Search Results

Reducing the weight of the M1A2 tank by lightweighting hull, suspension, and track results in 5.1%, 1.3%, and 0.6% tank mass reductions, respectively. The impact of retrofitting with lightweight components is evaluated through primary energy demand (PED), cost, and fuel consumption (FC). Life cycle stages included are preproduction (design, prototype, and testing), material production, part fabrication, and operation. Metrics for lightweight components are expressed as ratios comparing lightweighted and unmodified tanks. Army-defined drive cycles were employed and an FC vs. mass elasticity of 0.55 was used. Depending on the distance traveled, cost to retrofit and operate a tank with a lightweighted hull is 3.5 to 19 times the cost for just operating an unmodified tank over the same distance. PED values for the lightweight hull are 1.1 to 2 times the unmodified tank. Cost and PED ratios decrease with increasing distance.

An early-design methodology for predicting both expected fuel economy and catalyst-out CO, HC and NOx concentrations during arbitrarily-defined transient cycles is presented. The methodology is based on utilizing a vehicle-powertrain model with embedded maps of fully warmed up engine-out performance and emissions, and appropriate temperature-dependent correction factors to account for not fully warmed up conditions during transients. Similarly, engine-out emissions are converted to catalyst-out emissions using conversion efficiencies based on the catalyst brick temperature. A crucial element of the methodology is hence the ability to predict heat flows and component temperatures in the engine and the exhaust system during transients, consistent with the data available during concept definition and early design phases.