Peer Review of FEV Inc. Report
"Light Duty Technology Cost Analysis,
Power-Split and P2 Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Case Studies"
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Peer Review of FEV Inc. Report
"Light Duty Technology Cost Analysis,
Power-Split and P2 Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Case Studies"
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
ICF International
EPA Contract No. EP-C-06-094
Work Assignment No. 4-08
NOTICE
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or
positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to
facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-11-016
November 2011
-------
1. Introduction 1
2. The Peer Review Process 1
3. Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 3
3.1. Comments on Methodology/Results 3
a. Reasonableness and Potential Bias of the Methodology as Documented 3
b. General Flaws in the Scope of the Study 4
c. Appropriateness of Study Inputs 5
d. Reasonableness of Assumptions 5
e. Appropriateness of Results 7
f. Appropriateness of Scaling Costs to Other Vehicle Classes and to Other Hybrid Technologies 7
3.2. Comments on Other/General Observations 8
4. Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions 8
Appendix A: Charge to Peer Reviewers A-1
Appendix B. Reviewer Resumes B-1
Appendix C. Peer Reviewer Comments As Submitted C-1
-------
-------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)
is developing programs to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty highway vehicles,
which require an evaluation of the costs of technologies likely to be used to meet any standards. EPA
contracted with FEV Incorporated to perform this cost analysis through tearing down vehicles, engines,
and components, both with and without these technologies, and evaluating, part by part, the observed
differences in size, weight, materials, machining steps and other cost-affecting parameters. Though
complex and time-consuming, EPA believes this approach has great potential for determining accurate
technology costs, a goal that is of paramount importance in the setting of appropriate GHG standards.
Although the teardown and analysis work is ongoing, FEV wrote a report detailing the methodology it
and its subcontractor are using to cost out technologies and describing the results of the cost-out work to
date.1 To assure that this work incorporates the highest quality science, EPA contracted with ICF
International (ICF) to determine appropriate independent peer reviewers for the FEV report, "Light Duty
Technology Cost Analysis, Power-Split and P2 Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Case Studies" and
document their feedback on the costing methodology it presents. The reviewers selected were
independent subject matter experts and their reviews were conducted in compliance with EPA peer
review guidelines.2
This report presents the findings of the reviews conducted by four subcontracted subject matter experts.
The peer reviewers were:
1. Mr. Ted Bohn, Argonne National Laboratories
2. Dr. Linos Jacovides, Delphi (Retired)
3. Ms. Linda Miller, independent consultant
4. Dr. Deepa Ramaswamy, Hybrid Chakra
From December 2010 to April 2011, EPA contracted with ICF to coordinate this peer review. ICF
implemented the peer review in compliance with EPA's Peer Review Handbook (3rd Edition).2 EPA
requested that the peer reviewers represent subject matter expertise in manufacturing cost estimating
and/or automotive design.
ICF developed a list of candidate peer reviewers from the following sources: (1) ICF experts in this field
with knowledge of relevant professional society membership, industry, academia, and other
organizations, and (2) suggestions from EPA staff. ICF identified 25 qualified individuals as candidates
to participate in the peer review. ICF sent each of these individuals an introductory screening email to
describe the needs of the peer review and to gauge the candidate's interest and availability. ICF attached
to the email the reviewer charge to ensure each candidate was familiar with the scope of work. ICF also
1 Draft Report FEV07-069-303F, February 22, 2011.
2 EPA's Science Policy Council. Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition (http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/).OMB's Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review and Preamble (also in the EPA's Peer Review Handbook, Appendix B).
-------
The Peer Review Process
asked candidates to provide an updated resume or curriculum vitae (CV). Several candidate reviewers
were unable to participate in the peer review due to previous commitments, and several others did not
respond. ICF reviewed the responses and evaluated the resumes/CVs of the interested and available
individuals for relevant experience and demonstrated expertise in the above areas, as demonstrated by
educational degrees attained, research and work experience, publications, awards, and participation in
relevant professional societies.
ICF reviewed the interested, available, and qualified candidates with the following concerns in mind. As
stated in the EPA's Peer Review Handbook, the group of selected peer reviewers should be "sufficiently
broad and diverse to fairly represent the relevant scientific and technical perspectives and fields of
knowledge; they should represent a balanced range of technically legitimate points of view." As such,
ICF selected peer reviewers to provide a complimentary balance of expertise of the above criteria.
EPA reviewed ICF's proposed peer reviewers and concurred with ICF's recommendations; these peer
reviewers were listed in the introduction. Exhibit 1 shows the representation of the peer reviewers in the
required areas of expertise.
Exhibit 1. Chart of Peer Reviewer Expertise Areas and Affiliation
Expertise Areas/
Affiliation
HEVs
Cost Modeling
Manufacturing
Mass Production
Tier 1 Supplier
Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM)
T. Bohn,
Argonne
National
Laboratories
^
S
L. Jacovides,
Delphi (Retired)
^
^
^
V
L Miller,
independent
consultant
^
^
^
D. Ramaswamy,
Hybrid Chakra
^
^
^
^
Prior to distributing the review materials, ICF sent each of the reviewers a conflict of interest (COI)
disclosure and certification form to confirm that no real or potential conflicts of interests existed. The
disclosure form addressed topics such as relationships with the report's authoring organization,
employment, investment interests and assets, property interests, research funding, and various other
relevant issues. Upon review of each form, ICF determined that each peer reviewer had no COI issues.
ICF executed subcontract agreements with all of the reviewers.
-------
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
ICF provided peer reviewers with the following materials:
Draft report by FEV, Inc., entitled, "Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Power-split and P2
HEV Case Studies," dated February 22, 2011;
The Peer Reviewer Charge to guide their evaluation; and
A template for the comments organized around the Peer Reviewer charge.
The Peer Reviewer Charge provided peer reviewers with general guidelines, as well as example
questions, for preparing their overall review, with particular emphasis on methodologies and cost results.
In addition, EPA asked each reviewer to provide recommendations on the "overall adequacy of the model
for predicting future battery prices, and on any improvements that might reasonably be adopted by the
authors to improve the model."
A mid-review teleconference was held on March 8, 2011, to discuss the charge, the purpose of the review,
and to answer any outstanding questions the reviewers might have. The call was moderated by ICF and
attended by reviewers Mr. Bohn, Dr. Jacovides, Ms. Miller, and Dr. Ramaswamy, as well as EPA staff
Brian Nelson, and FEV, Inc. staff Greg Kolwich who were familiar with the report.
The charge to peer reviewers is provided in Appendix A. The CVs or resumes for the reviewers are
included in Appendix B.
This section presents a brief summary of the various comments received from the peer reviewers. The
intention here is to convey the overall results of the individual peer reviews in a concise summary
highlighting any lessons learned.
This summary is organized into two categories, issues related to study methodology and results and
general observations of the study. Editorial comments were excluded from this summary and may be
found in the full verbatim comments that are provided in Section 4.
Dr. Jacovides stated that the methodology is correct and can lead to correct results, as he had familiarity
with the approach and expected results from prior work. Given that familiarity, he felt the report
represented a superb implementation of the concept and that the analysis of the HEV and internal
combustion engine (ICE) equivalent was done very carefully, correctly, without any obvious bias, and
achieved results in agreement with his own. Mr. Bohn agreed generally, but only for the baseline HEV.
However, two other reviewers expressed skepticism. Ms. Miller felt that the methodologies are generally
reasonable, but raised some specific concerns, including a lack of documentation proving accurate results.
Specifically, she noted that, while the paper references marketplace validation, no examples were given.
Dr. Ramaswamy agreed that the report does not sufficiently document the validation of the methodology
at a subsystem or a system level. The implication was that, while the bottom-up approach was highly
detailed, insufficient data was given in the report to show that the resulting subsystem or system costs
-------
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
agreed with those developed or published by other reasonable sources. Ms. Miller also noted that the
methodology only predicts absolute costs, and that a sensitivity analysis should be included and
documented. Dr. Ramaswamy agreed that the methodology for determining costs is generally
reasonable, but highlights some significant exceptions. Specifically, engineering development costs and
use of indirect cost multipliers (ICMs) was not considered in sufficient detail and may be incorrect. An
example was given (see specific comment excerpt number 8 in Table 1) where ICM costs are incorrectly
applied to the OEMs. This would introduce bias to lower predicted costs beyond reality, thus the
engineering development costs for the subsystems should be revised. Ms. Miller also noted that the
scaling methodology appeared to be overly simplified when it was applied to labor and manufacturing
overhead. Whereas the cost of direct labor is more a factor of part complexity than one of size, certain
elements of overhead costs were only minimally affected by part size. This could introduce bias that
should be explored through use of sensitivity tests.
The only key limitation Dr. Jacovides noted is that the methodology was limited to the two architectures
studied (split power hybrids used by Toyota and Ford and, to a limited extent, Hyundai's P2 architecture).
While he noted that the P2 battery was properly analyzed by tear down of an actual unit and could be
extended to other hybrids (GM [two mode and the Malibu ISG] and the Honda Insight), Mr. Bohn
expressed skepticism about the general subjectivity of the scaling assumptions, particularly for P2 HEVs,
but, while noting that bias was possible, he made no judgment on its direction or magnitude. However, a
general consensus seemed to be that the P2 HEV results were more likely to be erroneous than the scaling
to other vehicle types, which was, in turn, likely to be more erroneous than the results for the baseline
vehicles.
' '
Mr. Bohn suggested that the scope is "just right" and offered no conclusive statements. He noted that
expanding the scope of the study would likely introduce more variability and that reducing it would not
necessarily increase its validity or accuracy.
Dr. Jacovides said that, although beyond the scope of this report, the study results would be meaningless
without knowledge of appropriate use of ICMs. This was a limitation of the studythe study may be
sufficiently detailed exclusive of ICMs, but end results could vary by up to a factor of two depending on
the ICMs.
As introduced previously, more substantial concerns were raised over the scaling of results, especially to
P2 HEVs. Dr. Jacovides expanded on the comments from part (a), expressed concerns about both the
methods and results for the P2 system. While the results of scaling for the P2 system may be in the right
direction, the sizing of the electrical system (power electronics and the electrical machine) were likely
incorrect. Because the duty cycle of the electrical system in a P2 HEV is very different than that of the
power split HEV, the ratios of copper to iron in magnets will likely be different. Further, if the electrical
machine for the P2 was sized based on power, this was incorrect. Instead, torque and duty cycle are the
primary determinants of size (and cost). Also P2 HEVs have a clutch to disconnect the engine so that
regenerative braking does not have to be reduced to provide for engine friction thus providing an all
electric range (AER). The resulting 32.4kW power of the electrical machine will not provide sufficient
required torque and power for AER. Further, since the size of electrical machine is determined by torque,
not power, a slower speed machine will be heavier which contradicts the assumed 20% vehicle curb
-------
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
weight reduction for the P2 architecture for all vehicle segments. Dr. Ramaswamy agreed that the
assumption of a 20% power and weight reduction assumed for the P2 hybrid may be unjustified. Further,
she found that there is no justification in other literature that the Lithium Polymer battery (as opposed to
nickel metal hydride [NiMH]) would be a better long term solution for the P2 hybrid.
Dr. Jacovides argued that the study will be difficult to apply to other vehicles or architectures without the
detail provided by a similar tear-down. Ms. Miller agreed that extrapolation to other vehicle sizes cannot
be done without the basic underlying detailed studies, and that extrapolation of costs for vehicles other
than the Fusion relies on use of scaling and does not have the same level of detail as the rest of the study.
A different use of scaling factors, such as by applying scaling factors to material cost and investment in
equipment instead of for manufacturing cost and burden could yield a very different result.
The general consensus was that the scaling portion of the study was the most dubious.
Dr. Jacovides reiterated his contention that the report's central analysis (comparison of a hybrid and an
ICE Fusion) was very well done. However, he raised concerns with estimation of the following cost
assumptions: 1) development of control software, 2) integration of the electrical and mechanical parts,
and 3) calibration. All are upfront engineering costs that should be considered as part of the cost of the
vehicle, although they may be insignificant by the time production volume has reached 450,000 units.
Ms. Miller was concerned that lack of communication with the OEM's - while consistent with EPA
policy - can lead to inappropriate validation of the teardown costing. Dr. Ramaswamy agreed that
insufficient independently determined system/subsystem costs were used to validate the calculated costs.
The report does discuss this, but specific examples of validation should be considered as additional inputs
to the process.
Dr. Ramaswamy also argued that the major flawed assumption of this study was that the high voltage
battery will be manufactured in the United States. NiMH batteries are not manufactured in volume in the
United States. Although several companies have plans to manufacture Li-ion batteries, the cells typically
come from Asia. This inaccurate assumption biased the cost results high.
Reviewers noted concern about several assumptions included in the study. Dr. Jacovides again noted his
general conclusion that while the assumptions used are appropriate, the implicit assumption that a
downstream user without the same expertise as FEV would be able to run the model is unlikely. Dr.
Ramaswamy agreed that assumptions were generally reasonable, but highlighted especially the
unreasonable assumption incorporated in the scaling parameter for the battery.
Ms. Miller listed the following specific assumptions that should be re-considered:
The assumption that the technologies used may be considered mature should be evaluated. The
assumption of maturity impacted numerous underlying cost elements, including lack of
allowances for learning, scrap rates, non-recovered engineering, design, and testing (ED&T)
expense and capital costs, and equipment end of life costs.
-------
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
The assumption that no new or modified equipment maintenance is required is inconsistent with
equipment at the end of its life cycle, assumed above. Together, these biased the cost estimates
low.
The assumption that integration of new technology would be planned and phased in to minimize
non-recoverable expenses would be cost effective. In reality, new technology requirements to
achieve fuel economy improvements and emissions reductions will preempt this consideration.
The markup rate needs to vary dependent upon the part size and part complexity. If tolerance
limits are not considered part of part complexity, tolerances need to be considered as another
factor in determining scrap rates. Assumed scrap rates should also be verified.
The assumption that all sourcing/manufacturing centers will be in the United States was not valid
and could bias the results high or low.
Assumed labor rates may need to be adjusted to include overtime costs and other premiums. It
was unclear from the report if this was included and could bias the results, depending on union
agreements and/or operating practices.
Packaging cost assumptions should be checked, based on the sample calculation (page 50, Figure
C-6).
Allowances for a percentage of pallets/racks out for cleaning/repair are not included and biased
the packaging cost low.
The assumed Cost of Complexity is inappropriate. Volumes of 450,000 per year assumed that the
major complex assemblies (engine, transmission, and complex subsystems) are produced on
dedicated lines. If they are not, then a cost of complexity factor needs to be added. The 75%
combined utilization/efficiency assumption was reasonable unless hybrid components are
assembled on the same lines as the baseline products (as they will be), in which case this
utilization/efficiency is over-stated. This biases the results low; additional complexity should be
factored into the utilization/efficiency calculation.
With respect to System Scaling Cost Analysis, ratios used to develop sizes and material costs for
HEV components (traction motors, high traction batteries, etc.) were appropriate, but use of these
ratios to determine other factors (especially labor and P2 HEV powertrain components) was less
valid. These are more related to part complexity than part size. Which costs are scalable should
be reevaluated.
Mr. Bohn discussed some assumptions, particularly regarding the base vehicle and the P2 Hybrid having
equivalent performance with increased fuel economy. He said associated assumptions about the amount
of engine blending and depth of battery discharge were subjective and expressed concerns regarding the
lack of electric machine rating standards. However, he made no mention of their reasonableness or
direction of influence on the study's results.
-------
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
p AiiiiiiTiiiriijitwrif**?4? nf Ft i**? nit*?
\f a tf I |J |J II \/ |J [I II 1 i\# Hi %* * * \& ii IT \<& ii !! ii \$
Generally reviewers seemed to express more reservation about the scaled results than the baseline
vehicles, for a variety of reasons.
Dr. Jacovides noted that scaling for vehicles with identical architecture but different power
inappropriately account for labor. Similarly for P2 HEVs, costs for electrical machines should not be
scaled as power, but on torque and duty cycle. Ms. Miller agreed that the ratios used to size HEV
components was appropriate for material costs and investment in equipment, but that using the size ratio
scaling methodology for overhead cost, direct labor costs, and required staffing was inappropriate. She
had these same concerns with scaling for the P2 HEV calculations. Dr. Ramaswamy also agreed that for
most components, the scaling to other vehicle classes was reasonable. Mr. Bohn added that while the
approach used in scaling appears reasonable, he had concerns that the actual values used in the scaling
approach could be off and lead to erroneous results. However, this was not supported by his general
conclusion above regarding the reasonableness of results.
Mr. Bohn and Dr. Jacovides commented that the NiMH battery scaling was done correctly, although Dr.
Jacovides noted that scaling did not consider an alternative approach of using a larger number of smaller
cells. He believed that the approach used for the P2 architecture was directionally correct but the results
would not be as accurate as those between the baseline hybrid and ICE vehicles. Although he noted that
the estimated cost of the cells seemed reasonable, Dr. Jacovides raised two questions about the treatment
of the Li-ion battery: 1) that discussion should be added to explain preservation of battery life when
scaling by nominal kWh, and 2) that clarification should be made on what size battery is cost for the P2
HEV. Dr. Ramaswamy agreed. She noted that scaling of parameters across different vehicle classes
needed to be better explained and justified, given that this one component was responsible for the bulk of
the cost of the hybrid powertrain.
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
General comments not included in the earlier sections are discussed in this section.
Ms. Miller complemented the detail and effort of the analysis and report and the use of recognized
methodologies. Dr. Ramaswamy noted a small number of omissions and discrepancies. She noted that,
while the report talked about the applicability of the power split hybrid system to the sub-compact, small,
large, and minivan vehicle segments, it should clarify that this group also covers small SUVs such as the
Ford Hybrid Escape, which is one platform that already supports this architecture.
Dr. Ramaswamy also noted several specific items of concern. She indicated that the study seemed to
omit a high-voltage DC/DC converter used by the traction motor and generator, which is used in the
Fusion Hybrid and should be included in the cost. Table E-2, compared to those in Table D-3, showed
inconsistencies that should be addressed. Dr. Ramaswamy also noted that Table A-l should have
calculated the percentage increase as compared to the base non-hybrid vehicle cost, instead of calculating
the increase with respect to the mid/large size vehicle segment cost. Also, in Figure B-l, she questioned
why the bill of materials (BOM) was not updated after step 6, when additional information has been
gained about the component after its disassembly. She also asked what the 19,149 parts stand for on page
50, first paragraph.
Dr. Ramaswamy also believed the methods for determining the engineering design costs for various
components/systems were unclear. These included: 1) the Atkinson engine engineering design cost,
associated control system, and calibration; 2) the engineering design cost for the electronics controllers,
software for the battery system, and mechanical design of the battery system (the numbers presented
appear low); 3) the ED&T for the traction battery assembly (too high relative to that for the control
module, given the relative engineering efforts) (Table D-l 1).
Dr. Jacovides recommended specific companies that should be consulted to assess the accuracy of results:
Ford for the baseline vehicles and those scaled according to size and Honda or GM for scaling to P2
HEVs. Also, individual component costs should be compared to those used on the Volt and Leaf.
Ms. Miller also noted that validity testing of the Munro & Associates software, FEV databases, and
costing algorithms should be performed and documented. Hypothesis testing of assumptions concerning
burden rates, product maturity, etc. and sensitivity analysis to demonstrate correlation to actual
component costs should also be added to the study.
Table 1 presents the verbatim comments received by the three subject matter experts. Comments are
sorted by charge question and then topic/categories. Appendix C provides the actual peer reviewer
comments.
-------
Table 1. Sorted, Verbatim Comments from Reviewers
Charge
Question Topic
Methodology/
Results
Methodology/
Results
Specific
Assumption/
Topic
Methodological
Issues
Methodological
Issues
Com-
ment
Excerpt
No.
1
Reviewer
Bohn
Bohn
Methodology/
Results
Methodological
Issues
Bohn
Methodology Methodological
Bohn
Results
Issues
Comment Excerpt
Overall, the draft document presents a generally
reasonable methodology that is likely to yield accurate
results.
The assumptions used for the P2 HEV system are
somewhat subjective on adding the P2 functionality as an
80/20 power sharing between engine and motor for peak
conditions. This may introduce a bias in the results of the
benefit vs the component cost, or in this case incremental
costs. The assumption about engine downsizing is that the
base vehicle and the P2 Hybrid will have equivalent
performance with increased fuel economy. While peak
performance is straight forward to assess for both the
baseline and P2 Hybrid versions, the amount of engine
blending, depth of discharge of the batteries, etc will affect
the assessed fuel economy.
It is difficult to assess the direction of the bias (cost or
performance/F.E. mismatch)- i.e. component sizing is cost
sensitive and depending on the engine/motor torque
blending, component cost may be over stated or
understated based on blending assumptions and
equivalence the to the base vehicle.
Methodology/
Results
Mothnrlnlnnv/
Methodological
Issues
Mothnrlnlnniral
5
R
Bohn
.larnuirloc
There is no simple remedy for this supposed bias since
engine downsizing and component sizing are subjective
based on the desired performance attributes to compare
the hybrid version to the base vehicle. The assumptions
made in the report (section A) are fair, and clearly stated.
As with many vehicle simulations, the component scaling
methodologies need validation. In some industries,
component scaling is limited to technology or performance
ranges. For instance IGBT transistors versus MOSFET
transistors are used for two different voltage ranges with
some overlap. Even so, the scaling assumptions are
bounded by the available voltage limit for the transistors.
Scaling up power ratings on an inverter, or battery voltage
have impacts on the scaled inverter costs, caused by (for
instance) the boundary where one would use MOSFETs
for lower voltage and IGBTs for high voltage.
The methodology is clearly correct and could lead to
correct results. As stated above, I am familiar with the
approach because it was discussed during the NRC
committee on "Improving the Fuel Economy of LDV and in
the references listed earlier. The report, under review,
represents a superb implementation of the concept.
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/
Results
Methodological
Issues
Methodology/
Results
Methodological
Issues
Methodology/
Results
Methodological
Issues
Methodology/
Results
Methodological
Issues
10
Jacovides The analysis of the Ford Hybrid and cost comparisons with
its ICE equivalent is done very carefully and correctly
without any bias that I can detect. Interestingly the
increase in cost of $3435 that this report comes up with is
almost identical to the one we came up for the Prius in the
NRC study of $3385. We did that by talking to OEM's and
suppliers. However I want to emphasize that the approach
taken by this report is far superior. As long as a detailed
design or an actual vehicle is available this is the way to do
it. It does require a great deal of industrial engineering skill
to estimate the amount of labor, and cost of materials but
in the hands of FEV this has produced excellent results
Jacovides It should be pointed out that the methodology is limited to
the two architectures studied viz. split power hybrids as
implemented by Toyota and Ford and to a limited extend
on the P2 architecture as implemented by Hyundai. I say
limited since there was no design available for the
electrical machine in this case. The battery for the P2 was
properly analyzed by tear down of an actual unit.
Nevertheless the analysis can be extended to other
hybrids such as the two types made by GM (two mode and
the Malibu ISG) and the Honda Insight
Miller While the methodologies, for the most part, appear
reasonable, there are some areas of concern. There is a
lack of documentation in the paper proving that the
methodologies yield accurate results. While the paper
references marketplace validation, no examples are given.
Recommendation: Include examples taking developed
costs for items such as fuel injector assemblies(Figure C-3,
page 45, Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet); extrapolating
these to a total cost using the approach outlined in the
paper; and then comparing these costs to actual
marketplace pricing for the example used. One or two
worked examples of this nature would help to validate the
overall methodology. Alternatively, include a table,
detailed by component/ sub-assembly, showing the
methodologies and comparisons used for costing each
item.
Miller The costing methodology, as presented, develops costs
that are absolute. Given the complex nature of the end
product and the manufacturing processes, it would have
been appropriate to include sensitivity analysis in the
costing detail. If sensitivity analysis has been performed
on a sampling of costs, it is not shown in the paper.
Recommendation: Assuming sensitivity analysis is
available, show the impact of sensitivity analysis in the
examples in the paper. If sensitivity analysis has not been
performed, then this is an area of detail that needs to be
completed. From a manufacturing perspective, sensitivity
analysis on high dollar components needs to include scrap
rates, mean time to repair of equipment, equipment
uptime, etc.
10
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/ Methodological 11 Miller The scaling methodology appears to be overly simplified.
Results Issues For example, scaling factors are applied to labor and
manufacturing overhead. The cost of direct labor is more a
factor of part complexity than one of size. Also, certain
elements of overhead cost such as salaries and front office
costs are not impacted, or at most minimally, by part size.
Recommendation: A deeper review of the approach to
scaling needs to be undertaken to insure that costs are not
under/over-stated. Again, applying sensitivity tests may
help determine whether or not these differences are
significant.
Methodology/ Methodological 12 Miller Without the documentation noted above, it is not possible
Results Issues to say whether or not bias has been created.
Methodology/ Methodological 13 Ramaswamy The methodology for determining the costs are generally
Results Issues reasonable, with some significant exceptions that are listed
below.
The first is the engineering development cost, which
appears to have been not considered in detail in this
report. An example of these are the costs to develop
control systems, be they battery control systems or
otherwise. They cannot be lumped in with the indirect cost
multipliers (ICMs), because these costs are not borne by
the OEMs. Rather, these are costs borne by the suppliers.
The bias introduced by this is that the overall cost of some
components is lower than it should be. The remedy for this
is to revisit the engineering development costs for the
subsystems.
Methodology/ Methodological 14 Ramaswamy What this report does not document sufficiently is the
Results Issues validation of this methodology at a subsystem or a system
level. The bottoms up towards cost that is employed by
FEV is certainly very detail oriented, but there isn't
sufficient data in the report to show that the final
subsystem or system costs that they result in, are inline
with those developed or published by other reasonable
sources
Methodology/ General Flaws 15 Bohn The scope of the document is broad reaching. Expanding
Results the scope of the study would likely introduce more
variability with increased assumption.
Methodology/ General Flaws 16 Bohn The scope does not need to be reduced since it covers
Results many aspects on the cost of producing an automobile and
reducing the scope would not necessarily increase the
validity or accuracy of the study.
Methodology/ General Flaws 17 Jacovides The results of this study cannot properly be evaluated
Results without knowledge of what EPA considers the 1C factor to
be. I realize that this is not in the scope of the report.
However 1C factors range from 1.02 to 1.45 as stated in
reference 5. Industry RPE factors were estimated in
Reference 4 to be 1.5 or 2.0 depending on whether parts
were bought or made in house. One can calculate
manufacturing costs to the penny but then the end result
can vary by a factor of up to two depending on the
multiplier
11
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/ General Flaws 18 Jacovides The results for the P2 may be directionally correct, but I am
Results concerned about the sizing of the power electronics and
the electrical machine. FEV should have bought a Honda
Insight (IMA), available in the US in the spring of 2010, or a
GM Malibu (ISG) for a tear down of the electrical system
(Power electronics and machine). The duty cycle of the
electrical system is very different than that of the power
split and so the ratios of copper to iron to magnets will
likely be different. Also it seems from Table F2 that the
electrical machine was sized based on power. As
discussed below torque and duty cycle are the primary
determinants of size and hence cost. It should be pointed
out that P2 has a clutch which provides two features that
the Insight and the Malibu do not have. The clutch can
disconnect the engine so that regenerative braking does
not have to be reduced to provide for engine friction and
can provide an all electric range (AER). The 32.4kW
power of the electrical machine will not provide the
required torque and power. There should be a statement
to the effect that the P2 is not designed to provide an AER
Methodology/ General Flaws 19 Jacovides Another problem is the assumption of a 20% vehicle curb
Results weight reduction for the P2 architecture and for all vehicle
segments. Such a reduction does not come for free and I
found no rationale for this. In reference 4 we found that a
10% reduction in a 3600 Ibs vehicle would add around
$700. During the conference call it was implied that the P2
electrical systems is lighter. This may not be so and
certainly not by 20%. The speed of the P2 electrical
machine is not an independent variable and it is much
lower than the speeds of the two power split machines.
The size of electrical machines is determined by torque
and not power and so a slower speed machine will be
heavier. Clearly getting an Insight or a Malibu would have
given a better estimate.
Methodology/ General Flaws 20 Jacovides Another flaw of the study is that it depends on the ability of
Results the people using the study to turn the crank for other
vehicles or for vehicles without the detail provided by a
teardown. Clearly FEV has demonstrated that it is
developing that knowledge, although I am not sure about
the accuracy of the electrical systems numbers for the P2.
The question then becomes "will EPA need FEV in the
future in order to use this work". Based on the conference
call with EPA, FEV and the Reviewers, this study will not
be used for other architectures so the above point is moot.
However I would like to caution that any extension to other
architectures needs to be done by skilled manufacturing
engineers and cost analysts.
12
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/
Results
General Flaws
21
Methodology/
Results
Methodology/
Results
General Flaws
22
General Flaws
23
Methodology/
Results
Appropriate Inputs 24
Miller I do not see any general flaws inherent in the scope of
the study. Extrapolation to other vehicle sizes could not be
done without the basic underlying detailed studies.
However, once the component costs had been developed
for the Fusion, the justification for the extensive use of
scaling factors to approximate these costs for other vehicle
lines does not have the same level of detail as the rest of
the study. Whether or not this has been impacted by the
scope of the project can not be determined.
Recommendation: Review the application of scaling
factors, especially for manufacturing cost and burden. The
methodology described in the paper yields a result that
should be considered as one end of a range estimate. The
other end of the estimate should be developed by applying
scaling factors to material cost and investment in
equipment and holding the other costs constant. If it is
necessary to state an absolute cost, the pick a middle
ground between these two numbers based on expert
opinion.
Ramaswamy Although not a flaw per se, it is not clear why the 20%
power and weight reduction was assumed for the P2
hybrid. This was the direction provided by the EPA to FEV,
but the rationale for this is not clear, and this reviewer
could not see why it is justified.
Ramaswamy Secondly, the reports stated that the team felt that the Li
Polymer battery (as opposed to NiMH) is a better long term
solution for the P2 hybrid. It's unclear if this was the EPA
team or the FEV team. Either way, there is no good
rationale provided for such a statement, and this reviewer
has not seen data (even outside of this report) to justify
such a statement.
Bohn The scope and breadth of inputs used for the study and
cost assessments are broad and apparently all
encompassing. There are many input items on costs,
such as labor rates and overhead on labor, which are
outside the expertise of this reviewer. To the best of my
knowledge, all the inputs used in this study are
appropriate.
13
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/
Results
Appropriate Inputs
Methodology/
Results
Appropriate Inputs 26
Methodology/
Results
Appropriate Inputs
Methodology/
Results
Appropriate Inputs
Methodology/
Results
Assumptions in
Model
25 Jacovides When it comes to the main part of the report i.e. the
comparison between a hybrid and an ICE Fusion
everything seems to be done very well. Possible
exceptions are in estimating the following costs
1 .Development of control software.
2.Integration of the electrical and mechanical parts.
S.Calibration. Hybrid vehicles are more complex and to
make performance transparent to the driver is expensive.
Safety also requires extensive calibration. Toyota has
recalled the 2010 Prius to fix software when braking on ice
on bumpy roads. If this can happen to Toyota with 10
years experience on hybrids, it must be taken seriously.
These are upfront engineering costs and by the time
production volume has reached 450k units may not be
significant. However they need to be added to the cost of
the vehicle.
Miller Although, as explained in the conference call on March 8,
2011, it is EPA policy to perform studies of this nature
independent of the OEM's, it would have seemed
appropriate to seek validation of the teardown costing from
the manufacturer whose vehicle is the basis for this
analysis. For a review of other assumptions that are of
concern, see the response to the next Question.
One of the major assumptions in this study that is flawed is
that the high voltage battery will be manufactured in the
United States. NiMH batteries are not manufactured in
volume in the United States, and although several
companies have plans to manufacture Li Ion batteries, the
cells typically come from Asia. To assume that all this
manufacturing is done in the US will results in artificially
high unit costs for these systems. If this information is then
used by the EPA for downstream rule making, it will have
the effect of having hybrid technologies show up in an
unfavorable light as compared to other technologies. This
inaccuracy could be remedied by a modification of the
assumptions in terms of where the battery will be
manufactured.
28 Ramaswamy This study does not present sufficient examples of
independently determined system/subsystem costs to be
used for validation of the costs that FEV/Munro calculates
through their process. Although the report mentions this
was done (section C.7), examples of such validation are
not presented. These independently determined
costs/sources should be additional inputs to this process.
29 Bohn Comments in the boxes above discuss some of the
bounded areas of assumptions that affect cost and/or
performance, such as engine/motor blending.
27 Ramaswamy
14
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/ Assumptions in 30 Bohn A somewhat contentious point related to assumptions is
Results Model the component rating system for electric machines. There
is currently no published standard for electric machine
rating methods in automotive applications. Peak ratings
versus average versus steady state, as well as inlet
cooling rates and losses at different operating points are
tied up in the assumptions used to compare one electric
machine to another after the scaling algorithm.
Methodology/ Assumptions in 31 Bohn The model is very comprehensive, and according to the
Results Model reviewer's teleconference, the authors of this study
validated many of the models and component scaling
models.
Methodology/ Assumptions in 32 Bohn To the best of this reviewer's knowledge, the assumptions
Results Model used in this study are reasonable. Inputs on materials cost
for the study appear to be reasonable to this reviewer.
Methodology/ Assumptions in 33 Jacovides These seem to me to be appropriate. A problem will arise
Results Model with the next person who runs the model. Will they have
the expertise of FEV, which I think is one of the premier
automotive engineering firms?
Methodology/ Assumptions in 34 Miller While the majority of assumptions cited in the study are
Results Model valid, there are a number of assumptions that need to be
re-considered. They are as follows:
The technologies used are considered to be mature. It is
more likely that the technology will continue to evolve
requiring changes to manufacturing facilities and tooling.
The assumption of maturity, for example, impacts a
number of underlying cost elements and other
assumptions: there are assumed to be no allowances for
product/manufacturing learning, scrap rates are minimal,
non-recovered E.D&T expense and capital costs are zero,
and there are no allowances for equipment end of life
costs. All of these stem from the assumption of maturity.
At the same time, however, it is assumed that no new or
modified equipment maintenance is required (See pages
16 & 17). This is not consistent with equipment at the end
of its life cycle. All of the above will cause cost estimates to
be understated.
Recommendation: Review the costs impacted by the
assumption of maturity. Uplift costs by a percentage factor
where appropriate. If the assumption remains that
equipment will be at the end of its useful life, then increase
maintenance costs over time according to the equipment
OEM's guidelines.
Methodology/ Assumptions in 35 Miller It is assumed that "integration of new technology would
Results Model be planned and phased in to minimize non-recoverable
expenses". This would indeed be the most cost effective
decision. However, given the significant requirements for
fuel economy improvements and emissions reductions, the
need to implement new technology will likely be the over-
riding consideration.
Recommendation: Perform cost sensitivity analyses with
non-recovered E.D&T and stranded capital in percent
increments ranging from 10 to 30 %. Include the results in
the paper.
15
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/ Assumptions in 36 Miller End-item scrap includes quality defects, rework costs,
Results Model and/or destructive test parts (page 29). The general mark-
up varies from 0.3% to 0.7% depending on part complexity
and size (page40, Table C-1). However, it is stated that
exceptions are made depending on the part. Examples
cited in Section C.4.5.2 include sand and investment
casting. These are considered to be "generic" processes
and the end-item scrap mark-up is uplifted to 5% in both
cases. However, just as in Table C-1, this rate needs to
vary dependent upon the part size and part complexity (I
am assuming tolerance limits are considered part of part
complexity. If not, tolerances need to be considered as
another factor in determining scrap rates.) Without a part
by part review of the assumptions, the impact to the cost
analysis can not be determined.
Recommendation: To test the reasonableness of the
scrap percentages, check a random sample of
components and compare the end-item scrap rates for
those processes to industry standards. Use complexity
and size of the parts to adjust averaged rates
Methodology/ Assumptions in 37 Miller All sourcing/manufacturing centers are assumed to be in
Results Model the United States. As discussed in the March 8,2011
conference call, this is not a valid assumption and can
significantly impact cost either negatively or positively.
Recommendation: Review present sourcing patterns, at
least for the high cost components and sub-assemblies,
and utilize these patterns as the basis for the cost analysis.
Methodology/ Assumptions in 38 Miller Labor Rates MAQS Costing Worksheet Example (page
Results Model 46). It can not be determined whether or not any overtime
costs were assumed in the labor cost/hour calculation.
Overtime costs will vary manufacturer to manufacturer
based on Union agreements and/or operating practices.
However, in a number of cases (Ford Motor Company for
one), shifts of 10 hours per day in the United States would
generally include 2 hours of overtime pay. Afternoon shift
also has an associated premium cost.
Recommendation: Verify underlying assumptions in the
labor rate models.
Methodology/ Assumptions in 39 Miller Packaging Assumptions: Based on the sample
Results Model calculation (page 50, Figure C-6), allowances for a
percentage of pallets/racks out for cleaning and/or repair
(generally around 5%) have not been included. This
understates the packaging cost.
Recommendation: Increase the # of packaging units
required by 5% where returnable packaging is used.
16
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology
/Results
Assumptions in
Model
40
Miller
Methodology/
Results
Assumptions in
Model
41
Miller
Methodology/
Results
Assumptions in
Model
42 Ramaswamy
Cost of Complexity Assumptions: Based on the volume
assumption of 450K per year, although it is not stated in
the report, it is assumed that the major complex
assemblies: Engine and Transmission as well as Complex
Subsystems are produced on dedicated lines. If not, then
a cost of complexity factor needs to be added. The 75%
combined utilization/efficiency assumption (calculated
based on page 37) is reasonable. However, if hybrid
components are assembled on the same lines as the
baseline products, then this utilization/efficiency is over-
stated due to the inherent inefficiencies caused by
manufacturing complexity. Note: It should be assumed
that hybrid and base vehicles will be assembled on the
same line and so this added complexity must be factored
into the utilization/efficiency calculation.
Recommendation: Process flow diagrams for complex
base-line vehicle assemblies/components should be
compared to those developed for HEV vehicle and
adjustments made to the efficiency/utilization percents for
HEV based on this comparison.
System Scaling Cost Analysis: While the use of ratios to
develop sizing for HEV components such as traction
motors, high traction batteries, etc. is appropriate and can
be used to estimate material costs, the use of these ratios
to determine other factors within manufacturing cost such
as labor (page 126) is less valid. Part complexity
influences these costs more than part size. The same
concerns exist with establishing component costs for P2
HEV powertrain components using manufacturing cost to
component size ratios (page 127).
Recommendations:
Re-evaluate the assumptions around use of a scaling
factor to better define those costs which are scalable and
those which are not.
Assuming the validity of the approach to costing using
manufacturing cost to component size ratios, provide
background data supporting this assumption.
As outlined above, review the application of scaling
factors, especially for manufacturing cost and burden. The
methodology described in the paper yields a result that
should be considered as one end of a range estimate. The
other end of the estimate should be developed by applying
scaling factors to material cost and investment in
equipment and holding the other costs constant. If it is
necessary to state an absolute cost, the pick a middle
ground between these two numbers based on expert
opinion.
In general, the assumptions that are utilized to calculate
cost and performance are reasonable. One big exception
(also mentioned in question 6 below) is the scaling
parameter for the battery. Only two paragraphs are
devoted to it in the report, and nowhere is a definition of "a
common run-time", which is used in the scaling of the
battery, provided.
17
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/ Result 43 Bohn Yes. The results expected of the study are reasonable
Results Appropriateness given the scope, assumptions and inputs.
Methodology/ Result 44 Bohn The net incremental cost for each of the vehicle sizes and
Results Appropriateness two hybrid topologies seems intuitive on cost magnitude, if
in fact performance is equivalent.
Methodology/ Result 45 Bohn This reviewer cannot comment on other results that could
Results Appropriateness be derived from the study.
Methodology/ Result 46 Bohn Validation is a very subjective process with regard to the
Results Appropriateness level of validity'. After reading the study description, and
listening to the authors during the reviewer's
teleconference where the validation process was
described, it appears that reasonable validation was
achieved on the costing results.
Methodology/ Result 47 Jacovides The results are reasonable, not only because the actual
Results Appropriateness number is the same as we got in our study but because the
costs are estimated with great detail. I am aware of one
other company that has used this approach to come up
with detailed costs of automotive components [Footnote 6:
Intellicosting LLC, 980 Chicago Road, Troy, Ml 48083-
4226]. However I am not aware of any similar results for
hybrids.
Methodology/ Result 48 Jacovides I realize that you cannot publish confidential information
Results Appropriateness that you obtain from OEM's, but I think it would be useful to
show the results to Ford and Toyota before making the
report public. They are much more likely to find errors than
the review panel and it may prevent any arguments after
the report is made public. I understand that this a policy
matter, but getting their input seems reasonable to me
Methodology/ Result 49 Miller At best, the levels of assumptions that are made in a study
Results Appropriateness of this magnitude provide costs that are directionally
correct. During the conference call on March 8, 2011, it
was stated that the study commissioned was for absolute
costs as opposed to range estimates. However, this gives
the study results more credence than the assumptions can
support. It was also stated, in the same conference call,
that a manufacturer had been asked to provide costs for
one component and that the cost differential to that
developed in this study was 5%. This further supports the
concern with reporting the cost results of the analysis as
absolutes.
18
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/ Result 50 Miller Concerns regarding validation have been stated
Results Appropriateness consistently throughout this review. Teardown analysis,
development of process flow diagrams, analysis of
comparable parts where available, etc., are excellent
methodologies. However, a number of assumptions have
gone into the methodology used to develop the
manufacturing costs from these process flow diagrams and
the validation of these assumptions are not documented in
this paper. Of particular concern are the assumptions
around sourcing (directed by the EPA), product maturity,
development of burden rates by piece of equipment, direct
labor cost calculations and the application of component
size ratios as the primary scaling factor for manufacturing
cost in other vehicle applications.
Recommendations:
For those components/ assemblies which most impact
vehicle cost, provide range estimates. Without looking at
more detail, a proposal for these ranges can not be made.
However, the cost developers for this study should be able
to provide such ranges as are appropriate based on
sensitivity testing.
Where components are most likely to be sourced outside
the United States, costs need to be adjusted for sourcing
pattern. The sourcing pattern may be a cost reduction or
cost increase dependent upon a number of factors.
In the direct labor calculation of the mean manufacturing
labor wage for a component or assembly (page 32), it is
unclear whether or not the various labor wage rates are
weighted by the calculated number of employees in that
classification to obtain a weighted average. If this has not
been done, direct labor costs need to be re-evaluated.
There are significant wage differentials between the
various classifications with general assembler being the
lowest paid. (The same applies to the indirect labor costs.)
Methodology/ Result 51 Ramaswamy The results of the study are appropriate for the given
Results Appropriateness scope, assumptions and inputs.
Methodology/ Result 52 Ramaswamy The description/report of the validation of the costing
Results Appropriateness methodolgy is not sufficient. The report does say that
experts have been consulted in determining the costs of
various components, but little validation has been shown
(in the report) of cost validation at a subsystem or system
level. The overall costs developed by FEV would present a
greater punch if there were examples of the comparison of
their system/subsystem costs with other costs that have
been published in literature.
Methodology/ Result 53 Ramaswamy FEV and Munro have the tools necessary to do a
Results Appropriateness sensitivity analyses of the costs with respect to different
variables of interest. Further analyses could include
refinement/correction of some of the assumptions around
this study (as mentioned in this review) and studying how
the overall system costs are impacted by those changes.
19
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/ Approach used in 54 Bohn The approach used in scaling cost of the powersplit
Results Scaling technology to other vehicle classes appears reasonable
and shows no reason that it may be not accurate. The
actual numbers placed into the scaling routines may be off,
and result in turn may be off, but the approach is
reasonable.
Methodology/ Approach used in 55 Bohn The methodology for using power-split component costs in
Results Scaling other hybrid technologies is reasonably and appropriate
since several components are common, but scaled. As
mentioned above, there are currently no published electric
machine rating standards for automotive applications. The
electric machine in the P2 topology has (or likely may
have) a different load profile than that used for the power-
split topology where engine power is split through the two
electric machines instead of just one in the P2. To that
point using the normalized cost of the electric machines
($/peak watt) from the power-split in the P2 topology is
reasonable, but the machine rating/sizing may not directly
translate. The battery costs will be equivalent between the
two on peak power/energy, scaled as described in the
report.
Methodology/ Approach used in 56 Jacovides Scaling for a vehicle with identical architecture but with
Results Scaling higher power is not as simple as it appears. Results are
given on page 132 (pdfj [Footnote 7: Page numbers refer
to the pdfnot the pages in the report] for the HVAC
system where the fixed cost of the electronics is, correctly,
taken out. However the compressor cost appears to be
scaled as the power. This is not correct since the material
may indeed be scaled as the power but the labor is not.
Methodology/ Approach used in 57 Jacovides Similarly the cost of the electrical machines should not be
Results Scaling scaled as power. As stated above scaling for the P2 should
be made on the basis of torque and duty cycle. I
understand that two designs were made for a 30kW
generator and for a 60kW motor. It was said during the
conference call that using these designs the data were
extrapolated for different size vehicle. This can only be
done if the motor and generator have identical torque and
duty cycle profiles. This is highly unlikely and so someone
with electrical machine design experience needs to
develop parametric results for the motor and generator
separately. Also as stated above one cannot use power
for scaling a slow speed machine used for the P2
20
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/ Approach used in 58 Jacovides The NiMH battery scaling is done correctly. A possible
Results Scaling weakness is that as an alternative to reducing the number
of cells to estimate a smaller system, one may choose to
use a larger number of smaller cells. Regarding the
electrical machines and the compressor I suggest that a
separate small study be undertaken to determine the
scaling factor. I suspect it will be between two extremes,
.a) scale as power and b) scale material as power and
leave labor and overhead the same. Things get even more
complex if a different architecture is used. The approach
used here for the P2 architecture is directionally correct but
the results will not have the accuracy that the Ford Fusion
comparison has with its ICE counterpart.
Methodology/ Approach used in 59 Jacovides The treatment of the Li-ion battery (LIB) raises a number of
Results Scaling questions
1 .What is the available energy? Typically the SOC
variation is limited in order to obtain life. For hybrids like
the Prius the swing is from about 50% to 60%. The GM
Volt battery swing is 30 to 80%. Scaling the LIB to the
same nominal kWh assumes that the life of the LIB will be
comparable. Some discussion is needed that the life will
not be compromised
2.It is not clear what size battery is costed for the P2.
Page 126 (pdf) states that the battery from the Avante is
0.954 kWh and this battery was costed on table D13 at
$1399. Increasing the energy by 270/180 and scaling the
costs as energy the P2 battery should cost $2098. Please
explain whether the cost of the P2 battery is $1399, $1798
or $2098. To add to my confusion table F2 shows a
battery of 0.9117 kWh for the mid large (Fusion size
vehicle). Also table A4 shows $1690.43 for the High
Voltage Traction Battery Subsystem. I am sure I am
missing something but it needs to be clarified for the
reader
S.The estimated cost of the cells given in D-13 for a 0.954
kWh battery of $1020 seems reasonable at roughly 1000
$/kWh
Methodology/ Approach used in 60 Miller The use of ratios to develop sizing for HEV components
Results Scaling such as traction motors, high traction batteries, etc. as
described in the paper is appropriate and can be used
effectively to estimate material costs and investment in
equipment.
21
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/
Results
Approach used in
Scaling
61
Miller
Methodology/
Results
Approach used in
Scaling
62
Miller
Methodology/
Results
Methodology/
Results
Approach used in
Scaling
Approach used in
Scaling
63
64
Ramaswamy
Ramaswamy
Methodology/
Results
Approach used in
Scaling
65 Ramaswamy
Concerns with using the size ratio scaling methodology
for certain other cost estimates is documented in other
sections of the response. For convenience, they are
repeated here:-Certain elements of overhead cost such as
salaries and front office costs are not impacted, or at most
minimally, by part size. -Direct labor costs are more closely
tied to part complexity than to part size. -While part size
will impact certain areas of indirect labor, such as material
handlers, it will have a lesser impact on number of
supervisors, quality inspectors, etc. Like direct labor, these
numbers are more closely tied topart complexity than size.-
The same concerns exist with establishing component
costs for the P2 HEV powertrain components using
manufacturing cost to component size ratios (page 127).
The issues addressed above regarding scaling
methodology apply equally to the P2 manufacturing cost
calculations.
Recommendations:
Re-evaluate the assumptions around use of a scaling
factor to better define those costs which are scalable and
those which are not.
Assuming the validity of the approach to costing using
manufacturing cost to component size ratios, provide
background data supporting this assumption.
As outlined above, review the application of scaling
factors, especially for manufacturing cost and burden. The
methodology described in the paper yields a result that
should be considered as one end of a range estimate. The
other end of the estimate should be developed by applying
scaling factors to material cost and investment in
equipment and holding the other costs constant. If it is
necessary to state an absolute cost, the pick a middle
ground between these two numbers based on expert
opinion.
For most of the components, the approach used in scaling
the cost of power split technology to other vehicle classes
is reasonable and likely to yield reasonable results.
The one potential exception (and it is stated as potential,
because the approach is not well explained in the report) is
the scaling of the high voltage battery parameters across
the the different vehicle classes. This needs to be better
explained and justified, particularly because this one
component is responsible for the bulk of the cost of the
hybrid powertrain.
Given that the overall cost of the hybrid powertrain is so
sensitive to this one component, this reviewer feels that
greater care is needed in developing this cost. Conversely,
there is considerable detail in the report on the costs for
much more minor components, and although that is not a
bad thing, the appropriate scaling of the battery system
needs to have more effort put into it.
22
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Methodology/
Results
Approach used in
Scaling
Methodology/
Results
Methodology/
Results
Approach used in
Scaling
Approach used in
Scaling
Editorial Content Sufficient
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
Editorial Content Sufficient
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
Editorial Content Sufficient
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
66 Ramaswamy Although the scaling for the most of the components
across the different vehicle classes seems reasonable, one
big item that is not explained clearly is the high voltage
battery. Given that it is the single most expensive
subsystem within the hybrid powertrain, more care needs
to be put into ensuring that this is done in a reasonable
manner, and the report needs to explain how this was
done. The last paragraph on page 132 talks about the
"common run-time" parameter that is used to scale the
battery system across vehicle segments. This parameter
needs to be defined, and the report should have more of
an explanation why the value of 0.0168 hours was used,
and how it translates to the other parameters (power
rating, energy rating) that define a battery
67 Ramaswamy In Table E-2, the nominal pack voltage for the subcompact
passenger vehicle is quite low, namely 148V. Could other,
potentially cheaper power electronics technologies be used
at this battery voltage?
68 Ramaswamy There is a small discrepancy between some of the
numbers in Table E-2 as compared to those in Table D-3.
For example, for the Fusion Hybrid, Table D-3 lists the net
power as 142kW, whereas Table E-2 lists it as 140.6kW.
Similarly, the engine power is listed as 116kW in Table D-
3, but as 114.8kW in Table E-2. Even a rounding of the
numbers doesn't make them the same.
69 Bohn The report is sufficiently detailed for a reader familiar with
the subject report to understand the process and
conclusions. Each of the sections provides a very detailed,
pedagogical approach on the rationale of systems and
subsystem functions, components and assessed costs.
70 Bohn The tables inserted in the report are, of necessity, very
small font with many values in a small area making it
somewhat difficult to read in 8.5" x 11" printed format. The
electronic format was easier to read and understand,
zooming in on one column at a time. No change is needed
for this in the report format, but possibly extracted column
highlighting significant results would add clarity. A great
deal of effort was expended to produce this space efficient
report in a readable number of pages (sufficient detail
without being too long.)
71 Bohn The appendices are appropriate. The cost model template
is sufficient for the appendix.
Editorial Content Sufficient
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
72 Jacovides I would like to see a clear definition of what is assumed to
be the Indirect cost (1C). Is everything not included in Step
7 MAQS on page 21 assumed to be covered by 1C? I
realize that assigning an 1C factor is beyond the scope of
this report but it should be made clear what is included.
Also it should be made clear that no allowance was made
for a different 1C factor for parts sold by suppliers and
made by the OEM's.
23
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Editorial Content Sufficient 73 Jacovides
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
Editorial Content Sufficient 74 Jacovides
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
Editorial Content Sufficient 75 Jacovides
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
A minor editorial point deals with Page 10 figure A1. I
would clarify the planetary gear set by showing ring,
planets and sun clearly. Also remove the gap between the
differential to show that the two gears mesh. Further label
the output of the differential as going to vehicle wheels not
coming from the wheels
Page 9 makes a good point up front ...based on current
automotive and/or surrogate industry manufacturing
operations and processes, it is acknowledged that a
reduction to the costs presented is very likely based on
both product and manufacturing learning. Projected
technology cost reductions, as a result of learning, are not
covered as part of this analysis.
Page 21 .Item #8, Market Place Crosscheck, is a good idea
but needs further explanation and the report should show
results. Comparison with FEV in house experts seems
less than satisfactory.
Editorial Content Sufficient
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
76 Jacovides Page 37 uses labor rates from BLS. Since lithium ion
batteries are not made in the US it would be good to say
what labor rate was used for the Li-ion battery. Some of
the operations need to be made in low grade clean room
Editorial Content Sufficient
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
Editorial Content Sufficient
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
Editorial Content Sufficient
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
77 Jacovides I would be interested to find out how the electrical
machines are cooled for the split power. Oil cooling is
used for the P2 and coolant fluid is used for the power
electronics but I doubt that coolant was used for direct
cooling of the motor and generators
78 Miller Although a substantial amount of detail is included, there
are a number of things that should be added to the report
to substantiate the process and conclusions. As outlined
in a number of questions above, these details are
necessary to validate the processes and underlying
assumptions used to arrive at the cost conclusions. These
details include:-Validation of the Munro & Associates
software including methodology and results
Validation and sensitivity testing (or results of the testing)
of the FEV cost algorithms
A worked example showing the detail behind each
number in the MAQS costing sheet.
Sensitivity analysis for a sampling of the components and
assemblies in the cost analysis.
Data supporting the assumption that manufacturing costs
can be calculated as a ratio of component size.
Clarification of the calculations for direct labor cost.
79 Miller With the exception of the last item [Clarification of the
calculations for direct labor cost], all of the appropriate
documentation should be provided as appendices or as
links to other papers/detailed analytical data.
24
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Editorial Content
Sufficient
Detail/Appropriate
Appendices
Editorial Content Editorial Issues
Editorial Content Editorial Issues
Editorial Content Editorial Issues
Editorial Content Editorial Issues
Editorial Content Editorial Issues
80 Ramaswamy In most cases, sufficient detail has been provided for a
reader familiar with the subject report to understand the
process and conclusions. Exceptions are:
Rationale for assuming the high voltage battery is
manufactured in the United States-Development of the
ED&T costs for different subsystems, particularly that for
control systems-Validation of the calculated costs at a
subsystem/system level
Scaling of the battery system across different vehicle
classes Cost for the high voltage DC/DC converter doesn't
appear to be included
81 Bohn There is a divergence in the electrical engineering world on
the proper use of the term for electrical distribution
'omnibus'. The classic spelling of the word has only one's'
as in 'bus'. The other spelling is also accepted as 'buss'.
There is no direct reference to point of divergence since
the word 'electrical bus' was first used. No action required,
just pointing out that there are two accepted spellings, the
first coming from the origin of the word 'omnibus'. The link
below shows a survey of the percentage of respondents on
their preference/where they were educated:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-
time/15867-buss-bus-where-you-learned-3.html
82 Bohn Pagination and grammar in general are very consistent
and acceptable.
83 Jacovides No comments- everything seems very well done
84 Miller The general organization of the paper is clear.
85 Miller The following are areas where typographical errors or
other editorial issues exist:-Page 16Item 2 net to the last
line. "Develop" should read Development" 'Page 35next
to the last paragraph references a template in Appendix
E.4. This Appendix could not be found in my copy of the
paper. This may just be a labeling error, but none of the
pages in the appendix appeared to be the template
referenced.'Page 42Next to the last paragraph, 2cnd
sentence. FOB (freight on board) is usually designated as
FOB, destinationsupplier pays the shipping costs or FOB
Factorycustomer takes control of the product and pays
the shipping cost. Note that in Europe, FOB is always
referred to as "Free on Board". Assuming you mean the
receiving company pays the freight, the more common
term would be FOB Factory.
25
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Editorial Content Editorial Issues
Editorial Content Editorial Issues
Additional
Comments
Next Steps
86 Ramaswamy In most cases, sufficient detail has been provided for a
reader familiar with the subject report to understand the
process and conclusions.
Exceptions are:
Rationale for assuming the high voltage battery is
manufactured in the United States-Development of the
ED&T costs for different subsystems, particularly that for
control systems
Validation of the calculated costs at a subsystem/system
level
Scaling of the battery system across different vehicle
classes
Cost for the high voltage DC/DC converter doesn't
appear to be included
87 Ramaswamy The overall report is well organized. There are a few minor
typographical/grammatical issues. These are included in
detail in section Grammatical/Typographical Errors
IPage 10, 2nd line, replace "advance" with "advanced"
2.Page 11, 3rd line, replace "value" with "valve"
S.Page 18, 3rd line, replace "standardize" with
"standardized"
4.Page 18, paragraph 2,1st line, replace "very" with "vary"
S.Page 19, paragraphs, 5th line from bottom, replace
"develop" with "developed"
S.Page 21, extra bullet point in Scenario #2
/.Page 52, last paragraph, replace "Too" with "To"
S.Page 52, last paragraph, replace "truck" with "trunk"
9.Page 56, 2nd paragraph, replace "approximate" with
"approximately"
10.Page 91, 3rd paragraph, replace "acknowledge" with
"acknowledged"
11 .Page 97,1st paragraph, replace "VEV" with "HEV"
88 Jacovides Here are some unsolicited improvements and possible
next steps:
As discussed above under f) have small study made on
how to scale electrical machines and the compressor to
distinguish between scalable and fixed costs.
Additional
Comments
Next Steps
89 Jacovides It would be good to check with Ford as to the accuracy of
the results. Although their volume is not up to 450k they
should be able to give you an estimate. For comparing the
P2 costs check with Honda or GM, which produce similar
architectures although, without a clutch between the
engine and transmission. More problematic will be a check
with the GM on their two mode hybrids. They have higher
power and one additional gear, but they seem to be much
more expensive. As I said earlier the numbers check with
the Prius that we studied, but we were puzzled by the GM
figures. Although the Fusion is bigger the Prius data are a
couple of years old and Toyota had not reached the 450k
volume.
26
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Additional
Comments
Additional
Comments
Next Steps
General
Observations
Additional
Comments
General
Observations
Additional
Comments
General
Observations
Additional
Comments
Additional
Comments
General
Observations
General
Observations
90 Jacovides I would use the scaling exercise for the Volt and the Leaf.
These are much different vehicles but have components
that have been included in this study. Then check with GM
and Nissan on costs.
91 Jacovides Accurate calculation of the cost of new technology is very
important to EPA since it needs to relate it to fuel
consumption reductions. The recent history of these efforts
is summarized in three reports [Footnote 1,2,3:1: EPA420-
R-08-008 March 2008; 2: EPA-420-R-10-010 April 2010; 3:
EPA-420-R-09-020 December 2009]. Until recently the
approach was to ask OEMs and suppliers the cost of
technologies and by taking several samples and probing to
create reasonable estimates of the cost to manufacture.
This approach was taken in reference 1 and also by an
NRC Committee to study an "Assessment of Technologies
for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy" [Footnote
4:http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.a
spx?key=48843].
92 Jacovides I was a member of this committee and during our
discussions we thought that a better approach would be to
take apart the components of a new technology and
analyze how much each component would cost. Such an
approach would include no only the cost of labor and
materials but all other "manufacturing" costs. Reference 2
and 3 are examples of such an approach and deal with
vehicles with conventional power trains and, in my view,
confirm the accuracy of the process.
93 Jacovides The present report deals with hybrids and my evaluation
will deal with the report as it calculates manufacturing
costs. Of course in evaluating new technology EPA is
charged to estimate not the manufacturing cost but the
cost to the consumer to determine the cost to the
consumer. Traditionally this was done using the so called
Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) factor. The present report
uses a factor called Indirect Cost (1C) multiplier.
Establishing the multiplier is a highly controversial process
and an EPA's attempt is given in [Footnote 5: EPA-420-R-
09-003 February 2009]. The controversy as discussed in
reference 4 is that EPA tends to come up with a small
factor and OEM's with a larger one. Also OEMs insist that
a different factor should be used for technologies bought
from suppliers and technologies manufacturer in house.
Since the present report does not address this issue, I will
limit my remarks to the estimation of the "manufacturing"
costs as described. However since the EPA will use this
factor in its regulatory process, the end result will likely
underestimate the final cost to the consumer
94 Miller It is clear that a great deal of detail and effort has gone into
FEV's analysis and preparation of the report.
95 Miller The use of vehicle/component teardowns is an integral part
of the analysis and recognized by the industry as an
excellent means of cost analysis. Likewise, the
development of detailed process flow charts used in the
detailed costing is a well accepted practice.
27
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Additional
Comments
General
Observations
96
Miller
Additional
Comments
General
Observations
97
Miller
Additional
Comments
General
Observations
98
Miller
Additional
Comments
General
Observations
99
Ramaswamy
Additional
Comments
General
Observations
100 Ramaswamy
Additional
Comments
Battery
Manufacturing
101 Ramaswamy
The report analysis relies heavily on a number of data
bases and models that are necessarily quite complex.
However, validity testing of the Munro & Associates
software which is fundamental to the development of the
cost estimates is not documented. Additionally, tests that
have been performed to validate the FEV data bases and
the costing algorithms are not included.
Recommendation: Since these data bases are integral to
the study, include the detailed methodology, including
worked examples, used to validate these data bases.
Hypothesis testing of assumptions concerning burden
rates, product maturity, etc. and sensitivity analysis to
demonstrate correlation to actual component costs should
be a part of the study. It is recognized that providing all the
supporting detail in a paper of this magnitude would be
excessive. However, a link to the data could be included
similar to the one for OTAQ documents (page 126). If the
data is considered proprietary, then examples tracing both
a simple and a complex component/assembly through the
process demonstrating how the various costs were derived
should be included in an Appendix or as a separate
document.
The process for defining and apportioning manufacturing
burden costs such as front office salaries down to a single
machine on the plant floor is questionable.
Recommendation: It would be more acceptable to apply
the developed burden rates at a manufacturing
process/component level.
Table A-1 has a calculation of the percent
decrease/increase in cost of adding the power split system
to different vehicle segments. It would be more appropriate
to calculate the percentage increase as compared to the
base non-hybrid vehicle cost, instead of calculating the
increase with respect to the mid/large size vehicle
segement cost.
Nowhere in the paper (for example, section D.7.1 makes
no mention of it, and neither do Tables D-5 or D-6) could
this reviewer find the mention of the high voltage DC/DC
converter (which converts the voltage from approx 300V to
approx 600V, and subsequently utilized by the traction
motor and generator), which is used in the Fusion Hybrid.
The corresponding cost for this part is also not mentioned.
The report assumes that the battery will be manufactured
in locations in North America. Although this reviewer
understands this to be a constraint from the EPA, this is
not a reasonable assumption. There is no large scale
automotive NiMH manufacturing in North America currently
and there are few plans for the same. Although there are
more examples of Li Ion battery manufacturing in North
America, it is questionable if Li Ion will be the battery of
choice for hybrid vehicles. In this reviewer's
experience/knowledge, the NiMH battery will continue to
dominate the HEV market, while Li Ion will dominate the
PHEV/EV market.
28
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Additional
Comments
Power Split
Systems
102 Ramaswamy
Additional
Comments
P2 Hybrid Systems 103 Ramaswamy
Additional
Comments
Additional
Comments
Additional
Comments
Cost Analysis
Observations
Cost Analysis
Observations
Cost Analysis
Observations
104
105
106
Ramaswamy
Ramaswamy
Ramaswamy
The report talks about the applicability of the power split
hybrid system to the sub-compact, small, large and
minivan vehicle segments. It should be clarified that this
group covers small SUVs, such as the Ford Hybrid
Escape, which is one platform that clearly already supports
this hybrid platform.
P2 Hybrid System
1. Although the EPA provided the direction to reduce the
maximum system torque/power by 18-19%, the rationale
for this isn't clear. Without this rationale, a meaningful
comparison between the cost figures for the power split
system and those for the P2 system cannot be made
2. Why was it felt that the Li Ion battery would be more
appropriate for the P2 hybrid? Li Ion batteries have much
better energy density than NiMH batteries, so for
applications that require large battery energy (such as
PHEVs or EVs), it is understandable to use Li Ion packs.
However, for the P2 application, the required kWH of the
battery (from Table F-2) was less than that for the power
split application (from Table E-2). Given this, the selection
of the Li Ion technology for the P2 system is not well
justified.
In Figure B-1, why isn't the BOM updated after step 6,
when additional information has been gained about the
component after its disassembly?
Page 50, first paragraph refers to 19,149 parts, and it
wasn't clear what the 19,149 parts stand for? Are these
19,149 battery packs?
It isn't too clear how the engineering design costs for
various components/systems have been calculated.
a. For example, in section D.2.2, how has the engineering
design cost for the Atkinson engine and the control system
for it, and the calibration for it been calculated/estimated?
b.Similarly, how is the engineering design cost for the
electronics controllers, for the software for the battery
system, for the mechanical design of the battery system
been estimated? The actual numbers that have been
presented in the tables appear to be too low.
c.ln Table D-11, why is the ED&T for the traction battery
assembly so high ($49) compared to that for the control
module (listed as $4)? The relative engineering effort for
the control module is not 12 times less than that for the
design of the mechanical assembly
29
-------
Verbatim Peer Reviewer Comments in Response to Charge Questions
Additional Cost Analysis 107 Ramaswamy In general, FEV and Munro are to be commended for the
Comments Observations detail that they have shown in this approach to determining
hybrid system cost. The use of linked MAQS worksheets
that allow the component costs to be rolled up to
subsystem and system costs is a powerful tool, that can be
used to do sensitivity analysis further down the line.
However, the best system is only as good as the
inputs/assumptions that drive it. Some of the assumptions
used in this report(e.g. battery technology and size,
manufacturing location, system power)that are key in
determining overall system cost have to be carefully
thought through and considered during future rulemaking
by the EPA.
30
-------
Charge to the Peer Reviewers of EPA's Parallel Hybrid Technology Cost Report
EPA's Parallel Hybrid Technology Cost Analysis Report is another key milestone in an extensive
effort being carried out by FEV, under contract with EPA, to estimate the costs of technologies
likely to be used in meeting future light-duty highway vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
standards. The report details the methodologies used by FEV and its subcontractor(s) to
determine the incremental manufacturing cost of one particular LD emission control technology
- a power-split parallel hybrid drivetrain, such as found in the Toyota Prius and Ford Fusion
Hybrid. In addition to detailing the cost results of power-split technology, this report details the
scaling of this technology to other vehicle classes, and establishes how the cost of major power-
split components can be used to inform the cost model for other types of vehicle technologies,
such as P2 hybrids.
No independent data analysis will be required for this review. Instead, EPA is seeking the
reviewer's expert opinion on the methodologies and cost results of this study, and whether they
are likely to yield an accurate assessment of the true cost of the technology. We ask that each
reviewer comment on all aspects of the report. Please organize all responses according to the
charge questions for each of the two categories listed below.
1. Methodology/Results:
a. Is the methodology documented in the report generally reasonable and likely to
yield accurate results? Is any bias likely to be introduced to the results due to
methodological issues? If so, please indicate the direction of this bias and
potential remedies.
b. Please identify any general flaws inherent in the scope of the study. Do you feel
the results would be altered if the scope were more limited or expanded? Please
explain.
c. Are all appropriate inputs for the study being considered? Conversely, are all
inputs considered in the study appropriate? Please cite any particular inputs or
assumptions made by the study that you feel are inappropriate or likely to bias the
results and how they could be remedied, with particular emphasis on sources of
information used in determining labor rates, material prices, manufacturing
burdens and other key factors.
d. Are the assumptions embedded in the model that affect projected cost or
performance reasonable? Such assumptions might include learning curve,
economies of scale, scaling parameters such as weight and power, labor rates,
plant scaling, and material costs.
e. Are the results expected of the study appropriate for the given scope, assumptions,
and inputs? Are there other results that could be derived from the analysis that
A-1
-------
Appendix A: Charge to Peer Reviewers
would support or contradict those cited by the study? Is appropriate validation
made on the costing methodology and results? Please expand on any
recommendations that you would make for analyses of study results.
f. Is the approach used in scaling the cost of power-split technology to other vehicle
classes appropriate and likely to yield accurate results?, Is the methodology for
using the cost of power-split components in other hybrid technologies appropriate
and likely to yield accurate results?
2. Editorial content:
a. Is sufficient detail provided in the body for a reader familiar with the subject
report to understand the process and conclusions? Are appropriate appendices
included? Please specify any specific content that you recommended be added or
removed.
b. Please comment on any editorial issues that should be addressed in the report,
including any comments on general organization, pagination, or grammar and
wording.
In preparing comments, please distinguish between recommendations for clearly defined
improvements that can be readily made, based on data or literature reasonably available to EPA,
and improvements that are more exploratory or dependent, which would be based on information
not readily available to EPA. Comments should be clear and detailed enough to EPA readers or
other parties familiar with the report to allow a thorough understanding of the comment's
relevance to material provided for review.
Additionally, EPA requests that the reviewers not release the peer review materials or their
comments until the Agency makes its report/cost model and supporting documentation public.
EPA will notify the reviewers when this occurs.
If the reviewer has questions about what is required in order to complete this review or needs additional
background material, please contact Susan Elaine at ICF International (SBlaine@icfLcom or 703-225-
2471). If the reviewer has any questions about the EPA peer review process itself, please contact Ms.
Ruth Schenk in EPA's Quality Office, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
or 734-214-4017).
A-2
-------
Appendix B. Peer Reviewer CVs/Resumes
B-1
-------
Appendix B. Peer Reviewer CVs/Resumes
B-2
-------
Theodore P. Bohn
Educational Background
M.S. 2003 Electrical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison Electric Machine Design,
Power Electronics and Controls
B.S. 1994 Electrical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison Power Electronics, Electric
Machines and Control Systems
A.S. 1982 Electrical Engineering Technology, Herzing College
Professional Experience
1999-Present Electrical Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL
Mr. Bohn is a principal investigator in the Vehicle Systems Section of Argonne National
Laboratory's Center for Transportation Research. His team is responsible for advanced
vehicle testing and evaluation, modeling and systems analysis, and hardware-in-the-loop
(HIL) development of hybrid vehicle technologies. He has been designated the de facto
electric machines and power electronics expert, in a vehicle systems context, for the DOE
National Laboratory system. His current assignments include positioning Argonne as the lead
national laboratory in plug-in hybrid vehicle research within DOE.
The following lists of achievements and responsibilities are derived from current and past
projects within the CTR Annual Operating Plan tasks, as well as from the current position
description.
Achievements:
Technology Crosscut: Supported by funds from several DOE sponsors, this effort bridges
research on component-level plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) power electronics/motors at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), through Advanced Power Electric Machines Projects
(APEEM); thermal studies at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); and the
Energy Storage Tech Team (ESTT), with the FreedomCAR Vehicle Systems (VSATT) work
performed at Argonne.
Interacted with the FreedomCAR APEEM tech team, as well as ORNL, to develop
methods for benchmarking high-speed, automotive-grade electric machines and power
electronics for PHEVs.
Constructed, on the basis of a previous proof-of-concept scaled design, a fully capable
55-kW fractional slot, segmented stator, surface permanent magnet prototype motor with
an Argonne-motor fabricator-university team. This motor met FreedomCAR targets for
cost, mass, operating temperature, and performance (being validated at present) goals.
Three prototype motors were constructed to study effects on losses for different stator
winding techniques. One of these motors was integrated into a production Lexus RX400h
rear motor gearbox and is scheduled to be integrated into an Argonne PHEV prototype
vehicle for evaluation.
Provided technology transfer and information dissemination of state-of-the-art in power
electronics and electric machines to FreedomCAR tech teams and OEM partners, as well
as component vendors.
-------
Theodore Bohn - January 2008
Procured sample OEM electric machines and transaxles from all of the current production
hybrid vehicles e.g.., Prius, Lexus, Accord, Civic, Escape, etc). Each of these machines
has been modified to connect to a conventional bench dynamometer to catalog key
electrical and mechanical parameters commonly used by motor designers. Loss
components, such as mechanical/gear loss, windage, and magnetic hysteresis losses, are
also part of the catalog of measured motor metrics.
Generated open-source electric machine motor-drive control software as part of
benchmarking the OEM machines described above. These software and benchmarking
methods are used to support the SAE Task Force on electric machine rating methods for
hybrid vehicle motors.
PHEV Technology Platform Development:
Created a low-cost, real-time, robust, data collection system for PHEVs based on
physical sensors, Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking, and interrogating vehicle
CAN bus data; uploaded system to a server via WiFi link (ARDAQ).
Exploited the surplus computing power of the processor used in ARDAQ to run a Real-
time In-Vehicle Emulation Toolkit (RIVETS) vehicle model to emulate a PHEV while
driving a conventional vehicle, by using in-vehicle sensors as model inputs.
Designed, procured, and constructed several custom battery packs based on state-of-the-
art battery technologies, such as A123 Systems lithium-nanophosphate chemistry.
Initiated a research effort to develop PHEV energy storage systems with in-house-derived
battery state-of-charge tracking algorithms, which are usually proprietary and not
adjustable/tunable by the user, as required for PHEV experiments.
Created a TTR (through the road) parallel hybrid platform capable of all-electric
operation at highway speeds, to be used as a research tool to develop electric/gasoline
energy-blending strategies, develop Smart Charging communication techniques, and
serve as a benchmark platform for PHEV electric motors and large-capacity batteries.
Vehicle uses PSAT-based in-house vehicle-control algorithms.
Designed and constructed a flex-fuel-powered series PHEV prototype vehicle that
contains Vehicle-to-Grid bi-directional power flow charging capability as a tool to
evaluate/develop control algorithms, various battery sizes/types, and electric machines.
This vehicle and evaluation of component technologies are all in support of SAE J1711,
J1772, and J2293 standards development.
Supported a U.S.-Swedish PHEV technology collaboration that included rapid redesign
and upgrading of the Volvo Recharge PHEV concept vehicle to include Vehicle-to-Grid
intelligent charging capability. This project is an example of Argonne tech transfer.
Created the Argonne Advanced Powertrain Embedded Controls Systems (APECS)
laboratory to develop many of the controller- and software-enabling applications needed
to support the goals of the PHEV research program at Argonne.
Received Argonne Pacesetter Award for efforts to market Argonne "brand" for PHEV
research innovation; as a result, Argonne was named the DOE PHEV Lead Laboratory.
Worked closely with Argonne Technical Services Division (TSD) to produce marketing
materials (e.g., press releases, web updates, brochures for sponsors/conference attendees,
DVD-ROMs of data and publications). Hosted a full-sized booth at several professional
conferences to aggressively promote CTR transportation programs to the engineering and
environmental policy community.
Vehicle Technology Validation and Benchmarking:
Collaborated with Continental Automotive to validate, in a production vehicle, a
prototype 14-V alternator synchronous rectification system that replaces the stock
-------
Theodore Bohn - January 2008
alternator regulator and effectively is bona-fide "bolt-on fuel economy improvement
device" (by measurably reducing accessory load losses) (~1.5 mpg).
Implemented an EMI-resistant Rogowski Coil-based AC power measurement system to
overcome challenges in the electrically "noisy" HEV test environment.
Demonstrated the use of a novel Gigantic Magneto-Resistive (GMR) effect field sensor
embedded in an integrated power module for an HEV traction inverter to sense current
inside the power electronics, where a convention probe will not work.
Developed world-class in-situ torque sensors, incorporating EMI noise-resistant digital
telemetry, to measure pulse-by-pulse engine torque without affecting the
functionality/accuracy of the vehicle. This was accomplished by replicating the engine
flywheel and matching mass and inertia with instrumented force bridges and wireless
sensor power transfer.
Created innovative, non-invasive torque sensor located inside the transmission input shaft
by hollowing out the center of the shaft and adding internal strain gauges.
Successfully procured each of the production hybrid vehicles within the stringent
DOE/GSA guidelines and numerous justification letters required by all parties involved.
These include the 2007 Hybrid Camry, 2006 Civic Hybrid, 2005 Honda Accord Hybrid,
2004 Toyota Prius, as well as 170,000 mile end-of-life-study (used) hybrids such as 2000
Honda Insight CVT, and 2002 Toyota Prius.
Created a real-world dynamometer driving simulator based on physical HEV pedals and a
computer-based vehicle model. This device is used for the APRF Driver training
program, which develops the eye-foot coordination of new vehicle operators to more
accurately follow the EPA drive cycle trace. Vehicle parameters and drive cycles are
selectable and feedback on driver accuracy is scored; this information is logged into the
central host computer. This is also a quality assurance measure.
Designed and built baseline robotic driver for repetitive vehicle testing at the APRF.
System used air-electric brake pedal actuators and direct "by wire" input control to the
HEV accelerator pedal command. A newer system is now being constructed with a faster
control computer, faster actuators, and better control algorithms.
Hardware-in-the-Loop:
Participated on initial concept, design, and construction of the Mobile Advanced
Technology Testbed (MATT).
Conceptualized, designed, and implemented a MATT "virtual inertia" electric motor that
not only allows the power rating of the motor to be scaled to emulate smaller HEV
motors, but the system can dynamically mimic different inertial driveline
components/motors via torque sensors and real-time torque feedback equations.
Participated in a team that created first HIL experiment at Argonne. Based on the
bedplate dynamometer, the pre-transmission parallel hybrid diesel-electric hybrid
powertrain used an in-house-built constantly variable transmission.
Constructed and commissioned an axial flux motor (10 kW), HIL test stand that
evaluated mechanically field-weakened wheel motors for future HEV powertrain designs.
Powertrain was scaled to one-quarter of total road-load, for one of 4 wheel motors.
Constructed both 120 kW battery HIL test facilities inside the Advanced Powertrain
Research Facility (one slow response, one fast response), with battery liquid coolant
chiller and environmental chamber for air-cooled tests.
Initiated new PHEV energy storage system research area for active combination of
ultracapacitors, via power electronics, with Li-ion battery experiments for lower-cost,
more-robust energy-storage systems for PHEVs.
Developed new, novel, and robust current regulation algorithms for maintaining
ultracapacitor state of charge (SOC) under highly dynamic operating conditions.
-------
Theodore Bohn - January 2008
Worked with OEM component vendors to study (and reduce) costs of boost converter
magnetic components for electronics used in capacitor/battery studies.
Advanced Vehicle Technology Competitions (AVTCs):
Worked with AVTC team to collect competition vehicle performance data and reduce it
to a set of scored results for the 1999 FutureCar Competition.
Created a new set of competition rules for the 2000 FutureTruck competition, as well as
annual revisions of these rules through the 2004 FutureTruck final year.
Worked with AVTC team to modify FutureTruck competition rules to match the goals of
ChallengeX competition (2005-2008).
Conducted team on-site inspections and inspections of all participating vehicles at the
competition to ensure a safe FutureTruck student vehicle competition for five years of its
existence (2000-2004).
Created high-voltage systems safety and mechanical design "best practices" guideline
document used in safety training for the ChallengeX student vehicle designs.
Responsible for all competition vehicle electrical safety inspections for ChallengeX
(2005-2008).
Worked with highly experienced automotive engineers and academics to organize and
host the first ever SAE Formula Hybrid competition, May 3-5, 2007. Responsible for
overall competition safety as well as high voltage vehicle safety.
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LORD):
Engine Waste Heat Recovery, System-Level Study: Collaborated with university
researchers to investigate total quantity of heat recoverable from engine exhaust and
coolant loop. Validated heat flux model showing as much as 7% of the total energy input,
or 10% of the total waste heat, could be recovered under an arbitrary city driving load
cycle (using Argonne Prius vehicle test data). For the assumptions used in this model,
these percentages correspond to increasing the useable engine output from 43 kW (at the
drive shaft) to 55 kW (drive shaft + electrical generation).
Studied advanced spray pattern and micro-channel/mini-channel heat exchangers, along
with system-level simulation based on Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle actual drive cycle.
Recovered waste heat energy converted to electricity via turbo-expander/generator and
added to electricity available for traction power in hybrid powertrain. Future work to
implement technology in on-road hybrid was proposed, but unfunded.
Work-for-Others: Worked as point of contact and participant in several Work for Others
and Technical Services Agreements for outside companies, including:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Instrumentation of 2004 Toyota Prius power electronics
drive system for its component benchmarking activities
General Electric: Hybrid Delivery Truck powertrain testing and development
Hyundai: PHEV and in-depth HEV benchmarking
SK Battery: Battery hardware-in-the-loop evaluation and tech transfer/training of test
methods to SK Battery, Inc.
University of Alabama- Birmingham: Created a fully instrumented Ford Escape Hybrid
for the university's newly formed hybrid vehicle research lab. Trained faculty and
graduate students on details of internal power flow of this vehicle, along with the cutting
edge custom torque sensors as well as the turn-key National Instruments turn-key data
collection system.
-------
Theodore Bohn - January 2008
Responsibilities:
Design and implement experiments that advance the state of the art for hybrid electric
vehicle technology.
Participate in research teams performing complex testing of advanced powertrain
subsystems and vehicles, including, battery packs, motors, imported production vehicles,
and purpose-built research vehicles.
Gather and analyze data collected from complex testing of engines, battery packs,
motors, and vehicles.
Prepare technical reports and papers that describe the results of R&D on hybrid electric
vehicle technology. Present these results at relevant conferences.
Supervise technicians and students working on equipment in the Advanced Powertrain
Research Facility.
Determine technical goals, provide organizational-logistical support, and maintain a high
level of safety for Advanced Vehicle Technology Competitions.
Provide DOE sponsors with technology updates and progress summaries of Argonne
research.
Foster relationships with automotive industry component vendors, government agencies,
and academia that enhance the hybrid technical community's base knowledge about
hybrid vehicle advancements
2000-2004 Renewable Energy Program Manager/Pre-doctoral Researcher
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
Mr. Bohn was the Renewable Energy Program Manager at University of Wisconsin-Madison,
College of Engineering, responsible for fundraising, information dissemination, the teaching
of power electronics design for renewable energy applications, and the development of
curriculum and accompanying text/reference books. As a pre-doctoral researcher, he worked
on developing electric machine and power electronics component models used in the
Argonne-PSAT system toolkit.
Responsibilities:
Developed transient response electric motor model for PSAT toolkit.
Taught course in power electronics design for renewable resources at junior/senior level.
Raised funds to support renewable energy education program.
Developed curriculum for undergraduate renewable energy education.
Managed financial, human/labor, and equipment resources to achieve student design
project goals.
Developed control systems for characterizing interior permanent magnet electric
machines, such as the motor in the Toyota Prius.
Achievements:
Raised $5OK in funds to start up renewable energy education program.
Developed power electronics curriculum for renewable energy applications and
associated text/reference book.
Delivered custom-developed transient electric motor model and simulations for PSAT
toolkit.
Designed, built, and tested prototype low-cost/high-performance soft magnet surface
PM motor for FfVAC applications.
Installed 1 kW of wind, solar/photovoltaic (PV), and fuel cell energy on-site resources.
-------
Theodore Bohn - January 2008 6
1999-2000 Senior Design Engineer
Power Designers LLC, Madison WI
Mr. Bohn designed and developed a modular, low-cost interlaced battery management system
module, called PowerCheq, to manage large battery systems, such as in a hybrid transit bus.
He also designed off-road vehicle drive systems, as well as hybrid vehicle power
management and high-power/rapid battery chargers. Before leaving Power Designers Corp
(PDC) for graduate school, Mr. Bohn initiated work on fuel cell power conditioning power
electronics.
Achievements:
Produced low-cost reliable stationary charger for Kwang Yang Motor Company
(KYMCO) electric scooters to reduce emissions in Taiwan. Funded by Industrial
Technology Research Institute (ITRI).
Produced demonstration-level fast-charge system for electric scooters in Taiwan, with
communication from battery management system to charger, including method to
automatically bill owner of scooter being charged.
Built proof-of-concept PowerCheq battery equalization module, now in high-volume
production.
Participated on team that designed and built prototype PowerCharge 10-kW battery
charger used in industrial lift truck charge stations, as well as ISE Corporation's hybrid
buses.
Designed low-cost sensing and communication interface for PowerTrac battery
monitoring system.
Responsibilities:
Produced promotional materials and represented Power Designers at trade
shows/conferences.
Tracked state of the art in power electronics products and competitive assessments of
similar products produced by Power Designers.
Produced feasibility reports for Power Designers marketing group.
Designed power electronics circuits for commercial electric vehicles.
Developed test system software for prototype battery monitoring systems.
Developed burn-in fixtures for higher-volume-production electronic devices.
September 1982-1992 Engineering Associate- Senior Technical Specialist
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL
Achievements:
Commissioned 5,000-amp custom-built prime mover and protection system on
superconducting solenoid for Colliding Detector Facility (CDF) experiment.
Designed custom-application specific integrated circuit robust enough to survive
radiation levels at the beam aperture for silicon microvertex detector (SVX) and sensitive
enough to count individual electrons of signal.
Designed quench detection/protection system for $6M superconducting solenoid and
quench recovery system.
Produced prototype and sufficient quantity of custom waveform generators for
quadrapole steering magnet power supplies in superconducting Tevatron accelerator to
correct for higher-order harmonics beam orbit instabilities.
-------
Theodore Bohn - January 2008
Responsibilities:
Designed, installed, and commissioned electronic apparatus to support experiments at
CDF.
Oversaw quality assurance and documentation of installed systems.
Oversaw trouble shooting and maintenance of mission critical systems on experiments
(e.g., Tevatron, CDF, DO Muon line).
Characterized radiation hardness and performance degradation of Application-Specific
Integrated Circuit (ASIC) signal conditioning devices for Silicon Vertex (SVX) detectors.
Performed periodic power system performance/quality upgrades for detector electronics.
Other Relevant Work Experience
2003-2004 Caterpillar Corp., Peoria, IL: (subcontractor) Research Engineer
Constructed open source code controller on prototype dynamometer to develop standardized
test procedures to measure critical electrical parameters of production interior permanent
magnet motors; led to the characterization of Caterpillar custom motors.
1997-1998 Hyperdyne Corp., Madison, WI: President, Co-founder of S-type Corporation
S-type Corporation founded with colleagues to compete for Small Business Innovation
Research grants (SBIRs). Research projects included such topics as development of
algorithms to track battery state of charge, state of health, and instantaneous power capability
of electric vehicle batteries. Proof-of-concept products included a power electronics unit for a
higher-efficiency electronic "fish fence" to contain migration of invasive non-native species
that can cause unnecessary fouling of water inlet hardware.
1996-1997 Industrias Murrell, Guadalajara, Mexico: Electrical Engineer Consultant
Designed proof-of-concept range-extended clean hybrid industrial burden carrier, legal for
use as delivery vehicle in Mexico. Project sponsored by Mexican government to reduce
emissions in Mexico City by producing a delivery vehicle capable of driving from remote
warehouse to downtown on propane-powered internal-combustion (1C) engine, then electric
mode for delivery of goods down narrow streets where conventional delivery trucks will not
fit.
1995-1996 Columbia Par Car, Reedsburg, WI: Electrical Engineer
Started as consultant hired to resolve noise-vibration-harshness (NVH) problems arising from
use of new 4-stroke engine in golf cart design, for Mazda spin-off joint product. Responsible
for implementing electric drive systems in custom tram vehicles, industrial burden carriers,
and specialty golf carts. Qualified potential charger and drive electronics for future products.
Performed range and durability benchmark studies.
1994-1995 Kohler Company - Generator Division, Kohler, WI: Researcher/Electrical Engineer
Developed proof-of-concept solid-state generator set based on latest state-of-the-art
components, such as coaxially wound boost power transformers, for market study.
1994-1994 GM-Advanced Technology Vehicles, Torrance, CA: Electrical Engineer
Worked on high-power inductively coupled battery charger for EV-1 electric car as an
extension of university research. Initiated series hybrid APU for RE-29 transit bus to study
low-noise, low-emission range-extending technologies, via reduced auxiliary loads.
1994-2004 EVRx Electric Vehicle Design/Development, Madison, WI: Owner/Consultant
-------
Theodore Bohn - January 2008 8
Electric vehicle design consulting service founded as a result of connections and contacts
made through DOE Advanced Vehicle Technology Competitions. Focus of the enterprise was
on energy storages systems, power electronics/machines, and controls.
1989-1994 University of Wisconsin-Madison, High Energy Physics Department: Electrical Engineer
Continuation of Fermilab-based experiment apparatus design. Developed very high speed
trigger processor systems (1 GHz throughput) for the DO-Muon detection system at the
Tevatron proton-antiproton collider at Fermilab. Worked as part of a team on wire chamber
particle detectors for the (proposed) SuperCollider in Waxahachie, TX, as well as detector
electronics for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, France.
1982-1982 Kohler General Corp., Sheboygan Falls, WI: Engineering Intern
Led efforts to design, construct, program, and evaluate a low-cost programmable controller
for a polystyrene thermal expansion press that produced formed packing inserts for
Craftsman Tools. Project used (at the time, cutting edge) a Zilog Z-80 single-chip
microprocessor on $200 single-board computer as the basis for a low-cost alternative to a
$2,000 commercially available Texas Instruments Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC).
1977-1999 Sunshine Satellite Systems, Cleveland, WI: Founder/owner/operator
Started as apprentice for communications equipment repair/refurbishment business. New
digital era satellite communications afforded an opportunity to start a small business based on
installing and maintaining Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSAT) for retail stores (ground
satellite terminal), as well as home-based satellite receivers.
Professional Societies (chosen to be consistent with job responsibilities)
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
IEEE Power Electronics Society (PELS)
IEEE Industrial Applications Society (IAS)
Honors and Awards
1997 Granger Outstanding Power Engineering Student Award (undergrad)
2001 Focus on Energy $2,000 Scholarship for design of grid-tied power inverter
2002 Granger Outstanding Power Engineering Student Award (graduate)
2003 Tong Innovative Student Design Award (low-cost third-world electric vehicle)
2005 Recipient of an SAE Transactions Paper Award (Characterization of Variability in
4WD Dynamometer Testing Results Due to Tie-Down Methods)
2007 Argonne Pacesetter Award for establishing Argonne as DOE lead on PHEV research
2008 Society for Technical Communications "Distinguished Award" for PHEV informational
materials (brochures and posters), developed with Argonne TSD staff
2008 Nominated for R&D100 Award for ARDAQ real-time data acquisition system
Patents
US Patent applied for Real-time In-Vehicle Emulation Toolkit
This patent applied for as enhancement of Argonne's Real-time Data Acquisition System
(ARDAQ) that allows users to emulate future technologies, with a conventional production
vehicle, in real time.
Organizational Activities (subset)
-------
Theodore Bohn - January 2008
Session Chair of Advanced Battery Technology Committee, SAE World Congress 2008
Session Chair of Fuel Cell Committee, SAE World Congress 2007
General Committee of the 23rd Electric Vehicle Symposium, Anaheim CA, 2007
Organizer of International Electric Machines Designer Conference, 2003
SAE Electric Machine Rating Standards Task forcecurrent
SAE J1772 Electric/Hybrid Vehicle Conductive Charging Equipment Standardscurrent
SAE J1711 Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Economy of
Hybrid-Electric Vehiclescurrent
SAE J2238 Energy Transfer System for Electric Vehicles: Functional Requirements, System
Architectures, and Communication Messagingcurrent
Peer reviewer for IEEE conferences (APEC, IAS, PESC, IEMDC) and SAE World Congress
Community Service (subset)
Volunteer Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day (IGED) program 2007, 2008
Volunteer Mentor for Future Energy Challenge design competition 1999-present
Volunteer Habitat for Humanity 1990-present
Volunteer Adult Literacy Program 1985-1990
Publications: Journal Articles and Book Contributions
(listed as separate document)
-------
LINOS J. JACOVIDES
A native of Paphos, Cyprus, Dr. Linos J. Jacovides received
Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Electrical Engineering, from the
University of Glasgow, Scotland, and a Doctorate in Generator Control
Systems from the Imperial College, University of London, in 1965.
Dr. Jacovides was most recently Director, Delphi Research
Labs, from December of 1998 until he retired in January of 2007. This
was the Central research operation for Delphi with a budget around
$20M and involved a group of about 90 researchers dealing with
advanced projects - 5 to 15 year horizon. The staff has mostly
doctorates in physical sciences and engineering with at least 10 Fellows
of IEEE, SAE, and the American Physical Society. In this post, he was responsible for R&D in
the following areas: Manufacturing Processes, Materials, Devices, Mechatronics, Polymers, and
Systems. Unlike some Corporate Research Labs the funding was based on voluntary
contributions from the Business Units (BUs). Although in many industrial labs such a
mechanism leads to short term projects, an agreement was reached that 30% of the budget
would be allocated to long term exploratory projects at the discretion of the Lab Director. The
remaining 70% was for projects that were approved by the BUs. This worked very well until the
company declared bankruptcy in 2005.
He joined General Motors Research and Development in 1967 after a two-year
assignment at the Defense Research Laboratories in Goleta, California. He held several
positions at General Motors Research becoming one of GM's youngest executives at age 35.
He became department head, electrical engineering in 1985.
His areas of research were the interactions between power electronics and electrical
machines in electric vehicles and locomotives. He worked on some of the electric vehicles of
the 60's to the 80's at GM. By the 80's he argued against commercializing the EV1 maintaining
that the batteries were not ready for the market. At Delphi his technical interests were on fuel
economy, electronics and alternative fuels. He is the author of ten peer reviewed articles, two
patents and several internal research reports. He edited the first SAE special publication on
Electric Vehicles.
Since retirement he acted as a consultant to Delphi for several months, to help formulate
Delphi's strategy on fuel economy. Since September of 2007 he is also on four Committees of
the National Academies to assess various aspects of vehicle technologies for improving fuel
economy. His contributions are in the area of vehicle propulsion (internal combustion, hybrids,
fuel cell and plug-in hybrids). He is also a member of the Visiting Committee for the EE Dept at
Michigan State University
He is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), where he
served as President of the Industry Applications Society in 1990. He is also a 43 year member
of SAE and was recently elected Fellow for his work on electric propulsion. He was a
representative of Delphi at the Industrial Research Institute.
Linos Jacovides 1 1/12/2011
-------
Resume
Education
B.Sc. 1961, (1st Class Honours, Electrical Engineering) University of Glasgow,
Scotland - Prize for".. the most distinguished graduate of the year in the
engineering faculty".
M.Sc. 1962, University of Glasgow - Thesis on synchronous machine theory.
Ph.D. 1965, Imperial College, University of London, England-Thesis on electric
power grid stability control systems.
Goethe Institut German for foreign students - summers of 1960 and 1961
Employment
Consulting
Expert witness in case against the Army
Taught classes on electric drives at University of Michigan
Member of Board of Directors Novolyte Technologies -Electrolytes for Lithium ion
batteries
National Research Council - Economy Assessment of Resource Needs for
Development of Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technology & Potential Impacts of Plug-
In Hybrid Electric Vehicles.
Delphi
Special assignment to formulate Delphi strategy on fuel economy 2007-08 (4
months)
Director Delphi Research Laboratories (Executive Position) 1999-2007
General Motors Research Laboratories
Chief Scientist Delphi Energy and Engine Management 1994 - 99
Head, Electrical and Electronics Department, 1988- 99 (Executive Position)
Principal Research Engineer, EE Dept., 1987-1988
Asst. Department Head, EE Dept, 1985-1987 (Executive Position)
Senior Staff Research Engineer, EE Dept., 1975-1985 (Executive Position)
Senior Research Engineer, EE Dept., (Special bonus awards 1969, 1970, 1972),
1970-1975,
Research Engineer, EE Dept., 1967-1970
GM Defense Research Laboratories, Goleta, California, 1965-1967
1959 Summer intern Ferranti Limited Manchester. UK
1961 Summer intern Siemens & Halske Karlsruhe. Germany
Professional Societies
IEEE Fellow 1990
IEEE Industry Applications Society
Society President 1990 Vice President 1989 Secretary 1988
Chairman of the Industrial Power Conversion Systems Department 1986-88
Chairman of the Industrial Drives Committee 1984-85
IEEE Power Electronics Society - past member
IEEE Magnetics Society- past member
Linos Jacovides 2 1/12/2011
-------
SAE (past chairman of both the Electric Vehicle Committee and the Electrical and
Electronics Systems Committee)
Institution of Electrical Engineers, (IEE) England - past member
Invited Talks
An Electrical Engineer in the Automobile Industry
Student Activities Committee
IAS Annual Meetings 1986 and 1987
Technical activities
Organized many technical sessions in technical meetings for both the SAE and
the IEEE. Starting in 1970
Initiated a series of Global Technical conferences where Delphi engineers could
present their advanced work
Technical Vice Chair for Convergence in 2000 and 2004. convergence is the
premier conference for automotive electronics and the Vice chair is actually the
person in charge of the program
National Research Council. Committee memberships
o Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel
Economy 2007 to 2010
o Review of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Research and Development
Partnership, Phase 3. 2009 to 2010
o Transportation Research Board. Chair of PANEL SP20-83(04) Effects of
Changing Transportation Energy Supplies and Alternative Fuel Sources on
State Departments of Transportation. 2009 to 2012
Publications
1. "A Critical Evaluation of AC Motor Drives for Traction," B. V. Murty and L. J.
Jacovides. Presented at the 20th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering
Conference, Miami, FL, Aug. 18-23, 1985.
2. "Brushless Motor Drive for In-Tank Fuel Pump," B. R. Patel, L. J. Jacovides, J. G.
Neuman. Presented at the 1984 SAE Congress Feb. 27 Mar. 2 1984. SAE Paper No.
84445.
3. "A Cycloconverter-Synchronous Motor Drive for Traction Applications," L. J.
Jacovides, M. F. Matouka, and D. W. Shimer. IEEE Trans. Industry Applications Vol. IA-
17 #4, pp. 407-418, (Jul/Aug. 1981).
4. "An Improved Triggering Method for a High-Power Cycloconverter-lnduction
Motor Drive," IEEE Trans. Industry Applications Vol. IA-15 #5, pp.
472-481, (Sept./Oct. 1979).
Linos Jacovides 3 1/12/2011
-------
5. "Electric Vehicle Simulation Program," R. H. Nelson, L. J. Jacovides, F. J.
Schauerte, and E. J. Woods. Presented at the International Electric Vehicle
Symposium, Philadelphia, PA, October 2-5, 1978. Published at the Conference
Proceedings.
6. "Digital Simulation of a High-Performance AC Drive System, Part II," S. D Rajan, L. J.
Jacovides and W. A. Lewis. IEEE Trans. Industry Applications Vol. IA-10 #3, pp. 397-
402, (May/June 1974).
7. "Digital Simulation of a High-Performance AC Drive System, Part-l," S. D. Rajan, L.
J. Jacovides and W. A. Lewis. IEEE Trans. Industry Applications Vol. IA-10 #3, pp. 391-
396, (May/June 1974).
8. "Analysis of a Cycloconverter Induction Motor Drive System Allowing for Stator
Current Discontinuities," IEEE Trans. Industry Applications Vol. IA-9#6, pp. 206-215,
(Mar/Apr 1973).
9. "Analysis of Induction Motor Drives with Non-sinusoidal Supply Voltage Using Fourier
Analysis." IEEE Trans. Industry Applications Vol. IA-9#6, pp. 741-747, (Nov/Dec 1973).
10. "Effect of Excitation Regulation on Synchronous Machine Stability," L. J. Jacovides
and B. Adkins. Proc. IEE Vol 113, #6, pp. 1021-1033 (June 1966).
11. "The Effect of Regulation of Excitation on the Stability of Synchronous Machines."
Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, August, 1965.
12. "The Inductance Matrices of the Salient Pole Synchronous Machine," M.Sc. Thesis,
University of Glasgow, Scotland, September, 1962.
Patents
Induction Motor Fabrication Method 3,705,971 Dec. 12, 1972
Method of Induction Brazing a Complex Assembly 4,443,678, Apr. 17, 1984
Reports
There are several research reports that are GM or Delphi confidential. However the
titles of three recent ones may be relevant.
1. Alternative Fuels and the Impact on Delphi - Global Issues. Delphi Research Labs
report No 385 2006
2. Alternative Fuels and the Impact on Delphi - Regional Assessment. Delphi Research
Labs report No 400. 2006
3. Fuel Economy - Strategic Analysis. Assessment of Delphi's Strategy to improve
vehicle fuel economy. Innovation Technology Office 2008
Linos Jacovides 4 1/12/2011
-------
LINDA M. MILLER
miller1249@comcast.net
27500 West River Road Residence: 734-692-2621
Grosse lie, Michigan 48138 Cellular: 313-218-6075
CAREER SUM MARY
A results-driven senior manufacturing executive with extensive experience in automotive
component manufacturing, business planning and supply base development. Demonstrated
ability to build consensus among diverse groups through creation of common goals and
objectives. Significant experience in global operations management, operations consolidation
and new program management. A strong track record of delivering objectives through the
effective development of people, ability to handle difficult Union relationships and effective
communication skills.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Dearborn, Ml 1973-2007
Automotive Manufacturer
Director of Manufacturing, Powertrain Operations 2005-2007
Responsible for the performance of 9 engine, casting, forging and electronic components
plants in the United States, Mexico and Canada with a combined business of $950M.
Developed a strategic plan for standardization of key systems across all plants that
delivered 15-20% annual improvement in cost and quality performance metrics.
Led Union negotiations around out-sourcing of non-critical indirect labor and streamlining
of classifications that resulted in reduced operating costs.
Championed the Powertrain Environmental and Quality Councils and Six Sigma efforts
working to achieve common operating systems across all powertrain plants.
o Key elements of operating systems were agreed upon and are under
implementation.
Chaired the Powertrain People Development Committee ( PDC ) and Manufacturing
Leadership Program that led to identification and development of a diverse group of high
potential employees.
Acted as Co-chair of the steering committee for Women in Manufacturing and through
participation in the Executive Council on Diversity was the formal / informal mentor for
over 25 men and women in manufacturing.
Director of Manufacturing, V-Engine and Casting, 2002-2005
Powertrain Operations
Responsible for the performance of seven engine and casting plants in Canada and the
United States with a combined business of $700M.
Developed cost, quality and safety processes resulting in cost improvements that
averaged 8% annually across all plants, warranty and internal quality improved over
10% per year and safety metrics improved over 15% annually.
Successfully negotiated and led implementation of the idling of a forging plant and an
aluminum casting plant.
Led a cross-functional task force that enabled development and production of a cost -
effective all new 3.5L engine. Innovative engineering design and manufacturing
processes saved $1,800 per unit.
Teamed with the Group Vice-president of Manufacturing to develop and launch the
Women in Manufacturing organization as one of Ford's employee resource groups.
-------
Linda M. Miller Page 2
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ( continued )
Director of Manufacturing, Casting Operations, 2000-2002
Powertrain Operations
Responsible for the performance of all eleven casting and forging plants world-wide with a
combined business of $400M. In addition, responsible for divesture and / or consolidation of
facilities wherever feasible.
Initiated lean manufacturing principles which enabled the US and Canadian plants to
achieve 5% performance improvements annually and meet operating budget for the first
time.
Led divestiture or joint venture partnerships for plants in Argentina, New Zealand and the
aluminum plants in Canada and created strategy for the closure of four plants in the US
and Canada that resulted in closure of three and pending closure of 4th.
Managed the Staff Castings Manufacturing Engineering Group responsible for
development of new manufacturing technology and for providing manufacturing technical
assistance for supply base.
o Teamed with outside supplier and product engineering that developed the first
high volume, high pressure die cast aluminum cylinder block for Ford.
Ford Senior Representative in the American Foundryman's Society.
o Led the effort for the society to become more inclusive by changing the name to
American Foundry Society.
o Advanced the development of student education through participation in the
Foundry Education Foundation ( FEF) seminars as a keynote speaker.
Director, Manufacturing Business Office, Ford Motor Company 1998-1999
Directed the work of the world-wide business offices for vehicle and powertrain
manufacturing in the development of a world-wide manufacturing business plan that would
complement the global product development cycle plan.
Achieved economies of scale by moving all four cylinder engine manufacturing
development to Europe and consolidating v-engine work in the United States.
Identified opportunities for the introduction of flexible manufacturing technologies that
maximized the ability of manufacturing to react to late cycle plan changes.
Assessed the proposed manufacturing plans for South America, India and China and
achieved maximum asset utilization.
Developed the supplier park concept for Ford of Europe that reduced logistic and hourly
workforce costs.
Director, Supplier Technical Assistance, Ford Purchasing 1995-1998
Responsible for globalizing and consolidating the various supplier quality and technical
support groups in Ford world-wide.
Developed and implemented a common system of supplier evaluation and performance
measurement that enabled effective sourcing of product based on quality and cost.
Streamlined the organization by eliminating multiple interface points with the same
supplier resulting in a 30% reduction in staffing.
Developed a supplier accessible electronic data base for performance metrics that
allowed suppliers to react more quickly to quality trends.
o Improved supplier quality 40% over three year period.
Led a team of key suppliers and internal personnel that developed a methodology for
warranty sharing between Ford and suppliers which became a benchmark in the industry
and significantly reduced Ford warranty costs.
-------
Linda M. Miller Page 3
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ( continued )
Plant Manager, Dearborn Engine and Fuel Tank Plant 1993-1994
Managed a three shift plant manufacturing four cylinder engines and all of the steel fuel
tanks for Ford cars and trucks. Employment of 1500 union and salary employees.
Responsibility also included design cost reduction and new program implementation.
Negotiated unique operating patterns and developed new technology applications to
reduce the original planned investment in a new engine program by 35%.
Reduced operating costs by 10% while improving engine warranty costs by 11% and
becoming the first Ford plant to achieve the Total Quality Excellence award.
Improved results in the Plant Leadership Behavior Survey by 40% through a series of
actions recognizing employee contributions and instituting quarterly small group
meetings with all salary personnel with an emphasis on candid dialogue.
Asst. Plant Manager, Cleveland Engine Plants 1991-1993
Responsible for running Cleveland Engine Plant 1 manufacturing the 4.9 and 5.0L engines.
Manufacturing Manager, Essex and Windsor Engine Plants 1989-1991
Responsible for production, quality and manufacturing engineering at the Windsor and
Essex Engine plants.
Manufacturing and Plant Engineering Manager, 1987-1989
Dearborn Engine Plant
Quality Control Manager, Dearborn Engine Plant 1985-1987
Supervisor, Planning and Material Cost Reduction, 1983-1985
Engine Division
Production Superintendent, Dearborn Engine Plant 1982-1983
Inspection Superintendent, Dearborn Engine Plant 1979-1982
Quality Control Engineer, Engine Division 1978-1979
Supplier Quality Assurance Representative, Engine Division 1976-1978
Quality Control Analyst, Engine Division 1973-1976
EDUCATION
MBA, Management, University of Detroit, Detroit, Ml 1981
MA, Mathematics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 1972
BS, Mathematics, Northeast Missouri State University, Kirksville, MO. 1970
MEMBERSHIPS / AFFILIATIONS
President, University of Detroit-Mercy Business School Advisory Board 1999-present
President, Truman State University Foundation Board 2004-present
Co-Chair, Board of Trustees, Wayne State University / Ford Motor 2000-2006
Engineering Management Master's Program
Member, Women's Automotive Association International 2004-present
Member, American Foundry Society 2000-2006
Member, Board of Directors, Cleveland Opera 1991-1993
Member, United Way Leadership Giving Council, Canada 1989-1991
AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Distinguished Alumni Award, University of Detroit-Mercy, Business School 2005
100 Leading Women in the Automotive Industry, Automotive News 2000 & 2005
Spirit of Leadership Award, Women's Automotive Association International 2004
Alumni of the Year, Truman State University 2002
Magnificent Seven Award, Business and Professional Women's Club 1997
Pilliod Lecturer, Kent State University 1995
-------
DEEPA RAMASWAMY, PH.D.
(734) 507-9302
http ://www. hybridchakra. co m deepa@hybridchakra. com
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Extremely motivated and results-driven management, engineering and business development professional with
exceptional oral and written communication skills and an extensive background in the following broad-based
competencies:
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING CONSULTING HYBRID SYSTEMS
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT BATTERY SYSTEMS
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CONTROLS & ELECTRONICS
MODEL-BASED ENGINEERING SALES & NEGOTIATION RAPID PROTOTYPING SYSTEMS
DESIGN VERIFICATION & VALIDATION EMBEDDED SYSTEMS FAILURE MODES & EFFECTS ANALYSIS
One of only a handful of people who have been integrally involved with an OEM production hybrid
program from program inception to launch.
Extensive and professionally recognized engineering and business development skills in the areas of hybrid
systems, plug-in hybrids, battery systems and controls and electronics.
Demonstrated project leadership and program management skills with ability to build talented teams and
generate high customer satisfaction.
Proven capacity to lead large engineering teams in fast-paced product development environments and
expeditiously deliver novel complex systems.
Deep technical expertise in electrical engineering and control systems with the ability to combine project
and team management skills with technical expertise to develop and implement high quality solutions.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
HYBRID CHAKRA CONSULTING, LLC. - Canton, Michigan May 2009-Present
Founder and CEO
Founded a consulting company that offered services in the hybrid vehicle, plug-in hybrid vehicle, electric vehicle
and alternative energy domains.
Provided program management, systems engineering, systems architecture, modeling & analysis and
embedded controls design consulting support to OEMs, Tier Is, suppliers and other entities.
Provided independent reviews of proposals, analyses and reports created by other entities (suppliers,
service providers) in these domains.
Completed projects in the area of battery system management, vehicle control system development and
simulation analysis of hybrid system architectures.
Offered market/technology survey services.
Offered training in the areas of hybrid controls, hybrid architectures and plug-in hybrids.
Offered business development services in above listed domains.
-------
DEEPA RAMASWAMY, PH.D.
(734) 507-9302
http ://www. hybridchakra. co m deepa@hybridchakra. com
RICARDO, INC. - Van Buren, Michigan July 2007-April 2009
Chief Engineer, Hybrid Systems, Controls & Electronics
Performed business development and engineering consulting in the domains of hybrid systems, battery systems and
controls and electronics. With high-level contacts from over 150 companies nationwide in these fields, developed
leads, authored proposals, conducted negotiations and led numerous projects to completion. As a result of
exceptional performance, selected to head up the hybrid activities for Ricardo in the US.
Demonstrated excellent business development ability by winning $6.6 million of order intake during
tenure.
Won Employee of the Month Award for managing a $5 million project and received a very high "Voice
of the Customer" rating of 9.6/10 from the customer.
Recognized as a top performer and received an "Exceptional" performance review rating during annual
performance review.
Identified a market need for Battery Systems development and supported development of business case for
the establishment of a $2 million state of the art Battery Systems Development Center and organized the
well attended Open House.
Authored numerous proposals in the following topics: hybrid system development, vehicle integration,
Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) development, battery pack development, battery management
systems, active safety control systems, PHEV market studies, model based control system design,
electronics development, modeling , simulation of vehicles, design verification and production validation
(DV/PV) of components and systems, Hardware in the loop (HIL) testing, dyno testing, vehicle testing.
Led technological aspects of proposal development for DOE Funding Opportunity Announcement on
Transportation Electrification (DE-FOA-0000028), including partner selection and concept definition.
Developed workplans, established budgets, conducted negotiations with customers and executed projects to
maximize the return to the company and to provide high value to the customer.
Won and led projects including the following:
o Active Safety Control System development for a major automotive OEM.
o Conversion of a hybrid vehicle to a PHEV for a major commercial vehicle Tier 1.
o Market study of the US PHEV market for a major automotive OEM and recommendation of
PHEV type and timing.
o Training in battery technology and systems for a major commercial vehicle Tier 1.
o Simulation of propulsion systems for a marine Tier 1.
o Investigation of state of the art communication protocols in a Battery Management System for a
Battery Tier 1.
Provided technical expertise and knowledge to support projects including the following:
o Review and update of the hybrid technology decision tree on the NHTSA Notice for Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for CAFE standards for MY 2011-2015.
o Virtual vehicle development environment for battery systems.
o A Fuel Economy Demonstrator program for the military.
-------
DEEPA RAMASWAMY, PH.D.
(734) 507-9302
http ://www. hybridchakra. co m deepa@hybridchakra. com
FORD MOTOR COMPANY - Dearborn, Michigan 1995 - June 2007
Supervisor, Research & Advanced Engineering 2004 - June 2007
Directly supervised a team of nine experts in the design of architecture and algorithms for next-generation hybrid
control systems and guided the work of about 40 engineers in the department. Developed common global control
systems across Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo products. Ensured smooth technology transfers from advanced
engineering to product development. Created work and resource plans to ready new technologies for
implementation. Presented the program strategies to upper management.
Drove a common development process across global brands that maximized product re-use and minimized
the resources required for product development with a projected resource reduction of 60%.
Proposed control system hardware architecture with maximum portability between vehicle configurations
that allowed for easy migration across engine, transmission and brake technologies.
Instilled a sense of team discipline in all work by establishing clear processes, plans and deadlines; fostered
strong relationships with production department that shifted team focus to delivering long-term solutions.
Recognized as Top Achiever on performance review rating; consistently received high performance
review ratings.
Led development of an Integrated Modeling Environment, facilitating reuse of Legacy products and
enabling model-based control system development, system level simulation and automatic C-code
generation.
Supervisor, North American Product Development 2000 - 2004
Promoted to lead development of the powertrain control system for the Ford Hybrid Escape SUV program. Built a
superior team of engineers and coordinated interaction with other engineering teams and global suppliers to ensure
timely delivery and high product quality. Managed capital, material and travel budget costs of $2 million and
coordinated interaction with global suppliers from Japan and Europe. Analyzed impact of intellectual property
issues. Reviewed designs, created work plans and employed multiple systems engineering tools. Supervised an
engineering team of 17 to create specifications and design the control software for prototype vehicles.
Won the Henry Ford Technology Award in 2005 for leading the team that built the first production
vehicle system controller for a U.S. automotive company.
Developed and launched the company's most complex system in its vehicle lineup to control the hybrid
SUV that achieved a 50% improvement in fuel economy for a super ultra-low emissions and AT-PZEV
rating; acknowledged with J.D. Power reviews for high quality.
Established six new processes for controller design and validation including the use of rapid prototyping
that reduced development time by 70% and the use of hardware in the loop systems for design verification.
Formulated supplier strategies and secured the best possible quotes by negotiating statements of work with
purchased service suppliers; identified ways to use existing resources that reduced purchase order amounts.
Featured as a key hybrid powertrain system supervisor in Fast Company and Global Auto Insider
magazines.
Delivered a Ford First product on time that met high quality standards and allowed the company to launch a
new product which won the 2005 North American International Auto Show Truck of the Year award.
-------
DEEPA RAMASWAMY, PH.D.
(734) 507-9302
http ://www. hybridchakra. co m deepa@hybridchakra. com
Controls Engineer 1998 - 1999
Charged to develop the control system for the company's first production hybrid electric vehicle. Designed high
level programs using MATLAB and Simulink software and followed up with automatically generated C code to
quickly test designs on actual prototypes. Pioneered the use of the dSPACE MicroAutoBox rapid prototyping
system on a production vehicle program that significantly reduced control system development time. Transferred
fledgling product technology from advanced research facilities smoothly into production.
Automotive Electrical Engineer 1995 - 1998
Gained extensive exposure to the full spectrum of automotive engineering activities through a two-year rotation
program. Benchmarked graphical user interface development tools. Created graphical user interfaces for engine
simulation programs. Supported the electrical system launch for the Lincoln Continental's 13 onboard computers.
Challenged to apply core engineering knowledge and skills by modeling several electromechanical vehicle
components to support vehicle-level electrical simulation.
BUSINESS EXPERTISE
Business Development: Identification of target markets, customer contact and lead development.
Proposal Development: Proposal technical writing, workplan development and resource allocation.
Sales and Negotiation: Review of terms and conditions, Purchase Orders (POs) and "closing the deal"
with a win-win attitude.
Program Management: Leading projects and managing within budgeted resources and with high
customer satisfaction.
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
Hybrid and Battery Systems: System architecture, vehicle integration, system prototyping, development,
verification and validation.
Control Systems: Algorithms, software and hardware embedded system controls for hybrids, batteries,
powertrains and active safety.
Computer Modeling/Simulation: MATLAB, Simulink, C, C++, UML, UNIX, Microsoft Windows and
Office, HTML, Saber, Modelica and Tcl/Tk.
Systems Engineering Tools: Requirements, design verification methods and plans, failure mode and
effects analysis, robustness analysis, 8Ds, fishbone diagrams, fault tree analysis and design of experiments.
PATENTS AND PUBLICATIONS
Received five patents with four additional patents pending.
Authored three SAE conference papers, one ASME conference paper, five IEEE conference papers and two
IEEE journal publications.
Invited speaker at the Detroit Electrochemical Society meeting (joint meeting with Wayne State University
COE) in November, 2010.
-------
DEEPA RAMASWAMY, PH.D.
(734) 507-9302
http ://www. hybridchakra. co m deepa@hybridchakra. com
EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN Champaign, Illinois
Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering 1995
Master of Science in Electrical Engineering 1991
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Madras, India
Bachelor of Technology in Electrical Engineering; graduated 1st in class 1989
FORD MOTOR COMPANY Dearborn, Michigan
Six Sigma Greenbelt Certification 2003
CITIZENSHIP
U.S.
-------
Appendix C. Peer Reviewer Comments As Submitted
C-1
-------
Appendix C. Peer Reviewer Comments As Submitted
B-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Peer Review
of Draft Report, FEV 07-069-3 03F Dated February 22, 2011
"Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Power-split and P2 HEV Case Studies"
Peer Review by Theodore Bohn
March 15,2011
Overview of the Draft Report
The "Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Power-split and P2 HEV Case Studies" describe FEV's
methodology for determining incremental, direct manufacturing costs to estimate the costs of technologies
likely to be used in meeting future light-duty highway vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards.
The methodology consists of the following approach:
- Cost analysis of the production hardware systems was performed as follows:
- Tear down of the production hardware systems
- Evaluation on a part-by-part basis of observed differences in size, weight, materials, machining steps
and other parameters affecting cost.
- Use of databases for material costs, labor rates, manufacturing overhead rates, mark-up rates and packaging
costs to calculate costs to fabricate individual parts and subsystems which are added together to provide
the overall system costs.
Following the costing methodology overview, the incremental cost impact of adding power-split hybrid electric
vehicle (FIEV) technology to a conventional baseline vehicle was discussed. The analysis is based on the detail
teardown and costing of the hardware difference, applicable to the adaptation of power-split FIEV technology,
found between the 2010 Ford Fusion HEV, and an equivalent equipped 2010 Ford Fusion conventional
powertrain vehicle. A description of the hardware required to create the power-split technology is highlighted
and details on the costs are captured at various levels.
Specific cost analysis was provided for Integrated Motor/Generator and clutch assembly system costs were
broken out for the P2 configuration.
The study concluded that the net incremental/assembly cost impact to the OEM was $ 3,435.01for the power-
split topology in the large vehicle segment (Ford Fusion sized chassis), and $3564.66 for the P2 configuration in
the same size of chassis.
This reviewer's area of expertise concerns electric machine technology and control of electric machines as well
as hybrid control systems. Remarks in this review are subjective and the reviewer's knowledge of actual
manufacturing costs vs engineering level component costs is limited to first hand procurement of prototype
systems contrasted with cost/performance design goals for electric machines.
-------
In the format of the provided reviewer template, the following comments on the document are offered:
1. Methodology/Results:
Charge Question:
Reviewer Comments:
Is the methodology documented in the report generally
reasonable and likely to yield accurate results? Is any
bias likely to be introduced to the results due to
methodological issues? If so, please indicate the
direction of this bias and potential remedies.
Overall, the draft document presents a generally reasonable
methodology that is likely to yield accurate results.
The assumptions used for the P2 HEV system are somewhat
subjective on adding the P2 functionality as an 80/20 power sharing
between engine and motor for peak conditions. This may introduce
a bias in the results of the benefit vs the component cost, or in this
case incremental costs. The assumption about engine downsizing is
that the base vehicle and the P2 Hybrid will have equivalent
performance with increased fuel economy. While peak
performance is straight forward to assess for both the baseline and
P2 Hybrid versions, the amount of engine blending, depth of
discharge of the batteries, etc will affect the assessed fuel economy.
It is difficult to assess the direction of the bias (cost or
performance/F.E. mismatch)- i.e. component sizing is cost sensitive
and depending on the engine/motor torque blending, component
cost may be over stated or understated based on blending
assumptions and equivalence the to the base vehicle.
There is no simple remedy for this supposed bias since engine
downsizing and component sizing are subjective based on the
desired performance attributes to compare the hybrid version to the
base vehicle. The assumptions made in the report (section A) are
fair, and clearly stated.
As with many vehicle simulations, the component scaling
methodologies need validation. In some industries, component
scaling is limited to technology or performance ranges. For
instance IGBT transistors versus MOSFET transistors are used for
two different voltage ranges with some overlap. Even so, the
scaling assumptions are bounded by the available voltage limit for
the transistors. Scaling up power ratings on an inverter, or battery
voltage have impacts on the scaled inverter costs, caused by (for
instance) the boundary where one would use MOSFETs for lower
voltage and IGBTs for high voltage.
Please identify any general flaws inherent in the scope
of the study. Do you feel the results would be altered if
the scope were more limited or expanded? Please
explain.
The scope of the document is broad reaching. Expanding the scope
of the study would likely introduce more variability with increased
assumption.
The scope does not need to be reduced since it covers many aspects
on the cost of producing an automobile and reducing the scope
would not necessarily increase the validity or accuracy of the study.
Are all appropriate inputs for the study being
The scope and breadth of inputs used for the study and cost
2
-------
considered? Conversely, are all inputs considered in
the study appropriate? Please cite any particular inputs
or assumptions made by the study that you feel are
inappropriate or likely to bias the results and how they
could be remedied, with particular emphasis on sources
of information used in determining labor rates, material
prices, manufacturing burdens and other key factors.
assessments are broad and apparently all encompassing. There are
many input items on costs, such as labor rates and overhead on
labor, which are outside the expertise of this reviewer. To the best
of my knowledge, all the inputs used in this study are appropriate.
Are the assumptions embedded in the model that affect
projected cost or performance reasonable? Such
assumptions might include learning curve, economies
of scale, scaling parameters such as weight and power,
labor rates, plant scaling, and material costs.
Comments in the boxes above discuss some of the bounded areas of
assumptions that affect cost and/or performance, such as
engine/motor blending.
A somewhat contentious point related to assumptions is the
component rating system for electric machines. There is currently
no published standard for electric machine rating methods in
automotive applications. Peak ratings versus average versus steady
state, as well as inlet cooling rates and losses at different operating
points are tied up in the assumptions used to compare one electric
machine to another after the scaling algorithm.
The model is very comprehensive, and according to the reviewer's
teleconference, the authors of this study validated many of the
models and component scaling models.
To the best of this reviewer's knowledge, the assumptions used in
this study are reasonable. Inputs on materials cost for the study
appear to be reasonable to this reviewer.
Are the results expected of the study appropriate for the
given scope, assumptions, and inputs? Are there other
results that could be derived from the analysis that
would support or contradict those cited by the study? Is
appropriate validation made on the costing
methodology and results? Please expand on any
recommendations that you would make for analyses of
study results.
Yes. The results expected of the study are reasonable given the
scope, assumptions and inputs.
The net incremental cost for each of the vehicle sizes and two
hybrid topologies seems intuitive on cost magnitude, if in fact
performance is equivalent.
This reviewer cannot comment on other results that could be
derived from the study.
Validation is a very subjective process with regard to the 'level of
validity'. After reading the study description, and listening to the
authors during the reviewer's teleconference where the validation
process was described, it appears that reasonable validation was
achieved on the costing results.
Is the approach used in scaling the cost of power-split
technology to other vehicle classes appropriate and
likely to yield accurate results? Is the methodology for
using the cost of power-split components in other
hybrid technologies appropriate and likely to yield
accurate results?
The approach used in scaling cost of the powersplit technology to
other vehicle classes appears reasonable and shows no reason that it
may be not accurate. The actual numbers placed into the scaling
routines may be off, and result in turn may be off, but the approach
is reasonable.
The methodology for using power-split component costs in other
hybrid technologies is reasonably and appropriate since several
components are common, but scaled. As mentioned above, there
are currently no published electric machine rating standards for
automotive applications. The electric machine in the P2 topology
3
-------
has (or likely may have) a different load profile than that used for
the power-split topology where engine power is split through the
two electric machines instead of just one in the P2. To that point
using the normalized cost of the electric machines ($/peak watt)
from the power-split in the P2 topology is reasonable, but the
machine rating/sizing may not directly translate. The battery costs
will be equivalent between the two on peak power/energy, scaled as
described in the report.
2. Editorial content:
Charge Question:
Reviewer Comments:
Is sufficient detail provided in the body for a reader
familiar with the subject report to understand the
process and conclusions? Are appropriate appendices
included? Please specify any specific content that you
recommended be added or removed.
The report is sufficiently detailed for a reader familiar with the
subject report to understand the process and conclusions. Each of
the sections provides a very detailed, pedagogical approach on the
rationale of systems and subsystem functions, components and
assessed costs.
The tables inserted in the report are, of necessity, very small font
with many values in a small area making it somewhat difficult to
read in 8.5" x 11" printed format. The electronic format was easier
to read and understand, zooming in on one column at a time. No
change is needed for this in the report format, but possibly extracted
column highlighting significant results would add clarity. A great
deal of effort was expended to produce this space efficient report in
a readable number of pages (sufficient detail without being too
long.)
The appendices are appropriate. The cost model template is
sufficient for the appendix.
Please comment on any editorial issues that should be
addressed in the report, including any comments on
general organization, pagination, or grammar and
wording.
There is a divergence in the electrical engineering world on the
proper use of the term for electrical distribution 'omnibus'. The
classic spelling of the word has only one 's' as in 'bus'. The other
spelling is also accepted as 'buss'. There is no direct reference to
point of divergence since the word 'electrical bus' was first used.
No action required, just pointing out that there are two accepted
spellings, the first coming from the origin of the word 'omnibus'.
The link below shows a survey of the percentage of respondents on
their preference/where they were educated.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/15867-
buss-bus-where-you-learned-3 .html
Pagination and grammar in general are very consistent and
acceptable.
-------
No independent data analysis will be required for this review. Instead, EPA is seeking the reviewer's expert
opinion on the methodologies and cost results of this study, and whether they are likely to yield an accurate
assessment of the true cost of the technology. We ask that each reviewer comment on all aspects of the report.
Please organize all responses according to the charge questions for each of the two categories listed below.
In preparing comments, please distinguish between recommendations for clearly defined improvements that can
be readily made, based on data or literature reasonably available to EPA, and improvements that are more
exploratory or dependent, which would be based on information not readily available to EPA. Comments
should be clear and specific enough to EPA readers or other parties familiar with the report to allow a thorough
understanding of the comment's relevance to material provided for review.
Additionally, EPA requests that the reviewers not release the peer review materials or their comments until the
Agency makes its report/cost model and supporting documentation public. EPA will notify the reviewers when
this occurs.
If the reviewer has questions about what is required in order to complete this review or needs additional
background material, please contact Susan Elaine at ICF International (SBlaine@icfi.com or 703-225-2471). If
the reviewer has any questions about the EPA peer review process itself, please contact Ms. Ruth Schenk in
EPA's Quality Office, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (schenk.ruth@epa.gov or 734-214-
4017).
-------
Peer Reviewer Report
Preamble
Accurate calculation of the cost of new technology is very important to EPA since
it needs to relate it to fuel consumption reductions. The recent history of these efforts is
19^
summarized in three reports . Until recently the approach was to ask OEMs and
suppliers the cost of technologies and by taking several samples and probing to create
reasonable estimates of the cost to manufacture. This approach was taken in reference 1
and also by an NRC Committee to study an "Assessment of Technologies for Improving
Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy"4.
I was a member of this committee and during our discussions we thought that a
better approach would be to take apart the components of a new technology and analyze
how much each component would cost. Such an approach would include no only the cost
of labor and materials but all other "manufacturing" costs. Reference 2 and 3 are
examples of such an approach and deal with vehicles with conventional power trains and,
in my view, confirm the accuracy of the process.
The present report deals with hybrids and my evaluation will deal with the report
as it calculates manufacturing costs. Of course in evaluating new technology EPA is
charged to estimate not the manufacturing cost but the cost to the consumer to determine
the cost to the consumer. Traditionally this was done using the so called Retail Price
Equivalent (RPE) factor. The present report uses a factor called Indirect Cost (1C)
multiplier. Establishing the multiplier is a highly controversial process and an EPA's
attempt is given in5. The controversy as discussed in reference 4 is that EPA tends to
come up with a small factor and OEM's with a larger one. Also OEMs insist that a
different factor should be used for technologies bought from suppliers and technologies
manufacturer in house. Since the present report does not address this issue, I will limit
my remarks to the estimation of the "manufacturing" costs as described. However since
the EPA will use this factor in its regulatory process, the end result will likely
underestimate the final cost to the consumer
Detailed comments
Methodology/Results:
Section a. Is the methodology documented in the report generally reasonable and likely
to yield accurate results? Is any bias likely to be introduced to the results due to
methodological issues? If so, please indicate the direction of this bias and potential
remedies.
The methodology is clearly correct and could lead to correct results. As stated
above, I am familiar with the approach because it was discussed during the NRC
1 EPA420-R-08-008 March 2008
2 EPA-420-R-10-010 April 2010
3 EPA-420-R-09-020 December 2009
4 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=48843
5 EPA-420-R-09-003 February 2009
Jacovides Page 1 3/24/2011
-------
committee on "Improving the Fuel Economy of LDV" and in the references listed earlier.
The report, under review, represents a superb implementation of the concept.
The analysis of the Ford Hybrid and cost comparisons with its ICE equivalent is
done very carefully and correctly without any bias that I can detect. Interestingly the
increase in cost of $3435 that this report comes up with is almost identical to the one we
came up for the Prius in the NRC study of $3385. We did that by talking to OEM's and
suppliers. However I want to emphasize that the approach taken by this report is far
superior. As long as a detailed design or an actual vehicle is available this is the way to
do it. It does require a great deal of industrial engineering skill to estimate the amount of
labor, and cost of materials but in the hands of FEV this has produced excellent results.
It should be pointed out that the methodology is limited to the two architectures
studied viz. split power hybrids as implemented by Toyota and Ford and to a limited
extend on the P2 architecture as implemented by Hyundai. I say limited since there was
no design available for the electrical machine in this case. The battery for the P2 was
properly analyzed by tear down of an actual unit. Nevertheless the analysis can be
extended to other hybrids such as the two types made by GM (two mode and the Malibu
ISG) and the Honda Insight
Section b. Please identify any general flaws inherent in the scope of the study. Do you
feel the results would be altered if the scope were more limited or expanded? Please
explain.
The results of this study cannot properly be evaluated without knowledge of what
EPA considers the 1C factor to be. I realize that this is not in the scope of the report.
However 1C factors range from 1.02 to 1.45 as stated in reference 5. Industry RPE
factors were estimated in Reference 4 to be 1.5 or 2.0 depending on whether parts were
bought or made in house. One can calculate manufacturing costs to the penny but then
the end result can vary by a factor of up to two depending on the multiplier
The results for the P2 may be directionally correct, but I am concerned about the
sizing of the power electronics and the electrical machine. FEV should have bought a
Honda Insight (IMA), available in the US in the spring of 2010, or a GM Malibu (ISG)
for a tear down of the electrical system (Power electronics and machine). The duty cycle
of the electrical system is very different than that of the power split and so the ratios of
copper to iron to magnets will likely be different. Also it seems from Table F2 that the
electrical machine was sized based on power. As discussed below torque and duty cycle
are the primary determinants of size and hence cost. It should be pointed out that P2 has
a clutch which provides two features that the Insight and the Malibu do not have. The
clutch can disconnect the engine so that regenerative braking does not have to be reduced
to provide for engine friction and can provide an all electric range (AER). The 32.4kW
power of the electrical machine will not provide the required torque and power. There
should be a statement to the effect that the P2 is not designed to provide an AER
Another problem is the assumption of a 20% vehicle curb weight reduction for
the P2 architecture and for all vehicle segments. Such a reduction does not come
for free and I found no rationale for this. In reference 4 we found that a 10%
reduction in a 3600 Ibs vehicle would add around $700. During the conference
call it was implied that the P2 electrical systems is lighter. This may not be so and
certainly not by 20%. The speed of the P2 electrical machine is not an
Jacovides Page 2 3/24/2011
-------
independent variable and it is much lower than the speeds of the two power split
machines. The size of electrical machines is determined by torque and not power
and so a slower speed machine will be heavier. Clearly getting an Insight or a
Malibu would have given a better estimate.
Another flaw of the study is that it depends on the ability of the people using the
study to turn the crank for other vehicles or for vehicles without the detail provided by a
teardown. Clearly FEV has demonstrated that it is developing that knowledge, although I
am not sure about the accuracy of the electrical systems numbers for the P2. The
question then becomes "will EPA need FEV in the future in order to use this work".
Based on the conference call with EPA, FEV and the Reviewers, this study will not be
used for other architectures so the above point is moot. However I would like to caution
that any extension to other architectures needs to be done by skilled manufacturing
engineers and cost analysts.
Section C. Are all appropriate inputs for the study being considered? Conversely, are all
inputs considered in the study appropriate? Please cite any particular inputs or
assumptions made by the study that you feel are inappropriate or likely to bias the results
and how they could be remedied, with particular emphasis on sources of information used
in determining labor rates, material prices, manufacturing burdens and other key factors.
When it comes to the main part of the report i.e. the comparison between a hybrid
and an ICE Fusion everything seems to be done very well. Possible exceptions are in
estimating the following costs
1. Development of control software.
2. Integration of the electrical and mechanical parts.
3. Calibration. Hybrid vehicles are more complex and to make performance
transparent to the driver is expensive. Safety also requires extensive calibration.
Toyota has recalled the 2010 Prius to fix software when braking on ice on bumpy
roads. If this can happen to Toyota with 10 years experience on hybrids, it must
be taken seriously.
These are upfront engineering costs and by the time production volume has reached 450k
units may not be significant. However they need to be added to the cost of the vehicle.
Section d. Are the assumptions embedded in the model that affect projected cost or
performance reasonable? Such assumptions might include learning curve, economies of
scale, scaling parameters such as weight and power, labor rates, plant scaling, and
material costs.
These seem to me to be appropriate. A problem will arise with the next person
who runs the model. Will they have the expertise of FEV, which I think is one of the
premier automotive engineering firms?
Section e. Are the results expected of the study appropriate for the given scope,
assumptions, and inputs? Are there other results that could be derived from the analysis
that would support or contradict those cited by the study? Is appropriate validation made
on the costing methodology and results? Please expand on any recommendations that you
would make for analyses of study results.
Jacovides Page 3 3/24/2011
-------
The results are reasonable, not only because the actual number is the same as we
got in our study but because the costs are estimated with great detail. I am aware of one
other company that has used this approach to come up with detailed costs of automotive
components6. However I am not aware of any similar results for hybrids.
I realize that you cannot publish confidential information that you obtain from
OEM's, but I think it would be useful to show the results to Ford and Toyota before
making the report public. They are much more likely to find errors than the review panel
and it may prevent any arguments after the report is made public. I understand that this a
policy matter, but getting their input seems reasonable to me
Section f. Is the approach used in scaling the cost of power-split technology to other
vehicle classes appropriate and likely to yield accurate results?, Is the methodology for
using the cost of power-split components in other hybrid technologies appropriate and
likely to yield accurate results?
Scaling for a vehicle with identical architecture but with higher power is not as
simple as it appears. Results are given on page 132 (pdf)7 for the HVAC system where
the fixed cost of the electronics is, correctly, taken out. However the compressor cost
appears to be scaled as the power. This is not correct since the material may indeed be
scaled as the power but the labor is not.
Similarly the cost of the electrical machines should not be scaled as power. As
stated above scaling for the P2 should be made on the basis of torque and duty cycle. I
understand that two designs were made for a 30kW generator and for a 60kW motor. It
was said during the conference call that using these designs the data were extrapolated for
different size vehicle. This can only be done if the motor and generator have identical
torque and duty cycle profiles. This is highly unlikely and so someone with electrical
machine design experience needs to develop parametric results for the motor and
generator separately. Also as stated above one cannot use power for scaling a slow speed
machine used for the P2
The NiMH battery scaling is done correctly. A possible weakness is that as an
alternative to reducing the number of cells to estimate a smaller system, one may choose
to use a larger number of smaller cells. Regarding the electrical machines and the
compressor I suggest that a separate small study be undertaken to determine the scaling
factor. I suspect it will be between two extremes, .a) scale as power and b) scale material
as power and leave labor and overhead the same. Things get even more complex if a
different architecture is used. The approach used here for the P2 architecture is
directionally correct but the results will not have the accuracy that the Ford Fusion
comparison has with its ICE counterpart.
The treatment of the Li-ion battery (LIB) raises a number of questions
1. What is the available energy? Typically the SOC variation is limited in
order to obtain life. For hybrids like the Prius the swing is from about
50% to 60%. TheGM Volt battery swing is 30 to 80%. Scaling the LIB
to the same nominal kWh assumes that the life of the LIB will be
comparable. Some discussion is needed that the life will not be
6 Intellicosting LLC, 980 Chicago Road, Troy, MI 48083-4226
7 Page numbers refer to the pdf not the pages in the report
Jacovides Page 4 3/24/2011
-------
compromised
It is not clear what size battery is costed for the P2. Page 126 (pdf) states
that the battery from the Avante is 0.954 kWh and this battery was costed
on table D13 at $1399. Increasing the energy by 270/180 and scaling the
costs as energy the P2 battery should cost $2098. Please explain whether
the cost of the P2 battery is $1399, $1798 or $2098. To add to my
confusion table F2 shows a battery of 0.9117 kWh for the mid large
(Fusion size vehicle). Also table A4 shows $1690.43 for the High Voltage
Traction Battery Subsystem. I am sure I am missing something but it
needs to be clarified for the reader
The estimated cost of the cells given in D-13 for a 0.954 kWh battery of
$1020 seems reasonable at roughly 1000 $/kWh
Editorial content:
Section a Is sufficient detail provided in the body for a reader familiar with the subject
report to understand the process and conclusions? Are appropriate appendices included?
Please specify any specific content that you recommended be added or removed.
I would like to see a clear definition of what is assumed to be the Indirect cost
(1C). Is everything not included in Step 7 MAQS on page 21 assumed to be covered by
1C? I realize that assigning an 1C factor is beyond the scope of this report but it should be
made clear what is included. Also it should be made clear that no allowance was made
for a different 1C factor for parts sold by suppliers and made by the OEM's.
A minor editorial point deals with Page 10 figure Al. I would clarify the
planetary gear set by showing ring, planets and sun clearly. Also remove the gap
between the differential to show that the two gears mesh. Further label the output of the
differential as going to vehicle wheels not coming from the wheels
Page 9 makes a good point up front ...based on current automotive and/or
surrogate industry manufacturing operations and processes, it is
acknowledged that a reduction to the costs presented is very likely
based on both product and manufacturing learning. Projected technology
cost reductions, as a result of learning, are not covered as part of
this analysis.
Page 21.Item #8, Market Place Crosscheck, is a good idea but needs further
explanation and the report should show results. Comparison with FEV in house experts
seems less than satisfactory.
Page 37 uses labor rates from BLS. Since lithium ion batteries are not made in
the US it would be good to say what labor rate was used for the Li-ion battery. Some of
the operations need to be made in low grade clean room
I would be interested to find out how the electrical machines are cooled for the
split power. Oil cooling is used for the P2 and coolant fluid is used for the power
electronics but I doubt that coolant was used for direct cooling of the motor and
generators
Section b. Please comment on any editorial issues that should be addressed in the
Jacovides Page 5 3/24/2011
-------
report, including any comments on general organization, pagination, or grammar and
wording.
No comments- everything seems very well done
Section C. In preparing comments, please distinguish between recommendations for
clearly defined improvements that can be readily made, based on data or literature
reasonably available to EPA, and improvements that are more exploratory or dependent,
which would be based on information not readily available to EPA. Comments should be
clear and detailed enough to EPA readers or other parties familiar with the report to allow
a thorough understanding of the comment's relevance to material provided for review.
Suggestions for next steps
Here are some unsolicited improvements and possible next steps:
1. As discussed above under f) have small study made on how to scale electrical
machines and the compressor to distinguish between scalable and fixed costs.
2. It would be good to check with Ford as to the accuracy of the results. Although
their volume is not up to 450k they should be able to give you an estimate. For
comparing the P2 costs check with Honda or GM, which produce similar
architectures although, without a clutch between the engine and transmission.
More problematic will be a check with the GM on their two mode hybrids. They
have higher power and one additional gear, but they seem to be much more
expensive. As I said earlier the numbers check with the Prius that we studied, but
we were puzzled by the GM figures. Although the Fusion is bigger the Prius data
are a couple of years old and Toyota had not reached the 450k volume.
3. I would use the scaling exercise for the Volt and the Leaf. These are much
different vehicles but have components that have been included in this study.
Then check with GM and Nissan on costs.
Respectfully submitted
Linos J. Jacovides
Director of the Delphi Research Labs (Retired)
154 TouraineRd
Grosse Pointe Farms
Michigan 48236
Jacovides Page 6 3/24/2011
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Peer Review
Draft Report: FEV07-069-303F Dated 2/22/2011
Title: Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Power-split and P2 HEV
Case Studies
Reviewer: Linda M. Miller
Review Date: March 14, 2011
To facilitate use of this review, I will first provide some general observations and
recommendations. More detail will be provided in the sections of this review that
are organized in alignment with the topics and questions in the Peer Review Charge.
General Observations:
It is clear that a great deal of detail and effort has gone into FEV's analysis
and preparation of the report.
The use of vehicle/component teardowns is an integral part of the analysis
and recognized by the industry as an excellent means of cost analysis.
Likewise, the development of detailed process flow charts used in the detailed
costing is a well accepted practice.
The report analysis relies heavily on a number of data bases and models that
are necessarily quite complex. However, validity testing of the Munro &
Associates software which is fundamental to the development of the cost
estimates is not documented. Additionally, tests that have been performed to
validate the FEV data bases and the costing algorithms are not included.
Recommendation: Since these data bases are integral to the study, include the
detailed methodology, including worked examples, used to validate these data
bases. Hypothesis testing of assumptions concerning burden rates, product
maturity, etc. and sensitivity analysis to demonstrate correlation to actual
component costs should be a part of the study. It is recognized that providing all
the supporting detail in a paper of this magnitude would be excessive. However,
a link to the data could be included similar to the one for OTAQ documents (page
126). If the data is considered proprietary, then examples tracing both a simple
and a complex component/assembly through the process demonstrating how the
various costs were derived should be included in an Appendix or as a separate
document.
The process for defining and apportioning manufacturing burden costs such
as front office salaries down to a single machine on the plant floor is
questionable.
Recommendation: It would be more acceptable to apply the developed burden
rates at a manufacturing process/component level.
-------
Comments by Charge Question:
1. Methodology/Results
Question:
Is the methodology documented in the report generally reasonable and likely to
yield accurate results? Is any bias likely to be introduced to the results due to
methodological issues? If so, please indicate the direction of this bias and potential
remedies.
Response:
While the methodologies, for the most part, appear reasonable, there are
some areas of concern.
o There is a lack of documentation in the paper proving that the
methodologies yield accurate results. While the paper references
marketplace validation, no examples are given.
Recommendation: Include examples taking developed costs for
items such as fuel injector assemblies(Figure C-3, page 45, Sample
MAQS Costing Worksheet); extrapolating these to a total cost using
the approach outlined in the paper; and then comparing these costs
to actual marketplace pricing for the example used. One or two
worked examples of this nature would help to validate the overall
methodology. Alternatively, include a table, detailed by component/
sub-assembly, showing the methodologies and comparisons used
for costing each item.
o The costing methodology, as presented, develops costs that are
absolute. Given the complex nature of the end product and the
manufacturing processes, it would have been appropriate to include
sensitivity analysis in the costing detail. If sensitivity analysis has been
performed on a sampling of costs, it is not shown in the paper.
Recommendation: Assuming sensitivity analysis is available, show
the impact of sensitivity analysis in the examples in the paper. If
sensitivity analysis has not been performed, then this is an area of
detail that needs to be completed. From a manufacturing
perspective, sensitivity analysis on high dollar components needs to
include scrap rates, mean time to repair of equipment, equipment
uptime, etc.
o The scaling methodology appears to be overly simplified. For example,
scaling factors are applied to labor and manufacturing overhead. The
cost of direct labor is more a factor of part complexity than one of size.
Also, certain elements of overhead cost such as salaries and front
office costs are not impacted, or at most minimally, by part size.
-------
Recommendation: A deeper review of the approach to scaling
needs to be undertaken to insure that costs are not under/over-
stated. Again, applying sensitivity tests may help determine whether
or not these differences are significant.
Without the documentation noted above, it is not possible to say whether or not
bias has been created.
Question:
Please identify any general flaws inherent in the scope of the study. Do you feel the
results would be altered if the scope were more limited or expanded? Please
explain.
Response:
I do not see any general flaws inherent in the scope of the study. Extrapolation to
other vehicle sizes could not be done without the basic underlying detailed studies.
However, once the component costs had been developed for the Fusion, the
justification for the extensive use of scaling factors to approximate these costs for
other vehicle lines does not have the same level of detail as the rest of the study.
Whether or not this has been impacted by the scope of the project can not be
determined.
Recommendation: Review the application of scaling factors, especially for
manufacturing cost and burden. The methodology described in the paper yields a
result that should be considered as one end of a range estimate. The other end of
the estimate should be developed by applying scaling factors to material cost and
investment in equipment and holding the other costs constant. If it is necessary to
state an absolute cost, the pick a middle ground between these two numbers based
on expert opinion.
Question:
Are all appropriate inputs for the study being considered? Conversely, are all inputs
considered in the study appropriate? Please cite any particular inputs or
assumptions made by the study that you feel are inappropriate or likely to bias the
results and how they could be remedied, with particular emphasis on sources of
information used in determining labor rates, material prices, manufacturing burdens
and other key factors.
Response:
Although, as explained in the conference call on March 8, 2011, it is EPA policy to
perform studies of this nature independent of the OEM's, it would have seemed
appropriate to seek validation of the teardown costing from the manufacturer whose
vehicle is the basis for this analysis. For a review of other assumptions that are of
concern, see the response to the next Question.
-------
Question:
Are the assumptions embedded in the model that affect projected cost or
performance reasonable? Such assumptions might include learning curve,
economies of scale, scaling parameters such as weight and power, labor rates,
plant scaling, and material costs.
Response:
While the majority of assumptions cited in the study are valid, there are a number of
assumptions that need to be re-considered. They are as follows:
The technologies used are considered to be mature. It is more likely that the
technology will continue to evolve requiring changes to manufacturing
facilities and tooling. The assumption of maturity, for example, impacts a
number of underlying cost elements and other assumptions: there are
assumed to be no allowances for product/manufacturing learning, scrap rates
are minimal, non-recovered E,D&T expense and capital costs are zero, and
there are no allowances for equipment end of life costs. All of these stem
from the assumption of maturity. At the same time, however, it is assumed that
no new or modified equipment maintenance is required (See pages 16 & 17).
This is not consistent with equipment at the end of its life cycle. All of the
above will cause cost estimates to be understated.
Recommendation: Review the costs impacted by the assumption of maturity.
Uplift costs by a percentage factor where appropriate. If the assumption
remains that equipment will be at the end of its useful life, then increase
maintenance costs over time according to the equipment OEM's guidelines.
It is assumed that "integration of new technology would be planned and
phased in to minimize non-recoverable expenses". This would indeed be the
most cost effective decision. However, given the significant requirements for
fuel economy improvements and emissions reductions, the need to implement
new technology will likely be the over-riding consideration.
Recommendation: Perform cost sensitivity analyses with non-recovered E,D&T
and stranded capital in percent increments ranging from 10 to 30 %. Include the
results in the paper.
End-item scrap includes quality defects, rework costs, and/or destructive test
parts (page 29). The general mark-up varies from 0.3% to 0.7% depending on
part complexity and size (page40, Table C-1). However, it is stated that
exceptions are made depending on the part. Examples cited in Section
C.4.5.2 include sand and investment casting. These are considered to be
"generic" processes and the end-item scrap mark-up is uplifted to 5% in both
cases. However, just as in Table C-1, this rate needs to vary dependent upon
the part size and part complexity (I am assuming tolerance limits are
considered part of part complexity. If not, tolerances need to be considered
as another factor in determining scrap rates.) Without a part by part review of
the assumptions, the impact to the cost analysis can not be determined.
-------
Recommendation: To test the reasonableness of the scrap percentages, check
a random sample of components and compare the end-item scrap rates for
those processes to industry standards. Use complexity and size of the parts to
adjust averaged rates.
All sourcing/manufacturing centers are assumed to be in the United States.
As discussed in the March 8, 2011 conference call, this is not a valid
assumption and can significantly impact cost either negatively or positively.
Recommendation: Review present sourcing patterns, at least for the high cost
components and sub-assemblies, and utilize these patterns as the basis for the
cost analysis.
Labor Rates MAQS Costing Worksheet Example (page 46). It can not be
determined whether or not any overtime costs were assumed in the labor
cost/hour calculation. Overtime costs will vary manufacturer to manufacturer
based on Union agreements and/or operating practices. However, in a
number of cases (Ford Motor Company for one), shifts of 10 hours per day in
the United States would generally include 2 hours of overtime pay. Afternoon
shift also has an associated premium cost.
Recommendation: Verify underlying assumptions in the labor rate models.
Packaging Assumptions: Based on the sample calculation (page 50, Figure C-
6), allowances for a percentage of pallets/racks out for cleaning and/or repair
(generally around 5%) have not been included. This understates the
packaging cost.
Recommendation: Increase the # of packaging units required by 5% where
returnable packaging is used.
Cost of Complexity Assumptions: Based on the volume assumption of 450K
per year, although it is not stated in the report, it is assumed that the major
complex assemblies: Engine and Transmission as well as Complex
Subsystems are produced on dedicated lines. If not, then a cost of complexity
factor needs to be added. The 75% combined utilization/efficiency
assumption (calculated based on page 37) is reasonable. However, if hybrid
components are assembled on the same lines as the baseline products, then
this utilization/efficiency is over-stated due to the inherent inefficiencies
caused by manufacturing complexity. Note: It should be assumed that hybrid
and base vehicles will be assembled on the same line and so this added
complexity must be factored into the utilization/efficiency calculation.
Recommendation: Process flow diagrams for complex base-line vehicle
assemblies/components should be compared to those developed for HEV vehicle
-------
and adjustments made to the efficiency/utilization percents for HEV based on this
comparison.
System Scaling Cost Analysis: While the use of ratios to develop sizing for
HEV components such as traction motors, high traction batteries, etc. is
appropriate and can be used to estimate material costs, the use of these
ratios to determine other factors within manufacturing cost such as labor
(page 126) is less valid. Part complexity influences these costs more than
part size. The same concerns exist with establishing component costs for P2
HEV powertrain components using manufacturing cost to component size
ratios (page 127).
Recommendations:
Re-evaluate the assumptions around use of a scaling factor to better define
those costs which are scalable and those which are not.
Assuming the validity of the approach to costing using manufacturing cost to
component size ratios, provide background data supporting this assumption.
As outlined above, review the application of scaling factors, especially for
manufacturing cost and burden. The methodology described in the paper
yields a result that should be considered as one end of a range estimate. The
other end of the estimate should be developed by applying scaling factors to
material cost and investment in equipment and holding the other costs
constant. If it is necessary to state an absolute cost, the pick a middle ground
between these two numbers based on expert opinion.
Question: Are the results expected of the study appropriate for the given scope,
assumptions, and inputs? Are there other results that could be derived from the
analysis that would support or contradict those cited by the study? Is appropriate
validation made on the costing methodology and results? Please expand on any
recommendations that you would make for analyses of study results
Response: At best, the levels of assumptions that are made in a study of this
magnitude provide costs that are directionally correct. During the conference call
on March 8, 2011, it was stated that the study commissioned was for absolute costs
as opposed to range estimates. However, this gives the study results more
credence than the assumptions can support. It was also stated, in the same
conference call, that a manufacturer had been asked to provide costs for one
component and that the cost differential to that developed in this study was 5%.
This further supports the concern with reporting the cost results of the analysis as
absolutes.
Concerns regarding validation have been stated consistently throughout this
review. Teardown analysis, development of process flow diagrams, analysis of
comparable parts where available, etc., are excellent methodologies. However, a
number of assumptions have gone into the methodology used to develop the
-------
manufacturing costs from these process flow diagrams and the validation of these
assumptions are not documented in this paper. Of particular concern are the
assumptions around sourcing (directed by the EPA), product maturity, development
of burden rates by piece of equipment, direct labor cost calculations and the
application of component size ratios as the primary scaling factor for manufacturing
cost in other vehicle applications.
Recommendations:
For those components/ assemblies which most impact vehicle cost, provide
range estimates. Without looking at more detail, a proposal for these ranges
can not be made. However, the cost developers for this study should be able
to provide such ranges as are appropriate based on sensitivity testing.
Where components are most likely to be sourced outside the United States,
costs need to be adjusted for sourcing pattern. The sourcing pattern may be
a cost reduction or cost increase dependent upon a number of factors.
In the direct labor calculation of the mean manufacturing labor wage for a
component or assembly (page 32), it is unclear whether or not the various
labor wage rates are weighted by the calculated number of employees in that
classification to obtain a weighted average. If this has not been done, direct
labor costs need to be re-evaluated. There are significant wage differentials
between the various classifications with general assembler being the lowest
paid. (The same applies to the indirect labor costs.)
Question: Is the approach used in scaling the cost of power-split technology to
other vehicle classes appropriate and likely to yield accurate results? Is the
methodology for using the cost of power-split components in other hybrid
technologies appropriate and likely to yield accurate results?
Response:
The use of ratios to develop sizing for HEV components such as traction
motors, high traction batteries, etc. as described in the paper is appropriate
and can be used effectively to estimate material costs and investment in
equipment.
Concerns with using the size ratio scaling methodology for certain other cost
estimates is documented in other sections of the response. For convenience,
they are repeated here:
o Certain elements of overhead cost such as salaries and front office
costs are not impacted, or at most minimally, by part size.
o Direct labor costs are more closely tied to part complexity than to part
size.
-------
o While part size will impact certain areas of indirect labor, such as
material handlers, it will have a lesser impact on number of supervisors,
quality inspectors, etc. Like direct labor, these numbers are more
closely tied topart complexity than size.
o The same concerns exist with establishing component costs for the P2
HEV powertrain components using manufacturing cost to component
size ratios (page 127).
The issues addressed above regarding scaling methodology apply equally to
the P2 manufacturing cost calculations.
Recommendations:
Re-evaluate the assumptions around use of a scaling factor to better define
those costs which are scalable and those which are not.
Assuming the validity of the approach to costing using manufacturing cost to
component size ratios, provide background data supporting this assumption.
As outlined above, review the application of scaling factors, especially for
manufacturing cost and burden. The methodology described in the paper
yields a result that should be considered as one end of a range estimate. The
other end of the estimate should be developed by applying scaling factors to
material cost and investment in equipment and holding the other costs
constant. If it is necessary to state an absolute cost, the pick a middle ground
between these two numbers based on expert opinion.
2. Editorial Content
Question: Is sufficient detail provided in the body for a reader familiar with the
subject report to understand the process and conclusions? Are appropriate
appendices included? Please specify any specific content that you recommended
be added or removed.
Response: Although a substantial amount of detail is included, there are a number
of things that should be added to the report to substantiate the process and
conclusions. As outlined in a number of questions above, these details are
necessary to validate the processes and underlying assumptions used to arrive at
the cost conclusions. These details include:
Validation of the Munro & Associates software including methodology and
results
Validation and sensitivity testing (or results of the testing) of the FEV cost
algorithms
Specific examples where validation testing has been done through
marketplace analysis. These examples must show the FEV derived cost and
the actual marketplace cost.
-------
A worked example showing the detail behind each number in the MAQS
costing sheet.
Sensitivity analysis for a sampling of the components and assemblies in the
cost analysis.
Data supporting the assumption that manufacturing costs can be calculated
as a ratio of component size.
Clarification of the calculations for direct labor cost.
With the exception of the last item, all of the appropriate documentation should be
provided as appendices or as links to other papers/detailed analytical data.
Question: Please comment on any editorial issues that should be addressed in the
report, including any comments on general organization, pagination, or grammar
and wording.
Response: The general organization of the paper is clear. The following are areas
where typographical errors or other editorial issues exist:
Page 16Item 2 net to the last line. "Develop" should read "Development"
Page 35next to the last paragraph references a template in Appendix E.4.
This Appendix could not be found in my copy of the paper. This may just be a
labeling error, but none of the pages in the appendix appeared to be the
template referenced.
Page 42Next to the last paragraph, 2cnd sentence. FOB (freight on board)
is usually designated as FOB, destinationsupplier pays the shipping costs or
FOB Factorycustomer takes control of the product and pays the shipping
cost. Note that in Europe, FOB is always referred to as "Free on Board".
Assuming you mean the receiving company pays the freight, the more
common term would be FOB Factory.
This concludes my review.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. Miller
-------
Review of Draft Report "Light Duty Technology Cost Analysis, Power Split
and P2 HEV Case Studies, dated March 10th, 2011"
By
Deepa Ramaswamy, Ph.D.,
Hybrid Chakra Consulting, LLC
This report contains the review of the draft report listed above. It
begins with a response to the specific charge questions from ICF. The first
part of the report contains responses to the charge questions, and these
are listed in Table 1 and Table 2. The next part of the report lists
additional review comments in certain specific categories.
In general, FEV and Munro are to be commended for the detail that they have
shown in this approach to determining hybrid system cost. The use of linked
MAQS worksheets that allow the component costs to be rolled up to subsystem
and system costs is a powerful tool, that can be used to do sensitivity
analysis further down the line. However, the best system is only as good as
the inputs/assumptions that drive it. Some of the assumptions used in this
report(e.g. battery technology and size, manufacturing location, system
power)that are key in determining overall system cost have to be carefully
thought through and considered during future rulemaking by the EPA.
Methodology/Results:
Charge Question:
Reviewer Comments:
Is the methodology
documented in the report
generally reasonable and
likely to yield accurate
results? Is any bias likely
to be introduced to the
results due to
methodological issues? If
so, please indicate the
direction of this bias and
potential remedies.
The methodology for determining the costs
are generally reasonable, with some
significant exceptions that are listed
below.
The first is the engineering
development cost, which appears to
have been not considered in detail
in this report. An example of these
are the costs to develop control
systems, be they battery control
systems or otherwise. They cannot be
lumped in with the indirect cost
multipliers (ICMs), because these
costs are not borne by the OEMs.
Rather, these are costs borne by the
suppliers. The bias introduced by
this is that the overall cost of
some components is lower than it
should be. The remedy for this is to
revisit the engineering development
costs for the subsystems.
What this report does not document
sufficiently is the validation of
this methodology at a subsystem or a
Date: March 11, 2011
Page 1 of 7
-------
system level. The bottoms up towards
cost that is employed by FEV is
certainly very detail oriented, but
there isn't sufficient data in the
report to show that the final
subsystem or system costs that they
result in, are inline with those
developed or published by other
reasonable sources.
Please identify any general
flaws inherent in the scope
of the study. Do you feel
the results would be
altered if the scope were
more limited or expanded?
Please explain.
Although not a flaw per se, it is
not clear why the 20% power and
weight reduction was assumed for the
P2 hybrid. This was the direction
provided by the EPA to FEV, but the
rationale for this is not clear, and
this reviewer could not see why it
is justified.
Secondly, the reports stated that
the team felt that the Li Polymer
battery (as opposed to NiMH) is a
better long term solution for the P2
hybrid. It's unclear if this was the
EPA team or the FEV team. Either
way, there is no good rationale
provided for such a statement, and
this reviewer has not seen data
(even outside of this report) to
justify such a statement.
Are all appropriate inputs
for the study being
considered? Conversely, are
all inputs considered in
the study appropriate?
Please cite any particular
inputs or assumptions made
by the study that you feel
are inappropriate or likely
to bias the results and how
they could be remedied,
with particular emphasis on
sources of information used
in determining labor rates,
material prices,
manufacturing burdens and
other key factors.
One of the major assumptions in this
study that is flawed is that the
high voltage battery will be
manufactured in the United States.
NiMH batteries are not manufactured
in volume in the United States, and
although several companies have
plans to manufacture Li Ion
batteries, the cells typically come
from Asia. To assume that all this
manufacturing is done in the US will
results in artificially high unit
costs for these systems. If this
information is then used by the EPA
for downstream rule making, it will
have the effect of having hybrid
technologies show up in an
unfavorable light as compared to
other technologies. This inaccuracy
could be remedied by a modification
of the assumptions in terms of where
the battery will be manufactured.
This study does not present
sufficient examples of independently
determined system/subsystem costs to
be used for validation of the costs
that FEV/Munro calculates through
their process. Although the report
mentions this was done (section
Date: March 11, 2011
Page 2 of 7
-------
C.I), examples of such validation
are not presented. These
independently determined
costs/sources should be additional
inputs to this process.
Are the assumptions
embedded in the model that
affect projected cost or
performance reasonable?
Such assumptions might
include learning curve,
economies of scale, scaling
parameters such as weight
and power, labor rates,
plant scaling, and material
costs.
In general, the assumptions that are
utilized to calculate cost and
performance are reasonable. One big
exception (also mentioned in
question 6 below) is the scaling
parameter for the battery. Only two
paragraphs are devoted to it in the
report, and nowhere is a definition
of "a common run-time", which is
used in the scaling of the battery,
provided.
Are the results expected of
the study appropriate for
the given scope,
assumptions, and inputs?
Are there other results
that could be derived from
the analysis that would
support or contradict those
cited by the study? Is
appropriate validation made
on the costing methodology
and results? Please expand
on any recommendations that
you would make for analyses
of study results.
The results of the study are
appropriate for the given scope,
assumptions and inputs.
The description/report of the
validation of the costing methodolgy
is not sufficient. The report does
say that experts have been consulted
in determining the costs of various
components, but little validation
has been shown (in the report) of
cost validation at a subsystem or
system level. The overall costs
developed by FEV would present a
greater punch if there were examples
of the comparison of their
system/subsystem costs with other
costs that have been published in
literature.
FEV and Munro have the tools
necessary to do a sensitivity
analyses of the costs with respect
to different variables of interest.
Further analyses could include
refinement/correction of some of the
assumptions around this study (as
mentioned in this review) and
studying how the overall system
costs are impacted by those changes.
Is the approach used in
scaling the cost of power-
split technology to other
vehicle classes appropriate
and likely to yield
accurate results? Is the
methodology for using the
cost of power-split
components in other hybrid
technologies appropriate
For most of the components, the
approach used in scaling the cost of
power split technology to other
vehicle classes is reasonable and
likely to yield reasonable results.
The one potential exception (and it
is stated as potential, because the
approach is not well explained in
the report) is the scaling of the
high voltage battery parameters
Date: March 11, 2011
Page 3 of 7
-------
and likely to yield
accurate results?
across the the different vehicle
classes. This needs to be better
explained and justified,
particularly because this one
component is responsible for the
bulk of the cost of the hybrid
powertrain. Given that the overall
cost of the hybrid powertrain is so
sensitive to this one component,
this reviewer feels that greater
care is needed in developing this
cost. Conversely, there is
considerable detail in the report on
the costs for much more minor
components, and although that is not
a bad thing, the appropriate scaling
of the battery system needs to have
more effort put into it.
Table 1 Charge Questions - Methodology/Results
Editorial content:
Charge Question:
Reviewer Comments:
Is sufficient detail provided
in the body for a reader
familiar with the subject
report to understand the
process and conclusions? Are
appropriate appendices
included? Please specify any
specific content that you
recommended be added or
removed.
In most cases, sufficient detail has been
provided for a reader familiar with the
subject report to understand the process
and conclusions. Exceptions are:
Rationale for assuming the high
voltage battery is manufactured in
the United States
Development of the ED&T costs for
different subsystems, particularly
that for control systems
Validation of the calculated costs
at a subsystem/system level
Scaling of the battery system across
different vehicle classes
Cost for the high voltage DC/DC
converter doesn't appear to be
included
Please comment on any editorial
issues that should be addressed
in the report, including any
comments on general
organization, pagination, or
grammar and wording.
The overall report is well organized.
There are a few minor
typographical/grammatical issues. These
are included in detail in section
"Grammatical/Typographical Errors".
Table 2 Charge Questions - Editorial Content
Date: March 11, 2011
Page 4 of 7
-------
Additional Review Comments
The following sections provide additional review comments on the FEV
report.
Battery Manufacturing
The report assumes that the battery will be manufactured in locations in
North America. Although this reviewer understands this to be a constraint
from the EPA, this is not a reasonable assumption. There is no large scale
automotive NiMH manufacturing in North America currently and there are few
plans for the same. Although there are more examples of Li Ion battery
manufacturing in North America, it is questionable if Li Ion will be the
battery of choice for hybrid vehicles. In this reviewer's
experience/knowledge, the NiMH battery will continue to dominate the HEV
market, while Li Ion will dominate the PHEV/EV market.
Applicability of the Power Split System to Vehicle Segments
The report talks about the applicability of the power split hybrid system
to the sub-compact, small, large and minivan vehicle segments. It should be
clarified that this group covers small SUVs, such as the Ford Hybrid
Escape, which is one platform that clearly already supports this hybrid
platform.
P2 Hybrid System
1. Although the EPA provided the direction to reduce the maximum system
torque/power by 18-19%, the rationale for this isn't clear. Without
this rationale, a meaningful comparison between the cost figures for
the power split system and those for the P2 system cannot be made.
2. Why was it felt that the Li Ion battery would be more appropriate for
the P2 hybrid? Li Ion batteries have much better energy density than
NiMH batteries, so for applications that require large battery energy
(such as PHEVs or EVs), it is understandable to use Li Ion packs.
However, for the P2 application, the required kWH of the battery (from
Table F-2) was less than that for the power split application (from
Table E-2). Given this, the selection of the Li Ion technology for the
P2 system is not well justified.
Cost Analysis Process
1. In Figure B-l, why isn't the BOM updated after step 6, when additional
information has been gained about the component after its disassembly?
2. Page 50, first paragraph refers to 19,149 parts, and it wasn't clear
what the 19,149 parts stand for? Are these 19,149 battery packs?
3. It isn't too clear how the engineering design costs for various
components/systems have been calculated.
a. For example, in section D.2.2, how has the engineering design
cost for the Atkinson engine and the control system for it, and
the calibration for it been calculated/estimated?
b. Similarly, how is the engineering design cost for the electronics
controllers, for the software for the battery system, for the
mechanical design of the battery system been estimated? The
actual numbers that have been presented in the tables appear to
be too low.
Date: March 11, 2011 Page 5 of 7
-------
c. In Table D-ll, why is the ED&T for the traction battery assembly
so high ($49) compared to that for the control module (listed as
$4)? The relative engineering effort for the control module is
not 12 times less than that for the design of the mechanical
assembly.
System Scaling and Sizing
1. Although the scaling for the most of the components across the
different vehicle classes seems reasonable, one big item that is not
explained clearly is the high voltage battery. Given that it is the
single most expensive subsystem within the hybrid powertrain, more
care needs to be put into ensuring that this is done in a reasonable
manner, and the report needs to explain how this was done. The last
paragraph on page 132 talks about the "common run-time" parameter that
is used to scale the battery system across vehicle segments. This
parameter needs to be defined, and the report should have more of an
explanation why the value of 0.0168 hours was used, and how it
translates to the other parameters (power rating, energy rating) that
define a battery.
2. In Table E-2, the nominal pack voltage for the subcompact passenger
vehicle is quite low, namely 148V. Could other, potentially cheaper
power electronics technologies be used at this battery voltage?
3. There is a small discrepancy between some of the numbers in Table E-2
as compared to those in Table D-3. For example, for the Fusion Hybrid,
Table D-3 lists the net power as 142kW, whereas Table E-2 lists it as
140.6kW. Similarly, the engine power is listed as 116kW in Table D-3,
but as 114.8kW in Table E-2. Even a rounding of the numbers doesn't
make them the same.
Miscellaneous
1. Table A-l has a calculation of the percent decrease/increase in cost
of adding the power split system to different vehicle segments. It
would be more appropriate to calculate the percentage increase as
compared to the base non-hybrid vehicle cost, instead of calculating
the increase with respect to the mid/large size vehicle segement cost.
2. Nowhere in the paper (for example, section D.7.1 makes no mention of
it, and neither do Tables D-5 or D-6) could this reviewer find the
mention of the high voltage DC/DC converter (which converts the
voltage from approx 300V to approx 600V, and subsequently utilized by
the traction motor and generator), which is used in the Fusion Hybrid.
The corresponding cost for this part is also not mentioned.
Grammatical/Typographical Errors
-. nd
1. Page 10, 2 line, replace "advance" with "advanced"
,rd
2. Page 11, 3 line, replace "value" with "valve"
,rd
3. Page 18, 3 line, replace "standardize" with "standardized"
st
4. Page 18, paragraph 2, 1 line, replace "very" with "vary'
-th
5. Page 19, paragraphs, 5 line from bottom, replace "develop" with
"developed"
6. Page 21, extra bullet point in Scenario #2
7. Page 52, last paragraph, replace "Too" with "To"
8. Page 52, last paragraph, replace "truck" with "trunk"
9. Page 56, 2nd paragraph, replace "approximate" with "approximately"
10. Page 91, 3rd paragraph, replace "acknowledge" with "acknowledged"
11. Page 97, 1st paragraph, replace "VEV" with "HEV"
Date: March 11, 2011 Page 6 of 7
-------
Date: March 11, 2011 Page 7 of 7
------- |