Search Results

This is an extension of simple fuel consumption modeling toward HEV. Previous work showed that in urban driving the overhead of running an ICEV engine can use as much fuel as the traction work. The bidirectional character and high efficiency of electric motors enables HEVs to run as a BEV at negative and low traction powers, with no net input from the small battery. The ICE provides the net work at higher traction powers where it is most efficient. Whereas the network reduction is the total negative work times the system round-trip efficiency, the reduction in engine running time requires knowledge of the distribution of traction power levels. The traction power histogram, and the work histogram derived from it, provide the required drive cycle description. The traction power is normalized by vehicle mass, so that the drive trace component becomes invariant, and the road load component nearly invariant to vehicle mass.

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.

Previously fuel consumption on a drive cycle has been shown to be proportional to traction work, with an offset for powertrain losses. This model had different transfer functions for different drive cycles, performance levels, and applied powertrain technologies. Following Soltic it is shown that if fuel usage and traction work are both expressed in terms of cycle average power, a wide range of drive cycles collapse to a single transfer function, where cycle average traction power captures the drive cycle and the vehicle size. If this transfer function is then normalized by weight, i.e. by working in cycle average power/weight (P/W), a linear model is obtained where the offset is mainly a function of rated performance and applied technology. A final normalization by rated power/weight as the primary performance metric further collapses the data to express the cycle average fuel power/rated power ratio as a function of cycle average traction power/rated power ratio.