throbber
FORD 1442
`
`

`
`Design Innovations in
`Electric and Hybrid
`Electric Vehicles
`
`SP-1089
`
`
`
`GLOBAL MOBILITY DATABASE
`
`A/I SAE papers, standards, and selected
`books are abstracted and indexed in the
`Global Mobility Database.
`
`Published by:
`Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
`400 Commonwealth Drive
`Warrendale, PA 15096-0001
`USA
`
`Phone: (412) 776-4841
`Fax; (412) 776-5760
`February 1995
`
`Page 2 of 13
`
`FORD 1442
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`Permission to photocopy for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific
`clients, is granted by SAE for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance
`Center (CCC), provided thatthe base fee of $6.00 per article is paid directlyto CCC, 222 Rosewood
`Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Special requests should be addressed to the SAE Publications Group.
`1-56091-639-7/95$6.00.
`
`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 1-56091-639-7
`SAE/SP-95/1089
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 94-74742
`Copyright 1995 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 it it is published in
`SAE Transactions. For permission to pub-
`lish this paper in full or in part, contact the
`SAE Publications Group.
`
`Page 3 of 13
`
`Persons wishing to submit papers to be con-
`sideredforpresentation orpublicationthrough
`SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
`word abstract of a proposed manuscript to:
`Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
`
`Printed in USA
`
`FORD 1442
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`PREFACE
`
`The papers in this SAE special publication, Design Innovations in Electric and Hybrid Electric
`Vehicles (SP-1089), cover technology for both electric and hybrid electric vehicles. As is
`well accepted, to have a good hybrid electric vehicle requires first having a good electric
`vehicle. Major manufacturers have initiated the effort required to take electric vehicle
`technology from the laboratory through the required development steps to provide an
`automotive product. This work will provide a foundation for the development of hybrid
`electric vehicles.
`
`Unique engines, unique operating strategies and unique packaging solutions will all be the
`hallmark of successful hybrid electric vehicles. Over the past several years, the hybrid-
`electric vehicle concept has been gaining attention as a possible way to reduce emissions
`and increase fuel efficiency compared to a conventional vehicle. Hybrid-electric vehicles
`contain a hybrid power supply system — one that incorporates a minimum of two
`independent power sources to supply the drivetrain. The main advantage of this concept is
`it permits flexibility in power system design and power distribution between sources. This
`versatility enables greater flexibility in designing the powertrain to meet the required
`performance of the vehicle. The challenge is to combine the different power sources such
`that the advantages outweigh the increased cost of this configuration. These papers cover
`some of the latest technical developments related to the engine aspect of hybrid-electric
`vehicle development. Topics included in this year's session are: development of hybrid-
`electric vehicle design code; optimization of vehicle and engine control strategies; and novel
`engines for hybrid~e|ectric vehicles.
`
`Also critical to the automotive products of the future is the engineering talent required to
`produce the innovative designs. One of the programs aimed at exciting students to the
`new automotive opportunities is the HEV Challenge. This program is well represented by
`papers in this book. Experience has shown that the HEV Challenge is not only motivating
`students, but also surfacing innovative automotive engineering solutions to difficult
`problems. We are pleased to be able to share some of this excitement through this
`publication.
`
`All of these subjects and the design methodologies required to achieve them, are covered
`by papers in this collection. We hope that this year's papers will trigger your imagination
`and provide the foundation for innovative developments that will help electric and hybrid
`electric vehicles play an important role in our transportation system.
`
`Bradford Bates
`
`Ford Motor Co.
`
`Chairman, Electric Vehicle Committee
`
`Frank Stodolsky
`Argonne National Laboratory
`
`Session Organizers
`
`Page 4 of 13
`
`FORD 1442
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`9501 76
`
`9501 77
`
`950178
`
`950179
`
`950491
`
`950492
`
`950493
`
`950495
`
`950955
`
`950957
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Technical Analysis of the 1994 HEV Challenge .................................... ..1
`Nicole M. LeBlanc, Michael Duoba, Spencer Quong,
`Robert P. Larsen, and Marvin Stithim
`Argonne National Lab.
`William Rimkus
`Ford Motor Co.
`
`Testing Hybrid Electric Vehicle Emission and Fuel Economy
`at the 1994 DOEISAE Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge ..................... 13
`Michael Duoba, Spencer Quong, Nicole LeBlanc, and Robert Larsen
`Argonne National Lab.
`
`Electric Vehicle Performance in 1994 DOE Competitions .................. ..23
`Spencer Quong, Michael Duoba, Robert Larsen, Nicole LeBlanc,
`Richard Gonzales, and Carlos Buitrago
`Argonne National Lab.
`
`Design and Analysis of a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Chassis ..................31
`John G. Aemi
`
`Prince Corp.
`Clark J. Radcliffe and John L. Martin
`
`Michigan State Univ.
`
`A Hybrid Vehicle Evaluation Code and Its Application to
`Vehicle Design ....................................................................................... ..43
`Salvador M. Aceves and J. Ray Smith
`Lawrence Liverrnore National Lab.
`
`Controlling a CVT-Equipped Hybrid Car ................................................53
`Andreas Schmid, Philipp Dietrich, Simon Ginsburg, and Hans P. Geering
`Swiss Federal Institute oi Technology (ETH)
`
`The Effects of APU Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid
`Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles ....................................65
`Catherine Anderson and Erin Pettit
`Aerovironment
`
`ECTAMTM, A Continuous Combustion Engine for Hybrid
`Electric Vehicles .................................................................................... ..73
`W. Robert Palmer and J. Dale Allen
`
`Spread Spectrum, Inc.
`
`Computerized Speed Control of Electric Vehicles .............................. ..89
`Zhejun Fan, Yoram Koren. and David Wehe
`The University of Michigan
`
`The Effect of Regenerative Braking on the Performance and
`Range of the AMPhibian ll Hybrid Electric Vehicle ............................. ..95
`Gregory W. Davis and Frank C. Madeka
`United States Naval Academy
`
`Page 5 of 13
`
`FORD 1442
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`950958
`
`Fuel Economy Analysls for a Hybrid Concept Car Based on a
`Buffered Fuel-Engine Operating at an Optimal Point ....................... ..103
`Marc Ross and Wei Wu
`
`University of Michigan
`
`950959
`
`A Comparison of Modeled and Measured Energy Use in Hybrid
`Electric Vehlcles .................................................................................. ..119
`
`Matthew Cuddy
`National Renewable Energy Lab.
`
`951069
`
`Comparison Between On-Road and Simulated Performance of
`the KEV Electric Vehicle ..................................................................... .. 129
`
`C.H. Kim, S. B. Koh, and E. NamGoong
`Kia Motors Corp.
`
`Page 6 of 13
`
`FORD 1442
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`The_ Effects of APU Characteristics on the Design of
`Hybrid Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles
`
`Catherine Anderson and Erin Pettit
`Aerovironment
`
`950493
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`A hybrid control strategy is an algorithm that determines
`when and at what power level to run a hybrid electric vehicle's
`auxiliary power unit (APU) as a function of the power demand
`at the wheels, the state of charge of the battery, and the current
`power level of the APU. The design of this strategy influences
`the efficiency of the overall system. The strategy must
`balance the flow of power between the APU, the battery, and
`the motor, with the intent of maximizing the average fuel
`economy without overstressing the battery and curtailing its
`life.
`
`The development of a system's powertrain components
`and the design of an optimum control strategy for that system
`should be concurrent to allow tradeoffs to be made while the
`designs are still fluid. An efficient optimization process must
`involve all aspects of the system, including costs, from the
`beginning.
`In this paper, we explore the methodology behind the
`design of a hybrid control strategy. We also discuss the APU
`and battery design characteristics that are crucial to the
`strategy design. focusing on the interdependence of these
`design characteristics within the entire system. Finally, we
`propose a process for the development of an optimized hybrid
`powertrain and the corresponding control algorithm.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A "hybrid" vehicle usually refers to one that incorporates
`a minimum of two independent power sources to supply the
`drivetrain. One of the primary advantages of this dual power
`supply system is it allows flexibility in power distribution
`between sources. This versatility enables greater optimization
`of the vehicle powertrain to meet the required performance of
`the system.
`In order to profit from such system flexibility, one
`must integrate into the system an intelligent control strategy
`that uses each component to the overall system's best
`advantage.
`A hybrid control strategy is an algorithm that determines
`how power in a hybrid powertrain should be distributed as a
`function of the vehicle parameters (power demand, battery
`state of charge (SOC), component temperatures, etc.) and of
`
`65
`
`Page 7 of 13
`
`component characteristics. One must develop this strategy
`carefully as part of the vehicle design process from the
`beginning. While the strategy determines the best operating
`points for the components, the range of available component
`characteristics provides the limits within which the strategy
`must operate.
`This paper explores the iterative process of concurrent
`powertrain component and control strategy design with an
`emphasis on optimizing the system as a whole. We focus
`primarily on the auxiliary power unit and the characteristics of
`the powertrain components that drive the strategy design.
`
`HYBRID VEHICLE CONCEPT
`
`Hybrid vehicles can be divided into two main categories:
`parallel, in which both systems are used to mechanically drive
`the wheels; and series, where the power supply systems are
`coupled directly to a power bus which then transfers power to
`the wheels.
`
`SERIES SYSTEM - The philosophy behind a series
`hybrid vehicle lies in its combination of a primary and a
`secondary energy conversion. In the primary conversion, an
`APU converts a highly transportable, stable chemical fuel to
`mechanical energy (or directly to electrical energy in certain
`cases) and, subsequently, to electrical energy. The most
`frequently considered APUs for hybrid systems include
`various internal and external combustion engines and fuel
`cells. This primary conversion device can be decoupled from
`the wheel power demand (unlike the engine in a conventional
`car) as a Load Leveling Device (LLD), which acts as an
`energy buffer, is included in the system. This LLD alternately
`stores energy (either directly from the primary conversion at
`low wheel power requirements or from the kinetic energy of
`the decelerating vehicle) and provides the propulsion motor
`with energy when the demand exceeds the APU power output.
`Some LLDs that have been proposed for use in hybrid vehicles
`include batteries, supercapacitors, hydraulic and/or pneumatic
`storage devices, and flywheels.
`The secondary conversion, occurring in the inverter and
`motor, transforms the electrical energy from either source into
`the mechanical energy that drives the vehicle. Figure l is a
`schematic of the energy flow within the vehicle.
`
`FORD 1442
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`a range extender is small compared with the power demand, it
`is most often run at its maximum power level, and hybrid
`control strategies are fairly simple.
`The primary disadvantage of the series hybrid system in
`most cases is the extra inefficiencies included in converting
`the mechanical power output from the APU into electrical
`power and then back into mechanical power. Often, however,
`the increased flexibility of the system offers more optimized
`components that overcome this disadvantage.
`
`PARALLEL SYSTEM- In a parallel hybrid vehicle,
`there is a direct mechanical connection between the APU and
`the wheels through a transmission. As shown in figure 3, the
`electric propulsion system may either drive the same set of
`wheels as the APU through the transmission (Option 1), or
`drive the other set of wheels directly (Option 2).
`
`Since all the power sources and sinks are directly coupled
`by a DC power bus, control of the entire system can be
`achieved by simply commanding the APU output. The
`accessory and wheel loads pull required power off the bus
`with the LLD supplying the balance of power in the system.
`
` Altemator
`
`
`
`Drive
`
`Inverter
`
` - ccessories
`
`Figure 1: Series hybrid vehicle component configuration.
`
`ICE Vehicle
`
`
`
`
`
`.
` ‘+:+:o:io’.*.‘
`iii:‘.9
`‘.
`o
`
`..
`,.
`go9.4»
`0.9*4»5
`‘fl
`9ov3.1.14131*’
`
`wave‘: 3
`9
`0:‘
`.,.
`*4
`.
` go0-
`....
`9 9 o
`L
`. +
`o'o'+‘V’?Q
`4 4o‘o x
`o O §
`-row*9:-9:9:++0:+3;
`0
`
` o 9
`
` go
`0%
`:4:
`
`
`1«
`
`Figure 3: Parallel hybrid vehicle component
`configuration.
`
`The main advantages of the parallel configuration over the
`series is that the power from the engine is used directly by the
`drivetrain with no alternator or inverter losses. However,
`because the APU is directly coupled to the wheels, the APU
`speed is determined by the vehicle speed and the transmission
`ratio. This direct coupling limits the flexibility of hybrid
`strategy design, and (without a novel clutched transmission)
`forces the APU to idle when the vehicle is at rest.
`
`A parallel hybrid does have an efficiency advantage when
`the vehicle spends a majority of its driving time at a
`substantial cruise, but a vehicle that is operated on a "city
`driving" profile will lose this transmission efficiency
`advantage to inefficiencies in the APU engine. In addition, if
`the front and rear axles of the vehicle are driven by different
`power sources, the vehicle may exhibit changes in handling
`characteristics as the power distribution between the sources is
`adjusted.
`
`The thought processes presented in this paper are
`sufficiently general that they can be applied to any type of
`vehicle. To fully explore the flexibility allowed by the hybrid
`system, we focus on the design of a strategy for the most
`
`66
`
`FORD 1442
`
`
`
`Power Assist
`
`IncreasingAPUPower
`
`Range Extender
`
` Pure Electric
`
`Vehicle
`
`Increasing Battery Storage —:)
`
`Figure 2: Comparison Chart of Power Assist and Range
`Extender Series Hybrid Vehicles
`
`in addition, the series hybrid design may fall into one of
`two categories: "power assist" or “range extender" (see figure
`2). A power assist hybrid uses the LLD to manage the power
`output from the APU to maximize efficiency and emissions in
`the APU. The usable storage capacity of the LLD is quite
`small (on the order of 1-5 kWh), and the APU must be capable
`of providing the maximum sustained power the vehicle is
`expected to need, with the LLD providing peak powers and
`transients. A range extender hybrid uses a very small APU
`with a substantial LLD such that the vehicle will perform
`similarly to a pure electric vehicle, with the additional small
`power source simply extending the range. Since the APU for
`
`Page 8 of 13
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`versatile layout: the power assist hybrid. For simplicity, we
`use the example of a generalized IC engine and Pb-Acid
`battery for the APU and battery, respectively, as a focus for
`the discussion.
`
`HYBRID CONTROL STRATEGIES
`
`There are two distinct extremes in the spectrum of control
`strategies. One is a system that uses a "thermostat" algorithm
`to command the APU (i.e. the APU is turned on to a constant
`power level when the SOC of the LLD is below a certain
`lower threshold, and off when the SOC exceeds an upper
`threshold). In this mode, the LLD must accommodate all the
`transient power requirements. Although the APU may be
`operating at its most efficient point,
`the losses in the LLD
`from excessive cycling may surpass the savings from an
`optimized APU. For the example wheel power curve shown in
`figure 4, figure 5 shows the corresponding APU and LLD
`power requirements generated by a thermostat mode.
`
`Federal Urban Cycle
`
`Wheel Power
`
`60
`
`3 20 *
`3
`0
`5 -20
`9.. -40
`
`-60
`
`1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500
`Time (s)
`
`Figure 4: The power required at the wheels for a segment
`of the federal urban drive (LA4).
`
`The other extreme commands the APU to follow the
`
`actual wheel power whenever possible (similar to a
`conventional automobile). Using this strategy, the LLD
`cycling will diminish, and the losses associated with charge
`and discharge will be minimized. The APU, however, must
`then operate over its entire range of power levels and perform
`fast power transients, both of which can adversely affect
`engine efficiency and emissions characteristics. Figure 6
`shows the APU and LLD power requirements generated by
`this "following" mode for the same wheel power curve shown
`in figure 4. It should be noted that this is the mode a parallel
`hybrid vehicle always uses.
`For most of the APUs and LLDs under consideration,
`
`neither of these strategies would be the optimum strategy. The
`ideal hybrid control strategy is one that minimizes the
`combined inefficiencies of both the APU and the LLD while
`
`meeting the desired performance and the emission limits (as
`well as any other specific system characteristics that are being
`used as measures of design merit). The optimum strategy is
`highly dependent on the characteristics of the powertrain
`components and the planned use of the vehicle. Unfortunately
`as one attempts to optimize a system, the characteristics of the
`components begin to conflict, driving the strategy in different
`directions.
`
`Constant APU Mode
`
`APU Power
`
`(kW) ou.5G88
`Power
`
`I500 1700 i900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3l00 3300 3500
`
`LLD Power
`
`
`
`Power(kW)
`
`7943-O‘oooo
`
`1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500
`Time (s)
`
`Figure 5: The APU and LLD power outputs that satisfy
`the wheel requirements using a constant APU thermostat
`strategy.
`
`APU follower Mode
`
`APU Power
`
`
`ill;
`
`l50O 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500
`
`LLD Power
`
`(kW)aésoess
`Power
`
`1500 1700
`
`1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500
`Time (s)
`
`Figure 6: The distribution of power for a load following
`APU.
`
`COMPONENT CHARACTERISTICS AND DESIGN
`TRADE-OFFS
`
`LLDs - The LLD (in this case a battery) must be the most
`accommodative element in the powertrain. When there is a
`large power demand or production from the wheels (as during
`hard acceleration or braking). it must supply or accept the
`power required. In a hybrid application, the battery pack
`generally has lower capacity than it would have for a pure
`electric vehicles (particularly for a power assist hybrid where
`
`67
`
`Page 9 of 13
`
`FORD 1442
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`the APU is of considerable size). To maintain the same
`In
`performance, therefore, the power density must be greater.
`addition, the state of charge of the battery can be significantly
`affected during a short acceleration or deceleration so that the
`small-scale charge/discharge period (or "microcycling") that
`the pack sees is a more significant percentage of its capacity.
`Differing control strategies can place varying demands on the
`cycling of the battery. Using the thermostat APU strategy, the
`battery would be required to cycle at the frequency of the
`wheel power demand, while the follower APU strategy would
`only require the battery to cycle when the wheel power
`demand exceeds the APU power capability.
`There are several characteristics of the battery that one
`must keep in mind when trying to quantify tradeoffs between
`the battery and the rest of the system:
`the charge/discharge
`efficiency, the total capacity of the pack, the transient
`capabilities, and, the hardest to determine, the life of the
`batteries.
`
`Chggggfljscharge Efficiencies - A battery is most
`efficient within a range of SOCs that minimizes its charge and
`discharge resistances. In figure 7, one can see the general
`shape of a Pb-Acid battery's internal resistance versus state of
`charge curves for charging and discharging the battery. A
`balance point must be chosen on these curves to minimize
`resistive losses, yet still leave room for power peaks (both
`motoring and regenerative braking) at the wheels. This tends
`to push the strategy design to keep the SOC within the 50-70%
`region for minimum losses in both charge and discharge. This
`leaves enough capacity to handle an extended period of battery
`discharge (such as during a long hill climb) and enough
`"headroom" to absorb a long period of charging such as that
`which occurs during a long downhill. If the SOC is not
`maintained within the 50-70% region, the performance may be
`compromised. This diminished performance may take the
`form of lost regenerative energy or limited power output
`during accelerations.
`
`Capacigg - The capacity of the pack is comparatively easy
`to measure, and the effects of the change of capacity on the
`strategy are fairly intuitive. (It should be noted that the
`capacity at one rate of discharge is different from the capacity
`at another rate, and therefore the definition of "capacity" is
`subject to discussion.) In general, the larger the battery pack
`capacity, the more the vehicle can be run like an pure electric
`vehicle with the APU providing supplemental power. With a
`large capacity, it is easier to achieve the power required for
`standard driving, and the pack does not have to be so rigidly
`constrained to a small window of states of charge. A small
`pack, however, must be used almost exclusively as a short-
`term energy buffer without significant energy storage.
`
`Transient Capabilities - A battery can change power levels
`almost instantaneously, unlike the APU which is limited by its
`mechanical inertia. When the APU cannot respond quickly
`enough to fluctuations in power demand,
`the battery must
`make up the difference. The battery must be able to sustain
`output at a peak power during these transients until the APUS
`power output reaches the commanded power.
`
`Life - Unfortunately, most available data on battery life is
`of limited applicability to hybrid systems. The complexities of
`the reactions within batteries make it almost impossible to
`predict battery life except as a questionable extrapolation of
`empirical data. Although few quantitative predictions of
`
`battery life are available, some qualitative statements can be
`made:
`
`1. A lead acid battery will degrade more (per a
`throughput kWh) if cycled deeply (cycled through a
`wide range of SOCs) than shallowly. The long term
`effects of microcycling (cycling over a small range of
`SOCs) are not fully known.
`2. A battery will last longer if it has lower energy
`throughput.
`3. Hard cycling (high power cycling), even hard
`microcycling, will shorten the life.
`
`.0 wLII
`
`.05tou. 0.15
`
`
`InternalResistance(Ohms)
`
`.0L.)
`
`O
`
`0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
`0.1 0.2 0.3
`State of Charge (%)
`
`0.9
`
`1
`
`Figure 7: The charge and discharge internal resistances
`versus the state of charge of a battery.
`
`Figure 8 shows the difference between the SOCs of the
`thermostat and follower extremes discussed above (see figures
`3-5) over multiple repetitions of the federal urban driving
`cycle.
`In the thermostat mode,
`the APU power output is
`greater than the average power for the cycle causing the state
`of charge to continue to increase until it reaches a defined
`maximum state of charge (in this case 80%) requiring the APU
`to turn off. The follower mode, on the other hand, provides
`only a slight constant increase in SOC due to the battery's
`absorption of regenerative energy during the cycle.
`The deep cycled battery might only last half as long as the one
`kept within a tight SOC window. However, the costs of
`replacing the battery versus the cost of building an APU
`capable of fast transient response(that can protect the battery)
`must be weighed.
`
`APUs - Because the APU is decoupled from the
`drivetrain, there is greater flexibility in its design. The design
`need not be performance driven as in conventional IC engines,
`but can be focused on other characteristics, such as emissions,
`that may be more important for the specific vehicle being
`designed. Most importantly, however, the APU characteristics
`must be chosen to complement the LLD requirements; thus,
`the need for a working strategy throughout the design process.
`Characteristics crucial to the design include maximum power
`output, transient capabilities, fuel efficiency, emissions
`characteristics, engine noise vibration harshness (NVH), and
`service life.
`
`Page 10 of 13
`
`FORD 1442
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`Thermostat Mode
`
`
`
`StateofCharge(%) N3-O\003OOOOCO
`
`1500
`
`Follower Mode
`
`o888S8
`
`
`
`StateofCharge(%)
`
`l500
`
`2500
`Time (s)
`
`2500
`Time (s)
`
`3500
`
`3500
`
`Figure 8: The state of charge during repetitions of the
`federal urban driving cycle with a constant APU at 20 kW
`in the thermostat mode (see figures 2,3) and in the
`follower mode(see figure 4).
`
` m - The maximum power output of
`the APU will affect strategy design choices in a similar
`manner to the capacity of the battery. With a high power
`capability, one may design the strategy to operate more or less
`like a conventional car engine in a power following mode,
`whereas a low power capability will force the strategy to run
`the engine at its highest power level so that it can keep up with
`current demands and store extra energy for periods of high
`demand.
`
`AELJ Transient Qapab1'|itj§§ — Mechanically, the transient
`capabilities of an engine are limited by the inertia involved in
`increasing or decreasing the engine speed. Although slower
`transients are desirable for reducing emissions, slow transients
`can curtail the life of the battery or potentially harm the
`engine. For example, slow transients can be a serious problem
`during a transition from a hard acceleration to a hard braking.
`If the APU has been commanded by the control strategy to
`supply a high power during an acceleration, and suddenly full
`regenerative braking is required, the LLD may not be able to
`accept the total power coming to it, unless the APU can reduce
`its power quickly. This limitation will cause a loss of much of
`the regenerative energy available. In an extreme case, the
`APU may be unloaded by an over-voltage condition, leading
`to potential overspeed. The APU control strategy must be
`robust, such that no combination of driver actions will result in
`damage to any drivetrain component.
`
`Fuel Efficiency - The fuel efficiency of an APU generally
`varies as a function of the power level. The specific fuel
`consumption (SFC) of an engine is typically best at middle
`power levels and worst at the low and high power extremes.
`The APU operating strategy that will maximize fuel efficiency
`is one that runs the APU primarily in the range of powers over
`which the SFC is best (often termed the engine's "sweet spot").
`The ratio of the highest power level to the lowest power level
`
`69
`
`Page 11 of 13
`
`used in the strategy is called the turn down ratio. The
`narrower this sweet spot is, and, thus, the smaller the most
`efficient turn down ratio is, the more the fuel efficiency
`requirements constrain the strategy toward a thermostat mode
`(see figure 9, a series of SFC graphs showing varying sweet
`spots.). Increasing the range of high efficiency and thus the
`turn down ratio and the ability of the strategy to follow drive
`power more closely (therefore relieving some stress on the
`battery) can increase the complexity and cost of the engine or
`lower the peak fuel efficiency. Tradeoffs must be made
`between engine complexity, cost, fuel efficiency, and battery
`lifetime. For example,
`if a long battery lifetime is the most
`important aspect of the system, then a large sweet spot is
`desired, possibly sacrificing engine simplicity, efficiency, or
`low engine emissions. In a situation where the average power
`is fairly constant a smaller sweet spot may be the most
`efficient solution.
`
`Erfisions - Frequently, one of the principle aims of a
`hybrid vehicle is to reduce vehicle emissions to ULEV (Ultra
`Low Emission Vehicle) levels. Consequently, APU emissions
`are very important for system success. In general, emissions
`are minimized when a stoichiometric air to fuel ratio is
`maintained by a closed loop feedback system (using an oxygen
`sensor for feedback). In some operating regimes, such as
`engine starts and transients, the stoichiometric ratio is very
`difficult to maintain resulting in an increase in emissions.
`During a cold-start, the engine must run rich to achieve
`sufficient vaporization of the fuel. Rich running results in
`high hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO)
`emissions, but low nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. A hot-
`start has many of the same problems as a cold start, but the
`time duration before the engine and catalytic converter warm
`up is much shorter. A hybrid strategy which minimizes engine
`cycling will minimize start-related emissions, but that may
`require that the engine have a higher tum-down ratio.
`Transients present an emissions problem that is largely
`related to the speed of the transient. The closed loop feedback
`system that maintains the stoichiometric air fuel ratio is
`sufficient during quasi-steady state modes, however, it can
`only react as fast as the 02 levels can be sensed. If the
`transient is too fast, the engine may run rich, increasing CO
`and HC emissions, or lean, increasing NOX emissions. Some
`of this effect can be reduced using a hybrid strategy that only
`allows slow transients, but this places greater strain on the
`LLD.
`
`As a series hybrid vehicle decouples both the speed and
`the power of the APU from the speed and power requirement
`at the wheels, this extra degree of freedom can also be used to
`reduce emissions. For a given required power outpittfthere
`are many combinations of speed and torque that could be used
`to provide that power. If the engine is run in a low speed, high
`load state, the fuel efficiency, noise, and hydrocarbon
`emissions are all improved. At high loads, however, the NOx
`emissions are high and traditional NOx reducing measures
`such as Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) are more difficult.
`Choosing this optimum engine operating point as a function of
`power is an important design consideration but it is not
`necessarily part of the hybrid strategy design.
`
`Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH1- Engine noise is not
`much of an issue as far as the performance of a drivetrain is
`concerned, but to avoid customer distress, it must be
`considered as an influencing factor on a hybrid strategy. For
`example, a strategy that has the engine on at full power while
`
`FORD 1442
`
`FORD 1442
`
`

`
`the vehicle is at a complete stop could be extremely
`disconcerting for the driver. Fortunately, the periods of low
`ambient (masking) noise are mostly concurrent with low
`power demands, so throttling back an engine at low vehicle
`speeds is not too much of a compromise in performance.
`
`Life - The life of an APU can generally be extended by
`running it at low, constant power levels. Constant running at
`a sweet spot (for emissions and fuel economy) during low
`power demand driving, however, may cause the battery SOC
`to rise and the engine to be shutoff. Depending on the control
`strategy this on/off cycling can be quite frequent. Numerous
`hot starts may shorten the life of an engine unless it is
`designed for multiple starts per trip.
`
`0.7
`0.6
`
`2:2’:
`E '
`E 0.3
`m 0.2
`0.1
`
`0
`
`0.7
`0.6
`
`E 0.5
`§"O.4
`80.3
`5: 0.2
`0.1
`
`O
`
`0.7
`0.6
`
`3:
`03
`.
`0.2
`0.1
`
`0
`
`01020304050
`Power Output (kW)
`(a)
`
`01020304050
`P0“/¢f 01“P'-‘I (kw)
`(b)
`
`0.7
`0.6
`
`0.5
`04
`0.3
`0.2
`0.1
`
`O
`
`0
`
`10 20 30 40 50
`Power Output (kW)
`(0)
`
`0
`
`l0 20 30 40 50
`Power Output (kW)
`(d)
`
`Figure 9: Four examples of engine efficiency curves.
`Specific Fuel Consumption versus Power Output. The
`"sweet spot" is smallest in (a) and largest in (d).
`
`BRAKING CONTROL SYSTEMS - The only other
`system component whose specific characteristics are crucial to
`the optimization of the powertrain is the braking system. The
`added feature of regenerative braking ("regen") can improve
`fuel economy greatly. Unfortunately, because atypical
`vehicle must use all four wheels for braking to maximize
`control, a front wheel drive vehicle with balanced braking will
`not be able to capture all available regen energy. A scheme
`must be devised to maximize the amount of regen captured
`without destablizing the car‘s decelerations. An optimum
`division of braking power between th

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