Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix K: Model Description and Results for the EEA-ICF Model
Appendix K: Model Description and Results for the EEA-ICF Model
Pages 210-218
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 210... ...
used numerical coolant, integration over the Federal Test Procedure city and high • Pumping loss, way driving cycles to determine the energy required at the • Mechanical friction loss, wheel to move a vehicle over the driving cycle as a function • Transmission losses, of its weight, frontal area, drag coefficient, and tire rolling • Accessory loads, resistance coefficient. This procedure is used to compute • Vehicle road load tire and aerodynamic drag losses, the energy requirement at the wheel for the given baseline and vehicle and translated to energy at the engine output shaft • Vehicle inertial energy lost to the brakes.
|
From page 211... ...
These benefit estimates were adjusted for the presence the EPA model. In the EEA-ICF analysis, the committee col- or absence of technologies on the baseline vehicle, since lected information on the effect of each engine technology on all benefits in the DOE reports have been typically defined peak engine efficiency, pumping loss, and friction loss as a relative to an engine with fixed valve timing and a fourcycle average from technical papers that describe measured speed automatic transmission.
|
From page 212... ...
from Ricardo, Inc., Modeling, EEA-ICF �uick Analysis, and the EEA-ICF Model Vehicle Technology Package Ricardo Estimate EEA �uick Result EEA Model Result Toyota Camry Z 33.0 23.7 32.6 1 13.0 23.7 23.1 2 22.0 22.4 21.9 RMS difference 8.15 5.85 Chrysler Voyager 4 26.0 30.9 29.9 6b 35.5 33.3 35.5 16 41.0 28.5 36.6 RMS difference 7.85 3.39 Ford F-150 9 32.0 30.0 28.3 10 42.0 28.2 26.4 16 23.0 21.3 23.4 RMS difference 8.12 9.25 NOTE: RMS, root mean square difference between the EEA-ICF estimate and the Ricardo estimate. The differences seem to be in the same range as the differences between the EPA estimates with their lumped parameter model and the Ricardo estimates.
|
From page 213... ...
the committee's method of forecasting the marginal benefit of technology along a specified path has been criticized as potentially leading to an overestimation of benefits for spark ignition engines since it could lead to infeasible solutions if REFERENCES total pumping loss reduction estimated exceeded the actual pumping loss. The simulation model output's explicit track- Duleep, K.G.
|
From page 214... ...
REDUC REDUC. Technology FIGURE K.2 Technology path steps and reduction in energy required to drive through the test cycle (top)
|
From page 215... ...
Technology FIGURE K.3 Technology path steps and reduction in energy required to drive through the test cycle (top) and the engine efficiency ( bottom)
|
From page 216... ...
REDUC REDUC. Technology FIGURE K.4 Technology path steps and reduction in energy required to drive through the test cycle (top)
|
From page 217... ...
ACC FRIC.+OIL COMP. TURBO REDUC Technology FIGURE K.5 Technology path steps and reduction in energy required to drive through the test cycle (top)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.