Search Results

The objective of this project was to compare the fuel consumption and traction performances of 6 × 2 and 6 × 4 Class 8 tractors. Two approaches have been considered: evaluation of 6 × 2 tractors, modified from 6 × 4 tractors, and evaluation of OEM 6 × 2 tractors. Compared to the 6 × 4 tractors, which are equipped with a rear tandem with both drive axles, the 6 × 2 tractors have a rear tandem axle with one drive axle, and one non-drive axle, also called dead axle. The 6 × 2 tractor configurations are available from the majority of Class 8 tractor manufacturers. The SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedures Type II (J1321) and Type III (J1526) were used for fuel consumption track test evaluations. Traction performances were assessed using pull sled tests to compare pulling distance, maximum speed, and acceleration when pulling the same set sled on similar surface.

Using lift axles enables fleet to increase the load capacity of a vehicle, eliminating the need for multiple trips, thus reducing operational costs. In a project to assess the potential of reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by lifting axles on unloaded semi-trailers, lift axle regulations in various jurisdictions and the studies that led to these regulations were analyzed. The SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedures Type II (J1321) was used for fuel consumption track test evaluations. The tests were conducted on unloaded two-axle van semi-trailers, four-axle van semitrailers, and B-trains, and resulted in fuel savings of 1.3% to 4.8%, depending on vehicle configuration and the number of axles lifted during the test.

The experience with the implementation of IV-ITS (In-vehicle Intelligent Transportation Systems, also know as EOBR or electronic onboard recorders) type tools and services in previous projects showed that there is an opportunity to standardize an infrastructure that would increase a project's rate of success. As such, a project that defined, streamlined and standardized a tech transfer approach to IV-ITS products and services was initiated. Therefore, the objective of the project was to develop a standard procedure based on technology transfer best practices and defining the steps and actions required to increase the rate of success and the optimization of the implementation of IV-ITS products and services. A literature review was conducted to identify technology transfer and implementation best practices and to assist in defining a survey for measuring the success of the implementation of participants in IV-ITS implementation projects.

The main objective of this project was to compare the fuel consumption and dynamic performances of direct-drive and overdrive transmission tractors. Fuel consumption was evaluated at constant high speed and on various road profiles, while the dynamic performance was assessed on various road profiles only. The SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure (J1526) was used for constant high speed fuel consumption track test evaluations. The direct-drive transmission tractor consumed less than the overdrive transmission tractor, even though it was heavier. The testing on various road profiles was conducted using a towing dynamometer, for comparing the dynamic capability of the tractors when simulating the same towing load on two hilly road profiles: the Townes Pass path (in the Rocky Mountains) and the Saguenay path (in the Saguenay region of Quebec). Each tractor was to haul the set load along the given path while trying to attain 90 km/h speed.

The conditions of vehicle use are among the most important factors affecting the fuel consumption. Such conditions may include payload, type of duty cycle, traffic density, number of stops and starts, type of pavement, and use of auxiliary systems. Transport companies are interested in results from experiments reproducing similar operational conditions to help them understand and quantify the impact of duty cycles on fuel economy and operating costs. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of driving cycle on fuel efficiency. The fuel consumption measurement methodology was based on the protocols described in SAE J1321 Fuel Consumption Test Procedure - Type II and SAE J1526 Fuel Consumption Test Procedure (Engineering Method). The tests were conducted with various vehicles under different test conditions. Several duty cycles were replicated on the track, such as a local delivery, regional transport, long-distance constant speed, and stop-and-go cycles.