Curb Weights of HD Vehicles a study about possibilities to increase payload and reduce fuel consumption

Transcription

1 a study about possibilities to increase payload and reduce fuel consumption Markku Ikonen, (M. Sc.) Senior Lecturer Engineering student Kalle Viljanen Engineering student Arvet Palkov

2 Turku University of Applied Sciences One of the largest UAS's in Finland Multidisciplinary institution (technology, business, arts, health care ) Almost students Degree Programme in Automotive and Transportation Engineering Almost 300 students Three specializations (Automotive, Practically oriented and Logistics) Rougly 50 Engineers (B. Sc.) graduate annually Rights and education in vehicle inspection

3 Background and Implementation of the Study The aim to reduce CO 2 emissions Lower curb weight higher payload lower fuel consumption and CO 2 emission per ton-km Low curb weight gives fuel consumption benefits also when driving with not-fully-loaded vehicles Mass information from files of the Finnish Vehicle Administration Agency (AKE, since 2010 TraFi) Over vehicles (9500 tractors trailers) Registered 1995 and afterwards Typical curb weights and range of variation were investigated Semi-trailer combinations (42 and 48 t) Full trailer combinations (60 t) Body types: van-body / open-back-with-tarpaulin

4 Examples of results Curb Weight Distribution of Full Trailer Tractors Development of Curb Weights of Full Trailer Tractors, years (average kg)

5 continuated: Examples of Results Curb Weight Distribution of 4-axle full trailers Curb Weight Distribution of 5-axle full trailers

6 Summary Curb weight [kg] Average curb weights of 50 lightest ones, average curb weights of all and achievable increase in payload Average of 50 lightest ones Average of all Increase in payload Full trailer comb. tractors, 26 t Full trailers, 4-axle, at least 35 t Full trailers, 5-axle, at least 35 t Semi-trailer tractors, 2-axle, 18 t Semi-trailer tractors, 3-axle, 26 t Semi-trailers, 24 t

7 continuated: Summary Curb weight variation was wide with the same GVW Full trailer combination tractors kg kg Full trailers (5-axle) kg kg Maximum payload differences (combination vehicle) kg Newer tractors heavier than old ones Average Average Diffefence Heaviest Vehicle Sample of 50 of (increase in ones type [units] lightest [kg] all [kg] payload) [kg] [kg] Full trailer tractor, 26 t yli Full trailer, 4-axle, at least 35 t yli Full trailer, 5-axle, at least 35 t yli Semi-trailer tractor, 2-axle, 18 t yli Semi-trailer tractor, 3-axle, 26 t yli Semi-trailer, 24 t yli 7 500

8 Raskaiden ajoneuvojen omamassat Conclusions and the Best Case Scenarios "In the future, all vehicles are like the lightest are now" Two scenarios to benefit from more light-weighted vehicles: Increase in payload will be utilized (GVW remains constant) Lower curb weight will be utilized (payload remains constant) FULL TRAILER COMBINATIONS Average Lightest ones Difference Curb weight of current combinations [kg] Decreases per mass of goods Fuel cons. [l/ton-km] transported (GVW constant) CO 2 [g/ton-km] 3 Decreases per km driven (payload Fuel cons. [l/100km] 2.3 constant) CO 2 [g/km] 60 Annual national fuel consumption reduction (if GVW constant) [mill. l] 25 Annual national CO 2 reduction (if GVW constant) [tons] SEMI-TRAILER COMBINATIONS Average Lightest ones Difference Curb weight of current combinations [kg] Decreases per mass of goods Fuel cons. [l/ton-km] transported (GVW constant) CO 2 [g/ton-km] 2 Decreases per km driven (payload Fuel cons. [l/100 km] 1.1 constant) CO 2 [g/km] 30 Annual national fuel consumption reduction (if GVW constant) [mill. l] 3 Annual national CO 2 reduction (if GVW constant) [tons] 7 500

9 - Thanks for your Interest -