Efficiency Technology Advancements - John German
•
2 likes•1,481 views
Armonización de políticas para vehículos ligeros nuevos en América del Norte: Estándares de eficiencia energética, gases de efecto invernadero y contaminantes criterio 7/9/2014-7/10/2014 Mexico City
![2!
Passenger Car Fuel Economy Standards
Globally!
U.S. 2025: 20.9
Canada 2025: 20.9
EU 2020: 25.8
Japan 2020: 23.4
China 2020: 21.3
S. Korea 2015: 16.7
Mexico 2016 : 14.6
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Kilometers per Liter of Gasoline Equivalent
Normalized to US CAFE Test Cycle
US-LDV
Canada-LDV
EU
Japan
China
S. Korea
India
Mexico-LDV
Solid markers and solid lines: historical performance
Solid markers and dashed lines: final standard
Hollow markers and dotted lines: proposal or target under study
[1]$China's$target$reflects$gasoline$vehicles$only.$The$target$may$be$higher$a:er$new$energy$vehicles$are$considered.$$
[2]$US,$Canada,$and$Mexico$lightCduty$vehicles$include$lightCcommercial$vehicles.$
[3]$Mexico$does$not$include$early$acFon$credits$for$MYs$2012$and$2013$but$does$include$full$applicaFon$of$other$credits.!
$
!
!!]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Efficiency Technology Advancements - John German
Similar to Efficiency Technology Advancements - John German (20)
More from International Council on Clean Transportation
More from International Council on Clean Transportation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Efficiency Technology Advancements - John German
- 1. Efficiency Technology Advancements John German, ICCT! July 9, 2014!
- 2. 2! Passenger Car Fuel Economy Standards Globally! U.S. 2025: 20.9 Canada 2025: 20.9 EU 2020: 25.8 Japan 2020: 23.4 China 2020: 21.3 S. Korea 2015: 16.7 Mexico 2016 : 14.6 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Kilometers per Liter of Gasoline Equivalent Normalized to US CAFE Test Cycle US-LDV Canada-LDV EU Japan China S. Korea India Mexico-LDV Solid markers and solid lines: historical performance Solid markers and dashed lines: final standard Hollow markers and dotted lines: proposal or target under study [1]$China's$target$reflects$gasoline$vehicles$only.$The$target$may$be$higher$a:er$new$energy$vehicles$are$considered.$$ [2]$US,$Canada,$and$Mexico$lightCduty$vehicles$include$lightCcommercial$vehicles.$ [3]$Mexico$does$not$include$early$acFon$credits$for$MYs$2012$and$2013$but$does$include$full$applicaFon$of$other$credits.! $ ! !!
- 3. Role of Fuel Economy Standards in Managing Performance – Fuel Consumption Tradeoff: US Example! 3! 1975 1976 Acceleration (0-100 kmph) in Seconds for Cars and Wagon 1975-2013 Phase I 1978 1977 1979 1980 1981 1982 1984 Phase II 1983 1986 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Phase III 2012 2013 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Phase IV? Phase I (1975-1981): Fuel consumption reduction takes priority over performance Phase II (1982-1987): Marginal gains in fuel consumption reduction and performance Phase III (1987-2006): Performance gains take priority over fuel consumption reduction Phase IV (2007-?): Fuel consumption reduction takes priority over performance again Data from EPA 2013 Fuel Economy Trends Report 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Fuel Consumption (l/100km)
- 4. 4! Technology Deployment Spurred by Fuel Economy Standards!
- 5. Opportunities for Vehicle Efficiency Improvements! Standby:! 6%! Engine! Engine Loss! 74%! Driveline! Driveline! Losses:! 4%! Aero:! 4%! Rolling:! 5%! Braking:! 7%! Fuel Tank:! 100%! 20%! 16%! » Matt Kromer! Urban Drive Cycle, 2005 2.5L Toyota Camry!
- 6. The Real Technology Breakthrough! ! ! !Computers! ! Computer design, computer simulations, and on-vehicle computer controls are revolutionizing vehicles and powertrains! ! Especially important for lightweight materials! ! Optimize hundreds of parts – size and material! ! Capture secondary weight – and cost – reductions ! ! The high losses in the internal combustion engine are an opportunity for improvement! ! Also reducing size and cost of hybrid system! 6!
- 7. A broad suite of cost-effective technology packages are available to meet upcoming efficiency standards! • Assessment of US 2012-2025 standards indicates the standards can be met 7! with:! Gasoline direct injection (GDI)! Turbocharged/downsized engines! Advanced transmissions (6-speed/8-speed automatic or dual-clutch transmissions and high efficiency gear box)! Vehicle mass reduction! Lower tire rolling resistance! Improved aerodynamics! Friction reduction! More efficient vehicle accessories! Engine start-stop systems! …..! …..! …..! Some increased hybrids, EVs, PHEVs! • No penetration of diesels or hybrid vehicles necessary to meet US 2016 standards.! • EPA/NHTSA project that MY2025 vehicles will be 90% advanced gasoline, 9% hybrids, and 1% EV/PHEVs!
- 8. Accelerating Technology Introduction in the U.S. is driven by Fuel Economy Regulation! GDI! Turbo! VVT! 6 speed! 7+ speed! CVT! Hybrid! 2004! -! 4%! 43.7%! 5%! 0.4%! 2%! 1%! 2005! -! 2%! 49.4%! 6%! 0.4%! 3%! 2%! 2006! -! 3%! 58.2%! 12%! 2%! 3%! 2%! 2007! -! 4%! 63.3%! 16%! 2%! 10%! 3%! 2008! 3%! 4%! 62.7%! 19%! 3%! 11%! 3%! 2009! 4%! 4%! 79.1%! 19%! 3%! 11%! 3%! 2010! 9%! 4%! 91.8%! 33%! 3%! 14%! 5%! 2011! 18%! 8%! 94.9%! 54%! 5%! 12%! 3%! 2012! 28%! 10%! 97.7%! 58%! 6%! 15%! 5%! 2013! 38%! 16%! 98.0%! 61%! 8%! 17%! 6%! Source: 2013 EPA Fuel Economy Trends Report – Cars only GDI: Gasoline Direct Injection CVT: Continuously Variable Transmission VVT: Variable Valve Timing
- 9. 9! Example of Technology Upgrade: High- Selling Passenger Cars 2010 to 2014! 20! 19! 18! 17! 16! 15! 14! 13! 12! 2016! 2015! 2014! 2013! Mazda 6! i-eLOOP! 3.7! 3.8! 3.9! 4.0! 4.1! 4.2! 4.3! 4.4! 4.5! 4.6! Fuel economy (km/l)! Vehicle footprint (m2)! 2014 4-cylinder sedans! 2010 4-cylinder sedans! Fusion! 2012! Accord! Camry ! Mazda 6! Altima!
- 10. 10 Technology Costs Dropping Rapidly! Technology availability increases - and its costs decrease - over time! ! Incremental vehicle costs and percent improvements versus MY2008 baseline! ! Data from EPA/NHTSA 2012-2016 rulemaking and EPA/NHTSA/CARB TAR for 2020!
- 11. 11! Examples of new/future Technologies!
- 12. Next-generation Gasoline Engines! HCCIEngine 30% Improvement in fuel economy: Honda Prototype Engine Base ( Electro-magnetic valve )
- 13. 20 HCCI 10 0 SI
- 14. Heat release rate Crank angle [ATDC deg] dQ/dθ[J/deg] -40 -20 0 20 40 Requires increasing the self-ignition region Fiat MultiAir Digital Valve Actuation Conventional EX! IN! Negative valve overlap EX! IN! NOL!
- 15. Conversion Turbo Dedicated EGR Engines! ! Highly dilute, low temperature combustion! 180 ! ~1% H2 by volume in the intake! 150 120 ! Advanced ignition POWER (kW) systems required! 90 ! ~40% brake thermal 60 efficiency (similar to diesel)! 30 2.4 L LEA Torque 2.0 L D-EGR Torque 2.4 L LEA Power 2.0 L D-EGR Power ! PSA 2018 introduction! 13! 0 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 ENGINE SPEED (rpm) maximum torque, minimum rpm where maximum torque occurs, Christopher Chadwell, Dr. Terry Alger, Raphael Gukelberger, Jacob Zuehl – Southwest Research Institute, A DEMONSTRATION OF DEDICATED-EGR ON A 2.0 L GDI ENGINE, SAE 2014-01-1190! power were targeted to exceed the reference engine torque and power required the use of two stage boosting
- 16. 14! Lightweight Materials: Costs are dropping rapidly!
- 17. Vehicle Lightweight Research in 2017-25 Rule! ! Technical assessments on mass-reduction involve major studies by national US laboratories, OEM steel suppliers, OEMs with universities! ! Each data point represents a different material/design approach to mass reduction! ! Studies vary in technical rigor, transparency, comprehensiveness, crashworthiness ! EPA projected average vehicle mass would decrease by 7% by 2025! Data from research literature (confiden=al industry data not shown) validation! 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Incremental mass reduc.on 15 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 ‐1.00 cost ($ / lb reduced) EPA/NHTSA ($4.33/lb/%) CARB evalua=on ($2.3/lb/%) Das 2009 Geck 2007 Lotus 2010 Plotkin 2009 Cheah 2007 Percent vehicle curb weight reduc.on Aus=n 2008 EEA 2007 AISI 1998 EEA 2007 Lotus 2010 Das 2010 Das 2008 Das 2008 Bull 2009 NAS 2010 Montalbo 2008 Aus=n 2008 AISI 2001
- 18. Major New Mass-Reduction Work! 16 ! Lotus Engineering (CARB) – Toyota Venza! ! Continuation of 2010 study (-33% mass Toyota Venza)! ! Cost-effective 18-32% mass reduction at $0/vehicle! ! Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation! ! FEV (US EPA) – Toyota Venza! ! Technical assessment of -18% mass at $0/vehicle! ! Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation and detailed tear-down cost assessments! ! EDAG / Electricore (NHTSA) – Honda Accord! ! Technical assessment of -22% mass at $319/vehicle! ! Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation! ! EDAG WorldAutoSteel “Future Steel Vehicle”! ! 12-18% mass reduction, no additional cost, with only using steels! ! George Washington University (NHTSA) – Chevy Silverado! ! 19% mass reduction with advanced plastics, composites! http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crashworthiness/ Plastics/811692.pdf !
- 19. Vehicle lightweighting is highly cost-effective! ! Major new state-of-the-art studies examine advanced materials, parts integration, system-level holistic vehicle redesign! ! High lightweighting potential, crashworthy designs, and diverse highly cost-effective approaches! ! EDAG, FEV, Lotus, and FSV lightweighting cost results are shown below! 1500! 1000! 500! 0! Data from older studies! Data from recent state-of-art studies! Geck%2007% Ford%F150% AusCn%2008% 0%! 5%! 10%! 15%! 20%! 25%! 30%! 35%! -500! Lotus2010 -1000! 17! Incremental cost ($/vehicle)! Percent vehicle curb weight reduction! Das%2009% Cheah%2007% Plotkin%2009% AISI%1998% Das%2010% Das%2008% Das%2008% Bull%2009% NAS%2010% Montalbo%2008% AISI%2001% AusCn%2008% EEA%2007% EEA%2007% Lotus2010 NHTSA EDAG2012 FSV2012 EPAFEV/EDAG2012 Lotus2012 Percent vehicle curb weight reduction!
- 20. Weight Reduction in 2015 Ford F150! Vanguard of a truly radical transformation in how vehicles are designed and built ! The largest selling vehicle in the US! Weight reduction: ! 318 kg, 14%! Engine downsize:! 3.5L to 2.7L! ! First use of aluminum body in high volume production vehicle! 95% of body– Aluminum! 77% of frame– HSS! ! Source: http://www.ford.com/trucks/ f150/2015/!
- 21. Examples of vehicles in production Vehicle make Model year Weight reduction (kg)* Weight reduction (%)* Designed market Ford F150 2015 318 14% US Acura MDX 2014 111 5% US GM Cadillac CTS 2014 111 6% US Peugeot 308 SW Blue Hdi 2014 140 9% EU VW Golf TDI 2015 49 4% EU Audi Q7 2014 363 15% US, EU BMW i3 EV 2014 249 17% US, EU Land Rover Range Rover 2014 350 14% US, EU Porsche Cayenne 2012 181 8% US, EU Audi A8 2014 145 7% US, EU Audi A3 2014 80 6% US, EU Nissan Leaf 2012 80 5% US, EU Lamborghini Huracan 2015 78 5% US, EU Audi TT 3rd gen 2.0 TDI 2015 50 4% US, EU * The weight of new models are compared to its predecessors, except for BMW i3 EV, which is compared to the conventional steel structure.!
- 22. 20! Technology Tear-Down: Robust and Transparent Cost Estimates!
- 23. 21! Significantly improved method to assess CO2 reduction potential and costs of technologies.! US EPA / CARB / ICCT Vehicle computer simulation RICARDO (Detroit) Tear-down cost assessment FEV (Detroit) ICCT Vehicle computer simulation RICARDO (Shoreham + Detroit) Tear-down cost assessment FEV (Aachen + Detroit)
- 24. 22! Significantly improved method to assess CO2 reduction potential and costs of technologies.! US EPA / CARB / ICCT Vehicle computer simulation RICARDO (Detroit) Tear-down cost assessment FEV (Detroit) ICCT Vehicle computer simulation RICARDO (Shoreham + Detroit) Tear-down cost assessment FEV (Aachen + Detroit)
- 25. 23! Ricardo CO2 reduction analysis on behalf of ICCT EPA / NHTSA 2017-25 rulemaking FEV and Lotus Mass Reduction Analyses only where no EU information available FEV cost analysis on behalf of ICCT ! ! Data sources! Methodology! CO2 reduction cost curves for EU vehicle segments (ICCT, Meszler Engineering Services)
- 26. ! ! ! The Final Result! ! Methodology! SS, 1.6l, M5, 136 g/km, 5.6 l Baseline, 1.6l, M5, 156 g/km, 6.4 l 2015 P2 AtkCPS, 1.2l, 8DCT, -27% mass, -20% RL, 58 g/km, 2.4 l 2020 P2 AtkCPS, 1.6l, 8DCT, -13% mass, -10% RL, 66 g/km, 2.7 l 2025 P2 AtkCPS, 1.9l, 8DCT, 77 g/km, 3.1 l SS+SGTDI, 0.7l, 8DCT, -27% mass, SS+CEGR, 0.8l, 8DCT, 93 g/km, 3.8 l SS+SGTDI, 0.8l, 8DCT, 97 g/km, 4.0 l -20% RL, 74 g/km, 3.0 l 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 95 g/km (3.9 l/100km) 80 g/km (3.3 l/100km) -5% -15% -25% -35% -45% -55% -65% Additional direct manufacturing costs [EUR] relative to 2010 baseline CO2 reduction relative to 2010 baseline 70 g/km (2.9 l/100km) corresponding fleet targets 24! ! C-segment gasoline!
- 27. 25! Comparison of Vehicles in US versus Mexico !
- 28. High Altitude Impacts! 26! • Fuel economy is BETTER at high altitude:! • Air density is lower, decreasing aerodynamic drag and reducing pumping losses. ! • There is a loss of power if the engine is naturally aspirated: ! • If a manufacturer designs the vehicle for high altitude, they will need to install a larger engine. ! • However, engines in Mexico are still smaller and have less power than engines in the US, making it easier for Mexican vehicles to meet the standards.! • Turbocharging will eliminate the power loss at high altitude - while preserving the pumping loss improvements:! All EcoBoost V-6 engines maintain peak torque capability at well over 5,000 feet above sea level, making EcoBoost-equipped vehicles ideal for high-altitude operation. http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=30651!
- 29. 27 Wide-Range Transmission Gears! ! Older 4- and 5-speed transmissions have a gear range of about 4.5 (ratio of shortest gear to tallest gear). It cannot cover all driving from highway cruising to high-altitude grades. Thus, some low-powered vehicles may need to have shorter gears for Mexico.! ! Current 6+ speed transmissions have wider gear ranges, of 6.0 or more. This provides proper gearing for both highway cruising and high-altitude grades, without the need to change gearing.! ! Also note that turbocharged engines do not lose performance at high-altitude, further reducing any need for shorter gears.! Older transmissions! Current US transmissions! Mexico gearing! European gearing! Gear range! Gear range! Gear range!
- 30. Displacement/kg ‐ Mexico versus US vehicles ‐ 2008 data 28 Displacement vs. Footprint: All Vehicles! ! Regression of engine size versus vehicle footprint is 14% higher in the US than in Mexico! ! 2008 data for Mexico and the US, cars and light trucks combined! y = 0.8165x R² = 0.3818 y = 0.7158x R² = 0.36184 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Displacement (liters) Footprint (m2) U.S. MY2008 vehicles Mexico MY2008 vehicles Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles) Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles) US Mexico Mexico vs US Test weight (kg) 1875 1548 ‐17% Engine size (liter) 3.3 2.4 ‐27% Liters/kg 0.117 0.102 ‐13%
- 31. 29 Power vs Footprint: All vehicles! ! Regression of engine power (hp) versus vehicle footprint is 12% higher in the US than in Mexico! ! 2008 data for Mexico and the US, cars and light trucks combined! HP/kg ‐ Mexico versus US vehicles ‐ 2008 data y = 57.328x R² = 0.12543 y = 51.378x R² = 0.24362 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Horsepower Footprint (m2) U.S. MY2008 vehicles Mexico MY2008 vehicles Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles) Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles) US Mexico Mexico vs US Test weight (kg) 1875 1548 ‐17% Horsepower 220 157 ‐28% HP/kg 0.117 0.102 ‐13%
- 32. 30 Cars 1.0L – 3.5L: Horsepower v Footprint! ! Regression of HP versus vehicle footprint is 17% higher in the US! ! 2008 data for Mexico and the US! y = 50.31x R² = 0.10209 y = 42.92x R² = 0.27502 400 350 300 250 Cars only ‐ Displacement 1.0 ‐ 3.5L U.S. MY2008 vehicles Mexico MY2008 vehicles Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles) Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles) Horsepower Footprint (m2) 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
- 33. Cars 1.0L – 3.5L: Horsepower v Test Weight! 31 ! Regression of HP versus test weight is 11% higher in the US! ! 2008 data for Mexico and the US! y = 0.1265x R² = 0.37053 y = 0.1137x R² = 0.45595 400 350 300 250 Cars only ‐ Displacement 1.0 ‐ 3.5L U.S. MY2008 vehicles Mexico MY2008 vehicles Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles) Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles) Horsepower Test weight (kg) 200 150 100 50 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
- 34. 32 Cars 1.0L – 1.8L: Horsepower v Footprint! ! Regression of HP versus vehicle footprint is 3% higher in the US! ! 2008 data for Mexico and the US! y = 32.964x R² = ‐0.0955 y = 32.011x R² = 0.34569 250 200 150 Cars only ‐ Displacement 1.0 ‐ 1.8L U.S. MY2008 vehicles Mexico MY2008 vehicles Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles) Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles) Horsepower Footprint (m2) 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
- 35. Cars 1.0L – 1.8L: Horsepower v Test Weight! 33 ! Regression of HP versus test weight is 2% higher in the US! ! 2008 data for Mexico and the US! Cars only ‐ Displacement 1.0 ‐ 1.8L y = 0.0928x R² = 0.35022 y = 0.0913x R² = 0.52025 250 200 150 U.S. MY2008 vehicles Mexico MY2008 vehicles Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles) Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles) Horsepower Test Weight (kg) 100 50 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
- 36. 34! Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy Improvement Opportunities!
- 37. 35! There are many opportunities to reduce fuel consumption of heavy vehicles (including buses). ! Improve vehicle and trailer aerodynamics Reduce rolling resistance Improve transmission and drivetrain efficiency Improve engine efficiency Reduce vehicle weight Optimize driver behavior Reduce auxiliary loads
- 38. US Technology Assessment! U.S. National Academy of Sciences (March 2010) found 35-50% improvement could be achieved in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe! National Academy of Sciences (2010) FIGURE S-1 Comparison of 2015-2020 New Vehicle Potential Fuel Savings Technology for Seven Vehicle Types: Tractor Trailer (TT), Class 3-6 Box (Box), Class 3-6 Bucket (Bucket), Class 8 Refuse (Refuse), Transit Bus (Bus), Motor Coach (Coach), and Class 2b Pickups and Vans (2b). Also, for each vehicle class, the fuel consumption benefit of the combined technology packages is calculated as follows: % FCpackage = 1 – (1 - %FCtech 1)(1 - %FCtech2)(1 - %FCtech N) where %FCtech x is the percent benefit of an individual technology. SOURCE: TIAX (2009) ES-4.! Slide 36!
- 39. 37! Conclusion!
- 40. Summary! 38! • Computer aided design and computer simulations are accelerating technology development.! • Especially important for lightweight materials.! • Costs are rapidly decreasing.! • Altitude impacts are becoming less important, due to turbocharging and transmissions with a wider range of gears.! • Engines in Mexico are smaller and have less power than in the US, making it easier for them to meet the standards.!
- 41. For more information… ! ICCT Passenger Vehicles website: http://www.theicct.org/passenger-vehicles ! Global Passenger Vehicle Standards Update: http://www.theicct.org/global-passenger-vehicle-standards-update ! US CAFE Standards: http://www.theicct.org/policies/us-cafe-standards ! EU LDV CO2 Regulation: http://www.theicct.org/policies/eu-light-duty-vehicle-co2- regulation ! Review and Comparative Analysis of Fiscal Policies to promote fuel economy: ! http://www.theicct.org/review-and-comparative-analysis- fiscal-policies ! CO2 Standards: http://www.theicct.org/issues/co2-standards Anup Bandivadekar anup “at” theicct.org @TheICCT Slide 39!
- 42. 40! Thank You!