See SAE J1321 testing documentation.

SAE J1321 TYPE II CLASS 8 TRACTOR TMILER
FUEL EFFICIENCY COMPARISON TEST
Evaluation of SmartTruck's UT-1 Trailer UnderTray Svstem
Conducted for SmartTruck by:
BI\iII CORPORATION
Greenville, SC 29605
KTM Solutions, lnc.
Greenville, SC 29607
February 18,2011
Smart fruck Products Confidential Business Information
smartTruck Products Conhdential Business Infomation
Background and Introduction
SmartTruck is pleased to submit the following application for our uT-'l Trailer UnderTray
System to EPA'S Smartway Transport Partnership program for verification The UT-1
Trailer UnderTray System is
a trailer aerodynamic technology as
defined by EPA'S
program and was designed and developed by SmartTruck located in Greenville, SC. The
UT-1 is an integrated set of components that work as a system to reduce drag
To develop lhe UT-1, SmartTruck used the same advanced aerospace engineering tools
that are currently used in the highest levels of the commercial aviation and space
program industries. Speciflcally, SmartTruck designed and assessed the aerodynamic
of the
UT-1 using NASA'S Fully Unstructured Navier-Stokes 3D
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model and solver' The computational resources
needed to resolve the tremendous grid sizes and detailed air flow characteristics
performance
associated with today's Class 8 vehicles were provided to SmartTruck by DOE'S Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL provided SmartTruck the use of their Jaguar
system, a Cray XTs supercomputer, considered to be the fastest computing system in the
world for unclassified researchl.
SmartTruck's CFD assessment
of the UT-1 Trailer UnderTray System shows
that
installing the UT-l system on today's most aerodynamic Class 8 long haul tractor trailer
reduces drag by 9%. At the conditions specified in the SAE J1321 testing protocol and
subsequent EPA addendums, the fuel efficiency improvement associated with
reduction in drag translates to approximately 5.5% improvement
a
9%
The primary reason for this testing program is to achieve EPA Smartway Transport
Program verification for the UT-1 Trailer UnderTray System. However, SmartTruck also
desires to assess our CFD modeling capabilities and as a result, SmartTruck has gone
above and beyond the SAE J1321 testing protocol by outfitting our test and control trucks
with state of the art data acquisition systems. These systems have 60 available channels
I
Narional Center for Computational Scienc€s, http://www.nccs-gov/jaguar/
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
to monitor and record a wide variety of vehicle systems and effects, including true air
speed, wheel speed, wind direction, steering input, multiple aerodynamic pressure
differentials at key vehicle locations, and vehicle lap times automatically measured
between infrared beacons.
Testing on the UT-1 UnderTray System was conducted the week of November 7rh, 2O1O
at the Continental Tires Proving Grounds in Uvalde, Texas. Test results using the Test
Truck to Control Truck (T/C) ratios detailed in the SAE J1321 protocol conclude the UT-1
Trailer UnderTray System produces a 5.syo improvement in fuel efficiency.
Approach
This testing program was done in accordance with the SAE J1321 Fuel Consumption
Test Procedure
-
Type ll as modified by EPA'S lnterim Test Method for Veitying Fuel-
Saving Components for SmaftWay: Modifications
to
SAE J1321. Testing documents
used by our test team are shown in Appendix C.
A statement from KTM Engineering, the engineering firm hired to help plan and execute
this testing program, attesting that this testing program was done in full accordance with
the required SAE and EPA protocols is enclosed in Appendix B.
To further facilitate proper implementation of the SAE J1321 and EPA protocols, two
identical Kentucky 53 foot dry van trailers and two identical (sequential production line
VIN numbers) Navislar 2009 model year Prostar Tractors were randomly paired together
and the resulting tractor/trailer combinations were designated as the control and test
vehicles. These combinations remained consistent throughout testing. Both the control
and test trucks were equipped with state of the art data acquisition systems. These
systems have 60 available channels to monitor and record a wide variety of vehicle
systems and effects, including:
.
.
Stack Data Pro data recorders to collect the essential split and lap times.
Air speed.
SmartTruck Products Confidential Business Information
Wheel speed sensors to provide both vehicle speed and distance traveled.
lnfra-red beacons for the collection of split and lap times, and total test run time.
Temperature sensors to monitor the temperature of the fuel in the test fuel tanks.
Water tanks were used for ballasting the trailers to equal weights and axle distributions.
Weather was monitored by BMI Corporation's Davis Vantage Vue weather station which
was located near the pit area, to provide data as close to what the truck was exposed to
as possible. A sample data sheet is shown in Appendix C.
Test Procedure
Testing followed the protocol of the Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure Type ll as modified by EPA'S lnterim Test Method for Veifying Fuel-Saving Components
for SmaftWay: Modifications to SAE J1321 . On each test day the vehicles were fueled for
the test and operated on the track for the required one hour warm-up. Following the
warm-up phase, a minimum of three test runs with valid data sels were completed.
Additional test runs were added if test runs were voided because data points were outside
the allowable ranges specified by the SAE J1321 protocol.
Prior to official testing, the drivers, operators, and test coordinator drove the test route to
decide:
The appropriate starting and ending points for the trucks including pit stop location.
The locat'on where the trucks would lock in their test cruising speed of 65 mph,
resulting in acceleration curves mimicking actual highway driving conditions.
The precise spot at which the trucks would switch from main to test fuel tanks.
The locations for the four beacons which would provide precise lap/split times as well
as test start and completion times.
The test coordinator was then able to validate the distance of the test.
Each test run began with a typical highway acceleration period, taking the vehicle from
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
the pit stop location at zero MPH to 65 MPH cruising speed. During the acceleration
period, drivers accelerated the trucks to cruising speed over the same distance for each
test run. The location at which the drivers would engage cruise control was marked on the
track by orange cones. The engine ECMS provided an additional measure of test time
repeatability by not allowing cruise to be set higher than the maximum allowable cruising
speed of 65 MPH. The trucks automatic transmission was in tenth gear at 65 MPH.
Our first timing beacon was located at mile marker 2
0
When the vehicle reached this
point, the beacon would automatically signal the observer to switch from the main fuel
tank to the portable test fuel tank. This ensured that the trucks had adequate time to
attain appropriate speed in cruise before the test tanks were engaged in precisely the
same location.
The beacons were set on the track at the 2.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 8 2 mile marks. The beacons
provided accurate vehicle speed and splivlap times to the test observers through an onboard display. The observers had data sheets on board where they recorded all 20 split
times for each test run. The split times could be used to analyze where issues may have
occurred if, on any future run, a time exceeded the required 0 5% time window as
prescribed by SAE J1321.
Prior to testing, each truck's portable test tank was filled with enough fuel to complete four
full test runs. The trucks were then run on the portable tanks to cycle the fuel and ensure
no air pockets remained. The portable fuel tanks were then weighed The tests were then
launched with a warm up session (minimum one hour) Upon completion of the warm up
session and at the start of the test sequences a full pit stop was completed that included:
.
.
.
.
.
Accurate weighing and recording of portable fueltank weight
Checking and recording oftire pressures.
Downloading and clearing stack data.
Reviewing ECM data for the presence of faults and or PlVl filter regenerations.
Visual inspections for leaks and damage.
SmartTruck Products Confldential Business lnformation
.
Monitoring pit stop time to ensure launch within a five minute window and consistent
time frame from test truck to control truck.
The trucks were then started on a five lap (42.5 mile) test run with the data system
recording the starting time. The test coordinator started a stopwatch to record the test run
times to compare with the data system.
At the 2.0 mile mark, a beacon would signal the observer to switch from the main fuel
tank to the test tank by dasplaying the split time on the Stack data system digital dash. At
this time, the observer switched to the test tank and the test continued on that tank for the
next 40.2 miles. With 0.3 miles left on the 42.5 mile course the observer switched back to
the main fuel tank.
At the end of the test run, the driver stopped at the pre-designated point in the pit area.
The engine was run at idle for precisely 1.0 minute, at which time the ECI\4 would shut it
down and the data system would record the shut down time. Following engine shut down,
the pit crew would move in and disconnect the tesl fuel tank and weigh it on the calibrated
scale (scale was verified for calibration before each pit stop sequence). The sequence for
each tank weighing was as follows:
1) Tank removed from location.
2)
3)
4)
5)
Scale set in place and zero verified.
Tank set on scale, weighed, and value recorded.
Tank removed from scale.
Scale zero re-verified.
With the weighing complete and recorded, the pit crew would again secure the test tank
to the truck. This process would repeat until a minimum of three valid test runs were
completed.
The test consists of two primary components. Part one of the process was to conduct a
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business lnformation
baseline test segmenl where both the control truck and the test truck were run in stock
configurations. The baseline test is needed to establish a T/C ratio. The second part of
the procedure requires that any modifications being evaluated are added to the test truck
while the control truck remains
in
its baseline test configuration. The two trucks were run
concurrently so that any changes in climate are normalized by the presence of the control
truck.
Each test run consisted of five laps of the test track, or a distance of 42.5 miles. The
distance driven on the test tank actually measured 40.2 miles. The additional 2.3 miles
allow for initial acceleration to testing speeds and adequate stopping distance.
The two principle criteria for determining a successful test are:
.
.
Three T/C ratios are required to be within 2% range of the highest T/C ratio.
The running times of the three test runs that yield three acceptable T/C ratios cannot
differ by more than 0.5%.
4
Vehicle Preparation
.
The main fuel tanks were fueled to keep the weights of the vehicles constant and to
provide sufficient fuel to complete the test.
.
All vehicle axles were aligned to manufacturer's specifications. Tractor and trailer axle
bearing and brake adjustments were made al this time.
.
The tractor trailer gap was set in
a
commonly used long haul configuration.
Specifically, the King Pin location was set so that the back of the cab to the front of the
trailer gap was 50 inches. Figure 11 in Appendix A shows the Tractor Trailer gap
setting.
.
The King Pin location of both trailers was set to the tenth (of a total of fourteen)
adjusting hole, foMard of the reaMard most adjustment point.
.
The trailers were ballast to comply with EPA'S required trailer test weight of 46,000 +/500 lbs.
.
Each truck was equipped with a portable fuel tank utilizing quick-disconnect couplers
SmafiTruck Products Conideltial Business
lnformation
8
for supply and return.
The tire pressures were set to a cold pressure of 110 psi (steer), 110 psi (drive), and
105 psi (traileo immediately prior to commencement of the warm-up on each test day
Documentation of the test vehicle configuration and proper installation of the UT-1
components was completed prior to each test.
The portable fuel tanks were filled with test diesel fuel of known density The same
fuel from the same source was used throughout the entire test procedure
5
Pre-test Inspection and Warm-up
Each test day before vehicle warm-up the vehicles were run for brief periods and checked
to ensure they were in good working order. The tire pressures were checked to ensule
proper inflation. The vehicles main fuel tanks were fueled to maintain consistent vehicle
weights and ensure refueling would not be required during the test.
Fuel Weight and Test Time
Each truck was outfifted with a Stack Data Pro System with data recorders' various
sensors, and an infra-red beacon to collecl vehicle and test information including: vehicle
speed, lap times, dislances traveled, test fuel tank temperatures, and which fuel tank was
currently active.
Fuel consumption for each vehicle was measured for each run completed. Consumption,
measured in pounds, was determined by weighing the portable fuel tanks prior to and
immediately following each lest run. The 30 gallon portable test fuel tanks were equipped
with quick disconnect couplings on supply and return lines for easy removal and
installation to the vehicle fuel system. Tanks were weighed utilizing a portable Accu Lab
200 F scale, with a resolution of 0.1 pounds. Scale accuracy was verified prior to the
beginning of each test segment using certified weights weighing 100 105 pounds
Fuel
A single dedicated stock of diesel fuel was used throughout the program on both the
control and test trucks. The test fuel was supplied from Continental Proving Grounds onSmafiTruck Products Confidential Business
Information
9
site fuel depot. The fuel was tested for density at 60'F and the density was 6.87 pounds
per gallon.
8
Vehicle and Equipment Specifications
Table
V.I.N,
l -Tr.ctor-Trrilerlnfo.nation
c13601
c13602
3HSCUAPR4SN144464
3HSCUAPR49N144465
isx
435
sT
D14266
D14272
1KKVA53219L228135
1KKVA53279L228141
46.080
46,144
tsx 435 sT
21,1U
20,152
Goodyear G395LH5
22.5 (l1oDsi)
22
5ll1oDsi)
GoodyearG305LH5
GoodyearG305LH5
22.5 (11opsi)
22.5 i11oDs)
RTO 169108 Dr\43
18 880
18 780
T!ble
2 -
Instrunentation Inform'tion
Data System to lvlonitor
Calibrated just
p
Slack Data Pro
Vehicle Speed Monitoring
Svstem
Tanks
3o-gallon fueltanks
(Total of 2)
Supplied fuel durino the test
N/A
300-lb Scale
ACCU LAB SVI.2OOF
Weighed gravimet c tanks
to 0.1 lbs. resolution
Calibration Weiohts
so-pound, cerfi fied barbell
fiotal of 2)
Calibration of scEle
Thermometer
Omega Thermocouple
HTMOSS-125U-6
lvleasured lemperature of
test fuel
Calibrated before the
beoinnino of each test
Two 50 pound barbells
certified to 100.105 lbs.
Calibrated to boiling waier
just prior to the beginning
Gravimetric Fuel
SmartTruck Products Confidential Business Information
or to
oftesting
10
Description of Test Facility
Testing was conducted in Uvalde, Texas on the Continental Tires Proving Grounds 8.5
mile oval lest track. This track consists of three 13 foot wide asphalt lanes, and has a 180
degree turn al each end. Each turn has a radius of 1.0 mile and a travel distance of 3.15
miles. The test track was at an approximate elevation of 1,000 feet above sea level.
During testing the trucks remained in the inside lane. The pit area was created in the
middle lane at approximately the 0.1 mile mark. The fuel weighing and refueling occurred
in the pit area.
10 Fuel Calculation Equations
After each lest run had been completed and the weight of the fuel consumed by each
truck on that run had been determined, the weight of fuel consumed by the test vehicle
was divided by the weight of fuel consumed by the Control vehicle for calculation of T/C
ratios. The formula for T/C calculation is as follows:
T
Fue I consume
d
(Ib
s.)by
T e st
Truck
Equation
I - T/C
f1 ratio = Fuel consumed (Ibs. ) by C ontro I Truc k
SAE J1321 protocol requires that testing runs continue until three valid T/C ratios have
been achieved. All valid test Iuns must meet the following criteria:
A maximum of 2% variation in T/C ratios is acceptable.
A maximum of plus or minus 0.5% deviation in time of test runs is acceptable.
After completion of all baseline and test segments the data was processed according to
SAE
J
1321. The first requirement is to calculate an average T/C ratio for the control truck
and the test truck for all test segments.
Smartl ruck Productq Conidential Business Inlorrnation
1t
T
/6 "otiooro =
(Tf 1 rattol +T f g r(ttio2 +T f c
ratiq)
Average
T/C
Ratio
Next, percent of fuel saved is calculated for the test truck during the test segment by the
following equation:
o/o
Fuel Soued =
(Tf , ratioono,"*"r1n"
T
-T /g
ratioon",r""r)
/c t otioo,o,"o,",rn"
The final required calculation is the percent improvement which is calculated as follows:
(T
o/a
Improvemenl
f.
ratioor,1.so,"11n"
-Tf ,
rarioor6.1"n
/C ratioono'""
SmartTruck Products Confidential Business Infomation
)
tqua'ion 4
- v'
lmprovemenr
l2
uoqPluroJul ssoursng FpuepguoJ spnpoJd
'u]als^s ie.rlepun .ralrerl L-ln eql q
seM lcnJl lsel eql 'suorlelnclEc pue buusal eulaseq lle
Icrulueuls
/\^
]o uorsnpuoc eql
pallulno
6uu\,1ollol
uorleJn3uuo]
lsel ! !
12
Test Data
12.1 Baseline Segment
Table3 - Bzseline T€sf D,t't
Baseline Test Data Set
Truck
Control
Truck
Test Truck
SDeed
Starting
Fuel
Weioht
Ending
Weiqht
Fuel
Consumed
Burn
Distance
Millaqe
mtn
mph
lbs
lbs
lbs
qal
miles
moq
37.18
64.S
336 8
295.4
41.4
6.03
2
37 17
241 2
240.5
407
3
326.1
285.6
405
592
590
667
679
37 20
649
648
402
402
40.2
6.82
1
37.23
64.8
345 6
303 2
42.4
6.17
402
651
37
64.9
297.1
256.0
41
1
5.98
40.2
64.8
336 6
295 6
41.O
5.97
402
Run
1
2
Total
Time
1A
3
"
Avg
674
- Run was on 11l09/2olO
" - Run was on 1'1l11/2OfO
"'-
Run was on 11l1712010
Table 3 shows the test data from the baseline segment. The T/C ratios for each of the
three test points are wilhin 2o/o of each other and the run times were not greater than
0.5% of the other runs. However, due to variable weather and mechanical difficulties,
these runs were completed on separate days. Table 4 shows the individual and average
baseline T/C ratios. The average baseline segment T/C ratio is 1.01S.
SmartTluck Products Confidential Business Information
14
Trhl.4
- Baseline
T/C Ratios
Baseline TrC Ratios
(Fuel Consumed)
Within
T/C
Ratio
20/o?
Run
1
1.O24
2
1 010
3
1 012
Averaqe:
1.015
Yes
Yes
12.2 Test Segment
Table 5 -Test S.sment TestineDtta
Sta ing
Truck
Run
Total
Time
Avg
soeed
min
Contrcl
Truck
TestTruck
Fuel
Fuel
Weioht
Ending
Weioht
consumed
Burn
Distance
Millade
lbs
lbs
lbs
qal
miles
mDq
298.8
42.1
40.2
661
257.2
4'1.6
402
668
692
2
37.17
64.9
I
298 I
3
37.17
649
216 3
176.1
40.2
613
606
585
37.20
64.8
347.1
306 5
40.6
591
2
37.20
648
306.5
266 6
399
5.81
^(t
402
3
37 17
64.9
221.0
1A2 2
38.8
565
4A.2
37.17
64.9
340
4A.2
,
6.85
697
7.17
- Run was on 11/10/2010
Table 5 shows the test data from the test segment. The T/C ratios for each of the three
test points are within 2o/o of each other and the run times were not greater than 0 5% of
the other runs. Table 6 shows the individual and average test segment T/C
ratios The
average test segment T/C ratio is 0 963
smartTruck Products Confidential Business lnformation
15
Table 6
T€st SegmetrfT/C R.tios
-
Test Segment T/C Ratios
{Fuel Consumed)
Ttc
Ratio
Within
3
0.964
0.959
0.965
Yes
Yes
Yes
Averaqe:
0.963
Run
2
2./"2
13 Summary of Results
13,1 Percent Fuel Saved
o/o
FueL Saved
=
o/o
(T /6 ,otiooro,uo"", n"
T
Fuel
/r
-T /g
Equation 5
ratiooro,r""rl
-
%
-
%
,otion o,"o,"r,n"
11.015
saved:
-
0.963)
1.01s----
_
s.2o/o
13,2 Percent Improvement
o/a
Improvement =
o/o
(T
/g
ratiooro,"o"", n"
Improvement
T
f,
ratioayl;,7""1
(1.015
-
Equition 6
-T /g rattoouo'",r)
- 0.963)
0,62-------
SmartTruck Prcducts Conhdential Business Information
-
5.5o/o
16
14
Conclusion
The testing and data calculation protocols described in the SAE J132'l and subsequent
EPA Smartway Transport Partnership documents conclude that:
On today's most aerodynamic tractor trailer configurations, SmartTruck's UT-l UnderTray
system produces a 5.5% fuel efficiency improvement.
The UT-1 UnderTray system is expected to have slightly different performance with
different types of trailers and tractors due to the differences in the aerodynamic
performance of the base trailer and/or tractor. Additionally, different types of trailer and
tractor components will also have a slight impact on the performance of the UT-'1.
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business lnformation
l7
Preparation and Approval
Repod Prepared By:
Ua le:
Nate See
Test Engineer, B[,ll Corporatiorl
ReporLApproveri By
Date'
Steve \iilrlu
Vrce Presrdent and General lvlanager. SmadTruck
SmafiTruck Prcducts Confi dential Business Infomation
18
Appendix A - Photos and lmages
Images ofthe UT-1 Trailer UnderTray System
Figure
4
-view ofthe
A€rodynamic Rain Gdtler
SmartTruck Products Confidential Business Information
t9
Appendix B - Testing Attestations
KTM Solutions lnc. participated in the planning and execution of the testing program to
evaluate SmartTruck's UT-1 Trailer UnderTray System. To the best of our knowledge this
test was performed in compliance with the SAE J1321 Fuel Consumption Test Procedure
-
Type
ll as modified by EPA'S lnterim Test Method for Veifying Fuel-Saving
Components for SmaftWay: Modifications to SAE J1321
C,rd Harqrales
.
Date
KTlel Test Engll.leer
The testing conducted to evaluate our UT-1 Trailer UnderTray System was performed in
compliance with the SAE J1321 Fuel Consumption Test Procedure
-
Type ll as modified
by EPA's lnterim Test Method for Verifying Fuel-Saving Components for SmaftWay:
Modifications to SAE J1321.
j-_
$teve !Vulff
Date
GenerslManaqer,
Srnad l ruck
SmartTruck Products Conidential Business Information
20
Appendix
C
- Testing Documents
Trud-taild kLUp tlEet
.-\J
'----a/
|
ds+torL Zi@o+slrb
Figure 2 - Trailer Bauast Sheet
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
2l
Figure 3 -Tractor Trailer Pr€-Flight Inspection Sheet
Sma Truck Products Confidential Business Information
22
'cc
r-@,
.o@
,i4
;
iD
Fisure4 - Data StackScreen Shot
Table 7 - Srnpl€ Weather Data
Date
Time
4/7 /2070 10r27 AM
4/7 /2O7O 10:28AM
4/7 /2O7O 10:29AM
4/7 /201.0 10:30AM
4/7 /2010 10:31AM
4/7 /2010 10:32 AM
/2010 10:33 AM
4/7 /2OtO 10:34 AM
4/7 /ZOLO 10:35 AM
4/7/2070 10:36 AM
4/7/2070 10:374M
4/7/2O7O 10;38AM
4/7
Temp
Out
67.a
67.9
67.9
67.9
67.9
67.9
6a
68
68
6a
Out
Hi
Hi
SDeed
Dir
Hum
soeed
95
95
8
8
8
8
a
s5
I
95
7
95
7
95
7
9
9
a
6
7
68
95
g5
68
95
7
8
9
95
95
95
SmaltTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
Dir
10
9
I
10
9
10
9
N
Bar
2a.asa
24.867
24.467
24.462
28.863
28.863
24.463
24.465
24.466
24.467
28.866
24.466
23
Trbl€
8
Strck Rrw Drtr
DataPro Exoort File
Coovripl !t (c) Stack Lin ited 2002
Track : UVALDE
Session:1OO4O7
Run : 012
Creation Date : Wednesdav Ao ril o7 2oao 19:34:OO
Deta Ranee : m:02:16.794 -> 00:04:06.644 lSelection)
Data Exoorted : Satu.dav ADri 24 zOaO 13:24:34
TIME
AMBTEMP
BATT
DISTAN CE
DRVSHFT
ft
RPM
FUELTEMP
STEERING
WSPDl
WSPD2
dee
MPH
MPH
o
100
a3
73.7
70232
1933
113
13
u.6904
a4
737
1930
113
73
2@
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
a4
83
a4
a4
a4
a4
a4
a4
13.7
13.7
1933
113
13
1932
113
72
73.7
10242
10251
1026r
70274
7932
113
a1
13.7
10280
1933
113
11
10289
1933
113
72
64.422
64.5432
64.7263
64.6666
64.6304
64.7263
1000
84
84
a4
a4
a4
a4
a4
1100
a2m
1300
aA(n
1500
1600
77co
1800
1900
2An
u
u
u
2am
a4
a4
2200
a4
2300
2400
a4
a4
64.798
65.0624
64.8459
65.2567
65.1349
64.966
65.2497
64.4939
L3.7
10299
r937
113
13
64.690'4
43.7
10304
4934
113
14
65.O745
13.i
103€
1933
113
15
64.4699
64.7747
13.7
13.7
40327
1935
113
16
64 SqOl
1936
113
16
1933
a73
16
13.5
ro337
10346
10356
1933
a\3
!6
13.5
10365
193)
113
18
64.9901
65.2643
65.0624
64.9059
65.2197
13_5
10375
1931
113
19
13.5
1038/'
1931
113
19
13.5
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
10394
L934
113
t9
64.422
64.8819
64.4419
64.8459
64.6308
64.8339
64.7143
64.607
64.674\
64.6745
64.942
54.8599
65.0383
64 9901
13.5
13.6
13.6
13.6
10403
1936
113
19
10413
1937
113
a6
ro422
70432
10441
1936
773
13
1935
113
10
1931
113
7
10451
1936
113
10460
1936
113
7
5
SmartTruck Prcducts Confidential Business Information
65.2AO4
64.966
65.O9a7
65.3169
64.942
65.)M
65.1955
65.Oa66
65.3655
65.1834
65.4632
24
SAE J1321 TYPE II CLASS 8 TRACTOR TRAILER
FUEL EFFICIENCY COIVIPARISON TEST
Evaluation of SmartTruck's UT-6 Trailer UnderTrav Svstem
Conducted for SmartTruck by:
BMI CORPORATION
Greenville, SC 29605
KTM Solutions, lnc.
Greenville, SC 29607
May 4,2O1O
SmadTruck Products Confi dential Business Informalion
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
1
Background and Introduction
SmartTruck is pleased to submit the following application for our UT-6 Trailer UnderTray
System to EPA'S Smartway Transport Partnership program for verification. The UT-6
Trailer UnderTray System is
a trailet aetodynamic
technology as defined by EPA'S
program and was designed and developed by SmartTruck located in Greenville, SC. The
UT-O is an integrated set of components that work as a system to reduce drag.
To develop the UT-6, SmartTruck used the same advanced aerospace engineering tools
that are currently used in the highest levels of the commercial aviation and space
program industrjes. Specifically, SmartTruck designed and assessed the aerodynamic
performance
of the
UT-6 using NASA'S Fully Unstructured Navier-Stokes
3D
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model and solver. The computational resources
needed
to
resolve the tremendous grid sizes and detailed air flow characteristics
associated with today's Class 8 vehicles were provided to SmartTruck by DOE'S Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL provided SmartTruck the use of their Jaguar
system, a Cray XT5 supercomputer, considered to be the fastest computing system in the
world for unclassified researchl.
SmartTruck's CFD assessment
of the UT-6 Trailer
UnderTray System shows that
installing the UT-6 system on today's most aerodynamic Class
I
long haul tractor trailer
reduces drag by 10%. At the conditions specified in the SAE J1321 testing protocol and
subsequent EPA addendums, the tuel efficiency improvement associated with
a
10%
reduction in drag translates to approximately 6%.
The primary reason for this testing program is to achieve EPA Smartway Transport
Program verification for the UT-6 Trailer UnderTray System. However, SmartTruck also
desires to assess our CFD modeling capabilities and as a result, SmartTruck has gone
above and beyond the SAE J 1321 testing protocol by outfitting our test and control trucks
with state of the art data acquisition systems. These systems have 60 available channels
L
Nalional Ccnlcr for Computalional Sciences, ht!p:/ vww.nccs.gov/laeuar/
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
to monitor and record a wide variety of vehicle systems and effects, including true air
speed, wheel speed, wind direction, steering input, multiple aerodynamic pressure
differentials at key vehicle locations, and vehicle lap times automatically measured
between infrared beacons.
Testing on the UT-6 UnderTray System was conducted the week of April srh, 2O1o at the
Continental Tires Proving Grounds in Uvalde, Texas. Test results using the Test Truck to
control Truck (T/c) ratios detailed in the SAE J1321 protocol conclude the uT-6 Trailer
UnderTray System produces a 6.8% improvement in fuelefficiency
Approach
This testing program was done in accordance with the SAE J'1321 Fuel Consumption
Test Procedure - Type ll as modified by EPA'S Interim Test Method for Vetifying FuelSaving Components for SmaftWay: Modifications to SAE J1321 Testing documents
used by our test team are shown in Appendix C
A statement from KTM Engineering, the engineering firm hired to help plan and execute
this testing program, attesting that this testing program was done in full accordance with
the required SAE and EPA protocols is enclosed in Appendix B
To further facilitate proper implementation of the SAE J1321 and EPA protocols' two
identical Kentucky 53 foot dry van trailers and two identical (sequential production line
VIN numbers) Navistar 2OOg model year Prostar Tractors were randomly paired together
and the resulting tractor/trailer combinations were designated as the control and test
vehicles. These combinations remained consistent throughout testing Both the control
and test trucks were equipped with state of the art data acquisition systems These
systems have 60 available channels to monitor and record a wide variety of vehicle
systems and effects, including:
.
.
Stack Data Pro data recorders to collect the essential split and lap times.
Air speed.
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
Wheel speed sensors to provide both vehicle speed and distance traveled.
lnfra-red beacons for the collection of split and lap times, and total test run time.
Temperature sensors to monitor the temperature ofthe fuel in the test fuel tanks
Water tanks were used for ballasting the trailers to equal weights and axle distributions.
Weather was monitored by BMI Corporation's Davis Vantage Vue weather station which
was located near the pit area, to provide data as close to what the truck was exposed to
as possible. A sample data sheet is shown in Appendix C.
Test Procedure
Testjng followed the protocol of the Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure -
Type ll as modified by EPA'S Interim Test Method for Verifying Fuel-Saving Components
fot SmarIway: Modifications to SAE J1321. The test was split into distinct segments
conducted on two separate days. On each test day the vehicles were fueled for the test
and operated on the track for the required one hour warm-up. Following the warm-up
phase, a minimum of three test runs with valid data sets were completed. Additional test
runs were added if test runs were voided because data points were outside the allowable
ranges specified by the SAE J1321 protocol.
Prior to offlcial testing, the drivers, operators, and test coordinator drove the test route to
decide:
The appropriate starting and ending points for the trucks including pit stop location.
The location where the trucks would lock in their test cruising speed of 65 mph,
resulting in acceleration curves mimicking actual highway driving conditions.
The precise spot at which the trucks would switch from main to test fuel tanks.
The locations for the four beacons which would provide precise lap/split times as well
as test start and completion times.
The test coordinator was then able to validate the distance of the test
Sma(Truck Products Confi dential Business lnformation
Each test run began with a typical highway acceleration period, taking the vehicle from
the pit stop location at zero MPH to 65 NIPH cruising speed. During the acceleration
period, drivers accelerated the trucks to cruising speed over the same distance for each
test run. The location at which the drivers would engage cruise control was matked on the
track by orange cones. The engine ECMS provided an additional measure of test time
repeatability by not allowing cruise to be set higher than the maximum allowable crujsing
speed of 65 MPH. The trucks automatic transmission was in tenth gear at 65 MPH.
Our first timing beacon was located at mile marker 2.0. When the vehicle reached this
point, the beacon would automatically signal the observer to switch from the main fuel
tank to the portable test fuel tank. This ensured that the trucks had adequate time io
attain appropriate speed in cruise before the test tanks were engaged in precisely the
same location.
The beacons were set on the track at the 2.0,4.0, 6.0 and 8.2 mile marks. The beacons
provided accurate vehicle speed and split/lap times to the test observerc through an onboard display. The observers had data sheets on board where they recorded all 20 spljt
times for each test run. The split times could be used to analyze where issues may have
occuffed if, on any future run, a time exceeded the required 0.5% time window as
prescribed by SAE J1321.
Prior to testing, each truck's portable test tank was fllled with enough fuel to complete four
full test runs. The trucks were then run on the portable tanks to cycle the fuel and ensure
no air pockets remained. The portable fuel tanks were then weighed. The tests were then
Iaunched with a warm up session (minimum one hour). Upon completion of the warm up
session and at the start of the test sequences a full pit stop was completed that included:
.
.
.
.
Accurate weighing and recording of portable fuel tank weight.
Checking and recording of tire pressures.
Downloading and clearing stack data.
Reviewing ECM data for the presence of faults and or regenerations.
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
Visual inspections for leaks and damage.
lvlonitoring pit stop time to ensure launch within a five minute window and consistent
time frame from test truck to control truck.
The trucks were then started on a five lap (42.5 mile) test run with the data system
recording the starting time. The test coordinator started a stopwatch to record the test run
times to compare with the data system.
At the 2.0 mile mark, a beacon would signal the observer to switch from the main fuel
tank to the test tank by displaying the split time on the Stack data system digital dash. At
this time, the observer switched to the test tank and the test continued on that tank tor the
next 40.2 miles. With 0.3 miles left on the 42.5 mile course the observer switched back to
the main fueltank
At the end of the test run, the driver stopped at the pre-designated point in the pit area.
The engine was run at idle for precisely L0 minute, at which time the
ECN4
would shut it
down and the data system would record the shut down time. Following engine shut down,
the pit crew would move in and disconnect the test fuel tank and weigh it on the calibrated
scale (scale was verified for calibration before each pit stop sequence). The sequence for
each tank weighing was as follows:
1) Tank removed from location.
2) Scale set in place and zero verified.
3) Tank set on scale, weighed,
4) Tank removed ftom scale.
5) Scale zero re-verified.
and value recorded.
With the weighing complete and recorded, the pit crew would again secure the test tank
to ihe truck. This process would repeat until a minimum of three valid test runs were
completed.
SmartTruck Products Confidential Business Information
The test consists of two primary components. Part one of the process was to conduct
a
baseline test segment where both the control truck and the test truck were run in stock
configurations. The baseline test is needed to establish a T/C ratio. The second part of
the procedure requires that any modifications being evaluated are added to the test truck
while the control truck remains fixed to its baseline test configuration. The two trucks were
run concurrently so that any changes in climate are normalized by the presence of the
controltruck.
Each test run consisted of five laps of the test track, or a distance of 42.5 miles. The
distance driven on the test tank actually measured 40.2 mjles. The additional 2.3 miles
allow for initial acceleration to testing speeds and adequate stopping distance.
The two principle criteria for determining a successful test are:
.
.
Three T/C ratios are required to be within 2% range of the highest T/C ratio.
The running times of the three test runs that yield three acceptable T/c ratios cannot
differ by more than 0.5%.
4
Vehicle Preparation
.
The main fuel tanks were fueled to keep the weights of the vehicles constant and to
provide sufficient fuel to complete the test.
.
All vehicle axles were aligned to manufacturer's specifications. Tractor and trailer axle
bearing and brake adjustments were made at this time.
.
The tractor trailer gap was set in
a
commonly used long haul configuration.
Specifically, the King Pin location was set so that the back of the cab to the front of the
trailer gap was 50 inches. Figure 11 in Appendix A shows the Tractor Trailer gap
setting.
.
The King Pin location of both trailers was set to the tenth (of a total of fourteen)
adjusting hole, forward of the rearward most adjustment point.
.
The trailers were ballast to comply with EPA'S required trailer test weight of 46,000 +/-
500lbs.
SmartTruck Products Confidential Business
Information
8
Each truck was equipped with a portable tuel tank utilizing quick-disconnect couplers
for supply and return.
lhe tire pressures were set to a cold pressure of
110 psi (steer), '110 psi (drive), and
105 psi (trailer) immediately prior to commencement of the warm-up on each test day.
Documentation of the test vehicle configuration and proper installation of the UT-6
components was completed prior to each test.
The portable fuel tanks were filled with test diesel fuel of known density. The same
fuel from the same source was used throuqhout the entire test procedure.
5
Pre-test Inspection and Warm-up
Each test day before vehicle warm-up the vehicles were run for brief periods and checked
to ensure they were in good working order. The tire pressures were checked to ensure
proper inflation. The vehicles main fuel tanks were fueled to maintain consistent vehicle
weights and ensure refueling would not be required during the test.
Fuel Weight and Test Time
Each truck was outfitted with a Stack Data Pro System with data recorders, various
sensors, and an infra-red beacon to collect vehicle and test information including; vehicle
speed, lap times, distances traveled, test fuel tank temperatures, and which fuel tank was
currently active.
Fuel consumption for each vehicle was measured for each run completed. Consumption,
measured in pounds, was determined by weighing the portable fuel tanks prior to and
immediately following each test run. The 30 gallon portable test tuel tanks were equipped
with quick disconnect couplings on supply and return lines for easy removal and
installation to the vehicle fuel system. Tanks were weighed utilizing a portable Accu Lab
200 F scale, with a resolution of 0.1 pounds. Scale accuracy was verified prior to the
beginning of each test segment using certified weights weighing 1 00.105 pounds.
SmartTruck Products Confidential Bosiness lnformation
7
FueI
A single dedicated stock of diesel fuel was used throughout the program on both the
control and test trucks. The test fuel was supplied from Continental Proving Grounds on-
site fuel depot. The fuel was tested for density at 98'F and the density was 6.8 pounds
per gallon.
8
vehicle and Equipment Specifications
T,hl. I
-'l.r.r.r Tniler
Informrt'on
n14712
Dl4266
ct36E2
c13601
MAKE
MODEL
VIN
ENC]NE
START ODOMETIG
rl JSC1lA PR49l'1 l,l-4zld4
SHSCUAPR49N
I4!6J
LKKVAJ32l9t22813J
lxrr' A53219L223t41
ISX 43t ST
I5X43J 5T
63D5
Srwr 295r5R22.5
TIRES-STEIG
R!,li:lRlt5 I]R22
5
Rad;rRr95 1lR
22 5
TIRES.DRIVIfTRAIIEE
TRANSMISSION
RTD 169IOE.DM]
RTD 169108.DM3
r8,9?7
t3,947
6,44J
Tlble
2 -
46,4
lnstrum€niation Infornllion
Vehicle Speed [,,lonitoring
Data System lo Nlonitor
Calibrated jusi pior to
Stack Dala Pro
30{allon fuellanks
S!oDlied luelduino lhe lest
Tanks
300-lb. Sc€le
ACCU IAB SVI-2OOF
50-pound, cerlif ied barbell
fiotal 0f 2\
Omega Themocouple
HTMOSS-125U,6
Weighed gravimetric tanks
to 0.1 lbs. resolution
Calibtalion of scale
l\,{easured iemperalure of
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business lnformation
Calibrated beiore lhe
beoinnino of each tesl.
Two 50 poLrnd barbells
cediJled to 100.105 lbs.
Calibraled lo boiling water
just piorlo the beginning
of testing
l0
9
Description of Test Facility
Testing was conducted in Uvalde, Texas on the Continental Tires Proving Grounds 8 5
mile oval test track. This track consists of three 13 foot wide asphalt lanes, and has a 180
degree turn at each end. Each tum has a radius of 1.0 mile and a travel distance of315
miles. The test track was at an approximate elevation of '1,000 feet above sea level
During testing the trucks remained in the inside lane. The pit area was created in the
middle lane at approximately the 0.'1 mile mark. The fuel weighing and refueling occurred
in the pit area.
1O Fuel Calculation Equations
After each test run had been completed and the weight of the fuel consumed by each
truck on that run had been determined, the weight of fuel consumed by the test vehicle
was divided by the weight of fuel consumed by the Control vehicle for calculation of T/C
ratios The formula for T/C calculation is as follows:
T
FueI consumed (Ibs.)by Test Truck
/6 ,otto = FueI consume d (lbs.)by C ontr oI Truck
SAE J1321 protocol requires that testing runs continue until three valid T/C ratios have
been achieved. All valid test runs must meet the following criteria:
A maximum of 2% variatjon in T/C ratios is acceptable.
A maximum of plus or minus 0.5% deviation in time of test runs is acceptable.
After completion of atl baseline and test segments the data was processed according to
SAE J1321. The first requirement is to calculate an average T/C ratio for the control truck
and the test truck for all test segments.
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
I
(T/c ratiot+Tf c
t
'icrattoAvc=
T
ratioz+Tf c
3
rati%)
tqurion
2_ -
il'j"
Ne),i, percent of fuel saved is calculated for the test truck during the test segment by the
following equation:
o/.
Fuel Saved
(Tf" ratioou"r.,"ti^"-Tf" rotioor"r",r\
I
f7
Equ'rion J
-
o/"
ratioN6.sora,n.
The final required calculation is the percent improvement which is calculated as follows
1o
improvemenr
(T/" ratioor,,"^".t^.-Tfr rotioAv.r",L)
=4
rdtioav6
/C
llqusrion
-
'
lnprovemetrr
o"
r""l
smartTruck Products Confi dential Business Infomation
12
Test Configuration
11
Following the conclusion of all baseline testing and calculations, the test truck was
outfitted with the LJT-6 Trailer UnderTray system.
12
Test Data
12.1 Baseline Segment
TableI - Baselitre lest Dat!
Baseli ne Test Data Set
r1rr]fu
sTN',\csNo"\c
___t!!!t!Irg]___tq
!9r:!9!9 _i!!r____9r:I1$i
Table 3 shows the test data from the baseline segment. Although the T/C ratios for each
of the four test points are within 2o/o of each other, the first run on the control truck falls
out of spec because the run time is greater than 0.5% of the other runs. As a result, the
SmartTruck Products Conlldential Business Informal;on
l3
T/C ratios of runs 2, 3, and 4 were used. Table 4 shows the individual and average
baseline T/C ratios.
Trbl.l
-
8.selio. T/( Rrtios
Easeline
l/c
Ratiot
RUN I/C Ratio within 2%?
.,
2
C 99:2
e!
?
10CC0 yeE
i
n cqq:
The average baseline segment T/C ratio is 0.9967.
12.2 Test Segnent
Trbl.5 - T.sl Segdcnl'tcatlng Drta
Test
ent Test Data Set
ltg!
CON'UMEO BURN
OISTANCT MII€AGE
TestTruck
'Rri5v.dedo.ca!reT/cG:osar:E.!atarihai2jicirheo:rerrJn!.P!lllterreg€:eiirorsv€1rs.(!nrEdJr.grleriir.5
Table 5 shows the test data from the test segment. The TiC ratios of runs 2 and 3 were
greater than 2% of the other runs. As a result, these test segment runs were voided and
the data was not used in the final calculations. Additional runs were completed until
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business lnformation
14
three valid T/C ratios were obtained. lnspection of the data determined that the T/C ratios
were out of spec because of PM filter regeneration events.
The T/C ratios of runs 1,4, and 5 were used. Table 6 shows the individual and average
T/C ratios for the test segment.
'I-rblc
6-
Tcsi Segnent T/C Ratios
Test Segment
RUN
1
!
I
VC Ratios
el Con3umed
I/C Ratio \/iihin 2%?
C.9319 ie\
C.9359 yes
C.9247 yes
The average T/C ratio for the test segment is 0.9332.
13 Summary
of Results
13.1 Percent Fuel Saved
o/n
I:IeL Saued =
o/o
(T
/c
ratiooro,uo,",r,"
T
-T fc
/c ,ation
FueI Saued
=
","o,",
ratioAvc,res)
n"
(.9967-.9332\
.,16?-- -
6.4o/o
13.2 Percent lmprovement
SmartTruck Products Confidential Business lnformation
t5
"/o
lT /g ,otionrr"^",-"-T/6
l^pror"^"n- =W
o/o
Improvement
-
ratrcAvLrpst)
(.9967-.9332)
=
.9332
6.80/o
14 Conclusion
The testing and data calculation protocols described in the SAE J1321 and subsequent
EPA Smartway Transport Partnership documents conclude that:
On today's most aerodynamic tractor trailer configurations, SmartTruck's UT-6 Underlray
system produces a 6.8olo fuel efficiency improvement.
The UT-6 UnderTray system is expected to have slightly different performance with
different types
of trailers and
tractors due
to the differences in the
aerodynamic
performance of the base trailer and/or tractor. Additionally, different types of trailer and
tractor components will also have a slight impact on the performance ofthe UT-6.
For example, our trucks were equipped with traditional dual tire configurations; however,
equipping
a
trailer with
a
single wide tire conflguration will enhance the stated
performance of the UT-6 because of additional air flow moving through the UnderTray
system. Equipping a trailer with single wide tires will add 0.75'/. lo l'/. additional tuel
efficiency improvement over the 6.8% demonstrated UT-6 performance. This would be
above and beyond any direct benefit of the single wide tires.
Although the rear bumper does not receive direct air flow from the UT-6, ditferent rear
bumper configurations will also have a slight impact on the overall performance. There
are dozens of different bumper configurations and each one will have a slight impact on
overall UT6 performance.
SrrartTruck Products Confidential Business
lnformation
16
The impact on UT-6 performance for the range of commonly available DOT approved rear
bumpers is - 0.25% to 0.25%.
Another example having a slight impact in overall performance of the UT-6 is the trailer
rain gutter. Our baseline trailers had a rain gutter designed by Kentucky Trailers. Again,
there are many different rain gutter designs and each one has a slightly different impact
on the air flow moving from the trailer top, over the rear top corner, and then to the rear of
the trailer. Whiie the aerodynamic rain gutter associated with the tJT-6 system will work
consistently for all 53' dry van trailers, the comparison to the baseline rain gutter will have
slight variation among the different baseline rain gutters. The expected range
in
performance for the UT-6 among common rain gutters is - 0.5% to 0.25%.
There are, of course, many other equipment specifications that will have a slight impact
on the overall fuel savings expected from the UT-6 Trailer UnderTray
System.
SmartTruck believes the range in performance for the UT-6, based on the many types of
tractor and 53 foot dry van trailer combinations and the diverse equipment specifications
for each will be 5.8o/o - 7.8o/".
SmartTruck P.oducts Confidential Business lnformation
t'l
Preparation and Approval
Report Prepared By:
Nate See
Test Engineer, BMI
Repo.t Approved By:
Date
Steve Wulff
SmartTruck Products Conlldential Business Infofl nation
t8
Appendix A - Photos and Images
lmages ofthe UT-6 Trailer UnderTray system
Photos ofTest Truck Equipped with UT-6 Trailer UnderTray System
---.1;-lo4F{l
--* ';
5=
FiglaJ Iio
711.,
r*t;:
oflcredyormi. Rdn Gulicr
net I
,!
.:
r,
I.i8!rc
I
- Pholo
of'l-r,cto.Tnil.rCrp
smartTruck Products Confid€ntial Business lnfbrmation
Sctting
I9
Appendix B - Testing Attestations
KTM Solutions lnc. participated in the planning and execution of the testing program to
evaluate SmartTruck's UT-6 Trailer UnderTray System. To the best of our knowledge this
test was performed in compliance with the SAE J 1321 Fuel Consumption Test Procedure
-
Type
ll as modified by EPA'S lnterim Test Method for Verifying Fuet-Saving
Components for SmaftWay: Modifications to SAE Jl321
.
Curt Hargraves
KTI\4 Test Engineer
The testing conducted to evaluate our UT-6 Trailer UnderTray System was performed in
compliance with the SAE J1321 Fuel Consumption Test Procedure
-
Type ll as modified
by EPA'9 lnterin Test Method for Verifying Fuel-Saving Components for SmaftWay:
Modifications to SAE J1321.
t'*,'/'o
Date
General lvlanager,
SmartTruck
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
20
Appendix
C
- Testing Documents
+{
Figure I - Tmiler Bdlest Sheet
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business Information
21
Figuru 2 - Tdcto. Trail€. Pre-Flight InsDecrior Sheet
SmartTruck Products Confidential Business lnformation
22
Figurc 3 - Drrt SrackScrc.d Shot
l.blt
7 - Sampl€
Weather D!1.
Out
Date
4/7/2O7O
4/7 /2O1O
4/7 /2O7O
4/7 /2O1O
4/712010
4/'7/2O1O
4/J/2O7O
4/1/2O1o
4/ / /2OIO
4/7/20AO
4/7/2O7O
4/1/20to
Out
10:27AM
10:2aAM
10:29AM
10:30AM
1O:31 AM
10r32 AM
10:33AM
10:34AM
10:35 AM
10:36AM
10r37AM
10:3aAM
Dar
67.4
95
a
679
679
679
95
95
a
67_9
95
95
67.9
8
8
a
HJ
Hi
Soeed
Dir
10
9
N
9
10
9
9
10
Bar
2a asa
28.861
28.861
2a_462
2a-a63
2A 463
58
95
7
9
6a
6a
95
7
/
I
95
95
95
28.863
28.86s
28-a66
6
I
2A 467
7
2a.a66
95
8
9
9
68
6a
6a
SmartTruck Products Confidential Business Information
2A_466
23
Trble
E-
Sta& Raw Data
DataPro Exoort Frle
Coovrisht {c) Stack Limited 2002
Track: UVALDE
Session:1m4O7
Run :012
Creation Date : Wednesday April 07
2O1O 9:34:0O
Data Ranse : OO:02:16.794 -> OO:O4j05.644 lSelectaonl
Data Exborted : Saturc
24 2o1o 13:2a:31
T'ME
AMBTEMP
BATT
DISTANCE
DRVSHFT
FUELTEMP
WSPDl
STEERING
ft
MPH
o
a3
13.7
10232
1m
?A
737
1o242
2@
u
300
a3
400
500
600
700
ao0
a
a
84
a
13.7
II3
1,1,
113
11
113
13.1
10289
10299
1931
113
12
13
13_1
10308
10318
10321
10337
10346
tgu
113
t4
1933
113
113
113
16
64.422
113
16
16
64.8819
64.4419
64.4459
64.630a
?A
737
1600
MPH
64.79a
64.422 65-0524
64.5432 (a 4459
64_7263 65.2567
64.6666 65.1349
54.6304
64.968
64 7263 65 279i
64.690,4'
L3.1
110C
13.5
a4
a4
13
72
1933
73.1
1500
Lr3
113
ao27D
1,3.7
l4(x
1933
1,3
70240
a4
a4
a4
1025t
70261
13
13.1
900
130C
113
113
t31
10m
\2K.
1933
1930
7932
7932
a4
a4
13.5
13.5
13.5
13 5
WSPD2
1935
1936
1933
1,933
64.690/'
64.8699
64.893S
15
64.7747
l6
64.990r
65.2804
64.9901
65.2643
65 lJ624
10356
10365
10375
7932
113
113
1931
113
1o3P,4.
1931
111
18
19
19
113
19
79
16
13
64.8339
64.7a43
65.0744
64.905S
65.2191
64-968
55 0947
65.3169
€4.942
65.244
a4
a4
84
13.5
13.6
10394
10403
1936
113
13.6
L937
1936
21m
u
13_5
64.942
1931
11:
11:
10
a4
13.6
13.5
1935
22C()
70413
10422
70/.32
10441
113
a4
7
64.4699.
65.0866
65.3656
13.6
10451
1936
113
7
65.0383
65.1834
13 6
10460
1936
113
6
.9901
65.4632
170o
1800
1900
2()00
230o
u
24{n
FA
SmartTruck Products Confi dential Business lnformation
71,3
64.6D7
64.6145
64 6745
65_
24
1955
Addendum to SmartTruck’s UT-6 Application
(Additional SAE J1321 Test Data from Pecos, Texas)
May 4, 2010
1 Pecos Weather and Wind Summary:
1.1 Pecos Baseline Segment Weather Summary
Table 1- Baseline Segment Weather Summary
Table 1 summarizes the wind and temperature conditions associated with the baseline
segment at the Pecos test track. Due to high winds all test runs are outside the allowable
ranges described by the SAE J1321 and EPA test protocols.
1.2 Pecos Test Segment Weather Summary
Table 2 - Test Segment Weather Summary
Table 2 summarizes the wind and temperature conditions associated with the test segment
at the Pecos test track. Due to high winds all test runs are outside the allowable ranges
described by the SAE J1321 and EPA test protocols.
2 Pecos Test Data:
2.1
Pecos Baseline Segment
Table 3 - Baseline Test Data
Table 3 shows the test data from the baseline segment at Pecos.
All three runs
produced valid T/C ratios and run times. Table 4 shows the individual and average
baseline T/C ratios.
Table 4 - Baseline T/C Ratios
The average baseline segment T/C ratio is 0.9946.
2.2
Pecos Test Segment
Table 5 - Test Segment Testing Data
Table 5 shows the test data from the test segment at Pecos. The T/C ratio of run 3 was
greater than 2% of the other runs. As a result, this test segment run was voided and the
data was not used in the final calculations. An additional run was completed until three
valid T/C ratios were obtained.
The T/C ratios of runs 1, 2, and 4 were used. Table 6 shows the individual and average
T/C ratios for the test segment.
Table 6 – Test Segment T/C Ratios
The average T/C ratio for the test segment is 0.9460.
3
Summary of Pecos Results
3.1 Percent Fuel Saved
( ⁄
⁄
Equation 1 - %
)
Fuel Saved
⁄
(
)
3.2 Percent Improvement
( ⁄
⁄
)
⁄
(
Equation 2 - %
Improvement
)
4 Conclusion
Although all fuel efficiency data collected from SmartTruck testing at the Pecos Test
Track was not valid due to steady high winds over 20 mph and continuous gusts over
30 mph, we did collect a consistent set of data that does showcase the performance of
the UT-6 Trailer UnderTray System. Despite the high winds the UT-6 system improved
the fuel efficiency by 5.1%.
SmartTruck will be going back to the Pecos track to conduct additional tests in June of
2010.