See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286148295

The Development of a Simulation Tool for Monitoring Heavy-Duty Vehicle CO 2

Emissions and Fuel Consumption in Europe

Article  in  SAE Technical Papers · September 2013

DOI: 10.4271/2013-24-0150

CITATIONS READS

19 1,891

5 authors, including:

Georgios Fontaras Martin Rexeis

European Commission Graz University of Technology
112 PUBLICATIONS   2,558 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   294 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

P. Dilara Stefan Hausberger

European Commission Graz University of Technology
48 PUBLICATIONS   1,518 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   1,133 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

VECTO - Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation Tool View project

Real Driving Emissions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Georgios Fontaras on 14 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Development of a Simulation Tool for
Monitoring Heavy-Duty Vehicle CO2 Emissions
and Fuel Consumption in Europe
Georgios Fontaras
European Commission-JRC
Martin Rexeis
TU-Graz
Panagiota Dilara
European Commission-JRC
Stefan Hausberger
TU-Graz
Konstantinos Anagnostopoulos
European Commission
ABSTRACT
Following its commitment to reduce CO2 emissions from
road transport in Europe, the European Commission has
launched the development of a new methodology for
monitoring CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles (HDV).
Due to the diversity and particular characteristics of the HDV
sector it was decided that the core of the proposed
methodology will be based on a combination of component
testing and vehicle simulation. A detailed methodology for
the measurement of each individual vehicle component of
relevance and a corresponding vehicle simulation is being
elaborated in close collaboration with the European HDV
manufacturers, component suppliers and other stakeholders.
Similar approaches have been already adopted in other major
HDV markets such as the US, Japan and China.
In order to lay the foundations for the future HDV CO2
monitoring and certification software application, a new
vehicle simulation software was developed, Vehicle Energy
2013-24-0150
Published
09/08/2013
Copyright © 2013 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2013-24-0150
Consumption calculation Tool (henceforward VECTO).
VECTO aims to serve as a platform that will incorporate the
findings of current research activities in the field of HDV fuel
consumption simulation and serve as a pilot for future
upgrades and developments of the software application to be
included in the European regulation. Emphasis was put from
the very beginning on features that are of importance to HDV
in order to reflect realistically both the actual vehicle CO2
emissions during operation and the competitive advantages of
various fuel/CO2 saving technologies of the vehicles.
This paper describes the simulation tool, its key
characteristics and summarizes the most important future
updates that are under investigation. In addition a first
validation of its performance against real world measurement
data is presented. The tool was also benchmarked against
three widely available commercial vehicle simulators. Results
suggest good ability to reproduce tests but further
developments are still necessary in order to accurately reflect
the real world fuel consumption of modern HDVs.
INTRODUCTION VEHICLE MODEL
Road transport contributed some 20% “tank-to-wheel”
emissions of the EU's total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Overview
The figure is increased to 22.8% if the “well-to-tank” part of VECTO simulates CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
the fuel cycle is also accounted for [1]. Heavy-Duty Vehicle based on vehicle longitudinal dynamics using a driver model
(HDV) CO2 emissions represent about one quarter [2] of road for simulation of target speed cycles. The required load to be
transport CO2 emissions. Over the long term HDV CO2 delivered by the internal combustion engine is calculated in
1Hz based on the driving resistances, the power losses in the
emissions are expected to contribute an increasing share of
drivetrain system and the power consumption of the vehicle
transport and overall GHG emissions. In view of their
auxiliary units. Engine speed is determined based on a gear
absolute size and relative share in total road transport GHG
shift model, the gear ratios and the wheel diameter. Fuel
emissions - with the latter on the rise - HDV emissions need
consumption and CO2 emissions are then interpolated from
to be addressed and curbed.
an engine fuel/CO2 map.
So far regulation (EC)443/2009 and regulation (EU)510/2011
set out mandatory CO2 emission standards for the new
passenger car and light commercial vehicle fleets in Europe.
It was however not considered possible to apply identical
CO2 emission rules for HDVs as those introduced for light-
duty vehicles in view of (i) their characteristics, in particular
a wide ranging differentiation of products customized
according to end-users' needs, and (ii) in the absence of
commonly agreed registration and monitoring methodology
and measurement mechanism of these emissions. This lack of
monitoring mechanism is responsible for the lack of
knowledge on exact HDV CO2 emissions which in turn
makes effective policy making more difficult. Other countries
(Japan, the USA, Canada and China) have already acted to
regulate HDV fuel consumption or CO2 emissions [3,4]. In
most cases the approach adopted is based on computer
simulations. Vehicle simulation tools have been for years an
established tool for analyzing vehicle fuel consumption [5].
In parallel important work is being done by the UNECE/
GRPE informal workgroup on Heavy Duty Hybrids towards
the set-up of harmonized technical requirements for pollutant Figure 1. Scheme of the VECTO model
emissions and CO2 certification of hybrid heavy duty
powertrains. VECTO provides output values for the average of the test
cycle and in 1 Hz resolution for the entire test cycle together
In order to address the lack of consistent monitoring with relevant additional simulation results (e.g. power
framework for HDV fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, demand of single auxiliaries, losses in transmission, total
the Commission has launched an on-going program to driving resistance and share of the single driving resistances).
establish a simulation tool customized to calculating HDV The list of output values has been defined together by the
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. The first version of the developers and industry. The VECTO software is written in
Vehicle Energy Consumption calculation Tool (henceforward Visual Basic.NET. VECTO provides output values for the
VECTO), was developed by the Graz University of average of the test cycle and in 1 Hz resolution for the entire
Technology and the Joint Research Centre of the European test cycle together with relevant additional simulation results
Commission (JRC) in order to serve as a reference platform (e.g. power demand of single auxiliaries, losses in
on which an HDV CO2 emissions monitoring methodology transmission, total driving resistance and share of the single
driving resistances). The list of output values has been
will be developed and tested. This first version of the tool,
defined together with JRC and industry. The VECTO
demonstrated in this paper, will eventually serve as a
software is written in Visual Basic.NET.
reference basis for the later development of the official
emissions calculation and monitoring software application.
The objective is to start monitoring CO2 emissions as soon as
possible once VECTO and the input data generation
methodology are finalized.

Figure 2. The tool's user interface
For the tool application in the current development process of
the HDV CO2 certification method VECTO allows to edit all
model parameters by the user (VECTO “proof of concept
mode”). This feature is necessary e.g. to compare VECTO
against other simulation models or for a direct comparison of
measured fuel consumption in particular measurement
conditions with VECTO simulation results. For future
VECTO use for simulation of official CO2 values all model
input data fixed by the certification regulations (e.g. driver
model parameters, driving cycles, auxiliary use patterns) will
be set automatically internally based on the input of vehicle
class and the data from the existing component tests (VECTO
“declaration mode”).
Figure 1 gives a schematic description of the VECTO model
and Figure 2 provides an overview of VECTO's current user
interface.
Sub Modules
Below the structure of the different modules applied in the
VECTO software are explained in more detail.
Driver
The VECTO simulation approach is based on “backward
modeling” where the vehicle speed is given as input into the
longitudinal dynamics calculation and the resulting forces
and torques in the drivetrain system are gained as result.
However in the current version (1.3) VECTO incorporates
dedicated forward looking control modules that allow the
simulation of functionalities that would not be possible to
simulate with a purely backward model such as target speed
cycles, driver operation, and simulation of common driver aid
technologies (eco roll, look ahead coasting, overspeeding).
The current VECTO driver module includes the gear shift
models for the three different types of transmission
technologies:
• manual transmissions (MT)
• automated manual transmissions (AMT)
• automated transmissions with hydraulic torque converter
(AT)
The applied gear shift logics have been developed in
cooperation with industry. The model parameterization (e.g.
definition of “shifting lines”) is fully standardized based on
common engine specifications in coordination with vehicle
manufacturers. In parallel the development of a more
elaborate automatic Figure 3 shows as example the gear shift
lines for a manual transmission.
Figure 3. Gear shift parameterization for manual
transmissions based on “shifting lines” calculated from
engine specifications.
The target speed cycles proposed for future vehicle
certification are defined as rectangular speed patters in
combination with variable road gradient specified over
driving distance. To gain realistic driving operation for HDV
in any degree of motorization VECTO limits the vehicle
speed and acceleration according to the full-load performance
of the HDV configuration. Additionally a maximum desired
acceleration as a function of vehicle speed restricts the
acceleration for highly motorized HDV. Deceleration is
simulated in VECTO based on a characteristic curve for
deceleration over vehicle speed. Figure 4 exemplarily shows
a target speed cycle and the simulated actual vehicle speed
for a 12t truck with 6 gear manual transmission in an urban
delivery cycle.
Figure 4. Example for target speed cycle and simulated
actual vehicle speed for a 12t truck with 6 gear manual
transmission
In this first version of the model, “backward” simulation
approach was preferred to “forward” modeling - in the latter
case the torques in the drivetrain from the driver/drivetrain
interaction are given as input into the equations of vehicle
dynamics and the vehicle acceleration and speed are gained
as output - due to the less complex model behavior. The
results from forward modeling are known to be very sensitive
to driver control parameters. Disadvantage of the backward
approach is that some advanced vehicle technologies (e.g.
control systems) cannot (or not fully) be depicted. This
shortcoming will is subject of further research and eventually
VECTO might shift to forward looking architecture in the
future. However, very sophisticated vehicle technologies can
hardly be fully depicted in the framework of a simulation
approach, which fulfills the boundary conditions of a
standardized and transparent certification procedure.
Vehicle Longitudinal Dynamics
The required traction forces at the wheels and the torques in
the drivetrain are calculated based on the fundamental
equations of vehicle longitudinal dynamics from a given
vehicle speed and vehicle acceleration. The considered
driving resistances are rolling resistance, air resistance,
gradient and acceleration resistance. The latter is calculated
including the effect of the rotational inertias in the drivetrain
system. If in a certain timestep the internal combustion
engine cannot overcome the total required engine power,
VECTO iteratively reduces the vehicle speed in the actual
timestep until the actual available engine full load power is
met.
In the calculation of air drag VECTO offers the possibility
also to consider the influence of cross wind. This effect is
depicted by a characteristic curve for change of cd-value as a
function of air-inflow angle and either
a. measured data on air inflow speed and inflow angle, or
b. a generic cross-wind influence which assumes that a
certain average wind speed happens uniformly distributed
from all directions.
Modeling approach (a) is used in the actual phase of model
development. In the “declaration mode” of VECTO (b) will
be applied by default.
Drivetrain
Task of the drivetrain module is the simulation of losses in
the drivetrain between engine flywheel and the driven
wheels. For conventional transmissions (MT, AMT) in the
current VECTO version the user can specify both fixed
efficiencies per gear and the axle transmission or use torque
loss maps. Additionally the torque loss in the retarder system
can be taken into consideration.
For automated transmissions with hydraulic torque converter
(AT) a generic approach for backward simulation is actually
being developed in cooperation with industry. The idea is to
consider the torque converter in a simplified way based on a
quasi-statical operation which is determined by two specific
characteristic curves for the used converter unit. This part of
the drivetrain model will be tested in spring-summer 2013.
Auxiliaries
For modeling of the energy consumption of auxiliary units a
module has been programmed which calculates the
mechanical or electrical power demand based on a “work-
cycle” for the auxiliary (e.g. kW electric power to be
provided by the alternator) and an efficiency map of the
auxiliary. These functions have been programmed for the
alternator, the air compressor, the steering pump and an open
number of further auxiliary components. For input of the
work cycle an interface was programmed which is in line
with the interface to enter the vehicle speed cycle.
The details on how auxiliaries will be considered in the final
VECTO declaration mode are not fully decided yet. Most
probably the work cycle for some auxiliary types will be
determined in a preprocessing step (e.g. the required volume
flow of the air compressor calculated based on the vehicle
specifications). Some of the auxiliary components will be
considered in a very general approach due to complexity
reasons (e.g. fixed constant mechanical power demand for the
engine cooling fan) or due to low importance for real world
CO2 emissions (e.g. A/C systems for trucks).
Engine
Currently, in each 1Hz timestep VECTO interpolates the
engine fuel consumption based on the simulated engine speed
and torque from an engine fuel map measured in steady state
conditions at the engine test bed. The simple use of such a
steady state fuel map in the HDV CO2 certification procedure
has three major shortcomings:
1. There is no assurance of the consistency of regulated
emissions and fuel consumption between the WHTC test and
the steady state fuel map. This issue is one of the most
important requirements for an appropriate HDV CO2
certification method.
2. For actual EURO VI engines the fuel consumption is
influenced by many parameters like e.g. heating strategies for
exhaust aftertreatment. Hence the fuel consumption level as
determined in the steady state fuel consumption map (under
the boundary conditions as defined by per-conditioning and
sequence of test points) can differ from the conditions
representative for the mission profiles (“floating map
effects”).
3. The effect of transient engine behavior is not considered in
the steady state fuel consumption map.
To overcome these shortcomings, it is foreseen in VECTO
that a correction factor is applied to the values in the steady
state FC map. This correction factor shall be determined
based on the quotient of measured fuel consumption in a
transient real world cycle (most probably the WHTC) and the
simulated fuel consumption for this cycle based on the steady
state engine fuel map. The details how this correction factor
approach shall be handled in the final CO2 certification are
still under discussion.
Based on the simulated fuel consumption the CO2 emissions Finally a wide number of simulations with VECTO was
are calculated in VECTO using the carbon content of the fuel dedicated for estimating the influence of the 5 most important
under consideration. input variables on power demand and CO2 emissions.

A further function of the VECTO engine model is the Vehicle - Input Data
simulation of the available engine full-load torque in the
The vehicle used in the measurements was a 12-ton Euro V
actual timestep. This value is calculated based on the steady
delivery vehicle which was tested by TUG on a chassis dyno
state full-load curve, the actual engine torque in the last
under three different mission profiles (Urban, Rural and
timestep and a PT1 time lag element which is parameterized
Motorway, see Figure 5). The summary of the vehicle input
with an engine speed dependent time constant.
values and their source are presented in Table 1.

VALIDATION AND
BENCHMARKING - SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS
In order to investigate the performance of VECTO and
quantify the potential of vehicle simulation software as tools
for certification and CO2 monitoring, a first validation
exercise was performed against measured data. The same
input data were used in VECTO and three commercially
available vehicle simulators in order to obtain a comparative
example of their operation. The aim of the exercise was to
compare the ability of vehicle simulation software
applications to reproduce instantaneous and cumulative fuel
Figure 5. Basic driving profile tested and used for
consumption of an HDV. The following vehicle simulation
validation
software was used: VECTO, Cruise (AVL) [6], Autonomie
(ANL) [7] and PHEM (TUG) [8].
Table 1. Main vehicle characteristics and main input
All abovementioned software applications offer similar data origin
capabilities with respect to basic calculation of energy flows
in a conventional vehicle and the operations that can be
simulated. Some of them offer much more detailed
simulation options than the others, both in terms of systems
and components/subcomponents modeling and in terms of
analysis and connectivity with other software. In all cases
examined at least the following principles were common:

a. Vehicle longitudinal dynamics physical model and inputs

b. Basic vehicle and powertrain components' characteristics

(engine, gearbox, final drive, wheels, chassis and some form
of auxiliary energy consumers)

c. Fuel consumption and pollutant emissions calculation

done by 3-D engine map.

Important differences between the applications exist when it

comes to the modeling of complex non-conventional vehicle
architectures and powertrain control algorithms. However
these were not investigated in the present study.

As mentioned earlier in the text an important difference is

related with the ability of an application to perform a
“backward” or a “forward” simulation. All simulators used
and were operated in a “backward” mode, with only
exception Autonomie, for which the version used did not
support a “backward” operation mode. Detailed information
regarding these software applications can be found in [5].
A series of test measurement data was used for comparison.
The measurements were performed at the chassis dyno of TU
Graz. The basic driving profile used in the tests was the
Common Short Test cycle (CST) developed within the HDV
CO2 project comprising three different modes (urban, rural
and motorway, see Figure 5) which were performed each
three consecutive times. The input data used in the simulated signals and the measured signal were very good.
simulations (see Table 1) were either derived from dedicated The results of the Autonomie simulation for RPM, Power and
tests (test track or chassis dyno) or were provided by the Instantaneous fuel consumption indicate lower correlation
manufacturer. fact which is was expected since in the particular model the
gear shifting was done according to the driver model and not
In particular regarding various subcomponents, the engine by following the actual gear shifting of the measurements.
map, gearbox and final drive data were provided by the
manufacturer. Aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance Table 2. Signal correlation coefficient (%) simulator vs
values were collected via dedicated measurements in test measurement
track following the developing methodology [9]. In the case
of auxiliaries constant loads were used for the different parts
of the simulated cycle (urban, road, motorway) reflecting the
average value recorded over the measurements. Particularly
for VECTO a detailed second by second auxiliary's load was
introduced.

Finally, driver behaviour was simulated following the

acceleration and braking limitations presented previously and
the predefined gearshift sequence recorded during the chassis
dyno measurements. In the case of Autonomie where the
option to use a predefined gearshift strategy was not possible,
the default driver model for HDVs was used.

Validation and Benchmarking

The main results of the validation and benchmarking exercise
are summarized in Table 2, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 10
(appendix).

The instantaneous measured and simulated results for RPM,

engine power and fuel consumption are presented in Figure
10. Good correspondence between the simulated and
measured instantaneous signals was observed over all driving
modes for the three signals. In the case of RPM all three
models operating in backward mode provided almost the
same values as the measurements. Certain deviations that are
observed for Autonomie were expected as this simulator
operated in forward simulation mode under the default driver Figure 6. Deviation of simulated cumulative fuel
option. The picture is similar when comparing engine power consumption from the measured cumulative fuel
but the four simulators presented a wider variability which consumption. Both signals were zeroed between the 3
reflects different assumptions and handling of various loads different subcycles (4000s and 8000s)
and in particular, auxiliaries. It should be noted that the
reference measured power was recorded after the gearbox,
thus normally appears to be lower compared to the simulated Table 3. Normalized simulated fuel consumption for the
engine out power. Instantaneous fuel consumption closely 3 subcycles (measured fuel consumption over each
follows measured values. segment =100)

The observations drawn from the data of Figure 6 are better

summarized in Table 2. Table 2 contains the correlation
coefficient value for the four signals investigated, an
approach which is used for simulation evaluation [10]. It
should be noted that the reference power in this case was
recorded after the gearbox of the vehicle while the signals
retrieved during the simulation referred to the engine out
power. Therefore deviations between simulated Engine
power out and measured gearbox power out are justified. In
general, correlation values that exceed 90% suggest very
good correlation between the simulated and the recorded
signal. As observed in most cases the correlation between the

Figure 7. Comparison of cumulative fuel consumption
evolution over the 3 subcycles
Figure 6 demonstrates the deviation from the measured
values of the cumulative fuel consumption calculated by the
four models. Cumulative fuel consumption is zeroed after the
end of each phase (urban, road and motorway cycles). This
causes an expected initial fluctuation which is later stabilized
around the average deviation of the model. An important
observation is that in most cases all simulation results remain
within ±4% of the reference value over most part of the test
cycle simulated (see also Table 3 for the normalized
simulated fuel consumption). This observation is important as
it suggest that the simulators do not only provide a good end
value (total fuel consumption) but quite accurately follow
fuel consumption evolution throughout the test cycle. Only
exception was the performance of Autonomie over urban
conditions where the combination of the driver model
employed and a possible overestimation of the power of the
auxiliary consumers, led to higher fuel consumption than the
actual measured. The latter becomes evident when looking at
the cumulative fuel consumption evolution in Figure 7.
Similar performance of some of the aforementioned vehicle
simulators has been observed for other types of HDVs as well
[11,12]. It can be concluded that all investigated models
presented satisfactory accuracy.
Sensitivity Analysis
The batch mode capability of VECTO was used for running a
sensitivity analysis of key input parameters in an effort to
investigate their impact and their contribution in fuel
consumption. A series of cases were created by varying the
aerodynamic drag, vehicle mass and rolling resistance
coefficient. Each parameter was set to vary between different
values as shown in Table 4 over five increments. A full
factorial design approach was used to create the test case
combinations from which, in order to reduce the necessary
computational time for this activity, only one third were
finally selected randomly and simulated.
Table 4. Parameters investigated and range of variation
As all three input variables directly affect total engine power
demand, the impact of power demand change on fuel
consumption was also analyzed, bringing the total number of
variables to 5 (3 inputs, consumption and power).
In order to identify possible correlations between the
variables investigated, the partialcorr function of Matlab was
used for testing the alternative hypothesis (Ha) against which
to compute p-values for testing the null hypothesis of no
partial correlation (H0). The results are summarized in Table
5 were p values are presented. Cyan cells correspond to cases
were there was strong indications to reject H0 on a 95%
confidence interval. Orange cells correspond to pairs of
variables where no partial correlation was found. As shown
all input values were strongly correlated with fuel
consumption and total power (cyan cells).
 Table 5. Hypothesis testing results for partial
correlations between variables investigated
A graphical summary of the results is provided in Figure 8
subfigures a-f.
Figure 8. Impact of change (%) in Total engine power
demand (a), Air drag (b), Mass (c), Rolling resistance (d)
on Fuel consumption over the simulated operating
profile.
As presented in subfigure a, fuel consumption was found to
be proportional to the engine power demand. This linearity
suggests limited variations of the average engine efficiency
between the simulated test cases. This observation was
expected as the efficiency of HD engines remains relatively
stable over a wide range of the engine operation field and the
maximum differentiations in power demand simulated did not
exceed 20% of the power demand of the baseline case. A
closer look at the results showed that the average indicated
engine efficiency fluctuated within a ±3% range from that of
the reference case over all simulations run.
Subfigures b to d present the results for the input variables
investigated. As suggested by correlation analysis, all inputs
appear to strongly influence fuel consumption but the
auxiliary unit power demand. Increases in air drag, mass and
rolling resistance lead to proportional increases in fuel
consumption. Air drag was the most influential parameter and
mass and rolling resistance changes having both a similar and
milder effect on fuel consumption. Aerodynamics are known
to be the key resistance factor affecting energy efficiency in
regional and international delivery vehicles where the
average vehicle speed is high.
It should be noted that for this analysis a delivery truck in a
mixed cycle comprising of urban, rural and motorway driving
conditions was examined. The key observations regarding
trends and correlations between variables cannot directly be
transferred to other HDV classes due to other vehicle and
cycle characteristics. Thus a more detailed analysis must be
performed once the exact boundary conditions like driving
cycle profiles to be used for CO2 monitoring purposes are
defined and agreed upon. A preliminary analysis has been
already performed regarding key vehicle characteristics over
different mission profiles by [9] and the results are
summarized in Figure 9 (appendix).
CONCLUSIONS/FOLLOW UP
Initiatives are adopted globally for monitoring CO2 emissions
from HDVs and most of them are based on vehicle
simulation. A simulation based approach is also adopted by
the European commission and a detailed methodology is
being developed. VECTO simulation tool was created in
order to serve as reference platform to support this
developing methodology and constitute a basis for the later
development of the final simulator to be used for certification
purposes. Tested against chassis dyno measurements and
other commercially available vehicle simulators, VECTO
performance was good providing results within ±4% of the
measured values and of similar quality as the other tools. A
first sensitivity analysis of three key input variables for a 12-
ton delivery truck showed that air drag is the most important
parameter affecting fuel consumption. This is in line with
previous observations and significant effort is being put into
developing the necessary techniques for accurately measuring
and simulating these parameters.
An updated release of VECTO is expected within 2013 which
will include advanced models for the driver, different
auxiliary components as well as advanced automatic
transmission models. Furthermore VECTO will offer a
“declaration mode” where the user input is limited to the
input data as specified in the regulations for simulation of
official CO2 values. For the long term future, transition to a
purely forward simulation model is foreseen. In addition the
possibility and the requirements are being investigated for
coupling future VECTO versions with the hardware-in-the-
loop based model which is being developed in parallel for
hybrid powertrain certification in the framework of the heavy
duty hybrid UNECE/GRPE workgroup. The potential for
global harmonization with similar vehicle simulation models
for HDV certification will also be examined.
REFERENCES
1. EEA (2010). Towards a resource efficient transport
system http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/towards-a-
resource-efficient-transport-system, 2010.
2. AEA-Ricardo (2011). Reduction and Testing of GHG CONTACT INFORMATION
emissions from Heavy-duty Vehicles. Lot 1: Strategy http://
ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/docs/ For further information please address to
ec_hdv_ghg_strategy_en.pdf, 2011.
3. Lee, S. PhD, Lee, B., Zhang, H. PhD, Sze, C. PhD et al., Dr Panagiota Dilara
“Development of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model for panagiota.dilara@jrc.ec.europa.eu
2014-2017 Heavy- and Medium-Duty Vehicle Compliance,”
SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-2188, 2011, doi:
10.4271/2011-01-2188.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
4. Sharpe, B. and Lowell, D., “Certification Procedures for Authors would like to acknowledge the support and
Advanced Technology Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Evaluating contributions of Mr Peter Brunner and Mr Christophe Pavret
Test Methods and Opportunities for Global Alignment,” SAE de la Rochefordiere of DG Clima. Authors would like to
Int. J. Commer. Veh. 5(2):534-545, 2012, doi: thank Mr Marco Flammini for his contribution in the
10.4271/2012-01-1986. sensitivity analysis.
5. Kousoulidou M., Fontaras G., Lonza L. and Dilara P.
(2013). Review and evaluation of emission models and DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
vehicle simulation tools. JRC Publication 78179, DOI:
10.2790/74085 (print), 10.2790/73957 (online), 2013. CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
6. AVL (2013). AVL Cruise - Vehicle System and Driveline FC - Fuel Consumption
Analysis. Available at: www.avl.com/c/document_library/ GRPE - Working Party on Pollution and Energy
get_file?uuid=e3198e0c-3a41-4ed4-acde- HDV - Heavy-duty Vehicles
d844f447d34f&groupId=297166, 2013.
JRC - Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
7. Halbach, S., Sharer, P., Pagerit, S., Rousseau, A. et al.,
RPM - Rotations per minute
“Model Architecture, Methods, and Interfaces for Efficient
Math-Based Design and Simulation of Automotive Control TUG - University of Technology of Graz, Austria
Systems,” SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-0241, 2010, doi: UNECE - United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
10.4271/2010-01-0241.
8. Rexeis M. (2009). Ascertainment of Real World
Emissions of Heavy-duty Vehicles. Dissertation, Institute for
Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics, Graz
University of Technology. October 2009.
9. TU Graz, TUV Nord, VTT, AVL, LAT, HS (2012).
Reduction and Testing of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Heavy-duty Vehicles - LOT 2 Development and testing of a
certification procedure for CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption of HDV. Final report available at: http://
ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/heavy/doc s/
hdv_2011_01_09_en.pdf, 2012.
10. Meng, Y., Jennings, M., Tsou, P., Brigham, D. et al.,
“Test Correlation Framework for Hybrid Electric Vehicle
System Model,” SAE Int. J. Engines 4(1):1046-1057, 2011,
doi:10.4271/2011-01-0881.
11. Fontaras, G., Manfredi, U., Martini, G., Dilara, P. et al.,
“Experimental Assessment of a Diesel-LPG Dual Fuel
Supply System for Retrofit Application in City Busses,” SAE
Technical Paper 2012-01-1944, 2012, doi:
10.4271/2012-01-1944.
12. Fontaras G., Martini G., Manfredi U., Marotta A.,
Krasenbrink A., Maffioletti F., et al. Assessment of on-road
emissions of four Euro V diesel and CNG waste collection
trucks for supporting air-quality improvement initiatives in
the city of Milan. Science of The Total Environment, 426(0):
65-72.
 APPENDIX

Figure 9. Share of the driving resistances in total cycle work for three vehicle categories (results for average loaded vehicles for
generic HDV) [9]
 Figure 10. Comparison of instantaneous RPM, Power and instantaneous fuel consumption signals measured with those
simulated with VECTO

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. SAE Customer Service:
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Fax: 724-776-0790
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191 SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA

View publication stats