197 S O-A - r
Michael W. Leiterman
Gaiv M. WiIsun
Standards Development and Supp 'ft Branch
Emission c.ontrol Technology Di1 ision
Office of Mobile Source Air PoJLurion ConLri>i
Office-- ot Air and Is'aste V|anai dncnt
Environmental Protection Agom.y
June,
-------
1975 EPA - U.S. MVMA Correlation Study
by
Michael W. Leiferman
Gary M. Wilson
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air and Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
June, 1975
-------
Abstract
This study showed (with the exception of CCL) generally good
agreement between the laboratories of AMC, Chrysler, EPA, Ford and GM
in the measurement of hot-start, light-duty vehicle exhaust emissions.
The range of C0? measurement differences was approximately 6%
and this showed a high level of statistical significance. Since the
calculated fuel consumption is based strongly on the CO- measurement,
th is quantity also differed between test sites at a high level of
statistical significance (and a range of about 5%).
The difference in C0« measurements between test sites is believed
to be primarily due to a difference in dynamometer characteristics.
Two different types of dynamometers (belt-dr iven inertia wheels and
direct-drive inertia wheels) were used in the test. Dynamometer torque
measurements revealed that the belt-driven type produced an average of
6% higher vehicle positive torque than the direct-drive type.
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Section
1. Introduction 1
2. Technical Discussion ... 1
2.1 Program Objective 1
2.2 Facilities and Equipment 1
2.2.1 Test Sites 1
2.2.2 Test Vehicles 1
2.3 Program Design 2
2.4 Test Procedure <,.... 2
2.4.1 Vehicle Preparation 2
2.4.2 Emission Tests 2
2.4.3 Fuel Consumption Tests 2
3. Data Analysis 3
4. Test Results and Discussion ..... 3
4.1 Vehicle Emission and Fuel Consumption Tests 3
5. Conclusions ..... 17
6. Recommendations <>.... 17
7. References 18
8. Appendixes
8.1 Appendix A - Test Data
8.2 Appendix B - Plots of Emission and Fuel Consumption Data
Versus Random Variables
-------
List of Tables
Page
Table
1. Correlation Test Sequence 2
2. Exhaust Emission, Fuel Consumption and Torque Measurement
Results for the 1975 Hot-start Procedure 11
3. ANOVA results of Composite Emission, Fuel Consumption and
Torque Data 12
4. Percent Confidence Level of Contrasts which were significant
at greater than the 90% level 12
5. Random Variables which had an Effect on the Dependent
Variables at Higher than an 80% Confidence Level 13
6. ANOVA Comparison - Uncorrected Data and Data Corrected for
Various Random Variables . 14
7. Percent Confidence Level of Contrasts which were Significant
at greater than the 90 percent level - Data Corrected for
Humidity or +T as Indicated 16
List of Figures
Figure
1. HC vs. Run// 4
2. CO vs. Run// 5
3. C02 vs. Run// 6
4. NOx vs. Run// 7
5. FC-C vs. Run// 8
6. FC-M vs. Run// 9
7. +T, -T vs. Run// 10
-------
1. Introduction
In 1974, an exhaust emission correlation study was conducted between
EPA and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States,
Inc.'-^ As a result of that test program it was decided that another,
but somewhat more limited study, should be conducted in early 1975.
This report is a discussion of the 1975 EPA-MVMA correlation program.
Test data was collected in January, 1975. Participants in the study, and
their designation code which will be used in this report, are listed below:
A = American Motors
C = Chrysler
E = EPA
F = Ford
G = General Motors
2. Technical Discussion
2.1 Program Objective
The purpose of this study is to compare the results of vehicle
exhaust emission and fuel consumption tests at EPA facilities and several
American MVMA members. In addition to comparing test results, this study
also compares test equipment, procedures and conditions used at each
facility. If there are any real differences in emissions and/or fuel
consumption measurement, it is hopeful that the analysis of equipment,
procedures, and conditions will reveal the cause of these differences.
2.2 Facilities and Equipment
2.2.1 Test Sites
One test cell, designated as the "master cell", was used at
each of the five test sites. The equipment within each test cell was identical
to the equipment used in the 1974 correlation study, except for site E's
CVS unit. Site E used a positive displacement pump CVS in 1974, but a Philco
critical flow venture (CFV) unit was used in the 1975 program.
As in 1974, the major difference in equipment between facilities
was dynamometer type. Sites C, E and G used dynamometers with direct-drive
inertia wheels and sites A and F used dynamometers with belt-driven inertia
wheels.
2.2.2 Test Vehicle
One test vehicle was used in this study. It was a GM car
(Repca I) with 350 CID engine and an interia testing weight of 4500 Ibs. It
had engine modification exhaust emission controls and had been further modified
to improve hot-start repeatability. Hot-start exhaust emission levels of the
vehicle were near the 1975 Federal standards. The test car was also equipped
with a rear wheel torquemeter for the measurement of dynamometer torque.
-------
2
2.3 Program Design
The program was designed to consist of 2 rounds of testing. Each
round consisted of 5 days of testing (one day at each facility). Each day
four identical tests were conducted. Consequently the test design was eight
tests at each site. This test design is shown in Table I. As shown in the
table, only seven tests were actually made at test site A and E because of
problems encountered during testing.
2,4 Test Procedure
2,4,1 Vehicle Preparation
Each day, prior to testing, the vehicle was warmed up by driving
one LA-4 cycle and 5 minutes of 50 mph steady-state operation.
2.4.2 Emission Tests
After vehicle warm-up, four hot-start 1975 FTP exhaust
emission tests were conducted. Between each of the tests the vehicle's
engine was shut off for approximately 15 minutes. 5 minutes of 50 mph
steady-state pre-conditioning was done before the next test was begun.
2.4.3 Fuel Consumption Tests
While driving the 1975 hot-start FTP, the vehicle's fuel
consumption was determined by two methods (1) direct measurement and
(2) calculation. The direct measurement method was a gravimetric weight
determination of gasoline used during the test. The calculated fuel con-
sumption was a carbon balance based on the content of the vehicle's exhaust
gas.
Table I Correlation Test Sequence
Run
Number
F
I1, 21, 31, A1
21, 22, 23, 242'3
Test Site
A
,2 ,2 ,2 R2
5,6,7,8
29, 30, 31, 324
C
93, 10, 11, 12
25, 26, 27, 28
E
13, 14, 15, 16
33, 34, 35, 364
G
173, 18, 19, 20
37, 38, 39, 40
No measured fuel consumption (FC-M) data.
2
Mo torque measurements.
Omitted from statistical analysis to achieve an equal cell size of 7.
Test not run (ran out of time).
-------
3. Data Analysis
As previously indicated, only seven tests were conducted at test sites
A and E. In the statistical analysis, it was desirable to have an equal
number of tests at each site. For this reason, one test at each of the
remaining sites was randomly omitted (tests 9, 17 and 24).
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the test data in
order to determine if the sites were different in their measurement of HC,
CO, CC>2, NOx, calculated fuel consumption (FC-C), measured fuel consumption
(FC-M), positive dynamometer torque (+T) and negative dynamometer torque
(-T). Scheffe allowances were then calculated so that differences between
individual test sites could be determined.
Also a one-way covariance analysis was done with HC, CO, C02 NOx, FC-C
and FC-M as dependent variables; and barometric pressure (P), dry bulb temp-
erature (DB), humidity (H), +T and -T as random variables. The purpose of
this analysis was to determine if the random variables had an effect on emis-
sions and fuel consumption. If certain random variables were found to have
a real effect, the data were corrected for this effect and the ANOVA and
covariance analysis were repeated.
4. Test Results and Discussion
4.1 Vehicle Emission and Fuel Consumption Tests
Figure 1 through 7 show the composite values of HC, CO, CO?, NOx,
FC-C, FC-M, +T and -T respectively, for each of the 35 tests. Appendix
A contains the data for each phase of the tests as well as the composite
(the composite is designated as Bag 4).
Table II summarizes the results of the emission, fuel consumption
and torque measurements. These are values of the composite emissions.
As earlier mentioned, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to see if the test sites measured different levels of emissions,
fuel consumption and dynamometer torque. The results of this analysis
are shown in Table III. As shown, for all dependent variables, the test
sites were different at a high confidence level.
Another question to be answered is which test sites were actually
different from each other. To determine this, Scheffe confidence intervals
were calculated and the results are shown in Table IV. This table lists
the confidence level at which individual test sites differed from each other
for each dependent variable. Contrasts which were significant at greater
than the 90%, 95% and 99% confidence level are listed. As shown, the vari-
ables which differed most significantly between test sites were C02» FC-C
and +T> As can be expected, there was a close relationship between C02 and
FC-C. It is interesting to note that sites F and A (which had belt-driven
inertia wheel dynamometers) had significantly higher +T than each of the
other three test sites (which had direct-drive inertia wheel dynamometers).
-------
HOP
1.120
HC, mi
1.1*0
l.n«n
1.000
T T I
I !
I C t
T / T
i / e I
1 / \ T
T C \ T
V \ ' T
I/ \ T t
« 1 . E-E I t
/ I - \ I T
/ t \ T I
/ I \ I I
/ » T \ T T
» I E T I F. E
I T T V /
I I T \ /
ft ' ' '' ' \ /
\ ' \ T ' '\ \/
\ ' \ ' T \ \/
1 \ ' \ ' I A F
\ T G-'? T (
III I C T /
1 r I I / \ T G-G
1 I T C \ f. I /
1 ' TCI /
r 1 I T T /
\l ! T T
\J IT T
F I I I
I I I
I T xF T
T IF T
I T / I
I IF. I ' .
I .1 I
I T I
T T . T
' T I
I t T
T.I T
I T I
I I I-
T I I
I T T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[ T
[ I
[ I
I
F I
[ I
[ . I
t I
I I
[
t
t
[
r
r
i
i
i
i i
i ' i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i . 'if
i i
n.o
lo.onn
^o.ooo
Runf
10.000
40.000
:50iOOO
Figure 1 HC vs..Run Number
-------
26.000
32.300
19.60"
18.000
0.0
10.OOP
Run/
10.000
40.000
50.000
Figure 2 CO vs. Run Number
-------
KbU.OOO
i,An nnn
O*f U . U U "
A?n nnn
oc" ."U"
'» *^
600 .000
c a A nnn
or* \j " u u
560.000
0
\ I
r T
» i
T T
I I
I I
T T
I I
t t
I ' T
I T
I I
I
I
I
T
4 I .
/ A T
YV r\
FA I \
! \
1C IF
* V \ T
C C 1
T T
I I
I El
I F / T
I I^F. T
1 / T
I / I
I / T
1 T
I !
I T
I T
I T
I T
I T
I T
I T
0 10.000 " ?0.000
T I
I I
T I
I t
A I I
\ ' l
\ r i
II I
IT i
\T I
V i
-A I
i
G I
/\ I
G \ G
61
I
I . I '
I I
I I
C I I
/\ I ' I
C-C C I I
I I
I I I
. T E I I
I / I . I
F. I I
/ ' I
/ I
e. i
i
T i
i i
T I
I I
T I
I I
I I
I I
.T I
T ' I
I I I
I ,1 I
. 30.000 40.000 50.
1
O\
I
Figure 3 C02 vs. Run Number
-------
4.000
3.800
3.600
NOz, ml
3.000
T
I
T
[
t
I
I
I
I
A-4
\
r
G-G
0.0
10.000
Runl
30.000
40.000
50.000
Figure 4 NOx -vs. Run Number
-------
0.900
0.860
O.fl20
FC-C, gal.
0.740
0.700
I I
I T
I T.
t I
I I
I I
1 I
r i
i i
i ' i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
I 6 I
T G Pi
F A I I
/\ A / I 7 P
F-F \ \ / I T >
\ \/ I T \
F SA I C I \
I/ \ IF
I r
I F I
I F. / T
T / V T
IE - I
I I
T T
I I
I I
I !
T t
I I
T T
I I
I !
I I
I I
t I
I
I
I
I
T
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
A I
\i
I r.
i
i
t
i
i
C C-C I
Nr i
t /
i E-E
i
r
T
T
T
I
' I
I
T
T
T
I
I.
I
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
r
i
i
i
i
i
r
i
i
G I
' Pj-r-
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
co
I
n.n
10.000
Run*
30.000
40.000
50.000
Figure 5 FC-C vs. Run Number
-------
0.900
0.860
O.<»30
FC-M, gal.
0.7«n
0.740
0.700
I T
I T
I I
I I
T T
I I
I I
I I
T ' 1
I ' T
I T
f T
t T
I t F
» T I \
/\x* F '' \
/ »X 'XC-C T A C
4 C .F T \ F \ r
' r VF Vi F
I T
I I
t T
I T
f I
I t
I T
I I
! r
T T
' T . t
T t
T » I
I T
I T
I T
I T
T T
I T
I T
t T
T T
T I
I T
I T
I r
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
\ I
t I
I . I
A-* r
tS\ i
i i
I T
i i
i i
-C t1 E / S'N,
T I
I T
T I
T I
I I
I I
I T
T I
I I
I I '
T I
I I
t I
I ' I
I I
T I
I I
' I I
I I
T I
I T
T T
I I
* T
T I
T !
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n.o
1 o. o o n
?n.noo
Run/
30.000
40.000
50.000
VO
I
Figure 6 FC-M vs. Run Number
-------
325 t-
315
« 305
295
285
150 »
145
f
135
V.
c-c
\
VK-b
\*
/\
/*
G G
C,
\
12 16 20 24 28
Run*
32 3b
O
Figure 7 +T, -T vs. Run//
-------
-11-
Table II
Exhaust Emission, Fuel Consumption and Torque Measurement
Results for the 1975 Hot-start Procedure
Parameter
HC
Mean, gm/mi
Std. dev. , gra/mi
Std. dev. , %
CO
Mean , gm/mi
Std. dev., gm/mi
Std. ttev., %
C02
Mean, gm/mi
Std. dev., gm/mi
Std. dev., %
NOx
Mean, gm/mi
Std. dev., gm/mi
Std. dev., %
FC-C
Mean, gal.
Std. dev., gal.
Std. dev., %
FC-M . j
Mean, gal.
Std. dev., gal.
Std. dev.. %
+Torque
Mean, ft-lb-sec
std. dev. ft-lb-sec
Std. dev., %
-Torque
Mean, ft-lb-sec
Std. dev., ft-lb-sec
Std. dev., %
Test Site
F
1.154
.053
4.6
20.96
1.37
6.5
613.3
5.6
0.9
3.66
.17
4.7
0.795
0.0075
0.9
0.827
.'012
1.5
310,570
7,041
2.3
148,190
2,289
1.5
A
1.263
.034
2.7
22.60
1.22
5.4
626.1
14.0
2.2
3.58
.19
5.2
0.809
0.0170
2.1
fr. 839
0.0122
1.5
314,630
2,120
0.6
140,000
3,387
2.4
C
1.253
.088
7.0
23.76
1.39
5.8
604.9
5.4
0.9
3.36
.07
2.2
0.786
0.0049
0.6
0.825
0.0029
0.4
296,240
5,000
1.7
141,630
2,475
1.7
E
1.287
.044
3.4
22.36
1.37
6.1
590.6
6.5
1.1
3.26
.17
5.4
0.770
0.0061
0.8
.823
.0038
0.5
292,240
4,320
1.5
143,100
2,897
2.0
C
1.203
.022
1.8
23.17
.53
2.3
624.1
4.2
0.7
3.49
.07
2.1
0.812
0.0037
0.5
.824
.0037
0.4
292,190
3,037
1.0
145/000
2,101
1.4
Grand
1.232
.070
5.6
22.57
1.49
6.6
611.8
15.2
2.5
3.47
.20
5.8
0.794
0.0178
2.2
0.828
.0094
1.1
297,810
9,048
3.0
144,480
3,406
2.4
Next a one-way covariance analysis was done to determine if temperature,
humidity, barometric pressure, and/or dynamometer torque had any real effect
on emissions or fuel consumption. Results of this analysis are shown in Table
V. Effects are listed which had confidence levels of 80% or greater. The
listed coefficient is the best estimate of the magnitude of each effect.
Coefficients are based upon data within individual test sites. Plots showing
the relationship between these coefficients and the test data at all sites
are shown in Figures B-l through B-17 of Appendix B.
This type of analysis shows that barometric pressure does have a
real effect on emissions and fuel consumption. Humidity also demonstrated
an effect but at lower levels of confidence. Likewise, +T appears to effect
NOx.
-------
-12-
Table Til
ANOVA results of Composite
Emission, Fuel Consumption and Torque Data
.Dependent Variable
HC(
CO
co2
NOx
FC-C
FC-M
+Torque x 10~
-Torque * 10"
Mean Square
Between Sites
.019832
7.7190
1501.7
.18644
. 002044
.000315 '
590.60
55.65
Mean Square
Within Site
.002833
1.4897
63.314
.021374
.000084
.000054
23.99
6.459
F-statistic
7.0001
5.1815
23.718
8.7226
24.36
5.833
24.619
8.616.
Confidence Level
99.96
99.73
>99.99
99.99
>99.99
98.83
>99.99
99.9?
Table IV
Percent Confidence Level of Contrasts which were
significant at greater than the 90% level
Site Contrast
F A
C
E
G
A C
E
G
C E
G
E G
Variable
HC
95
95
99
90
CO
99
95
95
C02
90
99
99
99
95
99
'99
NOx
95
99
99
90
FC-C
99
95
99
99
95
99
99
FC-M
95
99
95
+Torque
99
99
99
99
99
99
-Torque
99
99
95
-------
Table V
Random Varibles which had an Effect on the
Dependent Variables at higher than an 80%
Confidence Level. (One-way Covariance Analysis)
Random Variable
Dry Bulb Temp.
Conf. Level, %
Coefficient
Humidity
Conf. Level, %
Coefficient
Barometer
Conf. Level, Z
.. Coefficient
4Torque
Conf . Level , %
Coefficient
. -Torque
Conf. Level, %
Coefficient
Dependent Variable
HC CO C02 NOx FC-C FC-M
83
0.0250
95 , 83 ' , 92 ? 92 , 88 99
0.00267 0.0433 -0.359 0.00675 -0.000359 -0.00711J
99.9 . 99.9 , 99/9, 99 , 99.8 ,- 95
-.165 -3.07 19.3 0,236 0.01843 0.009823
90 ,6 94 ,7
8.60xlO~6 .426xlO~b
86.72xlO-6^ - ?8.8A7xlO-67
1.
2.
3.
g/mi per °F
g/mi per gr H-O
.:' Ib.dry air
gal per gr HjO
Ib dry air
4. ^ g/mi per in Hg
5. gal per in Hg
6. g/mi per ft-lb-sec
7. gal per ft-lb-sec
-------
-14-
As a next step in the analysis, the relationships between random
and dependent variables found in the convariance analysis were applied to
the original test data. That is, the coefficients listed in Table V were
used as correction factors and applied to the emission and fuel consump-
tion data. Then a one-way analysis of variance was conducted on the cor-
rected data. A summary of the results of this analysis are listed in Table
VI. Also listed in this table are the results of the prior ANOVA on the
uncorrected data (previously listed in Table IV).
Table VI
ANOVA Comparison - Uncorrected Data and
Data Corrected for Various Random Variables
Type of Analysis Dependent Variable
Uncorrected Data
MS Between
MS Error
F-Stat
Conf . Level
Corrected for Temp.
MS Between
MS Error
v F-Stat
Conf . Level
Corrected for Hum.
MS Between
MS Error
F-Stat
Conf . Level
Corrected for Bar.
MS Between
MS Error
F-Stat
Conf . Level
Corrected for +T
MS Between
MS Error
F-Stat
Conf . Level
Corrected for -T
MS Between
MS Error
F-Stat
Conf. Level
HC
'
.0198
.00283
7.00
99.96
.00903
.00255
3.55
98.20
.0259
.00084?
30.51
99.99
%
.0171
.00283
6.02
99.85
CO
7.72
1.49
5.18
99.73
1.22
1.44
.842
49.01
. 4.74
.820
'5.78
99.85
co2
1502
63.3
23.7
99.99
1483.3
58.6
25.3
99.99
1687
37.13
45.44
99.99
NOx
.186
.0214
8.72
99.99
.134
.0207
6.53
99.93
.160
.0197
8.11
99.98
.197
.0178
11.02
99.99
.0647
.0158
4.09
98.90
FC-C
.00204
.000084
24.4
99.99
.00202
.000080
25.3
99.99
.00223
.000061
36.60
99.99
FC-M
.000315
.00005A
5.83
99.83
.000404
.000041
9'. 75
99.99
.000301
.000048
6.32
99.88
.000177
.000020
8.84
99.98
.000401
.000019
21.6
99.99
-------
-15-
So Table VI shows the effect of the random variables on the emis-
sion and fuel consumption data. "MS (Mean Square) Between" is a measure
of the variability between the means of the various test sites. If the
"MS Between" is reduced when the data is corrected, this demonstrates that
the variability between test sites has been reduced. As shown in Table VI,
variability between sites was reduced for each of the emissions when the
humidity correction coefficient was applied to the data.
"MS Error" is a measure of the variability of the data within each
test site; so a reduction in this quantity indicates that the correction
coefficient reduced the scatter in data at individual test sites. As shown
in Table VI, application of the correction factors reduced "MS Error" in
almost every case. This result is expected since the correction factors
are derived from data within test sites.
The F-statistic (F-stat) is the ratio of "MS Mean" to "MS Error",
and it determines the confidence level at which we reject the statement that
the mean levels observed at each site are equal. Therefore a reduction in
"F-stat" means that some of the observed difference between sites was caused
by the random variable used in the correction. Table VI indicates that the
difference in CO measurements between test sites was because of humidity
differences. Humidity also appears to be responsible for much of the dif-
ferences in the HC measurement. A sizeable reduction in the NOx "F-stat"
occurs when the 4-T correction is made.
As was done with the uncorrected data, a covariance analysis was
done with the HC, CO and C02 data corrected for humidity and the NOx data
corrected for +T. Results of this analysis are presented in Table VII. As
shown, none of the HC or CO contrasts were outside of the 90 percent Scheffe
confidence intervals, and the only NOx contrast outside the 90 percent con-
fidence interval was the difference between sites E and G. As had previously
been shown in Table IV, several C02 contrasts were still statistically signif-
icant .
Table VI showed that the only dependent variables which did not
show a reduction in "F-stat" were C02, FC-C and FC-M. Since it might be
expected that +T would influence the amount of C02, it is instructive to
look at a plot of C02 vs +T (Fig. B-18). This figure shows that the range
of +T within individual test sites was small as compared to the total range
of +T measurements. This fact makes it difficult for a covariance analysis
to find correlation between COo and +T. Figure B-18 also shows the signif-
icant difference in C02 between site G and sites C and E (as earlier listed
in Table IV). If site G were omitted from this figure, the data would show
a much stronger relationship, between C02 and +T (and also between FC-C and
+T) between test sites.
-------
-16-
Table VII
Percent Confidence Level of Contrasts which
were Significant at greater than the 90 percent Level
Data Corrected for Humidity or +T as Indicated
Site Contrast
F A
C
E
G
A C
E
G
. C E
G
E G
Exhaust Emission
HC Corrected
for Humidity
.
s
CO Corrected
for Humidity
CO2 Corrected
for Humidity
90
90
99
95
99
NOX Corrected
for 4-T
95
Since the relationship between C02 and +T is different for site
G as compared to the other sites, it is either because site G's C02 measure-
ments are large oif +T measurements are small relative to the other test
sites. Figure B-ll indicated that larger +T measurements at site G would
result in a stronger correlation between NOx and +T. For this reason it
appears likely that the +T measurements at site G were smaller than the true
values, On the other hand, the measured fuel consumption at sites G and E
were not different, which indicates a problem in the CC>2 measurement. Site
G's FC-C measurements were 1.5 percent less than their FC-M values; whereas,
site E's and site C's FC-C were 6.4 percent and 4,7 percent, respectively,
less than their FC-M values. This indicates that site G's CC^ measurements
are more nearly the correct values.
In summary, the reason for the disagreement in CC^ values is due
to either (or to a combination of) differences in CC^ or +T measurement.
The exact reason can not be determined from the data obtained in this program.
-------
-17-
5. Conclusions
1. With the exception of CO^, this study showed generally good agree-
ment between test sites in the measurement of exhaust emissions.
2. The observed differences in CO measurement were because of humidity
differences between test sites.
3. Much of the observed difference in HC measurement were because of
humidity differences between test sites.
4, The belt driven dynamometers of site A and F gave significantly higher
+T than the three direct-drive dynamometers.
5. Differences in dynamometer +T were responsible for much of the
difference in NOx measurement between the test sites.
6. Differences in dynamometer +T did not explain the differences in
measured levels of C02 and calculated fuel consumption; however, this was
partly due to a significant and sizeable difference in CC^ between sites G
and sites C and E. This difference in C02 measurement could be explained
if the +T measurements at site G were lower than the true values or if the
C02 measurements are inaccurate.
7. Barometric pressure had a highly significant effect on all emissions
and fuel consumption. However, it did not explain variation bertWeen test
sites because the test sites differed only slightly in mean barometric
pressure.
6. Recommendations
1, Dynamometer type should be standardized to reduce variability between
sites, or dynamometer characteristic should be quantitatively identified so
the adjustments or corrections can be made.
2. Exhaust emission tests should be conducted at similar humidity
conditions to reduce variability.
3, Further investigations are necessary to determine cause of the
difference in C02 (and therefore calculated fuel consumption) measurement
between site G and sites C and E. Similarity of C02 analyzer operation
should first be checked by naming gas cylinder. If there is no difference
in CC>2 analyzers, the dynamometers should be checked for a difference in
vehicle loading.
-------
-18-
7. References
1. Lowery, Richard E,, "Emission Laboratory Correlation Study Between
EPA and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States,
tnc.V" Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Waste Management,
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control, Emission Control Technology
Division.
-------
8.1 Appendix A - Test Data
-------
SITE RUN BAG
NO. NO.
HC
CO
CO?
Table A-l
TEST DATA BAG 1
NOX FC-C FC-M
Fl
Fl
Fl
Fl
A2
A2
A2
A2
C3
C3
C3
E4
E4
E4
E4
G5
G5
G5
Fl
Fl
Fl
C3
C3
C3
C3
A2
A 2
A2
E4
E4
E4
G5
G5
G5
G5
1
2
3
u
5
ft
7
A
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
1
1
1
1
1
1
)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.120
.060
.200
.150
. 1 1~ 1
.203
.172
.24?
.182
.240
.265
.300
.230
.200
.220
,125
.132
.259
.020
.-HOO
~080
.;009
.179
.090
.094
.142
.175
.111
.210
.130
.190
.096
.111
.115
.109
14
12
1ft
16
14
15
15
18
17
1ft
18
18
17
15
16
14
15
15
14
11
14
16
16
15
14
14
16
14
16
13
14
15
14
14
14
.00
.75
.65
.06
.75
.38
.42
.10
.96
.36
.57
.34
.67
.13
.00
.49
.86
.38
.06
.72
.58
.05
.26
.53
.57
.91
.14
.58
.10
.87
.58
.08
.61
.09
.29
574
578
585
566
545
574
572
531
549
566
557
541
551
554
561
587
585
585
593
589
569
565
566
563
570
625
604
594
574
t
*
0
1
5
9
8 .
8
2
2
0
9
1
7
9
0
8
1
2
9
4
5
7
0
0
0
7
2
2
1
1
566.2
576
594
594
589
589
*
5
2
4*
1
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
.00
.02
.14
.78
.20
.31
.58
.74
.40
.55
.36
.96
.18
.12
.35
.9?
.53
.76
.85
.87
.50
.60
.68
.71
.92
.03
.66
.52
4.73
5
4
4
4
4
4
.00
.50
.80
.89
.84
.97
WF)
OB
K
BARO *T/
1000
56
56
59
59
67
ft7
67
59
59
59
ftO
ftO
58
58
51
52
51
67
66
69
68
62
62
57
57
58
58
58
82
81
83
83
78
78
79
78
80
80
81
71
71
73
73
72
71
74
79
80
80
79
77
83
79
78
80
78
74
72
76
71
72
72
72
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ail
816
847
847
948
948
965
955
033
033
027
920
920
908
925
934
906
0.888
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
768
774
764
02/
018
047
055
902
930
914
950
937
854
887
897
898
898
29
29
29
29
29
28
2R
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
28
.17
.17
.09
.09
.02
.96
.86
.86
.58
.51
.44
.10
.05
.03
.02
.78
.78
.77
.23
.23
c. 1
.37
.37
.35
.32
.46
.40
.46
.52
.52
.52
.07
.06
.99
.97
88
88
86
87
84
63
83
81
81
81
82
82
81
83
86
"87
' 84
84
84
83
84
86
88
86
86
83
82
82
84
81
83
.3
.0
.6
.8
.6
.9
.6
.9
.6
.5
.4
.0
.6
.2
.4
.0
.9
.8
.6
.1
.3
.9
.2
.5
.6
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.7
-T/
HUM
1000
39
5
39.5
40
38
37
37
38
38
38
38
39
38
40
39
38
40
38
36
37
3fl
38
37
37
36
38
37
38
38
37
39
38
*
»
*
*
0
8
8
5
0
7
6
7
0
3
0
0
9
0
a
9
5
3
0
7
6
4
8
8
4
3
6
1
2
25.6
27.3
36.8
36.8
63.6
63.6
67.5
65.2
82.0
82.0
80.8
56.7
56.7
53.7
58.0
60.2
53.2
48.4
11.0
13.1
9.5
80.8
79.0
84.8
86.3
52.1
59.3
55.2
64.0
60.9
38.9
48.1
50.8
51.1
51.1
-------
SITE PUN BAG
NO. NO.
HC
CO
Table A-2
TEST DATA BAG 2
C02 NOX FC-C FC-M
Fl
Fl
Fl
Fl
A2
A2
A2
A2
C3
C3
C3
E4
E4
E4 '
E4
G5
G5
G5
Fl
Fl
Fl
C3
C3
C3
C3
A2
A2
A2
E4
E4
£4
G5
G5
G5
G5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Jfl
19
20
21
2?
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
37
3fl
39
40
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
(>
2
?
2
2
2 '
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*
*
*
m
m
.
.
140
110
240
180
220
263
248-"
284
266
294
356
380
300
330
280
264
22B
194
100
100
1)90
1*5
147
155
166
174
235
166
280
210
280
172
183
212
195
28.
25.
31.
27.
28.
30.
30.
30.
31.
31.
31.
32.
29.
29.
?9.
32.
31.
31.
28.
26.
29.
31.
27.
30.
29.
27.
29.
26.
28.
27.
?7.
30.
30.
29.
29.
25
79
06
12
06'
46
17
50
46
99
66
67
71
53
24
36
21
50
70
50
17
?2
92
26
98
76
98
53
20
48
89
53
33
55
95
640
647
643
638
642
665
637
666
632
636
634
614
619
616
616
652
648
668
640
650
629
645
644
649
643
688
664
666
614
622
631
655
666
652
657
.0
.3
.7
.7
.4
.0
.5
.6
.1
.0
.2
.5
.8
.1
.7
.3
.9
.7
.1
.2
.9
.1
.3
.3
.5
.1
.5
.2
.6
.4
.4
.2
.2 *
.7
.7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
.50
.61
.59
.48
.24
.37
.44
.61
.14
.16
.12
.98
.05
.92
.01
.18
.10
.07
.40
.45
.20
.08
.06
.10
.14
.68
.68
.55
.05
.09
.86
.18
.15
.22
.28
WB
DB
K
BARO *T/
1000
56
56
59
59
67
67
67
59
59
59
60
60
58
58
51
52
51
67
66
69
68
6?
62
57
57
58
58
58
82
81
83
83
78
78
79
78
80
80
81
71
71
73
73
72
71
74
79
ao.
80
79
77
83
79
78
80
78
74
72
76
71
72
72
72
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
811
816
847
847
968
948
965
955
033
033
027
920
920
908
925
934
906
888
768
774
764
027r
018
047
055
902
930-
914
950
0.937
0.
0.
0.
854
887
897
0.898
0.
898
29,
29,
29,
29.
29.
28.
28,
28,
28.
17
17
09
09
02
96
86
86
58
28.51
28.
29.
29.
29.
29.
28.
28.
28.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
28.
28.
44
10
05
03
02
78
78
77
23
23
134
129
130
134
126
122
124
122
122
121
121
124
122
123
135
133
21-J29
37
37
35
32
46
40
46
52
52
52
07
06
99
97
129
125
123
123
135
135
136
127
125
122
124
125
121
124
.6
.3
.5
.2
.8
.9
.0
.2
.5
.3
.8
.6
.3
.6
.4
.4
.2
.1
.7
.4
.6
.1
.2
.8
.2
.1
.5
.9
.5
.6
.0
-T/
HUM
1000
70
70
71
69
66
67
68
67
68
68
68
68
69
68
69
71
69
64
67
68
66
66
66
64
62
66
.0
.8
.5
.2
.0
.1
.2
.3
.6
.6
.4
.1
.5
.6
.0
.9
.0
.0
.0
.1
.9
.2
.9
.6
.9
.5
67.3
67.2
67
.5
68.1
68
.3
25
27
36
36
63
63
67
65
82
82
80
56
56
53
58
60
53
48
11
13
9
80
79
84
86
52
59
55
64
60
38
48
50
51
51
.6
.3
.8
.8
.6
.6
.5
.2
.0
.0
.8
.7
.7
.7
.0
.2
.2
.4
.0
.1
.5
.8
.0
.8
.3
.1
.2
.2
.0
.9
.9
.1
.8
.1
.1
-------
SITE RUN BAG HC CO
NO. NO.
Table A-3
TEST DATA BAG 3
C02 NOX FC-C FC-M
Fl
Fl
Fl
Fl
A2
A2
A2
A2
C3
C3
C3
E4 .
E4
E4
E4
G5
G5
G5
Fl
Fl
Fl
C3
C3
C3
C3
A2
A2
A2
E4
E4
E4
G5
G5
G5
G5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.260
.250
.300
.250
.501;
.401
.421
.418
.516
.524
.492
.340
.370
.360
.300
.268
.231
.199
.-460
.460
.190
.311
.308
.270
.2^4
.384
.312
.390
.300
.300
.310
.202
,282
.227
.318
12.
11.
13.
11.
.15.
15.
18.
14.
16.
20.
17.
15.
15.
13.
14.
15.
14.
14.
12.
12.
12.
16.
14.
13.
1?.
16.
14.
13.
13.
12.
13.
13.
14.
15.
15.
28
10
06-
98
56
98
24
44
59
01
35
17
16
55
47
18
76
7R
37
09
92
20
08
85
24
07
99
48
86
93
56
71
99
93
73
546
590
587
580
614
569
575
573
570
568
558
543
560
559
562
591
590
587
590
575
576
572
568
S74
570
593
598
604
553
562
562
595
591
597
593
*
*
*
*
»
*
5
0
9
3
3
6
5
0
0
7
2
6
9
7
8
7
7
0
2
2
8
0
5
4
9
4
8
2
0
7
9
5*
6
9
7
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
.91
.15
.30
.1?
.70
.54
.70
.77
.70
.78
.58
.46
.62
.48
.02'
.08
.94
.88
.94
.71
.70
.94
.74
.95
.95
.96
.25
.10
.98
.22
.86
.02
.04
.05
5.01
WR
Dfl
K
BARO
+ T/
1000
56
56
59
59
67
67
67
59
59
59
60
60
5*
58
51
5?
51
67
66
69
68
62
6?
57
57
58
58
58
82
81
83
83
78
78
79
78
80
80
81
71
71
73
73
72
71
74
79
80
80
79
77
P3
79
78
80
78
74
72
76
71
72
72
72
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
811
816
847
847
948
94P
965
955
033
033
027
920
920
908
9?5
934
906
888
768
774
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
29.
29.
29.
29.
23.
28.
28.
29.
29.
764r29.
027
016
047
055
902
930
914
950
937
854
887
897
898
898
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
17
17
09
09
02
96
86
86
58
51
44
10
05
03
02
78
78
77
23
23
21
37
37
35
32
46
40
46
52
52
29.52
29.
29.
28.
28.
07
06
99
97
99
89
88
90
87
85
85
87
85
84
84
85
85
85
94
87
87
91
87
85
86
90
90
93
88
86
89
87
86
84
86
.2
.4.
.8
.8
.7
.5
ol
.6
.2
.2
.6
.5
.0
.6
.6
.8
.2
.8
.6
.5
.0
.7
.9
.6
.8
.5
.8
.6
.1
.9
.1
-T/
HUM
1000
38
39
39
38
37
37
37
38
37
37
37
37
38
38
37
38
38
35
37
37
37
38
37
35
35
37
37
37
.2
.7
.3
.3
.1
.7
.3
.2
.9
.9
.8
.5
.9
.6
.4
.6
.4
.6
.1
.5
.6
.3
.2
.1
.6
.3
.4
.2
37.7
38.8
38
.5
25
27
36
36
63
63
67
65
82
82
80
56
56
53
58
60
53
48
11
13
9
80
79
84
86
52
59
55
64
60
38
48
50
51
51
.6
.3
.8
.8
.6
.6
.5
.2
.0
.0
.8
.7
.7
.7
.0
.2
.2
.4
.0
.1
.5
.8
.0
.8
.3
.1
.2
.2
.0
.9
.9
.1
.8
.1
.1
-------
Table A-4
TEST DATA BAG 4
ITE
Fl
Fl
Fl
Fl
A2
A2
A2
A2
C3
C3
C3
E4
E4
E4
E4
G5
G5
G5
Fl
Fl
Fl
C3
C3
C3
C3
A2
A2
A2
E4
E4
E4
G5
G5
G5
05
RUN
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ft
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
2?
23
25
2ft
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
BAG
NO.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4^
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
HC
1.170
1.140
1.250
1.190
1.27'ff'.
1.290
1.280"
1.310
1.317
1.346
1.374
1.360
1.310
1.310
1.270
1.237
1.209
1.209
1.100
1.410
1.J20
1.183
1.198
1.173
1.183
1.230
1.240
1.220
1.270
1.220
1.270
1.164
1.195
1.196
1.211
CO
21.26
19.10
23.19
20.71,
21.90
23.40
?3.90
23.60
24.60
25.49
25.04
24.80
23.30
22.20
22.50
23.99
23.54
23.ftO
21.23
19.53
21.73
23.98
21.73
22.73
22.77
21.90
23.00
20.50
21.80
20.70
21.20
22.74
22.89
22.63
22.82
C02
614.2
617.4
616.5
608.0
615.0
620.0
607.0
624.0
598.0
603.3
597.5
580.0
590.0
588.0
591.0
622.3
619.8
618.9
616.9
617.3
603.0
608.6
607.4
611.0
608.6
649.0
634.0
634.0
5K9.0
595 . 0
601.0
626.3
630.9
624.6
626.1
NOX
3.79
3.80
3.86
3.68
3.32
3.36
3.50
3.64
3.31
3.37
3.25
3.06
3.19
3.07
3.31
3.54-
3.38
3.40
3.60
3.56
3.36
3.3H
3.34
3.42
3.48
3.78
3.78
3.65
3.40
3.54
3.22
3.50
3.51
3.54
3.58
FC-C
0.797
0.795
0.804
0.787
0.799
0.793
0.790
0.805
0.779
0.790
0.780
0.761
0.770
0.765
0.773
0.811
0.808
0.807
0.802
0.795
0.783
0.790
0.78ft
0.790
0.789
0.837
0.822
0.816
0.771
0.771
0.780
0.814
0.818
0.812
0.813
FC-M
0.824
0.836
0.829
0.831
0.823
0.828
0.829
0.821
0.826
0.821
0.818
0.821
0.818
0.821
O.B391.
'0.816;
0.825'
0.828
0.82?
0.82S
0.823
0.849
0.853
0.854
0.825
0.822
0.829
0.828
0.826
0.827
.0.825
we DB
56 82
56 81
59 83
59 «3
78
78
79
78
67 80
67 80
67 81
59 71
59 71
59 73
60 73
ftO 72
58 71
58 74
51 79
52 84>-
51 80
67 79
66 77
69 83
68 79
78
80
78
62 74
6? 72
57 76
57 71
58 72
58 72
5* 72
K
0.811
0.816
0.847
0.847
0.94P
0.948
0.965
0.955
1.033
1.033
1.027
0.920
0.920
0.908
0.925
0.934
0.906
0.888
0.768
0.774
0.764
1.027
1.018
1.047
1.055
0.902
0.930
0.914
0.950
0.937
0.854
0.887
0.897
0.898
0.898
RARO
29.17
29.17
29.09
29.09
29.02
28.96
28.86
28.86
28.58
28.51
28.44
29.10
29.05
29.03
29.02
28.78
28.78
28.77
29.23
29.23-
+ T/
1000
322.2
306.8
306.0
312.9
299.1
292.4
292.7
291.8
289.3
287.1
288.8
292.0
288.9
292.4
316.3
308.4
29.21-301.4
r29.37
29.37
29.35
29.32
29.46
29.40
29.46
29.52
29.52
29.52
29.07
29.06
28.99
28.97
305.7
297.8
292.1
293.9
312.7
:314.3
316.9
299.6
294.7
294.4
295.0
295.6
287.5
293.9
-T/
1000
147.8
150.1
150.9
146.4
141.0
142.3
143.5
144.2
145.2
145.2
145.2
143.9
148.5
146.2
145.4
150.5
146.2
136.5
141.6
143.9
142.6
142.2
141.7
136.1-
137.3
141.6
143.0
142.7
142.7
146.0
145.0
HUM
25.6
27.3
36.8
36.8
63.6
63.6
67.5
65.2
82.0
82.0
80.8
56.7
56.7
53.7
58.0
60.2
53.2
48.4
11.0
13.1
9.5
80.8
79.0
84.8
86.3
52.1
59.2
55.2
64.0
60.9
38.9
48.1
50.8
51.1
51.1
-------
Table A-5
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
STRATUM = 1
Bag #1
VARIABLE
N MEAN
STO OEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
HC
CO
C02
NOX
OB
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
DB
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
DB
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.1535
15.425
575.53
4.6577
76.857
29.095
54.686
MEASURES
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.2179
29.557
643.48
2.2497
76.857
29.095
54.686
MEASURES
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.3174
14.619
577.49
4.8900
76.857
29.095
54.686
MEASUPES
35
35
35
1.2321
22.571
611.82
.69185 -1
1.5145
17.699
.29311
4.0230
.28411
20.495
STRATUM = 2
.72731 -1
1.7566 '
17.107
.22854
4.0230
.28*11
20.495
STRATUM = 3
k96798 -1
1.8453
16.794
.2171J
4.0230
" .28411
20.495
STRATUM = 4
.69519 -1
1.4908
15.249
.1169*
.25599
2.9917
.4954*
.68002
.4R024
3.4642
Bag #2
.12294
.29691
2.8916
.38631
.68002
.48024
3.4642
Bag #3
.16362
.31192
2.8386
.36702
.68002
.48024
3.4642
-1
-I
-1
-1
-1
-I
-1
-1
-1
1.00,90
1-1.720
541.70
3.9600
71.00,0
28.440
9.5000
1.0900
25.790
614.50
1.8600
71.000
28.440
9.5000
1.1600
11.100
543.60
4.4600
71.000
28.440
9.5000
Composite
.11751
.25200
2.5776
-1
1.1000
19.100
580.00
MAXIMUM
1.3000
18.570
625.20
5.1*00
83.000
29.520
86.300
1.3800
32.470
688.10
2.6800
83.000
29.520
86.300
1.5240
20.010
614.30
5.3000
83.000
29.520
86.300
1.3740
25.490
649.00
NOX
OB
BARO
HUM
35 3.4706 .20197 .34140 -1 3.0600 3.8600
35 76.857 4.0230 .68002 71.000 83.000
35 29.095 .28411 .48024 -1 P8.440 29.520
35 54.686 20.495 3.4642 9.5000 86.300
-------
Table A-6
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
VARIABLE N MEAN
STRATUM = 1 Composite
STD DEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
MAXIMUM"
FC-C
FC-M
DESCRIPTIVE
VARIABLE
PLUST
WINUST
DESCRIPTIVE
PLUST
MINUST
DESCRIPTIVE
PLUST
MINUST
DESCRIPTIVE
PLUST
MINUST
35 :. 794 37
31 .82781
MEASURES
N MEAN
31 84.403
31 38.442
MEASURES
31 127.04
31 67.848
MEASURES
31 88.055
31 37.732
i
MEASURES
31 _299.44
31 144.05
.17735 -1
.94178 r2
STRATUM = 1
STD DEV
2.2615
.87475
STRATUM = 2
4.9657
1.9565
STRATUM = 3
3.3903
1.0104
STRATUM = 4
9.9768
3.6081
.29978 -?
.16915 "2
Bag 11 ,
r
SE OF MEAN
.40618
.15711
Bag #2
.89187
.35140
Bag #3
.60891
.18147
Bag #
1.7919
.64804
.76100
.81600
MINIMUM
81.000
36.400
121.30
62.900
84.200
35.100
4-
287.10
136.10
.83700
.85400
MAXIMU
88.300
40.000
136.80
71.900
99.200
39.700
322.20
150.90
-------
8,2 Appendix B - Plots of Emissions
and Fuel Consumption Data vs. Random Variables
-------
Figure B-l
Hr VS. HUM
( V VS. X )
03-18-75
1.400
1.120
1.240
HC, nl
1.160
i.oao
1.000 4.
73.200
90.000
gr H.»0
Humidity, Ib dry air
-------
(HAG 4)
Figure B-2
HC VS. R4OO
( Y VS. X )
03-18-75
1.400
I
1.330
l.ORO
i.noo
?P.800 2<».100
Baroaetrlc Pressure, In Hg
89.400
89.700
-------
(RAT, 6)
Figure B-3
MC VS. -T
(V VS. X )
03-1S-75
1.400
1.320
_
HC, mi
1.160
l.OflO
1.000
131.onn
115.nno
139.000 143.000
-Torque x 1
-------
Figure B-4
co vs. HUM
( Y VS. X )
03-18-75
26.no» *-
24.400
23.ROO »
CO,
21.?00
I9.
-------
Figure B-5
26.000
22.»00
_
CO, ml
21.?00
19.«,on
4)
rn
VS.
X )
03-18-75
P.POO 2
-------
(HAT, 4)
Figure B-6
C"? VS. HUM
( Y VS. X )
03-l«-75
660.000 »-
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6*0.000
620.000
COj,
1
600.000
S80.000
I
I
!
I
I
t
I
I
T
S60.000 »
I
t
7
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
1
I
I
T
I
T
6.000
22.KOO
30.^00
S6.400
gc BaO
Humidity, Ib dry air
73.200
90.000
-------
(RAT, 4)
Figure B-7
CO? VS. P«00
( Y VS. X )
03-l«-75
660.non »-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
620.000
C02.
ISOG.OOO
SPO.OOO
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
560.000 *-
2B.200
?M.SOO
I
I
t
T
I
t
I
T
I
T
T
I
T
-t
I
I
I
I
?o.»00 ?9.100
Barooetrlc Pressure, In Hg
39.400
29.700
-------
03-18-75
4.000 »-
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
t
3.AOO
3.600
BOx, ml
3.400
3.?00
3.000
70.000
73.000
7*.000 7Q.OOO
Dry Bulb Teapermture, °T
a?.ooo
85.000
-------
(war,
Figure B-9
MOX
( Y
vs.
vs.
HUM
x )
03-1B-75
4.000 «
3.800
3.600
BOr, Ml
3.400
3.200
3.000
6.000
22.800
3Q.600
56.400
73.200
gr R-,0
90.000
Humidity, Ib dry air
-------
(RAf, 4)
Figure B-10
NOX VS. R4WO
( Y VS. X )
03-18-75
4.000
3.<>00
3.
-------
(HftG 4)
Figure B-ll
NOX VS. »T
( Y VS. X )
03-18-75
4.000 *-
3.900
3.600
BOX, !
3.400 »
3.?00
3.000
380.000
2^.000
OOO 304.000
PIbrque z 10"3, ft-ll>-8ec
313.000
330.000
-------
Figure B-12
FC-C VS. HUM
( Y VS. X )
03-18-75
0.900 «-
O.«60
O.»20
FC-C. gal.
0.780
0.740
0.700 «-
.000
56.400
73.?00
90.000
Humidity,
H?0
dry air
-------
Figure B-13
FC-C,
Q
o
5»
T
I
I
r
i
i
i
i
T
T
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
T
I
1
T
. I
1' I
I
T
I
I
I
"T
T
t
I
T
T
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
2S.200
(R4G <>
r
I
'I 4- .
I
I --
t
I
I
I
T
I
r
i
i
T
I
I .
TT.
I ;
T
T
I
I
t
r
ic
-_^rrtr^rr^
i
I
I
T
I
I
T
t
T
I
I
T
t
r
T
I
T
I
28.500
FC-C VS. BARO
(V VS. X ) 03-19-75
Till
I I I I
T I I I
'T I I I
I . T
T I
T I
I I
I I
I I
T I
T I
I I
I I '
I I
T ' t
T T
I I
I G I
r.T G G G t
or-r r
I 4 FI
T . A I F ^^^^J
I T __ F F
I * T
_ 1 S FI . C.CC
I I F C
I I
I F I
t FT
T E T
T F
t I
T T
I T
T I
I T
T T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
1
A !
I
I
I
A I
I
"I
1
P " 1
I
I
I
I
I
f I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
T T T I
T T I !
T T i I I
T T I I
T T I I
T I T I
T . T I I
,?n.POO ?<».100 . 29.400 29.
Barometric Pressure, In Bg
-------
Figure B-14
FT-"
( Y
VS.
vs.
HUM
X )
03-18-75
0.900
0.160
0.020 «
FC-M, gal.
0.730
0.740
0.700
Humidity.
-Hod"
dry air
73.?00
90.000
-------
Figure B-1J
0.900 »-
PC-M, gal.
0.7flO
0.740 *
0.700 »-
I
t
!
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
ii=i=*» "
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
t
r-
.i.
1
I
I
I
I
I
r
i
r TC
Lr C ~
i
t
i
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
r
i
T
I
I
T
I
T
I
I , I I
T I
T . I
T I
I I
I - I
T I
I I
I I
t I
I A A
I I A
T I I
I . T F I
T A I I
T ' » I I "
T a fi- -G-t C I f.
T1"" G A G ._! F C C I E
f-I E I r F I
r T I
! T I
T I I
I I I
T r I
I I I
I I.I
I t I
I I I
. T I I
I I I
I I I
T I I
T I . I
T I I
I T I
' t I I
T I .1
T T I
T I I
T I I
T I I
T I .1
T I 'I
I I I
T t I
I
1
-
I
I
I
I
2P.POO
«00 ?9.100
Barooetrtc.Pressuref in Hg
29.400
29.700
-------
Figure B-16
0.900
O.P60 »
FC-M,
FC-M
( Y
VS.
VS.
»T
X )
03-18-75
28i*. 000
2<»f..OOO 30*.000
Htorque z 10~3, ft-lb-sec
313.000
320.000
-------
FC-M, gal.
Figure B-17
(BAr? 4) FT-M VS. -T
( Y VS. X ) 03-18-75
I I I ' I I
I I II I
I I - - I I I
I I 'r'. ' ' . T I I
I I.I I I
I I I I I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 _. _
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I I I
I "I I
I I 'I
I I I
A 141 I
I 41 I
J , I I
I ' . I . ' F I
. I I I
1 I I
C I C GF C~ G L
-r F I C G "f C GE _ F I ' ~
': I T E I G
I I 'I
II I
I I
I I
I I
T I
I I
T I I I I
T I T I I
I I * T T I
I I I I I
I I T I I
T I I.I I
I II I I
I I I I I
t t T II
I I T I.I
I t T ' T I
T t T T I
I T T I I
II T I I
I I I I I
I T T T l I
I T T.I I
I I.I I I
I I .1 I I
131.000 135.100 139.000 If3.000 U7.000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
F I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
151.
-Ibrque z 1(T3, ft-lb-sec
-------
Figure B-18
roa
( v
vs.
vs.
*T
X
03-1B-75
660.000
640.000 *
. 000
C02, mi
600.000
seo.
560.00" -
31?.000
3ZO.OOO
+Torque x 10-3, ft-lb-sec
------- |