460379007 Characterization of Sulfates, Odor, Smoke, POM and Particulates from Light and Heavy Duty Engines Part IX 545 1979 NEPIS online PDF mja 07/27/17 single page tiff N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HatiMul Teetotal iRfematiM Senfice PB80-121551 Characterization of Sulfates, Odor, Smoke, POM and Particulates from Light and Heavy Duty Engines - Part IX Southwest Research Inst, San Antonio, TX PwpowJ for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Ml Emission Control Technology Div Jun 79 J image: ------- Untied States Office of Mobiie Source Air Pollution Control EPA-460/3-79^007 Environmental Protection Emission Control Technology Oivision June 1979 Ag*ncy 2565 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48105 Air Characterization of Sulfates, Odor, Smoke, POM and Particulates From Light and Heavy Duty Engines - Part IX image: ------- TECHNICAL REPORT DATA (Please read Imtiniehau on the rerene before completing) REPORT NO. EPA-460/3-79-007 title ano Subtitle Characterization of Sulfates, Odor, Smoke, POM and Particulates From Light and Heavy Duty Engines-Part IX 5. REPORT OATE June 1979 6. PERFORMINO ORGANIZATION COOE ai< i Homsi 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION RtPORl NO. Karl J. Springer PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS Southwest Research Institute 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, Texas 782T4 . SPONSORING AGENCV NAME ANO AOORESS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OMSAPC-ECTD Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 •s ACCESSION NO. 'I£NT? ACCES PD C ) 12155b 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. 68-03-2417 13. T.VPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREO 14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE ..Supplementary notes .. abstract This report expands EPA's data base on regulated and unregulated emissions from Diesel powered cars and trucks. To the extent possible, comparisons were made to similar vehicles powered by gasoline fueled engines. Emissions, fuel economy and general performance of a pair of gasoline-and Diesel-powered Volkswagen Rabbit and Oldsmobile Cutlass cars are discussed. Characterization of heavy-duty engines in- cluded a Mack ETAY(B)673A and a Caterpillar 3208, both Diesels, and a Chevrolet 366 gasoline fueled engine. A pair of Daimler-Benz Diesels, one turbocharged and the other not, were used to evaluate the effect of turbocharging. A high pressure injection system was tried with the Mack engine and compared to the standard system. A Caterpillar 3406 Diesel was used to investigate the effect of injection timing, combustion system and exhaust gas recirculation on exhaust particulate and other emissions. KEY wonos ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS DESCRIPTORS Exhaust Emissions Diesel Engines Gasoline Engines Particulate Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Oxides b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENOEO TERMS Heavy Duty Vehicles Light Duty Vehicles Emission Test Procedures Particulate Control Emissions Characterizatidn c. COSATi held/Group DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Release Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report! 20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage) 21. NO. OF PAGES 5>3 22 PRICE p£, jUi A Form 2220-1 (»-73) image: ------- EPA-460/3-79-007 CHARACTERIZATION OF SULFATES, ODOR, SMOKE, POM AND PARTICULATES FROM LIGHT AND HEAVY DUTY ENGINES - PART IX by Karl J. Springer Southwest Research Institute 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, Texas 78284 Contract No. 68-0* 241? EPA Project Officer: T.M. Baines Prepared for ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air, Noise and Radiation Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control Emission Control Technology Division Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 June 1979 image: ------- This repon is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service. 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. This report was furnished to the linvironmental Protection Agency by Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Cuiebra Road, San Antonio, Texas, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2417. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from Southwest Research Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. liPA-460/3-79-007 image: ------- FOREWORD This project was conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the Department of Emissions Research, Automotive Research Division of Southwest Research Institute. The EPA Project Officer was Mr. Thomas M. Baines. This project was under the overall direction of Mr. Karl J. Springer, Director of the Department of Emissions Research, who served as Project Manager. Mr. Terry L. Ullman. was responsible for the experimental laboratory evaluations of part lb dealing with particulate-engine effects. The project began July 7, 1976 and was authorised by Contract No. 68-03-2417. It was known within Southwest Research Institute as Project No. 11-4623 and constituted Part IX of a long-range investigation of Diesel emissions begun in 1966. iii image: ------- ABSTRACT This report expands EPA's data base on regulated and unregulated emis- sions from Diesel-powered cars and trucks. To the extent possible, comparisons were made to similar vehicles powered by engines that use gasoline as a fuel. For example, one part of the report is a comparison of the emissions, fuel economy, noise and acceleration characteristics of a pair of Volkswagen Rabbit and a pair of Oldsmobile Cutlass passenger cars. Each pair included a vehicle powered by a Diesel engine and a vehicle powered by a gasoline engine. Emissions characterization of heavy-duty engines included a Caterpillar 3208 with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), and a Mack ETAY(B)673A (both Diesels) and a Chevrolet 366 Heavy-Duty Gasoline (HDG) engine. The effect of jveral engine parameters on particulate and sulfate emissions is also discussed, A Caterpillar 3406 Heavy-Duty Diesel (HDD) engine was operated at several timings, with EGR, and in am open chamber (direct injected) as well as pre- chamber configuration. A pair of Daimler-Benz 0M-352 HDD engines, one turbo- charged and one not, were used to evaluate the effect of turbocharging. An American Bosch APS high pressure fuel injection system was compared to the standard system using the Mack ETAY(B)673A HDD engine. The passenger car studies were based on recognized transient chassis dynamometer driving cycles for city, congested freeway, and highway type operation. The HDD engines wore operated by mainly the 13-mode Federal cycle, or short versions thereof,on a stationary dynamometer. Emissions of major interest were unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfate, particulate, smoke, odor, various aldehydes and specific hydrocarbons, benzo(a)pyrene, and particle size distribution. In all cases, vehicle tu»l economy or engine fuel efficiency was obtained and reported. iv image: ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD iii ABSTRACT iv LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF TABLES X I. SUMMARY 1 A. Heavy-Duty Engine Characterization 1 B. Engine Effects on Particulate/Sulfate 2 C. Evaluation of Passenger Cars Equipped with Diesel and Gasoline Engines 4 II. INTRODUCE-tON 6 A. Background 6 B. Objective 6 C. Publication/Presentation 7 D. Acknowledgement 7 III. DESCRIPTION OF ENGINES, VEHICLES, FUELS, AND PROCEDURES 8 A. Heavy-Duty Engines 8 B. Light-Duty Vehicles 10 C. Test Fuels and Lubricants 12 D. Test Plans 15 E. Procedures and Analysis • 17 F. Weighting Factors - HD Engines 42 IV. RESULTS OF HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE CHARACTERIZATION 46 A. Gaseous Emissions 46 B Smoke Results 53 C. Particulate.' and Sulfate Results 56 D. Elemental and Metal Analyses 76 E. Benzo(a)pyrene Analyses 79 F. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses 84 G. Aldehydes 94 H. Specific Hydrocarbons 97 V. SULFATE AND PARTICULATE CHARACTERIZATIONS 101 A. Effect of Timing, EGR and Combustion System 102 B. Effect of Turbocharging 136 C. Effect of Injection System 148 D. Effect of Fuel Residue 165 v image: ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page VI. RESULTS OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE EVALUATION 169 A. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy B. Smoke Results C. Particulate D. Sulfate E. Carbon-Hydrogen-Nitrogen F. Metals G. Odor Ratings and Related Analysis H. Aldehydes I. Specific Hydrocarbons J. Polynuclear Aromatics K, Noise L. Performance 169 173 178 181 185 186 186 191 198 198 202 202 LIST OF REFERENCES 205 APPENDICIES A. Experimental 23-Mode Test Procedure for Engines in Heavy-Duty Motor Vehicles B. Chemical-Analytical Procedures C. Emissions Characterization Data for Mack ETAY(B)673B Caterpillar 3208 w/EGR and Chevrolet 366 Heavy-Duty Engines D. Sulfate and Particulate Characterization E. Computer Reduced 1975 FTP, SET and FET Gaseous and Fuel Economy Data for Four LD Vehicles F. Unregulated Emissions for Four LD Vehicles vi image: ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LIST OF FIGURES Page Stationary Test of Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Engines 19 Speed Versus Time Traces of FTP, HFET, and SET-? Driving Cycles 21 Oldsmobile and Volkswagen Diesel- and Gasoline- Powered Passenger Cars Under Test 22 Schematic of One Cycle of Federal Smoke Compliance Test Engine Speed Versus Time 24 Smoke and Odor Measurement Equipment 25 Gaseous Emissions Measurement Instruments and Apparatus 32 Schematic Section of Dilution Tunnel for Diesel Particulate Sampling 34 Particulate Measuring Equipment (HD Engines) 36 LDV Particulate Sulfate and Noise Measurement Equipment 38 Caterpillar 3208 with Automatic EGR 50 Comparison of Gaseous Emissions and Specific Fuel Consumption of Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 Engines (23-Mode EPA Test) 54 Particulate Emission Rates from Mack ETAY(B)67 3A Truck Engine. Based on 47 mm Glass Filters 63 Sulfate (S0^ ) Emission Rates from Mack ETAY(B)673A Truck Engine, Based on 47 mm Fuloropore Filters Power Output, Fuel and Air Rates from Mack ETAY(B)673A Truck Engine 65 Particulate Emission Rates from Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines Based on 47 mm Glass Filters 68 Sulfate (SO = ) Emission P.atos from Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines, Based on 47 mm Fluoropore Filters 69 vii image: ------- 17 18 19 20 21 21; 22 23 24 2") 26 27 28 29 30 31 LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.) Page Power Output, Fuel and Air Rates from Caterpillar 3208 EUR and Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines 72 Comparison of Cycle Weighted Particulate and Sulfate Emission Rates - Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 75 Cycle Composite BaP Comparison Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 83 Mack ETAY(B)673A Engine Diesel Odor Intensity by Trained Panel 88 Caterpillar 3208 EGR Engine Diesel Odor Intensity by Trained Panel 89 "D" Odor Ratings Versus TIA Mack ETAY image: ------- 32 13 34 35 36 37 38 39 39, 40 41 42 43 44 4*~ 46 LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.) Page Particulate and Sulfate Moda1 Rates for Caterpillar 3406 DI Open Chamber and IDI Prechamber 133 Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A Diesol Engines 141 Particle Size Distribution by "Means" for Daimler-Benz OM-352, via Impactor 145 Effect of Turbochar^ing on TIA, Daimler-Benz OM-352A and OM-352 Engines i Simplified Schematic of APS Pump Setup 1 American Bosch APS Pump Installed on Mack ETAY(B)673A 150 Injection Pressure Photos for Mack ETAY(BJ673A Diesel with A. Bosch APS High-Pressure Injection System 152 Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Mack ETAY(B)673A with APS and Standard Pumps 158 Particle Size Distribitions by "Means" for ETAY(B)G73A, via Impactor 160 Typical f>ld'?mobi le Cutlans Diesel "Cold Start" Smok<> Trai 17(> Typical Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel "Cold Start" Smoke Trao 177 Particulate Emission Rates for Diesel- and Gasoline- Powerea Passenger Cars 180 Sulfate Emission Rates for Diesel- and Gasoline- Powerod Passenger Cars 183 Average Odor Ratings for Cutlass Diesel Car 189 Average Odor Ratings for Rabbit Diesel Car 190 TIA by DOAS Versus "D" Odor Rating by Trained Panel for Two Diesel Cars at Two Dilution Levels 19 3 TIA of Various Driving Cycles for Diesel-Powered Passenger Cars 194 Aldehyde Emission Rates for Diesel- and Gasoline- Powered Passenger Cars 197 ix image: ------- LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Description of Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines 9 2 Description of Light-Duty Tost Vehicles 11 3 Description of Test Fuels 13 4 "National Average" Properties from Fuel Surveys 14 5 Odor Test Conditions - HD Engines 28 6 Odor Test Conditions 29 7 EPA 23-Mode Weighting Factors and Short Cycle Weighting Factors Derived Therefrom 43 8 13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors and Short Cycle Weighting Factors Derived Therefrom 44 9 EPA 23-Mode and 13-Mode FTP Gaseous Emissions Rates 47 10 Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Emission Limits 48 11 Federal Smoke Test Results for Mack ETAY(B)673A and Caterpillar 3208 EGR Diesel Engines 55 12 Smoke Measured During Modal Testing (Caterpillar 3208 with EGR) 57 13 Caterpillar 3208 EGK Left and Right Bank Smoke Levels 1>H 14 Summary of Particulate and Sulfate Emission Rates (Based on 47 mm Fiberglass and Fluoropore Samples) Vi 15 Summary of Engine Operating Conditions 47 mm Glass and Fluoropore Filter Tests 62 16 Exhaust Backpressure Schedules - Caterpillar 3208 EGR 66 17 Brake and Fuel Specific Cycle Composite Particulate and Sulfate Rates 73 18 Elemental Analysis of Filter Collected Particulate (Percent by Weight based on 47 mm Fiberglass Filter Samples) 77 x image: ------- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) Metals Analysis of Filter Collected Particulate (Percent by Weight Based on Fluoropore Filter Samples) 78 Summary of Particulate, BaP and Organic Solubles From 8 x 10 Size Glass Filter Samples 80 Summary of Engine Operating Conditions During 8 x 10 Size Glass Filter Tests 81 Composite BaP Rates 82 Average Odor Panel Ratings, 100:1 Dilution 85 Average Engine Operating Data Taken Simultaneously With Odor Ratings 86 Average Exhaust Analyses Taken Simultaneously With Odor Ratings 90 DOAS Results - Caterpillar 3208 EGR 93 Cycle Composite Aldehyde Rates 96 Cycle Composite Specific Hydrocarbons Rates 98 Methane Fraction of Exhaust Hydrocarbons 100 Evaluation Matrix 101 Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity Caterpillar 3406 102 Steady-State Smoke Percent Opacity Caterpillar 3406 If13 Gaseous Emissions bv 13-Mode FTP and 21-Mode EPA Caterpillar 3406 104 Sulfate and Particulate Emission Rates (Based on 13-Mode Cycle) Caterpillar 3406 105 BaP and Organic Soluble Fraction of Particulate Collected on 8 x 10 Filter, 7-Mode Test Caterpillar 3406 106 Carbon and Hydrogen Content of Particulate 107 Caterpillar 3406 xi image: ------- 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) Page DOAS Results for Caterpillar 3406 Diesel 111 Brake and Fuel Specific Aldehyde Rates Caterpillar 3406 112 Brake and Fuel Specific Hydrocarbon Rates Caterpillar 3406 113 Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A 137 Steady-State Smoke Percent Opacity Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A 13-Mode FTP Steady-States 138 Gaseous Emissions by 21-Mode EPA and 13-Mode FTP Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A 139 Particulate and Sulfate Emission Rates (Based on 13-Mode Cycle) 140 Summary of Particulate, BaP and Organic Solubles From 8 x 10 Size Glass Filter Samples Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A Engines 142 DOAS Results for Daimler-Benz Engines 144 Brake and Fuel Specific Aldehydes Rates Daimler-Benz OM-352 NA and OM-352A TC 147 Brake and Fuel Specific Hydrocarbon Rates Daimler-Benz OM-352 NA and OM-352A TC 148 Mack ETAV(B,*673A With High-Pressure Injection System 151 Steady-State Smoke Percent Opacity Mack ETAY(B)673A with APS Pump 153 Gaseous Emissions By 21-Mode EPA and 13-Mode FTP Mack ETAY(B)673A with APS Pump 155 Mack ETAY(B)671A Sulfate and Particulate Emissions Rates - APS Pump Configuration (Based on 13-Mode Cycle) 155 Summary of Particulate, BaP and Organic Solubles From 8 x 10 Size Glass Filter Samples Mack ETAY(B)673A Engine 157 xii image: ------- 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) Page DOAS Results for Mack ETAY(B)673A With Various Injection Systems 161 Cycle Composite Aldehyde Rates Hack ETAY(B)673A 162 Cycle Composite Specific Hydrocarbon Rates Mack ETAY(B)673A 164 Properties of the Five Test Fuels, Contract 68-02-1777 166 Comparison of Gum and Boiling Range for EM-239-F and Special Distilled Cuts of EM-239-F Diesel Fuel 167 Federal Light-Duty Emission Standards 169 Average HC, CO, NO , and Fuel Results for Diesel- and Gasoline-Powered Oldsmobile Cutlass Cars 171 Average HC, CO, NOx, and Fuel Results for Diesel- and Gasoline-Powered Volkswagen Rabbit Cars 172 Average Exhaust Smoke Opacity Recorded During Replicate 1975 FTP Cycles 174 Average Particulate Emission Rates for Diesel and Gasoline Passenger Cars 179 Diesel- and Gasoline-Powered Car Particulate Rate Comparison 181 Average Sulfate Emission Rates for Diesel- and Gasoline- Powered Passenger Cars 182 Comparison of Percent Sulfur in Fuel Converted to Sulfate by Gasoline and Diesel Cars 184 Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen Content of Filter Particulate, Percent by Weight 185 Metal Content of Particulate Samples (Percent of Particulate) 186 Listing of Average Odor Panel Ratings for Diesel- Powered Passenger Cars 188 Rough Comparison of Light-Duty Vehicle "D" Odor Ratings 187 xiii image: ------- LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Table Page 70 DOAS Results of Diesel Cars During Steady-State Odor Tests and Transient Cycles 192 71 Exhaust Analyses of Diesel Cars During Steady-State Odor Tests 195 17 Aldehydes Obtained During Steady-State Odor Tests and Transient Cycles 196 73 Detailed HC Analysis During Steady-State Odor Tests and Transient Cycles 199 74 Methane Fraction of Exhaust HC During Steady-State Odor Tests and Transient Cycles 200 75 BaP Content in Diesel Car Particulate Matter 201 76 Summary of Sound Level Measurements - dBA Scale 20 3 77 Average Acceleration Times for Diesel- and Gasoline- Powered Passenger Cars 204 xiv image: ------- I. SUMMARY Though long appreciated by those who operate heavy-duty engines in trucks, buses, locomotives, and ships, the efficiency of the Diesel engine is also an undeniable advantage in passenger cars. Certain engine emissions from Diesels such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are low relative to the uncontrolled gasoline engine. Certain other byproducts of combustion are greater than from the gasoline engine such as smoke, odor and particulate. This project was performed in three segments, two of which dealt with heavy-duty enqines used in trucks and the third with passenger cars equipped with Diesel and gasoline; engines. Each segment is briefly summarized as follows. A. Heavy-Duty Enqine Characterization Three truck engines were subjected to a series of tests to determine emission rates of unburned hydrocarbons (HQ, carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitroqen (NOx), aldehydes, sulfate, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), particulate and smoke. For the two Diesel engines, odor was measured by trained panel as well as the Diesel odor analytical system (DQAS). The two Diesel engines were a 1977 Hack ETAY(B)67 3A, used in large intercity tractor trailer trucks and a 1977 Caterpillar 3208 equipped with an automatic exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) used in larqe intracity delivery trucks. A 1977 gasoline fueled Chevrolet 366 heavy-duty engine, used in the same size delivery truck as the 3208, was included for comparison. Both the Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 were con- trolled to meet California emission levels. Emissions and brake specific fuel consumption were measured using the 13-mode Federal cycle as well as a 2 3-mode test cycle. Each comprises various combinations of engine speeds and loads and were performed on stationary engine dynamometers. While the Mack results add to the data base of previously characterized enqinps, the Caterpillar 3208/EGR Diesel could be directly compared to the Chevrolet 366 gasoline. Some of the highlights were: Regulated Gaseous Emissions - Based on the 23-mode EPA cycle composites, the Diesel CO emission rate was about one-eighth the gasoline CO emission rate. The HC emission rate was about half that of the gasoline while the NOx emis- sions of the Diesel enqine were about ten percent higher than the N0X emis- sions of the gasoline enqine. Neither the Caterpillar 3208/EGR or Chevrolet %6 were equipped with an oxidation catalyst. Specific Fuel Consumption - The 23-mode cycle brake specific fuel con- sumption (BSFC) of the Caterpillar 3208/EGR Diesel was about two-thirds that of the Chevrolet 366 gasoline engines tested under comparable conditions. Smoke - The Caterpillar 3208/EGR exhaust smoke opacity was lower by the Federal Test method than during several part power conditions of the 13-mode i image: ------- test such as 75 anci 50 percent power at 2800 rpm. This was due to the EGR rate scheduling (some EGR at part load) while no exhaust is recirculated during the full power mode, the major condition simulated by the Federal smoke test. Particulate - Like smoke, the Caterpillar 3208/EGR particulate rate was found to be quite sensitive to the EGR rate with part load particulate rates far above those at full power. This resulted in a 13-mode composite parti- culate rate of 2.96 g/kw-hr, some 3.6 times that of the Mack ETAY(B)673A and substantially higher than a two-stroke cycle GM 6V-71 HDD bus engine. Corrpared to a previously tested Caterpillar 3208 without EGR, the Caterpillar 3208/EGR emitted over three times the particulate. On a 13-mode brake specific particu- late basis, the Caterpillar 3208/EGR produced about 12 times the particulate produced by the Chevrolet 366 HDG engine which used gasoline containing 6.06 q/£ (1.6 g/gal) of lead as the fuel. Sulfate - Both Mack and Caterpillar Diesels continue to convert about on the order of 1 to 2 percent of the fuel sulfur to what is analyzed as sulfate by the barium chloranilate (BCA) method. The fuel sulfur conversions, though seeminqly negligible, are based on a Diesel fuel with "National Average" sulfur content about eight times that of the "National Average" sulfur level in gaso- line. Because of the presence of the lead and its byproducts of combustion, it was not possible to obtain reliable or repeatable sulfate values by the BCA method for the Chevrolet 366 engine. An alternative procedure will be necessary in the event there is continued interest in sulfate from non-oxidation catalyst equipped engines burning leaded gasoline. Elemental Analysis - Whereas Diesel particulate is principally carbonaceous or hydrocarbon derived matter, the gasoline particulate is composed of lead and its byproducts of combustion, sulfuric acid mist and more or less carbonaceous matter, dependinq on combustion. Benzo(a)Pyrene - Except for the full power-1200 rpm and a 2 percent power-2 300 rpm conditions, negligible levels of BaP were measured from the Chevrolet 366 HDG engine. These two modes were sufficient, however, to makf the Chevrolet 366 rate (abbreviated 23-mode cycle) to be slightly higher than the Caterpillar 3208/EGR (3.0 vs 2.5 pg/kw-hr). Difficulties were experienced using the dilution tunnel method in obtaining sufficient sanple from the Chev- rolet 366 engine for extraction and analysis. More experimentation is needed with this and other HDG engines to confirm the trend indicated. Aldehydes - The Chevrolet 366 engine emitted more aldehydes overall than the Caterpillar 3208/EGR. Benzaldehyde, crotonal and formaldehyde were sub- stantially higher. Hydrocarbons - Compared to the Caterpillar 3208/EGR, the Chevrolet 366 emitted much more methane, benzene, and toluene. Accordingly, the non-methane hydrocarbons from the Caterpillar 3208/EGR Diesel are higher than the Chevrolet 366 gasoline enqine. Methane is generally considered to be non-reactive from a photochemical point of view. B. Engine Effects on Particulate/Sulfate Several HDD were evaluated in various configurations to determine their 2 image: ------- effect on particulate and sulfate. The highlights are given for each experiment• Effect of Timing The direct injected, open chamber. Caterpillar 3406 was evaluated at three fuel injection settings; standard, 5 degrees advanced and 10 degrees retarded from standard. The major effect was to increase particulate with retarded timing. This is consistent with the well-known effect of timing retard on increasing visible smoke and reducing oxides of nitrogen. No major or obvious effects were noted on sulfate, particle size distribution, DOAS, or specific hydrocarbons. faaP and aldehydes were lowest at standard timing, highest at 5 degrees advanced timing and in between at the 10 degree retarded timing setting. Effect of EGR This experiment involved substantial exhaust gas recirculation directly into the inlet of the turbocharged Caterpillar 3406 engine, in the direct injected configuration. Criteria was to halve NOx without exceeding 15 percent smoke in any mode. Like retarded timing, EGR increased greatly the total mass of particulate emitted by the engine while decreasing NOx. Smoke was increased, CO was doubled and HC was halved with use of EGR. While particulate was increased by 2.7 times, sulfate appeared unaffected. BaP, with EGR, was cut in half while the organic soluble fraction was about the same. Particle size distribution with EGR shifted to indicate an even finer, lighter material than the same engine run in standard configuration. Effect of Combustion System The Caterpillar 3406 engine is produced in both the conventional open chamber, direct injected, as well as the indirect injected, prechamber, version. Thus, the experiment involved back-to-back tests on the same basic engine in the DI and prechamber configurations. The prechamber version resulted in about a 20 percent reduction in exhaust particulate, lower visible smoke and about a 40 percent increase in sulfate. The increase in sulfate is noteworthy in that this is the only such occurrence found in all experiments with this engine. CO and NOj were halved and substantial reductions in 13-mode FTP HC were noted. Odor ratings by the Diesel Odor Analysis System (DOAS) and specific low molecular weight hydrocarbons were also lower com- pared to the standard DI engine, ft 7.5 percent increase in brake specific fuel consumption was found with the prechamber engine. The results of this experiment were directionally correct in light of previous experience. Effect of Turbocharging The pair of Daimler-Benz engines, one turbocharged and the other not, were quite similar. All turbocharged engines, however, include one or more other changes and adjustments to the engine so that the effects measured cannot be solely attributed to the turbocharger. Smoke and particulate were substantially less with the OM-352A turbocharged engine under the steady- state conditions evaluated. Particulate was about 40 percent less with the 3 image: ------- turbocharged engine, and essentially no change in sulfate was found. The turbocharged engine had lower CO and HC and higher NOj with slightly better cycle BSFC (about 3 percent). This behavior was anticipated from previous experience with turbocharged Diesels. No effect on particle size distribution was found. It is interesting to note that the TC engine resulted in slightly higher DOAS values of LCO, LCA and TIA. The turbocharged engine exhibited slightly higher combined low molecular weight HC, while the reverse was indicated by the 13-rnode FTP HC value. Effect of Injection System For this experiment, the American Bosch APS high pressure injection system was compared in a back-to-back test series with the standard Robert Bosch fuel injection system. The test plan utilized the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine in its standard configuration after the 1000 hour EPA durability test, with the APS pump, and finally with a new R. Bosch standard system installed. Sulfate was little affected and a 50 percent reduction in total particulate was found. Major reductions in visible smoke and particulate were noted at 50, 75, and 100 percent power, giving essentially a "flat" smoke and parti- culate response versus power. NO, expressed as N02, was increased by 45 percent with the high pressure system, while HC and CO were little affected. Brake specific fuel consumption was improved by 4 percent. The particulate is indicated to be finer in size with the high pressure system. The sub- stantial reduction in gross particulate by the high pressure system illustrates the need for a greater understanding of fuel injection parameters as they affect particulate production. Effect of Fuel Residue A brief study was made of the residual matter, common to most dis- tillate fuels, as a cause for part of the Diesels" exhaust particulate. There is no known fuel composition parameter that defines the trace materia-, which has a very extended boiling range, insofar as exhaust particulate formation characteristics is concerned. A systematic and extensive laboratory/engine project is indicated to investigate and define suc.i a relationship. C. Evaluation of Passenger Cars Equipped with Diesel and Gasoline Engines A fairly extensive series of evaluations were performed on a pair of Oldsmobile Cutlass and a pair of Volkswagen Rabbit passenger cars. Each pair consisted of a 1977 model powered by an emission controlled gasoline engine and a similar vehicle powered by a passenger car Diesel engine derived from a conventional gasoline engine. The Diesel, without use of an oxidation catalyst or EGR system, emits HC, CO, and N0K that are reasonably close to 1977 standards. Fuel Economy - Fuel economy was higher with both Diesel cars, com- pared to the gasoline engine counterparts. In the case of the Cutlass, fuel economy was improved by 33 percent and the Rabbit Diesel by 60 percent, based on the combined city/highway estimates. The improvements in fuel economy by the Diesel Rabbit were remarkable, with a 42.7 rnpg city (+74%) and a 53.7 mph highway (+31%) estimate obtained. 4 image: ------- Smoke and Odor - Although smoke was relatively low, it wa= noticeable for both Diesel-powered vehicles under certain driving conditions. Both vehicles tested emitted easily noticeable smoke during accelerations, although the duration was relatively brief. Odor levels of "D"-2.5 to 4.0 by the trained panel, at a 100:1 dilution level, represent easily noticed exhaust odor that is distinctively Diesel in character. In SwRI's opinion, this ranyo of odor intensity would be expected to trigger substantial public reaction in the event a large number of such odor sources were to be in use in the U.S. Particulate - Even though most of the time the two Diesel cars tested emitted smoke at or near the limit of visibility, there remains a substantial amount of particulate, on the order of 54 (Cutlass) to 82 (Rabbit) times as much as the paired vehicles powered by gasoline engines. Assuming this small sample of cars is indicative of the Diesel-to-gasoline relationship in general, then the advent of large numbers of Diesel cars may jeopardize sone national and regional control strategies for reducing Total Suspended Particulate, (TSP). Sulfate - The Diesel engines tested converted only 1 to 2 percent of their fuel sulfur content to sulfate. The vehicles equipped with oxidation catalysts and gasoline engines converted a much wider proportion of its fuel sulfur to sulfate, on the order of 1 to 17 percent, depending on the test sequence. Type 2-D Diesel fuel, according to the latest 1976 survey, is about 0.25 percent by weight sulfur. The sulfate emission test values for the experimental Diesel Cutlass were lower (10.3 versus 13.0 mg/km) and the Diesel Rabbit higher (4.0 versus 1.0 mg/km) than their gasoline engine powered counterparts. Other Emissions - A wide variety of other unregulated emissions were measured and summarized to give information that might be used as part of a study on the potential ad' ntages and disadvantages of the Diesel. Among the findings, the nominal 3 1 2 percent by volume methane content of the total Diesel hydrocarbons as contrasted with the nominal 35 ± 20 percent by volume methane content of the gasoline engine hydrocarbons was interesting. Also, the inability of the dilution tunnel-glass fiber filter method to collect BaP from the two gasoline-powered cars illustrates the need for additional study. Noise - The Cutlass equipped with the Diesel engine was noticeably louder and noisier than its gasoline engine powered counterpart. This was found during most conditions, such as the SAE J-986a driveby, as well as the exterior idle sound level measurements. When all accessories, such as the ventilation blower, were off the interior noise levels were higher for both Diesel powered cars during idle, acceleration, and cruise modes. Performance of both Diesel cars was judged in terms of the times to ac- celerate at maximum rate from zero to 40 or 60 mph. The time to accelerate from 0 to 40, 0 to 60, and 20 to 60 mph was longer (the Diesel car was slower) by 20 to 27 percent as compared to the gasoline-powered Rabbit. The Cutlass, equipped with the experimental 350 cubic inch displacement (CID) Diesel engine, was 7 to 11 percent slower than the Cutlass powered by a 260 CID gasoline engine. 5 image: ------- II. INTRODUCTION The Diesel engine is considered by many as a potential alternative to the conventional spark-ignition engine for automobiles. Use of Diesel engines in large cars is claimed by the auto industry to be necessary to meet Congressionally mandated fleet fuel economy standards if the family size car is to be offered. In recent years, a renewal of interest in mid-range Diesels, for use in urban delivery trucks of less than 10,886 kg (24000 lbs) gross vehicle weight, has been evident. The basic reason given has been the superior fuel economy. For many years, the Diesel engine has dominated intercity trucking and both intercity and intracity bases. A. Background The Clean Air Act amendments of 1965 were specific in expressing concern over odor and smoke from Diesel-powered vehicles. This legislation prompted a long-range investigation of Diesel emissions which begem in 1966 at South- west Research Institute's Emissions Research Department on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The long-range project resulted in a large number of reports and papers on the subject.(1-20)* a number of other studies regarding Diesel emissions were made by SwRl on behalf of EPA under separate projects.(21-34) The original project was concerned with visible smoke and noticeable odor, both classed as "nuisance" emissions which interferred with the general welfare. Much was learned in how to measure oJor and smoke and the types of conditions which would result in obvious discharges. In the intervening years, a steady broadening of this activity included unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) (now regulated emissions), methods of control and procedural development. During the last few years, an increasing variety of non-regulated materials in Diesel exhaust have come under scrutiny.(35) Measurement of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and several other emissions have been investigated in an attempt to quantify emissions for which little data was available. It is important to know as much as possible about the advantages and dis- advantages of an alternative to the conventional gasolina engine as well as to document the emission rates from Diesel engines and Diesel-powered vehicles. B. Objective The project had several tasks but with one objective—to characterize arrl compare exhaust emissions from a variety of vehicles and engines. One task dealt with three heavy-duty engines, (two Diesels, and one conventional SI powerplant). One of the Diesel engines was a mid-range size to which the * Superscript numbers in parentheses designate References at end of this report 6 image: ------- gasoline engine could be more directly compared. Another task was investigation of major engine changes on particulate and sulfate emissions from Diesel engines. Such engine variables as fuel injection timing, turbocharging, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), direct versus indirect injection, and injection characteristics were studied. The final task was to evaluate and compare Diesel-powered passenger cars, derived from gasoline engines for a wide variety of unregulated exhaust emis- sions. Also, the regulated emissions, fuel economy, noise and acceleration performance was obtained and compared. C. Publication/Presentation Section VI of this report deals with the emissions evaluation of four passenger cars, two Diesel-powered and two gasoline-powered. This portion of the project was summarized in Society of Automotive Engineers Paper No. 770818 titled "Emissions Prom Diesel Versions of Production Passenger Cars."It was presented during the September 26-30, 1977 Passenger Car Meeting in Detroit, Michigan. On May 18, 1978, a presentation titled "What You Always Wanted to Know About Diesel Particulate (but were afraid to ask)," was made by Karl Springer at the EPA Symposium on Diesel Particle Emissions Measurement and Characterization held in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This presentation included emis- •sion rates for both light-and heavy-duty engines from this project. D. Acknowledgement The Environmental Protection Agency selected and furnished the four LDV's evaluated. The cars were provided to EPA for the SwRI test program through the courtesy of the respective manufacturers. They were Volkswagen of America and Oldsmobile Division of General Motors. Appreciation is also expressed to Caterpillar Tractor Company, Mack Trucks, Inc., American Bosch Corporation, and General Motors Corporation for use of engines and experimental hardware during the heavy-duty engine evaluations. Without the assistance, guidance and co- operation of staff members of these companies, this project could not have been performed. 7 image: ------- III. DESCRIPTION OF ENGINES, VEHICLES, FUELS, WO PROCEDURES This section describes the test engines and vehicles, fuels and their selection, test plan arid procedures followed. A. Heavy-Duty Engines Table 1 lists particulars that describe the six heavy-duty engine configurations studied. 1. Three Engine Characterization The first three engines listed on Table 1 (Mack, Caterpillar, and Chevrolet) were used for emissions characterization. The Mack KTAY(B)673A and Caterpillar 3208 were both HDD engines that has already performed a 1000 hour durability test as a part of the EPA gaseous and smoke emission certification program. As such, the engines were prototype 1977 models. The Mack engine features a 1900 rpm rated speed (instead of 2100 rpm) for improved fuel economy, a rated power of 235 kw (315 hp) with peak torque at 1450 rpm. Since Mack desired to perform some laboratory analysis of the fuel injection lines from the 1000 hour durability engine, new fuel lines were furnished and installed. Also, at Mack request, the fuel injec- tors were removed, inspected, and bench tested to assure their satisfactory operation and then replaced in the engine. Otherwise, no changes were made. The Mack engine used an air-to-air interconler for cooling the turlm- charger compressor output air flow prior to its entering the engine. The cooling air was blown over the heat exchanger by means of a tip-turbine powered by compressor bleed air. This is the first heavy-duty production Diesel engine to use this method of increasing charge density. The Caterpillar 3208 engine was rated at 149 kw (200 hp) at 2800 rpm. It was a prototype of 1977 California production and featured a modulated exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system to meet the 1977 California nitric oxide (NO) expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) plus hydrocarbon (HC) standard of 6.7 g/kw-hr (5 g/bhp-hr). This is the first production Diesel engine to utilize EGR as an emission control method. The Chevrolet 366 engine was selected to represent a popular, alter- native type of powerplant used in 2-axle trucks of 7258 - 10,886 kg (16,000 - 24,000 GVW) and urban type 2-axle tractors. In many such applications, the Chevrolet 366 or comparable size gasoline heavy-duty engines are used, with a mid-range Diesel, of the Caterpillar 3208 size, offered as an alternative. Therefore, the Chevrolet 366 and Caterpillar 3208 results can be directly 8 image: ------- TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINES Engine Make Mack Caterpillar Chevrolet Caterpillar Daimler-Benz Daimler-Ben; Engine Model ETAY(B)67 3A 3208 366 3406(d) OM—352 OM-352A Engine Serial No. 6F4310 1A6076 19645-72C 1A5484 (935-10-125488) S/N935-10-0 Strokes/cycle 4 4 4 4 4 4 Cylinder arrangement 1-6 V-8 V-8 1-6 1-6 1-6 Displacement, liters 11.01 10.42 6.0 14.63 5.67 5.67 cubic inches 672 636 366 893 346 346 Compression ratio 14.99 16.5:1 7.6:1 14.5:1(16:1) 17. 16.0 Type Aspiration TC(a) NA TC(a) NA(a> TC (<*) Rated Speed, rpm 1900 2800 4000 2100 2800 2800 Power at rated speed, kw 235 149 138(c) 242 96 108 hp 315 200 185(c) 325 129 145 Peak Torque Speed, rpm 1450 1400 2800 1200 (1400) 2000 1800 Peak Torque, N-M 1423.8 617 394(c) 1375 (1319) 361 415 lb-ft 1050 455 290(c) 1011 (970) 266 306 Typical Application j jib) U U(b> IC(b) U(*>) U(b) Typical Fuel Type DF-2 DF-2 Gasoline DF-2 DF-2 DF-2 (a) TC-Turbocharged, NA - Naturally Aspirated (b) IC-Intercity Truck,Tractor, U - Urban Truck and Truck-Tractor (c) Single Exhaust Version (d> I turn, in ( > are for tho IDI PC configuration image: ------- compared. The* specific Chevrolet 366 evaluated was the California version. It featured EGR and air injection but no oxidation catalyst. It was intended to operate on regular grade leaded motor gasoline. 2. Sulfate/Particulate Study Engines Table 1 also describes three Diesel engines used, along with the Mack engine, in the investigation of engine parameters on sulfate and particulate. The Mack ETAY(BJ673A engine was used in standard and high pressure fuel injec- tion configurations. The Caterpillar 3406, a turbocharged engine, •> run as a direct injected open chamber and as an indirect injected, prechaaber, com- bustion configuration. In addition to varying start of injection timing, EGR was performed using a manual control system as a part of the range of variables investigated. The two Daimler-Benz engines are as close to being identically designed engines as available with the major difference one of turbocharging. It should be recognized that there is no such thing as running an engine with and without turbocharger and have the resulting engine operation indi e of normal design. Invariably, the injection pump curve and fuel deli-* iy characteristics are modified even when the compression ratio and maximum power are undisturbed. An example of such turbocharger application was the turbo-kit for Cummins NH 250 naturally-aspirated engines. This retrofit kit was intended to reduce visible smoke and by lightly turbocharging, was effective in doing so. A fleet test of three such conversions is described in Reference 13. The maximum fuel rate and maximum power was unchanged yet the pump had a different torque curve (fuel rate versus speed) to match the turbocharger. The OM-352 and 352A are described in Table 1. Both 6-cylinder engines have identical 97 mm bore, 128 nun stroke and displacement of 5.67 litres (346 CID). The compression ratio was lower for the OM-352A, the engine fitted with a turbocharger. Although both engines have identical rated speeds, the rated power was a bit higher and the peak torque speed lower for the OM-352A. Use of these two engines was not necessarily the best way to determine the effect of turbocharging but was the best selection available to this project within the time and funding available. B. Light-Duty Vehicles The four light-duty test vehicles are described on Table 2. The cars are grouped in pairs, a Diesel- and gasoline-powered Oldsmobile Cutlass and a Diesel- and gasoline-powered Volkswagen Rabbit. Note that the Oldsmobile Diesel was an experimental engine derived from a 350 cubic inch displacement (CID) or 5.74 litre gasoline engine. Please refer to References 37-39 for additional description of the VW Rabbit Diesel. References 40 and 41 describe the Diesel version of the Oldsmobile 350 engine. For comparison purposes, a 4.26 litre (206 CID) gasoline engine was used. This vehicle was subject to the 1977 Federal Emissions Standards. This smaller displacement engine was selected to give a comparison based on a more 10 image: ------- TABLE 2. DESCRIPTION OF LIGHT-DUTY TEST VEHICLES Cutlass Rabbit Diesel Model Year Vehicle ID Vehicle Size Number of Doors Number of Passengers Odometer, km Number of Cylinders Displacement, litres Bore, mm Stroke, mm Compression Ratio Output Power, kw at rpm Transmission Type Speeds Rear Axle Ratio Tire Size Vehicle Weight, kg Empty (Scale) Test (Inertia) Road Load, kw<*>> at 80.5 km/hr Catalyst Equipped Air Injected EGR Equipped Fuel Injected 1976 3J29R6M181269 Mid-Size 2 5 21988 V-8 5.74 103.0 85.98 22.7:1 (a) Auto 3 2.41:1 ER78-14 1955 2041 (4500 lbs) 9.47 No No No Direct Gasoline 1977 3J57F7R115286 Mid-Size 2 5 4562 V-8 4.26 88.9 86.0 8.0:1 82.1 3400 Auto 3 2.73:1 ER78-14 1814 2041 (4500 lbs) 9.47 Yes No Yes No Diesel 1977 1763188714 Subcompact 2 4 3686 1-4 1.47 76.5 80.0 23.5:1 35.8 5000 Man 4 3.90 155SR13 885 1021 (2250 lbs) 5.45 No No No Direct Gasoline 1977 1763096846 Subcompact 2 4 7020 1-4 1.59 79.5 80.0 8.2:1 53.0 5600 Man 4 3.90 155SR13 885 1021 (2250 lbs) 5.45 Yes NO Yes Manifold (a) not available (b) no air conditioning allowance in Road Load (c) Bosch K-Jetronic image: ------- equivalent power to vehicle weight basis. The gasoline-powered 1977 Rabbit was the manifold fuel injected version and incorporated emission control tech- nology to meet the 1977 California standards. C. Test Fuels and Lubricants Table 3 lists the inspection results of two Diesel and two gasoline test fuels used. 1. Heavy-Duty Engine Test Fuels The Mack ETAY(B)673A engine was tested using EM-239-F, a commercially available name brand Diesel fuel. The Caterpillar 3208 engine was tested on EM-272-F, a newer batch of the same type 2D Diesel fuel as used with the Mack engine. The fuel properties of both fuels are fairly similar as may be noted from Table 3. The properties of both test fuels compare well with the arith- metic average of the 1973 Bureau of Mines Survey(42) and the arithmetic average of the 201 samples included in the five region 1976 survey by the Energy Re- search and Development Administration (ERDA) listed in Table 4. Note that the Bureau of Mines fuel properties are not sales-weighted due to the unavailability of such information. Therefore, they must be used with caution if a true national average is to be obtained from the data. Although fuel survey data for 1973 (published in 1974) were used as the basis in searching for a "National Average" No. 2 fuel, data in Table 4 show that no major shifts in properties occurred between the 1973 and 1976 fuels surveyed. In general, the more r-_^ent fuels show slightly higher iensity, sulfur, cetane, and boiling range. Comparing the No. 2 fuel survey results to EM-239-F and EM-272-F shows no significant differences between them. The sulfur content in both EM-239-F and EM-272-F fuels were increased by adding ditertiary butyl disulfide. The EM-239-F fuel was adjusted to 0.23 percent value consistent with the then available 1973 survey results of 0.228 percent by weight. The later batch, EM-272-F, was adjusted to essentially the same level, 0.235 percent by weight, to be consistent with EM-239-F. Incidentally, EM-239-F was used in two other major projects for EPA. One such contract (68-02-1777) was a five-fuel, two-engine (HDD) emissions characterization.(35) The other contract was a five-fuel, 2-passenger car (LDD) characterization of emissions^44' for EPA which was a companion project to 68-03-1777. All oth~r HDD engines (Caterpillar 3208 EGR, 3406, Daimler-Benz OM-'t5;> and 352A engines) were run on EM-272-F. Operation of the Mack ETAY(B)67 3A engine with and without the high pressure injection system was made with EM-272-F. The Chevrolet 366 engine was run on EM-275-F, the last fuel listed on Table 3. At the request of the Project Officer, a leaded regular grade com- mercial gasoline of lead content of 1.5 to 2 g/qal (preferrably near 1.5), was used. Survey data of 10 name brand gasolines in the San Antonio area, performed 12 image: ------- TABLE 3. DESCRIPTION OF TEST FUELS Property ASTM Diesel Fuels Gasolir.- Fuels Source Type Code Gravity, "API Density, g/ml (lb/gal) Viscosity @ 100°F Kinematic, CS Sulfur Content, wt. % Cetane Number Distillation Temp., "C Vol. Recovered IBP 10% 50% 90% End Point FIA, % Aromatics Olefins Saturates Flash Point, "C !8F> Lead, g/1 (g/gal) Phosphorus, g/1 (g/gal) RVP, kPa (psi«) Research Octane = F) D287 D445 D1266 D976 D86 D1319 D93 D3237 D3231 D323 D656 Gulf 2-D EM-2 39-F 36.1 0.844(7.043) 2.66 0.23 48.7 186(366) 216(421) 257(4943 303(578) 337(640) 21.6 0.8 77.6 87(189) Gulf 2-D EM-272-F 37.0 0.840(6.933) 2.50 0.235 50.2 164(328) 211(411) 259(499) 303(578) 338(641) 23.0 1.14 75.8 68(155) Gulf Unleaded EM-237-F 59.9 0.738(6.154) 0.031 32(89) 52(125) 103(217) 170(338) 211(412) 26.4 2.9 70.7 <0.0189(<0.005) 0.0034(0.0009) 62. 74 I •?. 1! 92.0 Howell Leaded EM-275-F 54.2 0.7347(6.130) 0.030 37(98) 66(150) 104(220) 143(290) 171(340) 49.9 5.2 44.9 6.06(1.6) 0.004(0.0001) 51."' '".5) 91.5 image: ------- TABLE 4. "NATIONAL AVERAGE" PROPERTIES FROM FUEL SURVEYS Property Source Type Code Gravity, "API Density, g/ml (lbs/gal) Viscosity @ 100°F Kinematic, CS SayboIt Univ., sec Sulfur Content, wt * Aniline Point, °C <°F) C Residue on 10%, wt % Ash, wt % Cetane Number Distillation Temperature, °C Volume Removed IBP 10% 501 901 End Point*. ®F) ASTM D287 D445 D88 D129 D1266 D611 D524 D482 D613 D86 BM Diesel Survey 1_W7 i976{4J) 2-D 36.4 2.67 34.9 0.228 (145.5) 0.102 0.001 47.9 189(373) 219(426! 257(495) 302(575) 127(020) 2-D 35.7 2.73 35.1 0.253 (145.2) 0.105 0.008 48.3 190(374) 222(431) 262C50J) 308(58b) 334 (ft U) Flash Point, °C (°F) D93 66(150) 14 image: ------- in the fall of 1976, indicated lead levels of 1.64 to 2.49 g/gal, most above 2 g/gal. A sample of one name brand taken on April 5, 1977 showed 2.49 g/gal even though earlier data showed it to be within the desired range. This experience indicated that the only way to obtain the desired level of lead and octane was to obtain a special blended fuel from Howell Hydrocarbons, a local refiner-blender. The sulfur level in this fuel was adjusted to 0.03 percent by weight through the addition of thiophene. The 0.03 percent fuel sulfur level is taken to be the "National Average" for regular grade gasoline. 2. Light-Duty Vehicle Test Fuels Both LDD cars were evaluated using EM-239-F, the fuel used with the initial series of Hack ETAY(B)673A tests. This fuel was discussed in the previous subsection and its inspection data listed on Table 3. Table 3 also lists the gasoline inspection data for the fuel used with both gasoline-powered cars. EM-237-F is a regular grade, commercially available unleaded motor fuel which had its sulfur content increased to 0.03 percent by weight by the addition of thiophene. 3. Lubricants Each heavy-duty engine was filled with crankcase oil that met the specifications of the engine manufacturer. Shell Rote11a T-30 wgt was used in the Hack ETAY(BJ67 3A, while Texaco URSA Series 3 - 30WSAE was used in both Caterpillar and both Daimler-Benz engines. Texaco Havoline 30SAE HD was used in the Chevrolet 366 gasoline engine. All vehicle tests were run using the oil that was in the crankcase as received. D. Test Plans The test plans are described briefly for each category of engines/vehicles evaluated. 1. Heavy-Duty Engines The HDD engines were operated on eddy current type stationary engine dynamometers of 373 kw (500 hp) capacity. This permitted acquisition of test data that may be related to the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for heavy- duty Diesel engines by the 13-raode test for gaseous emissions and the Federal smo! image: ------- The test procedure followed was the EPA 23-mode experimental test cycle (23-mode EPA), which includes the 11 different modes of the 13-mode FTP for HD engines. This procedure is described in a later subsection. Each series of tests began with the running of several, replicate, 23-mode EPA gaseous emission tests followed by several Federal smoke tests in the case of the Diesel engines. From this, the general performance of the engine could be assessed in terms of fuel consumption, air consumption and power output. The engine's smoke level and HC + N02 level were then compared to standards and to previous data run either at SwRl or by the manufacturer. The next step in the series was to connect the exhaust to the dilution tunnel via a suitable muffler so that only a portion of the exhaust was diluted and the remainder vented. The dilution tunnel runs were based on the 11 different modes of the 13-mode test and involved rep- licate runs for 47 mm fiberglass and Fluoropore and 203 x 254 mm (8 x 10 inch) size fiberglass filters. Sulfur dioxide, sulfate, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA), as well as particulate emission rates, were then determined. The engine exhaust was then connected to the SwRI odor sampling dilution system for odor panel rating. During these replicate days of operation on each engine configuration, odor panel ratings, Diesel Odor Analytical System (DOAS) measurement, non-reactive hydrocarbons (NRHC) and aldehydes were measured as well as HC, CO, N0X, CO2 and selected engine parameters. No odor mea- surements were taken with the gasoline engine since the odor panel was only trained to evaluate Diesel exhaust. The test plan was somewhat abbreviated for the Caterpillar 3406, the two Daimler-Benz engines, and the retesting of the Hack engine- The major emphasis for these experiments was on sulfates, particulates, smoke and regulated emissions and engine parameter effects. 2. Light-Duty Vehicles The four cars were tested as a group in their as-received condition beginning with replicate cold start urban driving cycle tests in accord with the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP), sulfate emission test (SET) by the congested freeway cycle, and then by the highway fuel economy test (FET). Gaseous tailpipe emissions of unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (C( and oxides of nitrogen (N0X) as well as fuel consumption/economy by the carbc balance method were obtained. Measurement of detailed low molecular weight hydrocarbons, aldehydes, and Diesel odorant groupings by the Diesel Odorant Analytical System (DOAS) were* made during selected transient cycles. Next, smoko tests wore made using the EPA full flow light extinct in smokemeter of the two Diesel cars during repeat runs of the three transient driving cycles used in the FTP, SET, and FET. The entire exhaust was then directed into a dilution tunnel and a third series of FTP, SET, and FET driving cycles performed to obtain emission rates of particulate and sulfate A fourth series of tests were then made to obtain larger particulate quanti- ties for indication of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). 16 image: ------- The two Diesel-powered vehicles were then operated on a dynamometer adjacent to the odor measurement room and replicate odor evaluations made by the trained panel method. Aldehydes, DOAS, CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), HC, and N0X measurements were obtained at the same time for correlation and definition purposes. Finally, all four vehicles were subjected to vehicle/engine sound level measurements and a series of wide-open throttle (WOT) accelerations. With the exception of odor and smoke, the two gasoline-powered vehicles were evaluated in every category. E. Procedures and Analysis The test procedures and analysis systems used for each emissions category are described in the following subsections. In every case possible, recog- nized procedures published in the Federal regulations were employed. Instru- ments, sampling and analysis, and other facilities adhered strictly to these methods without exception. Where a Federal procedure did not exist, existing procedures for HDD vehicles were modified or adapted as necessary for purposes of this project. The advice and consent of the Project Officer was obtained on those areas of substantial modification before proceeding. In general, the procedures and analytical efforts are the same as that used in previous projects in the long range Diesel emissions investigation. The specific test and analytical procedures have been described in some detail in earlier papers (4,9,17,18) an image: ------- 2. 13-Modt FTP HD Test The 1974-1978 13-mode FTP is described iri Reference 49 as a 130- minute long speed load map of 13 modes, 10 minutes per mode. In addition to CO and NO by NDIR (According to SAE recommended practice J-177), air rate must be measured continuously (according to SAE recommended practice J-244). A Flo-Tron system was used to measure the net fuel consumption of the engine. Exhaust hydrocarbons were measured by heated, 191°C (375°F), flame ionization detector optimized in accord with SAE recommended practice J-215. The procedure starts with low idle, then 2, 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent load at intermediate speed followed by low idle. Then speed is increased to "rated" at 100 percent load with decreases to 75, 50, 25, and 2 percent. Another idle is then run. This procedure was used on the Caterpillar 3406, Daimler-Benz OM-352 and 352A engine and evaluation of the high pressure injection system on the Mack engine. Thirteen-mode FTP emissions were also computed from the EPA 2 3-mode test modal results even though the time in mode is shorter and the sequencing (history) is different. The 13-mode test points were used as the basis for all particulate, sulfate and related emissions for all HD engines tested. To this were added the motoring modes for the Chevrolet 366 and Caterpillar 3208. Seven modes of the 13-mode test were used for odor and BaP analyses. More on these abbreviated test cycles will be discussed in later subsections. The impor- tant feature is the modal testing nature of the HD engines being expanded or abbreviated versions, basically, of the 13-mode FTP. In Figure 1 are photo- graphs showing each of the six HD engines (five Diesel and one gasoline typo) investigated. The air-to-air intercooler used with the Mack engine is shown in the supper left photo. The EGR system for the Caterpillar 3208 is illus- trated in the upper right photo. The 50 hp electric motor used for the motoring modes is shown in the center left picture. The 50 hp dynamometer is shown in several of the photos. 3. Light-Duty Vehicle Transient Cycles The cold start 1975 FTP was the basic gaseous transient procedure used for the four LDV's. It is essentially the same for both gasoline and Diesel fueled cars. The basic gasoline fueled vehicle procedure was described by Reference 50 and modified in more recent Federal Registers. The Diesel procedure was originally described in Reference 51 and modified in later Federal Registers. Hydrocarbon values for the two Diesels were obtained by the continuous hot flame ionization analysis.In practice, two complete 23 minute urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS), the first from a cold start and the second after a 10 minute soak, were performed. This allowed sufficient sample time for particulate, sulfate, and other unregulated emis- sions. No evaporative hydrocarbon tests were made. Two other test cycles were utilized. Each represents a higher average speed and overall power level. The congested freeway driving schedule (CFDS)(52) j.s 21.7 km, 23.3 minute, procedure of 56.0 km/hr average speed. It is run from a hot start and represents the type of driving con- sidered typical of maximum sulfate emissions. Originally called the sulfate emission test or SET cycle, this test cycle was employed with all four cars. 18 image: ------- Mack ETAY(B)673A Caterpillar 3208/EGR Daimler-Benz OM-352 Figure 1. Stationary Test of Heavy 19 Daimler-Benz OM-352A -Duty Diesel and Gasoline Engines image: ------- The last of the three transient cycles was the highway fuel economy test(53) or fet. This schedule is of 12.8 minutes length, is from a running hot start, and is 77.6 km/hr average over a 16.48 km cycle, in practice, the cold 23 minute UDDS was followed by the hot 23 minute UDDS and then by an SET and finally an FET. A 10 minute soak (engine off) was observed between each cycle. Figure 2 shows a speed-time trace for all three test cycles for a general comparison. In addition to the usual HC, CO, and NOx measurements, samples were continuously taken and collected in reagents for wet chemical analysis or in suitably packed traps for later odor analysis. These samples were withdrawn in the stainless steel pipe section connecting the exhaust dilution point (below the CVS filter box) and the CVS inlet. Several pre es were inserted into this pipe section—one probe for the DNPH bubblers and one for each of the three odor trapping systems for the Diesel Odor Analytical System (DOAS). These probes were located adjacent to the probe used to obtain the continuous HC sample. All sample lines and interfaces were heated as required to maintain sample integrity for Diesels. HC sampling and Diesel odor analyti- cal systems (DOAS) traps were taken at gas temperatures of 191°C (375°F). Aldehyde samples were obtained by use of large glass bubblers immersed in ice water A digital integrator was used to integrate the time-concentration signal from the Diesel HC analyzer, a flame ionization detector with linear response. The other continuous samples depended on their absorbing materials, reagent for wet collected samples, and chromosorb in the case of the Diesel odor traps to integrate a total representative sample for the entire 1975 FTP. In the case of wet collected and odor traps, the entire 23 minute (Bags 1 and 2) and the third bag 505 second portion of the 1975 FTP were taken in a single collector (bubbler or trap). This was necessary to obtain suf- ficient sample for analysis and preclude the problem of switching after the first 505 seconds of the run (cold start bag). Figurr 3 also shows various views of the test set-up used with the four cars tested by the three transient procedures. The driving aid strip chart and variable inertia system are shown in the center left photo. The engine coolii"; lan and chassis dynamometer are shown in the upper left and center right photo. The lower two photos of Figure 3 are the two gasoline cars under test. Note the CVS located behind the car in the lower right view. 4. Smoke Test Procedures Smoke tests were performed on both heavy-duty and light-duty engines as follows. a. 1974 HDD Smoke* FTP - HD Engines Only The Federal smoke test, promulgated in 1968(54), was the basic smoke evaluation procedure utilized for the five HD engine configurations. It was improved and more stringent standards adopted in 1972^0) for 1974 20 image: ------- TRANSIENT PHASE STABILIZED PHASE FTP 200 600 800 1000 1200 TIME, sec SET 0 200 660 400 1000 1200 TIME, sec HFET 200 0 4Q0 600 TIME, sec Figure 2. Speed Versus Time Traces of FTP, HFET, and SET-7 Driving Cycles 21 image: ------- 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Diesel-Powerc3 1977 Volkswagen Rabbit, Diesel- Fowero 1 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass-Jasoline 1977 V lk'.wiqen Rab! it-Gasoline Figure 3. Oldsmobile and Volkswagen Diesel- and Gasoline-Powered Passenger Cars Under Test image: ------- certification purposes. Replicate smoke tests were made using the Federal I smoke test, shown in the Figure 4 schematic. It consists of an initial eng acceleration from 150 to 250 rpm above the low idle speed to 85 to 90 perce of rated engine speed in 5.Oil.5 seconds, a second acceleration from peak torque speed (or 60 percent of rated speed, whichever is higher) to 95 to 1 percent of rated speed in 10.0i2.0 seconds, and (following this second accc ation) a full-power lugdown from 95 to 100 percent of rated speed to the particular intermediate engine speed (peak torque speed or 60 percent of rated speed) in 35.0+5 seconds. Three of these sequences constitute one sm test. For each sequence, the average smoke opacity from the 15 higi valued, one-half second intervals of the two accelerations determines the *\ factor, and the average opacity from the five highest-valued, one-halt secoi intervals of the lugdown mode determines the "b" factor. The maximum value allowed for "a" and "b" factors of 1970 through 1973 certification engines were 40 and 20 percent opacity, respectively. For 1974, the "a" factor was reduced to 20 percent opacity and the "b" factor was reduced to 15 percent opacity. The peak or "c" factor, which is the average of the three highest one-half second intervals per cycle, is determined from the "a" and "b" cha readings. The three cycle "c" values are then averaged to determine the factor for the test. Smoke was also measured during full power and during the 13- mode test sequence. These full-power and modal smoke values give additiona insight on steady-state smoke performance and provide 13-mode smoke opaciti' for possible correlation to 13-mode particulate results. b. Transient Smoke Tests - LDV's Only There is currently no recognized U.S. smoke test procedure ft LD passenger car exhaust. Although the HD schedule of speed and load versu? time can be used with the LD vehicle by a chassis dynamometer version of th< test, it is uncertain whether this test is indeed representative of the way the smaller, hitjher .speed Diesels operate. Specifically, engine rated si to is considered higher than that normally encountered in passenger cars in url use. The visible smoke emissions from trie two Diesel LDV's were continuous,' recorded during operation of the vehicle over the three transient cycles (i ". SET, FET) but with the CVS disconnected. The two top photos of Figure 5 show the two Diesel cars as pr> pared for the smoke tests. Note the short 0.61 meter (24 inch) exhaust pipe extension of 50.8 mm (2 inch) exhaust pipe. The EPA smokemeter is mounted a the end of this pipe so that the centerline of the light beam is 127 mm (5 inches) from the tip of the pipe. The usual LD water brake Clayton 50 hp chassis dynamometer with belt drive inertia system was employed. The multi- pen strip chart recorder was used to monitor smoke opacity, vehicle and/or engine speed. The usual driving aid was used to drive the transient UDDS, SET (CFDS), or FET speed versus time trace. The same type smokemeter was us. with the exhaust from stationary operated HD Diesel engines with the exceptii that the exhaust pipe diameter was larger, in accord with the Federal Registi 23 image: ------- certification purposes. Replicate smoke tests were made using the Federal I smoke test, shown in the Figure 4 schematic. It consists of an initial eng acceleration from 150 to 250 rpm above the low idle speed to 85 to 90 perce of rated engine speed in 5.Oil.5 seconds, a second acceleration from peak torque speed (or 60 percent of rated speed, whichever is higher) to 95 to 1 percent of rated speed in 10.0i2.0 seconds, and (following this second accc ation) a full-power lugdown from 95 to 100 percent of rated speed to the particular intermediate engine speed (peak torque speed or 60 percent of rated speed) in 35.0+5 seconds. Three of these sequences constitute one sm test. For each sequence, the average smoke opacity from the 15 higi valued, one-half second intervals of the two accelerations determines the *\ factor, and the average opacity from the five highest-valued, one-halt secoi intervals of the lugdown mode determines the "b" factor. The maximum value allowed for "a" and "b" factors of 1970 through 1973 certification engines were 40 and 20 percent opacity, respectively. For 1974, the "a" factor was reduced to 20 percent opacity and the "b" factor was reduced to 15 percent opacity. The peak or "c" factor, which is the average of the three highest one-half second intervals per cycle, is determined from the "a" and "b" cha readings. The three cycle "c" values are then averaged to determine the factor for the test. Smoke was also measured during full power and during the 13- mode test sequence. These full-power and modal smoke values give additiona insight on steady-state smoke performance and provide 13-mode smoke opaciti' for possible correlation to 13-mode particulate results. b. Transient Smoke Tests - LDV's Only There is currently no recognized U.S. smoke test procedure ft LD passenger car exhaust. Although the HD schedule of speed and load versu? time can be usod with the LD vehicle by a chassis dynamometer version of th< test, it is uncertain whether this test is indeed representative of the way the smaller, hitjher .speed Diesels operate. Specifically, engine rated si to is considered higher than that normally encountered in passenger cars in url use. The visible smoke emissions from trie two Diesel LDV's were continuous,' recorded during operation of the vehicle over the three transient cycles (i"l SET, FET) but with the CVS disconnected. The two top photos of Figure 5 show the two Diesel cars as pr> pared for the smoke tests. Note the short 0.61 meter (24 inch) exhaust pipe extension of 50.8 mm (2 inch) exhaust pipe. The EPA smokemeter is mounted a the end of this pipe so that the centerline of the light beam is 127 mm (5 inches) from the tip of the pipe. The usual LD water brake Clayton 50 hp chassis dynamometer with belt drive inertia system was employed. The multi- pen strip chart recorder was used to monitor smoke opacity, vehicle and/or engine speed. The usual driving aid was used to drive the transient UDDS, SET (CFDS), or FET speed versus time trace. The same type smokemeter was us. with the exhaust from stationary operated HD Diesel engines with the exceptii that the exhaust pipe diameter was larger, in accord with the Federal Regist. 23 image: ------- * 100 90 80 'O o 0 a w 01 c *rt Cr c w *0 & *> fll OS c 0) o o a. First Acceleration 60 Idle !s*1.5 I Lugdown 10±2 Time, seconds Figure 4. Schematic of One Cycle of Federal Smoke Compliance Test Engine Speed Versus Time image: ------- Figuri >. Smoke and Odor Mc asunmc nt Equipment image: ------- 5. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses - HD and LDV Engines This subsection includes evaluation of odor by trained panel—the measurement of gaseous emissions and trapping-analysis of odor samples by the DOAS simultaneously with odor measurements. a. Evaluation by Trained Panel The EPA (PHS) quality-intensity (Q/I) or Turk kit method of evaluation of dilute samples of Diesel exhaust odor'55' was employed to express odor judgments by the trained ten-person SwRl odor panel. The kit, shown partially in Figure 5 (center left photo), includes an overall "D" odor in Steps 1 through 12 (12 being strongest) that is made of four sub-odors or qualities. These comprise burnt-smoky "B", oily "0", aromatic "A", and pungent "P" qualities, each in a 1 through 4 intensity series (4 being strongest). Special odor sampling, dilution, and presentation facilities'1-^) for Diesel odor research were developed ten years ago using design criteria obtained in field studies of atmospheric dilution of bus and truck exhaust. From the Diesel odor opinion survey conducted in 1970<24,25)f it was found that 58 percent found odor objectionable at "D"-2, 81 percent found the odor objectionable at "D'*-4( and 89 percent found the odor objectionable at the "D"-6 level. Horizontal exhaust at bumper height from a city bus was found to be diluted to a mini! am reasonable level of 100:1 before being experienced by an observer. This dilution level was used in the odor test of both HD engines and Diesel LDV's. As it is uncertain that this is the reasonable minimum dilution level from a Diesel powered passenger car, a higher dilution level (550:1) was also employed. References 1 and 4 describe the odor facility and References 2, 3, and 4 describe the development of procedures and operating conditions for research purposes. b. Test Conditions Both steady-state and transient vehicle operation were simulated for odor evaluation. (1) Heavy-Duty Engines Odor measurements were made from the Diesel engines while operated on a stationary dynamometer (see Figure la and lb). The same large inertia wheels used in the Federal smoke test were employed to simulate vehicle acceleration and deceleration. Simulation of the seven steady-state conditions that comprised each morning's odor test runs was as easily accomplished on the stationary dynamometer as with the chassis dynamometer vehicles. The seven conditions, a curb idle in neutral, 2, 50, and 100 percent of maximum power at each of two speeds (intermediate and rated), are replicated three times in random order for a total of 21 runs. Thus, most of the same conditions used for gaseous emissions by the 13-mode test are used. 26 image: ------- The ternoon runs included three conditions, each repli- cated four times in random order. The acceleration after a prolonged curb idle is meant to represent the repetitive idle-acceleration of city buses and the acceleration in a low gear of large trucks. It was simulated by using the large inertia wheel without dynamometer preload and merely advancing the engine fuel control to the "full-rack" or maximum power demand position. The panel then rated the odor perceived during this rapid acceleration. Pretest investi- gation revealed a specific time during the acceleration when maximum odor levels were produced. Table 5 lists the times and engine condition when the odor was evaluated. The acceleration condition follows a brief cruise and is intended to simulate the upshift of a vehicle into a higher gear. It was performed at maximum "rack" or power position. The deceleration condition investigated the odor levels produced during the "closed-rack", no fuel demand position of the pump and simulates the deceleration of the vehicle from cruise. In both the acceleration and deceleration conditions, inertia and a pretest dynamometer load were used to simulate the vehicle operation. A cold start condition was run at the start of each day's testing and brought the total number of conditions up to eleven. In all tran- sient runs, the odor measurement was at a predetermined point that produces the most noticeable odor level. The transients along with the steady-state "odor map" provide a comprehensive evaluation of the engine's exhaust odor. The use of the trained panel was limited to the Mack ETAV(B)67 3a and the Caterpillar 3208/EGR engines evaluated. (2) Light-Duty Vehicles The odor measurement procedures applied to the Diesel- powered cars was in keeping with that used in 1974-1976(14-17,19) an image: ------- TABLE 5. ODOR TEST CONDITIONS - HD ENGINES Mack Caterpillar ETAY{B)673A 3208/EGR Steady-State Operation Engine Speed, rpm i, High 1900 2800 Inter 1450 1680 Idle 625 600 Kw @ High Speed, 100% 244 150.3 50% 122 75.2 2% 4.9 2.8 Kw # Inter Speed, 100% 226.7 116.9 50% 113.4 58.5 2% 4.5 2.1 Transient Conditions Idle-Accel, rpm start 625 600 end 1900 2800 Odor Test rpm 1200 1600 Accel time, sec 4 4.1 Accel range, rpm start 1400 1600 end 1900 2800 Odor Test rpm 1800 2600 Accel time, sec 9.5 10.2 Decel range, rpm start 1900 2800 end 625 600 Odor test rpm 1400 2000 Decel time, sec 7 5.2 28 image: ------- TABLE 6. ODOR TEST CONDITIONS Condition Parameter Cutlass Diesel Rabbit Diesel Intermediate Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1400-0 Speed, Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 2.00-0.60 No Load Drive Gear N 2020-0 0.54-1.48 N Intermediate Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1400-57.9 Speed, Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 4.31-0.61 Mid Load Drive Gear D-3 2020-53.1 2.54-1.50 4 Intermediate Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1400-41,8 Speed, Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 6,62-0.62 High Load Drive Gear D-3 High Speed, Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1920-0 No Load Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 3.27-0.90 Drive Gear N 2020-53.1 4.54-1.42 4 3360-0 1.32-2.45 N High Speed, Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1920-86.9 Hid Load Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 8.89-0.90 Drive Gear D-3 3360-90.1 5.08-2.46 4 High Speed, Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1920-82,1 High Load Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 14.51-0.90 Drive Gear D-3 3360-90.1 8.85-2.38 4 Idle Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 630-0 Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 1.00-0.26 Drive Gear N 900-0 0.27-0.62 N Idle- Vehicle km/hr, Start-End 0-40.2 Acceleration Odor Test rpm-km/hr 1900-32.2 Gear Driven In D-l 0-32.2 2300-24.1 1 Acceleration Vehicle km/hr, Start-End 40.2-80.5 Odor Test rpm-km/hr 1600-72.4 Gear Driven In D-3 48.3-80.5 2680-72.3 4 Deceleration Vehicle km/hr, Start-End 80.5-48.3 Odor Test rpm-km/hr 1310-56.3 Gear Driven In D-3 80.5-48.3 2150-56.3 4 29 image: ------- c. Diesel odor Analytical System As one result of approximately five years of research, sponsored under the CAPE-7 project of CRC APRAC, A. D. Little developed a prototype liquid chromatograph for use in predicting Diesel exhaust odor. Called DOAS for Diesel Odor Analytical System, the system provides two results—one being an indication of the oxygenate fraction called LCO for liquid chromatograph oxygenates and the other called LCA for liquid chromatograph aromatics. These were found by earlier research by A. D. Little to represent the major odorants in Diesel exhaust.(56_59) The A. D. Little studies had shown a correlation of the TIA (total intensity of aroma) to sensory measurements by the A. D. Little odor panel.TIA is equal to 1 + log^g LCO. Both LCO and LCA are expressed in micrograms per litre of exhaust using either the test fuel or a reference component for calibration. The LCO is, by virtue of its use to express TIA, considered the most important indication of Diesel exhaust by this method. An entire series of reports have been published by A, D. Little describing their work with Diesel odor.(36-40) Reference 40 describes the DOAS and its use, while Appendix C in this same reference describes the sample collection procedure. For additional details of the application of this instrument, please refer to the Part VII final report.(16) The sampling interface system, shown by the lower left photo in Figure 5, follows good laboratory practice as applied to Diesel hydrocarbon measurement. Most of the sampling system was housed in an oven held at 190T (375°F). Each system, of which three separate ones are available, began with a multiopening stainless steel probe located in the exhaust stack. This is normal practice for HC measurement from HDD engines. The sample was then transferred to the oven via a 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) diameter stainless steel line 0,75 b (30 inches) long covered by tubular exterior electrical heating sleeves to maintain 190°C (375°F) sample gas temperature. Between the probe and sample transfer line, a high temperature bellows type stainless valve was placed for leak check purposes. Inside the oven, the sample passed through a fiberglass filter, then into a square head welded metal bellows (stainless) pump head mounted inside the oven. Immediately as the flow exits the oven wall, the DOAS trap is mounted so that it is accessible for change but is not located where the sample could have intentionally cooled. Once the sample passes through the trap, the sample goes through a drierite column, a glass tube flowmeter, and then into a dry gas volume meter. The desiccant removes troublesome water which condenses in the flowmeter and gas meter. The flowmeter allows monitorinn of qas flow, by visual observation, during the test while the gas meter measure: the total flow of gas during the test.run. The DOAS liquid chromatograph analysis instrument is shown in the lower right photo of Figure 5. The syrin image: ------- For a TIA value of 1.875, the "D" value would be 4, which is quite objection- able by the opinion survey.{24) a, d. Little feels that the relationship is TIA = 0.2 + »32"D" For "D"-4, TIA is 1.48. Thus, for a quite objectionable level of "D"-4, the corresponding TIA value might be between about 1.5 to 1.9. d. Gaseous emissions Gaseous emissions were also taken during the steady-state speed- load odor maps. Measurements included HC by heated FID; CO2, NO, and CO by NDIR; NO and N0X by chemiluminescence (CL); oxygenates; and various NRHC. The seven conditions, in triplicate (21 runs), were repeated on two mornings normally separated by one day for analysis and preparation. The upper left photograph of Figure 6 shows the 13-mode Diesel emissions instrumentation also used during the odor testing. These measurements were intended to define the steady-state performance and characterize emissions beyond that possible from the LDV tran- sient procedures and the 1974 HD FTP 13-mode test. Also, the data would be useful in comparison with and correlation to the odor panel ratings and other measurements by the CAPE-7 DOAS instrument. Figure 6 (upper right view) shows the gaseous emissions instruments for CVS collected bags. The center left view of Figure 6 shows the entry to the CVS where the LDV hydrocarbon, DOAS and other related materials were sampled during transient operation. The center right photo shows the CVS, sample bags, and, in the background, the heated FID for continuous HC measurement. The lower left photo of Figure 6 shows the HC instrument in more detail. e. Partially Oxygenated Compounds - DNPH The DNPH method, as described by the procedure in Appendix B of Part VII Final Report(16), was obtained from Dr. Ronald Bradow of EPA-RTP. Although wet collection traps are used, a GC is employed and there are many intermediate steps in the preparation of the sample once collected. Seven separate samples were obtained. Each sample contained the three replications and represented 12 to 15 minutes of sample absorption in the glass bubbler trap system with 4 to 5 minutes of trapping each run. The seven runs were made on the first day of the 2-day sequence for each engine or vehicle. Figure 6 (lower right photo) shows a partial view of the glass bubbler traps with the cold bath removed. f. Characterization of Specific Hydrocarbons The measurement of a variety of hydrocarbons was performed using a gas chromatograph procedure developed by EPA-RTP.This procedure uses a single flame ionization detector with a multiple column arrangement and dual gas sampling valves. The timed sequence selection valves allow for the base- line separation of air, methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propy- lene, benzene, and toluene. Only methane is generally considered nonreactive in photochemical reactions. Ethane, propane, benzene, and acetylene are considered reactive even though only to a small degree. Propylene, ethylene, and toluene are known to react to form photochemical smog. 31 image: ------- Gaseous Emissions HD and LD Vehicles I CVS - Continuous Trap/Analysis Hr by Heated FID Aldehyde Collection Traps Figure 6. Gaseous Emissions Measurement Instruments and Apparatus 32 image: ------- Samples were obtained directly from the bag samples of FTP, SET, and FET transient LD cycles (as shown in Figure 6, right center and upper photos) and 7 modes used during all odor testing and analyzed. Individual values were determined for the bag or run. A detailed description of the individual columns, temperature, flow rates, etc., may be found in Reference 61. 6. Particulate The mass rate of emission of particulate from both HD engines and LDV's was determined by collecting a known amount of particulate matter on a preweighed glass fiber filter. The 47 mm diameter Gelman Type A glass fiber media was the principal size and type of filter disc employed. Particulate mass rates were also obtained using both an 8 x 10 size fiberglass filter for polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compound analysis and by Fluoropore {Millipore Corporation) 47 ram plastic filter media with 0.5 micron mean pore flow size. The Fluoropore filters were used for sulfate collection. The basic technique for sample collection was to dilute the exhaust with pre filtered air much the same as the constant volume sampler does with the exhaust in the LDV-FTP for gaseous emissions. The definition of particu- late was in terms of the dilution and collection media and, importantly, the temperature at the point of filtration. In keeping with EPA definition of Diesel engine particulate from Reference 31, anything that was collected on Type A glass fiber filter at a temperature not to exceed 51.7°C (125°F) and not condensed water was considered l^esel particulate. The particulate thus included aerosols and unburned fuel-like matter. Most tests were made at lower average temperatures and depended on the exhaust volume, temperature, and dilution level. The nominal 0.457 m (18-inch) diameter by 4.88 m (16-foot) long dilution tunnel used to dilute and cool the exhaust is shown in the Figure 7 schematic drawing. The pertinent dimensions, flows, velocities, and the relationship of the various components which make up a particulate collection system are indicated A microbalance, with 1 microgram accuracy and housed in a special humidity-' 'crature controlled environment, was used to weigh the filters before and a. r the test. The weighing box is supplied with pre- filtered, scrubbed air at a constant 22.2^0.06°C (72il°F), 1Q.6±0.3 g/kg (74+2 gr/lb dry air) humidity at 0.3 raVhr (10 cfm). a. HD Engine Particulate The large volumes of hot exhaust from the Diesel engines used in trucks and buses preclude the practical dilution of all the exhaust in a laboratory size dilution tunnel. This was recognized at the outset of SwRI's initial efforts to characterize particulates for EPA under Contract No. 68-02- 1230 for RTF. In order to use the fairly standard EPA design 0.457 m (18-inch! tunnel, an exhaust flow splitting system was devised whereby only a part of the exhaust is used in the tunnel and the remainder vented to the atmosphere. Obtaining a true split of the exhaust is a difficult job, and even more diffi- cult is knowing how much of the exhaust is split and diluted by the tunnel. With much care and attention to detail, this can be done with reasonable accuracy and repeatability. 33 image: ------- r 610mm (24in) 610mm K" (24in) 4.88m (16ft) 840mm (33in) » 450mm (17.7in) DILUTION AIR FILTER ENCLOSURE 76mm (3in) RAW EXHAUST TRANSFER TUBE 230mm (9in) MIXING ORIFICE EXH. HI-VOL r 700mm 27.5in SAMPLE 127mm (5in) DIA SAMPLE PROBE OR 4 EA. l/2" ID ISOKINETIC SAMPLING PROBE )iluti':;i 1 II ! . ' i Die.' ! I arC i rulat <• San; 1 i mj image: ------- After review of several possible flow splitters, it was deter- mined that the vehicle exhaust muffler was the most realistic point to obtain a split of the total exhaust that retained all of the properties and character- istics of the bulk exhaust. Adjacent to the usual exhaust outlet from the conventionally used stock muffler, a second but somewhat smaller outlet was added. As with the stock muffler outlet, an open-ended tube with the same length and wall perforations, diameter, and pattern was fabricated and inserted inside of the muffler in a similar fashion to the stock outlet tube. By trying several size tubes, the exhaust flow could be matched to the filter temperature for given operating conditions of the test sequence. The use of a "sampling tube" within the muffler of similar design to that for the stock outlet was thought to give the exhaust a similar opportunity to flow out either tube and thus preserve the integrity of the sample. The use of a large gate valve on the vented exhaust flow allowed the use of slight exhaust system backpressure so that some measure of control was available. The exhaust backpressure was generally set at the engine manufacturer's maximum allowable at rated speed and load, as in the 13- mode FTP. At other speeds and loads, the backpressure was allowed to decrease to a value consistent with lower engine speeds and exhaust flows without adjustment of the preset restriction. The exhaust sampling and dilution system was, for the HD engines, identical to that described in References 16 and 31. It is shown pictorially in Figure 8 for use with HD engines. The center right photo is of the splitter and the tunnel used with all HD engines except the Caterpillar 3406 and shows the particulate and charcoal filtered intake system. A close-up of the exhaust system and muffler-splitter arrangement is shown in the lower left and right view of Figure 8. Notice the large gate valve used for back- pressure and dilution level control. The tunnel photographs of Figure 8 show the large truck muffler located vertically under the tunnel. Part of the exhaust then enters directly into the tunnel and filter samples are taken downstream. The amount of exhaust that was eventually diluted and from which the particulate samples were obtained was based on the difference between the calibrated positive displacement pump (PDP) flow and the amount of dilution air measured by a calibrated laminar flow meter. The difference in two large measurements, each subject to error, can lead to larger than usually desired errors in the difference. Thus, the most crucial part of the system is the care and precision in obtaining both PDP and makeup or dilution air flows. To assure a measure of quality control, the dilution tunnel was treated as a CVS and subjected to the same number and stringency of checks to include propane recoveries on a weekly basis and daily laminar flow meter - PDP correlation tests. Particulate and sulfate samples were obtained on all HDD engines at each of the 11 different modes of the 13-mode FTP. Idle was only sampled once. Those engines for which motoring was performed, samples were also obtained under closed throttle operation. For BaP and organic solubles, a 7-mode test consisting of idle and 2, 50, and 100 percent power at rated and intermediate speeds was run. 35 image: ------- Dilution Tunnel Exhaust Splitter Sample Filter Figure 8. Particulate Measuring Equipment (HD Engines) 36 image: ------- b. LDV Particulate The dilution tunnel was quite capable of handling the entire exhaust from both Diesel and gasoline powered LDV's without exceeding the 51.2°C (125°F) samp.e temperature. The dilution tunnel nominal flow of 14.1 mVmin (500 cfm) was not excessive in overdiluting necessarily but is qreate than would normally be used in a gaseous emissions test by conventional CVS technique. The particulate tests were performed separately from the gas' >us emission tests and used the same type tunnel as in the HD engine testing. In order to achieve a sufficient sample and because there is convenient means to switch particulate samples at the 505-second point in th city driving schedule, all cold start FTP's were for the entire 23 minutes o a given filter. The 10-minute soak period was ther. observed and then an additional full 2 3-minute city driving cycle repeated from a hot start. The other two transient driving cycles were from a hot start with the sample for the SET and for the FET collected on separate filters. The four sample systems permitted the collection of two each particulate samples on 47 mm glass and two each sulfate samples on 47 mm Fluoropore media. The testing sequence of cold-hot FTP, SET, and FET was repeated on several successive days. This test sequence was then performed with the high-volume sampler to obtain larger amounts of particulate for PNA analysis using the 8 x 10 size glass filters. The various photographs in Figure 9 show the dilucion tunnel used with all four cars. The dilution tunnel was located alongside the car, as shown in the upper left and right views. The positive displacement blew*? and the four sampling filter systems are shown in the upper right views. Th two center views illustrate the appearance of the 47 mm and 8 x 10 size fibe glass filter media at the conclusion of a test. 7. Sulfate Analysis The methods used to collect the samples of sulfate were discussed the previous subsection. For analysis of sulfate, the BCA method was used with both gasoline and Diesel engines. The BCA method for sulfate had been widely used with gasoline-powered LDV's under EPA Contract 68-03-2118 and during Part VII Diesel studies. A description of the BCA test procedure may be found in Appendix B of this report. The lower left photo of Figure 9 she the BCA analysis instrumentation. One requirement of the project was to try and analyze sulfate froir a leaded gasoline fueled HD truck engine. This experiment gave very confusi results and not due to the well-known positive interference of lead combusti products. The problem was extremely low readings during the initial analysi Some nine weeks later, the solutions were reanalyzed and the values had increased substantially. The reasons remain unknown. In the case of Diesel engines, it is not certain what form the sulfate is in whfn it exits the engine or vehicle. There is no evidence to prove that it is in the form of sulfuric acid mist, as is the case with oxi- dation equipped, gasoline fueled cars. In fact, the lack of an observable image: ------- 4- ran an3 X 10 size Filter Collected Parti j1 B :A-5ulf at Anal 1 t.DV ound L< vt 1 Meter Figure . L»DV Particulate Sulfate and Nois< Mtasun roent Equipment 38 Dilution Tunnel Particulate Measurement-iars. image: ------- storage-purge characteristic of Diesels suggests that such may not be the case. Until this issue is resolved, it is proper to refer to what is measured as sulfate or, more correctly, sulfate by BCA. 8. Polynuclear Aromatic Matter (PNA) PNA compounds as a class and as individual contaminants were of interest in this project. Although there are several laboratory procedures available for their analysis, the major difficulty was analysis of PNA materials in Diesel exhaust and, of equal importance, the collection of a sample in a form suitable for such laboratory analysis. This was amply demonstrated by the difficulties encountered by Gulf Research and Development under the CRC APRAC CAPE-24-72 project. It was further illustrated in the degree of difficulty and inadequacy of available methods by the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education (EwFRE) during the Part VII Diesel workU6) and that for RTP under Contract 68-02-0123. Even the measurement of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) was highly questionable. At the outset of this project, it was decided to continue using the SwFRE method for BaP analysis until a better method could be obtained. Shortly after completion of the Mack ETAY(B)673A HDD engine, it was agreed to forward all subsequent filters to Dr. Robert Jungers, Chief of the Source, Fuels, and Molecular Chemistry Section of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, for the soxhlet extractions and BaP analyses. This was done on all subsequent HD engines. However, the Mack as well as the two Diesel and the two gasoline cars were analyzed for BaP by SwFRE. The Sawicki analysis procedure'62', for determination of BaP, involved a thin layer chromatographic separation followed by fluorescence measurement. This was the basic analytical method used by SwFRE. BaP is an elementary PNA and is generally found in Diesel exhaust. It is considered ~.< be a good indicator of the relative FNA content in that if it is high, otlm r PNA emissions are also probably high. There was, at the time of its use ot this project, still some unresolved questions regarding the sample collecti m and especially the preparation of the sample for analysi For additional description of the > tocedure, please refer to Appendix B. The method used by EPA-RTP for BaP163' is also described in Appenoi x B. Extractions of 8 x 10 filter halves produced samples for BaP analysis. The extracts were concentrated and spotted on TLC plates, and the plates w>i« scanned by a Perkin-Elmer MPF-3 fluorescence spectrophotometer. Excitation was at a wavelength of 388 run, and emission was read at 430 nm. The soluble extract of the filters was obtained using two different solvents. In the case of the filters analyzed by SwFRE (all cars plus Mack engine), benzene was used. Thus, the percent organic soluble of the total filter weight is based on its use. Benzene was used as the solvent for the Caterpillar 3406 DI with EGR and timing experiments. Cyclohexane was used for the Caterpillar IDI configuration, both Daimler-Benz engines and the Mack APS-standard pump comparisons. 39 image: ------- The measurement of Diesel BaP by the present method at EPA is con- sidered an interim procedure. As soon as the high pressure liquid chromato- graph (HP1C) method being developed by EPA is qualified, a powerful new tool should be available to investigate a series of PNA materials and not just BaP. Amonq the unresolved issues is the role of carbon in the exhaust am! on the filter in the collection of PNA's by the dilution tunnel method. TIk general lack of PNA's from oxidation catalyst equipped cars, as found in this effort, may be attributed to the catalyst or to the fact that carbon content in the exhaust was negligible. In the case of the non-catalyst HD gasoline engine, two modes produced exceptionally high BaP levels and others were negligible. The use of dilution tunnel sampling methods may be a desired approach to laboratory testing but may produce inconsistent or low values due to collection efficiency of the filter. Much more needs to be done to qualify and validate the sample collection, extraction, and, of course, the HPLC procedure. 9. Elemental Analyses Determination of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen weight percentages in Diesel particulate were also performed by Galbraith Laboratories. Carbon and hydrogen were measured using ASTM method D-3178 and nitrogen was measured using ASTM D-3179. The results were corrected for blank filter content, which was reported to be very low. Metals and other elements such as silica and sulfur were analyzed by X-ray fluorescence. The improved precision, reduced detection limits, and the even greater number of elements that could be analyzed by the X-ray instrument at EPA-RTP prompted a change from the U.S. Army Fuels and Lubricants Laboratory at Southwest Research Institute to the RTP laboratories. Thus, the four car 1 Fluoropore filters were analyzed by the Army Laboratory while all the HD engines were performed by EPA-RTP. The analyses at EPA was arranged for through the cooperation of Dr. Ronald L. Bradow. 10. Vehicle Noise - LDV's Only This series of tests was intended to determine the maximum interior and exterior sound levels, in such that the front of the vehicle reached or passed a line 7.6 m (25 feet) beyond the microphone line when maximum rated engine speed was reached. Th< 40 image: ------- equipment used was a precision sound level meter, a sound level calibrator, and a calibrated wind screen. The test site was (as outlined in J-986a) a flat open space, free of large reflecting surfaces (i.e., signs, hills, buildings) within 30.5 m (100 feet) of the test track. Measurements were made (as outlined in J-986a) 1,22 m (4 feet) above ground level and at 15.24 m (50 feet) from the centerline of the vehicle. This distance was considered adequate if the maximum noise level as measured on the "A-weighted" scale with a "fast" meter response was 10 dB above the ambient noise level. If this criterion could not be met, the measurements were made at 7.6 m (25 feet) by subtracting 6 dB from the measured values to extrapolate to an equivalent reading at 15.24 m (50 feet). If the level at 7.6 m (25 feet) was not 10 dB above ambient levels on a reasonably quiet day, this point was noted as well as the measured level and ambient level. The sound level for each side of the vehicle was the average of the two highest readings which were within 2 dB of each other. These were made with all windows fully closed and the vehicle accessories such as heater, air condi- tioner, or defroster (radio excluded) in operation at their highest apparent noise level. Interior sound level determinations were the same as exterior except that the microphone was located 0.152 m (6 inches) to the right side of the driver's right ear. All other test procedures were as presented in J-986a. The lower right photo of Figure 9 shows the hand-held meter adjacent to the driver's right ear during the interior measurements. b. Constant Speed Drive-By The exterior noise level with the vehicle passing by the micro- phone at a distance of 15.24 m (50 feet) was measured. The vehicle was in high gear and driven smoothly at 48.3 km/hr (30 mph) ±5 percent. As in the acceleration test, the measurement was made at 7.6 m (25 feet) if "fast" meter response was not 10 dB above ambient noise level on the "A-weighted" scale. Six dB was subtracted from the measured values to extrapolate to an equivalent reading at 50 feet. Interior sound level determinations were made in the saw.» manner as during the acceleration test. The sound level reported for this test was obtained in the manner outlined in the acceleration test already described. c. Idle This test included sound level measurements at 3.05 m (10 feet) distances from the front, rear, left (street side) and right (curb side) of the vehicle. The vehicle was parked and engine allowed to run at manufacturer's recommended low idle speed with transmission in neutral for at least one minute. Accessory items such as air conditioner or heater and defroster (radio excluded) operated at their highest apparent noise level. The sound level meter was positioned 3.05 m from each bumper midway between the sides of the car and 3.05 m from each side midway between the front and rear bumpers at 1.22 m (4 feet) height above the ground. The vehicle was then turned around and headed in the opposite direction and measurements repeated. Interior measurements were also obtained at the same single point used in drive-by tests. The test course was identical to that employed in the earlier work and reported in References 12, 14, 16, 21, and 22. 41 image: ------- F. Weighting Factors - HD Engines Appendix A is the experimental 23-mode EPA HD engine test procedure. Weighting factors are listed in paragraph 85.102, dynamometer operation cycle of this procedure. These factors (relisted in Table 7) as well as the 13-mode FTP weighting factors (listed in Table 8) formed the basis for most of the calculations to determine omission rates and cycle weighted fuel consumption of the HD engines. The need for various short cycle weighting factors was to accommodate the many engines and the test plan for the varied nonregulated emissions. The 21-mode factors are shown on Table 7 to include the same modes as the 23-mode EPA test but without the closed throttles. The deletion of the closed throttle weighting factors reduced the total to 82 percent of the time. Thus, the remaining 21 modes weighting factors were increased by the ratio of 100/82. The 13-mode test using factors derived from the 23-mode test involved extension of the clossed throttle factors and adding the three separate idle factors into a single factor. The remaining mode weights were distributed as follows: * 2% power represents 0 to 12.5% power; this range includes the 2% and 8% power points. * 25% power represents 12.5% to 37.5% power; this range includes the 18% and 25% power points. * 50% power represents 37.5% to 62.5% power; this range includes the 50% power point. • 75% power represents 62.5% to 87.5% powerj this range includes the 75% and 82% power points. * 100% power represents 87.5% to 100% power; this range includes the 92% and 100V power points. The 11-mode test is merely the 13-mode factors less the two closed throttles. The remaining modes were increased by 100/82 as with the 21-mode test factors. The 9-mode test is a short cycle that still includes the two closed throttles and a single idle as in the 13-mode test. However, the remaining 2, 50, and 100 percent power points have increased weight due to the following red istribution: • 2% power represents 0 to 25% power; this range includes the 2%, 8%, 181, and half the 25* power points. • 50% power represents 25% to 75% power; this range includes half the 25%, the 50%, and half the 75% power points. • 100% power represents 75% to 100% power; this range includes half the 75%, the 82%, 92%, and 100% power points. 42 image: ------- NO^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TABLE 7. EPA 2J-NODE WEIGHTING FACTORS AND SHORT CYCLE WEIGHTING FACTORS DEPIVED THEREFROM 23-Mode EPA 21-Mode 13- -Mode 11 -Mode 9- -Mode 7-Mode Engine Pove r Weight Mode Weight ode Weight Mode Weight Mode Weight Mode Weigh! rpm Factor,% No. Factor,% No. Factor,s No. Factor,% No. Factor,% No. Factor Idle 0 7.0 1 8.5 Inter 2 6.0 2 7.3 1 12.0 1 14.6 1 18.5 1 22.5 Inter 8 6.0 3 7.3 Inter 18 5.0 4 6.1 Inter 25 3.0 5 3.6 2 8.0 2 9.8 Inter 50 6.0 6 7.3 3 6.0 3 7.3 2 7.5 2 9.2 Inter 75 0 7 0 4 4. i 4 4.9 Inter 82 4.0 8 4.9 Inter 92 0 9 0 Inter 100 0 10 0 S 0 5 0 3 4 3 4.9 Idle 0 7.0 11 8.5 6 22. 6 26.9 4 22.0 4 26.9 Inter CT 12.0 7 12.0 5 12.0 High 100 2.5 12 3.2 8 8.0 7 9.7 6 14.5 5 17.6 High 92 5.5 13 6.7 High 82 3.5 14 4.3 High 75 6.0 15 7.3 9 9.5 8 11.6 High 50 6.o 16 7 3 10 6.0 9 7,3 7 9.0 6 11.0 High 25 0 17 0 11 6.5 10 7.9 High 18 6.5 18 7.9 High 8 0 19 0 High 2 0 20 0 12 0 8 6.5 7 7.9 Idle 0 8.0 21 9.8 11 0 High CT 6.0 13 6.0 9 6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 image: ------- 11U . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 TABLE 8. 13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS AND SHORT CYCLE WEIGHTING FACTORS DERIVED THEREFROM 13-Mode FTP Engine Power Height rpro % Factor, % Idle 6,7 Inter 2 8.0 Inter 25 8-0 Inter 50 8.0 Inter 75 8.0 Inter 100 8.0 Idle — 6.7 High 100 8.0 High 75 8.0 High 50 8.0 High 25 8.0 High 2 8.0 Idle 0.7 100.0 7-Mode Mode Weight No. Factor, % 1 12 2 16 3 12 4 20 5 12 6 16 7 12 100 44 image: ------- The 7-mode test is a very short cycle that is the same as the 9-mode test less the two closed throttles. The remaining modes were increased by 100/82 as with the 21- and 11-mode tests. The entire basis for all groupings and redistributions is one of time or percent of operating time given to a specific steady-state condition. Each condition is taken to represent all power output halfway to the adjoining power point or points. The basically linear nature of Diesel emissions with power output makes such an approach feasible. Thus, as the number of modes decreases, each point represents more time in mode and the mode represents a wider range of power. Table 8 uses the same basis to derive the 7-mode weighting factors from the HD 13-mode FTP. Specifically, one idle is run and the weighting factor is 20 percent. The remaining factors are based on the following redistribution: • 2% power represents 0 to 25% power; this range includes the 2% and half the 25% power points., ~ 50% power represents 25% to 75% power; this range includes half the 25% and 75% and the 50% power points. • 100% power represents 75% to 100% power; this range includes half the 75% and the 100% power points. The short cycles and the weighting factors derived for their use in gaining cycle weighted composite values were used with selected experimental unregulated emissions data. For example, the difficult-to-analyze BaP was restricted to a 7-mode cycle instead of a 13- or 23-mode test. 45 image: ------- IV. RESULTS OF HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE CHARACTERIZATION This section summarizes the characterization emission data for the two HDD and one HDG engines evaluated. The two were the Mack ETAY(B)673A and the Caterpillar 3208 EGR. The gasoline engine, also described in Table 1, was a Chevrolet 366 and was run for comparison with the Caterpillar 3208 EGR, a midrange Diesel engine. The Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 engines arc used in many identical truck applications, and therefore a direct comparison is possible. More complete data relating to the characterization of these three engines may be found in Appendix C. A. Gaseous Emissions Table 9 lists the results of replicate emission tests using the experi- mental, multimode test designated 'he 23-Mode EPA test. Listed are the HC, CO, and NOx rates as well as cycle weighted BSFC. This cycle and its weighting factors were described in Section III. The 23 modes include the test points of the 13-Mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for HDD, and therefore these values are also listed on Table 9 as computed values. Nota that the Mack engine 23- mode results are really for a 21-mode test since dynamometer limitations would not allow operation under closed throttle (CT) motoring conditions. The weighting factors for the remaining 21 modes were increased proportionally and were discussed in Section III. Table 10 lists the HDD emission limits for comparison purposes with the Table 9 data. Note the 1977 California limits list an alternate standard with HC and N02 limits specified separately. The manufacturer may certify either way. The mixed metric, g/bhp-hr, units of expression are listed in parentheses and are those currently listed in Federal and California regulations. For purposes of discussion, the results will be described by engine make and model. 1. Mack ETAY(B)67 3A A modified version of the 23-mode test, which deleted the two motoring modes, was performed on the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine. In conversations with the Project Officer, it was agreed at the meeting at SwRJ on November in, 1976, to attempt the motoring modes on this particular engine if capability existed for doing so. The dynamometer facility on which this engine was being tested had a 500 hp Midwest absorption unit, inertia capability, and up to 50 hp belt driven motoring for special preselected speeds. Shortly after the meeting, it was learned from Mack Trucks that the motoring power at 1900 rpm was 65 hp and at 1450 rpm approximately 45 hp. The 50 hp motor available would not be able to run the 1900 rpm and only marginally able to run the 45 hp conditions. It was confirmed by Mack that the fuel injection pump and injectors feature positive shutoff of fuel, making measurements during closed throttle motoring of negligible consequence, according to Mack. 46 image: ------- TABLE 9. EPA 23-MODE AND 13-MODE FTP GASEOUS EMISSIONS RATES Brake Specific Emissions Cycle BSFC Type Run g/kw-hr (g-hp-hr) kg/kw-hr Engine Test No. CO HC NO* HC+NO* (lbs/bhp-hr Mack 21-Mode 1 2.157 0.674 7.965 8.639 0.240 ETAY(S) EPA 2 2.143 0.635 8.047 8.683 0.247 67 3A Average 2.150 0.655 8.006 8.661 0.247 (1.604) (0.489) (b.972) (6.461) (0.405) 13-Mode 1 2.173 0.592 8.691 9.283 0.24 i FTP 2 2.084 0.683 9.038 9.721 0.242 Average 2.129 0.638 8.865 9.502 0.243 (1.588) (0.476) (6.613) (7.088) (0.399) Cat. 23-Mode 1 7.798 1.857 5.186 7.043 0.288 3208 EPA 2 9.228 1.708 4.958 6.666 0.291 BOP. Average 8.513 1.783 5.072 6.855 O. 290 (6.351) (1. 330) (3.784) (5.113) (0.470) 13-Mode 1 7.763 1. 594 5.027 6.622 0.28'. FTP 2 8.856 1.524 5.019 6.543 0.28H Average 8. 310 1.559 5.023 6.583 0.287 (6.200) (1.163) (3.747) (4.911) (0.472) Chev. 23-Mode 1 73.50 3.31 4.41 7.72 0.462 366 EPA 2 74.01 3. 36 4.70 8.06 0.463 Calif. Average 73.76 3.34 4.56 7.89 0.463 (55.00) (2.49) (3.39) (5.88) (0.761) Note: NOx is NO as N02 by NDIR for 13-Mode FTP. image: ------- TABLE 9. EPA 23-MODE AND 13-MODE FTP GASEOUS KMISSIONS HATES Brake Specific Emissions Cycle BSFC Type Run q/kw-hr (g-hp-hr) kg/kw-hr Engine Test No. CO HC NOx HC+NOv (lbs/bhp-hi Mack 21-Mode 1 2.157 0.674 7.965 8.639 0.246 ETAY(B) EPA 2 2.143 0.635 8.047 8.683 0.247 673A Average 2.150 0.655 8.006 8.661 0.247 CI.604) (0.489) (5.972) (6.461) (0.405) 13-Mode 1 2.173 0.592 8.691 9.283 0.24 i FTP 2 2.084 0.683 9.038 9.721 0.242 Average 2.129 0.638 8.865 9.502 0.243 (1.588) (0.476) (6.613) (7.088) (0.399) Cat. 23-Mode 1 7.798 1.857 5.186 7.043 0. 288 3208 BPA 2 9.228 1.708 4.958 6.666 0.291 BGP. Average 8.513 1.783 5.072 6.855 n.290 (6.351) (1.330) (3.784) (5.113) (0.471.) 13-Mode 1 7.763 1.594 5.027 6.622 0. 28 b FTP 2 8.856 1.524 5.019 6.543 0.28H Average 8. 310 1.559 5.023 6.583 0.287 (6.200) (1.163) (3.747) (4.911) (0.472) Chev. 23-Mode 1 73.50 3.31 4.41 7.72 0.462 366 EPA 2 74.01 3.36 4.70 8.06 0.463 Calif. Average 73.76 3.34 4.56 7.89 0.463 (55.00) (2.49) (3.39) (5.88) (0.761) Note: NOx is NO as N02 by NDIR for 13-Mode FTP. 47 image: ------- TABLE 10. HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL AND GASOLINE EMISSION LIMITS Units CO HC+N02 1973 California and 1974 Federal g/kw-hr (g/bhp-hr) 53.6 (40) 21.4 (16) 1975 California 1977 California g/kw-hr tg/bhp-hr) q/kw-hr (g/bhp-hr) 40.2 (30) 33.5 (25) 13.4 (10) 6.7 (5) HC N02 1977 California (alternate) g/kw-hr (g/bhp-hr) 33.5 (25) 1.3 (1) 10.1 (7.5) Note: NO measured by nondispersive infrared and expressed as N02. The duplicate modified 23-modo tests resulted in computation of a "13-mode" and "21-modu" composite emission rate. The "13-mode" result is b;i:;e image: ------- development prior to its shipment to SwRI. This engine model, intended for California, was the first midrange size production Diesel engine equipped with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). The method used by Caterpillar was to install a diverter valve at the outlet of the left engine exhaust manifold. Exhaust would then be directed back to the inlet of the intake manifold on a predetermined schedule. This is shown by the upper photo of Figure 10. On completion of the initial replicate 23-mode gaseous emissions test of the Caterpillar 3208 engine, it was found that HC, CO, CO2 and NO2 were non- repeatable on certain modes and tnat certain modes were different from the emissions data given to SwRI by Mr. Don Dowdall of Caterpillar. This caused a great deal of concern by SwRI over the emissions data, especially since the engine power, fuel, BSFC and Federal Smoke Tests correlated well with Caterpillar's data. Smoke data will be described shortly. After so-ne investigation, it was found that the EGR valve would stick closed following operation at the full-power condition and that the general operation of the valve when hot was sluggish and unrepeatable. This valve and its positioning device is shown in the lower photograph in Figure 10 attached to the left exhaust manifold outlet. The valve has three positions, namely, a 40 percent EGR opening for all power levels of 55-57 percent and less, a 15 percent EGR position for the 75 percent power mode, and a closed 0-percent EGR position for power levels about 80t2 percent power. According to Mr. Jim Turner of Caterpillar, the erratic behavior of the valve and its sticking was attributed to a problem of the vendor of the item not finishing the valve per drawing, and this was rectified when the engine was released for production. In subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Turner and Mr. Bob Adams of Caterpillar, it was agreed that we could try to operate the valve manually by simulating the power demand. A system was devised so that the valve would be positioned with toggle switches to the oil solenoid valves that operate the valve. This approach was partially successful, except there still remained a variability in results. By this time, the test cell was rigged for smoke, as this was the quickest way to determine repeatability. After each maximum power or closed EGR position, the valve was manually rotated open to free it. A valve position arm was also added to visually check the valve rotation and location. However, the general binding of the valve gave doubt that the proper valve position was indeed regained each run. It was found that a slight change in valve position greatly affected smoke and gaseous emissions as well as BSFC. The most sensitive modes of the 13-mode test are the 50 and 75 percent power levels. The 82 percent point, required by the 23-mode test, is supersensitive since this is at the transition from partly open (15 percent EGR) to closed (0 percent EGR). After extended attempts to operate the engine with the sticky valve, it was agreed to obtain a new, production type valve so that the engine could be run in its automatic mode. Mr. Bob Adams provided SwRI with such a valve. It was installed and found to operate freely when hot and not to stick in the closed position. With the new valve installed, relatively high smoke was found at the 50 and 75 percent power points, on the order of 45 and 26 percent opacity at 2800 rpm and 12 and 13 percent opacity at 1680 rpm. Of major concern was the 49 image: ------- Overall View of EGR System Operating On Left Bank of Engine (Viewed from Flywheel) Close-up of EGR Valve and Automatic Positioning Device Figure 10. Caterpillar 3208 with Automatic EGR 50 image: ------- variability of smoke, i.e., smoke increasing with time as well as puffing, occasional spikes and smoke excursions. In an attempt to obtain as reportable data as possible, it was decided to use the ±2 percent tolerance in power afforded by the procedurs and run modes 16 and 17 of the 23-modu test at slightly lower i>ower yet within specifications. Although certain of the modal smoke values sec.-mi.-d inordinately high, it was decided to start again and run the 23-mode gaseous <-inissions tests. These results, though some modes were erratic and nonrepeatable as other modes, were considered marginally satisfactory. It was not until the particulate test series was complete that the engine emissions, as indicated by particulate rate, had become intolerably erratic and the engine judged unsatisfactory for further operation. A variety of experiments were made to attempt to diagnose the problem. The experiments included backpressure, inlet restriction, fuel, tu<1 delivery, and other engine parameters under automatic and manual EGR control. Each time, the symptoms pointed to the new EGR valve which still was obstrv«d to function properly and was found intact. On May 31, 1977, Mr. Greg Garner of Caterpillar found the adjusting lock nut on the EGR valve actuating arm mechanism had loosened and changed in its setting. Once the adjustment was made to specification, the EGR valve then opened per the intended schedule and functioned properly. On June 1, 1977, replicate gaseous emissions and modal smoke readinqs were obtained in Mr. Garner's presence* to demonstrate engine performance. Table 4 lists these results. The third such series are considered to be representative of tin- engine. Copies of the computer sheets are contained iii Appendix C as T ible-s c-s through C-B. Tables 0-5 and C-6 arc the EPA 2'3-mod. t e;u results ami Til !<• and C'-H ir« flu 13-mode results derived from ll KPA 23-modi test. Tiu-s. results are quit< close to thom- reported by Cati n •' at tile md of the 1 vio-hour test listed below. CO HC _ NO, g/kw-hr 9.85 1.6 5.16 g/bhp-hr 7.35 1.1) 3.85 Composite BSFC, kg/kw-hr 0.2U9 lbs/bhp-hr 0.476 In subsequent discussions with Mr. Garner and Mr. Don Henderson of Caterpillar regarding these findings, it was learned that the replacement valvi , installed earlier to replace the sticky valve that was originally on the 1000- hour engine, was removed from an e* jine under t< st at Cater;illar after 67 hours of operation. Tin replacement valve was, therefore, not shipped strai jht from production. It was igreed, from the test results of the valve as received and installed at SwRI and the results rej»rted in this report with the re- adjusted valve, that the valve probably was not correctly set when received. If it had, then the smoke, CO and other emissions at full power would have agreed more closely than they did when first run at SwRI. HC . NO 6.75 5.04 51 image: ------- It is speculated that the valve lever adjustrtv nt nut had already loosened some prior to arrival at SwRI and that a slight amount of EGR was occurring at full power. As the engine continued to operate at SwRI, the adjustment continued to change so that more and more EGR was permitted, causing higher and higher smoke and particulate. The adjustment nut is not easily accessible once the valve is installed. Also, a special tool is needed to gage the interior opening or gap between the butterfly valve and its housing. 3. Chevrolet 366 Gasoline Engine This gasoline engine was run for data that may be compared to the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine. Pnor to running the gaseous emission tests on this engine, Mr. Jim Feiten of Chevrolet was contacted to obtain tune-up specifications for the 1977 California 366 engine. The following lists the settings on the engine as received and as adjusted, with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Feiten. Item Specification Observed Adjusted to Idle CO Idle rpm Initial timing Throttle kicker rpm 0. ^0%. CO 700 rpm 8° BTDC .'J 1400 rpm 700 rpm 0.45 780 BTDC 1700 700 1400 While running the first preparatory test, it was found that the Chemiluminescence (CL) instrument could not function in the NOx confid ration at the 2 and 100 percent power modes. This was relayed to the Pro3ect Officer and a full discussion of this phenomenon given by both Mr. Charles 'Jrban and Mr. Bob Srubar of SwRI. This has been observed before when using a heated CL instrument witn raw exhaust from gasoline engines. For additional background on this j-roblem, please refer to fages 17 and 18 of Reference 47. As agri -d, thi CL instrument was operated in the NO in de during the 92 and 1 percent | ower moms and tt rraults reported as N0X. All ti >ther mod's w, r run in the N0X confijur t: i. !a xc, ' .'ii jjni w i i ¦: j; 1 . d r. , . -v FTf inu tlu ri t | r 1 t* 1 Mr. Tom Baines ) I Mi . " . . t x ! Ct vrole' _i jti d i» -< ml r ,1 ayr< i-mi tit was found n < r . . i c m_ i.tr itions. U' 1 :,sum; tion j:ia w. t out] ut wen lower it SwRI l., n r CIn vrc 1 -t . ii ri ch< ckin'j t'n ingini >i r ition at ..JO r( in, HC wjs found mt i- mittintly high at the high r ^ . irk t lug wire at thi s- ark plug anil replaced. The audible misfire was c iiminated. A Sun ignition analyzer was then connected to evaluate ignition variability for each cylinder. Considerabl variability was found in the secondary j attern for each cylinder. This was eliminated on the lnstallati >n f a new si t of Chevrolet spark : lug ignition wires for this HL> ;g 11 . Th< wires on the engim , as received, were w 1] wr ii On retesting the o[ ration of the engine during the higher |owe r modes, a substantial variation in CO concentration from trial to trial was noted during the 82, )2 and 100 percent power modes, but inly at 230C r| ra. For examfJe, CO in the 130 |ercent 2300 rpm mode ranged from -.S to fa.4 | rci n image: ------- depending on run. Visual inspection of the operation of the secondary venturi throttle plate revealed that the secondary venturi plate was apparently opening slightly and not to the same extent each time. The position could be changed drastically by a small change in the opening of the throttle plate in the primary Venturis. Only by monitoring the opening of the secondary throttle plate very closely and by making small adjustments to the primary throttle position could repeatable results be obtained during these three modes. The load changes associated with the slight change in primary throttle position were negligible, on the order of 1 percent of the observed power. This was well within the ±2 percent load tolerance in the 23-mode procedure. Listed on Table 9 are the results of the duplicate 23-mode test results for the 1977 Chevrolet 366 engine (California version). Copies of the computer printouts are included in Appendix C as Tables C-9 and C-10. The 9-mode FTP g/bhp-hr results given in the L. V. Faix letter of December 15, 1976, were 23.05 CO, 0.77 HC and 4.16 NOx. It is not possible to directly compare these results due to the gross differences in procedure, including loads, speeds, weighting factors and types of instruments for measurement. 4. Discussion Figure 11 compares the average gaseous emissions and specific fu<1 consumption values for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR Diesel and Chevrolet 366 gasoline fueled engines. The comparison is on the same- 23-modt EPA cycl ar.d therefore is a direct comparison. To the extent that both engines are com;>» t,~ tive in application, such as 2-axl vans, stakes and small t-axle tractors, and to the extent both engines' emissions are fairly represented by the 23-modt test, some interesting differences art apparent. First, the Diesel engine CO is about 1/8 of the gasoline engine CO, and the Diesel specific fuel consumption is about two-thirds of the gasolim engine. Both these findings were expected and continue to illustrate the superior fuel efficiency of the Diesel engine and its typically low CO emission-;. Recall that the 1977 Chevrolet 366 (California version) was not equipped with an oxidation catalyst. For that matter, neither was the Diesel engine. In terms of HC, N02 and HC+N0_ , the differences ar- mainly in HC being less with the Diesel engine, lie was about half the gasoline, while the Diesel NO2 was slightly higher, about 10 percent, than the gasoline engine, S.072 versus 4.36 g/kw-hr. It should be noted that the Caterpillar 3208 EGR HC emission ratt < f 1.783 g/kw-hr is fairly high relative to other HDD t nqin* and may have been du< ti the use of EGR. B. Smoki Results Table 11 is a summary listing f the "a" acc It ration, "I" lug-down an.i "c" peak opacity results of the Federal Smoke T< st for HDD enjines. Both ti¦ Mack and Cateri illar engines wen sul )« -t< d to U -st t t; . Tin chovrf K t Hi. engine, being gasoline fueled, was not. Shown at tin lott >m t f Tablt 11 art the Federal limits for new engine certification beginning in calendar year 1970 and then reduced in 1974 with the addition f a peak limit. 53 image: ------- 80 .1 CO + MO, nc- Cat. 3208 EGR Chev. 366 PAT • Chevi. : : 32D8EGR' ' " : 366; ssrc Cat. 3208 EGR Chev. 366 Figure 11. Comparison of Gaseous Emissions and Specific Fuel Consumption of Caterpillar 320ft EGR and Chevrolet 366 Engines (23-Mode EPA Test) image: ------- TABLE 11. FEDERAL SMOKE TEST RESULTS FOR MACK ETAY image: ------- The modal smoke values obtained simultaneously with gaseous emissions; are listed on Table 12. Note the 100 percent power smoke (no EGR) was 12 and 8.5 percent opacity at 1C80 and 2800 rpm, respectively. The 75 percent power, modes 7 and 16, gave 8.3 and 17.3 percent opacity at 1680 and 2800 rpm, respectively. The EGR valve was part open to give a 15 percent EGR rate. The other modes of interest are modes 6 and 17, the 50 percent load points. At 1680 rpm the plume opacity was 5.3 percent, and at 2800 rpm the exhaust opacity was 22.6 percent. This was the highest smoke measured during the modal tost and represents the open, 40 percent EGR condition. The 40, 15 and zero EGR rates are listed as defined by Caterpillar. Usual operation of tlu dilution tunnel for particulate requires a sufficient exhaust flow into the tunnel to give as high a particulate loading as possible yet be below 125 degrees F at the filter face. On the assumption that both banks of the V-8 engine ran the same, tb exhaust particulate loadings would be the same. This might allow measurement of particulate from just one bank at a time. To see if this approach would have merit, two smoke- meters were used, one mounted on the left bank exhaust and the other on the right bank exhaust. Identical mountings were made with 76 mm (3-inch) diameter exhaust tubing at the ends of the exhaust. Table 13 lists the results of a test made where exhaust backpressure on both banks of the engine were identical. Note that during all full-power operation, the left and right bank smoke is negligibly different, i.e., no more than about 1 percent opacity in a 10 percent opacity reading. However, when running at 75 or 50 percent power, the differences were dramatic. For example, at 75 percent load, the difference was 12.^ percent opacity (14.5 versus 2.0 percent) at 1680 rpm and 11 percent opacity (18.5 versus 7.5 percent) at 2800 rpm. The differences at 50 percent load were not as great but were still sufficient to discontinue the single bank exhaust particulate approach. In analyzing the results of this experiment, it appears that the "recycle path" favors the left bank of the engine. Although the exhaust, as it reenters the engine intake, is apparently free to mix and reenter both banks of the engine, more may go to the left (EGR) side of the engine. If this is the case, it is possible that more of the exhaust enters one or two cylinders more than the others. Assuming this type of unequal distribution exists in this engine, then this would exilain why the engine was so supersensitive t- EGR. Several yeir.s tatlicr, SwRl performed EGR experiments with an earlv system design for a similar Caterpillar engine.Probably the most impottant part of the design was the EGR-intake air mixer. As a result, the sensitivity problems associated with the present experiments were not experienced excej t when excessive levels of EGR were us< d. These results, though not a part of the required test plan, are i rovidod to help partially explain why the extretr.el-- high and variable CO, smoke and HC were encountered earlier when the valve was malfunctioning more or less. C. Particulate and Sulfate Results Particulate and sulfate results share a common sampling basis, the dilution tunnel system. Table 14 is a summary listing of the particulate and sulfate emission rates for the three HD engines tested. General methods of expressing S6 image: ------- TABLE 12. SMOKE MEASURED DURING MODAI. TESTING (Caterpillar 3208 with EGR) Smoke, % Opacity Mode No. Engine Speed, rpm Engi ne Powe r,% Rate, EGR % Viilve Position Run 1 Run 2 Run 1 Idle 0 40 open 1.1 1.0 1.1 2 1680 2 40 open 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1680 8 40 open 1.1 1.1 1.1 4 1680 18 40 open 1.2 1.5 1.4 5 1680 25 40 open 1.5 1.9 1.7 6 1680 50 40 open 5.0 5.5 5.3 7 1680 75 15 part 8.0 8.5 8.3 a<2> 1680 82 0 closed 1.2 2.1 1.7 9 1680 92 0 closed 2.8 3.9 3.4 10 100 0 closed 12.0 12.0 12.0 11 Idle 0 40 open 0.4 0.4 0.4 12 1680 CT 40 open (5) (5) (5) 13 2800 100 0 closed 8.5 8.5 8.5 14 2800 92 0 closed 4.8 6.0 5.4 15(2) 2300 82 0 closed 3.3 4.5 3.9 16<3' 2800 73 15 part 15.0 19.5 17.3 1?(4) 2800 48 40 open 21.2 23.9 22.6 18 2800 25 40 open 9.5 10.5 10.0 19 2800 18 40 open 7.0 7.5 7.3 20 2800 8 40 open 4.5 4.1 4.3 21 2800 2 40 open 4.0 3.8 3.9 22 Idle 0 40 open 1.5 0.4 1.0 23 2800 CT 40 open (5) (5) (5) '''Position (2) to the general rotation of the valve to preset openings. Achieved by manual signal to valve positioner to "closed" position since 82% load is transition point of automatic system. • 'operated at 73% instead of 75% power to give less variable emissions. • 'operated at 48% instead of 50% power to give less variable emissions. 'Smoke data not taken during closed throttle. 57 image: ------- TABLE 13. CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR LEFT AND RIGHT BANK SMOKE LEVELS Smoke Opaci ty,% Baekpres. ,mm Hg Mode Engine Power Left Right Left Right No. rpm Percent Bank Bank Bank Bank 1 600 — — 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.3 2 1680 2 0.8 0.8 5,1 5.1 3 1680 25 0.6 0.4 5.1 5.1 4 1680 50 6.5 1.4 5.1 5.1 5 1680 75 14.5 2.0 7.6 7.6 6 1680 100 11.0 9.5 24.1 24.1 7 600 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.3 7a 1680 CT 0.0 0.0 5.1 5.1 8 2800 100 6.0 5.9 62.2 62.2 9 2800 75 18.5 7.5 27.9 27.9 10 2800 50 20.5 14.0 12.7 12.7 11 2800 25 9.0 7.0 10.2 10.2 12 2800 2 3.4 2.4 10.2 10.2 13 600 —— 0.6 0.5 1.3 1.3 Maximum Power Curve 2800 6.0 5.5 62.2 62.2 2400 5.6 4.1 47.0 47.0 2000 7.1 6.5 36.8 36.8 1600 15.5 12.5 24.1 24.1 1200 25.0 24.0 12.7 12.7 Note: Left and right banks both set at 63.5 mm Hg (2,5 inches Hg) at 2800 rpm, 100% load. 13-mode cycle was run leaving left (EGR side) restrictor at original setting and resetting right restrictor to match the backpressure of the left bank. 58 image: ------- TABLE 14. SUMMARY OP PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES (Based on 47 mm Fiberglass and Fluoropore Samples} Engine tinq Make tion Model er cd * d Mack ETAY Cat 3208 Chev 366 Alt (1) 55- III 23,04 52.42 20.41 Particulate Rates 10.57 16,16 1.72 2.28 4.15 0.40 hr kg fuel kw-hr 2.25 7.70 1.91 & 932.3 681.4 i:r> 2 36.7 Sulfate Rates mg hr 427.4 210.5 19. ) so4 Recov- kg Fuel kw-hr ery % mg 92.4 53.98 4.53 mg 90.9 100.24 1.31 0.77 22.13 0.50 or ed Mack ETAY Cat 3708 Chev 366 Alt(1) 61.39 33.51 57.98 17.55 18.01 1.96 2.4H 2.14 0.31 0.58 0.62 0.18 4433.1 1559.7 0.97 188.9 2419.7 471.9 0.105 20.5 176.8 57.90 0.017 3.26 41.7 16.62 0.010 1.92 2.51 0.82 0.002 0.36 er •ed d Mack ETAY Cat 3208 Chev 366 Alt(1) 118.49 189.80 22.49 84.41 54.34 3.04 3.41 4.03 0. 36 0.75 0.96 0.14 6574.1 2975.0 2. 35 261.9 4689.6 852.9 0.317 35.3 189.0 63.31 0.037 4.16 41.3 15.02 0.015 1.64 2.69 0.90 0.004 0.40 :cr ?ed id Mack KTAY Cat 3208 Chev 366 Alt (1) 146.91 303.71 40.19 132.84 110.22 6.87 3.66 5.62 0.60 0.77 1.29 0.22 6993.0 3789.7 2.81 472.7 6343.1 1375.8 0.480 HO. 8 174.4 70.19 0.042 7.02 36.6 16.15 0.015 2.52 ft 2 1 . ) ). )') ). ;er :ed ) id Mack ETAY Cat 3208 Chev 366 Alt 254.55 4f< i.01 49. SC. 260.76 215.83 10.07 5.40 8.43 0.6(1 1.11 1 .'JO 0.24 9576.3 3581.4 5.01 <>42, 1 9813.0 1600.3 3.770 I U.O 202.5 62.52 0.22"/ 7.84 41.7 14. >7 0.090 3.12 Mack ETAY Cat 3208 Chev 366 Alt«'> 13.8? 37.64 26.49 2.55 4.60 1.28 3,76 5. 11 0.53 948,9 1671.3 H.4-1 279.9 174.4 201.7 0.406 11.5 244. 3 237.72 0. 176 5. 3ft ¦ ¦1, s. n i - : i-r ;ed l ttlo Mack KTAY Cat 3208 Chev 166 Altd) This; modi; not run 66.7 3 30.79 21 1. 85 87 0.7'; 805.7 46.06 309.2 264. 1 2.789 18.7 1.105 7.20 0. !2 :ih _>ed ) , ad Mack ETAY cat 3208 "hev 366 Alt'1) I 35.30 378.19 6 3.54 191.8 252.31 26.09 3.40 6.69 0.77 0.76 1.75 0. 30 8854.1 5232.7 211.44 1602.6 12554.5 3494.6 86.814 658.0 222.2 92.82 2.551 19.5 49.7 24.25 (1.991 7.49 S. i 3 ] . 3 >.?7 2. 1< 21. Of. 0.70 0.63 6.21 0.25 65 . 6 3)52.7 682.54 I M)t,. i 80 3t . 6 1657.S 221.560 4HM.0 185.5 53.89 9.448 20.81 41.9 15. H8 3. 349 7. 36 ,r 1 Alternate Chevrolet 366 sulfate results based on reanalyzed I FA solutions performed on 11/1/77, 9 weeks after initial analysis. 59 image: ------- TABLE 14(CONT'D). SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES (Based on 47 mm Fiberglass and Fluoropore Samples) Engine •rating Make idition Model mg ~nP~ Particulate Rates hr kg "uel 9_ Mg_ kw-hr m-' Sulfate Rates wg hr wg kg Fuel _ss_ so. Reeov- kw-hr ery % Ugh Mack ETAY 84.23 82.43 2.80 0.67 5985.5 5852.2 198.5 47.1 2.82 Speed Cat 3208 919.73 383.07 17.18 5.50 4152.8 1728.5 77.'-1 24.83 1.10 50% Chev 366 23.88 6.12 0.35 0.14 59.42 1.859 0.105 0.042 0.012 Load Alt*1) 603.0 154.4 8.73 3.46 0.97 •Ugh Speed 25* Load Mack ETAY Cat 3208 Chev 366 Alt 71.70 302.18 24.81 54.20 133.46 4.78 3.17 9.20 0.40 0.87 4371.9 3.69 3954.5 0.22 526.3 3304.15 1744.0 101.4 192.9 120.24 8.46 53.2 48.18 2.74 1.71 4.63 0.94 High Speed 2 Load Mack ETAY Cat 3208 Chev 366 Alt 39.01 127.07 14,77 23.94 57.01 2.10 3.32 6.33 0.30 4.83 1378.5 20.36 1734.5 1.24 237.8 846.0 778.3 33.7 117.3 170.3 1.67 86.97 277.96 1.23 4.82 19.83 0.54 M i«!li :;i I I'Ut u <) 11 L i.' Mack I'TAY Cat !:!»!! ("tiov Urn Alt'1' T1 ii. m<-«io not run 70..."; ?H.r»7 — l(. 2.79 o.f.v 396.9 6H. 70 192. 3 161.1 7.614 21.3 1.781 4.95 based on reanalyzed II'A solutions performed on I i ' I /7 t, ') wi-ck ; a ft < i initial ana 1 y:» i. 60 image: ------- the rate of emission for each contaminant are listed as follows: first, the concentration, in mg/m^ or vq/m*, for particulate and sulfates; then a mass per unit of time, g/hr, rate; then two specific mass emission rates, g or mg per Kg fuel consumed and g or mg per kw-hr of work produced. These are commonly known as "fuel specific" and "brake specific" emission rates. Also listed on Table 14 are percent fuel sulfur converted to sulfate. Table 15 is a summary of the engine o crating conditions measured during the sampling for particulate and sulfate. The values are averaged for the replicate tests and may be used to represent typical operation. For example, the fuel rate or air flow rate may be used in determining emissions per day given a usage factor, cycle of operation and the emission rates of Table 14. For purposes of additional discussion, the results are graphed first for the Mack and then for comparison of the Caterpillar 3208 EGR Diesel to the Chevrolet 366 gasoline. 1. Mack ETAY(B)673A Figures 12 and 13 are graphs of average particulate and sulfate rates, given in Table 14 for the Mack engine. The rates are plotted against power level at the rated and intermediate engine speeds. From Figure 12, the particulate rate, g/hr, increased linearly up to 75 percent of power. At full power, the particulate rate increased at a higher than linear rate. The usual g/hr behavior for particulate from Diesel engines is to increase linearly or nearly so as power is increased. Sulfate rates on Figure 13 show a similar trend, in mg/hr, to the particulate. A nearly linear increase in sulfate is shown to 75 percent pow. r and then a slightly increasing rate at 100 percent power. Sulfate from Diesels has been shown to be mainly a function of the fuel consumed. The sulfur in the sulfate, as a percent of the fuel sulfur burned, ranged from about 1.3 to 3.2 percent with an average of 2.4 percent based on the data in Table 14. Figure 14 is a graph of the principal engine conditions of power output, fuel rate and air flow of the Mack ETAY(B)b73A engine. These data art from Table 15. They are averages of values observed during this series of tests. 2. Caterpillar 3208 EGR Knowing the extreme sensitivity of the EGR system to exhaust back- pressure, it was decided to take special precautions when operating this engine with the dilution tunnel. Recall that the dilution tunnel used in those tests can only dilute a portion of the engine's exhaust, not the entire flow. Normally, the flow obtained from tne exhaust muffler is regulated by adjusting the backpressure on the muffler and engine to force more or less of the sample out of the muffler and into the tunnel. For this engine, which has a limit of 63.5 mm Ug (2.5 inches Hg) at 2000 rpm, maximum power, the engine backpressures measured during a 13-mode FTP arc shown i Table 16. All particulate samples were obtained at engine backpressures adjusted in accord with the values listed in Table 16. This required the use of several size, diameter, muffler inserts to be able to obtain sufficient sample at the very low backpressures at idle and 61 image: ------- TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS 47 mm GLASS AND FLUOFDPORE FILTER TESTS CWU* a on Powr Puwl Air it-ir tnlwf F.Kh. Enyin* ' 11 •I" '»at Mi" !>*»<» k«i lu^l Air Rest Loari 1 1 fcw kg/hr ta/Ptn few hour •, mm llqi "9 H 9 Intft * J H.* k IV 4,70 4.05 9.1 o.90> ?4 I". 1 2S.4 l> 2.10 i.m G. 1 | ,H«.? ?*? !?.» 5.1 i 0.9 4.4 J.? 4 n»^ '4 . 7 2.8 !nt«r . H- > 1t '• SB. '1 n.r JO. 4 n.?M 74 12. 1 2?.9 jr-«i 28.4 «.IS 5.** 0.2»7 ? 7 12.1 S.l »K i 10.7 * 2. ? 0. r*R > 4> 2* .* 2S.4 Ml! * 1 4 1IJJ 24.» 13.1 U. IIP 2* !".<- 2h. 7 It | M« 5h.« M 4 S. S 11.C 4.2 'If*/ 1 21 ,s .r 2. » >. IR.O s.e Int "r f1» k. i -i « 17}.4 1# .4 ife.s 210 ?e /l.P 27.9 If H n «r>. 2 19. f 7 . . . ? 10 in.q fl.9 riK'v i?-y 12. n It.1- 1.4 (!, " . 7 .#• Hio H*rlt I4'.r» 2 JS.4 4H. » 19.« r>.205 2f- 31.r- 43.2 l ,1* if HO 111.-? ?s.* n. 0.22S ?»» ??.* in.4 ' hr ¦> I U- 1 1.! r 42. "* I .1" N > fe f>2A 1.0 i. f.«. 24 J.J ?S. 4 If % JO O.B 2.42 *n 3.0 k"' no ---- 2.5 1." 11.i n.« 1 r«t t't ' "T M.l> k I450 Lai | t.Rft 27 14.4 rhf»v 1200 2.5 1.2 19 19.1 0.3 llilh 1 m<-k 1 " > 252.2 5ft. ? 27,U < .224 23 4* . 7 57.2 2*')t> 141. <* 3?.* 12.7 0. 2'»1 29 47.4 GI. J < he" 2 * *» >17. / n.« 8.2 O, IS 1.2 59.7 Hir< « i * i I'M.4 4% 4 23.1 n.22? 2S ?<*.S 50.B *» / 1**1.4 1 ).f. 10. in. 21. ? 34. ) Hr'J 1,5 to. 4 2*.S *.s tl, %^4 40 in. ¦- 30.1 Mights * 1 ' 124.5 29.^ 18. o. 2 J? 24 ?7.a 40.fe Cut i«<«e K9,*> 22,1 e.o n. 120 U 20. s 22.9 h«-v < rf 44.1 P.7 5. i f». 1^7 44 19. ' 22.2 1"»n » 62.1 ! 7, ? 14. n 0.277 24 19.2 25.4 '"At 2ROO 36.2 14. 5 8.f> 0.4OI 2* 22.4 18.4 !»r>V 21.9 12.0 J.<» O.MR 44 2B.S 8.9 Hlfjh/' 2 M l«lor> 4,95 7.2 12.2 1.45 24 14.1 25.4 <~A* J»8«0 2.0 8.9$ h,«» 3.7" 30 24. } 15.2 h' V . 1 ¦¦ 1.7 t.O 2.« 4.1* IS 5.1 Hi |h/ "T W-t ^ } -V . . . ' X' .' N° « H. ! - n 25.4 *1 V FT»(IIC "I'., t • •• h-vr«l.< »<< image: ------- TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS 47 mm GLASS AND FLUOROPORE FILTER TESTS Condi I i"n Kin t nr> rowr ru^i Air IKi' Irtlrl 1 E*h. C.r,in. 'hit MK' It'l f«|fl Air Prit flest Luad % rj*i Jkw _ kg/hr fw/fri n Vw hour •/ •nm !lq »2_»3 Int «*r • I h.i k ti' 4.?0 4,f>r» 9. 1 Et.VO > ."•4 1". 1 75.4 i> 2.10 *.-»n 0.1 1 .Hr-7 2? 17. <> 5.1 i 0.9 4.4 1.7 4 HP 14 17.7 2.8 M I1 » 11 SB.rj U.' 10.4 2 '4 24 12.1 27.9 |r.»i 78.4 «. IS V* 13.2«T 27 12.1 S.I 'hr x 10.7 » 2.2 4' 7' .« 2*>.4 Intff Mv * 14 11).? 74. « 1 J. 1 ~. 2lp >f. 1 \l* 2#>. 7 ' U n 4 5. s 3.2J»- 2^ 1! .< 4.2 |«"V 1 *.f- 2 , * >. J'JS 1 ' lA.n s.c f! i k 11 ' l?3-4 M .4 tfe.S <>.210 ?e 71. P 27.<• H « «V J" l«.f 7. » ' .2^0 ?» 1r-.T 8.9 r i»«*v !.'«> 12. n ll.c. 1.4 ir- *• 7.f: l(i') M*rit 14'" 23 S.4 4»*. i 19. H 0.20S 2f- }|.f 43.2 < «t» If hii m.* 7r».#, 8. 0.22** ?« 18.4 ».r •/ 1?'*" 1"» " u ¦> 1.1 . lip r , - * 1 «l« fy * oo o.a 2.42 JO 3.0 ' h«*v ?sn — 2.5 1 „i» 4i" 11.2 fKfi T M,1. fc 14 V* Cflt — '>.5 27 14.4 r hov 1J|»| — 2.5 1.2 J9 >9.1 0. J H*?h ! H*rk 1 « ¦> 252,2 5fi.? 27.0 s .224 23 4» . 7 57.? JA'Ji* } 7.^ 12.7 0,2'»l 2^ 4?.4 61.1 f I' »fi R7. i 31.« 0.2 O. 3S 1.2 59.7 Hi*fh Hi * I »'« 1*1.4 41 4 25,7 0.227 2S ?°».S 50.8 ** J < l"4.4 » M. 10. 2'M in 29. » 14.3 h«- •! Hi *»*.. 4 21.*. o, 1M 40 1".^ 38.1 Hiqh/*- M<»r y I » 124.S 29 .5 18. 0.217 24 77 .n 40.fc VAX 2a<«? 72, 1 8.o n. J2U 11 20. s 22.9 h«*v ' 44.1 17.7 5.1 n. ?97 44 11. » 22.7 V r#»» * 67. 1 17.? 14.0 0.JI7 24 19.2 25.4 '"a* 7«on 16.7 14.<> §.* 0.4«i 2* ?2.4 18.4 h«*v JfKI 21. 9 12.1 J.9 o.u* 44 2". ®» 8.9 2 Hv k 4.95 7.2 12.2 1.45 24 14.1 75.4 ?nno 2.8 8,95 h.o l.?o 10 24. ) 15.2 h« V . I'M. 1.7 '.0 2-0 4.1» <5 5.1 llllh/ T V 1 .M, -- _ - ..~(f » H. 1 - 2? /o. 25. 4 • » •< ' ' » 4. 1 ?. ' - 4 "• J". * 1.1 M, V ,, \t tf }1 "U,. v . | * *» h«vi»l't • image: ------- 300 250 200 Jc 150 100 300 250 200 150 100 50 •f Idle 2 25 50 75 1 10 PEI-'CENT OF POWKIi Figure 12. Particulate Emission Rates from Mack ETAY(B)673A Truck Engine, Based on 47 mm Glass Filters 63 image: ------- ,000 !, 000 1,000 1,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 0 iOO 250 200 150 100 50 0 12 10 i o I Idle * 2S rt, 7S J00 Percent of Power Figure 13, Sulfate (S04=) Emission Rates from Mack ETAY(B)67 3A Truck Engine, Based on 47 mm Fluoropore Filters 04 image: ------- rdle .. as 50 75 100 I'l.RCKNT OF POWER Figure 14. Power Output, Fuel and Air Pates from Hack ET.\Y(B)673A Truck Er.gi 6 image: ------- TABLE 16. EXHAUST BACKPRESSURE SCHEDULES - CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR Engine Exhaust Backpressure Mode Engine Power 13 Mode FTPKL) No. rpm Percent mm Hg in. Hg 1 600 ... 0.8 0.03 2 1680 2 2.5 0.1 3 1680 25 5.1 0.2 4 1630 5 I 5.1 0.2 5 1680 75 7.6 0. 3 e 1680 100 17.8 0.7 7 600 0.8 r«"i O O 8 2800 100 63.5 J . 9 2800 75 35.6 1.4 1 280C 5( 22.9 . J 11 2800 25 20.3 0.8 12 2800 2 15.2 0.6 13 600 0.8 0.03 Based on preset 63.5 nan Hg { .1 inches Hy! at 2800 rpm and full load. the 1680 rpm conditions. This cxtri care was essential to ensure that the engine o(crated just th same as it would durina a normal 13-mode FTP gaseous emissions test. The sulfate and j articulate results thus obtained are listed n Table 14. They will be discussei in detail in a later subsection. 3. :h< vro!• t < rhi w • i» • o|>| >rtjnjty to mea: ur< | jMi ilat and sulfatt • mi - "ion from a ¦ n.ji: . Tin ¦ nqine wi :>{ i r it i w th fh« regular qra "it r; illar 3"> K enqini wi t mpl 1. It r iv< I a thorough cl arung ani recal ibrat i jn, however, i rior t its u; on th< qa -• lint ngirn-. A now muffler of the tyj i i wit:, a Chev olet "-r- i €-•' 1 ize truck was »btair >d and modified to spli a suitabl -?ami . fr im tn«- muffler jutlet ;avitv. A temperature not to exec-d 11 T at the filter face was maintained in keepinq with the more volatile a ;p<;cts f gasoline engine exhaust products and {articulate. It was f >una that the usual 10 to 20 minute sampling period had to be greatly xtended to accumulate sufficient particulate on the filter disc for analysis. This first test of the HDG engine particulate re- quired substantial attent an to detnl to jain satisfactory results. The results are listed in Table 14 and *re dis :ussed in the next subsection. f.b image: ------- 4, Discussion of Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 Results Figure 15 is a plot of the three particulate emission rates, g/hr, g/m3, and g/kg fuel, for both engines. The first item of importance is the quite different behavior of the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine at rated, 2800 rpm, and intermediate, 1680 rpm. This is quite apparent by all three graphs or ways of expressing the particulate emission rate. For example, the increase in g/hr is smooth and continuous at 1680 rpm and not unlike Diesel engine behavior. At 2800 rpm, the particulate rate increased very rapidly with power reaching a peak of 650 g/hr at 75 percent power before decreasing to 252 g/hr at full power. Recall that no EGR is scheduled at the 100 percent or full-power operating levei. For the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine, data were also acquired under closed throttle (CT) conditions of motor g at 2800 and 1600 rpm. The CT rates were very similar to the 2 percent power levels. Compared to the Diesel, the Chevrolet 366 gasoline a' increase n |ower. Figure 16 is imilar to Figure 1 , exc |t it i a >m(ari n f ; • sulfate emission rates for both engir . It is inter* tn j t ::ompar< tin CattriiUir 3208 sulfate rates on Fiqur< 16 to tin : art j ;ulate rati n Figur< 15. At the 1680 rpm intermediate sjeed, the sulf tte ia' i'. reased s xr e t with power level, mainly due to an increjase n the tu>l I urtau j r h jut r fuel rate. At 2800 r|m, the increase with power (fue 1 ra» was :vidc-nt ly ttn , 2s and 1 ,• ercont : >we-r joints. However, it l » - if the EGR and 1 u ;• in -rcascs in total j articulate measured at 50 and 7 *vt on Figure- 15) had the effect of reducing sulfate product i i. at those two point . The sulfate levels measured dur ng cut thr ifc'M-. 7_-F , ti sulfite I roduction of the Cate ij i 11 »r 3208 EGR was about 1.2 ; e re:e i t of fl sulfur n the fuel on the averacie. The* re;coveri s ranged f re m c ut . ' 3.^"* j l i. This is in keej ing with tr»- j revious findings converted to that which i measured as sulfur in LI ulfat • »1 BCA j» lur It is about half that of the Mack KTAY(B)673A enymc i rev usly iiscus image: ------- 4, Discussion of Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 Results Figure 15 is a plot of the three particulate emission rates, g/hr, g/m3, and g/kg fuel, for both engines. The first item of importance is the quite different behavior of the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine at rated, 2800 rpm, and intermediate, 1680 rpm. This is quite apparent by all three graphs or ways of expressing the particulate emission rate. For example, the increase in g/hr is smooth and continuous at 1680 rpm and not unlike Diesel engine behavior. At 2800 rpm, the particulate rate increased very rapidly with power reaching a peak of 650 g/hr at 75 percent power before decreasing to 252 g/hr at full power. Recall that no EGR is scheduled at the 100 percent or full-power operating levei. For the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine, data were also acquired under closed throttle (CT) conditions of motor g at 2800 and 1600 rpm. The CT rates were very similar to the 2 percent power levels. Compared to the Diesel, the Chevrolet 366 gasoline a' increase n |ower. Figure 16 is imilar to Figure 1 , exc |t it i a >m(ari n f ; • sulfate emission rates for both engir . It is inter* tn j t ::ompar< tin CattriiUir 3208 sulfate rates on Fiqur< 16 to tin : art j ;ulate rati n Figur< 15. At the 1680 rpm intermediate sjeed, the sulf tte ia' i'. reased s xr e t with power level, mainly due to an increjase n the tu>l I urtau j r h jut r fuel rate. At 2800 r|m, the increase with power (fue 1 ra» was :vidc-nt ly ttn , 2s and 1 ,• ercont : >we-r joints. However, it l » - if the EGR and 1 u ;• in -rcascs in total j articulate measured at 50 and 7 *vt on Figure- 15) had the effect of reducing sulfate product i i. at those two point . The sulfate levels measured dur ng cut thr ifc'M-. 7_-F , ti sulfite I roduction of the Cate ij i 11 »r 3208 EGR was about 1.2 ; e re:e i t of fl sulfur n the fuel on the averacie. The* re;coveri s ranged f re m c ut . ' 3.^"* j l i. This is in keej ing with tr»- j revious findings converted to that which i measured as sulfur in LI ulfat • »1 BCA j» lur It is about half that of the Mack KTAY(B)673A enymc i rev usly iiscus image: ------- M ¦C Iy a 3 tp M X Cn In^ermofliatei Spegd i j i " I O Caxerpj,liar 3208. EGR Cies«l ' iQ ChjevroJjet 3f>6 Gapol in« eta 1 K ) ®-«T. ••• —~ _;^»© ® . —[pmtrf I Idle Cut Throttle 25 50 Percent of Fow»r 1 i Figure 15. Particulate Emission Rates from Cat r; ill it i i Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines Based on 47 nun <".l s »1* r 68 image: ------- 4000 3000 • f , j~T"T~T~i intfe*»e$late' speed itc^rpTillai 3208 86I^Diejjei 2000 L Chevrolet 366 Cfcsolipe f> 1600 1200 ¦ ©«* (0=2*1 -40" ~ *•--£> Q—r?=3= Idle cut 2 Throttle 25 50 Percent of Powi r Figure 16. Sulfate (SO^~) Emission Rates from caterpill »' )U and Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines, Based on 47 mm Kluoroi t ltei 69 image: ------- 4000 I High Sp^ed' f , j——j- intermediate' SpecpT r 1 3000 2000 3208 BGi{ ' J Til ...Lir iQ: Chevrcllefc 366' G&solihe /r" T'! "t—' x 1600 1200 $ ¦ : t £0 crrl.-slr^-'— J*r. : 50C ' —fb ^-r-rCp Idle Cut Throttle 25 50 Percent of Powc r Fiqure 16. Sulfate (S0^_) Emission Rates from Caterpillai )8 and Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines, Based on 47 mm Fluoroi • I- Itei 6 image: ------- problem was the difficulty of measuring sulfate from a gasoline engine operating on leaded gasoline. This is not normally done and historically was not possible due to positive interferences in the BCA analysis of the combustion products of the lead scavenger compounds (chlorine and bromine based compounds). The use of a silver nitrate column in the BCA analysis had remedied this and was not the phenomenon experienced. Following the normal sulfate collection on Fluoropore filters, the filters were ammomated, weighted, put into the isopropyl alcohol (IPA) solution and analyzed by the BCA procedure. The results wore, with only a few exceptions, extremely low, so low that the detection peak was below the minimum needed to trigger the computer to integrate the peak. These very, very low in tial results were of great concern. The IPA solutions of one run were reanalyzed with the same low results obtained. About nine weeks later, it was decided to rerun not only the IPA solutions which gave the very low values but to analyze the remaining du[lie.ite Fluoroi>ore filters which had already been ammoniated but not put into the IPA solution. This was done with the net effect of all values being much higher and fairly repeatable. Such a result would cause suspicion of the initial results. However, the initial results were performed properly, and, on re- analyzing the strip charts, calibrations, range and calculations, nothing cou1d be found to fault those initial values. Discussions with Mr. Frank Black and Dr. Si 1vestre Tejeda of SPA, RTP, wer. unable to result in reasons for the very low values or the apparent cnang< . SwRl chemists were also unable to offer more than mere speculation. There i* an a| parent lack of knowledge of how to use the BCA procedure wir.i leaded fu< . N. arly all sulfatt testing has been with unleaded fuel. Thus, u -iystr rv coi.tii.ui.i in t i ;oint md no "imj U oxj lanation seems possible at this time. In a jr- • mi i t witn tin Project Officer, both sets of values will be r< or tod and documentici. Table 14 lists two sets of aulfate data, the first set being an averac of the two runs that gave the extremely low values. Excet tions to this wen the high speed (2500 rpm) 75 and 100 i ercent load points where sulfate accounted for 0.03 and 0.28 j rcent of the fuel sulfur, respective lv. The two cut tlmttle conditions, with very low fuel rates, save 0.12 i rcent (intermedial speed) nd ).194 jircent (high speed of 2300 rpm) sulfur conversion to sulfate. Tb remaining idle and jowor conditions produced very low .sulfate levels, commonly amounting to less than 0.01 percent of the fuel sulfur. Listed below the initial BCA analysis is the average of the reanalysis made on November 1, 1977, souw nine weeks after the initial bCA evaluations. The reanalysis was made of tht original IPA solutions. These solutions had been tightly capped and suitably stored for such eventuality. The averages represent jood run-to-run repeatability, except a few conditions, and this i surprising for a gasoline engine where sulfate is normally emitted as sulfuric acid mist and is prone to storage and purge (release) from the exhaust system. The average values, summarized on Table 14, arc substantially higher than tin- initial analysis. Sulfate recovery, as a percent of the fuel sulfur, ranges from 0.36 u) to 2.3) percent with an overall average of 0.91 percent. It is not certain which set of analyses is proper since this is tin first opportunity known to attempt the measurement of sulfate from a HOG 70 image: ------- engine operating on a fuel containing 1.6 g/gal lead. It can be argued that the first set of measurements is correct, but obviously the BCA method is in- appropriate for use with leaded fuels. The reanalysis of the original IPA solutions, and their confirmation by analysis of the duplicate filter some nine weeks after its collection and ammoniation, indicates that a non-negligible level of sulfate, or what the BCA procedure indicates as sulfate, was collected. Other evidence pointing to the possibility of the reanalyzed values being appro- priate is the non-negligible initial rate obtained at 75 and 100 percent power, 2300 rpm. For purposes of discussion and preliminary comparison, the reanalyzed results from Table 14 alternate {1} for the Chevrolet 366 engine are plotted on Figure 16. The rates are quite uniform and consistent, showing an increase in mg/hr and lig/m^ with power for the 2300 rpm and only a slight increase for the 1200 rpm speed. The higher speed condition, as expected, resulted in higher mg/kg and concentration. The effect of speed on the mg/kg fuel was negligible, meaning that the sulfate, or the BCA reanalyzed IPA solutions, was essentially a common or constant rate of the amount of fuel consumed. Table 14 contains the averages of the two runs, sometimes slightly rounded, that are listed in Appendix C. Tables C-ll and C-12 are the particu- late and sulfate tables for the Mack ETAY(B)67 3A engines. Tables C-13 and C-14 are the particulate and sulfate listings for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine. Table C-15 lists the particulate rates for the Chevrolet 366 engine. The sulfate rates are listed on Table C-16 for the initial analyses that were mostly negligible, while Table C-17 gives the results of the reanalysis of the initial IPA sulfate solutions. Also listed on Table C-17 are the results of the analysis of the run 2, spare filter which was taken as backup during the original engine operation. As a matter of routine, these filter samples were ammoniated and placed in sealed plastic containers until they were placed in IPA solution for BCA analysis. Figure 17 illustrates the fuel rate, observed power output and » flow of both the Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 engines. The Cater)ill r test conditi ns were such as to produce nearly twici the power >utput as Ua- of the Chevrol( t 366. The fuel rate was higher for the gasoline engine t r unit of power produced, as mentioned earlier in the cycle BSPC v«ilur gaseous emissions. For more complete engine data, s< <• Table 1 5- Cycle Compositf Particulate and Sulfate The modal particulate and sulfate data pr. sented and described earlier may be computed as a cycle composite value. Depending on what weighting factors are used, the modal data can be used to simulate various types of duty cycles. All engines were run on the eleven different modes f the 13-mode FTP, and thus a 13-mode cycle composite may be comi uted using the usual 13-mode FTP weighting factors. In addition, the Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 1S6 ran two cut throttle modes permitting a cycle composite based on weighting factors derived from the EPA 2j-mode procedure. The basis for these weighting factors was described in Section III of this report. Table 17 is a summary listing of the cycle composite values using 13-mode FTP weighting factors and factors derived from the 2 3-mode test. Both 71 image: ------- O Cat. 32Q8/SGH O chev, J66 Hicjh Sp«ed Intermediate, Speed a, 50 M SI CP M 01 3 Idle CT 25 50 PERCENT OF POWER 100 Fiqure 17. Power Output, Fuel and Air Rates from caters liar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 Truck Enqines 72 image: ------- TABLE 17. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES Cycle Engine Wt. Fact. Mack 13 FTP ETAY(B)673A Particulate Run g g No. kw-hr kg fuel 1 0.845 3.628 2 0.796 3.429 Avg. 0.821 3.529 Sulfate nig ng kw-hr kg £uel 47.047 202.03 42.666 182.752 44.862 192.391 Cat 13 FTP 1 2.96 10.17 22.19 76.21 3208/EGR 2 2.95 10.15 22.64 78.03 Avg. 2.96 10.16 22.42 77.12 EPA 23(U 1 3.50 11.71 23.91 80.08 2 3.46 11.65 24.81 83.53 Avg. 3.48 11.68 24.36 81.81 Chev 366 13 FTP 1 0.260 0.583 1.377 3.085 2 0-239 0.532 0.540 1.202 Avg. 0.250 0.558 0.959 2.144 EPA 23(1) i 0.292 0.621 2.063 4.387 2 0.261 0.554 0.705 1.494 Avg. 0.277 0.588 1.384 2.941 13 FTP 1 4.952(2> 11.09412' 2 'i.720<2> 12.749<-J Avg. 5.3K»(2) ll.'!22(2) EPA 23^> 1 r*.922 j2? 12.594{2| 2 Q.5831 . 13.')r>9 Avg. 6. 2r>2 13.277 13 FTP 2 h.279C ' 1i.993l3) EPA 23 2 7.480(3) 15.btiO(3) Weighting factors derived from EPA 2 3-mode test for use with 11 modes pj of 13-mode FTP and two cut-throttle modes. (Reanalysis of IPA solutions nine weeks after initial analysis. Backup spare filter originally animoniated, then placed into IPA solution and analyzed on 10/28/77. 73 image: ------- particulate and sulfate results are computed on a brake specific (mass per kw-hr) and a fuel specific basis (mass per kg fuel consumed). Listed below are the emission rates based on a 7-mode test (weighting factors derived from the 13-mode FTP) published in Reference 18. Particulate Sulfate g/kw-hr q/kg fuel mq/kw-hr mq/kg fuel Cummins 855 TC 0.381 1.44 35.02 131.8'J DDAD 6V-71 LSN60 1.90 4.43 21.16 70.87 DDAD 8V-71 TA 0.697 2.45 48.37 170.06 The Mack LTAY (B)673A engine results may bo compared to the Cunuiins 8S5TC, also a six-cylinder open chamber turbocharged Diesel engine. Particulit rates were more than double the 855TC engine while sulfate was only about 25 percent higher. This gross difference in particulate may be attributed to one or more differences in the fuel injection system or combustion systems, extent or turbocharging, etc. The fairly similar sulfate data indicates that fuel sulfur to sulfate conversion may be insensitive to such engine parameters. The Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine particulate was some 3.6 times that of the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine and was substantially higher than the 2-strok Detroit Diesel 6V-71 engine. The Caterpillar 3208 particulate is higher mainly because of the EGR system and is best compared to a similar Caterpillar 3208 but not EGR equipped. Such an engine was run under EPA Contract 68-02-1777 {Reference 35) and was found to produce 0.871 grams particulate/kw-hr and 28 ijkj sulfate/kw-hr using a self-compositing 13-mode cycle. This means the EGR equipped Caterpillar 3208 engine emitted over three times the brake specific particulate as the standard, non-EGR equipped 3208 model. Sulfate, on the other hand, was some 80 percent of the standard 3208 engine. The next comparison of interest is the Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 engines. This is depicted on Figure 18, a bar chart of the average rates of Table 17. On a brake specific basis, the 3208 Diesel had some 12 times the 366 Chevrolet particulate rate. Based on fuel specific, the Caterpillar 3208 particulate rate was almost 18 times higher than the Chevrol I 366 engine. Recall that the Chevrolet cycle weighted brake specific fuel con- sumption is almost twice that of the Diesel and the reason for this can be understood. In other words, for the same particulate rate, the less fuel burned either modal or composite, the larger the fuel specific particulate value. If the fuel rate is higher, as it is with the gasoline versus the Diesel, the denominator is larger in the g/kg fuel expression, and thereby th< differences between gasoline and Diesel engines can be explained. For completeness sake, the Chevrolet 366 sulfate composites in Table 17 are based on the initial, very low results and the reanalyzed filters measured some nine weeks later. If the reanalyzed sulfate data are used for comparison, the Chevrolet 366 produced on the order of one-fourth the sulfate, on a mg/kw-hr basis, as the Caterpillar 3208 engine. This is shown on the lower half of Figure 18. Please recall that the gasoline engine was run with 0.03 percent by weight sulfur in the fuel while the Diesel engine operated on a fuel with 0.235 percent sulfur, an eightfold difference. 74 image: ------- Cat 3208 Chev 366 Cat 3208 Chev 366 23 Cat 3208 Chev 366 Cat 3208 Chev 366 Figure 18, Comparison of Cycle Weighted Particulate and Sulfate Emission Rates - Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 75 image: ------- In terms of mg of sulfate/kg fuel burned, the difference in sulfate is (based on 13- or 2 3-mode weighting factors) over six times from the Cater- pillar than the Chevrolet 366. Again, the difference in brake specific fuel con- sumption, as with the previous particulate rate discussion, explains the greater difference in fuel specific versus brake specific rates of the two engines. The composites .summarized on Table 17 were from the measured grams of particulate and itkj of sulfate per hour. Tallies C-18 and C-19 are provided for the Mack engine, and Tables C-20 through C-23 are detailed listings for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR. Tables C-24 through C-27 list the alternative sets of sulfate data for the Chevrolet 366 as well as the particulate composites. It is interesting to note, from Figure 18, the similar cycle con?>osite rates of particulate and sulfate for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 engines when using 13-mode FTP versus weighting factors derived from the 23- mode EPA test. The 23-mode EPA composites were consistently, though not substantially, higher than the 13-mode FTP composites, D. Elemental and Metal Analyses Table 18 is a listing of the percent by weight values for carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. These elemental analyses were made using the 47 mm glass fiber filter dilution tunnel collected samples. These same filters were used to de- termine, by filter weight gain, the mass emissions of particulate per Table 14. The operating conditions were defined by Table 15. The two Diesels had very nearly the same carbon content at all loads except 75 percent at intermediate spe The ;>ercent carbon content of the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine was higher at the high speed operation at all load conditions. Recall that the Cater- pillar 3208 particulate rate was substantially higher and nonlinear, ostensibly due to the exhaust gas recirculation at the 2, 25, 50 and 75 percent power levels. Hydrogen content was higher for the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine. In those cases where carbon was lower, the hydrogen percentage will be higher. The very low carbon content of the Chevrolet 366 gasoline engine is indica- tive of this type of engine. Relative to the two Diesels, the particulate is composed of materials other than represented by carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. The combined C+H for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR ranged from 61 percent at idle to about 92 percent at 75 percent load, intermediate speed (1680 rpm) and 10( [>>rc<:ti power, high speed (2800 rpm). For the Chevrolet 366, the C+H ranged from about 2.5 percent to 51.5 percent at intermediate speed (1200 rpm) and 100 percent loac Aside from the mostly qualitative survey of the relative amounts of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, the "percent by weight" values may be used directly with the particulate rates already discussed. For example, the mass emission rates for particulate on Table 14 may be multiplied by the decimal equivalent of the appropriate Table 18 i>ercent carbon to obtain an estimation of the mass omission rate of particulate as carbon. Table 19 lists the results of the metals analysis (Performed through the cooperation of the EPA-Research Triangle Park Laboratories. The EPA-RTP X-ray fluorescence metals analysis equipment has been found to be superior in both the number of metals and analytical precision to laboratories available to SwRi for this analysis. The analysis was made from particulate collected 76 image: ------- TABLE 18. ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FILTER COLLECTED PARTICULATE (Percent by Weight based on 47 mm Fiberglass Filter Samples) Condition Speed/% Load Element Mack ETAY(B)67 3A Cat 3208/EGR Chev 366 Inter/02 Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 58.50 9.12 1.16 66.46 7.36 0.76 1.94 1.92 <0.1 Inter/25 Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 70.40 4.79 1.62 70.04 5.80 0.56 2.00 0.77 <0.1 Inter/50 Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 81.03 2,97 0.94 80.31 2.76 0.30 0.27 2.46 <0.1 Inter/75 Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 78.54 2.06 0.82 89.82 1.75 0.24 4.39 0.92 0.93 Inter/100 Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 88.09 2.15 0.78 87.74 1.15 0. 28 47.18 4.36 <0. 1 Idle Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 62.23 7.45 0.96 55.80 5.33 0.91 5.66 0.45 <0.1 Inter/CT Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen (1) (1) (1) 75.90 9.73 0.09 15.63 3.54 <0.1 High/100 Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 67,33 2.43 1,04 90.47 1.28 0.45 1.46 1.07 >.44 High/75 Carbon Hydroqen Nitrogen 77.41 3.22 0.96 88.59 1.09 0.36 24.90 1.63 0. 25 High/50 Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 68.67 3.21 1.24 82.27 1.45 0.21 1.12 0.21 <0. 1 High/25 Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 69.18 5.55 1.14 82.51 3.24 0.47 - 0.1 2. 0G <0.1 High/02 Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen 58.78 8.26 0.36 77.18 6.83 0.55 <0.1 2.41 <0.1 High/CT Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen (1) (1) (1) 78.35 10.17 0. 19 19.86 1.(7 0.1 (1) Condition not run 77 image: ------- TABLE 19. METALS ANALYSIS OF FILTER COLLECTED PARTICULATE (Percent by Weight Based on Fluoropore Filter Samples) Cond. Speed/ EnglfMP^ (Detection Mmts) uq/filtrr Inter/ Hack rat Ch**v 02 -¦J 00 tn*er/ iS Inter/ SO tnt«*r ' 7S Inter/ 100 Inter/ CT Miqh/ 20 Hlqh/ 7S Hack <"*t Ch*v Hack C*t Chev rhev *ack cat <:h*v Hack Cat Chev Itock Cat Chcv cat fh*v HS'k Cat ChfV _£r_ 9\^ Hn 1.17 l.OS 2,42 Q.Jft 6* 4 0.61 0.11 89.0 'J. 11 71.4 O.IH O.IJ 0.0*, o.os 0.72 67.1 0,11 0,08 9.04 O.O? 24.8 1.8 S8.S condition not run 45.5 J. I'# O-yft SO.4 o.2« 55.1 2,f,9 O.ll 0.4n O.OI 31.8 0.?O O.OI 0.01 47.4 0.2" 0.0? o. n «2.8 0.O2 0.11 0.0? 42.9 0.01 0,02 O.OI O.OI 0.2 o, | O.02 o.o«> 0.2 0.03 O.oS 0.27 o.n 0.12 0.01 O.Of, O.n? Cd fl.Ul 0.02 n.? (J. >04 O.OOl O.ol 0.007 0.02 Al O.OI o, I o.41 U.0O7 0.2 O.W» o.oo? .i.f»4 0.0? O.V» o.ooi O.OI 0.001 r ')C? O.002 0.0? O,o6 0.19 o.oi 0.006 M.03 0.1 0.3 o.oos o.ooi 0.02 O.OI 0.00% o.n 0.«N*2 0.1 0.20 0.53 2.9 1.0 o. is 4.60 1.64 0,2 2.62 1.29 J. 12 0.67 0.01 0.003 O.OO? 0.19 2.21 0.60 2.1 7. 13 O. 34 0,50 *..06 0.92 S. 16 0.41 0.27 J*9 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00b o.os o.ooj O.04 0.004 0.04 0.004 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04 JC 0.06 0.04 0.009 O.OI 0.01 0.004 0.0) o.ooi 12.1 0.O1J4 0.0O1 0.002 0.002 0.O04 0.01 n.oof 0.006 O.OOS 0.002 0.002 0.001 Cl_ 0.21 0.09 11.? Zn cu Ni O.SO 2.05 O. 12 0.0? 0,«>8 O.09 O.Oi 0.«7 0.1 O.02 0.O4 fi.04 0.03 8.02 0.S1 0. OS 6 .tJf> 0.02 0.04 o.os a. vi 0.04 o. >1 0.04 O.02 e.BR 0,04 0.11 9.H8 O.OS 11 .P 0.27 0.23 0.02 0.18 0.1 O.S &•» O. |H 0.09 0.0? o.Oi .11 >.04 0.10 c* 0.19 0.2 U. I 3.1 0.>l4 0.08 0.O3 0,O2 «'.03 o.an 0.03 0.03 1.nj O.OS 0.01 0.0* 0.06 0.01 0.03 O.CS 0.07 0,28 0.29 o.OS n. 13 n. 04 O.OI Hl1 't.O* O.OG* O.OI O.OI 0.2 t .oft* « I *.64 0.63 1.90 0.90 2.Of 0.«3 0.01 0.006 O.OJ 0.006 0,003 0.004 0.001 0.009 0.004 0.OO4 0.03 0.02 8.99 O 01 I0.O 0.0J < . t? o.os 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.01 0,O* 0.47 n.09 O.OS 0. >s o.os 0.06 r. 03 O.04 0.02 0.06 O.OS .07 O.IO HMk r*t "h»»v jon tun 4? S 111 **'-k RTAY(lt>* Tlh, fst-t; 1 I Mr Hirt p», < h»vr< 1« t « r image: ------- on the duplicate Fluoropore filter takers at the same time as the fluoropore filter for sulfate analysis. Only calcium was found in all samples from all engines. Phw--*• rus and silica were the next roost popular elements in the particulate. Sodium, iron, nickel, barium, chromium and copper were seldom found and at low levels The two Diesels were not consistent in either the specific metal or its level Sometimes the Caterpillar 3208 had less and sometimes more of a specific element. Comparing the Caterpillar ."<200 KGR and Chevrolet 366, major differ- ences are noted. First, it is evident that the particulate from the gasoline engine is th.»t of tetraethy 1 lead motor mix combustion products. These art- indicated mainly by the lead percentages and to a lesser degree by the bromin and chlorine values, the lead scavengers. One way of comparing the two enqir is to sum the various percentages on Table 19. The Caterpillar Diesel had ar average of 1.1 percent of the particulate reqresented by the elemental analy: not counting carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, while the Chevrolet 366 averaged 98 percent. The lead plus chlorine plus bromine average percentage was 96 percent, with about 2 percent of the particulate attributed to the other mot. and elements analyzed as listed on Table 19. Another item of interest is the lower sulfur content of the Chevrolet 366 relative to the Caterpillar 3208. Only in two conditions was sulfur reported for the Chevrolet 366 (in other modes the sulfur was apparently be the minimum detectable), and the Chevrolet 366 was about 20 percent of the sulfur from the Caterpillar 3208. A final comment relates to the several Chevrolet 366 test conditions in which the combined lead, bromine and ;hloi is greater than 100 percent. This is af parent during all four power .o- lit at intermediate speed of 1200 rpm and during the high speed £5 percent mod< The specific reason for this is unknown, although it may have to do with tl specific location on the filter wnere the X-ray was taken. It is speculate that maybe the lead and lead scavenger products mtv not distribute over t!» 47 mir ' inropore filter uniformly and thereby could result in their over- statement rfhen ratijed t> the enti-e filter. The answer to this is not r» available and the r< idt r should be cautioned when usinq Tal li' ly data in t way. E. benzo(a)Pyrem- Analvsi Th< results cf the analysis of BaV, the polynuelear aromatic hydrocai measured, art Jisri i on Tablt JO. Thes< analyse:; weri bas< d on the sam| li collected by larger, 203 by ^S4 mm (H x 10 inch! fiberglass filters durii. separate set of tests. Usually, the large filters were taken a« soon as 47 mm size filter runs were completed. Table 21 is a summary of pertinen engine operating conditions observed during collection of the 8 x 1 i saim for BaP. The conditions ar. quite similar to those listed o-. Table 15 fc 47 mm filters. The BaP analysis of the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine was jerformed by Sou Foundation for Research and Education. The Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrol engine samples were extracted and analyzed through the cooperation of Dr. Robert H. Jungers of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Labor.t EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The repeated difficulties - 70 image: ------- TABLE 20. SUMMARY OP PARTICULATE, BaP AND ORGANIC SOLUBLES FKOM 8 X 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES Condition Speed/Load, % Engine (1) Particulate Rate 9 ~KF kg fuel kw-hr nr BaP Rate Organi yg yg Solub hr kg fuel kw-hr % * yg Inter/02 Mack 27.10 12.26 2.76 2.61 0.557 252.0 56.0 54.0 34.8' Cat 86.30 26.53 6.631 12.631 0.147 45.1 11.3 21.5 16.96 Chev 13.90 1.17 0.266 1.300 Below Minimum Detectable 2.4C Inter/50 Mack 112.61 81.36 3.25 0.71 0.647 481.0 18.0 4.0 Cat 188.16 53.70 3.920 0.945 0.116 33.1 2.4 0.6 Chev 13.22 1.79 0.217 0.088 O.OC-93 1.3 0.2 0.1 Inter/100 Mack 182.04 189.95 3.87 0.81 0.162 166.0 3.0 1.0 Cat 429.25 190.27 7.446 1.675 Below Minimum Detectable Chev 52.52 10.71 0.634 0.255 1.9138 390.2 23.2 9.3 Idle Mack 17.88 3.23 2.28 (2) 0.441 80.0 62.0 (2) Cat 41.45 4.88 5.417 (2) 0.210 23.9 27.0 (2) Chev 14.95 0.72 0.289 (2) Below Minimum Detectable Inter/CT Mack Condition not run Cat 91.17 17.90 (3) (2) 0.119 31.9 (3) (2) Chev 18.17 1.10 0.393 (2) 0.0117 0.7 0.3 (2) High/100 Mack 127.13 180.23 3.19 0.72 0.162 229.0 4.0 1.0 Cat 340.67 230,02 6.077 1.585 Below Minimum Detectable Chev 64.99 26.69 0.789 0.303 2.045 289.9 40.3 170.5 9.3 6.66 3.9C 3. 2. 2, 15. 8. 6. 5 7 0 5 1 0- 23.3 5.6 1.0 2.7 3. 9< High/50 Mack Cat Chev 73.19 905.35 22.66 71.33 380.16 5.80 2.42 16.727 0.331 0.57 5.507 0.133 0.526 1.668 0.1082 514.0 700.2 27.7 17.0 30.8 1.6 4.0 10.1 0.6 6.3 2.1 2.6 High/02 Hack Cat Chev 27.75 116.92 20.39 16.95 53.47 2.89 2.20 5.875 0.402 2.91 15.276 1.700 0.494 0.193 0.0159 303.0 88.1 6.5 40.0 9.7 0.2 58.0 25.2 0.1 38.4 9.3 1.7 High/CT Mack Condition not run Cat 72.14 33.83 (3) (2) 0.108 49.6 (3) (2) 23.< Chev 30.25 3.35 0.769 (2) 0.0292 3.2 0.7 (2) 2.! (1) Mack ETA*(B)673a, Caterpillar 3208 EGR, Chevrolet 366. Brake specific not calculated since idle and CT produce no power output. No fuel consumption measurable. Determined as organic solubles in benzene, Chevrolet 366 by RTP and Caterpillar 3208 by RTP/SwRI. image: ------- TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING 8 X 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER TESTS Condition Speed/Load * Engine'*' Engine Speed rpm Power Output kw,obs Fuel Rate kg/hr Air Rate kg/min BSFC kg kw-hr Inlet Air ®C Inlet Rest, mm Hg Exh. Rest, nm Hg Inter/02 Mack 1450 4.7 4.4 8.99 0.936 24 9.90 25.40 Cat 1680 2.1 4.0 6.08 1.905 29 13.08 3.81 Chev 1200 0.9 4.4 1.68 4.889 38 32.46 3.81 Inter/50 Mack 1450 115.7 24.9 13.26 0.215 25 17.28 29.21 Cat 1680 56.8 13.7 5.49 0.241 31 11.25 3.81 Chev 1200 20.4 8.2 2.7 0.402 44 18.66 5.33 Inter/100 Mack 1450 236.0 49.3 20.07 0.209 25 33.35 44.45 Cat 1680 113.6 25.6 8.46 0.225 29 22.32 17.78 Chev 1200 42.1 16.9 4.08 0.401 42 0.58 14.86 Idle Mack 0 1.5 3.66 24 2.81 26.67 Cat 0 0.9 2.33 29 2.99 0 Chev 0 2.5 0.96 37 30.82 0.76 Inter/CT Mack Condition not run Cat 1680 0 0 5.37 23 10.47 25.4 Chev 1200 0 2.8 1.21 33 39.06 0.70 High/100 Mack 1900 251.1 56.5 26.91 0.225 23 46.7 63.5 Cat 2800 152.2 37.9 12.93 0.249 27 47.36 62.3 Chev 2300 87.9 33.7 8.21 0.383 38 1.15 61.0 High/50 Mack 1900 125.4 29.5 18.79 0.235 25 27.56 44.45 Cat 2800 69.6 22.8 8.02 0.328 26 20.46 20.32 Chev 2300 43.7 17.6 5.12 0.403 44 19.38 24.13 High/02 Mack 1900 5.9 7.7 12.13 1.305 24 14.01 25.40 Cat 2800 3.5 9.1 9.01 2.600 29 24.47 12.70 Chev 2300 1.7 7. 3 2.83 4.294 39 35.59 4.70 High/CT Mack Condition not run Cat 2800 0 0 9.27 28 25.97 11.43 Chev 2300 0 4.4 2.21 39 41.05 0.96 <1J Mack ETAY(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208 EGR, Chevrolet 366 image: ------- BaP measurement experienced not only by SFRE but others prompted the decision to send all such filters for BaP analysis to EPA-RTP. Dr. Jungers of EPA's Analytical Chemistry Laboratory (EMSL) routinely performs BaP analysis of similar 8 x 10 filters used in Hi-Vol atmospheric sampling. Accordingly, this method was authorized by EPA for BaP analysis of engine collected samples until a test procedure specific for several of the PNA's can be developed. There is a difference between the BaP from the two Diesels (based on concentration, brake and fuel specific) which may be due to the engine or the method of analyses. One exception was the high speed, 50 percent power condition. In this case, the Caterpillar 3208 engine had much higher BaP than the Mack engine. In other power conditions, the Mack engine had higher BaP. Some of the difference may be attributed to the extraction-analysis procedure in use at SFRE as it was thought to give "higher" results. But the reversal at the 50 percent high speed point may be coincident with the massive amount of particulate at that point due to the EGR rate. The higher BaP might be due to the air-fuel ratio change that occurred with EGR. An even greater difference is seen between the BaP from the Chevrolet 366 and Caterpillar 3208 engines. In this case, the extractions and analyses were performed by the same laboratory and may be directly compared. Except for the two modes, the high-power intermediate-speed and the high-speed 2-percent- power, the BaP from the Chevrolet 366 can be considered negligible and approaching that or below the minimum detectable limit of Dr. Jungers' instrument. This is not surprising in light of results under Phase II (discussed in Section VI) of this project for the Diesel counterparts of production gasoline cars. The two modes mentioned had substantially higher BaP rates, almost as >f each condition w^s a purge of stored BaP. Table 22 summarizes the cycle weighted composite BaP rates for this test series. All engines were _ycle composited on a 7-mode basis using weightiny factors derived from the 13-mode FTP and 23-mode EPA cycles. The Caterpillar and Chevrolet engines also ran the two cut throttle modes of the 23-mode EPA procedure. Thus, additional cycle composite 9-modes were computed using weighting factors derived from the 23-mode test factors. As shown in Figure 19, the composites indicate the difference between the gasoline and Diesel engine under HD test conditions were small. The two high BaP modes of the Chevrolet 366 apparently brought the composites up to tho Caterpillar 3208 rates. In TABLE 22. COMPOSITE BaP RATES Brake Specific, uq/kw-hr Fuel Specific, yig/kq Fuel 7-Mode(1) 7-Mode(2) 9-Mode(2) 7-Mode(1) 7-Mode(2) 9-Mode(2) Based on weighting factors derived from 13-mode FTP. Based on weighting factors derived from 23-mode EPA. Mack ETAY(B)673A 2.917 3.053 12.395 12.571 Cat ^208/EGR 2.658 2.314 2.494 9.591 7.648 8.483 Chevrolet 366 3.330 3.018 3.033 7.838 7.327 6.864 82 image: ------- weighting factors derived 'weighting factors derived from 13-mode FTP from 23-mode EPA I'UllW'tl.'i 3ML_ .. IrciinHBSffi: 10.0 Cat 3208 Chev 366 Cat 3208 Chev 366 Figure 19. Cycle Composite BaP Comparison Caterpillar 3208 EGP. -ind Chevrolet 366 83 image: ------- terms of brake specific BaP, the Chevrolet 366 was higher regardless of cycle. In terms of fuel specific, pg of BaP per kg fuel, the Chevrolet 366 was lower than the Caterpillar 3208 EGR. The reason for this reversal is the gross difference in brake specific fuel consumption for the two engines. The 7-mode derived from the 13-mode FTP always gave the highest rates. This was the first time such measurements have been attempted with a gasoline HD engine running on a leaded regular grade gasoline (1.6 g/gal lead and 91.5 RON). The engine did not have an oxidation catalyst in the exhaust. Because the particulate levels were so low on the 8 x 10 size filters, dupli- cate filters were obtained and Dr. Jungers advised to use both whole filters in his analysis. Thus the extracts and BaP content as well as the benzene organic extract, as a percent of the particulate weight, are based on the combination extract of two separately obtained filters for each of the nine conditions run. The absolute levels of BaP from the Chevrolet 366 engine are far from verified at this time. More work should be done with other leaded fueled gasoline engines to obtain insight into the BaP behavior and try to understand why the BaP was apparently so high during the 100 percent, WOT, power modes with the Chevrolet 366 engine. Was power valve fuel enrichment at these modes the reason? Or, was there a purge-out of BaP matter from the exhaust system? Extracts for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR were returned by Dr. Jungers and were dried and weighed, and the organic extract fraction was determined by SwRI. It is interesting to compare the percent benzene organic extract of the Chevrolet 366 to HDD engines in general and a Caterpillar 3208 eagine run on a project for Dr. Bradow. The Chevrolet 366 results ranged from 2 to 6 percent while Diesels (4-stroke cycle) run from 5 to 20 percent and the Caterpillar 3208 (not EGR) ranged from 12 to 18 percent. The particulate content of the gasoline HD engine is expected to contain, by weight, products of combustion of the TEL along with some C, H and N and trace metals. Sulfate, as with the Diesel engine, is considered at a minor level since only 0.4 to 2.3 percent of the fuel sulfur (0.03 percent by weight) was converted to that which was measured as sulfate by the BCA procedure. Please refer to Tables C-28 through C-30 for run-by-run BaP and 8 x 10 particulate data and organic solubles. Tables C-31 through C-37 list the computations for 7- and 9-mode cycle composites. F. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses The Diesel engine exhaust odor mapping and related instrumental analyses resulted in a substantial amount of data. As explained earlier, odor tests were not made of the Chevrolet 366 gasoline engine. 1. Odor Ratings by Trained Panel Table 23 summarizes the average odor ratings and Table 24 lists pertinent engine data for the two engines tested. Each engine model is discussed separately. 84 image: ------- TABLE 23. AVERAGE ODOR PANEL RATINGS, 100si DILUTION Condition Speed/Load % Inter/02 Inter/50 Inter/100 High/02 High/50 High/100 Engine^ Mack Cat Mack Cat Mack Cat Mack Cat Mack Cat Mack Cat "D" Composite 2.9 3.1 2.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.6 2.9 4.2 3.3 3.5 "B" Burnt 1.0 1.1 Oily Aromatic 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 Hp" Pungent 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 Idle Mack Cat 3.5 3.5 1.0 1,2 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.6 Idle-Accel Mack Cat 3.1 3.5 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Accel Mack Cat 3.2 3.7 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 Decel Mack Cat 2.7 3.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 Cold Start Mack Cat 4.4 4.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 (1) Mack ETAY(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208 EGR 85 image: ------- TABLE 24. AVERAGE ENGINE OPERATING DATA TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS Condition Speed/Load,% Engine'1' Engine Speed rpm Power Output kw,obs Fuel Rate kg/hr Air Rate kg/min BSFC k? kg-hr Inlet Air °C Exh. Temp "C Inlet Rest, nun Hg Exh. Rest, mm Hg Inter/02 Mack 1450 4.50 5.40 9.09 1.20 29 171 7.85 2.54 Cat 1680 2.09 5.00 5.86 2.39 30 263 12.14 7.62 Inter/50 Mack „ 1450 113.4 24.54 12.73 0.216 31 437 14.57 5.08 Cat 1680 58.46 14.42 5.37 0.247 29 450 11.02 7.62 Inter/100 Mack 1450 226.7 49.99 19.82 0.221 29 527 32.32 15.24 Cat 1680 116.93 25.67 8.40 0.220 29 653 22.79 22.86 High/02 Mack 1900 4.90 8.94 12.06 1.824 30 246 13.08 3.81 Cat 2800 2.78 12.56 8.61 4.518 30 404 23.16 20.32 High/50 Mack 1900 122.0 30.03 18.60 0.246 29 396 26.34 10.16 Cat 2800 75.17 24.45 7.72 0.325 31 652 20.73 27.94 High/100 Mack 1900 244.0 57,11 25.55 0.234 30 529 46.70 22.86 Cat 2800 150.33 82.90 12.76 0.551 29 733 47.1 63.50 Idle Mack 630 (2) 1.91 3.67 (3) 29 145 1.68 1.27 Cat 600 (2) 1.04 2.02 {3) 31 174 2.43 2.03 Mack ETAY(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208 EGR. ... No power observed. Not calculated since no power output. image: ------- a. Mack ETAY(B)673A Figure 20 illustrates the "D" Diesel intensity as a function o the six steady-state loads and speed conditions. Little effect is noticed with average "D" odor intensities in the range of "D"-3±0.3. The bar chart on the bottom half of Figure 20 compares the total "DM + "B" + "0" + "A" + "P ratings for the same six steady-states, the idle, idle-accel, accel, decel and cold start conditions. It is interesting to note that odor levels measur during transients are about the same as during steady-states and that the col start was the highest combined level observed. Tables C-38 through C-40 list the detailed test and replicate odor data on which the summary trends are bas b. Caterpillar 3208 EGR Figure 21 shows the relationship of the observed odor intensit "D" value versus power for bott speeds. As with the Mack engine (see Figure a lack of effect is noted for the six steady states with "D" nominally 3±0.4 This odor level is noticeable and would be considered objectionable to most. The lower part of Figure 21 shows that the 2 and 50 percent power at 2800 rpm modes resulted in the highest combined odor perceived. The three transients were within the range of the six steady-states. The cold start odor ranked third from the highest for this engine. The high odor ranking at 2 to 50 percent load, 2800 rpm, was due to the higher quality ratings for B, 0, A and P relative to other modes. The "D" or overall intensity, ao mentioned earlie was essentially a constant or flat response for all loads and speeds. For additional run-to-run (odor panel rating) detail, please refer to Tables C-41 through C-43. 2. Supplemental Gaseous Emissions Table 25 lists the supplemental gaseous emissions taken at the same time as the steady-state runs. NO was measured by both NDIR and CL while NO,, (N0+N02) was measured by CL. The N02 portion of the exhaust, difference between NOx and NO by CL, was about 25 ppm (12-49 ppm range) for the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine. N02 for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine was about 9 ppm average with a range of 4 to 19 ppm. Evidently, the Caterpillar 3208 produce less N02 than the Mack engine as tested, even though at maximum power, where no EGR is scheduled, the Caterpillar and Mack engines have fairly similar NOj, leve1 . The differences in HC and CO between the two engines are consistent with the 13-mode FTP data obtained earlier. In the case of the Mack engine, the odor tests were run at an engine backpressure setting that was not arti- ficially increased. The Caterpillar 3208 engine was run with the backpressur and inlet restrictions set per the 13-mode FTP. Appendix Tables C-45 through C-47 are tabulations of the modal run- by-run gaseous emissions taken during the six steady state and it. _e odor test Transient data were not obtained due to the very great technical difficulty associated with raw exhaust analysis during very rapid accelerations and decelerations. Tables C-48 through C-51 are similar image: ------- 4.0 : n: >, 3.0 4J •H 10 c 1) 4J c M 2.0 o ¦o o a 1.0 2 50 H Percent of Power 9.0 8.0 a. + :i i 6.0 < + 5.0 O 4.0 + CQ + a 1.0 2 50 100 2 50 100 Idle Idle- Accel Decel Co Percent Power Percent Power Accel St. 1450 rpm 1900 rpm Figure 20. Mack ETAY(B)673A Engine Diesel Odor Intensity by Trained Panel 88 image: ------- 6.0 (A s at o •o o 2.0 100 Percent of Power .... - ! •• rr- • i. .* • ; 1. . • j ,;- j ' } ' • : ¦ 1 j ... : . •i: ':•! ¦:= ! ¦' : ' ... .j - : ; J ¦ rn*"" I- — j—. } .;; - r 1 , : 1 j i . 1 ! ' 1 i : i.. i i i ¦ i 2 50 100 2 50 100 Idle Idle- Accel Decel Cold Percent Power Percent Power Accel Start 1680 rpm 2800 rpm Figure 21. Caterpillar 3208 EGR Engine Diesel Odor Intensity by Trained Panel 89 image: ------- TABLE 25. AVERAGE EXHAUST ANALYSES TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS Operating Condition Engine (1) NDIR HC CO C02 NO NO NOx LCA LCO ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm yg/1 ug/1 TIA Inter Speed Mack 222 226 2.1 213 170 206 14.5 7.0 1.9 2% Load Cat 397 434 3.1 171 158 169 46.3 21.7 2.3 Inter Speed 50% Load Mack Cat 126 378 200 556 7.0 10.4 922 253 843 251 865 256 10.8 58.7 5.1 24.1 1.7 2.4 Inter Speed Mack 61 373 9.0 1204 1075 1090 6.8 5.0 1.7 100% Load Cat 107 1231 11.7 1254 1184 1203 25.8 18.2 2.3 High Speed 2% Load Mack Cat 268 554 226 873 2.5 5.6 155 157 129 151 154 155 17.4 60.0 6.5 36.0 1.8 2.6 High Speed 50% Load Mack Cat 155 455 139 4066 5.9 11.9 551 189 471 181 488 186 15.6 42.1 6.8 32.0 1.9 2.5 High Speed 100% Load Mack Cat 41 30 294 1169 8.7 11.9 919 718 819 691 831 698 5.8 25.3 4.3 15.1 1.7 2.2 Idle Mack Cat 221 358 231 359 1.4 2,2 247 184 199 169 248 190 11.5 26 3 5.9 13.9 1.8 2.2 (1) Mack ETAY(B)67 3A, Caterpillar 3208 EGR 90 image: ------- summarized on Table ^ in Vq/l of LCA and LCD. The LCO value is computed in TIA units by the explosion TIA = 1 + log10 LCO The individual DOAS results for both engines are listed on Tables C-45 through C-47 (Mack) and C-48 through "-51 (Caterpillar). Recall that chemical traps are used to obtain the samples of exhaust for analysis. Thus, only the steady-state engine conditions were sampled. Figure 21a is a plot of the TIA versus "D" rating by trained panel for the Mack ETAY(B)673A and Caterpillar 3208 EGR engines. It is interesting to note that the average TIA for the Caterpillar was like the overall panel average, higher than for the Mack engine "D" rating. This is summarized in the following comparison based on the average six steady-state plus idle runs. Mack ETAY Cat 3208 "D" by Panel 3.1 3.7 TIA by DOAS 1.78 2.37 It is difficult to say that the TIA and "D" ratings really correlate, although the agreement seems better than previously reported data for other heavy-duty engines. In addition to the determination of the DOAS values for both engines, a series of correlation experiments was performed in conjunction with Dr. Joe Perez of Caterpillar Tractor Company. In essence, a two-lab cross-check on DOAS analysis, including extraction of the sample from the trap, LC separation and detection, as well as instrument calibration, was achieved. Table 26 lists the results obtained during two days of testing of the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine. Traditionally, one trap sample is obtained per run of which there are routinely 21 runs per odor measurement day, for steady- states only. The requirement to use larger amounts of solvent during the trap extraction step has decreased the concentration in the eluant by half. This forced the use of the more, sometimes most, sensitive ranges of the DOAS instrument, a condition to be avoided if at all possible. Several approaches were available, such as to load more sample on the trap by running each mode longer or sampling at a more rapid rate. The sampling rate was already near the maximum recommended, and the longer sampling periods are not compatible with the repetitive measurement of odor by the human panel. The method desired as the best solution to maintain eluant concen- tration was to load each of the repeated runs on the same trap. This allowed three times the normal amount of exhaust to be passed through the trap and as such represented a composite of the operating condition. Thus, there are two types of DOAS trap sampling summarized on Table 26. On the top half of the table, both 3-trap average and 3-run composite data are listed for LCA and LCO in yg/£. and LCO in TIA units. The 3-trap average is based on the 21 indi- vidual traps, one for each run. The 3-run composite was a single trap, on which the three separate runs were collected. In practice, the trap would be removed and capped between repeated runs. 91 image: ------- 3.0 Caterpillar 320j> EGR O 8/3/77 3*Run Merage O 2* U-.j_.-j : [•• ; -•-[ Jr- O 8/^/77 3+Run Amr^ge: , ( .€Ti?9». jS~!e/j/77 3rRito "c^bii^E |" jV 8/i/77 3fRun CBtU 1 .. J4acJf ETAyIb)673A ; ' !' ,. j 0 'IrtiSSF 0.3-jfun cotiposit^ ayejr.rge ; | i 2.5 2.0 "O-^ * 1 1 i: 1.5 f- 1.0 -i- J u 1.0 2.0 3.0 "D" by Panel 4.0 5.0 Figure 21a. "D" Odor Ratings Versus TIA Mack ETAY(B)673A and Caterpillar 3208 EGR 92 image: ------- TABLE 26. DOAS RESULTS - CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR Engine rpm Power % 3-Trap Average (One Run/Trap) 3-Run Composite (7 Traps) SwRI Caterpillar LCA LCO TIA LCA LCO TIA LCA LCO TIA 8/03/77 Idle 24.85 12.39 2.08 20.52 11.77 2.07 1680 2 59.74 25.42 2.39 58.59 24.61 2.39 1680 50 55.66 23.06 2.35 15.83 11.04 2.04 1680 100 30.66 22.91 2.36 60.77 30.29 2.48 2800 2 64.42 36.19 2.56 53.83 29.02 2.46 2800 50 51.69 39.93 2.59 47.59 29.77 2.48 2800 100 33.84 18.68 2.25 83.86 37.08 2.57 Average 2.37 2.36 8/05/77 Idle 28.57 15.30 2.18 10.12 7.63 1.88 21.4 9.8 1.99 1680 2 32.81 17.87 2.25 35.99 17.75 2.25 35.5 15.3 2.18 1680 50 61.64 25.17 2.40 53.10 21.58 2.34 57.9 22.8 2.36 1680 100 20.89 13.50 2.11 23.02 14.71 2.17 22.1 12.2 2.09 2800 2 55.43 35,69 2.55 47.56 27.42 2.44 44.7 26.8 2.45 2800 50 32.44 24.09 2.33 39.32 30.77 2.49 35.9 24.8 2.39 2800 100 16.76 11.46 2.04 4.34 6.63 1.82 17.4 8.7 1.94 Average 2.27 2.20 2.20 LCA and ICO in pg/f, TIA = 1 + log1Q LCO 93 image: ------- The extensive test series reported in Table 26 for both 8/03/7? and 8/05/77 by 3-trap average and 3-run composite data was performed to demonstrate equivalency between the two methods. These experiments were necessary prior to the adoption of the 3-run composite method of sampling for future DOAS use with Diesel powered cars and trucks/buses. Note that the overall average of the seven modes 3-trap average to 3-run composite TIA data was 2.37 versus 2.36 on 8/03/77 and 2.27 versus 2.20 on 8/05/77. The 3-run composite performed by SwRl and Caterpillar on 8/05/77 shows a 2.2 TIA value (overall 7-mode average). Not only were the overall values in complete agreement, but most of the modal values were also in agreement. Figure 22 indicates the degree to which both DOAS sampling/analysis approaches (3-run composite versus 3-run average) agree. Note that the data are fairly symmetrical about a 45-degree line and quite close to a 1:1 relationship, certainly as close as would be anticipated by the DOAS system in general. In summary of the Caterpillar 3208 DOAS data, it is clear that the 3-run composite gives equivalent or essentially equivalent results to that from the average of three individual traps. Consequently, the 3-run composite trap method is qualified and will be used on all future DOAS work. Another very important finding was the excellent correlation between DOAS analysis by Caterpillar and SwRI on 3-run composite samples, one for each of the seven modes tested. These samples were identically taken, simultaneously, and serve to validate the sample extraction, instrument calibration and use, as well as final results. G. Aldehydes Table 27 lists the aldehydes measured by the DNPH procedure for all three engines. In Section III, the DNPH procedure was described. The data on Table 27 are cycle composite rates based on the same seven test modes as used in the odor testing. The Diesel samples were taken at the same time as odor ratings, and test conditions were defined earlier in Table 24. The weighting factors used with the seven modes were derived from the 13-mode FTP and 23-mode EPA cycles. There is a substantial difference for several of the aldehydes between the two Diesels, namely, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and benzaldehyde, Isobutanal was substantially lower with the Caterpillar than the Mack engine. Another way to compare the two Diesels would be to just add the individual rates without any additional weighting given to any aldehyde. These totals are shown on the bottom of Table 27 and indicate the Caterpillar to have 2.8 times (mg/kg fuel) and 2.5 times (mg/kw-hr) the Mack's "total" aldehydes. This is based on the factors derived from 13-mode FTP. From a review of this data, it is safe to say that the Caterpillar produced more aldehydes than the Mack engine. A direct comparison of the Chevrolet 366 and Caterpillar 3208 engines may be made from Table 27. In this comparison, the Chevrolet engine had more formaldehyde, acetone, isobutanal, crotonal, hexanal and especially benzaldehyde. Some, if not most, of the differences noted are due completely to the differences in the fuels. The sum of the individual aldehyde rates for the Chevrolet was some 3 1 times (mg/kg fuel) and 6.4 times (mg/kw-hr) the Caterpillar 94 image: ------- O woi/ii j _ i a ' Qagot mMm -» i ii i • — - - 1.5 2.0 2.5 TXA, Three Run Average Figure 22. Comparison of TIA Values Based on 3-Run Average and 3-Run Composite Samples - Caterpillar 3208 EGR 95 image: ------- TABLE 27. CYCLE COMPOSITE ALDEHYDE RATES Wgt. mg/kw-hr _____ mg/kg fuel Aldehyde Fact. Mack Cat Chev Mack Cat Chev Formaldehyde (1) 16.59 49. 90 104.75 66.84 223.76 228.88 (2) 19.02 43. ,90 105.36 77.78 191.23 221.08 Acetaldehyde (1) 0.94 21. ,85 18.09 3.78 97.98 39.53 (2) 0.88 19. ,25 21.27 3.43 83.85 44.64 Acetone (1) 12. ,55 18.40 56.28 40.20 (2) 11. 58 24.09 50.43 50.54 Isobutanal (1) 31.79 3. ,18 13.79 128.12 14.24 30.13 (2) 33.61 2. ,45 18.05 130.34 10.68 37.87 Crotonal (1) 16.68 19. .16 587.87 67.22 85.91 1284.55 (2) 19.03 17. ,76 810.01 73.80 77.37 1699.58 Hexanal (1) 20.18 13. ,98 42.83 83.87 62.70 93.58 (25 24.47 14. .46 38.18 94.89 62.98 80.11 Benzaldehyde (1) 95. .65 595.67 428.89 1301.59 (2) 85. .28 578.38 371.50 1213.56 Total (1) (2) 86.81 97.01 216. 194. ,27 .68 1381.40 1595.34 349.83 376.24 969.76 848.04 3018.46 3347.38 Mack ETAY(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208/EGR, Chevrolet 366 Based on weighting factors derived from 13-mode FTP. Based on weighting factors derived from 23-mode EPA, 96 image: ------- engine. Based on weighting factors derived from the 23-mode EPA cycle, the ratios are 4.0 and 8.2. The difference in brake specific fuel economy of the vwo engines explains the differences in fuel and brake specific composite aldehyde rates. For detailed results for each engine and test condition, please refer to Tables C-52 through C-54. Although odor was not measured with the Chevrolet engine, the same type of run conditions were measured as well as the two closed throttle modes. The run conditions for the Chevrolet 366 were described earlier on Table 21. For additional study and analysis, please refer to these appendix tables in which modal concentrations, mg/hr, brake and fuel specific individual aldehyde rates are listed. H. Specific Hydrocarbons Table 28 is a listing of the exhaust hydrocarbons, some of which are considered to be more or less nonreactive in the atmosphere in terms of the formation of photochemical smog. These measurements were made at each of the seven steady state operating points used for odor measurement. The engine operating data were previously listed on Table 24. For simplicity, the various hydrocarbons were computed in terms of cycle composite rates, again using weighting factors derived from the 13-mode FTP. Ethylene and propylene were the two hydrocarbons with the highest brake and fuel specific rates from the Mack engine. Propane, ethane and toluene were the lowest rate hydrocarbons. The Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine had sub- stantially higher rates than the Mack. Ethylene and propylene and methane were the highest rates. Propane, ethane and toluene were the lowest. The consistency between the two Diesel enqines, as far as high to low ranking, is quite interesting even though the levels were quite different between the two engines. A simple summation of the individual composites is shown on Table 26. Note the Caterpillar engine was 4.1 times the Mack mg/kg fuel and 3.8 times the Mack on a mg/kw-hr basis. These comparisons made use of the composites calculated using weighting factors derived from the 13-mode FTP. The other important comparison to be made on Table 28 involves the Cater- pillar and Chevrolet 366 engines. Methane was the hydrocarbon most plentiful from the Chevrolet 366, with toluene and ethylene next in rate. Propane was negligible. Compared to the Caterpillar, much more toluene, some 50 times more than the Diesel engine on a fuel specific basis, some 100 times more on the basis of mg/kw-hr, was emitted. Much more benzene as well as methane was also emitted by the Chevrolet 366. Comparing the two engines based on the total of the eight hydrocarbons' individual rates shows the Chevrolet 366 to be some 3.6 times the Caterpillar in terms of mg/kg fuel and 7.4 times the Caterpillar in terms of mg/kw-hr. Using totals based on factors derived from the 23-mode EPA, the ratios are 4.8 and 9.9. The differences are consistent with the difference in brake specific fuel economy of the two different engines. Recall that the Chevrolet 366 engine ran on leaded gasoline without an oxidation catalyst. 97 image: ------- TABLE 28. CYCLE COMPOSITE SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON RATES Wgt. mg/kw-hr n»g/kg fuel Hydrocarbon Fact. Mack Cat Chev Mack Cat Chev Methane (1) 6.90 40.35 684.80 27.77 179.14 1498.70 ch4 (2) 8.49 35.46 836.60 32.83 152.04 1762.53 Ethylene (1) 45.03 158.04 422.96 181.18 701.69 925.67 c2«4 (2) 51.05 136.66 491.27 197.48 585.89 1035. 'H Ethane (1) 0.68 3.50 35.02 2.74 15.56 76.6J c2h6 (2) 0.67 3.00 41.81 2.60 12.84 88.09 Acetylene (1) 2.79 22.83 149.04 11.24 101.35 326.18 C2H2 Propane (2) 3.26 19.79 170.02 12.63 84.84 358.20 (1) 0.18 5.43 0.79 11.89 C3H8 Propylene (2) 0.16 6.21 0.70 13.09 (1) 17.96 43.28 126.27 72.26 192.17 276.35 C3% (2) 19.32 37.74 141.53 74.75 161.81 298.16 Benzene (1) 4.48 21.93 297.26 18.01 97.36 650.55 C6H6 (2) 4.88 18.60 348.78 18.86 79.74 734.79 Toluene (1) 0.78 4.85 459.44 3.15 21.54 1005.49 c7h8 (2) 0.85 4.17 498.09 3.30 17.86 1049.38 Total (1) 78.62 294.96 2180.22 316.35 1309.60 4771.41 (2) 88.52 255.58 2534.31 342.45 1095.72 5339.25 Hack ETA¥(B}673A, Caterpillar 3208/EGR, Chevrolet 366 (1) •2j Based on weighting factors derived from 13-mode FTP. Based on weighting factors derived from 23-mode EPA. 98 image: ------- Table 29 lists the methane fraction of the exhaust HC for each engine by test mode. The Mack ETAY(B)673A ranged from 0.78 to 2.8 percent with an overall average of 2.5 ptrcent. The Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine ranged from 1.53 to 11.09 percent with an average of 3.5 percent. Note that the 11.09 percent methane fraction was at high speed, 2800 rpm, and half load. This value is exceptional and substantially different from all other Caterpillar and Mack methane percentages. Could it be that this specific point, where particulate was maximum, was caused by the large level of EGR used? The data point was carefully rechecked to verify that the methane value was right. It was found that most of the hydrocarbons were higher as may be noted from Table C-56. The Chevrolet 366 methane fraction ranged from 0.31 at 1200 rpm closed throttle to 19.9 percent with an overall average of 4.7 percent. One mode, the 1200 rpm intermediate speed, was 19.9 percent methane. For additional modal data for all eight hydrocarbons, please refer to Tables C-55 through C-57, 99 image: ------- TABLE 29. METHANE FRACTION OF EXHAUST HYDROCARBONS Condition Speed, Load % Inter/02 Inter/50 Inter/100 Inter/CT High/02 High/50 High/100 High/CT Idle 71) Engine^ Mack Cat Chev Mack Cat Chev Mack Cat Chev Chev Mack Cat Chev Mack Cat Chev Mack Cat Chev Chev Mack Cat Chev Exhaust HC, ppmC 209 404 57 123 324 100 62 111 1515 10756 268 575 28 141 412 30 41 28 1044 1408 212 305 2781 Methane PF"C 3.3 6.2 3.6 1.1 6.1 19.9 0.6 3.2 24.3 33.8 3.2 11.3 1.6 1.1 45.7 1.0 0.6 0.7 33.2 14.3 3.5 7.2 37.5 Methane Fraction % 1.58 1.53 6.32 0.89 1.88 19.9 0.97 2.88 1.60 0.31 1.19 1.97 5.71 0.78 11.09 3.33 2.80 2.50 3.18 1.02 1.65 2.36 1.35 Mack ETAV(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208/EGR, Chevrolet 366 100 image: ------- V. SULFATE AND PARTICULATE CHARACTERIZATIONS This section describes the results of a variety of experiments to investi- gate, in a preliminary way, major engine changes on particulate and sulfate emissions from HDD engines. Table 30 is an evaluation matrix of the five effects of interest. TABLE 30. EVALUATION MATRIX Effect of Injection Timing 5° Advanced Standard 10° Retard Caterpillar 3406 DI Effect of EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) Effect of Combustioi: System (at Standard Timing) without EGR with EGR Direct injection Indirect Injection Caterpillar 3406 DI (at Standard Timing) Caterpillar 3406 DI Caterpillar 3406 IDI Effect of TC (Turbocharge) Effect of Injection Pump with TC without TC Standard R. Bosch APS A. Bosch Daimler-Benz OM-352A TC Daimler-Benz OM-352 NA Mack ETAY(B)673A + Std. Mack ETAY(BJ673A + APS Each effect involved comparison of «=issxons ill the following categories. Emission Measurements were obtained in the order listed, even though sulfate a->d particulate effects were the aost important. • Stoke - ~T*». 13-aode, power curve • Gaseous emissions - 21-*ode EPA, 13-aode FTP • Particulate - 11-aode Sulfate - 11-aode 3aP. organic solubles Hydrogen and carbon fc.tals - Particle siting • DQAS Aldehydes Specific SC 101 image: ------- Except for a few instances where the test could not be performed, a full matrix of emissions characterization data was obtained for each configuration listed in Table 30. Common configurations, such as the Caterpillar 3406 DI at standard timing, were tested only once. A. Effect of Timing, EGR and Combustion System These three effects were studied using the Caterpillar 3406 engine described in Section III. For simplicity, all the results will be listed for the five engine configurations and then, as subsections, the various effects will be discussed. Tables 31 and 32 list the smoke results for transient smoke cycle and steady state tests. Smoke was measured during every mode of the 13-mode FTP as well as during a full-power performance test. TABLE 31. FEDERAL TRANSIENT SMOKE CYCLE OPACITY CATERPILLER 3406 Configuration Run Smoke "a" opacity "b" , % "c" Direct Injection 1 13.9 6.7 24.8 St? Jard Timing 2 13.0 6.8 23.3 28° BTC Avg 13.5 6.8 24.1 Direct Injection 1 18.9 16.1 21.4 10° Retarded 2 18.8 15.9 21.8 18° BTC Avg 1C.9 16.0 21.6 Direct Injection 1 10.4 3.3 22.9 5° Advanced 2 10.3 3.7 21.9 33° BTC Avg 10.4 3.5 22.4 Indirect Injection 1 11.6 5.4 26.8 Standard Timing 2 12.2 5.3 30.5 BTC Avg 11.9 5.4 28.6 Table 33 lists the results of the gaseous emissions tests by the 21-mode EPA procedure, with a 13-mode FTP result computed from the 21-mode data. For reference, the Caterpillar 3406 DI, as received from the manufacturer, had completed a 125-hour durability test. Data supplied by the manufacturer showed HC+NO2 of 9.41, CO of 3.1 and HC of 0.44 g/hp-hr. When converted to gA*-hr, the agreement is considered quite satisfactory, especially the HC+N0X value of 12.6 g/km-hr (9.41 •=• 0.746} versus the 13.017 value on Table 33. The engine, as received, was at 27 degrees BTC static timing and within the timing toierances. The slightly higher SwRl value was at 28 degrees BTC and is directionally correct, assuming the Caterpillar data were taken at 27 degrees BTC. Appendix Tables D-l through D-17 are 21- and 13-mode computer printout sheets for the five Caterpillar 3406 configurations evaluated. 102 image: ------- TABLE 32. STEADY-STATE SMOKE PERCENT OPACITY CATERPILLAR 3406 Timing °BTC Configuration Direct Injection (PI) 28 Std. 28 EGR 10 18 ' Ret. 33 5° Adv. Indirect Injection IDJ Std. Timing*1* 13-raode FTP steady states Mode rpw Power * 1 Idle 2.0 2.0 0.4 0.3 0.8 2 1260{3) 2 2.2 2.0 0.5 0.3 0.9 3 1260 25 2.5 9.0 2.9 1.7 1.0 4 1260 50 3.0 14.0 6.0 1.5 1.3 5 1260 75 3.5 15.0 8.0 2.5 3.0 6 1260 . Idle 100 5.0 15.0 14.0 3.5 5.0 7 1.5 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 8 2100 100 6.0 15.0 7.5 1.4 1.9 9 2100 75 3.5 15.0 7.0 1.0 1.8 10 2100 50 3.5 11.0 6.8 0.8 1.7 11 2100 25 3.2 6.0 5.9 0.8 1.6 12 2100 (21 Idle1 2 2.3 3.5 3.0 0.6 1.5 13 2.0 2.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 maximum power smoke rpm 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1260 1100 5.6 6.0 6.5 7.6 9.0 9.4 11.0 not run 10.5 11.0 11.0 13.0 16.5 16.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 2.0 3.9 1.2 1.9 2.6 4.8 6.0 7.9 ... 10° BTC Static Injection Timing DI 700 rpm, IDI 600 rpm ' IDI Intermediate Speed 1400 rpm 103 image: ------- TABLE 33. GASEOUS EMISSIONS BY 13-MODE FTP AND 21-MODE EPA CATERPILLAR 3406 Engine Configuration Cycle Run Ho. CO Emission Rate, g/kW-hr (I, HC W21 Direct Injection (DI) HC+NO2 BSFC kg/kW-hr Avg 1.684 0.164 6.878 7.042 28" BTC Standard Timing 21 EPA 1 2 Avg 3.255 2.383 2.819 0.469 0.428 0.449 12.592 12.544 12.568 13.061 12.972 13.017 0.255 0.253 0.254 13 FTP 1 2 Avg 3.564 2.697 3 : 1 0.417 0.522 0.470 12.437 J 3.742 13.090 12.854 14.264 13.559 0.253 0.253 0.253 EGR (28° BTC) 21 EPA NOT RUN 13 FTP 1 6.434 0.229 7.345 7.574 0.268 18" BTC (10° Retard) 21 EPA 1 2 Avg 2.279 3.713 2.996 0.477 0.515 0.496 7.121 6.968 7.044 7.598 7.482 7.540 0.275 0.275 0.275 13 FTP 1 2 Avg 2.431 3.896 3.164 0.404 0.447 0.426 6.904 7.127 7.016 7.309 7.574 7.442 0.273 0.273 0.273 33° BTC (5° Advance) 21 EPA 1 2 Avg 5.049 4.692 4.870 0.628 0.623 0.626 18.564 18.162 18.363 19.192 18.794 18.993 0.261 0.261 0.261 13 FTP 1 2 Avg 5.872 5.395 5.634 0.540 0.526 0.533 19.100 17.969 18.534 19.640 18.495 19.068 0.263 0.262 0.262 Indirect Injection (IDI) Standard Timing 21 EPA 1 2 Avg 2.049 1.413 1.731 0.234 0.193 0.214 7.059 6.830 6.944 7.292 7.022 7.157 0.275 0.275 0.275 13 FTP 1 2 1.428 1.939 0.153 0.17C 6.806 6.950 6.959 7.126 0.273 0.272 0.272 NOx as N02 by CL - NO as NO2 by NDIR 21-mode EPA - 1 3-ioode FTP 104 image: ------- Table 34 lists the particulate and sulfate rates for the Caterpillar 3406 experiments. These are brake specific and fuel specific results using the 13-mode test conditions. Tables D-18 through D-41 list the modal results for each of the five configurations, as well as the brake specific and fuel specific computation sheets. Percent conversion of fuel sulfur to that measured as sulfate in the exhaust is also listed. TABLE 34. SULFATE AND PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES (BASED ON 13-MODE CYCLE) CATERPILLAR 3406 Brake Specific Fuel Specific Engine Run Particulate Sulfate Particulate Sulfate Configuration No. g/kW-hr mg/kW-hr g/kg fuel mg/kg fuel Direct Injection 1 0.464 28.09 1.824 110.47 Standard Timing 2 0.475 28.18 1.872 111.05 28" BTC 3 0.466 29.16 1.841 115.11 Avg 0.468 28.48 1.846 112.21 Direct Injection 1 1.232 28.14 4.600 105.09 EGR 2 1.229 27.30 4.598 102.09 28° BTC 3 1.272 30.58 4.770 116.46 Avg 1.244 28.67 4.656 107.88 Direct Injection 1 1.310 37.79 4.801 138.53 10° Retard 2 1. 379 37.23 5.066 136.76 18° BTC 3 1.400 36.63 5.137 134.38 Avg 1.363 37.22 5.001 136.56 Direct Injection 1 0.347 33.42 1.322 127.26 5° Advance 2 0.361 35.22 1.375 134.17 33° BTC 3 0.373 34.64 1.420 131.76 Avg 0. 360 34.43 1. 372 131.06 Indirect Injection 1 0.362 41.88 1.331 154.10 Standard Timing 2 0.374 40.04 1.383 147.97 10° BTC Avg 0.368 40.96 1.362 151.04 Results of BaP and organic content of the 8 x 10 size filters, reported by Dr. Jungers of EPA- ¦RTP, are listed on Table 35 in terms of brake and fuel specific emission rtues. These rates used weighting factors derived from the 13-mode FTP and 21-mode EPA cycles applied to the seven individual modes sampled. Appendix Table D-42 contains individual 7-nvode results while Tables D-43 through D-47 are the composite rate calculations. The seven modes were idle, 2, 50 and 100 percent of power at 1260 and 2100 rpm. Table 36 contains the carbon and hydrogen content of the 47 mm fiberglass filter collected particulate. These analyses were performed on the same 7 modes used for BaP and organic extract. Table D-48 contains the results of 105 image: ------- TABLE 35. BaP AND ORGANIC SOLUBLE FRACTION OF PARTICULATE COLLECTED ON 8 X 10 FILTER, 7-MODE TEST CATERPILLAR 3406 Brake Specific Fuel Specific Cycle Configuration Cycle BaP pg/kw-hr BaP, )xg/kq fuel Org. Sol.,% Direct Injection, Open Chamber Std. Timing 13 0.197 0.768 17.85 28° BTC 21 0.270 1.031 17.60 Std. Timing 13 0.105 0.399 19.48 + EGR 21 0.136 0.501 21.08 10° Setard 13 0.690 1.993 19.15 18° BTC 21 0.958 3.093 21.19 5° Adv. 13 1.256 4.768 12.87 33° BTC 21 1.869 6.994 11.61 Indirect Injection, Pre-chamber Std. Timing 13 0.143 0.524 11.14 10° BTC 21 0.172 0.608 10.50 106 image: ------- TABLE 36, CARBON AND HYDROGEN CONTENT OF PARTICULATE CATERPILLAR 3406 Condition Speed/Load % 28 Std. Direct Injection PI 28 EGR 18 10°Ret. 33 5° Adv. Indirect Injection Std. Timing 1260/2 C H H/C (1) 43.30 5.22 1.44 45.09 4.28 1.13 39.32 4.79 1.45 44.07 5.38 1.45 59.97 4.50 0.89 1260/50 C H H/C 63.84 2.92 0.55 84.43 0.70 0.10 91.45 1.64 0.21 51.62 46 57 57.33 2.66 0.55 1260/100 C H H/C 78.74 0.86 0.13 78.52 0.78 0.12 92.63 0.76 0.10 71. <0. 0. 30 3 05 82.86 1.40 0.20 Idle C H H/C 33.96 3.55 1.25 43.09 4.80 1.33 53.42 6.32 1.41 67.94 82 02 50.96 2.36 0.55 2100/100 C H H/C 68.76 1.37 0.24 83.93 0.82 0.12 85.40 1.14 0.16 53.64 99 44 48.29 1.27 0.31 2100/50 C H H/C 67.13 1.97 0.35 82.87 1.36 0.20 81.52 1.42 0.21 50.79 43 80 63.34 2.91 0.55 2100/2 C H H/C 47.24 6.49 1.64 69.40 3.54 0.61 74.18 4.40 0.71 49.73 6.70 1.61 71. 5. 30 63 0.94 (1) H/C Mole Ratio im image: ------- the metals analyses performed by RTP for each Caterpillar 3406 configuration tested. The plastic Fluoropore filters, representing each of the eleven different modes of the 13 mode-test, were used for this analysis. Table D-49 is an overall summary of the percent per stage of total partic- ulate collected by an Anderson Model 50-810 impactor. For the Caterpillar engine, the impactor assembly was located outside of the tunnel and a special series of tests made using seven modes of the 13-mode schedule. Figure 23 shows several views of the Anderson impactor, while Figure 24 shows the various filter stages. Preweighted, clean, stainless steel impactor discs were used for collection of dilute exhaust particulate. The use of this 0.051 mm (0.002- inch) thick stainless steel foil as the collecting stage was first employed with Diesel exhaust in EPA Contract No. 68-03-2440.(44) Impactor flow was maintained at approximately 0.021 m^/min (0.75 acfm) during isokinetic tunnel sampling to provide individual-stage Effective Cutoff Diameters (ECD) from 0.42 to 10.9 microns. The exhaust sample containing a mixture of particle shapes and densities is fractionated and collected according to its aerodynamic characteristics and is therefore aerodynamically equivalent in size to the unit density calibration spheres (1 g/cc) collected on each specific stage. The aerodynamic size of a particle gives information about its physical size, shape, and density. It thus indicates how the particle will behave in any environment. Figures D-l through D-5 are plots of the particle size data, one figure for each configuration. These plots illustrate the individual modal size distributions. Table 37 is a summary of DOAS values measured during a 7-mode cycle. Brake and fuel specific results for the seven aldehydes by the DNPH procedure are summarized for the 7-modt test on Table 38. Modal data are given in Tables D-50 through D-54. Table 39 lists the specific hydrocarbon data in mg/km-hr and mg/kg fuel burned using weighting factors derived from the 13-mode FTP. This summary is based on the 7-mode test data contained in Tables D-55 through D-59. 1. Effect of Timing The static pump fuel injection timing was varied from the standard 28 degrees BTC to investigate the effect of this parameter on particulate, sulfate and other emissions. These experiments were done with the engine in the DI configuration. a. Smoke In general, advanced timing reduces visible smoke, while retarded timing increases visible smoke emissions. This engine followed this well- established relationship as shown by the Table 31 "b" "lug-down" smoke factor and on Table 32 during the 13-mode and full-power opacity readings. The "b" factors are compared below. 108 image: ------- Figure 23. Anderson Hark III In-Stack Sampler - Used for Diesel Particle Sizing image: ------- tmmvc Figure 24. Anderson Impactor Stage Collection Foils and Back-up Filter 110 image: ------- TABLE 37. DGAS RESULTS FOR CATERPILLAR 3406 DIESEL 1260 rpci 600 image: ------- TABLE 38. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC ALDEHYDE RATES CATERPILLAR 3406 Aldehyde Sfed.Tim, 28° BTC Direct Injection EGR 10'Ret. 28•BTC 18"BTC 5° Adv. 33°BTC Indirect Inj. Standard Tim. 10* BTC Formaldehyde, mg/kw-hr 25. 83 16. 77 34. 42 66. 28 18. 91 mg/kg fuel 96. 10 63. 45 124. 31 251. 5 68. 05 Acetaldehyde, mg/kw-hr 3. 49 0. 69 14. 71 9. 17 8. 47 mg/kg fuel 13. 00 2. 61 53. 10 34. 8 30. 47 Acetone, mg/kw-hr 2. 47 0. 06 3. 59 15. 02 2. 56 mg/kg fuel 9. 18 0. 21 12. 97 57. 0 9. 23 Isobutyraldehyde, mg/kw-hr 19. 87 18. 16 7. 93 15. 58 4. 74 mg/kg fuel 73. 93 68. 72 28. 64 59. 1 17. 07 Crotonaldehyde, mg/kw-hr 26. 26 38. 92 15. 98 93. 99 17. 31 mg/kg fuel 97. 70 147. 25 57. 70 356. 6 62. 29 Hexanaldehyde, mg/kw-hr 6. 27 19. 35 13. 88 76. 58 5. 74 mg/kg fuel 23. 35 73. 23 50. 13 290. 6 20. 67 Benzaldehyde, mg/kw-hr 13. 71 13. 00 74. 61 49. 70 49. 13 mg/kg fuel 51. 02 49. 17 269. 42 188. 6 176. 83 Total Aldehyde, mg/kw-hr 97. 90 106. 95 165. 12 326. 32 106. 86 mg/kg fuel 364. 28 404. 64 596. 27 1238. 2 384. 61 112 image: ------- TABLE 39, BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON RATES CATERPILLAR 3406 Hydrocarbon Std.Tim. 28° BTC EGR 28"BTC 10°Ret. 18"BTC 5° Adv. 33"BTC Indirect Inj Standard Tim 10° BTC Methane, mg/kw-hr 18.25 13.17 18.68 22.90 6.51 mg/kg fuel 68.95 49.83 67.29 86.88 23.45 Ethylene, mg/kw-hr 67.34 52.43 62.58 83.81 38.42 mg/kg fuel 254.48 198.38 225.98 318.01 138.28 Ethane, kg/kw-hr 1.16 0.96 1.33 1.60 0.12 mg/kg fuel 4.40 3.62 4.79 19.90 C .43 Acetylene, mg/kw-hr 6.58 6.60 5.96 8.46 4.65 mg/kg fuel 24.88 24.99 21.51 32.10 16.72 Propane, mg/kw-hr BMD BMD 0.09 0.06 0 mg/kg fuel BMD BMD 0.31 0.24 0 Propylene, mg/kw-hr 21.72 14.49 20.28 24.45 10.95 mg/kg fuel 82.08 56.33 73.22 92.76 39.40 Benzene, mg/kw-hr 7.22 7.62 11.45 8.32 4.28 mg/kg fuel 27.30 28.85 41.35 31.57 15.40 Toluene, mg/kw-hr 2.03 1.68 2.09 1.02 3.45 mg/kg fuel 7.69 6.36 7.53 3.87 12.41 Total Hydrocarbon, mg/kw-hr 124.30 96.95 122.41 150.62 68.38 mg/kg fuel 469.78 368.36 441.98 585.33 246.09 BHD: Below Minimum Detectable 113 image: ------- Static Timing "b" Lug Down, % Opacity 5° Advanced 3.5 Standard Timing 6.8 10° Retarded 16.0 To the extent that full-power smoke can be related to engine particulate, the mass emissions of particulate shown follow this trend. Partic- ulate is produced under part-load conditions also, but the very low smoke readings during the less than 100 percent power modes of the 13-raode FTP shows the difficulty of using opacity readings to determine exhaust particulate. b. Gaseous Emissions The general effect of timing on NOx emissions is opposite to that of smoke, and this was clearly shown by the timing data on Table 33. For comparison, the average 13-mode results are listed below. q/kw-hr Static Timinq CO HC NQ2 5° Advanced 5.6 0.53 18.5 Standard Timing 3.1 0.47 13.1 10° Retarded 3.2 0.42 7.0 The effect on CO is interesting but of no significan since CO is already negligible. The effect on HC is considered very slight ii at all. But, the effect on NO2 is large and quite consistent with other published data for Diesel engines. Thus, a trade-off must be made between NO2 and smoke for most Diesel engines for basic fuel injection timing. Standard timing, on this engine, gave the best cycle BSFC with operation at either the advanced or retarded settings resulting in increased fuel consumption. This is normal. c. Particulate and Sulfate The 13 mode-cycle is a quick way to summarize the effect of timing. Using brake specific results from Table 34, the trends are consistent in terms of particulate, namely an increase in particulate as timing was retarded, just like visible smoke. Particulate Sulfate Basic Timing g/kw-hr mg/kw-hr 5° Advanced 0.36 34.4 Standard Timing 0.47 28.5 10° Retarded 1.36 37.2 This is illustrated in the lower half of Figure 25 for both brake and fuel specific 13 mode-rates. Sulfate emissions, plotted in the upper half of Figure 25, demonstrated no such clear trend as did particulate, the results being somewhat indicative of the BSFC trend, lowest sulfate at the standard timing, higher 114 image: ------- Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW-hr Brake Specific SC>4=, mg/kW-hr , <[>~© \ \ w m o o 50 50 <® *0 ft *G Fuel Specific Particulate g/kg fuel Fuel Specific SO4", mg/kg fuel image: ------- sulfate at advanced and retar^-id positions. The values are not so different, however, to indicate any effect, considering the method of measurement. A plot of particulate and sulfate mass rates from averages of data in Tables D-18, D-19, D-28, D-29, D-33 and D-34 is given in Figure 26. The 10° retard condition clearly resulted in the highest particulate rate of three timings run. As timing was advanced, particulate decreased, with the ! degree advance condition producing the lowest particulate. These trends and relationship of more particulate at higher power conditions are consistent. Sulfate mass rate also increased with power level and fuel rate, as is typic; since sulfate seems to be on the order of 1-2 percent of the fuel sulfur burned. Above 50 percent power there appears to be some differences shown versus timing setting, per Figure 26. The differences are not consistent. For example, at 2100 rpm the 10-degree retard gave the highest and standard timing the lowest rate. The following summarizes the maximum, minimum and average sul: conversion based on modal data listed in Tables D-19, D-29 and D-34. Timinq, °BTC Max. Min. Avg. 33 (5° Advanced) 5.27 1.22 1.86 18 (10° Retarded) 2.47 1.40 1.98 (1)Idle The differences in average sulfate conversion are considered small, almost negligible. The trend, if there is any, is somewhat consisten with the mg/kw-hr sulfate, i.e., lowest at standard timing. d. BaP and Organic Soluble Fraction The effect of timing is highlighted by the following, from Table 35, based on 13-mode weighting. Cycle Composite Timing BaP, pg/kw-hr Org. Sol., % 33° (5° Advanced) 1.26 12.9 28° (Standard Timing) 0.20 17.9 18° (10° Retarded) 0.69 19.2 From the above it is evident that 5-degree advanced timing gave the highest brake s >ecific BaP rate and the lowest organic soluble fraction of the particulate. An interesting inference from this is that increased BaP conte is not necessarily a function of increased organic soluble fraction of the particulate. Standard timing resulted in the lowest BaP level, with the 10- degree retard giving a level halfway between. The computation of a cycle composite, based on 7-mode results, is helpful in obtaining an overall value for the partial map type data. Weighting factors are merelv applied to the modal percent organic data to obtain a cycle weighted value. 116 image: ------- • 33° BTC <5P AdU.) . , ...J. , , ©|s» BtC (S|tdi lliming) , j ?$° 0_^8". B"tc .110° .RjajtardJi. 1 1?60 4—4=14—I—i Idle 25 50 Percent Power 75 100 i "~f 1 1 .j j :"i *" /t 25 50 Percent Power Figure 26. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Different Static Injection Timings, Caterpillar 3406 DI 117 image: ------- e. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content From data on Table 36, the computer hydrogen/carbon mole ratio can be used to see if timing had an effect. The range as well as average value obtained from elemental analyses of the 47 mm glass fiber filters are listed below. H/C Mole Ratio Configuration Max. Min. Avg. 33° (5° Advanced) 1.61 0.05 0.85 28° (Standard Timing) 1.64 0.13 0.80 18° (10® Retarded) 1.45 0.10 0.61 The smaller the H/C ratio, the more carbon, or less hydrogen, content on the filter. Even though the changes in timing did not make a large change in the average H/C ratio, the retarded condition average of 0.61 is somewhat below the other two conditions. This means that the increased gross particulate, with retarded timing (discussed earlier), was due to an increase in carbonaceous relative to hydrogen material on the filter. In reviewing the data on Table 3t, it is interesting to note the change in H/C mole ratio increases? thus, the minimum values listed above are for maximum power, and the maximum H/C values are for light loads such as 2 percent power. For reference, Diesel fuel H/C mole ratios are typically 1.6 to 1.7. Looking at the metals analyses on Table D-48, it is evident that phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine and calcium were most consistently found, with some iron, silica, and trace of aluminum. It is difficult to attribute t-he presence, absence or amount of these metals to a change in timing. The sulfur values are of some interest but have already been commented on in terms of sulfate by the BCA method. f. Particle Sizing Figure 27 illustrates the effect timing changes had on size distribution. For simplicity, the arithmetic average of the seven modes listed on Table D-49 was plotted to give an overal. view of trends, if any. Each line on the graph represents the unweighted average of the modal size distributions for that configuration. Standard and advanced timing show the closest agreement as might be expected since the timing difference was only 5 degrees. Retarded timing shows a slight shift to the right indicating that slightly smaller size particles were produced with this timing condition. From this comparison it is evident that the timing changes had no substantial effect on particle sizing, at least in the size range that was measurable by the Anderson impactor. It is also very evident that the particle sizes are, for the most part, very small. This is highlighted below. 118 image: ------- 10.9 6.8 4.6 3.2 2.0 1.03 0.63 0.42 image: ------- Particle Diameter ECD Cumulative Percent Microns Smaller than ECD less than 10 99.3-99.5 5 98.0 - 98.5 2 94.6 - 95.8 1 92.0 - 93.3 0.5 88.0 - 90.0 0.42 84.8 - 86.5 : is the very large 85 or so percent of the particulate less than 0.42 micron ZD, caught on the backup filter in the impactor and not classified, that is f interest. The 92-93 percent below one micron means that nearly all the Lesel exhaust particulate, as sized by the Anderson method, is very light and Lne and considered easily respirable. For additional plots of the moaal results, please refer to igures D-l, D-3 and D-4. These modal plots show some interesting trends such > greater variability in the 2-micron-and-less size with mode for 5-degree ivance, Figure D-4. But, in total, the size distribution lines are suffi- Lently close to one another as to make it difficult to draw conclusions. ^member, these distributions represent only about 15 percent of the particulate i the first place. g. DOAS Figure 28 is a plot of the TIA values from Table 37 versus power ;vel for both rated and intermediate speeds. Retarded timing appeared to have >wer TIA values, but no overall trend to this effect is clearly evident. The lly obvious trend is TIA decreased as power increased for most cases. In two jses, the 28-degree, 2100 rpai and the 33-degree, 2100 rpm , the 50 percent id 100 percent power TIA values were essentially the same. As a simplified summary, the following compares LCO for each Dnfiguration by simply averaging the 7 mode results and listing the maximum id minimum. Also listed is the TIA computed from this average. Static Timing, °BTC 33 (5° Advanced) 28 (Standard Timing) 18 (10° Retarded) LCO, Ug/litre TIA Max. Min. Avg. Avg. 27.2 2.6 11.0 2.0 17.2 4.5 9.8 2.0 13.9 0.9 5.9 1.8 In terms of TIA, the differences in LCO between the 10-degree 2tard and the other two timing conditions disappear. The retarded timing did, Dwever, result in lowest LCO and TIA of the three, and this is of some iterost. h. Aldehydes One way to see if static fuel injection timing affects the ldehydes is to add together the individual mg/kw-hr values on Table 38. nese are shown below based on 7-mode test using weighting factors derived rom the 13-mode FTP. 120 image: ------- std. is* BTC 330 BTC 191 vie 1.8 < M E- 1.6 1.0 0.8 100 Idle 2 50 Percent Power Figure 28. Effect of Timing on TIA Caterpillar 3406 DI Version 121 image: ------- Timing Aldehydes LCA, Avg. mgAw-hr yg/litre 33° BTC (5° Advanced) 326.3 16.4 28° BTC (Standard Timing) 97.9 12.8 18° BTC (10° Retarded) 165.1 13.7 The above indicate that standard timing produces the lowest aldehydes of the three conditions. This is interesting since BaP, another intermediate com- bustion product, was lowest at standard timing (see subparagraph d earlier in this section). Sulfate seemed to have the same '.rend of lowest value at standard timing, but there is no obvious reason for such a connection. Aldehydes are, for the most part, odorous compounds, and such a trend as shown above might also be shown by the DOAS results. It was not, how- ever, in terms of LCO or TIA. In terms of LCA, the average values are listed above and show that the average LCA was lowest at standard timing. Possibly a connection exists between the liquid column aromatic fraction of the DOAS and the aldehydes as measured by the DNPH method. From Table 38 it should be noteI that the same trend of 33 degrees highest, 28 degrees lowest, and 18 degrees in between was found for formaldehyde, acetone and hexanaldehyde. Although the 33- degree and 18-degree values were not consistent as to which was highest, the 28- degree timing was lowest except for isobutyraldehyde and crotonaldehyde. Tables D-50, D-52 and D-53 provide individual mode data for further analysis. i. Specific Hydrocarbons As with the aldehydes, it is instructive to see if timing had an effect on the eight different hydrocarbons as a group. The following compares the sum of the brake specific rates from Table 39 (7-mode test using weighting factors derived from 13-mode FTP). Sum of Specific Static Timing Hydrocarbons, mg/kw-hr 33° BTC (5° Advanced) 150.6 28° BTC (Standard Timing) 124.3 18° BTC (10° Retarded) 122.4 It is clear that the changes in timing had essentially no effect on the aggre- gate of the eight specific hydrocarbons measured. A review of the individual brake specific rates. Table 39, shows this to be pretty much the case throughout. In some instances, such as ethylene and acetylene, the 5-degree advance resulted in noticeably higher values than the other two timings. Benzene was highest with the 10-degree retard conditions. More detailed study of the specific hydrocarbons can be made from Table D-55, D-57 and D-58 j. Summary The major effect of timing on the Caterpillar 3406 DI has been to increase particulate with retarded timing. This is consistent with the well-known effect of timing retard on increasing visible smoke and reducing oxides of nitrogen, So major or obvious effects were noted on sulfate, particle sizing, DOAS, or specific hydrocarbons. BaP and aldehydes were 122 image: ------- lowest at standard timing, highest at 5 degrees advanced timing and in between at the 10-degree retarded timing setting. 2. Effect of EGR Exhaust gas recirculation is a well-known technique for reduction of oxides of nitrogen. It is typically applied to Diesel engines at output levels less than full power to prevent an increase in maximum power smoke. A Cater- pillar 3208 Diesel, with production EGR, was evaluated in Section IV of this report. The Caterpillar 3208 sold in California is the only production HDD engine with automatic EGR. For purposes of this experiment to determine the effect of substan- tial EGR on particulate and sulfate, a manual EGR system was fabricated and installed. A large, 101.6 nun (4-inch) exhaust pipe connected to the engine's 127 mm (5-inch) exhaust pipe ducted hot exhaust directly into the turbocharger air intake. A large, 76.2 nun (3-inch) gate valve was used to regulate the amount of exhaust that was recirculated back into the inlet of the turbo. Since the maximum smoke level under steady-state is 15 percent opacity, this was used as the upper limit when setting the exhaust recircu- lation level. The goal was to achieve a 50 percent reduction in N0X without exceeding the 15 percent smoke level or large loss in maximum power of the engine. The following lists the nominal percent EGR rates measured during a 13-mode smoke test. Mode Speed, rpm Power, % EGR Rate, % 1 700 0 47.2 2 1260 2 45.2 3 1260 25 31.3 4 1260 50 12.4 5 1260 75 10.4 6 1260 100 2.6 7 700 0 47.2 8 2100 100 6.5 9 2100 75 11.1 10 2100 50 18.6 11 2100 25 24.7 12 2100 2 41.6 13 700 0 47.2 The EGR rates were calculated from intake and exhaust C02 measurements by the following equation: « p/~d - Intake C02 - Background CO2 100 - Intake C02 v .nn. Exhaust CO2 100 - Exhaust CO2 Note that at maximum power, modi. - 6 and 8, only a small EGR rate could be used while, at light loads and idle, rates were greater than 40 percent. 123 image: ------- a. Smoke Smoke was measured only at the 13-mode test conditions since the manual EGR system precluded transient operation. A comparison of the smoke results on Table 32 shows the gross increases in smoke when large amounts of hot exhaust gas were used instead of air in the intake charge to the engine. To obtain a 50 percent decrease in N0X, an engine with typically low smoke levels was increased by a factor of 2.8. b. Gaseous Emissions The goal of "about half the standard engine NO^" was almost met by application of the EGR to this engine. From Table 33, the 13-mode NO2 was 7.3 versus 13.1 g/kw-hr. EGR doubled CO from 3.1 to 6.4 g/kw-hr and halved HC from 0.47 to 0.23. Brake specific fuel consumption was affected some, with an increase from 0.253 to 0.268 kg/kw-hr because of EGR. This is not to say that the application of EGR will invariably increase BSFC but only that some increase was expected because some exhaust was recirculated at all conditions, even maximum power. Maximum power at 2100 rpm was reduced from 248.8 to 232.8 kw and at 1260 rpm from 196.3 to 185.1 kw. c. Particulate and Sulfate Table 34 indicated that EGR increased the particulate from 0.47 to 1.2 g/kw-hr, an increase of 2.7 times. Sulfate, however, appeared unaffected by EGR, with 28.5 mg/kw-hr standard engine versus 28.7 mg/kw-hr for the standard engine plus EGR. Thus, the particulate increase was likely due to increased carbonaceous or hydrocarbon-like matter rather than sulfate. Figure 29 contains plots of particulate and sulfate mass rates by speed and load condition. Although EGR resulted in more particulate at maximum (100 percent) power, the greatest percent increase in particulate occurred at 75 percent of power. This and the other part-load conditions <25 and 50 percent) resulted in nearly threefold increase in particulate rates. Sulfate behavior was a bit curious in that, between 50 and 75 percent power, the effect of EGR was to produce more sulfate. This was most pronounced at 2100 rpm on Figure 6. Below the crossover point, less than 50-75 percent power, EGR produced less sulfate. In most cases, the differences were not large and apparently self-compensated when calculated as a composite 13-mode rate. Tables D-19 and 0-24 list the sulfate emission rates for the standard DI Caterpillar 3406 and the EGR versions of the engine. The average fuel sulfur conversion to sulfur as sulfate was 1.86 percent with a ranqe of 1.32 to 4.13 percent in the standard 28-degree timing version. The 4.13 percent was computed at idle. The conversion to sulfate was an average 1.45 percent, range of 0.84 to 1.91 percent, for the EGR configuration. Figure 30 is an attempt to see if there is a relationship between visible smoke and particulate mass rate. The eleven different modes of the 13-mode test are the basis for comparison. Although the standard engine values might have some relationship to each other, it is evident that 124 image: ------- 8000 f q 28<( ! E 28°/EGR 6000 4000 2000 -1260 rpm *2100 rpm Idle Percent Power 100 300 200 -r 100 0 h - 9-— Idle 2 25 50 75 100 Percent Power Figure 29. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Caterpillar 3406 DI With and Without EGR 125 image: ------- _r 16 14 12 !» a o a> O 6 to |Q' 28° ^PCrT: 10. 28* BTC w/ wningI t p. a> EGR = 11 ¦ ¦B- !r A 0 • x -it*- ¦i.. © w 50 100 150 200 Particulate, g/hr 250 300 Figure 30. Modal Smoke and Particulate, Caterpillar 3406 DI With and Without EGR 126 image: ------- I with EGR there is no correlation. For example, particulate can range from 175 to about 275 g/hr, yet the smoke was the same, 15 percent opacity. d. BaP and Organic Soluble Fraction The following is a comparison of the BaP and organic soluble fraction based on the 7-mode test using weighting factors derived from the 13- mode FTP. Cycle Composite Configuration BaP, pgAw-hr Org. Sol., % DI, Standard Timing 0.20 17.9 DI, Standard Timing + EGR 0.11 19.5 From this comparison, BaP was about half that of the standard Caterpillar 3406 when operated with a substantial level of EGR. Organic solubles seemed little affected and again denote little relationship between BaP and the amount of organic solubles in the particulate. e. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content The following compares the H/C mole ratio of the particulate matter: H/C Mole Ratio Configuration Max. Min. Avq. DI, Standard Timing 1.64 0.13 0.80 DI, Standard Timing + EGR 1.33 0.10 0.52 As with retarded timing, discussed earlier, EGR resulted in a large increase in particulate. The above indicates that the content of the particulate shifted substantially to greater carbonaceous matter relative to the hydrogen content. is helpful. To illustrate the effect of EGR on the H/C ratio, the following Condition Standard Engine Standard Engine + EGR Speed/% Power H/C Ratio H/C Ratio EGR, % 1260/2 1.44 1,13 45.2 1260/50 0.55 0.10 12.4 1260/100 0.13 0.12 2.6 Idle 1.25 1.33 47.2 2100/100 0.24 0.12 6.5 2100/50 0.35 0.20 18.6 2100/2 1.64 0.61 41.6 Note the influence of EGR on decreasing H/C ratio through a shift in higher C relative to H content. For example, 6.5 percent EGR at 2100 rpm/100 percent load resulted in half the H/C ratio. Apparently particulate H/C ratio is 127 image: ------- quite sensitive to EGR rate. Metals found on the 47 mm Fluoropore filter particulate are listed and compared on Table D-48 and show no obvious effect of EGR. f. Particulate Sizing The average of the 7-mode sizing data for EGR was plotted on Figure 27, discussed earlier. When using EGR, it appears that the average size distribution line shifted to the right on Figure 27, meaning the particles with EGR were even smaller than from the standard engine. The following compares the two configurations. Cumulative Percent Particle Diameter ECD Smaller than ECD Microns Standard Engine EGR less than 10 99.3 99.7 5 98.5 99.4 2 94.8 96.7 1 92.0 94.4 0.5 86.5 89.3 0.42 84.6 87.3 This is an interesting observation that EGR, like retarded timing, results in finer particles. The effects are negligible from the standpoint that only 15 percent of the particulate is known to be thus affected. g. DOAS TIA is plotted as a function of power output on Figure 31. Generally, the highest TIA values were obtained at light load and idle with mixed behavior or no change between 50 and 100 percent power. TIA values from the exhaust gas recirculated engine were lower at all condition* except the 2-percent 2100-rpm condition. To summarize this finding, the maximum, minimum and average LCO and TIA are listed next. LCO yg/litre TIA Configuration Max. Min. Avg. Avg- DI, Standard Timing 17.2 4.5 9.8 2.0 DI, Standard Timing ~ EGR 11.9 1.2 5.2 1.7 It is apparent that DOAS results, TIA and LCO, were lower both in range as well as average value for the EGR-equipped engine. The average values are slightly lower than the 10-degree retarded timing LCO and TIA discussed earlier. h. Aldehydes Shown below is a summation of the individual aldehyde brake specific rates given earlier in Table 38. 128 image: ------- 2.4 < w E-1 Idle 2 50 Percent Power 100 Figure 31. Effect of EGR on TIA Caterpillar 3406 DI Version 129 image: ------- Aldehydes LCA, avg. Configuration ug/kw-hr yg/litre DI, Standard Timing 97.9 12.8 DI, Standard Timing + EGR 107.0 6.1 Little difference is seen overall, and this is borne out by an examination of some individual aldehydes measured. Some were lower with EGR, such as formal- dehyde, acetaldehyde and acetone, and some were higher, such as crotonaldehyde and hexanaldehyde. Although aldehydes and LCA seemed to be related during the effect-of-timing discussion, such a connection seems remote when EGR was used. Aldehydes were little affected overall by the use of EGR, but LCA, by the DOAS, were halved per the above summary. i. Specific Hydrocarbons Compared to the standard engine, the sum of the eight hydro- carbons measured was lower with EGR (97 versus 124 mg/kw-hr). Less methane, ethylene, propylene and toluene were measured, while other HC were about the same. What mechanism is at work when exhaust is introduced into the engine to result in less of certain hydrocarbons is unknown. Table 39 and Tables D-55 and D-56 contain the detailed data for further study. j. Summary Like retarded timing, EGR as applied to the Caterpillar 3406 engine increased greatly the total mass of particulate emitted by the engine while decreasing NOx. Smoke was increased, by intent, as a natural result of achieving a substantial, almost 50 percent, NQX reduction. CO was doubled and HC halved. While particulate was increased by 2.7 times, sulfate appeared unaffected. BaP, with EGR, was cut in half, while organic soluble fraction was about the same. Particle size distribution with EGR shifted to indicate an even finer, lighter material than the same engine run in standard configuration. 3. Effect of Combustion Chamber The selection of the Caterpillar 3406 engine for this entire series of experiments, timing and EGR, was because this is the only production HDD engine offered in both a direct injection and an indirect injection version. The indirect injection combustion chamber involves a prechamber, whereas the direct injection version uses an "open" type combustion chamber. It has long been known that a prechamber engine has inherently low N0X, and tests of an earlier Caterpillar enginef®' illustrated not only low N0X but comparatively low smoke, HC, CO and odor as well. The prechamber tvoe engine, though universally used for smaller high-speed Diesels used in cars, has never been as popular for buses and trucks (HD applications) as the direct injection (DI) engine because of its increased fuel consumption (higher BSFC). Accordingly, with the exception of this one domestic model which has negligible sales, all engines in over-the- road HDD applications use some version of an open chamber with direct fuel injection. 130 image: ------- The conversion of the Caterpillar 3406 from DI to IDI was accom- plished under the guidance and help of Mr. Ken Claar from Caterpillar using parts furnished by Caterpillar for this purpose. The conversion was done on March 22-24, 1978, and included changing of pistons, injector assemblies, and the pump assembly. Following conversion, the engine started easily and generated rated power at both rated and intermediate speeds. A pinging noise was evident at light loads, but this was considered "normal" for this engine configuration by the Caterpillar representative. After the recommended break-in procedure, the series of smoke tests and performance tests were performed. Then, during a 20-minute maximum-power run to verify particulate tunnel temperatures, the engine suddenly lost power and came to a stop. The engine was restarted but could noi. achieve rated power. An abnormal amount of smoke was coming from the blow-by vent. Following a step-by-step inspection at the direction of Caterpillar (via phone conversations), it was found that the No. 5 cylinder's oil jet tube had broken off. This oil jet tube is located in the vicinity of the crankshaft and directs a jet of oil to the underside of the piston (one oil jet per cylinder). Engine failure apparently occurred as a result of loss of cooling and lubri- cation to No. 5 cylinder assembly, causing the piston to score the liner. Piston metal deposits were apparent around the circumference of the liner and ran the length of stroke. It is assumed that failure occurred immediately after oil jet failure due to the lack of piston discoloration (no oil coking) and the relatively good condition of the bearings. A new piston, injector nozzle and liner were installed in cylinder No. 5. Following another break-in procedure, the reassembled engine pulled rated load. Smoke data taken prior to engine failure were verified and the test program resumed. At time of failure the engine had accumulated 12 hours in the IDI configuration. a. Smoke Referring back to Tables 31 and 32, the IDI engine produced slightly lower smoke on the Federal Transient Smoke Cycle, in terms of "a" and "b" factors, and somewhat lower smoke under steady-state conditions. For example, the smoke at 2100 rpm at 100, 75, 50 and 25 percent power was less, as was smoke at 50, 2 5 and 2 percent, 1400 rpm. The smoke levels are all very low and the differences normally considered negligible. Only maximum power at 1400 rpm produced enough smoke to be even faintly visible to the human eye. Thus, this data can only be considered useful in a directional sense. b. Gaseous Emissions The following is a brief comparison of the 13-mode emissions and BSFC. q/kw-hr BSFC Combustion System CO HC NO;? kg/kw-hr DI, Open Chamber 3.13 0.47 13.09 0.253 IDI, Prechamber 1.68 0.16 6.88 0.272 True to form, the IDI (prechamber) version reduced emissions of CO by half, HC to one-third, and NO2 by half while increasing cycle BSFC by 7.5 percent relative to the DI version. Incidentally, the emissions and BSFC compared 131 image: ------- very favorably to engine data provided by Caterpillar on a similar engine. Two differences between the engine's speed are that the IDI engine idle speed is 600 instead of 700 rpm for the DI and the intermediate engine speed was 1400 instead of 1260 rpm. Both versions of the engine were run with identical preset restrictions, 76.2 cm (30-inch) water inlet and 68.6 mm (27-inch) water exhaust at rated speed and load. c. Particulates and Sulfates Figure 32 illustrates the modal behavior of the two combustion systems evaluated on the Caterpillar 3406 engine. The IDI or prechamber engine, at 2100 rpm, acted quite differently from the DI engine, with lower particulate at each power point. Instead of particulate mg/hr increasing rapidly between 75 and 100 percent power, as is vual and was found with the DI version, particulate was about the same as the 75 percent power point. At intermediate speed, 1260 rpm for the DI and 1400 rpm for the IDI, the two combustion systems had almost identical particulate mass rate behavior. The IDI was slightly higher at 100 percent and somewhat higher at 75 percent power, but the difference in engine speed could account for this. The brake specific particulate rates, given earlier on Table 34, allow for a direct comparison as follows. Particulate Sulfate Combustion System g/kw-hr mg/kw-hr DI, Open Chamber 0.47 28.5 IDI, Prechamber 0.37 41.0 Approximately 20 percent reduction in particulate, from 0.47 to 0.37 g/kw-hr, is not very encouraging for the use of a prechamber engine. More difference had been expected. One reason for lack of a bigger change may be because the DI version of this specific engine is already a fairly low particulate emitter. Sulfate trends on Figure 32 show higher mass emissions than the open-chamber DI engine. At rated speed, the prechamber IDI engine was higher at each test point except the 50 percent power. Intermediate speed (1260 rpm DI and 1400 rpm IDI) gave higher sulfate at 50,75 and 100 percent of power, but this could have been due to the higher speed and fuel rate. The previous comparison from brake specific data in Table 34 indicates the prechamber enqine to produce on the order of 40 percent more sulfate than the open-chamber engine. This is the only finding of significant so far in terms of engine effects on sulfate and is noteworthy. From Table D-39, the sulfate conversion can be summarized as follows. Fuel S measured as SOa=, % Combustion System Max. Min. Avq. DI, Open Chamber 4.13 1.22 1.86 IDI, Prechamber 4.78 1.25 2.18 132 image: ------- e DI 20° BTC I 0 ID1 10° BTC Intermediate fjxgd :— 2100 rpm _ 12,000 g* 10,000 6,000 4,000 r 2,000 Idle 2 25 50 75 100 Percent Power *¦4 XS * H 3 o •H u <0 a« 9 Idle 25 50 Percent Power 100 Figure i2. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Caterpillar 3406 DI Open Chamber and IDI Prechamber 133 image: ------- On the average, this is a 17 percent increase in fuel sulfur conversion. However, the IDI engine uses slightly more fuel and some modes had a substantial 2.91 percent conversion, such as 2100-rpm 75-percent power d. BaP and Organic Solubles The following is a brief comparison of the IDI to the DI version of the Caterpillar 3106 engines' BaP and organic solubles on a 7-mode cycle composite. Cycle Composite Combustion System BaP, yg/kw-hr Org. Sol¦, % PI, Open Chamber 0.20 17.9 IDI, Prechamber 0.14 11.1 In keeping with the lower overall particulate values with the IDI version, BaP and organic solubles were likewise lower. A 30 percent reduction in BaP and a 38 percent reduction in organic solubles are generally ill line with the 20 percent reduction in particulate discussed earlier. Appendix Table D-47 contains the cycle composite calculations for further analysis. e. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content The H and C elemental analyses for the IDI and DI versions of the Caterpillar 3406 are listed on Table 36 for each mode. Taking the average H/C mole ratio, little overall difference is seen in the two configurations as summarized below. H/C Mole Ratio Combustion System Max. Min. Average DI, Open Chamber 1.64 0.13 0.8 IDI, Prechamber 0.94 0.20 0.6 The range of H/C ratios was reduced by the IDI engine, and these data suggest a drier particulate with less organics by the IDI engine. From Table 36, H was the same or less on five of the seven conditions and C was higher on four of the seven conditions with the IDI engine. A review of the sulfur and metals found on the filter showed little consistent difference between DI and IDI configurations. Sulfur content on the IDI filters was consistently twice the DI engine at all power levels at rated engine speed. Except at the 2 percent power, phosphorus and calcium were also higher. For more details, refer to Tabic D-48. f. Particle Sizing The results of the particle sizing experiments, when averaged for the seven test modes, coincide with the S-degree advance timing and arc very close to the standard timing direct injection engine. Thus, the particle size distribution ma/ be viewed from Figure 27 using the dotted line for 5- degree advanced timing. 134 image: ------- In short, the prechamber had no effect on particle sizing as measured by the Anderson impactor method. As with other configuration, little is known about the 85 percent of the particulate mass collected on the backup filter. The modal distributions are plotted in Figure D-5 for further examination. g. DOAS Plotted on Figure 31 are the TIA values measured with the IDI prechamber version of the Caterpillar 3406 engine. Compared to the direct injection engine, the IDI engine had substantially lower TIA values under every test condition. As with the DI engine, the TIA values were less at the intermediate speed (1260 rpm fjr DI and 1400 rpm for the IDI) than at 2100 rpm rated speed. Combining the 7-ntode DOAS values from Table 37, the following comparison can be made. Combustion System DI, Open Chamber IDI, Prechamber LCO, pq/litre TIA Max. Min. Avg. Avg. 17.2 4.5 9.8 2.0 6.8 1.0 2.6 1.4 Note that the overall average LCO and TIA values are substantially less from the prechamber engine. This is significant and is in qualitative agreement with a Caterpillar 1604 prechamber engine evaluated many years earlier. h. Aldehydes The summation of the seven individual aldehyde brake specific emission rates, listed on Table 38, is used to compare the IDI to the DI configuration. Aldehydes LCA, avg. Combustion System mq/kw-hr pg/litre DI, Open Chamber 86.9 12.8 IDI, Prechamber 106.9 3.6 The situation here is very similar to the EGR comparison, namely, little change in aldehydes as a total yet a large decrease in LCA by the DOAS. Individual aldehydes, such as formaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde and crotonaldehydc, wore lower from the IDI version while acetaldehyde and benzaldehyde were higher. i. Specific Hydrocarbons Compared to the standard DI engine, the sum of the eight specific hydrocarbons, listed on Table 39, was about half with the prechamber IDI engine (68 versus 124 mg/kw-hr). Except for toluene, which was higher, each of the other hydrocarbons measured was about half that of the DI engine. This reduction in gaseous, low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons agrees quali- tatively with the lower LCO and LCA via the DOAS and the lower 13-mode FTP hydrocarbon rate. 135 image: ------- j. Summary The prechamber indirect injection version of the Caterpillar 3406 engine tested resulted in about a 20 percent reduction in exhaust partic- ulate, a 30 percent reduction in BaP and organic solubles, lower visible smoke, and about a 40 percent increase in sulfate. The increase in sulfate is note- worthy in that this is the only such occurrence found in all experiments with the Caterpillar 3406. CO and NO2 were halved, and substantial reductions in li-mode FTP HC, LCA and LC0 by the D0AS, and specific low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons were noted compared to the standard DI engine. A 7.5 percent increase in brake specific fuel consumption was found with the prechamber engine, however. In all, the results of this experiment were all directionally correct to previous experience.' B. Effect of Turbocharging There is no way to evaluate the effect of a turbocharger alone on engine operation or its emission characteristics. Invariably, the addition of a turbocharger entails the modification of other essential items or adjustments of the once naturally aspirated engine in order that the resulting engine function satisfactorily. Turbocharging in the minimum involves a change in injection pump re- calibration and timing adjustments, as was the case for the Cummins NHC-250 engine tests in 1973.<13) unlike the Cummins turbocharger retrofit kit, most installations involve a change in pistons and compression ratio as well as a number of lesser but just as important engine changes. Thus, any such compar- ison must be made with a turbocharged-equipped engine that has inherently certain changes which in themselves have effects on emissions, even if the turbocharger was not used. For purposes of this study, Daimler-Benz OM-352 naturally aspirated and OM-352A turbocharged (TC) engines were selected. Both engines were described in detail in Section III of this report and are shown in Figure 1 ready for test. Although both are considered small six-cylinder Diesels that would be used in midrange applications, they were thought to be satisfactory selections to indicate the gross differences in particulate and sulfate from a pair of engines that are quite comparable except for turbocharging. Also, neither engine had ever been characterized in the EPA's Long Range Diesel Emissions Program. 1. Smoke- Table 40 lists the Federal Transient Smoke Cycle results for both engines. As is usual with turbocharged Diesels, the "b" factor, or maximum power "lug-down" part of the cycle, is much lower than the naturally aspirated Diesel engine. In this case, the "b" factor was less than half, 4.1 for TC versus 10.9 percent opacity for the NA engine. Incidentally, the OM-352 compared reasonably well with the 10.6 and 11.3 percent "a" and "b" factors obtained at SwRI in March 1972. The OM-352A 136 image: ------- TABLE 40. FEDERAL TRANSIENT SMOKE CYCLE OPACITY DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 AND OM-352A Engine Model Run OM-352 1 Naturally 2 Aspirated Avg OM-352A 1 Turbo- 2 Charged Avg Smoke Opacity, % llgll ItJ^M Wg M 7.9 11.0 11.3 7.9 10.8 11.2 7.9 10.9 11.2 7.9 4.2 14.2 7.0 3.9 11.6 7.5 4.1 12.9 125-hour "a", "b" and "c" factors measured in March 1974 were 12.5, 6.0 and 23.6 percent, respectively. Table 41 lists the steady state smoke measurements in the 13-mode test and during a full-power test. Although part-load smoke levels are not much different at full power, the NA engine is much higher than the TC, and this is quite typical. Note the large difference in the opacity readings during the maximum-power test. The differences were greatest at high speed and diminished as the speed was decreased. The NA engine produced a constant 10-11 percent opacity, regardless of speed (2600 to 1600 rpm), while the TC engine smoke increased as speed decreased (2200 down to 1600 rpm). 2. Gaseous Emissions Table 42 is a summary of the 21- and 13-mode tests for regulated gaseous emissions and BSFC. For more details, please refer to the computer printouts included as Tables D-60 through D-67 in Appendix D. Gaseous emission of HC+NO2 was lower for the NA version due to the lower NOj emission from that configuration. HC emission from both configurations was almost the same, with the TC version just slightly lower. Also, the emission rate of CO was lower for the TC version. Fuel consumption for the TC configuration was lower by about 3.5 percent (0.284 versus 0.294 kg/kw-hr). Turbocharged engines typically have lower NO, as NO2, and better brake specific fuel consumption. In regard to smoke, regulated emissions and BSFC, the differences are typical and expected. For the record, the 125-hour test of the OM-352A in March 1974 yielded 4.22 g/kw-hr CO, 2.49 g/kw-hr HC, 12.63 g/kw-hr NO2, and HC+NO2 of IS.12 g/kw-hr by the prescribed 13-mode test. These values agree very well with those reported on Table <2. Although this engine and the OM-352 engine had been in storage for some time, the smoke and gaseous emission values agree well with earlier data and validate the operating condition of the engines as used in this project. 3. Particulate and Sulfate Table 43 lists the 13-mode composite particulate and sulfate results for both engines in brake and fuel specific units. The particulate rates for the naturally aspirated engine arc almost twice the rates emitted by the TC 137 image: ------- TABLE 41. STEADY-STATE SMOKE PERCENT OPACITY DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 AND OM-352A 13-MODE FTP STEADY-STATES Engine Smoke Opacity, % Mode Speed, rpm Power, % OM-352(NA) OM-352A (TC) 1 600 — 0,1 0.2 2 2000 2 0.2 0.2 3 2000 25 0.4 0.3 4 2000 50 0.7 0.7 5 2000 75 1.4 2.2 6 2000 100 11.0 4.0 7 600 0.3 0.4 8 2800 100 9.7 3.1 9 2800 75 3.1 2.4 10 2800 50 1.8 1.0 11 2800 25 1.7 0.1 12 2800 2 1.3 0.1 13 600 0,2 0.2 Maximum Power Smoke 2800 8.6 3 o 2600 lo.O 2.7 2400 io.6 2.9 2200 10.2 2.9 2000 10;3 3,8 1800 10.5 4,2 1680 io,6 5,1 1600 10.7 6,3 138 image: ------- TABLE 42. GASEOUS EMISSIONS BY 21-MODE EPA AND 13-MODE FTP DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 AND OM-352A Emission, g/kW-hr Cycle BSFC Test Run CO HC N02ta) HC + NO? kq/kW-hr 21-EPA 13-FTP 21-EPA 13-FTP Turbocharged (a! NOx as N02 by CL - 21-mode EPA NO as N02 by NDIR - 13-mode FTP 1 4.809 3.080 11.963 15.043 0.289 2 4.311 3.227 12.628 15.854 0.291 Avg 4.560 3.154 12.296 15.449 0.290 1 4.413 2.940 11.877 14.816 0.284 2 3.741 3.107 12.026 15.133 0.284 Avg 4.077 3.024 11.952 14.975 0.284 Natually Aspirated 1 7.010 3.410 10.766 14.175 0.295 2 6.510 3.446 10.369 13.815 0.298 Avg 6.760 3.428 10.568 13.995 0.296 1 7.252 3.198 10.064 13.262 0.293 2 6.740 3.210 9.903 13.112 0.294 Avg 6.996 3.204 9.984 13.187 0.294 139 image: ------- TABLE 43. PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES (Based on 13-Mode Cycle) Brake Specific Fuel Specific Daimler-Benz Run Particulate Su) fate Particulate Sulfate Configuration No. g/kW-hr mg/kW-hr g/kg fuel mg/kg fuel OM-3S2A 1 0.755 19.41 2.681 68.95 Turbocharged 2 0.753 17.91 2.686 63.87 Avg. 0.754 18.66 2.684 66.41 OM-3r>2 1 1.314 18.54 4.490 63.33 Naturally 2 1. 341 19.53 4.590 66.86 Aspirated Avg. 1.328 19.04 4.540 65.10 version. Sulfate rates from the NA version were essentially the saiue as the TC configuration. Figure 33 is a plot of the particulate and sulfate mass rates foe the various load and speed conditions evaluated. These plots make use of average ra*~s contained in Tables D-68 and D-69 (OM-352A) and D-72 and D-73 (OM-352). Incidentally, Tables D-70 and D-71 and Tables D-74 and D-75 conta the 13-mode composite computations summarized in Table 44. According to Figur- 33, particulate rates from the OM-352 engine configuration were slightly higher than from the turbocharged configuration low loads. At higher loads, particularly the 100 percent power modes, parti ulate rates were much higher than for the turbocharged version. Sulfate mas rates seemed to be fairly consistent, almost the same, except at the 75 and 100 percent, 1800 rpm points where the turbocharged engine produced higher sulfate rates than the naturally aspirated engine. Recall that the turbocha engine intermediate speed is 1800 rpm and the naturally aspirated intermedia speed is 2000 rpm. The percent of fuel sulfur conversion for the NA configuration ran from 0.82 at 2000 rpm/100 percent to 2.61 percent at idle. Similarly, the fuel sulfur conversion for the TC configuration ranged from 0.68 to 3.04 percent at 1800 rpm/25 percent and idle, respectively. The OM-352A TC engir averaged 1.2 percent fuel sulfur-to-sulfate conversion, while the OM-352 NA engine conversion was 1.1 percent. 4. BaP and Organic Solubles Table 44 lists the results of the seven modes evaluated for BaP an organic solubles using the 8 x 10 size filter. Particulate rates determined by this larger size fiberglass filter are also listed. Note that BaP was below minimum detectable at 100 percent power for both engines and engine speeds. BaP was lower for the TC engine at al other points except intermed speed/2 percent power. 140 image: ------- 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 150 100 50 0 ® Daimler-Benz^ OM-3,52. (iJa), N DailmlerTBenz. OM-3.52A |TC) Idle 2 25 50 75 100 Idle 2 25 50 75 100 Figure 33. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Hates for Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A Diesel Engines 141 image: ------- TABLE 44. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, BaP AND ORGANIC SOLUBLF3 FROM 8 x 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 AND ON-352A ENGINES Condit ion Engine Particulate Rate BaP Organic rpta/loaa % Configuration 5SL. szbi q/k image: ------- The following lists the cycle brake specific BaP and organic soluble percentages for both engines. Cyclu Composite Engine BaF, uq/kw-hr Org. Sol., % OM-352 NA 1.43 34.2 OM-352A TC 1.17 29.2 The TC engine produced 18 percent less BaP and 15 percent less organic solubles in the particulate than the OM-352 engine. These differences were not as great as would be expected by the reduction in gross particulate through turbocharging, namely, 1.328 to 0.754 g/kw-hr, or 43 percent. Apparently, the turbocharged engine produced less carbonaceous type soot particulate while organics were less affected. For modal and other details leading to the cycle values, please refer to Tables D-76 and D-77. 5. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content The following is a comparison of the elemental analyses of the naturally aspirated OM-352 and turbocharged OM-352A Daimler-Benz engines. Comparison of Carbon and Hydrogen Content of Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A Condition Carbon Hyc'roqen H/C (2) Speed/toad 352 352A 352 352A 352 352A Inter ^ 2 59.09 62.09 8.49 8.95 1.71 1.72 70.08 72.77 8.87 6.92 1.51 1.13 8f. 10 73.93 1.20 1.17 0.17 0.19 48.64 48.46 5.74 4.29 1.41 1.06 87.58 70.26 1.09 4.61 0.15 0.78 68.86 72.49 7.84 6.13 1.36 1.01 70.79 70.11 10.13 8.98 1.71 1.53 2000 rpm for OM-352 NA and 1800 rpm for OM-352A TC Mole Ratio Overall, there is essentially no change in either hydrogen, carbon or the H/C mole ratio between engine versions. The average H/C mole ratio was 1.15 for the naturally aspirated engine compared to a 1.06 average for the turbocharged engine. Metals and sulfur analyses for both engines are listed on Table D-78. Phosphorus, sulfur and calcium were the most consistently found. The compar- ison was very inconsistent in that sometimes the NA engine would be lower, sometimes higher, and often the same or essentially the same. Quite a variety of metals wers found compared to some engines. 6. Particle Sizing The turbocharged OM-352A particle size distribution appears slightly finer and lighter than the naturally aspirated OM-352 according to the plots 143 image: ------- on Figure 34. These are simple averages of the 7-mode data given on Table D-7 For similar distribution plots of each speed/load condition, refer to Figures D-6 and D-7. The particulate is, like the Caterpillar 3406 discussed earlier, ver small, and the Anderson only classifies about 13 percent of the largest portic of the exhaust particulate. The following illustrates this. Particle Cumulative Percent Diameter Smaller than ECD ECD, Microns OM-3S2 NA OM-352A TC less than 10 99.4 99.5 5 97.8 98.4 2 94.4 95.0 1 81,9 94.1 0.5 88.0 89.5 0.42 86.8 87.9 7. DOAS Table 45 lists the DOAS results for the seven modes evaluated. The TXA values are plotted on Figure 35. For the naturally aspirated engine TABLE 45. DOAS RESULTS FOR DAIMLER-BENZ ENGINES Intermediate ^rpm 2800 rpm Engine DOAS (1) _2 50 100 Idle 100 SO _2 OM-352A TC LCA 59.5 57.7 56.9 52.7 33.9 63.4 57.8 LCO 22.7 16.0 23.7 20.3 24.0 18.2 TIA 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 OM-352 NA LCA 61.2 76.3 12.2 47.7 8.8 58.2 75.7 LCO 22.6 20.1 6.7 12.6 3.4 21.5 21.8 TIA 2.4 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.5 2.3 2.5 * LCA a;td LCO in yg/litre 1800 rpm OM-352A TC, 2000 rpm OM-352 NA {OM-352) the TIA decreased as power level increased. The turbocharged engin (OM-352A) TIA values were relatively constant at all speeds and loads. To summarize, the following comparison is offered. LCO, yg/litre TIA Engine Max, Min. Avg. Avg, OM-352 NA 27.8 3.4 16.4 2.2 OM-352A TC 24.0 16.0 20.9 2.32 Overall, the TIA values reveal little difference between the two engines. 144 image: ------- 10.9 8 4.6 2 2.0 1.03 Turbocharged • . «- r. ; - vr i 1 Naturally Aspirated 0.63 0.42 20 40 70 60 BO 95 90 98 99 99.9 Cumulative Percent Smaller than ECD Figure 34. Particle Size Distributions by "Means" for Daimler-Benz OM-352, via Impactor 145 image: ------- rn termed latB~sp rett- —i 2800 rpm ' ~ 0 £H-352£ T »rb >?h irgfed 0:0H-*52:Sa Wijrul'i f Afcpijrated 2.0 M 100 50 Idle 2 Percent Power Figure 35. Effect of Turbocharging on TIA, Deimler-Benz OM-352A and OM-352 Engines 146 image: ------- 8. Aldehydes For quick comparison, the combined brake specific aldehydes are listed below: Aldehydes LCA Engine mq/km-hr yq/litre OM-352 NA 375 48.6 OM-352A 372 54.6 Although the LCO and TIA and LCA (from above) were a bit lower with the naturally aspirated engine, the overall aldehyde values were unchanged. Table 46 contains the seven individual aldehydes and indicates little significant difference in any of them due to the engine. Isobutyraldehyde was TABLE 46. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC ALDEHYDES RATES DAIMLER-BENS OH-352 NA AMD 0M- 352A TC 0M- -352 NA OM -352A TC Aldehyde mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel Formaldehyde 91.62 309.90 98.88 352. .46 Acetaldehyde 48.49 164.02 56.25 200, .50 Acetone 25.28 85.49 31.64 112. .78 Isobutyraldehyde 21.65 73,24 11.55 41, .17 Crotonaldehyde 34.72 117.42 36.32 129, .47 Hexanaldehyde 25.63 86.68 29.19 104, .03 Benzaldehyde 127.58 431.51 107.86 384, .47 Total Aldehydes 374.97 1268.26 371.69 1324. .88 half the NA rato with the TC engine. For more details, please refer to Tables D-80 and D-81 which contain modal rates for both engines. 9. Specific Hydrocarbons Table 47 lists the eight specific hydrocarbons computed ">n a brake specific basis using a 7-mode test. In this case, the naturally aspirated engine produced less of certain low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons such as methane, ethylene, propylene and benzene. Even though the NA engine produced more methane, acetylene ar.d propane, the combined specific hydrocarbons from the NA engine were lower than the TC engine (371 versus 437 mg/kw-hr). Further details for the seven modes are given in Tables D-R2 and D-83. 10. Summary Smoke and particulate wore substantially less with the OM-352A turbo- charged engine under the steady state conditions evaluated. Although particulat 147 image: ------- TABLE 47. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON RATES DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NA AND 0M- 352A TC OM -352 NA OM -352A TC Hydrocarbon ma/kw-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel Methane 29.65 99.99 23.31 83.09 Ethylene 217.10 7 34.28 260.17 927.37 Ethane 3.32 11.22 3.53 12.57 Acetylene 23.50 79.49 15.53 55.34 Propane 0.42 1.44 0.06 0.23 Propylene 66.77 225.84 100.98 359.95 Benzene 20.19 68.28 24.41 87.00 Toluene 9.96 33.69 8.74 31.16 Total Hydrocarbons 370.91 1254.23 436.73 1556.71 was about 40 percent less, essentially no change in sulfate was found. BaP was less by about 18 percent from the TC engine. The TC engine also had lower CO and HC and higher NO2 with slightly better cycle BSFC (about 3 percent). This behavior was anticipated from previous experience of turbocharging Diesels. No effect on particle size distribution was found. It is interest- j to note that the TC enq.ne resulted in slightly higher DOAS values of LCO, LCA and TIA as well as slightly higher combined low- molecular-weight HC, while the reverse was indicated by the 13-mode FTP HC va1uc. C. Effect of Injection System At the February 1977 SAE Congress, American Bosch presented a paper describing a new type of injection system utilizing a high-pressure pump to obtain much higher fuel injection pressures. A simple valve is used in the pump, designated the APS pump, to each of three r lungers to distribute fuel alternatively to f.wo cylinders of a six-cylinder truck size Diesel engine. T'lese "shuttle" valves are moved hydraulically using the low-pressure fuel upplied by the transfer pump. Injection pressures up to 172,000 kPa (25,000 psi) at the nozzle holder are reported to be obtainable with many possible wave pulse shapes possible. For example, a nearly "square" pulse pressure pattern has been achieved that is nearly flat at about 103,000 kPa (15,000 psi) nozzle pressure after the nozzle opens. Much more descriptive material may be obtained from Reference 64. Conversations in early March 1977 with Mr. Jack Kimberley of American Bosch and subsequent discussions with Mr. Henry Doty (March 1977), Mr. Kimberley (November 1977), and finally Mr. Lou Yumlu of Mack Trucks and Mr. Kimberley (January 1978) led to the subsequent availability of the engine parts (Mack) and APS fuel injection system (American Bosch) for evaluation. Throughout the negotiations with Mack and American Bosch the Project Officer was kept informed of the experimental hardware status. 148 image: ------- In conjunction with the Project Officer, American Bosch and Mack Trucks, a plan of test was devised that utilized the same Mack ETAY(B)673A engine characterized as part of Phase 1A and discussed earlier in Section IV. For a description of this engine, please see Table 1 of Section III. The plan was to convert the engine to the high-pressure system and determine particulate, sulfate and the other emissions as with other engine effects already discussed in this section. Then a new standard Robert Bosch pump and set of injectors would be installed and particulate, sulfate and selected emissions measured. Thus, particulate results can be compared from three configurations, namely, (1) the standard engine with 1000 hours durability, (2) the same engine with high-pressure injection system, and (3) the same engine wi*h new standard injection system. Mr. Jack Kimberley and Mr. John Cavanaugh of American Bosch arrived on May 8, 1978, to supervise the engine conversion. Figure 36 illustrates the basic setup used to supply fuel to the injection pump at approximately 90 psi. ft/*tf>SL€£D r JNJecrO/i BL£€Q r/j#* RCGULATO# p/?£%su#e ris I C, A- S i S" — f-A/VWH . I I Moroz pet ve*j MM" /Mecr/QAf F/LT&* Figure 36. Simplified Schematic of APS Pump Setup The experimental installation was successfully completed after several days of conversion, including installation of new timing gears in the engine to operate the pump at crankshaft speed, installation of the APS pump, new injectors and injection lines, as well as the items for fuel supply and delivery to the APS pump. Figure 37 shows these items as installed on and adjacent to the engine, A static injection timing of 10 degrees BTC was used, which is retarded from the normal 21-degree BTC basic timing of the standard R. Bosch pump. Once the experimental system was installed, a series of preliminary engine tests was made to assure the system was operating properly and to the satisfaction of Mr. Kimberley and Mr. Cavanaugh. Preliminary smoke measure- ments and injection line pressure traces indicated that the engine was operating as expected. The experimental pump did not have internal governing and smoke-limiting mechanisms. Due to the absence of the governing system, the engine's maximum torque output at rated and intermediate speeds was manually limited by fuel flow representative of previous tests, 55.3 kg/hr 149 image: ------- Fur* 1 Transfer Itoms APS Pump on Enqino Fiqure 37. American Bosch APS Pump Installed on Mack ETAY(B)67 3A A. Bosch APS Pump St'd. R. Bosch Pumj 150 image: ------- (122 lb/hr) at 1900 rpm/100 percent load arid 50 kg/hr (108 lb/hr) at 1450 rpm/ 100 percent load. In addition, idle and intermediate speed/2 percent modes required that the fuel supply pressure be reduced to 69 kPa (10 psi) and 414 kPa (60 psi), respectively. This was done to minimize engine speed hunting. The lack of a speed governor prevented operating the engine under the Federal Transient Smoke Test. Figure 38 contains three injection pressure-time or crank angle photographs. Each photo was of a different speed as described in Table 48. Also listed are the measured opening and peak injection pressures. TABLE 48. MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH HIGH-PRESSURE INJECTION SYSTEM (Time Fuel Photo rpm/ kPa/ base) Opening Peak Start of Supply No. Power cm deg/cm Press,, kPa Press., kPa Injection Press., kPa 1 700/ 13,790 4.2 23,443 27,580 6.3°BTDC 69 No Load (2,000) (3,400) (4,000) (10) 2 1450/ 27,580 8. 7 68,950 104,804 1.74 ° BTDC 621 100% (4,000) (10,000) (15,200) (90) 3 1900/ 27, -j80 5.7 91,014 132,384 1.14°ATDC 621 100% (4,000) (13,200) (19,200) (90) Values in parenthesis are in psig The major problems encountered with the system were repeated injection line failure and difficulty in running the low or curb idle mode. After two hours of intermittent operation, an injector line cracked next to the injector nozzle. Shortly after replacement of this line, another injector line cracked at a similar location. After this second repair, the injection lines were supported in order to reduce vibration. This sort of failure was experienced on other fuel lines, and they were replaced each time by stainless steel injection lines furnished by American Bosch. The low idle condition engine instability was reduced, but not eliminated, by the reduced supply pressure. This did not prevent testing at idle, although the engine speed wandered about somewhat. 1. Smoke Although the Federal Transient Smoke Test could not be run with the ungoverned APS pump system, modal smoke (13-mode) and a full-power curve smoke reading under steady state were obtained. They are listed in Table 49 along with the 1000-hour engine full-power results from Section IV. Since particu- late rates and gaseous emission results were quite similar for the standard engine with 1000-hour pump and the new Robert Bosch pump, no .idcitional smoke tests were run with the new Robert Bo ch pump. The modal smoke values were all very low, with 2.1 percent maximum recorded at 1450 rpm maximum power. The comparison to the 1000-hour standard ll'l image: ------- 1. 700 rpm, 2( )0 psi/c.-m, (Tim< base) Di j'c.-m J.. , oponiny prt>ss. j'c.-m 1. 1 > (Max) rpm, 40 JO psi/cm, (Time base) 8.7, oppninq pross.(psi) 10,000 r \/ :m .7. ouoninq piess.(psi) 13,200 Figure 38. Injection Pressure Photos for Mack ETAY(B)673A Diesel with A. Bosch APS High-Pressure Injection System HRiRlJlttt.1l Sm'jJNM 152 image: ------- TABLE 49. STEADY-STATE SMOKE PERCENT OPACITY HACK ETAY(B)673A WITH APS PUMP 13-MODE FTP STEADY- -STATES Engine Power Smoke Mode Speed,rpm % Opacity 1 650 ... 0 2 1450 2 0,1 3 1450 25 0.5 4 1450 50 1.0 5 1450 75 1.9 6 1450 100 2.1 7 650 0.2 8 1900 100 1.4 9 1900 75 0.8 10 1900 50 0,7 11 1900 25 0.4 12 1900 2 0.3 13 650 0.1 MAXIMUM POWER SMOKE, % APS High Standard Engine rpiti Pressure System 1000 hr pump 1900 1.2 5.9 1700 1.4 7.6 1500 2.2 10.5 1450 3.2 11.6 1300 6.2 19.1 15 3 image: ------- engine is quite dramatic, as shown by the full-power smoke values at the bottom of Table 49. With the APS system, exhaust smoke was about one-fourth that of the standard engine. To the extent full-power smoke can be used to predict particulate, a substantial reduction in particulate might be indicated, 2. Gaseous Emissions The 21- and 13-mode gaseous emission composite values are listed in Table 50 for the APS-equipped engine. The standard 1000-hour engine average results from Section IV are listed for comparison. Similar tests for the new Robert Bosch pump were not performed. HC+NO2 by either test procedure was higher with the APS pump. NO2 was higher by about 45 percent. Normally, retarding static injection reduces NO2 arK* increases smoke and particulate, all other factors being equal. However, the experimental high-pressure pump is completely different so that the change in injection timing, a necessary requirement for the APS pump to operate, cannot be directly related to NO2 or particulate by itself. A more extensive test plan could have included several APS configurations, producing a range of HON02. The limited scope of this project did not permit such an evaluation. Consequently, the configuration, i.e., pressure-time characteristic and timing, that was thought to have the greatest benefit on particulate was selected by American Bosch at SwRl request. It is interesting that the APS pump slightly decreased CO and slightly increased HC from the 1000-hour baseline. Of major importance is the small but positive 4-percent improvement (reduction) in brake specific fuel consumption. This effect with the APS pump was somewhat unexpected since this engine already has a very respectable cycle BSFC. For additional modal results, please refer to Appendix Tables D-84 through 0-87, the computer printout sheets for the APS experiments. 3. Particulate and Sulfate A comparison of the particulate and sulfate 13-mode cycle composite emission rates is listed on Table 51. Although sulfate was little affected by the various injection systems, i.e., high pressure versus either old 1000-hour pump or new standard pump, a major reduction in particulate was found. The following indicates a 51 to 55 percent reduction in brake specific particulate, depending on whether the old or new standard injection system is used as reference. APS vs 1000-hour pump °'82* ~2°'3" * 100% = 51% APS vs new standard pump 0.-896 399 * 100% = 55% APS vs average of 1000-hour 0.859 - 0.399 and standard pump 0.859 x 100% = 53% Confirmation of the APS improvement is afforded by the two separate experiments with the standard engine operated with a 1000-hour pump and injector system and then, over one year later, with a new standard pump and injector system. The repeatability of the cycle brake specific particulate 154 image: ------- TABLE 50. GASEOUS EMISSIONS BY 21-MODE EPA AND 13-MODE FTP MACK ETAY(B)67 3A WITH APS PUMP Test 21 EPA 13 FTP Run No. CO Gaseous Emissions g/kw-hr HC NO;U) HC + N02 Cycle BSFC Kq/kw-hr High-Pressure A. Bosch APS Configuration 1 2 Avg 1 2 Avg 1.782 1.733 0.802 0.763 1.758 0.782 1.685 1.671 0,699 0.677 11.745 11.574 11.660 12.130 11.997 12.547 12.337 12.442 12.829 12.674 21 EPA 13 FTP 1.678 0.688 12.064 12.752 Standard R. Bosch Configuration, 1000-hour 2.150 0.655 8.006 8.661 2.129 0.638 8.865 9.502 0.239 0.239 0.239 0.233 0.234 0.234 0.247 0.243 (a) NOx as N02 by CL - NO as N02 by NDIR 21-mode Er>A - 13-mode FTP TABLE 51. MACK ETAY(B)673A SULFATE AND PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES - APS PUMP CONFIGURATION (BASED ON 13-MODE CYCLE) Brake Specific Fuel Specific Engine Run Particulate Sulfate Particulate Sulfate Configuration NO. g/kw-hr mg/kw-hr g/kg fuel mg/kq fuel High Pressure 1 0.398 42.73 1.722 184.86 A.Bosch Pump 2 0.400 42.82 1.725 184.50 10° BTC Avg 0,399 42.78 1.724 184.68 Standard Pump 1 0.845 47.05 3.628 202.03 1000 hr 2 0.796 42.67 3.429 182.75 21° BTC Avg 0.821 44.86 3.529 192.39 Standard Pump 1 0.886 47.34 3.698 197.50 New 2 0.906 50.22 3.782 209.48 21° BTC Avg 0.896 48.78 3.740 203.49 155 image: ------- with old and new standard pumps in considered quite satisfactory. It is interesting that the particulate from the 1000-hour pump and injectors was essentially no different from the new pump. This indicates a lack of deterioration in particulate rate with operation and is noteworthy. Figure 39 is a plot of the eleven speed-load conditions in g/hr (particulate) and mg/hr (sulfate). There is essentially no difference in sulfate mass rate, as indicated earlier by the cycle specific values. Particulate rates, shown on the lower half of Figure 39, were substantially lower with the APS system at the 50, 75 and 100 percent power points. The difference is much smaller at the 25 percent power point and virtually the same at 2 percent power and at idle. Rather than the characteristic steep increase between 50 and 100 percent power, especially on approach to 100 percent load, the APS particulate rate was almost linear with power and relatively flat in comparison. It may be argued that a 50 percent reduction in particulate is promising, but it falls short of that desired or possibly needed. This is the largest improvement yet found, however, with an engine change and is thought to be very encouraging. The accompanying increase in oxides of nitrogen may or may not be inherent in the system, but only additional parametric type experimentation will tell. The 50 percent reduction in gross particulate justifies substantial further study with injection systems since apparently this could offer reduced exhaust particulate. Please refer to Tables D-88 and D-95 for the modal results in terms of concentration and various mass rates of both sulfate and particulate. Tables D-88 and D-91 are for the APS p'.isnp, and Tables D-92 to D-95 are for the new Robert Bosch standard system. 4. BaP and Organic Solubles Table 52 is a summary listing of the mode-by-mode BaP and organic soluble percentages for both the standard and the APS pumps. Combining the modal data into cycle composites was done on Tables D-96 and D-97. The brake specific 13-mode rates are compared below, Cycle Composite Engine Configuration BaP, yg/kw-hr Org. Sol., % Standard Pump 0.229 16.31 APS Pump 0.084 16.93 The above indicates a vast difference in BaP rate as a result of th<- pump. Referring to Table 52, it is evident that in only two of seven modes (APS pump) and three of seven modes (standard) was the BaP value reported above the minimum detectable. Thus, with only two data points of seven to even compare, the cycle composite can be easily overestimated by just the strength or inaccuracy of one point. Thus, the APS pump may indeed result in lower BaP, but this finding should be verified and confirmed through additional testing. 156 image: ------- TABLE 52. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, BaP AND ORGANIC SOLUBLES FROM 8 x 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES MACK ETAY(B)673A ENGINE Condition Engine __ Particulate Rata Btf i*nic tpm/load % Configuration m/mJ 9 fa* g/kq fuel 9/k*-hr V3/Si W/hr UgA9 fwl gq/kw-hr Soluhl*S 1450/2 Standard Pump 47.95 22.11 5.9R 5.15 0.086 39.87 10.70 9.27 APS Pump 61.07 27.65 6.01 3.84 BMD(1) 1450/50 standard Pump 119* 70 80.26 3.50 0.74 BHD 4. i? APS Pump 53.64 35.48 1.43 0. 30 BHD 14.lf> 1450/100 Standard Pump 24^.56 254.13 5.41 1.17 BHD /. 3M APS Pump 71.09 72.56 1.4ft 0.31 BHD 12.57 Idle Standard Pump 36. S3 ?.li 7.11 0.166 32.33 32. 33 21.30 APS Pump 41.33 7.73 7,73 0.084 16.06 16.06 ----- 23.69 1900/100 Standard Puap 132.46 180. m 3.26 0.75 BHD 9.15 APS Pump 56. 5C 75.64 1.37 0. 31 BHD 0 19O0/SO Standard Pump 11.90 68.79 2.42 0,58 BHD 4.54 APS Pump 49.65 46.99 I .64 0.38 BHD ----- 9.72 1900/2 Standard Pump 45.63 57.84 4.16 6.47 0.135 82.88 12.28 19.13 3H.65 APS PUK»p 59.11 36.22 5. 31 6.97 0.068 41.56 6.11 7.99 21.00 Below Kininium Detectable image: ------- 16000 r © APS 10° BTDC 1 I El New R. Bosch SI* BTDC A 1000-Hr R. Boiclj; 2l» BTTJC 14000 12000 Intermediate Speed High Speed 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 Idle 2 25 50 75 100 300 ¦I—•• 200 100 0 Idle 2 25 50 75 100 Figure 39. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Mack ETAY(B)673A with APS and Standard Pumps 158 image: ------- 5. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content The modal elemental analysis for H and C and the computed H/C mole ratio for the standard (new) pump and the American Bosch APS high-pressure system are listed below. Comparison of Carbon and Hydrogen Content of Mack. ETAY(B)67 3A with Standard and High-Pressure Fuel Injection Speed/Load Carbon Hydrogen H/CtlJ Std. High Pres. Std. High Pres. Std. High Pres. 1450/2 46.40 43.45 6.35 6.19 .1.63 1.70 1450/50 75.36 51.07 2.63 3.98 0.42 0.93 1450/100 77.52 47.34 1.87 0.54 0.29 0.14 Idle 38.87 24.12 5.21 2.00 1.60 0.99 1900/100 62.33 44. 39 2.43 1.12 0.47 0.30 1900/50 68.34 50.87 3.75 4.22 0.65 0.99 1900/2 55.79 42.74 5.22 5.41 1.12 1.51 ^ Mole Ratio The high-pressure injection system had no overall effect on changing the amount of carbonaceous, C, to the hydrocarbon, H, derived values. Some modes were lower and some higher, but the arithmetic average of the seven modes shows a H/C ratio of 0.88 for the standard pump versus 0.94 for the APS high- pressure system. Table D-98 lists the metals and sulfur analyses performed by EPA-RTP. Sulfur and calcium values were reported for nearly every condition. Except for the two 2-percent power points, the APS pump produced particulate at least two and sometimes three times the stai dard pump. With the exception of the same 2-percent points, calcium was notably higher with the APS pump. No good reason for this behavior is apparent. 6. Particle Sizing According to the plot of the "means" of the 7-mode particle size results on Figure 39a, the high-pressure injection system resulted in finer, lighter particulate than the standard engine. The new, standard Robert Bosch pump and injectors were used for particle size distribution experiments. For modal size distributions for each configuration, please refer to Table D-99 and Figures D-8 and D-9. There appears to be a greater variation mode to mode with the APS pump than the standard pump. Both configurations appeared to have more modal effect than other engines similarly tested. The following compares the two configurations. 159 image: ------- 10.9 4.6 1.03 stjaa image: ------- Particle Diameter ECO, Microns Cumulative Percent Smaller than ECD New 8. Bosch A. Bosch APS less than 10 99.6 99.7 5 98.6 98.6 2 97.0 96. 1 95.3 93.6 0.5 91.9 88.0 0.42 86.0 90.5 The Anderson sampler only classified about 15 percent of the particulate from the standard engine and only about 10 percent of the particulate from the APS configuration. 7. DOAS The DOAS results for the Mack ETAY(B)67 3A engine with standard and high-pressure pumps are given in Table 53. The average DOAS values listed below indicate little or no effect due to the pump configuration. DOAS Avq. Configuration LCA LCO TIA A. Bosch APS Pump 18. 1 8.6 1.7 Standard R. Bosch Pump, 1000-hr 11.8 5.8 1.8 Now 13.6 6.3 1.7 There were some apparent differences between the LCA, i.e., lower LCA with standard pump than with the APS pump, but otherwise the LCO and TIA derived from the LCO were quite consistent. TABLE 53. DOAS RESULTS FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH VARIOUS INJECTION SYSTEMS Configuration DOAS la) 1450 rpm 50 100 Idle 100 1900 rpm 50 APS High Press. LCA 25.2 16.1 4.2 20.1 5.0 15.1 40.7 Inject. System LCO 9.5 4.0 2.1 7.1 2.5 3.9 17.1 10° BTC TIA 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.6 2.2 1000-hr Std. LCA 14.5 10.8 6.8 11.5 5.8 15.6 17.4 Inject.System LCO 7.0 5.1 5.0 5.9 4.3 6.8 6.5 21° BTC TIA 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.8 New Std. LCA Inject. System LCO 21" BTC TIA 20.7 7.4 1.9 19.7 8.4 1.9 2.6 1.4 1.1 14.2 6.7 1.8 4.6 3.4 1.5 11. 6, 1, 21.7 io. a 2.0 (l) Diesel Odor Analytical System 161 image: ------- S. Aldehydes The cycle composite aldehyde rates in mg/kw-hr and mg/kg fuel are summarized on Table 54. In some cases, there is good agreement between new and old standard pumps such as formaldehyde, 'aexanaldehyde and erotonaldehyde. In other cases, the data does not agree at all nor is there a consistent trend noticeable. The different pumps, run about one year apart, may have had some effect on aldehydes. The procedure and analysis was the same, but its variabili could have contributed. TABLE 54. CYCLE COMPOSITE ALDEHYDE RATES MACK ETAY(B)673A Aldehyde Rate Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acetone Isobutyra1dehyde Crotonaldehyde Hexanaldehyde Benzaldehyde mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kw-hr mg/kg fuel A. Bosch APS High Pressure 27.44 117.25 15.92 68.03 14.89 63.60 3.1K 13.47 9.60 41.04 33.99 145.22 74.67 319.03 R. Bosch 1000-hr Pump Hew Pump 16.59 66.84 0.94 3.78 31.79 128.12 16.68 67..2 20.18 83.87 17.05 72.65 8.17 34.90 12.13 -1.82 6.77 28.4 3 23.84 101.83 20. 59 87.97 134.92 76.46 Ajainst this variabl baseline data, comparison f t? APS ; uroj i made difficult. Formaldehyde and hexanaldehyde were high« r while crotonaldi.-hy u was Jower. If one wire to merely add the individual aldehyde rates togethtr, an overall comj arisen could be made as follows. Configuration A. Bosch APS System Standard R. Bosch System, 1000-hr New Aldehydes mg/kw-hr 180 87 223 LCA Ug/litre 18.1 11.8 13.6 162 image: ------- When compared to the new pump, the APS was about the same. The 1000- hour standard pump was lower than either, just as the LCA from the DORS data indicated. Recall that 13 FTP hydrocarbons were slightly higher with the APS pump. The major reason for the large difference in new versus 1000-hour pumt results was the absence of benzaldehyde in the original experiments with the 1000-hour engine. Benzaldehyde accounted for over half of the "total aldehydes". Please refer to Tables D-100 and D-101 that list the modal results for the APS and new Robert Bosch standard systems. These data, taken for seven operating modes, were used in calculating the cycle composites using weighting factors derived from the 13-mode test. 9. Specific Hydrocarbons The various individual hydrocarbons listed on Table 55 show less difference between Robert Bosch pumps (old and new) than the aldehyde values previously discussed. The APS pump, in most cases, agreed best with the back- to-back test with the new Robert Bosch standard pump. The APS pump values weia, except for toluene, always higher than the new pump, and the new pump values were, except for the negligible ethane rates, higher than the old 1000- hour pump. The following lists the "total" of the eight hydrocarbons measured by adding together the values on Table 55. Hydrocarbons Configuration avq/kw-hr A. Bosch APS System 12? Standard R. Bosch System, 1000-Iir 79 New 102 As with aldehydes, the back-to-back (in time) American Bosch APS and Robert Bosch (new) are high and the lOuO-hour engine is low. For modal values, ilease refer to Tables D-102 and D-L03. 10. Summary A 50-percent reduction in [articulate was found with the Robert Bosch APS high-pressure injection system as compared to the standard Robert Bosch system used on the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine tested. Major reductions in visible smoke and particulate were found at 50, 75 and 100 percent power, giving essentially "flat" response versus power level. Although HC and CO seemed little affected, the APS system resulted in a 45-percent increase in NO emissions. A 4-pe-rccnt imjrovement in fuel efficiency was noted. Particle size distribution was shifted toward finer particles by the high-pressure system. Aldehydes were fairly equivalent overall when compared to the now Robert Bosch standard pump. The same was found for the specific hydrocarbons in total. The major effect of the high-pressure APS system on reducing Diesel exhaust particulate justifies substantial additional research in the general area of fuel injection system characteristics as they may influence Diesel particulate production. 16 3 image: ------- TABLE 55. CYCLE COMPOSITE SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON RATES MACK ETAY(B)673A Hydrocarbon Rate A.Bosch APS High Pressure R, Bosch 1000-hr Pump New Pump Methane CH4 Ethylene C2H4 Ethane C2H6 Acetylene C2H2 Propane C,H_ 3 8 Propylene C.H, 3 6 Benzene C6H6 Toluene SH8 TOTAL mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kW-hr mgAg fuel mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kW-hr mgAg fuel mg/kW-h r mg/kg fuel 11.57 49.45 69.16 295.52 48 05 6.77 28.94 62 64 25.08 107.18 7,41 31.66 5.68 24.27 126.77 541.71 6.90 27.77 45.03 181.18 0.68 2.74 2.79 11.24 17.96 72.26 4.48 18.01 0.78 3.15 78.62 316.35 10.20 43.56 52.76 225.42 0.38 1.61 4.79 20.46 0.43 1.83 21.50 91.86 5.24 22.38 6.46 27.61 101.76 434.7 164 image: ------- D. Effect of Fuel Residue The effect of fuel composition on particulate has been investigated on both HDD engines01,35) antj ldd cars.(44) The method has been to simply measure particulate and other emissions whil<» operating the engines/vehicles on different fuels that are either commonly .. mailable or could be representative of available fuels in the U.S. One such project included cetane and smoke suppressant additives.^1) Statistical analyses were then performed to see if particulate, sulfate and other fuel properties could be related to mass emission rates. Fuel sulfur content is directly related to that measured as sulfate in the exhaust. No such single or even functional grouping of fuel parameters has been, so far, related to particulate such that its removal or modification would result in lower exhaust particulate. Thus, this project included, as one of the variables of interest, the evaluation of a "special" or modified fuel for reduced exhaust particulate. The study was hampered to a great extent since the fuel property to be modified was not identified. It was speculated that part of the Diesel particulate might be a direct result of residual material in Diesel fuel which resembles microscopic-sized tarry substances in solution. These tiny particles resist combustion and could serve as nuclei for particle formation. Their boiling range is thought to be so high, relative to Diesel fuel itself, as to only partially burn to form a carbonaceous residue which is emitted as particulate. To investigate this theory, a brief study of fuel properties that might define this residual matter in the fuel was made. Steam jet yum ' .STM D-481) is a possible indicator of the type of residue or matter in a di.tillate fuel that could participate in the mechanism cf particulate formation. Namely, the residue or unaccounted-for matter in an ASTM D-86 thermal distillation may be an indicator of very heavy ends that really never completely burn or some of which never burn during the combustion event and thereby exit the engine as particulate. To try and describe the type of residue in terms of the "unaccounted-for" part of the ASTM D-86 thermal distillation may be incorrect, however. Under Contract No. 68-02-1777 for EPA (Dr. Ron Bradow, Project Officer), five different Diesel fuels were used to characterize a variety of emissions from two HDD engines. Table 56 is a listing of fuel properties of the five fuels to which has been added the steam jet gum determination. Note the wide variation in this value, from 0.2 to 11.8 mg/100 mi. EM-293-F is the "National Average" fuel used in this project, and it has 8.6 nvg/100 ml of gum. Thinking that distillation and steam jet gum are interrelated somehow, it was decided to laboratory distill EM-239-F so as to eliminate the last 2 and 5 percent of the boiling range, determine the distillations for each 98 and 95 percent remainder fuels, and perform steam jet gum determinations on each. Table 57 is a comparison of these findings, all with the same EM-2 39-F base material. For ease of comparison, the distillation data from Table 56 for EM-239-F is retabulated on Table 57. Note the drastic reduction in steam 165 image: ------- TAULK «*. PROPEKTIFS OK TllF FIVETFST FUFLS. CONTRACT 68-02-1 777 Fuel code Kucl type FM-23H-F 213 emissions KM-239-F "Nat'l. avg." No. 2 EM-240-F "Jet A" KM - 24 I - F "mill, qual. " No. 2 FM-242-F "premium" No. 2 Gum (D-481) nig/100 ml '>.9 8. * 0. 2 I I . 8 L. 2 Properties Gravity, c/ml 0. 845 0.844 0.806 0. 861 0. 83 1 Gravity, "AFI 36. 0 36. 1 44. 1 32.8 38.7 Cetanc (D976) 48.6 48. 7 47. 4 41.8 53. 0 Viscosity, cs (D445) 2. 65 2. 66 1.41 2.44 2. 53 Flash point, *C fF) 94 (202) 87 (189) 48 (118) 68 (155) 66 (150) Sulfur, wt, % (D1266) 0. 35 0. 23 0.04 0. 26 0. 26 FIA: aromatics, % 29. 8 21. 6 13.0 34. 6 12.4 olefins, % 1.6 0.8 2.4 1. 0 0. 8 saturates, It 68. 6 77. 6 83.6 64.4 86. 8 Distillation (D86) IBP, *C ("F) 192 (378) 186 (366) 162 (324) 182 (360) 183 (362) 10". 213 (415) 216 (421) 181(358) 216 (4 20) 213 (416) 207. 223 (434) 229 (444) 186 (366) 227 (440) 223 (434) 3 0% 233 (45 1) 239 (462) 190 (374) 240 (464) 231 (448) 4 0?. 245 (473) 248 (479) 196 (384) 250 (482) 244 (472) 50% 257 (495) 257 (494) 201 (394) 258 (496) 254 (490) 60% 269 (5 17) 266 (51 1) 207 (405) 266 (510) 262 (504) 7 or. 281 (538) 275 (527) 214 (4 18) 277 (530) 271 (520) SO'/. 293 (560) 286 (547) 224 (436) 292 (558) 287 (548) 90"A 3 12 (593) 303 (578) 238 (460) 301 (574) 301 (574) 9 5% 33 1 (626) 320 (608) 249 (481) 3 11 (59 2) 3 10 (590) FP 34 9 (660) 337 (640) 268 (515) 327 (620) 327 (620) recovery, 99 99 99 99.5 99. 0 residue, % 1 1 1 0.5 1. 0 loss, % 0 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 Carbon, wt. 7i 86.8 86. 8 86. 2 87.5 86. 3 Hydrogen, wt. % 12.9 13. 0 13.7 12. 3 13. 5 Nitrorcn, wt. % 0. 005 0.005 0.006 0. 024 0.008 image: ------- jet gum afforded by separating off the 2 percent of the material with the highest distillation temperature. Additional removal, as shown by the last column for 95 percent (5 percent separated), had essentially no effect on the steam jet gum. Thus, it may be concluded that, if the highest boiling range materials, say 2 percent of fuel with highest boiling temperature, were removed, then a substantial reduction of steam jet gum could be expected, on the order of 8.6 to 1.8 mg/100 m£, or approximately 80 percent reduction. TABLE 57 . COMPARISON OF GUM AND BOILING RANGE FOR EM-239-F AND SPECIAL DISTILLED CUTS OF EM-239-F DIESEL FUEL EM-239-F Special Distillations "Nat'1 Avq."No. 2 98% 95% Gum (D431) mg/100 ml 8.6 1.8 1.6 Distillation (D86) IBP, °C (°F) 196(366) 189(372) 188(371) 10% 216(421) 218(424) 219(426) 20% 229(444) 231(447) 230(446) 30% 239(462) 239(463) 239(463) 40% 248(479) 248(479) 248(478) 50% 257(494) 257(4955 256(493) 60% 266(511) 266(510) 264(507) 70% 275(527) 271(520) 273(523) 80% 286(547) 287(549) 284(543) 90% 303(578) 302(576) 299(571) 95% 320(608) 317(603) 314(598) EP 337(640) 332(630) 329(625) Recovery, % 99 98.8 98 Residue, % 1 1.2 2 Loss, % 0 0 0 The key question is: "Would such a change in fuel properties result in lower particulate?" Another question is: "Is there some other property that might influence exhaust particulate?" The answer to both questions is unknown at this time. There are laboratory tests that evaluate residue type propertie: of lubricating oils such as carbon residue by ASTM D-189 (Conradson) or by ASTM D-524 (Ramsbottom). How well these tests might relate to the exhaust particulate rate of a given engine is unknown but worthy of mention in passing During a meeting with the Project Officer on November 10, 1976, it was mentioned that a special fuel for laboratory testing might be the EM-239-f distilled to remove the 2 percent fraction of highest boiling range. An estimate of the cost to perform such a distillation on sufficient fuel for full-size engine evaluation was obtained from a specialty refiner located near 167 image: ------- Houston, Texas. It was found that the fuel cost was beyond the scope of the project, and further efforts were abandoned in favor of more complete evaluation of other effects already discussed. The area of fuel and lubricant effects, and especially fuel/lubricant modification to achieve lower particulate, demands much more work. Clearly, this area of study justifies a project or program of its own as was indicated by the preliminary study made under this project. It is a difficult area of study, yet the potential benefits may be much greater in reducing particulate and organic matter than mechanical methods such as combustion system improvement or exhaust after-treatment. 168 image: ------- VI. RESULTS OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE EVALUATION The results of the four light-duty vehicles are described by emission category. For description of test methods, procedures and equipment, please refer to Section III. A. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy The transient test procedures known as the FTP, SET and FET were the basis for measurement of gaseous emissions of HC, CO and N0X as well as fuel economy. 1. Emission Standards The contractural requirement to report all data arid results in modernized metric units (SI) requires a statement of equivalent emission standards for 1973 and later model year light-duty cars in grams per kilometer (g/km) for understanding. Table 58 lists the HC, CO and N0X limits in g/km with those published in appropriate Federal Registers in g/mile in parentheses. The conversion was based on 1.609 km equal to 1 mile and were rounded to the same number of decimals as the published limit. The metric equivalent levels are approximately 62 percent of the mixed metric-English units. TABLE 58. FEDERAl, LIGHT-DUTY EMISSION STANDARDS ¥ear Units HC CO mK 1973-1974 g/km 2.1 24 1.9 (g/mile) (3.4) (39) (3.0) 1975-1976 g/km 0.9 9.3 1.9 (g/mile) (1.5) (15) (3.1) 1977-1979 g/km 0.9 9.3 1.3 (g/mile) (1.5) (15) (2.0) 1980 g/km 0.25 4.35 1.3 (g/mile) (0.41) (7.0) (2.0) 1981-1983 g/km 0.25 2.j(a) 0.62 W (g/mile) (0.41) (3.4) (1.0) (a) CO standard can be waived to 4.35 g/km <7.0 g/mile) for 1981-1982 by Administrator after Public Hearing. NOx standard can be waived to 0.93 g/km (1.5 g/mile) by Administrator for innovative technology. 169 image: ------- 2. Emissions and Fuel Economy Results Tables 59 and 60 are summaries of the gaseous emissions of HC, CO and NOx (in g/km), fuel consumption (in 1/100 km) and the reciprocal of fuel consumption, fuel economy in mpg. Table 59 lists the results for the gasoline and Diesel powered Oldsmobilc Cutlass cars. Table 60 lists the results for the gasoline and Diesel powered Volkswagen Rabbit cars. Each SwRl value is the average of at least three replicates. In the case of the FTP results, two complete 2 3-minute urban driving cycles were run producing four bag samples. The first three bags were used to compute the 1975 FTP results; the first two bags, taken during the first cold-start, 23-minute cycle, were used to compute an FTP cold; and the last two bags, taken during the hot-start, second 23- minute cycle, were used to compute an FTP hot. A total of 11 replicate FTP hot runs were made over a three-day period with the Oldsmobile Diesel car with excellent repeatability both run- to-run and day-to-day. The standard deviation and coefficient of variation statistics are also shown on Table 59. Prior to the Volkswagen Rabbit gasolir car being shipped to SwRI, a test was made by the EPA Research Triangle Park (RTP) Laboratories in North Carolina. These results are listed on Table 60 for comparison. The four car results may be compared to Federal standards, listed ir Table 58. The 0.25 g/km (0.41 g/mile) 1980-1983 limit for HC was met by the Rabbit Diesel but exceeded by the experimental Oldsmobile 350 Diesel tested. The 1981-1983 CO limit of 2.1 g/km (3.4 g/mile) was met by both Diesel cars, while the 1981-1983 limit of 0.62 g/km (1.0 g/mile) NOx was not met by the Oldsmobile 350 Diesel car. The 1980 limit of 1.3 g/km (2.0 g/mile) NOx was achieved by both cars. Neither car achieved the 0.25 g/km (0.4 g/mile) NOx research goal. According to Table 59 1975 FTP results, it is evident that HC is higher, CO and NOx about the same, and fuel consumption in il/100 kir. lower (fuel economy in mpg higher) for the Diesel as compared to the gasoline- powered Oldsmobile Cutlass. During the cold portion of the test, the CO from the Diesel was half that of the gasoline engine, while during the hot part of the run the CO from the gasoline was about half that of the Diesel. This is an apparent indication of the effects of the oxidation catalyst equipped gasoline Cutlass. HC was consistently lower from the gasoline engine, and, as the vehicle and engine continued to run, the difference became greater. The 0.06 ij/km HC during the FET was about 30 percent of the 0.21 g/km from the experi- mental Diesel Cutlass. NOx from the Diesel decreased to 0.59 g/km during the SET and FET, while NOx from the gasoline car stayed at or near the 0.85 g/km of the 1975 FTP. Fuel consumption of the Diesel Cutlass was consistently 26 to 29 percent less than the gasoline car regardless of the driving cycle. In terms of fuel economy, the percent increase in miles per gallon, based on the gasol car, was from 35 to 40 percent. In summary of the fuel economy results of Table 59, the specific experimental Diesel Cutlass tested gave a 21.7 mpg cit and 31.3 mpg highway estimates for a combined 25.2 mpg. The gasoline Cutlass tested gave estimates of 15.6 mpg city and 23 mpg highway for a combined 18,2 170 image: ------- tabu: AVt KAia: iu\ i«>, n>>x ani> kuli, FOR DIESEL- AND GASOLINE-POWERED OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS CARS Cycle 1975 FTP Vehicle 350 Diesel _2iL SwRI Emission Rate, g/km HC 0.47 (0.76) CO 1.24 (2.00) NO* 0.70 (1.13) Fuel Cons. ay loo km 10.84 260 Gasoline SwRI EPA(a) 0.24 (0.39) 0.59 1. 34 (2.16) 6.6 0.85 (1.37) 2.0 15.11 FTP 350 Diesel 0.59 1.37 0.70 11.46 Cold CO.95) (2.20) (1.13) 260 Gasoline SwRI 0.39 2.35 1.02 15.92 (0.63) (3.78) (1.64) FTP 350 Diesel SwRI 0.36 1.12 0.69 10.13 Hot (0.58) (1.80) (1.11) Std. Dev. 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.33 ('oof. of Vat., % 4.9 4.6 5,1 3.3 260 Gasoline SwRI 0.14 0.55 0.68 14.27 (0.22) (0.88) (1.09) SET 350 Diesel SwRI 0.27 0.79 0.59 8.74 (0.43) (1.27) (0.95) 260 Gasoline SwRI 0.08 0.53 0.86 11.83 (0.13) (0.85) (1.38) FET 350 Diesel SwRI 0.21 0.63 0.59 7.51 (0.34) (1.01) (0.95) 260 Gasoline 0.06 0.12 0.33 10.24 , , (0.10) (0.19) (1.42) EPA ( ) values in parentheses are in graras/mile (a) EPA 1977 Certification values for Family 730 H2Q Pup 1 Econ. _JK2_ 21.7 15.6 15.5 20.5 14.8 23. 3 0.78 3.3 16. S 26. J ll>. « 31. 3 23.!! 20.2 171 image: ------- TAM.K !.(>. AVKUAUK III", CO, NOx , ANO FUKl. KRUtl.T!: FOR DIESEL- AND GASOLINE-POWERED VOLKSWAGEN RABBIT CARS Fuel Cons. Fuol Econ. Cycle Fuel Bv HC CO NO* 2/100 km mpg 1975 ;tp Diesel SwRI era(a) 0.23 (0.37) (0.20) 0.49 (0.79) (1.0) 0.54 (0.87) (1.2) 5.51 42.7 39 Gasoline SwRI 0.14 (0.23) 2.30 (3.70) 0.63 (1.01) 9.56 24.6 Gasoline EPAtb) EPA image: ------- mpg. The combined values are based on 55 and 45 percent time weighting to the city and highway estimates. Except for the FTP hot test on Table 60, the Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel HC v»ere always measurably higher than that from the gasoline-powered Rabbit. The CO, although much less from the Diesel during the FTP, was higher than the gasoline engine during the SET and FET. Apparently, the oxidation catalyst- equipped gasoline Rabbit resulted in very low CO levels during the higher average speed driving cycles. N0X was slightly less from the Diesel during the FTP while NOx was lower, about half that of the gasoline Rabbit during the- FET and SET. Thus the comparison of emissions from the Diesel- and gasoline- powered pair of Rabbits depends on driving cycle as it did for the pair of Cutlass cars. The oxidation catalyst apparently is very effective in reducing CO and HC to very low levels, lower than the Diesel during the higher average speed and road load driving typified by the SET and FET. However, NOx is higher from the gasoline cars during the FET and SET. The Diesel car emissions may be considered to be somewhat stable for all three types of transient cycles, while the gasoline-powered car emissions seem to be dependent on driving cycle in their behavior. The fuel consumption rates for the Diesel Rabbit were 42 percent lower by the 1975 FTP, 39 percent lower by the SET, and 33 percent lower by the FET relative to and based on the gasoline car fuel consumption in i/100 km. In terms of fuel economy, the percent increase in miles per gallon for the Diesel relative to and based on the gasoline data of Table 60 was 74 percent by the 1975 FTP, 65 percent by the SET, and 4? percent by the FET. In summary of the fuel economy results of Table 60, the Diesel- powered Rabbit tested gave estimates of 42.7 mpg city and 53.7 mpg highway, for a combined rating of 47.0 mpg. The gasoline-powered Rabbit gave estimates of 24.6 mpg city and 36.1 mpg highway, for a combined rating of 28.7 mpg. It is interesting to compare these values with those given for the Diesel Rabbit in Reference 65 of 39 mpg city, 52 mpg highway, and 44 mpg combined. The gasoline estimates also compare well with those given in Reference 65 of 24 mpg city, 37 mpg highway, and 28 mpg combined. For additional detail please refer to Appendix E, tabulations for each car and the computer printout results for each type of test. They are grouped by car. Tables E-l through E-24 are for the Qldsmobile Diesel while Tables E-25 through E-40 are for the Oldsmobile gasoline-fueled car. Tables E-41 through E-56 are for the VW Rabbit Diesel. Tables E-57 through E-72 contain the detailed results for the gasoline-powered Rabbit. B. Smoke Results Visible smoke from Diesels used in heavy-duty vehicles has been regulated since 1970 by the EPA. No Federal regulations or test for smoke applies to Diesel cars. For purposes of this research, smoke was measured during replicate cold start 1975 FTP, CFDS (SET), and FET cycles. 173 image: ------- 1. 1975 FTP Smoke Of the three transient cycles, operation over the urban driving schedule, especially the first 505 seconds of the test, produces the most noticeable smoke discharges. Of importance are those types of operation that might produce the maximum visible smoke during both cold and hot portions of the test. Table 61 lists the most important results of a visual analysis of the continuous smoke traces obtained from both Diesel-powered cars. The initial cold start resulted in a momentary peak value of 16 and 73 percent opacity for the Cutlass and Rabbit Diesels, respectively. The cold idle, which occurs immediately after engine start, produced a relatively low 4 to 5 percent opacity for the Cutlass and Rabbit Diesels. Next, the peak opacity during the first acceleration, to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph), resulted in a noticeable peak of 21 percent for the Cutlass. The second idle, at 125 seconds into the test, gave an average of 5 percent opacity from the Cutlass and 0.5 percent opacity from the Rabbit. TABLE 61. AVERAGE EXHAUST SMOKE OPACITY RECORfJD DURING REPLICATE 1975 FTP CYCLES Smoke Condition Cutlass Diesel P»hhit Diesel Cold Start Portion of Cycle Cold Start, Peak % 16.3 72.9 Cold Idle, Average % (after start) 4.4 4.5 First Accel, Peak * (after cold idle) 21.4 7.4 Idle at 125 sec, Average 1 > 5.2 0.5 Accel at 164 sec, Peak % (to 90.1 km/hr) 19.4 39.4 Hot Start Portion of Cycle Hot Start, Peak * 7.8 27.4 Hot Idle, Average % (after start) 4.1 0.4 First Accel, Peak % (after hot idle) 7.5 3.0 Idle at 125 ;ec, Ave age 1 (during final 505 sec) 4.3 0.3 Accel at 164 sec, Peak % (to 90.1 km/hr, '• tring final 505 sec) 16.6 37.7 174 image: ------- Starting at 164 seconds of the urban cycle, the vehicle was acceler- ated from rest to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph). This acceleration generally requires maximum power or close to maximum power from most Diesel-powered cars. The acceleration peak opacity was 19 percent for the Cutlass and 39 percent for the Rabbit. The results for the same part of the driving schedule but from a hot start are listed on the lower half of Table 61. These may be directly compared to the cold engine behavior. The Cutlass hot start and first acceleration values were less than the cold start, while both idies, of 4 percent, opacity, were about the same as the cold portion of the test. The acceleration to 90.1 km/hr was slightly lower. The Rabbit Diesel exhibited a trend of substantially lower idle smoke when the engine was warmed up with a negligible opacity measured. The acceler- ation to 90.1 km/hr produced about the same opacity as measure I during the cold portion of the test. To place this discussion of visible exhaust smoke into perspective, it should be noted that 3 to 5 percent opacity by the EPA smokemeter is at the limit of smoke visibility. Most of the time, both cars operated in this area with brie , but noticeable, excursions during rapid throttle movement and when accelerating at maximum or near maximum power. Figures 40 and 41 are typical cold start idle-accel to 90.1 km/hr {56 mph) for both Diesel cars. The trace represents the first 300 seconds of cold start ana was considered typical. All traces were based on a chart speed of 76.2 mm/min (3 inches/min) with zero opacity equal to 100 percent of chart. The speed trace was calibrated at 96.5 km/hr (60 mph) equal to 100 pe cent of chart and zero speed equal to zero on the chart. In the case of the Oldsmobile Diesel, the trace is of the third test. The Rabbit Diesel chart. Figure 41, was for the second test. In analyzing the smoke traces on Figures 40 and 41, careful attention must be paid the physical distance between recorder pens (offset) since a two- pen overlapping recorder was used. Contrary to what soir.e charts show, acceler- ation of the engine, vehicle, and smoke output occurred essentially at thi> same time. Each major chart division from right (engine start) to left is 24.5 mm and is equal to 20 seconds. Table F-l is i complete set of readings for the three runs for the Cutlass Diesel and the two replicates for the Rabbit Diesel. Those data o provided for additional run-to-run analysis of the highlights listed in Table 61. 2. SET and FET Smoke Tables F-2 and F-3 list the visual evaluation made of -.he smoke measured during the sulfate (SET) and highway economy (FET) cycles. The SET and FET represent cycles of increasing average speed with fewer starts and stops relative to the FTP. These cycles progressively reduce the effect of vehicle inertia (weiqht) and increase the effect of road load. Thus, it would be expected that more importance be given to cruise than to the accelerations, as was the case with the FTP. The visual smoke readings listed in Table F-2 and F-3 are lower in level than that measured in Table 61 and are therefet of less concern. 175 image: ------- Kxhaust SMokr Id tihj *>f». S |*m»/h f VrMcl* Kp#< -O .Figure 40. Typical Oldsmobile Cutlass Diesel "Cold Start" Smoke Trace image: ------- *0.1 liwtir |M XL Figure 41. Typical Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel "Cold Start" Smoke Trace image: ------- Passenger cars equipped with Diesel engines should have an invisible exhaust if they are to be equal in terms of exhaust opacity to vehicles powered by gasoline-fueled engines. The data on Tables 61 and F-l through F-3 illus- trate the overall low smoke tendencies of both Diesel cars and also point up those areas or modes of operation in which the smoke is easily noticeable. Cold operation and acceleration are those types of running that will result in smoke discharges from these two cars that will be of concern. As mentioned earlier, the limit of visibility by the EPA (PHS) smoke- meter is taken at 3 to 4 percent opacity. Both vehicles produced average smoke outputs (by visual estimation of the continuous traces) at this level (in the case of the Oldsmobile) and slightly below this level (in the case of the W) during the 1975 FTP. During the SET and FET, the overall estimates of the two cars were essentially the same and both quite low in smoke. C. Particulate In order to achieve a sufficient sample and because there is no convenient means to switch particulate samples at the 505-second point in the city driving schedule, all cold start FTP'S were for the «?ntir»» 23 minutes on a given filter. The 10-minute soak period was then observed and then an additional 23-minute city driving cycle repeated from a hot start. The 1975 FTP is a weighted combination of the cold and hot runs by the expression: 1975 FTP = 0.43 FTP cold +0.57 FTP hot. The other two transient driving cycles were from a hot start with the sample for the SET and for the FET collected on separate filters. Table 62 lists the particulate emission rates of the four LDV's. These rates are based on both duplicate fiberglass and duplicate Fluoropore filters taken at the same time during FTP cold, FTP hot, FET and SET experiments. The rates are in g/hr and g/ko fuel and g/km. The individual run results, on which the Table 62 averages are based, are listed on Tables F-4 through F-7 for the four cars. Figure 42 depicts the emission rates for both Diesel and gasoline cars for each test procedure. The Diesel rates are reasonable and consistent with prior results and indicate the Cutlass powered by an experimental Diesel engine to have on the order of twice the particulate rate of the Rabbit. The filters from the gasoline-powered Cutlass and Rabbit cars tested had a negligible amount of exhaust particulate in comparison to the Diesel cars. The appearance of the sample "ilters confirmed the absence of the black carbo- naceous matter typical of Diesels and inferred that the particulate that was collected was to some extent sulfate. Thus, the bar chart representation of Figure 42 for the gasoline cars is very low relative to the Diesel. To enable some general comparison, the ratio of Diesel to gasoline car particulate rate was computed from Table 63 data. The results are listed in Table 63 and indicate that the Cutlass experimental Diesel emits on the order of 22 to 147 times the gasoline engine particulate, while the ratio ranged from 41 to 101 times for the Diesel Rabbit compared to the gasoline Rabbit. If the 1975 FTP, SET and FET ratios are simply averaged, an overall ratio of 54 times the gasoline Cutlass particulate and 82 times the gasoline Rabbit particulate was measured from their Diesel counterparts. These ratios indicate 178 image: ------- TABLE 62. AVERAGE PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES FOR DIESEL AND GASOLINE PASSENGER CARS Test 1975 FTP Vehicle Cutlass Rabbit Diesel g/hr 18.00 5,68 Gasoline g/hr 0.208 0.133 Diesel g/kg fuel^ 6.30 3.93 Gasoline q/kg fuel^a* 0.050 0.059 Diesel 9/Hm 0.573 0.182 Gasoline 0.0056 0.0042 FTP Cold Cutlass Rabbit 20.07 6.35 0.263 0.156 6.58 4.23 0.071 0.068 0.628 0.202 0.0084 0.0050 *4 V0 FTP Hot SET Cutlass Rabbit Cutlass Rabbit 16.43 5.17 20.16 9.19 0.167 0.095 0.544 0.091 6,09 3.70 4.86 4.22 034 043 111 030 0.523 0.165 0.360 0.161 0.0036 0.0030 0097 0017 FET Cutlass Rabbit 23.08 12.18 1.056 0.120 68 23 181 032 0.298 0.157 0136 0016 ^ Mass per unit of fuel consumed based on average fuel consumption by carbon balance for respective test cycle. image: ------- 9 M* 3 A T> m rj d, to c> * 0» c w I— I- ft 3 H- o I c TJ M % ft ft *1 ft w a 3 H- *0 Cn 0> » rt O H Hv (ft 0 O c K0 -4 Ol ¦H 33 -D > DO T1 O H C -O HI O O I" 33 O > 03 | GASOLINE DIESEL GASOLINE DIESEL DIESEL J GASOLINE DIESEL 1 GASOLINE S DIESEL "0 - x O _i > 03 O CO - m -» 33 > w GASOLINE MB§EL GASOLINE DIESEL J GASOLINE 081 g/km o K> n o u> o T o at T o ON o «xl "1 DIESEL 1 GASOLINE n c > CD J GASOLINE mm MmL. GASOLINE image: ------- TABLE 63. DIESEL- AND GASOLINE-POWERED CkR PARTICULATE RATE COMPARISON Test 1975 FTP FTP Cold FTP Hot SET FET Diesel q/fa" 0.573 0.628 0.523 0.360 0.298 (a) Cutlass Gasoline 0.0056 0.0084 0.0036 0.0097 0.0136 Ratio image: ------- TABLE 64, AVERAGE SULFATE EMISSION RATES FOR DIESEL-AND GASOLINE-POWERED PASSENGER CARS Sulfate Emission Rate As % S Test Vehicle mg/hr mq/kq fuel nvq/km in Fuel 1975 FTP Cutlass Diesel 313.0 108.6 9.962 1.57 Cutlass Gasoline 43.5 13.0 1.373 1.59 Rabbit Diesel 115.2 79.5 3.662 1.24 Rabbit Gasoline 1.3 0.6 0.041 0.06 FTP Cold Cutlass Diesel 401.7 131.6 12.786 1.91 Cutlass Gasoline 2.5 0.7 0.079 0.07 Rabbit Diesel 138.5 92.2 4.395 1.34 Rabbit Gasoline 0.9 0.4 0.029 0.04 FTP Hot Cutlass Diesel 246.1 91.2 7.832 1.32 Cutlass Gasoline 74.4 22.4 2.351 2.40 Rabbit Diesel 97.7 69.9 3.110 1.02 Rabbit Gasoline 1.6 0.7 0.051 0.08 SET Cutlass Diesel 578.0 90.2 10.326 1.30 Cutlass Gasoline 728.0 148.8 12.994 16.00 Rabbit Diesel 244.2 114.2 4.362 1.66 Rabbit Gasoline 57.4 18.7 1.024 2.01 FET Cutlass Diesel 662.4 134.2 8.541 1.94 Cutlass Gasoline 943.6 160.9 12.167 17.31 Rabbit Diesel 303.6 105.2 3.914 1.52 Rabbit Gasoline 231.0 61.8 2.979 6.64 182 image: ------- 14 12 10 8 - s: (5 1* ml co co _j o co < (5 Ui -J o CO < (9 O < cs a -J a CO < (9 LU Z UI image: ------- very little sulfate from the gasoline cars compared to the Diesel. During the sulfate emission test (SET>, the Cutlass gasoline car sulfate rate increased markedly from the FTP hot run (which, in turn, was higher than the FTP cold). This behavior of sulfate from gasoline-powered oxidation-catalyst-equipped cars is not uncommon and has been demonstrated in a number of studies. References 66 and 67 give typical data 'or comparison. The gasoline-powered Rabbit, which also had an oxidation catalyst, emitted more sulfate during the SET and more yet during the FET. Sulfate during the FTP was negligible. In both gasoline-fueled cars, the low FTP values are commonly attributed to "storage" of the sulfate in the exhaust system. Both Diesel cars seemed less influenced by the type cycle with no indication of sulfate "storage" during the FTP operation. Based on the SwRl SET test, the Diesel Rabbit produced 4.3 times the sulfate of the gasoline Rabbit, and the experimental Diesel Cutlass emitted 0.8 or 80 percent of the gasoline sulfate rate. Comparing the two Diesels, the Cutlass emitted from 2.2 to 2.8 times the sulfate as the Rabbit. One reason for this is the higher fuel consumption of the larger, heavier Cutlass versus the Rabbit. Another way to consider the sulfate results is in terms of percent of fuel sulfur converted to sulfate. Table 65 is a comparison of this data for both cars. While the Diesel conversion percentages all range from 1 to 2 percent of the fuel consumed, the gasoline-powered vehicles ranged from less than 0.1 percent during the cold start to as high as 17.3 percent during the FET test of the Cutlass. This car, equipped with catalyst but without air pump, emitted far greater sulfate levels than similar size non-air catalyst cars previously tested.The SET value of 16 percent is on the order of that from an air pump catalyst-equipped car. The Volkswagen Rabbit, on the TABLE 65. COMPARISON OF PERCENT SULFUR IN FUEL CONVERTED TO SULFATE BY GASOLINE AND DIESEL CARS Cutlass, % Rabbit, % Test Diesel Gasoline Ratio Diesel Gasoline Ratio 1975 FTP 1.57 1.589 1.0 1.24 0.062 20.0 FTP Cold 1.91 0.072 26.5 1.34 0.038 35.3 FTP Hot 1.32 2.404 0.5 1.02 0.076 13.4 SET 1.30 15.999 0.1 1.66 2.009 0.8 FET 1.94 17.306 0.1 1.52 6.644 0.2 (a) ratio Diesel gasoline 184 image: ------- other hand, had 2 percent conversion during the SET, a reasonable value for a catalyst non-air equipped vehicle. Based on the SET results, it may be concluded that the experimental Diesel emitted slightly less sulfate than the gasoline-powered Cutlass, 10.3 versus 13.0 mg/km, while the Diesel-powered Rabbit emitted far more than the gasoline Rabbit, 4.4 versus 1.0 mg/km. These comparisons are based on a sample of only four cars using "National Average" fuel sulfur levels and all other test aspects identical. For additional individual test results, please refer to Appendix Tables F-4 through F-7, Each table lists the emission rates for a given car and lists percent sulfur converted to sulfate. This data indicates the run-to-run repeatability of the two Diesels to be quite satisfactory. E. Carbon-Hydrogen-Nitrogen The percent carbon (C), hydrogen (H), and nitrogen (N) in the particulate sample collected on the glass fiber filter was analyzed by ASTM method D-3178. The results are listed on Table 66 and show little difference between the two gasoline cars, ft substantial difference is shown between Diesel- and gasoline- powered cars, however. Carbon content was expected to be much higher, but the major differences in hydrogen and nitrogen will require further work to fully explain. The different boiling ranges of the fuels could likely be a major reason for the hydrogen differences, and the lack of carbon on the filter may further explain the very low hydrogen values. Possibly, the difference in fuels plus the lack of carbon on the filter is the reason Eor the lower nitrogen values; however, this is speculation. TABLE 66. CARBON, HYDROGEN, AND NITROGEN CONTENT OF FILTER PARTICULATE, PERCENT BY WEIGHT Cutlass Rabbit Element Cycle Diesel Gasoline Diesel Gasoline C FTP Cold 76.83 0.070 78.33 0.087 FTP Hot 82.07 0.080 73.19 0.093 SET 78.49 0.076 73.22 0.078 FET 80.95 0.081 77.04 0.081 H FTP Cold 3.33 0.051 4.29 0.049 Ftp Hot 3.79 0.052 4.80 0.050 SET 4.00 0.058 4.43 0.045 FET 4.89 0.055 3.85 0.049 N FTP Cold 0.54 0.0076 0.60 0.0064 FTP Hot 0.54 0.0084 0.66 0.0076 SET 0.59 0.017 0.51 0.0072 FET 0.68 0.010 0.45 0.0075 185 image: ------- F. Metals The particulate matter collected on the 47 mm Fluoropore plastic filters were analyzed by X-ray fluorescence to determine the presence and amount of lead, manganese, mercury, phosphorus, sodium, zinc, copper, calcium, vanadium, iron, aluminum, silica, nickel, tin, and sulfur. Table 67 shows that only iron, zinc, aluminum, and sulfur were detectable by the method used. Except for sulfur, the results were not consistent for either Diesel or gasoline- fueled cars. Some iron was found in all Rabbit Diesel filters. Note the essential absence of sulfur (by this measurement method) from both gasoline vehicles during the FTP cycle and its apparent purge and collection during the SET and FET. This is in qualitative agreement with the data in Table 64 and graphed on Figure 43. TABLE 67. METAL CONTENT OF PARTICULATE SAMPLES (PERCENT OF PARTICULATE) Element Cycle Cutlass Diesel Gasoline Rabbit Diesel Gasoline Iron FTP Cold FTP Hot SET FET 0,35 (a) 12.4 0.7 1.2 0.46 0.26 Zinc FTP Cold FTP Hot SET FET 11.6 Aluminum FTP Cold FTP Hot SET FET 0.34 Sulfur FTP Cold FTP Hot SET FET (a) 1.2 0.83 1.4 1.4 below detectable limit 6.2 30.6 28.0 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.3 9.0 18.3 G. Odor Ratings and Related Analysis This section discusses the odor ratings by trained panel and DOAS as well as the supplemental analyses obtained at the same time odor was measured. 186 image: ------- 1. Odor Ratings by Trained Panel Table 68 contains a summary listing of the odor ratings for both Diesel-i*. red cars. The evaluations were made at both 10C:1 and at 550:1 dilution ratios. As expected, the odor was always lower at the higher dilution level. A direct comparison between the two Diesel cars during steady state is not possible since the Volkswagen Rabbit mid and high loads were half and maximum power (at 90.1 km/hr high gear, 3360 rpm, and at 53.1 km/hr high gear, 2020 rpm). The automatic transmission in the Cutlass severely limited the power level at both 90.1 and 53.1 km/hr due to excessive-slip as power level was increased. Accordingly, power levels were necessarily limited to that capable by the vehicle. Figures 44 and 45 are bar graph and "D" versus power plots of the Appendix F data. The "D" odor intensity generally increased with power level. Little change with power was noted at 550:1 for the Cutlass Diesel. The bar graphs are a summation of each odor rating which gives about equal importance to the "D" intensity value and the sum of the four quality ratings. Table 69 is an overall summary of the two Diesel cars by type of operation as well as dilution ratio. Both cars are found to have about the same exhaust odor intensity with the only notable difference being the tran- sients in which the Rabbit produced a higher "D" intensity than the Cutlass experimental Diesel, on the order of "D"-3.5 versus "D"-2.7 at 100:1 dilution. This difference was not as detectable at the higher 550:1 dilution level. If 100:1 is taken to be the minimum dilution level of Diesel exhaust, then both Diesel cars had odor levels that would be easily noticed by most people. The "D"-3 level, from the odor opinion study, was found objectionable to' 77 percent of those surveyed.*24,25' Appendix Tables F-8 through F-15 list the detailed rating summaries for further study. This data lists the run-to-run results for the steady states, in triplicate, and the transient tests, replicated four times. TABLE 69. ROUGH COMPARISON OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE "D" ODOR RATINGS Dilution Six Steady Cold Three All Eleven Diesel Car Ratio States Idle Start Transients Conditions Oldsmobile 100:1 2.9 3.4 4.0 2.7 3 0 550:1 1.0 0.8 2.0 1.1 1.1 Difference 1.9 2.6 2.0 1.6 1.9 Volkswagen 100:1 3.1 3.6 4.0 3.5 3.3 550:1 1.1 1.2 2.4 1.0 1.2 Difference 2.0 2.4 1.6 2.5 2.1 187 image: ------- TAIjLK OH. LISTING OF AVERAGE ODOR PANEL hATINGS FOR DIESEL-POWERED PASSENGER CARS Q/I Odor Rating Operating Diesel Dilution "D" "B" no- "A" Hp* Condition Car Ratio Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pung« Steady State Results Inter. Speed Cutlass 100:1 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.2 0 Load 550:1 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 0 Rabbit 100:1 2.8 1.1 0.9 0.7 0,! 550:1 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 0 Inter. Speed Cutlass 100:1 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.5 O.f Mid Load 550:1 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.] Rabbit 100:1 2.8 1.1 1.0 0.6 O.f 550:1 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 O.J Inter. Speed Cutlass 100:1 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 O.f High Load 550:1 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0 Rabbit 100:1 3.3 1.1 1.0 0.6 O.f 550:1 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 o.: High Speed Cutlass 100:1 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.' 0 Load 550:1 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 Rabbit 100:1 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.4 0. 550:1 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.. High Speed Cutlass 100:1 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.6 0. Hid Load 550:1 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 0 Rabbit 100:1 3.5 1.2 1.0 0.6 0. 550:1 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 High Speed Cutlass 100:1 3.3 1.1 1.0 0.7 0. High Load 550:1 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0. Rabbit 100:1 3.8 1.2 1.1 0.8 0. 550:1 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 0 Idle Cutlass 100:1 3.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0. 550:1 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0 Rabbit 100:1 3.6 1.1 1.0 0.8 0. 550:1 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.2 0. Transient Results Idle- Cutlass 100:1 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.7 0. Acceleration 550:1 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 0. Rabbit 100:1 3.5 1.2 1.0 0.7 1. 550:1 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 0. Acceleration Cutlass 100:1 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.7 0. 550:1 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 Rabbit 100:1 3. ~ 1.3 1.0 0.8 0. 550:1 1.3 0,9 0.5 0.3 0. Deceleration Cutlass 100:1 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0. 550:1 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 0. Rabbit 100:1 3.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0. 550:1 0.9 0.8 0,3 0.3 0. Cold Start Cutlass 100:1 4.0 1.4 1.0 0.9 0. 550:1 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 0. Rabbit 100:1 4.0 1.3 1.0 0.9 0. 550:1 2.4 1.0 1.0 0.4 0. 188 image: ------- 100:1 DILUTION -- 550:1 DILUTION HIGH SPEED LOW SPEED L^_JP|ED_ _ _H I_GH_ SPEED J. _L NO MID LOAD HIGH €>- O c o IDLE- ACOEL DECEL C0L1 ACCEL STAI NO MID HIGH NO MID HIGH IDLE LOAD,, 1400 RPM LOAD,, 1920 RPM Figure 44. Average Odor Ratings for Cutlass Diesel Car 189 image: ------- r. 0 I. 0 .0 . 0 0 .0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 100:1 DILUTION 550:1 DILUTION HIGH SPEED LOW SPEED LOW SPEED "high" speed" _L NO -L MID LOAD HIGH NO MID HIGH NO MID HIGH IDLE LOAD.; 2020 RPM LOAD, 3300 RPM IDLE- ACCEL DECEL COLD ACCEL START Figure 45. Average Odor Ratings for Rabbit Diesel Car l')0 image: ------- 2. Odor by DOAS Listed in Table 70 are the average values obtained by the DOAS simul- taneously with the odor panel ratings. Figure 46 is a plot of TIA versus "D" level for both cars. It is interesting to note the clustering of data at the 100:1 and at the 550:1 dilution levels. At 550:1, all the "D" levels were less than 1.3, which is a relatively low and light odor strength. There appears to be some correlation with TIA at the usual 100:1 dilution level. An attenpt was made to obtain DOAS values during various transient driving cycles to see if there might be a correlation with the steady-state data. Table 70 also lists the DOAS values for both Diesel cars, and Figure 47 illustrates the TIA values for the FTP, SET and FET cycles. These results would predict the odor from both cars during the transient cycles to be essentially the same, with the higher duty cycle FET odor the highest. Only with the Rabbit Diesel was there a noticeable upward trend of odor with power (top half of Figure 45). 3. Related Gaseous Emissions Gaseous emissions, measured at the same time as the steady-state odor tests, are summarized in Table 71. The averages thus listed are averages of the replicate odor test days. These day-to-day sunanaries as well as individual run- to-run emissions for each day for both Diesel cars are included as Tables F-16 through F-23. Also listed on these tables are the DOAS results in terms of LCA, LCO and TIA values. H. Aldehydes Table 72 lists the various aldehyde results during the seven steady-state and three transient cycles. Looking first at formaldehyde, the simplest and most prevalent of the partially oxygenated compounds listed, the Cutlass experimental Diesel was higher in raw exhaust concentration than the Rabbit Diesel. The same general behavior was noted for acetaldehyde and acetone. The GLC separation luups together in the acetone value not only acetone, but acrolein and propanal. Isobutanal and benzaldehyde values were sometimes lower and sometimes higher with one Diesel relative to the other, and no over- all trend was evident by operating condition or vehicle. The transient cycle data listed on the bottom of Table 72 is illustrated on Figure 48. The ordinate is the sum of the individual aldehydes measured in mg/km. In this way, a rough general conparison by car and test cycle can be made. The experimental Diesel Cutlass produced more aldehydes than the gasoline Cutlass regardless of test cycle. The Diesel and gasoline Rabbits produced nearly identical amounts, although a reversal in behavior occurred between the cold and hot ftp's. The experimental Diesel Cutlass produced more aldehydes than the Rabbit Diesel, on the order of two to three times, depending on cycle. Some of this differ- ence is attributed to the difference in vehicle size, weight, power produced, and fuel consumed. 191 image: ------- TABLE 70. DOAS RESULTS OF DIESEL CARS DURING STEADY-STATE ODOR TESTS AND TRANSIENT CYCLES Condition/Cycle Vehicle LCA, yg/i STEADY-STATE LCO, \iq/l TIA Intermediate Speed, Cutlass No Load Rabbit 14.0 5.3 6.0 2.6 1.8 1.4 Intermediate Speed, Cutlass Mid Load Rabbit 16.1 14.6 6.0 5.1 1.8 1.8 Intermediate Speed, Cutlass High Load Rabbit High Speed, Cutlass No Load Rabbit 14.5 15.3 15.4 7.6 5.6 6.2 6.5 2.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 High Speed, Mid Load Cutlass Rabbit 15.4 22.9 5.4 6.8 1.6 1.9 High Speed, High Load Idle Cutlass Rabbit Cutlass Rabbit 12.2 23.5 18.4 9.3 7.1 10.7 4.9 3.6 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.6 TRANSIENT CYCLES FTP Cycle SET Cycle FET Cycle Cutlass Rabbit Cutlass Rabbit Cutlass Rabbit 6.1 3.8 5.5 3.3 7.8 4.9 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.1 2.6 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.2 192 image: ------- 3.0 r oCUTLASS DIESEL 100:1 ~ CUTLASS DIESEL 550:1 A RABBIT DIESEL IOOjI V RABBIT DIESEL 550:1 Ono load ©MID LOAD • HIGH LOAD OINTER SPEED tJHIGH SPEED AI OLE owe A W V 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 "D" DIESEL ODOR RATING BY PANEL 5.0 Figure 46, TIA by DOAS Versus "D" Odor Rating by Trained Panel for Two Diesel Cars at Two Dilution Levels 193 image: ------- - - CL o a. a b- -J ~— h- _i ul o O LL. o o X o X IB, in IA a. a. r* Q- a. H H- as h- h- Hi UJ 0% ~— h- Ui UJ rH u. LL. CO LL. H u. u. v> 14. DIESEL CUTLASS DIESEL RABBIT Figure 47. TIfl of Various Driving Cycles for Diesel- Powered Passenger Cars 194 image: ------- TABLE 71. EXHAUST ANALYSES OF DIESEL CARS DURING STEADY-STATE ODOR TESTS Condition Vehicle HC ppmC CO EES NO-NDIR ppm NO-CL ppm NOx-CL ppm C02 % Intermediate Cutlass 139 319 84 79 79 2.0 Speed, No Load Rabbit 66 257 69 65 65 2.0 Intermediate Cutlass 102 299 198 175 175 4.7 Speed, Mid Load Rabbit 69 181 298 270 270 5.4 Intermediate Cutlass 91 316 251 222 222 7.0 Speed, High Load Rabbit 87 344 314 296 296 12.5 High Speed, Cutlass 147 335 88 79 79 2.3 No Load Rabbit 52 231 115 102 102 2.3 High Speed, Cutlass 92 308 263 231 231 6.5 Mid Load Rabbit 129 336 400 373 373 7.5 High Speed, Cutlass 85 548 290 263 263 10.6 High Load Rabbit 93 2027 348 324 322 13.9 Idle Cutlass 284 521 58 55 55 2.4 Rabbit 184 392 102 91 91 2.1 195 image: ------- TADIiv 72. ALDEHYDES OBTAINED WIRING STEADY-STATE ODOR TESTS AND TRANSIENT CYCLES Condition/Cycle Vehicle Form- aldehyde Aeet- aldehyde Ace- tone STEADY-STATES, Ug/»3 Iso- butanal Crot- onal Hex- anal Benz- aldehyde intermediate Speed, No ixwid Cutlass Diesel Rabbit Diesel 0990 5922 2046 1613 1010 1200 793 908 591 622 Interpolate speed, Hid Load Cutlass Diesel Rabbit Diesel 3005 1726 1656 777 754 523 582 447 460 497 Intermediate Speed, High Load Cutlass Diesel Rabbit Diesel 1407 2028 1126 1800 1333 719 244 435 1052 279 1495 High Speed# No Load Cutlass Diesel Rabbit Diesel 8581 1653 2543 433 1320 566 330 621 631 495 460 178 High Speed, Mid load Cutlass Diesel Rabbit Diesel 2506 2137 1954 636 1642 443 1405 616 377 1490 High Speed, High Load Cutlass Diesel Rabbit Diesel 3174 1241 205-6 1035 916 537 18 850 U) V0 0* Idle Cutlass Diesel Rabbit Diesel 12051 12 325 4071 3323 1346 1891 1181 924 1355 555 190 TRANSIENT CYCLES, xnq/ka 1975 FTP FTP Cold Cutlass Diesel Cutlass Gasoline Rabbit Diesel Rabbit Gasoline Cutlass Diesel Cutlass Gasoline Rabbit Diesel Rabbit Gasoline 15,8 2.6 16.0 0.4 15.0 3.7 26.3 0.2 6.5 0.4 5.0 35-7 2.6 5.6 0.3 18,5 3.8 16.0 2.6 19.3 2.6 27.0 2.3 4.2 7.2 32.1 6.2 11.2 21.0 1.8 2.7 2.2 2.4 0.8 Cutlass Diesel Cutlass Gasoline Rabbit Diesel Rabbit Gasoline 16.5 1.8 8.1 0.5 2.8 29.5 0.1 0.3 18*0 4.6 7.8 2.8 2.7 4.1 40.5 0.9 1.5 7.4 4.1 Cutlass Diesel Cutlass Gasoline Rabbit Diesel Rabbit Gasoline 12.3 1.3 6.0 0.3 6.3 1.5 5.1 1.0 10.4 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.4 0*6 4.3 1.1 5.3 2.2 Cutlass Diesel Cutlass Gasoline Rabbit Diesel Rabbit Gasoline 6.2 1.6 4. 3 0.5 3.0 1.1 3.3 0.5 2.7 8.9 6.5 3.3 6.4 1.2 3.7 0.8 1.0 Hdptple contaminated image: ------- 16T ALDEHYDES, MG/KM m Isj o O cn o 00 o o o o H* C VO H -J - VI -n zd H > T> 03 O -n C Zj H T? " 8 30 2 > f, w o e 33 > W o JO > 03 o G 50 > W DIESEL GMfl*INE DIESEL GASOLINE DIESEL GASOLIHE DIESEL GASOLINE I DIESEL GASOLINE DIESEL I GASOLINE DIESEL DIE gaI iOLINE EL 0LINE GASOLINE DIE: EL GAS(LINE image: ------- I. Specific Hydrocarbons Both steady-rtate and transient _ycle results are listed in Table 73. One item of importance from this data is methane as a percent of the HC measured by FID. Table 74 lists the methane and FID HC values from Tables 73 and 71, respectively. Methane ranged from about 1 to 4 percent of the FID hydrocarbons for both Diesel cars. This range holds well for the transient cycle results listed at the bottom of Table 74. The two gasoline cars, however, had methane fractions of the exhaust hydrocarbons on the order of 14 to 58 percent. The highest percentages were for the Rabbit gasoline ranging from 24 to 58 percent. The Cutlass gaso- line ranged from 14 to 31 percent. Methane is generally considered nonreactive in photochemical reactions; therefore, it is helpful to know how much of the exhaust hydrocarbons are methane. The exhaust from the two Diesels tested were a nominal 3±2 percent methane, while the two gasoline cars tested had a nominal 35±20 percent methane. Benzene was always higher, by about 30 percent, from the Oldsmobile 350 Diesel than the Rabbit Diesel except at high speed and load. During transient testing, the difference in the two Diesel cars' benzene emissions was greater, about 50 percent. Compared to their gasoline counterparts, the Oldsmobile Diesel was much higher, about two times the gasoline Oldsmobile on the 1975 FTP. The Rabbit Diesel was, over all three cycles, about the same as the gasoline Rabbit. J. Polynuclear Aromatics BaP was measured as an indicator of the polynuclear aromatic content of the vehicle exhaust. The thin layer chromatography method described earlier (16, 62) was used. An 8 x 10 size fiberglass filter was used to collect sufficient particulate for BaP analysis. Table 75 lists the emission rate of BaP for all four cars. In the case of the two Diesel cars, emission rates of from about 2 to 5 (Cutlass Diesel) and 1 to 5 (Rabbit Diesel) in terms of pg/km of BaP were found. The method depends on the trapping of the BaP from the diluted exhaust on the particulate coated glass fiber filter. When this simple and rapid dilution tunnel method was used with the gaso- line exhaust, little particulate was collected, just as in the case of the 47 mm filters. Recall that the two gasoline vehicles emitted on the order of 1/50 to 1/80 the particulate of the Diesel cars and that which was collected had a negligible percentage of carbon per Table 66. In discussions with Dr. Ronald Bradow of EPA Environmental Sciences Research Laboratories, it was mentioned that BaP collection on fiberglass filters by the tunnel method may be dependent on the carbon particulate. In the case of the Diesel, it is thought that the carbon acts as the collecting media and this may explain why BaP values from the two gasoline-powered cars were below detectable limits in all but two instances. 198 image: ------- TABLE 71. or.TAlU-n MC ANALYSIS DURING STEAD* - STATE nlp)H TESTS AND TRANSIENT CYCLES Meth- Eth- Acety- Prop- Benz- Ethy- Propy- Tolu* Condi t ion/Cycle Vehicle ane ane lene ane ene lene lene ene n TKADY-STATES , pptn C Intermediate Speed, Cutlass Diesel 4.2 1.1 2. 3 0 2.6 17.4 5.3 0 No Load Rabbit Diesel 0,6 0.3 0.8 O 0.9 13.4 4.2 0 Intermediate Speed, Cutlass Diesel 4,0 1.1 2.2 0 3.1 IS.3 4.3 0 Hid Load Babbit Diesel 2,2 0.5 1-1 0 2.3 12.5 4.0 0 Intermediate Speed, Cutlass Diesel 3. 3 0.9 2.1 0 3.6 15.0 4.0 0 High Load Rabbit Diesel 3.3 0.7 1.5 0 3.4 20.1 6.1 0,5 High Speed, Cutlass Diesel 4.5 1.0 2.1 0 2. 3 16.9 5.9 0 No Load Rabbit Diesel 0.9 0.4 0.8 0 0.9 9.5 2.8 0 High Speed, Cutlass Diesel 2.5 0.7 2.0 0 2.4 14.8 4.1 0 Hid Load Rabbit Diesel 2.2 3.2 6. 3 0 8.3 45.9 9.3 1.4 High Speed, Cutlass Diesel 1.0 0.4 2.2 0 3.9 19.3 4.6 0 ilicfH Load Rabbit Diesel 1.8 1.6 5.8 0 7.7 34.1 5.3 0.4 Idle Cutlass Diesel 10.5 2.9 7.0 0 7.7 37.4 10,9 1.8 Rabbit Diesel 2.3 0.7 1.5 0 1.9 26.1 8.1 0.7 TivANSIEMT CYCLES. m§/km 1975 FTP Cutlass Diesel 12.7 4.2 5.3 0.1 11.6 49.2 17.1 2.6 Cutlass Gasoline 29.S 14.8 1.1 0 5.6 18.2 8.2 13.9 kabbit Diesel 6.7 0.9 1.5 0 5.1 28.1 9.6 0.6 Rabbit Gasoline 33.0 6.4 2.6 0 9.1 15.2 4.0 12.3 SET Cutlass Diesel 5.1 1.7 2.6 0 6.4 28.5 8.9 0 Cutlass Gasoline 24.2 9.2 0 0 2.7 6.3 0 2.4 Rabbit Diesel 3. 3 0.4 1.2 0 2.9 15.3 4.5 1.6 Rabbit Gasoline 17.4 2.4 0 0 0 1.1 0 1.2 FET Cutlass Diesel 3.4 1.3 1.9 0 4,9 21.8 6.5 0.9 Cutlass Gasoline 18.4 6,7 0 0 0.8 2.9 0 1.4 Rabbit Diesel 4.7 0.6 1.7 0 3.2 15.1 4.5 0 Rabbit Gasoline 14.6 0 0 0 0.4 2.0 0 0.9 image: ------- TABLE 74. METHANE FRACTION OF EXHAUST HC DURING STEADY-STATE ODOR TESTS AND TRANSIENT CYCLES Condition/Cycle Vehicle Methane HC % Methane STEADY-STATE Intermediate Speed, No Load Cutlass Diesel Rabbit Diesel 4.2 ppmC 0.6 139 ppmC 66 3.0 0.9 Intermediate Speed, Mid Load Cutlass Diesel 4.0 Rabbit Diesel 2.2 103 69 3.9 3.2 Intermediate Speed, High Load Cutlass Diese.1 3.3 Rabbit Diesel 3.3 91 87 3.6 3.8 High Speed, No Load Cutlass Diesel 4.5 Rabbit Diesel 0.9 147 52 3.1 1.7 High Speed, Mid Load Cutlass Diesel 2.5 Rabbit Diesel 2,2 92 129 2.7 1.7 High Speed, Hi«,b Load Cutlass Diesel 1.0 Rabbit Diesel 1.8 85 93 1.2 1.9 Idle Cutlass Diesel 10.5 Rabbit Diesel 2.3 284 184 3.7 1.3 TRANSIENT CYCLES 1975 FTP Cutlass Diesel Cutlass Gasol.ne Rabbit Diesel Rabbit Gasoline 12.7 mg/km 29.5 6.7 33.0 47 g/km 21 .23 ,14 2.7 14.0 2.9 23.6 SET Cutlass Diesel 5.1 Cutlass Gasoline 24.2 Rabbit Diesel 3.3 Rabbit Gasoline 17.4 0.27 0 08 0.09 0.03 1.9 30.3 3.7 58.0 FET Cutlass Diesel 3.4 Cutlass Gasoline 18.4 Rabbit Diesel i.7 Rabbit Gasoline L4.6 0 21 0.06 0.08 0.03 1.6 30.7 5.9 48.7 200 image: ------- TABLE 75. BaP CONTENT IN DIESEL CAR PARTICULATE MATTER Vehicle Test BaP mg/hr Emission Rate mqfkq fuel yg/km Organic Solubles % of Particulate Cutlass 1975 FTP 0.1427 0.0507 4.540 13.3 Diesel FTP Cold 0.1170 0.0383 3.723 12.4 FTP Hot 0.1021 0.0600 5.157 14.0 SET 0.1385 0.0334 2.471 18.2 FET 0.1480 0.0300 1.908 19.0 Cutlass FET 0.013 0.0022 0.168 10.7 Gasoline Rabbit 1975 FTP 0.0839 0.0569 2.674 21.4 Diesel FTP Cold 0.1540 0.1030 4.914 20.2 FTP Hot 0.0310 0.0221 0.985 22.3 SET 0.0865 0.0403 1.540 15.4 FET 0.1170 0.0406 1.512 13.0 Rabbit FTP Hot 0.0053 0.0024 0.168 42.3 Gasoline'a' BaP values are considered conservative and should be used with caution due to inadequacies of sampling method. 201 image: ------- baf is present in gasoline engine exhaust and can be collected by methods developed earlier.(&8<69) The intent of this effort was to obtain data on both types of cars by the same method, and the methods used by Exxon were beyond the scope of the effort. Thus, it may be concluded that the relatively simple and rapid dilution tunnel filter method for collecting BaP and presumably other polynuclear aromatic compounds has not yet been refined enough to be used routinely for gasoline engine exhaust. Suitable filter media will have to be developed. Of some interest in Table 75 is the percent organic solubles in the particulate. The values for the two Diesels ranged fr 12 to 22 percent, indicating a relatively dry exhaust particulate, free -rem excessive unburned fuel, oil, and aerosol-like matter that can (with some designs of Diesels) increase the organic soluble fraction up to as. high as 50 percent. Presumably, the remainder of the particulate is inorganic in nature and is carbonaceous or some metallic compound. K. Noise Table 76 is a summary of the sound level measurements. The SAE driveby exterior ratings show the Diesel Cutlass to be 6 dBA higher than the gasoline- powered Cutlass, while the Volkswagen Rabbit had the same dBA measurement for both powerplants. Interior measurements were slightly higher with the Diesel for both makes during the SAE acceleration. The exterior driveby at a constant 48.3 km/hr (30 mph) showed slightly higher noise (exterior and interior) for the experimental Cutlass, while the opposite trend was found for the gasoline Rabbit. Idle noise levels were noticeably higher with the Diesel Cutlass and only slightly higher with the Diesel Rabbit. Tables F-24 through F-27 are the detailed sound level measure- ments from which the summary data on Table 76 are derived. L. Performance Table 77 is a listing of the wide-open throttle maximum acceleration times for the four cars. The acceleration performance of the Rabbit powered by the Diesel engine was poorer than that of its gasoline counterpart. The times to accelerate from 0 to 64.6, from 0 to 96.5, and from 32.2 to 96.5 km/hr were increased by 20 to 27 percent with the lower powered Diesel engine in the Rabbit. The Cutlass suffered less acceleration penalty with the Diesel, namely, 7 to 11 percent. Note that the comparison was between the 260 CID V-8 gasoline-powered Cutlass and the experimental 350 CID V-8 Diesel Cutlass. Using the smaller gasoline engine option for the Cutlass is probably the reason the increase in acceleration times was no greater than about 10 percent. 202 image: ------- TABLE 76. SUMMARY OF SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS - dBA SCALE Cutlass Rabbit Gasoline Diesel Gasoline Diesel SAE J986a Accel Driveby Exterior 68.8(c) 73.8(c) 71.0 71.5 Interior Blower On*5 73.2(c) 74.2(c) 78.2 80.0 Off 68.8(c) 70.5(c) 76.5 79 48.3 km/hr Driveby Exterior 58.8 61.2 60.5 58.5 Interior Blower On 71.5 72.2 73.5 71.8 Off 60.5 64.0 70.5 68.0 Engine Idle Exterior64.5 70.0 65.0(d) 67.0 72.5(e) Interior Blower On(a) 71.5 71.0 69.5 69.5 Off 48.5 51.5 58.0 62.5 windows up, fresh air blower on high (b> at 3.05 m accel in first gear electric, radiator, cooling fan off electric, radiator, cooling fan on 203 image: ------- TABLE 77. AVERAGE ACCELERATION TIMES FOR DIESEL- AND GASOLINE-POWERED PASSENGER CARS 0-64.4 km/hr(a> 0-96.5 km/hr(b> 32.2-96.5 km/hr(c) Vehicle time, sec time, sec time, sec Rabbit Diesel 7.58 15.80 12.83 Rabbit Gasoline 6.33 12.48 10.45 Increase, %(d) 19.7 26.6 22.8 Cutlass Diesel 8.98 17.70 14.53 Cutlass Gasoline 8.08 16.13 13.53 Increase, %{d) 11.1 9.7 7.4 0-40 mph J ' 0-60 mph 20-60 mph Diesel time - gasoline time „ — r-*— X 100% Diesel time 204 image: ------- LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke - Part I," Final Report to the U. S. Public Health Service, Contract 86-66-93, March 1967. 2. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "An Investigation of Diesel Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke," National Petroleum Refiners Association, FL 66-46 presented at the Fuels and Lub- ricants Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1966. 3. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke, Part II," Final Report, No. AR-644, Contract PH-86-67-72, February 1968. 4. Stahman, Ralph C., Kittredge, George, and Springer, Karl J., "Smoke and Odor Control for Diesel-Powered Trucks and Buses," SAE Paper No. 680443, Mid-Year Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, May 20-24, 1968. Also SAE Transactions. 5. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke - Part III," Final Report to the U. S. Public Health Service, Contract PH 22-68-23, October 1969. 6. Springer, Karl J. and Dietzmann, Harry E., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke - Part IV," Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract PH 22- 68-23, April 1971. 7. Springer, Karl J. and Hare, Charles T., "Four Years of Diesel Odor and Smoke Control Technology Evaluations - A Summary," ASHE Paper No. 69-WA/APC-3, November 1969. 8. Dietzmann, Harry E., Springer, Karl J., and Stahman, Ralph C., "Diesel Emissions as Predictors of Observed Diesel Odor," SAE Paper No. 720757, September 1972. Also SAE Transactions. 9. Springer, Karl J. and Dietzmann, Harry E., "Diesel Exhaust Hydro- carbon Measurement - A Flame Ionization Method," SAE Paper No. 700106, January 1970. 10. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Emissions - Part V," Final Report AR-936 to Environmental Pro- tection Agency, Contract PH 22-68-23, April 1974. 11. Springer, Karl J., and Stahman, Ralph C., "Control of Diesel Exhaust Odors," Paper 26 presented at New York Academy of Sciences Conference on Odors: Evaluation, Utilization and Con- trol, New York, October 1-3, 1973. 205 image: ------- LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.) 12. Springer, Karl J., "Field Demonstration of General Motors Environ- mental Improvement Proposal (EIP! - a Retrofit Kit for GMC City Buses," Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. PH 22-68-23, December 1972. 13. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Diesel Emission Control Through Retrofits," SAE Paper 750205 presented at Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 24-28, 1975. 14. Springer, Karl J., "Emissions from Diesel and Stratified Charge Powered Cars," Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. PH 22-68-23, EPA Report No. EPA-460/3-75-001-a, December 1974. 15. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Emissions and Economy of Four Diesel Cars," SAE Paper 750332 presented at Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 24-28, 1975. 16. Springer, Karl J., "Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Emissions - Part VII," Final Report EPA-460/3-76-034 to the Environmental Pro- tection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2116, February 1977. 17. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Diesel Car Emissions - Emphasis on Particulate and Sulfate," SAE Paper No. 770254 presented at SAE International Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 28 - March 4, 1977. 18. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Unregulated Emissions from Diesels used in Trucks and Buses," SAE Paper No. 770258 presented at the International Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 28 - March 4, 1977. 19. Springer, Karl J., "Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Emission: VIII. Removal of Exhaust Particulate from Mercedes 300D Diesel Car." Final Report EPA-460/3-77-007 to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2116, June 1977. 20. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Removal of Exhaust Par- ticulate from a Mercedes 300D Diesel Car," SAE Paper No. 770716 presented at the Off-Highway Vehicle Meeting & Exhibition, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 12-15-, 1977. 21. Springer, Karl J., "Emissions from a Gasoline- and Diesel-Powered Mercedes 220 Passenger Car," Report No. AR-813, Contract No. CPA 70-44, June 1971. 206 image: ------- LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.) 22. Springer, Karl J. and Ashby, H. Anthony, "The Low Emission Car for 1975 - Enter the Diesel," Paper No. 739133, Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, August 1973. 23. Springer, Karl J. and Hare, Charles T., "A Field Survey to Determine Public Opinion of Diesel Engine Exhaust Odor," Final Report to the National Air Pollution Control Administration under Contract PH 22- 68-36, February 1970. 24. Hare, Charles T. and Springer, Karl J., "Public Response to Diesel Engine Exhaust Odors," Final Report to the Environmental Protec- tion Agency under Contract No. CPA 70-44, April 1971. 25. Hare, Charles T., Springer, Karl J., Somers, Joseph H,, and Huls, Thomas A., "Public Opinion of Diesel Odor," SAE Paper No. 740214, presented at the Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, Michigan, February 25 - March 1, 1974. 26. "Guide to Reduction of Smoke and Odor from Diesel-Powered Vehicles," Office of Air Programs Publications No. AP-81, Environmental Pro- tection Agency, September 1971. 27. Springer, Karl J. and Ludwig, Allen C., "Documentation of the Guide to Good Practice for Minimum Odor and Smoke from Diesel-Powered Vehicles," Final Report prepared under Contract No. CPA 22-69-71, November 1969. 28. Springer, Karl J., White, John T,, and Domke, Charles J., "Emissions from Xn-Use 1970-1971 Diesel-Powered Trucks and Buses, SAE Paper 741006 presented at Automobile Engineering Meeting, Toronto, Canada, October 21-25, 1974. 29. Kennedy, Gordon J., White, John T., Springer, Karl J., and Ingalls, Melvin N., "Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Trucks Tested on a Road Course and by Dynamometer," SAE Paper 750901 presented at the Automobile Engineering Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, October 13-17, 1975. 30. Hare, Charles T. and Springer, Karl J., "Exhaust Emis-ions from Un- controlled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines," Final Report Part V (Heavy Duty Farm, Construction, and Industrial Engines) to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. EHS 70-108, EPA Report No. APTD-1494, October 1973. 31. Hare, Charles T., Springer, Karl J., and Bradow, Ronald L., "Fuel and Additive Effects on Diesel Particulate Emissions - Development and Demonstration of Methodology," SAE Paper No. 760130 presented at the 1976 Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Feb- ruary 23-27, 1976, Detroit, Michigan. 207 image: ------- LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.) 32. Hare, Charles T. and Montalvo, Daniel A., "Diesel Crankcase Emissions Characterization," Final Report Task 4 prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2196, May 1977. 33. Hare, Charles T. and Baines, Thomas M., "Characterization of Diesel Crankcase Emissions," SAE Paper No. 770719 presented at the Off-High- way Vehicle Meeting & Exhibition, September 12-15, 1977. 34. Hare, Charles T. and Bradow, Ronald L., "Light-Duty Diesel Emission Correction Factors for Ambient Conditions," SAE Paper No. 770717 presented at the Off-Highway Vehicle Heating & Exhibition, September 12-15, 1977. 35. Hare, Charles T., "Characterization of Diesel Gaseous and Particulate Emissions," Final Report Tasks 1, 2, 4, and 6 prepared for the En- vironmental Protection Agency under Contract No, 68-02-1777, Septem- ber 1977. DRAFT ONLY. 36. Springer, Karl J.» and Baines, Thomas M., "Emissions from Diesel Versions of Production Passenger Cars,"SAE Paper No. 770818 presented at the Passenger Car Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, September 26-30, 1977. 37. Wadman, Bruce, "Automobile Diesel Development Progress . . . VW's 50 HP 1.5 Litre Diesel," Diesel and Gas Turbine Progress, December, 1976, pg. 10, 11. 38. Shanks, Andrew, "Diesel Golf," Autocar, September 25, 1976, pg. 25,26. 39. "Volkswagen Develops a Diesel," Automotive Engineering, Vol. 85, Number 6, June 1977, pg. 62-68. 40. Simanaitis, Dennis J., "Oldsmobile Opts for Diesel Power," Automo- tive Engineering, November 1977, pg. 24. 41. Schulz, Bob, "A 'Master' Plan at Stanadyne"s Hartford Division . . . Fuel Injection System Products Meet Market Demand," Diesel and Gas Turbine Progress, January 1978, pg. 18, 19. 42. Bureau of Mines Petroleum Products Survey No. 82 titled "Diesel Fuel Oils, 1973" and dated November 1973. 43. Shelton, E. M., "Diesel Fuel Oils, 1976," Technical Information Center, Energy Research and Development Administration, BERC/PPS-76/5, November 1976. 44. Hare, Charles T., "Characterization of Gaseous and Particulate Emis- sions from Light-Duty Diesels Operated on Various Fuels," Final Re- port prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2440, April 1978. DRAFT ONLY. 208 image: ------- LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.) 32. Hare, Charles T. and Montalvo, Daniel A., "Diesel Crankcase Emissions Characterization," Final Report Task 4 prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2196, May 1977. 33. Hare, Charles T. and Baines, Thomas M., "Characterization of Diesel Crankcase Emissions," SAE Paper No. 770719 presented at the Off-High- way Vehicle Meeting & Exhibition, September 12-15, 1977. 34. Hare, Charles T. and Bradow, Ronald L., "Light-Duty Diesel Emission Correction Factors for Ambient Conditions," SAE Paper No. 770717 presented at the Off-Highway Vehicle Heating & Exhibition, September 12-15, 1977. 35. Hare, Charles T., "Characterization of Diesel Gaseous and Particulate Emissions," Final Report Tasks 1, 2, 4, and 6 prepared for the En- vironmental Protection Agency under Contract No, 68-02-1777, Septem- ber 1977. DRAFT ONLY. 36. Springer, Karl J.» and Baines, Thomas M., "Emissions from Diesel Versions of Production Passenger Cars,"SAE Paper No. 770818 presented at the Passenger Car Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, September 26-30, 1977. 37. Wadman, Bruce, "Automobile Diesel Development Progress . . . VW's 50 HP 1.5 Litre Diesel," Diesel and Gas Turbine Progress, December, 1976, pg. 10, 11. 38. Shanks, Andrew, "Diesel Golf," Autocar, September 25, 1976, pg. 25,26. 39. "Volkswagen Develops a Diesel," Automotive Engineering, Vol. 85, Number 6, June 1977, pg. 62-68. 40. Simanaitis, Dennis J., "Oldsmobile Opts for Diesel Power," Automo- tive Engineering, November 1977, pg. 24. 41. Schulz, Bob, "A 'Master' Plan at Stanadyne"s Hartford Division . . . Fuel Injection System Products Meet Market Demand," Diesel and Gas Turbine Progress, January 1978, pg. 18, 19. 42. Bureau of Mines Petroleum Products Survey No. 82 titled "Diesel Fuel Oils, 1973" and dated November 1973. 43. Shelton, E. M., "Diesel Fuel Oils, 1976," Technical Information Center, Energy Research and Development Administration, BERC/PPS-76/5, November 1976. 44. Hare, Charles T., "Characterization of Gaseous and Particulate Emis- sions from Light-Duty Diesels Operated on Various Fuels," Final Re- port prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2440, April 1978. DRAFT ONLY. 208 image: ------- LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.) 45. Urban, Charles M.f Springer, Karl J., and Montalvo, Daniel A., "Emissions Control Technology Assessment of Heavy Duty Vehicle Engines," Final Report prepared for the Environmental Protec- tion Agency, EPA-460/3-74-007, under Contract No. 68-01-0472, December 1973. 46. Springer, Karl J., "Baseline Characterization and Emissions Con- trol Technology Assessment of HD Gasoline Engines," Final Report prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, AR-844, under Contract No. EHS 70-110, November 1972. 47. Urban, Charles M., "Heavy Duty Fuel Economy Program Phase II Evaluation of Emission Control Technology Approaches," Final Report prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA- 460/3-7-010, under Contract No. 68-03-2220, July 1977. 48. "Survey of Truck and Bus Operating Modes in Several Citi ;s," Report No. GR 63-24, June 1963. 49. Bascom, R. C. and Hass, G. C., "A Status Report on the Develop- ment of the 1973 California Diesel Emissions Standards," SAE Paper No. 700671, National West Coast Meeting, Los Angeles, August 24-27, 1970. 50. Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 40, February 27, 1971. 51. Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 151, Part III, August 7, 1973. 52. Somers, J. H., "Automotive Sulfate Emission - A Baseline Study," SAE Paper No. 770166, February 1977. 53. "Fuel Economy Regulations and Test Procedures for 1977 and Later Model Automobiles," Federal Register, Vol. 41,No. 100, May 21, 1976. 54. Federal Register, Vol. 33, No. 108, June 4, 1968. 55. Turk, Amos, "Selection and Training of Judges for Sensory Evalu- ation of the Intensity and Character of Diesel Exhaust Odors," U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1967. 56. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine Exhaust, Final Report under CRC Project CAPE-7-68, HEW Contract PH 22-68-20, July 1969. 57. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine Exhaust, Final Report under CRC Project CAPE-7-68, HEW Contract No. CPA 22-69-63, June 1970. 209 image: ------- LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.) 58. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine Exhaust, Final Report under CKC Project CAPE-7-68, EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-18, June 1971. 59. Analysis of the Odorous Compounds in Diesel Engine Exhaust, Final Report under CRC Project CAPE 7-68, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0087, June 1972. 60. Levins, P. L. and Kendall, D. A., "Application of Odor Technology to Mobile Source Emission Instrumentation," CRC Project CAPE-7-68, Contract No. 68-02-0561, September 1973. 61. Black, F. M., High, L. E. and Sigsby, J. E., "Methodology for As- signment of a HyJrocarbon Photochemical Reactivity Index for Emis- sions from Mobile Sources," Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Report No. EPA-650/2-75-025, March 1975. 62. Sawicki, E., Corey, R. C., and Dooley, A. E., :Health Lab Sci. (Suppl. 1), 56-59, 1970. 63. New Benzo-a-Pyrene Analytical Method, source: Dr. Robert Jungers, EPA Research Triangle Park Laboratories, in: Contract No. 68-02- 1777, Tasks 1, 2, 4 and 6. Appendix B, Septembt- 1977. 64. Voss, J. R. and Vanderpoel, R. E., "The Shuttle stributor for a Diesel Fuel Injection Pump." Paper 770083 presen ed at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, February 28 - March 4, 1977. 65. "1977 Gas Mileage Guide," Federal Energy Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, FEA/D-76/378, September 1976. 66. Ingalls, M. N. and Springer, K. J-, "Measurement of Sulfate and Sulfur Dioxide in Automotive Exhaust." Final Report EPA-460/3-76-015 to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2118, August 1976. 67. Irish, D. C. and Stefan, R. J., "Vehicle Sulfuric Acid Level Characteri- zation." Paper 760037 presented at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 23-27, 1976. 68. Gross, G. P., "The Effect of Fuel and Vehicle Variab)es on Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Phenol Emissions." Paper 720210 presented at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, January 10-14, 1972. 69. Gross, G. P., "Automotive Emissions of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons." Paper 740564 presented at SAE National Combined Farm, Contstruction & Industrial Machinery and Fuels and Lubricants Meetings, Milwaukee, September 10-13, 1973. 210 image: ------- APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL 23-MODE TEST PROCEDURE FOR ENGINES IN HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES image: ------- 5 85.100 are weighted and used to calculate the grams of each pollutant emitted per brake horsepower hour. (d) When an engine is tested for exhaust emissions or is operated for durability testing on an engine dynamotjeter, the complete engine shall be used with all standard accessories which might reasona- bly be expected to influence emissions to the atmosphere installed and functioning. A- 2 image: ------- 5 85.101 Fuel Specifications "(a) For exhaust emission testing of gasoline fueled engines, fuel having specifications as shown in the table in 5 85.71(a), or substantially equivalent specifications approved by the Administrator shall be used, (b) For durability testing of gasoline fueled engines, fuel hiving specifications as shown in the table in § 85.71(b), or substantially equivalent specifications approved by the Administrator, shall be used. The octane rating of the fuel used shall be in the range recommended by the engine manufacturer. The specifications of the fuel to be used shall be reported in accordance with < R5. R1 (h) f .**} (c) For exhaust emission testing of engines which use diesel fuels, fuel having specifications as shown in the table -i I 85.121(b), or substantially equivalent specification: approved by the Administrator shall be used. (d) For durability testing of engines which use diesel fuels, fuel having specifications as shown in the table in S 85.121(c), or substantially equivalent specifications approved by the Administrator,' shall be used. The octane rating of the fuel used shall be in the range recommended by the engine manufacturer. The specifications of the fuel to be used shall be reported in accordance with I 85.51(b)(3). A- 3 image: ------- 5 85.102 Dynamometer Operation Cycle •(a)(1) The following twenty three mode cycle shall be used in dynamometer operation tests of heavy duty engines. MODE ENGINE PERCENT WEIGHTING NO. SPEED* LOAD FACTOR 1 Idle 0 7 ¦2 Intermediate 2 6.0 3 " 8 6.0 4 " 18 5.0 5 " 25 3.0 6 " 50 6.0 7 ,l 75 0 8 " 82 4.0 9 " 9 2 0 10 " 100 0 11 Idle 0 s—(r 7 12 Intermediate C.T. 12 13 High 100 2.5 14 " 92 5.5 15 " 82 3.5 16 " 75 6.0 17 " 50 6.0 IS " 25 0 19 " " .18 6. S 20 " 8 0 21 " 2 0 A- 4 image: ------- ) 53. J. U £ mode engine prrcent weighting NO, SPEED* LOAD FACTOR 22 Idle 0 & 23 High C.T. 6 * Engine Speed Definition: Engine Type SpaTk Ignition Compression Ignition MHiMRPVMMMMWWariKMIMWMMMVPMII Intermediate 1200 rpm Peak torque speed or 60% of rated, whichever is higher. High 2300 rpm Rated speed (2) For each mode the engine dynamometer shall be operated at a constant speed within ± 50 r.p.m. of the specified speed and at the specified torque within ± 2 percent of maximum torque at that speed. For example, the torque for mode six (6) shall be between 48 and 52 percent of maximum torque.measured at the intermediate test speed. (b) The following equipment shall be used for emission testing of engines on engine dynamometers. (1) An engine dynamometer with adequate characteristics to perform the test cycle described in 5 85.102(a) (2) An engine cooling system having sufficient capacity A-5 image: ------- 5 85.102 to maintain the engine at normal operating temperatures during conduct of the prescribed engine tests. (3) A chassis-type exhaust system or substantially equivalent exhaust system. A- 6 image: ------- S 8S.104 Sampling and Analytical Systems for Measuring Exhaust Emissions (a) Two separate sampling and analytical systems are used for emission testing under the regn.1 ations in this pait. One system is used for the detenu, tation of hydrocarbon concentrations. The other system is used for the determination of the concentrations of nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. The system used foi determining hydrocarbon concen- trations includes a heated sampling line and a heated flame ionization detector analyzer (FID). When emission tests involve gasoline fueled cr.gir.es, the sssplc line and analyzer are maintained at a temperature of 160*F ± 5° F to prevent the water vapor in the sample stream from condensing out and collecting in the system. When emission tests involve engines which use diesel type fuels, the temperature is maintained at 350° F ± 10°F to inhibit the accumulation of the lighter weight hydrocarbons in the system as a result of condensation and adsorption effects. Means" are provided for purging the system with air when measurements are not being made. The system used for determining the concentrations of the other pollutants includes: (1) a water concending trap which is maintained at 36° F t 4 °F , A-7 image: ------- S 8S.104 Sampling and Analytical Systems for Measuring Exhaust Emissions (a) Two separate sampling and analytical systems are used for emission testing under the regn.1 ations in this pait. One system is used for the detenu, tation of hydrocarbon concentrations. The other system is used for the determination of the concentrations of nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. The system used foi determining hydrocarbon concen- trations includes a heated sampling line and a heated flame ionization detector analyzer (FID). When emission tests involve gasoline fueled cr.gir.es, the sssplc line and analyzer are maintained at a temperature of 160*F ± 5° F to prevent the water vapor in the sample stream from condensing out and collecting in the system. When emission tests involve engines which use diesel type fuels, the temperature is maintained at 350° F ± 10°F to inhibit the accumulation of the lighter weight hydrocarbons in the system as a result of condensation and adsorption effects. Means" are provided for purging the system with air when measurements are not being made. The system used for determining the concentrations of the other pollutants includes: (1) a water concending trap which is maintained at 36° F t 4 °F , A-7 image: ------- 104 (2) a chenilurainescence (CL) NO analyzer, (3) a nondispersive infrared (N'DIR) CO analyzer and, (4) a nondispersive (NDIR) CO2 analyzer. A converter is used upstream of the chemiluminescence analyzer to convert any NO2 in the sample stream to NO. A bypass system is provided to permit the periodic checking of the converter efficiency. Means are pro- vided for back flushing the cooling coil and sample line and for introducing air or NO and O2 mixtures (for converter efficiency testing) into the analytical system. Other types of analyzers may be used if they yield equivalent results and if they are approved by the Administrator. Schematic drawing. The following (Fig. 6} is a schematic drawing of the exhaust gas sampling and analytical system which shall be used for testing under the regulations in this subpart. Component description. The following components will be used in the exhaust gas analytical system for testing under the regulations of this part. (1) Flowmeters (FL1, FL2, and FL3) to indicate the sample flow rate through the analyzers. (2) Analyzers to determine hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitric oxide concentrations. image: ------- S 85.104 (3) A converter to convert any N02 present in the samples to NO.before analysis. (4) Flow control valves (HI, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6, N 7, N8, N9, N1 0 , Nil, N13, and N14) to regulate the gas flow rates, (5) Recorders (Rl, R2, R3, and R4) or digital printers to provide permanent records of calibration, spanning, and sample measurements. In those facilities where computerized data acquisition systems are incor- porated, the computer facilities printout may be used. (6) Manifold (Ml) to collect the expelled gases from analyzers. (?) Pump (P2) to transfer expelled gases from the collection manifold to a vent external to the test room (optional). (8) Selector valve (V8) to direct purge air through the HC analytical system. (9) Selector valves (VI, V2, V5, V6) to direct sanples, span gases, or zeroing gas to the analyzers. (10) Selector valves (V3 and V4) to allow the sample, span, calibrating, or zeroing gases to bypass the converter. A-9 image: ------- I 85. 104 (11) Pur.p (!' 1) to transfer samples from sample probe to analyzers. (12) Filters (HI and F2) to remove particulate matter. (13) Selector valve (V9) to direct NO/O2 mixtures 1 the converter for efficiency checks. (14) Selector valve (V7) to backflush cooling coi1 with air. (15) Cooling Coil (CI) to condense water vapor from sample. (16) Refrigerated water bath to maintain cooling coil at 32 - (17) Thermometer for indicating bath temperature. (18) Valve (N12) to drain water from cooling coil. (19) Sample probes U extract exhaust gas sample downstream of muffler. A-10 image: ------- § 85.105 Information The following infornation shall be recorded: (a) General (1) Test number (2) Date and time of day (3) Instmraent operator (4) Engine operator (5) Engine Identification - Date of manufacture - Number of hours of operation accumulated on engine - Epgine family - engine displacement - timing - maximum observed torque at specified test engine speeds - idle r.p.ro, (6) All pertinent instrumentation information such as model name and serial numbers. (7) Recorder charts. Identify zero traces - Calibration or span traces for each test mode - Start and finish of each test. (8) Ambient temperature in dynamometer testing room. (9) Engine intake, air temperature, and humidity. (10) Barometric pressure., (11) Observed entitle torque for each mode. (12) Other data as required by the Administrator. (b) Spark ignition engines (1) Number of carburetors and number of carburetor Venturis or fuel injection system types. ft-11 image: ------- (2) Advertised horsepower. (3) Fuel consumption in gms/hr during each mo Compression ignition engines (1) Advertised rated and peak torque speeds. (2) Exhaust pipe diameter. (3) Exhaust system back pressure. (4) Air aspiration system type. (5) Air inlet rest riction. (6) Fuel injection system. (7) Exhaust flow in c.f.m., or intake air flow in c.f.m. and fuel consumption in pounds per hour, for each mode. A-12 image: ------- 106 Calibration and Instrument Checks Calibrate the analytical assembly at least once every 30 days. Use the same flow rate as when analyzing samples• (1) Adjust analyzers to optimize performance. (2) Zero the hydrocarbon analyzer with zero grade air and the carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen analyzers with zero grade nitrogen. The allowable zero gas impurity concentrations should not exceed 1 p.p.m. equivalent carbon response, 1 p.p.m. carbon monoxide, 300 p.p.m. (0.03 mole percent) carbon dioxide, and 0.1 p.p.m. nitric oxide. (3) Set the CO and C02 analyzer gains to give the desired ranges. Select the desired attenuation scale of the HC analyzer and set the capillary flow rate by adjusting the back pressure regulator, to give the desired range. Select the desired scale of the N0X analyzer and adjust the phototube high voltage supply to give the desired range. (4) Calibrate the HC analyzer with propane (air diluent) gases having nominal concentrations equal to 50 and 100 percent of full scale. Calibrate the CO analyzer with carbon monoxide (nitrogen diluent) gas£ and the C02 analyzer with carbon dioxide (nitrogen diluent) gases having nominal concentrations equal to 10, 25, 40, 50, 60, 70, 85, and 100 percent of fu* scale. Calibrate the N0X analyzer with nitric oxide a-13 image: ------- (nitrogen diluent) gases having nominal con- centrations equal to 50 and 100 percent of full scale. The actual concentrations should be known to within + 2 percent of the true values. Compare values obtained on the CO and CO2 analyzers with previous calibration curves. Any significant change reflects some problem in the system. Locate and correct problem, and re- calibrate. Use best judgment in selecting curves for data reduction. Check the N02 to NO converter efficiency by the following procedure: (i) Fill a plastic bag with air (or oxygen) and NO span gas in proportions which result in a mix in the operating range of the analyzer. Provide enough oxygen for substantial conversion of NO to H02. (ii) Knead bag and immediately connect the bag to the inlet at valve N13. Turn selector valve N7 as required and close valve V8. Alternately measure the NO and N0X concentration at 1-minute internals by alternately passing the sample thro the converter and the bypass (close valves N6 and N9 to minimize pump down rate of bag). After several minutes of operation, the recordin of NO and N0X will resemble Figure lc, Section A-14 image: ------- S 85.106 85.84, if the converter is efficient. Even though the amount of N02 increases with time, the total N0X (NO ~ NO2) remains constant. A decay of N0X with tine indicates the converter is not essentially 100 percent efficient and the cause should be determined before the instrument is used. (iii) The converter efficiency should be checked at least once weekly and preferably once daily (b) HC, CO, C02, and N0X measurements: Allow a minimum of 20 minutes warraup for the HC analyzer and 2 hours for the CO, C02» and N0X analyzers. (Power is normally left on infrared and chemiluminescence analyzers; but when not in use, the chopper motors of the infrared analyzers are turned off and the phototube high voltage supply of the chemiluminescence analyzer is place in the standby position.) The following sequence of operations should be performed in conjunction with each series of measurements; (1) Zero the analyzers. Obtain a stable zero on each amplifier meter and recorder. Recheck after tests. (2) Introduce span gases and set the CO and C02 analyzer gains, the HC analyzer sample capillary flow rate, and the N0X analyzer high voltage supply to match the calibration curves. In order to avoid corrections, span and calibrate at the sane flow A-15 image: ------- 106 rates used to analyze the test samples. Span gases should have concentrations equal to approximately 80 percent of full scale. If gain has shifted significantly on the CO or CO2 analyzers, check tuning. If necessary, check calibration. Recheck after test. Show actual concentrations on chart. (3) Check zeros; repeat the procedure in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph if required. (4) Check flow rates and pressures. (5) Measure HC, CO, CO2, and N0X concentrations of s ssp 1 ?s « roshould bg sxsrciscd *e prevent moisture from condensing in the sample collection bag. (6) Check zero and span points. For the purposes of this section, the term "zero grade air" includes artificial "air" consisting of a blend of nitrogen and oxygen with oxygen concentrations between 18 and 21 mole percent. A-16 image: ------- i 85.107 Test Run 'ta) The temperature of the air supplied to the engine shall be between 68°F and 86° F. The observed barometric pressuie shall be between 28.5 inches and 31 inches Hq. Higher air temperature or lower barometric pressure nay be used, if desired, but no allowance will be made for possible increased emissions because of such conditions. (b) The following steps shall be taken for each test: (1) Install instrumentation and sample probes as required. (2) Start cooling system. (3) Start the engine, warm it up and precondition it by running it at the lower specified test speed and maximum horsepower for 10 minutes or until all temperatures and pressures have reached equilibri um. (4) Determine by experimentation the maximum torque at the specified test engine speeds and calculate the torque values for the specified test modes. (5) Zero and span emission analyzers. (6) Start the test sequence of § 85.102(a). Operate the engine for ten minutes in each mode as follows: A-17 image: ------- .107 Minut e Mode Test Sequence 1st Complete engine speed and load changes 2nd through 7th Pass air through sample lines and analyzers 8th through 10th Pass exhaust sample through the i ines and analyzers and continui record analyzer response. (7) Read and record the data required for S 85.105 during the last five minutes of each test mode. (8) Check and reset the zero and span settings of the emission analyzers at the end of the first CT mode (mode # 12) and at the end of the test or more often if required. If a change of over two percent of full scale response is observed, make necessary adjustments to the analyzers and repeat all test modes since the last zero and span. (9) Back f1ush condensate trap and replace filters as required. A-18 image: ------- 1 OS Chart Reading Locate the last sixty seconds of each mode and determine the average chart reading for HC, CO, C02 > and NO over the one minute period. Determine the concentration of HC, CO, C02, and during each mode from the average chart readings and corresponding calibration data. A-J.9 image: ------- Figure 6 Exhaust Gas Analytical System Open to Atmosphere- AIR N13 Exhaust Pipe a V8 F2 rp-zi_n Dotted Lines - Heated VI r R1 :E N2 L HC-FID (includes pump) 1 V? i F1 Thermometer Refrigerated Ice Bath Converter Test Gas or Air <» <*"»»«»«> COS Zeroing Gas N5 [>T<1 N'° Span ^or Calibrating) Gas N4 1V2 N6 Zeroing Gas "A" BYP SS V3 Converter' R3 R4 C02 NDIR CO NDIR * ' FL1 Ml R2 V V4 NO* CL J FL2 FL3 V6 n8 — CO2 Span {or Calibrating) Gas N9 Zeroing Gas N10 To Outside Vent image: ------- Office of A1r Programs Ann Arbor, Mlchl^pn *8105 AFAE March 27, Corrections to the Experimental Heavy-Duty Tost Procedure Presently Utilized at Southwest Research Institute and the Bureau of Kir.es Dr. Jose L. Bascunams Chief, Highway Vehicles Section, CCDB In Section 85.102(a)(1) the v.-eightlng factors for mode numbers 1» 11, and 22 are revised to read as*follows: Mode No, Engine Speed % Load Weighting Factors 1 Idle 0 7 11 Idle 0 7 22 Idle 0 8 In Section 85.107 paragraphs (6) and (7) are revised to read as follows: (6) Start the test sequence of 35.102(a). Operate the engine for at least three minutes in each mode, conpictir.g the enqine speed and lC2d charges during the first ninuta. (7) if additional tire 15" required to read ar.d record the data specified in Section 85,105, each mode may be extended to a F.axir.'jQ of ten minutes. In Section 85.198 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: (a) Locate the third minute of each node and determine the average chart reading for HC, CO, C0£ and ."10 over th* one minute period. John Sozek Chief, Heavy Duty Section Procedures Developnent Uranch AFAE::Jj:!cFadden/J2ozelc:1pm 209, 340, 3/27/79 FILE A-21 image: ------- APPENDIX B CHEMICAL - ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES image: ------- OXYGENATED COMPOUNDS IN AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST-GAS CHROMATOGRAPHIC PROCEDURE Fred Stump 1. Principles and Applicability 1. 1 This method is applicable for the characterization of oxygenated compounds in automobile exhaust. Aldehydes have been shown (1) to be about as photochemically reactive as olefins. The aldehydes are believed to be contributors to eye irritation as well as odors that are common in polluted atmospheres. Analysis of exhaust samples from catalytic and non-catalytic cars show that formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone/acrolein/propionaldehyde, crotonaldehyde and benzaldehyde are consistently present in vehicle emis- sions withiso-butyraldehyde and hexanaldehyde being intermittently observed. With the present analytical equipment setup acetone, acrolein, and prop- ionaldehyde have the same chromatographic relative retention time. Since the components in this time zone are not resolved, all effluents occuring at this retention time are calculated as acetone. 1.2 The vehicular exhaust is first diluted in a constant volume sampler system and then a portion of this dilute exhaust is pulled through a manifold sampling system. The sample is taken through two impingers in series each of which contains 40 ml of absorbing reagent. The absorbing reagent is a solution of 2, 4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine in 2N HC1. The carbonyl compounds present in the sample stream react with the absorbing reagent forming soluble and insoluble derivatives which are removed by filtration and extraction techniques. These separated derivatives are then dried, and the soluble and precipitated portions are recombined prior to analysis. A single gas chromatographic analysis is then made to characterize the combined sample. 2. Range and Sensitivity The mechanics of the method (sampling volumes, extraction tech- niques, and analytical procedure) were designed around the established dilution (CVS) system and then set-up manifold sampler. The analytical procedure has been shown to have a total recover/ of better than 95% when the effluent concentrations are in the range of 0.01 to 30 parts per million. The limits of detectability as well as the range can be easily ad- justed to satisfy all measurement conditions that have been encountered up to the present time. B-2 image: ------- 3. Interferences No significant interferences in the method have been detected. 4. Precision, Accuracy and Stability 4, 1 Precision Data obtained from 5 repetitive injections of standard derivatives in benzene has shown the maximum deviation to be 0. 8% for benzaldehyde and a minimum deviation of 0, 3% for formaldehyde. 4. 2 Accuracy The data obtained from a standard mix of derivatives in absorbing reagent solution {to simulate actual sample recovery conditions) indicate a recovery in excess of 97%. 4. 3 Stability Data from standard mixes indicate that no significant concentration changes occurred when the solution was left standing for a period of 5 days. 5. Apparatus 5. 1 Hardware A. Perkin-Elmer 900 Gas Chromatograph with dual columns and flame ionization detectors with a single differential amplifier. B. Perkin-Elmer PEP - 1 Data Systems for peak area retention time and area integration. C. Electronik 19 Model Honeywell recorder for chromatographic display. D. Dual column 24 x 1/8 inch O. D. (0.093) stainless steel tubing packed with 6.7% Dexsil (polycarboranesiloxane) 300 GC on Chromo- sorb G 60/80 mesh, DMCS treated and acid washed. E. 100 ml capacity impinger type scrubbers. Ace Glass # 7530-07. F. 125 ml capacity vacuum and volatile liquid flasks. G. Calibrated rotometers capable of measuring at least 3 liters per minute. B-3 image: ------- H. Three fritted glass filters porosity "D", ASTM 10-20 microns pore size. Ace Glass Company I. Separatory funnels 125 and 250 ml capacity. J. Separatory funnel shaker, Wrist-Action ® type with appropriate funnel holders. K. Nitrogen manifold or explosion proof constant temperature vacuum oven. L. Volumetric dispensing flasks, wash bottles, graduated cylinders, and 1 dram vials. M. Ring stands, labels, holders, tubing, fittings and clamps needed for equipment manipulation. N. Pump, Gast Model 0211-P103A-G8C. O. Heated manifold, See Figure 2. 6. Reagents 6. 1 Pentane, Spectroquality 6.2 2, 4-Dinitrophenytydrazine (2, 4-DNPH). 6. 2. 1 A 2N HC1 solution of reagent grade 2, 4-DNPH, saturated at 0°C is prepared as follows: A. To a 1 -liter volumetric flask containing about 500 ml of distilled water, add 163 ml of concentrated HC1 and 2. 5 grams of the 2, 4-DNPH crystals. B. Dissolve crystals using either an ultrasonic generator bath or an automatic stirrer with a teflon coated stirring bar, C. If reagent is not to be used immediately, store the stoppered flask in a refrigerator as near to 0°C as possible. The storage period should not exceed 10 days. Discard solution if crystals begin to form before this ten day period expires. 6. 2. 2 Due to contamination present in both the pentane and 2, 4-DNPH reagents it is more expedient to obtain a background by per- forming at least duplicate extractions on the absorbing reagent in the same manner as samples are treated. Since the contaminants vary in concentratio from lot to lot it will be necessary to obtain a background when new lots or batches of reagents are introduced. These background values have been found to be extremely vital in correcting sample concentrations. B-4 image: ------- 6, 3 Sodium Bicarbonate 7. Procedure 7, 1 Calibration 7. 1. I Anthracene functions as the internal standard and is presently prepared at a concentration of 0.041580 mg/ml. The anthracene is dissolved in spectroquality Benzene and two ml of this prepared solution is used to dissolve the dried oxygenate derivatives prior to analysis. 7. 1,2 Response factors for the individual carbonyls are determined from standard concentrations of pure 2, 4-DNPH derivatives in spectroquality Benzene. The purity of the synthesized derivatives must be checked by a melting point (2) determination before derivatives are used to obtain the response factors. Typical response factors and concentration repeatability for the hydrazone derivatives normally found in exhaust are shown in Table I. The response factors for each carbonyl is calculated from the following equation: ^ Anthracene Area mg/ml Derivative Response Factor (F) = -=;—:— X —°-t—r-x—rr r Derivative Area mg/ml Anthracene 7.2 Oxygenate collection and recovery 7. 2. 1 Sar.*ple Collection A. Pipette 40 ml of reagent solution into 6 impingers. B. The two impingers are connected in series for each bag so that the collection efficiency can be calculated. C. Place the assembled impingers in an ice bath. D. Collect the samples noting the flow rate, room temp- erature, barometric pressure and total sampling time. E. The sample is taken through a heated manifold system connected into the dilution system and collected under the conditions described in the Federal Register » Volume 37, Number 221, Part II, Wednesday, November 15, 1972, New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines. F. The manifold collection system is electrically slaved to the CVS dilution system so that the impinger sampling time corresponds to Federal Cycle run times. B-5 image: ------- G. Disconnect the impingers from the manifold. Partially remove the impinger tube assembly until the stem is above the liquid and wash any precipitates and reagent from both the internal and external surfaces of the stem with a few milliters of distilled water. Allow the excess water to drain from the stem and remove the impinger tube from the absorber bottle. Let sample set at room temperature at least one hour before proceeding to the filtration and extraction steps. 7. 2. 2 Samples containing precipitates A. Attach the side arm of a 125 ml vacuum flask containing a fritted glass filter to a vacuum line and apply vacuum. B. Transfer the contents of the absorber to the fritted glass filter assembly and rinse absorber with small portions of distilled water. C. Wash the precipitate on the fritted filter with a few ml of distilled water. D. Shut off vacuum and transfer contents of vacuum flask to a 125 ml separatory funnel. Rinse vacuum flask with small volumes of distilled water until rinse is essentially colorless. E. Remove filter with precipitates and put a second filter on the flask and apply vacuum. Repeat steps B through D for each suc- ceeding sample. F. Dry filters under a steam of nitrogen or in a vacuum oven at 50°C and 18" water vacuum. Set the filters with the dried precipitate until the filtrate has been processed then proceed to step G. G. When precipitate is dry place the filter on a dry 125 ml vacuum flask. H. Pour 15 ml of methylene chloride over the precipitate and let set for approximately 30 seconds until the precipitate has dissolved. Apply vacuum and pull the solution through the filter. Add a second 15 ml of methylene chloride to the filter and gently swirl around to wash the filter funnel as well as to dissolve any residual materials. Apply vacuum to pull this second volume of methylene chloride into the vacuum flask. I. Transfer the d. ssolved hydrazines with a 15 ml washing of methylene chloride to the 125 ml gas tight flask, containing the dried extract corresponding to this precipitate. J. Repeat steps A through I for each sample containing a precipitate. B-fi image: ------- 7, 2. 3 Samples With No or Removed Precipitates A. Transfer contents of absorber or vacuum flask to a 125 ml separatory funnel washing the absorber bottle or flask with small volumes of distilled water. B. To the separatory funnel containing the absorbing reagent, add 40 ml of pentane (the background of which has been determined). Stopper the funnel and then put it into the automatic shaker holder. Vent the funnel. Start the shaker and let it shake for 5 minutes, C. Stop shaker and vent funnel. Allow the two-phase system to separate, collecting the lower phase in a second separatory funnel. Transfer the remaining pentane extract portion to a 250 ml separatory funnel. Add a second 40 ml of pentane to the already once extracted sample solution. Repeat steps B and C. D. Repeat steps B and C a third time. E. To the 250 ml separatory funnel containing the 120 ml of pentane extract drain off the absorbing reagent which had been trans- ferred with the pentane. F. Add 25 ml of distilled water to the funnel, then approx- imately 1/4 to 1/2 grams of sodium bicarbonate. Wash lip of funnel free of material, put stopper in funnel and then manually shake for 30 seconds. G. JLet phases separate and drain the wash water from the funnel, and again add 25 ml of distilled water and repeat the snaking. After the phases have separated, drain off the water, insuring that all traces are removed, as the presence of water will now extend the time required to evaporate the extract to dryness. H. Wipe lip of funnel with a dry paper towel and transfer the contents to a clean, dry 125 ml air tight flask. The flasks can cither be placed in a vacuum oven at 50°C and 18 inches of water vacuum or under a steam of dry nitrogen until the pentane has been removed and only the dried derivatives remain. I. Repeat steps A through H for each sample. J. When the samples have come to dryness, remove from oven or nitrogen steam and set aside until the precipitates have been processed. B-7 image: ------- K. After the precipitates have been dried and dissolved in methylene chloride add this solution to the flasks containing the dried extracted portion of the sample. This solution is then taken to dryness under the conditions in step H above. L. Pipette into each of the 125 ml gas tight flasks con- taining the dried 2, 4-DNPH derivatives (extract and precipitate) 2 ml of the Internal Standard (Anthracene in Benzene) Solution and place the flask in a sonic bath until the residue has dissolved. Visually examine the bottom of the flasks, by holding up to a light area, to insure that all of the residue has completely dissolved. M. Transfer the solution from step L to a labeled 1 dram vial in preparation for gas chromatographic injection. 7. 3 Analysis 7. 3. 1 Optimization of Parameters A. Prior to calibration and determination of response factors the hydrogen, helium (carrier), and air flows must be optimized using a standard mix in benzene. This flow-response calibration pro- cedure can be found in most gas chromatographic books. B. The conditions presently in use were obtained by first optimizing the hydrogen-air flows at low, medium, and high helium carrier rotometer settings. A number of injections were made at each of the above conditions using different sample sizes. The best chroma- tographic conditions, flow rates measured at detector, were found to be at a helium flow rate of 40. 0 cc/min. , hydrogen flow rate 45. 5 cc/min., and air at a flow of 600 cc/min. with a sample si/.e of 15 microliters. 7.3.2 Technique A. Condition the chromatograph column with a 15 microliter portion of either a standard mixture or sample prior to obtaining concen- tration data. A conditioning process should be repeated whenever samples are not analyzed for an hour or more. B. The injection is on-column using a 25 microliter syring Before injection, at least 3-25 microliter portions of the sample is used to condition the syringe. A 25 microliter portion is then taken into the syringe and syringe laid on a clean paper towel. The chromatograph lid is raised and a wrench is used to remove the column tee cap. The tee is a 3-way fitting shaped the capital "T" and is situated such that the vertical B-8 image: ------- section of the "T" is on the horizontal plane. A cap is placed on one aide of the "T" top and the column of the other side. The carrier gas enters the side arm and exits through the column side of the "T", The syringe is then taken up and the volume adjusted from 25 to 15 microliters. The syringe tip is wiped free of any liquid and then inserted through the "T" into the column and the plunger firmly pushed in. The syringe is removed and a cold cap put on the tee, tightened, and then the lid closed. When the chromatograph responds to the benzene solvent the GC programmed start button is pressed simultaneously with the inject data systems interface initiator. The syringe is then washed several times with clean benzene in preparation for the next injection. C. The GC temperature is programmed from 130°C to 300°C at a rate of 6°C per minute. Injection block temperature is 240°C and the manifold temperature held at 300°C. D. See Figure I for a typical exhaust chromatogram of a non-catalytic automobile. 8. Calibrations 8. 1 Absorber Inefficiency-Series Impingers 8. 1. 1 Using a Programmable Calculator Corrections for absorber inefficiency for an infinite number of absorbers is based on the material balance concept. This method for determining the total concentration of carbonyl compounds using two absorbers in series has been verified within experimental error using a multiple impinger train. These calculations are essential for an accurate determination of, particularly, the acetaldehyde and acetone concentrations. The percent of acetaldehyde passing through the first absorber is about 7. 5% of the material present in the absorber and for acetone/a crolein/propionaldehyde is in the order of 20% of the material in the first absorber. Calculations for series impingers are made by using the following equations: First using the formula Rn = Ao + Ai £ Ri when Rn = Concentration in each absorber N-l ^ Rj = sum of individual absorber concentrations B - 9 image: ------- The concentrations present in the aeries absorbers are used to d«>J«»rmim> llu- *-«ii>KiaiiI * A(, and Aj, The constants Aq and A j are then used to calculate the total uncorrected concentration by equation. Cq = AQ a „ A0 „ where: K AlVs Ay = material removed from sample stream by first absorbers. Ai = material removed by second and succeeding absorbers. V s = sample volume K = Constant The value of Cq is then corrected by a background subtraction. For example: Since the material balance concept dictates that the quantity, of material absorbed by each of the absorbers in a train is related, then the linear regression equation can be used to determine the values of the slope and intercept of any two absorbers in series. Know these two constants for any two absorbers the total concentration can then be calculated for the sample steam. Example: Absorber in train Concentration in Absorber 1st . 1600 2nd . 0800 3rd .0400 4th .0200 Data Points: N-l Kn (y) £Rj ( x ) . 1600 0 . 0800 .1600 .0400 .2400 . 0200 .2800 When calculated for an infinite number of absorbers. B-10 image: ------- Co .ajl . 16 . 50 32 8. 1. 2 Alternate Method An alternate method for doing the calculations if a programmable calculator is not available would be run two absorbers in series and then based on this information a per cent of the material passing through the first impinger could be determined. This per cent could then be applied to any number of hypothetical absorbers and then summed to give a total con- centration. After sufficient data has been obtained on series absorbers then only one absorber can be run and calculations made, with confidence, to get a total concentration. 8. 2 Carbonyl Concentration r . . . , r „ \ ,, T r F 2 I.S. x 103 Carbonyl (ppm) = Ci X v X X —WX PoV0 C J = Co corrected for background Vs = Sample volume in liter Tr = Room temperature, 0 K Pr = Room pressure, mm Mercury F - Response factor for individual carbonyl MW = Molecular weight of carbonyl derivative 1, S. = Internal Standard Concentration, mg/ml T0 - Temperature at Standard Conditions PD = Pressure at Standard Conditions VQ = Volume at Standard Conditions B-ll image: ------- TABLE 1. STANDARD MIXTURE OF 2,4-DNPri DERIVATIVES FOB TfiE CALIBRATION OF THE CHROMATOGRAPHIC SYSTEM 2,4-DNPH Derivative Number of Dete rminations Concent ration mg/ ml Ratio Anthracene to 2,4-DNPH X Standard Deviation F-Factor Formaldehyde 5 Acetaldehyue 5 Acetone 5 Iso-Butyraldehyde 5 C rotonaldehyde 5 Hexanaldehyde 5 Benzaldehyde 5 0. 098% 0. 10395 0.08040 0.02840 0.04487 0.01497 0.06550 1.0851 0.9181 1.0498 2.9385 2.0720 5.3590 1. 3593 0.0032 0.0028 0.0049 0.0127 0.0096 0.0144 0.0104 2.5293 2.2481 1.9926 1.9653 2.1902 1.8898 2,0972 B-12 image: ------- Procedure Used by SFRE for BaP Analysis The analytical procedure used for this work followed that described by Sawicki et at. (Healtn Lab. Sci. 7 (1) Suppl., Jan., 1970) with some minor irodifications. In general, the procedure is as follows: 1. Prewash Soxhlet equipment by refluxing benzene for 1 hour 2. Extract filter by Soxhlet method with benzene (dis- tilled in glass) for 4 hours. (3" x 10" filter di- vided into measured sections of 4" x 5" to facili- tate extraction process. Each filter portion was placed in a separate Soxhlet apparatus and the ex- tracts combined after completion of the process). 3. Evaporate the solvent to a few ml volume and quan- titatively transfer to a preweighed vial (this step allows separation of filter fiber residue from the sample). Evaporate the solvent and reweigh the vial to determine the weight of extractable material. 4. Add exactly 1 ml of solvent to the vial and redis- solve the residue. 5. Spot j.0 yl of this solution on a thin layer plate (alumina or silica qel) and develop with 19:1 hexane ether. 6. Scrape the plate in the region where the BxP sepa- rates using a high concentration marker as a guide, 7. Dissolve the adsorbed material and quantitatively filter to remove the insoluble particles. 8. Evaporate the filtrate to dryness and add 1 ml f^SG^ 9. Read the fluorescence intensity with excitation at 470 nm and emission at 540 nm. 10. Known quantities of B»P spotted on TLC and extracted were used as comparison standards. B-l 3 image: ------- NEW BF-NZ a PYRENE ANALYTICAL METHOD (Copy of report reference 63) Equipment and Apparatus A. Fluorescence Spectrophotometer (Perkin-Elmer Model MFP-3) with the Thin Layer Plate Scanning Attachment B. Digital Integrator (Perkin-Elmer Model 048) C. Recorder (Hitachi Model QPD-33) D. Kudna Danish Concentrator, 10 ml concentrator tube with 250 ml flask E. Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) Plates, Analtech 8" x 8" (250 n) 20% acetylated cellulose. F. Plate Sc -ing Apparatus, Schoffel G. AIS TLC plate multispotter with 100 pi teflon coated blunt syringes H. Soxhlet Extraction Apparatus, s 35 x 45. I. Soxhlet Extraction Thimbles, Whatman Cellulose (33 x 94) J. Filter, Kodak Yellow Chrome II X. Hot Plate . Chemicals A. Cyclohexane, triple glass distilled, source: Burdick & Jackson B. Benzene, Spectroquality, source: Fisher Scientific C. Benzene, ACS grade, source: Fisher Scientific D. Ethanol, Spectroquality, source: Fisher Scientific E. Methylene Chloride, Spectroquality, soui.ee: Fisher Scientific F. Benzo-a-Pyrene - Recrystalized three times, source: Dr. Eugene Sawiki in EPA, ESRL/RTP. B-14 image: ------- jxi. Calibration Calibration standards of Benzo-a-Pyrene are prepared in the following concentration sets. SO ng BaP/50 pi cyclohexane 25 ng BaP/50 HI cyclohexane N 20 ng BaP/50 14 cyclohexane 15 ng BaP/50 pi cyclohexane 10 ng BaP/50 Ifl. cyclohexane 5 ng BaP/50 UL cyclohexane 1 ng BaP/50 PI cyclohexane Prepare a large enough batch to make several sets and freeze. Use either one fresh set or one thawed set daily. After one day's use, discard. IV. Procedure Note: For routinizing purposes we perform the analysis over a three-day period. A. Day No. 1 A-l. Quarterly Composites of 1" x 8" glass fiber filter strips from an NASN site are received by the laboratory. [Five (5) to eight (8) strips constitute a valid quarterly composite.J A-2. Samples are coded and logged into a laboratory notebook with all pertinent information, i.e., air volumes, site ID, year and quarter, number of strips, date received, etc. A-3. Filter strips are rolled into units containing no more than three strips per unit. Up to three units may be stacked in one soxhlet extraction thimble. Note: The thimbles are prewashed prior to use by refluxing for one hour in spectroquality benzene. A-4, The composite strips are refluxed for six hours in 100 milli- liters of cyclohexane. A-5. Allow the soxhlet to cool, remove the extract and keep it in the dark or under yellow light until used during the second day. B. Day No. 2 B-l. Place extracts in Kudna Danish Concentrators which are in a water bath maintained at 50°C. Blow extract down to 7 ml under a stream of dry nitrogen filtered through a molecular sieve (5A) trap. B-15 image: ------- B-2. Wash the sides of the concentrators with 10 ml fresh cyclo- hexane. Reconcentrate to 7 ml. The volumes are carefully brought to 10 ml with cyclohexane and the samples are trans- ferred to 15 ml Teflon capped glass vials and stored in the dark and under 34°F refrigeration until used during the third day. C. Day No. 3 C-l. Samples and calibration standards are removed from the refrig- erator and freezer and allowed to warm to room temperature. C-2. Using an AIS multispotter 50 Jil of the samples, standards, blanks and spiked blanks are spotted on a TLC plate in 18 one cm channels scored by a Schoffel plate scoring device. Spot- ting time is approximately thirty (30) minutes. Syringes (100 pi) with teflon blunt tips jure loaded to the 90 pi mark and the plunger moved to the 80 pi mark. The 50 pi sample is measured from 80 pi to the 30 pi mark and the plate is removed from the spotter. C-3. Plates are developed in TLC tanks to the 19 cm line in a sol- vent mixture of 100 ml ethanol and 50 ml methylene chloride. The plates are removed and allowed to air dry prior to scan- ning. C-4. The plates are scanned using a Perkin-Elmer MPF-3 fluorescence spectrophotometer for benzo-a-pyrene using an excitation wave- length of 388 nm and read at an emission wavelength of 430 run. The plates are then scanned at 434 nm ex and 470 nm em for an- thanthrene. C-5. The results are presented in both strip chart recordings and digital integrator readings. Note: Recovery studies based on spiked blanks show an average recovery of 98.9 + 5%. All work is carried out under Kodak yellow chrome light. Limit of detection based on the standard of a peak being 2 x the background noise is 0.1 ng. Calculation Where: S = concentration of standard in nanograms C = sample integrator counds Cs = standard integrator counts 200 = spotting fraction, 50 pi spot from a 10 ml sample or 1/200 b- 16 image: ------- n ¦= number of strips used per 10 ml sample 7 = total active area, in2, of one strip 63 = total active area, in^, of a whole filter F = air flow through filter, (S) (C) (200) — = nanograms BaP/n (S)(C)(0.2) , — = micrograns BaP/n (S) (0) (0.2) (63) . _ _ .... (Cs) (n) (7) BUcr°9rams BaP/fliter (S) (C) (1.8) . —(Cs) = micrograms BaP/filter U9 BaP/filter . 3 1000 x —2 nanograms BaP/H B -1 7 image: ------- FOE DISCUSSION AIHJ REVIEW DULY EOT FOE RELEASE Determination of Soluble Sulfates: Automated Method 1. Principle and Applicability 1.1 This method is for the determination of water- soluble sulfates from diluted automobile exhausts collected on Fluoropore filters. The method is quite general and may be used for trace sulfate . -analysis of any sample from.which sulfates can be leached out with water or aqueous alcoholic solutions. There are interferences from some anions and methods for minimizing or eliminating these are still being worked out. The method as written is applicable to sulfate analysis of exhaust emissions from cars run on non-leaded gasoline. < 1.2 Auto exhaust is mixed with air in a dilution tunnel and sampled through isokinetic probes. SOg reacts with available moisture in the exhaust to form K^SO^ aerosols and is trapped on Fluoropore*-filters with 0.45 n pore size. The filter is extracted with 60/40 isopropyl alcohol/water solution (i.e. 60 ml isopropyl alcohol (IPA) + 40 ml water). The extract is fed by a high pressure liquid (chromatographic) pump through a column of cation exchange resin to remove cationic interferences and then through a column of solid barium chloranilate where BaSO^ precipitates out. • An eouivalent amount of reddish colored acid chlor- 1 0 anilate icn is released and is measured colori- 3 i metrically at 310 om. To use this method for aqueous sulfate solutions, four parts by volume of the solution are mixed with six parts of IPA before feeding through the columns. Manual method or a dynamic sampling system can be used. ~Registered trade mark. Obtainable from Millipore Corp. image: ------- R_-_h,-iiici F rn_2_i r i v i t"_v Working conc-eni r.iriun rmi^o ;uhI :uun. It Lv i. t y t!rj>tfiul on size. A sensitivity better than 0.f> SO^ per ml in 60% IPA and working range of 0 - 25 ng/ral were obtained using a 0.5 ml external sampling loop injection system in conjunction with a du Pont liquid chromatograph UV detector. Sensitivity may be further increased by increasing the alcohol content of the solvent, as this would further decrease the solubility of BaSO, and barium chloranilate. ' 4 This, however, requires a much tighter control of the water/IPA ratio in the sample and In the mobile phase. To minimize spurious results arising from water imbalance, It is reconaaended that both the extracting solvent and the mobile phase for analytical runs be taken from the same stock solution. Sample size as large as 1.5 ml has been successfully used. Interferences Cations interfere negatively by reacting with the ocid chloranilate to form insoluble salts. These, however, are conveniently removed by passing the sample through a cation exchange resin In the acid form. Some anions such as Cl", Br", F", P0| interfere positively by precipitating out as barium salts with subsequent release of acid 2-5 chloranilate ions. Some buffer systems are reported to minimize anion interference. These systems are being investigated for possible incorporation in the present procedure. Alternative clean-up methods are also under consideration. Fortunately, for non-leaded exhaust samples collected on filters, ionic interference is minimal. Interference from aromatic compounds is minimized by using a 300 mu cut-off filter in the optical path of the detector system. B-19 image: ------- 3 4. Precision. Accurrcv, and Stability 4.1 Precision With an external sampling loop of about 1.5 ml, photometer attenuation set to read .04 absorbance units full scale, standard deviation of 0.05 ug S0//tnl was obtained for a sample containing 4.0 |ig SO^/ral. 4.2 Stability 4.2.1 Sulfuric acid standards containing 10 and 100 p.g SO^/ml in 60% IPA are stable for at least one month when stored in tightly capped volumetric flask which has been cleaned with 1:1 nitric acid and copiously rinsed with deionized water. Alternative storage container: are capped polyethylene reagent bottles. 4.2.2 The cation exchange resin and the barium chloranilate columns as described in apparatus section last for over two months. For samples known to contain cations, it is advisable to remove these cations by external treatment with cation exchange resin prior to injection into the sampling loop. 4.2.3 As the barium chloranilate column is depleted each time sulfate samples are fed through, it is good practice to run sulfuric acid standards before and after the sample. 4.2.4 Exposure of alcoholic samples, standards, and solvents to the atmosphere should be minimized, since IPA solution picks up atmospheric water on standing. B-20 image: ------- AppnraCur A schematic ot l lu* |>i ineip.il ccunponiMit .. *»I tlx- .lul uinai <• image: ------- 5 5.2 Principle of Operation Solvent (607. I?A) in reservoir (LR) is continuously fed through cation exchange (CX) and barium chloranila columns at flow rates of about 3 ml/min. by a high pressure liquid pump (LP). Background absorbance is continuously measured by a UV detector (D) at 310 mix and visually monitored in a strip chart recorder. A solenoid actuated air operated switching valve (SV) is used for filling the external sampling loop (L) with samples in conjunction with an automatic sampler (AS) and peristaltic pump (PP) and injecting thesampl Into the columns. At CX cations are removed and at BC, color reaction takes place. The BaSO^ precipitate Is retained in the column while the acid chloranilate is carried by the solvent through the detector system for colorimetric measurement. For an automated sampling system such as shown in Figure 1, both SV and PP are electrically coupled to AS by electric relays such that both are activated whenever AS is sampling (i.e. L is being filled and mobile phase bypasses L). At the end of the sampling cycle, PP and AS stop and SV switches to the injection mode (i.e. mobile phase passes through L and carries sample through CX and BC columns). For manual operation SV may be retained or replaced by a similar switching valve equipped with an extended handle for manual switching. Samples may be introduce into the sampling loop by syringe injection or by peristaltic pump system similar, to the one used in the automated system. B-22 image: ------- Regents 6.1 Isopropyl alcohol (TpA) spectroquality grade or equivalent. Volatile solvent, safety class IB. 6.2 60% IPA, Add four parts water to six parts IPA by volume. Store in tightly capped bottle.' About three liters are needed for a 12 hour operation. 6.3 Barium chloranilate, suitable for sulfate analysis. 6.4 Dox«?ex 50l!-X2 cation exchange resin, hydrogen form, 100-200 mesh. 6.5 Hydrochloric acid (4N). Add 30 ml concentrated hydrochloric acid to 60. ml deionized water. (Danger, strong acid.) 6.6 Standard sulfuric acid (IN), Dilute to the mark 2.S ml of concentrated sulfuric acid with deionized distilled water in a liter volumetric flask which has been washed in 1:1 nitric acid and copiously rinsed with deionized distilled water. Standardized against accurately weighed sodium carbonate to get- exact normality. 0.1K is equivalent to 4800 Ug/SO^/ml. (Danger, strong acid.) 6.7 Standard sulfate solution (1000 y.g S0^=*/ml). Dissolve 1.4787 gra sodium sulfate which has been heated up to 105°C for four hours and cooled in a dessicator and dilute to 1000 ml. Procedure 7.1 Column preparation 7.1.1 Barium chloranilate column (BC). In order to prepare a full column with minimum dead volume connect two lengths of standard 1/4" 0. D. stainless steel tubings as shown in Figure 2. b «= 2", a = 5". Connect a small funnel to open end of B with a Tygon tubing sleeve. image: ------- 7 Till the funnel "half way with barium chloranilate and use a vibrator (i.e. electric ' pencil engraver) to pack the solid in column. Continue operation until B is about half filled, *^=^?Remove funnel, plug empty space with glass wool, and cap the end with a 1/4" to 1/16" reducer. Plumb column B directly to SV in Figure 1. Connect a Tygon tubing at A and direct tubing to waste, reservoir. Activate liquid pump, set flow controller at pressure drop of about 600 psi. Let solvent flow for 20 minutes. Deactivate pump, disconnect column from SV. Disconnect column A from column B. Connect a glass wool- plugged 1/4" to 1/16" reducer to uncapped ena of column A. 7.1.2 Cation exchange resin column (CX). Add cation exchange resin, 100-200 mesh, Dowex 50W-X2 to 80 ml of 4N HC1 in a 150 ml beaker until a wet volume equivalent to 20 ml has settled at •the bottom. Let soak for at least three hours with occasional stirring using a glass rod. Decant the acid, add 100 ml deionized distilled water, stir and slowly, decant the liquid as soon as most of the solid has settled down at the bottom. Repeat rinsing procedure several times until rinse liquid gives a neutral reaction to pH paper. Connect two standard 1/4" 0. D. stainless steel tubings as in 7.1.1 with b ~ 5" and a =¦ 10". Connect a small funnel to open end of B with Teflon or Tygon tubing sleeve. Clamp composite tube vertically and connect . B-24 image: ------- 8 open end of A to v.icuua line equipped with liquid trap. Fill funnel with deionized distilled water and turn on vacuum slowly until composite tube is completely filled with water. Add water until funnel is half-filled, stop vacuum and add slurry of freshly washed resin. Let resin settle by gravity until resin top Is seen above E. Turn on vacuum slowly, keep adding resin slurry until composite tube is completely filled. Proceed as in 7.1.1 beginning with sentence: "Remove funnel-» plug empty space..." . " 7.2 Priming System for Analytical Run Connect the cation exchange and barium chloranilate columns v?ith 1/4" union packed with glass wool as shown in Figure 1. Fill solvent reservoir (LR) with 60% IPA, activate liquid pump, detector, recorder, switching valve, sampler, and peristaltic pump. Allow to cycle normally to clean out all components. For this initial operation, dip the sampling probe In at least 100 ml of 607. IPA. Set liquid flow rate at about 3 ml/min. Let run for at least 30 minutes. Deactivate switching valve, sampler, and peristaltic pump. Leave other components in operating mode. When background is stable at attenuation of .01 absorbance units full scale, system is ready for analysis. 7.3 Preparation of Calibration Standards # Either sulfuric acid or sodium sulfate standards ma)* be used. Add 200 ml of 0.1 N H^SO^ aqueous stock solution to 300 ml 1007. IPA in 500 ml volumetric flask. (Note: There is a volume decrease of about 2.77. when these 8-2 5 image: ------- 9 proportions of water and IPA are mixed.) Dilute to the mark with 60% IPA. This is equivalent to 1,920M-g S0^=/ml in 60% IPA. Prepare from this alcoholic stock solution calibration standards in the range 0.5 - 25 S0^= /ml by dilution of appropriate aliquots with 60% IPA. 7.4 Extraction of Soluble Sulfates from Fluoropore Filters "* Place filter in one 02. polyethylene bottle, add 10 ml 60% IPA and cap tightly. Shake until filter collapses and is completely immersed in liquid. let stand overnight. 7.5 Analysis Set instrument in operating mode, remove sampling probe from holder, an'd dip in 100 ml 60% IPA. Let it run . at flow rate of 3 ml/min until stable background is obtained, then remount sampling probe to holder. In the meantime, fill sample cuvettes with sample extract and blank solutions (60% IPA) and place on turntable. Sampling pattern is blank, blank, sample, blank, blank at .the rate of about six minutes per sample or blank. Blanks are used to xiash out system between samples arid minimize sample overlap. One blank between samples is adequate for dilute samples. (See also 5.2.) A series of standards (see 7.3) is run, preferably before sample runs and calibration curve, peak height vs. concentration, is plotted. A control standard may also be placed after every ten samples as a quality check on the stability of the system. The plot of peak height (detector response) vs. concentration (p.g SQ^=/ml) is non-linear in the low concentration end as would be expected from solubilities and kinetics consideration. Non-linearity is also observed at the upper end of the curve. B- 26 image: ------- 10 8. Calculations Calculate the concentration of sulfate as M-g S0^»/ml using the calibration curve. Total soluble sulfates [SO^lp *-n filter is then given by: [S04-]F » (ixg S0^»/m) x Vo x d where: Vo = total volume of original sample extract d =¦ dilution factor Example: Suppose 10 ml 60% IPA was used to extract the soluble sulfates in the filter and that 2 ml of this was diluted further to 6 ml with 607. IPA to bring detector response within calibration i^ange. Suppose that the. concentration of the diluted sample was found to be 5 ng/ral. Then, g [S0^M 3F - (5 Mg/ml) x 10 ml x 7 - 150 ng. B-27 image: ------- 10 8. Calculations Calculate the concentration of sulfate as M-g S0^»/ml using the calibration curve. Total soluble sulfates [SO^lp *-n filter is then given by: [S04-]F » (ixg S0^»/m) x Vo x d where: Vo = total volume of original sample extract d =¦ dilution factor Example: Suppose 10 ml 60% IPA was used to extract the soluble sulfates in the filter and that 2 ml of this was diluted further to 6 ml with 607. IPA to bring detector response within calibration i^ange. Suppose that the. concentration of the diluted sample was found to be 5 ng/ral. Then, g [S0^M 3F - (5 Mg/ml) x 10 ml x 7 - 150 ng. B-27 image: ------- References 1. R. J. Bertolacini and J. E. Barney II, "Colorimetrie Determination of Sulfate with Barium Chloranilate," Anal. Chem. 29, 281 (1957). 2. Ibid, "Ultraviolet Spectrophotometry Determination of Sulfate, Chloride and Fluoride with Chloranilic Acid," Anal. Chem. 30. 202 (1958). 3. H. N. S. Schafer, "An Improved Spectrojjhotometrie Method for the Determination of Sulfate with Barium Chloranilate as Applied to Coal Ash and Related Materials," Anal. Chem. 39, 1719 (1967). 4. S. C. Barton and H.' G. McAdie, "An Automated Instrument for Monitoring Ambient l^SO^ Aerosol" in Proceedings of the Third International Clean Air Congress, Dusseldorf, Federal Republic of Germany, 1973, VDl-Verlag GmbH, 1973, p. C25. 5. M. E. Gales, Jr., W. H. Kaylor and J. E. Longbottom, "Determination of Sulphate by Automatic Colorimetric Analysis," Analyst 93, 97 (1968). B-28 image: ------- FIGURE 1 FLOW. SCHEMATJCJOR AUTOMATED SULFATE J NSTRUMENTj1 RECORDER TO WASTE image: ------- FIGURE 2 : CONFIGURATION FOR LOADING COLUMN — TtiT-.i¦ Sl 1/4" UNION 1/4" TO l/16h, REDUCER GLASS WOOL % jii.. — **** m—mfiff fjijjjjjjj | 1 II ¦ l ¦*—wSj Ml L r^rJ & image: ------- APPENDIX C EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR MACK F.TAY (B) 67 3A CATERPILLAR 3208 w/EGR AND CHEVROIJST 366 HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES image: ------- ip ¦Ztili-i— 'Ziits-z —1 '¦I 1 is I ' " 3 liti till : 11 I ! ! 5 PI e ft i i s tV : ?!: * — » - i ; nil § f-i ill! I £ , >5= fs;;s=iiss^isritms = = s = s = css = cs5ss.rssorr lit • ^ w «•* r r s s » « zii~iiii£££ii- 3 ,57 s??::f; ftznz zr::2izz « i a - * r s c # ~ Ztz" ZZiZi'--1i~ «1 i t ; lfr!cH - fc r - * * « 5 5 s 11 s 1 r f 1 £ S S i r = r «• S i s r ¦ - ji - sr -""12 hi* an*'1* 1 : - s - ?iE ?. 15;;;;; t r v t 0 r » immmw '* |i i~~~ ' ssis; \l 11\z.'.*\*!!W'A{ i— io — «I'i«6fes «#»•»*• c ~ s c c ' t | ~ - i!!£;;:!-s:sis5 nf£ass|;| s I I r. #» r- •> at %i- tii 222 o o m :s» III II "J i-'*- + ---"- ~ fir? j;:; ! ? < = 5-S--»> ;;i'r •2 l\ SS58J ! d i I | I HH^=~5f£^^H£i?=si||s lis s f]a=5sSsSH5s5« = S==«:"X;" Hf J ^ c son —|f* 1 :zz- :s ? i I if ¦k • . Uh J - W I — ^ s, S I 1 ~ c ! llirsr S JI!2£3 I'll I v=;- iill ;zsf=i'.z7Z? iiiiiz'ziiz * J * z *c ~ liZ'-Ziitzzi iiiiii-'iiii 9 * *W - ~ imm-nuizm <%>*. 0 •» S *> z * » m 9 m. v r r >* s niavizii - e ~ r * s •V 4 » — HiiiviU; «r «< • *• »* s * Ml ^ lllliinlllliliv r- Islf .zz C-2 image: ------- lABl*: '-3. r * I 5 510'< Cf£U o:f*u r \S«\I |\ cos'lCueifiON •ieffi *a -r.i- . =¦-*. l i. fiU project li»*b23~ •;:c V IZ'-t Fuu *!* fc *•** J5T P{f,1 FO>.* HO* HO.i 4fR It?- •« i * < / *G/VJ * RATIO *10 *,t» ,n?l l.fctf 3.7«l ,0Pb 2 l«ST A , 1 *. ' «G>* *,?» «. IS ,ro* i**? l»*.l «>3| If,'? ic,?n «ft?2 * :*so til,« i 1,*0 i*,3i .051 i"SO lit*.# .**0 l>.70 I*. 12 ,03S » * I'SC 22'.* ?uu ,P3* 7 fj.o c.u 3.U i, i« ,00k :*?o UVM 2*',2 ,^k 2t-,«i 27.7? ,03k a *21.1 1*3,2 21,'2 i*,il ,0 JO 15 .*r3 1>2. 3 ,» *5 I*,** I*. * .02* 11 ' i % )Q i<**.2 bC," .2" i*,e? 1*..* .o:» :? . * 2;,* *,3 .11? n.*s 12 „ * ? ,30* 13 • C5 3."3 «El * j.bi 3,11 ,ocs »-ooc *C CO* NO** WEIGHTED 8S»«C BSCO* B3«oe** mjM, "ittl KPW *PH PPW ** C/*k h9 G/«« h3 C/Kir nR G/XC I ^0 301 m 3,00 n b P I'.b 2 ;ak in i*.i» 33,ii S3,8i U,b I N* in • lb 1.5* i.?t ?,0l 8,f0 13,4 1 188 in 5>i l.U «bb 1 t b 1 il.k s 10 33b 8«3 11.b? l.k^> 7,S» ii,i 11 33* 131 .l1* Ji.ll i»,73 IS , 8b 13,3 1) li 8 ?3l o,co a 3 n 11,1 CYCLE CCPOJIU bshc ¦ «t>63 HR U5C0* * <,C8 tabu: c-4. i wr uC-F'a*s5J C'EiU »*GW I «• SU £if 1 i". i i 11- -1-7% *il«| V"-?' i. C*Cl> -t'j rcNricu-nits-inr«n *«r ct*T encim «-r PrfnjfO U-Wl-091 S.'£ f ftO luf. TC-i«€ •» $.fm* Al« a *h/>ust fui.1 K&OE «c CU* NO** »Clt»NTCO »SmC 8S:c» dS^C.2** rigH. rub 1 #»2 1*3 21* U.OCf * R 12,1 ? !¦»*- 13»H *. * .J?l «.»« .CC3 i ?* 0 31* I ? 7 .37 13,80 35. ** 33.27 H.« 3 l^SO 1 ' . ^ 30 11«, "•» i .»? 3 23b its *S8 «,y 1.2^ 2 . Ci ».2l 12.1 • i 1 *,? .'Jl 11. .*.1 » .031 *• 188 21* 73b **r»s .b* 1.73 8. '8 11.* S IUS.I ib**. ~ ,b«S 13.*5 . 1* lb s <0 li« 822 13, SS .28 2.ID 1, 34 11.b t» 1*SQ 1 "• *."• .b?| *1 ,?* b. *•» *1? lOSb 18.08 • 1 3 2.*7 *.82 11.* * * 3.0 .,rt ,y^Q .00b 7 1 "8 Ill 11* o,no k R R 12.1 s i 1? ?* 3.» ??.ss .33b • « Sb 231 ?l5 l^.^C .11 i.ii ».»o 12.* 1- V I . <» ?i.-b It .030 « b<* 162 b28 1* « b2 .25 i.-i ?.q8 ;i.* is : ¦ i b.^.S i?i .s 1«,I3 .0?b 10 - 12* lut * ^ 7 *.75 .,4' 7 , b? 11.b 11 lv« ** l^,y3 ,020 11 2u5 in 2*b *,•7 1„*< 1 * *0 b,«S 11.2 li !"•• j ?i,7 1 , 7 ,1U 11.81 .CO* 12- 2«b 2*1 11? .38 21.7* 3*.ai 28,11 11.* 13 i-^o fi.C ,G .*I£ 3.b* 3,b» .005 n ?28 2?S 221 (1.00 t* M 11.2 ctctc cwosm 8SHC = BSCO* • h3N02*»* 8S*02**« SSFC t .s*2 2.1*3 8.b*l II? Sfc**/** &MAC/K* ,2%3KG/*» h< * COWvffitlO TO b£T BASIS ~ ~ COsvcPTfo TO *£T 6*515 *HO COSRCCTCo To 10.? »¦ IIItC»*mS «*Ufi PfP *6 QRY 4JP image: ------- 14 % ll-«UOI »*A llf DlfHl frril wtjFCit i i-ikil-mu ff»i i>* f f *uu J i*Gf*ffC*U*l>JU*B |*H* • /tCft«S/*SiitSJ**4B '. * .0 *11.1 l • .1 »* ¦ . b S . n?o *«ni» *.s I B , 1 ill •.*1 «.hk .11M Mill n.n n u .om l.l 1 ^.11 .0 in *i **»|M 0.0 o »«M I. >h .¦in* TAHU <. *>. ii*"«bi Mfau f*cu *tOlfCttll-i|.*J-(Hil IIS! D* !C bij* 2 IW6IH* tCM(N?Itl*N 1108 «/lCR,S/Ni'OSJ*'M *Uf I tI*-* >*-' *0"t CNClHt B(J-C" run MB t VHAII9 1 *U£l $«ro no* f to« *1B W9<« N I M M Kl-./MfK "* 1 to Mill 0,0 O.fl .011 *. * 1 ».** .nok * IwiM II. * *. 1 .Ofcl ~ .1* K. S .fit I |I>«M W.I «.* fc."4 k. 1 i .on tt-l'l 11*. 1 *0.4 . I I* k.Ml ~ »M« IKBlf IM.l .M» «.•% .0*1 «**,« .*** s.s» ^ . »»« .oil i**.! »%.* . >1 1 fc. Jfc ,'IH Ulu 4**.1 *1.1 ¦ .010 »~'ill %*!.% im.i .1" ». i<» *.»> .«1% IM l*.«n I«V.» l i ».b i. Ik *. J1 ,l»Si 1 kflll ft.o n.n .<11» *.ll *.M .00k 1* 1 Mo n.n n.«i ,imii S. »«• S. .ion 1 i*l,« 411,« .^'1 1 I.Ofl U>* .an |1 ?*'tn 1M.B iM.h 1?.*# H.i* .011 ts **tw ll1*.li .%1 1 I*.«l 11.1* „mn lb *•¦111 l«k.| Sf»«.« .^Hl» III. nit in,no ,*SQ 1 *Bnii *J>.i »,<»¦ ¦«ll .ui; 1" *««M» l*J.i Ik.* .Ilk • .** «.^i .0)0 1* t ¦!! 1 •o.* **».» .*!» • . i*> .0*k #« *BOM *0.1 11.1 .IV *. i« *.%k .11*1 *1 «»>IMI «.* #.* .1^11 *.« i 8.S» .m* *.» t-ltn U.Q n.n .Pi'» ?,n? l.ni .Oft> * 1 o.n «».n .*»l » D . )«, ¦.'k .nfli HC HPw CO* *E1C«IC0 6ShC VP* i &Sni l?% i.ai *.%« 1.0% 1.SI l* 4 111 i*k 1«« .Of I.0> 4.11 I.*4* i* b 4*0 101 110 i.«i l.t* I.I* *,*k I* 7 •10 )«k kl? 0.00 1 r ! a 1 **0 1 IS 10IQ ».?! .•1 .H '.!• i* 1 HI **•» 1(1*0 n.oit 1 i I i* sn *n «lk MO 0.10 t i 1 i* ti *k« If k Ml o.no M 3 It i* l* *1 i fl.no W ii R i* ii too ins 1 k|? i." .*? %.kk i* !•» Ik* • 4* knt >« ii .11 «.** t.Bl if 1% n* Ml ift *. M 1. Ik 1 »#k »» i* Ik ?ik *•*) l)k k.lb . >1 io.^t l.*l i* 1 > Sll 10«? Ml i, I ¦ *.0i i-».k« I »** i* II 1 70 U1 O.no I i 1 1* % It • 0* 1*1 1 .»* i,«k IS.10 I * *0 Ml kll IM n.flO I 1 1 1* *1 klk ?0* ino n,oo i 1 1 I* II *ii "•0% ID n.oo M B fl I? * i *tii JS J 0.00 K A a 1* c*cie Cft*»09!Vt B3HC * i.tf? CBitt/Rh M»r ©SCO* * CtfAN/RW MB BS«C AS*OI««* rsno?**s f»$rc « i.itk e««N/RM >,M1 CB*H/*M ,*8»*G/*« «* t CON*tHT|0 in Bf f fusts ~ ~ CnN*|»ffO TU *Ff «*sis 4NO CU«RCC*tf> lo ic.r *uug«*ws K*tf* Bf B Kf» OB* * J B *001 «c cu« 1 -ric^Tto UShC SSfO* tlSNOII* «tVM. NILL1 ri»* PP* KM G/k» hB C/KW Mtf C/K* hM C/K& 1 *i* *SI IM o.eo R B 6 11.) * 1M 1*1 101 .11 It .SO >J.11 1*1 .IS 11.1 1 SI* «*k l*» .ss lk.il >.P? t*.l * SI* 911 ISt 1 .0* ».»l ?.kk 1.18 II. i V Ikl Ikk lift .11 1,1? l.kn i*. i fc Slk *IS IM l.'l I .SI I.k8 i.ii i*.i 7 Sll MS S>* Q.10 1 1 1 il.) • i*o II* HI IJI .Ik kk 8. I> ii.i Ml *S I *kl 0.00 t 1 1 ii.i 10 *0» *f!l MS 0.00 1 1 ! ii.i 11 III Ik* o.no H fl B ti, J 1* 11 1* 1 o.no M B ti ii. i 1) >k 10k? Ml i.il .11 *,•* S.V8 ii.) »» lib ^11 . 1* s.sn S . . 10 i.H 11.* Ik i n fblk IM k.l* ,$l is.*s l.US ll.k M Slk ISkS Ik* 1.18 1.8U M.ll 1.** 11.k It is* lOiO iki o.no 1 I 1 ll.k 1« Slk 8^0 Ik i.'* 1.8' Ik.M "•.*« ll.k *0 k»* ktl 110 o.no 1 i 1 1 l.fc *i fii >*• • 8 0.A0 1 I 1 ll.k ** 101 11 Q.PO W B R 11.% *i in in * O.no W B M ll.k CUtf COMBOS1U 8Sh£ 1. >ot MB PlfO* Mil GNft*t/N« mB BSNO*«« i.HI hB 8SHC . k.kkk SDIN/M H f> e»K .I11BC/KH HB CO«v(ffTtO 10 «(1 fMSIS »« ffl Ml t m*ii• »np> rn»a«rifn Id fl.f M!41 image: ------- tabi£ c-/. rr»>r«*c uesrt, ruisrow c*clr. puojfcun-^h*i-nnj if*ii o*ff *>!/?? #«j* « IM6t%CiC*Tfi:»UbM v»* Cr*CT«WT IROUBlCSHOOTl* f»W CCD) r«jrt e*-???-* MOOf c*si->r IJwUUE Ptimth f uEt. Alfl Exhaust FUEL Hooe HC cot N0«» •CICMfftt BSHC nsco* U5l»0?«* HUN. utrij ao*» ftBw TLOW AIR NlLLI P»«* »J * * < 4 k ;/«*!n nc/*i« KG/*t*i RATIO prtt PM w ft If c/km «r Q/K* MR 6/KM hR C/KC WJ O.P 'l.'f .«u ?.!« ?.fO .08? i isb 110 111 0.00 k U R 11.1 1 !*«>« n.i ?.l .0** b,«1? b.U .010 t Sll in bb ,1? <11,18 11.SB H.l ) |h«-l ibi.i .in S.Bfc S.** .0?) i MI lib IBS f.?J l.OS S.?l i.n l?.l UNO 1??.* Sk.l ,«n f.k) s.is • BH i S?0 101 **1 1,1* l.U 1,1? ?.SB 11.1 s iHtin »•«.? s*.? .in b.f? ?.is .01b i 1?0 lib bbl b.BI l.Of 1.1? s.u 11. i b lbB» bSS.# 11"?, 1 .Ml I.» ,611 * ??1 lib mo? i,;i .SI >.*s u.i ? b>u 0.* 3.D ,011 ?.lb ?.u ,06? } HR Sib lb? 0.00 R R i?.i 1 fiito "~18.5 l**.l ,>?< 1#.M il.Sb .on 1 100 IBS! b1* ii.b* .?? S.bb l.'l it.i * ISt.l i«n.» ,'fl* ifl.l* 10.bS . 01K n IBS) Sbi t.is 10.^S l.SU u.l IB *ina ?1?.1 b*.b .17? • .01 ¦ .10 ,01b IB in ?6*? i«* I.S) l.OS 11 .b« 1,1) K.i li ? Km in,' »«•.? .?«§ 1.11 «.b* 11 * ?a m i?? *.w 9.?7 13. it * .ul t?.l I? ?fi»Q *.* ?.• 150 • -Si l.bb .OH It tth 70? .?? bl.B* l?b.S* ?>. H 11,1 11 b?li 1.0 OH ?.u ?.is .00k 11 til 10S in 0.00 H R R 11,1 CTCLC composite BSHC a l.SM CRAH/RW HN BSCO* • ?.?bl CRAr«/KU r*R BSMO?*»« S,0?? CRam/kh ff> BSNC « BSNO?«t« b.b?2 CRam/ru hs ,?I5KG/KN Mfc ~ CONVEKTCO 10 «f BASIS *~ CONVCHfCO TO WEI-BASIS AWO CORRECTED TO 10.9 MJUI0*A«S KAIER PC* AC PftT AIR TABLE C-8, U-HfiMl etCSEi. emission c*cu PROJCOM l-»b*VBllJ TrS* |)*Tf b/l/?? R 1 1 bi Sbb £0*. ?.?? ?.l? I."*/ i.l? i?.i ihtn (>•.1 .??b S.S. (,H .U11 1 Sll. IH ??b 1*11 1.1? l.bl ?.bb ll,) IbAK 1 ¦* . 1 VS.? .Ml b.?b ?.ni .Bib s ill IIS bSb b.t? 1.?* ?. 11 S.l* u.i b b«S. ? i I l.b B.s^ 1.?* ,osi b 101 10? If! .lb 1.0S ?.«* li* 1 3 •»»>! U,0 0.b 10b? b?8 11.51 .li S.I? b.OO u.i ISb.l 111,1 , sou in.no 10.SO .oso * i?b Ib)l IIP i.n .a ll.i] 1,11 i'«i IB ?•'»'! ?1?.1 *4.b .1J1 7.1* s.u .01? 10 Sib m! 11U s.s? 1 .1(1 1?.?^ ?.lb it.i 11 f Sl'.f l?l.1 lb.? .lib S.?^ t.si ,016 11 IS? ion 1?0 I.*0 1.10 11.** 1.00 u.i W i at image: ------- TABLE C-9. MASS EMISSIONS HY 23 «OOE PROCEDURE E» image: ------- TABLE C-10. MASS EMISSIONS BY 83 MODE PROCEDURE ENCINE-3bt>TEST-123 RUN-2 REGULATED GASEOUS EMISSIONS ONLY TO HV FUEL A/F DRY CONCENTRATION HOOE SPEED N-h KH KM KG/HR RATIO HC CO C02 NOX 1 700 0.0 0 111 2.S 22.b 2781 .397 8.91 21 2 1200 8.9 1 111 1.1 21.7 S 7 .131 9.95 S3 a 1200 28. S 1 399 s.o 21.2 82 • 1 SS 10.1b 73 i 1200 b2 . 3 8 358 S.b 20.h 82 .1SS 10. -»B 129 s 1200 87.2 11 330 b . 2 19.9 108 .223 10.80 73 b 1200 17*.5 22 211 8.7 17.7 100 • S 7 7 11.81 110 7 1200 2b 1 • 7 33 122 12.2 15.8 198 1. 181 12.7b IIS 8 1200 eat.8 3b 81 12.9 IS.8 181 1.233 12 . b 1 bio 9 1200 320,1 *0 28 11.3 15.7 22b 1.179 12.52 710 10 1200 3*3,b 13 3 lb.H 13.9 ISIS 1.510 10.b9 2b0 XI 700 0.0 0 132 2 • b 21.3 1050 .397 9.71 IS 18 1200 0.0 0 531 2.7 25.1 9850 .177 7.2b 11 13 2300 3b 3 • 2 97 3 3*. 2 13.1 1011 b . 120 9.51 150 11 2300 3*0.0 62 HI 27.7 1S.1 bb 1.110 12.89 bOO IS 2300 301.1 73 81 21.9 15.8 5b • 9*0 13.01 710 lb 2300 277.7 b7 122 23.0 IS.8 55 .88* 13.13 bOO 1? 2300 1 8b . 9 IS 239 17.b 1 b . b 30 .128 13.2b 390 18 2300 91 .1 23 3bb 12.b 17.1 29 • ObB 12.bl 158 19 2300 b 7 . b lb 39b 10.8 18.2 27 .072 12.05 12S 20 2300 32.0 8 139 8.1 20.5 31 .102 10.58 110 21 2300 8.9 2 IbS 7.5 21.b 28 .092 10.05 77 22 700 0.0 0 10b 2.1 23.2 5189 .110 8,3b 3 23 2300 0.0 0 533 1. B 2b « 9 1112 .102 7.80 10 CALCULATED GRArt/HR HT. E. UNITS SPECIFIC GRAM/ KN-HR MODE HC CO NOX FAC. TO FC HC CO NOX 1 73.S 212 1.8 .070 0 S.b R R ft 2 2.5 lib 7 . b .ObO 7 S.b 2.19 101.1 b . 8 3 1.0 1S3 11.8 .ObO 21 11.1 1.12 12.7 3.3 1 1.1 lbb 2 2 • b • 050 lb 12.1 .5b 21.1 2.9 5 b.l 2S3 11.b .030 bl 13.7 .ss 23.1 1.3 b 7.0 81S 9S.1 .ObO 129 19.1 .32 37.2 1.3 7 17,3 208S 120.1 o.ono 193 2b. 9 .S3 b3.1 3.7 B lb.8 2318 IBS.5 . 0 * L 210 28.5 .17 b 1. 8 5.3 S 23.0 3011 2*0.2 o.ono 23b 31.S • S 7 75. b b.O lu lbl. 7 9 7 9Q 92. 1 O.GOG 253 3b.2 3.75 22b.7 2.1 11 2b. S 202 1.3 .070 0 5.7 R R R 12 313.0 11* 1.2 . 120 0 5 . S R R R 13 22b.S 2 b H 21 108.0 .025 2b8 75.1 2.59 30b.b 1.2 if 12. 7 5519 3H5.9 .055 2S1 bl . 1 .lb b 7 .1 1.7 IS 10.1 33R8 *39. * .035 225 SI.9 .1* lb.2 b.l) lb . * 't ;! . uoU bU . « • it * ~ H I? *. o It. 1ST. 7 . ObO 13 B 38.7 .09 7.5 3.8 IB 2.9 IBS SI.9 O.OUO 70 27.7 .13 5.9 2.3 IS 1 S 1 37. i .ObS SO c?3.* .15 d « u 2. d 21) lb * 2R.8 0 .000 21 lH.b .31 21.2 3.7 21 2.1 1 3 H 19.0 o.ono 7 lb.b .98 bl.S 8.9 22 131.8 P I 0 .1 .080 0 5.2 R R R 23 85.1 1 image: ------- TABLE C-ll. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM MACK ETAY(B)673A (Based on 47 mm Glassfiber Filters) Engine rpm load% Date Run Ho. Concentration roq/M3 Particulate Rate g/hr g/kg Fuel g/kw-hr 1450 12/08/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 24.23 21.84 23.04 11.08 10.05 10.57 2.46 2.09 2.28 2. 36 2.14 2.25 1450 12/08/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 62.78 60.00 61.39 34.36 32.66 33.51 2.55 2.40 2.48 0.60 0.55 0.58" 1450 12/08/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 122.58 114.40 118.49 85.07 83.75 84.41 3.52 3.30 3.41 0.78 0.71 0.75 1450 12/08/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 156.68 137.14 146.91 137.07 128.61 132.84 3.84 3.48 3.66 0.81 0.73 0.77 1450 12/21/76 01/03/77 2 3 Avg. 254.05 255.04 254.55 254.54 266.97 260.76 5.31 5.48 5.40 1.08 1.14 1.11 Idle 12/07/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 12.36 15.30 13.83 2.29 2.80 2.55 1.91 2.13 2.02 (a) (a) la) 1900 12/22/76 01/03/77 2 3 Avg. 143.78 126.81 135.30 205.55 178.05 191.80 O.dl 0.71 0.76 1900 12/22/76 01/03/77 2 3 Avg. 103.01 92.22 97.61 125.82 114.40 120.11 2.91 2.63 2.77 ). <>5 0.61 0.63 1900 12/07/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg. 89.73 78.72 84.23 87.02 77,8"* 02. Ai 2.96 2.63 2.80 0.71 0.62 0.07 1900 12/07/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg. 74.43 f>8.96 71.70 55.56 52.83 54.20 3.31 hSS. 3.17 O.'M) 0.84 0.87 1900 (a) 12/07/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg. 36.33 41.68 39.01 22.25 25.63 23.94 3.13 3.51 3.32 no power output observed during idle and closed throttle 4.73 4.93 4.83 C-8 image: ------- TABLE C-ll. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM MACK ETAY(B)673A (Based on 47 mm Glassfiber Filters) Engine rpm load% Date Run Ho. Concentration roq/M3 Particulate Rate g/hr g/kg Fuel g/kw-hr 1450 12/08/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 24.23 21.84 23.04 11.08 10.05 10.57 2.46 2.09 2.28 2. 36 2.14 2.25 1450 12/08/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 62.78 60.00 61.39 34.36 32.66 33.51 2.55 2.40 2.48 0.60 0.55 0.58" 1450 12/08/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 122.58 114.40 118.49 85.07 83.75 84.41 3.52 3.30 3.41 0.78 0.71 0.75 1450 12/08/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 156.68 137.14 146.91 137.07 128.61 132.84 3.84 3.48 3.66 0.81 0.73 0.77 1450 12/21/76 01/03/77 2 3 Avg. 254.05 255.04 254.55 254.54 266.97 260.76 5.31 5.48 5.40 1.08 1.14 1.11 Idle 12/07/76 12/21/76 1 2 Avg. 12.36 15.30 13.83 2.29 2.80 2.55 1.91 2.13 2.02 (a) (a) la) 1900 12/22/76 01/03/77 2 3 Avg. 143.78 126.81 135.30 205.55 178.05 191.80 O.dl 0.71 0.76 1900 12/22/76 01/03/77 2 3 Avg. 103.01 92.22 97.61 125.82 114.40 120.11 2.91 2.63 2.77 ). <>5 0.61 0.63 1900 12/07/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg. 89.73 78.72 84.23 87.02 77,8"* 02. Ai 2.96 2.63 2.80 0.71 0.62 0.07 1900 12/07/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg. 74.43 f>8.96 71.70 55.56 52.83 54.20 3.31 hSS. 3.17 O.'M) 0.84 0.87 1900 (a) 12/07/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg. 36.33 41.68 39.01 22.25 25.63 23.94 3.13 3.51 3.32 no power output observed during idle and closed throttle 4.73 4.93 4.83 C-8 image: ------- TABLE C-12. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S04 FROM MACK ETAYCBJ673A ENGINE (Based on 47 mtn Fluoropore Filters) Engine gg». 1450 Enq ine Load f % 25 1450 1450 145) Idle 1900 50 1903 1900 19 30 10C 7$ 50 Date 12/08/76 12/21/76 12/08/76 12/21/76 12/08/76 12/21/76 12/08/76 12 '21/76 12 21'76 01 03 77 12 07/76 12/ 21/ 76 12/22/76 01/03'77 12/22/76 ">1/03/77 12/07/76 12/22/76 12/07/76 12/22/7* 12 07/76 12 22 76 Kun NO. 1 Avq 1 Avq 1 2 Avq 1 -» Avq 3 Avq I Avq Cone. >*q/«3 1060.39 803.78 932. 34 4464.26 4401. <34 4433.05 6455.16 6632.95 6574.06 6816.74 7169,16 6992.95 941Q.86 9733.75 9576.31 *69.83 928.02 948.9 3 Sulfate Rate aqAq fuel mg/fcw hr 9583.56 8124.67 8854,12 7501.*8 5669,43 6535.56 1 >29.54 2 5041.51 Avq 5985.51 3 Avq I Avq 1 2 Avq 1 2 Avq 46 >.44 4143.33 4371.89 1217.71 1539.28 1378.50 434.96 369.81 427.39 244 3. 5< 2395.79 2419.65 4479.63 4899.55 4689.59 596 3. 6723. 6343.07 9436. >2 10189.09 9813.01 179.36 169.02 174.44 13701.00 11407.98 12554.49 *162.19 6911.Jl 49J*.60 6719.87 4984.4 3 5852.15 3434.20 3174.10 3304.15 745.64 946.2? 845.96 107.77 77.04 92.41 185.11 192.90 189.01 167.03 181.70 174.37 195.79 209.22 202.51 149.4" 141.27 145.17 24 2. 201.91 222.21 228. ' 168.19 198.48 2)4.42 iai.3d 192.90 105.02 129.62 117.12 103.18 78.68 90.93 42.94 40.54 41.74 41.06 41.45 41.26 3*.< 37.92 36.56 39.92 43.49 41,71 id) id, I*} 54.26 45.18 49.72 47.23 36.59 41.91 54.72 39.53 47.13 55.93 50.54 53.24 158.65 181.98 SO4 as % Fuel S 1,53 1.09 1.31 2.52 2.50 2.51 2.63 2.74 2.69 2.37 2.58 2.48 2.?8 2.97 2.88 2.06 3.44 2.86 3.15 3. n 2.25 2.63 3.24 2.39 2.32 2,90 2.57 2.74 1.49 1.94 1.67 No i ower output ofcserv*«; lur ir.q id 1 »ei »-hfc t* C-9 image: ------- TABLE C-13. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM CAT 3200/EGR ENGINE tBASED ON 47 sm GLASSFIBER FILTERSJ Run Concentration Particulate Rate rpn Load, t Date NO. »g/m3 g/hr g/kq Fuel q/kw-hr 16<#U 02 24/77 1 47.34 14.62 3.75 6.9f 6/24/77 2 57.46 47,69 4.S4 8.42 Average 52.40 16.16 4.15 7.69 1680 25 6/23/77 1 58.23 17.69 2.16 0.62 6/23/77 2 57.7 3 17.40 2.14 0.61 Average 57.98 17.55 2.15 0.62 1680 SO 6/22/77 1 209.75 60.53 4.42 1.07 6/23/77 2 169.94 48.14 3.65 0.85 Average 189.80 54. 34 4.04 0.96 1680 75 6/22/77 1 328.17 118.19 6.00 1.39 6/22/77 2 279.24 102.24 5.24 1.20 Average 303.71 110.22 5.62 1.30 1660 1 to/17/77 1 463.27 207.69 8.11 1.83 6 17/77 2 502.78 223.96 8.75 1.97 Average 483.03 i15.83 8.43 1.90 Idle 6/24,7? 1 42.28 5 5.80 u> 6'24/77 2 32. *-,« 3.97 4.96 la> Average 37,64 4.60 5.38 (a) 1680 C? 6/27/77 1 60.92 n.s5 ifci 6,27 77 2 72.53 3.84 tbJ (a) Average 66.73 21.85 ih) ial 2800 100 6/16/77 1 405.59 267.55 7.1 i .$7 6/17/77 - 350,79 237.07 6. 31 1.63 Average 378.19 252.31 6.71 1.75 2800 t* 6/17 77 1 1221.32 647.87 :i.n o.. 6 1V77 2 1244.32 h49. 12 21,01 6.22 Average K32.32 648.50 21.09 6.22 28 0 50 6/20/ L 875. **¦1 367.44 16.64 ... 6/2C/77 2 963.72 3 >8.29 17.70 5,^2 Average 9)9.73 38 3.07 17.17 5.51 23 25 * 22 '11 ; 297,C2 131.42 i.li 3.63 22 77 307.J4 I 35.49 >.28 3.74 Aver jge 302.18 *;il.46 •. '1 2s 2 ft 77 1 131, < 6.13 19. 4 77 2 122.23 59. :2 6.56 21.CS Average 127.07 57,"U 6. J* 20..% 2900 :T 4/2^ 77 I 63.71 *'o.22 bS 1 * 4/ 29/ "r"T 2 -6.79 31.12 ib) (a) Averaqe 70.25 28.67 ib> image: ------- TABLE C-14. SUmXR: OF EXHAUST SO| FROM CATERPILLAR 3208/EGR ENGINE (BASED ON 47 ma FLUOROPORE FILTERS) Engine Engine Ran Cone. Sulfate Rate sof as % rp* Load, % Date So. aq/a3 nq/hr m/kq fxml ¦g/kv-hr Fuel S 1680 2 6/24/77 1 774.1 239.20 62.29 113.90 0.883 6/24/77 2 S88.6 181.78 46.85 86.56 0.664 Average 681,4 210.49 54.57 100.23 0.774 1680 25 6/23/77 1 1536.1 466.48 56.96 16,43 0.808 6/23/77 2 1583.2 477.23 58.92 16.80 0.835 Average 1559.7 471.85 57.94 16.61 0.822 1680 50 6/22/77 1 3265.1 944.85 69-02 16.63 0.979 6/23/77 2 2684.9 760.93 57.78 13.40 0.819 Average 2975.0 852.89 63.40 15.02 0.899 1680 75 6/22/77 1 3907,0 1407.07 71.94 16.51 1.020 6/22/77 2 3672.4 1344.51 68.84 15.78 0.976 Average 3789.7 1375.79 70.39 16.15 0.998 1680 100 6/17/77 1 3492.9 1565.89 61.14 13.76 0.867 6/17/77 2 3669.9 1634.73 63.86 14.40 0.906 Average 3581.4 1600.31 62.50 14.08 3.887 Idle 6/24/77 1 1706.8 206.60 '32,13 (a) 3.292 6/24/77 2 1635.7 196.68 223.50 (a) 3.169 Average 1671.3 201.79 227.82 (a) 3.231 1680 CT 6/24/77 1 740.0 241-7 Cb) (a) (b) 6/27/77 2 871.4 286.4 (a) fa) (b) (*j No power output observed during idle and closed throttle No fuel consuaed, therefore no emission rate calculated Oil image: ------- TABLE C-1S. SUMNUK OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM CHEVROLET 366 ENGINE (BASED ON 47 mm GLASSFIBER FILTERS) Engine rpo Engine Load.* Date Run No. Concentration ra?r/®3 Particulate g/hr g/kg Fual Rate g/fcw-hr 1200 02 3/29/77 1 19.04 1.60 0.36 1,78 R/29/77 2 21.78 1.83 0.43 2.03 Average 20.41 1.72 0.40 1.91 1200 25 8/29/77 1 17,36 1.89 0.30 0.18 8/29/77 2 18.66 2.03 0.32 0.18 Average 18.01 1.96 0.31 0.18 1200 50 8/29/77 1 21.28 2.87 0.34 0.13 8/30/77 2 23.69 3.20 0.38 0.15 Average 22-49 3.04 0.36 0.14 1200 75 0/30/77 1 44.53 7.61 0.67 0.24 8/30/77 2 35.84 6.12 0.53 0.19 Average 40,19 6.87 0.60 0.22 1200 100 8/19/77 1 48.33 9.86 0.59 0.23 8/19/77 2 50.38 10.28 0.61 0.25 Average 49.36 10.07 0.60 0.24 Idle 8/26/77 1 27.06 1.30 0.52 (a) 8/26/77 2 25.92 1.25 0.54 JaJ. Average 26.49 1.28 0.53 (a) 1200 CT 8/30/77 1 33.47 2.03 0.81 8/30/77 2 28.11 1.70 0.68 Average 30.79 1.87 0.75 2300 100 8/19/77 1 65.37 2*.84 0.79 0.30 8/19/77 2 61.70 25.33 0.75 0.29 Average 63.54 7.6,09 0.77 0.30 2300 75 8/19/7? 1 53.13 18.87 0.81 0.29 8/19/77 2 42.42 13.77 0.59 0.21 Average 50.28 16.32 0.70 0.25 2300 50 8/19/77 1 23.49 6.02 0.34 0.14 8/19/77 2 24.26 6.21 0.35 0.14 Average 23.88 6.12 0.35 0.14 2300 25 8/22/77 1 25.24 4.86 0.41 0.22 8/22/77 2 24.38 4.70 0,39 0.21 Average 24.81 4.78 0.40 0.22 2300 02 8/23/77 1 15.48 2.20 0.31 1.29 8/23/77 2 14.05 2.00 0.29 1.18 Average 14.77 2.10 0.31 1.24 2300 CT 8/23/77 1 25.92 2.87 0-67 8/23/77 2 24.40 2.70 0.63 Average rsn* 7779 Ca> No power output observed during idle and closed throttle C-12 image: ------- TABLE C-16. SCfftlAftY OF EXHAUST SULFA1T FRO* CHEVROLET 366 ENGINE (BASED ON INITIAL ANALYSES OF 4? am FLUORQFORE FILTERS) Engine Engine Run COBCV Sulfate Rate so4" as rpo Load, % Date HO. uq/m aq/hr agAg-foei nqAW-hx % Fuel S 1200 2 8/29/77 3 m (a) 8/29/7? 4 ND ... —.... Average ND — — — — (a) ——— 1200 25 9/29/77 3 ND ..... 9/29/77 4 1.94 0.2103 0.0334 0.0197 0.0036 Average 0.97 0.1052 0.0167 0.0099 0.0018 1200 50 8/30/77 3 4.70 0.6346 0.0744 0.0295 0.0081 8/30/77 4 NO ........ ....... — Average 2.35 0.3173 0.0372 0.0148 0.0041 1200 75 8/30/77 3 ND .. .. 8/30/77 4 5.62 0.9597 0.0845 0.0296 0.0092 Average 2.81 0,4799 0.0423 0.014b 0.0046 1200 130 8/19/77 3 10.01 7.5405 0.4529 0.1791 0.0493 8/19/77 4 ND ....... —..... ...... —...— Average 5.01 3.7703 0.2265 0.0896 0.0247 Idle 8/26/77 3 ND .. ....... . 8/26/ 77 4 16.87 0.8111 0.3511 ...... 0.0382 Average 3.44 0.4056 0.1756 0.0191 1200 CT 3/30/77 3 74.12 4.4889 1,7673 (a) 0.1924 8/30/77 4 17.99 1.0898 0.4430 0.0482 Average 46.06 2.7894 1.1052 (a) 0.1203 2300 100 8/19/77 3 ND ....... ....... ...... .... — 8/19/77 4 422.88 173.6270 5.1022 1.9809 0.5553 Average 211.44 86.8135 2.5511 0.9905 0.2777 2300 75 8/19/77 3 } 365.07 443.1192 18.8963 6.6987 2.0567 8/19/77 4 ND —.... ....... ...... Average 682.54 221.5596 9.4482 3.3494 1.0284 2300 50 8/19/77 3 116.14 3.0279 0.1707 0.0679 0.0186 8/19/77 4 2.70 0.6903 0.0390 0.0155 0.0043 Average 59.42 1.8591 0.1049 0.0417 0.0115 2300 25 8/22/77 3 SD 8/22/77 4 ND — Average ND 2300 2 8/23/77 3 SD 8/23/77 4 ND Average ND • —— 2300 CT 8/23/77 3 67.13 7.4313 1.7363 (a) 0.1890 8/23/77 4 70.43 7.7969 1.8260 0.1988 Average 68.78 7-6141 1.7012 — (a) 0.1937 ND MOt detected. <0.3 jg/»3, remaining values meaningless i a} No power output observed during idle and closed throttle C-13 image: ------- TABLE C-17. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE FROM CHEVROLET 366 ENGINE (BASED ON RE-ANALYZED SOLUTIONS td) AND BACK- UP 37 on FILTERStb)) Enqine Engine Run Coac. Sulfate Rate SO4" as ron Load, v Date No. aq/hr mgAg-fuel mq/kw-hr % Fuel S i:oo : 8/29/77 1 241.2 20.302 4.614 22.558 0.3126 8/29/77 2 2 32.1 19.530 4.439 21.700 0.4932 Average 236.7 19.916 11.527 22.129 0.5029 a/:9/77 :bu 0 16.831 3.825 18.701 0.4250 o o 25 8/29/7 7 1 191.9 20.850 3.310 1.949 0.3677 8/29/77 2 185.9 20.195 3.206 1.887 0.3562 Average 188.9 20.523 5.258 1.918 0.3620 8/29/77 2BU 170.9 18.575 2.948 1.736 0.3276 1200 50 8/30/77 1 25 .3 ?4.869 4.102 1.622 0.4557 8/30/77 2 265.4 35.821 4.214 1.666 0.4682 Average 261.9 35.345 4.158 1.644 0.4620 8/30/77 2BU 273.0 36.8S3 4.336 1.714 0.4617 1200 75 8/30/77 1 479.7 81.944 7.126 2.561 0.7917 8/30/77 2 465.7 79.651 6.918 2.486 0.7628 Average 472.7 80.798 7.022 2.524 0.7773 8/30/77 2BU 346.5 59.179 5.146 1.849 0.5717 1200 100 8/19/77 1 565.6 US.342 6.907 2.746 0.7674 8/19/77 2 719.1 146.649 8.781 3.492 0.9756 Average 642.4 130.996 7.844 3.119 0.8715 8/19/77 2BU 608.2 124.024 7.427 2.953 0.82S1 Idle 8/26/77 1 284.9 13.701 5.480 0.6188 2300 100 8/19/77 1 965.6 396.465 11.730 4.S10 1.3032 8/19/77 2 2239.5 919.S22 27.205 10.461 3.022S Average 1602.6 657.994 10.468 7.486 2.1629 8/19/77 2BU 3086.S 1267.278 37.493 14.417 4.16S5 2300 75 3/19/77 1 1969.3 639.261 27.203 9.627 3.0223 8/19/77 2 1042.9 338.557 14.407 5.099 1.6006 Average 1506.1 488.909 20.805 7.363 2.3115 8/19/77 2BU 967.0 313.896 13.1S7 4.727 1.4840 2300 SO 8/19/77 1 S56.4 142.SOS 8.051 3.195 0.8945 8/19/77 2 649.5 166.347 9.398 3.730 1.0441 Average 603.3 1S4.428 8.725 3.463 0.9693 8/19/77 2BU 464.1 118.849 6.715 2.66S 0.7460 2300 25 8/22/77 1 562.0 108.245 9.020 4.943 1.0021 8/22/77 2 490.5 94.4S9 7.872 4.313 0.8746 Average 526.3 101.3S2 8.456 4.628 0.9384 8/22/77 2BU 333.8 64.283 S.3S7 2.935 0.5952 2300 2 8/23/77 1 277.6 39.356 S .622 23.151 0.6246 8/2 3/77 2 197.9 28.OSS 4.008 16.503 0.4453 Average 237.8 33.706 4.81S 19.827 0.S3S0 8/23/77 2BU 72.9 10.341 1.477 6.083 0.1641 2300 CT 8/2377 1 199.3 22.068 S.132 (c) 0.5702 8/2 3/77 2 272.2 30.128 7.006 (c) 0.7784 Average 235.8 26.098 6.069 (c) 0.6743 8/23/77 2BU 192. 3 21.290 4.9S1 (c) 0.SS01 Re-analysis of IPA solutions performed 11/1/77, 9 weeks after initial analysis (i>) Back-up space filter originally asnomated and placed into IPA solution on 10/28/77 and analyzed 10/28/77 (c) No power output observed during idle and closed throttle C-14 image: ------- 7A9LE C-18. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES MACK ETAY(B)673A, RUN 1 (13 MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS) Engine Engine Power Fuel Part. so4" wgt. Power fuel Part s°4" rpm Load,% kW kg/hr g/ftr oq/hr Fact. ktf kq/hr q/hr ®g/hr Idle --- 1-2 2.29 If9.36 0.067 0.080 0.15 12.02 1450 2 4.7 4.5 11.08 484.96 0.08 0.376 0.36 0.89 38.30 1450 25 56.9' 13.5 34.36 2443.50 0.08 4.552 1.08 2.75 19S.48 1450 50 109.1 24.2 35.0? 4479.63 0.08 8.728 1.94 6.81 358.37 1450 75 169.4 35.7 137.07 5963.14 0.08 13.55 2.86 10.97 477.05 1450 100 236*4 48.2 254.54 9436.92 0.08 18.91 3.86 20.36 754.95 Idle 1.2 2.29 179.36 0.067 — 0.080 0.15 12.02 1900 100 252.5 56.5 205.55 13701.0 0.08 20.2 4.52 16.44 1096.03 1900 75 194.0 43.2 125.32 9162.19 0.08 15.52 3.46 10.07 732.98 1900 50 122.8 29.4 87.02 6719.87 0.08 9.82 2.35 6.96 537.59 1900 25 61,4 16.8 55.56 3434.20 0.08 4.91 1.34 4.44 274.74 1900 2 4.7 7.1 22.25 745.64 0.08 0.37 0.57 1.78 59.65 Idle 1.2 2.29 179.36 0.067 0.080 0.15 12.02 96.94 22.58 81.92 4561.75 ake Specific Particulate, g/KW-hr tel Specific Particualte, g/kg fuel 0.845 3.628 Brake Specific S04", ag/kw-hr 4?.05 Fuel Specific S04», »g/kg fuel 202.03 TABLE C-19 .CYCLE CQHPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES HACK ETAV(B)67 3A, RUN 2 (13 MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS) Engine Engine Power Fuel Part. SO4" Wgt. Power Fuel Part S04ffi Mode tpm Load,% kff kg/ft r q/hr ag/hr Fact. ktf kg/hr q/hr sag/ h: Idle ... 1.2 2,30 169.52 0.067 0.080 0.19 li.lfe 2 1450 2 4.7 4.8 10.05 369.81 0.08 0. 376 0.384 0.80 29.io J 1450 25 59.1 13.6 32.66 2395.79 0.08 4.728 1.088 2.61 19i.66 4 1450 50 118.2 25.4 83.75 4899.55 0.08 0.45C 2.032 6.70 391.96 3 1450 75 177.3 37.0 128.61 6723.0 0.08 14.131 2.96 10.29 537.54 6 1450 100 234.3 48,7 266.97 10189.09 0.08 18.744 3.896 21.36 315.13 7 Idle 1.2 2.80 *69.52 0.067 - 0.08C 0.19 11.36 3 1900 100 252.2 56.5 178.05 1U07.98 0.08 20.176 4.52 14.24 912.64 9 1900 75 188.9 43.5 114.40 6911.01 0.08 15.112 3.48 9.15 552.88 10 1900 50 126.1 29.6 77.83 4984.43 0.08 10.088 2.37 6.23 398.75 11 1900 25 62.8 17.5 52.83 3174.10 0.08 5.024 1.40 4.23 253.93 12 1900 2 5.2 7.3 25.63 946.27 0.08 0.416 0.58 2.05 75.70 13 Idle — 1.2 2.80 169.52 0.067 0.080 0.19 11. 36 98.301 22.950 78.23 4194.15 Srake Specific Particulate, , g/kw-hr 0.796 Brake Specific SO4*, sag/kw-hr 42.606 Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 3.429 Fuel Soecific SC>4-, ng/kg fuel 182.752 C-15 image: ------- TABLE C-20. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES CATERPILLAR 3208/BGR, Run 1 (13-node FTP Weighting Factors) Node Engine Engine Power Wo. rp* Load,% m 1 Idle 0 2 1680 2 2.1 3 1680 25 28.4 4 1680 50 56.8 5 1680 75 85.2 6 1680 100 113.8 7 idle 0 8 2800 100 143.0 9 2800 75 104.4 10 2800 so 69.6 11 2800 25 36.2 12 2800 2 2.8 13 Idle 0 Fuel kg/hr Weighted Wgt. Pwtr Fuel Part. so4" Fact. kW kg/hr q/hr xi/hr 0.060 206.6 0.067 14.63 0.168 0.312 239.2 0.08 17.69 2.272 0.656 466.5 0.08 60.53 944.8 4.544 1.096 4*84 0.08 118.19 1407.1 0.08 6.816 209.69 125.3 1565.9 9.104 2.048 16.62 206.6 0.067 272.3 267.55 21.40 3403.1 0.08 11.440 647.87 1546.7 8.352 51.83 137.7 367.84 1721.4 S.568 29.43 131.42 1656.6 0.08 2.900 1.152 10.51 SS.O 786.1 0.08 0.224 206.6 0.067 0.060 14. H4 1140 152.13 Brake specific particulate, g/kW-hr Fuel specific particulate, g/kg fuel 2.96 10.17 Brake specific SQ^m Fuel specific SO4" ag/Jdf-hr 22.19 ng/kg fuel 76.21 TABLE C-21. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RESULTS CATERPILLAR 3208/EGR, Run 2 (13-Hode FTP Weighting Factors) Hode Engine Engine Power Fuel Part. Ho. rptt Load,* kW ker/hr I Idle 0 0.8 3.97 2 1680 2 2.1 3.9 17.69 3 1690 25 28.4 8.1 17.40 4 1680 50 56.8 13.2 48,14 5 1680 75 85.2 19.5 102.24 6 1680 100 113.6 25.6 223.96 7 Idle 0 0.8 3.97 8 2800 100 145.1 37.6 237.07 9 2800 75 104.4 30.9 649.12 10 2800 50 69.6 22.S 398.29 11 2800 25 36.2 14.6 135.49 12 2800 2 2.8 9.0 59.02 13 Idle 0 0.8 3.97 SO. 196.7 181.8 477.2 760.9 1344.5 1634.7 196.7 3586.0 1768.3 1735.5 1831.3 770.4 196.7 Miahtad Wgt. Power Putl Fait. Fact. kW kq/hr 0.067 0 0.054 0.27 0.08 0.168 0.312 1.42 0.08 2.272 0.648 1.39 0.08 4.544 1.056 3.85 0.08 6.816 1.560 8.18 0.08 9.088 2.048 17.92 0.067 0 0.054 0.27 0.08 11.608 3.008 18.97 0.08 8.3S2 2.472 51.93 0.08 5.568 1.80 31.86 0.08 2.896 1.168 10.8 0.08 0.224 0.720 4.72 0.067 0 0.054 0.27 51.542 14.954 151.85 : 13.2 14.5 38.2 60.9 107.6 130.8 13.2 286.9 141.5 138.8 146.5 61.6 13,2 1166.9 Brake specific particulate, g/fc#-hr 2.95 Fuel specific particulate, gAg fuel 10.15 Brake specific S04" , ag/tti-hr 22.64 Fuel specific S04« , wjA9 fuel ?8-03 C-16 image: ------- TABLE C-22. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AM) SULFATE RATES CATERPILLAR 1208/BGR, RON 1 (WEIGHTING FACTORS DERIVED FROM EPA 23-HODE TEST) Weighted Engine Engine Power Fuel Part. SO4" Wgt. Power Fuel Part. SO4* rpn Leid, * kW kg/hr 9/hr mg/hr Fact. kti kg/hr g/hr ¦g/hr Idle - — 0.9 5.22 206.6 0.22 0.198 1.15 45.45 1680 2 2.1 3.9 14.62 239.2 0.12 0.252 0.468 1.75 28.70 25 28.4 8.2 17.69 466.5 0.08 2.272 0.656 1.42 37.32 50 56.8 13.7 60.53 944.8 0.06 3.408 0.822 3.63 56.69 75 85,2 19.7 118.19 1407.1 0.04 3.408 0.788 4.73 56.28 100 113.8 25.6 207.69 1565.9 0 —— CT 0 0 19.85 241.7 0.12 2.38 29.00 2800 100 143*0 37.7 267.55 3403.1 0.08 11.440 3.016 21.40 272.25 75 104.4 30.6 647.87 1546.7 0.095 9.918 2.907 61.55 146.94 50 69.6 22.1 367.84 1721.4 0.06 4.176 1.326 22.07 103.28 25 36.2 14.4 131.42 1656.5 0.065 2.353 0.936 8.54 107.68 2 2.8 8.9 55.0 786.1 0 —... CT 0 0 26.22 111.1 0.06 1.57 6.67 37.227 11.117 130.19 809.26 Brake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 3,50 Brake Specific SO ", mg/TM hr 23.91 Fuel Specific Particulate, gAg fuel 11,71 Fuel Specific S04", agAg fual 80.08 TABLE C-23, CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULPATE RATES CATERPILLAR 3208/EGR, Run 2 tWEIGHTING FACTORS DERIVED FROM EPA 23-l image: ------- TABLE C-24. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES CHEVROLET 366, RUN 1 (13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS) Engine Engine Power Fuel Mode rpm Load, % kW kq/hr 1 Idle 2.5 2 1200 2 0.9 4.4 3 1200 25 10.7 6.3 4 1200 50 21.5 8.5 5 1200 75 32.0 11.4 6 1200 100 42.1 16.6 7 Idle 2.5 8 2300 100 88.3 33.6 9 2300 75 66.3 23.5 10 2300 50 44.6 17.7 11 2300 25 21.9 11.9 12 2300 2 1.7 7.0 13 Idle 2.5 Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr Fuel Specific Particulate, gAg fuel Brake Specific SOq*, mg/kW-hr Fuel Specific SO4™, mgAg fuel Weighted Part. so4= S04=(a) Wgt. Power Fuel Part. !! O m S04' g/hr mg/hr mg/hr Fact. kW kg/hr g/hr ray/hr nig, 1.30 0 13.701 0.067 0.17 0.087 0 0 1.60 0 20.302 0.08 0.065 0.35 0.128 0 1 1.89 0 20.850 0.08 0.856 0.50 0.151 0 1 2.87 0.635 34.869 0.08 1.72 0.68 0.230 0.051 2 7.61 0 81.944 0.08 2.56 0.91 0.609 0 6 9.86 7.541 115.342 0.08 3.37 1.33 0.789 0.603 9 1. 30 0 13.701 0.067 0.17 0,087 0 0 26.84 0 396.465 0.08 7.06 2.69 2.147 0 31 18.87 443.12 639.261 0.08 5.30 1.88 1.510 35.45 51 6.02 3.028 142.508 0.08 3.57 1.42 0.482 0.242 11 4.86 0 108.245 0.08 1.75 0.95 0.389 0 8 2.20 0 39.356 0.08 0.14 0.56 0.176 0 3 1.30 0 13.701 0.067 0.17 0.087 0 C 26.39 11.78 6.872 36.346 13C 0.260 0.583 1.377 4.952(a) 3.085 11.094(a) (a) Re-analysis of IPA solution nine weeks after initial analysis image: ------- 6T>D 2£ n i T 5 e » •0 *« •< » • « 0 s" n •u m li w O ® I* I it 'I »¦% t S ? 2? "if JUio*8)9>ftwuA It N- popo<~*joopooo S"U*00 0«AM»N A«(h-4^Ch£^OT'Ml]t OOOOOi O O ! ~ O Si -J w »- w ft r* at — O O o »-» M *- —• Jk <1* W *• 0 p W M i" M £ P •» * •< O A £ w *J O M sO N) vD nJ M -J W t/> O O W MWN ^ vO w W O 9 M O w w m * ? 3" i- * 3 3 i- ir* ¦2. sr ft »- 3 ft Q» 3 ft 3 *< Ki U* OOOOOu CD b b •¦» Mi 000 h | OOOO m b 2 « * •, A k! <0 O ft* ft* *¦» O " iA n u< vl< A u« ig N- A w Ch SO w b b Jk VB KJ w* JO O « w ® •- yi w M jfl W N |J a" - « » i U4 **j "* »_ ~ £ 0> * O * (B w ^ - w w a a> K. * * (&*<£.* kj •-» w >a It vO w u» »- -» » 000000 000000 7> OS CO 05 « 0 1 U 94 I w y> 1 A V#> ~ 0 0 j ^ b 0 1 w^jj t si m ? W X •ol r O O O »~ »- K» P r p 0 p p p P CD j y; i A ® li — v* b W ff> l/l W I- sr O O O O p o o boob III1 n —» -e = 9 i " 833 ™3i 388 t» r* •* «5s if 3| a s a c **1 > fci ''CDM^wO^tS^uiCD > *ojk/08?iau>jffiH *^*o»a)^MWAi O^u(DMW(BMA|0l image: ------- TABLE C-26. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES CHEVROLET 366, RUN 1 {WEIGHTING FACTORS DERIVED FROM EPA 23-MODE TEST) Weighted Engine rpm Engine Load, % Power kW Fuel kg/hr Part, g/hr S04= mg/hr so4= mg/hr Wgt. Fact. Power kW Fuel kg/hr Part, g/hr SO4* mg/hr Idle 2.5 1.30 0 13.701 0.22 — — 0.55 0.29 0 1200 2 0.9 4.4 1.60 0 20.302 0.12 0.108 0.53 0.19 0 1200 25 10.7 6.3 1.89 0 20.850 0.08 0.856 0.50 0.15 0 1200 50 21.5 8.5 2.87 0.635 34.869 0.06 1.29 0.51 0.17 0.038 1200 75 32.0 11.4 7.61 0 81.944 0.04 1.28 0.46 0.30 0 1200 100 42.1 16.6 9.86 7.541 115.342 0 1200 CT 2.6 2.03 4.489 20.400 0.12 0.31 0.24 0.539 2300 100 88.3 33.6 26.84 0 396.465 0.08 7.06 2.69 2.15 0 2300 75 66.3 23.5 18.87 443.12 639.261 0.095 6.30 2.23 1.79 42.096 2300 50 44.6 17.7 6.02 3.028 142.508 0.06 ?,.S8 1.06 0.36 0.182 2300 25 21.9 11.9 4.86 0 108.245 0.065 1.42 0.77 0.32 0 2300 2 1.7 7.0 2.20 0 39.356 0 2300 CT 4.3 2.87 7.431 22.068 0.06 0.26 0.17 0.446 20.99 9.87 6.13 43.301 so4-( rogA 2.4 31.7 60.7 8.5 7.0 1.3 124.3 Brake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 0.292 Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 0.621 Brake Specific SO^=, mg/kw-hr 2.063 Fuel Specific SO4-, mg/kg fuel 4.387 5.922 ^ He-analysis of IPA solutions nine weeks after initial analysis image: ------- '"ft « «?. «f I i n 9 ^ i P4lr»* i «IN«t il I fN - (S fN I — O © I -< ® O V dodo© j d«ooood ifl O N N Ifl I V I r» rv vD 0* v I c •"* •*« f<* O I « N « « (H i n q m w m t ©0000 1 o ttl &> p- < cc tst tv * 1*1 \t> *9 •4) . «c *© o 0. n III (*] f- 1-. I- U) « M J u woo 2tk > w 65g a" I (Nin^rlnfNir>«T»ir m so v «s f>* (N it C © i g 9, « « C i-VsDCCLnOunp-^O1 f- ifs ty> ® <1 H i ° c • £S N m O wi O o tfv O «mn rxkAr-ojuof-iff* |- IMVNN 5# § image: ------- TABLE C-28.PARTICULATE AND BaP RATES FROM HACK ETAY(B)673A (Based on 8 x 10 Size Fiberglass Filter Samples) Particulate Rates BaP Rates Engine Engine mg 9 <3 g 9 mg mg mg Organic rpm Load,% Date Run m* hr kg fuel kw-hr hg kw-hr kg fuel Solubles 1450 2 12/06/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg 28.83 25.36 27.10 13.04 11.48 12.26 2.96 2.55 2.76 2.77 2.44 2.61 0.557 252.0 54.0 56.0 34.84 1450 50 12/06/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg 100.18 125.04 112.61 69.69 93.02 81.36 2.94 3.56 3.25 0.62 0.79 0.71 0.647 481.0 4.0 18.0 9.3 1450 100 12/06/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg 175.21 188.87 182.04 186.13 193.77 189.95 3.75 3.98 3.87 0.79 0.82 0.81 0.162 166.0 1.0 3.0 3.5 Idle 12/22/76 01/03/77 2 3 Avg 17.23 18.53 17.88 3.11 3.34 3.23 2.59 1.96 2.28 (1) (1) (1) 0.441 80.0 62.0 15.54 1900 100 12/06/76 12/22/76 1 2 Avg 120.12 134.13 127.13 171.01 189.45 180.23 3.02 3.35 3.19 0.68 0.75 0.72 0.162 229.0 1.0 4. 1.02 1900 50 12/06/76 01/03/77 1 2 Avg 78.34 68.04 73.19 76.10 66.55 71.33 2.62 2.21 2.42 0.62 0.52 0.57 0.526 514.0 4.0 17.0 6.32 1900 2 12/22/76 01/03/77 1 2 Avg 27.15 28.34 27.75 16.65 17.24 16.95 2.16 2.24 2.20 3.20 2.61 2.91 0.494 303.0 58.0 40.0 38.46 ^ No power output observed image: ------- TABLE C-29. PARTICULATE ANU BaP RATES FROM CAT 3208 EGN (Based on 8 x 10 Sice Fiberglass Filter Sample*) Particulate Rates BaP Rates organic Engine Engine *9. 9 9 9 m M9 M9 iig Solubles rpm Load,% Date Run IS* hr kq fuel kw-hr m* hr kg fuel kw-hr * 1680 2 6/27/77 6 90.67 27,90 6.975 13.286 0.152 46.9 11.7 22.3 21.72 6/24/77 ? 81.92 25.15 6.288 11.976 0.141 43.2 10.8 20.6 12.24 Avq 86.30 26,53 6.631 12.631 0.147 45.1 11.3 21.5 16.9ft u>ro SO 6/21/77 6 188.25 53.96 3.939 0.950 0.169 48.5 3.5 0.9 8.01 6/21/77 7 188.06 53.43 3.900 0.941 0.062 17.6 1.3 0.3 5.31 Avq 188,16 53.70 3.920 0.945 0.116 33.1 2.4 0.6 6.66 1680 100 6/16/77 6 413,53 183.09 7.180 1.606 Below minimum detectable 2.51 6/16/77 7 444,96 197.44 7.713 1.7*4 Below minimum detectable 2.93 Avq 429.25 190.27 7.446 1.675 2.72 Idle 6/27/77 6 37.64 4.41 4.900 (1) 0.221 24.3 27.0 U) ft. 17 6/27/77 7 45.25 5.34 5.933 <11 0.199 23.4 r*,o (H 8.21 Avq 41.45 4.88 5.417 (1) 0.210 23.9 27.0 (1) 8.19 n 1680 CT 5/03/77 4 116.01 30.96 (2) (1) 0.167 44.5 (2) U) 32.19 i KJ Ui 5/05/77 5 66.33 17.90 <21 (1) 0.071 19,3 <2) u> 14.47 Avq 91.17 24.43 (2) (1) 0.119 31.9 <2J (I) 23.33 2800 100 6/16/77 6 338.45 229.19 6.031 1.575 Below minimum detectable 2.52 6/16/77 7 342.88 230.84 6.123 1.594 Below minimum detectable 2.90 Avq 340.67 230,02 6.077 1.585 2.71 2800 50 6/21/77 6 773.97 324.99 14.192 4.669 1.946 817.3 35.7 11.7 2.13 6/21/77 7 1036.73 435.33 19.262 6.345 1.389 583.1 25.8 8.4 2.23 Avq 905.35 380.16 16.727 5.507 1.668 700.2 30.8 10.1 2.18 2800 2 6/21/77 6 114.69 52.40 5.758 14.971 0.190 86.7 9.5 24.8 6.86 6/21/77 7 119.15 54.53 5.992 15. SKI 0.196 89.5 9*8 25.u 11.91 Avq 116.92 53.47 5.875 15.276 0.193 88.1 9.7 25.2 9.39 2800 CT 6/27/77 6 73.32 33.66 (2) (1) 0.112 51.3 (2) u> 16.31 6/27/77 7 Avq 70.95 72.14 33.08 33.38 121 (2) image: ------- TABLE C-30. PARTICULATE AND BaP RATES FROM CHEVROLET 366 {Based on 8 x 10 Sice Fiberglass Fllt«r Samples) Particulate Rates Engine TfM Engine load,* Date Run f , , hr g kg fuel kw-hr 1200 2 8/25/77 1 13.4 1.13 0.257 1.256 8/25/77 2 14.3 1.21 0.275 1.344 Avg 13.9 1.17 0.266 1.300 1200 50 8/25/77 1 13,64 1.84 0.222 0.090 8/25/77 2 12.80 1.73 0.211 0.085 Avg 13.22 1.79 0.217 0.088 1200 100 8/18/77 1 52.58 10.72 0.634 0.255 B/ie/ee 2 52.45 10.70 0.633 0.254 Avg 52.52 10.71 0.634 0.255 Idle 8/24/77 1 14.89 0.72 0.300 U) 8/25/77 2 15.00 0.72 0.277 (I) Avg 14.95 0.72 0.289 U> 1200 CT 8/26/77 1 18.06 1.09 0. 389 (If 8/26/77 2 18,27 1.11 0.396 <11 Avg 18.17 1.10 0.393 image: ------- TABLE C-31. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATES - 7-MODE CYCLE Mack ETAY(B)763A W, F. Derived fro* 13-«iode FTP W, F. Derived fron 23-«odc» EPA Mode Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Hgt Power Fuel. BaP Wgt Power Fuel RaP Mo. tpm load,* few kg/hr Ug/hr Fact kit kg/hr ug/hr Fact kM kg/hr Iig/hr 1 1450 2 4.7 4.5 252.0 0.12 0.564 0.540 30.24 .225 1.058 1.013 56.700 2 1450 50 US.2 26.1 481.0 0.16 18.912 4.176 76.96 .092 10.874 2.401 44.252 3 1450 100 236.4 48.7 166.0 0.12 28.368 5.844 19.92 .049 11.584 2.386 8.134 4 Idle 1.3 80.0 0.20 0.260 16.00 .269 0.350 21.520 5 1900 100 252.2 56.4 229.0 0.12 30.264 6.768 27.48 .176 44.387 9.926 40.304 6 1900 50 127.5 30.2 514.0 0.16 20.400 4.832 82.24 .110 14.025 3.322 56.540 7 1900 2 5.2 7.6 303.0 0.12 0.624 0.912 36.36 .079 0.411 0.600 23.9J7 99.132 23.332 289.20 82.339 19.998 251.387 Brake Specific BaP, ug/kW-hr 2*917 1.053 Fuel specific BaP, ug/kg fuel 12.395 12.571 tabu; C-32» BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE ¦ - 7-MODE CYCLE Cat 3208/EGR (Run 1) W. F. Derived fron ! 3-*ode FTP ti. F, , Derived iron 23- •Bode EPA Mode Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Wgt Power Fuel BaP Wgt Power Fuel Bap No, rpm load,% ktf kg/hr Ug/br Fact kW kg/hr yg/hr Fact k* kg/hr pg/hr 1 1680 2 2,1 4.0 46.9 0.12 0.252 0.480 5,628 0.225 0.473 0.900 10.553 2 1680 50 56.8 13.7 48.5 0.16 9.088 2,192 7.760 0.092 5.226 1.260 4.4*2 3 1680 100 114*0 25.5 0.12 13.680 3.060 — 0.049 5.586 1.250 4 Idle 0 0.9 24. J 0.20 0.18 4.860 0.269 — 0.242 6.537 5 2800 100 145.5 38.0 0.12 17,460 4.560 0.176 25.608 6.688 6 2800 50 69.6 22.9 817.3 0.16 11.136 3.664 130.768 0.110 7.656 2.519 89.901 7 2800 2 3.5 9.1 86.7 0.12 0.420 1.092 10.404 0.079 0.277 0.719 6.849 52.036 15.228 159.420 44.826 13.578 118.304 Brake Specific BaP, ug/k#-hr 3.064 2.639 Fuel Specific BaP, ugAg fuel 10.469 8.713 image: ------- TABLE C-33. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATES - 7-MODE CYCLE Cat 3208/EGR (Run 2) W. F. Derived from 13 mode FTP W. F. Derived from 23- -mode EPA Mode Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Wgt Power Fuel Bap Wgt Power Fuel Bap No, rpm load,% kw kg/hr Mg/hr Fact kW kg/hr yg/hr Fact kW kg/hr Ug/hr 1 1680 2 2.1 4.0 43.2 .12 0.252 0.480 5.184 0.225 0.473 0.900 9.720 2 1680 50 56.8 13.7 17.6 .16 9.088 2.192 2.816 0.092 5.226 1.260 1.619 3 1680 100 113.2 25.6 .12 13.584 3.072 0.049 5.547 1.254 4 Idle 0.9 23.4 .20 0.18 4.680 0.269 0.242 6.295 5 2800 100 144.8 37.7 .12 17.376 4.524 0.176 25.485 6.635 6 2800 50 69.6 22.6 583.1 .16 11.136 3.616 93.296 0.110 7.656 2.486 64.141 7 2800 2 3.5 9.1 89.5 .12 0.420 1.092 10.74 0.079 0.277 0.719 7.071 51.856 15.156 116.716 44.664 13.496 88.846 Brake Specific BaP, Wg/kW-hr Fuel Specific BaP, Ug/kg fuel 2.251 7.701 1.989 6.583 image: ------- r- eo l <*r r- i *o *e i r* vE> oo ia i © * a> i O Is ifl O O* •-« O . . . . o • » * 05 *S 0* H fl *•* <* !j o 3 •00000000 hcooocoqqqo u fl II ||1 « g ?1 M is •* u. O M O I <6 I 9> to 8 H" CT* ."•! t «-l 1 t~- »¦* sO -« m rt I r"i I V CD to 00 a> i- CT» «» r* •h r» o o r- f fN 1 « M 9 1 •* O * I 0* O CD I *0 <¥ ® I C0 « N » Q> *> (H I m r* iA I fl» N w | O1AIAOOMO1A OOOOOOOOO W I H Ifl BJ {HOMO t . . . < O ci ^ H CO > . . . ( n sq t*% 1 0 o H o 0 I- «A O U o lA u 5 s i" its o-S «r O H CO w w w *o UD *0 *0 <0 OOOOOO (OfflOQgO r< fM k <* lA tO Is- CO

image: ------- TABLE C-36. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATES - 7-MODE CYCLE Chev 366 W. F. Derived from 13-mode FTP W, F. Derived from 23-mode EPA Mode Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Wgt No. rpm load,% kW kg/hr yg/hr Fact 1 1200 2 .12 2 1200 50 20.4 8.3 1.3 .16 3 1200 100 42.1 16.8 390.2 .12 4 Idle .20 5 2300 100 88.5 34.0 289.9 .12 6 2300 50 43.7 17.6 27.7 .16 7 2300 2 1.7 7.2 6.5 .12 Power kW 264 052 Fuel Kg/hr 10.620 6.992 0.204 26.132 11.104 328 016 080 816 864 BaP mMil. 0.208 46.824 34.788 4.432 0.780 87.032 Wgt Fact Power kW ,225 ,092 ,049 ,269 ,176 ,110 ,079 1. 2, 15, 4. 0. 877 063 576 807 134 Fuel kg/hr 0.764 0.823 984 936 569 24.457 10.076 BaP * q/hr 0.120 19.120 51.022 3.047 0.514 73.823 Brake Specific BaP, Ug/kW-hr Fuel Specific BaP, ug/kg fuel TABLE C-37. 3.330 7.838 BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATES - 9-MODE CYCLE Chevrolet 366 3.018 7.327 Weighted No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Wgt. Power Fuel BaP rpm Load, % kW kg/hr Ug/hr Fact. kW kg/hr Ug/hr Idle .220 1200 2 .185 1200 50 20.4 8.3 1.3 .075 1.530 0.623 0.098 1200 100 42.1 16,8 390.2 .040 1.684 0.672 15.608 1200 CT 2.8 0.7 .120 ______ 0.336 0.084 2300 100 88.5 34.0 289.9 .145 12.83 3 4.930 42.036 2300 50 43.7 17.6 27.7 .090 3.933 1.584 2.493 2300 2 1.7 7,2 6.5 .065 0.111 0.468 0.423 2300 CT 4.4 3.2 .06 0.264 0.192 20.091 8.877 60.934 Brake Specific BaP, Mg/kW-hr 3.033 Fuel Specific BaP, ug/kg fuel 6.864 image: ------- TABLE C-38. COMPARISON OF ODOR RATINGS - MACK ETAY(B)673A Operating Condition Date "D" Composite "B" Burnt "0" Oily "A" Aromatic «pM Punge Inter. Speed 2/01/77 2.7 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 2% Load 2/03/77 3.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 Average 2.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 Inter. Speed 2/01/77 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.3 50% Load 2/03/77 2.5 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 Average 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 Inter. Speed 2/01/77 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 100% Load 2/03/77 3.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 Average 3.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 High Speed 2/01/77 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 2% Load 2/03/77 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 Average 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6 High Speed 2/01/77 2.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.4 50% Load 2/03/77 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 Average 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 High Speed 2/01/77 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 100% Load 2/03/77 3.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 Average 3.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 Idle 2/01/77 3.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 2/03/77 3.6 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 Average 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 Idle-Accel 2/01/77 2.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 2/03/77 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 Average 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 Acceleration 2/01/77 3.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 2/03/77 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 Average 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 Deceleration 2/01/77 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 2/03/77 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 Average 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 Cold Start 2/01/77 4.6 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 2/03/77 4.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 Average 4.4 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 C-29 image: ------- TABLE C-39. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Engine: Hack ETAY(B)673A Run Operating "D" No. Condition C opposite 6. Inter.Speed 2.7 14. 2% Load 2.5 18. 2^ 2.7 2. Inter.Speed 2.8 9. 50% Load 2.3 11. 2Ji 2.6 S. Inter.Speed 3.3 16. 100% Load 3.0 21. 3a 3.1 3. High Speed 3.3 12. 2% Load 2.9 20. ^5 3.2 8. High Speed 2.8 15. 50% Load 2.8 17. 2^ 2.8 1. High Speed 3.3 7. 100% Load 3.1 i0. 3j_3 3.2 4. Idle 2.9 13. 2.8 19. M 2.9 23. Idle-Accel. 2.8 26. 2.S 29. 2.8 33. 3^4 2.9 22. Acceleration 2.8 24. 2.6 30. 4.0 32. 3^2 3.2 25. Deceleration 1.9 27. 2.8 28. 2.b 31. 2^9 2.6 Cold Start 4.6 Date: February 1, 1977 "B" "O" "A* Hp* Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungent 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 C-30 image: ------- TABLE C-40. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Engine: Mack ETATf(B)673A Run Operating *0" No, Condition composite 1. Inter.Speed 2.6 14. 2* Load 3.3 19. 3^0 3.0 4. Inter.Speed 2,1 7. 50% Load 3.0 11. 2^3 2.5 10. Inter.Speed 3.S 16. 100% Load 3.S 21- iii 3.3 8. High Speed 3.0 12. 2% Load 2.9 17. 2U3 3.1 3. High Speed 2.5 15. 50% Load 3.4 20. 2^8 2.9 2. High Speed 3.0 5. 100% Load 3.0 6. 4^3 3.4 9. Idle 3.1 13. 3.8 18. 2^ 3.6 23. Idle-Accel 2.9 26. 3.4 30. 3.5 32. sa 3.2 25. Acceleration 3.0 27. 3.0 29. 3.1 33. LI 3.1 22. Deceleration 2.8 24. 2.3 28. 3.6 31. 2.5 2.8 Cold Start 4.1 Date: February 3, 1977 "B" "0* •A" mpm Burnt oily Arcmatic Pungent 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.8 O.f 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.3 L0 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 03 1.0 1.0 0.8 ",8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 u.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 C-31 image: ------- TABLE C-41, COMPARISON OF ODOR PANEL RATINGS - CATERPILLAR 3208 EGt Operating "D" •B» -0" "A" •P" Condition Date Cooposite Burnt Qiiy Aroaatic Pungent Inter. Speed 8/1/77 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.4 2% Load 8/3/77 3.2 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 8/5/77 2.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 Average 3.1 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 Inter. Speed 8/1/77 3.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.4 50% Load 8/3/77 3.9 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 8/5/77 3.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 Average 3.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 Inter. Speed 8/1/77 3.1 1.1 1.0 0,7 0.3 100% Loax* 8/3/77 3.6 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7 8/5/7? 2.9 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 Average 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 High Speed 8/1/77 5.0 l.j 1.2 0.9 1.1 2% Load 8/3/77 4.4 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.8 8/5/77 4.S 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.9 Average 4.6 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.9 High Speed 8/1/77 4.1 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.9 50% Load 8/3/77 4.3 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.8 8/5/77 4.2 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 Average 4.2 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 High Speed 8/1/77 3.8 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 100% Load 8/3/77 3.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 8/5/77 3.3 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 Average 3.5 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 Idle 8/1/77 3.2 i.i 0.9 0.7 0.5 8/3/77 3.7 1.2 •» M 0.7 0.6 8/5/77 3.5 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.6 Average 3.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 Idle- 8/1/77 3.6 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.6 Acceleration 8/3/77 3.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.7 8/5/77 3.5 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 Average 3.5 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.7 Acceleration 8/1/77 3.7 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.8 8/3/77 3.7 1.2 1.0 0*6 0.8 8/5/77 3.7 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 Average 3.7 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.8 Deceleration 8/1/77 3.7 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.5 8/3/77 3.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 8/5/77 2.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 Average 3.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 Coid Start 8/1/77 4.4 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.6 8/3/77 4.1 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.6 8/S/77 3.9 1.3 0.9 0.? 0.6 Average 4.1 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.7 C-32 image: ------- TABLE C-42. SNGINE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Engine; Caterpillar 3208/EGR Date: August 1. : Run Operating «D» "O" "A" Hp* No, Condition Composite Burnt Oily Aroaatic Pungent 5. Inter.Speed 3.1 1.2 1.1 0.6 0.3 12. 2% Load 3.1 1.2 1.0 0.2 0.6 18. 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.3 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.4 1. Inter.Speed 3.1 1.0 1.0 0,7 0.2 7. 50% Load 2.6 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.3 15. 3.9 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.8 3.2 1-1 0.9 0.7 0.4 6. Inter Speed 3.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.3 13. 100% Load 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.2 20. 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.4 3.1 1.1 1.0 0,7 0.3 8. High Speed 4.9 1.7 1.3 0.7 1.0 14. 2% Load S.2 1.8 1.2 0.8 1.3 21. 5.0 1.6 1.2 1.1 0.9 5.0 1.7 1.2 0.9 1.1 2. High Speed 3.7 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.6 11. 50% Load 4.4 1.4 0.9 0.6 1.2 19. 4.3 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 4.1 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.9 4. High Speed 4.0 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.6 10. 100% Load 3.8 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.7 17. 3.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 3.8 1.2 1,0 0.8 0.7 3. Idle 2.9 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.4 9. 3.6 1.2 0.9 1.0 0,3 16. 3.1 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.7 3.2 1.1 0,9 0,7 0.5 24. Idle-Accel 3.4 1.0 0.9 0.8 0,7 27. 3.9 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 29. 3.4 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.4 31. 3.6 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.4 3.6 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.6 23. Accel 3.7 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.8 25. 3.5 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 28. 3.9 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.8 32. 3.8 1.3 1,0 0.8 0.9 3.7 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.8 22. Qecei 3.2 1.2 0,8 0.7 0.7 26. 3.9 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.2 30. 3.7 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.6 33. 3.9 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 3.7 1.2 1.0 0,8 0.5 Cold Start 4.4 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 C-33 image: ------- TABLE C-43. ENGINE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Engine; Caterpillar 3208 Date: Auguat 3, 197? Run No. 1. 11. 15. Operating Condition Inter. Speed 2% Load -0" Composite 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.2 Burnt 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 *0- 2A2X 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 •A" Aronatic 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 -p. Ptangent 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.5 3. Inter.Speed 10. 50% Load 17. 3.5 3.8 4.3 3.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.5 0,8 0.6 5. Inter.Speed 12. 100% Load 20. 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.6 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 4. 8. 19. High Speed 2% Load 4.9 3.5 4.7 4.4 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.8 6. High Speed 13. 50% Load 21. 4.2 3.5 5.1 4.3 1.5 1.2 1.7 1.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.4 hi 0.8 2. 9. 16. High Speed 100% Load 3.2 3.8 3.1 3.4 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 7. 14. 18. Idle 3.5 3.9 3.8 3.7 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 O.S 0.6 24. 26. 28. 32. Idle-Accel 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.7 3.7 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 TTT 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 o?T 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 22. 27. 30. 33. Acceleration 3.0 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.7 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 23. 25. 27. 31. Deceleration 3.1 3.4 4.1 3.1 3.4 1.0 1.0 L.4 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.6 Cold Start 4.1 1.5 1.0 0.7 C-34 image: ------- TABEL C-44. ENGINE ODOR EVALUATION SUKHARY Engine: Caterp i1lar 3208 August 5, Run Operating **D" 'B- -o* "A" "P- Mo. Condition Composite durnt oily Arcotatic Ponownt 4. Inter.Speed 2.8 i.O 0.9 0.5 0,3 11. 2% Load 3.0 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.4 19. 2.7 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 2.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 1. Inter.Speed 1.5 l.C 1.0 0.9 0.4 12. 50% Load 3.8 1.3 1.0 0.5 0,9 17. 3.4 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.5 3.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 3. Inter.Speed 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 7. 100% Load 2.8 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.3 13. 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.2 2.9 1.0 0.9 0,5 0.3 2. High speed 4.3 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.0 8. 2% Load 4.2 1.3 0.9 0.B 0.8 IS. 5.1 1.8 1.1 0.7 1.0 4.5 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.9 6. High speed 4.0 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 14. 50% Load 4.3 1.4 1.1 0.6 0.8 21. 4.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 4.2 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 5. High Speed 3.5 1.1 1.0 0.6 o.: 10. 100% Load 2.8 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.2 18. 3.5 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.6 3.3 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 9. Idle 3.7 1.3 0.9 0-5 0.8 16. 3.3 1.1 0.9 0.5 0,5 20. 3.6 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 3.5 1.2 0.9 0,6 0.6 22. Idle-Accel 3.9 J.2 0.9 0.7 0.8 27. 3.6 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 29. 3.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 31. 3.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 3.5 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 24. Acceleration 4.0 1.3 0.9 0,7 0.7 26. 3.9 1.2 0.9 0.6 1.0 28. 3.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.4 32. 3.6 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 3.7 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 23. Oeceleration 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.3 25. 2.7 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.3 30. 2.5 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.4 33. 2.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 2.8 1.0 0,9 0.6 0.4 Cold Start 3.9 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 C-35 image: ------- TABLE C-45. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS, MACK ETA*(B)673A NDIR C. L. Operating HC, CO, co2 NO, NO, NQ„, LCA, LCO, Condition Date ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm }ig/£ M9A TIA Inter. Speed 2/1/77 209 217 1.9 223 177 210 13.0 6.3 1.8 2% Load 2/3/77 235 235 2.2 203 162 202 15.9 7.6 1.9 Average 222 226 2.1 213 170 206 14.5 7.0 1.9 Inter. Speed 2/1/77 123 207 6. 3 945 862 887 11.9 5.3 1.7 50* Load 2/3/77 129 193 7.6 899 823 843 9.7 4.8 1.7 Average 126 200 7.0 922 843 865 10.8 5.1 1.7 Inter. Speed 2/1/77 62 363 8.8 1215 1087 1104 6.4 4.7 1.7 100% Load 2/3/77 59 382 9.1 1193 1062 1076 7.1 5.2 1.7 Average 61 373 9.0 1204 1075 1090 6.8 5.0 1.7 High Speed 2/1/77 268 235 2.4 160 127 157 17.5 6.6 1.8 2% Load 2/3/77 267 217 2.5 149 130 151 17.2 6.4 1.8 Average 268 226 2.5 155 129 154 17.4 6.5 1.8 High Speed 2/1/77 141 132 5.6 573 488 503 13.4 6.2 1.8 50% Load 2/3/77 169 146 6.1 528 453 473 17.8 7.4 1.9 Ave rage 155 139 5.9 551 471 488 15.6 6.8 1.9 High Speed 2/1/77 41 282 8. 3 924 835 848 6.4 4.7 1.7 100% Load 2/3/77 40 306 9.1 914 803 813 5.2 3.8 1.6 Average 41 294 8.7 919 819 831 5.8 4. 3 1.7 Idle 2/1/77 212 231 1. 3 255 208 253 11.1 5.7 1.8 2/3/77 229 231 1.4 239 190 242 11.9 6.1 1.8 Average 221 231 1.4 247 199 248 11.5 5.9 1.8 C-36 image: ------- TABLE C-46. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY ENGINE: MACK ETAY(B)673A DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1977 (rating Run HC, CO, co2. idition No. PPm PPm % sr. Speed 6 180 212 2.0 .oad 14 236 226 1.9 18 212 212 1.9 209 217 1.9 sr. Speed 2 132 183 6.4 Load 9 120 226 6.2 11 116 212 123 207 6.3 sr. Speed 5 62 368 9.1 s Load 16 44 354 8.9 21 80 368 8. j 62 363 8.8 l Speed 3 264 226 2.4 >oad 12 262 226 2.5 20 278 254 2.4 268 235 2.4 l Speed 8 126 155 5.6 Load 15 182 113 5.7 17 116 127 5.4 141 132 5.6 l Speed 1 48 268 8.3 k Load 7 44 283 8.3 10 32 296 8.2 41 282 8.3 . 4 218 226 1.3 13 212 226 1.4 19 206 240 1.2 212 231 1.3 C. L. DOAS Results NO, NOx, LCA, LCO, ppm ppm Vg/l TIA 190 220 .3 6.0 1.8 165 205 1_.6 6.6 1.8 175 205 13.2 6.2 1.8 177 210 13.0 6.3 1.8 887 925 12.1 4.5 1.7 820 840 10.1 6.0 1.8 880 895 13.6 5.3 1.7 862 887 11.9 5.3 1.7 1087 1112 7.4 5.5 1.8 1100 1125 4.8 3.8 1.6 1075 1075 7.0 4.8 1.7 1087 1104 6.4 4.7 1.7 125 155 18. 3 7. 3 1.9 130 157 20.4 8.4 1.9 125 160 13.9 4.2 1.6 127 157 17.5 6.6 1.8 480 495 11.0 5.6 1.8 465 490 18. 3 7.7 1.9 520 525 10.9 5.2 1.7 488 503 13.4 6.2 1.8 850 875 9.2 5.4 1.7 830 835 4.6 4.6 1.7 825 835 5.5 4.2 1.6 835 848 6.4 4.7 1.7 210 260 11.0 4.9 1.7 215 255 10. 3 5.8 1.8 198 245 12.0 6.5 1.8 208 253 11.1 5.7 1.8 NDIR NO, ppm 239 215 215 223 976 914 945 945 1221 1221 1204 1215 156 168 156 160 555 555 610 573 945 929 899 924 251 263 251 255 C-37 image: ------- TABLE C-47. ENGINE: MACK ETAY(B)673B GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 197? Operating Run Condition No. Inter. Speed I 2% Load 14 19 Inter. Speed 4 50% Load 7 11 Inter. Speed 10 100* Load 16 21 High Speed 8 2% toad 12 17 High Speed 3 50% Load 15 20 High Speed 2 100% Load 5 6 Idle 9 13 18 HC, CO, co2. PPm ppm % 224 240 2.1 246 226 2.4 236 240 2.0 235 235 2.2 128 226 7.8 122 183 8.0 138 169 7.0 129 193 7.6 80 368 9.2 52 397 9.1 46 382 9.0 59 382 9.1 254 212 2.4 272 226 2.8 276 212 2.4 267 217 2.5 134 169 5.4 204 127 7.0 170 141 5.9 169 146 6.1 48 283 8.3 36 311 9.4 36 325 9.7 40 306 9.1 240 226 1.4 218 226 1.6 228 240 1.3 229 231 1.4 NDIR c. L. NO, NO, NOx, ppm ppm ppm 203 165 200 215 160 200 191 160 205 203 162 202 884 795 884 840 870 929 835 845 899 823 843 1170 1037 1037 1187 1075 1090 1221 1075 1100 1193 1062 1076 156 135 155 156 125 149 134 130 150 149 130 151 528 460 480 528 445 460 528 455 480 528 453 473 929 795 805 899 810 815 914 805 820 914 803 813 239 190 245 251 190 240 227 190 240 239 190 242 DOAS Results LCA, LCO, mil mil TIA 11.9 4.6 1.7 18.6 9.4 2.0 17.3 8.8 1.9 15.9 7.6 1.9 10.8 5.0 1.7 8.3 3.5 1.5 10.0 5.8 1.8 9.7 4.8 1.7 11.6 8.0 1.9 4.4 3.7 1.6 5.2 3.8 1.6 7.1 5.2 1.7 21.7 9.0 2.0 16.8 7.5 1.9 13.1 2.6 1.4 17.2 6.4 1.8 10.5 4.9 1.7 26.6 11.2 2.1 16.3 6.2 1.8 17.8 7.4 1.9 7.9 4.7 1.7 3.9 3.2 1.5 3.7 3.6 1.6 5.2 3.8 1.6 13.0 5.3 1.7 11.2 6.4 1.8 11-5 6.5 1.8 11.9 6.1 1.8 image: ------- TABLE C-48. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS, CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR Operating Condition Date HC, ppm CO, ppm co2 % NDIR NO, ppm C. NO, ppm L. NOx, ppm LCA, \iq/l LCO, Uq/l TI/ Inter. Apeed 8/1/77 411 446 3.2 144 158 170 2% Load 8/3/77 404 432 3.0 155 142 157 59.7 25.4 2.i 8/5/77 376 423 3.2 213 175 180 32.8 17.9 2.: Average 397 434 3.1 171 158 169 46.3 21.7 2.: Inter. Speed 8/1/77 405 564 10.4 215 267 269 50% Load 8/3/77 324 549 10.2 281 253 260 55.6 23.0 2.1 8/5/77 404 554 10.6 262 233 238 61.7 25.2 2.i Average 378 556 10.4 253 251 256 58.7 24.1 2.t Inter. Speed 8/1/77 123 1224 12.0 1185 1191 1216 100% Load 8/3/77 111 1140 11.2 1219 1133 1146 30.7 22.9 2.' 8/5/77 88 1328 12.0 1357 1229 1246 20.9 13.5 2.1 Average 107 1231 11.7 1254 1184 1203 25.8 18.2 2.: High Speed 8/1/77 575 826 5.5 123 143 147 2% Load 8/3/77 575 952 5.6 147 149 151 64.4 36.2 2. i 8/5/77 511 840 5.7 202 162 168 55.5 35.7 2.i Average 554 873 5.6 157 151 15o 60.0 36.0 2 . i High Speed 8/1/77 515 3038 11.6 154 177 185 50% Load 8/3/77 412 4156 11.9 201 183 186 51.7 39.9 2. ( 8/5/77 437 5004 12.3 211 183 187 32.4 24.1 2.: Average 455 4066 11.9 189 181 186 42.1 32.0 2.\ High Speed 8/1/77 25 1173 11.9 680 677 690 100% Load 8/3/77 28 1155 11.9 722 692 694 33.8 18.7 2.: 8/5/77 37 1178 11.8 75 3 703 710 16.8 11.5 2.: Ave rage 30 1169 11.9 718 691 698 25. 3 15.1 2.; Idle 8/1/77 399 368 2.2 158 1S7 190 8/3/77 305 318 2.1 184 172 190 24.9 12.4 2.: 8/5/77 369 391 2.2 209 178 189 28.6 15. 3 2.; Average 358 359 2.2 184 169 190 26.8 13.9 2.: C-39 image: ------- TABLE C-49. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY Eng ine: Caterpillar 3208 Date: August 1, NDIR C.L. Operating Run HC, CO, co2, NO NO NOx Condition Mo. EES. Ppm _% PP« PPM EEE_ Inter.Speed 5 424 474 3.2 182 165 175 2% Load 12 408 391 3.2 99 150 160 18 400 474 3.2 151 160 175 411 446 3.2 144 158 170 Inter Speed 1 428 391 9.8 226 230 230 50% Load 7 376 756 11.1 226 325 333 15 412 544 10.4 193 245 245 405 564 10.4 215 267 269 Inter Speed 6 144 1283 11.8 1185 1162 1175 100% Load 13 124 1105 11.9 1132 1175 1187 20 100 1283 12.2 1239 1237 1287 123 1224 12.0 1185 1191 1216 High Speed 8 588 812 5.6 130 130 140 2% Load 14 592 854 5.4 99 138 142 21 544 812 5.5 140 160 160 575 826 5.5 123 143 147 High Speed 2 576 2668 11.1 172 180 190 50% Load 11 482 2886 11.8 140 175 180 19 488 3559 11.8 151 175 185 515 3038 11.6 154 177 185 High Speed 4 28 1214 11.9 732 680 700 100% Load 10 28 1160 11.9 661 675 680 17 20 1146 12.0 647 675 690 25 1173 11.9 680 677 690 Idle 3 412 363 2.2 172 160 200 9 404 377 2.3 151 150 175 16 380 3C3 2.2 151 160 195 399 368 2.2 158 157 190 C-40 image: ------- TABLE C-50. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY ENGINE: CATERPILLAR 3208 DATE: AUGUST 3, 1977 NDIR L. C. DO AS Results Operating Run HC, CO, co2, NO, NO, N°x« LCA, LCO, Condition No. ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm pg /% Vg/l TIA Inter. Speed 1 432 488 3.3 145 140 160 108.0 36.1 2.6 2% Load 11 380 418 2.9 200 150 170 34.9 20.0 2.3 15 400 391 2.9 121 135 140 36.3 20.2 2.3 404 432 3.0 155 142 157 59.7 25.4 2.4 Inter. Speed 3 332 572 10.6 283 260 265 48.4 18.9 2.3 50% Load 10 324 488 10.0 305 253 260 47.6 18.2 2.3 17 316 586 10.0 255 245 255 70.9 32.0 2.5 324 549 10.2 281 253 260 55.6 23.0 2.4 Inter. Speed 5 108 1350 12.1 1282 1250 1250 28.9 19.2 2.3 100% Load 12 96 1077 11.7 1383 1200 1212 35.0 24.9 2.4 20 128 994 9.8 992 950 975 28.1 24.6 2.4 111 1140 11.2 1219 1133 1146 30.7 22.9 2.4 *High Speed 4 548 1036 5.7 186 160 160 61.6 34.2 2.5 2% Load 8 576 924 5.5 141 138 142 66.9 35.1 2.5 19 600 896 5.5 115 150 150 64.8 39.2 2.6 575 952 5.6 147 149 151 64.4 36.2 2.5 High Speed 6 432 3978 11.8 186 173 175 36.6 28.9 2.5 50% Load 13 372 4263 12.3 241 195 200 78.2 55.0 2.8 21 432 4227 11.5 176 180 183 40.4 35.9 2.6 412 4156 11.9 201 183 186 51.7 39.9 2.6 High Speed 2 32 1146 11.9 736 705 712 60.6 27.7 2.5 100% Load 9 24 1105 11.9 744 665 665 22.5 14.2 2.2 16 28 1214 11.8 687 705 705 18.4 14.2 2.2 28 1155 11.9 722 692 694 33.8 18.7 2. 3 Idle 7 340 336 2.2 193 190 210 31.7 16.2 2.2 14 272 309 2.2 248 190 210 22.2 11.8 2.1 18 304 309 1.8 111 135 150 20.7 9.2 2.0 305 318 2.1 184 172 190 24.9 12.4 2.1 C-41 image: ------- TABLE C-51. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY ENGINE: CATERPILLAR 3208 DATE: AUGUST 5, 1977 NDIR L.C. DO AS Results Operating Run HC, CO, co2, NO, NO, NOx, LCA, LCO, Condition No. ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm U9/1 UgA TIA Inter. Speed 4 396 418 3.2 213 175 180 31.2 15.6 2.2 2% Load 11 368 460 3.3 200 170 175 32.3 17.5 2.2 19 364 391 3.2 227 18u 185 35.0 20.5 2.3 376 423 3.2 213 175 180 32.8 17.9 2.2 Inter. Speed 1 368 405 10.3 276 255 260 62.3 23.6 2.4 50% Load 12 412 699 10.9 255 225 225 66.0 27.4 2.4 17 432 558 10.6 255 220 228 56.7 24.5 2.4 404 554 10.6 262 233 238 61.7 25.2 2.4 Inter. Speed 3 108 1255 11.8 1331 1212 1225 20.9 15.4 2.2 100% Load 7 64 1445 12.1 1357 1237 1250 10.3 8. 3 1.9 13 92 1283 12.1 1383 1237 1262 31.4 16.8 2.2 88 1328 12.0 1357 1229 1246 20.9 13.5 2.1 High Speed 2 592 812 5.6 186 160 165 71.6 38.5 2.6 2% Load 8 472 840 5.7 206 160 170 41.7 29.6 2.5 15 468 868 5.8 213 165 170 53.1 39.0 2.6 511 840 5.7 202 162 168 55.5 35.7 2.6 High Speed 6 392 4627 12.2 213 190 195 16.9 14.3 2.2 50% Load 14 392 4554 12.3 213 185 190 22.3 15.9 2.2 21 528 5832 12.4 206 175 175 58.1 42.1 2.6 437 5004 12.3 211 183 187 32.4 24.1 2.3 High Speed 5 40 1228 11.8 753 710 715 14.9 11.4 2.1 100% Load 10 40 1187 11.8 753 690 695 8.2 7.2 1.9 18 32 1118 11.9 753 710 720 27.3 15.8 2.2 37 1178 11.8 753 703 710 16.8 11.5 2.1 Idle 9 360 391 2.2 200 180 195 29.8 15.8 2.2 16 376 391 2.2 213 180 193 33.4 16.8 2.2 20 372 391 2.2 213 173 180 22.5 13.2 2.1 369 391 2.2 209 178 189 28.6 15.3 2.2 C-42 image: ------- TABLE C-53. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR ENGINE 1680 rpm 2800 rpro Load % Load * Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 2 50 100 Idle Form W/m3 3888 ... 909 10954 28215 5 3858 Aldehyde mg/hr 1569 545 6510 15470 8 525 mg/kg fuel 303 21 510 640 0 526 mgAw-hr 751 5 2340 210 0 Ace tane pg/m3 672 ___ 66 2637 5443 1112 Aldehyde mg/hr 588 82 3380 6450 327 mgAg fuel 114 3 260 270 327 mg/kw-hr 281 1 1220 90 Acetane Ug/m3 327 42 16 1587 1095 33 459 mg/hr 492 60 32 3500 2230 113 233 mg/kg fuel 95 4 1 270 90 3 233 mg/kw-hr 236 1 0 1260 30 1 Iso- ug/m3 441 97 butonal mg/hr 1510 306 mg/kg fuel 120 13 mg/kw-hr 540 4 Crotonal lig/m3 411 68 509 1198 942 67 663 mg/hr 909 137 1662 3890 2830 330 493 mg/kg fuel 176 10 64 300 120 9 494 mg/kw-hr 435 2 14 1400 40 2 Hexanol yg/m3 86 168 367 194 245 150 mg/hr 357 1131 2430 1190 2440 228 mg/kg fuel 25 44 190 50 70 227 mg/kw-hr 6 10 870 20 20 Benz pm/m3 664 1323 737 3039 738 854 Adlehye mg/hr 3077 9870 5460 20760 • 8230 1449 mgAg fuel 213 380 430 860 220 1452 mg/kw-hr 53 80 1960 280 50 C-43 image: ------- TABLE C-52. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A ENGINE Aldehyde Rate 1450 rpm 1900 rpm Idle Load % Load % 2 50 100 2 50 100 Form yg/m3 2425 1896 1403 1858 1626 1310 1877 Aldehyde mg/hr 1497 1664 1980 1538 2106 2343 470 tag/kg fuel 282 69 40 174 70 41 247 mg/kw-hr 333 15 9 314 17 10 Acetane M/m3 38 265 145 Aldehyde mg/hr 474 106 78 mgAg fuel 54 4 41 mg/kw-hr 97 1 Acetane yg/m3 - ___ - — mg/hr ing/Xg fuel mg/kw-hr — Iso- yg/m3 489 497 516 1020 520 450 559 butonal mg/hr 1734 2505 4184 4855 3870 4627 804 mg/kg fuel 327 104 84 549 129 81 422 mg/kw-hr 385 22 19 991 32 19 Crotonal yg/m3 337 321 492 369 254 631 mg/hr 1137 2478 2226 2611 2482 863 mg/kg fuel 214 50 252 87 43 453 mg/kw-hr 253 11 454 21 D Hexanol yg/m3 395 89 53 409 72 mg/hr 6205 821 762 8144 202 mgAg fuel 124 93 25 142 106 mgAw-hr 27 167 6 33 Benz yg/m3 —- Aldehyde mg/hr ___ mgAg fuel mgAw-hr C-44 image: ------- TABLE C-54. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CHEVROLET 366 ENGINE 1200 rpm 2300 rpm Aldehyde Rate « Load % Load Idle 2 50 100 CT 2 50 100 CT Form- ug/m3 1888 545 40861 15999 21396 aldehyde mg/hr 211 99 11417 3661 9195 4956 1400 rog/kg fuel 47 12 705 1345 266 1041 551 mg/kw-hr 171 5 264 105 0 Acet- ug/m3 156 2191 1348 4170 aldehyde mg/hr 38 1325 1974 1676 2357 590 mg/kg fuel 9 82 725 49 495 232 mg/kw-hr 31 31 0 19 0 0 Acetone Ug/m3 481 471 481 26 _ 988 1756 mg/hr 199 243 502 938 248 2106 995 427 mg/kg fuel 45 28 31 345 33 61 209 168 mg/kw-hr 161 11 12 0 128 24 0 0 Iso- Ug/m3 198 239 101 30 1 473 835 butanal mg/hr 127 249 162 412 358 0 1563 499 314 mg/kg fuel 29 29 10 151 48 0 45 105 123 mg/kw-hr 103 11 4 0 185 0 18 0 0 Crotonal ug/m3 5620 5876 992 411 589 3268 170424 mg/hr 3431 5790 1514 1927 4767 1095 10266 2192 60927 mg/kg fuel 772 672 94 708 637 63 297 460 23986 mg/kw-hr 2789 265 35 0 2471 25 117 0 0 Hexanal ug/m3 418 1845 233 56 75 228 465 mg/hr 519 3708 727 1651 930 284 1460 1591 338 mg/kg fuel 117 430 45 607 124 16 42 334 133 mg/kw-hr 422 170 17 0 482 6 17 0 0 Benz- ug/m3 3002 4629 11881 234 449 5319 8262 aldehyde mg/hr 4180 10401 41357 18248 4102 1892 38091 25687 6734 mg/kg fuel 940 1207 2554 6705 548 108 1102 5393 2651 mg/kw-hr 3397 477 955 0 2126 42 434 0 0 image: ------- TABLE C-55. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, MACK ETAY(B)673A Hydrocarbon Hate 1450 rpm 1900 rpm Idle % Load % Load 2 50 100 2 50 100 Methane yg/m3 2198 733 400 2131 733 400 2331 ch4 mg/hr 1001 481 403 1280 692 524 425 mg/kg fuel 186 20 8 143 23 9 223 mg/kw-hr 223 4 2 261 6 2 Ethylene ug/m3 6292 6525 5418 7050 5418 6467 7224 C2H4 mg/hr 2866 4280 5463 4234 5114 8472 1316 mg/kg fuel 531 174 109 474 170 148 691 mg/kw-hr 637 38 24 864 42 35 Ethane ug/m3 125 312 125 62 187 C2H6 mg/hr 57 205 75 59 34 mg/kg fuel 11 8 8 2 18 mg/kw-hr 13 2 15 1 Acetylene Mg/m3 325 217 541 487 162 541 433 c2h2 mg/hr 148 142 545 292 153 708 79 mg/kg fuel 27 6 11 33 5 12 41 mg/kw-hr 33 1 2 60 1 3 Propane vig/m3 C3H8 mg/hr mg/kg fuel mg/kw-hr — — — Propylene U g/m3 2330 3263 1806 2622 2797 2039 2505 c3h6 mg/hr 1061 2140 1821 1575 2639 2671 456 mg/kg fuel 197 87 36 176 88 47 240 mg/kw-hr 236 19 8 321 22 11 Benzene is g/m3 505 674 786 562 506 674 730 CeHg mg/hr 222 426 763 325 459 850 128 mg/kg fuel 41 17 15 36 15 15 67 mg/kw-hr 49 4 3 66 4 4 Toluene U9/m3 164 219 110 110 219 C7H8 mg/hr 108 131 103 143 40 mg/kg fuel 4 15 3 3 21 mg/kw-hr 1 27 1 1 C-46 image: ------- TABLE C-56. SPECIFIC HYUROCAKBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3208/EGR 1680 rpm % Load Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Methane lag/m3 4129 4062 2131 ch4 mg/hr 1208 1147 925 mg/kg fuel 242 80 36 mg/kw- •hr 578 20 8 Ethylene ug/m3 18119 20159 24179 c2h4 mg/hr 5300 5692 10503 mg/kg fuel 1062 395 409 mg/hw- ¦hr 2536 97 90 Ethane ug/m3 312 499 187 C2"6 mg/hr 91 141 81 mg/kg fuel 18 10 3 mg/kw- •hr 44 2 1 Acetylene yg/m3 1516 1786 2652 C2H2 mg/hr 443 504 1511 mg/kg fuel 89 35 45 mg/kw- -hr 212 9 10 Propane pg/m3 59 C3H8 mg/hr 17 mg/kg fuel 1 mg/kw- -hr 0 Propylene pg/m3 5884 10312 5011 c3h6 mg/hr 1721 2912 2177 mg/kg fuel 345 202 85 mg/kw- -hr 824 50 19 Benzene yg/m3 1854 5168 4213 c6h6 mg/hr 522 1405 1761 mg/kg fuel 105 97 69 mg/kw -hr 250 24 15 Toluene yg/m3 493 603 384 C?Hg mg/hr 144 170 166 mg/kg fuel 29 12 7 mg/kw- -hr 69 3 1 2300 rpm Idle % Load 2 50 100 7525 30434 466 4795 3285 12220 311 487 262 500 8 467 1182 163 2 24470 106037 2564 17071 10680 42567 1712 1734 850 1741 46 1663 3842 566 11 562 2684 437 245 1078 44 20 44 43 88 14 5413 15265 1191 1191 2360 6121 794 121 188 250 21 116 849 81 5 115 115 49 12 — — — - 2 1 —— 12 10953 23188 350 5477 4781 9309 233 557 381 381 6 534 1720 124 2 3371 13033 786 2753 1416 5036 506 269 113 206 13 258 509 67 3 712 3726 548 310 1492 56 25 61 53 112 20 C-47 image: ------- TABLE C-57. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CHEV 366 ENGINE 1200 rpa 2300 rpm Hydrocarbon Rate % Load % Load tdle _J 50 100 CT a 50 *- 0 0 6t Methane _q/B3 2531 13785 215 368 22509 1132 799 237944 9523 2104*. C«4 aq/hr 211 1354 44875 1348 159 202 102670 1C52 1027 fuel 4? 215 2771 495 21 12 2951 221 Q aq/lw-hr 171 35 1037 0 83 5 1171 0 <04 Ethylene uq/B3 £623 28723 140644 141402 3729 125496 6898 52611 C2H4 tng/hr 718 3863 29299 3467 524 54141 7617 2566 sag/kg fuel 162 448 1809 3111 70 1556 1599 1010 ng/kw-hr 584 177 677 0 272 617 0 0 Ethane -ig/a3 437 1124 11549 15232 —— ... 10925 ..... 5306 -2H6 aq/hr 36 151 2407 913 —- 4715 259 319/k.q fuel 8 18 149 335 136 102 ag/iw-hr 30 7 56 0 54 0 Acetylene uq/nJ 2761 6929 54780 22572 1353 43142 5359 18621 C2H2 ag/hr 230 931 11399 1350 190 ... 18590 591 907 aq/kq fuel 187 43 263 0 99 ... 212 0 357 aq/kw-hr 52 108 704 496 25 — 534 124 0 Propane uq/B3 144 1903 14185 —. 1384 3560 1499 C3h8 aq/hr 21 420 899 632 404 77 rag/kg fuel 2 26 330 18 85 0 og/kw-nr 1 10 0 7 0 Propylene ug/B3 2447 6933 48008 35354 524 34258 39443 22081 cjh6 aq/hr 204 932 10C01 5111 74 14779 4355 1077 aq/kg fuel 46 108 618 1878 10 ... 425 914 424 aq/kw-hr 166 43 231 0 38 — 169 Q Beniene 5261 14606 10370S 289541 1629 112 32357 78481 48538 C6HS aq/hr 423 1891 20793 16687 221 27 38347 8340 2279 oq/kq fuel >5 219 1284 4131 30 2 11G2 1751 397 mf/kw-hr 344 87 460 0 114 1 437 0 0 Toluene uq/B3 8659 19674 191968 1379999 1206 ... 104999 302063 157443 c?h8 a<3/hr 719 2639 29881 8240? 169 45172 33261 7659 ag/kq fuel 162 306 2463 30279 23 1298 6983 3015 og/kw-hr 585 121 921 0 88 515 0 0 e-48 image: ------- APPENDIX D SULFATE AND PARTICULATE CHARACTERIZATION image: ------- Table D-l. 21 -houe Ep* exp oiksel emission ctcu C*T£H?Ill«h JiUh DlfiStt ENGINE OlKEd INJECTION <>* DEG.BTOC n/O ecu TEST 1 MH 1 FUEL* Zn-i?i-r PROJECT! U-tt,23-l>m TEST 0*T£ U-1-J? MQOE FNi»ii*t iosque POxtK fuel Al« exhaust fuel Moue *c Cm* wOt* «£iariita 6ShC batu* oSrt02++ .1PCEO FLQd FLO* Putin AIR ti?n NX* KG/*I* *G'*IN kg/nlH SUTIO PP n PPM HPH KM G/Kn Krt to/M* MK o/KW rtK 1 ?»IU o.p u.o .030 5.17 5 . 5U ,00b i 222 7i1 151 u.uu H H if 2 l2bU 30.1 1.1 ,07? 1.11 1,11 .HO* 2 23b 587 230 . *tl lb. 85 53.81 3 libit 1X8. ? 15. ? ,111 1.88 1.11 .nil 3 181 171 112 1.11 3,12 l ?. >2 2S.0b 1 l2bU 2b8.3 3S.1 .172 in.m 1 li. 18 .»1? 1 17U 321 ?82 2.1b 1.1* S , Jb 2;.13 5 12b.» 1 ?U. 3 18.1 .215 10.17 10.31 5 ib2 2b1 SHb l.Vb 1 . U"J *1. 11.1b b 1 2bU 7l ?. B 18.7 .37b 11.12 11.80 . U 3 3 b 112 256 1U81 ?.20 • 1* l.>1 12.31 7 l2b» 1122.1 118,1 .SSI 13,12 13,b? .•112 7 100 S22 1 2b1 i». uu 1 I I 8 12bU 122?.3 lbl.1 #S18 13.11 11.UH .Cill 8 >8 bl8 1123 7.13 .2«» J.i2 10,In i 12b» 1371,2 18?,U ,*71 11.21 11,1b .01? 1 lb B 3 ? 1 3b1 ti.uu 1 1 1 10 iebu llBb.l llb.l .?33 11.H5 15.bl .Oil 10 32 183 1375 U.oQ 1 I 1 u ?|IU a.u 0,U .030 5.31 5.3? • Uub 11 128 278 3 (JO fl.UO h K K 12 iH IW 1132*1 2l1.U ,1b1 23.73 21.?U .1111 12 51 3 30 1130 7.1? .lb l.Hy lU.bd 13 2 iUU 10Sl,fe 231.2 , 81B 22.15 23.85 .1)31 13 12 283 1132 15.11 • 1 J 1 . b1 11.12 11 2inu 112.1 2U7.2 • bUI 21 .t»5 22.1b . 03 7 11 13 2bl 1113 8.11 .11 I .o** 11.11 15 2iuu 8bl.7 18H.5 • ?11 2U.1l 21. b« .035 15 15 236 1012 13.83 .15 1.58 11.3b lb am 57b.1 12b,8 .535 18.1? 11. ill .021 lb 52 211 ?11 1.2b .2* !U.b2 1? a i uu 2 81.b b J . 7 • 33b lb.11 lfe.?1 .U21 1? bb 215 528 O.UQ 1 1 I ia if l HO 208,1 15,1 .281 15.11 lb.22 .tug 18 81 21b 153 3 . b 3 .8b »,u? 15,25 i° 2 IUH 15,u 20.1 «2Ub 15.50 15. ?U . «il 3 11 105 311 32? U.UU 1 1 1 eo 2 luti 21.1 1.7 • lb3 15.3? 15.51 .iUl 20 128 37? 23b U.uo 1 i i 21 ?iju u.o (l«U .U3U 5.5b 5.51 • U05 21 12? 381 110 0.00 N ri * CTCU COHHOSlTfc BSrtC s ~ Ibl &RAH/H* Hn dSCO* 3 3.255 CirtAH/Krt rtfi 8SNQi++* 12.512 0*U*/K« hh bSrtC * B3N02t*» 13.Obi GftAH/K* HK 63FC I .iSSKC/KW HK * CONVERTED TO WCT BASIS ~ t CONVERTED TO *€T &ASIS AND tORRECIED TO lu.J r. Ill 1 GRAM **!£« PEtf KC DRY AIR image: ------- Table D-2. 2J-*0D£ FP* Exh oicstt EMISSION c*CU" C*1ERPILI.*K ¦"tub DIESEL CNtolNR DIHECT IHJECIIPH it UEU.SIOC */U EGH test i .iuf. i fuels cH-ae-f PHOJEcn n-ibei-oiu iest u*it mat CNlilNK SM|-£t> 1 QxytJC H0*6k FUgi. FLO* AIk FLU* tXMAUbJ FLO« FUtL A IH *QUt HC Cut N0+* wfcTiSnHO M3«C B»CU4 03*02** nun. HltLI »ilM N X * ** KG/HIN Kb/HJM KG /MIN wtm PPM PPN Kh (,/Kh ItH ti/KH HH fc/Jt* HK 6/HC i ?mi u.u il.tt * U 30 S. 3S S.3fl .UQb 1 lb« SI 1 144 il.OO r* K n 3, . 2 I2h»i JO. 1 4. t .0?b S.«i2 s.su .IH18 2 1 80 131 228 . J« 12.73 bO« b<4 S2.bi 3.7 i I2b« 118. 7 IS. ? .U?S s.se 1(1.uu • tin 8 3 Ibi 302 111! 1 .11 3. US 1 1. iS 21.37 J, ? 4 I2b» 2b6. i 3S.1 . 1 ?U 1U.U1 lit. 114 -ill 7 4 118 11? ?? 3 2.«b 1 .2-i 2.4$ 21.18 3.7 % l*b»l ^70. 3 t8»S ,?1? in. ib 10. 30 • U2 1 5 1 32 S? Sib 1 . fb .«2 l.fO 1S.13 3.? b J 2hU ?su.2 s<4,u , J7b 11 . il 11.?? .*133 h lib lflU lOlg ?. 22 .to .©S 11.8? 3.7 > I2b» ii2u.s .SlS 1 3.OR 1 3 . b 3 .012 ? He 3?8 1 1^1 ii, an 1 I i 3.? 1 2 toU 122i.? lb2,2 . ssa 1 3.M l<« .01 .HIS ¥ 7H i?t 12?0 ?.H3 .2*' 2. 3b 10.41 3. ? S iebu 1??b.S 1*1.7 .b?2 14.2S ll , Sb .01? * Sb iilS 1 32 8 O.UU 1 1 1 3.? lu 1 2bU 11HS.4 isb.t .733 14.87 15.bU • Ml H 1 U 3b bUb 1 344 l». Ull i i 1 3.? ti 700 u.u u.u • U 30 S.41 S.I? . 11Gb 1 1 112 l?b 2b? u.uu n # K 3 . b i? a i >iu 1190.11 *48.5 Sbl 2J.H7 2i .83 ,01U i«? bW e-^3 ix)U 7.HS . 2«> I , bl 10. ?b 3 . b l J 21tM> iOSb,4 *32.3 .*•00 2 3 . OH 23.sn .»3S i 3 1 ? 23b 1112 IS.Sb .14 1 .11 11 .21# I.! 41 21U0 S3?. ? eub.a » if U i 2 1 . b I 22.13 .03? 11 *1 213 1113 li.b? .11 1 . '*** 11.S3 3. b IS 2 Itlu 8S ?.U 188.4 ,?3? 2i.u2 21. ?** .(135 is IS ISO lasi 13,7o . 1 s l.c? li.H 3.b lb 2llttt S?b.S 12b.H .Sab la. 38 ih.«2 .«2S lb Sd M2 7S1 S, .2b 1 ,8b 10.70 3 , b I 7 2 lift) 2*s.b b3.? , 33b 1 b. 4 2 lb. ?S .02 U i? 73 220 S31 u.aa * I I i.l 18 ^ 1 (111 2oti.s IS.'I .?8U 1S.S* ( h . 2 3 .1118 18 dO 21b 4bS 3.t»3 .Br S.h* 15#fc3 3.b is am «0, 2 is.a .2ui IS.ib IS.bfe .013 IS lb* 2SS 33? O.oO 1 I 1 3.* *u 2 tUti 21.4 4,? . Ib3 45,31 IS.5(1 .1111 20 12? 32b 2SI u.uo i 1 I 3 . b 21 JllU u.u u,» ,"3U S.S? S.btJ «ti as 21 131 iSS 208 O.UU * H U i.l C1TCLE CUNP0S1IC B3HC s .120 Hfi 83C0t 9 2.483 Gn*h/rh HM a$«02*t Z 12.S14 MK H3HC * 8$M02*+ = 12.HV2 GUAM/ B3FC s , MR » CONVERTEO 10 «T BASIS ~ ~ COUVCHTEU TO ..ft 8*SU *N0 CUHKECTtl) lu ID.? «I|.LI6K*M KAlER PCf) «6 BUY Aid image: ------- Table D-3. I'-snoi feoe»*i oifskl emission c*c:u ;iTEHP!Li*i; ll'Ob DIESEL t NU IHE , 01RECT 1NJEC T ItlN, OF « EGH TEST I HUM 1 FiJEl PHUJEtl! 11-1I.2J-001 1ESI I14TE ll-t-7? 40UE ENGINE IOKu.lt PO*E« SPEf.O RPM M * «• KH FUEL * 1 k Exhaus? Fjifc'1 Ft.UK FLO" FLO" ft IR KG/HIN KG/NIN KG/"lh »8T[0 1 ?!*»! U.1I U . CI • UJIJ 5,17 s.su . 'tub 2 I2M» 10. 1 1.1 « U 7 ? <*. Ml M.<*q .UO* 3 i2bu 170. 3 18 , ^ .215 ID.1? HI. 31 .'*21 1 12HU ?*?.§ *8,7 , 3?b U.H? 11,80 ,1 23.73 21. 711 ,1111 *, si 16. bl 3.7 * 112 253 UJ2? ?,*<* .1* I, i H 11,7U 3. 7 % inu 522 1250 11, .2? 2. 7^ 1U.M8 3.7 b 32 H83 112b IS,*8 .^7 * , bS 10. b? 3.7 7 128 278 ?3? n.un K i? ft 1.7 8 Si 3 30 12Ul IS.^2 .1*- 1. 11,37 J, 7 IS 238 1 111 IS.lb .IS 1 . SB 12.1U J. 7 Hi S2 211 ?bl 10,1b .2* 2, u ^ 1U#«U 3.7 1 i h8 2M* SS2 s.ur. ,5rJ 1 . 13,02 J, 7 1? 126 377 251 , 38 12. 32 72, 37 7T.H1 i. 7 13 127 381 20b o.uo K R N 3. 7 CYCLE CU*POS!TE 6$MC s .117 Mh A8C0* s 3.SHI GMAn/ *«« hP HSN02** 5 12.137 «»¦' HShC ~ 0SMO2*** 12,«5» CttAM/nn rtt« 03FC S .2S3HG/KH HH ~ CONVCRTEO TU *E T BASIS co«ve«rio 10 *tT nasi* *mu cuPiiEcttu m uj.? NAUR PMi KG DRY AJ* image: ------- Table D-4 • 13-lODE FEOEK»L 0IE3EL EMISSION C'tLt C*TEHPILL*K 1*Ub OltSEt IHUImE.OIkECT INJEC I ll)N, *9 OEU OfOC»*/U EGK rE#r i sun i fuel tn-m-e psojEcn n--»hi»-tun test uaie u-i-?? HOD E CNttint: SP zto fUnUUC POwtit fuel FLU* a!k M.0* fc*H*UiJT FLOP* FUgL A IK HOOE «C Ci#* NOt * wt1Urticu b$ic D 3 C i» ~ tfbHUc~~ rig*. hlLlI ft t H KH KC/aiN KG/MIN kg/*im HATJi! fph FPn FPU An G/KW r»n 0/f" Hrf U/Kk nn (./KG i 7HU U. 0 U, il . oiu S.3S ^.30 .ilUb 1 Ibb SI 1 i b3 (J.UI) It H i.7 i l?hO 3U.H 1, 1 • U 7b n.8* • MUd e iSu 131 esi .si ie. ?3 SH.7b J • 7 3 i*bo 3 70. 3 1H.M .ili 1 li . 1 b 1U.30 .0*1 3 i id 3? 1US£ 3. HI • «e l.CU 3d. Kb 3.? * l^bii ?so.a SS.tl .37b 11.us 11.?? .U13 1 11* 10U i*n ?.< 8 b6 ens tei* IS. B8 l.bl U.SJ 3.b «* a liiii es?.o lRa.t .737 ei.ua *1 . 7b • It 3 S *1 IS ISU me lS.Uti .IS i.C? lrf.3* 3. b 1U inu S?b.H 1 ib . 8 . S 3b IK. Jd jn.ie . Of?*! 1M So n? *Ui? 111. IS .*s 1 . *>b 11. !*• i.b U .b crcte COHPOSITk BSHC * .see &k*M/K* »*H ti$CO* S e.bi? nft C»SM0£t4S 13.>1* GHAft/Km nn ItbHC * BSwOetts n.NAN3 KATE* fEH Ki, OH? * IN image: ------- Table D-5 . u-hooe federal oiesel emission c*CLE C*IERPILL*R 3'Ub OIESEL ENGINE,DIRECT INJECTION,21 project: n-ib2i-noi fuel Eh-2?2-f OEG.BTOC,*/EGR MOOE ENGINE icmuue PQ*£R fuel AIR E*M*UST fuel HUDE MC COt NO** KEIGMIEO BSmC BSCOt 0 1 cr\ SPEED FLOW FLOW FLOW AIR R»M N * H KN KG/HIN KG/HIN KG/MIN RAT 10 1 ?OU 0.0 0.0 ,021 2.12 2.IS .012 2 12bU .411.1 i.i ,0?1 1.21 1.21 .018 3 12bU 3?0.3 1B.1 .230 1.21 1.11 .OSS * 12bO ?1?,B SB.? ,101 8.SI 8.11 .01? V 12bO 1122.1 lis. I .bOI 11.30 11.10 .053 b l2bU 1103.0 m.t ,?18 13. bO 11.32 , OS 3 7 70U u.o 0.0 .021 2.12 2.15 ,012 a a ion lusu.a 212.8 ,11? 11.8? 20.82 .0*8 i 2iuu Bbl. 7 181.S .802 lb.22 17.U2 .011 10 2100 S?b,1 I2I>,I .551 13,21 13,80 ,012 n 2iou 28?,2 H.2 .m 1. b I i.lb ,03? 18 2 lull i 3,7 S.2 .ibi ?,0? J.23 .021 11 ?uo n.o 0,0 .021 2.12 2,15 .012 83N02»* H H PPH PPH PPH KN G/KH MR G/KN MR G/KR hR 1 210 Sit 208 0.00 K R H 2 208 Sb3 182 . 33 b. J? 31, 3b 18.2? 3 2S0 8(11 288 3,11 ,bb 1.2? 2. SO 1 70 112b ?08 7.81 ,18 ?.»? b.nt S 10 28bl 110 11.85 ,02 13.33 b,1? b 51 Ibli 1113 11,81 .11 ?,2b 8,12 7 210 S11 208 0,00 n R R 8 Ik 532 1Q3S 18, b2 ,o» 2, ?fe 8,81 1 20 ?1* (1? If.lb ,01 1.13 ?,2S 10 b8 ?5b 523 10,15 ,22 1. 77 S.11 11 lib 311 10* S.OS ,b? l.bS b, Ob 12 111 SSI 131 ,"•2 l.kU 11,11 1 ?, b8 13 210 S11 2U1 0,00 H K R CfCLE COMPOSITE BSMC « .221 GHAM/KN MR B3C0t s b ¦ 131 GNAH/KH MR 3SN02»»= 7.31S gram/km HR flSHC t BSN02tt: 7.S71 grah/km HH 8SFC = • 2b8KG/KM III' ~ CONVERTED TO MET HASH ~ ~ CONVERTED TO *£T BASIS »ND CuHlttcH.u iu iu./ IUTER PER KG.DRV AIR image: ------- Table D-6 . 21 --(CDC EP4 l*P DIESEL ImISSIUK CCIE Ctl*-'"ILL-x 1"'. "IS-SF.L F.Mt.l'lf ,lili'hcr 1 >:JfC I I(K, 1 S Dt'G. hTSC [til i 1 t-J'.L KSUJfcCl! iJ-ltU*I v* • « y ,'J , f11 A S,*i2 S.fc* ."Ub 2 ?y.s 3.H .u?3 «#SS 9.S2 .nu» i i c ti 0 ) 11.<5 15.li .Hi? *.7i 9.?2 »«t 11 <* lifi 3« , i ,ltb % 7 • CHS i-J l^>-'i 1*17.i 1 8 ? . U .7*2 IS.73 IS.*7 . usu 1 1 ?u" U.O O.'J , 0?b S. J9 *.22 ,on$ l* ? t •• n ?«?8. i . 2* .** 2^. ** i is 2lu U m»K* 211.* »«in3 23. i* 2-* .'it .U3«l l* C/KW G/Kfc H«< * L 1 112 30 iiii U.UU n M . I r ? 2b8 lll» i 3*» .27 n,*b 17, 33. . »l 1^ 3 219 11? cl% 1.1U *.71 IK i ? a • 2ub 120 31S 2.UU 1.77 c.r'J t, t S 1»H 171 iiS i. 1.17 2.i i ?. i« fa i if D 118 h, .*3 .Ml t. * ~ i» i bl <*St 7*7 •I.LiU 1 1 i i« u bU f 77 7.^8 .13 ?.&«~ b. * 7 2b bfll ^22 U.UU 1 I I 1U 12 b2ir Ut2 U.U'J 1 I 1 li 1 IK h«i 1^1 O.uu H If - 17 b"2 7.10 .Ob 2« ;<* w 3"» 1 13 1* t 3a bUl 1 *.lb .Ob 2 , b 7 b. Si 1 !«~ 20 2 tin S ^ ? li . 1 (J .0? 1 ,«U fc. 1 IS 23 cUU Sir 12. S* .ott 1 • t ? b. •s 1 Ih } o,uo I I I l 2U 1HR 1 7t* 1 ?2 o.uu 1 1 I 1 21 132 107 IbS 0,00 K H •? 1 cycle COMPOSITE BSHC = .*77 GRAM/Kh HM BSCV» s £ ,2 7*1 GHAM/Kw MM HSli02* ~ = 7,121 GHAH/k^ mK BSHC * B5N02»*= 7,b^b* GWah/k., Mk BSfC - .nsm/'.i Hk ~ CONVEHIEO TO «£t tt»SI3 *» CONVERTED 10 «f.T H*S1!> A'lU UUHRfcCTEO 10 10,? Mlu.it.Hi WATER PEH KU tlllT »1 •< image: ------- Table D-7. 21 -*Cuf CP* F»p DIt:iEL E~2SSIUN C*CLE C*TE»»lLl*rf ItHh OlESEl E*GInF,9HECT INJECTIU«, I P PEG. ()T."C TfST I -iuN g fitti PROJECT: ttST Jiff MODE f.N'.-IsE TUH'juE P0«EH ft'St. AlK ElHi.JSI TUEi SPUu flo* HO* rio* A J f? nam KG/HI*. Mi/HJN KG/mIN H* 11 0 I ?uu n#» ,U3i S.Sb s,s<* ,01)% if 12bU 2*.5 3.a , II 73 <«,bb <*, 7* ,UOR 3 12b»J lib. 3 IS.3 «112 <1,87 <1, 3 8 ,011 * i2VJ £ b 1 , I 3*.S ,170 «.*S 10.12 .01 7 S I ? hll 3b3.2 17,1 • 217 1II * 25 1 (I . h b .021 b 12bO 7?l,u MS.S .378 11.HS 11,83 .033 ? i2bu 10b7,2 1*3,1 , SbO 13,21 13.77 .r>*2 8 i?bu il8?.|) 1S b , b , b 1 U 13,78 11,39 , 0** H it'b-j 1331.8 175.7 ,b*l 1*.31 1*,«<9 .0*8 III 12*9 1H31.S 1 8 9 , ** ,7*8 1*.82 lS.Sb • US1 !1 ?nu 0,0 0,11 ,U27 5,27 5.2* , iiuS 1? 210U ll)*?, 1 22«*,2 ,**6 21,23 25,23 ,011 19 21UU ,* 211,1 , 8*i8 23,if 2* .08 , II 3«» 1* 21110 US?,11 188,1 , 7 «l«l 21.b* 2?,*9 ,m? 15 ^UHI 785,8 1?2,8 Cx.lb 21.90 .035 lb 2iuu 522, 3 111,8 ,S?S 18.31 18,83 ,1121 1? eiuu ebi.i S?,s ,3 3b lb.22 ib.Sb .1121 18 21HU 18?.s *1.2 , 28S lS.7«i lb.0? .018 1 ** 2100 83,1 18,3 • 21S IS. 3*? IS.bU .011 20 21HII 21,* 7 .172 H.9S 15,12 ~ ail 21 'ou ». u o.n ,02b 5,31 S.3b • litis -lb-?? MODE "C CQt '<0»» '.EIG«irO ti5"C H3C!/» mj «ll PHM PPM PPM «» C/Kli hK G/M. h» ti/-» — a 1 171 1 31 177 U.UQ 1* a 12 2 272 223 1 ib ,27 20.Si 33. „ I , , 12 3 23* 2*1 212 1,12 1. * 3 1 •, 12 * ?1S 2*1 Hi* 2,10 1,8* *.ii : ,5. 12 5 1 *7 2Sb 31 u 1,73 i.2* i.f* 12 b lib 2bb 512 b » ^ 7 • *2 1 »'*! 12 7 S2 SS8 713 11,00 1 1 12 8 3b b* 3 752 7 , b 7 ,1U .1.^^ 13 N 20 7S? ?*b o,uo i I 13 10 7 813 809 U,Uu I I 13 11 113 108 1BU o.uu w H li 12 1* *82 blO 7,33 .nb 3 • Uti b.35" 13 13 23 *13 s<** 1* , lb ,UH 2.^2 - • ^ * 13 11 2S *71 Sh 3 8,10 3.2b 13 IS 30 179 511 12.bl .11 3.V2 12 lb Si 373 J 78 8. 48 ,2b 3,b* s.-; ie 1? 101 35b 2U? U. JU 1 I 1c 18 ISO 312 191 3,2b 1.7U 7.71 11 1* 1*0 373 1*S 0,00 i ( 1J 20 228 3b* lib 0,00 I I 11 21 1 b 3 117 lb8 o,uo k K' i; CYCLE COMPOSITE 03HC s • SIS Gr( A.H/Ri» H« RSCO* S 3,713 URAM/K* Nf n$Hoe**s b,tb8 G«AH/K^f HH HSHC ~ HSN02**= 7.182 orah/k« HH HSFC = • 275KG/K* HH ~ CONVERTED TO *ET HASI5 • ~ CONVERTED TO nF.T BASIS *NQ CORRECTED TO 10.? cllLl'-'-: : *»IEH HEH KG OR* *1W image: ------- Table D-8. m-mo Jc ~'tt-tW-'.l. alf.Sct £«JSS1U» C*CUf cate»"*it-'-a^ J"ib tiiesEL fc'JU!-i£, yi-Ecr iHjncnnN, ib •jcg. ^".'C ItSI 1 HUN I f IJH. : f.-tfi-f PKfiJtCli 1 t-th'3-UUl !£5T O'.rf li-li'77 ftuut* £ 'Jy I *'f. Wits r 'JH-M't f*o»en no « All' PLOW EXHAUST FLOM "JFL '»Ot)e MC El'*- NQ« + »£1GHTE0 ysi-c B$CO» oSNoat* hu;* nit *>P M U A •' K * K x i y Sb* ?.5? .-ii . b.hM 15 s J ?b«> m.i l?.«*h 13. Si s lr* ~ 5* ?3<4 i 1 • JO »l» «i.5? •s,?* 15 *1 !?5«i 1*1?,? m.M i?.?b 13.5U .U5I? b 1? bl? 7<*U . ni ?, 5b 15 7 ?th» ti.fi U.li . *J image: ------- Table D-9. i.-mudf. fel> m.i jIEStt E"iss cctt CAI£«»Mt.i.A» "mi. B'CSEL t -M.l'iE, UI«£CT l.\J£CT I0M, IK ItU. -true Jc5I I 4>s:t 5 Putt: EM-f5J-F CliClJECT! 1 l-'.hSJ-ltlll TES! DATc 1? nUUt fUMQUE POnfc*« FUEL Aid EXHAUST MIEL Efe'U f lu*c KLUW fte* MR n x m ~.* KS/M{N Kii/ni,*; ku/'un HAT in 1 flit' t).*l u. a • «3I S,5* 5.55 ,UUb 4 IShii ee.s 3.a ,U?H M.hb 7* .(108 3 iebu 3b*.e *?.<* .*17 io.es If).lb .uei * i?b» 7e«*.u . 378 U.iS 11.33 .1133 5 Ic-bU 106?.? i*3.h . ShtJ 13.ei 1?. ?7 .tue b IPb'J i*n,5 1 R8 . <1 » 7i8 i*.B? IS.Sb .usi ? 7iJ« Q • 0 U.li ~ oe? 5.e? s.e* . U U 5 8 a i uu 1(1*2.1 ee^.e 3*,?3 es.ei .0*1 q 21UU 7bS.8 172,9 . ?18 ei,jb ei .^o .035 1U emo sea. 3 11 * . 8 .ses ie.il 13.83 ,ue«i 11 iiQL ebi. i 5?,* ,33b ib.?e Ib.Sb .oei 1 i eiUU ei.* *,7 • 17? 1*.*S is.ie .ui i 13 ?uo u.n n.y .o^b S . 3* 5. 3b . U05 lh-T7 «Ul>E 1C CL. 'EIGMTEO fsS*C iJStl'* bVlOf" PPM PHM PF" K" c;/k* U/Kh HH G/Krt M> 1 m m le' O.kO * A « e e?e e?3 lie .30 eo.Si 33. "5 3 1M7 est irb 3.83 i.e* S.e'* 7.10 * lib ?bb s$e ?.b* ,ie l.Nl b.87 s se sse 3*3 11. .lb 3.11 b. 8U b i 81 3 del 15.1J .Oe 3.h8 b.** 7 113 ICS 1<*2 O.UD n X K n 1* tee bc'< 18.33 .Ob 3.UK b.bO image: ------- Table D-10. 21-*ooe £"« t*» oiesti emission c»cle C4IECPRL4H s»»h niESEl E'iUInE, OlMECI INJECTION, 31 ,)E6,BT0C TEST 1 HUN I FuCli f.n-171'f PKoJtCT: lESf out MODE E*Gl*£ TU«UU£ f U*E« FUEL *1* E fuel SPEED FLO* HOn FLO" AIR PP* h * n *« KG/«I* K&/MJN HATJO 1 ?un 0.0 o.n .031 5.3$ 5.31 ,UOh 2 iefau 28.s 3.a .071 1,2 7 1.35 .008 3 12bO 101.2 I*.* .110 i. 3b 1. * 7 .012 •» 12bO 2lb.1 32. b .172 l.bO 1.77 .HI a 5 i2bo 3i 1. 8 15.1 • 21$ 1.fa8 1,111 .022 fa iefau b83.7 10,2 # lb* 10.hb 1 1.02 .H 3^ ? 12b0 i*2S,5 135.3 .522 12.15 12.b7 .m 3 R 12bO 1120.5 1*7.8 .Sbl 12.51 13.*18 .0*5 1 I2b0 less.? lfafc.il ,bifa 13.55 li.ll .018 10 12bO 137b.1 181.7 .722 1 * . * 8 15.20 • 050 11 >110 o.o 0,0 .02* s.rn 5.0b * .005 12 210(1 una.b 213.3 ,1b8 22.27 23,2* .0*1 13 aioo 1035,0 22?,H .883 21.*1 22.37 .1)11 li 21 oo 123.i 2H3. 1 .800 20.55 21.35 .031 IS 21 no 8*5.1 m.a .731 11.73 20.17 .037 lb 2100 5b2,b 123,' .533 17. i* 17. bfe .031 1? 2100 282,5 b2 . 1 ,33^ 15.55 15.81 .022 SB 2100 2*»1 .8 1* . * .283 15.13 15. *1 .011 1*1 2 IliO 10.2 H.8 , 208 H.ife 11.b? .011 20 21 HQ 21. i i. ? ,lb5 li ,1 7 Ai#h3 .011 21 700 0.0 0.0 .02b 5.52 5.55 .005 ,-77 NullE "C CU» «0»» "EI&ITEO M»HC «SCU« M$Nue»» I PpH PPM pp* &/<* U/Km h« G/*# 1 330 111 2 ilfc o.ua n H »< 2 27i qq-» 252 .27 11.81 113.50 51.b8 3 2b(i 751 H*» 1.05 1.17 28,51 30,17 •» 2*5 3i» 1215 1.11 Mi b.Ob 3i,72 5 2ib 231 15?b l.b2 1.5? 3,Ui 32,15 b 131 305 17H1 b.58 .IB 2.1b 20.11 7 *b 112 1 ?*«* u.UO i I 1 8 h 7 1 3b2 1M1 7.21 .17 b.H 13.b* q <*q 182** 1512 0.00 I ! i 10 27 2H0 11 h 2 0.00 1 1 I 11 3ib 1221 15 0.00 W k H 12 51 378 lhN? 7,t»Q • lb 2.U1 15.32 13 18 3b3 170b 15.25 .1* 2.U? 15.17 li *5 355 1 b58 8. 73 • 1* 2.1b ifa.bO 15 51 310 157b 13.57 .lb 2,17 lb.53 lb bN 2b 3 135b 1, u3 .28 2,18 18, 17 88 251 10b2 0.00 i I 1 18 1H 217 87U 3.51 ,11 5,11 28.71 11 135 131 Sbl 0.00 1 I 1 ?n 1 ?l 581 380 0.00 1 1 i 21 211 1 lb 7 111 o.uu M i< U £*CU COMPOSITE BS«C s • b28 G»*a«/km H» ascu* s 5.UH Gxai/km ri* 8SWQ2*» s 18.Sbl &MA«/«* BSHC ~ 8S*02** s 11.H2 GRAm/kh HK BSFC - .£blKG/KK H* ~ coNvtxrti) to bet a«sis ~ ~ COMVEhTEO TO »ET BASIS »M0 CORBECTEO 10 10. J «I|.UI6H*«S •UTEH PER KG OR* AIM image: ------- Table 0-11. 21-HOUt IP* £*C DlEStL EMI5SIUX cycle C«IEPPILL*H Stub OUSEL ENGINE, D1»ECT INJECTION, 33 OEG.BTUC test i »un i Futit tproject: u-*<>a3-uui test o*te *ODE engine TOMQUE PU«Eri FUEL AlN EXHAUST FUEL $*EED FLO* FLO* FLO" AIR «Pm NUN K* KG/*i* HC/MXN RATIO »• 1 7oo o.o 0.0 .0 30 5.15 5.18 .00b 2 1 2bO 28.s 3.8 .071 *.h1 <*.?? .1108 3 12bU 10s!.? I*,* .112 1. 75 1.8b .011 * 12b0 2*b,1 32. b .1^5 1.87 in.os * 01R s 12bO 3**.2 *5.* .215 1.15 10.17 • 022 b i2bo HPh.l 10.5 . 3b2 11.0* 11.*0 .033 7 12b0 10 111, 3 1 35.9 • 52 3 12.** 12.1b .0*2 8 l2bll 1132. * 1*1.* .575 12.81 1 3.*b .o*s 1 iebu i?b5.3 lbb.1 ,b50 13.70 1*. 35 .0*? IU 12bO 1381.b 182.3 .?23 1*. 7b 15.*8 #4.uw li 7110 0,0 o.n .030 5.05 5.08 .OUb 12 2100 1125,2 2*7.* .IS* 22.71 23. bb .0*2 I* 21 uO 1031.8 228.b .8*18 21.13 22.82 .0*0 1* 21UU *2*.8 203.b ,8ii2 20.1b 21.77 .038 IS 2 ioo 8*7.5 18b.* .?3« 2U.30 21.0* .l»3H lb 2UIU StiS.O 12*.2 • 53b 17.13 !».*? .030 1 7 2 11HJ 28*.1 ha.b .331 15.8* lb. 18 .021 18 2100 2ft*»2 H*.1 .28* 15.5b 15.8* .018 11 2l»U 0(1.2 n.R .207 15.00 15.21 .01* ao 2 inn 11.0 *.2 .173 15.00 iS.l? .012 21 700 0.0 0.0 . U 3b 5.51 5.55 .007 it-?? «Q0E MC Cut HO** *EIG»T£0 8S*C ISS*02** PPm P#>M PPM i*/*m rtH G/KK Mk G/ft* rt* 1 JbH 112b 15 0.00 H H H 2 308 lObS 21? .«?7 23.il lbO.bS 52.*b 3 27* 815 *2 7 1.05 5.*b 32. J* 27.80 * 250 3** 1015 1 .SI 2.?* b . 1 * 32.1? 5 232 285 15* H 1.63 l.bl 3.70 33.00 b 1*11 3*0 1808 b.bl .51 2.*8 21.bl 7 70 s* 3 1 b 70 0.00 1 1 t 8 *1 12*2 1SS1 7.32 .11 b.*1 13.38 1 2* 1 b 7U 1« 3b 0.00 1 1 I 10 ** 1873 1*30 0.00 i I I 11 372 *5 • 11 1.71 lb. 23 15 *0 277 1*88 13.oU • 1 4 l.bl lb.00 lb 5b 225 I2bl 1, u7 .2* 1.*** 17.8b 17 77 221 1017 0.00 1 1 I 18 8b 230 811 3.55 .8b *.?! 27.25 11 12R 318 538 O.UO 1 1 1 211 173 *bO 351 0.00 I I i 21 382 10b1 11 0.00 n ti H CYCLE COMPOSITE BShC = • b 32 GkAM/*« mW RSCQ* - * « b12 t;«AH/KM HH BS*02** s 18,lb2 BSHC ~ 6SN02** s 18.71* GHAH/K* n* BSFC = .ibJKG/K* HN ~ CONVERTED TO *ET BASIS .. CONVERTED TO *ET BASIS AND C.QRUECTEO 10 10.7 MILLIGRAM hATEH PE* KG QRY *IH image: ------- Table d-12. u-"ode rioE»*L diescl emission ctcie C*TE»PIlL*« J^Oh DIESEL ENGINE, DIRECT INJECTION, }i OEG. HTOC test i hun i Futi: pkojeci: test o*it "ODE ENGINE TQBIJUE PO«E» FUEL *I» E»N*uST FUEL SPEEU flcm FLO* FLO* M* RPn N X t* K« KC/MlN KG/*1N H*TIO m—m 1 1 1 1 1 « 1 1 1 1 • I • 1 ?nu 0.0 O.n ,031 5.35 5.3* .noh 2 12b0 28 »S 3.8 »o?s *.27 *,35 .008 3 *2b0 3*1.8 *5.1 .2 IS *.b « *„*0 .022 *1 mo bH3, 7 90. 2 ,3b* 10. bb 11,02 .0 3* s lib 0 ni25.s 13%. 3 .522 12.15 12.b7 .0*3 b i2bo I3?b,q 181.7 .722 1 * . * 8 IS.20 -U*0 ? 700 0,0 0.0 .0** 5.01 £,llb • 005 fl 2ino 1108.b 2*3.8 ,*b8 22.27 23.2* .0* 3 * *100 8*S.l 18%. 8 .731 1*. 7 3 2u „ * 7 ,037 10 2100 5b2.b 1*3.7 .533 17.13 17.bb , *0 3*1 11 2100 2*2. s fe2.1 • 33* 15.5S IS,8* .022 1* 2100 21.* * . 7 .IbS 1*.*? 1 * • b 3 .on 13 ?uo u.o 0,0 ,02b 5*52 5.55 .005 "OOF. HC CO* NO* ~ KEIGnTEO bShC »JlCu* BSN02* * **vn PMM KN G/K* «lR Q/nm nfe fi/KW H mmmm- 1 33U 11*2 mi o.uo K * * 2 27* SMH .Jo !*.»* 1*3.50 58,08 3 2*b 23* loBb },bi 1.57 3,w* 35.2* * 13* 30% 11H* l.ii .*8 2.1b 21.*5 5 bb H** IBi» 10.« .2 * 5,3* lb. 31 b 27 21*0 lSb>» Xt.SJ .07 10.if 12.51 7 3*b 1221 It 0.00 * H k 8 5* 378 1831 11.SO • lb 2,0* lb,b2 image: ------- Table D-13. il-nuOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE CATERPILLAR J*Ub OICSEL ENGINE, DIRECT INJECTION, 3) OEG. H!DC TEST 1 HUN I FOIL! PROJECT: H-tkJJ-noi TEST OATE MODE ENGINE rONQUC POx£« FUEl AIR E»hauST Fuel SPEEU FLO« FLO* FLO* AIR BP« N * N KH KG/HIN KG/HIN KG/M1N RATIO 1 ?UU n,n n.i) • 0 30 5.15 S.18 • 00b ~ f leto 28.S 3.8 .0?* l.bl i,?? .008 3 12b0 3**.2 *S. * -215 1.15 l»,i? • 022 * 12bU b8b.l *0.5 ,3b2 11.0* 11.HO .031 5 X?bU 10)0,9 135.1 .523 12.** 12. .0*2 b 12bU 1301.b 182,3 • '23 l*.?b 15.*8 .0*«» 7 ?U0 u.o 0.0 , U30 5.US 5,08 •unb 8 2100 lies, i 22. ?1 23.bb .0*2 1 am B*?.S iBb,* .?31 20. 30 21.0* • 03b IU 2 i UiJ SbS.P i 2*.2 .Sib 1?.U 18.*? 11 2inu 28*.i b2.b .339 IS. 8* lb.18 .n?i 12 2ion 11.0 *•2 .1?3 is.nri 15.1? .U12 13 7on o.n O.il .03b 5.51 5.55 .00? "QUE *C CO* NO** «EI6«T£0 BS«C 8SCU* HSNO?«* PPM ppn PPM K" G/Kft MH (,/*« HH G/A* Ml wmmmmmmi 1 3bB 112b bS o.uu H M k ? 308 10b5 112 .30 23.31 lbO.bS * ? . 5* 3 232 28S 155* 3.el i.Sl 3 , ?U JJ.iS H 1H0 3*0 1?K2 ?, 2* • 51 2.*a 21.3? s ?0 1 K 8 32 32? 1 ?S5 1*1, ?1 .0** l.bl IS.*8 q *0 2?? 155? l*.1i .li l.bl Ib.'S iu Sfc 225 13*0 <1,1* .2* l.M IB.Itl 11 ?? 229 10S* 5.U1 .5* 3.*3 JS.IJ 12 1?3 *bfl 132 ,i3 18.2* 1b.b2 13 382 10bl 88 O.UO H H CYCLE COMPOSITE BShC 2 .52b G H« 8SC0* = 5.3^5 UK*H/K« HK BSNU£t*s 17.1b* gram/km HR BShC ~ asNU2»*s 18.*15 GMAM/KH MR 8SFC s «2b?ftG/K* HK ~ CONVERTED TO *ET BASIS *~ CONVERTEO TO WET BASIS AND CORRECTtD 10 10.7 MILLIGRAM KATER PER KG OR* *10 image: ------- Table D-14. 21-*ooe epa e*p ousel emission c»cli PROJECT I li-HJl-BOl TESt OATE TEST *0,1 ENOIXEl CATE*PIU.A* JlOfc INDIRECT INJECTION Putt EN>»*-P m*mmm mmmmmmmm mm * mmmmmm mmmmmm HOOt EMi!*€ T0»QU£ POw£R FUEL AJR £*N*USI fuel 5*flD FLOW FLO * FLO* MR RPm N * w Kir KG/*!* KG "I" ***10 • • * ¦ • mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm m+mmmm 1 bOO 0.0 0,0 ,02b *•21 *»2b .Job i 1*00 2b.1 1,8 .00? 10,00 10.10 .010 3 1*00 I0b,8 IS.? .1?* 1,8? 10.1111 ,013 1 1*00 n«,fi 3S.1 ,18b 10. IS 10.1* ,018 s 1*00 ii*,? **.1 ,228 10.1b 10,si .022 b 1*30 bb?, 1 17,8 , 38* ii.n 12,10 ,013 7 1*00 1001,8 l*b.* ,S8b 1* , bb 1S.2S ,0*0 8 1*00 10**.* IbQ.* . b* * IS.*? lb.12 .0*2 4 1*00 122?.1 l»ts • ?2b lb.*8 1?,12 .0*% io 1*00 13*3.b 1«?.0 .812 1 ?,28 18,0* ,0* ? ii bOO 0.0 0.0 • 02b *.?b *.?* .005 12 2100 1113.* 2M.I 1.03? 2* . * 1 2S.** ,0*2 11 2 100 1010.1 22b.S ,H3 21.3? 2*.13 ,0*1 1* 2100 *18. ? 202.0 . 8S8 21.b? 22.S3 ,0*0 IS 21OQ 8*0.* 18*,f ,??? 20,b2 21,*0 ,038 lb 2100 Sb0.2 121.2 .5*1 lb.75 1?.2* ,032 1? 2100 240.1 bl,b .11? l*,bS 1*.** .023 18 2100 !«*,* *1.8 ,28? 1* , 2* 1».S1 ,020 11 2100 12.1 20.* »2H 13.81 l*.Ob • 01b 20 2100 i*,0 *.2 ,1?? 11,83 1*,01 .013 21 bOO 0.0 0.0 ,031 *# ?b *•?* .00? mooc MC CO* NO** HIISHTCO 6SNC 83C0* 89N02" MUM. «!Lf l>f»N Pp* KK C/Hf MR G/K* Xft G/KM hR G/i mmwmrnmmm mmmt i 120 *11 82 9.00 fi R tf 2 1*8 *b* ? 3 ,28 11.3b ?0,*b 18.2* 3 112 *33 13S i.l* 2,08 lb, 03 8,23 fc. * ?2 2b0 301 2.1* , b2 *,** 8.** b. S Sb 1?3 *11 1.?? . 3S 2.1? 8,S3 *. b 28 11* * ?2 ?.l* ,10 ,83 S.bS fc. ? 12 1** SOS O.QO 2 1 1 b. e 30 221 533 ?,8b .0* 1,2* §,10 b. q * 32? sso 0,00 t I I b, 10 b 3?? 561 0.00 1 I 1 b. 11 b8 **b *3 0,00 K 0 k b. 12 2* lbb b** 7,83 .0? l.UO b«*2 b. 13 2* Ibb 700 IS* 18 • 08 1.0* ?.lb b. 1* 32 lb? bso 1." .10 1,08 b,*Q fc. IS *0 1*0 bOO 13.** .13 .** b , bl b. lb 12 as S13 8,0* .OS .** ?,12 b* 1? 28 lib *28 0.00 1 I I b. 18 32 1*S 33? 3,*b • 31 2,?* 10.b2 %. 1* •»* 20* 208 0,00 1 1 I b. 20 bO 2*2 1*1 0,00 1 1 I b, 21 Ob 382 b* 0.0O * a R b. CYCLE COMPOSITE 8SHC * .23* G*A*/*N HR 83C0* * 2.0** GfUM/K» MR 89NQ2*«« ?.0S* G8&M/K* MR 6SMC ~ 8SN02**« ?.2*2 dHkH/tm HR 83FC • ,2?S*G/HW MR ~ CON¥£*TfO TO KIT IASIS ~ ~ CONVERTEO TO WET BASIS ANO CORHECTEO To 10,> HIUIGBaaS hater PER *S OK* AIR image: ------- t X J\ « « SNO • I * * t • • I • • ~ or « • ~ i i i I *v • • O XI • * tf I • XI • 0 U • J4JOOOO *'or******** • a » o«u o r MtiMMoe «* ¦0 ¦* j» M e* * • COno« r>» • «aioj»ooo^»n«onoe< I 19 X I • 0 N I • (9 I • • » a i I teJ I IX I > • NUMBS • t ~ ~ I ~ »j»fW^>b«t ~ ~ • ~ * ~ ¦* iv IO a. I uooou IX & I ZUZXlk • I «•»>}•)« ft mmmm m • • to & 1 ¦ •« •< H««ivnw u in m •» n c « £ O. I » > I4» * * *- OOl UUK • i Ik. I o • • -J at •* • O f" w O fW r r>» ¦3 m — v m f» 0 o jn J )T c W I O I'M A *¦ # »¦ # o 0 0 m m m t%i nu -4-*o fW 1 z> <* «c t o o o o o a O c o oooeoooooooo m a «k at • » • 1 • i A* X • • • 1*1 a •» w o • m X t _l X -4 i 3 X •>+ • 0 i* r* * rv »*¦ »¦ nw ¦ ««ntA¦ •- 3 i T J X u » te. M *. O * # o o ~V V* t/i tel • Itt X • x • • o * i t O • X • «* « M -* • *J «V k» o •» M »- i at O X • * • V fl *w * * v » or* j# U i _l -V I • • X • w i 1*. IS I # fro o r 0 0 a j* 0 + m m 0 4*1 ui «rrv«r »r>i*icr » _J X « o o -« -« nyi m «» ooir CMi»mito^«o O «• ft o •« » • *• M. «s • • * * • • * • • * * • • . • • • » » » a o * M *- * • kU 9% • or • w » btf X o *#»#<•«« s* tft ¦m m * JCDHIVO • X * 1 • • • • a « ft. Jt • o • o <"K«tA «r a» ifi o w o # « > ft. i • -« «¦* 0 taJ X i • IU 1 1 H •s O ll * X ft. w • i • n o X • t n* m + ** Jft fs <0 r OT I- D-16 image: ------- Table D-16. u-«ooe rtoE»»t. oiestL (mission c»cle P10JECT1 J-OOJ test o»te test no.i encinEi c»te»cill»r i*Ok Indirect injection run. E«-ji<-r «ooi ensile To»oue po*i* ruEL «ir e*»*usi rust 3»EEQ fLO* *10« *LQ" AIR RP* H x n KM K6/*IN flit JO i *00 0.0 0,0 ,02b Ml *.2b ,00b 2 HOG 2*.l 3.8 ,o«? 10.00 10.10 .010 3 1*0*J 13*. > •*. I ,228 10,3b 10»S* ,022 % MOO *7,8 .38* 11.*1 1#. 10 .033 $ MOO 1001.H l«b,* ,S8b l*.bb 1S.2S .0*0 b i«*oo 1**3.b n?,o »81•< ••••••••« •»•••»•«»•«¦• 1 uo *11 b 3 0.00 R R w b. 2 * 118 »b» b 3 .31 11.3b 70.«b 1%. 7 3 b.? 3 lb l?l *JS 3.*3 .31 2.1? 8, R* b#2 * 28 11* SI 7 ',82 .10 • 83 b.l« b.2 S i i 1"* 112 11, ?S ,0* 1.1? *. ?s b.2 b % 377 bib IS.'b .02 2.U1 5.*? b.b 7 bS **b 83 0,00 N R N b,fc 8 Ibb 7 IS i«.si ,0? i.to 7,2? b.b * *0 1*10 bU 1*. ?8 .13 b,?* b.? 10 a 8$ si? «,8b .OS .bR b.M b.» H 28 lib *#3 .20 1 . b* R,bO 1* bO 2*2 lit .33 s.tb Sb, *2 37,80 *.* 13 *b 388 *s 0*00 H R 0 C*CLE COMPOSITE 89HC a ,i?b G8AM/K* MR ®9C0* ¦ 1,131 GRAM/KM MR 89«02*«> b.*SO »ft AH/KM MR B3HC ~ 89N02**" 7.1?b GRAM/KM MR B9FC a •2?2KG/K« H* ~ CO*VtRTE0 TO met 8A9I9 ~ ~ CONVERTED TO wit 6*919 AND COKUCCHO *0 10.7 «ILLIGR**5 *A?€R PER kg OR* AIR image: ------- Table D-16. u-«ooe rtoE»»t. oiestL (mission c»cle P10JECT1 J-OOJ test o»te test no.i encinEi c»te»cill»r i*Ok Indirect injection run. E«-ji<-r «ooi ensile To»oue po*i* ruEL «ir e*»*usi rust 3»EEQ fLO* *10« *LQ" AIR RP* H x n KM K6/*IN flit JO i *00 0.0 0,0 ,02b Ml *.2b ,00b 2 HOG 2*.l 3.8 ,o«? 10.00 10.10 .010 3 1*0*J 13*. > •*. I ,228 10,3b 10»S* ,022 % MOO *7,8 .38* 11.*1 1#. 10 .033 $ MOO 1001.H l«b,* ,S8b l*.bb 1S.2S .0*0 b i«*oo 1**3.b n?,o »81•< ••••••••« •»•••»•«»•«¦• 1 uo *11 b 3 0.00 R R w b. 2 * 118 »b» b 3 .31 11.3b 70.«b 1%. 7 3 b.? 3 lb l?l *JS 3.*3 .31 2.1? 8, R* b#2 * 28 11* SI 7 ',82 .10 • 83 b.l« b.2 S i i 1"* 112 11, ?S ,0* 1.1? *. ?s b.2 b % 377 bib IS.'b .02 2.U1 5.*? b.b 7 bS **b 83 0,00 N R N b,fc 8 Ibb 7 IS i«.si ,0? i.to 7,2? b.b * *0 1*10 bU 1*. ?8 .13 b,?* b.? 10 a 8$ si? «,8b .OS .bR b.M b.» H 28 lib *#3 .20 1 . b* R,bO 1* bO 2*2 lit .33 s.tb Sb, *2 37,80 *.* 13 *b 388 *s 0*00 H R 0 C*CLE COMPOSITE 89HC a ,i?b G8AM/K* MR ®9C0* ¦ 1,131 GRAM/KM MR 89«02*«> b.*SO »ft AH/KM MR B3HC ~ 89N02**" 7.1?b GRAM/KM MR B9FC a •2?2KG/K« H* ~ CO*VtRTE0 TO met 8A9I9 ~ ~ CONVERTED TO wit 6*919 AND COKUCCHO *0 10.7 «ILLIGR**5 *A?€R PER kg OR* AIR image: ------- a * . • 3 • • X ] • • ~ • * • • o I M I m » «b i « i • ~ at i i « «< o » * >44004' t ***¦*> + »o »¦©¦#•• ivi ^ fw rv r m X l«n«r * *r * »t «•*# \ \ x \ # X «* ZXXIX o m w m *• '¦ ttfi or » ri l ~ * ~ • o i i x i # #«r w«r a a nriAi/i * + «* < a o o o o o o O 3 O o o c o m • it. ar a $ * a * w 1 • • w • *- a Ikl o • •> V a -J * -j 1 33 * • # •¦v • W» i#» « iS> o 41 u ttJ • < o r a # m kit m ft> *1* IW ~ m «*» >. »- "J 1 1 _» N. a u ¦» k • X u. u a • «r on*** m *»/».* fs. + «% • w * a * • a a ar a a o 1 * «n 1 S •* a » r>- m O %f» I%t *¦ « -H IV «* • t» 1 a o s a # » « * m -• X • • Jt Ik4 1 *¦• » • • * i a ¦* • _j * o «#> r am + r m*. m w es 9 Wi • w O x a r*i « mr bi mt rw m f*> «r B» >- Ml 3 _1 V « O © «* ** %* m o o * m -+ O o < « o +* i Ik i*. a a a • * • • • * ' -J * * * * • J o I «c H * a a ar ft *-• • ar hJ M I w V a e *.-» * «w Q 1 ? #»• ^ o O • s « 1*1 M • © a O "> Ai on o i j • ar mt a •V "I.N O */* a »n i* m *i n m _j ¦ o »* « © ft fV *** «¦* A (k. # or • Ml ¦ • • w ar a a i r o a O o o o o o o o o o o o o 4T • m r a o o o o o o o o o o o o o h U • o wa a ^ • # ~ # J» -• r if 7 1 * o -• m or x • o a •9 & M a * • D-18 image: ------- TABLE D-18. SUMMARY Or EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM CATERPILLAR 3406 28* (STANDARD TlttlNG) Engine Concentration Particulate Sate rpm/load % Rot. mg/m3 g/fcr g/kg fuel g/kv-hr 1260/02 1 25. ,86 12. .80 3.37 2.84 2 24. .17 12. .00 3.16 2.73 3 22. .56 11. .16 2,94 2.54 Avg 24. .20 11. .99 3.16 2.70 1260/25 1 26. ,91 13. .95 1.08 0.28 t 4. 25. .50 13. .26 1.03 0.27 3 25. .16 13. ,04 1.01 0.26 Avg 25. .86 13. .42 1.04 0.27 1260/50 1 42. .64 24, .90 1.10 0.25 2 40. ,79 23, .76 1.06 0.24 3 42. .89 24. .53 1.10 0.25 Avg 42. ,11 24, .40 1.09 0.25 1260/75 1 61. .36 40, .86 1.25 0.28 2 67. . 34 44. .70 1.36 0. 30 3 62. ,80 41. .85 1.28 0.28 Avg 63. .83 42. .47 1.30 0.28 1260 '10 1 132. .75 99, .48 2.34 0.52 2 132. .94 101, .69 2.35 0.52 i 124. .49 94, .90 2.20 0.49 Avg 110, .06 98, .69 2.30 0.51 I-le ! 29. .55 ?. .81 5.-1 2 31. .76 8 .40 5.60 —- i 23. .90 ~.92 5.28 Avg 33, .40 8.04 5,36 21 0'1 ; 1 o9 .88 .64 1.91 .44 2 84. .63 1 1. .69 1.73 C.42 3 85. .10 10J. .76 1.77 0.41 Avg 66. .55 101, .70 1,82 0.42 2100/75 1 57. ,63 .46 i. 39 0.33 2 57. .53 So, .70 1.4 0.33 1 59. .93 63, .31 1,47 0.34 Avg 58. .40 61, .49 1.42 0. 33 2100/50 1 66. .19 65, .05 2.04 0.52 *> 71. .61 71, .47 2.23 . 5 h 67. .41 69. .48 2.18 0-56 Avg 66. .40 6S. .67 2.15 a «;;; 2100/2$ 1 56. .85 42. .92 2.15 0.69 57. .72 47 .05 2.35 0.76 1 52. .64 46 .28 2.31 0.75 Avg -5. ,74 45. .42 2.27 3,73 1 34. .24 25 .56 2.*« 4, « _ 41. .98 3: .20 22 i 44 . 36 32. .97 >.40 6,34 AV<3 40. . 1? .91 3.0-* 5.75 D- 19 image: ------- TABLE D-19. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE CATERPILLAR 3406, 28* (STANDARD TIMING) Engine rpa/t Load Concentration «l/hr mg/kg fuel oAH-hr % Sulfur Recovery 126C/2 3 Avg 813.8 394-9 799.4 836.0 402.71 444,27 395.S6 414.18 89.49 100.97 89.90 93.45 105.98 116.91 104.09 10S.9* 1.27 1.43 1.27 1.32 1260/25 1 2 3 Avg 3290.6 3524.8 3407.7 1706.48 Filter Lost 1826.44 1766.46 132.29 134.13 133.21 34.47 36.90 35.69 1.88 1.90 1.89 1260/50 1 2 3 Avg 4349.2 4669.9 4717.3 4578.8 2540.11 2720.20 2696.71 2652.34 112.39 120.90 121,56 118.28 25.74 27.56 27.34 26.88 1.59 1.71 1.72 1.67 1260/75 1 2 3 Avg 4760.7 4056.2 3952.2 4256.4 3169.88 2692.56 2633.94 2832.13 96.64 82.09 80.55 86.43 21.49 18.25 17.82 19.19 1.37 1.16 1.14 1.22 1260/100 1 2 3 Avg 5066.1 5448.0 5014.1 5176.1 3796,54 4167.37 3822.18 3928.70 89.31 96.47 88.48 91.43 19.98 21.70 19.88 20.52 1.27 1.37 1.25 1.30 Idle 1 2 3 Avg 1694.8 1455.4 1804.9 1651.7 447.83 384.71 478.07 436.87 298.55 256.47 318.71 291.24 4.23 3.64 4.52 4.13 2100/100 1 2 3 Avg 4935.2 4866.7 4943.8 4915.3 5965.28 5844.24 5853.36 5887.63 104.65 102.53 103.05 103.41 24.35 23.85 23.94 24.05 1.48 1.45 1.46 1.46 2100/75 Avg 4009.o 4231.4 4769.3 4336.8 4202.54 4460.92 5038.81 4567.42 96.61 103,02 11C-.9I 105.51 22.86 24.: 2~.43 24.86 1.37 1.46 1.66 1.50 2100/50 3 Avg 4800.1 4537.8 4472.1 4603.3 4717.55 4528.57 4608.98 4618.3 7 147.89 141.52 144.48 144.63 2.10 2.01 2.05 2.05 2100/25 1 2 3 Avg 2793.9 3125.5 3558.0 3155.8 2269.53 2547.68 2896.62 2571.28 113.48 127.38 144.83 128.56 36.55 41.02 46.64 41.40 1.61 1.81 2.OS 1.82 2100/2 3 Avg 1712.4 2099.9 1914.0 1908.8 1249.32 1560."3 1422.64 1410.90 128.80 160.90 146.66 145.45 240.25 300.14 271.58 271.32 1.83 2.28 2.08 2.06 D-20 image: ------- TABLE D-20. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES CATERPILLAR 3406 DI 28° (Run 15 (13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors) rpm % Load Power kw Fuel kg/hr Part, g/hr so4= mg/hr Wgt. Fact. Power kw Weighted Fuel Part. kg/hr g/hr so4= mg/hr 700 — — 1.8 7.81 447.83 0.067 — 0.121 0.523 30.01 1260 2 3.8 4.5 12.80 402.71 0.08 0.304 0.360 1.024 32.22 1260 25 49.5 12.9 13.95 1706.48 0.08 3.960 1.032 1.116 136.52 1260 50 98.7 22.6 24.90 2540.11 0.08 7.896 1.808 1.992 203.21 1260 75 147.5 32.8 40.86 3169.83 0.08 11.800 2.624 3.26 253.59 1260 100 189.5 42.5 99.48 3796.54 0.08 15.16 3.40 7.9S 303.72 700 — — 1.8 7.81 447.83 0.067 — 0.121 0.52 30.01 2100 100 244.5 57.0 108.64 5965.28 0.08 19.56 4.56 8.69 477.22 2100 75 183.7 43.5 60.46 4202.54 0.08 14.70 3.48 4.83 336.20 2100 SO 124.2 31.9 65.05 4717.55 0.08 9.936 2.552 5.20 377.40 2100 25 62.1 20.0 42.92 2269.53 0.08 4.968 1.600 3.43 181.56 2100 2 5.2 9.7 25.56 1249.32 0.08 0.416 0.776 2.04 99.95 700 __ — 1.8 7.81 447.83 0.067 — 0.121 0.52 30.01 88.70 22.555 41.139 2491.62 Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr 0.464 Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 1.824 Brake Specific S04=, mg/kw-hr 28.09 Fuel Specific S04", mgAg fuel 110.47 D-21 image: ------- TABLE D-21. CKCLf COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AMD SULFATE RATES CATERPILLAR J406 01 28* BTDC (Run 2) JlJ-Mode FTP Weighting Factors) Weighted 1 Power Fuel Part. SO * mhr Wgt. Power Fuel Part. so4* rpn> Load Kw kq/hr g/hr Fact. kw kq/hs 0.121 q/hr m/hr 700 ... 1.8 3.40 384.71 0.067 0.563 25, 70 1260 2 3.8 4.4 12.00 444.2? 0.08 0.304 0.352 0.960 35.54 1260 25 49.5 12.9 13.26 0.08 3.96 1.032 1.061 1260 50 98.7 22.5 23.76 2720.20 0.08 7.90 1.80 1.901 217.62 1260 75 147.5 32. a 44.70 2692.56 0.08 11.80 2.624 3.576 215.40 1260 100 192.0 43.2 101.69 4167.37 0.08 15.36 3.456 9.135 333,39 700 — 1.3 8.40 384.71 3.067 0.121 0.563 25.78 2100 100 245.0 57,0 101.69 5844.24 0.08 19.6 4.56 8.135 467.54 21C0 75 183. 7 43.3 60.7 4460.92 0.08 14.70 3.464 4.856 356.87 2100 50 124.2 52.1 71.47 4528.57 0.08 9.94 2.568 5.718 362.29 2130 25 62.1 20.0 47.05 2547.63 0.08 4.97 1.600 3.764 203.81 2100 2 5.2 9,7 31.20 1560.73 0.08 3.42 0.776 2.496 124.86 too 1.8 8.40 384,71 0.067 88.95 0.121 22.595 0.563 42.291 25.78 2394.66 3r«e Specific Particulate, q/kw-hi 0.475 Srake Specific So.-, aj/kH-hr 28.18 Fuel specific Particulate, q/taj fuel 1.472 Fuel Specific SO4 . »«A4.90 3822.18 0.08 15.37 3.457 7.59 305.77 700 — 1.3 7.92 478.07 0.067 0.121 0.531 32.03 2100 100 244.0 56.8 100.76 5853.36 0.08 19-52 4.544 3.061 468.27 21C0 75 183.6 43.1 63.31 5038.81 0.08 14.69 3.443 5.064 403.10 2100 50 124.2 31.9 69.48 4608.98 0.08 9.94 2.552 5.558 368.72 2100 25 62.1 20.0 46.28 2896.62 0. ,38 4.97 1.60 3.702 231.73 2100 2 5.2 9.7 32.97 1422.64 0.03 0.42 0.776 2.638 113.81 700 ... i.a 7.92 478.07 0.067 0.121 0.531 32.03 88.894 22.516 41.452 2591.71 3ra*e Specific kw-fcr 0.466 Brake Specific S04*, ing/kW-fir 29.16 Fuel Specific Pareuul-ite, j tue, i.»41 F-jel Specific so4", "ig/kg fuel 115.U D-22 image: ------- TABLE 3-23. NUMMARY Of EXHAUST PARTICULATE - CATERPILLAR 3406 01 28V6GR Engine gpm/load * Concentration mq/w3 Particulate Rate 5/hr q/kq fuel q/kw-hr 1260/02 2 3 Avq 26.58 23.ai 21.77 24-05 i,2? 1.22 1.14 1.24 1260/25 1 2 3 Avq 175.39 203.62 189.51 48.90 57.00 52.95 1.00 1.17 1.09 1260/50 1 2 3 Avq 300.531 309.154 272.758 441.252 133. *4 135.81 121.15 130.30 1.36 1,38 1.23 1.32 1260/75 1 2 3 Avq 319.688 340.02? 427.Q7Q 362,26 199.53 200.60 2S1.49 213.8? 1.2S 1.35 1.7Q 1.44 1260/100 1 2 3 Avq 247.10 260.07 215.76 240.98 178.61 186.00 156.54 L73.72 0.96 1.01 0.84 0.94 Idle 1 2 3 Avq 23.04 25.10 24.50 24.21 2.80 3.06 2.98 2.95 2100/100 1 2 3 Avq 268.60 2 32.32 22?.57 242.83 266.11 239.57 2 35.63 247.12 2100/75 1 3 Avq 300-29 214.32 31G.20 308.2? 157.96 266.54 262.33 262.24 2100/50 1 2 3 Avq 174.20 193.44 237.51 201.72 110.32 132.26 164.27 138.78 2100/25 1 2 3 Avg 214.31 210.38 227.88 217.69 106.53 105.79 113.33 108.57 2100/02 1 3 Ave 83.97 78. ""3 33.04 91.68 30.2 3 27.50 28.55 28.76 D-23 image: ------- TABLE 0-24. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE CATERPILLAR 3406, 28#/EGR Engine rpm/i Load 1260/2 3 Avg Concentration lig/m* 891.1 1218.7 1515.6 1208.5 Sulfates 188.62 256.66 325.04 256.77 wq/kq Fuel mg/kW-hr 42.37 58.23 73.87 58.36 46.01 62.60 79.28 62.63 % Sulfur Recovery 0.63 0.84 1.05 0.84 1260/25 1 2 3 Avg 4597.3 4178.3 4387.8 1281.5'/ 1169.59 1225.58 97.09 67.28 92.19 26.21 23.92 25.06 1.38 1.24 1.31 1260/50 1 2 3 Avg 5455.2 4122.6 4863.0 4813.6 2430.68 1811.03 2160.03 2133.91 101.28 75.15 89.63 88.69 24.63 18.35 21.66 21.62 1.44 1.07 1.27 1.26 1260/75 1 2 3 Avg 4902.7 4463.4 6178.3 5181.5 2906.50 2633.28 36 38.13 3059.30 80.51 73.15 102.48 85.38 19.63 17.79 24.56 20.66 1.15 1.04 1.45 1.21 1260/100 1 2 3 Avg 5262.7 5515.1 5461.8 5413.2 3717.70 3943. 12 3962.62 3874.48 85.86 °1.49 <>2.15 89.83 19.90 21.31 21.25 20.82 1.25 1. JO 1.31 1.29 Idle 1 2 3 Avg 2048.0 1625.4 1951.5 1875.0 249.51 198.30 2 36.70 228.17 146.77 116.65 139.24 134.22 2.09 1.66 1.97 1.91 2100/100 3 Avg 7204.3 7569.3 6905.3 7226.3 7137.44 7805.38 7151.28 7364.70 125.00 136.22 126.13 129.12 31.14 33.37 30.80 31.77 1.78 1.93 1.80 1.84 2100/75 3 Ave 6614.5 6519.8 6781.2 6638.5 5681.32 5528.74 6984.85 •3064.97 118.36 114.94 145.22 126.1; 29. 29.18 36.86 32.01 1.68 1.60 2.05 1.78 2100/50 1 2 3 Avg 5213.7 5362.9 7014.6 5864.1 3586.14 3667.29 4851.60 4035.08 106.74 109.15 143.12 119.67 28.31 28.92 38.26 31.63 1.51 1.55 2.0d 1.71 2100/25 4850.9 3676.4 2412.30 1844.25 114.33 87.82 38.17 29.18 1.63 1.25 2100/2 Avg 1 4263.7 2523.5 2363. 2782.3 2556.3 2128.28 908.52 832.71 956.42 899.22 101.08 33.68 174.72 177.17 199.2S 182.71 1.* 4 1. Si i .21 1.41 1. 31 D-24 image: ------- TABLE D-25. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICIPATE AND SULFATE RATES CATERPILLAR 3406 28VEGR (Run 1) (13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors) -im % load Power kw Fuel jtg/hr Part, g/hr SO, Wgt. mq/hr Fact. Power kw Weighted Fuel kg/hr Part. g/hr SO nig. A 700 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 700 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 700 2 25 50 75 100 100 75 50 25 2 4.1 98.7 148.1 186.8 229. 189. 126. 63. 5. 1.7 4.4 24.0 36.2 43.3 1.7 57.1 48.0 33.6 21.1 9.8 1.7 2.80 5.63 133.94 189.53 178.61 2.80 266.11 257.86 119.82 106.58 30.23 2.80 249.51 0.067 188.62 0.08 2430. 2906. 3717, 249, 7137, 5681, 3586, 2412, 908, 249, 68 0.08 50 0.08 0.08 0.067 0.08 0.08 34 0.08 30 0.08 52 0.08 51 0.067 70 51 44 32 0.33 7.90 11.85 14.94 18. 34 15.16 10.14 06 42 0.11 0.35 1.92 2.90 3.46 0.11 4.57 3.84 2.69 1.69 0.78 C.ll 0.19 0.45 10.72 15.16 14.29 0.19 21.29 20.63 9.59 8.53 2.42 0.19 16. 15. 194. 232. 297. 16. 571. 454. 286. 192. 72. 16. 2367, 84.14 22.53 103.65 Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr 1.232 Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 4.600 Brake Specific S04=, mg/kw-hr 28.14 Fuel Specific S04=, mg/kg fuel 105.09 D-25 image: ------- TABLE D-26. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES CATERPILLAR 3406 DI 28VEGR (Run 21 (13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors) 700 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 700 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 700 load 2 25 50 75 100 100 75 50 25 2 Power kw 4,1 48,9 98.7 148.1 185.0 233.6 189.5 126.3 63.2 4.7 Fuel kq/ht 1.7 4.4 13.2 24.2 36. 43. 1. 57, 48 33. 21. 9 1. Part. i/nr 3.06 5.01 48.90 13S.81 200.60 186.00 3.06 239.57 266.54 132.26 105.79 27.50 3.06 SO4* Wat. »q/hr Fict. 198.30 2S6.66 1281.57 1811.03 2633.28 3943.12 198.30 7805.38 5528.74 3667.29 1844.25 832.71 198.30 0.067 0.08 0.38 0.08 O.08 0.08 0.06? 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.067 Power kw 0.33 3.91 7.90 11.35 14.30 18.69 15.16 10.14 5.06 0.38 88.22 Weighted Fuel Part. kg/hr g/hc 0.11 0,35 1.06 1.94 2.88 3.45 0.11 4.58 3.as 2.69 1.68 0.78 0.11 23.59 0.21 0.40 3.91 10.86 16.05 14.88 0.21 19.1? 21.32 10.58 3.46 2.20 0.21 so4" wq/hr 13.29 20.53 102.53 144.88 210.66 315.45 13.29 624.43 442.30 293.38 147.54 66.62 13.29 108.46 2408.19 Brake Specific Particulate* g/kw-hr Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 1.229 BraXe Specific SO4-, tag/kW-Hr 4,598 Fuel Specific SO4-, mg/kg fuel 27. 30 102.09 TABLE 0-27. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES CATERPILLAR 3406 DI 28VEGR {Run 31 (13-Mode FTP weighting Factor#3 Weighted % Power Fuel Part. S04" wgt. Power Fvel Part. SO4* rpa Load kw fcq/hr ag/hr Fact. kw k< £hr g/hr fcg/hr 700 1.7 2,98 236.70 0.067 0.11 0.20 15.86 1260 2 4.1 4.4 4.67 325.04 0.08 0. 33 0.35 0,37 26.00 1260 25 48.9 13.4 57.00 1169.59 3.08 3,91 1.07 4.5£ 93.5? 1260 5G 98.7 24.1 121.15 2160.03 3.08 7.90 1.93 9.69 172.80 1260 75 148.1 35.5 251.49 3638.13 0.08 11.35 2.84 20.12 291.05 1260 100 136.5 43.0 156.54 3962.62 0.08 14.92 3.44 12.52 117.01 700 1.7 2.08 236.70 0.067 0.11 0.20 15.86 2100 100 232.2 56.3 235.68 7151.28 0.08 18.58 4.54 18.85 572.10 2100 75 189.5 48.1 262.33 6984.85 0.08 15.16 3.85 20.99 558.?9 2100 50 126.8 33.9 164.27 4851.60 0.08 10.14 2.71 13.14 388.13 2100 25 63.2 21.0 113.33 0.08 5.06 1.68 *.07 2100 2 4.8 3.7 29.55 956.42 0.08 0. 38 0.78 2.28 76.51 700 1.7 2.3 a 236.70 O.067 0.11 0.20 15.86 88.23 23.52* 112.19 2543,54 3ra*s Specific Particulate, g/kw~hr Fuel Specific Particulate, g/g/kg fuel 116.46 D-2f> image: ------- TABLE D-28. SUMMARY OP EXHAUST PARTICULATE - CATERPILLAR 3406 18* <10* RETARD) Engine Concentration Particulate Rate rpw/ioad % Run wg/o3 q/hr g/kg Fuel g/kw-hr 1260/2 1 26.29 12,66 2,88 3,33 2 17.48 8-61 1.79 2.27 3 24.18 11.90 2.S3 3.SO Avg 22.65 11.06 2.40 3.03 2160/25 1 9 3.96 2 97.82 3 100.79 Avg 97.52 1260/50 1 NO 2 150.76 3 131,90 Avg 151.33 1260/75 1 273.97 2 272.26 3 281.29 Avg 27S.84 1260/100 1 374.90 2 434.88 3 436.86 Avg 415.SS Idle 1 19.86 2 20.?a 3 2 3.36 Avg 21.31 2100/100 1 338.17 2 189.50 3 179.32 Avg 202.3J 2100.'75 1 184.62 2 177.29 3 172.64 Avg 178.18 2100/50 1 154.43 2 165.72 3 167.27 Avg 162.4? 2100/25 I 142.24 2 139.53 3 142.56 Avg 141.44 2100/2 1 72.73 2 79.6J 1 31.20 AVQ 77.84 49.83 3.86 1.03 SI.26 3.97 1.06 73.17 5.38 1.51 58,09 4.40 1,20 ND ND ND 90.23 3.96 0.93 89.83 4.03 0.95 90.03 4.00 0.94 184.99 5.62 1.31 184.87 S.64 1.31 189.81 5.79 1.34 186.56 5.68 1.32 294.52 6.62 1,59 339.62 7.68 1.85 339.29 7.66 1.85 324.48 7.32 1.76 5.76 2.88 6.02 2.87 6.79 3.23 ~ 6,19 2.99 294.35 5.12 1,32 239.50 4.09 1.03 226.38 3.8b 0.97 253.41 4.36 1.11 202.26 4.55 1,16 194.87 4.32 1.10 189.74 4.23 1.08 135.62 4.37 1.11 147.46 4.61 1,26 159.13 4.97 1,36 161.19 5.OS 1.29 155.93 4.98 1.34 121.08 5,96 2.09 119.19 5.84 2.06 120.67 5.94 2.08 120.31 5.91 2.06 56.39 "" .47 13.43 61.64 6.04 14.68 62.85 6.16 14.96 • 60.29 5.89 14.16 D-27 image: ------- TABLE D-29. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE CATERPILLAR 3406, 18* (10* RETARD) Engine rpm/Load % Run Concentration ,, Sulfate Rate a»g/hr mg/kg fuel aqAW-hr % Sulfur Recovery 1260/2 1 2 3 Avg 975,8 1146.2 1077.3 1066.4 469.97 564,32 530.16 521.48 106.81 117.57 112,80 112.39 123.63 148.51 155.93 142.71 1.51 1.67 1,60 1.59 1260/25 1 2 3 Avg 3702.9 3897.4 3990.2 3863.5 1963,58 2042.10 2896.84 2300.84 151.04 158.30 213.00 174.11 40.74 42.28 59.85 47.62 2.14 2.24 3.02 2,47 1260/50 1 2 3 Avg 7982.4 5919.4 5695.4 6532.4 4780.36 3542,72 3368.20 3897,09 209.66 155.38 151.04 172.03 49.18 36.49 35.72 40.46 2.97 2.20 2. .4 2.44 1260/75 1 2 3 Avg 7725.0 6287.5 6092.1 6701.5 5216.10 4269,35 4110.95 4532.13 137.63 130.16 125.33 131.04 36.92 30.28 29.05 32.06 1.95 1.85 1.77 1.86 1260/100 1 2 3 Avg 5719.6 5537.9 5581.7 5613.1 4493.36 4324.75 4335.07 4384.39 100.97 97.85 97.86 * 98.89 1,43 1,39 1.39 1.40 Idle 1 2 3 Avg 1034.5 1240.0 1124.7 1133.1 300.23 359,45 326.99 328,89 150.12 171.17 155.71 159.00 2,13 2.43 2.21 2.26 2100/100 1 2 3 Avq 5580.3 6540.9 6060.0 6060.4 6896.68 8266.69 7650.60 7604.66 31,01 35.65 32.89 33.18 1.70 2.00 1.85 1,85 2100/75 1 2 3 Avg 5659.5 6186.4 5619.0 5821.6 6200.05 6799.60 6175.77 6391.81 35,49 38.55 35.01 36.35 1.92 2.14 1.95 2.00 2100/50 1 2 3 Avg 4512.25 4526.45 4423.73 4437.48 141.01 141.45 138.67 140.38 38.43 38.56 38.14 38.38 2.00 2.01 1.97 1.99 2l( )/25 1 I Avg 3335.0 1498.5 3634.4 3656.0 3264.48 2988.44 3076.38 3109.77 160.81 146,49 151.55 152.95 56.38 51.61 53.13 53.71 2.28 2.08 2.15 2.1? 2100/2 1 2 3 Avg 1206.62 1 300.fal 1 378.78 1295.34 118.30 127.51 135.17 126.99 1.68 1.81 1.92 1.80 D-28 image: ------- TABLE D- 30. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES CATERPILLAR 3406 DI 18° (Run 1) (11-Mode FTP Weighting Factors) Weighted Power Fuel Part. S04= Wgt. Power Fuel Part. S04= rpm % load kw kg/min 9/hr mg/hr Fact. kW kg/min g/hr mg/hr 700 — 2.0 5.76 300.23 0.067 0.134 0.386 20.12 1260 2 3.8 4.4 12.66 469.97 0.08 0.30 0.35 1.013 37.60 1260 25 48.2 12.9 49.83 1963.5b 0.08 3.86 1.03 3.986 157.09 1260 50 97.2 22.8 ND 4780.36 o.oa 7.78 1.82 382.43 1260 75 141.3 32.9 184.99 5216.10 0.08 11.30 2.63 14.799 417.29 1260 100 185.3 44.5 294.52 4493.36 0.08 14.82 3.56 23.562 359.47 700 2.0 5.76 300.26 0.067 0.134 0.386 20.12 2100 100 222.4 57.5 294.35 6896.68 0.08 17.79 4.60 23.548 551.73 2100 75 174.5 44.6 202.26 6200.05 0.0P 13.96 3.57 16.181 496.00 2100 50 117.4 32.0 147.46 4512.25 0.08 9 39 2.56 11.797 360.98 2100 25 57.9 20.3 121.08 3264.48 0.08 4.63 1.62 9.686 261.16 2100 2 4.2 10.3 56.39 1206.62 0.08 0.34 0.82 4.511 96.53 700 2.0 5.76 300.26 0.067 0.134 0.386 20.12 84.17 22.96 110.241 3180.64 Brake Specific Part iculate. g/kw-hr 1.310 Fuel Specific Partiuclate, g/kg fuel 4.801 Brake Specific SO4*, mg/kw-hr 37.79 Fuel Specific bO^-, my/kg fuel 138.53 D-20 image: ------- TABLE D-51. CYCLE COHPOSITE * ARTICULATE AMD SULFATE RAWS CATERPILLAR J406 01 18* (Run 2) (13-Hode FTP Weighting Factors) Power Fu«l rpa % load kw kg/am 700 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 700 :ioo 2100 2100 2100 2100 70C 2 25 50 75 100 100 75 50 25 2 3.3 48.3 *7,1 141.0 183.8 231.9 176.4 117.4 57.* 4.2 2.1 4.8 12.9 22.d 32.8 44.2 2.1 58.6 45.1 1.2.0 20.4 10.2 2.1 Weighted Part. SO4* wgt. Power Fuel Part. g/hr ag/hr Fact. kw kq/ain c/hr 6.02 8.61 51.26 90.23 184.87 339.62 6.02 239.50 194.87 159.13 119.19 61.64 6.02 359.45 564.32 2042.10 3542.72 426?.35 4324.75 359.45 8266.69 6799.uO 4526,45 2988.44 1300.61 359.45 0.067 0.08 0.38 0.08 C. 08 0.08 0.067 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 ^ 08 0.067 0.141 0.30 3.86 7.77 11.28 14.70 18.55 14.11 3.39 4.63 0.34 . 3a .03 .82 .62 .54 .141 .69 3.61 2.56 1.63 0.82 0.141 0. 103 0.689 4.101 7.218 14.789 27.170 0.403 19.160 15.590 12.730 9.535 4.931 0.403 SOT ag/hr 24.08 45.15 1€3.37 283.42 341.55 345.98 24.08 661.34 543.97 362.12 239.08 104.05 24.08 84.93 23.123 117.149 3162.2? Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr Fuel Specific Particulate, g/*g sue! 1.3?9 5.066 Brake Specific SO4* Fuel Specific SO4 , wq/ kw-hr ag/kg fuel 37.23 136.76 TABLE D-32. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE SATES CATERFILLAJt 3406 DI La* (Run 3) tl3-Kode FTP Weighting Factors) Weighted ?ower fuel Part. 504° wge. Power Fuel Part. S04* ZjM % load ¦ 20.3 120.6? 3076.38 3.08 4.63 1.62 9.654 246.11 2100 > 4.2 10.2 62.85 1378.78 .08 0.34 J.32 5.028 110.30 700 2. j 6.79 * >Q 0.06? 0.13 0.455 21.91 94.6? 23.08 118.551 3101.46 Brake Specific Part irulate, 9/kw-hr 1.40 Brake Specific SO4", *g/kv-hr 36.63 Fuel Specific Parti. rulate*g/kg fuel 5.13? Fuel s! pacific SO4*, ag/kg fuel 134.38 D- 30 image: ------- TABLE D-33. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM CATERPILLAP 34C6 33* TIMING (BASED ON 47 at. GtASSFIBEK FILTERS) Engine rg»/ % load Concentration &g/m3 Particulate Rat« a£H_ gAt fuel g/kH-ftr 1260/2 2 5 Avq 39. S >,13 47.46 45.5* 18.83 24.^ 23.55 22.35 4.01 4.49 4.61 4.44 4.96 ,4-f 6.2Q 5.93 1260/25 1 2 3 Avq 46.52 50.40 48.21 48. 3»5 1.76 1.93 1.8 j 1.S0 0.50 .56 Q. 53 0. S3 3 Avg 1. J 1. 3 1.36 1.13 . j: 0.32 0.32 126 /7S 3 Avg 61.76 56. "*€ J7.3* 1.* i.:6 1.15 .23 .27 0,29 D.26 1.6 1 3 Avq Avg i <52.88 35. 7 3?.lfe B9.'i4 4 .-1 44. it 47.82 44..-3 48, •3.!, 44 3, ** 65.4* "6,2fr • S . Jr a . 5i 13.73 12.fcl 1.45 , 7f .4" ?-,«-4 * .82 1.1 1.13 1.11 . 34 0.41 J "¦ .24 21 /?: 21 j/ Av-i 44. ^ 1. -*? i. 12 Avg .4.4 21. 7*> ».. 4»* - 77* D-31 image: ------- TABLE D-34. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE CATERPIUAR 3406, 33* TIMING (EASED ON 4? mm FLUOROPOR£ FILTERS) Engine rpa/% Load 1260/2 1260/25 1260/5 1260 75 1260'1 :il* '1 *1 -1 S a Run Ho, 1 2 3 Avg Concentration ^g/»3 1871.3 2596.5 3443.9 2303.9 Sulfaf Rate mg/ht 901.38 1277.99 1212.44 1130.77 agAg Fuel mg/hw-hr 191.89 232.36 247.44 223.90 237.34 336.31 319.06 297.57 % Sulfur Recovry 2.72 3.29 2.51 1.17 1 3387.1 1693.22 2 3651.2 1992.24 3 3544.5 1821.93 hvq 3594.3 1835.80 1 7115.3 3995.20 6401,6 3621.23 3 <>558. 3 3771 ,Q5 Avg 6691.7 2795.84 1 5038.4 3327.95 2 6397.4 41S4.62 3 W7.8 402''.*'? Avg 5«47.9 3846.72 1 5937."' 4516.57 2 6811.4 524 .9 i 6131.3 4714.03 Avg 6283.5 4323.83 126.76 36.26 1.80 147.57 42,48 09 139.08 39.01 1.97 137.80 39.25 1.95 179.16 42.32 2.54 161.Co 18.69 2.29 169,11 40.33 2.40 169.9% 4 . 2.33 101.46 23.45 1.44 13 .7? 29.83 1.85 124.31 28.67 1.76 118.85 27.32 1.68 103.3 - 24.23 1.47 119.93 27,53 1.70 108.37 25.36 1.54 110*55 25.81 1.57 1 24-2. 697.25 2 3 75.1 872.64 3093.1 388.34 A'ti 2880-1 819.41 ab4.» 7013. ' 3.4 6^. ' I 6068.3 72il.^3 Avg 5368.6 7907.45 I * 87." *44",4 4"'".* <-« 3. •> 4152.- 4 370.03 Avg 4671.5 4973.77" 1 4 ZS.4 * 45.38 2 454 .0 4262.19 J 4480.6 4152.15 Avg 4460.m 4153.24 1 3138.4 2570.3' .918.1 2425.11 3374.1 2745.26 Ave '*31. >580.22 I Is* 4.-> 106 .18 312.4» 1224. n 3 Ava !:>' r . 1202.. 332. .. 4.71 379.4 ----- S. *8 403.7? -.73 371.74 5.27 12 3.4" 28. 1 . 118.4* -.7.55 ,.68 123.45 29.95 1.82 123.47 28.74 1.75 122.6* 2'J. 4 1 74 114.=* 27. fee ,t>3 99. 32 23.97 112.32 27.06 ..59 125.24 32.*4 134. 3 35 1.^0 - 130.16 34.2 3 1.85 •29.Hi 34. * I,»;4 126.62 42. 1.80 120.6 4 . l.-l 136.5? 45.30 1.94 127.9! 4Z.4< 1.62 104. *.»"*. 4J l.J» 132. - JU. t:0.Q(- . ,?v, 119.1 * . ..6) D-32 image: ------- it it; pi o a It; is „• If n i! a i 5? . C Or M *» • <* ® i * l.'f In r* Ifc? *1 jr -v I s I 9 w MM »• t H *m |< vd (b > » o j» *j a> a» » [lis a s {4 U =.-52 2 X £ m *o •H U t* •J J '*4 :*£ e k 3 i" I ?sr - i 2 S * u -j S a m »* » S if CM 4- »J »-> , « k& o * | I /.**»*>! U*» . • #. O p 4 V W »- o» •« v> i t «bK VT » " I * V" ~- ' . s* i O # *"* < m , j. 4* «. a. , i/> i/. w l I :r P* & o >jWhO i-J®' a»|*> «4 » «8 V- i'ks;'V4 issiii; Pt rift I as, 5i| ** r3 St H d 5-3 3 IJs a i 'i If *» 4. * t "m- * <*»»~* i7'C;i)iG4 oJ'^utStt-»P sl«B «A «J w <*4 <1M Ji W H •.t-WWkOMvlKAKjKlO)^ U»®OOfwO u« *V» ~- If 9> ^ u « " , I *|4> N I* ** fes P-' OOOOOOOOOOOO |« ® fl* «0 W 4» -J w I 5I ? K *>l -* S'KjCiutD^WwMff'H^ Kl 8. 0 8 558 311, as, us H • H «si m n: image: ------- TABLE D-38. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM CATERPILLAR 3406 IDI ENGINE (Based on 47 mm Glassfiber Filters) Engine Concentration Particulate Sate rpm/% load Run mq/m3 q/hr q/kg fuel g/kw-hr 1400/2 1 22.57 11.54 1.96 3.04 2 23.09 11.73 2.06 3.09 Avg 22.83 11.64 2.01 3.07 1400/25 1 21.31 11.23 0.84 0.23 2 21.35 11.28 0.84 0.23 Avg 21.33 11.26 0.84 0.23 1400/50 1 31.14 19.37 0.83 0.20 2 34.32 21.26 0.91 0.22 Avg 32.73 20.32 0.87 0.21 1400/75 1 81.57 62.63 1.79 0.43 2 79.72 60.74 1.73 0.41 Avg 80.65 61.69 1.76 0.42 1400/100 1 109.38 101.49 2.06 0.50 2 123.06 113.89 2.31 0.57 Avg 116.22 107.69 2.19 0.54 Idle 1 20.83 4.65 2.91 2 17.85 3.99 2.49 Avg 19.34 4.32 2.70 2100/100 1 37.34 4b.45 0.75 0.19 2 38.00 47.30 0.77 0.20 Avg 17.64 46.88 0.76 0.20 2100/75 1 51.25 53.50 1.16 0.30 2 46.77 50.08 1.05 3.27 Avg 49.01 51.79 1.11 0.29 2100/50 1 35.92 31.32 0.97 0.26 2 37.72 32.61 1.01 0.26 Avg 36.82 31.97 0.99 0.26 2100/25 1 40.67 29.91 1.50 0.50 2 47.52 35.)5 1.73 0.56 Avg 44.10 32.48 1.62 0.53 2100/2 1 32.44 22.49 2.16 4.79 2 34.86 24.18 2.35 5.14 Avg 33.65 23.34 2.26 4.97 D-34 image: ------- TABLE D-39. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S04= FROM CATERPILLAR 3406 IDI ENGINE {BASED ON 47 mm FLUOROPORE FILTERS) Engine rpm/% load Run NO, Concentration ltq/m3 Sulfate Rate mg/hr mg/kg fuel iag/kW-hr S04" as % Fuel S 1400/2 1 2 Avg 1020.8 985,3 1003.3 521.9 500.8 511.4 131.8 1 .25 1.25 1.25 1400/25 1 2 Avg 2667.1 2286.0 2476.6 1404.R 1207.6 1306.2 104.8 90.1 97.5 28.6 24.6 26.6 1.49 1.28 1.39 1400/50 1 2 Avg 4880.0 5685.0 5282.5 3034.3 3521.8 3278.1 129.7 151.2 1-10.5 30.9 35.9 33.4 1.84 2.14 2.04 1400/75 1 2 Avg 7547.2 5857.1 6702.2 5794.4 4462.9 5128.7 146.4 39.4 30.3 34.9 35 2. > 1400/100 1 2 Avg 5904.2 5965.3 5934.8 5478.4 5520.6 5499.5 111.1 112.2 111.7 27.2 27.5 27.4 1.58 1.59 1.59 Idle 1 2 Avg 1012.2 1081.8 1047.0 226.0 254.2 240.1 141.3 141.2 141.3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2100/100 1 2 Avg 6210.8 6473.1 6342.0 7726.4 8061.3 7893.9 126.2 131.3 128.8 32.3 33.6 33.0 1.7^ 1 .8 1.73 2100/75 1 2 Avg 9258.1 9376.9 9267.5 9664.1 9933.4 9798.8 210.1 209.1 209.6 53.7 53.1 53.4 2. 1 2.9( 2.91 2100/50 1 2 Avg 3726.6 4376.2 4051.4 3221.5 3790.8 3506.2 99.7 117.4 108.6 25.9 30.5 28.2 1.41 l.f.C 1.54 2100/25 1 2 Avg 5471.7 5202.6 5310.2 4023.3 38 38.4 3930.9 202.2 189.1 195.7 67.1 61.8 64.5 2.80 2.62 2.71 2100/2 1 2 Avg 5497.1 4683.0 5090.1 3812.8 3265.2 3539.0 370.2 311 .0 340.6 811.2 694.7 753.0 5.25 4. 31 4.78 D-35 image: ------- TABLE D-40. CYCLE iTOMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND .LFATE RATES CATLPPILLAS 3406 101 ENGINE RUN 1 U3-MOOE FTP WEIGHTING fACTORS) Weight«d Engine Power Fuel Particulate so4- wgt. Power Fuel Pert. S04" rpm/% load *w kq/hx 3/hr wq/ht Fact. kW kg/Hr 9/hr wq/hz Idle — 1.6 4.65 226.0 0.067 0.11 0.31 15.14 1400/2 3.3 5.3 11.54 521.9 0.3d 0.30 0.4? 0.32 41.75 1400/25 49.1 13.4 11.23 1404.9 0 J.93 1.07 0.90 112.38 1400/50 98.1 23.4 19.37 3034.3 0.08 '.35 1,87 1.55 342.74 1400/75 147.2 35 .0 •52.63 5794.4 0.08 11.78 2.80 5.01 463.55 1400/100 201.2 49,3 101.49 5470.4 0.09 16.10 3.94 8.12 438.27 Idle 1.6 4.65 226.0 3.06? 0.11 0.31 15.14 2100/100 243.3 62.3 46.45 7726.4 0.08 19.50 4.98 3.72 618,11 2100/75 180.1 46.0 53.5 9664.1 J. 08 14.41 3.68 4.28 733.13 2100/50 122.1 32,2 31.32 3221.5 0.08 9.71 2.58 2.51 257.72 2100/25 60.3 19.9 >9.91 4023.3 0.08 4.30 1.59 2. 39 321.86 2110/ 2 4.7 10.4 22.49 1812.8 0.08 0.38 0.83 1.80 305.02 Idle 1.6 4.65 226,0 0.067 ™ 9,11 0.31 15.14 03.32 24.14 32.13 3719.95 Stake Specific Particulate gAW-ftr 0.362 9ra*e Specific S04", ag/kW-hr 41 as Fuel Specific Particulate, gAg fuel 1.331 fuel Specific S04«, mg/kg fuel 154.10 TABLE 3-41. rYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES CATERPILLAR 3406 IDX ENGINE iUIK 2 13-HODE FT? WEIGHTING FACTORS J Weighted Snaine r?»/* load Power kw Fuel r 1.6 Particulate :/hr so4* !fig/hr Wqt. ract. Power kW Fuel kg/hr Part. ?/hr S04* trw/hr 'die J. ,99 254.2 ..067 0.11 0. .2? 1-.03 1400/2 3. S 5. T 11. .73 500.8 0.08 0.30 0.46 Q. 94 40.06 1400/25 49.1 13.4 U. .28 1207,6 ^.08 3.93 1.07 0. ,90 96.61 1400/50 98.1 23.3 21. .26 3521.a 0.08 7.85 1.36 1. .70 281.74 1400/75 147.2 35.1 00, .74 4462.9 0.08 11.78 2.31 4. .86 357.03 1400/100 200.6 49.2 113. ,89 5520.9 0.08 16.05 3.94 9. .11 441.65 Idle ™ 1.6 1, .39 254.2 0.067 — 0,11 0. .27 17.03 2100/100 240.5 61.3 47. .30 3061.3 0.08 19.24 4,90 3. ,78 644.90 2100/75 136.9 47.5 50. .^8 9933,4 0.08 14.95 3.80 4. .01 794.67 2100/50 124.2 32.3 32 ,61 3790.8 0.08 9.94 2.58 2. .61 303,26 2100/25 62.1 20. 3 35. .05 1838.4 0.08 4.97 1.62 2, .80 307.0? 2100/2 4.7 10. 3 24. ,13 3265.2 0.08 0.38 0.32 1. .93 261.22 Idle 1.6 3. ,99 254.2 0.067 0.11 0. .27 17.03 89.39 24.19 33. .45 3579.30 Brake Speci fie Particulate. gA'W-nr 0. 374 Brake Specific SO4*. flig/kW -hr 40.04 Fuel Specif ic Parti culat*. image: ------- TABLE D-42. SUMMARY Of PARTICULATE, B&P AND ORGANIC SOLUBLES FROM 8 X 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES CATERPILLAR 3406 rpm Condition CI) Engine /load % Configuration Particulate Rate 1260/2 01 28* DI 28VEGR DI 18* DI 33* IDI 10* ¦3 image: ------- TABLE D-43, BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE CATERPILLAR 3406 DI, 28° BTC TIMING D I oa Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Wgt. Power Fuel BaP Org. Mode rpm load, % kW kg/hr Pg/hr Sol., % Fact. kW kg/hr pg/hr Sol., ' W.F. Derived From 13-Mode FTP 1 1260 2 4.1 4.4 29.94 4.87 0.12 0.49 0.53 3.59 0.58 2 1260 50 98.0 22.4 4.04 23.88 0.16 15.68 3.58 0.65 3.82 3 1260 100 192.5 43.5 30.06 0.12 23.10 5.22 3.61 4 Idle 1.6 34.29 31.02 0.20 0.32 6.86 6.20 5 2100 100 243.3 57.1 21.36 0.12 29.20 6.85 2.56 6 2100 50 120.1 31.0 2.96 0.16 19.22 4.96 0.47 7 2100 2 4.7 9.6 52.16 5.08 0.12 0.56 1,15 6.26 0.61 88.25 22.61 17.36 17.85 Brake Specific BaP , pg/kW-hr 0.197 Fuel Specific BaP, yg/kg fuel 0.768 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, * 17.85 W.F. Derived from 21-Mode EPA 0.225 0.92 0.99 6.74 1.10 0.092 9.02 2.06 0.37 2.20 0.049 9.43 2.13 1.47 0.269 0.43 9.22 8.34 0.176 42.82 10.05 3.76 0.110 13.21 3.41 0.33 0.079 0.37 0.76 4.12 0.40 75.77 19.83 20.45 17.60 Brake Specific BaP, ug/kW-hr Fuel Specific BaP, ugAg fuel Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 0.270 1.031 17.60 image: ------- TABLE D-44. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE CATERPILLAR 3406 DI, 28° BTC TIMING, WITH EGR Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Wgt. Power Fuel BaP Mode rpro load, t kW kg/hr yg/hr Sol., % Fact. kW kg/hr uq/hr Org. Sol. W.F, Derived from 13-Mode FTP 1 1260 2 4.1 4.4 21.99 18.08 0.12 0.49 0.53 2.64 2.17 2 1260 50 97.4 22.9 16.99 0.16 15.58 3.66 2.72 3 1260 100 192.3 44.0 13,19 0.12 23.08 5.28 1.58 4 Idle 2.0 6.09 27.70 0.20 0.40 1.22 5.54 5 2100 100 233.3 56.9 23.97 0.12 28.00 6.83 2.88 6 2100 50 127.9 33.7 22.15 0.12 20.46 5.39 3.54 7 2100 2 5.2 9.7 45.17 8.76 0.16 0.62 1.16 5.42 1.05 0.12 88.23 13.25 9.28 19.48 Brake Specific BaP , yg/kw-hr 0.105 Fuel Specific BaP, yg/kg fuel 0.399 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 19.48 w.F. Derived from 13-Mode FTP 0.225 0.92 0.99 4.95 4.07 0.092 8.96 2.11 1.56 0.049 9.42 2.16 0.65 0.269 0.54 1.64 7.45 0,176 41.06 10.01 4.22 0.110 14.07 3.71 2.44 0.079 0.41 0.77 3.57 0.69 74.84 20.29 10.16 21.08 Brake Specific BaP pgAW-hr 0.136 Fuel Specific BaP, ugAg fuel 0.501 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 21.08 image: ------- TABLE D-4S. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE CATERPILLAR 3406 DI, 18° BTC TIMING Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Wgt, Power Fuel BaP 0.g. Mode rpm load, % kW kg/hr Mg/hr Sol., % Fact. kW kg/hr ug/hr Sol., % W.F. Derived from 13-Mode FTP 1 1260 2 4.4 4.6 118.37 38.48 0.12 0.53 0.55 14.20 4.50 2 1260 50 97.7 22.9 23.90 0.16 15.63 9.66 3.82 3 1260 100 182.3 43.7 0.59 0.12 21.88 5.24 0.07 4 Idle 1.9 91.34 6.52 0.20 0.38 18.29 1.30 5 2100 100 222.6 57.3 22.64 0.12 26.71 6.88 2.72 6 2100 50 114.3 31.3 45.74 27.59 0.16 18.29 5.01 7.32 4.41 7 2100 2 4.2 9.9 148.53 19.44 0.12 0.50 83.54 1.19 28.91 17.82 57.63 2.33 19.15 a i O Brake Specific BaP, ugAW-hr 0.690 Fuel Specific BaP, tig A 9 fuel 1.993 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 19.15 W.F. Derived fror 21-Mode EPA 0.225 0,99 1.04 26.63 8.66 0.092 8.99 2.11 2.20 0.049 8.93 4.02 0.03 0.269 0.51 24.60 1.75 0.176 39.18 10.08 3.98 0.110 12.57 3.44 5.03 3.03 0.079 0.33 0.78 11.73 1.54 70.99 21.98 67.99 21.19 Brake Specific BaP, yg/kW-hr 0.958 Fuel Specific BaP, WgAg fuel 3.093 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 21.19 image: ------- TABLE D-46. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE CATERPILLAR 3406 DI, 33° BTC TIMING 0 1 •d Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Wgt. Power Fuel BaP Mode rpm load, % kW kg/hr ug/hr Sol., % Fact. kW kg/hr Ug/hr W.F. Derived from 13-Mode FTP 1 1260 2 3.8 4.7 118.93 9.29 0.12 0.46 0.56 14.27 2 1260 50 94.6 22.6 34.10 14.70 0.16 15.14 3.62 5.46 3 126 100 184.5 43.4 1.51 0.12 22.14 5.21 4 Ic.*e 2.1 378.78 8.28 0.20 0.42 75.76 5 2100 100 244.0 56.8 8.28 0.12 29.28 6.82 6 2100 50 123.7 32.1 17.55 0.16 19.79 5.14 7 2100 2 4.2 10.2 117.74 31.39 0.12 0.50 1.22 14.13 87.31 22.99 109.62 Brake Specific BaP , yg/kW-hr 1.256 Fuel Specific BaP, ugAg fuel 4.768 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles , % 12.87 Org. So 1., % 1.11 2.35 0.18 1.66 0.99 2.81 3.77 12.87 W.F. Derived from 21 -Mode EPA 0.225 0.86 1.06 26.74 2.09 0.092 8.70 2.08 3.14 1.35 0.049 9.04 2.13 0.07 0.269 0.56 101.89 2.23 0.176 42.94 10.00 1.46 0.110 13.61 3.53 1.9." 0.079 0.33 0.81 9.30 2.4E 75.48 20.17 141.07 11.63 Brake Specific BaP, ugAW-hr Fuel Specific BaP, Mg/kg fuel Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 1.869 6.994 11.61 image: ------- TABLE D-47. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE CATERPILLAR 3406 IDI ENGINE Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Wgt. Power Fuel BaP Org. lode rpm load, % kw kg/hr pg/hr Sol., % Fact. kw kg/hr pg/hr Sol., W.F. Derived From 13- -Mode FTP 1 1400 2 3.8 5.5 19.38 12.94 0.12 0.46 0.66 2.33 1.55 2 1400 50 98.5 23.3 BMD 4.53 0.16 15.76 3.73 0.72 3 1400 100 199.6 49.1 BMD 5.09 0.12 23.95 5.89 0.61 4 Idle — 1.7 12.58 9.88 0.20 0.34 2.52 1.98 5 1900 100 238.0 60.5 BMD 0.84 0.12 28.56 7.26 0.10 6 1900 50 122.1 32.2 BMD 11.66 0.16 19.54 5.15 1.87 7 1900 2 4.7 10.5 65.69 35.88 0.12 0.56 1.26 7.88 4.31 88.83 24.29 12.73 11.14 i Brake Specific Bap, pg/kw-hr 0.143 ~j Fuel Specific BaP, gg/kg fuel 0.524 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 11.14 W.F. Derived From 21-Mode EPA 0.225 0.86 1.24 4.36 2.91 0.092 9.06 2.14 0.42 0.049 9.78 2.41 0.25 0.269 0.46 3.38 2.66 0.176 41.89 10.65 0.15 0.110 13.43 3.54 1.28 0.079 0.37 0.83 5.19 2.83 75.39 21.27 12.93 10.50 Brake Specific BaP, pg/kw-hr 0.172 Fuel Specific BaP, lag/kg fuel 0.608 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 10.50 BMD - Below Minimum Detectable image: ------- o o O c o C o o t-, o a o 1 r-. o o a w • M *"• w r-i *"* w »- w fo Kj w _ ki ~a IsJ w © O CD w CD ® 0> w ® CD CD » CD CD 03 3D 09 03 03 o o o o * • • O e o O 55 a X \ « CS a 3 w X r»? a » cn 8 s \ tn a » o o o o W w O o »- 1^1 UD N I «C A. ! 9»(MwOO> -J w O ® »a O o b o ooooo o o o o b W o o ~j O i y ooooo ooooo ooooo bi-obi- ooooo ooooo V) ha to n m w image: ------- TABLE 0-49. PERCENT PER STAGE OF TOTAL PARTICULATE COLLECTSD BY ANDERSON IMP AC TOR FOR CATERPILLAR 1406 Sta?a ECO, 1260 rpe 2100 cm No. micron Z\ 50% 100% tdl« 100% 50% 2% Direct Injection 28°BTC Timing *. ic.9 1.2 0.93 0.73 0.22 0.69 0.28 3»*2 2 6.8 0 .of* 1.2 0.63 0.38 0.86 0.24 0,37 3 4.o 1.3 1.3 0.75 0.59 1.6 0.24 0.S1 4 3.2 2.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.3 5 2. 3." 2.0 2.5 1-3 1.7 0.V6 1.5 6 1. JJ 2.. Z. 7 4.3 o.ai 3.2 2.5 1,3 0,63 i.l i.l 7.3 1.3 4.3 3.2 1.3 3 0.42 3.1 3.8 7.a 3.7 5.3 2.4 2.2 Ttltmr <0.42 82.7 33, 1 74.3 *0.1 91.4 89.8 90.7 Dtrecc Injection 23*3TC EGR 1 10.3 3.18 0.19 0.1? 0.36 0.32 0.09 0.12 2 6.3 0.13 0.19 0.09 J.43 0,58 0.31 0.15 3 4.6 0.24 0.42 0.65 0.58 0.63 0,43 0.31 4 3.2 0.18 0.94 0.96 1.2 1.1 0.95 0.54 2.0 0.48 2.4 1.7 1.0 2.6 1.4 0.81 fe 1.03 1.4 2.1 2.9 1.4 3.3 2.6 1,5 ** 3.63 l.a 3.0 6.0 2.7 3.9 3.1 1.3 3 0.42 5,5 3.5 9.9 3.9 2.7 3.7 1.3 Filter <9.42 30,1 97, 3 78.7 88.4 84.3 37.5 94.0 Direct Injection 18*STC 10* Retarded 1 10. 9 1.4 0.19 0.41 0.47 0.26 0.34 0,35 2 b.8 C. 28 ~ . 15 0.64 0.79 0.31 0.55 0.54 3 4.0 1,0 0.39 l.i 0.63 0.78 0.59 0.52 4 3.2 J. 76 0.62 1.2 0.95 1.1 0,59 i.l 5 2.-" o.n i.8 2.1 1,3 2.4 1.9 1.2 6 1.03 2.2 2.2 2.9 1.1 3.2 2.8 2.1 7 0.63 4.4 2.8 4.5 1.7 1.9 2.5 3.0 a 0.42 5.2 2.7 5.9 2.4 3.8 3.6 2.7 Filter <0.42 84.1 39.1 81.2 90.7 34.2 87.0 88.5 Direct Injection 3 3°8TC 5* Advanced I I .9 .34 0.60 0.51 0.b9 0.45 0. 35 0.70 2 ¦5.a 1.4 1.1 0.54 0.57 0.63 0.74 0.60 i 4.6 . :s 1.5 1.1 0.32 0.79 0.">4 0.38 4 3.«. .<34 2.2 L.O 0.28 0.67 1,2 0.35 5 2.0 1.4 3.6 1.9 0.92 1*8 0.79 0.77 S 1.03 1.2 5.3 4.2 1.2 3.1 3.0 0.70 ** -.63 I . 3 4.2 7.3 1.9 4.1 1.6 0.70 * 0.42 6.2 4.2 8.7 6.4 4.4 2.0 0.66 rtiter .42 *5,3 ??, 3 74.3 87.3 34.1 89.6 35.1 Indirect Injection 10*BTC Prechaisber 1 10. ? 1. ¦* 3.13 0.40 0.52 0.45 3.52 0.25 2 6.t) 1,2 1.1 0. 34 1.0 0.34 0.74 0.18 3 4. 6 1. 3 J.81 1.3 0. m 0.52 0.86 0.74 4 J.2 1.2 -.96 0.77 *.. 7 3.76 l.l i. 3 S 2. 2.3 1.2 i.a 2.7 1.6 I.J 1.1 6 1.33 2.o 2.7 4.3 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.2 1 0.63 2. 5 3.6 s.o 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.2 a 0.42 3.1 4.3 6.1 1.4 2.5 3.5 2.7 Filter <0.42 34.3 35.4 80.1 85.8 98.6 87.4 89.3 D- 44 image: ------- TABLE 0-50. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CAT ERP1LXAR 3406, 28 0 BTC 1260 rpm 2100 rpa Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Form- ug/m3 1626 2639 1933 4693 2816 1608 2546 aldehyde mg/hr 1053 2002 1923 1637 4408 2030 2611 mg/kg fue1 234 90 44 779 76 61 251 mg/kW-hr 277 21 10 18 16 622 Acet- Ug/m3 252 1406 151 aldehyde mg/hr 353 — - 1060 3 mg/kg fuel 78 — 505 32 mgAw-hr 93 80 Acetone Mg/m3 126 624 mg/hr 4*5 808 mg/kg fuel 11 385 mg/kW-hr 2 Iso- Ug/m3 559 163 283 660 210 221 473 butanal mg/hr 2080 710 1620 1322 1885 1605 2790 mg/kg fuel 462 32 37 630 32 48 268 mg/kW-hr 547 7 9 8 13 664 Crotunal Ug/m 3 421 262 452 916 294 405 SOB mg/hr 1489 1085 2459 1747 3462 2792 2B4( mg/kg fuel 331 49 57 832 60 83 274 mg/kW-hr 392 11 13 14 23 678 Hexanal ug/m3 56 75 145 56 92 mg/hr 401 832 562 782 1048 mg/kq fuel 89 19 267 2 j 101 mg/tW-hr 106 4 6 25' Benz- ug/m3 27 427 187 40 113 4 aldehyde mg/hr 217 5291 813 771 1782 47 mg/kg fuel 43 122 387 13 53 5 mg/kw-hr 57 28 3 14 11 D-45 image: ------- TABLE D-51. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3406, 28" BTC WITH EGR 1260 rpm 2100 rpm Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Form- Mg/ra3 1357 1440 1765 3708 1394 2927 2630 aldehyde mg/hr 387 869 1683 658 1318 4063 1206 mg/kg fuel 88 38 39 337 23 123 127 mg/kW-hr 102 9 9 6 32 232 Acet- tig/m3 460 221 aldehyde mg/hr 284 219 mg/kg fuel 64 23 mg/kw-hr 75 42 Acetone Ug/m3 39 mg/hr 41 mgAg fuel 9 mg/kW-hr 11 Iso- Ug/m3 299 621 213 458 310 481 442 butanal mg/hr 490 2153 1169 467 1687 3813 1166 mg/kg fuel 111 94 27 239 29 116 122 mg/kW-hr 129 22 6 7 31 224 Crotonal Ug/m3 877 1143 472 1297 857 909 1547 mg/hr 1366 3768 2459 1259 4429 6846 3879 mg/kg fuel 310 164 57 645 77 208 407 mg/kW-hr 360 39 13 19 55 746 Hexanal Ug/m3 56 75 1149 450 56 mg/hr 177 505 2253 6919 284 mg/kg fuel 40 22 1155 210 30 mg/kW-hr 46 5 56 55 Benz- Ug/m3 2 37 654 158 aldehyde mg/hr 524 7701 904 mg/kg fuel 269 133 95 mg/kW-hr 33 174 D-46 image: ------- TABLE D-52. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3406, 18° BTC 1260 rpm 2100 rpa Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Form- yg/m1 1227 1347 5185 2602 1896 2416 8651 aldehyde mg/hr 3356 1039 1275 967 3116 3051 9014 mq/kq fuel 725 47 29 576 53 97 887 mg/kW-hr 818 11 7 14 27 1918 Acet- yg/m3 2 308 927 2535 aldehyde mg/hr 3228 745 5708 mg/kg fuel 698 444 562 mg/kW-hr 787 1215 Acetone yg/m3 325 262 ___ 285 mg/hr 780 362 1102 mg/kg fuel 169 216 109 rag/kw-hr 190 235 ISO- pg/m3 155 146 105 351 ___ 59 163 butanal mg/hr 576 647 626 750 428 2175 mgAg fuel 124 29 14 447 14 214 mg/kW-hr 140 7 3 38 463 Crotonal yg/m3 386 34 3 102 472 234 72 496 mg/hr 1365 1446 531 959 2099 498 2824 mgA^ fuel 295 65 13 571 36 16 278 mgAW-hr 333 15 3 9 4 601 Hexanal yg/m3 246 36 56 110 344 37 72 mg/hr 1774 313 647 454 1324 5x6 4002 mgAg fuel 383 14 15 270 23 16 394 mg/kW-hr 433 3 3 6 5 851 Benz- pg/m3 3526 227 1028 185 19 516 509 aldehyde mg/hr 28431 2182 2490 857 372 8126 6602 mg/kg fuel 6145 99 56 510 6 260 650 mg/kW-hr 6934 23 13 2 72 1405 D-47 image: ------- TABLE D-53. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3406, 33° BTC Aldehyde Rate 1260 rpm Idle 2100 rpm 2 50 100 100 50 2 Form- Ug/m3 4339 2184 2267 40263 3559 3559 3800 aldehyde mg/hr 2864 1688 2353 15092 5679 4439 3923 mgAg fuel 601 76 54 7233 100 139 376 mg/kW-hr 754 18 13 23 36 835 Acet- Ug/m3 618 3701 351 aldehyde mg/hr 882 2999 782 mg/kg fuel 185 1437 75 mgAW-hr 232 166 Acetone Ug/m3 177 386 3 3333 — - 327 mg/hr 435 1107 13 4640 1254 mg/kg fuel 91 50 0 2224 120 mg/kW-hr 115 12 0 267 Xso- Ug/m3 249 246 70 1261 74 72 438 butyr- mg/hr 946 1091 417 2717 683 515 2601 aldehyde mgAg fuel 199 49 10 1302 12 16 249 mg/kW-hr 249 12 2 3 4 553 Crotonal gg/m3 718 2888 829 1464 1210 1750 2349 mg/hr 2590 12204 4703 2999 10552 11926 13249 mg/kg fuel 544 548 108 1437 185 375 1270 mg/kW-hr 682 130 25 43 98 2819 Hexanal Ug/m3 86 990 467 411 987 664 478 mg/hr 636 8526 5400 1718 17545 9234 5499 mg/kg fuel 134 383 124 824 308 290 527 mgAW-hr 167 91 29 72 76 117C Benz- pg/m3 701 35 3289 92 184 aldehyde mg/hr 5764 341 15359 ___ 1433 2372 mgAg fuel 1210 15 7361 45 227 mgAW-hr 1517 4 12 505 D-48 image: ------- TABLE D-54. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3406, IDI ENGINE STANDARD TIMING , 10° BTC 1400 rpm 2100 rpm Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Form- yg/m3 9915 0 976 2674 920 966 2156 aldehyde mg/hr 6638 0 1175 805 1542 1115 1983 mgAg fuel 1100 0 24 467 25 34 177 mgAW-hr 1897 0 6 6 9 381 Acet- yg/m3 2648 101 0 1431 25 0 315 aldehyde mg/hr 3832 181 0 931 91 0 627 mg/kg fuel 635 8 0 540 2 0 56 mg/kW-hr 1095 2 0 0 0 121 Acetone yg/m3 0 68 68 498 29 0 68 mg/hr 0 209 303 557 181 0 231 mg/kg fuel 0 9 6 323 3 0 21 mgAW-hr 0 2 2 1 0 45 Iso- pg/m3 923 0 0 0 0 0 0 butyr- mg/hr 3554 0 0 0 0 0 0 aldehyde mg/kg fuel 589 0 0 0 0 0 0 mgAW-hr 1015 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crotonal yg/m3 0 63 321 432 452 472 464 mg/hr 0 288 2114 711 4142 2978 2334 mg/kg fuel 0 12 42 413 66 90 208 mg/kW-hr 0 3 11 17 24 449 Hexanal yg/m3 158 39 42 72 42 42 42 mg/hr 1182 360 559 242 779 536 428 mg/kg fuel 196 15 11 141 12 16 38 mg/kW-hr 338 4 3 3 4 82 Benz- yg/m3 906 335 361 461 406 335 445 aldehyde mg/hr 7562 3462 5415 1729 8473 4813 5105 mg/kg fuel 1253 146 109 1003 135 146 456 mgAW-hr 2160 35 27 35 39 982 D-49 image: ------- TABLE D-55. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406 28° BTC 1260 rpm 2100 rpm Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Methane yg/m3 4328 2265 1398 5860 799 1598 3996 ch4 mg/hr 2092 1281 1038 1525 933 1505 3057 mg/kg fuel 465 57 24 726 16 45 294 mgAW-hr 550 13 6 4 12 728 Ethylene Mg/m3 14099 6234 4311 19867 6001 6642 13983 C2H4 mg/hr 6812 3527 319* 5168 7007 6255 10695 C. H mg/kg fuel 1514 158 74 2461 121 187 1029 mg/kW-hr 1793 36 17 29 51 2546 Ethane Ug/m3 250 187 499 62 125 187 C2H6 mg/hr 121 106 130 73 118 143 mgAg fuel 27 5 62 1 4 14 mg/Kw-hr 32 1 0 1 34 Acetylene pg/m3 1245 595 433 1895 758 541 1407 C2H2 mg/hr 601 336 321 492 884 509 1075 4. mgAg fuel 134 15 7 234 15 15 103 mgAW-hr 158 3 2 4 4 256 Propane Wg/m3 c3»8 mg/hr — mgAg fuel mgAW-hr Propylene Mg/m3 3845 2447 1224 5710 2039 2622 4137 C H mg/hr 1858 1384 908 1485 2381 2469 3164 J O mg/kg fuel 413 62 21 707 41 74 304 mg/kw-hr 489 14 5 10 20 753 Benzene Mg/m3 1124 1236 674 1573 674 955 1124 C6H6 mg/hr 522 673 481 394 758 866 827 O Q mgAg fuel 116 30 11 188 13 26 80 mgAW-hr 137 7 3 3 7 197 Toluene yg/m3 438 164 55 877 110 219 438 C7H8 mg/hr 211 93 41 227 128 206 334 / O mg/kg fuel 47 4 1 108 2 6 32 mgAW-hr 56 1 0 1 2 80 D-50 image: ------- TABLE D-56. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406 28° BTC WITH EGR Hydrocarbon Rate 1260 rpm Idle 2100 rpm 2 50 100 100 50 2 Methane Ug/m3 3130 4395 1066 3130 599 2198 4129 ch4 mg/hr 666 1979 758 414 423 2261 1413 mg/kg fuel 151 87 17 212 7 69 148 mg/kw-hr 175 21 4 2 18 272 Ethylene yg/m3 13925 11303 4137 12060 6700 9438 15265 C2H4 mg/hr 2961 5088 2941 1596 4727 9707 5223 £. H mg/kg fuel 671 221 68 818 82 295 548 mg/kw-hr 779 53 16 20 78 1004 Ethane Ug/m3 187 375 312 187 312 C2H6 mg/hr 40 169 41 193 107 mgAg fuel 9 7 21 6 11 mg/kW-hr 10 2 2 21 Acetylene Ug/m3 1678 1732 433 1462 704 1083 2382 C H mg/hr 356 779 308 193 496 1112 814 4. Z mg/kg fuel 81 34 7 99 9 34 85 mg/kW-hr 94 8 2 2 9 157 Propane Ug/m3 — C H mg/hr i o mg/kg fuel mg/kW-hr — Propylene Ug/m3 3437 3146 990 3088 2214 2913 3787 C,H mg/hr 731 1416 704 409 1562 2996 1296 i O mgAg/ fuel 166 62 16 209 27 91 136 mg/kW-hr 192 15 4 7 24 249 Benzene Ug/m3 1292 2416 674 1292 786 1517 1910 CAHft mg/hr 264 1046 461 165 534 1501 629 6 D mg/kg fuel 60 46 11 84 9 46 66 mg/kW-hr 70 11 2 2 12 121 Toluene Ug/m3 329 438 55 384 110 384 493 C7H8 mg/hr 70 197 39 51 77 393 168 t O mg/kg fuel 16 9 1 26 1 12 18 mg/kW-hr 18 2 0 0 3 32 D-51 image: ------- TABLE D-56. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406 28° BTC WITH EGR Hydrocarbon Rate 1260 rpm Idle 2100 rpm 2 50 100 100 50 2 Methane Ug/m3 3130 4395 1066 3130 599 2198 4129 ch4 mg/hr 666 1979 758 414 423 2261 1413 mg/kg fuel 151 87 17 212 7 69 148 mg/kw-hr 175 21 4 2 18 272 Ethylene yg/m3 13925 11303 4137 12060 6700 9438 15265 C2H4 mg/hr 2961 5088 2941 1596 4727 9707 5223 £. H mg/kg fuel 671 221 68 818 82 295 548 mg/kw-hr 779 53 16 20 78 1004 Ethane Ug/m3 187 375 312 187 312 C2H6 mg/hr 40 169 41 193 107 mgAg fuel 9 7 21 6 11 mg/kW-hr 10 2 2 21 Acetylene Ug/m3 1678 1732 433 1462 704 1083 2382 C H mg/hr 356 779 308 193 496 1112 814 4. Z mg/kg fuel 81 34 7 99 9 34 85 mg/kW-hr 94 8 2 2 9 157 Propane Ug/m3 — C H mg/hr i o mg/kg fuel mg/kW-hr — Propylene Ug/m3 3437 3146 990 3088 2214 2913 3787 C,H mg/hr 731 1416 704 409 1562 2996 1296 i O mgAg/ fuel 166 62 16 209 27 91 136 mg/kW-hr 192 15 4 7 24 249 Benzene Ug/m3 1292 2416 674 1292 786 1517 1910 CAHft mg/hr 264 1046 461 165 534 1501 629 6 D mg/kg fuel 60 46 11 84 9 46 66 mg/kW-hr 70 11 2 2 12 121 Toluene Ug/m3 329 438 55 384 110 384 493 C7H8 mg/hr 70 197 39 51 77 393 168 t O mg/kg fuel 16 9 1 26 1 12 18 mg/kW-hr 18 2 0 0 3 32 D-51 image: ------- TABLE D-57. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406 18° BTC 1260 rpm 2100 rpm Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Methane Ug/m3 4195 2531 666 2464 732 2397 4329 CHi mg/hr 2026 1456 516 683 898 2259 3365 4 mgAg fuel 438 66 12 407 15 72 331 mgAW-hr 494 15 3 4 21 716 Ethylene Mg/m3 12293 6991 4137 6118 5710 7690 12002 C->H^ mg/hr 5934 4021 3206 1696 7000 7244 9327 2 4 mg/kg fuel 1283 181 72 1011 119 231 918 mg/kW-hr 1447 43 17 31 64 1985 Ethane Ug/m3 375 187 187 62 187 250 C2:I6 mg/hr 181 108 52 77 176 194 <£ O mgAg fuel 39 5 31 1 6 19 mgAW-hr 44 1 0 2 41 Acetylene 3 pg/m 1245 650 217 595 433 866 1245 C H mg/hr 600 373 168 165 530 815 966 2 2 mgAg fuel 130 17 4 98 9 26 95 mg/kW-hr 146 4 1 2 7 206 Propane Ug/m3 115 C3H8 mg/hr 59 j o mgAg fuel 13 mgAW-hr 14 Propylene Ug/m3 4370 2447 1457 2156 1806 2680 4428 C3H6 mg/hr 2109 1407 1129 598 2214 2524 3441 ¦j D mgAg fuel 456 64 26 356 38 81 339 mgAW-hr 514 15 6 10 22 732 Benzene , 3 Mg/m 1348 1629 506 1011 618 1404 1573 C6H6 mg/hr 626 902 377 270 729 1273 1176 o o mgAg fuel 135 41 9 161 12 41 116 mgAW-hr 153 10 2 3 11 250 Toluene Mg/m3 438 274 110 329 164 274 493 C7H8 mg/hr 211 157 85 91 201 257 382 mgAg fuel 46 7 2 54 3 8 38 mgAW-hr 51 2 0.5 1 2 81 D-52 image: ------- TABLE D-58. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406 33° BTC 1260 rpm 2100 rpm Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Methane Mg/ra3 6859 3729 1798 8524 666 1132 3663 ch4 mg/hr 3378 2151 1392 2384 793 1053 2821 mg/kg fuel 709 97 32 1142 14 33 270 mg/kW-hr 889 23 7 0 3 9 600 Ethylene 3 yg/m 26626 8273 3554 30180 6292 4311 15265 C2H4 mg/hr 13108 4771 2751 8438 7489 4011 11752 4 H mg/kg fuel 2752 214 63 4044 132 126 1126 mg/kW-hr 3450 51 15 0 31 33 2500 Ethane yg/m3 437 437 562 125 250 C2H6 mg/hr 215 252 157 116 192 mg/kg fuel 45 11 75 4 18 mg/kW-hr 57 3 0 1 41 Acetylene yg/m3 2382 1245 379 2273 650 487 1678 2 2 mg/hr 1171 717 293 635 772 453 1290 mgAg fuel 246 32 7 304 14 14 124 mg/kW-hr 308 8 2 0 3 4 275 Propane Ug/m3 58 C3H8 mg/hr 35 j O mg/kg fuel 2 mg/kW-hr — 0 Propylene 3 yg/m 6700 2913 1049 7865 2097 1806 3904 C3H6 mg/hr 3299 1680 812 2199 2496 1680 3005 O V mg/kg fuel 693 75 19 1054 44 53 288 mg/kW-hr 868 18 4 0 10 14 639 Benzene ug/m3 1854 1854 674 2022 843 562 1011 mg/hr 878 1029 502 544 965 503 749 o mg/kg fuel 184 46 12 261 17 16 72 mg/kW-hr 231 11 3 0 4 4 159 Toluene 3 yg/m 438 219 —- 767 — C7H8 mg/hr 215 126 214 t a mg/kg fuel 45 6 103 mg/kW-hr 57 1 0 D-53 image: ------- TABLE D-59. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406 IDI, STANDARD TIMING 10° BTC 1400 rpm 2100 rpm Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Me thane Ug/m3 2704 433 333 2158 286 693 1332 CH. A mg/hr 1350 268 299 484 358 596 914 ** mg/kg fuel 224 11 6 281 6 18 82 mg/kW-hr 386 3 2 2 5 176 Ethylene 3 Ug/m 15457 1981 2610 8955 5675 3088 4515 C2H4 mg/hr 7719 1227 2344 2010 7093 2658 3099 <£. H mg/kg fuel 1279 52 47 1166 113 81 277 mg/kW-hr 2205 12 12 29 22 596 Ethar.e , 3 Ug/m 106 6 0 19 0 12 12 C2H6 mg/hr 53 4 0 4 0 11 9 mg/kg fuel 9 0 0 2 0 0 1 mg/kW-hr 15 0 0 0 0 2 Acetylene Ug/m3 1618 162 395 942 628 466 752 C H mg/hr 807 101 354 211 784 400 516 Z. mL mg/kg fuel 134 4 7 123 13 12 46 mg/kW-hr 231 1 2 3 3 99 Propane Ug/m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C H mg/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O mg/kg fuel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mg/kW-hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Propylene Ug/m3 4719 711 559 2226 1468 1066 1258 C3H6 mg/hr 2357 440 502 500 1835 918 864 O mg/kg fuel 391 19 10 290 29 28 77 mg/kW-hr 673 4 3 8 7 166 Benzene 3 Ug/m 1275 404 393 753 646 466 556 C6H6 mg/hr 613 241 340 163 777 387 367 D D mg/kg fuel 102 10 7 94 12 12 33 mg/kW-hr 175 2 2 3 3 71 Toluene yg/m3 1545 745 575 236 27 203 482 C7H8 mg/hr 770 460 515 53 34 174 330 / o mg/kg fuel 128 19 10 31 1 5 30 mg/kW-hr 220 5 3 0 1 64 D-54 image: ------- TW»LK D-60. g 1-Htin» f.f* {*1* lllf ;»L F.'M r*t;Lfi DAIMLER-BENZ DIESEL ENGINE 0M-152-AB S/N 909-10-01-9653 125 HR. EMISSION ENGINE !£SI I SUN 1 F'JF.L: m-gfP-r PHdJt.CT I I<5 r iidTf I - 1- JR none VHlltHt SPKf.l) rnrfQUF P't**. a miFL FL«* * I » H.H* F.< n 199.1 . ' "»H h. im h,?1 . Hph b 5bCI ?0$ h»b ? . ?H ?. »<« 1.^3 10.«3 7 i*mu . * 55.5 . ^ i •». mi b, * 1 ; 1 ?n 9H3 n.on 1 I I 8 IPS.? HI « . «* M > * ?.«M .11^* 9 1?0 lb9 lnp* 1.00 !.*«» 1.13 1 1 .H? 9 i «ti«i IbS.b b«. 4 .•"M 7.1* ?.** ,111b g 38*» lb« 1 1 b 1 n.on J I 1 in 189. 3 M.* .«>?J 7. IK ',* 3 ."3fl 1U 3b* ?23 1 198 n.on 1 1 1 i Kill) O.rt n.M t .»* « .** .•in? ii 9?f» S?5 79 n.on K u P 15? ?*i»n *51 . * 1 •»!.«» .*15 1 39 1?.*U .HIS i? ISb MS 98? 1.31 3.5? 11.b* J 9 3??.9 9*. ? . *0«? 11."** l*.?"l .HI* i« 388 *•~3 951 b. 3* l."»b 3.*? 11.71 1* ?«lMI ?8*.h . *b% I 1 .?9 ! 1 .h* ,111? i» 1?? 39f1 R „?»9 •*„*» In.tlS .I!?* 1*» *81) 313 b 1 3 *.*1 ?.b*« 3.*9 11. ?s 1 ? 8 ?.s n.« . lb? 8. 78 „MJ«1 i > 5R* H5b 188 n.on I I 1 1» ?8i|*| bb.S i*. . I«l* a.5| «.b» • Ml B 1« b 3? «Rb 31* i .** 8.19 ie.s* 13.3* 19 ?ann 2b.I . *?* 9. *1 R „ *b .•US 1*» ?ao 599 2?* 11. MO 1 i I 2ti ?«iin 9.5 •a.M , 1 i»* «.?I1 0.^1 .HI? ?b* b01 181 0.00 1 i I bun (I.li n. ii . It t ^ 1 . 71 i ,an .i»n? ?3b 525 13* n.uo ¥ R k CfClf COMPOSITE RSHC s 3^080 ghah/km MR nsco* s *.809 QRAH/KM HR R9NQ2+* = 11•9b 3 UN4H/KW HW BSHC * HSN0?»*= iS.0»S r,R*«/Kii H» nsrc « .as image: ------- TABLE D-M. 31*«*ih» n M"»M r*T|l DAlHLO?-BO*2 DIESEL ENGINE 0M-3S2-AB S/N 909-10-01-9653 125 HR. EMISSION ENGINE Ttsr i ? fuels rrsi j - ?m MOUK" PNRfNt 1PFF*» THMQI't P^H| U ri rn A\u H IM F*HAI|ST Ftnw n»FL «0D£ Mt cu* N0*» ni- iUHien nsMc M5CU» 8SN0? *~ h i 'i K '< « ^ /M | '< Hr./Mpj wat in HMH PPM PPM r;/H* h« G/K*» H* i mm O.M II,M .mi 1 . Wi» 1.«1 .«n7 I Rifl H^s I*«* ii.imi k fif V 1 hum ?.i 1 . ' H.SII .'Mil ? S|?I isn . i n RH . b5* 1PS.U1 « 1 7 .in*; H hi. 9 1i»7 30b . », «»• 1?.73 «» l Onn ¦tq. ? iq. S.hJ .'It 7 7|? *n? 3*3 .bH »>. 3^ il.** h 1 Mmii i«,H . ' '»* •». M . 'IPV. S M n PS 7 KPb c?. 7m ?. Qli ?.*~» in. *i* 7 l«r|ii SS.1 .PIS . hii »%,S| .i»^3 7 SHI ??S *I^S 1 I I * l«l»M «?*.? HI.' H.I? i * . <1 fl «;h«i 1^7 1 fjR 7 >,01) 1 1.33 1 •?. 08 <* l«u« IH.r* Kfl s 7. 1? 7. 1* .ink Q «iH» 11H7 n.iin J 1 I HI 1 a'M» H«, 1 . »? 7. ,H ? il.uu I 1 1 1 il.il H.n . " 1«® 1 . >1 t , ®H . 'Ill 7 l i HllH JS«i IH5 n.cin H w a I* i hm«i 'S3. 7 M 1. > I f>.** lP.a#l i? inn 1S| lfl?«i i# J? i.lM i.lR i?. ii 1 ) P*iMi 3«*S.? 1S,« ,»»> 1 1 . V IP.IP ,«n<; u H« J iOlS h* 3M l.?l 3. ^ S l q, ®? l*> 17b ??H b 7 7 3.81 ?. hi l?,i3 *7 P*IIM PS.* **. i , 1h4 q. m a.** I' hnR ?88 •il 7 ii. mi i I 1 li MlIU HI.? is. i , i»a .ni n 1« K9K 317 i?q I.<3 P.b* H.7? 1* P8.S B * . tpi «.<»! ». n I" 7BH 37b ?37 «i.im 1 ! 1 ?» « . 1 .hi? «. 1 * ».?p .!»t 9 ?n PHQ * 33 1 Pi n.oo 1 I I ?r Kflll n.ii II II 1 . »1 . Mlt7 3S3 1«*K n.iin N w R ctr.LF. COMPOSITE *SHC S l,*?7 GrfAM/K* Mp «SCO* S * . 3 J 1 GRAM/Kri M» l*.b9H PRAM/KM HP 8SHC ~ «SNoa*»= GM AM / k «< MW t = • image: ------- TAW.E D-62, U-NOOt PirV.L £*1*510'! C»tl f DAIMLER-BENZ DIESEL ENGINE 0M-352-AB S/H W-10-01-9653 12S Hfi, EMISSION ENGINE TEST t bun i FUCt: pwnjtci I irii n*U 1-j-js HOOE engine SPCFU festal'? puxf;^ FUFU Ft*** * IN FLOW F »H#-JST FLO* fufl *I« *i)OE HC CO* NO** WCIGrttf0 BSHC BSCu* tlSNyl?** RPH N X M *w *G/MI* KR/wfh Kfi/HI* »A1 10 PPN PPM t*P* KM G/K* HR r./Kw Htf G/KM rtW 1 t*n»i n.n n.n #H|? i .«? 1 ,«3 t ?sb **n i?a n.on H H i l*oo 1. 3 .tisl s.-s *» . Ml . IMS 4 ? ti*H t .11 ?b.lb n 51.73 % I* i»n 'iq, ? IH.S Jim 1 %<««> 3?S an 1. 5n S. !* b.VR 9.qj i 3?.h . » ^*a *•«?3 .U?b * 5K0 ?M| b«*.18 n.n i i ?*«!» fO, H .lb? «, b? e. ?>» .ftf * ii SB* e.uK S.RO ifK.OO *» ?. 1 3 n bni» n.n II ,n ,01? 1 . ! . .nit? 13 ?3b n. Ci" H « CfCtF COMPOSITE B8HC s GRaH/kn Mk «3CO* - HHah/kn H»» nSNf1LLIGR*NS k«TE» per *G OBf MR image: ------- TA8U; D-6J. I)HSH SI "n { * {{ DAIML£R-B£N2 DIESEL ENGINE OM-352 AB S/N 909-UQ-01-9653 125 HR. O'.TSION ENGINE TPS T i *M »4 * M ». ri KG/-I*- n G / »I» * <; / m I *i »* t\n PPM PPH Pt*M Km G/Kw HR G/K •« HW G/-V- HH i Sf»'t 0.11 fi. a .Mil 1 . fin i ,pi .imi? ! (It II * IS ?? n.oo H e i i flllH ?. 1 1 . 3 ."SI , itnq ? ??f» S?i '~n .1J iP^.un aS.S(! 3 I flau q«», ? t H . 0 . rt 'in S.N ? s. ?? • 01? 3 ?l? i.sn b. 3b ?. J« 1 • 38 «~ I flmi *B.»I . !** *•.1 * ,!>?«¦¦ * K?l! 3.uh ?.**» e, »-»•». ? SS . *1 . ^ 1S h .M* K^H | .nil s** ??s 1 ,?t» l . 3n i i , S 3 ? Mim O.fi II. II ,nte t.?'1 1 „°l> . Mil ? 7 MflR >SH P.Otl u ¥ P 3M. ? imt? 1 ? . * ** 1 ? . ® '4 . n it. M Ti* <~* i iui*> *. jm i. it" i?.n3 S **nu ,?***>.«* . 1 n. 1 1 .?* ,n M q 3*1? Hi h *i.e* i •fc* r . iS il.Hi io 1 ™.n # ?•» M ? q „ 0 ? . 1 n 4 ?h ?ep h«h *. i* ?,•** 1^.30 11 ?«nn **. 1 . • **fl o. iq a. s*. , tl?(i I 1 h'lg ?8U ^.00 b.o1* s. ?U 1 i.H ip ?y.ui ?. i X. 4 . Mi? «. J ? ®. ?*• .~Ml 1 ? *M IS! .4? <« <4 ^ H <« 13 ban ii.« n„i» . •' J * 1 . *"• J . ?«. .»M J 1 * 3Si inS 0.00 H P fa tffLE co«posnf. 1SHC s 3.10# Gham/r* Hfc ssto« s 3. ?*i GRAH/K* HP flSNO?** s l?.0?h Oh»H/Kr HR BSHC ~ = IS.l33 HK *Sf C = .eiKKfc/KM H* •» CnNVCPTCO 1U f»E T nAS I S CONVENED to WET BASIS ANU -OR»tCTED ^0 10.7 WILLIG*U*S MATER PER KG DRY ft {ft image: ------- TABLE D-64. 2 1-MOOt. EPA £*~* 01F.SEL EMI 33 I ON CVCLE ROJECTt U-*b23-OI)l TEST i)AlE 3-31-78 RUN NO.l XCINEl DAIMLER-BENZ MODEL OM-352 N/A DI SERIAL NO. 12468 ODE F.NGINE IHHUUf Pl)»EH fuel AIR EXHAUST fuel SPEED FLOH FLO* FLO" AIR RPH N X M KH KC/MIN KG/min KG/min RATIO bOO 0.0 n.n .0) 1 1 .81 1.10 .00b 201111 '.1 1.5 .»5b b. 13 b.lB .1)1)1 2onu 2b.1 5.5 .llbS h. 15 b . 2 1 .1)11 2001) si.3 1?.* .1)83 b.lll) b.DH .01* 2oun 07.8 IB.* . lnl h.Ub b. Ih .1)17 20(111 l»l).» 37.8 . IbO b.llft b.2* . 02b 20011 25B.R 5*. e .el5 b.l)0 b • 22 . 1) 3 b 20110 28*. <1 51. 7 .23? 5.9(1 b . 22 .0*0 20IIU 315.7 bb.l .21.5 5.9b b • 22 . n** 2nijo 3*1.8 71 ,b .203 5.89 b. 11 .1150 bllO ii. n D.I) .013 1.85 1.8b .007 28nti 31 S . 7 12.b .*11 8.1)0 8.41 .051 28110 212.11 85 . b .372 8.02 8.31 .0<»b 2800 2bl .1 7h.b .327 0.1)4 8. 37 .011 2801) 237. * bl.b .297 B.nb D. 3b .037 280U 151.1 *b.b .211 8.13 B.3S .027 2B0U 83.1 2*.* .151 8.10 8. 2b .020 28UU s 7. n lb.7 .13b 8.09 8.22 .017 28110 2h • 1 7.7 .112 8.07 B.1B .01* ^ 8II11 7.1 2.1 .011 B.nb B. lb .012 bUO 0.0 o.n .013 1.90 1.11 .007 OOE E MC CO* N0»» MEIGMTED BSHC 0SCO + B3N02** HUM. NILLI PPM PPM PPM K» G/KM HR G/KN HR G/KM HR G/KG 718 lb* 131 0.00 M R R 11.0 700 517 1*1 .11 8*.*3 12*.20 55. bl 11.0 712 S12 180 .*0 23.5* 35.72 H.*3 11.0 821 Sbb 2b 3 .7b 11.73 lb.U? 12,2* 11.0 832 53b 338 .bb 8.11 10.*1 10. 79 11.0 800 118 b9l 2. 7b 3.85 *.00 10. 8B 11.0 b 80 383 9S8 o.uo I I I 11.0 S 7b * 33 1017 2.12 1.75 2.bl 10.1)9 11.0 HO bBS 10*7 0.00 I I I 11.0 220 1*0 3 10*2 O.UO I I I 11.0 82* 1 b 3 13b O.UO R R » 11.0 2* 1*7* 100S 2.1b .Ob 7.77 8 . b 9 11.0 120 108* 99b 5.7* .3* b.lb 9. 30 11.0 3UB b 1 3 9bB 3.21 . IB 3.88 10.08 11.0 *Sb * b? 121 5.08 1.51 3.21 10.53 11.0 b28 *71 bbS 3.*0 3.27 *.89 11.33 11.0 7*0 SbO 3b3 0.00 I I I 10.3 792 591 270 1.32 11.3* lb.87 12.bb 10.1 821 b21 US 0.00 I I I 10.1 821 b2 3 lSb O.PO I I I 10.1 880 520 15 o.ro R R R 10.1 YCLE COMPOSITE BSHC » 3.*10 gram/km HR BSCOt * 7.010 gram/km HR B3ND2+*® 10.7bb GRAM/KM HR BSHC ~ BSN02*»c 1 * • 1 75 gram/kn HR BSFC * .29SKG/KM HR ~ CONVERTED TO MET BASIS ~ ~ CONVERTED TO met BASIS AND CORRECTED to 10,? MILLIGRAMS MATER PER K6 ORV AIR image: ------- TABLE D-f.5, 2 l-MOOl EP» EXP 0IE3EL Emission CYCLE JJECTI U-*b21-001 TEST 0*»E ? -11-78 RUN N0,2 UNEt BAIMLER-BEHZ MODEL OH-352 N/A DI SERIAL NO . 124B8 BE engine 1 OHJUL PO*l» FUEL AIR EXHAUST FUEL SPEEO FLO* FLO* FLO* AIR RPM Nam RW kg/min KG/HJN KG/HJH RATIO 1 boil 0.11 <1,0 ."11 1.81 Kin .00b 2 2noo 1.5 2.0 .055 b.10 h.lS .001 1 21100 28. S "i.U ,01.8 H.12 b. 18 .011 * 21100 bl. 7 12.1 .087 b. 12 ••.20 .111* S 2ooo 85. 5 1 7.1 , 100 b • 05 b. 15 .nib b 2000 182,8 18.1 . lb 1 b , 0 3 h. 11 .02 7 7 2000 258.R 5*.2 ,215 b.Ol fe.22 • 0 3b 8 20110 280.1 SB. 7 .211 S.lb h.n .031 1 21100 IIS. 7 bh, 1 ,2bb 5.11, b.21 .0*S 0 2noo 1*1.8 71. b .213 5.1b b.2b .0*1 1 hno o.n o.n .011 1.8* l.Sfc .nob .2 28(10 • lis.J N2.b .*IU 8.HI 8.*? .051 ,3 2800 212.0 85.b . J70 8,02 8.J1 . 0* b I* 2«nn 2b 1. 1 7h.b .130 8.08 H.1!! .0* 1 IS 280!! 237.* hl.b .110 8.11 8.** .018 ib 2800 ( ¦ lb 1,* *7. 1 .221 8.11 8 . * 2 .028 17 2*on 80.7 21.7 • i i b 8. 1* 8. 30 .011 18 2800 57.0 Ib.7 .138 8.21 8.1? .01 7 1«* 2800 28.S 8.* .111 8.07 8.11 .01* 2o 2800 7.1 2.1 .01b S.Ofc 8. IS .012 21 bOO O.U 0.0 .01* 1.81 1.82 .008 mmmm-mmmm <00E HC CO* NO** WEIGMTEO BSHC BSCO* B3M02* * .* 12 2* 1 3b2 171 2.1b .Ob 7.18 B.*t 1.* 13 120 1112 1b1 5,7* .1* b. 12 i.n* '.* 1* 288 bbb 12 7 1.21 .12 *.2* 1,b° *.* 15 *2* S*0 831 5.0 8 1,50 1.80 l.feu '.* lb mo- *18 b2* l.«S 3.10 S.l* 10.57 *.* 17 rn blS l*b 0.00 1 1 I *.* 18 7»b fell 2b7 1.12 11. bO 17.17 12.7* «.* H 8*8 b22 112 0.00 1 t 1 «.•> 20 880 b2S 155 0.00 1 1 1 2i 8B0 *12 107 0.00 R R 6 *.b CYCLE COMPOSITE BSHC * 3 » * * b GRAM/KM HR BSCO+ x b.SlO GRAM/KW HR BSN02*** 10,3b1 GRAM/KN HR BSHC ~ BSN02*** 11.81S GRAM/KW HP BSFC * .218KG/K* HR ~ CONVERTED TO MET BASIS ~~ CONVERTED TO MET 8*913 AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS KATER PER KE DRY AIR image: ------- U-HOOt FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CVCLE • CTi ii-«b2i-nni nsi oate 3-n-?* hum no.i £l DAIMLER-BENZ MODEL OH-352 HI A Ot SERIAL HO. 12438 ENGINE towout PQ*FR FUEL AIR EXHAUS1 FUEL SPEEO FLO* FLO* FLOW AIR RPM N » M KM kg/nin KG/NIN kg/nin RATIO bnn n.a II.u .011 1.81 1.10 .not. 2onti ?.i 1.5 ,05b b.11 b.l* ."01 e«on 8?.B IB.* .1111 b.0»> b.lk .01? ?nu» 180.* 17.a . 11.0 b. 118 b,2* .02b 211011 258.H 5*.2 .215 fc.nn 1..22 .11 lb innti I*l.B ?i.b .211 s.ei b.H .050 bllll li.0 0.0 .011 l.*5 l.Bb .no? 28oo 31%. 7 12.b .*11 8.on B.*l .051 2*no 21?.* bl.b .2"' fl.nb B.Jb .01? aanu 151, 1 *b.b .?l' 8.11 8.15 .02? i mm 81.1 2*.* .in ».m 8.21. .020 2800 ?.l 2.1 .01"! 8.0b 8.1b .01? fcun 0.0 n.n .»u l.m 1.11 .00? MODE HC CO* NO** WEIGHTED BSMC BSClJ* BSN02** HUH. NULI PPM PPN PPM KM G/KN MS G/K* MR G/KN M» C/KG 1 7*8 <•(.* 110 0.00 R R R 11.0 f ?00 51? 120 .12 8* . * 3 12*.20 * ? . 2 ? 11.0 i 832 51b 28? 1.*? 8.11 10.*1 1.1«> 11.0 * 800 *18 b5? 1.02 1.85 *.00 10.3* 11.0 5 b80 381 120 *.3* 2.2? 2.55 10.05 11.0 b 220 1*03 15b S.?3 • SS ?.U3 ?.i? 11.0 ? ¦ 2* *fel 100 0.00 H K R 11.0 B 2* 1*?* <181 ?.*1 ,0b ?.?? 8.SI 11.0 *51. *1.2 <102 5.5? l.si 3.21 10.32 11.0 10 b2B *?1 bS* J.?l 3.2? *.81 11.15 11.0 11 ?*0 5b0 3b1 1.15 ?.10 11. U1 11.11 10.1 12 82* l>21 1*? .1? U.bl 1*1.21 S*.b8 10.1 11 880 520 81 Q.UO ft R H 10.1 CVCLE COMPOSITE BSHC • 1.118 GRAM/Kn NR BSCO* s ?.2S2 GRAN/KM MR BSN02*** 10.0b* GRAN/KM MR BSMC ~ BSN02**» 11.21.2 gran/kh HR BSFC » ,I13KG/KK MR ~ CONVERTED TO MET BASIS ~ ~ CONVERTED TO NET basis and CQMICTED 10 10.7 MILLIGRAMS MATER PER KG DRY AIR image: ------- TABLT n-67. I )-HOI>| FEDERAL OUSft EMISSJtlN CYCLE JECT1 II-lbiJ-IltH TEST 0*1E J-31-3H BUN NO.2 I HE I DAIMLER-BENZ MODEL OM-352 N/A DI SERIAL NO. 12488 ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR F.xhaUST FUEL SPIED FLON FLON FLOW AIR RPN N * H KM KG/MIN KG/MJN KG/MIN RATIO biin o.n O.n ,011 1.8* l.*0 .nob 211 III) *,5 2.0 .055 b. 10 •>.15 .11111 2iwn 85.5 13.* . 100 fa.ns b.lS .01b J ciim) inj.fl 38, 3 b.UJ b.i* .02 3 2HIIU 258.fl 5*.2 .215 b.ll 1 • 03b aim ii 3*1.8 31.1. ,2*3 ¦».*». b.2b .{11* bnil 11.n il.O .011 1.8* 1.8h .nob 2inu 31S, 3 *2.b ,*10 ».ni 8,*2 .051 28oo 111.* b*.b .310 8.13 8.** .038 2«uu lbl.* *3.1 ,22* 8.1* 8.12 .028 28nu •0.3 21.3 ,15b 8.1* 8.3(1 .018 2"(I0 '.1 2.1 .O^b R.tlb 8.1b .012 bIJU 0.(1 o.n ,ni* l.m 1.8? .no« ***** 1 1 f ¦********¦ ********* t t 1 t 1 I0DE MC CO* N0+ + WEIGHTED BSHC B3CU* BSN02** HUM. MILL! PPM PPM PPM KM G/KW MR g/kh hk G/Kw HR t/KG >•*.*** ***** 1 f ********* t 1 • 1 1 • • 1 BSb *08 10* 0.00 k R R 10.8 2 310 * 33 13* .lb bb . fa 1 71, bH *0,*0 10.8 J 82* 3*1* 23* l.*3 8.2* 3.*b 8.*3 10.8 * BOO 25* bSS 3.0b 3.3b 2.38 10.08 10.8 5 30* 222 85* *. J* 2.35 1 . *8 *.*0 10.8 b 212 1332 *5* 5.33 .5* fa.35 3.>)8 *.* 3 • 5b 323 lis o.uo K R H *.* I 2* 1 3b2 **0 3,*1 ,0b 3.18 t.l* *.* * 5*0 8b5 5.53 l.SO 3.80 10.00 *.* 10 bOO *<*8 b3J 3.3 image: ------- TABLE D-68.SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A (BASED ON 47-mnt GLASSFIBER FILTERS) Engine Run Concentration Particulate Rate rpm/% load No. mg/m3 g/hr g/kg fuel g/kW-hr 1800/02 1 40.57 11.21 3.74 8.62 2 44.49 12.00 «.14 9.23 Avg 42.53 11.61 3.94 8.93 1800/25 1 34.78 10.18 1.73 0.56 2 35.72 10.08 1.71 0.53 Avg 35.25 10.13 1.72 0.55 1800/50 1 72.99 22.56 2.43 0.60 2 62.54 19.12 2.06 0.51 Avg 67.77 20.84 2.25 0.56 1800/75 1 60.11 20.70 1.57 0.36 2 52.55 17.58 1.36 0.32 Avg 56.33 19.14 1.47 0.34 1800/100 1 105.30 39.97 2.37 0.54 2 106.73 40.14 2.39 0.54 Avg 106.02 40.06 2.38 0.54 Idle 1 44.89 4.16 4.62 2 46.08 4.33 6.19 Avg 45.49 4.25 5.41 2800/100 1 84.27 53.68 2.01 0.50 2 84.00 52.25 1.96 0.49 Avg 84.14 52.96 1.99 0.50 2800/75 1 64.85 36.32 1.75 0.46 2 62.24 35.05 1.68 0.44 Avg 63.55 35.69 1.72 0.45 2800/50 1 83.44 41.69 2.71 0.77 2 91.34 45.75 2.97 0.84 Avg 87.39 43.72 2.84 0.81 2800/25 1 138.41 61.82 6.06 2.28 2 134.30 59.82 5.86 2.21 Avg 136.36 60.82 5.96 2.25 2800/02 1 93.61 38.17 6.58 18.18 2 103.77 42.34 7.30 20.16 Avg 98.69 40.26 6.94 19.17 D-63 image: ------- TABLE D-69. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SO. FROM DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A (BASED ON 47 nun FLUOROPORE FILTERS) Engine rpm/% load Run No. Concentration Sulfate Rate gg/hr mg/kg fuel tngAW-hr SO. as % Fuel S 1800/2 1 2 Avg 987.9 1020,6 1004.4 272.9 275.2 274.1 90.96 94.90 92.93 209. 211, 210.8 1.29 1.35 1.32 1800/25 1 2 Avg 926.0 1031.8 978.9 270.9 291.2 281.1 45.92 49.36 47.64 14.80 15.17 14.99 0.65 0.70 0.68 1800/50 1 2 Avg 2443.7 2435.8 2439.8 755.0 744.7 749.9 81.18 80.08 80.63 20.08 19.81 19.95 1.15 1.14 1.15 1800/75 1 2 Avg 2036.7 1729.7 1883.2 701.8 578.1 640.0 53.17 44.86 49.02 12.29 10.43 11.36 0.75 0.64 0.70 1800/100 1 2 Avg 2308.9 2264.6 2286.8 876.5 851.7 864.1 52.17 50.70 51.44 11.80 11.56 11.68 0.74 0.72 0.73 Idle 1 2 Avg 1948.4 1697.3 1822.9 180.5 159.3 169.9 200.56 227.57 214.07 2.84 3.23 3.04 2800/100 1 2 Avg 2677.6 2239.4 2458.5 1705.5 1392.9 1549.2 63.88 52.17 58.03 15.81 13.03 14.42 0.91 0.74 0.83 2800/75 1 2 Avg 1928.3 1653.6 1791.0 1079.8 931.3 1005.6 52.16 44.56 48.36 13.57 11.58 12.58 0.74 0.63 0.69 2800/50 1 2 Avg 2346. 2198. 2272.5 1175.0 1098.5 1136.8 76.30 71.33 73,82 21.64 20.23 20.94 1.08 1.01 1.04 2800/25 1 2 Avg 2342.2 2155.9 2249.1 1043.3 962.9 1003.1 102.28 94.40 98.34 38.50 35.53 37.02 1.45 1.34 1.40 2800/2 1 2 Avg 1438.1 1667,3 1552.7 586.4 680.3 633.4 101.10 11 <. 109.2 279.24 323.95 301.6 1.43 1.66 1.55 D-64 image: ------- TABLE D-70.CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A ENGINE (RUN 1) (13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS) Weighted fine * Power Fuel Part. so4= Wgt. Power Fuel Part. 23 £ u 25L Load kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Fact. kW kg/hr g/hr ag/hr lie 0.9 4.16 180.5 0.067 0.06 0.28 12.09 J00 2 1.3 3.0 11.21 272.9 0,08 0.10 0.24 0.90 21.83 300 25 18.3 5.9 10.18 270.9 0.08 1.46 0.47 0.81 21.67 300 50 37.6 9.3 22.56 755.0 0.08 3.01 0.74 1.80 60.40 300 75 57.1 13.2 20.70 701.8 0.08 4.57 1.06 1.66 56.14 300 100 74.3 16.9 39.97 876.5 0.08 5.94 1.35 3.20 70.12 Sle 0.9 4.16 180.5 0.067 0.06 0.28 12.09 S00 100 107.9 26.7 53.68 1705.5 0.08 8.63 2.14 4.29 136.44 300 75 79.6 20.7 36.32 1079.8 0.08 6.37 1.66 2.91 86.38 800 50 54.3 15.4 41.69 1175.0 0.08 4.34 1.23 3.34 94.00 800 25 27.1 10.2 61.82 1043.3 0.08 2.17 0.82 4.95 83.46 800 2 2.1 5.8 38.17 586.4 0.08 0.17 0.46 3.05 46.91 die 0.9 4.16 180.5 0.067 0.06 0.28 12.09 36.76 10.35 27.75 713.62 irake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 0.755 'uel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 2.681 irake Specific SO4-, mg/kK-hr 'uel Specific S04=, mg/kg fuel 19.41 68.95 image: ------- TABLE D-71.CYCLE COMPOSITE, PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A ENGINE (RUN 2) (13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS) Weighted gine % Power Fuel Part. S°4= Wgt. Power Fuel Part. SO4- rpm Load kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Fact. kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr die ... 0.7 4.33 159.3 .067 0.05 0.29 10.67 800 2 1.3 2.9 12.00 275.2 .08 0.10 0.23 0.96 22.02 800 25 19.2 5.9 10.08 291.2 .08 1.54 0.47 0.81 23.30 800 50 37.6 9.3 19.12 744.7 .08 3.01 0.74 1.53 59.58 800 75 55.5 12.9 17.58 578,1 .08 4.44 1.03 1.41 46.25 800 100 73.7 16.8 40.14 851.7 .08 5.90 1.34 3.21 68.14 die 0.7 4.33 159.3 .067 0.05 0.29 10.67 800 100 106.9 26.7 52.25 1392.9 .08 8.55 2.14 4.18 111.43 800 75 80.4 20.9 35.05 931.3 .08 .43 1.67 2.80 74.50 800 50 54.3 15.4 45.75 1098.5 .08 4.34 1.23 3.66 87.88 800 25 27.1 10.2 59.82 962.9 .08 2.17 0.82 4.79 77.03 800 2 2.1 5.8 42.34 680.3 .08 0.17 0.46 3.39 54.42 die 0.7 4.33 159.3 .067 0.05 0.29 10.67 36.65 10.28 27.61 656.56 irake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 0.753 'uel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 2.686 irake specific SO4-, mg/kW-hr 'uel Specific S04", tag/kg fuel 17.91 63.87 image: ------- TABLE D-72. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE (BASED ON 47 mm GLASSFIBER FILTERS) Engine rpm. Run Concentration Particulate Rate % Load No. mg/ro g/hr g/kg fuel g/kW-hr 2000/2 1 47.99 14.53 9.69 4.40 2 50.07 15.12 10.08 4.58 Avg 49.03 14.83 9.89 4.49 2000/25 1 98.90 30.72 5.12 1.72 2 107.24 33.04 5.60 1.85 Avg 103.07 31.88 5.36 1.79* 2000/50 1 76.25 23.71 2.55 0.54 2 81.34 25.32 2.72 0.59 Avg 78.80 24.52 2.64 0.57 2000/75 1 99.06 30.48 2.33 0.56 2 100.91 31.51 2.46 0.58 *.vg 99.99 31.00 2.42 0.57 2000/100 1 277.77 85.96 4.88 1.19 2 283.69 87.96 5.00 1.22 Avg 280.73 86.96 4.94 1.21 Idle 1 46.05 4.27 5.34 2 45.30 4.19 5.24 Avg 45.68 4.23 5.29 2800/100 1 372.91 154.75 6.39 1.71 2 354.21 146.68 5.94 1.60 Avg 363.56 150.72 6.17 1.65 2800/75 1 126.79 53.66 2.95 0.76 2 122.57 51.74 2.86 0.74 Avg 124.68 52.70 2.91 0.75 2800/50 1 101.78 42.92 3.18 0.91 2 100.71 42.37 3.14 0.90 Avg 101.25 42.65 3.16 0.91 2900/25 1 140.05 58.20 6.33 2.49 2 156.49 65.55 7.05 2.80 Avg 148.27 61.88 6.69 2.65 2800/2 1 99.37 40.77 7.15 19.41 2 121.10 49.60 8.86 23.62 Avg 110.24 45.19 8.01 21.52 D-67 image: ------- TABLE D-73. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SO.= FROM DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE (BASED ON 47 mm FLUOROPORE FILTERS) Engine rpro/% load 2000/2 Pun No, 1 2 Avg Concentration 767.0 854.1 810.6 232.2 258.0 245.1 Sulfate Rate mg/hr ag/kg fuel mg/kW-hr 70.37 78.18 74.28 154.8 172.0 163.4 SO as % Fuel S 0.98 1.11 1.05 2000/25 1 2 Avg 1186.5 1236.5 1211.5 365.5 379.8 372.7 61.95 62.26 62.11 20.42 20.64 20.53 0.88 0.88 0.88 2000/50 1 2 Avg 1878.1 2349.2 2113.7 584.0 731.2 657.6 62.80 78.62 70.71 15.87 19.87 17.87 0.89 1.11 1.00 2000/75 1 2 Avg 1127.8 1874.7 1501.3 352.2 582.1 467.2 27.52 45.83 36.68 6.50 10.74 8.62 0.39 0.65 0.52 2000/100 1 2 Avg 1881.6 2206.0 2043.8 579.9 684.0 632.0 33.33 38.86 36.10 8.11 9.49 8.80 0.47 0.55 0.51 Idle 1 2 Avg 1400.5 1749.8 1575.2 129.8 164.1 147.0 162.25 205.13 183.69 2.30 2.91 2.61 2800/100 1 2 Avg 4080.0 2694.2 3387.1 1693.0 1115.7 1404.4 69.96 45.17 57.57 18.71 12.15 15.43 0.99 0.64 0.82 2800/75 1 2 Avg 3153.4 2554.9 2854.2 1334.4 1078.5 1206.5 73,32 59.59 66.46 18.98 15.34 17.16 1.04 0.84 0.94 2800/50 1 2 Avg 2535.5 2859.1 2697.3 1069.3 1202,7 1116.0 79.21 89.09 84.15 22.61 25.43 24.02 1.12 1.26 1.19 2800/25 1 2 Avg 1892.0 2440.1 2166.1 786,3 1022.0 904.2 85.47 109.90 97.69 33,46 43.68 38.57 21 56 1.39 2800/2 1 2 Avg 944.3 1664.3 1304.3 387.4 681.6 534.5 67.96 121.71 94.84 184.50 324.57 254.54 0.96 1.73 1.35 D-68 image: ------- TABLE D-74. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE {13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS) RUN 1 Weighted Engine % Power Fuel Part. S04= Wgt. rpm Load kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Fact. Idle 0.8 4.27 129.8 0.067 2000 2 1.5 3.3 14.53 232.2 0.08 2000 25 17.9 6.0 30.72 365.5 0.08 2000 50 36.8 9.3 23.71 584.0 0.08 2000 75 54.2 12.8 30.48 352.2 0.08 2000 100 72.0 17.6 85.96 579.9 0.08 Idle 0.8 4.27 129.8 0.067 2800 100 90.5 24.2 154.75 1693.0 0.08 2800 75 70.3 18.2 53.66 1334.4 0.08 2800 50 47.3 13.5 42.92 1069.3 0.08 2800 25 23.5 9.2 58.20 786.3 0.08 2800 2 2.1 5.7 40.77 387.4 0.08 Idle 0.8 4.27 129.8 0.067 Power Fuel Part. so4= kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr 0.05 0.29 8.70 0.12 0.26 1.16 18.58 1.43 0.48 2.46 29.24 2.94 0.74 1.90 46.72 4.34 1.02 2.44 28.18 5.76 1.41 6.88 46.39 0.05 0.29 8.70 7.24 1.94 12.38 135.44 5.62 1.46 4.29 106.75 3.78 1.08 3.43 8S.54 1.88 0.74 4.66 62.90 0.17 0.46 3.26 30.99 0.05 0.29 8.70 33.28 9.74 43.73 616.83 Brake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 1-314 Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 4.490 Brake Specific SO,j* Fuel Specific S04=i , mgAW-hr mg/kg fuel 18.54 63.33 image: ------- TABLE D-75. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE (13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS) RUN 2 Weighted Engine % Power ?uel Part. SO4" Wgt. Power Fuel Part. SO4" rpm Load kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Fact. kW kg/hr q/hr mg/hr Idle 0.8 4.19 164.1 0.067 0.05 0.28 11.00 2000 2 1.5 3.3 15.12 258.0 0.08 0.12 0.26 1.21 20.64 2000 25 17.9 5.9 33.04 379.8 0.08 1.43 0.47 2.64 30.38 2000 50 36.8 9.3 25.32 731.2 0.08 2.94 0.74 2.03 58.50 2000 75 54.2 II.8 33 .51 582.1 0.08 4.34 1.02 2.52 46.57 2000 100 72.1 17.6 87.36 6S4.0 0.08 5.77 1.41 7.04 54.72 Idle 0.8 4.19 164.1 0.067 0.05 0.28 11.00 2800 100 91.8 24.7 146.68 1115.7 0.08 7.34 1.98 11.73 89.26 2800 75 70.3 18.1 51.74 1078.5 0.08 5.62 1.45 4.14 86.28 2800 50 47.3 13.5 42.37 1202.7 0.08 3.78 1.08 3.39 96.22 2800 25 23.4 9.3 65.55 1022.0 0.08 1.87 0.74 5.24 81.76 2800 2 2.1 5.6 49.60 681.6 0.08 0.17 0.45 3.97 54.53 Idle 0.8 4.19 164.0 0.067 0.05 0.28 11.00 33.38 9.75 44.75 651.86 Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW-hr 1.341 Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 4.590 Brake Specific SO4", mg/kW-hr 19.53 Fuel Specific SO4*, mgAg fuel 66.86 image: ------- TABLE D-76. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE DAIMLER-BENZ OM-3S2 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Mode rpm load, % kW kg/hr pg/hr Sol., % 1 2000 2 1.5 3.4 14.99 37.34 2 2000 50 35.8 9.0 55.49 57.24 3 2000 100 71.3 17.9 BHD 7.13 4 Idle 0.8 54.77 17.07 5 2800 100 95.4 25.1 BMD 7.40 6 2800 50 50.8 13.9 120.71 51.59 7 2800 2 2.1 5.9 66.16 59.14 D -li Brake Specific BaP, pg/kW-hr 1.425 1-1 Fuel Specific BaP, pg/kg fuel 4.840 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, * 34.15 Brake Specific BaP, pg/kW-hr 1.407 Fuel Specific BaP, pg/kg fuel 4.575 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 30.25 BMD - Below Minimum Detectable Wgt. Power Fuel BaP Org. Fact. kW kg/hr pg/hr Sol., ' W.F. Derived From 13- -Mode FTP 0.12 0.18 0.41 1.80 4.48 0.16 5.73 1.44 8.88 9.16 0.12 8.56 2.15 0.86 0.20 0.16 10.95 3.41 0.12 11.4S 3.01 0.89 0.16 8.13 2.22 19.31 8.25 0.12 0.25 0.71 7.94 7.10 34.30 10.10 48.88 34.15 W.F. Derived From 21-Mode EPA 0.225 0.34 0.77 3.37 8.40 0.092 3.29 0.83 5.11 5.27 0.049 3.48 0.88 0.35 0.269 0.22 14.73 4.59 0.176 16.79 4.42 1.30 0.110 5.59 1.53 13.28 5.67 0.079 0.17 0.47 5.23 4.67 29.66 9.12 41.72 30.25 image: ------- TABLE D-77. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A TURBOCHARGED ENGINE Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org, Wgt. Power Fuel BaP Org. Mode rpm load, % kW kg/hr ug/hr Sol,, % Fact, kW kg/hr Ug/hr Sol., % W.F. Derived From 13-Mode FTP 1 1800 2 1.3 2.9 19.86 28.86 0.12 0.16 0.35 2.38 3.46 2 1800 50 37.6 9.3 83.24 37.81 0.16 6.02 1.50 13.32 6.05 3 1800 100 72.5 16.8 8.11 0.12 8.70 2.02 0.97 4 Idle 0.6 32.62 17.48 0.20 0.12 6.52 3.50 5 2800 100 106.2 26.5 7.70 0.12 12.74 3.18 0.92 6 2800 50 54.3 15.5 96.99 39.74 0.16 8.69 2.48 15.52 6.36 7 2800 2 2.1 6.1 43.01 66.36 0.12 0.25 0.73 5.16 7.96 36.56 10.38 42.90 29.22 O Brake Specific BaP, yg/kW-hr 1,173 Fuel Specific BaP, yg/kg fuel 4,133 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 29.22 W.F. Derived From 21-Mode EPA 0.225 0.29 0.65 4.47 6.49 0.092 3.46 0.86 7.66 3.48 0.049 3.55 0.82 0,39 0.269 0.16 8.77 4.70 0.176 18.69 4.66 1.36 0.110 5.97 1.71 10.67 4,37 0,079 0.17 0.48 3.40 5.24 32.13 9.34 34.97 26.03 Brake Specific l-*', UgAW-hr 1.088 Fuel Specific BaP, pg/kg fuel 3.744 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 26.03 image: ------- TABLE D-78. METALS ANALYSIS OF FILTER-COLLECTED PARTICULATE (PERCENT BY WEIGHT BASED ON FLUOROPORE FILTER SAMPLES) DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 ENGINE Condition Speed/% Load Configuration Mg A1 Si P S CI K Ca Fe 2n Inter/02 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 0.62 0.82 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.14 Inter/25 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.02 0.47 1.0 0.04 0.09 0.06 Inter/50 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.91 1.4 0.27 0.11 Inter/75 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.18 0.06 1.5 1.4 0.39 0.13 Inter/100 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.08 0.05 0.44 1.0 0.04 0.23 0.11 0.10 Idle OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.05 1.4 1.0 0.07 High/100 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.002 0,01 0.27 0.67 0.06 0.94 0.04 0.32 NO Uaufl High/75 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.51 0.17 1.7 1.3 0.04 1.2 0.39 0.69 High/50 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.01 0.03 0.24 0.14 1.3 1,3 0.49 0.25 0.31 0.17 High/25 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.49 0.56 0.12 0.11 0.09 High/02 OM-352 OM-352 NA TC 0.03 0.49 0.52 0.09 0.10 image: ------- TABLE D-79. PERCENT PER .STAGE OF TOTAL PARTICULATE COLLECTED BY ANDERSON IMFACi'OK i-\JK DAIMLER-BENZ OM-JNA ANU UM-JjJA "iV Stage No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Filter ECD, micron 10.9 6.8 4.6 3.2 2.0 1.03 0.63 0.42 <0.42 (1) Intermediate Speed 2* 50* 100* Idle OM-352 Naturally Aspirated 0.61 0.41 0.59 0.54 0.47 0.36 0.18 0.29 0.83 1.2 1.6 94.5 0.54 0.81 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.1 90.0 0.80 1.8 2.1 2.7 3.5 3.4 3.5 81.5 0.63 0.49 0.83 0.39 0.92 1.2 3.9 91.0 100* 0.60 0.92 3.2 3.8 4.3 6.2 5.5 4.0 71.3 2800 so* 0.48 0.60 1.9 1.3 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.3 85.3 2* 0.76 0.31 0.67 0.90 0.81 0.90 1.0 1.9 92.7 OM-352A Turbocharged 10.9 6.8 4.6 3.2 2.0 1.03 0.63 0.42 0.83 1.5 0.61 0.67 1.2 2.3 1.4 2.8 Filter <0.42 88.7 0.44 0.55 0.55 0.85 0.55 1.8 3.0 4.2 88.0 0.52 0.40 0.57 1.2 1.8 1.6 2.9 3.4 87.7 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.45 0.48 0.41 1.1 4.2 92.6 0.59 1.4 2.4 2.3 3.5 3.7 6.9 5.3 74.0 0.20 0.59 0.47 0.26 0.68 1.9 2.5 5.3 88.1 0.16 0.31 0.39 0.49 0.49 0.65 1.0 0.47 96.0 (1) 2000 rpm OM-352, 1800 rpm OM-352A D-74 image: ------- TABLE D-80. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE 2000 rpm 2800 rpm Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2_ Form- yg/m3 11885 1570 1626 16642 985 9431 14997 aldehyde mg/hr 4830 644 664 1996 544 5248 8133 mg/kg fuel 1420 71 38 2445 22 399 1379 mgAW-hr 3220 18 9 6 114 3873 Acet- yg/m3 4035 378 586 4067 0 1911 3481 aldehyde mg/hr 3545 335 517 1054 0 2298 4079 mgAg fuel 1042 37 29 1291 0 175 692 mgAW-hr 2363 9 7 0 50 1943 Acetone yg/m3 1886 0 0 1959 0 208 1050 mg/hr 2847 0 0 873 0 430 2114 mgAg fuel 837 0 0 1069 0 33 359 mgAW-hr 1898 0 0 0 9 1007 Iso- Mg/m3 815 31 0 745 0 326 559 butyr- mg/hr 1903 73 0 514 0 1042 1741 aldehyde mgAg fuel 559 8 0 629 0 79 295 mgAW-hr 1269 2 0 0 23 829 Crotonal yg/m3 1012 103 274 948 298 544 774 mg/hr 2247 231 611 622 899 1653 2293 mgAg fuel 660 25 35 761 36 126 389 mgAW-hr 1498 6 8 10 36 1092 Hexanal yg/m3 314 78 0 211 161 225 308 mg/hr 1422 356 0 282 993 1396 1864 mgAg fuel 418 39 0 346 40 106 316 mgAW-hr 948 10 0 11 30 888 Benz- yg/m3 1017 598 872 1238 356 975 1046 aldehyde mg/hr 5150 3056 4437 1851 2449 6759 7068 mgAg fuel 1514 337 251 2267 99 514 1199 mgAW-hr 3434 85 62 27 147 3366 D-75 image: ------- TABLE D-81. ALDEHYDES BY DNHI FOR DAIMLER-BEN/. OM-3rj2A TURBOCHARGED ENG1NI-: 1600 rpm 2800 rpn Aldehyde Rate 2_ 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Form- yg/m3 4525 1610 2369 13957 11931 5770 15927 aldehyde mg/hr 1646 669 1230 1775 9954 3905 8862 mg/kg fuel 568 72 71 2541 373 252 1477 mgAW-hr 1266 18 16 92 72 4923 Acet- Ug/m3 2207 303 731 8828 2163 1759 2661 aldehyde mg/hr 1735 272 820 2427 3900 2573 3200 mgAg fuel 599 29 47 3474 146 166 533 mg/kW-hr 1335 7 11 36 47 1778 Acetone yg/n3 411 358 2138 213 2999 mg/hr 555 690 1010 535 6198 mg/kg fuel 192 40 1446 35 1033 mg/kw-hr 427 9 10 3443 Iso- pg/m3 322 450 741 butanal mg/hr 673 329 2370 mgAg fuel 232 471 395 mg/kW-hr 518 —- — -— 1317 Crotonal jjg/m3 920 357 2829 mg/hr 640 1628 8602 mg/kg fuel 916 61 1433 mg/kW-hr 15 4779 Hexanal yg/m3 167 72 89 450 125 239 453 mg/hr 676 335 514 638 1163 1803 2809 mg/kg fuel 233 36 30 914 44 116 468 mg/kW-hr 520 9 7 11 33 1561 Benz- ug/m3 453 561 751 1310 379 999 aldehyde mg/hr 2347 3629 1190 13614 3199 6924 mgAg fuel 252 209 1704 510 206 1154 mg/kW-hr 62 47 126 59 3847 D-76 image: ------- TABLE D-82. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE 2000 rpm 2800 rpm ^carbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 _2 ane ug/m3 3863 2464 5594 4262 499 2930 4528 mg/hr 1171 754 1704 381 206 1216 1832 mg/kg fuel 344 83 96 467 8 92 311 mgAW-hr 780 21 24 2 27 872 lene Ug/m3 21440 20275 54708 18353 1340 25985 27034 mg/hr 6499 6201 16660 1642 552 10783 10934 mg/kg fuel 1910 684 942 2011 22 820 1854 mgAW-hr 4333 173 231 6 235 5207 me Ug/m3 387 325 400 518 0 512 462 5 mg/hr 117 99 122 46 0 213 187 mg/kg fuel 35 11 7 57 0 16 32 mg/kW-hr 78 3 2 —— 0 5 89 tylene yg/m3 2057 1786 5846 1895 1191 2761 2652 2 mg/hr 623 546 1778 169 490 1144 1072 rag/kg fuel 183 60 101 207 20 87 182 mg/kw-hr 415 15 25 5 25 510 pane Ug/m3 58 58 0 98 0 58 58 '8 mg/hr 19 19 0 9 0 25 25 rag/kg fuel 5 2 0 11 0 2 4 mgAW-hr 12 1 0 0 1 12 spy lene yg/m3 7982 8157 7574 6700 0 9555 10196 *6 mg/hr 2420 2495 2307 599 0 3965 4124 mg/kg fuel 711 275 130 734 0 301 699 mg/kW-hr 1613 70 32 0 86 1964 nzene yg/m3 2247 1966 6292 2359 404 1966 1966 % mg/hr 656 579 1844 203 160 785 765 mg/kg fuel 193 64 104 249 6 60 130 mgAW-hr 437 16 26 2 17 364 luene yg/m3 2685 1260 471 1370 203 932 1206 h8 mg/hr 812 384 143 122 83 386 486 mgAg fuel 239 42 8 150 3 29 82 mgAW-hr 541 11 2 1 8 232 D-77 image: ------- TABLE D-83. SPECIFIC HVUkOCARBON EMISSION RATES, DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A TURBOCHARGED ENGINE Hydrocarbon Rate 1800 rpm Idle 2800 rpm 2_ 50 100 100 50 2_ Methane Ug/m3 3796 1598 1332 4262 1998 1931 4395 CH tng/hr 1030 496 516 404 1244 975 1825 H mg/kg fuel 355 53 30 579 47 63 304 mg/kW-hr 792 13 7 11 18 1014 Ethylene Ug/m3 22314 10312 24645 23072 48416 22140 29830 C2H4 mg/hr 6053 3197 9540 2189 30129 11175 12380 •C H mg/kg fuel 2088 344 548 3133 1128 721 2063 mg/kW-hr 4657 84 125 278 206 6878 Ethane pg/m3 375 187 312 499 499 375 375 c?Hfi mg/hr 102 58 121 47 311 189 156 £ o mg/kg fuel 35 6 7 68 12 12 26 mg/kW-hr 78 2 2 3 3 86 Acetylene yg/m3 1678 812 758 1949 2490 1407 2273 C_H mg/hr 455 251 293 185 1548 710 942 mgAg fuel 157 27 17 264 58 46 157 mg/kW-hr 350 7 4 14 13 524 Propane pg/m3 — ___ 115 ___ C3H8 mg/hr 12 J O mg/kg fuel 17 mg/kW-hr — Propylene ug/m3 7924 4078 11944 8215 16546 10079 11012 C3H6 mg/hr 2150 1264 4623 779 10297 5087 4570 J D mg/kg fuel 742 136 266 1116 386 328 762 mg/kW-hr 1653 33 60 95 94 2539 Benzene ug/m3 2022 1067 2135 3034 3034 2022 3202 C6H6 mg/hr 528 318 795 2*?7 2793 982 1279 o o mg/kg fuel 182 34 46 396 105 63 213 mgAW-hr 406 8 10 26 18 711 Toluene Ug/m3 384 329 877 1041 1754 712 986 mg/hr 104 102 338 99 1088 359 408 / o mg/kg fuel 36 11 19 141 41 23 68 mg/kW-hr 80 3 4 10 7 227 D-78 image: ------- tabu: D-W. I I--OOE PEr>E»»L Oir.lft CISSION cycle *ACK-|TAVb?|*APS CHI6H PRESSURE Pi|MP| CON* IGgRATION S/N fcMJIO TEST I RUN 1 «•!$•?* FIJll EM-32«-F PROJECT ll»*b23>nni wm + wi "00E ENGINE TORQUE POwf B rnr l tjl exhaust puet SPIED now FLOW HO* AIR RPM H * M KM KG/»t* KG/MIN RATIO •»<«• m mmmmwmmmm: 1 • ?50 0.0 n.o .011 *.?« *.?5 .00? i 1*S0 H.l 1,0 .nun ".*1 «,*<( .oo* I 10(0 JIM 5«.l .22* 10.*2 10. b5 .021 * 1*50 ??3,* 11?.5 ,*i« l».3* 13.11 '.Oil 5 1*50 111.3, J l'b.b .b0« l'."l l?.b2 .01b b i*5r» 153R.3 m.h 1*.">1 20,?3 .0*1 ? ?so 0.0 0.0 ,o3n *,Ob *,01 .00? I l«00 lt1».* 2*5.b .Hi fh.RO 2?»?2 .03* 1 , 1100 VB.2 1**.? , ? 0? f3.05 n.n ,031 in ' 1«00 bl?,2 122.« .1DP 18,b5 1', 1 3 ,02k n 1100 108.b bl.* • fin l*.*" 15.1' .oil if 1100 bl,8 It.' .UR 12.35 12,*1 .011 if >50 0.0 0.0 .030 3,1«> *.02 .001 D I -4 «C t*00C MC CO* NO»t HEICHTEO BSHC BSCO* BS*02*+ PPM PPM PPM KM G/KW MR G/K» HP G'Kft MP 1 200 235 2 35 0.00 R R R 2 3b« *33 15b . ?2 11.0* 2b, »b 15,1.* 1 2*» 1 ?2 b?3 *.'3 1.28 1,80 11,5b * in 113 10i* "<,*0 ,bb .?? 12.1* 5 11! 1*0 12?f 1* . 1 3 .13 1J.0* b bb ??* 1*20 IB.bS .1? l.*l 12.00 ? 1"»? 1?? 320 n.no R R R B 5(i 1*0 1123 I'.bS .10 .12 12,0? * 10* 11* *3* 1*.?? .31 .*5 11.*5 10 13b 115 ?3b 1.R2 »b2 l,o* 10. *2 11 220 202 *?1 *."1 1.58 2,81 11,2? 11 *e* *bO 203 1.10 11.25 2*.3* 1 ? , bO 1) in. Z3ii 351 0.00 H H R CYCLE COMPOSITE BSHC » .fell gram/km NR BSCO* * l,b8S GRam/kh MR BSN02+** 12.130 CRAM/KH HR BSHC ~ BSN02**" 12.i?" GRAM/kh HR ssrc ¦ ,2J3*G/K* HR ~ CONVIRTEO TO WET BASIS ~ ~ CONVIRTEO TO WIT BAStS ANO CORRECTED TO 10.? "IUIGRANS WATER PER KG DRY AIR image: ------- TABLE D-85. U-MOOE »fn€»»(. OIISFI t"ISSION CYCLE WACK-ETAY b7)A *AP3 (HIGH PBESSURE PU»P1 CONF1GUBATION TEST t HUN1 *.15.7* FUEL PROJECT li-»b?J-npl mmmmm • ••••••••I "ODE ENGINE TORQUE PO*E B fMl *JR EXHAUST HIFL SPEED *10* FLO* PLO* AIR RPM H * M KH Kr./*jN «R/«JN KG/MJN RATIO mmmmmwwm i • I 1 « 1 ¦ 1 1 7sn P,0 o'.o ,02i. J,*# *,ni .00t> 2 i*io l«,b 8,3 .07* ".*3 1.51 ,bn* 3 l**o 381.3 51.1 ,211 10.1.7 10,«0 , OPS * i*sn Jf.1.1 11S.0 .*n 12.H 11.3? ,nu 5 l»?n 1111,1 17*.* .Hlf lb,78 l*.»fl ,Q]|> k l*5n 1511,2 J«,S l",k« 20,*b .0 *2 7 75n 0,0 n,o .021 *.?! *.7* ,00h ¦ l«oo 12J1.2 ?*b,5 .If* 2H.7S IT, fc5 ,031 <1 1*00 "M.B IR»,2 .>01 22.«1 ll.il .031 to I'OO bl».2 »22.« IS.flb 1».5$ ,027 11 1*00 311,0 bl,* ,2«1 1*,«8 IS.lb ,ni« 12 1«00 bb,S 13,? .138 12.k3 18.77 .011 13 ?so 0.0 0.0 .030 *.2« *,27 ,no7 O bf*310 MODE «C CO* NO** "EIGHTEO BSHC BJCO* BSNO PPM PPM ppx KM G/XM MR Q/Km MR S/KO MR ¦ ••••« **«•••• 1 21b 177 217 O.PO B P B 2 31* *Ok lbs ,kb 12,82 2b,«8 18,*0 3 2*» 172 kB* ».n 1.31 1.8* 12.01 * 18* 113 107* *.3* ,bl .75 11.b« 5 Ilk 13" 1131 13,18 .3* .80 12,b! b »a 2*»i l*bl 18,t.0 .12 1.2b 12.31 7 <•00 178 288 0.00 R R R a 50 lt>8 lObl 11,72 ,1b I.OR 11.33 q 10 11* All 1*,7* .33 .8* 11,I* 10 13k 11* 717 1,82 ,b0 1,00 10,bO 11 aoo 201 *57 *,">5 l.»J 2.8b 10.b7 12 • It. *5? 200 1,0b 11,t.1 25,57 18,*1 13 20* 235 322 0,00 R R B CVCLE COMPOSITE BSMC » ,b77 gsam/ki* HR BSCO* • l.bH GRAM/KW MR BSN02**» 11,<">7 GRAM/KK MB BSHC ~ 8SN02**a 12,k7* GRAM/kh MR 8Src * ,2J*KG/K* MB ~ CONVERTED TO WET 8*313 *~ CONVERTED TO *ET 8A3I3 AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS WATER PER KG DRV AIR image: ------- TABLE D-86. ? 1-MODr IP* EXP OIUFL CISSION CYCLE *ACK«ETAYb71A+APS (HJCH PRESSURE PU"P) CONFIGURATION S/N TEST 1 PUN 1 <-!*.?« FllEl €"-12*-* PROJECT ll-*b*3.001 "ODE ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL a I 03 SPEED FLO* RP* N * M KW «5/*IN wmmmwrnw* I 750 0.0 n.O .031 2 1*»0 5*. 3 1.0 ,08n i 1*50 125.8 l*.l ,112 * 1*50 2RH.1 *2.5 .178 5 1*10 38*, 3 «*.l ,22* b mo 773.* 117.5 .*1* 7 1*50 11b 3.2 17b.b ,b0* 9 1*10 1270.0 1*2.8 ,bb5 <1 i*5n 1*2*,1 217,0 .71* 10 1*50 11*8.3 213.b .81* 11 750 0.0 0.0 .030 12 1100 123*,* 2*5,b .*21 13 1*00 113*.7 225.7 »R3* I* 1*00 10)1,1 ?"1.2 .758 IS 1*00 *21,2 1**,7 .707 lb 1*00 bl 7,2 122.* .*8* 17 1*00 3n8,b bl.* .280 18 1*00 220,8 *3.* .227 1* 1*00 102.1 20.3 ,1b* 20 1*00 b8,8 13.7 • 1 38 21 750 0.0 0.0 .010 M» EKHIUST rtow '10" KG/MJN KS/UJN *.'2 ¦>.*1 *.*? *,71, 10,*? 13.3* I'.nj 1'." J*.** 1 *, * I »,Ph 2b,eo ?5,r* 2*.3* 2 3,05 18,bS 1*,8* I*,10 12.*3 12,35 I,"" *,7S 1,** *,58 *,** 10,«.S u.m i?.b? ir,*s 20.«5 an.?i *,o* 27,72 2b,73 25,15 21, 7b l*.11 15.17 1*,33 13,10 12,** *,02 FUEL A IP RATJ0 .no 7 ,00* ,012 ,018 ,021 .031 ,03b ,037 ,01* .0*1 ,007 ,03* ,032 ,031 .031 ,02b .01* .Olb ,013 ,011 ,008 MOOE HC CO* N0»* WEIGHTED BSHC BSCO* BSNO?** PPM PP* PPM KW G/KH MR G/K« MR G/K* MM • ••«• I 1 1 1 » • • mmmmmmmw mmmmmmmmm ¦ • • 1 1 c 1 200 235 23* 0,00 a R R 2 3b0 *33 i«b ,bb 11,0* 2b.*b l*,bB 3 312 175 32* 1.1* *.55 10,*0 IS,*8 * 2bO 230 b02 2,5* 1.77 3,11 11,*0 5 J** 172 738 2.13 1,2* 1.80 12.bb b 1*2 113 lO"? 8,58 .bb .77 12,27 7 112 1*0 1300 0.00 ! 1 I 8 108 2H 1327 *.*5 .30 1.53 12,08 7b 2*8 1380 o.no I I 1 10 bb 27* 1*27 0,00 I I I 11 1*2 177 33* n.oo R R R 12 5b 1*0 100* 7,8b .18 .*2 10,13 13 8? 1*1 *80 15.13 ,28 .*7 11,OS 1* 11* 11* *05 R.hS .*1 .82 10,77 15 10* 11* 87* 13.*8 ,3* .85 10,71 lb 13b 115 bb? 8,*b ¦ b2 1,0* *,*0 17 220 202 *22 0,00 I I I 18 30* 2bO 375 3,*7 2.8* *,*2 11, bS 1* 372 • 03 22* 0,00 I I I 20 *2* «bO l*b 0,00 I 1 I 21 l*b 23b 327 0,00 R R R CYCLE COMPOSITE ¦ SMC « ,802 GRAM/KM MS ¦SCO* * 1,782 GRAM/KH MR 8SN0?**b 11,7*5 GRAM/km MR SSHC * MN02*»» 12.5*7 QRAM/Kh MR BS*C » ,23**G/Kll MR ~ converted to wet basis ~~ CONVERTED TO WET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS HATER PER KG DRY AJR image: ------- TABIX D-87. 2l."00E FPA E*P niESEt EMISSION C*CLE -»C«-ET** t>7 JA ~ APS (MICN PRESSURE PU"P) CONFIGURATION S/N TEST i RUN I 5-15-7R *UEl CM.JfV.F PROJECT "OOE ENGINE *TOP image: ------- TABLE D-88. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH A. BOSCH APS SYSTEM (BASED ON 47-mm GLASSFIBER FILTERS) Engine Run Concentration Particulate Rate rpm/% load Ho. roq/m3 q/hr q/kq fuel gAW-hr 1450/2 1 60.70 27.36 5.70 3.30 2 64.31 29.10 6.06 3.51 Avg 62.51 28.23 5.88 3.41 1450/25 1 35.62 18.86 1.39 0.32 2 38.24 20.29 1.47 0.34 Avg 36.93 19.58 1.43 0.33 1450/50 1 60.84 41.53 1.67 0.35 2 61.82 42.08 1.68 0.36 Avg 61.33 41.81 1.68 0.36 1450/75 1 69.43 59.85 1.62 0.34 2 66.45 57.67 1.55 0.33 Avg 67.94 58.76 1.59 0.34 1450/100 1 70.24 72.70 1.49 0.31 2 69.69 72.22 1.47 0.31 Avg 69.97 72.46 1.48 0.31 Idle 1 34.26 6.58 5.98 2 46.66 8.82 8.02 Avg 40.46 7.70 7.00 1900/100 1 65.86 88.18 1.59 0.37 2 64.49 86.99 1.57 0.36 Avg 65.18 87.59 1.58 0.37 1900/75 1 38.52 44.80 1.07 0.24 2 38.65 45.13 1.08 0.24 Avg 38.59 44.97 1.08 0.24 1900/50 1 43.21 40.14 1.41 0.33 2 45.32 38.32 1.34 0.31 Avg 44.27 39.23 1.38 0.32 1900/25 1 53.01 39.18 2.39 0.64 2 48.46 35.65 2.12 0.58 Avg 50.74 37.42 2.26 0.61 1900/2 1 55.64 34.07 5.01 5.98 2 58.95 36.16 5.24 6.95 Avg 57.30 35.12 5.13 6.47 D-83 image: ------- TABLE D-89. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S04= FROM MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH A. BOSCH APS SYSTEM (BASED ON 47 ton FLUOROPORE FILTERS) igme '% load Run Concentration No. pg/m3 Sulfate Rate S04~ as % roq/hr mg/kq fuel mg/kW-hr Fuel >0/2 1 2 Avg 1121.25 1164.99 1143.12 507.23 522.80 515.02 105.67 108.92 107.30 61.86 62.99 62.43 46 51 1.49 50/25 1 2 Avg 3287.24 3826.07 3556.66 1740.35 2029.71 1885.03 127.97 148.15 138.06 29.45 34.34 31.90 1.77 2.05 1.91 50/50 1 2 Avg 8180.14 6728.50 7454.32 5487.12 4581.55 5034.34 221.25 183.26 202.26 46.42 38.76 42.59 .07 .54 2.81 50/75 1 2 Avg 8755.39 7028.26 7891.83 7580.28 6099.28 6839.78 204.87 164.40 184.64 42.83 34.46 38.65 84 28 2.56 50/100 1 2 Avg 5974.49 7496.67 6735.58 6183.79 7767.44 6975.62 125.43 158.20 141.82 26.24 32.95 29.60 1.74 2.19 1.97 lie 1 2 Avg 1082.03 1188.25 1135.14 207.23 221.43 214.33 172.69 221.43 197.06 2.39 3.07 2.73 >00/100 1 2 Avg 9421.21 9824.64 9622.91 12655.80 13154.44 12905.12 228.43 227.87 228.15 52.02 54.70 53.36 3.17 3.16 3.17 J00/75 1 2 Avg 6225.43 6387.46 6306.45 7240.26 7758.28 7499.27 173.63 185.60 179.62 39.20 42.00 40.60 2.41 2.57 2.49 300/50 6643.55 6727.37 6685.46 6170.25 5688.40 5929.33 216.50 198.20 207.35 50.25 46.32 48.29 00 75 2.88 900/25 1 2 Avg 4024.33 3946.40 3985.37 2974.43 2904.10 2939.27 180.27 173.90 177.09 48.44 47.30 47.87 50 41 2.46 900/2 1 2 Avg 1294.43 1454.94 1374.69 793.85 898.43 846.14 113.41 130.21 121.81 152.66 172.78 162.72 1.57 1.80 1.69 D-84 image: ------- TABLE D-90. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE SATES MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH A. BOSCH APS SYSTEM (13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS), RUN 1 Weighted Engine rpm/% load Power kW Fuel kg/hr Particulate g/hr so4= mg/hr Wgt. Fact Power kW Fuel kg/hr Part. g/hr so4= mg/hr Idle .. 1.1 6.58 207.23 0.067 0.07 0.44 13.88 1450/2 8.2 4.8 27.36 507.23 0.08 0 .66 0.38 2.19 40.r 3 1450/25 59.1 13.6 18.86 1740.35 0.08 4 .73 1.09 1.51 139.23 1450/50 118.2 24.9 41.53 5487.12 0.08 9 .46 1.99 3.3"" 438.97 1450/75 177.0 37.0 59.85 7580.28 0.08 14 .16 2.96 4.79 606.42 1450/100 235.7 49.0 72.70 6183.79 0.08 18 .86 3.92 5.82 494.70 Idle — 1.1 6.58 207.23 0.067 - 0.07 0.44 13.88 1900/100 240.5 55.3 88.18 12655.8 0.08 19 .24 4.42 7.05 1012.46 1900/75 184.7 41.7 44.80 7240.26 0.08 14 .78 3.34 3.58 579.22 1900/50 122.8 28.5 40.14 6170.25 U 08 9 .82 2.28 3.21 493.62 1900/25 61.4 16.4 39.18 2974.43 0.08 4 .91 1.31 3.13 237.95 1900/2 5.7 6.8 34.07 793.85 0.08 0 .46 0.54 2.73 63.51 Idle — 1.1 6.58 207.23 0.067 0.07 0.44 13.88 97 .08 22.44 38.65 4148.30 Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW-hr 0.398 Fuel Specif'c Particulate, g/kg fuel 1.722 Brake Specific S04=, mg/kW-hr 42.73 Fuel Specific SO4". mg/kg fuel 184.86 D-85 image: ------- TABLE D-91. CYCLE COMPOi TE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES MACK ETAY(B)673A ..'ITH A. BOSCH APS SYSTEM (13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS), RUN 2 Weighted Engine Power Fuel Particulate S04= Wgt. Power Fuel Part. S04" ?m/% load kW Kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Fact kw kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Idle 1.1 8.82 221.43 0 067 0.07 0.59 14.84 1450/2 8.2 4.8 29.10 522.80 0 08 0.66 0.38 2.33 41.82 1450/25 59.1 13.8 20.29 2029.71 0 08 4.73 1.10 1,62 162.38 1450/50 118.2 25.0 42.08 4581.55 0 08 9.46 2.00 3.37 366.5? 1450/75 177.0 37.1 57.67 6099.28 0 08 14.16 2.97 4.61 487.94 1450/100 235.7 49.0 72.22 7767.44 0 08 18.86 3.92 5.78 621.40 Idle — 1.1 8.82 221.43 0 067 — 0.07 0.59 14.84 1900/100 241.0 55.3 86.99 13154.44 0 08 19.28 4.42 6.96 1052.36 1900/75 184.7 41.8 45.13 7758.2° 0 08 14.78 3.34 3.61 620.66 1900/50 122.8 28.7 38.32 5688 0 08 9.82 2.30 3.07 455.07 1900/25 61.4 16.8 35.65 2904 *0 0 08 4.91 1.34 2.85 232.33 1900/2 5.2 6.9 36.16 898.43 0 08 0.42 0.55 2.89 71.87 Idle — 1.1 8.82 221.43 0 067 — 0.07 0.59 14.84 97.08 22.53 38.86 4156.87 Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr 0.400 Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 1.725 Brake Specific J04=, mg/kW-hr 42.82 Fuel Specific S04=, mgAg fuel 184.50 D-86 image: ------- TABLE D-92. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH STANDARD R. BOSCH SYSTEH - MEW (BASED ON 47-mm GLASSFIBER FILTERS) Engine Run Concentration Particulate rpm/% load So. mg/rn-' g/hr gAg fuel 1450/2 1 37.16 17.22 4.42 2 32.75 15.25 3.91 Avg 34.96 16.24 4.17 gAW-hr 4.00 3.55 3.78 1450/25 1 56.17 2 64.32 Avg 60.25 1450/50 1 116.66 2 123.91 Avg 120.29 1450/75 1 163.08 2 156.08 Avg 159.59 1450/100 1 271.72 2 285.07 Avg 278.40 Idle 1 44.46 2 43.24 Avg 43.85 1900/100 1 140.61 2 144.79 Avg 142.70 1900/75 1 86.29 2 87.14 Avg 86.72 1900/50 1 87.44 2 85.61 Avg 86.53 1900/25 1 62.83 2 64.65 Avg 63.74 1900/2 1 41.60 2 47.98 Avg 44.79 30.44 2.36 0.56 34.88 2.68 0.64 32.66 2.52 0.60 80.54 3.44 0.75 84.27 3.56 0.78 82.41 3.50 0.77 142.05 4.00 0.88 136.10 3.85 0.84 139.08 3.93 0.86 272.95 5.83 1.26 285.17 6.08 1.32 279.06 5.96 1.29 8.72 6.71 8.5C 6.07 8.61 6.39 192.75 3.48 0.81 198.71 3.59 0.83 195.73 3.54 0.82 102.55 2.47 0.57 104.26 2.51 0.58 103.41 2.49 0.58 83.38 2.94 0.70 81.61 2.88 0.69 82.50 2.91 0,70 47.88 2.80 0.78 49.30 2.88 0.80 48.60 2.84 0.79 25.55 3.81 5.94 29.45 4.33 6.85 27.50 4.07 6.40 D-87 image: ------- TABLE D-93. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S04" FROM MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH STANDARD R. BOSCH SYSTEM - NEW (BASED ON 47-nm FLUORQPORE FILTERS) Engine •pro/t load 1450/2 Run So. 1 2 Avg Concentration Mg/m3 712.3 921.6 817.0 Sulfate Rate mg/hr ng/kg fuel mg/kW-hr 331.6 424.4 378.0 85.0 108.8 96 9 77.1 98.7 87.9 S04= as Fuel S 1.18 1.51 1.35 1450/25 1 2 Avg 4194.8 4098.7 4146.8 2287.5 2206.1 2246.8 177.3 173.7 175.5 42.3 40.8 41.6 2.46 2.41 2.44 1450/50 1 2 Avg 5737.5 5875.9 5806.7 3960.7 3996.1 3978.4 169.3 168.6 169.0 36.6 37.0 36.8 ,35 34 2.34 1450/75 1 2 Avg 7775.7 7590.3 7683.0 6772.6 6636.2 6704.4 190.8 186.9 188.9 .64 .59 2.62 1450/100 1 2 Avg 10861.3 10403.5 10632.4 10865. 10386. 10625.8 231.7 221.5 226.6 50.2 48.0 49.1 3.21 3.07 3.14 Idle 650 rpm 1 2 Avg 1546.6 1657.0 1601.8 303.8 326.0 314.9 217.0 232.9 225.0 3.01 3.23 3.12 1900/100 1 2 Avg 9657.7 11411.4 10534.6 13239.7 15661.0 14450.4 239.0 282.7 260.9 3.31 3.92 3.62 1900/75 1 2 Avg 6209.4 6613.2 6411.3 7405.3 7937.6 7671.5 178.9 191.3 185.1 2.48 2.65 2.57 1900/50 1 2 Avg 5965.1 6295.8 6130.5 5667.8 6025.2 5846.5 201.0 213.7 207.4 2.79 2.96 2.88 1900/25 1 2 Avg 3434.6 3542.3 3488.5 2619.3 2703.9 2661.6 153.2 158.1 155.7 42.7 44.0 43.4 2.12 2.19 2.16 1900/2 1 2 Avg 1203.1 1368.1 1285.6 738.3 838.3 788.3 171.7 195.0 183.4 108.6 125.1 116.9 2.38 2.70 2.54 D-88 image: ------- TABLE D-94. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH STANDARD 8 BOSCH SYSTEM (13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS), RUN 1 Weighted Engine Power Fuel Particulate S04= Wgt. Power Fuel Part. S04= rpm/% load kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Fact kw kg/hr q/hr mg/hr Idle 1.3 8.72 303.d 0.067 0.09 0.58 20.35 1450/2 4.3 3.9 17.22 331.6 0.08 0.34 0.31 1.38 26.53 1450/25 54.1 12.8 30.44 2287.5 0.08 4.33 1.02 2.44 183.00 1450/50 108.1 23.4 80.54 3960.7 0.08 8.65 1.87 6.44 316.86 1450/75 162.2 35.6 142.05 6772.6 0.08 12.98 2.85 11.36 514.81 1450/100 216.3 46.9 272.95 10865.1 0.08 17.30 3.75 21.84 869.21 Idle — 1.3 8.72 303.8 0.067 — 0.09 0.58 20.35 1900/100 239.0 55.4 192.75 13239.7 0.08 19.12 4.43 15.42 1059.18 1900/75 178.8 41.5 102.55 7405.3 0.08 14.30 3.32 8.20 592.42 1900/50 119.0 28.4 83.38 5667.8 0.08 9.52 2.27 6.67 453.42 l«J00/25 61.4 17.1 47.88 2619.3 0.08 4.91 1.37 3.83 209.54 1900/2 4.3 6.7 25.55 738.3 0.08 0.34 0.54 2.04 59.06 Idle — 1.3 8.72 303.8 0.067 — 0.09 0.58 20.35 91.79 22.00 81.36 4345.08 Brake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 0.886 Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 3.698 Brake Specific SO4*, mgAW-hr 47.337 Fuel Specific S04", mgAg fuel 197.504 D-89 image: ------- TABLE D-95. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES MACK ETAV(B)673A WITH STANDARD R BOSCH SYSTEM (13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS), RUN 2 Weighted Engine Power Fuel Particulate SO^ Wgt. Power Fuel Part. S04= rpm/% load kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Fact kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Idle «... 1.4 8.50 326.0 0.067 0.09 0.57 21.84 1450/2 4.3 3.9 15.25 424.4 0.08 0.34 0.31 1.22 33.95 1450/25 54.1 12.8 34.88 2206.1 0.08 4.33 1.02 2.79 176.49 1450/50 108.1 23.7 84.27 3996.1 0.08 8.65 1.90 6.74 319.69 1450/75 162.6 35.6 136.10 6636.2 0.08 13.01 2.85 10.89 530.90 1450/100 216.3 46.9 285.17 10386.5 0.08 17.30 3.75 22.81 830.92 Idle — 1.4 8.50 326.0 0.067 — 0.09 0.57 21.84 1900/100 239.0 55.4 198.71 15661.0 0.08 19.12 4.43 15.90 1252.88 1900/75 178.8 41.4 104.26 7937.6 0.08 14.30 3.31 8.34 635.01 1900/50 119.0 28.3 81.61 6025.2 0.08 9.25 2.26 6.53 482.02 1900/25 61.4 17.1 49.30 2703.9 0.08 4.91 1.37 3.94 216.31 1900/2 4.3 6.8 29.45 838.3 0.08 0.34 0.54 2.36 67.06 Idle — 1.4 8.50 326.0 0.067 — 0.09 0.57 21.84 91.82 22.01 83.23 4610.75 Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr 0.906 Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 3.782 Brake Specific S04=, mg/kW-hr 50.215 Fuel Specific S04=, mg/kg fuel 209.484 D-90 image: ------- TABLE D-96. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE MACK ETAY(BJ673A ENGINE - STANDARD PUMP Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. ¦lode rpm load, % kW kg/hr pg/hr Sol., < 1 1450 2 4.3 3.7 39.87 32.50 2 1450 50 108.1 22.9 BMD 4.92 3 1450 100 217.7 46.8 BMD 7.38 4 Idle 1.0 32.33 21.30 5 1900 100 240.9 55.4 BMD 9.15 6 1900 50 118.5 28.4 BMD 4.54 7 1900 2 4.3 6.7 82.28 38.65 a jo Brake Specific BaP, ygAW-hr 0.229 Fuel Specific BaP, yg/kg fuel 0,964 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 16.31 Brake Specific BaP, yg/kW-hr 0.312 Fuel Specific BaP, yg/kg fuel 1.279 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, * 19.01 wgt. Power Fuel BaP Org. Fact. kW kg/hr yg/hr Sol., ' W.F. Derived From 13-Mode FTP 0.12 0.52 0.44 4.78 3.90 0.16 17.30 3.66 0.79 0.12 26.12 5.62 0.89 0.20 0.20 6.47 4.26 0.12 28.91 6.65 1.10 0.16 18.96 4.54 0.73 0.12 0.52 0.80 9.87 4.64 92.33 21.91 21.12 16.31 W.F. Derived From 21- ¦Mode EPA 0.225 0.97 0.83 8.97 7.31 0.092 9.95 2.11 0.45 0.049 10.67 2.29 0.36 0.269 0.27 8.70 5.73 0.176 42.40 9.75 1.61 0.110 13.04 3.12 0.50 0.079 0.34 0.53 6.50 3.05 77.37 18.90 24.17 19.01 BMD - Below Minimum Detectable image: ------- TABLE D-97. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE HACK ETAY(B)673A ENGINE - APS PUMP Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Wgt. Power Fuel BaP Org. Mode rpm load, % kw kg/hr pg/hr Sol., % Fact. kW kg/hr yg/hr Sol., % W.F. Derived From 13-Mode FTP 1 1450 2 7.2 4.6 BMD 36.19 0.12 0.86 0.55 4.34 2 1450 50 117.1 24.8 BMD 14.10 0.16 18.74 3.97 2.26 3 14S0 100 235.0 49.0 BMD 12.57 0.12 28.20 5.88 1.51 4 Idle 1.0 16.06 23.69 0.20 0.20 3.21 4.74 5 1900 100 243.7 55.1 BMD 0 0.12 29.24 6.61 0 6 1900 50 122.8 28.6 BMD 9.72 0.16 19.65 4.58 1.56 7 1900 2 5.2 6.8 41.56 21.00 0.12 0.62 0.82 4.99 2.52 97.31 22.61 8.20 16.93 jo Brake Specific BaP, pgAW-hr 0.084 Fuel Specific BaP, pg/kg fuel 0.363 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, * 16.93 W.F. Derived From 21-Mode EPA Brake Specific BaP, pg/kW-hr 0.094 Fuel Specific BaP, pgAg fuel 0.392 Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 19.16 0.225 1.62 1.04 8.14 0.092 10.77 2.28 1.30 0.049 11.52 2.40 0.62 0.269 0.27 4.32 6.37 0.176 42.89 9.70 0 0.110 13.51 3.15 1.07 0.079 0.41 0.54 3.28 1.66 80.72 19.38 7.60 19.16 BMD - Below Minimum Detectable image: ------- TABLE D-98. METALS ANALYSIS OF FILTER-COLLECTED PARTICULATE (PERCENT BY WEIGHT BASED ON FLUOROPORE FILTER SAMPLES) MACK ETAY(B)673A Condition Speed/% Load Configuration Si P S CI Ca Ti Fe Zn Inter/02 Std APS pump pump 1.6 1.4 0.15 0.07 Inter/25 Std APS pump pump 2.7 4.8 0.16 Inter/50 Std APS pump pump 0.06 2.5 7.1 0.02 0.13 Inter/75 Std APS pump pump 0.05 1.8 6.7 0.02 0.26 0.18 0.14 Inter/100 Std APS pump pump 1.6 5.0 0.08 0.04 0.19 Idle Std APS pump pump 0.12 1.3 2.7 0.18 High/100 Std APS pump pump 0.09 0.30 4.0 7.3 0.20 1.0 0.16 0.60 High/75 Std APS pump pump 0.05 0.12 3.9 8.8 0.09 0.29 0.02 0.27 High/50 Std APS pump pump 0.09 2.6 8.7 0.04 0.24 High/25 Std APS pump pump 2.6 4.9 0.07 0.09 High/02 Std APS pump pump 1.8 1.7 image: ------- TABLE D-99- PERCENT PER STAGE OF TOTAL PARTICULATE COLLECTED BY ANDERSON IMPACTOR FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A Stage No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Filter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Filter ECD, micron with A. 10.9 6.8 4.6 3.2 2.0 1.03 0.63 0.42 < 0.42 with 10.9 6.8 4.6 3.2 2.0 1.03 0.63 0.42 < 0.42 1450 2% 50% 100% 650 Idle 1900 100% 50% 2% Bosch APS High Pressure Injection System 0.20 0.20 0.45 0.37 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.61 97.5 0.26 0.30 0.72 0.64 0.68 1.6 2.6 3.9 89.3 0.27 0.60 0.98 0.82 1.5 2.6 4.9 6.8 81.6 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.30 0.85 0.80 0.30 96.2 1.1 1.1 1.8 2.0 2.6 3.3 3.4 4.4 80.2 0.21 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.47 1.0 2.2 2.0 93.5 R. Bosch (New) Standard Injection System 0.38 1.1 1.2 0.70 1.7 1.3 1.6 2.0 90.0 0.12 0.34 0.46 0.61 1.2 2.2 3.0 4.8 87.2 0.17 0.38 0.80 0.91 2.0 5.2 8.7 9.8 72.1 0.23 0.15 0.34 0.42 0.54 0.58 1.2 0.84 95.7 0.19 0.28 0.79 1.71 2.1 4.8 7.9 8.1 74.1 0.07 0.14 0.25 0.46 0.95 0.74 1.3 2.7 93.4 0.29 0.15 0.29 0.18 0.26 0.95 0.55 1.3 96.0 0.81 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.5 1.5 1.5 89.0 D-94 image: ------- TABLE D-100. ALDEHYDES BY Df.PH FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH A nnsoil ..PS SYSTEM 1450 rpm 1900 rpm Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Form- pg/m3 4535 883 1143 1338 1069 1031 13780 aldehyde mg/hr 2849 871 1718 402 2026 1374 11815 mg/kg fuel 722 35 35 239 37 49 1649 mg/kw-hr 606 7 7 — 9 11 2514 Acet- Pg/m3 1747 0 0 1072 0 0 5006 aldehyde mg/hr 2372 0 0 695 0 0 9277 mg/kg fuel 601 0 0 414 0 0 1295 mg/kw-hr 505 0 0 0 0 1974 Acetone Pg/m3 4648 0 0 0 0 0 353 mg/hr 10848 0 0 0 0 0 1124 mg/kg fuel 2749 0 0 0 0 0 157 mg/kw-hr 2308 0 0 0 0 0 239 Iso- Pg/m3 93 0 0 0 0 0 446 butanal mg/hr 336 0 0 0 0 0 2199 mg/kg fuel 85 0 0 0 0 0 307 mg/kw-hr 72 0 0 0 0 0 4*8 Crotonal Pg/m3 548 79 127 413 0 48 563 mg/hr 1880 428 1043 677 0 347 2640 mg/kg fuel 476 17 21 403 0 12 368 mg/kw-hr 400 4 4 ——- 0 3 562 Hexanal Pg/m3 292 281 378 11 292 292 297 mg/hr 2044 3087 6333 37 6167 4332 2841 mg/kg fuel 518 124 128 22 114 155 397 mg/kw-hr 435 26 27 — 26 36 605 Benz- Pg/m3 746 0 682 1260 851 61 1136 aldehyde mg/hr 5839 0 12783 4711 20110 1006 12132 mg/kg fuel 1430 0 257 2807 371 36 1693 mg/kw-hr 1242 0 54 85 8 2581 D-95 image: ------- TABLE D-1Q1. ALDEHYDES B* DNPH FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH STANDARD R. BOSCH SYSTEM - NEW 1450 rpm 1900 rpm Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 _2 Form- . / 3 pg/m 2332 950 781 2462 1626 1784 2732 aldehyde mg/hr 1466 937 1173 739 3084 2376 2342 mg/kg fuel 371 38 24 440 37 85 327 mg/kw hr 312 8 5 13 20 498 Acet- / 3 ug/n 586 246 0 1539 164 132 1204 aldehyde mg/hr 796 524 0 998 672 381 2232 mg/kg fuel 202 21 0 595 12 14 311 mg/kw-hr 170 4 0 3 3 475 Acetone . 3 lig/m 0 0 0 489 1025 39 430 mg/hr 0 0 0 545 7222 191 1371 mg/kg fuel 0 0 0 325 133 7 191 mg/kw-hr 0 0 0 30 2 292 Iso- wg/m3 89 74 74 334 89 78 244 butyr- mg/hr 322 418 637 576 973 594 1205 aldehyde mg/kg fuel 82 17 13 343 18 21 168 mg/kw-hr 69 4 3 —- 4 5 256 Crotonal ug/n3 369 397 460 548 369 361 524 mg/hr 1267 2139 3781 898 3824 2628 2454 mg/kg fuel 321 86 76 535 71 94 342 mg/kw-hr 270 18 16 16 22 522 Hexanal lig/m3 95 0 300 131 392 39 114 mg/hr 662 0 5029 437 8282 578 1089 mg/kg fuel 168 0 101 260 153 21 152 mg/kw-hr 141 0 21 35 5 232 Benz- ug/n3 775 503 235 166 348 108 672 aldehyde mg/hr 1692 26921 10661 2414 34492 10933 7178 mg/kg fuel 429 1085 215 1439 636 391 1002 mg/kw-hr 360 226 45 145 90 1527 D-96 image: ------- TABLE D-102. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, MACK ETAY(B)673A W ,H A. PAPCH APS £V£TRN Hydrocarbon Rate 1450 rpm Idle 1900 rpm 2 50 100 100 50 2 Methane ug/m3 4608 939 493 2770 453 633 4941 CH4 mg/hr 2160 691 553 620 641 629 3161 mg/kg fuel 547 28 11 370 12 23 441 mg/kw-hr 460 6 2 3 5 673 Ethylene yg/m3 14734 4323 9328 4224 10295 3152 21440 C2H4 mg/hr 6906 3182 10459 946 14561 3132 13711 £. 4 mgAg fuel 1750 128 211 563 268 112 1913 mg/kw-hr 1469 27 44 61 26 2917 Ethane , 3 yg/m 262 6 0 125 0 0 331 c2«6 mg/hr 123 5 0 28 0 0 212 mi* w mg/kg fuel 31 0 0 17 0 0 30 mg/kw-hr 76 0 0 0 0 45 Acetylene 3 Ug/m 1359 244 1272 314 1039 211 2008 C H mg/hr 636 179 1425 70 1468 210 1283 £ image: ------- TABLE D-103. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH STANDARD R. BOSCH SYSTEM-NEW 1450 rpci 1900 rgm Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 Methane Mg/m3 3276 959 479 2977 666 872 CH mg/hr 1536 706 538 667 942 867 *4 nig/kg fuel 389 29 11 379 17 31 mg/kw-hr 327 6 2 4 7 Ethylene Ug/m3 7551 6695 5762 7149 7283 5716 C H mg/hr 3539 4927 t>461 1600 10301 5678 £ mg/kg fuel 897 199 130 954 190 203 mg/kw-hr 753 41 27 43 47 Ethane Ug/m3 144 50 0 144 12 19 C2H6 mg/hr 67 37 0 32 18 19 £ V> mg/kg fuel 17 2 0 19 0 1 mg/kw-hr 14 0 0 0 0 Acetylene Mg/m3 785 254 698 574 996 211 C2H2 mg/hr 367 187 782 128 1407 210 £ £ mg/kg fuel 93 8 16 76 26 8 mg/kw-hr 78 2 3 6 2 Propane ug/m3 0 0 0 0 231 0 c3h8 mg/hr 0 0 0 0 345 0 mg/kg fuel 0 0 0 0 6 0 mg/kw-hr 0 0 0 0 2 0 Propylene yg/m3 2558 3560 1987 2738 2231 3146 C H mg/hr 1199 2620 2228 613 3156 3126 J V mg/kg fuel 304 106 45 365 58 112 .r.g/kw-hr 255 22 9 13 26 Benzene ug/m3 1180 534 747 635 837 478 C6H6 mg/hr 532 378 806 137 1140 457 D D mg/kg fuel 135 15 16 82 21 16 mg/kw-hr 113 3 3 5 4 Toluene yg/m3 1896 833 641 2636 641 553 C7H8 mg/hr 886 611 717 589 904 548 / O mg/kg fuel 225 25 14 351 17 20 mg/kw-hr 189 5 3 4 5 D-98 image: ------- 10.9 6.8 - 4.6 3.2 2.0 1.03 0.63 0.42 • _12j iQ 12' >0 2110 :tior Tn ajig r—1TDC 20 40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 Cumulative Percent, Smaller than CCD "1.9 Figure D-l. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor Direct Injection, 28° BTC Standard Timing D-99 image: ------- 10.9 [joad, % I£l 12. i£L 12< >C 6.8 10): 6 Injection' Tilling . 28° 'irrae--gTt:r-Bcr 2 o T" 1.03 0.63 0.42 20 40 60 70 80 90 95 99.9 98 99 Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD Figure D-2. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor Direct Injection, 28° BTC with EGR D-100 image: ------- 10.9 51 6.8 103 4.6 In je rtio i Ti nine 2 STOC 2.0 1.03 0.63 0.42 99.9 95 99 90 96 60 70 80 20 40 Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD Figure D-3. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor Direct Injection, 18° BTC (10° Retard) D-101 image: ------- 10.9 -Li Ae —cpnu- 4. —126 X 2_ | 126Q 3 ! 126i) T~:~:— ~Tair , ?i n ). 50 6.8 100 nrf V) c 0 u o Injection Timing — •H B Q 2.0 0 u •H •P Vi Ifl 0u 0.63 4M •Alt . 0.42 —4. 20 40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9 Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD Figure D-4. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor Direct Injection, 33° BTC (5° Advance) D-102 image: ------- aiui . -_0— =ms4-b«J 1400 1400 ,1400 Xtfli ZlQJi direcft Xi 10° B :io» r 40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD 99.9 Figure D-5. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor Indirect Injection, 10° BTC D-103 image: ------- Mode Line rp*n 2000 2000 2000 Idle 2800 2800 2800 Mercedes OM352 Naturally Aspirated E 40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD Figure D-6. Particle Size Distribution for Daimler-Benz OM-352 NA, via Impactor D-104 image: ------- 10.9 TT~ 4.6 u « 2.0 u image: ------- 10.9 6.8 4.6 s-- 3.2 2.0 1.03 0.63 0.42 ¦M 40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD Figure D-8. Particle Size Distribution for Mack ETAY(B)673A + APS, Pump via Impactor D-106 image: ------- 10.9 m- .iii tttt , : i .: i i : 1—: 1111, *tt : : : 1.03 0.63 0.42 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD 99.9 Figure 0-9. Particle Size Distribution for Mack ETAY(B)673A + Standard Pump via Impactor D-107 image: ------- APPENDIX E COMPUTER REDUCED 1975 FTP, SET AND FET GASEOUS AND FUEL ECONOMY DATA FOR FOUR LD VEHICLES image: ------- TABLE E-l. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY-1976 OLDS CUTLASS DIESEL (Transient Cycles) Cycle Date Test No. Run Emission Rate, HC CO g/km NOx Fuel Cons 1/100 km Fuel Icon mpg •75 FTP 10/19/76 1 1 0.49 1.29 0.70 11.02 21.35 10/20/76 2 1 0.47 1.23 0.67 10.88 21.63 10/21/76 3 1 0.45 1.21 0.73 10.63 22.14 Average 0.47 1.24 0.70 10.84 21.71 (0.756; (1.995) (1.126) FTPC 10/19/76 1 1 0.61 1.42 0.70 11.68 20.15 10/20/76 2 1 0.59 1.35 0.68 11.55 20.37 10/21/76 3 1 0.56 1.33 0.73 11.14 21.12 Average 0.59 1.37 0.70 11.46 20.53 (0.949) (2.204) (1.126) FTPh 10/19/76 1 1 0.40 1.21 0.70 10.44 22.54 2 0.37 1.14 0.65 10.24 22.97 3 0.36 1.15 0.72 10.38 22.67 4 0.37 1.16 0.67 10.39 22.65 5 0.36 1.13 0.70 10.23 23.00 10/20/76 2 1 0.37 1.13 0.69 10.33 22.78 10/21/76 3 1 0.37 1.14 0.73 10.30 22.84 2 0.35 1.06 0.75 9.80 24.01 3 0.33 1.09 0.68 10.06 23.39 4 0.35 1.03 0.64 9.38 25.09 5 0.35 1.07 0.65 9.87 23.85 Average 0.36 1.12 0.69 10.13 23.25 (0.579) (1.802) (1.110) Standard Deviation 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.33 0.78 Coefficient of Variation, % 4.9 4.6 5.1 3.3 3.3 SET 10/19/76 1 1 0.29 0.83 0.63 8.85 26.59 10/20/76 2 1 0.26 0.77 0.60 8.45 27.85 10/21/76 3 1 0.25 0.78 0.55 8.91 26.41 Average 0.27 0.79 0.59 8.74 26.92 (0.434) (1.271) (0.949) FET 10/19/76 1 1 0.23 0.64 0.61 7.76 30.32 10/20/76 2 1 0.22 0.62 0.55 7.34 32.06 10/21/76 3 1 0.18 0.64 0.62 7.43 31.67 Average 0.21 0.63 0.59 7.51 31.33 (0.337) (1.014) (0.949) ' 'values in parentheses are in grams/mile E-2 image: ------- table e-2 vehicle emission nesults l image: ------- table e-j VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS t««»S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST UNIT NO, TEST NO, 1 DATE 10/H/7b mfGR, CODE -1 VEHICLE -OOF.L OLOS OIESfL CTLS ENGINE 5,7* LITRE 8 CTL, TEST «T, 20*1 TEST T*P£ 3J21RbMl¦ 12b1 COMMENTS 1«7$ FTP 2 BAG COLO B*RO"FTER >*»,*7 I «M OF HG. *ET BULB TEMP ' lb, 7 OR* BULB TEMo, !*.* OFG. C ABS. HUMIOITV 8, REL. MU"IOITt *5 PCT, E image: ------- usiE e-4 vehicle emission results J«?S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST r NO. TEST »'0, I ICLC "OOEL f>L0S D!f 5F.L CUS r type 3METEB ?>».?! mm or HC, BULB U»P. i ),"> Of G, C , HUMIDITt »1 OCT, AUST EMISSIONS BLOwEH OIF. e»ESS,, C-l, 10»,* mm, H?0 Mm 1 0*Tt IP/l'/'h ENGINE <;,?» LITRE « C'L. COMMENTS 197S fTP I BIG HOT MfGH. CODE -0 *», IR'b TEST «T, ?0»1 KG "0*0 LOAD 1,5 Kii WET BUIR TEMP 15,b OEG. C IPS. HU*IO!T¥ 7,7 M|LLTGB*«S/kG BLOKEB INLET PBESS., Gl 2bb,7 MM, M?0 BLOWEB INLET TEMP, *1 OFG, C BAG RESULTS BAG NO, 1 ? 1 BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 7SIS 1?01» 7525 HC SAMPLF MfT£R DEADINf./SCALF lb,7/3 1*,1/* 1 b , 7/ 3 HC SAWPLF PPM b? Sb b* HC BAC*GPO «FT?B BEADING/SCALE 1.2/1 1,»/1 1,2/1 HC BAC 500 bpm 5 7 5 CO SAMPLE METER R|AOING/SCALE »S,1/« JP,l/« ~S.R/* CO SAmplf ppm RH 7* If) CO BACKGRO MfTER reading/scale ,S/» ,b/» ,S/» CO BACKGRO PPM 1 1 1 C02 SAMP(,r MfcTEB REAOING/SCALE *b,J/2 2fe,b/2 lb,3/2 CO? SAMPLE percent 1.55 l,n« 1.55 CO? BAC*GRD "ETEB REAOINC/SCALE 1.5/2 l.R/2 1.5/2 CO? BAC*GPO PEBCENT .OS .0? ,05 NO* Sample METER READING/SCALE »0,b/2 2?,*/2 »0,b/? NO* SAMPLE ppm »0,b ?7,» »0,b NO* BACXGBD METER READING/SCALE .8/2 ,(>/? .8/2 NO* BACKGPO PPM .8 .fc .8 HC CONCENTBATJON PPM t>? SO b? CO CONCENTRATION PPM "3 ?b <13 CO? CQNCENTPATion PCT l.SO 1,02 1.50 NO* CONCENTRATION PpM 3R, image: ------- t ABLE E-S n?s VEHICLE emission results light duty emissions test UNIT NO. TEST NO. 1 VEHICLE MOOEL OLDS DIESEL CTLS TEST TYPE Run J DATE lO/ll/7b ENGINE 5.7t LITRE 8 CYL. COMMENTS 1975 FTP Run 2 2 Bag Hot MFGR. CODE -0 TEST wT. 20*1 KG TR, l RAG RESULTS BAG NO, BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 1 ?sns 2 12840 3 7505 HC sample METER READING/SCALE 15»b/3 13.0/3 15.h/3 MC SAMPLE PPM b2 52 b2 HC BACKGRD ME TER HEADING/SCALE 1.5/3 1.1/1 1.5/1 HC BACKGRD PPM b « b CO SAMPLE N*TER REAPING/SCALE *1.8/* lb.2/* 13.8/* CO SAMPLE PSH 4 3 75 <* 3 CO BACKGRD MF TER HEAOING/SCALE ,5/« ,*/» .5/« CO 8ACKGMD PPM I 1 1 C02 sample METER READING/SCALE 3b.3/2 2b.3/2 lb.3/2 C02 sample PERCENT 1.S5 1.0? 1.55 C02 BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE 2.1'2 2.0/2 2.1/2 C02 BACKGRO PERCENT .08 .0? ,08 NO* SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 31.2/2 2b.b/2 3*.2/2 NO* sample PPM 3S.2 2b. b 3*.2 NOX bacxcro METER BEADING/SCALE .J/2 .fc/2 .7/2 NOX BACKGRD PPM .7 • b .7 HC CONCENTRATION PPH 5 7 *i 57 CO concentration PPM 88 72 88 C02 CONCENTRATION PCT 1 .*8 1.00 l.»8 NO* CONCENTRATION PPM 38, b 2b,0 38.0 MC MASS CRAMS 1,85 2.k? 1.85 CO MASS GRAMS S.7» 8.03 5,7» C02 MASS GRAMS 152?#15 177*.*2 1527,15 NO* MASS GRAMS 3.b3 * . 21 l.bl HC MASS Mi 1.85 2.k? 1.85 WEIGHTED MASS HC WEISKTtO MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS CO? WEIGHTED MASS NO* .J? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.1» GRAMS/KIUJHtTHE 273,5<» GKANS/KILONfTRE .bS GRAMS/KILOMETRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION * 10.2* LITRES PER HONORED KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FLOW s 2118.2 STD. CU. METRES image: ------- TABLE E-6 117S VEHICLE EMISSION results LIGHT OUIV EMISSIONS TEST UNIT NO, IE8T NO, 1 VEHICLE "OOEL OLDS DIESEL OLS TEST TYPE 3J?1RbMl81?b1 BAROMflER 7*5.7* mm OF HG. oh* bulb temp. ?*,* oeg. c REL. HUHIOIT* *& PCI, EXMAUST EMISSIONS blower OIF. PRESS., G?, 30*.g MM, H?0 l)ATE 10/H/7b ENGINE 5.71 LITRE 8 CYL. COMMENTS 1975 FTP 2 IM« Hot MFGR. CODE -0 TEST «T. mm KG NEI BULB TEMP lb.? DEU. C abs. humidiir *.? milligrams/kg BLOKER INLET PRESS,, G1 ?5*,0 MM, H?0 BLOXER Inlet TEMP, *1 OEG. C »R, H7b *0A0 L0A0 1.S *« W image: ------- T ABLE E-7 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1175 LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST I NO, TEST NO. J Run 4 DATE in/H/7b MFBR, CODE -0 *». I'H IICLE MODEL OLDS OIESEL CTLS ENGINE 5, 7* LITHE B CYL. TEST wT. 00*1 KG HOAD LOAU 1.5 K* IT TYPE 3J2lRbMiai?b1 COMMENTS 197% rrr 2 nj1 1,?* CO MASS grams 5.87 8.18 5.87 COi MASS GRAMS 1531.15 1817.*7 1531,*5 NOX MASS GRAMS 3 » b 3 *.*1 3.t>3 MC MASS MG 1.7* J.b* 1.7* WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTEO MASS WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED M»SS hc ,|7 CO 1.1b C02 277.51 NOX ,fc? GRAMS/KILOMETRE CRAMS/KlLOMETBE CRAMS/KILOMETRE CRAMS/KILOMETRE CARBON BALANCE fUEL CONSUMPTION s 10.31" LITRES PER HUNDREO KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS PLOW s 208.7 STD. CU. METRES image: ------- T ABLE E-fl 1 **75 VEHICLE (MISSION RESULTS LIGHT 01m EMISSIONS UST UNIT NO. TEST NO. 1 VEHICLE MODEL OLDS DIESEL CTLS TEST TYPE 3JllRbMl»l?b* BAROMETER 7*5.*"< *N OF HG. DRt BULB TEMP, 21.7 DIG. C BEL. HUMIDITY *1 PCT, EXHAUST EMISSIONS BLOwER dif. PRESS., Gl, SO*.8 MM, H?Q Run 5 DATE 10/l«l/7b ENGINE S.J* LITRE 8 CTL, COMMENTS 1975 FTP 2 Bay Hot MFGH, CODE -0 TEST WT 10*1 KG WET BUL6 TEMP 15.0 DEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY B.O MILLIGBAMS/XG TR. 117b KQAO LOAD 1.5 Kw BLOWER INLET PRESS. blower inlet temp. G1 lbb.7 MM. M?0 *3 DEG. C RAG RESULTS RAG NO. 1 1 3 BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 7SnS unto 7505 «C SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 15.0/3 11.1/3 15.0/3 HC sample PPM hO 52 bO HC BACKGRD METER REAOINU/SCALE 1.7/3 1.3/3 1.7/3 MC BACKGRO PPM 7 5 7 CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE *3,8/* 3b.P/« *3.8/« CO SAMPLE PPM 13 7* <<3 CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 1.0/» • 3/* 1.0/» CO BACKGRD PPM 1 1 1 coi SAMPLE METER reading/scale 3b,*/! lb.0/1 3b.*/? CO? sample PERCENT 1.5b 1 .Ob 1.5b COf BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 1.0/I I."/? 1.0/? COf BACKGR0 PERCENT .07 .07 .07 NOX SAMPLE METER REAOING/SCALE *0.5/1 17.*/? *0.5/1 NOX sample PPM *0.5 17.* *0.5 NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE ,8/1 .7/? .8/1 NOX BACKGRD PPM . R .7 .8 mC CONCENTRATION PPM 5* *7 5* CO CONCENTRATION PPM 117 71 87 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT I.** .11 l.*1 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 31,8 lb.8 31.8 HC MASS GRAMS 1.7* l.bO 1.7* CO MASS GRAMS 5.b7 7.<11 S.b7 CO! MASS GR'MS 1537.1* 1751.11 1537.1* NOX MASS GRAMS 3,«1 *.S1 3.11 HC MASS MG 1.7* ?.bO 1.7* WEIGHTED MASS MC WEIGHTED MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS CO! WEIGHTED MAJS NO* ,1b GRAM/KILOMETRE 1.11 6RAMS/KJL0METRE 271,18 eUAMi/KILOMETRE ,70 GRAMS/KILOMETRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION i lP.il LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FLOW * JOB.5 STO. CU. METRES image: ------- TABLE E-' EXHAUST EMISSIONS FRO* SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMBER DATE TIME -n MRS, MODEL l" image: ------- TABLE E-10 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FMn« SINGLE HAG SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMBE* DATE 10/11/?b 1INE -U MRS. MODEL H7b OLDS DIESEL CTLHFEt DRIVER DT 1EST Ml. ?0*1 KG. WET BULB TEMP IS C OR* BULB TE"P ?* C SPEC. MUM, 7.0 GRAM/KG BARO, 71S.7 mm HG, TEST NO. 1 ENGINE 5.7 HIRE V g C*L. GVW 0 KG REL» HUM. J7.5 PCT MEASUREO FUEL 0.00 KG RUN OURATION 12.77 MINUTES RLOXER INLET PRESS. ?bh. 7 mm. H?0 BLOWER Dir. PRESS. 10*.8 MM M?0 BLOWER INLET TEMP. of OEG, C DVNO REVOLUTIONS 2*111 BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 11387 BLOWER CU, CM /REV. B*01 BAG RESULTS HE sample meter READING/SCALE ?l,*/3 KC sample PPM 8b HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 1.8/3 HC BACKGRO PPM 7 CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 51.5/* CO SAMPLE PPM lib CO BACKGRD METER REAOING/SCALE .*/• CO BACKGRO PPM 1 CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE *<*.*/? C02 SAMPLE PERCENT ?.?S CO? B*CKGRD METER READING/SCALE ?.n/? CO ? BACKGRD PERCENT .07 NOX SAMPLE METE* READING/SCALE ?l.b/? NO* SAMPLE f'PM 71. b NOX BACKGRD METER R€A01NG/SCALE .1/2 NOX BACKGRO PPM .1 HC CONCENTRATION PPM 80 CU CONCENTRATION PPM 101 cog CONCENTRATION pct ?.11 NO* CONCENTRATION PPM 70,1 308 COCENTRAUON PPM 0.0 HC MASS (GRAMS) 3.8? CO MASS (GRAMS) 10.51 CO? MASS (GRAMS) 3 351.1* NOX MASS (CRAMS) 10.0b SO? MASS (GRAMS) 0.00 HC GRAMS/KILQNETRE .?! CO grams/kilometre .b* CO? grams/kilometre ?0 3 NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE • bl SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00 HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3.55 HC GRAMS/M1N CO GRAMS/KC OF FUEL t.8 CO GRAMS/HJN .8 CO? GRAMS/KG of fuel 3111 CO? GRAMS/MIN ?b? NO* GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.3* NOX GRA*S/hin . 7* SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00 SO? GRAMS/MIN 0.1(0 CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION a 7.7h LURES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES image: ------- TABLE E-ll 1175 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS LIOMT duty EMISSIONS TEST UNIT NO. TEST NO, 2 VEHICLE MODEL OLDS DIESEL CTLS TEST TYPE 3J21Rb*1812b1 DATE 10/20/?b ENGINE 5.7* LITRE 8 CYL. COMMENTS COLD-LA-* HfGR. CODE -0 TEST XT. 20*1 KG Yd. 117b HOAD LOAO BAROMETER 7*3.*b MM OF MG. DRY BULB TEMP, 2J.3 DEG. REL. HUMIDITY 27 PCT. EXHAUST EMISSIONS BLOWER DIF. PRESS.• G2, 10*.B MM. H20 MET BULB TEMP 12.0 DEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY «.« MILLIGRAMS/KG BLOMER INLET PRESS.r G1 251.0 MM. H20 blower inlet temp, *b deg. c RAG RESULTS BAG NO. 1 2 1 BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 7sn* 12110 7501 HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 17,0/* 7.0/* 15.b/3 HC sample PPM lib 5b b] HC backgrd METER READING/SCALE .3/* .7/* 1.1/1 HC BACKGRD PPM 2 b * CO SAMPLE METER REAOING/SCALE bl.7/« 3b.l/» **.!/» CO sample PPM 117 75 13 CO 8ACKGR0 METER REAOING/SCALE ,b/« ,S/« .1/« CO BACKGRD PPM 1 1 2 C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE **.1/2 27,1/2 3b.7/2 C02 sample PERCENT 1.1b 1.11 1.57 *1 C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 2.2/2 2,*/2 l.k/2 1 C02 BACKGRD PERCENT .08 .01 .Ob VJ NO* sample METER READING/SCALE *7.0/2 27«*/2 **.b/2 NOX sample PPM *7.0 27.* **.b NOX BACKGRO METER REAOING/SCALE 1,0/2 .5/2 .5/2 NOX BACKGRD PPM 1.0 .5 .5 HC CONCENTRATION PPM 11* SI 51 CO CONCENTRATION PPM 130 72 BB C02 CONCENTRATION PCT 1.81 1.01 1.52 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM *k.l 2b,1 **.2 HC MASS GRAMS *.28 2.71 1.97 CO MASS GRANS B. 3b 7,11 5.hi CO? MASS GRAMS it22.se 1711.05 15*b.*5 NOX MASS GRAMS *.10 *.12 3.12 HC MASS MG *,28 2.71 1.87 WEIGHTED MASS HC WEIGHTED MA#S CO WEIGHTED MAS# C02 WEIGHTED MA8S NO* .17 GRAMS/KILOMETRE l.il GRANS/KILOMETRE 240.** 6RAN8/KIL0HETRE ,b7 6RAMS/«IL0MfTRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION * 10.BB LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOtAL CVS FLOW » 20b.0 STO, CU. METRES image: ------- TABLE E-12 J«7S VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST UNIT NO, TEST NO, 2 VEHICLE "(JOEL OLDS OIEStL CTLS TEST TvP£ IJ29RbMtfli?b<» BtROMETEfi 7*3,*b «« 0* *6, OR* BULB TEMP, t3.1 OEG. C RIL, HU*I01T* 27 PCT, EXHAUST EMISSIONS BLOmER OIF. CRESS., G2, 30*.* "N, *20 DATE 10/?0/7b ENGINE 5.7* LITRE « C*L. COMMENTS 1975 FTP 2 PAG COLO MfG*. CODE -0 *R, l<>7b TEST «T, 20*1 *G ROAO L0*0 1,5 ** kET BULB TIMP 12,B OfG, C ABS. HUMIOtt* *,9 mjllIGRAMS/kG BLOWER INLET CRESS., GX 25*,0 mm, x?0 BLOWER INLET T£MP, «b DEG. C BAG RESULTS BAG NO, 1 2 1 BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 750* ifjn 750* HC SAMCLE meter RE*OING/SC*LE 17.0/* 7,0/* 17,0/* HC SAMPLE PCM lib 5b lib HC BAC*GRO M£TfR READING/SCALE • 3/* ,7/* ,3/* HC SAC*GRO PPM 2 b 2 CO SAMPLE METER RfAOING/SCALE f.1,7/. lb,}/* bl,7/» CD SAMCLE PPM 117 75 13 7 CO BACkCRO METER REAOING/SC*LE ,b/« ,S/» ,b/« CO BACKGRO PCM 1 1 1 CO? SAMPLE METER reading/scale **.1/2 17,1/2 **,1/2 CO? SAMCLE PEKCENT 1,9b 1,11 1,9b C02 BACKGRO METER REAOINp/SCALE 2,2/2 2,*/2 2,2/2 CO? BACKGRO PERCENT .08 .09 ,01 NO* SAMCLE MfTER REAOINg/SC*LE *7,0/2 27.*/a *7,0/2 NO* SAMCLE PPM *7,0 27,* *7,0 NO* BACKGRO METE" SrA0ING/3C*LE 1.0/2 ,S/? 1,0/2 NO* BACKGRO PP* 1,0 .5 1.0 HC CONCENTRATION PPM 13* 51 13* CO CONCENTRATION PPM 130 7? 130 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT 1,89 1.03 l.i* NO* CONCENTRATION PPM *b,l 2b,9 *b,l HC MASS GRAMS * , ?8 2.71 *.28 CO MASS CRAMS 8.3b 1,1b CO? MASS GR*«3 1«?2.58 1799,PS 1922.58 NO* MASS GRA«S »,10 *,1? *.10 HC MASS *G *.?a 2,79 *.28 HEISHTEO «*SS MC WEIOHTFO "ASS CO KIIGHTEO "ASS CO? WEIGHTED »AiS NO* ,59 GR*MS/K ILCETRE 1.3S GRAMS/KILOMETRE 308,*0 GRAM/KltOWETRE ,(>¦ GRA*S/KILOBITRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION ¦ 11.55 LITRES PFR HUNOREO KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FLO" » 20b.0 STO. CU. METRES image: ------- o ¦» -* 3D *p» 9 f O Z CI o c* o X X X X 0 o o o 1 X Z { x o n x z o r» x xoooooooo O K IV K ru ZXXXOOOCI ¦m *-*>*>»> o a> o a •» tin 1 Ctu -4-I-4 22Zznor>ftnnnni x % x mi oooooaooooocononr- i KXMX^IUIVIV O I X rw QD0DCn(«QBa>aiiCaCDatl(ACogDa3U>O»3D r*o x £ r» o x x«"» o x £ r» n e t * xxvv*xv-exMvvxxvvm ««irr«cirronrrnrirr< oo oo oo oo r X V O m • Cfl K fl S l» x c •< a »• o c ax » X C rn C f -4 ISM JB X © -* **«-«r»i u CA -# 5 « tfl < J> VM O O O O O O £-«X"BX?XVXV£7 c X -* fflW z (M X W fV A XJ 3 or f~ s a - m O O O o .* •-« *-4 _t x -~ EiS V -4 L -« * -• £ -4 £ -• O o» 4 O *- o f- MC fU o o a a m m r» n* (1 m ru m rw m «z> ti ""I rtiH-i n» zzzz » » m am a s 9 » 9 (A • fl o or mm a o X Z m -4 m x A9»U> tr o "O t> tl a S -4 V TO 9 JO a £ • a t* m -4 • z (V ¦o o u T& m ft f»» m m -*? • • r- a & •a x -• x »: •» i» )» » t" t* ifc ft» •W X c t* •— o 9 9 o O a 3 O * o o o to x • • • • —4 • -4•* r * *- w z Z Z z z z Z z laf f- O -4 41 *- ut "«J a ST» o o o o CI o w (A fV • »¦«• "S„ V "S V, s \ ¦v -* o O O O O m co ca M » u> • m n z SSIIS r» o o r» n n n n a B c *» * »* » to> *» »» a» i» •» »> » r- • m X X X X UMMCI r- m r- m f r*i r- m r r* m r* r*i r- f*i X X pr o o o o X * * X WWf""! X o » ui >ft Ufi +* * •- ¦ • • • 0 m ¦ A A tt 09 • (ilOBt/i ni #ai v>w< • • • • 3< Ifff1 I ¦w *a m jo \ •s. v ru • X ¦u ' Q o m o w o z » x n -« X *-~ r- t»i r Z HI *- o -4 3 X co v •- M ft# »» llf IT If* o o • «r • a •- *- • %t c w sr *- JO M \l -4 V •v ^ 4R r -c %u w U"" r- r« < •n »-• * m -4 -« I x) a Cfl — m 60 O »-• r- OB a m a: £ »~ r» to m e> •« S r- —• ~- #*# X* m u» »¦» ru * o to v. • •- Al -4 M Mt r r-xin/n •- vw wn •— ¦# •— • • • • • # • a A^icrv* giain %• «r •* a ^runisi a « «¦ » • • • • o ¦ an %r a- or v i •» tr gi - r • o v • 4P •— ui ar •— 3D m X r~ r a» m oo 33 -4 X X m r»* to • 3) a a C HI X x r- r*i C 9» to image: ------- TABLE E-14 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMBER DATE 10/20/7* IIHE -0 MRS. "OOEL H7t> OLOS DIESEL CTLSET-7 driver or test *t. an*i kg. NET BULB TEMP 13 C 0R» BULB TEMP 22 C SPEC. HUM. S.b GRAM/KG BARO. >*3.5 MM HG. TEST NO. 2 ENGINE 5.7 LITRE * 8 CVL. GVW 0 KG «EL. HUM. 3*.2 PCT MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG RUN DURATION £3.2$ MINUTES blower inlet press, 2S*.o mh. mo BLOWER DIF. PRESS. 30*.B MM H2Q RLOWER INLET TEMP. *B OEG. C OVNO REVOLUTIONS 32000 BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 20731 BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 8*08 PAG RESULTS HC SAMPLE METER REAOING/SCALE 15.0/3 HC SAMPLE PPM b8 HC BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE »*/3 HC BACKGRO PPM « CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE *7.2/* CO SAMPLE PPM 101 CO BACKGRO METER REAOING/SCALE l.l/« CO BACKGRD PPM 2 COI SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE *0.5/2 cog SAMPLE PERCENT 1.77 C02 BACKGRD METER REAOING/SCALE l.2/< C02 BACKGRD PERCENT .0* NO* SAMPLE METER REAOING/SCALE S3.5/2 NOX sample PPM 53.5 NO* BACKGRO METER REAOING/SCALE .8/a NOX BACKGRO PPM .8 HC CONCENTRATION PPM b5 CO CONCENTRATION PPM IS C02 CONCENTRATION PCT 1.73 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 52. B SO? COCENTRATION PPH 0.0 HC MASS (GRAMS) S.hb CO MASS (GRAMS) lb.(.7 C02 MASS (GRAMS) •SOB.55 NOX MASS (GRAMS) 13.08 S02 MASS (GRAMS) 0.00 HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,2t> CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .7? CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 221 NO* GRAMS/KILOMETRE .1.0 SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00 HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3.bb HC GRAMS/KIN CO GRAm$/KG OF fuel 10.8 CO GRAMS/MIN .7 CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3101 CO? GRAMS/MIN 207 NO* GRAMS/KG OF FUEL NOX GRAHS/MIN .5b SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEI n.no SOi grahs/hin n.on .2 CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION > 8.*5 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES image: ------- TABLE e-15 EXHAUST EMISSIONS F80M SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMBER DATE I0/20/7b tlHI -0 MRS. model I'm olds oiesel ctlfet DRIVER DT TEST NT, 20*1 KG, MET BUL8 TEMP 1? C DRT BULB 1EMP 22 C SPEC, HUM, *.8 CRAM/KG MARO. 7*3.5 MM MG. TEST NO, 2 engine s.7 litre » s ctl. GVM 0 KG BEL. HUM. 28.3 PCT MEA3URE0 FUEL 0.00 KG RUN DURATION 12.77 MINUTES (!LO*ER INLET PRESS. 21.1, b MM. H2Q RLO*ER DIF, PRESS. 312.* mm H20 BLOKER INLET TEMP. *8 OEG. C 0 * NO REVOLUTIONS 2*110 BLOHER REVOLUTIONS 11187 BLOKER CU. CM /REV. 83*7 BAG RESULTS MC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 20,h/3 HC SAMPLE PPM 83 MC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 2.3/3 MC backgro PPM 9 CO sample METER READING/SCALE S1.1/» CD sample PPM 112 CO BACKGRO METER REAOING/SCAlE ,1/« CO backgrd PPM 2 C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE *7.2/2 C02 sample PERCENT a. 13 C02 backgro METER REAOING/SCALE l.b/a C02 BACKGRD PERCENT .Ob NO* SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE b8.8/? NOX sample PPM be.8 NO* BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE .i/a NOX BACKGRO PPM , image: ------- U-3 nsooo mmxt* C JO I < C . i m * CO X HI O »>* o HI c a» x o •4 » m * •* m x o o x Ulb o r» o o -o • 2 o«* «* o ¦ a m*-» jp m £ m I X I X m z 33 m £ 3 -4 o < ® -4-4-4-4 £ £ X £ O onn ODCEC»<*aPGBtA<0a)«KCRC*a3CB o» » o m X HHiiiy o C* *>• m m m m t *¦*>*¦»¦ O a o o »a»i» »•*»>»»» ¦» •»>»»» t> » • (A O i> o r» tiocioz XXX omm osmni] TO rn ^ » * •¦*1 -n o (A • z -v » o % f»i (0(oii to £ 3» s V B -t o o o o o o o o V t/i JT f- WVIUtf CI S» •» ®> » B Has c XI ~ X xa * •*> ££££»> "O X-OX-QXOXV X IB £ -O £ £ -4 c ^ IV « »- o» c inn i M (A (« U) -4 —• HI HI -o m "O m ib r* V rn s» n* X C id i- o o o o O o o o r» r* o U) * • • • • HI • -4 *> ^•<4 « X X X X X X X ar u» r* a *4 U# X 9 X> « r* rt r% o r» m o J0 9 c »•»>»» i» »> » w> a» a» » f- • • X £ X X f- r- t- r- f- r- r~ f- X m »(•«•(• fi ni in m m m m m X *~- NSN V in. M mo X X X X -4- X A JL » «• rrr p *1 ¦*4 0t fW u» o o o a o n m o III CA t txx a * » f- m m m fi X o -• •-« -4 -4 -4 -4 Xnm f -4 JO JO X S rm * *•* 9 rt fi f f*i •m X**% €i m SB -4 3 X ce 00 X H ««Aja«4 *• « # ft- 4B if M <4 fW u • • • • • n» m • M n • r*» co m • • « m • or • or (T * *!• dr tfl »- ar « o 4B «/* <#* ¦* as rf* • Jv # • • • o• o« • •» • tit • AM r- -4 ++ x> or m or ¦%# »- as r dr r v^is^^nio n> (M tfioni 01 Jl o O m \ \ N \ N, X X X as a> z (A ft# *v nt • » # 4E r- i- .# ^ (/I I •# * *- ui m «u * »- • image: ------- TABLE £-17 1«7S VkMICLt EMISSION RESULTS LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST UNIT MO. TEST NO, 3 VEHICLE MODEL OLOS OUSEL CTLS TEST T»PE 1J2*biiM|b 1 ?*»B B*BOM£TER 7»7.52 mm 0* MG. OUT bulb temp, 22,2 DEC, c PEL, MU*IOm 51 "CT, exhaust EMISSIONS SLOwES 01', PUfSS., G2, 30».» mm. mo BAG RESULTS Bit, NO, OA Tk 10/?l/7k ENGINE 5,7* LITRE « C*L, COMMENTS 1»75 'TP l BAG COLO MFGP, CODE -0 TEST nT, 20*1 «G ¥B, 117b BOAO LOAD 0,5 *« m I BLOntti REVOLUTIONS *C SAMPLE M£TFR REAOING/SC*Ll MC Si«PLF PPM MC BACGBO METER BEADING/SCALE MC 8AC*6B0 PpM CO SAMPLf METER »EADING/SC*LE CO SAMPLE PPM CO BACKGBO M£TEB beaoing/scale CO BACKCBD PPM C02 SAMPLE METER BEADING/SCALE C02 SIMPLE PERCENT C02 BACKGBO METER BEAOING/SCALE C02 BAC*GBO PERCENT NOX SAMPLE METER BE'OING/SCALE NO* sample PPM NOV BAC*GSO METER R£ AOINC SCALE NOX BACKGBD PPM MC CONCENTRATION PPM CO CONCENTBATION PPM C02 CONCENTBATION RCT NO* CONCENTBATION PPM MC MASS G»AMS CO MASS grams CO? MASS GBAMJ NOX MASS GBAms MC MASS mg 1 'Sib ib,8/» 115 ,«/» 7 50.B/* 112 ,5/* 1 *2,1/2 1,85 2,*/2 ,0" *2,2/2 *2.? ,b/f • b 128 12* I." *1,? *,lb 8,13 1*3?,03 *,23 *,lb WET BULB TEMP lb.1 OEG, C ABS, HU*IOm 1,0 millI&bams/kc BLOkER INLET PRESS,. G1 25*.0 »«, M20 BLOWER INLET TEMP, *1 OEG, C 2 12M3 b,»/* 5S i.e/i 10 15,5/* 73 .2/* 0 2b,?/2 1,07 ?,?/? ,08 2b,7/1 lb, 7 ,b/2 • b *b 70 2b,1 e,s» 7.fib 175b,7« *,5b 2.57 3 751b lb.8/* 135 7 5«.8/» 132 ,5/* 1 *2,1/2 1,85 2,*/2 .09 *2,2/2 *2,2 ,b/2 , b 128 12* 1." *1.' *, lb 8,13 1832,03 * • 21 *,lb WEIGHTED MASS *C KEICMTEO mass CO WEIGHTED MASS CO? ¦SIGHTED "ASS NCX ,5b GRAMS/KlLOMETRi 1,3 3 GRAMS/kILOMETBE »«7.*0 G»AM$/KltOMtTRE ,71 GH»M»/«ILO"ETBfc CABfON BALANCE *UEL CONSUMPTION » 11,1* LITRES PER muNOBEO KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FLO* « 208,k ST0, CU. METRES image: ------- 61-3 hi r> o »• -4 » s * a * * n r> x mm X * r z r» o o r> onn o X X I I CD ® U cr m m m rn (A xo 3or>ooor» aooooooaoooooo O o |- ^ a» tr r• o »-•««*»«• ** n*iv jm r%t X W K K «V "V PW Offl0 o z- o o o o m 31 n X X X x m 2 13 m < CD X X X innnn «SM(iia}VC«MaiilSMUt3P(E s u* ¦» m m m m X>«»t»»3030 ¦» » ¦» •» ¦» ¦» •» c» ¦» » a» • W t~ o o o o »>(/>&»«*<« z z z 2 nn x con x coo X coo X X » C o •n * wwwwwnnnn * Xt> V X * "0 * * D o X X V X> m r- *-• r~ z tier w» (timmm o prroorroorr o o i- r- < H •n O r> »»!»•»> onoozzzz XJ n m m o q m m O m o xt m r* o v» ¦ ai m WMma) o o o a o o o o f- U) V 14 W 7> »• C V « m X £ C C *• » » » U k't 1 X) C Q Z i f -o X o X O X HI X) c *nn i utcncoc/i-4-«Hi-4 ¦o mom m m m m ¦D m xt m X) m m m o o a r» X -• c h s •H JB H jj -* X HI « HI C -H O M f- *< »w O o o o m m o mom m m m m x » m 1 7Z 2 30 30 m o m 30 s JD x> 30 U» m 3 n z z: * i» o ¦o T» © X> XI » HI 3D -• 30 X) TO U • <£ flnn a m m ti m m m rn •» ¦» i» t» »» ffct c wn i- o a O O o o o 3 «• 08 X M «-»* -* TJ •* a *- ~ 2T Z z z z * * X y# O H Ut nt * o o en o T> m> »> »> » » »> S» e* i» • » XXXI m r- m r- rf» r- m f m MM X »• WW m o * * * * -«» X tD «*> r- r- r- r- A# m o o o oo o «s• V t t E r- m m m m HI -» H —1 -• SSS8 XI m m m «/» c/» *»«*- «**-4c fr- « * »— w •— >J "O it ••••#¦• « *w r%i • or # ru IM X ir « a X X a» ru »V IV » * UW c * o a m C X Ml *— r- o ar (N» x *w * ¦* m m f%i ru fu "U rr. • •••¦• <*i • J» OB • •-* 4 • • jl • 3 X) « M»V 3 •» « A *- 4> a m si a ar o m •>- * XI 1*1 r dw m x "s, \ \ V X X X CB 09 u* fit i\i r\< • » u» r- r- IV T kT • T • *- « a «w ar * so oo X X rn m r jd H D m jd X x> 01 o •*» m ,/> O * X r\» O m » o •» H < C m m *» i> mm x X r < x> «• X *-• o H c m x O 09 X C rr* — r- z hi c r* h < m o X u m x> • r« «-• o m x XO H O « m rn ^ o a -i I « *0 m U)< Q v u r- fW O Ml zr fw xi a <* t r- ~ X x o * ^ t *- ce ¦M • 33 uv O •- O V -w r%» +* M o a t m m H m I O W • en w > CD 50 m C "" t , 4> P5 ti i-» O rr o •J* oc o z t> x a -• X ~ m r- m z t-t ar m »- o ¦H O X \l M «« •a » T < wn i— m < "fl C -I X x r m r- C 0B o» o -4 X HI x> tf* M -4 o m 3 «HI X HI O HI U » o -< c nu g* a « • image: ------- Ta«lE E-19 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1**5 LIGHT OUT* {MISSIONS TUT UNIT NO, TEST NO, 1 VEHICLE MOntL nLDS OIESlt. CILS TEST t*PC S^^PhM!*!?!*** BJiRO«F TER 1*7,If »- 0* NC, OR* BULB T£mi>, 11,0 01U, C R£L, wgwiOIT* Sfi "CT, f«H«UST E»ISJinx5 date in/?i/7t. INGI Nfc 5.'» LITRl 8 C YLi COMMENTS JOTS ftp ? BAG M0T RUN I "FOR, CUDt -0 TEST wT, ?0 PLOkIR REVOLUTIONS •>*1% l?"U« 7»* PP« 8 7 8 » J,»/» CO S»MP(.F mftER Bf «OINf,/srALE *!,<•/* 33,8/* CO SAMPtf PPM 87 b« 87 CO HACKGRD MfTER WE'OING'SCALC ,b/« ,S/« ,b/« CO backgbo PPM 1 1 1 CO? SAMPLE METER RE ADING/SCALE 3**0/? ?»,b/? 3*,8/? CO? sample PERCENT l,»8 i,»8 CO ? 1AC«G»D MfTER »f aj>ing/sc*le l.»/? ».S/* CO? BAc*r.or> PERCENT .05 .OS .05 NO* SAMPLE METER REAOING'SCALE »?,S/? ?«,?/? '?,%/? NO* sample opu »?,s ?8 , 3 '?.* NO* BAC*GRO M£TE» heading/scale ,«/? ,8/? ,R/? NO* 8AC*5R0 opu ,8 HC CONCENTRATION PPM *» 5* CO concentration PPM 8? bb 8? CO? concentration PC T l.*3 .«* 1,»3 NO* concentration PPM i?,b »!.' HC mass GRAMS I,IS ?, *8 l.'S CO MASS G«A"J J,»k S, 38 CO? MASS G«*ms l«7g,o<; lb71,Sb 1«78,*% wo* MASS GRAMS *.?1 »,en *.?! MC MASS »G 1,« e,»p KtJGHTfO WA8S HC HEIGHTEO *ASS CO HtlSHTCO HISS CO? MClGHTCO "ASS NO* ,iS r.B*»S/«ILO»tTHE 1,01. GRAMJ/K H.O"t TRE ?fcl,7» GRA««i/KILOHET«E ,7% GRA»3/*lL0*f TRf CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION » *,80 LITRES P£P wUNORfO *ILOMET»ES TOTAL CVS »L0« « ?P«.» Str>, CU, METRES image: ------- TARlF K-JO V(H(CLi fvISSION BE3UI.TS l«7S LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS UST UNIT so. TtST NO, 1 OAU in/?l/7k MfGO, cnoe -0 VR, 1«'* VEHICLE "00ft PLCS »IESEL Cits ENGINE S. " lP»f M C»L, T| ST »T. ?()»! T. »0*0 LOAO « . S «» TEST Tt»E U?«»"l ¦ I »s« COMMENTS 1«"i FTP t RA(. HOT BUN 3 «4B0Mrt(-B >«>,?' uv Of MG, D»» UutB Tt»o, fi,n OFG, c »Et. hUm|0|tv #1 PCT, E*MAUST f"{SS10NS BLOkEB 01*. »8fss,, G?, M?0 *ET BULB UWP 1?,« OfC, c abs, MU"ion* ».i ¦>in.iGM4Ms/Kr; BLOot" INLET MMtSS,, gi #S» .0 HLOWfB INLET TE"", «s oeg, c HfO w i ~a RAG BtSULTI BSC *0. 1 ? J blp»e« evolutions 'SIB l#H«n '¦llH HC $*»»LC Vf Tf B <-£AOING/SC*Lfc IS.1/3 I?.3/3 15,1/3 »c SA"<"LE UPM t>u • « Ktt HC BSCkGoq Mf Tf 0 BE «OlMf./SCALE #.l/l 1,*/' #.1/3 "C 4AC*G»0 PPM p « 9 CO SAwOlf "lTf» BfAOING/SCALF »1. h/« 3S,l/« »l,h/« CO SAMPLE ppv 87 ?? f 7 CO HAC*GB<5 "f T£B K( «OI»JG/SC*Lf ,%/• , #os NO* SA"°LE ff fFB BfAOING/SCALF •1,0/# 0 , fl /? 13.0/? NO* SAMPLE PPM » 3,0 0,H » J,P NO* 8*C«GB0 Mf Tf B BEADING/SCALE ,»/# ,8/# ,«/? NO* BAC*GPO PPM .* • s HC CONCENTRATION PPH 43 »# CO CflNCEMBATION PP» S* hi CO# CnxCE* TBATTO* PC 1,»3 l.no 1»* 3 NO* CONCEKTBATION PPM »#,3 30,1 »?. 3 MC MASS C,V*»S l.'l ?, 3 3 l.'l CO "ASS C.«2«s 70 %,»% CO? "ASS GtA^S 1»'I.R0 1771.3R 1«'1.«0 NO* "ASS GBA^S 3.'? »,s* 3,'# HC "ASS ^G l.'l ?.S1 i.'l ¦EJG*Tfo "ASS "Z wtlGNTRO "A3S CO ¦tlGMTCO "ASS CO? KEIGHTJO *ASS NO* ,33 GBA»s/*lLOuETHl 1.01 GB**s/*ILOM£!RE JhH.'i GB»«S/*I10mETRF ,fc» GBAI'S/KllOHTPt C»B»OS BALANCE fUEL CONSUMPTION • 10.0k LITRES PER MUNQOfr> « IL.I-E TSt 5 total Cvs flo« « #n»,i Sto, cu. »rtbes image: ------- TABLE K-21 VE«ICU EMISSION BESULtS 1«?S LIGHT OUTY EMISSIONS TEST UNIT NO, TEST hf>, J VEHICLE MODEL "LOS DIESEL CTLS TEST T*»f B4BU-E TEH >»?,S? »« OF WG. ORt 0ULB T|«P. ?(,.! OEG. C BEL, muhjDIT* ?J OCT, E*H»UST EMISSIONS BlOkE" OIF, PRESS., G?, 11)".« mm, h?0 OATE IQ/im*. MfCB, CODE -0 ENGINE S,7» LITBE 8 C*L, TfST AT. ?0»1 *G COMMENTS 117S FTP I RAG HOT BUN * Yti. |«Jb HOAO LOAD «,!> »« WFT BULB TtMP 13,« DEC. C ABS, MUMIDI T» »,R MILLir.B**5'KG RLOXEB INLET P«ESS., G1 ?¦;0 BL0OER INLET TEMP. »J DEC. C w N> «AG RESULTS PAG NO, «LO«£B bEVOLU hc S»"PLf SiwPLf f)«C3 ?.s/3 10 *0,?/• BS ,»/» 1 11,8/? l.*3 J,5/? . OS »!,?/? *1,? i.o /? 1.0 ? i?r«? n,s/3 s» ?,i/3 t>7 .«'• f i»,l/? ?,1/? .OR ??.i/? ?',i .«/? i '%"b IS,7/1 n ?,S/3 10 *0.?/* ?s ,8/» 1 33,H/? 1,»3 1,5/? .OS '1.?/? »1.? 1,0/? 1.0 nC CONCENTRATION PPM s* »¦; %* CO CONCENTBATION PPM #1 b» 81 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT 1, «8 ,10 1,38 NO* CONCE NT 8 A TI ON PPM *0. 3 ?b , 3 *0, i HC "ASS GR*M5 l.'« ?.S? 1.1* CO MASS GRA"S S.J1 ?.lt» S, 31 CO? "ASS GRAMS 1SOB.10 1»?*,S8 NO* MASS GRAMS 1,t>3 o.OT 1,1.3 Hf. MASS MG l.'» ?,5? 1.'* xEISHTEO «*SS MC WEIGMTRO X4SS CO "ElGMTfC "ASS CO? «tlG"TfD "ASS NO* .3S GR#Ms/KlLO*ETtt 1.03 GR*«S/«UO»£TRE ?S1.»P GB»MS/«IL0M£T*t ,d» GP*mS/kIlOMET»E CAPBON BALANCE *UfL CONSUMPTION * o.JB LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRE? TOTAL CVS FLU* ¦ in*.1 STO, CU, "fTBES image: ------- TABLE E-J2 1«>S Vl-ICLf EMISSION RESULTS LIGHT OUT* Ewt SSIONS TEST NIT NO. TEST NO, 1 EHICLE "OOfL Otns OlEStL CTLS EST TyPE JJi'OSt.xiKmi »»o«etir mm or ho, RY 0UL8 TEMP. a.» PEG, C EL, humjOITy IS PCT, *MAUST EMISSIONS rlo>»er Dir. p«f ss., r,?, io».» mm, h?o DATE 10/?1/Jb ENGINE 5,7* LITRE 8 CTL. COMMENTS l«J5 f TP i BAG HOT RUN V MFGR, CODE *0 TEST WT, ?0*1 KG TH. JUb ROAD LOAD *ET BULB TEMP 12,8 OtG, C IBS, HUMJOITY * ,b M|LLIGR*«S/KG BLOwER INLtT PRFSS., Gl 25*.0 mm, kJU BLO*E» INLET TEMP, »3 OtG, C BAG RESULTS BAG NO, BLOhER REVOLUTIONS HC SAMPLE METER RE*OING/SC»LE HC Sample PPW HC BACKGOD MFTFR BEADING/SCALE HC BACKG9D PPM CO Sample METER PEAOING'SCILt CO Sample PPM CO BAC*G»0 M£TE « #E*OING/SC»LE CO BACKGRO PPM CO? SAMPLF METER BfAOING/SCALE co? SAMPLf TRCfcNT co? BACKGRO MFTFR READING/SCALE co? BACKGOD PERCENT NO* SAMPLE METER RE*OING/SC*l.E NO* Sample PPM NO* BAC*GRD METER »e*ding/$cale NO* backsrd PPM 1 7508 15.?/3 •>1 e.s/s 10 »o,a/* R* ,e/» i 33,8/? l.*1 i,«/? ,07 3«,» ,«/? t iiiii 13.*/3 5» 1.1/1 * }~,»/« 71 .'/* 1 ?b,?/? 1.0? i.i/i ,ns «i,*/? ?«.» .i 3 noc 15,?/3 hi 2,5/3 10 *0.1/* B* ,8/* 1 31,8/? I.*3 l.*/? ,05 II.1/1 31,' .«/? HC CONCENTRATION PPM 5? *ii 5? CO CONCENTRATION PPM 80 bB 80 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT 1.3b ."»« 1,3b NO* CONCENTRATION PPM 38,1 ?8.b 38.1 HC MASS GRAMS 1 , b8 8.55 l.b8 CO MASS grams 5.?* '.b« 5,2* co? MASS GRA"S 1*13,5* l?b?,05 1*11,5* NO* MASS GRAMS 3,»1 *.»1 ».»"< HC MASS *G l.bS 2,55 I,b8 WEIGHTED MASS hc ¦EI6HTED -«SS CO "IICMTEO mass co? "ElBMTfO M4SS NO* ,15 GR*«S/>*,5 STO. CU, METRES image: ------- TABLE E-2J KXHAUS1 MISSIONS fh|JM single PAG SAMPLE • f.MlCLE NUMRfH OATE lll/?l/?b 1 IHE -II MRS. TEST NO, 3 MOnfcL l"7b ULOS DIESEL CTLSE1 7 ENGINE S.7 LITRE 1 CY|_. ORl*EH DT 1FST ml. ?ti»l KG. GVK 0 KB *E1 Hiail ttxp 13 C usr BULR TEMf ?» C REL. HUM. ?*,8 PCT Spfc, hum. *.(, gkam/kg dako, 7*7,s h* hg. measured Fuel n.on kg PUN DURATION ?3.«7 PLOHER Cli. C /REV. nil? RAG RESULTS MC S*M«LF METER RF.AOING/SCALE 17.S/3 MC Sample 7n MC b«c*gro METfM SkAOING/SC*LE ?. 3/3 HC HACKGi'O PPM q CO sample MfTER RtAUiSU/SC*LE *?.(!/« cu SAhPLt PPM 100 CO It*CKG«i) MflfH HEAOIN«/SC*LF ,H/« cu BAC*G><1> PPM 1 cu? sample MF TEW READING/SCALE »?.?/? CU? sample PERCENT 1,85 CO? nAc*Gi»n METER READING/SCALE ?,n/a CO? HAc»r.Hu PERCENT .0? NO* SAMPLE MFTEK READING/SCALE '•¦'.3/? NO* SAMPLE PPM »«, 3 NO* MCKGHu MFTER RhACING/SCALE 1 .0/? NU* bachgrd PPM 1.0 HC CONCENTRATION to? CO CUNCENfAl I UN PPM IS CO? CONCEmIRaTION PCT 1.7" NO* CONCENTH*!ION PPM *B,» SO? CucEmtration fPM n.o HC MASS (GlAMS) S.S? CO MASS (liXAMS) H>,«B CO? MASS (G«*MS) 5073.83 NO* MASS (GRAMS) 11.87 so? MASS (GRAMS) 0.00 HC GmAMS/KILuME TRE ,?5 CO GRAMS/KIUOMEIRf .78 CO? BRAMS/fclLOMEIRE 813 NO* GRAMS/KILll«EIKE .S"> SO? GRAMS/KILOH£TRF O.OH HC URaMS/KG (If FUEL 3.3B MC RRAKS/MIN CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL lH.t CO r-BAKS/MJN .7 CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUFL 311" CO? GRAMS/MIN ?1B NO* GRAMS/KG OF FUEL NO* GAAHC/MJN .51 SO? GRAMS/KG IJF FUI-L n.nr so? G»AMf!/i«IN n.no CAPHON HALANCt FUEL C'INSUKPIIUW = 4.11 tlTRfS PER HUNDRED ~ iLUMf T »t S image: ------- TABLE E-2J KXHAUS1 MISSIONS fh|JM single PAG SAMPLE • f.MlCLE NUMRfH OATE lll/?l/?b 1 IHE -II MRS. TEST NO, 3 MOnfcL l"7b ULOS DIESEL CTLSE1 7 ENGINE S.7 LITRE 1 CY|_. ORl*EH DT 1FST ml. ?ti»l KG. GVK 0 KB *E1 Hiail ttxp 13 C usr BULR TEMf ?» C REL. HUM. ?*,8 PCT Spfc, hum. *.(, gkam/kg dako, 7*7,s h* hg. measured Fuel n.on kg PUN DURATION ?3.«7 PLOHER Cli. C /REV. nil? RAG RESULTS MC S*M«LF METER RF.AOING/SCALE 17.S/3 MC Sample 7n MC b«c*gro METfM SkAOING/SC*LE ?. 3/3 HC HACKGi'O PPM q CO sample MfTER RtAUiSU/SC*LE *?.(!/« cu SAhPLt PPM 100 CO It*CKG«i) MflfH HEAOIN«/SC*LF ,H/« cu BAC*G><1> PPM 1 cu? sample MF TEW READING/SCALE »?.?/? CU? sample PERCENT 1,85 CO? nAc*Gi»n METER READING/SCALE ?,n/a CO? HAc»r.Hu PERCENT .0? NO* SAMPLE MFTEK READING/SCALE '•¦'.3/? NO* SAMPLE PPM »«, 3 NO* MCKGHu MFTER RhACING/SCALE 1 .0/? NU* bachgrd PPM 1.0 HC CONCENTRATION to? CO CUNCENfAl I UN PPM IS CO? CONCEmIRaTION PCT 1.7" NO* CONCENTH*!ION PPM *B,» SO? CucEmtration fPM n.o HC MASS (GlAMS) S.S? CO MASS (liXAMS) H>,«B CO? MASS (G«*MS) 5073.83 NO* MASS (GRAMS) 11.87 so? MASS (GRAMS) 0.00 HC GmAMS/KILuME TRE ,?5 CO GRAMS/KIUOMEIRf .78 CO? BRAMS/fclLOMEIRE 813 NO* GRAMS/KILll«EIKE .S"> SO? GRAMS/KILOH£TRF O.OH HC URaMS/KG (If FUEL 3.3B MC RRAKS/MIN CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL lH.t CO r-BAKS/MJN .7 CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUFL 311" CO? GRAMS/MIN ?1B NO* GRAMS/KG OF FUEL NO* GAAHC/MJN .51 SO? GRAMS/KG IJF FUI-L n.nr so? G»AMf!/i«IN n.no CAPHON HALANCt FUEL C'INSUKPIIUW = 4.11 tlTRfS PER HUNDRED ~ iLUMf T »t S image: ------- TABLE E-J* E«»AIIST missions mm SINGLE BAG SAMPLE UMICLE NUWHU. DATE IU/ai/7*. T1»E -» hHS. TEST NO. 3 xnoEL 1«"> "lOS oiesf.l cam engine s.? lithe b cyl. drive# dt usr .r. ?im *g. r,*w n kg wet HDLR TfNp IB C I>W» BULB TEMP ?m.1 mh. m?0 RLn»t» OIF. PMFSS, J|?,» MM H?0 BLOWER INLET 1E*P. SI DIG. C nvhc RtviiLininNS t>nih« BtUHtB REVOLUTIONS u«i>h BLOxtR CU. C" /REV. •»?»? HAG RESULTS «C Sample mete* READING/$CALE HC SAMPLE PPM 71 MC BACKGMi) METER RfcAIHW/SCALE 7/1 HC BACKGH0 PPM 11 CO SAMPLE METER «E»!H»iG/SCALE 5».t/» CO SAMPLE PPM 118 CO (jACKGHU METER RE Ail lf.'G/$C ALE .»/« CO HAC*GHa PPM 1 CO? Sample METER REAUING/SCALE >«8,o/e CO? SAMPLE PFRCFNt ?.17 CO? tUCKGRD METER READING/SCALE i.o/e CO? HACKGWO PERCENT .07 NOX SAMCLt METER REAIUNG/SCALE bS.t/i NO* SAMPLE ppm hS.? NOX BACKGXD METER REAUlNtt/SCALE 1.1/2 NUX BACKGRO PHM 1.1 MC CONCENTRATION PPM fa? CO CONCENTRATION PPM 110 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT ?.ll NOX CONCENTRATION p»»« fe*. J so? cncENTMATION PPM n.o HC MASS (f.PAMS) CO MASS (GRAMS) 10, s« CO? MASS tG«A*S) 3?0*1,?B MO* HASS (GRAMS) io. at SO? MASS (GKAMS) u.oo MC GRAMS/K1L0ME TRE .11 CO GRANS/KILOMETRE .b* CO? GRAMS/KIL0H£1«F NO* CRAMS/KILOMETRE ,h? so? GRAMS/MLOMETRE n. no MC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL a.»b mC GRAMS/m J n CO grams/kg 'JF fuel CO GR'mS/m In .8 CO? G«*»s/m; OF FUEL ii i? CO? GRAMS/mIN 251 NO* GRA^t/HQ UF FUEL o. «<, no* G««mS/m|n .80 SO? GRAMS/. "n so? GRSKS/min n.nn ftoijON ()*L»NCC FUFL < (UN - 7.13 I IT-if. 5 PE » MUNf>«ED KlLUME'RtS image: ------- TABLE E-25. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1977 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS (GASOLINE) (YRANSIENT CYCLES) Test Emission Rate, q/km Fuel Cons. Fuel Econ. Cycle Date No. HC CO NO* fc/100 km npg 1975 FTP 12/29/76 1 0.27 1.27 0.82 14.87 15.82 12/30/76 2 0.23 1.26 0.87 15.64 15.04 1/3/77 3 0.22 1.48 0.85 14.81 15.89 Average 0.24 1.34 0.85 15.11 15.58 (0.39) (2.16) (1.37) FTPC 12/29/76 1 0.41 2.41 1.02 15.73 14.96 12/30/76 2 0.40 1.86 1.02 16.49 14.27 1/3/77 3 0.37 2.79 1.02 15.55 15.13 Average 0.39 2.35 1.02 15.92 14.79 (0.63) (3.78) (1.64) FTPh 12/29/76 1 0.18 0.31 0.61 13.85 16.99 12/30/76 2 0.11 0.78 0.72 14.36 16.38 1/3/77 3 0.14 0.55 0.72 14.59 16.13 Average 0.14 0.55 0.68 14.27 16.50 (0.22) (0.88) (1.09) SET 12/29/76 1 0.07 0.23 0.84 11.57 20.34 12/30/76 2 0.07 0.59 0.87 11.96 19.67 1/3/77 3 0.09 0.76 0.86 11.97 19.66 Average 0.08 0.53 0.86 11.83 19.89 (0.13) (0.85) (1.38) FET 12/29/76 1 OA 5 0.10 0.84 9.92 23.72 12/30/76 2 0.0' 0.17 1.00 10.44 22.54 1/3/77 3 0.06 0.09 0.79 10.38 22.67 0.06 0.12 0.88 10.24 22.98 (0.10) (0.19) (1.42) ( ) Values in parentheses are in grams/mile E-26 image: ------- UN I I NO. *15 VEHICLE MUDfL TEST NU. 1 OLUS GAS CUTLAS9 TABLE E-20 VEHICLE EMISSION results IM75 light OUTt EHISSIONS TEST TP OATE l?/29/7b MFGR. COOE -0 ENGINE *.2b LITRE 6 CURB * T. 101* KG T«. GVH 19 7? 0 KG 0AROMFIE.R 7*2.19 mh OF HG« ORr ttULrt !E«P. 25.0 DFG. C PEL. HUMlDUr 3b PCI. MET BULB TEMP 15.b DEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY 7,2 GRAMS/KG EXHAUST EMISSIONS W I to -j BLOWER INLET PRESS.r G1 59*.* HH. *2 DEG. C H?0 BLO*fcR OIF. PRESS. G2, 5*1 .B MM. H0O 8L0HER INLET TEHP. BAG results BAG NO. 1 2 3 BLUhER h'EVULUl I(IMS Hoasb b 981 7 10798 MC SAMPLE HE TEN READING/SCALE U.H/3 10.2 2 *b.b/2 HC SAMPLE PPM lit 18 *; MC BACKG> sample PPM 71.0 12.9 to.* NOX backgrd METER READING/SCALE . b/ 2 .b 2 .5/2 NOX rtAC KGrtO PPM . b .b • 5 S02 sample METER REAOInU/SCALE -0.0/* • 0.0 • -0.0/* 302 sample PPM •0.0 -0.0 -0.0 302 BACKGRO METER REAOING/SCAlE -o.o/* •0.0 ft •0.0/* SOS OACKGHO PPM -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 HC CONCENTRATION PPM 10* 3b CO CONCENTRATION PPM 30b 0 *1 C02 CONCENIHATION PC T 1.** .92 1.23 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 70.5 12.3 39,9 so; CONCENTRATION PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 HC MAS3 GRAMS *.b7 .33 1. b2 CO MASS SHAHS 2 7.82 1.27 3.?* co GRAMS/KILOMETRE HE'CHTEO MASS CO 1.2' grahs/kIlometre KEIGnTEO MASS CO 2 3*5.7B grams/kilometre mEIGiTEO MASS NOX .82 GRahS/KIlOMETRE mEICHTEO mass so; 0.00 GRAHS/KILOMETRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL COnSUMPIION = 11.87 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FlO* = 209.0 STD. CU. nETRES image: ------- T ABLE E-27 UN If NU. *15 VEHICLE MOokL iesi nu. i iilus gas cutl»ss barometer 3*2.h «h of mg. DRY BULb TE«P. ?S.O OEG. REL. HUHIUJIY ih PCT. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1/7b HFGR. CODE -0 ENGINE *,2b LITRE B CURB *T, 181* KG KFI BULB TEMP lS.b OEG. C ADS. HUMIOITT 3.2 GRAMS/KG *R. GVM 1«177 0 KG C*HAUSI EMISSIONS BLU-tW C1F, PRESS RAG RESULTS RAG NO. 8L0»tR REVOLUTIONS , G2, SH.B MM, M?0 BLUMER INLET PRESS., Gl S image: ------- TABLE E-2B VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1175 LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST UNIT MO. *1S TEST NO. i FTP Hot OME ii/gt/Jb MFGR, CODE -0 VR. 1««7 7 VEHICLE MODEL OLUS G*S CUTLASS ENGINE *.2b LITRE 8 CURB NT. HI* *G GVM U KG BAROMFTER 7*2.11 mm Of *6. "ET BULB TEMP 13,J DEC, C our a UL3 'EMP. ?S,b OEG, C ABS. HUMI01 TY *,S GRAMS/KG RtL. HUMDJTf 22 pCT. e*haust emissions BLUWE* INLET PRESS., G1 bOl.b MM. H?Q RLO»EH OIF. Mhtss., 1 li?, 1.07.1 MM. H?0 BLOWER INLET TEMP. RAG RESULtS HAG NO. 1 ? 3 BLOftE* KEVULUflONS *0718 7000* *0718 Ht SAMPLE Mt TEH RIAOI .G/SCAlE »b.b/2 tb.e/e *fe.b/2 HC sample PPM *7 17 *7 HC H*C*G><0 METER REAOING/SCAlE .5/2 • »/2 .5/? NO* B*CkGRU PPm ,5 .* .4 SO? SAMPLE METER MEAOING/SCALE -0.0/* -o.o/» -0.0/* SO? sample PPM -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 so? BAC*GMO METER READING/SCAlE -0.0/* -0.0/* -0,0/* so? BACKGHO PPM -0,0 -0.0 -0,0 HC CUNCENTHAIION PPM 3b 7 3b en CONCENTRATION PPM *1 0 *1 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT 1.23 .87 1.23 NO* CONCENTRATION PPM 31,1 11.? 31, 1 SO? CONCENTRATION PPm 0.0 0.0 0.0 MC MASS GRAMS l.bl .52 l.bl CO MASS GRAMS 3,75 .0? 1.75 CO? mass GRAMS 178b,Ob 21*1.37 |7Sb.0b NO* MASS GRAMS *,1S i.31 *,15 so? MASS uHAMS 0.00 0.00 0.00 WEIGHTED mass hC WEIGHTED MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS CO? WEIGHTED MASS MO* McIGnTCO MASS SO? .IB GRAMS/KI LOME TRE .31 GRAmS/KIlOMETRE 3?3•b3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,bl GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00 GwahS/KIL0M£ THE CAPflON HAlanCE FUEL CONSUMPI[0n s 13.85 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAi. C»5 fLi>» « 281.4 STO, Cu. METRES image: ------- TABLE E~20 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VEMIfLE NUM8E* »IS DATE l?/?1/?fc I1ME -U HNS. MODEL 11?? OH»S GAS CU'lASSE!-? DNIVER DT IEST *r, ?o»l KG. »f,T BULB TEMP 1* C twr BULB TE«H if C SPFC, HUM. S.J CHAH/KG BAKU, ?1?,? MM HG. TEST NO. 1 ENGINE »,3 LITRE 8 GVN 0 KG R£L. HUM. ?3.8 PET measured fuel o.oo kg RUU DURATION ?3.?b MINUTES BLOwER inlet PHESS. hOJ.l MM. H?0 RLOkER OIF. PRESS. hO?,l MM M?0 RtO«ER INLfcT TEMP. -to OEG. C 0*N0 REVOLUTIONS 3111 «i BLO"ER DEVOLUTIONS rlobeh cu. lm /re*. ??jo BAU RESULTS »c SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE ??, 1/? HC sample PPM ?? hC BACKGRO METER REAUINU/SC»LE 10.*/? nC 8ACKGXO PPM 10 CO SAMPLE METER REAOlNG/SCALf ? 3.?/• CO Sample PPM ?? CO backgko METER READING/SCALE l.S/A CO BACKGRO PPM 1 CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE B?,«t/3 CO? SAMP i PERCENT 1.53 coe BAL. ii«U METER READING/SCALE 3.Ml CO? BACKGRJ PERCENT .Ob NO* SAMPLt METER REAPInU/SCALE S3.0/1 NO* SAMPLE PPM 53.0 NO* BACKGWD meter REAOING/SCALE • fa/? NO* BACKGKO PPM • fa HC CONCENTRATION PPM 11 CO CONCENTRATION PPM 80 CO? CONCENTRaTION PLT 1.1S NOX CONCENTRATION PPM s?.s SO? COCENtRATlON PPM 0.0 HC MASS CGMAMS) l.b3 CO MASS (GRAMS) »,"!? CO? MASS (GRAMS) S8?U.31 NOX MASS (GRAMS) 18.35 so? MASS (GRAMS) U.00 MC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .0? CO (.RAMS/KILOMETRE • ?3 CO? GRANS/KILOMETRE ??0 NO* CRAMS/KILOMETRE .8* SO? C.RAMS/KILUMETRE n.nii HC (.RAMS/KG OF FUEL ,RR MC GRA»S/«IN .0? CO GRAmS/KG OF Fufct ?.b CO GRAMS/-IN .? CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31K? CO? GRAM3/HIN ?5? NO* GRAMS/KG OF FijFL 1.80 NO* GRAMS/MIN .?¦< SO? GRAMS/KSf OF fuel u.nn so? GRAMS/MIN n.no image: ------- TAdte E-JO E*hauS! EMISSIONS FROM S1NGLF H*r, SAMHLE VEHICLE "UMBER *1S HATE lint -0 mUS. TEST NO. 1 MOPtL 1"»?? OLDS GAS CUTlASKEI ENGINE »„3 LITRE « DRIVER DT IEST »T. ?n? SiR*MS/*ILO«£TKi i3i NO* GRAMS/KILDM£TR£ ,8* SO? GR*MS/KILO«ETRE II. OU MC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .b? HC r.HAMS/Wt» .lib co CRAMS/KG OF fuel 1. * CO f.RAMS/cIN . 1 CO? GRAMS/HG OF FUEL Jib* CO,? GRAMS/Mlh N JY GRamS/kG OF fuel u.»* NU* GtiAMS/crN 1 -»8 so? G9AMS/KG OF fufl U.HH SO? URA»S/»t"l U.IKI C»p»un halance fuel ECnmiM* - lures *fr wunorei' *Iliime tf,r image: ------- UN IT SO. »IS VlHIClE MUOtl It SI NU. 2 75 FTP ULDS GAS CUlL»S3 1AMLE E-31 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST DME 1?/30/7b MFGR. COOE -0 engine t.eb litre b curb lm* kg YR. U»M H77 0 KG BAROMMER 71b.bU MM OF HG. Oh* rtt'Lrt TE'tP. 8*. t OEG. RtL. Hoi101T Y PC T. MET BULB TEMP lb.l OEG. C ABS. HUM 10 IT Y V.S GNAHS/KG exhaust EMISSION 3L0MER INLET PRESS. RUOwtR DlF. PRESS., & Mfc TEH Rfc AUINb/scale ? • 1 / 3 ?. 0/ 3 lb.*/? HC 8AC*GR0 PPM ?1 ?0 lb CO SAHPLt Mfc TEH HEAOINU/SCAlE b*.l/* ?.?/* 51. >/* CO SAHPLE PPK ?b? ? 11? CO BAC«G*0 Mfc TER HEADINU/SCALE .*/• .?/• • 7/* CU 6AC*G*D PPM 1 1 1 CO? sample MF. TER READINU/SCALE 88.b/3 58.5/3 75•b/3 CO* SAfiPLE PERCENT l.bS 1.03 1.38 CO? bACKGnO METER Mfc A L> ING/SC ALE 3.5/3 3.9/3 3*8/3 cue BACkGKD PfcRCfcNT • OS • Ob • Ob NOX SAMPLt METER HtAUlNG/SCALE b9.I/? 1*#0/? **.8/? w NOX sample PPM b9.1 1*.0 **.8 NOX UACKG^U Mfc It* REAOINU/SCAlE R/? • ?/? • 7/? u> to NOX BACKG^O PPK ~ 0 . 7 • 7 so? SAMPLt Mfc' FE REAOING/SCALE -11.0/* -o.u/* -0,0/* so? SAMPLE PPM • 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 so? BACKGrtO ME TER REAOING/SCAlE -o.o/* -0.0/* •0.0/* so? BACKGKO P^M -0.0 -0.0 o 0 1 HC concentration PPM 10? s 2? CO v. OSCEN T R A T I ON PPM ?*9 ? 10b CU? COnCEnTRaTion PCI l.bO • ^8 1.33 NOX concen r«A tiun PPM b8 . * 1 3 • * ** .? SO? COnCENTRaTion PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 HC HASS GRAMS *.*9 • 35 • 9b CO HASS GKAHS ??.?« « ? 3 9.** CO? masS GRAMS ? ?ss•e 3 ? 3b1.5b 18b?.13 NOX MASS GRAMS 9.?5 1,10 5.9b su? MASS GRAMS 0.00 0.00 0.00 OEG. C WEIGHTED MASS hc WEIGHTED MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS C02 WEIGHTED MASS NOX WEIGHTED MASS SO? .a uhams/kilometre l.?b gmAmS/KIlOMETRE 3b*.03 GKAMS/KILOKETRE .87 GKAmS/KIlOMETRE O.OU GrfAMS/KIlOMETRE CAB30N BALANCE FUEL COnSUHPIIUN s 15.b» LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAL CvS Fluh = 201.3 STO. CU. METRES image: ------- ee-a » O <9 r* x r- -< » < c f* 2 T ~ X * X X X X o» x n o X u» 2 o n x (A C0 (A m m f~» coccococcr» C C C C C O C o c c © o o a c c n r. rt n r- » > r* — C r- -i ."•"i O r* c M *— fV K >« ru "V IV IV nu k M M. Ml IV IV -V rv o o o c X a. m g y» c ci o > » m MM X X r T 3 2 3 X rr 2 X fr X C -4 C- < ac -i —« -4 -4 a * x x X n n r» r» o SrQ(A(AOSU wa a w cn s tr Cfl (A Qi 7 (A w x o m X m— •-* m o * *» m fl m * » >» > o o e c c > »- » » ^ > > > »» «~ > » j» > » > > > > cn o c o c U) (A (A (A (A X ? 2 2 2 n o x x rt n X TP. nn.t X n r. X inn 3 a X c O V. •< T or r- vm *n «~ T> » > X x: j* > X X r- r- 2 Jl JE X X X rn m m m m a or- r tn or romrr 3^ c. tr r- c- r r* < -4 ~i c (T r> *~ » > » C 'f f c* c 2 2 X X3 tr fT« Jg X f** rr XXI*" f* X X m f X X c C/i c * r»» Cn «» ifi (A » » » a» r« XXX JD * c X IV .T o u "« X X X X X a» a» i» »> »- t> X "C X "O X "0 X "0 X XJ X X X X X X V X —4 X 4 X Cfl c tn 2 rt r X (A WUl y» •HI 13 ^ 13 m -0 er m mem t ft X X m m •V « m O o o o n Ml X -« x -» X —~ X -h X -H X —4 X —4 X X —4 X •m o (A ¦* c r~ IV K IV coo o o m m m rt m m m m rr» -r> 2 40 X * » —i n» 2 2 2 2 2 X X X X m X f. X X X X X cn • r> o 90 r\ 2 2 -* **» X O! O "O "D "0 "0 Tt X 30 X X -4 X -« X X X X JO • o o n • IM "0*0 0 t) U m f»1 m in ft m m m f"! m « * c U"> cn m XX-* X X >> » >¦ «» iw> > > » IV 2 c c »-• ru »- O o a c o C* c c c c * r* r- C U) 1 • a» ts o o or 39 ¦* 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 cr c —¦ o •V uj or c C O C. c. «*. C C. «r C C ¦« «/ *» * o o O o O c trt s. (A N, C0 \ Cn S (A V (A \ in N. tr. N. Cfl N. »> »> a» J» »> » » a» *» * > > l» i. x X (A j; x Co Co Jl 00 r- r- m F- m r m r- m r- m r* m r- m f r- r»> X X 2 O O O O O X 2 X X X m rn m r* m x a as 3D 3D z 0> O IV 33 M O lA UJ 4 i T — OB< «V Jl C 4 O JD A> I I I I j* »— O M (8 IV 4 * * V ¦* O 0IHw4i)040i)IV o o o o • *¦> »— •— tf* M J) 4 4* Ml • QD IV ft» Ul OS * • o » o • » «tv»iv«o * a >* o a m 3D a >• • X c® n N. X z IV o image: ------- 1»HU C- >) gt,u NU. »IS fE5» Nil, > FTI' Hot vt«ICLt "UUI.L ULI.'S G»5 cull »sa ?1h,h>l N« OF mG, 0*» BlIL* 1FMU, 2S.II UEG. C MIL. huMIUITi te ^Cf. vF"ICLE EMISSION MESULIS 1«»?S LIGHT „uir EMISSIONS 11ST U».T> 12/ 30/ ?b MfGH, CUOE -1) ENGINE *,2b LITWf 8 CORH *1, 181* KG «E! BULH T£M» lb.? OiG. C *83. HUHI01TT 8.b GR4MS/KG UVM It?? 0 Mi i*H*usi t«l'>sim»s HL(»»e» 0I> . f«( ss. »*G litSULlS m i «, (>*1).? MH, HJO mowtM inlei mress, ULOwEN INLEI IfMP, RLO*fc« «?e¥litUf iONS *»S Bi bbbis *os8* HC sa*pl* Nf lf» RtAlUNU/SCAtc n.s/e 3b.f/e HC SA^^LP- ppH 9b i* 3b MC H*C*Gfcl> Ht \ t* Rt AtHfiU/SCAte ib.*/a iS.Q/S lb,*/5 HC HAC*Ui*0 PPM IN IS lb CO SAl'.Ptt Mt UN 'JtiOlUVf/SCALE 51.>/* i.e/* Si.?/* CO P>*M lie i lie CO H*C*S*U Mfc Tt H »it AOIN t/SCAtfc . ?/* .?/* .>/* Co rtAC*G"0 PPM 1 i i coe SA«r»tt rt* adinu,scau ?5,b/3 S ?.*/3 ?S.b/3 cos SAK*lfc PfcRCEN* 1. 38 1 .01 1.38 cos BAC*G*0 wtrt* Hfc AUINU/SCALE 3.9/1 J.*/3 3.0/3 cue 8AC *G*0 PfcWCfcNT .Ob .Ob ,0b NO* SA^lt AUIwy/SCAtE **.8/? 15.8/* **.8/e NU* Sa^^lE PPM «• "•. P i?.8 H* . 8 NO* hac*g*o *E T£W ^EADINu/3CalE .t>/e ,?/e NU* dAL«*i»*0 PP* . ? .b . ? sue SAKPtt Mfc TfcM RiAUlNb/SCAtE -0.0/* -0.0/* -0.0/* soe SA-.^Lt PPM -0.il -0.0 -0,0 so? BAC*G*U METEM READlNU/SCAtE •0*0/* -o.o/* -0.0/* so? BACAGHu PPM •0.0 -0.0 -0.0 til b80, ? MM, M?0 »1 OEG, C HC CONCENfHAl[UN PMM SB b ee Cu CUnCEnJ^AIJON PPw 10b 0 10b C 02 C0NC€HT«AIION PCT 1.^1 .^b 1.33 NO* CONCE^MAT ION PPM iS.S *1.5 80? CONCENTRATION PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 HC MASS U»4AMS .^s .*0 CO MASS 6*AM$ ^.*0 .00 *.10 CO? MASS (^RamS IBS*.*8 ei^o.3b IBS*.*8 NO* MA S3 GNAMS b. 01 b.Ol su? MASS >a^AMS o.ou 0.00 0.00 KEIGHTFD mass HC WEIGHTED m4S5 CO »t iGMitu m»ss coe mEIGmTEO M*SS NO* "EIG-iTEO m*SS SM .11 G««MS/KILQMEIME . ?a GK*HS/*iLO*£TH£ 335.S3 G«»M3/KlLOMET«E .J? GH»MS/<1L0M£TH£ n.clU G**m5/KIL0K£TH| C»»BO-< K*L»SLE FUEL CO'.SU-CI IUn s H.3b LITRES PfH > image: ------- T ABL E k *"*»>$' EMISSIONS rKgi SINGLE BAg SAMPLE vtHiCte NU»BE* tts o*te ia/io/>i, u«e -n nhs. MOOEL l*1t ULOS G*S CulL»SitI-J ORKffcR 01 tESI -T. ?ri» i KG. «EI BULB !EMfc 1? C U«t BULK !E«P ?b C SPEC. hum. H.» tJAMO. ?Jb.>) hm MG. TEST NO. 2 kMGINE ¦>.} LITHE 8 Gvm a KG HtL. HUM, *u,0 PCT MEASURED FUEL 0.00 *£ RUN UllB* I 1<'N ? J.?S "1NUTF S «LO«k"« INLtl PMESS. bBS.B UN. M?o RLl'«E» 01*. PHESS. t.Rn.7 mm HeP RLO«£R INLH IkMP. *J 0£G. C OVNO REVOLUTIONS ji;»s BL'J«£R RE»ULuT IO'iS 11 a3U0 SLOxFR CU. t« /r,k» . ???? RAG «ESULI.H MC SAMPLE MlTk« StAUING/S^ALE ?*.*/? "C SAMPLE PPM ?S HC BAC«G*0 MkltN HEA01NU/SLAIE 13.8/? nC rt*C*G»«Q PPM 1* CU SAMPLE MktEB REAUING/SCAlE SB.b/' CO SAMPLE PPM 5b CO 8*C*G^0 me ie» at aoing/scale !.?/• CO PPM 1 CO? SAMPLE Mfc TER REAOING/SCALE 8J.O/3 co? Sample PEHCENI l.b? CO? bac«g«o ME It" READING/SCALE 3. ?/3 co? h*c«gi/? NO* BACKGKQ PPM .7 MC C0NCEM"»T !0N PP" 13 CO CGNCE^TKAIION PPH S3 CO? CONCENtM*IION PC' 1.S7 NO* Cn*iC£NT»*I JON ppm $U.» so? CQCENTRATJOn PPM 0.0 MC MASS (GKAMS) 1 .b? CO MASS (GrfAMS) 12.88 co? MASS (GMAMS) SOSb.b* NO* MASS (GBA*S) 18.S3 SO? MASS (GHAMS) n.oo MC G8AMS/KUo"ETHE ,n > CO GRAMS/KILQME t«e .St CO? GOAMS/KILOmeTRE ??"> NO* GRAMS/KILOMETRE .»? so? GRAMS/KILOMETRF, o.no HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL • 8* »C GRAMS/MIN ,11 7 CO GRAxs/KG OF Fuel h. J CO GRAM5/«1n .ft ctl? GRAMS/KG OF F lit L CO? GR»ms/min ih 0 NO* URams/kG lir FUEL 81 N0» GRAMS/MJN .81 SOP G-<«h3/kg UF FUEL n. ii n SO? &ram^/«In 0.011 CAPrtON HALANtE <*UE< FC vn-t = 11,"b lll«u PIH mundREO image: ------- TAftlE e-K l-XHUUSI EMISSIONS MIIH SiNliU «»C S*Ht»Lt VtHlCLt HUM-4fN <1S D*1E It'/Hi/Zb UMh -tl H»S. f 6SI MO. I MOntL II" 0LI1S G«S ClHtAS^ E1 ENGINE *.J (.UNI 1 QHItrt* Of USt w t » Jim *r,. GV» II KG +f I dULh tt«t» 1J C 0t»* BilLH l£H>> ,»i. C »EL. hu*. <~}.? PCI SMi-C. 1U«, <>.1 C.>.'*«/>iG n*HU. 75I..* Xf Hb. "EASIIWEO HIEL D.un KG (Hit. UIIIU104 l?.?h MINMHS IWLt- 1 P»C3S. hfil.? mm. H?0 OIF. M«fc SS. (iPll. ¦> «M M^O INLET TfcrtP. «e OEG. C P»N«J «E*>1LUUC«S i3*b? HLOMtft NEVMLUflllNS blhJ» HLD«E" CM, CH zttEl. ftM MAG KESUL'S *C SAhPt.E Mf H# «f ADlNtf/3f ALf <» «c SWli P»-* r»L hac*g*d Mfcft* «FAUlNU/SL*Lk 13.^/a MC HAC«G*0 PPM i * Cu s amPU nf Tfc* Wf ADlNU/SC*ti i/» Cli SAHPLt Pkm e* cu MCxftKD "EU* «tAulNG/SC*t£ i. */• CO «4CrGRi> PPH i c«e SAMPLE ME TEH RF.ADING/SCALE C»Ji? SAnPU PtRCtNf I c *ie baogwu wfTF.tf MEADING/SCALE i .*>/* cu* HAC*G»D percent .»* NDX S A«PU HETtW HEAOINU/SCALE NO* SAhPLk PP* ?«*.b HClt 8AC*G«U ME?E« «EADlNG/SCAtE • p/e NO* 8AC*G*0 PPM .* hC CONCEnTHa!ION PP* lb CU CONCEN f * A I iflN PPM ei Cn? CONCPNTKATION PC f i NO i CUNC£NT*aTION PPM 7H.9 SU^ C0C£N1HAIion PPM tl.lt hC MASS (G»AMS) t .1!^ Cu MASS (G*A*S) cue MASS COHANS) 1 «l 1 S • 8 3 NO* HASS (G"A*S) lb.SI SOS *1*5$ (GWAMSJ «C GMA*$/> ILUMUSt ,u» CO <,*A*S/KlLU«E1Rf ,1? en? Grt*N3/KIi_OMETf?E NO* G»*«3/»IL0"EI«lE 1 .CIO nw GX*MS/niLOi£i!ie ii.nn «C ch»ms/kg ur Kmi. .»? hc r,«»Ms/MjN .us CO GX«HS/kr, of ~ ut l f. i CO r,0«HS/"lN . t OV r,»«*s/i image: ------- UNIT Mil. VtHlCLc lUtltL TEsr so. i OLOS GAS ClilL'SS lArttf VEHICLE EMISSION K£SUL»S i°JS LIGHf uu!» EMISSIONS ICS* rn" u*u, 1/ 3/j? *n;w. code -a £*u!N£ t.Jh LH«E 8 CURB w 1. 181* KG »R, 1«! 0 KG 8«HnwfIf w 7»i.1S Of «G, OR* BUlrt I£hp, ti.l OtG. C BEL. Muliullr 31 CLf, »E1 BULB TEN* li.8 DEG. C Art 3. HUHIOIK S . * GfiAKS/KG w I u •J js* emissions HLO-ER INLET PfUSS, BlU*Ert OIF- PMfeSS., . G?» h*?.? MM, Mgn ttLO«E» 1NLEI T£HP. PAG NgSULTS RAG NO, 1 3 PIU*E« REVOLUTIONS 7 b?731 *Qbl 1 MC SAK^tt MfTf« *M«>lNu/5C*LE 10,3/* lb , 3/? J* . * / 2 MC S*Hl>LE PP* 109 lb 3* NC HAC*G*D MfeTtrf REAIUNWSCALE 10.8/? 1 .*/3 10.*/? HC flAC^GMO PPM 11 1* 10 CO SAKPLt Mt T F. * *«t AOINU/SCALE m.o/» * , if* fe8.0/* Cu SAMPLE PPM 38b <* bb CO hac*gho MtTf ft "k AC t Mb/SCALE .8/* 1 ."~/* CO t*AC*G*U PPM i 1 CO? Sample ME TEW «kAi,iNb/SC AlE 8* .S/3 S"».^/3 1/3 cu? SftrtPtE pehcent 1 ,«b .^b 1.3S CO i m*l^GRO METE* mauing/scale 3,*/J 3.*/3 3. ?/ 3 C Mi iUC*G**0 PEttCENl • OS .US • OS nC* SAHPLt METE* utADlNb/SCALE ?%,u/i i* ,n/a *7.3/? NH,b 13 • S *b« * s& S.b* cne MASS GRamS 2lb§,0^ IBS*.^3 NU> MASS GHAmS w„*«f e.8* s.^o so* MASS UttAMS 0,00 o.uu 0,00 Gl b»J.7 «H, »0 DEG. C »50 ¦tIGHTEO -»SS MC »ElG"TtO H*SS CO ¦EI&MIEO MASS CO? »£1G«I£0 MASS NOi *E1G"TE0 MASS Sag .ee grams/*ilo«« tup. l.»8 G*t|_i)",f- 1HE U.OU S«A»S/«IL "f i ->E CAWBUN BALANCE FUEL COHSufPl Iut. s li.si ; ; S Pf * hun.i^Lu *1L0«EI»E5 IOIAl C*S fi«« * id".li Slu. CU. -I - image: ------- lAtlLF K- 37 UNIT MU, vtHICLt HOOF(. IESI NO. 1 OLOS GAS CillLtSS B*ROMF1E« 71?.*!. mm Of HG, o«» «m.fl 22.2 oeg, c REL. MUMIOIt» 3? I'd. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1175 LIGHT Out r EMISSIONS TEST FTP Cold OATF. 1/3/?? MFGR. CODE -0 ENf.lNE *.2b LITRE 8 CURB 181* KG MET BULB TEMP 12.8 OEG. C ABS. MUMlOITr S.i GRAMS/KG KB. GVM 1*?? 0 KG EXMAUSt EMISSIONS HLiMER OIF. PRESS., b«7.7 MM, HJO PAG MtSULIS s«G no. BLO»t« EVOLUTIONS BLOKEfi INLE1 PRESS., HI b*7.7 HH. H20 blower inlet temp. »u oec. c PI I mC SAMPLE M[ Tt H RtAOINU/SCALE MC SakPLE PPK ML H*C*6><0 METER REaOING/SHAlE hC ti»C*G"U PPM CO SAMPLt METER READING/SCALE cu SamPlE PPM cu »AC*GRO MEIER REAOlNb/SCALi Cl.' «AC«G«0 PPM cw SAMPLE MtTEN Rk AO ING/SCA|,£ CW SaiPlE PEKCENT CO? bAC<\G«D METER RbAOING/SCALE CO? «Ac*a«o PERCENT MUX SAMPtt MF II M wf aIUNG/SCAlE NO* sample PPM NUX BaCKGRO METER READING/SCALE NO* (JACRUHO PPM S02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE SO? Sample PPM so? HACKG>)0 METER REA01nG/SCalE so? UACKGRU PPM I *0827 10.3/3 103 10.8/2 II 83.0/* 38b . 7/ • 2 St.5/3 'l.Sb 3.*/3 .05 75,0/2 75.0 .1/? , * •0.0/* -0.0 -0.0/* -0.0 2 b 7 7 31 lb.3/? lb 1 ,*/3 1* *.?/* * .8/* 2 5*,«/3 .lb 3.1/3 .US l*.0/2 l'.n .5/2 .5 -0,0/* -0.0 -0.C1/* -0.0 3 *0827 10.3/3 103 10,8/2 11 83.0/* 38b .7/* 2 8*.5/3 l.Sb 3.1/3 .05 75,0/2 7S.0 .¦»/2 -0.0/« -0.0 -0.0/* -0.0 Ht CONCENIRaTION PPM 13 3 t3 CO CllsCSNTrfAT ION PPM 3bS 2 3b8 CO? CONCENTRATION PCI 1.52 ."*1 1.52 NO* CONCe«TNATION PPM 71.b 13.5 7*.b so? CONCENTRATION PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 MC MASS GRAMS .25 * . 1 * CO MASS grams 33.35 .27 33.35 CO? mass grams 21b«.9s 21b5.02 21b^.9S NO* mass GRAmS <1.** 2.81 502 mass GRAMS o.oo 0.00 0.00 fccIGHTfU MASS HC •EIGMIEG MASS CO KciCMlEC MASS CO? *£1G1TE0 MASS NO* wEIGIIEd MASS S02 .37 GW»"S/KlLDMt TWE 2.71 GKAkS/KIlOME fRE 353.23 GRAMS/K1L0MEIRE 1.02 GWAMS/KILOMFIRE O.OU G«AMS/nILO«ETRE image: ------- table E-}B UNIT MO. VEHICLE MODEL TEST Nit. 3 Olds gas cutlass BAROMETER ?»?.SS mm of HG. ORT tfULB ?3.J UEG. c RtL. HUMIOITf 3U PCI. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS it?S LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST DATE 1/ 3/7? HFGR, CODE -0 ENGINE '.?b LITRE 8 CURB XT. 181* KG Kit BULB TEMP 13.J OEG. C ABS, MUMIOIT* S.S GRAMS/*C. *H. 1«? GVM 0 Exhaost fMissinMs RLOwfR OIF. fWES.*.. SAG MtSOLTS B*G NO. BLOmER REVOLUTIONS M u> VO r,?( h»J. > MM. M?0 MC MC HC MC CO CO Cu CO CO? CO? CO* CO? NO* NO* NO* NUX SO? sue SO? 502 SAMPLE SAMPLt ME UK RKAiUNG/SCALE PPM UACKGMO meter READING/SCALE RACKGMD PM Sample SAC.PLt MEIER REaDINWSCAlE PPM HACKGKO METER READING/SCALE QAChGkO PPM SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE SAMPLE PERCENT BACKGRO METFR REAOINU/SCALE 8ACKGR0 PERCENT mETE« RE ad IMG/SC ALE 5»".PLE SAMPLE PPM BACKGHO MfcTER READING/SCALE 8ACKUH0 PPM sample sample MEIER RE«OlNG/SCALE PPM HACKGRO METER REAOING/SCALE BacrGRO PPM 1 H tit. I 7 J» 10.*/? 10 b8.0/« bb 1.*/# 1 7».l/3 1.3S 3.1/3 .OS *7,3/? *'.3 .S/? .5 -0.0/* -0.0 -0.0/* -0,0 BLUWER INLET PRESS. BLO*£R INLET TEMP. ? b<)faS1 ib.b/? 17 10.1/2 10 8.?/» 8 l.S/« ? 5*.8/3 .*b 3.1/3 .05 13,3/* 13,1 .S/? .5 -0.0/« -0.0 -0.0/« -0,0 3 *Obl? 3'.'/? 3» 10.*/? 10 b8.0/« bb 1,*/* 1 ?*.l/3 1.3$ 3.3/3 .OS *J.3/2 17.3 »S/2 .5 -0.0/* -0.0 -0.0/» -0.0 G1 b*?.7 MM. m?0 37 OEG. C MC Cui.'CEnIRaTION PPM ?s 7 ? s CO CONCENTRATION PPM b? b b? CU? CONCENTRATION PCT 1.30 1.30 NO* CONCENTRATION PPM *b,* 12.8 *b,<« SO? CONCENTRATION PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 HC MASS GRAMS 1.1? • 5b 1.1? CO MASS GRAMS S.b5 . «»3 S.bS cu? MASS GRAMS ISbS.ib ??*>.<»? 18b&.lb wo* MASS GRAMS S.«»S ?.?<< 5.<15 SO? MASS grams 0.00 o.oo 0.00 MEIGMTEO MASS MC xEIGmTEO MASS CO NEIGMTEO M«SS CO? kEIGhTRO MASS NO* WEIGHTED MASS SO? .1* GRAMS/KILOMETRE .Si GRAMS/KIlOMETRE 3*0.** GRAkS/KIlOMEIRE .?? GRAMS/RILOMEIRI O.OU GRAMS/KILOMETRE CAR#On balance FUEL CONSUMPUUN S 11.S* LITRES per HONORED KILOMETRES total Cvs Flu» = ?«q.o sru, cu. metres image: ------- Ofr-a in 7. o o I O O O O f~1 'VJ X f\J c.-- c- (. > (.> 0 j. 4.- j> t« t» j» > > /: i :< :» 0 CO in cn v» r- \ \ \ \ X r> * ;*• C") O C> X X Xj T3 X> > > > > > J 1 3 ^ 3 C/> cy> C/> c/» * > 0 c o o o 1 :* -C 2 z to x. f~i O T Cn Z o O o o n o o o o nj nj x ^ iz i- ^ z n o n o r> n n nocooooooooo x, x x xrv»forU'V» .t :r. :* j: 'i n n n n >>>>>ocoo W Cn W (/) w n 7 z r t/>cncncnt/>rnnnn Z m (Ti rn ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ -h jr r 2 CT C- (7> G "; z; —i —: —¦ X. Xj XI X X O (X c > z n o m x? x x u a" C/> cn j: d (/> oi o; j yi >>>>>>>>>> n t :: n n t: i n n .t * X) X? .* ^ ti d * ^ u o r r c,") o r r c q r 3, T' rn t 1. m rr> j; xj rn O OO o Cj 03 i n t O ri o o o u) a a co co rn >>>*»> c/> rt n n ^ * c. XI 31 * XI X l~ f~ C~J C) l~ l~ —1 r» z x n» n- c/> Z O 2 0 "U m X) c. t> 3» -T) O D D D T> Tl —i »—4 0 —i r- r- -< r- r- r~ c f—. <. rr- m O CJ Z O O c » a. n-1 f- 2 i O X 2 j c. m rn rn n rr 2 r- x: T) Xt rn *¦ J) 12 T: % J3 •s. 0 X. < C t— > • - < O VJ UJ c rr 0 ~— 7 -H rr —< VJ \ • < r- -p r~ •—4 .t VJ O c • rr c 'C c VJ 0 1— -H — 1/1 r— •Y' m m m rn i* > > t> t> > > > > X) 2 XJ .c XJ .c XI jC XJ XJ X t; t; I —1 O -< XI 0 * c/> c" ¦»! "n ¦*' •n —i —< —i -* —H J 7Z -X It t~4 —i —H -4 x: rr, rn rn ni n '^1 XI rri XJ r** x r»* XJ rn s ? r- X' X" (¦ M' •'.. c. c C.". c. u j: Xj X) Jt cn cn cn cn cn O HI l~4 »—« -< .<• —i XJ —H X) —4 s —i 2 -H . £ —H c —i X) cr .1 TTi i"n Ci (."> J— -»•> rn rn m n\ m rn ni m w v_/ v^ v^ 2" O O O c rr m 0 r^i 0 n*. ¦n ."n fT> m •"*1 s u cn r- f- r" 1— r T3 ? r z z XJ Xj m 7. X) m u 0 X J.- X) <. cn • co u. t> in ri X' U T> V T3 X XJ —i -c —i V X' u T? 0 \ n x • C I* J" 1/' • o -< X- u, (T * v> ^ o r> x ^ "i ^ 1 i X) O TI XJ J —1 3 3 Z CI O O ( x ru •7> C"> C» r» > t» > 3 3 CO C© •i. r j r\, »— ~— * <• H, r\. — \j m l "j U ID ^ ' • • «r> uj t x \j ->j nj ru ai o <¦ r. z m .* _s »— c; — 'j. - ji m '*1 -. < en -« 7. X -* z — 2 c J. * Z S_ Z C 3 Z Zi o jt •— to ~— ocoirtriMOJiH tnto ~-to • 1 « • 1 • lU 1 -<:-£¦ Ixl • t-H a r tu -f ~ o < an - • • • • a • 1r\ • c >— >— vj »— ** Ixl 2 T) t~ % I mi: m c o O 2 o -f • 7 uu C m ru 1- a- o • "0 o n o image: ------- Tfr-3 n u% t> o % "V a e 7 X » 31 A f % » » * C» n p c z o n x o o o r% 0 .T C*. «* » X S X) » X» » fr 1 i i x o o c © Tl T> T» Y» H T» ^ 1) c c c r r r r~ O 3 UJ • • ~» »» • I W IT » xJ r IT Oj CD (flinm o o o o o ru K 'U c> n fi o p « « S 9 £ » » » fr fr X 2 2 i X o» W d v» w \ \ \ \ s * * A X * It i- w z nn i 0 o o O © o • ry M U/ is P O P O O 1.9 VII r o o » > » »- J J 1 3 X -« V) U> (AU) CO t N S N N \ "* t T J J I Z Z Z £ Z. T) m o •»* 1 * < w • c o © *- • o Z Q fU U »• OD © X 05 2 C C' Oj K o o c o f>J Iwznnj o o o o o o x fVi o o o o © * 2 2 * X n pi m H >4 <4 •< -« JU I i 2) b XX XX X O < t> » » » » o< tn n (/)(/)(/>(/> m rt i Zl r r ^ ^ ^ a o o X x c> c X> X 2 2 7 /nnnnnnnnj j j oooooooccoooooo M KM M rb ru (\i »»»»»»»»»>»»»»» n n j xrrn j xnn ji x o n x * T) ror-ronrrc^orr-c-. c r i if* ft« i. in-'t t J nifT> * t jt- « © © « « ^ <- » » » > » ^ © © c c x * o o 2) (/) r » f*"- (T| w w W W c c A «r o o o o © O C © 7 2 7 7 nnnr. f*» pi m pi / 7 / 7 - C. *, -i -«-« — © O * » x x r x TXOX^XVXtXVlt2^ : tffl ®n»nir'>n»fT t * X «* X -« X -4 X -» C -« I ^ I -« .X H f ffl fl P| o ffl ffl p» pi S ^ P> m Z3 £ b x % 2 7 9 X ^ X -• X t I c *. fT| m pj f n pt ffi »• t« ©ooooocc. 22ZZ2277 ci ci c> c c c z c N N \ \ N \ N N nnnnnnnn x « (P o W 2 T> X © © o o 7 7 7 2 T) "V V V "V n x x X <-4 x x »— n o Of 9" K> o a* H" • • • • • • >i • o .0 3 • m o a) 0* M S V V V X V X V M IM (V ru • • ru - c & * n x. C t" • «. o o r t c X •— *< • f+s .* 9 99 9 C «< #- r r c ZOOC2 c a x a P»P»PIC S I £ £C V (A if •(/!(/> r © x (A « O I o t PI I) » • » ¦• r C X i r - w ® *- * : « • 4 i; ^ w p- - %j v ^ U/ 4 4 •• fV 7 IT M v fb •- 9 OS « • • 3 T i/l ^ >t V >i : t x C X 2 X hi x x *• o • x • c 3 X «H n 'w pi © G On *. f to < a c — ' > ippi' * -* Ui • C -* I » ® C 9 f x SJ 1 • <# Oj -I « pi rv X 2 3 T * 2 «~ 2 fU * <# O X • o J JO CI "> n n m < z pi *» r * cj (a co • w H C 2 » X Pi 2 pt c e © x © * • • • T> 7 Ul c c*. pi a> c r gs pi (/* I O C 7 X tft w pi 2 * ¦ P X T) Z image: ------- TABLE E-41. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1976 VW DIESEL RABBIT (TRANSIENT CYCLES) Test Emission Rate, g/km Fuel Cons. Cycle Date No. HC CO NOv &/100 km 1975 FTP 12/20/76 1 0.23 0.51 0.58 5.44 12/21/76 2 0.23 0.48 0.52 5.59 12/22/76 3 0.24 0.49 0.53 5.50 Average 0.23 0.49 0.54 5.51 (0.37) (0.79) (0.87) FTPC FTPh 12/20/76 1 0. 38 0.59 0.57 5.22 12/21/76 2 0.36 0.54 0.52 5.87 12/22/76 3 0.40 0.57 0.53 5.79 Average 0.38 0.57 0.54 5.63 (0.61) (0.92) (0.87) 12/20/76 1 0.13 0.45 0.58 5.41 12/21/76 2 0.15 0.43 0.52 5.19 12/22/76 3 0.10 0.43 0.54 5.16 Average 0.13 0.44 0.55 5.25 (0.21) (0.71) (0.89) SET 12/20/76 1 0.11 0. 35 0. 55 4.52 12/21/76 2 0.08 0.34 0.48 4.50 12/22/76 3 0.08 0. 34 0.48 4.50 Average 0.09 0.34 0.50 4.51 (0.15) (0.55) (0.81) FET 12/20/76 1 0.09 0.32 0.54 4.43 12/21/76 2 0.08 0.32 0.51 4.41 12/22/76 3 0.06 0.30 0.52 4. 32 Average 0.08 0.31 0.52 4.39 (0.13) (0.50) (0.84) ( ) Values in parentheses are in grams/mile Fuel Econ. MP9 43. 3 42.1 42.8 42.7 45.1 40.1 40.6 41.9 43.5 45.3 45.6 44.8 52.1 52.3 52.3 52.2 53.1 53.4 54.5 53.7 E-42 image: ------- ArtLE '¦ IT . tit EST so. .tht, - - v« : IEsE. wahhT TtST 17b318S711 A «* 7% . I • E ~ I Cl E EMISSI .N 111 S31ONS 1ES1 OATE 1?'? '• ENGINE !.»¦ LITRE * CTL. COMHfNlS «>5 FTP i tJAG COLD ESUITS MFGR. CODE -0 TEST XT. 1030 KG r«. i«)?b kOAD LOAD S.t Kk> flAP-flfW 718.7S H- OF HG. OhY iiiLi T£Mp. ?1.7 OEG. C REl. "UMI I) I T T 21 PCT. exhaust emissions RlOmER OIF. PMESS. , G2, 301.8 HH, M?(J he r bulb te*p AdS. MUMIOITY 10.b DEG. C 3.3 MILLIGRAMS/KG BLOHER INLET PRESS., G1 2bl.b MM. «lo»er inlet tehp. ho oec. c n2U P3 I u> B»G RESULTS BAG NO. RLOmER REVOLUTIONS HC sample METER READING/SCALE HC SAMPLE PPh HC BAC*G«D METER REAOINti/SCALE HC BAC«GRO PPM ru SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE CO SAMPLE PPM CO 3AC«GRD METER READING.SCALE co P.acrGRO PPM CO? SAMPLE METER REAOING/SCALE C02 3AHPLE PERCENT CO? BACNGRD METER READING/SCALE CO? BACKGRD PERCEi MT mOX SAMPLE meter READING/SCALE NOX SAMPLE PPM NO x flACKGRO me TER READING/SCALE NOX 6ACKGR0 PPM 7515 S.t/* i?» 1.5/3 b fab.*/* .*•/• 1 H2.1/3 .72 I . "/ 3 .03 3b.0/2 3b.fl .5/2 .5 2 le^on "f.8/3 1 .«»/3 R 28.b/« 2? .5/* U 3S.5/3 .58 3.1/3 .05 25.2/2 25.2 .H/2 3 7511 ?.b/3 30 1.3/3 5 H3.8/« »1 . 7/« X HS.3/3 .85 2.8/3 .0* 37.2/2 37.2 .5/2 .5 HC CONCENTRATION PPH UK 12 2b Cl! CONCENTRATION PPm t<2 2b *0 I 0? CONCENTRATION PCT .b<« .53 .01 NOX CONCENTRATION PPm 3b. 3 2».8 3b. 7 HC MASS GRamS 3.W* . b 7 .8«f CO mass grams 4. 1H 2.SH 2 . b 2 CU2 MASS GRams 72» . S"» S5b.8b 852.b3 NOX MASS GRAMS 3. 1«» 3.7» 3.22 r«C mass mg 3. P* . b 7 .8«f KtlGHTEO «*SS »fcIGnTEO MASS WEIGHTED HAS8 mE IGnTEO "ASS HC .23 CO .51 CO2 1*5.39 NOX .5* GHAhS/KILOMEIPF i;t image: ------- v £I c i» * t «I 3 b 11 • n '•< E S 'J T s :<;;% ¦¦ • •"ISSlysS 'EST \. . • - V *• U • i ffG». CODE -U Ik. l°?b . - ° •'' . «' " J I * " : .. - a r ** I T £ N J I *.; i . - - l :;»t » c*l. i EST *T. 1020 Kli t< 0 a D L 0*^ 1 7 - 3 1 W ^ ? 1 • CLi-wrv.Ti: r T P 1 3 u C G L v UlE'O OSCE r 7 * •« SS.7Q »•- •>' - «£ I d'JLb TE^P lfJ. b DEG. C • - L " ri. ? .;£ * . C A3S. humIOITY 3.3 MILL IGRAMS/KG --Mi ^:tt ?: -"i\ . S * £ -:ss;c%s 3L 0"Efi INLET PRESS.. G1 2 b1•b MM. H 2 0 " • <* j:?. '•.* ? / ?' - u . * s L 0 is E S InlET TErP. *0 DE.G. C - : ; " S ^ i t* i S 3 *L'i- r • £ V 0 L u T i V. C- ?s i s 12 "OP 7515 -'C .S •'• *'¦ "¦ L £ w £ T r ¦* ¦*: - V I \ o / S C a l £ a . / b *.?/3 S.^/b $ A - ~ _ £ 3k- ; ?•* 1 1 12H " t " i ^ *'£aC'I,«',-»/SCA^£ 1 .s/ 3 1 .°/3 1.5/3 ri A C « S~ 3 pa- n 5 b c '• S a * ^ l £ M£Ti-r 5£ajI-.G/SCAl£ h h . ¦* ^ • 2 R . i / » bb. ¦~/• c -• SAMPL£ p^- * 2' b" To n A C F> G ¦* J ^ E T r. *> 3c ADI%t*/SCALt . r> / * .^/» . b/o r.:< SAC«G*3 1 :> 1 CO? S a * ? l £ *£T£* 9EaDI^^/SCal£ *2.1/3 3 * . 5 / 3 *2.1/3 Cu? S A K P l £ Pt^Ct' T . '? .5? .?2 CO? 3*C^G^i/ k £ T £ k RP. adInG/SC^lE 1 . s / 3 3.1/3 1.8/3 cu? nAQ*G*D piuC£sT . P 3 . 13 b .03 MO* S A K.PL £ H£ T -. •* P£adIni»/SCAlE 3b.H/8 25.2/2 3b.8/2 sux SAKPlE jb . ¦* 25.2 3b. 8 ~;G* ftiCKGwD HETE^ ^ £ AD I^^/SCalE .5/8 • */2 .5/2 ~; j * B a C ^ G 3 D P ? " . S ."» .5 ^•-* C -'*CE n ' 3 a T I 1 1 5 18 113 C': C[,.%CE s T k a T ! On PP v be ?b b 2 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT . S* .53 .b« k;-J * CGnCEnTjatIOn 3PM 3b. 3 a-*. 0 3b. 3 ~c -ASS G»AHS 3 . -9 .b? 3.89 r l- MaS3 GSAnS » . 1 H s.1» * . 1 * r ? -ASS GKii£ JJv.m ISb.85 72*.5* s 0 * a S S G* * *$ 3 . '• 5 3. '* 3.1° M c MASS MG 3.qi .b? 3.89 S. * K> :IGhT£0 ~'ASS hC ::g-teo mass cc ::g^t£o i*ss co£ .:WED haSS NC< ,3B GRAmS/KILO*ETP? ."5^ G3 amS/K I lCE T ^ E 1 3^.33 Gf*.',.5/ a w i ^ C E f L1 E L C ^'* S J w p ^ I u *• ' ' 11 _ L V S * L 0 * — 2 i 2 . n S 7 J . C'- S.2 2 L;T:;,Ei 3;_ * ^LADREU KILOMET»h3 image: ------- * - - * \ *-~f i ? / J " / 7 h -'•* " " : " * : : - = : T t *•'' I • * c ~ ~ m • ; „ 3 • - i 7 ; . C 1' • 5 i 3 ? i 'm * • £ 3 4 «i # T5 »¦ ' t ¦ L- 7 £ ^ ^ « ™ " •, • V • - - ^ ' • 5* - " ! 5 S T '' " ** U '' s r - ^: - . - -="* = • » " r , ) « ? <4 V V # ¦; = : c; - < " •. ' m » ^ - - ^ 1 mi -- ^ 1 " •* ' •• : - t ^ - = • • | ','•,/ 5!* ">.<•/j S i - - .4^1 2 " t ; - -' :. " i *. r-7 s r - -f i . it 5 « i ^ ^ ^ - - .. C" S • V r . ' •'r T ; v -r - i * * r*' ""w* i • v - C ?3 ' » 1 C~. - i:- -3 ' •'?•!¦.¦ - r - * i *. r»/ sr -1.: . '/~ r ^ 0 V 1 Z~<> ~ i •'y ¦_ '" •' ~ " I ~ 2S 1 ") i * ^ r* / s c -«.:. -=>.3/3 C V 5 i v - <_ z •.; : c. r ? - i r < * •*r *r; - ? - " ; '*r« ' S' ? ?. = /3 c r ? ;:r«;,s T . f'"» » 5 A VP T fc C i*C * .~!\r./?CA l: 37.2/? \ ~ * > i v L.f 3'.? l-C" ¦iiC^-2 ¦ vf T ( SF i "*• I ^ f- / 5 C » L ? .5/? K* t ¦j> r * , c. M - r r; * r » • T « • T • ^ u V 2h c r- C' • Cr'' T a .*. * • m Z < r ¦_* •> Ct^-1 'y •T|u :m .?! u * C ~''Z *' *y . ?:v 3b.' •' t <; <; c - a . B 3 cc "i5;. r.si V c ^. t-r Cr<» v i ^ r.~t V ? 3 -i . 7 ? » ^ s M & S S ~ ~ i V c ?.?C1 "i?s .93 * i * *» M * J V » 5, Q ,13 r, n a v s / *• I j. G••'L7»e. > e : - U r v A s .s r r- ,nci r, d a 5 / k I L 0 • •' t T G t '¦ f i r. h7 c 7 •' .• - <; ? i * ~ coavc/a I:. O'-'c ''- r. rs : ! r. «• T f »> • • S C 1 .SO I L 0 *•' r * " F ? ' • Z 7 s .Mrrir.».- = s "i :.:': r q z; ? w * A _ ^ ^ c •. = ' r. ^ S T ^ • C' v' T -: 5 " ILL IGWA^S/KG RLOfcR INLfcT S-fSS. ?LC»• E u I NLt T TE'-'P. r. i * 2 ?bK, 7 ¦<>*, IJEG, C h?0 i J '511 » . ~>/3 ' . b / 3 1" 3H 1,3/3 i . J/3 S S7,"/» »3.B/. ?h •*1 . '/• . '/* 1 1 3P.S/3 . 3/3 .5* .«5 ?.t-/3 ?.P/3 .0» .0* ?5. 3/2 3'.2/? ^5.3 3'.2 .»/? .» 1* »r .5P .HI 2» . f 3b,' \J TO ,fli 2 . 5P ?. KT ^ . e b auc.'d 3.?» 3 , ? 0 . 'P .93 I LOMf 1 3f. S image: ------- T ABLE » ->A.9I f " I S S ; . '<'• f *QM SINCLf SAMPLE .t«lCi-F NUMB£K 0«TE ^^/^0/?b h ' El l"b «" OT «CT o TE*P SPFC. hum. 5, I IHfc -II HWS. • I«S£L »AO«tJ>EJ-7 I ESI -1. jn?o nr., 11 . -Rt HULh TEmh i« C i <;«&-/- o»»r. y»«.H mm hg. TEST NO. ENGINE l.S lJT«E h CYL. GVn U «G HEL. hum. 39.q PC T MEASURED PuEl u.un KG Miltv.t 51.738 ¦' fuel r»7.i g/litpe fuel mc ««tjo i.s-.* O N t/OHA'ION S3.16 MINUTES RlO"ER InlET PRESS. Sfel.b mm. MJO »L0*ER OIF. PfcE SS. 30*. P mm h?0 SLO-E* INLET TtMR. «. OEG. C Dt'-l REVOLUTIONS 31bS» HL<"tR REV0LUT1'. 2f>7bs »lOnE» Cu. Cm /HE'. 8»3P f»A& htSULTS *C SAHPLE Mtim RE AO INWSCALE 7.5/3 MC SAMPLE PPM 3n MC HAC*G<40 MfcT-x "t»9InG/SCalE 1.1/9 "C SACKGmO PPM H C<» sample METER REaO!m>/SCALE •~7.1/* CO sample PPM >» >~ CO BACKG«o METER REaDInG/SCalE .5/« CO BAC«G*D PPM n CO? Sample MfcTfcH WEAOlNU/SCALE 5».b/3 co? Sample PERCENT • <»h co? bac*g«o meTE" READING/SCALE 2.7/3 cos flAC*GRO PERCENT .U» NU* Sample ME IE* REAOING/SCALE *7.h/? NO* sample PPM •»7.b NO* Bac*GRo METER READING/SCALE . /? NO X 0aCkG«O PPM .b «C CONCENTRATION PPM ?b Ci CONCEnTRaT JON PPM * 3 CO? CONCENTRaIION PCT .<»? NO* CONCENTRATION ppm H7.0 so? COCENIHATION ppm n.ti MC MASS (GRamS; ?. 33 CO MASS (GAa"S) 7.b<» CO? MASS (GRAMS; ?fc?l.?fi NO* MASS (GRAMS) 11.85 so? MASS (6RAMS) o.on MC 6RAM3/KIL0*E TRE .11 CO GPAHS/KILOmE TRE .35 CO? CPAnS/KILOMETOE 1S1 NO* GRAMS/KILOMETRE .55 sn? GRahS/*1LOmETRE U.no mc G»amS/*G °p f'utL ?.7s Co 6oahs/«g op * >l <«.? COS ..RamS/iG op f -L 31S no* gwamS/kG OF (¦ El l».?» S ? •J » m S / « G of ' -(C GRAMS/*In ry r;sAMS/Mjs .9 CU«» I.PAMS/' !'• 119 r»Ox 1.0AMS/T .51 S0<> G«»"S/M'* i.o CAP- n BALANCE f~- >. ••S "• 'I ¦ s ».5? LlT'fcS PfJ HjNppt KI ME ' • t S image: ------- T , ; w-r b Si'P.- S»».. - • -:f T» if • >- • *l - . • - . )•. t ; • r * t * ' ' 1. ¦ u(r |,5 lll'i » CVL. US* 10* 0 *G "-•> a .• Iff .S w M^r* * ' * * - "wC f» -• *• >• ¦ e». c * * * «• • 3* . * * * * 1 l o» - ' . w *<* • . i> • g -i fc \ . 4. t K ' C — t"' cr * * w "f tnJ' C./SC tkc P. 1/ ? - - a *- t •>- *• H .. ;d* *: 4-1 .-. /SC4^t •< " •ftC* •="* ap'* i 3d ,a-r vc'ta «?» ;• - /SC »L» S7.P/. r %A**Q^b PP»» - 6 r * o "(tii; -J f " r./S""£'_* . ?/• c ^&C«(iO' apM Q c ? 94^C>l.F •£**« tfr t* r./5C4i.F ??.0/1 c ? SA"°Lh PF.cCt T J.3U rn? »* 5 ~" w * 0 ^ 'F *FU -•P. 4 '!• ' /ST4..t l.o/l : e * a C * "•0 etPfE* T . » S * f Sflvo^p vfxrw «4or-. ^SC4ut oH.*/? \ " * S 4 M ° L P pom b9.» ' f : "P Tf « =£4-i\r./sc«w'. .b/? ' t * .r * ;o"» po" . * £ 4 ^ 1 * * ' *« -n f~ C "*,<"*• T*M* • , PF v c. 5 ? C**rF'.TwaT • PC' 1 .*S 1 ^-.rp.roftTj », Op v K».° s * rn^* %TpftT; PPV 0.0 1.*" c •4SS rGoe^S 5.1° C 3 V-4SS r;u4"S i«sn.»» -AS* f-3#»S) b.H? s * '4 <;S rHH'" * ' ' Mp t9f ,na 3A ••<5 /* ', '»i ut . i? J T vf *ar 1 1« 1 OA .S» i* T o. no , • «/< , f e t _ e. >¦' GC4<-S/VI • - '(«> , ~r . B." C Gh4"5/vi • • - I ••«¦». ( « - . ' J '.BVS/V lc • » - * - / . , ( c c « .a»«-s '•¦; . > . Ji i ( : SI? «(•• ¦•¦••' „ - •. ¦ . t . r J r ; • - * . » 1 " ' - • . . 1 image: ------- table E-47 VEHICLE emission results Xh?5 Lir.HT 0"TY EMISSIONS TEST UNIT nil. J J ; TtST NO. 2 VEHICLE MODEL VW DIESEL RABBIT TEST TTPE 17b31BR71-» BAROMfTErt 751.8* MM 0* HG. DRY flllLH TEhP. 25.0 OEG. C rel. HUHiuirr iu pct. EXHAUST EMISSIONS OATE l2/81/7h ENGINE I.>*8 LITRE >» C YL. COMMENTS 1975 FTP 3 BAG COLO MFGR. CODE -0 TEST *T. 102U KG YR. 19 7b kOAD LOAD Sc* K* m i CO *ET BULB TEMP l".b OEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY 1.9 MILLIGRAMS/KG HLUMEfi INLET PRESS., G1 8bb.7 MM. HcfU ••3 OEG. C PLO«tR OIF. PRESS., r,S, 3U-».H MM. HJO BlOHER INLET TEMP. "At; HESULTS naG to. 1 8 3 pLOwt'R REVOLUTIONS 7530 12B87 75*1 HC SAMPLE meter READING/SCALE 3.8/b 7.3/3 B.b/3 HC SAMPLE PPM 1S 3 39 3* HC BACKGHO METER READING/SCALE 3.9/3 H.l/3 1.8/3 HC BACKGRD PPM lb lb 7 CO sample METER READING/SCALE b2.*/* S9.0/* HS. 7/* CO SAMPLE PPM Ml 87 *0 CO BACKGRD meter READING/SCALE 1.9/* 8.1/* 1.7/* CO BACK5R0 PPM S 2 8 cos sample METER READING/SCALE 55.1/3 33.H/3 * 7.b/3 cos SAMPLE PERCENT ."7 .5b .M2 cos dACKGRU MEIER READING/SCALE 3.8/3 2.H/3 3.5/3 cos BACKGRD PERCENT .05 .U* .05 *ox SAMPLE meter READING/SCALE 3*.B/2 2*.0/8 3*.5/2 NOX sample PPM 3*.8 2*.It 3*.5 NOX BACKGRD meter READING/SCALE .7/8 .5/2 .b/2 NUX BACKGRD PPM .7 .5 .b HC CONCENTRATION PPM 108 13 27 CO CONCEnTMATIun PPM 57 25 38 CU8 CONCENTRATION PCT .93 .58 .77 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 3*.8 23.5 33.9 HC MASS GRAMS 3.55 .75 .89 CO MASS GRAMS 3.77 2.BO 8.50 C02 MASS GRAMS 9b1.08 931 .bl BOS.5* MOX MASS GRAMS 3.B7 3.39 2.8b mC MASS MG 3.55 .75 .R9 WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS mEIGHTEO mass HC .83 CO . " 8 COS 119.50 NO* .58 GRAMS/KILOMETRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE 6RAM3/KIL0METRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE C&cdON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 5.59 LITRES PER HONORED KILOMETRES TOTAL IVS FlUH = 810.B STO. CU. METRES image: ------- TAMLE unit no. test no. 2 ViMICLfc "OOEL »« OIESEL RABBIT TEST TYPE 17b318H71'4 E-<18 1975 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST OATE 13/31/7b ENGINE 1.*R LITRE H CYL. COMMENTS )975 FTP 3 BAG COLO MFGR. CODE -0 TEST HI. 10S0 KG DIED ONCE YR. 19 7b KOAO LOAD S.H K * BAROMETER 751. 8* mm OF HG. DRY WlO TEMP. 25.0 DEG. C REl. HUMIDITY 10 PCI. EXHAUST EMISSIONS PLO"ER OIF. PRESS., G3» 30>».8 MM. H20 HET BULB TEMP 10.b UEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY 1." MlLLlGRAMS/KG BLOHER INLET PRESS., G1 3bb.7 MM. H30 BLUHER InLET TEMP. «~ 3 OEG. C W I •c* vO SAG results RAG NO. ) S 3 PLOKER REVOLUTIONS 7530 1SB87 7530 HC SAMPLE METER REAOING/SCALE 3. R/b 7.3/3 3.8/b HC SAMPLE PPM 1S 3 39 1 S 3 HC BACKGRO Mt TfR REAOING/SCaLE 3.9/3 "».l/3 3.9/3 HC BACKGRO PPM lb lb lb ro sample METER READING/SCALE bS."»/* 39.0/* bS . "~/ * CU SAMPLE PPM bO 37 bO CO hackgro METER REAOING/SCALE 1.9/* 3.1/* 1.9/* CO BACKGRO PPM S S 3 CO? bAMPLE METER REAOING/SCALE SS. 1/3 33.H/3 55.1/3 cos SAMPLE PERCENT .*7 . 5h ."'7 cos BACKGRO METER REAOING/SCALE 3.3/3 S.H/3 3.5/ 3 cos BACKGRO PERCENT .ns • OH .05 NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 3H.8/S s» .n/s 3*.8/3 NOX sample PPM 3».» 3*.0 3*.8 NOX BACKGRO METER READIt 'J/ SCALE .7/3 .s/s .7/3 NOX BACKGRO PPM . 7 .5 .7 HC CONCENTRATION PPM 1UB 13 108 CO CONCENTRATION PPM ' 57 35 5 7 CO? CONCENTRA1 ION PCT .13 .52 .93 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 3*. 3 33.5 3*. 2 HC MASS GRAMS 3.55 .75 3.55 CO MASS GRAMS 3.77 3.80 3.77 CO? MASS GRAMS 9bl.08 931.bl 9bl.08 NOX MAS9 GRAMS S.R7 3.39 3.87 HC MASS MG 3.55 .75 3.55 WEIGHTED MASS nEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS HflGHTEO MASS HC .3b CO .5* COS lSb.BH NOX .S3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE grams/kilometre GRAMS/KILOHETRF GRAMS/KILOMETRE CAPHOii BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 5.87 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAl CVS FLO* = 310.7 STD. CU. METRES image: ------- TAHLE K-41 VEHICLE EMISSION HESULTS light duty emissions test unit »iu. ;;; test nij. 2 oate hfgh. code -0 i*. VEHICLE HOOF.L V* DIESEL HAHHIT ENUlNF l.»8 LITRE » CYL. TEST WT. 1081) KG kOAD LOAIJ S. * UK TEST T fME 17h3l8R71'» COMMENTS 1975 FTP ? BAG HOT BAROMprm 7S1.R* MM ()F hR. ORY BUL« TEMP. S3.9 OEG. REL. HUMIDITY 10 "CI. EXMAIIRT EMISSIONS ftLOwER CIF. PRESS, t 0?, 3tlH. B mm. H?i) HEf BULB TEMP 10.0 OEG. C AttS. HUMIDITY 1.9 MILL IliRAMS/KG BLUHER IMLET PRESS.r G1 ?bb.7 MM. M?0 blower inlet temp. hb oeg. c MAG results rag NO. 1 ? 3 mlo«er revolutions 7SH 1 1 ?90 3 7S»1 HC SAMPLE ME TEW READING/SCALE 8.5/3 5.7/3 R.5/3 MC SAMPLE PPM 3» ? 3 3» HC hackc.hd mf. TER Rt Al> ING/SC 4 LE 1 .9/3 l.P/3 1.8/3 MC HACKT.HD PPM 7 7 7 ro SAMPLE METf R READING/SCALE H?.?/* ?7.3/« •»?.7/« CO sample PPM in ?5 HO ro hackgrd METER READING/SCALE 1.7/* 1 .b/* 1.7/* ro rackgnd PPM ? ? e CO? S'iPLE METER READING/SCALE »?.b/3 3?.3/3 H7.H/3 CO? SAMPLE PERCENT .R? .5* .82 CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 3.5/3 3.»/3 3.S/3 CO? hackghd PERCENT .05 .05 .05 NOX sample Mf TER READING/SCALE 3-1.5/? ? 3.9/? 3* .5/? NOX sample PPM 3*.5 Bi.* 3*.b NO* BACKGND METER READING/SCALE .b/? .b/? .<>/? NOX BACKGHD PPM .b .b HC concentraTion PPM ? 7 lb ? 7 CO CONCENTRATion PPM 38 ?•~ 38 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT .77 • H9 .77 NO* CONCENTRATION PPM 33.9 ? 3 . 3 33. HC MASS GRAMS • R9 .9n .89 CO MASS grams ?.sn ?.b8 ? . 50 CO? MASS GRAMS 80S.5H 870.b" 805.5H NOX MASS GRAMS ?.8b 3. 3b 2. 8b HC MASS MG .89 .<*0 .89 WEIGHTED MASS HC WEIGHTED MASS CO weighteo mass co? WEIGHTED MASS NOX .IS GRAMS/KILOMETRE .<~3 GR*MS/KILOMETRE 138.90 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .52 GRAMS/KILOMETRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 5.19 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FLOH = ?11.0 3TD. CU. METRES image: ------- TAULfc B-5i t image: ------- TArtLE E-51 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLF BAC< SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMBER DATE l?/?l/7b TIHE -u MRS. TEST NO. 5 MOOEL 197b V* DIESEL K ABB TF E T ENGINE l.S LITHE •» CVL. OR IVER DT 1F.ST *T. |0«i» KG. GVh 0 KG »ET »ULH TEMP II C DRY BULB T*mP ?3 C PEL. HUM. 17.b PCT SPFC. HUM. 3.? GWAM/KG dARO. 7*>>.B mm HG. MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG OISTANCE 1 b • h 7b KM hUEL 8*7.3 G/LI THE FUEL HC WATIO l.8ft RUN DURATIUN 12.75 MIMITtS BLOhEK INLET PRESS. ?bb.7 MM. H?0 BLOWEH OIF. PRESS. 30*.8 MM H?0 BLUHfcR INLET TEMP. *j DEG. C OYNO REVOLUTIONS ?3S3U BLUWtR REVOLUTIONS 11375 BLOWER CU. CM /RF V. R * * 5 BAG RESULTS HC SAMPLE MF.TEH Rt AU1NG/3CALE 7.R/3 MC SAMPLE PPM 31 HC BACKGkO MF TEH HEAOING/SCALE .9/3 MC HACKGRO PPM * CO sample meter REAOING/SCALE 59.1/* CO sample PPM 57 CO HACKGHD METER REAOING/SCALE l.b/« CO BACKGHO PPM ? COS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 70 . •>/ 3 COS SAMPLE PERCENT l.?8 CO? BACKGHO METER READING/SCALE 3.0/3 CO? BACKGRD PERCENT .05 NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE bf.5/2 NOX SAMPLE PPM bf. 5 NOX BACKGHO METER READING/SCALE .fe/2 NO* BACKGHO PPM .b HC CONCENTRATION PPM ?R CO CONCENTRATION PPM 53 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT 1.23 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM b*.0 so? COCENTRATION PPM 0.0 HC MASS (GRAMS) 1.37 CO MASS (GRAMS) 5.3? CO? MASS (SRAMS) l image: ------- 1975 LIGHT DU1Y EMISSIONS TEST unit no. ;;; tf.st no. 3 VEHICLE HUOEL VH DIESEL BABBIT TEST TYPE 17b318fl7H BAROMETER 7»b.25 hm OF HG. dry bulb temp. 22.b oeg. c PEL. HUM 101 T Y 211 PCT. EXHAUST emissions BLOWER OIF. PwESS., G2, 30*.8 MM. H20 DATE 12/22/7b ENGINE l.*» LITRE » CYL. COMMENTS 197S FTP 3 BAG COLO MFGR. COOE -0 YR. 19?b TEST HT. 1020 KG *OAD LO*t> 5.* KH HET bulb TEMP 11.1 OEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY 3.* HlLLlGRAMS/KG ULUHER inlet PRESS., G1 2S4.0 HM. H20 BLUhER INLET TEMP. »3 OEG. C FJ I cn u> BAG RESULTS BAG NO. RLOmER hevolutigns HC HC HC HC CO CO CO CO C02 C02 C02 C02 NO* NOX NOX NOX SAMPLE SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE PPM BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE BACKGRD PPM SAMPLE SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE PPM BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE BACKGRD PPM SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE SAMPLE PERCENT BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE BACKGH0 PERCENT sample METER READING/SCALE SAMPLE PPM UACKGKD METER READING/SCALE BACKGRD PPM 1 7521 1/b 112 2.S/3 10 b8.2/* bb 2.7/* 3 5*.5/3 .15 2.8/3 .0» 35.3/2 35.3 .5/2 .5 2 1290b b.n/3 2* 2.5/3 10 28.2/* 2b 1.2/* 1 33.H/3 .5b 2.7/3 .0* 23.2/2 23.2 • »/2 3 7535 7. b/3 30 2.5/3 10 "~1.1/* 39 1.1/* 1 H7.H/3 .82 3.9/3 .Ob 3*.5/2 3* . 5 • */2 hC CONCENTRATION PPM 123 1* 21 CO CONCENTRATION PPM b2 25 37 C02 CONCENTRATION PCT .91 .52 ,7b NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 3*.8 22.8 3* . 1 HC MASS GRAMS 3.99 .80 .b9 CO MASS GRAMS *.0R 2. 78 2.»b C02 MASS GRAMS 9H7.2H 918.90 789.52 NOX MASS GRAMS 3.03 3.»0 2.97 HC MASS MG 3.99 .80 ,b9 WEIGHTED MASS HC WEIGHTED MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS COS WEIGHTED MASS NOX ,2» GRAMS/KILOMETRE .»9 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1»7.1S GRAMS/KILOMETRE .S3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION s 5.50 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FLOh s 2119.•» STO. CU. METRES image: ------- unit no. ;;; test no. 3 VEHICLE MODEL VH DIESEL RABBIT TEST TYPE 17b318871H BAROMFTER 7Hb.2S hm OF HG. OHY BULB TEMP. 22.8 OEG. C REL. HUMIDITY 20 PCT. EXHAUST EMISSIONS TABLE E"53 VEHICLE EMISSION KESULTS 1<»7S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST DATE 12/22/7b MFGR. CODE -0 ENGINE 1. H 8 LITRE H CYL. TEST NT. 1020 KG COMMENTS 197S FTP 2 SAG COLD DIED ONCE YR. 197b KOAD LOAD 5.H Kw WET BULB TEMP 11.1 DEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY 3 • H NlLLlCRAMS/KG BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2, 30H.8 MM. H20 BLOWER INLET PRESS., G1 25H.0 MM. H20 blower inlet temp. hs deg. c BAG RESULTS w I tn BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 7521 1290b 7S21 HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE H.l/b b.0/3 H.l/b HC sample PPM 132 2H 132 HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 2.5/3 2.5/3 2.5/3 HC BACKGRD PPM 10 1U 10 CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE b8.2/« 28.2/* b8.2/* CO SAMPLE PPM bb 2b bb CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 2.7/* 1.2/* 2.7/* CO BACKGRD PPM 3 1 3 C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 5H.5/3 33.H/3 5H.5/3 C02 SAMPLE PERCENT .95 .5b .15 C02 BACKGRD METER READInG/SCALE 2.8/3 2.7/3 2.8/3 C02 BACKGRD PERCENT • OH • OH • OH NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 35.3/2 23.2/2 3S.3/2 NOX sample PPM 35.3 23.2 35.3 NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE .5/2 . H/ 2 .5/2 NOX BACKGRD PPM .5 • H .5 HC CONCENTRATION PPM 123 1H 123 CO CONCENTRATion PPM b2 25 b2 r.02 CONCENTRATION PCT .91 .52 .11 NUX CONCENTRATION PPM 3H.8 22.8 3H.8 HC MASS GRAMS 3.99 .an 3.99 CO MASS GRAMS H . 08 2. 7B H.08 C02 MASS GRAMS SH7.SH 918.90 9H7.2H NOX MASS GRAMS 3.03 3.HO 3.03 HC MASS MG 3.99 . 8 J 3.99 WEIGHTED MASS HC WEIGHTED MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS C02 WEIGHTED MASS NOX .HO grams/kilometre .5? GRAMS/KILOMETRf 15*.b* GRAMS/KILOMETRE .53 GRAMS/KIlOMETRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION s 5.79 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FLOW = 209.3 3TD. CU. METRES image: ------- TABLE E-54 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 19 75 Lir.HT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST UNIT NU. ;i; fESl NO. 3 VEHICLE MODEL VW DIESEL RABBIT TEST TYPE 17b318871* BAROMETER 7>»b.25 MM OF HG. DRY BUlB TEMP. 23.9 DEG. C REL. HUMIDITY lb PCT. EXHAUST EMISSIONS BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G2, 30*.H MH. H20 DATE 12/22/7b ENGINE l.»8 LITRE « CYL. COMMENTS 1975 FTP 2 BAG HOT MFGR. CODE -0 YR. 197b TEST WT. 1020 KG kOAD LOAD 5.* KW HE I BULB TEMP 11.1 DEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY 3.0 MlLLlGVAMS/KG BLUWER INLET PRESS., G1 2bb.7 MM. H20 BLOhER InlET TEMP. *3 DEG. C M I Ln tn BAG kESULTS RAG NO. BLOWER REVOLUTIONS HC HC HC hC CU CO CO CO CO? C02 C02 C02 NOX NOX NOX NOX sample SAMPLE meter READING/SCALE PPM BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE BACKGRO PPM SAMPLE sample METFH HEADING/SCALE PPM BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE BACKGRD PPM METER READING/SCALE PERCENT BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE BACKGRD PERCENT METER READING/SCALE PPM BACKEND METER READING/SCA|_E BACKGRD PPM SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE 1 7535 7 . b/ 3 30 2.5/3 10 »1.9/* 39 1.1/* 1 H7.H/3 .82 3.9/3 .Ob 3*.5/2 3* .5 . */2 2 12918 5.1/3 21 2.8/3 11 27.b/* 2b 1.5/* 1 32.9/3 .55 3 . b / 3 .Ob 2».f/2 2».f .*/2 3 7535 7.B/3 30 a.5/3 10 *1.9/* 39 1.1/* 1 *7.*/3 .82 3.9/3 .Ob 3*.5/2 3* .5 .»/2 HC CONCENTRATION PPM 21 10 21 CO CONCENTRATION PPM 37 2* 37 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT .7b .*9 .7b NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 3* . 1 2"».0 3».l HC MASS GRAMS . b8 • Sf . b8 CO MASS GRAMS 2 . * b 2.b9 2.»b C02 MASS GRAMS 788.1b 878.35 788.Hb NOX MASS GRAMS 2.93 3.53 2.93 HC HASS MG . b8 .5* ,b8 WEIGHTED MASS HC WEIGHTED MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS C02 WEIGHTED MASS NOX .10 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .*3 grams/kilometre 138.12 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .S* GRAMS/KILOMETRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 5.1b LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FLOW = 209.3 STD. CU. METRES image: ------- TABLE E-55 tXHAUST EMISSIONS F«UM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMBER DATE l2/22/7b TIME -0 HKS. MODEL H7b VW DIESEL RABBTSET-7 DRIVER DT fEST HT. 1020 KG. WET BULB TEMP 12 C ORT BULH 1EMP ?»* RUN DURATION 23.28 MINUTES blower inlet press. 2bt.7 mm. h?o SLOWER DIF. PRESS. 30"».8 MM H20 BLOWER INLET TEMP. image: ------- TABLE E-56 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VtrtlCLE NUMBER DATE 12/22/7b IIMt -0 HRS. hODEL 1^7b VH DIESEL RABBUET DRlvtH OT fF.ST wT. 1020 KG. HET BULB TEMP 12 C URY BULB TEMP 22 C SPEC. HUM. H.fl GKAM/KG tJAKU. 7»b.3 MM HG. DIS1ANCE lb.*76 KM FUEL B»?.3 G/LITRE TEST NO. 3 ENGINE l.S LITRE » CYL. GVH U KG REL. HUM. 28.2 PCT MEASUREO FUEL 0.00 KG FUEL HC RATIO 1.8»» RUN DURATION slower inlet p*ess. BLOrfER DIF. PRESS. PLOHER INLET TEMP. DVNU REVOLUTIONS BLOMER REVOLUTIONS BLOWER CU. CM /REv. 12.7? MINUTES 2bb.7 MM. H20 312.1 MM H£0 *5 OEG. C 23H33 113S7 8*2 3 RAG RESULTS HC sample METER READING/SCALE 8.H/3 HC SAMPLE PPM 3* hC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 3.3/3 HC BACKGRO PPM 13 CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 55.9/* CO sample PPM 53 CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE .fc/* CO BACKGRD PPM 1 C02 sample meter reading/scale 70.b/3 C02 sample PERCENT 1.20 CU2 BACKGRD METER heading/scale 3.H/3 CU2 BACKGRD PERCENT .Ob NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE b3.5/2 NOX SAMPLE PPM b3 . 5 NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE .5/2 NOX BACKGRO PPM .5 HC CONCENTRATION PPM 2? CO CONCENTRATION PPM 51 C02 CONCENTRATION PCT 1.22 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM b3 • 0 S02 COCENTRATION PPM 0.0 HC MASS (GRAMS) 1.05 CO MASS (GRAMS) 5.02 C02 MASS (GRAMS) 1903.02 NOX MASS (GRAMS) 8.53 S02 MASS (GRAMS) 0.00 HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE CO GRAMS/KILOHETRE CO? GRAH3/KIL0METRE NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE SOa GRAMS/KILOMETRE 11: .Ob .30 I .52 0.00 HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.7* co grams/kg of fuel a.3 CO? GHAMS/KG OF FUEL 315* NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL l"».l* SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00 HC GRAMS/MIN CO GRAMS/MlN .H C02 GRAMS/MIN 14 9 NOX GRAMS/HIN .b7 S02 GRAMS/MIN p.nu CAPBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPUON s 4.32 LITRES PfcH HUNOREO KILUMETKES image: ------- TABLE E-57. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1977 VW RABBIT (GASOLINE) (TRANSIENT CYCLES) Test Emission Rate, g/km Fuel Cons. Fuel Ecc Cycle Date No. HC CO NO* H/100 km mpg 1975 FTP 12/29/76 1 0.14 2.01 0.62 9.69 24.28 12/30/76 2 0.14 2.56 0.61 9.47 24.85 1/3/77 3 0.14 2.32 0.65 9.51 24.74 Average 0.14 2.30 0.63 9.56 24.62 (0.23) (3.70) (1.01) Final Test (RTP) (0.17) (2.0 ) (0.84) 21.3 FTPC 12/29/76 1 0.21 3.31 0.68 10.22 23.02 12/30/76 2 0.23 4.15 0.69 10.24 22.98 1/3/77 3 0.09 1.14 0.64 9.27 25.38 Average 0.18 2.87 0.67 9.91 23.79 (0.30) (4.62) (1.08) FTPh 12/29/76 1 0.09 0.98 0.60 8.98 26.20 12/30/76 2 0.08 1.47 0.55 8.90 26.44 1/3/77 3 0.18 3.36 0.65 9.96 23.62 Average 0.12 1.94 0.60 9.60 25.42 (0.19) (3.12) (0.96) SET 12/29/76 1 0.03 0.13 1.02 7.41 31.75 12/30/76 2 0.03 0.29 1.03 7.45 31.58 1/3/77 3 0.02 0.14 0.98 7.42 31.71 Average 0.03 0.19 1.01 7.43 31.68 (0.05) (0.30) (1.62) FET 12/29/76 1 0.03 0.02 1.19 6.43 36.59 12/30/76 2 0.03 0.05 1.24 6.54 35.98 1/3/77 3 0.02 0.02 1.22 6.61 35.60 Average 0.03 0.03 1.22 6.53 36.06 (0.05) (0.05) (1.96) Final Test (RTP) 34.5 ( ) Values in parentheses are in grams/mile E-58 image: ------- UNIT HO. bSi! VEHICLE "ODEL TEST M3, V* CIS RaHBIT BAROMETER ^.bn mm IF wG. OB* BULB TE«P, ?s,u OfG. C REL. HUWJOITV 10 PCT. TaplF E-58 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST 1 75 FTP DATE l?/?q/7b MFGR, CODE -0 ENGINE l.SQ LITRE >» CURB »T. set KG kET BULB TEMP 12.8 OEG . C ABS. HUMIOITY ».0 GRAMS/KG VR. GVH 1977 0 KG EXHAUST EmISSIOS SLOPES OIF'. PRESS., G?, Sqq.4 mm, *20 HAG RESULTS BAG NO. BLOnER REVOLUTIONS m I cn to 1 *0b J q HC SAMPLF METE" RE«niNG/SC4LE 55.5/? 18.7/2 HC Sample PPV ss 11 HC BACKGPO MFTF" READING/SCALE 11.0/? 13.2/2 HC BACKGPD P°w 11 13 cc SAMPLF MfTE" READING/SCALE 80.0/* b».2/* CO SAMPLF PPM 3b3 b2 cn HACKGRD MF TFR RE«DING/SC«LE ?.«>/~ 2.1/* CO BACKGPD PPM q b CO? Samplf "ETER beADING/SCALf 5b.2/3 3R.5/3 CO? SAMPLF PERCENT ,qq .b7 C02 BACGPO METER RE«DING/SC*LE * .0/ 3 ».3/3 CO? backkpo pfrcfnt .Ob .07 NO* SAmplf MfTfp READING/SC4LE *7.*/2 13.1/? NO* Sample p°" *7.1 13.1 NO* backgpo mFtER REAOINg/SC«LE .7/2 1.1/2 NO* BACKCD ppm .7 1.1 S02 Sample METE® PE«DING/SC'LE -0.0/« -0.0/* SO? SAMPLF PPM • 0.0 -0.0 S02 BACKGRD MgTER READING/SCALE -0,0/* -0.0/* SO? BACKGpD ppm -0.0 •0.0 HC concentration PPM »5 b CO concentration PPM 3*b SS C02 concentration PCT .93 . bl NO* concentration PPM »b.8 12.1 S02 concentration PPM 0.0 0.0 HC mass gr#ms 2.03 .*8 CO MASS GR»mS 31.35 B.Sb CO? mass grams 1330,87 1*92.30 NO* MasS CR'MS 5.bR 2.S3 SO? mass grams 0,00 0.00 BLOWER INLET PRESS./ G1 bOH.S MM, H20 BLOWER INLET TEMP. »0 OEG. C 2 3 70002 *0708 28,3/2 28 18.0/2 13 50.1/* »? 5.1/* 5 *7, 7/3 .82 3.1/3 .05 37.0/2 37.0 .8/2 .8 •0,B/» •0.0 -0.0/* -0.0 11 12 .78 3b.2 0.0 .51 3.7* 1115.08 ».»2 0.00 WEIGHTED MASS HC WEIGHTED MASS CO *EIGHTE0 mass CO? WEIGHTED miss NO* WEIGHTED M«SS SO? .1* G»4ms/«IL0METRE 2.01 GPAms/KIiOHETRE 223.7b GRAMS/kILOMETRE ,b? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00 GRA"S/MLOMETRE CARBON balance FUEL CONSUMPTION s a.bl LITRES PER MUNORED KILOMETRES TOTAL Cvs FLnw * ?aq.b STp. 'U. "ETRES image: ------- UN t T NO. t»« ' VEHICLE MUOEL IESI NO• 1 \n G»S haHHIT TABLE B-59 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS IS75 LIGHT OUTV EMISSIONS TEST FTP Cold DATE l?/29/7b MFGR. COOE -0 ENGINE 1.59 LITHE » CUR8 «T. 88* KG YR. GVM 197? 0 KG SAROMFffw 7"»l.bN 0«T BULrt TE. RfcL. MONJOITT HH OF mG. 25.* OEG. I" PCI. WET BULB TEMP 18.9 OEG. C ABS. HUNIOITV ».0 GRAMS/KG E*HAUJI EMISSIONS BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G?, 599.* mm. H?0 BAG RESULTS RAG NO. BLOwfcrt REVOLUTIONS BLOWER INLET PRESS., G1 bOI.5 HH. H20 BLOHEfl inlet TEMP. *0 OEG. C W I o* o MC SAMPLE Mt TEH RE ADING/SCAlE MC SAfiPLfe PPH MC hACXGHI) Mt TE" REAOINo/SCALE MC tiACRGHi) PPM ro SAM'Lt Mt TEH READING/SCALE CO SAMPLE PPM Cu UACkGHO MtTER RtAOINU/SCALE CO flACKGHl) PPM CO? sample me tfr RE ADING/SC*lE C02 SAMHLt PtRCtNT C02 tJACKGNU METER RtAOING/SCALE CO? HACKGHU PERCENT NOX SAMPLt METER READING/SCALE NO* SAMPLE PPM NO* BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE NOX AACKGKD PPM so? SAMPLE MEIER re ading/scale S02 sample PPM S02 oackgho METER reaoing/scale SO? BACKGRO PPM 1 < (lb 19 55.5/? 55 11.0/2 n BO. 0/* Bb 3 2.9/* 9 5b.2/3 .99 ».0/3 .Ob *7.1/2 *?.» .7/? .? ~0.U/* -0.0 -0.0/* -0.0 ? 70002 18.7/2 19 13.2/2 13 b».2/* b? 2.1/* b 39.5/3 . b 7 * . 3/ 3 .07 13.1/2 13.1 1.1/2 1.1 -0.0/* -0.0 -0.0/* -0.0 3 *0bl9 55.5/2 55 11.0/2 11 80.U/* 3b 3 2 . 9/» 9 5b.2/3 .99 ».0/3 .Ob »7.»/2 . ?/2 .7 -0.0/* -0.0 -0.0/* -0.0 HC CONCENTRATION PPM *5 b *5 CO CONCENTRATION PPM 3*b 55 3Hb C02 CONCENTRATION Pf.T .93 . b 1 .93 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM lb.8 12.1 lb • 8 S02 CONCENTRATION PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mt MASS GRAMS 2.03 • 18 2.03 CO MASS GRAMS 31.35 8.5b 31.35 C02 MASS GRAMS 1330.87 1192.30 1330.8? NOX MASS GRAMS S.b9 2.53 S.b9 302 MASS GHAMS 0.00 0.00 0.00 fcClGHTED MASS HC MEIGhTEU MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS C02 NEIGhTEC MASS NO* NEIGHTEO haS3 S02 .21 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 3.31 GHAM3/KIL0METRE 233.95 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .b8 GRAhS/KlLUMETRE 0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CrNSUMP TI ON z 10.22 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAL CVT) Fu>« = 2B9.5 STl>. CU. METRES image: ------- UNIT NO. b*n VEHICLE *«OOF.L TEST NO. V- GAS RABHIT PARO«ETER 7*1.bo mm OF HG. OPT BULB TEmp< ?*.* DEG. C BEL. HUMIOIT* if PCT. TABLE F.-60 FTP Hot VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST DATE l?/?9/7b MFGR, CODE -0 ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB WT, 88* KG MET BULB TEMP i*,» OEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY b.2 GRAMS/KG YR. GVM 1977 0 KG PJ I CTv EXHAUST FMISSIONS plo*er oif; t> BAG RESULTS BAG NO. RLOwER REvnLU HC SAmPLF HC S»"Ple HC HACKGPD HC 8ACKGR0 CO Samplf CO Samplf CO hackgro CO BAC"GoO CO? Samplf CO? 3AMPLF CO? PACfGPO CO? HACKGRO NO* Samplf NO* SAMPLE NO* qtcKRRO NO* Aac^GpO SO? Samplf SO? Samplf SO? 9AC*GRO SO? BACKGRO BESS., G?, b0?.0 mm. HfO TIONS MFTER PE«OING/SC«LE PPM «ETF.R PE»OINg/SC«LE PPM «FTER RE«OINg/SC«LE PPM MFTER ®E*01Ng/SC®LE PPM MFTER RE«OINg/SC«LE PERCENT METER REAOING/SCLE PERCENT MFTER PEA0ING/SC«LE PPM METER REAOINg/SCALE PPM MFTER RE«OING/SC*LE PPM METER RE40ING/3C«LE PPM BLOWER INLET PRESS.. G1 b0?,0 MM. H?0 BLOWER INLET TEMP. *1 OEG, C HC CONCENTRATION PPM CO CONCENTRATION PPM CO? CONCENTRATION PCT NO* CONCENTRATION PPM SO? CONCENTRATION PPM HC mass grams CO ma33 GRAMS CO? MASS GR«MS NO* Masg r.R«M3 90? mass GR*mS I *0708 ?8,3/? ?8 18.0/? 18 50,l/« <~ 7 5.1/* 5 *7.7/3 .8? 3.1/1 .05 37,0/? 37.0 ,8/? .8 -o,o/* •o.o -o,o/« -0.0 II *? .78 lb.? 0.0 .SI 3.'7 111*.10 * . 70 0.00 "ElQHTeo mass HC NEIGHED mass CO WEIGHTEO mass CO? WEIGHTED mass NO* WEIGHTEO mass SO? .09 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .9f GRAms/kILOMETRE ?08.7? GRAMs/KlLOMETRE ,bO grams/kilometre 0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE ? b9899 ?5,*/? ?5 19,0/? 19 58 ,?/* 5b ?,8/« 3 37,1/3 ,b? 3,b/3 .Ob 11.9/? 11.« .b/? ,b '-0,0/« •0.0 '0,0/* -0,0 7 5? .57 11.3 0,0 .5b 8,07 1*0*.bb ?. 5? 0,00 3 *0708 ?8,3/? ?8 18.0/? 18 50.1/* »7 5,1/* 5 *7,7/3 ,8? 3,1/3 ,05 37,0/? 17,0 ,8/? ,8 -0.0/* •0,0 -0,0/« •0.0 11 *? ,78 3b,? 0.0 ,51 3.77 Ul*,10 *,70 0,00 CARBON 9AL&NCE fuel CONSUMPTION » B.op LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRE3 total CVS flow s ?R°. 3 STO. CU. MfTcES image: ------- TABLE U-61 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE 0AG SAMPLE VtHICLE NUMBER b50 UATE 12/29/7b MODEL 1177 VW CAS RABBIT OR IVER DT HET HULB 1EHP 1* C SPEC. HUM. *.q GRAM/KG UME -0 HRS. SET-7 I EST NT. 1020 KG. DRY BULB TEMP ?b C BARO. 7*1.7 MM HG. TEST NO. 1 ENGINE 1. b LITRE "» GVH 0 KG REL. HUM. 22.9 PCT MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG RUM DURATION 23.25 minutes BLOWER 1NL11 PRESS. 599.it MM. H20 BLOWER OIF. PRESS. 39b.9 MM H?0 BLOWER INLET TEMP. * 1 DEG. C pYNO REVOLUTIONS 3095b BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 11225 3 BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 223* BAG K IE3ULTS HC SAMPLE METER 3EA0 ING/SCALE 2b.2/2 HC SAMPLt PPM 2b MC BACKGkD METER RE AO ING/SCALE 22.0/2 HC BACHtjKD PPM 22 CO SAMPLt MtTER RE AO ING/SCALE 1H.1/* CO SAMPLE PPM 13 CO BACKGRD METER READ ING/SCALE 1. 7/» CO BACKG^D PPM 2 CO? SAMPLt METER read ing/scale Sb.3/3 C02 SAMPLE PERCENT .99 C02 BACKGRO METER READ ING/SCALE 2. b/3 C02 backgrd PERCENT .OH NOX SAMPLE METER RE AO ING/SCALE bH.b/2 SOX SAMPLE PPM b"».b NOX BACKGRO METER RE AO ing/scale .5/2 NOX BACKGKD PPM .5 HC CONCENTRATION PPM b co CONCENTRATION PPM 11 C02 CONCENTRATION PCT .95 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM bH.l S02 COCENTRATIQN PPM 0.0 HC MASS (GRAMS) .72 CO MASS (GRAMS) 2.8b C02 MASS (GRAMS) 3 7b3 .1)2 NOX MASS (GRAMS) 22.12 302 MASS (GRAMS) o.uo HC GRAHS/K ILOMETRE .03 CO GRAMS/K ILOMETRE .13 C02 GRANS/K ILOHETRE 173 NOX GRAMS/K ILOMETRE 1 .02 SO? GRAMS/K ILOMETRE 0.00 HC gkams/kg OF FUEL .bl HC GRAMS/MIN .03 CO GRAMS/kG OF FUEL 2.» CO GRAMS/MlN . 1 CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b* CO? GRAMS/MIN 1 b2 NOX grams/kg UF FUEL 18. bO NOX GRAMS/MIN .15 so? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00 S02 GRAMS/MIN o.no CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 7.H1 LITP^S PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS image: ------- TABLE E-62 tXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMBER bSO DATE l?/?S/7b MODEL 1S77 VN GAS RABBIT DRIVER DT NET BULB TEMP 1<» C SPF.C. HUM. 5.8 GRAM/KG TIME -0 HRS. FET TEST NT. 10?(J KG. DRY BULB TEMP ?b C bARO. 7H1.7 MM HG. TEST NO. 1 ENGINE l.b LITRE * GVN 0 KG REL. HUM. ?7.7 PCT MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG PUN (JURATION l?.7b MINUTES BLOWER iNLtl PRESS. b0?.0 MM. H?0 BLONER OIF. PRESS. b0?.0 MM M?0 BLONER INLET TEMP. HI DEG. C DYNO REVOLUTIONS -0 BLONER REVOLUTIONS blS*? BLONER CU. CM /REV. 2235 BAG RESULTS HC sample METER READING/SCALE 33.8/3 HC sample PPM 3* HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 30.0/? HC BACKGRD PPM 30 CO sample METER REAUING/SCALE 7.7/* CO sample PPM 7 CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 5.8/* CO backgru PPM b CO? sample METER READING/SCALE bb.7/3 CO? sample PERCENT l.?0 CO? bACKGRU METER READING/SCALE 3.7/3 CO? BACKGRD PERCENT ,0b NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 3H.0/3 NOX SAMPLE PPM 10?.0 NOX backgnd METER READING/SCALE .?/3 NOX BACKGRD PPM .b HC CONCENTRATION PPM b CO CONCENTRATION PPM ? • CO? concentration PC T 1.15 NOX CONCEN fWA T ION PPM 1U1.S so? COCENTRATION PPM 0.0 HC MA3S (GRAMS) .*<• CO MASS (GRAMS) .29 CO? MASS (GRAMS) ?H7B.*3 NOX MASS (GRAMS) 19. b3 30? MASS (GRAMS) 0.00 HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .03 CO 6RAMS/KIL0METRE .02 CO? 6RAMS/KIL0METRE ISO NO* GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.1 «* SO? GRAM^/KILOMETRE (1.00 HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL CO GRAHS/KG OF FUEL CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL SO? GHAM5/KG UF FUEL CARBON BALANCE FUFL ECONOMY .Sb HC GRAMS/MIN .03 CO GRAMS/MlN .0 3 1 b 7 CO? GRAMS/MIN 1 9* 5.OR NO* GRAMS/MIN 1.5H P.OU SO? GRAMS/MIN O.OU NljMY = b.H3 LITRES PE R HUNl;HEO image: ------- UNIT NO. b5tl VEHICLE. MUOEL TEST NO. 2 v« G»S RABbIT TAbLE E-63 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 19 75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST 75 FTP DATE 12/30/7b MFGR. CODE ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CUR8 WT. -0 0 KG YR. GVM 19 77 0 KG BAROMETER 735.3a MM OF hG. DRY BULB IEMP. S3.9 OEG. REL. HUMIDITY *B PCI. MET BULB TEMP lb.7 DEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY 9.1 GRAMS/KG M I <7> JST EMISSIONS blower inlet PRESS. BLOWER 01F. PRESS., GS, bbO.* MM. HSO blower inlet TEMP. BAG results BAG NO. 1 2 3 BLOWER REVOLUTIONS *0589 bb8*5 *0b02 HC SAMPLE MFTER REAOINU/SCALE b7.3/2 21.5/2 2*.0/2 HC sample PPM b 7 21 2* HC HACKGHO METER READING/SCALE 1*.5/2 lb. 1/2 15.9/2 HC 6ACKGK0 PPM 1* lb lb CO sample METER READING/SCALE SI.8/* 78.8/* b 7.8/* CO SAMPLE PPM "~58 78 bb CO BACKGHU METER READING/SCALE .*/* .1/* 1.0/* CO BACKGRO PPM 1 0 1 cos SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 57.*/3 *0.2/3 **.9/3 COS SAMPLE PERCENT 1.01 . b 8 .77 cos BACrfGKD METER READING/SCALE 3.3/3 3.1/3 2.7/3 cos backgrd PERCENT .05 .05 .0* NOX SAMPLE ME TEW RE AO ING/3CALE >~3.1/2 11.8/2 30.S/S NO* SAMPLE PPM "~3.1 11.8 30.2 NOX BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE .9/2 .7/2 .7/2 NOX BACKGKu PPM .9 .7 .7 SOS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE -0.0/* -0.0/* -0.0/« SOS SAMPLE PPM -0.0 -o.n -0.0 SOS BACKGWO METER READInG/SCAlE -0.0/* -o.o/* -0.0/* SOS BACKGhD PPM -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 *2 OEG. C HC CONCENTRATION PPM 5* b 9 CO CONCENTRATION PPM *<~1 75 b3 cos CONCENTRATION PCT .9b • b* .73 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM *2.3 11.1 29.5 SOS CONCENTRATION PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 HC MAb3 GRAMS 2.37 .*5 .*0 CO MASS GRAMS 39.08 10.9b 5.57 COS MAS3 GRAMS 13*9.51 I*b2.b9 1022.38 NOX MASS GRAMS S. 8* 2.53 *.09 SOS MASS GRAMS 0.00 0.00 0.00 ME1GHTE0 MASS WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS HC .1* CO 2.5b COS 217.59 NO* .bl SOS o.ou GHAMS/KILOMETRE grams/kilohetre GRANS/KILOMETRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPIIOn s 9.*7 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES total cvs flow = 277.2 std. cu. metres image: ------- UNIT NO. hSu VEHICLE MUOEL TEST N(J, VN RABUlT GAS BAROMETEH 735.33 MM OF MG. DRY HULB TEHP. 83.9 OEG. C REL. HUMIDITY tit PCT. TABLE E-64 VEHICLE EHISSIUN RESULTS 1S7S LIGHT OUTY EMISSIONS TEST 2 FTP Cold OATE 18/3t)/7b MFGR. CODE -0 ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB HT. 88* KG HET BULB TEMP lb.? OEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY 9.1 GRAMS/KG TR. 197? 0 KG EXHAUS1 EMISSIONS RLUHER DlF. PRESS., G8, RAG RESULTS I Ln bbO.* MM. H80 BLOWER INLET PRESS., G1 bbO.* MM. H20 BLOWER INLET TEMP. *2 OEG. C PAG NO. 1 8 3 BLOWER KEVOLUTIONS *05B9 bb8HS *0589 HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE b 7.3/8 81.S/2 b?.3/8 HC sample PPK b? 21 b 7 HC Backghd Mt TEH READING/SCALE 1H.S/8 lb.1/2 1 * . S/8 HC BACkGHO ppy, 1* lb 1* CO SAKPLt METER HEADING/SCALE 91.8/* 78.8/* 91.B/* CU sample PPM *58 78 *58 CO HACKGHD ME TEH READING/SCALE .*/* .if* .*/* CO dACRGKD PPM 1 0 1 C08 SAMPLE ME7EH READING/SCALE 57.»/3 *0.8/3 5 7.*/3 C08 SA'ifLE PERCENT I.01 . b 8 1.01 C08 BACKGnO METER HEAOING/SLALE 3.3/3 3.1/3 3.3/3 C08 BACKGkD PEKCENT .05 . OS .05 NOX SAMPLk METER HEADING/SCALE *3.1/8 11.8/8 *3.1/8 NOX SAMPLE PPM *3.1 11.8 *3.1 NOX BACKGrtD meteh READ ING/SCALE .9/8 .7/2 .9/2 NOX BACKGKD PPM .9 .7 .9 S08 SAMPLE MtTER READING/SCALE -0.0/* -0.0/* -0.0/* SOS SAMPLE PPM -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 soe BACKGKD Mfc TEH REAOING/SCAlE -0.0/* -0.0/* -0.0/* S08 BACKGKD PPM -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 HC CONCENTRATION PPM s* b 5* CO CONCENTRATION PPM **1 75 **1 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT .9b .b* .9b NOX CONCENTRATION PPM *8.3 11.1 *2.3 S08 CONCENTRATION PPM 0.0 O.U 0.0 HC MASS GRAMS 8.37 .*5 2.37 CO MASS GRAMS 39.08 10.9b 39.08 C08 MASS GRAMS 13*9.SI I*b2.b9 13*9.SI NUX MASS GRAMS 5.8* 2.S3 S.Bt S08 MASS GRAMS 0.00 0.00 O.OD WEIGHTED MASS HC WEIGHTED MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS COS WEIGHTED MASS NOX weighteo mass soe .83 GRAMS/KILOMETRE *.15 GHAMS/KILOMETHE 833.0* GRAMS/KILOME TRE ,b9 GRAMS/KILOHETPE o.oo GRamS/kilomethe CAPHUN BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 10.8* LITRES PER HUNDREO KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FLUH = 877.1 STU. CU. METHES image: ------- UNIT NO. bSCJ VEHICLt MOOEL TEST NU. VN KAHblT GAS BAROMETEH 735.33 MM OF HG. DRr BULB TEMP. 8*.* DEG. C REL. HUMIUITT *5 PCT. 1 ABLE E-65 VEHICLE EMISSION NESULTS 1975 LIGHT OUTY EMISSIONS TEST > FTP Hot date 12/30/7b HFGR. CODE -0 ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB wT. 881 KG WET BULB TEMP lb.7 DEG. C AUS. HUMIDITt 8.1 GRAMS/KG W JS T EMISSIONS BLOWER inlet PRESS. BLOWER DIF. PRESS., GS, b7 3.1 MM. HSO BLOWER inlet TEMP. BAG RESULTS RAG NO. 1 2 3 blower revolutions HUbOS b9bl0 H0b02 HC sample meteh READ ING/5CALE 3*.0/3 25.1/2 2H.0/2 HC sample PPM 2* 2b 2H HC bACKGHD METEH READ ING/SCALE is.1/2 11.3/2 15.1/2 HC BACKGHD PPM lb 11 lb C'J sample METEH READ ING/SCALE b7 . 8/* 83.2/* b 7.8/* CO sample PPM bb 83 bb CO bACKGHD METER READ ING/SCALE 1.0/* ,H/« 1.0/* CO 8ACKGHD PFM 1 0 1 COS SAMPLE MtTER READ InG/SCALE HH.1/3 31.2/3 H H.9/3 COS SAMPLE PERCENT .77 .bb .77 COS BACKGHD METEH READ ING/SCALE 3.7/3 3.H/3 2.7/3 COS BACKGHD PERCENT .OH .05 .0* NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 30.2/3 ll.H/2 30.S/S NOX SAMPLE PPM 30. 3 11.H 30. S NOX BACKGHD Mk TEH HEADING/SCALE .7/2 .5/2 .7/3 NOX 6ACKGKU PPM .7 .5 .7 SOS sample METER READING/SCALE -0.0/« -0.0/* -0.0/* SOS sample PPM -0.0 -0.0 •0.0 SOS BACKGHD METER READ ING/SCALE -0.0/* —0.0/* -0.0/* SOS BACKGHD PPM -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 *2 OEG. C HC CONCENTRATION PPM 1 8 S CO CONCEN(RATION PPM b3 8U b 3 COS CONCENTRATION PCT .73 . b 1 .73 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 21.5 10.9 29.5 SOS CONCENTRATION PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 HC MASS GRAMS .HO .57 .HO CO MASS GRAMS 5.57 12.1H 5.57 COS MASS GRAMS 1020.H7 1H b 8 . 18 1020.H7 NOX MASS GRAMS H . OS 2.57 H .05 SOS MASS GRAMS 0.00 0.00 0.00 WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS MC .08 CO l."»7 cos sob.es NOX .56 SOS 0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE GHAMS/KILOMETRE GKAMS/KILOMETRE CAP0ON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPIION s 8.3U LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES total cvs flu* = sss.i stu. cu. metres image: ------- TABLE E-66 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMBER b50 DATE 12/30/7h MODEL 197? VW RABBIT GAS DRIVER DT WET BULB TEMP 17 C SPEC. K'IM. 8. t GRAM/KG TIME -0 HHS. SET-7 TEST NT. 1020 KG. DRY BULB TEMP 2b C BARO. 73b.1 MM HG. TEST NO. 2 ENGINE l.b LITREI * GVN 0 KG REL. HUM. HO.O PCT MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG RUN DURAiTON 23.30 MINUTES BLOHER INLET PRESS. bbS.5 MM. H20 SLOWER DIF. PRESS. bbS.O MM H20 9L0*ER INLET TEMP. image: ------- TABLE E-67 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VtHICLE NUMBER bStl OATE 12/3(l/7b MODEL 1S77 vw RABBIT GAS DRIVER DT HET BULQ TEMP 18 C SPEC. MUM. 1.8 GRAM/KG I I ME -D HHS. FET TEST WT. 1020 KG. DRY BULB TEMP 8b C bARO. 735.8 HM HG. TEST NO. 2 ENGINE l.b LlTREI "~ GVN 0 KG REL. HUM. fb.S PCT MEASUREO FUEL 0.00 KG PUN DURATION 12.7b MINUTES BLOHER INLET PRESS, b73.1 MM. HSO BLOHER DIF. PRESS. b73.1 MM HSO BLOHER INLET TEMP. *2 OEG. C DYNO REVOLUTIONS 23S8b BLOHER REVOLUTIONS blS7? BLOHER CU. CM /REV. 2830 BAG RESULTS MC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 38.b/3 HC SAMPLE PPM 39 hC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 35.3/? HC BACKGRD PPM 35 CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE b.3/» CO SAMPLE. PPM b CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE .2/* CO BACKGRD PPM 0 C02 sample METER READING/SCALE b8.5/3 COS sample PERCENT 1.23 COS BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 3.3/3 C02 BACKGRD PERCENT .05 NOX sample METER READING/SCALE Sb.»/2 NOX sample PPM Sb.» NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE • b/2 NOX BACKGRD PPM .b HC CONCENTRATION PPM 7 CO CONCENTRATION PPM b COS CONCENTRATION PCT 1 . IS NOX CONCENTRATION PPM S5.S S02 COCENTRATI ON PPM 0.0 HC MASS (GRAMS) CO MASS (GRAMS) .7b C02 MASS (GRAMS) 2517.** NOX MASS (GRAMS) 20.50 S02 MASS (GRAMS) 0.00 HC GRAMS/KIL0METRE .03 CO GRAMS/KIlOMETRE .05 CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 153 NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.2* 302 6RAMS/KIL0METRE 0.00 HC GRAMS/^G OF FUEL .55 HC GRAMS/MIN .03 CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.0 CO GRAMS/MIN .1 COS grams/kg OF FUEL 31 bb COS GRAMS/MIN IS? NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL S5. 78 NOX GRAMS/MIN l.bl SOS GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00 SOS GRAMS/MIN 0.00 CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONUMY = b.SH LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS image: ------- UNIT NO. hSIl VEHICLE MODEL TEST NU. VN RABBIT GAS TABLE E-68 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1*75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST 3 75 FTP DATE 1/ 3/77 MFGR. CODE -0 ENGINE 1.5LITRE » CURB wT. 88* KG YR. GVM 1S 7 7 0 KG BAROMETER 7*2.SS MM OF hG. DRY BULB IEMP. ?5.0 DEG. C REL. HUM 10 IT Y 3b ?CT. MET BULB TEMP lS.b DEG C ABS. HUMIDITY 7.2 GRAMS/KG EXHAUSl EMISSIONS BLOWER OIF. CRESS., BAG RESULTS D I (T> vO G?, b 7 3.1 MM. HJO BLOWER inlet PRESS., G1 b?3.1 MM. H20 BLOHER INLET TEMP. *1 DEG. C SAG NO. 1 ? 3 BLOWER REVOLUTIONS tObtb b9510 f ObH 5 HC sample ME TER READING/SCALE ?S.l/? 18.2/2 *1.7/2 HC sample PPM 25 18 SU HC hackgrd METER READING/SCALE 11.S/2 12.8/? 11.5/2 HC BACKG'D PPM 1? 13 11 CO SAMPLc METKR REAUING/SCale bt.U/* 5S.5/« 78.2/* CO SAMPLE PPM b? 57 351 CO backgrd ME TE« READINU/SCALE 1.1/* • b/* .?/* CO 6ACKGRD PPM 1 1 2 CO? SAMPLE MtTER READING/SCALE 50.0/3 38.1/3 53.0/3 CO? SAMPLE PE.RCEI *4 T .87 .b image: ------- UNIT NO. hSO VEHICLE aUDEL TEST NO. VH RABBIT GaS TABLE E-69 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS 1975 LIGHT DOTY EMISSIONS TEST 3 FTP cold qaTE 1/ 3/77 MFGR. CODE -0 ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB WT. 8B* KG YR. GVM 1977 0 KG BAROMETER 7*2.95 DRY BULB TEMP. REL. HUMIDIT1 mm OF hG. 55.0 DEG. 3b PC T . WET BULB TEMP 15.b DEG. C ABS. HUHIOITY 7.8 GRAMS/KG W I --J O JST EMISSIONS BLOWER INLET PRESS. BLOWER DlF. PRESS., G2/ b?3.1 MM. H20 BLOWER INLET temp. BAG RESULTS A AG NO. 1 2 3 BLOWER REVOLUTIONS *0b*b b9510 *0b*b HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 25.1/2 18.2/2 25.1/2 HC SAMPLE PPM 25 18 25 HC uackgko METER READING/SCALE 11.9/2 12.8/2 11.9/2 HC BACKGKD PPM 12 13 12 CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE b*.0/* 59.5/* b*.0/* CO SAMPLE PPM bS 57 b2 CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 1.1/* .b/* 1.1/* CO BACKGRD PPM 1 1 1 C02 SAMPLE METE* READING/SCALE 50.0/3 38.1/3 SO.0/3 C02 sample PERCEN IT .87 .b* .87 C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 3.1/3 3.*/3 3.1/3 coe BACKGRD PERCENT .05 .05 .05 NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 38.1/2 12 . */2 38.1/2 NO* SAMPLE PPM 38.1 12.* 38.1 NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE . */2 • */2 • */2 NO* BACKGRD PPM .* .* .* S02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE -0.0/* -0.0/* -0.0/* S02 SAMPLE PPM -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 S02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE -0.0/* -0.0/* -0.0/* so? BACKGRD PPM -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 *1 DEC. C HC CONCENTRATION PPM 1* b 1* CO CONCENTRATION PPM 59 55 59 C02 CONCENTRATION PC T .82 .59 .82 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 37.7 12.0 37.7 S02 CONCENTRATION PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 HC MASS GRAMS . b2 • * b . b2 CO MASS GRAMS 5.29 8.** 5.29 C02 MASS GRAMS lib*•*B 1*35.10 lib*.*8 NOX MASS GRAMS *.98 2.71 *.98 S02 MASS GRAMS 0.00 ~ .00 0.00 WEIGHTED HASS HC WEIGHTED MASS CO WEIGHTED MASS C02 wEIGnTED MASS NOX WEIGHTED MASS 502 .09 GRAMS/KILOMtTRE 1.1* GRAMS/KILOMETRE 215.*2 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .b* GRAMS/KILOMETRE O.0U GRAMS/KILOMETRE CAR8UN BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION s 9.27 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES TOTAL CVS FlUN = 285.b STU. CU. METRES image: ------- UNIT MO. KSU VEHICLE MUOEL TEST MO. VH RABBIT gas TABLE E-70 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS IS75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST 3 FTP Hot DATE 1/ 3/77 MFGR. CODE -0 ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB WT. 88* KG YR. liVM IS 7 7 0 KG BAROMETER 7HJ.SS mm OF HG. DRY BULrt IEMP. 2*.* OEG. C REL. HUMIDITY 32 PCT. HET BULB TEMP 1H.H DEG. C ABS. HUMIDITY b.2 GRAMS/KG EXHAUS? EMISSIONS BLUrftiR DIP. PRESS RAG RESULTS BAG NO. BLOhER REVOLUTIONS HC SAMPLE METER HC SAMPLE PPM HC BACKGRO METER HC oACKGRD PPM CO SAMPLt METER CO SAMPLE PPM CO bACKGKU METER CO flaCKG«L) PPM CO? SAMPLt METER CO? SAMPLE PERCE COS BACKG«D METER CO? BACKGRO PERCE NOX SAMPLE METER NOX SAMPLE PPM NOX BACKGhD METER NOX dACKGRO PPM SOS SAMPLE SO? SAMPLE SO? H I •-J , G?. bbS.5 MM. H?0 REAUING/SCALE READING/SCALE READING/SCALE REAlMNG/SCALE READING/SCAlE NT READING/SCALE NT READING/SCALE BLOWER INLET PRESS., G1 bbS.S MM. H?0 BLOHER INLET TEMP. HI OEG. C READING/SCALE READING/SCALE BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE METER PPM SO? BACKGRD PPM I H0bH5 HS.7/2 so il.S/2 II 78.2/* 351 .7/* 2 53.0/3 .S3 3.H/3 .OS HO.b/2 10.b .b/2 .b -0.0/* -0.0 -O.P/* -0.0 2 bS 7 8 3 I7.S/2 18 12.0/2 12 70.S/* bS .7/* 2 38.S/3 .bb 2.b/3 • OH 12.H/2 12.H .H/2 • H -0.0/* -0.0 -o.o/* -0.0 3 H0bH5 HS.7/2 SO ll.S/2 11 78.2/* 351 .7/* 2 53.0/3 .13 3.H/3 .05 HO.b/2 HO.b .b/2 .b -0.0/* -0.0 -0.0/* -0.0 HC CONCENTRATION PPM 3S b 3S CO CONCENTRATION PPM 33S bb 33S CU2 CONCENTRATION PCT .88 . b2 .88 NOX CONCENTRATION PPM HO.O 12.0 HO.O SO? CONCENTRATION PPh 0.0 0.0 0.0 HC MASS GRAMS 1.73 .SO 1.73 CO MASS GRAhS 30.HI 10.11 30.HI CO? MASS GRAMS 12H ?.H 7 1507.27 12H2.H7 NOX MASS GRAMS S.1H 2. bS S.1H S02 MASS GRAHS 0.00 0.00 0.00 WEIGHTED MASS WEIGHTED MASS WcIGHTED ma33 WE IGhTEO MASS WEIGnTEO MASS HC .18 CO 3.3b C02 227.8b NOX .bS S02 o.no GRAMS/KILOMETRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE GRAMS/KILOMETRE car30n balanle fuel consumpiion = s.sb litres per hunoreo kilometres total CVS Flow S ?8b.H STD. CU. METRES image: ------- TABLE E-71 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMBER b50 DATE 1/ 3/?? MOOEL 1177 V« RABbIT CAS DRIVER OT NET BULH TEMP l* C SPEC. HUM. s.b GRAM/KG TIME -0 HRS. SET-? TEST NT. lOSl) KG. DRY BULB TEMP S«f C bARO. 7H3.2 MM HG. TEST NO. 3 ENGINE l.b LITRE * GVh 0 KG REL. HUM. 28.S PCT MEASURED FUEL O.OO KG RUN DURATION BLOWER INLET PRESS. b?3.1 BLOwER DIF. PRESS. b?3.1 BLOWER INLET TEMP. DYNO REVOLUTIONS PLUrtER REVOLUTIONS BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 23.30 MINUTES MM. H20 MM H20 HI DEG. C 312b9 112*00 3227 BAG RESULTS HC sample meter reaoing/scale 17.7/2 nC SAMPLE PPM 1 image: ------- 'ABLE E-72 EXHAUST EM13SI0NS FROM 3 INGLE BAG SAMPLE VEHICLE NUMflF.H bSO OATE 1- 3/7? MODEL i977 Vrt RABBIT GAS ORIVEP OT WET BW.S TEMP ih C SPEC. mjM. b.O GRAM/KG TIME -0 HNS. FET TEST NT. 1020 KG. ORY BULB TEMP ?S C BARO. 713.2 MM HG. TE3T NO. 3 ENGINE l.b LITRE * GVtt U KG REL. HUM. 29.8 PCT MEASURED FUEL 0.00 RUN DURATION BLO«ES INLET PRESS. b?3.l BLOKES OIF. PRESS. b?3.l BLO*E« INLET TEMP. DYNO EVOLUTIONS BLO«E* REVOLUTIONS BLO«E» CU. CM /REV. 12.7b MINUTES MM. H20 MM H20 ¥0 DEC. C 23900 bl52S 2225 BAG oeSULTS HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 23.3/2 HC sample PPM 23 HC 4ACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 1°.5/2 NC 3ACKGR0 PPM IS CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE H . 8/* CO SAMPLE PPM S cu dACKGKD METER REDOING/SCALE 1.7/* CO BACKGHD PPM 2 C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE b8.4/3 CO? sample PERCENT 1.23 C02 BACKG«ro METER READING/&CALE 3.3/3 C02 0ACKGRD PERCENT .05 NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 3t.9/3 NOX SAKPLE PPM 104.7 NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE .3/3 NO* rtACKGHD PPM .9 HC CONCENTRATION PPM b CO CONCENTRATION PPM 3 CO? CONCENTRATION PCT 1.19 MO* CONCENTRATION PPM 10 3.9 SO? C'tCENTHAT ION PPM 0.0 HC MASS (UKArfS) .38 CO MASS (GRAMS) .HI CO? MASS (GRAMS) 2SH b.bO NOX MASS (GRAMS) 20.07 SO? MASS (GRAHS) U.00 HC «;«AmS/KIj.OMETRE .02 CO GRAKS/KILOHETRE .02 CO? G^AMS/KILUMETRE 1SS NOX G«AMS/KILOMETRE 1.22 SO? GrtAMS/KILUMETRE 0.00 HC GHAMS/KG OF FUEL •*7 CO G*AmS/KG OF FUEL .5 C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b7 NOX G^AriS/KG OF FUEL 2*.9b SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.OO CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY s HC GRaMS/MIN .03 CO GRAMS/MlN .0 C02 GRAMS/MIN ?00 NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.57 S02 GRAMS/min 0.00 b.bl LITRES PER HUNDREO KILOMETERS image: ------- APPENDIX F UNREGULATED EMISSIONS FOR FOUR LD VEHICLES image: ------- TABLE F-l. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SMOKE OPACITY RECORDED DURING 1975 FTP WITH TWO DIESEL POWERED CARS Olds Cutlass VW Rabbit Smoke Condition Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Avg. Run 1 Run 2 Avg. Cold Start, Peak % 19.2 18.0 11.7 16.3 70.0 75.7 72.9 Cold Idle, Avg. % (after start) 4.2 5.5 3.5 4.4 6.0 3.0 4.5 1st Accel, Peak % (after cold idle) 23.8 21.5 18.8 21.4 7.8 7.0 7.4 Idle at 125 Sec. Avg.% 5.7 5.5 4.5 5.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 Accel at 164 Sec.Peak % to 90.1 km/hr (56mph) 19.0 24.2 14.9 19.4 34.7 44.0 39.4 Hot Start, Peak % 8.8 6.7 7.8 28.0 26.8 27.4 Hot Idle, Avg. % (after start) 4.3 3.9 4.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 1st Accel, Peak % (after hot idle) 5.9 9.0 7.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Idle at 125 Sec. Avg. % (during final 505 sec) 4.6 4.0 4.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Accel at 164 Sec. Peak% to 90.1 km/hr (56mph) (during final 505 sec) 17.0 16.2 16.6 34.3 41.0 37.7 F-2 image: ------- TABLE F-2.SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SMOKE OPACITY RECORDED DURING SULFATE EMISSION TEST CYCLE WITH TWO DIESEL POWERED CARS Olds Cutlass VW Rabbit Smoke Condition Run 1 Run 2 Avg. 5.6 Run 1 Run 2 Avg. Hot Start, Peak % 6.0 7.2 38.7 N.D. 38.7 Idle, Avg. % (after start) 3.8 3.9 3.9 0.1 0.3 0.2 1st Accel, Peak % to 26.1 km/hr 9.8 6.7 8.3 3.3 5.3 4. 3 Accel at 189 sec, Peak from 16.1 km/hr to 90.9 km/hr % 15.0 13.4 15.2 6.0 5.3 5.7 Accel at 527 sec, Peak from 0 km/hr to 57.1 km/hr % 4.7 14.8 9.8 14.0 27.4 20.7 Accel at 638 sec, Peak from 15.6 km/hr to 91.7 km/hr % 11.3 11.3 11.3 6.3 4.5 5.4 Accel at 944 sec, Peak from 22.5 km/hr to 90.9 km/hr % 8.0 6. 5 7.3 4.0 8.0 6.0 TABLE F-3.SUMMARY OF HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY EXHAUST SMOKE i TEST CYCLE WITH OPACITY RECORDED DURING TWO DIESEL POWERED CARS Olds Cutlass VW Rabbit Smoke condition Run 1 Run 2 Avg. Run 1 Run 2 Avg Hot Start, Peak % 6.0 11.0 8.5 46.5 27.5 37. Idle, Avg.,% (after start) 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.4 0.3 0. 1st Accel, Peak % to 79.6 km/hr 9.0 10.0 9.5 5.0 5.0 5. Accel, Peak % to 94.9 km/hr 9.8 13.0 11.4 5.2 6.5 5. image: ------- TABLE F-4.PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES 1977 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS DIES'EL Test Date Run Particulate Rate g_ hr kg fuel g km 52. hr Sulfate Rate mg (2) kg fuel 52. km as % S in fuel 1975 FTP ^ ^ 10/26/76 10/27/76 10/28/76 Average 1 2 3 17.382 17.272 19.330 17.995 6.074 6.042 6.792 6.303 0. 5bJ 0. 550 0.616 0.573 320.000 306.005 313.003 111.126 106.118 108.622 10.185 9.739 9.962 1.61 1.54 1.57 FTP, FTP, i SET 10/26/76 1 19.917 6.529 0.634 405.527 132.9 12.907 1.93 10/27/76 2 19.559 6.406 0.622 397.880 130.4 12.664 1.89 10/28/76 3 20.745 6.808 0.661 Average 20.074 6.581 0.628 401.703 131.6 12.786 1.91 10/26/76 1 15.469 5.732 0.492 255.480 94. 7 8.132 1.37 10/27/76 2 15.546 5.767 0.495 236.697 87.8 7.533 1.27 10/28/76 3 18.263 6.781 0.582 Average 16.426 6.093 0.523 246.088 91.2 7.832 1.32 10/26/76 1 20.089 4.848 0.359 576.544 90.0 10.301 1.30 10/27/76 2 19.932 4.807 0.356 579.441 90. 4 10.350 1.31 10/28/76 3 20.453 4.929 0.365 — Average 20.158 4.861 0.360 577.992 90. 2 10.326 1.30 FET 10/26/76 10/27/76 10/28/76 Average 22.269 24.386 22.575 23.077 4.526 4.935 4.573 4.678 0.288 0.314 0.291 0.298 711.882 612.880 662.381 144. 2 124.2 134.2 9.179 7.903 8.541 2.09 1.80 1.94 (1) 1975 FTP = 0.43 FTPC + 0.57 FTPh (2) Based on average fuel consumption FTPC = 11.46 Z/100 km FTPh = 10.13 Z/100 km SET = 8.74 1/100 km FET = 7.51 Z/100 km image: ------- TABLE f-5.PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Gasoline Particulate Rates Sulfate Rates mg mg as % S Test Date Run mg/hr kg fuel(^) mg/km mg/hr kg fuel*2' mg/km in fuel 1975 FTPU) 12/20/76 1 132. 78 9. 55 1. 08 .. 12/21/76 2 197.76 57.43 6. 43 34.038 10.081 1. 065 1. 416 12/22/76 3 294.43 82.66 9. 37 52.900 15.985 1.682 1.762 Average 208.32 49. 88 5.63 43.469 13.033 1.373 1.589 FTP Cold 12/20/76 1 51.84 14. 04 1.65 12/21/76 2 270.20 73.18 8.60 2. 376 0.646 0. 076 0. 069 12/22/76 3 468. 14 126.78 14. 90 2.577 0.697 0. 082 0.075 Average 263.39 71.33 8. 38 2.476 0.672 0.079 0.072 FT P Hot 12/20/76 1 193.85 6.17 0.65 _ _ • _ 12/21/76 2 143.14 45. 56 4.80 57.907 17.200 1. 812 1.849 12/22/76 3 163.38 49.36 5. 20 90.875 27.519 2.889 2.959 Average 166.79 33. 70 3. 55 74.391 22.360 2.351 2.404 SET 12/20/76 1 330.30 67. 56 5. 90 - _ _ _ — m 12/21/86 2 663.40 135.69 11. 85 542.050 110.647 9.663 11.897 12/22/76 3 638.20 130.54 11. 40 913.911 186.930 16.325. 20.100 Average 543.97 111. 26 9.72 727.980 148.789 12.994 15.999 FET 12/ 20/76 1 418. 78 71.43 5. 40 _ _ 12/21/76 2 523.48 89. 29 6. 75 1023.125 174.510 13.192 18. 764 12/22/76 3 2225.78 379.66 28. 70 864.038 147.379 11.141 15.847 Average 1056.01 181.13 13.62 943.582 160.944 12.167 17.306 (1)1975 FT P = 0. 43 FT Pc + 0. 57 FTPh (2)Based on average fuel consumption: FT Pc = 15.92 1/1 00 km FT Ph = 14.27 1/ 100 km SET = 11. 83 1/ 1 00 km FET = 10. 24 1/ 100 km image: ------- TAilLE F-6.PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES 1977 VW RABBIT DIESEL Test Date Run Particulate Rate 2_ hr T2r kg fuel g km IDS. hr mg Sulfate Rate U) kg fuel mg km as % S in fuel 1975 FTP(1) 11/29/76 11/30/76 12/1/76 Average 5.934 5.707 5. 387 5.676 4.109 3.932 3.751 3.930 0.189 0.186 0.172 0.182 115.645 114.833 115.239 79.859 79.076 79.468 3.681 3.644 3.662 1.15 1.33 1.24 FTP, 11/29/76 11/30/76 12/1/76 Average 6.284 7.024 5.747 6. 352 4.192 4.675 3.836 4.234 0.200 0.223 0.183 0.202 137.884 139.062 138.473 92 .0 92 .3 92 .2 4.388 4.402 4.395 1.33 1. 34 1.34 FTP>. I ffi 11/29/76 11/30/76 12/1/76 Average 5.671 4.714 5.116 5.167 4.046 3. 372 3.687 3.702 0.180 0.150 0.164 0.165 98.868 96.555 97.712 70 .7 69 .1 69.9 3.147 3.073 3.110 1.02 1.00 1.02 SET 11/29/76 11/30/76 12/1/76 Average 9.106 9.210 9.241 9.186 4.266 4.082 4.318 4.222 0.163 0.156 0.165 0.161 262.534 225.837 244.186 122 .7 105.6 114.2 4.690 4.034 4.362 1.78 1.53 1.66 FET 11/29/76 11/30/76 12/1/76 Average 1 2 3 12.095 11.923 12.511 12.176 4.194 4.140 4.355 4.230 0.156 0.154 0.162 0.157 299.797 307.309 303.553 103 .9 106.5 105 .2 3.866 3.962 3.914 1.50 1.54 1.52 (1) 1975 FTP = 0.43 FTP„ + 0.57 FTP, Based on average fuel consumption FTPC = 5.63 A/100 km FTPh = 5.2 5 A/100 km FET =4.51 A/100 km SET =4.39 A/100 km image: ------- TABLE f-7.PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES 1977 VW Rabbit Gasoline i -j Particulate Rates Sulfate Rates mg mg as % S Test Date Run mg/hr kg fuel(2) mg/km mg/hr kg fuel(2) mg/km in fuel 1975 FTPt1) 12/20/76 1 118.29 52. 02 3. 76 .. __ __ 12/21/76 2 -- - 0.70 0.318 0. 022 0. 034 12/22/76 3 148.44 65. 53 4.72 1.88 0.835 0.060 0. 090 Average 133.36 58. 78 4. 24 1.29 0.576 0.041 0.062 FTP Cold 12/20/76 1 182. 23 79. 28 5.80 • — _ - _ _ 12/21/76 2 97.40 42.37 3.10 0.391 0. 178 0.013 0. 019 12/22/76 3 186.94 81. 33 5.95 1.408 0.615 0.045 0. 066 Average 155.52 67.66 4.95 0.900 0.396 0.029 0. 043 FTP Hot 12/20/76 1 70.06 31. 46 2. 23 _ _ - _ - • • 12/21/76 2 0.937 0. 423 0.030 0. 045 12/22/76 3 119.39 53. 62 3.80 2. 233 1.001 0.071 0. 108 Average 94.72 42. 54 3.01 1.585 0. 712 0.051 0.076 SET 12/20/76 1 83.97 27. 35 1.50 - _ • — .. _ 12/21/76 2 33.59 10.94 0.60 59.117 19.252 1.056 2.070 12/22/76 3 97.97 31.90 1. 75 55.561 18.086 0.992 1.947 Average 71.84 23. 40 1.28 57.339 18.669 1.024 2.009 FET 12/20/76 1 46.53 12.45 0.60 • «• 12/21/76 2 217.685 58.229 2.807 6.261 12/22/76 3 193. 88 51. 86 2.50 244.259 65.334 3.150 7.026 Average 120. 20 32.16 1.55 230.972 61.782 2.979 6. 644 U)i975 FTP = 0. 43 FTPc + 0. 57 FTPh (2)]3a8ed on average fuel consumption: FTPc = FTP h = SET = FET = 9. 91 1/100 km 9.60 1/100 km 7.43 1/100 km 6. 53 1/100 km image: ------- TABLE F-8. COMPARISON OF ODOR PANEL RATINGS VEHICLE: Oldsmobile Diesel Car Operating Dilution "D" "B" "O" "A" «ip it Condition Date Ratio Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Punqe Inter Speed 11/29/76 100:1 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 0 Load 12/01/76 100:1 2.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 Average 100:1 2.5 1.0 1.0 0. 6 0.3 12/03/76 550:1 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 0 inter Speed 11/29/76 100:1 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 Mid Load 12/01/76 100:1 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.5 Average 100:1 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 12/03/76 550:1 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 Inter Speed 11/29/76 100:1 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 High Load 12/01/76 100:1 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.4 Average 100:1 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 12/03/76 550:1 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0 High Speed 11/29/76 100:1 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0 Load 12/01/76 100:1 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.7 Average 100:1 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 12/03/76 550:1 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 High Speed 11/29/76 100:1 3.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 Hid Load 12/01/76 100:1 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.8 Average 100:1 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7 12/03/76 550:1 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 0 High Speed 11/29/76 100:1 3.5 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7 High Load 12/01/76 100:1 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 Average 100:1 3.3 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 12/03/76 550:1 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 Idle 11/29/76 100:1 3.8 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.6 12/01/76 100:1 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 Average 100:1 3.4 1.2" 1.0 0.8 0.6 12/03/76 550:1 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0 Idle-Accel 11/29/76 100:1 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 12/01/76 100:1 2.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 Average 100:1 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 12/03/76 550:1 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 Acceleration 11/29/76 100:1 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 12/01/76 100:1 2.6 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 Average 100:1 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 12/03/76 550:1 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 Deceleration 11/29/76 100:1 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 12/01/76 100:1 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 Average 100:1 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 12/03/76 550:1 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 Cold Start 11/29/76 100:1 4.9 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.7 12/01/76 100:1 3.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.9 Average 100:1 4.0 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.8 12/03/76 550: 1 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.2 F-8 image: ------- TABLE F-9. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Vehicle: Oldsraobile Diesel Cor Dilution Ratio H O O H Date: November 29, 1976 Run Operating "D" "B" "O" "A" "p" No. Condition Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungent 9 Inter Speed 3.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 14 0 Load 2.6 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.1 19 2.6 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 or ITo O" 0.6 O" 1 Inter Speed 4.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 8 Mid-Load 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 18 -LJ -LA -2x3 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 5 Inter Speed 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 12 High Load 3.6 l.i 1.0 0.9 0.7 20 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 3 High Speed 3.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 11 0 Load 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 21 3.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 4 High Speed 4.3 1.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 13 Mid-Load 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 17 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.4 3.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 7 High Speed 3.9 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.6 10 High Load 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.9 16 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.6 3.5 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7 2 Idle 4.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.7 6 3.4 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.6 15 3.9 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.6 3.8 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.6 22 Idle-Accel 2.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 27 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 31. 2.6 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 33. 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.4 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 23 Accel 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 26 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 29 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 32 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 24 Decel 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 25 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 28 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 30 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 Cold Start 4.9 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.7 F-9 image: ------- TABLE F-10. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Vehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car Date: December 1, 1976 Dilution Ratio: 100:1 Run Operating "D" "B" "O" hA" Ho. Condition Composite Burnt Oily Arooat] 3 Inter Speed 2.2 1.0 0.9 0.4 8 0 Load 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.6 13 2.1 1.0 0.9 0.4 2.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 4 Inter Speed 2.2 1.0 0.9 0.4 14 Mid-Load 2.3 0.9 1.0 0.3 21 2.4 1.0 0.9 0.3 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.3 2 Inter Speed 2.4 1.0 1.0 0.3 10 High Load 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.3 17 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.6 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.4 1 High Speed 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.4 11 0 Load 2.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 19 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.6 5 High Speed 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 9 Mid-Load 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 18 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.4 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.4 6 High Speed 3.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 12 High Load 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 15 2.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 3.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 7 Idle 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.3 16 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 20 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 22 Idle-Accel 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.3 24 2.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 28 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 33 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.7 2.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 23 Accel 2.1 1.0 0.9 0.4 26 2.6 1.0 1.0 0.6 29 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 32 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.4 2.6 1.0 1.0 0.6 25 Decel 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 27 2.1 1.0 1.0 0. 3 30 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.7 31 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.4 2.6 1.0 1.0 0.5 tipn Punqant 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 Cold Start 3.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.9 F-10 image: ------- TABLE F-ll. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Vehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car Dilution Ratio: 550:1 Date: December 3, 1976 Run Operating "D" "B" "O" "A" "P" No. Condition Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungent 9 Inter Speed 1.0 1.0 0.2 0 0 14 0 Load 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.5 0 19 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.3 0 m 0.8 0.2 0.3 0 1 Inter Speed 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 8 Mid-Load 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 18 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 0 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 5 Inter Speed 0.8 0.8 0.3 0 0 12 High Load 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0 20 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.3 0 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0 3 High Speed 0.8 0.7 0.3 0 0 11 0 Load 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.2 0 21 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 0 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 4 High Speed 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 13 Mid-Load 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.4 0 17 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.3 0 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 0 7 High Speed 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 10 High Load 0.9 0.9 0.2 0 0 16 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 2 Idle 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.2 0 6 0.8 0.8 0.3 0 0 15 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.3 0 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0 22 Idle-Accel 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.2 0 27 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.2 31 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.2 0 33 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.2 0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 23 Accel 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.2 0 26 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0 29 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0 32 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.2 0 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 24 Decel 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 25 1.2 1.0 0.4 0.2 0 28 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0 30 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0 T71 0.9 0.5 075 0.1 Cold Start 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.2 F-ll image: ------- TABLE F-12. COMPARISON OF ODOR PANEL RATINGS VEHICLE: VW Rabbit Operating Dilution "D" "B" "0" "A" tipu Condition Date Ratio Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Punqen Inter Speed 12/13/76 100:1 3.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0 Load 12/15/76 100:1 2.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 Average 100:1 2.8 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 12/17/76 550:1 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 0 Inter Speed 12/13/76 100:1 3.1 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 Mid Load 12/15/76 100:1 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 Average 100:1 2.8 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.6 12/17/76 550:1 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 Inter Speed 12/13/76 100:1 3.5 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.8 High Load 12/15/76 100:1 3.1 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.7 Average 100:1 3.3 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.8 12/17/76 550:1 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 High Speed 12/13/76 100:1 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.3 0 Load 12/15/76 100:1 2.2 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 Average 100:1 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 12/17/76 550:1 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 High Speed 12/13/76 100:1 3.8 1.3 1.0 0.6 1.0 Mid Load 12/15/76 100:1 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.8 Average 100:1 3.5 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.9 12/17/76 550:1 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 High Speed 12/13/76 100:1 3.8 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 High Load 12/15/76 100:1 3.7 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 Avorage 100:1 3.8 1.2 1.1 0.8 • 0.9 12/17/76 550:1 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 0 idle 12/13/76 100:1 3.7 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 12/15/75 100:1 3.4 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7 Average 100:1 3.6 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 12/17/76 550:1 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 Idle-Accel 12/13/76 100 il 3.4 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.1 12/15/76 100:1 3.5 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 Average 100:1 3.5 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.0 12/17/76 550:1 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.1 Acceleration 12/13/76 100:1 3.6 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.8 12/15/76 100:1 3.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.9 Average 100:1 3.7 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.9 12/17/76 550:1 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 Deceleration 12/13/76 100:1 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 12/15/76 100:1 3.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 Average 100:1 3.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 12/17/76 550: 1 0.9 0.8 0. 3 0.3 0.1 Cold Start 12/13/76 100:1 4.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 12/15/76 100:1 3.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.7 Average 100:1 4.0 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 12/17/76 550:1 2.4 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 F-12 image: ------- TABLE F-13. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Vehicle: VW Rabbit Diesel Car Date: December 13, 1976 Dilution Ratio: 100«1 Run Operating i'D" "B" "0" "A" No. Condition Composite Burnt OiljL Arocnat 9 Inter Speed 3.3 1.2 1.0 0.7 14 0 Load 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 19 2.7 1.0 0.8 0.5 3.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 1 Inter Speed 3.7 1.3 1.0 1.0 8 Mid-Load 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.3 18 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 3.1 1.1 1.0 0.7 5 Inter Speed 3.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 12 High Load 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.7 20 3.5 1.2 1.0 0.3 3.5 1.1 1.0 0.7 3 High Speed 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.3 11 0 Load 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.7 21 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.3 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.4 4 High Speed 4.5 1.5 1.0 0.8 13 Mid-Load 4.0 1.3 1.0 0.7 17 3.0 1.2 1.0 0.3 3.8 1.3 1.0 0.6 7 High Speed 4.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 10 High Load 3.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 16 3.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 3.8 1.2 1.1 0.9 2 Idle 3.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 6 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 15 4.2 1.3 1.0 0.8 3.7 1.1 0.9 0.9 22 Idle-Accel 3.7 1.2 1.0 0.7 24 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 28 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 33 3.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 3.4 1.1 1.0 0.7 23 Accel 3.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 26 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 29 3.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 32 3.8 1.3 1.0 0.7 3.6 1.2 1.0 0.8 25 Decel 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 27 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 30 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 31 3.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 Cold Start 4.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 npn Pungent 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.7 o.e 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.0 F-13 image: ------- TABLE F -14. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Vehicle: VW Rabbit Diesel Car Dilution Ratio: 100:1 Date: December 15, 1976 Run Operating "D" "B" "0" -A" HpM No. Condition Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungtnl 7 Inter Spqrjd 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 11 0 Load 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 18 1.4 0.6 0.6 0^ 2.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 5 inter Speed 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 8 Mid-Load 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 21 Juufl U2 aa Qui 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 1 Inter Speed 3.4 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.7 13 High Load 7.7 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.6 17 1x1 JL& 0.6 2x1 3.1 l.l 1.0 0.5 0.7 3 High Speed 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 14 0 Load 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.1 16 2x1 Ixfi Ixfi 2x4 SUX 2.2 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 2 High Speed 3.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.9 12 Mid-Load 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 19 iui l^L Ixfi 2xi 2x2 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.8 6 High Speed 3.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 9 High Load 3.4 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.9 20 ia Sx2 3x2. 3.7 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 4 Idle 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.9 10 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.3 15 4x1 lxi. LA. 2x2 lx£ 3.4 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7 23 Idle-Accel 3.3 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.9 25 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.9 27 3.6 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.9 30 lx£ U1 2x2 2x2 3.5 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 24 Accel 3.4 1.1 0.9 0.6 1.0 26 3.7 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.9 29 4.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.9 31 XJ. LA. 1x0 sua. 0x2 3.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.9 22 Decel 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 28 3.? ' .1 0.9 0.9 0.9 12 3.4 .0 1.0 0.9 0.9 33 UL -JL u: 0x2 3.3 1.1 1.0 U.8 0.7 Cold start 3.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.7 F-14 image: ------- TABLE F-15. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Vehicle: VW Rabbit Date: December 17, 1976 Dilution Ratio: 550:1 Run No. 4 9 14 Operating Condition Inter Speed 0 Load "C" Composite 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.9 "B" Burnt 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.7 "O" Oily 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 "A" Aromatic 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Mp«l Pungent 0 0 0 0 8 13 16 Inter Speed Mid-Load 0.9 1.7 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 2 10 20 Inter Speed High Load 0.8 2.6 0.6 1.3 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.3 O.o 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0 0.1 1 18 21 High Speed 0 Load 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 3 7 19 High Speed 'lid-Load 0.8 1.4 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.1 O" 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 6 12 15 High Speed High Load 1.3 1.8 0.8 1.3" 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.1 03 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0 0 5 u 17 Idle 1.0 1.9 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0 0.1 24 26 29 32 Idie-Aceel 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 22 25 28 31 Accel 1.7 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.2 23 27 30 33 Decel 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.6 oTS 0.9 0.6 3.9 0 6 0.8 .3 0.4 0. 3 0.1 O 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0^ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 oTT CoId Start 2.4 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 F-15 image: ------- TABLE F-16. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSION Oldsmobile Diesel Car NDIR CL DQAS Results Operating HC. CO, co2. NO. NO, NO* LCA, LOO, Air Flow Condition Date PPnK- EE® J PF» PP"» EE® uq/t uq/e TIA kg/min Inter Speed 11/29/76 119 330 1.9 103 82 82 14.3 6.7 1.8 0.61 0 Load 12/01/76 149 3 30 2.1 63 — 13.6 5.3 1.7 0.61 Average 134 330 2.0 83 82 82 14.0 6.0 l.B 0.61 12/03/76 14H 297 2.1 86 76 76 0.59 3-day Avg 139 319 2.0 84 79 79 0.60 Inter Speed 11/29/76 87 302 4.6 214 177 177 16.7 6.1 1.8 0.61 Mid-Load 12/01/76 107 311 4.8 187 15.4 5.9 1.8 0.62 Average 97 307 4.7 201 177 177 16.1 6.0 1.8 0.62 12/03/76 111 283 4.7 194 173 173 0.60 3-day Avg 102 299 4.7 198 175 175 0.61 Inter Speed 11/29/76 80 339 6.8 276 221 221 13.6 5.1 1.7 0.62 High Load 12/01/76 88 311 6.9 221 15.3 6.1 1.8 0.62 Average 84 325 6.9 249 221 221 14.5 5.6 1.8 0.62 12/03/76 105 297 7.3 256 222 222 0.63 3-day Avg 91 316 7.0 251 222 222 0.62 High Speed 11/29/76 128 359 2.3 105 80 80 14.2 6.5 1.8 0.92 0 Load 12/01/76 147 354 2.2 73 16.6 6.5 1.8 0.90 Average 138 357 2.3 89 80 80 15.4 6.5 l.B 0.91 12/03/76 167 292 2.3 85 77 77 0.89 3-day Avg 147 335 2.3 88 79 79 0.90 High Speed 11/29/76 80 339 6.4 274 232 232 13.4 5.0 1.5 0.91 Mid-Load 12/01/76 91 292 6.5 246 17.3 5.8 1.7 0.91 Average 86 316 6.5 260 232 232 15.4 5.4 1.6 0.91 12/03/76 106 292 6.6 268 230 230 0.88 3-day Avg 92 308 6.5 263 231 231 0.90 High Speed 11/29/76 77 540 10.4 305 263 263 13.2 7.2 1.9 0.91 High Load 12/01/76 92 564 10.6 270 11.1 6.9 1.8 0.91 Average 85 552 10.5 288 263 263 12.2 7.1 1.9 0.91 12/03/76 8S 539 10.9 296 263 263 0.88 3-day Avg 85 548 10.6 290 263 263 0.90 Idle 11/29/76 257 549 2.4 64 56 56 19.7 4.7 1.5 0.26 12/01/76 269 511 2.4 53 17.0 5.1 1.7 0.25 Average 263 530 2.4 59 ~56 56 18.4 4.9 1.6 0.26 12/03/76 326 502 2.4 58 53 53 0.26 3-day Av image: ------- TABLE F—17. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY ehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car ate: November 29, 1976 NDIR CL DOAS Results tun Operating HC, CO, co_, NO, NO, NOy LCA, LCO, Air Flow lo. Condition ppmC ppm % ppm ppm ppm yg/2. Vg/l TIA kg/min 9 Inter Speed 116 311 2.0 95 80 80 11.5 4.2 1.6 0.61 .4 0 Load 122 340 2.0 99 80 80 16.0 8.7 1.9 0.62 .9 120 340 1.7 115 85 85 15.3 7.2 1.9 0.60 119 330 1.9 103 82 82 14.3 6.7 1.8 0.61 1 Inter Speed 84 297 4.8 206 175 175 24.2 7.8 1.9 0.62 8 Mid Load 84 283 4.4 222 175 175 10.9 4.1 1.6 0.60 L8 94 325 4.5 214 180 180 14.9 6.4 1.8 0.61 87 302 4.6 214 177 177 16.7 6.1 1.8 0.61 5 Inter Speed 68 368 0.9 280 210 210 11.6 4.0 1.6 0.63 L2 High Load 86 325 7.0 272 230 230 10.4 3.2 1.5 0.62 >0 86 325 6.5 276 225 225 18.9 8.0 1.9 0.61 80 339 6.8 276 221 221 13.6 5.1 1.7 0.62 3 High Speed 120 368 2.2 91 75 75 14.3 5.4 1.7 0.93 LI 0 Load 132 340 2.2 95 80 80 13. 3 5.4 1.7 0.92 21 132 368 2.5 130 85 85 15.0 8.8 1.9 0.92 128 359 2.3 105 80 80 14.2 6.5 1.8 0.92 4 High Speed 78 369 6.7 280 230 230 8.3 0.6 0.8 0.91 L3 Mid Load 66 325 6.3 276 235 235 16.7 7.7 1.9 0.91 L7 96 325 6.2 267 235 235 15.2 6.8 1.8 0.90 80 339 6.4 274 232 232 13.4 5.0 1.5 0.91 7 High Speed 80 511 10.4 301 250 250 5.4 5.7 1.8 0.92 LO High Load 60 540 10.4 313 270 270 16.4 6.8 1.8 0.90 16 92 568 10.4 301 270 270 17.7 9.2 2.0 0.90 77 540 10.4 305 263 263 13.2 7.2 1.9 0.91 2 Idle 232 554 2.4 60 54 54 13.2 4.1 1.6 0.26 6 268 540 2.4 60 55 55 16.5 1.0 1.0 0.26 15 272 554 2.3 72 60 60 29.5 9.0 2.0 0.25 257 549 2.4 64 56 56 19.7 4.7 1.5 0.26 F-17 image: ------- TABLE F-18. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY Vehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car Date: December 1, 1976 NDIR DOAS Results Run Operating HC, CO, C02' NO, LCA LCO Air Flow No. Condition ppmC ppm %2 ppm yg/£ yg/£ TIA kg/min 3 Inter Speed 126 325 2.1 49 13.9 5.8 1.8 0.61 8 0 Load 168 311 2.0 68 14.5 5.5 1.7 0.61 13 152 354 2.1 72 12.5 4.6 1.7 0.62 149 330 2.1 63 13.6 5.3 1.7 0.61 4 Inter Speed 102 311 4.7 158 15.1 5.6 1.8 0.62 14 Mid Load 98 311 4.6 186 13.0 5.2 1.7 0.62 21 120 311 5.2 218 18.2 7.0 1.9 0.61 107 311 4.8 187 15.4 5.9 1.8 0.62 2 Inter Speed 96 340 7.1 202 22.3 8.4 1.9 0.62 10 High Load 88 311 6.9 226 13.2 4.6 1.7 0.62 17 80 283 6.6 235 10.3 5.3 1.7 0.63 88 311 6.9 221 15.3 6.1 1.8 0.62 1 High Speed 142 397 2.2 52 22.0 7.1 1.9 0.90 11 0 Load 152 354 2.2 76 13.9 6.0 1.8 0.91 19 148 311 2.2 91 13.9 6.3 1.8 0.89 147 354 2.2 73 16.6 6.5 1.8 0.90 5 High Speed 94 311 6.7 243 20.6 4.0 1.6 0.90 9 Mid Load 108 297 6.4 243 22.5 8.5 1.9 0.91 18 72 268 6.3 251 8.9 4.8 1.7 0.91 91 292 6.5 246 17.3 5.8 1.7 0.91 6 High Speed 140 626 11.2 259 12.9 8.2 1.9 0.90 12 High Load 72 511 10.3 276 12.0 7.6 1.9 0.91 15 64 554 10.4 276 8.5 4.9 1.7 0.92 92 564 10.6 270 11.1 6.9 1.8 0.91 7 Idle 292 540 2.5 38 17.4 4.2 1.6 0.25 16 212 454 2.3 53 13.0 4.1 1.6 0.25 20 302 540 2.4 68 20.7 7.1 1.9 0.25 269 511 2.4 53 17.0 5.1 1.7 0.25 F-18 image: ------- TABLE F-19. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY Vehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car Date: December 3, 1976 NDIR CL Run Operating HC, CO, CO- NO, NO, N°x Air Flow No. Condition ppmc EJED. % PPm EEjn EEE kg/min 9 Inter Speed 144 297 2.1 87 80 80 0.60 14 0 Load 160 297 2.1 87 75 75 0.59 19 140 297 2.1 87 72 72 0.59 148 297 2.1 86 76 76 0.59 1 Inter Speed 122 268 4.8 186 170 170 0.61 8 Mid Load 108 283 4.8 194 180 180 0.59 18 104 297 4.5 202 170 170 0.60 111 283 4.7 194 173 173 0.60 5 Inter Speed 108 283 7.5 239 220 220 0.63 12 High Load 116 311 7.0 267 220 220 0.63 20 92 297 7.4 263 225 225 0.62 105 297 7.3 256 222 222 0.63 3 High Speed 156 254 2.3 84 80 80 0.89 11 0 Load 176 283 2.2 87 75 75 0.89 21 170 340 2.4 84 80 80 0.88 167 292 2.3 85 77 77 0.89 4 High Speed 124 283 6.9 251 230 230 0.88 13 Mid Load 106 311 6.4 280 230 230 0.88 17 88 283 6.4 272 230 230 0.88 106 292 6.6 268 230 230 0.88 7 High Speed 96 511 11.4 284 270 270 0.88 10 High Load 60 597 10.8 292 260 260 0.87 16 98 511 10.6 313 260 260 0.88 85 539 10.9 296 263 263 0.88 2 Idle 310 497 2.4 52 52 52 0.26 6 284 468 2.5 64 55 55 0.26 15 384 540 2.4 57 52 52 0.26 326 502 2.4 58 53 53 0.26 F-19 image: ------- TABLE F-20. Operating HC, CO, Condition Date ppmC PEEL Inter Speed 12/13/76 90 301 0 Load 12/15/76 56 245 12/17/76 53 226 Average 66 257 Inter Speed 12/13/76 92 197 Mid Load 12/15/76 63 178 12/17/76 51 169 Average 69 181 Inter Speed 12/13/76 65 278 High Load 12/15/76 103 373 12/17/76 94 382 Average 87 344 High Speed 12/13/76 61 245 0 Load 12/15/76 49 226 12/17/76 45 221 Average 52 231 High Speed 12/13/76 137 349 Mid Load 12/15/76 161 378 12/17/76 89 282 Average 129 336 High Speed 12/13/76 109 1806 High Load 12/15/76 97 1778 12/17/76 73 2497 Average 93 2027 Idle 2/13/76 180 383 2/15/76 216 445 2/17/76 157 349 Average 184 392 COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS VW Rabbit Diesel Car NDIR CL DOAS Results co_, NO, NO, NOx LCA , LCO, Air Flow % ppm ppm ppm yg/£ Vg/Z TIA kg/min 2.0 86 73 73 8.2 3.5 1.5 1.50 2.0 53 63 63 2.4 1.7 1.2 1.46 1.9 67 58 58 1.48 2.0 69 65 65 5.3 2.6 1.4 1.48 6.6 301 262 262 19.2 5.8 1.8 1.49 6.6 292 282 282 10.0 4.4 1.7 1.51 6.0 301 266 266 1.49 6.4 298 270 270 14.6 5.1 1.8 1.50 11.9 326 325 325 15.8 6.1 1.8 1.42 12.7 301 285 285 14.8 6.2 1.8 1.43 13.0 315 277 277 1.41 12.5 314 296 296 15.3 6.2 1.8 1.42 2.4 127 107 107 9.3 3.1 1.5 2.43 2.3 104 100 100 5.8 2.5 1.4 2.44 2.3 115 98 98 2.48 2.3 115 102 102 7.6 2.8 1.5 2.45 7.7 425 385 385 26.9 7.9 1.9 2.44 7.5 386 378 378 18.8 5.7 1.8 2.52 7.4 389 357 357 2.41 7.5 400 373 373 22.9 6.8 1.9 2.46 14.2 364 328 322 24.4 10.3 2.0 2.37 13.9 346 330 330 22.5 11.1 2.0 2.39 13.6 334 315 315 2.38 13.9 348 324 322 23.5 10.7 2.0 2.38 2.2 114 93 92 8.1 3.4 1.5 0.63 2.1 82 87 87 10.5 3.7 1.6 0.61 2.1 110 93 93 0.63 2.1 102 91 91 9.3 3.6 1.6 0.62 image: ------- TABLE F-21. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY Vehicle: VW Rabbit Date: December 13, 1976 Run Operating HC, o o «» c°2» No. Condition ppmC £pm % 9 Inter Speed 104 268 2.0 14 0 Load 124 368 2.0 19 42 268 1.9 90 301 2.0 1 Inter Speed 156 183 7.2 8 Mid Load 56 197 6.4 18 64 212 6.2 92 197 6.6 5 Inter Speed 84 254 11.7 12 High Load 56 268 11.4 20 56 311 12.6 65 278 11.9 3 High Speed 56 226 2.4 11 0 Load 80 240 2.4 21 48 268 2.4 61 245 2.4 4 High Speed 168 340 7.9 13 Mid Load 136 368 7.4 17 108 340 7.7 137 349 7.7 7 High Speed 84 2229 14.1 10 High Load 140 974 13.5 16 104 2214 15.0 109 1806 14.2 2 Idle 180 397 2.2 6 112 283 2.2 15 248 468 2.2 180 383 2.2 CL DOAS Results NO, NOx LCA, LCO, Air Flc ppm ppm yg/K, \iq/i TIA kg/mir 65 65 12.7 4.7 1.7 1.52 80 80 10.2 4.0 1.6 1.49 75 75 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.50 73 73 8.2 3.5 1.5 1.50 260 260 28.2 7.6 1.9 1.49 265 265 15.1 4.6 1.7 1.45 260 260 14.4 5.1 1.7 1.52 262 262 19.2 5.8 1.8 1.49 395 395 22.1 8.1 1.9 1.41 290 290 17.8 5.3 1.7 1.42 290 290 7.6 5.0 1.7 1.42 325 325 15.8 6.1 1.8 1.42 105 105 4.6 2.4 1.4 2.48 110 110 13.7 3.0 1.5 2.40 105 105 9.5 4.0 1.6 2.40 107 107 9.3 3.1 1.5 2.43 385 385 31.2 9.5 2.0 2.47 380 380 22.5 6.2 1.8 2.47 390 390 2.39 385 385 26.9 7.9 1.9 2.44 320 310 24.3 11.2 2.1 2.35 335 330 35.9 11.8 2.1 2.37 330 325 13.0 7.9 1.9 2.39 328 322 24.4 10.3 2.0 2.37 95 95 7.6 3.3 1.5 0.64 95 95 5.6 2.7 1.4 0.62 90 85 11.2 4.1 1.6 0.63 93 92 8.1 3.4 1.5 0.63 -21 NDIR NO, PPm 76 99 84 86 318 292 292 301 334 326 318 326 130 130 122 127 425 421 430 425 343 390 360 364 119 115 107 114 F' image: ------- TABLE F-22. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY Vehicle: VW Rabbit Diesel Car Date: December 15, 1976 NDIR CL DOAS Results Run Operating HC, CO, CO., NO, NO, NOx LCA, LCO, Air Flc No. Condition ppmC ppm % ppm ppm ppm ug/«< yg/J, TIA kg/mil 7 Inter Speed 52 254 2.0 49 65 65 3.0 1.7 1.2 1.47 11 0 Load 68 268 1.9 53 65 65 2.4 1.6 1.2 1.50 18 48 212 2.0 57 60 60 1.8 1.7 1.2 1.41 56 245 2.0 53 63 63 2.4 1.7 1.2 1.46 5 Inter Speed 88 183 6.7 284 290 290 13.0 4.8 1.7 1.56 8 Mid Load 50 169 7.0 292 285 11.1 4.8 1.7 1. 50 21 50 183 6.0 301 270 270 5.9 3.6 1.6 1.48 63 178 6.6 292 282 282 10.0 4.4 1.7 1.51 1 Inter Speed 88 482 12.7 292 280 280 20.6 7.1 1.9 1.41 13 High Load 60 240 11.4 318 290 290 11.0 4.5 1.7 1.43 17 160 397 14.1 292 285 285 12.8 7.1 1.9 1.46 103 373 12.7 301 285 825 14.8 6.2 1.8 1.43 3 High Speed 56 212 2.2 107 105 105 4.8 2.5 1.4 2.45 14 0 Load 36 226 2.3 107 100 100 9.0 2.9 1.5 2.43 16 56 240 2.3 99 95 95 3.7 2.0 1.3 2.44 49 226 2.3 104 100 100 5.8 2.5 1.4 2.44 2 High Speed 160 397 7.4 360 390 390 23. 5 6.8 1.8 2.47 12 Mid Load 192 397 7.6 403 375 375 19.1 5.6 1.8 2.55 19 132 340 7.4 395 370 370 13.8 4.7 1.7 2.54 161 378 7.5 386 378 378 18.8 5.7 1.8 2. 52 6 High Speed 108 1326 13.5 352 350 350 19.4 10.9 2.0 2. 39 9 High Load 120 1718 14.3 334 310 310 36.1 14.0 2.2 2.43 20 64 2291 13.8 352 330 330 11.9 8.3 1.9 2.34 97 1778 13.9 346 330 330 22. 5 11.1 2.0 2.39 4 Idle 224 454 2.1 68 90 90 11.9 4.5 1.7 0.61 10 144 340 2.2 103 90 90 6.0 1.8 1.3 0.61 15 280 540 2.1 76 80 80 13.7 4.8 1.7 0.62 216 445 2.1 82 87 87 10.5 3.7 1.6 0.61 F-22 image: ------- TABLE F-23. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY Vehicle: VW Rabbit Date: December 17 , 1976 NDIR CL Run Operating HC, CO, CO 2 NO, NO, NOx Air Flov No. Condition ppmC ppm % ppm ppm ppm kg/min 4 Inter Speed 64 254 1.9 68 60 60 1.45 9 0 Load 56 226 1.9 60 55 55 1.48 14 40 197 1.9 72 60 60 1.50 53 226 1.9 67 58 58 1.48 8 Inter Speed 50 155 5.7 301 275 275 1.49 13 Mid Load 52 183 6.2 301 265 265 1.50 16 52 169 6.2 301 260 260 1.47 51 169 6.0 301 266 266 1.49 2 Inter Speed 100 368 12.6 288 275 275 1.43 10 High Load 140 397 12.9 297 275 275 1.39 20 44 382 13.6 360 280 280 1.41 94 382 13.0 315 277 277 1.41 1 High Speed 72 226 2.3 107 98 98 2.53 18 0 Load 34 226 2.2 115 95 95 2.46 21 28 212 2.4 122 100 100 2.44 45 2.3 115 98 98 2.48 3 High Speed 104 282 7.8 360 345 345 2.45 7 Mid Load 68 282 6.7 395 375 375 2.35 19 96 282 7.8 412 350 350 2.44 89 282 7.4 389 357 357 2.41 6 High Speed 72 2352 12.6 334 325 325 2. 36 12 High Load 72 2786 14.1 334 310 310 2. 37 15 76 2352 14.1 334 310 310 2.40 73 2497 13.6 334 315 315 2. 38 5 Idle 212 425 2.1 103 90 90 0.63 11 128 282 2.1 115 100 100 0.64 17 132 340 2.1 111 90 90 0.63 157 349 2.1 110 93 93 0.63 image: ------- TABLE F-24. OLDS, CUTLASS, DIESEL, NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE DATE: 1/7/77 WIND: 6.4 km/hr Northerly Acceleration Teat (1st Gear) AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45 After Test 42-45 Pass Exterior at 15.24m^ Right to Left Left to Right Interior Fresh Air Blr Off Fresh Air Blr On 1st 73.5 73.0 71.0 73.5 2nd 73.0 72.5 70.0 74.0 3rd 74.0 73.0 69.0 74.5 Constant Speed 48.3 km/hr Driveby AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45 After Test 42-45 Pass Exterior at 15.24m Right to Left Left to Right Interior Fresh Air Blr Off Fresh Air Blr On 1st 61.0 61.5 62.0 72.5 2nd 60.0 61.0 63.0 72.0 3rd 59.5 61.0 65.0 71.5 Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest AMBIENT: Before Test After Test Test 1 Direction A (L-R) Interior 50.5 (70.5 Blr. On) Front Rear Left Right Exterior 69.0 60.5 66.5 69.0 Arithmetic Average 73.8 73.2 70.5 74.2 Arithmetic Average ^ 60.5 61.2 64.0 72.2 Test 2 Direction B (R-L) 51.5 (71.0 Blr. On) Front Rear Left Right 7.00 61.5 69.0 69.5 Max Reading 71.0 70.0 ^According to SAE J-9R6a. (2)Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other. F-24 image: ------- TABLE F-25. OLDS, CUTLASS, GASOLINE, NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE DATE: 1/7/77 WIND: 6-4 tan/hr Northerly Acceleration Test (1st Gear) AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45 After Test 42-45 Pass Exterior at 15.24m^-'"^ Right to Left Left to Right Interior Fresh Air Blr Off Fresh Air Blr On 1st 68. 5 67.0 68.0 73.0 2nd 69.0 68.5 69.0 73.5 3rd 68.0 68.0 68.5 72.0 Constant Speed 48.3 km/hr Driveby AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45 After Test 42-45 Pass Exterior at 15.24m Right to Left Left to Right Interior Fresh Air Blr Off Fresh Air Blr On 1st 58.5 58. 5 61.0 72. 0 2nd 58.5 59.0 59.0 71.0 3rd 58.0 58.5 60.0 70.5 Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45 After Test 42-45 Test .1 Direction A (L-R) Interior 48.5 ( 71.5 Blr. On) Front Rear Lo ft Right Exterior 64.5 60.0 62.5 62.5 Arithmetic Average 68.8 68.2 68.8 73.2 Arithmetic Average ^2 ^ 58.5 58.8 60.5 71.5 Test 2 Direction B (R-L) 48.5 (70.5 Blr. On) Front Rear Left Right 63.5 60.0 62.5 62.0 Max Reading 71.5 64. 5 ^ ^ ^ According to SAF J-986t». d)Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other. F-25 image: ------- TABLE F-26. VW RABBIT DIESEL, NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE DATE: 1/7/77 WIND: 3»° ^in/hr Northerly Acceleration Test (2nd Gear) AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45 Pass Exterior at 15. 24m^ Right to Left Left to Right Interior Fresh Air Blr Off Fresh Air Blr On 1st 71.0 70.5 79.0 80.0 2nd 71.5 70.0 79.5 80.0 3rd 71.5 71.0 79.5 80.0 Constant Speed 48.3 km/hr Driveby AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45 Pass Exterior at 15.24m Right to Left Left to Right Interior Fresh Air Blr Off Fresh Air Blr On 1st 59.0 59.0 67.5 71.5 2nd 58.0 57.5 68.0 72.0 3rd 58.0 57.5 68.0 71.5 Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45 Test 1 Direction A (L-R) Arithmetic Average 71.5 70.8 79.5 80.0 Arithmetic Average (2) 58.5 58.2 68.0 71.8 Interior 59.5 ( 69.5 Blr. On) Front Rear Left Right Exterior Test 2 Direction B (R-L) 62.5 (68.0 Blr> 0n) Front Rear Left Right 66.0 58.5 63.0 63.0 67.0 59.0.62.5 64.0 Max Reading 69.5 67.0 (1) According to SAE J-986a. (^Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other. F-26 image: ------- TABLE F-27. VW RABBIT, GAOLINE, NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE DATE: 1/7/77 WIND: 3-° km/hr Northerly Acceleration Test ( Gear) AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After l^st 43-45 Pass Exterior at 15.24m^ Right to Left Left to Right Interior Fresh Air Blr Off Fresh Air Blr On 1st 71.0 69.5 75.0 77.0 2nd 71.0 69.5 77.0 78.0 3rd 70.5 70.0 76.0 78.5 Constant Speed 48.3 km/hr Driveby AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test43"45 Pass Exterior at 15.24m Right to Left Left to Right Interior Fresh Air Blr Off Fresh Air Blr On 1st 60.5 59.0 70.0 73.0 2nd 60.5 60.0 69.5 72.5 3rd 60.5 60.5 71.0 7-1.0 Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45 Test 1 Direction A (L-R) Interior 58.0 (69.5 Blr. On) Front Roar Left Right Arithmetic Average 71.0 69.8 76.5 78.2 Arithmetic Average (2) 60.5 60.2 70.5 73.5 Test 2 Direction B (R-L) 58.0 (69.5 Blr. On) Front Rear Left Right Exterior 62.0 65.0 63.5 62.0 Elect.Fan On (cppling Fan)72.1 65.5 66.0 64.0 v 'According to SAE J-986a. (2)Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other. 61.5 64.5 63.5 62.0 71.0 65.0 66.0 64.0 Max Reading 69.5 65.0 73. 5 F-27 image: -------