Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study 

Peer Review Report 

November 6, 2009 

Prepared by: 

ICF International 
Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

Background of Peer Review................................................................................................ 1

Overview of Peer Reviewer Responses .............................................................................. 3

I. Organization of Reviewer Comments..................................................................... 3

II. Methodological Comments .................................................................................... 4

a. Comments Regarding Study Pre‐Processing and Processing Concepts......... 4

b. Comments Regarding Study Outputs and Validation.................................. 11

III. Editorial Comments .............................................................................................. 12

a. Comments on Organization and Pagination................................................ 12

b. Comments on Grammar and Wording ........................................................ 12

c. Recommended Content to be Added.......................................................... 14

d. Comments on the Appendices..................................................................... 17

Appendix A ‐ Charge to Peer Reviewers ..........................................................................A‐1

Appendix B ‐ Dr. Dennis Assanis Response to Peer Review Charge ................................B‐1

Appendix C ‐ Mr. Sujit Das Response to Peer Review Charge ......................................... C‐1

Appendix D ‐ Ms. Laurie Harbour Response to Peer Review Charge ..............................D‐1

Appendix E ‐ Mr. Wallace Wade Response to Peer Review Charge................................ E‐1

Appendix F ‐ Curricula Vitae of Selected Peer Reviewers................................................ F‐1

Dennis Assanis...................................................................................................... F‐2

Laurie Harbour ................................................................................................... F‐53

Sujit Das.............................................................................................................. F‐56

Wallace Wade .................................................................................................... F‐58

Appendix G ‐ Acronym List...............................................................................................G‐1

i
Introduction 

As the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

develops its programs to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty 

highway vehicles, there is a need to evaluate the costs of technologies likely to be used 

to meet these standards. EPA contracted with FEV, Inc., to perform this cost analysis 

through tearing down vehicles, engines, and components, both with and without these 

technologies, and evaluating, part by part, the observed differences in size, weight, 

materials, machining steps, and other cost-affecting parameters. Though complex and 

time-consuming, EPA believes this approach has great potential for determining 

accurate technology costs, a goal that is of paramount importance in the setting of 

appropriate GHG standards. EPA tasked ICF International (ICF), an independent thirdparty contractor, to conduct a peer review of the cost analysis now in progress to assure 

that this work incorporates the highest quality science. 

Background of Peer Review 

From August to October 2009, EPA arranged for ICF to conduct a peer review of the 

costing methodologies used by FEV, Inc., and its subcontractor, as detailed in the draft 

report, “Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study” (FEV-07-069-103F, herein 

referred to as ‘the Report’). ICF coordinated the peer review, adhering to EPA’s “Peer 

Review Handbook” (3rd Edition).1

 

EPA’s work assignment requesting the peer review required that peer reviewers be 

subject matter experts who have a general familiarity with manufacturing cost estimating, 

automotive design, or some knowledge of both. 

Using these criteria, ICF developed a list of qualified candidates from the public, private, 

and academic sectors. ICF compiled candidates from the following sources: (1) ICF 

experts in this field with knowledge of relevant professional society membership, 

industry, academia, and other organizations, and (2) suggestions from EPA. 

ICF identified 19 qualified individuals as candidates to participate in the peer review. 

ICF sent each of these individuals an introductory screening email to describe the needs 

of the peer review and to gauge the candidate’s interest and availability. Also, ICF 

attached to the email a detailed conflict of interest (COI) disclosure. ICF asked all 

candidates to read the disclosure and disclose any real or perceived COI or other 

matters that would create the appearance of a lack of impartiality. ICF also asked 

candidates to provide an updated resume or curriculum vitae (CV). Several candidate 

reviewers were unable to participate in the peer review due to previous commitments, 

and several others did not respond. ICF reviewed the responses and COI statements 

and evaluated the resumes/CVs of the interested and available individuals for relevant 

experience and demonstrated expertise in the above areas, as demonstrated by 

educational degrees attained, research and work experience, publications, awards, and 

participation in relevant professional societies. 

ICF reviewed the interested, available, and qualified candidates with the following 

concerns in mind. As stated in the EPA’s Peer Review Handbook, the group of selected 

peer reviewers should be “sufficiently broad and diverse to fairly represent the relevant 

                                                      

1 EPA/100/B‐06/002

1
scientific and technical perspectives and fields of knowledge; they should represent a 

balanced range of technically legitimate points of view.” As such, ICF selected peer 

reviewers to provide a complimentary balance of expertise covering the relevant 

economic and technical fields, including experts from industry, not-for-profit, and 

academic backgrounds. ICF submitted a list of the proposed peer reviewers to EPA, 

which EPA subsequently reviewed and approved. 

ICF selected the following four individuals who agreed to participate in the peer review: 

1. Dr. Dennis Assanis, University of Michigan 

2. Mr. Sujit Das, Oakridge National Laboratory (UT-Battelle) 

3. Ms. Laurie Harbour, Harbour Results, Inc.2

4. Mr. Wallace Wade, Ford Motor Company (retired) 

In addition to the general COI screen mentioned above, prior to distribution of the peer 

review materials, ICF asked the four selected peer reviewers to complete and sign a 

COI disclosure form that addressed topics such as employment, investment interests 

and assets, property interests, research funding, and various other relevant issues. 

Upon review of each form, ICF determined that no peer reviewer had direct and 

substantial COI issues or appearance of a lack of impartiality. In addition, the peer 

reviewers were instructed to disclose to ICF any potential COI issues that may have 

arisen during their review, and no peer reviewer made such a disclosure. 

ICF provided reviewers with the following materials: 

• The draft report by FEV, Inc., entitled, “Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis 

Pilot Study,” dated September 3, 2009; 

• Supporting spreadsheets detailing tear-down cost analyses; and 

• A Peer Reviewer Charge to guide their evaluation. 

Specific “charge” questions were not included in the Peer Reviewer Charge. Instead, 

EPA provided peer reviewers with general guidelines for preparing their overall review, 

with particular emphasis on the costing methodology and sources of information used in 

determining labor rates, material prices, manufacturing burdens, and other key factors. 

In addition, EPA asked each reviewer to distinguish between recommendations for 

clearly defined improvements that can be readily made, based on data or literature 

reasonably available to EPA, and improvements that are more exploratory or dependent, 

which would be based on information not readily available to EPA. 

The charge to peer reviewers can be found in Appendix A. The original, complete 

comments as submitted by the peer reviewers are listed in Appendices B through E. 

The curricula vitae can be found in Appendix F. A list of acronyms is provided in 

Appendix G.3

                                                      

2

 In responding to the peer review charge, Ms. Harbour consulted with two colleagues at Harbour Results, 

Inc. (Harbour). As such, Ms. Harbour’s comments in her submitted review (Appendix D) were written as 

coming from her team at Harbour. However, in this summary, we use ‘Harbour’ when referring to the 

comprehensive set of comments submitted by Ms. Harbour. 

3

 Acronyms are defined at first use throughout this report, including in the reviewers’ raw comments. No 

other editorial changes to the reviewers’ comments have been made. 

2
Overview of Peer Reviewer Responses 

I. Organization of Reviewer Comments 

The reviews varied widely in size, scope, and content. This summary of comments 

reorganizes the individual comments from all reviewers by theme and establishes 

common threads of reasoning. ICF organized the comments from the four peer 

reviewers into two main themes and sections of this report:

• Comments regarding methodologies and validation 

• Comments regarding editorial content 

Within each theme, relevant comments are presented, summarized, and attributed to 

their author. Subcategories are identified where appropriate from each major comment 

theme. For example, the methodological comments are broken down into comments 

generally regarding either study scope, inputs, processes, or assumptions (preprocessing and processing parameters) versus those regarding outputs or validation 

(post-processing parameters). Within each subcategory, any clear consensus reached 

by the various reviewers is emphasized, followed by any dissenting or unique 

comments. 

Some comments addressed multiple items. For example, many comments referred to 

unclear statements, which could be due to a flaw in the methodology and/or insufficient 

explanation. In these cases, the comment is placed where it seems most appropriate. 

In all cases, comments are attributed to the author by the name listed in bold in the 

numerated list above (e.g., Assanis). 

Each reviewer organized and provided his or her comments in the following ways: 

1. Assanis presented comments in a five-page text file. His comments are 

organized into the following three sections: summary, organizational, and 

detailed technical comments. 

2. Das presented his comments in a four-page text file and as a numerated list, 

unorganized by theme or report section. 

3. Harbour presented her comments as both an eleven-page summary text file and 

94 additional comments within a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet generally 

contains comments directed to a specific element of the Report and cited by 

page or section number. The summary text file contains more general 

comments. In both cases, the comments are grouped into one of the following 

seven “classifications”: Technology, Premise, Methodology, Protocol, Operational 

Definition, Statistical Validity, or Presentation. A General Feedback section is 

also presented. 

4. Wade presented detailed comments in the following three sections: an overall 

review, specific opinions and recommendations, and discussion. The latter two 

sections focused on eight primary opinions and recommendations for the Report. 

His eight primary opinions were summarized in the second section, then 

repeated and expanded upon with editorial comments in the third section. 

(Before summarizing, ICF merged the latter two sections.) 

3
In all cases, ICF mapped each individual reviewer comment to one of the two main 

themes. In cases where the comment could apply to either theme, ICF made a 

judgment on which topic it most closely represented and included it under that theme. 

II. Methodological Comments 

a. Comments Regarding Study Pre-Processing and Processing Concepts 

Comments Regarding Study Scope 

All reviewers noted that the study was well focused and praised the use of case studies. 

However, all reviewers also noted specific issues with the present case study, the 

potential scaling methodology, and/or future case studies. Assanis, Das, and Harbour 

were specific about this. Their comments follow. 

Harbour noted that the study becomes complex so quickly that the user could lose sight 

of the bigger issues and challenges posed by such a technology shift, although she 

appreciated the use of the methodology presented to improve the accuracy and 

reliability of its economic impact studies. Specifically, she noted that her clients have 

been historically at odds with EPA forecasted impacts and costs and are hopeful that 

this study will alleviate some of these concerns. However, she noted a significant 

difference between historical EPA forecasts and industry’s assessed costs. Harbour 

also expressed concern that the scope of the study will dictate the level of assumptions 

and data required. She noted that the big questions, such as whether the scope regards 

only replacing 2.4L with 1.6L engines or extrapolating these results to other future 

engine technologies, will impact the study’s scope. 

Assanis expressed specific concerns regarding the future technologies slated for study. 

He noted that, of the powertrain technologies identified for evaluation, some are 

advanced versions of current powertrains, such as downsized turbocharged gasoline 

direct injection (GDI), advanced diesel, and advanced transmissions, while others, such 

as homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) and lean-burn GDI—while still 

predominantly mechanical powertrains—will involve new challenges in electronics, 

calibration, and catalytic after treatment that may not be addressed by the study in its 

current state. He also notes that flexible/alternative fuel powertrain packages are 

omitted from the current scoping list. Finally, regarding the future technology groups, he 

noted that the proposed technologies are quantized into discrete bins, when in fact 

production hybrid versions are likely to be available soon, such as GDI engines with 

operation split between the lean stratified and homogenous stoichiometric modes 

varying by required power. He noted that the current scope may thus need to be 

modified to treat technology combinations, such as GDI/HCCI hybrids, and that the time 

horizon, manufacturing, research and development (R&D) and calibration costs for some 

technologies (such as for camless versus cam profile switching/ phasing and mechanical 

lift control) will depend on their implementation. 

Das stated that, while the bottom-up approach with detailed cost estimation based on 

teardowns of vehicles implemented in the study is an improvement over past analyses, 

based on supplier price quotes for key components, the scope may have limited success 

for new technologies. He also noted that the scope is prohibitively expensive and timeconsuming for regular use, unless an appropriate scaling methodology is developed. 

4
Comments Regarding Study Assumptions 

Das, Harbour, and Wade all expressed concerns regarding production volume 

assumptions. Specifically, Harbour challenged the use of 450,000 single unit volume, as 

opposed to five units of annual volume 80,000 to 90,000, as the basis for estimations. 

She expressed concern that this approach may significantly understate the total amount 

of amortized fixed costs in supplier pricing. Further elaboration on the basis of her 

breakdown is given in her full comments in Appendix D. Wade noted that the selection 

of vehicles that represent the base and new technology cases for the teardown and cost 

analysis could have different production volumes and that higher volumes for a new 

technology may result in different design and manufacturing techniques, and thus impact 

costs. The assumed 20,000 units per year production volumes of the new technology 

engine versus 840,000 for the comparator baseline could affect costs in the present 

analysis and even more for future analyses, such as lithium-ion batteries. Das stated 

that 450,000 units assumed for a robust market penetration rate may not be the same 

across various technology types if numerous suppliers are involved simultaneously 

because the present cost estimation is based on an individual tier-level supplier. Rather, 

varying annual production volume should be included. 

Das, Harbour, and Wade expressed concerns regarding specific cost assumptions. 

Harbour noted that, while a detailed “bottom-up” cost analysis is an essential part of the 

estimate of the impact of technology changes on the marketplace, the Report does not 

adequately identify economic and marketplace assumptions. Wade commented that 

different levels of maturity may be represented in the new technology versus the base 

comparator technology, which could bias the cost estimates. He also noted that no 

added vehicle costs were considered for the pilot study new technologies, although new 

technology is likely to require new or different vehicle installation hardware and the 

associated costs and should be included in the overall costs. Finally, he stated that 

intellectual property, and the costs associated with licensing, patents, know-how, and 

trade secrets, which is often an important part of new technology powertrains, seems to 

be assumed to not affect costs and/or was not addressed in the methodology. Similarly, 

Harbour noted that the Report needs to be explicit in assuming where current original 

equipment manufacturers (OEM) and supplier manufacturing equipment and facility 

capabilities are insufficient because, should demand for certain technologies exceed 

supply, OEMs will be forced to pay a premium for these parts. She considered 

assuming sales below capacity for modeling incremental costs to be specious. Das 

noted that, while consideration of maintenance and end-of-life costs are given, the 

assumptions and approach regarding these costs are insufficiently detailed and appear 

subjective. Finally, Das questioned the assumed 0.3%-0.7% total manufacturing cost 

(TMC) for end-item scrap markup. 

Assanis noted that, given the recent turmoil in the North American automotive industry 

(both OEMs and suppliers), the assumed structure of labor wages and rates, based on 

historical rates (e.g., fringe rates based on a 2006/2007 average United Auto Workers 

(UAW) OEM wage and labor rate) may no longer be appropriate. Also, concerning the 

assumed labor mix and associated costs, Wade stated that the decisions to use either 

OEM or suppliers for manufacturing specific components is not clearly explained but 

appears to be based on conventional practice and/or input from experts. However, since 

OEM labor rates are significantly higher than supplier wage rates, these assumptions 

can significantly affect overall costs and should be clearly explained. 

5
Wade and Harbour questioned the assumed technology and part supply chain. Wade 

noted that OEMs and suppliers are assumed to have the manufacturing facilities and 

equipment for the new technologies, but components comprising the core of the new 

technology will probably be incremental and require new manufacturing facilities and 

equipment. While the Report assumes that OEMs and suppliers have manufacturing 

equipment and facilities capable of handling required manufacturing processes and 

capacities, this assumption may not be valid in most cases. He stated that while all 

manufacturing processes and operations are assumed to be based on 

standard/mainstream industrial processes, new technology is likely to involve unique, 

new, non-standard industrial processes, especially in the battery area, which do not 

seem to be accounted for in the Report. He further noted that different internal design 

and manufacturing practices may be represented in new technology if from different 

manufacturers, and thus rely on different internal practices that are not captured in the 

present assumed methodology. Harbour commented that, contrary to present 

assumptions, use of off-shore suppliers may not by default reduce costs due to 

increases in freight costs, tariffs, unmeasured internal supply/program management 

resources, and exchange rate changes. Wade noted that warranty data on new and 

baseline technologies should have been examined to validate assumptions on design 

methodologies and ensure comparable useful lives because high warranty costs for the 

new technology would indicate inadequate designs, materials, or processes. Finally, 

Harbour questioned the selection of projection years (2015 and 2020) and whether 

assumed technologies will be leading edge then. 

Comments Regarding Study Inputs 

All reviewers provided specific comments addressing various study input parameters. 

Regarding the Annual Adjustment Factor (AAF), Wade stated that a serious discrepancy 

between Figure 6 and Appendix E must be resolved before the Report is published. 

Although Figure 6 shows an AAF of –5% from 2008 to 2015, Appendix E lists an AAF of 

0%, which will affect results. Harbour also noted this parameter and claims that a 5% 

per year decline in supplier labor rates is inappropriate given inflation, generally 

increasing labor rates in the manufacturing sector, and the distinction between declining 

labor rates and declining labor content due to process improvements. Harbour further 

noted that Design Profit® might assume that the part will be manufactured in the leanest 

possible way in year one, which is inconsistent with the assumed 5% reduction. 

Harbour commented that the manual input cost parameters are sound and the study 

does an exceptional job accounting for part variability. She also said the logic applied to 

material identification is sound, but added that consideration should be given to whether 

a mistaken material selection would be financially material. She also recommended that 

the study add classifications in Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) 

to manufacturing operations as either lean or mass, and be prepared to sort results 

accordingly to explore resulting cost differences, given that the industry could experience 

higher batch processing costs than those estimated by the model. 

Das and Harbour commented on the inputs accounting for markup. Harbour noted that 

engineering, design and testing (ED&T), scrap, and selling, general, and administrative 

(SG&A) mark-ups all appear arbitrary and should be justified and validated through a 

sensitivity analysis. Das stated that it may be inaccurate to apply the same level of 

mark-up regardless of the primary manufacturing process and equipment groups 

involved. Variations in company size, part complexity, and manufacturing technology 

6
type and their impact on final mark-up rate should be included in the calculations. 

Finally, Das noted that, if the cost methodology is based on Vyas et al. (2000), then the 

end-item scrap mark-up includes mainly the warranty cost, but is used in this study as if 

it also includes in-process scrap. He stated that this should be grouped with 

manufacturing overhead rate parameters to better reflect technology characteristics. 

Das, Harbour, and Wade all commented on wage and salary inputs. Harbour noted that 

the active rates (Figure 12) and rates (Figure 13) appear arbitrary and not derived. Das 

questioned why the OEM fringe rate is more than three times higher than for tiered 

supplier manufacturing, while Wade noted a discrepancy in the projected labor rates 

used for 2015 that should be corrected. 

Comments Regarding Study Methodology 

All reviewers commented favorably on the study’s general methodology. Wade, in 

particular, noted that FEV has developed and applied a detailed, objective methodology 

for determining net incremental/assembly cost impact to the OEM for new technology 

powertrains with reduced GHG potential. He said this methodology will both provide 

EPA with the capability to estimate the cost of technology to meet regulations as well as 

act as a medium for EPA to interact with OEMs and suppliers to review, compare, and 

rationalize their costs. However, he noted that while the methodology ideally should 

yield accurate results, he found potential issues with the methodology that may affect the 

accuracy of the results. In particular, he noted that during the conference call it was 

indicated that three specific, important steps described in the methodology (a 

marketplace crosscheck, accounting for design modifications for Material Cost 

Reductions (MCR), and accounting for New Technology Advances (NTA)) were not 

being followed, and that these should either be followed or removed from the Report. 

Each step is detailed in Appendix E, Opinion #7 of this summary report. Das noted that 

the methodology presented, using a standard quoting template used by the automotive 

industry for the MAQS, is an excellent approach and deserving of credit. Harbour stated 

that the overwhelming majority of methodologies employed in this study appear to be 

sound and, in particular, she approved of the use of activity-based burden rates, 

machine-based burden rates, and AAF. She also generally approved of the differential 

analysis logic, but questioned the statistical basis for assuming differences in means 

between baseline and new technologies. She recommended that the methodology be 

adjusted such that any proposed technology changes are classified into one of the 

following four distinct categories of R&D investment and that a total cost versus 

incremental cost model for these changes be developed: new product development, fuel 

economy improvement and emissions, pure research, and plant energy and emissions. 

Assanis noted that the topic is both an important one and a difficult one for arriving at a 

universal methodology, but that it should be recognized that the proposed methodology 

focuses more heavily on tracking component materials and manufacturing costs and 

less on system integration issues and costs, which are typically captured through indirect 

cost multipliers. He felt that for new powertrain technologies that are evolutionary 

versions of current technologies, the methodology has the potential to produce fairly 

accurate estimates of final costs, but as components and systems become different from 

current versions, both the manufacturing and systems integration aspects of this 

methodology will be challenged. 

7
Harbour and Wade questioned the methodology dealing with unit volume. Harbour 

questioned whether the vehicle class summary was used to identify target vehicle 

platforms that would likely adopt the new engine technology and set expected volumes. 

She found 450,000 units to be unrealistically high. Similarly, Wade commented that the 

analysis assumes annual volume of 450,000 units, the basis of which should be 

provided, and which may be inconsistent with the recent severe fluctuations in the 

automotive market. He requested that volume-sensitive costs be provided and the 

methodology be made flexible to the impact of severe fluctuations in the automotive 

market, which could possibly affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

Wade, Harbour, and Das provided other specific comments regarding the process used. 

Wade noted that production testing (e.g., on fuel rails) and end-of-line testing may be 

required for some components or systems but is not addressed in the methodology. 

Harbour stated that the process mapping is sound but manufacturing practices that are 

less than optimal should be addressed by clearly distinguishing between batch and lean 

and possibly a sensitivity analysis showing a mix of practices that are more “batch” 

oriented. Das noted that the linkage between primary fabrication processes and 

secondary cost estimating modules is unclear. Finally, Wade commented that the visual 

teardown inspection used cannot capture many detailed specifications used in the 

manufacture of the part, such as tolerances, surface finishes, or flatness requirements 

that could add additional cost to the parts. However, these processes do not appear to 

be included in Design Profit. 

Harbour and Das provided opposing views on the general use of software in this 

methodology, although both expressed concerns. Das noted that the cost estimation 

approach becomes “fuzzy” after the Lean Design® software converts serial processing 

operations into mass production operations. This process is not at all transparent, at 

times an ad-hoc procedure is used, and it requires subjective judgments along the way. 

He also expressed concern that the material usage “lb” variable is automatically 

uploaded from Process Mapping instead of a user input. However, Harbour commented 

that she has already experienced Design Profit technology in prior projects and is 

confident in its valid integration of product design, manufacturing processes, and 

associated demand, cycle time, labor, material, costs, and forecast data. However, she 

expressed concern that Design Profit uses a static treatment of data, whereas other 

simulation software dynamically models manufacturing behavior and may provide a 

better understanding of cost variances over time. She also noted that Design Profit is 

costing on ideal designs and manufacturing flows that may make costs appear lower. 

Wade, Das, and Harbour all noted potential inconsistencies in the costing methodology. 

Harbour stated that the cost database integration and automatic updates to "active 

Rates" is exceptional, and that the logic used for shipping costs, investment cost as part 

of manufacturing overhead, product development costs, and tooling cost allocation are 

sound. However, she said it is unclear how/if unique investment costs are included or 

referenced and how forecasting of future prices are extrapolated from limited input. 

Wade commented that the Comparison Bill of Materials (CBOM) chart includes a 

provision for accounting for design modifications for material cost reduction (MCR), but 

noted that during the conference call it was indicated that this was not done. Das 

expressed uncertainty about whether the Munro & Associates costing software also is 

used for secondary processes, since mapping of these processes using Design Profit 

software is indicated in the text but not in the costing procedure. Further, he noted that it 

is unclear how tooling and investment assumptions are incorporated into the part cost 

8
estimation, and how tooling is different and estimated as a part of the indirect cost (IC) 

multiplier of the OEM and as manufacturing overhead. Finally, he noted that, while the 

inclusion of MCR and NTA assumptions in the CBOM is an excellent option that should 

be used more frequently to project future cost reductions with technology maturation, it is 

unclear how these have been implemented into the overall cost estimation procedure. 

All reviewers provided comments on the methodology used for markup costs. Assanis 

noted that the calibration of multi-variable, high degree of freedom systems can require 

more resources and time than their direct manufacturing costs, although the availability 

of historical cost databases for relevant components of advanced technology vehicles is 

very limited. Because of this, the related R&D and calibration issues would not be 

captured well by currently used IC multipliers. This will become more significant with 

other technologies, such as electric vehicles. All other reviewers found the need for 

more clear application of the IC multiplier report. Harbour noted that many of the 

premises set forth in the IC multipliers report apply here and should be incorporated. 

She also noted that active rates and mark-ups appear arbitrary and not derived. 

However, she saw no major flaws in the IC multiplier logic, the logic for ED&T mark-up, 

end-item scrap mark-up, SG&A mark-up, Tier 2 and 3 supplier mark-ups, and profit 

mark-up. However for the profit mark-up, she said it is unclear where proprietary or 

unknown materials are used as well as the value of the impacted component in 

achieving more desirable emissions. Das noted that IC has not been applied 

consistently, particularly as the IC relates to a Tier 1 vendor. This is noted repeatedly 

where an OEM has been used as the supplier, but no indirect cost multipliers (ICM) are 

incorporated. He found that the concept of IC multiplier is mentioned several times in 

the document, but no specific applications of the actual data are found. More of his 

specific comments regarding this are included in Appendix C. Similarly, Wade stated 

that the recent ICM study should be applied to capture the overall price for new 

technology because the present methodology generally is designed to determine 

incremental, direct manufacturing costs for new versus baseline technologies. 

Wade and Harbour provided additional, specific comments on the methodologies used 

for technology analysis. Wade stated that the CBOM chart shows potential accounting 

for NTA – which could provide alternative, advanced technology ideas as a potential 

substitute for some existing hardware being evaluated – but that on the conference call it 

was indicated that this was not done. He further noted that differences between 

components contained in both the new technology and comparator baseline but not 

directly related to the technology may need to be analyzed to determine the proper 

handling of these differences. Wade commented further that although the report states 

that “...application of new technologies in five vehicle size classes is considered,” no 

details are provided and that the methodology would require, for each of the five vehicle 

size classes, a detailed analysis to account for significant change in the engine 

configuration for larger engine sizes. He also concluded that the analysis of the port fuel 

injection (PFI) powertrain control module (PCM) cost is insufficient (see detailed 

comments in Appendix E). Harbour questioned how an engine with new or proprietary 

materials and physical designs can have no change in maintenance or end of life costs. 

More significantly, Harbour stated that industry may push back on the general 

assumption that a product technology is mature, or is something that would have been 

invested in any case, especially if EPA regulations mandate significant emission 

reductions over currently planned R&D efforts. She noted that a survey of industry to 

validate the maturity of various technologies and estimate the amount of R&D should be 

built into the suppliers’ price. 

9
Regarding component materials and suppliers, Wade and Das found the methodology 

somewhat lacking, while Harbour generally was pleased with the approach. Wade 

stated that the method for determining the required material weights for the 

manufacturing processes, which would be higher than the finished part weights found in 

the teardown process, was not explained in adequate detail. In particular, material cost 

appears to be derived by multiplying the component part weight by the material cost per 

weight, which ignores metal removal or casting waste. He noted that further explanation 

of the methodology to determine material weights and the overall size of the part in bar 

or rod form should be explained. Wade also commented that the use of the crossfunctional review team is not a rigorous method for determining material used in a 

specific part from a teardown. Instead, a more reliable method, such as conducting an 

analysis of the actual material from the part, should be used. Das found that subjective 

expert judgment is necessary for the material selection process for the unmarked 

materials. Harbour stated that sound logic is used for commodity-based purchased 

parts, primary equipment groupings in Table 2, unknown proprietary material 

compositions, and in the use of marketing firms to trend future prices as compared to 

similar material trends. However, she noted that consideration should be given to why 

proprietary materials are typically used to offset other lifecycle costs when proprietary 

materials typically increase start-up and validation costs. She also commented that the 

material identification methodology is sound and demonstrates real industry knowledge. 

Both Das and Harbour commented that the methodology treating packaging cost is 

adequate. Harbour stated that sound logic was used for packaging selection and costs. 

Das noted that the attention paid in the estimation of packaging cost is good, but 

possibly not worth the consideration because its contribution to the net incremental unit 

part cost may not be as significant as compared to other cost categories. 

Harbour, Das, and Wade all commented on the methodological treatment of wages. 

Harbour found that there was insufficient information to determine how the analysis 

forecasts the union versus non-union labor mix for future dates and recommended a 

sensitivity analysis on this parameter. She found that the logic for calculating and 

applying indirect labor ratio is adequate, as is the logic for calculating the labor rate, 

although it was unclear how the median wage rate is used and how it impacts the Report 

findings. Das agreed that the labor rate estimation approach is sound and based on a 

reliable public data source. However, Wade noted that using labor rates based on the 

described labor mix may result in significant errors in labor costs from applying a mixed 

labor rate to a fully unionized supplier or, conversely, a non-unionized supplier. He said 

further justification is needed, especially following the severe restructuring in the 

automotive industry in 2008 and 2009. Wade further noted that the 2006/2007 fringe 

rate burden data for OEMs may be obsolete as a result of the many recent changes in 

the automotive industry and should be updated. 

Regarding other factors that may be considered along with the cited results, Harbour 

stated that other design features, such as aerodynamics, rolling resistance, type of fuel, 

and weight also work in combination with the engine technology to achieve emission 

levels, and should be considered along with engine technology. She also found it 

unclear whether vehicle classification is useful in determining the potential application of 

the 1.6L engine and its competitive alternatives. Wade noted that the comparison of fuel 

economy for the new technology and comparator baseline vehicle is flawed because the 

new technology is applied to a significantly lighter vehicle. Additionally, he noted that the 

10
methodology does not appear to account for the costs required to reduce emissions of 

the new technology to the level of the baseline, including costs required to ensure 

comparable certification emission levels for the new technology. 

b. Comments Regarding Study Outputs and Validation 

Comments Regarding Study Outputs 

Only Harbour provided comments regarding the grouping and analysis of study outputs. 

She presented three primary recommendations. First, she recommended that various 

parts identified in the CBOMs be classified by their known or projected impact on 

emissions so industrial and consumer costs can be attributed to performance 

capabilities, as expected for a value engineering study. Second, she recommended that 

a list of torque variables be developed and ranked by their financial impact and their 

impact on lowering emissions. These are parameters that can greatly influence the 

financial materiality or discernable improvements in emission levels, such as engineered 

items and union labor content. Third, she recommended that a list of uncertainty factors 

be developed, that uncertainty analysis be used to validate other proxies of prices, and 

that results be indexed to the price models. 

Comments Regarding Study Validation 

Wade and Assanis requested that minor validation steps be taken on the study’s results, 

but Harbour requested a more significant review and validation of the study. Assanis 

requested a sensitivity assessment of the results to the assumption of an average 

volume of 450,000 units. Wade noted that the methodology described subjecting a part 

with high or unexpected cost results to a marketplace crosscheck for validation, but that 

this had not been performed. He stated that this is a critical step for validation of the 

results, especially for the four high cost items. Harbour noted that a statistical expert 

review needs to be added as a final step to validate that the resultant costs are indeed 

statistically different for materials, labor, and combined into direct manufacturing costs. 

She said, in all cases, data used for comparison needs to be described by at least a 

mean and a standard deviation to establish if proposed average costs of the new engine 

are within the price variations assumptions of the baseline engine. An assessment also 

needs to be made of whether future prices will have the same variation between the 

baseline and new engines. Harbour also requested a sensitivity analysis on the different 

classifications discussed in Table 3 and to include changes in arbitrary weighting factors. 

If the regression analysis in Figure 9 is of price averages, Harbour noted that a statistical 

test of homoscedasticity is needed to validate the weightings. Harbour also called for an 

uncertainty analysis for ill-defined or unknown materials, manufacturing, and 

procurement practices that materially affect cost outcomes in addition to the sensitivity 

analysis. She said the uncertainty analysis should validate other proxies of prices, such 

as raw material cost trends and exchange rate fluctuations, then subsequently index 

them to the price models used. Finally, Harbour stated that uncertainty factors should 

be aligned to torque variables and ranked to their impact on lowering emissions. 

11
III. Editorial Comments 

a. Comments on Organization and Pagination 

Generally, the reviewers considered the Report presentation to be adequate. Harbour 

stated that the flow is logical. 

Assanis noted that page numbering is confusing. Das noted that in Section 5.0, 

“material costs include a combination of raw materials, material processing scrap, and 

commodity purchased parts,” but material cost is discussed in Section 6 and material 

processing scrap has been included under “End-Item Scrap” based on the methodology 

described in the document – he said this organization should be improved. Harbour 

noted that parts should be classified as repairable or replaceable and this should be 

included in the organization, since this affects the consumer's cost of ownership. 

Wade and Assanis presented two specific organizational comments. Wade noted that to 

evaluate the validity of the overall methodology, information needs to be added 

regarding the software and databases with respect to 1) what the software does, 2) how 

embedded data in the software or the databases were developed, and 3) how the 

software or databases have been validated. Assanis stated that the Report relies on 

presenting the proposed methodology in tandem with the case study, but references a 

large number of spreadsheets and databases in appendices that obfuscates the 

presentation of the general methodology in the body of the Report. Although he 

approved of including in the Report a comprehensive case study, he said the 

presentation of specific examples is too lengthy while other sections, particularly those 

where key methodological assumptions are presented, are too laconic. He stated the 

draft generally needs to be reorganized and provided a suggested structure, which is 

presented in his full comments (Appendix B). 

b. Comments on Grammar and Wording 

Reviewers provided the following typographical edits: 

• Pages 1-3: there is a typo in the Flowchart. “Cross Fucntion” should be “Cross 

Function.” (Assanis) 

• Pages 4-5, 4th paragraph: “To accomplish this” needs to be followed by a 

comma. (Assanis) 

• Page 5.2, the first line: “...are involved...” has an extra period. (Assanis) 

• Pages 6-7: the last line “Annual Adjustment Factors” should be corrected to 

“Annual Adjustment Factor.” (Wade) 

• Page 31: the last line: “...in the cast study analysis.” should be changed to “...in 

the cost study analysis.” (Wade) 

• Page 35, Section 6.2.3: line 6: “...Metalprices, estainlesssteel...” should be 

changed to “...metal prices, stainless steel...” (Wade) 

• Page 36, Section 6.2.4, paragraph 2, line 1 and Figure 9: “Figure 9 illustrates the 

power curve...” should be changed to “Figure 9 illustrates the price curve...” 

(Wade) 

• Page 45, line 1: “...establish the reference the baseline...” should be changed to 

“...establish the reference baseline...” (Wade) 

12
• Page 52, line 2: “...same level of mark-up is applied regardless the...” should be 

changed to “...same level of mark-up is applied regardless of the...” (Wade) 

• Page 58, last paragraph, line 4: “...manufacturing costs are capture for the...” 

should be changed to “...manufacturing costs are captured for the...” (Wade) 

• Page 58, last paragraph, next to the last line: “Alternatively in single a MAQS...” 

should be changed to “Alternatively in a single MAQS...” (Wade) 

• Page 61, first paragraph under Section 9.3, line 4:“...interactions tacking place...” 

should be changed to “...interactions taking place...” (Wade) 

Reviewers provided the following suggestions to provide clarity and consistency within 

the Report: 

• Page 4.5, 3rd paragraph: “Most all of the processes” needs rewriting. (Assanis) 

• Pages 4-5: the factoring methodology used to deal with part variability needs 

more description. (Assanis) 

• Page A-0, section 3.1: The statement that no new technology was considered 

between a naturally-aspirated I4 and a downsized turbocharged engine is 

confusing. (Assanis) 

• Page 13: The convention adopted in this report of referring to a “quote” as the 

“analytically-determined cost of a part or assembly, not a price provided by a 

supplier”, is misleading. Common terminology is that a quote is a price provided 

by a supplier. An analytically determined cost should be called an “analytically 

determined cost” in the Report. (Wade) 

• The authors should better define and be prepared to defend the "judicious 

scaling" protocol used. (Harbour) 

• Modules, top level components, end-item components, parts, are introduced as 

new terms in the system hierarchy, but could be better written to use generic 

terminology. (Harbour) 

• The Report uses mixed and confusing definitions of system/subsystem/high level 

modules/modules/top level components/assemblies/components/end-item 

components/piece parts/parts hierarchies. The author often uses multiple terms 

to describe the same part. Generally, the hierarchy needs to be defined and 

consistently used throughout analysis. (Harbour) 

• The subsystem, sub-subsystem, assembly, subassembly, component are all well 

stated, but the Report does not read this consistently. Also, it is unclear if levels 

change as data is entered in Design Profit. (Harbour) 

• The term “high level modules” is introduced as part of the Design Profit 

nomenclature. (Harbour) 

• While there is an excellent distinction between MCR and NTA, a better 

operational definition is needed. (Harbour) 

• The distinction between Lean Design and Design Profit needs to be clarified. 

(Harbour) 

• The statement "annual consumption rate which impacts whether high or low 

volume prices are used" is unclear regarding whether a nominal or mean rate is 

also used (or just high or low?). (Harbour) 

• A definition of financial materiality is needed. (Harbour) 

• The authors should clarify what method is used for the investment cost 

depreciation over the production volume in the estimation of manufacturing 

overhead rate. (Das) 

13
• The authors should clarify whether there are known variances in the active rate 

and if/how these are accounted for in determining either statistical differences 

and/or financial materiality. (Harbour)

• While the work assignment focuses on the determination of incremental direct 

manufacturing cost, a solid definition of direct manufacturing costs should be 

added. (Das)

• The five vehicle classes considered should be mapped to the 13 EPA vehicle 

classes {49 CFR part 523}. (Das)

• The variable OEM/T1 Classification in Appendix G should be uniformly added to 

the subsystem worksheets. (Das) 

• A glossary of terms should be provided. (Wade) 

• Each of the appendices should be listed in the Table of Contents (Wade) 

• An operational definition of high and low volumes; high impact purchased parts, 

low impact purchased parts and commodity parts; standard/mainstream industrial 

practices; and how parts were deemed to be excluded should be added. 

(Harbour) 

• The authors should clarify whom or what validates NTA’s "fitness for use." 

(Harbour) 

• A representative formula should be given that describes the use of input factors, 

following the first paragraph of Page 4-6. (Assanis) 

• An explanation of “composition analysis plus surcharge” should be provided. 

(Wade) 

• For ease of cross-referencing, the numbering used for the subsystems 

throughout the analysis should be used on the summary chart showing the 

incremental costs. (Wade) 

• In numerous cases, instead of citing a published reference, recourse is made to 

a consultation between EPA and FEV, or feedback from a subject matter expert 

without presentation of ranges and sensitivities considered, and a discussion of 

where the estimate selected for this study fell within the range. (Assanis) 

• Clarification is needed on the protocol employed to determine if differences in 

emission benefits and cost factors, for base versus new components, are worthy 

of industry investment and consumer investment. (Harbour) 

• While "Component level quotes" are logically classified as full quote, modification 

quote, and differential quote, operational definitions should be added for each 

with clear examples. (Harbour) 

• The Report should be explicit in where current OEM and Supplier manufacturing 

equipment and facility capabilities are insufficient. (Harbour) 

c. Recommended Content to be Added 

In addition to the specific itemized changes listed above, reviewers made numerous 

comments regarding the need for additional material in some sections. 

Assanis noted that, in general, there should be more discussion of the results presented 

in figures, tables, worksheets, and more critical assessment of results, rather than just 

summarizing the results in a table or figure, and more discussion of uncertainties present 

in the analysis along with specific findings. For example, in Section 5, page A-0, a 

section on IC multipliers is needed to summarize key findings of the companion EPA 

study, along with a discussion of areas where improvement to that methodology needs 

14
to be made to deal with the R&D and calibration costs of some of the new technologies 

(especially high complexity, disruptive electrical technologies). 

Regarding use of databases, Das noted that annual consumption rates and source 

references to the materials database are not listed in Figures 7A and 7B and that the 

material price needs to be referenced to a specific production volume with indications of 

the volume sensitivity factor. Although the electronic database contained some of the 

information, he said the report text should be clarified. Wade noted that the databases 

for material costs, labor rates, manufacturing overhead rates, mark-up rates, and 

packaging costs provide the foundation of the cost analysis, but were not adequately 

addressed in the Report and were not provided for review with the original package. 

Furthermore, he noted that descriptions of how the proprietary software and databases 

were validated, which would be required to determine the accuracy of the cost 

estimates, are not included. Wade also state that while parts considered a “buy” and 

“surrogate costs are pulled from an applicable database” there is inadequate description 

of this “applicable database,” including how it was developed and how it was validated. 

Further, Wade noted that Appendix G states that a “Purchase Part Database” is used to 

provide values for commodity purchased parts, but it is unclear if and how this database 

differs from the “applicable database.” Generally, he said the methodology makes 

extensive use of proprietary software and databases, which are not available for peer 

review. Without detailed information regarding these proprietary tools, especially Lean 

Design, Design Profit, “An applicable database” for surrogate costs, and the “Purchase 

Part Database,” the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot be determined. The Report 

needs to clarify how these four software and databases are related. 

Reviewers also provided comments regarding Design Profit and Lean Design. Assanis 

noted that its description is too superficial, even considering Figure 2. The key 

assumptions and algorithms of the methodology need to be presented, and a discussion 

of the mapping process needs to be included in Figure 2. Wade noted that more 

information is needed on the details of Design Profit, especially how it determines the 

times required for each step of the process, how the software results were validated, and 

to clarify how the Lean Design input to the MAQS differs from the Design Profit input into 

the MAQS. Das stated that the manufacturing assumptions section, positioned to the 

right of the quote summary section in MAQS, is where the additional assumptions and 

calculations are made to convert the serial processing operations from Lean Design into 

mass production operations, but inadequate information is given regarding the 

underlying assumptions and calculations. Harbour stated that having a consistent 

hierarchy and part naming between spreadsheets, Design Profit, and the Report would 

add value. Assanis noted that several critical assumptions of the methodology are not 

presented in the Report, but instead are left to reference the proprietary software Design 

Profit. While recognizing the need to protect proprietary intellectual property, he said the 

basic assumptions, math, and algorithms should be described in the Report to give the 

reader a basis for judgment without giving away sensitive cost figures, etc. Harbour 

noted that a more detailed diagram is needed to show the flow of information into and 

out of the MAQS worksheet, especially regarding mark-up levels shown in Figure 14. 

Finally, Harbour commented that a data architecture diagram indicating which secondary 

cost estimating modules, Munro cost databases, etc., are used and how they feed into 

Design Profit, would be useful to put forth premises, arguments, and conclusions for 

future EPA regulations. She also said all data sources should be validated statistically 

with hypothesis stated regarding differences between base and new technology. 

15
All reviewers requested clarifying information regarding overhead and labor costs. For 

example, Wade noted that "the Applied Burden Rate generally results in labor costs that 

are many times higher than the direct labor costs,” however the derivation and validation 

of the values used in the equation for calculating Applied Burden Rate were not clearly 

described in the Report. Since the Applied Burden Rate has a major influence on the 

overall labor costs, he said the lack of adequate detail regarding the values used to 

calculate the Applied Burden Rate is a concern and could potentially affect the accuracy 

of the cost estimate. Harbour noted that acquiring Manufacturing Overhead Data is the 

most nebulous part of the Report and that more explanation of sources is needed to 

support numbers. Das stated that estimation of manufacturing overhead rates is one of 

the critical elements to the overall cost estimation process – it is dependent on many 

parameters but the database neither indicates the estimation procedure nor its 

underlying assumptions. Pages 6-16, Section 6.4.3, indicates that a template has been 

developed to better organize and access these various data sources, but no such 

example was available in the documentation. Finally, Harbour noted that Figure 11 is 

unclear how the median wage rate is used other than to provide an informal method to 

determine skewness and how this parameter impacts the Report findings. 

Regarding the scaling methodology for other engine sizes, Assanis noted that the Report 

states that judicious scaling of the tear-down cost results is assumed to adequately 

represent other vehicles. While the scaling process is a critical part of the methodology, 

he said this is not adequately discussed. Other than the scaling assumptions 

documented in quote assumptions of the CBOM, a summary needs to be included. 

Wade noted that the make-up of the cross-functional team that reviews all of the data 

from the high-level teardown is critical, but that the qualifications and experience of the 

cross-functional team members, which would be expected to affect the quality of the 

reviews, are not provided. He said this should be added because the qualifications and 

experience of the team could possibly affect the accuracy of overall costs. 

Das, Harbour, and Wade all requested that additional information be added to the report 

regarding costing. Harbour noted that the Report should explicitly state the volume 

basis for the net incremental costs and whether the incremental costs are statistically 

significant at any volume or financially material (to the producer and/or to the consumer) 

at the proposed volume. Wade commented that to assess accuracy of cost estimates, 

an explanation of “total serial process time” input data should be provided, along with 

clarification of the phrase “referenced to mass production assumption calculations.” 

Harbour requested that the Report provide the statistical basis for the library of costing 

models, such as the source of data, number of data points (samples), average, and 

standard deviation. Similarly, Das noted that the Report mentions that Munro & 

Associates costing software is used to calculate the primary fabrication parameters 

including part cost estimation, but insufficient documentation and references are 

provided on the estimation methodology. Also, he questioned whether this follows the 

same cost model principle outlined elsewhere in the report, including the manufacturing 

overhead database for investment cost information. Wade noted that the assignment of 

a low or high annual consumption rate affects pricing for a material, yet this is not 

reflected in Figure 7. He requested that the text of the Report state that the application 

of either low or high annual consumption rate pricing for a specific material be found in 

Appendix E and that confirmation of the pricing with supplier quotes be added and/or 

made apparent in the Appendix. He stated that this is viable since, at least for high 

annual consumption rate materials, pricing should have been confirmed with supplier 

16
quotes. Harbour stated that, for the most likely incremental cost drivers, presenting the 

assumptions used around differences to potential OEMs is critical. She said the Brief 

Explanation of Differences column needs to be classified by attribute and type of 

difference, such as weight and material. 

Finally, regarding a specific calculation, Block Turbo Shaft Support – Cooling & Lub, 

Wade noted that the calculation includes four manual and four automatic stations to 

derive a parallel process multiplier of eight. Since this implies that all eight stations have 

labor associated with them, he requested that an explanation of why an “automatic” 

station needs to have a labor charge provided. 

d. Comments on the Appendices 

All reviewers provided comments on appendix materials. Many of the methodological or 

specific clarifications are addressed in other sections, as appropriate, but comments 

referring principally to editorial comments or omissions in the material are included here. 

Assanis wondered how, due to size and format limitations, certain database files will be 

made available in hard copy form. Wade recommended that the appendices be relabeled so that the designations E.1, F.1, etc. are clearly associated with the respective 

topic. Harbour, however, commented that the appendices are generally exceptional and 

indicate that information is derived from resources that know the industry. 

More specifically, Das stated that the following omissions in the appendices should be 

addressed: Quote Assumptions, Component Specification Assumptions, Component 

Manufacturing Assumptions, and the Potential Component Suppliers in the CBOM for 

the included example. Also, he found the list of variables listed in Appendix F, Table F.1 

(currently labeled Table E.1) to be inconsistent for the example case shown in Appendix 

G. Further, he noted that none of the outputs in Appendix G indicate the year (current 

vs. future) on which the cost analysis is based and that Appendix F.1 manufacturing 

process input parameters listed under “Project Process Requirements” disagree with 

those used in the actual example shown in Appendix G. 

17
Appendix A - Charge to Peer Reviewers 

A-1 
Peer Reviewer Charge 

Charge to the Peer Reviewers of EPA’s LD Technology Cost Report

EPA’s Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Report is a key milestone in an extensive 

effort being carried out by FEV, under contract with EPA, to estimate the costs of 

technologies likely to be used in meeting future light-duty highway vehicle GHG 

emissions standards. This report details the methodologies used by FEV and its 

subcontractor(s) to determine a cost for various light duty (LD) emission control 

strategies and reports the results of this work to date. No independent data analysis will 

be required for this review. 

Specifically, EPA is seeking the reviewer’s expert opinion on the methodologies being 

used in this cost work and whether they are likely to yield accurate results. Toward this 

end, we ask that each subject matter expert comment on all aspects of the report, with 

particular emphasis on the costing methodology and sources of information used in 

determining labor rates, material prices, manufacturing burdens and other key factors. 

In preparing their comments, each reviewer should distinguish between 

recommendations for clearly defined improvements that can be readily made, based on 

data or literature reasonably available to EPA, and improvements that are more 

exploratory or dependent, which would be based on information not readily available to 

EPA. Comments should be clear and detailed enough to EPA readers or other parties 

familiar with the report to allow a thorough understanding of the comment’s relevance to 

material provided for review. EPA requests that the reviewers not release the peer 

review materials or their comments until the Agency makes its report/cost model and 

supporting documentation public. EPA will notify the reviewers when this occurs. 

A-2 
Appendix B - Dr. Dennis Assanis Response to Peer 

Review Charge 

B-1 
Review on Draft Report 

“Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study” 

Prepared by FEV for EPA under contract No. EP-C-07-069 September 3, 2009 

SUMMARY COMMENTS 

The objective of this study is to determine incremental direct manufacturing costs for a 

set of advanced light-duty vehicle technologies which are on the leading edge for 

reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. To a large degree, the study is based on 

teardown of vehicle systems employing the new technologies, comparing differences 

with baseline, and costing the components and systems based on databases of 

materials, labor, manufacturing, overhead and mark-up costs to arrive at final results. 

The objective is pursued by laying out the general methodology and then applying it to 

assess the cost differences between a conventional I4 engine and a turbocharged 

downsized I4 engine. 

In the spirit of improving the quality of the study and the report, the reviewer provides 

several general and detailed comments for consideration by the contracting agency and 

the authors of the report. The topic that EPA and FEV have attempted to tackle is both 

an important one and a hard one for arriving at a universal methodology for assessing 

cost differentials for implementation of new technologies into vehicles. Right from the 

outset, it should be recognized that the proposed methodology focuses more heavily on 

tracking component materials and manufacturing costs and less on system integration 

issues and costs. The latter are typically captured through experiential, proprietary 

indirect cost multipliers. To the extent that the new powertrain technologies are 

evolutionary versions of current technologies (for instance based on different materials 

and manufacturing processes for relevant components and sub-systems), the 

methodology has the potential to produce fairly accurate estimates of final costs. 

However, as components and systems become radically different than today’s versions, 

such as in electrified versus mechanical powertrains, both the manufacturing as well as 

the systems integration aspects of the methodology will be increasingly challenged. 

Of the powertrain technologies identified for evaluation, some are advanced versions of 

current powertrains, i.e. downsized turbo-charged GDI, advanced diesel, advanced 

transmissions. Others such as HCCI and lean-burn GDI, while still predominantly 

mechanical powertrains, involve new challenges in electronics, calibration, and catalytic 

aftertreatment. In particular, the calibration of multi-variable, high degree of freedom 

systems can require more resources and time than their direct manufacturing costs. 

Beyond those, as electrification content in the vehicles is increasing, such as in hybrid 

electric vehicles, plug-in-hybrids and full electric vehicles, the availability of historical 

cost databases for relevant components (and especially batteries) is very limited. In 

addition, power electronics, system integration and power management strategies will 

become extremely important; the related R&D and calibration issues would not be 

captured well by currently used IC multipliers. In order to provide a general framework 

for assessing costs of different light-duty powertrain technologies, i.e. both currently 

deployed and emerging, more effort will need to go towards addressing the electrical 

side, ideally accompanied by a relevant case study. 

Several critical assumptions of the methodology are not presented in the report, but 

instead reference is made to the Munro & Associates proprietary software Design 

B-2 
Profit®. While recognizing the need to protect proprietary intellectual property, the basic 

assumptions, math and algorithms should be described in the report to give the reader a 

basis for judgment without giving away sensitive cost figures, etc. This way more 

confidence can be built in the process followed, otherwise it has the appearance of a 

black box to the reviewers and readers. 

The report cites the use of Indirect Cost multipliers to capture the full cost of a new 

powertrain technology, including OEM ED&T costs. While a detailed assessment of

those factors is not within the state scope of the analysis, they constitute an important 

costs factor, especially for new technologies. The reviewer recognizes that EPA has 

recently published a study entitled “Automobile Industry Retail Price Equivalent and 

Indirect Cost Multipliers”. The present study should include a section presenting an 

executive summary of this companion study, along with a discussion of areas where 

improvement to that methodology needs to be made to deal with the R&D and 

calibration costs of some of the new technologies (especially high complexity, disruptive 

electrical technologies). 

In numerous other cases in the report, instead of citing a published reference, recourse 

is made to a consultation between EPA and FEV, or feedback from a subject matter 

expert. In such cases, presentation of ranges and sensitivities considered, and a 

discussion of where the estimate selected for this study fell within the range would be 

more instructive to the reader. 

COMMENTS ON ORGANIZATION OF REPORT 

From an organizational perspective, the draft report relies considerably on presenting 

the proposed methodology in tandem with the illustrative case study. The inclusion of 

and reference to a large number of spreadsheets and databases in appendices makes it 

harder to clearly present the general methodology in the body of the report, outline the 

basis and assumptions, and critically assess what aspects of the methodology would 

need to be modified for assessment of mechanical, hybrid or electric powertrain 

architectures and various vehicle classes. The idea of including in the report a 

comprehensive case study is excellent. However, the report is lengthy at places, such 

as in presentation of specific examples, but too laconic at other places where key 

assumptions of the methodology are presented. The draft can definitely benefit from reorganization and better balancing of its chapters. A possible structure to consider 

follows: 

• First, present the methodology so its assumptions and sensitivities become 

clear. Give special consideration to the fact that different powertrain platforms 

(beyond the one in the selected case study) need to be assessed. 

• Following the presentation of the methodology, it would be helpful to summarize 

the required inputs for the analysis (e.g., description of required cost databases, 

material and manufacturing process cost information, labor rates, ICM rates, 

etc). 

• The subsequent section should describe how the methodology and inputs are 

applied to a case study (which would be in the appendices). Following the 

presentation of results, essentially Table 1 of the present report, it would be 

useful to: 

(i) discuss the validation of the estimates against available industryaveraged data 

B-3 
(ii) present sensitivities of results to key assumptions, including select 

illustrations of what-if scenaria (e.g., different labor rates, volume 

discounts, ICM multipliers, etc). This exercise would be useful to 

highlight how different audiences of the report could use its content, in 

case they disagreed with key assumptions or had better cost (or other) 

data available. 

• Budget permitting, a second case study pertaining to hybrid powertrains would 

be desirable, particularly because cost differential figures reported by industry 

are widely varying. In the absence of performing a second case study for a 

hybrid powertrain, a discussion of anticipated challenges to the methodology 

would be helpful. 

• Finally, a summary, conclusions, and recommendations for further study need to 

be presented to close the report. 

In general, there should be more discussion of the results presented in figures, tables, 

worksheets (e.g., assumptions made and input parameter ranges), and more critical 

assessment of results (e.g., which technologies, materials, processes seem to 

incrementally or additively contribute the most), rather than just summarizing the results 

in a table or figure. More discussion of uncertainties present in the analysis should be 

presented along with specific findings so as to enable the reader to place the findings 

into proper perspective. For instance, different OEMs pay different prices to suppliers 

for the same component. Currently, it is not apparent how a reader can extract useful 

output based on different set of critical assumptions and costs. 

On another note, page numbering is confusing. I assume this will be corrected in the 

final report. 

Also, due to size and format limitations, certain database files are not available in hard 

copy form. How will this impact the final report in hard copy form? 

DETAILED TECHNICAL COMMENTS 

Page 1-2: The new technologies characterized for study using the proposed approach 

are quantized into discrete bins, when in fact we could very well see in production hybrid 

versions of the options much sooner. For instance, some GDI engines could operate 

under the lean stratified mode when at part-load conditions, yet operate at homogenous 

stoichiometric conditions when requiring full power. The list in the report seems to 

suggest that GDI engines operate with “one or the other” strategy. Furthermore, 

GDI/HCCI employing spark-ignition for part of the range (start-up and high load) and 

HCCI combustion mode for all other regimes. In many ways, HCCI is a combustion 

mode that can be realized through the integration of several technology packages. While 

camless is one way to enable HCCI (and will require a longer time horizon), HCCI can 

be realized via the use of cam profile switching/ phasing and mechanical lift control. 

Depending on the implementation selected, the manufacturing, R&D and calibration 

costs can vary significantly. 

Page 1-2: A notable omission from the list is flexible/alternative fuel powertrain 

packages. 

Page 1-2: Discuss the basis for the assumption of an average volume of 450,000 units. 

How would results be sensitive if the volume were larger of smaller? 

 Page 1-3: Note typo in Flowchart. “Cross Fucntion” should be “Cross Function”. 

B-4 
Page A-0, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs: It is mentioned that reliable results can be obtained 

though judicious scaling of the tear-down results costs up or down across the relevant 

vehicle classes. While it is mentioned that the scaling process is a critical part of the 

methodology, it is not adequately discussed. Some scaling assumptions are 

documented in quote assumptions of CBOM. A summary needs to be inserted in this 

section. 

Page A-0, section 3.1: The statement that no new technology was considered between 

a naturally-aspirated I4 and a downsized turbocharged engine is confusing. 

Page 4.2 and 4.3: The description of the Design Profit methodology is too superficial 

and Figure 2 does not add much to the picture. The key assumptions and algorithms of 

the methodology need to be presented in this section, as it is central to the overall 

methodology. If Figure 2 is included, a discussion of the mapping process needs to 

accompany it. 

Page 4.5, 3rd paragraph: “Most all of the processes” needs rewriting. 

Page 4-5, 4th paragraph: “To accomplish this” needs to be followed by a comma. 

Page 4-5, 4th paragraph: The factoring methodology used to deal with part variability 

needs more description. 

Page 4-6, 1st paragraph: The worksheets used these input factors within formulas. This 

is too vague. Can a representative formula be given? 

Section 5, page A-0: A section on IC multipliers, summarizing key findings of the 

companion EPA study, should be added to the present report (see also my earlier 

comment). 

Page 5.2, first line: “...are involved..” Delete the extra period. 

Section 6.3: The structure of labor wages and rates has changed significantly given the 

recent turmoil in the North American Automotive Industry (both OEMs and suppliers). 

However, certain estimates have been based on historical rates (e.g., on page 6-1, 

fringe rates have been based on a 2006/2007 average UAW OEM wage and labor rate). 

Page 6-7, last line: An “Annual Adjustment Factors” should be corrected to “Annual 

Adjustment Factor”. 

B-5 
Appendix C - Mr. Sujit Das Response to Peer Review 

Charge 

C-1 
Review Comments 

On 

Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study, FEV Draft Report, Sept. 3, 2009 

By 

Sujit Das, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37932-6205 

(dass@ornl.gov; 865-946-1222) 

October 5, 2009 

1. Overall, the detailed cost estimation approach based on teardowns of vehicles than 

the past basis of supplier price quotes for key components appears to be a reasonable 

one. A lot of details have been addressed by using this bottom-up approach. This 

approach would work great for an existing technology, but finding a comparable vehicle 

where new technologies have been implemented may be difficult for the incremental 

cost estimation of new technologies. The approach seems to be prohibitively expensive 

and time-consuming for a regular use although scaling to what extent may avoid this 

problem is unclear. It’d be good to elaborate the scaling methodology for the report 

completeness. 

2. The cost estimation approach becomes fuzzy after the Lean Design software converts 

serial processing operations into mass production operations. The methodology 

described here is not at all transparent, and at times ad-hoc procedure is used. The 

overall approach seems quite complex, requiring subjective judgments along the way. 

For example, in Sect. 4, it is mentioned that not all processes and operations are 

mapped in full detail using Design software, instead supporting information from other 

manufacturing cost estimating tools is used. 

3. A lack of appropriate software documentation from the Munro & Associates website 

as well as some discussion in the FEV report makes it difficult to assess the validity of 

internal costing tools of Munro & Associates used to develop serial manufacturing 

process times including primary fabrication parameters and a consideration of part 

variability through a factoring methodology. It is not clear how manufacturing parameters 

have been linked to the parameters estimated by the suite of Munro & Associates 

software. A listing of various software used along with its scope would be useful. It would 

be good to know to what extent the validation of the Munro & Associates software has 

been done to date. 

4. On pg. 4-4 last paragraph: Mentions that all primary fabrication processes, the parts 

are quoted using secondary cost estimating modules and the key process information is 

fed back into the process maps. Not clear what it means the linkage between primary 

fabrication processes and secondary cost estimating modules. Why secondary and not 

primary cost estimating modules? 

C-2 
5. Estimation of manufacturing overhead rates is one of the critical elements to the 

overall cost estimation process. It would be dependent on so many parameters and the 

database does neither indicate the estimation procedure and nor underlying 

assumptions. Pg. 6-16, Sect. 6.4.3, indicates that a template has been developed to 

better organize and access these various data sources – but no such example was 

available in the documentation. 

6. It would be good to map five vehicle classes considered for the cost estimation to 13 

EPA vehicle classes in accordance with 49 CFR part 523. 

7. The average annual production volume assumption of 450K units for a robust market 

penetration rate may not be the same across various technology types if numerous 

suppliers would be involved in such a new technology component manufacturing at the 

same time. Since our cost estimation is based on an individual tier-level supplier, annual 

production volume needs to be appropriately adjusted based on the manufacturing 

technology and component type under consideration. Examples shown in Appendices 

did not indicate varying annual production assumptions. 

8. The inclusion of MCR and NTAs assumptions in CBOM is an excellent option and 

they should rather be used more frequently to project future cost reductions with 

maturation of technologies. However, how these have been implemented into the overall 

cost estimation procedure is unclear. 

9. Didn’t find the following sections in CBOM for the example included in the appendix of 

the document: Quote Assumptions, Component Specification Assumptions, Component 

Manufacturing Assumptions, and the Potential Component Suppliers. 

10. On pg. 4-5 mentions that once the materials and primary processes used in making 

the part are identified, Munroe & Associates costing software is used to calculate the 

primary fabrication parameters including part cost estimation. Any documentation or 

reference available on the estimation methodology? Does this follow the same cost 

model principle as outlined in Sect. 5, including the manufacturing overhead database 

for investment cost information? 

11. Is the Munroe & Associates costing software also used in the case of secondary 

processes as well? Mapping of these processes using Design Profit software is indicated 

on pg. 4-6, para 2, but not the costing procedure. 

12. Under Sect. 1.1, para 2 mentions that the work assignment focus is on the 

determination of incremental direct manufacturing cost. It would be useful to define what 

does the direct manufacturing cost mean? 

13. At the component level, T1 or OEM manufacturing cost is first calculated, and then 

T1 or OEM markup rate is used to estimate the T1 supplier cost. But for the final 

estimation of net cost impact to vehicle, IC multiplier is the only appropriate mark-up 

factor to be used which estimates vehicle level cost – it was not found to be applied in 

any of the cases. The concept of IC multiplier has been mentioned several times in the 

document, but the actual data used and its specific application was not found in the 

document. If cost level is limited to only at the T1 supplier level as appears to be the 

case for the example shown, how is tooling cost which has been assumed to be a part of 

C-3 
OEM cost, has been included in the analysis here? Also, different markup rates for T1 

suppliers other than provided in Table 2, pg. 6-21 and mark up database spreadsheet 

file in some MAQS in Appendix G have been used. A further discussion regarding this in 

the document would be useful. 

14. It is good to find that the some attention has been paid in the estimation of packaging 

cost. But the question is it worth the consideration since its contribution to the net 

incremental unit part cost may not be as significant compared to other cost categories. 

15. It is unclear from para 2, p. 6-16, what method is used for the investment cost 

depreciation over the production volume in the estimation of manufacturing overhead 

rate. 

16. Sect. 6.2.1, p. 6-2 mentions about annual consumption rates and source references 

in the materials database. But in Figures 7A and 7B they are not mentioned and also the 

material price based on what production volume to indicate where the volume sensitivity 

factor needs to be applied (the electronic database contained some of the information). 

17. Quite a bit of subjective expert judgment is necessary for the material selection 

process for the unmarked materials (Sect. 6.2.2).

18. P. 6-10. Any basis why OEM fringe rate is more than three times higher than for 

tiered supplier manufacturing? 

19. p. 6-22. It may not be accurate to apply the same level of mark-up regardless of the 

primary manufacturing process group and primary manufacturing equipment group 

involved. Besides the company size and part complexity, the actual manufacturing 

technology type would also influence the final mark-up rate. 

20. End-Item Scrap Mark-up includes mainly the warranty cost if the cost methodology is 

based on the ANL Vyas et al. 2000 publication. It looks here this cost item also includes 

in-process scrap, which is more appropriate to be handled under manufacturing 

overhead rate reflecting better the technology characteristics. 

21. Any source for the assumption of 0.3%-0.7% of the TMC for End-Item Scrap Markup? Derivation of this data from the cost review may be difficult for technologies yet to be 

commercialized. 

22. Labor rate estimation approach is sound and based on a reliable public data source. 

23. Pg. 9-3: the manufacturing assumption section, positioned to the right of the quote 

summary section in MAQS, is where the additional assumptions and calculations are 

made to convert the serial processing operations from Lean Design into mass production 

operations. Without explicit knowledge of these underlying assumptions and 

calculations, it is hard to verify the estimate accuracy. 

24. Using a standard quoting template used by the automotive industry for the MAQS is 

an excellent approach -- specially for which this intense cost modeling effort deserves 

credit. 

C-4 
25. Sect. 9.3, pg. 9-5, para 2: Instead of Appendix E, Table E.1 should have been 

Appendix F, Table F.1. However, the detailed description provided in this appendix has 

been extremely useful. However, the list of variables listed here were not found to be 

consistent for the example case shown in Appendix G. 

26. Why in Appendix G, the variable OEM/T1 Classification is not always shown on 

subsystem worksheets? 

27. Appendix F.1 (pg. 4 of 16): Shouldn’t the Material Usage “lb” variable be 

automatically uploaded from Process Mapping instead of a user input? 

28. Appendix F. 1 (pg. 6 of 16): Tooling and Investment Assumptions are included but 

how are these incorporated into part cost estimation? Since tooling has been mentioned 

as a part of ICM of OEM and investment as manufacturing overhead, how are these 

different and estimated? 

29. Appendix F. 1 (pg. 14 of 16): For the estimation of “Base Cost Impact to Vehicle”, 

wouldn’t the IC multiplier be used for at the final OEM level? Didn’t find the use of it in 

the example presented. 

30. Appendix F. 1 (pg. 10 of 16): Provides manufacturing process input parameters 

under “Project Process Requirements”, but the variable names seem to be different than 

used in the actual example shown in Appendix G. 

30. Consideration of maintenance and end-of-life costs has been given but the approach 

discussed hasn’t been detailed enough and it appears to be a subjective one and not 

robust. 

31. p. 12-2, para 2: mentions about “as discussed in Sect. 5.0, material costs include a 

combination of raw materials, material processing scrap, and commodity purchased 

parts.” But material cost is discussed in Sect. 6 and material processing scrap has been 

included under “End-Item Scrap” based on the methodology described in the document. 

32. Appendix G.1-03, 2 of 7: Although component has been manufactured by OEM, why 

isn’t the ICM used in this case? Same in the case of Appendix G, 1-05, 2 of 8 and 

several others where OEM has been used as the supplier. 

33. None of the outputs in Appendix G indicates the year (current vs. future) assumed on 

which the cost analysis is based. 

C-5 
Appendix D - Ms. Laurie Harbour Response to Peer 

Review Charge 

D-1 
Review of: Report FEV 07-069-103F 

Background

Harbour Results appreciates the opportunity to be a member of the review team to validate the 

methodology employed in the Light-duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study, Contract No. 

EP-C-07-069, dated September 3, 2009. A team of four resources provided input to the 

feedback. These included Laurie Harbour, John Monica, and Rich MacInnes. 

Our Charge as Reviewers

EPA is seeking the reviewer’s - 

- Expert opinion on the methodologies being used in this cost work and whether they are 

likely to yield accurate results. 

- Subject matter expert comment on all aspects of the report, with particular emphasis 

- Costing methodology 

- Sources of information used in determining labor rates, material prices, 

manufacturing burdens and other key factors. 

Each reviewer should distinguish - 

- Between recommendations for clearly defined improvements that can be readily made, 

based on data or literature reasonably available to EPA 

- Improvements that are more exploratory or dependent, which would be based on 

information not readily available to EPA. 

Comments should be clear and detailed enough to EPA readers or other parties familiar with the 

report to allow a thorough understanding of the comment’s relevance to material provided for 

review. 

Review Report Organization

To aid in the feedback, Harbour Results Inc. (HRI) has organized its feedback into the following 

four sections. 

 

- General Feedback 

- Feedback Classification 

- Feedback order by report structure (HRI FEV 07-069-103F Review.xls) 

- Feedback sorted by classification (HRI FEV 07-069-103F Review.xls) 

General Feedback

HRI appreciates EPA’s efforts to develop a detailed cost analysis “bottom-up” approach versus 

an economic “top down” approach to estimating impact of technology changes on the 

marketplace. We believe the most accurate forecasts and estimates must lever both perspectives. 

This report does not identify economic and marketplace assumptions. 

D-2 
D-3 

HRI is concerned that the transportation industry is fragile and recovery will be a long time 

coming. However, without a clear and timely energy policy, consumers will not be motivated to 

drive small displacement engines. HRI recognizes that an energy policy that purposely increases 

in fuel prices will not play well in the marketplace. As such market forces that drive higher fuel 

prices combined with aggressive emission/greening regulations and value-based competitive 

offerings that meet these regulations, will likely shift consumer buying trends. 

In North America typical engine penetration is mostly V6/V8 with 4 cylinder engines being less 

than 20%. This is largely due to consumer preferences and sustained by relatively low fuel prices 

($2 – 3 per gallon) as compared to Europe, Asia and South America where prices are ($5-7 per 

gallon). Until consumer preferences and purchase motivation change achieving 4 cylinder 

volumes levels of 450K is unrealistically high. However, price pressures driving changes in 

manufacturing practices may offset current consumer buying practices. 

It is critical to understand for this analysis the differences in vehicle volume versus engine 

volume. A typical vehicle volume today averages 80-90K units per year but the go forward 

strategy for all manufacturers is to commonize vehicle architectures around the globe which will 

enable sharing of major components across multiple vehicles and dramatically reduce cost per 

vehicle. The engine and the powertrain components are a major driver for this effort due to the 

cost impact. As a result powertrains will be designed and used in multiple models, for sale 

around the globe, where volumes up to 1 million or more engines can fit multiple models and 

segments. This volume may require multiple plants to produce for target markets. 

HRI is also cognizant of the EPA’s past efforts to forecast the impact of regulatory requirements 

the industry. HRI’s industry contacts and research efforts indicate that EPA has consistently and 

significantly underestimated industry investment requirements. For example: 

HRI’s industry contacts and research suggest that the EPA has historically missed the mark in 

estimating and subsequently appropriately allocating R&D investments caused by new or 

significant changes in regulations. For example: 

EPA 2002 Regulation Per Vehicle Cost

EPA (Forecast) $800 (lifetime impact) 

Fleet Owners Assoc. (Actual) $3,600 (First five years impact) 4.5 times EPA 

EPA 2007 Regulation Per Vehicle Cost

EPA (Forecast) $900 Midsize 

 $1,100 Class 8 

OEM #1 $3,735 (4 times EPA) 

OEM #2 $7,055 (6.4 times EPA) 
D-4 

EPA 2010 Regulation Per Vehicle Cost

EPA (Forecast) $1,200 (Class 8) 

OEM #3 $5,561 (Class 6/7) 4.6 times EPA 

OEM #2a $7,470 (Class 8) 6.2 times EPA 

OEM #2b $5,619 (Class 8) 4.7 times EPA 

OEM #4 $7,968 (Class 8) 6.6 times EPA 

OEM #5 $6,640 (Class 8) 5.5 times EPA 

OEM #5 $4,980 (Midsize) 4.4 times EPA 

With the 2010 regulations the EPA averaged 1/6 of the cost of “industry stated” reality. 

Projecting the same performance on the study we are assessing we can conclude the following as 

a starting point: 

EPA 2016 Light Vehicle Per Vehicle Cost

EPA (Forecast) approx. $571 

Based on 2010 Forecast $3,426 (6 times their estimate) 

What is certain is the significant difference between EPA forecasts and industry’s stated cost 

reality. HRI will not presuppose any motivation for these differences, but believes that the use of 

methodology contained in the FEV report will significantly narrow the gap between forecast and 

actual, in both tangible and intangible costs. 

Feedback Classification

HRI has classified its report feedback into five groupings. These are described below: 

- Technology – the use of information technology to develop and execute the cost 

modeling. 

- Premise – the underlying assumptions used as the basis to derive cost model estimates. 

- Methodology – process steps and sequence used to define and execute the cost model. 

- Protocol – specific methods used to make decisions within the cost model. 

- Operational Definition – clear articulation of the subject being defined such that it can be 

characterized and classified in a meaningful way. 

- Statistical Validity – data used to support a premise, the argument, and subsequent 

conclusion is statistically valid. May require the use of statistical test, sensitivity, and/or 

uncertainty analysis. 

- Presentation – how the report presents information to the intended reader. 

Technology 

Having already experienced Design Profit® technology in prior projects with Munro & 

Associates, HRI is confident in its valid integration of product design, manufacturing processes, 

and associated demand, cycle time, labor, material, costs, and forecast data. Further we are 
D-5 

confident that the integration of information technology, such that changes made in one 

database/spreadsheet updates the linked fields in other applications. 

Premise 

Program Volumes - The study’s model, utilizes a volume of 450K annual as a cost basis. Market 

reality is that the average vehicle model volumes are between 80 and 90 thousand annually. For 

every single 450K program utilized in the EPA study, there will actually be approximately 5 

programs. Until common platforms are a reality or there is a dramatic change in consumer 

purchasing practices, the EPA should review its model to determine if it significantly understates 

the total amount of amortized fixed costs in supplier pricing. 

While the Harbour Team does not dispute the method of calculation on an individual program, 

we do believe that the average numbers quoted from the EPA are approximately 1/5 the cost of 

what actual experience will be for this type of program. ED&T costs include application 

engineering costs that are packaged around a specific vehicle model. In essence, the EPA Model 

assumes that one Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) package will be submitted for five 

different vehicles. 

Manufacturing Capabilities – The report needs to be explicit where current OEM and Supplier 

manufacturing equipment and facility capabilities are insufficient. Should demand for certain 

technologies exceed supply, OEMs will be forced to pay a premium for these parts to develop 

additional capacity. To assume sales below capacity for incremental costs modeling is specious. 

Declining labor rates – It is unclear if the example used for the AAF of a 5% per year decline in 

supplier labor rates is for explanatory purposes or if it is the actual rate used to estimate 

productivity improvement at the supplier level. HRI disagrees with 5% decline in labor rates if 

this is the assumption used. 

It’s unclear what would support a declining labor rate assumption as inflation and generally 

increasing labor rates in the manufacturing sector is the norm. Declining labor rates is not the 

same economic concept as declining labor content due to process improvements. Further, we are 

concerned that Design Profit® assumes that the part will be manufactured in the leanest possible 

way in year 1, if so than a 5% reduction cannot be possibly obtained if they are already at 

optimal in the model. 

Optimal manufacturing practices – HRI’s experience is that manufacturing practices are less than 

optimal. As such we recommend a classification of processes that clearly distinguishes between 

batch and lean. Further review may necessitate a sensitivity analysis showing a mix of practices 

that are more “batch” oriented. 

Mature technology impact on R&D investments – Industry may push pack on general 

assumption that the product technology is mature, or something they would have already planned 

to invest in. This will be especially true if EPA regulations mandate significant emission 
reductions, over current planned R&D efforts. Harbour Results recommends that the EPA pole 

industry participants to validate technology maturity and estimate the amount of R&D that will 

be built into piece price of suppliers. R&D assumptions from this report should not be 

extrapolated to all new technology designed to reduce emission, e.g. lithium battery 

technologies. 

It is our understanding that the world-wide investment in R&D by the automotive OEMs is $16-

17 billion; this estimate does not include supplier R&D investments. Further that R&D 

investment can be broken out in four distinct categories of new product development, fuel 

economy improvement and emissions, pure research, and plant energy and emissions. See 

Figure 1 below. It may benefit the study if EPA classified proposed technology changes into one 

or more of these categories. Then develop a total cost versus incremental cost model. This will 

enable EPA to frame the total impact and then argue whether it is incremental in sum or in parts. 

Figure 1 - OEM 2007 R&D Investment Categories

Smoothing of price spikes through regression analysis – Uncertainty analysis should validate 

other proxies of prices, such as raw material (product content) cost trends, exchange rate 

fluctuations, and so on, then subsequently indexing these to the price models used. 

Methodology 

The overwhelming majority of methodologies employed in this study appear to be sound. 

Improvements include the following. 

D-6 
D-7 

Emissions Impact - HRI recommends that EPA classify various parts identified in the CBOMs 

by their "known" or "projected" impact on emissions, so costs (industrial and consumer 

investments) can be more expertly attributed to performance capabilities that matter. This is the 

basis for most value engineering studies, e.g. link design criteria to desired performance criteria 

that matters such that necessary investments can be aligned. 

Torque Variables - Develop list of torque variables ranked by their financial impact and their 

impact on lowering emission. Torque variables can singularly influence the financial materiality 

or discernable improvements in emission levels. Examples of torque variables include 

proprietary material composition, engineered items, union labor content, OEM/T1/T2/T3 

responsibility, and so on. 

Align uncertainty factors (refer to statistical validity comments) to torque variables while 

ultimately aligning and ranking both to their impact on lowering emissions. 

Design Profit® Scoring – It is unclear if Design Profit® Scoring - e.g. Munro Scoring, Eng Hrs., 

No Gets... impact cost estimates. Is this used as a baseline of practices much like DFMA? If so 

what is a typical score and do you account for the differences in an "ideal" process and 

"standard/mainstream" scores in determining cost impact? Simply put, is Design Profit® costing 

on an ideal design and manufacturing flow which may appear to make cost look lower? 

Proprietary Materials - Sound logic is used for unknown proprietary material compositions. Use 

of marketing firms to trend future prices as compared similar material trends is also sound. 

Consideration should be given to why proprietary materials are typically used to offset other 

lifecycle costs, e.g. extended product life, improved performance, less warranty costs, lower cost 

of ownership. To the contrary, proprietary materials typically increase start-up and validation 

costs. HRI assumes these factors are addressed in Indirect Costs. 

Protocol 

Technology Selection - What is the protocol employed to determine if differences in emission 

benefits and cost factors, base v. new are worthy of industry investment and consumer 

investment? 

Design Difference - Need protocol definition for how parts were deemed to be excluded from 

cost analysis. 

Operational Definition 

MCR and NTA - Excellent distinction between MCR and NTAs; need better operational 

definition that attempts to void all future arguments regarding the use of this classification. 

Standard/Mainstream Practices - Need operational definition of standard/mainstream industrial 

practices. 
D-8 

Part Hierarchy - Report uses mixed and confusing definition of system/subsystem/high level 

modules/modules/top level components/assemblies/components/end-item components/piece 

parts/parts hierarchies. Often uses multiple terms to describe the same part. Hierarchy needs to 

be defined and consistently used throughout analysis. 

Volume Levels - Need operational definition of high and low volumes, not just an example; 

albeit the Viton® flouroelastomer is an exceptional example. 

Quote Types - "Component level quotes" appear to be logically classified as full quote, 

modification quote, and differential quote. However operation definitions need to be developed 

with clear examples to avoid industry pushback. 

Impact - Need operational definition of high impact purchased parts, low impact purchased parts 

and commodity parts. 

Statistical Validity 

Expert Statistical Review - A statistical expert review needs to be added as a final step to 

validate that the resultant costs are indeed statistically different for both materials, labor and 

combined into direct manufacturing costs. Data used for comparison needs to described by a 

mean and a standard deviation to be sufficient. It is unclear if proposed average costs of the new 

engine are easily within the price variations assumptions of the baseline engine... suggesting no 

differences. Pennies matter or do they? Nor are there any stated assumptions that the future 

prices will have equal variation between the baseline and new engines. HRI fears that some cost 

assumptions are based on one data point (our opinion) and aren't statistically sufficient. 

Regression Analysis - Unclear if regression analysis is of price averages, Figure 9. If so a 

statistical test of homoscedasticity (homogeneneity of variances) is required. 

Uncertainty Analysis - Develop list of uncertainty factors such as how many engines will be 

replaced by emerging technology exemplified in study, lack of significant industry information 

(price, materials, production methods, and so on), significant volatility in prices behavior, 

questionable supply surety, newness of technology, labor ratios (union to non-union mix), 

country of origin, and so on. Uncertainty analysis should validate other proxies of prices, such 

as raw material (product content) cost trends, exchange rate fluctuations, and so on, then 

subsequently indexing these to the price models used. 

Sensitivity Analysis - How does analysis forecast the labor mix (union/non-union) for a future 

date? Has a sensitivity analysis been conducted for variation in this mix as union wages and 

benefits appear to be significant cost factors, e.g. 160% Fringe for Union (pg 6-10). 

Use of Median - In Figure 11 it is unclear how the median wage rate is used other than an 

informal method to determine skewness. How does it impact the report findings? 
D-9 

Arbitrary Factors - Active rates and mark-ups appear arbitrary and not derived. When arbitrary 

numbers are used it increases the need to do sensitivity analysis. 

Presentation 

Data Architecture Diagram - A data architecture diagram indicating which secondary cost 

estimating modules, Munro cost databases, et al (library of costing models - p 4-6) are used and 

how they feed into Design Profit® would be useful for the EPA to put forth their premises, 

arguments, and conclusions (logic construct) for future regulations. All data sources should be 

validated statistically (classified as either parametric or non-parametric) with hypothesis stated 

regarding differences between base and new technology. 

Information Flow Diagram - A more detailed diagram showing flow of information into and out 

of the MAQS worksheet would be useful in presenting the validity of the data and methods used. 

This is especially true as you link the logic of complexity to mark-up levels as shown in Figure 

14. 

Feedback order by report structure 

All feedback has been placed in a spreadsheet by the occurrence of the presenting issue in the 

draft report. Refer to HRI FEV 07-069-103F Review.xls 
Figure 2 – Sample of Feedback by Report Page Number

D-10 
Feedback sorted by classification 

All feedback has been placed in a spreadsheet by classification of the presenting issue in the draft 

report. Refer to HRI FEV 07-069-103F Review.xls 

Figure 3 - Sample of Feedback Sorted by Classification

D-11 
D-12 

Summary Remarks 

HRI again thanks the EPA for the opportunity to participate in the review of the Light-duty 

Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study, Contract No. EP-C-07-069, dated September 3, 2009. 

It believes that methodology of this cost study is directionally correct and should assist the EPA 

is bridging what industry considers consistent misestimates of market impact of its regulations. 

 

Although the methodology is directionally correct, HRI believes that the EPA needs to revisit its 

premises, operational definitions, and statistical validation methods to ensure completeness and 

usefulness of the cost model. Premises like engine volume assumptions, perfect production 

methods, allocation and estimates of R&D investments and so on need further review. The EPA 

needs to clearly state operational definitions for how it defines volumes, impact levels, quote 

types, and so on, versus how the industry might define them. The EPA should test the statistical 

validity and financial materiality of all derived data. It should extend the sensitivity analysis to 

arbitrary (weighting) factors used in this analysis. Lastly the EPA would be well served by an 

uncertainty analysis of its input data and assumptions. 
Harbour Results, Inc. Summary FEV

Draft  

Report Review   FEV 07‐069‐103F

Page # Comment  

Classification Comment

i N/A None

ii N/A None

iii N/A None

iv N/A None

v N/A None

What is the bigger question EPA is trying to answer with this study? Is it just to

replace the 2.4L engine with a more environmentally friendly 1.6L engine?  Or

does the EPA plan on extrapolating results for comparison to other engine

technologies currently deployed or planned for the future.  This significantly

impacts the level of assumptions and data required to answer these bigger

questions.   

ES‐1 Premise

Table needs to state explicitly the volume basis for the net incremental costs

and whether the incremental costs are statistical significant at any volume or

financially material (to the producer, to the consumer) at the propose volume

ES‐2 Premise

p1‐1 N/A None

The study’s model, utilizes a volume of 450K annual as a cost basis.  Market

reality is that the average vehicle model volumes are between 80 and 90

thousand annually.  For every single 450K program utilized in the EPA study,

there will actually be approximately 5 programs.  Based on this reality, the EPA

should review its model to determine if it significantly understates the total

amount of amortized fixed costs in supplier pricing.   

While the Harbour Team does not dispute the method of calculation on an

individual program, we do believe that the average numbers quoted from the

EPA are approximately 1/5 of what actual experience will be.  ED&T costs

include application engineering costs that are packaged around a specific

vehicle model.  In essence, the EPA Model assumes that one PPAP package will

be submitted for five different vehicles.

p1‐2 Premise

Phase 1 box cite Design Profit® technology, whereas pg 1‐5 cites Lean Design®

technology.  Unclear if there is a relationship between the two technologies.    p1‐3 Technology  

p1‐3 Methodology Process Methodology "flow" is logical

p1‐3 Statistical

Validity

A statistical expert review needs to be added as a final step to validate that the

resultant costs are indeed statistically different for both materials, labor and

combined into direct manufacturing costs.  Data used for comparison needs to

described by a mean and a standard deviation to be sufficient.  It is unclear if

proposed average costs of the new engine are easily within the price variations

assumptions of the baseline engine... suggesting no differences.  Pennies

matter or do they?    Nor are there any stated assumptions that the future

prices will have equal variation between the baseline and new engines.  HRI

fears that some cost assumptions are based on one data point (our opinion)

and aren't statistically sufficient.   

D-13
Harbour Results, Inc. Summary FEV

Draft   FEV 07‐069‐103F Report Review  

Comment   Page # Comment Classification

Unclear if vehicle classification is useful in determining the potential

application of the 1.6L engine (and their competitive alternatives ‐ Honda

already produces 1.3 and 1.5L engines) and thus the "forecasted" industry

production volume  

p1‐4 Premise

Excellent distinction between MCR and NTAs.  Just need better operational

definition that attempts to void all future arguments regarding the use of this

classification

p1‐5 Operational

Definition

Reference to Lean Design® technology.  Is this part of the Design Profit®

package? p1‐5 Technology  

Reference to Lean Design® technology.  Is this part of the Design Profit®

package? p1‐6 Technology  

Step 8:  What is EPA's definition of financial materiality?  E.g. % of market

price, defined difference between baseline and new.  Again is the financial

materiality statistically different?   

p1‐7 Statistical

Validity

Para 1.3 ‐ HRI would argue that use of off‐shore suppliers may not by default

reduce costs due to increases in freight costs, tariffs, and unmeasured internal

supply/program management resources. Furthermore exchange rate changes

will impact sourcing as inflation rises.

p1‐7 Methodology

p1‐8 Premise HRI associate challenges 450,000 unit volume basis

Report needs to be explicit in where current OEM and Supplier manufacturing

equipment and facility capabilities are insufficient. p1‐8 Premise

p1‐8 Operational

Definition Need operational definition of standard/mainstream industrial practices

p2‐1 Methodology Be prepared to discuss the "judicious scaling" protocol used to industry leaders

HRI recommends that EPA classify various parts identified in the CBOMs by

their "known" or "projected" impact on emissions, so costs (industrial and

consumer investments) can be more expertly attributed to performance

capabilities that matter.  This is the basis for most value engineering studies,

e.g. link design criteria to desired performance criteria that matters such that

necessary investments can be aligned.  

p3‐1 Methodology

What is the protocol employed to determine if differences in emission benefits

and cost factors, base v. new are worthy of industry investment and consumer

investment?

p3‐1 Protocol

Report uses mixed and confusing definition of system/subsystem/high level

modules/modules/top level components/assemblies/components/end‐item

components/piece parts/parts hierarchies.  Often uses multiple terms to

describe the same part.  Hierarchy needs to be  defined and consistently used

throughout analysis.

p3‐2 Operational

Definition

p3‐2 Protocol Need protocol definition for how parts were deemed to be excluded.

Consider classifying parts as repairable or replaceable as this affects the

consumer's cost of ownership p3‐2 Methodology

p3‐2 Methodology Need to state who or what validates the "fitness for use" of NTAs.   

D-14
Harbour Results, Inc. Summary FEV

Draft   FEV 07‐069‐103F Report Review  

Comment   Page # Comment Classification

Does EPA make a distinction in manufacturing practice breakthroughs versus

product design breakthroughs in its NTA classification?    p3‐2   Methodology

Modules, top level components, end‐item components, parts, are introduced

as new terms in the system hierarchy.  It is okay to use the same term in the

same sentence when describing a hierarchy.     "Item" may be the best generic

term to use universally as this is typically associated to an inventory item

master.

p3‐3 Operational

Definition

p4‐1 Operational

Definition

Term high level modules introduced as part of the Design Profit®

nomenclature.

Flow on p1‐3 states Lean Design® is used.  Section 4.2 states Design Profit®

used.  Is the Munro & Associates internal costing tool ‐ Lean Design®?   p4‐1 Technology  

p4‐2 N/A None

The Design Profit® technology uses a sound approach to depicting work flows

and resource utilization.  It appears to be a static treatment of data (point in

time), whereas other simulation software dynamically modules manufacturing

behavior and may provide a better understanding of cost variances over time.   

p4‐3 Methodology

Unclear if Design Profit® Scoring ‐ e.g. Munro Scoring, Eng Hrs., No Gets...

impact cost estimates.  Is this used as a baseline of practices much like DFMA?  

If so what is a typical score and do you account for the differences in a "ideal"

process and "standard/mainstream" scores in determining cost impact?  

Simply put, is Design Profit® costing on an ideal designs and manufacturing

flow which may appear to make cost look lower?

p4‐4 Methodology

A data architecture diagram indicating which secondary cost estimating

modules, Munro cost databases, et al (library of costing models ‐ p4‐6)are

used and how they feed into Design Profit® would be useful for the EPA to put

forth their premises, arguments, and conclusions (logic construct) for future

regulations.  All data sources should be validated statistically (classified as

either parametric or non‐parametric) with hypothesis stated regarding

differences between base and new technology.  

p4‐5 Presentation

Material identification methodology is sound.  Use of tell tale signs

demonstrates real industry knowledge; this is exceptional. p4‐5 Methodology

Manual input "cost" parameters are sound.  Accounting for part variability is

exceptional.    p4‐5 Methodology

p4‐6 Statistical

Validity

Provide statistical basis for library of costing models, e.g. source of data,

number of data points (samples), average, and standard deviation.

p4‐7 Methodology Process mapping sound.

p5‐1 Methodology HRI sees no major flaws in the IC multiplier logic.   

Reviewed the Automobile Industry Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost

Multipliers report.  Many of the premises set forth in this report apply to this

study and should be incorporated.

   Premise

p5‐1 Methodology Sound logic used for application of shipping costs  

p5‐2 Methodology Sound logic used for tooling cost allocation

D-15
Harbour Results, Inc. Summary FEV

Draft   FEV 07‐069‐103F Report Review  

Comment   Page # Comment Classification

Sound logic used for Investment cost as part of manufacturing overhead.  

Unclear how or if unique investment costs are factor in or just referenced? p5‐2 Methodology

p5‐2 Methodology Sound logic used for Product Development costs

Cost database integration and automatic updates to "active Rates" is

exceptional.  HRI assumes that these linkages have been tested for

completeness.

p6‐1 Technology  

It is unclear if the example used for the AAF of a 5% per year decline in

supplier labor rates is for explanatory purposes or is the actual rate used to

estimate productivity improvement at the supplier level.  HRI disagrees with

5% decline in labor rates if this is the assumption used.   

It’s unclear what would support a declining labor rate assumption as inflation

and generally increasing labor rates in the manufacturing sector is the norm.  

Declining labor rates is not the same economic concept as declining labor

content due to process improvements.  Further, we are concerned that Design

Profit® assumes that the part will be manufactured in the leanest possible way

in year 1, if so than a 5% reduction cannot be possibly obtained if they are

already at optimal in the model.   

P6‐1 Premise

p6‐2 Methodology Agree with use of Annual Adjustment Factor (AAF).   

Unclear if there are known variances in the active rate and if/how these are

accounted for in determining either statistical differences and/or financial

materiality

p6‐3 Statistical

Validity

Statement made "annual consumption rate which impacts whether high or

low volume prices are used"  Is HRI correct to assume that a nominal or mean

rate is also used, not just high or low?  

p6‐4 Methodology

p6‐4   Operational

Definition

Need operational definition of high and low volumes, not just an example;

albeit the Viton® flouroelastomer is an exceptional example.   

Sound logic applied to material identification.  However consideration should

be given to whether a mistaken material selection would be financially

material.  This may stave off potential future objections.

p6‐4 Methodology

Sound logic to developing pricing when not known: industry consultation and

composition analysis.  However, unclear how forecasting of future prices are

extrapolated from limited input.

p6‐5 Methodology

p6‐6 Methodology

Sound logic used for unknown proprietary material compositions.  Use of

marketing firms to trend future prices as compared similar material trends is

also sound.  Consideration should be given to why proprietary materials are

typically used to offset other lifecycle costs, e.g. extended product life,

improved performance, less warranty costs, lower cost of ownership.  To the

contrary, proprietary materials typically increase start‐up and validation costs.  

HRI assumes these factors are addressed in Indirect Costs.    

D-16
Harbour Results, Inc. Summary FEV

Draft   FEV 07‐069‐103F Report Review  

Comment   Page # Comment Classification

In addition to the sensitivity analysis, the EPA should perform an uncertainty

analysis for ill‐defined or unknown materials, manufacturing and procurement

practices that materially affect cost outcomes.  Per EPA definition, uncertainty

analysis investigates the effects of lack of knowledge or potential errors of

model inputs (e.g., the “uncertainty” associated with parameter values) and

when conducted in combination with sensitivity analysis (see definition) allows

a model user to be more informed about the confidence that can be placed in

model results. Source: Models Guidance Draft ‐ November 2003 ‐ Draft

Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Regulatory

Environmental Models.

Uncertainty analysis should validate other proxies of prices, such as raw

material (product content) cost trends, exchange rate fluctuations, and so on,

then subsequently indexing these to the price models used.   

p6‐6 Statistical

Validity

p6‐7 Statistical

Validity

Unclear if regression analysis is of price averages.  If so a statistical test of

homoscedasticity (homogeneneity of variances) is required.   

Uncertainty analysis should validate other proxies of prices, such as raw

material (product content) cost trends, exchange rate fluctuations, and so on,

then subsequently indexing these to the price models used.   

p6‐7 Statistical

Validity

p6‐8 N/A None

How does analysis forecast the labor mix (union/non‐union) for a future date?  

Has a sensitivity analysis been conducted for variation in this mix as union

wages and benefits appear to be significant cost factors, e.g. 160% Fringe for

Union (pg 6‐10).   

p6‐9 Statistical

Validity

p6‐9 Methodology Sound logic for calculating and applying indirect labor ratio.

p6‐9 Methodology Sound logic for calculating labor rate.

p6‐11 N/A None

Figure 11. Unclear how the median wage rate is used other than an informal

method to determine skewness.   How does it impact the report findings?   

Not sure the value of using the mode, other than to show the dominate

recurring wage rate.

p6‐12 Statistical

Validity

p6‐13 N/A None

p6‐14 Statistical

Validity

Figure 12.  Active rates appear arbitrary and not derived.  When arbitrary

numbers are used it increases the need to do sensitivity analysis.

p6‐15 N/A None

p6‐16 Methodology Agree with machine based burden rates

p6‐16 Methodology Agree with activity‐based burden rates

Acquiring Manufacturing Overhead Data is the most nebulous part of this

report.  More explanation of sources needed to support numbers. p6‐16 Methodology

p6‐17 N/A None

D-17
Harbour Results, Inc. Summary FEV

Draft   FEV 07‐069‐103F Report Review  

Comment   Page # Comment Classification

p6‐18 Statistical

Validity

Figure 13.  Rates appear arbitrary and not derived.  When arbitrary numbers

are used it increases the need to do sensitivity analysis.

p6‐19 Methodology Sound logic used for end‐item scrap mark‐up.  

p6‐19 Statistical

Validity

Scrap mark‐ups appear arbitrary.   When arbitrary numbers are used it

increases the need to do sensitivity analysis.

p6‐20 Methodology Sound logic used for SG&A mark‐up.  

p6‐20 Statistical

Validity

SG&A mark‐ups appear arbitrary.   When arbitrary numbers are used it

increases the need to do sensitivity analysis.

Sound logic used for profit mark‐up.  What is unclear is where proprietary or

unknown materials are used and the value of the impacted component in

achieving more desirable emission levels.   This might suggest a higher profit

margin being sought on critical components.   

p6‐20 Methodology

p6‐20 Methodology Sound logic for ED&T mark‐up.  

p6‐20 Statistical

Validity

ED&T mark‐ups appear arbitrary.   When arbitrary numbers are used it

increases the need to do sensitivity analysis.

Industry may push pack on general assumption that the product technology is

mature, or something they would have already planned to invest in.  This will

be especially true if EPA regulations mandate significant emission reductions,

over current planned R&D efforts.   

Harbour Results recommends that the EPA pole industry participants to

validate technology maturity and estimate the amount of R&D that will be

built into piece price of suppliers.   

R&D assumptions from this report should not be extrapolated to all new

technology designed to reduce emission, e.g. lithium battery technologies.

p6‐20 Premise

p6‐21 Methodology Sound logic used for Primary Equipment Groupings in Table 2.

p6‐22 Methodology Sound logic used for Tier 2/3 supplier mark‐ups

p6‐23 Statistical

Validity Sensitivity analysis required for different classification discussed in Table 3.   

p6‐24 Methodology Sound logic used for packaging selection and costs.

p7‐1 Methodology Sound logic used for Shipping Costs

p8‐1 Methodology Sound logic used for commodity‐based purchased parts

p9‐1 N/A None

A more detailed diagram showing flow of information into and out of the

MAQS worksheet would be useful in presenting the validity of the data and

methods used.  This is especially true as you link the logic of complexity to

mark‐up levels as shown in Figure 14.

p9‐2 Presentation

p9‐2 Operational

Definition

"Component level quotes" appear to be logically classified as full quote,

modification quote, and differential quote.  However operation definitions

need to be developed with clear examples to avoid industry pushback.   

D-18
Harbour Results, Inc. Summary FEV

Draft   FEV 07‐069‐103F Report Review  

Comment   Page # Comment Classification

Recommend that study classify manufacturing operations as lean or mass in

MAQS, and be prepared to sort accordingly as these approaches may have

significant cost differences.  HRI suspects that most of the differences in

current manufacturing practices will be in the application of lean practices.

Meaning the industry may experience higher "batch" processing costs than

estimated by the model.   

p9‐3 Premise

p9‐4 Operational

Definition

Need operational definition of high impact purchased parts, low impact

purchased parts and commodity parts.   

p9‐5 Technology   Lean Design® technology discussed.  Is this a module of Design Profit®?

p10‐1 Statistical

Validity

Differential analysis logic appears sound.   Still question statistical basis for

assuming differences in means between base and new.

p10‐2 N/A None

How can an engine with new or proprietary materials as well as physical

designs have no change in maintenance or end of life costs?    p11‐1 Premise

p12‐1 N/A None

p12‐2 Statistical

Validity The sensitivity study should also include changes in arbitrary weighting factors.  

Was the Vehicle Class Summary used to identify target vehicle platforms that

would likely adopt the new engine technology?  Was this profile used to set

expected volumes?   

A.1 Premise

B.1 N/A None

Naming convention ‐ Subsystem, sub‐subsystem, assembly, subassembly,

component is well stated.  The report does not read this consistent.  Do levels

change as data is entered in Design Profit®  

C.1 Operational

Definition

Brief Explanation of Differences column needs to be classified by attribute and

type of difference, e.g. weight, material, and so on.  Given the vast amount of

information contained in these worksheets, presenting the assumptions

around differences to potential OEMs will be critical as these are most likely

the incremental cost drivers.   

C.1 Methodology

D.1 Operational

Definition

It would be value adding to have a consistent hierarchy and part naming

between spreadsheets, Design Profit® and the report.   

Unclear why 2015 and 2020 chosen as forecast points in time.  Does EPA

assume that the technology will still be leading edge by then?  Or there is

statistical significance to these years?  

E.1‐E.5 Methodology

F.1 Statistical

Validity

Classify any worksheet section that requires statistical validation, e.g. data

quantity, average, std dev., sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis

This appendix is exceptional.  This section alone validates that the assumptions

come from resources who know the industry.    F.1 Methodology

G.1 N/A None

H.1 N/A None

H.2 N/A None

D-19
Harbour Results, Inc. Summary FEV

Draft   FEV 07‐069‐103F Report Review  

Comment   Page # Comment Classification

Does the EPA take into consideration other design features such as

aerodynamics, rolling resistance, type of fuel, weight and so on that work in

combination with the engine technology to achieve emission levels.  Does it

intend to bundle all these factors to determine the overall industry and

consumer costs to achieve certain emissions levels as part of its regulatory

efforts?  We believe industry may challenge the individual system analysis and

its impact on emissions.   

General Premise

Develop list of torque variables ranked by their financial impact and their

impact on lowering emission.  Torque variables can singularly influence the

financial materiality or discernable improvements in emission levels.  Examples

of torque variables include proprietary material composition, engineered

items, union labor content, OEM/T1/T2/T3 responsibility, and so on.

General Methodology

Develop list of uncertainty factors such as how many engines will be replaced

by emerging technology exemplified in study, lack of significant industry

information (price, materials, production methods, and so on), significant

volatility in prices behavior, questionable supply surety, newness of

technology, labor ratios (union to non‐union mix), country of origin, and so on.  

General Statistical

Validity

Align uncertainty factors to torque variables while ultimately aligning and

ranking both to their impact on lowering emissions   General Methodology

General Premise

This study gets in the weeds so fast that HRI feels that the EPA may lose sight

of the bigger issues and challenges facing such a technology shift.  HRI

however does appreciate the use of such methodologies to improve the

accuracy and reliability of its economic impact studies.  Our clients have been

historically at odds with EPA forecasted impacts and costs.  This is a step in the

right direction in closing those gaps.  

D-20
Appendix E - Mr. Wallace Wade Response to Peer Review 

Charge 

E-1 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Peer Review 

of Draft Report, FEV 07-069-102F Dated September 3, 2009 

“Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study” 

Peer Review by Wallace. R. Wade 

October 5, 2009 

Overview of the Draft Report 

The “Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study” describes FEV’s methodology for 

determining incremental, direct manufacturing costs for a set of advanced light-duty vehicle 

technologies for the control of GHG emissions and the application of the methodology to a pilot 

program. The methodology consists of the following approach: 

- New technology systems for the control of GHG emissions and comparator baseline 

systems are identified. 

 

The pilot study evaluated stoichiometric GDI with turbocharging on a downsized I4 

engine (new technology) compared to an equivalent (hp and torque) conventional PFI

normally aspirated (NA) I4 engine (comparator baseline). The following specific 

production engines were selected for the pilot study: 

New Technology: 1.6L I4 16V Double Overhead Cam (DOHC) Turbo Direct 

Injection (DI) with Variable Valve Timing (VVT) Peugeot Soceite Anonyme (PSA) 

Peugeot-Citroen engine in BMW Mini Cooper S, Hard Top vehicles) 

Comparator Baseline: 2.4L I4 16V DOHC NA with VVT (Chrysler, Hyundai, 

Mitsubishi engine in Chrysler Sebring, Dodge Avenger, Caliber, Journey, Jeep 

Compass, Patriot vehicles) 

- Cost analysis of the production hardware systems was performed as follows: 

 - Tear down of the production hardware systems 

- Evaluation on a part-by-part basis of observed differences in size, weight, 

materials, machining steps and other parameters affecting cost. 

- Use of databases for material costs, labor rates, manufacturing overhead rates, 

mark-up rates and packaging costs to calculate costs to fabricate individual parts 

and subsystems which are added together to provide the overall system costs. 

The pilot study concluded that the net incremental/assembly cost impact to the OEM was 

$537.70. 

Overall Opinion

(Note: All page references are to PDF document page numbers.) 

FEV has developed and applied a detailed, objective methodology for determining net 

incremental/assembly cost impact to the OEM for new technology powertrains with reduced 

E-2 
GHG potential. In addition to providing EPA with the capability to estimate the cost of 

technology to meet regulations, this methodology is expected to be useful as EPA invites OEM’s 

and suppliers to review, compare and rationalize their costs with those developed by EPA using 

this methodology (Ref: conference call 9/21/09). Although FEV’s methodology ideally should 

yield accurate results, this peer review of FEV’s report indicates that there are potential issues 

with the methodology that may affect the accuracy of the results. These potential issues are 

summarized below and are discussed more extensively in the Discussion section (using the 

same numbering scheme for the major topics and opinions). 

A. Specific Opinions and Recommendations:

Opinion #1 – This methodology is designed to determine incremental, direct manufacturing 

costs for new technology vs. comparator baseline technology. However, incremental, direct 

manufacturing costs are only part of the price to society for new technology. 

Recommendation #1 - Manufacturers also incur indirect costs. The recently derived Indirect 

Cost Multipliers developed by EPA to account for vehicle modifications associated with 

environmental regulations should be applied to these direct costs to determine the price of the 

new technology to society. 

Opinion #2 - The methodology makes extensive use of proprietary software and databases, 

which are not available for peer review. Without detailed information regarding these 

proprietary tools, the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot be determined. The following 

proprietary tools are used in the methodology: 

1. Lean Design software developed by Munro & Associates is used for mapping high-level 

processes and calculating complete process times (Page 13 (Step 4) and Page 105 

(Appendix F.1)). 

2. Design Profit software is utilized to map high-level modules within each 

system/subsystem (Page 21) and all secondary processes (page 26) and contains maps 

and costing databases used as input to the MAQS (Page 14, Page 21, Page 26, and 

Page 27 (Figure 4)). 

3. “An applicable database” is used to provide “surrogate costs” when a part is treated as a 

“buy” (Page 19). 

4. “Purchase Part Database” is used to provide values for commodity purchased parts 

(Page 207, Appendix G.1-60 (4of4), Engine Electrical Systems – Engine Assembly 

MAQS spreadsheet). 

The Report is not clear about how the above four software and databases are related to each 

other. 

5. Databases for material costs, labor rates, manufacturing overhead rates, mark-up rates, 

and packaging costs provide the foundation of the cost analysis (Page 30 and page 95, 

Appendix E.1-E.5). (These Appendices were provided separately on September 

29,2009, which limited the review time prior to the peer review submission date of 

October 5, 2009.) 

In addition, descriptions of how the proprietary software and databases were validated (i.e., 

demonstration of similar outputs of these tools vs. actual data from industry) were not provided 

but would be required to determine the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

E-3 
Recommendation #2 - Without divulging proprietary information, these software and databases 

should be described with respect to the following: 

- What the software does (i.e., input needed, type of embedded data, calculations 

performed, output provided). 

- How embedded data in the software or the databases were developed. 

- An explanation of how the software or databases have been validated. 

This information is essential in order to evaluate the validity of the overall methodology. 

Opinion #3 - The Applied Burden Rate generally results in labor costs that are many times 

higher than the direct labor costs. However, derivation and validation of the values used in the 

equation for calculating Applied Burden Rate were not clearly described in the report. Without 

knowing the derivation and validation of these values, the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot 

be determined. (Page 99 - Appendix F.1) 

Recommendation #3 - Details regarding the derivation and validation of the values used in the 

equation for calculating the Applied Burden Rate should to be fully explained in the report. 

Opinion #4 - Four components comprise 58% of the total cost. The four components appear to 

be classified as high cost items, but marketplace crosschecks from suppliers were not obtained, 

even though marketplace crosschecks were described as a part of the methodology. Without 

marketplace crosschecks from suppliers, the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot be 

determined. The four components are: 

1. Fuel pump $69.61 

2. Fuel injectors $52.49 

3. Turbocharger $151.85 

4. PCM $40.00

 Total of 4 items $313.95 (out of $537.70 total) 

Recommendation #4 – Perform marketplace crosschecks for components classified as high 

cost items to establish the validity of the cost estimates of these items. 

Opinion #5 -The following issues with the methodology are expected to directly affect the 

accuracy of the cost estimates: 

1. OEM’s and suppliers are assumed to have the manufacturing facilities and equipment 

for the new technologies (Page 16). Issue: Components comprising the core of the new 

technology will probably be incremental and require new manufacturing facilities and 

equipment. 

2. All manufacturing processes and operations are assumed to be based on 

standard/mainstream industrial processes (Page 16). Issue: New technology is likely to 

involve new, non-standard industrial processes. 

3. No added vehicle costs were considered for the pilot study new technology (Page 18). 

Issue: The pilot study new technology is likely to require new or different vehicle 

installation hardware and the associated costs should be included in the overall costs. 

4. The decisions to use either OEM or suppliers for manufacturing specific components 

were not clearly explained but appeared to be based on conventional practice and/or 

input from experts (Ref: conference call (9/21/09). Issue: Since OEM labor rates (direct 

E-4 
labor, fringe, and overhead) are significantly higher than supplier wage rates ($90.56/hr 

for OEM vs. $41.45 for T1 Supplier) (Page 42 (Figure 11), these decisions can 

significantly affect overall costs. The basis for these decisions should be clearly 

explained. 

Recommendation #5 - Each of the above issues should be addressed and, where appropriate, 

revisions should be made to the methodology. 

Opinion #6 - A number of issues with the methodology could potentially affect the accuracy of 

the cost estimates. For most of these issues, adequate information was not provided in the 

report to determine if these issues affected the costs. These issues are: 

1. Different levels of maturity may be represented in the new technology vs. the base 

comparator technology (Page 12). 

2. Different production volumes of the new technology engine (20,000 units per year) vs. 

the comparator baseline (840,000 units per year) may result in different design and 

manufacturing techniques (Page 73, Appendix B). 

3. Different internal design and manufacturing practices may be represented in new 

technology vs. the comparator baseline technology if they are from different 

manufacturers. 

4. For components not marked to show materials used in their manufacture, cross 

functional team members were consulted, and, if necessary, published information and 

experts in Tier 1 suppliers were consulted, instead of performing an analysis of the 

actual material (Page 34). 

5. Material costs may be dependent on annual consumption rate. The methodology 

discusses the assignment of a low or high annual consumption rate pricing for a material 

(Page 34), yet this is not reflected in Figure 7 (Price Data for Significant Materials) (Page 

32-33). 

6. The method for determining the required material weights for the manufacturing 

processes, which would be higher than the finished part weights found in the teardown 

process, was not explained in the methodology in adequate detail (Page 26 and 

Appendix G). 

7. The visual teardown inspection cannot capture many detailed specifications used in the 

manufacture of the part, such as tolerances of dimensions and fits or surface 

finishes/flatness requirements, which could add additional cost to the parts (Page 21). 

8. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labor rates are used which are based on “union and 

non-union labor rates, reflecting the relative mix of each in the BLS motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle parts manufacturing classifications of the workforce at the time data was 

gathered (2007)”(Page 39). Using labor rates based on this mix may result in significant 

errors in labor costs. 

9. “Two fringe rates were used: 52% for supplier manufacturing, and 160% for OEM 

manufacturing.” “The OEM fringe rate was calculated using a 2006/2007 average North 

American wage rate and labor rate of $28.18 and $73.21 respectively....” “The supplier 

manufacturing fringe rate is based on historical knowledge” (Page 40). 

10. Warranty data on the new technology and the comparator baseline should have been 

examined to ensure that comparable design methodologies were used to ensure 

comparable useful lives. Without ensuring comparable useful lives, costs may not be 

comparable. 

11. Differences between components contained in the new technology and comparator 

baseline that are not directly related to the technology need to be analyzed to determine 

E-5 
E-6 

the proper handling of these differences in the methodology (e.g., balance shaft 

(with/without), close coupled catalyst (with/without), fabricated/cast camshaft). 

Recommendation #6 - Each of these issues should be addressed and, where, appropriate, 

resolved within the methodology. 

Opinion #7 - Several important steps were suggested in the methodology. However, the 

conference call (9/21/09) indicated that these steps were not followed which might potentially 

affect the accuracy of the cost estimate. These steps are: 

1. The methodology described the process of subjecting a part with high or unexpected 

cost results to a marketplace crosscheck for validation (Page 15 Step 8). However, the 

conference call indicated that this step had not been performed. 

2. The CBOM chart (next to last column) has a provision for accounting for design 

modifications for MCR. However, the conference call (9/21/09) indicated that this was 

not done (Page 19 and Page 75, CBOM). 

3. The CBOM chart (last column) shows the possible accounting for NTA, which provides 

alternative, advanced technology ideas, which could be substituted for some existing 

hardware being evaluated. However, the conference call (9/21/09) indicated that this 

was not done (Page 19 and Page 75, CBOM). 

Recommendation #7 – Since these steps were described in the methodology, they should be 

followed, unless an explanation of why they were not followed is provided. Otherwise, they 

should be removed as part of the methodology. 

Opinion #8 - Other concerns were identified that could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost 

estimates determined by the methodology. These include: 

1. Issues with the application of the new technologies in five vehicle size classes (Page 9). 

2. Qualifications and experience of the cross functional team that reviews all data from the 

teardown (Page 13, Step 5). 

3. Intellectual property is often an important part of new technology powertrains, but was 

not addressed in the methodology. 

4. Production testing (e.g., leak testing of fuel rails, end of line engine testing) may be 

required for some components or systems, but was not addressed in the methodology. 

5. The analysis assumed an annual volume of 450,000 units. However, due to recent 

severe fluctuations in the automotive market, volume sensitive costs should be provided. 

Recommendation #8 – Each of these concerns should be resolved and, where appropriate, 

incorporated into the methodology. 

In addition to the above opinions, the following subsections are also provided in the Discussion 

section: 

B. Other Comments on the Report 

1. Issue with fuel economy comparison between new technology and comparator baseline 

due to differences in vehicle weights (Page 12 and Appendix B.1 (Page 73)) 
E-7 

2. Issue with different emission certification levels of the new technology (Tier 2, Bin 5) vs. 

the baseline Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV), which is considerably more stringent 

(Appendix B.1 (Page 73)). 

C. Recommendations to Improve the Study and/or Report

D. Wording or Spelling Issues

Discussion

A. Specific Opinions 

Note: Opinions are repeated from the previous Specific Opinions and Recommendations 

section. 

Note: Major Recommendations are provided only in the previous Specific Opinions and 

Recommendations section. 

Note: Some detailed recommendations are provided only in this Discussion section and are 

underlined for clarity 

Opinion #1 – This methodology is designed to determine incremental, direct manufacturing 

costs for new technology vs. comparator baseline technology. Incremental, direct 

manufacturing costs are only part of the price to society for new technology. 

EPA recently developed a modified multiplier, referred to as an ICM, which specifically 

evaluates the components of indirect costs that are likely to be affected by vehicle modifications 

associated with environmental regulations (Ref: EPA Report “Automobile Industry Retail Price 

Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multiplier”, EPA-420-R-09-003, February 2009. These multipliers 

were derived for low, medium and high technology complexity and for short-term effects and 

long-term effects. The appropriate multiplier should be applied to the direct manufacturing cost 

to determine the price of the new technology to society. 

Opinion #2 - The methodology makes extensive use of proprietary software and databases, 

which are not available for peer review. Without detailed information regarding these 

proprietary tools, the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot be determined. The following 

proprietary tools are used in the methodology: 

1. Lean Design software developed by Munro & Associates is used for mapping high-level 

processes and calculating complete process times (Page 13 (Step 4) and Page 105 

(Appendix F.1)). 

Page 13 (Step 4) states that the Lean Design software developed by Munro & Associates is 

used for high-level process mapping (Step 4 and Page 105 (Appendix F.1)) and for capturing all 

steps associated with the assembly of components. Without an explanation of what the 

software does, how embedded data was developed and how the software was validated, the 

accuracy of the cost estimates cannot be determined. 

Page 14 states that output from the process maps created by Lean Design are imported into the 

MAQS. 

Page 105 (Appendix F.1) states that “total serial process time”, which is “referenced to mass 

production assumption calculations”, must be entered into the Lean Design software. To 
E-8 

assess the accuracy of the cost estimates, an explanation of the source and validity of the “total 

serial process time” input data and the meaning of “referenced to mass production assumption 

calculations” would be required. Since “total serial process time” would appear to require 

knowledge of the details of the manufacturing processes, the source of this information should 

be provided. 

2. Design Profit software is utilized to map high-level modules within each 

system/subsystem (Page 21) and all secondary processes (page 26) and contains maps 

and costing databases used as input to the MAQS (Page 14, Page 21, Page 26, and 

Page 27 (Figure 4)). 

Page 14 states that Design Profit software contains maps and costing databases used as input 

to the MAQS. 

Pages 21 and 26 state that, in the high level teardown, “high level modules within each 

system/subsystem” are mapped into the Design Profit software. In the second level teardown, 

all steps associated with assembly of the components are captured in Design Profit software. 

Details of the Design Profit software were not disclosed in the report. Munroe and Associates 

was assumed to be the developer based on their name appearing in the subsequent Figure 

3(Page 24) showing subassembly properties. 

Figure 4 (Page 27), which shows process mapping for the cylinder head, provides some insight 

into the input required for the Design Profit software. However, without knowing the details of 

what the Design Profit software does, how it determines the times required for each step of the 

process (e.g., historical data base, analytical model, etc.) and how the software results were 

validated, the impact of this step on the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot be determined. 

The methodology needs to explain how Lean Design software is related to Design Profit 

software. Both appear to be used for high-level process mapping while Design Profit appears to 

be used to map secondary processes, but only Lean Design is mentioned in Appendix F.1 

(page 105) MAQS Worksheet Task Reference Guide. The methodology needs to clarify how 

the Lean Design input to the MAQS (Page 14) differs from the Design Profit input into the 

MAQS (Page 14). 

Page 21 states that components are put through Munro & Associates’ “internal costing tools to 

develop serial manufacturing process times”. An explanation of what tools are being used 

should be provided. If these tools are in addition to Lean Design and Design Profit, without a 

further, detailed explanation of these tools, the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot be 

assessed.

3. “An applicable database” is used to provide “surrogate costs” when a part is treated as a 

“buy” (page 19). 

Page 19 states in the case where a part is a “buy”, “surrogate costs are pulled from an 

applicable database”. Without a detailed description of this “applicable data base” including 

how it was developed and how it was validated, the accuracy of cost estimates cannot be 

determined. 

4. “Purchase Part Database” is used to provide values for commodity purchased parts 

(page 207, Appendix G.1-60 (4of4), Engine Electrical Systems – Engine Assembly 

MAQS spreadsheet). 
E-9 

As an example, Appendix G.1-60 (4of 4) (Page 207) states that a “Purchase Part Database” is 

used to provide values for commodity purchased parts. An explanation of how this database 

differs for the above “applicable database” should be provided. If this is a different database, 

then without a detailed description, the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot be determined. 

5. Databases for material costs, labor rates, manufacturing overhead rates, mark-up rates, 

and packaging costs provide the foundation of the cost analysis (Page 30 and page 95, 

Appendix E.1-E.5). (These Appendices were provided separately on September 29, 

2009, which limited the review time prior to the peer review submission date of October 

5, 2009.) 

Page 30 states that Appendix E.1-E.5 (page 95) contains the cost analysis, which includes 

databases for material costs, labor rates, manufacturing overhead rates, mark-up rates, and 

packaging costs. “The databases provide the foundation of the cost analysis since all costs 

originate from them...”. 

The separately provided spreadsheets did not appear to be labeled as Appendix E.1 – E.5. 

Instead, they were labeled by topic as follows: Labor, Mark-up, Manufacturing Overhead (MOH), 

Packaging Description, and Raw Materials. 

Recommendation: These Appendices should be labeled so that the designations E.1-E.5 are 

clearly associated with the respective topic. Subsequent references in this peer review will be 

by topic (e.g., E.Labor) for clarity. 

Comparing Figure 6 (Page 31) with Appendix E.Labor shows a significant discrepancy. Figure 

6 shows an AAF of –5% from 2008 to 2015. However, Appendix E.Labor shows an AAF of 0%. 

The effect of this discrepancy is significant as shown by the example below: 

Electrical/Electronic Equipment Assemblers 

 AAF 2008 2015

Figure 6 -5% $29.69 $20.73 

Appendix E. Labor 0% $29.69 $29.69 

Without knowing the labor rates that were actually used for 2015, the accuracy of a cost 

estimate for 2015 cannot be assessed. 

Recommendation: This discrepancy in AAF and projected labor rates needs to be resolved 

before the report is published. 

Some additional comments on Appendix E are addressed under Opinion #6.5. 

Opinion #3 - The Applied Burden Rate generally results in labor costs that are many times 

higher than the direct labor costs. However, derivation and validation of the values used in the 

equation for calculating Applied Burden Rate were not clearly described in the report. Without 

knowing the derivation and validation of these values, the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot 

be determined. (Page 99 - Appendix F.1) 
E-10 

Page 99 – The table in Appendix F.1 provides the following definition: 

The Applied Burden Rate = number of lines x parallel processing multiplier x burden 

rate. 

The separately provided spreadsheets (as an example, the Turbocharging Assembly MAQS 

App G.1-15 (1 of 11) Page 1 of 4 lists all of the inputs to the above equation for each part. For 

Item 1A, Block Turbo Shaft Support – Cooling & Lub, as an example, 

 Number of lines = 1 

 Parallel processing multiplier = 8 

 Burden rate = $30/hr 

The resulting Applied Burden Rate = $240/hr 

Although the values used in the above equation are clearly shown on the referenced 

spreadsheet, the source or derivation and validation of the values were not clearly described in 

the report. Since the Applied Burden Rate has a major influence on the overall labor costs, the 

lack of adequate detail regarding the values used to calculate the Applied Burden Rate is a 

concern and could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimate. 

Using the above example for Line 14 (Block Turbo Shaft Support – Cooling & Lub) of the 

spreadsheet, the specific concerns that need more detail are: 

- 4 manual and 4 automatic stations are noted, which provide the parallel processor 

multiplier of 8. However, this implies that all 8 stations have labor associated with them. 

Recommendation: An explanation of why an “automatic” station needs a labor charge 

should be provided. 

- The spreadsheet states that the “Lean Design calculation for complete process time” is 

221 seconds, the tack time/machine/cycle is 20 seconds and the resulting pieces /hr is 

177. The absence of the actual source or derivation and validation of these values is a 

concern and could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimate. 

Opinion #4 - Four components comprise 58% of the total cost. The four components appear to 

be classified as high cost items, but marketplace crosschecks from suppliers were not obtained, 

even though marketplace crosschecks were described as part of the methodology. Without 

marketplace crosschecks from suppliers, the accuracy of the cost estimates cannot be 

determined. The four components are: 

1. Fuel pump $69.61 

Page 234 Cost Model Analysis Template (CMAT) - for No. 11 - Fuel Induction Subsystem 

shows the fuel pump cost as $69.61 (from a full cost analysis). A marketplace crosscheck from 

suppliers would have helped to validate the accuracy of this cost. 
E-11 

2. Fuel injectors $52.49 

Page 234 CMAT for No. 11 - Fuel Induction Subsystem shows the fuel injector cost as $52.49 

(from a full cost analysis). A marketplace crosscheck from suppliers would have helped to 

validate the accuracy of this cost. 

3. Turbocharger $151.85 

Page 246 CMAT for No. 15 - Induction Air Charging Subsystem shows the turbocharger cost as 

$151.85. A marketplace crosscheck from suppliers would have helped to validate the accuracy 

of this cost. 

 

4. PCM $40.00 

Page 252 and No. 60 - Engine Electrical Systems Spreadsheet provided separately shows the 

differential cost of the PCM as a Supplier Accounted Cost (SAC) of $40.00. This cost is shown 

as a “Purchase Part – Commodity” with value taken from Purchase Part database. Appendix C 

(page 91) states, “Estimated cost from Tech Team on GDI PCM may cost $40-45 more than a 

PFI PCM”. For a component that comprises approximately 7% of the total incremental cost of 

the new technology, a more detailed analysis of this cost would be expected. Costs for 

incremental changes to the PCM should be detailed and may include changes to the following: 

Input/output requirements 

Drivers (conference call (9/21/09) indicated that these were the only items 

considered) 

RAM memory requirements 

ROM memory requirements 

CPU requirements 

Page 91 CBOM states that the PCM hardware is carryover except for the PFI drivers. The GDI 

drivers use 75-80 V DC boost circuit and 25 A peak/hold drivers, which are presumed to be 

responsible for the incremental $40 cost. Page 91 CBOM also states that the low side driver for 

the turbocharger is “really no cost”. However, cost for this low side driver may be incurred if a 

low side driver together with output pins and connector are not available within the baseline 

PCM. 

”Since the software is described as “much more complicated”, it is not clear why there were no 

changes in any of the above items except for the drivers to accommodate the more complicated 

software. 

Other concerns with the cost analysis for the PCM are as follows: 

- An explanation of the Purchase Part database is needed (which was not explained in the 

report). 

- Why was the PCM classified as a commodity, since Powertrain Control Modules are 

typically not considered a commodity? 

- A supplier quote would have helped to validate this cost. 

Opinion #5 -The following issues with the methodology are expected to directly affect the 

accuracy of the cost estimates: 
E-12 

1. OEM’s and suppliers are assumed to have the manufacturing facilities and equipment 

for the new technologies (Page 16). Issue: Components comprising the core of the new 

technology will probably be incremental and require new manufacturing facilities and 

equipment. 

Page 16 (Item 2) states that OEM’s and suppliers have manufacturing equipment and facilities 

capable of handling required manufacturing processes and capacities, unless otherwise stated. 

This assumption may not be valid in most cases since the manufacturing facilities and 

equipment for the new technologies probably do not exist since components comprising the 

core of the new technologies will be incremental. For example, introduction of 450,000 units of 

the 1.6L DI turbo charged (TC) engine will result in incremental requirements for turbochargers, 

DI fuel pumps, DI injectors and other unique components for this technology. Not accounting 

for these incremental facilities and equipment costs would directly affect the accuracy of the 

cost estimates. 

2. All manufacturing processes and operations are assumed to be based on 

standard/mainstream industrial processes (Page 16). Issue: New technology is likely to 

involve new, non-standard industrial processes. 

Page 16 (Items 3 and 4) state that “All manufacturing processes and operations are based on 

standard/mainstream industrial processes” and that supplier mark-up rates are based on mature 

technology and manufacturing processes unless otherwise specified.” Some processes in the 

automotive industry are unique today and it is likely that new technology, especially in the 

battery area, will involve non-standard industrial processes. Not accounting for these unique 

processes may directly affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

3. No added vehicle costs were considered for the pilot study new technology (Page 18). 

Issue: The pilot study new technology is likely to require new or different vehicle 

installation hardware and the associated costs should be included in the overall costs. 

Page 18 states “no added cost considered for new technology (1.6L TC DI vs. 2.4L NA)”. This 

statement appears to refer to vehicle installation added costs. However, a downsized, 

turbocharged engine may require some additional items for the vehicle installation, such as: 

- Heat shields to protect vehicle components from the higher temperatures of the 

turbocharger 

- Changes to the engine mounting system. Since the downsized engine will be operating 

at higher specific loads, vibration forces may be increased at typical operating conditions 

and a revised engine mounting system may be required to minimize the transmission of 

these forces. 

- Wiring changes to accommodate the added PCM inputs and outputs. 

- Possible additional sound insulation to offset higher average specific loads of a 

downsized engine. 

Not accounting for these unique processes may directly affect the accuracy of the cost 

estimates. 

4. The decisions to use either OEM or suppliers for manufacturing specific components 

were not clearly explained but appeared to be based on conventional practice and/or 

input from experts (Ref: conference call (9/21/09). Issue: Since OEM labor rates (direct 
E-13 

labor, fringe, and overhead) are significantly higher than supplier wage rates ($90.56/hr 

for OEM vs. $41.45 for T1 Supplier) (Page 42 (Figure 11), these decisions can 

significantly affect overall costs. The basis for these decisions should be clearly 

explained. 

Figure 11 (Page 42) appears to show that the average total labor rate (direct labor + indirect 

labor + MRO (Maintenance, Repair, Other) + fringe) for a supplier (Motor Vehicle Parts 

Manufacturing) is $41.45 and for an OEM (Motor Vehicle Manufacturing) is $90.56. Appendix 

F.1 (Page 96) shows that OEM/T1 classification is an input to MAQS worksheet; however, a 

description of how the OEM/T1 classification was determined was not provided. The 

conference call (9/21/09) indicated that the OEM/T1 classification decision was based on FEV’s 

internal and external contacts. More detail on this decision, which influences labor cost by a 2:1 

factor, should be provided since this decision directly affects the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

Opinion #6 - A number of issues with the methodology could potentially affect the accuracy of 

the cost estimates. For most of these issues, adequate information was not provided in the 

report to determine if these issues affected the costs. These issues are: 

1. Different levels of maturity may be represented in the new technology vs. the base 

comparator technology (Page 12). 

The selection of vehicles that represent the base and new technology cases for the teardown 

and cost analysis (Page 12) may have different levels of maturity. The new technology may not 

have benefited from years of cost reductions in the base technology, which could potentially 

affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

2. Different production volumes of the new technology engine (20,000 units per year) vs. 

the comparator baseline (840,000 units per year) may result in different design and 

manufacturing techniques (Page 73, Appendix B). 

The selection of vehicles that represent the base and new technology cases for the teardown 

and cost analysis (Page 12) may have different production volumes. Higher volumes for the 

new technology may result in different design and manufacturing techniques, which could 

impact costs. 

Page 73 (Appendix B) shows that the new technology 1.6L TC DI engine has a volume of 

20,000 units whereas the baseline 2.4L NA has a volume of 840,000 units. The exceptionally 

low volume of the new technology engine is a significant concern since it may not represent the 

design and manufacturing techniques that would be used for a high volume engine, and, thus, 

potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

This effect will be even more critical for more advanced, new technologies such as lithium-ion 

batteries. In the September 2009 issue of “Ward’s Autoworld”, Ric Fulop, founder of A123 

Systems, Inc., stated that in the next decade lithium-ion batteries will double in energy density 

and cut costs in half. 

3. Different internal design and manufacturing practices may be represented in new 

technology vs. the comparator baseline technology if they are from different 

manufacturers. 
E-14 

The new technology may be from a different manufacturer than the base technology. As a 

result, different internal practices may be represented which could potentially affect the 

accuracy of the cost estimate. 

4. For components not marked to show materials used in their manufacture, cross 

functional team members were consulted, and, if necessary, published information and 

experts in Tier 1 suppliers were consulted, instead of performing an analysis of the 

actual material (Page 34). 

Page 34 (Material Identification) states that,” For components that are not marked, crossfunctional team members are consulted to help in the materials identification. For any materials 

still not identified, information published in print and on the web is researched, or primary 

manufacturers and experts within the Tier 1 supplier community are contacted to establish 

credible material choices.” This is not a rigorous method for determining material used in a 

specific part from a teardown. A more reliable method would have been to conduct an analysis 

of the actual material from the part. Not having an analysis of the actual material forming a part 

is a concern, and could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimate. 

5. Material costs may be dependent on annual consumption rate. The methodology 

discusses the assignment of a low or high annual consumption rate pricing for a material 

(Page 34), yet this is not reflected in Figure 7 (Price Data for Significant Materials) (Page 

32-33). 

An indication of whether low or high annual consumption rate pricing was applied for specific 

materials is provided in Appendix E.Raw Materials. 

Recommendation: The text of the report should state that the application of either low or high 

annual consumption rate pricing for a specific material could be found in Appendix E.Raw 

Materials. 

The report also states that Appendix E.Raw Materials provides the “Information Reference 

Source”. However, a number of materials were listed without this information being provided 

under “Information Reference Source”. 

Recommendation: All materials used in this study should be included in Appendix E.Raw 

Materials and the “Information Reference Source” should be provided for each of these 

materials. 

Most of the “Information Reference Sources” listed were either publicly available websites and 

magazines or the comment, “Composition analysis plus surcharge”. Confirmation of the pricing 

with supplier quotes was not apparent in the Appendix. Not having at least selective supplier 

quotes is a concern and could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimate.

Recommendation: At least selected high annual consumption rate materials should have been 

confirmed with supplier quotes. 

Recommendation: An explanation of “composition analysis plus surcharge” should be provided 

and explained in the text. 

6. The method for determining the required material weights for the manufacturing 

processes, which would be higher than the finished part weights found in the teardown 
E-15 

process, was not explained in the methodology in adequate detail (Page 26 and 

Appendix G). 

Appendix G – Material Cost - Material cost appears to be derived by multiplying the component 

part weight by the material cost per lb. (example page 149). However, manufacturing 

processes typically require a quantity of material, which is larger than the finished part since the 

manufacturing processes involve metal removal or casting waste. The derivation of material 

weights, which would be higher than the finished part weights, should be explained since the 

resulting material weights could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

Page 26 states that “the overall size of the part in bar or rod form prior to machining” is 

determined without specifying how this was done. The conference call (9/21/09) explained that 

the weight of the bar or rod vs. the observed teardown weight is used throughout the 

methodology. The report should provide some examples of the differences in these two weights 

so that the validity of the method used to determine the differences could be assessed. 

Recommendation: The process for determining the overall size of the part in bar or rod form 

prior to machining should be explained. 

7. The visual teardown inspection cannot capture many detailed specifications used in the 

manufacture of the part, such as tolerances of dimensions and fits or surface 

finishes/flatness requirements, which could add additional cost to the parts (Page 21). 

Page 21 – “All attributes of the parts are captured, including assembly characteristics, materials, 

quantities, weights...” However, this type of visual tear down inspection cannot capture 

specifications, such as tolerances on dimensions and fits or surface finishes/flatness 

requirements. The manufacturer of these parts may use extra or unique processes to achieve 

the tolerances and requirements that result in satisfactory function of the components, 

subsystems or system. For example, Appendix D (Page 93-94), which lists some of the 

operational symbols in Design Profit, do not include honing operations used in cylinder bore 

finishing or lapping used in injector manufacturing. Achieving these specifications often requires 

additional costs that could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

8. BLS labor rates are used which are based on “union and non-union labor rates, 

reflecting the relative mix of each in the BLS motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts 

manufacturing classifications of the workforce at the time data was gathered 

(2007)”(Page 39). Using labor rates based on this mix may result in significant errors in 

labor costs. 

Using labor rates based on a mix of union and non-union labor rates for 2007 could potentially 

affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. There would be significant errors in labor costs on the 

low side by applying a mixed labor rate to a fully unionized supplier. Conversely, there would be 

significant errors in labor rates on the high side by applying a mixed labor rate to a nonunionized supplier. A further justification for using this technique should be provided since it 

could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

Due to the severe restructuring in the automotive industry in 2008 and 2009, the labor rates 

should be updated since they could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

9. “Two fringe rates were used: 52% for supplier manufacturing, and 160% for OEM 

manufacturing.” “The OEM fringe rate was calculated using a 2006/2007 average North 
E-16 

American wage rate and labor rate of $28.18 and $73.21 respectively....” “The supplier 

manufacturing fringe rate is based on historical knowledge” (Page 40). 

The 2006/2007 burden data for OEM’s may be obsolete as a result of the many changes in the 

automotive industry in 2008 and 2009 and should be updated. The update could potentially 

affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

10. Warranty data on the new technology and the comparator baseline should have been 

examined to ensure that comparable design methodologies were used to ensure 

comparable useful lives. Without ensuring comparable useful lives, costs may not be 

comparable. 

If high warranty costs were encountered in the new technology, this would indicate inadequate 

designs, materials or processes were used. To ensure that the new technology and comparator 

baseline have comparable useful lives (i.e., durability), upgrades may need to be applied to the 

new technology. These upgrades to achieve a comparable useful life could potentially affect the 

accuracy of the cost estimates.

11. Differences between components contained in the new technology and comparator 

baseline that are not directly related to the technology need to be analyzed to determine 

the proper handling of these differences in the methodology (e.g., balance shaft 

(with/without), close coupled catalyst (with/without), fabricated/cast camshaft). 

As an example (Page 76 (CBOM for the Counterbalance System)), the CBOM states “Balance 

shaft not required on turbo DI due to smaller engine size.” Likewise, the Subsystem CMAT, 

Appendix H.1.04) shows negative incremental costs for the balance shaft subassembly for the 

new technology (and zero actual costs, Appendix H.1.04 SubCMAT spreadsheet provided 

separately). Before this conclusion could be reached, the unbalance forces of the turbo DI 

engine without a balance shaft should be calculated to demonstrate that their levels were no 

worse than the comparator baseline engine (with balance shaft) at typical vehicle operating 

conditions. 

As another example (Page 86 (CBOM for the Exhaust Systems – Catalysts), the CBOM 

indicates that a close-coupled catalyst will be used on the new technology. The CBOM has a 

comment that “Close coupled catalytic converter not a requirement for turbo DI technology”. 

This comment does not appear to be based on test data and therefore, should be deleted for 

the following reason. Generally, the industry has found that close-coupled catalysts are 

required to ensure rapid catalyst light-off for today’s NA engines to meet the current, stringent 

emission standards. When a turbocharger is applied, the turbocharged acts as a heat sink, 

which would slow down the catalyst light-off process, thereby tending to increase emissions. 

Therefore, since the NA engine has a close-coupled catalyst (identified as a common item), 

then the turbo DI technology should also have the close-coupled catalyst and may even require 

additional technology to meet the same emission standard as the NA engine. 

A third example, discussed during the conference call (9/21/09), concerned camshafts. The 

new technology turbo DI engine had an assembled camshaft, but the comparator baseline had 

a cast camshaft. However, for the incremental cost comparison, both engines were assumed to 

have cast camshafts. These differences could not be found in the CBOM (Page 81). 
E-17 

Recommendation: The report should clearly define and justify the components that were 

substituted in the analysis (vs. the observed teardown parts) since such changes can potentially 

affect the accuracy of the cost estimates.

Opinion #7 - Several important steps were suggested in the methodology. However, the 

conference call (9/21/09) indicated that these steps were not followed which might potentially 

affect the accuracy of the cost estimate. These steps are: 

 

1. The methodology described the process of subjecting a part with high or unexpected 

cost results to a marketplace crosscheck for validation (Page 15 Step 8). However, the 

conference call indicated that this step had not been performed. 

As mentioned on Page 15 (Step 8) subjecting parts with high or unexpected cost results to a 

marketplace crosscheck such as comparison with supplier price quotes is an excellent step for 

validating the methodology. However, the conference call (9/21/09) indicated that this step was 

not taken. Not taking this validation step could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost 

estimate. 

2. The CBOM chart (next to last column) has a provision for accounting for design 

modifications for MCR. However, the conference call (9/21/09) indicated that this was 

not done (Page 19 and Page 75, CBOM). 

The baseline technology has probably been exposed to MCR actions over a number of years 

whereas the new technology has not benefited from similar MCR actions. Not accounting for 

potential MCR actions in the new technology, as well in the baseline technology, and ensuring 

that comparable MCR actions are applied to both could potentially affect the accuracy of the 

cost estimate. 

As an example, see Page 75 (CBOM), for the crankshaft, the CBOM states under “Design 

Modifications for Material Cost Reduction (MCR)”, “Potential for base engine crankshaft to be 

made from nodular cast iron as a cost save. However, the conference call (9/21/09) indicated 

that this potential MCR action was not taken into account in the cost analysis. 

3. The CBOM chart (last column) shows the possible accounting for NTA, which provides 

alternative, advanced technology ideas, which could be substituted for some existing 

hardware being evaluated. However, the conference call (9/21/09) indicated that this 

was not done (Page 19 and Page 75, CBOM). 

As an example, the CBOM (Page 90) suggests the possibility of unit cost savings by switching 

from a conventional air-to-air charge air cooler to a water-to-air charge air cooler, although the 

tooling bill would be higher. Not considering potential new technology advances could 

potentially affect the accuracy of the cost estimate. 

Opinion #8 - Other concerns were identified that could potentially affect the accuracy of the cost 

estimates determined by the methodology. These include: 

1. Issues with the application of the new technologies in five vehicle size classes (Page 9). 

Page 9 of the report states that, “...application of new technologies in five vehicle size classes is 

considered”, but no details are provided. Significant differences can be encountered in different 

vehicle size classes. In the pilot study, a larger, naturally aspirated I4 engine is replaced with a 
E-18 

similar, but downsized turbocharged I4 engine. However, as an example, the results for the 

pilot study would not apply to larger vehicles in which a NA V6 engine would be replaced with a 

downsized turbocharged I4 engine. In this case, there is a significant change in the engine 

configuration from V6 to I4, which would need to be accounted for in the analysis. Each of the 

five vehicle size classes would require a detailed analysis to account for such changes which 

could possibly affect the accuracy of overall costs. 

2. Qualifications and experience of the cross functional team that reviews all data from the 

teardown (Page 13, Step 5). 

The make-up of the cross-functional team that reviews all of the data from the high level 

teardown is critical (Page 13 (Step 5)). The qualifications and experience of the cross-functional 

team members, which would be expected to affect the quality of the reviews, should be provided 

in the report. The qualifications and experience of the team could possibly affect the accuracy 

of overall costs. 

3. Intellectual property is often an important part of new technology powertrains, but was 

not addressed in the methodology. 

New technology is likely to involve intellectual property, such as patents, know-how and trade 

secrets. When new technology is developed by one leading company, other companies will 

need to negotiate a license to use the technology. The cost methodology did not appear to 

have a means for accounting for the cost of intellectual property, which could possibly affect the 

accuracy of the cost estimates. 

4. Production testing (e.g., leak testing of fuel rails, end of line engine testing) may be 

required for some components or systems, but was not addressed in the methodology. 

Some production parts require functional testing in addition to the usual quality control 

inspections. One such part is the fuel rail, which might require leak testing. In addition, end of 

line testing of the entire engine assembly (hot or cold) is usually required and would be more 

complex for a turbocharged engine. 

Note that the critical testing required for balancing the turbocharger rotor was recognized with 

respect to the labor cost (Item 5A, Appendix G.1-15 (1 of 11) provided separately). Inadequate 

information was provided to determine if the machining required to actually balance the 

turbocharger rotor was also included. 

The methodology does not appear to uniformly recognize this type of testing, which could 

possibly affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

5. The analysis assumed an annual volume of 450,000 units. However, due to recent 

severe fluctuations in the automotive market, volume sensitive costs should be provided. 

The methodology does not appear to recognize the impact of severe fluctuations in the 

automotive market, which could possibly affect the accuracy of the cost estimates. The analysis 

assumes an average annual volume of 450,000 units (Page 10). The basis of this assumption 

should be provided. Because of the recent severe fluctuations in the automotive market and 

specific automotive segments, providing a volume sensitive cost would be helpful. 
E-19 

B. Other Comment on the Report

1. Issue with fuel economy comparison between new technology and comparator baseline 

due to differences in vehicle weights (Page 12 and Appendix B.1 (Page 73)). 

Page 12 and Appendix B.1 (Page 73) – The comparison of fuel economy for the new technology 

and comparator baseline vehicle is flawed because the new technology is applied to a 

significantly lighter vehicle (2668 lbs) vs. the baseline technology (3310 lbs), which is a 

difference of 642 lbs. 

2. Issue with different emission certification levels of the new technology (Tier 2, Bin 5) vs. 

the baseline (PZEV), which is considerably more stringent (Appendix B.1 (Page 73)). 

The methodology does not appear to take into account the costs required to reduce emissions 

of the new technology to the level of the baseline. 

Recommendation: The costs required to ensure comparable certification emission levels for the 

new technology and the baseline should be accounted for in the methodology. 

C. Recommendations to Improve the Study and/or Report:

1. A glossary of terms needs to be provided before this report with its complexity is released. 

2. Each of the appendices should to be listed in the Table of Contents 

3. Some of the appendices have the format of “Appendix F.1”. However, an Appendix F.2, etc. 

does not appear to exist. Therefore, a better designation for the appendices is recommended to 

avoid searches for appendices that do not exist. 

4. Page 8 – For ease of cross-referencing, the numbering used for the subsystems throughout 

the analysis should be used on the summary chart showing the incremental costs. 

5. Page 13 – The convention adopted in this report of referring to a “quote” as the “analyticallydetermined cost of a part or assembly, not a price provided by a supplier”, is very misleading. 

Common terminology is that a quote is a price provided by a supplier. An analytically 

determined cost should be called an “analytically determined cost” in the report. 

D. Wording or Spelling Issues:

Page 31, last line – “...in the cast study analysis.” should be changed to “...in the cost study 

analysis.” 

Page 35, Section 6.2.3, line 6 – “...Metalprices, estainlesssteel...” should be changed to 

“...metal prices, stainless steel...” 

Page 36, Section 6.2.4, paragraph 2, line 1 and Figure 9 - “Figure 9 illustrates the power 

curve...” should be changed to “Figure 9 illustrates the price curve...” 

Page 45, line 1 – “...establish the reference the baseline...” should be changed to “...establish 

the reference baseline...” 
E-20 

Page 52, line 2 – “...same level of mark-up is applied regardless the...” should be changed to 

“...same level of mark-up is applied regardless of the...” 

Page 58, last paragraph, line 4 – “...manufacturing costs are capture for the...” should be 

changed to “..manufacturing costs are captured for the...”. 

Page 58, last paragraph, next to the last line – “Alternatively in single a MAQS...” should be 

changed to “Alternatively in a single MAQS...” 

Page 61, first paragraph under Section 9.3, line 4 – “...interactions tacking place...” should be 

changed to “...interactions taking place...” 
F- 1 

Appendix F - Curricula Vitae of Selected Peer Reviewers 
F-2 

Dionissios (Dennis) N. Assanis 

PERSONAL 

Degrees 

Ph.D., Power and Propulsion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), 1985 

M.S., Management, Sloan School of Management, M.I.T., 1986 

M.S., Mechanical Engineering, M.I.T., 1982 

M.S., Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, M.I.T., 1982 

B.Sc., Marine Engineering, Newcastle University, England, 1980 

Positions at University of Michigan 

Jon R. and Beverly S. Holt Professor of Engineering 

Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of the University of Michigan 

Director, Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute, 2009-date 

Chair, Mechanical Engineering, Jan. 2002- Aug. 2007 

Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Sept. 1994-date 

Professor of Applied Physics, 2003-date 

Director, Automotive Research Center, Sept. 2000-date 

Founding Co-Director, General Motors Collaborative Research Laboratory on Engine Systems 

Research, 2002-2013 

Director, W. E. Lay Automotive Laboratory, 1996-date 

Associate Director, General Motors Satellite Research Laboratory, 1998-2002 

Deputy Director, Automotive Research Center, Jan. 1996-Aug. 2000 

Acting Director, Automotive Research Center, Aug.1995- Dec. 1995 

Interim Director, CoE Interdisciplinary Professional Programs, Fall 2001 

Founding Director, CoE Automotive Engineering Program, Sept. 1999-Apr. 2002 

Founding Director, MEAM Automotive Engineering Program, 1995-1999 

Positions at University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign 

Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Aug. 1990 - Aug. 1994 

Head, Thermal Sciences/Systems Division II, Aug. 1992 - Aug. 1994 

Research Scientist, Office for Supercomputing Applications, Aug. 1991- 1994 

Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Sept. 1985 - Aug. 1990 

Positions at Other Institutions 

Honorary President, Zhejiang Automotive Engineering Institute, 2009 

Honorary Professor, Zhejiang Automotive Engineering Institute, 2009 

Advisory Professor, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China, 2009 

Guest Professor, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China, 2003-2008 

Adjunct Research Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory, Energy and Environmental Systems 

Division, May 1987-2002 

Research Assistant, Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sept. 

1982- Aug. 1985 
F-3 

Teaching and Research Assistant, Department of Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology, Sept. 1980-June 1982 

Honors and Awards 

University of Michigan Rackham Distinguished Faculty Achievement Award, 2009 

Member, National Academy of Engineering, 2008 

ASME, Internal Combustion Engine Award, 2008 

ASME Fellow, 2008 

Jon R. and Beverly S. Holt Professor of Engineering, 2000 

Tau Beta Pi Professor of the Year Award, 2006 

SAE Award for Research on Automotive Lubricants, 2002 

SAE Fellow, 2001 

ASEE Annual Distinguisher Lecturer, College of Engineering, The University of Michigan, April 

12, 2000 

Teaching Excellence Award, College of Engineering, The University of Michigan, 2000 

Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, The University of Michigan, 1999 

Excellence in Teaching Award, Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, The University 

of Michigan, 1998 

ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division Meritorious Service Award, 1997 

ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division Speaker Award, 1993 

ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division Speaker Award, 1994 

Listed in Who's Who in America, 1994-date 

Listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, 1993-date 

Listed in American Men and Women of Science, 1992-date 

University of Illinois Scholar, 1991 - 94 

SAE Russell Springer Award, 1991 

IBM Research Award, 1991 

ASME/Pi Tau Sigma Gold Medal Award, 1990 

NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award, 1988-93 

Lilly Endowment Teaching Fellow Award, 1988 

NSF Engineering Initiation Award, 1987 

NASA Certificate of Recognition for Creative Development of a Technical Innovation, 1987 

SAE Ralph Teetor Award to Outstanding Young Educators, 1987 

Excellent Teacher, listed every semester in student newspaper The Daily Illini, 1985-94 

Honors, B.Sc. Degree with Distinction, 1980 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE 

Contributions as Chair of Mechanical Engineering 

As Chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME) at the University of Michigan 

(2002-2007), Professor Assanis led the administration and long-range development of the ME 

Department’s academic and research programs. The ME Department is a major academic unit 

that is educating more than 700 undergraduate students and 500 graduate students (250 

Master’s and 250 Ph.Ds), and employing 55 tenured and tenure track professorial faculty 

members, 18 primary research scientists and 70 support staff members in a physical plant of 

approx. 120,000 square feet spread out over four buildings. Throughout his tenure as ME Chair, 

the Department’s undergraduate and graduate programs were consistently ranked within the 
F-4 

top five nationally by U.S. News and World Report. His efforts have made significant 

contributions in the following areas: 

• Planned strategically to establish and articulate a shared vision for the future that 

sustains and evolves the ME Departments core academic and research strengths in 

automotive and manufacturing engineering, while also developing a competitive position 

into the emerging areas of mechanical engineering, including bio-systems, energy/ ecosystems and micro/nano-systems. As the culmination of these strategic planning efforts, 

a major addition and remodeling of the ME Building facilities, has emerged as the #2 allcampus building priority for UM’s capital outlay plan over the next five years. 

• Successfully retained the ME Departments excellent body of faculty and hired 

outstanding new faculty (11 new Professors and 15 Research Scientists). Promoted in 

rank 27 faculty members, including 5 women faculty who reached the rank of Professor. 

In addition to assessing and rewarding the performance of professorial faculty, 

implemented procedures for the annual review and merit raises of primary research 

faculty. Mentored junior faculty members in their professional careers and made a 

deliberate effort to address issues that could compromise their success. Nominated a 

number of colleagues, students, alumni and staff who received prestigious professional 

awards, both outside and within the University, including four new endowed chairs. 

• Enhanced the ME Departments efforts to create a multi-cultural and diverse intellectual 

environment by retaining all women and underrepresented minority (URM) faculty; by 

hiring thee more women faculty members for a total of 10 (18% of ME faculty); by 

strategically recruiting URM and women students through K-12 programs, the Detroit 

Area Pre-College Engineering Program, and the NSF Research Experience for 

Undergraduates Program; and by supporting mentorship groups including Unified 

Minority Mechanical Engineers and Society of Women Engineers. Improved 

communications among the students, alumni, faculty and staff. 

• Oversaw financial planning, budgets and expenditures for the ME Department (annual 

budget of approx. $14M in general funds and more than $28M in research funds and 

gifts) and introduced “paperless” electronic tools in the areas of student services, 

financial reporting, and faculty recruiting. Participated in fundraising and pubic relations 

efforts for the ME Department and College of Engineering in close coordination with the 

development staff. Through these efforts, new endowed professorships, a number of 

undergraduate student scholarships, and new graduate fellowships from industry, and a 

prestigious named lectureship series about the role of the Engineer in Society have been 

attracted to the ME Department. 

• Made significant progress towards a “paperless” administration through the development 

and implementation of electronic solutions in the areas of student services (with webbased graduate application and admissions tracking systems), financial reporting (with 

accounting statements for contracts on line), faculty recruiting and faculty data center. 

• Promoted the systematic exchange of faculty and students with strategically selected 

global partners, notably with the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the Korean Advanced 

Institute for Science and Technology, Seoul National University and the Technical 

University of Berlin. 

• Enhanced the strong tradition of an active and engaged External Advisory Board (EAB) 

which has served as a model for other CoE Departments and the University of 

Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 
F-5 

• Promoted the development of K-12 programs intended to spark the interest of the 

brightest youngsters - including women and traditionally underrepresented groups in 

math, science and engineering. 

Contributions as Director of Automotive Engineering Program 

As the Founding Director of the Master’s of Engineering Program in Automotive Engineering 

(AUTO), I was responsible for designing the curriculum and launching the new degree Program, 

first in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and subsequently as a College-wide program 

in the College of Engineering. My responsibilities have included recruiting prospective students, 

advising all M. Eng. students, developing new courses, and pursuing international collaborations 

for joint degree offerings with global Universities, and especially Aachen (Germany) and 

Loughborough (UK) as part of the Ford Global Automotive Systems Master’s degree. As part of 

our curriculum improvement activities, I founded the College of Engineering AUTO Council and 

led its efforts to develop and evolve a strong academic curriculum that meets industry needs. I 

also worked very effectively with the UM Center for Professional Development to offer to 

industry a distance-learning version of our M.Eng. Program. Our visionary pursuit of distance 

learning teaching has set a standard for other programs to emulate. 

Overall, I strived to grow our AUTO program, while simultaneously improving the quality of the 

entering students and courses offered. Our goals were met with great success, as evidenced 

by the enrollment in the AUTO program, which exceeded 100 students within 5 years from the 

program's introduction, and the excellent job placement and very positive feedback expressed 

by many of our continuing students and graduates. 

Contributions as Interim Director of Interdisciplinary Professional Programs 

As the Interim Director of the College of Engineering’s Interdisciplinary Professional Programs 

(INTERPRO), I provided stability and leadership during a period of transition and growth to six 

interdisciplinary programs, automotive engineering, financial engineering, integrated microsystems, manufacturing engineering, pharmaceutical engineering, and plastics engineering. 

During my tenure as Director and working with the INTERPRO Directors’ Council, I oversaw the 

management of the large growth in student enrollment which reached an all time high (320 

enrolled students) in the history of the INTERPRO programs. Most of this growth was 

accounted by part-time, distance learning professionals. I stepped down from my role as 

INTERPRO Director and AUTO Program Director to assume the position of Chair of Mechanical 

Engineering. 

OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO SERVICE 

Major Committee Assignments at University of Michigan 

UM Energy Council, Founding Member, 2003-date 

Charter member of the team that actively pursued the development of a UM research 

thrust on Energy working in partnership with other Colleges, articulated the vision 

statement for the thrust, and recommended to the UM administration the development of 

a University-wide Energy Laboratory at the site of the decommissioned nuclear reactor. 

College of Engineering (COE) Budget Task Team, 2005-07, Member 

COE Center of Professional Development Executive Committee, 2005-06, Member 

COE Faculty Fellows Program, October 11-12, 2002, Panelist 
F-6 

President’s Committee on Intellectual Property Policy, 2001-02, Member 

COE Interdisciplinary Professional Program Directors Committee, 2001, Chair 

COE Nominating Committee, 2000-2001, Chair 

COE Automotive Council, 1999-date, Chair 

COE Curriculum Committee, 2000, Member 

University Senate, 1995-98, Elected Senator 

ME (formerly MEAM) Advisory Committee, 

Elected Member 1995-96, 1997-98 and Fall 2001 

Chair, 2002-to date 

ME (formerly MEAM) Planning Committee 

Member, 1997-98 

Chair, 2002 to date 

MEAM Thermal Science Instructional Area Coordinator, 1997-2000 

COE Committee on Reshaping Graduate Education at the Master’s Level, 1998-99, Member 

COE Committee on M. Eng. Programs, 1998-99, Member 

COE UM-National University of Singapore Committee on Establishment of Joint MEng Program 

in Automotive Engineering, 1997-98, Chair 

COE Committee on Faculty Incentives for Continuing Education (ICE) and Distance Learning 

Instruction, 1997-98, Member 

MEAM Space Task Force Committee, 1996-98, Member 

W. E. Lay Automotive Laboratory Test Cell Committee, 1994-present, Chair 

W. E. Lay Automotive Laboratory Renovations Committee, 1994-95, Member 

MEAM Laboratory and Safety Committee, 1995-1998, Member 

Service to Other Organizations 

1. External Boards 

Member, External Advisory Board, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Tech, 2004-

date. 

Member, Global External Advisory Board, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korean 

Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (KAIST), 2006-2008. 

Member, External Validation Panel for Launching MSc degree in Automotive Engineering 

Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2007. 

Chair, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) Search for Director of 

Center for Clean Combustion Energy, 2008-09. 

Incoming Member, ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division Executive Committee, 2008-13. 

Member, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Fuel Economy of Medium- and HeavyDuty Vehicles, appointed by the National Research Council’s Board on Energy and 

Environmental Systems, 11/08-5/31/10. 

Co-Chair, National Academy of Engineering Annual German-American Frontiers of Engineering 

GAFOE Symposium, 2010-2012. 

Chair, Advisory Board, Tula Technology, 2009-date. 
F-7 

2. Editorships 

Editor, International Journal of Automotive Technology, 2008-2011 

Associate Editor, ASME Journal for Gas Turbines and Power, 1996-2007 

Editorial Board, International Journal of Engine Research, 2003-2012 

Editorial Board, International Journal of Automotive Technology, 2005-2008 

Scientific Board, Ingineria Automobilului, 2007-date 

Guest Editor, International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, 2004 

3. Professional Society Memberships 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fellow 

Executive Committee Member, ICE Division, 2008-2013 

Journal Associate Editor, 1996-2008 

Past Chair of Student Activities, ICE Division 

Society of Automotive Engineers, Fellow 

Member, SAE Research Executive Committee, 2000-date 

Faculty Advisor, University of Michigan, 1996-2004 

CoE Future Car, Faculty Co-Advisor, 1997-98 

Member, Advanced Powerplant Committee 

Member, Passenger Car Readers Committee 

Member, Vehicular Heat Exchanger and Heat Transfer Committee 

American Society for Engineering Education, Member 

Sigma Xi, Member 

New York Academy of Sciences, Member 

The Combustion Institute, Member 

Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Associate Member 

4. Organizing and Chairing Conferences, Sessions, Workshops, Lectures 

Chair and Co-Organizer, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling and 

Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May 12-13, 2009 

Organizer, 2ns Annual Michael E. Korybalski Endowed Lecture in Mechanical Engineering: 

“Size Matters,” given by Dr. Roger McCarthy, Emeritus Chairman and CEO, Exponent, 

Inc., May 4, 2009 

Chair, Prime Power, National Defense Industrial Association – Michigan Chapter, Power and 

Energy Workshop, Troy, MI, November 18-19, 2008 

Chair and Co-Organizer, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling and 

Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May, 2008 

Member of Scientific Committee, International Workshop on Advances in Combustion Science 

and Technology, India Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India, Dec. 31, 2007- Jan. 8, 

2008 

Organizer, Inaugural Michael E. Korybalski Endowed Lecture in Mechanical Engineering: 

“Driving to a Sustainable Future, a New DNA for the Automobile,” given by Dr. 

Lawrence Burns, VP Research, Development and Planning, General Motors 

Chair and Co-Organizer, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling and 

Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May, 2007. 
F-8 

Member of Scientific Committee, 2nd International Symposium on Clean and Efficient 

Combustion Engines, Tianjin, China, July 10-13, 2006. 

Chair and Co-Organizer, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling and 

Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May, 2006. 

Chair and Co-Organizer, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling and 

Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May, 2005. 

Chair and Co-Organizer, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling and 

Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May, 2004. 

Co-Organizer, “Premixed Charge Compression Ignition Engines,” 2003 JSAE/SAE International 

Spring Meeting, Yokohama, Japan, May 19-22, 2003. 

Chair and Co-Organizer, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling and 

Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May, 2003. 

Co-Organizer and Chair, “Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition Engines,” 2003 SAE 

World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 3-6, 2003. 

Chair and Co-Organizer, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling and 

Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May, 2002. 

Organizer, “Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition Engines,” 2002 SAE International 

Spring Fuels & Lubricants Meeting, Reno, Nevada, May 6 - 8, 2002. 

Co-Organizer, “Advanced Hybrid Powertrain Systems,” 2002 World Congress, Detroit, MI, 

March 4-7, 2002. 

Co-Organizer, “Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition Engines,” 2002 World Congress, 

Detroit, MI, March 4-7, 2002. 

Co-Organizer and Chair, “Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition Engines,” ASME Fall 

Technical Conference, Argonne, IL, Sep. 23-26, 2001. 

Co-Organizer, “Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition Engines,” SAE 2001 Fall Fuels 

and Lubricants International Conference, San Antonio, TX, September 24-27, 2001. 

Member, Advisory Committee, COMODIA 2001, International Symposium on Diagnostics and 

Modeling of Combustion in Internal Combustion Engines, Nagoya, Japan, July 1-4, 

2001. 

Organizer and Chair, “Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition Engines,” SAE 2001 Spring 

Fuels and Lubricants International Conference, Orlando, Florida, May 7-9, 2001. 

Chair and Co-Organizer, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling and 

Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May 15-16, 2001. 

Co-Organizer and Co-Chair, “Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” SAE International Congress and 

Exhibition, March 5-8, 2001. 

Co-Organizer and Chair, “Novel SI and CI Combustion Systems,” SAE 2000 Fuels and 

Lubricants International Conference, Paris, France, June 19-22, 2000. 

Co-Organizer and Session Chair, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling 

and Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May 2000. 

Co-Organizer, “Direct Injection Engines and Sprays,” ASME-ICE Sprint Technical Conference, 

San Antonio, TX, April 9-12, 2000. 

Co-Organizer, “Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition Engines,” SAE International Fuel 

and Lubricants Meeting, Toronto, Canada, Oct. 25-28, 1999. 

Organizer, “Modeling and Simulation of Direct Injection Engine Processes,” ASME-ICE Fall 

Technical Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, Oct. 16-20, 1999. 

Host, ASME-ICE Fall Technical Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, Oct. 16-20, 1999. 

Member of Technical Program Committee, Vehicle Thermal Management Systems VTMS-4 

International Conference, London, UK, May 24-26, 1999. 
F-9 

Co-Organizer and Session Chair, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling 

and Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May 1999. 

Organizer, “Modeling and Simulation of Engine Combustion Processes,” ASME-ICE Spring 

Technical Conference, Columbus, IN, April 24-28, 1999. 

Organizer, “Advanced Diesel Engine Powertrains,” SAE International Congress and Exposition, 

Detroit, MI, Feb. 23-26, 1999. 

Organizer, “Modeling and Simulation of Engine Combustion Processes,” ASME-ICE Fall 

Technical Conference, Clymer, New York, September 27-30, 1998. 

Moderator, “The Future of Automotive Systems,” SAE Automotive Systems Testing Topical 

Technical Symposium (TOPTEC), Novi, MI, October 14-15, 1998. 

Co-Organizer and Session Chair, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling 

and Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May 1998. 

Chair, Panel on Surface Engineering and Tribology, SAE International Congress and 

Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 23-26, 1998. 

Organizer, “Adiabatic and Miller Cycle Engines,” SAE International Congress and Exposition, 

Detroit, MI, Feb. 23-26, 1998. 

Organizer, “New Analytical Methods in Engine Design,” ASME-ICE Fall Technical Conference, 

Madison, WI, Sept. 27 - Oct. 1, 1997. 

Co-Organizer and Session Chair of ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies in Modeling 

and Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” June 3-4, 1997. 

Member of Technical Program Committee, Vehicle Thermal Management Systems VTMS-3 

International Conference, Indianapolis, IN, May 19-22, 1997. 

Organizer, “New Analytical Methods in Engine Design,” ASME-ICE Spring Technical 

Conference, Fort Collins, Colorado, April 27-30, 1997. 

Co-Organizer, "Adiabatic Engines", SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 

1997. Member, Program Review Subcommittee, Twenty-Sixth International Symposium 

on Combustion, Naples, Italy, July 28-Aug. 2, 1996. 

Co-Organizer and Session Chair, ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies for Modeling 

and Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” May 29-30, 1996. 

Organizer, Student Paper Competition, ASME ICE Fall Technical Conference, Fairborn, OH, 

Oct. 20-23, 1996. 

Co-Organizer and Chairman, “Engine Simulations,” ASME ICE Fall Technical Conference, 

Fairborn, OH, Oct. 20-23, 1996. 

Co-Organizer, “Adiabatic Engines,” SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 

1996. Organizing Committee, Fraunhofer Institute-University of Michigan Joint 

Conference, “The Best of German/American Automotive Technology,” Southfield, MI, 

June 27-28, 1995 

Co-Organizer and Chairman, “Engine Simulations,” ASME Engine Technology Spring 

Conference, Marietta, Ohio, April 23-26, 1995. 

Co-Organizer and Session Chair of ARC Annual Conference, “Critical Technologies in Modeling 

and Simulation of Ground Vehicles,” April 19-20, 1995 

Co-Organizer, “Adiabatic Engines,” SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 

1995. 

Chairman and Co-Organizer, “Modeling Engine Processes,” ASME Fall Technical Conference, 

Lafayette, IN, 1994. Chairman and Co-Organizer, “Adiabatic Engines,” SAE 

International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 1994. 

Chairman and Organizer, “Engine Design,” Energy Technology Conference and Exhibition, 

New Orleans, LA, 1994. 
F-10 

Chairman and Co-Organizer, "Engine Simulation and Controls," ASME Fall Technical 

Conference, Morgantown, WV, 1993. 

Co-Chairman, "Engine Sprays," ILASS, Worcester, MA, 1993. Chairman, “Vehicle Cooling 

Systems,” International Conference on Vehicle Thermal Management Systems, 

Columbus, OH, 1993. 

Chairman and Co-Organizer, “Adiabatic Engines,” SAE International Congress and Exposition, 

Detroit, MI, 1993. 

Vice-Chairman and Co-Organizer, “Intake Air Management,” Energy Technology Conference 

and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 1993. 

Chairman and Co-Organizer, “Adiabatic Engine Components,” Vice-Chairman, “High 

Temperature Engine Heat Transfer,” SAE International Congress and Exposition, 

Detroit, MI, 1992. 

Vice-Chairman and Co-Organizer, “Engine Simulation,” Energy Technology Conference and 

Exhibition, Houston, TX, 1992. 

Co-Organizer, “Panel on Post-95 Low Emission Engines,” ASME Energy Technology 

Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 1991. 

Moderator and Co-Organizer, “Panel on Post-95 Low Emission Engines,” SAE International 

Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 1991. 

Chairman and Co-Organizer, “Adiabatic Engine Components,” Vice-Chairman, "High 

Temperature Engine Heat Transfer," SAE International Congress and Exposition, 

Detroit, MI, 1991. 

Chairman and Co-Organizer, “Adiabatic Engine Components,” Vice-Chairman, "High 

Temperature Engine Operation," SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, 

MI, 1990. 

Vice-Chairman, “Basic Engine Processes,” Energy Technology Conference and Exhibition, 

Houston, TX, 1989. 

Chairman and Co-Organizer, “Adiabatic Engine Components,” Vice-Chairman, "High 

Temperature Tribology," SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 1989. 

Vice-Chairman and Co-Organizer, “International Symposium on Flows in Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines,” ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 1988. 

Vice-Chairman, “Basic Engine Processes,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Energy 

Technology Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 1988. 

Assistant Chairperson, “High Temperature Tribology,” SAE International Congress and 

Exposition, Detroit, MI, 1988. 

Chairman, “Engine Simulation Studies,” International Association for Vehicle Design Fourth 

International Congress, Genera, Switzerland, 1987. 

Assistant Chairperson, “Adiabatic Engines,” SAE International Congress and Exposition, 

Detroit, MI, 1987. 

5. Service as Consultant to Government and Industry 

Assanis and Associates, Inc., President, Ann Arbor, MI (2000-date) 

Optimetrics, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI (1999) 

Textron Automotive, Southfield, MI (1998) 

M.A.N.A.G.E., Inc., President, Ann Arbor, MI (1995-1998) 

Automated Analysis Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI (1996) 

Mobil Technology Company, New Jersey (1996-1997) 

GM Electromotive Division, La Grange, IL (1988-1992) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Cleveland, OH (1988) 
F-11 

Adiabatics, Inc., Columbus, IN (1986-1991) 

Science Application International Corp., Seattle, WA (1986-1987) 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION 

Sustained Commitment to Education 

I have sustained my passionate commitment to education for over 20 years. As an Assistant 

and Associate Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, I have taught a 

range of thermal science courses with student evaluations of my teaching consistently placing 

me at the very top in a group of 50 faculty members. After joining the University of Michigan, 

my teaching evaluations (4.74/5.0 average for the quality of the courses I have taught and 

4.85/5.0 for the effectiveness of my teaching) have continued to be among the highest in the 

Mechanical Engineering Department (55 tenured or tenure track faculty) and the College of 

Engineering (more than 320 faculty members). 

In 1987, I was honored with the Society of Automotive Engineers Ralph Teetor Award, given to 

20 outstanding engineering educators nationwide each year. In 1988, I was one of six young 

UIUC faculty members selected in campus-wide competition to receive Lilly Teaching Fellow 

Awards. In 1990, I received the American Society of Mechanical Engineers/Pi Tau Sigma Gold 

Medal Award given annually in nationwide competition to the best mechanical engineer 10 

years after graduation. In 1991-94, I was named University of Illinois Scholar for my 

contributions to research and teaching. I am truly gratified to have been honored with the 1997-

98 MEAM Excellence in Teaching Award, the 2000 College of Engineering Teaching Excellence 

Award, the distinguished Arthur F. Thurnau Chaired Professorship, and as the inaugural 

recipient of the Jon R. and Beverly S. Holt Chaired Professorship. 

Teaching Philosophy 

I have always felt that a successful educator must love teaching and be able to convey 

excitement for learning to his/her students. Many of my activities as a teacher and mentor are 

governed by my strong belief that the key to effective teaching is to be enthusiastic about your 

teaching and to genuinely care about passing your knowledge to your students. I personally 

strive to show my students my own excitement about the material and to motivate them to make 

a sincere effort to master the subject. I have always emphasized the importance of an 

engaging and interactive teaching-learning process, and created an open and informal 

atmosphere in the class that encourages students to ask or answer questions. I have taken 

some bold steps to shift the paradigms of teaching theoretical concepts to engineers, infused 

my own scholarly activities into the classroom and shared my teaching techniques with my 

colleagues and future educators. I have stressed my belief that the only way to learn a subject 

is through hard work and application of your knowledge to real projects, and repeatedly found 

that students will work hard as long as they are motivated, encouraged when they face adversity 

and rewarded for their intellectual accomplishments. 

Beyond the traditional classroom teaching, I have adopted a holistic approach to the 

teaching/learning process and utilized effectively the time outside the classroom to advise, 

mentor, coach and teach the students. This is particularly important in the case of younger 

students who have not yet crystallized their interests for their lifetime pursuits. Good advice and 

broadening of their perspective can have a critical impact in their future careers. I have also 

greatly enjoyed being the Faculty Advisor of the student chapters of the Society of Automotive 
F-12 

Engineers and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, working with the various student 

project teams, helping them in their fundraising efforts, and addressing their technical and 

administrative needs. Getting to know the undergraduate students better and contributing to 

their education outside the classroom through special projects is time consuming, but can be 

extremely rewarding to both the students and the teacher. 

Teaching Innovations 

I am particularly proud of the new perspective I have brought to the student teaching and 

learning process. The traditional way of teaching undergraduate courses in thermo-sciences 

and their applications to energy conversion and internal combustion engines has been through 

lectures and the use of highly idealized models. These ideal models inherently make crude 

assumptions so that results are often far from reality. Without compromising teaching of the 

fundamentals, I have introduced an innovative approach to further the education of my students 

through the incorporation and coordinated use of a series of hands-on laboratories, computer 

simulation tools, scientific movies, and real life case studies that are presented within and in 

parallel with the lectures. Sophisticated laboratory experiments and realistic simulation 

programs provide a more complete understanding of the important physical processes. 

Students can use the simulation models to compare and analyze their experimental data under 

similar operating conditions, and suggest ways to improve either the simulation models or the 

experimental techniques. 

In my continuing efforts to enrich the class content, I have also relied on the use of the internet 

and distance learning. With my graduate student instructors, we have developed integrated 

learning environments, posted under http://meonline.engin.umich.edu/, that can be used 

asynchronously, and at the student’s learning pace, to bring together lecture notes, the 

blackboard, assignments, solutions, clipboards, laboratory demos, simulation runs and engine 

movies in digital media. We are now planning to run laboratory experiments live from the 

classroom, or for that matter from any internet connection, to enable students to appreciate 

lecture content and theory in the light of reality with live demonstrations. Through these 

innovative approaches, I constantly strive to add another dimension to the student learning. 

Infusion of Scholarly Contributions into Teaching-Learning Process 

My teaching interests parallel and complement my research interests, as my philosophy is that 

an excellent teacher must be at the same time a leader in his field of research. Only this way I 

feel I can give my students the best and most relevant education to enable them become 

leaders in their fields. In the course of my group’s research activities, we have developed a 

large body of engine simulation software that is extensively used by automotive manufacturers 

in engine development. With the ever-increasing capabilities of personal computers and 

graphical programming languages such as C++ and MATLAB-SIMULINK, it has become 

possible to infuse user-friendly, student versions of these computer simulations to the 

classroom, thus greatly contributing to my effective teaching. My research activities have also 

enabled me to rejuvenate the Walter Lay Automotive Laboratory, thus contributing advanced 

engine experiments to our classes and exposing our students to state-of-the-art laboratory setups (http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/). These activities have contributed to reaffirming U of 

M’s leadership in automotive engineering. 
F-13 

Contributions to New Course Development 

Although the University of Michigan has had a long tradition of excellence in the instruction of 

internal combustion engines, when I started my career as a Professor at Michigan I realized that 

our engine-related courses and research facilities were not adequate to meet the current 

demands of the industrial and research communities for automotive engineers. In order to give 

our students the best possible education in the field, I have taken a series of steps. First, I 

completely revised the lectures of our undergraduate/beginner graduate course (ME 438) in 

internal combustion engines. In addition, I developed and incorporated a series of laboratories 

as part of the course, which was thus converted from three to four credit hours. This course 

enrollment has almost doubled in size following my revisions, and has been offered 

simultaneously via distance learning to industry. Second, based on my scholarly activities, I 

developed a graduate level course (originally ME 534 and now renumbered as ME538) that 

deals with the application of thermal sciences to the simulation and design of modern 

combustion engines. Third, I have developed with my undergraduate and graduate students a 

single-cylinder engine laboratory experiment that has been used as part of our thermal science 

laboratory class. 

As part of my activities as the Director of the Automotive Program, I oversaw the development 

of the curriculum for the new degree program and contributed a number of the new modules 

that were essential to achieving the goals M.Eng. program. In order to broaden the horizons of 

automotive engineers, I introduced a two semester sequence of automotive seminars (ME 591 

and ME 592, now renumbered as ME 501), delivered by industry leaders, that exposed the 

students to the wide spectrum of interdisciplinary engineering activities involved in the process 

of development, design, and manufacturing of complex automotive systems. In one of its 

offerings, the UM automotive seminar class was focused on Vehicle Energy, in global 

collaboration with Aachen University, Germany, and Ford Motor Company. Furthermore, to 

provide our automotive engineering students with practical experience in team building, carrying 

out projects in interdisciplinary teams, and in developing and managing projects, I introduced 

the capstone M.Eng. Automotive project (ME 593, now renumbered as ME 502). The 

Automotive Seminars and Project experiences we provide our students have been a model for 

similar “practimum” programs introduced by several Departments in the College of Engineering. 

Courses Taught at University of Michigan 

Date Course Course Title Enroll Crs Eval Instr Eval 

Winter 95 ME 534 Advanced Internal Combustion 

Eng. 

23 4.45 4.54 

Fall 95 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 42 4.85 4.85 

Winter 96 ME 534 Advanced Internal Combustion 

Eng. 

21 4.87 4.97 

Winter 96 ME 592 Automotive Eng. Seminar II 8 n/a* n/a 

Fall 96 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 69 

(43+26)**

4.83 4.85 

Fall 96 ME 591 Automotive Eng. Seminar I 18 n/a N/A 

Winter 97 ME 534 Advanced Internal Combustion 

Eng. 

18 4.86 4.94 

Winter 97 ME 592 Automotive Eng. Seminar II n/a n/a 
F-14 

Date Course Course Title Enroll Crs Eval Instr Eval 

Fall 97 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 68 

(37+31) 

4.80 4.88 

Fall 97 ME 591 Automotive Eng. Seminar I 12 n/a n/a 

Winter 98 ME 534 Advanced Internal Combustion 

Eng. 

32 4.17 4.72 

Winter 98 ME 592 Automotive Eng. Seminar II 40 

(15+25) 

n/a n/a 

Fall 98 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 50 4.86 4.94 

Fall 98 ME 591 Automotive Eng. Seminar I n/a n/a 

Winter 99 ME 592 Automotive Eng. Seminar II n/a n/a 

Fall 99 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 88 

(53+35) 

4.83 4.95 

Fall 99 ME 591 Automotive Eng. Seminar I 33 

(18+15) 

n/a n/a 

Winter 00 ME 534 Advanced Internal Combustion 

Eng. 

23 4.71 4.85 

Winter 00 ME 592 Automotive Eng. Seminar II 

(Vehicle Energy Seminar) 

38 

(23+15) 

n/a n/a 

Fall 00 ME 591 Automotive Eng. Seminar I 33 

(18+15) 

n/a n/a 

Fall 01 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 66 

(41+25) 

4.85 4.90 

Fall 01 ME 591 Automotive Eng. Seminar I 40 

(15+25) 

n/a n/a 

Fall 02 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 53 4.85 4.85 

Fall 03 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 72 

(32+40) 

4.97 4.97 

Fall 04 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 54 4.91 4.93 

Fall 05 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 70 

(50+20) 

4.88 4.88 

Fall 06 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 50 4.92 4.91 

Winter 08 ME 599 Analysis and Control of 

Alternative Powertrains 

26 

(20+6) 

 

Fall 08 ME 438 Internal Combustion Engines 40 4.94 4.94 

Wint 09 ME 538 Advanced ICEs 32 

* Organizer and host of Automotive Engineering Seminar Series I and II. Standard course 

evaluation forms not applicable (n/a). 

** Distribution designates student enrollment for on-campus and distance learning students. 

Offerings of Short Courses and Workshops 

I am a proponent of life-long learning and have frequently taught short courses and workshops 

to practicing engineers in industry. Examples are: 

“Modeling and Computer Simulation of Internal Combustion Engines,” Chair, Continuing 

Engineering Education, University of Michigan, September 9-13, 1996; July 7-11, 1997; 

June 29-July 3, 1998; July 5-9, 1999; July 10-14, 2000. 
F-15 

“Basic Engines and Their Controls,” Chair, Continuing Engineering Education, Motorola, 

Deerfield, IL, two-day offerings, 1996-2005. 

One-on-One Student Instruction and Mentorship 

Ph. D. Committees Chaired at University of Michigan 

1. Xiaobo Sun, 1996, Chair 

2. George Papageorgakis, 1997, Chair 

3. Apoorva Agarwal, 1998, Chair 

4. Dohoy Jung, 2000, Chair 

5. George Delagrammatikas, 2001, Co-Chair (with P. Papalambros) 

6. Sang-Jin Hong, 2001, Co-Chair (with M. Wooldridge) 

7. Scott Fiveland, 2001, Chair 

8. Stani Bohac, 2002, Chair 

9. Kukwon Cho, 2003, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

10. Guntram Lechner, 2003, Chair 

11. Christopher Depcik, 2003, Chair 

12. Bruno Vanzieleghem, 2004, Co-Chair (with H. Im) 

13. Pin Zeng, 2004, Chair 

14. Wooheum Cho, 2004, Chair 

15. Junseok Chung, 2004, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

16. Tim Jacobs, 2005, Chair 

17. Aris Babajimopoulos, 2005, Chair 

18. Ron Grover, 2005, Chair 

19. Christos Chryssakis, 2005, Chair 

20. Bin Wu, 2005, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

21. Sangseok Yu, 2006, Co-Chair (with D. Jung) 

22. Vassilis Hamosfakidis, 2006 (Chair) 

23. Kyoung Joon Chang, 2007, Chair 

24. Alex Knafl, 2007, Chair 

25. Manbae Han, 2007, Co-Chair (with S. Bohac) 

26. Melody Papke, 2007, Co-Chair with Jun Ni 

27. Andreas Malikopoulos, 2007, Co-Chair (with P. Papalambros) 

28. Jonathan Hagena, 2007, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

29. Robert Prucka, 2007, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

30. Orgun Guralp, 2008, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

31. Chaitanya Sampara, 2008, Co-Chair (with E. Bissett, GM) 

32. Yanbin Mo, 2008, Chair 

33. Shawn Grannell, 2008, Co-Chair (with S. Bohac) 

34. Andrew Ickes, 2009, Co-Chair (with S. Bohac) 

35. Hee Jun Park, 2009, Co-Chair (with D. Jung) 

36. Seung Hwan Keum, 2009, Co-Chair (with H. Im) 

37. Byungchan Lee, candidate, 2009 (expected), Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

38. Jason Martz, candidate, 2009 (expected), Chair 

39. Will Northrop, candidate, 2009 (expected), Co-Chair (with S. Bohac) 

40. Michael Smith, candidate, 2010 (expected), Chair 

41. Matt Spears, pre-candidate, 2010 (expected), Chair 

42. Sung Jin Park, pre-candidate, 2010 (expected), Co-Chair (with D. Jung) 

43. Jerry Fuschetto, pre-candidate, 2010 (expected), Chair 
F-16 

44. Russel Truemner, pre-candidate, 2011(expected), Co-Chair (with M. Parsons) 

45. Stefan Klinkert, pre-candidate, 2011 (expected), Co-Chair (with S. Bohac) 

46. Mehdi Abarham, pre-candidate, 2011 (expected), Co-Chair (with J. Hoard) 

47. Robert Middleton, pre-candidate, 2012 (expected), Chair 

48. Kevin Zasek, pre-candidate, 2012 (expected), Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

49. Sotiris Mamalis, pre-candidate, 2012 (expected), Co-Chair (with A. Babajimopoulos) 

50. Vishnu Nair, pre-candidate, 2012 (expected), Co-Chair (with A. Babajimopoulos) 

51. Janardhan Kodavasal, pre-candidate, 2012 (expected), Co-Chair (with A. 

Babajimopoulos) 

52. Ashwin Salvi, pre-candidate, 2012 (expected), Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

Ph. D. Committees Chaired at University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign 

1. Qiong Li, 1991, Chair 

2. Leonard Shih, 1992, Chair 

3. Panos Tamamidis, 1992, Chair 

4. Constantine Varnavas, 1994, Chair 

5. Douglas Baker, 1995, Chair 

6. Michalis Syrimis, 1996, Chair 

M. S. Committees Chaired at University of Michigan 

1. James Wallace, 1997, Chair 

2. Michael Mshar, 1998, Chair 

3. Scott Fiveland, 1999, Chair 

4. George Seaward, 2000, Chair 

5. Chris Depcik, 2000, Chair 

6. Salih Mahameed, 2001, Chair 

7. Ron Grover, 2001, Chair 

8. Selim Buyuktur, 2001, Co-Chair (with M. Wooldridge) 

9. Cheol Su Lee, 2001, Chair 

10. Brian Baldwin, 2001, Chair 

11. Tim Jacobs, 2002, Chair 

12. John Matsushima, 2002, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

13. Aris Babajimopoulos, 2002, Chair 

14. Christos Chryssakis, 2002, Chair 

15. Berrin Daran, 2002, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

16. Scott Thompson, 2003, Chair 

17. Chad Jagmin, 2003, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

18. Andrew Ickes, 2003, Chair 

19. Matthew Leustek, 2003, Chair 

20. Wesley Williamson, 2004, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

21. Robert Prucka, 2004, Chair 

22. Jonathan Hagena, 2004, Chair 

23. Chaitanya Sampara, 2004, Chair 

24. Orgun Guralp, 2004, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

25. Gerald Fernandes, 2006, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

26. Chandra Sandrasekaran, 2006, Co-Chair (with S. Bohac) 

27. Steve Busch, 2007, Co-Chair (with S. Bohac) 

28. Michael Smith, 2008, Chair 
F-17 

29. Alberto Lopez, 2008, Co-Chair (with S. Bohac) 

30. Challa Prasad, 2008, Co-Chair (with A. Babajimopoulos) 

31. Mark Hoffman, 2008, Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

32. Robert Middleton, 2009 (expected), Chair 

33. Ashwin Salvi, 2009 (expected), Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

34. Anastasios Amoratis, 2009 (expected), Chair 

35. Jeremy Spater, 2009 (expected), Chair 

36. Sotiris Mamalis, 2009 (expected), Chair 

36. Laura Manofsky, 2009 (expected), Chair 

37. Samuel Olesky, 2009 (expected), Chair 

37. Janardhan Kodavasal, 2009 (expected, Co-Chair (with A. Babajimopoulos) 

38. Elliott Alexander Ortiz Soto, 2009 (expected), Chair 

39. Ben Lawler, 2010 (expected), Co-Chair (with Z. Filipi) 

40. Ann Marie Lewis, 2010 (expected), Chair 

41. Srinath Gopinath, 2010 (expected), Chair 

42. Luke Hagen, 2010 (expected), Chair 

43. Prasad Shigne, 2010 (expected), Co-Chair (with A. Babajimopoulos) 

M. S. Degrees Chaired at University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign 

1. Edward Badillo, 1989, Chair 

2. Matthew Polishak, 1989, Chair 

3. Michael Bonne, 1989, Chair 

4. James McLeskey, 1989, Chair 

5. Riadh Namouchi, 1990, Chair 

6. Tarun Mathur, 1990, Chair 

7. Constantine Varnavas, 1990, Chair 

8. Francis Friedmann, 1990, Chair 

9. Andrew Phillips, 1990, Chair 

10. Kevin Wiese, 1990, Chair 

11. Brian Bolton, 1990, Chair 

12. Panos Tamamidis, 1990, Chair 

13. Thomas Leone, 1990, Chair 

14. Timothy Burt, 1990, Chair 

15. Douglas Baker, 1991, Chair 

16. Gregory Clampitt, 1991, Co-Chair (with White) 

17. Daniel Clark, 1991, Chair 

18. Evangelos Karvounis, 1991, Chair 

19. Matthew Lipinski, 1992, Co-Chair (with White) 

20. Michalis Syrimis, 1992, Chair 

21. Matthew Schroder, 1993, Co-Chair (with White) 

22. Donald Nakic, 1994, Co-Chair (with White) 

23. George Papageorgakis, 1994, Chair 

24. Scott Butzin, 1994, Chair 

25. Cristopher Bare, 1995, Chair 

26. Thomas Brunner, 1995, Chair 

27. Paul Herring, 1995, Chair 

28. Stani Bohac, 1995, Chair 

29. Timothy Frazier, 1995, Chair 
F-18 

M. Eng. Automotive Projects Directed at University of Michigan (ME 593/503, 4 credit 

hours) 

1. Winter 1996; Fadi Kanafani 

2. Winter 1996; Richard Sellschop 

3. Spring 1996; Philip Glazatov 

4. Spring 1996; David Silberstein 

5. Fall 1996; Caleo Tsai 

6. Fall 1997, Marc Allain 

7. Winter 1997; Osvaldo Corona 

8. Winter 1997; Fabien Redon 

9. Winter 1997; Steven Siegal 

10. Spring 1997; Eric Mokrenski 

11. Winter 1998; Yu-Min Lin 

12. Winter 1998; Faisal Mahroogi 

13. Winter 1998; Bruno Vanzieleghem 

14. Winter 1999; Stephanie Lacrosse 

15. Winter 1999; Russell Thompson 

16. Winter 1999; Carlos Armesto, Greg Christensen, Eugene Cox, John Dent 

17. Winter 1999; John Joyce 

18. Winter 1999; Marcus Branner 

19. Winter 1999; Michael McGuire 

20. Summer 1999; Steven Hoffman 

21. Summer 1999; Bhargav SriParakash 

22. Summer 1999; Alejandro Sales 

23. Summer 1999; David Wheatley 

24. Fall 1999; Todd Petersen 

25. Fall 1999; John Matsushima 

26. Fall 1999; Michelle Chaka and Mary Wroten 

27. Fall 1999; Julie D'Annunzio, Timothy Veenstra, and Todd Glance 

28. Winter 2000; Douglas Iduciani and Ronald Kruger 

29. Winter 2000; Timothy Gernant, Allen Lehmen and Jeffrey Kaiser 

30. Winter 2000; Brian Young, Mark Dipko and Andrew Slankard 

31. Winter 2000; Stephen White 

32. Winter 2000; Tomoyuki Takada, Mami Takada and Milton Wong 

33. Winter 2000; Cristian Arnou and Soon Low 

34. Spring 2000; Joseph Fedullo, Colin Roberts and John Celmins 

35. Summer 2000; Frank Voorburg and Marie Mann 

36. Winter 2001; Jason Martz; 

37. Winter 2001; Kwang Yong Kang 

38. Summer 2002; Jonathan Jackson 

39. Summer 2002; David Swain and Dan Yerrace 

40. Winter 2009; Peter Andruskiewicz 

41. Winter 2009; Dan Murray 42.Winter 2009; Amit Goje 

Diplomarbeit at Technical University of Graz, Austria 

(carried-out at W. E. Lay Automotive Laboratory under my direction) 

Guntram Lechner, 1999 

Alex Knafl, 2001 
F-19 

Studenarbeit at Rheinisch-Westfalische Technische Hochschule Aachen 

(carried-out at W. E. Lay Automotive Laboratory under my direction) 

Michalis Panagiotidis, 1999 

Christof Schultze, 1999 

Graduate Special Projects (ME 590) Directed at University of Michigan 

1. Winter 1995; Teresa Schulke; 3 credit hours 

2. Winter 1995, Fadi Kanafani; 3 credit hours 

3. Winter 1995, Karl Ondersma; 3 credit hours 

4. Spring/Summer1995; M. Mubbashir Abbas; 2 credit hours 

5. Winter 1996-98; Paul L. Powell III; 6 credit hours 

6. Fall 1997; Kukwon Cho; 3 credit hours 

7. Fall 1997; Erik Koehler; 3 credit hours 

8. Winter 1998; Scott Fiveland; 3 credit hours 

9. Winter 1999; Russell Thompson, 3 credit hours 

10. Winter 1999; Stephanie LaCrosse, 3 credit hours 

11. Summer 1999; Thomas Veling, 3 credit hours 

12. Winter 2000, Carlos Armesto, 3 credit hours 

13. Winter 2000, Lee Byungchan, 3 credit hours 

14. Winter 2000 and Winter 2001, Cheol Su Lee, 6 credit hours 

15. Winter 2000, Jeff Sanko, 3 credit hours 

16. Winter 2000, Ryan Nelson, 3 credit hours 

17. Winter 2000, Selim Buyuktur, 3 credit hours 

18. Winter 2000, George Seaward, 3 credit hours 

19. Winter 2000, Ping Yu, 3 credit hours 

20. Fall 2000, Marie Mann, 3 credit hours 

21. Fall 2000, Matthew Schwab, 3 credit hours 

22. Winter 2002, Josh Richards, 3 credit hours 

23. Winter 2002 and Fall 2002, Brett Thompson, 6 credit hours 

24. Winter 2002, Mengkai Zhang, 3 credit hours 

25. Fall 2003, Krishna Kumar, 3 credit hours 

26. Fall 2003 and Winter 2004, Andreas Malikopoulos, 6 credit hours 

27. Fall 2003 and Winter 2004, Christopher Morgan, 6 credit hours 

28. Winter 2004, Mark Hoffman, 3 credit hours 

29. Winter 2004, Weibin Zhu, 3 credit hours 

30. Fall 2004, Seung Hwan Keum, 3 credit hours 

31. Fall 2004, John Zeilstra, 3 credit hours 

32. Fall 2004 and Winter 2005, Kwangsoon Choi, 6 credit hours 

33. Fall 2004 and Winter 2005, Qi Wang, 6 credit hours 

34. Fall 2004 and Winter 2005, Qingan Zhang, 6 credit hours 

35. Fall 2005, Jarrod Robertson, 3 credit hours 

36. Winter 2005, Stephen Busch, 3 credit hours 

37. Winter 2005, Abigail Mechtenberg, 3 credit hours 

38. Winter 2005, Richard Niedzwiecki, 3 credit hours 

39. Winter 2007, David Ault; 3 credit hours 

40. Winter 2007, Michael Christianson, 3 credit hours 

41. Winter 2007, Matthew Fredo, 3 credit hours (with S. Bohac) 

42. Winter 2007, Dong Han, 3 credit hours 

43. Winter 2007, Stefan Klinkert, 3 credit hours (with S. Bohac) 
F-20 

44. Winter 2007, Mahesh Kumar Madurai. 3 credit hours 

45. Winter 2007, Robert Middleton, 3 credit hours 

46. Winter 2007, Ashutosh Sajwan, 3 credit hours (with S. Bohac) 

47. Winter 2007, Jaskirat Singh, 3 credit hours (with D. Jung) 

48. Fall 2007; Vivek Srinivasan Narayanan; 3 credit hours 

49. Winter 2008, Ramamurthy Vaidyanathan; 3 credit hours 

50. Spring 2008, Alphonso King, 6 credit hours 

51. Fall 2008, Amit Goje, 3 credit hours 

52. Fall 2008, Doohyun Kim, 3 credit hours 

53. Fall 2008, Kyoung-Hyun Kwak, 3 credit hours 

54. Fall 2008, Saktish Sathasivan, 3 credit hours 

55. fall 2008, Prasad Shingne, 3 credit hours 

56. Winter 2009, Sourabh Goel, 3 credit hours 

57. Winter 2009, Chang-Ping Lee, 3 credit hours 

58. Winter 2009, Kevin Zacek, 3 credit hours 

59. Winter 2009, Elliott Ortiz-Sotto, 3 credit hours 

Undergraduate Special Projects (ME 490) Directed at University of Michigan 

1. Winter 1995, Maurice Moulton; 3 credit hours 

2. Winter 1995; George Papageorgakis; 3 credit hours 

3. Winter 1996; David Messih; 3 credit hours 

4. Winter 1996; Eric Morenski; 3 credit hours 

5. Winter 1996; Benedict J. Baladad; 3 credit hours 

6. Winter 1996; Kevin Ferraro; 3 credit hours 

7. Winter 1999; Nicholas Bellovary and Daniel Kulick, 3 credit hours 

8. Winter 1999; Daniel Herrera and Joel Hartter, 3 credit hours 

9. Winter 1999; Larry Mercier and Reza Sharifi, 3 credit hours 

10. Winter 2000; Nicolas Wetzler, 3 credit hours 

11. Winter 2001; Andrew Ickes, 3 credit hours 

12. Winter 2002; Keith DeMaggio, 3 credit hours 

13. Fall 2003; Marvin (Bob) Riley 

14. Fall 2004; Katherine Chia-Chun Ho, 3 credit hours 

15. Fall 2004, Liang Xue, 3 credit hours 

16. Winter 2005, Levi Roodvoets, 3 credit hours 

17. Fall 2005; Erin Robbins, 3 credit hours 

18. Winter 2006; David Ault, 3 credit hours 

19. Winter 2006; Tommaso Gomez, 3 credit hours 

20. Winter 2007; Daniel Murray, 3 credit hours 

21. Winter 2009; Anthony Mansoor, 3 credit hours 

22. Winter 2009, Lucas Vanderpool, 3 credit hours 

CONTIBUTIONS TO RESEARCH 

Major Research Accomplishments 

Dr. Assanis’ research interests lie in the thermal sciences and their applications to energy 

conversion, power and propulsion, and automotive systems design. His research focuses on 

analytical and experimental studies of the thermal, fluid and chemical phenomena that occur in 

internal combustion engines, after-treatment systems, and fuel processors. His efforts to gain 
F-21 

new understanding of the basic energy conversion processes have made significant impact in 

the development of energy and power systems with significantly improved fuel economy and 

dramatically reduced emissions. His group’s research accomplishments have been published 

in over 250 articles in journals and international conference proceedings. More specifically: 

• Over the past 25 years, he has made major contributions in modeling and computer 

simulation of internal combustion engine processes and systems, under steady-state 

and transient operation, and in carrying-out sophisticated in-situ experimental 

techniques, applicable to operating engine combustion chambers, to validate their 

fidelity. His innovative work has shed light into complex fuel-air mixing, combustion, 

pollutant formation and transient heat transfer phenomena in metal and ceramicinsulated engine combustion chambers. His simulation models and experimental insights 

are used by engine researchers and developers (e.g., General Motors, Caterpillar, 

Argonne, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories) to improve vehicle fuel 

economy while at the same time satisfying ultra-stringent emissions standards. 

• His group has pioneered the integration of high fidelity engine models with driveline and 

vehicle models and used these comprehensive tools for realistic assessment and design 

optimization of conventional and hybrid powertrain systems. His engine-in-vehicle 

simulation methodologies have contributed significantly to the dual need-dual use heavyduty industry/U.S. Army ground mobility mission through the development and 

optimization of advanced propulsion systems with 2-3 times higher fuel efficiency and 

ultra low smoke and particulate emissions. 

• He has made lasting contributions to the fundamental understanding of the chemical and 

physical processes that govern the operation of HCCI engines and their exhaust after 

treatment systems. His revolutionary insights make possible to operate engines in ultra 

clean, low temperature combustion, fuel economical regimes that constitute a paradigm 

shift from the traditional, high temperature, pollutant forming engine combustion. His 

HCCI combustion strategies and patents have assisted industry to improve fuel 

economy of clean gasoline and diesel cars by 15%-20%, while virtually eliminating NOx 

and particulate emissions. 

• Over the past 15 years, Dr. Assanis has led the efforts to revitalize the University of 

Michigan’s automotive engineering activities and transformed the Walter E. Lay 

Automotive Laboratory into a beehive of research activity (see the URL link: 

http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/). He has initiated large-scale projects involving 

partnerships among academia, government and industry, led the fundraising efforts 

through writing major proposals, and directed the research activities. He has 

collaborated extensively with faculty members, research scientists and post-doctoral 

scholars from various Universities and disciplines. He has directed the research of more 

than 50 Ph.D. and more than 100 MS and M.Eng. graduate students. His group’s 

research accomplishments have been published in over 250 articles in journals and 

international conference proceedings. His group’s engine and powertrain system 

simulations are used in industry, academia and government. 

Grants and Contracts 

Dr. Assanis has been the project director, principal or co-principal investigator for more than 

$100M in grants and contracts funded by automotive industry (General Motors, Ford Motor Co., 

Chrysler LLC and DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Mitsubishi Motors Co., Honda Motor Co., Borg 

Warner, Ricardo), the heavy-duty truck industry (Detroit Diesel Corporation, Caterpillar, Inc., 
F-22 

International, Cummins, Caterpillar, Yanmar Diesel Engine Co, Komatsu), the oil industry 

(ExxonMobil Corporation, Lubrizol, Amoco Oil, Chevron, Ethyl Corporation), the U.S. 

government (Department of Defense, Department of Energy, NASA, EPA, National Science 

Foundation) and National Laboratories (Sandia, Argonne). 

He currently directs or co-directs the: 

• Automotive Research Center, (ARC), a UM-led, eight-university, U.S. Army Center of 

Excellence founded in 1994 to advance the state-of-the-art modeling and simulation of 

military and civilian ground vehicles. The current third phase ($40M in funding, July 

2004 – July 2010) emphasizes research into the design of vehicles propelled by nextgeneration powertrain systems for a variety of energy supply sources. The ARC is the 

most advanced university-based automotive research center in the country and has 

provided both educational opportunities and a unique cooperative partnership among the 

military, academia and the automotive industry. Current University partners include 

Clemson University, Oakland University, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, University of 

Iowa, Virginia Tech University, and Wayne State University. For additional information, 

refer to http://arc.engin.umich.edu/ 

• General Motors-University of Michigan Engine Systems Research Collaborative 

Research Laboratory (GM/UM ESR CRL). This successful research partnership 

between the two institutions, initiated in 1998 and currently in its third, five-year phase 

($15M in total funding, 1998-2013) uses the special expertise of UM to conduct 

fundamental research into core competitive areas for GM in order to significantly 

improve fuel economy and dramatically reduce emissions of next generation engines. 

The CRL has also motivated the growth and strengthening of additional areas of 

excellence of importance to GM and commensurate with the scholarly expertise and 

intellectual pursuits of the University faculty. For additional information, refer to 

Hhttp://gmcrl-esr.engin.umich.edu/H 

• UM-led Multi-University Consortium on HCCI/ Low temperature Combustion (LTC) 

Engine Research, funded since 2001 by the Department of Energy (approx. $10M of 

funding to 3/31/09). This innovative research holds the promise of delivering high fuel 

economy with dramatically reduced emissions through a paradigm-shift approach 

compared to the traditional, high temperature, pollutant forming engine combustion in 

today's engines. University of Michigan partners include Stanford, MIT, and UC 

Berkeley. A proposal for the renewal of our consortium to explore high pressure lean 

burn combustion, with the potential to improve engine efficiency by 20-40% has just 

been submitted to DOE. 

Other Current Grants at The University of Michigan 

Advanced Powertrain Modeling, Borg Warner, 1/06-12/08, $300,000, Principal Investigator. 

Collaborative Development of Clean Diesel Exhaust Aftertreatment System Through Modeling 

and Testing, Michigan Economic Development Corporation, 21st Century Jobs Fund, 

$1,650,000, 1/1/07-12/31/09, Principal Investigator (proposal selection process 

conducted by American Association for the Advancement of Science; 61 awards from 

505 submitted proposals). 

General Motors R&D Center, “Modeling and Experimental Study of Boosted HCCI Engine,”

7/1/07-12/31/09, $1,400,000, Principal Investigator. 
F-23 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Integrated Hydraulic Hybrid Propulsion System and 

Advanced Components for Maximizing Fuel Efficiency and Emissions Benefits,” 4/2006-

12/2008, $226,000, Co-Principal Investigator; PI: Z. Filipi. 

Ford Motor Company, “Development of Diesel EGR Cooler Fouling Model,” Ford-UM Alliance, 

9/1/07-8/31/09, $200,000, Principal Investigator. 

Pending 

Department of Energy, Office of Basic Sciences, “Energy Frontier Research Center Efficient 

and Clean Combustion of 21st Century Transportation Fuels: DOE EFRC ECCO-FUELS,” The 

University of Michigan in partnership with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford 

University, University of California-Berkeley, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, DOE 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, 4/1/09-3/31/14, $25,000,000, Principal Investigator 

and EFRC Director (decision expected April 2009). Department of Energy, Office for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “A University Consortium for Efficient and Clean High 

Pressure Lean Burn Engines,” The University of Michigan in partnership with Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology and University of California-Berkeley, 9/1/09-8/31/12, $3,750,000, 

Principal Investigator and Consortium Director. 

Competed 

National Science Foundation, “A Proposal for the Establishment of an Engineering Research 

Center for Carbon Neutral Vehicles (ERC-CNV)”, The University of Michigan in partnership with 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of California-Berkeley, University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign, Michigan State University, North Carolina A&T State University, 9/1/08-

8/31/13, $18,500,000, Principal Investigator and ERC Director; invited among 34/143 preproposals to submit a full proposal, and reached site visit round of 8 finalists. 

Past Grants 

Automotive Research Center (ARC) of Excellence in Modeling and Simulation of Ground 

Vehicles, Department of Defense: Phase I: 9/94-7/98, $9,000,000, Co-Principal 

Investigator and Deputy Director (1/96-7/98);Phase II: 7/98-6/04, $25,000,000, CoPrincipal Investigator (7/98-9/02) and Principal Investigator (9/02-6/04); Deputy Director 

(7/98 to 9/00) and Director (9/00-6/04).

Experimental Investigation of Heat Rejection Characteristics of I-4 and V-6 Engine Designs, 

Ford Motor Co., 1/95 to 6/96, $142,000, Principal Investigator. 

Prediction of Engine Heat Rejection, Ford University Research Program, 1995, $50,000 

(unrestricted grant), Principal Investigator. 

Direct Injection of Natural Gas: In Cylinder CFD Computations, DOE/NASA, 1/95 to 12/96, 

$214,506, Principal Investigator 

Engine Heat Transfer and Engine/Fuels Interaction Technology, Chevron Oronite Technology 

Group, 5/95 to 4/99, $8,000, Principal Investigator 

Engine Friction Studies with Boundary-Friction Reducing Additives, Mobil Technology Group 

and ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, 1/96-8/15/00, Total Funding 

$919,362, ($183,540, 1/96-6/96; $135,822, 6/96-5/97; $250,000, 1/97-12/97; $200,000, 

1/98-12/98; $100,000, 1/99-6/99; $50,000, 1/00-8/00), Principal Investigator. 

Experimental Investigation of Heat Rejection Characteristics of Diesel Engine Designs, Ford 

Motor Co., 6/96-6/97, $20,000, Principal Investigator. 
F-24 

Study of Unburned Hydrocaron Emissions Mechanisms, Ricardo, 1997, $90,000 (gift), Principal 

Investigator. 

Direct Injection of Natural Gas: In Cylinder CFD Computations, SANDIA, 3/97-2/98, $25,000, 

Principal Investigator. 

Fuel Economy and Power Benefits of Cetane-Improved Fuels in Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, 

Ethyl, 1997, $20,000 (gift), Principal Investigator. 

Investigation of Thermal and Strength Characteristics of Metal Matrix Composite Pistons for 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, Focus Hope, 1997-98, $60,000, Principal Investigator. 

Effect of Metal Matrix Composite Liners on Engine Friction and Wear, Inco Limited, 1997-99, 

$50,000 (gift), Principal Investigator. 

Optimizing the Performance and Emissions of a Direct-Injection Spark-Ignition Engine Using 

Multi-Dimensional Modeling, Honda Initiative Grant Program, 8/1/97-7/31/98, $25,000, 

Principal Investigator. 

General Motors/UM Collaborative Research Laboratory (formerly Satellite Research 

Laboratory), 5/98-12/31/02, $5,000,000, GMCRL Co-Principal Investigator and Director, 

Advanced Powertrain Systems Division. 

Effect of Exhaust Valve Opening on Cold Start Hydrocarbon Emissions, Ford Motor Company, 

6/98 to 12/01, Total Funding $380,000 ($230,000, 6/98-12/99; $150,000, 1/00–12/00), 

Principal Investigator. 

Ricardo Single Cylinder Research Engines, Mobil Technology Company, 9/1/98, $230,000 (gift), 

Principal Investigator. 

Optimizing the Performance and Emissions of Direct-Injection Compression-Ignition Engines 

Using Multi-Dimensional Modeling, EPA, 9/1/98-8/31/99, $40,000, Principal Investigator. 

Diesel Spray Combustion Modeling, Yanmar Diesel Engine Company, Japan, 9/1/98, $27,000 

(gift), Principal Investigator. 

Using Chemical Kinetics to Simulate Engine Performance and Emissions, Caterpillar, Inc., 

1/1/99-12/31/99, $40,000 (gift), Principal Investigator. 

Mixture Preparation and Nitric Oxide Formation in a GDI Engine Studied by Combined Laser 

Diagnostics and Numerical Modeling DOE/Sandia National Laboratory, 4/1/1999-3 

/31/2002, $383,505, Co-Principal Investigator. 

Development of Pressure Reactive Piston Technology for Improved Efficiency and Low NOx 

Emissions in Spark-Ignition (SI) and Compression Ignition (CI) Engines, Ford Motor 

Company/DOE PNGV Program, 10/12/99-5/31/2003, $436,825, Principal Investigator. 

In Cylinder Pressure Sensors Using Thin Film Shape Memory Alloys, Orbital Research, 6/00-

8/31/02, $120,000, Principal Investigator. 

Systems Approach for Demonstrating Very Low Nox Emissions from a Direct-Injection 

Compression-Ignition (CIDI) Engine with a NOx Catalyst, EPA, 1/01-6/30/02, $100,000, 

Principal Investigator. 

Concurrent Design of Next Generation Powertrains, Manufacturing Processes and Materials: A 

Simulation-Based Approach, US ARMY/TACOM under the Dual Use Science and 

Technology program DUST 2000, 4/3/01-4/2/03, $3,000,000, Co-Principal Investigator. 

Simulation-Based Design and Demonstration of Next Generation Advanced Diesel Technology, 

Ford Motor Company/US ARMY TACOM under the Dual Use Science and Technology 

program DUST 2001, $2,420,000, 9/1/01 to 12/31/03, Principal Investigator. 

A University Consortium on Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition, Low Temperature 

Combustion for High Efficiency, Ultra-Low Emission Engines, The University of Michigan 

in partnership with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and 

University of California-Berkeley, Department of Energy, Phase I: 10/1/01-3/31/06, 

$4,800,000, Principal Investigator and Consortium Director. 
F-25 

General Motors/UM Collaborative Research Laboratory on Engine Systems Research, 

“Advanced Diesel Combustion System Optimization Tools Implementation,” 6/1/04-

8/31/04, $17,160, Principal Investigator and GMCRL Co-Director. 

General Motors/UM Collaborative Research Laboratory on Engine Systems Research, 

“Advanced Diesel Combustion System Development and Measurement of Hydrocarbon 

Species and Unregulated Emissions from Diesel Engines Operating in Advanced 

Combustion Modes,” 9/1/03-8/31/04, $116,206, Principal Investigator and GMCRL CoDirector. 

General Motors/UM Collaborative Research Laboratory on Engine Systems Research, 

“Experimental Assessment of Design Concepts for Robust Spray-Guided StratifiedCharge Combustion,” 8/1/04-7/31/05, $135,168, Principal Investigator and GMCRL CoDirector. 

Precision Heat Management in SI Engines, DaimlerChrysler Challenge Fund Project, $180,000, 

9/1/01 to 12/31/04. 

Detailed Exhaust Hydrocarbon Measurements in a Multi-Cylinder Engine, Ford Motor Company, 

9/1/03 to 8/31/05, $98,000, Principal Investigator. 

Engine-In-Vehicle Modeling, Navistar, 1/1/99-12/06, $300,000, unrestricted grant, Co-Principal 

Investigator. 

General Motors/UM Collaborative Research Laboratory on Engine Systems Research, “PCCI 

Diesel Engine Combustion and Aftertreatment Systems,” 9/19/2006, $85,000, 

unrestricted grant, Principal Investigator. 

Fuel Processors for PEM Fuel Cells, Department of Energy, 10/01-9/06, $4,545,471, CoPrincipal Investigator. 

Eaton Corporation Innovation Center, “Assessment of the NOx Reducing Potential of NOx 

Adsorber-NH3 SCR Exhaust Aftertreatment Systems,” Phase I: 7/1/04 to 6/30/05, 

$114,876; Phase II: 7/1/05-12/31/06, $60,000, Principal Investigator. 

General Motors/UM Collaborative Research Laboratory on Engine Systems Research, 

“Discovery Project: Free Piston Linear Alternator,” 6/1/05-8/31/07, $528,245, Principal 

Investigator. 

Investigation of VVT Fuel Economy and Emissions Benefits under Cold-Start, Idle and Low 

Load Conditions, DaimlerChrysler Challenge Fund Project, 1/1/05 to 6/30/08, $300,000, 

Principal Investigator. 

Grants and Contracts at University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign 

Effect of Combustion Chamber Insulation on Turbocharged Diesel Engine Performance, UIUCResearch Board, 3/20/86 - 6/30/87, $20,000 (grant), Principal Investigator 

Intake Valve Event Optimization for Specified Engine Operating Conditions, General Motors 

Pontiac Group, 8/21/86 to 6/30/88, $31,000, Co-Principal Investigators: J. E. Peters and 

D.N. Assanis, Project Director: D.N. Assanis 

Development of a Modern Engine Test Cell for Studies of Low-Heat-Rejection Engine 

Performance, UIUC-Research Board, $6,000 (grant), 1/15/87 to 1/15/88, Principal 

Investigator 

NSF, An Experimental and Analytical Study of Unsteady Heat Transfer in Low-Heat-Rejection 

Engine Combustion Chambers, $69,983, 7/1/87 to 11/30/89, Principal Investigator 

Development of an Integrated Rankine Bottoming Cycle for Diesel Engine Exhaust Heat 

Recovery, UIUC-Research Board, $7,624 (grant), 8/21/87 to 5/21/88, Principal 

Investigator 
F-26 

Adiabatics, Inc., Development and Use of a Computer Simulation Code for LHR Vehicle Fuel 

Economy, $30,926, 9/1/87 to 7/31/88, Co-Principal Investigators: D. N. Assanis, R. A. 

White, Project Director: D.N. Assanis 

Analysis and Testing of Ceramic-Coated Engine Components, Adiabatics, Inc., $14,466, 9/1/87 

to 12/31/88, Principal Investigator 

Fluidized Bed Heat Recovery from Diesel Engines, U.S. Army CERL, $13,692, 9/15/87 - 

5/31/88, Principal Investigator 

Engineering Research Equipment Grant: A Modern Single-Cylinder Engine Test Facility for 

Diesel Engine Research, NSF, $51,400 (equipment grant), from 5/1/88 to 10/31/89, 

Principal Investigator 

Presidential Young Investigator Award: Engine Combustion and Emissions Studies, NSF, 

$312,500, 6/88 to 12/93, Principal Investigator 

A Modern Single Cylinder Diesel Research Engine, Caterpillar, $27,000 (gift), 7/7/88, Principal 

Investigator 

Development of Multi-Dimensional Heat Transfer Models for LHR Engine Studies, National 

Center for Supercomputing Applications, 35 CPU hours on CRAY X/MP, 3/88 to 12/89, 

Principal Investigator 

Combustion and Emissions of Low-Heat-Rejection Diesel Engines, $129,223, U.S. Army 

TACOM, 8/88 to 8/90, Principal Investigator 

The Effect of Light Weight Reciprocating Components on Engine Combustion, Frictional 

Losses, and Heat Transfer, Chrysler, 8/88 - 8/90, $115,992, Principal Investigator 

An Optical Table for Laser Velocimetry, $6,311 (gift), Newport Corp., from 4/89, Principal 

Investigator 

Support for Women, Minorities, and Disabled Engineering Research Assistants, NSF, 2/89 - 

2/90, $4,958, Principal Investigator 

Development of an Improved Combustion Model for Use in a Multi-dimensional Engine 

Simulation, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 90 CPU hours on CRAY 

X/MP and CRAY 2, 12/89 - 12/90, Principal Investigator 

An Experimental and Analytical Study of Unsteady Heat Transfer in LHR Engines - REU 

Supplement, NSF, 2/1/90 to 7/31/90, $8,973, Principal Investigator 

Investigation of a Fluidized Bed Heat Exchanger, U.S. Army CERL, 8/90 to 5/91, $16,935, 

Principal Investigator 

Development of a Hydrocarbon Emissions Model for Multi-Dimensional Engine Simulation, 

National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 80 CPU hours on CRAY X/MP and 

CRAY 2, 4/90 - 4/91, Principal Investigator 

Effect of Reed Valves in the Intake Ports on SI Engine Performance and Knock, Ford Motor 

Company, 8/21/90 to 12/93, $169,377, Co-Principal Investigators: D.N. Assanis, J. E. 

Peters, R. A. White, Director: D. N. Assanis 

A Study of Fuel-Air Distribution in the Intake System of a Spark-Ignited Natural Gas Engine, 

Cummins, 8/21/90 - 5/31/94, $140,000 (gift), Co-Principal Investigators: D. N. Assanis, 

R. A. White 

Lignin-Augmented Bituminous Coal Depolymerization: A Route to Clean Fuels, Center for 

Research on Sulfur in Coal, $105,036, Co-PI, 8/21/90 to 8/31/91, Co-Principal 

Investigators: D. N. Assanis, C. Kruse, PD: C. Kruse 

Prediction of 3-D Turbulent Flows Using a BFC Computer Code, National Center for 

Supercomputing Applications, $24,000 and 50 CPU hours on CRAY 2, 9/90 - 8/92, 

Principal Investigator 

Joint Research Program between Mitsubishi Motors Corp. and University of Illinois, Mitsubishi 

Motors Corp., $340,000 6/1/91 to 5/31/93, Co-Principal Investigators: D. N. Assanis, R. 

A. White, H. Sehitoglu, D. Socie, Project Director: D. N. Assanis 
F-27 

Octane Requirement Increase and its Relation to Combustion Chamber Deposits, Amoco Oil 

Company, $130,798, 9/1/91to 12/93, Co-Principal Investigators: D. N. Assanis, R. A. 

White, Project Director: R. A. White 

Integrated Production/Use of Ultra Low Ash Coal, Center for Research on Sulfur in Coal, 

$148,959, Co-PI, 8/91- 8/92, Co-Principal Investigators: D. N. Assanis, C. Kruse, Project 

Director: C. Kruse 

Development, Optimization, and Testing of a 3-D Computational Fluid Dynamics Code, National 

Center for Supercomputing Applications, 96 hours on CRAY Y-MP, 11/91 to 12/92, 

Principal Investigator 

A Modern Set of Emissions Analyzers for Internal Combustion Engine Pollution Studies, UIUC 

Research Board, $42,000 (grant), 10/91, PI 

Development of a Comprehensive Evaporation Model for Use in a Multi-Dimensional Engine 

Simulation, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 85 CPU hours on CRAY 

X/MP and CRAY 2, 11/92 - 12/93, Principal Investigator 

Effects of Combustion Characteristics on Heat Loss under Knocking and Non-Knocking 

Conditions, Mitsubishi Motor Company, 6/93 - 5/95, $200,085, Co-Principal Investigator: 

D. N. Assanis 

An Improved Model for Droplet Evaporation in High Pressure Diesel Sprays, UIUC Research 

Board, $6,728 (grant), 6/93 to 12/93, Principal Investigator 

Design of Low Distortion Insulated Piston/Liner System, Inco Ltd., $25,000 (gift), from 8/93 - 

8/95, Principal Investigator 

RISC-6000 Workstations for Computation and Visualization of Reactive Engine Flows, IBM, 

$39,888 (gift), from 12/93, Co-Principal Investigators: D. N. Assanis, R. A. White 

Direct Injection of Natural Gas: In Cylinder CFD Computations, DOE/NASA, 1/94 to 12/94, 

$231,174, Co-Principal Investigators: D. N. Assanis, J. E. Peters, R. L. Lucht, Project 

Director: D.N. Assanis 

Direct Injection of Natural Gas: In Cylinder Laser Measurements, GRI, 1/94 to 12/96, $488,178, 

Co-Principal Investigators: D. N. Assanis, J. E. Peters, R. L. Lucht, Project Director: R.L. 

Lucht 

Prediction of Engine Heat Rejection, Ford University Research Program, from 1/94, $50,000 

(grant), Principal Investigator 

Evaluation of Hydrated Ethanol for DI Compression Ignition Engines, Illinois Department of 

Energy and Natural Resources, 1/94 to 6/96, $60,000 per year, Co-Principal 

Investigators: D. N. Assanis, C. Goering. 

Publications 

Articles in Refereed Journals, Transactions or Archives

1. D. N. Assanis, and J. B. Heywood, "Development and Use of a Computer Simulation of 

the Turbocompound Diesel System for Engine Performance and Component Heat 

Transfer Studies," selected for SAE 1986 Transactions, 95:2, 2.451-2.476, 1987. 

(Presented as SAE Paper 860329, SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, 

MI, Feb. 24-28, 1986; and included in The Adiabatic Diesel Engine: Global 

Developments, SAE Special Publication 650, 95-120, 1986.) 

2. Assanis, D. N., and Heywood, J. B., "Simulation Studies of the Effects of Low-HeatRejection on Turbocompound Diesel Engine Performance," International Journal of 

Vehicle Design, 8:3, 282-299, 1987. (Based on Presentation at 3rd International 

Conference on Turbocharging and Turbochargers, Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 

London, United Kingdom, May 6-8, 1986.) 
F-28 

3. Assanis, D. N., and E. Badillo, "Transient Heat Conduction in Low-Heat Rejection 

Engine Combustion Chambers," selected for SAE 1987 Transactions, 96:4, 4.82-4.92, 

1988. (Presented as SAE Paper 870156, SAE International Congress and Exposition, 

Detroit, MI, Feb. 23-27, 1987; and included in Adiabatic Engines and Systems, SAE 

Special Publication 700, 153-163, 1987.) 

4. Assanis, D. N., and E. Badillo, "Transient Analysis of Piston-Liner Heat Transfer in LowHeat-Rejection Diesel Engines," selected for SAE 1988 Transactions: Journal of 

Engines, 97:6, 6.295-6.305, 1989. (Presented as SAE Paper 880189, SAE International 

Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 29-March 4, 1988; and included in Recent 

Developments in the Adiabatic Engine, SAE Special Publication 738, 97-107, 1988.) 

5. Assanis, D. N., "Effect of Combustion Chamber Insulation on the Performance of a LowHeat-Rejection Diesel Engine with Exhaust Heat Recovery," Journal of Heat Recovery 

Systems & Combined Heat and Power, 9:5, 475-484, 1989. (Based on Paper 869486, 

presented at 21st Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, San Diego, 

CA, Aug. 25-29, 1986.) 

6. Assanis, D. N., and E. Badillo, "On Heat Transfer Measurements in Diesel Engines using 

Co-Axial Fast-Response Thermocouples," ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering 

for Gas Turbines and Power, 111:3, 458-465, 1989. (Presented at ASME-ETCE 

Technical Conference, Houston, TX, Jan. 22-25, 1989; and included in Basic Processes 

in Internal Combustion Engines, ICE-6, 25-32, 1989.) 

7. Assanis, D. N., "Thin Thermal Barrier Coatings for Internal Combustion Engine 

Components," International Journal of Materials and Product Technology, 4:3, 232-243, 

1989. (Presented with R. Kamo and W. Bryzik as SAE Paper 890143,SAE International 

Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 27 - March 3, 1989 and selected for SAE 

1989 Transactions:Journal of Engines, 98:3, 131-136, 1990.) 

8. Phillips, A., and D. N. Assanis, "A PC-Based Vehicle Powertrain Simulation for Fuel 

Economy and Performance Studies," International Journal of Vehicle Design, 10:6, 639-

658, 1989. (An improved version of the simulation was presented with A. Phillips and P. 

Badgley in SAE Paper 900619, SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 

Feb. 26-March 2, 1990; and selected for SAE 1990 Transactions: Journal of Passenger 

Cars, 99:6, 1991.) 

9. Assanis, D. N. and M. Polishak, "Valve Event Optimization in a Spark-Ignition Engine," 

International Journal of Vehicle Design, 10:6, 625-638, 1989. (Presented at ASMEICED Technical Conference, Dearborn, MI, Oct. 15-18, 1989; and selected for ASME 

Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 112:3, 341-347, 

1990.) 

10. Assanis, D. N., and E. Badillo, "Evaluation of Alternative Thermocouple Designs for 

Transient Heat Transfer Measurements in Metal and Ceramic Engines," selected for 

SAE 1989 Transactions:Journal of Engines, 98:3, 1036-1051, 1990. (Presented as SAE 

Paper 890571, SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 27 - March 

3, 1989; and included in Worldwide Progress on Adiabatic Engines, SAE Special 

Publication 785,169-184, 1990.) 

11. Tamamidis, P., and D. N. Assanis, "Generation of Orthogonal Grids with Control of 

Spacing," Journal of Computational Physics, 94:2, 437-453, 1991. 

12. Sekar, R. R., W. W. Marr, D. N. Assanis, R. L. Cole, T. J. Marciniak, and J. E. Schaus, 

"Oxygen Enriched Diesel Engine Performance: A Comparison of Analytical and 

Experimental Results," ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines 

and Power, 113:3, 365-369, 1991. (Presented at ASME-ICED Technical Conference, 

Rockford, IL, Oct. 1990; and included in New Technology in Large Bore Engines, ICE13, 57-62, 1990.) 
F-29 

13. Filipi, Z., and D. N. Assanis, "Quasi-Dimensional Computer Simulation of the 

Turbocharged Spark-Ignition Engine and its Use for Two and Four Valve Engine 

Matching Studies," selected for SAE 1991 Transactions: Journal of Engines, 100:3, 52-

68, 1992. (Presented as SAE Paper 910075, SAE International Congress and 

Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 25-March 1, 1991.) 

14. Assanis, D. N., Wiese, K., Schwarz, E., and W. Bryzik, "The Effects of Ceramic Coatings 

on Diesel Engine Performance and Exhaust Emissions," selected for SAE 1991 

Transactions: Journal of Engines, 100:3, 657-665, 1992. (Presented as SAE Paper 

910460, SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 25-March 1, 

1991.) 

15. Varnavas, C., and D. N. Assanis, "The Effects of Spray, Mixing, and Combustion Model 

Parameters on KIVA-II Predictions," selected for SAE 1991 Transactions: Journal of 

Engines, 1488-1497, 100:3, 1992. (Presented as SAE Paper 911785, SAE International 

Off-Highway and Powerplant Congress, Milwaukee, WI, Sept. 9-12, 1991.) 

16. Shih, L., and D. N. Assanis, "Implementation of a Fuel Spray Wall Interaction Model in 

KIVA-II," selected for SAE 1991 Transactions: Journal of Engines, 100:3, 1498-1512, 

1992. (Presented as SAE Paper 911787, SAE International Off-Highway and 

Powerplant Congress, Milwaukee, WI, Sept. 9-12, 1991.) 

17. Yerramareddy, S., Tcheng, D. T., Lu, S. C-Y., and D.N. Assanis, "Creating and Using 

Models for Engineering Design: A Machine Learning Approach," IEEE Expert, Special 

Track on Machine Learning, 52-59, June 1992. 

18. Assanis, D.N., "The Effect of Thin Ceramic Coatings on Petrol Engine Performance and 

Emissions," International Journal of Vehicle Design, 13:4, 378-388, 1992. (Based on 

SAE Paper 900903, presented with T. Mathur at SAE 41st Annual Earthmoving Industry 

Conference, Peoria, IL, April 3-5, 1990; and selected for SAE 1990 Transactions: 

Journal of Materials and Manufacturing, 99:5, 1991.) 

19. Assanis, D. N., and F. A. Friedmann, "A Thin-Film Thermocouple for Transient Heat 

Transfer Measurements in Ceramic-Coated Combustion Chambers," International 

Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 20, 459-468, 1993. 

20. Karvounis, E., and D. N. Assanis, "The Effect of Inlet Flow Distribution on Catalytic 

Conversion Efficiency", International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 36:6, 1495-

1504, 1993. 

21. Tamamidis, P., and D. N. Assanis, "Evaluation of Various High Order Schemes With and 

Without Flux Limiters," International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 16, 931-

948, 1993. 

22. Tamamidis, P., and D. N. Assanis, "Three Dimensional Incompressible Flow 

Calculations with Alternative Discretization Schemes," Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B, 

24, 57-76, 1993. 

23. Tamamidis, P., and D. N. Assanis, "Prediction of Three-Dimensional Steady 

Incompressible Flows using Body-Fitted Coordinates," ASME Transactions: Journal of 

Fluids Engineering, 115, 457-462, 1993. (Based on paper presented at ASME-WAM 

Symposium on Multidisciplinary Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, Atlanta, 

GA, Dec. 1-6, 1991.) 

24. Assanis, D. N., Karvounis, E., Sekar, R., and W. Marr, "Heat Release Analysis of 

Oxygen-Enriched Diesel Combustion," ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering for 

Gas Turbines and Power, 115, 761-768, 1993. (Presented as ASME Paper 93-ICE-8, 

ASME-ETCE Technical Conference, Houston, TX, Jan. 31- Feb. 3, 1993.) 

25. Karvounis, E. and D. N. Assanis, "A Novel Methodology for Engine Design and 

Optimization," International Journal of Vehicle Design, 14:3, 261-277, 1993. 
F-30 

26. Karvounis, E. and D. N. Assanis, "FIND: A Framework for Intelligent Design," SAE 1993 

Transactions: Journal of Engines, 102:3, 1605-1620, 1994. (Presented as SAE Paper 

931180, SAE Earthmoving Conference, Peoria, IL, April 20-21, 1993.) 

27. Baker, D., and D. N. Assanis, "Multi-Dimensional Finite Element Code for Transient Heat 

Transfer Calculations," Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B, 25:4, 395-414, 1994. 

28. Baker, D., and D. N. Assanis, "A Methodology for Coupled Thermodynamic and Heat 

Transfer Analysis of a Diesel Engine," Applied Mathematical Modeling, 18, 590-601, 

1994. 

29. Tamamidis, P., and D. N. Assanis, "Optimization of Inlet Port Design in a UniflowScavenged Engine Using a 3-D Turbulent Flow Code," SAE 1993 Transactions: Journal 

of Engines, 102:3, 1621-1633, 1994. (Presented as SAE Paper 931181, SAE 

Earthmoving Conference, Peoria, IL, April 20-21, 1993.) 

30. Shih, L., and D. N. Assanis, "Effect of Ring Dynamics and Crevice Flows on Unburned 

Hydrocarbon Emissions,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines 

and Power, 116:4, 784-792, 1994. (Presented at ASME-ICED Fall Technical 

Conference, Morgantown, WV, September 26-29, 1993; and included in Alternate Fuels, 

Engine Performance and Emissions, ICE-20, 195-206, 1993.) 

31. Mavinahally, N., Assanis, D. N., Govinda Mallan, K.R., and K. V. Gopalakrishnan, "Torch 

Ignition: Ideal for Lean Burn Premixed-Charge Engines," ASME Transactions: Journal of 

Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 116:4, 793-798, 1994. (Presented as ASME 

Paper 94-ICE-6, ASME ETCE Conference, New Orleans, LA, January 23-26, 1994.) 

32. Nakic, D., Assanis, D. N., and R. A. White, "Effect of Elevated Piston Temperature on 

Combustion Chamber Deposit Growth," SAE 1994 Transactions, 103:3, 1454-1466, 

1995. (Presented as SAE Paper 940948, SAE International Congress and Exposition, 

Detroit, MI, March 1-5, 1994.) 

33. Papageorgakis, G., and Assanis, D.N., "A Spray Breakup Model for Low Injection 

Pressures," International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer , 23 (1), 1-10, 

1996. (Based on ATA Paper 94A1097, New Design Frontiers for More Efficient, Reliable, 

and Ecological Vehicles, Vol. 2, pp. 793- 802, presented at 4th International Conference 

Florence ATA 1994, March 16-18, 1994.) 

34. Tamamidis, P., Zhang, G., and D. N. Assanis, "Comparison of Pressure-Based and 

Artificial Compressibility Methods for Solving 3-D Steady Incompressible Flows," Journal 

of Computational Physics, 124, 1-13, 1996. 

35. Zhang, G., Assanis, D. N., and Tamamidis, P., "Segregated Prediction of 3-D 

Compressible Subsonic Fluid Flows Using Collocated Grids," Numerical Heat Transfer, 

Part A, 29:757-775, 1996. 

36. Bohac, S., Baker, D., and D. N. Assanis, "A Global Model for Steady-State and Transient 

S.I. Engine Heat Transfer Studies," SAE 1996 Transactions: Journal of Engines. 

(Presented as SAE Paper 960073, 1996 SAE International Congress, Detroit, MI, 

February 26-29, 1996.) 

37. Syrimis, M., Shigahara, K., and D. N. Assanis, "Correlation between Knock Intensity and 

Heat Transfer under Light and Heavy Knocking Conditions in a Spark Ignition Engine," 

SAE 1996 Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 960495, 1996 

SAE International Congress, Detroit, MI, February 26-29, 1996.) 

38. Sun, X., Assanis, D. N., and G. Brereton, "Assessment of Alternative Strategies for 

Reducing Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Small Two-Stroke 

Engines," SAE 1996 Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 

960743, 1996 SAE International Congress, Detroit, MI, February 26-29, 1996.) 

39. Badillo, E., Assanis, D. N., and H. Servati, “One-Dimensional Transient Dynamics of 

Fuel Evaporation and Diffusion in Induction Systems,” SAE 1997 Transactions: Journal 
F-31 

of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 970058, 1997 SAE International Congress and 

Exposition, Detroit, MI, February 24-27, 1997.) 

40. Alsterfalk, M., Filipi, Z. S., and D. N. Assanis, “The Potential of the Variable Stroke 

Spark-Ignition Engine,” SAE 1997 Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE 

Paper 970067, 1997 SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, February 

24-27, 1997.) 

41. Syrimis, M., and D. N. Assanis, “Piston Heat Transfer Measurements Under Varying 

Knock Intensity in A Spark-Ignition Engine,” SAE 1997 Transactions: Journal of Engines. 

(Presented as SAE Paper 971667, 1997 SAE International Fuels and Lubricants 

Meeting, Dearborn, MI, May 5-8, 1997). 

42. Murrell, J. D., Lewis, G. M., Baker, D. M., and D. N. Assanis, “An Early-Design 

Methodology for Predicting Transient Fuel Economy and Catalyst-Out Exhaust 

Emissions,” SAE 1997 Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 

971838, Vehicle Thermal Management Systems VTMS-3 International Conference, 

Indianapolis, IN, May 19-22, 1997.) 

43. Green, G. J., Henly, T. J., Starr, M. E., Assanis, D. N., Syrimis, M., and F. Kanafani, 

"Fuel Economy and Power Benefits of Cetane-Improved Fuels in Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Engines,” SAE 1997 Transactions: Journal of Fuels and Lubricants. (Presented as SAE 

Paper 972900, SP-1302, SAE International Fall Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, October 13-16, 1997.) 

44. Syrimis, M., and D. N. Assanis, "The Effect of the Location of Knock Initiation on Heat 

Flux into an SI Combustion Chamber,” SAE 1997 Transactions: Journal of Engines. 

(Presented as SAE Paper 972935, SP-1300, SAE International Fall Fuels and 

Lubricants Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma, October 13-16, 1997.) 

45. Zhang, G., Filipi, Z. S., and D. N. Assanis, “A Flexible, Reconfigurable, Transient MultiCylinder Diesel Engine Simulation for System Dynamic Studies,” Mechanics of 

Structures and Machines, 25(3), 357-378, 1997. 

46. Agarwal, A., Filipi, Z. Assanis, D. N., and D. Baker, “Assessment of Single- and TwoZoneTurbulence Formulations for Quasi-Dimensional Modeling of Spark Ignition Engine 

Combustion,” Combustion Science and Technology, 136: 13-39, 1998. 

47. Anderson, M., Assanis, D.N., and Filipi, Z. S., “First and Second Law Analyses of a 

Naturally-Aspirated, Miller Cycle, SI Engine with Late Intake Valve Closure,” SAE 1998 

Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 980889, SAE International 

Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 23-26, 1998.) 

48. Papageorgakis, G., and Assanis, D.N., “Optimizing Gaseous Fuel-Air Mixing in Direct 

Injection Engines Using an RNG-Based k- Model,” SAE 1998 Transactions: Journal of 

Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 980135, SAE International Congress and Exposition, 

Detroit, MI, Feb. 23-26, 1998.) 

49. Papageorgakis, G., and Assanis, D.N., “Comparison of Linear and Non-Linear RNGBased k- models for Incompressible Turbulent Flows,” Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B, 

35: 1-22, 1999. 

50. Assanis, D. N., Delagrammatikas, G., Fellini, R., Filipi, Z. S., Liedtke, J., Michelena, N., 

Papalambros, P., Reyes, D., Rosenbaum, D., Sales, A., Sasena, M., “Optimization 

Approach to Hybrid Electric Propulsion System Design,” Mechanics of Structures and 

Machines, 27(4), 393-421, 1999. 

51. Assanis, D. N., Bryzik, W., Castanier, M. P., Darnell, I. M., Filipi, Z. S., Hulbert, G. M., 

Jung, D., Ma, Z., Perkins, N. C., Pierre, C., Scholar, C. M., Wang, Y., Zhang, G., 

“Modeling and Simulation of an M1 Abrams Tank with Advanced Track Dynamics and 
F-32 

Integrated Virtual Diesel Engine,” Mechanics of Structures and Machines, 27(4), 453-

505, 1999. 

52. Assanis, D. N., Bryzik, W., Chalhoub, N., Filipi, Z., Henein, N., Jung, D., Liu, X., Louca, 

L., Moskwa, J., Munns, S., Overholt, J., Papalambros, P., Riley, S., Rubin, Z., Sendur, 

P., Stein, J., and G. Zhang, “Integration and Use of Diesel Engine, Driveline and Vehicle 

Dynamics Models for Heavy Duty Truck Simulation,” selected for 1999 SAE 

Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 1999-01-0970, SAE 

International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, March 1-4, 1999.) 

53. Lee, K. S., Assanis, D. N., Lee, J. H., and K. M. Chun, “Measurements and Predictions 

of Steady-State and Transient Stress Distributions in a Diesel Engine Cylinder Head,”

selected for 1999 SAE Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 

1999-01-0973, SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, March 1-4, 

1999.) 

54. Assanis, D. N., Hong, S. J., Nishimura, A., Papageorgakis, G., and B. VanZieleghem, 

“Studies of Spray Breakup and Mixture Stratification in a Gasoline Direct Injection 

Engine Using KIVA-3V,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Gas Turbines and Power, 

122:3, 485-492, 2000. (Presented at ASME-ICE Spring Technical Conference, 

Columbus, IN, April 24-28, 1999.) 

55. Filipi, Z. S., and D. N. Assanis, “The Effect of the Stroke-to-Bore Ratio on Combustion, 

Heat Transfer and Performance of a Homogeneous Charge SI Engine of Given 

Displacement,” International Journal of Engine Research, 1:2, 191-208, 2000. 

56. Assanis, D.N., Filipi, Z. S., Gravante, S., Grohnke, D., Gui, X., Louca, L., Rideout, G., 

Stein, J., and Wang., Y., “Validation and Use of SIMULINK Integrated, High Fidelity, 

Engine-In-Vehicle Simulation of the International Class VI Truck,” selected for 2000 SAE 

Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2000-01-0288, included in 

Vehicle and Engine Systems Models, SP-1527, SAE 2000 World Congress, Detroit, MI, 

March 6-9, 2000.) 

57. Fiveland, S.B., and D. N. Assanis, “A Four-Stroke Homogeneous Charge Compression 

Ignition Engine Simulation for Combustion and Performance Studies,” selected for 2000 

SAE Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2000-01-0332, 

included in Compression Ignition Combustion Processes, SP-1530, SAE 2000 World 

Congress, Detroit, MI, March 6-9, 2000.) 

58. Panagiotidis, M., Delagrammatikas, G., and D. N. Assanis, “Development and Use of a 

Regenerative Braking Model for a Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” selected for 2000 

SAE Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2000-01-0995, SAE 

2000 World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 6-9, 2000.) 

59. Assanis, D.N., Filipi, Z.S., Fiveland, S.B., and Syrimis, M., “A Methodology for Cycle-byCycle Transient Heat Release Analysis in a Turbocharged Direct Injection Diesel 

Engine,” selected for 2000 SAE Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE 

Paper 2000-01-1185, and included in Compression Ignition Combustion Processes, SP1530, SAE 2000 World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 6-9, 2000. 

60. Noorman, M.T., Assanis, D. N., Patterson, D., Tung, S. C., and Tseregounis, S., 

“Overview of Techniques for Measuring Friction Using Bench Tests and Fired Engines," 

selected for 2000 SAE Transactions: Journal of Fuels and Lubricants. (Presented as 

SAE Paper 2000-01-1780, and included in Advances in Powertrain Tribology, SP-1548, 

SAE 2000 Fuels and Lubricants International Conference, Paris, France, June 19-22, 

2000.) 

61. Agarwal, A. and Assanis, D. N., “Multi-Dimensional Modeling of Ignition, Combustion 

and Nitric Oxide Formation in Direct Injection Natural Gas Engines," selected for 2000 
F-33 

SAE Transactions: Journal of Fuels and Lubricants. (Presented as SAE Paper 2000-01-

1839 and included in Novel SI and CI Combustion Systems, SP-1549, SAE 2000 Fuels 

and Lubricants International Conference, Paris, France, June 19-22, 2000.) 

62. Lee, K.S., and D. N. Assanis, “Thermo-Mechanical Analysis of Optically Accessible 

Quartz Cylinder Under Fired Engine Operation,” International Journal of Automotive 

Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 79 -87, 2000. 

63. Assanis, D. N., Poola, R., Sekar, R., and G. R. Cataldi, “Study of Using OxygenEnriched Combustion Air for Locomotive Diesel Engines,” ASME Transactions: Journal 

of Gas Turbines and Power, 123:1, 157-166, 2001. (Presented in Diamond Anniversary 

Conference of the ASME-ICE Division, Fairborn, OH, October 20-23, 1996.) 

64. Filipi, Z. S., and D. N. Assanis, “A Non-Linear, Transient, Single-Cylinder Diesel Engine 

Simulation for Predictions of Instantaneous Engine Speed and Torque,” ASME 

Transactions: Journal of Gas Turbines and Power,123:4, 951-959, 2001. 

65. Agarwal, A., and D. N. Assanis, “Multi-Dimensional Modeling of Natural Gas 

Autoignition using Detailed Chemical Kinetics,” Combustion Science and Technology, 

163: 177-210, 2001. 

66. Fiveland, S. B. and D. N. Assanis, “Development of a Two-Zone HCCI Combustion 

Model Accounting for Boundary Layer Effects,” selected for 2001 SAE Transactions: 

Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2001-01-1028, SAE World Congress, 

Detroit, MI, March 5-8, 2001.) 

67. Delagrammatikas, G. J., and D. N. Assanis, “A Systems Engineering Methodology for 

Diesel Engine Design and Optimization,” selected for 2001 SAE Transactions: Journal of 

Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2001-01-1244, SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, 

March 5-8, 2001.) 

68. Jung, D. and D. N. Assanis, “Quasi-Dimensional, Multi-Zone Turbocharged DI Diesel 

Engine Full Cycle Simulation for Performance and Emissions Studies,” selected for 2001 

SAE Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2001-01-1246, SAE 

World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 5-8, 2001.) 

69. Michelena, N. Louca, L., Kokkolaras, M., Lin, C. C., Jung, D., Filipi, Z., Assanis, D. N., 

Papalambros, P., Peng, H, Stein, J. and M. Feury, “Design of an Advanced Heavy 

Tactical Truck: A Target Cascading Case Study,” selected for 2001 SAE Transactions, 

Journal of Commercial Vehicles. (Presented as SAE Paper 2001-01-2793, SAE 

International Truck and Bus Exposition, Chicago, IL, November 12-14, 2001). 

70. Kim, H.M., Kokkolaras, M., Louca, L.S., Delagrammatikas, G.J., Michelena, N. F., Filipi, 

Z. S., Papalambros, P. Y., Stein, J.L. and D.N. Assanis, “Target Cascading in Vehicle 

Redesign: A Class VI Truck Study,” Int. J. of Vehicle Design, Vol. 29, No.3, 2002. 

71. Hong, S. J., M. Wooldridge and D. N. Assanis, “Modeling of Chemical and Mixing 

Effects on Autoignition Under Direct Injection Stratified Charge Conditions,” Proceedings 

of 29th International Symposium on Combustion, Sapporo, Japan, July 21-26, 2002. 

72. Fiveland, S., Agama, R., Christensen, M., Johansson, B., Hiltner, J., Mauss, F., and D. 

N. Assanis, “Experimental and Simulated Results Detailing the Sensitivity of Natural Gas 

HCCI Engines to Fuel Composition,” selected for 2001 SAE Transactions: Journal of 

Fuels and Lubricants, 110:4, 2123-2134. (Presented as SAE Paper 2001-01-3609, 

2002 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 4-7, 2002.) 

73. Assanis, D.N., Filipi, Z.S., Fiveland, S.B., and Syrimis, M., “A Predictive Ignition Delay 

Correlation Under Steady-State and Transient Operation of a Direct-Injection Diesel 

Engine,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 

125:2, 450-457, 2003. 
F-34 

74. Syrimis, M., and D. N. Assanis, “Knocking Cylinder Pressure Data Characteristics in a 

Spark-Ignition Engine,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines 

and Power, 125:2, 494-499, 2003. 

75. Zhang, G., and D. N. Assanis, “Manifold Gas Dynamic Modeling and its Coupling with 

Single Cylinder Engine Models using SIMULINK,” ASME Transactions: Journal of 

Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 125:2, 563-571, 2003. 

76. Nelson II, S. A., Filipi, Z., and D. N. Assanis, “The Use of Neural Networks for Matching 

Compressors with Diesel Engines,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas 

Turbines and Power, 125:2, 572-579, 2003. 

77. Olsson, J. O, Tunestal, P., Johansson, B., Fiveland, S., Agama, R., Willi, M. and D. N. 

Assanis, “Compression Ratio Influence on Maximum Load of a Natural Gas Fueled 

HCCI Engine,” selected for 2002 SAE Transactions: Journal Engine, 111:3, pp. 442-

458.(Presented as SAE Paper 2002-01-0111, Session on Homogeneous Charge 

Compression Ignition Engines, 2002 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 4-7, 

2002.) 

78. Depcik, C. and D. N. Assanis, “A Universal Heat Transfer Correlation for Intake/Exhaust 

Flow in a Spark-Ignition Internal Combustion Engine”, selected for 2002 SAE 

Transactions: Journal of Engines, 111:3, pp. 734-740. (Presented as SAE Paper 2002-

01-0372, Session on Engine Modeling, 2002 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 4-

7, 2002.) 

79. Lee, T., Bae, C., Bohac, S.V. and D. N. Assanis, “Estimation of Air Fuel Ratio of an SI 

Engine from Exhaust Gas Temperature at Cold Start Condition,” selected for 2002 SAE 

Transactions: Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 111:4, pp. 592-600. (Presented as SAE 

Paper 2002-01-1667, 2002 SAE Spring Fuels and Lubricants Meeting and Exhibition, 

Reno, NV, May 6-9, 2002.) 

80. Fiveland, S. B. and D. N. Assanis, “Development and Validation of a Quasi-Dimensional 

Model for HCCI Engine Performance and Emissions Studies under Turbocharged 

Conditions,” selected for 2002 SAE Transactions: Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 

111:4, pp. 842-860.(Presented as SAE Paper 2002-01-1757, 2002 SAE Spring Fuels 

and Lubricants Meeting and Exhibition, Reno, NV, May 6-9, 2002.) 

81. Lechner, G., Knafl, A., Assanis, D. N., Tseregounis, S.I., McMillan, M.L., Tung, S.C., 

Mulawa, P.A., Bardasz, E. and S. Cowling, “Engine Oil Effects on the Friction and 

Emissions of a Light-Duty, 2.2L Diesel CIDI Engine,” selected for 2002 SAE 

Transactions: Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 111:4, pp. 1165-1181. (Presented as 

SAE Paper 2002-01-2681, SAE Powertrain & Fluid Systems Conference & Exhibition, 

San Diego, CA, October 21-24, 2002; selected for 2002 Award for Research on 

Automotive Lubricants.) 

82. Babajimopoulos, A. Assanis, D. N. and S. Fiveland, “Modeling the Effects of Gas 

Exchange Processes on HCCI Combustion and an Evaluation of Potential Control 

Through Variable Valve Actuation,” selected for 2002 SAE Transactions: Journal of 

Fuels and Lubricants, 111:4, pp. 1794-1809. (Presented as SAE Paper 2002-01-2829, 

SAE Powertrain & Fluid Systems Conference & Exhibition, San Diego, CA, October 21-

24, 2002.) 

83. Bohac, S., Assanis, D. N., and H. Holmes, “Speciated Hydrocarbon Emissions and the 

Associated Local Ozone Production from an Automotive Gasoline Engine,” International 

Journal of Engine Research, 5:1, 53-70, 2004. 

84. Delagrammatikas, G.J., and D. N. Assanis, “Development of a Neural Network Model of 

an Advanced, Turbocharged Diesel Engine for Use in Vehicle-Level Optimization 
F-35 

Studies,” I. Mech. E. Proceedings, Part D, Journal of Automobile Engineering, 218:5, 

521-533(13), 2004. 

85. Li, Z, Kokkolaras, M. Jung, D., Papalambros, P. Y., and D. N. Assanis, “An Optimization 

Study of Manufacturing Variation Effects on Diesel Injector Design with Emphasis on 

Emissions,” selected for inclusion in 2004 SAE Transactions: Journal of Materials and 

Manufacturing (Presented as SAE Paper 2004-01-1560, 2004 SAE World Congress, 

Detroit, MI, March 8-11, 2004.) 

86. Filipi, Z., Wang, Y., and D. N. Assanis “Effect of Variable Geometry Turbine Control 

(VGT) on Vehicle System Transient Response,” International Journal of Heavy Vehicle 

Systems, 11:3/4, 303-326, 2004. 

87. Lin, C.C., Filipi, Z., Wang, Y., Louca, L., Peng, H., Assanis, D., and J. Stein, “Integrated, 

Feed-Forward Hybrid Electric Vehicle Simulation in SIMULINK and its Use for Power 

Management Studies,” International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, 11:3/4, 349-371, 

2004. 

88. Filipi, Z., Louca, L., Kokkolaras, M., Daran, B., Lin, C.C., Yildir, U., Wu, B., Assanis, D., 

Peng, H., Papalambros, P., Stein, J., Szkubiel, D., and R. Chapp, “Combined 

Optimization of Design and Power Management of the Hydraulic Hybrid Propulsion 

System for the 6x6 Medium Truck,” International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, 

11:3/4, 372-402, 2004. 

89. Kokkolaras, M., Louca, L.S., Delagrammatikas, G.J., Michelena, N.F., Filipi, S.V., 

Papalambros, P.Y., Stein, J.L. and D.N. Assanis, “Simulation-Based Optimal Design of 

Heavy Trucks by Model-Based Decomposition: An Extensive Analytical Target 

Cascading Case Study,” International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, 11:3/4, 403-

433,2004. 

90. Jung, D., and D. N. Assanis, “Modeling of a Direct-Injection Diesel Engine Emissions for 

a Quasi-Dimensional Multi-Zone Spray Model,” International Journal of Automotive 

Technology, 5:3, 165-172, 2004. 

91. Jung. D., and D. N. Assanis, “Reduced Quasi-Dimensional Combustion Model of the 

Direct Injection Diesel Engine for Performance and Emissions Predictions,” KSME 

International Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.865-876, 2004. 

92. Wu, B., Lin, C.-C., Filipi, Z., Peng, H., and D. N. Assanis, “Optimal Power Management 

for a Hydraulic Hybrid Delivery Truck“, Vehicle System Dynamics, 42:1-2, 23-40, 2004. 

93. Depcik, C., van Leer, B., and D. N. Assanis, “The Numerical Simulation of VariableProperty Reacting Gas Dynamics: New Insights and Validation,” Numerical Heat 

Transfer - Part A: Applications; 47:1, 27-56, 2005. 

94. Depcik, C. and D. N. Assanis, “Graphical User Interfaces in an Engineering Educational 

Environment,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 13:1, 48-59, 2005. 

95. Snyder, J., R., Grover, R. O., Sick, V., and D. N. Assanis, “Transient Spray Cone Angles 

in Pressure-Swirl Injector Sprays,” selected for 2004 SAE Transactions: Journal of Fuels 

and Lubricants. (Presented as SAE Paper 2004-01-2939, SAE Powertrain & Fluid 

Systems Conference & Exhibition, Tampa, Florida, October 25-28, 2004.) 

96. Sjoberg, M., Dec, J.E., Babajimopoulos, A., and D. N. Assanis, “Comparing Enhanced 

Natural Thermal Stratification against Retarded Combustion Phasing for Smoothing of 

HCCI Heat Release Rates,” selected for 2004 SAE Transactions: Journal of Fuels and 

Lubricants. (Presented as SAE Paper 2004-01-2994, SAE Powertrain & Fluid Systems 

Conference & Exhibition, Tampa, Florida, October 25-28, 2004.) 

97. Chang, J., Gurap, O., Filipi, Z, Assanis, D. N., Kuo, T. W., Najt, P., and R. Rask, “New 

Heat Transfer Correlation for the HCCI Engine Derived from Measurements of 

Instantaneous Surface Heat Flux,” selected for 2004 SAE Transactions: Journal of Fuels 
F-36 

and Lubricants. (Presented as SAE Paper 2004-01-2996, SAE Powertrain & Fluid 

Systems Conference & Exhibition, Tampa, Florida, October 25-28, 2004.) 

98. Wu, B., Filipi, Z.S., Assanis, D. N., Kramer, D. M., Ohl, G. L., Prucka, M. J., and E. 

DiValentin, “Using Artificial Neural Networks for Representing the Air Flow through a 2.4 

Liter VVT engine,” selected for 2004 SAE Transactions: Journal of Fuels and Lubricants. 

(Presented as SAE Paper 2004-01-3054, SAE Powertrain & Fluid Systems Conference 

& Exhibition, Tampa, Florida, October 25-28, 2004.) 

99. Bohac, S. and D. N. Assanis, “Effect of Exhaust Valve Timing on Gasoline Engine 

Performance and Hydrocarbon Emissions,” selected for 2004 SAE Transactions: 

Journal of Fuels and Lubricants. (Presented as SAE Paper 2004-01-3058, SAE 

Powertrain & Fluid Systems Conference & Exhibition, Tampa, Florida, October 25-28, 

2004.) 

100. Cho, H., Jung, D, and D. N. Assanis, “Control Strategy of Electric Coolant Pumps for 

Fuel Economy Improvement,” International Journal of Automotive Technology, 6:3, 269-

275, 2005. 

101. Jung, D. and D. N. Assanis, “Quasi-Dimensional Modeling of Direct Injection Diesel 

Engine Nitric Oxide, Soot and Unburned Hydrocarbon Emissions”, to appear in ASME 

Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 128:2, 388-396, 

2006. 

102. Chryssakis, C.A., Hagena, J.R., Knafl, A., Hamosfakidis, V.D., Filipi, Z.S., and D.N. 

Assanis, “In-Cylinder Reduction of PM and NOx Emissions from Diesel Combustion with 

Advanced Injection Strategies,” special issue on “New Strategies in Automotive Diesel 

Engines for Meeting Upcoming Pollutant Emissions Restrictions,” International Journal 

of Vehicle Design, 83-102, 41:1-4, 2006. 

103. Chang, J., Filipi, Z., Assanis, D., Kuo, T-W., Najt, P. and R. Rask, “Characterizing the 

Thermal Sensitivity of a Gasoline HCCI Engine with Measurements of Instantaneous 

Wall Temperature and Heat Flux,” Special HCCI issue, International Journal of Engine 

Research, 289-310, 6:4, 2005. 

104. Babajimopoulos, A., Flowers, D., Aceves, S., Hessel, R., and D.N. Assanis, “A Fully 

Integrated CFD and Multi-Zone Model with Detailed Chemical Kinetics for the Simulation 

of PCCI Engines,” Special HCCI issue of International Journal of Engine Research, 497-

512, 6:5, 2005. 

105. Depcik, C. and D. N. Assanis, “One Dimensional Automotive Catalyst Modeling,”

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 308-369, 31:4, 2005. 

106. Kokkolaras, M., Mourelatos, Z.P., Louca, L.S., Filipi, Z.S., Delagrammatikas, G.J., 

Stefanopoulou, A.G., Papalambros, P.Y., and D.N. Assanis, “Design under Uncertainty 

and Assessment of Performance Reliability for a Dual-Use Medium Truck with HydraulicHybrid Powertrain and Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power Unit,” selected for 2005 SAE 

Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2005-01-1396, SP-1956, 

2005 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 11-14, 2005.) 

107. Jacobs, T. J., Bohac, S. V., Assanis, D. N., Szymkowicz, P. G., “Lean and Rich 

Premixed Compression Ignition Combustion in a Light-Duty Diesel Engine,” selected for 

2005 SAE Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2005-01-0166, 

SP-1963, 2005 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 11-14, 2005.) 

108. Lechner, G., Jacobs, T., Chryssakis, C., D. N. Assanis, and R. Siewert, “Evaluation of 

Narrow Spray Cone Angle, Advanced Injection Timing Strategy to Achieve Partially 

Premixed Compression Ignition Combustion in a Diesel Engine,” selected for 2005 SAE 

Transactions: Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2005-01-0167, SP-1963, 

2005 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 11-14, 2005.) 
F-37 

109. Aceves, S., Flowers, D.L., Espinosa-Loza, F., Babajimopoulos, A., and D.N. Assanis, 

“Analysis of Premixed Charge Compression Ignition Combustion with a Sequential Fluid 

Mechanics-Multizone Chemical Kinetics Model,” selected for 2005 SAE Transactions: 

Journal of Engines. (Presented as SAE Paper 2005-01-0115, SP-1963, 2005 SAE 

World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 11-14, 2005.) 

110. Hong, S.J., Wooldridge, M. S., Im, H.G., Assanis, D.N., and Pitsch, H., “Development 

and Application of a Comprehensive Soot Model for 3D CFD Reacting Flow Studies in a 

Diesel Engine,” Combustion and Flame, 143:1-2, 11-26, 2005. 

111. Bohac, S.V., Han, M., Jacobs, T.J., Lopez, A.J., Assanis, D.N., and P.G. Szymkowicz, 

“Speciated Hydrocarbon Emissions from an Automotive Diesel Engine and DOC 

Utilizing Conventional and PCI Combustion,” 2006 SAE Transactions: Journal of Fuels 

and Lubricants, 115, 41-52, 2007. (Presented as SAE Paper 2006-01-0201, SP-2005, 

2006 SAE Congress, Detroit, MI, April 3-6, 2006.) 

112. Knafl, A., Busch, S. B., Han, M., Bohac, S.V., Assanis, D.N., Szymkowicz, P.G., and 

R.D. Blint, “Characterizing Light-Off Behavior and Species-Resolved Conversion 

Efficiency during In-Situ Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Degreening,” 2006 SAE Transactions: 

Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 115, 53-62, 2007. (Presented at 2006 SAE Congress, 

SP-2022, Detroit, MI, April 3-6, 2006.) 

113. Chang, K.J., Babajimopoulos, A., Lavoie, G.A., Filipi, Z.S., and D.N. Assanis, “Analysis 

of Load and Speed Transitions in an HCCI Engine Using 1-D Cycle Simulation and 

Thermal Networks,” 2006 SAE Transactions: Journal of Engines, 115, 621-633, 2007. 

(Presented as SAE Paper 2006-01-1087, SP-2005, 2006 SAE Congress, Detroit, MI, 

April 3-6, 2006.) 

114. Guralp, O.A., Hoffman, M.A., Assanis, D.N., Filipi, Z.S., Kuo, T.W., Najt, P., and R. 

Rask, “Characterizing the Effect of Combustion Chamber Deposits on a Gasoline HCCI 

Engine,” 2006 SAE Transactions, Journal of Engines, 115, 824-835, 2007.(Presented as 

SAE Paper 2006-01-3277, Powertrain and Fluid Systems Conference and Exhibition,”

October 2006, Toronto, ON, Canada). 

115. Filipi, Z., Fathy, H., Hagena, J., Knafl, A., Ahlawat, R., Liu, J., Jung, D., Assanis, D.N., 

Peng, H., and J. Stein, “Engine-in-the-Loop Testing for Evaluating Hybrid Propulsion 

Concepts and Transient Emissions – HMMWV Case Study,” 2006 SAE Transactions: 

Journal of Commercial Vehicles, 115, 23-41, 2007.(SAE Paper 2006-01-0443, SP-2008, 

2006 SAE Congress, Detroit, MI, April 3-6, 2006.) 

116. Jacobs, T. J. and D. N. Assanis, “The Attainment of Premixed Compression Ignition 

Low-Temperature Combustion in a Compression Ignition Direct Injection Engine,”

Proceedings of Combustion Institute, vol. 31, 2913-2920, 2007. (Presented at 31st 

International Symposium on Combustion, Heidelberg, Germany, August 6-11, 2006). 

117. Cho, H., Jung, D., Filipi, Z.S., Assanis, D.N., Vanderslice, J., and W. Bryzik, “Application 

of Controllable Electric Cooling Pumps for Fuel Economy and Cooling Performance 

Improvement,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and 

Power, 127:1, 239-244, 2007. 

118. Babajimopoulos, A., Lavoie, G.A., and D.N. Assanis “On the Role of Top Dead Center 

Conditions in the Combustion Phasing of Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition 

Engines,” Combustion Science and Technology, 179:9, 2039-2063, 2007. 

119. Depcik, C. and D.N. Assanis, “Merging Undergraduate and Graduate Fluid Mechanics 

Through the Use of the SIMPLE Method for the Incompressible Navier-Stokes 

Equations,” International Journal of Engineering Education, 23:4, 816-833, 2007. 
F-38 

120. Jacobs, T. Depcik, C, Hagena, J. and D. N. Assanis, “Instructional Use of a Single Zone, 

Pre-Mixed Spark Ignition Heat Release Simulation,” International Journal of Mechanical 

Engineering Education, 35:1, 1-31, 2007. 

121. Fernandes, G., Fuschetto, J., Filipi, Z., Assanis, D.N., and H. McKee, “Impact of Military 

JP-8 Fuel on Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Performance and Emissions,” Journal of 

Automobile Engineering, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D, 

221:8, 957-970, 2007. 

122. Northrop, W., Jacobs, T., Assanis, D., and Bohac, S., “Deactivation of a Diesel 

Oxidation Catalyst due to Exhaust Species from Rich Premixed Compression Ignition in 

a Light-Duty Diesel Engine,” Int. J. Engine Res., 8:6, 487-498, 2007. 

123. Sampara, C.S., Bissett, E.J., Chmielewski, M., and D.N. Assanis, “Global Kinetics for 

Platinum Diesel Oxidation Catalysts,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 

46:24, 7993-8003, 2007. 

124. Hong, S. J., Wooldridge, M.S., Im, H.G., Assanis, D.N., and E. Kurtz, “Modeling of 

Diesel Combustion, Soot and NO Emissions Based on a Modified Eddy Dissipation 

Concept,” Combustion Science and Technology, 180:8, 1421-1488, 2008. 

125. Chryssakis, C. and D. N. Assanis, “A Unified Spray Break-up Model for Internal 

Combustion Engine Applications,” Atomization and Sprays, 18:5, 375-426, 2008. 

126. Jung, D., and D. N. Assanis, “A Reduced Quasi-Dimensional Model to Predict the Effect 

of Nozzle Geometry on Diesel Engine Performance and Emissions,” submitted to 

Journal of Automobile Engineering (IMechE Proc. Part D), 222:D1, 131-141, 2008. 

127. Jung, D., Wang, W.L., Knafl, A., Jacobs, T.J., Hu, S.J., and D.N. Assanis, “Experimental 

Investigation of the Abrasive Flow Machining Effects on Injector Nozzle Geometries, 

Engine Performance and Emissions in a DI Diesel Engine,” International Journal of 

Automotive Technology, 9:1, 9-15, 2008. 

128. Depcik, C., Assanis, D.N., and K. Bevan, “A One-Dimensional Lean NOx Trap Model 

with a Global Kinetic Mechanism that includes NH3 and N2O,” Int. J. Engine Res., 9:1, 

57-77, 2008. 

129. Skjoedt, M., Butts, R., Assanis, D. N., and S.V., Bohac, “Effects of Base Oil, Friction 

Modifier and Viscosity Grade on Firing Engine Friction in an Automotive Engine,”

Tribology International, 41:6, 556-563, 2008. 

130. Granell, S. M., Assanis, D. N., Bohac, S. V., and D. E. Gillespie`, “The Fuel Mix Limits 

and Efficiency of a Stoichiometric, Ammonia and Gasoline Dual Fueled Spark Ignition 

Engine,” ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 130:4, 042802:1-8, 

2008. 

131. Han, M., Jacobs, T. J., Assanis, D. N. and S. V. Bohac, “Method and Detailed Analysis 

of Individual Hydrocarbon Species from Diesel Combustion Modes and Diesel Oxidation 

Catalyst,” ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 130:4, 042803:1-

10, 2008. (Presented at ASME ICE Fall Technical Conference, Charleston, SC, October 

14-17, 2007.) 

132. Jacobs, T.J., and D.N. Assanis, “Characteristic Response of a Production Diesel 

Oxidation Catalyst Exposed to Lean and Rich PCI Exhaust,” ASME Transactions: 

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 130:4, 042805:1-9, 2008. 

(Presented at ASME ICE Fall Technical Conference, Charleston, SC, October 14-17, 

2007.) 

133. Busch, S., Bohac, S.V., and D.N. Assanis, “A Study of the Transition Between Lean 

Conventional Diesel Combustion and Lean, Premixed, Low-Temperature Diesel 

Combustion,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 
F-39 

130:5, 052804:1-8, 2008. (Presented at ASME ICE Fall Technical Conference, 

Charleston, SC, October 14-17, 2007.) 

134. Chang, J., Filipi, Z.S., Assanis, D.N., Najt, P., Rask, R., Kuo, T.W., “Investigation of 

Mixture Preparation Effects on Gasoline HCCI Combustion Aided by Measurements of 

Wall Heat Flux,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and 

Power, 130, 062806:1-9, 2008. (Presented at ASME ICE Fall Technical Conference, 

Charleston, SC, October 14-17, 2007.) 

135. Depcik, C. and D. N. Assanis, “Simulating Area Conservation and the Gas-Wall 

Interface for One-Dimensional Based Diesel Particulate Filter Models,” ASME 

Transactions: Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 130, 062807:1-18, 

November 2008. 

136. Yu, S., Jung, D., and D. N. Assanis, “Modeling of a PEM Fuel Cell with a Large Active 

Area for Thermal Behavior Analysis,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Fuel Cell Science 

and Technology, 5, 044502:1-6, 2008. 

137. Jacobs, T.J., Jagmin, C., Williamson, W.J., Filipi, Z.S., Assanis, D.N., and W. Bryzik, 

“Performance and Emission Enhancements of a Variable Geometry Turbocharger on a 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine,” Special Issue on Performance and Dynamics of MultiWheeled and Tracked Military Vehicles, International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, 

15, 170-187, 2008. 

138. Han, M., Assanis, D. N. and S. V. Bohac, “Comparison of HC Species from Diesel 

Combustion Modes and Characterization of a Heat-up DOC Formulation,” International 

Journal of Automotive Technology, 9:4, 405-413, 2008. 

139. Han, M., Assanis, D. N. and S. V. Bohac, “Characterization of Heat-Up Diesel Oxidation 

Catalysts through Gas Flow Reactor and In-situ Engine Testing,” I. Mech. E. Part D, 

Journal of Automobile Engineering, 222:9, pp. 1705-1716, 2008. 

140. Malikopoulos, A., Assanis, D.N., and P.Y. Papalambros, “Real-Time Self-Learning 

Optimization of Diesel Engine Calibration,” ASME Transactions: Journal of Engineering 

for Gas Turbines and Power, 131, 022803:1-7, March 2009. (Based on ASE Paper 

ICEF2007-1603, Proceedings of ASME ICE Fall Technical Conference, 537-545, 

Charleston, SC, October 14-17, 2007.) 

141. Prucka, R.G., Filipi, Z.S., Assanis, D.N., Kramer, D.M., and G.L. Ohl, “An Evaluation of 

Residual Gas Fraction Measurement Techniques in a High Degree of Freedom Spark 

Ignition Engine,” selected for 2008 SAE Transactions, Journal of Engines. (Presented at 

2008 SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, April 14-17, 2008.) 

142. Mosburger, M., Fuschetto, J., Assanis, D.N., Filipi, Z. and H. McKee, “Impact of High 

Sulfur JP-8 Fuel on Heavy Duty Diesel Engine EGR Cooler Condensate,” selected for 

2008 SAE Transactions, Journal of Commercial Vehicles, 1:1, 100-107, April 2009. 

(Presented as SAE Paper 2008-01-1081 at 2008 SAE International Congress and 

Exposition, Detroit, MI, April 14-17, 2008.) 

143. Han, M., Assanis, D. N., Bohac, S. V., 2008, “Sources of Hydrocarbon Emissions from 

Low Temperature Premixed Compression Ignition Combustion in a Common Rail Direct 

Injection Engine,” Combustion Science and Technology, accepted for publication, 2008. 

144. Malikopoulos, A.A., Papalambros P.Y., and Assanis D.N., “A State-Space 

Representation Model and Learning Algorithm for Real-Time Decision-Making Under 

Uncertainty,” ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, accepted 

for publication, 2008. 

145. Cho, K., Assanis, D.N.,, Filipi, Z., Szekely, G., Najt, P. and R. Rask, “Experimental 

Investigation of Combustion and Heat Transfer in a Direct-Injection Spark-Ignition (DISI) 

Engine through Instantaneous Combustion Chamber Surface Temperature 
F-40 

Measurements,” accepted for publication in I. Mech. E. Part D, Journal of Automobile 

Engineering, 2008. 

146. Hamosfakidis, V., Im, H., and D.N. Assanis, “A Regenerative Multiple Zone Model for 

HCCI Combustion,” accepted for publication in Combustion and Flame, 2008. 

147. Ickes, A.M., Bohac, S.V., and D.N. Assanis, “Effect of Fuel Cetane Number on a 

Premixed Diesel Combustion Mode,” accepted for publication in International Journal of 

Engine Research, 2009. 

Refereed Conference or Symposium Presentations

1. Assanis, D. N., and A. D. Carmichael, “A Study of Wave Energy Conversion for an 

Offshore Structure," Proceedings of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 3rd 

International Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symposium, II, 287-294, 1984. 

2. Kamo, R. and D. N. Assanis, “Thin Thermal Barrier Coatings for Engines,” ASME Paper 

89-ICE-14, ASME-ETCE Technical Conference, Houston, TX, 1989. 

3. Wiese, K., M. Bonne, F. Friedmann, and D. N. Assanis, “Combustion and Heat Transfer 

Studies in a Direct-Injection Diesel Engine," SAE Paper 891902, SAE International OffHighway Meeting and Exposition, Milwaukee, WI, Sept. 11-14, 1989. 

4. Assanis, D. N., R. R. Sekar, D. Baker, C. Siambekos, R. L. Cole, and T. Marciniak, 

“Simulation Studies of Diesel Engine Performance with Oxygen Enriched Air and Water 

Emulsified Fuels," ASME Paper 90-ICE-17, ASME-ETCE Technical Conference, New 

Orleans, LA, Jan. 1990. 

5. Assanis, D. N., Friedmann, F. A., Wiese, K. L., Zaluzec, M. J., and J. M. Rigsbee, “A 

Prototype Thin-film Thermocouple for Transient Heat Transfer Measurements in 

Ceramic-Coated Combustion Chambers," SAE Paper 900691, SAE International 

Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 26-March 2, 1990. 

6. Varnavas, C., and D. N. Assanis, “Combustion Studies in a Diesel Engine Using a 

Multidimensional Engine Simulation," ASME-ETCE Technical Conference, Houston, TX, 

Jan. 20-23, 1991. 

7. Assanis, D. N., and F. Friedmann, “A Telemetry Linkage System for Piston 

Temperature Measurements in a Diesel Engine," SAE Paper 910299, SAE International 

Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 25-March 1, 1991. 

8. Assanis, D. N., and C. Varnavas, “On the Prediction of Diesel Engine Combustion Using 

a Multi-Dimensional Computer Code," Proceedings of International Conference on the 

Analysis of Thermal and Energy Systems, pp. 539-554, Athens, Greece, June 1991. 

9. Assanis, D. N., and D. Baker, “Thermodynamic and Heat Transfer Analysis of CeramicInsulated Diesel Engine Part I: Methodology," Proceedings of International Conference 

on the Analysis of Thermal and Energy Systems, pp. 571-583, Athens, Greece, June 3-

6, 1991. 

10. Assanis, D. N., and D. Baker, “Thermodynamic and Heat Transfer Analysis of CeramicInsulated Diesel Engine Part II: A Case Study," Proceedings of International Conference 

on the Analysis of Thermal and Energy Systems, pp. 585-599, Athens, Greece, June 3-

6, 1991. 

11. Tamamidis, P., and D. N. Assanis, "2-D and 3-D Computations of Engine Scavenging 

Flows," ASME Paper 92-ICE-1, ASME-ETCE Technical Conference, Houston, TX, Jan. 

26-29, 1992. 

12. Karvounis, E. and D.N. Assanis, “An Integrated Framework for Internal Combustion 

Engine Simulation and Design," ASME Paper 92-ICE-2, ASME-ETCE Technical 

Conference, Houston, TX, Jan. 26-29, 1992. 
F-41 

13. Shih, L., and D. N. Assanis, “Modeling Hydrocarbon Absorption and Desorption 

Processes into Cylinder Wall Oil Films," Proceedings of American Chemical Society 

National Meeting, Washington, D.C., Aug. 23-25, 1992. 

14. Syrimis, M. and D. N. Assanis, “Combustion of Low-Ash Coal-Diesel Slurries in a HighSpeed, Direct-Injection Diesel Engine," Coal-Fueled Diesel Engines 1993, 53-61, ICE19, ASME-ETCE Technical Conference, Houston, TX, Jan. 31- Feb. 3, 1993. 

15. Assanis, D. N., Gavaises, M., and G. Bergeles, “Calibration and Validation of the Taylor 

Analogy Breakup Model for Diesel Spray Calculations," ASME Paper 93-ICE-11, ASMEETCE Technical Conference, Houston, TX, Jan. 31- Feb. 3, 1993. 

16. Assanis, D. N. and Karvounis, E., and J. A.E. Bell, “Design Optimization of the Piston 

Compounded Adiabatic Diesel Engine Through Computer Simulation", SAE Paper 

930986, SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, March 1-5, 1993. 

17. Varnavas, C., and D. N. Assanis, "Evaluation of an Improved Model for Droplet 

Evaporation in High Temperatures," Sixth Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and 

Spray Systems, ILASS 93 Americas, Worcester, MA, May 17-19, 1993. 

18. Shih, L., and D. N. Assanis, "Experimental Validation of Spray Dynamics and Wall 

Interaction Models in Quiescent Chambers", Sixth Annual Conference on Liquid 

Atomization and Spray Systems, ILASS 93 Americas, Worcester, MA, May 17-19, 1993. 

19. Tamamidis, P., and D. N. Assanis, “Benchmarking High Resolution Schemes in TwoDimensional Unsteady Flows," Forum on Unsteady Flows, FED-157, pp. 95-106, ASME 

International Fluids Engineering Conference, Washington, D.C. June 20-24, 1993. 

20. Tamamidis, P., and D. N. Assanis, “Numerical Simulation of Internal Flows in Complex 

Geometries Using Curvature-Modified k- Models," ASME International Fluids 

Engineering Conference, Forum on Turbulent Flows, Washington, D.C. June 20-24, 

1993. 

21. Li, Q., and D. N. Assanis, “A Quasi-Dimensional Combustion Model for Diesel Engine 

Simulation," Alternate Fuels, Engine Performance and Emissions, ICE-20, 109-118, 

ASME-ICED Fall Technical Conference, Morgantown, WV, September 26-29, 1993. 

22. Assanis, D. N., and B. Bolton, “Variable Valve Timing Strategies for Optimum Engine 

Performance and Fuel Economy," ASME Paper 94-ICE-5, ASME ETCE Conference, 

New Orleans, LA, January 23-26, 1994. 

23. Bolton, B., and D. N. Assanis, “Optimum Breathing Strategies for Turbocharged Diesel 

Engines Based on the Miller Cycle Concept," ASME PD-Vol. 64-8.2, pp. 253-262, 

Second Biennial European Joint Conference on Engineering Systems Design and 

Analysis ESDA, London, England, July 4-7, 1994. 

24. Varnavas, C., and D. N. Assanis, “An Improved Model for Predicting Evaporation of 

High Pressure Engine Sprays", ICLASS 94, Sixth International Conference on Liquid 

Atomization and Spray Systems, Rouen, France, July 18-22, 1994. 

25. Herring, P., and D. N. Assanis, “A Low Heat Rejection and Low Thermal Distortion 

Piston-Liner Design," ASME-ICED Fall Technical Conference, Lafayette, IN, October 2-

5, 1994. 

26. Varnavas, C., and D. N. Assanis, “A High Temperature and High Pressure Evaporation 

Model for the KIVA-3 Code," SAE Paper 960629, 1996 SAE International Congress, 

Detroit, MI, February 26-29, 1996. 

27. Agarwal, A., Filipi, Z., Assanis, D. N., and D. Baker, “On Turbulence Modeling for a 

Quasi-Dimensional Spark Ignition Engine Simulation," Sixth International Conference on 

Numerical Combustion, SIAM (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics), New 

Orleans, March 4-6, 1996. 
F-42 

28. Nelson II, S. A., Filipi, Z., and D. N. Assanis, “The Use of Neural Networks for Matching 

Compressors with Diesel Engines,” Presented at ASME-ICE Spring Technical 

Conference, Youngstown, OH, April 21-24, 1996. 

29. Papageorgakis, G., Agarwal, A., Zhang, G., and D. N. Assanis, “Multi-Dimensional 

Modeling of Natural Gas Injection, Glow Plug Ignition, and Combustion with the KIVA-3 

Code," ASME-ICE Spring Technical Conference, Youngstown, OH, April 21-24, 1996. 

30. Sun, X., Assanis, D. N., and G. Brereton, “Numerical Modeling and Experimental 

Validation of Steady-State Hydrocarbon Emissions from Small Utility Four-Stroke 

Engines," Presented in Session on Engine Emissions, ASME-ICE Spring Technical 

Conference, Youngstown, OH, April 21-24, 1996. 

31. Zhang, G., and D. N. Assanis, “Application of 1-D and 3-D Gas Dynamic Modeling to 

Engine Manifolds," invited paper, Symposium on Supercomputer Applications in the 

Automotive Industries, 29th ISATA, Florence, Italy, June 3-6, 1996. 

32. Filipi, Z., and D.N. Assanis, “On Determining the Optimum Stroke-to-Bore Ratio for a 

Spark-Ignition Engine of a Given Displacement," Powertrain Systems Session, 26th 

International FISITA Congress, Prague, June 16-23, 1996. 

33. Zhang, G., and D. N. Assanis, “3-D Turbulent Flow Predictions Using High-Order 

Schemes and Comparison with Measurements," Presented in Symposium on Numerical 

Developments in CFD, ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, San Diego, 

CA, July 7-11, 1996. 

34. Zhang, G., and D. N. Assanis, “Finite Volume Predictions of 3D Turbulent Compressible 

Flows Using a Segregated Solution Approach and High Order Schemes," International 

Symposium on Finite Volumes for Complex Applications - Problems and Perspectives, 

Rouen, France, July 15-18, 1996. 

35. Poola, R., Assanis, D. N., Sekar, R., and G. R. Cataldi, “Study of Using OxygenEnriched Combustion Air for Locomotive Diesel Engines,” Presented in Diamond 

Anniversary Conference of the ASME-ICE Division, Fairborn, OH, October 20-23, 1996. 

36. Filipi, Z. S., and D. N. Assanis, “A Non-Linear, Transient, Single-Cylinder Diesel Engine 

Simulation for Predictions of Instantaneous Engine Speed and Torque,” Presented at 

ASME-ICE Spring Technical Conference, Fort Collins, Colorado, April 27-30, 1997. 

37. Assanis, D. N., Atreya, A., Borgnakke, C., Dowling, D., Filipi, Z., Hoffman, S., Homsy, S., 

Kanafani, F., Morrison, K., Patterson, D., Syrimis, M., Winton, D., Zhang, G., and Bryzik, 

W., “Development of a Modular Multi-Cylinder Transient Diesel Engine Simulation for 

System Performance and Vibration Studies,” Presented at ASME-ICE Spring Technical 

Conference, Fort Collins, Colorado, April 27-30, 1997. 

38. Zhang, G., and D. N. Assanis, “Manifold Gas Dynamic Modeling and its Coupling with 

Single Cylinder Engine Models using SIMULINK,” Presented at ASME-ICE Spring 

Technical Conference, Fort Collins, Colorado, April 27-30, 1997. 

39. Syrimis, M., and D. N. Assanis, “Knocking Cylinder Pressure Data Characteristics in a 

Spark-Ignition Engine,” Presented at ASME-ICE Spring Technical Conference, Fort 

Collins, Colorado, April 27-30, 1997. 

40. Agarwal, A., and D. N. Assanis, “Modeling the Effect of Natural Gas Composition on 

Ignition Delay Under Compression Ignition Conditions,” Presented as SAE Paper 

971711, 1997 SAE International Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, Dearborn, MI, May 5-8, 

1997. 

41. Baker, D. M., and D. N. Assanis, “A Coupled Methodology for Modeling the Transient 

Thermal Response of SI Engines Subject to Time-Varying Operating Conditions,” 

Presented as SAE Paper 971859, Vehicle Thermal Management Systems VTMS-3 

International Conference, Indianapolis, IN, May 19-22, 1997. 
F-43 

42. Assanis, D. N., Filipi, Z. S., and G. Zhang, “Development of Interactive Graphical 

Software Tools in the Context of Teaching Modeling of Internal Combustion Engines in a 

Multimedia Classroom,” Presented at 1997 ASEE Annual Conference, Milwaukee, WI, 

June 15-18, 1997. 

43. Filipi, Z. S., Homsy, S. C., Morrison, K. M., Hoffman, S., Dowling, D. R., and D. N. 

Assanis, “Strain Gage-Based Instrumentation for In-Situ Diesel Fuel Injection System 

Diagnostics,” Presented at 1997 ASEE Annual Conference, Milwaukee, WI, June 15-18, 

1997. 

44. Nishida, K., Ceccio, S., Assanis, D. N., Tamaki, N, and Hiroyasu, H., “Characterization of 

Cavitation Flow in a Simple Hole Nozzle,” Seventh International Conference on Liquid 

Atomization and Spray Systems, Seoul, Korea, Aug. 18-22, 1997. 

45. Syrimis, M., and D. N. Assanis, “Characterization of Knocking Combustion and its 

Dispersion,” ASME-ICE Fall Technical Conference, Madison, WI, Sept. 27 - Oct. 1, 

1997. 

46. Agarwal, A., and Assanis, D. N., “Multi-Dimensional Modeling of Natural Gas Ignition 

under Compression Ignition Conditions Using Detailed Chemistry,” SAE Paper 980136, 

SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 23-26, 1998. 

47. Agarwal, A., and Assanis, D. N., “Multi-Dimensional Modeling of Nitric Oxide Formation 

in Direct-Injection Natural Gas Engines, COMODIA 98, Proceedings of the Fourth 

International Symposium on Diagnostics and Modeling of Combustion in Internal 

Combustion Engines, 561-566, Kyoto, July 20-23, 1998. 

48. Assanis, D.N., Filipi, Z.S., Fiveland, S.B., and Syrimis, M., “A Predictive Ignition Delay 

Correlation Under Steady-State and Transient Operation of a Direct-Injection Diesel 

Engine,” Presented at ASME-ICE Fall Technical Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, October 16-

20, 1999. 

49. Nishimura, A., and D. N. Assanis, “A Model for Primary Diesel Fuel Atomization Based 

on Cavitation Bubble Collapse Energy," Eight International Conference on Liquid 

Atomization and Spray Systems, ICLASS-2000, Pasadena, CA, July 16-20, 2000. 

50. Filipi, Z., Wang, Y., and Assanis, D. N., “Effect of Variable Geometry Turbine (VGT) on 

Diesel Engine and Vehicle System Transient Response,” Presented as SAE Paper 

2001-01-1247, SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 5-8, 2001. 

51. Lin, C. C., Filipi, Z., Wang, Y., Louca, L., Peng, H., Assanis, D. N. and Stein, J., 

“Integrated, Feed-Forward Hybrid Electric Vehicle Simulation in SIMULINK and its Use 

for Power Management Studies,” Presented as SAE Paper 2001-012-1334, included in 

Advanced Hybrid Vehicle Powertrains, SP-1607, SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, 

March 5-8, 2001. 

52. Buyuktur, S., Wooldridge, M. and D. N. Assanis, “Development of a Forward-Looking 

Fuel Cell Vehicle Simulation,” 2001 Global Powertrain Congress, June 5-7, 2001, 

Detroit, MI. 

53. Grover, R. and D. N. Assanis, “A Spray Wall Impingement Model Based Upon 

Conservation Principles,” COMODIA 2001, Proceedings of the Fifth International 

Symposium on Diagnostics and Modeling of Combustion in Internal Combustion 

Engines, Nagoya, Japan, July 1-4, 2001. 

54. Hong, S. J., D. N. Assanis and M. Wooldridge, “Multi-Dimensional Modeling of NO and 

Soot Emissions with Detailed Chemistry and Mixing in a Direct Injection Natural Gas 

Engine,” SAE Paper 2002-01-1112, Session on Multi-Dimensional Engine Modeling, 

2002 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 4-7, 2002. 

55. Bohac, S. and D. N. Assanis, “Quantification of Local Ozone Production Attributable to 

Automobile Hydrocarbon Emissions,” SAE Paper 2001-01-3760, 2001; presented at 
F-44 

Environmental Sustainability Conference and Exhibition: Land, Sea and Air Mobility, 

Graz, Austria, April 8-10, 2002. 

56. Grover, R.O., Assanis, D. N., Lippert, A.M., El Tahry, S.H., Drake, M.C., Fansler, T.D., 

Harrington, D.L., “A Critical Analysis of Splash Criteria for SIDI Spray Impingement,” 

ILASS Americas 2002, Madison, WI, May 14-17, 2002. 

57. Chryssakis, C. A., Driscoll, K.D., Sick, V., and D. N. Assanis, “Validation of an Enhanced 

Liquid Sheet Atomisation Model Against Quantitative Laser Diagnostic Measurements,” 

ILASS-Europe 2002, Zaragoza, Spain, September 9-11, 2002. 

58. Wu, B., Lin, C.-C., Filipi, Z., Peng, H., and D. N. Assanis, “Optimization of Power 

Management Strategies for a Hydraulic Hybrid Medium Truck“, Proceedings of the 6th 

International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control, Hiroshima, Japan, September 

2002. 

59. Louca, L., Kokkolaras, M., Delagrammatikas, G., Michelena, N., Filipi, Z., Papalambros, 

P., and D. N. Assanis, “Analytical Target Cascading for the Design of an Advanced 

Technology Truck,” IMECE 2002-32860, 2002 ASME International Mechanical 

Engineering Congress and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, November 17-22, 2002. 

60. Delagrammatikas, G. and D. N. Assanis, “Optimization of Advanced Engine Controls for 

Conventional Vehicles: A Driving Cycle Perspective,” submitted to Symposium on 

Advanced Automotive Technologies, IMECE 2002-32087, ASME International 

Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, November 17-22, 

2002. 

61. Jacobs, T. J., Assanis, D. N., and Z. S. Filipi, “The Impact of Exhaust Gas Recirculation 

on Performance and Emissions of a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine,” SAE Paper, 2003-01-

1068, 2003 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 3-6, 2003. 

62. Chryssakis, C. A., Assanis, D. N., Lee, J. K., Nishida, K., “Fuel Spray Simulation of 

High-Pressure Swirl-Injector for DISI Engines and Comparison with Laser Diagnostic 

Measurements,” SAE Paper 2003-01-0007, 2003 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, 

March 3-6, 2003. 

63. Chryssakis, C. A., Assanis, D. N., Lee, J. K., Nishida, K., “An Investigation of the 

Breakup Mechanisms for Swirl Sprays From High-Pressure Swirl Injectors,” ICLASS 

2003, Sorrento, Italy, July 13-18, 2003. 

64. Kazancioglu, E., Wu, G., Ko, J., Bohac, S., Filipi, Z., Hu, S. J., Assanis, D. N., and 

Saitou, K.,Robust Optimization of an Automotive Valvetrain Using a Multi-Objective 

Genetic Algorithm, Paper DETC 2003/DAC-48714, Proceedings of DETC’03 ASME 

2003 Design Technical Conference, Chicago, IL, Sept. 2-6, 2003. 

65. Zeng, P. and D. N. Assanis, “Time-Resolved Heat Transfer in Engine Intake Manifold,” 

TRCON-03 International Symposium on Transient Convective Heat and Mass Transfer 

in Single and Two-Phase Flows, Cesme, Turkey, August 17-22, 2003. 

66. Babajimopoulos, A., Lavoie, G. A. and D. N. Assanis, “Modeling HCCI Combustion with 

High Levels of Residual Gas Fraction – A Comparison of Two VVA Strategies”, SAE 

Paper 2003-01-3220, 2003 SAE International Powertrain and Fluid Systems 

Conference, Oct.27-30, Pittsburgh, PA. 

67. Hong, S.J, Assanis, D. N., Wooldridge, M. S., Im, H.G., Kurtz, E. M., and H. Pitsch, 

“Modeling of Diesel Combustion and NO Emissions Based on a Modified Eddy 

Dissipation Concept,” SAE Paper 2004-01-0107, 2004 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, 

March 8-11, 2004. 

68. Zeng, P. and D. N. Assanis, “Cylinder Pressure Reconstruction and its Application to 

Heat Transfer Analysis,” SAE Paper 2004-01-0922, 2004 SAE World Congress, Detroit, 

MI, March 8-11, 2004. 
F-45 

69. Grover, R. O., Assanis, D. N., and A.M. Lippert, “A Comparison of Classical Atomization 

Models against Current Experimental Measurements within a Zero-Dimensional 

Framework,” ILASS Americas, 17th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray 

Systems, Arlington, VA, May 2004. 

70. Vanzieleghem, B., Assanis, D., Im, H.G., “Modeling of Gasoline Direct Injection 

Combustion using KIVA-3V: Development of an Extended Coherent Flamelet Model and 

Validation with Optical Engine Planar Laser Induced Fluorescence Measurements”, 

COMODIA 2004, Yokohama, Japan, August 2004. 

71. Vanzieleghem, B.P., C.A. Chryssakis, R.O. Grover, V. Sick and D.N. Assanis, “Modeling 

of Gasoline Direct Injection Mixture Formation with KIVA-3V and Validation with Optical 

Engine Planar Laser Induced Fluorescence Measurements: Development of Spray 

Breakup and Wall Impingement Models,” COMODIA 2004, Yokohama, Japan, August 

2004. 

72. Zeng, P., Prucka, R. G., Filipi, Z. S., and D. N. Assanis, “Reconstructing Cylinder 

Pressure of a Spark-Ignition Engine for Heat Transfer and Heat Release Analysis,” 

ASME Paper ICEF 2004-886, ASME Internal Combustion Engine Technical Conference, 

Long Beach, CA, October 24-27, 2004. 

73. Zeng, P., and D.N. Assanis, “Unsteady Convective Heat Transfer Modeling and 

Application to Engine Intake Manifolds,” IMECE Paper 2004-60068, 2004 ASME 

International Mechanical Engineering Congress and R&D Exposition, Anaheim, CA, Nov 

13-19, 2004. 

74. Zeng, P., and D.N. Assanis, “The Development of a Computer-Based Teaching Tool for 

Internal Combustion Engine Courses,” IMECE Paper 2004-61998, 2004 ASME 

International Mechanical Engineering Congress and R&D Exposition, Anaheim, CA, Nov 

13-19, 2004. 

75. Cho, H., Jung, D., Filipi, Z., Assanis, D. N., Bryzik, W., and J. Vanderslice, “Application 

of Controllable Electric Coolant Pumps for Fuel Economy and Cooling Performance 

Improvement,” IMECE Paper 2004-61056, 2004 ASME International Mechanical 

Engineering Congress and R&D Exposition, Anaheim, CA, Nov 13-19, 2004. 

76. Chryssakis, C., Assanis, D.N., Kook, S., and C. Bae, “Effect of Multiple Injections on 

Fuel-Air Mixing and Soot Formation in Diesel Combustion Using Direct Flame 

Visualization and CFD Techniques,” ASME Paper ICES2005-1016, ASME Internal 

Combustion Engine Technical Conference, Chicago, IL, April 5-7, 2005. 

77. Knafl, A., Hagena, J., Filipi, Z., and D. N. Assanis, “Dual Use Engine Calibration: 

Leveraging Modern Technologies to Optimize Performance and Emissions Trade-offs,” 

SAE Paper 2005-01-1549, SP-1962, 2005 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 11-14, 

2005. 

78. Cho, W., Ickes, A., Jung. D., Assanis, D.N., Brevick, J.E., Sanko, J., Nelson, R., 

Thompson, S., Choi, I., Martz, J., and B. Inwood, “Pressure Reactive Piston Technology 

Investigation and Development for Spark Ignition Engines,” SAE Paper 2005-01-1648, 

Session on CI and SI Power Cylinder Systems, SP-1964, 2005 SAE World Congress, 

Detroit, MI, April 11-14, 2005. 

79. Lee, S., Bae, C., Prucka, R., Fernandes, G., Filipi, Z. S., and D. N. Assanis, 

“Quantification of Thermal Shock in a Piezoelectric Pressure Transducer,” SAE Paper 

2005-01-2092, SAE Brazil Fuels & Lubricants Meeting & Exhibition (Co-sponsored by 

SAE International), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 11-13, 2005. 

80. Chryssakis, C.A. and D.N. Assanis, “A Secondary Atomization Model for Liquid Droplet 

Deformation and Breakup under High Weber Number Conditions,” 18th Annual 

Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Irvine, CA, May 22-25, 2005. 
F-46 

81. Sampara, C. Depick, C., and D.N. Assanis, “Framework for Modeling the Components 

of a Fuel Processing System for Fuel Cell Applications,” IMECE Paper 2005-81330, 

IMECE 2005 Proceedings, 2005 ASME Design Engineering Conference, Orlando, FLA, 

November 5-11, 2005. 

82. Cho, W., Jung, D. and D.N. Assanis, “Numerical Investigation of Pressure Reactive 

Piston Technology in a Spark-Ignition Engine,” Paper 20056083, 18th International 

Combustion Engine Symposium, Jeju Island, Korea, December 20-22, 2005. 

83. Jacobs, T. J., Knafl, A., Bohac, S.V., Assanis, D.N., and P.G. Szymkowicz, “The 

Development of Throttled and Unthrottled PCI Combustion in a Light-Duty Diesel 

Engine,” SAE paper 2006-01-0202, 2006 SAE Congress, Detroit, MI, April 3-6, 2006. 

84. Hagena, J.R., Filipi, Z.S., and D.N. Assanis, “Transient Diesel Emissions: Analysis of 

Engine Operation During a Tip-In”, SAE Paper 2006-01-1151, 2006 SAE Congress, 

Detroit, MI, April 3-6, 2006. 

85. Chryssakis, C.A., Assanis, D. N., and C. Bae, “Development and Validation of a 

Comprehensive CFD Model of Diesel Spray Atomization Accounting for High Weber 

Numbers,” SAE Paper 2006-01-1546, SP-2010, 2006 SAE Congress, Detroit, MI, April 

3-6, 2006. 

86. Jung, D., and D.N. Assanis, “Numerical Modeling of Cross Flow Compact Heat 

Exchanger with Louvered Fins using Thermal Resistance Concept,” 2006 SAE 

Congress, Detroit, MI, April 3-6, 2006. 

87. Malikopoulos, A., Filipi, Z., and D.N. Assanis, “Simulation of an Integrated Starter 

Alternator (ISA) System for the HMMWV,” SAE Paper 2006-01-0442, SP-2008, 2006 

SAE Congress, Detroit, MI, April 3-6, 2006. 

88. Yoo, S., Jung, D., and D.N. Assanis, “Numerical Modeling of the Proton Exchange 

Membrane Fuel Cell for Thermal Management,” Paper FUELCELL 2006-97062, 4th 

International Conference on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology, Irvine, CA, 

June 19-21, 2006. 

89. Knafl, A., Jacobs, T., Bohac, S.V., and D. N. Assanis, “The Load Limits of LowTemperature Premixed Compression Ignition Diesel Combustion,” ISCE 20006, 2nd 

International Symposium on Clean and High Efficiency Combustion Engines, Tianjin, 

China, July 10-13, 2006. 

90. Hamosfakidis, V. Im, H. and D.N. Assanis, “A Regenerative Multiple Flamelet Model 

(RMF),” Poster Presentation, 31st International Symposium on Combustion, Heidelberg, 

Germany, August 6-11, 2006. 

91. Filipi, Z., Hagena, J., Fathy, H., Assanis, D., Stein, J., “Investigating Effects of Transients 

on Diesel Emissions using Engine-in-the-Loop Testing”, THIESEL 2006 Conference on 

Thermo- and Fluid Dynamic Processes in Diesel Engines, Valencia, Spain, September 

2006. 

92. Grannell, S.M., Assanis, D.N., Bohac, S.V., and D. E. Gillespie, “The Operating 

Features of a Stoichiometric, Ammonia and Gasoline Dual Fueled Spark Ignition 

Engine,” Paper IMECE2006-13048, Proceedings of IMECE2006 2006 ASME 

International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Chicago, IL, November 

5-10, 2006. 

93. Jacobs, T.J., and D.N. Assanis, “On the Sensitivity of NOX to Exhaust Gas Recirculation 

in a Premixed Compression Ignition Engine,” 5th US Combustion Meeting, March 25-28, 

2007, San Diego, CA. 

94. Hamosfakidis, V., Kobiera, A., Im, H., and D.N. Assanis, “A Two Conserved Scalar 

Modeling for HCCI Applications,” 5th UC Combustion Meeting, March 25-28, 2007, San 

Diego, CA. 
F-47 

95. Chang, K.J., Lavoie, G.A., Babajimopoulos, A., Filipi, Z.S., and D.N. Assanis, “Control of 

a Multi-Cylinder HCCI Engine during Transient Operation by Modulating Residual Gas 

Fraction to Compensate for Wall Temperature Effects,” SAE Paper 2007-01-0204, SAE 

2007 World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 16-19, 2007. 

96. Hattori, K., Murotani, T., Sato, E., Chryssakis, C., Babajimopoulos, A., and D.N. Assanis, 

“Simultaneous Reduction of NOx and Soot in a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine by 

Instantaneous Mixing of Fuel and Water,” SAE Paper 2007-01-0125, SAE 2007 World 

Congress, Detroit, MI, April 16-19, 2007. 

97. Knafl, A., Han, M., Bohac, S.V., Assanis, D.N., and P.G. Szymkowicz, “Comparison of 

Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Performance on an Engine and a Gas Flow Reactor,” SAE 

Paper 2007-01-0231, SAE 2007 World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 16-19, 2007. 

98. Baglione, M., Duty, M., Ni, J., and D.N. Assanis, “Reverse Dynamic Optimization 

Methodology for Maximizing Powertrain System Efficiency,” Fifth IFAC Symposium on 

Advances in Automotive Control, Monterey Coast, CA, August 20-22, 2007. 

99. Hamosfakidis, V., Kobiera, A., and D.N. Assanis, “A Regenerative Multiple Flamelet 

Model for non-Premixed Combustion with non-Uniform EGR,” 5th IASME/WSEAS 

International Conference on Heat Transfer, Thermal Engineering and Environment, 

Vouliagmeni, Athens, Greece, August 25-27, 2007. 

100. Malikopoulos, A., Papalambros, P.Y., and D.N. Assanis, “A Learning Algorithm for 

Optimal Internal Combustion Engine Calibration in Real Time,” ASME 2007 International 

Design Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information in 

Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 4-7, 2007. 

101. Sethu, C., Leustek, M., Bohac, S.V., Assanis D.N. and Z.S. Filipi, “An Investigation in 

Measuring Crank-Angle Resolved In-Cylinder Engine Friction Using Instantaneous IMEP 

Method,” Powertrain & Fluid Systems Conference & Exhibition, Donald E. Stephens 

Convention Center, Rosemont (Chicago), IL, October 29 - November 1, 2007. 

102. Malikopoulos, A., Papalambros, P.Y., and D.N. Assanis, “A New State-Representation 

Learning Model for Sequential Decision-Making Problems Under Uncertainty,” IMECE 

2007-41258, Proceedings of 2007 ASME International Mechanical Engineering 

Congress and Exposition, Seattle, Washington, November 10-16, 2007. 

103. Cho, K., Assanis, D., Filipi, Z., Szekely, G., Najt, P. and R. Rask, “Investigation of 

Combustion and Heat Transfer in a Direct Injection Spark Ignition (DISI) Engine through 

Instantaneous Combustion Chamber Surface Temperature Measurements,” Internal 

Combustion Engines: Performance, Fuel Economy and Emissions, Institution of 

Mechanical Engineers, Combustion Engines and Fuels Group, London, England, 

December 11-12, 2007. 

104. Malikopoulos, A., Papalambros, P.Y., and D.N. Assanis, “Optimal Engine Calibration for 

Individual Driving Styles,” 2008 SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 

April 14-17, 2008. 

105. Lee, B., Jung, D., Assanis, D.N., and Z.S. Filipi, “Dual-Stage Turbocharger Matching and 

Boost Control Options,” ASME Paper ICES 2008-1692, Proceedings of the ASME 

Internal Combustion Engine Division 2008 Spring Technical Conference, Chicago, IL, 

April 27-30, 2008. 

106. Northrop, W. Bohac, S. and D.N. Assanis, “Premixed Low Temperature Combustion of 

Biodiesel and Blends in a High Speed Compression Ignition Engine,” SAE Paper 2009-

01-0133, SAE 2009 International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, April 20-23, 

2009. 

107. Guralp, O., Hoffman, M., Assanis, D.N., Filipi, Z., Kuo, T.W., Najt. P. and R. Rask, 

“Thermal Characterization of Combustion Chamber Deposits on the HCCI Engine Piston 

and Cylinder Head Using Instantaneous Temperature Measurements,” SAE Paper 2009-
F-48 

01-0668, SAE 2009 International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, April 20-23, 

2009. 

108. Lee, B., Filipi, Z., Assanis, D.N., and D. Jung, “Simulation-Based Assessment of Various 

Dual-Stage Boosting Systems in Terms of Performance and Fuel Economy 

Improvements,” SAE Paper 2009-01-1471, SAE 2009 International Congress and 

Exposition, Detroit, MI, April 20-23, 2009. 

109. Abarham, M., Hoard, J., Assanis, D.N., Styles, D., Curtis, E., Ramesh, N., Sluder, C.S., 

and J, Storey, “Numerical Modeling and Experimental Investigations of EGR Cooler 

Fouling in a Diesel Engine,” SAE Paper 2009-01-1506, SAE 2009 International 

Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, April 20-23, 2009. 

110. Babajimopoulos, A., Challa, P.V.S.S., Lavoie, G., and D.N. Assanis, “Model-Based 

Assessment of Two Variable Cam Timing Strategies for HCCI Engines: Recompression 

Vs. Rebreathing,” ICES Paper 2009-76103, Proceedings of the ASME Internal 

Combustion Engine Division 2009 Spring Technical Conference ICES2009, Milwaukee, 

WI, May 3-6, 2009. 

111. Cho, K., Grover, R., Assanis, D.N., Filipi, Z., Najt, P., Szekely, G., and R. Rask, 

“Combining Instantaneous Temperature Measurements and CFD for Analysis of Fuel 

Impingement on the DISI Engine Piston Top,” ICES2009-76117, Proceedings of the 

ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division 2009 Spring Technical Conference 

ICES2009, Milwaukee, WI, May 3-6, 2009. 

112. Grannell, S., Assanis, D.N., Gillespie, D. and S.V. Bohac, “Exhaust Emissions from a 

Stoichiometric, Ammonia and Gasoline Dual Fueled Spark Ignition Engine,” ICES2009-

76131, Proceedings of the ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division 2009 Spring 

Technical Conference ICES2009, Milwaukee, WI, May 3-6, 2009. 

113. Abarham, M., Hoard, J., Assanis, D.N., Styles, D., Curtis, E., Ramesh, N., Sluder, C.S., 

and J, Storey, “Modeling of Thermophoretic Soot Deposition and Hydrocarbon 

Condensation in EGR Coolers,” SAE Paper 2009-01-1939, SAE 2009 International 

Powertrains, Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, Florence, Italy, June 15-17, 2009. 

114. Ickes, A., Assanis D.N. and S. Bohac, “Load Limits with Fuel Effects of a Premixed 

Diesel Combustion Mode,” SAE Paper 2009-01-1972, SAE 2009 International 

Powertrains, Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, Florence, Italy, June 15-17, 2009. 

Other Conference or Symposium Presentations

1. Assanis, D. N., J. A. Ekchian, J. B. Heywood, and K. K. Replogle, "Computer Simulation 

of the Turbocompound Diesel Engine System," Proceedings of the Society of 

Automotive Engineers, 22nd Automotive Technology Development Contractor's Meeting, 

P-l55, 297-316, 1985. 

2. Assanis, D. N., and E. Badillo, "Unsteady Analysis of Piston-Liner Heat Transfer in 

Insulated Diesel Engines," Invited Paper, Proceedings of the Heat Transfer Conference 

Honoring B. T. Chao, Urbana, IL, Oct. 1-2, 1987. 

3. Assanis, D. N., Wiese, K., Schwarz, E., and W. Bryzik, "Investigation of the Effect of Thin 

Ceramic Coatings on Diesel Engine Performance and Exhaust Emissions," Proceedings 

of the 1990 Coatings for Advanced Heat Engines Workshop, Castine, Maine, Aug. 6-10, 

1990. 

4. Varnavas, C., and D. N. Assanis, "Critical Evaluation of the KIVA Evaporation Model for 

Engine Spray Calculations," Third International KIVA Users Group Meeting, Detroit, MI, 

Feb. 28, 1993. 

5. Agarwal, A., Papageorgakis, G. C., Paul, M., Rubas, P. J., Yuen, L. S., Coverdill, R. E., 

Lucht, R. P., Peters, J. E., and D. N. Assanis, "Direct Injection of Natural Gas: In-
F-49 

Cylinder Measurements and Calculations," Proceedings of Annual Automotive 

Technology Development Contractor's Coordination Meeting, Society of Automotive 

EngineersP-289, 147-156, Dearborn, MI, October 24-27, 1994. 

6. Assanis, D. N., "A Methodology for Characterizing the Thermal Behavior of Internal 

Combustion Engine Systems", invited presentation, Proceedings of The Best of 

German/American Automotive Technology Conference, Southfield, MI, June 27-28, 

1995. 

7. Assanis, D. N., "A Methodology for Characterizing the Thermal Behavior of Internal 

Combustion Engine Systems", invited presentation, Engineering Foundation 

Conference, Shonan Village, Japan, September 23-29, 1995. 

8. Papageorgakis, G., Agarwal, A., and D. N. Assanis, "Multi-Dimensional Modeling of 

Natural Gas Injection, Glow Plug Ignition, and Combustion with the KIVA-3 Code: The 

Effect of Piston Crown Geometry," Sixth International KIVA Users Group Meeting, 

Detroit, MI, Feb. 25, 1996. 

9. Papageorgakis, G., Agarwal, A., and D. N. Assanis, "Multi-Dimensional Modeling of 

Natural Gas Injection, Glow Plug Ignition, and Combustion with the KIVA-3 Code, Poster 

Session, Annual DOE Automotive Technology Development Customers’ Coordination 

Meeting, Dearborn, MI, Oct. 28 - Nov. 1, 1996. 

10. Assanis, D. N., “3-D Modeling of Engine Reacting Flows: Promises and Challenges,” 

invited paper, Panel on Automotive Applications of CFD, Atlanta, 1996 ASME 

International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, Nov. 17-22, 

1996. 

11. Papageorgakis, G., and D. N. Assanis, “Implementation and Assessment of Alternative 

Turbulence Models in KIVA-3,” Seventh International KIVA Users Group Meeting, 

Detroit, MI, Feb. 25, 1996. 

12. Assanis, D. N., “Engine Friction Measurements,” invited presentation, Panel on Surface 

Engineering and Tribology, SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Feb. 

23-26, 1998. 

13. Assanis, D. N., “Engine Friction Measurements,” Keynote Presentation, DOE Workshop 

on Research Needs for Reducing Friction and Wear in Transportation, Argonne 

National Laboratory, March 22-23, 1999. 

14. Assanis, D.N., Louca, L., and Z. Filipi, “Drivetrain Simulation and Modeling Based 

Upshift Control,” Modern Advances in Automatic Transmission Technology TPOTEC, 

Ypsilanti, MI, Aug. 29-30, 2002. 

15. Assanis, D. N. and S. Tung, “Overview of Engine Friction and Wear Measurements,” 

Future Trends in Engine Design and Tribology, Society of Tribologists and Lubrication 

Engineers, Rochester, MI, August 22, 2001. 

16. Assanis, D. N., “Modeling of Hybrid Vehicle Systems”, invited presentation, 7th 

International Conference on Present and Future Engines for Automobiles, Delphi, 

Greece, May 27-31, 2001. 

17. Assanis, D. N., “Discussion of the National Research Council Report on Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy,” SAE President’s Invited Panel, 2002 SAE International 

Congress and Exhibition, 2002 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 4-7, 2002. 

18. Fiveland, S. and D. N. Assanis, “A Quasi-Dimensional HCCI Model for Performance and 

Emissions Studies,” Ninth International Conference on Numerical Combustion, Sorrento, 

Italy, April 7-10, 2002. 

19. Assanis, D. N., “Does the Internal Combustion Engine Have a Future?”, The Advanced 

Power Technology Forum, Management Briefing Seminars 2002, Traverse City, MI, 

August 5-9, 2002. 
F-50 

20. Assanis D. N., “Does the Internal Combustion Engine Have a Future?”, invited plenary 

speaker, session on “Future Automotive Powertrains,” Global Powertrain Congress, Ann 

Arbor, MI, September 24-26, 2002. 

21. Assanis, D.N., “Securing a Successful Academic Career,” invited panelist, ASME 

IMECE, New Orleans, LA, November 17-22, 2002. 

22. Filipi, Z. S., Wu, B., Lin, C.C., and D. N. Assanis, “Fuel Economy Potential of Hydraulic 

Hybrid Propulsion Systems for Medium Trucks,” SAE International Truck and Bus 

Meeting and Exhibition, Cobo Center, Detroit, MI, November 18-20, 2002. 

23. Assanis, D.N., “A University Consortium on Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition 

Engine Research,” invited speaker, International Workshop on Advanced Combustion 

and Fuels,” Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, June 16-17, 2003. 

24. Assanis, D.N., “Major Research Issues,” invited panelist, International Workshop on 

Advanced Combustion and Fuels,” Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, June 16-

17, 2003. 

25. Vanzieleghem, B.P., Chryssakis, C.A., Grover, R.O., Assanis, D.N., Im, H.G., and V. 

Sick, “Gasoline Direct Injection Modeling and Validation with Engine Planar Laser 

Induced Fluorescence Experiments,” 14th International Multidimensional Engine 

Modeling User’s Group Meeting, Detroit, MI, March 2004. 

26. Depcik, C., and D.N. Assanis, “One-Dimensional Catalyst Modeling and its Application to 

Urea SCR Devices,” Seventh CLEERS Workshop, Detroit Diesel, Detroit, MI, June 2004. 

27. Assanis, D.N., et al., “Clean and Controllable, Advanced Compression Ignition Engine 

System for Improved Power Density and Fuel Economy”, plenary session presentation 

at the Annual ARC Conference on “Critical Technologies for Modeling and Simulation of 

Ground Vehicles”, Ann Arbor, May 2004. 

28. Babajimopoulos, A., Assanis, D.N., Flowers, D.L., Aceves, S.M., and R.P. Hessel, “A 

Fully Integrated CFD and Multi-Zone Model with Detailed Chemical Kinetics for the 

Simulation of PCCI Engines,” 15th International Multidimensional Engine Modeling 

User’s Group Meeting, Detroit, MI, April 2005. 

29. Assanis, et al., “Engine-In-the-Loop Simulation: A Design and Evaluation Tool for 

Advanced Propulsion Systems”, plenary session presentation at the Annual ARC 

Conference on “Critical Technologies for Modeling and Simulation of Ground Vehicles”, 

Ann Arbor, May 2005. 

30. Assanis, D. N., “Bridging the Gap between Fundamental Physics and Chemistry and 

Applied Models for HCCI Engines”, invited presentation, 9th International Conference on 

Present and Future Engines for Automobiles, San Antonio, TX, May 29 to June 2, 2005. 

31. Assanis, D. N., “Bridging the Gap between Fundamental Physics and Chemistry and 

Applied Models for HCCI Engines”, invited presentation, 11th International Conference 

on Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction DEER 2005, Chicago, IL, August 21-25, 2005. 

32. Leustek, M.E., Sethu, C., Bohac, S., Filipi, Z., and D.N. Assanis, “Crank-angle Resolved 

In-Cylinder Friction Measurements with the Instantaneous IMEP Method”, Proceedings 

of World Tribology Congress III, Washington D.C., Sept. 2005. 

33. Assanis, D.N., et al., “Integrative Approach to Advanced Propulsion System Design 

Using Simulation and Engine-In-the-Loop”, plenary session presentation at the Annual 

ARC Conference on “Critical Technologies for Modeling and Simulation of Ground 

Vehicles”, Ann Arbor, May 2006. 

34. Assanis, D. N., “Low Temperature Combustion for High Efficiency Ultra Low Emissions 

Engines”, invited presentation, 12th International Conference on Diesel Engine 

Efficiency and Emissions Reduction DEER 2006, Detroit, MI, August 20-24, 2006. 
F-51 

35. Assanis, D. N., “Analysis and Control of HCCI Engine Transient Operation Using 1-D 

Cycle Simulation and Thermal Networks”, invited presentation, SAE HCCI Engine 

Symposium, San Ramon, CA, September 24-26, 2006. 

36. Assanis, D. N., “Next Generation Powertrains and Fuels: Grand Challenges and 

Opportunities”, invited presentation, UM Symposium on Energy Science, Technology 

and Policy, Ann Arbor, MI, February 13-14, 2007. 

37. Assanis, D.N., “Energy Research: Grand Challenges and Opportunities,” invited talk, 

Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, February 2, 2007. 

38. Assanis, D.N., “Today’s Students, Tomorrow’s Engineers,” Invited Panelist, SAE 2007 

World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 16-19, 2007. 

39. Assanis, D.N., et al, “Energy and Power for Military Vehicles: Alternative Fuels and 

Hybrid Propulsion”, plenary session presentation at the Annual ARC Conference on 

“Critical Technologies for Modeling and Simulation of Ground Vehicles”, Ann Arbor, May 

2007. 

40. Assanis, D. N., “On Modeling HCCI Engine Transient Behavior”, invited presentation, 

10th International Conference on Present and Future Engines for Automobiles, Rhodes, 

Greece, May 28 to June 5, 2007. 

41. Assanis, D.N., “TechKnow: Alternative Fuel Cars,” Invited Panelist, June 12, Power 

Center, Ann Arbor, MI. 

42. Assanis, D.N., “Analysis and Control of HCCI Engine Transient Operation”, invited 

presentation, Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) Symposium, Lund, 

Sweden, September 12-14, 2007. 

43. Assanis. D.N., “Low Temperature Combustion for High Efficiency, Ultra-Low Emission 

Engines” invited talk, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, April 1, 2008. 

44. Middleton, R. and D. N. Assanis, “Nitrogen Oxides Oxidation as a Function of Lean NO 

Trap Loading,” 11th DOE Crosscut Workshop on Lean Emissions Reduction Simulation, 

University of Michigan - Dearborn, May 13th - 15th, 2008. 

Books Edited

Uzkan, T., and Assanis, D. N., Editors, “Advanced Engine Simulations, Volume 1, Proceedings 

of the 1997 ASME-ICE Spring Technical Conference, ICE-Vol. 28-1, ASME, 1997. 

Assanis, D.N., Papalambros, P.Y., and Bryzik, W., Guest Editors, Haug, E., Editor, Automotive 

Research Center Special Edition Issue, Mechanics of Structures and Machines, 27:4, 

1999. 

Zhao, F., Asmus. T., Assanis, D. N., Dec. J. E., Eng, J. A., and P. M. Najt, Homogeneous 

Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) Engines: Key Research and Development Issues, 

SAE PT-94, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 2003. 

Assanis, D.N., Bryzik, W., Gorsich. D., and Haque, I., Guest Editors, Automotive Research 

Center Special Edition Issue, International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, 11:3/4, 

372-402, 2004. 

Cheng, W.K., Dibble, R., and D.N. Assanis, Guest Editors, International Journal of Engine 

Research, Special Issue on HCCI Engines, 6:5, 2005. 

Chapters in Books

Assanis, D.N., Cole, D., Jacobs, T.J., and D.J. Patterson, "Internal Combustion Engines," 

Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, pp. 9-93 to 9-127, 11th Edition, 

McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2007. 
F-52 

Assanis, D.N., Borgnakke, C., Patterson, D.J., and Cole, D., "Internal Combustion Engines," 

Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, pp. 9-90 to 9-121, 10th Edition, 

McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1996. 

Assanis, D.N., Lavoie, G. A. and S. B. Fiveland, “HCCI Engine Modeling Approaches,” pp. 529-

655, published in Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) Engines: Key 

Research and Development Issues, SAE PT-94, Society of Automotive Engineers, 

Warrendale, PA, 2003. 

Inventions and Patents

Church, C., Smith, F., and D.N. Assanis, “Use of Singlet Delta Oxygen to Enhance the 

Performance of Internal Combustion Engines, Diesel Engines in Particular,” Patent No. 

6,659,088, granted 12/9/2003. 

Wu, B., Filipi, Z., Assanis, D.N., Kramer, D., Ohl, G., Prucka, M., and E. DiValentin, “Artificial 

Neural Networks for Estimating the Air Flow Rate through a VVT Engine”, Invention 

Development Record P706964 disclosed 04/21/2004. Filed by a joint team of UM and 

DCX researchers. 

Shih, A.J., Filipi, Z., and D.N. Assanis, “Pre-Turbocharging Catalyzed Porous Metal Foam Filter 

for Diesel Particulates Treatment”, Invention Disclosure No. 2924 to UM Tech Transfer 

Office, July 2004. 

Najt, P.M., Eng, J.A., Chang, J., Filipi, Z.S., Guralp, O., and D.N. Assanis, “Method for Mid-Load 

Operation of Auto-Ignition Combustion,” Patent No. 7,128,062 B2, granted 10/31/2006. 

Kuo, T.W., Najt, P., Eng, J.A., Rask, R.B., Guralp, O., Hoffman, M., Filipi, Z.S., and D.N. 

Assanis, “Method and Apparatus to Determine Magnitude of Combustion Chamber 

Deposits,” Patent No. 7,367,319, granted 12/31/2007. 
F-53 

Laurie A. Harbour-Felax 

15625 Amherst 

Beverly Hills, MI 48025 

Home: 248-792-6792 

Cell: 248-875-7833 

Professional Experience

Harbour-Felax Group – Troy, MI President 

September 2005 to Present 

Harbour Consulting – Troy, MI Vice President, Partner 

January 1988 to September 2005 

Business Development

• Responsible for business development: sales and marketing, presentations, generation of 

leads, management of sales plan, meetings with clients (presidents, vice presidents and 

their staffs), proposal generation and follow up. 

• Regularly present and attend key automotive events for business development and 

networking (OESA, APMA, Traverse City, Greenbrier, SAE, Autotech, SAA, etc.). 

• Leverage contacts to schedule initial meetings to present services. 

• Work with marketing firm to re-brand Harbour and create new marketing materials and 

messaging for potential clients. 

• Manage relationships with strategic partners to grow business for both firms. 

• Major contributor to revenue growth of 63% from 2002 to 2004 and 25% for 2005. 

• Responsible for Harbour’s diversification strategy into defense and military. 

• Created the original concept of the annual Harbour Report in 1991; developed the business 

plan to take the report global and executed this plan over the last 10 years; Europe 

launched in 1996; Asia planned for 2006; South America planned for 2007. 

• Assist in growth of The Harbour Report from $150K in 1994 to $1.8 million in 2005. 

Operations Management

• Responsible for resource planning of projects: assign project leaders and staff projects with 

appropriate skill set and support resources. 

• Involved in search of new employees, interviewing and hiring of staff. 

• Attend project reviews; provide guidance and direction to resolve issues with projects. 

• Act as a project champion and accountable for success of majority of projects. 

• Partial responsibility for decisions on major purchases and deviations from the budget. 

• Conduct training and orientation for all employees on Harbour history, strategic plan, policy 

deployment and the state of the auto industry. 

• Coaching, mentoring. 

• Day-to-day responsibility for management of 24-person office in Troy; 3-person office in 

Bangkok. 

• Responsible for management of a 27-person team with seven direct reports. 

• Directly report to the President. 

• Trustee of retirement plan. 
F-54 

Strategic Planning

• Work with partner to establish strategic vision and direction for the company. 

• Responsible for development and maintenance of the 5, 3 and 1-year business plan. 

• Develop annual policy deployment: objectives, improvement plans, team priorities, and 

scorecard development. 

• Creation, approval and management of the annual budget. 

• Maintenance of the business plan: weekly business planning meetings and monthly 

scorecard and policy deployment reviews. 

• Initiate course corrections to the business plan through the year. 

• Work with clients to develop strategic plans and future vision, bringing industry knowledge of 

the competition and opportunities. 

Project Management

• Project leader of the North American and European Harbour Reports until 1998: business 

development, data analysis, plants visits, text management and presenting to client. 

• Since 1998 high-level oversight of The Harbour Report including issue resolution, high-level 

client meetings, development of text, text editing, etc. 

• Developed a continuous improvement process to receive input from the participants and 

customers of The Harbour Report. 

• Led the development and implementation of a web database to manage The Harbour 

Report. 

• Led numerous benchmarking and manufacturing projects for OEM’s and suppliers 

worldwide. 

• Trained over 2000 people at a major OEM: state of the auto industry, hours per vehicle, how 

product and process engineering work with manufacturing. 

• Currently training OEM union level teams of how to achieve competitiveness. 

• Currently training OEM union level teams in lean manufacturing principals: competitiveness, 

7 wastes, 5’s, standardized work, etc. 

Manufacturing Experience

• Visit over 30 auto plants worldwide (domestic, Japan, Korea, China, etc.) each year in 

conjunction with The Harbour Report and assist in plant reviews with staff and senior level 

executives. 

• Visit several other manufacturing plants in conjunction with consulting projects and assist in 

consulting projects from a champion role. 

• Accumulated a significant database of best practices through years of plants visits. 

• Specific manufacturing experience in stamping, body, paint, trim, chassis, final, machining 

and powertrain assembly. 

• Thorough understanding of World Class production system techniques and have assessed 

and been trained in the Toyota Production System, GMS, Ford Production System and other 

company’s operating philosophies. 

Additional Skills

• Excellent verbal and written communication skills. 

• Interface with all levels of organizations: CEO’s, presidents, senior level executives, plant 

managers, union officials and shop floor workers. 

• Work extensively with union leaders to understand their role and need for competitiveness. 

• Regularly speak in public events (18 key notes in 2005 to date). 
F-55 

• Regularly quoted in media, newspaper and radio as an auto analyst. 

• Strong leadership skills. 

Education and Trainings

• Bachelor’s degree in Operations Management and Human Resources, University of 

Michigan 

• Empowerment Leadership Training – 1987, 1988, 1999 – Farmington Hills, MI 

• LifePlan Leadership Training – 2002 – Rochester, MI 

• Individual Leadership Training – 2003, 2004 – Troy, MI 

• Lean Experience – 2005 – Lean Learning Center, Novi, MI 

• SMART Training – 2005 – DaimlerChrysler Lean Training, Warren, MI 
F-56 

VITA

Sujit Das 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (865) 946-1222 

National Transportation Research Center FAX: (865) 946-1314 

2360 Cherahala Blvd. Email: HDass@ornl.govH

Knoxville, Tennessee 37932-6472 

 

EDUCATION

MBA Management Science and Computer Science, University of Tennessee 1984 

MS Metallurgical Engineering, University of Tennessee, 1982 

B. Tech Metallurgical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India, 1979. 

Ranked IInd in class with Honors. 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 

Sr. Research Staff Member, Energy and Transportation Science Division, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, December 1984-present.

Program manager of the cost modeling of lightweight materials and biomass energy analysis 

programs for the U.S. Department of Energy. Develop, manage and lead projects for the DOE 

Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies. Responsible for a total annual budget of 

more than $750K consistently over the past several years. Develop cost models of advanced 

materials and transportation technologies and decision-making tools for several resource 

markets. Provide market assessments of energy efficient technologies including environmental 

implications for both domestic and international markets. Developed expertise in several multidisciplinary research areas including: 

• Market potential and infrastructure assessment of ethanol and hydrogen as alternative 

transportation fuels 

• Cost modeling and life cycle analysis of advanced vehicles and lightweight materials 

technologies

• Material technology assessments related to Partnership for A New Generation of 

Vehicles (PNGV)/Freedom Cooperative Automotive Research (FreedomCAR) 

• Biomass refinery analysis 

• Economic analysis of advanced power electronics, electric motors, and intelligent 

transportation systems 

• Energy efficiency of distribution transformers 

• Cost of alternative fuels 

o Forecasting of petroleum and uranium supplies 

• Estimation of flood-stage economic damages 

• The economic viability of plastics and automobile recycling 

• Environmental implications of privatization of the power sector in India 

• Market assessments of energy efficient technologies such as home refrigerators in India 

o Inspection and Maintenance of two-wheeler vehicles in India 

o Assessment of uranium resources 
F-57 

Visiting Fellow, Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), New Delhi, India, October 1992-

June 1993. 

Developed a comprehensive, computerized, and PC-based Energy-Economic-Environment 

database for TERI -- the first of its kind in India and provided technical support in their ongoing 

energy and economic modeling activities. 

Research Assistant, Energy and Economic Analysis Section, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, September 1982-December 1984.

Documented and evaluated several EIA, DOE maintained computers models, i.e., Headwater 

Benefit Energy Gains Model and the Petroleum Allocation Model. Developed a computer 

software "BIOCUT" for Economic Evaluation Model for Wood Energy Plantations. 

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

BOOK PUBLISHED 

“Material Use in Automobiles.” A Book Chapter in Encyclopedia of Energy, published by 

Elsevier Inc., Vol. 3, pp. 859-869, 2004. 

"Plastic Wastes: Management, Control, Recycling, and Disposal." Noyes Data Corporation, NJ 

(Co-Authored with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and T. R. Curlee), 1991. 

SELECTED REFERRED ARTICLES (Out of 50+ articles) 

“Primary Magnesium Production Costs for Automotive Applications,” Journal of Metals, Vol. 60, 

No. 11, 2008, pp. 51-58. 

“A Systems Approach to Life Cycle Truck Cost Estimation,” SAE Paper No. 2006-01-3562, 

Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 

“Automotive Lightweighting Materials Benefit Evaluation,” ORNL/TM-2006/545, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Nov. 2006 

“Lightweight Opportunities for Fuel Cell Vehicles,” SAE Paper No. 2005-01-0007, Society of 

Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 

"A Comparative Assessment of Alternative Powertrains and Body-in-White Materials for 

Advanced Technology Vehicles,” SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0573, Society of Automotive 

Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 

“Back To Basics? The Viability of Recycling Plastics by Tertiary Approaches,” Working Paper 

#5, Program on Solid Waste Policy, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale 

University, New Haven, CT, September 1996. (with T. R. Curlee) 

“Determination Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers. 

ORNL-6847, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, July 1996. 
F-58 

Wallace R. Wade, P.E. 

50786 Drakes Bay Dr. 

Novi, MI 48374 

Phone: 248-449-4549 

email: Hwrwade1@gmail.comH

DOB: August 6, 1941 

1. Academic Background

MSME University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1964 Mechanical Engineering 

BME Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1963 Mechanical Engineering 

2. Professional Licenses/Certification

Registered Professional Engineer, State of Michigan 

3. Relevant Professional Experience

Areas of Expertise: 

- Engine research and development 

- Emission control systems 

- Powertrain electronic control systems 

- Powertrain calibration 

- Systems engineering 

1994 – 2004 Chief Engineer and Technical Fellow 

(Retired Oct 2004) Powertrain Systems Technology and Processes 

(32+ years service) Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 

Responsible for development, application and certification of emission and powertrain control 

system technologies for all Ford Motor Company’s North American vehicles. 

- Developed technologies for emission control systems, powertrain control systems, OBD 

II (On-Board Diagnostic) systems and powertrain calibration procedures. Achieved U.S. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and CARB (California Air Resources Board) 

certifications for all 1993-2005 model year North American vehicles. 

- Developed and implemented, in production, new technology catalyst systems for 

increasingly stringent emission standards with significant reductions in precious 

metal usage. 

- Developed technologies for California LEV II (Low Emission Vehicle – 2nd

Generation) and EPA SFTP (Supplemental Federal Test Procedure) regulations. 

- Developed key low emission technologies for the engine, powertrain control system, 

exhaust emission and vapor emission control systems in the 2003 California SULEV 

(Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) Ford Focus, which was the first domestic production 

vehicle complying with the most stringent emission levels required by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

- Developed the first analytical and laboratory based (engine and vehicle) automated 

powertrain calibration process with objective measures of driveability to replace the 

traditional on-the-road calibration process resulting in significant reductions in test 

vehicles and significant improvements in efficiency. 
F-59 

- Initiated production implementation of the first domestic application of a diesel particulate 

filter (DPF) with active regeneration. 

Co-Chairman of the Ford Corporate Technical Specialist Committee which provided corporate 

overview in promoting deep technical expertise through the selection and appointment of 

technical specialists. 

1992-1994 Assistant Chief Engineer 

 Powertrain Systems Engineering 

 Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 

Responsible for the development and certification of emission and powertrain control systems 

for all Ford Motor Company’s North American vehicles. 

- Developed and implemented, in production, the California LEV (Low Emission 

Vehicle) requirements featuring palladium-only catalysts and coordinated 

strategy for starting with reduced emissions (CSSRE). 

- Developed and implemented OBD II, which was phased-in on all North American 

vehicles over the 1994-1996 model years. 

- Developed and phased in the advanced EEC V electronic engine control system 

on all production vehicles over the 1994-1996 model years. 

- Led the development and implementation of enhanced evaporative emission and 

running loss controls that were phased-in over the 1995-1999 model years. 

- Led the establishment of systems engineering in the development of powertrain 

systems. Design specifications were developed for all powertrain sub-systems. 

1990-1992 Executive Engineer/Manager 

 Powertrain Electronics (Containing 4 Departments) 

 Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 

Responsible for the development and production implementation of powertrain electronic control 

systems (hardware and software) for all of Ford Motor Company’s North American vehicles. 

- Developed production powertrain electronic control systems for all North American 

vehicles. 

- Developed the technology for OBD II and the advanced EEC V electronic engine control 

system. 

- Led the Powertrain Electronics Control Cooperation (PECC) program resulting in the 

application of Ford EEC V systems on 30% of Mazda vehicle lines by the 2000 model 

year. 

- Initiated the development of Ford’s next generation 32-bit powertrain electronic 

control system (PTEC) (implemented in the 1999 model year). 

1987-1990 Manager 

 Advanced Powertrain Control Systems Department 

 Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 

Responsible for the development of powertrain control system technology for future 

applications. 

- Developed the first Ford California ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) emission control 

system. Major improvements in air/fuel ratio control were achieved using a UEGO 

(universal exhaust gas oxygen) sensor and a proportional control algorithm. 
F-60 

- Developed enhanced evaporative and running loss emission control concepts. 

- Developed the first Ford traction control system using engine torque modulation 

combined with brake modulation. 

- Developed the first Ford electronic throttle control (drive-by-wire) system for improved 

driveability (implemented in production for the 2003 model year). 

- Developed engine torque modulation during shifting for imperceptible automatic 

transmission shifts. 

- Initiated the requirements specification for a new 32-bit powertrain electronic control 

system (PTEC). 

1978-1987 Manager 

 Engine Research Department 

 Research Staff 

 Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 

Responsible for the creation, identification and feasibility prove-out of advanced engine 

concepts for next generation vehicle applications. 

- Developed the first Ford passenger car, direct-injection diesel that met current emission 

requirements and provided 10-15% fuel economy improvement vs. indirect injection 

diesel. 

- Developed light-duty diesel electronic control systems that achieved significant 

reductions in emissions. 

- Developed the first Ford adiabatic diesel engine with a ringless ceramic piston operating 

in a ceramic cylinder. 

- Developed the concept and demonstrated the first Ford diesel particulate filter (DPF) 

with active regeneration that provided over 90% reduction in particulate emissions 

(scheduled for production in a Ford vehicle in 2007). 

1974-1978 Supervisor, Development Section 

 Diesel Engine and Stratified Charge Engine Department 

 Ford Motor Company 

Responsible for the research and development of low emission, fuel-efficient stratified charge 

engines (PROCO stratified charge, 3 valve CVCC (Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion), 

spark ignited-direct injection) and diesel engines. 

1972-1974 Supervisor/Senior Research Engineer 

 Turbine Controls and Combustion Section 

 Ford Motor Company 

Responsible for the research and development of low emission combustion systems for a high 

temperature, ceramic gas turbine engine. 

- Developed the first successful premixed, pre-vaporized, variable geometry gas turbine 

combustion system that met the most stringent emission standards in the 1970’s. 

1967-1972 Research Engineer 

 General Motors Research Laboratory, Warren, MI 

Responsible for the research and development of low emission combustion systems for gas 

turbine, Stirling and steam engines for potential automotive applications. 
F-61 

4. Consulting

2007-2008 Expert Witness for Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, LLP 

Expert witness for the plaintiff in a trade secret case involving diesel emission control systems 

(represented by Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, LLP). Case was successfully settled after 

expert testimony. (May 2007 – December 2008) 

5. Associated Experience

1965-1966 1st and 2nd Lieutenant 

 U.S. Army 

- 1965 Frankford Arsenal – Responsible for developing improvements in the save 

capability of high-speed aircraft emergency ejection seats using propellant actuated 

devices. 

- 1966 Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam – Assistant Adjutant, U.S. Army Depot 

1967-1991 Lt. Col. and prior ranks 

 U.S. Army Reserve 

Annual Training (Mobilization Training)– Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and 

Acquisition (DCSRDA), Department of the Army, Washington, DC 

- Responsible for technical analysis of critical powerplant programs for the Army’s mobility 

equipment 

6. Professional Affiliations

Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) – Fellow Member 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)– Member 

Engineering Society of Detroit (ESD) – Member 

7. Patents

Issued 29 U.S. patents and numerous foreign patents in the following areas: 

- Low emission combustion systems 

- Diesel particulate filters 

- Adiabatic engine design 

- Engine control systems 

- OBD II monitor systems 

- Traction control 

8. Publications

Published 25 technical papers on powertrain research and development in SAE, IMechE, 

FISITA, ASME, API, NPRA (National Petroleum Refiners Association) and CRC. 
F-62 

9. Significant Awards

- Recognized as an innovator in the automotive industry by being appointed as one of the 

first Henry Ford Technical Fellows (1994) (technical ladder position equivalent to 

Engineering Director in Ford Motor Company). 

- ASME Soichiro Honda Medal for technical achievements and leadership in every phase 

of automotive engineering, including 26 patents related to both gasoline and diesel 

engines (2007). 

- SAE Edward N. Cole Award for Automotive Engineering Innovation – For outstanding 

creativity and achievement in the field of automotive engineering (2006). 

- Honored by being invited to present the 2003 Soichiro Honda Lecture at the ASME 

Internal Combustion Engine Division Meeting (September, 2003). The lecture provided 

a comprehensive description of the technology incorporated in the first domestic SULEV 

vehicle. 

- Honored by the Inventors Hall of Fame as a Distinguished Corporate Inventor (1997). 

- Elected by SAE to Fellow Member Grade in recognition of major technical contributions 

in the area of diesel engine research (1985). 

- Honored with 5 SAE Arch T. Colwell Merit Awards for SAE technical publications. 

- Selected as SAE Teetor Industrial Lecturer (1985-86 and 1986-87) and invited to 

present lecture at multiple universities. 

- Received the prestigious Henry Ford Technology Award for development of regenerative 

diesel particulate filter systems (1986). 

- Honored with the SAE Vincent Bendix Automotive Electronics Engineering Award 

(1983). 

10. Professional Service

- Chair, ASME Soichiro Honda Medal Committee (2008-Present) 

- Past member of the 21st Century Truck Partnership Study Committee of the National 

Research Council (2007-2008) 

- Past member of the Low Heat Rejection Engines Study Committee of the National 

Research Council (1985-1986) 

- Past participant in Workshop for the National Research Council’s Study on “Automotive 

Fuel Economy – How Far Should We Go?” (1991) 

- Past member of the SAE Forum on Sustainable Development in Transportation to 

provide a technical response to President Clinton’s initiative on future technology and 

the environment. 

- Past member and chairman of the SAE Teetor Educational Awards Committee 

- Past member of SAE ABET Relations Committee 

- Past member of SAE Transaction Selection Committee for Advanced Powerplants and 

Emissions 

- Past member of SAE Gas Turbine Committee (early 1970’s) 
G-1 

Appendix G - Acronym List 
G-2 

Acronym List

Acronym Meaning 

AAF Annual Adjustment Factor 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CBOM Comparison Bill of Materials 

CMAT Cost Model Analysis Template 

COI Conflict of Interest 

CV Curriculum Vitae 

CVCC Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion 

DI Direct Injection 

DOHC Double Overhead Cam 

ED&T Engineering, Design And Testing 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

GDI Gasoline Direct Injection 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

HCCI Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition 

HRI Harbour Results, Inc. 

IC Indirect Cost 

ICF ICF International 

ICM Indirect Cost Multipliers 

LD Light Duty 

LTC Low Temperature Combustion 

MAQS Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary 

MCR Material Cost Reduction 

MOH Manufacturing Overhead 

MRO Maintenance, Repair, Other 

NA Normally Aspirated 

NTA New Technology Advances 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturers 

PCM Powertrain Control Module 

PFI Port Fuel Injection 

PPAP Production Part Approval Process 

PSA Peugeot Société Anonyme 

PZEV Partial Zero Emission Vehicle 

R&D Research and Development 

SAC Supplier Accounted Cost 

SG&A Selling, General And Administrative 

TC Turbo Charged 

TMC Total Manufacturing Cost 

UAW United Auto Workers 

VVT Variable Valve Timing