TECHNOLOGIES AND APPROACHES TO REDUCING THE FUEL CONSUMPTION OF MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES

Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Transportation Research Board

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
TECHNOLOGIES AND APPROACHES TO REDUCING THE FUEL CONSUMPTION OF MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences Transportation Research Board

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract DTNH22-08-H-00222 between the National Academy of Sci - ences and the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-14982-2 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-14982-7 Copies of this report are available in limited supply, free of charge, from: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Keck W934 Washington, DC 20001 202-334-3344 Additional copies of this report are available for sale from: The National Academies Press 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet: http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the Na - tional Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the Na - tional Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE TO ASSESS FUEL ECONOMY TECHNOLOGIES FOR MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES ANDREW BROWN, JR., Chair, NAE, Delphi Corporation DENNIS N. ASSANIS, NAE, University of Michigan ROGER BEZDEK, Management Information Services, Inc. NIGEL N. CLARK, West Virginia University THOMAS M. CORSI, University of Maryland DUKE DRINKARD, Southeastern Freight Lines DAVID E. FOSTER, University of Wisconsin ROGER D. FRUECHTE, Consultant RON GRAVES, Oak Ridge National Laboratory GARRICK HU, Consultant JOHN H. JOHNSON, Michigan Technological University DREW KODJAK, International Council on Clean Transportation DAVID F. MERRION, Detroit Diesel (retired) THOMAS E. REINHART, Southwest Research Institute AYMERIC P. ROUSSEAU, Argonne National Laboratory CHARLES K. SALTER, Consultant JAMES J. WINEBRAKE, Rochester Institute of Technology JOHN WOODROOFFE, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute MARTIN B. ZIMMERMAN, University of Michigan Staff DUNCAN BROWN, Study Director DANA CAINES, Financial Associate LANITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator JOSEPH MORRIS, Senior Program Officer, Transportation Research Board JASON ORTEGO, Senior Program Assistant (until December 2009) MADELINE WOODRUFF, Senior Program Officer E. JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems 

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DOUGLAS CHAPIN, Chair, NAE,1 MPR Associates, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia RAKESH AGRAWAL, NAE, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana WILLIAM BANHOLZER, NAE, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan ANDREW BROWN, JR., NAE, Delphi Technologies, Troy, Michigan MARILYN BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia MICHAEL CORRADINI, NAE, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin PAUL DECOTIS, Long Island Power Authority, Long Island, NY E. LINN DRAPER, JR., NAE, American Electric Power, Lampasas, Texas CHRISTINE EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas WILLIAM FRIEND, NAE, University of California Presidents Council on National Laboratories, Washington, DC SHERRI GOODMAN, CNA, Alexandria, Virginia NARAIN HINGORANI, NAE, Independent Consultant, Los Altos Hills, California MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey MICHAEL RAMAGE, NAE, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired), Moorestown, New Jersey DAN REICHER, Google.org, Warren, Vermont BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE, Daimler-Chrysler (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan MAXINE SAVITZ, NAE, Honeywell, Inc. (retired), Los Angeles, California MARK THIEMENS, NAS,2 University of California, San Diego RICHARD WHITE, Oppenheimer’s Private Equity & Special Products, New York, NY Staff JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems DUNCAN BROWN, Senior Program Officer DANA CAINES, Financial Associate ALAN CRANE, Senior Program Officer K. JOHN HOLMES, Senior Program Officer LANITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator MADELINE WOODRUFF, Senior Program Officer E. JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant 1 National Academy of Engineering. 2 National Acaedemy of Science. i

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments The Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles is grateful to all of study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript the company, agency, industry, association, and national remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative laboratory representatives who contributed significantly process. of their time and efforts to this National Research Council We wish to thank the following individuals for their re- (NRC) study, either by giving presentations at meetings or view of this report: by responding to committee requests for information. We acknowledge the valuable contributions of individu- Paul Blumberg, Consultant als and organizations that provided information and made Fred Browand, University of Southern California presentations at our meetings, as listed in Appendix B. We Douglas Chapin, MPR Associates, Inc. especially recognize the organizations that hosted site visits Robert Clarke, Truck Manufacturers Association for the committee’s work as outlined in Chapter 1. Coralie Cooper, Northeast States for Coordinated Air The committee was aided by consultants in various roles Management who provided analyses to the committee, which it used in Joe Fleming, Consultant addition to other sources of information. Special recognition Winston Harrington, Resources for the Future is afforded the TIAX team of Michael Jackson, Matthew John Heywood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kromer, and Wendy Bockholt; and the Argonne National Larry Howell, General Motors (retired) Laboratory team of Aymeric Rousseau, Antoine Delorme, Thomas Jahns, University of Wisconsin Dominik Karbowski, and Ram Vijayagopal. James Kirtley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology We wish to recognize the committee members for taking Priyaranjan Prasad, Ford Motor Company (retired) on this daunting charter and accomplishing it on schedule Mike Roeth, Consultant within tight budget requirements. The staff of the NRC Board Russell Truemner, AVL Powertrain Engineering, Inc. on Energy and Environmental Systems has been exceptional in organizing and planning meetings, gathering information, Although the reviewers listed above have provided many and drafting sections of the report. Duncan Brown, Dana constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked Caines, LaNita Jones, Joseph Morris, Jason Ortego, Jonathan to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did Yanger, and James Zucchetto have done an outstanding job they see the final draft of the report before its release. The of facilitating the work of the committee and providing their review of this report was overseen by Elisabeth Drake, NAE, knowledge and experience to help the committee in its delib- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (retired). Appointed erations. Lastly, the committee chair expresses his personal by the NRC, she was responsible for making certain that an appreciation to Lori Motley, Delphi executive assistant, for independent examination of this report was carried out in her administrative support provided to this overall effort. accordance with institutional procedures and that all review This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Re- committee and the institution. port Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will Andrew Brown, Jr., Chair assist the institution in making its published report as sound Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles ii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 9 Origin of Study and Statement of Task, 9 Policy Motivation, 10 Weight Classes and Use Categories, 12 Energy Consumption Trends and Trucking Industry Activity, 13 Factors Affecting Improvements in Fuel Consumption, 14 Task Organization and Execution, 14 Report Structure, 15 Bibliography, 15 2 VEHICLE FUNDAMENTALS, FUEL CONSUMPTION, AND EMISSIONS 17 Truck and Bus Types and Their Applications, 17 Sales of Vehicles by Class and Manufacturer, 17 Industry Structure, 19 Metrics to Determine the Fuel Efficiency of Vehicles, 20 Truck Tractive Forces and Energy Inventory, 28 Test Protocols, 28 Test-Cycle Development and Characteristics, 31 Findings and Recommendations, 39 Bibliography, 39 3 REVIEW OF CURRENT REGULATORY APPROACHES FOR TRUCKS AND CARS 41 European Approach, 41 Japanese Approach, 42 U.S. Approach: EPA Smartway Voluntary Certification Program, 43 California Regulation Based on EPA Smartway Program, 45 Light-Duty-Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards, 45 Heavy-Duty-Engine Emissions Regulations, 45 Regulatory Example from Truck Safety Brake Test and Equipment, 49 Findings, 50 References, 50 4 POWER TRAIN TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCING LOAD-SPECIFIC FUEL 51 CONSUMPTION Diesel Engine Technologies, 51 Gasoline Engine Technologies, 57 Diesel Engines versus Gasoline Engines, 63 Transmission and Driveline Technologies, 65 Hybrid Power Trains, 68 ix

OCR for page R1
x CONTENTS Findings and Recommendations, 86 Bibliography, 87 5 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCING LOAD-SPECIFIC FUEL 91 CONSUMPTION Vehicle Energy Balances, 91 Aerodynamics, 92 Auxiliary Loads, 110 Rolling Resistance, 111 Vehicle Mass (Weight), 116 Idle Reduction, 120 Intelligent Vehicle Technologies, 124 Finding and Recommendations, 128 Bibliography, 129 6 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF INTEGRATING FUEL CONSUMPTION 131 REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES INTO MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES Direct Costs and Benefits, 132 Summary of Fuel Consumption and Cost Data, 146 Operating and Maintenance Costs, 149 Indirect Effects and Externalities, 149 Findings and Recommendations, 155 Bibliography, 157 7 ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO REDUCING FUEL CONSUMPTION IN 159 MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES Overview, 159 Changing Fuel Price Signals, 159 Technology-Specific Mandates and Subsidies, 161 Alternative and Complementary Regulations, 163 Other Complementary Approaches, 168 Findings and Recommendations, 176 References, 177 8 APPROACHES TO FUEL ECONOMY AND REGULATIONS 179 Purpose and Objectives of a Regulatory Program, 179 Regulated Vehicle Types, 180 Regulated Parties, 182 Metrics for Fuel Consumption, 183 Methods for Certification and Compliance, 184 Findings and Recommendations, 189 Bibliography, 191 Annex 8-1, 192 Annex 8-2, 195 APPENDIXES A Statement of Task 199 B Presentations and Committee Meetings 201 C Committee Biographical Sketches 204 D Abbreviations and Acronyms 211 E Fuel Economy and Fuel Consumption as Metrics to Judge the 214 Fuel Efficiency of Vehicles F Details of Aerodynamic Trailer Device Technology 219 G Vehicle Simulation 221 H Model-Based Design 227

OCR for page R1
Tables and Figures TABLES S-1 Range of Fuel Consumption Reduction Potential, 2015-2020, for Power Train Technologies, 4 S-2 Range of Fuel Consumption Reduction Potential, 2015-2020, for Vehicle Technologies, 4 S-3 Fuel Consumption Reduction Potential for Typical New Vehicles, 2015-2020, and Cost- Effectiveness Comparisons for Seven Vehicle Configurations, 5 2-1 Comparing Light-Duty Vehicles with Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 18 2-2 Product Ranges of U.S. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Manufacturers, 20 2-3 Top 10 Commercial Fleets in North America, 21 2-4 Top 10 Transit Bus Fleets in the United States and Canada, 21 2-5 Top 10 Motor Coach Operators, 2008, United States and Canada, 22 2-6 Medium- and Heavy-Duty-Vehicle Sales by Calendar Year, 22 2-7 Truck Sales, by Manufacturer, 2004-2008, 23 2-8 Engines Manufactured for Class 2b Through Class 8 Trucks, 2004-2008, 23 2-9 Vehicle, Engine, and Cycle Variables, 27 2-10 Validation, Accuracy, and Precision, 30 2-11 Characteristics of Selected Cycles, 33 3-1 Fuel Economy Vehicle Testing, 47 3-2 Stopping Distance Requirements by FMCSS 121 Regulation, 49 4-1 Diesel Engine Fuel Consumption (percentage) by Years and Applications, 59 4-2 Technologies for Fuel Consumption Reduction Applicable to Gasoline-Powered Engines for the Medium-Duty Vehicle Class and the Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction and Incremental Costs, 63 4-3 Diesel Truck Sales as a Percentage of Total Truck Sales, 64 4-4 TIAX Summary of Transmission and Driveline Potential Fuel Consumption Reduction (percentage) by Range of Years and by Application, 68 4-5 Different Vehicle Architectures, Their Status as of Today and Primary Applications, 77 4-6 Production-Intent Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty HEV Systems, No ePTO, 77 4-7 Hybrid Technology, Benefits and Added Weight for Class 3 to Class 6 Box Trucks, 77 4-8 Hybrid Technology, Benefits and Added Weight for Class 3 to Class 6 Bucket Trucks, 77 4-9 Hybrid Technology, Benefits and Added Weight for Refuse Haulers, 77 4-10 Hybrid Technology, Benefits and Added Weight for Transit Buses, 78 4-11 Characteristics of Primary Drive Cycles, 79 4-12 Profiles of Primary Drive Cycles, 79 xi

OCR for page R1
xii TABLES AND FIGURES 4-13 Fuel Economy and Exhaust Emissions of Hybrid Electric Transit Bus with Various Control Strategies, Taipei City Bus Cycle, 84 4-14 Predicted Fuel Consumption Comparison: Conventional (non-hybrid), Dynamic Programming (DP), Rule-Based (RB), 85 4-15 Hybrid Fuel Consumption Reduction Potential (percentage) Compared to a Baseline Vehicle Without a Hybrid Power Train, by Range of Years and Application, 86 4-16 Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Potential for Hybrid Power Trains, 86 5-1 Energy Balance for a Fully Loaded Class 8 Vehicle Operating on a Level Road at 65 mph for One Hour, 92 5-2 Energy Balance for a Fully Loaded Class 3 to Class 6 Medium-Duty Truck (26,000 lb) Operating on a Level Road at 40 mph for One Hour, 92 5-3 Energy Balance for a 40-ft Transit Bus Operating over the Central Business District Cycle for One Hour, 92 5-4 Operational Losses from Class 8 Tractor with Sleeper Cab-Van Trailer at 65 mph and GVW of 80,000 lb, 92 5-5 Class 8 Tractor Aerodynamics Technologies, Considering the 2012 Time Frame, 98 5-6 Current Van Trailer Aero-Component Performance, 99 5-7 Florida Trailer Population by Body Style, 105 5-8 Motor Coach—Applicable Aerodynamic Technologies, 109 5-9 Class 2b Van and Pickup—Applicable Aerodynamic Technologies, 109 5-10 Aerodynamic-Related Fuel Consumption Reduction Packages by Sector and by Time Frame, 110 5-11 Examples of Power Requirement for Selected Auxiliary Loads, 110 5-12 Auxiliary Use for Line-Haul Duty Cycles, 110 5-13 Results of Truck Model Showing Effect of Coefficient of Rolling Resistance, C rr, on Fuel Economy for Several Drive Cycles, 113 5-14 Rolling Resistance Fuel Consumption Reduction Potential by Class, 115 5-15 Typical Weights of Trucks, Empty Versus Gross Weight, 116 5-16 Summary of Impacts of Weight on Fuel Consumption of Trucks by Class, 120 5-17 Summary of Weight-Reduction Estimates and Weight-Increase Offsets, 121 5-18 Weight-Reduction-Related Fuel Consumption Reduction Potential (percentage) by Class, 122 5-19 Comparison of Automatic Shutdown/Startup Systems, 122 5-20 Idling-Reduction Technologies, 123 5-21 Comparison of Fuel-Operated Heaters, 123 5-22 Comparison of Auxiliary Power Units, 124 5-23 Comparison of Truck Stop Electrification Systems, 124 5-24 Comparison of Idle Reduction Systems, 125 6-1 Technologies and Vehicle Classes Likely to See Benefits, 132 6-2 Fuel Consumption Reduction (percentage) by Application and Vehicle Type, 133 6-3 Idle-Reduction Packages, 135 6-4 Technology for Class 8 Tractor Trailers in the 2015-2020 Time Frame, 135 6-5 Tractor Trailers Benefit from Advances in Every Technology Category, 135 6-6 Straight Box Truck Aerodynamic Technologies, 137 6-7 Class 3 to Class 6 Straight Box Truck with 2015-2020 Technology Package, 139 6-8 Class 3 to Class 6 Bucket Truck with 2015-2020 Technology Package, 139 6-9 Class 2b Pickups and Vans with 2015-2020 Technology Package, 141 6-10 Class 8 Refuse Packer with a Hydraulic Hybrid System, 2015-2020, 142 6-11 Transit Bus Tire and Wheel Technologies, 143 6-12 Driveline and Transmission Strategies for Transit Buses, 143 6-13 Weight Reduction Cost and Benefit for Transit Buses, 143 6-14 Results for Urban Transit Buses—Selected Sources, 144 6-15 Hybrid Technology Cost and Benefits for Transit Buses, 144

OCR for page R1
xiii TABLES AND FIGURES 6-16 Urban Transit Buses Can Benefit from Hybridization and from Weight Reduction, 144 6-17 Motor Coaches Benefit from Aerodynamics and from Engine Improvements, including Waste-Heat Recovery, 145 6-18 Fuel Consumption Improvement, Cost, and CCPPR, 2015-2020 Vehicle Technology, 146 6-19 Fuel Consumption Improvement, Cost, and Cost-Effectiveness, 2013-2015 Vehicle Technology, 147 6-20 Fuel Consumption Reduction Potential for Typical New Vehicles, 2015-2020, and Cost- Effectiveness Comparisons for Seven Vehicle Configurations, 148 6-21 Motor Carrier Marginal Expenses, 149 6-22 Incremental Operations and Maintenance Costs, 149 6-23 Fuel Efficiency Technology Versus NOx Emissions Trade-off, 153 6-24 Estimated Costs for Crashes Involving Truck Tractor with One Trailer, 2006, 154 6-25 Summary of Potential Fuel Consumption Reduction, Cost, and Cost-Benefit, 156 7-1 Some Illustrative Projections of Fuel Consumption Savings, 165 8-1 Mileage and Fuel Consumption by Vehicle Weight Class, 180 8-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Choice of Regulated Party, 183 8-3 Options for Certification of Heavy-Duty Vehicles to a Standard, 185 E-1 Gross Vehicle Weight Groups, 216 E-2 Average Payload (lb) by Commodities and Gross Vehicle Weight Group VIUS— National, 217 E-3 Vehicle Groups and National Average Payload (lb), 218 F-1 Trailer Skirt Information from Manufacturers, 219 F-2 Trailer Base Device Information from Manufacturers, 220 F-3 Trailer Face Device Information from Manufacturers, 220 G-1 Main Vectors for Component Models, 221 FIGURES S-1 Comparison of 2015-2020 new-vehicle potential fuel-saving technologies for seven vehicle types, 4 1-1 Energy consumption by major source end-use sector, 1949-2008, 10 1-2 Motor vehicle mileage, fuel consumption, and fuel rates, 11 1-3 U.S average payload-specific fuel consumption, 12 1-4 Illustrations of typical vehicle weight classes, 13 1-5 Total revenue of for-hire transportation services compared with total revenue of other sectors of the transportation industry, 2002, 14 2-1 The 25 largest private and for-hire fleets, 19 2-2 Fuel consumption (FC) versus fuel economy (FE), showing the effect of a 50 percent decrease in FC and a 100 percent increase in FE for various values of FE, including fuel saved over 10,000 miles, 24 2-3 Percentage fuel consumption (FC) decrease versus percentage fuel economy (FE) increase, 25 2-4 Fuel economy versus payload, 26 2-5 Fuel consumption versus payload, 26 2-6 Load-specific fuel consumption versus payload, 27 2-7 Energy “loss” range of vehicle attributes as impacted by duty cycle, on a level road, 29 2-8 The Heavy-Duty Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule, 31 2-9 The creep (top) and cruise (bottom) modes of the HHDDT Schedule, 32

OCR for page R1
xi TABLES AND FIGURES 2-10 Central Business District segment of SAE Recommended Practice J1376, 33 2-11 Orange County Transit Authority cycle derived from transit bus activity data, 33 2-12 PSAT simulation results for steady-state operation and for selected transient test cycles for a Class 8 truck (top) and a Class 6 truck (bottom), 34 2-13 Standard deviation of speed changes (coefficient of variance rises) as the average speed drops for typical bus activity, 35 2-14 Percentage of time spent idling rises and there are more stops per unit distance as the average speed drops for typical bus activity, 35 2-15 Curves based on chassis dynamometer for fuel economy versus average speed for conventional and hybrid buses, 36 2-16 “V” diagram for software development, 38 3-1 Overview of simulation tool and methodology proposed for use in the European Union, 42 3-2 Japanese fuel economy targets for heavy-duty vehicles by weight class, 43 3-3 Japanese simulation method incorporating urban and interurban driving modes, 43 3-4 Japanese simulation method overview, 44 3-5 Japanese hardware-in-the-loop simulation (HILS) testing of hybrid vehicles, 3-6 EPA’s SmartWay logos, 45 3-7 Some of the aerodynamic technologies included in the SmartWay certification program, 45 3-8 FTP speed (top) and torque (bottom) from a specific engine following the transient FTP on a dynamometer, 48 4-1 Energy audit for a typical diesel engine, 52 4-2 Historical trend of heavy-duty truck engine fuel consumption as a function of NO x requirement, 55 4-3 Research roadmap for 49.1 percent thermal efficiency by 2016, 58 4-4 Research roadmap for 52.9 percent thermal efficiency by 2019, 59 4-5 Partitioning of the fuel energy in a gasoline-fueled engine, 60 4-6 Power density versus energy density of various technologies, 70 4-7 Series hybrid electric vehicle, 70 4-8 Series engine hybrid hydraulic vehicle, 71 4-9 Parallel hybrid electric vehicle, 72 4-10 Example of integrated starter generator configuration coupled through a belt, 72 4-11 Example of pre-transmission parallel configuration, 72 4-12 Example of post-transmission configuration, 73 4-13 Parallel hydraulic launch assist hybrid architecture, 73 4-14 Power-split hybrid electric vehicle, 73 4-15 Battery type versus specific power and energy, 75 4-16 Li-ion status versus targets (for power-assist HEV), 76 4-17 Hybrid configurations considered in ANL study, 79 4-18 Fuel savings with respect to conventional cycles on standard drive cycles under (left) a 50 percent load and (right) a 100 percent load, 80 4-19 Percentage of braking energy recovered at the wheels under (left) a 50 percent load and (right) a 100 percent load, 80 4-20 Percentage average engine efficiency of conventional and hybrid trucks for (left) a 50 percent load and (right) a 100 percent load on standard cycles, 80 4-21 HHDDT 65 cycle repeated five times with stops (left) and without stops (right), 81 4-22 Fuel consumption reduction due to stop removal, with respect to conventional vehicles without stops, and with respect to conventional vehicles with stops (50 percent load on the left, 100 percent load on the right), 81 4-23 Representation of the grades considered, 82 4-24 Fuel savings of hybrid trucks with respect to conventional trucks as a function of maximum grade for various hill periods; (left) 50 percent load and (right) 100 percent load, 82

OCR for page R1
x TABLES AND FIGURES 4-25 Dynamic programming process and rule extraction from the result, 85 4-26 Implementing dynamic programming as a rule-based algorithm in SIMULINK, 85 5-1 Energy balance of a fully loaded Class 8 tractor-trailer on a level road at 65 mph, representing the losses shown in Table 5-1, 91 5-2 University of Maryland, streamlined tractor, closed gap, three-quarter trailer skirt, full boat tail, 93 5-3 National Research Council of Canada: smoke pictures, cab with deflector (right), 93 5-4 Kenworth 1985 T600 aerodynamic tractor, 94 5-5 Aerodynamic sleeper tractor aerodynamic feature identification, 94 5-6 2009 model year Mack Pinnacle (left) and Freightliner Cascadia (right) SmartWay specification trucks, 96 5-7 Aerodynamic and tire power losses for tractor-van trailer combination, 96 5-8 Tractor-trailer combination truck showing aerodynamic losses and areas of energy- saving opportunities, 97 5-9 Volvo full sleeper cab (left) and day cab (right), 97 5-10 Peterbilt Traditional Model 389 (left) and Aerodynamic Model 387 2 (right) (SmartWay), 99 5-11 ATDynamics trailer tail (left) and FreightWing trailer skirt (right), 101 5-12 Nose cone trailer “eyebrow,” 101 5-13 Laydon vortex stabilizer (left) and nose fairing (right), 101 5-14 Trailer bogie cover, 102 5-15 Summary of trailer aerodynamic device fuel consumption reduction, 102 5-16 Drag coefficient for aerodynamic tractor with single or double trailers, 104 5-17 Laydon double trailer arrangement with trailer skirts and vortex stabilizers on both trailers, 104 5-18 Refrigerated van trailer with Freight Wing skirts, 106 5-19 Freight Wing skirts on flatbed trailer, 106 5-20 New 40-ft-long container built by TRS Containers (left) and container chassis (right), 106 5-21 Container chassis with Freight Wing trailer skirt, 106 5-22 Tank trailer with Freight Wing skirts, 106 5-23 Sturdy-Lite curtain side design for flatbed trailers, 107 5-24 Walmart’s 2008 low fuel consumption tractor trailer, 107 5-25 Mack truck with aerodynamic device combination, 108 5-26 Nose Cone fairing on face of straight truck, 108 5-27 Laydon skirt on straight truck, 109 5-28 Rolling resistance technology, 1910-2002, 112 5-29 New-generation wide-base single tire (right) to reduce the rolling resistance of conventional dual tires (left), 112 5-30 Example rolling resistance coefficients for heavy-duty truck tires, 113 5-31 Tractor-trailer tandem-axle misalignment conditions, 114 5-32 Weight distribution of major component categories in Class 8 tractors, 117 5-33 Typical weights of specific components in Class 8 sleeper tractors, 117 5-34 Truck weight distribution, 118 5-35 Truck weight distribution from 2008 weigh-in-motion, 118 5-36 Truck weight versus trip frequency for six trucks of a single fleet operator, 119 5-37 Effect of weight on truck fuel economy for a monitored fleet of six trucks with combination of dual and wide single tires for a variety of drive routes, 119 5-38 Weight reduction opportunities with aluminum, 121 6-1 Comparison of 2015-2020 new-vehicle potential fuel-saving technologies for seven vehicle types, 132 6-2 New retail Class 8 truck sales, 1990-2007, 151

OCR for page R1
xi TABLES AND FIGURES 7-1 Five-axle tractor-semi vehicle-miles traveled by operating weight (cumulative percentage), 165 7-2 U.S. national ITS architecture, 168 7-3 Example of truck-only lanes, 171 7-4 Concept for reducing the need for additional road right-of-way,172 7-5 Elevated truck lanes, 172 8-1 Shared responsibility for major elements that affect heavy-duty-vehicle fuel efficiency, 180 8-2 Illustration of diversity of trailer and power unit (tractor) options, 181 8-3 Identical tractors used to pull trailers of different mass capacity but identical volume capacity, 184 8-4 CIL test of a hybrid vehicle power train to determine vehicle fuel consumption on a specific test route, 187 8-2-1 Identical GVW rated straight trucks for high- and low-density commodities, 196 8-2-2 Options for performance metrics, 196 E-1 Fuel consumption (FC) versus fuel economy (FE) (upper half of figure) and slope of FC/FE curve (lower half of figure), 215 G-1 Vehicle modeling tool requirements, 222 G-2 Different nomenclatures within each company currently make model exchange very difficult, 225 H-1 V diagram for software development, 228 H-2 Different levels of modeling required throughout the model-based design process, 228 H-3 Simulation, 229 H-4 Rapid control prototyping, 229 H-5 On-target rapid prototyping, 229 H-6 Production code generation, 229 H-7 Software-in-the-loop, 229 H-8 Processor-in-the-loop, 229 H-9 Hardware-in-the-loop, 230 H-10 Engine on dynamometer, 230 H-11 Battery connected to a DC power source, 231 H-12 Several components in the loop—MATT example, 231 H-13 Mixing components hardware and software—MATT example, 231 H-14 Example of potential process use, 232 H-15 Mean particulate matter results with two standard deviation error bars, 233 H-16 Main phases requiring standardized processes, 234