Search Results

An increase in spark-ignition engine efficiency can be gained by increasing the engine compression ratio, which requires fuels with higher knock resistance. Oxygenated fuel components, such as methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, or iso-butanol, all have a Research Octane Number (RON) higher than 100. The octane numbers (ON) of fuels are rated on the CFR F1/F2 engine by comparing the knock intensity of a sample fuel relative to that of bracketing primary reference fuels (PRF). The PRFs are a binary blend of iso-octane, which is defined to an ON of 100, and n-heptane, which represents an ON of 0. Above 100 ON, the PRF scale continues by adding diluted tetraethyl lead (TEL) to iso-octane. However, TEL is banned from use in commercial gasoline because of its toxicity. The ASTM octane number test methods have a “Fit for Use” test that validate the CFR engine’s compliance with the octane testing method by verifying the defined ON of toluene standardization fuels (TSF).

Several plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have recently been made available by conversion companies for laboratory testing. The viability of the technology must be evaluated by dynamometer benchmark testing, but because the technology is so new, existing and new test methods must first be investigated. Converted Gen 2 Toyota Prius vehicles from Hymotion, EnergyCS, and Hybrids Plus were tested at Argonne's dynamometer facility according to general testing concepts. These vehicles all share basic attributes - all are blended type PHEVs, all use Lithium battery technology, and all deplete charge in a similar fashion (although at different rates). In a time span of one year, lessons learned from one vehicle were carried over into the next test vehicle. A minimum test method was formulated that is well suited for all these vehicles. The method was validated with two vehicles of varying charge-depleting range.

A new type of approval procedure for light-duty vehicles, the Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP), developed by an initiative of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, will come into force by the end of 2017. The current European type-approval procedure for energy consumption and CO2 emissions of cars, the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC), includes a number of tolerances and flexibilities that no longer accurately reflect state-of-the-art technologies. Indeed, on the basis of an analysis of real-world driving data from the German website spritmonitor.de, the ICCT concluded that the differences between official laboratory and real-world fuel consumption and CO2 values were around 7% in 2001. This discrepancy has been increasing continuously since then to around 30% in 2013, with notable differences found between individual manufacturers and vehicle models.

As emerging automated vehicle technology is making advances in safety and reliability, engineers are also exploring improvements in energy efficiency with this new paradigm. Powertrain efficiency receives due attention, but also impactful is finding ways to reduce driving losses in coordinated-driving scenarios. Efforts focused on simulation to quantify road load improvements require a sufficient amount of background validation work to support them. This study uses a practical approach to directly quantify road load changes by testing the coordinated driving of two vehicles on a test track at various speeds (64, 88, 113 km/h) and vehicle time gaps (0.3 to 1.3 s). Axle torque sensors were used to directly measure the load required to maintain steady-state speeds while following a lead vehicle at various gap distances.

Many leading companies in the automotive industry have been putting tremendous amount of efforts into developing new designs and technologies to make their products more energy efficient. It is straightforward to evaluate the fuel economy benefit of an individual technology in specific systems and components. However, when multiple technologies are combined and integrated into a whole vehicle, estimating the impact without building and testing an actual vehicle becomes very complex, because the efficiency gains from individual components do not simply add up. In an early concept phase, a projection of fuel efficiency benefits from new technologies will be extremely useful; but in many cases, the outlook has to rely on engineer’s insight since it is impractical to run tests for all possible technology combinations.

Many problems are associated with applying standardized vehicle test methods, such as the Federal Test Procedure (FTP), to hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). Since 1992, the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE's) HEV Test Procedure Task Force has been working on developing a standard procedure for HEV testing (Draft SAE J1711). Because the current draft requires considerable knowledge of the vehicle's response to the test cycles, still has unresolved problems, and is too lengthy, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) uses portions of past J1711 drafts in combination with concepts developed through many HEV tests (over 50 to date) for its HEV competition testing. Successful vehicle characterization was achieved at the 1997 FutureCar Challenge competition by characterizing each vehicle's individual operational modes in such a way that the elements of the FTP and Federal Highway Test were satisfied.

Reductions in vehicle drive losses are as important to improving fuel economy as increases in powertrain efficiencies. In order to measure vehicle fuel economy, chassis dynamometer testing relies on accurate road load determinations. Road load is currently determined (with some exceptions) using established test track coastdown testing procedures. Because new vehicle technologies and usage cases challenge the accuracy and applicability of these procedures, on-road experiments were conducted using axle torque sensors to address the suitability of the test procedures in determining vehicle road loads in specific cases. Whereas coastdown testing can use vehicle deceleration to determine load, steady-state testing can offer advantages in validating road load coefficients for vehicles with no mechanical neutral gear (such as plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles).

Vehicle emissions and fuel economy testing applications rely on accurate sensors to track power flow and measure component efficiencies. A non-intrusive in-vehicle torque sensor has been implemented in a hybrid powertrain to directly measure engine torque. Previously used off-the-shelf torque sensors required additional mechanical space, and so chassis modifications were needed to accommodate the sensor, which potentially limited the vehicle to only dynamometer testing. The challenges in implementing this type of sensor in automotive environments are described in detail, as are sensor capabilities and test results.

Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) owners have reported significantly lower fuel economy than the published estimates. Under on-road driving conditions, vehicle acceleration, speed, and stop time differ from those on the normalized test procedures. To explain the sensitivity, several vehicles, both conventional and hybrid electric, were tested at Argonne National Laboratory. The tests demonstrated that the fuel economy of Prius MY04 was more sensitive to drive-cycle variations. However, because of the difficulty in instrumenting every component, an in-depth analysis and quantification of the reasons behind the higher sensitivity was not possible. In this paper, we will use validated models of the tested vehicles and reproduce the trends observed during testing. Using PSAT, the FreedomCAR vehicle simulation tool, we will quantify the impact of the main component parameters, including component efficiency and regenerative braking.

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) have demonstrated the potential to provide significant reduction in fuel use across a wide range of dynamometer test driving cycles. Companies and research organizations are involved in numerous research activities related to PHEVs. One of the current unknowns is the impact of driving behavior and standard test procedure on the true benefits of PHEVs from a worldwide perspective. To address this issue, five different PHEV powertrain configurations (input split, parallel, series, series-output split and series-parallel), implemented on vehicles with different all-electric ranges (AERs), were analyzed on three different standard cycles (i.e., Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule, Highway Fuel Economy Test, and New European Driving Cycle). Component sizes, manufacturing cost, and fuel consumption were analyzed for a midsize car in model year 2020 through the use of vehicle system simulations.

Their high fuel economy is making light-duty vehicles with spark-ignition direct-injection (SIDI) engines attractive. However, the implications for exhaust emissions and the effects of fuel quality on emissions are not clear for this type of engine. A Mitsubishi Legnum with a 1.8-L GDI™ engine was tested on federal test procedure (FTP) and highway fuel economy cycles. The results were compared with those for a production Dodge Neon vehicle with a 2.0-L port fuel-injection (PFI) engine. The Mitsubishi was tested with Indolene, Amoco Premium Ultimate, and a low-sulfur gasoline. The Neon was tested only with Indolene. Both engine-out and tailpipe emissions were measured. Second-by-second emissions and hydrocarbon speciation were also evaluated. The SIDI engine provided up to 24% better fuel economy than the PFI engine on the highway cycle. Tailpipe emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from the SIDI vehicle using low-sulfur fuel were 40% less than those when using Indolene.

Response Surface Methodology (RSM) techniques are applied to develop brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) maps of a test vehicle over standard drive cycles under various ambient conditions. This technique allows for modeling and predicting fuel consumption of an engine as a function of engine operating conditions. Results will be shown from Federal Test Procedure engine starts of 20°C, and colder conditions of -7°C. Fueling rates under a broad range of engine temperatures are presented. Analysis comparing oil and engine coolant as an input factor of the model is conducted. Analysis comparing the model to experimental datasets, as well as some details into the modeling development, will be presented. Although the methodology was applied to data collected from a vehicle, the same technique could be applied to engines run on dynamometers.

To restrain the environmental and energy problems caused by oil consumption and improve fuel economy of heavy-duty commercial vehicles, China started developing relevant standards from 2008. This paper introduces the background and development of China's national standard “Fuel consumption test methods for heavy-duty commercial vehicles”, and mainly describes the test method schemes, driving cycle and weighting factors for calculating average fuel consumption of various vehicle categories. The standard applies to heavy-duty vehicles with the maximum design gross mass greater than 3500 kg, including semi-trailer tractors, common trucks, dump trucks, city buses and common buses. The standard adopts the C-WTVC driving cycle which is adjusted on the basis of the World Transient Vehicle Cycle[1, 2] and specifies weighting factors of urban, rural and motorway segments for different vehicle categories.

As vehicle technology progresses to new levels of sophistication, so too, vehicle test methods must evolve. This is true for analytical testing in a laboratory and for on-road vehicle testing. Every year since 1993, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) sponsors have organized a series of competitions featuring advanced hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) technology to develop and promote DOE goals in fuel savings and alternative fuel usage. The competition has evolved over many years and has included many alternative fuels feeding the prime mover (including hydrogen fuel cells). EcoCAR turned its focus to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and it was quickly realized that to keep using on-road testing methods to evaluate fuel and electricity consumption, a new method needed to be developed that would properly weight depleting operation with the sustaining operation, using the established Utility Factor (UF) method.

SunDiesel fuel is a biomass-to-liquid (BTL) fuel that may have certain attributes different from conventional diesel. In this investigation, 100% SunDiesel was tested both in a Mercedes A-Class (MY1999) diesel vehicle and a single-cylinder heavy-duty compression-ignition direct-injection engine. The SunDiesel's emissions and fuel consumption were significantly better than conventional diesel fuel, especially in nitrogen oxides (NOx) reduction. In the vehicle U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Test Procedure 75 (FTP-75), and New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) tests, the carbon dioxide emissions on a mile basis (g/mile) from SunDiesel fuel were almost 10% lower than the conventional diesel fuel. Similarly, in the single-cylinder engine steady-state tests, the reductions in brake specific NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) are equally significant. Combustion analysis, though not conclusive, indicates that there are differences deserving further research.

As one of the U.S Department of Energy's (DOE's) vehicle systems benchmarking partners, Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) has tested many plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) conversions and purpose-built prototype vehicles. The procedures for testing follow draft SAE J1711 and California Air Resources Board (CARB) test concepts and calculation methods. This paper explains the testing procedures and calculates important parameters. It describes some parameters, such as cycle charge-depleting range, actual charge-depleting range, electric range fraction, equivalent all-electric range, and utility factor-weighted fuel economy.

Research in plug in vehicles (PHEV and BEV) has of course been ongoing for decades, however now that these vehicles are finally being produced for a mass market an intense focus over the last few years has been given to proper evaluation techniques and standard information to effectively convey efficiency information to potential consumers. The first challenge is the development of suitable test procedures. Thanks to many contributions from SAE members, these test procedures have been developed for PHEVs (SAE J1711 now available) and are under development for BEVs (SAE J1634 available later this year). A bigger challenge, however, is taking the outputs of these test results and dealing with the issue of off-board electrical energy consumption in the context of decades-long consumer understanding of MPG as the chief figure of merit for vehicle efficiency.

This paper determines the impact of ambient temperature on energy consumption of a variety of vehicles in the laboratory. Several conventional vehicles, several hybrid electric vehicles, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle and a battery electric vehicle were tested for fuel and energy consumption under test cell conditions of 20°F, 72°F and 95°F with 850 W/m₂ of emulated radiant solar energy on the UDDS, HWFET and US06 drive cycles. At 20°F, the energy consumption increase compared to 72°F ranges from 2% to 100%. The largest increases in energy consumption occur during a cold start, when the powertrain losses are highest, but once the powertrains reach their operating temperatures, the energy consumption increases are decreased. At 95°F, the energy consumption increase ranges from 2% to 70%, and these increases are due to the extra energy required to run the air-conditioning system to maintain 72°F cabin temperatures.