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
Turku University of Applied Sciences One of the largest UAS's in Finland Multidisciplinary institution (technology, business, arts, health care ) Almost 9 000 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
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 14 000 vehicles (9500 tractors + 4500 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
Examples of results Curb Weight Distribution of Full Trailer Tractors Development of Curb Weights of Full Trailer Tractors, years 1995 2007 (average 12 410 kg)
continuated: Examples of Results Curb Weight Distribution of 4-axle full trailers Curb Weight Distribution of 5-axle full trailers
Summary Curb weight [kg] 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 10700 Average curb weights of 50 lightest ones, average curb weights of all and achievable increase in payload 12400 9300 10700 10000 11700 6800 7550 7850 8600 Average of 50 lightest ones Average of all Increase in payload 5250 6300 4000 2000 1700 1400 1700 750 750 1050 0 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
continuated: Summary Curb weight variation was wide with the same GVW Full trailer combination tractors 10 700 kg 15 000 kg Full trailers (5-axle) 10 000 kg 13 500 kg Maximum payload differences (combination vehicle) 7 800 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 3 319 10 700 12 400 1 700 yli 15 000 Full trailer, 4-axle, at least 35 t 1 262 9 300 10 700 1 400 yli 12 500 Full trailer, 5-axle, at least 35 t 1 316 10 000 11 700 1 700 yli 13 500 Semi-trailer tractor, 2-axle, 18 t 3 817 6 800 7 550 750 yli 8 000 Semi-trailer tractor, 3-axle, 26 t 2 524 7 850 8 600 750 yli 9 500 Semi-trailer, 24 t 2 088 5 250 6 300 1 050 yli 7 500
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] 23 600 20 350 3 250 Decreases per mass of goods Fuel cons. [l/ton-km] 0.0012 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] 62 000 SEMI-TRAILER COMBINATIONS Average Lightest ones Difference Curb weight of current combinations [kg] 13 850 12 050 1 800 Decreases per mass of goods Fuel cons. [l/ton-km] 0.0008 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
- Thanks for your Interest -