cost-effective hybrid-electric powertrains · cost-effective hybrid-electric powertrains november...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Cost-Effective
Hybrid-Electric Powertrains
November 3, 2003
Troy, Michigan
Dr. Alex Severinsky
Ted Louckes
Fred Frederiksen
2
Content
� Sources of improvements in fuel economy
� Basis for cost-effective design
� HEV powertrain implementations
� Cost-effective HEV powertrain
� Applications in various vehicles
� Next step: cost-effective development
3
Efficiency Map for 3 L Engine
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
To
rqu
e (
Nm
)
Engine must be cycled ON and OFF at light torque for high efficiency
ON/ OFF
Engine
Operation
Min torque
for efficient
engine
operation Average engine
torque for
driving the car
OFF
ON
4
Hyperdrive Control MethodsU.S. Patents: 5,343,970; 6,209,672; 6,338,391; 6,554,088
ON/OFF ControlEfficiency Map for 2.0 L TC Engine
Conventional ControlEfficiency Map for 3.0 L Engine
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
To
rqu
e (
Nm
)
Max torque curve
Output shaft
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Average operating point
5
Range of Fuel Economy Improvement
with Hyperdrive Control Method for the Engine
Range ofimprovement
High performance cars 50-60%SUVs 40-50%Ordinary cars 30-40%
Improvement on U.S. Combined CycleDue to Limiting Minimum Engine Torque*
* Improvement depends on average road load and is independent of driving
patterns
Ref: Adamson, Louckes, Polletta, Severinsky, Templin, Hyperdrive as Powertrain Successor, Future Car Congress, June 2002, Arlington, Virginia, SAE paper 2002-01-1909.
6
Range of Fuel Economy ChangeDue to Effect of Regenerative Braking
On U.S. Combined Cycle Midsize sedan Midsize SUV
Total Brake Losses 37% at 50 hp peak
26% at 10 hp peak
32% at 60 hp peak
21% at 10 hp peak
Total brake losses on
driving axle brakes 17% at 10 hp peak 14% at 10 hp peak
Recoverable energy with
42 V ISG 7% 6%
Recoverable energy with
144 V ISG 10% 8%
At steady speed Decreased fuel economy due to increased weight
7
Double Advantage of the High Voltage System
Base profit / loss
300 V System 600 V System
Increase in customer
value for better fuel
economy: 30-40%
Decrease in electrical
system cost: 30-35%
Additional
Value
Ref: Frederiksen, Louckes, Polletta, Severinsky, Templin ., Effects of High Battery Voltage on Performance and Economics of the Hyperdrive Powertrain, Hybridfahrzeuge und Energiemanagement, Braunschweiger Symposium, February 21, 2002, Technische Universitat Braunschweig.
8
70%
40%
SoC
50% of rated discharge time
30% of rated discharge time
* Repeat 84times, fully recharge
Result: after 5,500 cycles, (165,000% of capacity),Cells are at 98% of original capacity (only 2% degradation)
How to Use Lead-Acid Batteries
Ref: Frederiksen, Louckes, Severinsky, Templin, Electronics as the Cornerstone of Future Fuel-efficient and Clean Vehicles; SAE-IEEE Convergence Conference, Detroit, MI, October 2002, SAE paper 2002-21-0033.
9
Use Existing Automotive Materials and Low Cost Manufacturing Technologies
8 ICEs, gasoline or diesel, all turbocharged
8 Induction motors
8 Lead-acid batteries, long term
8 High voltage semiconductors
Steel, Copper, Aluminum, Lead, Silicon
10
TRW – U.S. Patent 3,566,717
Planetary powersplit gear set
Engine
Traction
motor
Inverters
Starter
generator
motor
Battery
Filed March 17, 1969, Granted March 2, 1971
14
Selecting a Cost-Effective Powertrain
• Prius II with Reported Performance and Fuel Economy• Planetary or Clutch 2-Motor Hardware• Hyperdrive Method of Control
15
Planetary gear power split
Inverters
CentralController
Two-Motor Hybrid Powertrains
Front wheels
Batteries,ComputerController
67 hp PMtractionmotor
30 hp PMGenerator
1.5 L Atkinson VVTGasoline
500/200 V converter
650 cc Turbocharged DOHC Engine
46 hp Ind.tractionmotor
Clutch9.4 hp Indstarter/ generator
Optional planetary gear transmission
(+)
(-)
200 V 6 Ah NiMH
Inverters
CentralController
Front wheels
Batteries,ComputerController
(+)
(-)
500 V 2.4 Ah NiMH
Planetary Coupling Clutch Coupling
16
Summary Comparison
Planetary coupling Clutch coupling Clutch + planetary
Transmission N/A N/A 3 speed AT
Engine power 77 hp 70 hp in Turbo 65 hp in Turbo
Engine 1.5 L DOHC VVT 650 cc DOHC 630 cc DOHC
Motor 1 (gen) 30 hp PM 10 hp Ind 9 hp Ind
Motor 2 (trac) 67 hp PM 46 hp Ind 43 hp Ind
Battery 200 V, 6 Ah NiMH 500 V, 2.4 Ah NiMH 500 V, 2.4 Ah NiMH
Test Weight, lbs. 3,125 2,875 2,875
FUDS, mpg 65.4 74.1 73.4
HWFET, mpg 66.1 72.7 71.4
Combined (sticker), mpg 55.3 61.8 61.0
Accel 0-60 mph, sec 10.4 10.4 10.5
Top Spd, mi/h 108 108 106
17
Pontiac Vibe Standard Powertrain
1.8 L SI engine, dual overhead cam
4-speed automatic transmission with overdrive
Transfer case for AWD
18
1.2 L engine+ turbocharger
20 hp peakTraction motor
Clutch17 hp starter/ generator
12 modules,50V, 4 Ah
20 hp peaktractionmotor
Hyperdrive Powertrain for Pontiac Vibe
Rear wheels(+)
(-)
InvertersCentral
Controller
Batteries,BatteryComputerController
19
Summary of Design and Modeling Data (representative implementation)
MPG
Vibe Base vs. Vibe Hyperdrive
Base Hyperdrive U/M % improvement
Fuel Economy
ETW 2,980 3,104 lbs FUDS 28.5 52.1 mpg 83 %
HWFET 40.2 46.9 mpg 16 %
Combined (CAFÉ) 32.8 49.6 mpg 53 %
Performance
PTW 2,980 3,104 lbs 0-60 mi/h 11.5 8.8 sec 23 %
40-60 mi/h 6.0 3.9 sec 35 %
0-85 mi/h 25.6 15.7 sec 39 %
¼ mile 18.4 16.7 sec 9 %
Top Speed Continuous
106.5 106.5 Mi/h
Gradeability Requirement @ 55 mi/h 6% 11.4% more
@ 75 mi/h 4% 9.2% more
21
3.0 L engine+ turbocharger
Hyperdrive Powertrain for Grand Cherokee
40 hptractionmotor
Clutch
27 hp starter/ generator
16 modules,50 V, 6 Ah,
(+)
(-)
3 speed AT
InvertersCentral
Controller
27 hp tractionmotor
Front wheels
Batteries,BatteryComputerController
22
MPG
Grand Cherokee Base vs. Hyperdrive
Base 4 L
Hyperdrive 2.7 L TC
U/M %
Fuel Economy
ETW 3,792 3,915 lbs FUDS 17.8 35.1 mpg 97 %
HWFET 26.9 35.5 mpg 32 %
Combined 21.0 35.3 mpg 68 %
Performance
PTW 3,792 3,915 lbs 0-60 mi/h 9.4 6.7 sec 29 %
40-60 mi/h 4.6 2.5 sec 46 %
0-85 mi/h 25 12.8 sec 49 %
1/4 mile 17.5 15.4 sec 12 %
Top Speed Continuous 117 125 Mi/h
Continuous Gradeability
Gradeability @55 mi/h 23.8 25.2 % more Gradeability @ 75 mi/h 13.2 16.5 % more
Summary of Design and Modeling Data (representative implementation)
24
Hyperdrive Powertrain for Cadillac Escalade
3.0 L engine+ turbocharger 80 hp
tractionmotor
Clutch
38 hp starter/ generator
16 modules,50 V, 6 Ah
(+)
(-)
3 speed AT
InvertersCentral
Controller
20 hp tractionmotor
Front wheels
Batteries,BatteryComputerController
25
Cadillac Escalade: Base v. Hyperdrive
Base Hyperdrive Percent improvement
Fuel Economy
ETW 5,750 5,750 lbs FUDS 13.7 25.3 mpg 85 %
HWFET 21.8 27.3 mpg 25 %
CAFÉ component 17.4 26.2 mpg 50 %
Performance
PTW 6,200 6,200 lbs 0-60 mi/h 9.6 7.7 sec 20 %
40-60 mi/h 5.4 3.6 sec 33 % Gradeability @55 mi/h 18.7 18.8 % Top Speed Continuous 110 110 Mi/h
Continuous Gradeability GCW (with trailer) 13,500 13,500 lbs Gradeability @ 80 mi/h
3.5 3.2 % Gradealility @ 65 mi/h 7.0 8.2 % Gradeability @ 55 mi/h 7.7 8.6 %
Summary of Design and Modeling Data (representative implementation)
27
1.9 L TDI40 hptractionmotor
Clutch
20 hp starter/ generator
16 modules,50 V, 8 Ah
(+)
(-)
3 speed AT
InvertersDrive
Controller
27 hp tractionmotor
Hyperdrive Powertrain for Diesel Sprinter
Front wheels
Batteries,BatteryComputerController
28
DIESEL SPRINTER: HYPERDRIVE vs. BASE
Base Hyperdrive % improvement Fuel Economy
ETW 4,874 5,126 lbs ECE 10.6 5.6 L/100 km 47%
ECE 22.2 42.0 Mi/g ECE 8.0 6.2 L/100 km 23%
EUDC 29.4 37.9 Mi/g Combined (EPA) 25.4 40.2 Mi/g 37%
Performance
0-60 mi/h 14 9 sec 36 %
40-60 mi/h 7 4 sec 43 %
Gradeability
Continuous Same as base Passing on grade Improved
29
Basis for Cost-Effective Development
� Select several vehicle platforms and applications for
hybridization
� Design one battery module to fit all in different quantity
� Design one or two motor-transmissions
� Design power electronics with high flexibility to power
rating
� Develop controls as an operating system