News from the electric car front includes an update to the charging system that will soon be offered at charge stations. The current standard, dubbed CHAdeMO, provides a fast charge rate and the plug used for the CHAdeMO charge port is used in many electric cars manufactured today. CHAdeMO 3.0 is the newest version of this charging standard and is set to increase the charge speed for electric vehicles, reducing the time to charge an electric vehicle’s battery pack. The new technology is reportedly capable of charging at up to 900kW, which is significantly faster than the current CHAdeMO charge rate. The new standard for quick charging is called ChaoJi. CHAdeMO 3.0 is currently being developed for China’s electric vehicle market. China currently has the largest electrical vehicle market and upgrading the charging systems from current CHAdeMO to CHAdeMO 3.0 would likely be less expensive in China’s market, due to the scale of the market.
Regardless of where the technology will be rolled out first, the results of the charge rate testing are promising. Based upon early testing of the CHAdeMO 3.0 system, a 250 mile electric vehicle could recharge completely in about 10 minutes. In fact, if and when automakers begin using an 800 volt battery system in their electric cars, charging rates could potentially double, to approximately 500 miles of range in 10 minutes. Compared to current technology, these charge rates are significantly faster, however since electric vehicles currently on the road are not capable of such charge rates, any upgrade to a charging system’s structure would have to include some sort of backwards compatibility. CHAdeMO 3.0 developers promise backwards compatibility with slower, less technologically advanced electric vehicles when the 3.0 system is released. In addition, adapters for archaic charge ports to adapt to the CHAdeMO 3.0 ports will also be available.
–taken from www.sae.org
Back in 2010, Toyota developed a solar power system for the roofs of their Prius hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs). The goal behind the initiative for Toyota was to see if a vehicle’s rooftop would provide enough solar power to charge the vehicle’s battery, providing drivers a few extra miles before the next charging session. According to Toyota, it was the company’s first steps towards producing a self-charging car. But the solar cells implemented into Toyota’s photovoltaic system provided just enough power to run auxiliary devices such as the power steering pump, ventilation fan, and air-conditioning compressor. This was due to the fact that the solar cells generated a capacity of only 50 watts.
this with the design of the Lightyear One created by a startup company based in
the Netherlands. Total peak output is 1.25kW which is enough power to provide
anywhere between 20 – 45 miles of average range per day, according to Lightyear.
Lowie Vermeersch created the design of the Lightyear One and an engineering
firm based in Germany – Aachen – helped develop its integral 60-kWh battery
system. The strategy, according to Lightyear’s chief technology officer, Arjo
van der Ham, was their clean-sheet, systems-engineered approach. This meant a propulsion motor at each wheel,
lightweight materials, advanced aerodynamics, and enough sky-facing surface
area to host about 1,000 photovoltaic cells. As Eric Wesoff of PV Magazine
points out, the challenge to accomplishing the goals of aerodynamic efficiency
and solar power efficiency lies in the design. He explains that you want a car
that can both charge itself, which would require a broad area for the PV cells,
yet remain aerodynamically efficient, which would require a narrow body design.
This is where Lightyear stayed true to its systems approach and the company believes it addressed this challenge in competing design goals. Lightyear believes it has met the challenge by integrating the motors with the suspension via a propulsion motor in each wheel and by making adjustments to the battery size. Lightyear also believes that they have now provided a solid architecture that other companies will use in the future as they push towards self-charging cars.
Taken from: www.sae.orghttps://www.sae.org/news/2020/03/lightyear-one-solar-ev
JCB – a British company that produces construction and agricultural equipment – has a line of tractors known as the Fastrac series. In stock form, a Fastrac tractor can reach speeds of up to 43 mph, but last summer, JCB said it wanted to push the idea of speedy tractors further. Enter the Fastrac One – the tractor that set a new record for tractor speed at 103 mph at Elvington Airfield in Britain. JCB chairman, Lord Bamford, who was present when the Fastrac One hit 103 mph, said he wanted to “go even faster.” Thus, Fastrac Two was born.
order to achieve “even faster” status, Bamford laid out objectives that included
the creation of a tractor that was 10% lighter than Fastrac One and had greater
aerodynamic efficiency. JCB’s development team – in conjunction with
counterparts at Ricardo, GKN Wheels & Structures, and Williams Advanced
Engineering – went to work figuring out how they could reduce the weight,
increase power, and reduce drag resistance while staying faithful to the
front-end styling of the Fastrac series. They explained that in undertaking
these challenges, they relied on predictive analysis in order to define what
design elements needed changing and how they would best be implemented.
for power, the engineers and development team at JCB discovered that using one
small turbo and one larger turbo created packaging problems that ultimately
hindered the aerodynamic efficiency. JCB team said that using one large turbo circumvented
the packaging problem so they turned to the Cummins Holset turbocharger and the
Federal-Mogul COBRA electric supercharger.
for aerodynamics, the team lowered the ride height, lowering and narrowing the
cab. CFD simulations of the external skin of the tractor helped the team locate
areas with high drag and – according to Williams Advanced Engineering – the overall
result was a 25% reduction in drag compared to a stock tractor. Other areas
that underwent changes included the chassis, front overhang, the underfloor,
and the exterior mirrors.
The end result for the Fastrac Two is a 7.2L 6-cylinder turbo diesel capable of 1006 hp and 1748 lb-ft. The Fastrac Two reached 153.77 mph.
Taken from: www.sae.org
Sun visors in motor vehicles have been around since the
1920s. Recently, Bosch decided that it was time to upgrade the design and
technology of sun visors that have remained virtually unchanged since their
inception. What they have come up with is known as the “Virtual Visor.” Bosch
states that the idea behind the Virtual Visor is to reduce sun glare, which can
impair the driver’s ability to see clearly while driving.
The technology is a transparent liquid crystal display (LCD) panel comprised of hexagonal pixels in a honeycomb grid. The transparent screen is used with an RGB camera inside the vehicle that tracks where the sun is coming from and where it shines on the driver’s face. Together, the LCD screen and RGB camera can track the driver’s face, track moving shadows, and track sunlight. Artificial intelligence takes these data and uses an algorithm to identify exactly where the driver’s eyes are. According to Bosch engineers, this algorithm was the most challenging piece of the technology. They wanted the algorithm to be able to do all of the tasks listed above – identify the driver’s face, track moving shadows, and locate which direction the sun was coming from – and then use that to constantly and accurately update the location and degree of shade of the Visual Visor. AI should ideally be able to provide relief from sun glare by casting shade directly over the driver’s eyes, Bosch says.
Bosch claims that one of the advantages to the Virtual Visor includes reduced sun glare and better visibility as drivers will be able to see through the visor even as it provides shade. In other words, Bosch believes that with the Virtual Visor, drivers would no longer block a portion of their view in order to get relief from the sun while driving.
Taken from: www.sae.org
TuSimple – a San Diego-based company that designs autonomous
driving technology for the trucking industry – claims that their autonomous
driving technology reduces fuel consumption by 10%. In terms of fuel saved,
TuSimple asserts that a 10% reduction across the board would be equivalent to 4
billion gallons of fuel. TuSimple arrived at these figures by conducting a
study with the Jacobs School of Engineering at the University of California San
Diego. The study examined how autonomy impacts fuel consumption.
The test was conducted by equipping autonomous trucks with what
is known as black box technology. This technology tracks and records data
pertaining to the vehicle’s driving performance, including statistics such as speed,
GPS location, and distance to name a few. In order to gauge fuel consumption
from the black box data, TuSimple’s researchers relied on the Virginia Tech
Comprehensive Power-based Fuel Consumption model which combines the function of
speed, location, acceleration and braking to derive estimates. Researchers also
equipped manually driven trucks with black box technology so that they could
compare fuel efficiency between manual and autonomous trucks.
Once the manual and autonomous trucks had black box technology installed, researchers looked at fuel consumption at different ranges of speeds. According to researchers, the goal was to determine whether fuel efficiency changed at all based on speed. Based on the study, TuSimple concludes that the greatest fuel savings between manual and autonomous trucks happen while driving at slower speeds that involve a higher frequency of acceleration and braking. Conversely, TuSimple reports that highway speeds showed very little difference in fuel efficiency between autonomous and manual trucks. In conclusion, TuSimple believes that autonomous trucking can significantly reduce fuel consumption and asserts that if all medium- and heavy-duty trucks adopted their self-driving technology, that CO2 emissions would be cut by 42 million metric tons per year.
Taken from: www.sae.org
Engine developers face new trends in the industry that
significantly influence how they produce engines for heavy-duty vehicles. Their
main areas of concern include machine ownership patterns, political forces such
as government regulations, and getting new products to the market quicker and
more efficiently. Caterpillar Industrial Power Systems designed the new C3.6
engine with these factors in mind, stating specifically that customer feedback
and lower owning and operating costs were at the top of their priorities list. According
to Caterpillar, the result is the compact C3.6 engine that is electronically
turbocharged, giving it the capability to produce 134-hp, more power density,
and better torque than its predecessor.
As for machine ownership patterns, the product marketing
manager for Caterpillar – Alex Eden – explains that customers are shifting towards
a rental economy rather than the traditional ownership model. Instead of buying
heavy-duty vehicles and machines, customers and fleets are looking to rent them.
This raises questions about future sales processes and product cycles that are
yet to be answered.
In addition to market influences, government regulations put
pressure on engine developers with measures such as CO2 and emissions
regulations, air quality improvement standards, and zero-emission zones for
urban areas. In particular, demand grows for quieter engines that fall in line
with urban noise restrictions. Noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) is a major
concern in engine design. Pierpaolo Biffali – VP of product engineering at FPT
Industrial – states that though the industry is heading for zero-emissions,
clean diesel engines reduce CO2 levels in the meantime.
The last major factor that influences engine design is the competitiveness of the industry. When producing the C3.6, Caterpillar utilized a 3D printer to reduce production time. Developers printed an entire C3.6 engine in its various parts and examined how all the pieces would fit together before actual assembly. When the parts arrived, they assembled the engine faster and more efficiently than they had without the 3D printer which is crucial to remaining competitive in the market. Caterpillar believes that technology like this will help them remain competitive in the future by getting products to the market faster without sacrificing quality.
Taken from: www.sae.org
Tim Sherstyuk embarked on an ambitious journey towards understanding and improving the efficiency of EV batteries. The idea initially came to him when he was a college student studying chemistry at Carleton University. He wanted to investigate why cell phone batteries die quicker than batteries operating other devices. He and his father, who is an electrical engineer, put their heads together to research why batteries die out and if there is a way to prolong the lifetime of batteries.
One hypothesis is that “pulse” charging can accomplish exactly this. The traditional method of charging – the constant-current method – inflicts a lot of damage and wear on batteries. The hope is that pulse charging will alleviate some of that wear on batteries while they charge.
The Use of AI
The Sherstyuk team incorporates the use of artificial intelligence in their studies of pulse recharging on batteries. They rely on AI because it offers much-needed insight that accelerates the feedback loop during experiments. In fact, other companies have taken advantage of AI, one of which is the Toyota Research Institute (TRI). They implemented AI into their tests and research on batteries and now assert that AI accelerates the progress of research and discovery. They currently use it to run 400 different battery tests and experiments at the same time which would be impossible through traditional channels. In their words, “AI accelerates R&D cycles.”
For the Sherstyuks, the goal is to improve the method of battery charging so that the battery itself lasts longer. Reducing impedance and the damage incurred from charging quickly are examples of what Sherstyuk aims to eliminate during the charging process. Fast charging raises the temperature of the battery which can lead to heightened cell degradation and potentially cause the battery to swell. The Sherstyuks conducted testing by using an adapter-like device that could potentially be built into the charging connector. AI provides real-time measurements during the charging process that helps Sherstyuk determine how much energy needs to go into the battery pack. After seven years of testing, the Sherstyuks see positive results. Though pulse charging is not new, the use of AI provides real-time feedback and data that was previously lacking. Sherstyuk’s hope is to fine tune pulse charging so that the lifetime of EV batteries is prolonged. This would have many benefits, according to Sherstyuk, including environmental benefits as longer battery life would lead to less battery waste.
Taken from: www.sae.org
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is investigating the pros and cons of replacing conventional rear- and side-view mirrors with camera monitoring systems on passenger vehicles. NHTSA asked for experts, opinions, and research on the implications of making this change to passenger vehicles. On the one side, automotive designers and engineers say that getting rid of exterior mirrors would improve not only the aesthetics of automobiles but reduce their aerodynamic resistance as well. Scott Miller, Director of Global CO2 Strategy, Energy, Mass and Aerodynamics for General Motors, says that exterior mirrors create aerodynamic drag while the vehicle is moving and removing them could produce a 1.5 to 2 miles per gallon gain. This is because according to Miller, 1 mpg in fuel efficiency is gained per 12-count reduction in drag and he expects a 20-count drag reduction per vehicle from the removal of two exterior mirrors. Further, a book published by SAE International notes that exterior side-view mirrors constitute anywhere from 2-7% of a vehicle’s total drag.
Two supporters of this initiative – the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) and Tesla – asked NHTSA to permit the installment and use of camera monitoring systems in vehicles instead of traditional mirrors. The foundational premises behind this petition are improved fuel efficiency and side vision; however, NHTSA did not grant them permission. NHTSA withheld approval in part due to a test it ran on a prototype camera monitoring system. While they found that the system proved “generally usable,” the test highlighted certain problem areas, including distorted images and problems in the rain. In other words, the test brought to light certain safety risks that could result from the implementation of cameras instead of mirrors. Therefore, before giving approval for camera monitoring systems on passenger vehicles, NHTSA seeks to further investigate the results of making such a change.
Taken from: www.sae.org