Abstract
The vehicle correlation tests identified a 20% error in 50 mph
dynamometer load with the 4500 Ib. inertia load at the Fiat laboratory.
However, even after this dynamometer was recalibrated, the CO, NOx and
HC levels measured by Fiat on the hot-start 1975 FTP were still higher
than the other test sites by about 8%, 18% and 28% respectively. The
reason for these differences has not been determined.
Some rather small, but statistically significant, differences in
(XL and NOx occurred between Mercedes and Ford and between Mercedes and
EPA. It is believed that differences in dynamometer type (belt-driven
inertia wheels at Mercedes and direct-drive inertia wheels at Ford and
EPA) may be the cause of these descrepancies.
-------
1. Introduction
la April, 1975, Merceds-Benz of North America, Inc. requested an
exhauKc ^nission correlation study for the purpose of comparing test
resulco at chelr Ceaterline, Michigan laboratory to r.he EPA facility.
This Mercedes laboratory received EPA approval on February 19, 1975.
Oth:U- T.^". fac '.licii'.a which were also ivieluded -in the study were Fiat
in Denroura and the Ford Emission Laboratory in Dearborn.
This report is' a discussion of the .correlation program. Testing
w;i£ co;.\d:v.:r.od fivoui April 20 to i'.ay 3, 197". Partic'L^-ints in the study
and their designation code which is used in chis- report are:
E = SPA
F = Ford ' .
I- - Fiat .
M = Mp.rcedes-Benz
2_. Techn.i.-T.Hl Discussion .
2.1 Program Objective
f
The purpose of this study is to compare the results of vehicle exhaust
emission and fuel economy tests at the facilities of EPA, Mercedes - Benz
(Centerline), Fiat (Dearborn) and -Ford. In-addition to comparing test
results, this study also compares test equipment, procedures and conditions
at each facility. If there arc. any real differences in emissions and/or
fuel economy 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
The Mercedes and Fiat laboratories are one-cell test facilities.
At the EPA test cell 5 was used which is the same cell used in the 1975
EPA-MVMA correlation study ^ and the EPA-BMW correlation study^. At the
Ford Emission Laboratory test cell 4 was used, which is not the sarae -
cell used in the EPA-MVMA study. The equipment and instrumentation used
within each test cell is listed in Table 2.2.1-1. One difference in
instrumentation which might be expected to have an effect on emission
levels is dynamometer type. Test sites E, I and F used direct-drive
inertia wheel dynamometers and site M used a belt-driven inertia wheel
dynamometer.
2.2.2 Test Vehicles
One test vehicle was used in the study. It was a 1974 Mercedes -
Benz 450 SE with fuel injection and an automatic transmission. Exhaust
-------
Table 2.2.1-1 Test Site Instrumentation
Instrumentation
Test Size
EPA
Fiat
Ford
Mercedes
Analyzers .
HC
CO
NOx
CO.,
Analyzer Bench
CO Conditioning Agents
CVS'
Dynamometer
Driver's Aid
Computer
Beckman 400; 0-50, 100
ppm; H2/N2 fuel <
Bendix 8501; 0-500,'1000
ppm
TECO 10A; 0-100, 250 .
ppm; 0. Ozone Source
Beckcian 315A; 0-3.3, 5.0%
Homebuilt according to
Federal Resiter.
None
Ford Philco, CFV
Clayton CT-50, Direct-
Drive Inertia, Auto
Loading not used
Varian, 5" - 60 mph,
4"/min. Preprinted Trace
IBM 370, Off-line1
Horiba FIA 2A; 0-100 ppm;
H/N fuel
Horiba AIA-21 AS; 0-100,
500, 1000 ppm
TECO 10; 0-250 ppm; 02
Ozone Source
Horiba AIA-21; 0-3, 7%
Horiba
Ice Bath
Horiba 45G, 6 Bag; AP -
42" H20
Clayton EC 50, Direct-
Drive Inertia, Auto
Loading
HFE: Varian A4, 4" per
min. FTP: PCS TV monitor
PCS Automotive Emissions
System
Beckmcn 400; 0-20 50
ppa; H./H . fuel
Bendix; 0-100,250 ppm
Philco; 0-25, 100 ppm;
0_ Ozone Source
Beckman 315B; 0-4%
Philco
Ascarite, Silica Gel in
common tube
Ford Philco, CFV, 6 Bag
Clayton CT-50, Direct-
Drive Inertia, Auto-
Loading not used
HP 7100, 5" - 60 oph,
4" per minute
Xerox Sigma? Ill
Horiba lA; 0-10, 30, 100 ppa;
H2/N2 fuel
Horiba'AIA-21; 0-150, 400 ppm
Scott CL 125; 0-50, 100, 500
ppm '
Horiba AIA- 21; 0-2, 5%
Home-built according to
Federal Register
None
Korbia 45-G, 6 Bag.
Clayton CTE 200, 0-20.hp.,
Belt-driven Inertia, Ma.nual
Loading
HP 7100, 5" - 60 mph, '
4" per minute '
Hand-Calculated
- I
N:
I
-------
Table 2.2.1-1 Test Sice Instrumentation
Ins truaiencation
Test Siza
EPA
Fiat
Ford
Mercedes
Analyzers
HC
CO
KOx
CO.,
Analyzer Bench
CO Conditioning Agents
3ynaraoir.eter
Driver's Aid
Computer
Becteaan 400; 0-50, 100 .
ppm; H'/M_ fuel
Bendix 8501; 0-500,'1000
ppm
TECO 10A; 0-100, 250 .
ppn; 0 Ozone Source
Becknan 315A; 0-3.3, 5.0%
Homebuilt according to
Federal Resiter
None
Ford Philco, CFV
Clayton CT-50, Direct-
Drive Inertia, Auto
Loading not used
Varian, 5" - 60 nph,
4"/min. Preprinted Trace
IBM 370, Off-line'
Horiba FLA 2A; 0-100 ppm;
H2/N2 fuel
Horiba AIA-21 AS; 0-100,
500, 1000 ppm
TECO 10; 0-250 ppni; 02
Ozone Source
Uoriba AIA-21; 0-3, 7%
Horiba
Ice Bath
Horiba 45G, 6 Bag; AP »
42" H20
Clayton EC 50, Direct-
Drive Inertia, Auto
Loading
HFE: Varian A4, 4" per
min. FTP: PCS TV monitor
PCS Automotive Emissions
Systcn
Bectecn 400; 0-20 50
pp=; lu/H . fuel
Bendix; 0-100,250 ppm
Philco; 0-25, 100 ppc;
0. Ozone Source
Beckraan 315B; 0-4%
Philco
Ascarite, Silica Gel in
con.~on tube
Ford Philco, CFV, 6 Bag
Claytcn CT-50, Direct-
Drive 'Inertia, Auto-
Loading not used
HP 7100, 5" " 60 aph,
4" per minute
Xerox Signup III
Horiba lA; 0-10, 30, 100 pp=;
112/N2 fuel
Horiba'AIA-21; 0-150, 400 pp=
Scoct CL 125; 0-50, 100, 500
Horiba AIA- 21; 0-2, 5Z
Hc^icbuiit according to
Federal Register
Korbia 45-G, 6 Bag
Clayton CTE 200, 0-20. h? . ,
3el t-drive'n Inertia, >1a.nual
Loading
HP 7100, 5" = 60 nph,
4" per minute '
Har.d-Calculated
-------
-3-
emission control equipment consisted of air injection, a catalytic
reactor and exhaust recycle. . .
2.3 ' Program Design .
The program was designed so there would be two days of testing at
each facility. Each test site would run the same type and number of
tests. Six types of tests were run at each facility. These included
two 1975 cold-start FTPs, four 1975 hot-start FTPs,three highway fuel
economys (HWFE), three 30 mph steady-states (SS-30), three 45 mph
steady-states (SS-45) and three 60 mph steady-states (SS-60). This
test design is shown in Table 2.3-1. The run numbers designate the
sequence of testing for each test type.. As shown in the table, tests
23 and 26 were not actually done because of lack of time.
Table 2.3-1. Sequence of Tests (Run Numbers)
Test Type
1975
Cold-start
1975
. Hot-start
HWFE
SS-30
SS-45
SS-60
Test Site
E
1...2
11,. 12, .13,. 14.
34, 35, 36
54, 55, 56
74, 75, 76
94, 95, 96
M
*
3,' 4
15, 16, 17, 18.
- 37, 38, 39
57, 58, 59
77, 78, 79 '
97, 98, 99
F
5, .6
. 19, 20, 21, 22.
40, 41, 42
60, 61, 622
80, 81, 82
100, 101, 102
I
7, 8
. ..23, 24, 251,,261
31, 32, 33
. 51, 52,. 53
71, 72, 73
91, 92, 93
1. Test not run because of lack of time.
2. Data from this test not used because of extremely low COj value..
2.4 Test Procedure
2.A.I Vehicle Preparation
Each day the 1975 cold-start FTP was the first test conducted,
Prior to this test the vehicle was prepared according to the procedure
in the Federal Register (without evaporative testing). Following the
cold-start test two hot-start FTPs were conducted. On the first day
of testing at each facility, the HWFE tests were done after the hot-
start FTPs. On the second day of testing, the steady-state tests were
conducted following the hot-start FTPs.
-------
-4-
2.4.2 Emission Tests
Exhaust emissions were sampled and analyzed by the CVS method
for all test runs. For the steady-state tests the vehicle speed and emis-
sions where stablized for at least 30 seconds before sampling was started.
2.4.3 Fuel Economy Tests
For each FTP, HWFE and steady-state test, the fuel economy was
calculated by the carbon balance technique as described in the Federal
Register.
3. Data Analysis
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on test data in order
to determine if the sites agreed in their measurements of HC,'
-------
-5-
Table 4.1-1. Mean (X) and Standard Deviation (o) of
1975 Cold-start, 1975 Hot-start, and HWFE Cycle Data
Test Type
1975
cold-start
1975
hot-start
HWFE .
Dependent
Variable
_ HC
X, g/mi
O A
_ CO
X, g/mi
o, Z
X, g/mi
a, Z
_ NOx
X, g/mi
°, Z
_ FC-C
X, mi/gal
? *
_ HC
X, g/mi
CO
X, g/mi
_ CO,
X, g/mi
", Z
_ NOx
X, g/mi
o, Z
FC-C
X, mi/ga.1
o» * '
_HC
X, g/mi
-a, Z
CO
X, g/mi
o, Z '
_CO
x, g7oi
». z
NOx
X, g/mi
FC-C
X, mi/gal
o, Z
E
.155
6.8
.538
8.3
775
1.5
1.39
.5.1
11.5
1.9
.-108
1.8
.052
46.2
720
1.1
1.37
1.9
12,3
1.0
.043
13.3 .
.040
25.0
519
1.7
2.06
2.3
17.1
1.8
Test Site
M
.168 .
2.9
.844
0^3
785
1.4
1.50'
0.0
11.3..
1.3
.099
4.8
.076
29.8
753
0.7
. 1.43
5.2
11.8
0.8
. .040
9.5
.065
20.8
520
0.8
1.83
5.8
17.1
0.9
F .1
.179
1.6
.502 '
6.6
774 .
; 0.7
1.41.
4.0
. 11.5
0.6
.108
4.6
. .068
16.9
707
2.1
1.27
1.4
12.6
2.1 -
.040
4.3
.061
7.6
488
1.8
1.76
5.1
18.2
1.8
.155
5.0
.681
6.7
850
0.1
1.71
2.1
10.4
0.0
. 136'
12.0
.078
2.7
786
2.3
1.61
1.8
11.3
2.5
.047
14.3
.071
1.6
611
1.8
2.91
2.5
14.5
1.7
Gr^nd
.164
7. A
.iibl
19.5
796
4.3
9.Z
11.2
4.3
.109
12.1
.067
3t.O
735
4.1
1.39
8.5
12.1
4.1
.043
11.6
.059
24.0
534
9.1
2.14
2.3
16.7
8.4
-------
the mean (X) and scaridard >'U:v i.j i; Ion ( T) ..'or each dependent variable ac each
test :.;ii:.e. The '.I?MI i.^s ;..:.ia .!. -..:/ ^.i:j ot liC .-uid CO.ior thi^ vehicle were very low.
On the ho t-sr.'irc ::^:^r::., c !'!: . KIT,* of '"JO '.-xhau:-; t Ram;; Ly concentration was
about: 1 ;.o 5 pom. 7hi- re^ii." tvd iu very «mall CO analyzer deflections.
(M>nsr><|i:-'nr'!.y , ''he ,-;'.-j'v.;;-i"fj ,'..?v ;.,j . t ion or ^ariied - ui> GO emission levels
wa;s .:c"is .;u-:'u!).!...' .;:. .'a'.'./:; eh.iLi. .:...'. .>chc.';: vinu.rrLou :u'-M.siiueme.uty . Tliis .i.s
;.'.ir ^ i :.:.! l.i c'l ;. '.'.cur.'. M. ;>:!.:: .:'. , .-'a.LvT.h '.is^.d .1 DOl) puia '/iili-.v.cale analy/.er ,,
A1: ':hi-:- nii-i a*: ,: - r;'n.v.i ; ..i '-!.- iT.rjn ti'""'i-'! t:hnt an Incorrecc
i:i:iu)-v--r 'snicti^u -f.-irf i.is--d -.v '.ar- -r/.vic rh^ HWFl:'. and steady-t?tat:e tests.
u r. .u:.. i ,;ot: 1 J.^.-j n >':. i-;.ir- ;<.-.-. ''K^i i.c lo.-i --JiLfii vaqu.iro on Inertia weight
V u;.'|- -il-s.- :uid ,:-.;' r'ti.li-.jr - r;> \.s si-i:;;iu^ .: ;A noc tiyoically used ac their
i. .'- "I t y Tuo .!/rid.'ii.ni:(:;c ^c '.-! = -duLoina!, i.c.-jj.j.y Loaded .i: or "all the correlation
t.;. -V-H.;U . ;;es r. :.'.!-; ?.!-; i'.oni").! - '.:<[ frhe. c v'i!.;iji)ometer horsepower 'Was checked
'"laa i.-.;>i '.loasi; -inwh r.^.:s=;.-, ...id i.-ic-. 50 . IIWP'E axid steady-
'..'-. ".':^rs 'vV'tr. .u;': .^iii:;i. ,.) ". Vv. ii'-'i-'r1'. uid s toad y-s cate data at site 1
::.i ':> c-aiiieu w.i til flaw '..iuiotv ". .; d v'uJii'On^.'Ln-r nor st'uowec '.jetting.
,-'..-, :_-..irii=r :.;':: a c -ci , ';'.ie :. i.r.v. c. sceo Mf: the -lal'-i acialysiy wac> an analysis
var:l,uice f.o d^c.viCimie ;' r -.:.ie '/est .; i.r-.-i measured '.i.if ferent levels of
i :;.*.! OILS :ino/or. 'u^-.i .icoiinin/. Tlit: r:-;.-;i.iitH iif '.:h.Ls analysis are shovai in
h'v.i ''.-'-/.. As snO'-m, the :..ab-; ..iif f -v.reii ' .^igniE i.ca:ii:ly in 'almost ail
Table <'».2-2. Courfidence Levels (aho\/e 90%)
ac ./inch the ':';r-: Sites Measured
D ic'recent L-vei-.; oc l-'.niissions .lud
.!r'..ir'.l economy (Analysis of Variance
rue rood)
last Typ-
-HC :
1'-'
'75 CuUI-«r.acc { . 93
'75 Hoc-sr.ncn
liWFK
SS-30
SS-A5
SS-60
l'i»
99
99
99
:o
99
98 .
'.'8
98
co.
v9
39
99
99
99
99
MOx
99
. 99
99
98
98
99
FC-C
99
99
99
99
99
99
-------
-7-
The next step in the analysis was to determine which particular
sires' differed significantly. from each other. To do this, Sc.heffe
confidence intervals at tii- 90.V 95% and 99% levr-rl of confidence
were calculated. Thri result;.-? of this analysis for the 1975 cold-
scart and hot-start £Ti".-;, ire ntesented in Table 4,2-3. This table
slmwt? r-hat, for^ the cold-*tart, sice I measured significantly higher '
CO^ mid, NOx (and lower j/C-CV Lh.-ui the ottier thr.'.e sites. And on the
hot-sunct test, site I ^^su-ed hi.'Uier: 1IC levels as well as C0? and NOx,
This suggests uhat perhaps,, even .ifcer re.calibration, the dynamometer
l-Orj.-l was 'still greater i.han l-.hat: used by the other test facilities.
Anocher inte.r-jsV.ii! ;< cm i.ftsii.'in -me-i'surfrnenc difference was that site M
ut-.asu rttd signi.f i.caatiy .higher ''0. levels than the other'sites on the cold-
stnct test, bin: not on rh--. hoc--cart. As previously mentioned, the
differences in T/ible A.^-'.i -ire craseatly graphically in Appendix A
(cold-start) and App^uuix B l.ho::-ytart) . . .. :
Xaliie A.2-3 ID/5 K.'.'P i.'iui;; rLony a tut Fuel Economy Difference- which were
Statistically SLijiiiLicaut ./.t sr-yLer than a 90';i, 95% and 99% Level, of Confidence
T»idt Type
1975
Cold-start
1.975
Hot-Start
Si.-.tt !
Contrast
E M
F
I
M F
I
F I.
E M
F
I
M F .
I
F I
ViC
i
A , '; '
,
-26
-34
-25
>
i
CD
L\ , '',
46
99
99
99
-22
60
25
C.L.
-------
-8-
Table 4.2-4 lists the emission and fuel economy differences for
the HWFE and steady-state tests. As previously stated, these tests
at site I were conducted with approximately 20% too much road load
horsepower at 50 mph cruise. Therefore, it is expected that the C02
and NOx levels at this facility would have been greater (and fuel
economy poorer) than at the other test sites,, Table 4.2-4 shows
that this was generally true. Site I also generally measured higher
HC than the other test sites, which might also be a dynamometer
effect. These relationships are graphically presented in Appendix C.
Table 4.2-4. HWFE and Steady-State
Statistically Significant at greater than
Data Differences which were
a 90%, 95% and 99% Level of Confidence
Test Type
HWFE
t-SS-30
SS-45
'"'. -;
. SS-60
Site
Contrast
E M
. F
I
M F
I
F I
E M
F
I
M F
I
F I
E M
F
I
M :F
I
F " I
E ' M
F
I
M . F
I
F I
I
v*
21
-44
-55
-65
25
-.36
-33
. 27
33
-23
-50
-56.
1C
' C.L.
..
95
99
99
99
90
95
95
99
99
99
99
99
C
A, %
-42
' -51
-131
-105
-76
-76
-64
.0
C.L.
95
95
95
90
95
95
90
C
A, %
6
-17
6
-17
-23
-14
. -13
-12
3
-14
-17.
-1.6
. 7
-21.
-8 '
-28
-20
°2
C.L.
95
. 99
95
99 .
99
99
99
99
90
99
99.
-99
99
99
99
99
99
h
A, %
11
14
-40
-51
-54
19
-25
-36
-45
. 43
. 27
.-36.
-16
-79
-63
»*
Ox
C.L.
90
95
99
99
99
. 90
95
90
95
99
'99
99
95
99
99
FL
A, %
-6
t!5
-7
4-15
+22
. -H4
+12
fll
-3
f-13
+15
+15
-8
+19
+9'
+26
+17
C
C.L.
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
90
99
99
99
99
99
95
99
99
1. A, % *> Percent difference between two test sites.
2. C.L. = Confidence level based on Scheffe allowances.
-------
-9-
Table 4.2-4 shows that there were some very large percentage
differences in CO measurement. This is because of the very low emis-
sion level of about 0.1 g/mi. Consequently, comparison of CO hot-start
emissions between test sites is rather meaningless.
Other than the large descrepancy of the data at site I, which re-
sulted from the incorrect dynamometer load, there are no other consistent
differences in the data. However, some of the data seem to indicate that
the dynamometer load curves may be substantially different between facili-
ties. For example, Table 4.2-3 shows that site M measured 4% and 6%
higher CO- than site E and F on the 1975 hot-start cycle. At the steady-
state speed of 30 mph (Table 4.2-4) there was no significant difference
in C0? measurement among these sites. However, at 60 mph, site M measured
significantly less C02 (and NOx) than sites E and F. Such discrepancies
might be explained by differences in dynamometer load vs. speed relationships.
As mentioned earlier, a final step in the data analysis was a
covariance analysis of the 1975 hot-start data to determine any effect
of ambient conditions on emission levels. Since testing at each facility
occurred on two consecutive days, the change in ambient conditions within
each test site was small. Consequently it was expected that any effect
of ambient changes on emissions would be difficult to determine0 The
statistical analysis confirmed this belief. Only three ambient effects
were significant at above the 80% confidence level and the most significant.
of these was at only a .91% level. These effects were (1) barometric pres-
sure on HC, (2) humidity on HC and (3) humidity on NOx; and they are
listed in Appendix D as Table D-I.
To determine if the three ambient effects in Table D-I had an effect
on the measured HC and NOx differences between test sites, the 1975 hot-
start data was corrected using the listed coefficients. An analysis of
variance was then run on the corrected data. Results of this analysis
are listed in Table D-II. Comparing this Table with the 1975 hot-start
analysis in Table 4.2-3 reveals that the ambient corrections had only a
slight effect on the differences between test sites. The only significant
difference in the uncorrected data which was eliminated by the ambient corrections
was the 7.7, discrepancy in NOx emissions between site E and F. Figures D-l , D-2
and D-3 show HC vs. barometer, HC vs. humidity and NOx vs. humidity, respectively,
and contain the coefficients obtained by the covariance analysis. Wide scatter
in the data points indicate the rather weak correlation obtained:
5. Conclusions
1. Site I differed significantly from the other test sites in the
measurement of HC, C02, and NOx when tested on the HWFE and steady-state
cycles. . However, it was discovered that the dynamometer horsepower^oad
was 20% greater than the proper value; and this is believed to be
responsible for most of the observed difference.
-------
rlO-
2. After dynamometer recalibration, test site I measured approximately
8% higher C02 and 18% higher NOx than the other test sites for both cold-
start and, hot-start 1975 FTPs. HC was also higher on the 1975 .hot-start
This indicates that the dynamometer load at site I nay still have been greater
than at the other test sites.
3. On the 1975 cold-start FTP, site M.measured significantly higher
CO than the other 3 test sites.
4. Test sites can not be meaningfully compared for hot-start CO
emissions because ofthe extremely low CO levels.
5. On hot-start 1975 FTPs site M measured about 5% more CO- than
sites E and F, and 9% more NOx than site F. However at a 60 mph steady-
state, site M measured about 7% less C0» and significantly less NOx than
sites E and F. It is likely that these differences are due to a loading
difference between the belt-driven dynamometer used by site M and the
direct-drive unit used by the other test sites.
6. Recommendations
1. Lower range CO analyzers would improve the repeatability
of CO. measurements when a low emission vehicle such as used in this
program is tested. This is particularly true for site E.
2. Dynamometer torque measurements during correlation program
tests would be helpful in determining dynamometer effects.
3. Standardization of dynamometer type would probably improve
correlation between emission laboratories.
4. Cylinder gas cross-checks would be helpful in determining
any differences in analytical system performance.
5. Ambient effects could be better quantified if there were
two rounds of testing, because this would most likely result in
greater ambient variations within test sites.
-------
-11-
References
1. Leiferman, M. and Wilson, G., "1975 EPA-U'.S. MVMA KMii^ion L/uxn-acor;
Correlation Study", Environmental Protection A»>.eaey, i'.;:i.co of Air
and Waste Management, Office of Mobile Source Air t'olluiiiim C.jiv:ro I,
Emission Control Technology Division, June, .1.97'i.
2. Leiferman, M., "EPA-BMW Emission Laboratory Corrc.l iC.Lon :;r:u.ly,"
Environmental Protection Agency, Of f ice of Air and Vin.st:--' HnnH^eiiienc,
Office of- Mobile Source Air Pollution Control, .!;;u.Lesion C
Technology Division, June, 1975.
-------
Appendix A
Data from Cold-Start 1975 FTP
-------
Table A-l MERCEDES CORRELATION STUDY -- 1975 COLO START
TEST DATA BAG «1
FC-C WB DB K
SITE- RUN
El
El
HZ
M2
F3
F3
14
14
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BAG
NO.
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
I 0
1 0
H C
.350
.400
.386
.406
.398
.4M
.318
.359
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
C 0
.160
.610
.769 .
.827
.373
.677
.895
.270
C02
603.
830.
820.
827.
806.
813.
926.
984.
NOX
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
.91
.03
.10
.11
.06
.95
.25
.49
62.0 74,
61.0 71.
61.0 73,
63.0 78,
64..0 79,
56.0 79,
65.0 78,
60.0 78.
BARO HUM
0 0.957 28.98
5 0.953 29.17
0 0.940 29.17
0 0.950 29.31
0 0.959 29.22
0 0.852 29.42
0 0.989 29.18
0 0.888 29.48
65
64
61
64
66
38
72.9
48.4
SITE RUN BAG H C
NO. NO.
TEST DATA BAG «2
CO C02 NOX FC-C WB
DB
.BARO HUH
El
El '
M2
M2
F3
F3
14
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.090
0.090
0.098
0.105
0.107
0.101
0.086
0.092
0.060
0.020
0.066
0.055
0.067
0.059
0.043
0.030
814.
815.
828.
836.
809.
819.
873.
862.
0.93
0.99
1.20
1.16
0.97
0.93
1.19
1.17
62.0
61.0
61.0
63.0
64.0
58.0
65.0
60.0
74.0
71.5
73.0
78.0
79.0
79.0
78.0
76.0
0.957
0.953
0.940
0.950
0.959
0.852
0.989
0.888
28.98
29.17
29.17
29.31
29.22
29.42
29.18
29.48
65.7
64.7
61.7
64.0
66.1
38.3
72.9
43.4
SITE RUN BAG H C CO
NO. NO.
TEST DATA BAG #3
C02 NOX FC-C WB
DB
6ARO HUH
El
El
H2
M2
F3
F3
14
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.110
0.130
0.124
0.121
0.146
0.136.
0.141.
0.139
0.100.
0.060
0.116
0.105
0.115
0.098
0.109
0.082
648.
685.
647.
687.
669.
674.
745. J
728. !
.68
.84
.98
.98
.90
.78
'.19
'.23
62.0
61.0
61.0
63.0
64.0
58.0
65.0
60.0
74.0
71.5
73.0
78.0
79. -0
79.0
78.0
78.0
0.957
0.953
0.94Q
0.950
0.959
0.652
O.V89
0.888
28.98
29.17
29.17
29.31
29.22
29.42
29.18
29.48
65.7
64.7
61.7
64.0
66.1
38.3
72.9
48.4
SITE RUN BAG H C CO
NO. NO.
TEST DATA BAG »4
C02 NOX FC-C W8
DB
BARO HUH
El
El
H2
M2
F3
F3
14
I*
1
2
3
tt
S
6
7
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
-------
Table A-II
Summary of Composite 1975 Cold-Start
FTP Data
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES STRATUM = 1s EPA
VARIABLE N MEAN STO OEV SE OF MEAN
MINIMUM
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WO
08
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
KB
OB
K
BARO
HUM
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.15450
.53750
775.00
1.3900
11.450
61.500
72.750
.95500
29.075
65.200
MEASURES
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2'
.16750
.84350
785.00
1.5000
11.300
62.000
75.500
.94500
29.240
62.850
.10607
.44548
11.314
.70711
.21213
.70711
1.7678
.26284
.13435
.70711
STRATUM =
.49497
.21213
11.314
. .14142
1.4142
'3.5355
.70711
.98995
1.6263
-1
-1
-1
-2
2 =
-2
-2
'
-2
-1
.75000
.31500
R.OQOO
.50000
.15000
.50000
1.2500
.20000
.95000
.50000
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
.14700
.50600
767.00
1.3400
11.300
61.000
71.500
.95300
28.980
64.700
Mercedes
.35000
.15000
8.0000
.10000
1.0000
2.5000
.50000
.70000
1.1500
-2
-2
-2
-1
.16400
.84200
777.00
1.5000
11.200
61.000
73.000
.94000
29.170
61.700
MAXIMUM
-.16200
.56900
T83.00
1.4400
11.600
62.000
74.000
.95700
29.170
65.700
.17100
.84500
793.00
1.50.PO
11.400
63.000
78.000
.95000
29.310
64.000
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
STRATUM = 3 = Ford
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
FC-C
WB
08
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
2
' . 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.17900
.58200
774.00
1.4100
11.450
.61.000
79.000
.90550
29.320
52.200
MEASURES
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.I54SO
.68100
849.50
1.7050
10.400
62.500
78.000
.93850
29.330
60.650
.28284
.38184
5.6569
.56569
.70711
4.2426
.75660
.14142
19.658
STRATUM =
.77782
.45255
.70711
.35355
3.5355
.71418
.21213
17.324
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
4 =
-2
-1
-1
-1
.20000
.27000
4.0000
.40000
.50000
3.0000
.53500
.10000
13.900-
Flat
.55000
.32000
.50000
.25000
2.5QOO'
.50500
.15000
12.250
2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-1
-1
-I
.17700
.55500
770.00
1.3700
11.400
58.000
79.000
.85200
29.220
38.300
.14900
.64900
849.00
1.6300
10.4QO
60.000
78.000
.88800
29.180
48.400
.18100
.60900
778.00
1.4500
11.500
64.000
79.0t)0
.95900
29.420
66.100
.16000
.71300
850.00
1.7300
10.400
65.000
78.000
.98900
29.480
72.900
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
VARIABLE N MEAN
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
W8.
DB '
K
BARO
HUM
Grand
STD OEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
8
8
.16387
.66100
795.68
1.5012
11.150
61.750
76.313
.93600
29.241
60.225
.12194
.12867
34.027
.13830
.47809
.2.2520
2.9873
.44143
.15869
11.226
-1 .43113
.45492
12.030
.48896
.16903
.79620
1.0562
-1 .15607
.56107
- 3.9689
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
.14700
.50600
767.00
1.3400
10.4QO
Sfl.OOO
71.500
.B5200
28.980
38.300
.18100
.84500
850.00
1.7300
11.600
. 65.000
79.000
.98900
29.480
72.900
-------
Figure A-l .(1975 COLD ST»KT) . HC VS. RUN«(BAG4)
< Y VS. X )
06-10-75
0.190 »-
0.170
EC,
0.150
0.130
0.110
0.090
0.0
2.000
.000
Run Number
6.000
a.oco
10.000
-------
1.000
0.900.
0.800
CO, ml
0.700
0.600
.0.500
Figure A-2 (1975 COLO START) CO
'
I '
I
I
I
I '
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
1 . . ___-
I M
I
I
I .
I I
I I
I I
i i
i i -
i . i
r . i
i i
i i
i i
ii
i i
i i
r i
i »
i
i
i
i
i
i .
i /
i /
i /
i /
\ /
I E
VS. HUNMBftGM
Y VS. X ) 06-10-7b
I
'
'
I .
I
I
.
.
1
. :
.:
v i
I
"I
r . ' i
[ i .. . .
i
i
i
t i .
\ i /
i /
r i /
i i /
[ .11
t i
i
t i .
[ F
[ / I
/ I
/ I
F I '
[ I
I I '
r i :
i . i
t 'i
i
i
i
i
: I
I,
I
.1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
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
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
0.0
z.ooo
Run Number
6.000
8.000
10.000
-------
Figure A-3 U975 COLD STAHT)
CO?
! Y
VS. »UNMdAG<«>
VS. X )
06-10-75
900.000
eso.ooo
800.000
ml
750.000
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
1 '' {.
t I I
I - I . ' I
i i . r
t I M
i . i . / \
i ' .,e ./ i
i ./ i ./ \
I . / I MI
I / I ' 1
I . E^ I 1
I . I I
I ' ! I
I I I
I 'I T
I I I
I I : I
I I f
I I - 1
I I I
I.I I
I I I
I ' I ' !
I .1 !
I I
I I ' -I
I I !
I I i
1 I . 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 .
, 1
I
' 1
f"^"^ \
\ '
. I
I
!
[
f
I
i
i
1
J
i
1
1
i
I
I
(
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
. ' I
!
[
1 .
I
I
I
[
I
I
I
1
. I
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
1
I
: ' ,l
i
« i
i
r
700.000
650.000
0.0
2.000
o . 0 o 0
i 0 . C 0 3
-------
Figure A-4 U<*75 COLO START)
NOX
t Y
VS. PUN*(dAG
vs. x ;-
Ji- IO-/5
1.750
1.650
0.0
i 9000
-------
Figure A-5
(19/5 COLD START) FC-C
I f
v'b.
VS.
13.000
U.SuJ
rc-C. ci"
I 1.OC )
10.SOC
\
; ----------- 1
10.000
3.0
J. 0 r,;
fc ..;
1 0 . 0 C 0
-------
Appendix B
Data Fro:m Hot-;Starc !.'97ii'
-------
Tabla B-I MERCEDES CORRELATION STUDY 1975 HOT START
' TEST DATA BAG #1
SITE RUN BAG H C CO C02 NOX FC-C WB DB K
NO. NO. .
BARO HUM
El
El
El
El
M2
*2
M2
M3
F3
F3
F3
F3
14
14
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
S3
24
0.090 0.060 665. .78 63.0 73.5 0.982 28.98 71.3
0.100 0.060 691. .82 63.0 75.0 0,970 29.04 63.7
0.080 0.020 66S. .90 62.0 74.0 0.9S4 29.20 6S.O
0.080 0.050 658. .84 63.0 74.0 0.975 29.20 69.8
O.OH9 0.090 691. .96 . 63.0 76.1) 0.<>44 29.19 62.6
0.07c) 0.037 6H8. .82 66.0 78.0 1.U20 29.19 79.4
0.071 0.05V 684. .92 63.0 78. n 0.937 29.31 60.9
0.071 0.079 679. .83 64.0 78. 0 0.930 29.31 59.2
0.066 0.074 661. .75 - 62.0 78.0 0-926 29.23 58.2
0.079 0.074 652. .79 62.0 79..0 0.920 29.23 56.7
O.OB6 0.084 657. .64 57.0 79.0 O.fOO 29.42 3<>,1
0.082 0.078 650. .73 57.0 79.0 0.838 29,42 34.1
0.112 0.087 74.1. 2.15 66.0 7R.O 1.013.29.21 78.0
0.118 0.080 712. 2.01 , 60.0 78;0 0.688 29.49 48.4
SITE RUN RAG H C
NO. NO.
TEST DATA BAG i>Z
C 0 C02 NOX FC-C
WB OB
BARO HUM
El
El
El
El
M2
M2
H2
H2
F3
F3
F3
F3
14.
14
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0..098
0.109
0.093
0.086
0.111
0.108
0.109
0.110
0.119
0.152
0,060
0.020
0.0
0.020
0.062
0.029
0.064
0.085
0.050
0.040
0.045
0.058
0.090
0.024
773.
779.
774.
756.
019.
.819.
818.
815.
785.
775.
779.
775.
846.
.829.
1.00
0.93
0.99
0.96
1.18
1.16
1.12
1.12
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.89
1.11 .
1.13
63
63
62
63
63
66
63
64
62
62
57
57
66
60
.0 73.5
.0 75.0
.0 74.0
.0 74.0
.0 76.0
.0 78.0
.0 78.0
.0 78.0
.0 78.0
.0: 79.0
.0 79. n
.0 79.0
.0 78.0
.0 78.0
0.9S2
0.970
0.954
0.975
0.944
1.020
0.937
0,930
0.926
0.9r?0
O.fl.lO
0.038
1.013
O.B88
20.98
29.04
29.20
29.20
29.19
29.19
29.31
29.31
29.23
29.23
29.42
29.42
29.21
29.49
71.3
6ft. 7
65.0
69.8
62.6
79.4
60.9
.59.2
59.2
56.7
34. 1
3<..l
78.0
48.4
SITE RUN IUG H C
NO. NO.
TEST DATA BAG #3
C 0 C02 NOX FC-C WB OB
BARO HUM
El
El
El
El
K2
M2
M2
M2
F3
F3
F3
F3
14
14
il-
ia
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
21
22
23
24
3
3
3
3
J
.3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-3
0.130
0.140
0.130
0.130
0.117
0.114
0.125
0.122
O.HS
0.106
0-137
0.136
0.145
0.160
0.140
0.120
0.060
0.100
0.089
0.070
0.144
0.109
0.065
0.073
0.096
0.142
0.101
0.125
656.
663.
664.
623.
677.
688.
687.
663.
572.
548.
65fl.
656.
742. J
711. '<
.74
.74
.81
.86
.98
.81
.92
.75
.68
.51
.68
.68
2.22
'.14
63.0
63.0
62.0
63.0
63.0
66.0
63,0
64.0
62.0
62.0
57.0
57.0
66.0
60.0
73.5
75.0
74.0
74.0
76.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
78.0
78.0
0.982
0.970
0.954
0.975
0.944
1.020
0.937
0.930
0.926
0.920
0.633
O.R38
1.013
0.888
28.98
29.04
29.20
29.20
29.19
29.19
29.31
29.31
29.23
29.23
29.42
29.42
29.21
29.49
71.3
63.7
65.0
69.8
62.6
79.4
60.9
59.2
58.2
56.7
34.1
34.1
78.0
48.4
SITE RUN B«G H C
NO. NO.
TEST DATA BAG C4
C 0 C02 NOX FC-C WB
DB
BARO HUM
El
El
El
El
M2
M2
M2
.H2
F3
F3
F3
F3
14
14
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
4
4
4
it
U
4.
It
4
4
4
4
it
4
0.106
0.110
0.106
0. 108
0.101
0.104
0.097
0.093
0.107
0.101
0.112
0.111
0-124
0.147
0.080
0.057
0.022
0.047
0.086
0.042
0.085
0.090
0.059
0.062
0.067
0.085
0.093
0.063
719.
729.
722.
710.
754.
757.
755.
745.
702.
688.
721.
717.
798.
773.
1.36
1.34
1.40
1.38
1.47
1.51
.41
.34
.29
.25
.26
.28
.63
.59
12.3
12.2
12.3
12.5
11.8
11.7
11.7
11.9
12.6
12.9
12.3
12.4
11.1
11.5
63.0
63.0
62.0
63.0
63.0
66.0
63.0
.64.0
'62.0
62.0
57.0
57.0
66.0
60.0
73.5
75.0
74.0
74.0
76.0
76.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
7R.O
78.0
0.982
0.970
0.954
0.975
0.944
1.020
0.937
0.930
0.926
0.920
0.838
0.838
1.013
0.888
28.98
29.04
29.20
29.20
29.19
29.19
29.31
29.31
29.23
29.23
29.42
29.42
29.21
29.49
71.3
68.7
65.0
69.6
62.6
79.4
60.9
59.2
58.2
56.7
34.1
34.1
78.0
48.4
-------
Table B-II
Summary of Composite 1975 Hot-Scart
FTP Data
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
VARIABLE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
. 08
K
BARO
HUM
N MEAN
STRATUM = 1 - EPA
STD DEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
.1075&
.51500 -1
720.00
1.3700
12.335
62.750
74.125
.97025
H9. 105
68.700
.19149
.24035
7.8740
.25820
.12BR3
.50000
.62915
.11899
.11240
2.6870
-2
-1
-1
-1
.95743
.12017
3.9370
.12910
.62915
.25000
.31458
.59494
.56199
1.3435
-3
-1
-1
-1
-2
-1
.10600
.22000 -1
710.00
1.3400
12.200
62.000
73.500
.95400
28.980
6S.OOO
.11000
.80000
729.00
1.4000
12.500
63.000
75.000
.9B200
29.200
71.300
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
STRATUM = 2 = Mercedes
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
wa
DB
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
VARIABLE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
W8
DB
K
BARO
HUM
4
4
4
4
4
» 4
4
4
4
4
.98750
.75750
752.75
1.4325
11.775
64.000
77.500
'.95775
29.250
65.525
MEASURES
4
4
4
4
4
4
' 4
4
4
4
.10775
.68250
707.00
1.2700
12.550
59.500
78.750
.68050
29.325
45.775
MEASURES
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
.13550
.78000
785.50
1.6100
11.300
63.000
78.000
,95050
29.350
63.200
MEASURES
N
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
MEAN
.10907
.67000
735.00
1.3936
12.0R6
62.214
76.964
.93821
29.244
60.457
-1 .47871
-1 .22603
5.3151
.74106
.95743
1.4142
1.0000
.41892
.69282
9.3536
STRATUM =
.49917
-1 .11644
15.078
.18257
.26458
2.8068
.50000
.49136
.10970
13.495
STRATUM =
.16263
-1 .21213
17.678
.28284
.28284
4.2426
.88388
.19799
20.930
Grand
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
3
-2
-I
-1
-1
4 .
-1
-1
-1
-1
STO OEV
.13182
-1 .20825
29.951
.11875
.48652
2.6941
2.0236
.55472
.13971
13.924
-1
-1
-1
.23936
.11302
2.6S75
.37053
.47871
.70711
.50000
.20946
.34641
4.6768
« Ford
.24958
.58220
7.5388
.91287
.13229
1.4434
.25000
.24568
.54848
6.7475
» Ftat
.11500
.15000
12.500
.20000
.20000
3.0000
.62500
.14000
14.800
. ._
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
;
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
SE OF MEAN
.35230
.55658
8.0048
.31737
.13003
.72003
.54082
.14825
.37339
3.7213
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
.93000 -1
.42000 -1
745.00
1.3400
11.700
63.000
76.000
.93000
29.190
59.200
.10100
.59000 -1
688.00
1.2500
12.300
57.000
78.000
.33300
29.230
34.100
.12400
.63000 -1
773.00
1.5900
11.100
60.000
78.000
.88800
29.210
48.400
MINIMUM
.93000 -1
.22000 -1
688.00
1.2500
11.100
57.000
73.500
.83800
28.980
34.100
.10400
.90000
757.00
1.5100
1.1.900
66.000
78.000
1.0200
29.310
79.400
"
.11200
.85000
721.00
1.2900
12.900
62.000
79.000
.92600
29.420
58.200
.14700
.93000
798.00
1.6300
11.500'
66.000
78.000
1.0130
29.490
78.000
-
-1
-1
MAXIMUM
.14700
.93000
798.00
1.6300
12.900
66.000
79.000
1.0200
29.490
79.400
-1
-------
Figure B-l
0.190 <
-
0«170
01 en
I 3 '
HC, ml
01 *>/4
* I JU
01 l n
* 1 1 U
Ort o ft
U"'/
10
<
.
E
EX \t-^^
.000 1"
1975 HOT STAWTI HC VS. RUNMBAG4)
C Y VS. X »
--
V
-
*
'
: - ' ....
' ' j" ' 1 .
f . 1 /~
r~ /
\ /
^» \ /
*^\ '
I NM
I \
1 ^M
I ' " I
.000 IB. 000 . ' - 32
06-10-7b
]
'
I
"'/. -'
I
:
j
.
.000 2(3
I
_
~ J .
1
.000 30.
Run K'jnber
-------
Figure »-2 ' ,1975 MOT STAWT)
CO
( V
VS. RUN»(BAG<»)
VS. X )
06-10-7S
0.100
0.080
0.060
CO,
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.0
-------
voo.ooo
850.000
800.000
i";0 -. 0 J
Figure B-3 ( 1975 riOT-ST«HT) C03 VS. RUNOIHAO4)
. ( Y VS. X ) 06-10-75
I II I I
I I . I I I
I . I I I I
I I .1 I 1
II I i 1
I I . T. I . !
I II i
I I. .... I". 1 . 1
I I f I !
t ' I I " i i
I ...... I ''.- 1 i
i r :
I ' t : i
I i . . i . :
I ' . ' i i :
1 . i ! . !
I f '-; . :
.'.' i . i '.'. ' . ;
; ' j
.- i -i - . i \ .."..!
. ' ' i . i \ i
i - i v ..-: \ :
r. . i i . -i i i
1 ! ! ' f I
i . r : ; i
i i- . ; ; . i
r r ~i - -:- v i . ; i
1 ''.' i
1 ..:..;!
! I ' ; ! i
: : i . i : i .
i .'' '-, : . i " i i
i c- v;. : .: .'-..! i
. -,: \ / -', i
1 ..'... / '
' " 7 .
i i . . i x / ^ - A
; i - i "V ! i '
T ! - - 1 I 1
! I I 1 . 1
I 1 '''!' f I
1 i ' ! ! i
T . i ' ' ! : !
; . r i i i
I ' i ! :
1
[
I
t
1
i
r
' 1
I
I
j
!
i
r
I
I
I
I
-1
I
1
. I
I
1
. I
I
I
I
[
I
I
I
T
i
i
I
I
I
f
!
j
f
-------
Figure B-4 <
HOT. START)
NOX
( Y
VS. RUNC teAt><.)
VS. X )
06-10-75
1.75(1 »
l.SSfl *
1 .250
10.000
I I II I
I I J .1 I
r i-i i .1
i i r i - . i
r i i 'i ' i
i i i ir
i i ' i i . i
ii i i i
i r i " i i
i i i . t i
i i ... i i i i
I I I . . . ' ! \ 1
I 'I 1 I \ I
I I I ! . \ - 1
I f ! ' . : F 1
I i i . r . . i
I I . ' S .1 i
I - ' I ' ! : !
r '[ ! ;
I i i ;
1 . I i 1 !
I r : : ' . ' : ..'.:
r i : i ' i
i : ," x. : ; i
i i .'/ '- : . '
I ' I ,-' > : ! ,
I 1 \ I ! ' I
; i . \ i ' : i
i "i \ ! ' . ! ...- i
i i ' - \ i i i
! I M I I I
i -: i \ i i i
i / \. i \ i i . i
i / ^f \ r "i i
1 /I \ ! 1 . (
1 ' E. / 1 \ ' 1 1
1 r. I « . i 1
I 1 ! I . I
I ' .! 1 1 .1
i i i i ". r
i r t i i
1 I . ! F 1 J
I t i \ ,r i
' . . i \ / i i
i r i \ .-H i i
i
|
i
1 1
i
i
i
i
. i
I
[
i
[
t
i
i
j
'
i
i
i
i
i
. i
;
i
<
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
i
1
r
i
i
t
i
.000
It-.UCG
r.ooo
26,000
3 0 . C 0 0
Sun
-------
Figure "E-5
i j » 3 1> ;
13.000
i '? *^ ( (i
t C » 3 U *.'
£_
1-3 .- n ,--
C r O U "
n- fl fl
j U '>
1 1 . n (i ii
I
I
I
I
F '
I .
I
I
I
[
t
T
I
r
1
f
i
I
I
I
I
r
[ £
[
I
/
I
I
I
I
1
[
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
i
i
i
I '. :
i I i
i . ' '. i I
i '1 . ' i
1 - [ !
' I ' . ! ' . !
I , ! ' ' !
I ! . !
' ' I " . ' 1 ' 1
i T . :
I- ' ! i 1
r i / \ i
! .; / \ ;
! ' ' - i / \ . i
1 1 I * '
I . . ! f \ \- I .-
I . ! \ !
/ 1 . 1 \ 1
/I , . . \ ^ . -
/ i I » ./ !
, <-; i i 'ft.
\ X.I - ' r i
E 1 I I .
i-i i
1 T . I
f I ' ' I
i ' i ' ;
I v . I
i * /; f
i '", / ! .. i
i \ / i i .
1^ .... i r
M -» i*i | . i
i i i '
i i i
I ! I
i i . .1 /
i i . r . /
i i l / '
i i '''/'
i . i i /
i . i . i /
i i i /
i i ii
. i ' .- i . i
i
' ' i
i
i
i
i
t
- i
t
^
:
.;
j
i
i
1 ':'.
1
I
I
i .
i
]
I
I
I
I
1
1
1.
I
J
I
. I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
I
. 1
I
I
I
i
I
' .'I
I
. . I
1
'.
' 1
- - 1
' . 1
. 1
.1
. 1
' 1
1
1
r
i
t
i
. i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
10.000
1^.000
0 0 U
Run Nuabec
Jb.COO
30.000
-------
Appendix C
Data From HWFE and Steady-State
Tests
-------
Table C-I MERCEDES CORRELATION STUDY HWFC
TEST DATA BAG #1
SITE RUN BAG H C CO C02 NOX FC-C W8
NO. NO.
D8
8ARO HUH
14
14
14
El
El
F.I
M2
M2
M2
F3
r :<
F3
31
3?
33
34
35
36
37
30
39
An
41
42
0.051
0.050
0.039
0.050
0.040
0.040
0.043
0.036
0.042
0.042
0.039
0.039
0.073
0.070
0.070
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.061
O.OfiO
0.054
0.058
O.OS8
0.066
614.
599.
620.
528.
517.
511.
524.
520.
515.
498.
4B4.
482.
a. 97
2.94
2.83
2.11
2.04
2.02
1.95
1.77
1.76
1.85
1.76
1.67
14.5
14.8
14.3
16.8
17.1
17.4
16.9
17.1
17.2
17.8
18.3
18.4
62.5
62.5
62.5
65.0
63.5
63.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
74.0
74.0
74.0
75.0
75.0
73.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
0.964
0.964
0.964
1.005
0.974
0.979
0.901
0.901
0.901
2'9.75
39.75
29.75
29.21
29.21
29.21
29.17
29.18
29.18
29.25
29.25
29.25
67.3
67.3
67.3
76.3
69.6
70.7
51.9
51.9
51.9
MERCEDES CORRELATION STUDY SS-30
TEST' DATA BAG #1
SITE
14
14
14
U
El
El
M2
H2
H2
F3
K3
RUN
NO.
51
52
1.3
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
BAG
NO.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
H C
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.024
0.027
0.029
0.026
0.021
C 0
0.021
0.042
0.040
0.010
0.0
0.010
0.030
0.056
0.038
0.017
0.027
C02
567.
586.
585.
506.
505.
499.
513.
512.
504.
517.
512.
NOX
0.43
0.39
0.38
0.35
0.33
0.34
0.41
0.35
0.38
0.33
0.29
FC-C
15.7
15.1
15.2
17.5
17.6
17.8
17.3
17.3
17.6
17.2
17.3
WB
63.0
62. S
62.5
63.5
71.0
65.0
56.0
58. 0
DB
74.5
74.5
74.5
74.0
80,5
74-. 0
77.0
81.0
K
0.971
0.961
0.961
0.974
1.202
1.002
0.836
0.842
BARO
29.73
39.73
29.73
29.20
29.20
29.20
29.31
29.29
29.28
29.37
29.35
HUH
68.9
66.6
66.6
69.6
111.0
75.7
33.5
35.3
SITE RUN BAG H C
NO. NO.
MERCEDES CORRELATION STUDY SS-45
TEST DATA BAG #1
C 0 COZ NOX FC-C WB
OB
BARO HUH
14
14
14
El
El
El
M2
M2
M2
F3
F3
F3
71
72 '
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
- 82
0.043
0.040
0.039
.0.040
.0.030
0.040
0.029
0.027
0.029
0.030
0.028
0.031
0.040
0.053
0.051
0.030
0.0
0.030
0.052
0.050
0.057
0.042
0.053
0.064
541.
545.
546.
483.
467.
482.
464.
464.
459.
469.
467.
460.
1.15
1.03
1.02
1.04
0.82
1.10
0.87
0.52
0.82
0.76
0.66
0.62
16.4
16.3
16.2
18.4
19.0
18.4
19.1
19.1
19.2
18.9
19.0
19.3
63.0
62.5
62.5
65.5
69.0
67.0
56.0
58.0
59. 0
74.5
74.5
74.5
78.0
79.0
76.0
77.0
81.0
83.0.
0.971
0.961
0.961
1.040
1.080
1.044
0.836
0.842
0.845
29.73
29.73
29.73
29.20
29.20
29.20
29.30
29.29
29.29
29.37
29.35
29.33
68.9
66.6
66.6
83.4
91.0
84.2 .
33.5
35.3
36.2
SITE RUN PAG H C
NO. NO.
MERCEDES CORRELATION STUDY SS-60
TEST DATA BAG #1
C 0 C02 NOX FC-C WB
OB
BARO HUM
14
14
14
El
El
El
M2
M2
M2
F3
F3
F3
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0.036
0.036
0.037
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.023
0.022
0.023
0.019
0.020
0.024
0.067
0.065
0.057
0.040
0.020
0.050
0.066
0.023
0.048
0.054
0.058
0.064
630.
622.
627.
505.
516.
515.
493.
468.
471.
516.
519.
519.
4.23
4.24
4.06
3.07
3.18
3.16
1.90
2.11
1.68
2.37
2.41
2.28
14.1
14.3
14.2
17.6
17.2
17.2
18.0
19.0
18.8
H.2
17.1
17.1
63.0
62.5
62.5
68.0
70.0
69.0
56.0
58.0
59.0
74.5
74.5
74.5
82.0
81.0
79.0
77.0
81. 0
83.0
0.971
0.961
0.961
1.025
1.080
1.071
0.836
0.842
0.845
29.73
29.73
29.73
29.20
29.20
29.20
29.30
29.29
29.29
29.37
29.35
29.33
68.9
66.6
66.6
80.4
91.0
89.3
33.5
35.3
36.2
-------
Table C-III Summary of SS-30 Data
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
VARIABLE
N MEAN
STRATUM a I a EPA
STO DEV SE OF MEAN. MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
HC
-co
C02
NOX
FC-C
UB
DB
K
BARO
HUM .
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIP-TIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO..
HUM
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.30000
.66667
503.33
.34000
17.633
62.667
74.500
.96433
29.200
67.367
MEASURES
3
3
3
3
3
3
. 3
3-
3
3
.26667
.41333
509.67
.38000
17.400
66.500
76.167
1.0593
29.293
85.433
MEASURES
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
. 2
2
2
.23500
.22000
514.50
.31000
17.250
57.000
79.000
.83900
29.360
34.400
MEASURES
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
3.
0
.44000
.34333
579.33
.40000
15.333
29.730
-1
-2 .57735
3.7859
.10000
.15275"
.28868
.57735
1.3279
STRATUM =
-1 .25166
-1 .13317
4.93?9
'.3(1000
.17321
3.9686
3.7520
.12434
.15275
22.350
STRATUM =
-1 .35355
-1 .70711
3.5355
.28284
.70711
1.4142
2.8284
.42426
.14142
1.2728
STRATUM =
-1
-1 .11590
10.693
.26458
.32146
-2
-1
-2
2 =
-2
-1
-1
-1
.33333
2.1858
.57735
.88192
.16667
.33333
.76667
-2
-2
-1
-2
.30000 -1
0.
499.00
.33000
17.500
62.500
74.500
.96100
. 29.200
66.600
.30000
.10000
506.00
.35000
17.800
63.000
74.500
.97100
29.200
68.900
-1
-1
Mercedes
.14530
.76884
2.8480
.17321
.10000
2.2913
2.1667
.71790
.88193
12.904
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
.24000 -1
.30000 -1
504.00
.35000
17.300
63.500
74.000
.97400
29.280
69.600
.29000
.56000
513.00
.41000
17.600
71.000
80.500
1.2020
29.310
111.00
-1
rl
3 = Ford
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
4 =
-1
-1
.25000
.50000
2.5000
.20000
.50000
1.0000
2.0000
.30000
.10000
.90000
Flat
.66916
6.1734
.15275
.18559
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
-2
-1
.21000 -1
' .17000 -1
512.00 .-
.29000
17.200
56.000
77.000
.83600
29.350
33.500
.44000 -1
.21000 -1
567.00
.38000
15.100
29.730
.26000
.27000
517.00
.33000
17.300
58.000
81.000
.84200
29.370
35.300
.44000
.42000
586.00
.43000
15.700
29.730
-1
-1
-1
-1
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
VARIABLE N MEAN
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
Grand
STO DEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
11
11
11
11
11
8
e
8
11
8
.31727 -1
.26455 -1
527.82
.36182
16.873
62.688
76.250
.96862
29.399
65.900
.83557
.16747
33.796
.40452
1.0140
4.5035
2.9399
.1129B
.22016
24.319
-2
-I
-1
.25193
.50495
10.190
.12197
.30573
1.5922
1.0 39i,
.39945
.66380
8.5980
-Z
-2
-1
-1
-1
.21000 -1
0.
499.00
.29000
15.100
56.000
74.000
.33600
29.200
33.500
.44000
.56000
586.00
.43000
17.800
71.000
81.000
1.2020
29.730
111.00
-1
-1
-------
Table C-II Summary of HWFE Data
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
STRATUM = 1 = EPA
VARIABLE
N MEAN
STO OEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
'HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB .
K
BARO '
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.43333
.40000
518.67
2.0567
17.100
62.500
74.000
.96400
29.210
67.300
MEASURES
3
3
3
3
3
v 3
3
3
3
3
.40333
.65000
519.67
1.8267
17.067
63.833
' 74.333
.98600
29.177
72.200
MEASURES
3
3
. 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.40000
.60667
408.00
1.7600
18.167
61.000
79.000
.90100
29.250
51.900
MEASURES
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
3
0
.46667
.70667
611.00
2.9133
14.533
29.750
-1
-1
.57735
.10000
8.6217
.47258
.30000
STRATUM =
-1
-1
.37859
.13454
4.5092
.10693
.15275
1.0408
1.1547
.16643
.57735
3.5930
STRATUM =
-1
-1
.17321
.46188
8.7178
.90000
.32146
STRATUM -
-1
-1
.66583
.11547
10.817
.73711
.25166
-2 .33333
-1 .57735
4.9777
-1 .27285
.17321
-2
-2
-1
.40000
.30000
511.00
2.0200
16.800
62.500
74.000
' .96400
29.210
67.300
-1 .50000
-1 .50000
528.00
2.1100
17.400
62.500
74.000
.96400'
29.210
^67.300
-1
-1
Z " Mercedes
-2 .21858
-1 .77675
2.6034
.61734
.88192
.60093
.66667
-1 .96090
-2 .33333
2.0744
3 = Ford
-2 .10000
-2 .26667
5.0332
-1 .51962
.18559
.
4 = Fiat
-2 .38442
-2 .66667
6.2450
-1 .42557
.14530
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-2
-3
-1
.36000
.54000
515.00
1.7600
16.900
63.000
73.000
.97400
29.170
69.600
.39000
.58000
482.00
1.6700
17.800
61.000
79.000
.90100
29.250
51.900
.39000
.70000
599.00
2.8300
14.300
39.750
-1 .43000
-I .80000
524.00
1.9500
17.200
65.000
75.000
1.0050
29.180
76.300
'
-1 .42000
-1 .66000
498.00
1.8500
IB. 400
61.000
79.000
.90100
29.250
51.900
-1 .51000
-1 .72000
620.00
2.9700
14.800
29.750
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES Grand
VARIABLE N MEAN STO DEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
wa
: DB
K
BARO
HUM
MAXIMUM
12
12
12
12
12
9
9
9
12
9
.42583
.590«3
534.33
2.1392
16.717
62.444
75.778
.95033
29.347
63.800
-1 .
-1 .
50174
14190
-2
-1
48.646
*
1
I
2
.
.
9
48590
.4135
.3333
.48H9
39102
2447*.
.3480
-1
.14A84
.40963
14.043
.14027
.40803
.44444
.82962
.13034
.70650
3.1160
-2
-2
-1
-1
. .36000 -1
.30000 -1
482.00
1.6700
14.300
61.000
73.000
.90100
29.170
51.900
.51000
.80000
620.00
2.9700
18.400
65.000
79.000
1.0050
29.750
76.300
-1
-1
-------
Table C-V Summary of SS-60 Data
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
VARIABLE N MEAN
STRATUM = 1 i EPA
STO DEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
OB
K
BARO
HUH
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.30000
.36667
513.00
3.1367
17.333
63.667
74.500
.96433
29.200
67.367
MEASURES
3
3
.22667
,45667
-1
-1
.15275
6.08?8
.58595
.23094
.36868
.57735
1.3379
STRATUM =
-1
-1
.57735
.21595
-1
-1
-2
2 =
-3
-I
.88192
3.5119
.33830
.13333
.16667
,33333
.76667
Mercedes
.33333
.12468
-2
-1
-2
.
-3
-1
.30000 -1
.20000 -1
505.00
3.0700
17.200
63.500
74.500
.96100
29.200
66.600
.33000 -1
.33000 -1
.30000
.50000
516.00
3.1800
17.600
63.000
74.500
.97100
29.200
68.900
.23000
.66000
-1
-1
-1
-I
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB '
08
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
08
K
BARO
HUM
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
477.33
1.8967
10.600
69.000
80.667
1.0587
29.293
86,900
MEASURES
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.21000
.56667
518.00
2.3533
17.133
57.667
80.333
.64100
'39.350
35.000
MEASURES'
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
3
0
.36333
.63000
626.33
4.1767
14.200
' 29.730.
13.650
.21502
.53915
- 1.0000
Ii5275
.29501
.5773S
5.6930
STRATUM =
-1 .26458
-1 .50332
1.7321
.66583
.57735
1.5275
3.0551
.45826
.20000
1.3748
STRATUM *
-1 .57735
-1 .52915
4.0415
.10116
.10000
-1
-2
3 -
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
4 a
-3
-2
7.8811
.13414
.30551
.57735
.88192
.17033
.33333
3.2868
Ford
.15275
.29059
1.0000
.38443
.33333
.88192
1.7638
.26458
.11547
.79373
Fiat
.33333
.30551
2.3333
.58405
.57735
-1
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
-3
-2
-1
-I
468.00
1.6800
18.000
68.000
79.000
1.0250
29.3-90
80.400 '
.19000 -1
.54000 -1
516.00
2.2BOO
17.100
56.000
77.000
.83600
29.330
33.500
'
.36000 -I
.57000 -1
632.00
4.0600
14.100
*
29.730
493.00
2.1100
19.000
70,000
8^.000
i.oaoo
29.300
91.000
.24000
.64000
519.00
2.4100
17.300
59.000
83.000
.84500
29.370
36.200
.37000
.67000
630.00
4.2400
14.300
29.730
-1
-1
-1
-1
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
Grand
VARIABLE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
W.B.
Da
K
BARO
HUM
N MEAN
STD OEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
12
12
12
13
12
9
9
9
12
9
.27500 -1
.51000 -1
533.42
2.8908
16.817
63.111
78.500
.95467
39.393
63.089
.65017
.16000
58.706
.90964
1.7023
5.0049
3.4551
.95746
.21077
22.899
-2
-I
.-I
.18769
.46188
16.947
.26359
.49142
1.6683
1.1517
.31915
.60844
7.6330
-2
-2
-1
--1
.19000 -1
.20000 -1
468.00
1.6800
14.100
56.000
74.500
.83600
29.200
33.500
.37000
.67000
630.00
4.2400
19.000
70.000
83.000
1.0800
29.730
91.000
-1
-1
-------
Table C-IV Summary of SS-45 Data
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES
VARIABLE
N MEAN
5THATUM » I * EPA.
STO DEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
OB
K
8*RO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC ...
CO .
C02
HOX
FC-C
Wd
DU
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.36667
.20000
477.33
.98667
18.600
62.667
74.500
.96433
29.200
67.367
MEASURES
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.28333
.53000
462.33
.73667
19.133
67.167
77.667
1.0547
29.293
06.200
MEASURES
3
3
.29667
.53000
-1
-1
.57735
.17321
8.9629
.14742
.34641
.28868
.57735
1.3279
STRATUM =
-1
-1
.11547
.36056
2.68*8
.16930
.57735
1.7559
1.5275
.22030
.57735
4.1761
f
STRATUM =
-1
-1
.15275
.11000
-2
-1
-2
2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
3
-2
-1
.33333
.10000
5.1747
.85114
.20000
.16667
.33333.
.76667
-2
-1
-1
-2
.30000 -1
0.
467.00
.82000
19.400
62.500
74.500
.96100
29.200
66.600
.40000
.30000
483.00
1.1000
19.000
63.000
74.500
.97100
29.200
68.900
-1
-1
= Mercedes
.66667
.20817
1.6667
.10929
.33333
1.0138
.88192
.12719
.33333
2.4111
s Ford
.88192
.63509.
-3
-2
-1
-1
-2 '
-3
-2
.27000 -1
.50000 -1
459.00
.52000
19.100
65.500
76.000
1.0400
29.290
83.400
.28000 -1
.42000 -1
.29000
.57000
464.00
.87000
19.200
69.000
79.000
1.0800
. 29.300
91.000
.31000
.64000
-.1
*%
-1
-1
C02
NOX
FC-C
wa
Da
K
BARO
HUM
DESCRIPTIVE
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
WB
DB
K
BARO
HUM
3
3
3
3
3
-3
3
3
465.33
.68000
19.067
57.667
80.333
.84100
29.350
35.000
MEASURES
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
- 0
3
1 0
.40667
.48000
544.00
1.0667
16.300
29.730
4
.
.
1
3
.
.
1
.7258
72111
20817
.5275
.0551
45826
20000
.3748
STRATUM »
-1 .
-1 .
2
.
*
20817
70000
.6458
72342
10000
-1
-2
-1.
4 =
-2
-2
-1
2.7285
.41633
.12019
.88)92
1.7630
.26458
.11547
.79373
Fiat
.12019
.40415
1.5275
.41767
.57735
-1
-2
-1
-2
-2
-1
-1
460.00
.62000
18.900
56.000
77.000
.83600
29.330
-33.500
.39000 -1
.40000 -1
541.00
1.0200
16.200
29.730
469.00
.76000
19.300
59.000
83.000
.84500
29.370
36.200
.43000
.53000
546.00
1.1500
16.400
29.730
-1
-1
DESCRIPTIVE MEASURES .
VARIABLE N MEAN
HC
CO
C02
NOX
FC-C
wa
08 '
K
BARO
HUM
Grand
STD OEV SE OF MEAN MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
12
12
12
12
12
9
9
9
12
9
.33833 -1
.43500 -1
487.25
.86750
. 18.275
62.500
77.500
.95333
29.393
62.856
.59518
.17123
35.028
.20325
1.2234
4.2793
3.0516
.93611
.21077
22.544
-2
-1
-1
.17181
.49429
10.112
.S8674
,35315
1.4264
1.0172
.31204
.60844
7.5147
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
.27000 -1
0.
459.00
.52000
16.200
56.000
74.500
.83600
29.200
33.500
.43000
.64000
546.00
1.1500
19.300
69.000
83.000
1.0800
29.730
91.000
-1
-1
-------
Figure C-l
(HWF6.-tSS-30.4i,60) hC
( Y
VS. RUNC
VS. X )
06-10-75
O.OhO
o.o5<)
_
HC, Bi
0.030
0.020 *-
0.010 «
30.000
"^^
s
I
I
1
I
I
prf
*
I
.HWFE 5*
H
J_L\ '
-1rw
V
M
I
I
r
i
"*" SS-30. ^*"
*
I-I-I
I
I
I ' M
I / .
I M
I / F
1 / \
i A 1 -
! \
I F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I
1
I -.
I
~**^ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
i\
; ^
j
i
i
i
i
i
i
. i '
i
j
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
r
Yn_
SS-45 ^^
J
M M\7
V F
M
, (
I
,
_ ^^J SS-60 ^^
1
r " ~
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
r
i
i
i i
I H
I
I
I
j
I
I .
I
I
I F
1 V
I /
I F
I
I ;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I . . I
I I
V 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
II
I . I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 . I
I I
I I
I . I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I. I
SO.000
70.000
so.ooo
110.000
130.000
Run Kusber
-------
Figure C-2
( Y
VS. Fd.'f--'/*
VS. X )
06-10-7.5
O.lOi) »-
O.C80
0.060
£_
mi
0.040
0.02(1
-o.noo «-
30.000
f* *-
""**£" HWFE. "**""
\
A
K
H
r
/
1 /
r
i
M
I E
I \
1 \
I \
I 1
'
I
\
\
e
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-«* L
"*^ i
1
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
t
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
t
I
r
i
i
i
-»
SS-30 r~
. ,
s
H
E e
.
i^
.
M
*
F
1
1
F
I
I
__-_«_ >^
-""*t ' SS-45 V^~
\
I
1
I
I
t
1
t F
\ 1
1
I ' M I
' |K **/ 1
\ 1 .'." /
T/
I
ll F
I
I
I
I
I E E
I
I
I
I
I
. I
1
I
I
I
I
I
r
___»____
i
i
i
i
. .-_!
""'* ( SS-6C *J"
I .
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
r L M
* I H
. ! i .- .
' j \
}
I E
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
T
F
j '
.j
F
/
F
M
i
)
1 '
. 1
M
.1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1 I
I 1
[ ' I'
I I
I I
1 I
1 [
I ' I
[ . I
I i
I !
I 1
1 I
I I
I I
I . 1
1 I
I ' I
1 .1
1 I
I I
I '. I
I . I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
. I I
I I
J I
I . 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I . I
I I
50.000
70.000
90.000
11-0.000
130.000
Run Xidber
-------
Figure C-3
C02
( Y
A )
06-iO-/b
700.001)
6SO.OOO
600.000
550.000
500.000
450.001)
I
I
I
r
i
i
i :
i
i
i
T
1
I
I I
11 /
IV
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
r .
i
i
i
r F
I \ M
I \ 1
I
! V
I F.
I V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
^..^-L SS-30 ~p~
I
I
I
. I
I .
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I H
I/
I/
!/
11 -
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
i . n t(
I M V .
I EE M
I
i
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
r
-~£-j- SS-45 >~
I
I
T
I
r
t
i
, i
i
i
i
i
.j .
T .
I
i ' '-.
t ..
i
i
i
i
i /' i
n
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
T
I
I E
i \i ,
I £ MM F
I M V
I
I
1
r
i
~~^ j SS-60 *~~
I
I ' - --
I
I
i
T
\"
I
I i'
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
i
/T
I E-E F
I /
I E
I M
I - I
I "
i 1
I MM
I
I
I
1
1
I -
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
t
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I '
I -
I
I . .
.
I
I
I
r
i
i
i
i.
. i
i
i
30.000
SO.000
70.000
90.000
110.000
130.000
Run
-------
Figure C-4
(rtnH"t.>SS-JU
riflx
( Y
VS. f-
VS.
s.noo
o.o
4.non
3.000
NOx, mi
a.non
l.ooo
30.000
I
I
I
I
j-«* HWFE V*-
l
I
r
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
t
i
V " .
I
E
^C C
V
.
.
i
i
r
i
_«£_L SS-30 >-
i
i-
i
i
i
i
i
i .
i
i
i
i .
i . :
i
i
i
i
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
r
I-HE MMM
TEE FF
I
1
J
I
-<-{ SS-45 -*
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I . .
J
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I \7 M
I t \ ME
! V S
T M
I
I
I
I
i
I
I '
I
-**-[ SS-60 *^
I
I H,
I !
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I EE
! i
1
I
I .
I
I
I FF,
I F
I
I M
. /j
! A
I M
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
/
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
r
i
i
i
i
i
i '
. i
i
i
vl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
SO.000
70.000
90.000
110.000
130.000
Run Nuaber
-------
Figure C-5
-------
D
.:i.r
: /.Jibieat
197.5 FT?
-------
Table D-l. Confidence Level (C.L.) and Coefficients
of Ambient Effects on 1975 Hot-start Emissions and Fuel Economy
1
t
R.V.IU oui
Variable
I.)rv Bulb
C.L., Z
Cof.t ftcient
C ' L "y
Coefficient
Mumidity
C.L., %
Coefficient
Dependent Variable
HC
. '
83 1
.02881.
91
.0003162
CO
cor
NOx
80
. .001702
FC-C
<;/
-------
Figure D-l
START)
HC
< V
VS. HAHOIHAG*)
VS. X )
06-10-7S
0.190
0.170
0.150 *
HC, mi
0.130 «
0.110
0.09U
28.600
39.000
29.?00 ?9.<»00
Barometric Pressure, in Hg
ii9.600
29.800
-------
Figure D-2 , 197b HOT 5TART) HC
vs.
vs.
X )
06-10-/S
0.190 »-
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.170
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.150 *
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.13u »-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
HC, ml
0.110
0.090
30.000
<» 0 . 0 i) 0
rr .".--.?
70.000
fc 0 . 0 0 U
-------
1-3
MOT
NOX
t <
VS.
vs.
J6-10-Y5
1.7bO
1.650.
1.550
g
NOz, at
1.450
1.350
1.350
30.000
^0.000
50.000
M I
I
I
I
I
'F. I
I
I
I
gr H,0
ftn.ooo.
70.000
80.000
ft*, iiyw
Hunldity. ib dry aTr
------- |