throbber
.
`
`’
`
`-1
`
`Pray;p--%2/35:;
`
`477-92
`
`Cow
`
`Challenges for the Vehicle Testerin
`Characterizing Hybrid Electric Vehicles
`
`Michael Duoba
`Centerfor Transportation Research
`Argonne National Laboratory
`
`9700 South Cass Aver, Bldg. 362
`Argonne, IL 60439
`
`JUL , 4,
`19.97
`0 S T I
`
`presented at the
`7‘h CRC On Road Vehicle Emissions Workshop
`San Diego, CA
`April 9-11, 1997
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`Many problems are associated with applying test methods, like the Federal Test Procedure (FTP),
`for HEVs. Although there has been considerable progress recently in the area of HEV test procedure
`development, many challenges are still unsolved. A major hurdle to overcoming the challenges of
`developing HEV test procedures is the lack of l-IEV designs available for vehicle testing. Argonne
`National Laboratory has tested hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) built by about 50 colleges and
`universities from 1994 to 1997 in annual vehicle engineering competitions sponsored in part by the US.
`Department of Energy (DOE). From this experience, the Laboratory has gathered information about the
`basics of RSV testing and issues important to successful characterization of HEVs. A collaboration
`between ANL and the Society of Automotive Engineer’s (SAE) HEV Test Procedure Task Force has
`helped guide the development of test protocols for their proposed procedures (draft SAE J 171 1) and test
`methods suited for DOE vehicle competitions. HEVs use an electrical energy storage device, which
`requires that HEV testing include more time and effort to deal with the effects of transient energy storage
`as the vehicle is operating in HEV mode.
`l-IEV operation with electric—only capability can be
`characterized by correcting the HEV mode data using results from electric-only operation. HEVs
`without electric-only capability require multiple tests conducted to form data correlations that enable the
`tester to find the result that corresponds to a zero net change in SOC. HEVs that operate with a net
`depletion of charge cannot be corrected for battery SOC and are characterized with emissions and fuel
`consumption results coupled with the electrical energy usage rate.
`
`emotion 6? use noovum IS urunntbli
`
`The submitted manuscript has been authored
`by a contractor at the US. Government
`under contract No. w-31-109-ENG-38.
`Accordingty. the us. Government retains a
`nonexclusive. royalty-tree license to publish or
`reproduce the published form of
`this
`contribution. or allow others to do so. for Us.
`Government purposes.
`
`
`
`Page1of15
`
`FORD1112
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`DEW
`
`Portions of this damn! may be illegible
`in clean-uni: image products.
`Images are
`produced from the best available original
`document.
`
`Page20f15
`
`FORD1112
`
`”m
`
`Page 2 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`For decades, researchers have been studying the Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) as a means for
`increased efficiency and lower emissions in passenger vehicles. The enabling technologies for electric
`propulsion (such as high-power electronics and energy storage) have been developed sufficiently to bring
`electric vehicles (EVs) to the market in the last couple of years. Many key EV technologies are
`applicable to HEVs, thus accelerating HEV development. Within the next few years, production HEVs
`will likely be sold in the United States and overseas.
`Any new vehicle technology must be evaluated by applying appropriate test procedures to
`accurately measure and quantify its fuel efficiency and emissions for certification purposes and for
`engineering evaluations and comparisons. The merits of new HEV technology must be fully understood
`tojustify development and production.
`Whereas conventional vehicles and EVs draw upon only one source of energy, an HEV has two
`on-board energy sources from which motive power is provided. The format and structure of the original
`Federal Test Procedure (FTP) was designed as an attempt to characterize on-road vehicle operation. The
`assumptions associated with short-cuts used in the FTP, although effective for conventional vehicles, are
`not necessarily compatible with the complexity of HEV operation and do not allow HEVs to be
`accurately characterized.
`Standardize test protocols must be modified and reconfigured to accommodate HEV designs.
`Developing these new HEV test procedures is an underestimated problem that will have an enormous
`impact how we the engineering community and regulatory agencies assess these potentially prevalent
`vehicles of the future.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The oil shock of the 19705 Spawned interest in HEV technology as a means to combat our nation’s
`oil dependency by building a higher mileage vehicle.
`In the 19805 interest in HEVs continued as a
`means to meet air pollution reduction goals, and a variety of I-[EVs were built and evaluated;1’2s3
`however, no domestic manufacturer showed interest in producing I-IEVs.
`In 1990, when the California
`Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its Low Emissions Vehicle regulations4, they were interested in
`HEVs, but the limited availability of these vehicles halted the development of comprehensive test
`procedures. The test procedure CARB5 adopted was more or less a standard FTP dynamometer test
`operated at worst-case conditions of the HEV, during which the engine is working its hardest.
`In 1992, GM presented a proposal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for test
`procedures specially suited for I-IEVs. GM observed that, “Neither the best-case nor the worst-case tests
`alone are sufficient. A fair characterization requires at least two extremes and a rational scheme for
`weighting them6” Also in 1992, a paper by INEL described a test procedure7 that recommends testing
`HEV operation until a full charge/discharge cycle is observed and terminating the test at the same battery
`state-of-charge (SOC) as the test started (more discussion about testing concepts will be given in the
`body of the paper).
`In also in 1992, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) assembled the Hybrid-
`Electric Vehicle Test Procedure Task Force consisting of representatives from industry, the national
`laboratories, the US. EPA, and other interested parties to formulate a standard practice for testing l-IEVs.
`SAE’s test procedure is draft 117118 and has been a living document undergoing several significant
`revisions over the past few years.
`In 1993, the US. Department of Energy (DOE) signed five-year
`contracts with Ford and GM (Chrysler has since joined the DOE HEV program) to cost share the
`development of a production HEV for the mass market, thus underscoring a real need for a standardized
`test procedure.
`
`FORD1112
`Page3of15
`
`
`Page 3 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`Although we have seen HEV development efforts grow over the years, few HEVs have been
`available for testing. Studying HEV test procedure using only one or two prototypes would overlook
`many HEVs that
`represent a considerably large variety of possible designs.
`CARB has been
`experimenting with a prototype HEV from Mitsubishi, but this experience is limited to only a particular
`type of HEV, which was reflected in CARB’s earlier procedures (however,
`in 1996, CARB staff
`informally expressed interest in using the SAE 1171 l procedure when it is completed).
`Since l988, DOE, through Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has been partnering with the
`major domestic automobile manufacturers to showcase the engineering efforts of the best colleges and
`universities in North America through Advanced Vehicle Technology Competitions (AVTC). Since that
`time, there have been five competitions'
`in which over 50 HEVs have been tested and evaluated.
`Competition events covering design and performance characteristics have included dynamometer testing
`for emissions and fuel economy by using HEV test procedure concepts. Testing a wide selection of HEV
`designs has been an excellent opportunity to learn about and develop hybrid test procedures. The
`information in this paper is based primarily on information gathered during the competitions.
`
`HEV OPERATION
`
`HEVs posses very elaborate drivetrains and potentially operate in entirely new and complex ways.
`In fact, these new operational capabilities have ofien confused discussions regarding the application of
`HEVs to the national fleet because usually the definitions used and the assumptions made about hybrid
`vehicles are too loose. Some HEVs operate most of the time like an electric vehicle (zero emissions
`vehicle, or ZEV) and use the engine to remedy the range limitations of the battery pack that charges
`while the vehicle is in storage. Some HEV designs may never be plugged in; although they are refueled
`like a conventional vehicle, they use an HEV drivetrain as a means to achieve new degrees of
`optimization for high energy efficiency and low emissions.
`In spite of all these differences, what these
`vehicles do have in common is an energy storage device (EDS): either a battery, ultracapacitor, or
`flywheel, that can store and release energy throughout Operation in the HEV mode. This technology
`presents new challenges in vehicle testing and characterization.
`
`Test #1
`
`Test #2
`
`Test #3
`
`Test #4
`
`Test #5
`
`Test #6
`
`Test #7
`
`we had-h
`
`0.041
`
`asoc =
`
`+4.5%
`
`43.5%
`
`+45%
`
`Mpg =
`
`33.4
`
`“MPG =
`
`0.030
`
`65.3
`
`0.015
`
`33.4
`
`0.030
`
`+12%
`
`27.7
`
`0.036
`
`75%
`
`49.5
`
`0.020
`
`+18%
`
`24.4
`
`-9%
`
`52.7
`
`0.019
`
`Figure l: Test—to—Test Variation in HEV Operation
`
`" l994 and I995 HEV Challenge, 1995 DOE Advanced Student Hybrid (DASH) Challenge. 1996 American Tour de Sol. 1996
`FutureCar Challenge.
`
`FORD1112
`Page4of15
`
`
`Page 4 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`A series of test results from conventional vehicles would more or less show the same data with
`
`In contrast, hybrid operation yields markedly different results from test to test;
`some expected scatter.
`the results vary because of effects of transient energy storage plus, perhaps, a host of other possible
`parameters unique to HEV operation. Figure 1 illustrates this point.
`This simplified example shows the results of a series of HEV tests while the vehicle is in the HEV
`mode. The SOC in this example is changing constantly, but over time it remains within an operational
`window. Energy taken from the ESD for propulsion power during some tests supplement fuel energy
`usage, which results in high MPG. Because of this operation, each individual test can only capture a
`small segment of the entire vehicle operation that we are trying to characterize.
`
`Classifying HE V Designs
`A lengthy (but worthwhile) discussion of HEV types and design categories is beyond the scope of
`this paper (see Ref. 9), but the types of HEVs that affect testing will be explored here.
`Discussions of HEV designs usually begin with an explanation of the two fundamental design
`configurations: series and parallel. Each configuration may be more conducive to a particular operating
`scheme, but in reality, the configuration of the HEV (series or parallel) has no bearing on vehicle testing,
`outside of such issues as testing a 4—wheel—drive HEV on a 2-wheel-drive dynamometer. The vehicle
`configuration can be more or less “black-boxed,” and the focus of our interest in testing lies in two
`fundamental operational distinctions:
`
`1. Can the vehicle operate in its hybrid mode indefinitely without discharging the battery? '
`
`2. Does the vehicle have the capability to operate in electric-only mode for a significant
`amount of time (distance)?
`
`Question (1) relates to “charge—sustaining” or “charge-depleting” operation as defined in draft
`versions of SAE J 171 1. If an HEV cannot maintain charge, then fuel economy and emissions cannot be
`defined in terms of fuel energy alone. Aside from the issue of on- and off-board charging, an off-board-
`charging HEV may still be capable of maintaining charge, but
`it uses off-board energy for ZEV
`operation. No matter how an HEV is evaluated, vehicles that use off-board electrical energy must be
`treated differently than vehicles that derive their electrical energy from on-board charging. This “apples-
`to-oranges” comparison is important, but beyond the scope of this paper.
`Question (2) address the problem with applying an emissions and fuel economy test to a vehicle
`that, during some of its operation, does not use fuel or emit pollution.
`If, for example, an HEV’s engine
`is invoked at the end of a cycle or not at all during a particular test, the resulting data may prove
`unrepresentative.
`A popular vision of HEVs is that they all have electric-only capability. Although it may be
`possible to use the electric motor by itself to drive the vehicle, the motor may be sized too small for
`practical driving speeds, or the vehicle control strategy may never employ electric-only operation. Some
`HEV designs always have the engine on throughout their operation. Moreover, an HEV operating with
`the engine on all the time does not necessarily designate the vehicle as having the ability to do all of its
`electrical charging on-board. We can conclude that these two design distinctions are independent, which
`means that we can express the possibilities in a 2-by-2 matrix, as shown in Figure 2.
`The matrix shows graphs in each category box that describe the operation of the possible vehicle
`designs expressed in SOC vs. distance plots. The graphs are useful in showing different operational
`modes and tracking the energy in and out of the battery. The shaded sections of the graph indicate
`engine operation, the unshaded regions show ZEV-mode operation. Again, the discussion of these HEV
`design types does not require information about drivetrain configuration (series or parallel).
`
`FORD1112
`Page50f15
`
`
`Page 5 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`The charge—sustaining HEV design with electric-only capability (HEV designs #1, #2, and #3) is
`also called a “dual-mode” or “all purpose”7 HEV because it can operate like an EV or use the engine for
`continuous HEV-mode operation. Typically, the HEV will charge while the vehicle is stored, then run in
`ZEV mode until the batteries are depleted to a pre-determined set-point where the engine is invoked for
`indefinite vehicle range.
`This HEV type was considered by the California Air Resources Board to
`receive favorable credits in allowable fleet emissions averages because of the benefits of expected zero
`emissions use5.
`
`Electric-Only Capability
`
`lncapabie of Electric-Only
`
`Charge-Sustaining
`
`Charge-Depleting
`
`8 Engine on
`
`Figure 2: Classifying HEV Types for Testing.
`
`HEV designs #1 and #2 operate as a ZEV until the SOC level has fallen too low, at which time the
`engine is used to provide motive power and/or recharge energy. HEV design #2 invokes the engine after
`ZEV operation, but it appears to keep it on during HEV operation. The rising and falling SOC in #2
`represents HEV operation; if however, the engine were used for all the motive power, then the SOC
`would remain constant. HEV design #3 does not have as long a ZEV range (and may never charge off-
`board), but it does have the distinction of operating for significantly long distances with the engine off.
`
`FORD1112
`Page60f15
`
`
`Page 6 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`The category of charge-depleting HEVs that have electric-only capability (HEV designs #6 and #7
`in the lower left of Figure 2) do not have the capability to be driven indefinitely over the test cycle
`without depleting the BSD and must receive off-board charging to continue running with full power
`capabilities. HEV design #6 starts the engine after the ZEV range is depleted, as in designs #1, and #2;
`however, the engine does not appear to be providing enough charge (either because it is sized too small,
`or the control of energy flow is not effective) to keep the SOC from falling. HEV design #7 is not
`necessarily a practical vehicle, but it demonstrates various possibilities in the design category. HEV #7
`cycles the engine on and off like HEV designs #1 and #2, but it would appear that the vehicle is capable
`of providing charge with the engine on, but the control strategy does not allow the engine to stay on long
`enough to keep the ESD charged.
`Charge-sustaining HEVs incapable of significant electric-only travel (HEV designs #4 and #5 in
`the upper right of Figure 2) operate more or less like a conventional vehicle. This HEV design is a
`candidate for achieving the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) goal of an 80-mpg
`five-passenger vehicle. The vehicle can be driven indefinitely with the combustible fuel without the
`need for off-board electrical energy. HEV design #4 uses the engine full-time, but the SOC will fluctuate
`according to the transient energy utilization of the BSD for optimum overall fuel efficiency and
`emissions characteristics.
`In HEV design #5, the engine does shut down for short distances, thus it
`actually has ZEV capability. However, the electric-only distances in #5 is not significant, and for our
`purposes, this operation is more like the ZEV-incapable designs, than the ZEV-capable designs.
`The SOC vs. distance graph for an electric-launch parallel HEV looks like that shown in HEV
`design #6. The operation is as follows: at a stop, the engine is off, and the vehicle is launched with the
`electric motor until a particular speed and or power level
`is reached; then, the engine starts and the
`vehicle operates in a hybrid mode. Again, because this vehicle travels insignificant distances in ZEV
`mode, it is classified in the Incapable of Electric-Only category.
`Charge-depleting HEVs that lack significant electric—only operation are similar to the previous
`type, except these vehicles most likely do charge off-board and suffer from the same limitation as do all
`charge-depleting HEVs — they have limited range under desired power levels. Both HEV design #8 and
`design #9 cannot maintain the SOC, but #8 always uses the engine, while #9 does shut down the engine
`periodically.
`
`Transitional Modes
`
`A complication of classifying an HEV is the possibility that a vehicle switches control strategies to
`a different operational mode. HEV designs #1, #2, and #7 start out in ZEV mode, which can be
`00nsidered a transitional mode because eventually the control strategy switches to HEV mode when the
`SOC drops too low. However, the vehicle may again switch to another energy management strategy later
`while in the HEV mode. For example, a vehicle may turn the engine on but continue to deplete charge
`until the SOC becomes a very low, at which time the control strategy increases engine power levels to
`become charge-sustaining.
`Based upon the HEV prototypes to date, the SOC is typically a primary cause for a change in
`control strategy. An HEV may switch how the engine and motor work together based other inputs, like
`particular speeds or desired power levels, but for standardized testing, the response to these inputs will
`occur every time the test reaches that part of the speed trace. This is considered part of the same
`operational mode.
`If, however, an HEV reacts differently during a test to the same speed and or desired
`power level when started at the same initial SOC, this indicates a change in operational mode.
`Figure 3 shows four examples of vehicles that pass through transitional operational modes. HEV
`design #10 acts like a charge-depleting HEV until the SOC drops and the HEV mode becomes charge-
`sustaining. This operation is a practical alternative to a charge-depleting design. For most commuting
`days, the HEV operates under an efficient and emissions-friendly charge—depleting control strategy;
`however, if the vehicle is called upon for extended trips, the vehicle is not range limited.
`In HEV design
`
`FORD1112
`Page7of15
`
`
`Page 7 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`#12. the vehicle operates with a charge-depleting engine on/off strategy until the HEV mode switches to
`a strategy that keeps the engine on.
`HEV designs #11 and #13 continuously change their control strategy according to SOC. Like
`HEV designs #10 and #1 1, they charge deplete to a point, but the transition between charge-sustaining
`and charge-depleting is not as distinct.
`
`Distance
`
`Figure 3: Transitional Modes
`
`Other Mode Change - There can be any number of parameters other than SOC that cause a change in
`control strategy. A vehicle with several control schemes that change will be very difficult
`to
`characterize. However, if the vehicle eventually reaches a more stable mode, then it can be characterized
`according to distance or time traveled in the transitional modes separately from the more predominant
`operational mode.
`
`CHALLENGES IN HEV TESTING
`
`The discussion of HEV design types is useful for explaining why HEVs present such a challenge in
`testing. Fully characterizing such a complicated system requires more time and effort; to compound the
`problem, the wide variety of possible HEV designs cause unique challenges for each design type.
`
`SOC Measurement
`
`We begin the discussion of the difficulties in testing HEVs with the actual means by which the
`battery SOC is measured and tracked. Although we rely upon SOC to help characterize the vehicle’s
`operation, we can also have difficulties in the actual measurements that help track the EDS SOC
`accurately. The reason is that SOC cannot be measured directly; we can only track what passes in and
`out of the batteries, not what is currently inside. Battery testers describe the battery pack as a “rubber
`bucket,” — you never really know how much is actually in it.
`However, the parameter that does correlate most with SOC is ampere-hours, which is a measure of
`the amount of charge that has passed in and out of the ESD. The integrated amperes is essentially the
`quantity of charge — electrons going in and out of the battery. Tracking the energy in and out of the
`battery is not particularly useful because we are more interested in how much charge is left in the EDS;
`all energy going in and out of the pack is subject to irreversible losses because of the electrical resistance
`of the ESD. Although there is some hysteresis involved with tracking Ah because of various
`electrochemical mechanisms, the losses are smaller than those in tracking energy (kWh) and can be
`considered insignificant if the changes in SOC during testing are relatively small.
`
`Page8of15
`
`FORD1112
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`Measuring the ampere-hours is a simple procedure. The main battery cables need a current-
`sensing device that can be logged and integrated with respect to time. The sample rate need not be very
`high; around 6 to 10 Hz will sufficiently account for the currents going in and out of an HEV ESD during
`testing.
`
`Transient Energy Storage
`Because HEV operation involves continuously storing and using energy from the BSD, we must
`consider this energy use in conjunction with the combustible fuel. Looking back at the example in
`Figure l, the SOC is constantly changing, but over time, it remains within the operational limits directed
`by the vehicle control strategy. As we can see, each individual test captures only a small segment of the
`entire vehicle operation. The MPG measurement of any single test will not give us useful results if they
`are not coupled with the SOC and other test data. However, we could average many tests together to
`mitigate the transient effects of the ESD on the fuel economy results. For simulation studies, using
`numerous test runs is a useful approach, but for actual vehicle testing, this method may be impractical.
`An “SOC Correction” method was developed by the SAE Task Force to deal with this problem. This
`correction correlates the fuel usage data with the SOC data so that a result corresponding to a ASOC = 0
`can be found. Figure 4 graphically shows the ASOC = 0 result (using the data from Figure 1) found at
`the intersection of the correlation line with the ASOC axis.
`
`0.04
`
`0.035
`
`-
`
`—
`
`0.03
`
`0.025
`
`0.02
`
`1IMPG
`
`0.015 —
`
`0.01
`
`0.005 - —
`
`i
`
`"
`
`.
`
`5
`
`Delta SOC (7.)
`
`
`l
`
`Figure 4: SOC Correction Graph of Figure 3 Data
`
`The straight line in Figure 4 consists of fictitious data to illustrate this SOC correction concept. Actual
`test data will most
`likely show random scatter, with possibly some systematic curve shape or
`discontinuities that deviate from a linear correlation. Because comprehensive test data from real HEVs
`are rare, proving or disproving the effectiveness of this method is difficult, but small changes in SOC
`would reduce the possible error. A plot of many tests of a particular HEV would show the overall
`correlation and help locate the intersection point on the basis of a few skeleton points — but, again, too
`many required test runs would render such a procedure impractical.
`
`Engine On/Ojff Operation
`
`FORD1112
`Page90f15
`
`
`Page 9 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`Perhaps the most problematic characteristic of some HEVs is engine on/off behavior found in
`some ZEV-capable HEV designs. The control strategy of HEVs manages the energy and power from the
`engine and electric motor for the most optimized performance, and this strategy may include periodic
`engine shutdown or delayed engine start-up. This new dimension in vehicle operation (compared with a
`conventional vehicle) is an important area of concern in applying standard test procedures to l-[EVs. As
`with other HEVs, added test redundancy can help characterize the operation; however, when the engine
`remains off for a significant amount of driving. profound anomalies may emerge. The anomalies are
`especially problematic emissions are analyzed.
`If we employ any kind of SOC correction strategy or test any less than a large, statistically
`significant string of tests, we run the risk of generating misrepresentative data caused by periodic or
`delayed engine starts. Consider the example in Figure 5.
`
`Test #2
`
`Tesl #3
`
`Dista nee
`
`Test til
`
`Test 32
`
`Figure 5: Engine On/Off Operation During HEV Testing
`
`The test procedure consists of four tests in series to determine the emissions and fuel economy.
`Although these two HEVs are nearly identical and would show very similar on-road emission rates, the
`test results do not reflect this fact. The differences in operation are that HEV(a) is very close to an
`engine-start at the end of the test sequence, while HEV(b) has initiated engine-start just before the end of
`the last test. SOC correction correlations indicate an engine charging rate that will account for the added
`charging that took place at the end of the test. However, for the emissions calculations of HEV(b), high
`start-up emissions may be associated with the small amount of charging that occurred at the end of the
`last test. For HEV(b), a slightly shorter test cycle will result in significantly different test results; thus,
`this HEV test procedure has not accurately characterized these vehicles as nearly identical.
`
`Incompatibilities with Standardized Test Procedures
`
`Hot- and Cold-Start Weighting - Engine on/off operation also causes problems with FTP hot/cold~start
`weighting schemes. The FTP employs a weighting scheme for the cold- and hot-start tests to process the
`data to be representative of actual on—road usage. Driver-behavior statistics of an average number of
`daily trips, trip lengths, and soak times were analyzed, and a two-trip test was used for the FTP. The first
`trip includes the effects of a cold-start test (afier an overnight rest period), and the second accounts for all
`starts after resting. The 10—min soak time between tests was based on the driver statistics of average
`number of daily trips and average soak times between trips. The emissions and fuel consumption data
`from the cold and hot tests are combined with a 43% / 57% weighting between the cold and hot start
`tests, respectively. Where E is the emissions rate or fuel consumption rate, the equation is as follows:
`
`E = 0.43 ( mass / distance )cold-start + 0.57 ( mass / distance )hot-start
`
`Eq.
`
`1
`
`An unmodified FTP cannot be used directly to test HEVs because of the configuration of the segments
`that make the FTP a three-bag test. The FTP test is actually based off two full Federal Urban Driving
`
`Page100f15
`
`FORD1112
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`Schedules (FUDS) cycles. The last part of the second FUDS (after the first 505 s) is not tested because
`this phase (called “hot stabilized”) is considered redundant with the same portion of the first FUDS
`cycle. A decision was made to truncate the FTP by eliminating the redundant test segment (the last 866
`s of the second F U DS) to reduce the total test time. The entire bag weighting must be reworked to avoid
`significant test anomalies. The simple remedy for this problem is proposed in the early drafts of the SAE
`J 171 1: run both FUDS cycles without the truncation.
`However, an engine on/off HEV will have problems with bag weighting as illustrated in Figure 6.
`Here, the FTP tests are modified to include the remainder of the last FUDS cycle, but notice that in test
`(a), the cold-start FUDS test does not include any emissions or fuel consumption data; thus, the hot/cold
`weighting would be undefined.
`
`
`
`Figure 6: Modified FTP to Have 4 Bags.
`
`In test (b), the engine shuts down quickly after start in the first test, then starts again in the second test,
`most likely resulting in high emissions from multiple start-ups. The results from this test may be
`unrepresentative, because longer test cycles would allow more warm engine operation, and shorter test
`cycles would exclude the engine start — both resulting in lower g/mi emissions rates. This phenomenon
`will be discussed in more detail in the following subsection.
`
`Trig Lenghs and Soak Times - The resulting emissions rates of any vehicle are sensitive to test length
`and soak time. Because a large proportion of the total tailpipe mass emissions from a test are expelled
`during wann-up, the actual test length will effect the g/mi emissions rate for the whole cycle (a longer
`test would result in a lower emissions rate). The soak time between tests (like the 10—min soak time
`given between tests in the FTP) also changes the final results by affecting the results of the subsequent
`engine start. A longer soak time will result in a higher mass emissions from the hot-start. These effects
`are fairly well known and predictable for conventional vehicles. The test length and soak time for
`standard testing (such as the FTP) is one scenario by which we gather information on all vehicles for
`emissions and fuel economy. Although this test is compromising, for a conventional vehicle, it is more
`or less representative of a broad range of possible test lengths and soak times. However, an HEV is not
`as easily characterized with such a specific and arbitrary test structure. An HEV with engine on/off
`operation is much less predictable than a conventional vehicle in its response to varying trip lengths and
`soak times. During actual vehicle operation of varying trip lengths and soak times, an HEV may have
`respectable emissions rates, however, if the test cycle forces one arbitrary and unrepresentative response,
`the test results may mistakenly show poor emissions performance.
`Figure 7 illustrates the response of the emissions rate (g/mi, not total emissions) to varying test
`lengths for an HEV and a conventional vehicle (HEV engine-on operation is indicated by gray sections
`on the graph). For a conventional vehicle, the initial start—up emissions are mitigated by a larger and
`larger proportion of cleaner emissions from hot engine operation; the g/mi rate over the whole cycle
`tapers off, which is a changing, but more or less predictable, continuous trend.
`In contrast, the emissions
`response from one possible ZEN-Capable HEV with engine on/off operation starts with zero emissions
`until a distance where the engine starts; then the line tapers off until engine shut-down, where it tapers
`off at a steeper rate. The next step increase is the second engine start-up.
`
`FORD1112
`Page11of15
`
`
`10
`
`Page 11 of 15
`
`FORD 1112
`
`

`

`Emissions
`
`(g/mi)
`
`Conventional
`
`Test Length
`
`Figure 7: Response in Emission Rates to Varying Test Lengths
`
`Selecting one point on the HEV trend line does not necessarily represent a very good aggregate
`measure of the emissions over a wide spectrum of trip lengths; consequently, the results of the test can be
`very misleading. For instance,
`the emissions rates of an HEV during one particular trip may be
`especially high, but the following trip may actually operate with zero emissions (while the conventional
`vehicle will always produce emissions during every trip).
`
`PROPOSED HEV TEST CHARACTERIZATION METHODS
`
`To begin the discussion of proposed testing concepts, we must revisit the classification structure
`introduced in the HEV Operation section. The four separate design types of HEVs will be tested
`differently. This section describes how to characterize an HEV by providing the tools to test each
`distinct and significant operational mode, not how to administer full adaptations of the FTP or any other
`test procedure. The results from the Operational modes can be po

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket