Printer Friendly

Fuel and freight efficiency - past, present and future perspectives.

Insights may also come from Australia where B-Trains as shown in Figure 81. and six axle single units as shown in Figure 82. and double cargo trailer units as shown in Figure 83 are allowed in both urban and highway routes [239]

Another example of multiple vehicle systems is the 2016 European Platooning Challenge testing of platooning and semi-autonomous vehicles which included platooning doubles shown in Figure 81 [240] [241].

The evolving fuel economy, freight efficiency and emissions perspective will be all inclusive. The system definitions need to expand to include remote power plants, transmission lines, infrastructure, drivers, routes, regional differences, and many other factors beyond today's single vehicle evaluation methods. Improvements in efficiency will necessitate greater granularity in evaluation with increased specificity in the details. Controlled test methods will need defined and relevant mechanisms to translate results to real world experience.

Summary of Future Trends

Freight efficiency gain when constrained around the single 53' van trailer in lone operation is inherently limited. The SuperTruck I programs demonstrated a system perspective around a single tractor/trailer could attain significant prototype gains versus a 2009 baseline, but 2016's flagship tractors and SmartWay equipped trailers have significantly improved that 2009 baseline, lessening potential for new innovation for the lone tractor/trailer. Greater opportunities exist in expanding the system definition to include LCV's and groups of vehicles operating in concert. Electrification and automation may permit extensive revision of the tractor/trailer paradigm, including potentially allowing future driverless tugs underneath longer trailers in a platooning configuration with perhaps only a driver in the lead vehicle as with a train. A starting point for innovation is in redefining the requirements from improving efficiency of a 53' van trailer and tractor operating below 80,000 lb GVWR, to defining the mission of the vehicle a needing to move X amount of freight over existing infrastructure in a specified time. This restatement creates new solution spaces for innovation within the existing infrastructure, by including not just new technology but regulatory innovation. New sensor technology and measurement innovation are required to facilitate the future vehicle's ability to optimize its performance in real-time for its environment and traffic conditions.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS

Quantifying fuel economy is an evolution in balancing technical feasibility with need for detail, both of which may vary considerably depending on the end use of the information and the perspective of the user. A corporate executive may want to report an average fuel economy for a company annual report. A regulator may wish to provide a single standard for an entire class of vehicles on a national scale. A fleet operations manager may want to know how a new OEM model might compare to his existing fleet. A lone driver may want to know a single truck's performance on a specific route. An NGO may want to recommend improved technology and needs a basis for estimation. All these end users of fuel economy information have unique contexts requiring unique assessment methods.

This paper provides an overview of and insights on the range of fuel economy and related methods currently in use for on-highway vehicle evaluation. The sheer number of methods suggests that fuel economy assessment has complexity. The commercial marketplace inherently values brevity in information, whether in advertising or media reporting where copy space translates to costs. As a result, complex topics may be presented in grossly simplified manner ultimately resulting in confusion and a lack of credibility.

New engineers will face instances where executives or customers will demand quick answers to questions such as "what is the fuel economy of that truck?" Or "why is this new truck only 3% better according to our customer when our testing said it should be 7%?" A goal of this paper is to arm that new engineer with details of the context sensitivities of the various test methods to aid in providing knowledgeable answers to those types of questions.

This paper is also a challenge to industry to continue to innovate improved fuel economy assessment methods. Reliable and robust techniques are needed to permit accurate and precise comparison between controlled test methods and the real world use of vehicles. Guidelines for comparing between methods are needed, and correlation to real world is a necessity. The SmartWay program provides an example where the published expectation from a controlled SAE J1321 track single truck fuel economy test may indicate a 6% fuel economy savings, but a real world end user reports attaining only 2% or 3%. The end user cannot be faulted for assuming this is a 50% or worse error in the SmartWay value and being concerned about credibility of the test data. When in fact, the SmartWay value may be correct for the context of its controlled test, but the end user's actual operation is significantly different as it includes variable freight loads, regional ambient condition differences, traffic, seasonal differences, driver differences, maintenance and vehicle age differences, duty cycle differences, posted highway speed differences, and a host of other factors not addressed in the test. Organizations such as SAE and TMC have contributed greatly to advancing fuel economy assessment, but there remains much opportunity to improve including correlation between methods and correlation to real world.

Aggregating data over a wide range of vehicles and operations is needed in some cases such as with regulators or policy advisors reporting net average improvement on a national scale. The context of these averages can be misleading in the trucking industry because of the significant variability in freight operations. A simple example is payload weight which is seen to be a broad distribution from running empty with no freight, to maxing out for U.S. non-permit units at 80,000 lb GVWR, and higher weights are run with permits and also in Canada. Another is that state posted highway speeds vary considerably for trucks, including states like California with maximum speeds of 55mph and other states at 75mph to 85 mph. Regional weather conditions vary as well, with southeastern states seeing lower winds than northern Midwest states. Regional road grade differences and altitudes differ depending on route and fleet. Truck drivers vary in experience and capability with respect to fuel economy. Averaging results from this spectrum may be needed to consolidate information, but care must be taken not to represent the average as being applicable to each end user.

Fuel economy assessment is maturing as seen in the DOE SuperTruck programs to consider the entirety of the system. This system perspective exposes that previous assumptions or simplifications that subsystem performance might be handled as independent variables, actually are connected. SuperTruck exposed that engine cooling demand was related to aerodynamic efficiency - the more aerodynamic a vehicle, the less the engine had to work, so downsizing engines was feasible. It exposed that traffic conditions and routing could impact aerodynamic and engine efficiency during a significant portion of on-highway operations, linking adaptive cruise, predictive cruise and collision avoidance systems directly to engine sizing and aerodynamic design. SuperTruck highlights that the definition of system may need to expand beyond the single tractor and trailer when evaluating fuel economy.

The DOE 21st CTP has contributed significantly to the evolution in understanding these relationships. The cooperative nature of the program partnered industry competitors, researchers and government groups to improve the science of fuel economy improvement. The collaborative efforts have moved industry to be more open in providing performance information to the public and regulators.

The EPA SmartWay program has established a de facto national ranking system for specific fuel economy technologies like aerodynamics and tires. This is greatly benefitting industry and the public by providing the foundation for comparing performance results and inspiring improved methodologies. Argument has moved from what kind of national performance ranking system is needed to how to make the SmartWay system more accurate and precise.

The EPA/NHTSA GHG Phase 1 and pending Phase 2 regulations have similarly created a national infrastructure for comparative evaluation of vehicles and technologies. The Phase 1 rules have been adopted also by Environment Canada providing for consistency across the two nations. The California ARB has also adopted the Phase 1 rules providing for tractor GHG rule consistency across 50 states. The research conducted by OEMs, NGOs and the Government in preparing these regulations has expanded the knowledge base on assessment methods and sensitivities to a range of factors. The Phase 2 rules add greater detail to OEM inputs to the GEM tool based on feedback from these groups. The GHG regulations manage emissions and fuel economy at a corporate level, recognizing that the marketplace is not a one-size-fits-all solution space. The GHG rules do have aspects of technology forcing that may bias or constrict innovation in the marketplace such as the focus on the 53' trailer versus LCV's and omission of containers. Specific engine and materials technologies are also emphasized by the rules that may inhibit new alternatives from consideration.

Fuel economy assessment improvement is a world-wide topic with activities progressing in Europe, China, Japan and other countries. The DOE U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC) is one example program encouraging international sharing of research into fuel economy improvement and emissions reductions. International conferences are exposing parties in all countries to parallel activities allowing them to capitalize on new developments. Finding commonality and understanding fundamental differences between regions is critical to these exchanges of ideas. Context sensitivity is again a critical concern in comparing methods between countries.

A significant force in fuel economy innovation is the marketplace. Market factors emphasize industry opportunities for improvement. They reinforce technologies that meet real world expectations and eliminate those that do not. The market has inspired the need for improved understanding of fuel economy as it has demanded ever greater performance while containing costs. As products move higher on their technology innovation S-Curves, improvements become more challenging to attain, requiring greater investment and time while producing smaller net gains. These conditions spawn revolutionary innovation, jumping to new technologies that are at the starting point of their innovation S-curves. A possible example of such a jump would be a change in U.S. Vehicle Size and Weight regulations that encourages use of A-train and B-train doubles, effectively doubling the freight carried per motive tractor and driver. That jump would include incorporating advances in collision avoidance and automation technology to address safety concerns and building off actual operational experience in Canada and some U.S. States where LCV's are regularly operated under permit.

The marketplace includes life-of-product factors that may impact decisions on fuel economy. Point of introduction fuel economy will change as vehicles age and parts wear or are replaced through maintenance. On-highway vehicles may live 10 to 25 or more years and change roles during that time. Fuel efficiency assessment methods that incorporate investment factors add levels of complexity from time frames.

The future will see on-board systems that accurately and precisely determine fuel economy and instantaneously adjust vehicle parameters and even vehicle configuration to improve performance. Progress is being made in use of fuel flow meters and laser based anemometers that may provide improved vehicle sensing that innovators may adapt to new vehicle systems. Cloud based data collection and analysis may use these future systems to provide detail that improves understanding real world fuel economy factors and sensitivities via statistically significant populations. Many of these efforts fall under the banner Intelligent Transportation System. A key agency in promoting progress in this area is the DOT ITS Joint Project Office.

Fuel economy and related freight efficiency and emissions assessment for the commercial vehicle industry has multiple end users with different needs and perspectives. End users of performance data must be aware of the contexts of the tests and analyses. Publishers of the data must take care to provide the relevant details so end users can relate the performance to their own purposes.

Specific recommendations for improving fuel efficiency assessment are:

1. 21st Century Truck Program - focus additional resources not just on innovating technology, but on innovating the regulations to take advantage of proven and existing technology such as expanding size and weight regulations to promote opportunities beyond the single 53' van trailer.

2. 21st Century Truck Program - Emphasize the need for and sponsor development of correlation methodologies for adapting controlled test data to individual user's operations. Industry users must have some vetted way to adapt controlled SAE, TMC and other test results to their own actual real world operations.

3. SmartWay Program - The SmartWay program has established a foundation infrastructure for storage and distribution of commercial vehicle technology related performance data. Expand on this foundation by increasing the granularity of evaluation information. Develop correlation guidance for adapting published performance to actual end user operations. Clarify why "your results may differ" by quantifying the various factors and their effects on the published values. Refine assessment methods to obtain better performance resolution and robustness of the information presented.

4. SmartWay Program - Move beyond the sole tractor with 53' van trailer operating alone as the primary method for measuring performance improvement. Include real world considerations such as traffic conditions and the effect of surrounding vehicles on actual performance.

5. GHG Phase 2 Program - The industry and regulators are expected to have a final version of this rule after this paper has been sent for publication. The regulators must show flexibility to allow industry to innovate system solutions that attain gains but may not be specifically detailed within the rules because the rules are focused on the existing 53' trailer and single diesel powered tractor with human driver paradigm. Expanding beyond this system definition can open up for solutions involving platooning, LCV's, semi-autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, and other ITS technology areas not proven at the time these rules were finalized.

6. GHG Phase 2 Program - Investigate use of the SmartWay Program as a repository for technology performance data used by OEM's in GEM analyses such as the tire rolling resistance tests for all tires used by OEM's. This requires resolving concerns between manufacturers on what data is actually proprietary, and what may already have sufficient distribution that it is in fact publicly available or might become so through freedom of information act efforts.

7. SuperTruck II Program - The competing teams should reach consensus on harmonizing measurement methods so that end results can be related between efforts.

8. SuperTruck II Program - The DOE should require a direct comparison to a current Model Year 2016 or 2017 baseline vehicle in addition to its reliance on the original SuperTruck I 2009 Baselines so the progress can be put in useful perspective to the GHG Phase 2 industry and government needs.

9. SAE, TMC, ISO and other Organizations - Provide the mechanism to relate the multitude of assessment methodologies. As NAS requested, develop the procedures to correlate between methods. Clarify ground rules for documenting performance in a way that includes the contextual details necessary to relate the results to other end user real world operations.

10. SAE, TMC, ISO and other Organizations - Work together to eliminate redundancies in procedures and guidelines. Improve utility of results by including the ramifications of real world factors on controlled test results.

11. Intelligent Transportation System - Focus technology development by tempering optimistic benefits with a level of reality. For example, stating optimum fuel economy performance results when measured in a controlled single vehicle track test while not reflecting that actual highway conditions do not reflected by those ideal test conditions. Technology development for public consumption should not oversell itself based on unrealistic cost/benefit analyses. If the technologies are truly useful, market forces will demand them based on their real world results.

12. International Cooperation - There are significant differences between U.S., Canada, Europe, China, Japan and other countries commercial freight operations, infrastructure and needs. Identify the common areas and be open to innovative solutions that may be in use by others. An example is use of long combination vehicles in Canada, Australia and some U.S. states to significantly increase freight per tractive unit. Another is use of three axle trailers in Europe which are rare in North America.

13. New Engineers and Experienced Ones - Reinforce continuous improvement in fuel economy assessment. Significant progress has been made, but much opportunity remains to bridge the gap between controlled testing and real world. Recognizing that the status quo may be inadequate is the start of innovating improvement.

This L. Ray Buckendale report's primary purpose is to provide guidance to the new engineer in fuel economy assessment history and methodology. The body of work it entails and the insights and observations are applicable to all.

REFERENCES

[1.] Shakespeare, W., "Julius Caesar," "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar." The Tragedy of Julius Caesar with Related Readings. Ed. Dom Saliani, Chris Ferguson, and Dr. Tim Scott. Toronto: International Thomson Publishing, 1997, ISBN 10: 0176066152.

[2.] "THE FORTIETH L. RAY BUCKENDALE LECTURE Diesel Engine Design for the 1990s SP-1011 (940130)." SAE Technical Paper 940130, 1994, doi:10.4271/940130.

[3.] SAE International, "L. Ray Buckendale Lecture," http://awards.sae.org/buckendale/, accessed Apr. 2016.

[4.] BUCKENDALE, L., "THE AUTOMOTIVE WORM-GEAR," SAE Technical Paper 260042. 1926, doi: 10.4271/260042.

[5.] Raviolo, V., "Planning a Product," SAE Technical Paper 680509, 1968, doi:10.4271/680509.

[6.] Drollinger, R., "Heavy Duty Truck Aerodynamics," SAE Technical Paper 870001. 1987, doi:10.4271/870001.

[7.] Beakley, G. and Leach, H, "Engineering-an introduction to a creative profession," 3rd edition, MaCmillan Company, New York (1977), pp 3-4. ISBN: 0-02-307190-7.

[8.] Billington, D. and Billington D., Jr., "Power, Speed, and Form-Engineers and the Making of the 20th Century," Princeton University Press, Princeton & Oxford, pp xvi-xviii, 2006, ISBN:-10: 0-691-10292-9.

[9.] Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,"Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles," National Academies Press NAP, 2010, DOI 10.17226/12845

[10.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SmartWay, "Interim Requirements to Determine Eligibility of SmartWay Tractors," http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1004TlZ.PDF?Dockev=P1004TlZ.PDF accessed Apr. 2016

[11.] California Air Resources Board, "Letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Mark R. Rosekind with CARB comments on EPA proposed Phase 2 GHG rules," dated Oct. 1, 2015, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/caphase2ghg/comments/carb_phase_2_comments.pdf. accessed Apr. 2016

[12.] Overdrive staff, "Winds of Change," Overdrive Magazine, Dec. 12, 2008, http://www.overdriveonline.com/winds-of-change/. accessed Apr. 2016.

[13.] Park, J, "Test Drive: Western Star 5700XE," Heavy Duty Trucking Magazine, Nov. 2014, http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/story/2014/ll/test-drive-western-star-5700xe.aspx. accessed Apr. 2016.

[14.] Mihelic, R.,"Heavy Truck Aerodynamics Beyond 2025," presentation, 2015 SAE COMVEC Aerodynamics Track Keynote, Oct. 2015.

[15.] ebay.com item, "1960 Kenworth Truck Final Chassis Brochure 151099-9S7AMX," http://www.ebay.com/itm/1960-Kenworth-Truck-Final-Chassis-Record-Brochure-151099-9S7AMX-/350751856218, accessed Apr. 2016

[16.] Mihelic, R., "The expanding heavy truck fuel economy and aerodynamic design space," Commercial Vehicle Megatrends USA 2012 Conference, Detroit (2012), http://www.automotiveworld.com/analvsis/the-expanding-heavv-truck-fuel-economy-and-aerodynamic-design-space/

[17.] Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Phase 3, "Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership: Third Report," The National Academies Press (NAP), (2015), DOI: 10.17226/21784

[18.] Smith, J, Mihelic, R., Gilford, B., and Ellis, M., "Aerodynamic Impact of Tractor-Trailer in Drafting Configuration," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh 7(2):619-625, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-2436.

[19.] Avallone, E., Baumeister T., III, et. al., "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers," 10th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1996, ISBN: 0-07-004997-1.

[20.] Fitch, J, "Motor Truck Engineering Handbook," SAE International. R-125, 1993, ISBN: 978-1-56091-378-8

[21.] Mihelic, R., Rondini, D., Roeth, M., and Schaller, D., "Confidence Report: Determining Efficiency," North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), (2016), http://www.truckingefficiencv.org/sites/truckingefficiencv.org/files/reports/Determining_Efficiency_Full_Report_0.pdf. accessed Apr. 2016

[22.] U.S. EPA, "Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles Regulatory Impact Analysis,", document EPA-420-R-11 -901, Aug. 2011, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r11901.pdf. accessed Jun 2016.

[23.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis," EPA-420-D-15-900, Jun. 2015, https://www3.epa.goy/otaq/climate/documents/420dl5900.pdf. accessed Jun 2016.

[24.] Leonard, J., "Systems Engineering Fundamentals," Department of Defense Systems Management College, DSMC, ISBN-10: 1484129555, ISBN-13:1484129555, 1999, 2001, 2013

[25.] Chang, G., Perng, H. and Juang, J., "A review of systems engineering standards and Processes," Journal of Biomechatronics Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 71-85 (2008), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.471.3789&rep=repl&type=pdf, accessed Jun 2016

[26.] EIA Standard IS-632, "Processes for Systems Engineering," cited by Leonard Dec 1994, SAE reaffirmed 2003, http://standards.sae.org/eia632/, accessed Jun 2016.

[27.] Armstrong, L., "Systems Engineering as a Structured Design Process," SAE Technical Paper 962178. 1996, doi: 104271/962178.

[28.] NASA-SP-6105, 1995c. Systems Engineering Handbook. NASA, see also NASA Staff, "Systems Engineering Handbook", NASA/SP-2007-6105 Revl, 2007, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080008301.pdf. accessed Jun 2016.

[29.] NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, "Project Management and Systems Engineering Handbook," MSFC Technical standard EE11, MSFC-HDBK-3173, Rev. B, 2012, https://standards.nasa.gov/standard/msfc/msfc-hdbk-3173. accessed Jun 2016.

[30.] Walden, D., Roedler, G. et. al., International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), "INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities," 4th Edition. Wiley, ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0, July 2015

[31.] Ng, Y., "MIT OpenCourseWare celebrates 15 years of open sharing," MIT News, Apr 4, 2016, http://news.mit.edu/2016/mit-opencourseware-celebrates-15-vears-open-sharing-0404. accessed Jun. 2016.

[32.] Mihelic, R. and Ray, B., "A Systems Approach for the Evolving Nature of Part Costs," SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3402. 2003, doi :10.4271/2003-01-3402.

[33.] Mihelic, R. "Project Management," presentation to University of North Texas senior project courses, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2014.

[34.] Product Development Institute, "Stage-Gate [R]" http://www.prod-dev.com/stage-gate.php accessed Apr 2016

[35.] PACEWorldwide, "PACE[R] Process Guides", https://paceworldwide.com/news/2015/03/pace-process-guides, accessed Apr 2016

[36.] ISTQB Exam Certification, "What is Waterfall model - advantages, disadvantages and when to use it?", http://istqbexamcertification.com/what-is-waterfall-model-advantages-disadvantages-and-when-to-use-it, accessed Apr. 2016

[37.] Crow, K., "Control the NPD Process with Gate Reviews and Design Reviews," DRM Associates, http://www.npd-solutions.com/reviews.html, accessed Jun. 2016

[38.] Pisacane, V and Moore, R., "Fundamentals of Space Systems," Oxford University Press, 1994, ISBN-10: 0195074971,

[39.] Hartman, N, Kenley, C, "Product Lifecycle Management: The Salvation of Systems Engineering," 11th SA INCOSE Conference, Pretoria, 16-18 Sept 2015, https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ckenley/pubs/Product_Lifecvcle_Management_The_Salvation_of_Svstems_Engineering.pdf. accessed Apr. 2016.

[40.] U.S. EPA/NHTSA, "Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles," Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (aka Phase 1 RIA), EPA-420-D-901, Oct. 2010, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420d10901.pdf. accessed Jun. 2016.

[41.] U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), "Recovery Act - Systems Level Technology Development, Integration, and Demonstration for Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck) and Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light-Duty Vehicles (ATP-LD)," Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement DEFOA-0000079, DOE RFP on SuperTruck, Oct. 2008, officially issued Jun 9, 2009.

[42.] U.S. Department of Energy, "Technology Roadmap for the 21st Century Truck Program," DOE, 21CT-001, Dec. 2000.

[43.] U.S. Department of Energy, "Roadmap and Technical White Papers," 21st Century Truck Program, 21-CTP-0003, Dec. 2006

[44.] U.S. Department of Transportation, "Freight Facts and figures 2013", U.S. FHWA and DOT Bureau of Tranportation Statistics, FHWA-HOP-14-004, Jan. 2014

[45.] Fender, C, "An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2011 Update," American Transportation Research Institute ATRI, 2011, http://www.atri-online.org/research/results/Op_Costs_2011_Update_one_page_summarv.pdf. accessed May 2016

[46.] Mihelic, R., Smith, J., and Ellis, M., "Aerodynamic Comparison of Tractor-Trailer Platooning and A-Train Configuration," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 8(2):740-746, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-2897.

[47.] Roeth, M., et. al., "2015 Annual Fleet Fuel Study," North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), May 2015, http://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NACFE-2015-Annual-Fleet-Fuel-Studv-Report-050115.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[48.] Rentema, D., "Truck Aerodynamics at DAF: What and How," presentation at Platform for Aerodynamic Road Transport (PART) Symposium Towards Aerodynamic Heavy Duty Vehicles, May 2012, http ://www.part20.eu/en/svmposium/. provided by author

[49.] Krajewski, J., "OEM Steps Towards Increasing Overall Efficiency," presentation at Diesel Emissions Conference & DEF Forum USA, Daimler, 2012

[50.] U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, http://www.nist.gov/

[51.] Lytle, F., "Internet Notes with Equations in Math Mark-up Language (MML); Statistical techniques; Analytical Relevance of Probability; Bias and Accuracy", CHM 621, Home Page, Purdue University, https ://www.chem.purdue.edu/courses/chm621/text/stat/relev/bias/bias.htm, accessed May 2016.

[52.] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), "Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: General principles and definitions," ISO 5725-1, 1994

[53.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration (NHTSA), "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2" proposed rules, Dockets No. NHTSA-2014-0132 and No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, Jun. 2015.

[54.] Mihelic, R., Roeth, M. and Schaller, M., "Confidence Report: Tractor Aerodynamics," North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) white paper, May 2016, http://www.truckingefficiencv.org/sites/truckingefficiency.org/files/reports/tractor_aerodynamic_device_FINAL_CR.pdf. accessed May 2016.

[55.] Mihelic, R., Roeth, M., Rondini, D. and Schaller, M., "Confidence Report: Trailer Aerodynamic Devices," North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) white paper, Mar. 2016, http://www.truckingefficiencv.org/sites/truckingefficiencv.org/files/reports/TE_Trailer_Aero_CR_FINALFINAL.pdf. accessed May 2016.

[56.] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) EDGAR System, https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm, accessed May 2016

[57.] U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Wind Exchange, estimates provided by AWS Truepower LLC, http://apps2.eere.energy,goy/wind/windexchange/windmaps.asp. accessed May 2016

[58.] California Air Resources Board (CARB), "Adoption of a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from heavy -duty vehicles," 2008, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/ghghdv08/uid.pdf, accessed Apr. 2016

[59.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Road Load Measurement Using Onboard Anemometry and Coastdown Techniques," SAE Standard J2263. Rev. Dec. 2008

[60.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Road Load Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation Using Coastdown Techniques," SAE Standard J1263, Rev. Mar. 2010

[61.] Korst, H, White, R., and Metz, L., "Road Evaluation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Heavy Trucks," SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-4297. 2007, doi: 10.4271/2007-01-4297

[62.] Mihelic, R., "Heavy Duty Tractor/Trailer Aerodynamic Testing Technology," presentation at 2013 SAE COMVEC 13CVA1000 Aero Plenary, Oct. 2013

[63.] Siemens, "Tech Topics No. 30, Altitude Correction Factors," Siemens, http://w3.usa.siemens.com/us/internet-dms/btlv/PowerDistributionComm/PowerDistribution/docsMV/TechTopics/ANSI_MV_TechTopics30_EN.pdf. accessed May 2016.

[64.] Richie, D., Rosenfeld, M., "Investigation of Factors for Temperature Derating Factors for High-Strength Line Pipe," ASME STP-PT-049, 2012, ISBN No. 978-0-7918-3426-8 hhttp://files.asme.org/Catalog/STLLC/PDF/33292.pdf

[65.] U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 600 - Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/CFR-2003-title40-vol27/pdf/CFR-2003-title40-vol27-part600.pdf. accessed May 2016

[66.] U.S. EPA, "Fuel Economy Label,: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/gaslabel.htm. accessed May, 2016

[67.] Kubota, Y, "Mitsubishi Motors Admits Manipulating Fuel-Economy Data," Wall Street Journal, Apr. 20, 2016, http://www.wsi.com/articles/mitsubishi-motors-finds-improprieties-in-its-fuel-economy-tests-1461139747. accessed May 2016

[68.] O'Dell, John, "Here's Why Real World MPG Doesn't Match EPA Ratings," Edmunds, Nov. 20, 2012, http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/heres-why-real-world-mpg-doesnt-match-epa-ratings.html, accessed May 2016.

[69.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Battery Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure," SAE Standard J1634, Rev. Oct. 2012.

[70.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Interim Test Method for Verifying Fuel Savings Components for SmartWay: Modifications to SAE J1321, available at National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), https://www.epa.gov/nscep. accessed May 2016.

[71.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles," Final Rules, Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations /page 57106, https ://www. gpo. gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2011-09-15/pdf/2011 -20740.pdf, accessed Jun. 2016.

[72.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Fuel Consumption Test Procedure Type II," SAE Standard J1321, Rev. Feb. 2012.

[73.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "SAE Fuel Consumption Test (Engineering Method)," SAE Standard J1526, Rev. Sep. 2015.

[74.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Joint RCCC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure (Short Term In-Service Vehicle) Type 1(STABILIZED May 2011)," SAE Standard J1264, Rev. May. 2011.

[75.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Truck and Bus Aerodynamic Device and Concept Terminology," SAE Standard J2971,Rev. Apr. 2013.

[76.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Guidelines for Aerodynamic Assessment of Medium and Heavy Commercial Ground Vehicles Using Computational Fluid Dynamics," SAE Standard J2966, Rev. Sep. 2013.

[77.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "SAE Wind Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses," SAE Standard J1252, Rev. Jul. 2012.

[78.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Reynolds Number Scaling and Simulation Guidelines and Methods," SAE Standard J3015. Rev. (in development)

[79.] Wood, R., "Reynolds Number Impact on Commercial Vehicle Aerodynamics and Performance," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 8(2):590-667, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-2859.

[80.] SAE International, "Constant Speed Test," SAE JXXXX (in development)

[81.] Hausberger, S., et. al.," Reduction and Testing of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy Duty Vehicles - LOT 2," University of Technology Graz, Jan. 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/heaw/docs/hdv_2011_0l_09_en.pdf. accessed May 2016

[82.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Road Load Measurement Using Coastdown Techniques," SAE Standard J2978. (in development), http://standards.sae.org/wip/j2978/ accessed May 2016

[83.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Recommended Practice for Measuring Fuel Economy and Emissions of Hybrid-Electric and Conventional Heavy-Duty Vehicles," SAE Standard J2711. Sep. 2002.

[84.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles," SAE Standard J1711, Rev. Jun. 2010.

[85.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Tire Performance Terminology," SAE Standard J2047, Rev. Mar. 2013.

[86.] SAE International, "Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light Truck, and Highway Truck and Bus Tires," SAE Standard J1269, 2006

[87.] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, "Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles-Open Throat Wind Tunnel Adjustment," SAE Standard J2071, revised version in development, originally issued 1994,

[88.] American Trucking Association (ATA) Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "Type II Fuel Economy Test Procedure." ATA TMC RP1102A2014.

[89.] American Trucking Association (ATA) Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "Type IV Fuel Economy Test Procedure." ATA TMC RP1109B2012.

[90.] American Trucking Association (ATA) Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "In-Service Fuel Consumption Test Procedure - Type III,"ATATMCRP1103A2015.

[91.] American Trucking Association (ATA) Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "Evaluating Diesel Fuel Additives for Commercial Vehicles," ATA TMC RP1106A(T) 2016.

[92.] American Trucking Association (ATA) Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "Relationships Between Truck Components and Fuel Economy," ATA TMC RP1111B 2014.

[93.] American Trucking Association (ATA) Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "Fuel Savings Calculator for Aerodynamic Devices," ATA TMC RP1118 2016.

[94.] American Trucking Association (ATA) Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "Driver Effects on Fuel Economy," ATA TMC RP1114A2015.

[95.] American Trucking Association (ATA) Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "Guidelines for Qualifying Products Claiming a Fuel Economy Benefit," ATA TMC RP1115 2003.

[96.] American Trucking Association (ATA) Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "Analysis of Costs from Idling and Parasitic Devices for Heavy Duty Trucks," ATA TMC RP1108 2003.

[97.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Guide," EPA-420-B-10-039, Oct. 2010, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420b10039.pdf, accessed Jun. 2016.

[98.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Peer Review of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) and EPA's Response to Comments," EPA-420-R-11-007, Aug. 2011, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420rl 1007.pdf. accessed Jun. 2016.

[99.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "MOVES2014a (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 2014a) User Guide," EPA-420-15-095 EPA-420-B-14-055, 2015, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420bl5095.pdf. accessed Jun. 2016.

[100.] U.S. Department of Energy, "Analysis Tools," Hydrogen Analysis Resource Center, http://hydrogen.pnl.gov/analysis-tools. accessed May 2016

[101.] University of Chicago, Argonne National Laboratory, "Autonomie", software distributed by Siemens, http://www.autonomie.net/, accessed June 2016.

[102.] California Air Resources Board (CARB), Code of Regulations, CCR Title 17, Subarticle 1, Sections 95300 to 95312, approved Dec 2009, initially effectivity Jan 2010

[103.] California Air Resources Board (CARB), "Compliance Training for the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation," overview video, The Truck Stop CARB, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truckstop/video/ghgvideo/ghg514.htm. accessed May 2016.

[104.] Implementation Guidance for the Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation," CARB, Oct 2012, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/documents/modaeroguidevl.pdf. accessed May 2016.

[105.] Environment Canada (EC), "Heavy-duty Vehicle and Engine Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations," Canada Gazette, Part II, Journal number: 147(6):450-572, Mar. 2013. http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2013/2013-03-13/html/sor-dors24-eng.html. accessed Jun. 2016.

[106.] McAuliffe, B., "Improving the aerodynamic efficiency of heavy duty vehicles: wind tunnel test results of trailer-based drag-reduction technologies," National Research Council Canada (NRC), LTR-AL-2015-0272, pp 18-19, Apr. 2015,

[107.] AVL Cruise, https://www.avl.com/cruise. accessed May 2016

[108.] MATLAB, http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/?requestedDomain=www.mathworks.com. accessed May 2016

[109.] SIMULINK, http://www.mathworks.com/products/simulink/, accessed May 2016

[110.] International Organization for Standardization, "Passenger car, truck and bus tyres - Methods of measuring rolling resistance - Single point test and correlation of measurement results," ISO 28580, 2009

[111.] European Commission, "EU Climate Action - Reducing C[O.sub.2] emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles," http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/heaw/indexen.htm. accessed May 2016.

[112.] European Commission, "Strategy for reducing Heavy-Duty Vehicles' Fuel Consumption and C[O.sub.2] emissions," EC, COM(2014) 285 final, 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/heaw/docs/com_285_2014_en.pdf. accessed May 2016.

[113.] European Commission, "Impact Assessment - Accompanying the document Strategy for Heavy-Duty Vehicles' Fuel Consumption and C[O.sub.2] Emissions," EC, SWD(2014) 160 final, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/heavv/docs/swd_2014_160_en.pdf, accessed Jun. 2016.

[114.] European Commission, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document A Strategy for Reducing Heavy Duty Vehicles' Fuel Consumption and C[O.sub.2] Emissions ," EC SWD(2014) 159 final, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/heaw/docs/swd_2014_l59_en.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[115.] Savvidis, D., "Presentation of Vehicle Energy consumption Calculation Tool (VECTO)," EC presentation, Sep. 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/docs/0096/vecto_en.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[116.] International Energy Agency (IEA), "Fuel Efficiency Standards for Vehicles - Top runner Program," IEA, http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/pams/iapan/name-24367-en.php. accessed May 2016.

[117.] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), "Calculation Program for Heavy-duty Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy," MLIT TRIAS 5-8-2010, http://www.mlit.go.ip/en/jidosha/jidosha_fr10_000007.html. accessed May 2016

[118.] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), "The Cost and Effectiveness of Policies to Reduce Vehicle Emissions, Summary and Conclusions," Joint Transport Research Centre Round Table,, Discussion Paper No. 2008-9, Apr. 2008, http://www.mlit. go.jp/kokusai/MEET/documents/MEETFUM/S2-ITF-sup3.pdf. accessed May 2016.

[119.] International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), "Final Phase 2 China Fuel Consumption Standard for Commercial Heavy Duty Vehicles," ICCT Policy Update, May 2014, http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCTupdate_ChinaPhase2_june2014.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[120.] Thornton, D., Kagan, R. Gunningham, N, "Compliance costs, regulation, and environmental performance: Controlling truck emissions in the US," Wiley, 2008, DOI: 10.1111/j. 1748-5991.2008.00043.x

[121.] Lockridge, D., "DEF: Here to Stay," Heavy Duty Trucking magazine, Jun 2013, http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/story/2013/06/def-here-to-stayaspx. accessed May 2016

[122.] Harrington, W. and Krupnick, A., "Improving Fuel Economy in Heavy-Duty Vehicles," Resources for the Future, Issue Brief 12-01, Mar 2012, http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-IB-12-01.pdf. accessed May 2016.

[123.] Miller, J., "U.S. probes truck-engine push," Chicago Tribune, May 14, 2002, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-05-14/business/0205140085_l_engine-epa-caterpillar, accessed May 2016.

[124.] Calpin, P. and Plaza-Jennings, E., "NADA Comments to NHTSA/EPA RE: MY 2017-2025 Proposed Standards," National Automotive Dealers Association (NADA), Feb 2012, https://www.nada.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=21474838586. accessed May 2016.

[125.] Transport & Environment, "Europe's Lost Decade of Truck Fuel Economy," Transport & Environment briefing, Dec 2015, https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2015_12_trucks_lost_decade_briefing_FINAL_0.pdf. accessed May 2016

[126.] Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "Delivering Jobs," Union of Concerned Scientists, Jul 2010, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/economic-costs-and-benefits-improving-fuel-economy-heavy-duty-trucks#. VzXUKJXrvIU

[127.] European Environment Agency, "Average age of the vehicle fleet," March 2016, http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/average-age-of-the-vehicle-fleet/average-age-of-the-vehicle-8, accessed June 2016.

[128.] Sauer, B., "Truck/trailer industry outlook: Let the good times roll," Trailer Body Builders, May 2012, http://trailer-bodvbuilders.com/market-stats/trucktrailer-industrv-outlook-let-good-times-roll, accessed May 2016.

[129.] Sharpe, B. and Muncrief, R., "Literature Review: Real-World Fuel Consumption of Heavy Duty Vehicles in the United States, China and the European Union," ICCT White Paper, Jan. 2015, "http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_HDV_FC_lit-review_20150209.pdf. accessed May 2016.

[130.] U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "U.S. On- Highway Diesel Fuel Prices," EIA, http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/, accessed May 2016.

[131.] U.S. Department of Transportation, "The Effect of Increased Speed Limits in the Post-NMSL Era," Report to Congress, Feb. 1998, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808-637.PDF, accessed May 2016.

[132.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Environmental Fact Sheet," EPA420-F-95-010a, Jul 1995, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/highwav-diesel/regs/noxsop2.txt, accessed May 2016.

[133.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Estimated Impact of New Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty On-Highway Engines," EPA420-R-97-009, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi/P10026DE.PDF?Dockev=P10026DE.PDF. accessed May 2016

[134.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Highway Heavy-Duty Engines; Final Rule," Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 203, pp. 54694-54730, Oct. 21, 1997, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd-hwy/1997frm/frhwy.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[135.] Davis, S., et. al. "2015 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES MARKET REPORT," DOE Oakridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2016/124, http://cta.ornl.gov/vtmarketreport/pdf/2015_vtmarketreport_full_doc.pdf. accessed May 2016.

[136.] Sturgess, S., "Spec Economy," Heavy Duty Trucking, Jun 2008, http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/storv/2008/06/spec-economv.aspx, accessed Jun. 2016.

[137.] Britton, D., "The True Cost of Congestion," Heavy Duty Trucking, Jul 2010, http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/story/2010/07/the-true-costs-of-congestion.aspx, accessed Jun. 2016.

[138.] Park, J., "The Future of Fuel Economy," Heavy Duty Trucking, Jun 2010, http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/storv/2010/06/the-future-of-fuel-economy.aspx, accessed Jun. 2016.

[139.] Curry, T., et. al., "Reducing Aerodynamic Drag & Rolling Resistance from Heavy duty Trucks: Summary of Available Technologies & Applicability to Chinese Trucks," M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC, prepared for the International Council on Clean Transport (ICCT), Oct. 2012, http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/AERO_RR_Technologies_Whitepaper_FINAL_Oct2012.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[140.] American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) & The International Council on Clean Transport (ICCT), Workshop on Emerging Technologies for Heavy Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency," ACEEE & ICCT Conference, 2014, http://aceee.org/conferences/2014/workshop, accessed May 2016.

[141.] Tanner, D., "Truck Speed Limiter Rule Delayed," Land Line, Sep. 2, 2015, http://www.landlinemag.com/Storv.aspx?StorvID=29717#.VzInubnrvIU accessed May 2016.

[142.] Miller, E., "Truck Speed Limiter Rule Delayed for 'Extended' Review by White House," Transport Topics TTNEWS, Sep 4, 2015, http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storvid=39357, accessed May 2016.

[143.] Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, "Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership," The National Academies Press (NAP), (2008), ISBN 10: 0-309-12208-2 and ISBN: 0-309-12209-0 978-0-309-12208-5.

[144.] Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, "Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Phase 2," The National Academies Press (NAP), (2012), ISBN 10: 0-309-22247-8 and ISBN: 978-0-309-22247-1

[145.] Park., J., "Running Lean," Heavy Duty Trucking, Aug. 2008, http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/story/2008/08/running-lean.aspx, accessed May 2016.

[146.] Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), "DE-FOA-0001447: "Advanced Systems Level Technology Development, Integration and Demonstration for Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck II)," EERE Funding Opportunity, https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/#FoaId0aa8732c-3c61-4040-aa2b-cd4fba6797d0, accessed May 2016.

[147.] Woodroffe, J.," Freight Infrastructure," 2015 Commercial Vehicle Outlook conference, Dallas, Texas, Aug. 2015.

[148.] U.S. Congress, "Text of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982," Public Law 97-424-Jan 6, 1983, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/97/hr6211/text accessed May 2016.

[149.] U.S. Congress, "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)," Public Law 112-141, Jul 2012, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/PLAW-112publ 141/html/PLAW-112publ 141.htm, accessed May 2016.

[150.] US Department of Transportation, "Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study Report to Congress," Apr 2016, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/map21tswstudy/index.htm, accessed May 2016.

[151.] Ogburn, M., Ramroth, L. and Lovins, A., "Transformational Trucks: Determining the Energy Efficiency Limits of a Class-8 Tractor-Trailer," Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), Jul 2008

[152.] Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "SmartWay Transport Partnership Program: Recommendations and Findings," EPA, Apr. 2014.

[153.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "SmartWay Tractors and Trailers," EPA420F07033 file P1004KW3.txt, 2007, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1004KW3.txt, accessed May 2016.

[154.] Bynum, C, "US EPA Smart Way Transport Partnership," EPA Presentation to SAE COMVEC, 2010, http://www.sae.org/events/gim/presentations/2010/ChervlBvnum.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[155.] Morgan, J., "Controlling Total Cost of Tire Ownership with Retreads," Tire Review, Jan. 2015, http://www.tirereview.com/tire-retreads-ownership-fuel-efficiency/, accessed May 2016.

[156.] Michelin, "Rolling Resistance Comparison," http://www.michelintruck.com/tools/rolling-resistance-comparison/, accessed May 2016.

[157.] AmericaMovesByTruck,"Rolling Resistance," http://americamovesbvtruck.com/rollingresistance.php, accessed May 2016.

[158.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "California Waivers and Authorizations," EPA, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm, accessed May 2016.

[159.] California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm, accessed May 2016.

[160.] California Air Resources Board (CARB), "Proposed Modifications to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gase Emissions Reduction Regulation," CARB Presentation, Mar. 2013, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/documents/workshopslides.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[161.] Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy of the University of California, Davis, "Achieving California's Greenhouse Gas Goals: AFocus on Transportation," UCD, 2015, http://next10.org/sites/next10.huang.radicaldesigns.org/files/UCD%20Next%2010%20Report%20FINAL%20082015.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[162.] California Air Resources Board, "Zero Emission Vehicle Standards for 2018 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium Duty Vehicles," CARB, 2014, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevregs/1962.2_clean.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[163.] Governor's Intragency Working Group on Zero-emission Vehicles,, "2013 ZEV Action Plan," California OPR, Feb. 2013, https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Governors_Office_ZEV_Action_Plan_%2802-13%29.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[164.] Philips, E., "California Shippers Face Trucking Surcharge," Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/california-shippers-face-trucking-surcharge-1462550845, accessed May 2016.

[165.] Halonen, A., Swim, R., Roeth, M., "Confidence Report: Lightweighting," NACFE, Aug. 2015, http://www.truckingefficiency.org/sites/truckingefficiencv.org/files/reports/CWR_trucking_full_report_Lightweighting_FINAL.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[166.] Delgado, O, Lutsey, N, "The U.S. SuperTruck Program," ICCT whitepaper, June 2014, http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_SuperTruck-program_20140610.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[167.] U.S. Department of Energy, "Secretary Chu Announces $187 Million to Improve Vehicle Efficiency for Heavy-Duty Trucks and Passenger Vehicles," DOE press release, Jan. 11, 2010.

[168.] Dvorscak, M., "Statement of Considerations,", DOE, Sept. 2011, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/10/f3/Wr(A)2011 -053.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[169.] Newhouse, S., Mihelic, R., Damon, K., "Peterbilt SuperTruck Program," Peterbilt presentation at Arlington Technology Association, Aug., 2013, http://www.arlingtontech.org/supertruck.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[170.] Koeberlein, D.,"Cummins SuperTruck Program," 2015 DOE Merit Review presentation, Jun. 2015, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/06/f23/ace057_koeberlein_2015_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[171.] Damon, K. and Koerberlein, D., "DoE SuperTruck Program," 2014 DOE Merit Review presentation, Jun 19 2014, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f17/arravt081_vss_damon_2014_o.pdf, accessed May 2016, accessed May 2016.

[172.] Rotz, D., Ziegler, M., "SuperTruck Program Vehicle Project Review," 2015 DOE Merit Review presentation, Jun 2015, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/arravt080_vss_rotz_2015_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[173.] Rotz, D., Ziegler, M., "SuperTruck Program Vehicle Project Review," 2014 DOE Merit Review presentation, Jun 19, 2014, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f17/arravt080_vss_rotz_2014_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[174.] Rotz, D., Ziegler, M., "SuperTruck Program Vehicle Project Review," 2013 DOE Merit Review presentation, May 16, 2013,

[175.] Singh, S., "SuperTruck Program: Engine Project Review," 2015 DOE Merit Review presentation, Jun 12 2015, http://energy. gov/sites/prod/files/2015/06/f23/ace058_singh_2015_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[176.] Bruce, C.,"New Daimler Supertruck boasts incredible 115% mpg improvement," Autoblog, Mar. 27, 2015, http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/27/daimler-supertruck-115-percent-mpg-improvement/, accessed May 2016.

[177.] Amar, P., "Volvo SuperTruck," 2015 DOE Merit Review presentation, Jun. 2015, http://energv.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/vss081_amar_2015_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[178.] Amar, P., "SuperTruck," 2014 DOE Merit Review presentation, Jun. 2014, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/fl7/vss081_amar_2014_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[179.] Amar, P., "Volvo SuperTruck," 2013 DOE Merit Review presentation, May. 2013, http ://energy. gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f 13/vss081_amar_2013_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[180.] Amar, P., "Volvo SuperTruck," 2012 DOE Merit Review presentation, May 2012, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f10/vss081_amar_2012_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[181.] Zukouski, R., "SuperTruck," 2015 DOE Merit Review presentation, Jun. 2015, http://energv.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/vss064_zukouski_2015_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[182.] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC), "SEC: Navistar International and Former CEO Misled Investors About Advanced Technology Engine," SEC Press Release 2016-62, Mar 2016, https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-62.html, accessed May 2016.

[183.] Jadin, D., "DOE SuperTruck Program," Navistar presentation, Sept. 27, 2011, https://s3.amazonaws.com/automotiveworld/slides/cvisusa2011/Dennis+Jadin+- +Navistar.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[184.] Oehlerking, D., "SuperTruck," 2013 DOE Merit Review presentation, May. 2013, http ://energy. gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f13/vss064_oehlerking_2013_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[185.] Jadin, D., "SuperTruck," 2012 DOE Merit Review presentation, May 2012, http://energy. gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f 10/vss064_jadin_2012_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[186.] Jadin, D., "SuperTruck," 2011 DOE Merit Review presentation, May 2011, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/fll/vss064_iadin_2011_o.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[187.] TA Engineering, "DOE SuperTruck Program Benefits Analysis," Argonne National Laboratory, Dec. 2012, https://anl.app.box.eom/s/3dfq 5bvqrjni0veon68by33im7gsgchn. accessed May 2016.

[188.] Cooper, C, et. al. "Reducing Heavy-duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and C[O.sub.2] Emissions," NESCCAF, ICCT, SWRI, TIAX, 2009, http://www.nescaum.org/documents/heaw-dutv-truck-ghg_report_final-200910.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[189.] Spangler, J., "Comments of Navistar, Inc. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 2," EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, Oct. 2015, https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HO-OAR-2014-0827-1199, accessed May 2016.

[190.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Evolution of the Clean Air Act,", EPA, https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/evolution-clean-air-act, accessed May 2016.

[191.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Regulations and Standards," EPA, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/regs.htm, accessed May 2016.

[192.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Highway and Nonroad Diesel Fuel Standards," EPA, https://www.epa.gov/diesel-fuel-standards/diesel-fuel-standards-rulemakings#rulemakings, accessed May 2016.

[193.] U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), "Massachusetts v. EPA," DOJ, https://www.justice.gov/enrd/massachusetts-v-epa, accessed May 2016.

[194.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Endangerment and Cause or Contriubte Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act," EPA, https ://www3 .epa. gov/climatechange/endangerment/, accessed May 2016.

[195.] U.S. Congress, "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007," GPO Public Law 110-140, Dec. 19, 2007, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/PLAW-110publ 140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[196.] U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "Factors and Considerations for Establishing a Fuel Efficiency Regulatory Program for Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles," NHTSA DOT HS 811 XXX, Oct. 2010, http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/NHTSA_Studv_Trucks.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[197.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) User Guide," EPA-420-B-11-019, Aug. 2011, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420b11019.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[198.] McCauley, S., "Notice of intent to develop regulations to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles and engines," Canada Department of Environment, Oct. 4, 2014, http://gazette,gc.ca/rp-pr/p 1/2014/2014-10-04/html/notice-avis-eng.php#nel, accessed Jun. 2016.

[199.] SAE International, "About SAE International," SAE International, http://www.sae.org/about/board/vision.htm, accessed May 2016.

[200.] American Trucking Association Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), "Overview," ATATMC, http://www.trucking.org/Technology_Council.aspx, accessed May 2016.

[201.] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), "About ISO", ISO, http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm. accessed May 2016

[202.] Sherwood, W., "Wind Tunnel test of Trailmobile Trailers". University of Maryland Wind Tunnel Report No. 85. College Park, MD, April 1974

[203.] Cooper, K., "Commercial Vehicle Aerodynamic Drag Reduction: Historical Perspective as a Guide," NRC, 2004; DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-44419-02.

[204.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "EPA and NHTSA Propose Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond," DOE EPA-420-F-15-901, Jun 2015, https://www3.epa. gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f 15901.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[205.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) User Manual," EPA Phase 2 proposed, EPA-420-B-15-076, Jun 2015, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420bl5076.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[206.] Jones, K., "OEMs, Cummins disagree on separate GHG engine standard," FleetOwner, Aug. 19, 2015, http://fleetowner.com/regulations/oems-cummins-disagree-separate-ghg-engine-standard, accessed May 2016.

[207.] Duly, S.,"Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficicency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2," letter to Administrator McCarthy and Secretary Foxx, Sep. 30, 2015, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HO-OAR-2014-0827-1201, accessed May 2016.

[208.] Kayes, D., "Comments of Daimler Trucks North America LLC, Detroit Diesel Corporation and Mercedes-Benz, USA," comments submitted to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HO-OAR-2014-0827-1164, accessed May 2016.

[209.] Mandel, J., Blubaugh, T., "Comments of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association," comments submitted to Dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827 and NHTSA-2014-0132, Oct. 1, 2015, https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HO-OAR-2014-0827-1269, accessed May 2016.

[210.] U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), "Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Project Office," DOT, http://www.its.dot.gov/, accessed Jun. 2016.

[211.] Auer, A., et. al., , "History of Intelligent Transportation Systems," Booz Allen Hamilton, FHWA-JPO-16-329,May 2016, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/59000/59200/59263/downloadl.pdf, accessed Jun. 2016.

[212.] Barbaresso, J., et. al., "ITS 2015-2019 Strategic Plan," ITS JPO Booz Allen Hamilton, FHWA-JPO-14-145, Dec. 2014, http://www.its.dot.gov/strategicplan.pdf, accessed Jun. 2016.

[213.] Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), http://arpa-e.energy.gov/, accessed Jul. 2016.

[214.] Khusal, P., "Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification," U.S. DOE ARPA-E report, Feb. 2016, http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/ARPA-E%20FY17%20Budget%20Request.pdf, accessed Jul. 2016.

[215.] U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Research Project Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), "ARPA-E Announces $60 Million in Funding Two Innovative New Programs," DOE ARPA-E, Apr. 2016, http://energy.gov/articles/arpa-e-announces-60-million-funding-two-innovative-new-programs, accessed Jul. 2016.

[216.] U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC), http://www.us-china-cerc.org/about.html, accessed Jul. 2016.

[217.] Minggao, O and Peng, H, "U.S.-China Clean Energy Reserarch Center Clean Vehicles Consortium (CVC)," Report to Steering Committee, Jul. 2014, http://www.us-china-cerc.org/pdfs/June_2014_Steering_CommitteeMeeting/CVCPresentationSCMeeting-July2014.pdf, accessed Jul. 2016.

[218.] U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),"Aviation Maintenance Technician (AMT) Airframe Handbook - Volume 2," Chapter 10 Aircraft Instrumentation Systems, FAA-H-8083-31, 2012, http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/amach 10.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[219.] Tanguay, B., "Strategies and novel technologies for reliable aerodynamic experiments on test tracks," oral presentation 2015 SAE COMVEC session 15CVA-0046, Oct. 2015 (see author).

[220.] Walston, W., Buckley, F., and Marks, C, "Test Procedures for the Evaluation of Aerodynamic Drag on Full-Scale Vehicles in Windy Environments," SAE Technical Paper 760106, 1976. doi: 10.4271/760106.

[221.] Cooper, K. and Watkins, S., "The Unsteady Wind Environment of Road Vehicles, Part One: A Review of the On-road Turbulent Wind Environment," SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-1236. 2007. doi :10.4271/2007-01-1236.

[222.] Watkins, S. and Cooper, K., "The Unsteady Wind Environment of Road Vehicles, Part Two: Effects on Vehicle Development and Simulation of Turbulence," SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-1237. 2007, doi :10.4271/2007-01-1237.

[223.] Vegendla, P., Sofu, T., Saha, R., Madurai Kumar, M. et al., "Investigation of Aerodynamic Influence on Truck Platooning," SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-2895. 2015, doi: 10.4271/2015-01-2895

[224.] Dopart, K., "U.S. DOT Truck Platooning Research," 2015 Florida Automated Vehicles Summit, Dec. 2015, http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/fav/2015summit/Session8-Dopart.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[225.] Ellis, M., Gargoloff, J., and Sengupta, R., "Aerodynamic Drag and Engine Cooling Effects on Class 8 Trucks in Platooning Configurations," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 8(2):732-739, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-2896.

[226.] McAuliffe, B. and D'Auteuil, A., "A System for Simulating Road-Representative Atmospheric Turbulence for Ground Vehicles in a Large Wind Tunnel," SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 9(2):2016, doi :10.4271/2016-01-1624.

[227.] Truckweight Onboard Wireless Scales, http://www.truckweight.com/wireless-truck-scales.html, accessed May 2016.

[228.] Air Weigh, LoadMaxx onboard scales, http://www.air-weigh.com/loadmaxx/, accessed May 2016.

[229.] Leichty, J., et. al., "Tire Pressure Systems," Confidence Report, North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), Aug, 2013, http://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TPS-Detailed-Confidence-Reportl.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[230.] Nikola Motor Company, "Nikola Motor Company Formed to Transorm U.S. Transportation Industry," press release, May 2016, https://nikolamotor.com/pdfs/Nikola_COMPANY_Final.pdf, accessed May 2016.

[231.] Lockridge, D., " 7 Ways to Cut Idling Costs," Heavy Duty Trucking, Jun 2013, http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/storv/2013/07/7-wavs-to-cut-idling-costs.aspx, accessed May 2016.

[232.] U.S. Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, "Corridors of the Future," FHWA Fact Sheet, Sep 2007, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fsi70.cfm, accessed May 2016.

[233.] Wilbur Smith Associates, "I-70 Dedicated Truck Lanes Feasibility Study," MAASTO July 22, 2011, http://www.maasto.net/2011presentations/024.I70MAASTO.pdf, accessed Jun. 2016.

[234.] Mid-America Freight Coalition, "Regional Solutions for Regional Issues," 1-70 Corridor map, http://midamericafreight.org/rfs/network-inventorv/corridors/profiles/i70/accessed Jun. 2016.

[235.] Transport Topics, (TT), "First Electric Highway Opens in Sweden," TT, Jun. 24, 2016, http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storvid=42364&t=First-Electric-Highwav-Opens-in-Sweden, accessed Jnn 2016.

[236.] Brecher, A. and Arthur, D., "Review and Evaluation of Wireless Power Transfer (WPT) for Electric Transit Applications," Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Report No. 0060, Aug. 2014, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/FTA_Report_No._0060.pdf, accessed Jun. 2016.

[237.] Innovative Trailer Design Industries Inc., "Industry Leading Innovation 60 feet 6 inch Super Cube Van," ITD image, http://www.itdtrailers.com/cat_gallerv/l_more_IMG_7399.ipeg, accessed Jun. 2016.

[238.] Heavy Equipment.com, "Turnpike Double," photo, http://www. heavyequipment.com/heavy-equipment/transportation, accessed Jun. 2016.

[239.] Mihelic, R., Melbourne, Australia, private photo collection, Jun. 2016.

[240.] European Truck Platooning, "European Truck Platooning Challenge 2016," Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, The Netherlands, https://www.eutruckplatooning.com/default.aspx, accessed May 2016

[241.] Wong, I., "Afleet of trucks just drove themselves across Europe," Quartz, Apr. 6, 2016, http://qz.com/656104/a-fleet-of-trucks-iust-drove-themselves-across-europe/, accessed Jun. 2016.

Rick Mihelic

Mihelic Vehicle Consulting LLC

CONTACT INFORMATION

Rick Mihelic

President, Mihelic Vehicle Consulting LLC

938 Royal Oaks Drive, Lewisville, TX 75067

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper would not have been possible without the foresight of the author's brother, Dr. David Mihelic, who is responsible this year for saving my life and making it feasible for this paper to be written. The strength of my wife, Sheila, and sons Richard and Connor during my medical event were key to my recovery, as were the concerns, prayers and well wishes from a network of friends and family, especially Craig Arden, Susan Offermann, Abir Qamhiyah, Naomi Soderstrom, Scott Conway and Albert and Meredith Mihelic.

That support network includes engineering associates and mentors Richard Wood of Solus and SAE, Mike Roeth, David Schaller and others of NACFE, and Ken Damon Jeff Smith, Steve Polansky, Bruce Bezner, Bill Shoebotham, and all my former associates at Peterbilt and PACCAR who helped me learn.

The SAE 2016 L. Ray Buckendale Committee showed me tremendous patience and provided encouragement and guidance while working on this paper during my recovery period. Special thanks to the reviewers.

DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS

* - Asterisk in Figure caption indicates enlarged version of Figure can be found in Appendix C

21st CTP - 21st Century Truck Partnership

AMR - Annual Merit Review (DOE)

AMT - automated manual transmission

ANL - Argonne National Laboratory

APU - auxiliary power unit

ARPA-E - Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy

ARRA -American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

AT - automatic transmission

ATRI - American Transportation Research Institute

BTE - brake thermal efficiency

CARB - California Air Resources Board

CAV - Connected and Automated Vehicle

CERC - U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center

CFD - computational fluid dynamics

CFR - code of federal regulation

CO - carbon monoxide

C[O.sub.2] - carbon dioxide

Crr - tire coefficient of rolling resistance

DCT - dual clutch transmission

DEF - diesel exhaust fuel

DOC - U.S. Department of Commerce

DOD - U.S. Department of Defense

DOE - U.S. Department of Energy

DOT - U.S. Department of Transportation

ECM - electronic control module

EERE - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE Office of)

EGR - exhaust gas recirculation

EIA - Energy Information Administration

EISA - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FE - fuel economy

FHWA - Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (DOT)

FTP - Federal Test Procedure

FTP75 - Federal Test Procedure 75

gal - gallon

GEM - GHG emissions model

GHG - greenhouse gas

gpm - gallons per mile

GREET - Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation

GVW - gross vehicle weight

GVWR - Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

HD - heavy duty

HEV - hybrid electric vehicle

HFET - Highway Fuel Economy Dynamometer Procedure

HHDDT - heavy heavy-duty diesel truck

hp - horsepower

hr - hour

HTUF - High-Efficiency Truck Users Forum

HVAC - heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

ITS - Intelligent Transportation Systems

ISO - International Organization for Standardization

kg - kilogram

kWh - kilowatt-hour

lb - pound

LCV - Long combination vehicle

LDV - light-duty vehicle

LRR - low rolling resistance

LSFC - load-specific fuel consumption

mi - mile

MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

mpg - miles per gallon

mph - miles per hour

MOVES - Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator

MY - Model year

NACFE - North American Council for Freight Efficiency

NOX - oxides of nitrogen

NETL - National Energy Technology Laboratory

NGO - Non-Government Organization

NHTSA - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NRC - National Research Council

NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory

OECD - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

OEM - original equipment manufacturer

ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory

PHEV - plug-in hybrid electric vehicle

PM - particulate matter

R&D - research and development

RP - recommended practice

rpm - revolutions per minute

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

SCR - selective catalytic reduction

TMC - Technology & Maintenance Council

HDDS - Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule

UMTRI - University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

WHR - waste heat recovery

WIM - weigh in motion

WPT - wireless power transfer

WTVC - World Wide Transient Vehicle Cycle

WTW - well to wheel

ZEV - zero emission vehicle

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A - FUEL ECONOMY & RELATED GUIDES BY ORGANIZATION CATEGORY SAE METHODS & RELEVANT GUIDES

SAE J1321 Fuel Consumption Test Procedure Type II - (2012)- "This document describes a rigorous-engineering fuel-consumption test procedure that utilizes industry accepted data collection and statistical analysis methods to determine the change in fuel consumption for trucks and buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. The test procedure may be conducted on a test track or on a public road under controlled conditions and supported by extensive data collection and data analysis constraints. The on-road test procedure is offered as a lower cost alternative to on-track testing but the user is cautioned that on-road test may result in lower resolution (or precision) data due to a lack of control over the test environment. Test results that do not rigorously follow the method described herein are not intended for public use and dissemination and shall not be represented as a Jl 321-Type II test result" [72],

SAE Jl 526 Fuel Consumption Test Procedure (Engineering Method) - (2015) - "This document describes a fuel-consumption test procedure that utilizes industry accepted data collection and statistical analysis methods to determine the difference in fuel consumption between vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds. This test procedure can be used for an evaluation of two or more different vehicles but is not to be used to evaluate a component change. Although on-road testing is allowed, track testing is the preferred method because it has the greatest opportunity to minimize weather and traffic influences on the variability of the results. All tests shall be conducted in accordance with the weather constraints described within this procedure and shall be supported by collected data and analysis. This document provides information that may be used in concert with SAE Recommended Practices J1264, J1252, J1321, and J2966 as well as additional current and future aerodynamic and vehicle performance SAE standards. The previous SAE J1526 document lacked statistical analysis of test data and lacked constraints on test criteria required to resolve small fuel consumption differences. Additionally, results from previous versions of this procedure have been reported without a confidence interval. To address these limitations, it was determined that a full revision of the document was required. Moreover, to simplify this procedure, all references to evaluating components have been removed. Refer to SAE J1321 Type II for component evaluations" [73].

SAE J1264 Joint RCCC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure (Short Term In-Service Vehicle) - (Stabilized 2011) -"This recommended practice provides minimum requirements for testing components or systems of the type which can be switched from one truck to another with relative ease; i.e.; aerodynamic devices, clutch fans, radial tires, and the like. The test utilizes in-service fleet vehicles, operated over representative routes. The relative fuel effectiveness of the component or system under test is determined as a percentage improvement factor. This factor is calculated using the relative fuel usage of like vehicles operating with and without the specific component or system under evaluation. Accuracy capability employing this test technique is either +/-1 % or +/-2%, depending upon the method of fuel measured. This technical report covers processes which are mature and not likely to change in the foreseeable future. The committee cannot find a significant number of users for the technical report. This document should only be used by experts in the field of use. Currently the document has limited application and use but is a valuable reference in the subject area that may be revised and made current in the future" [74].

SAE J2971 Aerodynamic Device and Concept Terminology - (2013) - "This document describes a standard naming convention of aerodynamic devices and technologies used to control aerodynamic forces on truck and buses weighing more than 10,000 pounds (including trailers). The existing SAE J1594, Vehicle Aerodynamics Terminology recommended practice does not address the terminology describing the set of vehicle aerodynamic devices used on Trucks and Buses. To address this limitation the Truck and Bus Aerodynamic and Fuel Economy Committee sponsored a Task Force to develop a Truck and Bus aerodynamic device terminology document" [75].

SAE J2966 Guidelines For Aero Assessment Using CFD - (2013) - "This document outlines general requirements for the use of CFD methods for aerodynamic simulation of medium and heavy commercial ground vehicles weighing more than 10 000 lb. The document provides guidance for aerodynamic simulation with CFD methods to support current vehicle characterization, vehicle development, vehicle concept development and vehicle component development. The guidelines presented in the document are related to Navier-Stokes and Lattice-Boltzmann based solvers. This document is only valid for the classes of CFD methods and applications mentioned. Other classes of methods and applications may or may not be appropriate to simulate the aerodynamics of medium and heavy commercial ground vehicle weighing more than 10 000 lb. This document is created to provide guidance for computational aerodynamic simulations of medium and heavy commercial ground vehicles" [76].

SAE J1252 Wind Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks & Buses - (2012) - "The scope of this SAE Recommended Practice is sufficiently broad that it encompasses the full range of full-scale medium and heavy duty vehicles represented as either full-scale or reduced-scale wind tunnel models. The document provides guidance for wind tunnel testing to support current vehicle characterization, vehicle development, vehicle concept development, and vehicle component development. Wind tunnel testing of heavy vehicles has evolved in the past thirty years with new facility types, new ground simulation techniques, and more robust methods for estimating aerodynamic force and moment coefficients. References have been added for support of the narrative and emphasize the common elements between automotive and heavy vehicle testing, and thus avoid duplication of material. The origin of the US average annual wind speed was not disclosed in the original document and is now supported by references and calculations performed by the revision task force. The derivation of the wind averaged drag coefficient and a sample calculation have been added for completeness. Uncertainty bounds are a required element for any contemporary wind tunnel test report and a suggested uncertainty analysis method has been added for the first time with an included sample calculation" [77].

SAE J3015 Reynolds Number Simulation Guidelines and Methods - (Work-In-Process - On going SAE Task Force since 2012) - "Develop Reynolds number simulation guidelines and methods for use with commercial ground vehicles. Develop Reynolds number simulation guidelines and methods for use with commercial ground vehicles test and analysis. The scope of this SAE Information Document is sufficiently broad that it encompasses the full range of medium to heavy commercial ground vehicles. The document provides guidance for Reynolds number and boundary layer assessment, modeling and simulation for aerodynamic evaluation and operational performance of commercial vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds" [78], Possible insight to this topic can be found in Wood's SAE 2015-01-2859, Reynolds Number Impact on Commercial Vehicle Aerodynamics and Performance [79].

SAE Jxxxx Constant Speed Test Task Force - (Work-In-Process - On-going SAE Task Force since 2014) - Develop a road load vehicle assessment recommended practice for commercial vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds. This document will fill a void in the test procedures available to the truck and bus community [80]. Possible insight to this method is described in EPA's Proposed GHG Phase 2 rules and RIA and also by Graz University's Hausberger, et. al, in the 2012 report Reduction and Testing of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy Duty Vehicles - LOT 2 with basic principles and EPA's Phase 2 proposed rules and RIA [23][53][81]:

* "The driving torque is measured at four different constant speeds on a circular test track.

* The measured total driving drag is corrected for road gradient, variations of vehicle speed and optional ambient wind speed. Whether the ambient wind correction shall be allowed in the final proposal for the test procedure has to be investigated in the pilot test phase.

* The rolling resistance and the air drag of the vehicle are separated by a mathematical approach.

* The ([C.sub.d] [A.sub.cr] ) value is calculated based on the total air drag and is normalised to standard ambient conditions (1bar and 20[degrees]C).

* During the constant speed tests it is also suggested to measure the fuel consumption by mobile fuel-flow measurement devices. This data shall be used for a standard validation of the HDV C[O.sub.2] simulator and as a possible option for calibrating the idling losses of the auxiliary units." [81]:

SAE J2978 Road Load Measurement Using Coastdown Techniques - (Work-In-Process - "On-going SAE Task Force since 2014) - To establish a procedure for determination of truck and bus vehicle road load force. It employs the coastdown method and applies to truck and bus vehicles designed for on-road operation. The final result is a model of road load force (as a function of speed) during operation on a dry, level road under reference conditions and the transmission in neutral. This document will fill a void in the test procedures available to the truck and bus community" [82].

SAE J1263 Road Load Measurement Using Coastdown - (2010) - "This procedure covers measurement of vehicle road load on a dry, straight, level road at speeds less than 113 km/h (70 mi/h). The value change and proper unit formatting correct oversights in the original document" [60].

SAE J2263 Road Load Measurement Using Anemometry and Coastdown - (2008) - "This SAE Recommended Practice establishes a procedure for determination of vehicle road load force for speeds between 115 and 15 km/h (71.5 and 9.3 mph). It employs the coastdown method and applies to vehicles designed for on-road operation. The final result is a model of road load force (as a function of speed) during operation on a dry, level road under reference conditions of 20[degrees]C (68[degrees]F), 98.21 kPa (29.00 in-Hg), no wind, no precipitation, and the transmission in neutral" [59].

SAE J2711 Recommended Practice for Measuring Fuel Economy and Emissions of Hybrid-Electric and Conventional Heavy-Duty Vehicles - (2002) - This SAE Recommended Practice was established to provide an accurate, uniform and reproducible procedure for simulating use of heavy-duty hybrid- electric vehicles (HEVs) and conventional vehicles on dynamometers for the purpose of measuring emissions and fuel economy. Although the recommended practice can be applied using any driving cycle, the practice recommends three cycles: the Manhattan cycle, representing low-speed transit bus operation; the Orange County Transit Cycle, representing intermediate-speed bus operation; and the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) cycle representing high-speed operation for buses and tractor-trailers. This document does not specify which emissions constituents to measure (e.g., HC, CO, NOx, PM, C[O.sub.2]), as that decision will depend on the objectives of the tester. While the recommended practice was developed specifically to address the issue of measuring fuel economy and emissions for hybrid-electric heavy-duty vehicles on a chassis dynamometer, the document can also be applied to chassis testing of other heavy- duty vehicles. This document builds upon SAE Jl711, the light-duty HEV chassis recommended practice. As in SAE J1711, this document defines a hybrid vehicle as having both a rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) capable of releasing and capturing energy and an energy-generating device that converts consumable fuels into propulsion energy. RESS specifically included in the recommended practice are batteries, capacitors and flywheels, although other RESS can be evaluated utilizing the guidelines provided in the document. Further, the recommended practice provides a detailed description of state of charge (SOC) correction for charge-sustaining HEVs. This document also has a section which provides recommendations for calculating fuel economy and emissions for charge-depleting hybrid-electric vehicles. It should be noted that most heavy-duty vehicles addressed in this document would be powered by engines that are certified separately for emissions. The engine certification procedure appears in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 [83].

SAE J1711 Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles - (2010) - This Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice establishes uniform chassis dynamometer test procedures for hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs) that are designed to be driven on public roads. The procedure provides instructions for measuring and calculating the exhaust emissions and fuel economy of HEVs driven on the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) and the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (HFEDS), as well as the exhaust emissions of HEVs driven on the US06 Driving Schedule (US06) and the SC03 Driving Schedule (SC03). However, the procedures are structured so that other driving schedules may be substituted, provided that the corresponding preparatory procedures, test lengths, and weighting factors are modified accordingly. Furthermore, this document does not specify which emissions constituents to measure (e.g., HC, CO, NOx, C[O.sub.2]); instead, that decision will depend on the objectives of the tester. The emissions calculations for plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle (PHEV) operation are provided as inventory results, weighted in the same manner as fuel and electrical energy consumption. Decisions for on-board versus off-board emissions, relative benefits of emissions-free driving, and how best to weight a "cold-start" cycle in charge-depleting (CD) mode must first be made before a certification methodology can be determined. Thus, calculations or test methodology intended to certify a PHEV for compliance of emissions standards is beyond the scope of this document. For purposes of this test procedure, an HEV is defined as a road vehicle that can draw propulsion energy from both of the following sources of stored energy: (1) a consumable fuel and (2) a rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) that is recharged by the on-board hybrid propulsion system, an external electric energy source, or both. Consumable fuels that are covered by this document are limited to petroleum-based liquid fuels (e.g., gasoline and Diesel fuel), alcohol-based liquid fuels (e.g., methanol and ethanol), and hydrocarbon-based gaseous fuels (e.g., compressed natural gas). The RESSs that are covered by this document include batteries, capacitors, and electromechanical flywheels. Procedures are included to test CD operating modes of HEVs designed to be routinely charged off-board, and calculations are provided that combine the CD and charge-sustaining (CS) behavior according to in-use driving statistics. The HEVs shall have an RESS with a nominal energy >2% of the fuel consumption energy of a particular test cycle to qualify to be tested with the procedures contained in this document. Single-roll, electric dynamometer test procedures are specified to minimize the test-to-test variations inherent in track testing and to conform to standard industry practice for exhaust emissions and fuel economy measurements. This document does not include test procedures for recharge-dependent (RD) operating modes or vehicles (see 3.1.2 for the definition). This document does not address the methods or equations necessary to calculate the adjusted U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) label miles per gallon (MPG) (sometimes referred to "EPA 5-Cycle" calculations) [84].

SAE J2047 Tire Performance Terminology - (2013) - This terminology aims to encompass all terms and definitions pertaining to the road performance of pneumatic tires designed for over-the-highway use, such as passenger car, light truck, truck and bus, and motorcycle tires. Not included are terms specific to the performance of agricultural, aircraft, industrial, and other off-highway tires. However, many terms contained in this document also apply to non-highway tires. SAE J2047 was originally developed to gather together existing tire and pertinent wheel terms and their definitions developed by different standards organizations so as to provide a convenient single source for technical terms related to tire performance. Since the original development of SAE J2047, there have been numerous changes within the literature from which the definitions in the original version of this Recommended Practice were drawn. In particular 2007 changes in SAE J670 have rendered the 1998 version of this terminology obsolete due to a change in the sense of positive spindle torque within the Z-down Tire Coordinate System, which is intended to replace the Tire Axis System found in SAE J670e and its predecessors. It is, therefore, necessary to revise SAE J2047 so that it once again achieves its intended purpose of providing a one document reference to tire performance terminology [85].

SAE J1269 Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light Truck, and Highway Truck and Bus Tires - (2006) - This SAE Recommended Practice applies to the laboratory measurement of rolling resistance of pneumatic passenger car, light truck, and highway truck and bus tires. The procedure applies only to the steady-state operation of free-rolling tires at zero slip and inclination angles; it includes the following three basic methods: Force Method--Measures the reaction force at the tire spindle and converts it to rolling resistance. Torque Method--Measures the torque input to the test machine and converts it to rolling resistance. Power Method--Measures the power input to the test machine and converts it to rolling resistance [86].

SAE J1634 Battery Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure - (2012) - This SAE Recommended Practice establishes uniform procedures for testing battery electric vehicles (BEV's) which are capable of being operated on public and private roads. The procedure applies only to vehicles using batteries as their sole source of power. It is the intent of this document to provide standard tests which will allow for the determination of energy consumption and range for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) based on the Federal Emission Test Procedure (FTP) using the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) and the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (HFEDS), and provide a flexible testing methodology that is capable of accommodating additional test cycles as needed. Realistic alternatives should be allowed for new technology. Evaluations are based on the total vehicle system's performance and not on subsystems apart from the vehicle. NOTE: The range and energy consumption values specified in this document are the raw, test-derived values. Additional corrections are typically applied to these quantities when used for regulatory purposes (Corporate Average Fuel Economy, vehicle labeling, etc.). The procedure has been revised in order to provide new methods for testing Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs). These methods are intended to both improve testing efficiency and provide a practical testing methodology that can be easily adapted to accommodate future testing enhancements [69].

SAE J2071 Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles--Open Throat Wind Tunnel Adjustment (Work-In-Process - SAE since 2014)-As a simulation of road driving, wind tunnel testing of full-size vehicles produces certain errors in the aerodynamic forces, aerodynamic moments, and surface pressures. The magnitude of these errors, in general, depends on the following: a.) Flow quality, b.) Determination of the reference dynamic pressure, c.) Wind tunnel floor boundary layer, d.) Test section geometry and position of the car within that geometry, e.) Shape of the vehicle, f.) Blockage ratio: The ratio of the cross-sectional area of the vehicle to the cross-sectional area of the wind tunnel nozzle, g.) Wheel rotation, and h.) Internal flow in the model. The SAE Standards Committee, Open Throat Wind Tunnel Adjustments, had as a goal to document the knowledge of the influence of model interference on wind tunnel test results for automotive open jet wind tunnels. This document contains the following information related to this subject: a.) Design data of open throat wind tunnels, b.) A summary of published and unpublished test data, c.) Documentation and theoretical explanation of various blockage correction procedures for automotive tests, d.) Critical evaluation of blockage correction procedures, especially in relation to other influences, such as test section geometry, position of the car, floor boundary layer, etc., and e.) Recommendation of a calibration procedure to determine the effect of blockage and other influences in each individual wind tunnel. Significant progress has been made in the field of corrections for open-jet wind tunnels since the 1994 issue of this document. The field may now be considered mature. The document has been revised to provide the most up-to-date references along with a prescribed correction procedure that can be applied to any open-jet wind tunnel [87],

ATA/TMC METHODS & RELEVANT GUIDES

TMC RP 1102A, TMC In-Service Fuel Consumption Test Procedure-Type II. This RP provides a standardized test procedure for comparing the fuel consumption under two conditions of a single test vehicle, or of one test vehicle to another when it is not possible to run two or more test vehicles simultaneouslyRP1102A [88].

TMC RP 1109B, Type IV Fuel Economy Test Procedure. This RP provides a test procedure for comparing the fuel consumption of two vehicles of similar capabilities, or of one unit of a combination vehicle to the same unit of another combination vehicle. This procedure also provides for evaluation of the effects of certain components or systems on fuel economy. This version permits valid comparison of vehicles using both particulate trap after treatment and diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) [89].

TMC RP 1103A, TMC In-Service Fuel Consumption Test Procedure-Type III. This RP provides a standard test procedure for comparing the fuel economy of components or systems which cannot be switched from one vehicle to another in a short period of time. This test procedure is also ideally suited for comparing the fuel consumption of one vehicle to another, and one component of a combination vehicle to another vehicle without the component in another combination. This procedure is specifically designed to be completed in one day [90].

TMC RP1106A Evaluating Diesel Fuel Additives for Commercial Vehicles. Provides performance testing and supplier information to educate and help commercial vehicle operators select from among the various fuel additives and suppliers of additives that claim fuel economy and other performance benefits [91].

TMC RP1111B Relationships Truck Components & Fuel Economy. This RP provides equipment operators with a basic awareness of the relationships between truck components and fuel economy-along with an understanding of how other variables also affect fuel consumption. Because the number of possible vehicle applications is enormous, the scope of this RP is limited to Class 8 tractors coupled to 48-53 ft. single and double trailers with maximum gross weights of 80,000 lb in dry or refrigerated van applications with maximum vehicle speeds of 65-70 mph [92].

TMC RP1118 Fuel Savings Calculator for Aerodynamic Devices. This Recommended Practice (RP) provides equipment operators with an interactive mathematical tool to evaluate the potential fuel and economic savings of an aerodynamic device that has been tested using one of TMC's fuel economy testing procedures. (The tool may also be compatible with rolling road wind tunnel testing conducted over a variety of drive cycles.) The scope of this RP is limited to Class 6-8 tractors coupled to commercial trailers of all types. The speed range covered is 40-75 mph [93],

TMC RP1114A Driver Effects on Fuel Economy. Describes driver's effect on vehicle fuel economy and offers recommendations on improving driver performance. [94].

TMC RP1115 Guidelines for Qualifying Products Claiming a Fuel Economy Benefit. This RP offers guidelines for qualifying products claiming a fuel economy benefits [95].

TMC RP1108 Analysis of Costs from Idling and Parasitic Devices for Heavy Duty Trucks - This Recommended Practice identifies sources of cost associated with engine idling and provides methods for estimating these costs, including a simple method for determining the horsepower demand of optional accessories for truck/tractor trailer combinations [96].

EPA/NHTSA GHG & SMARTWAY METHODS

EPA Interim Test Methods for Verifying Fuel Savings Components for SmartWay -Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure - Type II (SAE J1321 Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice (October, 1986) is modified by adding the follow:

1. Test must be conducted on a test track, not a roadway.

2. Test track length > 1.5 miles (5 miles recommended).

3. Track must be circular, figure eight, or oval in shape.

4. Track surface must be completely dry and well-maintained.

5. Surface typical of highway surfaces (asphalt or cement).

6. Grade change on test track not greater than 2 degrees.

7. Altitude of test facility not greater than 4,000 feet above sea level.

8. No precipitation on the test track for duration of test.

9. Temperatures at the test track must be 68 - 86 F for duration of test.

10. Wind speed at the test track cannot exceed 12 mph for duration of test.

11. Wind gusts at the test track cannot exceed 15 mph for duration of test.

12. Top speed of test drive cycle not to exceed 65 mph.

13. Test trailer configuration must be a typical dry box semitrailer, 53' long, 102" wide, and 13' 6" high.

14. Trailers must be the same model and similar age, mileage and condition.

15. Each trailer must have the same test payload. The combined weight of the trailer and pay load must be approximately 46,000 pounds, +/- 500 pounds.

16. Test payload must be loaded over axle to be consistent with federal bridge laws. Payload must be secured so it does not shift during the test.

17. Tires must be inflated to manufacturer-recommended maximum cold inflation pressure prior to start of test.

18. Tires must be as similar as possible in size and condition, and have accumulated at least 500 miles wear-in prior to start of test.

19. The tractor-trailer gap must as similar as possible on both pairs of trucks, as measured from the back of the tractor to the front of the trailer.

20. If testing a candidate tractor against a current SmartWay tractor model for the purpose of demonstrating SmartWay eligibility, the two tractors must have substantially similar drive train and power train configuration, including gear ratio, engine horsepower and size, transmission type, lubricant type, rear axle ratio, accumulated mileage, emissions aftertreatment system, etc.

21. If testing trailer modifications or trailer aerodynamic equipment, test tractors must be equipped with features typical of line haul combination trucks - e.g., high roof fairing, side cab extender fairings, and aerodynamic profile.

22. EPA must review and approve the test plan and the vehicle configurations prior to testing.

23. EPA reserves the right to review all test data and to reject any test it determines was not conducted in accordance with these provisions and / or SAE J1321, or otherwise not credible according to good engineering judgment.

24. All provisions of SAE J1321 must be followed, in addition to the above EPA provisions. Trucks must be prepped and maintained according to SAE J1321, and results must be within SAE test minimum acceptable ratios to be a valid test. All measurement devices must be NIST-traceable. The fuel must meet all applicable ASTM standards for motor fuel for the intended application [70].

EPA/NHTSA 40 CFR[section] 1037.521 Aerodynamic Measurements - GHG Phase 1 Revised Coastdown(l) Preferred method- Perform coastdown testing as described in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart D, subject to the following additional provisions: (1) The specifications of this paragraph (b)(1) apply when measuring drag areas for tractors. Test high-roof tractors with a standard box trailer. Test low- and mid-roof tractors without a trailer (sometimes referred to as in a "bobtail configuration"). You may test low- and mid-roof tractors with a trailer to evaluate innovative technologies. (2) The specifications of this paragraph (b) (2) apply for tractors and standard trailers. Use tires mounted on steel rims in a dual configuration (except for steer tires). The tires must- (i) Be SmartWay-Verified tires or have a rolling resistance below 5.1 kg/ton. (ii) Have accumulated at least 2,175 miles of prior use but have no less than 50 percent of their original tread depth (as specified for truck cabs in SAE J1263). (iii) Not be retreads or have any apparent signs of chunking or uneven wear. (iv)Be size 295/75R22.5 or 275/80R22.5. (3) Calculate the drag area([C.sub.D]A) inm2 from the coastdown procedure specified in 40 CFR part 1066. (c) Approval. You must obtain preliminary approval before using any methods other than coastdown testing to determine drag coefficients. Send your request for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer. Keep records of the information specified in this paragraph (c). Unless we specify otherwise, include this information with your request. You must provide any information we require to evaluate whether you are apply the provisions of this section consistent with good engineering judgment. (1) Include all of the following for your coastdown results: (i) The name, location, and description of your test facilities, including background/history, equipment and capability, and track and facility elevation, along with the grade and size/length of the track. (ii) Test conditions for each test result, including date and time, wind speed and direction, ambient temperature and humidity, vehicle speed, driving distance, manufacturer name, test vehicle/model type, model year, applicable model engine family, tire type and rolling resistance, weight of tractor-trailer (as tested), and driver identifiers). (iii) Average drag area result as calculated in 40 CFR 1066, subpart D) and all of the individual run results (including voided or invalid runs). [71]

EPA/NHTSA40 CFR[section]1037.521 Aerodynamic Measurements - GHG Phase 1 Revised Wind Tunnel (2) - Identify the name and location of the test facilities for your wind tunnel method (if applicable). Also include the following things to describe the test facility: (i) Background/history, (ii) The layout (with diagram), type, and construction (structural and material) of the wind tunnel, (iii) Wind tunnel design details: corner turning vane type and material, air settling, mesh screen specification, air straightening method, tunnel volume, surface area, average duct area, and circuit length, (iv) Wind tunnel flow quality: temperature control and uniformity, airflow quality, minimum airflow velocity, flow uniformity, angularity and stability, static pressure variation, turbulence intensity, airflow acceleration and deceleration times, test duration flow quality, and overall airflow quality achievement, (v) Test/working section information: test section type (e.g., open, closed, adaptive wall) and shape (e.g., circular, square, oval), length, contraction ratio, maximum air velocity, maximum dynamic pressure, nozzle width and height, plenum dimensions and net volume, maximum allowed model scale, maximum model height above road, strut movement rate (if applicable), model support, primary boundary layer slot, boundary layer elimination method, and photos and diagrams of the test (vi) Fan section description: fan type, diameter, power, maximum rotational speed, maximum top speed, support type, mechanical drive, and sectional total weight, (vii) Data acquisition and control (where applicable): acquisition type, motor control, tunnel control, model balance, model pressure measurement, wheel drag balances, wing/body panel balances, and model exhaust simulation, (viii) Moving ground plane or rolling road (if applicable): construction and material, yaw table and range, moving ground length and width, belt type, maximum belt speed, belt suction mechanism, platen instrumentation, temperature control, and steering, (ix) Facility correction factors and purpose, (d) Wind tunnel methods. (1) You may measure drag areas consistent with the modified SAE procedures described in this paragraph (d) using any wind tunnel recognized by the Subsonic Aerodynamic Testing Association. If your wind tunnel is not capable of testing in accordance with these modified SAE procedures, you may ask us to approve your alternate test procedures if you demonstrate that your procedures produce equivalent data. For purposes of this paragraph (d), data are equivalent if they are the same or better with respect to repeatability and unbiased correlation with coastdown testing. Note that, for wind tunnels not capable of these modified SAE procedures, good engineering judgment may require you to base your alternate method adjustment factor on more than one vehicle. You may not develop your correction factor until we have approved your alternate method. The applicable SAE procedures are SAE J1252, SAE J1594, and SAE J2071 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810). The following modifications apply for SAE J1252: (i) The minimum Reynold's number ([Re.sub.min]) is 1.0 x [10.SUP.6] instead of the value specified in section 5.2 of the SAE procedure. Your model frontal area at zero yaw angle may exceed the recommended 5 percent of the active test section area, provided it does not exceed 25 percent, (ii) For full-scale wind tunnel testing, use good engineering judgment to select a test article (tractor and trailer) that is a reasonable representation of the test article used for the reference method testing. For example, where your wind tunnel is not long enough to test the tractor with a standard 53 foot trailer, it may be appropriate to use shorter box trailer. In such a case, the correlation developed using the shorter trailer would only be valid for testing with the shorter trailer, (iii) For reduced-scale wind tunnel testing, a one-eighth (l/8th) or larger scale model of a heavy-duty tractor and trailer must be used, and the model must be of sufficient design to simulate airflow through the radiator inlet grill and across an engine geometry representative of those commonly used in your test vehicle. (2) You must perform wind tunnel testing and the coastdown procedure on the same tractor model and provide the results for both methods. Conduct the wind tunnel tests at a zero yaw angle and, if so equipped, utilizing the moving/rolling floor (i.e., the moving/ rolling floor should be on during the test, as opposed to static) for comparison to the coastdown procedure, which corrects to a zero yaw angle for the oncoming wind [71].

EPA/NHTSA 40 CFR[section]1037.521 Aerodynamic Measurements - GHG Phase 1 Revised CFD (3) - Include all of the following for your computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method (if applicable): (i) Official name/title of the software product, (ii) Date and version number for the software product. (iii) Manufacturer/company name, address, phone number and Web address for software product, (iv) Identify if the software code is Navier-Stokes or Lattice-Boltzmann based. (4) Include all of the following for any other method (if applicable): (i) Official name/title of the procedure(s). (ii) Description of the procedure, (iii) Cited sources for any standardized procedures that the method is based on. (iv) Modifications/deviations from the standardized procedures for the method and rational for modifications/ deviations, (v) Data comparing this requested procedure to the coastdown reference procedure, (vi) Information above from the other methods as applicable to this method (e.g., source location/address, background/history). ... (e) Computational fluid dynamics (CFD). You may determine drag areas using a CFD method, consistent with good engineering judgment and the requirements of this paragraph (e) using commercially available CFD software code. Conduct the analysis assuming zero yaw angle, and ambient conditions consistent with coastdown procedures. For simulating a wind tunnel test, the analysis should accurately model the particular wind tunnel and assume a wind tunnel blockage ratio consistent with SAE J1252 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810) or one that matches the selected wind tunnel, whichever is lower. For simulation of open road conditions similar to that experienced during coastdown test procedures, the CFD analysis should assume a blockage ratio at or below 0.2 percent. (1) Take the following steps for CFD code with a Navier-Stokes formula solver: (i) Perform an unstructured, time accurate, analysis using a mesh grid size with total volume element count of at least 50 million cells of hexahedral and/ or polyhedral mesh cell shape, surface elements representing the geometry consisting of no less than 6 million elements, and a near-wall cell size corresponding to a y+ value of less than 300, with the smallest cell sizes applied to local regions of the tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller geometry features, (ii) Perform the analysis with a turbulence model and mesh deformation enabled (if applicable) with boundary layer resolution of [+ or -]95 percent. Once result convergence is achieved, demonstrate the convergence by supplying multiple, successive convergence values for the analysis. The turbulence model may use k-epsilon (k-s), shear stress transport k-omega (SST k-[omega]), or other commercially accepted methods. (2) For Lattice-Boltzmann based CFD code, perform an unstructured, time accurate analysis using a mesh grid size with total surface elements of at least 50 million cells using cubic volume elements and triangular and/or quadrilateral surface elements with a near wall cell size of no greater than 6 mm on local regions of the tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller geometry features, with cell sizes in other areas of the mesh grid starting at twelve millimeters and increasing in size from this value as the distance from the tractor-trailer model increases. (3) All CFD analysis should be conducted using the following conditions: (i) A tractor-trailer combination using the manufacturer's tractor and the standard trailer, as applicable. (ii) An environment with a blockage ratio at or below 0.2 percent to simulate open road conditions, a zero degree yaw angle between the oncoming wind and the tractor-trailer combination. (iii) Ambient conditions consistent with the coastdown test procedures specified in this part. (iv) Open grill with representative back pressures based on data from the tractor model, (v) Turbulence model and mesh deformation enabled (if applicable). (vi) Tires and ground plane in motion consistent with and simulating a vehicle moving in the forward direction of travel. (vii) The smallest cell size should be applied to local regions on the tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller geometry features (e.g., the a-pillar, mirror, visor, grille and accessories, trailer leading and trailing edges, rear bogey, tires, and tractor-trailer gap). (viii) Simulate a speed of 55 mph. (4) You may ask us to allow you to perform CFD analysis using parameters and criteria other than those specified in this paragraph (e), consistent with good engineering judgment, if you can demonstrate that the specified conditions are not feasible (e.g., insufficient computing power to conduct such analysis, inordinate length of time to conduct analysis, equivalent flow characteristics with more feasible criteria/parameters) or improved criteria may yield better results (e.g., different mesh cell shape and size). To support this request, we may require that you supply data demonstrating that your selected parameters/criteria will provide a sufficient level of detail to yield an accurate analysis, including comparison of key characteristics between your criteria/parameters and the criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section (e.g., pressure profiles, drag build-up, and/or turbulent/laminar flow at key points on the front of the tractor and/or over the length of the tractor trailer combination). (f) Yaw sweep corrections. You may optionally apply this paragraph (f) for vehicles with aerodynamic features that are more effective at reducing wind averaged drag than is predicted by zero yaw drag. You may correct your zero yaw drag area as follows if the ratio of the zero-yaw drag area divided by yaw sweep drag area for your vehicle is greater than 0.8065 (which represents the ratio expected for a typical aerodynamic Class 8 high-roof sleeper cab tractor): (1) Determine the zero-yaw drag area and the yaw sweep drag area for your vehicle using the same alternate method as specified in this subpart. Measure drag area for 0[degrees], -6[degrees], and +6[degrees]. Use the arithmetic mean of the [??]6[degrees] and +6[degrees] drag areas as the [+ or -]6[degrees] drag area. (2) Calculate your yaw sweep correction factor (CF ) using the following equation:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

(3) Calculate your corrected drag area for determining the aerodynamic bin by multiplying the measured zero-yaw drag area by CF The correction factor may be applied to drag areas measured using other procedures. For example, we would apply [CF.sab.ys] to drag areas measured using the recommended coastdown method. If you use an alternative method, you would also need to apply an alternative correction ([F.sub.alt-aero]) and calculate the final drag area using the following equation: [C.sub.D]A = [F.sub.alt-aero] * [CF.sub.ys] * [([C.sub.D]A).sub.Zero-alt] (4) You may ask us to apply [CF.sub.ys] to similar vehicles incorporating the same design features. (5) As an alternative, you may choose to calculate the wind-averaged drag area according to SAE J1252 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810) and substitute this value into the equation in paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the [+ or -]6[degrees] yaw-averaged drag area [71].

EFA/NHTSA 40 CFR[section]1066 Subpart D-Coastdown [section] 1066.301 Overview of coastdown procedures, (a) The coastdown procedures described in this subpart are used to determine the load coefficients (A, B, and C) for the simulated road-load equation in [section] 1066.210(d)(3). (b) The general procedure for performing coastdown tests and calculating load coefficients is described in SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1066.710). This subpart specifies certain deviations from those procedures for certain applications. (c) Use good engineering judgment for all aspects of coastdown testing. For example, minimize the effects of grade by performing coastdown testing on reasonably level surfaces and determining coefficients based on average values from vehicle operation in opposite directions over the course. [section] 1066.310 Coastdown procedures for heavy-duty vehicles. This section describes coastdown procedures that are unique to heavy duty motor vehicles. Note as specified in the standard setting parts, this section does not apply for certain heavy-duty vehicles, such as those regulated under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. (a) Determine load coefficients by performing a minimum of 16 valid coastdown runs (8 in each direction). (b) Follow the provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of SAE J1263, and SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1066.710), except as described in this paragraph (b). The terms and variables identified in this paragraph (b) have the meaning given in SAE J1263 or J2263 unless specified otherwise. (1) The test condition specifications of SAE J1263 apply except as follows for wind and road conditions: (i) We recommend that you do not perform coastdown testing on days for which winds are forecast to exceed 6.0 mph. (ii) The grade of the test track or road must not be excessive (considering factors such as road safety standards and effects on the coastdown results). Road conditions should follow Section 7.4 of SAE J1263, except that road grade may exceed 0.5%. If road grade is greater than 0.02% over the length of the test surface, then the road grade as a function of distance along the length of the test surface must be incorporated in the analysis. To calculate the force due to grade use Section 11.5 of SAE J2263. (2) You must reach a top speed of greater than 70 mph such that data collection of the coastdown can start at or above 70 mph. Data collection must occur through a minimum speed at or below 15 mph. Data analysis for valid coastdown runs must include a maximum speed of 70 mph and a minimum speed of 15 mph. (3) Gather data regarding wind speed and direction, in coordination with time-of-day data, using at least one stationary electro-mechanical anemometer and suitable data loggers meeting the specifications of SAE J1263, as well as the following additional specifications for the anemometer placed adjacent to the test surface: (i) Run the zero-wind and zero-angle calibration data collection. (ii) The anemometer must have had its outputs recorded at a wind speed of 0.0 mph within 24 hours before each coastdown test in which it is used. (iii) Record the location of the anemometer using a GPS measurement device adjacent to the test surface (approximately) at the midway distance along the test surface used for coastdowns. (iv) Position the anemometer such that it will be at least 2.5 but not more than 3.0 vehicle widths from the test vehicle's centerline as the test vehicle passes the location of that anemometer. (v) Mount the anemometer at a height that is within 6 inches of half the test vehicle's maximum height. (vi) Place the anemometer at least 50 feet from the nearest tree and at least 25 feet from the nearest bush (or equivalent roadside features). (vii) The height of the grass surrounding the stationary anemometer may not exceed 10% of the anemometer's mounted height, within a radius equal to the anemometer's mounted height. (4) You may split runs as per Section 9.3.1 of SAE J2263,but we recommend whole runs. If you split a run, analyze each portion separately, but count the split runs as one run with respect to the minimum number of runs required. (5) You may perform consecutive runs in a single direction, followed by consecutive runs in the opposite direction, consistent with good engineering judgment. Harmonize starting and stopping points to the extent practicable to allow runs to be paired. (6) All valid coastdown run times in each direction must be within 2.0 standard deviations of the mean of the valid coastdown run times (from 70 mph down to 15 mph) in that direction. Eliminate runs outside this range. After eliminating these runs you must have at least eight valid runs each direction. (7) Determine drag area, [C.sub.D]A, as follows instead of using the procedure specified in SAE J1263, Section 10: (i) Measure vehicle speed at fixed intervals over the coastdown run (generally at 10 Hz), including speeds at or above 15 mph and at or below 70 mph. Establish the height or altitude corresponding to each interval as described in SAE J2263 if you need to incorporate the effects of road grade. (ii) Calculate the vehicle's effective mass, [M.sub.e], in kg by adding 56.7 kg to the vehicle mass for each tire making road contact. This accounts for the rotational inertia of the wheels and tires [71].

EPA/NHTSA 40 CFR[section] 1066 Subpart C-(Chassis) Dynamometer Specifications (a) General requirements. A chassis dynamometer typically uses electrically generated load forces combined with its rotational inertia to recreate the mechanical inertia and frictional forces that a vehicle exerts on road surfaces (known as "road load"). Load forces are calculated using vehicle-specific coefficients and response characteristics. The load forces are applied to the vehicle tires by rolls connected to intermediate motor/ absorbers. The dynamometer uses a load cell to measure the forces the dynamometer rolls apply to the vehicle's tires (note: chassis testing under [section]1066 has extensive detail - reader should go to the full document) [71],

EPA/NHTSA 40 CFR[section]1065.15 - (Engine) Dynamometer Specifications (1) For laboratory testing, you generally determine brake-specific emissions for duty-cycle testing by using an engine dynamometer in a laboratory or other environment. This typically consists of one or more test intervals, each defined by a duty cycle, which is a sequence of modes, speeds, and/or torques (or powers) that an engine must follow. If the standard-setting part allows it, you may also simulate field testing with an engine dynamometer in a laboratory or other environment (note: engine testing under [section]1065 has extensive detail - reader should go to the full document) [71]

EPA/NHTSA 40[section] 1037.520 Modeling C[O.sub.2] emissions to show compliance. - (c) Steer and drive tire rolling resistance. -You must have a tire rolling resistance level (TRRL) for each tire (1) Measure tire rolling resistance in kg per metric ton as specified in ISO 28580 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810), except as specified in this paragraph (c). Use good engineering judgment to ensure that your test results are not biased low. You may ask us to identify a reference test laboratory to which you may correlate your test results. Prior to beginning the test procedure in Section 7 of ISO 28580 for a new bias-ply tire, perform a break-in procedure by running the tire at the specified test speed, load, and pressure for 60[+ or -]2 minutes. (2) For each tire design tested, measure rolling resistance of at least three different tires of that specific design and size. Perform the test at least once for each tire. Use the arithmetic mean of these results as your test result. You may use this value as your GEM input or select a higher TRRL. You must test at least one tire size for each tire model, and may use engineering analysis to determine the rolling resistance of other tire sizes of that model. Note that for tire sizes that you do not test, we will treat your analytically derived rolling resistances the same as test results, and we may perform our own testing to verify your values. We may require you to test a small sub-sample of untested tire sizes that we select. (3) If you obtain your test results from the tire manufacturer or another third party, you must obtain a signed statement from them verifying the tests were conducted according to the requirements of this part. Such statements are deemed to be submissions to EPA [71].

EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) - The Greenhouse gas Emissions Model was developed by EPA as a means for determining compliance with the proposed GHG emissions and fuel consumption vehicle standards for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles developed by EPA and NHTSA respectively. The model itself is part of the proposed rule. See Section II.B.2 of the preamble and Chapter 4 of the draft RIA. It is a free, desktop computer application [97]. To assure that the regulated community gets the highest quality predictive tools that EPA can provide and to assure its stakeholders that the proposed model structure (and overall development process) will result in a tool that is simple, accurate and well suited for certification, EPA sought an independent peer review of its GEM model [98].

EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator -MOVES - Used to create emission factors or emission inventories for both on-road motor vehicles and non-road equipment. The purpose of MOVES is to provide an accurate estimate of emissions from cars, trucks and non-highway mobile sources under a wide range of user-defined conditions [99].

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA 40[section] 1037.525 (a) General Provisions for Trailers - A trailer's aerodynamic performance for demonstrating compliance with standards is based on a delta [C.sub.D]A value relative to a baseline trailer. Determine these delta [C.sub.D]A values by performing A to B testing, as follows: (1) The default method for measuring [C.sub.D]A is a coastdown procedure as specified in [section] 1037.527. If we approve it in advance, you may instead use one of the alternative methods specified in [section][section] 1037.529 through 1037.533, consistent with good engineering judgment. If you request our approval to determine drag area using an alternative method, you must submit additional information as described in paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Determine a baseline [C.sub.D]A value for a standard tractor pulling a test trailer representing a production configuration; use a 53-foot test trailer to represent long trailers and a 28-foot test trailer to represent short trailers. Repeat this testing with the same tractor and a baseline trailer. For testing long trailers, the baseline trailer is a trailer meeting the specifications for a Phase 1 standard trailer in [section] 1037.501(g)(1); for testing refrigerated box vans, install an HVAC unit on the baseline trailer that properly represents a baseline configuration. For testing short trailers, use a 28-foot baseline trailer with a single axle that meets the same specifications as the Phase 1 standard trailer, except as needed to accommodate the reduced trailer length. Use good engineering judgment to perform paired tests that accurately demonstrate the reduction in aerodynamic drag associated with the improved design. Measure [C.sub.D]A in [m.sup.2] to two decimal places. Calculate delta [C.sub.D]A by subtracting the drag area for the test trailer from the drag area for the baseline trailer. [23] [53]

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA 40[section] 1037.525 (b) General Provisions for Tractors - The GEM input for a tractor's aerodynamic performance is an absolute [C.sub.D]A value that is measured or calculated for a tractor in a test configuration. Test high-roof tractors with a standard box trailer. Note that the standard box trailer for Phase 1 tractors is different from that of later model years. Test low-roof and mid-roof tractors without a trailer; however, you may test low-roof and mid-roof tractors with a trailer to evaluate off-cycle technologies. The default method for determining [C.sub.D]A values is a coastdown procedure as specified in [section] 1037.527. If we approve it in advance, you may instead use one of the alternative methods specified in [section][section] 1037.529 through 1037.533, or some other method, based on a correlation to coastdown testing, consistent with good engineering judgment. Submit information describing how you determined [C.sub.D]A values from coastdown testing whether or not you use an alternative method. If you request our approval to determine drag area using an alternative method, [C.sub.D][A.sub.alt], you must submit additional information as described in paragraph (c) of this section and adjust the [C.sub.D]A values to be equivalent to the corresponding values from coastdown measurements as follows: (1) Unless good engineering judgment requires otherwise, assume that coastdown drag areas are proportional to drag areas measured using alternative methods. This means you may apply a single constant adjustment factor, [F.sub.At-aero] for a given alternate drag area method using the following equation: [C.sub.D]A = [C.sub.D][A.sub.alt] * [F.sub.At-aero] Eq- 1037.525-1 (2) Determine [F.sub.At-aero] by performing coastdown testing and applying your alternate method on the same vehicle. Unless we approve another vehicle, the vehicle must be a Class 8, high roof, sleeper cab with a full aerodynamics package, pulling a standard trailer. Where you have more than one tractor model meeting these criteria, use the tractor model with the highest projected sales. If you do not have such a tractor model, you may use your most comparable tractor model with our prior approval. In the case of alternate methods other than those specified in this subpart, good engineering judgment may require you to determine your adjustment factor based on results from more than one vehicle. (3) For Phase 2 testing, determine separate values of [F.sub.alt-aero] for a high-roof day cab and a high-roof sleeper cab corresponding to each major tractor model based on testing as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Perform this testing on each major tractor model. You may ask us to approve aggregating separate product lines into a single major tractor model if you show that the product lines are different only in ways that are unrelated to aerodynamic characteristics. If you have more than six major tractor models, you may limit your testing in a given year to a maximum of six major tractor models until you have performed testing for your whole product line. For any untested tractor models, apply the value of [F.sub.alt-aero] from the tested tractor model that best represents the aerodynamic characteristics of the untested tractor model, consistent with good engineering judgment. Testing under this paragraph (b)(3) continues to be valid for later model years until you change the tractor model in a way that causes the test results to no longer represent production vehicles. You must also determine unique values of [F.sub.alt-aero] for low-roof and mid roof tractors if you determine [C.sub.D]A values based on low or mid-roof tractor testing as shown in Table 4 of [section] 1037.520. For Phase 1 testing, if good engineering judgment allows it, you may calculate a single, constant value of Falt-aero for your whole product line by dividing the coastdown drag area, [C.sub.D][A.sub.coast], by [C.sub.D][A.sub.coast] (4) Calculate [F.sub.alt-asxo] to at least three decimal places. For example, if your coastdown testing results in a drag area of 6.430, but your wind tunnel method results in a drag area of 6.200, [F.sub.alt-asxo] would be 1.037 [23] [53].

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA 40[section] 1037.525 (d) Yaw Sweep Corrections - Aerodynamic features can be more effective at reducing wind averaged drag than is predicted by zero-yaw drag. The following procedures describe how to adjust a tractor's [C.sub.D]A values to account for wind-averaged drag: (1) For Phase 2 testing, apply the following method based on SAE J1252 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810)." (see source for remaining details) [23][53].

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA [section] 1037.527 Coastdown procedures for calculating drag area (CpA). The coastdown procedures in this section describe how to calculate drag area, [C.subD]A, for Phase 2 tractors and trailers, subject to the provisions of [section] 1037.525. Follow the provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810), with the following clarifications and exceptions: (see source for remaining details) (see source for remaining details). (1) Install instrumentation for performing the specified measurements. (2) After adding vehicle instrumentation, verify that there is no brake drag or other condition that prevents the wheels from rotating freely. Do not apply the parking brake at any point between this inspection and the end of the measurement procedure. (3) Install tires mounted on steel rims in a dual configuration (except for steer tires). The tires must- (i) Be SmartWay-Verified or have a coefficient of rolling resistance at or below 5.1 kg/metric ton. (ii) Have accumulated at least 2,175 miles but have no less than 50 percent of their original tread depth, as specified for truck cabs in SAE J1263 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810). (iii) Not be retreads or have any apparent signs of chunking or uneven wear, (iv) Be size 295/75R22.5 or 275/80R22.5. (v) Be inflated to the proper tire pressure as specified in Sections 6.6 and 8.1 of SAE J2263. (4) Perform an inspection or wheel alignment for both the tractor and the trailer to ensure that wheel position is within the manufacturer's specifications, (c) The test condition specifications described in Sections 7.1 through 7.4 of SAE J1263 apply, with the following exceptions and additional provisions: (1) We recommend that you not perform coastdown testing if winds are expected to exceed 6.0 mph. (2) Road grade may exceed 0.5 %; however, the road grade for testing must not be excessive, considering factors such as coastdown effects and road safety standards. (3) If road grade is greater than 0.02% over the length of the test surface, you must determine road grade as a function of distance along the length of the test surface and incorporate this into the analysis. Use Section 11.5 of SAE J2263 to calculate the force due to grade. (4) The road surface temperature must be at or below 50 [degrees]C. Use good engineering judgment to measure road surface temperature, (d) [C.sub.D]A calculations are based on measured speed values while the vehicles coasts down through a high-speed range from 70 down to 60 mph, and through a low-speed range from 25 down to 15 mph. Disable any vehicle speed limiters that prevent travel above 72 mph. If a vehicle cannot exceed 72 mph, adjust the high-speed range to include the highest achievable speed range as described in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. Measure vehicle speed at a minimum recording frequency of 10 Hz, in conjunction with time-of-day data. Determine vehicle speed using either of the two methods:" (see source for details) "(e) Measure wind speed, wind direction, air temperature, and air pressure at a minimum recording frequency of 1 Hz, in conjunction with time-of-day data. Use at least one stationary electro-mechanical anemometer and suitable data loggers meeting SAE J1263 specifications, subject to the following additional specifications for the anemometer placed along the test surface: (1) You must start a coastdown measurement within 24 hours after running zero-wind and zero-angle calibrations. (2) Place the anemometer at least 50 feet from the nearest tree and at least 25 feet from the nearest bush (or equivalent features). Position the anemometer adjacent to the test surface, near the midpoint of the length of the track, between 2.5 and 3.0 body widths from the expected location of the test vehicle's centerline as it passes the anemometer. Record the location of the anemometer along the test track, to the nearest 10 feet. (3) Mount the anemometer at a height that is within 6 inches of half the test vehicle's body height. (4) The height of vegetation surrounding the anemometer may not exceed 10 % of the anemometer's mounted height, within a radius equal to the anemometer's mounted height, (f) Measure air speed and air direction onboard the vehicle at a minimum recording frequency of 10 Hz, in conjunction with time-of-day data, using an anemometer and suitable data loggers that meet the requirements of Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of SAE J2263. Mount the anemometer 1 meter above the top of the leading edge of the trailer. Correct anemometer measurements using the wind speed and wind direction measurements described in paragraph (e) of this section as follows: (1) Calculate arithmetic mean values for vehicle speed, air speed, wind speed, and wind direction in 5-mph vehicle speed increments for each coastdown. Include data from vehicle speeds between 60 and 25 mph if you collect data from complete coastdown runs. You may disregard data from an increment at the start or end of the coastdown run if it is less than 5 minutes" [23] [53].

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA [section] 1037.529 Wind-tunnel procedures for calculating drag area ([C.sub.D]A). (a) You may measure drag areas consistent with published SAE procedures as described in this section using any wind tunnel recognized by the Subsonic Aerodynamic Testing Association, subject to the provisions of [section] 1037.525. If your wind tunnel does not meet the specifications described in this section, you may ask us to approve it as an alternative method under [section] 1037.525(b). All wind tunnels must meet the specifications described in SAE J1252 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810), with the following exceptions and additional provisions: (1) The minimum Reynold's number, Re #min , is 1.0x[10.sup.6] instead of the value specified in section 5.2 of SAE J1252. Also, the projected frontal area of the vehicle at zero yaw angle may exceed the recommended 5 percent of the active test section area, but it may not exceed 25 percent. (2) For full-scale wind tunnel testing, use good engineering judgment to select a tractor and trailer that is a reasonable representation of the tractor and trailer used for reference coastdown testing. For example, where your wind tunnel is not long enough to test the tractor with a standard 53 foot trailer, it may be appropriate to use a shorter box trailer. In such a case, the correlation developed using the shorter trailer would only be valid for testing with the shorter trailer. (3) For reduced-scale wind tunnel testing, use a one-eighth or larger scale model of a tractor and trailer that is sufficient to simulate airflow through the radiator inlet grill and across an engine geometry that represents engines commonly used in your test vehicle, (b) Open-throat wind tunnels must also meet the specifications of SAE J2071 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810). (c) To determine [C.sub.D]A values for a tractor, perform wind-tunnel testing with a tractor-trailer combination using the manufacturer's tractor and a standard trailer. To determine [C.sub.D]A values for a trailer, perform wind-tunnel testing with a tractor-trailer combination using a standard tractor. The wind tunnel tests performed under this section must simulate a vehicle speed of 55 mph. For Phase 1 vehicles, Conduct the wind tunnel tests at a zero yaw angle and, if so equipped, utilizing the moving/rolling floor to simulate driving the vehicle for comparison to the coastdown procedure, which corrects to a zero yaw angle for the oncoming wind. For Phase 2 vehicles, conduct the wind tunnel tests by measuring the drag area according to [section] 1037.525(d)(1) and, if so equipped, utilizing the moving/rolling floor for comparison to the coastdown procedure, (d) In your request to use wind-tunnel testing, describe how you meet all the specifications that apply under this section, using terminology consistent with SAE J1594 (incorporated by reference in [section] 1037.810). If you request our approval to use wind-tunnel testing even though you do not meet all the specifications of this section, describe how your method nevertheless qualifies as an alternative method under [section] 1037.525(c) and include all the following information: (1) Identify the name and location of the test facilities for your wind tunnel method. (2) Background and history of the wind tunnel. (3) The wind tunnel's layout (with diagram), type, and construction (structural and material). (4) The wind tunnel's design details: the type and material for corner turning Varies, air settling specification, mesh screen specification, air straightening method, tunnel volume, surface area, average duct area, and circuit length. (5) Specifications related to the wind tunnel's flow quality: temperature control and uniformity, airflow quality, minimum airflow velocity, flow uniformity, angularity and stability, static pressure variation, turbulence intensity, airflow acceleration and deceleration times, test duration flow quality, and overall airflow quality achievement. (6) Test/working section information: test section type (e.g., open, closed, adaptive wall) and shape (e.g., circular, square, oval), length, contraction ratio, maximum air velocity, maximum dynamic pressure, nozzle width and height, plenum dimensions and net volume, maximum allowed model scale, maximum model height above road, strut movement rate (if applicable), model support, primary boundary layer slot, boundary layer elimination method, and photos and diagrams of the test section. (7) Fan section description: fan type, diameter, power, maximum rotational speed, maximum speed, support type, mechanical drive, and sectional total weight. (8) Data acquisition and control (where applicable): acquisition type, motor control, tunnel control, model balance, model pressure measurement, wheel drag balances, wing/body panel balances, and model exhaust simulation. (9) Moving ground plane or rolling road (if applicable): construction and material, yaw table and range, moving ground length and width, belt type, maximum belt speed, belt suction mechanism, platen instrumentation, temperature control, and steering. (10) Facility correction factors and purpose [23][53].

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA [section] 1037.531 Using Computational Fluid Dynamics to calculate drag area ([C.sub.D]A) - This section describes how to use commercially available computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software to determine [C.sub.D]A values, subject to the provisions of [section] 1037.525. (a) To determine [C.sub.D]A values for a tractor, perform CFD modeling based on a tractor-trailer combination using the manufacturer's tractor and a standard trailer. To determine [C.sub.D]A values for a trailer, perform CFD modeling based on a tractor-trailer combination using a standard tractor. Perform all CFD modeling as follows: (1) Except as described in paragraph (a)(9) of this section, specify a blockage ratio at or below 0.2 percent to simulate open-road conditions. (2) Specify yaw angles according to [section] 1037.525(d)(l) for Phase 2 vehicles; assume zero yaw angle for Phase 1 vehicles. (4) Model the tractor with an open grill and representative back pressures based on available data describing the tractor's pressure characteristics. (5) Enable the turbulence model and mesh deformation. (6) Model tires and ground plane in motion to simulate a vehicle moving forward in the direction of travel. (7) Apply the smallest cell size to local regions on the tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller-geometry features (e.g., the A-pillar, mirror, visor, grille and accessories, trailer-leading edge, trailer-trailing edge, rear bogey, tires, and tractor-trailer gap). (8) Simulate a vehicle speed of 55 mph. (b) Take the following steps for CFD code with a Navier-Stokes formula solver: (1) Perform an unstructured, time-accurate analysis using a mesh grid size with a total volume element count of at least 50 million cells of hexahedral and/or polyhedral mesh cell shape, surface elements representing the geometry consisting of no less than 6 million elements, and a near-wall cell size corresponding to a y+ value of less than 300. (2) Perform the analysis with a turbulence model and mesh deformation enabled (if applicable) with boundary layer resolution of [+ or -]95 percent. Once the results reach this resolution, demonstrate the convergence by supplying multiple, successive convergence values for the analysis. The turbulence model may use k-epsilon (k-s), shear stress transport k-omega (SST k-co), or other commercially accepted methods, (c) For Lattice-Boltzmann based CFD code, perform an unstructured, time-accurate analysis using a mesh grid size with total surface elements of at least 50 million cells using cubic volume elements and triangular and/or quadrilateral surface elements with a near-wall cell size of no greater than 6 mm on local regions of the tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller geometry features, with cell sizes in other areas of the mesh grid starting at twelve millimeters and increasing in size from this value as the distance from the tractor and trailer increases, (d) You may ask us to allow you to perform CFD analysis using parameters and criteria other than those specified in this section, consistent with good engineering judgment. In your request, you must demonstrate that you are unable to perform modeling based on the specified conditions (for example, you may have insufficient computing power, or the computations may require inordinate time), or you must demonstrate that different criteria (such as a different mesh cell shape and size) will yield better results. In your request, you must also describe your recommended alternative parameters and criteria, and describe how this approach will produce results that adequately represent a vehicle's in-use performance. We may require that you supply data demonstrating that your selected parameters and criteria will provide a sufficient level of detail to yield an accurate analysis. If you request an alternative approach because it will yield better results, we may require that you perform CFD analysis using both your recommended criteria and parameters and the criteria and parameters specified in this section to compare the resulting key aerodynamic characteristics, such as pressure profiles, drag build-up, and turbulent/laminar flow at key points around the tractor-trailer combination, (e) Include the following information in your request to determine [C.sub.D]A values using CFD for tractors: (1) The name of the software. (2) The date and version number of the software. (3) The name of the company producing the software and the corresponding address, phone number, and website. (4) Identify whether the software uses Navier-Stokes or Lattice-Boltzmann equations. (5) Describe the input values you will use to simulate the vehicle's aerodynamic performance for comparing to coastdown results. [23] [51]

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA [section] 1037.533 EPA Phase 2 Road Load Measurement Using Constant Speed Torque - This section describes how to use constant-speed aerodynamic drag testing to determine [C.sub.D]A values, subject to the provisions of [section] 1037.525. (a) Test track. Select a test track that meets the specifications described in [section] 1037.527(c)(2). (b) Ambient conditions. Ambient conditions must remain within the specifications described in [section] 1037.527(c) throughout the preconditioning and measurement procedure, (c) Vehicle preparation. To determine [C.sub.D]A values for a tractor, perform coastdown testing with a tractor-trailer combination using the manufacturer's tractor and a standard trailer. To determine [C.sub.D]A values for a trailer, perform coastdown testing with a tractor-trailer combination using a standard tractor. Prepare tractors and trailers for testing as described in [section] 1037.527(b). Install measurement instruments meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, that have been calibrated as described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D, as follows: (1) Install a torque meter to measure torque at the vehicle's driveshaft, or measure torque from both sides of each drive axle using a half-shaft torque meter, a hub torque meter, or a rim torque meter. Set up instruments to read engine rpm for calculating rotational speed at the point of the torque measurements, or install instruments for measuring the rotational speed of the driveshaft, axles, or wheels directly. (2) Install instrumentation to measure vehicle speed at 10 Hz, with an accuracy and resolution of 0.2 kph. Also install instrumentation for reading engine rpm from the engine's onboard computer. (3) Mount an anemometer on the trailer as described in [section] 1037.527(f). For air speeds in the range of 65 - 130 kps and yaw angles in the range of 0[+ or -]7[degrees], the anemometer must have an accuracy that is [+ or -]1.5 % of measured air speed and is [+ or -]0.5[degrees] of measured yaw angle. (4) Fill the vehicle's fuel tanks to be at maximum capacity at the start of the measurement procedure. (5) Measure total vehicle mass to the nearest 20 kg, with a full fuel tank, including the driver and any passengers that will be in the vehicle during the measurement procedure. (d) Measurement procedure. The measurement sequence consists of vehicle preconditioning followed by stabilization and measurement over five consecutive constant-speed test segments with three different speed setpoints (16, 80, and 113 kph). Each test segment is divided into smaller increments for data analysis. (1) Precondition the vehicle and zero the torque meters as follows: (i) If you are using rim torque meters, zero the torque meters by lifting each instrumented axle and recording torque signals for at least 30 seconds, and then drive the vehicle at 80 kph for at least 30 minutes. (ii) If you are using any other kind of torque meter, drive the vehicle at 80 kph for at least 30 minutes, and then allow the vehicle to coast down from full speed to a complete standstill while the clutch is disengaged or the transmission is in neutral, without braking. Zero the torque meters within 60 seconds after the vehicle stops moving by recording the torque signals for at least 30 seconds, and directly resume vehicle preconditioning at 80 kph for at least 2 km. (iii) You may calibrate instruments during the preconditioning drive. (2) Perform testing as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section over a sequence of test segments at constant vehicle speed as follows: (i) 300[+ or -]30 seconds in each direction at 16 kph. (ii) 450[+ or -]30 seconds in each direction at 80 kph. (iii) 900[+ or -]30 seconds in each direction at 113 kph. (iv) 450[+ or -]30 seconds in each direction at 80 kph. (v) 300[+ or -]30 seconds in each direction at 16 kph. (3) When the vehicle preconditioning described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is complete, stabilize the vehicle at the specified speed for at least 200 meters and start taking measurements. The test segment starts when you start taking measurements for all parameters. (4) During the test segment, continue to operate the vehicle at the speed setpoint, maintaining constant speed and torque within the ranges specified in paragraph (e) of this section. Drive the vehicle straight with minimal steering; do not change gears. Perform measurements as follows during the test segment: (i) Measure the rotational speed of the driveshaft, axle, or wheel where the torque is measured, or calculate it from engine rpm in conjunction with gear and axle ratios, as applicable, (ii) Measure vehicle speed in conjunction with time-of-day data. (iii) Measure ambient conditions, air speed, and air direction as described in [section] 1037.527(e) and (f). Correct air speed and air direction as described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (5) You may divide a test segment into multiple passes by suspending and resuming measurements. Stabilize vehicle speed before resuming measurements for each pass as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. Analyze the data from multiple passes by combining them into a single sequence of measurements for each test segment. (6) Divide measured values into even 10-second increments. If the last increment for each test segment is less than 10 seconds, disregard measured values from that increment for all calculations under this section, (e) Validation criteria. Analyze measurements to confirm that the test is valid. Analyze vehicle speed and drive torque by calculating the mean speed and torque values for each successive 1-second increment, for each successive 10-second increment, and for each test segment. The test is valid if the data conform to all the following specifications: (1) Vehicle speed. The mean vehicle speed for the test segment must be within 2.0 kph of the speed setpoint. In addition, for testing at 80 kph and 113 kph, all ten of the 1-second mean vehicle speeds used to calculate a corresponding 10-second mean vehicle speed must be within [+ or -]0.3 kph of that 10-second mean vehicle speed. Perform the same data analysis for testing at 16 kph, but apply a validation threshold of [+ or -]0.15 kph. (2) Drive torque. All ten of the 1-second mean torque values used to calculate a corresponding 10-second mean torque value must be within [+ or -] 10 % of that 10-second mean torque value. (3) Torque drift. Torque meter drift may not exceed [+ or -]1 %. Determine torque meter drift by repeating the procedure described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section after testing is complete, except that driving the vehicle is necessary only to get the vehicle up to 80 kph as part of coasting to standstill, (f) Calculations." (reader should refer to source document for Calculations detail), "(g) Documentation. Keep the following records related to the constant-speed procedure for calculating drag area: (1) The measurement data for calculating [C.sub.D]A as described in this section. (2) A general description and pictures of the vehicle tested. (3) The vehicle's maximum height and width. (4) The measured vehicle mass. (5) Mileage at the start of the first test segment and at the end of the last test segment. (6) The date of the test, the starting time for the first test segment, and the ending time for the last test segment. (7) The transmission gear used for each test segment. (8) The data describing how the test was valid relative to the specifications and criteria described in paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section. (9) A description of any unusual events, such as a vehicle passing the test vehicle, or any technical or human errors that may have affected the [C.sub.D]A determination without invalidating the test" [23][53].

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA CFR[section]1066 Subpart C-(Chassis) Dynamometer Specifications [section] 1066.210: Revise the dynamometer force equation to incorporate grade, consistent with the coastdown procedures being proposed for heavy-duty vehicles. For operation at a level grade, the additional parameters cancel out of the calculation." (refer to source for complete detail) [23] [53].

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA 40 CFR[section] 1065Engine Testing Procedure - (refer to source for complete detail) [23] [53].

GHG Proposed Phase 2 - EPA/NHTSA 40 CFR [section] 1065.680 - Adjusting emission levels to account for infrequently regenerating aftertreatment devices. This section describes how to calculate and apply emission adjustment factors for engines using after treatment technology with infrequent regeneration events that may occur during testing [23] [53].

DOE METHODS

Argonne National Laboratory - Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit (PSAT) is a simulation program designed to meet the requirements of automotive engineering throughout the development process. PSAT simulates a number of drivetrain configurations (conventional, series, parallel, power split, electric, and fuel cell) chosen according to customer expectations. PSAT is also well-suited for component sizing, control strategy development, and optimization. Because of its accurate dynamics component models, PSAT can be implemented directly and tested at the bench scale or in a vehicle (using its extension for prototyping, PSAT-PRO). It is available by license [100].

Argonne National Laboratory Greenhouse Gases,, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation - GREET program - To fully evaluate energy and emission impact of advanced vehicle technologies and new transportation fuels, the fuel cycle from wells to wheels and the vehicle cycle through material recovery and vehicle disposal need to be considered. The model allows researchers and analysts to evaluate per-mile energy and emission effects of various vehicle and fuel combinations on a full fuel-cycle basis. Argonne has applied GREET for DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), individual state agencies, and the auto industry to evaluate energy and emission benefits of vehicle-fuel systems. [100]

Argonne National Laboratory- Autonomie Program - Based on the Matlab[c] software environment and developed by the Center for Transportation Research (CTR) at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne/Autonomie is a framework for automotive control design, simulation and analysis. This automotive control design solutionAllows you to integrate legacy models, controls, data and processes into a single environment that can be used throughout the vehicle development process from model-in-the-loop to software-in-the-loop, hardware-in-the-loop, rapid control prototyping and production. Reuses models with varying degrees of fidelity and languages, such as those authored in LMS Imagine.Lab Amesim. Helps you quickly evaluate the benefits of new technologies in a total system context. [101]

OTHER NORTH AMERICAN METHODS

CARB Tractor Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulations - Applies to sleeper tractors pulling 53' or longer box type trailers, and applies to 53' or longer box type trailers (dry van or refrigerated), affected truck and trailer owners are responsible for compliance, all affected vehicles operating in California regardless of where nationally they are registered. Requires U.S. EPA SmartWay aerodynamic equipping of sleeper tractors and 53' box type trailers, and low rolling resistance tires on sleeper and day cab tractors and 53' box type trailers - as defined by U.S. EPA SmartWay. Applies to new equipment and older equipment must be made compliant over a phase in period. Exemptions exist for container chassis (and containers), drop frame vans, curtain side vans, authorized emergency vehicles, drayage tractors and trailers (if used under 100 mile radius of port or railyard), livestock trailers, trailers less than 53', military vehicles, solid waste vehicles, storage trailers (empty when traveling in California or with relocation pass with freight), short haul tractors (max 50k miles per year), and local haul tractors and trailers (operations under 100 mile radius) as defined by CARB [102] [103].

CARB Approval of Modifications to SmartWay Verified Equipment - ARB mechanism for approval for California use where not previously tested by SmartWay [104].

Environment Canada - Heavy-duty Vehicle and Engine Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations - in collaboration with U.S. EPA, these rules largely parallel U.S. GHG Phase 1 regulations, applies to vehicle manufacturers in Canada and importers of vehicles to Canada. [105].

National Research Council Canada - Fuel-Savings and Greenhouse-Gas-Reduction Analysis (one method detailed by Brian McAuliffe) - Although an increase or decrease in vehicle drag provides an indication of a change in fuel consumption or greenhouse-gas emissions of a heavy-duty vehicle, estimates of these savings are important for quantifying economic factors that will influence the acquisition and use of particular technology. The difference in wind-averaged-drag coefficient for a given vehicle configurations and a reference case is used to estimate the fuel-consumption savings, [DELTA][mu], of the device when travelling at the specified speed, according to:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (2.5)

where s f c is the specific fuel consumption of a modern diesel engine (taken here as 2.4 x [10.sup.-4] 1/Whr), [rho] is standard sea-level air density (taken here as 1.225 kg/[m.sup.3]), [U.sub.g] is the vehicle ground speed (taken here as 27.8 m/s, equivalent to 100 km/h), [DELTA]WACD is the change in wind averaged drag coefficient, A is the vehicle frontal area (taken here as vehicle height x vehicle width, 10.7 [m.sup.2]), h is the transmission efficiency (taken here as 0.85), and 27.8 is a units scaling factor. From the fuel-consumption-savings estimates of Equation 2.5, practical values of fuel savings and greenhouse-gas emission reductions for a typical vehicle can be developed. In a recent white paper on the adoption rates of fuel-savings technologies by Canadian fleets (Sharpe et al., 2015), yearly travel distances for tractors and trailers for nine Canadian fleets are documented. Based on the numbers presented for tractors, an estimate of 156,000 km [+ or -] 45,000 km per tractor per year has been inferred. Not all of this distance is traveled at highway speed. Information regarding the speed profiles of the vehicles reported by Sharpe et al. (2015) are not available, however for the purpose of the current report, it has been assumed that these are long-haul operators and that the vehicles travel at highway speed 80% of their time. An evaluation of some unpublished raw data from the Canadian Vehicle Use Study (Transport Canada, 2015) indicates this to be a reasonable assumption. This 80%-highway duty cycle provides an estimate of 125,000 km [+ or -] 35,000 km traveled per tractor per year at highway speed. With such an estimate, the fuel savings (litres of diesel and fuel cost) and the reduction in C[O.sub.2] emissions for each vehicle every year can be calculated. As was used by Sharpe et al. (2015), the average 2014 price of diesel fuel is used in the analysis ($1.35/litre). Greenhouse gas emission savings are calculated based on simple chemistry that shows 2.64 kg of C[O.sub.2] is emitted per litre of diesel burned. Based on the uncertainty estimate for the wind-averaged drag coefficient defined in the previous section (d[DELTA]WACD [approximately equal to] 0.001), the uncertainty on the fuel savings and greenhouse-gas emissions are on the order of 50 litres/tractor/year and 130 kg C[O.sub.2]/tractor/year [106].

SOFTWARE VENDOR SYSTEM MODELING METHODS

There are many methods for modeling both complete vehicle system performance and component or technology performance on computer using special system evaluation software packages, including but not limited to AVE Cruise[TM], MATLAB[R], Simulink[R] and other MathWorks[TM] products, in addition to the government developed tools already mentioned. Readers should refer to various commercial sources for more information [107] [108] [109].

INTERNATIONAL METHODS

ISO 28580 Passenger car, truck and bus tyres -- Methods of measuring rolling resistance--Single point test and correlation of measurement results - (2009) - specifies methods for measuring rolling resistance, under controlled laboratory conditions, for new pneumatic tyres designed primarily for use on passenger cars, trucks and buses. ISO 28580:2009 includes a method for correlating measurement results to allow inter-laboratory comparisons. Measurement of tyres using this method enables comparisons to be made between the rolling resistance of new test tyres when they are free-rolling straight ahead, in a position perpendicular to the drum outer surface, and in steady-state conditions. In measuring tyre rolling resistance, it is necessary to measure small forces in the presence of much larger forces. It is, therefore, essential that equipment and instrumentation of appropriate accuracy be used. [110]

European Union - "Climate Action - Reducing C[O.sub.2] Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Operational objectives consist of: Monitoring, reporting and verifying EU-wide C[O.sub.2] emissions of new HDVs;- And setting a carbon constraint on C[O.sub.2] emissions from HDV transport to achieve emission reductions. The Commission has developed a computer simulation tool, VECTO, to measure C[O.sub.2] emissions from new vehicles. With the support of this tool the Commission intends in 2015 to propose legislation which would require C[O.sub.2] emissions from new HDVs to be certified, reported and monitored" [111][112][113][114][115].

Japan - "Japan introduced in 2007 a fuel consumption rule for HDVs based on best vehicle. Japan was the first to introduce in 2007 a fuel consumption based rule for HDVs. The Japanese provisions and limits expressed as Reference Energy Consumption Efficiency are laid down in the Japanese Energy Conservation Standards. The corresponding test procedure, called the TRIAS, was also published in 2007. The standards are given as km/litre and become applicable form April 1st, 2015. The Japanese law also provides provisions for vehicle sticker in the case that a vehicle to be type approved over-fulfils / under runs the C[O.sub.2]-standard. Based on the "Top Runner Programme" (that requires current best in class performance to become the average performance level by a target date), manufacturers are required to improve the fuel economy of heavy duty vehicles from the year 2015. Target values are set by category of gross vehicle weight. For some categories, there are sub-categories based on payloads. The simulation method uses a computer programme that converts a vehicle-based driving cycle into an engine-based operation cycle using vehicle specification data, and thereby calculates fuel efficiency using the data from engine-based tests. This test method mainly measures the fuel efficiency of engines, but factors such as aerodynamics and tyre rolling resistance that could have an impact on on-road fuel efficiency are calculated by standard values. Japan is preparing further developments of the test method and with the possible inclusion of important real world factors like rolling resistance and aerodynamics." [113][115][116][117][118].

China - "China recently defined an approach on how to measure and report fuel consumption and C[O.sub.2] emissions, without however yet any limits or declaration procedures. The standard is applicable to all heavy-duty vehicles with a gross vehicle weight above 3.500 kg. The Chinese C[O.sub.2] standard is based on vehicle chassis-dynamometer testing for the so-called "basic" vehicle type. All other vehicles characterised by the "basic" vehicle are called "variant" vehicles. For the "variants", a simulation model can be used as alternative to the chassis dynamometer. Nonetheless all variants can be tested on the chassis-dynamometer too. The simulation model will make use of the above mentioned engine test data as well as of the driving resistance data. The standard allows determining the fuel consumption either by a carbon balance or direct mass or volumetric measurement also recently made first steps in this direction" [113][119].

FLEET METHODS

Fleet methods are generally proprietary. One discussion of them is provided by NACFE in their 2016 Confidence Report: Determining Efficiency [21], describing:

"Two categories of such methods include:

* Identifying groups of trucks that are similarly spec'd, except for the technology under consideration. For instance, a fleet purchased 150 of a particular specification from a single truck OEM. This fleet might have a technology to be tested on a portion of these trucks and use the other portion as a baseline. The higher numbers of trucks and trailers the better as it will help washout the variables of load, routes, climate, and driver capabilities, etc. Through consistent and the same data collection methodologies, the fleet compares these groupings of trucks to each other over a few seasons of operation. Best practice would be for a year. The TMC has in draft form a Recommend Practice 1106A(T) that can assist fleets in this process.

* Using dedicated routes, if available, to make fuel efficiency comparisons between the trucks running them. This eliminates some of the real world variables (road grade, speed, etc.) by having the trucks run the same routes every day or week. In some cases, it might be possible to monitor two or more trucks who are following one another on the same routes, to eliminate the impact of the variable of traffic congestion.

A major challenge to conducting fleet composite testing is that it is rare that only one variable is being tested. For example, a new model year tractor will be different than the prior model year, as the OEM will have made a number of changes and improvements, particularly to the operating software in its ECM modules, ABS braking systems and adaptive cruise control. Moreover, new vehicles perform differently than ones that have broken in - items like tires or powertrains alter in their performance with wear.

Using fleet composite testing to evaluate the fuel efficiency of trailer devices is particularly challenging since the same trailer is very rarely mated to the same tractor for its entire operating life. Multiple trailers and multiple tractors, all with different vintages and performance capabilities, makes it possible to assess average fleet performance, but variation will be considerable between specific units. One fleet shared with NACFE that they have developed an algorithm to better analyze the issue of tractors pulling different trailers over time, by using telematics on their trailers and record what vintage or group of tractor is pulling what vintage or group of trailers along particular routes.

Finally, the impact of drivers on the results of fleet composite testing will be significant. Experience level, training, and incentives can all greatly affect fuel efficiency values between individual drivers, which will be compounded by the fact that they are likely all in different vintage vehicles.

Still, at the corporate level composite fleet averages can definitely be assessed, and annual trends should show improving freight efficiency with ongoing investment in technologies such as aerodynamics. If the annual data does not show an improvement, other non-aerodynamic factors need to be evaluated before concluding which changes have not measured up, to ensure that something like a large difference in speed is not preventing the gains. Even when using the on-board systems on modern trucks which can provide estimates of fuel economy from data running on the various Electronic Controller Modules (ECMs) or other on-board systems, care should be taken by confirming any critical results through alternative methods, as these systems can vary significantly in both accuracy and precision" [21].

APPENDIX B #X002D; SAE BUCKENDALE LECTURE PAPERS

The following is a consolidated list of 62 year's of SAE Buckendale Lecture Papers.

REFERENCES

60th 2015 Wood, Richard, "Reynolds Number Impact on Commercial Vehicle Aerodynamics and Performance," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 8(2):590-667, 2015. doi :10.4271/2015-01-2859.

59th 2014 Ahmadian, Mehdi, "Integrating Electromechanical Systems in Commercial Vehicles for Improved Handling, Stability, and Comfort," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 7(2):535-587, 2014, doi: 10.4271/2014-01-2408.

58th 2013 Stanton, Don, "Systematic Development of Highly Efficient and Clean Engines to Meet Future Commercial Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulations," SAE Int. J. Engines 6(3):1395-1480, 2013, doi:10.4271/2013-01-2421.

57th 2012 Williams, Daniel, "Multi-Axle Vehicle Dynamics," SAE SP-2337, SAE International, 2012 and ISBN of 978-0-7680-7839-8.

56th 2011 Hanowski, Richard, "The Naturalistic Study of Distracted Driving: Moving from Research to Practice," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 4(1):286-319, 2011. doi :10.4271/2011-01-2305.

55th 2010 Zachos, Mark, "Merge Ahead: Integrating Heavy Duty Vehicle Networks with Wide Area Network Services," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 3(l):332-367, 2010, doi :10.4271/2010-01-2053.

54th 2009 Maleki, A., "Embedded Software Engineering in automotive and Truck Electronics," SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-2924, 2009, doi: 10.4271/2009-01 -2924.

53rd 2008 Goddard, P., "System Safety Applied To Vehicle Design," SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 2(1): 1-97, 2009, doi: 10.4271/2008-01-2680.

52nd 2007 Freund, D., "Foundations of Commercial Vehicle Safety: Laws, Regulations, and Standards," SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-4298, 2007. doi: 10.4271/2007-01-4298.

51st 2006 Baus, M., Cook, A., and Schaller, D., "Integrating New Emissions Engines into Commercial Vehicles:Emissions, Performance & Affordability," SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-3545, 2006, doi: 10.4271/2006-01-3545.

50th 2005 Charlton, S., "Developing Diesel Engines to Meet Ultra-low Emission Standards," SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-3628, 2005, doi: 10.4271/2005-01-3628.

49th 2004 Charmley, W., "The Federal Government's Role in Reducing Heavy Duty Diesel Emissions," SAE Technical Paper 2004-01-2708, 2004, doi: 10.4271/2004-01-2708.

48th 2003 Thomas, M., "Electronic Systems Testing & Validation for Commercial Vehicles," SAE SP-1816, SAE International, 2003

47111 2002 Armstrong, L., "Electronic System Integration," SAE SP-1727, SAE International, 2002 and ISBN: 076801106X, 9780768011067.

46th 2001 Caron, V, "Commercial Vehicle Electronics Design," SAE SP-1650, SAE International, 2001 and ISBN: 0768008921, 9780768008920.

45th 2000 Ziebell, R., "Commercial Use of Military Truck Technology," SAE SP-1567, SAE International, 2000 and ISBN: 0768007003, 9780768007008.

44th 1999 Kanefsky, P., Nelson, V and Ranger, M., "A Systems Approach to Engine Cooling Design," SAE SP-1541, SAE International, 1999 and SAE Technical Paper 1999-01-3780. 1999, doi: 10.4271/1999-01-3780.

43rd 1998 Buckman, L., "Commercial Vehicle Braking Systems: Air Brakes, ABS and Beyond," SAE SP-1405, SAE International, 1999 and ISBN 0-7680-0330-X.

42nd 1997 Visintainer, R. and Watts, D., "CAE Methods and their Application to Truck Design," SAE SP-1310, SAE International, 1998 and ISBN: 0768001072, 9780768001075.

1996 No Lecture Presented.

41st 1995 Dick W., "All Wheel and Four Wheel Drive Vehicle Systems," SAE SP-1063, SAE International, 1995 and SAE Technical Paper 952600. 1995. doi: 10.4271/952600.

40th 1994 Merrion, D., "THE FORTIETH L. RAY BUCKENDALE LECTURE Diesel Engine Design for the 1990s SP-1011 (940130)," SAE Technical Paper 940130, 1994, doi:10.4271/940130.

39th 1993 Cebon, D., "Interaction Between Heavy Vehicles and Roads," SAE SP-951, SAE International, 1993 and SAE Technical Paper 930001, 1993, doi:10.4271/930001.

38th 1992 Carey, W., "Introduction Tools for Today's Engineer - Strategy for Achieving Engineering Excellence," SAE SP-913, SAE International, 1992 and SAE Technical Paper 920040, 1992, doi: 10.4271/920040.

37th 1991 Jones, C, "Heavy Duty Drivetrains - The System and Component Application," SAE SP-868, SAE International, 1991 and SAE Technical Paper 910035, 1991, doi:10.4271/910035.

36th 1990 Bosch, D. and Real, J., "Heavy Truck Cooling Systems," SAE SP-824, SAE International, 1990 and SAE Technical Paper 900001, 1990, doi:10.4271/900001.

35th 1989 Leisure, W. and Williams, S., "Antilock Systems for Air-Braked Vehicles," SAE SP-789, SAE International, 1989 and SAE Technical Paper 890113, 1992, doi: 10.4271/890113.

34th 1988 Ford, T., Charles, F, "Heavy Duty Truck Tire Engineering," SAE SP-729, SAE International, 1988 and SAE Technical Paper 880001. 1988, doi:10.4271/880001.

33rd 1987 Drollinger, R., "Heavy Duty Truck Aerodynamics," SAE SP-688, SAE International, 1987 and SAE Technical Paper 870001, 1987, doi: 10.4271/870001.

32nd 1986 Jones, T., "Commercial Vehicle Electronics," SAE SP-647, SAE International, 1986 and SAE Technical Paper 860001, 1986, doi: 10.4271/860001.

31st 1985 Gillespie, T., "Heavy Track Ride," SAE SP-607, SAE International, 1985 and SAE Technical Paper 850001, 1985, doi:10.4271/850001.

30th 1984 Symons, J., "Dynamic Sealing Systems for Commercial Vehicles," SAE SP-563, SAE International, 1984 and SAE Technical Paper 840001, 1984, doi: 10.4271/840001.

29th 1983 Bajaria, H., "Integration of Reliability, Maintainability and Quality Parameters in Design," SAE SP-533, SAE International, 1983 and SAE Technical Paper 830001, 1975, doi:10.4271/830001.

28th 1982 Murphy, R.., "Endurance Testing of Heavy Duty Vehicles," SAE SP-506, SAE International, 1982 and SAE Technical Paper 820001, 1982, doi: 10.4271/820001.

27th 1981 Walter, J., "A Guide for Powerplant Installation in Tracks," SAE SP-479, SAE International, 1981 and SAE Technical Paper 810001, 1981, doi: 10.4271/810001.

26th 1980 Kinstler, J., "Wheels for Commercial Vehicles," SAE SP-454, SAE International, 1980 and SAE Technical Paper 800001, 1980, doi: 10.4271/800001.

25th 1979 Hermanns, M., "Front Drive Systems for 4WD Light Tracks," SAE SP-437, SAE International, 1979

24th 1978 Cuffe, K., "Air Conditioning & Heating Systems for Tracks," SAE SP-425, SAE International, 1978 and SAE Technical Paper 780001, 1978, doi: 10.4271/780001.

23rd 1977 Heller, R., "Track Electrical Systems," SAE SP-413, SAE International, 1977 and SAE Technical Paper 770180, 1977, doi:10.4271/770180.

22nd 1976 Sternberg, E., "Heavy-Duty Track Suspensions," SAE SP-402, SAE International, 1976 and SAE Technical Paper 760369, 1976, doi: 10.4271/760369.

21st 1975 Myers, P., "The Diesel Engine for Track Application," SAE SP-391, SAE International, 1975 and SAE Technical Paper 750128, 1975, doi: 10.4271/750128.

20th 1974 Staadt, R., "Track Noise Control," SAE SP-386, SAE International, 1974 and SAE Technical Paper 740001, 1974, doi:10.4271/740001.

19th 1973 Durstine, J., "The Track Steering System - From Hand Wheel to Road Wheel," SAE SP-374, SAE International, 1973 and SAE Technical Paper 730039, 1973, doi: 10.4271/730039.

18th 1972 Kyropoulos, P., "Human Factors Methodology in the Design of the Driver's Workspace in Tracks," SAE SP-367, SAE International, 1972 and SAE Technical Paper 720293, 1972, doi: 10.4271/720293.

17th 1971 perkins, C, "Principles and Design of Mechanical Track Transmission," SAE SP-363, SAE International, 1971 and SAE Technical Paper 710288, 1971, doi: 10.4271/710288.

16th 1970 Smith, G., "Commercial Vehicle Performance and Fuel Economy," SAE SP-355, SAE International, 1970 and SAE Technical Paper 700194, 1970, doi: 10.4271/700194

15th 1969 Davisson, I, "Design and Application of Commercial Type Tires," SAE SP-344, SAE International, 1969 and SAE Technical Paper 690001, 1969, doi: 10.4271/690001.

14th 1968 Raviolo, V, "Planning a Product," SAE SP-341, SAE International, 1968 and SAE Technical Paper 680509, 1968, doi: 10.4271/680509.

13th 1967 Beatenbough, P., "Engine Cooling Systems for Motor Tracks," SAE SP-284, SAE International, 1967 and SAE Technical Paper 670033, 1967, doi: 10.4271/670033.

12th 1966 Sidelko, W., "An Objective Approach to Highway Track Frame Design Engine Cooling Systems for Motor Trucks," SAE SP-276, SAE International, 1966

11th 1965 Mazziotti, P., "Dynamic Characteristics of Track Drive Line Systems," SAE SP-262, SAE International, 1965 and SAE Technical Paper 650189, 1965, doi:10.4271/650189.

10th 1964 Mathews, G., "Art and Science of Braking Heavy-Duty Vehicles," SAE SP-251, SAE International, 1964 and SAE Technical Paper 640795, 1964, doi: 10.4271/640795.

9th 1963 Halting, G., "Design and Application of Heavy-Duty Clutches," SAE SP-239, SAE International, 1963 and SAE Technical Paper 640038, 1964. doi: 10.4271/640038.

8th 1962 Coleman, W., "Design and Manufacture of Spiral Bevel and Hypoid Gears for Heavy-Duty Drive Axles," SAE SP-221, SAE International, 1962 and SAE Technical Paper 630461, 1963, doi: 10.4271/630461.

7th 1961 Jandasek, V, "The Design of Single-Stage, Three Element Torque Converter," SAE SP-186, SAE International, 1961 and SAE Technical Paper 610576, 1961. doi:10.4271/610576

6th 1960 Huebner, G., "Computer-Based Selection of Balanced-Life Automotive Gears," SAE SP-172, SAE International, 1960 and SAE Technical Paper 600036. 1960, doi: 10.4271/600036.

5th 1959 Kelley, O., "Planetary Gearing - Basic Design Information & Typical Application to Commercial & Military Ground Vehicles," SAE SP-134, SAE International, 1959 and SAE Technical Paper 590059, 1959, doi: 10.4271/590059.

1958 No Lecture Presented

4th 1957 Riblet, R, and Kitson, C, "Bearing Application for Heavy-Duty Axles," SAE SP-133, SAE International, 1957 and SAE Technical Paper 580006, 1958, doi: 10.4271/580006.

3rd 1956 Michell, W., "New Drive Lines for New Engines," SAE SP-132, SAE International, 1956 and SAE Technical Paper 570007, 1957, doi: 10.4271/570007

2nd 1955 Rosen, C, "The Role of the Turbine in Future Vehicle Powerplants," SAE SP-131, SAE International, 1955 and SAE Technical Paper 560315, 1956, doi:10.4271/560315.

1st 1954 Gorden, K., "Design, Evaluation and Selection of Heavy-Duty Rear Axles," SAE SP-130, SAE International, 1954 and SAE Technical Paper 550231, 1955, doi: 10.4271/550231.

APPENDIX C - ENLARGED FIGURES

Enlarged Figures from the main report.

Weight of Shipments by Transportation Mode

                   (Millions of tons)
                   2007
                  Total    Domestic  [Exports.sup.2] [Imports.sup.2]

Total             18,879   16,851       655            1,372
Truck             12,778   12,587        95               97
Rail               1,900    1,745        61               93
Water                950      504        65              381
Air, air & truck      13        3         4                6
Multiple modes &
mail               1,429      433       389              606
Pipeline           1,493    1,314         4              175
Other & unknown      316      266        36               14

                   (Millions of tons)
                   2012
                  Total    Domestic  [Exports.sup.2]  [Imports.sup.2]

Total             19,662   17,523       901             1,238
Truck             13,182   12,973       118                92
Rail               2,018    1,855        82                82
Water                975      542        95               338
Air, air & truck      15        3         5                 7
Multiple modes &
mail               1,588      453       540               595
Pipeline           1,546    1,421        13               112
Other & unknown      338      277        47                14

                   (Millions of tons)
                   2040
                  Total    Domestic  [Exports.sup.2]  [Imports.sup.2]

Total             28,520   23,095     2,632            2,794
Truck             18,786   18,083       368              335
Rail               2,770    2,182       388              201
Water              1,070      559       164              347
Air, air & truck      53        6        20               27
Multiple modes &
mail               3,575      645     1,546            1,383
Pipeline           1,740    1,257        17              467
Other & unknown      526      362       130               34


Figure 15. Weight of shipments by transportation mode: 2007, 2012,
and 2040 (millions of tons) [44]

                           Distance-weighted        Time-weighted
                         Transient  55 mph  65 mph  Idle  Non-idle
                                    Cruise  Cruise

Day Cabs                 19%        17%     64%     --    --
Sleeper Cabs              5%         9%     86%     --    --
Heavy-haul tractors      19%        17%     64%     --    --
Vocational--Multi-       82%        15%      3%     15%   85%
purpose
Vocational--Regional     50%        28%     22%     10%   90%
Vocational--Urban        94%         6%      0%     20%   80%
Vocational with          42%        21%     30%     --    --
conventional powertrain
(Phase 1 only)
Vocational Hvbrid        75%         9%     16%     --    --
Vehicles (Phase 1 only)

                         Average Speed
                         While Moving.
                         (mph)

Day Cabs                 --
Sleeper Cabs             --
Heavy-haul tractors      --
Vocational--Multi-       20.9
purpose
Vocational--Regional     28.1
Vocational--Urban        19.2
Vocational with          --
conventional powertrain
(Phase 1 only)
Vocational Hvbrid        --
Vehicles (Phase 1 only)

Figure 21. Weighting factors for duty cycles from EPA Phase 2
[section]1037.510 [52]


Average Age: U.S. Class 8 Active Population 1990-2013 Projected

Vehicle Configuration                       Wind

SuperTruck trailer at 65,000 lb             6 niph. steady
SuperTruck trailer at 80,000 lb             6.5 mph, steady
SuperTruck trailer at 32,500 lb (empty)     23 mph, gusts to 40
SuperTruck Tractor pulling a standard 53
ft trailer                                  9 mph, gusts to 18
with skirts, 65,000 lb

Vehicle Configuration                       gal/1,000 ton-miles

SuperTruck trailer at 65,000 lb             5.72
SuperTruck trailer at 80,000 lb             4.04
SuperTruck trailer at 32,500 lb (empty)     Infinity (no payload)
SuperTruck Tractor pulling a standard 53
ft trailer                                  6.52
with skirts, 65,000 lb

Vehicle Configuration                       gal/100 mi  mpg

SuperTruck trailer at 65,000 lb              9.3        10.7
SuperTruck trailer at 80,000 lb              9.6        10.4
SuperTruck trailer at 32,500 lb (empty)      7.9        12.7
SuperTruck Tractor pulling a standard 53
ft trailer                                  10.6         9.4
with skirts, 65,000 lb

Figure 56. Peterbilt/Cummins SuperTruck results on various duty
cycles [17].

Table 1 Class 8 Combination Tractor Sleeper Cab Predefined Modeling
Parameters

Regulatory Subcategory            Class 8 Combination. Sleeper Cab
Roof Height                       High Roof  Mid Roof   Low Roof

Total Weight (kg)                 31978      30277      30390
Number of Axles                                  5
Default Axle Configuration                     6x4
Payload (tons)                                  19
CARB HHDDT Drive Cycle Weighting                 0.05
GEM 55 mph Drive Cycle Weighting                 0.09
GEM 65 mph Drive Cycle Weighting                 0.86

Table 2 Class 8 Combination Tractor Day Cab Predefined Modeling
Parameters

Regulators Subcategory            Class 8 Combiunrion, Day Cab
Roof Height                       High Roof  Mid Roof  Loss Roof

Total Weight (kg)                 31297      29529     29710
Number of Axles                                  5
Default Axle ConfiflUMfton                     6x4
Pavload (tons)                                  19
CARB HHDDT Drive Cycle Weighting              0.19
GEM 55 mph Drive Cycle Weighting              0.17
GEM 65 mph Drive Cycle Weighting              0.64

Table 4 Common Predefined Modeling Parameters for All Simulated
Combination Tractors

Gearbox Efficiency              98% for 1:1 gear ratio. 96% for others
Axle Mechanical Efficiency      95.5%
Electrical Accessory Power (W)  300
Mccliamcal Accessory Power (W)  1000
Environmental air temperature
([degrees]C)                    25
Weight Reduction (Ibs)          Add 1/3*weight reduction to Payload
                                tons
Trailer Tire Crr (kg/t)         6.0
Overall Tire Crr (kg/t)         = 0 425* Trailer Crr + 0 425* Drive
                                Crr - 0 15* Steer Crr

Figure 67. Phase 2 GEM fixed vehicle parameters for Class 8 on-highway
sleeper and day cabs [205].

Table 5 User-Defined Modeling Parameters for Class 7 and Class 8
Combination Tractors (All Cabs and
Roof Heigltts)

Modeling Parameter      Method of Determining Parameter

Steer Tire Crr (kg/t)   ISO 28580:2009(E). See 40 CFR 1037.520(c)
Drive Tire Crr (kg/t)
Tire Loaded Radius (m)  See 40 CFR 1037.520(c)
Aerodynamic Drag Area.
CdA ([m.sup.2])         See 40 CFR 1037.520(b) and 40 CFR 1037.525
Engine Fuel Map         From engine manufacturer or 40 CFR 1065.510
Transmission            From transmission manufacturer: type, gear
                        number, gear ratios
Drive Axle Ratio        From axle manufacturer

Figure 68. Phase 2 GEM fixed vehicle parameters for Class 8 on-highway
sleeper and day cabs [205].

Table 6 Technology Improvement Options for Tractor Manufacturers

Technology Improvement           Regulation Reference

Vehicle Speed Limit              See 40 CFR 1037.520(d)
Weight Reduction (Ib)            See 40 CFR 1037.520(e)
Single Drive Axle (Class 8
Tractors Only)                   See 40 CFR 1037.520(f)(1)
Pan Time Sinale Drive Axle
(Class 8 Tractors Only)          See 40 CFR 1037.520(f)(1)
Low Friction Axle Lubricant      See 40 CFR 1037.520(f)(2)
Transmissions: AT. AMT. DCT      See 40 CFR 1037.520(f)(3)
Predictive Cruise Control        See 40 CFR 1037.520(f)(4)
High Efficiency A/C Compressor   See 40 CFR 1037.520(f)(5)
Electric Engine Coolant and
Power Steering Pumps             See 40 CFR 1037.520(f)(6)
Automatic Tire Inflation System  Sec 40 CFR 1037.520(f)(7)
Extended Idle Reduction
(Sleeper Cabs Only)              See 40 CFR 1037.5201 (f)(8)

Technology Improvement           Reduction Value

Vehicle Speed Limit              Varies
Weight Reduction (Ib)            Varies
Single Drive Axle (Class 8
Tractors Only)                   2.5%
Pan Time Sinale Drive Axle
(Class 8 Tractors Only)          2.5%a
Low Friction Axle Lubricant      0.5%
Transmissions: AT. AMT. DCT      2.0%
Predictive Cruise Control        2.0%
High Efficiency A/C Compressor   0.5%
Electric Engine Coolant and
Power Steering Pumps             1.0%
Automatic Tire Inflation System  1.0%
Extended Idle Reduction
(Sleeper Cabs Only)              5.0%

Figure 69. Phase 2 GEM technology improvement factors [205].

LECTURES

1954  KENNETH W. GORDON SP-130 "Design Evaluation & Selection of
      Heavy-Duty Rear Axles"
1955  No Lecture
1956  CARL GEORGE ARTHUR ROSEN SP-131 "The Role of the Turbine in
      Future Vehicle Powerplants"
1956  WILLIAM PEARSE MICHELL SP-132 "New Drive Lines for New Engines"
1957  ROBERT M. RIBLET and CHARLES M. KITSON SP-133 "Bearing
      Application for Heavy-Duty Axles"
1958  No Lecture
1959  OLIVER K. KELLEY SP-134 "Planetary Gearing--Basic Design
      Information & Typical Application to Commercia & Military Ground
      Vehicles"
1960  GEORGE J. HUEBNER, JR. SP-172 "Computer-Based Selection of
      Balanced-Life Automotive Gears"
1961  V. J. JANDASEK SP-186 "The Design of Single-Stage, Three Element
      Torque Converter"
1962  WELLS COLEMAN SP-221 "Design and Manufacture of Spiral Bevel and
      Hypoid Gears for Heavy-Duty Drive Axles"
1963  G. ROBERT HARTING SP-239 "Design and Application of Heavy-Duty
      Clutches"
1964  G. P. MATHEWS SP-251 "Art and Science of Braking Heavy-Duty
      Vehicles"
1965  PHILIP J. MAZZIOTTI SP-262 "Dynamic Characteristics of Truck
      Drive Line Systems"
1966  WILLIAM J. SIDELKO SP-276 "An Objective Approach to Highway Truck
      Frame Design"
1967  PAUL K. BEATENBOUGH SP-284 "Engine Cooling Systems for Motor
      Trucks"
1968  V. G. RAVIOLO SP-341 "Planning Product"
1969  J. A. DAVISSON SP-344 "Design and Application of Commercial Type
      Tires"
1970  GARY L. SMITH SP-355 "Commercial Vehicle Performance and Fuel
      Economy"
1971  CHARLES M. PERKINS SP-363 "Principles and Design of Mechanical
      Truck Transmission"
1972  PETER R. KYROPOULOS SP-367 "Human Factors Methodology in the
      Design of the Driver's Workspace in Trucks"
1973  JOHN W. DURSTINE SP-374 "The Truck Steering System--From Hand
      Wheel to Road Wheel"
1974  RICHRAD L. STAADT SP-386 "Truck Noise Control"
1975  PHILLIP S. MYERS SP-391 "The Diesel Engine for Truck Application"
1976  ERNEST R. STERNBERG SP-402 "Heavy-Duty Truck Suspensions"
1977  RAYMOND E. HELLER SP-413 "Truck Electrical Systems"
1978  KENNETH W. CUFFE SP-425 "Air Conditioning & Heating Systems for
      Trucks"
1979  MARTIN J. HERMANNS SP-437 "Front Drive Systems for 4WD Light
      Trucks"
1980  JOHN R. KINSTLER SP-454 "Wheels for Commercial Vehicles"
1981  JOHN C. WALTER SP-479 "A Guide for Powerplant Installation in
      Trucks"
1982  RAY W. MURPHY SP-506 "Endurance Testing of Heavy Duty Vehicles"
1983  HANS J. BAJARIA SP-533 "Integration of Reliability,
      Maintainability and Quality Parameters in Design"
1984  JAMES D. SYMONS SP-563 "Dynamic Sealing Systems for Commercial
      Vehicles"
1985  THOMAS D. GILLESPIE SP-607 "Heavy Truck Ride"
1986  TREVOR O. JONES SP-647 "Commercial Vehicle Electronics"
1987  RICHARD DROLLINGER SP-688 "Heavy Duty Truck Aerodynamics"
1988  FRED S. CHARLES and THOMAS L. FORD SP-729 "Heavy Duty Truck Tire
      Engineering"
1989  SIDNEY F. WILLIAMS, JR. and WILLIAM A. LEASURE, JR. SP-789
      "Antilock Systems for Air-Braked Vehicles"
1990  DANIEL J. BOSCH and JOHN D. REAL SP-824 "Heavy Truck Cooling
      Systems"
1991  CHARLES R. JONES SP-868 "Heavy Duty Drivetrains - The System and
      Component Application"
1992  WILLIAM R. CAREY SP-913 "Tools for Today's Engineer - Strategy
      for Achieving Engineering Excellence"
1993  DAVID CEBON SP-951 "Interaction between Heavy Vehicles and Roads"
1994  DAVID F. MERRION SP-1011 "Diesel Engine Design for the 1990's"
1995  WESLEY M. DICK SP-1063 "All Wheel and Four Wheel Drive Vehicle
      Systems"
1996  No Lecture
1997  FARHANG ASLANI, CHING-HUNG CHUANG, SHABBIR DOHADWALA, JEFF HUANG,
      BIJAN KHATIB-SHAHIDI, PATRICK J. LEE, DAVID S. ROHWEDER, RANDAL
      H. VISINTAINER and DAVID E. WATTS SP-1310 "CAE Methods and Their
      Application to Truck Design"
1998  LEONARD C. BUCKMAN SP-1405 "Commercial Vehicle Braking Systems:
      Air Brakes, ABS and Beyond"
1999  VALERIE A. NELSON, MARY L. RANGER and PETER KANEFSKY SP-1541 "A
      Systems Approach to Engine Cooling Design"
2000  RONALD P. ZIEBELL SP-1567 "Commercial Use of Military Truck
      Technology"
2001  VERN ANDREW CARON SP-1650 "Commercial Vehicle Electronics Design"
2002  LEE R. ARMSTRONG SP-1727 "Electronic System Integration"
2003  MARK G. THOMAS SP-1816 "Electronic Systems Testing and Validation
      for Commercial Vehicles"
2004  WILLIAM J. CHARMLEY 2004-1-2708 "The Federal Government's Role in
      Reducing Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emissions"
2005  STEPHEN J. CHARLTON 2005-01-3628 "Developing Diesel Engines to
      Meet Ultra-low Emission Standards"
2006  MATTHEW BAUS, ANTHONY COOK, and DAVID SCHALLER 2006-01-3545
      "Integrating New Emissions Engines into Commercial Vehicles:
      Emissions, Performance & Affordability"
2007  DEBORAH FREUND 2007-01-4298 "Foundations of Commercial Vehicle
      Safety: Laws, Regulations and Standards"
2008  PETER L. GODDARD 2008-01-2680 "System Safety Applied to Vehicle
      Design"
2009  ALI F. MALEKI 2009-01-2924 "Embedded Software Engineering in
      Automotive and Truck Electronics"
2010  MARK P. ZACHOS 2010-01-2053 "Merge Ahead: Integrating Heavy-Duty
      Vehicle Networks with Wide Area Network Services"
2011  RICHARD JOSEPH HANOWSKI 2011-01-2305 "The Naturalistic Study of
      Distracted Driving: Moving from Research to Practice"
2012  DANIEL EUGENE WILLIAMS SP-2337 "Multi-Axle Vehicle Dynamics"
2013  DONALD WAYNE STANTON 2013-01-2421 "Systematic Development of
      Highly Efficient and Clean Engines to Meet Future Commercial
      Vehicle GHG Regulations"
2014  MEHDI AHMADIAN 2014-01-2408 "Integrating Electromechanical
      Systems in Commercial Vehicles for Improved Handling, Stability,
      and Comfort"
2015  RICHARD WOOD 2015-01-2859 "Reynolds Number Impact on Commercial
      Vehicle Aerodynamics and Performance"
2016  RICHARD R. MIHELIC 2016- 01-8020 "Fuel and Freight Efficiency
      Past, Present and Future Perspectives"
COPYRIGHT 2016 SAE International
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:p. 169-216
Author:Mihelic, Rick
Publication:SAE International Journal of Commercial Vehicles
Article Type:Report
Date:Oct 1, 2016
Words:29063
Previous Article:Fuel and freight efficiency - past, present and future perspectives.
Next Article:Aerodynamics of an unloaded timber truck - A CFD investigation.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters