Office of Operations Freight Management and Operations
Table of Contents

Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study - Modal Shift Comparative Analysis Technical Report

Appendix D: Energy and the Environment Methodology

D.1 Scope

The purpose of this subtask is to evaluate the effect of alternative vehicle scenarios on the fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of the fleet. The baseline vehicles and alternative configurations were evaluated on a range of drive cycles to determine their load-specific fuel consumption and emissions. The results of this analysis will be combined with modal shift data to represent the overall fuel consumption and emissions impact on the fleet.

D.2 Methodology

In previous truck size and weight studies such as the USDOT's Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, 2000 (2000 CTSW Study), a simple table showing truck fuel economy in miles per gallon as a function of vehicle configuration and combined vehicle weight was used as an input to the energy and emissions analysis. For example, a triple 28-ft. trailer combination is listed as having 11 percent to 17 percent better fuel economy than that of a three-axle, 53-ft. box van trailer operating at the same vehicle weight. In practice, the 28-ft. triple-trailer combination suffers from higher aerodynamic drag than the 53-ft. box van trailer, and thus would be expected to have lower fuel efficiency.

The more recent OECD report "Moving Freight with Better Trucks" (OECD, 2011) uses fuel consumption values from road tests conducted by the German trucking magazine Lastauto Omnibus (page 152). These tests are run at maximum GCW over a defined route on German highways.

The approach selected for this study is to use baseline engine and vehicle models that are calibrated against experimental data and then modify the models to represent the range of vehicle scenarios selected for this project. This approach was first used in a 2009 report by the Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future (Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions, NESCCAF, 2009). The approach used here is also being used by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in a study of fuel efficiency technologies being conducted for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The models used in this project have been previously developed and verified as part of this NHTSA project.

The engine selected for this project is a 2011 model Detroit DD15. This is a widely used long-haul truck engine which has more than 20 percent of the long-haul market. The DD15 meets US EPA 2010 emissions requirements, and a slightly modified version of the engine has since been certified to meet the EPA's 2014 greenhouse gas requirements. From a proprietary benchmarking program, SwRI has an extensive set of performance, emissions, and fuel consumption data on this engine. Under the NHTSA contract, the experimental data was used to build and calibrate a GT-POWER simulation model of the engine. GT-POWER is a commercially available engine simulation tool. Four different ratings of the engine were developed in GT-POWER for this study: 428 HP, 485 HP (the baseline rating), 534 HP, and 588 HP.

The alternative engine power ratings were developed in order to maintain power-to-weight ratios for some of the alternative vehicle scenarios. For some scenarios, a much higher power would be required to maintain baseline vehicle performance. For example, if GCW is increased from 80,000 lbs. to 129,000 lbs., the baseline engine rating of 485 HP would need to increase to 782 HP in order to maintain the same vehicle acceleration and grade performance. Since engines over 600 HP are not available in the U.S. truck market, the decision was made to limit engine power to 588 HP and accept performance penalties for the highest vehicle weights.

The tractor selected for this study is a Kenworth T-700 high roof sleeper tractor. This truck is not offered with the DD15 engine, but it is offered with the Cummins ISX, another 15 liter engine with similar performance, emissions, and fuel consumption characteristics. Coast-down testing of the tractor with a 53-ft. box van trailer was performed by SwRI under an EPA project to obtain aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance characteristics of the tractor. The T-700 is an aerodynamic tractor using standard (not SmartWay) tires, and the baseline trailer has no aerodynamic or low rolling resistance features. This tractor-trailer combination represents approximately the average current fleet vehicle performance from an aerodynamic and rolling resistance perspective.

Vehicle simulation was performed using SwRI's Vehicle Simulation Tool. This software package is based on the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) Advisor vehicle simulation program, which has hundreds of users worldwide. SwRI's VST tool incorporates improvements to the original NREL component models, and provides enhanced functionalities in ways that allow the user to define each component of the vehicle. Each component's set of parameters is defined in a MATLAB scripting format that is used in conjunction with a Simulink model.

Another key factor in any analysis of vehicle fuel consumption and emissions is the drive cycle. For this study, four operational modes were evaluated:

1. Urban interstate / freeway operation

2. Rural interstate / freeway operation

3. Urban non-interstate / non-freeway operation

4. Rural non-interstate / non-freeway operation

Five drive cycles were combined to reflect each of the four operational modes. The drive cycles are summarized in Table D1.

Table D1. Drive Cycles Used for Simulated Vehicle Operations
Cycle # Cycle Name Comments
1 WHVC Same as in NHTSA project
2 Low Speed NESCCAF Same time scale, speed multiplied by 60/68
3 NESCCAF Same as in NHTSA project
4 Urban / Suburban WHVC First 1200 seconds of WHVC
5 GEM Urban (CARB) Same as in NHTSA project

Cycle 1 used the World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle (WHVC), which was developed by the United Nations as a chassis dynamometer emissions and fuel economy test procedure for trucks. The cycle includes three components: a low-speed cycle, a stop-and-go urban cycle, a medium-speed "rural" cycle with one stop, and a higher speed (55 mph maximum) freeway component. The "urban/suburban" WHVC in cycle 4 was created by truncating the cycle at the 1,200 second mark (out of 1,800 seconds total for the cycle).

Cycle 2, the NESCCAF cycle (NESCCAF, 2009), had input from vehicle manufacturers, users, and regulators, and represents an attempt to simulate a U.S. long-haul duty cycle. There is some urban driving at the beginning and end of the cycle, with extended periods of high speed (65 to 68 mph) cruise, and some interruptions in speed designed to mimic a limited amount of traffic congestion. The cruise sections include periods of +/- 1 percent and +/- 3 percent grade.

The low speed NESCCAF cycle (cycle 2) is the exact same cycle but scaled down to limit the maximum speed to 60 mph.

Finally, cycle 5, the GEM Urban cycle, is the low-speed urban cycle used by the EPA in their Greenhouse gas Emissions Model, a simulation tool used to certify vehicles for compliance with the EPA's 2014 greenhouse gas emissions standards. This cycle was developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Figures D-1 to D-4 show details of each drive cycle.

Figure D1. CARB urban cycle

The first 1200 seconds of the WHVC are used with the CARB cycle to simulate urban non-freeway driving. The full cycle is used to simulate urban freeway driving with congestion.

Figure D2. WHVC cycle

The first 1200 seconds of the WHVC are used with the CARB cycle to simulate urban non-freeway driving. The full cycle is used to simulate urban freeway driving with congestion.

(The first 1200 seconds of the WHVC are used with the CARB cycle to simulate urban non-freeway driving. The full cycle is used to simulate urban freeway driving with congestion.)

Figure D3. NESCCAF Cycle with Grades

This line graph plots NESCCAF cycle vehicle speeds (in miles per hour) and 10% grade with cycle time (in seconds).

Figure D4. Low Speed NESCCAF Cycle with Grades

This line graph plots low speed NESCCAF cycle vehicle speeds (in miles per hour) and 10% grade with cycle time (in seconds).

The drive cycles were combined to handle the four operational modes as shown in Table D2.

Table D2. Mix of Drive Cycles for Four Operational Modes
Urban Rural Road Network
50% WHVC, 50% Low Speed NESCCAF NESCCAF Interstate / Freeway
50% Urban/Suburban WHVC, 50% Gem Urban Low Speed NESCCAF Non-Interstate / Non-Freeway

A key difference between the 2014 and the 2000 CTSW Studies is that results are in terms of fuel consumption rather than fuel economy. In other words, the results are in terms of how many gallons of fuel it takes to move the vehicle a mile or to deliver a ton of freight 1,000 miles, or how many grams of emissions are emitted per vehicle mile or to move a ton of freight a mile. Differences in vehicle efficiency due to variations in tare weight and in aerodynamic drag are accounted for in this project's methodology. The results provided in this section will be combined with projected vehicle modal shift to provide predictions for the total fleet fuel consumption and emissions levels.

The fuel consumption methodology used in this project matches the methodology being used for the NHTSA study on fuel efficiency technologies being conducted by SwRI. This methodology has been reviewed with NHTSA, EPA, and in April 2014 with the National Research Council committee on Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2.

For carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the study assumes that standard petroleum-based diesel fuel is used. There is a fixed relationship between a gallon of fuel and the amount of CO2 generated by burning it. 10.15 kilograms of CO2 are generated for every gallon of diesel fuel consumed.

For the purpose of this study, the study team assumes that all involved vehicles comply with 2010 EPA nitrous oxide (NOx) requirements of 0.2 grams per brake horsepower-hour, with a 10 percent engineering margin. Based on benchmarking tests performed by SwRI, this is a conservative assumption for the types of vehicle operation simulated for this project. The study team also assumes that brake-specific NOx emissions are independent of engine speed and load. Again, SwRI's internally developed benchmarking data shows this to be a reasonable assumption over a fairly wide range of speed and load. One additional assumption is required to allow a calculation of NOx emissions. For the 2014 CTSW Study, the study team assumed that the average brake specific fuel consumption of the engine over the drive cycles is 200 g/kW-hr. In actual practice, a range of 190 to 220 g/kW-hr can be expected. Using these assumptions, 3.8 grams of NOx can be expected for every gallon of fuel consumed.

Emissions Assumptions

For trucks complying with EPA 2010 and newer emissions standards, NOx emissions are roughly proportional to fuel consumption. Exceptions occur when vehicles are stuck in traffic congestion. Under these conditions, the exhaust system temperatures drop, and the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) NOx reduction system has degraded performance or, in extreme cases, ceases to function. Our analysis does not include operating scenarios where SCR performance is degraded, so we make the assumption that NOx is proportional to fuel consumption.

In order to calculate NOx, two assumptions are required. One is the estimated brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of the engine in g/kW-hr over a drive cycle. Given the fuel map of the engine used in this study, we assumed a drive cycle average BSFC of 200 grams per kilowatt-hour. The next assumption is a NOx emissions rate of 0.24 g/kW-hr (0.18 g/HP-hr). This is a typical rate from 2010 and later certified engines, taken from public certification data available on the California Air Resources Board web site. Older engines will have a substantially higher NOx emissions rate, but for this study, we did not include the emissions characteristics of older engines.

Given the assumptions above, NOx emissions can be determined as follows:

0.24 g/kW-hr NOx / 200 g/kW-hr fuel consumption = 0.0012 g of NOx per gram of fuel

With 454 grams per pound, and a fuel density of 7 pounds per gallon of diesel fuel,

0.0012*454*7 = 3.8 grams NOx per gallon of fuel consumed

This rate was used with the fuel consumption results to determine grams of NOx per mile driven.

The calculation of CO2 per gallon of fuel depends only on fuel consumption and the hydrogen / carbon ratio of the fuel, since in a diesel engine, all available carbon can be expected to form CO2. From the US Energy Administration website, 1 gallon of diesel fuel yields 10.15 kg of CO2. As a result, the CO2 emissions (in kilograms) equals the fuel consumption in gallons/mile times a multiplier of 10.15.

Engine Fuel Maps

A total of four engine ratings were evaluated: 428 HP, 485 HP (the baseline engine used for all vehicle scenarios), 534 HP, and 588 HP. For Scenarios 5 and 6, it is not practical to increase engine power enough to maintain performance. Scenario 6, with a weight limit of 129,000 lbs. would require 782 HP to have the same performance as the baseline 80,000-lb. vehicle with 485 HP. All four engine ratings were derived using the same 2011 model Detroit Diesel DD15 engine as the baseline, so engine displacement was not changed. This engine was thoroughly mapped by SwRI during a benchmarking project, and the experimental results were used to validate the GT-POWER engine model of the baseline 485 HP rating. The GT model was then used to develop the alternative ratings.

Figure D5. Fuel Consumption Map for the 428 HP Engine Rating.

A total of four engine ratings were evaluated: 428 HP, 485 HP (the baseline engine used for all vehicle scenarios), 534 HP, and 588 HP. For Scenarios 5 and 6, it is not practical to increase engine power enough to maintain performance. Scenario 6, with a weight limit of 129,000 lbs. would require 782 HP to have the same performance as the baseline 80,000-lb. vehicle with 485 HP. All four engine ratings were derived using the same 2011 model Detroit Diesel DD15 engine as the baseline, so engine displacement was not changed. This engine was thoroughly mapped by SwRI during a benchmarking project, and the experimental results were used to validate the GT-POWER engine model of the baseline 485 HP rating. The GT model was then used to develop the alternative ratings.

Figure D6. Fuel Consumption Map for the 485 HP (Baseline) Engine Rating.

A total of four engine ratings were evaluated: 428 HP, 485 HP (the baseline engine used for all vehicle scenarios), 534 HP, and 588 HP. For Scenarios 5 and 6, it is not practical to increase engine power enough to maintain performance. Scenario 6, with a weight limit of 129,000 lbs. would require 782 HP to have the same performance as the baseline 80,000-lb. vehicle with 485 HP. All four engine ratings were derived using the same 2011 model Detroit Diesel DD15 engine as the baseline, so engine displacement was not changed. This engine was thoroughly mapped by SwRI during a benchmarking project, and the experimental results were used to validate the GT-POWER engine model of the baseline 485 HP rating. The GT model was then used to develop the alternative ratings.

Figure D7. Fuel Consumption Map for the 534 HP Engine Rating.

A total of four engine ratings were evaluated: 428 HP, 485 HP (the baseline engine used for all vehicle scenarios), 534 HP, and 588 HP. For Scenarios 5 and 6, it is not practical to increase engine power enough to maintain performance. Scenario 6, with a weight limit of 129,000 lbs. would require 782 HP to have the same performance as the baseline 80,000-lb. vehicle with 485 HP. All four engine ratings were derived using the same 2011 model Detroit Diesel DD15 engine as the baseline, so engine displacement was not changed. This engine was thoroughly mapped by SwRI during a benchmarking project, and the experimental results were used to validate the GT-POWER engine model of the baseline 485 HP rating. The GT model was then used to develop the alternative ratings.

Figure D8. Fuel Consumption Map for the 588 HP Engine Rating.

A total of four engine ratings were evaluated: 428 HP, 485 HP (the baseline engine used for all vehicle scenarios), 534 HP, and 588 HP. For Scenarios 5 and 6, it is not practical to increase engine power enough to maintain performance. Scenario 6, with a weight limit of 129,000 lbs. would require 782 HP to have the same performance as the baseline 80,000-lb. vehicle with 485 HP. All four engine ratings were derived using the same 2011 model Detroit Diesel DD15 engine as the baseline, so engine displacement was not changed. This engine was thoroughly mapped by SwRI during a benchmarking project, and the experimental results were used to validate the GT-POWER engine model of the baseline 485 HP rating. The GT model was then used to develop the alternative ratings.

Test Plan

For the vehicle baselines and for each vehicle scenario, fuel consumption and emissions were determined over a range of payload (and thus total vehicle weight). The range evaluated included zero payload (the truck at its empty weight), several payloads up to the maximum allowed weight for the vehicle scenario, and an overloaded vehicle weight of 200,000 lbs. The overloaded weight point was run to accommodate vehicles which run over the legal weight limit. The following vehicle configurations and payloads were evaluated:

A total of eight vehicle scenarios were run. Two of these vehicles represent the baselines: a five-axle 53-ft. trailer limited to 80,000 lbs., and a five-axle 28-ft. double-trailer combination, also limited to 80,000 lbs. The configurations evaluated are listed below in Table D3:

Table D3. Tractor-Trailer Vehicle Scenarios Evaluated
Vehicle Configuration # Trailers # Axles Tare Wt. (Pounds) Allowed GCW (lb)
A 5-axle vehicle (3-S2) [baseline] 1 5 34,622 80,000
B 5-axle vehicle (3-S2) 1 5 34,622 88,000
C 6-axle vehicle (3-S3) 1 6 36,255 91,000
D 6-axle vehicle (3-S3) 1 6 36,255 97,000
E Tractor plus two 28-ft trailers (2-S1-2) [baseline] 2 5 31,376 80,000
F Tractor plus two 33-foot trailers (2-S1-2) 2 5 33,738 80,000
G Tractor plus three 28-foot trailers (2-S1-2-2) 3 7 41,454 105,500
H Tractor plus three 28-foot trailers (3-S2-2-2) 3 9 47,852 129,000

Each vehicle was simulated over a range of payloads, up to the maximum GCW. Vehicles that had maximum GCWs above 80,000 lbs. were evaluated with both the baseline engine and a higher rating intended to maintain performance or, in the case of Vehicles G and H, at least limit the performance penalty for the higher GCW. The payloads are shown in Table D4 below, along with the number of drive cycles evaluated and the total number of simulation runs required:

Table D4. Vehicle Payloads, Engine Ratings, and Drive Cycles Evaluated
Vehicle Payloads To Be Simulated, Pounds Engine Ratings Drive Cycles # Of Runs
1 2 3 4 5
A 15,378 30,378 45,378     485 HP All 5 15
B 15,378 30,378 45,378 53,378   485 HP, 534 HP All 5 40
C 15,378 30,378 45,378 54,745   485 HP, 534 HP All 5 40
D 15,378 30,378 45,378 60,745   485 HP, 588 HP All 5 40
E 15,378 30,378 45,378 48,624   485 HP, 428 HP All 5 40
F 15,378 30,378 46,262     485 HP All 5 15
G 15,378 30,378 45,378 64,046   485 HP, 588 HP 1, 2, 3 24
H 15,378 30,378 45,378 64,046 81,148 485 HP, 588 HP 1, 2, 3 30

In addition to the payloads shown above, each vehicle was also simulated under two additional conditions: a zero payload (empty vehicle) simulation and a GCW of 200,000 simulation. These two additional simulations for each vehicle along with the payload scenarios shown above allowed the CDM Smith team to estimate all possible emissions and energy consumption rates at all possible payloads for each vehicle analyzed. The final schedule of vehicle simulations according to GCW is shown on Table D5.

Table D5. Vehicle Gross Combined Weights
Vehicle Gross Combination Weight, Pounds
Allowed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 80,000 34,622 50,000 65,000 80,000 200,000    
B 88,000 34,622 50,000 65,000 80,000 88,000 200,000  
C 91,000 36,255 51,633 66,633 81,633 91,000 200,000  
D 97,000 36,255 51,633 66,633 81,633 97,000 200,000  
E 80,000 31,376 46,754 61,754 76,754 80,000 200,000  
F 80,000 33,738 49,116 64,116 80,000 200,000    
G 105,500 41,454 56,832 71,832 86,832 105,500 200,000  
H 129,000 47,852 63,230 78,230 93,230 111,898 129,000 200,000

D.3 Findings

The result of these simulations were a set of rates describing the amount of fuel consumed and CO2 and NOx emitted from each vehicle at different payloads for each of the four operational modes. These rates were then applied to the weight specific VMT distributions developed by the modal shift analysis. Only those vehicles that were analyzed by the modal shift analysis were considered in the energy and emissions analysis. Other vehicles not a part of the modal shift analysis were not considered. The rates calculated are shown in Tables D6 through D29.

Table D6. Urban Freeway, Fuel: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0.124 0.141 0.158 0.176 0.339 n/a  n/a 
B 0.124 0.141 0.158 0.176 0.185 0.339 n/a
C 0.126 0.143 0.160 0.178 0.189 0.341  n/a 
D 0.126 0.143 0.160 0.178 0.196 0.341  n/a 
E 0.128 0.144 0.161 0.178 0.182 0.338  n/a 
F 0.130 0.146 0.163 0.182 0.341  n/a   n/a 
G 0.143 0.159 0.177 0.193 0.215 0.351  n/a
H 0.149 0.167 0.184 0.202 0.223 0.242 0.358
Table D7. Rural Freeway, Fuel: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0.135 0.146 0.159 0.172 0.298 n/a n/a
B 0.135 0.146 0.159 0.172 0.178 0.298 n/a
C 0.136 0.148 0.161 0.173 0.181 0.300 n/a
D 0.136 0.148 0.161 0.173 0.186 0.300 n/a
E 0.145 0.155 0.167 0.180 0.183 0.301 n/a
F 0.147 0.157 0.169 0.183 0.303 n/a n/a
G 0.160 0.171 0.183 0.196 0.211 0.311 n/a
H 0.164 0.177 0.189 0.202 0.218 0.231 0.317
Table D8. Urban Freeway, CO2: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 1.26 1.43 1.61 1.78 3.44 n/a n/a
B 1.26 1.43 1.61 1.78 1.88 3.44 n/a
C 1.28 1.45 1.63 1.80 1.91 3.46 n/a
D 1.28 1.45 1.63 1.80 1.99 3.46 n/a
E 1.30 1.46 1.63 1.81 1.84 3.44 n/a
F 1.32 1.48 1.66 1.84 3.46 n/a n/a
G 1.45 1.62 1.79 1.96 2.18 3.56 n/a
H 1.52 1.70 1.87 2.05 2.26 2.46 3.64
Table D9. Rural Freeway, CO2: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 1.37 1.49 1.62 1.75 3.03 n/a n/a
B 1.37 1.49 1.62 1.75 1.81 3.03 n/a
C 1.38 1.50 1.63 1.76 1.84 3.04 n/a
D 1.38 1.50 1.63 1.76 1.89 3.04 n/a
E 1.47 1.58 1.70 1.83 1.85 3.06 n/a
F 1.49 1.59 1.72 1.85 3.07 n/a n/a
G 1.62 1.73 1.86 1.99 2.15 3.16 n/a
H 1.67 1.79 1.92 2.05 2.21 2.35 3.22
Table D10. Urban Freeway, NOx: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0.47 0.54 0.60 0.67 1.29 n/a n/a
B 0.47 0.54 0.60 0.67 0.70 1.29 n/a
C 0.48 0.54 0.61 0.68 0.72 1.29 n/a
D 0.48 0.54 0.61 0.68 0.74 1.29 n/a
E 0.49 0.55 0.61 0.68 0.69 1.29 n/a
F 0.50 0.56 0.62 0.69 1.29 n/a n/a
G 0.54 0.61 0.67 0.74 0.82 1.33 n/a
H 0.57 0.64 0.70 0.77 0.85 0.92 1.36
Table D11. Rural Freeway, NOx: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0.51 0.56 0.61 0.65 1.13 n/a n/a
B 0.51 0.56 0.61 0.65 0.68 1.13 n/a
C 0.52 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.69 1.14 n/a
D 0.52 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.71 1.14 n/a
E 0.55 0.59 0.64 0.68 0.69 1.14 n/a
F 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.69 1.15 n/a n/a
G 0.61 0.65 0.70 0.74 0.80 1.18 n/a
H 0.62 0.67 0.72 0.77 0.83 0.88 1.20
Table D12. Urban Non-Freeway, Fuel: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0.190 0.196 0.226 0.256 0.588 n/a n/a
B 0.190 0.196 0.226 0.256 0.273 0.588 n/a
C 0.194 0.199 0.229 0.260 0.279 0.590 n/a
D 0.194 0.199 0.229 0.260 0.291 0.590 n/a
E 0.186 0.191 0.220 0.250 0.257 0.580 n/a
F 0.191 0.196 0.225 0.257 0.583 n/a n/a
Table D13. Rural Non-Freeway, Fuel: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0.118 0.130 0.144 0.157 0.296 n/a n/a
B 0.118 0.130 0.144 0.157 0.164 0.296 n/a
C 0.119 0.132 0.146 0.159 0.167 0.297 n/a
D 0.119 0.132 0.146 0.159 0.172 0.297 n/a
E 0.125 0.136 0.149 0.162 0.165 0.297 n/a
F 0.127 0.138 0.152 0.165 0.299 n/a n/a
Table D14. Urban Non-Freeway, CO2: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 1.93 1.99 2.29 2.60 5.96 n/a n/a
B 1.93 1.99 2.29 2.60 2.77 5.96 n/a
C 1.97 2.02 2.32 2.64 2.83 5.99 n/a
D 1.97 2.02 2.32 2.64 2.96 5.99 n/a
E 1.89 1.94 2.23 2.54 2.61 5.89 n/a
F 1.93 1.98 2.28 2.61 5.92 n/a n/a
Table D15. Rural Non-Freeway, CO2: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 1.20 1.32 1.46 1.60 3.00 n/a n/a
B 1.20 1.32 1.46 1.60 1.66 3.00 n/a
C 1.21 1.34 1.48 1.61 1.69 3.02 n/a
D 1.21 1.34 1.48 1.61 1.75 3.02 n/a
E 1.27 1.38 1.52 1.65 1.68 3.02 n/a
F 1.29 1.40 1.54 1.68 3.04 n/a n/a
Table D16. Urban Non-Freeway, NOx: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0.72 0.74 0.86 0.97 2.23 n/a n/a
B 0.72 0.74 0.86 0.97 1.04 2.23 n/a
C 0.74 0.76 0.87 0.99 1.06 2.24 n/a
D 0.74 0.76 0.87 0.99 1.11 2.24 n/a
E 0.71 0.73 0.84 0.95 0.98 2.20 n/a
F 0.72 0.74 0.85 0.98 2.22 n/a n/a
Table D17. Rural Non-Freeway, NOx: Engine 1
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 1.12 n/a n/a
B 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.62 1.12 n/a
C 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.63 1.13 n/a
D 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 1.13 n/a
E 0.47 0.52 0.57 0.62 0.63 1.13 n/a
F 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.63 1.14 n/a n/a
Table D18. Urban Freeway, Fuel: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 0.12 0.141 0.159 0.176 0.186 0.345 n/a
C 0.13 0.143 0.161 0.178 0.189 0.346 n/a
D 0.13 0.144 0.161 0.179 0.197 0.353 n/a
E 0.13 0.144 0.161 0.178 0.181 0.331 n/a
G 0.14 0.160 0.178 0.195 0.217 0.365 n/a
H 0.15 0.168 0.186 0.204 0.225 0.246 0.373
Table D19. Rural Freeway, Fuel: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 0.14 0.147 0.160 0.173 0.180 0.303 n/a
C 0.14 0.149 0.161 0.175 0.183 0.305 n/a
D 0.14 0.149 0.162 0.176 0.189 0.309 n/a
E 0.15 0.155 0.168 0.180 0.182 0.291 n/a
G 0.16 0.172 0.185 0.198 0.213 0.326 n/a
H 0.17 0.178 0.191 0.204 0.220 0.235 0.333
Table D20. Urban Freeway, CO2: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 1.26 1.43 1.61 1.79 1.89 3.50 n/a
C 1.28 1.45 1.63 1.81 1.92 3.51 n/a
D 1.29 1.46 1.63 1.82 2.00 3.59 n/a
E 1.30 1.46 1.63 1.80 1.84 3.36 n/a
G 1.46 1.63 1.80 1.98 2.20 3.70 n/a
H 1.53 1.70 1.89 2.07 2.29 2.49 3.79
Table D21. Rural Freeway, CO2: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 1.38 1.49 1.62 1.76 1.83 3.08 n/a
C 1.39 1.51 1.64 1.77 1.85 3.09 n/a
D 1.40 1.51 1.64 1.78 1.92 3.14 n/a
E 1.47 1.58 1.70 1.82 1.85 2.95 n/a
G 1.64 1.75 1.88 2.01 2.16 3.31 n/a
H 1.69 1.81 1.94 2.07 2.23 2.38 3.38
Table D22. Urban Freeway, NOx: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 0.47 0.54 0.60 0.67 0.71 1.31 n/a
C 0.48 0.54 0.61 0.68 0.72 1.32 n/a
D 0.48 0.55 0.61 0.68 0.75 1.34 n/a
E 0.49 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.69 1.26 n/a
G 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.74 0.82 1.39 n/a
H 0.57 0.64 0.71 0.77 0.86 0.93 1.42
Table D23. Rural Freeway, NOx: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 0.52 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.68 1.15 n/a
C 0.52 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.69 1.16 n/a
D 0.52 0.57 0.62 0.67 0.72 1.18 n/a
E 0.55 0.59 0.64 0.68 0.69 1.10 n/a
G 0.61 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.81 1.24 n/a
H 0.63 0.68 0.73 0.78 0.83 0.89 1.27
Table D24. Urban Non-Freeway, Fuel: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 0.191 0.197 0.226 0.257 0.274 0.604 n/a
C 0.195 0.200 0.230 0.260 0.280 0.606 n/a
D 0.196 0.201 0.231 0.261 0.293 0.624 n/a
E 0.185 0.190 0.220 0.250 0.257 0.561 n/a
Table D25. Rural Non-Freeway, Fuel: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 0.118 0.131 0.144 0.158 0.165 0.298 n/a
C 0.119 0.132 0.146 0.159 0.168 0.299 n/a
D 0.120 0.133 0.146 0.160 0.174 0.302 n/a
E 0.125 0.136 0.149 0.162 0.165 0.294 n/a
Table D26. Urban Non-Freeway, CO2: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 1.94 1.99 2.30 2.61 2.78 6.13 n/a
C 1.98 2.03 2.33 2.64 2.84 6.15 n/a
D 1.99 2.04 2.34 2.65 2.98 6.34 n/a
E 1.88 1.93 2.23 2.54 2.61 5.69 n/a
Table D27. Rural Non-Freeway, CO2: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 1.20 1.33 1.46 1.60 1.67 3.02 n/a
C 1.21 1.34 1.48 1.62 1.70 3.04 n/a
D 1.22 1.35 1.48 1.63 1.77 3.07 n/a
E 1.27 1.38 1.52 1.64 1.67 2.98 n/a
Table D28. Urban Non-Freeway, NOx: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 0.73 0.75 0.86 0.98 1.04 2.29 n/a
C 0.74 0.76 0.87 0.99 1.06 2.30 n/a
D 0.74 0.76 0.88 0.99 1.12 2.37 n/a
E 0.70 0.72 0.84 0.95 0.98 2.13 n/a
Table D29. Rural Non-Freeway, NOx: Engine 2
Scenario Urban Interstate / Freeway Gal/mile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
B 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.63 1.13 n/a
C 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.61 0.64 1.14 n/a
D 0.46 0.51 0.56 0.61 0.66 1.15 n/a
E 0.48 0.52 0.57 0.61 0.63 1.12 n/a

Rates were interpolated for each weight category for which modal shift VMT were provided. In total, there were 100 weight categories used in the modal shift analysis. Each weight category covered a 2,000-lb. range starting with 0 lbs. as the lower bound of the lowest category and ending with 200,000 lbs. as the upper bound of the highest category. The mid-point of each range was used as the average weight of the category. Rates were interpolated to the average weights of each category. The weight categories are shown in Table D30.

Table D30. Modal Shift Weight Categories
Wt. Category Min lb. Max lb. Mid lb.
1 1 2,000 1,001
2 2,001 4,000 3,001
3 4,001 6,000 5,001
4 6,001 8,000 7,001
5 8,001 10,000 9,001
6 10,001 12,000 11,001
7 12,001 14,000 13,001
8 14,001 16,000 15,001
9 16,001 18,000 17,001
10 18,001 20,000 19,001
11 20,001 22,000 21,001
12 22,001 24,000 23,001
13 24,001 26,000 25,001
14 26,001 28,000 27,001
15 28,001 30,000 29,001
16 30,001 32,000 31,001
17 32,001 34,000 33,001
18 34,001 36,000 35,001
19 36,001 38,000 37,001
20 38,001 40,000 39,001
21 40,001 42,000 41,001
22 42,001 44,000 43,001
23 44,001 46,000 45,001
24 46,001 48,000 47,001
25 48,001 50,000 49,001
26 50,001 52,000 51,001
27 52,001 54,000 53,001
28 54,001 56,000 55,001
29 56,001 58,000 57,001
30 58,001 60,000 59,001
31 60,001 62,000 61,001
32 62,001 64,000 63,001
33 64,001 66,000 65,001
34 66,001 68,000 67,001
35 68,001 70,000 69,001
36 70,001 72,000 71,001
37 72,001 74,000 73,001
38 74,001 76,000 75,001
39 76,001 78,000 77,001
40 78,001 80,000 79,001
41 80,001 82,000 81,001
42 82,001 84,000 83,001
43 84,001 86,000 85,001
44 86,001 88,000 87,001
45 88,001 90,000 89,001
46 90,001 92,000 91,001
47 92,001 94,000 93,001
48 94,001 96,000 95,001
49 96,001 98,000 97,001
50 98,001 100,000 99,001
51 100,001 102,000 101,001
52 102,001 104,000 103,001
53 104,001 106,000 105,001
54 106,001 108,000 107,001
55 108,001 110,000 109,001
56 110,001 112,000 111,001
57 112,001 114,000 113,001
58 114,001 116,000 115,001
59 116,001 118,000 117,001
60 118,001 120,000 119,001
61 120,001 122,000 121,001
62 122,001 124,000 123,001
63 124,001 126,000 125,001
64 126,001 128,000 127,001
65 128,001 130,000 129,001
66 130,001 132,000 131,001
67 132,001 134,000 133,001
68 134,001 136,000 135,001
69 136,001 138,000 137,001
70 138,001 140,000 139,001
71 140,001 142,000 141,001
72 142,001 144,000 143,001
73 144,001 146,000 145,001
74 146,001 148,000 147,001
75 148,001 150,000 149,001
76 150,001 152,000 151,001
77 152,001 154,000 153,001
78 154,001 156,000 155,001
79 156,001 158,000 157,001
80 158,001 160,000 159,001
81 160,001 162,000 161,001
82 162,001 164,000 163,001
83 164,001 166,000 165,001
84 166,001 168,000 167,001
85 168,001 170,000 169,001
86 170,001 172,000 171,001
87 172,001 174,000 173,001
88 174,001 176,000 175,001
89 176,001 178,000 177,001
90 178,001 180,000 179,001
91 180,001 182,000 181,001
92 182,001 184,000 183,001
93 184,001 186,000 185,001
94 186,001 188,000 187,001
95 188,001 190,000 189,001
96 190,001 192,000 191,001
97 192,001 194,000 193,001
98 194,001 196,000 195,001
99 196,001 198,000 197,001
100 198,001 200,000 199,001

Rates for each weight category were interpolated through a simple method of linear interpolation considering the rates calculated during the vehicle simulations at each GCW. Example rate interpolations for rural fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are shown in Figures D9 to D10. Rates for all other road types and emissions were interpolated in a similar manner.

Figure D9. Rural Freeway Fuel Consumption

Rates for each weight category were interpolated through a simple method of linear interpolation considering the rates calculated during the vehicle simulations at each GCW. Example rate interpolations for rural fuel consumption are shown in Figure D9.

Figure D10. Rural Freeway CO2 Emissions

Rates for each weight category were interpolated through a simple method of linear interpolation considering the rates calculated during the vehicle simulations at each GCW. Example rate interpolations for rural CO2 emissions are shown in Figure D10.

D.4 Fuel Consumption Results

Each scenario demonstrates reductions to fuel consumption relative to the Base Case scenario. This is consistent with the reduction of travel made possible by the increases in payload tested in each scenario. While most scenarios show comparable improvements, Scenario 3 shows the greatest overall reduction in fuel consumption. Tables D31-D38 show the changes to fuel consumption between each of the scenarios.

Table D31- Annual US fuel consumption (in gallons) for the Base Case in 2011.

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of gallons range from 3.5 billion to 10.3 billion with a total of 17.9 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of gallons range from 0.5 billion to 1.5 billion with a total of 2.7 billion. The third column (3S3) number of gallons range from 66.8 million to 256.0 million with a total of 396.9 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of gallons range from 0.2 million to 0.6 million with a total of 1.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of gallons range from 130.7 million to 533.5 million with a total of 799.0 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of gallons range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of gallons range from 0 to 12.5 million with a total of 12.5 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of gallons range from 0 to 25.8 thousand with a total of 25.8 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of gallons range from 4.3 billion to 12.4 billion with a total of 21.8 billion.

Table D32- Annual US fuel consumption (in gallons) for the Scenario 1 in 2011.

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of gallons range from 3.5 billion to 10.2 billion with a total of 17.8 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of gallons range from 0.5 billion to 1.5 billion with a total of 2.7 billion. The third column (3S3) number of gallons range from 66.8 million to 256.0 million with a total of 396.9 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of gallons range from 0.2 million to 0.6 million with a total of 1.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of gallons range from 130.7 million to 533.5 million with a total of 799.0 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of gallons range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of gallons range from 0 to 12.5 million with a total of 12.5 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of gallons range from 0 to 25.8 thousand with a total of 25.8 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of gallons range from 4.3 billion to 12.4 billion with a total of 21.7 billion.

Table D33- Annual US fuel consumption (in gallons) for the Scenario 2 in 2011.

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of gallons range from 3.1 billion to 8.9 billion with a total of 15.6 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of gallons range from 0.4 billion to 1.3 billion with a total of 2.3 billion. The third column (3S3) number of gallons range from 644.5 million to 1660.6 million with a total of 3050.1 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of gallons range from 0.2 million to 0.7 million with a total of 1.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of gallons range from 130.7 million to 533.5 million with a total of 799.0 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of gallons range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of gallons range from 0 to 12.5 million with a total of 12.5 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of gallons range from 0 to 25.8 thousand with a total of 25.8 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of gallons range from 4.3 billion to 12.4 billion with a total of 21.7 billion.

Table D34- Annual US fuel consumption (in gallons) for the Scenario 3 in 2011.

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of gallons range from 3.0 billion to 8.6 billion with a total of 14.9 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of gallons range from 0.4 billion to 1.2 billion with a total of 2.1 billion. The third column (3S3) number of gallons range from 757.0 million to 1953.7 million with a total of 3595.4 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of gallons range from 0.2 million to 0.7 million with a total of 1.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of gallons range from 130.7 million to 533.5 million with a total of 799.0 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of gallons range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of gallons range from 0 to 12.5 million with a total of 12.5 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of gallons range from 0 to 25.8 thousand with a total of 25.8 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of gallons range from 4.2 billion to 12.2 billion with a total of 21.5 billion.

Table D35- Annual US fuel consumption (in gallons) for the Scenario 4 in 2011.

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of gallons range from 3.2 billion to 9.3 billion with a total of 16.2 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of gallons range from 0.5 billion to 1.4 billion with a total of 2.5 billion. The third column (3S3) number of gallons range from 66.8 million to 256.0 million with a total of 396.9 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of gallons range from 0.2 million to 0.7 million with a total of 1.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of gallons range from 35.8 million to 143.1 million with a total of 221.9 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of gallons range from 407.3 million to 1345.2 million with a total of 2245.6 million. The seventh column (TS7) number of gallons range from 0 to 12.5 million with a total of 12.5 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of gallons range from 0 to 25.8 thousand with a total of 25.8 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of gallons range from 4.2 billion to 12.3 billion with a total of 21.6 billion.

Table D36- Annual US fuel consumption (in gallons) for the Scenario 5 in 2011.

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of gallons range from 3.4 billion to 9.8 billion with a total of 17.0 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of gallons range from 0.5 billion to 1.5 billion with a total of 2.6 billion. The third column (3S3) number of gallons range from 66.8 million to 256.0 million with a total of 396.9 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of gallons range from 0.2 million to 0.7 million with a total of 1.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of gallons range from 193.4 million to 626.3 million with a total of 221.9 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of gallons range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of gallons range from 0 to 503.4 million with a total of 503.4 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of gallons range from 0 to 25.8 thousand with a total of 25.8 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of gallons range from 4.3 billion to 12.3 billion with a total of 21.6 billion.

Table D37- Annual US fuel consumption (in gallons) for the Scenario 6 in 2011.

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of gallons range from 3.4 billion to 9.8 billion with a total of 17.0 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of gallons range from 0.5 billion to 1.5 billion with a total of 2.6 billion. The third column (3S3) number of gallons range from 66.8 million to 256.0 million with a total of 396.9 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of gallons range from 0.2 million to 0.7 million with a total of 1.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of gallons range from 192.8 million to 621.5 million with a total of 1029.9 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of gallons range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of gallons range from 0 to 12.5 million with a total of 12.5 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of gallons range from 0 to 497.8 million with a total of 497.8 million. The ninth column (total) number of gallons range from 4.3 billion to 12.3 billion with a total of 21.6 billion.

Table D38- Truck Fleet Annual Fuel Consumption.

The matrix is organized by three columns: first column is base case and six scenarios, second column is fuel consumed (millions of gallons) and third column is the difference with the base case. The base case has 21. 8 billion gallons. Scenario 1 has 21.69 billion gallons with a difference of negative 107 million gallons. Scenario 2 has 21.69 billion gallons with a difference of negative 109.1 million gallons. Scenario 3 has 21.49 billion gallons with a difference of negative 309.2 million gallons. Scenario 4 has 21.55 billion gallons with a difference of negative 244.7 million gallons. Scenario 5 has 21.56 billion gallons with a difference of negative 233.2 million gallons. Scenario 6 has 21.57 billion gallons with a difference of negative 230.9 million gallons.

D.5 GHG Emissions Results

Each scenario demonstrates reductions to greenhouse gas emissions relative to the base case scenario. This is consistent with the reduction of travel made possible by the increases in payload tested in each scenario. While most scenarios show comparable improvements, Scenario 3 shows the greatest overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Tables D39-D46 show the changes to CO2 emissions between each of the scenarios.

Table D39- Annual US Base Case CO2 Emissions (in kilograms).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of kilograms range from 36.0 billion to 104.1 billion with a total of 181.6 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of kilograms range from 5.0 billion to 15.6 billion with a total of 27.4 billion. The third column (3S3) number of kilograms range from 678.0 million to 2598.6 million with a total of 4028.5 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of kilograms range from 1.7 million to 6.9 million with a total of 10.6 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of kilograms range from 1326.1 million to 5415.1 million with a total of 8109.7 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of kilograms range from 0 to 126.7 million with a total of 126.7 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0.3 million with a total of 0.3 million. The ninth column (total) number of kilograms range from 43.6 billion to 126.0 billion with a total of 221.3 billion.

Table D40- Annual US Scenario 1 CO2 Emissions (in kilograms).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of kilograms range from 41.3 billion to 103.5 billion with a total of 180.7 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of kilograms range from 5.0 billion to 15.5 billion with a total of 27.2 billion. The third column (3S3) number of kilograms range from 678.1 million to 2598.6 million with a total of 4028.5 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of kilograms range from 1.7 million to 6.9 million with a total of 10.6 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of kilograms range from 1326.1 million to 5415.1 million with a total of 8109.7 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of kilograms range from 0 to 126.7 million with a total of 126.7 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0.3 million with a total of 0.3 million. The ninth column (total) number of kilograms range from 43.4 billion to 125.4 billion with a total of 220.2 billion.

Table D41- Annual US Scenario 2 CO2 Emissions (in kilograms).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of kilograms range from 31.3 billion to 90.7 billion with a total of 157.9 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of kilograms range from 4.2 billion to 13.2 billion with a total of 23.0 billion. The third column (3S3) number of kilograms range from 6541.9 million to 16855.2 million with a total of 30958.8 million. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of kilograms range from 1.7 million to 6.9 million with a total of 10.6 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of kilograms range from 1326.1 million to 5415.1 million with a total of 8109.7 million. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of kilograms range from 0 to 126.7 million with a total of 126.7 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0.3 million with a total of 0.3 million. The ninth column (total) number of kilograms range from 43.4 billion to 125.3 billion with a total of 220.1 billion.

Table D42- Annual US Scenario 3 CO2 Emissions (in kilograms).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of kilograms range from 30.0 billion to 87.1 billion with a total of 151.5 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of kilograms range from 4.0 billion to 12.5 billion with a total of 21.8 billion. The third column (3S3) number of kilograms range from 7.7 billion to 19.8 billion with a total of 36.5 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of kilograms range from 1.7 million to 6.9 million with a total of 10.6 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of kilograms range from 1.3 billion to 5.4 billion with a total of 8.1 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of kilograms range from 0 to 126.7 million with a total of 126.7 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0.3 million with a total of 0.3 million. The ninth column (total) number of kilograms range from 43.0 billion to 124.2 billion with a total of 218.1 billion.

Table D43- Annual US Scenario 4 CO2 Emissions (in kilograms).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of kilograms range from 32.6 billion to 94.1 billion with a total of 164.3 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of kilograms range from 4.6 billion to 14.4 billion with a total of 25.2 billion. The third column (3S3) number of kilograms range from 0.7 billion to 2.6 billion with a total of 4.0 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of kilograms range from 1.7 million to 6.9 million with a total of 10.6 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of kilograms range from 0.4 billion to 1.5 billion with a total of 2.3 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of kilograms range from 4.1 billion to 13.7 billion with a total of 22.8 billion. The seventh column (TS7) number of kilograms range from 0 to 126.7 million with a total of 126.7 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0.3 million with a total of 0.3 million. The ninth column (total) number of kilograms range from 43.0 billion to 124.5 billion with a total of 218.8 billion.

Table D44- Annual US Scenario 5 CO2 Emissions (in kilograms).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of kilograms range from 34.4 billion to 99.7 billion with a total of 173.0 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of kilograms range from 4.8 billion to 14.9 billion with a total of 26.2 billion. The third column (3S3) number of kilograms range from 0.7 billion to 2.6 billion with a total of 4.0 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of kilograms range from 1.7 million to 6.9 million with a total of 10.6 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of kilograms range from 2.0 billion to 6.4 billion with a total of 10.5 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of kilograms range from 0 to 5.1 billion with a total of 5.1 billion. The eighth column (TS9+) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0.3 million with a total of 0.3 million. The ninth column (total) number of kilograms range from 43.5 billion to 124.8 billion with a total of 218.9 billion.

Table D45- Annual US Scenario 6 CO2 Emissions (in kilograms).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of kilograms range from 34.4 billion to 99.7 billion with a total of 173.0 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of kilograms range from 4.8 billion to 14.9 billion with a total of 26.2 billion. The third column (3S3) number of kilograms range from 0.7 billion to 2.6 billion with a total of 4.0 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of kilograms range from 1.7 million to 6.9 million with a total of 10.6 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of kilograms range from 2.0 billion to 6.4 billion with a total of 10.5 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of kilograms range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of kilograms range from 0 to 126.7 million with a total of 126.7 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of kilograms range from 0 to 5.1 billion with a total of 5.1 billion. The ninth column (total) number of kilograms range from 43.5 billion to 124.8 billion with a total of 218.9 billion.

Table D46- Truck Fleet Annual CO2 Emissions.

The matrix is organized by three columns: first column is base case and six scenarios, second column is CO2 emitted (kilograms) and third column is the difference with the base case. The base case has 221. 2 billion kilograms. Scenario 1 has 220.2 billion kilograms with a difference of negative 1.1 billion kilograms. Scenario 2 has 220.1 billion kilograms with a difference of negative 1.1 billion kilograms. Scenario 3 has 218.1 billion kilograms with a difference of negative 3.1 billion kilograms. Scenario 4 has 218.8 billion kilograms with a difference of negative 2.5 billion kilograms. Scenario 5 has 218.9 billion kilograms with a difference of negative 2.4 billion kilograms. Scenario 6 has 218.9 billion kilograms with a difference of negative 2.3 billion kilograms.

D.6 NOx Emissions Results

Each scenario demonstrates reductions to NOx emissions relative to the Base Case scenario. This is consistent with the reduction of travel made possible by the increases in payload tested in each scenario. While most scenarios show comparable improvements, Scenario 3 shows the greatest overall reduction in NOx emissions. Tables D47-D54 show the changes to NOx emissions between each of the scenarios.

Table D47- Annual US Base Case NOx Emissions (in grams).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of grams range from 13.4 billion to 40.0 billion with a total of 68.0 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of grams range from 1.9 billion to 5.9 billion with a total of 10.2 billion. The third column (3S3) number of grams range from 0.3 billion to 1.0 billion with a total of 1.5 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of grams range from 0.6 million to 2.6 million with a total of 4.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of grams range from 0.5 billion to 2.0 billion with a total of 3.0 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of grams range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of grams range from 0 to 47.4 million with a total of 47.4 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of grams range from 0 to 98 thousand with a total of 98 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of grams range from 16.3 billion to 47.2 billion with a total of 82.8 billion.

Table D48- Annual US Scenario 1 NOx Emissions (in grams).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of grams range from 13.4 billion to 38.8 billion with a total of 67.7 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of grams range from 1.9 billion to 5.8 billion with a total of 10.2 billion. The third column (3S3) number of grams range from 0.3 billion to 1.0 billion with a total of 1.5 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of grams range from 0.6 million to 2.6 million with a total of 4.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of grams range from 0.5 billion to 2.0 billion with a total of 3.0 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of grams range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of grams range from 0 to 47.4 million with a total of 47.4 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of grams range from 0 to 98 thousand with a total of 98 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of grams range from 16.2 billion to 46.9 billion with a total of 82.4 billion.

Table D49- Annual US Scenario 2 NOx Emissions (in grams).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of grams range from 11.7 billion to 34.0 billion with a total of 59.1 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of grams range from 1.6 billion to 4.9 billion with a total of 8.6 billion. The third column (3S3) number of grams range from 2.5 billion to 6.3 billion with a total of 11.6 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of grams range from 0.6 million to 2.6 million with a total of 4.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of grams range from 0.5 billion to 2.0 billion with a total of 3.0 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of grams range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of grams range from 0 to 47.4 million with a total of 47.4 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of grams range from 0 to 98 thousand with a total of 98 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of grams range from 16.2 billion to 46.9 billion with a total of 82.4 billion.

Table D50- Annual US Scenario 3 NOx Emissions (in grams).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of grams range from 11.2 billion to 32.6 billion with a total of 56.7 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of grams range from 1.5 billion to 4.7 billion with a total of 8.2 billion. The third column (3S3) number of grams range from 2.9 billion to 7.4 billion with a total of 13.7 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of grams range from 0.6 million to 2.6 million with a total of 4.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of grams range from 0.5 billion to 2.0 billion with a total of 3.0 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of grams range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of grams range from 0 to 47.4 million with a total of 47.4 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of grams range from 0 to 98 thousand with a total of 98 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of grams range from 16.1 billion to 46.5 billion with a total of 81.7 billion.

Table D51- Annual US Scenario 4 NOx Emissions (in grams).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of grams range from 12.2 billion to 35.2 billion with a total of 61.5 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of grams range from 1.7 billion to 5.4 billion with a total of 9.5 billion. The third column (3S3) number of grams range from 0.3 billion to 1.0 billion with a total of 1.5 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of grams range from 0.6 million to 2.6 million with a total of 4.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of grams range from 0.1 billion to 0.5 billion with a total of 0.8 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of grams range from 1.5 billion to 5.1 billion with a total of 8.5 billion. The seventh column (TS7) number of grams range from 0 to 47.4 million with a total of 47.4 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of grams range from 0 to 98 thousand with a total of 98 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of grams range from 16.1 billion to 46.6 billion with a total of 81.9 billion.

Table D52- Annual US Scenario 5 NOx Emissions (in grams).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of grams range from 12.9 billion to 37.3 billion with a total of 64.8 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of grams range from 1.8 billion to 5.6 billion with a total of 9.8 billion. The third column (3S3) number of grams range from 0.3 billion to 1.0 billion with a total of 1.5 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of grams range from 0.6 million to 2.6 million with a total of 4.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of grams range from 0.7 billion to 2.4 billion with a total of 3.9 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of grams range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of grams range from 0 to 1.9 billion with a total of 1.9 billion. The eighth column (TS9+) number of grams range from 0 to 98 thousand with a total of 98 thousand. The ninth column (total) number of grams range from 16.3 billion to 46.7 billion with a total of 81.9 billion.

Table D53- Annual US Scenario 6 NOx Emissions (in grams).

The matrix is organized by eight vehicles classes (3S2, Other 5-axle, 3S3, Other 6-axle, DS5-28 foot, DS5-33 foot, TS7, and TS9+) and 8 highway classes (rural expressway, rural non freeway, urban freeway, urban, rural, freeway, and non freeway). Each side of the matrix has a total. The first column (3S2) number of grams range from 12.9 billion to 37.3 billion with a total of 64.8 billion. The second column (Other 5-axle) number of grams range from 1.8 billion to 5.6 billion with a total of 9.8 billion. The third column (3S3) number of grams range from 0.3 billion to 1.0 billion with a total of 1.5 billion. The fourth column (Other 6-axle) number of grams range from 0.6 million to 2.6 million with a total of 4.0 million. The fifth column (DS5-28 foot) number of grams range from 0.7 billion to 2.4 billion with a total of 3.9 billion. The sixth column (DS5-33 foot) number of grams range from 0 to 0 with a total of 0. The seventh column (TS7) number of grams range from 0 to 47 million with a total of 47 million. The eighth column (TS9+) number of grams range from 0 to 1.9 billion with a total of 1.9 billion. The ninth column (total) number of grams range from 16.3 billion to 46.7 billion with a total of 82.0 billion.

Table D54- Truck Fleet Annual NOx Emissions.

The matrix is organized by three columns: first column is base case and six scenarios, second column is NOx emitted (grams) and third column is the difference with the base case. The base case has 82.8 billion grams. Scenario 1 has 82.4 billion grams with a difference of negative 0.4 billion grams. Scenario 2 has 82.4 billion grams with a difference of negative 0.4 billion grams. Scenario 3 has 81.7 billion grams with a difference of negative 1.2 billion grams. Scenario 4 has 81.9 billion grams with a difference of negative 0.9 billion grams. Scenario 5 has 81.9 billion grams with a difference of negative 0.9 billion grams. Scenario 6 has 82.0 billion grams with a difference of negative 0.9 billion grams.

D.7 Vehicle Performance Results

Increases in allowed vehicle weight will naturally have an impact on vehicle performance. For this task, two metrics were evaluated. The first is the maximum speed that is achieved while the truck climbs a 3 percent grade. This speed is an indicator of how much a truck might slow traffic while climbing a grade. The second metric is 0 to 60 mph acceleration time, an indicator of how a truck might slow traffic when accelerating from a traffic light. Vehicle performance was evaluated both with the baseline 485 HP engine rating, and with alternative ratings.

In general, increasing maximum allowed vehicle weight will lead to a reduction in performance. This can be balanced by increased engine power, but at some weight, the truck will need more power than is currently available on the market. Since the highest rating currently available is 600 HP, our evaluation of alternative ratings stopped at 588 HP. The 588 HP rating can provide vehicle performance at 97,000 lbs., which matches the performance of the 80,000-lb. baseline vehicle with the baseline 485 HP engine. At 129,000 lbs., a 782 HP engine would be needed to match the baseline vehicle and engine performance. Note that performance values were not calculated for empty vehicles (payload 0) or overloaded vehicles (payload 6). In each table below, the highest payload evaluated represents the legal weight limit for that vehicle.

Table D55- Maximum Speed on 3% Grade with Baseline 485 HP Engine.

The matrix is organized by three columns: first column is base case (both 1 and 2) and six scenarios, second column is the truck configurations (3-S2 baseline, 3-S2, 3-S3, 3-S3, 2-S1-2 baseline, 2-S1-2 (33 foot), 2-S1-2-2, and 3-S2-2-2) and the third column is maximum speed (miles per hour) for 5 model runs. The base case (3-S2) maximum speed ranges from 63.5 to 46.4 miles per hour. The scenario 1 (3-S2) maximum speed ranges from 63.5 to 45.3 miles per hour. The scenario 2 (3-S3) maximum speed ranges from 63.1 to 44.5 miles per hour. The scenario 3 (3-S3) maximum speed ranges from 63.1 to 42.4 miles per hour. The base case (2-S1-2) maximum speed ranges from 63.7 to 46.3 miles per hour. The scenario 4 (2-S1-2) maximum seed ranges from 63.8 to 46.5 miles per hour. The scenario 5 (2-S1-2-2) maximum speed ranges from 59.3 to 36.4 miles per hour. The scenario 6 (3-S2-2-2) maximum speed ranges from 54.2 to 32.8 miles per hour.

Table D56- Maximum Speed on 3% Grade with Alternative Engine Rating.

The matrix is organized by three columns: first column is base case and five scenarios, second column is the truck configurations (3-S2, 3-S3, 3-S3, 2-S1-2 baseline, 2-S1-2-2, and 3-S2-2-2) and the third column is maximum speed (miles per hour) for 5 model runs. The scenario 1 (3-S2 with 534 HP engine rating) maximum speed ranges from 65.1 to 46.5 miles per hour. The scenario 2 (3-S3 with 534 HP engine rating) maximum speed ranges from 64.7 to 46.2 miles per hour. The scenario 3 (3-S3 with 588 HP engine rating) maximum speed ranges from 65.6 to 46.7 miles per hour. The base case (2-S1-2 with 428 HP engine rating) maximum speed ranges from 60.8 to 44.0 miles per hour. The scenario 5 (2-S1-2-2 with 588 HP engine rating) maximum speed ranges from 64.3 to 45.5 miles per hour. The scenario 6 (3-S1-2-2 with 588 HP engine rating) maximum speed ranges from 62.9 to 36.3 miles per hour.

Table D57- Zero to 60 Mile Per Hour Acceleration Times with the Baseline 485 HP Engine.

The matrix is organized by three columns: first column is base case (both 1 and 2) and six scenarios, second column is the truck configurations (3-S2 baseline, 3-S2, 3-S3, 3-S3, 2-S1-2 baseline, 2-S1-2 (33 foot), 2-S1-2-2, and 3-S2-2-2) and the third column is acceleration from zero to 60 miles per hour time in seconds for 5 model runs. The base case (3-S2) acceleration ranges from 45.9 to 75.2 seconds. The scenario 1 (3-S2) acceleration ranges from 45.9 to 84.1 seconds. The scenario 2 (3-S3) acceleration ranges from 47.3 to 87.5 seconds. The scenario 3 (3-S3) acceleration ranges from 47.3 to 94.5 seconds. The base case (2-S1-2) acceleration ranges from 43.7 to 76.9 seconds. The scenario 4 (2-S1-2) acceleration ranges from 44.6 to 74.4 seconds. The scenario 5 (2-S1-2-2) acceleration ranges from 54.2 to 111.1 seconds. The scenario 6 (3-S2-2-2) acceleration ranges from 61.3 to 150.0 seconds.

Table D58- Zero to 60 Mile Per Hour Acceleration Times with the Alternative Engine Ratings.

The matrix is organized by three columns: first column is base case and five scenarios, second column is the truck configurations (3-S2, 3-S3, 3-S3, 2-S1-2 baseline, 2-S1-2, 2-S1-2-2, and 3-S2-2-2) and the third column is acceleration from zero to 60 miles per hour time in seconds for 5 model runs. The scenario 1 (3-S2 with 534 HP engine rating) acceleration ranges from 41.0 to 73.4 seconds. The scenario 2 (3-S3 with 534 HP engine rating) acceleration ranges from 42.3 to 76.3 seconds. The scenario 3 (3-S3 with 588 HP engine rating) acceleration ranges from 38.1 to 72.1 seconds. The base case (2-S1-2 with 428 HP engine rating) acceleration ranges from 50.9 to 92.8 seconds. The scenario 5 (2-S1-2-2 with 588 HP engine rating) acceleration ranges from 42.6 to 81.9 seconds. The scenario 6 (3-S2-2-2 with 588 HP engine rating) acceleration ranges from 47.7 to 106.3 seconds.

previous | next
Office of Operations