c'\_ -
`
`Innovations in Design:A
`
`
`1993 Ford Hybrid
`
`
`
`
`
`Electric Vehicle
`
`Chal len e
`
`_
`
`SP-980
`
`
`
`
`
`GLOBAL MOBILITY DATABASE
`
`
`
`A/ISAE papers, standards,
`sale
`:1
`books are abstracted andi
`ed‘
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global Mobility Database.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAMAR UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
`
`A
`
`Published by:
`
`
`Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`400 Commonwealth Drive
`Warrendale, PA 15096-0001
`
`
`
`USA
`
`
`
`
`Phone: (412) 776-4841
`
`
`
`Fax: (412) 776-5760
`Febmary1994
`
`
`FORD 1323
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LL L
`
`L
`
`L I
`
`,
`l»»
`L
`
`I L t
`
`o
`
`I I1
`
`r
`
`‘
`
`.1
`
`I FF ,
`
`1
`
`I
`1_
`1
`
`1'
`
`1
`T
`
`1 of 11
`
`1 of 11
`
`FORD 1323
`
`

`
`FORWARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The papers in this Special Publication were originally developed as submittals for the Technical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Report event at the 1993 Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Challenge. Held June 1 through June 6 in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dearbom, Michigan, the 1993 HEV Challenge was sponsored by a partnership of the Ford Motor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Company, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This competition was another in a series of Engineering Research Competitions supported by DOE and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`part of the Collegiate Engineering Design Competition Series sponsored by SAE. The papers presented
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`here are enhanced and expanded versions of those prepared in advance of the competition by teams of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`participating student engineers. They describe the design elements and construction details of the largest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`field of I-[EVs yet assembled from some of the best engineering schools in North America. Special thanks
`and recognition are extended to the Ford Motor Company for its outstanding support of this competition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thirty colleges and universities from the U.S. and Canada were selected to participate in this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HEV competition to explore the potential of this cutting-edge technology through a Request for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proposals process initiated in January, 1992. A letter announcing and soliciting interest in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`competition was sent to all accredited engineering programs and two-year technical schools in both
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`countries. It described the nature of the events and the two available classes in the competition: one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`required constructing a HEV from the ground-up and the other required converting a 1992 Ford Escort
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wagon to hybrid operation. Sixty-seven schools submitted proposals that were evaluated by a team of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`judges from industry and government experts. From these proposals, twelve schools were selected to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`participate in the Ground-Up class and eighteen schools in the Escort Conversion class. Twenty-six of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`these schools were able to pass technical and safety inspections and qualify for the actual competition in
`
`
`June, 1993.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Challenge consisted of a series of static and dynamic events designed to assess the quality of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the student's efforts. The dynamic events measured the performance of the vehicles constructed by the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teams of student engineers and the static events
`
`
`
`
`
`evaluated their engineering and communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`skills. Each event was assigned a portion of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1,000 available points in the competition according
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to Table 1. The Technical Report event served both
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as a way to emphasize the importance of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communicating the content of and rationale for the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`team's design as well as to document the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specifications of the competing vehicles. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Report was due one month before the competition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to allow time to judge them. Teams ofjudges were
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assembled from industry and government sources to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`read and score the reports. At least five judges
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evaluated each report; their scores were normalized
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to a 75 point scoring range and then averaged to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determine a rank order of schools in each class.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Points were then assigned to the schools according
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to a pre-published schedule that allocated points
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`according to the vehicle class and the school's
`overall rank.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Points
`\l U1
`
`
`
`150
`
`U1 G
`
`
`
`100
`
`
`150
`
`
`150
`
`
`U) LI1
`
`
`U1
`
`
`U1
`
`
`3 5 1
`
`U1
`
`25
`
`
`T E
`
`
`
`:.: E G 1" Q C E
`
`
`CD FF '3 C :: “U 9. :: F?1
`
`
`
`-:3
`
`
`
`vent Description
`
`
`
`Technical Report
`
`
`
`Engineering Design Event
`
`
`
`Oral Presentation
`
`
`
`Acceleration Event
`
`
`
`
`Emissions Event
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Commuter Challenge Event
`
`
`
`
`APU Efficiency Event
`
`
`
`Range Event
`
`
`
`Electric Efficiency Event
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Overall Efficiency Event
`
`Cost Assessment Event
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Permission to photocopy for internal or personal Use’ or the imema' or personal use Of Specific
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`clients, is granted by SAE for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Center (CCC), provided that the base fee of $5.00 per article is paid directlyto CCC, 222 Rosewood
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Special requests should be addressed tothe SAE Publications Group.
`1 -56091-388-6/94$5.00.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -56091-388-6
`
`
`SAE/S P-94/980
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Library of Congress.Cata|og Card Number: 93-84469
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Copyright 1994 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Positions and opinions advanced in this pa-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`per are those of the author(s) and not neces-
`
`
`
`
`
`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 pub-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lish this paper in full or in part, contact the
`
`
`SAE Publications Group.
`V
`5
`-
`A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Persons wishing to submit papers to be con-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sidered forpresentation 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
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1323
`
`Total Points
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1,000
`
`2 of 11
`
`FORD 1323
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The complete results from the 1993 HEV Challenge, including the scores from the Technical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Report event, can be found in Table 2 for the Ground—Up Class and Table 3 for the Escort Conversion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Class. Many technical achievements and performance benchmarks for HEVs were set during this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`competition; a complete description of the competition's structure and outcomes, as well as an analysis of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the results, will be published as a separate SAE paper.
`
`
`
`On behalf of all the sponsors of the 1993 HEV Challenge, I thank you for your interest in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1993 HEV Challenge. The impressive accomplishments of the teams of student engineers contained in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this publication speak for themselves. If the reader has any questions concerning the organization of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`competition or its outcomes, please contact me at 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Building 362-B209, Argonne,
`
`
`
`Illinois, 60440, USA.
`
`!
`E
`
`P L
`R b
`
`
`arsen
`0 en '
`Center for Transportation Research
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Final Scores for the
`1993 Ford/DOE/SAE
`
`
`
`
`HEV Ch II
`a enge
`
`Ground—Up Class
`
`
`
`TechnicalReport
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"‘A\lu....En21neer1n2Des12I1Event
`
`
`
`
`
`OralPresentation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AccelerationEvent
`
`
`
`CommuterChallenge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi"‘xi
`
`
`
`EmissionsEvent
`
`
`Ix?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RanszeEvent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O—l
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TotalPoints
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`California Polytechnic - Pomona
`
`
`
`Califomia Polytechnic-San Luis Obispo
`
`
`
`
`4k-13>-O
`Cornell University
`
`
`Lawrence Technological University
`
`
`
`124
`Michigan State University
`
`
`
`
`New York Institute of Technology
`EH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37
`5
`University of California - Davis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b—b—
`IE "‘-Aooxi
`36
`75
`University of Califomia - Santa Barbara
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Idaho/Washington StateE 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Tennessee
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Texas - Arlington
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Tulsa
`
`
`1
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`50
`
`
`
`IQIQIQ~
`
`U)>—->—-—-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xiU‘:NOxr--
`|~.>ww-A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`124
`
`
`—- 6I9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9)004k
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`84
`
`
`
`
`Argonne National Laboratory
`
`
`
`3 of 11
`
`ElectricEfliciencvEvent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1323
`
`3 of 11
`
`FORD 1323
`
`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I
`
`
`DeS'9n Reports
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Alberta ........................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of California, Davis ....................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of California, Irvine.......................................................................................31
`
`_
`_
`_
`_
`University of California, Santa Barbara ...................................................................... ..45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`California State University Northridge ..........................................................................51
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`California State Polytechnic, Pomona ..........................................................................61
`
`California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo ..........................................71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`g
`§
`E
`_.
`2
`O
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`E
`L;
`~.§
`E
`0
`<23
`
`32
`
`
`
`
`
`E
`5
`3
`-S;
`_g
`5
`L”
`
`
`
`
`
`E“
`3
`<3
`*3
`E
`8
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`"‘
`
`§
`§
`13
`£5’
`Lu
`D
`Q
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`B
`
`E
`5
`.§
`as
`Lu
`3
`E
`
`24
`
`
`
`¢—a
`
`E
`g
`«*5
`5
`_
`E
`2
`O
`
`22
`
`
`
`._;
`
`§
`g
`g
`§
`en
`3
`‘g
`Q
`
`65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*§
`LE
`3
`5
`as
`
`
`
`
`
`.3
`53
`£-
`es
`E
`
`g
`2.?
`._.
`g
`“‘
`
`391
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`3
`:5
`E
`Q
`g
`
`
`
`E
`0
`
`‘-E
`E
`g
`E
`o
`‘g
`‘E
`Ll-1
`
`18
`
`
`
`50
`
`
`
`Table 3.
`
`Final Scores for the
`
`
`
`1993 Ford/DOE/SAE
`
`
`HEV Challenge
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`Ford Escort Conversion
`
`
`Class
`
`California State University _
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Northridge
`460
`Colorado School of Mines
`
`
`
`417
`Colorado State University
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cnnannna Unnvanany EEI— 651
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jordan College Energy Institute
`301
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pemsylvania State U“jV°’5“Y
`31-2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Seattleunivannia 602-5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Colorado School of Mines .............................................................................................79
`Stanford University
`24
`360
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Colorado State University ..............................................................................................87
`T°’f“5 Ted‘ Umversity (21-5)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unnan Sana Naval AcademyEl nan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University ofAlberta E Concordia University ..................................................................................................... 99
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fC lif
`-
`U '
`'
`‘
`'
`_
`_
`Cornell University .........................................................................................................115
`mvemty 0
`a orma Imne
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University ofWisconsin
`gzailglniton University -
`
`
`Wayne State University
`
`
`
`Weber State University
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`West Virginia University
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-93-50 59
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`42
`76
`22
`44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`131
`48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`115
`
`84
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`65
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31
`55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`125
`
`70
`
`
`
`(240) 2327
`
`
`734
`
`
`490
`
`‘
`
`
`
`4 °f 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Idaho and Washington State University ............................................... 127
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign .............................................................. 141
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jordan College Energy Institute .................................................................................. 157
`
`
`
`
`
`Lawrence Technological University ............................................................................ 163
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michigan State University ........................................................................................... 175
`
`
`
`
`
`
`New York Institute of Technology ............................................................................ .. 191
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Seattle University ....................................................................................................... ..207
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stanford University ................................................................................................... .. 219
`
`
`
`
`University of Tennessee ..............................................................................................229
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Texas at Arlington ..................................................................................243
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Texas Tech University ............................................................................................... .. 257
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Tulsa .......................................................................................................265
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1323
`
`4 of 11
`
`FORD 1323
`
`

`
`5 of 11
`
`FORD 1323
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Naval Academy, AMPhibian
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gregory W. Davis, Gary L. Hodges, Frank C. Madeka, Jason L. Pike,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph Greeson, Dennis Klein, and John Boone
`United States Naval Academy
`
`
`
`
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The U. S. Naval Academy's entry for the Hybrid Electric
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vehicle Challenge is a 1992 5door Ford Escort LX Wagon with a
`manual transmission which has been converted to a series drive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hybrid electric vehicle(HEV). A DC motor, coupled to the existing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transaxle provides propulsion. Lead-acid batteries are used to store
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the electrical energy. The auxiliary power unit(APU) consists of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`small gasoline engine connected to a generator. The AMPhibian is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`designed to be a feasible HEV, for use in near term applications. To
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accomplish this, all components are based upon existing technology.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, this vehicle was designed to retain, to the greatest degree
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`possible, the basic driving characteristics of a conventional gasoline
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`powered vehicle.
`The major performance design goals for the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMPhibian include 1) the ability to travel 64 Km as a zero emissions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vehicle(ZEV) using battery power alone, 2) operating in hybrid mode,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ability to travel 320 Km while meeting the transitional
`low
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`emissions vehic|e(TLEV) air pollution standards, 3) achieve a time of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`under 15 seconds when accelerating from 0 to 70 Kph, and 4) climb
`
`
`
`
`
`a minimum of a 15% grade.
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The USNA midshipmen accepted the HEV Challenge as an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`extension of their commitment to serve their country -- in this case,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to help America preserve its
`resources.
`The vehicle name,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMPhibian, was chosen by the midshipmen because, just as a real
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`amphibian spends time both on land and in the water, by analogy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the vehicle will operate using electrical energy from the battery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system, and at other times with electrical energy derived from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gasoline powered generator. As a reminder that electricity will be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the primary power source for the vehicle, the first three letters of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMPhibian were capitalized to represent the ampere, the basic unit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of electric current. Finally, the name also acknowledges the military
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`role provided by the Navy and Marine Corps amphibious team.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The dual nature of a hybrid electric vehicle also led the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`midshipmen team to choose "96" as the vehicle's number. The
`number can be read from two different directions with the same
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`result, just as the AMPhibian can be easily driven by stored electrical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`energy from the batteries or by generated electrical energy from the
`
`
`
`auxiliary power unit.
`
`DESIGN OBJ ECTIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The U. S. Naval Academy HEV, AMPhibian, was designed to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be a feasible HEV for use in near term applications. The challenge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`involves many aspects including cost effectiveness, acceleration,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`range, safety, and emissions. These design goals were considered
`
`
`
`
`when designing the vehicle.
`
`
`
`to be
`COST - Since
`the AMPhibian was designed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`economically feasible, minimizing cost was considered to be a major
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All design decisions were made only after the
`design goal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`associated costs were analyzed.
`To help attain this goal, all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`components were to be based upon existing, available technology.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PERFORMANCE AND EMISSIONS - The major performance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and emissions design goals for the AMPhibian include 1) the ability
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to travel 64 Km as a zero emissions vehicle(ZEV) using battery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power alone, 2) operating in hybrid mode, the ability to travel 320
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Km while meeting the transitional low emissions vehic|e(TLEV) air
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pollution standards, 3) achieve a time of under 15 seconds when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accelerating from 0 to 70 Kph, and 4) climb a minimum of a 15%
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`grade. The vehicle was also to maintain driving characteristics as
`
`
`
`
`
`similar
`to that of conventional gasoline powered vehicles as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`possib|e(e.g. one brake pedal, shift gears normally, etc.).
`RELIABILITY AND DURABILITY - The AMPhibian was to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have reliability and durability similar
`to that of a conventional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gasoline powered vehicle. Using existing components would not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only help to limit the costs, but also to help ensure reliable and
`
`
`
`
`
`durable operation of the vehicle.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAFETY - Occupant safety was a prime concern. The frontal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`impact zone and original vehicle bumpers were to be maintained to
`provide sufficient collision protection. The original power-assisted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`277
`
`
`
`FORD 1323
`
`6of11
`
`
`
`
`
`K9,?!’‘Q!#7:;‘-
`
`6 of 11
`
`FORD 1323
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`braking system was also to remain intact to ensure proper braking.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A fire suppression system was to be added to the vehicle and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`battery compartments, as well as to the engine bay to minimize the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`chances of injury and equipment damage. Due to the additional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vehicle weight, the roof structure was to be augmented to provide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`additional protection in case of a vehicle roll-over.
`Finally,
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`competition niles required the use of a five point harness system for
`
`
`
`
`
`both the driver and passenger.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEIGHT - One major disadvantage of electric vehicles has
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`traditionally been the large weight due to the propulsion batteries
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`required to provide the energy storage capability for extended range.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`An advantage of the HEV concept is to allow for less energy storage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capability of the batteries by replacing some of these batteries with a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`small auxiliary power unit(APU) which provides the equivalent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`amount of energy with less weight. However, battery weight was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`still considered to be a major concern, requiring the team to consider
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`all options for reducing vehicle weight. The AMPhibian was to be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`designed to weigh less than the gross vehicle weight rating(GVWR)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the 1992 Escort LX Wagon plus an additional 10%. This results
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in a maximum allowable vehicle mass of 1729 kg.
`Further,
`to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`maintain acceptable handling,
`the side-to-side bias must remain
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`within 5% of neutral, and the front-to-rear bias must not drop below
`about 40%/60%.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PASSENGERS AND CARGO - The HEV was to carry one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`driver and one passenger, along with a volume of cargo(50 cm by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`100 cm by 25 cm). The total combined weight of people and cargo
`
`
`
`
`
`was a minimum of 180 kg.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BATTERY CHARGING - The HEV charging system was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`designed to recharge the battery pack in six hours. This should
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reduce daytime charging demand on electrical utilities. Daytime
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`charging, if necessary, could be accomplished using the APU. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`charging system was to accept either 110V or 220V, 60 Hz AC
`
`power.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STYLING - Vehicle styling changes were to be minimized to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`maintain continuity with existing vehicle designs. No external glass
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or body sheet metal was to be modified except to provide additional
`ventilation.
`
`
`VEHICLE DESIGN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`studied, and
`The relationship of
`the design goals was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compromises were made to provide near optimal system design,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`given the severe budgetary and time constraints.
`This process
`
`
`
`
`
`resulted in
`selection and design of
`the major
`the
`i"/ehicle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`components. The following discussion details the design decisions,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`followed by a summary table of
`theactual vehicle
`this
`is
`
`components.
`4*
`"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POWERTRAIN - The AMPhibian is propelled using a series
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`drive configuration. That is, the only component that is mechanically
`connected to the drive-train of the vehicle is the electric motor. This
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangement is depicted in figure 1, located in the appendix. This
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangement was considered to be superior to the parallel drive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangement,
`in which both the electric motor and the APU can
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`propel the vehicle, for the following reasons. The series drive would
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`require less structural change to install, and thus provide a lower
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The parallel drive system would also require a more
`cost.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sophisticated control system to minimize driveability problems such
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as those associated with the transition from electric vehic|e(EV)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mode to hybrid electric vehic|e(HEV) mode. This would, again,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`result in higher cost, and, possibly, reliability problems due to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`added complexity. The parallel drive is enticing because it has the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`potential to provide improved acceleration since both the APU and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the electric motor are used to propel the vehicle. However, when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the battery is discharged, the parallel system cannot easily be used
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to recharge the system,
`thus the potential
`for daytime use of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electrical energy for charging is increased. Overall, the series drive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was seen to be the best choice to meet the design goals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The conversion to a series drive system required the removal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the standard Escort engine. Since the Escort has front-wheel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`drive, the standard engine is mounted transversely in a transaxle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangement. Thus, the transaxle was left intact so that a new axle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would not need to be designed. The electric motor was attached
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`directly to the existing bell-housing and flywheel. This arrangement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`also allows full use of the existing transmission, thus allowing for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`variable gear ratios. This was considered an advantage since it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would allow the electric motor to be operated closer to its preferred
`
`
`
`
`
`
`operating speed over varying vehicle speeds.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior vehicle testing and simulation indicated that the vehicle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would require a power of approximately 9 kW in order to maintain a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`steady 80 Kph. Acceleration from a stand still to 72 Kph in less than
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15 seconds would require a peak power of 32 kW(at approximately
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35 Kph) for a short duration. Motor controller cost and availability
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`became the critical design factor for the selection of both the type of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`motor and the system operating voltage. The use of an AC motor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`investigated due to its
`inherently higher power density
`was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compared to a DC system. However,
`it was rejected due to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cost, availability, size, and weight of the associated motor controller.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A series wound, 15.2 kW(@ 90 VDC) DC motor was chosen instead
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`since DC motor controllers are more widely available, less costly,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and lighter in weight. The combination DC motor and controller
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`weighs approximately 82 kg, the engine that was removed weighed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`113 kg, thus resulting in a net weight savings of 31 kg. Although the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`steady state rating is less than the peak incurred during the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`acceleration,
`the motor can provide a peak power 2-3 times its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`steady state rating for short duration. To provide maximum torque, a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`high system voltage is required. Cost, size and the ready availability
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a proven motor controller dictated the controller choice.
`A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`oontroller rated at 120 VDC(160 V peak) was chosen,
`thus this
`
`
`
`
`
`determined the system operating voltage.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BATTERY SELECTION - USNA AMPhibian has two battery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power systems. One system is at 12V and one at 120V. The 12V
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system is used to power the 12V lighting and accessories. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`120V primary battery powers the prime mover and supplies power to
`
`
`
`
`recharge the 12V battery.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USNA AMPhibian battery selection was overwhelmingly driven
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by cost considerations. Secondary considerations included:
`1) the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HEV Challenge constraint of 400V or less battery stack voltage, 2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the motor controller rating of 120V, 3)
`the HEV Challenge constraint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of no more than 20 kW-hr capacity at a 3 hr discharge rate, 4)
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`gross
`vehicle weight
`constraints
`5)
`practical
`rating
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`considerations.
`In general, an inexpensive,
`small,
`lightweight
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`battery having high specific power and high specific energy is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`desired for use in the AMPhibian. Additional considerations included
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the desire to maximize voltage thereby minimizing |2R losses due to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lower operating currents.
`Also,
`to help to maximize KW-hrs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capacity, and, therefore, ZEV capabilities, the amp-hr battery rating
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`should be maximized. Since the maximum rating for the motor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`controller is 120V, 120V was selected. This enabled, AMPhibian to
`
`7of11
`
`278
`
`
`
`
`fly?A-_-3:_.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`detennine an orderof-magnitude calculation of the costs of batteries
`
`
`
`
`
`
`having characteristics superior to those of conventional
`lead-acid
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`batteries. Results of this analysis lead the AMPhibian design team
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to limit battery selection considerations to off-the-shelf lead-acid
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`batteries. For example, Nickel-Iron batteries were found at a cost of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$1800 per six volt battery or $36,000 for a 120V battery stack.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nickel-Cadmium were found at a cost of $964 per six volt battery or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$19,280 for a 120V battery stack. Both estimates far exceeded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMPhibian budget constraints, hence, the self-imposed limitation to
`lead-acid.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Discussions with EV enthusiasts,' battery suppliers,"
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`professional EV converters'" helped team AMPhibian to focus on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`several battery features. These features included the following: wet-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`celled batteries can provide a slightly higher capacity, are typically
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`less expensive than, and require a less complex charging system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`titan gelcelled batteries; however, gel-celled batteries do require
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`less maintenance than wet-celled batteries;
`"flag" or
`"L"
`type
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`terminal configurations have proven to be more reliable and durable,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and provide greater contact surface area(helping to minimize
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`corrosion problems) than standard automotive post type terminals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the battery stack would be composed of
`individual,
`Ideally,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`replaceable cells to facilitate replacement of only bad cells as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`opposed to the replacement of entire multi-celled, batteries having
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only one bad cell. AMPhibian decided to go with 12V batteries for
`
`
`
`
`cost and weight considerations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The task of battery selection was complicated due to the
`
`
`
`
`
`lack of published,
`comprehensive,
`technical
`battery
`general
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`performance data covering an extensive number of battery models
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and manufacturers which had been verified by an independent
`source. This limited information is shown in the following figures.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From figures 2 and 3 of the appendix, the selection of batteries was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reduced by eliminating those batteries exceeding 20 kW-hrs at a 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hour discharge rate and those batteries which would exceed an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`absolute maximum battery stack weight allocation of 500 kg. With
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the number of batteries reduced, batteries were compared on a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specific volume to weight and capacity to weight basis, see figures 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and 6 of the appendix. Figure 7 shows the energy capacity per unit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`volume. Based upon the evaluation of this limited data, and relying
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`upon the advice of EV owners and professional EV manufacturers,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Trojan 5SH(P) battery appeared to be the best choice . The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trojan 5SH(P) battery is a deep-cycle, wet-celled, 12V battery. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"L" type terminals were selected for this application. With the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`primary battery selected, the 12V system needed to be defined and
`selected.
`
`
`
`
`
`