ROBERT L, KRAMER MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION B-22
NICHOLAS P, CERNANSKY
MOTOK VEiilCLF EMISSION RATES
Robert L, Kramer and Nicholas P. Cernansky
Office of Criteria and Standards
U. S, DHPAHTMEKT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
p-jbiic Health Service
Environmental Health Service
Kationaj Air Polluiijor. Control Administration
L?ur'ii.r,::n> North Carolina
August IS, 1970
-------
INTRODUCTION
'["he purpose of this report is to present motor vehicle emission
rates and their development based on dynamometer testing and converted
to on-the-road values.
The emission rates presented herein were developed from a combination
of all major studies reported and represent the results of analysis of a
most comprehensive data base.
The major cla.sses of motor vehicles were 1) gasoline powered heavy
duty vehicles, 2) diesel powered heavy duty vehicles, and 3) light duty
vehicles with this last class subdivided into four weight classes. For
each o£ these vehicle classes and subclasses an emission factor was developed
for each emission source (crankcase, evaporation, and exhaust) for three
pollutants (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen).
This report presents the results of an extensive development into each
emission factor, which has involved an exhaustive research into all data
available. New relationships were uncovered as well as utilization of the
latest reporting units of grams per mile. These aspects and other insights
havs merged into a new treatment and application of the emission factors
to generate the resultant yearly emission rates.
-------
SUMMARY
In this paper, the motor vehicle emission rates were determined,
first, for light duty vehicles and, second, for heavy duty vehicles.
Each one of these categories was divided into two groups: uncontrolled
vehicles, and controlled vehicles. The light duty vehicle group was
analyzed in three parts, namely, domestic passenger cars, foreign
passenger cars, and light duty trucks. The heavy duty vehicle group
was analyzed in two parts, namely, gasoline and diesel powered vehicles.
The total emission rates for every category, group, and part were
determined from their respective exhaust, crankcase, and evaporative
emission factors.
Summary Tables I, II, and III present the light duty vehicle and
heavy duty vehicle on-the-road emission rates for hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen, respectively. The hydrocarbon rates
in Table I are the combined exhaust, crankcase, and evaporative emission
rates.
11
-------
TABLE I.
AVERAGE HYDROCARBON ON-THE-ROAD EMISSION RATES
YEAR
1962 § before
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1930
1981
1982
1983
1984 £ beyond
LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLE,gm/mile
URBAN
21.1
20.6
20.1
19.7
19.4
19.1
17.2
15.6
14.1
12.4
10.9
9.65
8.54
7.52
6.74
6.09
5.60
5.25
4.86
4.76
4.69
4.61
4.61
RURAL
13.8
13.3
12.8
12.4
12.1
11.8
10.7
9.74
8.86
7.72
6.70
5.85
5.13
4.44
3.95
3.51
3.18
2.93
2.68
2.59
2.54
2,46 .
2.47
HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLE, gin/mile
URBAN
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
32.7
32.3
31.4
30.5
29.7
29.0
28.3
27.6
27.0
26.4
25.9
25.4
25.0
24.6
24.2
24.0
23.7
RURAL
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
18.9
18.5
17.9
17.2
16.7
16.2
15.7
15.2
14.8
14.4
14.0
13.7
13.4
13.1
12.8
12.7
12.6
ill
-------
TABLE II.
AVERAGE CARBON MONOXIDE ON-THE-ROAD EMISSION RATES
YEAR
1967 g before
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984 fT beyond
LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLE, gin/mile
URBAN
79.7 '
70.9
63.5
57.8
52.5
47.4
43.0
39.0
35.7
32.7
30.8
29.3
28.4
27.0
26.9
27.0
26.8
26.8
RURAL
29.7
26.4
23.6
21.5
19.6
17.6
16.0
14.5
13.3
12.2
11.5
10.9
10.6
10.1
10.0
10.0
9.99
9.99
HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLE, gm/mile
URBAN
194.
194.
194.
187.
180.
173.
167.
161.
156.
150.
146.
141.
137.
134.
130.
127.
125.
121.
RURAL
72.4
72.4
72.4
69.6
67.0
64.6
62.2
60.0
58.0
56.1
54.3
52.7
51.2
49.8
48. 6
47.5
46.5
45.0
IV
-------
TABLE III.
AVERAGE OXIDES OF NITROGEN ON-THE-ROAD EMISSION RATES*
YEAR
1967 § before
1968
1969 '
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
^975
1976
1977
1973
1979
1980
1981
1982 § beyond
LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLE, gin/mile
URBAN-
5.93
6.02
6.10
6.34
6.55
6.73
6.89
7.04
7.16
7.27
7.37
7.44
7.50
7.55
7.57
7.60
RURAL -
6.10
6.19
6.27
6.52
6.73
6.92
7.08
7.23
7.36
7.48
7.58
7.65
7.71
7.76
7.78
7.81
HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLE, gin/mile
URBAN
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
RURAL
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
* As NO,
-------
ASSUMPTIONS
The following list summarizes the basic assumptions that have been made.
EMISSION FACTORS AND DETERIORATION
1. The emission factors developed for domestic passenger cars are
also applicable to light duty trucks.
2. The evaporative and crankcase emissions from foreign passenger
cars.are. the same as those developed for domestic passenger cars.
3. "Open type" crankcase control systems are 80% effective and the
"closed type" crankcase control systems are 100% effective.
4. Evaporative and crankcase control systems do not deteriorate.
5. Future standards will be met to the same degree as are present
standards, i.e. if the 1968 vehicles fail to meet the 1968 standards
by 10%, 1370 vehicles will fail to meet the 1970 standards by 10%.
6. Foreign vehicles perform the same relative to their standards
as do standard size cars.
7. The deterioration factors established for present vehicles are
valid for future vehicles and standards.
8. Crankcase blowby is proportional to exhaust volume in the case
of gasoline powered heavy duty vehicles.
9. Evaporative emissions from uncontrolled gasoline powered heavy
duty vehicles is the same as for uncontrolled light duty vehicles.
10. Crankcase and evaporative emissions from diesels are negligible.
11. Controlled heavy duty vehicles exactly meet the HDV standards
using 1.00 deteriorations.
12. Controlled heavy duty vehicles exhibit the same degree of control
on-the-road as is exhibited of the Federal cycle.
13. The frequency distribution for passenger cars by manufacturer,
model, engine size, etc. will not vary significantly in the future.
14. The samples chosen in the various studies adequately represents
the average U. S. vehicle.
15. Emission factors developed for uncontrolled vehicles are repre-
sentative of the average life-time emissions and hence no deteriora-
tion is required.
VI
-------
16. The controlled vehicle emission factors and deterioration factors
developed from the California sample of 1966-1969 motor vehicles
operated by the public are applicable nationally.
COMBINING OF BASIC FACTORS
17. The age distributions for passenger cars and heavy duty trucks in
a given year corresponds with the average distributions developed
from vehicle registration data as presented in Automobile Facts
and Figures - 1968.
18. The travel distribution developed for passenger cars is applicable
now and in the future.
19. The age and travel distributions of light duty trucks corresponds
with that of passenger vehicles.
20. The travel as a function of age distribution for heavy duty
vehicles corresponds with the age distribution, that is, that all
trucks travel about the same miles per year regardless of age.
21. Domestic passenger cars and light duty trucks have 85% automatic
transmissions; foreign passenger cars are 8% of all passenger cars;
and light duty trucks are 9.5% of light duty vehicles.
CONVERSION TO ON-THE-ROAD EMISSIONS
22. The road route used to develop the correlation between cycle and
on-the-road emissions is representative of the national driving
pattern.
23. The effectiveness of control systems on the road is adequately
represented by the dynamometer cycle and the degree of control is
not biased by driving pattern.
24. The average urban route speed is 25 mph and the average rural route
speed is 45 mph.
25. Urban driving consists of "composite start" operating conditions
and rural driving consists of "hot start" operating conditions.
26. The experimental cycle results from heavy duty vehicles are repre-
sentative of hot 25 mph road operation.
27. The conversions from hot 25 mph road to urban and rural factors
developed for LDV's are applicable to heavy duty vehicles.
-------
28. The ratio of urban to rural travel is the same for all heavy
duty vehicle weight classes.
GENERAL
29. Hydrocarbon emissions are based on a H:C ratio of 1.85, an
average FID/NDIR ratio of 1.8, and an average RVP of 9.(Tib.
V J.X1
-------
TABLE' OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction i
Summary -- -ii
Assumptions vi
Table of Contents ix
List of Tables" - - xii
List of Figures xv
^
Light Duty Vehicles 1
Uncontrolled Vehicles 2
Exhaust Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide 3
Domestic Passenger Cars (DPC) and Light
Duty Trucks (LOT) 3
Foreign Passenger Cars 10
Exhaust Oxides of Nitrogen 11
Crankcase Hydrocarbon 19
Evaporative Hydrocarbon 21
Average Emission Factors for Light Duty Vehicles (cone.) 23
Average Emission Factors for Light Duty Vehicles (mass) 25
Controlled Vehicles 26
Exhaust HC and CO 26
Domestic Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks 26
Foreign Passenger Cars 28
Combined DPC,LOT, and Foreign Passenger Cars 29
Deterioration Factors 30
Post 1969 Emission Factors 32
ix
-------
Page
Exhaust Oxides of Nitrogen 35
Crankcase Hydrocarbon 36
Evaporative Hydrocarbon 37 '
Average Emission Factors for Light Duty Vehicles (cone.) 38
Average Emission Factors for Light Duty Vehicles (mass) 39
Average Composite Cycle Emission Rates 41
On-The-Road Emission Rates (Mass) 45
Conversions From Composite Cycle to Urban and Rural Road 45
Heavy Duty Vehicles 52
Uncontrolled Vehicles 53
Gasoline Powered 53
Exhaust Hydrocarbon, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen 53
Combined Results - Federal Cycle 58
Combined Results - Experimental Cycles 60
Crankcase Hydrocarbon 61
Evaporative Hydrocarbon 62
Diesel Powered Heavy Duty Vehicles 63
Exhaust Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxides
of Nitrogen 63
Crankcase Hydrocarbon 65
Evaporative Hydrocarbon 66
Average Emission Factors for Heavy Duty Vehicles-
Federal Cycle - 67 -
Average Emission Factors for Heavy Duty Vehicles-
Experimental Cycle 69
-------
Page
Controlled Vehicles 71
Gasoline Powered 71
Exhaust HC and CO-Federal Cycle 71
Exhaust HC and CO-Experimental Cycles 72
Exhaust NOY 73
A.
Crankcase Hydrocarbon ~ ~ - : 74
Evaporative Hydrocarbon 75
Diesel Powered Vehicles 76
Average Emission Factors for Heavy Duty Vehicles-Federal Cycle 77
Average Emission Factors for Heavy Duty Vehicles-
Experimental Cycles 79
Average Cycle Emission Rates (Mass) 81
On-The-Road Emission Rates (Mass) 83
Footnotes 35
Bibliography 87
Appendix 92
Appendix A: Relationships of Vehicle Travel, Population, 93
and Age
Appendix B: Uncontrolled LDV Data 105
Appendix C: Dynamometer Test Cycles 122
Appendix D: Development of the Adjustments Made for Conversion 130
to: 1) the 7-mode cycle, 2) 15% total carbon in the exhaust,
3) composite start, and 4) to represent the Los Angeles car
population. (
Appendix E: Uncontrolled HDV Data - 139.
Appendix F: Population Distributions 154
Appendix G: Controlled LDV Data 159
Appendix H: Analysis of Transmission Type 164
Appendix J: Light Duty Vehicle Exhaust Volume Analysis 172
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
I. Average Hydrocarbon On-The-Road Emission Rates iii
II. Average Carbon Monoxide On-The Road Emission Rates iv
III. Average Oxides of Nitrogen On-The-Road Emission Rates v
1. Summary of Adjustment Factors 7
2. Summary of Domestic Passenger Car Emission Studies
for Hydrocarbon 7
3. Summary of Domestic Passenger Car Emission Studies
for Carbon Monoxide 8
4. Domestic Passenger Car and Light Duty Truck Baseline
Exhaust Emission Factors 8
5. Summary of Foreign Passenger Car Exhaust Emission Studies 10
6. Baseline Exhaust Emission Factors for Foreign Vehicles 10
7. Exhaust Oxides of Nitrogen From Uncontrolled Passenger
Cars (Baseline) 15
8. Summary of Baseline Emission Factors for Light Duty
Vehicles 23
9. Average Baseline Emission Factors for Light Duty
Vehicles (Cone.) 24
10. Average Baseline Emission Factors for Light Duty
Vehicles (Mass) 25
11. Exhaust Emission Factors for Controlled Domestic
Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks 27
12. Exhaust Emission Factors for Controlled Foreign
Passenger Cars 28
13. Exhaust Emission Factors for Controlled Light Duty
Vehicles _ . 29
14. Coefficients of the Hydrocarbon Deterioration Factor
Equations 30
15. Coefficients of the Carbon Monoxide Deterioration
Factor Equations 31
XII
-------
Page
16. Exhaust Emission Factors for Controlled Light Duty
Vehicles (Post 1969) 34
17. Average Emission Factors for Controlled Light Duty
Vehicles (Cone.) 38
18. Average Emission_Factors for Controlled Light Duty - -
Vehicles (Mass) 40
19. Sample Calculation for the 1975 Light Duty Vehicle
Hydrocarbon Emission Rate 42
20. Average Light Duty Vehicle Composite Cycle Emission Rates " 44
21. Average Light Duty Vehicle Exhaust Hot Cycle Emission
Rates 48
22. Combined Conversion Factors 50
23. Average Light Duty Vehicle On-The-Road Emission Rates 51
24, Heavy Duty Vehicle Baseline Exhaust Emission Factors
From the Federal Truck Cycle 59
25. Heavy Duty Vehicle Baseline Exhaust Emission Factors
From Dynamometer Cycles Representing Road Emissions 60
26. Uncontrolled Heavy Duty Vehicle Crankcase Emissions 61
27. Diesel Powered Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emissions 64
28. Average Baseline Emission Factors for the Heavy Duty
Vehicle Weight Classes from the Federal Test Procedures 67
29. Average Baseline Emission Factors for all Heavy Duty
Vehicles-Federal Test Procedures 68
30. Average Baseline Emission Factors for the Heavy Duty
Vehicle Weight Classes from Experimental Test Procedures
Representing Road Emissions 69
31. Average Baseline Emission Factors for all Heavy Duty
Vehicles-Experimental Test Procedures Representing
Road Emissions 70
32. Exhaust Emission Factors for Controlled Heavy Duty
Vehicles-Federal Cycle 71
Xlll
-------
Page
33. Exhaust Emission Factors for Controlled Heavy Duty
Vehicles-Experimental Dynamometer Cycles Representing
Road Emissions 72
34. Summary of the Emission Factors for Controlled Heavy
Duty Vehicles-Federal Test Procedures 77
35. Average Emission" Factors for all Controlled Heavy
Duty Vehicles-Federal Test Procedures 78
36. Emission Factors for Controlled Heavy Duty Vehicles-
Experimental Test Procedures _ - _ 79
37. Average Emission Factors for all Controlled Heavy Duty
Vehicles-Experimental Procedures Representing Road
Emissions 80
38. Average Heavy Duty Vehicle Cycle Emission Rates \ _, 82
39. Average Heavy Duty Vehicle On-The-Road Emission Rates 84
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Determination of the Average Oxides of Nitrogen Concentration 17
in the Exhaust of Uncontrolled Light Duty Vehicles
2. Conversions From Cycle to On-The-Road for Light Duty Vehicles 46
-------
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
-------
UNCONTROLLED VEHICLES
In order to determine the existing and the future emission rates, it
is necessary to establish the rate at which pollutants are emitted from un-:-
controlled vehicles, as well as the rate at which pollutants are emitted
from controlled-vehicles. The information used to develop these "baseline
exhaust emission levels" for hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) came
primarily from the following sources: 1) Baseline Reactivity Survey by
f.he California Air Resources Board - February, 1968, 2) California Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Board's Baseline Study of 1962, and 3) Los Angeles
Auto Exhaust Test Station Project (1962-1963).
Several other studies, such as the Comprehensive Exhaust Gas Field
Survey - 1956 and the GSA Study, were excluded from the analysis for the
following reasons: sample selection methods,, sample size, use of an un-
controlled operating cycle, use of a non-equivalent test cycle (e.g. 11-
mode cycle), and unexplainably high emission levels. The three studies
used were chosen because their procedures were similar to the present certi-
fication procedure and equivalence could be readily attained; having been
completed most recently, they should reflect refinements in procedural and
\
analytical techniques, and, as such, are probably the most reliable of the
sources.
-------
EXHAUST HYDROCARBONS AND CARBON MONOXIDE
Domestic Passenger Cars (DPC) and Light Duty Trucks (LPT)
The Baseline Reactivity Survey was conducted by the California Air
Resources Laboratory., The sample, in excess of 200 cars, was selected
from used car dealers to represent the pre-1966 California vehicle popu-
lation; that is, prior to the installation of exhaust emission control
systems. The objective was" to determine the baseline emission levels
and the baseline exhaust gas reactivities for uncontrolled vehicles.
Each vehicle was tested for exhaust emissions by the Federal test
procedure, which used the 7-mode dynamometer test cycle with interrelated
sampling and analytical techniques. Relative emission levels were evalu--
ated on a concentration, reactivity, and mass rate basis.
Measurements were taken using a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) sampling
train, an ultraviolet hydrocarbon analyzer, a subtractive column and flame
ionization detector for reactivity, and a gas chromatograph for reactivity.
Before testing, each vehicle was driven through a sequence of operating
modes on the dynamometer to warm the engine and to replenish the gasoline in
the carburetor with a standard mix fuel. Six consecutive 7-mode test cycles
were then run.
The total exhaust gas emitted during each of the last two cycles was
accumulated in two 100 cubic foot Mylar bags. In the case of the smaller
vehicles (<140 in CID), the exhaust gas emitted during two consecutive cycles
was accumulated in each of the bags. Samples for reactivity studies were
taken from these bags.
-------
Simultaneously with the collection of the exhaust gas in the bags, a
standard NDIR sampling and analytical train continuously monitored the ex-
haust gas for hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide
(CO-). The recorded, traces obtained during the fifth and sixth cycles were-
integrated to determine the respective weighted seven-mode concentrations.
Only these continuous results.were used in our analysis.
The average HC emissions from this study were 704 ppm for automatics
and 1166 ppm for manual transmission cars (foreign cars excluded). The
average CO emissions were 2.68% for automatics and 4.18% for manuals (foreign
cars excluded). The detailed results of the study are summarized in Tables B-l,
B-2, and B-3 in the appendix.
The Baseline Study of 1962 was sponsored by the California Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control Board and is presented in the "Report on Exhaust Emissions
from 194 California Vehicles" by G. C. Mass, CMVPCB, June 19, 1962. The
study was conducted for the Board by Scott Research Laboratories and by the
Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. The objective was to
determine the exhaust and crankcase emission levels of the 1962 car population
in order to establish the baseline for the State program of control device
certification.
One hundred privately owned vehicles (including eight light duty trucks),
selected to represent the California car registration, were tested by Scott
Laboratories. Measurements were made of the exhaust concentrations of CO, C0_,
and HC using a continuous NDIR sampling train. The average HC emissions from
this study, excluding the light duty truck, were 834 ppm for automatics and
-------
1104 ppm for manual transmission cars. The average CO emissions, excluding
the light duty trucks, were 3.01% for automatics and 3.85% for manual trans-
mission cars.
Another 94 cars were tested by the Los Angeles Air Pollution Control '
District. Measurements of the exhaust contaminants were made employing
the same procedure as that used by Scott Laboratories. The 94-car sample
included some State 'owned cars but most of the vehicles were privately
owned and maintained. Attempts were also made in this case to select the
test cars to match the California registration. The average HC emissions
from this study were 758 ppm for automatics and 1073 ppm for manual trans-
mission cars. The average CO emissions were 2.89% for automatics and 3.37%
for manual transmission cars.
All of the tests in the Baseline Study of 1962 were performed with the
equipment, instrumentation, and techniques specified in the Board's "California
Procedure for Testing Motor Vehicle Exhaust Emissions." As a time saving
measure, the vehicles were tested in a warmed-up condition, using both 7-mode
and 11-mode cycles. Only the 7-mode results are presented here since the
Federal test procedure now utilizes this cycle. The detailed results of the
Baseline Study of 1962 are summarized in Tables B-4, B-5, and B-6 in the
appendix.
The Los Angeles Auto Exhaust Test Station Project (Test Lane) was a
cooperative effort of the Auto Club of Southern California, the Automobile
Manufacturers Association, the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District, the U. S. Public Health Service, the California Highway Patrol,
the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, and the State Depart-
ment of Public Health. Its objectives were to obtain exhaust emission
data from a large number of passenger cars and to develop techniques for
-------
this testing program. The project was executed in two phases: In phase I,
the correlation study, studies were made on the effects of a variety of
operating factors on the exhaust emissions of 28 cars and the relationships
between several sampling methods and analytical procedures were established.
In phase II, mass testing, more than 1000 cars were tested for exhaust CO,
CCL, and HC (NDIR, as hexane)_. The test vehicles were operated on a chassis
L ~
dynamometer 8-mode cycle, which is shown in Table C-2 in Appendix C." The
vehicles tested were those brought into the Southern California Automobile
Club for speedometer calibration. With the owners permission the exhaust
gases were measured while the car was on the dynamometer. After the first
300 cars, it became apparent that the cars which came in for speedometer
calibration were newer models and did not represent the general population.
In order to rectify this, older cars belonging to employees of the Auto
Club were added to the test population.
The average HC emissions from this study were 649 ppm for automatics
and 902 ppm for manual transmission cars. The average CO emissions were
3.3% for automatics and 5.7% for manual transmission cars. The detailed
results of the study are summarized in TablesB-7, 3-8, and B-9 in Appendix B»
In order to make the studies comparable, they were all adjusted to the
following bases:
(1) to represent the Los Angeles car population (no adjustment required),
(2) the 7-mode (Federal) test cycle,
(3) 15% total carbon in the exhaust-; -
(4) composite starts (i.e. the full Federal test procedure weighting
hot cycles 65% and cold cycles 35%),
-------
(5) domestic vehicles only.
A detailed development of the required adjustments appears in Appendix D.
Table 1 presents a summary of these adjustment factors.
TABLE 1.
- ' SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Adjustment
From
8-mode cycle
Hot Start
Uncorrected
Exhaust
To
7--mode cycle
Composite Start
15% Total Carbon
in the Exhaust
Factor
HC
1.08
1.10
1.02
CO
1.13
1.00
1.02
Tables 2 and 3 present a summary of the domestic passenger car emission
studies for HC and CO.
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC PASSENGER CAR
EMISSION STUDIES FOR HYDROCARBON
Study
LACAPCD
Scott
Labs
Test
Lane
Baseline
Reactivity
Number
of
Cars
94
92
1013
201
As Measured
Concentrations, ppm
Automatic
Transmis s i ons
758
834'
631
704
Manual
Transmissions
1073
1104
900
1166
Combined
Adjustment
Factor
1.10
1.10
1.21
1.10
Corrected
Concentration, ppm
Automatic
Transmissions
834
917
764
774
Manual
Transmissions
1180
1214
1039
1283
-------
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC PASSENGER CAR
EMISSION STUDIES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
Study
LACAPCD
Scott
Labs
Test
Lane
Baseline
Reactivity
Number
of-
Cars
94
92
1013
201
-As Measured
Concentration, %
- Automatic
Transmissions
2.89 -
3.01
3.30
2.68
Manual
Transmissions
3.37
3.85
3.70
4.18
Combined
Adjustment
Factor
1.00
1.00
1.15
1.00
Corrected
Concentration,%
Automatic
Transmissions
2.89
. 3.01
3.80
2.68
Manual
Transmissions
3.37
3.85
4.26
4.18
When adjusted and the results averaged with equal weighting, the domestic
passenger car baseline exhaust emissions were calculated and are presented
in Table 4.
TABLE 4.
DOMESTIC PASSENGER CAR AND LIGHT DUTY TRUCK
BASELINE EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS
HC (ppm)
CO (%)
Automatics
822
3.09
Manuals
1192
3.92
i
-------
The Los Angeles Auto Exhaust Test Station Project (Test Lane) tested
27 LDT's, Scott Labs (for the Baseline Study of 1962) tested 8 LDT's, and
the California Department of Public Health (in their Specialized Vehicle
Survey) tested 10 LDT's to determine the concentrations of certain con-
taminants in the exhaust. From these studies the average LOT HC concen-
trations were calculated to be 757 ppm for automatics and 1328 ppm for
manuals and the average CO concentrations were calculated to be 3.71% for
automatics and 3.87% for manuals. The detailed results of these studies
are summarized in Tables B-10, B-ll, and B-12 in the appendix.
However, due to the small sample size ( 45 trucks) and the large varia-
bility of the data, the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide exhaust emission fac-
tors from LDT's were assumed to be the same as those factors developed for
domestic passenger cars and are presented in Table 4, above.
-------
Foreign Passenger Cars
The LACAPCD, Scott Labs, and the Baseline Reactivity Survey studies
all examined the exhaust emissions from foreign vehicles by the same
methods as discussed, previously for DPC's and LDT's. The detailed results -
of these studies are summarized in Tables B-13, 8-14, and B-15 in the appendix.
Table 5 presents a summary of.the results of these studies,
TABLE 5.
SUMMARY OF FOREIGN PASSENGER CAR EXHAUST
EMISSION STUDIES
Study
LACAPCD
Scott Labs.
Baseline
Reactivity
Number
of
Cars
50
30
15
CONCENTRATION
HC, ppm
1609
1489
1870
CO, %
5.10
3.93
3.89
Combining these three studies equally, average exhaust concentrations
for foreign vehicles were developed. The results are presented below in
Table 6.
TABLE 6.
BASELINE EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS
FOR FOREIGN VEHICLES
HC, ppm
Concentration
1656
CO, %
4.30
10
-------
EXHAUST OXIDES OF NITROGEN
Data from the Los Angeles Auto Exhaust Test Station Project, the
California Air Resources Board Laboratory Baseline Reactivity Study, the
1967-1968 CRC Vehic-le Emissions Tests and the quarterly progress reports "
of the California Air Resources Board were used in determining the average
concentrations, of. oxides .of nitrogen in the .exhaust of uncontrolled light
duty vehicles.
In the Los Angeles Auto Exhaust Test Station Project nitrogen oxides
concentrations from 781 passenger cars were measured during operation on a
chassis dynamometer using a fixed-flow composite grab sample collected
during all cruise and acceleration events of a hot-start eight-mode cycle.
Nitrogen oxides emissions during the deceleration and idle portions of the
cycle were considered insignificant and were not measured. To obtain a
constant volume flow rate of exhaust gases during sampling, critical flow
conditions were maintained to control the flow rate into the collection
flasks. The flasks were sampled to final pressures of less than one-half
atmosphere in order to maintain critical (constant) flow rates through the
orifices. The oxides of nitrogen in the collected sample were determined
by the phenoldsulfonic acid (PDS) method. The average concentration de-
termined for vehicles with automatic transmissions was 1129 parts per million.
For vehicles with manual transmissions the average concentration was 914 parts
per million. For the entire 781 car sample the average concentration of
oxides of nitrogen was 1066 parts per million. All measurements were corrected
for stoichiometric conditions using a factor of 1.05.
11
-------
As indicated in the previous discussion of the Test Station Project,
prior to the sampling of the 781 vehicles, exhaust emissions from 28 passenger
cars were measured using different techniques to establish correlations between
measurements taken-under actual driving conditions and during dynamometer"
testing. For measuring nitrogen oxides concentrations, each of the 28 ve-
hicles was equipped with, a proportional sampler and with equipment for fixed-
flow collection of separate grab samples during each acceleration and cruise
mode. The proportional sampler was used during operation on a prescribed
traffic route under normal conditions of traffic flow and during operation
on a level road according to the California eleven-mode cycle. Fixed-flow
grab samples were made for each acceleration and cruise mode during opera-
tion on the level road according to the 11-mode cycle and during operation
on a chassis dynamometer.
Using the proportional sampler, a constant percentage of the total flow
of exhaust gas was collected in an accumulator tank then transferred to
evacuated two-liter flasks for analyses by the PDS method. In taking the
grab samples, a volume of exhaust gas was withdrawn at a fixed flow rate into
an evacuated flask for each mode of the cycle.
Exhaust gases collected by the grab sample method were analyzed by the
PDS method and emissions were determined by applying the appropriate weighting
factor for each mode."
The average nitrogen oxide concentrations for the various measurement
procedures and methods are listed below:
Proportional sampler-
(1) Prescribed traffic route 1364 parts per million
(2) 11-mode cycle on level road 1199 parts per million
12
-------
Fixed flow grab sampling
(1) 11-mode cycle on level road 1414 parts per million
(2) Chassis dynamometer (8-mode cycle) 1463 parts per million
In the California Air Resource Board Laboratory Baseline Reactivity -
Study nitrogen oxide concentrations in the exhaust gases of 221 passenger
cars were determined by operating the vehicles according to the hot-start
Federal cycle on a chassis dynamometer. During the dynamometer operation,
exhaust gases from all ten modes of the cycle were collected in 100 cubic
foot Mylar bags. After the cycle had been completed gas samples were
withdrawn from the bags using 30 cc syringes and Saltzman reagent and oxygen
were added. A portion of the extracted sample was then analyzed using a
Klett Summerson test tube photoelectric colorimeter. All concentrations
were corrected to account for the varying amounts of combustion air and
dilution.
For the 178 vehicles with automatic transmissions the average concen-
tration of nitrogen oxides (as nitrogen dioxide) in the exhaust was 1715
parts per million. For the 43 vehicles with manual transmission the average
concentration was 1289 parts per million. The average concentration of nitrogen
oxides in the exhaust of all 221 passenger cars was 1630 parts per million.
The 1967-1968 CRC Vehicle Emission Tests were conducted by 18 partici-
pating laboratories to determine emissions from a group of late-1967 model
year vehicles with and without exhaust control systems. The vehicles were
operated on a chassis dynamometer according to the Federal test procedure.
Test cycles were run using both the fuel that was in the tank of the vehicle
and a standardized reference fuel. The exhaust gases from two hot-start cycles
-------
were collected in a plastic bag and analyzed for nitrogen oxides using
the phenoldisulfonic acid (PDS) technique (seven tests), the modified
Saltzman method (eleven tests), or nondispersive infrared (NDIR) analysis
(four tests). For-the 188 uncontrolled vehicle tests conducted using the"
reference fuel, the average nitrogen oxides concentration in the exhaust
was 1475 parts per million. _
In the California Air Resources Board Quarterly Progress Report for
January-March, 1959, exhaust concentrations of nitrogen oxides were reported
for 23 uncontrolled passenger cars. The tested vehicles were 1965-1967
model cars with an average odometer reading of 37,390 miles. Using a Beckman
infrared analyzer, exhaust concentrations of nitrogen oxides were measured
continuously during operation of the cars on a chassis dynamometer according
to a. hot-start Federal cycle. The average concentration, weighting the
measurements according to manufacturers sales, was 1385 parts per million.
The average concentrations of nitrogen oxides measured in the exhausts
of uncontrolled vehicles during the studies discussed above together with
the sampling procedures and the methods of analysis used are presented in
Table 7. The average concentrations ranged from 1066 parts per million in
the Los Angeles Auto Exhaust Test Station Project to 1630 parts per million
in the California Air Resources Board Baseline Reactivity Study. The average
concentration for all studies, weighted according to the number of vehicles
tested in each, was 1243 parts per million.
The results of the studies are not "really comparable because of the
differences in sampling procedures and methods of analysis. In the Los Angeles
Auto Exhaust Test Station Project, for example, exhaust gas samples were
14
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST OXIDES OF NITROGEN FROM UNCONTROLLED PASSENGER CARS (BASELINE)
NUMBER OF
CARS TESTED
SAMPLING
PROCEDURE*
METHOD
OF ANALYSIS
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
NITROGEN OXIDES (ppm)
Los Angeles
Auto Exhaust
Test Station
Project
781
28
Samples collected in
flasks for entire 8-mode
cycle
Samples collected in
flasks mode by mode
for 8-mode cycle
Phenoldsulfonic
acid
Phenoldsulfonic
acid
1066
1463
w1 California Air
Resource Board
Bass-line Reactivi-
ty Study
221
Samples collected in
Mylar bags for entire
7-mode cycle
Modified Saltzman
technique
1630
1967-1968 CRC
Vehicle Emissions
Tests
188
Samples collected in
plastic bags for entire
7-mode cycle
Primarily modified
Saltzman technique
1475
California Air
ResDurces Board
Quarterly Report
23
Continuous mode by mode
for 7-mode cycle
Non-dispersive Infrared
analyzer
1385
WEIGHTED** AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
i 1243
* All measurements made on chassis dynamometer.
** Weighted according to the number of vehicles in each study.
-------
collected for each mode for the 28-car test population and for an entire
cycle for the 781-car test population (idle and deceleration modes were
excluded for both groups). Concentration measurements for both vehicle
groups in the Test-Station Project were made using an eight-mode cycle,
while in the other studies a seven-mode cycle was used.
As another example,, average concentration determined for the composite
sample collected for the 781 cars in the Test Station Project is not com-
parable to that for the composite sample collected during the Baseline Reactivity
Study. In the Test Lane Project exhaust samples were collected at three con-
stant flow rates, one for each acceleration (0-25 and 15-30) and one for all
cruise conditions, in two two-liter flasks. In the Baseline Reactivity
Study exhaust gases from an entire cycle were collected in 100 cubic feet
Mylar bags.
Efforts to determine the relationships between the various sampling
and analytical techniques have been made. Generally, however, these attempts
have involved small numbers of vehicles riot representative of the total
passenger car population. The California Air Resources Board, for example,
attempted to establish the ratios between the nitrogen oxides concentrations
in the composite samples collected using the Test Lane Project method and
using the Baseline Reactivity Study method. For a seven-car sample the
ratio of the concentration determined using the Baseline Reactivity method
to that using the Test Lane method varied from 0.9 to 2.5 with an average
of 1.5. ---
Because the results of the studies discussed previously are not com-
parable and because disagreement exists over the validity of some of the
testing procedures, there is little consensus among those who have been
16
-------
responsible for the measurement and analyses of exhaust gases as to a
representative value for oxides of nitrogen concentrations in the exhausts
of uncontrolled passenger cars. Therefore, a hot start concentration of
1230 ppm was used as the average oxides of nitrogen concentration "emitted"
from light duty vehicles. The derivation of this value is shown in Figure 1.
The ratio of composite start, to hot start has been determined to be 1.144;*
therefore, the composite start value for NO emissions is 1407 ppm.
A.
See Figure 2.
17
-------
FIGURE 1.
DETERMINATION OF THE AVERAGE OXIDES OF NITROGEN CONCENTRATION
IN THE EXHAUST OF UNCONTROLLED LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES.
00
Test Lane Project
Concentration
1050 ppm
Baseline Reactivity
Study Concentration
1087 ppm*
Average
1070 ppm
Average 1230 ppm
for a hot start seven-mode cycle
California Air Resources
Board Surveillance Concen-
tration 1385 ppm
Adjusted value determined using the 1.5 ratio determined in Reference 1,
-------
CRANKCASE HYDROCARBON
Crankcase blowby is an additional source of contaminants, namely hydro-
carbons. Therefore, it was necessary to find the extent which blowby adds
to the hydrocarbon emissions. It has been determined that blowby consists-
ire,'
2,3
of about 65-70% carbureted mixture and 30-35% exhaust mixture, with a hydro-
carbon concentration of approximately 15,000 ppm as hexane.
Since the crankcase hydrocarbon emission rate is proportional to the
4
blowby flow rate, it was necessary to determine an average blowby flow rate.
The weighted average blowby flow was determined to be 1.1 cfm (std. dev.
0.113 cfm). The detailed analysis from the studies ' ' ' examined is sum-
marized in Table B-16 in the appendix.
Using the average hydrocarbon concentration of 15,000 ppm and the fact
that emission levels have been developed on the basis that the average vehicle
in urban areas is driven at an average speed of 25 miles per hour, the average
hydrocarbon emission at 1..1 cfm is determined as follows:
1.1 cu.ft. 60 min. 86 Ib. mole air 15,000 mole hex. hr.
min. X hr. mole hex. 379 cu.ft. ir.6 , . 25 mi.
10 mole air
454 gm. _ 4.08 gm
Ib. ~ veh. mi.
Therefore, the crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for uncontrolled domestic
passenger cars is 4.08 gm/vehicle mile with a standard deviation of 0.42 gm/
vehicle mile based on the standard deviation of 0.113 cfm on the weighted
average blowby volume of 1.1 cfm. ~~ - '
The crankcase emissions for light duty trucks and foreign vehicles were
assumed to be the same as those for domestic passenger cars. This was necessary
19
-------
because there is not sufficient information available which would allow a
separate calculation for each category.
20
-------
EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON
Evaporative emissions are also an additional source of hydrocarbons.
Therefore, it was necessary to determine the effect of evaporation on hydro-
carbon emissions. -The evaporative emission factor was determined From the"
General Motors Corporation Interim Report GM Low Volatility Gasoline Program,
prepared for and presented to the Western Oil and Gas Association Committee
on Air and Water Conservation, June 6, 1968.
Using Figure 11 in this report, the average of the 55 cars emitted 41.1
grams/(HEW test) at a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 9.7 and 15.4 grams/(HEW test)
at a RVP of 5.9. Using a straight-line interpolation, the emission rate at
9.0 RVP was determined to be 36.5 grams/(HEW test). (9.0 RVP is used as a
basis since the evaporative emission standards related to this Reid Vapor
Pressure).
Similarly, using Figure 12 in this report, the average of the 55 cars
emitted 87.0 grams/(vehicle day) at a RVP of 9.7 and 35.7 grams/(vehicle day)
at a RVP of 5.9. Interpolating, the emission rate at 9.0 RVP was determined
to be 77.8 grams/(vehicle day).
Therefore, the uncontrolled evaporative emission factor is:
77.8 grams vehicle day _ 2.99 grams
vehicle day 26 vehicle miles ~ vehicle mile
From this information, an equivalence between the HEW test and the vehicle
day can be determined. Using the determinations above at a RVP of 9.0, the
following relationship was calculated: '
77.8 grams/(vehicle day) _ 213 HEW tests
36.5 grams/(HEW test) ~ ' vehicle day
21
-------
Due to a lack of data and information, evaporative emissions from
foreign vehicles and light duty trucks were assumed to.be the same as those
from domestic passenger cars.
-------
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES (CONG.)
Table 8 below summarizes the uncontrolled emission factors determined
thus far. As mentioned previously, all of the factors are adjusted to the
7-mode cycle, composite start, and 15% total carbon in the exhaust": "
TABLE 8.
SUMMARY OF BASELINE EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
DOMESTIC
PASSENGER
CARS
AND
LIGHT
DUTY
TRUCKS
FOREIGN
PASSENGER
CARS
EXHAUST
AUTOMATIC
TRANSMISSION
MANUAL
TRANSMISSION
CRANKCASE, gm/mile
EVAPORATIVE, grn/mile
EXHAUST
CRANKCASE, gm/mile
EVAPORATIVE, gm/mile
HC
822 ppm
1192 ppm
4.08
2.99
1656 ppm
4.08
2.99
C0,%
3.09
3.92
4.30
NOX, ppm
1407*
1407*
From the analysis of transmission type presented in appendix H, it can
be assumed that vehicles with automatic transmission comprise 85 percent of
domestic passenger cars. It can also be assumed from appendix H that LDT's
are comprised of 85 percent automatic transmission vehicles. Knowing these
percentages, transmission type may be eliminated as a variable.
From the analysis of vehicle miles of -travel in appendix A, it was
assumed that:
(.1) foreign cars comprise il% of the passenger car population (hence,
travel) , and
(2) light duty truck travel is 9.5% of LDV travel.
* A distinction could not be made between automatic and manual trans-
mission vehicles or domestic and foreign vehicles.
23
-------
Using this information from appendices H and A and the emission factors
presented in Table 8, the average emission factors for uncontrolled LDV's
can be determined.
Table 9 lists-these factors.
TABLE 9.
AVERAGE BASELINE EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES (CONC.)
Exhaust
Crankcase, gm/mile
Evaporative, gm/mile
HC
.955 ppm
4.08
2.99
C0,%
3.32
N0x,.ppm
1407
24
-------
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES (MASS)
In order to convert the exhaust emissions presented in Table 9 in
the preceding section from concentration_values to mass values the following
equations were usedf
(1)
(2)
(3)
HC(mass) =
,, o ,,. n .. ,..,. Exhaust Volume
.(1.8 x 6) x Density (HC) x ^ ;
CO(mass) = C0{g;nc) x Density (CO) x Exhau^Jolume ;
.- .. , N0y(conc) _. ... ,,. -. Exhaust Volura
NOx(maS5) = 1,000,000 X DenSlty CN°X:) X riTe
where Density(HC) = 16.33 gm/cu.ft., Density(CO) = 33.11 gm/cu.ft.,
and Density(NO ) = Density (NOJ = 54.14 gm/cu.ft.
A £,
Using these equations and the LDV exhaust volume of 70.68 cu. ft./mile
presented in appendix J the mass exhaust emission factors were calculated.
Table 10 presents these factors.
TABLE 10.
AVERAGE BASELINE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES (MASS)
Exhaust
Crankcase
Evaporative
HC, gm/mile
11.9
A C\R
7 qq
CO, gm/mile
77.7
--
N0x(as N02) gm/mile
5.38
/
I
JJ'.??
-------
CONTROLLED VEHICLES
EXHAUST HC AND CO
Domestic Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks
Emission factors for controlled vehicles were determined by different
methods than those used for the determination of emission factors for un-
controlled vehicles. Presently, the California Air Resources Board (GARB)
is testing controlled vehicles on the 7-mode cycle on a hot start basis.
A computer program is used on their surveillance data which calculates
gross regressions of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide as a function of mileage
with 95% confidence limits. The data is partitioned by model year (1966-
1969) and by manufacturer (Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors).
This computer program also treats "engine size class"* as a non-
quantitative variable in the multiple regression, making iterations until
the best fit is achieved. These size classes are then weighted according
to the national production figures for each model year and manufacturer.**
The logarithmic regression model (i.e., Ln HC or Ln CO = f(Ln Mileage) yields
exhaust emission levels from 4,000 to 50,000 miles. These exhaust emission
levels are presented by CARB at selected mileages for the different model
years and manufacturers.
* The engine classes were divided into four classes:
(1) Classes B and C (140-250 cubic inches)
(2) Class D (250-300 cubic inches) ~~ '
(3) Class E (300-375 cubic inches)
(4) Class F (over 375 cubic inches)
** Table G-l in the appendix lists the "engine size class" breakdown for
each manufacturer for each model year tested.
26
-------
Using factors developed from certification data, the hot start results
are converted to composite start (the ratios of composite start to hot start
which are used are 1.10 for hydrocarbons and 1.23 for carbon monoxide) and
then weighted by the estimated percent of the vehicle population (Table G-Z
in the appendix) in order to obtain composite exhaust emission levels at
the selected mileages (Table -G-3 in the appendix) for the entire population
of vehicles tested during each year. Table G-4 in the appendix lists the
sample size for 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. The data for 1969 controlled
vehicles was not used in this study due to the small sample size of 1969
vehicles.
These values in Table G-3 in the appendix were assumed to be the
emission factors for domestic passenger cars and light duty trucks, since
they are under the same standard. Table 11 below presents these factors
at 4,000 and 50,000 miles.
TABLE 11..
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED DOMESTIC
PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS.
Mileage
4,000
50,000
1966
HC , ppm
290"
369
2&1
CO, %
1.S5
1.88
h?&
1967
HC , ppm
292
338
3^i
CO, %
1.39
1.68
J> 7.1
1968 /
HC, ppm
281
339
}^J~"
CO, % [ t) C
1.22
1.60
hi*
U1.-IIU11 III
27
-------
Foreign Passenger Cars
Since there was not any data available, it was assumed that the emission
rate for foreign passenger cars will deviate from its standard (410 ppm hydro-
carbon and 2.3% carbon monoxide for cars with a cubic inch displacement of-
100 cubic inches or less) by the same ratio that the domestic passenger car
emission rate deviates from its standard (275 ppm hydrocarbon and 1.5% carbon
monoxide for cars with a cubic inch displacement greater than 140 cubic inches.)
That is, if each of the hydrocarbon values in Table G-3 in the appendix are
called HC., and each of the carbon monoxide values are called C0_, the cor-
responding values for foreign cars at each mileage will be:
* HCf = (Ml) X HC7
2- cof = (irl)x C07
where, HC,- = hydrocarbon value for foreign cars, ppm
CO., = carbon monoxide value for foreign cars, %.
Table 12 below presents the foreign passenger car factors at 4,000 and
50,000 miles.
TABLE 12.
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED
FOREIGN PASSENGER CARS
\
Mileage
4,000
50,000
- 1966 .
HC, ppm
432
550
CO, %
2.38
2.88
1967
HC, ppm
435
504
CO, %
2.13
2.58
1968
HC, ppm
419
505
CO, %
1.87
2.45
28
-------
Combined DPC, LDT% and Foreign Passenger Cars
Using the relationships developed in appendix A, which show that
foreign car travel comprises 11% of total passenger car travel and that
light duty truck travel comprises 9.5% of total light duty vehicle "travel,"
the exhaust emission factors for light duty vehicles were determined. Table
13 presents these.light duty .vehicle exhaust emission factors at 4,000 and
50,000 miles.
TABLE 13.
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
Mileage
4,000
50,000
1966
HC, ppm
304
387
CO, %
1.63.
1.98
1967
HC, ppm
306
355
CO, %
1.46
1.77
1968
HC, ppm
295
356
CO, %
1.29
1.69
29
-------
Deterioration Factors
In order to determine average emission rates at any mileage for
any year, it was necessary to determine deterioration factors for the con-
trolled vehicles. These factors are determined from the data in Table G-3*
in the appendix.
The deterioration factors were determined as a function of mileage,
using a factor of 1.000 at 4,000 miles as a base value. The general equation
for 4 _ 50 the following general equation
was used:
F1 = m (MI-50). + F
50
(2)
where F ~ is the value of equation (1) at.50,000 miles and m is the slope
of equation (1) at 50,000 miles.
Table 14 lists values for a, b, c, d, m, and F_. for hydrocarbon de-
terioration and Table IS lists values for a, b, c, d, m, and F_Q for carbon
monoxide deterioration.
TABLE 14.
COEFFICIENTS OF THE HYDROCARBON DETERIORATION
FACTOR EQUATIONS
YEAR
1966
1967
1968
a
0.9371
0.9605
0.9506
b x 1C2
1 . 855
1.103
1.457
c x"10
-0.4200
-0.2541
-0.3438
d x 105
0.3676
0.2235
0.3101
m x 10^
4.1200
2.3825
3.4475
F50
1.2743
1.1563
1.2073
30
-------
TABLE 15.
COEFFICIENTS OF THE CARBON MONOXIDE DETERIORATION
FACTOR EQUATIONS
YEAR
1966
1967
1968
a
0.9500
0.9514
0.9334
b x 102
1.503
1.456
2.000
c x 10*
-0.3560
-0.3451
-0.4333
d x 105
0.3242
0.3114
0.3718
m x 103
3.745
3.405
4.555
F50
1.2166
1.2057
1.3147
-------
Post 1969 Emission Factors
The standards for exhaust emissions for 1970, which have already been
established, are 2.2 grams per vehicle mile hydrocarbons and 23 grams per
vehicle mile carbon monoxide for all light duty vehicles. Using the
assumption that all vehicles would exactly meet this standard at 50,000 miles,
the concentration equivalents of the mass standards were found to be 190 ppm
7
hydrocarbons and 1.06% carbon monoxide.
The following calculations were used to determine the emission factors
for all light duty vehicles at 50,000 miles for 1970, 1971, and 1972:
HCf .
(1) 190 x I"" J = HC for the n year; and
. n
CO
(2) 1.06 x 1 ^ J = C0n for the n year. .
HC, ., and CO, ., are the values for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide at
50,000 miles, respectively, for 1966, 1967 or 1968 for all LDV's (from
Table 13 , and n can only be 1970, 1971, or 1972. As an example, to find
the hydrocarbon emission factor for 1970 (i.e., HC,q_n) follow these steps
(a) n = 1970
HCn-4 = HC1966
HC1966 = 387 ppm
(d) HC1Q7n = 190 x 387 = 258 ppm. '
iy/ 285
Therefore, this shews that the 1970 hydrocarbon emission factor at 50,000
miles is 258 ppm.
52
-------
In the preceding calculations it was assumed that the emission rates
for 1970 will deviate from the 1970 standards (190 ppm hydrocarbon and
1.06% carbon monoxide) by the same ratio that the 1966 emission rates
deviated from the 1968 standards (285 ppm hydrocarbon and 1.56% carbon
monoxide), since both 1970 and 1966 are the first years under 1970 and
1968 standards, respectively.. Similarly, both 1971 and 1967 are the second
years under 1970 and 1968 standards, respectively, and 1972 and 1968 are
the third years under 1970 and 1968 standards, respectively.
After the third year of control, for any given standards, it is not
known how the emission factors will change during succeeding years. It would
seem logical that the emission factor for any given standard would improve
for each added year under that control. But, since the degree of control is
not known beyond the third year of control, the emission factor after the
third year of control was assumed to be the same as the factor for the third
year of control. Therefore, the emission factors for 1968 and 1969 are identi-
cal to each other and the emission factors after 1971 are identical to one
another.
The rates of deterioration for each year after 1968 were determined by
a procedure similar to that used in the determination of the emission factors.
Since 1970 was compared to 1966, the rate of deterioration for 1970 was assumed
to be the same as the rate of deterioration for 1966. Similarly, since 1971
was compared to 1967, the rate of deterioration in 1967 was assumed to apply
to 1971. And. the rates of deterioration for 1969 and the years after 1971
will be identical to .the rate of deterioration for 1968.
Table 16 presents the post 1969 emission factors calculated by the method
outlined in this section.
-------
TABLE 16.
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES (POST 1969)
Mileage
4,000
50,000
1970
HC, ppm
203
258
CO, %
1.11
1.35
1971
HC, ppm
204
237
CO, %
0.99
1.20
1972 and beyond
HC, ppm
197
237
CO, %
0.88
1.15
34
-------
EXHAUST OXIDES OF NITROGEN
At this time, there are no standards in effect for the control of
oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust. Therefore the "controlled" NO emission
A.
factor was considered to be the amount of NO emitted by a vehicle-which -
x 3
is equipped for the control of exhaust hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and,
necessarily, crankcase hydrocarbons. n
>
The California Air Resources Board (GARB) tested 1050 domestic con-
trolled vehicles on a hot-start basis on the 7-mode cycle using continuous
NDIR measurement. The results, which were weighted according to the California.
vehicle population, show that, on the average, controlled vehicles emit
1545 ppm NO from the exhaust on a hot-start basis. The equivalent factor
J\,
on a composite start basis is also 1545 ppm NO .*
A,
See Figure 2.
-------
CRANKCASE HYDROCARBON
The crankcase control systems were first instituted in California. In
1961 they installed "open" type blow-by control devices which were installed
nationwide beginning with the 1963 model year. These devices were-considered
to be 80% effective, since they only failed to function at extreme conditions.
In 1968 the "closed" type blo_w-by control device became operational nation-
wide. These sytems were considered to be 100% effective.
Therefore, the nationwide controlled crankcase emission rate from 1963-
1967 was 0.816 grams/mile and the rate after 1967 was considered to be zero
grams/mile.
-------
EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON
In the case of evaporative emissions, no standards are in effect at
this time. However, in 1971 a standard of 6 grams/(HEW test) will come
into effect. Using'the factor of (2.13 HEW tests)/(vehicle day), developed
previously, the controlled evaporative emission rate is:
6 grams - 2.15 HEW tests vehicle day _ grams
HEW test " vehicle day 26 vehicle miles ~ ' vehicle mile
37
-------
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES (MASS)
In order to convert the exhaust emissions presented in Table 17 in
the preceding section from concentration values to mass values the following
equations were used.: - -
rT\& urr ~\ HC(conc) fl Q ,. . , . Exhaust Volume
- (1) HC(mass) = , n^n nn^ x (1.8x6) x Density(HC) x 5^ .
(3) N0(mass) = - x Density(NO) x
ro-v^ /-nr -> CO(conc) n . rr,n. Exhaust Volume
(2) CO(mass) = ^>- x Density(CO) x jjj^ ;
Exhaust Volume
xv"1"-"'-' ~ 1,000,000 " "-"-/V"«x-» - j^j^ ;
where Density(HC) = 16.33 gm/cu.ft., Density(CO) = 33.11 gm/cu.ft., and
Density(NO ) = 54.14 gm/cu.ft.
"
Using these equations and the exhaust volumes presented in appendix K
the mass exhaust emission factors were calculated. Table 18 presents these
factors.
39
-------
TABLE 18.
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES (MASS)
YEAR
1966.
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
and
beyond
HC
EXHAUST, gra/mile
4,000 mi.
3.79
3.81
3.68
3^68
2.96
2.97
2.87
50,000 mi.
4.82
4.43
4.44
4.44
3.76
3.45
3.46 .
CRANKCASE
gm/mile
0.82
0.82
0
0
0
0
0
EVAP .
gm/mile
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
0.49
0.49
CO, gm/mile
4,000 mo.
38.1
34.2
30.2
30.2
30.3
27.1
24.0
50,000 mi.
46.3
41.4
39 . 5
39.5
36.9
32.8
31.4 .
NO
X
(as NO 2)
gm/mile
5.91
5.91
5.91 .
5.9.1
6.90
6.90
6.90
40
-------
AVERAGE COMPOSITE CYCLE EMISSION RATES (MASS)
Using the uncontrolled and controlled emission factors and the
deterioration equations developed in previous sections and the travel versus
vehicle age distribution developed in appendix A, the national emission rate
for the average vehicle (on the cycle) for any year can be determined. Since
the emission factors used in this determination were developed as composite
cycle emission factors, the average rates determined were identified as
being "average composite cycle emission rates."
As an example, the average hydrocarbon emission rate for the year 1975
was calculated by the following procedure. First, the travel contribution
from each model year vehicle from 1963 through 1975 must be determined.
According to appendix A, the 1975 model year contributes 15.74% of the total
travel, the 1974 model year contributes 13.69% of the total travel, the 1973
model year contributes 12.02% of the total travel, and so on, until it is
assumed that the 1963 model year vehicle contributes 2.78% of the total travel,
Second, the emission factor for each model year must be determined.
This emission factor is a product of the emission factor for this model year
vehicle at 4,000 miles and the deterioration factor for this model, year
vehicle at the end of the year in question (in this case 1975).
Table 19 shows a step-by-step calculation for the 1975 light duty
vehicle hydrocarbon emission rate, which is 5.02 grams per vehicle mile.
It should be noted that the deterioration factor used for pre-1968 vehicles
was 1.000 since the emission factor for all uncontrolled vehicles is assumed
to be constant (11.9 grams per mile) at all mileages.
41
-------
TABLE 19.
SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR THE 1975 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE
HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATE
(1)
MODEL
YEAR
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
(2)
AGE
(YEARS)'
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(3)
TRAVEL
CONTRIBUTION
%
15.74
15.69
12.02
10.04
9.36
8.18
7.55
6.52
5.24
4.51
2.83
1.74
2.78
(4)
.TOTAL MILES
TRAVELLED
13,200
25,200
36,200
45,800
55,200
63,900
72,500
80,600
87,900
94,900
100,600
105,500
109,800
(5)
DETERIORATION
FACTOR
1.090
1.149
.1.175
1.195
1.169
1.332
1.285
1.513
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
. 1.000
(6)
EMISSION FACTOR
AT
4000 MILES
gm/mi .
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.97
2.96
3.68
3.68
11. 90-
lL 90
11.90
11.90
11.90
(7)
CONTRIBUTIO
TO THE
EMISSION RAT
jrm/mi .
0.4924
0.4514
0.4053
0.3443
0.3250
0.3225
0.3570
0.3150
0.6236
0.5129
0.3368
0.2071
0.3308
Total 5.024 '**
* Column (7) is equal to column (3) x column (5) x column (6) divided by 100.
** The total sum of the numbers in column (7) (5.3757 gm/mile) is the HC
emission rate for 1975.
42
-------
Table 20 presents the average light duty vehicle composite cycle emission
rates for any given year. These rates were determined by the procedure pre-
sented in Table 19.
43
-------
TABLE 20.
AVERAGE LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE COMPOSITE CYCLE EMISSION RATES
£*?W'a4'
YEAR ,
X'
1962
fT before
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
§ beyond
EXHAUST, gm/mile
HC
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
10.7
9.61
8.59
7.72
6.91
6.21
5.57
5.02
4.58
4.21
3.95
3.79
3.56
3.54
3.51
3.50
3.51
CO
77.7
77.7
77.7
77.7
77.7
77.7
70.8
65.3
60.4
55.7
51.0
47.0
43.5
40.5
37.8
36.1
34.6
33.6
32.4
32.2
32.0
31.8
31.8
NOY
A
5.38
-
5.38
5.38
5.38
5.38
5.38
5.47
5.54
5.76
5.95
6.11
6,26
6.39
6.50
6.61
6.69
6.76
6.81
6.86
6.87
6.90
6.90
6.90
CRANKCASE
gm/mile
4.08
3.57
3.12
2.73
2.40
2.09
1.70
1.34
1.03
0.77
0.56
0.40
0.29
0.14
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
EVAPORATIVE
gm/mile
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.60
2.25
1.95
1.70
1.47
1.26
1.08
0.91
0.78
0.67
0.60
0.56
0.49
- 0.49 "
44
-------
ON-THE-ROAD EMISSION RATES (MASS)
CONVERSIONS FROM COMPOSITE CYCLE TO URBAN AND RURAL ROAD
The exhaust emission rates presented in the previous section were
developed from a combination of uncontrolled and controlled exhaust emission
factors which were composite start values on the 7-mode Federal cycle
corrected to 15% total carbon in the exhaust. In order to present these
rates as actual on-the-road rates, the following conversions were necessary:
(1) a conversion from composite cycle to hot cycle;
(2) a conversion from hot cycle to hot, summer, 25 mph road;
(3) a temperature conversion;
(4) a seasonal conversion; and
(5) a speed conversion.
A summary of these conversions is presented in Figure 2.
-------
FIGURE 2.
CONVERSIONS FROM CYCLE TO ON-THE-ROAD FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
Controlled,
composite start,
7-mode cycle,
.15% carbon in exhaust
hot cycle
composite cycle
Uncontrolled,
composite start,
7-mode cycle
15% carbon in exhaust
HC 0.9101
CO 1.000
NO ' -' 1-000
X
.. ,. ,...,
hot cycle
composite cycle
HC
NO
0.91-01
0.8217
1.000
hot, summer, 25 mph road
hot cycle
j
HC
CO
NOY
- [». .A
0.911
0.679
0.8473
hot, summer, 25 mph road
urban
rural
coId,summer,25 mph
xoad
hot,summer,25 mph
road
HC
CO
NOX
1.266
1.392
1.000
cold,summer,25 mph road
coId,annual,25 mph
road
cold,summer,25 mph
road *
HC
CO
NOX
1.120
1 . 085
1.260
cold, annual,25 mph road
cold,annual,25 mph
road
cold,annual,25 mph J
road
TEMPERATURE
hot, summer, 25 mph road
hot, summer, 25 mph road
id
SEASONAL
hot , annual, 25 mph road
hot , summer, 25 mph road
>ad h
SPEED
hot
HC
CO
NO
X
ot. ,
HC
CO
NO
1
, summer, 2 5 mph road
1
1.000
0.920
1.295
I
annual, 2 5 mph road
I j
0.679
6.612
1.000
URBAN 'FACTOR
(cold,annual,25 mph road)
RURAL FACTOR
(hot, annual,45 raph road)
46
-------
As can be seen from Figure 2, the conversion from composite cycle to
hot cycle is different for the uncontrolled and controlled emission factors.
Since the emission rates presented in the previous section result from a
combination of uncontrolled and controlled composite cycle emission factors,
it was necessary to determine the equivalent hot cycle emission rates. These
hot cycle emission rates are presented in Table 21.
. 47
-------
TABLE 21.
AVERAGE LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE EXHAUST HOT CYCLE EMISSION RATES
YEAR"
1967 g before
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984 § beyond
HC
gm/raile
1
-------
The emissions versus speed relationships developed for hydrocarbon
9
and carbon monoxide are expressed by the following equations:
(1) log (HC) = -0.6572 log (v) - 0.9823
(2) log (CO) = -0.8492 log (v) + 0.3919
Where HC and CO are hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide exhaust emissions in pounds
per vehicle mile and v is the vehicle speed in miles per hour.
In order to find the conversion factor at any speed relative-to the 25 mph
road speed, it was necessary to evaluate HC and CO in equations (1) and (2)
at 25 mph. For HC this value is 0.0127 Ib/inile and for CO this value is 0.160.
Therefore, the speed conversion factor from 25 mph to any other speed (between
4 mph and 80 mph) is expressed by the following equations:
1Q (-0.6572 log (v) - 0.9823)
(3) HC speed conversion factor = n m
1Q (-0.8492 log (v) + 0.3919)
(4) CO speed conversion factor =
0.160
Where v = vehicle speed in miles per hour (4 <_ v <_-80)
It should be noted that vehicle speed is assumed to have no effect on
exhaust NO emissions.
Jv
The combined conversion factors are presented for both urban and rural
conditions in Table 22. They are presented in two forms; the first doesn't
include the speed conversions and the second includes the speed conversions
assuming that urban travel is at an average speed of 25 mph and rural travel
is at an average speed of 45 mph.
49
-------
TABLE 22.
COMBINED CONVERSION FACTORS
CONDITION - -
Urban (-speed conv)
Rural (-speed conv)
Urban
Rural
CONVERSION
FROM
Hot cycle
Hot cycle
Hot cycle
Hot cycle
TO
Co Id, annual, 25 mph road
Hot, annual, 25 mph road
Cold, annual, 25 mph road
Hot, annual, 45 mph road
CONVERSION FACTOR
HC
1.292
0.911
1.292
0.619
CO
1.026
0.625
1.026
0.382
NO
X
1.101
1.132
1.101
1.132
Using the conversions, including speed, presented above and the hot
cycle emission rates.presented in Table 21, the average light duty
vehicle on-the-road emission rates were calculated. These rates are presented
in Table 23 .
-------
TABLE 23.
AVERAGE LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ON-THE-ROAD EMISSION RATES
YEAR
1962 §
before
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984 §
beyond
URBAN EXHAUST,£m/mile
HC
14.0
14.6
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
12.5
11.3
10.1
9.07
8.12
7.30
6.55
5.91
5.38
4.95
4.65
4.45
4.19
4.16
4.13
4.12
4.12
-CO
79.7
79.7
79.7
79.7
79.7
79.7
70.9
63.5
57.8
52.5
47.4
43.0
39.0
35.7
32.7
30.8
29.3
28.4
27.0
26.9
27.0
26.8
26.8
NOX
(as N02)
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
6.02
6.10
6.34
6.55
6.73
6.89
7.04
7.16
7.27
7.37
7.44
7.50
7.55
7.57
7.60
7.60
7.60
RURAL EXHAUST , gin/mile
HC
6.70
6.70
6.70
6.70
6.70
6.70
6.00
5.41
4.84
4.35
3.89
3.50
3.14
2.83
2.58
2.37
2.23
2.13
2.01
1.99
1.98
1.97
1.98
CO
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
26.4
23.6
21.5
19.6
17.6
16.0
14.5
13.3
12.2
11.5
10.9
10.6
10.1
10.0
10.0
9.99
9.99
NO
X
(as N02)
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.19
6.27
6.52
6.73
6.92
7.08
7.23
7.36
7.48
7.58
7.65
7.71
7.76
7.78
7.81
7.81
7.81
CRANKCASE
gm/mile
4.08
3.57
3.12
2.73
2.40
2.09
1.70
1.34
1.03
0.77
0,56
0.40
0.29
0.14
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
EVAPORATIVE;
gm/mile
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.60
2.25
1.95
1.70
1.47
1.26
1.08
0.91
0.78
0.67
0.60
0.56
0.49
0.49
51
-------
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
52
-------
UNCONTROLLED VEHICLES
GASOLINE POWERED
Exhaust Hydrocarbon, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen -
Studies by Southwest Research Institute, Ethyl Corporation, the California
Vehicle Pollution Laboratory,_Scott Research Laboratories, Inc., the California
Air Resources Board and others were examined in order to determine the emissions
from heavy duty vehicles (HDV).
Ethyl Corporation was engaged by the PHS to develop an exhaust emission
test indicative of emissions produced by heavy duty vehicles in actual driving
patterns. The original study was performed in Los Angeles but was later ex-
panded to include San Francisco and Detroit. In all, the operation of 251
gasoline powered heavy duty vehicles was recorded successfully and imported.
For the emission phase of the PHS heavy-duty-vehicle program, the Los
Angeles truck route was simulated in rolling countryside near the automotive
facilities of Ethyl Corporation outside of Detriot and was labelled the DLA truck
route. The Los Angeles route was used because it was intermediate between
flat Detroit and hilly San Francisco. Four DLA routes were established to
correspond with the differing modes of operation of trucks in four gross
vehicle weight classifications. A feasibility study conducted by Ethyl in-
dicated that exhaust emissions from the DLA truck route could be reproduced
successfully in simulated model cycles of truck operation. This study es-
tablished the practicability of developing chassis dynamometer test procedures
that would simulate operations and produce emissions characteristic of trucks
on the DLA road route.
53
-------
Class I trucks, which are under 6000 Ib. gross vehicle weight (gvw),
were excluded from the heavy-duty-test development work because they are
classified as light-duty vehicles. The heavy-duty vehicles were divided
into three classes by GVW: Class II, 6000-10,000 Ib.; Class III, -10,000-..
19,500 Ib.; and Class IV, over 19,500 Ib.
Three truck cycles of about 12 modes each were devised by reduction
of road mode data. These "theoretical cycles, one for each HDV class, were
then adjusted to meet the requirements of truck operation on a chassis dyna-
mometer while maintaining the basic mode and exhaust-emission values. These
cycles are shown in Table C-6 in appendix C.
Ten trucks of each class were run on the DLA road routes and on a chassis
dynamometer using the experimental test cycles. Sampling was done using
PACE proportional samplers. The exhaust gas was analyzed for hydrocarbons
using NDIR and FID, for CO and C09 using NDIR, and for NO using the Modified
£ X
Saltzman technique.
In general, exhaust-emission data from the chassis-dynamometer mode cycles
agreed with that from the DLA road routes. The results of the dynamometer
testing are summarized in Tables E-l through E-3 in appendix E.
While this development work was in progress, California completed de-
velopment of a truck testing cycle and adopted it as the official cycle for
11 12
California certification. ' (The Federal government later adopted a test
cycle patterned after this cycle.) The California cycle is shown in Table C-4
in appendix C. Ethyl tested six trucks-in each weight class according to
these new procedures, which included continuous sampling and analysis by NDIR.
54
-------
The results of these tests are summarized in Table E-4 in appendix E.
A comparison of results from the experimental PHS cycles and from
the California cycle showed that the California cycle's HC emissions were
considerably less than those of the experimental cycle and, therefore, less-
than road emissions. The difference decreased with increasing GVW. CO
emissions followed a similar pattern, but NO values were generally higher
Ai
from the California test than from the PHS cycles.
Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) was then engaged by the PHS to
obtain a large amount of baseline emissions data from heavy duty vehicles
using experimental procedures. The variable speed cycles developed by
Ethyl Corporation were modified for use on a simple chassis dynamometer.
The modified cycles are shown in Table C-7 in appendix C.
With these cycles and a special truck version of the PHS developed
constant volume sampler, designed, constructed, and calibrated by SWRI,
exhaust emission tests were conducted on more than 150 trucks. The trucks
were selected by make and GVW to represent the 1968 truck population. The
exhaust gas was analyzed for hydrocarbons using NDIR and FID, for CO and
C09 using NDIR, and for NO using the Modified Saltzman technique. Tables
£ X
E-5 through E-7 in appendix E summarize the results of the dynamometer testing.
While this study was in progress, the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare proposed the adoption of a Federal Heavy Duty Gasoline Truck
Test Procedure for 1970 vehicle certification. This procedure, later
adopted, was patterned after the California -truck test. A series of .tests
was run on a small group-^of vehicles to compare exhaust emissions from this
55
-------
new procedure and the experimental trucks cycles representative of road
emissions. (The Federal cycle was originally proposed as an engine dyna-
mometer or a chassis dynamometer test.) All data were taken simultaneously
by means of chassis dynamometer tests using both continuous and cons'tant
volume samplers. The results of these tests are summarized in Table E-8
in appendix E. . . _ ..
In the experimental cycle, representative of road testing, HC emissions
and CO emissions were considerably higher than in the Federal cycle. NO
J\.
emissions appeared to be slightly higher in the Federal cycle. Exhaust
flow per mile was consistently higher for the experimental cycle by an
average factor of 1.28, indicating that engine loading for the Federal
cycle is lower than representative road load.
Continued efforts are underway to obtain mass emissions on a typical
road route, investigate their correlation with Federal constant speed
emissions (from the same vehicles), and modify the current constant speed
method to relate more adequately to road emissions.
The California Vehicle Pollution Laboratory tested 43 heavy duty trucks
on a constant speed 9-mode dynamometer cycle (not the Federal truck cycle).
(This cycle is shown in Table C-5 in appendix C.) Emission measurements
were made for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide with a
standard NDIR sampling train using both continuous and bag sampling tech-
niques. Mode by mode and total cycle exhaust volumes were also measured.
All emission data was corrected to 15% total'carbon in the exhaust (CO.., +
1/2 CO + 10 HC). The detailed results are presented in Table E-9 in the
appendix.
56
-------
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc. has measured exhaust emissions from
a group of 50 randomly selected heavy duty vehicles. All trucks were tested
on a 9-mode constant speed dynamometer cycle (not the Federal truck cycle,
see Table C-5 in appendix C) in the as-received condition. Twenty-three -'
of the smaller trucks were also tested on the 7-mode dynamometer cycle for
correlation purposes. The detailed results are presented in Table E-10 in
appendix E.
The California Air Resources Board tested 7 trucks according to the
1970 Federal heavy duty vehicle test procedures to collect NO , HC, CO, and
C0? emission data. The detailed emission results are presented in Table 0-11
in appendix E.
-------
Combined Results - Federal Cycle
As stated previously, the studies by the California Vehicle Pollution
Laboratory and Scott Laboratories were tested according to a non-Federal
cycle. An attempt is being made to develop a correlation between these
two test cycles so that the data can be combined. But, since this cor-
relation is not presently known, these two studies were excluded from any
further analysis.
There is insufficient information at this time to correlate the mass
emissions from the experimental cycles, which are representative of road emissions,
to emissions from the Federal cycle. For this reason, the experimental
cycle results from SWRI and Ethyl Corporation could not be related to the
Federal cycle and, hence, were excluded from the analysis. Work performed by SWRI
indicates that mass emissions data from the Federal truck'cycle do not cor--
respond with the mass emissions data from the experimental cycles established
. - I6
to represent road emissions.
The study by the California Air Resources Board which tested vehicles ac-
cording to the Federal cycle does not distinguish between classes of
trucks. Since truck class is significant in the travel distribution and in
emission rates, this study was not included in the analysis due to insuf-
ficient information.
The remaining two studies (SWRI and Ethyl Corporation), reporting Federal
truck cycle emission results, were combined. Each weight class was treated
separately, weighting each study according to the number of vehicles tested.
Since the Federal procedures only determine concentrations for HC and CO, ex-
haust volumes and NO results v/ere determined from either the proportional
58
-------
sampling results in the case of Ethyl or the constant volume sampling re-
sults in the case of SWRI. These auxiliary sampling systems were run
simultaneously with the continuous sampling system specified in the Federal
procedures. Mass emissions were calculated using the same equations and
relationships developed for light duty vehicles. The combined heavy duty
vehicle emissions, tested according to the Federal procedures are pre-
sented in detail in Table E-12 in appendix E and in Table 24 below.
TABLE 24.
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE BASELINE EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS
FROM THE FEDERAL TRUCK CYCLE
Class
II
III
IV
No. of
Vehicles
7
7
8
HC
ppm
373
316
344
gm/mile
5.60
5.58
8,01
CO
%
2.42
2.38
2.59
gm/mile
68.31
78.68
112.87
NO
X
ppm
2118
2098
2025
gm/mile*
9.76
11.59
14.46
*
As NO,
-------
Combined Results - Experimental Cycles
Only Ethyl Corporation and SWRI tested vehicles on experimental cycles
representative of road routes. These two studies were combined by weight
»
class, weighting each study according to the number of vehicles tested.
The results are presented in Table E-13 in appendix E and also in Table 25
below. - - -
TABLE 25.
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE BASELINE EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS
DYNAMOMETER CYCLES REPRESENTING ROAD EMISSIONS
Class
II
III
IV
No. of
Vehicles
40
57
67
HC
gm/mile
23.23
22.14
22.14
CO
gm/mile
14.1.1
174.4
158.0
N0x
gm/mile*
6.27
8.75
9.61
* As NO,
-------
Crankcase Hydrocarbon
In order to determine the total hydrocarbon emitted by uncontrolled
heavy duty vehicles (gasoline powered), crankcase emission rates had to be
investigated. However, there was not any data available concerning-crank-
case emissions from uncontrolled gasoline powered heavy duty vehicles. So,
to get a rough estimate of blowby emissions from trucks without crankcase
control devices, the Light Duty Vehicle blowby rate (4.08 gin/mile) was modi-
fied by the ratio of exhaust volumes (HDV/LDV). The calculations and de-
tailed results are shown in Table E-14 in appendix E and in Table 26 below.
TABLE 26.
UNCONTROLLED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE CRANKCASE EMISSIONS
Class
II
III
IV
HC Blowby Rate
gm/mile
4.27
4.95
6.52
-------
Evaporative Hydrocarbon
Similarly, evaporative emissions must be considered in the complete
hydrocarbon emissions picture. Again, there was not any information avail-
able on the evaporative emissions from heavy duty gasoline powered trucks. -
Therefore, these losses must be estimated. It is probable that the evapora-
tive emissions from heavy trucks may well be greater than from passenger
cars. Moreover, trucks would likely have greater diurnal fuel tank breathing
losses because of their larger fuel tanks, and carburetor hot soak losses
might be greater because of possibly more frequent occurrence of hot soak
conditions (more trips per day) and larger carburetor bowls. As a rough
estimate, since there is not any emission information available, the evapora-
tive losses from heavy duty trucks were assumed to be the same as LDV's
(2.99 gm/mile).
-------
DIESEL POWERED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
Exhaust Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide and Oxides of Nitrogen
Due to the lack of adequate information on the diesel emission factors,
each source of information reviewed was treated on an equal basis when the -
emission factor was estimated. Because some sources listed the CO factor
17 18
as a concentration at an air-to-fuel (A/F) ratio of 100:1 ' and another
19
listed the CO and HC factors as a concentration at an A/F ratio of 13:1,
all factors were corrected to the common A/F of 13:1. The average exhaust
emission factors for diesels (2% of total travel) calculated at an A/F of
13:1 were 0.97% CO and 318.5 ppm HC. In addition, the NO emission factor
jn.
was assumed to be 500 ppm.
Once these average concentrations were determined at an A/F of 13:1,
they were converted to a mass basis. To complete this conversion, the ex-
haust volume had to be calculated.
The average exhaust volume for diesels was developed by modifying the
Class IV gasoline powered truck exhaust volume (131.9 cu. ft./mile) by the
ratio of fuel consumption (Diesel/Gasoline). The Class IV exhaust volume
was used because almost all diesels fit into Class IV of the truck classi-
fication. The average fuel consumption was reported to be 0.251 gallon/mile
20
for gasoline powered trucks and 0.181 gallon/mile for diesel trucks. From
this information; the diesel exhaust volume was calculated to be 95.11 cu.'ft./
mile. (131.9 x 0.181 v 0.251 = 95.11) [NOTE: This exhaust volume appears
to be low because it has been calculated at an A/F ratio of 13:1 rather than
at normal operating A/F ratios. This is done to maintain consistency with the
exhaust concentrations which were also calculated at an A/F ratio of 13:1.]
63
-------
. . The exhaust concentrations were then converted to mass emissions using
t-he same equations as for light duty vehicles; only using the 95.11 cu.ft./
mile exhaust volume.. The diesel exhaust emissions are summarized in Table 27,
TABLE 27.
DIESEL POWERED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE EXHAUST EMISSIONS
concentration
mass
HC
ppm § gm/mile
319
5.34
CO
% § gm/mile
0.97
30.6
NO
X
ppm § gm/mile
500
2.57
-------
Crankcase Hydrocarbon
In gasoline powered vehicles, crankcase emissions are comprised pri-
marily of fuel air mixture that has been forced past the piston rings during
<\
compression.^ Since diesel vehicles are fuel injected, there is only.air
available during compression and, hence, the primary source of blowby
21
emissions is eliminated. Therefore, the crankcase emissions from diesel
vehicles were assumed to be "zero.
65
-------
Evaporative Hydrocarbon
As with crankcase emissions, the evaporative emissions from diesels
were assumed to be zero. This was assumed because the diesel engines with
their fuel injectors .will not have as great a hot soak problem as do-gaso-
line engines with carburetors. Also, diesel fuel is much "heavier" (less
volatile) than gasoline and, as such, will have less of a tendency to
21 .
evaporate.
65
-------
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES - FEDERAL CYCLE
Table 28 presents a summary of the emission factors for uncontrolled
heavy duty vehicles with exhaust emissions from gasoline powered trucks
tested in accordance with Federal procedures.
TABLE 28.
AVERAGE BASELINE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
THE HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE WEIGHT CLASSES
FROM THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURES
Weight Class
II (6000-10,000)
III (10,000-19,000)
IV (>19,000)
Diesel
HYDROCARBON
Exhaust,
gm/mile
5.60
5.58
8.01
5.34
Crank case,
gm/mile
4.27
4.95
6.52
0.00
Evaporative,
gm/mile
2.99
2.99
2.99
0.00
Monoxide
gm/mile
68.51
78.68
112.87
30.55
Nitrogen
gm/mile
9.76
11.39
14.46
2.57
These factors for each weight class were then combined in proportion to
their overall travel. In other words, the factors were weighted by the fraction
of heavy duty travel which each class contributed to the overall heavy duty travel,
These weighting are shown and developed in Table A-2 in appendix A. Table 29 pre-
sents the average basline emission factors for all HDV, testing according to
Federal procedures where applicable (i.e. exhaust emissions from gasoline
powered trucks).
67
-------
TABLE 29.
AVERAGE BASELINE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ALL
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURES
Exhaust
Crankcase
Evaporative
TOTAL
HC, gm/mile
6.50
4.32
2.33
13.15
CO, gm/mile
-79.24
79.24
NO (as NO ) gm/mile
A. £*
10.29
10.29
Weighting:
Class II - 0.229
Class III - 0.153
Class IV - 0.397
Diesel - 0.221
-------
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES - EXPERIMENTAL CYCLE
Table 30 presents a summary of the emission factors for uncontrolled
heavy duty vehicles with the exhaust emissions from gasoline powered trucks
tested on experimental cycles, representing road emissions.
TABLE 30.
'AVERAGE BASELINE EMISSION FACTORS FOR THE
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE WEIGHT CLASSES FROM
EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROCEDURES REPRESENTING ROAD EMISSIONS
Weight
Class
II
III
IV
Diesel
HYDROCARBON
Exhaust
gm/mile
23.23
22.14
22.14
5.34
Crankcase
gm/mile
4.27
4.95
6.52
0.00
Evaporative
gm/mile
2.99
2.99
2.99
0.00
Carbon
Monoxide
gm/mile
141.1
174.4
158.0
30.6
Oxides of
Nitrogen
gm/mile
6.27
8.75
9.61
2.57
As with the Federal procedure results, these factors were weighted
according to the relative travel of each class to get overall uncontrolled
heavy duty vehicle emission rates. Table 31 presents the results of this
weighting and shows the average baseline emission factors for all HDV's with
exhaust emission testing for the gasoline powered trucks being performed on
experimental cycles representing road, emissions.
-------
TABLE 31.
AVERAGE BASELINE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ALL HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROCEDURES REPRESENTING
ROAD EMISSIONS
Exhaust
Crankcase
Evaporative
TOTAL
HC,gm/mile
18.68
4.32
2.33
25.33
C0,gm/mile
128.5
128.5
NO (as NO.,) , gm/mile
Jv £*
7.16
7.16
70
-------
" CONTROLLED VEHICLES
GASOLINE POWERED
Exhaust HC and CO - Federal Cycle
Since exhaust emission standards for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
eaissions from gasoline powered heavy duty vehicles did not come into effect
until 1970, no 'data are available on exhaust emissions from controlled ve-
hicles. Therefore, it was assumed that controlled gasoline powered HDV's
exactly met the 1970 standards of 275 ppm for hydrocarbons and 1.5% for
carbon monoxide. In addition, both KC and CO deterioration factors were
assumed to be 1.00.
These concentrations were converted to mass rates using the same
equations and exhaust volumes as for uncontrolled vehicles. The results
are presented in Table 19.
TABLE 32.
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR
CONTROLLED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES FEDERAL CYCLE
Class
II
III
IV
Exhaust
Volume
(ft3/mile)
85.1
100.2
131.9
Hydrocarbons
Cone.
(ppm)
275
275
275
Mass
(gm/mile)
4.13
4 . 86
6.40
Carbon Monoxide
Cone.
1.5
' 1.5
1.5
Mass
(gm/mile)
.42.26
49.55
65.23
7-1
-------
Exhaust HC and CO - Experimental Cycles
As v/ith the Federal cycle, there is no data from controlled HDV's
operating on experimental cycles representing road emissions. Therefore
controlled vehicle emissions on experimental cycles were assumed to show
the same improvement over uncontrolled emissions as was shown in the case
of vehicles operating on the Federal cycle.
The resulting controlled gasoline powered heavy duty vehicle emission
rates for vehicles operating on experimental cycles representing road
emissions are shewn in Table 33.
TABLE 33.
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMOMETER CYCLES REPRESENTING ROAD EMISSIONS
Class
II
III
IV
HC, gm/inile
17.13
19.27
17.70
C0,gm/mile
87.5
109.9
91.5
-------
Exhaust NO
- x
There have been no standards set for NO emissions from heavy duty
A
vehicles. Therefore, it was assumed that the uncontrolled HDV NO emission
factors would continue to be valid.
-------
Crankcase Hydrocarbon'
Crankcase emission controls for heavy duty gasoline powered trucks
were instituted in 1968, although the standards do not require them until
15,22 -
1970. These standards call for 100% control of crankcase emissions.- There-
fore, it was assumed that beginning in 1963 there were no crankcase emissions
from heavy duty vehicles.
-------
Evaporative Hydrocarbon
As of this writing, there are not any evaporative standards for heavy
duty gasoline powered trucks. Therefore, the uncontrolled rate of 2.99
grams/mile will continue to be used.
-------
DIESEL POWERED VEHICLES
Since there are no standards for emissions from diesels, the uncontrolled
diesel emission rates will continue to be used.
-------
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES - FEDERAL CYCLE
Table 34 below presents a summary of the emission factors for controlled
HDV's, with exhaust emissions from gasoline powered trucks being determined
according to Federal procedures.
TABLE 34 .
SUMMARY OF
EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURES
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Diesel
Hydrocarbons
Exhaust,
gm/mile
4.13
4.86
6.40
5.34
Crankca.se,*
gm/mile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Evaporative
gm/mile
2.99
2.99
2.99
0.00
CO
gm/inile
42.26
49.55
65.23
30.55
NOX
gm/mile
9.76
11.39
14.46
2.57
starting in 1968, all other controls start in 1970
As with uncontrolled vehicles, these factors were combined by weighting
each class according to its relative travel. The results of this weighting
are shown in Table 3S I
-------
TABLE 35.
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ALL CONTROLLED HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURES
Exhaust
Crankcase
Evaporative
TOTAL
HC,gm/mile
5.41
0.00
2.33
7.74 (8.83)*
C0,gm/mile
49.91
49.91
NO (as NO ) ,gm/mile
X t.
10.29
10.29
Number in parentheses is the controlled HC HDV emission rate for 1968
and 1969, all other factors apply starting in 1970.
78
-------
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES - EXPERIMENTAL CYCLES
Table 36 below presents a summary of the emission factors for controlled
HDV's with exhaust emissions from gasolire powered trucks being determined
according to procedures representing road emissions.
TABLE 36.
EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROCEDURES
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Diesel
Exhaust,
gm/mile
17.13
19.27
17.70
5.34
Hydrocarbons
Crankcase,*
gm/mile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Evaporative,
gm/mile
2.99
2.99
2.99
0.00
CO,
gm/mile
87.5
109.9
91.5
30.6
NO ,
V '
gm/mile
6.27
8.75
9.61
2.57
* starting in 1968, all other controls start in 1970
Once again, these factors were combined by weighting the classes ac-
cording to their relative travel. The results of this weighting are shown
in Table 37.
79
-------
TABLE 37..
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ALL CONTROLLED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES REPRESENTING ROAD EMISSIONS
Exhaust
Crankcase
Evaporative
TOTAL
HCjgm/mile
15.08
0.00
2.33
17.41 (21.01)*
C0,gm/mile
79.94
79.94
N0p(as N09),gm/mile
^ «£
7.16
7.16
* Number in parentheses is the controlled HC HDV emission rate for
1968 and 1969 all other factors apply starting in 1970.
80
-------
AVERAGE CYCLE EMISSION RATES (MASS)
The cycle emission rates were determined by combining the uncontrolled
and controlled emission factors determined by the Federal test procedures.
These factors were combined by using the heavy duty vehicle travel distri-
bution presented in appendix A. Table 38 presents these rates.
81
-------
TABLE 38
AVERAGE HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE CYCLE EMISSION RATES
YEAR
1967 & before
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984 § beyond
EXHAUST, gin/mile
HC
6.50
6.500
6.50
6.39
6.29
6.19
6.10
6.01
5.93
5.85
5.78
5.72
5.66
5.60
5.55
5.51
5.47
5.41
CO
79.2
79.2
79.2
76.3
73.5
70.9
68.4
66.0
63.8
61.8
59.9
58.1
56.5
55.0
53.7
52.6
51.5
49.9
NOX
(as N02)
10,3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
CRANKCASE
gm/mile
4.32
3.89
3.48
3.09
.2.72
2.38
2.05
1.75
1.47
1.21
0.97
0.76
0.56
0.39
0.24
0
0
0
EVAPORATIVE
gm/mile
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
-------
ON-THE-ROAD EMISSION RATES (MASS)
The exhaust emission factors developed by experimental procedures
representing road emissions are considered to be hot, summer, 25 mph
road values and, as such, do not represent either urban (cold, annual,
25 mph road), or rural (hot, annual, 45 mph road) exhaust emissions.
Therefore, it was assumed that the conversion factors which apply for
light duty vehicles also apply for heavy duty vehicles, in order to
determine the urban and rural exhaust factors.
The uncontrolled and controlled factors were combined by using
the heavy duty vehicle travel distribution presented in appendix A in
order to determine the average urban and rural emission rates. These
rates are presented in Table 39.
83
-------
TABLE 39
AVERAGE HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE ON-THE-ROAD EMISSION RATES
YEAR
1967 §
before
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984 £
beyond
URBAN EXHAUST, gm/mile
HC
- 26.5
26.5
26.5
26.0
25.5
25.0
24.6
24.2
23.8
23.5
23.1
22.8
22.5
22.3
22.1
21.8
21.7
21.4
CO
194.
194
194
187
180
173
167
161
156
150
146
141
137
134
130
127
125
121
NOX
(as N02)
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
9.02
RURAL EXHAUST .gin/mile
HC
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.4
12.2
12.0
11.8
11.6
11.4
11.2
11.1
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.6
10.5
10.4
10.2
CO
72.4
72.4
72.4
69.6
67.0
64.6
62.2
60.0
58.0
56.1
54.3
52.7
51.2
49.8
48.6
47.5
46.5
45.0
NOX
(as N02)
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.27
CRANKCASE
gm/mile
4.32
3.89
3.48
3.09
2.72
2.38
2.05
1.75
1.47
1.21
0.97
0.76
0.56
0.39
0.24
0
0
0
EVAPORATIV1
gm/mile
!
2.33
2.33 -
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.33
84
-------
FOOTNOTES
Hocker, A.J., "Summary-of Oxides of Nitrogen Test Methods and Test
Data", California Air Resources Board, May 26, 1969.
2
Pattison, John N. and Stephens, Edgar R., "Composition of Automotive
Blowby Gases", Scott Research Laboratories, Inc., Presented to the
Third Technical Meeting, West Coast Section, Air Pollution Control
Association, September 26, 1963.
Romanovsky, J. C., "Motor Vehicle Emissions and Standards", California
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Air Sanitation, January 22, 1964.
4
Bennett, P. A., Jackson, M. W., Murphy, C. K., and Randall, R. A.,
"Reduction of Air Pollution by Control of Emissions from Automotive
Crankcases", Presented at January 11-15, 1960, meeting of the Society
of Automotive Engineers, Detroit.
Hass, G. C., Scanlin, J. R., "The Control of Crankcase Hydrocarbon
Losses", Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board Reports, August 14, 1963.
"Criteria for the Approval of Crankcase Ventilation Systems, Vehicle
Crankcase Ventilation System Compliance Tests", New York State Depart-
ment of Health, Air Pollution Control Board, September 13, 1963.
Kramer, R. L., Personal Communication, September 13, 1968.
Q
"Standards for Exhaust Emissions, Fuel Evaporative Emissions, and Smoke
Emissions, Applicable to 1970 and Later Vehicles and Engines", Federal
Register, Vol. 33, Number 108, Washington, D. C., June 4, 1968, p. 8315.
g
Rose, A. H. and Krosteck, Walt, "Emission Factors", National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio, (To be published).
"Exhaust Emission Analysis and Mode Cycle Development of Gasoline Powered
Trucks", final report for PHS contract PH 86-66-150, Ethyl Corporation,
Ferndale, Mich., September, 1967.
"California Procedure for Testing Motor Vehicle Exhaust Emissions",
California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, Los Angeles, California.
85
-------
12
"California Test Procedure and Criteria for Motor Vehicle Exhaust
Emission Control", California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board,
Los Angeles, California.
13
Springer, Karl J. and Williams, Glenn L., "Preparation of Truck Version
PHS Variable Dilution Sampling System", Southwest Research Institute,
San Antonio, Texas, March 1968.
14
"Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
Engines", Federal Register, Vol. 33, Number 2, Washington, D. C.,
January 4, 1968.
"Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
Engines", Federal Register, Vol. 35, Number 108, Washington, D. C.,
June 4, 1968.
"An Investigation of Emissions from Trucks Above 6,000-lb. GVW Powered
by Spark Ignited Engines", final report for PHS contract PH 86-67-72,
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, March 1969.
Hum, R. W. and Marshall, W. F., Techniques for Diesel Emissions Measure-
ment, p. 12, Table 1.
18
Diesel Exhaust Gases Investigations with Proposals for Action, Ministry
of Communications Guidance Group. Stockholm, Sweden, September 22, 1967,
p. 12.
19
Truck Baseline Exhaust Emissions and Description of Dilution Sampling
System, Scott Laboratories.
20
Motor Vehicle Time and Fuel Consumption, Highway Research Board Bulletin
276, p. 11, Table 7.
21
Merrion, David F., "Diesel and Turbine Driven Vehicles and Air Pollution",
Presented at the University of Missouri Air Pollution Conference,
November 18, 1969.
22
"Control Techniques for CO, NO , and Hydrocarbons Emissions from Mobile
Sources", NAPCA document AP-66* Washington, D. C., March 1970.
86
-------
Bibliography
1. "The Automobile and Air Pollution: a program for progress Parts I § II,"
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (October, 1967).
2. Automotive News Almanac - 1968, Detroit, Michigan, April 29, 1969.
3. "Automobile Facts and Figures - 1956-1967," Automobile Manufacturers
Association, Detroit, Michigan.
4. "Automobile" Facts and Figures - 1968," Automobile Manufacturers
Association, Detroit, Michigan (1968).
5. "Baseline Reactivity Survey, Exhaust Emission Measurements and
Hydrocarbon Reactivity Analyses From Pre-1966 California Automobiles,"
California Air Resources Board, February 1968.
6. Bennett, P.A., et al, "Reduction of Air Pollution by Control of Emissions
from Automotive Crankcases," Presented at meeting of the Society of
Automotive Engineers, Detroit, Michigan (January 11-15, 1960).
7. Bostich, Thorley A. and Greenbaigh, Helen J., "Relationship of
Passenger-Car Age and Other Factors to Miles Driven," U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, Wash., D.C. (Jan. 1967).
8. "California Procedure for Testing Motor Vehicle Exhaust Emissions"
California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, Los Angeles, California.
9. "California Test Procedure and Criteria for Motor Vehicle Exhaust
Emission Control" California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board,
Los Angeles, California.
10. Certification data, 1968, unpublished.
11. "Comprehensive Exhaust Gas Field Survey" Coordinating Research Council,
New York.N.Y. (1956).
12. "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
Engines," Federal Register, Vol. 31, Number 61, Wash., D.C. (March 30,1966)
13. "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
Engines," Federal Register, Vol. 33, Number 2, Washington, D.C.(January
4, 1968).
14. "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
Engines," Federal Register, Vol. 33, Number 108, Washington, D.C.
(June 4, 1968).
87
-------
15. "Control techniques for CO, NO and hydrocarbons emissions from
Mobile Sources," NAPCA document AP-66, Washington, D.C. (March, 1970).
16. CRC Vehicle Emissions Tests (Phase II) 1967-1968, Coordinating
Research Council, Inc., (September 1969).
17. "Criteria for the Approval of Crankcase Ventilation Systems. Vehicle
Crankcase Ventilation System Compliance Tests", New York State
Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Board, New York, N.Y.
(September 13, 1963).
18. De Vorkin, Howard, "Specialized Vehicle Survey", Air Pollution Control
District - County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Cal. (1963).
19. "Diesel Exhaust Gases Investigations with Proposals for Action',1
Ministry of Communications Guidance Group, Stockholm, Sweden.
(September 22, 1967).
20. Duprey, Robert L., "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,"
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C. (1968).
21. "Exhaust Emission Analysis and Mode Cycle Development for Gasoline-
Powered Trucks", final report for PHS contract PH 86-66-150, Ethyl
Corporation, Ferndale, Mich. (Sept., 1967).
22. "Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962", Public Law 87-866, 87th Congress,
2nd Session, 1962.
23. "General Motors Corporation Interim Report G.M. Low Volatility
Gasoline Program" for Western Oil and Gas Association Committee
on Air and Water Conservation, Detroit, Michigan (June 6, 1968).
24. "GSA Production Control Device Surveillance Study" - First, Second,
and Summary of Test Series, National Center for Air Pollution
Control, Cincinnati, Ohio.
25. Groth, R.H. and Calabro, D.S., "Evaluation of Saltzman and Phenoldisulfonic
Acid Methods for Determining NO in Engine Exhaust Gases," Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 19, No. 11, November
1969, pages 884-887.
26. Mass, G.C., "Report on Exhaust Emissions From 194 California
Vehicles", Baseline Study of 1962, California Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control Board, Los Angeles, California (June 19, 1962).
27. Hass, G.C., Sconlin, J.R., "The Control of Crankcase Hydrocarbon
Losses," California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board,
Los Angeles, California (August 14, 1962)
-------
28. "Highway Statistics-1965", U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Public Roads, Washington, D.C.
29. Hocker. Arthur J., "Exhaust Emissions from Privately Owned 1966-1968
California Automobiles,Supplement to Progress Report #16" California
Air Resources Laboratory, Los Angeles, California (November 8, 1968).
30. Hocker, A.J., "Summary of Oxides of Nitrogen Test Methods and Test
Data," California Air Resources Board, May 26, 1969.
31. Hurn, R.W. and Marshall, W.F., "Techniques for Diesel Emissions
Measurement1,1 for presentation at Society of Automotive Engineers
Midyear Meeting, Detroit, Michigan. (May 20-24, 1968).
32. "An Investigation of Emissions From Trucks Above 6,000-lb. GVW
powered by Spark Ignited Engines." Final report for PHS contract
PH 86-67-72, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
March 1969.
33. Kruse, Ronald E. and Hill, Donald M. "Exhaust Emissions from Compact
Cars," National Center for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio
(February, 1967).
34. Landsberg, et al, "Resources in America's Future", Resources for
the Future, Inc., Wash. D.C. (1963).
35. Los Angeles Auto Exhaust Test Station Project, A Joint Agency Report;
1961-1963, Parts I and II, Project Participants: Air Pollution Control
District, County of Los Angeles, Calif., Automobile Club of Southern
California; Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich.;
California Department of Public Health; California Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control Board; California State Highway Patrol; United States
Public Health Service, 1963.
36. McMichael, Walter and Sigsby, John, "Automotive Emissions after Hot
and Cold Starts in Summer and Winter," National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio, (June 22, 1966).
37. McMichael, W.F. et al, "Performance of Exhaust Control Devices on
1966 Model Passenger Cars", National Center for Air Pollution Control,
Cincinnati, Ohio (June, 1967).
38. "Measurement of NOX Emissions From Truck Cycle Test", California Air
Resources Board, Los Angeles, Cal. (July, 1968).
39. Merrion, David F. "Diesel £ Turbine Driven Vehicles and Air Pollution"
presented at University of Missouri Air Pollution Conference,
November 18, 1969.
40. "Motor Truck Facts - 1967", Automobile Manufacturers Association,
Detroit, Mich.
89
-------
41. "Motor Vehicle Emission Standards", National Center for Air Pollution
Control, Cincinnati, Ohio, (1967), unpublished.
42. "Motor Vehicle Time and Fuel Consumption," Highway Research Board
Bulletin 276, Pg. 11, Table 7.
43. "Nature and Control of Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emissions" Report of
the Secretary of HEW to the United States Congress, prepared under
contract 22-68-27 by Northern Research and Engineering Corporation,
Cambridge,.Massachusetts.
44. Nebel, G.J. and Jackson, M.W. "Some Factors Affecting the Concentration
of Oxides of Nitrogen in Exhaust Gases from Spark Ignition Engines,"
General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan (Sept., 1957).
45. "The Need for Control of Air Pollutants Arising From Motor Vehicles,"
National Center for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio (October 27, 1967)
46. Pattison, John N., and Stephens, Edgar R., "Composition of Automotive
Blowby Gases", Scott Research Labs Inc., Presented to the Third
Technical Meeting, West Coast Section, Air Pollution Control Association
(September 26, 1963).
47. Romanovsky, J.C., "Motor Vehicle Emissions and Proposed Standards",
California Department of Public Health - Bureau of Air Sanitation,
Berkeley, California. (January 8, 1964).
48. Rose, A.H., et al, "Composition of Auto Exhaust Emissions from Two
Major Cities", National Air Pollution Control Administration,
Cincinnati, Ohio (June, 1964).
49. Rose, Andrew H., "Summary Report of Vehicular Emissions and their
Control". Public Health Service, Division of Air Pollution, Cincinnati,
Ohio (1966).
50. Rose, A., "Summary Report of Vehicular Emissions and their Control,"
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio,
(December, 1968).
51. Rose, A. and Krosteck, Walt., "Emission Factors", National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio, unpublished.
52. Springer, Karl J., and Williams, Glenn L. "Preparation of Truck Version
PHS Variable Dilution Sampling System", Southwest Research Institute,
San Antonio, Texas, March, 1968. __ . . .
53. Springer, Karl J. and Williams, Glenn L., "Preparations for Acquisition
of Baseline Emissions Data From Gasoline Powered Trucks Above 10,000-lb.
GVW." Interim Report for PHS contract PH 86-67-72, Southwest Research
Institute, San Antonio. Texas (June, 1968).
90
-------
54. Springer, K.J., et al, "Emissions from Gasoline Powered Trucks Above
10,000 Ib. GVW using PHS proportional Sampling Techniques, presented
at the Symposium on Research and Development in Automotive Air
Pollution Control, Los Angeles, Cal. (December 1-5, 1968).
55. "Standards for Exhaust Emissions, Fuel Evaporative Emissions, and
Smoke Emissions, Applicable to 1970 and Later Vehicles and Engines,"
Federal Register, Vol. 33, Number 108, Wash., D.C. (June 4, 1968).
56. "Surveillance of Motor Vehicle Emissions in California-Quarterly
Progress Report No. 13," California Air Resources Board, Los Angeles,
California, (September, 1968).
57. Sweeney, M.P., "Continuous Measurement of Oxides of Nitrogen in
Auto Exhaust," California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board,
Los Angeles, Cal. (April 19, 1963).
58. Sweeney, M.P., "Trip Time Weighting from a Cold Start", California
Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, Los Angeles, Cal. (June 5, 1963)
59. Sweeney, M.P., "The Conversion of Hot Start Inlets to a Cold Start
Basis," California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, Los Angeles,
California, (October 23, 1963).
60. "Truck Baseline Emissions Based On Truck Test Cycle of the California
Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board," California Vehicle Pollution
Laboratory, Los Angeles, California (December 15, 1965).
61. "Truck Baseline Exhaust Emissions and Description of Dilution Sampling
System" Scott Research Laboratories, Inc., San Bernardino, Cal.
(December 31, 1965).
62. 'Truck Inventory and Use Survey-1963," Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Census, Wash., D.C. (1963).
63. "Traffic Speed Trends," U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau
of Public Roads (October, 1967).
-------
APPENDIX
92
-------
APPENDIX A
RELATIONSHIPS OF VEHICLE TRAVEL, POPULATION, AND AGE
y.5
-------
Motor Vehicle Population Distribution
A vehicle population distribution by vehicle class, vehicle sub-
class, and type of fuel was developed. Major breakdowns were made for
Light Duty Vehicles (LDV's), Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV's), all trucks
(HDV § LDV), and all vehicles combined. Each of these classes was broken
down into its sub-classes (e.g., passenger cars and LDV-trucks for LDV's)
and each sub-class divided according to type of fuel (gasoline, diesel,
and total.)
The breakdown for trucks was developed from domestic factory sales
of trucks by gross vehicle weight data as reported in Motor Truck Facts,
pages 5 and 6. The sales data, reported in eight weight groupings, was
regrouped into the standard weight classes and the average distribution
over the five years 1962-1966 was taken to represent the actual distri-
bution.
2
Automobile Facts and Figures - 1968. page 19, reported United States
registrations of privately and publically owned passenger cars and trucks.
The eight year average, 1959-1966, of the relative registrations was taken
to be the correct distribution between passenger cars and trucks. The
truck breakdown was applied to this distribution and the results regrouped
according to the standard classes and sub-classes of vehicles. All of these
breakdowns are shown in Table A-l.
94
-------
TABLE A(
PERCENT OF VEHICLE POPULATION BY VEHICLE CLASS
LDV's
Passenger Cars
LDV Trucks
Total LDV's
HDV's
II (6,000-10,000)
III (10,000-19,000)
IV (>19,000) ,'
Total HDV's
Total All Trucks
Total All Vehicles
LDV
89.5
10.5
100
HDV
Gasoline
40.2
25.9
23.7
89.8
Diesel
0.0
0.2
10.0
10.2
Total
40.2
26.1
33.7
100.0
All Trucks (HDV + LDV)
Gasoline
59.0
16.5
10.6
9.7
36.8
95.8
Diesel
0.0
0.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
Total
59.0
16.5
10.7
13.8
41.0
100.0
All Vehicles
, Gasoline
83.4
9.8
93.2
2.7
1.8 ,
1.6
6 -JL
15.9
99.3
Diesel
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Total
83.4
9.8
93.2
2.7
1.8
2.3
6.8
16.6
100.0
-------
Motor Vehicle Travel Distribution
A vehicle travel distribution by vehicle class, vehicle sub-class,
and type of fuel was developed. Major breakdowns were made for Light
Duty Vehicles (LDV), Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV), all trucks (HDV § LDV),
and all vehicles combined. Each of these classes was broken down into
its sub-classes (e.g., passenger cars and LDV-trucks for LDV's) and each
sub-class divided according to type of fuel (gasoline, diesel, and total.
The relative travel of the different classes and sub-classes of trucks
was developed from information in Truck Inventory and Use Survey - 1963,
page 44, which reported the percent distribution of annual truck miles
according to type of fuel and size class of truck. The survey reported
class I and II trucks (under 6,000 Ib. and 6,000-10,000 Ib. respectively)
simply as Light Trucks. Therefore, the miles traveled by these classes
were assigned according to their relative populations. The fuel-type
breakdown for each truck class was made according to the relative popu-
lation within each weight class, with class IV diesels (over 19,500 Ib.)
being given any unassigned diesel miles of travel.
The breakdowns between passenger cars and LDV-trucks and between LDV
and HDV were taken to be the combined averages of relative travel for past
2,4
years, 1950-1968, as reported by the Bureau of Public Roads'and for future
5
years, 1970-2000, as reported in Resources in America's Future (both the
medium and high estimates). All of these breakdowns were combined and
the results regrouped to get the vehicle-travel distribution which is shown
in Table A-2.
96
-------
TABLE A(
PERCENT OF VEHICLE TRAVEL BY VEHICLE CLASS
LDV's
Passenger Cars
LDV Trucks
Total LDV's
HDV's
II (6,000-10,000)
III (10,000-19,000)
IV (>19,000)
Total HDV's
Total All Trucks
Total All Vehicles
LDV
90.5
9.5
100
Gasoline
22.9
15.3
39.7
77.9
HDV
Diesel
0.0
0.2
21.9
22.1
Total
22.9
15.5
61.6
100.0
All Trucks (HDV + LDV)
Gasoline
45.1
12.6
8.4
21.8
42.8
87.9
Diesel
0.0
0.0
0.1
12.0
12.1
12.1
Total
45.1
12.6
8.5
33.8
54.9
100.0
All Vehicles
Gasoline
81.1
8.5
89.6
2.4
1.6
4.1 .
8.1
16.6
97.7
Diesel
0.0
0.0
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
Total
81.1
8.5
89.6
2.4
1.6
6.4
10.4
18.9
100.0
-------
Passenger Car Population as a Function of Age
A vehicle age distribution was determined from passenger car
registrations as of July 1 each year which were obtained from Automotive
News Almanac - 1968. The new car registrations for a given year were
2
updated from data in Automobile Facts and Figures - 1968 to include all
new car registrations in that year. The percentage of vehicles in use
as a function of age (from 0 to 12 years old) was then calculated for
each of the years 1957-1967 and the results curve-fitted. The results
of the curve-fit are shown in Table A-3.
TABLE A-3.
PASSENGER CAR VEHICLE AGE DISTRIBUTION
Age
(years old)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Older**
Percent of *
Vehicles in Use
10.917
10.451
10.012
9.575
9.117
8.612
8.036
7.365
6.575
5.639
4.536
3.239
1.725 _ -
4.201
Cumulative
Percent
10.917
21.368
31.380
40.955
50.072
58.684
66.720
74.085
80.660
86.299
90.835
94.074
95.799
100.000
* % in Use = 10.917 - 0.4877 (AGE) + 0.025722 (AGE)2 - 0.0040763 (AGE)3
Not from equation, but 100 - 95.799
-------
Passenger Car Travel as a Function of Age
A distribution dividing total passenger car miles of travel according
to vehicle age was developed. The average annual miles traveled by passenger
cars by age were taken from a U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public
Roads, report titled "Relationship of Passenger-Car Age and Other Factors to
Miles Driven.11' This distribution was modified slightly by switching the
annual miles of travel for years eight and nine and also for years ten and
eleven so as to get annual miles to decrease smoothly with age-of-car. This
alteration should not have a significant effect since the difference in
annual miles of the switched ages is not too great and also because the
relative contribution of the older cars to total miles traveled is small.
The population vs. age distribution (Table A-3) was used as weighting
for this annual-miles vs. age distribution to give the percent-of-travel
as a function of age. All of these distributions are shown in Table A-4.
yy
-------
Foreign Vehicle Population and Travel
Historical vehicle registration data from Automobile Facts and Figures -
1968 were used to determine the percentage of foreign vehicles in the U.S.
Yearly values are shown in Figure A-l. Due to its sporadic nature, a reasonable
prediction of future foreign car registrations cannot be made from the his-
torical data. Since the automobile market is a very dynamic thing, it is
unlikely that U.S. manufacturers will let foreign manufacturers usurp too
much of the market before reacting with comparable car models to gain back
the lost sales. For this reason, foreign vehicles in use in the U. S. will
be assumed to be a fixed 11% of the total passenger car population. It was
also assumed that foreign vehicles comprised 11% of the total passenger car
travel.
101
-------
HE;
Ti i-i-
HE
life
3EE
red
:it:
"f-t
t±t
-as tfff
.i.i.t-t. .r.i-. -
;.:.!-u 44+
EjEjr
:r_ir.
mr
-iff
-r;:£rt±
Efti
L .^ . i,..,,
) I I- J T j.l.. j-4- i , .
EEE5
f...^
rrrcrrt
S'JEH
1._._[_,
i~_7l:~;
.nrri_...
"rxr:
-r-H-H+h
i:d:r-~i
r-:
r:xq--~
EEEH
-H 4-..
..-T---4- -4 - -.
i--
3-'-
I
E3E;?
.:ttrrn.
EHE5
-t-H ;
nir:
:tt
J-.-.
xtit
3E
! i i | i i-r!
! 11TH-H-
-t-rl^-f4 ^ ^
dairtrra
rrr:
rjr:
, ;,.i i
4-il-l-J
T . . I : .
-------
Truck Population and Travel as a Function of Age
The average population vs. age distribution for trucks was approximated
from registration data taken from Motor Truck Facts - 1967. It was assumed
that trucks travel approximately the same miles per year regardless of age;
thus making the population and travel vs. age distributions for trucks
identical. This distribution is shown in Table A-5.
TABLE A-5.
VEHICLE POPULATION AND TRAVEL VS. AGE FOR HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS
Age
(Years)
0 (New)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 § Older
* From Registration Data in
Population and Travel Distribution*
(% of Vehicles and Travel)
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5 ;
"~ " 5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
5.5
Total 100.
Motor truck Facts - 1967
103
-------
FOOTNOTES - APPENDIX A
"Motor Truck Facts - 1967," Automobile Manufacturers Association,
Detroit, Mich.
2
"Automobile Facts and Figures - 1968," Automobile Manufacturers
Association, Detroit, Mich., [1968).
"Truck Inventory and Use Survey - 1963,"Department of Commerce, Bureau
of Census, Washington, D.C., 1963.
"Automobile Facts and Figures - 1956-1967," Automobile Manufacturers
Association, Detroit, Mich.
"Landsberg, et al, "Resources in America's Future," Resources for the
Future, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1963.
6 Automotive News Almanac - 1968, Detroit, Mich., April 29, 1969.
? Bostich, T.A. and Greenhalgh, H.J., "Relationship of Passenger Car
Age a.nd Other Factors to Miles Driven," U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1967.
104
-------
APPENDIX B
UNCONTROLLED LDV DATA
-------
TABLE B-l.
BASELINE REACTIVITY SURVEY
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
No. of Cars*
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
Odometer
(miles)
216
49,850
23,007
1,711 .
115,482
Continuoi
HC (ppm)
216
828
674
245
6,939
is NDIR
CO (%)
216
2.94
1.30
0.38
8.43
Includes 15 foreign vehicles
106
-------
TABLE B-2.
BASELINE REACTIVITY SURVEY
HYDROCARBONS FOR PASSENGER CARS
BY TRANSMISSION TYPE AND COUNTRY
No. of Cars
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
Foreign
15
1,700
1,559
714
6,939
Manual
Domestic.
26
1,166
810
465
3,758
Total
41
1,362
1,152
465
6,939
Foreign
--
--
--
--
Automatic
Domestic
175
704
609
245
6,228
Total
175
704
609
245
6,228
107
-------
TABLE B-3.
BASELINE REACTIVITY SURVEY
CARBON MONOXIDE FOR PASSENGER
CARS BY TRANSMISSION TYPE AND COUNTRY
No. of Cars
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
Foreign
15
3.89
1.01
1.65
5.66
Manual
Domestic
26
4.18
1.86
0.45
8.43
Total
41
4.07
1.60
0.45
8.43
A
Foreign
--
--
--
--
utomatic
Domestic
175
2.68
1.12
.38
7.62
Total
175
2.68
1.12
.38
7.62
108
-------
TABLE B-4.
BASELINE STUDY OF 1962
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF HYDROCARBONS AND CARBON
MONOXIDE IN TEST VEHICLES
No. of Cars
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
Odometer
(miles)
94
53,405
25,904
6,401
109,650
LAC^
HC (ppm)
94
840
590
251
4,715.
iPCD
CO (%)
94
3.01
1.44
.70
8.34
Odometer
(miles)
98
53,509
28,528
6,777
123,100
Scott 1
HC (ppm)
100
995
593
334
5,896
,abs*
CO (%)
100
3.26
1.43
1.07
8.71
Includes 8 light duty trucks
.109
-------
TABLE B-5.
BASELINE STUDY OF 1962
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS FOR DOMESTIC-
PASSENGER CARS BY TYPE OF TRANSMISSION
No. .of Cars
Mean, ppm
Standard Deviation
Minimum Value, ppm
Maximum Value, ppm
LAC
Automatic
70
758
643
251
4,715
:APCD
Manual
24
1,073
303
601
1,690
Scott La
Automatic
63
834
294
334
1,690
bs
Manual
29
1,104
317
427
1,847
110
-------
TABLE B-6.
BASELINE STUDY OF 1962
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS FOR
DOMESTIC PASSENGER CARS BY TYPE OF TRANSMISSION
No. of Cars
Mean, %
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value, %
Maximum Value, %
LAC
Automatic
70
2.89
1.53
.70
8.34
APCD
Manual
24
3.37
1.09
1.5
5.9
Scot
Automatic
63
3.01
1.37
1.07
8.71
t Labs
Manual
29
3.85
1.45
1.54
6.40
111
-------
TABLE B-7.
LOS ANGELES AUTO EXHAUST TEST STATION PROJECT
AVERAGE EMISSIONS FROM DOMESTIC PASSENGER CARS - MASS SURVEY
No. of Cars
Mean
Std. Dev.
Odometer
(miles)
1013
42,900
Continuoi
HC (ppm)
1013
710
350
as NDIR
CO (%)
1013
3.4
1.5
11?
-------
TABLE B-8.
LOS ANGELES AUTO EXHAUST TEST STATION PROJECT
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS FOR DOMESTIC PASSENGER
CARS BY TYPE OF TRANSMISSION
No. of Cars
Mean, ppm
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value, ppm
Maximum Value, ppm
Automatics
738
631
290
235
3050
Manuals
275
900
400
290
3470
Combined
1013
710
350
235
3470
113
-------
: TABLE B-9.
LOS ANGELES AUTO EXHAUST TEST STATION PROJECT
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS FOR DOMESTIC PASSENGER
CARS BY TYPE OF TRANSMISSION
No. of Cars
Mean, %
Std. Dev.
Automatics
738
3.3
1.5
Manuals
275
3.7
1.4
Combined
1013
3.4
1.5
lid
-------
TABLE B-10.
TEST LANE PROJECT
LOT EXHAUST EMISSIONS*
of Trucks
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
Manual
HC (ppm)
20
1077
301
691
1684
CO (%)
20
4.22
1.73
1.84
8.30
Automatics
HC (ppm)
7
727
170
54S
1078
CO (%)
7
3.87
1.41
1.96
6.69
All Vehicles
HC (ppm)
27
977
3.11
545
1684
CO (%)
27
4.11
1.63
1.84
8.30
adjusted to the 7-mode cycle, composite starts, and 15% total carbon in the
exhaust.
115
-------
TABLE B-ll.
BASELINE STUDY OF 1962
*
No. of Trucks
Mean
Std. Dev.
.mum Value
Maximum Value
LOT EXHAUST
Manual
HC (ppm)
.6
2172
2136
981
6486
CO (%)
6
2.94
1.36
i.68
3.74
E
MISSIONS
Automatic
HC (ppm)
2
877
5.66
8.73
881
CO (%)
2
3.06
1.05
2.32
3.80
All Vehicles
HC (ppm)
8
1848
1902
873
6486
CO (%)
8
2.97
1.22
1.68
3.80
i
adjusted to the 7-mode cyc.le, composite starts, and 15% total carbon in the
exhaust.
116
-------
TABLE B-12..
SPECIALIZED VEHICLE SURVEY
LOT EXHAUST EMISSIONS
No. of Trucks
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
Manual (no automatics)
HC (ppm)
10
1325
802
715
3453
CO (%)
10
3.73
1.89
1.50
7.03
adjusted to the 7-mode cycle, composite starts, and 15% total
carbon in the exhaust.
117
-------
TABLE B-.13.
EXHAUST CONCENTRATIONS FROM FOREIGN CARS - LACAPCD
No. of Cars
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
HC (ppm)
50
1609
765
532
3848
CO (%)
50
5.1
1.7
2.1
9.8
Adjusted to the 7-mode cycle, composite
starts, and 15% total carbon in the exhaust,
US,
-------
TABLE B- 14.
EXHAUST CONCENTRATIONS FROM FOREIGN VEHICLES-BASELINE REACTIVITY
No. of Cars
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
HC (ppm)
15
1870
1715
785
7633
CO (%)
15
3.89
1.02
1.65
5.66
adjusted to the 7-mode cycle, composite starts, and 15% total carbon in the
exhaust.
-------
TABLE B-15.
EXHAUST CONCENTRATIONS FROM FOREIGN CARS - SCOTT LABS
No. of Cars
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
HC (ppm)
30
1489
49S
512
2324
CO (%)
30
3.93
1.40
1.58
7.36
adjusted to the 7-mode cycle, composite starts, and 15% total
carbon in the exhaust.
120
-------
TABLE B-16.
WEIGHTED AVERAGE BLOWBY RATE, CORRECTED TO
70°F (weighted according to sample size)
Source of Data
Rochester Products
3
Carter Carburetor Division
AC Spark Plug Division
United Air Cleaner Division
L. A. Water § Power
MVPCB - Scott3
MVPCB - Hass5
Total
NY APCB6
Number
of
Cars
34
16
25
8
143
88
500
814
Average
Blowby
Rate, cfm
1.030
0.955
0.843
1.206
1.135
0.978
1.124
1.136*
Weighted
Blowby
Contribution, cfra
35.020
15.280
21.075
9.648
162.305
86.064
562.000
891.392
The data from the New York Air Pollution Control Board will not appreciably
change the weighted average blowby flow rate, which is 1.1 cfm, regardless of
the number of cars which were tested.
121
-------
APPENDIX C
DYNAMOMETER TEST CYCLES
1 T>
-------
TABLE C-l.
7-MODE FEDERAL TEST CYCLE
Mode
mph
IDLE
0-25
5-30
30
0-15
15
5-30
0-50
0-20
0-0
Acceleration
mph/ sec
2.2
2.2
__
-1.4
--
1.2
1.2
-1.2
-2.5
Time in Mode
seconds
20
11.5
2.5
15
11
15
12.5
16.5
25
8
Cumulative Time
seconds
20
31.5
34
49
60
75
87.5
104
129
137
Weighting
Factor
.042
.244
--
.118
.062
.050
.455
--
.029
--
123
-------
TABLE C-2.
8-MODE TEST CYCLE
Mode
mph
IDLE
0-25
25-30
30
30-15
15
15-30
30-50
50
50-20
20-0
Acceleration
mph/sec
2.2
2.2
--
-1.4
1.2
1.2
--
-1.2
-2.5
Time in Mode
seconds
60
11.5
2.5
45
11
45
12.5
17.5
45
25
8
Cumulative Time
seconds
60.0
71.5
74.0
119.0
130.0
175.0
187.5
205.0
250.0
275.0
283.0
Weighting
Factor
.042
.244
--
.061
.062
.050
.455
--
.057
.029
--
124
-------
TABLE C-3.
11-MODE TEST CYCLE
Mode
mph
Idle
Cruise
20
30
40
50
Acceleration
0-60
0-25
15-30
Deceleration
50-20
30-15
30-0
Acceleration
mph/sec
3.0
2.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
. 2.5
Time in Mode
seconds
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
20.0
11.5
12.5
25.0
11.0
12.0
Weighting
Factor
.042
.050
.061
.042
.015
.059
.185
.455
.029
..033
.029
NS - not specified
125
-------
TABLE C-4.
GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE CONSTANT SPEED DYNAMOMETER
TEST CYCLE CALIFORNIA (40 MPH) AND FEDERAL (2000 RPM) CYCLE
Sequence
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Manifold
Vacuum
Idle
16" Hg
10" Hg
16" Hg
19" Hg
16" Hg
3" Hg
16" Hg
Closed
Throttle
Time in Mode-
Sec.
70
. 23
44
23
17
23
34
23
43
Cumulative
Time - Sec.
70
93
137
160
177
200
234
257
300
Weighting
Factors
.036
.089
.257
.089
.047
.089
.283
.089
.021
126
-------
TABLE C-5.
CONSTANT SPEED (40 MPH) HEAVY DUTY TRUCK CYCLE
NONFEDERAL CYCLE*
Sequence
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Manifold
Vacuum
3" Hg
Closed
Throttle
3" Hg
Closed
Throttle
10" Hg
Closed
Throttle
10" Hg
Closed
Throttle
16" Hg
Time in Mode
Sec.
15
10
20
50
20
10
65
10
40
Cumulative
Time - Sec.
15
25
45
95
115
125
190
200
240
Weighting
Factors
.080
.005
.200
.025
.210
.005
.310
.005
.160
Emission data are integrated over the closed throttle modes and read
for the last three seconds of the steady state modes.
127
-------
TABLE C-6.
ETHYL CORPORATION
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE DYNAMOMETER TEST CYCLES
Sequence
1
2
3
4
5
^
*
8
9
10
11
1.2
Ex. Class II Cycle
Mode
Idle
Ace
Ace
Ace
Dec
Ace
Dec
Ace
Cru
Dec
Ace
Dec
Vac
_
6"
WOT
6"
CT
WOT
CT
6"
CT
8"
CT
Mph
0
0-16
CD*
15-27
(2)
26-32
C3)
32-27
27-32
32-20
20-29
29
29-19
19-29
29-0
Time
22
6
5
8
6
5
5
6
22
9
5
15
Ex. Class III Cycle
Mode
Idle
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Dec
Cru
Ace
Cru
Dec
Vac
._
WOT
WOT^b
7"
WOT
WOT
CT
12.5"
(c)
7"
11.5"
(d)
CT
Mph
0
1-10
(2)
^9-21
(3)
20-26
(4)
24-35
(5)
35-25
25
25-28
28
28-0
Time
20
3
10
6
12
10
12
6
12
15
Ex. Class IV Cycle
Mode
Idle
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Dec
Cru
Ace
Cru
Dec
Cru
Dec
Vac
..
8"
6"
WOT
8"
CT
13^
11"
12n(-g
16"
13)(;f)
CT
Mph
0
0-12
(2)
ho-21
(3)
18-32
(4)
28-35
C5)
35-21
21
21-24
)24
24-21
21
21-0
Time
27
9
9
9
12
13
28
19
28
6
28
12
TOTAL
(a)
Cb)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
4 cycles 7 min 4 cycles
36 sec
corresponds to 13.9 rear wheel Hp
Ft. to 1900 rpm, 7 in Hg 1900
corresponds to 22.2 rear wheel Hp
corresponds to 28.0 rear wheel Hp
Ft. to 2200 rpm, 6" Hg over 2200
corresponds to 25.2 rear wheel Hp
corresponds to 32.9 rear wheel Hp
7 min 2 cycles
4 sec
* Number in parenthesis
selection
6 min
40 sec
is gear
128
-------
TABLE C-7.
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE DYNAMOMETER TEST CYCLES
Sequence
1
2
3
4
5
4)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Ex. Class II Cycle
Mode
Idle
Ace
Ace
Ace
Dec
Ace
Dec
Ace
Cru
Dec
Ace
Dec
Vac
WOT
WOT
WOT
CT
WOT
CT
6"
RL
CT
WOT
CT
Mph
0
0-16
(2)
15-27
(3)
26-32
(4)
32-27
(4)
27-32
(4)
32-20
(4)
20-30
(4)
30
(4)
30-20
(4)
20-30
(4)
30-0
(4)
Time
22
43
89
98
L20
Ex. Class III Cycle
Mode
Idle
Ace
Ace
Ace
Dec
Cru
Ace
Cru
Dec
Vac
-_
WOT
WOT
WOT
CT
RL
PT
RL
CT
Mph
0
0-12
12-24
(3)
24-35
(4)
35-25
(4)
25
25-28
(4)
28
(4)
28-0
(4)
Time
20
50
60
72
78
90
.06
Ex. Class IV Cycle
Mode ;
Idle
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Dec
Cru
Ace
Cru
Dec
Cru
Dec
Vac
WOT
WOT
WOT
WOT
CT
RL
PT
RL
PT
RL
CT
Mph
0
0-11
(2)
11-20
(3)
20-31
(4)
31-35
(5)
35-21
(5)
21
(5)
21-24
(5)
24
(5)
24-21
(5)
21
(5)
21-0
(5)
Time
27
66
79
107
126
154
160
188
200
TOTAL
4 cycles
8 min
4 cycles
7 min
4 sec
2 cycles
6 min
40 sec
^TE: Number in parentheses is gear selection
129
-------
APPENDIX D
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE FOR CONVERSION TO:
1) the 7-mode cycle,
2) 15% total carbon in the exhaust,
3) composite start, and
4) to represent the Los Angeles car population
130
-------
The adjustments on concentration were determined from studies which
involved the following:
(1) the 8-mode dynamometer cycle compared to the 11-mode cycle;
(2) the 7-mode cycle compared to the 11-mode cycle;
(3) hot start versus composite start emissions;
(4) an exhaust volume correction factor; and
(5) adjusting the sample to the population distribution.
In the test lane correlation study, which compared the 8-mode dynamometer
cycle to the 11-mode cvcle, t.went.y-*»iaht cars, 17 standard sir.e, and 11 compacts
were tested using different procedures and methods. One procedure was to measure
emissions using non-disnersive infrar"^ analyzers while the cars were driven through
the 11-mode cycle on the Los Angeles River Bottom. Another was to measure
the emissions while the same cars were driven through the 8-mode cycle on a
chassis dynamometer. The results are shown in table D-l. The mean hydrocarbon
concentrations for both procedures were about the same (710 +_ 90 ppm at 95%
confidence limits). For carbon monoxide the 11-mode cycle was approximately
1.14 times higher than the 8-mode cycle.
TABLE D-l.
8-MODE CYCLE vs. 11-MODE CYCLE
No. of Cars
Mean
Std. Dev.
95% Confidence
Limits of Meai
Lower
Upper
11 -Mode
Hydrocarbon
(ppm)
28
713
221
628
799
Carbon Monoxide
(%)
28
2.71
0.92-2 -
2.36
3.07
8-Mode
Hydrocarbon
(ppm)
25
711
217
623
798
Carbon Monoxide
(%)
25
2.38
0.913
2.01
2.75
-------
In the study comparing the 7-Mode Cycle to the 11-Mode Cycle the
LACAPCD tests on 94 cars indicated that the hydrocarbon concentrations
measured on the 7-mode cycle were 1.06 times as great as the mean concen-
trations measured on the 11-mode cycle (table D-2, 840/792=1.06). Scott
Research Laboratories, Inc., results indicate a ratio of 1.10 (table D-2,
995/900=1.10).
The LACAPCD tests indicate that the carbon monoxide concentrations
measured on the 7-mode cycle were 0.96 times as great as the mean concen-
trations measured on the 11-mode cycle (table D-2, 3.01/3.14 = 0.96).
Scott Laboratories results indicate a ratio of 1.01 (table D-2, 326/321=1.01)
The results are summarized in table D-2.
TABLE D-2.
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF HYDROCARBONS AND CARBON MONOXIDE
IN TEST VEHICLES
Lab
LACAPCD
Scott
Combined
No. of
Cars
94
100
194
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
7-mode
840
995
919
11-mode
792
900
848
7-mode
11-mode
1.06
1.10
1.08
Carbon Monoxide (%)
7-mode
3.01
3.26
3.14
11-mode
3.14
3.21
3118
7-mode
11-mode
0.96
1.01
0.99
The 28 car correlation by the test lane and the 28 car study by the CMVPCET
indicated that hydrocarbon emissions from the 8-mode cycle were about the same as
132
-------
from the 11-mode cycle, and carbon monoxide emissions from the 11-mode
cycle were about 1.14 times higher than from the 8-mode cycle. The baseline
studies, however, indicated that the 7-mode cycle produced 8% higher concen-
*
trations of hydrocarbons than did the 11-mode cycle, and, the carbon monoxide
concentration from the 7-mode cycle was 0.99 times as great as from the
11-mode cycle, based on the tests of 194 cars.
It appears that, for hydrocarbons, the 8- and 11-mode cycles are about
equivalent, and that the 7-mode cycle produced about 8% higher concentrations
than either of the other two. For carbon monoxide, the 11-mode cycle produces
concentrations 14% higher than the 8-mode cycle and 1% higher than the 7-mode
cycle.
In the study comparing hot start and composite start emissions, a sample of
27 vehicles was tested by Scott Laboratories from a cold start according
2
to the full test procedure. The average of the four cold cycles was weighted
35% and the average of the two hot cycles was weighted 65% to get the composite^
start values. The hot start values, that is with the engine in a warmed-up
condition, result from taking the average of the two hot cycles only. The
ratio of composite start to hot start to hot start emissions were found'to be
1.10 for hydrocarbons and 1.00 for carbon monoxide. The results are
summarized in table D-3.
TABLE D-3.2
SCOTT COLD START DATA vs. HOT START
27 Car Avg.
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Factor " -
HC
1.10
0.083
0.93
1.26
i
Composite/Hot
CO
1.00
0.102
0.87
1.31
133
-------
The CMVPCB compared the results of about 90 cars that had been tested
4 5
both on hot and composite starts. ' Carbon monoxide concentrations were found to
be essentially the same in both cases.
The distribution of the hydrocarbon concentrations for hot start and for
composite start, weighted 35% cold cycles and 65% hot cycles, are shown in
table D-4.5
TABLE D-4.
DISTRIBUTION OF HOT AND COMPOSITE START HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
Hydrocarbon Concentrations, ppm
Decile
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Percentile
4
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
96
Hot Start Composite Start
335
470
553
635
720
810
918
1,040
1,240
1,730
845
400
544
635
720
805
897
1,005
1,140
1,333
1,820
930
Ratio Composite/Hot
1.19
1.18
1.15
1.13
1.12
1.11
1.09
1.10
1.08
1.05
1.10
-134
-------
Combining these two studies, the ratio of composite start to hot start is
1.10 for hydrocarbons and 1,00 for carbon monoxide; i.e., composite start trips
produce 10% more hydrocarbons than warm start trips, while carbon monoxide
remains unaffected.
It should be noted that these factors are only valid for uncontrolled
vehicles, that is, vehicles without exhaust emission control devices. A
recent study of controlled vehicles showed that the factors for controlled
6
vehicles were 1.10 for hydrocarbons and 1.23 for carbon monoxide.
The exhaust volume correction factor arises from the need for a
consistent basis for comparing exhaust emissions, irrespective of the
addition of secondary air to the exhaust stream. The method used by the
MVPCB is essentially a carbon balance where the products of combustion of
the carbon in the exhaust are normalized to 15% of the exhaust volume using
the equation ^-prr Opn for acceleration and cruising modes and
oUvJ "** o(*t\Jf*
15
TT^r 077; , ., for deceleration modes. Concentrations measured during
~oL(J + 3LU_ + O ML
each mode of the test cycles used were corrected according to these equations
2 7
for each of the 194 baseline cars and also for the 200+ reactivity cars.
The data that had been reported for the test lane cars, however, did
not include an exhaust volume correction. The California Bureau of Air
Sanitation used a sample of the test lane cars to calculate the effect of the
o
correction. Of the approximately 1000 vehicles that were tested, the first
ten of each consecutive 100 cars were selected as a sample. Some of these
were trucks, and data on some of the sample cars had been discarded by the
test lane group, so that the final sample consisted of 79 passenger cars.
135
-------
( Concentrations measured during each mode of the 8-mode cycle were
adjusted according to the above equations. For the 79 cars the average
uncorrected hydrocarbon emission was 614 ppm, while the corrected average
was 629 ppm. The ratios of corrected and uncorrected hydrocarbon concen-
trations are shown in table D-5.
TABLE D-5.
RATIOS OF CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED CONCENTRATIONS
Corrected
Average
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Uncorrected
1.02
0.07
0.88
1.26
Recently it has been shown that a more accurate correction factor is
145
, which is the factor applicable to 1970 and
(1/2 %CO+%C02 + 1.8 x 6HC)
later vehicles as specified in the FEDERAL REGISTER, Volume 33, NO. 108. Due
to insufficient data the appropriate factors correcting to this basis are not
available and the former correction factor will be used for determining base-
line emissions.
The cars used in the Baseline Study of 1962 and the Baseline Reactivity
Survey were selected to represent the Los Angeles domestic car population in
age, make, model year, etc. The test lane group prepared a distribution of
136
-------
cars by make, year, and engine type (6-V8) to represent the 1962 Los Angeles
domestic car population. The California Bureau of Air Sanitation weighted
the test lane data to match the prepared distribution of cars. On this
basis, the average emissions from cars with automatic transmissions was
649 ppm, and the average hydrocarbon emissions from cars with manual trans-
missions was 902 ppm. This weighting made very little difference, the un-
weighted emissions being 650 ppm for automatic transmissions and 894 ppm for
manual transmission cars.
No such analysis was done for carbon monoxide because, once again, there
should be very little difference.
It is known that the Los Angeles car population is not representative
of the U. S. car population. However, since small variation in weightings
have little or no effect on the final results, the Los Angeles car population
has been used as though it were representative.
-------
FOOTNOTES - APPENDIX D
* "Los Angeles Auto Exhaust Test Station Project, Part I and Part II,"
Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, et al, Los Angeles, Cal . ,
^ "Hass, G.C., "Report on Exhaust Emissions from 194 California Vehicles,"
California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, June 19, 1962.
7
Romanovsky, J. C., "Motor Vehicle Emissions and Proposed Standards,"
California Department of Public Health - Bureau of Air Sanitation, Berkeley,
California, January 8, 1964, page 8.
4 Sweeny, M.P., "Trip Time Weighting from a Cold Start," California Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Board, Los Angeles, Cal., June 5, 1963.
5 Sweeny, M.P., "The Conversion of Hot Start Inlets to a Cold Start Basis,"
California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, Los Angeles, California,
October 23, 1963.
" Thielke, John, From 1968 Certification Data - (unpublished)
' "Baseline Reactivity Survey, Exhaust Emission Measurements and Hydrocarbon
Reactivity Analyses From Pre-1966 California Automobiles," California
Air Resources Board, February 1968.
8 Romanovsky, J.C., "Motor Vehicle Emissions and Proposed Standards,"
California Department of Public Health - Bureau of Air Sanitation,
Berkeley, California, January 8, 1964.
138
-------
APPENDIX E
UNCONTROLLED HDV DATA
-------
TABLE E-l.
ETHYL CORPORATION GLASS II GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLE EMISSIONS* EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMOMETER CYCLE
No. of Trucks
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
HC (FID)
gm/mile
10
19.73
3.67
13.29
28.89
CO.
gm/mile
10
103.19
28.76
58.51
151.05
N0x(as N02)
gm/mile
10
6.31
2.54
1.91
10.30
proportional sampling
140
-------
TABLE E-2.
ETHYL CORPORATION CLASS III GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY
DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS* EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMOMETER CYCLE
No. of Trucks
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
HC(FID)
gm/mile
10
25.17
11.52
12.43
59.74
CO
gm/mile
10
141.52
44.32
86.14
222.94
NO (as NOJ
x 2
gm/mile
10
15.15
6.31
6.71
27.94
* proportional sampling
141
-------
TABLE E-3.
ETHYL CORPORATION CLASS IV GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLE EMISSIONS* EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMOMETER CYCLE
No. of Trucks
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
HC (FID)
gm/mile
10
24.22
9.02
11.61
33.52
CO
gm/mile
10
135.63
54.52
55.29
233.15
N0x(as N02)
gm/mile
10
20.64
6.40
10.43
31.48
proportional sampling
142
-------
- - TABLE £-4.
ETHYL CORPORATION GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE
EMISSIONS FEDERAL TEST
Class II
(6000-10,000)
CA III
0^,000-19,500)
Class IV
(over 19,500)
No. of
Vehicles
6
6
6
Exhaust**
Volume
(ft3/mile)
86.3
98.4
132.7
HC
(ppm) *
337
324
351
(gin/mile)
5.74
5.62
8.21
CO
(%)*
2.39
2.22
2.69
(gm/mile)
68.01
72.09
117.8
N0x(£
(ppm)
2097
2130
2032
is N02)
(gm/mile)
9.80
11.35
14.60
* From continuous instrumentation
** From proportional sampling
-------
TABLE E-5.
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE CLASS II GASOLINE POWERED
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS* EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMOMETER
CYCLE
No. of Vehicles
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
HC (FID)
gm/mile
30
24.40
7.60
16.15
41.78
CO
gm/mile
30
153.8
41.82
79.38
265.00
N0x(as N02)
gm/mile
30
6.26
2.19
3.58
13.06
* Variable Dilution Sampling
144
-------
TABLE E-6.
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE CLASS III GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY
DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS* EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMOMETER
CYCLE
No. of Vehicles
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
HC (FID)
gin/mile
47
21.50
5.23
9.71
32.30
CO
gin/mile
47
181.4
49.56
111.6
390.1
N0x(as N02)
gm/mile
47
7.39
3.05
2.45
16.10
* Variable Dilution Sampling
145
-------
TABLE E-7.
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE GLASS IV GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY
DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS* EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMOMETER CYCLE
No. of Vehicles
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
HC (FID)
gm/mile
57
21.77
9.86
9.07
61.70
CO
gm/mile
57
161.9
63.31
59.42
307.1
N0x(as N02)
gm/mile
57
7.67
3.30
2.22
16.87
* Variable Dilution Sampling
146
-------
TABLE E-8.
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY
DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS FEDERAL TEST CYCLE
Clajs II
(^0-10,000 Ib)
Class III
(10,000-19,500 Ib)
Class IV
(over 19,500 Ib)
No. of
Vehicles
1
1
2
Exhaust**
Volume
(£t3/mile)
77.6
112.0
129.7
(ppm) *
349
270
325
HC
(gin/mile)
4.78
5.33
7.42
(%)*
2.73
3.20
2.29
CO
(gm/mile)
70.1
118.2
98.1
**
NOfas NO,)
(ppm)
2235
1923
2002
(gm/mil
£>.39
11.65
14.06
* From continuous instrumentation
** From variable dilution sampling
147
-------
TABLE E-9.
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE POLLUTION LABORATORY GASOLINE POWERED
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS NON FEDERAL TRUCK CYCLE
Class II
(6000-10,000)
Class III
(10,000-19,500)
Class IV
(over 19,500)
No. of
Vehicles
26
15
2
HC
(ppra)
807
825
409
CO
(%)
3.02
3.40
2.76
148
-------
TABLE E-10.
SCOTT RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC. GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY
DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS NON FEDERAL TRUCK CYCLE
Class II
(6000-10,000)
Class III
(10,000-19,500)
Class IV
(over 19,500)
No. of
Vehicles
22
16
9
HC
ppm
863
610
898
CO
%
3.81
4.54
5.26
149
-------
TABLE E-ll.*
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD GASOLINE POWERED
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS FEDERAL TRUCK CYCLE
No. of
Vehicles
7
HC
(ppm)
708
CO
(%)
2.72
NOX
(ppm)
2320
* Weight classes are not distinguished because the
breakdown is not known.
150
-------
TABLE E-12.
GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS
COMBINED STUDYES-ETHYL CORP. AND SWRI FEDERAL
TRUCK CYCLE
Class II
Pass HI
Class iv
No. of
Vehicles
7
7
8
Exhaust**
Volume
3
(ft: /mile)
85.1
100.2
131.9
HC
(ppm) *
373
316
344
(gin/mile)
5.60
5.58
8.01
CO
(%)*
2.42
2. 38
2.59
(gm/mile)
68.31
78.68
112.87
**
MO (as NO )
A ^
(ppm)
2118
2098
2025
(gm/mile)
9.76
11.39
14.46
* From continuous instrumentation
** From proportional or constant volume sampling
-------
TABLE E-13.
GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE EMISSIONS COMBINED STUDIES-
ETHYL CORP. AND SWRI DYNAMOMETER CYCLES REPRESENTING ROAD EMISSIONS
Class II
Class III
Class IV
No. of
Vehicles
40
57
67
HC
gm/mile
23.23
22.14
22.14
CO
gm/mile
141.1
174.4
158.0
NOX (as N02)
gm/mile
6.27
8.75
9.61
152
-------
TABLE E-14.
GASOLINE POWERED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE CRANKCASE EMISSIONS HYDROCARBONS
Class II
Class III
Class IV
HDV
Exhaust
Volume
(£t3/mile)
85.1
100.2
131.9
LDV
Exhaust
Volume
(ft3/mile)
82.54
82.54
82.54
Exhaust
Volume
Ratio
(HDV/ LDV)
1.045
1.214
1.598
LDV
Blowby
Rate
HP
(gin /mile)
4.08
4.08
4.08
HDV
Blowby
Rate
(gm /mile)
4.27
4.95
6.52
153
-------
APPENDIX F
POPULATION DISTRIBUTIONS.
154
-------
The population distribution for heavy duty vehicles was developed
from Domestic Factory Sales of Trucks and Buses data from Motor Truck.
.1
Facts (MTF - pg. 5 £ 6).* The population distribution for years 1962
to 1966 based on factory sales was developed and the average of the five
years was taken to be the actual distribution. Table F-l shows the
population distribution for all trucks (LDV and HDV) and Table F-2
shows the population distribution for heavy duty vehicles. Table F-3
shows the percent of vehicle population by vehicle class.
'TABLE F-l.
TRUCK POPULATION BY CLASS AND FUEL
(percent)
Class
LDV
I
HDV
II
III
IV
'Total HDV'S
Total all
trucks
All
Gasoline
61.6
17.2
11.1
10.1
38.4
100.0
All
Diesel
0.0
0.0
2.4
97.6
100.0
100.0
All TT
Gasoline
59.0
16.5
10.6
9.7
36.8
95.8
ucks
Diesel
0.0
0.0
0.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
Total
59.0
16.5
10,7
13.8
41.0
100.0
*Memo - NPC
155
-------
TABLE F-2.
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE POPULATION BY CLASS AND FUEL
(percent)
HDV Class
II
III
IV
Total
All
Gasoline
44.8
28.8
26.4
100.0
All
Diesel
0.0
2.0
98.0
100.0
All
Gasoline
40.2
25.9
23.7
89.8
HDV's
Diesel
0.0
0.2
10.0
10.2
Total
40.2
26.1
33.7
100.0
156
-------
TABLE F-3.
PERCENT OF VEHICLE POPULATION BY VEHICLE CLASS
LDV'S
' Passenger Cars
LDV Trucks
Total LDV'S
HDV'S
II (6,000-10,000)
] III (10,000-19,000)
IV ( 19,000)
Total HDV'S
Total All Trucks
Total All Vehicles
LDV'S
89.5
10.5
100
Gasoline
40.2
25.9
23.7
89.8
'
HDV'S
Diesel
0.0
0.2
10.0
10.2
Total
40.2
26.1
33.7
100.0
All Truck
Gasoline
59.0
16.5
10.6
9.7
36.8
95.8
s (HDV +
Diesel
0.0
0.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
LDV)
Total
59.0
16.5
10.7
13.8
41.0
100.0
All Vehic
Gasoline
83.4
9.8
93.2
2.7
1.8
1.6
6.1
15.9
99.3
les
Diesel
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Total
83.4
9.8
93.2
2.7
1.8
2.3
6.8
16.6
100.0
-------
FOOTNOTES - APPENDIX F
"Motor Truck Facts - 1967," Automobile Manufacturers Association,
Detroit, Michigan.
158
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTROLLED LDV DATA
159
-------
TABLE G-l.
ENGINE SIZE CLASS BREAKDOWN
Year
1966
1967
1968 g
1969
Manufacturer
Chrys ler
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Ford
GM
CLASS*
B § C
30%
25%
17%
25%
20%
10%
25%
20%
5%
D
15%
41%
24%.
12%
40%
30%
12%
16%
16%
E
32%
5%
30%
30%
4%
30%
26%
28%
49%
F
23%
29%
29%
33%
36%
30%
37%
36%
30%
C: 140-250 cubic inches
D: 250-300 cubic inches
E: 300-375 cubic inches
F: over 375 cubic inches
Supp. #16
160
-------
TABLE G-2.
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF THE PASSENGER CAR POPULATION
BY MANUFACTURER AND YEAR
Manufacturer 1966 1967 1968
Chrysler 17.5 16 16
Ford 28.9 34 34
General Motors 53.6 50 50
161
-------
TABLE G-3.*
EXHAUST EMISSION LEVELS FOR DOMESTIC PASSENGER CARS '
AT SELECTED MILEAGES. CORRECTED FOR POPULATION AND HOT START.
Mileage in
Thousands
4
8
16
24
32
40
50
1966
HC, ppm
290
310
331
344
354
361
369
Sir '
A ' '
CO, \
1.55
1.64
1.72
1.78
1.81
1.85
1.88
1967
HC , ppm
292
302
317
324
329
333
338
CO, %
1.39
1.47
1.54
1.59
1.62
1.65
1.68
1968
HC, ppm
281
296
312
321
328
333
339
CO, %
1.22
1.31
1.41
1.47
1.52
1.57
1.60
.':' '/ I
I 7 2.
Based on Supplement #16.
162
-------
TABLE G-4.
SAMPLE SIZE*
Manufacturer
Chrysler
Ford
General Motors
Total
Number of Cars
1966
312
471
699
1,482
1967
314
624
782
1,720
1.968
306
332
612
1,250
1969
86
156
227
469
From Supplement
163
-------
APPENDIX H
ANALYSIS OF TRANSMISSION TYPE
164
-------
DOMESTIC PASSENGER CARS
Year by year distributions giving the percentage of new domestic
passenger cars sold with automatic transmission and the percentage of
domestic passenger cars in use with automatic transmissions were .developed.
The "new car" transmission distribution was developed and then, using a
population vs. age distribution, the "in use" transmission distribution
was developed.
Historical data for new cars was taken from Automobile Facts and
Figures - 1968 (AFF). For model years 1960-1967, the percentage of new
domestic passenger cars equipped with automatic transmissions was determined
for AFF by the Chilton Company from data supplied by the automobile manu-
facturers. For model years 1950-1959, the AFF figures were compiled from
surveys conducted by Alfred Politz Research, Inc.
This historical data was combined with a projection increasing smoothly
to 99.5 percent automatic transmissions in model; year 2000, and the resulting
distribution was curve-fitted.
A passenger car vehicle age distribution giving the percent of vehicles
in use as a function of vehicle age was developed from vehicle registration
data and is shown in Table H-l. (See Appendix A for its development.) This
age distribution was applied to the yearly percentages of new domestic
passenger cars equipped with automatic transmissions (from curve-fitted
equation) to yield an "automatic transmissions in use" distribution and this
new distribution was then also curve-fitted.
165
-------
Both of these transmission distribution equations were plotted and
are shown in Figure H-l; year by year values as well as the actual equations
are shown in Table H-2.
Since the yearly change in percent automatics is small, only a small
error is introduced by not correcting from model year to calendar year
(.5% in 1965). Therefore, these distributions can be used to get the per-
centage of domestic passenger cars sold and in use with automatic trans-
missions for either model or calendar year.
For the purpose of this report, a fixed percent of automatic trans-
missions in use was assumed. This was done to facilitate calculations
and is justifiable in that only a small error will be introduced. Domestic
passenger cars were then assumed to be comprised of 85% automatic transmissions,
LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS
Light duty trucks were assumed to have the same transmission distribution
as domestic passenger cars, i.e. a fixed 85% automatic transmissions.
FOREIGN VEHICLES
Foreign vehicles were assumed to be comprised of 10% automatic trans-
mission vehicles.* This was done solely for the purpose of evaluating the
exhaust volume for light duty vehicles (see Appendix J).
* Rose, A. H., Krosteck, W., Emission Factors, June, 1969.
Section 3.13.
166
-------
COMBINED TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION
Using the travel breakdown in Appendix A, the domestic passenger
car distribution (85% automatics) was combined with the foreign vehicle
distribution (10% automatic) to get an average passenger car distribution:
0.92 (Domestic) +0.08 (Foreign) = average passenger car; thus the
average passenger car population is comprised of 79% automatics.
Similarly, this in turn was combined with the light duty truck dis-
tribution (85% automatics) to get the average light duty vehicle distri-
bution:
0.905 (passenger car) + 0.095 (light duty truck) = average light duty
vehicle. Therefore, the average light duty vehicle population was determined
to be comprised of 79.57% automatic transmission vehicles.
167
-------
TABLE H-l.
PASSENGER CAR VEHICLE AGE DISTRIBUTION
Age
(years old)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Older**
Percent of *
Vehicles in Use
10.917
10.451
10.012
9.575
9.117
8.612
8.036
7.365
6.575
5.639
4.536
3.239
1.725
4.201
Cumulative
Percent
10.917
21.368
31.380
40.955
50.072
58.684
66.720
74.085
80.660
86.299
90.835
94.074
95.799
100.000
* % in Use = 10.917 - 0.4877 (AGE) + 0.025722 (AGE)2 - 0.0040763 (AGE)3
Not from equation, but 100 - 95.799
168
-------
in* 'O 10 r.'iu CM. ^;L>O-I'»
K> U* f t. [_ Cb i.^Udfl CO. UAlit IN U.n./i.
&
'.O
;T!TTiiTrij!p!l}!J]I]i!|!|]p:!.
ft !!iili!:l ll* iitiiiiilnii i:|: r
.
-------
TABLE H-2.
PERCENTAGE OF DOMESTIC PASSENGER CARS EQUIPPED WITH AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS
ft
Ypar
1 CC*J-
...
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
A / *^ */
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
Automatics
**
% Sold
39.4
43.1
46.7
50.1
53.3
56.4
59.4
62.2
64.9
67.5
69.9
72.2
74.4
76.4
.78.4
***
% in Use
21.1
25.1
28.9
32.5
36.1
39.6
42.9
46.1
49.3
52.3
55.2
58.0
60.7
63.3
65.8
Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Automatics
% Sold
80.2
82.0
83.6
85.1
86.5
87.9
89.1
90.2
91.3
92.3
93.2
94.0
94.8
95.4
96.1
% in Use
- "-
68.1
70.4
72.6
74.7
76.7
78.6
80.4
82.1
83.8
85.3
86.8
88.1
89.4
90.6
91.7
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
i 1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Automatics
% Soldi
_ -
96.6
97.1
97.5
97.9
98.3
98.5
98.8
99.0
99.2
99.3
99.4
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.6
% in Us£
- i ' " ~
92.7
93.7
94.5
95.3
96.0
96.7
97.3
97.7
98.2
98.5
98.8
99.0
_ _ ,
99.1
99.2
99.2
* Model or calendar year
** % Sold = -414.21 + 15.727 (YEAR) - 0.16027 (YEAR)2 + 0.00054368 (YEAR)3
*** % in Use = -353.14 + 11.528 (YEAR) - 0.091536 (YEAR)2 + 0.00021378 (YEAR)3
where year is 50,51,52, etc.
NPC 4/23/69
170
-------
OOTNOTES - APPENDIX H
"Automobile Facts and Figures - 1968," Automobile Manufacturers Association,
Detroit, Michigan., (1968).
171
-------
APPENDIX J
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE
EXHAUST VOLUME ANALYSIS
172
------- |