United States
Environmental Protection
Agencv
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
EPA 460/3-83-004
September 1983
Air
c/EPA
Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions as a
Function of Alternate Fuels
-------
EPA 460/3-83-004
Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions as a
Function of Alternate Fuels
by
Terry L. Ullman and Charles T. Hare
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68*03-2884
Task Specification 14
EPA Project Officer: Robert J. Garbe
Branch Technical Representative: Thomas M. Baines
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
September 1983
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from
the Library Services Office, Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth
Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas,
in fulfillment of Task Specification No. 14 of Contract No. 68-03-2884.
The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from
Southwest Research Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the
Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of company product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Publication No. EPA 460/3-83-004
11
-------
FOREWORD
The project on which this report is based was initiated by Task Specifi-
cation No. 14 of EPA Contract 68-03-2884, received by SwRI on October 19, 1981.
The contract was for "Basic Characterization Support for the Emission Control
Technology Division." Task Specification No. 14 of that Contract was specifi-
cally for "Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions as a Function of Alternate Fuels."
The work was identified within SwRI as Project No. 11-5830-014.
The Project Officer and the Branch Technical Representative for EPA's
Technology Assessment Branch during the Task Specification were Mr. Robert J.
Garbe and Mr. Thomas M. Baines, respectively. SwRI Project Director was
Mr. Karl J. Springer, and SwRI Project Manager was Mr. Charles T. Hare. The
SwRI Task Leader and principal investigator for the Task Specification No. 14
effort was Mr. Terry L. Ullman. Lead technical personnel were Mr. Patrick
Medola and Mr. Gregory W. Boyd.
We would like to express our appreciation to Mack Trucks, Inc., for
supplying the model EM6-300 test engine for this work. We also appreciate
the assistance of A.E. Staley Co. in supplying the soybean oil used as one
of the test fuels, and the cooperation of the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of
San Antonio in providing the project with used lubricating oil to act as a
fuel blend component.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Laboratory emissions evaluations were performed on a heavy-duty diesel
engine in this program, using a total of five different fuels and fuel blends.
The work was all done with a Mack EM6-300 turbocharged and intercooled engine
mounted on a transient-capable dynamometer. Operating procedures used in-
cluded both the 1984 transient FTP^1)* and 1986 proposed transient FTP^2),
and variations of the 1979 13-mode steady state.^' The base petroleum-derived
fuel was phillips D-2 Control fuel; it was also used as blend stock with
Solvent Refined Coal-II (SRC-II) and Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) middle dis-
tillates, and with used lubricating oil, to form three of the test fuels.
The remaining test fuel was "once refined" soybean oil (A.E. Staley Co.),
run without blending, but heated to 145°C to reduce its viscosity.
Emissions measurements included gaseous and particulate components,
using both direct-stream and dilute sampling for gases, and dilute sampling
(only) for particulate matter. Regulated pollutants measured were total
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide (as
necessary for fuel consumption calculations), visible smoke, and total
particulate mass. Unregulated pollutants measured included aldehydes, phenols,
some individual (low molecular weight) hydrocarbons, and odor index (DOAS) in
exhaust gases. Analysis of particulate matter included sulfate, elemental
composition, size distribution, and total organic soluble mass. The solubles
were further analyzed by determining boiling range, BaP, Ames bioassay, and
HPLC fractionation. Methods used for measurements and analyses were mostly
developed during the course of previous EPA Contracts No. 68-03-1230,(4)
68-02-1777,(5) 68-02-2497,(6) 68-03-2706,<7) and (previously completed) Task
Specifications No. 3 and No. 6 of the subject Contract.(8,9)
Relative to the baseline fuel, the EDS, SRC-II, and lube oil blends had
little effect on currently-regulated gaseous emissions (HC, CO and NOX) or
on BSFC. Similarly, little change was noted for total particulate emissions,
although sulfate emissions were higher as a result of the higher fuel sulfur
contained in the SRC-II and lube oil blends. The soluble organic portion of
the total particulate was about the same level with these alternate fuel
blends as for the baseline D2 fuel. The level of benzo(a)pyrene emissions
for the EDS, SRC-II and lube oil blends was greater than for the baseline
fuel. The Ames response was somewhat higher for the EDS and SRC-II blends.
Substantial quantities of metals were found in the particulate with the used
lubricating oil blend. Gaseous emissions of HC, CO and NOX were lower with
the use of heated soybean oil. The BSFC was substantially increased, as was
the total particulate (which was mostly unburned soybean oil-like material),
especially during light loads. The soluble organic fraction of the total
particulate contained much higher levels of BaP, but the Ames response was
considerably lower than for the baseline fuel when neat soybean oil was used.
*Superscript numbers in parentheses designate references at the end of
this report.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES viii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY 3
III. TEST PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF ENGINE, FUEL AND PROCEDURES 7
A. Test Plan 7
B. Description of Test Engine 7
C. Test Fuel Acquisition, Blending, and Properties 7
D. Test Procedures 16
E. Analytical Procedures 19
IV. RESULTS 27
A. General Test Notes 27
B. Gaseous Emissions 30
C. Particulate Emissions 43
LIST OF REFERENCES 68
APPENDICES
A. Test Results with Baseline Fuel (Phillips D-2, EM-509-F)
B. Test Results with 25 Percent EDS (EM-515-F)
C. Test Results with 25 Percent SRC-II (EM-511-F)
D. Test Results with 5 Percent Lube Oil (EM-517-F)
E. Test Results with Neat Soybean Oil (EM-510-F)
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Front View of Mack EM6-300 with "Test Cell"
Intercooler 9
2 Mack EM6-300 Mounted for Emissions Test Work 9
3 Graphic representation of Torque and Speed Commands for
the 1984 Transient FTP Cycle for a 186.5 kW at 2200 rpm
Diesel Engine 18
4 Secondary Dilution Tunnel for Particulate Mass Rate by
90 mm Filters 21
5 Filter Holders for Large Particulate Sample Acquisition 21
6 Nozzle Tip from Mack EM6-300 after Completion of Testing
with Neat Soybean Oil Heated to 145±6°C 30
7 Modal Particulate from Steady-State Operation of Mack
EM6-300 Engine with Baseline and Alternate Fuels 46
8 Composite of Transient Particle Size Distribution from
the Mack EM6-300 with Baseline and Alternate Fuels 54
9 HPLC Response to SOF from Cold Transient with Baseline
Fuel 60
10 HPLC Response to SOF from Hot Transient with Baseline
Fuel 60
11 HPLC Response to SOF from Cold Transient with EDS Blend 61
12 HPLC Response to SOF from Hot Transient with EDS Blend 61
13 HPLC Response to SOF from Cold Transient with SRC-II Blend 62
14 HPLC Response to SOF from Hot Transient with SRC-II Blend 62
15 HPLC Response to SOF from Cold Transient with Lube Oil
Blend 63
16 HPLC Response to SOF from Hot Transient with Lube Oil
Blend 63
17 HPLC Response to SOF from Cold Transient with Soybean Oil 64
18 HPLC Response to SOF from Hot Transient with Soybean Oil 64
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
1 Summary of Composite Emissions from the Mack EM6-300
on Baseline and Alternate Fuels 4
2 Planned Emission Measurements for Characterization of the
Mack EM6-300 Operated on Each Test Fuel 8
3 Candidate Base Fuel Property Comparison 10
4 Properties of Three Fuel Blending Components 13
5 Properties of Test Fuels Used in Mack EM6-300 14
6 Intake and Exhaust Pressure Parameters for Testing the
Mack EM6-300 27
7 Gaseous Emission Summary from 13-Mode Operation of Mack
EM6-300 Engine 32
8 Regulated Emissions Summary from Transient FTP Operation
of the Mack EM6-300 Engine 35
9 Individual Hydrocarbons from Transient Operation of the
Mack EM6-300 Engine with Baseline and Alternate Fuels 39
10 Summary of Aldehydes from Transient Operation of the
Mack EM6-300 Engine 41
11 Summary of Phenols from Transient Operation of the Mack
EM6-300 Engine 42
12 Summary of TIA by DOAS from Transient Operation of the
Mack EM6-300 Engine 44
13 Particulate Emission Summary from Modal Operation of the
Mack EM6-300 Engine 45
14 Summary of 13-Mode Particulate from Steady-State Operation
of the Mack EM6-300 with Various Test Fuels 47
15 Particulate Summary from Transient Operation of the Mack
EM6-300 Engine with Various Test Fuels 48
16 Summary of Smoke Opacity from the Mack EM6-300 Engine 49
17 Sulfate Emission Summary from Transient FTP Operation of
the Mack EM6-300 Engine with Baseline and Alternate Fuels 51
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D).
Table Page
18 Summary of Elemental Analysis of Total Particulate from
Transient Operation of Mack EM6-300 with Baseline and
Alternate Fuels 52
19 Summary of Solubles in Total Particulate 55
20 Summary of Soluble Organic Fraction from Steady-State
Operation of the Mack EM6-300 with Baseline and Alternate
Fuels 56
21 Summary of Benzo(a)pyrene Emissions from Transient Operation
of the Mack EM6-300 with Baseline and Alternate Fuels 57
22 Boiling Point Distribution of Soluble Organic Fraction
from Transient Operation of the Mack EM6-300 with Baseline
and Alternate Fuels 58
23 Summary of Ames Response to Transient Composite SOF from
the Mack EM6-300 on Baseline and Alternate Fuels 67
IX
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The long-term petroleum supply outlook makes it prudent to characterize
the emissions from combustion of all important alternative fuel and fuel ex-
tender concepts. Among the many effects these concepts may have on trans-
portation and utility engines, their differing compositions are likely to
produce changes in exhaust emissions. These potential changes are the reason
for the research program reported here.
Other Task Specifications of the subject Contract have generated experi-
mental data on alcohol fuels in a heavy-duty direct-injection engine with diesel
fuel pilot-ignition,(9) and on alternative-source fuels and fuel blends in a
light-duty diesel vehicle;(8) and one Work Assignment of another Contract has
resulted in information on methanol combustion in a direct-injection spark-
ignited heavy-duty engine. *• ' These previous efforts have not, however,
covered alternate-source fuel blends, used lubricating oil blends, or vegetable
oils as fuels for heavy-duty diesel engines. This work has been done to fill
this information gap, providing data on the emissions effects of several fuel
or fuel extender options either in use or under active consideration.
This project covers use of a widely-produced vegetable oil (soybean oil),
a blend of 5 percent used lubricating oil in a base petroleum fuel, and blends
of two different coal-derived middle distillates at 25 percent in the base
fuel. The engine used was a modern 4-stroke cycle truck diesel, operated
without modification or adjustment on all the fuels (the soybean oil was run
at elevated fuel temperature, however). The test work was generally of short
duration, so long-term effects of the fuels on deposits or wear could not be
evaluated. Compared to the operation of small research engines or even light-
duty vehicles, tests of large (typical) heavy-duty engines require more fuel.
This factor is important when evaluations of alternate-source materials are
being conducted, because most of the fuels require careful blending and
analysis, both of which are time-consuming and expensive.
We are fortunate that test fuels and components could be made available
for this project with very little cost other than measuring their properties
and negotiating for their acquisition. It will be useful to follow up this
initial screening, however, with further evaluations when additional alter-
native fuels are developed. The coal-derived liquids used in this work did
not represent consumer-ready products, and no suitable liquids from oil shale
or tar sands processing were available.
-------
II. SUMMARY
Emissions from a Mack EM6-300 heavy-duty diesel engine were characterized
over steady-state and transient operation with five different fuels. The base-
line fuel was a DF-2 emissions "control" fuel made by Phillips Petroleum Co.
The other fuels tested in this program were a blend of 25% Exxon Donor Solvent
(EDS) distillate with 75 percent baseline fuel, a blend of 25 percent Solvent
Refined Coal-II (SRC-II) distillate with 75 percent baseline fuel, a blend of
5 percent filtered, used lubricating oil with 95 percent baseline fuel, and
neat soybean oil (at 145±6°C). No changes to the engine or fuel system were
made in order to optimize the usage of any of the test fuels. Regulated
emissions as well as several unregulated exhaust emissions were measured in
order to determine the relative impact of the alternate fuels on exhaust
emissions. Table 1 summarizes the composite values of emissions measured
over the 1979 13-mode steady-state FTP (or 11 modes, where the idle was only
run once) and the 1984 Transient FTP using each of the five test fuels.
Detailed test results may be found in the "Results" section of this report
(Section IV).
Regulated emissions results obtained with the baseline fuel over steady-
state and transient testing were quite similar, although the emissions of HC,
CO, and NOX were slightly higher for transient testing. The BSFC for the
transient test procedure was 13 percent higher than for the steady-state
13-mode test procedure. Both 13-mode and transient HC, CO, and NOX emissions
obtained with the baseline fuel, as well as with the alternate fuels, were
below the level of the 1984 emission standards for heavy-duty diesel engines
(assuming that the 13-mode HC emission standard is revised from 0.5 to 1.0
g/bhp-hr for 1984). Some individual hydrocarbons (low molecular weight hydro-
carbons) , aldehydes, and phenols were measured, and were generally low with
the baseline fuel. In addition to these unregulated emissions, total parti-
culate emissions were also determined over steady-state and transient testing.
The particulate emission level on baseline fuel over the Transient FTP (0.59
g/bhp-hr) was substantially greater than the proposed 1986 emission standard
of 0.25 g/bhp-hr, but it was representative of most conventional heavy-duty
diesel engines. Total particulate emitted during transient operation was
analyzed for sulfate, and the soluble organic fraction (SOF) was also deter-
mined. The SOF was analyzed for benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), and for relative
bioactivity by the Ames test. In addition, the boiling point distribution
and the presence of polar, transitional, and non-polar compounds in the SOF
were determined.
With the EDS fuel blend compared to base fuel, no significant difference
was noted for either HC or CO emissions under either steady-state or transient
operation. Emissions of NOX increased by 12 and 9.4 percent over steady-state
and transient testing with the EDS blend, respectively. No change in BSFC
was noted from baseline values. Slight increases in individual hydrocarbon
and aldehyde levels were noted with the EDS blend. An increase in phenols
with this alternate fuel was due to an increase in phenols over the hot-start
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF COMPOSITE EMISSIONS FROM THE MACK EM6-300
ON BASELINE AND ALTERNATE FUELS
Fuel
. Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
Hydrocarbons , HC
gAW-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Carbon Monoxide, CO
gAW-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Oxides of Nitrogen, N0xb
gAW-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
kg fuelAW-hr, (Ib/hp-hr)
Unregulated Emissions
Total Individual HC
mgAW-hr
Total Adlehydes
mgAW-hr
Total Phenols
mgAW-hr
Total Particulate3
gAW-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Sulfate, S04~
mgAW-hr, (% of Particulate)
Soluble Organic Fraction (SOP)
mgAW-hr, (% of Particulate)
BaP
JJgAW-hr
Ames Response0
(10 3 rev./plate)AW-hr
Emissions by Fuel and Test Procedure
Baseline
Phillips 2D
13-Mode
0.85
(0.63)
3.25
(2.42)
10.05
(7.50)
0.233
(0.383)
Transient
0.90
(0.67)
4.45
(3.32)
10.18
(7.59)
0.263
(0.432)
.—
—
—
0.63a
(0.47)
—
1403
(22%)
—
—
76
7.5
2.2
0.79
(0.59)
37
(4.7%)
130
(16%)
0.12
80
25% EDS
•*• Phillips 2D
13J-Mode
0.84
(0.63)
2.93
(2.19)
11.27
(8.40)
0.234
(0.385)
Transient
0.88
(0.66)
4.35
(3.24)
11.14
(8.31)
0.262
(0.431)
25% SRC-II
+ Phillips 2D
13-Mode
0.91
(0.68)
3.44
(2.56)
11.33
(8.45)
0.235
(,0. 386)
Transient
0.84
(0.62)
4.91
(3.66)
12.31
(9.18)
0.266
(0.438)
5% Lube Oil
+ Phillips 2D
13-Mode
1.04
(0.78)
2.68
(2.00)
10.33
(7.71)
0.232
(0.381)
Transient
0.98
(0.73)
4.29
(3.20)
10.74
(8.01)
0.264
(0.434)
100% Soybean
Oil @ 145°C
13-Mode
0.43
(0.32)
2.64
(1.97)
9.21
(6.87)
0.275
(0.452)
Transient
0.49
(0.37)
4.04
(3.01)
7.82
(5.84)
0.301
(0.494)
—
—
—
0.62*
(0.46)
~
ISO*
(24%)
~
—
82
11
9.0
0.70
(0.53)
27
(3.9%)
140
(19%)
0.61
100
~
'
—
0.603
(0.45)
—
140a
(23%)
~
—
50
6.1
7.6
0.67
(0.50)
49
(7.3%)
150
(22%)
0.49
87
— -
—
—
0.7la
(0.53)
—
140a
(20%)
—
—
58
6.0
4.8
0-.83--
(0.63)
54
(7.0%)
130
(16%)
0.33
77
~
— •
~
0.563
(0.42)
~
2703
(48%)
—
~
170
9.0
4.5
•0.93
(0.73)
0
(0%)
570
(59%)
4.7
22
.Based on 11-modes (idle run once)
cBased on continuous measurement. Bag measurement also taken.
Average of brake specific response with and without metabolic
activation from all 5 strains
-------
transient test. Although no difference in the level of total particulate
emissions was noted for steady-state testing, total particulate decreased
by 11 percent over transient operation with the EDS blend. A 27 percent
reduction in sulfate emissions was likely due to the 21 percent lower fuel
sulfur content of the EDS fuel blend. There was very little difference in
the relative portion of soluble organic fraction present in particulate from
operation with the EDS blend; but the BaP emission level was 5 times that
with the baseline fuel, and the Ames response was notably higher.
A blend of 25 percent SRC-II with 75 percent baseline D2 fuel resulted
in no significant change for either HC or CO emissions. Using this higher
nitrogen content SRC-II fuel blend,, emissions of NOX over the steady-state
and transient testing increased by 13 and 21 percent, respectively.
Although the BSFC over both test procedures appeared to increase slightly,
the change was within the range of test-to-test variability. Individual
hydrocarbons and aldehydes were generally reduced, but phenol emissions
were greater than those obtained with the baseline fuel. Total particulate
was 4.8 and 15 percent less than obtained over steady-state and transient
testing with the baseline fuel, respectively. Although total particulate
decreased with the SRC-II fuel blend, the sulfate increased by 32 percent,
likely due to the 17 percent higher sulfur content of this alternate fuel
blend. Very little change was noted in the amount of SOF in particulate.
The BaP emission level was about 4 times that obtained with the baseline
fuel. The Ames response was slightly greater than that obtained with base
fuel.
With a blend of 5 percent filtered lubricating oil and 95 percent baseline
fuel, the HC emissions increased by 23 percent, and the CO emissions decreased
by 17 percent for the 13-mode steady-state testing. Although these same trends
appeared over transient testing, the minimal changes in HC and CO emissions
noted were within the range of test-to-test variability. Both test procedures
indicated a trend toward higher NOX emission with the lube oil blend, but the
slightly higher values were within the range of test-to-test variability. No
change in BSFC was noted. Levels of individual hydrocarbons and aldheydes
were slightly below, while phenols were above, the levels obtained with the
baseline fuel. Although a 13 percent increase in particulate over the modal
test procedure occurred, only an insignificant increase in particulate over
the transient test cycle was noted. Sulfate was 46 percent higher with the
lube oil blend, despite little difference in the amount of sulfur contained in
the fuel blend (0.23 for baseline vs. 0.24 wt.% for lube oil blend). In
addition to more sulfate, elemental analysis of the total particulate indicated
substantial quantities of metals and other lube oil-related elements in the
particulate. The SOF emissions were the same as obtained for the baseline
fuel, but the BaP level doubled, and the Ames response was essentially the
same as found for the base fuel.
The engine was also tested with neat soybean oil, heated to 145°C in order
to achieve a viscosity similar to that of the baseline diesel fuel. Although
the engine operated well on this heated fuel, the maximum power obtained
without adjusting the fuel injection system was reduced by 20 percent. Brake
-------
specific HC emissions dropped by an average of 47 percent over both steady-
state and transient testing. This reduction in HC emission was somewhat
surprising, and was likely due to the relatively high boiling point of the
neat soybean oil. Much of the unburned or partially oxidized fuel probably
did not reach the heated flame ionization detector, because the heated sampling
train (190°C) for HC includes two heated filters which could have collected
the unburned soybean oil as particulate. The emission of CO decreased by 19
and 9 percent over the 13-mode and transient test procedures, respectively.
Decreases of 8 and 23 percent were noted for NOX emissions over the 13-mode
and transient test procedures with the neat soybean oil, respectively. Most
of this reduction may have been due to a longer ignition delay which effec-
tively retarded the timing. The BSFC increased by 18 and 14 percent over
the 13-mode and transient test procedures. Individual hydrocarbons were
substantially higher, mostly the emissions of ethylene, propylene and benzene.
Aldehydes were only slightly higher than obtained with the baseline fuel.
Although the phenol emissions were almost doubled compared to those obtained
with the baseline fuel, the level was still very low.
Total particulate for the 13-mode test procedure was 11 percent lower with
soybean oil than with the baseline fuel, due to reductions in total particulate
during heavy load conditions which more than offset increased particulate
emitted during light load conditions. Full load smoke opacity was reduced by
about one-third, but higher smoke opacities were noted for light load con-
ditions. The total particulate for the transient test procedure was 24 percent
higher with the soybean oil than with the baseline fuel, due to higher total
particulate emissions for the light load conditions which are prevalent in the
transient engine exercise. No sulfate was detected, since the neat soybean oil
contained no sulfur. Likewise, no metals or similar contaminants were found
in quantity from elemental analysis of the total particulate. The soluble
organic fraction of the total particulate was relatively high for both steady-
state and transient operation with soybean oil. Most of the SOF was found at
the light loads, which is typical, but substantial quantities were also noted
during the relatively high load conditions, particularly during rated speed.
operation. This SOF made up 59 percent of the total particulate collected
over the transient test procedure. The boiling point distribution of the SOF
and that of the soybean oil were similar, which, along with the relatively
high hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the total particulate, indicates that the
SOF was unburned or partially oxidized soybean oil. Emissions of BaP were
39 times those obtained with the baseline fuel. The brake specific Ames re-
sponse was very low, relative to the levels obtained with the base fuel or
the EDS blend, despite the relatively high BaP levels indicated.
This work has shown that alternate fuel blends may be used to extend the
supply of diesel fuel by using EDS middle distillates, SRC-II, or filtered,
used lubricating oil. For the Mack EM6-300, these fuel extenders were used
without penalty to BSFC or significant increase in currently-regulated gaseous
emissions. The test engine also operated well on neat, heated soybean oil,
confirming the wide range of hydrocarbons which can be utilized for "diesel
fuel." Although neat soybean oil could be provided as an alternate fuel, in-
creased BSFC and the significant increases in total particulate (mostly unburned
fuel species) would result, at least in the absence of compensating injection
system changes or adjustments which were beyond the scope of this effort.
-------
III. TEST PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF ENGINE, FUEL AND PROCEDURES
The intent of this program was to characterize regulated gaseous emissions
along with particulate and unregulated emissions from a Mack EM6-300 operated
on baseline Phillips D-2 Control fuel, 25 percent EDS with 75 percent baseline
fuel, 25 percent SRC-II with 75 percent baseline fuel, 5 percent lube oil with
95 percent baseline fuel, and neat soybean oil heated to 145°C. This section
describes the test plan used in the program. Some of the pertinent engine
specifications will be presented. Properties for the fuel blends and the neat
soybean oil will also be given. Procedures are described, including both the
test procedures used to generate and acquire emission samples and the analytical
procedures used to characterize the emission samples.
A. Test Plan
The planned program included emission measurements of both regulated and
unregulated emissions for the engine in an "as-received" condition with the
baseline test fuel. The engine was tested over both steady-state and transient
operation. Table 2 illustrates the extent of emissions characterization per-
formed on each of the five test fuels.
B. Description of Test Engine
Figures 1 and 2 show the Mack .EM6-300 engine mounted as operated on a
transient-capable dynamometer. The EM6-300 is marketed as a "high efficiency"
heavy-duty diesel engine. A portion of the improved efficiency over previous
models is derived from the use of a charge-air intercooler. This intercooler
resembles a radiator, and is normally mounted in front of the engine water
coolant radiator in a truck installation. For test purposes, Mack has developed
a test cell version of this intercooler using cooling water so that fan power
does not enter in as a test variable. This test cell intercooler is shown
beside the engine in Figure 1.
The test engine was of a six cylinder in-line configuration with direct
injection, turbocharged and intercooled, and it developed 230 kW (308 hp) at
a rated speed of 2100 rpm with maximum fuel flow of 53.1 kg fuel/hr (117 Ib
fuel/hr) on the baseline fuel (Phillips D-2). The engine developed 1504 N»m
(1109 ft-lb) of torque at an intermediate speed of 1260 rpm with fuel flow of
41.8 kg fuel/hr (92 Ib fuel/hr). The engine utilized an air operated (90 psi)
aneroid valve to reduce smoke emissions during rapid "throttle" movements to
higher power.
C. Test Fuel Acquisition, Blending, and Properties
Fuel used in this project included a base No. 2 petroleum diesel fuel,
a soybean oil, and base fuel mixtures with two different coal-derived dis-
tillates and a used lubricating oil. Criteria for selection of the base and
alternate-source fuels and blending components, as well as the used oil "fuel
extender," are given in this section.
-------
TABLE 2. PLANNED EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FOR
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE MACK EM6-300 OPERATED ON EACH TEST FUEL
Exhaust Constituents (s)
Measured or Characterized
Visible Smoke, PHSa
Regulated Gaseous Emissions
Individual Hydrocarbons
Aldehydes
Phenols
Odor Index, DOAS
Particulate Characterization
Mass
Size Distribution
C and H
Metal Content
Sulfate
Characterization of
Solubles in Particulate
Mass
Boiling Range
BaP
Ames Bioassay
HPLC Fractionation
Test Sequences
Transients
Cold Hot
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
V
V
/
V
/
/
V
/
2
/
/
/
— v
1
1
<
/
/
V
V
/
v
/
/
V
/
/
V
2
/
/
/
c
13-M
1
/
V
/b
/b
ode
2
V
/b
(Full)
Power
Curve
/
Run Federal smoke also, if testing performed on capable dynamometer
Determined for 11 modes (idle only run once)
, One composite sample for transient
Qualitative determination of aromatic, transitional, and oxygenated
fractions
-------
Figure 1. Front view of Mack EM6-300 with "test cell" intercooler
Figure 2. Mack EM6-300 mounted for emissions test work
-------
1. Selection of Fuels and Blending Components
The base fuel chosen for this Task Specification was Phillips "Diesel
Control Fuel D-2," and it was obtained from Phillip's Lot C-504. The Task
Technical Officer made this selection from fuels on hand at SwRl based on a
comparison of properties from various sources as given in Table 3. Properties
TABLE 3. CANDIDATE BASE FUEL PROPERTY COMPARISON
Fuel
Fuel Code
Gravity, "API
Viscosity, cS
Sulfur, wt. %
Cetane Number (D613)
Cetane Index (D976-80)
IBP, °C
10% point, °C
50% point, °C
90% point, °C
EP, °C
Aromatics, %
Supply on hand, gal
DOE 1981
Average
2D<1D
__
34.9
2.72
0.28
45.6
45.6
192
222
261
308
335
no data
—
2D Emissions
EM-487-F
35.9
2.49
0.26
no data
45.3
179
214
252
299
333
32.8
5500
Local Gulf
2D
EM-409-F
39.6
2.30
0.23
no data
50.7
176
201
248
311
344
22.0
1700
Phillips
Control D2,
Lot C-504
EM-498-F,
EM-509-F
35.7
2.44
0.25
46.3
46.2
200
224
257
296
323
29.8
600
Old Base
2D
EM-329-F
37.5
2.36
0.24
50
49.9
191
219
260
307
340
21.3
300
of the Phillips fuel given in this table were from Phillips' batch analysis.
Both fuel EM-487-F and the Phillips Control D2 are quite close to the properties
of the average 1981 D2 as reported by DOE's most recent national summary. ^^
The Phillips fuel was chosen because of its current availability and widespread
use, providing possibly the best comparability to other studies.
The other test fuels for this program were planned as follows:
• a vegetable oil
• a blend of used lubricating oil with base fuel
• two fuels containing the maximum practical amounts of
coal- or shale-derived components not already evaluated
in a heavy-duty engine.
10
-------
Consultation with other research personnel at the Intitute about vegetable
oils was conducted, following up on work already published.(12,13,14,15,16,17)
Oils considered for use included:
• sunflower oil
• soybean oil
• peanut oil
• transesterified cottonseed oil
• used (generic) frying oil
It was decided that the used frying oil posed too many problems for use,
primarily due to potential animal fat content. The transesterified cottonseed
oil was a strong candidate, since its properties were more like a diesel fuel's
than the other oils'; but the economics and potential acceptability of the
transesterification process were not considered well enough known to justify
using our experimental effort on it at this time. Although the overall energy
balance for production of sunflower oil may be better in some locations,
soybean oil was chosen for this project because it is currently produced in
larger amounts and in more areas of the country than the other oils.
Soybean oil is available in bulk with several degrees of processing.
These products are known as "crude," "degummed," "once refined," and "hydro-
treated" soybean oils. The material chosen for this program was once refined
soybean oil, made available on a gratis basis by A.E. Staley Company. Although
this oil can be used in a diesel engine without modifications, it reportedly
tends to cause accumulation of gummy deposits, leading to engine damage after
relatively short periods. It has been found that heating the oil to reduce
its viscosity and improve its spray pattern is beneficial,(13) so it was
decided to heat the oil to 145°C at the fuel pump.
Regarding the mixture of used lubricating oil with diesel fuel,
interest in this material as a fuel stems from a practice followed by some
diesel vehicle fleets for both fuel economy and oil disposal purposes.(18,19,20)
The most commonly used concentration of used lubricating oil in fuel seems to
be about 5% by volume, so it was decided to adopt this level for our work. Oil
selection criteria included use (normal drain interval mileage) in long-haul
diesel fleet operation, availability of oil type and usage history information,
and relative freedom from contamination by water, ethylene gylcol, and other
substances.
At the time this project was conducted, the only coal-derived pro-
ducts available for testing were SRC-II and EDS middle distillates, and EDS
naphtha. The only oil shale product available was Paraho diesel fuel-marine.
The two coal-derived middle distillates were chosen as blending components
for this work because the naphtha would be used more logically as a gasoline
blending component, and because the shale fuel was a specification-quality
product not expected to produce emissions substantially different from those
produced on base fuel.(8f2D The 25% blending level chosen for the two coal-
derived products was based on experience in another phase of 'this Contract.'°'
11
-------
Properties of the used lubricating oil and the coal liquids used as
blending components are given in Table 4, not to be confused with properties
of the final fuel blends. Additional information on the used oil (EM-512-A)
was obtained by infrared spectroscopy, and this analysis showed a trace of
water or ethylene glycol, normal zinc-containing (ZDDP) and sulfonate additives,
and little or no oxidation or nitration. The x-ray analysis indicated small
amounts of phosphorus, chlorine, and iron, plus a trace of lead, in addition
to the sulfur and metals shown in Table 4.
The coal liquids from the SRC-II (EM-472-F) and EDS (EM-480-F) pro-
cesses are highly aromatic, quite dense, contain a lot of gum, and have low
cetane numbers. The SRC-II distillate also has substantial oxygen content,
and the EDS distillate has heavy ends which can not be quantified by ASTM D86
distillation. Both coal liquids are considered hazardous to handle, they have
strong odors, and they are very dark in color. They are currently considered
as only a first attempt to make combustible liquids from coal, and not to be
products ready for consumer use.
2. Detailed Properties of Test Fuels
Properties of the base fuel and the four alternate or blended fuels
are given in Table 5. Almost all these data are from analysis conducted at
SwRI, and a few entries for the base fuel differ slightly from the Phillips
data given in Table 3 with the discussion of the fuel selection criteria.
Starting with cetane numbers, the fuel with the poorest probable ignition
quality appears to be 25% SRC-II in base fuel, EM-511-F. This blend indicates
that the 1SRC-II depresses cetane more than would be expected from linear inter-
polation between the cetane numbers of the components. The same trend also
holds for the EDS blend (EM-515-F), but to a much lesser extent. The 5%
lubricating oil blended into EM-517-F affected cetane number only slightly.
The soybean oil's cetane number at standard D613 test conditions (fuel tem-
perature 38°C) was just under 40, and it apparently went up about 3 points
with elevated fuel temperature of 145°C. This modest change may have resulted
from differences in spray geometry caused by viscosity decrease, from shortening
of ignition delay,^^) or a combination of these and other factors. In either
case, however, the soybean oil did have ignition quality sufficiently good to
be used (for brief periods at least) as a fuel in a diesel engine.
Densities of all the fuels were measured using standard hydrometers
at 60°F (16°C), indicating that all four test fuels were more dense than the
base fuel.- For the three blends, densities were as expected based on components
used. For the soybean oil, density was approximately 9% greater than base
fuel when measured at equal temperatures. When projected linearly to the
temperature (145°C) at which the soybean oil was actually tested, using density
data from the literature,<13) its density decreased to 0.839 g/m£. This value
is about equal to the base fuel's expected density at normal fuel temperatures.
Viscosities of the test fuel blends are in the expected ranges given
their constituents, but the values for the coal liquid blends are in the inverse
12
-------
TABLE 4. PROPERTIES OF THREE FUEL BLENDING COMPONENTS
Material Description
Material Code
Gravity, "API
Density, g/m&
Viscosity, cS
Cetane No. , D613
Distillation, D86, °C-IBP
5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP
recovery, %
Gum, mg/100 m£
Carbon , %
Hydrogen , %
Nitrogen, %
Oxygen , %
Sulfur, %
Metals (x-ray)
Aromatics , %
Olefins, %
Paraffins , %
Total Acid No. , mg/g
Total Base No., mg/g
Used Lubricating
Oil, 10w-40
EM-512-A
26.1
0.898
177. @ 40°C
17.6 @ 100°C
a
0.44
0.13%Zn, 0.04%Ca
4.07
3.51
SRC-II Middle Dis-
tillate from Coal
EM-472-F
14.3
0.970
3.68 @ 38°C
16
178
192
202
211
217
224
230
236
244
252
261
270
297
99.0
156.9
86.2
8.6
0.83
3.9
0.27
88.3
0.6
11.0
— — —
EDS Middle Distil-
late from Coal
EM-480-F
18.6
0.943
3.30 @ 38°C
23
209
220
223
231
237
247
260
274
291
311
348
not reached
not reached
94.0
228.6
88.6
10.7
0.08
not detected
0.01
83.7
0.0
16.3
— —
not measured
13
-------
TABLE 5. PROPERTIES OF TEST FUELS USED IN MACK EM6-300
Fuel
Fuel Code
Cetane Number (D613)
Cetane Number @ 145°C
Cetane Index (D976-80)
Gravity, "API @ 16°C
Density, g/mjl @ 16 °C
Viscosity, cS @ 40°C
Viscosity, cS @ 145 °C
Gum, mg/100 mi (D481)
Total Solids, mg/H (D2276)
Flash Point, °C
Cloud Point, °C (D2500)
Aromatic s , vol . %
Olefins, vol.% (D1319)
Paraffins, vol.% (balance)
Carbon , wt . %
Hydrogen, wt. %
Oxygen , wt . %
Nitrogen, ppm (oxid. pyrol.)
Sulfur, wt.% (D1266-70)
Iron, ppm
Zinc, wt. %
Distillation, °C(D86)-IBP
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP
residue , %
Distillation, "C -IBP
(2887) 5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP
(Base) Phillips
D2 "Control,"
Lot C-504
EM-509-F
48.9
a
46.5
35.6
0.847
2.38
0.6
5.9
75
-17
31.0
1.2
67.8
87.7
12.9
0.06
80
0.23
16
192
222
233
242
252
259
267
276
285
298
311
327
1.0 (loss 0)
114
193
209
232
248
260
272
282
293
305
320
332
364
Staley "Once-
Refined" Soy-
bean Oil
EM-510-F
39.3
42.9
21.7
0.924
30.6 ,
2.71b
«__
approx . 10
320
-1
77.6
11.5
9.90
not detected
not detected
11
-T--
361
539
563
586
594
600
606
610
614
620
627
644
681
25% SRC-II
Middle Dist.
in Base
EM-511-F
34.0
34.9
29.8
0.877
2.44
51.4
38.1
44.5
1.4
54.1
86.5
12.0
1.23
2200
0.27
58
187
211
222
232
241
249
258
267
277
293
303
318
l.KlossO.9)
120
188
203
222
239
252
263
274
285
298
314
327
367
25% EDS
Middle Dist.
in Base
EM-515-F
40.6
37.4
29.9
0.877
2.56
39.2
19.6
42.4
0
57.6
87.4
12.4
0.24
270
0.18
13
206
224
232
241
250
258
267
276
287
303
319
351
1.5Q.oss 0.5)
124
198
211
231
247
260
272
284
296
308
325
341
410
^analysis not performed due to inapplicability or lack of usefulness
5% Used
Lubricating
Oil in Base
EM-517-F
48.0
46.2
35.2
0.849
2.77
1513.3
880.
86.7
13.0
0.15
110
0.24
14
. 0.07
201
223
235
244
252
261
269
278
289
308
327
327
3.0(loss 0)
126
193
211
228
241
254
266
278
292
309
332
360
555
projected by least squares from data taken at 20, 40, and 100°C
14
-------
of their expected rank order. The neat SRC-II middle distillate had higher
viscosity than the EDS, but its blend with the base fuel had lower viscosity
than the EDS blend. The 5% lubricating oil blend showed a higher viscosity
than either coal liquid blend. Soybean oil (EM-510-F) had much higher viscosity
at 40°C than the other fuels, but heating it to 145°C brought its viscosity into
the normal No. 2 diesel fuel range. The high-temperature viscosity value was
projected from data at 20, 40, and 100°C via a logarithmic equation relating
temperature and viscosity.
Data on gum content of test fuels, as determined by ASTM D381, show
a wide variation between near-zero and something over 1500 mg per 100 m&. The
procedure used was designed for gasblines and jet fuels, and its importance in
this study is questionable. It is Isupposed to determine residues after fuel
evaporation by a steam jet at 232 to 246°C, but some components of the test
fuel blends used in this project may not be properly classified as gum even
though they did not evaporate under the specified analysis conditions.
Analysis for hydrocarbon type composition was attempted on the
lubricating oil mix (EM-517-F), but fluorescence zones were not discernible
due to the sample's extremely dark color. It is quite certain, however,
that the oil blend has paraffins a bit higher and aromatics a little lower
than base fuel. The FIA analysis was not attempted for the soybean oil
(EM-510-F) because it is not applicable.
Soybean oil consists mostly of triglycerides of oleic, linoleic,
and linolenic fatty acids (23.6%, 56.7%, and 4.2% by weight, respectively,
for our material). Saturated acids are usually about 14% in soybean oil and
free fatty acids under 1%. In essence, then, the soybean oil is made up
mostly of eighteen-carbon chains having from zero to three double bonds,
attached to gylcerin molecules in groups of three with six oxygen atoms per
molecule. If the soybean oil consisted entirely of triglycerides of linoleic
acid (the most abundant fatty acid), it would have a simplified molecular
formula of CryHggOg. This hypothetical "typical" molecule consists of 77.9
weight % carbon, 11.2 weight % hydrogen, and 10.9 weight % oxygen, which
compares quite closely to the actual elemental analysis of the EM-510-F
soybean oil.
The base fuel and the three blends were roughly 10% higher in carbon
content and almost that much loWer in oxygen content than the soybean oil, as
expected with materials more like pure hydrocarbons. The three blends had
somewhat more oxygen than the base fuel, with the SRC-II blend being highest
in oxygen. This result for SRC-II was as expected, given its 3.9% oxygen
content in neat form. Sulfur was almost constant among the base fuel and
blends, but below detectable limits for the soybean oil. Nitrogen was moderate
or low for all the fuels except the SRC-II blend (EM-511-F), which contained
2200 ppm (0.22%), derived almost entirely from the SRC-II material.
Distillation and simulated distillation data showed all the fuels
except the soybean oil to have volatility mostly similar to commercial diesel
fuels. The lubricating oil in EM-517-F showed up as residue in the D86 test,
15
-------
but as a small concentration in an extremely high-boiling range in the high-
temperature D2887 test. As expected, the EM-510-F soybean oil displayed lower
volatility than the other fuels. In order to obtain results at all, the
soybean oil was diluted 50% with carbon disulfide and run in a shorter-than-
normal GC column.
D. Test Procedures
Emissions from the Mack EM6-300 engine were measured during both steady-
state and transient engine exercises. Steady-state operation and measurement
techniques were based on the 1979 13-mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP).(3)
Transient operation and measurement techniques were based on the 1984 FTP
and 1986 Proposed FTP, which includes particulate.d'2)
The 13-mode test procedure is an engine emission test cycle which con-
sists of 13 individual modes of steady-state operation. Starting with a fully
warmed engine, the first mode is an idle condition. This idle is then followed
by 2, 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent load at intermediate speed followed by another
idle mode, then to rated spee<3 - 100, 75, 50, 25, and 2 percent of ful-1 load,
followed by a final idle mode. Intake air, fuel, and power output are monitored
along with other data to be used in calculating modal emission rates. Com-
posite 13-mode emissions are calculated on the basis of modal weighting factors
as specified in the Federal Register.(3)
Transient engine operation was performed in accordance with the 1984
Transient FTP for'Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines.(1) The procedure specifies a
transient engine exercise of variable speed and load, depending on the power
output capabilities of the test engine. The cycle requires relatively rapid
dynamometer control, capable of loading the engine one moment and motoring
it the next. The system used in this program consisted of a GE 200 hp
motoring/250 hp absorbing dynamometer coupled to a Midwest 500 hp eddy current
(absorbing) dynamometer, with a suitable control system fabricated in-house.
The 1984 Transient cycle is described in the Federal Register by means
of percent torque and percent rated speed for each one-second interval, over
a test cycle of 1199 seconds duration. The 20-minute transient cycle,
developed from heavy-duty truck data, is composed of four five-minute
segments. The four segments are described below:
.- Transeint Cycle
Segment Time, sec,
New York Non-Freeway (NYNF) 297.
Los Angeles Non-Freeway (LANF) 300.
Los Angeles Freeway (LAF) 305.
New York Non-Freeway (NYNF) 297.
In order to generate the transient cycle for the Mack engine, the engine's
full power curve was obtained from 400 rpm to maximum no ibad engine speed.
16
-------
Data from this "power curve", or engine map, were used in conjunction with
the specified speed and load percentages to form the transient cycle. As
an example, a graphic presentation of speed and torque commands which con-
stituted an FTP transient cycle for a 250 hp diesel engine is given in
Figure 3. For this example, the resulting cycle work was 11.68 kW-hr
(15.66 hp hr) based on a peak torque of 880 N*m (650 ft Ibs) and a rated
speed of 2200 rpm. The relatively large negative torque commands shown
in the figure are to insure that the "throttle," or rack control, goes
closed for motoring operation.
The two NYNF segments, which are the initial and final cycle segments
of the transient cycle, together contain approximately 23 percent of the
total reference work called for by the transient cycle. The LANF segment
contains 20 percent and the LAF contains 57 percent of the total transient
cycle reference work. This comparison illustrates that most of the work is
produced during the LAF cycle segment.
The transient cycle is perceived as a lightly-loaded duty cycle. The
average duty cycle over the entire transient cycle is approximately 20 percent
of available engine power. The NYNF only calls for an average of 9 percent
of the maximum power available from the engine; whereas the LANF calls for
approximately 15 percent and the LAF requires about 45 percent. In addition,
each NYNF segment contains 165 seconds of idle and 27 seconds of motoring,
the LANF segment contains 98 seconds of idle and 79 seconds of motoring, and
the LAF segment contains 11 seconds of idle and 45 seconds of motoring.
Of the 1199 seconds of the transient cycle, closed rack commands account
for 617 seconds. Therefore, the engine must attempt to produce the reference
cycle work within the remaining 582 seconds. These statistics mean that the
engine has to produce an equivalent of 40 percent of its maximum power for
the remaining "non-idle" time of the cycle (582 seconds). These observations
for the transient test stress the relative importance of pollutant emissions
during idle, accelerations and medium- to light-load conditions.
A Transient FTP Test consists of a cold-start transient cycle and a hot-
start transient cycle. The same engine control or command cycle is used in
both cases. For the cold-start, the engine was operated over a "prep" cycle,
then allowed to stand overnight in an ambient soak temperature of 20 to 30°C
(68 to 86°F). The cold-start transient cycle begins when the engine is cranked
for cold start-up. Upon completion of the cold-start transient cycle, the
engine is shut down and allowed to stand for 20 minutes. After this hot soak
period, the hot-start cycle begins with engine cranking.
All engines react somewhat differently to the transient cycle commands,
due to both cycle and engine characteristics. In order to judge how wel.l
the engine follows the transient cycle command, engine responses are com-
pared to engine commands using least squares regression techniques, and several
statistics are computed. According to the Federal Register, the following
regression line tolerances should be met:
17
-------
NYNF
297 sec,
LAP
305 sec,
LANF
300 sec.
NYNF
297 sec.
700
500
00
300
200
100
-100
-200
-300
2500 r
1200
1100 1000
300
700 600 500
TIME, SECONDS
100
300
200
100
Figure 3. Graphic representation of torque and speed commands for the
1984 Transient FTP cycle for a 186.5 kW at 2200. rpm diesel engine
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
- 2500
2000
1500
1000
500
-------
REGRESSION LINE TOLERANCES
Standard Error of
Estimate (SE) of Y on X
Slope of the
Regression Line, M
Coefficient of
Determination, R
Y Intercept of the
Regression Line, B
Speed
100 rpm
0.970
1.030
0.9700 I/
±50 rpm
Torque
13% of Maximum
Engine Torque
0,83-1.03 Hot
0.77-1.03 Cold
0.8800 (Hot) I/
0.8500 (Cold) I/
±15 ft Ibs
Brake Horsepower
8% of Maximum
Brake Horsepower
0.89-1.02 (Hot)
0.87-1.03 (Cold)
0.9100 I/
±5.0 of brake
horsepower
I./ Minimum
In addition to these statistical parameters, the actual cycle work produced
should not be more than 5 percent above, or 15 percent below, the work
requested by the command cycle.
If the statistical criteria are not met, then adjustments to throttle
servo linkage, torque span points, speed span points, and gain to and from
error feedback circuits can be made in order to modify both the engine output
and the dynamometer loading/motoring characteristics. After completion of
the cold-start and the hot-start transient cycles, transient composite emissions
results are computed by the following:
Brake Specific _ 1/7 (Mass Emissions, Cold) +
Emissions
6/7 (Mass Emissions, Hot)
1/7 (Cycle Work, Cold) + 6/7 (Cycle Work, Hot)
The engine was also operated over the 1979 Smoke FTP exercise. It
essentially consists of a 5-minute idle followed by full throttle acceleration
to rated speed, and finally, a full throttle lug-down from rated speed to
intermediate speed. This transient smoke test cycle was run only for the
measurement of visible smoke emissions.
E. Analytical Procedures
The analytical systems used for each category of emission measurements
are described in this section. The section is divided into two parts, the
first dealing with gaseous emissions characterization and the second with
total particulate emissions and the constituents of the total particulate.
Gaseo.us emissions included HC, CO, CO2, NOX, and some unregulated pollutants.
Unregulated gaseous emissions included individual hydrocarbons, aldehydes,
phenols, and odor. Particulate emissions included determination of the total
particulate mass, and its content of metals, carbon and hydrogen. The size
19
-------
distribution of the particles was determined, as well as the fraction soluble
in methylene chloride. This soluble fraction was characterized for BaP con-
tent, bioactivity by the Ames test, boiling point distribution, fractionation
(by relative molecular polarity), and for carbon and hydrogen content.
During steady-state or modal engine exercises, regulated and some unre-
gulated gaseous emissions can be sampled from the raw exhaust stream since a
representative and proportional sample can be obtained. Obtaining proportional
samples during transient engine operation required the use of a constant volume
sampler (CVS).'^-'2) All transient cycle test work run for regulated emissions
of HC, CO, NOX as well as particulate was conducted with a main tunnel flow of
2000 SCFM, which provided approximately a 4:1 cycle dilution ratio of the total
exhaust introduced. Unregulated gaseous emissions of aldehydes, individual
hydrocarbons, phenols, and odor were sampled from the primary tunnel during
the transient testing. During these runs for regulated emissions, particulate
mass emissions were determined by use of a small secondary dilution tunnel.
This small secondary tunnel, shown in Figure 4, is attached to the primary
tunnel and dilutes the primary dilute exhaust further to an overall ratio of
about 12:1. The small secondary dilution tunnel was operated at approximately
4 SCFM total flow in order to collect particulate on two 90 mm T60A20 Pallflex
filters, in series. Weight gains from these two filters were used to determine
the total particulate mass emission from the engine.
In order to obtain large particulate samples and for particle sizing
during transient operation, the primary tunnel was operated as a single-
dilution CVS. To obtain approximately a 12:1 dilution ratio, the CVS flow
was increased to about 5000 SCFM during the transient cycle which permitted
collection of large quantities of particulate on 20x20 inch filters.
Large filter holders and the associated tunnel are shown in Figure 5.
This same CVS system was used to collect particulate samples from steady-state
operation of the engine, by altering the secondary dilution tunnel flow to
accommodate the total exhaust from the engine without exceeding 52°C (125°F)
at the particulate filter face.
1. Gaseous Emissions
Regulated gaseous emissions of HC, CO, and NOX were measured according
to the 1979 13-mode FTP and the 1984 transient FTP. The regulated emissions
along with C02 were determined from raw exhaust samples taken during the 13-mode
steady-state procedure. These same four constituents were determined in dilute
exhaust samples taken during the transient procedure. The transient procedure
required that HC be determined from integration of continuous concentration
monitoring of the CVS dilute exhaust. The procedure provides the option of
determining CO, CO2 and NOX from either dilute sample bags or from integration
of continuous concentration monitoring.
Hydrocarbons were measured over both test procedures using the speci-
fied heated sample train (190°C) - During steady-state operation, raw exhaust
sample was transferred to a hydrocarbon instrument containing a Beckman 402
20
-------
Figure 4. Secondary dilution tunnel for
particulate mass rate by 90 mm filters
Figure 5. Filter holders for large
particulate sample acquisition
21
-------
heated flame ionization detector (HFID) by heated sample line. During transient
operation, CVS-diluted exhaust was taken from the main dilution tunnel using
the prescribed heated probe and heated filter, and was transferred to the 402
HFID by heated sample line.(2) The intent of both procedures is to determine
the "total" HC emissions from the engine under test.
Carbon monoxide was measured during both engine test procedures using
non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) instruments. Emissions of CC>2 were also deter-
mined by NDIR for use in fuel consumption calculations by carbon balance.
Both CO and CC>2 were determined from raw exhaust samples transferred by heated
sample lines during the 13-mode procedure. During transient test procedures,
CO and C02 levels were determined from proportional dilute exhaust bag samples.
NOX emissions were determined by chemiluminescence (CL) from raw
exhaust during steady-state operation, and from both dilute sample bags and
integration of continuous NOX concentration monitoring during transient
operation. The transient NOX level determined from the bag sample has
generally been lower (5-15 percent) than that indicated by continuous NOX
measurement techniques.(23) No NOX correction factor for intake humidity was
applied for transient testing because the engine intake humidity and tempera-
ture were controlled to 60-90 grains/lb of dry air and 68-86°F.
Some selected individual hydrocarbons (IHC) were determined from
dilute exhaust bag samples taken over the cold-start and hot-start transient
cycles using the CVS. A portion of the exhaust sample collected in the Tedlar
bag was injected into a four-column gas chromatograph using a single flame
ionization detector and dual sampling valves. The timed sequence selection
valves allowed the baseline separation of air, methane, ethane, ethylene,
acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene, and toluene.^ '
Aldehydes and ketones were determined using the 2,4-dinitrophenyl-
hydrazine (DNPH) method.(24) Dilute samples were taken from the main CVS
dilution tunnel during transient testing. A heated Teflon sample line and
filter were maintained at 190°C (375°F). The procedure consists of bubbling
filtered exhaust gases, dilute or raw, through glass impinger traps containing
a solution of DNPH and hydrochloric acid (HC1) kept near 0°C. The aldehydes
form their respective phenylhydrazone derivatives (precipitates). These
derivatives are removed by filtration and followed by pentane extractions
and evaporation in a vacuum oven. The remaining dried extract, which contains
the phenylhydrazone derivatives, is dissolved in a specific volume of methanol.
A portion of this dissolved extract is injected into a high performance liquid
chromatograph and analyzed using a UV spectrophotometer as a detector, to
separate formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, propionaldehyde, acetone,
crotonaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde, methylethylketone, hexanaldehyde, and
benzaldehyde.
Phenols, which are hydroxyl derivatives of aromatic hydrocarbons,
were measured using an ether extraction procedure detailed in Reference 24.
Dilute samples were taken from the main CVS dilution tunnel during transient
operation only. Dilute exhaust samples were filtered and collected in impingers
22
-------
containing aqueous potassium hydroxide. The contents of the impingers were
acidified with sulfuric acid, then extracted with ethyl ether. This extract
was injected into a gas chromatograph equipped with an FID in order to separate
11 different phenols ranging in molecular weight from 94.11 to 150.22.
Total intensity of aroma (TIA) was quantified by using the Coordi-
nating Research Council Diesel Odor Analytical System (DOAS) . CVS-diluted
exhaust was drawn off through a heated sample train and into a trap containing
Chromosorb 102. The trap was later eluted and injected by syringe into the
DOAS instrument, which is a liquid chromatograph that separates an oxygenate
fraction (liquid column oxygenates, LCO) and an aromatic fraction (liquid
column aromatics LCA) . The TIA values are defined as:
TIA = 1 + I°g10 (LCO, yg/£)
or
TIA = 0.4 +0.7 log1Q (LCA, yg/£) (TIA by LCO preferred)
A.D. Little, the developer of the DOAS instrument, has related
this fraction to TIA sensory measurement by the A.D. Little odor panel
The system was intended for raw exhaust samples from steady-state operating
conditions, but for this program, dilute samples of exhaust were taken in
order to determine a TIA value for transient operation. Where dilute samples
were taken, the resulting values were increased in proportion to the dilution
ratio.
2. Particulate Emissions
Particulate emissions were determined from dilute exhaust samples
utilizing various collection media and apparatus, depending on the analysis
to be performed. Particulate has been defined as any material collected on
a fluorcarbon-coated glass fiber filter at or below a temperature of 51.7°C
(125°F) , excluding condensed water. (2) The 125°F temperature limit and the
absence of condensed water dictates that the raw exhaust be diluted, irre-
spective of engine operating mode. The temperature limit generally required
dilution ratios of approximately 12:1 (total mixture:raw exhaust).
Total particulate samples were collected on 90 mm Pallflex T60A20
fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter media by means of a double-dilution
technique for both transient and steady-state engine operation. Gravimetric
weight gain, representing collected particulate, was determined to the nearest
microgram after the filter temperature and humidity were stabilized. This
weight gain, along with CVS flow parameters and engine data, were used to
calculate the total particulate mass emission of the engine under test.
Smoke and total particulate are related in that the relative level
of smoke opacity indicates the relative level of particulate. The absence
of smoke, however, does not indicate the absence of particulate. Smoke was
determined by the end-of-stack EPA-PHS smokemeter, which monitored the opacity
23
-------
of the raw exhaust plume as it issued from the 4 inch diameter exhaust pipe.
Smoke opacity was determined for 13-mode operation, power curve operation,
and for the smoke FTP.^3^
Since total particulate, by definition,, includes anything collected
on fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter media, there has always been a
interest in finding out what constitutes the "total particulate." The
following paragraphs describe the methods and analysis used to determine
some of the properties of the total particulate.
A particulate size distribution of particulate generated over the
transient cycle was determined using a Sierra Series 220 cascade inertial
impactor. Dilute exhaust particles having a variety of shapes and densities
were fractionated and collected according to their aerodynamic characteristics.
The aerodynamic size gives information relating to the physical size, shape,
and density of the particulate, indicating how the particles may behave in the
environment. Pre-weighed fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filters were used as
back-up filters to collect all particulate aerodynamically smaller than the
lowest stage cut-off size (0.10 microns Effective Cut-Off Diameter, or ECD).
Impactor flow rate was selected to provide individual stage separation from
7.0 to 0.10 microns ECD.
Sulfate, originating from the combustion of sulfur-containing fuel,
was collected as part of the particulate matter in the form of sulfate salts
or sulfuric acid aerosols. A 47 mm Fluoropore (Millipore Corp.) fluorocarbon
membrane filter with 0.5 micron pore size was used to collect the sample.
This total particulate sample is ammoniated to "fix" the sulfate portion of
the particulate. Using the barium chloranilate (BCA) analytical method, the
sulfates are leached from the filter with an isopropyl alcohol-water solution
(60% IPA). This extract is injected into a high pressure liquid chromatograph
(HPLC) and pumped through a column to scrub out the cations and convert the
sulfate to sulfuric acid. Passage through a reactor column of barium chlora-
nilate crystals precipitates out barium sulfate and releases', the highly UV-
absorbing chloranilate ions. The amount of chloranilate ion released is
determined by a sensitive liquid chromatograph UV detector at 310-313 nano-
meters. "Sulfate" should be understood to mean SO4= as measured by the BCA
method.(24)
Carbon, hdyrogen, metals, and other elements that make up the total
particulate are also of interest. A sample of "total particulate" was col-
lected on 47 mm Type A (Gelman) glass fiber filter media for the purpose of
determining the carbon and hydrogen weight percentages. This analysis was
performed by Galbraith Laboratories using a Perkin-Elmer Model 240B automated
thermal conductivity CNH analyzer. A sample of total particulate matter was
also collected on a 47 mm Fluoropore filter for the determination of trace
elements such as calcium, aluminum, phosphorus, and sulfur by x-ray fluo-
rescence. This analysis was conducted at the EPA, ORD laboratories in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina using a Siemens NRS-3 X-ray fluore-^
sence spectrometer.
24
-------
Diesel particulate generally contains significant quantities of
condensed fuel-like or oil-like hydrocarbon aerosols generated during incom-
plete combustion. In order to determine to what extent total particulate
contains these various hydrocarbons, large particulate-laden filters (20x20
inch) were washed with an organic solvent, methylene chloride, using 500 m£
soxhlet extraction apparatus. The dissolved portion of the "total particulate"
carried off with the methylene chloride solvent has been referred to as the
"soluble organic fraction " (SOF). All filter handling, extraction processes,
and handling of concentrated SOF were carried out according to EPA recommended
protocol.(26) The SOF may be composed of anything carried over by the
extraction process, so its composition is also of interest. Generally the
SOF contains numerous organic compounds, many of which are difficult to
isolate and quantify. Most diesel SOF has been shown to be mutagenic using
the Ames test.
BaE is considered to be an elementary indicator of the relative PNA
content of the SOF. The analytical method used for the determination of BaP
is described in Reference 27. The procedure is based on high-performance
liquid chromatography to separate BaP from other organic solubles in particulate
matter, and it incorporates fluorescence detection to measure BaP. The instru-
ment used was a Perkin Elmer 3B liquid chormatograph equipped with a MPF-44
fluorescence spectrophotometer. Excitation was at a wavelength of 383 nm,
and emission was read at 430 nm.
Samples of SOF were submitted for Ames testing. The Ames test, as
employed in this program, refers to a bacterial mutagenesis plate assay with
Salmonella typhimurium according to the method of Ames.(28) This bioassay
determined the ability of chemical compounds or mixtures to cause mutation of
DNA in the bacteria, positive results occurring when histidine-dependent
strains of bacteria revert (or are mutated) genetically to forms which can
synthesize histidine on their own. Samples of SOF were shipped under dry
ice or EG&G* for Ames test response.
The boiling range of the SOF was determined by SwRI's Mobile Energy
Research Division using a high-temperature variation of ASTM-D2887-73. Approxi-
mately 50 mg of the SOF -was dissolved in solvent and an internal standard (C
to GH compounds) was added. This sample was then submitted for instrumental
analysis of boiling point distribution. In some cases, insufficient sample
was available to use internal standards.
Another portion of the SOF sample was submitted for fractional
separation. The method involves separation of the extractables into a series
of fractions of increasing polarity. A high performance liquid chromatographic
*EG&G Mason Research, Inc. is now Microbiological Associates, Inc, 5221 River
Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20816. These analyses were done under a separate
EPA Contract (68-03-2923)
25
-------
procedure which utilized a variable solvent program was used to elute
increasingly polar compounds. BaP, 9-fluorenone and acridine standards
are injected to indicate the types of compounds eluted in each region of
the chromatogram.
26
-------
IV. RESULTS
This section describes the results obtained from numerous emission
measurements and sample analyses conducted on the Mack EM6-300 Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engine. It is divided into three parts. The first part describes
some of the pertinent details and the chronology of the accumulated test
results. The next two parts detail the accumulated gaseous and particulate
data, respectively. Overall emission trends and general remarks are given
along with the results.
A.
General Test Notes
The Mack EM6-300 engine, S/N 4779, arrived in good condition on
November 16, 1981. This engine had been tested by Mack prior to shipment
in order to obtain 13-mode and transient gaseous emissions as well as Federal
smoke emissions. Actual start-up of the test program was delayed due to
difficulties associated with obtaining the test fuels and ongoing test work
on the M.A.N. methanol engine, another Task under this EPA Contract. The test
engine was installed in the transient-capable test facility, cell 4, and engine
operation on the baseline fuel (Phillips D-2,- SwRI Code EM-509-F) was begun
May 6, 1982. A 4-inch diameter intake system and a 5-inch diameter exhaust
system was used. Static pressure measuring sections for these intake and
exhaust systems were fabricated according to Mack "specification of procedure
312 GS 148." The engine was operated over transient and steady-state con-
ditions using the intake restriction and exhaust backpressure schedule given
in Table 6. In addition, the set points for the temperature control "test
cell" intercooler are given in Table 6.
TABLE 6. INTAKE AND EXHAUST PRESSURE PARAMETERS FOR
TESTING THE MACK EM6-300a
Intake Restriction
Exhaust Backpressure
Theoretical Indicated Theoretical Indicated Intercooler
Temperature
°C (°F)
mm H20 mm ^0
(in. H20) (in. H?0)
mm Hg
(in. Hg)
mm Hg
(in. Hg)
Transient 510 (20.0) 770 (30.3)
Steady-State 640 (25.0) 900 (35.3)
38 (1.5)
76 (3,0)
28 (1.1)
66 (2.6)
43 (110)
49 (120)
These conditions were set during full rack and rated speed condition
Under initial steady-state operation the engine developed about 3 percent
higher power than obtained by Mack. This was associated with a slightly higher
measured fuel consumption (1.2 percent). Following preliminary engine operation
checkouts, the engine was mapped according to the transient test procedures
27
-------
and preliminary transient tests were conducted to make dynamometer adjustments
necessary to meet the statistical requirements. Two cold- and hot-start
transient tests for gaseous regulated and unregulated emissions were completed
prior to running the Federal smoke test.
Results from the Federal smoke test indicated higher "a" (acceleration)
factor smoke numbers (>20 percent opacity) than obtained by Mack. Aneriod
supply pressure was found to be around 80 psi instead of the desired level of
90 psi. A suitable regulated air supply was obtained and the smoke procedure
was repeated. The "a1 factor smoke opacity over the Federal smoke cycle
repeated, and was still over 20 percent opacity. No definite problem was
found. Adjustment to the aneroid mechanism could have been made, but it was
recommended by Mack that no adjustment to the fuel injection pump or aneroid
be made due to the possibility of creating more problems while trying to make
the adjustments for slightly lower acceleration smoke. An additional cold-
and hot-start transient test was conducted, indicating that the increase of
aneriod supply pressure had no detectable effect on either gaseous or parti-
culate emissions.
The CVS flow was increased from 2000 cfm to 5000 cfm, and 11 modes of parti-
culate were taken via the 90 mm double dilution system. Replicate steady-state
runs for particulate were made, one for 5 minutes duration and another for 15
minutes duration. One cold-start and two hot-start transient tests were con-
ducted to obtain large particulate samples needed for the characterization of
the soluble organic fraction. In addition, two 13-mode test sequences for
regulated gaseous emission were completed on the baseline fuel.
The fuel supply system, which included a fuel drum, Flo-tron, return tank,
and engine fuel filter, were changed over to the next test fuel, EM-515-F, a
blend of 25 percent Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) middle distillate with the base-
line fuel. Following a flush sequence which included 15 minutes of rated
power operation, preparations were made to begin the testing outlined in the
test plan for this fuel (see page 8 of this report). The rated power and
maximum torque over the 13-mode test were 2.4 percent and 2.3 percent higher
with the EDS blend. For comparison purposes, it was decided that the 13-mode
test would be run at the same load conditions at the various modes as obtained
for the baseline fuel, with the exception of full rack conditions of 2100 rpm/
100 percent load and 1260 rpm/100 percent load. Similarly, it was decided that
comparison of fuel effects over the transient cycle could be best served by
operating the engine with the same transient command cycle as established for
the baseline fuel. In this way, it was rationalized that the engine would be
requested to perform as though on baseline fuel; and thus emissions would
reflect only the effect of the alternate fuel used on the unmodified engine.
The engine performed well on the EDS blend and no problems were encountered.
After completing emissions testing on this fuel, the fuel system was
changed over to EM-511-F, a blend of 25 percent Solvent Refined Coal (SRC-II)
middle distillate, with baseline fuel. This fuel blend was very dark in color,
and had a very strong odor. Precautions were taken to reduce personnel
exposure by direct contact and inhalation. The fuel had an odor' which resembled
28
-------
that of a concentrated engine degreasing compound marketed under the name of
"Gunk." The rated power on this fuel blend was 0.7 percent higher and the
maximum torque over the 13-mode test was 0.3 percent higher than with the
baseline fuel. The engine performed well on the SRC-II blend, and no problems
were encountered.
Upon completion of emissions testing and sample acquisition, the fuel
system was changed over to EM-517-F, a blend of 5 percent used (filtered)
diesel crankcase oil and baseline fuel. This prepared fuel blend was opaque
due to suspended carbon black from the used lube oil. The rated power and
the maximum torque over the 13-mode test with the lube oil blend were 0.4 and
1.0 percent higher than obtained with the baseline fuel. No problems were
encountered, and the emissions testing and sample acquisition were completed
June 5, 1982.
Preparations for operating the engine on "once refined" neat soybean oil,
fuel code EM-510-F, included the insulation and heating of the fuel system
starting with the bulk drum (55 gallon drum), and going all the way to the
gallery of the fuel injection pump. A total of approximately 5 kW were
available for heating the fuel (rated power fuel rate of 54 kg soybean oil/hr)
to the desired 145±6°C (290°F±10°F) at the inlet to the fuel injection pump.
The final stage of heating took place at the fuel filter, which was wrapped
with a 500 watt heater and well insulated. As the soybean oil heating system
evolved, the engine transfer pump failed due to melting of the plastic check
valves within the pump. A gear-type transfer pump was installed in the system,
external to the engine. The injector lines from the fuel injection pump to the
individual injectors were also wrapped with insulation. All emissions testing
was conducted with the soybean oil at 145±6°C. The rated power dropped 19.7
percent and the maximum torque fell off 13.7 percent over the 13-mode test from
baseline fuel levels. Aside from the noticeable drop in power at the full
rack condition, no engine operational problems were encountered, and the
operators noted that the engine seemed to run more quietly. No "cold-start"
problems were noted, although the soybean oil was brought to 145°C before
engine cranking was begun. Even though the rated power and maximum torque
were lower, the transient test statistical criteria were still met, primarily
due to the elimination of test points where the engine could not reach the
command torque with full rack. Once emissions testing was completed, the
fuel system was converted to baseline fuel configuration.
Prior to operating the engine on the baseline fuel again, the injectors
were pulled and inspected. Figure 6 illustrates the deposits noted on all
six of the injectors. As expected, the deposits were fairly heavy. Each
nozzle spray hole was surrounded by a small cup-shaped deposit about 1 mm
deep. This formation was soft on the surface with harder deposits closer to
the metal nozzle tip. The deposits were removed and the injectors were
installed. The damaged (melted check valves) transfer pump was replaced
and the fuel system purged. The engine was operated for approximately 2
hours on the baseline fuel in an attempt to flush whatever deposits may have
been left by the soybean oil. The engine produced rated power and maximum
29
-------
torque equivalent to the levels observed during initial testing on the baseline
fuel. The engine was removed from the test facility June 22, 1982. Approxi-
mately 280 gallons of baseline fuel, and about 130 gallons of each of the
alternate fuels or fuel blends were consumed during this test program.
Figure 6. Nozzle tip from Mack EM6-300 after completion
of testing with neat soybean oil heated to 145±6°C
B.
Gaseous Emissions
The term "gaseous emissions" usually refers to HC, CO, and NOX, which
are emissions regulated by EPA. This section presents the results of emission
measurements which include not only these regulated gaseous emissions, but
also selected individual hydrocarbons, aldehydes, and phenols. Odor intensity,
which has been shown to correlate with the presence of these and other gas
phase emissions, is also presented.
1. HC, CO, and NOX
These regulated pollutants were measured over the 1979 FTP as well
as the 1984 Transient FTP. In 1984, the transient test procedure will be
'•if i
-------
optional in lieu of the 13-mode test procedure. In 1985, the transient test
procedure will become mandatory, and in 1986 the transient test procedure will
include particulate measurement and regulation. For perspective, some of the
proposed standards, beyond 1979, are listed below:
Model
Year
1979
1984
1985
1986
Regulated Emissions, (g/hp-hr)
FTP
13-mode
13-mode (opt.)
13-modeb
Transient
Transient
Transient
HC
1.5
o~lc
1.3
1.3
1.3
CO
25.
25.
15.5
15. 5*:
15.5^
15. 5d
NOx
10.0
5.0
9.0
10.7
10.7
4.0e
Particulate
None
None
None
None
None
0.25e
Federal Smoke Regulations apply
Manufacturer may certify by either procedure
^Subject to revision to 1.0 g/hp-hr
CO measurement requirements for Heavy-Duty Diesels may be
waived after 1983
0
Proposed (not finalized)
a. 13-Mode FTP
Two 13-mode Federal Test Procedures for gaseous emissions were
conducted on the Mack EM6-300 for each of the five test fuels. The results
from these individual tests are given in Table 7 along with average values
for comparison purposes. Emission results from 13-mode testing with the
baseline fuel compared reasonably well with manufacturer's data, and indicated
that the engine was operating properly. In addition to normal operational
checkout, full load performance parameters were recorded during acquisition
of full power curve smoke data, and these data are given in Appendix A,
Table A-l. This particular engine is marketed as a fuel-efficient engine,
and BSFC over the 13-mode test was relatively low especially compared to
similar-size engines run under the EPA Baseline project.^23) Detailed results
from these two 13-mode tests run on baseline fuel are given in Appendix Tables
A-2 and A-3, and give emissions information on a modal basis.
Full power curve data obtained with the 25 .percent EDS blend
are given in Appendix B, Table B-l, and indicate slightly higher power output
along with higher fuel rates. Average results from the 13-mode tests, given
in Table 7, indicate essentially the same level of 13-mode composite HC,
while CO emissions decreased 9.7 percent, and NOX emissions increased 12
percent over levels obtained with the baseline fuel. From the individual
13-mode printouts given in Appendix B, Tables B-2 and B-3, these changes
in 13-mode composite emissions were well distributed over all the modes
of steady-state operation. No change in BSFC was noted.
31
-------
TABLE 7. GASEOUS EMISSION SUMMARY FROM 13-MODE OPERATION
OF MACK EM6-300 ENGINE
13-Mode
Test
Fuel
Baseline
EM-509-F
25% EDS
EM- 5 15 -F
25% SRC-II
EM-511-F
5% Lube Oil
EM- 5 17 -F
Soybean Oil
EM- 5 10 -F
Run No.
01-01
01-02
Avg.
02-01
02-02
Avg.
03-01
03-02
Avg.
04-01
04-02
Avg.
05-01
05-02
Avg.
Emissions,
HC
0.854
(0.637)
0.839
(0.626)
0.847
(0.632)
0.838
(0.625)
0.843
(0.629)
0.840
(0.627)
0.932
(0.695)
0.883
(0.636)
0.908
(0.677)
1.016
(0.758)
1.064
(0.794)
1.040
(0.776)
0.471
(0.352)
0.394
(0.294)
0.433
(0.323)
gAW-hr,
CO
3.266
(2.436)
3.224
(2.405)
3.246
(2.421)
2.891
(2.157)
2.968
(2.214)
2.930
(2.186)
3.466
(2.586)
3.404
(2.540)
3.435
(2.563)
2.730
(2.037)
2.638
(1.968)
2.684
(2.002)
2.605
(1.943)
2.674
(1.995)
2.640
(1.969)
(g/hp-hr)
NOX
9.933
(7.410)
10.174
(7.590)
10.054
(7.500)
11.168
(8.331)
11.363
(8.477)
11.265
(8.404)
11.334
(8.455)
11.320
(8.445)
11.327
(8.450)
10.204
(7.612)
10.456
(7.800)
10.330
(7.706)
9.127
(6.809)
9.300
'(6.938)
9.214
(6.873)
BSFC
kg/kW-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0.234
(0.384)
0.232
(0.382)
0.233
(0.383)
0.236
(0.387)
0.233
(0.383)
0.234
(0.385)
0.234
(0.385)
0.235
(0.387)
0.235
(0.386)
0.233
(0.384)
0.230
(0.378)
0.232
(0.381)
0.276
(0.454)
0.274
(0.451)
0.275
(0.452)
32
-------
The third test fuel run was a blend of 25 percent Solvent
Refined Coal (SRC-II) middle distillate and baseline fuel. Full load per-
formance, given in Appendix C, Table C-l, was very similar to that obtained
with baseline fuel. Over the 13-mode test, the composite HC and CO emissions
increased 7 and 6 percent over baseline levels, respectively. The 13-mode
composite NOX emissions were'similar to those obtained for the EDS blend,
and were 13 percent above the baseline fuel's NOX level. From the individual
modal information given in Appendix C, Tables C-2 and C-3, the increase in
CO was primarily due to significant increases during 2 percent load conditions.
Similar to the EDS blend, no change in BSFC was noted with the SRC-II blend.
No significant change in full load performance was noted with
a blend of 5 percent (used, filtered) crankcase oil and baseline fuel. Re-
lative to composite emission levels over the 13-mode test on the baseline
fuel, the 5 percent lube oil caused the HC level to increase by 23 percent,
the CO level to decrease by 17 percent, and the. NOX level to increase by
nearly 3 percent. Detailed 13-mode computer printouts, Tables D-2 and D-3
of Appendix D, indicate that the changes noted were distributed over most
of the modes of steady-state operation. No change in BSFC was noted over
the 13-mode test.
The fifth test fuel was neat soybean oil, heated to approxi-
mately 145°C in order to provide a viscosity which resembled that of diesel
fuel. Although the heating value of this soybean oil was 10.5 percent below
the baseline diesel fuel, the rated power dropped by about 20 percent.
Similar reductions in power were noted over the entire power curve speed
range, given in Table E-l of Appendix E. Since.the soybean oil contained
9.9 percent oxygen, 13-mode emission computations were modified slightly.
A hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of 1.77 and an oxygen-to-carbon ratio of 0.096
were used to process the 13-mode emissions. These two ratios were used in
computing stoichiometric and actual f/a ratios, HC wet-to-dry correction and
NOX correction factors. Even though the validity of the NOX correction
factor for intake humidity is uncertain for this fuel, it was applied to
the results for comparison purposes. Hydrocarbon emission data from this
fuel were computed using a molecular weight of 15.43 per carbon atom. No
correction for possible variations in FID response to unburned soybean oil
exhaust constituents was used. Computer printouts from the two 13-mode tests
are given in TablesE-2 and E-3 of Appendix E, and indicate additional computed
f/a ratios on a modal basis. To facilitate comparison of fuel effects, no
adjustments to 13-mode load settings were undertaken; for example, the 50
percent load condition was run at the load setting obtained with baseline
fuel, and not based on that computed from full load obtained with the neat
soybean oil. Therefore, the 13-mode composite results are somewhat distorted,
since maximum full loads at rated and intermediate speeds were significantly
less than with the baseline fuel, but the part load conditions (75 through 2
percent) were run at the same loads as obtained with the baseline fuel. This
method of operation still indicates emissions levels during full load conditions
as achieved, but are not as comparable as if the maximum fuel rate had been
increased to obtain the baseline power.
33
-------
Results from the 13-mode composite run with soybean oil
indicate about 49 percent lower HC, 19 percent lower CO and 8.5 percent lower
NOX than obtained with the baseline fuel. Comparisons of modal conditions,
other than at full rack, showed lower brake specific HC's over all modes.
Similarly, brake specific CO was lower for the 50 and 75 percent load con-
ditions, but higher for the 2 and 25 percent conditions as well as during
idle (g/hr). Lower NOX emissions were noted during the lightly loaded modes,
and especially idle. The 13-mode composite BSFC increased 18 percent over
that obtained with baseline fuel.
These emission trends noted for fueling with neat soybean oil
are similar to those generally noted for a retardation of timing. It is
possible that even though the injection timing was not changed mechanically,
the combustion of soybean oil may be such that a longer ignition delay occurred,
resulting in retarded timing.
b. Transient FTP
Transient emissions were measured and calculated in accordance
with the 1984 Transient Federal Test Procedure and the 1986 Proposed Transient
Federal Test Procedure (which includes particulate). A transient power map of
the engine was conducted using the transient restrictions and slave intercooler
setpoints discussed earlier (Table 6). The resulting rpm and torque data used
to generate the transient command cycle control program are listed in Table A-4
of Appendix A. In addition, the work called for by the command cycle has been
listed for each cycle segment along with the total of all four segments.
Preliminary transient cycles were conducted and.the dynamometer/engine controls
were adjusted to improve the statistical results. To facilitate alternate
fuel comparisons to the baseline fuel, the same command cycle established
with the baseline fuel was used in testing the alternate fuels. This was to
simulate an operator switching to an alternate fuel and demanding the same
performance from the engine as obtained with the baseline fuel.
The average results from individual transient tests for the
five fuels are given in Table 8, and include the average transient composite
emission levels of HC, CO, NOX and particulate. Summary tables of the indivi-
dual tests and computer printouts corresponding to each cold- and hot-start
processed with continuous and bag NOX are given in each of the Appendices
corresponding to each of the five fuels. The computer printouts present the
data on a test segment basis, which indicates the relative contribution
from various test segments. Statistical results from the individual tests
are given in the corresponding Appendix for each fuel. Although particulate
data are presented in Table 8, discussion of these transient particulate
levels will be reserved for later.
Three cold- and hot-start transient sequences were conducted
on the baseline fuel to establish the average transient cycle composites
given in Table 8. These results compared fairly well to those obtained by
Mack prior to engine shipment. The resultant HC was 20 percent lower, CO
was 11 percent higher, bag NOX was 2 percent lower, and particulate was 18
34
-------
TABLE 8. REGULATED EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT
FTP OPERATION OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE
OJ
Ul
Regulated Emissions, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
Test
Fuel
Baseline
EM-509-F
25% EDS
EM-515-F
25% SRC-II
EM-511-F
Cycle Type
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
HC
0.87
(0.65)
0.90
(0.67)
0.90
(0.67)
0.99
(0.74)
0.87
(0.65)
0.88
(0.66)
0.99
(0.74)
0.81
(0.60)
0.84
(0.62)
CO
4.95
(3.70)
4.36
(3.25)
4.45
(3.32)
5.15
(3.84)
4.22
(3.14)
4.35
(3.24)
5.91
(4.41)
4.74
(3.53)
4.91
(3.66)
NO,
Cont.
10.32
(7.70)
10.15
(7.57)
10.18
(7.59)
11.32
(8.44)
11.10
(8.28)
11.14
(8.31)
12.16
(9.07)
12.33
(9.20)
12.31
(9.18)
X
Bag
8.59a
(6.41)
8.68a
(6.47)
8.65a
(6.46)
9.85
(7.34)
9.75
(7.27)
9.76
(7.28)
10.00
(7.46)
9.53
(7.11)
9.60
(7.16)
Part.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
85
63)
78
58)
79
59)
75
56)
70
52)
70
53)
76
56)
66
49)
67
50)
Cycle BSFC
kg/kW-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0
(0
0
.268
.441)
.263
(0.432)
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
0
.263
.432)
.270
.444)
.260
.429)
.262
.431)
.278
.457)
.264
(0.433)
0
(0
.266
.438)
Cycle Work
kW-hr
(hp-hr)
16.33
(21.89)
16.15
(21.65)
16.18
(21.68)
15.98
(21.43)
16.02
(21.47)
16.01
(21.46)
16.04
(21.50)
16.18
(21.70)
16.16
(21.66)
Average of 2
-------
TABLE 8 (Cont'd). REGULATED EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT
FTP OPERATION OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE
OJ
Regulated Emissions, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
Test
Fuel
5% Lube Oil
EM-517-F
Soybean Oil
EM-510-F
NOX
Cycle Type
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
HC
0.99
(0.74)
0.98
(0.73)
0.98
(0.73)
0.70
(0.52)
0.46
(0.35)
0.49
(0.37)
CO
4.78
(3.56)
4.21
(3.14)
4.29
(3.20)
5.59
(4.17)
3.78
(2.82)
4.04
(3.01)
Cont.
10.87
(8.11)
10.72
(7.99)
10.74
(8.01)
7.72
(5.76)
7.84
(5.85)
7.82
(5.84)
Bag
9.06
(6.76)
9.10
(6.79)
9.09
(6.78)
6.58
(4.91)
6.70
(4.99)
6.68
(4.98)
Part.
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
1
(1
0
(0
0
(0
.90
.67)
.82
.61)
.83
.62)
.49
.11)
.89
.67)
.98
.73)
Cycle BSFC
kg/kW-hr
(Ib-hp-hr)
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
0.
(0.
274
450)
262
430)
264
434)
317
522)
298
490)
301
494)
Cycle Work
kW-hr
(hp-hr)
15.94
(21.36)
16.02
(21.48)
16.01
(21.46)
15.26
(20.47)
15.57
(20.88)
15.53
(20.82)
-------
percent higher than the transient composite levels reported by Mack. No
comparative figures were supplied by Mack for BSFC or cycle power obtained
over the transient test. All transient brake specific emission rates
(excluding continuous NOX) were slightly higher and transient BSFC was
almost 13 percent higher than obtained over the 13-mode test on the baseline
fuel. On the baseline fuel, all emissions and BSFC were slightly higher
over the cold-start transient than over the" hot-start, but the differences
were relatively small.
The average results from two transient sequences run with the
EDS blend are given in Table 8. Gaseous emission results from both tests
showed good repeatability and confirmed that the engine was only slightly
sensitive to cold start-up with regards to all emissions. As with the 13-
mode results, average transient composite emission of HC was nearly the
same as with the baseline fuel, CO emission decreased slightly (2.4 percent)
and NOX increased 9.5 percent on the basis of continuous NOX (13 percent by
bag NOX). No change in transient BSFC with the EDS blend from that obtained
on the baseline fuel was noted.
Two transient test sequences were also conducted with the
SRC-II blend and showed good repeatability for both HC and CO emissions.
NOX emissions were slightly more variable on this fuel. The first test
indicated lower NOX emissions from the cold-start than from the hot-start,
but the second test indicated the opposite trend by both continuous and
bag NOX. The average of these two runs, given in Table 8, shows mixed
cold- and hot-start NOX emission trends for both methods of measurement.
Aside from the HC emissions, the trends established from the 13-mode results
parallel the average transient results. Namely, the CO increased 10 percent
and the NOX increased 21 percent over the transient baseline when SRC-II
fuel blend was used. The BSFC results from both the transient and 13-mode
tests indicate that a trend toward higher fuel consumption may exist with
the SRC-II blend.
Using the 5 percent lube oil blend, two transient tests were
conducted and showed good repeatability. The emission of NOX by the con-
tinuous and bag methods indicated alternate trends of cold- and hot-start
NOX, mostly due to the small difference between both cold- and hot-start NOx
emissions. Similar to results from the other two alternate fuels, the trends
established by the 13-mode results with the lube oil blend were maintained
over the transient test. Average transient composite levels of HC increased
9 percent, CO decreased 3.6 percent and continuous NOX increased 5.5 percent
(bag NOX increased 5.0 percent) from baseline with the lube oil blend. No
change in BSFC was noted.
Two transient test sequences were also conducted with the
neat soybean oil. The oil was heated at all times, even prior to "cold
start-up." Problems were encountered with the soybean oil heating system
after the first cold-start was completed, so an additional hot-start was
run on the following day after completing the second cold- and hot-start
sequence. This additional hot-start, labeled Test No. D3-38, appears as
37
-------
Table E-8 in Appendix E, and the results were paired with the initial cold-
start to make up a transient sequence. Total composite HC emissions were
45 percent lower with the soybean oil than with the baseline fuel. It is
uncertain at this point how much of this reduction may be due to a variation
in FID response to unburned soybean oil or to the filter system used. Transient
composite CO emission levels were also lower with the soybean oil (9.3 percent).
Perhaps the most notable change was the significant reduction in NOX emissions
over the transient test. The 23 percent lower NOX emissions over the transient
test was even more pronounced than over the 13-mode test, which had shown an
8.6 percent reduction in NOX emissions. It is interesting that even though
the continuous NOX and bag NOX determinations varied by almost 15 percent,
both procedures indicated the same relative reduction in transient composite
NOX emissions with the soybean oil. It is suspected that most of the reduc-
tion in NOX emissions noted for the soybean oil was due to an undetermined
ignition delay effectively retarding the timing of the engine. The transient
BSFC was about 14 percent greater than with the baseline fuel. Although the
engine was unable to produce the rated power or torque obtained with the
baseline fuel, transient statistics were quite satisfactory and the cycle
power was only about 5 percent low (-15 percent is allowable) with the soybean
oil.
2. Selected Individual Hydrocarbons
Some individual hydrocarbons were determined from dilute exhaust
samples and processed by chromatographic techniques to separate methane,
ethylene, ethane, acetylene, propylene, propane, benzene and toluene.
Higher molecular weight hydrocarbons were not measured. In order to obtain
proportional samples over the transient cycle, dilute exhaust samples were
collected from the main tunnel of the CVS.
Results from these analyses are given in Table 9. Neither propane
nor toluene were detected over the transient cycle for any of the five fuels
tested. Of all the individual hydrocarbon species, ethylene, propylene,
acetylene and methane were predominant. For all five fuels, "total" IHC was
always higher over cold-start than over hot-start transient cycle testing.
Operation with the EDS blend caused little difference in the emission of
most individual hydrocarbons, although the absence of methane for the cold-
start and the level detected for the hot-start are curious. Total IHC over
the hot-start with the SRC-II blend was reduced primarily by the absence of
propylene. Similarly, testing with the lube oil blend indicated no propylene
emission during hot-start testing. Of all the fuels, the soybean oil produced
the highest total of IHC with the most individual species emitted. With
soybean oil, ethylene was most significant, followed by propylene, then
benzene and acetylene. Aside from detecting a small amount of benzene over
cold-start testing with the EDS blend, only the testing with the soybean
oil showed a significant quantity of benzene emission over both cold- and
hot-start transient tests.
38
-------
TABLE 9. INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE
MACK EM6-300 ENGINE WITH BASELINE AND ALTERNATE FUELS
Test Fuel
Baseline
EM-509-F
25% EDS
EM-515-F
25% SRC- I I
EM-511-F
5% Lube Oil
EM-517-F
Soybean Oil
EM-510-F
Transient
Cycle
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Individual Hydrocarbons
Units
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mg/kg f ue 1
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg f ue 1
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
Methane
91
5.4
20
99
6.1
23
0
310
19
73
16
1.0
3.6
0
0
0
280
19
59
57
3.7
12
Ethylene
990
59
220
780
48
180
1100
66
240
720
45
170
1000
63
230
630
39
150
940
60
220
750
47
180
3400
230
710
1500
96
320
Ethane
0
46
2.9
- 11
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
5.5
17
0
Acetylene
100
6.0
22
80
5.0
19
110
7.0
26
66
4.1
16
120
7.4
27
66
4.1
15
110
7.1
26
85
5.3
20
330
22
68
180
12
39
Propane
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
Propylene
370
22
80
170
11
40
300
19
69
190
12
45
310
19
70
0
360
23
83
0
820
54
170
230
15
49
Benzene
0
0
79
5.0
18
0
0
0
0
0
430
28
89
150
9.4
32
Toluene
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IHC
"Total"
1500
92
340
1200
73
280
1600
97
360
1300
80
300
1500
91
330
690
43
160
1400
90
330
830
52
200
5400
360
1100
2100
140
450
-------
3. Aldehydes
Aldehydes were determined by the DNPH procedure using a high-per-
formance liquid chromatograph to detect formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein,
propionaldehyde, acetone, crotonaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde, methylethylketone,
hexanaldehyde, and benzaldehyde. Dilute exhaust samples were taken from the
primary dilution tunnel over the 20 minute transient cycle.
Results from aldehyde analyses of these samples are given in Table 10,
along with minimum detectable levels computed on the basis of baseline perfor-
mance and fuel consumption. The results given in Table 10 represent the
average values of replicate sample analysis (except for the cold-start with
soybean oil for which one sample was voided). Some of the values given are
below the minimum detectable level due to averaging. With the exception of
the 5 percent lube oil blend, the total aldehydes over the cold-start transient
test were significantly higher than over the hot-start transient test. Formal-
dehyde was most prevalent of all the individual aldehydes detected by the
procedure. Although most formaldehyde was detected during cold-start operation,
none was noted for the cold-start with the 5 percent lube oil blend. Consi-
dering that the hot-start accounts for 86 percent of the transient composite,
total hot-start aldehydes for the EDS blend were only slightly higher than
the total hot-start aldehdydes with the baseline fuel, but the cold-start
aldehydes were almost twice that obtained with the baseline fuel. The total
hot-start aldehydes with the soybean oil were lowest of the alternate fuels
tested, due to the absence or lower concentration of most individual aldehydes;
but the cold-start aldehydes were relatively high compared to the level ob-
tained with baseline fuel. Total hot-start aldehydes with both the SRC-II
blend and the 5 percent lube oil blend were essentially the same as for the
baseline fuel.
4. Phenols
Phenols were determined using a wet chemistry procedure as outlined
in Section III. E. 1. and described in detail in Reference 24. Dilute exhaust
samples were collected over cold- and hot-start transient cycle operation.
The detection of individual phenols in dilute exhaust is quite variable.
The results from analysis of individual samples for phenols is given in Table
11, along with the minimum detectable level based on the performance and fuel
consumption with the baseline fuel. Of the individual phenols, the group
containing p-ethylphenol, 2-isopropylphenol, 2,3-xylenol, 3,5-xylenol and
2,4,6-trimethylphenol was most prevalent for all the fuels tested. This
group of compounds all elute in the same region of the chromatogram and are
quantified together. Phenol was detected only over the cold-start transient
test with the EDS blend. Meta-cresol and para-cresol were detected over both
cold- and hot-start transient operation with the SRC-II blend. The phenols
emissions were low for all of the fuels tested over the transient cycle.
Considering the cold- and hot-start phenol emissions on a composite basis,
phenols were lowest with the baseline fuel and highest for the runs made
with the EDS blend.
40
-------
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE
Test Fuel
Baseline
EM-509-F
25% EDS
EM-515-F
25% SRC-II
EM-511-F
5% Lube Oil
EM-517-F
Soybean Oil
EM-510-F
Transient
Cycle
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Colda
Start
Hot
Start
Minimum detectable
levels
Units
mg/test
mgAW-hr
rag /kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg f ue 1
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
Form-
aldehyde
190
12
43
2.9
0.18
0.69
450
28
100
75
4.7
18
49
3.1
11
42
2.6
9.8
ND
25
1.6
6.0
400
26
83
ND
4.2
0.26
0.97
Acet-
aldehyde
28
1.7
6.3
11
0.68
2.6
13
0.81
3.0
ND
ND
6
0.37
1.4
6.2
0.39
1.4
9.2
0.57
2.2
12
0.79
2.5
ND
5.8
0.36
1.34
Acrolein
ND
11
0.68
2.6
ND
ND
ND
3.5
0.22
0.82
7.0
0.44
1.6
7.0
0.44
1.7
7.0
0.46
1.4
3.5
0.23
0.76
7.0
0.44
1.62
Propion-
aldehyde
11
0.67
2.5
13
0.81
3.1
25
1.6
5.8
1.8
0.11
0.43
3.6
0.23
0.81
12
0.74
2.8
12
0;75
2.8
8.4
0.52
2.0
4.1
0.27
0.85
2.1
0.14
0.45
7.2
0.45
1.67
Acetone
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.2
0.45
1.67
Croton-
aldehyde
ND
8.3
0.52
2.0
ND
ND
8
0.50
1.8
4.1
0.25
0.96
13
0.82
3.0
4.2
0.26
1.00
ND
ND
8.2
0.51
1.90
Isobutyr-
aldehyde
3.9
0.24
0.88
12
0.75
2.8
ND
1.7
0.11
0.41
4.2
0.26
0.94
10.3
0.64
2.4
16
1.0
3.7
12
0.75
2.9
4.8
0.32
0.99
4.8
0.31
1.0
8.4
0.53
1.94
Methylethyl Benz-
ketone
6.0
0.37
1.4
30
1.9
7.1
18
1.1
4.2
9
0.56
2.2
17
1.1
3.8
6.5
16
61
23
1.4
5.3
14
0.87
3.3
37
2.4
7.6
33
2.1
7.1
8.4
0.53
1.94
aldehyde
5.5
0.34
1.2
11
0.68
2.6
60
3.8
14
17
1.1
4.1
14
0.87
3.1
14
0.87
3.3
11
0.69
2.4
11
0.69
2.63
22
1.5
4.5
17
1.1
3.7
10.9
0.68
2.52
Hexan-
aldehyde
ND
ND
37
2.3
8.6
ND
5.5
0.34
1.2
ND
5.5
0.35
1.3
5.5
0.34
1.3
32
2.1
6.6
16
1.0
3.4
10.5
0.66
2.43
Total
Aldehydes
244
15.3
55.3
99.2
6.2
24.3
603.0
37.6
135.6
104.5
6.6
25.1
101.3
6.4
22.7
98.4
6.1
23.3
93.7
5.8
21.6
96.3
6.0
23.0
518.9
33.8
107.4
76.4
4.9
16.4
—
—
—
One test only
NOTE: ND = None Detected
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE
M-Cresol
Transient
Cycle
Baseline Cold
EM-509-F Start
Hot
Start
25% EDS Cold
EM-515-F Start
Hot
Start
25% SRC-II Cold
EM-511-F Start
*> Hot
10 Start
5% Lube Oil Cold
EM-517-F Start
Hot
Start
Soybean Oil Cold
EM-510-F start
Hot
Start
Minimum detectable
level
Units
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mg/kg
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgkw-hr
mg/kg
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg
Salicyl- +
Phenol Aldehyde P-Cresol
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
82. ND ND
5.1
19.
ND ND ND
ND ND 55.
3.4
12.
ND ND 50 .
3.1
12.
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
7.3 15. 7.3
0.46 0.94 0.46
1.7 3.5 1.7
-2.3.5 tri-
5a Methylphenol
160. 16.
9.4 0.93
34. 3.4
15. ND
0.92
3.5
140. ND
8.5
31.
130. ND
8.2
31.
57. ND
3.6
13.
75. ND
4.6
18.
13. ND
0.83
3.0
88. ND
5.5
21.
33. ND
2.2
6.8
76. ND
4.9
16.
15. 7.3
0.94 0.46
3.5 1.7
"Total"
2.3.5.6b 2nppc Phenols
ND ND 130 .
10.
37.
ND ND 15.
0.92
3.5
ND ND 220.
14.
50.
ND ND 130.
8.2
31.
ND ND 110.
7.0
25.
ND ND 130.
7.7
30.
ND ND 13 .
0.83
3.0
ND ND 88 .
5.5
21.
ND ND 33.
2.2
6.8
ND ND 76.
4.9
16.
15. 15.
0.94 0.94
3.5 3.5
^p-ethylphenol, 2-isopropylphenol, 2,3-xylenol, 3,5-xylenol, 2,4,6-trimethylphenol
2,3,5,6-tetramethylphenol
2-n-propylphenol
NOTE: ND = None Detected
-------
5. Odor-TIA
TIA results were determined using the DOAS analysis of traps which
collected compounds related to odor intensity.(2^) This chromatographic pro-
cedure separates an oxygenate fraction (liquid column oxygenates, LCO) and
an aromatic fraction (liquid column aromatics, LCA). The TIA values are
defined as TIA = 1 + Iog10 (LCO, yg/fc), or TIA = 0.4 + 0.7 Iog10 (LCA, yg/W,
(TIA by LCO preferred). The procedure was developed for steady-state raw
exhaust samples, but was adapted to transient dilute exhaust samples by use
of the CVS. Table 12 summarizes the results from transient operation.
Results from DOAS analysis were relatively low in TIA number and
were mixed, relative to cold- and hot-start trends. Comparing composite
levels of TIA, a slight increase was observed with the EDS blend, whereas
a decrease was noted with the SRC-II blend. No difference was noted between
the TIA values derived from operation with the baseline and with the 5 percent
lube oil blend. The composite TIA value with the soybean oil was slightly
lower than with the baseline fuel. A definite odor of "hot cooking oil"
was apparent from the CVS dilute exhaust when the engine was operated on
soybean oil.
C. Particulate Emissions
Although heavy-duty diesel particulate emissions are not scheduled to
be regulated until 1986, they have been measured for some time and have been
recognized as a potential problem in the application of diesel engines.
Particulate emissions were characterized for purposes of comparison. In
order to determine particulate emission rates and to characterize the total
particulate, samples were collected on several filter media for a variety of
analyses which included total mass, elemental analysis, particle sizing, and
organic extractables. Particulate samples were always taken from the dilute
exhaust using a CVS.
1. Total Particulate
Total particulate emissions were determined over 11 modes of steady-
state operation as summarized in Table 13, and their levels are illustrated
graphically in Figure 7. In addition, computed 13-mode composite brake
specific and fuel specific particulate emissions are given in Table 14.
Recall that with the exception of 100 percent load conditions, all other
modes were held to the same load as obtained with the baseline fuel. Except
for operation with soybean oil, all of the particulate emissions followed
the same trends, or showed the same type of curves in Figure 6. Particulate
emissions with the EDS blend were generally lower than with the baseline fuel
over all of the steady-state load conditions except at either of the 100
percent load conditions, resulting in 1.5 percent lower 13-mode composite
brake specific particulate emission. Similarly, the SRC-II generally pro-
duced lower particulate during all load conditions other than the inter-
mediate speed/full load condition. The 13-mode composite brake specific
particulate of 0.598 g/kW-hr, with the SRC-II blend, was 4.6 percent lower
43
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OP TIA BY DOAS FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE
Test Transient
Configuration Cycle
LCA
LCO
Baseline
EM-509-F
25% EDS
EM-515-F
25% SRC-II
EM-511-F
Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
5% Lube Oil Cold Start
EM-517-F Hot Start
Composite
Soybean Oil Cold Start
EM-510-F Hot Start
Composite
7.74
6.06
6.30
26.76
13.68
15.55
0
0.06
0.05
2.34
14.22
12.52
0
0.48
0.41
0.90
1.44
1.36
3.66
5.52
5.25
0
1.32
1.13
0
0
0
4.2
0.84
1.32
TIA
0.95
1.16
1.13
1.56
1.74
1.71
0
1.12
0.96
0.66*
1.21
1.13*
1.62
0.92
1.02
These measurements were based on diesel fuel standard.
Samples were taken from dilute exhaust of approximately
6:1 for overall transient cycle.
Based on TIA
= 0.4 + 0.7 log LCA
44
-------
TABLE 13. PARTICULAR EMISSION SUMMARY FROM
MODAL OPERATION OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE
Condition
rpm/load, %
1260/2%
1260/25%
1260/50%
1260/75%
1260/100%
Idle
2100/75%
2100/50%
2100/25%
Units
mg/m3 exh.
gA-r
gAW-hr
gAg fuel
mg/m exh.
g/hr
g/kW-hr
gAg fuel
mg/m exh.
g/hr
gAW-hr
gAg fuel
mg/m exh.
g/hr
gAW-hr
gAg fuel
mg/m exh.
g/hr
gAW-hr
gAg fuel
mg/m exh.
g/hr
gAW-hr
gAg fuel
2100/100% mg/m exh.
2100/2%
gAW-hr
gAg fuel
mg/m exh .
gAW-hr
gAg fuel
mg/m exh .
g/hr
gAW-hr
gAg fuel
/ 3
mg/m exh .
g/kW-hr
gAg fuel
mg/m exh.
g/hr
gAW-hr
g/kg fuel
Test Fuel
Baseline
EM-509-F
63
22
5.6
6.0
62
24
0.49
2.1
84
40
0.40
1.9
147
90
0.60
2.9
201
153
0.77
3.7
42
6.8
5.7
82
109
0.48
2.1
67
78
0.45
1.9
65
62
0.54
2.0
71
56
0.96
3.0
44
27
5.9
3.1
25% EDS
EM-515-F
43
15
3.8
4.2
42
17
0.34
1.5
60
29
0.29
1.4
132
81
0.54
2.6
240
187
0.92
4.4
39
6.5
5.4
89
120
0.51
2.2
63
73
0.42
1.8
63
61
0.53
2.1
67
51
0.88
2.8
40
25
5.5
2.9
25% SRC
EM-511-F
53
18
4.7
5.1
48
19
0.38
1.6
72
34
0.34
1.6
137
84
0.56
2.6
232
175
0.88
4.1
39
6.4
6.4
78
104
0.45
1.9
63
73
0.42
1.8
61
58
0.50
1.9
60
45
0.78
2.5
41
24
5.4
2.8
5% Lube Oil
EM-517-F
47
16
4.1
4.5
72
28
0.56
2.5
89
41
0.42
2.0
153
93
0.63
3.0
230
173
0.86
4.1
36
5.8
5.3
97
129
0.56
2.39
83
95
0.55
2.3
81
78
0.68
2.6
90
68
1.2
3.7
59
35
7.9
4.1
Soybean
EM-510-F
76
26
6.8
7.3
97
38
0.76
2.8
100
49
0.49
1.9
76
46
0.31
1.3
98
66
0.39
1.6
46
7.4
6.1
53
65
0.35
1.2
57
67
0.39
1.4
76
75
0.65
2.2
91
70
1.2
3.4
75
46
10
4.8
45
-------
200
180
160
140
120
0)
-P 100
(0
u
•i-{
4->
)-l
(0
P-4 80
60
40
20
0 BASELINE
D 25% EDS
^25% SRC-II
5% LUBE OIL
SOYBEAN OIL
0 l-
_L
_L
I
100
75 50
1260 rpm
25 2 IDLE
Percent of Full Load
25 50
2100 rpm
75
100
Figure 7. Modal particulate from steady-state operation of
Mack EM6-300 engine with baseline and alternate fuels
46
-------
TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF 13-MODE PARTICULATE FROM STEADY-STATE
OPERATION OF THE MACK EM6-300 WITH VARIOUS TEST FUELS
Test Fuel
Baseline
EM-509-F
25% EDS
EM-515-F
25% SRC-II
EM-511-F
5% Lube Oil
EM-517-F
Soybean Oil
EM-510-F
Computed 13-Mode Composite Particulate
Brake Specific Fuel Specific
g/kw-hr, (g/hp-hr) g/kg fuel, (g/lb fuel)
0.63
(0.47)
0.62
(0.46)
0.60
(0.45)
0.71
(0.53)
0.56
(0.42)
2.59
(1.17)
2.57
(1.17)
2.46
(1.11)
2.93
(1.33)
1.96
(0.89)
than with the baseline fuel. The 5 percent lube oil blend generally produced
more particulate over all the steady-state conditions except idle, and re-
sulted in a 13.5 percent higher 13-mode composite of brake specific particulate
emission than with the baseline fuel. Increases in particulate with the lube
oil blend were particularly noticeable during the rated speed modes.
Particulate emission results with the soybean oil were mixed. During
light to medium load conditions (those at or below 50 percent), particulate
emission was relatively high, mostly due to what appeared to be unburned fuel.
During the idle and 2 percent load conditions a black tar-like substance
leaked from the joint between the exhaust system and the turbocharger outlet.
There were significant reductions of particulate emissions in both 75 percent
(which were very near to 100 percent load conditions as run) and 100 percent
load conditions.
By way of observation, all filter samples of particulate showed
varying degrees of black to gray (ranging from high to low load conditions)
discoloration of the filter. Overall filter efficiency was lowest (80 to
90 percent) during light load conditions, approaching 99 percent filter
efficiency during heavy load conditions. Typically most diesel particulate
samples have a distinct odor which is generally stronger from particulate
samples taken at light load and idle conditions. Relative to the odor from
the baseline particulate sample, the EDS and the 5 percent lube oil-derived
particulate were not much different, but the SRC-II-derived particulate
samples had a distinctly different odor (an odor of dust or mold). Parti-
culate derived from the soybean oil during light loads smelled of soybean
oil and the intensity diminished with increasing load. The odor from the full
and 75 percent load conditions with the soybean oil were similar to those from
the baseline fuel.
47
-------
Particulate emissions determined for cold- and hot-start transient
operation are summarized in Table 15 along with computed composite values.
These results are the same as given in Table 8 along with gaseous emissions
over the transient cycle. For all of the five test fuels, the cold-start
had higher particulate emissions than the hot-start. This trend was most
pronounced with the soybean oil. Overall, the composites of the transient-
derived particulate follow the same trends established for the 13-mode com-
posites of particulate from the various fuels. The EDS and SRC-II blends
resulted in lower transient cycle particulate emissions, whereas the lube oil
blend and the soybean oil resulted in higher particulate emissions, relative
to particulate emissions with the baseline fuel.
TABLE 15. PARTICULATE SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE
MACK EM6-300 ENGINE WITH VARIOUS TEST FUELS
Test Transient Particulate, g/kW-hr
Configuration Cold-Start Hot-Start Composite
Baseline 0.85 0.78 0.79
EM-509-F
25% EDS 0.75 0.70 0.70
EM-515-F
25% SRC-II 0.76 0.66 0.67
EM-511-F
5% Lube Oil 0.90 0.82 0.83
EM-517-F
Soybean Oil 1.49 0.89 0.98
EM-510-F
2. Smoke
Smoke and particulate emissions are related, smoke level being a
measure of the visible portion of particulate matter. Changes in particulate
emissions may be indicated by corresponding changes in smoke opacity, if the
levels are high enough. Smoke opacity was determined using an end-of-stack
PHS smokemeter on a 4 inch diameter exhaust stack (rated power of EM6-300 is
300 hp). Table 16 gives a summary of smoke opacity data obtained from all
five fuels.
The acceleration smoke factor was above the 1980 standard (20 percent
smoke opacity) for the Federal smoke test. Although adjustment to the aneroid
valve could have been made, it was suggested by Mack that no adjustment should
be made due to the potential for maladjustment of other factory settings.
Considering the smoke opacity data obtained over 13-modes, power curve points,
48
-------
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF SMOKE OPACITY FROM THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE
Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity, %
Test Fuel Accel. Lug Peak
Baseline 23.9
25% EDS 20.0
25% SRC-II 20.1
5% Lube Oil 22.4
100% Soybean 17.5
1980 Standard 20.0
Steady-State Smoke
13 -Mode FTP
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
RPM
650
1260
1260
1260
1260
1260
650
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
650
Power , %
Idle
2
25
50
75
100
Idle
100
75
50
25
2
Idle
Baseline
0.5
0.5
1.1
3.2
7.4
10.7
0.4
3.3
2.4
2.6
3.0
1.0
0.5
7.8 39
8.2 32
7.9 33
8.1 36
3.9 44
15.0 50
Opacity
Smoke Opacity,
25% EDS
0.3
0.3
0.8
4.5
7.3
10.8
0.2
3.6
2.4
2.3
2.7
0.8
0.4
Power Curve Smoke
Power Curve Smoke
RPM
2100
1900
1700
1500
1260
1000
Baseline
3.5
2.9
3.4
4.8
9.8
28.0
25% EDS
3.4
3.0
3.2
4.7
11.0
27.0
25% SRC-II
0.3
0.7
1.0
3.0
7.5
12.0
0.7
4.0
2.9
3.0
3.1
1.3
1.0
Opacity
Opacity, %
25% SRC-II 5% Lube
3.8
2.6
3.0
4.4
11.0
25.5
3.
3.
3.
4.
12.
31.
.1
.7
.7
.6
.3
.0
%, By Fuel
5% Lube
0.2
0.5
1.3
3.8
9.5
12.2
0.2
3.5
2.8
2.7
3.1
0.9
0.2
, By Fuel
Oil 100% Soybean
0.4
0.8
3.0
3.4
3.8
4.0
0.5
1.9
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.3
Oil 100% Soybean
2
0
2
8
0
0
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.3
3.5
13.5
49
-------
and the Federal smoke cycle with the baseline fuel, the EDS blend indicated a
trend to lower smoke opacities except during high load steady-state conditions.
The EDS blend also tended to yield lower acceleration and peak factors. Smoke
opacities with the SRC-II blend were almost the same as with the EDS blend,
but most steady-state conditions yielded slightly higher opacity levels.
Percent smoke opacities over the Federal smoke test with the SRC-II produced
lower acceleration and peak factors, while no significant change was noted
in the lug factor. The 5 percent lube oil had been reported to reduce smoke
opacities from some naturally aspirated engines, but had no effect on smoke
for turbocharged engines.(30) r^e resuits over both 13-mode and power curve
runswith the 5 percent lube oil blend indicated a trend to higher levels of
smoke opacity, for this turbocharged engine. Over the Federal smoke cycle,
the acceleration and peak factors were below the baseline, but the lug factor
indicated a higher smoke opacity. Results from operation with neat soybean
oil were quite surprising. Based on the relatively high smoke opacities
observed during light load conditions, one might expect very high opacities
during high load conditions. Instead, smoke opacities above the 25 percent
load condition were significantly lower, especially over the power curve
operating range. Although the lug smoke factor was very low and the accel-
eration factor was also reduced with the soybean oil, the peak factor increased
substantially.
3. Sulfate
Sulfate was determined from samples of total particulate collected
on 47 mm Fluoropore filter media, and processed by the BCA method. Results
of sulfate analysis of total particulate samples acquired over cold- and hot-
start transient operation are given in Table 17. Since the sulfate originates.
from sulfur contained in the fuel, additional sulfate emissions were computed
in terms of mg/kg of fuel. A percent of fuel sulfur converted to sulfate was
also computed, and reflects the tendency of the engine-fuel combination to
convert fuel sulfur to sulfate.
Except for the soybean oil, which contained no sulfur, the remaining
test fuels all contained some sulfur. The results indicated a significant
cold- and hot-start dependence for sulfate emissions. Cold-start sulfate was
nearly double that of the hot-start levels. Relative to the baseline levels,
composite brake specific sulfate levels decreased 27 percent with EDS, in-
creased 32 percent with the SRC-II and increased 46 percent with the lube
oil blend. The same trends were also noted for the percent of fuel sulfur
converted to sulfate.
50
-------
TABLE 17 . SULFATE EMISSION SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT FTP OPERATION
OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE WITH BASELINE AND ALTERNATE FUELS
Baseline
EM-509-F
25% EDS
EM-515-F
25% SRC-II
EM-511-F
5% Lube Oil
EM-517-F
Soybean Oil
EM-510-F
Transient
Cycle
Cold
Hot
Composite
Cold
Hot
Composite
Cold
Hot
Composite
Cold
Hot
Composite
Cold
Hot
Composite
Sulfate Rate
mg/test
1080
510
590
740
380
430
1300
690
780
1200
820
870
0
0
0
mg/kW-hr
67
32
37
46
24
27
83
43
49
75
51
54
0
0
0
mg/kg fuel
250
120
140
170
92
100
300
160
180
270
190
200
0
0
0
%of Fuel
S in SO4=
3.6
1.7
2.0
3.1
1.7
1.9
3.7
2.0
2.2
3.8
2.6
2.8
4. Elemental Composition
Elemental analysis of the total particulate required two particulate
samples. The carbon and hydrogen contents of the total particulate were de-
termined from particulate samples collected on glass fiber filter media by
oxidation techniques. Sulfur and metal content were determined from parti-
culate samples collected on Teflon membrane filter media (Fluoropore) using
x-ray fluorescence techniques. The carbon and hydrogen were determined by
Galbraith Laboratories, and the sulfur and metals were determined by EPA-RTP.
A summary of elemental analysis is given in Table 18. Relative to
the total particulate obtained for transient testing with the baseline fuel,
the percent carbon and hydrogen tended to be lower with the SRC-II blend but
higher with the soybean oil. Relative to baseline particulate, the EDS blend-
derived particulate had notably lower concentrations of sulfur and iron, as
well as a lower percentage of other metals. With use of the SRC-II blend,
lower portions of carbon, but significantly higher portions of sulfur were
noted.
Although the 5 percent lube oil blend caused insignificant changes
in the relative portion of carbon and hydrogen in the particulate, the per-
51
-------
TABLE 18 . SUMMARY OF ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PARTICULATE FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF
MACK EM6-300 WITH BASELINE AND ALTERNATE FUELS
Cycle Element, Percent by Weight of Total Particulate
Fuel
Baseline
EM-509-F
25% EDS
EM-515-F
25% SRC-II
EM-511-F
Ul
M 5% Lube Oil
EM-517-F
Soybean Oil
EM-510-F
Type_
Cold
Hot
Cold
Hot
Cold
Hot
Cold
Hot
Cold
Hot
C
71.2
71.0
74.3
68.0
64.1
65.9
71.8
68.3
73.6
78.1
H
3.1
2.9
3.1
2.6
2.4
3.1
2.8
2.4
7.5
7.1
S
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.3
2.3
2.5
1.9
1.6
b
b
Cl
0.02
a
a
a
b
a
0.16
0.16
b
b
Si
0.05
a
0.06
0.05
b
a
0.10
0.66
a
b
Ca
0.32
0.04
0.15
0.10
0.37
0.07
1.1
0.88
b
a
Na
a
a
a
a
a
a
b
b
a
a
Mg
b
a
a
b
b
a
1.5
1.3
a
a
Al
0.07
a
0.07
b
0.04
a
b
b
a
a
P
0.16
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.19
0.09
1.8
1.5
a
b
K
b
a
a
a
b
a
a
a
b
a
Ti
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
b
Mn
b
a
a
a
b
a
a
a
a
a
Fe
3.5
0.32
b
0.18
1.9
0.29
1.1
0.49
a
a
Cu
a
a
a
a
b
b
b
a
a -
a
Zn
0.22
b
b
b
0.32
b
2.0
1.7
a
a
Sn
0.03
a
b
b
0.04
b
b
0.04
b
b
Sb
b
a
a
a
b
b
b
b
b
a
a
Not detected
Detected but level was below limit of quantification
-------
centage and the variety of metals found in the total particulate were signifi-
cantly increased. No change in sulfur was noted, but significantly higher
portions of Si, Ca, Mg, P and Zn were noted with the lube oil blend. The
presence of these elements is attributed to wear metals and additives found
in used crankcase oil. Total particulate from transient operation with soybean
oil showed the highest portion of carbon and hydrogen, which implies that the
total particulate was oily in nature, likely a result of unburned fuel. For
the soybean oil-derived particulate, no metals or other elements were concen-
trated enough to quantify.
5. Particle Size Distribution
Particle sizing by the Sierra Model 220 cascade impactor was used
to obtain a particle size distribution from transient FTP operation. The
impactor was positioned inside the primary tunnel operated with a CVS flow
rate of 5000 cfm. Separate impactor disc sets were used for the individual
cold-start and the hot-start transient tests run with each fuel.
The individual particle distribution plots from the indivudual cold-
and hot-start transient tests with each fuel are given as a figure in each of
the corresponding Appendices. The composite results from each of these plots
are given in Figure 8. With the baseline fuel, about 70 weight percent of
the particulate was less than 0.1 micron Effective Cut-off Diameter (BCD).
Approximately 90 percent was less than 1.0 micron BCD, and about 98 percent
was less than 6.0 microns. The particle size distribution with the EDS,
lube oil and the soybean oil are essentially the same as obtained with the
baseline fuel. Only the SRC-II blend indicated a shift to larger particles.
(Information for 0.1 micron BCD was void due to loading error of last col-
lection plate in front of the back-up filter). Approximately 79 percent of
the SRC-II-derived particulate was less than 1.0 micron BCD.
6. Soluble Organic Fraction
The soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the total particulate was
obtained from particulate samples collected on Pallflex filter media using
soxhlet extraction procedures with methylene chloride. The SOF has been
reported as a percentage of the total particulate, and is often referred to
as percent solubles. This result gives an indication as to the nature of
the total particulate matter, but makes it difficult to compare SOF emission
rates obtained with the various test fuels. Table 19 summarizes the SOF mass
emissions and percent solubles from transient operation with each of the
five fuels.
Sensitivity of SOF emissions to cold starts appears to be mixed for
the various fuels. Comparing transient composite values, the brake specific
SOF emission with the EDS blend and lube oil were about the same as with the
baseline fuel. Transient composite brake specific SOF increased about 15
percent with the SRC-II, and increased to about 4.5 times the baseline level
with the soybean oil.
53
-------
8.0
6.0
4.0 :•
w
o
n
u
•H
B
I— I
ti
a)
-P
01
•H
P
U
•H
4J
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
20 40 60 80 90 95 98
Cumulative Weight Percent Smaller than
99
ECD
99.9
Figure 9- Composite of transient particle size distribution from
the Mack EM6-300 with baseline and alternate fuels
54
-------
TABLE 19o SUMMARY OF SOLUBLES IN TOTAL PARTICULATE
Percent Solubles in Total Particulate and
(Solubles. Emission Rate (g/kW-far))
Fuel
Baseline
EM-509-F
25% EDS
EM-515-F
25% SRC-II
EM-511-F
5% Lube Oil
EM-517-F
Soybean Oil
EM-510-F
Cold Start
15.9 (0.14)
20.9 (0.16)
16.0 (0.12)
13.6 (0.12)
73.0 (1.09)
Hot Start
16.3 (0.13)
19.1 (0.13)
23.0 (0.15)
16.2 (0.13)
56.2 (0.50)
Composite3
16.2 (0.13)
19.4 (0.14)
22.0 (0.15)
15.8 (0.13)
58.6 (0.57)
Calculated
The SOF was also determined over 11 modes of steady-state operation,
and is given in Table 20, along with 13-mode composite SOF emission levels
(idle weighted 20 percent). The greatest percentages of extractables were
noted for the idle and the 2 percent load conditions, where typically more
unburned fuel is emitted. Comparing 13-mode composite SOF emission rates,
there was little difference between the baseline fuel and the EDS, SRC-II
and 5 percent lube oil blends. The 13-mode composite SOF emission with the
soybean oil was almost twice that of the baseline composite SOF emission
level. Most of this increase in SOF emission was due to the relatively
large portion of solubles emitted during the steady-state rated speed con-
ditions where the percent of SOF was approximately 55 percent over the
entire load range.
55
-------
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION FROM STEADY-STATE OPERATION
OF THE MACK EM6-300 WITH BASELINE AND ALTERNATE FUELS
Steady-State
Percent Solubles in Total Particulate and
(Soluble Particulate Rate (g/hr))
Condition
rpm/load
1260/2
1260/25
1260/50
1260/75
1260/100
Idle
2100/100
2100/75
2100/50
2100/25
2100/2
Units
g/kw-hr
g/kg fuel
Baseline
EM-509-F
80
62
23
9
13
77
11
15
17
20
62
0.
0.
.(18)
(15)
(9.2)
(8.1)
(20)
(5.2)
(12)
(12)
(ID
(11)
(17)
13-Mode
14
56
25% EDS
EM-515-F
79
73
30
15
9
86
21
22
24
25
85
(12)
(12)
(8.7)
(12)
(17)
(5.6)
(25)
(16)
(15)
(13)
(21)
Composite
0.
0.
15
63
25% SRC-II 5% Lube Oil Soybean Oil
EM-511-F EM-517-F EM-510-F
59
82
26
5
12
90
16
21
22
22
77
(11)
(16)
(8.8)
(4.2)
(21)
(5.8)
(17)
(15)
(13)
(9.9)
(18)
Emission of
0.
0.
14
56
61
42
21
12
13
74
13
18
17
20
49
Soluble
0.
0.
(9.8)
(12)
(8.6)
(11)
(22)
(4.3)
(17)
(17)
(13)
(14)
(17)
Particulate
14
57
80
58
37
10
12
83
51
53
58
53
71
0.
0.
(21)
(22)
(18)
(4.6)
(7.9)
(6.1)
(33)
(36)
(44)
(37)
(33)
27
94
56
-------
a. Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) content was determined for SOP extracted
from total particulate samples obtained over both cold- and hot-start transient
testing, using methylene chloride as the solvent. Results from analysis for
BaP are given in Table 21. In all cases, the cold-start brake specific emission
TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF BENZO(A)PYRENE EMISSIONS FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE MACK EM6-300 WITH BASELINE AND ALTERNATE FUELS
Cycle Benzo(a)pyrene Emissions
Fuel Type yig BaP/mg SOF yg BaP/kW-hr yg BaP/kg fuel
Baseline Cold 0.0032 0.45 1.7
EM-509-F Hot 0.00050 0.065 0.25
25% EDS Cold 0.013 2.1 7.8
EM-515-F Hot 0.0028 0.36 1.4
25% SRC-II Cold 0.015 1.8 6.5
EM-511-F Hot 0.0018 0.27 1.0
5% Lube Oil Cold 0.0038 0.46 1.7
EM-517-F Hot 0.0024 0.31 1.2
Soybean Oil Cold 0.10 11. 35.
EM-510-F Hot 0.0071 3.6 12.
of BaP was greater than that for the hot-start transient test. The lowest
BaP emission (0.065 yg BaP/kW-hr) was noted for the hot-start transient with
baseline fuel, and the highest (11. yg BaP/kW-hr) was noted for the cold-start
transient with soybean oil. The lube oil blend gave nearly the same cold-start
brake specific BaP level as obtained on baseline fuel, but the hot-start was
almost five times higher. The brake specific emission of BaP over hot-start
transient testing was about the same for the EDS, SRC-II and lube oil blends.
The brake specific BaP emission for the hot-start transient testing with the
soybean oil was nearly 55 times that obtained on the baseline fuel. This
high emission of BaP with soybean oil was surprising, and was verified by
doping the test sample with a standard solution.
b. Boiling Point Distribution
A high-temperature GC-simulated boiling point distribution with
internal standard (Cg-C^i) was conducted on SOF from cold- and hot-start tran-
sient operation of the Mack EM6-300 with baseline and the alternate fuels.
The numerical results of these analyses are presented in Table 22. The
57
-------
TABLE 22. BOILING POINT DISTRIBUTION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FARCTION
FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE MACK EM6-300
WITH BASELINE AND ALTERNATE FUELS
Boiling Temperature at Distillation Point, °C
Distillation
Point
IBP
10% point
20% point
30% point
40% point
50% point
60% point
70% point
80% point
90% point
EP
Baseline
Cold
289
381
400
418
443
482
Hot
301
374
392
408
428
457
534
25%
Cold
307
383
398
412
429
449
483
EDS
Hot
297
377
394
407
422
442
471
557
25% SRC-II
Cold
276
384
408
435
477
Hot
270
373
391
405
419
436
458
496
5% Lube Oil
Cold
290
378
400
418
440
470
532
Hot
311
383
403
423
445
480
582
Soybean Oil
.Cold
297
434
548
Hot
292
394
425
468
541
Recovery,
@ 582°C
59 62
69 72
47
78
64
60
22
44
resulting chromatograms from these analyses are given in the appendices of
the corresponding fuels (Baseline - Figures A-2 and A-3; EDS - Figures B-2
and B-3; SRC-II - Figures C-2 and C-3; Lube Oil - Figures D-2 and D-3; Soybean
Oil - Figures E-2 and E-3).
Besides the peaks representing the solvent (methylene chloride)
and the internal standards (Cg-C-Q), all of the chromatograms showed a maximum
peak around 22 minutes into the run which coincides with hydrocarbon compound
standards that boil between 391 and 431°C and contain 24 to 28 carbon atoms,
respectively. All the samples showed relatively high levels of "residue";
that is, none of the samples could be completely volatilized below 582°C,
which was the maximum column equivalent temperature reached during the pro-
cedure. The cold-start generally had lower recovery (higher "residue") than
hot-start-derived particulate extracts. The boiling point distribution for
the cold-start-derived SOF with the lube oil blend fuel was very similar to
that of the cold-start-derived SOF with the baseline fuel. The boiling point
distribution of the SOF derived from combustion of soybean oil indicated that
substantial portions of the extract had boiling points above 582°C, particu-
larly for the cold-start when most of the extract is likely composed of
unburned soybean oil.
58
-------
c. Fractionation by Relative Polarity
The composition of the soluble organic fraction of the total
particulate is complex, and its separation into individual compounds is very
difficult. Fractionation of the SOF by high performance liquid chromato-
graphy (HPLC) separated the soluble portion into a series of fractions of
increasing molecular polarity. Figures 9 through 18 show the HPLC chromato-
graphic outputs for direct comparison of the relative concentration of
increasingly polar compounds from both cold- and hot-start transient operation
of the Mack EM6-300 engine with baseline and alternate fuels.
Each figure contains two traces, one representing the fluores-
cence detector response, and the other representing the ultraviolet detector
response. The fluorescence trace starts at time 0. The ultraviolet trace
is scale offset by about 1 minute due to pen offset of the recorder. Initially,
the solvent is composed of 95 percent hexane and 5 percent methylene chloride,
a relatively non-polar mixture. This solvent mixture is used from the start
of the chromatogram to 17 minutes into the elution period (designated by 'V) .
During this period, non-polar PNA compounds elute and give untraviolet and
fluorescence responses. BaP elutes around 12 minutes. After 17 minutes,
the polarity of the solvent is increased at a rate of 5 percent methylene
chloride per minute. During this transition period of solvent polarity,
increasingly polar compounds are eluted, giving fluorescence and ultraviolet
spectra. At the end of this solvent transition period (36 minutes into the
run and designated by "V) , the solvent is 100 percent methylene chloride.
With 100 percent methylene chloride, even more polar compounds elute. The
compound 9-fluorenone elutes around 37 minutes, and acridine elutes at about
70 minutes (in the polar period).
Figures 9 and 10 show the HPLC response to the SOF derived
from cold- and hot-start transient operation with baseline fuel. The chroma-
tograms from both cold- and hot-start were very similar. Both chromatograms
indicate the presence of non-polar compounds at about 3 and 10 .minutes elution
time by definite ultraviolet response, possibly due to BaP. In the transition
region, there were two fluorescence peaks, one around 25 and the other around
34 minutes. In the polar region, a compound such as 9-fluorenone is indicated
by the ultraviolet peak at 37 minutes. Another ultraviolet peak was prominent
at approximately 40 minutes, but this peak has been noted before due to an
unknown column contaminant and may be difficult to attribute to the SOF
samples alone. A selectively strong fluorescence peak around 46 minutes
also appeared in the polar region, but its origin is not known.
Figures 11 and 12 show the HPLC response to SOF derived from
cold- and hot-start transient operation with the EDS blend. Both chromato-
grams were similar to those with the baseline fuel, except for an additional
peak of ultraviolet response in the non-polar region for the hot-start-derived
SOF. In addition, both ultraviolet and fluorescence response for the BaP
region (12 minutes) appears to be more defined for the cold-start SOF with the
EDS blend than noted for the baseline fuel.
59
-------
ULTRAVIOLET
£ FLUORE SCENCE
I A I I I I
I I Al I
I I I I
Time. Minutes
Figure 9. HPLC response to SOF from cold transient with baseline fuel
Time, Minutes
Figure 10. HPLC response to SOF from hot transient with baseline fuel
60
-------
= FLUORESCENCE
:!•: SHiEHi;* F-S-H-a-s-t-nr:
^trrrJX; »X-Ks*i«tB;
•"•*«»«^r.JI 4~,-Ci**ri »j_..—-il.fc.
I I I I I
I I Al I I I A I I I I
Time, Minutes
Figure 11. HPLC response to SOF from cold transient with EDS blend
'^m^m^
FLUORESCENCE
Al I I
Al I I I
I I I I I
Time, Minutes
Figure 12. HPLC response to SOF from hot transient with EDS blend
61
-------
II I I Al II I A I I I
JvJ ^D
Time, Minutes
Figure 13. HPLC response to SOF from cold transient with SRC-II blend
I I Al I I I A I I I I
Figure 14. HPLC response to SOF from hot transient with SRC-II blend
62
-------
Al I I I A I I I I
Figure 15. HPLC response to SOF from cold transient with Lube Oil blend
f-nHpS FLUROESCENCE
I A I I I I
I I I I I Al I
Time , Minutes
Figure 16. HPLC response to SOF from hot transient with Lube Oil blend
63
-------
I I I I I
I Al I I I A I I I
Figure 17. HPLC response to SOF from cold transient with soybean oil
Al I I I A I I I
Time, Minutes
Figure 18. HPLC response to SOF from hot transient with soybean oil
64
-------
Figures 13 and 14 show the HPLC response to SOP from cold-
and hot-start transient operation with the SRC-II blend. As with the baseline
fuel, both cold- and hot-start chromatograms with the SRC-II fuel were quite
similar to one another. These chromatograms were similar to that from the
hot-start with the EDS blend, especially with regards to the presence of the
ultraviolet peak around 40 minutes and the fluorescence peak around 46 minutes,
particularly for the hot-start SOF.
Figures 15 and 16 show the HPLC response to SOF from cold-
and hot-start transient operation with the 5 percent lube oil fuel blend.
In general, the chromatograms are also quite similar to those obtained with
the baseline fuel, EDS and SRC-II blends. However, the ultraviolet response
around 10 minutes, which includes BaP (at 12 minutes), is noticeably greater
for both the cold- and hot-start with 5 percent lube oil. The ultraviolet
peak at 42 minutes is present, as it was for the EDS and SRC-II blends, but
not for the baseline fuel. The fluorescence response is very near that
obtained for the baseline fuel.
Figures 17 and 18 show the HPLC response to the SOF derived
from cold- and hot-start transient operation with the neat soybean oil.
Both chromatograms are similar to one another, except that the cold-start
chromatogram contains an ultraviolet and a small fluorescence peak around
55 minutes (well into the non-polar region). Relative to the response for
the baseline fuel, hardly any ultraviolet response was noted in the non-polar
region, even though the level of BaP emission was highest with the soybean
oil. Although this would appear to be an anomaly/ it should be noted that BaP
is not well defined by any of the chromatograms for any of the test fuels.
When BaP is included in a standard, it has a response which includes both
ultraviolet and fluorescence. This combined response was not noted for any
of the HPLC chromatograms discussed here, and it is likely that the procedure
is not sensitive enough to indicate low concentrations of BaP. The soybean
oil HPLC chromatograms also have two ultraviolet peaks which appear .to be
similar to the baseline chromatograms. These peaks occur at 40 and 43
minutes whereas the two ultraviolet peaks for the baseline fuel occurred
at 37 and 40 minutes. Except as already noted, the fluorescence response
was minimal.
d. Ames Response
The Ames test, as employed in this program, refers to a
bacterial mutagenesis plate assay with Salmonella typhimurium according to
the method of Ames.(2S) This bioassay determines the ability of chemical
compounds or mixtures to cause mutation of DNA in the bacteria, positive
results occurring when histidine-dependent strains of bacteria revert (or
are mutated) genetically to forms which can synthesize histidine on their
own. Samples of the soluble organic fraction representing transient com-
posites were submitted for bioassay over five tester strains (TA1535, TA1537,
TA1538, TA89, and TA100), with and without metabolic activation.
65
-------
Results from Ames testing are given in Table 23, and include
the slope of dose response, which represents the statistically determined
slope of the function representing revertants per plate versus micrograms
SOF dosage. This result is termed "specific activity," and is an indication
of the level of mutagenic potential of the extract. Results are also given
in terms of brake specific response, which represents the specific activity
multiplied by the SOF brake specific emission rate. The units for the brake
specific response are then
million revertants/plate
kW-hr
The "million revertants per plate" per "kW-hr" .is useful for comparison pur-
poses, but has no practical meaning. Samples from the first group were tested
twice over a period of one to three weeks. The specific activities from these
replicate tests are given in Table 23 under the headings, "Test 1" and "Test 2.
The average of these specific activities was used in conjunction with the
brake specific emission of SOF to calculate the brake specific response.
Of the five tester strains used in the Ames analysis of the
transient composite SOF samples, the highest levels of specific activity
from all the SOF samples were noted for strains TA100 and TA98. Relative to
the specific activities of the SOF derived from use of baseline fuel, the
specific activities of the SOF from use of the 5 percent lubricating oil
blend were about the same. The specific activities of the SOF derived from
use of the EDS and SRC-II blends were notably greater than from the baseline
fuel. The specific activities from use of the EDS blend were the highest
of all the fuels run. Since the brake specific SOF emission for all the
fuels except the soybean oil were similar, the EDS blend also produced the
greatest brake specific response. The SOF from use of the soybean oil had
the lowest levels of specific activities of any of the fuels tested. The
brake specific SOF emission with soybean oil was relatively high at 0.57
g SOF/kW-hr, but the brake specific mutagenic response was low, relative
to the levels obtained from the other fuels.
Testing of the SOF derived from the use of the soybean oil
indicated high levels of BaP compared to the levels obtained from the use
of the other test fuels. Based on BaP content, it would be expected that
the brake specific Ames response would have been much greater. Not including
the BaP content of the soybean oil-derived SOF, the SOF from use of the EDS
blend has the highest BaP content, followed by the SOF derived from the SRC-II
blend. Similarly, the SOF from use of the EDS blend had the highest brake
specific Ames response, followed by the SOF from use of the SRC-II blend.
66
-------
TABLE 23. SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO TRANSIENT COMPOSITE SOF FROM THE
MACK EM6-300 ON BASELINE AND ALTERNATE FUELS3
Fuel
Baseline
25 % EDS
25% SRC II
5% Lube
Oil
100 %
Soybean
Total
Part.
Pate
g/kW-hr
0.79
0.70
0.67
0.83
0.93
Soluble
Organic
Fract .
g/kW-hr
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.13
0.57
Metab.
Activ.
Status
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Strain TA98
Specific
Activity^
Test 1 Test 2
0.36
0.50
0.58
0.79
0.49
0.68e
0.38
0.56
0.050
0.0261
0.57
0.50
0.96
0.73e
0.64
0.64
0.45
0.52
0.069
0.023
Brake
Specific
Response"3
0.060
0.065
0.11
0.11
0.084
0.098
0.054
0.070
0.034
0.014
Strain TA100
Specific
Activity13
Test 1 Test 2
0.96
2.?e
1.1
3.1e
1.0
3.0e
1.0
3.0e
0.12
0.079
0.97
1.96
1.0
3.1e
0.78
2.1e
0.72
1.6e
0.13
0.070
Brake
Specific
Response0
0.13
0.29
0.15
0.44
0.13
0.38
0.11
0.30
0.071
0.042
Strain TA1535
Specific
Activity1"
Test 1 Test 2
d
d
0.063
0.012
0.023
-0.002
d
d
-0.013
0.001
d
d
f d
d
0.051
-0.017
d
d
' 0.012
0.035
Brake
Specific
Response0
d
d
0.009
0.002
0.006
-0.010
d
d
0.0003
0.010
Strain TA1537
Specific
Activity13
Test 1 Test 2
0.097
0.073
0.16
0.25
0.14
0.20
0.0691
0.063
0.026
0.007
d
d
d
d
0.15
0.089f
0.099
0.0691
0.026
0.009
Brake
Specific
Response0
0.013
0.009
0.022
0.035
0.022
0.021
0.011
0.009
0.015
0.005
Strain TA1538
Specific
Activity13
Test 1 Test 2
0.26
0.14
0.49*
0.496
0.48
0.47
0.22
0.24*
0.031
0.017
0.44
0.25
0.62
d
0.54
0.40
0.25
0.25
0.48
0.012
Brake
Specific
Response0
0.046
0.025
0.078
0.069
0.077
0.065
0.031
0.032
0.023
0.008
SOF was submitted in the form of a transient composite sample—samples were run in replicate with about a two-week time span between runs
^Specific activity results from statistical analysis—given as "linear slope" revertants/plate per microgram of SOF dose
|Brake specific response has units of: millions of revertants/plate per kilowatt hour
hot tested
|3 parameter model did not converge
4 parameter model did not converge
d
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Federal Register, "Gaseous Emission Regulations for 1984 and Later Model
Year Heavy-Duty Engines," Vol. 34, No. 14, January 21, 1980.
\
2. Federal Register, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and
New Motor Vehicle Engines; Particulate Regulation for Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines," Wednesday, January 7, 1981.
3. Federal Register, "Heavy-Duty Engines for 1979 and Later Model Years,"
Thursday, September 8, 1977.
4. Hare, Charles T., "Methodology for Determining Fuel Effects on Diesel
Particulate Emissions," Final Report EPA 650/2-75-056, prepared under
Contract No. 68-02-1230 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
March 1975.
5. Hare, Charles T., "Characterization of Diesel Gaseous and Particulate
Emissions," Draft Final Report on Tasks, 1, 2, 4, and 6 of Contract No.
68-02-1777 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1977.
6. Dietzmann, Harry E., et al, "Analytical Procedures for Characterizing
Unregulated Pollutant Emissions from Motor Vehicles," Final Report
EPA 600/2-79-017, prepared under Contract No. 68-02-2497 for the
Environmental Protection Agency, February 1979.
7. Ullman, Terry L., and Hare, Charles T., "Unregulated Emissions Character-
ization of Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Engines and Vehicles," Monthly
Progress Reports under Contract No. 68-03-2706 prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, 1978-1982.
8. Bykowski, Bruce B., "Characterization of Diesel Emissions from Operation
of a Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle on Alternate Source Diesel Fuels," Final
Report EPA 480/3-82-002, prepared under Contract No. 68-03-2884, Task
Specification 3, for the Environmental Protection Agency, November 1981.
9. Ullman, Terry L., and Hare, Charles T., "Emission Characterization of an
Alcohol/Diesel-Pilot Fueled Compression-Ignition Engine and Its Heavy-
Duty Diesel Counterpart," Final Report EPA 460/3-81-023, prepared under
Contract No. 68-03-2884, Task Specification 6 for the Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1981.
10. Ullman, Terry L., and Hare, Charles T., "Emission Characterization of a
Spark-Ignited Heavy-Duty Direct Injected Methanol Engine," Draft Final
Report under Contract No. 68-03-3073, Work Assignment 2, prepared for the
Environmental Protection Agency, April 1982.
11. Shelton, Ella Mae, "Diesel Fuel Oils, 1981, Report #DOE/BETC/PPS-81/5
United States Department of Energy, December 1981.
68
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D).
12. Fort, E.F., Blumberg, P.N., Staph, H.E., and Staudt, J.J., "Evaluation of
Cottonseed Oils as Diesel Fuel," SAE Paper 820317 presented at the Inter-
national Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February 22-26, 1982.
13. Ryan III, T.W., Callahan, T.J., and Dodge, L.G., "Characterization of
Vegetable Oils for Use as Fuels in Diesel Engines," for International
Conference on Plant and Vegetable Oils as Fuels, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Fargo, North Dakota, August 2-4, 1982.
14. Barsic, N.J., and Humke, A.L., "Performance and Emissions Characterization
of a Naturally Aspirated Diesel Engine with Vegetagle Oil Fuels," SAE
Paper 810262, 1981.
15. Ryan III, T.W., Likos, W.E., and Moses, C.A., "The Use of Hybrid Fuel
in a Single-Cylinder Diesel Engine," SAE Paper 801380 (SP-471), 1980.
16. Fishinger, Mary Kay Cardis, Engleman, H.W., and Guenther, D.A., "Service
Trial of Waste Vegetable Oil as a Diesel Fuel Supplement," SAE Paper
811215, 1981.
17. Forgiel, Robert, and Varde, K.S., "Experimental Investigation of Vegetable
Oils Utilization in a Direct Injection Diesel Engine," SAE Paper 811214, 1981.
18. Cross, Rich, "Diesel Drain Oil..."Free" Fuel or Maintenance Nemesis,"
Article in the Commercial Car Journal, March 1981.
19. Chevron Research Special Report, "Used Diesel Crankcase Oil - If You
Can't Recycle It, Why Not Burn It in the Engine," Prepared by Engine
Lubricants and Marketing Services Division, Lubricants Research Department,
Chevron Research Company, Richmond California, 1975.
20. Bechtold, R.L., and Lestz, S.S., "Combustion Characteristics of Diesel
Fuel Blends Containing Used Lubricating Oil," SAE Paper 760132 presented
at the Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Michigan,
February 23-27, 1976.
21. Urban, Charles M., "Light-Duty Diesel Organic Material Control Technology
Investigation Program," SwRI Progress Report No. 10 under Contract
68-03-2872 to the Environmental Protection Agency, August 10, 1980.
22. Hoppie, L.O., "The Influence of Initial Fuel Temperature on Ignition
Delay," SAE Paper 820356, 1982.
23. Martin, Sherrill F., "Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines Using the 1984
Transient Test Procedure, Volume II-Diesel," Final Report EPA 460/3-81-031
prepared under Contract No. 68-03-2603 for the Environmental Protection
Agency, July 1981.
69
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D).
24. Smith, Lawrence R., et al, "Analytical Procedures for Characterizing
Unregulated Emissions from Vehicles Using Middle-Distillate Fuels,"
Interim Report, Contract No. 68-02-2497, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, April 1980.
25. Levins, P.L., and Kendall, D.A., "Application of Odor Technology to
Mobile Source Emission Instrumentation," CRC Project CAPE 7-68 under
Contract No. 68-03-0561, September 1973.
26. Memo from Craig Harvey, EPA, to Ralph Stahman and Merrill Korth, EPA,
on February 26, 1979.
27. .Swarin, S.J., and Williams, R.L., "Liquid Chromatographic Determination
of Benzo(a)pyrene in Diesel Exhaust Particulate: Verification of the
Collection and Analytical Methods," Research Publication GMR-3127, GM
Research Laboratories, Warren, MI, October 1979.
28. Ames, B., McCann, J., and Yamasaki, E., "Methods for Detecting Carcinogens
and Mutagens with the Salmonella/Mammalian-Microsome Mutagenicity Test,"
Mutation Research, 31, pp. 347-364, 1975.
29. Information Report of the Measurement and Characterization of Diesel
Exhaust Emissions (CRC-APRAC Project No. CAPI-I-64), prepared by the
Chemical Characterization Panel of the CRC Program Group on Composition
of Diesel Exhaust.
30. Cummins Technical Bulletin for Service/Parts Topics, No. 74T 5-6,
Cummins Engine Compnay, Inc. Columbus, Indiana, May 1974.
70
-------
APPENDIX A
TEST RESULTS WITH BASELINE FUEL
(PHILLIPS D-2, EM-509-F)
-------
TABLE A-l. FULL LOAD PERFORMANCE DATA FROM THE MACK EM6-300
WITH (EM-509-F) BASELINE PHILLIPS 2-DF
Engine Speed rpm 2100
Torque
Power
ft-lb 771
(N-m) (1045)
hp 308
(kW) (230)
1900
855
(1159)
309
(231)
1700
1500
1260
1000
937 1005 1087 1005
(1271) (1363) (1474) (1363)
303 287 261 191
(226) (214) (195) (142)
Fuel Rate
Fuel Temp.a
Fuel Press.b
Inlet Air Rate
Inlet Air Depress.0
Inlet Air Temp.d
Turbo Boost Press.
Manifold Inlet Temp.
Exhaust Back. Press.8 in Hg 4.8
Exhaust Temp.8 °F 884
Coolant Water Out °F 182
Ib/hr
op
psig
Ib/min
in H2O
OF
psig
OF
116.5
99
21.6
53.8
36.0
68
21.6
120
111.7
100
20.8
50.0
29.0
68
21.2
121
105.6
100
19.7
44.7
24.0
68
19.6
121
99.2
101
18.5
37.6
17.0
69
18.0
122
91.1
101
18.2
30.3
12.0
69
16.2
123
74.7
102
16.8
20.2
6.4
71
11.3
120
4.5
890
182
3.7
930
182
2.9 2.0 1.1
992 1087 1210
183
184
186
Note: These data taken during run for power curve smoke - mode was held only
long enough to record necessary data (approximately 2 minutes)
Monitored at connection to injection pump
Monitored after fuel filter
£t
Indicated reading using 4 inch tube metering section per 312GS148 of Mack
Monitored upstream of metering section
Indicated reading using 5 inch tube metering section per 312GS148 of Mack
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 BASELINE FUEL (PHILLIPS) BAROMETER: 28.96
TEST 01-01 FUEL: EM-509-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014 DATE: 5/12/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
ENGINE
SPEED
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM
/ 650
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 650
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 2100
TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
OBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
N X M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG
0. .0 .020 3.32 81.
30. 3.9 .060 6.95 81.
376. 49.6 .197 7.71 81.
753. 99.3 .351 9.17 81.
1128. 148.9 .522 11.90 81.
1504. 198.5 .699 14.54 81.
0. .0 .020 3.19 81.
1050. 230.9 .881 26.05 81.
788. 173.3 .682 22.65 81.
525. 115.4 .485 18.83 81.
263. 57.9 .308 15.60 81.
20. 4.5 .142 11.80 81.
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.24 81.
CALCULATED F/A F/A
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
GRAMS/KG-FUEL
HC
20.77
16.81
4.96
3.25
1.67
.64
17.69
2.13
3.17
4.28
6.13
13.77
22.44
CO
51.55
41.34
6.72
6.74
20.73
36.58
47.00
4.53
3.45
4.48
8.25
19.57
53.27
NOX
78.45
73.03
64.39
65.52
51.93
45.49
80.66
31.49
32.15
28.89
26.80
31.38
73.15
GRAMS /KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
************ ****** .0060 .0691 .087
15.49 38.09 67.29 .0088 .0691 .127
1.18 1.60 15.32 .0258 .0691 .373
.69 1.43 13.91 .0388 .0691 .560
.35 4.36 10.91 .0443 .0691 .641
.14 7.73 9.61 .0486 .0691 .703
************ ****** .0062 .0691 .090
.49 1.04 7.21 .0342 .0691 .495
.75 .81 7.59 .0305 .0691 .440
1.08 1.13 7.27 .0260 .0691 .376
1.96 2.63 8.55 .0200 .0691 .289
26.24 37.29 59.80 .0122 .0691 .176
************ ****** .0061 .0691 .089
NOX
CORR
FACT
.071
.071
.045
.022
.012
.006
.065
.031
.037
.045
.052
.061
.066
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.985
.980
.951
.928
.917
.911
.984
.936
.943
.949
.959
.975
.986
MEASURED
HC CO C02
PPM PPM PCT
268. 333. 1.25
308. 381. 1.80
252. 177. 5.30
252. 278. 8.31
150. 999. 9.66
62. 1920. 10.45
236. 314. 1.30
144. 161. 7.18
190. 108. 6.32
226. 123. 5.53
256. 177. 4.31
338. 243. 2.46
272. 323. 1.17
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0062 3.8
.0088 .4
.0249 -3.5
.0385 -.8
.0447 .8
.0485 -.2
.0064 2.9
.0333 -2.6
.0294 -3.3
.0259 -.5
.0204 2.1
.0119 -2.5
.0058 -4.8
NOX
PPM
290.
385.
995.
1620.
1515.
1455.
310.
665.
595.
465.
335.
225.
255.
POWER
CORR
FACT
.992
.997
.998
.001
.009
.019
.994
.084
.062
.040
.022
.014
.994
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC
24.
61.
58.
69.
52.
27.
21.
113.
130.
124.
113.
117.
26.
BSFC
CORR
CO
61.
150.
79.
142.
649.
1534.
55.
239.
141.
130.
152.
167.
63.
KG/KW-HR
*****
.924
.238
.212
.208
.207
*****
.211
.222
.242
.312
1.880
*****
NOX
92.
265.
759.
1382.
1625.
1908.
95.
1663.
1315.
840.
495.
268.
86.
MODAL
WE 1 GHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSCO = 3.266 GRAM/KW-HR
BSHC + BSNOX = 10.787 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .234 KG/KW-HR
( .637
( 2.436
i 7 A in
V i . •» 1 \J
( 8.047
( .384
GRAM/BHP-HR )
GRAM/BHP-HR (
fiPAM /RI-IP*I-IR )
UT\fM*i/ Dnr nr\ /
GRAM/BHP-HR )
LBS/BHP-HR )
-------
TABLE A-3. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 BASELINE FUEL (PHILLIPS)
TEST 01-02 FUEL: EM-509-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014
BAROMETER: 28.90
DATE: 5/12/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
SPEED OBS DBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM N X M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.26 81.
/ 1260. 30. 3.9 .060 6.87 81.
/ 1260. 376. 49.6 .197 7.68 81.
/ 1260. 753. 99.3 .348 9.18 81.
/ 1260. 1128. 148.9 .522 11.67 81.
/ 1260. 1504. 198.5 .695 14.51 81.
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.14 81.
/ 2100. 1044. 229.7 .878 25.65 81.
/ 2100. 784. 172.4 .663 22.40 81.
/ 2100. 522. 114.8 .485 18.92 81.
/ 2100. 262. 57.6 .305 15.48 81.
/ 2100. 20. 4.5 .140 11.89 81.
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.23 81.
NOX
CORR
FACT
.066
.072
.043
.022
.012
.007
.061
.031
.040
.048
.057
.072
.077
MEASURED
HC CO C02
PPM PPM
254. 314.
280. 332.
240. 177.
234. 243.
136. 1034.
60. 1953.
232. 296.
144. 145.
196. 108.
228. 123.
260. 169.
336. 226.
252. 296.
PCT
1.25
1.90
5.23
8.21
9.66
10.45
1.25
7.09
6.32
5.45
4.31
2.40
1.25
NOX
PPM
295.
425.
1005.
1635.
1545.
1470.
310.
690.
615.
470.
340.
230.
295.
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC
23.
53.
56.
64.
47.
26.
21.
114.
130.
127.
114.
118.
23.
CO
57.
125.
80.
125.
671.
1552.
54.
218.
137.
132.
144.
157.
54.
NOX
94.
279.
776.
1398.
1656.
1919.
99.
1743.
1326.
865.
499.
279.
95.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC
19.73
14.58
4.78
3.05
1.52
.62
18.07
2.16
3.27
4.37
6.23
14.02
19.60
CO
48.73
34.33
6.81
5.97
21.45
37.19
46.08
4.13
3.45
4.55
7.87
18.66
46.01
NOX HC CO NOX ME AS STOICH
79.66 ************ ****** .0061 .0691 .088
76.87 13.43 31.63 70.83 .0089 .0691 .129
65.79 1.14 1.62 15.65 .0259 .0691 .375
67.00 .64 1.25 14.07 .0383 .0691 .554
52.91 .32 4.51 11.12 .0452 .0691 .654
45.99 .13 7.82 9.67 .0485 .0691 .701
83.55 ************ ****** .0063 .0691 .092
33.08 .50 .95 7.59 .0346 .0691 .501
33.34 .75 .80 7.69 .0299 .0691 .433
29.72 1.11 1.15 7.53 .0259 .0691 .375
27.31 1.98 2.50 8.67 .0199 .0691 .288
33.20 26.30 34.99 62.26 .0119 .0691 .172
80.60 ************ ****** .0062 .0691 .089
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.985
.979
.952
.928
.917
.910
.985
.937
.943
.950
.959
.975
.985
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC ME AS
.0062 1.7
.0093 4.2
.0246 -5.2
.0380 -.8
.0447 -1.1
.0485 .2
.0062 -2.5
.0329 -5.0
.0294 -1.6
.0255 -1.6
.0204 2.3
.0116 -2.5
.0062 .5
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
nour* — 01 ft r»o A u /i/ui LID / £ O£ r*oAti /OLJO i_in
BSCO = 3.224 GRAM/KW-HR
BSHC + BSNOX = 11.013 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .232 KG/KW-HR
V .U£.U
( 2.405
/ -7 con
I /,3?U
( 8.216
( .382
or\ni*i / on r ~nr\
GRAM/BHP-HR
PDAU /DUD LID
uKnM/Dnr~nK
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
(
)
)
POWER
CORR
FACT
.996
.999
.001
.005
.012
.023
.997
.087
.062
.042
.024
.013
.994
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
.922
.238
.209
.208
.205
*****
.211
.217
.243
.310
1.851
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-------
TABLE A-4. TRANSIENT POWER MAP FROM THE MACK EM6-300
ON BASELINE FUEL EM-509-F (PHILLIPS 2-DF)
Torque
N*m (ft Ibs)
542
542
542
542
542
579
651
858
1229
1397
1530
1573
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(427)
(480)
(633)
(906)
(1030)
<1128)
(1160)
Speed
rpm
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
Torque
N«m (ft Ibs)
1508
1477
1413
1361
1322
1250
1184
1124
1045
461
0
(1112)
(1089)
(1042)
(1003)
(975)
(922)
(873)
(829)
(771)
(340)
(0)
Idle Speed 650 rpm
Max Torque 1573 N*m (1160 ft-lb) @ 1200 rpm
Max Power 235.5 kW (315.7 hp) § 2000 rpm
Transient Command Cycle Power, kW-hr (hp-hr)
NYNF LANF LAF NYNF TOTAL
2.09 3.10 8.98 2.07 16.24
(2.80) (4.15) (12.04) (2.78) (21.77)
A-5
-------
TABLE A-5. REGULATED EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT FTP OPERATION
OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE WITH (EM-509-F) BASELINE PHILLIPS 2-DF
Transient Emissions, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
Cycle
Type
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
HC
0.90
(0.67)
0.82
(0.61)
0.83
(0.62)
0.86
(0.64)
1.03
(0.77)
1.01
(0.75)
0.85
(0.63)
0.85
(0.63)
0.85
(0.63)
CO
4.76
(3.55)
4.21
(3.14)
4.29
(3.20)
5.36
(4.00)
4.. 7 3
(3.53)
4.82
(3.60)
4.74
(3.53)
4.14
(3.09)
4.23
(3.15)
NO
Cont.
10.46
(7.80)
10.35
(7.72)
10.37
(7.73)
10.16
(7.58)
9.94
(7.42)
9.97
(7.44)
10.33
(7.71)
10.17
(7.58)
10.19
(7.60)
•x
Bag
Void
Void
Void
8.65
(6.45)
8.63
(6.43)
8.63
(6.43)
8.53
(6.36)
8.72
(6.50)
8.69
(6.48)
Part.
0.88
(0.66)
0.77
(0.57)
0.79
(0.58)
0.89
(0.66)
0.83
(0.62)
0.84
(0.63)
0.78
(0.59)
0.75
(0.56)
0.75
(0.56)
Cycle BSFC
kgAW-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0.273
(0.448)
0.265
(0.436)
0.266
(0.428)
0.266
(0.437)
0.260
(0.427)
0.261
(0.428)
0.266
(0.438)
0.263
(0.432)
0.263
(0.433)
Cycle Work
kW-hr
(hp-hr)
16.79
(22.52)
16.13
(21.63)
16.22
(21.76)
16.03
(21.50)
16.07
(21.55)
16.06
(21.54)
16.16
(21.67)
16.26
(21.81)
16.25
(21.79)
A-6
-------
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE A-6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-3 RUN1
DATE 5/10/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 739.39 MM HG(29.11 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
>
Jj DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.79 ( 22.52)
.90 ( .67)
3.55)
638.)
7.80)
4.76 (
856. (
10.46 (
DIESEL EM-509-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
, ENGINE-45. PCT , CVS-66.
8.9 GM/KG( 62.0 GRAINS/LB)
PCT
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
61.79 ( 2181.8)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.03 ( 1.180
0.00 ( 0.00)
305.0 ( 10770.)
6.3/13/ 25.
9.7/ I/ 10.
80.7/13/ 80.
1.3/13/ 1.
26. 8/ 3/ .44
3.4/ 3/ .05
4.5/14/ 45.
.2/ 2/ 0.
29.82
16.
76.
.39
45.0
2.80
27.15
2170.6
26.28
.700 ( 1.54)
2.20 ( 2.95)
1.27 ( .95)
12.34 ( 9.20)
986.72 ( 735.80)
11.94 ( 8.91)
.318 ( .523)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.8 304.9
61.80 ( 2182.0) 61.79 ( 2181.8)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.03 { 1.18) .03 ( 1.18)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
308.9 (10909.) 314.2 (11093.)
7.2/13/ 29. 11.6/13/ 46.
9.8/ I/ 10. 11. O/ I/ 11.
61.4/13/ 59. 37.7/13/ 35.
1.1/13/ 1. 1.4/13/ 1.
35. I/ 3/ .59 72. O/ 3/ 1.30
3.4/ 3/ .05 3.7/ 3/ .06
5.6/14/ 56. 14.6/14/ 146.
,2/ 2/ 0. .3/ 2/ 0.
22.48 10.21
19. 36.
56. 32.
.54 1.25
55.5 146.1
3.43 6.59
20.18 11.79
3041.8 7211.6
32.81 87.80
.971 ( 2.14) 2.283 ( 5.03)
3.09 ( 4.14) 9.28 ( 12.45)
1.11 ( .83) .71 ( .53)
6.54 ( 4.87) 1.27 ( .95)
985.28 ( 734.73) 776.78 ( 579.24)
10.63 ( 7.92) 9.46 ( 7.05)
.315 ( .517) .246 ( .404)
4
NYNF
297.9
61.78 ( 2181.6)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.03 ( 1.18)
0.00 ( 0.00)
306.9 (10837.)
5.8/13/ 23.
10. 7/ I/ 11.
63.9/13/ 62.
2.0/13/ 2.
24. 7/ 3/ .40
3.8/ 3/ .06
4.9/14/ 49.
.3/ 2/ 0.
32.63
13.
58.
.35
49.0
2.27
20.76
1943.5
28.77
.625 ( 1.38)
2.22 ( 2.98)
1.02 ( .76)
9.34 ( 6.97)
874.60 ( 652.19)
12.95 ( 9.65)
.281 ( .462)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
14.81
.88 ( .66)
3.23 ( 1.47)
97.2
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .273 ( .448)
-------
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK
0. CIO) 1-6
TABLE A-7. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-4 RUN1
DATE 5/10/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5483-008
BAROMETER 739.39 MM HG(29.11 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEG C(74.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
00
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.13 ( 21.63)
.82 ( .61)
4.21 ( 3.14)
834. ( 622.)
10.35 ( 7.72)
DIESEL EM-509-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-48. PCT , CVS-66. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.7 GM/KG( 61.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
61.78 ( 2181.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00)
305.0 ( 10770.)
21.4/11/ 21.
10. 9/ 1/ 11.
64.2/13/ 62.
1.5/13/ 1.
23. 5/ 3/ .38
3. I/ 3/ .05
4.4/14/ 44.
.I/ 2/ 0.
34.38
.11.
59.
.34
44.2
1.90
20.90
1873.6
25.77
.602 ( 1.33)
2.17 ( 2.91)
.88 ( .65)
9.63 ( 7.18)
863.41 ( 643.84)
11.87 ( 8.85)
.278 ( .456)
2 3
LANF LAP
299.9 305.0
61.80 ( 2182.0) 61.80 ( 2182.1)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.63) .05 ( 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
309.1 (10915.) 314.4 (11101.)
26.2/11/ 26. 45.4/11/ 45.
10. 7/ I/ 11. 10. 5/ I/ 11.
51.5/13/ 49. 37.0/13/ 34.
1.8/13/ 2. 2.2/13/ 2.
31. 8/ 3/ .53 69. 2/ 3/ 1.25
3.0/ 3/ .05 3.2/ 3/ .05
5.0/14/ 50. 13.8/14/ 138.
.2/ 2/ 0. .3/ 2/ 0.
25.04 10.67
16. 36.
46. 31.
.48 1.20
50.2 137.6
2.83 6.50
16.42 11.34
2737.8 6927.1
29.69 82.72
.873 ( 1.92) 2.193 ( 4.84)
2.99 ( 4.01) 8.87 ( 11.90)
.95 ( .71) .73 ( .55)
5.49 ( 4.10) 1.28 ( .95)
915.57 ( 682.74) 780.62 ( 582.11)
9.93 ( 7.40) 9.32 ( 6.95)
.292 ( .480) .247 ( .406)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.81 ( 2182.3)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00)
307.0 (10840.)
21.6/11/ 22.
10. 3/ I/ 10.
60.2/13/ 58.
2.5/13/ 2.
24. O/ 3/ .39
3.4/ 3/ .05
4.9/14/ 49.
.2/ 2/ 0.
33.67
12.
54.
.34
49.1
2.06
19.26
1909.2
28.84
.613 ( 1.35)
2.10 ( 2.81)
.98 ( .73)
9.19 ( 6.85)
911.13 ( 679.43)
13.76 ( 10.26)
.292 ( .481)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS /TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
12.36
.77 ( .57)
2.89 ( 1.31)
97.4
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .265 ( .436)
-------
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L<
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE A-8» ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-3 RUN1
DATE 5/11/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 738.12 MM HG(29.06 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEG C<78.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM
-------
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
0 MACK EM6-300
ENGINE 0.0 L( 0. CID) 1-6
CVS NO. 11
Table A-8 (Cont'd). ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-3 RUN1
DATE 5/11/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 738.12 MM HG{29.06 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEC C<78.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM
-------
TABLE A-9. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
M-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L<
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID). 1-6
BAROMETER 738.12 MM HG<29.06 IN KG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.7 DEG C<80.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM
-------
TABLE A-9 (Cont' (3) r
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L<
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 738.12 MM HG(29.06 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.7 DEG C(80.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
10 DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
16.07
1.03
4.73
814.
8.63
.260
( 21.55)
( .77)
( 3.53)
( 607.)
( 6.43) Bag
( .427)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-4 RUN1
DATE 5/11/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-509-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-39. PCT , CVS-68. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.8 GM/KG( 61.4 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
60.87 ( 2149.4)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 { 1.61)
0.00 ( 0.00)
300.5 { 10611.)
2
LANF
299.9
60.89 ( 2149.9)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 { 1.61)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.6 (10754.)
23
10
69
1
23
3
38
.0/1
.7/
I/
I/
.1/13/
23.
1
1
•
67.
.1/13/
.O/
.2/
.O/
.9/
35
3/
3/
2/
2/
.10
•
1
•
37
.05
38.
1
•
31
10
57
1
31
3
45
1
•
9/1
I/
I/
I/
!s/13/
.2/13/
•
•
•
•
13.
64.
*
37
2
22
33
.1
.18
.49
1790.1
•
2
10
811
9
•
21
577
.21
.99
.19
.00
.67
261
.34
(
(
(
(
1
2
7
•
•
•
•
( 604.
(
(
7
•
27)
96)
74)
60)
77)
21)
4/
3/
6/
2/
25
3/
3/
2/
2/
.32
32
10
55
1
•
•
•
•
.52
.05
46
1
•
•
22.
52.
•
44
3
18
47
.4
.90
.47
2632.5
25
.842
2
1
6
887
8
.430)
•
•
•
•
•
97
31
22
00
72
284
.89
(
(
(
(
1.
3.
•
4.
( 661.
(
(
6.
86)
98)
98)
64)
44)
50)
.466)
3
LAF
305.0
60.91 ( 2150.7)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.61)
0.00 ( 0.00)
309.9 (10941.)
49.5/11/
9.7/ I/
41.3/13/
1.1/13/
50.
10.
38.
1.
69.O/ 3/ 1.24
2.9/ 3/ .04
38.6/ 3/ 116.
.5/ 3/ 2.
10.70
41.
36.
1.20
114.4
7.28
12.93
6828.1
67.81
2.164 { 4.77)
8.80 ( 11.80)
.83 ( .62)
1.47 ( 1.10)
775.99 ( 578.66)
7.71 ( 5.75)
.246 ( .404)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.9
60.88 ( 2149.8)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.61)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.5 (10682.)
27.0/11/
9.2/ I/
67.7/13/
1.2/13/
23.I/ 3/
3.0/ 3/
42.O/ 2/
1.2/ 2/
34.92
18.
63.
.33
40.8
3.15
22.09
1828.2
23.62
.590 (
2.10 (
27.
9.
66.
1.
.37
.05
42.
1.
1.30)
2.81)
1.51 ( 1.12)
10.54 ( 7.86)
872.48 ( 650.61)
11.27 ( 8.41)
.281 ( .463)
13.31
.83 ( .62)
3.19 ( 1.45)
97.9
-------
TABLE A-10.
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L<
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 736.35 MM HG(28.99 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEC C(70.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT.
TOT.
TOT.
BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
U>
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG
-------
TABLJK A-10 (Cont'd).
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 736.35 MM HG<28.99 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(70.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM).
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
CO 2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
B DILUTION FACTOR
I HC CONCENTRATION PPM
£ CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.16 ( 21.67)
.85 ( .63)
4.74 ( 3.53)
835. ( 623.)
8.53 ( 6.36) Bag
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-5 RUN1
DATE 5/12/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-509-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-55. PCT , CVS-74. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.9 GM/KG( 62.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
60.72 ( 2143.9)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
299.7 ( 10581.)
24.1/11/ 24.
10. I/ 1/ 10.
79.2/13/ 78.
1.4/13/ 1.
25. 2/ 3/ .41
3.2/ 3/ .05
39. 1/ 2/ 39.
.6/ 2/ 1.
31.82
14.
75.
.36
38.5
2.47
26.03
1994.9
22.07
.644 ( 1.42)
2.16 ( 2.89)
1.15 ( .86)
12.08 ( 9.01)
925.68 ( 690.28)
10.24 ( 7.64)
.299 ( .491)
2
LANF
299.9
60.73 ( 2144.4)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.8 (10726.)
27.2/11/ 27.
10. O/ 1/ 10.
61.4/13/ 59.
1.3/13/ 1.
33. 6/ 3/ .56
3.0/ 3/ .05
47. 4/ 21 47.
.6/ 2/ 1.
23.56
18.
56.
.52
46.8
3.09
19.74
2871.8
27.20
.917 ( 2.02)
2.98 ( 4.00)
1.04 ( .77)
6.62 ( 4.94)
962.77 ( 717.94)
9.12 ( 6.80)
.307 ( .505)
3
LAF
305.0
60.73 ( 2144.5)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
309.0 (10909.)
45.2/11/ 45.
10. 8/ I/ 11.
37.3/13/ 35.
1.3/13/ 1.
68. 5/ 3/ 1.23
2.9/ 3/ .04
35. 8/ 3/ 107.
.2/ 3/ 1.
10.79
35.
32.
1.19
106.9
6.30
11.48
6750.8
63.14
2.138 ( 4.71)
8.91 ( 11.95)
.71 ( .53)
1.29 ( .96)
757.57 ( 564.92)
7.09 ( 5.28)
.240 ( .394)
4
NYNF
297.8
60.73 ( 2144.4)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.6 (10651.)
21.0/11/ 21.
10. 6/ I/ 11.
60.4/13/ 58.
1.2/13/ 1.
23. 7/ 3/ .39
3.0/ 3/ .05
44. 7/ 2/ 45.
.?/ 2/ 1.
34.12
11.
55.
.34
44.0
1.87
19.34
1880.3
25.39
.604 ( 1.33)
2.11 ( 2.83)
.89 ( .66)
9.16 ( 6.83)
891.02 ( 664.43)
12.03 ( 8.97)
.286 ( .470)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
12.68
.78 ( .59)
2.95 ( 1.34)
97.7
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .266 ( .438)
-------
TABLE A-ll.
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 736.35 MM HG(28.99 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(70.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
Ui
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
16.26 ( 21.81)
.85 ( .63)
3.09)
616.)
7.58)
4.14 (
(
826.
10.17 (
.263 (
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-6 RUN1
DATE 5/12/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-509-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
1
NYNF
295.9
60.91 ( 2150.6)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
300.6
10614.)
20
10
62
1
23
2
15
•
2
8
823
12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1/11/
7/ I/
3/13/
3/13/
O/ 3/
8/ 3/
8/1 3/
6/ 2/
35.19
10.
57.
.33
46.9
1.69
19.92
1823.5
26.94
586 (
•
•
*
21 (
76 (
99 (
20.
1
1
•
60.
1
•
.37
.04
47.
1
2
6
.36 ( 613
•
16 (
264 (
9
•
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
29)
97)
57)
71)
98)
07)
435)
, ENGINE-55. PCT , CVS-75. PCT
8.9 GM/KG( 62.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
2
LANF
299.9
60.91 ( 2150.7)
0.00 { 0.0)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.7 (10758.)
25.
10.
52.
1.
31.
2.
18.
•
4/1 1/
3/ I/
7/13/
1/13/
7/ 3/
7/ 3/
0/13/
6/ 2/
25.12
16.
47.
.49
53.4
2.73
16.77
2713.3
31.14
.865 (
3.
•
5.
898.
10.
02 (
91 (
55 (
25.
10.
50.
1.
.53
.04
54.
1.
1.91)
4.05)
.67)
4.14)
41 ( 669.94)
31 (
.287 (
7.69)
.471)
3
LAP
304.9
60.91 ( 2150.9)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
309.8 (10938.)
49.8/11/ 50.
10.2/ I/ 10.
36.6/13/ 34.
1.1/13/ 1.
70.2/ 3/ 1.27
2.8/ 3/ .04
44.8/13/ 134.
.2/ 3/ 1.
10.50
41.
31.
1.23
133.8
7.25
11.32
6973.1
79.25
2.209 ( 4.87)
8.90 { 11.94)
.81 ( .61)
1.27 ( .95)
783.17 ( 584.01)
8.90 ( 6.64)
.248 ( .408)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.8
60.90 ( 2150.3)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.5 (10681.)
21.9/11/
10.2/ I/
60.2/13/
1.3/13/
23.8/ 3/
2.7/ 3/
16.4/13/
.7/ 2/
33.96
12.
55.
.35
48.5
2.09
19.28
1920.0
28.05
.616 (
2.13 (
22.
10.
58.
1.
.39
.04
49.
1.
1.36)
2.85)
.99 ( .73)
9.07 ( 6.77)
903.45 ( 673.70)
13.20 ( 9.84)
.290 ( .477)
12.13
.75 ( .56)
2.84 ( 1.29)
97.5
.432)
-------
TABLE A-11 ICont'd).
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 736.35 MM HG(28.99 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(70.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
CO2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
> DILUTION FACTOR
1 HC CONCENTRATION PPM
& CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC. KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
16.26 ( 21.81)
.85 (
4.14
826.
8.72 (
.263 (
.63)
3.09)
616.)
6.50) Bag
.432)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-6 RUN1
DATE 5/12/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-509-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
, ENGINE-55. PCT , CVS-75. PCT
8.9 GM/KGC 62.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
60.91 ( 2150.6)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
300.6 ( 10614.)
20.1/11/ 20.
10. 7/ I/ 11.
62.3/13/ 60.
1.3/13/ 1.
23. O/ 3/ .37
2.8/ 3/ .04
41. 2/ 2/ 41.
.6/ 2/ 1.
35.19
10.
57.
.33
40.6
1.69
19.92
1823.5
23.35
.586 ( 1.29)
2.21 ( 2.97)
.76 ( .57)
8.99 ( 6.71)
823.36 ( 613.98)
10.54 ( 7.86)
.264 ( .435)
2
LANF
299.9
60.91 ( 2150.7)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.7 (10758.)
25.4/11/ 25.
10. 3/ 1/ 10.
52.7/13/ 50.
1.1/13/ 1.
31. 7/ 3/ .53
2.7/ 3/ .04
47. 6/ 2/ 48.
.6/ 2/ 1.
25.12
16.
47.
.49
47.0
2.73
16.77
2713.3
27.40
.865 ( 1.91)
3.02 ( 4.05)
.91 ( .67)
5.55 ( 4.14)
898.41 ( 669.94)
9.07 ( 6.77)
.287 ( .471)
3
LAF
304.9
60.91 ( 2150.9)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
309.8 (10938.)
49. 8/1 1/ 50.
10. 2/ I/ 10.
36.6/13/ 34.
1.1/13/ 1.
70. 2/ 3/ 1.27
2.8/ 3/ .04
37. 4/ 3/ 112.
.2/ 3/ 1.
10.50
41.
31.
1.23
111.7
7.25
11.32
6973.1
66.15
2.209 ( 4.87)
8.90 ( 11.94)
.81 ( .61)
1.27 ( .95)
783.17 ( 584.01)
7.43 ( 5.54)
.248 ( .408)
4
NYNF
297.8
60.90 ( 2150.3)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.60)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.5 (10681.)
21.9/11/ 22.
10. 2/ I/ 10.
60.2/13/ 58.
1.3/13/ 1.
23. 8/ 3/ .39
2.7/ 3/ .04
43. 8/ 2/ 44.
.7/-.2X 1.
33.96
12.
55.
.35
43.1
2.09
19.28
1920.0
24.94
.616 ( 1.36)
2.13 ( 2.85)
.99 ( .73)
9.07 ( 6.77)
903.45 ( 673.70)
11.74 ( 8.75)
.290 ( .477)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
12.13
.75 ( .56)
2.84 ( 1.29)
97.5
-------
TABLE A-12. TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS AND MODAL
EMISSION RATE SUMMARY
TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS
Cold Cycle
TEST D3-1
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
TEST D3-3
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev.%)
TEST D3-5
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
Speed
41.5
1.0008
0.995
12.6
1179
21
41.0
0.9980
0.995
15.6
1179
21
45.0
1.0056
0.994
8.9
1179
21
Torque
4.3
0.9993
0.971
7.4
974
.77 (3.
4.2
0.9689
0.971
1.6
980
.77 (-1
4.2
0.9610
0.971
4.3
983
.77 (-0
Power
4.7
1.0353
0.979
0.8
974
42)
4.6
1.0007
0.979
-0.7
980
.21)
4.6
1.0042
0.979
-0.5
983
.43)
Speed
38.9
0.9970
0.996
17.2
1179
21
40.4
0.9965
0.995
17.4
1179
21
42.7
1.0037
0.995
14.5
1179
21
Hot Cycle
Torque
4.4
0.9587
0.969
4.3
990
.77
4.4
0.9541
0.968
5.9
985
.77
4.1
0.9519
0.972
8.4
991
.77
Power
4.7
0.997
0.979
-0.6
990
(-0.69)
4.9
0.9931
0.976
-0.6
985
(-1.02)
4.7
1.0002
0.978
-0.1
991
(-0.18)
Note:
Units are as given in Federal Register Section 86.134-84
A-17
-------
CO
c
o
n
u
•H
g
Q
U
H
0)
-P
(U
•H
Q
O
•H
4J
0.2
0.1
40 60 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent Smaller than BCD
99.9
Figure A-l. Particle size distribution from transient operation
of the Mack EM6-300 with baseline fuel (Phillip 2-DF)
A-l 8
-------
739*360TA
seeeg
4aeea
H
5"
X
111
, 30000
RT in Bin.
12
16
20
24
28
. 32
snnrcc: VIRL s-240
H*thodt
INJECTED BT oi87icc OH JUN so. 1902
R«ui TU246i front *PRCeS
Figure A-2. Boiling Point Distribution of SOF derived from cold-start
transient operation with baseline fuel
«
X
u
i
-------
APPENDIX B
TEST RESULTS WITH 25 PERCENT EDS
(EM-515-F)
-------
TABLE B-l. FULL LOAD PERFORMANCE DATA FROM THE MACK EM6-300
WITH (EM-515-F) 25 PERCENT EDS BLEND
Engine Speed rpm 2100 1900 1700 1500
Torque
Power
1260
1000
ft-lb 800
(N-m) (1085)
hp 320
(kW) (239)
885
(1200)
320
(329)
977
(1325)
316
(236)
1050
(1424)
300
(224)
Fuel Rate Ib/hr 121.1 115.7 109.4 102.1
Fuel Temp.a °F 89 92 93 94
Fuel Press.b psig 21.0 20.0 19.2 19.4
Inlet Air Rate Ib/min 58.0 53.5 48.2' 40.2
Inlet Air Depress.0 in H2O 36.0 32.0 25.0 18.2
Inlet Air Temp. °F 67 67 68 68
Turbo Boost Press. psig 23.2 22.8 21.4 19.3
Manifold Inlet Temp. °F 120 121 121 121
Exhaust Back. Press.6 in Hg 2.7 2.8 2.5 1.8
Exhaust Temp.e °F 823 850 893 960
1138
(1543)
273
(204)
94.6
94
18.0
32.8
12.7
69
17.6
119
1.3
1052
1087
(1474)
207
(154)
79.5
94
16.0
22.5
7.5
70
13.0
108
0.7
1143
Coolant Water Out
180
183'
183
185
186
187
Note: These data taken during run for power curve smoke - mode was held only
long enough to record necessary data (approximately 2 minutes)
Monitored at connection to injection pump
Monitored after fuel filter
Q
, Indicated reading using 4 inch tube metering section per 312GS148 of Mack
Monitored upstream of metering section
Indicated reading using 5 inch tube metering section per 312GS148 of Mack
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 EDS BLEND BAROMETER: 29.20
TEST-02-01 FUEL: EM-515-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014 DATE: 05/18/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE NOX
SPEED OBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID CORR
COND / RPM N X M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG FACT
IDLE / 650. 0. .0 .020 3.33 68. 1.
INTER / 1260. 30. 3.9 .060 6.95 68. 1.
INTER / 1260. 377. 49.8 .191 7.69 68. 1.
INTER / 1260. 753. 99.3 .344 9.34 68.
INTER / 1260. 1130. 149.1 .517 11.91 68.
INTER / 1260. 1533. 202.2 .716 15.00 68.
IDLE / 650. 0. .0 .020 3.33 68.
RATED / 2100. 1071. 235.6 .909 25.76 68.
RATED / 2100. 785. 172.7 .661 22.80 68.
RATED / 2100. 524. 115.1 .492 19.18 68.
RATED / 2100. 262. 57.6 .300 14.94 68.
RATED / 2100. 20. 4.5 .147 12.45 68.
IDLE / 650. 0. .0 .020 3.36 68.
033
034
016
999
991
985
028
004
012
017
022
034
028
MEASURED
HC CO C02
PPM PPM
328. 465.
344. 520.
240. 185.
226. 234.
152. 778.
76. 1447.
300. 432.
136. 130.
184. 101.
218. 123.
244. 193.
332. 314.
324. 432.
PCT
1
1
5
8
9
10
1
7
6
5
4
2
1
.21
.85
.38
.31
.66
.45
.21
.27
.24
.53
.24
.56
.21
NOX
PPM
260.
405.
1215.
1860.
1740.
1665.
275.
780.
665.
535.
410.
295.
270.
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC
30.
66.
53.
60.
52.
34. 1
28.
108.
123.
121.
107.
115.
30.
CO
87.
199.
80.
118.
505.
197.
81.
198.
131.
133.
166.
216.
81.
NOX
82.
261.
870.
1529.
1826.
2213.
87.
1949.
1419.
962.
587.
342.
85.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
*f MODE
U)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC
25.79
18.11
4.64
2.90
1.69
.78
23.70
1.98
3.10
4.11
5.92
12.97
25.55
CO NOX HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
73.62 69.36 ************ ****** .0060 .0698 .085
54.82 72.03 16.68 50.51 66.37 .0088 .0698 .126
6.97 75.81 1.07 1.61 17.48 .0251 .0698 .360
5.72 74.11 .60 1.19 15.40 .0372 .0698 .533
16.29 58.88 .35 3.39 12.25 .0438 .0698 .628
27.87 51.54 .17 5.92 10.94 .0482 .0698 .691
68.72 73.38 ***#******** ****** .0060 .0698 .085
3.64 35.75 .46 .84 8.27 .0356 .0698 .511
3.29 35.77 .71 .76 8.22 .0293 .0698 .420
4.51 32.58 1.05 1.16 8.35 .0259 .0698 .371
9.20 32.60 1.85 2.88 10.20 .0203 .0698 .291
24.42 38.72 25.63 48.27 76.53 .0120 .0698 .171
68.59 71.92 ******»*»»*» ****** .0059 .0698 .085
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.986
.981
.953
.931
.921
.915
.986
.939
.947
.952
.962
.975
.986
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0061 2.0
.0091 3.6
.0251 -.0
.0382 2.9
.0444 1.3
.0481 -.2
.0060 1.4
.0335 -5.9
.0289 -1.3
.0258 -.6
.0199 -1.7
.0123 2.9
.0061 2.6
POWER
CORR
FACT
.980
.986
.987
.991
.997
1.008
.984
.070
.047
.026
.008
.000
.984
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
.934
.234
.210
.209
.211
*****
.216
.220
.250
.310
1.977
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSCO = 2.891 GRAM/KW-HR (
BSHC + BSNOX = 12.006 GRAM/KW-HR (
CORR. BSFC - = .236 KG/KW-HR (
.625
2.157
8.331
8*956
.387
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
)
(
)
)
)
-------
TABLE B-3. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
-\
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 BO'S BLEND BAROMETER: 29.18
TEST-02-02 FUEL:EM-515-F PROJECT: 05-5830-104 DATE: 5/19/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
SPEED DBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM N X M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.36 89.
/ 1260. 30. 3.9 .060 6.92 89.
/ 1260. 377. 49.8 .187 7.78 89.
/ 1260. 753. 99.3 .336 9.27 89.
/ 1260. 1130. 149.1 .518 11.64 89.
/ 1260. 1546. 204.0 .710 14.89 89.
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.30 89.
/ 2100. 1074. 236.2 .905 26.33 89.
/ 2100. 785. 172.7 .672 22.64 89.
/ 2100. 524. 115.1 .467 18.76 89.
/ 2100. 262. 57.6 .295 14.88 89.
/ 2100. 20. 4.5 .135 11.98 89.
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.33 89.
NOX
CORR
FACT
.104
.103
.071
.044
.026
.020
.093
.051
.061
.072
.081
.102
.104
MEASURED
HC CO
PPM PPM
300. 432.
360. 532.
246. 193.
232. 217.
156. 822.
76. 1521.
300. 432.
148. 138.
188. 101.
212. 123.
246. 201.
344. 333.
334. 443.
C02
PCT
1
1
5
8
9
10
1
7
6
5
4
2
1
.30
.75
.45
.11
.66
.45
.21
.36
.41
.45
.24
.40
.21
NOX
PPM
280.
380.
1185.
1845.
1725.
1650.
280.
770.
675.
515.
395.
275.
250.
CALCULATED
GRAMS /
HC CO
26. 76.
72. 214.
53. 81.
62. 110.
54. 534.
33. 1247.
28. 81.
116. 207.
125. 129.
114. 128.
106. 169.
115. 222.
31. 83.
HOUR
NOX
88.
275.
866.
1588.
1878.
2250.
94.
1981.
1494.
940.
587.
330.
84.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC
22.19
19.95
4.70
3.05
1.74
.78
23.72
2.14
3.09
4.06
5.97
14.28
26.32
CO
64.22
59.04
7.17
5.43
17.20
29.27
68.72
3.81
3.20
4.58
9.58
27.55
70.22
NOX HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
74.97 ************ *»*»** .0059 .0698 .085
75.89 18.38 54.41 69.93 .0088 .0698 .127
76.98 1.06 1.62 17.40 .0244 .0698 .350
78.68 .62 1.10 15.99 .0367 .0698 .526
60.44 .36 3.58 12.59 .0451 .0698 .646
52.83 .16 6.11 11.03 .0483 .0698 .692
79.42 ************ ****** .0060 .0698 .086
36.49 .49 .88 8.39 .0348 .0698 .499
37.04 .72 .75 8.65 .0301 .0698 .431
33.55 .99 1.11 8.17 .0252 .0698 .361
33.21 1.83 2.94 10.20 .0201 .0698 .287
40.91 25.77 49.70 73.82 .0114 .0698 .163
71.40 ************ ****** .0060 .0698 .086
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.984
.981
.952
.932
.920
.914
.985
.938
.945
.952
.961
.976
.985
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0065 9.2
.0087 -2.2
.0254 4.2
.0373 1.7
.0444 -1.4
.0481 -.2
.0060 .4
.0339 -2.5
.0297 -1.2
.0254 .7
.0199 -.6
.0116 1.7
.0061 1.7
POWER
CORR
FACT
.985
.989
.990
.993
1.000
1.011
.988
.073
.022
.028
.012
.003
.985
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
.931
.228
.205
.208
.206
*****
.214
.228
.237
.304
1.800
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MOOE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC = .843 GRAM/KW-HR
BSHC + BSNOX = 12.206 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .233 KG/KW-HR
( .629
/ 9 9 1 A
\ £•»£• IH
( 8.477
( 9.106
( .383
GRAM/BHP-HR
r*DAU /DUD UD
uKnM/bnr ~ UK
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
)
)
)
)
-------
TABLE B-4. REGULATED EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT FTP OPERATION
OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE WITH (EM-515-F) 25 PERCENT EDS BLEND
Cycle
Type
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Transient Emissions, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
NOX
HC
CO
Cont. Bag
Part.
1.00 5.31 11.44 9.94 0.77
(0.75) (3.96) (8.53) (7.41) (0.58)
0.86 4.31 11.12 9.83 0.71
(0.64) (3.22) (8.29) (7.33) (0.53)
0.88 4.45 11.17 9.85 0.72
(0.66) (3.33) (8.32) (7.34) (0.54)
0.98 4.98 11.19 9.75 0.72
(0.73) (3.71) (8.35) (7.27) (0.53)
0.88 4.12 11.08 9.66 0.68
(0.65) (3.07) (8.26) (7.21) (0.51)
0.89 4.24 11.10 9.67 0.69
(0.66) (3.16) (8.27) (7.22) (0.51)
Cycle BSFC
kg/kW-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0.272
(0.447)
0.265
(0.436)
0.266
(0.438)
0.268
(0.441)
0.256
(0.420)
0.258
(0.423)
Cycle Work
kW-hr
(hp-hr)
16.04
(21.51)
16.12
(21.62)
16.11
(21.60)
15.93
(21.36)
15.91
(21.34)
15.91
(21.34)
B-5
-------
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE B-5. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-14 RUN2
DATE 5/19/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HG(29.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.04 ( 21.51)
1.00 ( .75)
5.31 ( 3.96)
859. ( 640.)
11.44 ( 8.53)
DIESEL EM-515-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-43. PCT , CVS-62. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.4 GM/KG( 59.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.14 ( 2158.9)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.65)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.8 ( 10655.)
32.1/11/
9.8/ I/
92.0/13/
1.0/13/
26. 5/ 3/
2.9/ 3/
16.8/13/
.7/ 2/
30.04
23.
89.
.39
49.7
32.
10.
93.
1.
.43
.04
50.
1.
3.93
31.39
2159.7
28.68
.694 ( 1.53)
2.10 ( 2.81)
1.88 ( 1.40)
14.98 ( 11.17)
1030.67 ( 768.57)
13.69 ( 10.21)
.331 ( .544)
2
LANF
299.9
61.15 ( 2159.1)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.65)
0.00 ( 0.00)
305.9 (10800.)
28.
10.
67.
1.
33.
3.
20.
•
6/1 1/
I/ I/
0/13/
3/13/
7/ 3/
2/ 3/
1/13/
7/ 2/
23.46
19.
62.
.52
59.5
3.33
22.01
2885.1
34.83
.915 (
2.
1.
7.
979.
11.
95 (
13 (
47 (
29.
10.
65.
1.
.56
.05
60.
1.
2.02)
3.95)
.84)
5.57)
48 ( 730.40)
82 (
.311 (
8.82)
.511)
3
LAF
304.9
61.16 ( 2159.6)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.65)
0.00 ( 0.00)
311.0 (10983.)
45. 0/1 1/ 45.
10. I/ I/ 10.
37.1/13/ 34.
1.1/13/ 1.
68. 8/ 3/ 1.24
2.6/ 3/ .04
50.7/13/ 152.
.3/ 3/ 1.
10.74
36.
32.
1.20
151.2
6.42
11.59
6854.8
89.94
2.153 ( 4.75)
8.93 ( 11.98)
.72 ( .54)
1.30 { .97)
767.31 ( 572.18)
10.07 ( 7.51)
.241 ( .396)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.16 ( 2159.4)
0.00 { 0.00)
.05 ( 1.65)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.8 (10726.)
23.5/11/ 24.
10. 1/ I/ 10.
62.3/13/ 60.
1.5/13/ 1.
23. I/ 3/ .37
2.5/ 3/ .04
17.6/13/ 53.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
35.00
14.
57.
.34
51.7
2.41
20.15
1877.4
30.03
.599 ( 1.32)
2.07 ( 2.77)
1.16 ( .87)
9.76 ( 7.28)
908.89 ( 677.76)
14.54 ( 10.84)
.290 ( .477)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
12.42
.77 ( .58)
2.85 ( 1.29)
97.0
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .272 ( .447)
-------
TABLE B-5- (Cont'd).
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
C-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HG(29.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
16.04 ( 21.51)
1.00 ( .75)
5.31 ( 3.96)
859. ( 640.) Bag
9.94 ( 7.41)
.272 ( .447)
TEST NO.D3-14 RUN2
DATE 5/19/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ,
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
DIESEL EM-515-F
BAG CART NO. 1
, ENGINE-43. PCT , CVS-62. PCT
8.4 GM/KG( 59.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
4
NYNF
297.8
61.16 ( 2159.4)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.65)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.8 (10726.)
1
NYNF
295.9
61.14 ( 2158.9)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.65)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.8 ( 10655.)
32.1/11/ 32.
9.8/ 1/ 10.
92.0/13/ 93.
1.0/13/ 1.
26. 5/ 3/ .43
2.9/ 3/ .04
46. 9/ 2/ 47.
.7/ 2/ 1.
30.04
23.
89.
.39
46.2
3.93
31.39
2159.7
26.67
.694 ( 1.53)
2.10 ( 2.81)
1.88 ( 1.40)
14.98 < 11.17)
1030.67 ( 768.57)
12.73 ( 9.49)
.331 ( .544)
2
LANF
299.9
61.15 ( 2159.1)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.65)
0.00 ( 0.00)
305.9 (10800.)
28. 6/1 I/ 29.
10. I/ 1/ 10.
67.0/13/ 65.
1.3/13/ 1.
33. 7/ 3/ .56
3.2/ 3/ .05
54. O/ 2/ 54.
.7/ 2/ 1.
23.46
19.
62.
.52
53.3
3.33
22.01
2885.1
31.19
.915 ( 2.02)
2.95 ( 3.95)
1.13 ( .84)
7.47 ( 5.57)
979.48 ( 730.40)
10.59 ( 7.90)
.311 < .511)
3
LAF
304.9
61.16 ( 2159.6)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.65)
0.00 ( 0.00)
311.0 (10983.)
45. 0/1 I/ 45.
10. 1/ I/ 10.
37.1/13/ 34.
1.1/13/ 1.
68. 8/ 3/ 1.24
2.6/ 3/ .04
42. I/ 3/ 126.
.3/ 3/ 1.
10.74
36.
32.
1.20
125.5
6.42
11.59
6854.8
74.64
2.153 ( 4.75)
8.93 ( 11.98)
.72 ( .54)
1.30 ( .97)
767.31 ( 572.18)
8.36 ( 6.23)
.241 < .396)
23.5/1 I/
10. I/ I/
62.3/13/
1.5/13/
23. 1/ 3/
2.5/ 3/
47. 4/ 2/
1.0/ 2/
35.00
14.
57.
.34
46.4
2.41
20.15
1877.4
26.97
.599 (
2.07 (
1.16 (
9.76 (
24.
10.
60.
1.
.37
.04
47.
1.
1.32)
2.77)
.87)
7.28)
908.89 ( 677.76)
13.06 <
.290 <
9.74)
.477)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
12.42
.77 ( .58)
2.85 ( 1.29)
97.0
-------
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE B-6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-15 RUN2
DATE 5/19/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HG(29.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
W
00
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.12 ( 21.62)
.86 ( .64)
4.31 ( 3.22)
840. ( 626.)
11.12 ( 8.29)
DIESEL EM-515-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
. ENGINE-43. PCT , CVS-62. PCT
8.1 GM/KG( 56.4 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.23 ( 2162.0)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.2 ( 10670.)
23. 2/1 V 23.
11. 7/ 1/ 12.
66.6/13/ 64.
1.1/13/ 1.
23. 6/ 3/ .38
2.5/ 3/ .04
17.2/13/ 52.
1.6/ 2/ 2.
34.19
12.
62.
.35
50.1
2.07
21.73
1915.5
28.97
.611 ( 1.35)
2.14 ( 2.87)
.97 ( .72)
10.15 ( 7.57)
895.03 ( 667.43)
13.54 ( 10.09)
.286 ( .469)
2
LANF
299.8
61.25 ( 2162.9)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
306.3 (10815.)
27.1/11/ 27.
11. O/ I/ 11.
57.1/13/ 54.
1.7/13/ 2.
32. 5/ 3/ .54
2.7/ 3/ .04
19.9/13/ 60.
1.6/ 2/ 2.
24.43
17.
51.
.50
58.3
2.92
18.32
2808.7
34.13
.889 ( 1.96)
2.98 ( 3.99)
.98 ( .73)
6.16 ( 4.59)
943.98 ( 703.92)
11.47 ( 8.55)
.299 ( .491)
3
LAP
304.9
61.24 ( 2162.2)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
311.4 (10996.)
45. 7/1 1/ 46.
10. 5/ I/ 11.
34.8/13/ 32.
1 .8/137 2.
70.07 3/ 1.26
2.5/ 3/ .04
49.6/13/ 149.
.5/ 3/ 2.
10.54
36.
29.
1.23
147.4
6.49
10.63
7010.7
87.79
2.202 ( 4.85)
8.93 ( 11.98)
.73 ( .54)
1.19 ( .89)
784.76 ( 585.20)
9.83 ( 7.33)
.246 ( .405)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.23 ( 2162.1)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.1 (10739.)
24. 2/1 1/ 24.
10. 7/ I/ 11.
58.9/13/ 56.
1.7/137 2.
22.57 3/ .36
2.7/ 3/ .04
16.9/13/ 51.
2.0/ 2/ 2.
36.00
14.
53.
.32
48.8
2.42
18.89
1805.3
28.40
.576 ( 1.27)
2.07 ( 2.78)
1.17 ( .87)
9.11 ( 6.80)
870.85 ( 649.40)
13.70 ( 10.22)
.278 ( .456)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
11.41
.71 ( .53)
2.67 ( 1.21)
97.7
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .265 ( .436)
-------
TABLE B-6.(Cont'd).
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HG(29.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
W
vo
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.12 ( 21.62)
.86 ( .64)
4.31 ( 3.22)
840. ( 626.)
9.83 ( 7.33) Bag
TEST NO.03-15' RUN2
DATE 5/19/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ,
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
DIESEL EM-515-F
BAG CART NO. 1
, ENGINE-43. PCT , CVS-62. PCT
8.1 GM/KG( 56.4 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.23 ( 2162.0)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.2 < 10670.)
23. 2/1 1/ 23.
11. 7/ I/ 12.
66.6/13/ 64.
1.1/13/ 1.
23. 6/ 3/ .38
2.5/ 3/ .04
47. 3/ 2/ 47.
1.6/ 2/ 2.
34.19
12.
62.
.35
45.7
2.07
21.73
1915.5
26.44
.611 ( 1.35)
2.14 ( 2.87)
.97 ( .72)
10.15 ( 7.57)
895.03 ( 667.43)
12.35 ( 9.21)
.286 ( .469)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.8 304.9
61.25 ( 2162.9) 61.24 ( 2162.2)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.64) .05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
306.3 (10815.) 311.4 (10996.)
27.1/11/ 27. 45.7/11/ 46.
11. O/ I/ 11. 10. 5/ I/ 11.
57.1/13/ 54. 34.8/13/ 32.
1.7/13/ 2. 1.8/13/ 2.
32. 5/ 3/ .54 70. O/ 3/ 1.26
2.7/ 3/ .04 2.5/ 3/ .04
54. 6/ 2/ 55. 42.9/ 3/ 129.
1.6/ 2/ 2. .5/ 3/ 2.
24.43 10.54
17. 36.
51. 29.
.50 1.23
53.1 127.3
2.92 6.49
18.32 10.63
2808.7 7010.7
31.08 75.84
.889 ( 1.96) 2.202 ( 4.85)
2.98 ( 3.99) 8.93 ( 11.98)
.98 < .73) .73 ( .54)
6.16 ( 4.59) 1.19 ( .89)
943.98 ( 703.92) 784.76 ( 585.20)
10.45 ( 7.79) 8.49 < 6.33)
.299 ( .491) .246 ( .405)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.23 ( 2162.1)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.1 (10739.)
24. 2/1 1/ 24.
10. 7/ I/ 11.
58.9/13/ 56.
1.7/13/ 2.
22. 5/ 3/ .36
2.7/ 3/ .04
45. 2/ 2/ 45.
2.0/ 2/ 2.
36.00
14.
53.
.32
43.3
2.42
18.89
1805.3
25.16
.576 ( 1.27)
2.07 ( 2.78)
1.17 ( .87)
9.11 ( 6.80)
870.85 < 649.40)
12.14 ( 9.05)
.278 ( .456)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
11.41
.71 ( .53)
2.67 ( 1.21)
97.7
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .265 ( .436)
-------
TABLE B-7.
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. It
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CIO) 1-6
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HG(29.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
BJ
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
CO 2 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
O DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.93 ( 21.36)
.98 { .73)
4.98 ( 3.71)
(
847.
11.19 (
632.)
8.35)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-16 RUN2
DATE 5/20/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-515-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-46. PCT , CVS-61. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.7 GM/KG( 61.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.21 ( 2161.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.1 ( 10668.)
27. 9/1 1/ 28.
8.3/ I/ 8.
87.6/13/ 88.
2.3/13/ 2.
26. 4/ 3/ .43
3.3/ 3/ .05
17.1/13/ 51.
I.I/ 2/ 1.
30.22
20.
83.
.38
50.3
3.47
29.32
2119.4
29.08
.680 ( 1.50)
2.14 ( 2.87)
1.62 ( 1.21)
13.70 ( 10.22)
990.30 ( 738.47)
13.59 ( 10.13)
.318 ( .522)
2
LANF
299.9
61.24 ( 2162.3)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00)
306.3 (10816.)
27.4/11/ 27.
8.9/ I/ 9.
65.9/13/ 64.
2.0/13/ 2.
33. 4/ 3/ .56
3. I/ 3/ .05
19.8/13/ 59.
1.2/ 2/ 1.
23.69
19.
60.
.51
58.2
3.34
21.43
2867.2
34.09
.909 ( 2.00)
2.92 ( 3.91)
1.14 ( .85)
7.35 ( 5.48)
983.36 ( 733.29)
11.69 ( 8.72)
.312 ( .513)
3
LAF
304.9
61.24 ( 2162.5)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00)
311.5 (10997.)
43. 8/1 1/ 44.
9. I/ I/ 9.
34.3/13/ 32.
1.6/13/ 1.
67. 4/ 3/ 1.21
2.9/ 3/ .04
48.6/13/ 146.
,4/ 3/ 1.
10.99
36.
29.
1.17
144.8
6.38
10.53
6677.7
86.27
2.097 ( 4.62)
8.83 ( 11.84)
.72 ( .54)
1.19 ( .89)
756.33 ( 563.99)
9.77 ( 7.29)
.238 ( .391)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.24 ( 2162.3)
0.00 { 0.00)
.05 ( 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.2 (10740.)
23.1/11/ 23.
9.2/ I/ 9.
56.3/13/ 54.
1.4/13/ 1.
22. 9/ 3/ .37
2.9/ 3/ .04
17.0/13/ 51.
1.5/ 2/ 2.
35.38
14.
51.
.33
49.6
2.48
18.06
1827.3
28.86
.582 ( 1.28)
2.04 ( 2.74)
1.21 ( .90)
8.84 ( 6.59)
894.32 ( 666.89)
14.12 { 10.53)
.285 ( .468)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
11.42
.72 ( .53)
2.67 ( 1.21)
97.0
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .268 ( .441)
-------
TABLE B-7 (Cont'd).
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
C-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HG(29.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG 0(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.93 ( 21.36)
.98 ( .73)
4.98 ( 3.71)
847. ( 632.)
9.75 ( 7.27) Bag
TEST NO.D3-16 RUN2
DATE 5/20/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
DIESEL EM-515-F
BAG CART NO. 1
, ENGINE-46. PCT , CVS-61. PCT
8.7 GM/KG( 61.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.21 ( 2161.5)
0.00 < 0.0)
.05 ( 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.1 ( 10668.)
27. 9/1 I/ 28.
8.3/ I/ 8.
87.6/13/ 88.
2.3/13/ 2.
26. 4/ 3/ .43
3.3/ 3/ .05
47. 5/ 2/ 48.
I.I/ 2/ 1.
30.22
20.
83.
.38
46.4
3.47
29.32
2119.4
26.83
.680 ( 1.50)
2.14 ( 2.87)
1.62 ( 1.21)
13.70 { 10.22)
990.30 < 738.47)
12.54 ( 9.35)
.318 ( .522)
2 3
LANF LAP
299.9 304.9
61.24 ( 2162.3) 61.24 ( 2162.5)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.63) .05 { 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
306.3 (10816.) 311.5 (10997.)
27.4/11/ 27. 43.8/11/ 44.
8.9/ 1/ 9. 9. I/ I/ 9.
65.9/13/ 64. 34.3/13/ 32.
2.0/13/ 2. 1.6/13/ 1.
33. 4/ 3/ .56 67. 4/ 3/ 1.21
3. I/ 3/ .05 2.9/ 3/ .04
53. 6/ 2/ 54. 40. 5/ 3/ 122.
1.2/ 2/ 1. .4/3/1.
23.69 10.99
19. 36.
60. 29.
.51 1.17
52.5 120.4
3.34 6.38
21.43 10.53
2867.2 6677.7
30.73 71.72
.909 ( 2.00) 2.097 ( 4.62)
2.92 ( 3.91) 8.83 ( 11.84)
1.14 ( .85) .72 ( .54)
7.35 ( 5.48) 1.19 ( .89)
983.36 ( 733.29) 756.33 ( 563.99)
10.54 ( 7.86) 8.12 ( 6.06)
.312 ( .513) .238 ( .391)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.24 ( 2162.3)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.63)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.2 (10740.)
23. 1/1 1/ 23.
9.2/ I/ 9.
56.3/13/ 54.
1.4/13/ 1.
22. 9/ 3/ .37
2.9/ 3/ .04
46. 3/ 2/ 46.
1.5/ 2/ 2.
35.38
14.
51.
.33
44.8
2.48
18.06
1827.3
26.08
.582 ( 1.28)
2.04 ( 2.74)
1.21 ( .90)
8.84 ( 6.59)
894.32 ( 666.89)
12.77 ( 9.52)
.285 ( .468)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
11.42
.72 < .53)
2.67 ( 1.21)
97.0
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .268 ( .441)
-------
TABLE B-8.
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 741.43 MM HG(29.19 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
CO 2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
10
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.91 ( 21.34)
.88 ( .65)
3.07)
4.12
809.
11.08 (
603.)
8.26)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H -TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
TEST NO. 03-17
DATE 5/20/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RUN2
DIESEL EM-515-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-45. PCT , CVS-61. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.8 GM/KG< 61.8 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
61.36 ( 2166.8)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( J.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.0 (
21.0/11/
9.3/ I/
64.0/13/
.9/13/
23.7/ 3/
3.I/ 3/
17.1/13/
1.3/ 2/
34.08
12.
59.
.34
50.0
2.09
20.90
1880.2
28.95
.600 (
2.16 (
10697.)
21.
9.
62.
1.
.39
.05
51.
1.
1.32)
2.89)
.97 ( .72)
9.70 ( 7.23)
872.45 ( 650.59)
13.43 ( 10.02)
.278 ( .457)
2
LANF
299.9
61.35 ( 2166.2)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
306.9 (10835.)
25. 4/1 1/ 25.
9.0/ I/ 9.
52.0/13/ 49.
.9/13/ 1.
30. 5/ 3/ .50
3.3/ 3/ .05
19.0/13/ 57.
1.3/ 2/ 1.
26.18
17.
47.
.46
55.8
2.95
16.79
2561.7
32.74
.811 ( 1.79)
2.88 ( 3.86)
1.03 { .77)
5.83 ( 4.35)
889.96 ( 663.64)
11.38 ( 8.48)
.282 ( .463)
3
LAF
304.9
61.36 ( 2166.7)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
312.1 (11019.)
44. 6/1 1/ 45.
8.8/ I/ 9.
31.4/13/ 29.
.7/13/ 1.
67. I/ 3/ 1.21
3.4/ 3/ .05
47.7/13/ 143.
.4/ 3/ 1.
11.05
37.
27.
1.16
141.9
6.58
9.85
6615.7
84.66
2.078 ( 4.58)
8.81 ( 11.81)
.75 ( .56)
1.12 ( .83)
751.21 ( 560.18)
9.61 ( 7.17)
.236 ( .388)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.37 ( 2166.9)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.8 (10763.)
21.8/11/ 22.
9.0/ I/ 9.
55.3/13/ 53.
.6/13/ 1.
22. 8/ 3/ .37
3.0/ 3/ .05
17.6/13/ 53.
1.2/ 2/ 1.
35.56
13.
51.
.32
51.5
2.30
17.98
1813.1
30.02
.577 ( 1.27)
2.07 ( 2.78)
1.11 ( .83)
8.67 ( 6.47)
874.62 ( 652.20)
14.48 ( 10.80)
.279 ( .458)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
10.85
.68 ( .51)
2.67 ( 1.21)
97.5
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .256 ( .420)
-------
TABLE B-8 (Cont'd).
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOx
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE N0.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 741.43 MM HG(29.19 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
CO 2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
0 DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.91 ( 21.34)
.88 ( .65)
4.12 ( 3.07)
809. ( 603.)
9.66 ( 7.21) Bag
TEST NO.D3-17 RUN2
DATE 5/20/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
DIESEL EM-515-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY', ENGINE-45. PCT , CVS-61. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.8 GM/KG( 61.8 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
61.36 ( 2166.8)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.0 < 10697.)
21.0/11/ 21.
9.3/ I/ 9.
64.0/13/ 62.
.9/13/ 1.
23. 7/ 3/ .39
3.1/ 3/ .05
45. 8/ 2/ 46.
1.3/ 2/ 1.
34.08
12.
59.
.34
44.5
2.09
20.90
1880.2
25.80
.600 ( 1.32)
2.16 ( 2.89)
.97 ( .72)
9.70 ( 7.23)
872.45 ( 650.59)
11.97 ( 8.93)
.278 ( .457)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.9 304.9
61.35 ( 2166.2) 61.36 ( 2166.7)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.64) .05 < 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
306.9 (10835.) 312.1 (11019.)
25.4/11/ 25. 44.6/11/ 45.
9.0/ I/ 9. 8.8/ I/ 9.
52.0/13/ 49. 31.4/13/ 29.
.9/13/ 1. .7/13/ 1.
30. 5/ 3/ .50 67. I/ 3/ 1.21
3.3/ 3/ .05 3.4/ 3/ .05
50. 4/ 2/ 50. 41. I/ 3/ 123.
1.3/ 2/ 1. .4/3/1.
26.18 11.05
17. 37.
47. 27.
.46 1.16
49.1 122.2
2.95 6.58
16.79 9.85
2561.7 6615.7
28.84 72.93
.811 ( 1.79) 2.078 ( 4.58)
2.88 ( 3.86) 8.81 ( 11.81)
1.03 ( .77) .75 ( .56)
5.83 ( 4.35) 1.12 ( .83)
889.96 ( 663.64) 751.21 ( 560.18)
10.02 ( 7.47) 8.28 ( 6.18)
.282 ( .463) .236 { .388)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.37 ( 2166.9)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.64)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.8 (10763.)
21.8/11/ 22.
9.0/ I/ 9.
55.3/13/ 53.
.6/13/ 1.
22. 8/ 3/ .37
3.0/ 3/ .05
46. I/ 2/ 46.
1.2/ 2/ 1.
35.56
13.
51.
.32
44.9
2.30
17.98
1813.1
26.19
.577 ( 1.27)
2.07 ( 2.78)
1.11 ( .83)
8.67 ( 6.47)
874.62 ( 652.20)
12.64 ( 9.42)
.279 ( .458)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
10.85
.68 ( .51)
2.67 ( 1.21)
97.5
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .256 ( .420)
-------
TABLE B-9. TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS AND MODAL
EMISSION RATE SUMMARY
TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS
TEST D3-14
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
Speed
58.8
0.9951
0.990
15.4
1179
21.
Cold Cycle
Torque
4.2
0.9671
0.971
-1.9
988
77 (-1
Power
4.5
1.0022
0.980
-1.2
988
.23)
Speed
52.2
0.9951
0.992
.16.4
1179
21.
Hot Cycle
Torque
3.9
0.9609
0.976
0.3
998
77 (-0
Power
4.3
1.0001
0.982
-0.8
998
.57)
TEST D3-16
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Wbrk (Dev. %)
59.6
0.9914
0.990
16.3
1179
4.3
0.9840
0.972'
-6.7
990
4.9
1.0092
0.977
-2.3
990
54.3
0.9917
0.992
18.7
1179
4.4
0.9684
0.971
-2.0
997
5.1
0.9981
0.975
-1.8
997
21.77
(-1.88)
21.77
(-1.99)
Note:
Units are as given in Federal Register Section 86.1341-84
B-14
-------
(0
§
n
o
•H
e
0)
+J
0)
•H
Q
O
•H
-P
i-l
20 40 60 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent Smaller than BCD
99.9
Figure B-l. Particle size distribution from transient operation
of the Mack EM6-300 with 25 percent EDS Blend
B-15
-------
49888
scaea
X
u
£ zseee
RT in Bin.
12
28
24
28
32
SflMPLEl VlflL S-247 INJECTED RT 9sCS:83 ON JUN 29, 1902
M.thodi SD^OIL Run TUS247 Proci *PRC8S
Figure B-2. Boiling Point Distribution of SOF derived from cold-start
transient operation with EDS blend
4S809
3C080
t Z7B80
6
RT in ain.
8 12 16 28 24 28
SHMPLEs VIOL S-250 INJECTED BT ll:09lSl ON JUN 29, 1982
Method: SD/OIL Raui TUS256 Proci *PRC8E
32
Figure B-3. Boiling Point Distribution of SOF derived from hot-start
transient operation with EDS blend
B-16
-------
APPENDIX C
TEST RESULTS WITH 25 PERCENT SRC-II
(EM-511-F)
-------
TABLE C-l. FULL LOAD PERFORMANCE DATA FROM THE MACK EM6-300
WITH (EM-511-F) 25 PERCENT SRC-II BLEND
Engine Speed rpm 2100 1900
Torque
Power
Fuel Rate
Fuel Temp.a
Fuel Press.
Inlet Air Rate
Inlet Air Depress.0
Inlet Air Temp.d
Turbo Boost Press.
Manifold Inlet Temp.
Exhaust Back. Press.8 in Hg
Exhaust Temp.8 °F
Coolant Water Out °F 188 191
1700
1500
1260
1000
ft-lb
(N.m)
hp
(kW)
Ib/hr
OF
psig
Ib/min
in H2O
oF
psig
OF
780
(1058)
312
(233)
120.2
99
21.0
56.9
36.0
75
22.5
120
865
(1173)
313
(234)
958
(1299)
310
(231)
1021
(1384)
292
(218)
114.7
101
20.2
53.1
31.5
75
22.5
122
2.6 2.1
826 841
109.4
102
19.5
47.3
25.3
75.
21.2
123
1.8
882
192
1105
(1498)
265
(198)
94.3
103
18.2
31.6
12.6
76
17.0
120
1047
(1420)
199
(148)
77.6
104
16.0
21.7
6.7
77
17.2
116
102.1
103
19.3
39.6
18.7
75
19.0
122
1.2 0.8 0.4
953 1047 1148
191
192
196
Note: These data taken during run for power curve smoke - mode was held only
long enough to record necessary data (approximately 2 minutes)
Monitored at connection to injection pump
Monitored after fuel filter
Q
, Indicated reading using 4 inch tube metering section per 312GS148 of Mack
Monitored upstream of metering section
Indicated reading using 5 inch tube metering section per 312GS148 of Mack
C-2
-------
TABLi; C-2. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 SRC BLEND BAROMETER:28.90
TEST 03-01 FUEL: EM-511-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014 DATE: 05/29/82
o
CO
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
SPEED DBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
COND / RPM N X M KW KG/MI N KG/MI N G/KG
IDLE / 650. 0. .0 .017 3.34 74.
INTER / 1260. 30. 3.9 .061 6.83 74.
INTER / 1260. 377. 49.8 .190 7.55 74.
INTER / 1260. 753. 99.3 .349 8.93 74.
INTER / 1260. 1130. 149.1 .531 11.84 74.
INTER / 1260. 1505. 198.7 .707 14.41 74.
IDLE / 650. 0. .0 .016 3.20 74.
RATED / 2100. 1058. 232.7 .908 25.82 74.
RATED / 2100. 785. 172.7 .685 22.12 74.
RATED / 2100. 524. 115.1 .494 18.69 74.
RATED / 2100. 262. 57.6 .298 14.73 74.
RATED / 2100. 20. 4.5 .144 11.75 74.
IDLE / 650. 0. .0 .017 3.23 74.
NOX
CORR
FACT
.035
.032
.019
.005
.999
.996
.016
.009
.011
.016
.018
.025
.016
MEASURED
HC CO
PPM PPM
456. 654.
484. 807.
240. 185.
228. 209.
160. 883.
76. 1708.
416. 543.
162. 130.
200. 108.
218. 123.
246. 234.
384. 498.
440. 543.
C02
PCT
1
1
5
8
9
10
1
7
6
5
4
2
1
.25
.75
.53
.21
.66
.34
.21
.27
.41
.61
.24
.46
.17
NOX
PPM
240.
355.
1290.
1875.
1710.
1605.
275.
765.
685.
555.
440.
300.
260.
CALCULATED
GRAMS /
HC
35.
96.
52.
62.
57.
33.
31.
129.
135.
120.
106.
133.
37.
CO
103.
323.
78.
109.
590.
1411.
81.
198.
141.
132.
200.
345.
91.
HOUR
NOX
64.
239.
900.
1596.
1862.
2153.
68.
1923.
1476.
988.
623.
347.
73.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC
34.00
26.22
4.52
2.96
1.78
.79
32.31
2.36
3.28
4.06
5.96
15.43
35.16
CO NOX HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
98.29 60.94 **»»***»»*** ****** .0053 .0700 .075
87.85 65.07 24.47 81.96 60.71 .0091 .0700 .129
6.79 78.76 1.04 1.56 18.09 .0255 .0700 .364
5.18 76.19 .62 1.09 16.07 .0395 .0700 .564
18.50 58.40 .38 3.96 12.49 .0454 .0700 .648
33.23 50.72 .17 7.10 10.84 .0496 .0700 .709
85.05 71.43 ************ ****** .0050 .0700 .072
3.64 35.30 .55 .85 8.26 .0355 .0700 .508
3.43 35.92 .78 .82 8.55 .0313 .0700 .447
4.46 33.35 1.04 1.15 8.58 .0267 .0700 .381
11.17 34.89 1.85 3.47 10.83 .0204 .0700 .292
39.98 40.28 29.72 77.00 77.58 .0124 .0700 .177
87.57 69.54 ************ ****** .0054 .0700 .078
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.985
.982
.953
.933
.922
.917
.986
.940
.946
.952
.963
.976
.986
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0064 21.6
.0088 -2.5
.0257 1.0
.0377 -4.5
.0444 -2.2
.0477 -3.9
.0061 22.5
.0335 -5.7
.0296 -5.2
.0261 -2.3
.0199 -2.5
.0119 -3.5
.0060 9.6
POWER
CORR
FACT
.996
.002
.003
.006
.015
.028
.002
.092
.067
.045
.028
.018
.003
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
.931
.229
.210
.211
.208
*****
.214
.223
.246
.302
1.891
*****
MODAL
WE 1 GHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
8SHC = .932 GRAM/KW-HR
BSNOX = 11.334 GRAM/KW-HR
BSHC + BSNOX = 12.266 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .234 KG/KW-HR
( .695
( 2.586
( 8.455
( 9.150
( .385
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
)
(
)
)
)
-------
TABLE C-3. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 SRC BLEND BAROMETER:29.13
TEST-03-02 FUEL:EM-511-F PROJECT:05-5830-014 DATE:6/01/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE NOX
SPEED OBS DBS FLOW FLOW HUMID CORR
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM N X M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG FACT
/ 650. 0. .0 .017 3.33 65. 1
/ 1260. 30. 3.9 .059 6.85 65. 1
/ 1260. 377. 49.8 .195 7.70 65. 1
/ 1260. 753. 99.3 .349 9.06 65.
/ 1260. 1130. 149.1 .531 11.62 65.
/ 1260. 1512. 199.6 .704 14.49 65.
/ 650. 0. .0 .018 3.30 65. 1
/ 2100. 1051. 231.2 .903 25.77 65.
/ 2100. 785. 172.7 .680 22.55 65.
/ 2100. 524. 115.1 .485 18.34 65.
/ 2100. 262. 57.6 .299 14.69 65.
/ 2100. 20. 4.5 .141 11.86 65.
/ 650. 0. .0 .016 3.28 65.
.012
.014
.002
.988
.982
.980
.007
.991
.990
.990
.989
.988
.980
MEASURED
HC CO C02
PPM PPM
376. 498.
424. 735.
208. 193.
208. 226.
156. 932.
76. 1680.
380. 532.
170. 130.
200. 108.
204. 123.
228. 234.
384. 509.
464. 543.
PCT
1.21
1.71
5.61
8.41
9.77
10.45
1.17
7.27
6.49
5.61
4.38
2.51
1.12
NOX
PPM
300.
360.
1320.
1905.
1770.
1665.
285.
790.
705.
575.
455.
310.
250.
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC
29.
84.
45.
55.
55.
33.
33.
134.
132.
110.
96.
128.
37.
CO
78.
291.
82.
115.
615.
1366.
94.
197.
138.
130.
194.
340.
87.
NOX
78.
236.
914.
1558.
1874.
2165.
83.
1941.
1457.
981.
608.
334.
64.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
9 MODE
1
£>.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC
29.38
23.63
3.87
2.64
1.71
.78
30.53
2.48
3.24
3.80
5.36
15.13
38.50
CO
78.52
82.35
6.99
5.47
19.30
32.35
86.29
3.64
3.39
4.46
10.82
40.06
90.99
NOX HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
78.11 ************ ****** .0050 .0700 .072
66.71 21.23 73.98 59.94 .0087 .0700 .124
78.13 .91 1.64 18.37 .0256 .0700 .365
74.36 .56 1.15 15.69 .0389 .0700 .556
58.77 .37 4.13 12.57 .0462 .0700 .660
51.28 .17 6.85 10.85 .0490 .0700 .700
75.97 ************ ****** .0056 .0700 .079
35.82 .58 .85 8.40 .0354 .0700 .505
35.75 .77 .80 8.44 .0304 .0700 .435
33.68 .96 1.13 8.52 .0267 .0700 .382
33.96 1.67 3.37 10.57 .0205 .0700 .293
39.33 28.68 75.93 74.55 .0120 .0700 .172
66.98 ************ ****** .0049 .0700 .070
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.986
.983
.952
.932
.922
.917
.987
.940
.946
.953
.962
.976
.987
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0061 21.2
.0086 -1.3
.0261 2.1
.0386 -.8
.0449 -2.8
.0481 -1.8
.0059 6.9
.0335 -5.3
.0300 -1.3
.0261 -2.4
.0205 .2
.0122 1.2
.0057 17.7
POWER
CORR
FACT
.986
.990
.991
.996
.003
.013
.988
.080
.058
.039
.024
.014
.997
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
.907
.237
.212
.213
.209
*****
.217
.223
.243
.304
1.870
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC = .883 GRAM/KW-HR (
BSHC + BSNOX = 12.203 GRAM/KW-HR (
CORR. BSFC - = .235 KG/KW-HR (
.659
2.539
8AAR
«**«*3
9.103
.387
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
PDAU /DUD UD
bKnH/Dnr ~HK
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
)
(
)
)
-------
TABLE C-4. REGULATED EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT FTP OPERATION
OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE WITH (EM-511) 25 PERCENT SRC-II BLEND
Transient Emissions, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
Cycle
. Type
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
NOX
HC
0.94
(0.70)
0.79
(0.59)
0.81
(0.60)
1.04
(0.77)
0.83
(0.62)
0.86
(0.64)
CO
5.80
(4.33)
4.63
(3.45)
4.80
(3.58)
6.01
(4.48)
4.84
(3.61)
5.01
(3.74)
Cont.
12.22
(9.11)
12.98
(9.68)
12.87
(9.60)
12.09
(9.01)
11.68
(8.71)
11.74
(8.76)
Bag
10.19
(7.60)
10.29
(7.67)
10.28
(7.67)
9.81
(7.31)
8.77
(6.54)
8.92
(6.65)
Part.
0.73
(0.54)
0.68
(0.51)
0.69
(0.52)
0.78
(0.58)
0.63
(0.47)
0.65
(0.48)
Cycle BSFC
kg/kW-hr
(lb/hp-hr)
0.277
(0.455)
0.263
(0.432)
0.265
(0.436)
0.279
(0.458)
0.264
(0.433)
0.266
(0.438)
Cycle Work
kW-hr
(hp-hr)
15.97
(21.41)
16.19
(21.71)
16.16
(21.66)
16.10
(21.59)
16.18
(21.70)
16.17
(21.68)
C-5
-------
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE C-5. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-18 RUN2
DATE 5/28/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 735.08 MM HG(28.94 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
O
cn
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.97 ( 21.41)
.94 ( .70)
5.80 ( 4.33)
875. ( 652.)
12.22 ( 9.11)
DIESEL EM-511-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-38. PCT , CVS-58. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 7.3 GM/KG( 50.8 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
60.61 ( 2140.2)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.04 ( 1.58)
0.00 ( 0.00)
299.1 ( 10563.)
31.4/11/ 31.
8.6/ I/ 9.
47.6/12/ 100.
.5/12/ 1.
27. O/ 3/ .44
3.3/ 3/ .05
19.3/13/ 58.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
29.42
23.
96.
.39
57.0
3.99
33.58
2156.4
32.60
.694 ( 1.53)
2.10 ( 2.81)
1.90 ( 1.42)
16.02 ( 11.95)
1029.12 ( 767.42)
15.56 ( 11.60)
.331 ( .545)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.9 304.9
60.62 ( 2140.3) 60.61 ( 2140.1)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.04 ( 1.58) .04 ( 1.58)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
303.2 (10706.) 308.2 (10884.)
27. 6/1 1/ 28. 42. 5/1 1/ 43.
9.8/ I/ 10. 10. O/ I/ 10.
36.2/12/ 73. 18.0/12/ 35.
.3/12/ 1. .3/12/ 1.
34. 5/ 3/ .58 70. 8/ 3/ 1.28
2.9/ 3/ .04 3.3/ 3/ .05
21.1/13/ 63. 53.2/13/ 160.
.8/ 2/ 1. .3/ 3/ 1.
22.85 10.40
18. 33.
71. 33.
.53 1.23
62.5 158.9
3.18 5.95
24.95 11.75
2965.5 6968.1
36.22 93.64
.942 ( 2.08) 2.188 ( 4.82)
2.94 ( 3.94) 8.85 ( 11.87)
1.08 ( .81) .67 ( .50)
8.49 ( 6.33) 1.33 ( .99)
1009.33 ( 752.65) 787.23 ( 587.04)
12.33 ( 9.19) 10.58 ( 7.89)
.321 ( .527) .247 ( .406)
4
NYNF
297.8
60.63 ( 2140.7)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.04 ( 1.58)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.1 (10633.)
20. 3/1 1/ 20.
9.7/ I/ 10.
33.0/12/ 66.
.4/12/ 1.
24. O/ 3/ .39
3.4/ 3/ .05
19.2/13/ 58.
,9/ 2/ 1.
33.61
11.
64.
.34
56.7
1.88
22.38
1872.8
32.66
.598 ( 1.32)
2.08 ( 2.79)
.91 ( .68)
10.76 ( 8.02)
900.15 ( 671.24)
15.70 ( 11.71)
.287 ( .472)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
11.63
.73 ( .54)
2.63 ( 1.19)
97.1
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .277 ( .455)
-------
TABLE C-5 (Cont'd).
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 735.08 MM HG(28.94 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEC C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
n
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
15.97 ( 21.41)
.94 ( .70)
5.80 ( 4.33)
652.)
7.60)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-18 RUN2
DATE 5/28/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-511-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-38. PCT , CVS-58. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 7.3 GM/KG( 50.8 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
875.
10.19 (
.277 (
.455)
Bag
1
NYNF
295.9
60.61 ( 2140.2)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.04 ( 1.58)
0.00 ( 0.00)
299.1 ( 10563.)
31.4/11/ 31.
8.6/ I/ 9.
47.6/12/ 100.
.5/12/ 1.
27. O/ 3/ .44
3.3/ 3/ .05
47. 4/ 2/ 47.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
29.42
23.
96.
.39
46.4
3.99
33.58
2156.4
26.56
.694 ( 1.53)
2.10 ( 2.81)
1.90 ( 1.42)
16.02 ( 11.95)
1029.12 ( 767.42)
12.68 ( 9.45)
.331 ( .545)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.9 304.9
60.62 ( 2140.3) 60.61 ( 2140.1)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.04 ( 1.58) .04 ( 1.58)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
303.2 (10706.) 308.2 (10884.)
27.6/11/ 28. 42.5/11/ 43.
9.8/ I/ 10. 10. O/ I/ 10.
36.2/12/ 73. 18.0/12/ 35.
.3/12/ 1. .3/12/ 1.
34. 5/ 3/ .58 70. 8/ 3/ 1.28
2.9/ 3/ .04 3.3/ 3/ .05
56. I/ 2/ 56. 43. O/ 3/ 129.
.8/ 2/ 1. .3/3/1.
22.85 10.40
18. 33.
71. 33.
.53 1.23
55.3 128.2
3.18 5.95
24.95 11.75
2965.5 6968.1
32.09 75.56
.942 ( 2.08) 2.188 ( 4.82)
2.94 ( 3.94) 8.85 ( 11.87)
1.08 ( .81) .67 ( .50)
8.49 ( 6.33) 1.33 ( .99)
1009.33 ( 752.65) 787.23 ( 587.04)
10.92 ( 8.14) 8.54 £ 6.37)
.321 ( .527) .247 ( .406)
4
NYNF
297.8
60.63 ( 2140.7)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.04 ( 1.58)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.1 (10633.)
20. 3/1 1/ 20.
9.7/ I/ 10.
33.0/12/ 66.
.4/12/ 1.
24. O/ 3/ .39
3.4/ 3/ .05
50. 3/ 2/ 50.
.9/ 2/ 1.
33.61
11.
64.
.34
49.4
1.88
22.38
1872.8
28.46
.598 ( 1.32)
2.08 ( 2.79)
.91 ( .68)
10.76 ( 8.02)
900.15 ( 671.24)
13.68 ( 10.20)
.287 ( .472)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
11.63
.73 ( .54)
2.63 ( 1.19)
97.1
-------
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE C-6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-19 RUN2
DATE 5/28/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 735.33 MM HG(28.95 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
n
GO
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM •
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
16.19
.79
4.63
831.
12.98
.263
21.71)
.59)
3.45)
619.)
9.68)
.432)
DIESEL EM-511-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-36. PCT , CVS-58. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 6.9 GM/KG( 48.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
60.65 ( 2141.7)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.59)
0.00 ( 0.00)
299.5 ( 10574.)
19.3/11/ 19.
10. O/ I/ 10.
35.6/12/ 72.
.6/12/ 1.
25. 6/ 3/ .42
3.0/ 3/ .05
6.2/14/ 62.
.9/ 2/ 1.
31.38
10.
69.
.37
61.4
1.65
24.08
2048.3
35.16
.653 ( 1.44)
2.21 ( 2.97)
.75 ( .56)
10.87 ( 8.11)
924.85 ( 689.66)
15.88 ( 11.84)
.295 ( .485)
2
LANF
299.9
60.65 ( 2141.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.59)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.4 (10712.)
23. 9/1 1/ 24.
9.2/ I/ 9.
28.4/12/ 56.
.6/12/ 1.
32. 4/ 3/ .54
3.8/ 3/ .06
7.1/14/ 71.
.8/ 2/ 1.
24.52
15.
54.
.48
69.8
2.64
18.94
2681.1
40.50
.849 ( 1.87)
3.01 ( 4.04)
.88 ( .65)
6.29 ( 4.69)
889.97 ( 663.65)
13,44 ( 10.03)
.282 ( .464)
3
LAF
305.0
60.65 ( 2141.6)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.59)
0.00 ( 0.00)
308.5 (10895.)
43. 8/1 I/ 44.
9.2/ I/ 9.
16.4/12/ 32.
.6/12/ 1.
69. 7/ 3/ 1.26
3.2/ 3/ .05
16.8/14/ 168.
.3/ 3/ 1.
10.59
35.
29.
1.21
167.3
6.31
10.49
6856.1
98.69
2.153 ( 4.75)
8.88 ( 11.91)
.71 ( .53)
1.18 ( .88)
771.97 ( 575.66)
11.11 ( 8.29)
.242 ( .399)
4
NYNF
297.9
60.64 ( 2141.1)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.59)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.3 (10638.)
21.0/11/ 21.
9.0/ I/ 9.
31.7/12/ 63.
.4/12/ 1.
23. 8/ 3/ .39
3.3/ 3/ .05
6.3/14/ 63.
.9/ 2/ 1.
33.92
12.
61.
.34
62.0
2.13
21.42
1862.8
35.70
.595 { 1.31)
2.08 ( 2.79)
1.02 ( .76)
10.30 ( 7.68)
895.38 ( 667.69)
17.16 ( 12.80)
.286 ( .470)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
10.99
.68 ( .51)
2.59 ( 1.17)
97.7
-------
TABLE C-6 (Cont'd).
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 735.33 MM HG<28.95 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
O
VO
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.19 ( 21.71)
.79 ( .59)
4.63 ( 3.45)
831. ( 619.)
10.29 ( 7.67) Bag
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-19 RUN2
DATE 5/28/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-511-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
1
NYNF
296.0
60.65 ( 2141.7)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.59)
0.00 ( 0.00)
, ENGINE-36. PCT , CVS-58. PCT
6.9 GM/KG( 48.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
2
LANF
299.9
60.65 ( 2141.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.59)
0.00 ( 0.00)
299.5 ( 10574.) 303.4 (10712.)
19.3/11/
10. O/ I/
35.6/12/
.6/12/
25. 6/ 3/
3.0/ 3/
51. 7/ 2/
.9/ 2/
31.38
10.
69.
.37
50.8
1.65
24.08
2048.3
29.11
.653 (
2.21 (
.75 (
10.87 (
19.
10.
72.
1.
.42
.05
52.
1.
1.44)
2.97)
.56)
8.11)
924.85 ( 689.66)
13.14 (
.295 (
9.80)
.485)
23. 9/1 I/
9.2/ I/
28.4/12/
.6/12/
32. 4/ 3/
3.8/ 3/
57. O/ 2/
.8/ 2/
24.52
15.
54.
.48
56.2
2.64
18.94
2681.1
32.62
.849 (
3.01 (
.88 (
6.29 (
24.
9.
56.
1.
.54
.06
57.
1.
1.87)
4.04)
.65)
4.69)
889.97 ( 663.65)
10.«3 (
.282 (
8.08)
.464)
3
LAF
305.0
60.65 ( 2141.6)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.59)
0.00 ( 0.00)
308.5 (10895.)
43.8/1 I/ 44.
9.2/ I/ 9.
16.4/12/ 32.
.6/12/ 1.
69.7/ 3/ 1.26
3.2/ 3/ .05
43.6/ 3/ 131.
.3/ 3/ 1.
10.59
35.
29.
1.21
130.0
6.31
10.49
6856.1
76.70
2.153 ( 4.75)
8.88 ( 11.91)
.71 ( .53)
1.18 ( .88)
771.97 ( 575.66)
8.64 ( 6.44)
.242 ( .399)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.9
60.64 ( 2141.1)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.59)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.3 (10638.)
21.0/11/
9.0/ I/
31.7/12/
.4/12/
23.8/ 3/
3.3/ 3/
49.7/ 2/
.9/ 2/
33.92
12.
61.
.34
48.8
2.13
21.42
1862.8
28.13
.595 (
2.08 (
21.
9.
63.
1.
.39
.05
50.
1.
1.31)
2.79)
1.02 ( .76)
10.30 ( 7.68)
895.38 ( 667.69)
13.52 ( 10.08)
.286 ( .470)
10.99
.68 ( .51)
2.59 ( 1.17)
97.7
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .263 ( .432)
-------
TABLE C-7.
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 737.36 MM HG(29.03 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
O
I
DILUTION FACTOR
3 HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.10 ( 21.59)
1.04 ( .77)
6.01 ( 4.48)
879. ( 655.)
12.09 ( 9.01)
TEST NO.D3-23 RUN
DATE 5/31/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
DIESEL EM-511-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-55. PCT , CVS-53. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.5 GM/KG( 73.7 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.10 ( 2157.4)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.61)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.5 ( 10648.)
35. 4/1 I/
9.7/ I/
49.5/12/
.7/12/
27. 5/ 3/
3.3/ 3/
5.5/14/
1.5/ 2/
28.81
26.
101.
.40
53.5
35.
10.
105.
1.
.45
.05
55.
2.
4.52
35.36
2222.5
30.88
.716 ( 1.58)
2.14 ( 2.87)
2.11 ( 1.58)
16.52 ( 12.32)
1038.49 ( 774.40)
14.43 ( 10.76)
.335 ( .550)
2
LANF
299.9
61.09 ( 2157.2)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.61)
0.00 ( 0.00)
305.6 (10790.)
29. 4/1 1/ 29.
10. I/ I/ 10.
78.1/13/ 77.
1.8/13/ 2.
35. I/ 3/ .59
3.3/ 3/ .05
6.6/14/ 66.
2.2/ 2/ 2.
22.41
20.
73.
.54
63.7
3.49
26.09
3017.0
37.21
.959 ( 2
2.98 ( 4
1.17 (
8.75 ( 6
1011.48 ( 754
12.48 ( 9
.321 (
.11)
.00)
.87)
.52)
.26)
.30)
528)
3
LAF
304.9
61.12 ( 2158.0)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.61)
0.00 ( 0.00)
310.8 (10975.)
43. 7/1 I/ 44.
11. O/ I/ 11.
41.0/13/ 38.
2.1/13/ 2.
70. 7/ 3/ 1.28
3.3/ 3/ .05
16.3/14/ 163.
3.2/ 2/ 3.
10.42
34.
35.
1.23
160.5
6.06
12.64
7014.8
95.41
2.203 ( 4
8.91 ( 11
.68 (
1.42 ( 1
787.20 ( 587
10.71 ( 7
.247 (
.86)
.95)
.51)
.06)
.01)
.98)
406)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.9
61.07 ( 2156.4)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.61)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.4 (10714.)
25.5/11/
10. 9/ I/
69.4/13/
1.9/13/
24. I/ 3/
3.4/ 3/
5.6/14/
2.0/ 2/
33.41
15.
64.
.34
53.6
2.61
22.68
1896.8
31.13
.606 (
2.07 (
1.26 (
10.98 (
25.
11.
67.
2.
.39
.05
56.
2.
1.34)
2.77)
.94)
8.19)
918.29 ( 684.77)
15.07 (
.293 (
11.24)
.482)
12.54
.78 ( .58)
2.80 ( 1.27)
97.1
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .279 ( .458)
-------
TABLE C-7 (Cont'd).
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L<
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
O
BAROMETER 737.36 MM HG(29.03 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG
-------
TABLE C-8.
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 737.62 MM HG(29.04 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
O
I
DILUTION FACTOR
o HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM •
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
16.18 ( 21.70)
.83 (
4.84 (
834. (
11.68 (
.264 (
.62)
3.61)
622.)
8.71)
.433)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
TEST NO.D3-24 RUN
DATE 5/31/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
DIESEL EM-511-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-58. PCT , CVS-42. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.1 GM/KG( 77.8 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.11 ( 2157.8)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.75)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.6 ( 10650.)
23.1/11/ 23.
10. 9/ I/ 11.
77.1/13/ 76.
1.5/13/ 1.
24. 4/ 3/ .40
3.2/ 3/ .05
5.2/14/ 52.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
32.93
12.
73.
.35
50.6
2.17
25.64
1930.9
29.20
.618 ( 1.36)
2.16 ( 2.89)
1.01 ( .75)
11.90 ( 8.87)
895.98 ( 668.13)
13.55 ( 10.10)
.287 ( .471)
2 3
LANF LAP
300.0 305.0
61.09 ( 2157.2) 61.12 ( 2158.1)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.75) .05 ( 1.75)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
305.7 (10795.) 310.9 (10979.)
26.2/11/ 26. 44.1/11/ 44.
10. 9/ I/ 11. 10. 2/ I/ 10.
60.9/13/ 58. 37.3/13/ 35.
1.6/13/ 1. 1.3/13/ 1.
32. O/ 3/ .53 69. 8/ 3/ 1.26
3.0/ 3/ .05 3.0/ 3/ .05
6.1/14/ 61. 15.8/14/ 158.
.7/ 2/ 1. .5/ 3/ 2.
24.83 10.57
16. 35.
56. 32.
.49 1.22
60.3 156.8
2.78 6.26
19.81 11.67
2728.0 6936.9
35.25 93.24
.865 1.91) 2.179 ( 4.80)
2.98 4.00) 8.94 ( 11.99)
.93 .69) .70 ( .52)
6.64 4.95) 1.30 ( .97)
914.56 681.99) 775.85 ( 578.55)
11.82 8.81) 10.43 ( 7.78)
.290 .477) .244 ( .401)
4
NYNF
297.9
61.10 ( 2157.5)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.75)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.6 (10721.)
22. 4/1 I/ 22.
10. I/ I/ 10.
65.1/13/ 63.
1.7/13/ 2.
23. 8/ 3/ .39
3. 1/ 3/ .05
5.5/14/ 55.
.7/ 2/ 1.
33.91
13.
60.
.34
53.9
2.20
21.24
1894.0
31.32
.604 ( 1.33)
2.10 ( 2.82)
1.05 ( .78)
10.10 ( 7.53)
900.66 ( 671.62)
14.89 ( 11.11)
.287 ( .472)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
10.23
.63 ( .47)
2.40 ( 1.09)
97.5
-------
TABLE C-8. (Cont'd)Q
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. II
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 737.62 MM H6(29.04 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C<75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
CO2 SAMPLE
CO2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
O
I-1
oo
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCQ G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.18 ( 21.70)
.83 ( .62)
4.84 ( 3.61)
834. ( 622.)
8.77 ( 6.54) Bag
TEST NO.D3-24 RUN
DATE 5/31/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
DIESEL EM-511-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-58. PCT , CVS-42. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.1 GM/KG( 77.8 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.11 ( 2157.8)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.75)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.6 ( 10650.)
23.1/11/ 23.
10. 9/ I/ 11.
77.1/13/ 76.
1.5/13/ 1.
24. 4/ 3/ .40
3.2/ 3/ .05
45. 2/ 2/ 45.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
32.93
12.
73.
.35
44.2
2.17
25.64
1930.9
25.51
.618 ( 1.36)
2.16 ( 2.89)
1.01 ( .75)
11.90 ( 8.87)
895.98 { 668.13)
11.84 ( 8.83)
.287 ( .471)
2 3
LANF LAF
300.0 305.0
61.09 ( 2157.2) 61.12 ( 2158.1)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00< 0.0)
.05 ( 1.75) .05 ( 1.75)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
305.7 (10795.) 310.9 (10979.)
26. 2/1 I/ 26. 44. 1/1 I/ 44.
10. 9/ I/ 11. 10. 2/ I/ 10.
60.9/13/ 58. 37.3/13/ 35.
1.6/13/ 1. 1.3/13/ 1.
32. O/ 3/ .53 69. 8/ 3/ 1.26
3.0/ 3/ .05 3.0/ 3/ .05
49. 9/ 2/ 50. 35. 4/ 3/ 106.
.7/ 2/ 1. .5/ 3/ 2.
24.83 10.57
16. 35.
56. 32.
.49 1.22
49.2 104.8
2.78 6.26
19.81 11.67
2728.0 6936.9
28.78 62.34
.865 ( 1.91) 2.179 ( 4.80)
2.98 ( 4.00) 8.94 ( 11.99)
.93 ( .69) .70 .52)
6.64 ( 4.95) 1.30 .97)
914.56 ( 681.99) 775.85 578.55)
9.65 ( 7.20) 6.97 5.20)
.290 ( .477) .244 .401)
4
NYNF
297.9
61.10 ( 2157.5)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.75)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.6 (10721.)
22. 4/1 1/ 22.
10. I/ I/ 10.
65.1/13/ 63.
1.7/13/ 2.
23. 8/ 3/ .39
3. I/ 3/ .05
44. I/ 2/ 44.
.7/ 2/ 1.
33.91
13.
60.
.34
43.4
2.20
21.24
1894.0
25.21
.604 ( 1.33)
2.10 ( 2.82)
1.05 ( .78)
10.10 ( 7.53)
900.66 ( 671.62)
11.99 ( 8.94)
.287 ( .472)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMSAEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
10.23
.63 ( .47)
2.40 < 1.09)
97.5
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .264 ( .433)
-------
TABLE C-9. TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS AND MODAL
EMISSION RATE SUMMARY
TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS
TEST D3-18
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
Speed
50.6
0.9977
0.993
11.0
1179
21.
Cold Cycle
Torque
4.4
0.9608
0.968
-0.3
981
77 (-1
Power
4.9
0.9949
0.976
-1.0
981
.68)
Speed
46.4
0.9991
0.994
.13.5
1179 21
Hot Cycle
Torque
4.1
0.9529
5.7
993
.77
(-0.
Power
4.6
Oi.9972
0.979
-0.4
993
27)
TEST D-23
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
48.5
4.7
5.2
44.2
4.0
4.6
1.0011
0.993
8.0
1179
0.9648
0.964
-1.3
988
1.0013
0.974
-1.1
988
1.0001
0.995
12.5
1179
0.9699
.975
0.4
996
1.0068
0.980
-1.1
996
21.77
(-0.84)
21.77
(-0.32)
Note:
Units are as given in Federal Register Section 86.1341-84
C-14
-------
8.0
ui
C
o
M
O
•rH
g
0)
-P
0)
•H
Q
0)
rH
U
4J
id
20 40 60 80 90 95 98
Cumulative Percent Smaller than ECD
99
99.9
Figure C-l. Particle size distribution from transient operation
of the Mack EM6-300 with 25 percent SRC-II Blend
C-15
-------
u>
C*J
X
480B8
40868
32688
24638
e
RT in «in.
12
16
24
28
32
VIOL S-2C4 INJECTED AT 12:25149 OH JUN 29, 1982
Method I SD'QIL Raw I TU254: Proci *PRC05
Figure C-2. Boiling Point Distribution of SOF derived from cold-start
transient operation with SRC-II blend
* 4b«dH
u>
x
27666
RT in »in.
8 12 16 28 24 28
VIOL S-2G7 INJECTED BT lCllS:C7 ON JUN 29, 1982
Hcthodi SD/OIL Raut TU257i Proci *PRC8S
32
Figure C-3. Boiling Point Distribution of SOF derived from hot-start
transient operation with SRC-II Blend
C-16
-------
APPENDIX D
TEST RESULTS WITH 5 PERCENT LUBE OIL
(EM-517-F)
-------
TABLE D-l. FULL LOAD PERFORMANCE DATA FROM THE MACK EM6-300
WITH (EM-517-F) 5 PERCENT LUBE OIL BLEND
Engine Speed
Torque
Power
Fuel Rate
Fuel Temp.
Fuel Press.
Inlet Air Rate
Inlet Air Depress.0
Inlet Air Temp.
Turbo Boost Press.
Manifold Inlet Temp.
Exhaust Back. Press.'
Exhaust Temp.e
Coolant Water Out
rpm
ft-lb
(N.m)
hp
(kW)
Ib/hr
oF
psig
Ib/min.
in H20
°F
psig
°F
in Hg
°F
2100
1900
1700
1500
1260
1000
783
(1062)
313
(234)
117.8
100
20.0
56.1
36.0
23
22.6
120
2.5
852
880
(1193)
318
(237)
112.6
103
22.6
53.2
30.5
72
19.5
122
2.2
854
967 1032 1113 1077
(1311) (1399) (1509) (1460)
313 295 267 205
(234) (220) (199) (153)
107.4
104
19.0
47.4
24.8
73
21.0
122
1.7
190
197
196
99.4
104
17.8
39.6
18.0
73
18.8
122
1.2
964
196
91.4
104
16.8
32.1
12.3
74
16.9
121
0.8
1059
198
77.1
105
16.0
22.1
7.0
75
13.0
114
0.4
1158
200
Note: These data taken during run for power curve smoke - mode was held only
long enough to record necessary data (approximately 2 minutes)
Monitored at connection to injection pump
b
Monitored after fuel filter
Indicated reading using 4 inch tube metering section per 312GS148
Monitored upstream of metering section
Indicated reading using 5 inch tube metering section per 312GS148
D-2
-------
TABLE D-2. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 5 PCT LUBE OIL BLEND
TEST-04-01 FUEL:EM-517-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014
BAROMETER: 28.91
DATE:6/02/82
V
W
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
ENGINE
SPEED
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM
/ 650
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 650
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 650
TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
OBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
N X M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG
0. .0 .017 3.34 64.
30. 3.9 .061 6.83 64.
377. 49.8 .190 7.55 64.
753. 99.3 .349 8.93 64.
1130. 149.1 .531 11.83 64.
1519. 200.4 .707 14.42 64.
0. .0 .016 3.20 64.
1058. 232.7 .908 25.82 64.
785. 172.7 .685 22.12 64.
524. 115.1 .494 18.69 64.
262. 57.6 .298 14.73 64.
20. 4.5 .144 11.74 64.
0. .0 .017 3.23 64.
NOX
CORR
FACT
.998
.997
.992
.984
.981
.979
.980
.986
.987
.989
.989
.992
.980
MEASURED
HC CO C02
PPM PPM PCT
290. 269. 1.12
300. 278. 1.66
254. 161. 5.30
252. 217. 8.11
204. 852. 9.44
78. 1423. 10.34
280. 260. 1.08
182. 153. 7.18
248. 108. 6.32
288. 123. 5.61
292. 177. 4.31
370. 201. 2.40
356. 278. 1.12
CALCULATED
NOX
PPM
285.
360.
1035.
1800.
1650.
1575.
295.
690.
615.
485.
340.
215.
280.
GRAMS /
HC
26.
65.
57.
70.
74.
35. 1
24.
147.
170.
159.
125.
133.
32.
CO
48.
120.
70.
113.
577.
167.
44.
234.
141.
131.
147.
143.
50.
HOUR
NOX
83.
254.
726.
1505.
1788.
2065.
80.
1699.
1298.
831.
456.
247.
80.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
GRAMS/KG-FUEL
HC
24.99
17.77
5.00
3.32
2.33
.82
25.01
2.69
4.13
5.37
6.98
15.42
30.48
CO
46.36
32.79
6.11
5.39
18.09
27.50
46.46
4.30
3.44
4.41
8.23
16.58
47.60
NOX
79.99
69.06
63.54
71.81
56.07
48.64
84.29
31.20
31.58
28.07
25.52
28.69
76.68
GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
************ ****** .0053 .0691 .076
16.58 30.60 64.43 .0090 .0691 .131
1.15 1.40 14.60 .0255 .0691 .369
.70 1.14 15.15 .0395 .0691 .571
.50 3.87 11.99 .0453 .0691 .656
.17 5.82 10.30 .0495 .0691 .717
*****»**»*»* ****** .0050 .0691 .072
.63 1.01 7.30 .0355 .0691 .514
.98 .82 7.51 .0312 .0691 .452
1.38 1.13 7.22 .0267 .0691 .386
2.17 2.56 7.92 .0204 .0691 .295
29.71 31.92 55.25 .0123 .0691 .179
*»**»»«»**** ****** .0054 .0691 .079
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.987
.983
.952
.930
.919
.912
.987
.937
.944
.949
.960
.976
.987
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0056 6.2
.0081 -10.0
.0249 -2.2
.0376 -4.8
.0437 -3.5
.0479 -3.4
.0054 7.6
.0333 -6.0
.0295 -5.6
.0263 -1.3
.0204 -.0
.0116 -6.0
.0056 3.4
POWER
CORR
FACT
.996
.003
.003
.006
.016
.028
.002
.092
.067
.045
.028
.019
.003
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
.931
.229
.210
.210
.206
*****
.214
.223
.246
.302
1.891
*****
MODAL
WE 1 GHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC + BSNOX = 11.220 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .233 KG/KW-HR
( .758
( 2.037
/ "7 A 1 9
\ / »O IZ
( 8.370
( .384
GRAM/BHP-HR )
GRAM/BHP-HR (
PDAU /nuP_UD \
ORnPI/Drlr — rlrx /
GRAM/BHP-HR )
LBS/BHP-HR )
-------
TABLE D-3. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 5 PERCENT LUBE OIL BLEND BAROMETER: 28.95
TEST-04-02 FUEL: EM-517-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014 DATE: 06/03/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
SPEED OBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM N X M KW KG/M1N KG/MIN G/KG
/ 650. 0. .0 .021 3.29 91.
/ 1260. 30. 3.9 .060 6.70 91.
/ 1260. 377. 49.8 .190 7.65 91.
/ 1260. 753. 99.3 .346 9.06 91.
/ 1260. 1130. 149.1 .512 11.62 91.
/ 1260. 1519. 200.4 .691 14.43 91.
/ 650. 0. .0 .018 3.20 91.
/ 2100. 1044. 229.7 .884 25.68 91.
/ 2100. 785. 172.7 .676 22.72 91.
/ 2100. 524. 115.1 .495 18.98 91.
/ 2100. 262. 57.6 .311 15.14 91.
/ 2100. 20. 4.5 .142 11.98 91.
/ 650. 0. .0 .019 3.21 91.
NOX
CORR
FACT
.070
.072
.056
.037
.031
.026
.061
.046
.046
.049
.052
.051
1.061
MEASURED
HC CO
PPM PPM
320. 276.
316. 287.
284. 169.
274. 201.
194. 792.
78. 1354.
272. 243.
172. 153.
264. 116.
306. 130.
318. 169.
400. 201.
460. 287.
C02
PCT
1.17
1.75
5.30
8.02
9.33
10.11
1.17
7.09
6.41
5.61
4.45
2.51
1.04
NOX
PPM
285.
395.
1035.
1785.
1635.
1530.
320.
665.
600.
465.
300.
200.
240.
CALCULATED
GRAMS /
HC
34.
64.
64.
76.
69.
35. 1
25.
137.
176.
170.
138.
136.
47.
CO
58.
115.
73.
105.
523.
110.
44.
231.
148.
138.
142.
135.
59.
HOUR
NOX
104.
277.
773.
1576.
1818.
2100.
too.
1714.
1304.
848.
432.
231.
86.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC
26.40
17.80
5.59
3.66
2.24
.83
22.60
2.58
4.35
5.71
7.38
15.98
41.80
CO
45.48
32.13
6.41
5.05
17.02
26.77
40.31
4.35
3.65
4.66
7.61
15.85
52.16
NOX HC CO NOX MEAS ST01CH
82.02 ************ ****** .0065 .0691 .094
77.37 16.20 29.23 70.40 .0090 .0691 .131
67.5.9 1.28 1.47 15.53 .0252 .0691 .365
75.85 .76 1.06 15.86 .0387 .0691 .560
59.12 .46 3.51 12.19 .0447 .0691 .647
50.65 .17 5.54 10.47 .0485 .0691 .702
91.89 ************ «****» .0057 .0691 .083
32.30 .60 1.01 7.46 .0349 .0691 .505
32.17 1.02 .86 7.55 .0301 .0691 .436
28.54 1.47 1.20 7.36 .0264 .0691 .383
23.20 2.39 2.46 7.51 .0208 .0691 .301
27.05 30.45 30.20 51.55 .0120 .0691 .174
75.49 ************ ****** .0060 .0691 .086
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.986
.980
.951
.929
.919
.913
.985
.936
.942
.948
.957
.974
.987
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0058 -10.3
.0086 -5.0
.0249 -1.3
.0372 -4.0
.0432 -3.3
.0468 -3.5
.0058 1.1
.0329 -5.6
.0299 -.7
.0263 -.4
.0211 1.2
.0121 .9
.0053 -11.1
POWER
CORR
FACT
.003
.007
.008
.015
.021
.030
.006
.094
.078
.054
.037
.028
.006
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
.903
.228
.206
.202
.201
*****
.211
.218
.245
.312
1.853
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC = 1.064 GRAM/KW-HR
BSCO = 2.638 GRAM/KW-HR
BSHC + BSNOX = 11.520 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .230 KG/KW-HR
( .794
( 1.968
( 7.800
( 8.594
( .378
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
)
(
)
)
)
-------
TABLE D-4. REGULATED EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT FTP OPERATION
OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE WITH (EM-517-F) 5 PERCENT LUBE OIL BLEND
Cycle
Type
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Transient Emissions, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
NOX
HC
0.97
(0.72)
CO
Cont.
Bag
5.09 11.14
(3.79) (8.31)
0.92 4.35 10.93
(0.69) (3.25) (8.15)
0.93 4.46 10.96
(0.69) (3.32) (8.18)
1.03 4.07 10.50
(0.77) (3.04) (7.83)
Part.
9.30 0.91
(6.94) (0.68)
9.23 0.83
(6.88) (0.62)
9.24 0.84
(6.89) (0.63)
1.00 4.46 10.59 8.82 0.88
(0.74) (3.33) (7.89) (6.57) (0.66)
8.97 0.81
(6.69) (0.61)
1.03 4.13 10.51 ' 8.95 0.82
(0.77) (3.08) (7.84) (6.68) (0.61)
Cycle BSFC
kg/kW-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0.276
(0.454)
0.263
(0.432)
0.270
(0.443)
0*.271
(0.445)
0.260
(0.427)
0.262
(0.430)
Cycle Work
kW-hr
(hp-hr)
15.73
(21.09)
15.99
(21.44)
15.95
(21.38)
16.14
(21.64)
16.05
(21.53)
16.06
(21.53)
D-5
-------
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE D-5. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-25 RUN4
DATE 6/ 2/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 736.35 MM HG(28.99 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEG C(78.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
CO2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
11 HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.73 { 21.09)
.97 ( .72)
5.09 ( 3.79)
867. ( 646.)
11.14 ( 8.31)
DIESEL EM-517-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-42. PCT , CVS-58. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.9 GM/KG( 62.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
60.67 ( 2142.3)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.62)
0.00 ( 0.00)
2
LANF
299.8
60.71 ( 2143.6)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.62)
0.00 ( 0.00)
299.4 ( 10573.) 303.6 (10719.)
24.4/11/
7.9/ I/
83.4/13/
3.2/13/
26. 7/ 3/
3. I/ 3/
5.2/14/
1.3/ 2/
29.92
17.
78.
.39
50.3
2.89
27.19
2145.9
28.82
.692 (
2.10 (
1.38 (
12.98 {
24.
8.
83.
3.
.44
.05
52.
1.
1.53)
2.81)
1.03)
9.68)
1024.10 ( 763.67)
13.75 (
.330 (
10.26)
.543)
25.5/11/
8.3/ I/
67.0/13/
3.0/13/
34. O/ 3/
3. I/ 3/
5.8/14/
1.0/ 2/
23.25
18.
60.
.52
57.2
3.07
21.36
2901.9
33.18
.927 (
2.92 (
1.05 (
7.33 (
25.
8.
65.
3.
.57
.05
58.
1.
2.04)
3.91)
.78)
5.46)
995.27 ( 742.18)
11.38 (
.318 (
8.49)
.523)
3
LAF
304.9
60.71 ( 2143.7)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 { 1.62)
0.00 ( 0.00)
308.7 (10902.)
47.9/11/
9.0/ I/
39.5/13/
5.8/13/
9/ 3/
2/ 3/
68
3
48.
9.
37.
5.
1.24
.05
144.
1.
14.4/14/
.4/ 3/
10.72
40.
31.
1.20
143.0
7.08
10.97
6768.3
84.41
2.144 ( 4.73)
8.69 ( 11.65)
,82 ( .61)
1.26 ( .94)
779.09 ( 580.97)
9.72 ( 7.25)
.247 ( .406)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.8
60.68 ( 2142.8)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.62)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.4 (10643.)
21.6/11/
9. I/ I/
67.4/13/
6.2/13/
23. I/ 3/
3. I/ 3/
5.1/14/
.9/ 2/
34.97
13.
58.
.33
49.9
22.
9.
65.
6.
.37
.05
51.
1.
2.22
20.46
1813.3
28.76
.583 ( 1.29)
2.03 ( 2.72)
1.09 ( .82)
10.09 ( 7.52)
894.00 ( 666.66)
14.18 ( 10.57)
.288 ( .473)
14.31
.91 ( .68)
3.29 ( 1.49)
97.8
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .276 ( .454)
-------
TABLE D-5 (Cont'di.
0 MACK EM6-300
0* CID) 1-6
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 736.35 MM HG(28.99 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEC C(78.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
V
-j
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
15.73 ( 21.09)
.97 ( .72)
5.09 ( 3.79)
867. ( 646.)
9.30 ( 6.94) Bag
.276 ( .454)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-25 RUN4
DATE 6/ 2/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-517-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-42. PCT , CVS-58. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.9 GM/KG( 62.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
60.67 ( 2142.3)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.62)
0.00 ( 0.00)
299.4 ( 10573.)
24.4/11/
7.9/ I/
83.4/13/
3.2/13/
26. 7/ 3/
3. I/ 3/
46. 4/ 2/
1.3/ 2/
29.92
17.
78.
.39
45.1
24.
8.
83.
3.
.44
.05
46.
1.
2.89
27.19
2145.9
25.85
.692 ( 1.53)
2.10 ( 2.81)
1.38 ( 1.03)
12.98 ( 9.68)
1024.10 ( 763.67)
12.34 ( 9.20)
.330 ( .543)
2
LANF
299.8
60.71 ( 2143.6)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.62)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.6 (10719.)
3
LAF
304.9
60.71 ( 2143.7)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.62)
0.00 ( 0.00)
308.7 (10902.)
25. 5/1 I/ 25.
8.3/ I/ 8.
67.0/13/ 65.
3.0/13/ 3.
34. O/ 3/ .57
3. I/ 3/ .05
50.3/ 2/ 50.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
23.25
18.
60.
.52
49.3
3.07
21.36
2901.9
28.64
.927 ( 2.04)
2.92 ( 3.91)
1.05 ( .78)
7.33 ( 5.46)
995.27 ( 742.18)
9.82 ( 7.33)
.318 ( .523)
47. 9/1 1/ 48.
9.0/ I/ 9.
39.5/13/ 37.
5.8/13/ 5.
68. 9/ 3/ 1.24
3.2/ 3/ .05
38. 2/ 3/ 115.
.4/ 3/ 1.
10.72
40.
31.
1.20
113.5
7.08
10.97
6768.3
67.02
2.144 ( 4.73)
8.69 ( 11.65)
.82 .61)
1.26 .94)
779.09 580.97)
7.71 5.75)
.247 .406)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.8
60.68 ( 2142.8)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.62)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.4 (10643.)
21.6/11/
9. I/ I/
67.4/13/
6.2/13/
23. I/ 3/
3. I/ 3/
43. 8/ 2/
.9/ 2/
34.97
13.
58.
.33
42.9
22.
9.
65.
6.
.37
.05
44.
1.
2.22
20.46
1813.3
24.74
.583 ( 1.29)
2.03 ( 2.72)
1.09 ( .82)
10.09 ( 7.52)
894.00 ( 666.66)
12.20 ( 9.10)
.288 ( .473)
14.31
.91 ( .68)
3.29 ( 1.49)
97.8
-------
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
EABLE D-6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.D26H RUN4
DATE 6/ 2/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 735.84 MM HG(28.97 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
CO2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
oo
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.99 ( 21.44)
.92
4.35
826.
10.93
.69)
3.25)
616.)
8.15)
DIESEL EM-517-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-40. PCT , CVS-59. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.7 GM/KG( 61.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.8
60.64 ( 2141.1)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00)
299.2 ( 10564.)
19.7/11/ 20.
9.7/ I/ 10.
77.5/13/ 76.
12.3/13/ 11.
24. O/ 3/ .39
3.0/ 3/ .05
5.0/14/ 50.
.8/ 2/ 1.
33.53
10.
64.
.35
48.9
1.77
22.21
1893.6
27.97
.609 ( 1.34)
2.13 ( 2.85)
.83 ( .62)
10.45 ( 7.79)
891.00 ( 664.42)
13.16 ( 9.81)
.287 ( .471)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.8 304.8
60.64 ( 2141.2) 60.66 ( 2141.8)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 < 1.78) .05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
303.3 (10708.) 308.4 (10889.)
25.0/11/ 25. 51.6/11/ 52.
9. I/ I/ 9. 8.8/ I/ 9.
64.3/13/ 62. 39.4/13/ 37.
11.0/13/ 10. 8.5/13/ 8.
31. 3/ 3/ .52 69. O/ 3/ 1.24
2.8/ 3/ .04 2.9/ 3/ .04
5.7/14/ 57. 14.5/14/ 145.
,8/ 2/ 1. .4/3/1.
25.41 10.70
16. 44.
51. 28.
.48 1.20
55.9 144.0
2.84 7.76
17.95 10.14
2652.5 6795.8
32.42 84.90
.847 ( 1.87) 2.153 4.75)
2.92 ( 3.92) 8.86 11.88)
.97 ( .72) .88 .65)
6.14 ( 4.58) 1.14 .85)
907.41 ( 676.65) 767.11 572.04)
11.09 ( 8.27) 9.58 7.15)
.290 ( .476) .243 .399)
4
NYNF
297.7
60.64 ( 2141.2)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.1 (10633.)
21.1/11/ 21.
7.8/ I/ 8.
64.3/13/ 62.
6.2/13/ 6.
23. 4/ 3/ .38
2.9/ 3/ .04
5.2/14/ 52.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
34.54
14.
55.
.34
51.3
2.36
19.30
1856.7
29.52
.597 1.32)
2.08 2.79)
1.13 .84)
9.28 6.92)
892.42 665.48)
14.19 10.58)
.287 .471)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS /TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
13.34
.83 ( .62)
3.17 ( 1.44)
98.1
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .263 ( .432)
-------
TABLE D-6 (Gont'd).
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. II
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CIO) 1-6
BAROMETER 735.84 MM HGC28.97 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
V
tO
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
m m®
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
15.99 ( 21.44)
.92
4.35
826.
9.23
.263
.69)
3.25)
616.)
6.88) Bag
.432)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.D26H RUN4
DATE 6/ 2/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-517-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ENGINE-40. PCT
CVS-59. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.7 GM/KG( 61.1 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.8
60.64 ( 2141.1)
0.00 ( 0.0)
2
LANF
299.8
60.64 ( 2141.2)
0.00 ( 0.0)
3
LAP
304.8
60.66 ( 2141.6)
O.OOC 0.0)
4
NYNF
297.7
60.64 ( 2141.2)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00)
299.2 ( 10564.)
19. 7/1 1/ 20.
9.7/ I/ 10.
77.5/13/ 76.
12.3/13/ 11.
24. O/ 3/ .39
la/ 2/ il
33.53
10.
64.
.35
43.6
1.77
22.21
1893.6
24.96
.609 1.34)
2.13 2.85)
.83 .62)
10.45 7.79)
891.00 664.42)
11.74 8.76)
.287 .471)
.05 ( 1.78) .05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
303.3 (10708.) 308.4 (10889.)
25. 0/1 1/ 25. 51. 6/1 1/ 52.
9. I/ I/ 9. 8.8/ I/ 9.
64.3/13/ 62. 39.4/13/ 37.
11.0/13/ 10. 8.5/13/ 8.
31. 3/ 3/ .52 69. O/ 3/ 1.24
Ie/ 2/ il I4/ 3/ il
25.41 10.70
16. 44.
51. 28.
.48 1.20
48.2 116.2
2.84 7.76
17.95 10.14
2652.5 6795.8
27.97 68.54
.847 1.87) 2.153 ( 4.75)
2.92 3.92) 8.86 ( 11.88)
.97 .72) .88 ( .65)
6.14 4.58) 1.14 ( .85)
907.41 676.65) 767.11 ( 572.04)
9.57 7.14) 7.74 ( 5.77)
.290 ( .476) .243 ( .399)
.05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.1 (10633.)
21.1/11/ 21.
7.8/ I/ 8.
64.3/13/ 62.
6.2/13/ 6.
23.4/ 3/ .38
llo/ 2/ il
34.54
14.
55.
.34
45.2
2.36
19.30
1856.7
26.05
.597 ( 1.32)
2.08 ( 2.79)
1.13 ( .84)
9.28 ( 6.92)
892.42 ( 665.48)
12.52 ( 9.34)
.287 ( .471)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
13.34
.83 ( .62)
3.17 ( 1.44)
98.1
-------
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE D-7. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-27 RUN4
DATE 6/ 3/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 736.85 MM HG(29.01 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEC C(71.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
£ DILUTION FACTOR
O HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC K6/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
16.14 { 21.64)
1.00 ( .74)
4.46 ( 3.33)
849. ( 633.)
10.59 ( 7.89)
DIESEL EM-517-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-51. PCT , CVS-70. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.5 GM/KG( 59.6 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
60.79 ( 2146.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 < 1.79)
0.00 ( 0.00)
300.0 ( 10594.)
29. 9/1 1/ 30.
13. 5/ I/ 14.
73.9/13/ 72.
2.1/13/ 2.
26. 2/ 3/ .43
3. I/ 3/ .05
4.9/14/ 49.
1.2/ 2/ 1.
30.56
17.
68.
.38
47.5
2.91
23.88
2101.9
27.26
.677 ( 1.49)
2.10 ( 2.82)
1.38 { 1.03)
11.36 ( 8.47)
999.56 ( 745.37)
12.96 ( 9.67)
.322 ( .529)
2
LANF
299.9
60.79 ( 2146.6)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.79)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.1 (10738.)
32. 8/1 1/ 33.
14. 5/ I/ 15.
62.2/13/ 60.
2.2/13/ 2.
34. 9/ 3/ .58
3.5/ 3/ .05
5.6/14/ 56.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
22.60
19.
56.
.53
55.2
3.33
19.80
2965.7
32.12
.947 ( 2.09)
3.01 ( 4.04)
1.11 ( .82)
6.57 ( 4.90)
984.41 ( 734.07)
10.66 ( 7.95)
.314 ( .517)
3
LAP
304.9
60.81 ( 2147.1)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.79)
0.00 ( 0.00)
309.3 (10920.)
55. 7/1 1/ 56.
14. 7/ I/ 15.
34.2/13/ 32.
2.2/13/ 2.
69. 3/ 3/ 1.25
3.0/ 3/ .05
14.2/14/ 142.
.3/ 3/ 1.
10.65
42.
28.
1.21
141.3
7.56
10.21
6841.7
83.59
2.167 4.78)
8.96 12.01)
.84 .63)
1.14 .85)
763.94 569.67)
9.33 6.96)
.242 ( .398)
4
NYNF
297.8
60.80 ( 2146.9)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.79)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.0 (10665.)
26. 3/1 1/ 26.
13. 7/ I/ 14.
58.1/13/ 55.
2.6/13/ 2.
22. 9/ 3/ .37
3.2/ 3/ .05
4.9/14/ 49.
I.I/ 2/ 1.
35.33
13.
52.
.32
48.3
2.25
18.15
1789.5
27.87
.575 ( 1.27)
.2.07 ( 2.77)
1.09 ( .81)
8.79 ( 6.55)
866.35 ( 646.04)
13.49 ( 10.06)
.278 ( .457)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
14.19
.88 ( .66)
3.25 ( 1.47)
98.1
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .271 ( .445)
-------
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE D-8 (Cont'd) . ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-28 RUN4
DATE 6/ 3/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 736.85 MM HG(29.01 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEG C(74.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
CO2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
U)
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
DIESEL EM-517-F
BAG CART NO. 1
16.05 ( 21.53)
1.03 ( .77)
4.07 ( 3.04)
816. ( 608.)
8.97 ( 6.69) Bag
.260 ( .427)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
, ENGINE-53. PCT , CVS-70. PCT
9.8 GM/KG( 68.6 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
60.79 ( 2146.4)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00)
300.1 ( 10598.)
2
LANF
300.0
60.77 ( 2145.8)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.1 (10738.)
3
LAF
304.9
60.80 ( 2146.8)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00)
309.2 (10918.)
4
NYNF
297.8
60.79 ( 2146.6)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.78)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.0 (10663.)
24
11
64
1
24
3
44
1
.4/1 1/ 24. 28. 9/1 1/
.2/ I/ 11. 10. 7/ I/
.7/13/ 62. 53.1/13/
.9/13/ 2. 1.5/13/
,2/ 3/ .39 31. 9/ 3/
.2/ 3/ .05 3. I/ 3/
.2/ 2/ 44. 49. 5/ 2/
.O/ 2/ 1. 1.2/ 2/
33.32 24.93
14. 19.
59. 47.
.35 .48
43.2 48.3
2.35 3.27
20.59 16.78
1902.2 2695.3
24.81
•
2
1
9
879
11
•
612
.16
.09
.52
.63
.47
283
( 1.35)
( 2.90)
( .81)
( 7.10)
28.12
.860
2.98
1.10
5.64
29. 55.1/11/
11. 9.9/ I/
50. 33.3/13/
1. 1.6/13/
.53 67. 9/ 3/ 1
.05 2.9/ 3/
50. 37. 6/ 3/ 1
1. .6/ 3/
10.89
46.
28.
1.18
111.2
8.22
10.09
6687.1
1
3
4
( 655.94) 905.89 675
( 8.56)
( .465)
PARTICULATE
9.45
.289
RESULTS,
7
•
65.74
.90) 2.119 (
.99) 8.81 ( 1
.82) .93 (
.21) 1.15 (
55.
10.
31.
1.
.22
.04
13.
2.
24.7/11/ 25.
9.4/ I/ 9.
56.6/13/ 54.
1.6/13/ 1.
22. 9/ 3/ .37
2.9/ 3/ .04
45. I/ 2/ 45.
1.3/ 2/ 1.
35.36
16.
51.
.33
43.8
2.71
17.92
1814.1
25.32
4
1
.52) 759.32 ( 566
.05) 7.46 (
475) .241 (
5
*
.67)
.81)
.70)
.85)
.22)
.57)
396)
.583
2.11
1.29
8.49
859.63
12.00
.276
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
1
2
6
641
8
•
.28)
.83)
.96)
.33)
.03)
.95)
454)
TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB
FILTER EFF.
FUEL)
13
.81
3.12
98
.03
(
(
.1
.61
)
1.42)
-------
TALBE D-9. TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS AND MODAL
EMISSION RATE SUMMARY
TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS
TEST D3-25
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
Speed
50.0
1.0011
0.993
7.9
1179
21
Cold Cycle
Torque
4.4
0.9643
0.968
-5.0
981
.77 (-3.
Power
5.0
0.9937
0.975
-2.0
981
11)
Speed
45.5
1.0054
0.994
9.4
1179
21
Hot Cycle
Torque
3.9
0.9664
0.976
-2.9
987
.77 (-1.
Power
4.7
1.0031
0.979
-1.7
987
54)
TEST D3-27
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev.
50.2
0.9995
0.993
8.6
1179
4.2
0.9722
0.972
-1.2
985
4.6
1.0066
0.979
-0.8
985
46.1
0.9988
0.994
13.9
1179
4.1
0.9645
0.973
-1.2
991
4.9
0.9997
0.977
-1.0
991
21.77
(-0.60)
21.77
(-1.10)
Note:
Units are as given in Federal Register Section 86.1341-84.
D-14
-------
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
to
c
o
n
o
•H
e
a 1-°
0)
§ 0.8
•H
Q
H 0.6
O
•H
0.4
0.2
0.1
40 60 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent Smaller than BCD
99.9
Figure D-l. Particle size distribution from transient operation
of the Mack EM6-300 with 5 percent lube oil blend
D-l 5
-------
49008
* 42000
35999
8
x
u
» 28888
RT In tin.
28
24
28
8 12 . ' .. 16
SRMPLEJ VIRL S-261 '' INJECTED flT 14:23:26 ON JUN 29,' 1982
Hvthodt SD'OIL Ravi TU261I Proci *PRC95
Figure D-2. Boiling Point Distribution of SOF derived from cold-start
transient operation with lube oil blend
steee
4SB08
36999
2/U80
RT in aln.
a
24
28
.12 . 1« 20
SRtirLCl VIRL S-2C4 INJCCTCD RT 9:15:08 ON JUN 38, 1902
H*thodt SO/OIL R*u: TU264i Proci *PRC65
32
Figure D-3. Boiling Point Distribution of SOF derived from hot-start
transient operation with lube oil blend
D-16
-------
APPENDIX E
TEST RESULTS WITH NEAT SOYBEAN OIL
(EM-510-F)
-------
TABLE E-l. PULL LOAD PERFORMANCE DATA FROM THE MACK EM6-300
WITH (EM-510-F) SOYBEAN OIL @ 145°C (290°F)
Engine Speed
Torque
Power
Fuel Rate
Fuel Temp.a
Fuel Press.b
Inlet Air Rate
Inlet Air Depress.0
Inlet Air Temp.d
Turbo Boost Press.
Manifold Inlet Temp.
Exhaust Back. Press.6
Exhaust Temp.e
Coolant Water Out
rpm
ft-lb
(N-m)
hp
(kW)
2100
612
(830)
245
(183)
1900
700
(949)
253
(189)
1700
1500
1260
1000
Ib/hr
OF
psig
Ib/min
in H2O
115.8
301
— —
52.5
35.5
109.0
297
—
48.0
28.5
105.0
298
— —
42.4
22.5
°F 70 71
psig 19.4 18.6
°F 120 122
in Hg 2.5 2.1
°F 811 815
790 860 950 915
(1071) (1166) (1288) (1241)
256 246 228 174
(191) (184) (170) (130)
98.2 91.4 74.5
300 301 301
36.7 28.3 19.6
16.5 12.0 7.0
72 72 73
15.4 13.8 9.8
123 123 112
1.4 0.8 0.5
919 999 1086
200
199
71
17.2
123
1.8
862
200
200
201
203
Note: These data taken during run for power curve smoke - mode was held only
long enough to record necessary data (approximately 2 minutes)
Monitored at connection .to' injection pump
Monitored after fuel filter
Indicated reading using 4 inch tube metering section per 312GS148
Monitored upstream of metering section
Indicated reading using 5 inch tube metering section per 312GS148
E-2
-------
td
TABLE E-2. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 SOYBEAN OIL BAROMETER: 29.00
TEST-05-01 FUEL: EM-510-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014 DATE: 6/15/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
SPEED OBS DBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM N X M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.25 .7
/ 1260. 30. 3.9 .059 6.78 .7
/ 1260. 377. 49.8 .230 7.62 .7
/ 1260. 753. 99.3 .427 9.12 .7
/ 1260. 1130. 149.1 .621 11.62 .7
/ 1260. 1309. 172.7 .713 12.96 11.7
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.21 11.7
/ 2100. 841. 184.9 .882 23.45 11.8
/ 2100. 785. 172.7 .779 22.76 11.8
/ 2100. 524. 115.1 .583 19.29 11.8
/ 2100. 262. 57.6 .350 14.93 11.8
/ 2100. 20. 4.5 .163 12.29 11.8
/ 650. 0. .0 .020 3.19 11.8
NOX
CORR
FACT
.036
.025
.023
.015
.011
.010
.021
.031
.039
1.045
1.053
1.068
1.064
MEASURED
HC CO
PPM PPM
140. 642.
208. 567.
134. 217.
120. 185.
136. 642.
100. 852.
116. 591.
100. 115.
90. 130.
66. 138.
66. 169.
112. 251.
118. 591.
C02
PCT
1.04
1.61
5.53
8.41
9.66
9.88
1.04
6.66
6.41
5.53
4.31
2.62
1.04
NOX
PPM
80.
215.
735.
1260.
1335.
1335.
80.
555.
555.
430.
285.
180.
95.
CALCULATED
GRAMS /
HC
13.
40.
31.
35.
51.
42.
11.
76.
62.
39.
30.
38.
11.
CO
123
216
98
102
446
663
114
165
171
158
149
168
114
HOUR
NOX
. 26.
. 137.
. 552.
. 1150.
. 1531.
. 1713.
. 26.
. 1342.
. 1240.
. 839.
. 431.
. 210.
32.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC
11.41
11.29
2.28
1.38
1.37
.98
9.52
1.43
1.34
1.13
1.43
3.90
9.68
CO
*****
61.00
7.08
3.98
11.97
15.51
96.61
3.13
3.67
4.51
7.08
17.16
96.59
NOX HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
21.95 ****** ****** ***** .0061 .0802 .076
38.69 10.15 54.80 34.76 .0088 .0802 .110
40.04 .63 1.96 11.09 .0305 .0802 .380
44.88 .36 1.03 11.58 .0474 .0802 .590
41.07 .34 2.99 10.27 .0541 .0802 .674
40.05 .24 3.84 9.92 .0556 .0802 .693
21.79 ****** ****** ***** .0062 .0802 .077
25.36 .41 .89 7.26 .0381 .0802 .474
26.56 .36 .99 7.18 .0346 .0802 .431
23.99 .34 1.37 7.29 .0306 .0802 .381
20.52 .52 2.58 7.48 .0237 .0802 .296
21.45 8.53 37.56 46.96 .0134 .0802 .168
26.94 ****** ****** ***** .0062 .0802 .078
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.987
.982
.950
.927
.918
.916
.987
.941
.943
.950
.959
.973
.987
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0059 -2.9
.0089 1.5
.0289 -5.1
.0434 -8.4
.0498 -8.0
.0509 -8.4
.0059 -4.8
.0346 -9.2
.0333 -3.7
.0289 -5.6
.0227 -4.5
.0140 4.1
.0059 -5.5
POWER
i
CORR
FACT
.000
.009
.008
.013
.021
.025
.004
.090
.075
.051
.033
.018
.998
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
.890
.275
.255
.245
.242
*****
.263
.252
.289
.353
2.151
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT. FACTORS
BSHC = .471 GRAM/KW-HR
BSCO = 2.605 GRAM/KW-HR
BSHC + BSNOX = 9.598 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .276 KG/KW-HR
( .352
( 1.943
t fi nno
% o. ovy
I 7.160
{ .454
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
ftRAM /RMPwMP
Ulv\i*l / Drln ™ lir>
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
»
1
i
-------
TABLE 2 (Cont'd). 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 SOYBEAN OIL BAROMETER:
TEST-05-01 FUEL: EM-510-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014
29.00
DATE: 6/15/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TOTAL
FUEL
KG/MIN
.0197
.0590
.2298
.4271
.6213
.7128
.0197
.8821
.7785
.5828
.3500
.1633
.0197
DIESEL
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
SOYBEAN
PART
KG/MIN
.0197
.0590
.2298
.4271
.6213
.7128
.0197
.8821
.7785
.5828
.3500
.1633
.0197
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
EQIV.
DIESEL
KG/MIN
.0176
.0527
.2055
.3820
.5557
.6375
.0176
.7890
.6964
.5213
.3130
.1460
.0176
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
HC
KWET
FACTOR
.9867
.9816
.9496
.9273
.9176
.9158
.9867
.9408
.9426
.9497
.9595
.9731
.9868
Y
WATER
INTAKE
.0189
.0189
.0189
.0189
.0189
.0189
.0189
.0190
.0190
.0190
.0190
.0190
.0190
F/A
MASS
FUEL
.0061
.0088
.0305
.0474
.0541
.0556
.0062
.0381
.0346
.0306
.0237
.0134
.0062
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
.0061
.0088
.0305
.0474
.0541
.0556
.0062
.0381
.0346
.0306
.0237
.0134
.0062
EQIV.
DIESEL
.0055
.0079
.0273
.0424
.0484
.0498
.0055
.0340
.0310
.0273
.0212
.0120
.0056
H
-------
TABLE E-30
13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 SOYBEAN OIL BAROMETER: 29.07
TEST-05-02 FUEL: EM-510-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014 DATE: 6/16/82
M
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
ENGINE
SPEED
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
• OLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM
/ 636
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 1260
/ 635
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 2100
/ 635
TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
OBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
N X M KW KG/MI N KG/MI N G/KG
0. .0 .019 3.22 10.8
30. 3.9 .060 6.96 10.8
377. 49.8 .231 7.75 10.8
753. 99.3 .413 8.87 11.2
. 1130. 149.1 .607 11.59 11.2
. 1288. 170.0 .687 12.70 11.7
0. .0 .018 3.19 11.7
841. 184.9 .873 23.42 11.7
785. 172.7 .796 23.00 11.0
524. 115.1 .571 19.25 11.0
262. 57.6 .343 15.23 11.0
20. 4.5 .159 12.23 12.3
0. .0 .021 3.19 12.3
NOX
CORR
FACT
.040
.052
.023
.011
.004
.009
.041
.031
.019
.026
.027
1.068
1.065
MEASURED
HC CO
PPM PPM
112. 591.
194. 567.
120. 234.
102. 342.
92. 681.
64. 999.
106. 567.
86. 116.
82. 123.
52. 116.
66. 153.
112. 251.
112. 555.
C02
PCT
1.04
1.61
5.30
8.41
9.77
10.22
1.08
6.58
6.24
6.08
4.72
2.67
1.17
NOX
PPM
90.
220.
765.
1365.
1455.
1485.
110.
560.
555.
440.
290.
175.
110.
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
MODE
HC CO NOX
10.
38.
29.
29.
33.
25.
9.
65.
60.
28.
27.
36.
10.
110. 28.
221. 147.
111. 603.
182. 1198.
457. 1601.
724. 1771.
98. 32.
167. 1358.
170. 1277.
118. 751.
121. 383.
160. 195.
103. 36.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
GRAMS/KG-FUEL
HC
9.19
10.54
2.13
1.17
.92
.61
8.43
1.24
1.25
.81
1.31
3.83
8.27
CO
96.64
61.05
7.96
7.34
12.56
17.57
89.73
3.19
3.57
3.45
5.86
16.84
81.48
NOX
24.97
40.65
43.45
48.37
43.96
42.97
29.56
25.92
26.75
21.93
18.61
20.45
28.07
GRAMS/KW-HR DRY »PH 1 "
HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
****** ****** ***»» .0059 .0802 .074
9.71 56.26 37.46 .0088 .0802 .109
.59 2.22 12.12 .0302 .0802 .376
.29 1.83 12.06 .0470 .0802 .586
.22 3.07 10.74 .0530 .0802 .660
.15 4.26 10.42 .0547 .0802 .682
****** ****** ***** .0058 .0802 .072
.35 .90 7.34 .0377 .0802 .470
.34 .99 7.40 .0350 .0802 .436
.24 1.03 6.52 .0300 .0802 .374
.47 2.10 6.66 .0228 .0802 .284
8.15 35.84 43.53 .0131 .0802 .164
****** ****** ***** .0067 .0802 .084
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.987
.982
.952
.927
.917
.913
.986
.942
.944
.945
.956
.972
.985
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0059 -.7
.0089 1.6
.0278 -8.0
.0434 -7.7
.0503 -5.0
.0526 -3.8
.0061 5.6
.0342 -9.4
.0325 -7.2
.0316 5.5
.0247 8.6
.0142 8.5
.0066 -2.5
POWER
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CORR
FACT
.991
.993
.997
.002
.010
.017
.996
.083
.076
.051
.025
.015
.997
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
.928
.280
.249
.242
.238
*****
.261
.257
.283
.349
2.098
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC = .394 GRAM/KW-HR
BSCO = 2.674 GRAM/KW-HR
BSNOX = 9.300 GRAM/KW-HR
BSHC + BSNOX = 9.694 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .274 KG/KW-HR
( .294
( 1.995
( 6.938
( 7.232
( .451
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
)
)
)
)
)
-------
TABLE E-3 .(Cont'd). 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: MACK EM6-300 SOYBEAN OIL BAROMETER: 29.07
TEST-05-02 FUEL: EM-510-F PROJECT: 05-5830-014 DATE: 6/16/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TOTAL
FUEL
KG/M 1 N
.0139
.0605
.2313
.4127
.6070
.6871
.0131
.8730
.7959
.5707
.3432
.1587
.0212
DIESEL
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
Soybean
PART
KG/MI N
.0139
.0605
.2313
.4127
.6070
.6871
.0131
.8730
.7959
.5707
.3432
.1587
.0212
WATER
PART
KG/MI N
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
EQIV.
DIESEL
KG/MI N
.0159
.0541
.2069
.3691
.5429
.6146
.0162
.7809
.7119
.5104
.3069
.1420
.0139
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
15.4277
HC
KWET
FACTOR
.9869
.9819
.9518
.9273
.9168
.9131
.9860
.9415
.9443
.9451
.9559
.9723
.9854
Y
WATER
INTAKE
.0173
.0173
.0173
.0181
.0181
.0138
.0188
.0138
.0177
.0177
.0177
.0197
.0197
F/A
MASS
FUEL
.0059
.0088
.0302
.0470
.0530
.0547
.0058
.0377
.0350
.0300
.0228
.0131
.0067
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
.0059
.0088
.0302
.0470
.0530
.0547
.0058
.0377
.0350
.0300
.0228
.0131
.0067
EQIV.
DIESEL
.0053
.0079
.0270
.0421
.0474
.0490
.0052
.0337
.0313
.0268
.0204
.0117
.0060
td
i
en
-------
TABLE E-4. REGULATED EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT FTP OPERATION
OF THE MACK EM6-300 ENGINE WITH (EM-510-F) SOYBEAN OIL AT 145°C
Cold
Type
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Transient Emissions, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
NOx
HC
0.55
(0.41)
CO
Cont. Bag
5.87 8.00 6.76
(4.38) (5.97) (5.04)
Part.
1.48
(1.11)
0.49 3.77 7.85 6.79 0.80
(0.37) (2.81) (5.86) (5.06) (0.60)
0.50 4.07 7.87 6.79 0.90
(0.38) (3.03) (5.88) (5.06) (0.67)
0.85 5.31 7.43 6.39 1.49
(0.63) (3.96) (5.54) (4.77) (1.11)
0.42 3.79 7.83 6.60 0.98
(0.32) (2.82) (5.84) (4.92) (0.73)
0.48 4.01 7.77
(0.36) (2.98) (5.80)
6.57 1.05
(4.90) (0.78)
Cycle BSFC
kg/kW-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0.315
(0.518)
0.298
(0.490)
0.300
(0.:494)
0.319
(0.525)
0.298
(0.489)
0.301
(0.494)
Cycle Work
kW-hr
(hp-hr)
15.35
(20.59)
15.65
(20.99)
15.61
(20.93)
15.17
(20.34)
15.48
(20.76)
15.44
(20.70)
E-.7
-------
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE E-5. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-35 RUN
DATE 6/11/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
00
BAROMETER 741.93 MM HG(29.21 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
, TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.35 ( 20.59)
.55 (
5.87 (
882. (
8.00
.41)
4.38)
658.)
5.97)
DIESEL EM-510-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-66. PCT , CVS-50. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 13.0 GM/KG( 91.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.8
61.21 ( 2161.4)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.17)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.1 ( 10666.)
36. 6/1 I/ 37.
9.2/ I/ 9.
49.6/12/ 105.
1.4/12/ 3.
25. 5/ 3/ .42
3.5/ 3/ .05
9.8/13/ 30.
1.8/ 2/ 2.
31.15
28.
100".
.36
27.8
4.82
35.13
2015.3
16.04
.735 ( 1.62)
2.04 ( 2.74)
2.36 ( 1.76)
17.19 ( 12.82)
986.33 ( 735.51)
7.85 ( 5.85)
.360 ( .591)
2
LANF
299.8
61.20 ( 2160.8)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.17)
0.00 ( 0.00)
306.1 (10808.)
6.6/13/ 27.
9.2/ I/ 9.
75.3/13/ 74.
2.5/13/ 2.
32. 6/ 3/ .54
2.8/ 3/ .04
12.8/13/ 38.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
24.27
18.
70.
.50
37.4
3.12
24.89
2808.6
21.87
1.008 ( 2.22)
2.74 ( 3.67)
1.14 ( .85)
9.09 ( 6.78)
1026.25 ( 765.27)
7.99 ( 5.96)
.368 ( .605)
3
LAF
304.9
61.22 ( 2161.6)
0.00( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.17)
0.00 ( 0.00)
311.4 (10996.)
2.8/13/ 11.
8.9/ I/ 9.
36.6/13/ 34.
2.4/13/ 2.
69. 3/ 3/ 1.25
3. I/ 3/ .05
36.5/13/ 110.
1.1/-2/ 1.
10.68
3.
31.
1.21
108.5
.59
11.10
6881.2
64.63
2.434 ( 5.37)
8.54 ( 11.45)
.07 ( .05)
1.30 ( .97)
805.92 ( 600.98)
7.57 ( 5.64)
.285 ( .469)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.20 ( 2161.1)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.06 ( 2.17)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.1 (10737.)
8. 6/1 1/ 9.
8.9/ I/ 9.
59.9/13/ 57.
2.7/13/ 2.
23. 5/ 3/ .38
3.4/ 3/ .05
12.0/13/ 36.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
34.53
-0.
54.
.33
35.0
-.01
19.01
1842.7
20.36
.660 ( 1.46)
2.04 ( 2.73)
-.01 ( -.01)
9.34 ( 6.96)
905.19 ( 675.00)
10.00 ( 7.46)
.324 ( .533)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
22.76
1.48 ( 1.11)
4.71 ( 2.13)
96.3
BSFC. KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .315 ( .518)
-------
TABLE E-5 (Cont'd).
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
M
10
BAROMETER 741.93 MM H6C29.21 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC. KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
15.35 ( 20.59)
.55 ( .41)
5.87 ( 4.38)
882. ( 658.)
6.76 ( 5.04) Bag
.315 ( .518)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-35 RUN
DATE 6/11/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
DIESEL EM-510-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-66. PCT , CVS-50. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 13.0 GM/KG( 91.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.8
61.21 ( 2161.4)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.17)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.1 ( 10666.)
36. 6/1 1/ 37.
9.2/ I/ 9.
49.6/12/ 105.
1.4/12/ 3.
25. 5/ 3/ .42
3.5/ 3/ .05
26. 7/ 2/ 27.
1.8/ 2/ 2.
31.15
28.
100".
.36
25.0
4.82
35.13
2015.3
14.42
.735 ( 1.62)
2.04 ( 2.74)
2.36 ( 1.76)
17.19 ( 12.82)
986.33 ( 735.51)
7.06 ( 5.26)
.360 ( .591)
2 3
LANF LAP
299.8 304.9
61.20 ( 2160.8) 61.22 ( 2161.6)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.17) .06 ( 2.17)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
306.1 (10808.) 311.4 (10996.)
6.6/13/ 27. 2.8/13/ 11.
9.2/ I/ 9. 8.9/ I/ 9.
75.3/13/ 74. 36.6/13/ 34.
2.5/13/ 2. 2.4/13/ 2.
32. 6/ 3/ .54 69. 3/ 3/ 1.25
2.8/ 3/ .04 3. I/ 3/ .05
34. 4/ 2/ 34. 89. O/ 2/ 89.
1.0/ 2/ 1. I.I/ 2/ 1.
24.27 10.68
18. 3.
70. 31.
.50 1,21
33.4 88.0
3.12 .59
24.89 11.10
2808.6 6881.2
19.57 52.41
1.008 ( 2.22) 2.434 ( 5.37)
2.74 ( 3.67) 8.54 ( 11.45)
1.14 .85) .07 ( .05)
9.09 6.78) 1.30 ( .97)
1026.25 765.27) 805.92 ( 600.98)
T.15 5.33) 6.14 ( 4.58)
.368 .605) .285 ( .469)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.20 ( 2161.1)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.06 ( 2.17)
0.00 ( 0.00)
304.1 (10737.)
8.6/11/ 9.
8.9/ I/ 9.
59.9/13/ 57.
2.7/13/ 2.
23. 5/ 3/ .38
3.4/ 3/ .05
30. 9/ 2/ 31.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
34.53
-0.
54.
.33
29.9
-.01
19.01
1842.7
17.40
.660 1.46)
2.04 2.73)
-.01 -.01)
9.34 6.96)
905.19 675.00)
8.55 6.38)
.324 .533)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
22.76
1.48 ( 1.11)
4.71 ( 2.13)
96.3
-------
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE E-6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-36 RUNS
DATE 6/14/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 741.68 MM HGC29.20 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C(71.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
H
I
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.17 ( 20.34)
.85
5.31
894.
6.39
.63)
3.96)
667.)
4.77)
DIESEL EM-510-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
, ENGINE-51. PCT , CVS-60. PCT
8.4 GM/KG( 58.6 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
4
NYNF
297.8
61.05 ( 2155.6)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.06 ( 2.22)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.3 (10710.)
1
NYNF
295.9
61.01 { 2154.4)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.22)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.2 ( 10635.)
36. 4/1 I/ 36.
7. I/ I/ 7.
88.8/13/ 89.
.8/13/ 1.
25. 6/ 3/ .42
3.6/ 3/ .06
23. 6/ 2/ 24.
.7/ 2/ 1.
31.14
29.
86.
.36
22.9
5.12
30.16
2010.8
13.20
.731 ( 1.61)
1.95 ( 2.61)
2.63 ( 1.96)
15.50 ( 11.56)
1033.15 ( 770.42)
6.78 ( 5.06)
.376 ( .618)
2
LANF
299.9
61.02 ( 2154.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.22)
0.00 ( 0.00)
305.3 (10780.)
28. 3/1 1/ 28.
7.2/ I/ 7.
66.7/13/ 65.
.4/13/ 0.
33. 2/ 3/ .55
3.4/ 3/ .05
31. 9/ 2/ 32.
.6/ 2/ 1.
23.84
21.
62.
.50
31.3
3.76
22.15
2812.4
18.29
1.008 ( 2.22)
2.72 ( 3.65)
1.38 ( 1.03)
8.14 ( 6.07)
1033.29 ( 770.53)
6.72 ( 5.01)
.370 ( .609)
3
LAF
304.9
61.04 ( 2155.4)
0.00( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.22)
0.00 { 0.00)
310.5 (10964.)
22.5/11/ 22.
8.0/ I/ 8.
35.2/13/ 33.
1 .0/137 1.
69.77 37 1.26
3.27 3/ .05
83. O/ 2/ 83.
.7/ 2/ 1.
10.61
15.
30.
1.21
82.4
2.73
10.97
6899.9
48.91
2.442 ( 5.38)
8.46 ( 11.35)
.32 ( .24)
1.30 ( .97)
815.23 ( 607.92)
5.78 ( 4.31)
.289 ( .474)
15.5/11/
8.8/ I/
53.9/13/
1.3/13/
23.5/ 3/
3.4/ 3/
29.2/ 2/
.7/ 2/
34.53
7.
49.
.33
28.5
1.22
17.19
1838.1
16.54
.659 (
2.04 (
16.
9.
51.
1.
.38
.05
29.
1.
.60
8.44
1.45)
2.73)
.45)
6.30)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
902.89 ( 673.28)
8.13 ( 6.06)
.324 ( .532)
22.57
1.49 ( 1.11)
4.66 ( 2.11)
98.7
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .319 ( .525)
-------
TABU: E-e (Cont'd).
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS -BAG NOx
C-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 741.68 MM H6C29.20 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C(71.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
H
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
II DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
15.17
.85
5.31
894.
7.43
.319
20.34)
.63)
3.96)
667.)
5.54)Bag
.525)
TEST NO.03-36 RUNS
DATE 6/14/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
DIESEL EM-510-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
, ENGINE-51. PCT , CVS-60. PCT
8.4 GM/KG( 58.6 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.01 ( 2154.4)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.22)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.2 ( 10635.)
36.4/1 1/ 36.
7. I/ I/ 7.
88.8/13/ 89.
.8/13/ 1.
25. 6/ 3/ .42
3.6/ 3/ .06
8.8/13/ 26.
.7/ 2/ 1.
31.14
29.
ee;
.36
25.6
5.12
30.16
2010.8
14.75
.731 { 1.61)
1.95 ( 2.61)
2.63 ( 1.96)
15.50 ( 11.56)
1033.15 ( 770.42)
7.58 ( 5.65)
.376 ( .618)
2 3
LANF LAP
299.9 304.9
61.02 ( 2154.5) 61.04 ( 2155.4)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.06 ( 2.22) .06 ( 2.22)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
305.3 (10780.) 310.5 (10964.)
28. 3/1 1/ 28. 22. 5/1 1/ 22.
7.2/ I/ 7. 8.0/ I/ 8.
66.7/13/ 65. 35.2/13/ 33.
.4/13/ 0. 1.0/13/ 1.
33. 2/ 3/ .55 69. 7/ 3/ 1.26
3.4/ 3/ .05 3.2/ 3/ .05
11.6/13/ 35. 33.4/13/ 100.
,6/ 2/ 1. .7/ 2/ 1.
23.84 10.61
21. 15.
62. 30.
.50 1.21
34.3 99.7
3.76 2.73
22.15 10.97
2812.4 6899.9
20.02 59.19
1.008 ( 2.22) 2.442 ( 5.38)
2.72 ( 3.65) 8.46 ( 11.35)
1.38 ( 1.03) .32 .24)
8.14 ( 6.07) 1.30 .97)
1033.29 ( 770.53) 815.23 607.92)
7.35 ( 5.48) 6.99 5.22)
.370 ( .609) .289 .474)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.05 ( 2155.6)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.06 ( 2.22)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.3 (10710.)
15.5/11/ 16.
8.8/ I/ 9.
53.9/13/ 51.
1.3/13/ 1.
23. 5/ 3/ .38
3.4/ 3/ .05
11.0/13/ 33.
.7/ 2/ 1.
34.53
7.
49.
.33
32.4
1.22
17.19
1838.1
18.79
.659 ( 1.45)
2.04 ( 2.73)
.60 { .45)
8.44 ( 6.30)
902.89 ( 673.28)
9.23 ( 6.88)
.324 ( .532)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
22.57
1.49 (1.11)
4.66 ( 2.11)
98.7
-------
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE E-7. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.03-37 RUNS
DATE 6/14/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 741.43 MM HG(29.19 IN H*G)
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C(71.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
H
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
CO2 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
0 HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.48 ( 20.76)
.42 ( .32)
3.79 ( 2.82)
837. ( 624.)
7.83 ( 5.84)
DIESEL EM-510-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-51. PCT , CVS-60. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.4 GM/KG( 58.6 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.02 ( 2154.7)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.69)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.2 ( 10634.)
20.5/11/ 21.
8.2/ I/ 8.
63.2/13/ 61.
.6/13/ 1.
23. 3/ 3/ .38
3.0/ 3/ .05
10.9/13/ 33.
.7/ 2/ 1.
34.71
13.
59.
.33
32.2
2.18
20.59
1839.2
18.53
.662 ( 1.46)
2.13 ( 2.86)
1.02 ( .76)
9.65 ( 7.20)
862.36 ( 643.06)
8.69 ( 6.48)
.311 ( .511)
2 3
LANF LAP
299.9 304.9
60.99 ( 2153.7) 61.05 ( 2155.7)
0.00 { 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.69) .05 ( 1.69)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
305.1 (10773.) 310.5 (10963.)
16.1/11/ 16. 19.0/11/ 19.
8.0/ 1/ 8. 7.8/ I/ 8.
40.7/13/ 38. 30.5/13/ 28.
.3/13/ 0. .2/13/ 0.
30. 8/ 3/ .51 67. 6/ 3/ 1.22
2.9/ 3/ .04 3. I/ 3/ .05
13.0/13/ 39. 34.2/13/ 103.
,7/ 2/ 1. .9/2/1.
26.01 10.98
8. 12.
37. 27.
.47 1.17
38.2 101.9
1.48 2.13
12.98 9.65
2610.2 6663.9
22.30 60.51
.929 ( 2.05) 2.358 ( 5.20)
2.79 ( 3.74) 8.50 ( 11.40)
.53 ( .39) .25 ( .19)
4.65 ( 3.47) 1.14 ( .85)
935.91 ( 697.91) 783.90 ( 584.55)
8;00 ( 5.96) 7.12 ( 5.31)
.333 ( .548) .277 ( .456)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.02 ( 2154.8)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.69)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.1 (10703.)
11.5/11/ 11.
7.3/ 1/ 7.
48.2/13/ 45.
.6/13/ 1.
23. 3/ 3/ .38
3. I/ 3/ .05
11.8/13/ 35.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
34.92
4.
44.
.33
34.3
.76
15.40
1842.7
19.87
..659 ( 1.45)
2.06 ( 2.76)
.37 ( .28)
7.48 ( 5.58)
895.32 ( 667.64)
9.65 ( 7.20)
.320 ( .527)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
15.13
.98 ( .73)
3.28 ( 1.49)
97.0
BSFC. KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .298 ( .489)
-------
TABLE E-7 .(Cont'd) .
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 741.43 MM HGC29.19 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C(71.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
* HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.48 ( 20.76)
.42 ( .32)
3.79 ( 2.82)
837. ( 624.)
6.60 ( 4.92) Bag
TEST NO.03-37 RUNS
DATE 6/14/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
DIESEL EM-510-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
, ENGINE-51. PCT , CVS-60. PCT
8.4 GM/KG( 58.6 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.02 ( 2154.7)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.69)
0.00 ( 0.00)
301.2 ( 10634.)
20.5/11/ 21.
8.2/ 1/ 8.
63.2/13/ 61.
.6/13/ 1.
23. 3/ 3/ .38
3.0/ 3/ .05
28. 2/ 2/ 28.
.7/ 2/ 1.
34.71
13.
59.
.33
27.5
2.18
20.59
1839.2
15.85
.662 ( 1.46)
2.13 ( 2.86)
1.02 ( .76)
9.65 ( 7.20)
862.36 ( 643.06)
7.43 ( 5.54)
.311 ( .511)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.9 304.9
60.99 ( 2153.7) 61.05 ( 2155.7)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.69) .05 ( 1.69)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
305.1 (10773.) 310.5 (10963.)
16.1/11/ 16. 19.0/11/ 19.
8.0/ I/ 8. 7.8/ I/ 8.
40.7/13/ 38. 30.5/13/ 28.
.3/13/ 0. .2/13/ 0.
30. 8/ 3/ .51 67. 6/ 3/ 1.22
2.9/ 3/ .04 3.1/ 3/ .05
33. 2/ 2/ 33. 85. 8/ 2/ 86.
.7/ 2/ 1. .9/ 2/ 1.
26.01 10.98
8. 12.
37. 27.
.47 1.17
32.5 85.0
1.48 2.13
12.98 9.65
2610.2 6663.9
18.98 50.46
.929 ( 2.05) 2.358 ( 5.20)
2.79 ( 3.74) 8.50 ( 11.40)
.53 ( .39) .25 ( .19)
4.65 ( 3.47) 1.14 ( .85)
935.91 ( 697.91) 783.90 ( 584.55)
6.81 ( 5.07) 5.94 ( 4.43)
.333 ( .548) .277 ( .456)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.02 ( 2154.8)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.69)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.1 (10703.)
11.5/11/ 11.
7.3/ I/ 7.
48.2/13/ 45.
.6/13/ 1.
23. 3/ 3/ .38
3. 1/ 3/ .05
30. O/ 2/ 30.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
34.92
4.
44.
.33
29.0
.76
15.40
1842.7
16.83
.659 ( 1.45)
2.06 ( 2.76)
.37 ( .28)
7.48 ( 5.58)
895.32 ( 667.64)
8.18 ( 6.10)
.320 ( .527)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
15.13
.98 ( .73)
3.28 ( 1.49)
97.0
BSFC. KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .298 ( .489)
-------
ENGINE NO.D3
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. II
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CIO) 1-6
TABLE E-8. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.D3-38 RUN5
DATE 6/14/82
TIME
OYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HG(29.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 OEG C(72.0 OEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STO. CU. METRES (SCF)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/3ANGE/PPM
MEfER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCf
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
M
I
DILUTION FACTOR
t» HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
15.65 ( 20.99)
.49 ( .37)
3.77 ( 2.81)
839. ( 625.)
7.85 ( 5.86)
DIESEL EM-510-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-50. PCT , CVS-60. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.5 GM/KG( 59.5 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
61.17 ( 2160.1)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.83)
0.00 ( 0.00)
302.0 ( 10662.)
23.8/H/ 24.
6.2/ 1/ 6.
64.5/13/ 62.
.6/13/ 1.
24. O/ 3/ .39
2.9/ 3/ .04
11.1/13/ 33.
,8/ 2/ 1.
33.61
18.
60.
.35
32.5
3.10
21.11
1919.3
18.77
.692 ( 1.53)
2.16 ( 2.90)
1.43 ( 1.07)
9.76 ( 7.28)
887.54 ( 661.84)
8.68 ( 6.47)
.320 { .526)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.9 304.9
60.24 ( 2127.1) 61.19 ( 2160.7)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.83) .05 ( 1.83)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
301.4 (10641.) 311.2 (10989.)
13.6/11/ 14. 17.2/11/ 17.
6.0/ I/ 6. 6.0/ I/ 6.
41.9/13/ 39. 30.3/13/ 28.
.8/13/ 1. .8/13/ 1.
31. 6/ 3/ .52 67. 9/ 3/ 1.22
3. I/ 3/ .05 3.2/ 3/ .05
13.1/13/ 39. 34.9/13/ 105.
I.I/ 2/ 1. 1.2/ 2/ 1.
25.31 10.93
8. 12.
37. 26.
.48 1.18
38.3 103.5
1.37 2.12
13.07 9.43
2641.1 6706.7
22.05 61.59
.940 ( 2.07) 2.373 ( 5.23)
2.83 ( 3.79) 8.58 ( 11.50)
.48 ( .36) .25 ( .18)
4.63 ( 3.45) 1.10 ( .82)
934.50 ( 696.85) 782.08 ( 583.19)
7.80 ( 5.82) 7.18 ( 5.36)
.333 ( .547) .277 ( .455)
4
NYNF
297.8
61.18 ( 2160.2)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.83)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.9 (10731.)
12. 8/1 1/ 13.
6.4/ I/ 6.
48.1/13/ 45.
.7/13/ 1.
23. 5/ 3/ .38
3.2/ 3/ .05
12.1/13/ 36.
1.2/ 2/ 1.
34.60
7.
43.
.33
35.2
1.16
15.37
1858.4
20.48
.665 ( 1.47)
2.09 ( 2.80)
.55 ( .41)
7.36 ( 5.49)
890.04 ( 663.70)
9.81 { 7.32)
.319 ( .524)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
12.49
.80 ( .60)
2.68 ( 1.21)
96.1
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .298 ( .490)
-------
TABLE E-8 (Cont'd).
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-014
ENGINE NO.03
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0.0 L(
CVS NO. 11
0 MACK EM6-300
0. CID) 1-6
M
H
Ul
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HGC29.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG C(72.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
15.65 ( 20.99)
.49 ( .37)
3.77 ( 2.81)
( 625.)
5.06) Bag
839.
6.79 (
.298 (
TEST NO.D3-38 RUNS
DATE 6/14/82
TIME DIESEL EM-510-F
DYNO NO. 4 BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-50. PCT , CVS-60. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.5 GM/KG( 59.5 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAP
295.9 299.9 304.9
61.17 ( 2160.1) 60.24 ( 2127.1) 61.19 ( 2160.7)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.83) .05 ( 1.83) .05 ( 1.83)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
302.0 { 10662.) 301.4 (10641.) 311.2 (10989.)
23.8/11/ 24. 13.6/11/ 14. 17.2/11/ 17.
6.2/ I/ 6. 6.0/ I/ 6. 6.0/ I/ 6.
64.5/13/ 62. 41.9/13/ 39. 30.3/13/ 28.
.6/13/ 1. .8/13/ 1. .8/13/ 1.
24. O/ 3/ .39 31. 6/ 3/ .52 67. 9/ 3/ 1.22
2.9/ 3/ .04 3. I/ 3/ .05 3.2/ 3/ .05
29. 7/ 2/ 30. 35. 2/ 2/ 35. 88. 9/ 2/ 89.
.8/ 2/ 1. 1.1/ 2/ 1. 1.2/ 2/ 1.
33.61 25.31 10.93
18. 8. 12.
60. 37. 26.
.35 .48 1.18
28.9 34.1 87.8
3.10 1.37 2.12
21.11 13.07 9.43
1919.3 2641.1 6706.7
16.70 19.68 52.26
.692 ( 1.53) .940 ( 2.07) 2.373 ( 5.23)
2.16 ( 2.90) 2.83 ( 3.79) 8.58 ( 11.50)
1.43 ( 1.07) .48 ( .36) .25 ( .18)
9.76 { 7.28) 4.63 ( 3.45) 1.10 ( .82)
887.54 ( 661.84) 934.50 ( 696.85) 782.08 ( 583.19)
7.72 ( 5.76) 6.96 ( 5.19) 6.09 ( 4.54)
.320 ( .526) .333 ( .547) .277 ( .455)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR )
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.8
61.18 ( 2160.2)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.83)
0.00 ( 0.00)
303.9 (10731.)
12.8/11/ 13.
6.4/ I/ 6.
48.1/13/ 45.
.7/13/ 1.
23. 5/ 3/ .38
3.2/ 3/ .05
31. 4/ 2/ 31.
1.2/ 2/ 1.
34.60
7.
43.
.33
30.2
1.16
15.37
1858.4
17.57
.665 ( 1.47)
2.09 ( 2.80)
.55 ( .41)
7.36 ( 5.49)
890.04 ( 663.70)
8.42 ( 6.28)
.319 ( .524)
12.49
.80 ( .60)
2.68 ( 1.21)
96.1
.490)
-------
TABLE E-9. TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS AND MODAL
EMISSION RATE SUMMARY
TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS
Cold Cycle Hot Cycle
TEST D3-35
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
Speed
51.4
1.0018
0.993
7.1
1179
21.
Torque
5.1
Power Speed Torque Power
5.9
0.9329 0.9599
0.945
1.5
925
77
0.954
0.8
925
(-5.44)
TEST D3-36
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev.
55.8
0.991
4.3
1179
4.9
0.9524
0.945
1.2
902
5.6
0.9829
0.954
0.8
902
46.6
1.0004
0.994
10.6
1179
4.6
0.9366
0.953
6.2
917
5.5
0.9684
0.959
1.3
917
21.77
(-6.54)
21.77
(-4.62)
TEST D3-38
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev.
45.8
0.9977
0.994
14.2
1179
4.8
0.9272
0.950
11.8
925
5.7
0.9733
0.956
1.7
925
21.77
(-3.55)
E-U
-------
8.0
6.0
4.0
a 2.0
o
n
u
•H
6
-H 0.8
Q
(1)
"u 0.6
•H
4-1
H
(U
0.4
0.2
0.1
20 40 60 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent Smaller than BCD
99.9
Figure E-l. Particle size distribution from transient operation
of the Mack EM6-300 with soybean oil @145°C
E-17
-------
54888
45688
3608V
Si 27888
8
RT In ain.
8 ..• ,12 16 ?8 24 28
SRMPLC: VIBL S-2C8 ' INJCCTED BT 18:lll27 ON JUN 38, 1982
. Hvthodi SO/OIL RAVI TU268i Proci *PRC85
32
Figure E-2. Boiling Point Distribution of SOF derived from cold-start
transient operation with soybean oil
66888 •
ceeee
48888
30888
RT in Bin.
8
12
16 28 24 28
VIOL S-271 IHJCCTCD RT 13:14:87 ON JUN 38, 1982
Htthodi SO/OIL Ravi TUX271 Proci *PRC8S
32
Figure E-3. Boiling Point Distribution of SOF derived from hot-start
transient operation with soybean oil
E-18
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 460/3-83-004
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION OF
ALTERNATE FUELS
5. REPORT DATE
September 1983
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Terry L. Ullman
Charles T. Hare
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2884
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report (11-21-81/6/30/82
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Exhaust emissions from a Mack EM6-300 heavy-duty diesel engine were characterized
with five different fuels during transient and steady-state operation. A control
fuel (Phillips D-2) was used for baseline emissions, and as a base stock in
three alternate fuel blends containing EDS or SRC-II middle distillates or used
lubricating oil. The fifth fuel tested was neat soybean oil, heated to 145°C.
Emission measurements included HC, CO, CO2, NOX, visible smoke, particulate, IHC,
aldehydes, odor (DOAS), phenols, sulfate, elemental composition, particle
sizing, SOF, SOF boiling point distribution, BaP, Ames bioassay and HPLC
fractionation. HC, CO, NOX and particulate emissions were similar for this
engine on all fuels tested with exception of higher particulates for the soybean
oil and higher NOX for the SRC-II blend. Ames response was highest for the
EDS and SRC-II blends. The BaP level was highest for the soybean oil.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Exhaust Emissions
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines
Alternate Fuels
Diesel Fuels
Vegetable Oil Fuel
Fuel Effects
Emissions Characterization
Alternate Fuels
Characterization
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
163
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |