EFFECT OF LABORATORY AMBIENT
CONDITIONS ON EXHAUST EMISSIONS
NAPCA Project Number CPA 22-69-156
Prepared for
NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
SCOTT RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.
P. O. BOX 2416
SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92406
-------
Effect of Laboratory Ambient
Conditions on Exhaust Emissions
NAPCA Project Number CPA 22-69-156
Prepared for
National Air Pollution Control Administration
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
Public Health Service
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
411 West Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
April 24, 1970
SCOTT RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.
2600 Cajon Boulevard, P.O. Box 2416
San Bernardino, California 92406
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
Page No.
1-1
2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
2.1 General Approach
2.2 Test Conditions - General
2.3 Test Vehicles
2.4 Test Procedures
2.5 Test Apparatus
3. TEST RESULTS
3.1 Data Analysis
3.2 Discussion of Results
3.3 Composite Vehicle Analysis
APPENDIX A - Determination of Mass Emissions
APPENDIX B - Test Data
APPENDIX C - Linear Regression Equations by Vehicle
and Phase
APPENDIX D - General Quadratic Regression Equations
by Vehicle and Phase
APPENDIX E - Composite Vehicle Correction Factors (Based
on small sample - for illustrative purposes
only)
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-7
2-13
2-17
3-1
3-1
3-4
3-8
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 April 24, 1970
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.3
Figure No.
2.1
2.2
3.1
Description
Temperature and Humidity Study Test Conditions
Random Selection of Test Conditions
Random Selection of Test Operations
Description of Test Vehicles
Vehicle Screening Test Results
Mid-Test Vehicle Inspection
Linear Regression Equations for the Composite
Vehicle (Vehicles 1 through 5)
Quadratic Regression Equations for the Composite
Vehicles (Vehicles 1 through 5)
Composite Vehicle Regression Equations
Correlation Comparison
LIST OF FIGURES
Description
Pre Emission Test Tuneup Summary on Vehicle
Exhaust Gas Analysis System
Correction Factor for Temperature and Humidity
Page No.
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-8
2-12
2-18
3-10
3-11
3-12
Page No.
2-9
2-19
3-14
versus Nitric Oxide (ppm) - Phase II
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 1-1 April 24, 1970
1. INTRODUCTION
Generally speaking, most exhaust emission testing has been and
is now being performed in laboratories where ambient air quality is not
controlled. It has been observed that ambient air temperature and humidity
do affect vehicle exhaust emission test results, most noticeably in the
measuring of oxides of nitrogen.
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc., has recently completed a
study of the effect of laboratory ambient conditions on exhaust emissions.
Testing was conducted on five typical American-made automobiles and three
foreign-made vehicles. Control of ambient air conditions was accomplished
at Scott Research Laboratories' all-weather chassis dynamometer room
located in San Bernardino, California. This facility is equipped for con-
trolling air temperature over the range 0-150 F and controlling humidity
level from ambient to virtually 100%.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-1 April 24, 1970
2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
2.1 GENERAL APPROACH
The proposed test program was designed to determine the effects
of ambient temperature and humidity on exhaust emissions. The program
was carefully designed to yield data amenable to analysis by statistical
and computer techniques so that maximum information on the effects under
study could be developed.
A survey of the temperature-humidity data for 9 major United
States cities and a review of the average relative humidity profiles for
the United States for a 39-year period were carried out in order to establish
realistic test conditions. The test vehicles were acquired after first
screening them for suitability. The vehicles selected were tuned to manu-
facturer's specifications.
The basic program consisted of running 20 different temperature
and humidity combinations in duplicate on each vehicle. Variability was
reduced by random selection of test conditions. The exhaust emissions were
measured according to the Federal procedure with the addition of oxides of
nitrogen measurements and simultaneous mass emission measurements.
Multiple linear regressions were run on the data for each vehicle,
and for a combination of the five American-made vehicles. Nonlinear (general
quadratic) regression equations were also developed and analyzed to determine
if the general quadratic surface gave a better fit than the regression plane.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-2 April 24, 1970
2.2 TEST CONDITIONS - GENERAL
Twenty different combinations of temperature and humidity were
established in the Scott All-weather room to measure their effects on
various exhaust emission levels. The twenty test conditions are presented
in Table 2.1. The randomly selected schedule for conducting these tests
is shown in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. Table 2.2 presents the schedule for the
initial round of testing (Phase I) and Table 2.3 details the pattern used
for the duplication round (Phase II).
2.2.1 Test Facilities
The test facility for conducting this study enabled Scott Research
effectively to control the temperature throughout the required range (59 F
to 95 F). Humidity control was exercised throughout the range from ambient
conditions to the maximum required value of 180 grains of water per pound of
dry air. On some occasions it was not possible to test at low humidity con-
ditions because of higher ambient humidity levels. For these occurrences,
deviations from the test schedule were necessarily invoked to enable completion
of the program within the required time. As soon as ambient humidity dropped
to acceptable levels, testing was continued per the original test format.
The original test schedule of randomly selected conditions was
thus observed wherever possible by the test operator. For ease of monitoring,
the various temperature and humidity combinations were obtained based on
dry bulb and wet bulb thermometer readings. Dry bulb readings (indicative
of the desired test temperature) were controlled to ± 3°F. Water vapor levels
were adjusted until wet bulb readings (indicative of humidity level) read within
± 0.5 F of the required value at the nominal test temperature.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
2-3
April 24, 1970
Table 2.1
Temperature and Humidity Study
Test Conditions
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Temp . °F
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
Moisture
gr./lb.
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
Relative
Humidity, %
28
54
80
18
35
53
70
12
24
35
47
59
70
82
17
25
33
40
56
72
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-4 April 24, 1970
Table 2.2
Random Selection of Test Conditions*
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Car 1
6
5
10
4
19
11
3
8
13
17
9
16
2
7
20
12
18
15
14
1
Car 2
6
5
10
4
19
11
3
8
13
17
9
16
2
7
20
12
18
15
14
1
Car 3
6
5
10
4
19
11
3
8
13
17
9
16
2
7
20
12
18
15
14
1
Car 4
6
5
10
4
19
11
3
8
13
17
9
16
2
7
20
12
18
15
14
1
Car 5
6
5
10
4
19
11
3
8
13
17
9
16
2
7
20
12
18
15
14
1
Car 6
6
5
10
4
19
11
3
8
13
17
9
16
2
7
20
12
18
15
14
1
Car 7
6
5
10
4
19
11
3
8
13
17
9
16
2
7
20
12
18
15
14
1
Car 8
6
5
10
4
19
11
3
8
13
17
9
16
2
7
20
12
18
15
14
1
* Taken from "Statistical Techniques for Collaborative Tests,"
by W. J. Youden.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-5 April 24, 1970
Table 2.3
Random Selection of Test Operations*
Test
No.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Car 1
5
14
17
12
2
10
13
8
7
15
11
18
16
3
9
4
6
1
20
19
Car 2
5
14
17
12
2
10
13
8
7
15
11
18
16
3
9
4
6
1
20
19
Car 3
5
14
17
12
2
10
13
8
7
15
11
18
16
3
9
4
6
1
20
19
Car 4
5
14
17
12
2
10
13
8
7
15
11
18
16
3
9
4
6
1
20
19
Car 5
5
14
17
12
2
10
13
8
7
15
11
18
16
3
9
4
6
1
20
19
Car 6
5
14
17
12
2
10
13
8
7
15
11
18
16
3
9
4
6
1
20
19
Car 7
5
14
17
12
2
10
13
8
7
15
11
18
16
3
9
4
6
1
20
19
Car 8
5
14
17
12
2
10
13
8
7
15
11
18
16
3
9
4
6
1
20
19
* Taken from "Statistical Techniques for Collaborative Tests,"
by W. J. Youden.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 . 2-6 April 24, 1970
2.2.2 Test Scheduling
Because of delays in the start-up of actual testing, it was
necessary to complete a greater number of tests per day than was originally
scheduled. Testing was therefore conducted during two work shifts per day.
Additionally, it was judged safe to apply external heat to the engines when
the difference between the ambient temperature of the garage used to soak
the vehicles and a desired test temperature exceeded 20 F. Various precautions
were taken to insure that the test vehicle was stabilized at the test tempera-
ture, as indicated by engine water jacket and oil sump thermocouples, before
conducting a specific test. The All-Weather Room air blower was operated to
force air (at test temperature) toward the vehicle's engine compartment at
20 mph. Also, heat lamps were directed at the engine block and oil pan from
a minimum distance of two feet. Carburetors and choke mechanisms were shielded
from the heat sources to prevent localized overheating. When a vehicle
reached a desired test temperature, the heat lamps were de-energized and
the engine was checked for temperature stablization.
The addition of heat to achieve stabilization at test temperature
was required primarily just at the maximum temperature condition of 95 F.
However, engine heating was used to obtain stabilization at 83 F on rare
occasions.
On a few occasions the vehicle's engines were at a slightly
higher temperature than desired. Cool air was directed toward the engine
compartment until the desired temperature stabilization was achieved.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-7 April 24, 1970
Thermocouples were located in the cylinder head water passages
of all vehicles (except Porsche). An oil dipstick with a thermocouple
affixed to it was fabricated to fit all test vehicles. Stabilization of
temperature at both sensors was prerequisite to commencement of exhaust
tests.
2.3 TEST VEHICLES
2.3.1 Test Vehicles - General Description
The eight test vehicles were selected to represent the range of
carburetion systems and engine designs most often found in the United
States automobile population. All five of the American made vehicles had
popular size V-8 engines with conventional 2-barrel downdraft carburetors.
One foreign vehicle was equipped with a variable-orifice air-valve carburetion
system on a water-cooled inline 4-cylinder engine (Volvo); another was
equipped with a fuel injection system on a water-cooled inline 4-cylinder
engine (Alfa-Romeo); and the third foreign car was equipped with a complex
downdraft carburetion system on an air-cooled horizontally opposed 6-cylinder
engine (Porsche). All vehicles were 1969 models with approximately 12,000
miles at the start of testing. None of the vehicles was equipped with an
exhaust manifold reactor or air injection equipment.
Table 2.4 presents the itemized descriptions of the test vehicles.
2.3.2 Test Vehicle - Tuneup and Screening
All vehicles were tuned to manufacturer's specifications as
indicated by the vehicle inspection example sheet shown in Figure 2.1.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
Table 2.4 Description of Test Vehicles
April 24, 1970
Vehicle No.
Make
Year
Mileage @ Start
unladen weight
Engine Type
Engine CID
Cooling System
No. of Carb.
No. of bbls/carb.
Manuf. of Carb.
Air Conditioner
Spark Advance
Idle RPM
Transmission
Dyno Load
Dyno Inertia
1
Chev.
1969
3,855
V-8
327
Water
1
2 bbl
Carter
Yes-off
2° ETC
600 D
2-sp. Auto
4,000
2
Chev.
1969
3,855
V-8
327
Water
1
2 bbl
Carter
Yes-off
2° ETC
600 D
2-sp. Auto
4,000
3
Ford
1969
4,004
V-8
390
Water
1
2 bbl
Autolite
Yes-off
6° ETC
550 D
3-sp. Auto
4,000
4
Ford
1969
4,004
V-8
390
Water
1
2 bbl
Autolite
Yes-off
6° ETC
550 D
3-sp. Auto
4,000
5
Plym.
1969
3,805
V-8
318
Water
1
2 bbl
Carter
Yes-off
TDC
650 N
3-sp. Auto
4,000
6
Volvo
1969
2,619
1-4
121
Water
2
1 bbl
Stromberg
Yes-off
10° TDC
700 D
3-sp. Auto
3,000
7
Alfa
1969
2,138
1-4
108
Water
-
Fuel Inj.
-
No
2° ETC
950 N
5-sp. Man.
3,000
8
Porsche
1969
2,250
Opp-6
121
Air
2
3 bbl
Weber
No
TDC
900 N
4-sp. Man
3,000
oo
-------
A = Adjust
R = Replace
2-9
Figure 2.1
Pre Emission Test Tuneup
Summary on Vehicle
Project #2846
Car ft
Odo
, miles
Car Make
Engine CID
Total Diagnosis Time
hrs. Total Tuneup Time
hrs,
IGNITION SYSTEM
Firing Line
o Required Voltage , kv
o Coil Available Voltage, kv
Spark Line
Coil Oscillations
Cond. Oscillations
Points Opening
Points Closing
Dynamic Compression (speed change %)
IGNITION SYSTEM ADJUSTMENTS
Spark Plug Gap, inches
Ignition Point Dwell, distr. degrees
Ignition Timing, crankshaft degrees
Total Advance , crankshaft degrees
Mechanical Advance , crankshaft degrees
Vacuum Advance, crankshaft degrees
DIA
1 2
5 6
As Rec ' d
GNOSIS
3
7
Spec.
4
8
Adj (A) or
Replace (R]
hecked
by
SRD-154a
-------
2-10
Figure 2.1 (cont'd)
Pre Emission Test Tuneup
Summary on Vehicle
Project #2846
(cont.)
CARBURETOR ADJUSTMENTS
Idle RPM, Drive/Vacuum, in. Hg
Idle RPM, Neutral/Vacuum, in. Hg
Idle RPM (.throttle positioner off)
Idle CO, %/AF Ratio
Exhaust CO @ 2500 RPM, Neutral
As Rec'd.
Spec .
Adj (A) or
Replace (R)
Checked
By
AIR CLEANER
Element Condition, AC Tester
Thermos tatic Intake Opening Temp, F
EXHAUST CONTROL VALVE
Heat Riser Valve Operation
Frozen
Closed
Frozen
Open
Free
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-11 April 24, 1970
Upon completion of the mechanical tune-up, each vehicle was given a Federal
Hot Start exhaust emission test to ensure that none of the vehicles were
excessively high emitters. The results of these screening tests are
presented in Table 2.5.
As indicated by these results, the five American-made vehicles
were generally acceptable based on the screening test results. The Volvo
exhibited high CO values during the first test. Subsequently, the carbure-
tors were adjusted for a leaner idle CO value. This change, however, had
little effect on the weighted CO results. No further attempts were made
to reduce the weighted CO value as the retested weighted HC value was
satisfactory. Initially, this test vehicle was prepared by a factory
representative.
The Alfa test vehicle was also prepared by factory service
representatives prior to screening. Exhaust emission results were not
favorable, and unfortunately, additional efforts to improve the situation
(by the factory mechanic) were not successful. It should be noted that
a factory engineering change issued approximately January 1, 1970, was
incorporated into this vehicle for the second round of testing. The
results of the change (injection pump timing and initial spark advance)
greatly improved the HC emission levels. It was not deemed feasible to
try and locate a substitute test vehicle.
The Porsche test vehicle exhibited reasonable CO values (just
slightly over 1.5%) during the screening test; however, unburned HC values
were higher than desired. All elementary tune-up specifications were found
to be within limits. Further efforts to reduce the HC levels were not
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table 2.5
Vehicle Screening Test Results
Hot Test Emission Results
Vehicle
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
6A
7
8
Year & Make
'69 Chevrolet
'69 Chevrolet
'69 Ford
'69 Ford
'69 Plymouth
'69 Volvo
'69 Volvo
'69 Alfa
'69 Porsche
Engine
CID
327
327
390
390
318
121
121
108
121
Date
Tested
9-11-69
10-23-69
9-10-69
9-10-69
9-9-69
9-25-69
10-6-69
9-23-69
9-17-69
HC,
Ppm
263
365
157
163
226
237
170
542**
593**
CO,
% Remarks
0.75
0.89
0.72
0.88
0.84
2.70
2.73* * Carburetor idle adjustment (leaner) did
not improve weighted CO.
3.23** ** Not feasible to locate replacement
vehicle.
1.63 ** Not feasible to locate replacement
ro
I
vehicle.
NOTE: Alfa test vehicle was retuned (by factory representatives) after first round of testing; resultant HC
values were much lower during duplicate round of testing.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-13 April 24, 1970
sufficient to achieve Federal specification emission levels on this parti-
cular vehicle. Since it was not feasible to obtain a similar replacement
test vehicle, it was decided to use the original vehicle for further testing.
2.4 TEST PROCEDURES
2.4.1 Federal Cold Start Emission Tests
The test program was designed to conduct a total of 320 Federal
cold start exhaust emission tests. The Federal Register of June 4, 1968,
was referred to for all applicable control items. Emissions measured were
unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, all by non-
dispersive infrared analyzers. Simultaneously, nitric oxide was measured
by NDIR.
2.4.2 Proposed Mass Emission Tests
Concurrently with the aforementioned emission determinations, a
mass emission observation was made during each test. Diluted exhaust gas
was sampled, collected in a Mylar bag, and analyzed to determine mass
emission levels of total unburned hydrocarbons (by the Flame lonization Detec-
tion method), carbon monoxide, nitric oxide (NO), and nitrogen dioxide (N0?).
Analyses of the room background air quality were performed in a similar
manner for the purpose of obtaining net mass emission values for each
test. The techniques used in this regard were generally in accordance
with the proposed specifications for "... Exhaust Emissions, Fuel Evapora-
tive Emissions, and Smoke Emissions Applicable to 1972 and Later Vehicles."
Other supplementary data recorded were barometric pressure,
vehicle odometer readings, date, time, and dynamometer loading.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-14 April 24, 1970
2.4.3 Test Fuel
Fuel used for this program was Indolene 30 per the current
Federal Register. Each vehicle's fuel tank was initially drained and
the test fuel was added. Therefore, all tests were conducted using the
appropriate test fuel from the vehicle's tank rather than an external
supply.
2.4.4 Test Preparations
Each vehicle was allowed to soak in the soaking garage for a
minimum of 12 hours prior to cold start testing. When ready for evaluation,
the vehicle was pushed into position and secured for dynamometer operation.
The vehicle's temperature characteristics were ascertained to determine
the necessity of external heating or cooling to bring it to test conditions.
While the vehicle was stabilizing, instrumentation was prepared and given
an initial calibration using the applicable span gases for determining
concentration emissions. Additionally, a similar calibration of instruments
was performed following each test. Calibration of the instrument train
using the full range of calibration gases was effected whenever a new
(replacement) calibrating gas was installed, following any instrument
disassembly, and at various other intervals throughout the test program.
2.4.5 Test Procedures
To obtain exhaust emission data in accordance with the fore-
mentioned procedures, the following test pattern was followed:
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-15 April 24, 1970
a) Vehicle was prepared for conducting a Federal cold
start test in accordance with the June 4, 1968, Federal
Register, and the temperature/humidity requirements
of the subject contract.
b) Calibration of instruments necessary for the evaluation
of exhaust emissions (concentration basis) was performed.
c) A Federal cold start test was conducted, using a 40-second
idle mode for the first cycle.
NOTE: By agreement with the contracting office, the 40-
second idle mode was used instead of a 20-second idle mode
as suggested in the proposed 1972 Mass Exhaust Emission
procedure. In effect, this requirement makes the Federal
cold start results valid but slightly biases the mass
emission results which supposedly reflect a 20-second idle
mode for the first cycle.
d) Concentration exhaust emission measurements were recorded
for test cycles 1-4 (warm-up cycles) and cycles 6 & 7 (hot
cycles).
e) The vehicle continued operation for nine (9) complete
cycles. Mass exhaust emission samples were collected from
"key on" to 5 seconds after the completion of the 9th cycle.
Concurrently, a bag sample of background room air was
collected over the same time interval.
f) Instrumentation necessary for analysis of the mass emission
bag samples was calibrated.
g) The diluted mass exhaust emission samples were analyzed.
h) All equipment was prepared for the next test vehicle.
2.4.6 Vehicle Mechanical Inspection
The test vehicles were checked for mechanical malfunction and
general tune-up condition whenever test results indicated the need. All
vehicles were given a complete reinspection following the completion of
the first round of testing.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-16 April 24, 1970
The exception to the above procedure was the Number 8 test vehicle
(Porsche). This car exhibited a degradation of exhaust emission levels as
the first round of testing progressed. Approximately half way through the
first round of testing, the vehicle was inspected at Scott Research facili-
ties for all aspects of tune-up performance except the carburetion system.
The applicable tune-up factors were found to be satisfactory. Consequently,
the carburetion system was considered suspect, especially since the vehicle's
CO characteristics were particularly abnormal. Southern California technical
representatives for the Porsche Company directed us to the nearest Porsche
service agency. The vehicle was taken to an authorized Porsche dealer where
the service manager indicated that the vehicle was operating too lean,
according to their chassis dynamometer tests. Subsequently, the vehicle's
carburetion system was adjusted by the dealer's service department to a
supposedly acceptable performance level. Upon return of the vehicle to
Scott Research facilities, it was found that the Porsche's carburetion system
was obviously enrichened. The net effect was higher weighted CO values;
however, unburned hydrocarbon values were approximately 30% less (640 ppm
HC versus 900 ppm HC). In this new "state-of-tune" the test vehicle showed
signs of plug fouling unless periodically driven at high speed.
Seven-mode cycle testing proved to be an unreasonable operating
pattern for this test vehicle. Fifteen-mph cruise modes had to be driven
in low gear to prevent engine stumbling.
Necessary corrections to all test vehicles were made to bring each
car back to its initially-prepared condition (except Porsche). Also, the
Alfa test vehicle was tuned to reflect the recommendations of the factory
engineering change as discussed in Section 2.3.2.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-17 April 24, 1970
The results of the mid-program inspection are shown in Table 2.6.
2.4.7 Test Procedures (For Duplicate Round of Testing)
The vehicles were tested during the second phase in an identical
manner to first-phase testing. The pattern of testing followed is shown in
Section 2.4.5. Phase II testing was generally trouble-free except for
sporadic indications of spark plug fouling with the Porsche. After about
every other test, this car was driven at high speeds in an attempt to
stabilize the vehicle for further testing.
2.5 TEST APPARATUS
The test apparatus used was generally compliant with all aspects
of the requirements of the contract. A schematic of the entire system is
presented in Figure 2.2.
2.5.1 Exhaust Gas Analysis System (For Determining Weighted Emissions)
The "basic" exhaust gas analysis system is nearly identical to the
schematic presented in the Federal Register, June 4, 1968. Slight altera-
tions were required to integrate this system with the other associated gas
analysis systems. The necessary alterations did not functionally affect
the performance of the basic system except for a slight increase in "lag"
time attributable to the lengthy sample line.
The system was capable of determining ppm unburned HC (both high
HC levels and low HC levels), percent carbon monoxide, and percent carbon
dioxide, all by the nondispersive infrared technique.
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Project #2846
2-18
April 24, 1970
Table 2.6
Mid-Test Vehicle Inspection
Vehicle
No.
1.
Vehicle Engine
Make CID
Chev.
327
Tune-up Items
Out of Specification
1. Vacuum advance = 20°
2. Initial timing = 3°BTC
3. Ignition dwell = 33°
Corrective
Action
1. Replaced vacuum advance
unit; advance =16°
2. Reset to 2°BTC
3. Reset to 28°-32°
2.
Chev.
327
1, Vacuum advance = 21°
2. Ignition timing = 4°BTC
3. Ignition dwell = 33°
4. Choke action erratic
1. Replaced unit; adv.
2. Reset to 2°BTC
3. Reset to 28°-32°
4. Cleaned
16e
3.
Ford
390
None
None
4.
Ford
390 1. Initial timing = 5°BTC 1. Reset to 6°BTC
5. Plym. 318 1. Cracked hose on choke
pull-down mechanism
1. Replaced
6.
Volvo
121
1. Ignition dwell = 56°
2. Initial timing = 8°BTC
1. Reset to 59°-65°
2. Reset to 10°BTC
7. Alfa 108 1. Injection pump timing
not to specification
1. Injection pump timing
reset to new factory
prescribed setting
8. Porsche 121 1. Vehicle performance
indicated need for
carburetion work
1. Complete tune-up performed
by authorized Porsche
dealer
Notes: In addition to above adjustments, all spark plugs were regapped to normal
settings.
-------
SAMPLE
BAG
-k
BACK-
GROUND
AIR
BAG
i
CON-
I ' | STANT
f ^MASS
L-^fiTfS AMPLER
L_?y
ni
BACKGROUND VK3
AIR ^>'^7
x"^7
y^ x^3
lr
Figure 2.2
Exhaust Gas Analysis System
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 2-20 April 24, 1970
2.5.2 Oxides of Nitrogen Analysis System
The subject analysis system was designed to operate in parallel
with the "basic" system, as well as being capable of diluted exhaust analysis
(for mass emission determination). Nitric oxide (NO) was monitored during
the Numbers 1-4 warm-up cycles and during the Number 6 & 7 hot cycles. For
analysis of the mass exhaust emission sample, measurements of ppm nitric
oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (N0_) were obtained.
The NO analyzer was a nondispersive infrared instrument. The
instrument had dual-range capabilities for both raw and diluted exhaust
analysis. The N0» analyzer was a nondispersive ultraviolet instrument.
2.5.3 Mass Exhaust Emission Analysis System
The system used for collecting and analyzing vehicle mass exhaust
emission components was integrated with the other systems. Care was taken
to ensure that all exhaust gas passing through the "basic" system was
returned to the inlet side of the mass emission collection system during
the cycle testing. Emissions measured were; ppm unburned HC (by the Flame
lonization Detection method), low level carbon monoxide (percent CO by NDIR),
low level nitric oxide (ppm NO by NDIR), and nitrogen dioxide (ppm N0_ by
the nondispersive ultraviolet technique).
All instruments in the analysis train had accompanying refri-
gerated water baths on the inlet side of their detector circuits (except the
FID). The FID instrument had a glass wool water vapor separator on the
sample inlet line.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-1 April 24, 1970
3. TEST RESULTS
The test data were reduced in accordance with standard procedures
to yield weighted emission volume concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons
(ppm), carbon monoxide (%), and nitric oxide (ppm). Additionally, diluted
bag samples were measured for the purpose of calculating the net mass exhaust
emissions of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen—
all in grams per mile. The method used to calculate the mass emissions is
shown in Appendix A.
The corrected test data are given in Tables B-l through B-16 of
Appendix B.
3.1 DATA ANALYSIS
The individual exhaust emission values shown in Appendix B were
processed by computer to generate and analyze regression equations to deter-
mine which may be used reliably to correct exhaust emission values for the
effects of temperature and humidity. Both linear and quadratic step-wise
regression analyses were performed to generate the best possible fits to
the data to determine the effect of the two variables on the exhaust emission
measurement.
3.1.1 Linear Regression Analyses
The exhaust emission values for each test (both concentration and
mass emissions) were keypunched for computer processing. Data were processed
using standard step-wise regression programs to generate linear correction
equations for each vehicle and each particular exhaust emission. Equations
generated for the individual vehicles were of the general form:
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-2 April 24, 1970
where;
E = Estimated emission value corrected to the mean temperature
and humidity condition observed during the test program.
I = Mean emission level observed for a vehicle throughout the
range of temperature and humidities tested.
a. = Regression coefficient for the effect of temperature.
AT = T-T; i.e., the test temperature minus the mean temperature
(mean temperature equals 80.6°F for all vehicles where the
complete range of temperatures was tested).
a~ = Regression coefficient for the effect of humidity.
AH = H-H; i.e., the test humidity minus the mean humidity (mean
humidity equals 74 grains per pound for all vehicles where
the complete range of humidities were tested).
The results of the linear step-wise regression analysis are shown
in Appendix C, Tables C-l through C-6. In each case the regression equation
indicates the more significant of A T and A H by the sequence in which they
appear. Thus, if A H appears before AT, it indicates that the simple corre-
lation of the emission with humidity is greater than that with temperature.
It should be noted that these linear equations are easily reformu-
lated to represent deviations from standard temperature and humidity values,
T and H , with the following linear transformations:
s s
AT = T - T
s
= (T - f) + (f - T )
s
AH = H - H
s
= (H - H) + (H - H )
s
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-3 April 24, 1970
Noting that f - T and H - H are constants, and known when T , H are
s s s s
specified, the conversion is:
E = E + ax (T ~ f) + a2 (H - H)
= [E + a, (f - T ) + a, (H - H )] + a, (T - T ) + & (H - H ).
1 S £ SI S £ S
The net effect, then, is simply the replacement of the original constant
term, E, by another constant term. The values of the regression coefficients
remain the same, of course.
3.1.2 Quadratic Regression Analyses
A quadratic step-wise regression analysis was then performed to
determine if quadratic correction equations provide better estimates of the
temperature/humidity effect on exhaust emission levels. Equations generated
for the individual vehicles were of the form
E = K + al AT + a2 A H + a_ AT2 + a, AH2 + a_ ATH
where;
E, a1 , AT, a-, and AH are defined as for the linear regression
form and
K = A constant term for the particular equation.
2
a« = Regression coefficient for the AT term.
2 -2
AT = (T-T) ; i.e., test temperature minus the mean temperature,
all squared.
2
a, = Regression coefficient for the AH term.
2 - 2
AH = (H-H) ; i.e., test humidity minus the mean humidity all
squared.
a- = Regression coefficient for the ATH term.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-4 April 24, 1970
ATH= A T «AH = (T-T)(H-H);i.e., the product of the test
temperature minus the mean temperature and test humidity
minus the mean humidity.
The results of the quadratic regression analysis are shown in
Tables D-l through D-6. The order in which the variables appear in the
regression equations is again the order in which they were introduced in
the step-wise regression process. That is, they are ordered by the values
of their simple correlations with the emissions.
In the case of the quadratic regressions, there is no simple
transformation for correcting to a different standard T and H . A program
s s
for the purpose of obtaining better estimates of the relationships could
easily be designed, however, about a specified standard for T and H.
3.2 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Examination of the regression equations and the multiple correla-
tion values indicates that each type of exhaust emission must be considered
individually. Additionally, each vehicle appears to react differently to
the influences of temperature and humidity, but the effect, if real, is
somewhat masked by the inconsistency displayed by some vehicles.
Phase II (duplicate round of testing) data are considered to be
more significant than the Phase I data (initial round) for the following
reasons:
o Carburetor choke systems were set more precisely and
checked for optimum operation prior to second-round
testing.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-5 April 24, 1970
o Minor tune-up items found to be slightly out of speci-
fication during the mid-test inspection were corrected
and the readjustments maintained their settings better
during second-round testing.
o Test procedures were performed more consistently due
to familiarization with the routines, apparatus, and
vehicles.
The regression results indicate that the effect of temperature
and humidity on NO and NO values can be estimated reasonably well, as
X
reflected by the high degree of correlation between those emissions and the
independent variables. For CO values (both concentration and mass values),
the regression equations yield a fair estimate of the effects of temperature
and humidity. The regression equations describing the effect of the two
variables on HC emissions (both concentration and mass values) indicate the
regression estimates not to be significantly better than use of the mean value.
These summary results will be clearly demonstrated below in the discussions
of the composite vehicle analysis and correction factors.
3.2.1 Correlation of Nitric Oxide (ppm) with the Independent Variables
2
Values for the coefficient of determination, r , ranged from 0.621
to 0.912 for the linear regression equations relating the NO (ppm) to tempera-
ture and humidity (except for the Porsche for which the value was 0.242 in
Phase I and 0.489 in Phase II). Except for the one vehicle, the regression
estimates were significantly better than use of the mean value.
2
Values for r ranged from 0.610 to 0.941 for the quadratic regression
equations relating NO (ppm) to temperature and humidity (except for the Porsche
-: 2
which yielded 0.301 in Phase I). Generally speaking, the quadratic r -values
2
are somewhat higher than the equivalent r -values for the linear equations and
are judged very good.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-6 April 24, 1970
3.2.2 Correlation of Oxides of Nitrogen (grams/mile) with the
Independent Variables
Similarly, NO mass emission data showed a satisfactory correlation
X
with temperature and humidity, as described by either the linear or quadratic
2
regression equations. Values for r ranged from 0.512 to 0.872 (American
automobiles only) based on linear regression equations. The foreign vehicles
did not correlate well in the linear regression computations, where the values
ranged from 0.041 to 0.600.
Quadratic regression equations provided a satisfactory description
of the relationship between NO mass emission data and temperature and
X.
2
humidity (for American vehicles). Values of r (for American vehicles) ranged
from 0.602 to 0.920. The foreign vehicles showed a fair correlation between
2
NO mass emissions and the independent variables as indicated by r -values of
X
0.199 to 0.686 in the quadratic regression analysis.
3.2.3 Correlation of Carbon Monoxide (%) with the Independent Variables
2
The linear regression analysis yielded r -values of CO (%) versus
the independent variables which reflect that the regression explains a very
2
variable amount of the variance. The r -values ranged all the way from 0.082
to 0.728 (all vehicles considered).
The quadratic regression equations were slightly more effective in
2
describing the relationships involved. The values of r ranged from 0.248 to
0.812 (all vehicles considered). Only in one-half of the regression equations
2
did an r -value above 0.500 result. Therefore, these regression equations are
only partially successful in explaining the correlation between percent CO and
the two independent variables.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-7 April 24, 1970
3.2.4 Correlation of Carbon Monoxide (grams/mile) with the Independent
Variables
2
The linear regression analysis yielded r -values of CO (grams/mile)
versus the two independent variables which again reflect that the amount of
2
variance explained by the regression is highly variable. The r -values
ranged from 0.057 to 0.749 (all vehicles considered).
The quadratic regression equations were slightly more effective in
2
describing the relationships involved. The values of r ranged from 0.103
to 0.887 (all vehicles considered). In seven of sixteen cases the regression
2
equations yield an r -value above 0.500. Therefore, the correlation between
the emission and the independent variables is considered to be moderate and
these regression equations are only partially successful in explaining the
effect of temperature and humidity on the emission measurement.
3.2.5 Correlation of Unburned Hydrocarbons (ppm) with the Independent
Variables
2
Neither linear nor quadratic regression analyses yielded r -values
that indicate satisfactory correlation of the emission HC (ppm) with the
2
independent variables. Values of r ranged from 0.088 to 0.597 in the
2
linear regression analysis. For the quadratic regression analysis, r -values
2
ranged from 0.114 to 0.689. In either case, most of the r"-values were less
than 0.500.
3.2.6 Correlation of Unburned Hydrocarbons (grams/mile) with the
Independent Variables
Again, the linear and quadratic regression analyses yielded equations
that were inadequate for estimating HC as a function of temperature and humidity.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-8 April 24, 1970
2
Values of r in the linear regression analysis ranged from 0.037 to 0.592. For
2
the quadratic regression analysis, values of r ranged from 0.047 to 0.664.
2
In only a few cases did the r -value exceed 0.500.
3.3 COMPOSITE VEHICLE ANALYSIS
Examination of the emission data and regression equations, both
linear and quadratic, for the individual vehicles indicates a great deal of
variability. In particular, the foreign vehicles yielded results considerably
different from those of the American-made vehicles. It was therefore con-
cluded that any attempt to create a composite vehicle would have to be based
on the American vehicles. Further, since the primary interest here is on
the values of the regression coefficients, the variance was minimized by
inputting to the computer the deviations from the mean for each vehicle.
As discussed above, the linear regression equation for a given
vehicle is of the form
E' = E + aj AT + a2 AH,
where E' = the estimated emission value
E = the mean emission value
AT = T - f
AH = H - fi
a,, a~ = regression coefficients.
The objective, however, was to determine the feasibility of obtaining
correction factors to be applied to emission measurements to correct them
to a standard temperature and humidity. The input data to the composite
vehicle regression analysis were thus of the form AE = E - E, where E
m m
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-9 April 24, 1970
was a measured value for a given vehicle and E was the mean for that vehicle.
Since the mean of the A E is zero for each vehicle, it is zero for the set of
vehicles. As a consequence, the desired correction factors are given by the
estimate
AE' = ax AT + a2 AH,
where AE' is the correction, a1 and a? are the composite vehicle regression
coefficients, and AT and AH are the deviations from 80.6 F and 74 grains
of water per pound of dry air, respectively (approximately 48% relative
humidity at 80.6°F).
Thus, if E (T,H) is the measured emission value at temperature T
m
and humidity H, its value at T = 80.6 and H = 74 would be estimated by
s s
E' (T , H ) = E (T, H) - a, AT - a, AH.
s s m 1 2
A similar correction could be obtained from the quadratic
regression analysis of the composite vehicle, but the slight gain in error
reduction is outweighed by the increase in computational complexity. The
composite vehicle regression equations, Tables 3.1 and 3.2, and the summary
in Table 3.3 demonstrate clearly, for the composite vehicle, that the amount
of the regression explained by a linear relationship is just slightly less
than that explained by the quadratic. Examination of the data in Table 3.3
permits some general conclusions. The reliability of the Phase II data is
verified to be better than that of the Phase I data as already discussed.
2
The square of the multiple correlation coefficient (r ), sometimes called
the coefficient of determination, is a measure of the strength of the rela-
tionship between the dependent variable, E, and the independent variables,
T and H. For example, from Table 3.3 one finds 83.9% of the measured NO
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-10 April 24, 1970
Table 3.1
Linear Regression Equations
for the Composite Vehicle
(Vehicles 1 through 5)
2
Linear Regression Equations S_ r r
PHASE I
HC (ppm)
CO (%)
NO (ppm)
HC (gms/mile)
CO (gms/mile)
NO (gms/mile)
X
PHASE II
HC (ppm)
CO (%)
NO (ppm)
= 427.6
1.17
= 1599.
5.98
42.52
7.95
= 353.4
1.10
= 1486.
+ 0.3022 AH - 0.7043 AT
- 0.0089 AT + 0.0008 AH
- 6.2621 AH + 0.0273 AT
- 0.0308 AT + 0.0008 AH
- 0.5252 AT + 0.0156 AH
- 0.0356 AH + 0.0442 AT
- 1.1156 AT + 0.2973 AH
- 0.0120 AT + 0.0016 AH
- 5.9718 AH + 4.1332 AT
e
59.43 0.192 0.037
0.154 0.537 0.288
158.5 0.867 0.752
1.918 0.188 0.035
13.349 0.424 0.179
1.127 0.772 0.595
26.39 0.453 0.207
0.127 0.716 0.513
104.3 0.916 0.839
HC (gms/mile) = 5.04 - 0.0274 AT + 0.0016 AH 0.556 0 489 0 239
CO (gms/mile) = 38.24 - 0.6020 AT + 0.0331 AH 7 779 n ill n 7/n
N0x (gms/mile) - 6.65 - 0.0318 AH + 0.0337 A? O.^l 0857 oM34
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table 3.2
Quadratic Regression Equations
for the Composite Vehicles
(Vehicles 1 through 5)
Quadratic Regression Equations
HC
CO
NO
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NO
HC
CO
NOX
PHASE I
(ppm)
(%) =
(ppm)
(gm/mi) =
(gm/mi) =
(gm/mi) =
PHASE II
(ppm) -
(%)
(ppm)
(gm/mi) =
(gm/mi) =
(gm/mi) =
HC
CO
NO
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NO
HC
CO
NOX
(ppm)
(%)
(ppm)
(gm/mi)
(gm/mi)
(gm/mi)
(ppm)
(%)
(ppm)
(gm/mi)
(gm/mi)
(gm/mi)
+ 11.653
+ 0.042
- 44.390
+ 0.277
+ 1.537
- 0.011
- 4.777
- 0.025
- 5.928
- 0.166
- 1.892
- 0.273
+ 0.1897 AH - 0.8025 AT - 0.1066 AT +
- 0.0096 AT - 0.0003 AT2 + 0.0006 AH +
- 6.8002 AH + 0.0356 AH2 - 0.1077 ATH -
- 0.0304 AT - 0.0034 AT2 + 0.0009 ATH -
- 0.4968 AT - 0.0174 AT + 0.0063 ATH -
- 0.0394 AH + 0.0383 AT + 0.0001 AH2 -
- 1.3581 AT + 0.3899 AH - 0.0270 ATH +
- 0.0109 AT + 0.0000 AH2 + 0.0008 AH +
- 5.6785 AH + 2.9588 AT - 0.0881 ATH +
- 0.0230 AT + 0.0014 AT2 + 0.0028 AH -
- 0.4684 AT + 0.0048 ATH + 0.0067 AT2 -
- 0.0329 AH + 0.0302 AT + 0.0001 AH2 -
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0249 ATH -
0000 ATH -
3512 AT +
0048 AH -
0003 AH2 -
0013 AT2 -
0491 AT2 +
oooo ATH -
0085 AH2 +
oooi ATH -
0002 AH2 +
0005 ATH +
0.0011 AH2
0.0000 AH2
0.0441 AT2
0.0000 AH2
0.0134 AH
0.0000 ATH
0.0024 AH2
0.0000 AT2
0.0906 AT2
0.0000 AH2
0.0071 AH
0.0001 AT2
59.038
0.151
151.64
1.900
13.388
1.107
25.938
0.121
103.891
0.534
7.540
0.720
0.281
0.584
0.883
0.288
0.448
0.789
0.506
0.754
0.919
0.564
0.700
0.870
0.079 *f
0.341 H
0.780
0.083
0.201
0.622
0.256
0.568
0.845
0.318
0.490
0.757
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-12
April 24, 1970
Table 3.3
Composite Vehicle Regression Equations
Correlation Comparison
Analysis
Emission
PHASE I
HC (ppm)
CO (%)
NO (ppm)
HC (gms/mile)
CO (gms/mile)
NO (gms/mile)
X
Linear
r
0.037
0.288
0.752
0.035
0.179
0.595
Quadratic
0.079
0.341
0.780
0.083
0.201
0.622
Improvement
0.042
0.053
0.028
0.048
0.022
0.027
PHASE II
HC (ppm)
CO (%)
NO (ppm)
HC (gms/mile)
CO (gms/mile)
NO (gms/mile)
X
0.207
0.513
0.839
0.239
0.440
0.734
0.256
0.568
0.845
0.318
0.490
0.757
0.049
0.055
0.006
0.079
0.050
0.023
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-13 April 24, 1970
concentrations for the Phase II composite vehicle to be explained by the
relationship of the linear regression plane. Note further, for that case,
that the quadratic fit yields an absolute improvement of just 0.6%. In
general, relative to A T and AH, there is a weak relationship for hydro-
carbon emissions, a moderate relationship for CO emissions, and a rather
strong relationship for the oxides of nitrogen.
Correction factors based on the Phase I and Phase II composite
vehicle regression analyses can be determined from the graphs of Appendix E,
Figures E-l through E-16. To illustrate how they would be used, if they
were based on an adequate data sample, consider Figure 3.1. Suppose NO (ppm)
is measured on a day when the ambient temperature is 90.6°F and the humidity
is at a level of 154 grains of water per pound of dry air. Then,
AT = 90.6 - 80.6 = 10°F
AH = 154 - 74 = 80 grains H20/lb dry air.
Entering Figure 3.1 with those values of AT and AH, one finds that about
418 ppm must be added to the measured value to reduce it to a value at the
standard of T = 80.6 and H = 74.
The relative importance of temperature and humidity is easily
obtained from Figure 3.1. For example, the total excursion of the correction
factor for AH = constant and AT ranging from +15 to -20 is just 140 ppm of
NO. On the other hand, if AT = constant, then the total excursion of the
correction factor where AH ranges from -60 to +100 is about 960 ppm of NO.
The sensitivity of each emission to A T and AH is thus indicated by both
the regression equations and the calibration charts in Appendix E.
-------
-400
-300
-200
-100
AH
-60
-40
-20
+40
+60
+80
+400
+500
+600
Figure 3.1
for
+700
C.F.
Correction Factor
Temperature and Humidity versus
Nitric Oxide (ppm)
Phase II
+100
I
I—•
J>
AT
-20°F
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 3-15 April 24, 1970
It must be clearly recognized, of course, that judgment must be
exercised in applying these correction factors because they are based on
a small sample of vehicles. The results of the regression analyses show
quite clearly that additional work with a larger vehicle sample is desirable.
The results have established, however, the feasibility of
developing factors for the purpose of correcting exhaust emission measure-
ments to standard conditions of temperature and humidity. It is recommended,
therefore, that additional work be accomplished with a larger vehicle sample
to establish these factors with a greater degree of confidence. The initial
phase of any further effort should consist of preliminary exhaust emission
measurements on a larger-than-desired fleet of vehicles in order to eliminate
those vehicles whose exhaust content is variable beyond a reasonable level.
Further, representation of foreign vehicles must be increased in order to
include them in the composite vehicle regression or to determine a separate
set of calibration charts.
-------
APPENDIX A
Determination of Mass Emissions
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846 April 24, 1970
DETERMINATION OF MASS EMISSIONS
Emissions (grams/mile) = C • V • T • d
where C = Concentration of emissions measured in ppm
V = Specific volume flow rate of variable dilution system*
T = Time in travel one mile averaged over the nine cycles
d = Density of particular emission value in grams per cubic foot*
* These values are stated at standard conditions of 68 F and 29.92 inches
of Hg pressure.
Sample Calculation
Suppose C = 230 ppm unburned hydrocarbons
V = 322 SCFM (at 68°F and 29.92 in. of Hg)
T = 2.755 minutes per mile
d = 16.33 grams per cubic foot (at 68°F and 29.92 in. of Hg) .
Then, E= (.000230)(322 ft3/min.)(2.755 min/mile)(16.33 grams/ft3)
= 3.33 grams/mile unburned hydrocarbons
C ... Values obtained by analyzing bag samples of diluted exhaust gas
for concentration of each emission.
V ... Volume flow rate of variable dilution system measured for each
individual test and corrected to 68°F and 29.92 inches of Hg.
T ... Time-distance constant for all vehicles travelling nine cycles
of 0.833 miles per cycle, in 137 seconds per cycle. Additional
20 seconds for first cycle idle mode and 5 seconds for system
operating time after completion of ninth cycle added in to total
time.
d ... Densities of respective pollutants as detailed below:
d for HC = 16.33 grams/cubic foot
d for CO =33.11 grams/cubic foot
d for NO = 54.16 grams/cubic foot
X
-------
APPENDIX B
Test Data
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Project #2846
Table B-l
Vehicle Number 1
Phase 1
April 24, 1970
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
12-30-69
12-10-69
11-26-69
11-19-69
11-13-69
11-10-69
12-9-69
12-3-69
12-2-69
11-21-69
11-25-69
12-5-69
11-28-69
12-11-69
12-26-69
12-17-69
12-16-69
12-8-69
12-12-69
12-18-69
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
Ppm
432
501
453
494
513
498
373
517
492
412
504
480
506
506
577
414
521
593
537
553
C0%
1.16
1.06
1.17
1.00
1.02
1.21
1.17
0.91
0.95
0.89
0.96
1.00
1.07
0.87
1.09
0.84
0.99
0.86
0.83
0.79
NO
Ppm
1947
1682
1748
2130
1933
1888
1318
2032
1914
1454
1582
1269
1338
1378
1868
1618
1678
1417
1344
1015
HC
5.99
5.36
5.39
6.34
5.88
6.42
5.13
6.06
5.60
4.90
5.62
4.87
5.94
5.43
5.44
6.12
7.69
5.52
5.65
5.95
CO
43.8
38.9
42.6
27.8
23.7
30.1
40.5
30.8
34.6
32.5
36.2
35.2
39.6
33.5
35.3
30.8
32.7
31.0
29.6
25.7
NOX
9.20
8.30
6.45
13.7
12.6
8.81
7.48
13.0
10.4
8.54
7.36
6.19
5.91
6.76
10.5
8.08
10.5
7.79
6.11
4.98
Run
No.
3835
3768
3718
3694
3686
3680
3760
3741
3734
3702
3710
3748
3726
3776
3821
3796
3789
3757
3782
3903
-------
Table B-2
Vehicle Number 2
Phase I
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
12-30-69
12-10-69
11-26-69
11-19-69
11-13-69
11-10-69
12-19-69
12-3-69
12-2-69
11-21-69
11-25-69
12-5-69
12-1-69
12-11-69
12-26-69
12-17-69
12-16-69
12-7-69
12-15-69
12-18-69
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
461
508
503
582
567
437
411
446
467
636
480
689
629
519
466
361
391
462
460
472
C0%
1.04
0.98
1.06
1.00
1.14
1.40
1.03
0.95
0.94
1.28
0.92
1.12
1.24
0.96
1.01
0.85
0.87
0.95
1.19
0.98
NO
ppm
2202
2156
2024
2158
1812
1670
1719
2214
2157
1713
1628
1552
1473
1410
1980
1974
1576
1318
1194
1333
HC
6.53
5.71
5.21
7.33
6.50
6.10
4.98
4.29
5.08
8.32
5.12
7.79
7.28
4.90
5.00
4.90
5.45
4.85
5.82
5.29
CO
37.5
27.3
27.1
26.0
27.3
48.2
28.4
25.1
25.1
34.9
27.0
31.8
35.7
26.3
24.0
27.2
33.6
35.1
39.3
29.0
NOV
8.75
8.11
6.91
11.2
10.8
4.89
7.89
8.57
8.96
9.26
6.72
7.67
7.44
5.89
9.13
7.89
6.98
6.73
4.99
5.76
Run
No.
3836
3769
3719
3695
3687
3769
3763
3742
3735
3703
3711
3749
3727
3775
3822
3797
3790
3758
3783
3804
-------
Table B-3
Vehicle Number 3
Phase I
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
12-30-69
12-10-69
11-28-69
11-20-69
11-17-69
11-10-69
12-9-69
12-27-69
12-2-69
11-24-69
11-25-69
12-4-69
12-1-69
12-11-69
12-26-69
12-17-69
12-16-69
12-5-69
12-15-69
12-18-69
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
306
327
251
323
316
330
326
339
345
293
345
280
356
338
307
258
300
362
385
323
C0%
1.24
1.01
0.56
0.98
1.18
1.31
0.93
0.76
0.74
0.59
0.89
0.66
0.92
0.88
0.63
0.56
0.58
0.72
0.77
0.75
NO
ppm
1520
1793
1591
1674
1521
1467
1443
2132
1826
1608
1510
1262
1094
1210
1702
1782
1264
1343
879
1301
HC
4.63
5.30
3.32
4.83
5.51
4.81
4.71
4.17
4.81
3.44
4.61
4.44
5.02
4.94
4.38
4.21
4.41
5.05
5.31
5.23
CO
50.0
43.3
21.8
33.5
40.8
46.2
37.9
31.3
25.4
23.7
28.8
26.5
34.2
33.6
21.9
18.4
23.7
26.9
29.0
25.8
NO
8.04
10.1
8.49
8.56
8.28
6.70
7.72
11.1
8.71
8.71
8.04
7.60
7.58
7.44
11.0
10.9
8.03
9.43
5.88
6.42
Run
No.
3837
3770
3721
3696
3688
3681
3761
3829
3736
3704
3712
3743
3727
3777
3823
3798
3791
3750
3784
3805
-------
Table B-4
Vehicle Number 4
Phase I
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
12-30-69
12-11-69
11-28-69
11-20-69
11-17-69
11-11-69
12-9-69
12-29-69
12-3-69
11-24-69
11-25-69
12-4-69
12-2-69
12-12-69
12-26-69
12-18-69
12-16-69
12-5-69
12-15-69
12-19-69
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
330
411
324
344
372
266
364
350
373
316
286
399
412
369
372
250
358
378
412
383
C0%
1.47
1.69
1.55
1.92
1.79
1.30
1.57
1.21
1.21
1.38
1.36
1.45
1.43
1.59
1.14
1.10
1.07
1.01
1.23
1.31
NO
ppm
1420
1256
1218
1455
1296
1183
1224
1547
1361
1221
929
1020
821
678
1404
1211
1203
1089
753
702
HC
5.44
7.09
6.48
6.44
6.64
4.16
6.34
4.80
5.41
5.44
5.20
6.06
5.68
6.79
5.16
5.18
5.60
3.58
6.43
6.41
CO
65.7
84.4
66.8
68.3
67.7
36.3
65.4
43.5
43.3
55.5
47.5
48.5
51.6
63.4
37.3
38.9
34.6
47.9
36.6
42.2
NC-
— — 3£
6.90
5.73
5.62
6.43
6.17
5.61
5.92
8.31
6.76
6.99
6.00
6.38
4.64
4.41
8.47
7.04
6.48
6.56
5.02
4.51
Run
No.
3838
3771
3721
3697
3689
3682
3762
3830
3737
3705
3713
3744
3729
3798
3824
3799
3793
3751
3785
3806
-------
Table B-5
Vehicle Number 5
Phase I
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
12-30-69
12-11-69
11-28-69
11-20-69
11-17-69
11-11-69
12-10-69
12-29-69
12-2-69
11-24-69
11-26-69
12-4-69
12-2-69
12-12-69
12-26-69
12-18-69
12-16-69
12-5-69
12-15-69
12-19-69
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
449
539
565
503
573
378
454
406
559
430
532
500
622
453
392
440
360
429
446
424
C0%
1.54
1.90
1.66
1.58
1.70
1.42
1.56
1.50
1.72
1.59
1.70
1.90
1.88
1.80
1.43
1.54
1.40
1.56
1.60
1.77
NO
ppnt
2489
1939
2241
2506
2559
2021
1672
2128
2421
2305
1865
2151
1656
1354
2137
1986
1650
1601
1393
1152
HC
5.26
6.82
12.8
20.9
10.4
5.12
6.29
5.23
12.2
7.20
10.9
5.98
11.7
5.94
4.54
5.53
4.91
5.12
5.11
6.85
CO
50.0
70.4
98.2
158.7
72.4
46.6
55.0
46.1
83.1
76.5
76.5
53.9
78.8
51.0
37.2
47.5
41.6
45.3
42.4
62.9
N0y
10.6
8.14
7.99
11.5
11.8
80.1
7.29
9.65
11.1
11.2
8.68
8.07
8.50
5.68
10.5
8.89
8.20
8.08
6.26
4.99
Run
No.
3839
3772
3722
3698
3690
3683
3764
3831
3738
3706
3714
3745
3730
3779
3825
3800
3793
3752
3786
3807
-------
Table B-6
Vehicle Number 6
Phase I
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Date
12-30-69
12-11-69
11-28-69
11-20-69
11-18-69
11-7-69
12-10-69
12-29-69
12-3-69
11-24-69
11-26-69
12-4-69
12-2-69
12-12-69
12-27-69
12-18-69
12-16-69
12-9-69
12-15-69
12-19-69
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
PPm
276
318
275
261
225
319
304
272
314
271
257
266
315
300
227
314
282
297
325
C0%
1.86
1.73
1.32
1.71
2.26
2.43
2.54
2.36
2.70
1.97
2.13
2.33
2.53
2.62
2.26
2.66
2.66
2.36
3.13
NO
ppm
1651
1338
742
1413
1195
1131
1044
1158
1360
1080
869
1014
864
1124
1036
975
696
742
456
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
HC
3.04
3.63
3.22
2.94
3.22
3.55
3.37
2.84
4.36
3.07
3.28
2.73
3.06
3.31
3.32
2.89
3.10
3.16
3.10
3.62
CO
48.0
56.0
46.7
52.1
66.4
64.1
70.7
58.2
87.0
57.5
76.2
69.8
65.0
72.5
63.0
63.0
65.8
81.4
64.0
84.4
NOX
3.76
3.92
3.03
4.44
3.22
2.46
2.53
3.10
2.99
4.37
3.68
3.40
3.58
2.91
2.18
3.05
2.10
2.98
2.46
1.62
Run
No.
3840
3773
3723
3699
3691
3678
3765
3832
3739
3707
3715
3746
3731
3780
3826
3801
3794
3759
3787
3808
-------
Table B-7
Vehicle Number 7
Phase 1
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
12-30-68
12-11-68
11-28-69
11-21-69
11-19-69
11-12-69
12-10-69
12-29-69
12-3-69
11-25-69
11-26-69
12-4-69
12-2-69
12-12-69
12-27-69
12-18-69
12-22-69
12-8-69
12-15-69
12-19-69
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
PPm
1046
1032
894
718
830
792
1004
949
1171
1031
891
1054
959
969
873
867
924
952
902
1125
C0%
2.30
2.36
2.32
2.41
2.19
2.30
2.68
2.58
3.16
2.89
2.15
2.52
2.84
2.80
2.72
2.73
2.36
2.96
3.12
2.99
NO
PPm
2033
1617
1132
1639
1910
1958
1380
1811
1690
1495
1419
1631
1253
1250
1871
1532
1431
1255
1064
1066
HC
7.51
7.86
6.22
6.27
6.35
6.21
7.78
6.75
6.96
7.72
5.88
6.57
4.07
6.41
5.76
6.32
5.38
7.13
6.55
7.37
CO
29.6
31.0
30.4
33.1
26.0
30.8
36.2
37.2
34.4
36.8
36.2
34.3
6.94
37.3
38.6
33.2
32.5
45.6
37.2
35.7
NO
8.26
6.55
5.79
6.99
7.37
6.29
6.26
7.32
7.17
6.07
7.51
6.56
9.34
5.87
7.19
6.80
7.34
6.94
5.21
5.42
Run
No.
3841
3774
3724
3700
3694
3684
3766
3833
3740
3708
3716
3747
3732
3781
3826
3802
3815
3754
3788
3809
-------
Table B-8
Vehicle Number 8
Phase 1
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
12-30-69
12-31-69
11-28-69
11-21-69
11-19-69
11-12-69
12-10-69
12-29-69
12-31-69
11-25-69
11-26-69
1-2-70
12-2-69
12-23-69
12-20-69
12-19-69
12-22-69
12-8-69
12-22-69
12-23-69
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
806
818
1061
860
876
953
1329
664
691
951
912
717
1190
635
650
634
791
1137
795
901
C0%
4.88
5.58
1.84
1.98
1.74
2.02
2.43
4.66
5.49
2.79
2.53
5.29
2.86
5.46
3.90
4.16
4.67
2.49
4.85
5.22
NO
ppm
350
259
858
801
791
720
600
288
315
650
592
182
354
243
394
348
224
497
229
94
HC
8.22
9.30
7.15
7.15
7.13
7.87
10.4
7.80
8.24
7.64
7.00
7.18
8.67
9.16
9.04
6.45
7.26
8.57
8.01
9.51
CO
89.1
92.2
33.5
38.8
33.1
46.7
56.7
87.1
97.3
53.4
43.8
92.3
68.6
94.8
79.6
81.8
76.2
54.5
87.7
103.9
NOV
1.48
1.27
2.76
2.93
3.20
2.39
2.15
1.32
1.96
3.64
2.39
0.81
3.04
1.02
1.08
0.64
1.48
2.25
0.42
0.81
Run
No.
3834
3842
3725
3701
3692
3685
3767
3828
3843
3709
3717
3844
3733
3819
3811
3810
3814
3756
3816
3817
-------
Table B-9
Vehicle Number 1
Phase 2
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
2-3-70
1-13-70
1-23-70
2-2-70
1-5-70
2-3-70
1-19-70
1-6-70
1-30-70
1-21-70
1-14-70
1-12-70
1-15-70
1-7-70
1-29-70
1-22-70
1-8-70
1-20-70
2-5-70
1-27-70
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
pom
395
371
401
348
410
426
388
365
342
392
349
349
455
436
404
426
440
378
405
400
C0%
1.20
1.12
1.32
1.26
1.14
1.33
1.15
1.14
1.26
0.98
1.01
0.94
1.23
1.22
0.99
0.88
1.17
1.05
1.27
1.26
NO
£pm
1499
1414
1448
1539
1491
1327
1177
1595
1551
1253
1105
1117
1175
914
1581
1385
1193
1083
846
927
HC
5.10
4.96
6.21
5.10
4.99
5.64
4.87
4.47
*
5.64
4.61
3.79
4.85
5.46
5.04
5.36
6.40
4.91
5.03
5.13
CO
35.3
43.4
49.1
48.0
35.8
40.4
46.7
29.6
*
50.3
38.5
21.5
29.9
36.6
40.4
25.5
54.0
36.1
37.9
38.0
N0y
7.62
6.81
6.54
6.92
6.90
6.48
5.39
7.42
*
5.26
6.06
4.24
3.39
3.35
7.51
7.04
4.69
5.34
4.62
4.94
Run
No.
3982
3881
3940
3975
3847
3990
39~09
3852
3966
3923
3888
3874
3897
3860
3958
3932
3867
3915
3999
3949
* System or vehicle malfunction - data not valid.
-------
Table B-10
Vehicle Number 2
Phase 2
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
2-3-70
1-13-70
1-23-70
2-2-70
1-2-70
2-3-70
1-16-70
1-6-70
1-30-70
1-21-70
1-14-70
1-12-70
1-15-70
1-7-70
1-29-70
1-22-70
1-9-70
1-20-70
2-5-70
1-28-70
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
PPi"
335
350
375
321
399
352
384
366
289
362
333
309
377
418
331
356
354
346
357
351
C0%
1.56
1.46
1.39
1.37
1.34
1.33
1.45
1.28
1.43
1.16
1.40
1.36
1.27
1.48
1.09
1.03
1.19
1.15
1.34
1.35
NO
ppm
1582
1427
1450
1589
1551
1515
1312
1728
1642
1330
1304
1157
1091
1155
1625
1471
1299
1283
897
888
HC
4.92
4.39
5.67
4.66
4.94
5.10
4.87
4.65
4.43
5.08
4.84
4.81
4.68
4.44
4.59
5.53
4.86
4.58
4.80
4.65
CO
52.9
47.2
44.8
50.3
41.2
42.4
44.7
33.8
36.5
34.1
36.2
48.2
33.6
39.1
32.2
30.8
41.0
36.2
35.9
41.4
NOX
8.21
5.92
5.60
6.69
6.60
6.46
5.15
7.12
6.37
6.44
4.26
4.94
4.61
3.94
7.26
6.80
5.42
5.59
4.38
3.84
Run
No.
3983
3882
3941
3976
3845
3991
3906
3853
3967
3924
3890
3875
3898
3861
3959
3933
3868
3916
4000
3950
-------
Table B-ll
Vehicle Number 3
Phase 2
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions
Cms/Mile
Date
2-3-70
1-13-70
1-26-70
2-2-70
1-5-70
2-4-70
1-19-70
1-7-70
1-30-70
1-21-70
1-14-70
1-12-70
1-15-70
1-8-70
1-29-70
1-22-70
1-9-70
1-20-70
2-5-70
1-28-70
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
Ppm
340
353
366
314
337
332
348
357
262
327
338
324
358
338
298
335
321
322
328
333
C0%
1.33
1.23
1.11
1.13
1.13
1.27
1.06
0.72
0.78
0.63
0.76
0.92
0.86
0.85
0.61
0.69
0.72
0.73
0.90
0.96
NO
Ppm
1763
1653
1498
1694
1737
1533
1378
1872
1823
1657
1731
1345
1404
1053
1696
1863
1543
1468
1140
1077
HC
6.08
5.72
6.13
4.96
5.58
5.52
4.78
4.56
4.24
4.82
5.41
4.81
5.72
4.79
4.38
5.09
4.44
4.50
4.67
5.16
CO
61.9
53.6
42.9
37.6
35.0
42.8
34.4
27.8
27.8
18.1
26.7
28.4
32.0
26.4
17.2
22.0
25.6
26.9
28.9
24.5
NO
8.31
7.74
7.89
8.33
8.89
5.82
5.58
10.6
8.45
9.34
9.08
7.36
6.61
5.86
9.84
9.28
7.17
7.12
5.83
5.20
Run
No.
3984
3883
3942
3977
3848
3993
3910
3856
3968
3925
3891
3876
3899
3862
3960
3934
3869
3917
4001
3951
-------
Table B-12
Vehicle Number 4
Phase 2
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
2-3-70
1-13-70
1-26-70
1-5-70
1-30-70
1-19-70
1-7-70
2-4-70
1-22-70
1-14-70
1-12-70
1-16-70
1-8-70
1-29-70
1-23-70
1-9-70
1-20-70
2-6-70
1-28-70
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
320
408
407
C0%
1.76
1.69
1.74
NO
PPm
1469
1328
1333
HC
6.62
7.88
9.07
CO
75.2
79.6
85.8
NO
7.12
5.98
6.08
Run
No.
3985
3884
3943
TEST RESULTS VOID
404
281
349
359
315
302
311
330
364
384
279
313
316
316
351
339
1.47
1.31
1.40
1.24
1.65
1.17
1.32
1.28
1.36
1.55
0.84
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
1.43
1524
1559
1161
1526
1232
1477
1308
1122
1070
970
1606
1503
1311
1254
910
767
6.04
4.76
5.57
5.97
5.96
5.64
5.45
5.41
5.55
6.07
4.65
5.44
4.42
5.00
5.84
4.89
59.2
37.5
55.0
47.9
55.2
45.2
48.5
50.2
47.9
52.7
24.2
38.9
28.7
26.8
50.9
43.2
8.06
7.65
4.96
8.04
6.02
7.70
6.46
5.56
4.86
4.57
9.50
7.77
6.67
6.24
3.93
3.85
3849
3969
3911
3855
3995
3927
3889
3877
3902
3863
3961
3936
3870
3918
4005
3952
-------
Table B-13
Vehicle Number 5
Phase 2
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
2-3-70
1-13-70
1-26-70
2-2-70
1-6-70
2-4-70
1-19-70
1-7-70
1-30-70
1-22-70
1-15-70
1-12-70
1-16-70
1-8-70
1-29-70
1-23-70
1-9-70
1-20-70
2-6-70
1-28-70
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
350
382
383
327
369
369
360
360
322
341
333
340
349
373
317
329
318
332
368
353
C0%
1.03
0.85
0.96
0.65
0.74
1.06
0.81
0.73
0.74
0.87
0.72
0.82
0.72
0.96
0.68
0.65
0.84
0.63
0.86
0.96
NO
ppm
2103
1960
2010
2278
2190
1981
1929
2262
2354
2051
1962
1757
1673
1395
2441
2170
1910
2165
1331
1146
HC
4.98
4.78
5.04
4.66
4.37
5.08
4.34
4.01
4.05
4.67
3.89
4.47
3.85
4.54
4.10
4.21
4.16
4.06
4.70
4.24
CO
47.1
37.1
38.5
30.0
26.2
40.8
25.2
29.5
23.8
33.0
23.4
40.6
21.4
33.8
24.1
22.0
27.2
19.9
30.1
29.8
NOX
8.01
7.74
7.89
9.97
9.22
6.44
7.39
9.71
9.35
7.74
7.60
6.89
6.21
5.62
10.4
8.89
7.34
6.70
4.97
4.28
Run
No.
3986
3885
3943
3979
3851
3994
3912
3857
3970
3928
3894
3878
3903
3864
3962
3936
3871
3919
4006
3953
-------
Table B-14
Vehicle Number 6
Phase 2
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
02-03-70
01-13-70
01-26-70
02-02-70
01-02-70
02-04-70
01-19-70
01-07-70
01-30-70
01-22-70
01-15-70
01-12-70
01-16-70
01-08-70
01-29-70
01-23-70
01-09-70
01-21-70
02-07-70
01-28-70
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
219
275
271
223
303
250
298
281
226
262
267
315
279
322
246
244
314
336
307
281
C0%
2.58
2.09
2.03
1.89
2.63
2.01
2.09
2.72
1.89
2.92
2.95
2.52
3.38
2.55
2.46
3.30
2.72
2.86
2.95
2.86
NO
ppm
1265
1391
1296
1543
1156
1358
1321
1276
1540
1026
920
1023
735
855
1483
979
1157
1068
828
678
HC
3.28
3.53
3.22
3.59
3.53
3.53
3.65
3.99
2.90
3.52
3.20
3.87
3.50
3.86
3.49
3.34
3.99
4.94
4.05
3.00
CO
63.8
53.7
52.9
58.8
60.3
57.4
61.7
77.2
53.4
72.0
66.0
65.6
74.4
57.1
58.6
74.2
52.7
77.9
67.5
65.5
NO
1 'A.
2.84
3.27
2.98
3.52
3.27
3.00
2.98
2.84
3.01
2.39
2.51
2.14
2.12
1.86
2.87
2.82
4.08
2.59
1.68
1.20
Run
No.
3987
3886
3945
3980
3846
3996
3913
3858
3971
3929
3895
3879
3904
3865
3963
3937
3872
3926
4007
3954
-------
Table B-15
Vehicle Number 7
Phase 2
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Gms/Mile
Date
02-03-70
02-04-70
01-26-70
02-02-70
01-19-70
02-04-70
01-16-70
01-30-70
01-30-70
01-22-70
01-14-70
01-15-70
01-15-70
01-16-70
02-06-70
01-23-70
01-21-70
01-21-70
02-05-70
01-28-70
T Dry
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
GR/LB
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
29
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
494
442
538
405
451
528
408
413
368
431
462
384
343
419
399
473
380
436
442
427
C0%
2.87
2.64
2.66
2.01
2.60
3.05
2.68
2.89
2.67
2.91
3.13
3.00
2.75
3.02
3.00
3.18
2.60
3.31
3.20
3.15
NO
PPm
832
951
893
1147
961
897
784
929
843
821
679
716
607
668
936
836
845
650
506
598
HC
8.48
5.76
6.54
4.88
4.58
9.16
5.57
5.44
4.27
5.03
5.52
4.71
3.50
4.41
4.42
4.48
4.47
5.41
4.80
4.59
CO
39.1
40.7
36.6
33.9
29.2
42.9
32.6
39.5
33.6
40.9
32.2
35.9
28.3
31.8
41.2
49.2
34.0
40.1
34.8
40.3
NOY
3.91
4.10
3.86
4.45
3.70
3.83
2.55
3.70
3.49
3.45
2.53
2.94
2.98
2.96
3.96
3.16
3.61
3.23
3.73
3.09
Run
No.
3988
3992
3947
3974
3908
3998
3907
3973
3965
3930
3892
3893
3900
3901
4003
3938
3921
3920
4002
3955
-------
Table B-16
Vehicle Number 8
Phase 2
7-Mode Cycle
Weighted Emissions
Mass Emissions -
Cms/Mile
Date
02-03-70
01-13-70
01-26-70
02-02-70
01-05-70
02-04-70
01-19-70
01-07-70
01-30-70
01-22-70
01-15-70
01-12-70
01-16-70
01-08-70
01-29-70
01-23-70
01-09-70
01-21-70
02-06-70
01-28-70
59
59
59
71
71
71
71
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
95
95
95
95
95
95
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
40
60
80
100
140
180
HC
ppm
744
634
729
648
691
674
669
535
591
603
560
632
685
714
630
675
643
669
731
793
C0%
4.72
4.95
4.47
5.10
5.18
5.12
5.39
4.72
5.27
5.44
5.34
5.13
5.65
5.64
5.51
5.44
5.48
4.80
5.47
5.87
NO
PPm
360
355
348
366
296
294
304
260
345
194
234
264
220
240
287
283
303
207
121
281
HC
9.07
7.86
9.05
9.08
7.64
9.13
8.79
6.56
8.19
6.15
7.00
8.33
8.11
7.98
7.01
7.88
5.98
7.20
8.03
9.38
CO
81.5
79.4
90.5
91.2
87.4
88.2
95.5
92.2
89.3
74.2
85.0
89.4
91.2
84.9
88.4
91.1
68.6
85.3
88.9
102.2
NP-x
1.07
1.27
1.06
1.29
0.84
1.05
0.72
0.64
1.27
1.26
1.05
1.05
0.85
0.84
0.85
0.82
2.54
1.10
0.84
0.83
Run
No.
3989
3887
3946
3981
3850
3997
3914
3859
3972
3931
3896
3880
3905
3866
3957
3939
3873
3922
4004
3956
-------
APPENDIX C
Linear Regression Equations
By Vehicle and Phase
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table C-l
Linear Regression Equations for
Unburned Hydrocarbons (ppm) versus
Temperature and Humidity
Vehicle
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
PHASE
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
Linear Regression Equation
I
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
II
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
= 493
= 497
- 320
= 353
« 472
= 285
= 949
• 868
= 396
= 353
» 331
= 339
» 348
= 276
= 432
= 662
.8 +
.4 -
.5 +
.4 +
.7 -
.2 +
.2 -
.6 -
.7 +
.2 +
.6 -
.4 -
.8 -
.0 +
.2 -
.5 +
1.9029
2.1520
0.1932
0.4291
3.1192
0.3244
0.8945
7.3787
0.1985
0.3104
1.1433
2.1562
1.4681
0.4418
1.8885
1.0798
AT +
AT +
AH +
AH -
AT +
AH -
AT +
AT +
AH +
AH -
AT +
AT +
AT +
AH +
AT +
AH -
0.0791
0.4558
0.2588
0.4122
0.3538
0.4128
0.8315
1.9108
0.1653
0.8237
0.2304
0.3878
0.2861
0.1035
0.0571
2.3483
AH
AH
AT
AT
AH
AT
AH
AH
AT
AT
AH
AH
AH
AT
AH
AT
S
e
51.24
85.80
33.41
44.62
67.46
29.38
111.51
182.06
31.64
28.76
20.17
33.60
14.26
29.19
47.63
50.24
r
0.474
0.287
0.319
0.367
0.473
0.396
0.296
0.457
0.324
0.413
0.556
0.610
0.770
0.593
0.455
0.659
2
r
0.226
0.083
0.102
0.136
0.225
0.158
0.088
0.210
0.106
0.172
0.311
0.375
0.597
0.354
0.208
0.436
NOTE: T = Observed temperature ( F) minus average temperature (80.6 F)
H = Observed humidity (grains/lb.) minus average humidity (74 grains/lb.)
S = Standard error or the estimate
r = Multiple correlation coefficient of HC with T and H.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table C-2
Linear Regression Equations for
Percent Carbon Monoxide versus
Temperature and Humidity
Vehicle
Number Linear Regression Equation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NOTE
PHASE I
CO (%)
CO (%)
CO (%)
pn f 9^
L»v/ V«/
CO (%)
CO (%)
rn f "7^
L»U \>*>^
CO (%)
PHASE II
CO (%)
rn f y^
ou \/>/
rn f ^
\-»U \/o)
rn (y)
\-t\J \f9 /
CO (%)
CO (%)
CO (%)
CO (%)
: T = Observed
H = Observed
Se = Standard
r = Multiple
= 0.
= 1.
= 0.
= 1.
= 1.
= 2.
= 2.
= 3.
= 1.
= 1.
= 0.
= 1.
= 0.
= 2.
= 2.
= 5.
99 - 0.
04 - 0.
83 - 0.
38 - 0.
63 + 0.
29 + 0.
61 + 0.
74 + 0.
13 - 0.
32 - 0.
91 - 0.
33 - 0.
81 - 0.
56 + 0.
86 + 0.
23 + 0.
0063
0043
0114
0163
0022
0201
0117
0215
0066
0099
0170
0201
0072
0179
0087
0033
temperature ( F)
AT +
AT +
AT +
AT +
AH -
AT +
AT +
AT +
AT -f
AT +
AT +
AT +
AT +
AT +
AT +
AH +
minus
0.0004
0.0008
0.0005
0.0012
0.0064
0.0022
0.0018
0.0044
0.0015
0.0014
0.0015
0.0023
0.0017
0.0018
0.0021
0.0114
average
AH
AH
AH
AH
AT
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AT
Se
0.091
0.142
0.191
0.169
0.132
0.299
0.252
1.441
0.125
0.089
0.120
0.147
0.104
0.371
0.252
0.270
r
0.727
0.338
0.597
0.754
0.595
0.752
0.645
0.287
0.588
0.788
0.858
0.853
0.650
0.621
0.603
0.705
temperature (80.6
humidity (grains/lb.) minus average
error
or the
correlation
humidity
(74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F)
2
.529
.114
.356
.569
.354
.566
.416
.082
.346
.621
.736
.728
.423
.386
.364
.497
grains/lb. )
estimate
coefficient
of CO
with
T and H.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table C-3
Linear Regression Equations for
Nitric Oxide (ppm) versus
Temperature and Humidity
Vehicle
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
PHASE
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Linear Regression Equation
I
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
II
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
= 1628
= 1763
= 1496
= 1150
= 1961
= 1047
= 1522
= 449
= 1267
= 1365
= 1546
= 1286
= 1953
= 1145
= 805
= 278
- 6
- 6
- 5
_ r
- 7
- 5
- 5
- 6
- 4
- 5
- 5
- 5
- 8
- 4
- 2
- 2
.2382
.0755
.5868
.8453
.5650
.1638
.4825
.5324
.8415
.3353
.8875
.3734
.2308
.6519
.8445
.1803
AH +
AH -
AH +
AH +
AH -
AH -
AH +
AT -
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH -
AH -
AT -
1.0702
3.6357
3.4984
2.6718
3.4675
2.9384
1.3973
0.8779
0.2700
1.8480
5.8465
3.6958
8.6710
1.5256
0.9948
0.5195
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AH
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AH
Se
142.5
149.0
184.5
79.8
205.6
156.1
194.4
202.1
90.1
79.3
97.3
104.0
121.8
154.1
82.6
47.8
r
0.895
0.903
0.795
0.955
0.880
0.856
0.788
0.492
0.926
0.949
0.930
0.911
0.942
0.830
0.863
0.699
2
r
0.801
0.815
0.632
0.912
0.774
0.733
0.621
0.242
0.857
0.901
0.865
0.830
0.877
0.689
0.745
0.489
NOTE: T = Observed temperature ( F) minus average temperature (80.6 F)
H = Observed humidity (grains/lb.) minus average humidity (74 grains/lb.)
S = Standard error or the estimate
r = Multiple correlation coefficient of NO with T and H.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table C-4
Linear Regression Equations for
Unburned Hydrocarbons (grams/mile) versus
Temperature and Humidity
Vehicle
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE I
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
Linear Regression Equation
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
= 5.76
= 5.82
= 4.65
= 5.71
= 7.93
= 3.23
= 6.55
= 8.08
+ 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
0150
0240
0053
0430
0966
0043
0204
0109
AT -
AT +
AH +
AT +
AT -
AT +
AT +
AH -
0.0036
0.0020
0.0048
0.0100
0.0088
0.0008
0.0003
0.0224
AH
AH
AT
/$H
AH
AH
AH
AT
S
e
0.633
1.147
0.570
0.794
4.031
0.388
0.924
0.984
r
0.282
0.241
0.333
0.552
0.359
0.132
0.277
0.412
2
r
0.079
0.058
0.110
0.304
0.128
0.017
0.076
0.169
PHASE II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NOTE:
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
T =
H =
Se -
r =
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
Observed
Observed
Standard
Multiple
= 5.13
= 4.82
= 5.06
= 5.80
= 4.40
= 3.59
= 5.30
= 7.92
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
- 0.
0028
0037
0398
0684
0224
0110
0610
0584
temperature (°F)
humidity
error or
AT +
AT -
AT +
AT +
AT +
AT +
AT -
AT +
minus
0.0000
0.0005
0.0042
0.0024
0.0017
0.0000
0.0018
0.0119
average
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
0.587
0.344
0.384
0.781
0.301
0.425
1.169
0.820
0.067
0.194
0.770
0.747
0.666
0.317
0.594
0.645
0.004
0.037
0.592
0.558
0.443
0.100
0.352
0.416
temperature (80.6°F)
(grains/lb.) minus average
the
correlation
humidity
(74 grains/lb.)
estimate
coefficient
of HC
with
T and H.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table C-5
Linear Regression Equations for
Carbon Monoxide (grams/mile) versus
Temperature and Humidity
Vehicle
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
PHASE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
Linear Regression Equation
I
(gms/mile)
(gins/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
II
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
-
= 33.74
= 30.79
= 31.13
= 52.26
= 64.70
= 65.22
= 36.27
= 70.55
= 38.78
= 40.12
= 32.02
= 50.13
= 30.17
= 65.53
= 36.83
= 87.21
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 1.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
2249
0407
5107
9750
8332
3607
0596
4575
1359
4122
8025
2300
4322
2941
0418
0546
AT +
AH -
AT +
AT +
AT -
AT +
AH +
AT +
AT -
AT +
AT +
AT +
AT +
AT -
AH +
AH -
0.0100
0.0821
0.0254
0.0507
0.0486
0.0819
0.1281
0.0978
0.0106
0.0317
0.0236
0.0808
0.0354
0.0071
0.1361
0.0654
AH
AT
AH
AH
AH
AH
AT
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AH
AT
AT
S
e
4.987
6.280
6.722
8.739
26.528
9.231
8.432
22.797
8.807
4.546
6.014
8.790
6.035
7.871
5.104
7.384
r
0.489
0.254
0.684
0.808
0.426
0.637
0.425
0.379
0.240
0.735
0.862
0.866
0.648
0.432
0.345
0.292
2
r
0.239
0.064
0.467
0.652
0.181
0.405
0.180
0.143
0.057
0.540
0.743
0.749
0.419
0.186
0.119
0.085
NOTE: T = Observed temperature (°F) minus average temperature (80.6°F)
H = Observed humidity (grains/lb.) minus average humidity (74 grains/lb.)
S = Standard error or the estimate
e
r = Multiple correlation coefficient of CO with T and H.
-------
Scott Research Labs., Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table C-6
Linear Regression Equations for
Oxides of Nitrogen (grams/mile) versus
Temperature and Humidity
Vehicle
Number Linear Regression Equation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE I
N0x(gms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
NO (gms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
NO (gms/mile)
X
PHASE II
NO (gms/mile)
NOxXgms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
NO x( gms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
N0x(gms/mile)
= 8.63
= 7.72
= 8.43
= 6.19
= 8.75
= 3.09
= 6.81
= 1.90
= 5.81
= 5.77
= 7.71
= 6.36
= 7.61
= 2.69
= 3.46
= 1.06
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
0527
0292
0288
0262
0409
0057
0098
0282
0259
0262
0341
0351
0392
0118
0062
0020
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH -
AH +
AT -
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH +
AH -
AH +
0.0630
0.0133
0.0551
0.0558
0.0336
0.0186
0.0101
0.0026
0.0071
0.0157
0.0564
0.0506
0.0419
0.0019
0.0032
0.0056
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AH
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
AT
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
e
.453
.258
.015
.452
.051
.665
.938
.943
.810
.577
.889
.767
.622
.444
.445
.411
r
0.831
0.716
0.754
0.921
0.856
0.564
0.400
0.434
0.826
0.892
0.841
0.881
0.934
0.775
0.578
0.204
2
r
0.690
0.512
0.568
0.848
0.732
0.318
0.160
0.188
0.682
0.795
0.707
0.776
0.872
0.600
0.334
0.041
NOTE: T = Observed temperature (°F) minus average temperature (80.6°F)
H = Observed humidity (grains/lb.) minus average humidity (74 grains/lb.)
S = Standard error or the estimate
r = Multiple correlation coefficient Of NO with T and H.
x
-------
APPENDIX D
General Quadratic Regression
Equations by Vehicle
and Phase
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table D-l
Quadratic Regression Equation for
Unburned Hydrocarbon (ppm) versus
Temperature and Humidity
Veh.
No.
Quadratic Regression Equation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
PHASE
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
I
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
II
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
= +
= +
«* +
= +
— 4.
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
476.
544.
332.
346.
496.
277.
930.
951.
386.
352.
328.
330.
345.
287.
417.
623.
6 + 2.4591 AT + 0.0155ATH - 0.1821AH + 0.
1 - 0.3249 AT2 - 3.0647AT + 0.3753AH + 0.
0 - 0.1253 AT2 + 0.0497ATH + 0.5276 AT - 0.
6 + 0.2815 AH + 0.0077 ATH + 0.0026AR2 - 0.
8 - 3. 7101 AT - 0.1142 AT2 + 0.4890 AH - 0.
0 + 0.3364 AH + 0.0483AT2 - 0.6003AT + 0.
3 + 0.0093 AH2 + 0.5587 AH - 0.8019 AT + 0.
7 - 6. 6560 AT + 2.7554AR - 0.0465 AH2 + 0.
7 + 0.4496 AH + 0.0950A T2 - 0.0375 ATH + 0.
3 + 0.4589 AH -1.4021AT - 0.0411 A TH + 0.
4 - 1.2372 AT + 0.3057AH + 0.0394AH2 - 0.
5 - 2. 4455 AT + 0.4227AH + 0.0049 AH2 - 0.
1 - 1.5883 AT + 0.2991AH + 0.0021 AH2 - 0.
3 + 0.6236 AH - 0.0065AH2 + 0.0074 ATH + 0.
3 + 0.1226 AT2 - 1.0559 AT - 0.0036 AH2 + 0.
8 + 0.0093 ATH + 0.8102 AH + 0.1754 AT2 - 1.
0041A H2 +
0466 ATH -
0031 AH2 -
2246 AT -
0042 AH2 f
0048 A.H2 -
0251 AT2 -
1231 ATH -
0015 A H2 -
0035 AH2 +
0159 ATH +
0293 ATH +
0135 ATH +
1148 AT -
0929 AH +
1296 AT +
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0328 AT2
0052 AH2
0149 AH
0015 AT2
0047 A T2
0287ATH
0093 ATH
1908 AT2
2026 AT
0356 AT2
0007 A H2
0473 AT2
0217 AT2
0072 AT2
0109 ATH
0050 AH2
53.133
82.073
32.081
49.423
71.087
31.388
121.040
180.803
32.947
29.376
21.426
36.093
15.204
28.921
46.521
40.986
0.559
0.555
0.564
0.406
0.538
0.467
0.338
0.598
0.517
0.536
0.599
0.641
0.787
0.690
0.600
0.830
0.312
0.308
0.318
0.165
0.289
0.218
0.114
0.358
0.267
0.287
0.359
0.411
0.619
0.476
0.360
0.689
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table D-2
Quadratic Regression Equation for
Carbon Monoxide (%) Versus
Temperature and Humidity
Veh.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.*
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Quadratic Regression Equation Se
PHASE I
CO (%)
CO (%)
CO (%)
CO (%)
rn ^^
k> \J \ /o /
CO (%)
CO (%)
PHASE II
rr\ f°/~\
\j\j \ft>)
m (a/\
L«U \/o )
rn (a/\
\J\J \ /Q )
rn (°/\
L»U \«> /
rn f7"^
V>U \ '° /
CO (%)
CO (%)
CO (%)
= + 1.001
= + 1.122
= + 0.891
= + 1.428
= + 1.665
= + 2.316
=+ 2.985
= + 1.116
= + 1.329
= + 0.890
= + 1.309
= + 0.779
= + 2.607
= + 2.842
= + 5.273
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
+ 0
-1- 0
+ 0
.0075AT
.0047 AT
.0095 AT
.0185 AT
.0022 AH
.0152 AT
.0002 AH2
.0000 ATH
.0107 AT
.0132 AT
.0201 AT
.0000 ATH
.0221 AT
.0105 AT
.0031 AH
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
0001 ATH
0004 AT2
0003 A TH
0005 AT2
0079AT
0000 AH2
0280 AT
0057 AT
0009 AH
0002 ATH
0000 AH2
0066 AT
0017 AH
0029 AH
0004 AT3
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
0001 AT2 +
0009 AH +
0007 AT2 -
0000 AH2 +
0002 AT2 +
0004 AT2 +
0024 AT2 -
0000 AH2 +
0000 AH2 -
0003 AH -
0008 AH -
0014 AH +
0000 AH2 +
0004 AT2 -
0061 AT +
0.0004AH +
O.OOOOAH2 +
0.0009AH -
0.0004AH +
O.OOOOAH2 +
0.0015AH -
0.0005 ATH -
0.0005AH -
0.0007 AT2 +
O.OOOOAH2 -
0.0002 AT2 +
0.0001 AT2 +
0.0002 ATH -
O.OOOOAH2 -
O.OOOOAH2 -
O.OOOOAH2
0.0001 ATH
O.OOOOAH2
0.0000 ATH
o.oooo ATH
o.oooi ATH
0.0022AH
0.0000 AT2
0.0000 ATH
0.0000 AT2
0.0000 ATH
O.OOOOAH2
0.0001 AT2
o.oooo ATH
o.oooi ATH
0.086
0.142
0.176
0.159
0.139
0.305
1.437
0.120
0.085
0.104
0.135
0.110
0.399
0.265
0.272
r2
0.498
0.620
0.848
0.915
0.901
0.680
0.644
0.648
0.762
0.086
0.142
0.176
0.159
0.139
0.305
0.807
0.515
0.741
0.829
0.635
0.796
0.651
0.265
0.549
0.687
0.403
0.634
0.248
0.384
0.719
0.837
0.812
0.462
0.415
0.420
0.581
Indicates unreliable computer output.
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table D-3
Quadratic Regression Equation for
Nitric Oxide (ppm) versus
Temperature and Humidity
Yen.
No.
Quadratic Regression Equation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE
NO
NO
NO.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
PHASE
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
I
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
II
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
1592.
1632.
1402.
1109.
2039.
1070.
1547.
522.
1212.
1338.
1562.
1296.
1987.
1108.
777.
248.
0 -
4 -
7 -
0 -
7 -
0 -
3 -
9 -
7 -
9 -
1 -
0 -
1 -
6 -
2 -
2 _
7.
6.
5.
6.
8.
6.
6.
7.
5.
5.
5.
4.
7.
4.
3.
2.
1277 AH
6498 AH
8980 AH
1516 AH
1740 AH
6434 AH
3879 AH
5566 AT
1677 AH
1985 AH
9607 AH
8007 AH
1900 AH
3906 AH
0139 AH
3376 AT
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 2.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
+ 6.
+ 3.
+ 7.
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
0248 AH2
0746 AH2
0778 AH2
8760 AT
6547 AT2
2954 ATH
4594 AT2
0206 A.H
0441 AH2
1845 ATH
5472 AT
2518 AT
2798 AT
2583 AT2
0230 AH2
6300AH
- 0.0775 AT + 1.0772AT
- 6. 1111 AT - 0.3158 ATH
- 0.3662 ATH + 0.3080 AT2
+ 0.0158 AH2 + 0.1438AT2
- 3.6044 AT + 0.1820 ATH
- 0.4679AT2 - 0.0176AH2
+ 0.0121 AH2 + 0.0793ATH
- 0.3177 AT - 0.4414 AH
- 0.2105 ATH + 0.2798 A T2
+ 0.0311 AT2 + 0.1163 AT2
- 0.0106 AH2 + 0.0684 ATH
- 0.0077 AH2 + 0.0985 AT2
- 0.0132 AH2 - 0.0850&TH
- 0.1445 ATH + 0.0193 AT2
- 0.0966 ATH - 2. 1967 AT
+ 0.0128AH2 + 0.1336A.T2
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
- 1.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 2.
+ 0.
- 0.
0024 A TH
5012 AT2
9928 AT
0408 A TH
0150 AH2
3805 AT
6760AT
0508 ^TH
4034 <*T
7504 AT
0936 AT2
0438 ATH
0955AT2
7274AT
0710A T2
0538 A TH
144.282
102.344
157.743
80.511
208.921
147.334
199.525
213.800
72.002
66.578
105.413
110.718
118.350
164.620
82.650
45.920
0.912
0.963
0.882
0.962
0.899
0.898
0.819
0.549
0.964
0.970
0.932
0.918
0.955
0.842
0.888
0.781
0.832
0.927
0.778
0.925
0.808
0.806
0.671
0.301
0.929
0.941
0.869
0.843
0.912
0.709
0.789
0.610
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table D-4
Quadratic Regression Equation for
Unburned Hydrocarbon (grams/mile) Versus
Temperature and Humidity
Quadratic Regression Equation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
PHASE
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
PHASE
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
I
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
II
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = •+
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
(gms/mile) = +
6.496 -
4.693 +
5.461 -
8.980 -
3.189 +
6.336 +
7.689 +
4.916 +
4.819 -
4.959 -
5.369 -
4.328 -
3.742 +
5.191 -
7.605 -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0125
.0009
.0005
.1218
.0000
.0007
.0018
.0020
.0000
.0338
.0666
.0162
.0176
.0378
.0000
AT -
ATH -
ATH -
AT -
AH2 -
ATH -
AH2 +
AT2 -
AH2 +
AT +
AT 4-
AT +
AT -
AT 4-
ATI! -
0.0047 AT2 + 0.0020 ATH - 0. 0002 AH2 -
0.0014 AT2 - 0.0000 AH2 + 0.0047 AT +
0.0486AT + 0.0081AH + O.OOOlAfl2 +
0.0116 AT2 + 0.0018 ATH - 0.0241 AH +
0.0065 AT - 0.0001 ATH + 0.0005 AH +
0.0053 AH - 0.0048 AT - 0.0000 AH2 +
0.0106AH -0.0353AT -0.0013ATH +
0.0003 ATH + 0.0027 AH -0.0009AT -
0.0007 AT2 + 0.0016 AH - 0.0007 ATH -
0.0007 AT2 + 0.0001 ATH + 0.0040 AH -
0.0032 AT2 + 0.0055 AH - 0.0009 ATH +
0.0004 AT2 + 0.0002 ATH + O.OOIOAH -
0.0001 AH2 + 0.0011 AH + 0.0004 ATH -
0.0006 AT2 - 0.0038 AH + 0.0010 ATH -
0.0562 AT + 0.0001 AH2 + 0.0003 AT2 +
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0016 AH
0001 AH
0007A T2
0001 AH2
0001 AT2
OOOOA T2
0002A T2
0000 AH2
0025 AT
0000 AH2
0000 AH2
0000 AH2
0002 AT2
0001 AH2
0070 AH
1.065
0.549
0.829
4.077
0.408
0.945
0.994
0.620
0.341
0.397
0.756
0.304
0.448
1.211
0.827
0.576
0.567
0.613
0.516
0.217
0.452
0.550
0.443
0.470
0.801
0.815
0.728
0.511
0.655
0.714
0.332
0.322
0.376
0.266
0.047
0.204
0.303
0.196
0.221
0.642
0.664
0.530
0.261
0.429
0.510
Indicates unreliable computer output.
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Project #2846
April 24, 1970
Table D-5
Quadratic Regression Equations for
Carbon Monoxide (grams/mile) Versus
Temperature and Humidity
Veh.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.*
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.*
PHASE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
PHASE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
I
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
II
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
- +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
33.095
33.414
32.624
51.469
69.731
69.417
56.903
37.831
39.522
29.472
46.450
28.485
65.529
33.641
Quadratic Regression Equation
- 0.2644 AT - 0.0001 AH2 + 0.0185 AT2 +
+ 0.0133 ATH - 0.0023 AH2 + 0.0342 AH -
- 0.4202 AT + 0.0006 ATH - 0.0217 AT2 -
- 0.9753 AT + 0.0423 AH + 0.0003 AH2 +
- 0.9078 AT - 0.0734 AT2 + 0.0154 ATH -
+ 0.2865 AT + 0.0757 AH - 0.0268 AT2 +
+ 0.0059 AH2 + 0.4761 AT + 0.0432 AT2 -
+ 0.0107 AT2 - 0.0005 AH2 - 0.0736 AT +
- 0.2898 AT + 0.0074 ATH - 0.0004 AH2 -
- 0.5451 AT + 0.0113 ATH - 0.0009 AH2 +
- 1.1378 AT - 0.0000 ATH + 0.0009 AH2 +
- 0.3551 AT + 0.0025 ATH + 0.0041 AT2 +
+ 0.3382 AT - 0.0171 AT2 + 0.0074 ATH -
+ 0.0196 AT2 + 0.2025,AT - 0.0447 AH +
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0598AH -
.0123 AT2 +
.0006 AH2 -
.0019 AT2 -
.1800AH +
.0040 ATH -
.0153 ATH -
.0009 ATH +
.0039 AT2 -
.0082 AT2 -
.0473 AH +
.0106 AH +
.0007 AH2 -
.0004 AH2 -
0.0068 ATH
0.0832 AT
0.0239 AH
0.0008 ATH
0.0010 AH2
0.0004 AH2
0.0164 AH
0.0010AH
0.0028AH
0.0211AH
0.0122AT2
0.0001 AH2
0.0287AH
0.0023 ATH
Se
4.368
5.653
6.478
9.598
26.846
9.087
21.843
9.532
4.330
4.367
9.084
6.343
8.327
4.760
r
0.720
0.613
0.770
0.810
0.556
0.712
0.594
0.321
0.810
0.942
0.885
0.687
0.500
0.607
r2
0.518
0.376
0.593
0.656
0.309
0.507
0.353
0.103
0.656
0.887
0.783
0.472
0.250
0.368
Indicates unreliable computer output.
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Project (1*2846
April 24, 1970
Table D-6
Quadratic Regression Equation for
Oxides of Nitrogen (grams/mile) Versus
Temperature and Humidity
Veh.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Quadratic Regression Equation Se
PHASE
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
PHASE
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
I
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
II
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
(gms/mile)
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
8
7
7
6
9
3
7
2
5
5
7
6
7
2
3
1
.733 -
.820 -
.834 -
.026 -
.281 -
.480 -
.079 -
.616 -
.111 -
.434 -
.586 -
.274 -
.484 -
.776 -
.162 -
.125 -
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0666 AH
0361 ^H
0228 AH
0256 AH
0459 AH
0158 AT
0095 AH
0384 AT
0305 AH
0299 AH
0340 AH
0331 AH
0373 AH
0093 AH
0097 AH
0001 AH2
+ 0.0587AT + 0.0002AH2 - 0.0051AT2 + 0.0010 ATH
- 0.0029AT2 + 0.0001AH2 + 0.0003ATH + 0.0054 AT
+ 0.0376AT + 0.0048AT2 - 0.0024ATH + 0.0002 AR2
+ 0.0531AT + 0.0011AT2 - 0.0004ATH + O.OOOOAH2
- 0.0045AT2 + 0.0014ATH + 0.0367AT - 0.0001 AH2
- 0.0025.AT2 - 0.0064AH + 0.0009ATH - 0.0001 AH2
- 0.0014 AT2 * O.OOOOAH2 + 0.0003ATH + 0.0089 AT
- 0.0034AT2 - 0.0001 AH2 + 0.0005ATH + 0.0006 AH
+ 0.0001 AH2 + 0.0025AT2 + 0.0176AT - 0.0002 ATH
+ O.OOOOAH2 + 0.0257 AT + 0.0011AT2 + 0.0001 ATH
+ 0.0460AT + 0.0001 AH2 - 0.0007ATH + 0.0004 AT2
+ 0.0418AT - 0.0006ATH + O.OOOOAH2 + 0.0008 AT2
+ 0.0208AT - 0.0014ATH + 0.0002AH2 + 0.0007 AT2
- 0.0001 AH2 + 0.0004 AT2 + 0.0061AT + 0.0001 ATH
+ 0.0002ATH + 0.0072 AT + 0.0009AT2 + O.OOOOAH2
+ 0.0005 ATH + 0.0151AT - 0.0015AH + 0.0000 AT2
1.228
1.253
0.851
0.470
0.981
0.615
1.010
0.847
0.646
0.538
0.949
0.831
0.542
0.435
0.380
0.398
r
0.904
0.776
0.866
0.930
0.898
0.701
0.446
0.679
0.914
0.923
0.851
0.887
0.959
0.828
0.774
0.510
r2
0.817
0.602
0.750
0.865
0.806
0.491
0.199
0.461
0.835
0.852
0.724
0.787
0.920
0.686
0.599
0.260
-------
APPENDIX E
Composite Vehicle Correction Factors
(Based on small sample - for
illustrative purposes only)
-------
-60
- -50
-40
- -30
+60
+80
AT
+100
-AiH
- +20
^+30
-+40
Figure E-l
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Unburned Hydrocarbons (ppm)
C.F.
Phase I
-------
AH
+15°F ;
C.Fc
Figure E-2
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Carbon Monoxide (%)
Phase I
-------
.. ^400
-300
-200
-100
I
-60
-40
-20
+20
AH
+40
+60
+80
+100
+200
+300
+400
+500
+600
CF.
ALL AT'S FROM
-20°F. TO + I5°F
Figure E-3
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Nitric Oxide (ppm)
Phase I
-------
+15°F
C.F.
Figure E-4
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Unburned Hydrocarbons (gm/mi)
Phase I
-------
AT
-20 °F
+15°F
Figure E-5
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Carbon Monoxide (gin/mi)
Phase I
-------
- -2.00
- -1.00
1-20
+4.0
+6.0
+8.0
+1,00
- +2
C.R
- +3.00
- +4.00
Figure E-
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Oxides of Nitrogen (gm/mi)
Phase I
-------
+60
+80
+100
AT
--20°F
-15°F
-10°F
-5 op
0
+5°F
+10°F
+15°F
-AH
C.F.
Figure E-7
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Unburned Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Phase II
-------
AT
Figure E-8
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Carbon Monoxide (%)
Phase II
-------
AH
-60
-40
-20
i
i—'
*^
+600
+700
C.F.
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Nitric Oxide (ppm)
Phase II
AT
+15°F
0
-10°F
-20°F
-------
Figure E-10
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Unburned Hydrocarbons (gm/mi)
-------
Correction Factor for
Temperature and Humidity versus
Carbon Monoxide (gm/mi)
Phase II
-------
+4.0&
CF.
Temperature and Humidity versus
Oxides of Nitrogen (gm/mi)
Phase II
------- |