HDV 78-10
Technical Report
Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption
of a Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle
Over Various Driving Cycles
CMC Astro 95, 8V-71 NA
August, 1978
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.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table of Contents
Item Page
I. Objectives 1
II. Summary of Results 2
III. Description of Experiment 5
A. Vehicle 5
B. Equipment 5
C. Driving Cycles 6
D. Test Matrix 7
IV. Road Load 11
V. Results 14
A. Chassis Version 9- and 13-mode Tests 14
B. Driving Cycle Emissions and Fuel Consumption 23
C. Variability 30
D. Linearized Driving Cycles 30
E. Cold Start Emissions 30
F. Tire Slip 33
IV. General Observations 35
Appendices -
A. Raw Test Results A-l
B. Driving Cycle Identification B-l
-------
Abstract
This report presents exhaust emission and fuel economy measurements for
one heavy-duty diesel vehicle operated over various driving cycles.
These driving cycles were developed from actual in-use operational data
collected in New York and Los Angeles under the CAPE-21 program. In
each location, data collected for freeway and non-freeway operation was
segregated. A data matrix (relating speed, acceleration and frequency
of occurance) was prepared for each city and type of operation. Several
different driving cycles were generated for each city and type of
operation.
The test program was designed to evaluate the concept of chassis testing
for large diesel vehicles. Along with this goal, it was desired to
determine emission factors and fuel consumption by category of operation
and to determine the variation with vehicle load. Also, to verify the
cycle generation technique, the sensitivity of emissions and fuel con-
sumption to changes in driving cycles (for the same class of operation)
was to be extablished. Finally, the effect of "linearized" cycles,
steady state tests and cold start operation were evaluted.
Large diesel vehicles can be tested for emissions and fuel consumption
on a chassis dynamometer. While this work established the concept of
such testing, additional resources are needed to develop an adequate
dynamometer and CVS. The average emissions and fuel consumption observed
during this work are:
Hydrocarbons 2.07 g/km
Carbon Monoxide 28.0 g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen 29.2 g/km
Fuel Consumption 67.7 l/100km
While these emission levels did change with load and type of operation,
they were relatively insensitive to linearization of the driving cycles
or cold start operation. No practical difference was seen between
cycles .representing the same category of operation. .
-------
Table of Figures
Number Title Page
1 Summary of Results 3
2 Driving Cycles 8
3 Driving Cycle Characteristics 9
4 Test Matrix 10
5 Road Load Curves 15
6 13-Mode Test Results 17
7 9-Mode Test Results 18
8 HC Emissions, Steady State 19
9 CO Emissions, Steady State 20
10 NOx Emissions, Steady State 21
11 Fuel Consumption, Steady State 22
12 HC Emissions (g/km) 24
13 CO Emissions (g/km) 25
14 NOx Emissions (g/km) 26
15 Fuel Consumption (1/100 km) 27
16 HC Emissions 28
17 Average Emission Indices 29
18 Linearized Cycle Emissions 31
19 Cold Start Emissions 32
20 Tire Slip 34
-------
-1-
I. Objectives
This test program was designed to answer the following questions:
1. Could a large tandem axle diesel tractor be tested for emissions
and fuel consumption on EPA's chassis dynamometer using a large CVS?
This work is a continuation of a similar work on a large gasoline-
powered heavy-duty vehicle. (See the previous report on the 427 Cubic
Inch (California) CMC 6500.)
2. Assuming that such testing can be accomplished, what emission
levels occur for the various types of driving and load conditions?
3. What is the sensitivity of emissions and fuel consumption to
different driving cycles representing the same category of operation?
4. How do emissions vary between transient and "linearized" driving
cycles? Also, can any comparison be made between emissions observed
over the driving cycles and emissions as measured on the 13-mode steady
state test?
5. What is the effect of cold starting on emissions?
-------
-2-
II. Summary of Results
The results obtained in this experiment are representative of one truck
only. It would be a grave mistake to make judgments based on one vehi-
cle whose characteristics might be significantly different than the
general truck population. This point can not be over emphasized. Further
testing of different vehicles is necessary before any firm general
conclusions can be drawn. In light of this qualification, the following
results can be stated:
1. One definite conclusion can be drawn from this work, it is most
certainly possible to test a heavy-duty diesel truck on a chassis
dynamometer. This is not to say that problems did not occur. But,
with a concerted effort, difficulties could be overcome, and "pro-
duction" testing could be accomplished. Such testing would cer-
tainly be more difficult than similar testing for automobiles.
(These results from the large vehicle size and the configuration of
EPA's test cell.) The wisdom of such a decision is not addressed.
If heavy-duty testing is to be done on a chassis dynamometer, more
work needs to be done to insure that the dynamometer accurately
reporduces true road load. Considerable difficulty was experienced
during the test program with setting and maintaining a road load
curve. It is also possible that a larger CVS will be necessary if
lengthy high power modes are to be run. (Some CVS overheating was
experienced.) Finally, the general areas of hydrocarbon measure-
ment and tire slip should be more carefully investigated prior to
any extensive program.
2. Figure 1 presents the summary of results observed during this
experiment. Values presented are the averages of all fully trans-
ient cycles for a given category of operation. Hydrocarbon emissions
are a function of the driving cycle category only and are not
affected by the vehicle load.
3. As a general rule, emissions and fuel consumption are not greatly
affected by a change in driving cycle, assuming the same load and
category of operation. This is not to say that the driving cycles
give the same results; they do not. But, the differences observed
are of no real practical significance.
4. No large difference in test results was noticed between full transient
and "linearized" driving cycles for emissions or fuel economy.
Hydrocarbons are higher by 10%, CO is 18% lower, NOx and fuel
consumption are unchanged.
Comparisons between transient and steady state testing can best be
made on the basis of fuel consumed:
-------
Figure 1
Summary of Results
Emissions (g/km)
Operation
Category
NY-NF
LA-NF
NY-FWY
LA-FWY
AVERAGE
HC
Ave.
3.35
2.37
1.51
1.03
2.07
E
12.2
6.2
10.4
21.7
12.6
CO
H
30.3
16.5
36.1
33.0
30.0
F
45.1
24.1
38.0
62.3
42.4
E
24.2
19.5
19.2
25.8
22.2
NOx
H
34.5
26.0
29.1
30.5
30.2
F
40.7
32.0
35.0
33.6
35.3
Fuel
E
60.4
52.6
47.8
57.0
54.5
(1/100
H
79.8
66.4
68.8
63.3
69.6
km)
F
90.1
74.7
74.0
76.8
78.9
i
u>
I
Notes: NF - Non-freeway
FWY - Freeway
LA - Los Angeles
NY - New York
E - Empty load 13,780 kg
H - Half load 25,680 kg
F -' Full load 37.250 kg
Results are averages of all transient driving cycles.
For HC, all 3 load conditions are averaged since there
was little difference between them.
-------
-4-
Emissions (g/kg Fuel)
Test HC CO NOx
9-mode 3.81 11.94 47.40
13-mode 3.58 29.78 49.74
Transient Cycles 3.52 48.23 51.04
Transient cycle results are averages for all operational categories
and vehicle loads.
As can be seen there is a great deal of similarity in the results.
The largest variation is with carbon monoxide, which also has the
largest test-to-test variation. If we assume approximately the
same average specific fuel consumption, then the type of test is
immaterial in predicting HC and NOx emissions.
Cold starting has very little effect on emission levels. Slightly
more fuel is used, about 14% (comparisons are for 4 to 9 minute
driving cycles.) Hydrocarbons are approximately 14% lower. This
latter difference is believed to be caused by some initial hang-up
in the sampling system, and not to any actual change in emission
levels.
-------
-5-
III. Description of Experiment
A. Vehicle
The test vehicle was a 1975 model year QIC Astro 95 tractor. This
truck is of the cab-over-engine design with tandem rear axles. It was
equipped with a 13 speed transmission and a 4.11 axle ratio. The empty
mass was 7600 kilograms.
The engine was a Detroit Diesel, naturally aspirated 8V-71 model. It
had the following specifications:
Type: 90° V-8
Injectors: Model C65
Displacement: 9.30 litre
Compression Ratio: 18.7
Maximum Torque: 1147 N M at 1600 RPM
Maximum Power: 237 kw at 2100 RPM
Fuel used was #2 Diesel. This engine had no external emission control
devices.
B. Equipment :
A heavy-duty LABECO dual roll chassis dynamometer was used for all
testing. This unit has an electric power absorber driven through a gear
box at 4.9 times the roll speed. Roll diameter is 1.02 metres. Total
mechanical inertia is approximately 8200 kilograms in the dual roll
configuration; inertias from 2700 to 50,000 kilograms can be electri-
cally simulated. True load force can be reproduced by various dyna-
mometer circuits that control the constant, first and second order speed
contributions. Maximum permissible speed is approximately 100 km/h,
motoring capability is available throughout the full range. A constant
speed cooling fan was used for all the testing.
A 1.2 cubic metre/second constant volume sampler (CVS), Critical Flow
Venturi, was used for exhaust sampling. This unit is essentially a
scaled-up copy of the CVS used by EPA for light-duty vehicle certification.
Exhaust hydrocarbon measurements were made using a heated flame ionization
detector (HFID) with heated sample line. The hydrocarbon sample was
obtained from a tap just prior to the CVS venturi throat, and thus
after the cyclone separators. ( It is unsure if this probe location
affected the hydrocarbon results.) The remaining analytical equipment
was very similar to that used in light-duty vehicle certification.
Fuel consumption was calculated using the carbon balance technique. As
a cross check on the total analytical system, it was decided to employ
a separate fuel meter. This was a rather unsophisticated device, best
described as a "butcher shop scale", used to weigh fuel before and after
each test run. It had a total capacity of 6 kilograms and could be read
to about 5 grams. During one of the longer test runs, fuel had to be
added from a previously weighed container.
-------
-6-
C. Driving Cycles
Driving cycles for this experiment were developed from actual in-use
data collected and analyzed under the CAPE-21 project. Vehicles were
instrumented in New York city and Los Angeles. Data was collected for
freeway and non-freeway operation. The combination of two cities and
two types of driving gives four operation categories.
For each category of operation, a data matrix was compiled. This matrix
contains information concerning speed, rate of change, and frequency of
occurance. (Several other parameters relating to engine operation were
also included in the data matrix; however, these are of no concern
here.) Since the data logger operated every 0.864 seconds, the data
matrix also reflected that time basis. Driving cycles were generated
using computer programs developed under the CAPE-21 project.
In addition to operational category, (e.g., New York Freeway) driving
cycles are divided into four types. These types represent the method
used in generation, and not the category of truck operation:
1. Non-Interpolated: These cycles were generated using the 0.864
second time basis which was assumed to be one second. That is, the
computer-generated speed versus time sequence should have been
plotted into drivers traces with 0.864 seconds between each data
point. However, for convenience, it was decided to assume that the
in-use data was collected on a 1.0 second basis, and to generated
driver's traces accordingly. The result of this technique is to
slightly "stretch out" the acceleration and deceleration ramps.
2. Interpolated; These cycles are like those above, except that the
results have been interpolated. The 0.864 second based speed
versus time listing was converted to a 1.0 second basis by linear
interpolation. The result of this process is to very slightly
shave some of the "peaks and valleys" out of the cycle. However,
these cycles do not have the "streatched-out" profile of the Non-
interpolated cycles.
3. Hand generated; An attempt was made to "hand generate", without
the aid of a computer, two driving cycles from the Los Angeles Non-
freeway input matrix. This was done to achieve the best possible
match to the input data speed distribution
4. Speed screened: For these cycles, the computer program was modified
to insure that cycles generated would more accurately reflect the
speed distribution of the data matrix. The original cycles, both
interpolated and non-interpolated, were accepted on the basis of
percentage acceleration, deceleration, cruise and idle. Speed
distribution was not considered.
-------
-7-
Also, there is one variation. Instead of a "fully transient" driving
cycle, "linearized" versions can be generated. These driving cycles are
quite similar to the original LDV 7-mode with steady state cruises and
constant rate accelerations and decelerations. Each linearized cycle is
based on a full transient cycle with operating modes selected to best
approximate it. Comparisons between the corresponding cycles will
indicate the importance of full transient operation.
All driving cycles were "manufactured" into a speed versus time graph
used during the test. This process was carried out using a mini-computer
and a strip chart recorder.
After the test program was finished, a minor problem was discovered in
some of the drivers traces. Apparently, the chart recorder used to
generate the traces developed a random calibration shift or temporary
instability. This resulted in distortion for parts of some traces,
mostly at the higher speeds. The problem was not of major significance,
in that it was unnoticed by the drivers. Suspect runs were deleted.
Data used in this report is based on test runs with correct, or very
close to correct, traces. All emission and fuel consumption data is
calculated using actual distance traveled.
The different driving cycles are listed and described in Figure 2. The
relationship between average speed and percent idle is illustrated in
Figure 3.
D. Test Matrix
Tests were run under three road load conditions; empty, half and full.
While most tests were of the hot start variety, with engine idling at
the beginning of the test, five cold start sequences were run. Each
sequence, hot or cold start, consists of three back-to-back tests. In
the case of hot start, this gives three replicates. No replicates were
run for cold start tests, but the trend in emissions as the vehicle
warms up is indicated by the sequence. The test matrix is shown in
Figure 4.
In addition to the chassis cycles listed in the test matrix, several
other tests were also run. First, to verify the representativeness of
the test engine, a chassis version of the 13-mode certification test was
run. It was also decided to run a chassis version of the gasoline 9-
mode test, just to see what would be observed. (The 9-mode test has
some engine motoring. This is not part of the normal diesel test.)
Finally, a tire slip test was run with no emission measurements.
-------
Figure 2
Driving Cycles
No. Description
07 LA Non-Fwy
08 LA Non-Fwy
09 LA Non-Fwy
11 LA Non-Fwy
12 LA Non-Fwy
13 LA Non-Fwy
20 LA Non-Fwy
23 NY Non-Fwy
28 LA Fwy
31 NY Fwy
32 NY Non-Fwy
34 NY Non-Fwy
39 NY Non-Fwy
40 NY Non-Fwy
41 NY Non-Fwy
42 NY Non-Fwy
44 NY Fwy
45 NY Fwy
46 NY Fwy
47 LA Non-Fwy
48 NY Non-Fwy
50 LA NY St. Lou.
51 St. Lou Non-Fwy
52 LA Fwy
53 LA Fwy
54 LA Non-Fwy
Length
2.01 km
2.14
2.11
1.88
2.08
2.10
3.63
1.86
10.76
3.36
0.85
0.92
0.97
0.97
0.87
0.93
3.43
3.40
3.36
4.05
1.91
9.75
3.79
5.42
5.38
1.85
Time
293S
332
319
300
300
300
544
544
530
279
254
259
302
299
260
285
289
285
214
543
543
1669
581
267
267
285
Idle
30.1%
28.8
29.6
37.3
25.3
31.3
31.0
49.4
2.1
15.4
52.0
50.1
50.3
50.2
50.8
52.6
14.9
14.7
15.3
33.4
50.5
38.9
33.8
2.6
2.6
28.8
Average Speed
35.4 km/h*
32.6
33.8
35.9
33.3
36.6
34.9
24.3
74.6
51.3
25.2
26.0
23.2
23.5
Type
Non-interpolated
24.4
24.9
50.
50.
.2
.3
52.2
40.3
25.6
34.4
36.6
75.0
74.5
32.9
Linearized 07
08
09
Interpolated
it
Speed Screened
Hand Generated
i
oo
Interpolated 01
02
04
05
06
Linearized 20
Linearized 23
Linearized Composite 20, 23, 51
Linearized
Interpolated
M
08
* Does not include idle time.
Note: Cycles 01 through 06 were generated
for an earlier test program.
-------
Figure 3
Driving Cycle Characteristics
30
60
0)
« 40
03
0)
60
n)
20 H
• LA Fwy
NY Fwy
4 LA Non-Fwy
NY Non-Fwy
n~" "''""' "'V !" " ;'' I
20
% Idle
* Does not include idle time
40
-------
-10-
Figure 4
Test Matrix
Cycle
NY-NF
LA-NF
NY-FWY
LA-FWY
St. L-NF
Composite
Type
Original
Lin 23
Original
Hand Gen.
Speed Screen
Original
Lin. 07
Original
Lin. 08
Original
Lin. 09
Original
Lin. 20
Original
Original
Speed Screen
Original
Special
Special
No.
23
48
41
42
39
40
32
07
11
08
12
09
13
20
47
54
44
45
46
31
28
52
53
51
50
Empty
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XC
XC
X
X
X
X
X
X
Half
X
XC
X
X
XC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XC
X
X
X
Full
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X = Hot Start (3 replicate tests)
C = Cold Start (3 test sequence)
-------
-11-
IV. Road Load
Road load measurements for this vehicle and standard semi trailer were
taken for empty, half, and fully loaded conditions. (The standard
trailer was 12.2 metres long, 3.65 metres high and 2.44 metres wide.)
This work was done at the Transportation Research Center of Ohio, East
Liberty, Ohio. The large, 7.5 mile oval track was used for all conditions.
The following vehicle masses were tested:
Empty 13,780 kg
Half 25,680 kg
Full 37,250 kg
Multiple coastdown runs were made using a strip chart recorder and fifth
wheel to generate velocity versus time profiles. Back-to-back runs were
made (on opposite sides of the oval) to minimize the variations caused
by wind and the slight track grade, 0.228%. Weather conditions were
35°C, humid and low wind.
In this discussion, the following symbols will be used:
Symbol Quantity Units
2
a Coefficient constant m/s
2
A Area, frontal m
c Squared term coefficient 1/m
CD Drag coefficient
F Total road load force N
F. Aerodynamic resistance N
F,, Rolling resistance N
R
2
g Gravitational accelera- 9.8 m/s
tion
M Mass kg
U Tire rolling resistance
coefficient
V Velocity m/s
t Time s
W Work j
3
p Density of air 1.15 kg/m
-------
-12-
The speed versus time coastdown traces were manually reviewed and the
data points entered into a computer. For each data interval, an acceleration
was calculated, these accelerations were then mathematically fit to a
curve of the following formula:
The coefficients a and c are generated using a standard data regression
technique.
This equation form was chosen because, in the past, it has represented
light-duty vehicle data very well. The constant term, a, is assigned to
tire rolling resistance. Aerodynamic losses are represented by the
squared term coefficient, c. These are the only losses considered; skin
friction is ignored.
Data were reviewed for each run pair. If the coefficients differed from
the average by too much, or if the results were in any way suspicious,
that pair was deleted. Once the "good" runs were isolated, the data
analysis continued.
Total force on the vehicle can be calculated from Newtons law once the
mass is known:
F = Mf (2)
Only the trans la tional vehicle mass is reflected in this equation;
energy stored in rotating components (tires, axles, etc.) is not con-
sidered. This simplification does not unduly compromise the overall
accuracy. First, 8 of the 18 wheels and the entire drivetrain rotate
during dynamometer testing. Second, the remaining 10 wheels are not a
large factor, especially when compared to a loaded truck.
This total force is the sum of the rolling and aerodynamic resistances:
F = FR + FA (3)
Combining the first three equations, separating the linear and squared
terms into rolling and aerodynamic factors, yields:
FR = aM (4)
F = cV2M (5)
A
It is established convention to define a tire rolling resistance coeffi-
cient, u, as a ratio of drag force to normal force:
u = ^R (6)
Mg
-------
-13-
Combining with equation 4:
u = ^ (7)
g
Aerodynamic resistance is similarly presented in terms of a drag coefficient.
This coefficient is related to the frontal area, air density and relative
velocity:
CD = i^ (8)
pAV
The equation for aerodynamic drag, 5, can be substituted, yielding:
CD = 2 cM (9)
pA
For the three load conditions these quantities were calculated and
overall values established. (The overall values are not the arithmetic
averages, but are based on engineering judgment.)
Load
Empty
Half
Full
Mass
13,780 kg
25,680 kg
37,250 kg
u
0.0088
0.0076
0.0077
CD
1.01
1.21
1.13
Overall Values 0.0077 1.12
The overall values assume that the coefficients are constant; this is a
reasonable assumption and the results agree fairly well with those in
the literature.
For this experiment one would expect the drag coefficient to remain
constant. (It appears that the analysis for empty load gave a low
aerodynamic factor and compensated with a higher rolling resistance.
This is a classical example of the problems with least squares regressions
of more than one variable.) One would expect a square plate to have a
drag coefficient of 1.0 - 1.2; a factor of 1.12 for this truck seems
reasonable. (Skin resistance was ignored in this analysis; it obviously
was represented in the coastdown data and in the overall equation.)
Total drag force is predicted by the following equation:
F = 0.0077 M (9.8) + 1.12 V2(5.1)
(Numbers in parentheses represent various constants, frontal area,
density of air, gravitation, etc.)
-------
-14-
Unfortunately, analysis of the actual road coastdown data was not avail-
able in time to permit accurate dynamometer adjustment. The dynamometer
was adjusted using a very few coastdown times. Later, the dynamometer
speed versus time curves were analyzed in much the same way as the on-
road curves. Although the resulting equations have the same form, the
coefficients are vastly different:
Load u C
D
Empty 0.0028 1.30
Half 0.0015 1.73
Full 0.0016 2.33
Figure 5 demonstrates the difference between road and dyno drag for
empty and full loads. It can be readily noted that there are large
discrepancies.
In order to estimate the significance of these road load discrepancies,
it would be desirable to calculate the total power required for a
driving cycle. This would be done for the on-road curve and the dyna-
mometer curve. Unfortunately, such an analysis would be a very difficult
task, requiring a large number of calculations to go through an actual
driving cycle second by second. However, this effort is significantly
reduced if a linearized cycle is used. It is a relatively easy task to
make integrations for the 12 simple modes of linearized cycle #11, Los
Angeles Non-Freeway. This was done; the following equation for work
resulting:
W = 0.00418 uM + 0.574 CD + 0.000049 M
Applying this relationship to the actual and dynamometer road load
curves gives the following deviations from true "on-road" work over the
cycle:
Empty -9.6%
Half -11.6%
Full -7.0%
V. Results
A. Chassis Verison 9- and 13-mode Tests
In order to assess the representativeness of the test engine, a chassis
version 13-mode test was run. An appropriate transmission gear was
selected and the dynamometer was operated in speed control to hold the
engine RPM constant. The driver controlled the level of torque with the
accelerator pedal while monitoring a strip chart recorder. This recorder
was adjusted to give the percentage of maximum torque at the given
engine speed. (This method assumes that the dynamometer gear box losses,
along with other drive train losses, change linearly with torque. This
may or may not be true. But as will be seen, diesel engine emissions do
not change appreciably with small changes in torque.)
-------
Figure 5
Road Load Curves
10
-------
-16-
Exhaust samples were collected and analyzed in the same manner as the
transient driving cycle tests. A three minute mode time gave an ade-
quate bag sample for analysis and also eliminated overheating of the CVS
at high power levels. Results for the 13-mode test are detailed in
Figure 6. Also included on that Figure are results obtained from an
engine dynamometer test on a similar (reference) engine. (This engine
was used in the development of the 1979 test procedure.) They compare
quite closely.
A chassis version 9-mode test was also run on this vehicle. While a 9-
mode is used only for gasoline engine certification, it was decided to
see how closely results would compare. Also, since the 9-mode engine
test has a closed throttle motoring mode, it would give a fair idea of
diesel motoring emissions. Results are listed in Figure 7. As indicated
in the Table below, except for carbon monoxide, emissions on the 9- and
13-mode tests, as well as for the reference engine, are quite similar:
g/kwh
Test Engine Reference Engine
9-mode 13-mode 13-mode
(Chassis Tests) (Engine Dynamometer)
HC 1.11 0.98 1.31
CO 3.49 8.19 12.13
NOx 13.84 13.68 14.23
Fuel 292 275 290
The chassis version test results were calculated assuming a torque of
1005 Newton-metres at 2100 RPM, 1045 at 1900 RPM and 1085 at 1600 RPM.
(This was interpolated from manufacturer data.)
Figures 8-11 present a graphical digest of the 9- and 13-mode test
results. Emissions and fuel consumption are plotted as a function of
power output and engine RPM. These graphs present rather simple rela-
tionships for these quantities. For example, in Figure 8 one can seen
that hydrocarbons are affected but very little by the power output and
are only slightly affected by changing RPM. Carbon monoxide is even
more interesting. For up to about 50% maximum power CO emissions are
very low and not affected by engine RPM. However, from 50-100% maximum
power they increase dramatically. Finally, oxides of nitrogen are
almost a linear function of power and are not dependent upon engine RPM.
-------
Figure 6
13-Mode Test Results
— Test Vehicle —
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Condition
Idle
1600/2%
25%
50
75
100
Idle
2100/100%
775
750
725
72
Idle
HC
35.4
59.0
61.4
62.6
89.2
87.0
34.4
129.2
128.0
99.4
91.4
97.6
41.7
g/h
CO
31.8
112.0
92.6
119.2
497.0
4436.0
23.6
1937.4
580.0
127.6
223.8
89.4
31.2
Fuel kg/h
NOx
120.0
349.2
635.2
1025.8
1713.2
1865.6
123.6
2847.0
2491.0
1469.6
834.2
372.0
162.0
Calc.
1.8
9.8
16.0
22.4
32.0
37.0
1.8
50.0
44.5
31.9
23.0
12.0
2.9
Meas.
1.8
8.9
14.9
21.9
29.4
41.0
2.2
49.1
40.6
31.6
22.2
14.6
1.9
kw
Power
0.0
3.6
45.4
90.9
136.4
181.8
0.0
221.0
165.8
110.5
55.2
4.4
0.0
HC
42.6
210.3
85.6
88.0
129.5
76.7
34.9
118.9
142.7
139.7
165.2
179.9
31.8
— Reference Engine —
g/h
CO
84.0
480.0
201.0
114.2
819.9
6267.5
58.6
3913.9
535.2
200.7
258.2
301.4
49.9
NOx
124.1
191.7
624.9
1027.4
1733.1
2051.4
100.7
2355.5
1748.6
1019.0
626.9
280.2
86.7
kg/h
Fuel
2.0
7.9
15.9
25.7
37.0
48.3
1.6
58.5
45.1
33.3
26.7
14.0
1.5
kw
Power
0.0
4.1
51.4
103.2
153.3
196.2
0.0
239.0
171.0
113.4
56.8
4.6
0.0
WEIGHTED AVERAGED
Power Specific
X/kw-hr
Fuel Specific
g/kg fuel*
79.8 664.9 1110.6 22.7 22.3 81.2
0.98 8.19 13.68 0.280 0.275
3.52 29.29 48.92
114.2 1060.3 1244.2 25.3 87.4
1.31 12.13 14.23 0.290
4.51 41.91 49.18
*Calculated fuel for test vehicle.
Note: The Reference engine was a similar GM 8V-71 NA
tested on an engine dynamometer. The test vehicle
was given a chassis version 13-mode test using a
CVS sampling system.
-------
Figure 7
9-Mode Test Results
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Torque
Idle
25%
55
25
10
25
90
25
CT
Weighting
0.232
0.077
0.147
0.077
0.057
0.077
0.113
0.077
0.143
HC
22.6
69.8
80.0
72.8
76.8
79.0
116.0
83.0
23.8
g/hr
CO
39.8
100.8
114.6
90.8
100.6
97.4
1136.4
117.0
5.0
Fuel kg/hr
NOx
122.2
729.8
1229.4
682.0
480.8
727.6
2588.2
767.4
72.8
Calc.
2.0
19.8
25.8
18.3
14.1
19.5
43.5
19.9
0.8
Meas .
2.2
19.3
28.8
18.9
13.9
18.8
41.0
18.9
0.6
kw
Power
0.0
52.0
114.4
52.0
20.8
52.0
187.1
52.0
0.0
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
Power Specific
g or kg/kw-hr
Fuel Specific
g/kg fuel
61.4 192.2 763.2 16.1 16.1
1.11 3.49 13.84 0.291 0.292
3.81 11.94
47.40
55.1
00
Test was run at 1900 rpm.
-------
100-
60
-19-
Figure 8
HC Emissions, Steady State
50-
D 2100 rpm
A 1900 rpm
° 1600 rpm
100
Power - kw
200
-------
-20-
Figure 9
CO Emissions, Steady State
3000
2000
2100 rpm
& 1900 rpm
• 1600 rpm
bO
O
1000
,_ A _
100
Power kw
!
200
-------
3000 —I
2000 H
-21-
Figure 10
NQx Emissions, Steady State
.c
to
o
1000 H
D
A
D
2100 rpm
1900 rpm
1600 rpm
100
Power kw
200
-------
c 400
o
•H
J-J
CX
CO
c
o
u
OJ
3
-22-
Figure 11
Fuel Consumption, Steady State
200
D 2100 rpm
^ 1900 rpm
* 1600 rpm
I
100
Power kw
\
200
-------
-23-
B. Driving Cycle Emissions and Fuel Consumption
The overall unweighted average emissions for three test loads and four
cycle categories are as follows:
HC 2.07 g/km
CO 28.0 g/km
NOx 29.2 g/km
Fuel 67.6 1/100 km
These results are drawn from Figure 1, "Summary of Results". They do
not include emissions from the linearized cycles. Emissions and fuel
consumptions, by vehicle load and driving cycle, are found in Figure 3
12-15.
Hydrocarbon emissions seem to be inversely related to vehicle speed.
There is no real discernable change with load. This relationship can be
seen in Figure 16 where hydrocarbon emissions have been plotted as a
function of average cycle speed. For this graph, the averages for each
combination of cycle category and vehicle load have been plotted.
Linearized cycle results are omitted.
Fuel consumption was derived from a "carbon balance" on the exhaust
constituents.
Emissions were also calculated on the basis-of grams of pollutant per
kilogram of fuel consumed. Averages for all the transient driving
cycles are listed by cycle category and load condition in Figure 17.
The most interesting point about this figure is the extreme stability of
NOx emissions. They vary from 47 to 57 grams per kilogram of fuel.
And, except for carbon monoxide, the overall emissions agree fairly
closely with those observed from the 9- and 13-mode tests.
Emissions g/kg Fuel
Test HC CO NOx
9-mode 3.81 11.94 47.40
13-mode 3.58 29.78 48.23
Transient Cycles 3.63 46.4 50.86
As will be pointed out below, carbon monoxide emissions are extremely
variable in their own right.
-------
-24-
Figure 12
HC Emissions (g/km)
NY-NF
LA-NF
NY-FWY
LA-FWY
St. L-NF
Type
Original
Lin 23
Original
Hand Gen.
Speed. Scr.
Original
Lin 07
Original
Lin 08
Original
Lin 09
Original
Lin 20
Original
Original
Speed Scr.
Original
Special
Special
No.
23
48
41
42
39
40
32
07
11
08
12
09
13
20
47
54
44
45
46
31
28
52
53
51
50
Empty
2.89
3.42
3.54
4.67
4.61
2.41
2.82
3.19
2.44
2.62
2.79
1.82
1.88
1.31
1.42
1.37
1.02
0.81
2.35
Half
2.91
3.08
3.34
3.26
2.52
2.17
2.60
1.95
2.28
1.87
2.33
1.54
1.66
1.57
1.70
1.20
1.02
0.87
2.41
2.70
Full
4.01
3.24
2.84
2.62
3.79
2.08
2.70
2.44
2.89
2.36
2.55
2.10
1.95
2.58
1.44
1.45
1.47
1.81
1.36
1.11
0.92
-------
-25-
Figure 13
CO Emissions (g/km)
Category
NY-NF
LA-NF
NY-FWY
LA-FWY
St. L-NF
Composite
Type
Original
Lin 23
Original
Hand Gen.
Spd. Scr.
Original
Lin 07
Original
Lin 08
Original
Lin 09
Original
Lin 20
Original
Original
Spd. Scr.
Original
Special
Special
No.
23
48
41
42
39
40
32
07
11
08
12
09
13
20
47
54
44
45
46
31
28
52
53
51
50
Empty
13.96
4.39
4.64
13.42
10.05
36.87
3.88
6.19
5.28
4.56
3.76
7.26
7.87
11.35
8.81
10.91
20.54
22.82
5.70
—
Half
7.55
18.98
27.13
24.84
50.13
17.31
16.29
14.79
17.09
9.44
18.63
16.24
36.61
42.79
41.96
22.89
17.81
34.58
46.75
25.04
11.09
Full
—
28.48
50.18
33.31
29.55
84.12
21.66
25.90
17.01
14.76
13.63
20.55
32.41
26.74
35.80
52.57
29.48
43.55
26.11
42.10
64.26
80.51
—
—
-------
-26-
Figure 14
NOx Emissions (g/km)
NY-NF
LA-NF
NY-FWY
LA-FWY
Type
Original
Lin 23
Original
Hand Gen.
Spd. Scr.
Original
Lin 07
Original
Lin 08
Original
Lin 09
Original
Lin 20
Original
Original
Spd. Scr.
Original
Special
Special
No.
23
48
41
42
39
40
32
07
11
08
12
09
13
20
47
54
44
45
46
31
28
52
53
51
50
Empty
21.67
22.49
25.20
23.92
25.53
26.82
17.02
18.71
18.43
17.77
18.22
23.20
22.04
20.41
19.12
18.15
26.87
24.81
17.07
__
Half
21.77
30.81
31.74
35.13
40.19
25.25
25.27
24.51
25.28
23.95
26.78
27.44
28.71
29.21
29.96
28.60
31.61
30.66
29.17
19.44
25.04
Full
__
36.80
38.78
36.70
40.66
50.46
31.48
34.18
26.50
29.71
25.13
31.01
40.62
36.33
36.37
33.74
37.61
34.11
34.36
32.33
34.91
33.55
—
___
-------
-27-
Flgure 15
Fuel Consumption (1/100 km)
NY-NF
LA-NF
NY-FWY
LA-FWY
Type
Original
Lin 23
Original
Hand Gen.
Spd. Scr.
Original
Lin 07
Original
Lin 08
Original
Lin 09
Original
Lin 20
Original
Original
Spd. Scr.
Original
Special
Special
No.
23
48
41
42
39
40
32
07
11
08
12
09
13
20
47
54
44
45
46
31
28
52
53
51
50
Empty
55.6
58.0
65.8
56.8
60.8
65.7
48.6
53.0
50.6
48.7
56.8
46.0
56.2
48.7
48.2
46.5
57.9
56.1
46.8
__
Half
63.3
73.5
76.3
73.1
96.4
67.2
65.2
65.2
65.7
67.9
63.4
68.3
69.1
. 69.2
69.6
67.3
58.2
66.5
65.1
52.0
62.8
Full
::
84.0
90.1
75.2
84.5
116.6
74.6
82.2
64.7
73.8
62.6
76.7
85.7
78.8
86.1
74.2
76.2
72.4
72.9
70.7
80.0
79.6
-------
-28-
Figure 16
HC Emissions
30'
0)
C
o
•H
CO
CD
•H
£
o
10
- Half
- Empty
20 40 60
Velocity - km/h
80
-------
-29-
Figure 17
Average Emission Indices
g/kg fuel
Load Overall
Pollutant Cycle Category Empty Half Full Average
HC NY-NF 6.84 4.81 4.36
LA-NF 5.75 3.82 3.72
NY-FWY 3.37 2.78 2.47
LA-FWY 1.89 1.94 1.85 3.36
CO NY-NF 27.5 45.2 56.9
LA-NF 13.7 29.4 36.9
NY-FWY 25.2 61.7 60.7
LA-FWY 44.9 60.9 93.9 46.4
NOx NY-NF 47.6 51.7 53.6
LA-NF 43.3 48.5 50.3
NY-FWY 47.4 50.0 55.8
LA-FWY 53.4 57.2 51.5 50.86
-------
-30-
C. Variability
One of the reasons for running this experiment was to see if different
cycles representing the same type of operation would give the same
emission levels. The standard statistical tool used for making such
determinations is called analysis of variance. Under this technique,
emissions are assumed to be equal to the average value, adjusted for
cycle and test variability. If the cycle variation is "small", then it
can be stated that the driving cycles yield identical results. "Small"
is defined in terms of the test variability.
Ideally, all cycles in each category of operation should yield the same
test results. This conclusion comes from the fact that they all were
generated from the same input data and have all passed the same statisti-
cal "filter". It would also be expected that the test to test varia-
bility would be approximately the same for each cycle in the category.
An analysis of variance was performed for all the non-linearized driving
cycles. Separate calculations were made for HC, CO, and NOx emissions
as well as fuel consumption. Each load condition and cycle category was
examined individually; a total of 48 of these statistical checks were
made. For most (35), the cycle variability was so much larger than the
test variability that one can safely assume that the results were different.
Even though results may be statistically different, that does not mean
that there is any practical or engineering significance to these conclusions.
For example, assume two cycles that yield average emissions of 36 and
36.5 g/km. The test variability might be so low that the cycles will be
deemed to be statistically different.
The reader is left to draw his or her own conclusions.
D. Linearized Driving Cycles
In order to determine if full transient operation has any effect on
diesel emissions, "linearized" driving cycles were run. These driving
cycles are much like the light-duty vehicle 7-mode test, with steady
state cruises and constant rate accelerations and decelerations. Only
emissions from the non-freeway Los Angeles category were investigated.
Each linearized cycle was created to closely approximate a transient
cycle. By comparing the emissions and fuel consumption between the
cycle pairs, the effect of linearization should be revealed. Results
are listed in Figure 18. No real pattern can be established. It does
seem that hydrocarbons are slightly higher and CO is slightly lower on
the linearized cycles. Certainly the difference is not very large.
E. Cold Start Emissions
Six cold start tests were run. These tests were selected to cover the
range of cycle categories and load conditions. In order to minimize the
effect of having a cold dynamometer gear box, the dynamometer, truck
axle and truck transmission were motored prior at the start of each
test. Results are listed in Figure 19; driving cycles have been listed
in order of decreasing fuel consumed. (As the truck consumed fuel it
would gradually warm-up; the effects of cold start operation should be
-------
-31-
Figure 18
Linearized Cycle Emissions
Overall
Item Cycle No. Empty Half Full Average
HC 07
08
09
20
1.10
CO 07
08
09
20
0.82
NOx 07
08
09
20
1.01
Fuel 07
08
09
20
1.04
> of Emissions (Linear/Transient)
Load
lo. Empty
0.76
1.06
1.02
0.85
0.82
0.51
0.98
1.02
0.99
0.95
1.17
0.99
Half
1.20
1.17
0.94
0.91
0.55
0.43
0.97
0.95
0.81
1.00
1.03
0.84
Full
1.30
1.18
1.08
1.31
1.20
0.87
1.50
0.53
1.09
1.12
1.23
0.91
1.10
1.14
1.23
0.93
-------
-32-
Figure 19
Cold Start Emissions
Cycle //
20
52
47
54
32
41
Cycle
Category
LA-NF
LA-FWY
LA-NF
LA-NF
NY-NF
NY-NF
Load
Full
Half
Empty
Empty
Half
Half
Total
Fuel
3181g
2827
1900
865
654
547
HC
0.93
0.96
0.80
0.83
0.98
0.66
-Ratios (Cold/Hot )-
CO NOx Fuel
0.84
0.91
1.21
1.36
0.91
1.11
0.94
0.92
1.10
1.03
1.10
1.17
1.05
1.05
1.18
1.22
1.15
1.22
AVERAGE 0.86 1.06 1.04 1.14
-------
-33-
most readily visible on those driving cycles that consumed the least
amount of fuel.) It appears that hydrocarbon emissions are lower during
cold start tests. However, this may be due to that fact the HFID sampling
line, while warm, may not be stabilized for the first test of each day.
As would be expected, more fuel was consumed during a cold start.
F. Tire Slip
This experiment was not planned as part of the original test sequence.
It was prompted by a small quantity of tire rubber which piled up after
several thousand miles of truck use. This rubber was first noticed
after a series of runs under high load conditions.
To perform this experiment, the transmission output shaft and dynamo-
meter roll were equipped with high resolution revolution counters. The
number of revolutions were then recorded by digital counters. In order
to determine the "no-slip ratio", the dynamometer was used to motor the
truck with transmission in neutral over the range of speed operation.
This "no-slip ratio" was fairly constant with speed, having a coefficient
of variation of less than 1 percent.
The experiment was run with the dynamometer in speed control. The
vehicle operator used the accelerator pedal to control the amount of
power. Three sequences were run at various speeds. The first sequence,
called "Zero power" was run with the truck just over coming all the
dynamometer friction. (While it is not really zero power, it is a very
small percentage of the maximum output.) The next two runs were run at
half and full power. Results are expressed in Figure 20 as a percentage
change from the previously defined "no-slip ratio".
These results are most confusing. Expecially the initial point on the
zero load line, indicating approximately 7.5 percent slip at a rather
low roll speed and power condition. This particular data point repre-
sents three replicates; these data were part of the sequence for the
rest of the zero load line. The three replicates agree very closely, no
explanation is available. The remaining data points seem to make more
sense. They imply that as vehicle speed and load increase, the tire
slip increases. These could also indicate that the tire is deforming
more at higher speeds and load conditions, perhaps giving a smaller
rolling radius. This would be indicated as "slip". In any event, this
is an interesting topic and probably merits further consideration if
chassis testing of large vehicles is to be done.
-------
-34-
Figure 20
Tire Slip
8 -
6 "
a
3-
Load
D Full
A Half
• Zero
40 80
Velocity km/h
-------
-35-
VI. General Observations
This experiment proves that a large vehicle can be tested for emissions
on a chassis dynamometer. However, in spite of this success, several
problems developed during the test sequence which deserve further
discussion.
Both the dynamometer setting procedure and the stability of the dynamo-
meter calibration remain troublesome. Further work remains to be done
in this area. EPA's large roll tandem axle chassis dynamometer is not a
very stable piece of equipment. Its calibration curves shift and it is
very difficult to set accurately. This is unfortunate, in light of the
success with the track coastdown project.
Another troublesome piece of equipment is the heated flame ionization
detector. While hydrocarbon emissions from diesels are not a problem,
it is somewhat difficult to measure them accurately. The HFID sample
line seems to adsorb and desorb hydrocarbons, thus increasing the response
time of the instrument. It is uncertain exactly how much hang-up does
occur. This is true even with the sample line at 175°C, the recommended
temperature for such work.
Some of the emission test variability may be due to the fact that different
drivers operated the test vehicle at different times in the program.
Also, some slight variations in shift pattern occurred. In future
programs, it is recommended that more emphasis be given to the gear
shifting procedure.
-------
Appendix A
Raw Emission Data
-------
Run
No.
8
10
11
12
13
14
Load Cycle
Empty 34
Empty 39
Empty 40
Empty 41
Empty 42
Empty 44
Empty 45
Run
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
Distance
0.98
0.98
0.98
. 0.98
0.97
0.95
0.95
. 0.96
1.00
1.00
0.98
. 0.99
0.88
0.88
0.88
. 0.88
0.97
0.95
0.95
. 0.96
3.59
3.52
3.60
. 3.57
3.57
3.57
3.57
. 3.57
HC
2.61
2.68
2.61
2.63
4.69
5.01
4.32
4.67
4.24
3.05
6.55
4.61
3.68
3.22
3.35
3.42
3.48
3.45
3.70
3.54
1.35
1.20
1.37
1.31
1.36
1.46
1.43
1.42
Emissions
CO
13.58
12.84
16.72
14.38
12.47
11.54
16.26
13.42
11.44
8.74
9.97
10.05
3.66
3.89
5.62
4.39
3.65
5.00
5.27
4.64
11.02
11.31
11.72
11.35
9.28
8.40
8.76
8.81
Fuel Used
NOx
24.90
25.46
25.84
25.40
24.18
24-. 88
22.69
23.42
25.19
26.62
25.79
25.53
22.47
23.10
21.90
22.49'
24.96
24.97
24.67
25.20
20.58
20.28
20.38
20.41
19.35
18.95
19.07
19.12
L/100 km
49.0
61.2
61.8
57.3
57.6
59.2
53.6
56.8
59.4
60.5
62.6
60.8
57.5
59.4
57.1
58.0
65.6
69.1
63.6
65.8
49.7
47.7
48.6
48.7
48.7
48.2
47.6
48.2
Calc.
407
509
514
477
474
• 477
432
461
504
513
520
512
429
443
426
433
540
547
512
534
1513
1424
1483
1473
1474
1459
1441
1458
Measured
490
490
510
497
480
490
465
478
660
480
380
507
449
448
435
444
571
549
532
551
1500
1475
1490
1488
1420
1390
1390
1400
>
-------
Run
No.
Load
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
08
09
11
12
13
23
32
Run
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
Distance
2.12
2.14
2.16
2.14
2.09
2.12
2.11
2.11
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
2.04
2.09
2.08
2.07
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.03
1.85
1.87
1.87
1.86
0.84
0.84
0.85
0.84
HC
2.92
3.30
3.36
3.19
2.99
2.55
2.32
2.62
2.61
2.99
2.85
2.82
2.54
2.33
2.44
2.44
2.81
2.80
2.76
2.79
2.77
2.89
3.02
2.89
2.73
2.26
2.41
2.46
Emissions
CO
7.24
5.87
5.46
6.19
4.32
4.72
4.63
4.56
4.06
3.78
3.80
3.88
5.99
4.86
4.98
5.28
3.80
3.46
4.02
3.76
15.62
13.51
12.75
13.96
42.36
33.55
34.71
36.87
Fuel Used
NOx
18.91
18.97
18.24
18,71
17.52
18.18
17.62
17.77
17.69
16.26
17.12
17.02
19.12
18.18
18.00
18.43
17.66
17.87
19.14
18.22
21.96
21.06
22.00
21.67
25.95
27.54
26.77
26.82
L/100 km
53.1
54.0
51.9
53.0
48.4
50.9
46.8
48.7
49.7
47.1
49.1
48.6
51.8
50.4
49.5
50.6
56.3
55.6
58.5
56.8
56.8
55.0
54.9
55.6
64.6
65.7
66.7
65.7
Calc.
954
980
949
962
859
915
837
887
792
751
783
775
896
893
873
887
969
957
1007
979
890
872
870
877
458
466
482
469
Measured
990
1000
1050
1013
980
620
680
811
725
954
825
835
1222 "
1245
1160
1209
1180
1260
1153
1198
880
883
915
893
525
5-15
535
525
-------
Run
No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Load Cycle
Empty 46
Empty 47
Empty 47
Empty 51
Empty 52
Empty 53
Empty 54
Empty 54
Run Distance
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Cold
1
2
3
Ave.
1
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Cold
1
2
3
Ave.
3.41
3.43
3.43
3.42
3.81
3.96
3.98
Start Test
3.99
4.01
4.01
4.00
3.72
5.21
5.25
5.26
5.24
5.20
5.21
5.23
5.21
1.84
1.84
1.80
Start Test
1.82
1.80
1.82
1.81
HC
1.41
1.29
1.41
1.37
1.45
1.81
1.76
Emissions
CO
10.82
12.30
9.60
10.91
8.81
7.06
6.81
Fuel Used
NOx
18.75
18.82
16.89
18.15
26.64
23.27
23.00
L/100 km
49.1
47.9
42.4
46.5
66.3
56.5
54.8
Calc.
1420
1393
1233
1349
2144
1897
1847
Measured
1420
1390
1390
1400
2210
1935
1970
(No Averages)
1.85
1.78
1.82
1.82
2.35
1.07
1.02
0.98
1.02
0.80
0.83
0.78
0.81
1.56
1.84
7.93
7.03
6.83
7.26
5.70
20.69
21.14
19.78
20.54
24.57
21.86
22.03
22.82
10.67
8.79
2.10 7.87
(No
1.94
1.75
1.96
1.88
Averages)
7.14
8.59
7.88
7.87
24.09
22.82
22.68
23.19
17.71
26.90
27.08
26.63
26.87
25.79
23.43
25.20
24.81
22.79
20.31
19.30
22.20
21.91
21.93
22.04
58.4
54.9
54.7
56.0
46.8
58.2
58.2
57.2
57.9
56.0
56.8
55.6
56.1
68.6
58.7
55.6
56.5
56.9
55.3
56.2
1976
1865
1858
1400
1476
2573
2587
2552
2511
2468
2511
2466
2482
1067
913
850
871
869
853
865
1965
1950
1950
1955
1560
2580
2575
2560
2572
2525
2530
2470
2508
1280
965
890
915
900
935
917
u>
-------
Run
No.
23
Load
Half
24
Half
09
25
Half
11
26
Half
12
27
Half
13
28
Half
28
29
Half
31
Run
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
Distance
2.12
2.11
2.12
2.12
2.03
2.06
2.04
2.04
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.82
2.00
2.01
2.00
2.00
2.03
2.04
2.01
2.03
10.46
10.49
10.49
10.48
3.06
3.20
3.20
3.15
HC
2.22
2.32
1.97
2.17
1.89
1.95
2.02
1.95
2.88
2.39
2.30
2.52
2.80
2.55
2.44
2.60
2.54
2.21
2.10
2.28
1.23
1.21
1.15
1.20
1.86
1.55
1.68
1.70
Emissions
CO
18.27
14.95
15.65
16.29
19.48
17.67
14.12
17.09
18.39
17.95
15.59
17.31
16.64
13.87
13.86
14.79
10.34
9.47
8.52
9.44
17.26
18.29
17.88
17.81
24.43
20.46
23.78
22.89
Fuel Used
NOx
24.74
25.80
25.28
25.27
25.34
25.15
25.36
25.28
26.20
26.98
22.58
25.25
25.31
24.08
24.15
24.51
25.31
23.51
24.49
23.95
32.48
31.81
30.54
31.61
29.28
28.41
28.10
28.60
L/100 km
63.8
67.5
64.4
65.2
66.3
65.0
65.7
65.7
70.0
70.8
60.8
67.2
66.5
64.4
64.6
65.2
67.8
67.7
68.2
67.9
58.7
58.1
57.9
58.2
69.7
66.3
65.8
67.3
Calc.
1147
1208
1158
1171
1141
1135
1136
1137
1080
1093
938
1037
1128
1098
1095
1107
1167
1171
1162
1167
5206
5168
5150
5175
1808
1799
1785
1797
Measured
1160
1225
1170
1185
1120
1145
1150
1138
1090
1075
1090
1080
1140
1095
1110
1115
1185
1180
1180
1182
5040
5565
5510
5372
1990
1830
1790
1870
>
-------
Run
No.
30
31
Half
32
32
Half
34
33
Half
40
34
Half
41
35
Half
41
36
Half
42
Run Distance
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Cold
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Cold
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.82
0.77
Start Test
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.92
0.97
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.85
0.87
0.88
Start Test
0.88
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.93
0.95
0.93
0.94
HC
3.22
3.36
3.21
3.26
3.22
3.22
3.14
(No
3.59
3.53
2.85
3.32
4.00
3.18
2.83
3.34
2.04
2.63
2.75
(No
Emissions
CO
52.22
48.05
50.11
50.13
46.79
53.06
86.63
Averages)
24.40
29.18
13.36
22.31
22.76
26.70
25.07
24.84
20.99
18.27
11.31
Averages)
3.20 16.96
3.15
2.88
20.85
19.14
3.08 18.98
N/A
25.07
27.79
28.52
27.13
Fuel Used
NOx
38.62
40.86
41.10
40.19
44.08
39.37
35.11
36.65
35.24
20.34
30.74
33.84
36.10
35.45
35.13
36.08
31.71
25.62
30.91
31.14
30.38
30.81
33.53
32.29
29.40
31.74
L/100 km
94.8
97.0
97.4
96.4
110.6
100.7
93.3
83.8
81.3
53.5
72.9
70.4
76.6
72.4
73.1
89.5
77.7
63.9
73.6
73.3
73.7
73.5
81.6
77.1
70.2
76.3
Calc.
643
658
661
654
755
701
611
654
634
422
570
579
604
577
587
645
573
477
549
541
550
547
643
621
554
606
Measured
685
670
690
682
1010
710
630
660
685
430
592
650
625
615
630
820
600
570
555
545
545
548
665
650
655
657
>
-------
Run
No.
37
Load
Half
38
Half
45
39
Half
46
40
Half
47
41
Half
48
42
43
44
Half
Half
Half
51
50
52
Run
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
2
3
Ave.
1
1
2
Ave.
1
2
3
Distance
3.38
3.41
3.43
3.41
3.38
3.38
3.41
3.39
3.32
3.33
3.30
3.32
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
1.84
1.87
1.85
1.85
3.67
9.27
9.37
9.32
4.89
5.02
4.99
HC
1.55
1.64
1.42
1.54
1.87
1.62
1.48
1.66
1.79
1.52
1.41
1.57
1.82
2.01
1.78
1.87
2.95
2.99
2.78
2.91
2.41
3.84
3.69
3.77
0.98
1.05
0.97
Emissions
CO
42.95
35.35
31.52
36.61
46.89
43.80
37.69
42.79
50.64
38.95
36.28
41.96
19.06
17.80
19.02
18.63
8.15
7.13
7.38
7.55
25.04
10.82
11.58
11.20
31.51
31.05
32.50
Fuel Used
NOx
31.06
29.41
25.66
28.71
31.81
29.18
26.64
29.21
30.57
30.69
28.62
29.96
27.73
25.74
26.87
26.78
22.37
21.51
21.38
21.77
19.45
28.07
27.11
27.59
28.14
29.00
29.51
L/100 km
77.1
70.8
59.4
69.1
74.5
70.2
62.9
69.2
71.4
70.4
67.0
69.6
66.6
60.1
63.4
63.5
65.2
62.6
62.0
63.3
52.0
71.1
65.6
68.4
69.5
66.7
66.1
Calc.
2210
2047
1728
1995
2135
2012
1819
1989
2010
1988
1875
1958
2236
2018
2129
2128
1017
995
973
994
1618
5000
4916
4958
2882
2839
2797
Measured
2295
2090
2085
2157
2060
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2230
2235
2225
2230
1035
990
1010
1012
1630
5140
5035
5088
2955
2845
2795
.Cold Start Test (No Averages)
-------
Run
No.
45
46
Half
53
47
Half
54
48
Full
07
49
Full
08
50
Full
09
51
Full
11
Run
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
Ave
Distance
4.97
5.04
5.04
. 5.02
5.10
5.04
5.09
. 5.08
1.80
1.80
1.80
. 1.80
1.93
1.93
1.96
. 1.94
2.06
2.04
2.09
. 2.06
2.04
2.03
2.08
. 2.05
1.80
1.80
. 1.80
HC
1.10
0.99
0.98
1.02
0.98
0.85
0.79
0.87
2.30
2.33
2.37
2.33
2.03
2.17
2.05
2.08
2.84
2.30
2.17
2.44
2.76
2.22
2.10
2.36
2.69
2.71
2.70
Emissions
CO
34.12
36.15
33.48
34.58
44.56
51.16
44.52
46.75
15.86
16.86
16.01
16.24
27.79
16.48
20.72
21.66
22.74
21.32
4.54
16.20
4.41
10.51
25.97
13.63
24.24
27.55
25.90
Fuel Used
NOx
31.15
30.52
30.30
30.66
30.27
29.83
27.40
29.17
28.37
28.04
25.92
27.44
32.84
30.29
31.32
31.48
33.24
33.67
12.58
26.50
13.64
33.10
28.65
25.13
33.84
34.52
34.18
L/100 km
67.3
66.2
65.9
66.5
66.6
67.2
61.6
65.1
69.0
70.4
65.6
68.3
78.1
72.2
73.4
74.6
77.3
76.9
39.8
64.7
42.7
76.7
68.4
62.6
81.9
82.4
82.2
Calc.
2836
2828
2816
2827
2829
2872
2659
2787
1053
1074
1001
1043
1278
1182
1220
1227
1350
1330
705
1128
739
1320
1206
1088
1250
1258
1254
Measured
2810
2800
2795
2802
3015
2890
2900
2935
1090
1115
1085
1097
1280
1310
1325
1305
1400
1440
860
1233
820
1410
1445
1225
1360
1340
1350
>
-------
Run
No.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Load
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
13
20
28
31
32
34
Run
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
Distance
1.98
2.01
1.98
. 1.99
1.98
2.00
2.00
. 1.99
3.81
3.98
3.96
. 3.92
9.99
3.06
3.11
3.06
. 3.08
0.79
0.76
0.77
. 0.77
0.90
0.90
0.84
*
HC
2.60
2.59
2.46
2.55
2.50
3.45
2.72
2.89
2.25
2.03
2.02
2.10
1.47
1.86
1.79
1.77
1.81
4.36
3.57
3.43
3.79
3.56
3.14
3.12
3.27
Emissions
CO
20.83
20.35
20.46
20.55
14.72
15.13
14.44
14.76
32.63
31.97
32.62
32.41
38.88
25.64
25.08
27.61
26.11
81.75
76.73
93.89
84.12
55.89
49.88
51.89
52.88
Fuel Used
NOx
32.01
32.43
28.60
31.01
30.27
31.00
27.86
29.71
41.98
39.17
40.72
40.62
30.67
34.19
34.34
34.56
34.36
50.38
51.23
49.77
50.46
41.85
43.71
42.61
42.72
L/100 km
76.4
76.4
68.5
73.8
78.3
80.0
71.8
76.7
88.5
81.2
87.5
85.7
67.6
72.3
72.5
73.9
72.9
116.2
117.6
116.0
116.6
93.7
93.5
91.3
92.8
Calc.
1283
1302
1150
1245
1315
1357
1218
1297
2859
2740
2938
2846
5726
1876
1912
1917
1902
758
758
757
758
715
714
650
693
Measured
1395
1400
1385
1393
1435
1530
1330
1432
2785
2880
2810
2825
4710
1945
1960
1945
1950
810
800
805
805
740
700
720
720
>
oo
-------
Run
No.
59
Load
Full
60
Full
40
61
Full
41
62
Full
42
63
Full
44
64
Full
45
65
Full
46
Run
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Distance
1.05
1.05
1.03
. 1.04
1.00
1.06
1.03
. 1.03
0.85
0.84
0.87
. 0.85
0.92
0.93
0.93
. 0.93
3.33
3.33
3.35
. 3.34
3.28
3.25
3.27
. 3.27
3.15
3.17
3.19
HC
2.62
3.01
2.88
2.84
2.55
2.79
2.51
2.61
4.97
3.68
3.38
4.01
3.42
3.31
2.99
3.24
1.48
1.43
1.40
1.44
1.33
1.48
1.55
1.45
1.74
1.50
1.17
Emissions
CO
38.95
32.17
28.82
33.31
21.59
34.76
32.31
29.55
29.20
30.91
25.34
28.48
69.10
42.43
39.02
50.18
60.78
50.65
46.28
52.57
34.67
29.53
24.23
29.48
49.19
45.14
36.31
Fuel Used
NOx
34.44
37.22
38.44
36.70
38.58
42.15
41.24
40.66
37.48
38.10
34.83
36.80
37.99
40.20
38.15
38.78
34.83
34.52
31.87
33.74
38.76
38.45
35.62
37.61
35.38
37.04
29.91
L/100 km
72.1
75.5
78.0
75.2
76.8
88.2
88.5
84.5
86.1
87.1
78.7
84.0
89.6
93.0
87.6
90.1
79.5
74.9
68.1
74.2
82.2
77.2
69.2
76.2
76.2
77.6
63.4
Calc.
642
672
681
665
651
793
773
739
621
620
581
607
699
733
691
708
2245
2115
1934
2098
2286
2128
1919
2111
2035
2086
1715
Measured
650
665
655
657
835
835
825
832
680
695
680
685
755
755
725
745
2160
2180
2135
2158
2450
2100
2090
2213
2100
2085
2090
Ave. 3.17
1.47
43.55
34.11
72.4
1945
2092
-------
Run
No.
66
Load
Full
67
Full
52
68
Full
53
69
Full
54
Run
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
Distance
3.81
3.90
3.90
. 3.87
4.46
4.47
4.62
. 4.52
4.46
4.60
4.54
. 4.53
1.77
1.80
1.80
. 1.79
HC
2.12
1.91
1.81
1.95
1.29
1.04
0.99
1.11
0.91
0.93
0.91
0.92
2.72
2.64
2.78
2.58
Emissions
CO
32.52
24.28
23.43
26.74
50.21
74.38
68.19
64.26
80.99
78.74
81.81
80.51
35.27
35.92
36.22
35.80
Fuel Used
NOx
37.34
35.68
35.98
36.33
35.61
34.42
34.71
34.91
33.07
34.57
33.00
33.55
36.52
37.60
34.98
36.37
L/100 km
82.1
76.9
77.3
78.8
79.4
80.7
80.0
80.0
78.6
81.0
79.2
79.6
87.1
89.1
82.2
86.1
Calc.
2652
2543
2556
2584
3003
3059
3134
3065
2972
3159
3049
3060
1307
1360
1255
1307
Measured
2670
2715
2710
2698
2965
2990
3060
3005
3010
3110
3100
3073
1360
1390
1375
1375
I
I—'
o
-------
B-l
Appendix B
Driving Cycle Identification
Cycle No. Identification No.
07 152 778 878 5
08 210 620 459 3
09 211 939 981 9
11 Linear 07
12 Linear 08
13 Linear 09
20 213 884 237 5
23 155 897 487
28 131 162 575 9
31 203 708 236 5
32 212 012 741 3
34 210 952 317 5
39 WYSOR I
40 WYSOR II
41 123 667 645 7
42 179 960 930 5
44 741 286 985
45 209 279 083 3
46 137 610 363
47 Linear 20
48 Linear 23
50 ROSSOW I
51 Linear
52 786 981 11
53 153 913 507 1
54 210 620 459 3
------- |