EPA s SmartWay Technology Program & Tire Testing Updates. Dennis Johnson, U.S. EPA

EPA’s SmartWay Technology

Program & Tire Testing Updates

EPA’s SmartWay Technology

Program and Tire Testing Update

Dennis Johnson, Director

Technology Assessment Center

Transportation and Climate Division

Topics

•  Background

•  Heavy-duty GHG Regulations

•  SmartWay Technology Program & Updates

•  Tire Research & Testing

Background

EPA Priorities

•  Improving public health

•  Reducing exposure to pollutants

•  Improving air quality

•  Reducing diesel engine emissions

–  HC, CO, NOx, CO2

Health Benefits

•  Studies show reducing PM2.5 (including BC)

prolongs life and promotes health:

–  Fewer missed work days

–  Fewer visits to health care providers

–  Reduction in asthma symptoms

–  Increased average life expectancy at birth

–  Prevent premature deaths

•  Health and environmental co-benefits accrue locally

(in the region where emissions are reduced)

1988

1990

1991

1994

1998

2004

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

PM

(g

/h

p

-h

r)

uncontrolled

2007-2010

EPA Exhaust Emissions Standards

for Diesel Trucks & Buses

Highway-Source Total PM10

MOVES2010b MOVES2014 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 2011 2030 2011 2030

A

n

n

u

a

l e

m

iss

io

n

s

(t

o

n

s)

pollutantName

Primary PM10 - Tirewear Particulate Primary PM10 - Brakewear Particulate Primary Exhaust PM10 - Total

PM10 Total, Exhaust and Brake and Tire Wear

Why GHG Emissions Matter

Global Temperature and CO2 Emissions

Global Temperature by Decade

HD#GHG#Phase#1#–#Divided#diverse#MD/HD#

vehicle#sector#into#4#dis8nct#categories#

Full<size#pickup#

trucks#&#work#

vans#

Semi#tractors,####

###no#trailers#

Voca8onal#

vehicles,#regulated#

via#the#chassis#

HD#

Engines#

Phase 1 – Pollutants addressed and flexibilities

! EPA regulates CO

₂

, N

₂

O, CH

₄

and HFCs.

! NHTSA regulates fuel

consumption.

! Both agencies offer

manufacturers flexibilities including

credit Averaging, Banking and

Trading (ABT), among other

provisions

Phase#2#–#Rulemaking#Objec8ves#Discussed#

in#Phase#1#Rule#

•

 

Joint#NHTSA#/#EPA#rulemaking#process#consistent#with#applicable#

law#with#no8ce#and#opportunity#for#public#review#and#comment.###

•

 

As#discussed#in#the#Phase#1#Final#Rule:###

####

– 

Consider#regula8ng#trailers#and#voca8onal#vehicle#second#stage#

manufacturers##

– 

Consider#refining#test#procedures#and#the#GEM#vehicle#simula8on#

compliance#model#

– 

Consider#new#and#advanced#technologies,#along#with#more#stringent#

standards#and#8ming#

– 

Update#technology,#economic#and#environmental#assessments###

– 

Consider#upda8ng#flexibili8es#

Technology Assessment Center

•  Technology Assessment Center (TAC) combines

Clean Diesel and SmartWay Technology programs

•  Comprehensive approach to reducing emissions

(criteria and GHG) from HD fleets.

•  Research, test and evaluate emission and fuel-saving

technologies and strategies

•  Protocol Development

•  Technology Verification

EPA Verification Program

•  Highway and Non-Road

•  Test Protocols

•  SmartWay Designation

–  Tractors and Trailers

•  Verified Lists

–  Aerodynamics

–  Idle Control

–  Tires

–  After-Treatment Devices

–  Closed Crankcase Systems

–  Exhaust Gas Recirculation

–  Engine upgrades

SmartWay Technology Program & Updates

•  USEPA’s SmartWay-designated tractors and

trailers represent the most fuel-efficient models

available

•  SmartWay-designated trailers

–  53’ dry & reefer* van trailers

–  > 5% Aerodynamic improvements

–  Low rolling resistance tires

•  Elite* SmartWay-designated trailers

–  > 9% Aerodynamic improvements

–  Low rolling resistance tires

•  Technology Verification

–  Aerodynamic devices: 1%, 4%, 5% & 9%*

New SmartWay Trailer Aerodynamics Verification

Scope#

Trailer#

Designa8on#

Levels#

SmartWay(“

Elite”

(Trailer((

(9%(fuel(savings(from(aero)( (1%(fuel(savings(from(:res)(

(

53’#Refrigera8on#trailers#

SmartWay(Trailer((

(5%(fuel(savings(from(aero)( (1%(fuel(savings(from(:res)( 53’#Van#trailers#

Aero#Device#

Performance#

Bins#

9%

or more fuel savings

5%

(5.0 – 8.9) fuel savings

4%

(4.0 – 4.9) fuel savings

1%

(1.0 – 3.9) fuel savings

Test#

Methods#

Tunnel& CFD& New#Track#Test# Coastdown& Choice&of#new)2014) test)method#for# verifica8on#and#op8on# to#supplement#with# addi8onal#test# Web&table# indica8ng#all# methods#used#to# verify#a#device#

SmartWay-Designated Tractors Look Like -

Low Rolling Resistance Tires EPA-compliant Engine Aerodynamic Technologies Auxiliary Power

Unit reducing idle emissions

Aerodynamic Technologies (roof fairing, side extenders)

EPA Tire Verification

Tire Performance Targets

(Rolling Resistance Coefficient in kg/ton) ISO#28580#and#SAE#J1269#

Steer# Drive# Trailer#

J 1269 Application Test Point# 6.6 # 7.0# 5.5# J1269 Test Point 2# 6.7# 6.9# 5.5# J1269 5 point average# 6.9# 7.0# 5.6# ISO 28580 (2 meter drum)# 6.5# 6.6# 5.1#

Retread Performance Target

(Rolling Resistance Coefficient in kg/ton) ISO 28580#

Drive# Trailer#

Test Casing# 7.2# 6.0#

Tire Testing & Research

•  Road testing to quantify relationship between

rolling resistance and fuel

•  Tire testing

–  Auditing verified tires & tires tested at different

labs

–  Comparing test methods & sources of variability

–  Development of final retread test protocol

Truck FE Testing With Tires

With/without

portable tank

“

Test” and “Control” truck

7.17 9.52

6.20

Baseline

5.36 5.90

4.66

Vehicle Average Rolling Resistance=

0.18 x Steer + 0.40 x Drive + 0.42 x Trailer

7.70

5.28

Test

Vehicle

Average

Rolling

Resistance

Truck ballasted to gross vehicle weight of about 66,000 lbs

Fuel Savings vs Rolling Resistance

y = -2.6912x + 21.234 R² = 0.89648 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Pe rc en t R ed u cti o n in F u el C o n su m p ti o n

Vehicle Coefficient of Rolling Resistance, kg/ton

LRR tires on

tractor only _{LRR tires on}

trailer only LRR tires on

tractor & trailer

Rolling Resistance Tests

• ISO 28580 and SAE J1269

• Comparison to results from

verification request

• Evaluating retread protocols

• Comparing test methods and

data points

Initial New Tire Testing

AXLE##Posi8on#

Measured#Crr##

Target#Values#

Steer#

5.36#±#0.23#

#

6.5#

Drive##

5.9#±#0.14#

6.6#

Trailer#

4.66#±#0.20#

5.1#

•  Are all results below target values OK?

•  How much difference from verification is a concern?

•  Has there been a change in production?

Retread Performance on Different Casings

Axle

Position&

Baseline Tire

Crr

Buffed Casing

Crr&

Retread Tire

(drive)

Crr

Tread

Difference

(retread&Crr&–&

buffed&casing&Crr)&

Steer&

6.29#

3.78#

6.58#

2.80#

Steer&

5.84#

4.75#

7.23#

2.48#

Drive&

6.05#

4.11#

6.40#

2.29#

Trailer&

5.00#

4.73#

7.35#

2.62#

&

#

#

Average#

2.54#

&

#

#

St. Dev.#

0.22#

Looking Forward

•  Updates to Test Protocols & Verification

•  Increased communication with manufacturers

•  Coastdown testing

•  Other comparisons

–  Impacts of load, pressure, temperature, speed,

and tire size on RR and emissions

Communication & Input Needs

•  What information is needed by stakeholders?

•  How should we monitor RR performance?

•  What is needed in retread verification

updates?

•  Who has RR data at different test points and

methods?

•  Can tire particles be reduced and how might

they be characterized?

Contact:

Dennis Johnson, Director

Technology Assessment Center

Transportation and Climate Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. EPA

Email: [email protected]

Reference:

Bachman, L., Erb, A., and Sellers, J., "Quantitative Estimate of the

Relation Between Rolling Resistance on Fuel Consumption of Class 8

Tractor Trailers Using Both New and Retreaded Tires," SAE Technical

Paper 2014-01-2425, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-2425. USEPA