AI AA-2000-3041
Fuel Efficiency Comparisons of Advanced Transit Buses
using Fuel Cell and Engine Hybrid Electric Drivelines
A.F. Burke
M. Miller
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California - Davis
Davis,'California95616
Introduction
In recent years, the attention of air
quality regulators has been increasingly on the
emissions from transit buses, especially
particulate emissions from diesel engines. As a
result, there has been considerableR&D effort
on the development of diesel hybrid-electric and
fuel cell powered transit buses. Fuel cell buses
using both hydrogen and methanol with a
reformer as the fuel are being developed. In
addition, a number of transit agencies have
purchased large numbers of compressed natural
gas (CNG) fueled buses that are in regular
revenue service. The relative emissions and fuel
efficiency of transit buses using these various
driveline technologies and fuels are of
considerable interest and uncertainty. These
topics are explored in this paper based on data
from recent dynamometer tests of diesel and
CNG fueled conventional and diesel hybrid
electric buses and simulations of engine-
generator and fuel cell powered buses. The
computer simulation results are validated using
recently available data for hybrid electric buses,
including the direct hydrogen fuel cell bus that
was in revenue service in Chicago.
Technology Options
The standard technology options
presently available to a transit agency are diesel
and CNG fueled engine powered buses. The
diesel engine powered bus is the baseline for
emissions and fuel economy and all other
'options are thus compared with the
characteristics of the diesel engine powered bus.
The development of the diesel hybrid
electric powered bus technology has progressed
to the point that the New York City Transit
Authority (NYCMTA) recently has ordered one
hundred twenty-five (125) hybrid, 40 ft. buses
for delivery in September 200 1 with an
additional two hundred fifty (250) hybrid buses
1333
to be delivered by 2004 (Reference 1). The
alternative for NYCMTA was the CNG fueled
bus, but they preferred the diesel hybrid bus,
because of mfrastructure considerations in using
CNG as the fuel in New York City.
Fuel cell powered buses have been
tested in both the United States and Europe over
the last several years. Most of these buses have
used compressed hydrogen as the fuel, but
recently a few of the fuel cell powered buses are
using methanol with a reformer as the fuel. The
fuel cell buses are not as yet being offered for
sale to transit agencies, but their potential for
high efficiency and very low (near zero)
emissions are of great interest for the future.
The final technology options that should
be considered are low-floor design and light-
weight construction. T h e options can be
combined with any of the driveline options
previously discussed. The prototype Advance
Technology Transit Bus (A?TB) designed and
built by Northrup under contract to the Federal
Transit Administration(FTA) and the Los
Angeles MTA is an exar iple of a bus that
combines a hybrid electic powertrain with a low
floor, light-weight design (Reference 2). The
AlTB thus includes most of the elements of
advanced bus technology that are currently being
considered in transit bus R&D.
Emission Requirements
Emission standards for heavy duty
vehicles (urban buses and trucks) are set in terms
of the average emissions (gmhhp-hr) from the
engine used in the vehicle on a prescribed FTP
engine test cycle. Standards are set for NOx,
hydrocarbons (HC), CO, and particulate material
(PM). The mandatory Federal Standards (1988-
2003) for urban bus engines are shown in
Table 1. The NOx and PM standards have been
progressively reduced over that time period. As
 Table 1. The NOx and PM standards have been
progressively reduced over that time period. As
shown'in Table 2, Califomia (CARB) has
recently imposed much stricter emission
standards for NOx and PM with the NOx
standard being reduced to .2 gm/bhp-hr and the
PM standard to .01 gmlbhp-hr by 2007. In
addition, CARB has set a Zero Emission Bus
(ZEB) requirement of 15% of new purchases in
2010. In assessing new technologies for transit
buses, these new CARB emission standards will
likely be used in much the same way as the
LEV/ULEV standards for passenger cars were
used in the 1990's. One of the major differences
in comparing passenger car and transit bus
standards is that the car standards are set on a
vehicle g d m i basis on prescribed driving cycles
and the bus standards are set for the engine on a
prescribed torque-RPM cycle which may or may
not be appropriate for relating engine and vehicle
emissions in a particular vehicle application
(vehicle design and use pattern). This
uncertainty is not addressed in this paper, but it
is an important problem that should be addressed
in future work.
Dynamometer Test Data for In-Use Transit
Buses
Chassis dynamometer emissions and
fuel economy test data for a number of transit
buses, including diesel hybrid electric buses,
have recently been published (Reference 3). The
buses tested are listed in Table 3. All the buses
were 1997 or newer models. The conventional
diesel and CNG buses thus meet the engine
standards of 4 gm/bhp-hr NOx and .05 gmhhp-
hr PM. The diesel hybrid electric buses used
engines certified under the heavy duty truck
emission standards of 4 gmhhp-hr and .1
gmlbhp-hr PM. because none of the smaller
engines used in the hybrid electric drivelines
were certified for urban bus use. The
conventional buses (diesel and CNG) utilized an
oxidation catalyst for emission control while the
diesel hybrid electric buses utilized both an
oxidation catalyst and a regenerative particulate
trap for emission control. The CNG buses had
engines utilizing state-of-the art closed loop and
oxygen sensor feedback control. The buses were
tested on both the Central Business District
(CBD20) and New York City Bus V u s )
driving cycles. These cycles are quite different
in terms of average speed and power required.
As will be evident fiom the test data, these
differences in the driving cycle characteristics
have a large effect on the bus emissions and fuel
1334
economy. The diesel hybrid electric buses
utilized valve regulated sealed lead-acid batteries
for electrical energy storage and corrections were
made in the test data to account for changes in
the battery state-of-charge during the test. One
of the special features of the hybrid electric
designs with batteries is the possibility of energy
recovery during braking (regenerative braking).
Tests were conducted with and without the
regenerative braking active to demonstrate the
important contribution of regenerative braking to
the improved fuel economy of the hybrid electric
buses.
The dynamometer test data for the
various powertrains and fuel:sare summarized in
Table 4. The data shown were taken from the
tabulated test data given in Reference 3.
Average values are shown when more than one
bus of a particular type was tested. The effect of
the driving cycle is readily evident from Table 4
with the emissions being significantly higher and
the fuel economy lower on the NYBus cycle than
on the CBD20 cycle for all the buses tested
regardless of powertrain design or fuel used. All
the fuel economy values are given in terms of
miles per gallon diesel equivalent. For a given
driving cycle, the diesel hybrid electric buses had
significantly lower NOx and HC emissions than
the conventional diesel bus. The particulate
emissions of the diesel hybrid electric bus are
dramatically lower than conventionaldiesel bus,
but much of the difference is due to the use of a
particulate trap in the hybrid electric buses. The
fuel economy of the diesel hybrid electric bus is
higher than that of the conventionaldiesel bus
for both driving cycles, but most of the
difference is due to energy recovery from
regenerative braking. This is true for both
dnving cycles. In compari~igthe diesel hybrid
electric bus data with that fiar the conventional
CNG bus, it is seen that the hybrid electric bus
has much lower HC emissiims and higher NOx
emissions than the CNG bus. The PM emissions
of the hybrid and CNG buses are comparable.
The diesel hybrid electric bus has higher fuel
economy by 50-70% than the CNG fueled bus.
Hence in terms of HC and fuel economy the
diesel hybrid electric bus has a clear advantag;,
but in terms of NOx emissions the CNG bus is
superior. These latter characteristics are due
primarily to the differences in the combustion
processes in diesel and spark-ignition engines.
Apparently hybridizing and the particulate trap
in combination greatly reduce the particulate
emissions from a diesel engine and makes it
more compatible with use in urban areas.
Simulations of Hybrid Electric Buses
Approach
The hybrid electric bus simulations
were performed using the SIMPLEV computer
program (Reference 4). In that program the
vehicle and driveline are modeled separately.
The vehicle is modeled in terms of vehicle
weight, drag coefficient and frontal area, and tire
rolling resistance. The driveline is modeled as a
series hybrid having an electric motor with an
inverter, an engine-generator or fuel cell, and
batteries. A specified control strategy splits the
power demand between the electric motor and
engine-generator or fuel cell depending on the
battery state-of-charge. The fuel cell system
consists of the fuel cell stack and air compressor
and a reformer if methanol is used as the fuel.
The fuel cell components for this study were
modeled using files prepared based on results
obtained from the UC Davis Fuel Cell Vehicle
Modeling Group (Reference 5 , 6 ) . The fuel cell
stack and auxiliaries (air compressor and
reformer) were modeled in terms of efficiency
vs. net power fraction. The battery is modeled in
terms of its open circuit voltage and cell
resistance as a function of state-of charge. For
the simulations given in this paper, an AC
induction motor and inverter and valve regulated
lead-acid batteries were used in the dnveline.
Input files for modeling the electric driveline are
given in Reference 7. The vehicle and
powertrain characteristics for the 40 ft. transit
buses simulated are given in Table 5 .
Simulation Results
Simulationswere performed for the
various buses. The intent of the calculationswas
to determine the fuel economy (miles per gallon
diesel equivalent) for each of the
velucleldnveline combinations on the CBD and
the NY Bus cycle. Sufficient input data to
describe the engine emission characteristics and
system after-treatmentwere not available to
permit simulation of the emissions of the buses.
The SIMPLEV program had been validated for
EV operation (Reference 7) previously using test
data for several EVs on a chassis dynamometer,
but validation of the program for series hybrid
electric vehicle operation was not possible due to
the lack of appropriate test data. As part of the
present study, validation of the SIMPLEV
program for series hybrid-electric vehicles was
started using the data presented in Reference 3.
SIMPLEV simulation results for
standard 40 ft buses using diesel hybrid electric
and fuel cell powertrains are summarized in
1335
Table 6 for the CBD and NY Bus cycles. When
available, test data are shown in the Table 6 for
comparison with the simulation results. For the
diesel hybrid buses, the comparisons between the
simulation results and the data are quite
reasonable in terms of both the magnitudes of the
fuel economy and the significant differences
between the fuel economy on the two drive
cycles. The simulations also show the
significant contribution of regenerative braking
energy recovery to the improved fuel economy
of the hybrid electric buses compared to the
standard dese1 powered bus. The effect of
regenerative braking from the test data is greater
for the NY Bus cycle than was predicted by the
simulations,but for the CBD cycle the predicted
effect of regenerative braking was close to that
from the data.
Simulation results for 40 ft. buses using
fuel cells are also shown in Table 6. Results are
given for buses using direct hydrogen as the fuel
and for buses using methanol and a reformer.
The fuel cell in the hydrogen fueled bus was load
following (no batteries) and that in the
methanollreformerfueled bus was load leveled
(batteries were used permitting regenerative
braking). As would be expected, the fuel
economy of the direct hydrogen fueled bus was
significantly higher (about 36%) than that of the
bus using a reformer. The effect of energy
recovery due to regenerative braking on the fuel
economy of the fuel cell powered bus was
relatively small (7-14%) compared to that for the
diesel hybrid electric buses. Based on a
conversation with an engineer from the Chicago
Transit Authority who was familiar with the
hydrogen fueled Ballard Bus being tested in
Chicago, it was learned that the estimated fuel
economy of the bus was 100 scf H21mi. As
indicated in Table 6, t h ~ corresponds
s to 5.16
mpg diesel equivalent ,which is in reasonable
agreement with the simulation results for the fuel
cell bus using direct hydrogen.
SIMPLEV simulations were also
performed for the ATTB bus. The results are
shown in Table 7 for series, CNG engine, hybrid
electric and direct hydrogen and
methanolheformer fuel cell buses. All the fuel
economy values are given in miles per gallon
diesel equivalent. The primary difference
between the ATTB and standard 40 ft. buses is
that the ATTB is a light-weight bus having a test
weight of about 27,000 lbs. compared to 34,000
lbs for the standard bus. For all the various
drivelines, the fuel economy predicted for the
ATTB bus is higher than that predicted for the
standard bus with the corresponding driveline.
The difference for the engine-generator series
hybrids is about 10% and about 16% for the fuel
cell powered vehicles. For the A m , the direct
hydrogen, fuel cell powered bus is predicted to
have about a 30% higher fuel economy than the
engine-generator powered bus.
Conclusions
Test data and computer simulations
indicate that transit buses utilizing hybrid electric
drivelines with either an engine-generator or a
fuel cell to generate electricity on board the
vehicle can have much lower emissions and
significantly higher fuel economy than standard
diesel powered buses. Comparison of computer
simulation results for fuel economy obtained
using the SIMPLEV program for series engine-
generator hybrid electric and fuel cell powered
buses with road and chassis dynamometer test
data show good agreement for the CBD and NY
Bus dnving cycles. Hydrogen fueled fuel cell
buses are projected to have significantly higher
(about 2530%) fuel economy than either engine-
generator powered or methanollreformer fueled
fuel cell buses.
References
1. Proceedings of the SAE TOPTEC:
Hybrid Electric Vehicles in the Bus and
Truck Markets-New Ways of Building
Better Heavy-Duty Vehicles, East
Elmhurst, New York, May 11-12,2000
Table 1: Federal Emission Standards for
Urban Bus Heavy-Duty Engines
Engine Emissions(')-gmhhp-hr
Modelyear NOx
1988 10.7
1990 6.0
1991 5.O
1994 5.0
1998 4.0
2000 4.0
(1) Tested on the FTP Engine Cycle
2. Advanced Technology Transit Bus,
Final Test Report for ATTB Prototypes,
Northrop Grumman Report for the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, April 1999
3. Hybrid-Electric Drive Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Testing Project-Final Emissions
Report, Report for the Northeast
Advanced Vehicle Consortium by M.J.
Bradley & Associates, February 2000
4. Cole, G.H., SIMPLEV: A Simple
Electric Vehicle Simulation Program,
Version 2.0, Report DOE/ID-10293-2,
April 1993
5. Karl-Heinz Hauer, etals, Indirect
Methanol Fuel Cell Vehicle Model,
2000 SAE International Future
Transportation Technology Conference
Proceedings,Costa-Mesa,August 21-
23,2000
6. Ramaswamy, S., etiils, Fuel Processor
for an Indirect Methanol Fuel Cell
Vehicle, 2000 SAE Future
Transportation Technology Conference
Proceedings, Costa-Mesa,August 2 1-
23,2000
7. Friedman, D.J., Burke, A.F., and Miller,
M., Hybrid Vehicle Component
Modeling: Flywheels, Ultracapacitors,
and Fuel Cells Systems, ITS-Davis
Report, work performed for NREL on
Contract XCB-5- 153-33-01, March
1998
PM
1.3 15.5 .60
1.3 15.5 .60
1.3 15.5 .10
1.3 15.5 .10
1.3 15.5 .05
1.3 15.5 .05
1336
.

Table 2: Proposed California Urban Transit

Bus Emission Standards (2000-2010)

gm/bhP-h
Model Year NOx PM
2000 4.0 .05
2004 0.5 .o 1
2007 0.2 .01
2010 15% of new purchases are
ZEBs (zero emission buses)

Table 3: Transit Buses Tested for the

Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium (NAVC)

BusManufacturer Model Year Driveline Fuel

Nova RTS, Series 50, Diesel 1999 Detroit Diesel, Diesel
Series 50,
3 Speed Auto

New Flyer C40LF, CNG 1999 Detroit Diesel, CNG

Series 50G,
5 Speed Auto

Neo plan AN440T,CNG 1998 Cummins L10 CNG

280G,
5 Speed Auto

Orion V, CNG 1999 Detroit Diesel, CNG

Series 50G,
5 Speed Auto

Orion-LMCS, Hybrid Electric 1998 Detroit Diesel, Diesel

Series 30,
LMCS hybrid electic drive

Nova-Allison, Hybrid Electric 1991 V M Motori VM642 Diesel

Allison Hybrid Electric

1337
 Table 4: Summary of Emissions and Fuel Economy Test Data for
Conventional and Hybrid Electric Transit Buses

Conventional Buses emissions gm/mi Fuel Economy

NOx NMOC PM I(:mDg)diesel
Diesel (1999)
CBD 30 14 .24 3.5
NY Bus 72 .60 .70 1.4

CNG (1998-99)
CBD 12 2.8 .02 2.8
NY Bus 28 5.5 .05 1.2

Diesel Hvbrid
CBD (w/regen) 24 .08 .06 4.1
CBD(w/o regen) 22 .12 -- 3.7
NY Bus (w/regen) 50 1.1 .08 2.0
NY Bus (w/o regen) 50 2.0 -- 1.5

1338
 Table 5: Summary of Vehicle Characteristics Used for
the Transit Bus Simulations
Vehicle Driveline Test Electrid') Eng-gen or Battery(2)
TYPe m WeiFht (kg) Co/AE(m2Yfr Drive (kw) fuel cell (kw) weipht (k&

Standard Series 15,650 .55/7.73/.0 14 227 100 1080

40ft. bus. diesel electric
hybrid

Standard direct H2 14,840 .55/7.73/.014 227 200 0

40ft. bus. fuel cell

Standard methanol 15,650 .55/7.73/.014 227 100 1080

40ft. bus. reformer,
fuel cell

ATTB series 13,000 SY7.731.014 227 100 1080

diesel electric
hybrid

ATTB direct H2 12,200 .55/7.73/.014 227 200 0

fuel cell

ATTB methanol 13,000 .55/7.73/.014 227 100 1080

reformer,
fuel cell

(1) AC induction motor with inverter, regen. factor = .7

(2) sealed lead-acid batteries

Table 6 :Simplev Simulation Reset

Diesel H j "rid CBD cycle -

Test NY Bus -
Test
with regen. 4.23 4.3 2.48 2.3
without regen. 3.6 3.7 2.08 1.5

FC/reform./bat. .
with regen. 4.57 -_ 2.49 --
without regen. 3.54 -- 2.20 --
FC with direct Hz
without regen. 5.40 5.16
(100 scf Hzlmi)
1 2.93

1339
 Table 7: Simplev Simulation Results for the ATTB Bus

Powertrain Confipuration Driving Cvcle - E

Fuel
CNG, engine-gen.(') Road Test 3.95
CNG, engine-gen.(' ) CBD 4.74
N Y Bus 3.06

Fuel Cell, Direct HZ CBD 6.30

Load following, no regen. NY Bus 3.29

Fuel Cell, reformer CBD 5.71

Battery, with regen.(2) NY Bus 2.76

(1) load following, no batteries

(2) load leveled with lead-acid batteries

1340