Fuel Consumption Potential of Different Plugin Hybrid Vehicle Architectures in the European and American Contexts A. Da Costa, N. Kim, F. Le Berr, N. Marc, F. Badin, A. Rousseau IFP Energies nouvelles / Argonne National Laboratory IA-HEV Task 15. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles 1
Contents Introduction Sizing Results Simulation Results Conclusion 2
Objectives The objective is to assesses the impact of driving behavior and standard test procedures on the true benefits of PHEVs for Europe and the US market. Increasing pressure on GHG emissions EEC / USA different markets different standards procedures different tax systems By 2020, which car for which country? CO2 emission in g/km CO 2 emission target for different countries 280 260 USA 240 EEC 220 Japan China 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Years 3
Approach Simulation of different HEV/PHEV architectures Several AER considered Both EEC and USA contexts Identical program of demand for all the vehicles maximum speed hill capability acceleration ICE EM Batt. Input-split Parallel ICE EM Batt. Output-split ICE EM Batt. Series EM EM ICE EM EM Batt. 4
Methodology Each Lab used its own simulation tools ANL : Autonomie IFPEN : AMESim We made sure results were consistent Dedicated tools were shared ANL : Battery sizing IFPEN : Electric motor sizing Comparison of fuel consumption between AMESim and Autonomie NEDC Artemis Urban Artemis Road Artemis Highway UDDS HWFET Vehicle Conventional [L/100km] Parallel HEV [L/100km] Autonomie 5.75 3.52 AMESim 5.64 3.51 Autonomie 8.42 3.97 AMESim 8.27 3.74 Autonomie 4.88 3.75 AMESim 4.78 3.67 Autonomie 6.44 5.93 AMESim 6.3 6.1 Autonomie 5.56 3.52 AMESim 5.51 3.6 Autonomie 4.2 4.13 AMESim 4.16 4.18 5
Component Data Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) - 1800cc spark ignition engine developed at IFPEN Electric Machine - IFPEN in-house software (EMTool) Battery - reference provided by Argonne, Idaho National Laboratory, and major battery suppliers 350 Measured motor efficiency [%] 100 350 Simulated motor efficiency [%] 100 350 Absolute error [%] 20 18 300 95 300 95 300 16 Torque [N.m] 250 200 150 100 90 85 80 Torque [N.m] 250 200 150 100 90 85 80 Torque[N.m] 250 200 150 100 14 12 10 8 6 50 75 50 75 50 4 2 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Rotation speed [RPM] Efficiency map of electric motor (experimental data from Oak Ridge laboratory) 70 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Rotation speed [RPM] 70 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Rotation speed [RPM] Efficiency map of electric motor (simulation results coming from the EMTool) Absolute error map between experimental results and simulation results 0 6
Contents Introduction Sizing Results Simulation Results Conclusion 7
Component Sizing All the vehicles have been sized to meet the same requirements: Initial vehicle movement (IVM) to 100kph in 9 sec +/ 0.1 sec, Maximum grade of 5% at 110kph at gross vehicle weight (GVW) Maximum vehicle speed >150kph with ICE power only, and All electric Range (AER) on UDDS (for US) or Artemis Urban (for Europe) Body and chassis mass 800 kg Frontal area 2.18 m2 Drag coefficient 0.3 Wheel radius 0.317 m Final drive ratio Gear ratio Specification of the compact-size sedan Conv. AU : 4.44, Conv. MT : 4.29 Parallel HEV&PHEV : 4.29, Split HEV&PHEV : 4.059 Series PHEV : 11.36, GM Voltec : 3.02, BEV : 4.44 Conv. AU : 2.67, 1.53, 1.02, 0.72, 0.53 Conv. MT : 3.14, 1.87, 1.24, 0.95, 0.73 Parallel HEV&PHEV : 3.14, 1.87, 1.24, 0.95, 0.73 Split HEV&PHEV : 2.6 (Zr/Zs), Series PHEV: - GM Voltec : 2.24 (Zr/Zs), BEV : 1.86, 1 8
Sizing Results Power demands close for US and EEC vehicles Parallel hybrid leads to the lowest total embedded power 40 30 Engine Electric Motor(1) Electric Motor(2) Max. / Min. Power [kw] 20 10 0-10 -20 UDDS NEDC Art. Urb. Power, kw 300 200 100 Component Sizing - PHEV 50 (US) -30-40 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Vehicle Mass [kg] 0 Par In-spt Out-spt Ser 9
Sizing Results Battery sizing results Battery energy [kw.h] 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Par. - EU Par. - US Series - EU Series - US 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 All-Electric Range [km] 10
Contents Introduction Sizing Results Simulation Results Conclusion 11
Fuel Consumption results Charge Sustaining Results are comparable for all architectures, except Series NEDC leads to high Fuel Savings 12
Fuel Consumption results Charge Sustaining Results are comparable for all architectures, except Series NEDC leads to high Fuel Savings 13
Energy Consumption EEC/USA Standards Fuel Consumption [L/100km] Fuel Consumption [L/100km] 4.5 6 4 5 3.5 3 4 2.5 3 2 1.5 2 EEC EEC vs / US Unadjusted Standards results Standards (hybrids (hybrids only) only) 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 Electricity Consumption [W.h/km] Elec. Consumption [W.h/km] Par. HEV - EEC Par. HEV - US Par. PHEV - EEC Par. PHEV - US InSplit HEV - EEC InSplit HEV - US InSplit PHEV - EEC InSplit PHEV - US US OutSplit PHEV PHEV - EEC EEC OutSplit OutSplit PHEV PHEV - US US Series Series - EEC EEC Series Series - US US BEV EEC BEV - EEC BEV US BEV - US EEC procedure always tends to higher electric consumption Overall energy consumption is lower on the EEC test procedure 14
CO2 emissions 3 daily trips scenarii have been simulated 40, 75, 100km 3 electricity mix have been considered 100, 450, 650 g CO2/kW.h el 15
CO2 emissions CO2 Total emissions CO2 emissions [g/km] [g/km] Total CO2 emissions on mission profile 12 3 Conv. AU :: 161, : 153, 173, MT :: 145 139 : 163 120.0 180.0 120.0 100.0 160.0 100.0 140.0 120.0 80.0 80.0 100.0 60.0 60.0 80.0 40.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 5 10 10 15 20 20 25 30 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Total Total Battery Battery energy energy [kw.h] [kw.h] Total Battery energy [kw.h] Par. Par. - 650-650 - 650 Par. Par. - 450-450 - 450 Par. Par. Par. - 100-100 - 100 InSplit InSplit InSplit - 650-650 - 650 InSplit InSplit InSplit - 450-450 - 450 InSplit InSplit InSplit - 100-100 - 100 OutSplit OutSplit - 650-650 OutSplit - 650 OutSplit OutSplit - 450-450 OutSplit - 450 OutSplit OutSplit - 100-100 OutSplit - 100 Series Series - 650-650 Series - 650 Series Series - 450-450 Series - 450 Series Series - 100-100 Series - 100 BEV BEV - 650-650 BEV BEV BEV - 450-450 - 650 BEV BEV BEV - 100-100 - 450 BEV - 100 16
Contents Introduction Sizing Results Simulation Results Conclusion 17
Conclusions Graph Fuel saving vs Batt energy EEC/USA easier to cut standards FC in EEC Fuel Consumption gain on standard procedure - EEC & US 120.0 // - US Fuel Consumption gain [%] 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 // - EEC P-S - US P-S - EEC O-S - US O-S - EEC Series - US Series - EEC BEV - US BEV - EEC Battery energy [kw.h] 18
Conclusions On an overall CO2 point of vue, PHEV and BEV make more sense in Europe or France On an economic point of vue : go see Dr Bernd Propfe (DLR) presentation! (dialogue session 2, board #11E) 19
IA-HEV Task 15. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Thank you! Fuel Consumption Potential of Different Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Architectures in the European and American Contexts Contact / Website U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Anthony Da Costa, anthony.da-costa@ifpen.fr, François Badin, francois.badin@ifpen.fr IFP Energies Nouvelles 1 à 4, Avenue de Bois-Préau 92500 Rueil-Malmaison, France Namdoo Kim, nkim@anl.gov Aymeric Rousseau, arousseau@anl.gov (http://www.autonomie.net/) Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass, Argonne IL 60439, USA 20