HDV -78-01
Technical Support Report for Regulatory Action
CATEGORY SELECTION FOR TRANSIENT
HEAVY-DUTY CHASSIS AND
ENGINE CYCLES
by
Chester J. France
May, 1978
Notice
Technical support reports for regulatory action do not necessarily
represent the final EPA decision on regulatory issues. They are intended
to present a technical analysis of an issue and recommendations resulting
from the assumptions and constraints of that analysis. Agency policy
considerations or data received subsequent to the date of release of this
report may alter the conclusions reached. Readers are cautioned to seek
the latest analysis from EPA before using the information contained herein.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Abstract
The Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD) of EPA has gene-
rated heavy-duty transient engine and chassis cycles representative of
the truck operational data collected during the CAPE-21 survey. This
report summarizes the considerations and decision process used in ar-
riving at the final vehicle categories for which heavy-duty transient
cycles were developed.
Statistical comparisons between various operational parameters were
primarily relied upon in selecting the valid category combinations. It
was possible to reduce the original number of vehicle categories from 28
to 9 for engine cycles and from 28 to 5 for chassis cycles.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction and Background 1
II. Summary 1
III. Discussion 5
A. Data Analysis 5
B. Results 7
C. Interpretation of Results 27
D. Summary and Conclusions 33
Appendix 1 35
Appendix II 60
-------
I. Introduction and Background
As part of its advanced regulation development program, the Emis-
sion Control Technology Division (ECTD) of EPA is generating transient
engine and chassis cycles. The prime objective of this cycle develop-
ment effort is to produce transient cycles with operation patterns
characteristic of actual truck usage in the urban environment. The
resulting cycles will be used to measure emission levels and fuel eco-
nomy of heavy-duty (H-D) engines.
The data base being used in generating•the transient cycles is the
CAPE-21 truck operational data. In the CAPE-21 survey, forty-four (44)
trucks and three (3) bases were surveyed in Los Angeles (LA) , and forty-
four (44) trucks and four (4) buses were surveyed in New York City (NY).
For the vehicles surveyed, speed (MPH), engine rpm, road and traffic de-
scriptions, and engine power were recorded at approximately one (1)
second intervals. These data were collected while the trucks performed
their normal functions during a typical day.
In both cities (LA and NY), gasoline-fueled and diesel engine
equipped vehicles were sampled. For each engine type, the following
vehicle configurations were selected: 2 axle, 3 axle, tractor-trailer
and bus. (Figure 1 shows pictorially the different vehicle configura-
tions.) In total, there were fourteen different truck categories sam-
pled in the CAPE-21 truck survey. These categories are listed in Table
1. For each of the categories listed in Table 1, the operational data
were broken down into three types: freeway (F), non-freeway (N-F), and
combined (freeway and non-freeway). For further information, Table 2
lists the number of trucks and buses sampled in the CAPE-21 survey for
each of the categories shown in Table 1.
In order to avoid an unreasonable number of engine and chassis
cycles (56 engine and chassis cycles could result if no category com-
binations were considered), the possibility of category combinations was
examined. If possible, it would be highly desirable to have as few
resulting cycles as possible.
The purpose of this report is to document the considerations and
decision process used in arriving at the final categories for which H-D
transient engine and chassis cycles were developed.
II. Summary
Objective
The objective of this report is to document the considerations and
decision process used in selecting final vehicle categories for which
heavy-duty (H-D) transient engine and transient chassis cycles were
developed.
-1-
-------
-2-
FIGURE 1
VEHICLE CONFIGURATION
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
oo-1
Bus
-------
-3-
City
LA
LA
LA
NY
NY
NY
LA
LA
LA
NY
NY
NY
LA
NY
TABLE 1
TRUCK CATEGORIES SAMPLED IN THE
CAPE-21 SURVEY
Vehicle
Configuration
2 axle
3 axle
Tractor-Trailer
2 axle
3 axle
Tractor-Trailer
2 axle
3 axle
Tractor-Trailer
2 axle
3 axle
Tractor-Trailer
Bus
Bus
Engine Type
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
-------
-4-
TABLE 2
NUMBER OF TRUCKS AND BUSES SAMPLED
IN THE CAPE-21 SURVEY
Vehicle Configuration
City and Fuel Type
Los Angeles , Gasoline
Los Angeles, Diesel
New York, Gasoline
New York, Diesel
2 Axle
19
1
26
1
3 Axle
1
5
1
5
Tractor-
Trailer
7
11
3
8
Bus
-
3
-
4
-------
-5-
Results
The approach taken in analyzing and selecting possible truck cate-
gories was to perform Z-tests and Aspin-Welch T-tests on differences
between means for various parameters (mean, median, standard deviation,
etc.) of %RPM, %POWER, and MPH. The following chassis cycle and engine,
cycle categories were selected based on the results of the statistical
analysis and the use of engineering judgment.
Chassis Cycle Categories
Los Angeles gas and diesel trucks, non-freeway
New York gas and diesel trucks, non-freeway
Los Angeles gas and diesel trucks, freeway
New York gas and diesel trucks, freeway
Los Angeles and New York diesel busses, combined.
Engine Cycle Categories
Los Angeles gas trucks, non-freeway
Los Angeles gas trucks, freeway
New York gas trucks, non-freeway
New York gas trucks, freeway
Los Angeles diesel trucks, non-freeway
Los Angeles diesel trucks, freeway
New York diesel trucks, non-freeway
New York diesel trucks, freeway
Los Angeles and New York diesel buses, combined.
Conclusions
The categories selected above do represent a significant reduction
in the total categories possible, and therefore reduce the overall
complexity of the heavy-duty cycle development effort. The statistical
analysis did not totally justify all category combinations (e.g. Los
Angeles gasoline vehicles). However, engineering judgment and common
sense provided adequate basis for selecting those categories not suppor-
ted by statistical considerations.
III. Discussion
A. Data Analysis
The general approach taken in analyzing possible truck category
combinations was to perform Z-tests and Aspin-Welch T-tests on differences
-------
-6-
1 2
between means for various parameters. For % RPM , % POWER , and MPH the
means of the following parameters were examined:
mean
median
standard deviation
% zero speed
% acceleration
% cruise
% deceleration
% idle
% motoring (% POWER data only)
Some of the parameters above may not be entirely clear to the reader.
Therefore, those parameters which may fall in this category are defined
below.
Parameter
% zero speed
acceleration
% cruise
% deceleration
% idle
%RPM =
Definition
the percent of operation when exactly "zero" MPH
occurred
the percent of operation involving a positive change
(increase) in the parameter being examined (MPH,
% RPM, or % POWER)
the percent of operation when no change occurs in
the parameter being examined (MPH, %RPM, or % POWER)
the percent of operation involving a negative change
(decrease) in the parameter being examined (MPH,
% RPM, or % POWER)
for the road speed data it is the percent of opera-
tion when road speed (MPH) falls between 0 and 1 MPH
(0 <_ MPH < 1) and for the % RPM data it is the
percent of operation when exactly "zero" % RMP
occurs
RPM - RPM.
IDLE x 100
- RPM.
IDLE
Normalized to maximum value at each rpm.
-------
-7-
It should be pointed out that only mean values of the parameters
listed earlier were compared. For example, the mean of the medians for
% RPM for a particular truck category would simply be the mean (average)
of all the individual truck % RPM median values (for all trucks in the
category). With this type of averaging procedure, each truck (or bus)
is weighted equally. A truck with an unusually large amount of data
would not weight the average more than a truck with a small amount of
data.
To reiterate,Z-tests and Aspin-Welch T tests were used in the
category analysis extensively. Specifically, these statistical tests
are used to determine whether a difference between truck categories
exists (for the parameter in question). Olson Laboratories, EPA's
heavy-duty cycle development contractor,performed all of the necessary
significance tests. The results supplied by Olson will be presented and
discussed later. These results, in conjunction with engineering judg-
ment, provide the basis upon which combination of categories can be
justified.
B. Results
The detailed results of the significance tests are presented in
Appendix I. Significance tests (tests of differences between means)
were performed at two different levels of significance (a): .01 and
.05.
The test of differences between means at the larger significance
level (.05) provides a more stringent statistical test. In other words,
the test performed at a larger significance level will provide results
that give one more assurance that the means may not be different, if the
null hypothesis of equal means is not rejected.
The results of the test of differences between means, summarized in
Appendix I, are presented in matrix form. Along the top and side of
the matrix the various truck and bus categories are listed. A matrix of
this type will provide a "box" some place in the body of the matrix for
each possible category comparison. Of course, the matrix will be sym-
metric about the diagonal. Additionally, in the top half of the matrix,
the "boxes" are split in half. This maneuver, plus the fact that the
matrix is symmetric, enables one matrix to be used three times, inde-
pendently.
3
The Aspin-Welch T-test is a modification of the standard T-test.
Unlike the standard T-test, the Aspin-Welch significance test does not
require equal variances.
-------
One complete matrix is used for each parameter (e.g., mean of MPH
means, mean of MPH medians, etc.). Freeway, non-freeway, and combined
(freeway plus non-freeway) operation are all illustrated in the same
matrix. Whenever a significant difference occurs, an "S" is placed in
the appropriate "box." A dash (-) is placed in the "box" if a signifi-
cant difference was not demonstrated. The blocked-out "boxes" indicate
that the sample sizes were inadequate for a significance test to be per-
formed. The results of the Z- and Aspin-Welch T-tests of differences
between means of means, medians, and standard deviations (for % RPM, %
POWER, and MPH) for the various category comparisons are depicted in
this fashion. The remaining parameters are handled somewhat differently.
The remaining parameters of interest are shown below:
REMAINING PARAMETERS
% RPM % POWER MPH
% acceleration % acceleration % zero speed
% cruise % cruise % acceleration
% deceleration % deceleration % cruise
% idle % motoring % deceleration
% idle
The approach taken for summarizing the results of the significance
tests for these parameters was simply to note the number of significant
differences arising among these parameters and placing the number in the
appropriate "box" for the category in question (the same basic matrix
representation as discussed earlier still applies). If no significant
difference was found for a particular category comparison, a dash (-)
was placed in the "box." The numbers appearing in the matrices could
range from 1 to 4 for % RPM and % POWER and 1 to 5 for MPH. With this
type of representation, the differentation between parameters is lost;
however, these parameters do not have the same relative importance as
the mean, median, and standard deviation. Of prime importance is how
many significant differences appear among these parameters, and this
information is reflected in the matrix.
Since the amount of information presented in Appendix I is somewhat
overwhelming, an attempt was made to condense it into a more useful
form. Figures 2 through 7 are the end result of this effort. To il-
lustrate the use of these figures, Figure 2 will be used an example.
Figure 2 summarizes the significance tests (a = .01) performed on various
category combinations for the non-freeway data. Again, the summary is
presented in matrix form. The comparative parameters are listed on the
vertical axis. On the horizontal axis are listed the various category
combination comparisons of interest. For example, the category combina-
tion LA gas would represent the category comparisons shown below:
-------
FIGURE 2
NON-FREEWAY OPERATION
CATEGORY COMBINATIONS
(a = .01)
COMPARATIVE PARAMETERS
Speed (MPH):
Means
Medians
Standard Deviations
% Zero, % Accel, % Cruise \
% Decel, & % Idle f
% RPM:
Means
Medians
Standard Deviations
% Acce] , % Cruise, "^
% DeceJ , & % Idle /
% Power :
Means
Ned Jans
Standard Deviations
% Accel, % Cruise. ^
% Decel, & % Motoring >
10
O
g
"^^
en to
CO CTl
0 O
3 3
/ x
/ X
/ x
/ x
X X
/ x
X X
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ /
/ x
r-l tH
oi cu
en to
01 a) co w
•H -H 3 3
P p pq TO
3 fc >-i 15
*^*- ~' — ^~-- ""• —
vi en w tn
»0 cO cO fO
C5 O O O
3333
/ X / X
/ X / X
/ X / X
/ X X X
X X X /
X X / X
X / X /
X X / X
/ x / /
/ X / X
X X / /
X / X X
r-i l-t
0) 3)
tn o)
cu a) tn ;o
•H -rl U 3
P P P5 pq
*^J £** "^ r*"4
~~-- ~^~~ ^^. ^^^
to to w tn to
ctj co nj co rj
o o o o o
g g g g g
y X v y y
/ X / X /
/ X / X /
/ X / X X
/ X / X /
/ X / X /
/ X X X /
/ X / X X
/ / / V /
y y y y X
/ / / / /
/ X / X X
r-t
Oi
to
0) to
•H 3
P PQ
g .^
r-H r-H rH
01 Q) OJ
w tn to
•a tu o)
•H T-! -r(
p p p
333
/ x /
/ x y
/ X /
/ / X
/ X X
/ x /
/ X X
/ X /
/ X X
/ / /
/ / x
/ X X
to
3
pq
g
CU
C/J
OJ
•p-t
p
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
/
X
/
X
to
^J
M
3
•H rH
CU Q)
co to
cu cu
•H -H
p p
g g
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ /
/ x
/ x
/ /
/ /
/ x
U)
3
m
B
.H
CU
CO
cu
•H
g
/
/
/
X
/
/
/
X
/
/
/
X
-
to
pn
§
CO
3
3
/
/
/
X
/
X
/
X
/
/
/
X
-------
FIGURE 3
FREEWAY OPERATION
CATEGORY COMB INATION S
(a = .01)
COMPARATIVE
Speed (MPH)
Means
Medians
Standard
% Zero, %
I Dece.1,
% KPM:
Means
Medians
Standard
% Accel,
% Dec el,
% Power:
Mean.s
Med 1 ans
Standard
'% Accel,
% Decel,
PARAMETERS
:
Deviations
Accel , % Cruise.l
& % Idle J
Deviations
A, Cruise,^
& % Idle /
Deviations
% Cruise. "|
& % Motoring /
rH rH
CU OJ
cn en
to 0) O Q
g 3 g
"*-*-. ~*^. ~^-^
CO CO UJ CO
03 (d tvj cr)
U O O O
3 3 3 3
/ X / X
/ X / X
/ / / /
/ X / X
/ X X /
/ X X X
/ / / X
/ X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
to co
-3 3
PQ pq
3 g
*" — "v^
!0 CD
tti 'd
O O
5 -1
1-1 (-J
/ /
/ /
/ /
X X
x /
X /
X X
X X
X /
X /
X /
X X
r-> rH
cu cu
co to
cu cu co cn
•H -H D 3
O Q rq ra
tJ £ t-1 &
~~^* "" — . ' — -.
-M w co cn to
ct) /
y V y X y
/ X / X /
/ X / / X
1— 1
0)
cn
CU
•H
Q
g
rH rH
cu cu
to co
a) cu
•H -H
O PI
3 3
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ /
/ /
/ x
X /
er, co
3 3
ca cq
rJ g
rH rH
cu cu
to to
cu cu
•H -H
O O
3 3
/ /
/ /
X /
X X
X /
x /
X X
X /
X /
x /
X /
X X
to to
3 3
w pa
5 S
rH rH rH
cu cu cu
to to w
cu cu cu
•H -H -H
f~*^ /"^ f*j
g g g
X X /
X X /
/ / /
XXX
/ X /
/ x /
/ X /
/ X X
/ X /
/ X /
/ / /
/ / x
to
pa
g
*\
CO
3
PQ
3
/
/
/
/
/
/
X
/
/
/
/
/
O
I
-------
FIGURE 4
COMBINED OPERATION (FREEWAY AND NON-FREEWAY)
CATEGORY COMBINATIONS
(a = .01)
COMPARATIVE PARAMETERS
Speed (MPH) :
Means
Medians
Standard Deviations
% Zero, % Accel, % Cruise^
% Decel, & % Idle j
% RPM:
Means
Medians
Standard Deviations
% Accel, % Cruise,^
% Decel, & % Idle )
% Power :
Means
Medians
Standard Deviations
% Accel, % Cruise. ^
% Decel, & % Motoring )
CO
d
g
~~~^
CO CO
03 CO
C> C_D
3 3
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
X X
X X
/ x
/ x
/ x
X X
/ X
r-4
01
CO
O)
•H
Q
3
"- —
-v>
cfl
O
3
/
/
/
7
X
X
X
/
/
/
X
X
.H
01
CO
Ol CO CO
•H 3 2
O PQ pq
£H < £H
te »J ts
— •-, ""*-~ ^^-
CO U) (0
cO co CO
O O O
< <; >i
Q O ca CQ fe ,j fe
-<''S3t>-' t-J i— t r-( t— 1
Jfet-IZ OIQ)O>CU
--~.---.~-~-~-^ COCOCOCQ
CGCOCOIOCO 0)0)0101
cOcOcOcOcO •HtH»H*H
OOOOO OpQO
b-4 SH SH SH ^-4 <^ ^ *rf
-------
FIGURE 5
NON-FREEWAY OPERATION
CATEGORY COMBINATIONS
(a = .05)
COMPARATIVE PARAMETERS
Speed (MTU) :
%
%
M^anr.
Medians
Standard
% Zero, %
% Decel ,
PTM :
Means
Medians
Standard
% Accel,
% Di-r.el,
Power :
Means
M «d inns
Standard
% Ac c e 1 ,
% Decel,
Deviations
Accel, % Cruisel
& % Idle J
De.vj at ions
% Cruise,*^
& % Idle j
Deviations
% Cruise, ^
& % Motoring >
U)
O
g
~^x
'0 CO
n3 cfl
O o
5 _1
/ x
X X
•J X
ft X
X X
/ x
X X
X X
/ x
/ x
/ X
/ x
rH
0)
CO
Q)
•H
O
3
"• — .
CO
«
o
3
/
/
/
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rH
0)
CO
o> co co
-H 3 3
Q PQ rf\
& 3 £
^. ~ — "~ —
CO CO CO
<0 nj rt)
O C5 O
333
X / X
XXX
X / X
XXX
XXX
X / X
XXX
X / X
X X /
X XX
X / /
XXX
rH
Q)
CO
rH rH Oi . CO CO
Q) -" -
O O PH PQ F3 rJ fe
J -|
fe fe
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
CO
3
pa
£
rH
li)
CO
cu
•H
-Q
£
/
/
/
X
•J
/
/
X
/
/
/
X
CO
3
PQ
g
— ^
CO
3
PO
3
X
X
X
X
. X
X
/
X
X
/
/
X
ro
I
-------
FIGURE 6
FREEWAY OPERATION
(a = .05)
CATEGORY COMBINATIONS
COMPARATIVE PARAMETERS
Speed (MPH) :
Means
Medians
Standard Deviations
% Zero, % Accel, % Cruise!
% De.ceJ , & % Idle j
% RPM:
Means
Medians
Standard Devi.ations
% Accel, % Cruise,^
% Decel, & % Idle ?
% Power:
Means
Medians
Standard Deviations
% Accel, % Cruise. ^
;£ Decel, & % Motoring >
CO
CO
o
Is
~"-^
en en
C[J C$
o o
3 3
r-J 1-1
/ x
/ x
/ /
/ x
X X
X X
/ /
/ x
X X
X X
X X
X X
rH
V
CO
0)
•H
o
3
"• — .
VI
to
o
3
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rH
01
y5
0) CO 05
•H 3 3
Q pq pq
tM H
fe r-4 fe
"-'-- ~~-«. — ~*
CO CO CO
c^ c^ cfl
O O o
3 3 3
I-H rJ lH
X / X
X / X
X X /
XXX
X X /
X X /
XXX
XXX
X X /
X X /
X X /
XXX
-H rH
0.1 Q)
CO CO
at cu en to
•H -H 3 3
(T3 P PQ FQ
*& £M <3 £>~<
r4 fe rJ fe
~^^ •-. *"*-, ^~^.
CO CO CO CO CO
CO tO cO txj tO
tj O O O t_5
fe & fe fe -fe
/ X / X /
/ X X X /
/ X X / /
X X X X X
v/ X y X /
/ X X X /
/ X X / X
/ X X X X
X X / X /
/ X / X /
/ X / X /
/ X / / X
rH
to
01
•H
Q
g
rH rH
0) O>
to to
01 cu
•rH -H
Q O
3 3
/ x
/ X
X X
X X
/ X
/ X
X X
/ x
/ /
/ /
/ x
X X
en
3
PQ
3
rH
cu
CO
0)
•H
Q
3
/
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
3
pa
&
rH
0)
CO
CU
•H
o
rH
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
/
/
^
X
CO
3
PQ
3
rH rH
cu cu
to co
0) CU
•H -H
Q Q
g %
X X
X X
^ /
X X
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ x
/ /
/ /
to
3
PQ
g
rH
0)
CO
0)
•H
Q
g
/
/
X
X
/
X
/
X
/
/
/
X
CO
3
PQ
g
-> —
CO
3
PQ
3
X
X
/
X
/
/
X
X
/
/
/
X
LO
I
-------
FIGURE 7
COMBINED OPERATION (FREEWAY AND NON-FREEWAY)
CAT ECORY COMB IN ATI (JNS
(a = .05)
COMPARATIVE PARAMETERS
Speed (Ml'H) :
Means
Medians
Standard
% Zero ,
% Decel,
% KPM:
Means
Medians
Standard
% Accel,
% Decel,
% Power:
Means
Medians
Standard
' % Accel,
% Decel,
Deviations
% Accel , % Cruise\
& % Idle j
Deviations
% Cruise,^
& % Idle )
Deviations
% Cruise. ^
& £ Motorinp /
i-H .H
CD D
co en
in to en
03 tH -H 3-3
O O O pq M
C"1 "^ fcl "^ fc!
fe J fer. J fe
~~ — . "•*»* *"--* "*^. "^ —
W CO Uj (0 U3 CO
nj n3 cd trj c\J n)
O O O O O O
333333
/ X / X / X
/ X / X / X
/ X / X / X
/ X / X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X /
X X X X X X
/ X X X / X
/ X / X / X
X X X X y/ y/
/ X X / X X
H bH b-J
fe ?^ fe
/ / X
/ x /
X / X
/ X X
//
x /
./
v x x
XXX
/ x x
/ / /
//
/ X
// 1
V V
XXX
tH
cu
CO
(U en
•H 3
n pa
S-,
-------
-15-
' LA 2.A
Gas
LA 3A
Gas
LA TT
Gas
LA 2A
Gas
LA 3A
Gas
SA TT
Gas
In the body of the matrix, a check (/) indicates that no signifi-
cant differences were found for any comparisons within the category
being examined (e.g., LA gas). An "X" indicates that at least one sig-
nificant difference appeared. If one wanted to know if NY gas, non-
freeway, for example, would be an appropriate category, he would simply
examine the "boxes" under NY gas on Figure 2. For this example, checks
appear in all the boxes, thus no significant differences were found when
comparing NY 2 axle gas, NY 3 axle gas, and NY tractor trailer gas
trucks. Consequently, it would be appropriate to combine all NY gas
truck, non-freeway data into one category. This category combination
would be valid for the speed (MPH), % RPM, and % POWER data.
Tables 3 through 11 list various summary statistics associated with
the CAPE-21 data base. Means of means, medians, and standard deviations
are listed. Also, corresponding standard deviations are shown in paren-
theses. These statistics are broken into truck categories, city type,
and road type.
Table 12 shows the number of records in each category. Table 13
presents the same information as in Table 12, but in normalized fashion.
That is, each number is given in percent of the total. This table will
give the reader a feel for the size of each individual truck category as
compared to the entire data base.
Finally, summary statistics for the following parameters are given
in Appendix II:
% RPM
% acceleration
% cruise
% deceleration
Z idle
% acceleration
% cruise
% deceleratipn
% motoring
% zero
% acceleration
% cruise
% deceleration
% idle
Again, means and standard deviations of the above parameters are presented,
These statistics are considered of secondary importance when compared
to those in Tables 3 through 11. Regardless, they are given in an attempt
for completeness. It should be oointed out that the statistics in
-------
-16-
TABLE 3
CAPE-21 % RPM SUMMARY STATISTICS - MEANS OF MEANS
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
55 (9)*
77 (-)
69 (11)
81 (-)
81 (6)
84 (8)
60 (4)
Non-
Freeway
24 (9)
39 (-)
34 (6)
44 (-)
43 (12)
49 (5)
35 (3)
•
Combined
34 (12)
50 (-)
51 (13)
61 (-)
62 (14)
66 (8)
37 (6)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
44 (13)
49 (-)
53 (29)
41 (-)
55 (26)
56 (14)
53 (13)
!
Non-
Freeway
15 (8)
17 (-)
23 (23)
16 (-)
27 (13)
23 (10)
Combined
18 (8)
20 (-)
27 (29)
16 (-)
32 '(16)
•31 (18)
25 (6) ! 25 (6)
i
standard deviation
-------
-17-
TABLE4
CAPE-21 % KPM SUMMARY STATISTICS - MEANS OF MEDIANS
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axla
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
61 (9)*
80 (-)
73 (11)
84 (-)
87 (4)
87 (8)
62 (3)
Non-
Freeway
23 (12)
38 (-)
31 (9)
52 (-)
42 (28)
53 (19)
37 (7)
Combined
36 (17)
69 (-)
61 (17)
78 (-)
70 (26)
80 (7)
40 (11)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
47 (14)
52 (-)
51 (43)
41 (-)
57 (36)
64 (17)
63 (11)
Non-
Freeway
8 (9)
1 (-)
20 (34)
1 (-)
15 (12)
6 (13)
2 (3)
Combined
11 (10)
5 (-)
25 (42)
1 (-)
24 (28)
18 (30)
2 (3)
Standard deviation
-------
-18-
TABLE 5
CAPE-21 % RPM SUMMARY STATISTICS - MEANS OF STANDARD DEVIATIONS
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
18 (5?
13 (-)
19 (5)
13 (-)
22 (7)
14 (5)
21 (1)
Non-
Freeway
21 (5)
36 (-)
32 (6)
38 (-)
38 (2)
39 (4)
30 (2)
Combined
23 (4)
36 (-)
31 (5)
35 (-)
35 (7)
34 (8)
30 (2)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
22 (8)
19 (-)
22 (5)
34 (-)
30 (3)
28 (7)
35 (4)
Non-
Freeway
19 (6)
23 (-)
25 (14)
25 (-)
32 (9)
29 (8)
31 (5)
Combined
21 (6)
24 (-)
24 (11)
25 (-)
34 (7)
31 (8)
31 (5)
Standard deviation
-------
TABLE 6
CAPE-21 % POWER SUMMARY STATISTICS - MEANS OF MEANS
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
*
56 (14)
54 (-)
69 (7)
55 (-)
55 (9)
48 (12)
69 (5)
Non-
Freeway
33 (9)
24 (-)
32 (7)
16 (-)
27 (12)
27 (6)
36 (5)
Combined
42 (14)
34 (-)
49 (9)
36 (-)
42 (15)
39 (12)
39 (9)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
50 (11)
74 (-)
51 (20)
41 (-)
44 (21)
48 (22)
43 (33)
Non-
Freeway
23 (9)
28 (-)
22 (18)
19 (-)
22 (13)
16 (8)
20 (10)
Combined
25 (9)
33 (-)
27 (25)
19 (-)
25 (15) :
23 (16)
20 (10)
Standard deviation
-------
-20-
TABLE 7
CAPE-21 % POWER SUMMARY STATISTICS - MEANS OF MEDIANS
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY !
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
59 (18)*
53 (-)
80 (9)
58 (-)
57 (15)
47 (16)
82 (10)
Non-
Freeway
25 (14)
5 (-)
17 (8)
5 (-)
17 (19)
15 (9)
18 (7)
Combined
43 (23)
25 (-)
50 (18)
34 (-)
38 (27)
34 (18)
28 (16)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
51 (19)
87 (-)
49 (42)
36 (-)
45 (26)
54 (30)
54 (50)
Non-
Freeway
9 (8)
4 (-)
13 (17)
4 (-)
12 (17)
7 (7)
4 (0)
Corcbined
11 (9)
5 (-)
25 (37)
4 (-)
18 (22)
15 (24)
4 (0)
Standard deviation
-------
-21-
TABLE 8
CAPE-21 % POWER SUMMARY STATISTICS - MEANS OF STANDARD DEVIATIONS
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
-r;
26 (4)*
28 (-)
32 (3)
26 (-)
30 (3)
26 (4)
34 (1)
Non-
Freeway
33 (4)
32 (-)
36 (5)
21 (-)
31 (4)
31 (4)
39 (5)
Combined
32 (4)
34 (-)
38 (2)
31 (-)
33 (3)
31 (4)
39 (5)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
33 (6)
31 (-)
35 (8)
37 (-)
30 (6)
30 (8)
30 (18)
Non-
Freeway
31 (6)
38 (-)
30 (8)
31 (-)
28 (7)
25 (6)
28 (12)
Combined
32 (5)
40 (-)
31 (8)
31 (-)
29 (6)
28 (8)
28 (12)
Standard deviation
-------
-22-
TABLE 9
CAPE-21 SPEED (MPH) SUMMARY STATISTICS - MEANS OF MEANS
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor 'Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY ' !
'
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
•*
43 (6)*
46 (-)
44 (5)
47 (-)
44 (6)
47 (5)
46 (2)
Non-
Freeway
17 (4)
12 (-)
15 (3)
13 (-)
15 (4)
17 (3)
17 (3)
Combined
26 (8)
22 (-)
29 (8)
28 (-)
29 (8)
32 (8)
20 (6)
'
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
30 (9)
37 (-)
33 (17)
16 (-)
24 (11)
31 (5)
21 (12)
Non-
Freeway
9 (4)
10 (-)
11 (10)
6 (-)
9 (5)
9 (3)
8 (2)
Combined.
11 (5)
13 (-)
14 (16)
6 (-)
12 (6)
14 (7)
8 (2)
i
Standard deviation
-------
-23-
TABLE 10
CAPE-21 SPEED (MPH) SUMMARY STATISTICS - MEANS OF MEDIANS
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freewav
48 (5)*
49 (-)
48 (4)
51 (-)
50 (6)
51 (5)
50 (2)
Non-
Freeway
16 (7)
8 (-)
11 (3)
11 (-)
10 (7)
13 (6)
16 (5)
Combined
27 (12)
18 (-)
32 (15)
28 (-)
33 (15)
34 (14)
20 (6)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
32 (10)
39 (-)
31 (27)
13 (-)
26 (14)
33 (7)
24 (14)
Non-
Freeway
6 (5)
4 (-)
6 (10)
1 (-)
5 (4)
3 (3)
Combined
7 (6)
5 (-)
12 (19)
•
1 (-)
7 (7)
9 (12)
5 (3) j 5 (3)
i
Standard deviation
-------
-24-
TABLE 11
CAPE-21 SPEED (MPH) SUMMARY STATISTICS - MEANS OF STANDARD DEVIATIONS
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
\ • • • • • • i
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
14 (4)*
12 (-)
13 (3)
10 (-)
14 (3)
10 (4)
14 (1)
Nonr
Freeway
14 (2)
14 (-)
15 (4)
12 (-)
14 (2)
15 (4)
13 (1)
'
Combined
18 (2)
20 (-)
19 (2)
21 (-)
20 (2)
19 (3)
15 (3)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
13 (4)
13 (-)
14 (5)
14 (-)
13 (6)
16 (3)
11 (3)
Non-
Freeway
10 (3)
14 (-)
13 (7)
9 (-)
11 (5)
11 (3)
9 (2)
Combined
12 (3)
16 (-)
14 (8)
9 (-)
13 (3)
15 (3)
9 (2)
Standard deviation
-------
-25-
TABLE 12
NUMBER OF RECORDS* IN EACH CATEGORY
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
327561
18445
192473
15943
217492
243402
41555
Non-
Freeway
559258
45462
200812
19344
150314
259971
253845
Combined
886819
63907
393285
35287
367806
503373
295400
NEW YORK.
ROAD TY?F.
Freeway
152914
3835
20642
1861
65720
116731
3282
Non-
Freeway
1180897
34189
162718
125974
287200
425779
541393
Combined
1333811
38024
183360
127835
352920
542510
544675
* 1 Record = .864 sec.
-------
-26-
TABLE 13
AMOUNT OF OPERATION AS PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
TRUCK TYPE
• • i * • t
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
ALL GAS
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
ALL DIESEL
Diesel Buses
ALL TRUCKS,
ALL TRUCKS & $USES
CITY
LOS ANGELES
RCAD TYPE
Freeway
37%
29%
49%
40%
45%
59%
48%
53%
14%
45%
42%
Non-
Freeway
63%
71%
51%
60%
55%
41%
52%
47%
86%
55%
58%
Combined
. 100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
11%.
10%
11% .
11%
1%
19%
22%
18%
1%
14%
12%
Non-
Freeway
8.9%
90%
89%
89%
99%
81%
78%
82%
99%
86%
88%
Combined
100%
100%
100% 1
100% j
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
-------
-27-
Appendix II, in addition to statistics listed in Tables 3 through 11,
were used directly in the testing of differences between means of various
category comparisons.
C. Interpretation of Results
In essence, Figures 2 through 7 were used as the basis for select-
ing possible category combinations. The data in Tables 3 through 13
were also relied upon in marginal cases. The mean, median, and standard
deviation were considered the most important parameters listed in Fig-
ures 2 through 7. If a difference appeared in one of these parameters,
in most cases the category combination being considered was judged not
appropriate. The remaining parameters (% zero, % acceleration, etc.)
were of secondary importance and did not eliminate consideration of a
category combination if a significant difference showed up among them.
However, if a difference did appear, the data listed in Tables 3 through
13 were closely scrutinized before a final conclusion was reached.
It was decided for both chassis and engine cycle categories that
the freeway and non-freeway data would not be combined (except for
buses). This decision will enable separate "highway" (freeway) and
"city" (non-freeway) emission and fuel economy values to be quoted if
the need arises. Combined operation was considered for the buses be-
cause of the small amount of freeway operation for this category (refer
to Tables 12 and 13).
The same cycle categories for both chassis cycles and engine cycles
was not an absolute requirement. Therefore, chassis cycle and engine
cycle category selection are addressed separately. The similarity be-
tween the two will then be discussed and the final conclusion stated.
Chassis Cycle Category Selection
As stated earlier combined operation will not be considered (except
for the buses); therefore, Figqres 4 and 7 are not of interest in this
analysis. Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6, however, will be closely examined.
For chassis cycle category selection, the speed (MPH) parameters
are of importancer When no significant differences appear among the
speed parameters for the category in question, a valid chassis cycle
category (refer to Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6) is indicated. The valid
category combination choices (as demonstrated by no significant dif-
ferences) are summarized below. Possible choices at two significance
levels (a = .01 and .05) are presented.
-------
-28-
VALID CATEGORY COMBINATIONS
Non-freeway
a* = .01
Freeway
LA gas
NY gas
LA diesel
NY diesel
LA gas & LA diesel
NY gas & NY diesel
— — — —
LA gas
NY gas
LA diesel
LA gas & LA diesel
NY gas & NY diesel
LA bus & NY bus
a = .05
Non-freeway
Freeway
LA gas
NY gas
LA diesel
NY diesel
LA gas & LA diesel
NY gas & NY diesel
The category combination for which a difference(s) appeared only
among % zero, % acceleration, % cruise, % deceleration, and idle are
listed below. These categories are classified as possible category
combinations. If necessary, the data in Tables 3 through 13 can be re-
lied upon to substantiate these category combinations. Engineering judg-
ment will have to be relied upon for any resulting conclusion, though.
OTHER POSSIBLE CATEGORY COMBINATIONS
a = .01
Non-freeway
Freeway
LA gas & LA bus
LA gas & LA bus
LA gas & NY bus
NY gas & NY bus
NY gas & NY bus
LA diesel & LA bus
LA diesel & NY bus
NY diesel & NY bus NY diesel & NY bus
LA bus & NY bus
a = .05
Non-freeway
Freeway
NY gas & NY bus
LA diesel & LA bus
NY diesel & NY bus
Figures 4 and 7 demonstrate that the LA and NY bus combined is
a valid category at a significance level of .01, but not at .05.
The tables above demonstrate that at a significance level of .01,
LA gas and LA diesel, and NY gas and NY diesel are valid categories for
chassis cycles. At a = .05, both categories remain valid for the non-
freeway data, but not the freeway data. It should be pointed out that
even though LA gas and LA diesel proves to be a valid category at the
.05 level, the category consisting of only LA gas does not. This fact
significance level
-------
-29-
makes any other combinations with LA gas (e.g., LA gas and LA diesel)
inappropriate. However, the data in Tables 9, 10, and 11 indicate that
for the freeway data (and non-freeway data) the means of means, medians,
and standard deviations are quite close. Although these categories are
not supported by the statistical tests at a = .05, they do appear reason-
able. Furthermore, they are valid at the .01 level and the means of the
various parameters appear similar from an engineering standpoint.
It appears from the statistical test results that if there is any
hope to reduce the number of categories listed in Table 1, a signifi-
cance level of .01 will have to be deemed adequate. This applies not
only for the chassis cycle selection, but also to the engine cycle se-
lection. Bearing this fact in mind, the following categories can be
considered appropriate for chassis cycles.
LA gas and diesel trucks, non-freeway
NY gas and diesel trucks, non-freeway
LA gas and diesel trucks, freeway
LA gas and diesel trucks, freeway
LA and NY diesel buses,: combined
With the exception of the bus category, the above categories were
used in the generation of chassis cycles. It was decided not to combine
LA buses and NY buses in one category. Instead, chassis cycles were
generated for both LA buses and NY buses, separately. Due to the small
amount of bus freeway operation, the freeway and non-freeway data were
combined.
Engine Cycle Category Selection
Like the chassis cycle category analysis, Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6
are relied upon to identify possible engine category combinations for
the trucks. These figures summarize significant differences in the
non-freeway and freeway data separately for various category combina-
tions. For the buses only, the freeway and non-freeway data were
combined. This decision was justified by the very small amount of
freeway operation by the buses (refer to Tables 12 and 13). The impact
of this decision is that the only category combination that can possibly
be considered for the LA buses and NY buses is combining them. The
buses cannot be combined with any of the truck categories, since it was
jointly decided, to maintain differentiation between the freeway and
non-freeway data in the truck category combinations.
% RPM and % POWER are the parameters of prime importance during en-
gine cycle category selection. As for the chassis cycles, when no sig-
nificant differences appear among the parameters in question, a valid
engine cycle category is possible. The chart below summarizes the con-
clusions reached from Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6.
-------
-30-
a = .01
Non-freeway
NY gas
LA diesel
NY diesel
VALID CATEGORY COMBINATIONS
% RPM Only
Freeway
LA gas
NY gas
LA diesel
NY diesel
a = .05
Non-freeway
NY gas
LA diesel
NY diesel
Freeway
NY gas
NY diesel
% POWER Only
a = .01
a
.05
Non-freeway
LA gas
NY gas
Freeway
NY gas
Non-freeway
LA gas
NY gas
Freeway '
LA diesel
NY diesel
NY gas & NY diesel
NY diesel NY diesel
NY gas & NY diesel
NY diesel
NY gas & NY diesel
Since for engine cycles % RPM and % POWER are of equal importance,
a possible category combination should have no significant differences
4-n both parameters. The chart below lists those category combinations
which meet this requirement.
VALID CATEGORY COMBINATIONS
% RPM and % POWER
.01
a = .05
Non-freeway
Freeway
Non-freeway
NY gas
LA diesel
NY diesel
NY gas
NY diesel
NY gas
NY diesel
Freeway
NY diesel
The category combinations for which no significant difference ap-
peared among the means, medians, and standard deviations are shown
below:
-------
-31-
POSSIBLE CATEGORY COMBINATIONS
% RPM and % POWER
a = .01 ; a = .05
Non-freeway Freeway Non-freeway Freeway
NY gas NY gas NY gas
LA diesel LA diesel
NY diesel NY diesel NY diesel NY diesel
By loosening the criteria for category combination only one addi-
tional prospect shows up: LA diesel. This result is an indication that
there is no real hope to further combine truck categories. At least it
appears that NY gas, NY diesel, and LA diesel are valid categories for
both freeway and non-freeway operation. For mere congruency one would
wish that the LA gas trucks could be combined into one category, but
there are some drastic differences among the % RPM and % POWER param-
eters for the LA gas trucks (2 axle, 3 axle, and tractor trailer).
Tables 4 though 9 illustrate this fact.
No sound argument can be made, from a statistical standpoint, for
combining LA gas trucks. However, from a practical standpoint one could
argue for combining LA gas trucks. If the LA gas trucks weren't com-
bined an unnecessarily complex and long test procedure would result.
Another important consideration is the limited nature of the CAPE-21
data base itself (refer to Table 2). Only a small sample of trucks
were tested in total; consequently very small samples exist for most of
the individual truck categories listed in Figure 2. Not only do these
small sample sizes reduce one's confidence in the data, but also jeo-
pardize the representativeness of the data.
The statistical tests on the means, medians, and standard devia-
tions of % RPM demonstrate that the freeway data for the LA gas trucks
may be combined (at a = .01). Also the statistical tests indicate
that the non-freeway data for those trucks can be combined when % POWER
is evaluated alone. From a practical viewpoint, it is probably worth-
while to make LA gas a category even though the statistical analysis
doesn't totally support such a decision. Table 14 summarizes the ave-
rages of the means, medians, and standard deviations for 2 axle, 3 axle,
and tractor trailer LA gas trucks. This table should give the reader a
feel for the magnitude of the differences among the categories that are
accepted when LA gas trucks are combined.
Figures 4 and 7 were used to determine if the LA diesel buses and
NY diesel buses could be legitimately combined. At a significance level
of .01 the LA buses and NY buses had no significant differences in the
-------
-32-
TABLE 14
CAPE-21 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR LOS ANGELES GASOLINE TRUCKS
% RPM
TRUCK TYPE
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor
Trailer
STATISTIC
MEAN
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
55
77
69
Non-Freeway
24
39
34
MEDIAN
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
61
80
73
Non-Freeway
23
38
31
STANDARD DEVIATION
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
18
13
19
Non-Freeway
21
36
32
% POWER
TRUCK TYPE
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor
Trailer
STATISTIC
MEAN
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
56
54
69
Non-Freeway
33
24
32
MEDIAN
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
59
53
80
Non-Freeway
25
5
17
STANDARD DEVIATION
ROAD TYPE
Freeway Non-Freewa}
26
28
32
33
32
36
-------
-33-
various % RPM and % POWER parameters. Therefore, LA buses and NY buses
would be a reasonable category combination.
In brief summary, the following categories are deemed appropriate
for engine cycles:
LA gas trucks, non-freeway
LA gas trucks, freeway
NY gas trucks, non-freeway
NY gas trucks, freeway
LA diesel trucks, non-freeway
LA diesel trucks, freeway
NY diesel trucks, non-freeway
NY diesel trucks, freeway
LA and NY diesel buses, combined
In the generation of engine cycles, these categories were used with
the exception of LA and NY buses. LA and NY buses were not combined,
since it was decided to maintain the city stratification throughout the
engine cycle categories. Also, it should be noted that the statistical
analysis does not support the combining of all the LA trucks. This com-
bination was selected based on practical considerations.
D. Summary and Conclusions
The approach taken in analyzing and selecting possible truck cate-
gory combinations was to perform Z-tests and Aspin-Welch T-tests on dif-
ferences between means for various parameters (mean, median, standard
deviation, etc.) of % RPM, % POWER, and MPH. In conjunction with the
statistical analysis, engineering judgment was exercised where appropri-
ate.
The end result of the analysis was possible categories for transi-
ent H-D engine and chassis cycles. The chassis cycle categories selec-
ted are listed below.
Chassis Cycle Categories
LA gas and diesel trucks, non-freeway
NY gas and diesel trucks, non-freeway
LA gas and diesel trucks, freeway
LA gas and diesel trucks, freeway
LA and NY diesel buses; combined
The engine cycle categories selected are shown below:
-------
-34-
Engine Cycle Categories
LA gas trucks, non-freeway
LA gas trucks, freeway
NY gas trucks, non-freeway
NY gas trucks, freeway
LA diesel trucks, non-freeway
LA diesel trucks, freeway
NY diesel trucks, non-freeway
NY diesel trucks, freeway
LA and NY diesel buses, combined
It should be noted that the combination of the LA gas trucks was supported
by practical considerations more than by statistical considerations.
It is worthwhile noting that for chassis cycle categories the
stratifying parameters are city type (LA and NY) and road types (freeway
and non-freeway). Engine type was not an influencing variable. This
fact implies that traffic flow is the sole factor controlling H-D vehicle
driving patterns.
For the engine cycle categories, engine type does appear as an
influencing factor of H-D vehicle driving patterns. This is not sur-
prising, since gasoline and diesel engines have inherent design differences,
In conclusion, the above categories selected for engine and chassis
cycles are, in general, supported by statistical considerations. However,
the statistical tests do have limitations. In particular, the tests
used assumed normality. Most of the truck and bus data, in reality,
were not normal. This characteristic indicates that non-parametric
statistical tests should have been used in the category analysis. In
any event, engineering judgment and common sense were used to a large
degree jointly with the available statistical test results to arrive at
reasonable categories. The categories selected do represent a significant
reduction in the total categories possible, and reduce the overall
complexity of the H-D cycle development effort.
-------
APPENDIX I
RESULTS OF ASPIN-WELCH T-TESTS
AND Z-TESTS OF DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN MEANS
-35-
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
I I
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
I
1
1
i
j
I
I
' ~~l
!
t
j !
\l ;
| \!
!
-------
-------
-------
s
_ — 1
(°\
• ^*-
.0/1
— l ^—-
i
I
-------
«*V _**
-------
Mfe_j?»
:.A/y.: Aft
M.-..-W,»-'.Jr .--^1
-------
-------
-------
-------
I
_j
—
—
—
_
—
"
j "
_..-
1
;
._._
(•••••
i
i
\
, . - . -
-
-------
QllF
L_i.U-
r 1
-------
-------
/VV_iT.T.
-------
• '
'T j j.
\\l-\l-\! I-XI-
___
Fft|E9U£KJcyj ^T
IKi Icdft&T fcgKlOTg. i
\.—! ! -L. ! I L !i
:..A/y ! TT
-------
APPENDIX II
%RPM, %POWER, AND MPH
SUMMARY STATISTICS
-60-
-------
-61-
CAPE-21 §PEE;D
SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % ZERO
TRUCK TYPE
i
Gasoline :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
praetor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
1 ' ' • t
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
•it
4 ( 6)
1 ( — )
2 ( 2)
q (— )
4 ( 2)
1 (.?)
2 ( 1)
Non-
Freeway
22 (U)
35 ( — )
30 ( 6)
23 ( — )
29 (17)
25 (12)
19 ( 4)
Combined
16 (13)
25 ( — )
17 ( 5)
13 (--)
18 (14)
14 ( 9)
17 ( 5)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
7 ( 7)
5 ( — )
19 (28)
25 ( — )
15 (23)
8 ( 7)
10 (12)
Non-
Freeway
38 (18)
44 (-)
49 (26)
55 (--)
46 (23)
44 (16)
34 ( 5)
Combined
35 (18)
40 (--)
46 (30)
55 ( — )
43 (24)
37 (17)
34 ( 5)
Standard Deviation
-------
-62-
CAPE-21 SPEED (MPH) SUIQ1ARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % ACCELERATION
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
freeway
-i-
14 ( 8)"
14 (--)
15 ( 7)
16 (--)
14 ( 9)
15 ( 8)
23 ( 6)
Non-
Freeway
25 ( 5)
22 (--)
21 ( 7)
22 ( — )
19 ( 6)
22 ( 7)
32 ( 2)
Combined
21 ( 5)
20 ( — )
19 ( 7)
20 ( — )
16 ( 8)
•19 ( 6)
31 ( 4)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
22' (10)
: 34 (--)
18 ( 6)
f
15.! (--)
21 (10)
24 ( 8)
37 ( 0)
Non-
Freeway
18 ( 7)
17 (--)/
15 (10)
11 (--)
17 ( 6)
17 (-4)
25 ( 1)
Combined
18 .( 7)
19 ( — )
15 ( 9)
11 ( — )
16 ( 5)
19 ( 4)
25 ( 2)
Standard Deviation
-------
-.63-
CAPE-21 SPEED (MPH) SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % CRUISE
TRUCK TYPE:
Gasoline :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor frailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Byses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
69 (15)*
75 ( — )
71 (12)
73 (-T-)
70 (18)
72 (15)
59 ( 9)
Non-
Freeway
1 I
32 ( 7)
22 (--)
32 ( 9)
37 ( — )
37 (14)
35 ( 8)
24 ( 5)
Combined
45 (13)
37 ( — )
51 (15)
53 (--)
53 (21)
53 (13)
28 (10)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
50 (21)
32 (--)
35 (14)
44 ( — )
42 (20)
46 (14)
33 ( 3)
Non-
Freeway
24 (12)
24 ( — )
21 ( 9)
24 (--)
20 (11)
24 (11)
17 ( 5)
Combined
27 (13)
25 (--)
24 (14)
24 ( — )
25 (17)
28 (12)
17 ( 5)
1
Standard Deviation
-------
-64-
CAPE-21 SPEED (MPH) SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % DECELERATION
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
*
12 ( 6)
11 (--)
12 ( 6)
11 (--)
12 ( 8)
12 ( 7)
16 ( 2)
Non-
Freeway
20 ( 3)
20 ( — )
16 ( 6)
15 ( — )
14 ( 5)
16 ( 8)
24 ( 1)
Combined
17 ( 4-)
17 (--)
14 ( 6)
13 (--)
12 ( 7)
14 ( 7)
23 ( 2)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
21 (10)
29 (--)
28 (20)
14 (--)
20 ( 9)
22 ( 7)
19 (14)
Non-
Freeway
16 ( 7)
15 (--)'
13 ( 8)
9 (--)
16 ( 6)
15 ( 3)
22 ( 2)
Combined
•17 C7)
16 ( — )
13 ( 8)
9 (-)
15 ( 5)
16 ( 4)
22 ( 2)
Standard Deviation
-------
-65-
CAPE-21 SPEED (MPH) SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % IDLE
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
*
4 ( 6)
1 (-)
2 ( 2)
0 (--)
4 ( 2)
1 ( 2)
2 ( 0)
Non-
Freeway
22 (11)
35 ( — )
31 ( 6)
26 ( — )
29 (17)
26 (12)
20 ( 5)
Combined
17 (13)
25 (--)'
17 ( 5)
14 ( — )
19 (15)
15 ( 9)
18 ( 6)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
8 ( 7)
5 (--)
19 (28)
26 (--)
17 (28)
8 ( 7)
11 (11)
Non-
Freeway
42 (17)
44 ( — )
52 (25)
56 ( — )
48 (22)
44 (16)
36 ( 4)
Combined
39 (17)
40 ( — )
48 (30)
56 (--)
45 (24)
37 (17)
36 ( 4)
Standard Deviation
-------
-06-
CAPE-21 % RPM SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS .OF % ACCELERATION
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses:
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
*
5 ( 2)
7 ( — )
7 ( 4)
11 (-)
8 ( 3)
8 (2)
8 ( 1)
Non-
Freeway
12 ( 3)
15 ( — )
13 ( 3)
18 (--)
13 ( 3)
15 ( 3)
16 ( 3)
Combined
9 ( 2)
13 (-T)
11 ( 3)
15 ( — )
10 ( 3)
12 ( 3)
14 ( 2)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
7 ( 3)
5 (--)
5 ( 4)
16 (--)
11 ( 3)
12 ( 7)
14 ( 9)
Non-
Freeway
10 ( 3)
7 ( — )
9 ( 6)
9 ( — )
11 ( 4)
10 ( 4)
14 ( 1)
Combined
9 ( 3)
7 ( — )
8 ( 4)
9 ( — )
10 ( 4)
10 ( 4)
14 ( 1)
Standard deviation
-------
-67-
QAPE-21 % RPM SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % CRUISE
TRUCK TYPE
, , , |
Gasoline:
7, Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel ;
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
*
86 ( 8)
85 ( — )
82 ( 9)
77 ( — )
79 ( 9)
84 ( 5)
80 ( 2)
Non-
Freeway
49 ( 8)
32 ( — )
44 ( 7)
32 ( — )
39 (12)
41 ( 6)
40 ( 8)
Combined
62 (13)
47 (--)
61 ( 8)
53 (--)
59 (18)
61 (10)
45 ( 9)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
74 (12)
83 (--)
66 (24)
42 (--)
55 (23)
64 (19)
54 (24)
Non-
Freeway
33 (11)
33 (--)
29 (13)
20 ( — )
26 (13)
25 ( 9)
21 ( 4)
Combined
37 (11)
38 (-)
34 (21)
21 ( — )
31 (17)
34 (17)
21 ( 4)
S.^$ndard Deviation
-------
-68-
CAPE-21 % RPM SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % DECELERATION
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
*
4 ( 2)
7 (--)
7 ( 4)
11 (--)
8 ( 3)
7 ( 2)
7 ( 1)
Non-
Freeway
10 ( 3)
15 (--)
11 ( 2)
15 ( — )
13 ( 3)
13 ( 4)
13 ( 4)
Combined
•
8 ( 2)
13 ( — )
10 ( 3)
13 ( — )
10 ( 3)
10 ( 3)
12 ( 3)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
•
7 ( 3)
6 ( — )
8(4)
16 ( — )
12 ( 3)
12 ( 7)
10 ( 2)
Non-
Freeway
9 ( 3)
7 ( — )
9:( 6)
9 (--)
11 ( 4)
10 '( 4)
14 '( 1)
Combined
. .. -.
9 ( 3)
: 7 (-)
8 ( 4)
9 ( — )
10 ( 4)
10 ( 4)
14 ( 1)
Standard Deviation
-------
-69-
CAPE-21 % RPM SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % IDLE
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline:
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
5 ( 5)*
1 (--)
4 ( 3)
1 (•"•)
5 ( 4)
1 ( 2)
5 ( 0)
Non-
Freeway
29 (11)
37 ( — )
33 ( 5)
35 ( — )
36 (16)
31 (11)
31 ( 5)
Combined
21 (12)
26 ( — )
19 ( 6)
20 (--)
22 (16)
17 ( 9)
29 ( 8)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
12 ( 9)
6 ( — )
20 (29)
26 ( — )
22 (26)
13 ( 8)
21 (12)
Non-
Freeway
48 (14)
53 ( — )
52 (25)
61 ( — )
52 (21)
55 (12)
51 ( 4)
Combined
44 (13)
49 ( — )
49 (29)
61 ( — )
48 (23)
47 (16)
51 ( 4)
Standard Deviation
-------
-7C-
CAPE-21 % POWER SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF' % ACCELERATION
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS. .ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
*
16 ( 4)
29 (--)
17 ( 5)
26 (--)
21 ( 3)
22 ( 4)
16 ( 4)
Non-
Freeway
16 ( 3)
16 ( — )
16 ( 3)
16 ( — )
16 ( 3)
17 ( 4)
14 ( 0)
Combined
16 (3)
20 ( — )
17 ( 4)
20 (--)
18 ( 2)
19 ( 4)
14 ( 1)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
18 ( 4)
19 ( — )
18 '(10)
19 ( — )
20 ( 4)
17 ( 6)
15 ( 5)
Non-
Freeway
15 ( 4)
14 ( — )
14 ( 7)
13 ( — )
16 ( 7)
14 ( 6)
13 ( 3)
Combined
15 ( 4)
15 ( — )
14 ( 7)
13 (-)
17 ( 7)
14 ( 6)
13 ( 3)
Standard Deviation
-------
-71-
CAPE-21 % POWER SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % CRUISE
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
*'-
59 (12)"
32 ( — )
56 (13)
35 ( — )
47 ( 8)
36 ( 8)
43 ( 4)
Non-
Freeway
51 (10)
44 (--)
52 ( 9)
40 ( — )
53 ( 9)
41 ( 7)
43 ( 5)
Combined
54 (10)
41 ( — )
53 (10)
38 ( — )
51 ( 8)
39 ( 5)
43 ( 5)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
43 (14)
44 ( — )
41 (29)
45 ( — )
48 (10)
44 (10)
49 (16)
Non-
Freeway
50 (15)
61 (-)
59 (17)
66 ( — )
60 (19)
58 (13)
56 ( 4)
Combined
49 (14)
59 (--)
58 (17)
66 ( — )
59 (17)
56 (12)
56 ( 4)
Standard Deviation
-------
-72-
CAPE-21 % POWER SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % DECELERATION
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Buses
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
A
18 ( 5)
29 ( — )
18 ( 5)
29 ( — )
20 ( 3)
23 ( 4)
18 ( 2)
Non-
Freeway
19 ( 3)
19 ( — )
17 ( 4)
18 ( — )
16 ( 3)
16 ( 4)
13 ( 3)
Combined
18 ( 4)
22 ( — )
18 ( 4)
23 ( — )
18 ( 2)
19 ( 4)
13 ( 4)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
20 ( 4)
17 (-)
20 (12)
20 ( — )
20 ( 4)
17 ( 5)
12 ( 0)
Non-
Freeway
16 ( 4)
13 ( — )
14 ( 7)
12 ( — )
16 ( 7)
14 ( 6)
13 ( 3)
Combined
16 ( 4)
13 ( — )
14 ( 7)
12 ( — )
16 ( 7)
14 ( 6)
13 ( 3)
Standard Deviation
-------
-73-
CAPE-21 % POWER SUMMARY STATISTICS—MEANS OF % MOTORING
TRUCK TYPE
Gasoline :
'2 A*le
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel :
2 Axle
3 Axle
Tractor Trailer
Diesel Busep
CITY
LOS ANGELES
ROAD TYPE :
Freeway
.1-
8 ( 4)"
9 ( — )
9 ( 3)
10 ( — )
11 ( 3)
19 (J.O)
23 (10)
Non-
Freeway
14 ( 6)
20 (--)
15 ( 3)
26 (--)
16 (10)
26 ( 7)
29 ( 3)
Combined
11 ( 5)
17 ( — )
13 ( 3)
19 (-)
13 ( 6)
23 ( 9)
29 ( 3)
NEW YORK
ROAD TYPE
Freeway
19 (10)
20 ( — )
21 ( 8)
16 ( — )
12 ( 6)
21 (15)
24 (21)
Non-
Freeway
19 (12)
12 ( — )
13 ( 4)
9 (--)
8 ( 9)
14 (12)
18 ( 2)
Combined
19 (12)
13 (--)
13 ( 4)
9 (--)
8 ( 7)
16 (14)
18 ( 2)
Standard Deviation
------- |