In Use Determination of Aerodynamic and Rolling Resistances of Heavy-Duty Vehicles

• Main Authors: Dimitrios Komnos, Stijn Broekaert, Theodoros Grigoratos, Leonidas Ntziachristos, Georgios Fontaras
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2021-01-01
• Series: Sustainability
• Subjects: greenhouse gas emissions; CO₂ emissions; fuel consumption; road loads; resistance forces; air drag coefficient
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/974

A vehicle’s air drag coefficient (Cd) and rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) have a significant impact on its fuel consumption. Consequently, these properties are required as input for the certification of the vehicle’s fuel consumption and Carbon Dioxide emissions, regardless of whether the certification is done via simulation or chassis dyno testing. They can be determined through dedicated measurements, such as a drum test for the tire’s rolling resistance coefficient and constant speed test (EU) or coast down test (US) for the body’s air Cd. In this paper, a methodology that allows determining the vehicle’s Cd∙A (the product of Cd and frontal area of the vehicle) from on-road tests is presented. The possibility to measure these properties during an on-road test, without the need for a test track, enables third parties to verify the certified vehicle properties in order to preselect vehicle for further regulatory testing. On-road tests were performed with three heavy-duty vehicles, two lorries, and a coach, over different routes. Vehicles were instrumented with wheel torque sensors, wheel speed sensors, a GPS device, and a fuel flow sensor. Cd∙A of each vehicle is determined from the test data with the proposed methodology and validated against their certified value. The methodology presents satisfactory repeatability with the error ranging from −21 to 5% and averaging approximately −6.8%. A sensitivity analysis demonstrates the possibility of using the tire energy efficiency label instead of the measured RRC to determine the air drag coefficient. Finally, on-road tests were simulated in the Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation Tool with the obtained parameters, and the average difference in fuel consumption was found to be 2%.