REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK
PARTNERSHIP, THIRD REPORT
Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Phase 3
Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • 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 competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. DE-EE0002931 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-37710-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-37710-2
DOI: 10.17226/21784
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Third Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
This page intentionally left blank.
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE 21st CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, PHASE 3
JOHN H. JOHNSON, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, Chair
JULIE CHEN, University of Massachusetts-Lowell
DAVID FOSTER, University of Wisconsin Engine Research Center, Madison
THOMAS M. JAHNS, NAE,1 University of Wisconsin-Madison
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Corning Incorporated, Corning, New York
PAUL MENIG, Tech-I.M., Sherwood, Oregon
JAMES W. MORRIS, Volvo Powertrain NA (retired), Hagerstown, Maryland
THOMAS REINHART, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE, Chrysler Corporation (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
SUBHASH C. SINGHAL, NAE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (retired), Richland, Washington
JAMES A. SPEAROT, Mountain Ridgeline Consulting, LLC, Breckenridge, Colorado
KATHLEEN TAYLOR, NAE, General Motors Corporation (retired), Fort Myers, Florida
JOHN WOODROOFFE, University of Michigan Transportation Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Staff
JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Senior Program Officer/Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Study Director
DANA CAINES, Financial Manager
LINDA CASOLA, Senior Program Assistant
ELIZABETH EULLER, Senior Program Assistant
LaNITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator
E. JONATHAN YANGER, Research Associate
________________
1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering.
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
ANDREW BROWN, NAE,1 Delphi Corporation (retired), Troy, Michigan, Chair
DAVID ALLEN, University of Texas at Austin
W. TERRY BOSTON, NAE, PJM Interconnection, LLC, Audobon, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM BRINKMAN, NAS,2 Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
EMILY CARTER, NAS, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
CHRISTINE EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station
DEBBIE NIEMEIER, University of California, Davis
MARGO OGE, Environmental Protection Agency (retired), McLean, Virginia
MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL, Independent Consultant, Piedmont, California
DAN REICHER, Stanford University, Stanford, California
BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE, DaimlerChrysler (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
DOROTHY ROBYN, Consultant, Washington, D.C.
GARY ROGERS, Roush Industries, Livonia, Michigan
ALISON SILVERSTEIN, Consultant, Pflugerville, Texas
MARK THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego
ADRIAN ZACCARIA, NAE, Bechtel Group, Inc. (retired), Frederick, Maryland
MARY LOU ZOBACK, NAS, Stanford University, Stanford, California
Staff
JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
DANA CAINES, Financial Manager
LINDA CASOLA, Senior Program Assistant
ALAN CRANE, Senior Scientist
ELIZABETH EULLER, Senior Program Assistant
K. JOHN HOLMES, Associate Board Director
LaNITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator
MARTIN OFFUTT, Senior Program Officer
E. JONATHAN YANGER, Research Associate
ELIZABETH ZEITLER, Associate Program Officer
________________
1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering.
2 NAS, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Preface
This report is the third in a series of three by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 that have reviewed the research and development (R&D) projects carried out by the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP), which was formed in 2001 to reduce fuel usage and emissions in trucks of Classes 3 through 8. The 21CTP has made significant progress since the Academies issued its first report in 2008. The early R&D was largely component-based, but, as a result of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds in 2009, 21CTP was able to fund four SuperTruck projects, which combined all the component technology and aerodynamic improvements of the tractor and trailer into a Class 8 tractor-trailer to demonstrate and achieve the goal of 50 percent brake thermal efficiency (BTE) for the diesel engine in a cruise condition, while meeting the 2010 heavy-duty diesel emissions standards. One truck has achieved a freight efficiency of over 175 ton-miles per gallon, compared to a 2009 model baseline efficiency of 99 ton-miles per gallon. In terms of fuel economy, the truck achieved 10.7 miles per gallon (mpg), compared to the baseline truck at 6.45 mpg. As for load-specific fuel consumption (LSFC), the truck achieved 5.7 gallons/1,000 ton-miles, down 43 percent from the baseline LSFC of 10.0 gallons/1,000 ton-miles. A portion of the improvement on a ton-mile basis came from weight reduction, which allows extra freight to be carried.
A second truck has doubled fuel economy from a 2009 baseline of 6.1 mpg to 12.2 mpg over one long-haul route, with a 120 percent increase in freight efficiency in ton-miles per gallon from a 2009 baseline of 94 ton-miles per gallon to 206 ton-miles per gallon. LSFC was reduced by 55 percent on one route and by 49 percent on a second, lower speed route. On the route that produced the 12.2 mpg result, the LSFC was 4.85 gallons per 1,000 ton-miles, compared to 10.6 gallons per 1,000 ton-miles for the 2009 baseline.
The 50 percent BTE and the 4.85 and 5.7 gallons per 1,000 ton-miles LSFC values are significant accomplishments and could not have been achieved without the ARRA funds since the overall DOE budget in normal years was not sufficient to take on a project like this. The results of this R&D program will have an impact on reducing the demand for diesel fuel used in heavy-duty vehicles, which is projected to increase each year. The report makes a number of recommendations to further the R&D goals of the 21CTP in the next 5 years.
The committee appreciates the effort by the personnel from DOE, the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense (DOD)-Army, and all the companies and national laboratories that prepared presentations and hosted our visits. The help of these members of the Partnership enabled us to get the latest data and information, which was very important for the committee’s preparation of this report.
John H. Johnson, Chair
Committee to Review the 21st Century
Truck Partnership, Phase 3
________________
1 Effective July 1, 2015, the institution is called the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. References in this report to the National Research Council are used in a historic context identifying programs prior to July 1.
This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgments
The Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Phase 3, is grateful to the representatives of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, including the four government agencies—the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Defense-Army—and to the representatives of companies and national laboratories who contributed significantly of their time and effort to this National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 study by giving presentations at meetings or responding to committee requests for information, as well as hosting members of the committee at site visits. The committee also acknowledges the valuable contributions of other individuals who provided information and presentations at the committee’s open meetings. Appendix B lists all of those presentations.
The committee offers its special appreciation to Ken Howden, director, 21st Century Truck Partnership, U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office, for his significant contributions in coordinating responses to its questions and in making presentations to the committee, as well as Michael Laughlin, Energetics Incorporated, who assisted Ken in submitting data and information to the committee. Finally, the chairman wishes to recognize the committee members and the staff of the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems for organizing and planning the committee meetings and gathering information and drafting sections of the report. Jim Zucchetto in particular has done an outstanding job of facilitating the work of the committee and helping it to write a focused and timely report. Liz Euller provided efficient and very helpful support to its meetings, site visits, and report production.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the
Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Paul Blumberg (NAE), Ford Motor Company (retired),
William Brinkman (NAS), Princeton University,
Andrew Brown, Jr. (NAE), Delphi Corporation (retired),
Joseph Colucci (NAE), General Motors Company (retired),
Duke Drinkard, Southeastern Freight Lines,
David Merrion, Merrion Expert Consulting,
Margo Oge, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (retired),
Craig Philip (NAE), Vanderbilt University,
Gary Rogers, Roush Industries, Inc.,
Dale Stein (NAE), Michigan Technological University,
R. Rhoads Stephenson, Technology Consultant, and
Michael Tunnell, American Transportation Research Institute.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Douglas Chapin (NAE), who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
________________
1 The National Research Council is now referred to as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
Management Strategy and Priority Setting
Areas of Interest and Levels of Overall Funding
Origin and Scope of This Study
Role of the Federal Government
Study Process and Organization of the Report
2 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND PRIORITY SETTING
3 ENGINE SYSTEMS, AFTERTREATMENT, FUELS, LUBRICANTS, AND MATERIALS
Engine Systems Program: State of Technology and Goals
Current Status and Challenges for MHDVs
Review of the 21CTP Hybrid Vehicle Technology Program
Response to Recommendations from the NRC Phase 2 Report
Goals and Selected Relevant Projects
Overall Comments, Findings, and Recommendations
Response to Recommendations from the NRC Phase 2 Report
Summary of Federal Government Activities Related to Truck Safety
Safety Technologies Being Considered by the Partnership
Response to Recommendations from the NRC Phase 2 Report
Project Budgets and Relevance to 21CTP
Daimler–Detroit Diesel Project
Overall SuperTruck Program Review
This page intentionally left blank.
Figures, Tables, and Boxes
FIGURES
1-1 Summary of estimated federal funding contributing to 21CTP goals
2-1 Relations between 21CTP participants
2-2 Some area of common interest among government agencies participating in 21CTP
3-1-1 Hypothetical energy audit for a Class 8 truck
3-2 Cummins–Peterbilt SuperTruck team’s analysis and results using AFCI at 1000 rpm and 10 bar
3-3 Overview of Daimler SuperTruck team’s approach to achieving 55 percent BTE
3-6 Layout of a modern HD diesel emission control system
3-7 Example of OBD layout for a 2013 HD aftertreatment system
3-8 Fuels for advanced combustion engines (FACE) diesel fuel set
4-1 Odyne Class 6 plug-in hybrid utility lift truck
4-2 Allison H 3000 hybrid transmission major components
4-4 HD hybrid city buses in Jining City, China, built with Eaton hybrid drives
5-1 Energy “loss” range of vehicle attributes as impacted by duty cycle, on a level road
5-2 Some ranges of Crrs for heavy truck tires
5-3 Typical dependency of rolling resistance on inflation pressure for a 22.5 in. tire
6-1 Extent of truck idling regulations in the United States, 2004 and 2014
6-2 Typical order rate for idle reduction devices in new trucks
8-1 Cummins Demonstrator 1 WHR system layout
TABLES
1-1 Comparing Classes of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
1-2 Projections of U.S. Energy Use and CO2 Emissions by the Transportation Sector
3-1 Estimated Federal Budgets for SuperTruck Engine Research
3-2 Achievment of Goal 1, 50 Percent Engine BTE at Cruise, by the Four SuperTruck Teams
3-4 Research Projects Identified by 21CTP as Part of the Engine Systems Program
3-5 Expenditures on 21CTP Aftertreatment Projects
3-6 Major 21CTP-Related Projects Funded in FY 2014 Addressing Advanced Fuels
3-7 Major 21CTP-Related Projects Funded in FY 2014 Addressing Advanced Lubricants
3-8 21CTP Projects Related to Propulsion Materials and Materials Processing and Federal Budgets
4-1 Electric Drive Technologies Projects Identified as Part of 21CTP Inventory
5-1 DOE Funding for Selected 21CTP Projects Related to Vehicle Power Demand
7-1 Summary of DOT Expenditures on Safety-Related Projects by Fiscal Year
8-1 SuperTruck Team Technical Approaches
8-2 Cummins–Peterbilt Project Team Members and Suppliers
8-3 Cummins–Peterbilt 2009 Baseline Data
8-4 Cummins–Peterbilt Project Results to Date
8-5 Additional SuperTruck Tractor Fuel Economy Results
8-6 Daimler Project Team Members
8-7 Daimler Trucks North America Project Results to Date
8-8 Volvo Super Truck Collaborators and Partners
8-9 Volvo 2009 Baseline Test Results
8-10 Volvo SuperTruck Phase 1 Results
8-11 Navistar Project Results to Date
BOXES
2-1 Partnership’s Response to Committee Questions on Project Prioritization
2-2 Partnership’s Response to Committee Questions on Management Approach