a conventional
`vehicle, tn order to achieve this, every effort was made
`to improve sub-system efficiencies and to reduce vehicle
`weight and aerodynamic drag. The largest gains were
`made by replacing the powertrain with one that is more
`energy efficient. Additional benefits were achieved
`through the use of lightweight materials and by reducing
`the vehicle drag and rolling resistance.
`
`Computer Simulation - To determine the best possible
`control strategy, computer programs were developed to
`analyze both the city and highway cycles of the Federal
`Test Procedure (FTP). The analysis focused on
`instantaneous energy used by the vehicle power plant.
`Vehicle speed and acceleration were tabulated in one-
`second intervals. These two knowns, coupled with the
`vehicle weight and drag, were used to calculate the
`tractive force, revolutions per minute at the wheels and
`energy consumption in kWh/ km. Additional analysis
`focused on maximizing the overall drivetrain efficiency
`by experimenting with various operating scenarios. For
`example, during the city-cycle, the vehicle is at rest
`approximately 420 seconds out of 1878 seconds. The
`decision to shut the diesel engine down during idle
`periods resulted in reduction of fuel consumption by
`approximately 20%.
`
`The computer simulation predicted the amount of
`electrical assist necessary to provide acceptable
`
`Page 9 of 19
`
`29
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`

`

`performance during the FTP city and highway cycles.
`The power assist from the electric traction motor was
`defined as the percent of total power needed to
`accelerate the car during the driving cycle. The amount
`of electrical assistance is continuously modulated to
`obtain the best possible engine efficiency based on the
`power output, engine revolutions per minute, and
`accelerator pedal position. This simulation indicated that
`on average 15%-20% electrical assist during the FTP
`city cycle, 5%-7% electrical assist during the FTP
`highway cycle, no electrical assist at idle, and no
`electrical assist above 70 kph would yield the best
`efficiency and driveablility.
`
`!
`
`:a
`’7
`
`’ Ill
`, :
`ii// // .// t "11
`II
`~}’;DLESEL ENGINE Jl
`!
`1[!
`#
`:.r//.4./,.~,z J~ c liL~---~ i
`X I
`
`~ ___~dd___/__/_.x_:x× 7"///J ~ i ,.
`iL- ................... !
`
`Figure 1: Hyades Powertrain Layout
`
`Powertrain Selection - The design chosen was a parallel
`HEV powertrain, shown in Figure 1, which coupled a 32
`kW phase advanced brushless DC electric traction motor
`via an aluminum bridge assembly to a small 67 kW
`turbocharged direct injection diesel engine. The
`combination provides tractive energy to the front wheels
`through a manual transmission, which is mechanically
`shifted by the on-board computer, rather than by the
`driver. The electric assist enables the vehicle to operate
`at an equivalent power level of a conventional vehicle,
`while maintaining lower emission levels and improved
`fuel economy. The estimated increase in fuel economy
`due to the new powertrain is about 100% compared to
`the standard Taurus as shown in Table 1.
`
`Table 1: Fuel Economy of Hybrid Compared to Stock
`
`Taurus
`
`Cd
`
`City Fuel
`Economy
`(km/L)
`
`Highway Fuel
`Economy (km/L)
`
`Stock
`
`Hybrid
`
`.32
`
`.32
`
`8.03
`
`16.45
`
`12.04
`
`23.38
`
`Three powertrain configurations were compared: a heat
`engine, a series HEV, and a parallel HEV. The heat
`engine option was quickly dismissed. To meet the fuel
`economy goal the engine would be sized too small to
`
`provide adequate performance for the acceleration
`requirement. A series configuration employs an engine,
`which produces electric power for the electric motor and
`batteries through a generator. The series HEV offers
`better efficiency at low speeds because the engine is
`decoupted from the drivetrain and can thus operate at or
`near peak efficiency regardless of vehicle speed. In a
`parallel configuration, both the engine and the electric
`motor are used for propulsion. At higher speeds, the
`parallel drive is often more efficient since the engine can
`be sized so that it is operating near peak efficiency.
`Further, because the engine is directly coupled to the
`drivetrain, two of the energy conversion processes of the
`series HEV are not required (engine to electric, and from
`electric back to mechanical), making the parallel system
`more efficient. Over a range of speeds, the parallel and
`series HEY configurations’ overall fuel economy are
`comparable. Despite the complexity of the parallel
`system, it offers greater reliability than a series system
`due to a limp home mode using either the engine or the
`motor. Further, the parallel configuration provides better
`acceleration and passing abilities, and thus better
`maintains the performance of a conventional vehicle.
`This led to the decision to choose the parallel
`configuration, where the electric motor is used to assist
`the engine in meeting heavy load demands. The level of
`assist is adjusted in order to keep the diesel engine
`operating in it’s most efficient range. In order to best
`utilize the electric energy storage and to achieve
`maximum normal range, Team Hyades has modified a
`1996 Ford Taurus producing a charge depleting parallel
`HEV in Normal Mode.
`
`Motor Selection - The electric, or traction, motor is a 32
`kW phase advanced brushless DC design. The
`advantages of the brushless DC motor are: higher
`efficiency, higher power density, better heat dissipation,
`and increased motor life compared to a conventional
`brushed motor. The brushless DC motor experiences no
`losses due to brush friction while having two to three
`times more torque than a brushed DC of equivalent size
`and weight. The electric motor utilizes high efficiency,
`liquid cooled, 18 pole neodymium iron boron permanent
`magnets, with four-quadrant operation, and a
`microprocessor-based controller. The controller
`incorporates closed loop torque control, which allows the
`motor to be used with conventional throttle based
`operator control. The peak efficiency of the motor alone
`is 95%. However, when the power generation and line
`transmission efficiency of 37.27% is accounted for, the
`electrical efficiency drops to 37.4%.
`
`Engine Selection - The 1.9-liter diesel engine was
`chosen from a pairwise comparison of several engines
`including IC engine, gas turbine, and Stirling engine.
`The selection criteria investigated performance
`characteristics, which included emissions, fuel
`consumption, acceleration, and endurance. The Stirling
`and gas turbine engines were not used due to extremely
`limited availability. Additionally, the gas turbine was
`found to be inferior during the transient speed and load
`conditions experienced in the parallel design. The
`
`Page 10 of 19
`
`30
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`

`

`chosen engine is a four cylinder, four stroke,
`turbocharged direct injected (TDI) diesel engine. The
`turbocharger provides an extra boost and excess air for
`minimum particulate emissions. This engine boasts a
`peak thermal efficiency of 43% and is capable of
`meeting strict emission standards. Further, this engine
`has better part-load efficiency characteristics than
`gasoline engines.
`
`Transmission Selection - A Ford model RBE-AR five-
`speed manual transmission was selected to replace the
`stock automatic because it reduced weight, improved
`efficiency, and packaged well in the stock chassis and
`cradle. The transmission half-shafts were utilized
`because they matched the existing vehicle track width.
`The transmission weight is 42.6 kg to give a weight
`advantage of 34.5 kg and decreased rolling resistance of
`20% compared to the stock system. In order to maintain
`the consumer acceptability of an automatic transmission,
`a hydraulic shifting mechanism was designed and
`implemented. Research shows that this system offers
`efficiency advantages over other alternatives.
`
`Control System Hardware - The Programmable Logic
`Controller (PLC), with digital and analog input/output
`(I/O) cards, is responsible for real-time processing of all
`input commands and updating outputs in order to control
`the powertrain. The PLC takes inputs from
`Analog/Digital (A/D) converters (used to sense throttle
`position and vehicle speed) and from the user control
`panel. The PLC power supply requirement of 24 VDC is
`supplied from the traction battery pack via DC-DC
`converters. All I/O cards are grounded to the vehicle
`common ground. The PLC is capable of being
`programmed in ladder logic, Boolean, and statement list
`languages. The Hyades control program is written in the
`ladder logic programming language because of its
`graphic, self-explanatory nature. The PLC utilizes a
`main program, which cycles continuously. From this
`main program, all subroutines, or "function blocks" are
`called. A separate function block was created for
`initialization of variables upon startup. The startup block
`runs only once, before the first execution of the main
`block. The program for Hyades consists of the main
`block and 12 function blocks. A conditional return to the
`main block is contained in each subroutine depending on
`the mode of vehicle operation selected and whether a
`gear shift is in process.
`
`The operator control panel takes user input via
`user-defined function keys. This unit has memory
`storage, which is independent of the PLC. A backlit
`liquid crystal display and a serial data stream, which
`allows communication with the PLC, are the available
`control panel outputs. The control panel outputs are a
`backlit liquid crystal display and a serial data stream,
`which allows communication with the PLC. The control
`panel is powered by the same 24 VDC supply as the
`PLC.
`
`and longevity. The Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) battery
`has the best power to weight ratio compared to available
`alternatives. Each module has a nominal voltage of 13.2
`volts with a maximum voltage of 16 volts after charging.
`The module has 1.25 kWh of energy and a weight of
`17.8 kg. The physical dimensions of each module are
`102 mm by 179 mm by 412 mm. The performance
`specifications are described in Table 2. The operating
`temperatures of the NiMH are: less than 45 C to achieve
`maximum life, less than 55 C to obtain 80%
`performance, and less than 65 C to avoid damage. The
`United States Advanced Battery Consortium has
`identified the NiMH as having the potential to meet
`mid-term criteria. It has outlasted other battery
`technology because the material to produce the battery
`is readily available.4
`
`Table 2: NiMH Performance Specifications
`
`Specific Energy
`
`Energy Density
`
`Specific Power
`
`70 Wh/kg
`
`165 Wh/L
`
`250 W/kg @ 50% SOC
`
`220 W/kg @ 20% SOC
`
`Fuel Selection - Dimethyl Ether was initially considered
`because it is the most environmentally benign choice.
`Exhaust from a DME-driven diesel engine contains no
`sulfur, almost no soot, and only about 20% of the
`nitrogen oxides that a diesel produces. The
`hydrocarbons in the exhaust are also dramatically
`reduced. However, DME is a gas at room temperature
`and in order to be used as a liquid fuel, it has to be
`bottled under pressure. There is less energy in a given
`amount of DME than in the same amount of diesel;
`therefore, bigger fuel tanks are needed. The cost, the
`distribution, and the availability of DME also dims the
`use of DME in the near future because producing DME
`means more expensive equipment for more chemical
`processes and several years to build production plants.
`
`Biodiesel used in a 20 percent blend of soybean oil with
`petroleum diesel was chosen as the fuel. Combined
`with the catalytic converter it will reduce air pollution.
`Particulate matter is reduced 31 percent, carbon
`monoxide by 21 percent and total hydrocarbons by 47
`percent. It also reduces sulfur emissions and aromatics.
`While its emissions are radically lower, biodiesel can be
`substituted for diesel with no engine modifications, and
`maintains the payload capacity and range of diesel. In
`addition, biodiesel has about the same energy content
`as diesel: 128,800 Btu/galton, compared to 130,500
`Btu/gallon of diesel. Production cost of biodiesel is
`60-80 cents per gallon more than diesel alone, and it
`requires no special storage facilities. In fact, it can be
`stored wherever petroleum diesel is stored, except in
`concrete-lined tanks, due to the adverse chemical
`reactions.5
`
`Battery Selection - The selection criteria for the batteries
`included weight, power storage, charging rate, safety,
`Page 11 of 19
`
`31
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1121
`
`

`

`Emission Control - The emission control target was to
`achieve the California ULEV emission level when the
`vehicle operates in Normal Mode. The stock two-way
`catalytic converter reacted with carbon monoxide and
`unburned hydrocarbons. To reduce all emissions, the
`original two-way catalytic converter was replaced with a
`three-way converter equipped with an absorber. The
`cold-start gases from the engine are stored in the
`absorber until the temperature of the catalyst is high
`enough to burn the gases within it’s ceramic substrate.
`Additionally, the engine is shut down during extended
`coastdowns and when the vehicle is stationary. This
`reduces fuel consumption and helps to maintain catalytic
`converter temperatures above the levels required for
`acceptable conversion efficiencies during the idle
`portions of the federal California Vehicle Standard (CVS)
`emission test. This is possible because the engine is no
`longer pumping large quantities of lean exhaust gas
`through the catalyst.
`
`A phenolic resin spacer has been put in the area
`between the intake manifold and engine block. The
`phenolic intake manifold spacer was utilized to minimize
`heat conduction from the cylinder head to the intake
`manifold. This was done to cool the intake charge in
`order to lower nitrogen oxide emissions. The exhaust
`spacers were fabricated for packaging concerns since
`the phenolic intake spacer pushed the intake manifold
`away from the cylinder head, towards the exhaust
`manifold.
`
`Finally, an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) cooling
`system was implemented. The heat exchanger uses
`engine coolant to cool the EGR as it flows between the
`exhaust and intake manifolds. This helps to further
`reduce combustion temperatures, leading to lower NOx
`formation. Additionally, this system also provides faster
`engine warm-up, further reducing cold start emissions.
`
`POWERTRAIN CONTROL STRATEGY
`
`The PLC maintains control of the vehicle powertrain,
`which determines the percentage electric assist to the
`diesel, starts and stops the engine, and shifts the
`transmission. The percent of motor assist is dependent
`on accelerator pedal position and vehicle speed, which
`are accurate indicators of the load requirements for the
`powertrain.
`
`Operating Modes - There are three modes of operation:
`Normal (parallel HEV), Motor or Zero Emission Vehicle
`(ZEV), and Recharge. Thes