A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and 

Infrastructure Demonstration 

and Validation Project: 

Fall 2006 Progress Update 

Preprint 

K. Wipke, C. Welch, H. Thomas, and S. Sprik 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

S. Gronich and J. Garbak 

U.S. Department of Energy

To be presented at the 22nd International Battery, Hybrid and 

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS-22) 

Yokohama, Japan 

October 23–28, 2006 

Conference Paper 

NREL/CP-560-40588 

October 2006 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a 

contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US 

Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
CONTROLLED HYDROGEN FLEET AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE DEMONSTRATION AND VALIDATION 

PROJECT: FALL 2006 PROGRESS UPDATE1

KEITH WIPKE 

Senior Engineer II, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

CORY WELCH, HOLLY THOMAS, SAM SPRIK: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

SIGMUND GRONICH, JOHN GARBAK: U.S. Department of Energy 

Abstract 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initiated the Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure 

Demonstration and Validation Project through a competitive solicitation process in 2003. The 

purpose of this project is to conduct an integrated field validation that simultaneously examines the 

performance of fuel cell vehicles and the supporting hydrogen infrastructure. Four industry teams 

have signed cooperative agreements with DOE and are supporting plans for more than 130 fuel cell 

vehicles and 20 hydrogen refueling stations over the 5-year project duration. This paper provides a 

status update covering the progress accomplished by the demonstration and validation project over the 

last six months; the first composite data products from the project were published in March 2006. 

The composite data products aggregate individual performance into a range that protects the 

intellectual property of the companies involved, while publicizing the progress the hydrogen and fuel 

cell industry is making as a whole relative to the program objectives and timeline. Updates to 

previously published composite data products, such as on-road fuel economy and 

vehicle/infrastructure safety, will be presented along with new composite data products, such as fuel 

cell stack efficiency and refueling behavior. Comparison of progress toward DOE technical targets 

will be made through these composite data products, and future project activities and analysis will 

also be discussed. 

Keywords: fuel cell vehicles, FC stack, vehicle performance, hydrogen infrastructure, energy 

efficiency 

1 Introduction 

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are being developed and tested for their potential as commercially viable 

and highly efficient zero-tailpipe-emission vehicles. Using hydrogen fuel and high-efficiency fuel 

cell vehicles provides environmental and fuel feedstock diversity benefits to the United States. 

Hydrogen could be derived from a mixture of renewable sources, natural gas, biomass, coal, and 

nuclear energy, enabling the United States to reduce emissions and decrease its dependence on foreign 

oil. Numerous technical barriers remain before hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are commercially viable. 

 

1

 This work has been authored by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute under Contract No. DE-AC36-

99GO10337 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by 

accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, 

paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others 

to do so, for United States Government purposes. 

1
Significant resources from private industry and government are being devoted to overcoming these 

barriers. 

DOE is working with industry to develop these technologies through its Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & 

Infrastructure Technologies (HFCIT) Program. This multi-faceted program simultaneously addresses 

hydrogen production, storage, delivery, conversion (fuel cells), technology validation, deployment 

(education), safety, and codes and standards. Many key technical barriers, such as hydrogen storage 

and fuel cell durability, have been identified and are being addressed. Additional challenges may 

become apparent through integrated, real-world application of these technologies. Prior to this project, 

the number of fuel cell vehicles in service has been small, and vehicle operation has focused primarily 

in California, limiting the quantity and geographic diversity of data collected. To address vehicle and 

refueling infrastructure issues simultaneously, DOE is conducting a large-scale “learning 

demonstration” involving automotive manufacturers and fuel providers. This learning demonstration, 

titled the “Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project,” is 

Phase 1 of the HFCIT Program’s technology validation effort, spanning from 2004-2009. 

In April 2003, DOE initiated a competitive solicitation for proposals for this project, and four 

cooperative agreements between DOE and industry partners were awarded in fiscal year 2004. These 

four teams will ultimately support more than 130 fuel cell vehicles, which will be validated on-road, 

as well as about 20 hydrogen refueling stations. Sixty-three first-generation vehicles have already 

entered into service with customers, and several new hydrogen refueling stations have opened, with 

more vehicles and stations planned. Estimated government investment in this 5-year project will be 

about $170 million; with cost-share from industry, total projected expenditures are over $350 million. 

2 Project Objectives and Targets 

One of the HFCIT Program’s key objectives is to conduct parallel learning demonstrations of 

hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles to permit industry to assess progress towards technology 

readiness. We will accomplish this objective through validating the vehicle and infrastructure as a 

complete integrated system. The quantity and breadth of data collected and analyzed will enable 

evaluation of technology status versus DOE program targets, as well as refocusing of DOE-funded 

research and development as appropriate. The ability to refocus research and development as an 

integrated part of DOE’s program makes this project unique. 

Table 1. Project Performance Targets 

Key Hydrogen Learning Demonstration Targets

Performance Measure 2009* 2015**

Fuel Cell Stack Durability 2000 hours 5000 hours 

Vehicle Range 250+ miles 300+ miles 

Hydrogen Cost at Station (untaxed) $3/gge $2-3/gge 

 * To verify progress toward 2015 targets 

 ** Subsequent projects to validate 2015 target 

This project has specific performance targets for 2009 that will be used to evaluate progress toward 

the 2015 targets. The targets listed in Table 1 address key barriers to successful market entry. Fuel 

cell stack durability is critical to customer acceptance of fuel cell vehicles. Although 2,000-hour 

durability in 2009 is considered acceptable to validate progress, a 5,000-hour lifetime (equivalent to 

approximately 100,000 miles) is estimated as a requirement for market acceptance. Vehicle range is 

also an important consumer expectation. Although many factors contributed to the failure of allelectric vehicles to gain market acceptance despite California government mandates, limited vehicle 

2
driving range is widely accepted as a significant contributor. Finally, hydrogen production cost is a 

key metric because consumers are much less likely to purchase an alternative fuel vehicle if the fuel is 

significantly more expensive than gasoline. 

3 Industry Partners 

The DOE solicitation required each team to include both an automotive original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) and an energy provider, and that the OEM or energy provider be the team lead. 

Automotive OEMs are leading three of the teams, and an energy provider is the leader of the fourth. 

Figure 1 shows the teaming arrangement of the four teams along with their fuel cell vehicles. The 

major companies making up the four teams are as follows: 

• Chevron and Hyundia-Kia 

• DaimlerChrysler and BP 

• Ford Motor Company and BP 

• General Motors and Shell 

 

Validation also includes FCV Sprinter vans 

Figure 1. OEM & fuel supplier teams, along with representative vehicles 

4 Five Geographic Regions Test Climate Compatibility 

Vehicle and infrastructure validation is taking place in five different geographic regions. Operating 

vehicles in a variety of climates is important because each climate presents a different technical 

challenge for fuel cells. Cold climates permit evaluation of a fuel cell vehicle’s ability to start and 

operate in sub-freezing temperatures—a key threshold for a fuel cell system that requires 

humidification and produces water during operation. Hot environments permit evaluation of the 

system’s ability to reject heat while keeping the fuel cell stack membranes adequately humidified. 

Fuel cell systems operate at lower temperatures than internal combustion engines (ICEs), making heat 

rejection more challenging and typically requiring a larger coolant radiator. All the regions include 

moderate conditions during the year, which should permit us to compare performance of a large 

number of vehicles under similar environmental conditions. Figure 2 shows the project stations 

3
(colored symbols) in the context of the other stations already in place (white symbols) in the five 

geographic regions in which this project is focused. 

Northern California 

Southern California 

Mid-Atlantic

Florida 

Additional Planned 

Stations (3)

Additional Planned 

Stations (4)

Additional Planned 

Stations (2)

SE Michigan

Additional Planned 

Stations (2)

Figure 2. Online H2 refueling infrastructure in five regions of Learning Demo 

5 Analysis Tools and Methodology 

5.1 Handling Large Amounts of Protected Data 

Because most of the data to be collected are highly confidential and represent the result of several 

hundred million dollars of development effort from each company, considerable attention is given to 

data security. Figure 3 provides an overview of the data collection and analysis process for this 

project. Raw data and reports from partner companies are delivered to the Hydrogen Secure Data 

Center (HSDC), located at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. 

Access to the HSDC is strictly controlled and limited to a handful of individuals within NREL and 

DOE. Detailed analyses and reports are generated within the HSDC, the results of which are 

available only to the limited number of individuals authorized to enter the HSDC. The only public 

data products permitted to leave the HSDC are termed “composite data products” and are agreed upon 

in advance with each partner company. These data products contain no confidential information and 

display only aggregate data from the partners. For instance, the composite data products will contain 

ranges of performance values, and the performance of individual companies is not distinguishable. 

Additional composite data products will be developed, approved for release, and then published as the 

project progresses. Additionally, detailed data products are created for individual companies so that 

they can share in the benefits of NREL having performed unique analysis on their data. Meetings 

have been held with each of the four teams to share these results, and the companies have found these 

results extremely valuable. 

4
Figure 3. Data collection and analysis process overview 

Hydrogen Secure Data 

Center (HSDC) 

• Located at NREL: 

Strictly Controlled 

Access 

• Detailed Analyses, 

Data Products, 

Internal Reports 

Composite Data 

Products 

• Pre-agreed upon 

aggregate data 

results for public 

Detailed Data 

Products 

• Only shared with 

company which 

originated the data 

• No confidential 

information 

Raw Data, 

Reports 

5.2 Advanced Data Analysis Tool Developed for This Project 

With 63 fuel cell vehicles currently in the validation fleet, all of which are providing second-bysecond data from every single trip, a large quantity of data is quickly being amassed in NREL’s 

HSDC. As shown in Figure 4, the high rate of data accumulation began in the spring of 2005. 

Through June 2006 the HSDC had received data for over 43,000 individual vehicle trips, adding up to 

19 GB of on-road data. 

On-Road Data Received -- Running Totals

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Nov-05

Dec-05

Jan-06

Feb-06

Mar-06

Apr-06

May-06

Jun-06

MB of Data

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

# Trips

MB of data

# trips

Through June 2006: 

43,000 individual vehicle 

trips

Figure 4. Cumulative number of vehicle trips and size of data received at the HSDC 

5
While the sheer volume of data received may suggest that it couldn’t possibly all be analyzed in detail, 

NREL has created advanced analysis tools to automate the processing of the data and analyze every 

single trip that each vehicle drives. Figure 5 shows screen images of NREL’s analysis tool—the 

NREL Fleet Analysis Toolkit (NREL FAT). Programmed entirely in MATLAB, this tool automates 

the analysis of new monthly data through just three mouse-clicks. All of the analysis results can also 

be viewed as automatically generated figures within the graphical user interface (GUI). 

PUBLISH 

Figure 5. Screen images of NREL's Fleet Analysis Toolkit 

6 Vehicle Composite Data Product Results 

6.1 Fuel Cell System Efficiency 

Along with fuel feedstock diversity and zero tailpipe emissions, high efficiency is one of the key 

reasons that hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles are being pursued. DOE has a target of 60% fuel 

cell system efficiency at ~25% of system net power. The Learning Demonstration project evaluated 

the efficiency of the fuel cell systems from each of the four teams through controlled steady-state 

vehicle chassis dynamometer testing. To achieve a sweep of many relatively constant net power 

output points from the fuel cell system installed in the vehicle, the vehicle was typically driven at a 

number of steady-state speeds, sometimes with a simulated road grade added to increase the power 

load for this system. 

Hydrogen fuel use was measured from calibrated sensors using several different approved techniques, 

depending on the particular vehicle and test facility. These methods include integration of the gross 

fuel cell (FC) electrical current output (adjusted for any purge), measuring on-board tank temperature 

and pressure, measuring off-board tank temperature and pressure, or measuring hydrogen mass flow 

directly. The efficiency of the fuel cell system was then calculated as output/input, or “net FC system 

energy out” over the “lower heating value (LHV) of the input fuel energy.” The net power output 

from the FC system was calculated by taking the gross power output minus the FC system auxiliaries 

6
(such as compressors, fans, pumps, etc.) per the draft SAE J2617 test procedure. The range of results 

is shown in Figure 6. It was found that the efficiency ranged between 52.5% and 58.1%, very close to 

the DOE target of 60%. It is anticipated that in the second generation FC stacks that will be 

demonstrated in the second half of this project, the 60% target will be met by one or more of the 

industry teams. In the future, these controlled dynamometer tests will also be used to look at changes 

in the performance of FC systems as they age, since the tests are repeated every six months. 

Figure 6. Range of measured fuel cell system efficiency at ~25% net power from all four teams 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All OEMs

Efficiency (%) 

Fuel Cell System1 Efficiency2 at ~25% Net Power.

DOE Target

Created: Aug-29-06 4:09 PM

1 Gross stack power minus fuel cell system auxiliaries, per DRAFT SAEJ2615.

2 Ratio of DC output energy to the lower heating value of the input fuel (hydrogen).

Excludes power electronics and electric drive.

6.2 Vehicle Fuel Economy and Range 

In addition to the steady-state tests on the vehicle chassis dynamometer (dyno) to obtain the fuel cell 

system efficiency points, city and highway drive cycle tests were performed according to the Draft 

SAE J2572 procedures for fuel cell vehicles to obtain vehicle fuel economy. Figure 7 shows the 

results from these tests. The raw dyno results from all four teams are shown on the left, the adjusted 

“window sticker” fuel economy is shown in the center, and on-road fuel economy is shown on the 

right. Each range represents one data point per manufacturer, and the on-road results exclude trips <1 

mile since the vehicles experienced an unusually high number of short or idle trips during vehicle 

launch into the fleets. Note that the dyno results are the initial baseline results from spring 2006 [1], 

while the on-road results have been updated with 6-months more data. The on-road fuel economy 

ranges from 30.7 miles/kg H2 to 45.2 miles/kg. 

Using the dyno fuel economy and the amount of usable hydrogen on-board each vehicle, the 

theoretical maximum range of each vehicle can be calculated. This spread of ranges from the four 

teams is shown in Figure 8. For conventional vehicles, most consumers are not familiar with raw 

dyno test results. Instead, they are familiar with the adjusted “window sticker” fuel economy they see 

when they buy their vehicles, and even more familiar with their actual on-road fuel economy since 

many vehicles now track it electronically and display that information to the driver. Therefore, to 

show this real-world impact of on-road fuel economy on driving range, we took the ratio of the 

window-sticker fuel economy to the dyno fuel economy, and the ratio of on-road fuel economy to 

dyno fuel economy, which also provides the ratio of the driving range for each team. 

7
Figure 7. On-road and dyno fuel economy from all four teams 

Dyno (1) Window-Sticker (2) On-Road (3)(4) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fuel Economy (miles/kg H 2)

Fuel Economy

Created: Aug-25-06 10:45 AM

(3) Excludes trips < 1 mile. One data point for on-road fleet average of each make/model.

(1) One data point for each make/model. Combined City/Hwy fuel economy per DRAFT SAEJ2572.

(2) Adjusted combined City/Hwy fuel economy (0.78 x Hwy, 0.9 x City).

(4) Calculated from on-road fuel cell stack current or mass flow readings.

Figure 8. Vehicle range calculated from dyno fuel economy and usable hydrogen 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

All OEMs

Vehicle Range (miles)

Vehicle Range(1)

2015 Target

2009 Target

Created: 21-Feb-2006 (1) Calculated from combined City/Hwy fuel economy (dyno test) per DRAFT SAE J2572 and usable fuel on board.

Figure 9 shows the spread of these vehicle range ratios, showing that, from this Learning 

Demonstration so far, the average fleet on-road driving ranges (if all usable on-board fuel was 

consumed) varied between around 63% - 75% of the theoretical dyno range. This result is significant 

because it helps explain (in part) why the vehicles are being refueled after driving relatively short 

distances as compared to their theoretical dyno range. 

8
Figure 9. Reduced effective range of vehicles due to actual on-road fuel economy 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Vehicle Range Factors

Percentage of chassis dyno range1

.

All OEMs

Window-Sticker 2On-Road 3Dyno 1

Created: Aug-30-06 3:09 PM

1. Calculated using the combined city/hwy fuel economy from dyno testing (non-adjusted) and usable fuel on board

2. Applying window-sticker correction factors for fuel economy: 0.78 x Hwy and 0.9 x City

3. Using fuel-economy from on-road data (excluding trips > 1 mile, consistent with other data products)

Figure 10 shows a normalized histogram (blue bars) of how far (as a percentage of dyno range) 

vehicles were driven before being refueled. The dashed green curve is the cumulative percentage of 

refuelings that were performed below a given percentage of dyno range. This result indicates that 

roughly 50% of the refuelings were done at <35% of the dyno range and 95% of the refuelings were 

done at <65% of the dyno range. So while reduced on-road fuel economy explains some of the short 

distance between refuelings, it cannot account for most of them. The two main reasons suspected for 

this reduced effective driving range are: limited hydrogen infrastructure and lack of comfort of the 

drivers draining their fuel to “empty” with this limited infrastructure. Future analyses will further 

explore this dynamic between infrastructure coverage, range, and driving patterns. 

Figure 10. A large percentage of vehicle refueling is being performed at a significantly 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Range Histogram: All OEMs

Percentage of chassis dyno range1

 b/w refuelings

Percentage of refuelings

Percentage

Cumulative Percentage

Created: Aug-30-06 3:09 PM

Total refuelings2 = 2048

1. Range calculated using the combined city/hwy fuel economy from dyno testing (not EPA adjusted) and usable fuel on board.

2. Some refueling events are not detected/reported due to data noise or incompleteness.

9
6.3 Overall Progress in Vehicle Rollout 

Data has been flowing to NREL’s HSDC room for five quarters. As seen in Figure 11, the 63 

vehicles currently deployed represent roughly half of the total vehicles that will be validated from this 

project. The majority of these vehicles are using 350 bar pressurized hydrogen tanks. 

Figure 11. Number of vehicles by quarter using various on-board storage technologies

On-Board Hydrogen Storage Methods

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Q205 Q305 Q405 Q106 Q206

# of Vehicles (All Teams)

5,000 psi tanks 10,000 psi tanks Liquid H2

Created 25-Aug-2006

Additionally, from Figure 12 it can be seen that the majority of the vehicles have accumulated 

between 100-300 hours of operation and 3000-7500 miles. The rate of vehicle usage continues to 

increase, making the data set much deeper and allowing additional analyses to be performed. 

Figure 12. Histograms of operating hours and miles traveled 

Vehicle Hours: All OEM's Combined

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-100

100-200

200-300

300-400

400-500

500-600

600-700

700-800

800-900

>900

Total Vehicle Hours

Number of Vehicles

Throu Vehicle Miles: All OEMs Combined

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0-1500

1500-3000

3000-4500

4500-6000

6000-7500

7500-9000

9000-10500

10500-12000

12000-13500

>13500

Total Vehicle Miles

Number of Vehicles

gh Q2 2006

Created: 25-Aug-06

6.4 Vehicle Safety Incidents 

Safety is an important part of this project—not only to protect human safety today, but also to learn 

important lessons about how to make and operate safe vehicles and infrastructure before they are 

rolled out to the public in a larger scale in the future. All safety incidents, near-misses, and nonevents are reported to the HSDC and then combined into a chart (Figure 13) that shows the number of 

events by quarter. While there were only three reported events in the first three quarters, there were 

six minor hydrogen leaks reported in the first quarter of 2006. The root of these minor problems has 

been identified and fixed; no safety events were reported in the following quarter. The Learning 

Demonstration is living up to its name by providing an opportunity to identify any problems in a 

controlled environment, learn from them, and produce safer vehicles, refueling procedures, and 

equipment for the future. 

Total Vehicle Hours = 19,324 Total M iles Trav ele d = 360,092

Through Q2 2006

Created: 25-Aug-06

10
Figure 13. Number of vehicle safety events by quarter 

Safety Incidents - Vehicle Operation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

'05 Q2'05 Q3'05 Q4'06 Q1'06 Q2

Number of Incidents

H2 Leak - Stack

H2 Leak - Fuel System

H2 Leak While Fueling

Passenger Compartment H2 alarm

Created: 8/28/2006

6.5 Hydrogen Refueling Rate Histograms 

Valuable data are gathered on the interaction between the vehicles and the hydrogen infrastructure. 

The data are reported to the HSDC on every single refueling event, either from the refueling station 

data or from on-board vehicle data. DOE has a 2006 target of a five-minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar, 

which results in an effective target of 1 kg/min. Future targets, focused on advanced storage materials, 

seek a 1.67 kg/min rate in 2010. Based on over 2000 refueling events analyzed, shown in Figure 14, 

the average refueling rate observed was 0.69 kg/min, with a median of 0.72 kg/min. 18% of the 

refueling events exceeded the DOE target of 1 kg/min. 

Figure 14. Vehicle refueling rate histogram 

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0

50

100

150

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Number of Fueling Events

Histogram of Vehicle Fueling Rates (Thru 2006Q2)

5 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

2006 Tech Val Milestone

2010 MYPP Adv Storage Materials Target

Created: Aug-29-06 4:47 PM

11
Notice that the distribution appears to be tri-modal, with peaks occurring at 0.2 kg/min, 0.6 kg/min, 

and 0.85 kg/min. This is due to a mixture of different types of stations (mobile vs. permanent) and 

communication and non-communication fills. It also includes some stations that have refueling 

protocols that impose limits on the refueling rate. 

7 Conclusions 

The Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project has now 

completed five quarters of operation with the data being delivered to NREL’s Hydrogen Secure Data 

Center for analysis. This includes 63 vehicles and 9 project stations. Aggregate results, called 

composite data products, have been developed to report on project progress. On fuel cell system 

efficiency, the four teams ranged from 52.5% to 58.1% efficiency, very close to DOE’s target of 60%. 

On the metric of vehicle driving range, current storage technologies only allow between 122 and 223 

miles for these four vehicles, but actual on-road driving range between refuelings is found to be 

shorter than the theoretical range due to lower on-road fuel economy, limited infrastructure, and 

driver comfort with running out of fuel. There is a wide distribution of refueling rates, but 18% of the 

refueling events demonstrated a refueling rate higher than DOE’s 1 kg/min target in 2006. Fuel cell 

stack durability will be one of the next composite data products created in 2006, with a comparison 

made to DOE’s 2006 target of 1000 hours. 

References 

[1] Wipke, K., Welch, C., Thomas, H., Sprik, S., Gronich, S., Garbak, J., Hooker, D., “Hydrogen Fleet & 

Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project: Progress Update,” NHA Annual Hydrogen Meeting 

and Exposition, Long Beach, CA, March 2006. 

Author 

Keith Wipke, Senior Engineer II 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd 

Golden, CO 80401 

303.275.4451, FAX 303.275.2905, keith_wipke@nrel.gov 

Mr. Wipke has worked at NREL in the area of advanced vehicles for 13 years. The first decade of that time was 

spent researching hybrid electric vehicles through on-road data collection, analysis, and computer modeling 

using ADVISOR, NREL’s advanced vehicle simulator. In 2003, ADVISOR was licensed to AVL for 

commercialization and Mr. Wipke moved to the hydrogen group at NREL to work on the Controlled Hydrogen 

Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project and lead the Hydrogen Technology Validation 

Team. He holds a masters degree in mechanical engineering from Stanford University. 

12
F1147-E(12/2004) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

October 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Conference paper 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and 

Validation Project: Fall 2006 Progress Update; Preprint 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/CP-560-40588 

5e. TASK NUMBER

HF65.8100 

6. AUTHOR(S)

K. Wipke, C. Welch, H. Thomas, S. Sprik, S. Gronich, and 

J. Garbak 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/CP-560-40588 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initiated the Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and 

Validation Project through a competitive solicitation process in 2003. The purpose of this project is to conduct an 

integrated field validation that simultaneously examines the performance of fuel cell vehicles and the supporting 

hydrogen infrastructure. Four industry teams have signed cooperative agreements with DOE and are supporting 

plans for more than 130 fuel cell vehicles and 20 hydrogen refueling stations over the 5-year project duration. This 

paper provides a status update covering the progress accomplished by the demonstration and validation project over 

the last six months; the first composite data products from the project were published in March 2006. The composite 

data products aggregate individual performance into a range that protects the intellectual property of the companies 

involved, while publicizing the progress the hydrogen and fuel cell industry is making as a whole relative to the 

program objectives and timeline. Updates to previously published composite data products, such as on-road fuel 

economy and vehicle/infrastructure safety, will be presented along with new composite data products, such as fuel 

cell stack efficiency and refueling behavior. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

fuel cell vehicles; fuel cell stack; vehicle performance; hydrogen infrastructure; energy efficiency 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18