Search Results

Fuel power consumption for light duty vehicles has previously been shown to be proportional to vehicle traction power, with an offset for overhead and accessory losses. This allows the fuel consumption for an individual powertrain to be projected across different vehicles, missions, and drive cycles. This work applies the power-based model to commercial vehicles and demonstrates its usefulness for projecting fuel consumption on both regulatory and customer use cycles. The ability to project fuel consumption to different missions is particularly useful for commercial vehicles, as they are used in a wide range of applications and with customized designs. Specific cases are investigated for Light and Medium Heavy- Duty work trucks. The average power required by a vehicle to drive the regulatory cycles varies by nearly a factor 10 between the Class 4 vehicle on the ARB Transient cycle and the loaded Class 7 vehicle at 65 mph on grade.

During the 1980s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incorporated the R factor into fuel economy calculations in order to address concerns about the impacts of test fuel property variations on corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) compliance, which is determined using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) cycles. The R factor is defined as the ratio of the percent change in fuel economy to the percent change in volumetric heating value for tests conducted using two differing fuels. At the time the R-factor was devised, tests using representative vehicles initially indicated that an appropriate value for the R factor was 0.6. Reassessing the R factor has recently come under renewed interest after EPA's March 2013 proposal to adjust the properties of certification gasoline to contain significant amounts of ethanol.

Engine Mapping is usually performed under nominal conditions which include a humidity level of 8 g/Kg. Customers driving at different conditions (which may range from 1 g/Kg in colder and dry climates and up to 35 g/Kg as in tropical climates) may experience less-than-optimal engine combustion which results in reduced onroad fuel economy. Humidity has an EGR-equivalent effect, and measuring it will correct the spark timing, mainly at Maximum Brake Torque (MBT) and borderline conditions, and claim back some of those losses. This paper aims at quantifying the small fuel economy benefits associated with on-board humidity measurement for certain customer use cases at high humidity conditions. Dyno data was collected for a Ford 2.3L GTDI engine at three speed load points, and intake air humidity was varied between 20% and 80% relative humidity. The effect of humidity compensation on spark timing, combustion phasing, knock, and consequently on overall engine efficiency was analyzed.

The previously developed power-based fuel consumption theory for Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEV) is extended to Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV). The main difference between the BEV model structure and the ICEV is the bi-directional character of traction motors and batteries. A traction motor model was developed as a bi-linear function of positive and negative traction power. Another difference is that the accessories and cabin heating are powered directly from the battery, and not from the powertrain. The resulting unified model for ICEV and BEV energy consumption has linear terms proportional to positive and negative traction power, accessory power, and overhead, in varying proportions. Compared to the ICEV, the BEV powertrain has a high marginal efficiency and low overhead. As a result, BEV energy consumption data under a wide range of driving conditions are mainly proportional to net traction power, with only a small offset.