EPA-AA-IMG-85-6
Technical Report
Tech IV Credit Model:
Estimates for Emission Factors
and Inspection and Maintenance Credits for 1981
and Later Vehicles for MOBILES
by
David J. Brzezinski
October 1985
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA
decisions or positions. They are intended to present
technical analysis of issues using data which are
currently available. The purpose in the release of such
reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical
information and to inform the public of technical
developments which may form the basis for a final EPA
decision, position or regulatory action.
Technical Support Staff
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Sources
Office of Air and Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency-
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Background
2.0 Overview of Method
3.0 Vehicle Sample
3.1 Estimates for Normal Emitters
3.2 Estimates for High Emitters
3.3 Estimates for Super Emitters
3.4 Combined Deterioration Equations
4.0 Inspection and Maintenance Benefits
4.1 Short Test Data
4.2 I/M Short Test Errors of Commission and
Omission
4.3 I/M Short Test Identification Rates
4..4 Effects of I/M
5.0 The Tech IV Credit Model
References
Figures
Tables
Appendix
-------
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Tech IV Credit Model is used to estimate the emission
factor equations and the effects of Inspection and Maintenance
(I/M) programs for 1981 and later passenger cars (Tech IV)
stored in the EPA MOBILES emission factor' model. MOBILE3 is
used to estimate future fleetwide emission -levels of highway
mobile sources;
There were two primary reasons for the development of the Tech
IV Credit Model. First, the nature of the technology used to
control emissions from 1981 and later passenger cars produce
the random occurrence of vehicles whose emissions are many
times the average emissions of the sample would not be properly
accounted for using a simple regression through the existing
data as is done to predict emission levels for all pre-1981
model year passenger cars in MOBILE3. Secondly, there was. a
need to estimate the impact of I/M programs on the emission
levels of these vehicles for MOBILES.
MOBILE2, EPA's previous model, also used a modeling process to
estimate the Tech IV emission factorstl]*. This was necessary
primarily because of the lack of data from vehicles which
resembled the technology types expected to be commonly used in
future years at the time MOBILE2 was completed. The MOBILES
version of the Tech IV Credit Model makes use of the existing
data sample of 1166 1981 and later vehicles. Each technology
type is examined separately. The results are then combined
into a final model year specific emission factor used in
MOBILES.
The emission factors for high-altitude areas used in MOBILES
were also computed using a model similar to the model discussed
in this report. A complete documentation of the differences
between that model and this will be addressed in a separate
report.
*Numbers in brackets refer to references listed at the end of
the report.
-------
-2-
2.0 OVERVIEW OF METHOD
The technology used to meet the more stringent emission
standards beginning with the 1981 model year is continuing to
change. While many manufacturers have utilized computer
controls since 1981, others did not adopt them product-wide
until more recently, especially in response to the 1984
all-altitude requirement. Also, more and more manufacturers
are moving toward fuel injection. An EPA contractor has
estimated the changes in technology over time into the future
based on discussions with the major vehicle manufacturers [2].
Based on these forecasts it was felt that the Tech IV Credit
Model should predict the emission levels of each distinct
technology separately and then combine the results based on the
fraction of the vehicle fleet predicted to use each technology
in each model year group. In addition, vehicles receiving the
CO waiver in 1981 or 1982 would be treated separately from
non-waiver vehicles and the results of these two groups would
be weighted together in those model years when waivers were
issued.
The MOBILE2 version of the Tech IV Credit Model divided the
sample into .two emission level categories. This concept was
retained and expanded in the MOBILES version. The most obvious
division was between the majority of the vehicles and the
outliers. Four vehicles with extremely high hydrocarbon (HC)
and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were identified in the
sample [3]. These four vehicles are therefore treated
separately. There remained many vehicles with high HC and CO
emission levels which could not be statistically identified as
outliers, but whose emission levels would likely be affected by
an I/M program. As a result, the remaining sample was divided
into two groups representing vehicles with generally acceptable
emissions and those vehicles with higher than normal emission
levels. Further sections of this report will discuss these
divisions in more detail.
The general approach of the Tech IV Credit Model is to obtain
statistical information about the emission levels of each
division by emission standard and technology and to predict the
emission levels of that division at any specified age measured
by mileage. All divisions are then weighted together based on
the predicted size of each division for each model year group.
The resultant emission level predictions when plotted versus
mileage are nearly linear. For simplicity, MOBILE3 uses a
linear input for the emission factor equation. Therefore, a
linear equation is fit to the emission levels versus mileage
for each model year group using a weighted regression. The.
weighting is determined by the vehicle mileage contribution of
each age to the vehicle lifetime mileage accumulation. Further
sections in this report will discuss each of these processes in
more detail.
-------
-3-
As described in the following pages, the method just described
was repeated for the overall FTP (Federal Test Procedure.)
emission results and for each of the three "bags" of the FTP
separately. The separate bag results are heeded in MOBILES to
correctly adjust for varying percentages of'operation in the
modes represented by the three bags.
In order to estimate I/M credits for these vehicles it was
assumed that the emission levels of vehicles after repair
would, on average, resemble the emissions of the division of
the sample with acceptable emissions. Since not all vehicles
with acceptable emission levels would pass their applicable EPA
certification standards, this does not assume that all repaired
vehicles will pass certification standards after repair. The
estimation of the emissions of the fleet for the I/M case,
therefore, resembles the process for estimating the non-I/M
emissions except that some portion of the fraction of vehicles
normally assumed to be outliers or in need of maintenance would
instead be attributed to the category of vehicles with
acceptable emission levels.
Once all of the categories had been weighted together, the
non-I/M case. and I/M program case for each age are compared and
the reduction in emissions expressed as a percent. This
percent reduction in exhaust emissions is stored in MOBILES and
used to estimate the reduction in the emission factors due to
I/M. I/M credits were calculated and stored only for the
overall FTP, not for individual bags. Further sections in this
report will discuss this process in more detail.
-------
-4- •
3.0 VEHICLE SAMPLE
On April 19, 1984, the Emission Factor Program (EF) data base
included 1380 light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGV) that had been
built and certified to the current Federal NOx-standard of 1.0
grams per mile" (gm/mi). This data set is updated relative to
the data presented at the February 14, 1984 MOBILES workshop.
It includes an additional 222 data records from further testing
as part of the 1984 Emission Factor Program. The data include
137 1980 model year California cars certified to the
•0.41/9.0/1.0 gm/mi (HC, CO and NOx) standard. These cars
although representative of the advanced catalyst technologies
under consideration are also the first cars made according to
the tighter NOx emission standard. These vehicles may
represent more of a prototype technology unrepresentative .of
current trends. They were too numerous to ignore, but too
suspect to include without guestion. Therefore, they were
included where their numbers were needed most, in the estimates
of the deterioration slopes, but nowhere else.
Also included in the data were five vehicles which were
certified to the California standards which did not require the
use of a catalyst. These vehicles do not represent any
technology expected to be used in the 1981 and later model year
fleet. These vehicles were therefore not used in the model.
Seven vehicles were certified to a 2.0 gm/mi NOx standard.
These vehicles were granted waivers which were still available
to certain manufacturers. These vehicles were left in the
analysis to account for waiver vehicles. One California
vehicle with a problem in the computer control module was
excluded from the analysis because the manufacturer claimed to
have eliminated the potential for this problem through a design
change.
Visibly tampered vehicles were excluded from the analysis. The
Emission Factor Program vehicles were examined for emissions
system tampering. Not all forms of tampering yield significant
exhaust emissions increases. Tampering of the air pump system,
catalyst removal, misfueling of catalyst equipped cars with
leaded gasoline and EGR system disablements were considered
reasons for removal from the data. There were 87 vehicles (6%)
identified with such tampering in the EF program passenger car
sample. All 87 tampered cars were removed from the sample used
in the analysis. MOBILE3 adjusts the emission levels predicted
by the Tech IV Credit Model to reflect the emission impact of
tampering separately.
The total non-tampered LDGV analysis data base includes 1292
records. Of these, 126 are 1980 model year California
certified cars. The California cars were only used in the
estimate of the deterioration slopes. The vehicles used in the
analysis are described by model year, technology and emissions
standards in Table 1 and Table 2.
-------
-5-
In general, the randomized EF selection procedures tend to
minimize data clumping by technology, manufacturer and
mileage,* but there is a probable correlation between model
year and mileage. As a result, the emission level prediction
for deterioration versus mileage assumes that newer model year
vehicles will 'obtain similar emission levels as older model
year vehicles when they reach similar mileage levels. All of
the outliers observed in the sample were 1981 model year cars.
Another apparent trend, the decreases in emissions in
succeeding years, is due in part to the decreasing mean mileage
associated with successive model years. The significance of
these trends is limited by the lack of 1982 and later model
year vehicles in the critical 3.4 gm/mi CO standard case, a
factor that becomes even more important when the data are
further divided into appropriate catalyst technology categories.
For purposes of the model, all vehicles in the sample which
were not judged outliers were divided into two groups. The
first group represents vehicles with accept .ble emission
levels. The second group represents vehicles with higher
emission levels. The first group of "normal emitting" vehicles
will subsequently be referred to in this report simply as
"Normals". All non-outlier vehicles in the sample not judged
to be Normals will be referred to as "Highs". The outliers
themselves will be referred to as "Supers". Each of these
emission level groups will be discussed in more detail in the
following sections.
3.1 Estimates for Normal Emitters
One of the major reasons for dividing the sample into Normals
and Highs is to assist in the modeling of I/M programs. In the
model, any vehicle in the sample whose FTP emissions are
greater than 1.5 gm/mi HC or 20 gm/mi CO is considered a High
emitter. This level best divides the sample into Normals which
tend to pass short tests and Highs which tend to fail short
tests.
There are a total of 1219 Normal emitters among the
non-tampered LDGV sample. The emission levels of the Normals
are described in Table 1. They are distributed by technology
and model year standards as shown in Table 2. On the basis of
preliminary analyses, these normal emitters were divided into
three principal related technology groups: closed loop (CLLP),
open loop (OPLP), and oxidation catalyst only (Oxid). Then,
*Some specially recruited high mileage cars tend to introduce
a bi-modality with respect to mileage.
-------
bag-by-bag and combined-FTP deterioration factors (slopes) were
determined for each by means of linear regression with respect
to mileage using dummy variables specific to technology, model
year and the CO emission standard. This procedure determines a
best fit slope for each combination of technologies, minimizing
the effects of coincidental technology, model year and emission
standard correlations with mileage. All of the data, including
the 1980 model year California data, were used in these
regressions. The resulting deterioration factors are listed
in Table 3.
Normal emitter zero-mile intercepts were calculated for the
various technology and model year-emission standard subcases
using the subcase mean emissions, En/ and mean mileages, M,
and the appropriate deterioration factors (DFn)as follows,
ZMn = En - DFn * M.
The 1980 model year California certified cars were excluded
from the calculation of zero-mile intercepts. This left 1105
normal emitting vehicles upon which to base the estimates of
the zero-mile intercepts shown in Table 4.
Since there are no outliers with regards to oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) emissions and since I/M programs are not assumed to
result in repairs that significantly affect NOx, all vehicles
in the sample are considered Normal emitters with regards to
NOx emissions. The NOx emission zero mile intercepts for
Normals therefore are based on the total non-tampered sample of
1166 vehicles. Also, the following discussions of Highs and
Supers, therefore, do not apply to NOx emissions.
3.2 Estimates for High Emitters •
High emitters are defined here as those light-duty vehicles
that either have FTP-HC emissions greater than 1.5 gm/mi or
have FTP-CO emissions greater than 20 gm/mi and which are not
outliers. These vehicles tend to fail the I/M short tests.
They are not otherwise special and other choices for FTP cutoff
levels have been shown to yield essentially equal estimates of
emissions deterioration when used in the model. The particular
cutpoints used were chosen such that the majority of all
vehicles failing the I/M short tests would be considered High
emitting vehicles for purposes of the model.. There is no
comparable group for NOx since all vehicles are considered
Normal emitters for NOx emissions.
The proportion of High-emitters observed in the sample is not
uniform but rather increases with increasing mileage. Overall,
the data would be fit by the following linear regression:
Wh = -0.00973 + 0.027597 * M
-------
-7-
The equation becomes positive at 3,500 miles, a small offset
from the origin which is not significant. The equation equals
0.128 (12.8%) at 50,000 and 0.266 (26.6%) at 100,000 miles. As
explained below, this single overall linear fit was not used in
the model.
The 57 High emitters are distributed by technology, model year
and emission standard as shown in Table 2. They are not
equally distributed by technology, and therefore, separate
estimates of Wh for the High-Emitters have been made for
closed-loop carbureted (CLLP/Carb), closed-loop fuel injected
(CLLP/FI), open-loop 3-way catalyst (OPLP) and pure oxidation
catalyst (Oxid) cars.
The closed-loop fuel-injection category of cars is especially
important because it is projected to dominate sales by 1986.
However, there were only 122 of them in the sample at the time
of this analysis. Therefore for purposes of determining the
emission levels and other characteristics of CLLP/FI Highs,
this category has been augmented by including as CLLP/FI
equivalents, any CLLP/Carb (Normal or High) whose emission
failure was not due to carburetor problems.
We have assumed for purposes of the model that the proportion
of High emitters will increase in a piece-wise linear fashion
from the origin. There is reason to suspect that beyond 50,000
miles, the "useful" life of passenger cars for certification
purposes, that the rate of increase in the number of High
emitters will increase. This increase would be due to loss of
warranty coverage and general poor maintenance given to used
cars by owners. Therefore, the model assumes that beyond
50,000 miles the rate of increase of the Highs will double.
The model uses a two-stage equation to predict the proportion
of vehicles in a fleet which will have high emissions. The
equation expresses the proportion as a linear function of the
average odometer mileage of the vehicles. It has two segments
to accomodate the assumed change in the rate of increase of the
occurrence of High emitters as the vehicles age. The following
assumptions are used.
-There are no High emitters at zero miles, but vehicles
start to become High emitters as soon as they are driven.
-The boundary, or "kink", between the segments should
occur at 50,000 miles. This assumption is based on the
.common definition of the "useful life" of a vehicle.
-The slope of the segment which follows the kink is twice
that of the first segment. This assumption reflects the
increased wear and possibly less diligent maintenance of
older vehicles, which would cause than to become High
emitters at an increased rate.
-------
-8-
With these assumptions in place, the function is as follows:
f(x) = ox (x _< 5)
f(x) = 2ox-5 (x > 5)
where:
f(x) is the proportion of high emitters in the fleet at
mileage level, x.
x is the odometer mileage ( x 10k miles).
a is the slope of the first segment.
Note that only one value, a, is needed to complete the
function. The least-sguares method was used to find a value of
a which allows the function to best describe the behavior of
each technology subset in the sample. The method was applied
as follows:
E is the error term, in this case it is a function of
a.
i denotes an individual vehicle in the set.
Y is a variable which indicates the emission category
of vehicle i. Y = l if emissions are "high", 0 if
emissions are normal.
b denotes the - group of vehicles with mileages less
than or egual to 50,000 (x £ 5).
c denotes the group of vehicles with .mileages greater
than 50,000 (x > 5) .
The eguation for the error would be as follows:
E* = I(fUi) - Yi)2
- 5a - Y4 ) 2
To find the value of a where E2 (and, thus, the error E) is
minimized, the value which causes the derivative, dEz/da,
to-be zero must be found.
-------
-9-
dE2/da = ^(axj - Y^Xi + I2(2axt - 5a - Yt)(2xt- 5)
5 c
lXl + al(2x4 - 5)2 - lY1(2x1 - 5)
Then, solving for the slope a,
iX! + lY1(2xi - 5)
a =
- 5)
The slope of the equation, a, was then determined for each
technology subset of the sample. The resultant 0 to 50,000
mile slopes are listed below.
Wh = 0.0250 *. M for CLLP/Carb
= 0.0193 * M for CLLP/FI
= 0.0401 * M for OPLP/Carb
=0.0 for Oxid
The High emitter emission level magnitudes (ZMh) are the
bag-by-bag High emitter emission means for each of the four
technology categories. These emission levels are not assumed
to increase with increasing age. The number of vehicles in
this emission category is assumed to increase with age as
described above. The High emitter magnitudes are listed in
Table 5.
The estimates for High emitter emission levels do not include
the 1980 model year California certified vehicles.
-------
-10-
3.3 Estimates for Super Emitters
There were four outliers identified in the sample. [3] All of
these Super emitters were closed-loop carbureted vehicles. Two
of these vehicles had emission problems which- might also occur
on closed-loop fuel-injected vehicles and therefore were used
to simulate the emission levels of fuel-injected Super emitters.
Since only four Super emitters were observed in a total
closed-loop carbureted and fuel-injected vehicle sample, the
following equation best describes the occurrence of Super
emitters.
Number of Supers = W,C*MC*NC + Wsf*Mf*Nf = 4
Where: W«c = Rate of carbureted Supers
W«r = Rate of fuel-injected Supers
Mc = Mean mileage of carbureted vehicles
Mf = Mean mileage of fuel-injected vehicles
Nc = Number of carbureted vehicles
Nf = Number of fuel-injected vehicles
And for this sample:
Mc = 22,092 miles
Mf = 18,293 miles
Nc = 656 vehicles
Nf = 122 vehicles
Although all four observed Super emitters were carbureted
vehicles, the sample of fuel-injected vehicles is small enough
so that it is not surprising that no fuel-injected Supers were
observed. Further, since only two of the four malfunctions
observed in the Supers could have occurred on fuel-injected
vehicles, the observed rate of Supers among fuel-injected
vehicles would be expected to be less than for carbureted
vehicles. It was assumed that the rate of occurrence of Supers
for fuel-injected vehicles is half the rate for carbureted
vehicles.
2*wsf = Wsc
If we then solve the previous equation for the rate of
occurrence of fuel-injected Super emitters, we get the
following equation.
W,f = 4 / ( 2*Ne*Me + Nf *Mf )
W,f = 4 / ( 2*656*2.2092 + 122*1.8293 )
W»f = 0.0012814 / 10,000 miles
Wsc = 2*W,r = 0.0025628 / 10,000 miles
-------
-11-
The rate of occurrence of Supers is assumed to increase
linearly with mileage starting at the origin. Unlike the High.
emitters, the rate of increase is not assumed to change beyond
50,000 miles.
f
The Super emitter emission level magnitudes (ZMS) are the
bag-by-bag Super emitter emission means for each of the
technology categories. As with the High emitters, the
emission levels of the Super emitters are assumed not to
increase with age. The Super emitter emission level
magnitudes are listed in Table 5.
3.4 Combined Deterioration Equations
As indicated previously, the estimates of the rate at which
vehicle emissions increase is a weighted sum of the separate
emission contributions of Normal, High and Super emitters,
E = (l-Wh-Ws)(ZMn+DFn*M) + WhZMh + WSZMS.
As an illustration, the combined FTP-CO emissions of 1981 and
later, 3.4 gm/mi CO-standard, closed-loop carbureted, 3-way
catalyst with oxidation catalyst (CLLP/OX3W/Carb),
non-tampered, light-duty vehicles are calculated to be:
CO = (1 - .0250M - .002563M)(1.948 + .6459M)
+ .0250(39.137)M + .002563 (193.23)M
CO = 1.948 + 2.0666M - 0.0178M2 (gm/mi)
This equals 7.00 gm/mi at 25,000 miles and 11.83 gm/mi at
50,000 miles. In the model the rate at which High emitters
occur doubles at 50,000 miles. Beyond 50,000 miles, Wh
becomes 0.0499*M for this case and the FTP CO emission
equation becomes:
CO = -2.3403 + 3.0046M - 0.003389M2 (gm/mi)
FTP CO then equals 11.83 gm/mi at 50,000 miles, 18.28 gm/mi at
75,000 miles, and 24.31 gm/mi at 100,000 miles.
A set of emission levels are calculated for each technology in
each model year using the appropriate quadratic equations for
each mileage corresponding to the model year anniversary.
These emission .levels combine the emission levels of the
Normal, High and Super emitters in each technology group. The
emission levels of the technology groups are then weighted
together at each anniversary mileage by the fraction of the
model year equipped with each technology. These technology
projections are described in Table 6.
-------
-12-
The combined emission levels at each model year anniversary
define the predicted emission levels of the model. For.
MOBILES, a linear Least Square Regression is then fit to the
predicted emission levels, weighted by the vehicle mileage
contribution of each model year anniversary to the vehicle
lifetime mileage accumulation.
Figure 1 shows an example of a linear fit to the predicted
emission levels. This best linear fit is the equation used by
MOBILE3 to predict non-tampered emission levels.
-------
-13-
4.0 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE BENEFITS
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) short tests of vehicle
exhaust emission concentrations are simple tests that can be
performed cheaply and in a minimum amount of time. These
tests include an idle test and a two-speed test either
unloaded or loaded using a dynamometer. The I/M short tests
are much more likely to fail Super and High emitters than
they are to fail Normal emitting vehicles. This fact is used
in I/M programs to identify vehicles which most need
maintenance and most contribute to the emissions of the fleet
in excess of certification standards.
As in MOBILE2, MOBILES uses a modeling approach to estimate
the impact of I/M on vehicle emissions [4]. Actual in-use
data of the effects on emission levels of typical repairs as
a result of an operating I/M program were not available at
the time MOBILES was released. As a result, many of the
assumptions used in the model are based on experience with
vehicle owner behavior in I/M programs and laboratory repairs
of 1981 and later model year LDGVs. When new information is
collected, the assumptions can be substituted by observed
effects. For now, the model represents EPA1 s best estimate
of the effects of I/M on the emissions of 1981 and later
model year LDGVs.
The remainder of this section deals with the application of
three typical I/M short tests to the EF non-tampered LDGV
sample. The three tests are:
1) Idle Test
2) 2500/Idle Test
3) Loaded/Idle Test
4.1 Short Test Data
The Emission Factor Program (EF) sample used for
determination of I/M program credits contains 1166 non-
tampered light duty vehicles (LDGV). The data exclude the
California certified vehicles. Of these, 668 (57%) had
measured FTP HC and FTP CO emissions less than or equal to
those at which they were certified (0.41 gm/mi for HC and 3.4
or 7.0 gm/mi, for CO) and 498 (43%) exceeded their
certification standards for either HC or CO emissions. The
FTP HC and CO emission and mileage means for the Normal, High
and Super emitters among these FTP passes and FTP failures
are listed in the following table.
-------
-14-
FTP HC and CO Emission and Mileage Means:
FTP passes versus FTP failures
FTP Passes FTP Failures
Normals Normals / Highs / Supers'
Sample Size 668 437 / 57 / 4
HC (grn/mi) 0.260 0.551 / 2.256 / 14.132
CO (gfn/mi) 2.851 6.713 / 37.087 / 193.23
Mileage(lOK) 1.4662 3.1048 / 4.8110 / 2.8157
The Idle Test tailpipe emission levels were gathered mainly
from the second idle in neutral of the four-mode test
procedure. In this procedure the vehicle is tested at curb
idle, with the idle speed held at 2500 rpm, at curb idle again,
and finally at curb idle with the vehicle transmission in drive
with the brake on for vehicles with automatic transmissions.
The second idle measured in this procedure best simulates a
preconditioned idle test procedure.
The 2500/Idle Test data for this analysis were derived mainly
from the same four-mode test procedure. In this case the
emissions sampled at 2500 rpm and from the second idle in
neutral are used. Vehicles must pass both the 2500 rpm mode
and the idle mode of this test.
The Loaded/Idle Test data for this analysis were derived from
the loaded two-mode test procedure. Vehicles must pass both
the loaded high speed mode at 30 mph and idle mode in neutral.
Restart test procedure results were substituted for the above
four-mode test data for all vehicles manufactured by the Ford
Motor Company in the sample with restart procedure results. In
addition, there were 22 vehicles in the sample for which
neither four-mode test, restart test nor loaded two-mode test
data were available and for these cars the idle emission
readings taken during the engine parameter check were
substituted.
4.2 I/M Short Test Errors of Commission and Omission
Errors of commission are vehicles which fail an I/M short test
but which do not exceed their certification standards for HC or
CO emissions. Errors of Omission-are vehicles which pass the
I/M short test but which exceed their certification standards
either for HC or CO emissions or both.
-------
-15-
I/M short test results for vehicles that had passed or failed
their FTP criteria were examined to determine the errors of
commission and omission, Ec and E0.
Table 7 lists the numbers of true failures and passes and the
number of false failures (errors of commission) and passes
(errors of omission) for each of the three I/M short tests and
for the three sets of test stringency criteria (CO and HC
outpoints) used in the model.
The number of correctly identified FTP failures increases with
increasing test stringency. About twice as many FTP failures
fail the 0.5%/100ppm (CO concentration/HC concentration) test
criteria as fail the 3.0%/300ppm cutpoints. Similarly, the
Loaded/Idle Test identifies more FTP failures than the
2500/Idle Test which in turn identifies more FTP failures than
the basic Idle Test.
For a typical test, the Idle Test with l.2%/220ppm cutpoints,
57% of the cars are correctly passed and 3.1% are correctly
failed. In addition, this test falsely passes 38% (errors of
omission) and falsely fails about 0.2% (errors of commission)
of these cars. This last category is of special interest.
Both the 2500/Idle test and the Loaded/Idle Test have more
errors of commission than the Idle Test does. The Loaded/Idle
Test, however, except for the tightest cutpoints, has a lower
error of commission rate than the 2500/Idle Test. Thus, the
Loaded/Idle Test not only appears to be both more stringent,
but more selective than the more easily used 2500/Idle Test.
4.3 I/M Short Test Identification Rates
The raw I/M failure rates are easily calculated for each of the
various I/M short tests by simply dividing the number of
failures by the sample size. The I/M short tests, however,
tend to identify the highest emitters in each group. The model
for the 1981 and newer vehicles, therefore, uses a measure of
the total emissions of the vehicles identified by the short
test to quantify the impact of I/M. The short test FTP
emission identification rate (IDR) tends to be larger than the
simple failure rate and can be different for HC and CO
emissions. In the MOB1LE2 version of the 1981 and newer model
year model, the IDR was determined as a fraction of only
emissions in excess of certification standards.
Table 8 is a listing for each I/M short test result (pass or
fail) of the number of cars, HC and CO emission means, and
effective identification rates by emission category. The
effective identification rate is determined by computing the
total emissions identified by a particular combination of short
test type and short test cutpoint pair and dividing that amount
by the total emissions observed in that emission category for
the sample. The effective identification rates for HC and CO
emission are listed in Table 9.
-------
-16-
When the three tests are compared, the Loaded/Idle Test and the
2500/Idle Test effective identification rates are greater than
those of the Idle Test in all cases. Among the three levels of
test stringency, as might be expected, the 0.5%/100 ppm
criteria are more effective, and the 3.0%/300ppm criteria are
least effective.
4.4 Effects of I/M
The model assumes that when a High or Super emitting vehicle is
repaired to pass the I/M short test, the emission levels of the
repaired vehicles will, on average, resemble the emission
levels of Normal emitting vehicles at the same mileage. As a
result, the I/M process is modeled as reducing the number of
High and Super emitters and thereby increasing the number .of
Normal emitting vehicles. For each test type and cutpoint
combination I/M test scenario, the IDR rate represents the
fraction of High and Super emitters which revert to Normal
emitting levels. At each inspection point in the model year
lifetime measured in mileage, the number of High and Super
emitting vehicles is reduced by the appropriate IDR. The
emission levels with the reduced number of Highs and Supers is
then calculated and compared to the non-I/M case to determine
the I/M benefits for that scenario as a fraction of the non-I/M
case.
There are separate IDR's for HC and CO emissions, but the same
IDR's are used for all technology types. After the initial I/M
inspection, the IDR reduction is only applied to the increase
in the number of High emitters since the last I/M inspection.
The IDR for Super emitters is applied to the total number of
Super emitters in each inspection cycle.
Since the model only reduces the increase in the number of High
emitters since the last inspection, there is always a growing
fraction of vehicles which I/M is assumed never to detect. It
is rationalized that if the particular emission problem which
caused the vehicle to become a High emitter cannot be detected
at the first I/M inspection, then it is reasonable to assume
that the vehicle may never be detected by the I/M program by
subseguent I/M inspections. An example of this type of problem
would be a choke maladjustment, which might cause high overall
emission levels, but might not be detected by a short test
performed on a fully warmed engine. This assumption causes a
portion of the High emitting vehicles to always remain High
emitters and reduces the overall assumed effectiveness of I/M
programs.
Between the inspection cycles the number of High and Super
emitters is assumed to increase. However, the effects of I/M
are assumed to have destabilized the normal rate of increase.
Since the I/M repairs result in a larger number of Normal
-------
-17-
emitting vehicles than would be expected in the absence of the
I/M program, there is assumed to be a greater probability that
Normal emitting vehicles will become High emitters proportional
to the larger number of Normal emitters. The rate of increase
in Super emitting vehicles is assumed to be unaffected.
Number of Normals After I/M
New Increase Rate = Basic Rate *
Number of Normals Without I/M
The model assumes that I/M has no effect on the emission levels
of Normal emitting vehicles. Some effect might be expected
since some fraction of Normal emitting vehicles do fail the I/M
short tests. In this model, however, no benefit is assumed
from I/M repairs on Normal emitting vehicles.
The above process of adjusting the number of Normal, High, and
Super vehicles is performed for each technology within a model
year group and new emission levels for the model year group at
its anniversary points. The I/M benefits are then computed for
each model year group separately by comparison to the non-I/M
case for that model year group. The model does not report the
I/M benefits, for each technology in each model year. The I/M
benefits are computed from the predicted FTP emission levels
before the levels are linearized.
-------
-18-
5.0 THE TECH IV CREDIT MODEL
The Appendix contains a listing of the software used to model
the emissions and I/M effects for 1981 and later model year
passenger cars (LDGV). The listing is not the version which
generated the I/M credits contained in the original release
of MOBILES.. That version contained some coding errors which
have been identified and corrected. The errors only affect
the use of short tests other than the Idle Test using
cutpoints other than 1.2% idle CO and 220 ppm idle HC.
Alternate I/M credits for MOBILE3 reflecting these
corrections are available from the Technical Support Staff in
Ann Arbor [(313) 668-4367].
The Tech IV Credit Model was designed to evaluate programs
which inspect vehicles once a year (annually). The model,
however, has code which allows it to evaluate programs which
inspect vehicles every other year (biennially). All of the
assumptions described in this report apply to the biennial
option. The only difference is the extended period of
increase in the occurrence of High and Super emitters between
inspections for the biennial case.
MOBILES uses the results of the Tech IV Credit Model to
predict the reduction in the basic emission rates of 1981 and
newer model year LDGV for I/M scenarios. In addition,
MOBILES assumes that the presence of an I/M program will
deter tampering of emission control devices and improper use
of leaded fuel in catalyst vehicles. The resultant reduction
in the fleet emission . levels predicted by MOBILES for I/M
programs combine the effects of the reduction in the basic
emission levels directly attributable to the I/M repairs and
the deterrence value of the program on -tampering and
misfueling. The effect of I/M programs on the basic emission
levels for pre-1981 model year LDGV in MOBILE2 is described
in another report [5]. The assumptions used for pre-1981
vehicles in MOBILES are nearly identical to those used in
MOBILE2, having been updated only to reflect different
mileage accrual rates.
-------
-19-
References
1. EPA Inspection and Maintenance Staff, "Derivation of
1981 and Later Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Factors for
Low-Altitude, Non-California Areas". EPA-AA-IMS/80-8,
November 1980.
2. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Report of
preliminary results of Work Assignment No. 35 Task 5,
."Forecasts of Emission Control Technology 1983-1990",
for EPA Contract No. 68-01-6558 to Phil Lorang dated
November 28, 1983.
3. Ed LeBaron, EPA Technical Support Staff. Memo to Phil
Lorang, EPA-TSS dated September 13, 1984.
4. Dave Hughes, EPA Inspection and Maintenance Staff,
"Derivation of I/M Benefits for Post-1980 Light-Duty
Vehicles for Low-Altitude, Non-California Areas".
EPA-AA-IMS/81-2, Revised March 1981.
5. James Rutherford, EPA Inspection and Maintenance Staff,
"Derivation of I/M Benefits for Pre-1981 Light Duty
Vehicles for Low-Altitude, Non-California Areas".
EPA-AA-IMS-82-3, June 1982.
-------
Figure 1.
Regression Fit to The Composite
1981 Model Year CO Emission Levels
35
»
6
CO
OT
C
O
•i—»
to
CO
6
W. 10
O
O
30-
25-
20-
15-
DL,
EH
fc
5-
Legend
Regression
O Emission Levels
I-1 Till II 111 I II III
0 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Vehicle Mileage In 10,000 Mile Increments
-------
TABLE 1
FTP Emission and Mileage Means
by Model Year and Certification Standards
MYR-Stds(HC/CO/NOx)
1981-.41/7.0/0.7
Normals
Highs
All
1981-. 41/3. 4/1.0
Normals
Highs
Supers
All
1982-. 41/3. 4/1.0
Normals
1983-. 41/3. 4/1.0
Normals
Highs
All
1981-. 41/7. 0/1.0
Normals
Highs
Supers
All
1982-. 41/7. 0/1.0
Normals
1981-. 41/7. 0/2.0
Normals
1982-. 41/7. 0/2.0
Normals
1980-. 41/9. 0/1.0
Normals
Highs
All
1980-1983 Myrs.
Normals
Highs
Supers
All
1981-1983 Myrs.
Normals
Highs
Supers
'All
Sample
Size
196
4
200
372
25
3
400
30
47
1
48
346
27
1
374
107
6
1
114
12
126
1219
69
4
1292
1 105
57
4
1166
HC
(qm/mi)
0.319
1.618
0.345
0.375
2.778
15.327
0.637
0.265
0.299
2.080
0.336
0.452
1.873
10.550
0.582
0.295
0.327
0.320
0.346
1 .363
0.443
0.372
2. 101
14.132
0.507
0.375
2.256
14. 132
0.514
CO
(gm/mi)
3.94
39.51
4.65
3.68
42.98
172.69
7.40
2.59
3.14
8.89
3.26
5.90
32.31
254.87
8.47
3.77
4.13
3.30
4.95
37.05
8.00
4.43
37.08
193.23
6.76
4.38
37.09
193.23
6.63
NOx
(qm/mi)
0.584
0.800
0.607
0.731
0.845
•0.698
1.360
1.800
0.831
0.771
0.764
Mileage
(10k-mi)
1.0775
2.3644
1.1032
2.7741
5.7758
2.7296
2.9614
*
0.6965
1.4653
3.5198
1.5081
2.5986
4.3279
3.0738
2.7247
0.8003
2.9857
0.6041
1.7577
2.9421
1.8705
2.0809
4.4860
2.8157
2.2116
2.1142
4.8110
2.8157
2.2484
-------
TABLE 2
Distribution of Non-Tampered Light-Duty Vehicles
by Technology, Model Year and Emission Standards
Model Year 1981 1982 1983 1981 1981 1981 1982 1982 1980
HC Std.
CO Std.
NO Std.
Normal-Emitters
CLLP/OX3W/Carb
CLLP/ 3WC/Carb
CLLP/OX3W/FI
CLLP/ 3WC/FI
OPLP/OX3W/Carb
OPLP/ 3WC/Carb
OPLP/Oxid/Carb
OPLP/None/Carb
All Normals
High-Emitters
CLLP/OX3W/Carb
CLLP/ 3WC/Carb
CLLP/OX3W/FI
CLLP/ 3WC/FI
OPL?/OX3W/Carb"
OPLP/ 3WC/Carb
OPLP/Oxid/Carb
All Highs
Suoer-Emitters
CLLP/OX3W/Carb
All Vehicles
.41
3.4 .
1.0
165
34
3
16
58
3
93
—
172
14
3
-
-
8
-
—
25.
3
400
.41
3.4
1.0
4
3
-
7
2
3
1 1
—
30
_
-
-
-
-
-
—
0
-
30
.41
3.4
1.0
5
-
9
25
8
-
-
—
47
_
-
1
-
-
-
—
T
-
48
.41
7.0
0.7
55
63
8
13
28
5
24
—
T96
2
1
--
1
-
-
—
?
-
200
.41
7.0
1.0
110
126
8
-
63
4
35
- —
"346
6
1 1
-
. -
10
-
—
21
1
374
.41
7.0
2.0
«
5
-
-
-
-
1
—
6
_
-
-
-.
-
-
—
0
-
6
.41
7.0
1.0
35
9
3
28
28
-
4
—
T0~7
...
.
-
-
-
-
—
0
-
107
.41 .41
7.0 9.0
2.0 1.0
10
1 48
2
11
6
2
30
5
T TT4
2
' - 7
-
- -
-
1
2
o TI
-
1 126
All
384
289
33
100
193
17
198
5
T2T9
24
22
1
1
18
1
2
19
4
1292
-------
TABLE 3
Normal-Emitter Deterioration Factors for Non-Tampered
Light-Duty Vehicles by Bag and Technology Group
Deterioration Factors (gm/mi/10k-miles)
by Technology Type
FTP (All)
HC
CO
NOx
FTP Bag 1
• HC1
C01
N01
FTP Bag 2
HC2
C02
N02
FTP Bag 3
HC3
C03
NO 3
CLLP/3W
0.04998
0.6459
0.09534
0.11907
1.6554
0.09324
0.03304
0.3777
0.08205
0.03067
0.3988
0.12259
OPLP/3W
0.04507
0.1713
0.07692
0.08728
0.7530
0.06917
0.02780
0.0000
0.07539
0.04670
0.2001
0.08572
Oxidation
0.02681
0.4638
0.01821
0.09240
1.4863
0.00121
0.00911
0.2053
0.02323
0.01129
0. 1824
0.02156
-------
TABLE 4
Normal Emitter Zero-Mile Intercepts
for Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles
Zero-Mile Intercepts (gm/mi)
Technology
Model Years
CO Standard
FTP HC
FTP CO
FTP NOx
Bag 1 HC
Bag 1 CO
Bag 1 NOx
Bag 2 HC
Bag 2 CO
Bag 2 NOx
Bag 3 HC
Bag 3 CO
Bag 3 NOx
Technology
Model Years
CO Standard
FTP HC
FTP CO
FTP NOx
Bag 1 HC
Bag 1 CO
Bag 1 NOx
Bag 2 HC
Bag 2 CO
Bag 2 NOx
Bag 3 HC
Bag 3 CO
Bag 3 NOx
Closed-Loop
1981 +
3.4
0.2260
1.948
0.5328
0.5271
5.550
1.0096
0.1117
0.612
0.3870
0.2127
1.748
0.5170
1981
7.0
0.3056
3.201
0.6942
0.8780
10.927
1.0788
0.1056
0.535
0.5310
0.2521
2.405
0.7127
Open-Loop 3-Way
1981 +
3.4
0.3229
2.823
0.5626
0.6930
7.665
0.8423
0. 1803
0.542
0.4506
0.3136
3.199
0.5628
1981
7.0
0.3700
5.775
0.4101
0.5573
9.568
0.7819
0.2705
3.535
0.2722
0.4175
6.827
0.3909
OX3W*
1982+
7.0
0.2513
2.994
0.6717
0.7141
10.092
1.0926
0.0951
0.475
0.5108
0.1959
2.392
0.6573
Catalyst
1982+
7.0
0.3435
4.395
0.6933
0.5744
10.212
0.8957
0.2319
1.821
0.6504
0.3795
4.836
0.6231
Closed-Loop 3WC*
1981 +
3.4
0.2260
1.948
0.5328
0.5271
5.550
1.0096
0.1117
0.612
0.3870
0.2127
1.748
0.5170
Ox
1981 +
3.4
0.2768
2.507
0.7592
0.7663
6.867
1 .0717
0. 1195
1 .001
0.5935
0.2087
2.070
0.8380
1981
7.0
0.3048
4.277
0.5433
0.7798
10.925
1.1605
0.1370
2.133
0.3938
0.2621
3.302
0.3597
1982+
7.0
0.2041
2.824
0.5510
0.6145
6.710
1.0958
0.0771
1.654
0.3864
0.1333
2.091
0'.4203
idation Catalyst
1981
7.0
0.2220
3.398
0.6735
0.5366
11 .870
1.0702
0.1178
0.722
0.4874
0.1786
2.048
0.7283
1982+
7.0
0.1801
2.787
0.6658
0.5011
9.454
1.0896
0.0967
1 . 125
0.4115
0.1034
0.958
0.8221
*Includes both carbureted and fuel injected vehicles.
-------
TABLE 5
Mean Emission Levels of High and Super Emitters
Mean Emission Levels (qm/mi)
Closed-Loop Carb
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Clos.ed-Loop FI
FTP
Bag 1
. Bag 2
Bag 3
Open-Loop 3-Way
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
High Emitters
HC CO
2.2997 / 39.137
4.6408 / 61.181
1.7954 / 35.503
1.4857 / 29.354
2.3556 / 38.212
4.2419 / 53.030
1.9737 / 36.496
1.6574 / 30.292
2.2556 / 34.607
3.6050 / 50.422
1.7850 / 30.528
2.1094 / 30.361
Super Emitters
HC CO
14.132 / 193.23
30.937 / 181.02
10.867 / 210.72
7.508 / 169.22
10.560 / 191.72
8.090 / 170.45
12.645 / 215.45
8.460 / 162.55
Note: There were no Super emitters observed in the OPLP 3-Way
category sample. No High or Super emitters were observed
in the Oxidation Catalyst category sample.
-------
TABLE 6
Technology Distribution by Model Year
Projected Fleet Percentage (%)
Model Years 1981 - 1982
CO Standard 3.4 7.0 3.4 7.0
Technology
CLLP/OX3W/Carb 23.1 15.1 3.6 32.7
CLLP/ 3WC/Carb 4.5 18.1 3.8 12.7
CLLP/OX3W/FI 1.0 1.9 1.4 2.3
CLLP/ 3WC/FI 2.3 4.2 5.6 9.0
OPLP 3-Way 7.6 7.5 2.3 12.8
OPLP Oxidation 10.3 4.4 10.1 3.7
Percentage 48.8 51.2 26.8 TO
Model Years 1983 1984 1985-1986 1987-1989 1990+
Technology
CLLP/OX3W/Carb
CLLP/ 3WC/Carb
CLLP/OX3W/FI
CLLP/ 3WC/FI
OPLP 3-Way
OPLP Oxidation
45.3
2.1
27.6
13.1
11.9
43.4
11.9
40.0
4.7
23.5
11.1
61.0
4.4
11.2
8.5
79.5
0.8
4.0
6.2
88.8
1.0
-------
ICO/IHC
Cutpoints
Idle Test
TABLE 7
Combined Sample I/M Short Test Failure Rate Summary
Pass Short Test Fail Short Test
Emission
Category
Pass FTP Fail FTP
Pass FTP Fail FTP
0.5%/100ppm Normal
High
Super
All
1.2%/220ppm Normal
High
Super
All
3.0%/300ppm Normal
High
Super
All
2500/Idle Test
0.5%/100ppm Normal
High
Super
All
1.2%/220ppm Normal
High
Super
All
3.0%/300ppm Normal
High
Super
All
Loaded/Idle Test
0.5%/100ppm Normal
High
Super
All
1.2%/220ppm Normal
High
Super
All
3.0%/300ppm Normal
High
Super
All
661 411 7 26
32 - 25
1 - 3
661 (57%) 444 (38%) 7 (0.6%) 54 (4.6%)
666 421 2 16
40 - 17
1 - 3
666 (57%) 462 (40%) 2 (0.2%) 36 (3.1%)
666 432 25
47 - 10
1 - 3
666 (57%) 480 (41%) 2 (0.2%) 18 (1.5%)
648
401 20 36
25 - 32
1 - 3
•648 (56%) 427 (37%) 20 (1.7%) 71 (6.1%)
656
414 12 23
34 - 23
1 - 3
656 (56%) 449 (39%) 12 (1.0%) 49 (4.2%)
662 431 6 6
43 - 14
1 - 3
662 (57%) 475 (41%) 6 (0.5%) 23 (2.0%)
647
383 21 54
16 - 41
' 1 - 3
647 (55%) 400 (34%) 21 (1.8%) 98 (8.4%)
659 419 9 18
28 - 29
1 - 3
659 (57%) 448 (38%) 9 (0.8%) 50 (4.3%)
664 429 4 8
39 - 18
1 - 3
664 (57%) 469 (40%) 4 (0.3%) 29 (2.5%)
-------
TABLE 8
Mean Emission Levels of High and Super Emitter Vehicles
Failing I/M Short Tests
Mean Emissions
Emissions
Identified
ICO/IHC Sample
Cutpoints Size
All Hiqhs
Fail Idle Test
0.5%/100ppm
1.2%/220ppm
3.0%/300ppm
2500/Idle Test
0.5%/100ppm
1.2%/220ppm
3.0%/300ppm
Loaded/Idle Test
0.5%/100ppm
1.2%/220ppm
3.0%/300ppm
57
25
17
10
32
23
14
41
. 29
18
(qm/mi)
HC
2.2558
2.6492
2.8659
2.8770
2.5834
2.8191
3.0564
2.3315
2.5383
2.8333
CO
37.086
46.232
55.949
59.796
48.378
57.501
64.024
43.158-
51.922
57.057
(IDR)
HC
0.515
0.379
0.224
0.643
. 0.504
0.333
0.743
0.572.
' 0.397
CO
0.547
0.450
0.283
0.732
0.626
0.424
0.837
0.712
0.486
All Supers
Failing All
I/M Short Tests
Carbureted
Fuel-Injected*
14.132 193.23
3 10.557 212.77
2 10.560 191.72
0.560 0.826
1.000 1.000
* Only two of the Super emitters were judged as possible
for fuel-injected vehicles.
-------
APPENDIX
Tech IV Credit Model
Software Program Listing
-------
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
CC
cc
CC
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
. cc
cc
cc
THIS IS THE APPENDIX 4 PROGRAM DEVELOPED FOR
MOBILES
THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES I/M BENEFITS FOR THE POST- 1980 FLEET.
EITHER ANNUAL AND BIENNIAL
A* SIX TECHS **
** SEVEN MODEL YEAR GROUPS **
(UPDATED 8/23/84)
ESTABLISH VARIABLES.
BI - 1 : 1/3/5 SCHEDULE.
BI = 2 : 2/4/6 SCHEDULE.
BI = 3 : ANNUAL SCHEDULE.
STD - 1 : 1981 MODEL YEAR 4 : 1984 7 : 1990+
STD = 2 : 1982 5 : 1985-6
STD = 3 : 1983 6 : 1987-9
INTEGER BI,BY,P,B,T,IDR,LAST,YR,AGE1ST,IAGE,NAGE,STD,IY,STP,INCR
INTEGER IYR,IP,IB,IT,D,II,JJ,KK,LL,J
REAL KINK
"KINK" IS THE KINK IN THE HIGH EMISSION DETERIORATION RATE
AFTER 50,000 MILES. IF KINK=1, THERE IS NO KINK.
IF KINK=2, THE DETERIORATION RATE DOUBLES AFTER 50K MILES.
KINK=2.0
• BI - 3
COMMON/INPUT/SHO , SSO , GH , GS , ESO , DS , ENOO , DN , EHO , DH
COMMON/FRC/FRAC
COMMON/REG/EWOC (20,2,3,5,9), EWC (20,2,3,5,9)
COMMON/TECH/EWO (20 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 9) , EW (20 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 9)
COMMON/BENE/ CA (20 , 20 , 2 , 5) , CZ (20 , 20 , 2 , 5) , CWO (20,2,5), INT
COMMON/BAG/ZML2 (5,7,3), DET2 (5,7, 3).
COMMON/ODOM/RATE,MILE,SRATE,MDIF
COMMON/MACC/JMILE
COMMON/IMS/INSP,FINSP,STD,IDR,IY,T,B
COMMON/BASE/EN , EH , ES , HIGH , SUPER , WN
LOGICAL INSP
LOGICAL FINSP(3)
REAL SRATE (2,2), RATE (9,2), MILE (20)
REAL SUMX(2) ,SUMXX(2),SUMY(2) ,SUMXY(2)
REAL HIGH (20 , 2) , INT (2,5,6), SUPER (20 , 2)
REAL GHI,GH2,GH3
REAL SHO(2,5,6) ,SSO(2,5,6) ,GH(2,5,6) ,GS(2,5,6)
-------
Page 2
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
83
84
85
86
87
88.
89
.90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97 .
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
11 1
112
113
114
115
116
CC
• CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
10
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
30
CC
40
CC
CC
CC***
CC
CC
REAL ESO(2,5,6) ,ENO(2,5,6) ,EHO(2,5,6) ,ENOO(2,5,6, 3)
REAL DS(2,5,6), DN(2,5,6), DH(2,5,6)
REAL EWO,EW,FRAC(6,9)
REAL MDIF(20)
REAL ES (20, 2), EN (20, 2) ,EH(20,2)
REAL WN(20,2) ,WNO(2,5, 5) ,DWN(2,5,5) ,ENZ(20,2) ,ENA(20,2)
REAL SZ(20,9,5) ,SA(20,9,5) ,HZ(20,9,5) ,HA(20,9,5)
REAL NZ(20,9,5),NA(20,9,5),SS,SH,SN
RATE IS THE EFFECTIVE IDENTIFICATION RATE OF HIGHS
FOR EACH TEST/CUTPOINT COMBO AND BY POLLUTANT
CALCULATE MILEAGE BETWEEN EACH ONE YEAR INTERVAL
MDIF(1) - MILE(1)
DO 10 YR=2,20
MDIF(YR) = MILE(YR) - KILE(YR-I)
CONTINUE
FIRST LOOP IS IDR
IDR TEST CUTPOINTS (HC/CO)
1 IDLE .5/100
2 IDLE 1.2/220
3 IDLE 3.0/300
4 2500/IDLE .5/100
5 2500/IDLE 1.2/220
6 2500/IDLE 3.0/300
7 LOADED .5/100
8 LOADED 1.2/220
9 LOADED • 3.0/300
DO 600 STD=1,7
DO 600 IDR=1,9
THIS NEXT LOOP IS FOR 19.81 & 1982 MODEL YEAR GROUPS
SO THAT THE PROGRAM WILL LOOP FOR 3.4 AND 7.0
INCR-1
STP=1
IF (STD.NE. 1) GO TO 30
INCR=1
STP=2
GO TO 40
IF (STD.NE. 2) GO TO 40
INCR=2
STP-3
DO 440 IY-1,STP,INCR
THIS IS THE FIRST PART OF THE MOBILES. APPENDIX4
MODEL. THIS PART WILL CALCULATE THE RELATIVE SIZE
OF THE FLEET AND OTHER BASIC NON-I/M PARAMETERS.
-------
Page 3
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
CC
CC
cc...
cc
cc
cc
50
cc
cc
cc. . .
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc...
cc
cc
cc. . .
cc
cc
cc
cc. ..
cc
100
cc
cc...
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc...
cc
.RETRIEVE THE CORRECT DATA FOR NORMALS FROM BLOCK DATA
DEPENDING UPON MODEL YEAR AND 3.4/7.0 LOOP
LL = 1
IF(STD.EQ.1.AND.IY.EQ.1) LL=1
IF(STD.EQ. 1.AND.IY.EQ.2) LL=2
IF(STD.EQ.2.AND.IY.EQ.2) LL=3
DO 50 11=1,2
DO 50 JJ-1,5
DO 50 KK=1,6
ENO(II,JJ,KK) - ENOO(II,JJ,KK,LL)
CONTINUE
.THE NEXT LOOP IS BY TECHNOLOGY
TECH = 1 OXIDATION/3-WAY CATALYST, CLOSED-LOOP, CARBURATED.
TECH = 2 3-WAY CATALYST, CLOSED-LOOP, CARBURATED.
TECH = 3 OXIDATION/3-WAY CATALYST, CLOSED-LOOP, FUEL INJECTED
TECH = 4 3-WAY CATALYST, CLOSED-LOOP, FUEL INJECTED.
TECH = 5 3-WAY CATALYST, OPEN-LOOP, ALL
TECH = 6 OXIDATION CATALYST, ALL
DO 420 T=1,6
.LOOP BY BAG (1=FTP; 2=BAG1; 3=BAG2; 4=BAG3 ; 5=BAGGED IDLE)
DO 4 1 0 B= 1 , 4
.CALCULATE CATAGORY SIZE AT ZERO MILE POINTS
DO 100 P=1,2
SS = SSO(P,B,T)
SH = SHO(P,B,T)
SN = 1.0 - SS - SH
.CALCULATE FLEET ZERO' MILE EMISSIONS
INT(P.B.T) = SS * ESO(P,B,T)
* + SH * EHO(P,B,T)
* + SN * ENO(P,B,T)
CONTINUE
.CALCULATE EMISSION LEVELS
FOR EACH CATAGORY BY VEHICLE AGE
DO 120 YR-1,20
DO 110 P-1,2
.SET NON-I/M EMISSION LEVELS FOR THE CATEGORIES.
ES(YR,P) - ESO(P,B,T) + ( DS(P,B,T) * MILE(YR).)
-------
Page 4
175 EH(YR,P) = EHO(P,B,T) + ( DH(P,B,T) * MILE(YR) )
176 EN(YR,P) = ENO(P,B,T) + ( DN(P,B,T) * MILE(YR) )
177 CC
178 CC SET WITH-I/M LEVELS FOR "NORMALS"
179 CC
180 WN(YR,P) = ENO(P,B,T) + ( DN(P,B,T) * MILE(YR) )
181 CC
182 CC COMPUTE NUMBER OF "HIGH" EMITTERS WITHOUT INSPECTION PROGRAK.
183 CC
184 HIGH(YR.P) = SHO(P,B,T) + GH(P,B,T) * MILE(YR)
185 CC '
186 CC THIS CODE "KINKS" THE INCREASE IN "HIGH" EMITTERS
187 CC AFTER 50,000 MILES.
188 CC
189 IF(KILE(YR-1).GT.5.0)
T90 * HIGH(YR,P)=HIGH(YR-1,P)-i-KINK*GH(P,B,T)*MDIF(YR)
191 CC
192 CC THIS ASSUMES LINEAR INCREASE IN NUMBER OF "SUPER" EMITTERS
193 CC
194 SUPER(YR.P) = SSO(P,B,T) + GS(P,B,T) * MILE(YR)
195 CC
196 CC COMPUTE WITHOUT-I/M SIZES OF CATAGORIES
197 CC
198 SH - HIGH(YR.P)
199 SS = SUPER(YR.P)
200 SN = 1.0 - SS - SH
201 CC .
202 CC COMPUTE WITHOUT-I/M COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS.
203 CC
204 CWO(YR,P,B) = ss * ES(YR,P)
205 * + SH * EH(YR,P)
206 * + SN * EN(YR,P)
207 CC • .
208 110 CONTINUE
209 CC
210 120 CONTINUE
211 CC
212 CALL IMSUB(BI.KINK)
213 . CALL BENEFT(T,B,IDR,BI) .
214 CC
215 410 CONTINUE
216 CC
217 420 CONTINUE
218 CC
219 CALL MUSCH(STD,IY,IDR)
220 CC
221 440 CONTINUE
222 CC
223 IF(IDR.GT.I) GO TO 600
224 CALL BAGF(STD)
225 CC
226 600 CONTINUE
227 CC
228 CC...CALCULATE NOX EMISSIONS
229 CC
230 CALL NOXEF
231 CC
232 CC...WRITE OUT TABLES
-------
Page 5
233 CC
234 CALL OUTPUT
235 CC
236 STOP
237 'END
-------
Page 6
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
257
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
CC
cc
CC
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc..
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc. .
SUBROUTINE. IMSUB(BI ,KINK)
IN THIS SECTION THE NUMBER OF "HIGHS" AND "SUPERS"
REMAINING AFTER I/M IS DETERMINED AND I/M EMISSION
LEVELS ARE CALCULATED FOR THE "SAWTEETH".
COMMON /ODOM/RATE , MILE , SRATE , MDIF
COMMON/MACC/JMILE
COMMON/IMS/INSP,FINSP,STD,IDR,IY,T,B
COMMON/BASE/EN , EH , ES , H I GH , SUPER , WN
COMMON/BENE/ CA(20, 20,2, 5) ,CZ(20,20,2, 5) ,CWO(20,2,5) , INT
COMMON/INPUT/SHO,SSO,GH,GS,ESO,DS,ENOO,DN,EHO,DH
LOGICAL INSP,FINSP(3)
INTEGER AGE1ST,BY,P,BI,STD,IDR,IY,T,B,YR
REAL KINK
REAL EN (20, 2) ,EH(20,2) ,ES(20,2) ,WN(20,2)
REAL HIGH (20 , 2) , SUPER (20,2)
REAL SHO (2 , 5 , 6) , SSO (2 ,-5 , 6) , GH (2 , 5 , 6) , GS (2 , 5 , 6)
REAL ENOO(2,5,6,3),DN(2,5,6)
REAL EHO(2,5,6),DH(2,5,6)
REAL ESO(2,5,6),DS(2,5,6)
REAL MILE(20) .RATE (9, 2) ,SRATE(2,2) ,MDIF(20)
.REAL NZ(20,9,5),NA(20,9,5)
REAL HZ(20,9,5),HA(20,9,5)
REAL SZ(20,9,5),SA(20,9,5)
REAL ENZ (20 , 2) , ENA (20 , 2)
..INSP USED TO DETERMINE IF AN INSPECTION OCCURS THAT YEAR.
INSP = FINSP(BI)
AGE 1ST = 1
VARIABLE 'BY' REPRESENTS YEARS SINCE PROGRAM START
VARIABLE 'YR1 REPRESENTS AGE OF VEHICLE
DO 290 BY- 1,1 9
YR = AGE1ST + BY - 1
DO 280 P=1,2
CATEGORY SIZES BEFORE AND AFTER INSPECTION
HZ = SIZE OF "HIGH" CATAGORY BEFORE INSPECTION
HA = SIZE OF "HIGH" CATAGORY AFTER INSPECTION
SZ = SIZE OF "SUPER" CATAGORY BEFORE INSPECTION
SA = SIZE OF "SUPER" CATAGORY AFTER INSPECTION
SIDR = SRATE(P,1)
IF(T.GT.2) SIDR = SRATE(P,2)
IF( BY.GT.1 ) GO TO 130
THE FIRST INSPECTION YEAR
-------
Page 7
295 CC
296 HZ(YR,IDR,P) = HIGH(YR.P)
297 HA(YR,IDR,P) = HIGH(YR.P) * ( 1.0 - RATE(lDR.P) )
298 IF(.NOT.INSP) HA(YR,IDR,P) = HZ(YR,IDR,P)
299 CC
300 SZ(YR,IDR,P) = SUPER(YR,P)
301 SA(YR,IDR,P) = SUPER(YR.P) * ( 1.0 - SIDR )
302 IF(.NOT.INSP) SA(YR,IDR,P) = SZ(YR,IDR,P)
•303 CC
304 IF( YR.EQ.1 ) GO TO 130
305 CC
306 CA(AGE1ST,YR-1,P,B) = CWO(YR-1,P,B)
307 CC
308 CC...LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURENCE AND GROWTH OF "HIGH" CATEGORY.
309 CC
310 CC GHI = GROWTH RATE OF "HIGH" CATAGORY AFTER I/M REPAIRS
3 1 1 CC
312 130 GROWTH - GH(P,B,T)
313 IF (MILE(YR-1).GT.5.0) GROWTH=KINK*GH(P,B,T)
314 CC
315 GHI = GROWTH
316 * * (1.0-HA(YR,IDR,P)-SA(YR,IDR,P))
317 * / (1.0-HIGH(YR,P)-SUPER(YR.P))
318 CC
319 CC....COMPUTE NUMBER OF "HIGH" EMITTERS IN THE NEXT'YEAR.
320 CC
321 HZ(YR+1,IDR,P) = HA(YR,IDR,P) + GHI * MDIF(YR+1)
322 IF(HZ(YR+1,IDR,P).GT.HIGH(YR+1,P)) HZ(YR+1,IDR,P)=HIGH(YR+1,P)
323 CC
324 HA(YR+1,IDR,P) = HIGH(YR-M ,P) * (l.O - RATE(lDR.P))
325. IF(INSP.AND.BI.NE.3) HA(YR+1, IDR.P) = HZ(YR-M ,.IDR,P) •
326 CC
327 CC COMPUTE NUMBER OF "SUPER" EMITTERS IN THE NEXT YEAR.
328 CC GROWTH RATE OF SUPERS AFTER I/M IS SAKE AS WITHOUT I/M.
329 CC
330 SZ(YR+1,IDR,P) = SA(YR,IDR,P) + GS (P,B,T)*KDIF(YR+1)
331 SA(YR+1,IDR,P) = SUPER(YR.P) * ( 1.0 - SIDR )
332 IF(INSP.AND.BI.NE.3) SA(YR+1,IDR.P) = SZ(YR+1,IDR.P)
333 CC
334 . CC "NORMAL" CATEGORY SIZE BEFORE AND AFTER INSPECTION
335 CC
336 NZ(YR,IDR,P) = 1.00 - SZ(YR,IDR,P) - HZ(YR,IDR,P)
337 NA(YR,IDR,P) = 1.00 - SA(YR,IDR,P) - HA(YR,IDR,P)
338 CC
339 CC COMPUTE EMISSIONS BEFORE AND AFTER I/K. FOR "NORMALS"
340 CC ASSUMES THAT WITH I/M NORMALS WILL PRODUCE EMISSION REDUCTIONS.
341 CC
342 IF(.NOT.INSP.AND.BY.EQ.1) GOTO 140
343 IF(INSP.AND.BY.LE.2) GO TO 150
344. GO TO 160
345 CC
346 . 140 ENZ(YR.P) = EN(YR,P)
347 ENA(YR.P) = EN(YR,P)
348 GO TO 180
349 CC . .
350 150 ENZ(YR.P) - EN(YR,P)
351 ENA(YR.P) = WN(YR,P)
-------
Page 8
352 GO TO 180
353 CC
354 160 ENZ(YR.P) = ENA(YR-1,P) + DN(P,B,T) * MDIF(YR)
355 ENA(YR.P) = WN(YR,P) "
356 CC '
357 180 CONTINUE '
358 CC
359 CC
•360 . CC COMPOSITE EMISSIONS BEFORE AND AFTER INSPECTION.
361 CC
362 CC
363 CZ(AGE1ST,YR,P,B) = SZ(YR,IDR,P)*ES(YR,P)
364 * + NZ(YR,IDR,P)*ENZ(YR,P)
365 * + HZ(YR,IDR,P)*EH(YR,P)
366 CA(AGE1ST,YR,P,B) = SA(YR,IDR.P)*ES(YR,P)
367 * + NA(YR,IDR,P)*ENA(YR,P)
368 * + HA(YR,IDR,P)*EH(YR,P)
369 IF(.NOT.INSP) CA(AGE1ST,YR.P.B) = CZ(AGE1ST,YR.P.B)
370 CC
371 CC
372 CC EMISSIONS AT THE 20TH YEAR (BOUNDARY CONDITION).
373 CC
374 CC
375 IF(YR.GT.t) GO TO 280
376 G20 = KINK * GH(P,B,T)
377 * * (1.0-HA(19,IDR,P)-SA(19,IDR,P))
378 * / (1.0-HIGH(19,P)-SUPER(19,P))
379 HZ(20,IDR,P) = HA(l9,IDR,p) + G20 * MDIF(20)
380 SZ(20,IDR,P) = SA(19,IDR,P) + GS(P,B,T) * KDIF(20)
381 NZ(20,IDR,P) = 1.0 - SZ(20,IDR,P) - HZ(20,IDR,P)
382 CC -
383 CZ(AGE1ST,20,P,B) = SZ(20,IDR,P)*ES(20,P)
384 * + NZ(20,IDR,P)*EN(20,P)
385 * • + HZ (20, IDR, P)''-EH (20,P)
386 CC
387 280 CONTINUE
388 CC
389 IF(BI.NE.3) INSP = .NOT. INSP
390 CC
391 . 290 CONTINUE
392 CC
393 999 RETURN
394 END
-------
Page 9
395 SUBROUTINE BENEFT(T,B,IDR.Bl)
.395 CC
397 CC
398 CC THIS SECTION CALCULATES REDUCTIONS BY COMPARING EMISSIONS
399 CC WITH AND WITHOUT I/K ON JANUARY 1ST DATES .
400. CC 'SINCE MODEL YEAR INTRODUCTION IS ON OCTOBER 1ST., THIS
401 CC REQUIRES A 75/25 STAGGERING.
402 CC
403 CC
404 . COKKON/BENE/ CA(20,20,2,5),CZ(20,20,2,5),CWO(20,2,5),INT
405 COMKON/TECH/ EWO(20,2,5,6,9),EW(20,2,5,6,9)
406 CC '
407 REAL EWO,EW,INT(2,5,6)
408 INTEGER AGE1ST,BY,P,B,T,IDR.BI,YR.LAST
409 CC
410 CC
411 AGE1ST = 1
412 CC
413 DO 350 BY=1,19
414 YR «• AGE1ST + BY - 1
415 DO 350 P-1,2
416 CC
417 IF(AGE1ST.GT.1) GO TO 310
418 IF(YR.GT.l) GO TO 300
419 CC
420 EW(1,P,B,T,IDR) = .75*(.625*CZ(AGE1ST,1,P,B) + .375*INT(P,B,T))
421 * + .25*(.875*CA(AGE1ST,1,P,B) + .125*CZ(AGE1ST,2,P,B) )
422 EWO(l,P,B,T,IDR) = .15* (.625*CWO(1 ,P,B) + .375*INT(P,B,T))
423 * ' + .25*(.875*CWO(l,P,B) + .125*CWO(2,P,B))
424. C GO TO 340
425 GO TO 350
426 CC
427 300 EW(YR,P,B,T,IDR)- = . 75* (. 625*CZ (AGE1ST, YR,P,B) .
428 * + .375*CA(AGE1ST,YR-1,P,B) )
429 * ' + .25*(.875*CA(AGE1ST,YR,P,B)
430 * + .125*CZ(AGE1ST,YR+1,P,B) )
431 GO TO 330
432 CC
433 . 310 GO TO (300,7,8,7,8,7,8,7,8,7,8,7,8,7,8,7,8,7,8,7).AGE1ST
434 CC
435 7 IF(BI.EQ.l) IAGE = AGE1ST + 1
436 IF(BI.EQ.I) NAGE = AGE1ST - 1
437 IF(BI.EQ.2) IAGE = AGE 1ST - 1
438 IF(BI.EQ.2) NAGE = AGE 1ST - 1
439 GO TO 320
440 CC
441 8 IF(BI.EQ.t) IAGE = AGE1ST
442 IF(BI.EQ.l) NAGE - AGE1ST
443 IF(BI.EQ.2) IAGE - AGE1ST
444 IF(BI.EQ.2) NAGE = AGE 1ST - 2
445 . CC
446 320 IF(BI.EQ.3) IAGE = AGE1ST
447 IF(BI.EQ.3) NAGE - AGE1ST - 1
448 CC
449 EW(YR,P,B,T,IDR) = .75A(.625*CZ(NAGE,YR.P.B)
450 * * .375*CA(NAGE,YR-1,P,B)) + .25Vr(.875*CA(lAGE, YR,P,B)
451 • * + .125*CZ(IAGE,YR+1,P,B))
-------
Page 10
452 CC
453 330 EWO(YR,P,B,T,IDR) = .75*(.625*CWO(YR,P,B) + .375*CWO(YR-1,P,B»
454 * + .25 *(.875*CWO(YR,P,B) + .125*CWO(YR+1,P,B»
455 CC . '
455 CC
457 350 CONTINUE
458 CC
459 CC
• 460 RETURN
461 END
-------
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491 .
492
493
454
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510.
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC.
CC
CC
CC.
CC
CC
CC
CC.
CC
CC
CC.
CC
CC
CC
SUBROUTINE MUSCH(STD, IY, IDR)
THIS SECTION COMBINES EMISSION STANDARD CATEGORIES AND
TECHNOLOGIES INTO MODEL YEAR EMISSION LEVELS.
COMMON/REG/EWOC (20 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 9) , EWC (20 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 9)
COMMON/TECH/EWO (20 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 9) , EW (20 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 9)
COMMON/FRC/FRAC
COMMON/OUT/RED (19,2,7,3,3), ZMLC (5,7,3), DETC (5,7,3)
REAL EWO;EW,OC(6) ,WC(6),FRAC(6,9)
INTEGER ICUTS,ITEST,IDR,B,IP,IT,IYR,IY,STD,D
DEFINITIONS:
EWOC : WITHOUT I/M EMISSION LEVELS
EWC : WITH I/M EMISSION LEVELS
RED : REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS DUE TO I/M
ITEST = 1 IDLE TEST
2 IDLE/2500
3 LOADED/ IDLE
ICUTS =1 0.52 ICO / 100 PPM IHC
2 1.22 ICO / 220 PPM IHC
3 3.02 ICO / 300 PPM IHC
...DECODE IDR INTO CUTPOINT AND TEST TYPES
ITEST = 1
ICUTS = IDR
IF(IDR.GT.3) ITEST=2
IF(IDR.GT.6) ITEST=3
IF(IDR.GT.3) ICUTS=IDR-3
IF (IDR. GT. 6) ICUTS=IDR-6
...D IS USED FOR RETRIEVING TECHNOLOGY FRACTIONS (FRAC)
D - STD +2
IF (STD.EQ.1.AND.IY.EQ. 1) D-1
IF (STD.EQ.1.AND.IY.EQ.2) D=2
IF (STD.EQ.2.AND.IY.EQ. 1) D=3
IF. (STD.EQ.2.AND.IY.EQ.2) D=4
. . . LOOP BY BAG
DO 200 B=1,4
...COMBINE TECHNOLOGIES FOR EACH POLLUTANT AND YEAR
DO 130 IYR=1, 19
DO 130 IP=1,2
DO 120 IT- 1,6
OC(IT)- FRAC(IT,D)/100.0 * EWO(lYR, IP, B, IT, IDF
Page 11
-------
Page 12
519 WC(IT)= FRAC(IT.D)/100.0 * EW(lYR,IP,B,IT,IDR)
520 CC
521 120 CONTINUE
522 CC
f
523 EWOC(IYR,IP,IY,B,IDR) - OC(l)+OC(2)+OC(3)+OC(4)+OC(5)+OC(6)
524 EWC(IYR,IP,IY,B,IDR) = WC(l)+WC(2)+WC(3)+WC(4)+WC(5)+WC(6)
525 CC
526 ' 130 CONTINUE
527 CC
528 CC...COMBINE 3.4 AND 7.0 SCENARIOS FOR 81 & 82 MODEL YEAR
529 CC
530 IF(D.GE.S) GO TO 160
531 IF(D.EQ.2.0R.D.EQ.4) GO TO 140
532 • GO TO 200
533 CC
534 140 DO 150 IP=1,2
535 DO 150 IYR-1,19
536 EWOC(IYR,IP,IY,B,IDR)=EWOC(IYR,IP,IY,B,IDR)+EWOC(IYR,IP,1,B,IDR)
537 EWC(IYR,IP,IY,B,IDR)=EWC(IYR,IP,IY,B,IDR)+EWC(IYR,IP,1,B,IDR)
538 150 CONTINUE
539 CC
540 CC CALCULATE NON-I/M REGRESSION
541 CC
542 160 CALL REGR(lY,IDR,B,STD)
543 CC
544 CC CALCULATE I/M REDUCTION
545 CC
546 IF(B.NE.l) GO TO 200
547 DO 170 IP=1,2
548. DO 170 IYR=1,19
549 RED(IYR,IP,STD,ICUTS,ITEST) = ( EWOC(lYR,IP,IY,1,IDR)
550 * - EWC(IYR,IP,IY,1.IDR) )
551 * -I EWOC(IYR,IP,IY, 1 ,.IDR)
552 170 CONTINUE
553 CC
554 200 CONTINUE
555 CC
556 RETURN
557 . END
-------
Page 13
558
559
550
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608 .
609
610
611
612
613
614
CC
cc...
CC
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
60
cc
. cc
cc
cc
V^^m« • • •
cc
cc
cc
cc...
cc
cc
SUBROUTINE REGR(IY, IDR.B.STD)
.THIS SUBROUTINE CALCULATES WEIGHTED REGRESSION EQUATION
FOR THE EMISSION FACTOR LINES
COMMON/REG/EWOC (20 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 9) , EWC (20 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 9)
COMMON/BAG/ZML2 (5,7,3), DET2 (5,7,3)
COMMON /ODOM /RATE , MILE , SRATE , MDIF
COMMON /WRG/WGT
COMMON/MACC/JMILE
REAL JMILE(19) ,WGT(20)
REAL SUMX, SUMY, SUM 1,SUM2,XBAR, YEAR
REAL MILE(20) ,RATE(9,2) ,SRATE(2,2) ,MDIF(20)
REAL ZML1,DET1
INTEGER B,IDR,IY,T,STD
IF(IDR.GT. 1) GO TO 999
DO 100 IP-1,2
SUMX =0.0
SUMY =0.0
SUMXY = 0.0
SUMXX = 0.0
DO 60 IYR=1,19
EM = EWOC(IYR,IP,IY,B,.IDR)
SUMX = SUMX + ( WGT(IYR) * JMILE(lYR) )
SUMY = SUMY + (• WGT(IYR) * EM )
SUMXY = SUMXY + ( WGT(IYR) * JMILE(lYR) * EK )
SUMXX = SUMXX + ( WGT(IYR) * (JMILE(lYR) **2) )
CONTINUE
SUM1 = SUMXY - SUMX * SUMY
SUM2 = SUMXX - SUMX**2
DET1 = SUM1 / SUK2
ZML1 = SUMY - DET1 * SUMX
.ORDINARY REGRESSION
ZML2(B,STD,IP) - ZML1
DET2(B,STD,IP) = DET1
IF(ZML2(B,STD,IP) .GE.0.0) GOTO 100
.REGRESSION FIXED THRU ZERO
ZML2(B,STD,IP) = 0.0 .
DET2(B,STD,IP) = SUMXY / SUMXX
-------
Page 14
615 100 CONTINUE
616 CC
617 999 RETURN
618 END '
-------
Page 15
619 SUBROUTINE BAGF(STD)
620 CC
621 CC THIS SUBROUTINE CALCULATES BAG FRACTIONS
622 CC
623 COMMON/BAG/ZML2(5,7,3),DET2(5,7,3)
624 'COMMON/OUT/RED(19,2,7,3,3),ZMLC(5,7,3),DETC(5,7,3)
625 CC
626 INTEGER STD
-627 REAL BAGF(3)/0.206, 0.521, 0.273/
628 REAL ZMLF(2,4),DETF(2,4)
629 CC
630 DO 50 IP=1,2
631 CC
632 ZHLF(IP,1) - 0.0
633 DETF(IP,1) " 0.0
634 CC
635 DO 50 IBAG=2,4
636 CC
637 ZKLF(IP,IBAG) = ZML2(IBAG.STD,IP)
638 DETF(IP,IBAG) = DET2(IBAG.STD,IP)
639 CC
640 ZMLF(IP,1) - ZMLF(IP,1) + ZML2(IBAG,STD,IP) * BAGF(lBAG-l)
641 DETF(IP,1) = DETF(IP,1) + DET2(IBAG.STD,IP) * BAGF(lBAG-l)
642 CC
643 50 CONTINUE
644 CC
645 CC
646 DO 60 IP-1,2
647 DO 60 IBAG=1,4
648. CC . -
649 ZMLC(IBAG.STD,IP) = ZKLF(IP,IBAG) / ZMLF(IP,l)
650 DETC(IBAG,STD,IP) = DETF (IP, IBAG). / ZMLF (!?, 1)
651 CC
652 60 CONTINUE
653 CC
654 RETURN
655 END
-------
Page 16
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
68S
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
SUBROUTINE NOXEF
CC
CC.
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
..THIS ROUTINE CALCULATES NOX VALUES
•MYG = 1
HYG - 2
MYG = 3
MYG = 4
MYG = 5
MYG - 6
MYG = 7
MYG - 8
MYG - 9
STD - 1
STD = 2
STD = 3
BAG = 1
BAG = 2
BAG = 3
BAG = 4
BAG = 5
TECH = 1
TECH = 2
TECH = 3
TECH = 4
TECH = 5
TECH = 6
1981 MYR (7.0 CO STD)
1981 MYR (3.4 CO STD)
1982 MYR (7.0 CO STD)
1982 MYR (3.4 CO STD)
1983 MYR
1984 MYR
1985-1986 MYRS
1987-1989 MYRS
1990 & LATER MYRS
1981+ MYR / 3.4 CO STANDARD
1981 MYR / 7.0 CO STANDARD
1982 MYR / 7.0 CO STANDARD
COMPOSITE FTP
COLD START BAG 1
TRANSIENT BAG 2
HOT START BAG 3
BAGGED IDLE
OXIDATION/3-WAY CATALYST, CLOSED-LOOP, CARBURATED.
3-WAY CATALYST, CLOSED-LOOP, CARBURATED.
OXIDATION/3-WAY CATALYST, CLOSED- LOOP, FUEL INJECTED
3-WAY CATALYST, CLOSED-LOOP, FUEL INJECTED.
3-WAY CATALYST, OPEN-LOOP, ALL
OXIDATION. CATALYST, ALL
COKKON/BAG/ZML2 (5,7,3), DET2 (5,7,3)
COMMON/FRC/FRAC .
CC
INTEGER STD, AGE, BAG, TECH, MYG, MYR
REAL MDIF (20) , FRAC (6 , 9)
REAL ZKL1 (5, 12),DET1 (5,12)
LOGICAL*4 LAB2 (5) / ' FTP ' ,
CC
CC.
CC
*
*
*
*
' BAG 1 ' ,
1 BAG2 ' ,
'BAG3' ,
'BAGI'/
...NOX REGRESSION ZERO-MILE LEVELS : ZML (BAG, TECH, STD)
REAL ZML(5,6,3) /
CC
CC
CC
1981+ 3.4 CO STANDARD
* 0.5328, 1.0096, 0.3870, 0.5170, 0.0,
* 0.5328, 1.0096, 0.3870, 0.5170, 0.0,
* 0.5328, 1.0096, 0.3870, 0.5170, 0.0,
* 0.5328, 1.0096, 0.3870, 0.5170, 0.0,
* 0.5626, 0.8423, 0.4506, 0.5628, 0.0,
* 0.7592, 1.0717, 0.5935, 0.8380, 0.0,
CC
-------
Page 17
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
•721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
755
757
758
759
760
761.
762
763 .
764
765
766
767
768
769
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC.
CC
CC
CC.
CC
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
CC
CC
1981 7.0 CO STANDARD
* 0.6942, 1.0788, 0.5310, 0.7127, 0.0,
* 0.5433, 1.1605, 0,3938, 0.3597, 0.0,
* 0.6942, 1.0788, 0.5310, 0.7127, 0.0,
* 0.5433, 1.1605, 0.3938, 0.3597, 0.0,
* 0.4101, 0.7819, 0.2722, 0.3909, 0.0,
* 0.6735, 1.0702, 0.4874, 0.7283, 0.0,
1982 7.0 CO STANDARD
* 0.6717, 1.0926, 0.5108, 0.6573, 0.0,
* 0.5510, 1.0958, 0.3864, 0.4203, 0.0,
* 0.6717, 1.0926, 0.5108, 0.6573, 0.0,
* 0.5510, 1.0958, 0.3864, 0.4203, 0.0,
* 0.6933, 0.8957, 0.6504, 0.6231, 0.0,
* 0.6658, 1.0896, 0.4115, 0.8221, O.O/
...NOX REGRESSION DETERIORATION RATES : DET (BAG, TECH)
REAL DET(5,6) / 0.09534, 0.09324, 0.08205, 0.12259, 0.0,
* 0.09534, 0.09324, 0.08205, 0.12259, 0.0,
* 0.09534, 0.09324, 0.08205, 0.12259, 0.0,
* 0.09534, 0.09324, 0.08205, 0.12259, 0.0,
* 0.07692, 0.06917, 0.07539, 0.08572, 0.0,
* 0.01821, 0.00121, 0.02323, 0.02156, O.O/
...WEIGHT LINEAR REGRESSIONS
DO 50 BAG- 1 , 4
DO 40 MYG=1,9
ZKL1 (BAG.KYG) = 0.0
DET1 (BAG, MYG) = O-.O
STD = 1
IF(KYG.EQ.2) STD=2
IF(KYG.EQ.4) STD=3
DO 40 TECH=1,6
ZHL 1 (BAG , KYG) = ZML 1 (BAG , MYG) +ZML (BAG , TECH , STD) *FRAC (TECH , MYG) / 1 00 .
DET 1 (BAG , MYG) = DET 1 (BAG , KYG) +DET (BAG , TECH) *FRAC (TECH , MYG) / 1 00 .
40 CONTINUE
ZKL1(BAG,10) = ZML1(BAG,1) + ZML1(BAG,2)
DET1(BAG,10) = DET1(BAG,1) + DET1(BAG,2)
ZML1(BAG,11) = ZML1(BAG,3) + ZML 1 (BAG, 4)
DET1(BAG,11) - DET1(BAG,3) + DET1(BAG,4)
50 CONTINUE
DO 60 BAG-1,4
ZKL2(BAG,1,3) - ZML1(BAG,10)
ZML2(BAG,2,3) - ZML1(BAG,11)
-------
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
CC
CC
CC
CC
C
60
ZXL2(BAG,3,3)
ZKL2(BAG,4,3)
ZKL2(BAG,5,3)
ZXL2(BAG,6,3)
ZKL2(BAG,7,3)
DET2(BAG,1,3)
DET2(BAG,2,3)
DET2(BAG,3,3)
DET2(BAG,4,3)
DET2(BAG,5,3)
DET2(BAG;6,3)
DET2(BAG,7,3)
CONTINUE
CALL NOXBF
RETURN
END
- ZML1(BAG,5)
= ZML1 (BAG, 6)
= ZML1 (BAG, 7)
= ZML1 (BAG, 8)
= ZML1 (BAG, 9)
= DET1 (BAG, 10)
= DET1 (BAG, 11)
- DET1 (BAG, 5)
= DET1 (BAG, 6)
- DET1 (BAG, 7)
= DET1 (BAG, 8)
- DET1 (BAG, 9)
Page 18
-------
Page 19
791 SUBROUTINE NOXBF
792 CC
793 CC THIS SUBROUTINE CALCULATES BAG FRACTIONS
794 CC
795 COKMON/BAG/ZML2(5,7,3),DET2(5,7,3)
796 COMMON/OUT/RED(19,2,7,3,3),ZMLC(5,7,3),DETC(5,7,3)
797 CC
798 INTEGER STD
799 REAL BAGF(3)/O.206, 0.521, 0.273/
800 REAL ZMLF(4),DETF(4)
801 CC
802 DO 90 STD=1,7
803 CC
804 ZMLF(1) = 0.0
805 DETF(1) =0.0
806 CC
807 DO 50 IBAG=2,4
808 CC
809 ZMLF(IBAG) = ZML2(IBAG,STD,3)
810 DETF(IBAG) = DET2(iBAG,sTD,3)
811 CC
812 ZMLF(l) = ZMLF(1) + ZKL2(IBAG.STD,3) * BAGF(lBAG-l)
813 DETFd) = DETF(l) + DET2 (IBAG.STD, 3) * BAGF(lBAG-l)
814 CC
815 50 CONTINUE
816 CC
817 CC
818 DO 60 IBAG-1,4
819 CC
820 ZMLC(IBAG.STD,3) = ZMLF(IBAG) / ZMLF(l)
821 DETC(IBAG.STD,3) = DETF(lBAG) / ZMLF(l)
822 CC
823 50 CONTINUE
824 CC
625 90 CONTINUE
826 CC
827 ' RETURN
828 END
-------
Page 20
829 SUBROUTINE OUTPUT
830 CC
831 COMMON/OUT/RED(19,2,7,3,3),ZMLC(5,7,3),DETC(5,7,3)
832 COMMON/BAG/ZML2(5,7,3),DET2(5,7,3)
833 CC
834 ' INTEGER ITEST.ICUTS.STD,IP,IBY,IBAG
835 LOGICAL*4 LAB1(3)/' HC',1 CO1,' NOX'/
836 LOGICAL*4 LAB2(5)/'FTP ',
837 * 'BAG11,
838 * 'BAG21,
839 * 'BAG31,
840 * ' 'BAGI'/
841 LOGICAL*4 LAB3(7)/'81 ',
842 * '82 ',
843 * • '83 ',
844 * ' 84 ' ,
845 * '8586',
846 * . '8789',
847 * '90+ '/
848 CC
849 N1 - 1
850 N3 = 3
851 CC
852 CC WRITE OUT TABLE HEADINGS
853 CC
854 WRITE(7,100) N3
855 DO 10 ITEST=1,3
856 DO 10 ICUTS=1,3
857 DO 10 STD-M.7
858 DO 10 IP-1,2
859 WRITE(7,200) (RED(IBY,IP.STD,ICUTS,ITSST),IBY=1,19) -
860 10 CONTINUE
861 CC
862 WRITE(8,100) N1 • .
863 DO 20 IP=1,3
864 WRITE(8,500)
865 DO 20 STD=1,7
866 DO 20 IBAG=1,1
867 WRITE(8,300) LAB3(STD),LAB2(IBAG),LAB1(IP) ,
868 . * ZML2(IBAG.STD,IP),DET2 (IBAG.STD,IP) ,
869 * ZKL2(IBAG,STD,IP),DET2(IBAG.STD,IP)
870 20 CONTINUE
871 CC
872 WRITE(9,100) N1
873 DO 30 IP=1,3
874 WRITE(9,500)
875 DO 30 STD=1,7
876 WRITE(9,400) LAB3(STD),LAB1(IP),
877 *(ZMLC(IBAG,STD,IP),DETC(IBAG.STD,IP),IBAG=2,4),
878 * ZMLC(1,STD,IP),DETC(1,STD,IP)
879 30 CONTINUE
880 CC
881 100 FORMAT(I1,7,' **',/,
882 *' ** 1981 & LATER LOW-ALTITUDE ',
883 •*/,'**')
884 200 FORMAT(19F4.3)
885 300 FORMAT(' 19',A4,' EF EQUATION : ',2A4,'=I,
-------
Page 21
886 *F6.2,' + ',F6.2,1 * MILES/100001.3X.2F12.5)
887 400 FORMAT(' 19'.2A4.8F7.3)
888 500 FORMAT('-')
889 CC
890 RETURN
891 END
-------
Page 22
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
S25
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
CC
CC
CC.
CC
CC
CC.
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
BLOCK DATA
.BLOCK DATA WITH TECH IV INPUT (UPDATED 4/14/84)
f
' COMMON/INPUT/SHO,SSO,GH,GS,ESO,DS,ENOO,DN,EHO,DH
COKKON/FRC/FRAC
COMKON/ODOM/RATE,MILE,SRATE,MDIF
CCMMON/MACC/JMILE
COMMON/IMS/INSP,FINSP,STD,IDR,IY,T,B
COMKON/WRG/WGT
.MOBILES
REAL SSO(2,5,6) /
SIZE OF THE SUPERS AT ZERO (INTERCEPT)
* 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000,
* 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000,
* 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000,
* 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000,
* 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000,
* 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000,
* 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000,
* 0.0000,0.0000, 0.0000,0.0000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , .0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000 /
REAL GS(2,5,6) /
GROWTH OF NUMBER (SIZE) OF SUPERS (PER 10K MILES)
* .002563,.002563, .002563,.002563, .002563,.002563,
* .002563,.002563, .002563,.002563,
* .002563,.002563, .002563,.002563, .002563,.002563,
* .002563,.002563, .002563,.002563,
* .001281,.001281, .001281,.001281, .001281,.001281,
* .001281,.001281, .001281,.001281,
* .001281,.001281, .001281,.001281, .001281,.001281,
* .001281,.001281, .001281,.001281,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000 /
-------
Page 23
949 CC
950 REAL SHO(2,5,6) /
951 CC
952 CC SIZE OF THE HIGHS AT ZERO (INTERCEPT)
953 CC
954 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
955 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000,
956 CC
-957 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
958 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000,
959 CC
960 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
961 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000,
962 CC
963 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
964 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000,
965 CC
966 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
967 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000,
968 CC
969 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
970 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000 /
971 CC
972 REAL GH(2,5,6) /
973 CC
974 CC GROWTH OF NUMBER (SIZE) OF HIGHS (PER 10K MILES)
975 CC
976 * 0.0250,0.0250, 0.0250,0.0250, 0.0250,0.0250,
977 * 0.0250,0.0250, 0.0250,0.0250,
978 CC
979. * 0.0250,0.0250, -0.0250,0.0250, 0.0250,0.0250,
980 * 0.0250,0.0250, 0.0250,0.0250,
931 CC
982 * 0.0193,0.0193, -0.0193,0.0193, 0.0193,0.0193,
983 * 0.0193,0.0193, 0.0193,0.0193,
984 CC
985 * 0.0193,0.0193, 0.0193,0.0193, 0.0193,0.0193,
986 * 0.0193,0.0193, 0.0193,0.0193,
987 . CC
988 * 0.0401,0.0401, 0.0401,0.0401, 0.0401,0.0401,
989 * 0.0401,0.0401, 0.0401,0.0401,
990 CC
991 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
992 * 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000 /
993 CC
994 REAL ESO(2,5,6)/
995 CC
996 CC EMISSIONS OF THE SUPERS
997. CC
998 * 14.132, 193.23, 30.937, 181.02, 10.867, 210.72,
999 * 7.508, 169.22, 1.100, 16.007,
1000 CC
1001 * 14.132, 193.23, 30.937, 181.02, 10.867, 210.72,
1002 * 7.508, 169.22, 1.100, 16.007,
1003 CC
1004 * 10.560, 191.72, 8.090, 170.45, 12.645, 215.45,
1005 * 8.460, 162.55, 0.000, 000.00,
-------
Page 24
1005
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
-1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
* 10.560, 191.72, 8.090, 170.45, 12.645, 215.45,
* 8.460, 162.55, 0.000, 000.00,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000, 0.000 ,0.000,
* 0.000 ,0.000 , 0.000 ,0.000 /
REAL DS(2,5,6) /
DETERIORATION OF SUPERS (EMISSIONS)
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000 /
REAL EHO(2,5,6)/
FOLLOWING IS THE EMISSIONS OF THE HIGHS AT ZERO (INTERCEPT)
* 2.2997, 39.137, 4.6408, 61.181, 1.7954, 35.503,
* 1.4857, 29.354, 0.0000, 0.000,
* 2.2997, 39.137, 4.6408, 61.181, 1.7954, 35.503,
* 1.4857, 29.354, 0.0000, 0.000,
* 2.3556, 38.212, 4.2419, 53.030, 1.9737, 36.496,
* 1.6574, 30.292, 0.0000, 0.000,
* 2.3556, 38.212, 4.2419, 53.030, 1.9737, 36.496,
* 1.6574, 30.292, 0.0000, 0.000,
* 2.2511, 34.607, 3.6050, 50.422, 1.7850, 30.528,
* 2.1094, 30.361, 0.0000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000 /
REAL DH(2,5,6) /
FOLLOWING IS THE DETERIORATION OF THE EMISSIONS FOR HIGHS
-------
Page 25
1063
1064
1065
1065
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093.
1094
1095
1095
1097
1098
1099
1100
1 101
1 102
1103
1104
1105
1105
1107
1108
1 109
1 1 10
1111.
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1 1 17
1118
1 1 19
CC'
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000,
* 0..000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000 /
FOLLOWING IS EMISSIONS OF THE NORMALS AT ZERO (INTERCEPT)
REAL ENOO(2,5,6,3)/
THIS IS THE DATA FOR 3.4 GM/KI CO STANDARD VEHICLES
*0.2260,1.948,0.
*0.2260,1.948,0.
*0.2260,1.948,0.
*0.2260,1.948,0.
*0.3229,2.823,0.
*0.2768,2.507,0,
5271,5.550,0.1117,0.612,0.2127,1.748,0.0,0.0,
5271,5.550,0.1117,0.612,0.2127,1.748,0.0,0.0,
5271,5.550,0.1117,0.612,0.2127,1.748,0.0,0.0,
5271,5.550,0.1117,0.612,0.2127,1.748,0.0,0.0,
6930,7.665,0.1803,0.542,0.3136,3.199,0.0,0.0,
195,1.001,0.2087,2.070,0.-0,0.0,
,7663,6.857,0
THIS IS THE DATA FOR 1981 7.0 GM/MI CO STANDARD VEHICLES
*0.3056,3.201,0.8780,10.927,0.1056,0.535,0.2521,2.405,0.0,0.0,
*0.3048,4.277,0.7798,10.925,0.1370,2.133,0.2521,3.302,0.0,0.0,
*0.3055,3.201,0.8780,10.927,0.1056,0.535,0.2521,2.405,0.0,0.0,
*0.3048,4.277,0.7798,10.925,0.1370,2.133,0.2621,3.302,0.0,0.0,
*0.3700,5.775,0.5573, 9.568,0.2705,3.535,0.4175,6.827,0.0,0.0,
*0.2220,3.398,0.5366,11.870,0.1178,0.722,0.1786,2.048,0.0,0.0,
THIS IS THE DATA FOR 1982 7.0 GM/MI CO STANDARD VEHICLES
*0.2513,2.994,0.7141,10.092,0.0951,0.475,0.1959,2.392,0.0,0.0,
*0.2041,2.824,0.6145, 6.7 10,0.0771 ,.1.654,0. 1333,2.091 ,0.0,0.0,
*0.2513,2.994,0.7141,10.092,0.0951,0.475,0.1959,2.392,0.0,0.0,
*0.2041,2.824,0.6145, 6.710,0.0771,1.654,0.1333,2.091,0.0,0.0,
*0.3435,4.395,0.5744,10.212,0.2319,1.821,0.3795,4.836,0.0,0.0,
*0.1801,2.787,0.5011, 9.454,0.0967,1.125,0.1034,0.958,0.0,O.O/
REAL DN(2,5,6) /
FOLLOWING IS THE DETERIORATION OF THE EMISSIONS OF THE NORMALS'
* 0.04998, 0.6459,
* 0.03067, 0.3988,
0." 11907, 1.6554,
0.00000, 0.0000,
0.03304, 0.3777,
-------
Page 26
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
-1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1 137
1138
1139
1140
1 141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1 147
1148
1149
1150.
1151
1152
1 153
1 154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1 159 .
1 160
1161
1162
1 153
1164
1165
1 166
1 167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
CC
cc
CC
cc
cc
cc
cc.
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
* 0.04998, 0.6459, 0.11907, 1.6554, 0.03304, 0.3777,
* 0.03067, 0.3988, 0.00000, 0.0000,
* 0.04998, 0.6459, 0.11907, 1.6554, 0.03304, 0:3111,
* 0.03067, '0.3988, 0.00000, 0.0000,
* 0.04998, 0.6459, 0.11907, 1.6554, 0.03304, 0.3777,
* 0.03067, 0.3988, 0.00000, 0.0000,
* 0.04507, 0.1713, 0.08728, 0.7530, 0.02780, 0.0000,
* 0.04670; 0.200.1, 0.00000, 0.0000,
* 0.02681, 0.4638, 0.09240, 1.4863, 0.0091 1 , 0.2053,
* 0.01129, 0.1824, 0.00000, O.OOOO/
...TECHNOLOGY FRACTIONS : FRAC (TECH.MYG)
REAL FRAC (6,9)/
* 23.1, 4.5, 1.0, 2.3, 7.6, 10.3,
* 15.1, 18.1, 1.9, 4.2, 7.5, 4.4,
'V 3.6, 3.8, 1.4, 5.6, 2.3, 10.1,
* 32.7, 12.7, 2.3, 9.0, 12.8, 3.7,
* 45.3, 2.1, 27.6, 0.0, 13.1, 11.9,
•* 43.4, 11.9, 40.0, 0.0, 4.7, 0.0,
* 23.5, 11.1, 61.0, 0.0, 4.4, 0.0,
* 11.2, 8.5, 79.5, 0.0, 0.8, 0.0,
* 4.0, 6.2, 88.8, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 /
EXCESS EMISSION IDENTIFICATION RATE FOR SUPERS
SRATE(P,CARB/FI) •
REAL SRATE (2,2)/ 0.560, 0.826,
* -1.000, 1.000/
EXCESS EMISSION IDENTIFICATION RATES FOR HIGHS
RATE(IDR.P)
REAL RATE (9, 2) /
* 0.515, 0.379, 0.224,
* 0.643, 0.504, 0.333,
* 0.743, 0.572, 0.397,
* 0.547, 0.450, 0.283,
* 0.732, 0.626, 0.424,
* 0.837, 0.712, 0.486/
LOGICAL FINS? (3)/. TRUE. , .FALSE. ..TRUE./
REAL WGT(20) / 0.037, 0.140, 0.125, 0.111, 0.097,
* 0.086, 0.075, 0.064, 0.056, 0.048,
* 0.040, 0.034, 0.028, 0.022, 0.016,
* 0.011, 0.007, 0.003, 0.000, O.OOO/
REAL MILE (20)/ 1.2818, 2.4920, 3.6347, 4.7136, 5.7323,
* 6.6942, 7.6024, 8.4599* 9.2695,10.0340,
* 10.7558,11.4373,12.0808, 12.6884, 13.2621,
-------
Page 27
1177 * 13.8037/14.3151,14.7979, 15.2538,15.6843/
1178 CC
1179 REAL JMILE(19)/ 0.9591, 2.1873, 3.3470, 4.4420,
1180 * 5.4758, 6.4520, 7.3738, 8.2440, 9.0657,
1181 * 9.8415,10.5741,11.2657,11.9188,12.5354,
1182 * " 13.1176,13.6673,14.1863,14.6764,15.13907
1183 CC
1184 END
------- |