1. Master's Thesis

Embed Size (px)

Text of 1. Master's Thesis

  1. 1. ANALYTICAI, DESIGN OF A PARALLEL HYBRID ELECTRIC POWERTRAIN FOR SPORTS UTILITY VEHICLES AND HEAVY TRUCKS A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Fritz J. and Dolores H.Russ College of Engineering and Technology Ohio University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Science by Madhava Rao Madireddy March. 2003 OHIOUNIVERSITY LIBRARY
  2. 2. lahle of'Contents: Chapter 1Introduction 6:Bachgl-ound 1 1 Iiltroductio~l 1 2 Purpose of Research 1 3 Ser~esand Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicles Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Currellt State of ai-t in Hybrid Electric Vehicles 2 1.1 Production HEVs available for purchase 111 inoclel year 2001 2 1 2 Efforts of Big Three for I-Iybi-idizationof SUVs, cars and trucks 2.1 3 Current Research and Developlneilt efforts for Hybridization of SlJVs 2 1 3 Cu1-1-entResearch and developinent efforts for Hybridization of heavy vehicles 2 2 S~inulatioilSoftware for HEVs 2 3 Related Research Work 2 3 Hqbridl~ationstudies Using ADVISOR Chapter 3 I~itroductionto ADVISOR 3 1 l~ltroductionto ADVISOR 3 2 LTsiilg ADVISOR 3 2 i Defining a Vehicle 3 2 2 Ruil~li~lga Simulatioll
  3. 3. 3.2.3 Lookii~gat Results Chapter 4 Powertrain Specifications 4.1 Scaling the Vehicle Cornpollents 4.2 Engine, Motor and Battery Specifications 4.2 1 SUV SI Engine Specifications 4.2.2 Heavy Truck CI Eilgille Specifications 4.2.3 Motor Specifications 4.2.4 Battery Specificatioils 4.2.5 The problem of SOC Chapter 5 Design Methodology 5.1 Overall goal of the study 5.2 Design Teclmique elnployed 5.2.1 Teclx~icalOptimizatioil 5.2.2 Cost Based Optiniization Chapter 6 Simulation, Results and Conclusion 6.1 Control Strategy enlployed 6.2 Simulation and results for average SUV 6.3 Simulation and results for full-size SUV 6.4 Simulation and results for heavy trucks 6.5 Conclusio~l 6.6 Recomil~endationsfor fui-ther si~liulat~onstudies
  4. 4. References Bibliography and Recommended Readings Appendices ADVISOR Documentatioll JIatlab Files
  5. 5. List of Figures: 1.1Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle 1.2Parallel H~.bridElectric Vehicle 2 2 Toljota Pnus 2 3 Diii~nlerClxysler Citadel 2 4 Dailnler Cluysler ESX3 2 5 Ford Escape HEV 1.6 The GM Precept 2.7 Llitsubishi HV 2.8 Nissan Tino HEV 2.9 Dodge Duranyo 2.10 Ford Prodigy 2.1 1 Transit Bus 2.12.Sterling AT 2500 2.13 Kelln ol-th 800 3.1 Vehicle Input Figure in ADVISOR 3 2 Sinlulation Set Up Figure in ADVISOR 3 3 ADVISOR Results Figure 4.1 SIEngine Torque Speed Characteristics 47 ClEngine Torque Speed Characteristics 4.34Zotor Torque Speed Characteristics
  6. 6. vii 4.3 Panasonic 12V/3SA4HRSealed Lead Acid battery 37 4.5 Battery Open Circuit Voltage Characteristics 40 4.5 Battery Instalitaneous Power vs. SOC 41 6.1 Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Drive Cycle 47 6.2 Fuel Econoniy (mpg) vs. percent hybridization for an average SLY 49 6.3 Acceleration tinie (060111ph) VS. percent hybridization @ different charge 50 capacities of tlie batteries for an average SUV 6.3 Net Value (Combined Fuel Econoniy and Perfomn~ance)vs. percent 51 llybridization for an average SUV 6.5 Cost of Average SUV vs. percent hybridization. 52 6.6 Components of Cost Optimization for average SLY with 25 battery lilodules 53 6.7 Net Value with Cost Consideration vs. percent hybridization 51 6.8 Coillparison of Teclu~icaland Cost Optiiliizatio~lsfor average Sb'V with 55 25 battery n~odules 6.9 Colnpollellts of Cost Opti~liizatioiifor average SLV with 25 battery 56 modules and with low cost batteries 6.10 The Effect of Low Cost Batteries for an average SUV 57 6.11 (a) Teclulical Ket Value Change due to tlie variation in Weighing Factors 58 6.11 (b) Cost Optimized h'et Value Cl-iangedue to the variation in 59 Weighing Factors 6.12 Fuel Economy (mpg) vs. percent hybridization for full size SUV 61 6.13 .4cceleration time vs. percent hybridization for full size SLV 61
  7. 7. ... Vlll 6.14 Net Value (Teclmical) vs. percent hybridization for full size SLV 6.15 Cost of f~lllsize SUV vs. percent h~~bridizationfor full size SLW 6.16 Componeilts of Cost Optiillizatioil for full size SUV with 25 n~odules 6.17Net Value (Cost Optimization) vs. percent hybridization for Full size SUV 6.18 Components of Cost Optinlization for full size SLW with 25 nlodules 6.19 JiYINTER Drive Cycle 6 20 Fuel Economy (inpg) vs. percent hybridization for heavy trucks 6.21 .Acceleration tiine (0 6O111ph) vs. percent l~ybridizationfor heavy trucks 6.23Set Value (Technical Optimization) vs. percent hybridization for heavy trucks 6.23 Cost of heavy truck vs. percent hybridization. 6.24 Co~llpoilentsof Cost Optiillization for heavy tiuck 6.25 Net V a l ~ ~ e(Cost Optimization) vs. percent hybridization for heavy trucks 6.26 Components of Cost Optimization for heavy tn~cliwith low cost batteries 6.27 Effect of low cost batteries on the net value of heavy truck A.1 .cceleration Test Ada anced Optioils window A 2 Pdrainetrlc Results Figure in L4D71SOR
  8. 8. List of Tables: 6.1 Results from ADVISOR for a 150kW powered average SUV 6.2 Results from ADVISOR for a 200KW powered Full Size SUV 6.3 Results from ADVISOR for a 400 KW powered heavy truck
  9. 9. S ~ m b o l sand Abbreviations: ADVISOR Advanced Vehicular Simulator APC Auxiliary Power Unit A11 CI DOE Elph EP.4 EV FTP HEV HV HVEC 1C ICE MPG 1IPH PKGV SI soc SLV TDES UDDS V Elph SULEV ZEV Ampere Hour Colnpressio~lIgnition Department of Energy Electrically Peaking Hybrid Envirolu~~entalProtection Agency Electric Vehicle Federal Test Procedure Hybrid Electric Vehicle Hybrid Vehicle Hybrid Vehicle Evaluation Code Internal Combustion Intelnal Combustioll Ellgiile Miles Per Gallon (gasoline equivalent) Miles Per Hour Partnership of New Generation of Vehicles Spark Ignition State of Charge Sports Utility Vehicles Turbo Diesel Engine Sin~ulatio~l Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule Versatile Electrically Pealting Hybrid Super Ultra Low E~nissionVehicle Zero Emission Vehicles
  10. 10. Chapter 1: Introduction C ! Background 1.1 Introduction Con.entional internal combustion (IC) engine driven power trains have several disadvantages that negatively affect fuel economy and en~issions.Specifically, IC engines ;Ire tqpically oversized by roughly ten times to meet perfolmance targets, such as acceleration and starting gradeability (Moore, 1996). This moves the cruising operating point away from the optimal operation point (Gao et al., 1997). Moreover, an engine cannot be optimized for all the speed and load ranges under which it must operate (Moore, 1996). One viable solution to these problems is the use of a hybrid electric power train that decouples the ICengine fi-om peak requirements, thus reducing the demands on the engine map. 1.2 Purpose of the Research: In the conventional veliicles~the entire power is derived from the IC engine. The fuel economy can be in~provedif we replace a part of the power by the motor powered by the batteries. But the initial purchase cost will shoot up because of the batteries and motor. The percentage of the n~otorpower out of the total power is defined as Percent Hybridization. The basic objective of this study is to ai-rive at a percent hybridization for a considered power Ie el to trade off fuel econonly with perf01-mance (ability to accelerate quickly: g-adeability) 2nd initial cost of the vehicle.
  11. 11. 1.3 Series and Parallel E-IEV's A hybl-id electric vehicle (HEV) combines at least t?fosources of propulsion, one of them being electric. Hybrid power production options include spark ignition engines, colllpression igilition direct illjectioil engines, gas turbines, and fuel cells. The primary options for energy storage include batteries, ultra capacitors, and flpheels. -4 typical hybrid electric ,chicle combines the illtenla1 conlbustion engine of a con~.entionalvehicle with the batteries and electric motor of an electric vehicle. There are tlpically hvo configurations of hybrid electric vehicles. They are series and parallel. In a serles l~ybndelectnc ~ehicle(Fig 1 I), the nlotor dnhes the uheeis and the intenla1 col~lbustloilengine IS not connected to the 1511eels hvith any mechanical connection Generator Motor 'Controller Fig 1.1 Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle All the drive to the wheels is supplied from the electric lllotor that is supplied ~vit11power fro111 the batteries. The batteries ixay be cl~argedby the internal con~bustionengine. The pon,zr unit or rhe IC engil~ein series hybrid electric vehicle is efficient with lower emissions
  12. 12. 3 than thaz in a parallel hybrid because ~tcan operate constantly at its optinlum effic~encqpoint since ir is conipletely decoupled fro111 the load. However, the series hybrids drive lll
  13. 13. 4 motor call provide suppleilieiltary power for the vehicle during initial acceleration and gradeability (moviilg along a gradient or uphill) requirements. Tlie i ~ ~ o t o racts as a generator to recapture tlie braking energy and charges the batteries. In case of overheating, the IC engine can even be tuilled off because there is an auxiliary power source for prop~llsion (though for a liiliited range). The parallel hybrid electric drive train perfoims similar to a ion.e~itionalvehicle drive train as the engine is directly connected to the transmission. Coiisumers call have the driving feel of a conr~entionalvehicle and hence tlie manufacturers caii nlarket this easily. The parallel electric assist control strategy eiilployed by ADVISOR uses the iilotor for additional poLver when needed by the vehicle and rnaiiltaiils charge in the batteries. The parallel assist strategy can use the electric inotor in a variety of ways: 1. The niotor caii be used for all driving torque below a certain minimun~veliicle speed. 2. The motor is used for torque assist if the required torque is greater than the maximum producible by tlie eligiile at the engine's operating speed. 3. Tlie motor charges the batteries by regenerative bra