Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership: Third Report (2015)
Chapter: Appendix C: 21CTP Responses to Findings and Recommendations from NRC Phase 2 Report
21CTP Responses to Findings and Recommendations from NRC Phase 2 Report
This document provides a compilation of the findings and recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report, published in June 2012. This document also provides the 21st Century Truck Partnership’s responses to these findings and recommendations, organized in groups by report section. Within each section, findings and responses have been grouped together (and responded to) by topic.
NOTE: Findings/Recommendations marked with 
were highlighted in the executive summary of the 2012 report and are considered of particular importance.
|
OVERALL FINDINGS |
||
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
| 0-1 Overall Observations: 21CTP Overview |
 FINDING S-l. The key benefit of the 21st Century Truck Partnership is the coordination of research programs directed toward the goal of reducing fuel usage and emissions while increasing the safety of heavy-duty vehicles. Federal involvement is bringing stakeholders to the table and accelerating the pace of technological development. Given the federal regulatory requirements to reduce emissions and fuel consumption, it seems the sharing of research and development (R&D) costs between the government and U.S. manufacturers of trucks and buses or heavy-duty vehicle components is appropriate to develop new technologies. Thus, the 21CTP is providing access to the extraordinary expertise and equipment in federal laboratories, in addition to seed funding that draws financial commitment from the companies to push forward in new technology areas. The Partnership provides the United States with a forum in which the member agencies, in combination with industry, academia, and federal laboratories, can better coordinate their programs. The steady decline in research funding from FY 2003 through FY 2007 was threatening the attainment of program goals. The actual funding and need for R&D are discussed in Chapter 1. The funding level in the years prior to the availability of funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) was not in proportion to the importance of the goal of reducing the fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles and providing advanced technology for the industry to meet the 2014-2018 and later fuel consumption regulations. The ARRA funds provided by Congress in 2009-2010 have significantly enhanced the ability of the Partnership to meet and demonstrate the goals for reducing fuel-consumption and improving safety in prototype vehicles.
|
The Partnership concurs with the recommendation for continuation of our efforts, and remains committed to reducing fuel use in medium and heavy truck transportation in line with our stated mission and goals. The Partnership appreciates that the NAS panel is taking note of the enhanced activities toward meeting our goals, especially the new SuperTruck initiatives to enhance Class 8 truck efficiency from a whole-vehicle perspective.
The Partnership concurs that a review of additional partner participation should be undertaken. Through the SuperTruck projects, the Partnership has already been making contact with organizations beyond our existing partners, especially in the tire and trailer industries. In addition, the Partnership is beginning to build relationships with organizations by inviting them to present a technical discussion at full Partnership conference calls. The Partnership has also developed specific procedures for adding new members to the group, including the potential for adding associate members as appropriate. The Partnership concurs that well-formulated goals are critical to establishing research priorities and demonstrating success, and will continue to work collaboratively to revise the Partnership’s goals as such revisions prove necessary. We will work to encourage the federal government agencies to prioritize heavy vehicle research efforts that are in line with these goals. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
| 0-2 Overall Observations: 21CTP Goals, and Response to Recommendations |
FINDING S-2. The 21CTP leadership responded substantively to most of the recommendations of the National Research Council’s (NRC) Phase 1 review, which helped to contribute to the improved program that was the subject of this Phase 2 review. The committee commends the leadership of the Partnership for this effort.
|
The Partnership appreciates the recognition for its efforts in responding to the panel’s Phase 1 review, and appreciates the opportunity to interact with the panel to gain this valuable feedback.
The Partnership concurs that the 21CTP goals should remain relevant through periodic review and update. To that end, we will be conducting periodic reviews of the goals and the white papers, and revising them as needed to reflect current technical needs, funding availability, and Partnership direction. To the maximum extent possible, the Partnership will ensure that goals are relevant, related to available funding, and measurable. The frequency of such reviews has not yet been determined, but a yearly review has been suggested as appropriate. The Partnership concurs that it is important to have a clear definition of the projects considered to be part of 21CTP. For this reason, the Partnership is reviewing the potential to restart the project inventory activity that had been historically conducted to catalog 21CTP projects. In this way, the Partnership will be more readily able to define the list of projects relevant to 21CTP goals, and characterize the investments being made in technology research and development. |
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This section of the NAS report contained no findings or recommendations.
|
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND PRIORITY SETTING |
||
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
M-1
Management: “Virtual Organization” and Management Structure |
FINDING 2-1. The 21CTP is a virtual organization facilitating communication among four agencies, government laboratories, and industry, but it has no direct control over research activities or funding across the agencies or by its industry partners. The committee continues to believe that the lack of single-point 21CTP authority is far from optimal, although it recognizes that this is necessary because of the various congressional committees that the agencies report to and that provide their budgets.
|
The Partnership believes its informal virtual organization allows us to respond quickly to new initiatives and market changes, and is an advantage of the Partnership. We are consistently seeking ways to improve the operation of its virtual management structure to build on its strengths. We are exploring new communication methods for our members, such as a significantly revised internal 21CTP website. This new website, built on a SharePoint platform, is facilitating greater interaction and collaboration among government and industry’ partners through new tools and techniques available through SharePoint. The website was deployed in spring 2012.
In addition, the Partnership has continued its efforts to strengthen interagency partnerships. The new Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance (AVPTA) between DOD and DOE will assist in this regard by establishing clear research links between these agencies, specifically in the vehicle technologies area. DOE and DOT are maintaining and expanding their information exchange related to heavy truck fuel efficiency regulations, and the relationship of those regulations with 21CTP research efforts. DOE is working with EPA on a collaborative research program related to hydraulic hybrids, and maintains an information connection with the SmartWay Transport Partnership (partly through efforts with the DOE Clean Cities program). The Partnership plans to continue its schedule of meetings and conference calls to maintain connections among partners and to facilitate information exchange. The Partnership has encouraged the development of meetings at national laboratory sites whose expertise is relevant to 21CTP partner goals and objectives, and several new initiatives have resulted from these meetings. |
|
M-2
Management: Need for Annual Reporting |
FINDING 2-2. The EPA, DOD, and Department of Transportation (DOT) did not have a well- defined list of the projects and associated budgets that were included under the 21CTP umbrella. This stems in part from the virtual nature of the Partnership and partly, particularly within DOE, from the natural overlap in activities on batteries, hybrids, materials, and other areas between the activities for light-duty vehicles and the 21CTP. Many of these activities are reviewed at the annual DOE Merit Review and at Directions in Engine-Efficiency and Emissions Research (DEER) conferences, and the new SuperTruck projects include an annual reporting requirement, but there is no dedicated report for the 21CTP.
|
The Partnership concurs that no dedicated 21CTP report is available to outline progress made on 21CTP-specific projects. We do note, however, that detailed information on DOE-funded projects is made publicly available through the Vehicle Technologies Program website, in annual progress reports and reviews at conferences such as the merit review and DEER. Duplication of these information dissemination efforts would not be the best use of 21CTP resources. The Partnership will, however, consider the development of an annual report that would document 21CTP project progress and be complementary to existing report products. |
|
ENGINE SYSTEMS AND FUELS |
||
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
E-1
Engine Technology: 50% Thermal Efficiency Goals |
FINDING 3-1. The committee reviewed nine diesel engine programs that were funded at a total of more than $100 million by DOE and industry and that included the High Efficiency Clean Combustion (HECC) program, the Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) program, and others. Some programs met or exceeded their goals, for example achieving a 10.2 percent improvement in brake thermal efficiency (BTE) versus a 10 percent goal, whereas others did not quite meet the goals of 5 percent or 10 percent improvement in BTE. By combining HECC and WHR, each demonstrating greater than 10 percent improvement in BTE, together with other technologies, it should be possible to improve BTE by 20 percent to achieve the original DOE target of 50 percent peak BTE. However, the DOE target of 50 percent peak BTE was not met by the original goal of 2010.
FINDING 3-1A. The DOE has shifted the original target of 50 percent peak brake thermal efficiency by 2010 to a new target of 50 percent BTE at an operating point representative of vehicle load during highway cruise operation. This makes the efficiency target more difficult to meet and may require complex and expensive technology that extends beyond the technologies demonstrated on engines to date. These technologies will not necessarily be production- feasible or cost-effective. (NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
To respond to the recommendations provided in the first NAS review of 21CTP, DOE changed the operating point for the 50 percent thermal efficiency target within SuperTruck to be more representative of actual vehicle operation. Specifically, the operating point has been shifted from peak BTE to a load and speed point representative of 65 mph steady state operation (see Finding 3-6 from the first NAS review, and responses). The SuperTruck teams will be demonstrating achievement of the 50 percent BTE goal in actual engine operation as part of their development work.
The Partnership agrees that achievement of this target at the 65-mph speed-load point will be challenging, and that new technologies may be required. DOE addresses the question of production feasibility of technologies through the use of 50 percent cost-shared research. The 50 percent investment of company funding to supplement the DOE funding ensures that the participating companies have a financial stake in the research. This in turn encourages participating companies to focus on research directions that will provide a more immediate payback for their investment through production hardware. |
|
E-2
Engine Technology: 55% Thermal Efficiency Goals |
FINDING 3-2. The DOE-funded research in advanced engine combustion at the national laboratories, in industry, and at universities is well managed and addresses important aspects for achieving an integration of advanced combustion processes that should be important enablers for achieving the 55 percent BTE goal as well as providing ongoing improvements. There also appears to be good interaction between the researchers performing the work and the industry stakeholders. Efforts to achieve 55 percent BTE are going to require complex and expensive technologies. It will be some time before it becomes clear whether there is a production-feasible and cost-effective way to achieve the 55 percent BTE target The committee believes that this target carries considerable risk, even at the test cell demonstration stage.
|
The Partnership agrees with the need to continue research toward the 55 percent thermal efficiency goal, and has included this as a research goal for the SuperTruck partners (with technology scoping toward this goal being the major activity).
The Partnership will continue to look for new opportunities to work together: one possible new collaborative arena is the recently announced partnership between DOE and the U.S. Army (the Advanced Vehicle Power and Technology Alliance). DOE is working with the U.S. Army to identify areas of common interest that could result in collaborative research efforts. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
E-3
Engine Technology: Future R&D-SuperTruck |
FINDING 3-3. Future engine R&D for Goal 1, develop and demonstrate 50 percent BTE at over- the- road cruise conditions by 2015, and for Goal 2, research and develop technology pathways to achieve a stretch goal of 55 percent BTE in a 2010 emissions-compliant engine system in the laboratory by 2015, will be carried out under the SuperTruck program. The engine programs outlined by the three SuperTruck project teams appear to be comprehensive and are expected to achieve the 50 percent BTE goal, although there is risk in being able to achieve the goal at a cruise condition with the significantly reduced power demand level of the SuperTruck. Developing engine technology pathways to achieve the stretch goal of 55 percent BTE in an engine in a laboratory by 2015 is considered very high risk, but might be achievable.
|
Funding for advanced combustion engine research is coordinated and focused, and SuperTruck is a high priority within this research. Even though DOE funding is subject to annual appropriations, funding will be available to complete the engine R&D efforts contained in the SuperTruck teams. The teams are also receiving funds from other parts of program (including the Vehicle Systems and Materials subprograms).
Participating SuperTruck companies are also involved in the rest of the VTP R&D program (the advanced combustion MOU, the advanced engine crosscut team, and the Annual Merit Review), and are thus made aware of the DOE-funded advanced engine combustion programs. DOE’s Annual Merit Review included the SuperTruck team members as active participants, and presented the entire research portfolio to them. This ensures that SuperTruck teams are aware of the portfolio and can harvest breakthrough results for their use. |
|
E-4
Engine Technology: Alcohol-Fueled Engines (EPA) |
FINDING 3-4. The EPA has demonstrated that optimized E85 alcohol-fueled engines using conventional three-way catalysts for meeting 2010 emissions standards can achieve current diesel levels of BTE that can potentially provide engine technology suitable for both conventional and hybrid vehicles for the medium-duty fleet truck market
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
The Partnership appreciates the NRC panel’s observations on the potential benefits of optimized E85 engines for efficiency and emissions, and the work that EPA has done to explore this technology. Additional work on E85-optimized engines was performed by DOE through three industry projects with Ford, Delphi, and Bosch. These successful projects, which ran from late 2007 to late 2010, sought to reduce fuel consumption of engines operating on E85 while meeting all prevailing emission standards. |
|
E-5
Engine Technology: HCCI (EPA) |
FINDING 3-5. The EPA has developed an HCCI engine that operates in the HCCI mode at all times using low-pressure, port fuel injectors suited to the unique operating conditions of a series hydraulic hybrid vehicle. The unique operating conditions include a narrow range of operation at the best BTE condition for each engine speed, with only slow transient response times for changes in power demands. At these unique operating conditions, NOx and PM are below the levels required by the 2010 emissions standards without aftertreatment; HC and CO emissions are controlled with oxidation catalysts.
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
The Partnership appreciates the NRC panel’s highlight of EPA’s HCCI engine research to support its hydraulic hybrid development efforts. The Partnership plans to continue work on HCCI engines for efficiency and emissions improvements, subject to funding availability. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
E-6
Engine Technology: Complementary DOE and DOD Programs |
FINDING 3-6. The DOD has engine programs that are cooperative between industry and universities and have goals of improved BTE and other goals more specific to the Army.
RECOMMENDATION 3-3. The DOD and the DOE should increase their awareness of one another’s programs and look for opportunities to share technologies on areas of joint interest, such as thermal efficiency. One way to encourage interaction is for the DOE to invite DOD program participants to present their findings at the DEER (Diesel Engine-Efficiency and Emissions Research) Conference. |
In 2011, DOE and the U.S. Army announced the formation of a research collaboration, the Advanced Vehicle Power and Technology Alliance. DOE is working with the U.S. Army to identify areas of common interest that could result in collaborative research efforts. This partnership should enhance the interaction between these federal departments: some areas of collaboration have already been identified. The U.S. Army also participates in meetings of the Diesel Crosscut Team and the light-duty USCAR partnership with DOE and industiy partners.
Incorporation of DOD presentations at the yearly DEER meeting will also be considered: DOD has presented papers at DEER in the past, and DOE’s role as the chair for the meeting will ensure that DOD can have access to presenter slots as needed. |
|
E-7
Fuels Technology: Petroleum-Based Fuels |
FINDING 3-7. In spite of efforts to reduce the fuel consumption of light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and to develop biomass-derived fuels (an effort which, except for corn-based ethanol, has not progressed as much as had been expected), petroleum will remain the primary source of light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle fuel for many years to come. Whereas future U.S. gasoline demand is expected to be flat for the next 20 years, diesel fuel demand is expected to grow, necessitating changes in refinery operations.
|
The new, consolidated line incorporates the activities of both previous lines. Advanced petroleum based fuels are already the subject of a large portion of the projects supported under the new line. |
|
E-8
Fuels Technology: Lubricant Technology |
FINDING 3-8. The DOE recognizes the importance of reducing truck powertrain friction and the need for improved lubricants that reduce fuel consumption.
RECOMMENDATION 3-5. The DOE must work closely with industry in exploring improved lubricants that reduce fuel consumption, especially with regard to using such lubricants in existing truck engines and transmissions. |
The lubricants activity is relatively new, but DOE has always strived to work with vehicle and engine OEMs, as well as oil and additive companies. DOE is currently partnered directly with vehicle OEMs, such as Ford and GM, on projects looking at next generation oils. DOE also has partnerships on projects with engine manufacturers, such as Cummins, to look at advanced engine oil additives. The program also interacts with OEMs to develop lower-friction engine components through participation in the MIT Lubrication in Internal Combustion Engines Consortium, which includes Daimler, Volkswagen, Volvo, Toyota, PSA, Renault, and Mahle. DOE intends to continue and expand these collaborations in the future. It is also important to note lubricants will likely never drive major decisions at either engine companies or oil companies; therefore, a government role is essential in assuring this social good, i.e., a 2% increase in fuel economy. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
E-9
Fuels Technology: Program Goals |
FINDING 3-9. The DOE established three different sets of goals for the fuels program from 2008 to 2011, which made an assessment of progress against the goals difficult In total, little progress has been made toward the achievement of these DOE goals, which were not specified goals of the 21CTP.
|
We are continually open to reevaluation of our goals in light of budget changes. Recent budgets have been volatile, which complicates the effort -- e.g., between the FY12 Omnibus appropriation and the FY13 marks there has been a greater-than-40% cut - but we will continue to reevaluate as appropriate. |
|
E-10
Aftertreatment: Program Activities |
FINDING 3-10. The research agenda of the 21CTP is focused on improving the NOx reduction performance of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and lean- NOx-trap systems, improving the efficiency of and reducing the fuel consumption associated with particulate matter (PM) filter regeneration, and improving the ability to model aftertreatment systems. The DOE Cross-cut Lean Exhaust Emissions Reductions Simulations (CLEERS) program does a good job of coordinating the aftertreatment research programs within the 21CTP and disseminating the results to the technical community at large.
|
The Partnership agrees with this assessment to continue the aftertreatment programs. Combustion and aftertreatment activities are continuing under the SuperTruck projects, which are looking to achieve stretch efficiency goals while meeting current stringent emission standards: this produces a need for continuing aftertreatment research. |
|
E-11
Aftertreatment: Particle Number Emissions Studies |
FINDING 3-12. Particulate size distribution is not a problem with current diesel-type combustion using DPFs. However, as new combustion processes, possibly using different fuels ranging from petroleum-derived fuels to bio-fuels and synthetics, are integrated into future engine operating maps, it is important to assess particulate size distribution characteristics if particulate filter designs are changed or if DPFs are not used.
RECOMMENDATION 3-8. In light of the progress being made with new combustion technologies, which show potential for very low cylinder-out NOx and particulate emissions, the 21CTP should incorporate studies of particulate number emissions into their research portfolio. |
The Partnership is aware of the evolving interest in particulate number regulation (number of particles and size distribution], especially in Europe. We are currently measuring these parameters in several projects with the national laboratories, universities, and industiy. |
|
E-12
Health Impacts |
FINDING 3-13. The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES], the Collaborative Lubricating Oil Study on Emissions (CLOSE], and the project on Measurement and Characterization of Unregulated Emissions from Advanced Technologies are comprehensive and cooperative projects that are investigating important issues related to potential heavy-duty diesel engine health effects. Based on the activities reported, the committee finds a high degree of collaboration among government agencies, national laboratories, and industry stakeholders.
|
The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study will continue for FY 2013, and the other named projects have achieved their objectives. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
E-13
Propulsion Materials |
FINDING 3-14. The propulsion materials program is addressing a broad range of materials issues associated with heavy-truck propulsion systems. Many of the initiatives are funded as cooperative R&D agreements (CRADAs) with significant industry cost sharing, showing strong support by industry for this area of work.
|
The Partnership agrees with this finding. The U.S. Department of Energy continues to fund research in materials that will enable improved efficiency in HD engines and after treatment devices. |
|
E-14
High-Temperature Materials Laboratory |
FINDING 3-15. The HTML continues to be a valuable resource for materials research for the 21CTP, providing specialized and in many cases unique instrumentation and professional expertise. The expertise of those who oversee the laboratory, and therefore the value of HTML to all users, is enhanced by the participation of the HTML staff in the research.
|
The Partnership agrees with this finding, stating that the HTML is a valuable resource to 21CTP materials researchers. The prioritization of funding for DOE programs resides with Congressional budget authority and is beyond the scope of the 21CTP partnership. |
|
MEDIUM AND HEAVY-DUTY HYBRID VEHICLES |
||
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
H-1
Hybrid and Battery Goals |
FINDING 4-1. Although 2012 has been established as the deadline for 21CTP Goals 1 and 2 for hybrid vehicle technology, it is unlikely that these will be met, as there has been no funding for either goal. However, with regard to Goal 2, the DOE Office of Vehicle Technologies’ battery R&D program is supporting a large number of programs addressing issues ranging from fundamental materials research through battery development and testing. Significant progress has been made in developing domestic manufacturing facilities for battery materials production and recycling, cell production, and pack assembly. Although the applicability of these programs to heavy-duty applications was not provided to the committee, the committee believes that these developments are supportive of the needs of medium- and heavy-duty hybrid applications. (NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
The Partnership agrees with this finding. The DOE Vehicle Technologies Program’s hybrid and electric system R&D program is supporting a large number of projects on development of advanced batteries, power electronics, and electric machines. Significant progress has been made in developing domestic manufacturing facilities for lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries, and for electric drive system components. These developments are directly applicable or broadly supportive of the diverse needs of the various highly differentiated medium- and heavy-duty hybrid vehicle mission profiles. |
|
H-2
Hybrid Goals |
FINDING 4-2. The DOE did not receive any funding for heavy-duty hybrid R&D in FY 2007 through FY 2010. Consequently, no progress was reported toward the 21CTP’s three heavy- duty hybrid goals, primarily focused on R&D, for achieving 15 years of design life, achieving cost goals for drive-unit systems and energy storage systems, and achieving a 60 percent improvement in fuel economy (38 percent reduction in fuel consumption). During this period, the DOE made progress in developing heavy-duty hybrid simulations and models and conducting fleet testing and evaluations of heavy-duty hybrid vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION 4-1. The DOE should provide an up-to-date status with respect to the heavy- duty hybrid goals. The DOE should partition the available hybrid funds between heavy-duty and light-duty hybrid R&D technology to promote the R&D required for the development of heavy- duty hybrid technologies, since heavy-duty hybrid requirements are significantly different from light-duty requirements. |
DOE does not have specific hybrid goals for light-duty hybrids. Research and Development (R&D) and corresponding goals are for component technologies (e.g. batteries, electric motors, etc…). These technologies and the R&D advances should be scalable across vehicle weight classes in many cases. |
|
H-3
ARRA-Transportation Electrification |
FINDING 4-3. More than 1,800 commercial vehicles are being funded through the ARRA by the DOE to aid in the development and demonstration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles in fleets. One of the objectives of this program is to develop U.S. manufacturing capacity for all-electric drive components (energy storage, drive motors, power electronics, etc.). However, in at least one of these projects, the battery cells are being manufactured outside the United States.
RECOMMENDATION 4-2. The DOE should determine what is needed for the battery cells and other electric drive components in the ARRA-Transportation Electrification programs aimed at development and manufacturing in the United States, as specified in the objectives of these programs. |
The objective of the ARRA Transportation Electrification grants are to demonstrate, collect data, and evaluate potential grid impacts of electric-drive vehicles that are ultimately produced in the United States. While DOE encourages domestic sourcing of components used in the vehicles, there is no requirement that the components be manufactured in the United States. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
H-4
Hybrid Emissions Certification |
FINDING 4-4. The EPA and DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued their final rules on September 15, 2011, for “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.” Although these standards contain test procedures for determining fuel consumption for heavy-duty hybrid trucks, a manufacturer still needs a certificate of conformity showing that a vehicle’s internal combustion engine meets the EPA criteria emission standards for heavy-duty engines (a procedure that does not recognize hybrid heavy-duty trucks). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is currently drafting vehicle-level test procedures for heavy-duty hybrid vehicles.
|
DOE agrees that the proposed test procedure development should be performed by EPA and DOT’S NHTSA. |
|
H-5
Hybrid Business Case/Break-even Time |
FINDING 4-5. The 21CTP acknowledges that current heavy-duty hybrid vehicle break-even times, without subsidies, based on current costs and fuel consumption improvements, are typically twice as long as the 5 years that fleets normally require for a return on investment on new hardware for cost savings. Heavy-duty hybrid components tend to be costly since they are not designed or optimized for the application and are produced in low volumes. Fuel-economy improvements of heavy-duty hybrid vehicles have not achieved the 60 percent improvement goal (38 percent reduction in fuel consumption).
RECOMMENDATION 4-4. Dual paths should be pursued to achieve a break-even time of 5 years for heavy-duty hybrid vehicles. First, the DOE should use its vehicle simulation tools to determine the advanced technologies needed to meet the goal of 60 percent improvement in fuel economy (38 percent reduction in fuel consumption), from the current status of 20 to 40 percent improvement (17 to 29 percent reduction in fuel consumption) and initiate R&D programs to develop these technologies. Second, manufacturers should be encouraged to explore modular, flexible designs, which could yield higher production volumes and thus achieve significant reductions in capital costs of hybrid systems. |
DOE is prepared to assist industry in these types of studies. DOE does not plan to conduct or initiate hybrid centric R&D programs. DOE’s focus is on electric-drive component R&D to develop technologies that can be integrated by manufacturers into advanced technology vehicles. |
|
H-6
Revised Hybrid Goals |
FINDING 4-6. Six new stretch technical goals have been established by the 21CTP for heavy- duty hybrid vehicles. The committee agrees with the 21CTP that these are indeed stretch goals. Specific plans for achieving these new goals, some of which were carried over from the previous three goals that had been set for hybrids, were not provided to the committee. Nor was the rationale provided for these new goals, although they are appropriately focused on fuel consumption reductions, cost reduction, and a 15-year design life for the technologies. They appear to be reasonable technical goals. The cost and design life objectives in the previous goals had been identified earlier by the 21CTP as being necessary for achieving commercially viable heavy-duty hybrid vehicles. It is expected that a significant budget would be required through the target dates specified in the new goals, and a significant increase from the zero budget for heavy-duty hybrid R&D over the past 3 years would be required.
|
The Partnership concurs that planning for these updated goals is critical: the Partnership industry and government members will be working as a team to conduct these planning efforts and identify the appropriate parameters for successful achievement of the goals, subject to available funding.
Ongoing research results will inform goal revisions. Two of the SuperTruck teams are developing and integrating full hybrid systems into Class 8 vehicles. In addition, ORNL will be installing and testing a full heavy-duty hybrid system in a dedicated test cell. 21CTP will use these project findings to revise goals as appropriate. |
|
VEHICLE POWER DEMANDS |
||
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
VPD-1
Vehicle Aerodynamics |
FINDING 5-1. Aerodynamic improvement studies need to become increasingly integrated, as individual component improvements are typically not additive. Appropriately, the perspective of the 21CTP for the SuperTruck projects is to utilize a vehicle systems approach for the validation of research and development results.
FINDING 5-2. The aerodynamic test procedures may not be sufficiently precise and only wind tunnel testing accounts for important yaw effects, so that competitive pressures discourage truck-tractor manufacturers from publishing Cd figures. Recommendation 5-15 from the National Research Council’s 2010 report entitled TECHNOLOGIES AND APPROACHES TO REDUCING THE FUEL CONSUMPTION OF MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES provided good suggestions for standardizing Cd reporting. FINDING 5-3. The proposed EPA/NHTSA greenhouse gas emissions standards rule chose not to regulate trailer operational efficiency. Regardless of the reasons, this seems a significant omission, because both trailer aerodynamic devices and low-rolling-resistance tires that are currently production-available can provide an immediate, combined fuel consumption reduction of about 13 percent (compared to the rule’s baselines). FINDING 5-4. Aerodynamic design packages are expected to improve tractor-trailer fuel consumption by 19 percent at 65 mph when fully developed in the 2015-2020 time period. This reduction corresponds to a Cd reduction of nearly 40 percent (from the newly adopted 0.69 Cd baseline). RECOMMENDATION 5-1. The Partnership should consider setting an aerodynamic drag stretch goal of 40 percent instead of 30 percent |
The Partnership is aware of the NRC’s recent work on heavy truck fuel consumption for EPA and NHTSA and the results of that work. The Partnership’s work acknowledges the importance of trailers to the operational efficiency of the vehicle, and has made efforts to include trailer efficiency considerations in its SuperTruck research activities, from a vehicle systems perspective.
The Partnership periodically reviews its goals and objectives to ensure they are in alignment with current technology progress and government agency research plans. SuperTruck research results will help inform future aerodynamic goal revisions. As information about the technology status of the aerodynamics work within SuperTruck becomes available, the Partnership will reexamine its goals for aerodynamics and adjust as necessary to provide the appropriate stretch targets. |
|
VPD-2
Wide-Base Single Tires - Rolling Resistance Goal |
FINDING 5-5. Next-generation wide-base single tires (NGWBSTs) can provide a combination tractor-trailer with an immediate 10.5 percent fuel-consumption reduction and up to a 15 percent reduction in the next 5 years, but many fleets do not yet embrace the technology.
RECOMMENDATION 5-2. The DOE should set the goal for reduced rolling resistance for the tires of the combination tractor-van trailer, rather than for the tractor drive wheels only, since improved-performance trailer tires are equally important to realizing the full benefit of reduced rolling resistance designs. This benefit can be achieved by combining the EPA base values for steer and drive tires in the EPA/NHTSA GHG rule, with an assumed trailer tire Crr value of about 0.0072. |
The Partnership concurs that a systems view of tire rolling resistance (including both tractor and trailer tires) is important to realizing the benefits of these tire technologies, and will take this into consideration when reviewing and revising Partnership goals. DOE, as a member of the Partnership, has initiated three tire technology projects in FY2012 (cross-cutting between light duty and heavy duty vehicles) that target 2% fuel consumption reduction for the full vehicle from rolling resistance improvements and automatic tire inflation. |
|
VPD-3
Wide-Base Single Tires - Retrofits |
FINDING 5-6. Carriers need to follow carefully the recommendations of axle manufacturers for replacing dual tires with single-wide tires to ensure that the integrity of the load system is not compromised.
RECOMMENDATION 5-3. The 21CTP should consider producing a comprehensive summary that can be updated giving the prescriptions and precautions that carriers should consider when retrofitting NGWBSTs onto original equipment axles fitted with dual wheels and tires. This effect might best be managed in conjunction with the American Trucking Associations’ (ATA’s) Technology and Maintenance Council, which has drafted such a Recommended Practice and is a specialist in creating such directives for ATA membership (ATA, 2007). |
The Partnership agrees that safety is extremely important when considering retrofits of NGWBS tires on existing trucks. The Partnership would encourage the use and promotion of Technology and Maintenance Council Recommended Practices to address this issue, and will consider addressing relevant safety concerns in the white papers and other 21CTP documentation addressing the use of NGWBS tires. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
VPD-4
Wide-Base Single Tires - Rolling Resistance Test Procedure |
FINDING 5-7. There is no rolling resistance test procedure with inter-laboratory correlation universally employed as an industry standard.
|
The Partnership agrees that identifying and addressing barriers to NGWBS tire acceptance are critical in expanding the use of this technology to improve truck efficiency. The Partnership will consider the possibility of conducting a study of barriers, subject to available resources.
Truck tire manufacturers at present do not correlate rolling resistance measurements among one another to any large extent: this may be due to the fact that rolling resistance has not been a specification provided to tire manufacturers by the vehicle OEMs. (In the case of light-duty tires, the vehicle OEM considers tire rolling resistance to be a veiy important performance requirement) This may change as new truck fuel consumption regulations are imposed, and the need for lower rolling resistance tires increases. It should be noted that the ISO 28580 standard calls for a reference laboratory, but this has not yet been identified. The Partnership agrees that lack of consistent rolling resistance measurement could be a barrier to increased acceptance of NGWBS tires, along with the lack of education for fleets and owner-operators on the benefits of low rolling resistance tires. Absent any requirements to provide rolling resistance information at the point of sale, this information is not generally available to the tire purchaser. |
|
VPD-5
Auxiliary Power Demands R&D |
FINDING 5-8. The More Electric Truck may achieve about one-third of the auxiliaries’ reduction goal for a loaded tractor-trailer. Better quantification is expected to result through two of the SuperTruck projects.
RECOMMENDATION 5-5. The Partnership should renew R&D efforts to further reduce fuel consumption related to auxiliary power demands. |
The partnership should monitor auxiliary load improvements resulting from the SuperTruck projects. |
|
VPD-6
Lightweight Materials |
FINDING 5-9. Several projects that were carried out prior to 2007 have shown the potential for the reduction in weight of individual components and subsystems. However, to date there has been no integrated full vehicle project to show that the goal of reducing the weight of a Class 8 tractor-trailer by 3,400 lb can be achieved. Moreover, the NRC Phase 1 report had recommended that such a project, using prototype components, vehicle integration, and full- vehicle system analysis, should be carried out by industrial partners–led by original equipment manufacturers. The new SuperTruck program appears to be a response to this suggestion.
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
The Partnership agrees with this finding. The current SuperTruck program is addressing the use of advanced materials to reduce the weight and improve the freight efficiency of class 8 heavy trucks. |
|
VPD-7
Thermal Management |
FINDING 5-10. Heavy-duty truck thermal management objectives are growing in importance as new systems to improve both engine and truck efficiency, particularly waste heat recovery systems, become reality. These are accompanied by new heat management issues and are expected to be added to trucks in the current decade.
RECOMMENDATION 5-6. The Partnership should continue priority support of nano-fluid and high- efficiency under-hood cooling systems, as well as review other potential technical concepts, and validate them as an integrated system. |
DOE is planning to expand R&D on high efficiency HVAC systems. DOE agrees and is continuing support of nano-fluid and high-efficiency under-hood cooling systems. DOE will monitor other potential technology solutions to reach thermal management objectives. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
VPD-8
Driveline Power Demand |
FINDING 5-11. There is a need for an updated study of the current driveline power demand of 12 hp. Furthermore, to represent vehicle power demand power consumptions only, it is appropriate that the term “powertrain” be removed from the 21CTP Goal 5.b. statement.
RECOMMENDATION 5-7. The term “powertrain” should be removed from the 21 CTP Goal S.b statement. In addition, the Partnership should update its study on the driveline power demand of 12 hp. |
The Partnership concurs: a subsequent revision to the Partnership’s goal wording made after the completion of this review has removed the word “powertrain” from the subject goal, which will be published as part of the final white paper/roadmap document.
The Partnership will review the current information on driveline power demand and consider updates to this study. The Partnership will review research results from the SuperTruck teams to gather current technology information for power demand, and revise assessments of power demand as appropriate. |
|
VPD-9
Lubricant Collaborations |
FINDING 5-12, There has been no apparent collaboration on lubricant projects between the DOE and OEM partners.
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
As noted in the response to Recommendation 3-5, DOE works closely with a variety of OEM partners on lubricant projects, including both direct partnerships with vehicle and engine OEMs, and indirect partnerships through research consortia such as the MIT Lubrication in Internal Combustion Engines Consortium. While DOE has only worked directly with one 21CTP heavy-duty partner on lubricant issues (Cummins), results from the complete range of lubricant projects within VTP are made available to 21CTP partners through a variety of means. DOE is open to collaborative efforts on lubricant projects with 21CTP partners in the future. |
|
VPD-10
Overall Vehicle Power Demands Findings |
FINDING 5-13. Summarizing the committee’s findings on vehicle power demands: Project prioritization by the 21CTP roughly follows the consumption ranking of the several heavy-duty truck operating loads in Table 5-1 (see Chapter 5 in the report) and technology risk. However, sometimes market forces provide considerable impetus for quite good development and implementation–for example, in tire rolling resistance and, to a lesser extent, trailer aerodynamic components. The DOE has identified a strong role in which technology development costs and risks are high, as in its vehicle systems simulation and testing activities for heavy-duty trucks. It has generally followed these principles, to address high costs and risks, in the vehicle power demand projects. The SuperTruck projects will provide a unique Partnership opportunity to provide both further high-risk technology results for certain vehicle power demand reductions and real-world validation of numerous integrated systems.
|
The SuperTruck projects are designed to develop combinations of advanced technologies into a Class 8 platform that can be commercialized in the near-term. In order to ensure commercial viability, the technologies are chosen by each industry team and not dictated by DOE. Technical approaches for reducing petroleum consumption that are not addressed by the SuperTruck projects may be appropriate for investigation through other pathways that address longer term technology development |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
IR-3
Solid-Oxide Fuel Cells for Idle Reduction |
FINDING 6-3. The Delphi solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) auxiliary power unit (APU) provides several advantages over diesel APUs, but it has significant issues in its current development status, including the following: low efficiency of 25 percent versus DOE’s goal of 35 percent, and low demonstrated output power of 1,5 kW versus 3.0 kW believed sufficient by Delphi and 5 kW of typical diesel APUs; limited demonstrated durability; 2- to 5-hour warm-up time to the 750°C operating temperature; and the need to keep it operating at idle throughout the workday to maintain temperature. The 10-year funding for this program expires in 2011.
|
The information presented during the 21CTP NAS review was based upon one of our initial A-Level prototype units. Since then, we have made significant progress and are now assembling our B-Level prototype units. These units should be capable of demonstrating the targeted goal of 35% efficiency and output of 3kW.
On the SOFC stack, Delphi has completed more than 10,000 hours of durability testing. Additionally, we have accumulated thousands of hours of on-truck, real-work application data. We are scheduled to deliver a B-Level unit during Q1 ’12 to a national fleet for use on one of their regular in-service long haul trucks. Currently, our start-up time is ~2 hours. The 5-hour example reported on represented a given demonstration. Our goal is to be at operating temperature in under 1-hour. Current costs reflect laboratory built prototype units. Delphi is investing in production intent tooling to drive down overall unit cost. Funding to date has allowed Delphi, as well as other fuel cell developers, to move their products from concept design to real-world demonstrations. Congress has recently reinstated funding for SECA and other fuel cell programs. Delphi will use the re-funded SECA program to further improve the power output and durability of its SOFC stack. |
|
IR-4
Relation of Idle Reduction Plans to Fuel Efficiency Standards |
FINDING 6-4. Idle reduction technologies could provide 6 percent reduction in overall fuel consumption for Class 8 long-haul trucks with sleeper cabs, which is nearly 30 percent of the 20 percent reduction in the fuel consumption required to meet the EPA/NHTSA proposed 2017 fuel consumption standards.
|
The 21CTP agrees that the EPA’s rulemaking to establish fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty truck fleets provides an incentive to look beyond Class 8 long-haul trucks with sleeper cabs to other types of trucks for additional opportunities to apply idle reduction technologies. We feel that a substantial improvement to the idle reduction goal would include support to establish a program to address the fuel wasted in work day idling of all types of vocational trucks. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
IR-5
Idle Reduction Goals and Objectives |
FINDING 6-5. In February 2011, the 21CTP deleted the quantification of the overall goal to reduce fuel use and emissions produced by idling engines. The 21CTP issued five new goals for idle reduction and designated the goals that had been in place through 2010 as “action items.” The new goals are generally not supported by the “action items.” A separate budget for idle reduction for FY 2012 has not been proposed, although idle reduction will be addressed by the SuperTruck program. The 21CTP has stated that, “without funding dedicated to this effort [the idle reduction goals], it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish these goals” [DOE, 2011).
RECOMMENDATION 6-5. The 21CTP should revise its new idle reduction goals to include metrics, funding, and timing for the overall goal of reducing fuel use and emissions produced by idling engines. The associated “action items” should be supportive of these goals. |
The 21CTP agrees with the NAS recommendation that the inclusion of a progressive and measurable program for idle reduction goals development is needed along with the year-to-year funding necessary to develop data to enable such an approach. |
|
SAFETY |
||
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
S-1
Safety Goals |
FINDING 7-1. The wording of 21CTP Safety Goals 1 and 2 as now written might be subject to misinterpretation by some as allowing the compromise of safety in the effort to improve fuel consumption.
RECOMMENDATION 7-1. The Partnership should review the wording of its safety goals and consider rewording them so as to unambiguously state that safety will not be compromised in reducing fuel consumption. |
The Partnership will review wording of safety goals to ensure appropriate emphasis is placed on safety–and that safety is not compromised in achieving fuel efficiency goals. |
|
S-2
Crash Avoidance |
FINDING 7-2. Vehicle crashworthiness and occupant protection systems have seen extensive deployment, have contributed greatly to improved highway safety, and have achieved extensive North American fleet penetration. The next important step is to prevent crashes altogether.
RECOMMENDATION 7-2. The committee supports the emphasis that the DOT and the 21CTP are giving to crash-avoidance technologies and recommends that crash-avoidance technologies continue to be given high priority and technical support |
The Partnership agrees with the committee’s observations and recommendations. |
|
S-3
Review of Safety Goals - Relation to TRB Study |
FINDING 7-3. The DOT has met its heavy-truck safety goals for the past 4 years. However, the committee observes that the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) 2010 study Achieving Traffic Safety Goals in the United States: Lessons from Other Nations has shown that other nations have established more aggressive initiatives and goals with impressive results, and those results suggest that even greater improvement in highway safety is possible in the United States. The committee also notes that overall improvements in highway safety also yield improvements in heavy-duty truck safety, as most heavy-duty truck fatal accidents involve a light-duty vehicle.
|
DOT will review the TRB study (Achieving Traffic Safety Goals in the United States: Lessons from Other Nations). DOT regularly re-evaluates its safety goals each year, and will take into consideration information from this study, as well as the special circumstances impacting traffic safety in United States. |
|
S-4
Fuel Consumption Impact of Safety Improvements |
FINDING 7-4. Some of the potential safety improvements considered by the committee may have negligible impact on fuel consumption and, in some cases, appear to have positive implications. However, further study of the potential highway safety impact of high productivity vehicles is warranted.
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
USDOT will launch a major study of this issue based on direction given in MAP-21; specifically, Section 32801 requires completing a “Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study”. The scope of this study can be found in the authorizing legislation. |
|
SUPERTRUCK PROJECTS |
||
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
ST-1
SuperTruck Overview |
FINDING 8-1. The three SuperTruck projects will be the flagship projects under the 21CTP for FY 2011 through FY 2014; the goals are in concert with recommendations made in the 2008 NRC Phase 1 report A large portion of the DOE 21CTP budget will be devoted to these three projects. Each SuperTruck project integrates a wide range of technologies into a single demonstration vehicle (engine, waste heat recovery, driveline, rolling resistance, tractor and trailer aerodynamics, idle reduction, weight reduction technologies, etc.), and the contractors are pursuing sufficiently different technical paths to avoid excessive duplication of effort The results will help determine which fuel-saving technologies are ready and cost-effective for original equipment manufacturer (OEM)-level product development programs.
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
The Partnership concurs with this finding, and appreciates the panel’s observations about the alignment of goals with their previous recommendations. VTP is placing a high priority on completing these SuperTruck projects and achieving the goals set forth for them. |
|
ST-2
SuperTruck Goals |
FINDING 8-2. Rather than have a number of targets for each subsystem, the SuperTruck projects have only two types of goals: one for the engine and one for overall vehicle fuel efficiency. This approach reflects the EPA/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approach to heavy-duty fuel efficiency regulations. Each project team is allowed to select a set of technologies that meet the project goals. The engine goal of 50 percent BTE for the demonstration vehicle appears to be feasible, although there is risk in being able to achieve it at a cruise condition. The engine goal of 55 percent BTE demonstrated in a test cell is very high risk but might be achievable. The overall vehicle goal of a 33 percent reduction in load-specific fuel consumption appears to be feasible.
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
The SuperTruck projects are required to use modeling and analysis to identify the key pathways to the 55% efficiency goal, as outlined in the original solicitation (excerpted below). The teams are not required to demonstrate the 55% goal in a test cell engine, but can do so optionally.
“As a separate and parallel effort, proposers shall identify, through modeling and analysis, key pathways to achieving our long-term goal of developing a 55% efficient (brake thermal efficiency) heavy-duty diesel engine. Critical components and/or systems needing specific development to achieve this goal should also be identified. This engine must be capable of meeting 2010 emission standards, and be commercially viable.” As the NAS panel notes, the SuperTruck teams are required to demonstrate the 50% efficiency goal in actual engine hardware. |
|
ST-3
Fuel Consumption versus Fuel Economy |
FINDING 8-3. Unfortunately, the SuperTruck program expresses vehicle efficiency targets in terms of fuel economy rather than fuel consumption. The vehicle target is stated as a 50 percent improvement in fuel economy rather than as a 33 percent reduction in fuel consumption. This can lead to confusion regarding the actual benefits of the program.
RECOMMENDATION 8-1. The DOE should state the SuperTruck program vehicle efficiency goals in terms of load-specific fuel consumption and track progress on this basis–that is gallons per 1,000 ton-miles, which is the metric used in the EPA/NHTSA fuel consumption regulations. |
The Partnership acknowledges the NAS panel’s concerns, but notes that the 50 percent improvement in freight fuel efficiency goals for the SuperTruck program (expressed as ton miles per gallon) were established as part of the original solicitation, which cannot be altered at this stage.
The Partnership will present the results of analysis efforts regarding projected program benefits for SuperTruck and other VTP initiatives in terms of reductions in fuel consumption (typically total gallons displaced) wherever possible. To the extent possible, reporting on SuperTruck benefits will be reported both in terms of freight fuel efficiency (ton miles per gallon) and fuel consumption (gallons per thousand ton miles). |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
ST-4
SuperTmck Plans |
FINDING 8-4. The committee believes that the SuperTruck project teams have developed plans that address the needs of the SuperTruck program and that have a reasonable chance for success. The keys to success include proper implementation of the plans along with the flexibility to adapt to new information and intermediate results during the course of the project.
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
The Partnership concurs with this finding about the importance of planning and implementation of the plans to the success of SuperTruck. |
|
ST-5
Test Cycles |
FINDING 8-5. The SuperTruck projects allow each team to design its own test duty cycle(s) within certain constraints. One negative consequence of this approach is that the three trucks may never be tested using a common cycle for comparison.
|
The goal of the SuperTruck project was to develop efficiency technologies that would improve Class 8 truck efficiency, and do so from a systems viewpoint to optimize these technologies to fit customer needs. The project was not intended to focus simply on meeting the EPA/NHTSA fuel consumption regulations: rather, it was intended to be an examination of the future technology possibilities for greatly improving the efficiency of Class 8 trucks to go beyond the regulations.
The Partnership notes that the concept of imposing a common duty cycle among the SuperTruck teams is a good engineering idea, but does not necessarily fit with how the participating SuperTruck vehicle OEMs develop vehicles for their customers. The OEMs have differing customer bases with differing duty cycle needs, and the vehicles are tailored to accommodate these needs. In addition, the OEMs address different market segments, so a truck optimized for a single duty cycle may not represent all customers. It would certainly be possible to test all SuperTruck prototypes on all the duty cycles identified by the teams, but this testing would be extensive and likely cost prohibitive. The allowance for team-driven duty cycles was the best tradeoff that DOE could make at the time of the RFP release. |
|
ST-6
Scope of SuperTruck - Vehicle Demonstration |
FINDING 8-6. The SuperTruck projects go beyond the scope of previous 21CTP projects. Instead of relying entirely on simulations and laboratory testing, each of these projects will result in a drivable truck. The committee believes that it is important to take technologies that have been developed to date and implement them in a real vehicle. Often, the application of new technologies in real-world applications yields unexpected results, and these results must be explored before any new technology can be considered ready for production implementation.
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
The Partnership concurs with this finding, and also believes that it is critical to implement efficiency technologies in real vehicle applications to demonstrate their effectiveness and encourage their ultimate market uptake. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
EO-4
Driver Management |
FINDING 9-4. Driver-management features must be carefully researched and developed in cooperation with vehicle manufacturers and operators. There are important concerns with driver-management features that need to be addressed, regarding unintended consequences stemming from allowing the vehicle (or its controller) to ignore or modify driver input. Consideration must also be given to identifying the types of intervention that drivers would accept.
(NO RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED) |
Driver-management features such as progressive shift, road- speed governors and smart cruise control systems provide a technical means to achieve more efficient driving by influencing driver behavior with imposed speed or operational controls. The 21CTP agrees that such systems can provide significant fuel saving benefits and that further research in this area is needed. Of course, it is understood that the driver’s ability to control a vehicle is critical to highway safety, and the Partnership strongly agrees that development of driver management/feedback systems should be done with careful consideration of any potential negative consequences to safety or other aspects of vehicle operation. |
|
EO-5
Trucking Efficiency - Work with Trucking Companies |
FINDING 9-5. Trucking companies already have very strong economic incentives to improve operational efficiency and average load factors. As a result, they are making significant investment in logistics technology. In addition, shippers have an economic incentive to reduce die size and weight of packaging materials. The trucking industry is a valuable source of ideas, data, and experience regarding efficiency, and the industry can help agencies avoid unintended negative consequences of efforts to improve efficiency.
RECOMMENDATION 9-4. The DOE and DOT should work with the trucking industry to take advantage of the ideas, data, and experience that the industry can provide to accelerate efficiency improvements and to avoid unintended negative outcomes of efforts to improve trucking efficiency. |
The Partnership concurs with this finding and recommendation. Any efforts aimed at improved logistics management and trucking operations must be performed in collaboration with the trucking industry to ensure that best practices are not violated and any newly proposed solutions can be effectively implemented with minimal or no negative consequences on fleet operations, safety, or road damage. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
EO-6
High-Productivity Vehicles |
FINDING 9-6. High-productivity vehicles, known as HPVs or LCVs, as currently configured and using current technology, can reduce fuel consumption by up to 28 percent In addition, HPVs can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, truck vehicle miles traveled, congestion, shipper costs, truck highway accidents, road damage, and truck driver shortages.
FINDING 9-7. High-productivity vehicles have proven to be a highly controversial and emotional topic. Some U.S. states, as well as countries including Canada, Australia, and the Scandinavian countries, have extensive experience with HPV operations and safety performance. Operational limitations and equipment policy used for decades in Canada have significantly increased safety for HPVs compared with that of more conventional tractor-trailers. In 2002, the NRC’s Transportation Research Board proposed a process, to be led by a congressionally chartered Commercial Traffic Effects Institute, to make decisions regarding a number of critical and historically controversial issues that effectively have prevented the growth of HPV use for nearly three decades. As far as the committee can determine, no action on the CTEI recommendation has been considered by Congress. FINDING 9-8. The draft white paper on efficient operations brings up the topic of high productivity vehicles and the possibility of raising weight and size limits to accommodate them. However, the white paper focuses narrowly on 6-axle tractor-trailer combinations with weights up to 100,000 lb (45.5 metric tons) and does not address other options that increase volumetric freight capacity or that allow weights beyond 100,000 lb. FINDING 9-9. The committee finds the case for fuel savings of HPVs compelling, and the case for improved safety of HPVs compared to that of standard 5-axle semi-tractor trucks is also strong. RECOMMENDATION 9-5. The DOT and DOE should look at the full range of high productivity vehicles in use in some U.S. states and around the world and review the literature available on the safety and fuel-saving performance of these vehicles. The assessment should take into consideration that the higher productivity of these vehicles can also be used to justify the implementation of additional safety technologies. RECOMMENDATION 9-6. The DOT and DOE, in discussion with the Congress, should consider the recommendations of the Transportation Research Board regarding the establishment of a Commercial Traffic Effects Institute or a similar approach. |
The NRC panel pointed out a number of important additional points concerning high productivity vehicle use that were not highlighted in the draft white paper on efficient operations. A more thorough literature review in the white paper is appropriate for this topic and is planned for the next version of the white paper. The Partnership fully agrees with these findings and the recommendations, including the consideration of recommendations made in TRB Special Report 267 (Transportation Research Board, 2002), in particular the establishment of a Commercial Traffic Effects Institute.
DOT has recently supported several studies in which safety, road damage and fuel savings have been investigated. Further analysis of HPV operation data both in the U.S. and abroad is warranted by the DOE and DOT to build further support for moving forward with changes that would allow more extensive and unified HPV operation throughout the United States. |
|
EO-7
Goals for Efficient Operations |
FINDING 9-10. The DOE-DOT draft white paper on efficient operations in its current form does not include any goals that could be used to prioritize and drive R&D efforts on efficient operations.
|
Although the draft white paper on efficient operations available at the time of the NRC panel’s review did not include goals on this topic, the Partnership has added a set of specific goals that are consistent with this recommendation. A further rewrite of the draft white paper is also planned that will address the panel’s recommendations. The Partnership is aware that many of the approaches proposed for efficient operations involve multiple complexities and agrees that detailed studies are needed to assess the benefits, drawbacks, and potential unintended consequences of removing barriers for efficient operations. |
| Subject | NAS Findings and Recommendations | Partnership Response |
|
EO-8
Fuel Savings Potential for Efficient Operations |
FINDING 9-11: There is a need for a more detailed evaluation of the large potential for fuel savings from efficient operations than is provided in the existing DOE-DOT draft white paper of February 25,2011. This more detailed study can be used to set goals, targets, and timetables for fuel savings from efficient operations.
RECOMMENDATION 9-8: The DOE and DOT should study the potential fuel savings from efficient operations in more detail, including a review of cost-effectiveness and ease of implementation. Once this information is available, goals, targets, and timetables for fuel savings from efficient operations should be established. Programs should then be developed and implemented to realize the available fuel savings. |
The Partnership agrees that research is needed to quantify the benefits as well as the costs and challenges of implementation associated with the proposed methods for efficient operations. Ultimately, the end goal is to implement those approaches for which the benefits clearly justify the costs, and the Partnership concurs with the NRC panel’s recommended course of action to arrive at this objective. |
