CONFIDENTIAL
Contract Report XXX-YY:
Fall YYYY
Fuel Consumption Tests of the
Aerodynamic Device from Company Ltd.
Phone: 1-514-782-4520
Toll-Free: 1-855-472-1159
thepitgroup.com
Follow us:
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REPORT APPROVAL FORM
REPORT TYPE :
Contract Report XXX-YY
# PROJET:
TITLE :
Fuel Consumption Tests of the Aerodynamic Device
COMPANY
Company Ltd
DATE :
REVIEWER :
SIGNATURES
Date :
Name, Position
Contract Report XXX-YY:
Fuel Consumption Tests of the Aerodynamic
Device from Company Ltd.
Name, Eng.,
FPInnovations – PIT
Month DD, YYYY
Restricted to FPInnovations – PIT Group members and staff
CONFIDENTIAL
© Copyright YYYY, FPInnovations
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of contents
Context...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Technology ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
Description ...........................................................................................................................................................1
Scope of Application ............................................................................................................................................1
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................3
Test Site ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Test Vehicles .........................................................................................................................................................3
Fuel Consumption Test Procedure ......................................................................................................................6
Driving Procedure.................................................................................................................................................7
Test Equipment ....................................................................................................................................................7
Test Results .............................................................................................................................................................10
Discussions..............................................................................................................................................................13
Discussion of Test Limitations............................................................................................................................13
Discussion and Recommendations Regarding the Tested Technology............................................................16
GHG Emissions Reduction and Economic Impact .................................................................................................17
GHG Emissions Reduction ..................................................................................................................................17
Economic Impact ................................................................................................................................................18
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................19
Disclaimer ...............................................................................................................................................................19
References ..............................................................................................................................................................21
Appendix A. Detailed Description of the Technology ...........................................................................................23
Appendix B. Vehicle Data Form .............................................................................................................................25
Appendix C. Segment Data Collection and Fuel Use Summary ............................................................................29
Appendix D. Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................................35
ii
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
List of figures
Figure 1. Aerodynamic Device- on the test vehicle: left view. ...............................................................................2
Figure 2. Aerodynamic Device- on the test vehicle: right view. .............................................................................2
Figure 3. Test site with radar checkpoints and weather station positions. ...........................................................3
Figure 4. Test vehicle. ...............................................................................................................................................5
Figure 5. Control vehicle. .........................................................................................................................................5
Figure 6. Examples of the installation of the portable fuel tanks. ..........................................................................6
Figure 7. Scale checking using a calibration weight set. .........................................................................................9
Figure 8. Measurement of environmental conditions at the test site. ................................................................13
Figure 9. Air density variation during the tests. ....................................................................................................14
Figure 10. Wind speed variation during baseline test segment. ..........................................................................15
Figure 11. Wind speed variation during final test segment..................................................................................15
List of tables
Table 1. Vehicle data. ...............................................................................................................................................4
Table 2. Summary of test results ................................................................................... Erreur ! Signet non défini.
Table 3. GHG emission factors for heavy-duty diesel vehicles .............................................................................17
Table 4. Impact on GHG emissions ........................................................................................................................17
Table 5. Economic impact ......................................................................................................................................18
iii
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Context
The objective of EnergotestTM is to conduct controlled test-track studies of solutions for achieving
higher fuel efficiency and lower emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the trucking industry.
Energotest not only allows fleets to choose the most efficient solutions, but also allows technology
suppliers to better focus their development efforts. The XXth Energotest campaign was held
September X - Y, YYYY, at the Motor Vehicle Test Centre in City, Province.
Eleven technologies from nine suppliers were chosen for testing by PIT Group members.
Company Ltd., based in City (ZZ, USA), was one of the selected suppliers, and they submitted for
testing the Aerodynamic Device.
Technology
Description
The objective of Aerodynamic Device is to reduce aerodynamic drag, and consequently, overall fuel
consumption. The Aerodynamic Device is built from steel and composites and it is installed on
vehicles rear end chassis.
The tested Aerodynamic Device had the following characteristics (Figures 1 and 2, and Appendix
A):
 One section at a sharp angle to the trailer's long axis with an offset in the front of 0.XX
m from the trailer’s exterior edges;
 Principal dimensions: ground clearance of XX m, overall length of XX m, positioned
from the trailer’s front axle, and an overall width of XX m.
 Material: YYYZZZ.
Scope of Application
The Aerodynamic Device is used on tandem van semi-trailers in Class 8 tractor–trailer
combinations.
The Aerodynamic Device is best suited for line and regional hauling, which are characterized by
long trip lengths and higher average speeds. Because they make the vehicle more
aerodynamically efficient, maximum benefit is realized at higher cruising speeds.
1
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Figure 1. Aerodynamic Device on the test vehicle: left view.
Figure 2. Aerodynamic Device on the test vehicle: right view.
2
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Methodology
Test Site
The fuel-consumption tests were performed on the high-speed test track (Figure 3). This track is a
high-banked, parabolic oval. The length of a test run was 15 laps (100 km), with departure and
arrival at the same position along the track.
Figure 3. Test site with radar checkpoints and weather station positions.
Test Vehicles
Test and control vehicles were 2013 Cascadia Freightliner tractors powered by DD13 engines,
pulling Manac 2009 53-foot two-axle Cube Van semi-trailers. The tractor-trailer gap was also
similar on both pairs of vehicles. Vehicles configurations are presented in Table 1 and a detailed
description is provided in Appendix B. Figures 4 and 5 present the test vehicle and the control
vehicle.
3
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Table 1. Vehicle data.
Vehicles
Parameters
Device
Control
Test
-
Saving Device
Tractors
Vehicle test ID
C18
C13
Cascadia Freightliner
Cascadia Freightliner
Year
2013
2013
Engine make and model
DD13
DD 13
Rated power
336 kW (450 HP)
336 kW (450 HP)
Peak torque
2238.8 Nm (1650 lb-ft)
2238.8 Nm (1650 lb-ft)
Transmission
Eaton Fuller Ultrashift
Eaton Fuller Ultrashift
3.58
3.58
Michelin 275/80 R22.5 XZA3; Goodyear
295/75 R22.5
Michelin 275/80 R22.5 XZA3; Goodyear
295/75 R22.5
Tire pressure (cold)
690 kPa (100 psi)
690 kPa (100 psi)
Vehicle test weight
9135 kg (20140 lbs)
9008 kg (19860 lbs)
Vehicle fleet ID
VIN
Make and model
Differential ratio
Tires
Trailers
Vehicle test ID
T8
T6
Manac 94253001
Manac 94253001
Vehicle fleet ID
VIN
Make and model
No. of axles
Year
2
2009
2009
Type
Tires
53-foot Cube Van
Michelin 11R22.5 XZE
Michelin 11R22.5 XZE
Tire pressure (cold)
690 kPa (100 psi)
690 kPa (100 psi)
Vehicle test weight
20675 kg (45580 lbs.)
20629 kg (45480 lbs)
Total test weight and
distribution
29810 kg (65720 lbs.): 5070 kg (11177
lbs.); 12815 kg (28252 lbs.) ; 11925 kg
(26290 lbs.)
29637 kg (65338 lbs.): 5037 kg (11105
lbs.); 12745kg (28098 lbs.) ; 11855kg
(26136 lbs.)
Differences between total and
axial masses
173 kg (381 lbs.) = 0,58% : 33 kg (73 lbs.) = 0,65%; 70 kg (154 lbs.) = 0,55%; 70
kg (154 lbs.) = 0,59%
4
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Figure 4. Test vehicle.
Figure 5. Control vehicle.
5
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Fuel Consumption Test Procedure
According to the SAE J1321 Fuel Consumption Test Procedure - Type II (SAE International
2012), the test compared the fuel consumption of a test vehicle operating under two conditions
using an unmodified control vehicle. Fuel consumption was accurately measured by weighing
portable tanks before and after each trip. Figure 6 presents examples of the installation of the
portable tanks.
Figure 6. Examples of the installation of the portable fuel tanks.
For each test, control and test vehicles had the same general configuration and were coupled to
the same semi-trailers for the base and test segments. The load weights remained the same
throughout the entire test period. The vehicles were in good working condition, with all settings
adjusted to the manufacturer's specifications.
The test consisted of a baseline segment (using non-modified vehicles) followed by a final
segment (the test vehicle was equipped with the technology being tested, the Aerodynamic
Device, while the control vehicle stayed in its original state). For both segments, the control and
test vehicles completed three test runs. For both the baseline and final segments, the
representative results were the ratio between the average fuel consumed by the test vehicle and
the average fuel consumed by the control vehicle (the T/C ratio).
The nominal values for fuel savings and for fuel improvement were determined from the analysis
of the measured fuel data and reflect the changes resulting from the modification being tested on
the test vehicle. These nominal values consisted of the percentage difference between the final
ratio (T/C)f and baseline ratio (T/C)b:
6
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
 Fuel savings :
𝐹𝑠 = 100 ∗
𝑇/𝐶𝑏 −𝑇/𝐶𝑓
(1)
𝑇/𝐶𝑏
 Fuel improvement :
𝐹𝐼 = 100 ∗
𝑇/𝐶𝑏 −𝑇/𝐶𝑓
(2)
𝑇/𝐶𝑓
The result was expressed with a confidence interval level of 95%, as stipulated by the SAE J1321
Fuel Consumption Test Procedure - Type II (SAE International 2012), determined from the
variation in the measured fuel consumption data relative to the nominal value and the number of
data values obtained.
Driving Procedure
Each day, before the start of testing, all vehicles were warmed up for the same amount of time
(minimum one hour) at the test speed.
The driver’s influence on the results was minimized by conducting the tests on a closed circuit and
by strictly controlling the driving cycle as follows:
 A fixed idling time was used.
 Drivers started with maximum acceleration.
 A cruising speed of 105 km/h (65 mph) was set.
 Drivers steered as close as possible to the painted line at the right side of the track,
without touching it.
 Drivers maintained a constant driving speed using the cruise control.
 After the established test duration was complete, drivers stopped using the cruise
control at the designated point.
 During deceleration, drivers used only the service brakes and did not accelerate.
 Once at the meeting point, the trucks idled before stopping the engine. All the vehicles
in a test run idled for the same duration during the run.
The time interval between two consecutive trucks remained the same in order to avoid the effects
of turbulence caused by other trucks and prevent multiple trucks from being present at the same
place and time on the track. The driving cycle was controlled with two radars (Figure 3). A radar
speed sign displayed the speed of oncoming vehicles using highly visible LEDs, and was checked
by the test drivers at every lap. The other device was a radar gun, operated by the test personnel,
and placed on the opposite side on the track. Drivers received instructions by two-way radio, to
ensure that the speed of the vehicles and the distance between them on the track remained
constant. The duration of the runs was also checked. The vehicles were also instrumented with
global positioning system (GPS) units, which were used for checking vehicles speed and spacing
control.
Test Equipment
The following equipment was used during the tests:
 Portable tanks with a capacity of 144 L (38 gallons): Norcan Aluminum 103461;
7
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
 Calibrated scale with a capacity of 226.80 kg (500 lbs.) and a resolution of 0.02 kg:
Weigh-Tronix WI-152/DS 2424A-005 serial number 000341/B-075050278; Calibration
certificate dated XXXX;
 Calibrated scale with a capacity of 150 kg and a resolution of 0.02 kg: Ohaus 3000
serial number 0015208-635; Calibration certificate dated XXXX.
 Vehicle scale: Moducam Bamd1117-5801L, serial no. 261102; Indicator: Rice-Lake;
Calibration certificate dated XXXX;
 Calibration weights TROEMNER 20 kg, serial no. FP-01, FP-02, FP-03, FP-04, FP-05,
FP-06: Calibration certificate dated XXXX;
 Thermometer and hygrometer: Vaisala, model HMP-233, serial no. X0550005, range 0
- 100% RH; -40° to 60 °C; accuracy +/- 1%; +/- 0.1 °C; Calibration XXXX.
 Wind monitor: Young model SE 09101, serial no. 118857, range 0-100 m/s; 0°-360°;
accuracy ±0.3 m/s; ± 2°; Calibration certificate dated XXXX;
 Wind speed sensor 1: Campbell Scientific, model 014A, serial no. N5094, range 0-100
mph, accuracy 0.25 mph (0.40 km/h); Calibration certificate dated XXXX;
 Barometric pressure transducer: Omega, model PX2760-600A5V, serial no. 4892413,
accuracy ± 0.25%; Calibration certificate dated XXXX;
 Data acquisition system: Fluke, model Hydra (2635A) Data Bucket, serial no. 5796307,
accuracy ± 0.018%; Calibration certificate dated XXXX;
 Onboard computers: ISAAC DRU900, with GPS, speed precision 0.03 m/s.
The repeatability of the scale measurements was periodically checked during the tests using a
calibration weight set (Figure 7).
1
The Young wind monitor was used only for wind direction, because its accuracy for wind speed was not complying with the
requirements of the SAE J1321: for this reason, the Campbell wind speed sensor was used for measuring the wind speed.
8
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Figure 7. Scale checking using a calibration weight set.
9
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Test Results
Baseline test segment was conducted in the morning of September DD, YYY, whilst the final test
segment was conducted in the afternoon of September DD, YYY. The Aerodynamic Device
obtained the following results, expressed for the confidence level of 95% as required by the SAE
J1321 (SAE International 2012):
 Fuel savings: 5.02 % ± 1.61 %;
 Fuel improvement: 5.29 % ± 1.69 %;
 These results were obtained at:
o
Mean vehicle speed: 105 km/h (65 mph),
o
Trailer weight: 20629 kg (45480 lbs.), tractor weight 9008 kg (19860 lbs.)
o
Tractor-trailer gap 2: 1270 mm (50 in.); aerodynamic gap 3: 965 mm (38 in.),
o
Mean air temperature: 17.42 ± 2.00 °C (63.36 ± 3.60 °F),
o
Mean wind speed: 9.06 ± 0.32 km/h (5.63 ± 0.20 mph).
Table 2 presents the summary of the test results, whilst full details of the baseline and final
segments, and details are presented in Appendix C. Appendix D presents data analysis.
Table 1. Summary of test results
Baseline segment, September DD, YYYY
Test
runs
Consumed fuel, kg
Control vehicle Test vehicle
Baseline segment, September DD, YYYY
T/C
ratio
Test
runs
Consumed fuel, kg
Control vehicle Test vehicle
T/C
ratio
1
27.48
27.46
0.9993
1
28.36
26.72
0.942
2
2
27.28
27.40
1.0044
2
27.76
26.54
0.956
1
3
26.96
27.12
1.0059
3
27.64
26.54
0.960
2
Average T/C ratio
Average T/C ratio
1.0032
Fuel savings, %
5.02 ± 1.61
Fuel improvement, %
5.29 ± 1.69
0.9528
2
Longitudinal distance between the vertical flat surface of the back of the cab/sleeper to the vertical flat surface on the front of the
trailer (SAE International 2012).
3
Longitudinal distance between the aft most point of the cab external surface, including aerodynamic side fairings, and the
forward most point of the cargo-carrying portion of the vehicle (SAE International 2012).
11
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Discussions
Discussion of Test Limitations
Road tests and track tests are subject to variations in conditions between runs, and controlling or
accounting for these variables as much as possible is an important part of ensuring accurate
results.
Air density varies with temperature, relative humidity and barometric pressure, and changes in air
density affect aerodynamic resistance. Ambient temperatures, humidity, barometric pressure, and
wind speeds and directions were measured at the test site (Figure 8) and these data were verified
using climate data from the Mirabel weather station, located 12 km from the test site (Environment
Canada). The density of the air can be computed from measurements of these parameters (xxxxx
2008). Figure 9 presents the variation in air density during the testing of the Aerodynamic Device.
The maximum difference in air density between baseline and final segments during the tests was
0.043 kg/m3.
Figure 8. Measurement of environmental conditions at the test site.
For aerodynamic device testing, results may also be higher or lower than under average
conditions depending upon the wind velocity and direction. The elevation height for the wind
measurement was 19.35 feet (5.90 m). As required by the SAE J1321 standard (SAE
International 2012), the wind speed data was corrected to the elevation of 10 feet (3.05 m), using
the scale factor of 0.919. As shown in Appendix C, the mean wind speed observed during the
tests was 9.06 km/h (5.63 mph), which was much less than the acceptable limit of 19.4 km/h (12
mph) (SAE International 2012). Figures 10 and 11, and Appendix C show that the maximum wind
gust speed was 21.63 km/h (13.4 mph), which was less than the acceptable limit of 24.1 km/h (15
mph) (SAE International 2012). However, in order to minimize the effects of wind yaw angle, a
closed-loop parabolic oval was used.
13
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
The only possibility for minimizing the influence of varying ambient conditions on test results is to
use unchanged control and test vehicles (with the exception of the modification being tested on
the test vehicle), with the assumption that both vehicles will be equally affected by these
variations. For this purpose, the test and control vehicles were of the same general configuration
and confirmed to be in proper operating condition prior to and during the tests (Vehicle Check
Forms and Observer and Driver Comments Forms are available on request) . The trailers were
matched to each test and the control vehicles remained matched with their respective tractors
throughout the entire series of tests.
The relative difference between the total masses of the test and control vehicles was 0.58%,
which is less that the acceptable limit of 1.5% (SAE International 2012). The maximum difference
in each axle load was 70 kg (154 lbs., for both tractors and trailers axles), which is less that the
limit of 500 lbs., and the maximum relative difference was 0.65%, for steer axles, which is also
less than the limit of 5% (SAE International 2012).
As can be seen in see Annexe C, the odometer readings at the start of the baseline test segment
were 19 703 km for the test vehicle and 19 927 km for the control vehicle. Therefore, the
requirement of the standard was satisfied: mileage within 16 100 km (10 000 miles) for vehicles
with odometer readings between 16 100 km (10 000 miles) and 48 300 km (30 000 miles).
The temperature of the fuel in the tank was randomly checked during the tests and never
exceeded 50°C, whilst the maximum limit value suggested by the standard is 71.1 °C (160 °F)
(SAE International 2012). Moreover, the portable tanks used for tests have a big capacity (144
liters, 38 US gallons), the duration of a test run is less than one hour, and the return of the fuel in
the tank is made by splashing. All these factors favor the cooling of the fuel.
1.24
1.22
Density (kg/m3)
1.2
Base 1
1.18
Base 2
Base 3
1.16
Final 1
Final 2
Final 3
1.14
1.12
1.1
00:00:00
00:10:00
00:20:00 00:30:00 00:40:00
Duration (h:mm:ss)
00:50:00
01:00:00
Figure 9. Air density variation during the tests.
14
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
25
Wind Speed (km/h)
20
15
Base 1
Base 2
10
Base 3
5
0
0:00:00
0:10:00
0:30:00
0:20:00
0:40:00
Duration (h:mm:ss)
0:50:00
1:00:00
Figure 10. Wind speed variation during baseline test segment.
25
Wind Speed (km/h)
20
15
Final 1
Final 2
10
Final 3
5
0
0:00:00
0:10:00
0:20:00
0:30:00
0:40:00
Duration (h:mm:ss)
0:50:00
1:00:00
Figure 11. Wind speed variation during final test segment.
15
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Another variable was the driver. Testing took place on a closed test track at a fixed speed of
105 km/h (65 mph), with a standard acceleration and braking protocol for all drivers, in order to
eliminate the influences of traffic and variations in driver response. In addition, travel speeds were
monitored throughout the tests using radars, and drivers were instructed by radio if it became
necessary to adjust their travel speed. Moreover, the vehicles were instrumented with GPS, and
GPS data was used to confirm vehicle speed. The driver’s influence on the results was thus
minimized as much as possible by strictly controlling the driving cycle.
Vehicle spacing was 1.1 km (3,600 ft.), which is much more than the minimum spacing of 457 m
(1,500 ft.) stipulated by the standard (SAE International, 2012).
To minimize measurement uncertainties, the only measured parameter used to calculate the test
results was the weight of the portable tanks. Other parameters, such as vehicle speed, distance
and time, were recorded for information purposes only. In order to avoid potential problems
related to the instruments, two recently calibrated scales were available on-site. For each run, the
portable tanks were weighed using the same portable scale. Furthermore, the scale was
periodically checked against a known weight of 120 kg. The portable scale was not moved
between the initial and final weighing for a given test run. Distance measurement was not a factor
because for each run, all vehicles departed and arrived at the same point after travelling the same
number of laps and following the same path along the track.
Discussion and Recommendations Regarding the Tested Technology
Aerodynamic devices such as trailer skirts can offer significant fuel savings, and they are recognized
as a fuel-saving technology under the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
SmartWaySM program, which classifies trailer side skirts as being either a “trailer side skirt”, with
savings of at least 4%, or an “advanced trailer skirt”, with savings of at least 5%. In addition to the
fuel savings, trailer side skirts improve vehicle appearance, reduce sensitivity to side winds, improve
stability, and reduce tire spray, which can cause visibility issues for other drivers. The benefits of
trailer side skirts are most apparent in the presence of crosswinds.
PIT Group track-tested more than 30 trailer skirts in previous test trials, and the potential of this
approach was confirmed. Trailer skirts showed fuel savings from 0.2 to 7.5%, it was therefore
noticed that all skirts were not equal and that the way they are designed and installed can have a
major impact on their performance (xxxx). These tests allowed the PIT research team to draw
some conclusions about trailer skirts design (based strictly on test results and visual
observations). It is preferable to avoid curved surfaces and although skirt length appears to have
been important, it was not a critical parameter if differences were relatively small and distances
from the trailer's bogey axle were similar. Straight trailer skirts running parallel to the trailer's long
axis, at a small angle to this axis, or a combination of the two designs, are expected to offer better
performance. In tests, trailer skirts with curved surfaces showed lower fuel savings than similar
size skirts with angled straight sections. Closer to the ground and wider skirts are also expected to
offer better results. For all aerodynamic devices, it is advisable to evaluate preliminary designs
using simulation software, or with a scale model in a wind tunnel. However, the only valid and
credible results on actual fuel saving will be obtained on a test track.
16
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
GHG Emissions Reduction and Economic Impact
GHG Emissions Reduction
The most important GHGs emitted by the burning of diesel fuel are carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Table 3 presents the emission factors for heavy-duty
vehicles equipped with diesel engines (Environment Canada 2014).
Table 2. GHG emission factors for heavy-duty diesel vehicles
Type of engine control
system
Emission factor (g/L of diesel fuel)
CO2
CH4
N2O
Advanced
2,663
0.11
0.151
Moderately improved
2,663
0.14
0.082
Uncontrolled
2,663
0.15
0.075
The CO2 equivalent GHG emission factor can be calculated using the equivalent GHG potential
of 298 times for nitrous oxide, and of 25 for methane, compared to that of carbon dioxide on a per
unit mass basis (IPCC 2014), with equation (3):
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶2
= 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶2 + 25 ∗ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶4 + 298 ∗ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑁2 𝑂
(3)
For advanced engine control systems (that represent the majority), the CO2 equivalent GHG
emission factor obtained from equation (3) is 2.71 kg CO2 equivalent per litre of diesel fuel.
According to NACFE (2014), if a fleet is using 109,000 miles (175,000 km) driven per tractor in
their return on investment calculations for their decision-making, trailer aerodynamics’ worth must
be justified using fuel savings for only 33,000 miles (53,000 km). We assumed an average fuel
consumption of 37 L/100 km (6.36 MPG). On this basis, the annual quantity of fuel consumed
would be 19,610 L per vehicle (trailer).
Under these hypotheses, the trailer Aerodynamic Device from Company Ltd. could reduce the
GHG emissions up to 2.67 tonnes per vehicle (Table 4).
Table 3. Impact on GHG emissions
Supplier
Technology
Annual savings
%
L
Reduction in GHG
emissions, tonnes
5.02
984
2.67
17
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Economic Impact
The economic impact of the various fuel-saving measures is evaluated based on calculations of
the payback period and the cost of conserved energy (CCE). The payback period is calculated
by dividing the total additional cost of a modification by the annual net savings it provides. CCE,
expressed as the savings per unit reduction in fuel consumption ($/L), is independent of the fuel
price, and represents the ratio between the total additional cost of a modification and the
savings. A small CCE, generally less than 2.5, means that a particular measure provides a high
payback in terms of reduced fuel consumption, and therefore represents an attractive
investment. CCE is therefore a useful way to compare different fuel efficiency technologies.
The considered fuel cost is the average unit price of 1.039 $/L (on October XX, XXXX, in
Canada, according to NRCan XXXX).
Purchase cost is provided for information purposes only: according to the supplier, the cost of one
pair of skirts is $. Table 5 presents the results.
Table 4. Economic impact
Supplier
Technology
Additional
cost, $
Annual
savings
%
L
5.02 984
18
$
Payback
period,
months
CEC,
$/L
107
0
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
Conclusions
The Aerodynamic Device from Company Ltd. showed the following results, expressed for the
confidence level of 95% as required by the SAE J1321 Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test
Procedure - Type II (SAE International 2012):
-
Fuel savings: 5.02 % ± 1.61 %;
-
Fuel improvement: 5.29 % ± 1.69 %;
The Aerodynamic Devicefrom Company Ltd. could reduce the GHG emissions up to 2.67 tonnes
per vehicle, and with payback periods as short as months, and a CCE as low as $/L, it would
represent an attractive measure to reduce GHG emissions.
Disclaimer
This result refers only to the vehicle and specimen of technology tested according to the
procedure and conditions described in this report. PIT Group cannot guarantee the reproducibility
of this result in particular operating conditions.
The representatives of Company Ltd. assisted during the two segments of tests performed on
their products, and validated the installation of their devices on the vehicles used to perform the
tests, prior to the beginning of said tests. The representatives of Company Ltd. also
acknowledged that the tests they assisted were conducted in conformity with the test protocol.
19
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
References
Environment Canada. Historical Climate Data http://climate.weather.gc.ca/
Environment Canada (2014). Emission factors for energy mobile combustion sources. In
National inventory report 1990-2012: Greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada
(Part 2, Annex 8, Table A8–11, p 188). Ottawa, ON.
IPCC (2014). Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer (Eds.),
Climate change 2014: Synthesis report (Box 3.2, Table 1, p 87). Geneva, Switzerland
North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) (2014). 2014 fleet fuel study addendum.
SAE International (2012). Fuel consumption test procedure – Type II, SAE surface vehicle
recommended practice J1321. Warrendale, PA.
.
21
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A. Detailed Description of the Technology
ENERGOTEST 2012
Vehicle and Equipment Description
Testing Organization: FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
0
Base Test Date:
Final Test Date: 0
Test Vehicle:
0
Technology:
Supplier:
Test Number:
­
0
0
0
0
Part 4: Detailed Description Vehicle Component or System Modifications Being
Description/Manufacturer/Part Number/Year:
Dimensions:
Installation Location and Attachment:
Material/Weight/Power Requirements:
Prepared by
23
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B. Vehicle Data Form
ENERGOTEST 2012
Vehicle and Equipment Description
Testing Organization: FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
Base Test Date:
Test Number:
Final Test Date:
Technology:
Supplier:
Part 1: Power Units
Vehicles
Parameters
Control
Test
Vehicle Test ID
Vehicle Fleet ID
VIN
Make and Model
Year
Number of Axels
Number of Drive Axels
Engine Make and Model
Engine Build Year
Emission Label Info
Governed Speed @ no load (High Idle)
Rated Power
Rated Speed
Peak Torque
Peak Torque Speed
Transmission Make/Model
Geared for
at
at
Differential Make/Model
Differential Ratio
Vehicle Test Weight
Steer Tire Type/Make/Model
Tire Pressure (cold)
Drive Tire Type/Make/Model
Drive Tire Pressure (cold)
5th Wheel Setting (distance fulcrum is ahead
or behind bogie centerline)
Prepared by
25
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
ENERGOTEST 2012
Vehicle and Equipment Description
Testing Organization: FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
Base Test Date: 0
Final Test Date: 0
Test Number:
0
0
0
Technology:
Supplier:
Part 2: Trailer/ Body
Vehicles
Parameters
Control
Test
Vehicle Test ID
Vehicle Fleet ID
VIN
Make and Model
Year
Type
Type of Side
Type of Corner/Radius
Height
Length
Width
Type Door
Number of Trailer Axles/Type
Truck Trailer Gap
Aerodynamic Gap
Gross Vehicle Weight
Tire Type/Make/Model
Tire pressure (cold)
King Pin Setting
Vehicle test weight
Prepared by
26
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
ENERGOTEST 2012
Vehicle and Equipment Description
Testing Organization: FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
Test Number:
Base Test Date: 0
Final Test Date: 0
Technology:
Supplier:
0
0
0
Part 3: Devices, Components or Systems that are Incorporated into Control and Test Vehicle
Specification
Control Vehicle
Item
­
0
0
­
0
No
Yes
Type
No
Yes
Type
Radiator Shutters (on-off or modulating)
x
Engine Cooling Fan Sys. (Describe below -A)
x
Aerodynamic Device (Describe below -B)
x
Engine Oil
x
Transmission Lube
x
Differential Lube
x
Fuel Heater
x
Oil Cooler
Test Vehicle
0
x
Modulating
x
Modulating
x
x
Valvoline
Premium Blue
15W40
Valvoline CD
SAE50
Valvoline EP
75W90
In-Tank
Water to oil
trans cooler in
radiator
x
x
x
x
x
Tag Axle
x
x
Air Lift Axle
x
x
Valvoline
Premium Blue
15W40
Valvoline CD
SAE50
Valvoline EP
75W90
In-Tank
Water to oil
trans cooler in
radiator
Low Back Pressure Exhaust System
Other.
A: 210 °F (99 °C) fan goes ON
B: Rooftop fairings, side panels.
Prepared by
27
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix C. Segment Data Collection and Fuel Use Summary 4
ENERGOTEST 2012
SEGMENT DATA COLLECTION
Date:
Segment: BASE
Testing Organization:
Supplier:
Technology:
Vehicle:
Test Vehicle
Test no.:
FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
Test Site/Type:
Duty Cycle:
Constant speed 98 km/h (61 mph)
Meteorological conditions:
Wind Data (km/h, at 3 m, 10 ft)
Run
1
2
3
4
5
Segment
Wind Dir.
Min Wind
Speed
Max Wind Speed (≤
24.1 km/h, 15 mph)
Mean Wind Speed ( ≤
19.3 km/h, 12 mph)
Segment Mean Wind Speed
Variation (recommended ≤ 8
km/h, 5 mph)
#DIV/0!
1
2
3
4
5
Segment
Test Mean Wind Speed
0.00
#DIV/0!
S/O
0.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
Temperature Data, ( °C)
Run
Test Mean Wind Speed Variation
(recommended ≤ 8 km/h, 5 mph)
Min
Max Temp.
Temp. ( ≥ (≤ 38°C,
4°C, 40°F) 100 F°)
Mean
Temp.
Segment
Temp.
Run Temp.
Variation
Variation
(≤ 17°C,
30 F°)
Other Data
Test Temp.
Mean
Variation (≤ Humidity
17°C, 30 F°)
(%)
Mean pressure
(mbar)
Weather
Scale Check
Weight
YES-OK
YES-OK
YES-OK
#DIV/0!
0.00
0.00
0.00
#DIV/0!
Test mean
temperature
#DIV/0!
S/O
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
S/O
S/O
Test Runs Details:
Run
Tank
ID
Start
Vehicle
Time
Odometer (km)
Finish
Fuel tank
weight (kg)
Vehicle
Time
Odometer (km)
Difference
Fuel tank Vehicle
weight (kg) Time
1
2
3
4
5
Odometer (km)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
Fuel tank
weight (kg)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Autofill after each row
Notes:
1. Run Time for each vehicle must be within 0.25% of a vehicle's Segment Run #1 Time.
2. All wind speed and wind temperature constraints must be satisfied.
3. No equipment failure or malfunction or drive error.
4. If the three criteria above are not satisfied the Run must be repeated.
Driver
Observer
Prepared by
4
Discrepancies in odometer readings between the vehicles resulted from inaccuracy of these instruments.
29
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
ENERGOTEST 2012
SEGMENT DATA COLLECTION
Date: 00-janv-00
Segment: BASE
Testing Organization:
0
Supplier:
Technology: 0
Vehicle:
Control Vehicle
Test no.:
0
0
Constant speed 98 km/h (61 mph)
FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
Test Site/Type:
Duty Cycle:
Meteorological conditions:
Wind Data (km/h, at 3 m, 10 ft)
Run
Wind Dir.
Min Wind
Speed
Max Wind Speed (≤
24.1 km/h, 15 mph)
Mean Wind Speed ( ≤
19.3 km/h, 12 mph)
1
2
3
4
5
Segment
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
S/O
0.00
0.00
#DIV/0!
Segment Mean Wind Speed
Variation (recommended ≤ 8
km/h, 5 mph)
#DIV/0!
1
2
3
4
5
Segment
Test Mean Wind Speed
0.00
#DIV/0!
Temperature Data, ( °C)
Run
Test Mean Wind Speed
Variation (recommended ≤ 8
km/h, 5 mph)
Min
Max Temp.
Temp. ( ≥ (≤ 38°C,
4°C, 40°F) 100 F°)
Mean
Temp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
#DIV/0!
Segment
Temp.
Run Temp.
Variation
Variation
(≤ 17°C,
30 F°)
0
0
0
0
Other Data
Test Temp.
Mean
Variation (≤ Humidity
17°C, 30 F°)
(%)
#DIV/0!
Test mean
temperature
#DIV/0!
S/O
Mean pressure
(mbar)
Weather
Scale Check
Weight
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
YES-OK
YES-OK
YES-OK
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
S/O
S/O
Test Runs Details:
Run
Tank
ID
Start
Vehicle
Time
Odometer (km)
Finish
Fuel tank
weight (kg)
Vehicle
Time
Odometer (km)
Difference
Fuel tank Vehicle
weight (kg) Time
1
2
3
4
5
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
Odometer (km)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Fuel tank
weight (kg)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Autofill after each row
Notes:
Observer
1. Run Time for each vehicle must be within 0.25% of a vehicle's Segment Run #1 Time.
2. All wind speed and wind temperature constraints must be satisfied.
3. No equipment failure or malfunction or drive error.
4. If the three criteria above are not satisfied the Run must be repeated.
0
Prepared by
Driver
30
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
ENERGOTEST 2012
SEGMENT DATA COLLECTION
Date:
Segment: FINAL
Testing Organization:
Supplier:
0
Technology: 0
Vehicle:
FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
Test Site/Type:
Duty Cycle:
Test Vehicle
0
Test no.:
0
0
Constant speed 98 km/h (61 mph)
Meteorological conditions:
Wind Data (km/h, at 3 m, 10 ft)
Run
1
2
3
4
5
Segment
Wind Dir.
Min Wind
Speed
Max Wind Speed (≤
24.1 km/h, 15 mph)
Mean Wind Speed ( ≤
19.3 km/h, 12 mph)
Segment Mean Wind Speed
Variation (recommended ≤ 8
km/h, 5 mph)
#DIV/0!
1
2
3
4
5
Segment
Test Mean Wind Speed
0.00
#DIV/0!
S/O
0.00
0.00
#DIV/0!
Temperature Data, ( °C)
Run
Test Mean Wind Speed Variation
(recommended ≤ 8 km/h, 5 mph)
Min
Max Temp.
Temp. ( ≥ (≤ 38°C,
4°C, 40°F) 100 F°)
Mean
Temp.
Segment
Temp.
Run Temp.
Variation
Variation
(≤ 17°C,
30 F°)
Other Data
Test Temp.
Mean
Variation (≤ Humidity
17°C, 30 F°)
(%)
Mean pressure
(mbar)
Weather
Scale Check
Weight
YES-OK
YES-OK
YES-OK
#DIV/0!
0
0.00
0.00
#DIV/0!
Test mean
temperature
#DIV/0!
S/O
#DIV/0!
S/O
Fuel tank Vehicle
weight (kg) Time
Odometer (km)
#DIV/0!
S/O
Test Runs Details:
Run
Tank
ID
Start
Vehicle
Time
Odometer (km)
Finish
Fuel tank
weight (kg)
Vehicle
Time
Odometer (km)
Difference
1
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
Fuel tank
weight (kg)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Autofill after each row
Notes:
Observer
1. Run Time for each vehicle must be within 0.25% of a vehicle's Segment Run #1 Time.
2. All wind speed and wind temperature constraints must be satisfied.
3. No equipment failure or malfunction or drive error.
4. If the three criteria above are not satisfied the Run must be repeated.
0
Prepared by
Driver
0
31
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
ENERGOTEST 2012
SEGMENT DATA COLLECTION
Date: 00-janv-00
Segment: FINAL
Testing Organization:
Supplier:
0
Technology: 0
Vehicle:
Control Vehicle
0
Test no.:
0
0
Constant speed 98 km/h (61 mph)
FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
Test Site/Type:
Duty Cycle:
Meteorological conditions:
Wind Data (km/h, at 3 m, 10 ft)
Run
Wind Dir.
Min Wind
Speed
Max Wind Speed (≤
24.1 km/h, 15 mph)
Mean Wind Speed ( ≤
19.3 km/h, 12 mph)
1
2
3
4
5
Segment
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
S/O
0.00
0.00
#DIV/0!
1
2
3
4
5
Segment
Test Mean Wind Speed
Variation (recommended ≤ 8
km/h, 5 mph)
#DIV/0!
Test Mean Wind Speed
0.00
#DIV/0!
Temperature Data, ( °C)
Run
Segment Mean Wind Speed
Variation (recommended ≤ 8
km/h, 5 mph)
Min
Max Temp.
Temp. ( ≥ (≤ 38°C,
4°C, 40°F) 100 F°)
Mean
Temp.
Run Temp.
Variation
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
#DIV/0!
S/O
Other Data
Segment
Test Temp.
Mean
Temp.
Variation Variation (≤ Humidity
(%)
(≤ 17°C, 17°C, 30 F°)
30 F°)
0.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
Test mean
0.00
0
temperature
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Mean pressure
(mbar)
Weather
Scale Check
Weight
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
YES-OK
YES-OK
YES-OK
#DIV/0!
S/O
S/O
Test Runs Details:
Run
Tank
ID
Start
Vehicle
Time
Odometer (km)
Finish
Fuel tank
weight (kg)
Vehicle
Time
Odometer (km)
Difference
Fuel tank Vehicle
weight (kg) Time
1
2
3
4
5
Odometer (km)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
Fuel tank
weight (kg)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Autofill after each row
Notes:
Observer
1. Run Time for each vehicle must be within 0.25% of a vehicle's Segment Run #1 Time.
2. All wind speed and wind temperature constraints must be satisfied.
3. No equipment failure or malfunction or drive error.
4. If the three criteria above are not satisfied the Run must be repeated.
0
Prepared by
Driver
0
32
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
ENERGOTEST 2012
Testing Organization:
0
Supplier:
Technology: 0
TEST FUEL USE SUMMARY
FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
Test Site/Type:
Duty Cycle:
Test no.:
0
0
Constant speed 98 km/h (61 mph)
Test Run Data Acceptance Criteria
1. All Run Time criteria must be satisfied.
2. All wind speed and wind temperature constraints must be satisfied.
3. No equipment failure or malfunction or drive error.
4. Test Run data is valid if the three criteria listed above are satisfied.
Baseline Segment
Test
Valid Run Vehicle (T)
Run
1
2
3
4
5
0
Fuel Used, kg
0.00
0.00
0.00
Control
Vehicle (C)
Date:
0
Fuel Used, kg
0.00
0.00
0.00
T/C Ratio
Equipment failure / malfunction or driver error
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
None
None
None
Final Segment
Test
Valid Run Vehicle (T)
Run
1
2
3
4
5
Observer
Fuel Used, kg
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
Prepared by
0
Control
Vehicle (C)
Fuel Used, kg
0.00
0.00
0.00
Date:
0
00-janv-00
00-janv-00
T/C Ratio
Equipment failure / malfunction or driver error
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
None
None
None
Driver
33
0
0
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix D. Data Analysis
ENERGOTEST 2012
RESULTS DATA ANALYSIS
Testing Organization:
Supplier:
Technology:
Test no.:
FPInnovations - Performance Innovation Transport
Date:
Baseline Segment
Consumed fuel (kg)
Test
Control
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
Test Site/Type: 0
Duty Cycle:
Constant speed 98 km/h (61 mph)
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Summary Stats
Baseline
#DIV/0!
Mean T/C
0
Number of Data Points
#DIV/0!
Standard Deviations
Variances
#DIV/0!
Difference in Means
#DIV/0!
00-janv-00
Date:
Final Segment
Consumed fuel (kg)
Test
Control
T/C
Run
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
00-janv-00
T/C
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
F-Test for Equal Variances
Final
#DIV/0!
0
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Baseline T/C Variance
Test T/C Variance
F test stat (test/baseline)
F low
F high
Are Variances Equal ?
T-Test with Equal Variances (2-tailed)
Pooled St dev
#DIV/0!
t-crit
#NOMBRE!
t-stat
#DIV/0!
df (nu)
t-crit
t-stat
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#NOMBRE!
#NOMBRE!
#DIV/0!
T-Test with Unequal Variances (2-tailed)
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Is Fuel Economy Improved ?
#DIV/0!
Is Fuel Economy Improved ?
#DIV/0!
P-value
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
P-value
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
lower CI bound
upper CI bound
Fuel Savings
Fuel Improvement
lower CI bound
upper CI bound
Test Result
Nominal
Confidence Interval
±
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
±
#DIV/0!
CI t-critical
CI std err term
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Prepared by
Note: This worksheet is based on SAE 1321 Data Analysis Worksheet, which provides an analysis for the
comparison of mean fuel consumption between a Test and Control vehicle. The chosen confidence level is
95%. The outcome of an f-test for equal variance is used to choose the appropriate t-test for difference in
means.
35
Contract Report CR XXX-YY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
For more information:
570, boul. Saint-Jean, Pointe-Claire (QC) H9R 3J9
 514 782-4519
www.pit.fpinnovations.ca
www.fpinnovations.ca