Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Experimental evaluation of Heavy Duty Vehicle speed patterns

in urban and port areas and estimation of their fuel
consumption and exhaust emissions
Giorgio Zamboni a,⇑, Michel André b, Adelia Roveda a, Massimo Capobianco a
a
Internal Combustion Engines Group (ICEG), Department of Mechanical, Energy, Management and Transportation Engineering (DIME), University of Genoa,
via Montallegro 1, 16145 Genoa, Italy
b
French Institute of Science and Technology for Transport, Spatial Planning, Development and Networks (IFSTTAR), Laboratory Transports and Environment (LTE),
Cité des Mobilités, Case 24, 69675 Bron Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Exhaust emissions and fuel consumption of Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs) in urban and port
Heavy Duty Vehicles areas were evaluated through a dedicated investigation. The HDV fleet composition and
Port activities traffic driving from highways to the maritime port of Genoa and crossing the city were ana-
Urban driving mode lysed. Typical urban trips linking highway exits to port gates and HDV mission profiles
Exhaust emissions
within the port area were defined. A validation was performed through on-board instru-
Fuel consumption
mentation to record HDV instantaneous speeds in urban and port zones. A statistical pro-
cedure enabled the building-up of representative speed patterns. High contrasts and
specific driving conditions were observed in the port area. Representative speed profiles
were then used to simulate fuel consumption and emissions for HDVs, using the Passenger
car and Heavy duty Emission Model (PHEM). Complementary estimations were derived
from Copert and HBEFA methodologies, allowing the comparison of different calculation
approaches and scales. Finally, PHEM was implemented to assess the performances of
EGR or SCR systems for NOX reduction in urban driving and at very low speeds.
The method and results of the investigation are presented. Fuel consumption and pollu-
tant emission estimation through different methodologies are discussed, as well as the
necessity of characterizing very local driving conditions for appropriate assessment.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Despite their contribution to carbon dioxide reduction from road transport, Diesel engines are one of the major concerns
in urban areas, due to their nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions and the relevant problems in air quality regard-
ing NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 limits (Zamboni et al., 2009; Velders and Diederen, 2009; Velders et al., 2011; Beevers et al., 2012).
In consequence, investigations aiming at a better evaluation of exhaust pollutants in real-world conditions are important
(Wyatt et al., 2014; Chen and Borken-Kleefeld, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014), to reduce uncertainties in overall emissions esti-
mation with inventory models, to identify the most influencing parameters (Demir et al., 2011) and to develop suitable
assessment methods. Comparison of technical solutions for effective reduction of pollution and energy use (Pastorello
et al., 2011; Lajunen, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014) and input data for emission models are other potential results from such stud-
ies (Hartman and Clott, 2012; Ligterink et al., 2012; Norsworthy and Craft, 2013).

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 010 353 2457; fax: +39 010 353 2566.
E-mail address: giorgio.zamboni@unige.it (G. Zamboni).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.11.024
1361-9209/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 G. Zamboni et al. / Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10

Nomenclature

Notations
AT Articulated truck
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
FC fuel consumption
GPS Global positioning system
GT Goods terminal (Freight)
HC unburnt hydrocarbons
HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle
NOX nitrogen oxides
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
PHEM Passenger car and Heavy duty Emission Model
PM particulate matter
PN particles number
RPA relative positive acceleration
RT Rigid truck
TT Truck trailer

Taking into account the importance of Heavy Duty Vehicles in freight transports, especially in connecting urban road net-
work and territories and industrial, commercial and shipping activities, a study was jointly developed by the Internal Com-
bustion Engines Group (ICEG) of the University of Genoa and the Transports and Environmental Laboratory (LTE) of IFSTTAR,
aiming at characterising HDV activities in urban and port areas. In-use vehicle fleet and their related mileage, vehicle types
and characteristics, mission profiles and associated speed traces were defined through specific surveys, experimental cam-
paigns and statistical data processing. Based on this information, pollutant emissions and energy consumption of HDVs were
estimated through three models relying on different calculation approaches.
The overall methodology and initial investigations are described in Zamboni et al. (2012), Zamboni et al. (2013). The mon-
itoring of heavy duty vehicles circulating in port areas and recording of driving data were then enlarged, while speed mea-
surements were extended to the urban trips linking port gates and highway accesses. A dedicated procedure was developed
to identify each phase of the operating cycle within the speed profile and to define representative speed traces for each ter-
minal. These speed curves were used for emission and fuel consumption estimation with models such as PHEM, Copert/Arte-
mis and HBEFA. Moreover, four different ‘‘macro-activities’’ (i.e., the entrance, terminal internal movement, unload/load and
the exit) were defined, for characterizing the corresponding driving patterns also with a more aggregated approach.
The main results of these new steps are analysed. HDV speed traces and their polluting and energetic performances in
urban driving mode and at the very low speed typical of port activities are discussed. Their characteristics are compared with
those derived from inventory emission models or real-world data available from scientific papers. Interesting outcomes are
shown, especially when the behaviour of standard systems for NOX control is considered, as it is strongly affected by the very
specific vehicle driving conditions.

Methodologies

In the following sections, the method for analysing experimental data and characterizing HDV mission profiles and the
associated speed patterns is described, as well as the application of the PHEM model for pollutants emission estimation.

Description of HDV activities within port areas

In a previous phase (Zamboni et al., 2012; Zamboni et al., 2013), two highway exits (Exit 1 and 4) out of seven and two
port gates (Goods Terminal 1 and Goods Terminal 3) out of five were identified and selected as they involved most of the
HDVs flows. Terminals GT1 and GT3 are characterised by goods handling identified as Lift-on/Lift-off, with each vehicle gen-
erally delivering one container in the terminal area and then loaded with another container by a reach stacker or a crane,
either in the same area or more frequently elsewhere. The operating cycle is described according to the scheme presented
in Table 1. It involves all the phases from the highway exit to the port terminal and back to the highway entrance. A short
phase description is given in the table, together with information on engine operations and traffic conditions resulting from
the experimental campaign and speed data processing. Traffic conditions were defined taking into account average speed
levels of each phase, according to the approach developed in Keller and Kljun (2007), even if this last study concerned light
duty vehicles. The last column refers to the driving mode, for phases related to the urban trips connecting highway and port
gates, or to the identification of four different ‘‘macro-activities’’ within the terminals. These macro-activities are: the
entrance (including Get in and P1 phases), terminal internal movement (P2, T1 and P3), unload/load (consisting in LM1
 G. Zamboni et al. / Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10 3

Table 1
HDV activities (highway exit – port terminal – highway entrance).

Phase ID Phase description Traffic/engine condition Macroactivity or driving mode

U1 Highway tollgate – Port area Saturated Urban
GI Get in – transit through the customs procedure zone Stop and go – stop with engine in idling mode Entrance
P1 Custom area – Terminal gate Stop and go Entrance
P2 Terminal gate – Last move Saturated/Stop and go Internal movement
LM1 Container unload Engine idling Unload/load
T1 Transition (trip between unload/load phases) Saturated/Stop and go Internal movement
LM2 Container load Engine idling Unload/load
P3 Last move – Terminal gate Stop and go Internal movement
P4 Terminal gate – Custom area Saturated/Stop and go Exit
GO Get out Stop and go Exit
U2 Port area – Highway tollgate Heavy Urban

and LM2) and the exit (P4 and Get out phases). The number of unload/load operations and of the transition movements were
defined on the basis of the measured speed traces, whose processing allowed identifying the most frequent set of these spe-
cific phases. The four macro-activities were used to evaluate the most polluting and fuel consuming phases, as discussed in
Section Contribution of the different activity phases. Vehicle driving behaviour was therefore examined at different levels,
from instantaneous up to an overall analysis through the macro-activities approach.

Definition of representative speed patterns in urban and port areas

Speeds were measured inside Goods Terminal 1 and 3, including the different working phases within the port area
(Table 1), as well as during their urban connections to highway tolls (Exit 1 and 4, respectively). In this aim, different HDVs
were equipped with a GPS and a data logger. Data processing was conducted in three steps. The first aimed at the validation
of each acquisition, verifying the correct position of speed trace on a map of the port area, and the number of tuned GPS sat-
ellites. The second step was focused on the identification of each phase of the operating cycle within the speed profile, on the
base of the geographical position (latitude and longitude) of internal gate and other significant locations of the port terminal.
In this step, several kinematic parameters were computed (average speed and acceleration, travelled distance, etc.). Stop
duration also represents a key parameter for activity identification, in particular for unload and load operations.
The third step aimed at the definition of the representative speed patterns for each terminal and phase considered. A sta-
tistical procedure was applied to the whole set of data corresponding to a given phase, identifying the most representative
speed curves in terms of speed and acceleration distribution. The resulting speed profiles are shown in Fig. 1, while their
main characteristics, listed in Table 2, will be discussed in Section Representative speed patterns for GT1 and GT3 port ter-
minals. These speed profiles were then used as input of the PHEM model (Passenger car and Heavy duty Emission Model) to
evaluate the associated exhaust emissions and fuel consumption.

PHEM application to HDV

Fuel consumption and exhaust emissions are usually calculated using models such as COPERT or HBEFA, on the basis of
functions of the average speed or traffic situations, without considering specific speed profiles. These functions, however, do
not cover the whole range of traffic conditions, especially very low speeds. For instance, depending on the model, functions
are limited to average speeds equal to or higher than 6 or 11 km/h. These levels were used to obtain reference FC and emis-
sion factors from these models, as discussed in Section ‘‘Comparison with Copert, HBEFA and real world data’’.
Because of the very low speeds encountered during specific phases of the mission profiles of HDVs inside the port area,
the Passenger car and Heavy duty Emission Model (PHEM) was chosen, as it enables the computation of instantaneous fuel
consumption and pollutant emissions, by using selected driving cycles/speed traces. Details on PHEM structure and vehicles
database, which includes 118 heavy vehicles belonging to classes from EURO 0 to EURO 5, are given in Hausberger et al.
(2010).
Simulations were conducted using the representative speed profiles (Section Representative speed patterns for GT1 and
GT3 port terminals) as input to the model with a 1 s time interval. Vehicles with different weights (16, 26, 30 and 44 t) were
considered on the basis of the most frequent truck classes circulating in the port area (Zamboni et al., 2013). The different
legislation classes (Euro standards) have been considered, as well as two NOX control systems (EGR circuit or SCR catalyst)
for the Euro5 trucks. Outputs from the model are instantaneous profiles for FC, NOX, NO2, HC, CO, PM and PN, which can be
summed-up. Fuel consumption and emission factors were also computed.

Results

The investigation allowed to set-up quantitative information on different aspects related to HDV activities in urban and
port contexts: the evaluation of HDV traffic flows in the highway network of Genoa urban area, the share of commercial
4 G. Zamboni et al. / Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10

(a) 45
GI P2 LM1 T1 LM2 P3 GO
40
P1 P4
35

Speed [km/h] 30

25

20

15

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time [s]
(b) 45
GI P1 P2 LM1 T1 LM2 GO
40
P3
35
P4
30
Speed [km/h]

25

20

15

10

0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600
Time [s]

Fig. 1. Representative speed patterns for GT1 and GT3 terminals.

Table 2
Main characteristics of representative speed patterns for selected terminals, urban trips and HBEFA driving cycles for HDVs in urban stop and go conditions.

Terminal/mode or driving cycle Duration Distance Average speed Running speed RPA Stop duration Stops/km
[s] [km] [km/h] [km/h] [m/s2] [%] -
GT1 5305 6.5 4.4 17.4 0.138 74.5 1.07
GT3 3984 3.8 3.5 10.8 0.153 68.1 2.35
U1 232 1.6 22.6 24.7 0.100 8.4 1.26
U2 150 1.4 33.2 34.8 0.114 4.7 0.69
HBEFA – ID cycle 6422 - - 11.8 16.5 0.13 28.7 -
HBEFA – ID cycle 6003 - - 13.5 19.5 0.14 30.6 -

vehicles involved in port operations and their classification according to type (Rigid Truck, RT, Articulated Truck, AT or Truck
Trailer, TT), mass and legislation phase (Zamboni et al., 2012; Zamboni et al., 2013). Results from speed measurements pro-
cessing and PHEM application are presented and discussed in the following sections, to highlight the most important find-
ings of this study.
 G. Zamboni et al. / Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10 5

Representative speed patterns for GT1 and GT3 port terminals

Speed profiles obtained by the application of the statistical procedure described in Section Definition of representative
speed patterns in urban and port areas are shown in Fig. 1 referring to Goods Terminal 1 (Fig. 1a) and Goods Terminal 3
(Fig. 1b), together with each phase of the working cycle in port area. Kinematic parameters computed for these traces are
presented in Table 2, which also reports levels referred to urban trips U1 and U2 and data for two driving cycles included
in the HBEFA model to define urban stop and go conditions for heavy duty vehicles.
Durations and travelled distances are obviously different, mainly related to the wider extension of the last move area in
GT1. Average speed values are quite similar, with very low levels due to the specific driving behaviour within the port area.
This can be justified taking into account different aspects, such as the number of circulating vehicles, speed limits and the
engine operation in idling mode during the customs procedure and the unload/load phases, which accounts for around 70%
in each pattern.
Two other parameters are also given in Table 2: the relative positive acceleration (RPA, Sileghem et al., 2014) and the
number of stops per kilometre. RPA is an index of the dynamics of the vehicle speed patterns, since it can be expressed
as the energy needed for all the accelerations in the considered cycle, divided by the travelled distance and the vehicle mass.
Speed trace related to GT3 shows higher levels of these parameters, corresponding to a stronger dynamics, influencing fuel
consumption and pollutants emission, as discussed in the following section.
It is interesting to notice that RPA and stops/km values recorded in this study are in line with those derived from the
development of the Worldwide Harmonised Heavy-duty Engine Emissions Test Cycle (WHDC) Steven et al., 2001 referred
to the Japanese database (0.12 and 1.12), which contained a high fraction of urban traffic. The slight differences are justified
by the specific conditions in port area. On the other hand, they are significantly above levels derived from the European data-
base, which was more influenced by motorway traffic.
A qualitative comparison of speed traces with the port drive presented in Zhao et al. (2013) shows similar features, in
particular the low levels of vehicle speed, the significant duration of stops and a typical stop-and-go profile.
To complete the analysis of Table 2, the comparison of port speed patterns and urban trips confirms the strong variations
between the relevant driving behaviour as regards average speed and stop duration. On the other hand, HBEFA driving cycles
show intermediate levels for the available parameters. Taking into account these differences and the comparison between
the relevant fuel consumption and emission factors discussed in Section Comparison with Copert, HBEFA and real world
data, it can be concluded that specific traffic situations should be defined in order to evaluate emissions from HDVs involved
in port activities, as characteristics of driving profiles in port areas are peculiar.

1.5 60
Euro 3 Euro 3
(a) Euro 5 with EGR
Truck trailer/Articulated
truck 28 ÷ 34 t
Truck trailer/Articulated
truck > 40 t (b) Euro 5 with EGR
Truck trailer/Articulated
truck 28 ÷ 34 t
Truck trailer/Articulated
truck > 40 t
Euro 5 with SCR 50 Euro 5 with SCR
1.2
Truck trailer/Articulated
Truck trailer/Articulated
truck 14 ÷ 20 t
Fuel consumption [kg/km]

truck 14 ÷ 20 t
NOX emission factor [g/km]

40
0.9

30

0.6
20

0.3
10

0.0 0
GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3
4 1.2

(c)
Euro 3
Euro 5 with EGR Truck trailer/Articulated
Truck trailer/Articulated
truck > 40 t
(d) Euro 3 Euro 5 with EGR Euro 5 with SCR Truck trailer/Articulated
truck > 40 t
Euro 5 with SCR truck 28 ÷ 34 t 1.0
Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated
PM emission factor [g/km]

3 truck 14 ÷ 20 t truck 28 ÷ 34 t
Truck trailer/Articulated
NO2 emission factor [g/km]

truck 14 ÷ 20 t 0.8

2 0.6

0.4
1
0.2

0 0.0
GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3 GT1 GT3

Fig. 2. Comparison of fuel consumption and emission factors in port terminals for different vehicle classes.
6 G. Zamboni et al. / Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10

GT1 - Fuel consumption GT3 - Fuel consumption

(a) (b)
Truck trailer/Articulated
truck 20 ÷ 28 t

Euro 5 with SCR

12% 12%

28%
entrance
16%
internal movements 44%
unload/load 22%
exit

44% 21%

GT1 - NOX emission GT3 - NOX emission

(c) Truck trailer/Articulated
(d)
truck > 40 t

Euro 5 with EGR

11% 12%

28%
15% entrance
internal movements 45%
20%
unload/load
exit

46% 23%

GT1 - PM emission GT3 - PM emission

(e) Truck trailer/Articulated

(f)
truck 28 ÷ 34 t

10% Euro 3 12%

25%
12%
entrance
19% 44%
internal movements
unload/load
exit

53% 26%

Fig. 3. Contribution of the different activity phases to fuel consumption and emission factors in port terminals.

Fuel consumption and exhaust emissions within the port areas

The application of PHEM according to the scheme presented in Section PHEM application to HDV allowed the estimation
of exhaust emissions and fuel consumption for selected HDV classes performing representative speed profiles within Goods
Terminal 1 and 3. As data was available at a 1 s time basis, it was possible to evaluate emissions/consumption for each phase,
‘‘macro-activity’’ (Table 1) or terminal. Results will be presented for terminals and macro-activities.
 G. Zamboni et al. / Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10 7

1.5 60
Euro 3 Euro 3 Urban driving mode
(a) Euro 5 with EGR
Urban driving mode
(b) Euro 5 with EGR
Euro 5 with SCR 50 Euro 5 with SCR
1.2
Fuel consumption [kg/km]

Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated

NOX emission factor [g/km]

truck 20 ÷ 28 t truck 28 ÷ 34 t truck > 40 t
40
Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated
0.9
truck 20 ÷ 28 t truck 28 ÷ 34 t truck > 40 t
30

0.6
20

0.3
10

0.0 0

4 1.2

(c)
Euro 3
Euro 5 with EGR
Urban driving mode
(d) Euro 3
Euro 5 with EGR
Urban driving mode

Euro 5 with SCR 1.0 Euro 5 with SCR

PM emission factor [g/km]

NO2 emission factor [g/km]

0.8
Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated Truck trailer/Articulated
truck 20 ÷ 28 t truck 28 ÷ 34 t truck > 40 t truck 20 ÷ 28 t truck 28 ÷ 34 t truck > 40 t
2 0.6

0.4
1
0.2

0 0.0

Fig. 4. Fuel consumption and emission factors in urban driving mode for different vehicle classes.

Terminals comparison
Fig. 2 shows FC, NOX, NO2 and PM emission factors within GT1 and GT3 for Euro 3 and 5 truck trailers/articulated trucks
belonging to three different mass classes (14  20, 28  34, >40 t). Euro 5 vehicles are further differentiated according to the
NOX control system (EGR or SCR).
Lower fuel consumption is generally observed for Euro 5 vehicles. Speed profile corresponding to GT3 leads to higher lev-
els, due to its higher dynamics. FC increases significantly with the vehicle weight when considering data for a given terminal.
This result is also valid for the different pollutants.
NOX trend (Fig. 2b) shows one of the most interesting outcomes of the simulation: emission levels from Euro 5 vehicles
fitted with SCR systems are significantly higher than those equipped with EGR circuits and only slightly below Euro 3 HDV
emissions. This is probably due to the low values of exhaust temperature when moving at low speeds, affecting the SCR con-
version efficiency (Guan et al., 2014).
On the other hand, NO2 levels (Fig. 2c) are quite similar for the different legislation and technology classes for given vehi-
cle weight and terminal. This means that a high NO2/NOX ratio is expected for Euro 5 vehicles with EGR system. This is in line
with the assumed reduction in NO2/NOX ratios presented in Gkatzoflias et al. (2007), Pastramas et al. (2012) for Euro 5/6
HDVs fitted with SCR systems, while buses or trucks equipped with different after-treatment devices (DPF, DPF + EGR,
etc.) generally show higher levels of NO2 primary emissions (Pastramas et al., 2012).
Finally, a strong reduction in PM emissions is observed between Euro 3 and Euro 5 vehicles (Fig. 2d), while the two tech-
nological options of the Euro 5 differ only slightly.

Contribution of the different activity phases

As discussed in Section Description of HDV activities within port areas, the different phases of the working cycles were
grouped in four classes (Table 1) in order to identify suitable ‘‘macro-activities’’, namely the entrance, internal movements,
unload/load and the exit. Fuel consumption and exhaust emissions were calculated by PHEM with a time base of one second,
and summed-up by macro-activities, to quantify their respective contribution. FC, NOX and PM emissions for the selected
vehicle classes in terminals 1 and 3 are shown in Fig. 3.
For GT1, the highest contribution is due to internal movements, which account for 44% (FC, Fig. 3a) to 53% (PM, Fig. 3e) of
the total emission or consumption. This is mainly due to the distance travelled within phases P2, T1 and P3 (about 5.4 km
long, i.e., 83% of the total trip length in GT1). For the same reason, the entrance is the most fuel consuming and polluting
activity for GT3, even if contributions to FC (Fig. 3b), NOX (Fig. 3d) and PM (Fig. 3f) are similar and the travelled distances
in phases GI and P1 accounts for 47% of the total.
8 G. Zamboni et al. / Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10

2.0 2.0
(a) Truck trailer/Articulated GT1 PHEM
(b) Truck trailer/Articulated
GT1 PHEM Euro 5 with EGR
GT3 PHEM Euro 5 with EGR
truck 28 ÷ 34 t GT3 PHEM truck > 40 t
1.7 Urban mode PHEM Euro 5 with EGR
1.7
Euro 3 Urban mode PHEM Port area HBEFA Euro 5 with EGR
Euro 5
Port area HBEFA Urban mode HBEFA Euro 5 with EGR

Fuel consumption [kg/km]

Copert function
Fuel consumption [kg/km]

1.4 Urban mode HBEFA 1.4

Copert extrapolation
Copert function GT1 PHEM Euro 5 with SCR
Copert extrapolation GT3 PHEM Euro 5 with SCR
1.1 1.1 Urban mode PHEM Euro 5 with SCR
Port area HBEFA Euro 5 with SCR
Urban mode HBEFA Euro 5 with SCR
0.8 0.8 Euro 4 EGR + DPF [25]
Euro 4 SCR [25]

0.5 0.5

0.2 0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Average speed [km/h] Average speed [km/h]
70 70 GT1 PHEM Euro 5 with EGR
(c) Truck trailer/Articulated
GT1 PHEM (d) Truck trailer/Articulated
GT3 PHEM Euro 5 with EGR
Urban mode PHEM Euro 5 with EGR
truck > 40 t GT3 PHEM truck 28 ÷ 34 t
60 60 Port area HBEFA Euro 5 with EGR
Urban mode PHEM Urban mode HBEFA Euro 5 with EGR
Euro 3 Euro 5
Port area HBEFA Copert function
50 50 Copert extrapolation

NOX emission factor [g/km]

NOX emission factor [g/km]

Urban mode HBEFA GT1 PHEM Euro 5 with SCR

Copert function GT3 PHEM Euro 5 with SCR
40 40 Urban mode PHEM Euro 5 with SCR
Copert extrapolation
Port area HBEFA Euro 5 with SCR
Urban mode HBEFA Euro 5 with SCR
30 30 Euro 4 EGR + DPF [25]
Euro 4 SCR [25]
Japanese SCR truck [27]
20 20 Euro 5 HDVs [3]
Euro 5 HDVs [26]

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Average speed [km/h] Average speed [km/h]
1.0 1.0
GT1 PHEM Euro 5 with EGR
(e) Truck trailer/Articulated
truck 28 ÷ 34 t
GT1 PHEM
(f) Truck trailer/Articulated GT3 PHEM Euro 5 with EGR
GT3 PHEM truck > 40 t Urban mode PHEM Euro 5 with EGR
0.8 Euro 3 Urban mode PHEM 0.8
Euro 5 Port area HBEFA Euro 5 with EGR
Port area HBEFA Urban mode HBEFA Euro 5 with EGR
PM emission factor [g/km]
PM emission factor [g/km]

Urban mode HBEFA Copert function

0.6 Copert function 0.6 Copert extrapolation
GT1 PHEM Euro 5 with SCR
Copert extrapolation
GT3 PHEM Euro 5 with SCR
0.4 Urban mode PHEM Euro 5 with SCR
0.4
Port area HBEFA Euro 5 with SCR
Urban mode HBEFA Euro 5 with SCR
Euro 4 EGR + DPF [25]
0.2 0.2 Euro 4 SCR [25]

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Average speed [km/h] Average speed [km/h]

Fig. 5. Comparison of calculated fuel consumption and emission levels with Copert, HBEFA and real world data.

It is interesting to notice that the contributions of unload/load phases, with engine in idling mode, are around 15% for GT1
and 20% for GT3, with a higher share for fuel consumption and a lower percentage for PM. These quantities correspond to
what may be avoided if the engine was switched off.

Fuel consumption and exhaust emissions in urban driving mode

As speeds were also measured in urban driving mode, i.e. from the highway exit to the port terminal and return after the
operations in the port area, PHEM was also applied to U1 and U2 phases (Table 1) to compute urban emissions and
consumption.
FC, NOX, NO2 and PM emission factors corresponding to the urban phases are shown in Fig. 4. To make easier the com-
parison with the port activities, the Y-axis scale is identical to those in Fig. 2. Emissions and consumptions related to urban
 G. Zamboni et al. / Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10 9

and port activity phases differ by a factor ranging from 2 to 4, due to the significant differences between speeds in urban
mode and the levels observed during the terminal operations (see Table 2).
Finally the influence of the vehicle categories (weight, emission standard and NOX reduction system) on pollutants and FC
in urban modes is similar to that observed in Fig. 2 (Section Representative speed patterns for GT1 and GT3 port terminals)
for port operations. In particular, high levels of NOX for Euro 5 vehicles fitted with SCR systems were also observed in urban
driving.

Comparison with Copert, HBEFA and real world data

Fig. 5 compares FC (5a and 5b), NOX (5c and 5d) and PM (5e and 5f) emissions resulting from PHEM, Copert and HBEFA
models. Real world measurements (Velders et al., 2011; Lopez et al., 2009; Vermeulen et al., 2012; Lowell and Kamataké,
2012) are also displayed. Trends of the Copert functions and their extrapolation for speeds below the limit values of the soft-
ware (i.e., 6 km/h Gkatzoflias et al., 2007) are plotted.
For Euro 3 vehicles, significant differences in fuel consumption are observed (Fig. 5a), for urban driving and terminals
operations, as COPERT extrapolated values are significantly higher than PHEM results. The strong increase of the curve
(approaching an exponential relationship) is however questionable. On the other hand, there is a very good adjustment of
NOX and PM emissions from the different models (Fig. 5c and e). In that case, Copert extrapolation could be regarded as a
useful approach for estimating the pollutants emission.
For Euro 5 vehicles, results are different. As far as fuel consumption is concerned (Fig. 5b), Copert and HBEFA levels are
quite close, while PHEM results are significantly lower for urban and GT1 port area, and higher for GT3 area. As previously
observed (Figs. 2 and 4), FC from Euro 5 vehicles calculated by PHEM is not affected by the different deNOX system (EGR/
SCR), as also observed in Lopez et al. (2009) for two Euro 4 buses (an average speed of 40 km/h is assumed here, according
to the test cycle).
As regards NOX emissions (Fig. 5d), differences between EGR and SCR systems are confirmed by real world data from
Velders et al. (2011), Vermeulen et al. (2012), Lowell and Kamataké (2012), which concern vehicles fitted with SCR catalysts.
Therefore, levels of NOX calculated by Copert are probably underestimated for the taking into account of this technology.
Finally, differences should also be observed between the estimations of PM emission (Fig. 5f), the Copert function and
extrapolation overestimating emissions at low speeds and underestimating them at 30 – 40 km/h.

Conclusions

Activities presented in this paper are part of a study aiming at characterising fuel consumption and exhaust emissions of
Heavy Duty Vehicles circulating in urban and port areas. They were focused on three aspects: the extension of the experi-
mental database of HDV speed in urban driving and port terminals, the statistical analysis of the data to define representative
speed patterns and their use as input of the PHEM model to calculate fuel consumption and exhaust emissions from signif-
icant HDV classes.
These steps have been presented in this paper, allowing to deepen different issues and to discuss several important
results recapitulated hereafter:

 Vehicle speed profiles experienced in goods terminals are characterized by very low average speed (below 5 km/h) and
high idling time (around 70%). A higher dynamics was recorded in terminal GT3 (high acceleration rate and frequent
stops).
 Higher values of fuel consumption and emission factors were calculated with the PHEM model in terminal GT3 for every
vehicle class, due to this higher dynamics.
 NOX emission factors of Euro 5 trucks fitted with SCR catalysts are significantly higher than those of vehicles equipped with
EGR systems, as the low speeds in port operations lead to lower exhaust temperatures affecting SCR efficiency. On the other
hand, emissions and fuel consumption decrease for the most recent vehicle and increase with vehicle weight.
 Four ‘‘macro-activities’’ (i.e., the entrance, internal movement, unload/load, the exit) were identified within terminal
operations. The associated emissions and fuel consumption are mainly influenced by the distances travelled, but a signif-
icant contribution is due to engine idling, which could be reduced by an appropriate management of this phase.
 Fuel consumption and exhaust emissions are lower in urban driving than during the port terminal operation, due to higher
average speed (around 30 km/h). NOX emissions of Euro 5 vehicles with SCR catalysts are close to those from Euro 3 trucks.
 Emissions and fuel consumption estimated by COPERT and PHEM models are quite similar for Euro 3 vehicles, but differ-
ences can be observed for fuel consumption.
 Considering Euro 5 trucks, larger differences were observed for FC, PM and NOX emissions. Compared to the Copert ref-
erence, higher NOX were observed for vehicles equipped with SCR catalysts, when estimated by PHEM and HBEFA or
derived from real world measurements.

The experimental data has enabled the validation of the approach and has confirmed the interest of the topic. Further
steps will be focused on the assessment of suitable technologies and operating conditions to reduce HDVs energy use and
10 G. Zamboni et al. / Transportation Research Part D 35 (2015) 1–10

environmental impact within the port area, for instance a proper management of the vehicles during the different terminal
operations or the use of alternative fuels. The taking into account of the most recent vehicles (Euro 6 regulation) through
updated models (PHEM, Copert and HBEFA) would enable assessing the real world benefit due to the type approval changes,
such as Off-Cycle and In-Service Conformity Testing.
Up to now, these works were mainly focused on HDV serving the port. As an extension, an experimental study is envis-
aged to characterize more generally the activity and driving patterns of HDV for various purposes (delivery, etc.) within the
urban zones.

References

Beevers, S.D., Westmoreland, E., de Jong, M.C., Williams, M.L., Carslaw, D.C., 2012. Trends in NOX and NO2 emissions from road traffic in Great Britain. Atmos.
Environ. 54, 107–116.
Chen, Y., Borken-Kleefeld, J., 2014. Real-driving emissions from cars and light commercial vehicles – Results from 13 years remote sensing at Zurich/CH.
Atmos. Environ. 88, 157–164.
Demir, E., Bektas, T., Laporte, G., 2011. A comparative analysis of several vehicle emission models for road freight transportation. Transport. Res. Part D 16,
347–357.
Gkatzoflias, D., Ntziachristos, L., Samaras, Z., 2007. Emission inventory guidebook: methodology for the calculation of exhaust emissions SNAPs 070100-
070500. http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR5/en/B710vs6.0.pdf.
Guan, B., Zhan, R., Lin, H., Huang, Z., 2014. Review of state of the art technologies of selective catalytic reduction of NOx from diesel engine exhaust. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 66, 395–414.
Hartman, B.C., Clott, C.B., 2012. An economic model for sustainable harbor trucking. Transport. Res. Part D 17, 354–360.
Hausberger, S., Rexeis, M., Zallinger, M., Luz, R., 2010. PHEM User guide for version 10. TUG/FVT Report, pp. 1–57.
Keller, M., Kljun, N., 2007. Artemis road emission model – Model description, EU project ARTEMIS, deliverable13. INFRAS, Berne, Switzerland.
Lajunen, A., 2014. Fuel economy analysis of conventional and hybrid heavy vehicle combinations over real-world operating routes. Transport. Res. Part D 31,
70–84.
Ligterink, N.E., Tavasszy, L.A., de Lange, R., 2012. A velocity and payload dependent emission model for heavy-duty road freight transportation. Transport.
Res. Part D 17, 487–491.
Lopez, J.M., Jimenez, F., Aparicio, F., Flores, N., 2009. On-road emissions from urban buses with SCR + Urea and EGR + DPF systems using diesel and biodiesel.
Transport. Res. Part D 14, 1–5.
Lowell, D., Kamataké, F., 2012. Urban off-cycle NOX emissions from Euro IV/V trucks and buses. ICCT White Paper Number 18, 1–43.
Norsworthy, M., Craft, E., 2013. Emissions reduction analysis of voluntary clean truck programs at US ports. Transport. Res. Part D 22, 23–27.
Pastorello, C., Dilara, P., Martini, G., 2011. Effect of a change towards compressed natural gas vehicles on the emissions of the Milan waste collection fleet.
Transport. Res. Part D 16, 121–128.
Pastramas, N., Samaras, C., Mellios, G., Ntziachristos, L., 2012. Update of the Air Emissions Inventory Guidebook – Road Transport 2014 Update. EMISIA SA
Report No. 14.RE.011.V1. http://www.emisia.com/copert/Copert4.html.
Sileghem, L., Bosteels, D., May, J., Favre, C., Verhelst, S., 2014. Analysis of vehicle emission measurements on the new WLTC, the NEDC and the CADC.
Transport. Res. Part D 32, 70–85.
Steven, H., 2001. Development of a worldwide harmonised heavy-duty engine emissions test cycle – Final report. Geneva, Switzerland: WHDC Working
Group, http://www.unece.org/trans.
Velders, G.J.M., Diederen, H.S.M.A., 2009. Likelihood of meeting the EU limit values for NO2 and PM10 concentrations in the Netherlands. Atmos. Environ. 43,
3060–3069.
Velders, G.J.M., Geilenkirchen, G.P., de Lange, R., 2011. Higher than expected NOX emission from trucks may affect attainability of NO2 limit values in the
Netherlands. Atmos. Environ. 45, 3025–3033.
Vermeulen, R., Dekker, H., Vonk, H., 2012. Real-world NOX emissions of Euro V and Euro VI heavy-duty vehicles. TNO Report TNO-060-DTM-2012-01193.
Wyatt, D.W., Li, H., Tate, J.E., 2014. The impact of road grade on carbon dioxide (CO2) emission of a passenger vehicle in real-world driving. Transport. Res.
Part D 32, 160–170.
Zamboni, G., Capobianco, M., Daminelli, E., 2009. Estimation of road vehicle exhaust emissions from 1992 to 2010 and comparison with air quality
measurements in Genoa, Italy. Atmos. Environ. 43, 1086–1092.
Zamboni, G., Malfettani, S., Andrè, M., Carraro, C., Marelli, S., Capobianco, M., 2012. Characterization of driving patterns and operations of Heavy Duty
Vehicles in a port area and their influence on exhaust emissions and fuel consumption evaluation through different emission models. In : Proceedings of
the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE2012), Volume 6, Parts A & B-Energy, paper IMECE2012-86303,
Houston, Texas, USA, November 2012.
Zamboni, G., Malfettani, S., André, M., Carraro, C., Marelli, S., Capobianco, M., 2013. Assessment of heavy-duty vehicle activities, fuel consumption and
exhaust emissions in port areas. Appl. Energy 111, 921–929.
Zhang, S., Wu, Y., Hu, J., Ruikun, H., Zhou, Y., Bao, X., Fu, L., Hao, J., 2014. Can Euro V heavy-duty diesel engines, diesel hybrid and alternative fuel technologies
mitigate NOX emissions? New evidence from on-road tests of buses in China. Appl. Energy 132, 118–126.
Zhang, S., Wu, Y., Liu, H., Huang, R., Liuhanzi, Y., Zhenhua, L., Lixin, F., Jiming, H., 2014. Real-world fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of urban public buses
in Beijing. Appl. Energy 113, 1645–1655.
Zhao, H., Burke, A., Miller, M., 2013. Analysis of Class 8 truck technologies for their fuel savings and economics. Transport. Res. Part D 23, 55–63.