Engineering Options for the Automobiles of the Future

1
Engineering Options for the Automobiles of the
Future
Lino Guzzella ETH http//www.imrt.ethz.ch
2
Why Bother?
900
USA
800
700
Germany
Italy
600
Canada
France
Japan
UK
500
vehicles per 1,000 people
400
Poland
300
Israel
Korea
Malaysia
Russia
Mexico
200
Brazil
Thailand
100
India
China
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
annual GDP per capita ( US)
Source OECD/IEA (2006)
3
The Next Tin Lizzie?
900
800
700
600
500
vehicles per 1,000 people
400
300
200
100
0
India
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
annual GDP per capita ( US)
4
Main RD Topics Cost Safety Fuel
Consumption / Drivability Pollutant Emissions
5
Pollution Is Not The Main Problem
The details have to be worked out, but zero
pollutant emission engines are feasible main
issue is cost maintenance is important
(monitoring, etc.)
6
Gasoline Engines TWC Converter
pollutant reduction 100 efficiency
80
60
40
20
1
1.1
0.9
l
Definition air-to-fuel ratio
7
Feedforward And Feedback Control
driver
8
NO2 Pollution Levels Zurich
1995
2002
Source Umwelt- und Gesundheitsschutz Zürich
9
The Limit Zero Emission Engines
10
Diesel Engines
ideal engine (design set point)
aged real engine
PM
set of all real engines
design tolerances
emission limits
NOx
design tolerances
11
Even Cleaner Diesels
control logic
feedforward controller
feedback controller
(EURO VI 2014)
dosage system
Oxi Cat DPF
SCR
12
Standard Diesel Engine Control Structure
set points
controllers
actuators
pre-engine sensors air mass flow, boost
pressure,
13
Future Diesel Engine Control Structure
controllers
actuators
pre-engine sensors
post-engine sensors l, NOx,
14
Cheaper and Better
better fuel economy (higher temperatures,
fewer regenerations of the DPF, ) sensor
fusion and OBD required cheaper injectors
using feedback (relaxed manufac- turing
tolerances)
use feedback tokeep all enginesclose to this
point
PM
NOx
15
Fuel Economy Is The Relevant Problem
Main concerns greenhouse effect
limited resources (geographic distribution)
fuel prices
16
tank-to-vehicle  
vehicle-to-miles  
gray (embodied) energy neglected
17
Test Cycles
EU Test cycle
km/h
100
four repetitions
60
20
s
100
1000
800
0
Other test cycles used in other regions Real
driving patterns often more aggressive
18
Vehicle Mechanical Energy Losses
aerodynamic friction
rolling friction
inertial force
19
Mechanical Energy (EU cycle, no recuperation)
vehicle mass
tires
aerodynamic shape
frontal area
20
Mechanical Energy (EU cycle, no recuperation)
large
full-size
compact
eco car
45 MJ/100 km
21
Sensitivities (EU cycle, no recuperation)
0.5
0
Nominal values for full size car
22
Potential Of Recuperation (EU cycle)
E(
, m )
h
rec
rec
0.0
h
E
rec
no rec
0.2
h
rec
h
0.4
rec
1.0
0.6
h
rec
0.8
h
0.9
rec
1.0
h
rec
0.8
Full-size car
50
100
150
200
250 kg
m
rec
23
Mechanical Energy In Fuel Equivalent
( assuming a 100 efficient engine )
full size
eco car
45 MJ/100 km
1.2 l/100km Diesel 196 miles/gallon Diesel
0.6 l/100km Diesel 392 miles/gallon Diesel
24
Engine Efficiency
gasoline engine
1 kJ fuel energy
torque
0.3
0.33
(1-x) kJ losses
0.36
0.35
x
x kJ mechanical work
0.25
0.2
0.1
speed
25
The Part-Load Curse
Output
x0.37
full-load input
full-load output
part-load input
x0.17
part-load output
0
Input
idling input
26
Drivability
Acceleration time 0 100 km/h (0 60 mph)
Full-size car
115 kW power needed for 0 100 km/h in 10 s
34 kW maximum power in EU cycle 7 kW average
power in EU cycle
27
Replace A V-6 By An I-3 Engine
1 kJ
(1- x) kJ
0.3
0.33
0.36
0.35
x kJ
0.25
0.2
0.1
28
Electric DSC
to Differential
IC Engine
AC
AG
29
Vehicle Mass and Cycle Efficiency
Maximum vehicle mass permitted to reach the
2000
ACEA agreement 2008
(140 g CO2/km 45 mpg)
1600
1200
EU Limit 2012 (?)
(120 g CO2/km 53 mpg)
800
cycle-averaged efficiency
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
30
Long-Range Perspective
Other fuels? Other energy converters?
Other vehicles?
31
Energy Densities
Diesel
gasoline
2
CNG
H
2
1
"Zebra"
Ni/MH
Pb
Li-ion
batteries
hydro carbons
net mechanical energy/fuel mass kWh/kg
32
(No Transcript)
33
Future Vehicles
m Af cw cr h
1600 kg 0.70 m2 0.013 0.2
700 kg 0.40 m2 0.010 0.30
7.6 l/100km 2.0 l/100km (EU cycle)
(117 mpg)
34
Road-Traffic Fatalities Switzerland
1980 1990 2000 2006
absolute per one million inhabitants
1246 954 592 370
195 140 82 49
This trend must be continued (vision zero) The
vast majority of all traffic accidents are caused
by driver errors and inattention
35
(No Transcript)
36
Thank you for your attention!
37
OECD Oil Consumption Change 1999-2004
Source IEA 2006
38
(No Transcript)
39
The Limit?
mass 29 kg, cw0.075 l x b x h 2.78 x 0.57 x
0.61 m fuel cell rated power 400 W, efficiency
tank-to-wheel 0.45
40
June 25, 2006 Shell Eco-Marathon Michelin
Proving Grounds, Ladoux (F) 5,385 km/l (15,212
mpg) gasoline equivalent
41
Example HEP Duty-Cycle Mode
Constant operation at
or duty cycle between
to the wheels
ICE
GB
E Generator
E Motor
0.3
Battery/Supercaps
0.33
0.36
0.35
fuel consumptionengine only
0.25
f. c. HEP
0.2
0.1
power ratio 5
42
Diesel Engine Control Challenges
43
Where Is The Control?
standard
to the wheels
TC ICE
GB
flywheel
clutch
44
Use Diesel Engines
x0.40
Output
x0.37
Diesel
gasoline
0
Input
but then expensive pollution abatement systems
become necessary
45
Part-Load Efficiency Of Diesel Engines
gasoline
0.3
0.33
0.36
0.35
0.25
x
0.2
0.1
46
Autonomous Driving
The SmartTer Vehicle courtesy Roland
Siegwart ASL, ETH Zurich
47
MP Traction Control
Courtesy of
M. Fodor D. Hrovat M. McConnell
A. Bemporad F. Borelli M. Morari
48
HEP Fuel-Economy Options
Use the two engines approach (engine
downsizing) Recuperate kinetic energy while
braking Reduce idling losses, i.e., engine
shut-down at idle speed or zero torque Operate
powertrain in duty-cycle mode Many other
approaches all need fast torque control and
energy management systems
49
Energy Management  Key Idea
SoC
SoCdes
D SoC

• fuel s . D SoC

tank
engine
to differential
D fuel
s
gb
D SoC
motor
battery
In simple settings (driving cycles with no
elevation changes) equivalence factor s depends
only on time
50
Implementation
wspeed, acceleration, grade

SoC
s
u
e
ref
equivalence factor
drive train
ECMS
-
Fuel consumption minimizing strategy follows
from Minimum Principle Equivalence factor
s(SoC,w) optimized for cost-to-go, SoC at
final time as constraint