Powertrain Control and Optimization for Future Fuel

Denver, May 15th, 2015

Powertrain Control and

Optimization for Future Fuel

Efficiency

Dr. Dean Tomazic

EVP & CTO

FEV North America Inc.

Intersection of Powertrain Innovation for Improving Future

Vehicle Fuel Efficiency and Connected Autonomous Vehicles

© by FEV – all rights reserved. Confidential – no passing on to third parties

Powertrain Control and Optimization for Future Fuel Efficiency

Agenda

2

1. Introduction

2. Potential of Powertrain Technologies

3. Potential of Vehicle Connectivity

4. Summary and Outlook

5. Discussion



Key Drivers

3

Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions Downsizing, Downspeeding, GTDI, Friction Reduction, Combustion Optimization, etc.

Fuels Increased Share of Biofuels (e.g., Ethanol (Corn, Algae, Cellulosic), Biodiesel, CNG, etc.)

Reliability and Affordability TCO for Consumer

Emissions SULEV Average w/ Stoichiometric and (Stratified) Lean-Burn Combustion Systems

© by FEV – all rights reserved. Confidential – no passing on to third parties 4

U.S. – Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (GVW < 6,000lbs)

Source: Delphi, FEV Research

2005 06 07 08 09 2010 11 12 13 14 2015 16 17 18 19 2020 21 22 23 24 2025

Fuel mpg

CO2 g/mi

NOx g/mi

CO g/mi

PM g/mi

NOx

g/mi

CO g/mi

PM g/mi

PC: 33.8 39.5

LT: 25.7 28.8

From 0.2 (Bin 8) - 0.02 (Bin 2) Phase-In

Tier II

U.S.

Federal

California

Fuel

Economy

U.S. CAFE Standards

PC 27.5mpg / LT 22.2 mpg

Tier III – Phase

In

0.02 (Bin 7-8) - 0.01 (Bin 1-6)

4.2 (Bin 5-8) - 2.1 (Bin 2-4)

0.07 (LEV, ULEV) - 0.02 (SULEV) Combined NMOG&NOx limit ramp down

4.2 (LEV), 2.1 (ULEV), 1.0 (SULEV)

0.01

PM ramp down

Tier III

0.07g/mi NOx fleet average

Phase-In

LEV II LEV III – Phase In

Durability Increase to 150k mi

+ 3 new low emission categories

SULEV-level

emission average

FE I FE 2

Combined Fleet Average

PC: 5% p.a./LT: 3.5%-5%p.a. 35.5 54.5

PC/LD1: 323 205

LD2/MDPV: 439 332

California AB 1493

PC: 5% p.a./LT: 3.5%-5%p.a. 163

Coordinated Approach Minimum ZEV Requirements:

MY 15-17: 14%, MY18+: 16%

0.03 NMOG+NOx

0.003

NHTSA

EPA

0.03 NMOG+NOx

0.003

1.0

LEV III

CO limit ramp down

0.001

Combined NMOG&NOx limit ramp down

CO limit ramp down 1.0

Tier III

emission average

PM ramp down

250


U.S. Emissions, FE and CO2 Legislation



Agenda

5

1. Introduction




5. Discussion


Example:

Three-Cylinder GTDI

• Best in class BSFC

• Variable valve lift

• Friction optimized

• State-of-the-art combustion

• Optimized air and exhaust

management

norm. to calor. val.=42.5 MJ/kg

- SI engines- Production state- Model year > 1997

Brake Specific Fuel Consumption

2000 rpm / BMEP = 2 bar

BS

FC

/ (

g/k

Wh)

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

Engine displacement / cm³

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Scatter bandFEV

Friction optimized + VVL

Benchmark

Friction optimized

Friction optimized + CVVL + Miller

Scatterband includes CDA

B

S

F

C

BS

FC

/ (

g/k

Wh)


Development Trends – Gasoline Engines


eccentric lever

support rod

(mass forces)

support piston

(mass forces)

support rod

(gas forces)

shift valve

check valve

check valve

Working Principle:

support piston

(gas forces)


Development Trends – Variable Compression Ratio (VCR)



Development Trends – Variable Compression Ratio (VCR)


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

0

40

80

120

160

200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

350

700

1050

1400

1750

2100

2450

CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns /

g/k

m

Vehic

le s

peed (

NE

DC

) /

km

/h

Vehicle class D - large cars

Vehicle class E - executive cars

Vehicle class J - SUV

Fuel consumption simulation

1.8 l 4-cyl TGDI engine

RON 95, CR = 9.3

RON 102, CR =11.5

Cum

ula

ted C

O2 e

mis

sio

ns /

g

Time / s

Vehicle CO2 emissions can be reduced by ~ 3 – 5 % with high octane fuels and

adapted engines with increased compression ratio


Development Trends – VCR and RON Potential


C1/Port #2 C2/Port #4

360 450 540 630 720-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

690 700 710 720-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

Chrysler Voyager

6000 rpm, WOT

port TC 1

port TC 2

port TC 3

port TC 4

crank angle/ °

Tum

ble

/ -

6000 WOT

crank angle/ °

360 450 540 630 720-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

690 700 710 720-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

Chrysler Voyager

6000 rpm, WOT

port TC 1

port TC 2

port TC 3

port TC 4

crank angle/ °

Tum

ble

/ -

6000 WOT

crank angle/ °

C1/Port #1

C1/Port #2

C1/Port #3

C2/Port #4

Decreased mass

flow over the

backside of the

valve (better

separation of the

flow)

@460 °CA

High mass flow

over front side

following head

contour

Robust

tumble

structure

0 150 [m/s]


Development Trends – Combustion System Development (CMD Process)



Development Trends – Closed Loop Combustion Control (CLCC)



Development Trends – Closed Loop Combustion Control (CLCC)

US06 - Combustion control effect on engine out

emissions

0.680.46

3.16

0.67 0.53

3.86

0.0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4.0

4.8

NOx THC CO

Em

iss

ion

s [

g/m

ile

] Combustion control ON

BASE - No combustion control

Fuel Economy [miles/gallon]

29.09

28.02

26.0

26.5

27.0

27.5

28.0

28.5

29.0

29.5

30.0

FC [mpg]


FTP75 and US06 are more wide spread compared to NEDC.

The WLTP is closer to US cycles.

Pow

er

[kW

]

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NEDC

Pow

er

[kW

]

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

FTP75

Pow

er

[kW

]

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Engine Speed [rpm]

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

WLTPP

ow

er

[kW

]

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Engine Speed [rpm]

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

US06


Development Trends – Standard Test Cycles vs. Real World

Real

World

Driving?


Vehicle Emission Testing: FTP 75 C/H, Exhaust Temperatures

3.0L, Stratified Lean 3.0L, Turbo DI

[de

g C

]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

Time [s]

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600

Exhaust Port, Turbine Inlet Temperatures

Turbine Inlet Temp, Bank 1 (3.0L turbo DI) Turbine Inlet Temp, Bank 2 (3.0L turbo DI) Exhaust Port 1 Exhaust Port 2 Exhaust Port 3 Exhaust Port 4 Exhaust Port 5 Exhaust Port 6

1st stratified operation: 265 sec.

Vehicle Emission Testing: FTP 75 C/H, Exhaust Temperatures

3.0L, Stratified Lean 3.0L, Turbo DI

[de

g C

]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

Time [s]

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600

Exhaust Port, Turbine Inlet Temperatures

Turbine Inlet Temp, Bank 1 (3.0L turbo DI) Turbine Inlet Temp, Bank 2 (3.0L turbo DI) Exhaust Port 1 Exhaust Port 2 Exhaust Port 3 Exhaust Port 4 Exhaust Port 5 Exhaust Port 6

1st stratified operation: 265 sec.


Development Trends – FTP-75 Exhaust Gas Temperatures (Gasoline)


2.3L PFI, T/C - Tier 2, Bin 5 / LEV-II ULEV3.0L Stratified Lean - Euro 42.4L GDI, N/A - Tier 2, Bin 5 / LEV-II ULEV2.0L GTDI, T/C - Tier 2, Bin 5 / LEV-II ULEV1.8L PFI, N/A - Tier 2, Bin 5 / LEV-II ULEV

[º C

]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

Time [s]

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Close-Coupled Catalyst Temperatures (Midbed)

3.0L Stratified Lean CCC (front bank) 2.4L GDI, N/A 2.0L GTDI, T/C 2.3L PFI, T/C CCC Brick 1 1.8L PFI, N/A

Vehicle Cold Start Testing: FTP 75 C/H, 25º C

Dotted - InletSolid - Midbed

2007 2.3L PFI, T/C - CCC+UBC2008 3.0L Stratified Lean - CCC+UBC2011 2.4L GDI, N/A - UBC Only2011 2.0L GTDI, T/C - UBC Only2012 1.8L PFI, N/A - UBC Only


Development Trends – Cold Start Exhaust Gas Temperatures (Gasoline)

Factor 10 !!!



Development Trends – Lambda Control (Gasoline)

Lambda Control Conclusion

Lambda controller typically consists

of a feed forward controller

combined with a feedback loop

control principle

As the closed loop part is driven by

deviation, an error has to occur

before corrective measures are

taken

The integrated absolute deviation

between target lambda and actual

lambda shows performance of the

lambda controller, ideal this would

be zero

Better open loop control could

reduce the CO2 emissions

Sp

eed

[km

/h]

0

25

50

75

100

time [s]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Inte

gra

ted

lam

bd

a d

iff.

[-]

075

150225300375450525600675750825

lam

bd

a [

-]

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

time [s]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

lam

bd

a [

-]

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

time [s]

340 350 360 370

actual lambda target lambda



Development Trends – Thermal Management Options (Gasoline)


… Battery Electric

Vehicles

Micro

Hybrid

Mild Hybrid Full Hybrid Plug-In Hybrid

Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Gear Box

Fuel Tank

Conventional

Vehicles

Transmission Impact

Increasing electrical power

Start-Stop & Intelligent Energy Management

+ Kinetic Energy Recovery & Boosting

+ Electric Drive

+ Plug-In/REX

Complexity Transmission Complexity ICE

Downsizing

Diesel and

Gasoline

NA Engine, Atkinson Battery size/price CO2-Emissions

Gasoline Atkinson Gasoline NA

Battery


Development Trends - Hybridization


Introduction to Waste-Heat Recovery Technologies

Thermoelectric

Generator (TEG) Turbocompound

Organic Rankine

Cycle (ORC)

The Rankine Cycle

is a thermodynamic

cycle that converts

heat into work

The heat is

supplied externally

to a closed loop,

which uses water or

another fluid as

working fluid.

A turbine recovers

energy from the

exhaust gas

Three main forms:

Mechanical

Turbocompound,

Electric

turbocharger,

Turbogenerator

Temperature

difference between

the hot and cold

surfaces of the

thermoelectric

module(s)

generates electricity

using the Seebeck

Effect


Development Trends – Waste Heat Recovery



Agenda

20

1. Introduction




5. Discussion



Potential of Vehicle Connectivity

Potential Scenario and Benefits:

Establish intelligent connection unit/service (iCU/iCS)

Cloud services for different applications

Collection of data from various vehicles

(swarm intelligence) predictive behavior

Intelligent algorithms to combine different data

sources incl. potential updates over V2X

Added value for driver, infrastructure and society

Cloud data iCS

Smart

Driving

iCS

Smart

Logistic iCS

Smart

City

V2V

V2V

DSRC

Vehicle data

iCU iCU

LTE / 5G

Vehicle data

GPS

ECU

TCU

ESP

BMU

ADAS

GPS

ECU

TCU

ESP

VCU

Vehicle data ADAS

Source: DAF, BMW



Agenda

22

1. Introduction




5. Discussion



Summary and Outlook

23

• Significant improvement of fuel economy and emissions based on legislation

are impetuous yet mandatory.

• Engine technologies in combination with advanced controls in the field of

engines, transmissions, aftertreatment, hybridization, thermal management,

etc., offer significant potential for improvement beyond the current state-of-the-

art allowing to meet the legislated targets for 2025.

• In addition, vehicle connectivity provides additional potential which, when

properly applied, further improves vehicle fuel economy while simultaneously

improving driving comfort and vehicle/passenger safety.

• More work in the area of powertrain and vehicle connectivity is required to not

only achieve improvement in their corresponding fields but also to connect the

two with each other allowing to maximize the gain in overall vehicle fuel

economy.

Documents

Powertrain Control and Optimization for Future Fuel