Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
The National Academies Press â¢ 500 Fifth Street, N.W. â¢ Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract DE-AT01-06EE11206, TO#18, Subtask 3 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-12208-5 International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-12208-2 Copies of this report are available Additional copies of this report are in limited supply free of charge from: available for sale from: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Keck W934 Washington, DC 20055 Washington, DC 20001 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (202) 334-3344 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet: http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the Âauthority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a Âmandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr.Â Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of ÂEngineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of ÂMedicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the ÂNational Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both ÂAcademies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP JOHN H. JOHNSON, Chair, Michigan Technological University JEWEL B. BARLOW, University of Maryland PAUL N. BLUMBERG, NAE, ConsultantâEngines and Powertrain Systems ANDREW BROWN, JR., NAE, Delphi Corporation JOSEPH M. COLUCCI, NAE, Automotive Fuels Consulting, Inc. PATRICK F. FLYNN, NAE, Cummins, Inc. (retired) THOMAS D. GILLESPIE, Great Lakes Center for Truck and Transit Research S. WILLIAM GOUSE, Intelligent Transportation Society of America LARRY J. HOWELL, Consultant THOMAS M. JAHNS, University of Wisconsin, Madison ALAN C. LLOYD, International Council on Clean Transportation DAVID F. MERRION, David F. Merrion, LLC GARY W. ROGERS, FEV Engine Technology, Inc. YANG SHAO-HORN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DALE F. STEIN, NAE, Michigan Technological University WALLACE R. WADE, Ford Motor Company (retired) Project Staff DUNCAN BROWN, Study Director KATHERINE BITTNER, Senior Project Assistant PANOLA GOLSON, Program Associate (until May 2007) E. JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems NAE, National Academy of Engineering.
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DOUGLAS M. CHAPIN, Chair, NAE, MPR Associates, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia ROBERT W. FRI, Vice Chair, Resources for the Future (senior fellow emeritus), Washington, D.C. RAKESH AGRAWAL, NAE, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana ALLEN J. BARD, NAS, University of Texas, Austin ANDREW BROWN, JR., NAE, Delphi Corporation, Troy, Michigan MARILYN BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta PHILIP R. CLARK, NAE, GPU Nuclear Corporation (retired), Boonton, New Jersey (term ended July 31, 2007) MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, NAE, University of Wisconsin, Madison PAUL DECOTIS, Office of the Governor, Albany, New York E. linn draper, jr., NAE, American Electric Power, Inc. (emeritus), Austin, Texas CHARLES H. GOODMAN, Southern Company (retired), Birmingham, Alabama DAVID G. HAWKINS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C. JAMES MARKOWSKY, NAE, Consultant, North Falmouth, Massachusetts DAVID K. OWENS, Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM F. POWERS, NAE, Ford Motor Company (retired), Ann Arbor, Michigan TONY PROPHET, Carrier Corporation, Farmington, Connecticut (term ended July 31, 2007) MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, NAE, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired), Moorestown, New Jersey MAXINE SAVITZ, NAE, Honeywell, Inc. (retired), Los Angeles, California PHILIP R. SHARP, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (term ended July 31, 2007) SCOTT W. TINKER, University of Texas, Austin Staff JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director KATHERINE BITTNER, Senior Project Assistant MATTHEW BOWEN, Senior Program Associate (until November 2007) DUNCAN BROWN, Senior Program Officer JENNIFER BUTLER, Financial Assistant (until December 2007) DANA CAINES, Financial Associate SARAH CASE, Senior Program Associate ALAN CRANE, Senior Program Officer JOHN HOLMES, Senior Program Officer MADELINE WOODRUFF, Senior Program Officer LANITA JONES, Program Associate PANOLA GOLSON, Program Associate (until May 2007) MARTIN OFFUTT, Senior Program Officer (until April 2007) NAE, National Academy of Engineering. NAS, National Academy of Sciences. vi
Acknowledgments The Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional Partnership extends its thanks to the representatives of standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the the 21st Â Century Truck Partnership and to all of the com- study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript pany and national laboratory representatives who contrib- remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative uted significantly of their time and effort to this National process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their Research Â Council (NRC) study, either by giving presenta- review of this report: tions at meetings or by responding to committee requests for information. â¢ Betsy Ancker-Johnson (NAE), General Motors The committee also acknowledges the valuable contribu- C Â orporation (retired) tions of other individuals who provided information and pre- â¢ Rodica A. Baranescu (NAE), University of Illinois at sentations at the committeeâs open meetings. (AppendixÂ B Chicago lists all of those presentations.) The committee particularly â¢ David E. Foster, University of Wisconsin expresses its appreciation to Ken Howden, U.S. Department â¢ Nabil S. Hakim, powertrain consultant of Energy, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle ÂTechnologies, â¢ Timothy V. Johnson, Corning Environmental for his extensive effort in coordinating responses to our Technologies questions and in making presentations to the committee. â¢ Jason Mark, The Energy Foundation Finally, the committee chair wishes to recognize the com- â¢ Joe Mauderly, Lovelace Respiratory Research mittee members and the staff of the NRC Board on Energy Institute and Environmental Systems for organizing and planning â¢ Anne T. McCartt, Insurance Institute for Highway the committee meetings and gathering information and Safety drafting sections of the report. Duncan Brown in particular â¢ James F. Tipka, American Trucking Association has done an outstanding job of facilitating the work of the â¢ John J. Wise (NAE), Mobil Research and Development committee, which required reviewing a significant amount Corporation (retired) of background material and helping the committee to focus on writing a concise and timely report. Jim Zucchetto was Although the reviewers listed above have provided many also always available to help guide the committee and to use constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked his vast experience to help the committee in its deliberations. to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did Lastly, the committee chair expresses his appreciation to they see the final draft of the report before its release. The Dale Stein, who chaired the first meeting, and Pat Flynn, who review of this report was overseen by William Agnew (NAE), helped Duncan Brown set up the second meeting. G Â eneral Motors Research Laboratory (retired). Appointed This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals by the National Research Council, he was responsible for chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper- m Â aking certain that an independent examination of this report tise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRCâs was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent and that all review comments were carefully considered. review is to provide candid and critical comments that will Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely assist the institution in making its published report as sound with the authoring committee and the institution. vii
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 ORGANIZATION AND BACKGROUND 7 Introduction, 7 Economic Contributions of Trucks and Trucking, 9 The National Objective of Reducing Oil Imports, 10 Trends in Heavy Vehicle Emission Regulations, 10 Safety of Heavy-Duty Trucks, 14 Partnership Activities of the FreedomCar and Vehicle Technologies Program, 15 Budget Trends of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, 15 Origin and Scope of This Study, 16 Study Process and Organization of the Report, 17 References, 18 2 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND PRIORITY SETTING 19 Introduction, 19 Program Management, 19 Prioritization of Projects, 22 Performance of the Partnership with Industry, 23 References, 25 3 ENGINE SYSTEMS AND FUELS 26 Introduction, 26 Goal of Thermal Efficiency of 50 Percent, 26 Goal of Thermal Efficiency of 55 Percent, 39 Goals Involving Fuels, 43 Aftertreatment Systems, 50 High Temperature Materials Laboratory, 51 Health Concerns Related to Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 53 References, 55 4 HEAVY-DUTY HYBRID VEHICLES 56 Introduction, 56 Goal 1: Develop a New Generation of Drive Unit Systems, 58 Goal 2: Develop an Energy Storage System with 15 Years of Design Life That Prioritizes High Power Rather Than High Energy, and Costs No More Than $25/kW Peak Electric Power Rating, by 2012, 59 ix
CONTENTS Goal 3: Develop and Demonstrate a Heavy Hybrid Propulsion Technology That Achieves a 60 Percent Improvement in Fuel Economy, on a Representative Urban Driving Cycle, While Meeting Regulated Emissions Levels for 2007 and Thereafter, 65 Systems Development and Project Coordination, 66 HHV Certification Test Procedures, 67 Hybridization of Long-Haul Trucks, 68 References, 68 5 PARASITIC LOSSES OF ENERGY 70 Introduction, 70 Goals and Objectives, 70 Goal 1: Develop and Demonstrate Advanced Technology Concepts That Reduce the Aerodynamic Drag of a Class 8 Tractor-Trailer Combination by 20 Percent (from a Current Average Drag Coefficient of 0.625 to 0.5), 70 Goal 2: Develop and Demonstrate Technologies That Reduce Essential Auxiliary Loads by 50 Percent (from Current 20 hp to 10 hp) for Class 8 Tractor-Trailers, 73 Goal 3: Develop and Demonstrate Lightweight Material and Manufacturing Processes That Lead to a 15 Percent to 20 Percent Reduction in Tare Weight (for Example, a 5,000-lb Weight Reduction for Class 8 Tractor-Trailer Combinations), 75 Goal 4a: Thermal Management and Friction and WearâIncrease Heat-Load Rejected by Thermal Management Systems by 20 Percent Without Increasing Radiator Size, 76 Goal 4b: Thermal Management and Friction and WearâDevelop and Demonstrate Technologies That Reduce Powertrain and Driveline Losses by 50 Percent, Thereby Improving Class 8 Fuel Efficiencies by 6 to 8 Percent, 78 Goal 5: Rolling Resistance Technology Goalâ10 Percent Reduction in Tire-Rolling Resistance Values Relative to Existing Best-in-Class Standards Without Compromising Cost or Performance, 80 References, 81 6 ENGINE IDLE REDUCTION 82 Introduction, 82 Assessment of Individual Goals, 83 References, 86 7 SAFETY OF HEAVY VEHICLES 87 High-Level Technical Targets and Timetables, 87 Accidents Involving Large Trucks, 88 Goal 1: Reduce the Large-Truck and Bus Fatality Rate to 0.160 per 100 Million Total Vehicle Miles by 2011, 90 Goal 2: Crash Avoidance (e.g., Braking, Rollover Avoidance, Vehicle Position Control and Monitoring, Visibility Improvements, and Tire Performance), 91 Goal 3: Crashworthiness Research (Survivability), 94 Benefits of 21st Century Truck Partnership Safety Research, 94 References, 95 APPENDIXES A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 99 B Presentations and Committee Meetings 103 C R&D Funding Trends of the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program 105 D Vehicle Emission Regulations 107 E Acronyms and Abbreviations 112 F State of the Art in Light-Duty Electric Vehicles 114 G Members of the 21st Century Truck Partnership 116
Tables and Figures Tables 1-1 Widely Used Truck Weight Classes and Categories, 9 1-2 Heavy-Duty Emission Standards Model Year 2007 and Beyond, 12 1-3 Service Classes Used by EPA, 12 1-4 Additional Emission Requirements, 12 1-5 Timetable for Implementation of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) II Systems for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 13 1-6 Funding of the 21st Century Truck Partnership (Department of Energy Funds Only), FY 1999-2008, 16 3-1 Baseline and 21CTP Target Values from the Energy Audit Shown in Figure 3-1, 27 3-2 21CTP Funding for the Demonstration of 50 Percent Thermal Efficiency, 28 3-3 Reported Results of Thermal Efficiency Testing, 29 3-4 Technologies in Demonstrator Engines for Thermal Efficiency Testing, 30 3-5 Status of Achieving 2010 Emissions Standards at 50 Percent Efficiency, 31 3-6 Improvements Proposed for Reaching 50 Percent Thermal Efficiency, 32 3-7 Comparison of Engine Rated Power and Road Load Power, 36 3-8 Change in Thermal Efficiency (BSFC) from Peak Thermal Efficiency to 65 mph Road Load Condition, 37 3-9 Commercial Viability, 38 3-10 Comparison of ASTM Specifications for No. 2 Diesel Fuel and 100 Percent Biodiesel, 45 3-11 Sectoral Breakdown of CRADA Partners in Emission Control Research, 51 4-1 Reported HHV Fuel Economy Improvements, 57 4-2 Current Status of FreedomCAR Energy Storage Goals and NRC Evaluation, 61 5-1 Energy AuditâBaselines and Targets (80,000-lb Gross, 65-mph Level Road), 71 6-1 Fuel Use During Idling As Percentage of Total Fuel Use, 83 C-1 Budget Appropriations, Vehicle Technology Program, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, Parent Agency of 21st Century Truck Partnership in U.S. Department of Energy, FY 2003 through FY 2008, 106 D-1 Federal Tier 2 Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards: Emission Limits at Full Useful Life of 120,000 Miles, 109 D-2 Current California LEV II Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards, 109 D-3 Heavy-Duty Emission Standards Vehicle Model Year 2007 and Beyond, 110 D-4 Service Classes Used by EPA, 110 D-5 Additional Emission Requirements, 110 D-6 Timetable for Implementation of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) II Systems for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 111 xi
xii TABLES and FIGURES F-1 Technical Specifications for Production and Near-Production Vehicle Batteries, 114 FIGURES 1-1 Energy consumption of heavy trucks (more than 10,000 lb GVWR) compared with that of light trucks and passenger vehicles, 1970-2003, 10 1-2 Trends in annual miles driven by three different classes of vehicle: heavy trucks, light trucks, and passenger vehicles, 1966-2005, 10 1-3 For-hire transportation services compared with other sectors of the transportation industry, 10 1-4 Fuel economy (miles per gallon) of passenger vehicles, light trucks, and heavy-duty trucks (more than 10,000 lb), 1973-2005, 11 1-5 Energy use by the U.S. transportation sector, 1949-2005, 11 1-6 U.S. petroleum production and net imports, 1949-2005 (thousands of barrels per year), 11 1-7 Historical trend in exhaust emission standards for light-duty vehicles, by model year, 11 1-8 Historical trend in federal emission standards for heavy-duty diesel engines, by model year, 11 1-9 Appropriations to the 21CTP, FY 2003-2007 (shown as âHeavy Dutyâ) represent a declining proportion of the FCVT Program, 17 2-1 Interrelationships among 21CTP participants, 19 2-2 DOE goal setting process, 20 2-3 Government agency relationships, 21 2-4 DOE project management and innovation process, 24 2-5 Proposed table of project priorities, 25 3-1 Energy audit of a typical Class 8 tractor-trailer combination on a level road at a constant speed of 65 mph and a GVW of 80,000 lbs, 27 3-2 Heavy truck engine technology roadmap showing the effects of emission regulations on thermal efficiency, 35 3-3 DDC Series 60 12.7L brake-specific fuel consumption map, 36 3-4 Thirteen-mode steady-state emission test conditions, 37 3-5 Illustration of the operating range for LTC combustion, 42 3-6 Surface transportation fuel use, 44 3-7 Overall schedule, CRC ACES study, 54 3-8 Project organization, CRC ACES study, 54 4-1 Network chart for heavy hybrid propulsion, 58 7-1 Deaths due to large-truck accidents, 90 7-2 Large-truck and bus fatality rate (per 100 million total vehicle miles traveled), 90 D-1 Historical trend in emission standards for light-duty vehicles, 108 D-2 Historical trend in emission standards for heavy-duty diesel engines, 108