acting director - arpa-e€¦ · ‣reduce energy imports, ‣improve the efficiency of energy...
TRANSCRIPT
ARPA-E Welcome
Chanette ArmstrongActing Director
NEXTCAR – Next Generation
Energy Technologies for Connected
and Automated On-Road Vehicles
Chris Atkinson, Sc.D., Fellow ASME, Fellow SAE
Program Director
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
The ARPA-E NEXTCAR Team
2
Chris Atkinson
Program DirectorMary Yamada
Tech-to-Market Advisor
Reid (Rusty)
Heffner
Technical Support
Whitney
WhiteShawn
Kimmel
Programmatic Support
Gokul
Vishwanathan
Thanks to Nancy Hicks and Danielle Weingarten for assistance with meeting planning
Zara L’Heureux
ARPA-E Fellow
ARPA-E’s Mandate
ARPA-E’s mandate is to:
‣ Reduce energy imports,
‣ Improve the efficiency of energy generation, storage,
transmission, distribution and usage,
‣ Reduce energy-related emissions including CO2, and
‣ Promote US innovation and hence competitiveness in the
energy arena.
– There is a direct match between ARPA-E’s mandate and
current and future vehicle energy efficiency.
3
4
Energy Impact
NEXTCARNEXT-Generation Energy Technologies for Connected and Automated on-Road
vehicles
Goals
• Energy Consumption: 20% reduction over a
2016 or 2017 baseline vehicle.
• Emissions: No degradation relative to
baseline vehicle.
• Utility: Must meet current Federal vehicle
safety, regulatory and customer performance
requirements.
• Customer Acceptability: Technology should
be transparent to the driver.
• Incremental System Cost: $1,000 for LD
vehicle, $2,000 for MD vehicle and $3,000 for
HD vehicle.
Potential Impact
• Energy Consumption Reduction: 4.4
quads/year
• CO2 Emissions: 0.3 GT/year
Mission
The ARPA-E NEXTCAR Program will
fund the development of new and
emerging vehicle dynamic and
powertrain control technologies (VD&PT)
that reduce the energy consumption of
future Light-Duty (LD), Medium-Duty
(MD) and Heavy-Duty (HD) on-road
vehicles through the use of connectivity
and vehicle automation.
Program Director Dr. Chris Atkinson
Total Investment $35 Million over 3 years
Facilitating energy efficient operation through
connectivity and automation
by bringing together experts in powertrains, vehicle dynamics,
controls and optimization, and transportation systems.
NEXTCAR Motivation
Future Powertrain and Vehicle Control with
NEXTCAR
Requirements for Commercial Success
Criterion Explanation
Power Power density (or energy density including the fuel/energy
storage capacity) Customer acceptance
Efficiency Fuel economy (over real-world dynamic driving)
Regulation
Energy efficiency
Emissions Regulated criteria pollutants (and CO2) Regulation
Cost Total cost of ownership (including capex and energy cost)
Reliability Mean time between failures, maintainability
Utility Acceleration, driveability, NVH, cold or off-cycle operation,
ease of use, transparency to the user, refueling, and
acceptable range
Fuel acceptability Use a readily available fuel or energy source.
SAFETY Non-negotiable.
Any new powertrain technology should be comparable to or better than
the baseline in:
Who’s here: NEXTCAR Portfolio + 1
9
Split Micro-Hybrid
Boosting Enabling Highly
Diluted Combustion
ARPA-E
OPEN-2015
Who’s here: NEXTCAR Industry Ecosystem
10
OEMs
Tier-1 Suppliers
and CAV service
provider
Who’s here: External Stakeholders
11
Government
OEMs
Tier-1 Suppliers
and Equipment
Manufacturers
Testing Services
Energy Providers
Mobility Services
NGO/Consultancy
NEXTCAR Awardee Distribution
ICVs HEVs PHEVs
LD • General Motors • Ohio State
University
• University of
Michigan
• University of Delaware
• Michigan Tech. University
• University of California –
Berkeley
• Southwest Research Institute
MD • University of
Minnesota
• University of California
Riverside
HD • Penn State
University
• Purdue
University
Green - Gasoline
Blue - Diesel
Yellow - Natural Gas
NEXTCAR Timeline and Critical Milestones
13
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year-1 Year-2 Year-3
Approximate Program Timeline
Recent Buzz on NEXTCAR type work
14Not an exhaustive list
Recent Buzz on NEXTCAR type work
15Not an exhaustive list
Current State of the AV Industry
Source: Navigant Research’s 2019 Automated Driving Leaderboard
• AV industry is highly
dynamic and marching
forward with L3-L4
automation
• Various technology
leaders are participating
in this meeting either as
project teams or external
stake-holders (shown by
the blue circles in the
image)
Next after NEXTCAR
‣ Hypothesis: Short of full electrification, L4 and L5 vehicles
will still benefit from NEXTCAR technologies.
‣ If so, then what?
17
Additional Funding Opportunities
‣ ARPA-E Request for Information (RFI) DE-FOA-0002120:
Pre-Pilot and Pilot R&D Projects to scale, mature and
advance ARPA-E funded technologies
‣ ARPA-E DE-FOA-0001953: Solicitation on Topics Informing
New Program Areas
‣ DOE Vehicle Technologies Office
18
Are Humans the Worst Drivers?
‣ Driver aggressiveness has a big
impact on fuel economy
‣ 30% spread in city driving
‣ 20% spread in highway driving
‣ How do we incorporate driver
aggressiveness in estimating
energy consumption
improvements?
19Source: Gonder et al. SAE 2012-01-0494: Analyzing Vehicle Fuel Saving Opportunities through Intelligent Driver
Feedback
How to Define Baseline and Measure 20%
Energy Consumption Improvement?‣ Starting point: SAE 2013-01-1453 (Neubauer and Wood: Accounting for the variation
of Driver Aggression in the Simulation of Conventional and Advanced Vehicles)
‣ ~15 min synthetic/representative drive cycle produced from 2,154 unique vehicle records
– Av. speed: 30.5 mph, av. accel=: +-.96 mph/s and KI = 0.577/mi
– Represents average predicted vehicle efficiency from vehicle records
– Scaling factors for each powertrain type – provides energy consumption distribution for each powertrain type as a function of population percentile
‣ Key conclusions:
– Driver behavior can decrease fuel efficiency by >50% or increase it by >20% from average
– Normalized efficiency deviation from average as a function of population percentile is relative insensitive to the powertrain type
‣ We assume other factors such as weather (cold vs. hot start), AC loads (unless you are performing thermal management optimization) are consistent between the baseline and CAV scenarios
‣ We expect the teams to demonstrate an average of 20% improvement over a large number of routes (≥20) and route types (urban, arterial, highway etc.)
20
Real-World Fuel Consumption vs. Certification Cycles for
Conventional Vehicles, HEVs and PHEVs
21Source: SAE 2013-01-1453
How We Envision Fuel Economy Improvement?
22
• Fuel economy for the same route as
a function of driver behavior:
Average difference ~ 20%.
• The average could be based on a
synthetic drive cycle similar to the
one shown before created using
real-world driving information.
• Fuel economy of an average/median
aggressive driver for different routes
of the same type (urban or arterial or
highway): Average difference ~ 20%.
Baseline
NEXTCAR NEXTCAR
Baseline
Are Consumers Willing to Tradeoff Longer
Travel Time for Fuel Economy?
23
Trip time (minutes)
Energ
y c
onsum
ption
impro
vem
ent
(%)
• NEXTCAR objective is to reduce energy consumption; consumers may prefer lower
travel time specifically for ridesharing and ride-hailing applications.
• HMI recommendation to consumer for accelerating product adoption?
• What about MD and HD?
• We urge teams to work with their industry partners to survey the customer/end-user.
+ve
-ve
Baseline trip time
Example LCA of CAVs
‣ Wireless data transmission: Significant contributor to life cycle GHG when using live maps
– Limiting transmission to existing standard maps results in 35% lower GHG emissions compared to HD maps over a 4G LTE network
‣ CAV energy consumption: 14% reduction in fuel consumption purely due to CAV technologies produces significant environmental benefits in the baseline scenario
– Benefits erode if only a 5% reduction is achieved particularly for BEVs
‣ Added weight and power demand: At an additional weight of 10 kg and 200 W, the computer contributes nearly half of the total CAV subsystem burden
– If the power demand were instead 2,000 W (current developmental prototypes) the environmental benefits enabled by CAVs would be eliminated
‣ Drag: Large exterior-mounted CAV components can increase fuel consumption and can potentially offset the environmental benefits enabled by CAV technologies
– Sensing and computing components will need to be miniaturized and packaged more compactly
24Source: Gawron, James H., et al. "Life cycle assessment of connected and automated vehicles: Sensing and
computing subsystem and vehicle level effects." Environmental science & technology 52.5 (2018): 3249-3256
Reinforcing 20% energy consumption reduction is
critical for CAVs
Annual Review Meeting Objectives
What are we are here for –
‣ To formally report on the end of Year 2 of NEXTCAR,
‣ To hear about the technical & commercialization progress of each of the projects,
‣ Including lessons learned, solutions to common problems, and to discuss common challenges,
‣ To hear from industry, government and policy leaders about the state of the art and future directions in this area, and
‣ To continue the creation of an R&D and commercialization ecosystem around the improvements in energy efficiency of CAVs.
‣ Re-introduce ourselves to each other, get to know what others are doing, get to know the state of the art, to report on achievements, and to get a sense of the challenges and the possibilities ahead of us,
‣ Your competition is not in the room but is the State of the Art – we urge you to share your knowledge to make this ecosystem a success!
Instructions for this Annual Review
‣ Tell us about
– Your project successes,
– Your lessons learned,
– Remaining challenges,
– Best practices,
– Useful SW, hardware, methods and techniques,
– Quantification of energy consumption in real-world testing
‣ Network and exchange ideas
‣ Conferences, workshops, opportunities?
NEXTCAR R&D Ecosystem Development
Activities
‣ Field Day at American Center for Mobility - TBD
‣ Session at ASME DSCC18 championed by NEXTCAR PIs
‣ Focused session in SAE WCX on energy efficiency
improvements in CAVs (2020?)
‣ ARPA-E Summit July 8-10, 2019 in Denver, CO.
NEXTCAR Field Day
‣ Field day = Demonstration
day
‣ At a test facility
‣ ACM
28
Less of this…
29
And more of this…
30
Actually we anticipate it will be like this…
31
Testing, Validation and Verification
‣ Safety first!
‣ No on-road testing (unless the road is closed to other traffic)
https://arpa-e.energy.gov
33
Thank you!
Chris Atkinson, Sc.D., Fellow ASME
Program Director, ARPA-E
Connectivity and Automation at CES19
34
Connected Signals: Integration of traffic light
information and traffic light prediction
Sources: https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/18240/CES-2019-Roundup-Autonomous-Vehicle-
Tech.aspx, https://medium.com/syncedreview/ces-2019-cools-on-self-driving-digital-cockpits-v2x-in-vehicle-shopping-drive-mobility-
market-1a0d711e0048
AutoX: Self-driving car to deliver
groceries to consumers. Pilot in San JoseLevel 2+ NVIDIA Drive Autopilot, which
is expected to be integrated into
production-level cars by next year
Qualcomm C-V2X: To be employed in
all Ford cars and trucks by 2022
• Continental unveiled
a hybrid platform
which supports 4G,
5G networks along-
with DSRC and C-
V2X capability for
communication
• Various other
technologies and
concept vehicles
unveiled