EPA/AA/CTAB/91-05
Technical Report
Evaluation Of A Schatz Heat Battery
On A Flexible-Fueled Vehicle
by
Gregory K. Piotrowski
Ronald M. Schaefer
September 1991
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.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources
Emission Control Technology Division
Control Technology and Applications Branch
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
17 I99I
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exemption From Peer and Administrative Review
FROM:
Karl H. Hellman, Chief
Control Technology and Applications Branch
TO:
Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
Emission Control Technology Division
The attached report entitled "Evaluation Of a Schatz Heat
Battery On a Flexible-Fueled Vehicle," (EPA/AA/CTAB/91-05)
describes the evaluation of a Schatz Heat Battery as a means of
reducing cold start emissions from a vehicle fueled with both
gasoline and M85. This evaluation was conducted at both 20°F and
75°F ambient temperatures. The test vehicle was a flexible-fueled
1990 Audi 80 supplied by Volkswagen of America.
Since this report is concerned only with the presentation of
data and its analysis and does not involve matters of policy or
regulation, your concurrence is requested to waive administrative
review according to the policy outlined in your directive of April
22, 1982.
Concurrence:
Charles L. Gray,/Jr/, Dir.,ECTD
Date;
Nonconcurrence:
Charles L. Gray, Jr., Dir., ECTD
cc: E. Burger, ECTD
Date:
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Number
I. Summary l
II. Introduction 3
III. Description of Schatz Heat Battery . 4
IV. Description of Test Vehicle and Heat Battery
Integration 6
V. Test Facilities and Analytical Methods 7
VI. Test Procedures 8
VII. Schatz Heat Battery Check 8
VIII.Discussion of Test Results 11
A. Gasoline Fuel 11
B. M85 Fuel 18
IX. Evaluation Highlights 25
X. Future Efforts 26
XI. Acknowledgments 26
XII. References . . 26
APPENDIX A - Test Vehicle Specifications A-l
-------
I.
Summary
A Schatz Heat Battery was acquired from Autotech Associates,
Inc. and evaluated by EPA as a means of reducing unburned fuel and
CO emission levels during the cold start segment (Bag l) of the
Federal Test Procedure. This unit was installed on a flexible-
fueled vehicle provided by Volkswagen of America and evaluated at
ambient temperatures of 20°F and 75°F while operating on both
gasoline and M85 high methanol blend fuels.
The Schatz Heat Battery is able to store latent heat energy
which is transferred from the engine's coolant, and it can store
this energy for a substantial amount of time. Upon engine cold
start, the Heat Battery transfers this stored heat by conduction to
the circulating coolant which in turn releases heat to the cold
engine. A pump was added to the coolant circuit to circulate
coolant through the Heat Battery prior to starting the engine.
Table l is a summary of the gasoline-fueled engine emissions
and fuel economy during the Bag 1 segment of the FTP. Presented
are percent changes from stock levels of each pollutant and fuel
economy resulting from two Heat Battery strategies at 20°F and 75°F
ambient temperatures. Stock is defined here as the test vehicle
not equipped with the Heat Battery.
Table 1
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation, Percent Changes From Stock
Indolene Clear Fuel. Bag 1 of FTP .
Category
HC
CO
MPG
No Preheat, 20 °F
Preheat, 20 °F
No Preheat, 75 °F
Preheat, 75 °F
-35
-69
-10
-12
-53
-76
-»o
-62
+9
+ 14
+2
+4
The positive MPG figures indicate an increase by that
percentage when compared to the stock configuration at that
temperature. Similarly, a negative number indicates that percent
reduction from the stock level. No preheat values were obtained
with the Schatz Heat Battery present in the engine coolant system
and operating once the FTP is started. Preheat indicates a 60
second preheat of the circulating coolant prior to engine ignition
and the start of the FTP.
Levels of unburned HC and CO decreased 69 and 76 percent
respectively when preheating for 60 seconds at 20°F; fuel economy
also significantly improved by 14 percent. The influence of the
-------
-2-
Heat Battery is more pronounced in testing at 20°F. Although not
presented here, large increases in Bag 1 levels of NOx were also
detected. However, these substantial increases in Bag 1 NOx do not
greatly increase NOx overall FTP levels. For example, the large
increase in Bag 1 NOx experienced when preheating only increased
composite FTP levels from 0.1 to 0.2 grams per mile. This occurred
because most of the NOx emissions are formed later in the FTP when
the engine has completely warmed to near steady-state conditions.
Also, a 29 percent increase in Bag 1 levels of formaldehyde
increased composite FTP levels from 3 to 4 milligrams per mile.
Even without a preheat period, levels of unburned hydrocarbons and
CO were reduced 35 and 53 percent respectively from stock levels.
A fuel economy improvement of 9 percent during Bag 1 was also
noted. Again, a substantial increase in Bag 1 NOx emissions was
detected, however composite FTP NOx levels were unaffected by this
increase.
The changes in emission levels during the 75°F testing were
not as great as those noted during 20°F testing. When a preheat
period was utilized, unburned hydrocarbons and CO were reduced by
12 and 63 percent respectively from stock levels. A 4 percent
improvement in Bag 1 fuel economy was also noted. A 23 percent
increase in Bag 1 NOx was measured here. Without a preheat, only
a 10 percent reduction in Bag 1 hydrocarbons was noted, while CO
remained approximately unchanged. An 8 percent decrease in Bag 1
NOx was measured during this testing, an unexpected result. Also,
fuel economy improved slightly by 2 percent.
M85 reductions in Bag 1 hydrocarbons and CO and improvements
in fuel economy were even more pronounced than with gasoline
testing when a preheat period was utilized at 20°F. Table 2 is a
summary of the M85 results. NA denotes that these emission
measurements were not made. Emission sampling capabilities for
methanol and formaldehyde were not available for 20°F testing.
Hydrocarbon values here are obtained by treating the exhaust as if
the fuel were gasoline and measured with a propane calibrated FID.
Table 2
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation, Percent Changes From Stock
M85 Fuel. Bag 1 of FTP
Category
*HC
CO
HCHO CH3OH MPG
No Preheat, 20 °F
Preheat, 20°F
No Preheat, 75 °F
Preheat, 75 °F
-26
-85
-6
-20
-57
-83
+9
-41
NA
NA
-16
-28
NA
NA
-7
-22
+ 13
+18
-1
+2
* Gasoline-fueled measurement procedure.
-------
-3-
In cold temperature testing (20°F), both HC and CO emission
levels were reduced over 80 percent when preheating for 60 seconds.
A substantial 18 percent increase in Bag l fuel economy was noted
here. Levels of Bag 1 NOx emissions increased by 9 percent with
preheating, which did not affect composite FTP NOx levels.
Although this is not quantitatively described here, startability
and driveability at 20°F was noticeably improved for M85 fuel when
preheating the engine.
Without a preheat period at 20°F, hydrocarbon levels were
reduced approximately 26 percent, along with a 57 percent reduction
in CO from stock levels. NOx levels without preheat actually
decreased by 9 percent. A 13 percent improvement in fuel economy
was also noted during this testing.
Emission level reductions obtained during 75°F testing with
M85 fuel were also significant when a preheat period was utilized.
Unburned methanol and hydrocarbons were both reduced by over 20
percent, while CO was reduced over 40 percent. Bag 1 formaldehyde
levels were also reduced almost 30 percent when a preheat period
was used. However, with the absence of preheating, CO levels
actually increased during Bag 1. No engine problems, which may
have contributed to excess CO, were noted during this testing.
Levels of unburned methanol were reduced 7 percent without
preheating. Levels of methanol and hydrocarbon emissions were
reduced proportionally; unburned methanol was reduced by 7 percent,
comparable to the 6 percent reduction in unburned hydrocarbons.
There was also a 16 percent reduction in formaldehyde emissions
during this testing. Fuel economy was unchanged by the use of the
Heat Battery here.
II. Introduction
The largest portion of unburned fuel (hydrocarbon emissions
for gasoline fuel and methanol emissions for M100 fuel), carbon
monoxide (CO), and formaldehyde exhaust emissions from a catalyst-
equipped vehicle tested over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) occur
during the cold start or catalyst warm-up phase in Bag l.[l,2,3]
Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) at cold start are generally not
as significant as levels generated later in the FTP when the engine
has warmed. Cold start is defined here as following a vehicle soak
of 12-36 hours at 70-80°F for testing at 75°F and at 15-25°F for
testing at 20°F.[4]
Cold start emissions of unburned fuel and CO are much higher
when testing over the FTP at lower ambient temperatures such as
20°F.[5] These higher levels of unburned fuel and CO result partly
from an increased period of fuel enrichment, a cold engine, and an
extended period before catalyst "light-off" can occur. Recent
enactment of new clean air legislation in the United States has
refocused attention on regional problems of high levels of CO
emissions from motor vehicles operated in low ambient
temperatures.[6]
-------
-4-
One possible way of reducing cold start emissions of unburned
fuel and CO from either a gasoline- or MIOO-fueled vehicle is to
reduce the catalyst "light-off" time. EPA has been interested in
catalyst preheating for some time and has conducted several
evaluations of resistively heated catalyst technologies with
favorable results.[1,2,5,7,8,9,10] This catalyst heating reduces
the time during which the catalyst remains ineffective because of
insufficient warming by the cold exhaust gas. However, while
improvements in emissions may result from the use of this
technology, driveability may still suffer until the engine has
warmed to near steady-state conditions.
Another way to reduce cold start emissions of unburned fuel
and CO is to reduce the period of cold start enrichment. This
period of enrichment may be a function of engine coolant
temperature. If the engine is heated to operating temperature
faster, the period of enrichment to ensure good driveability may be
correspondingly reduced.
Schatz Thermo Engineering, Munich, Germany, has constructed a
heat storage device that stores excess heat energy from the engine
coolant for use in later applications. This device, referred to
here as a Heat Battery, stores heat energy under vacuum in a molten
salt. The salt releases heat energy to the cold engine coolant
which is pumped through a canister containing the packaged molten
salt. The coolant, warmed by contact with the salt containing
packages, may be pumped to various locations within the vehicle.
Although applications for this heat energy have included passenger
compartment heating [11], the discussion in this paper is limited
to the application of engine heating. This heating allows the
engine to heat to near steady-state conditions faster, thereby
reducing the time requirement for richer operating conditions at
cold start.
An initial evaluation of this technology on a gasoline-fueled
vehicle reduced cold start HC and CO emissions 30 and 50 percent
respectively over the FTP at 20°F conditions. [12] The licensed
representative of Schatz in the United States, Autotech Associates,
Inc. supplied a Heat Battery to EPA for an independent evaluation
on a flexible-fueled vehicle. The test vehicle was supplied by
Volkswagen of America. This evaluation was conducted using both
gasoline and M85 high methanol blend fuels; the results from this
testing are presented in this paper.
III. Description Of Schatz Heat Battery
The Schatz Heat Battery is a latent heat storage device which
can accumulate waste heat from the engine's coolant and can store
this heat for a substantial amount of time. The efficiency of this
heat accumulator is enhanced because this latent heat would
normally be wasted. Upon engine cold start, the Heat Battery
releases this stored heat to the coolant; the warmed coolant
assists in heating the engine to operating temperature
substantially faster.
-------
-5-
Figure 1 below is a picture of the interior of a Heat Battery.
This unit is cylindrical in shape with an overall length of
approximately 370 mm, a 170 mm outside diameter, and a total weight
of approximately 10 kg. The heat capacity is 600 Wh when cooled
from 176°F to 122°F.
Figure 1
Schatz Heat Battery
INSULATING VACUUM
SALT IN SEALED FINS
INNER CASING
The core of the Schatz Heat Battery consists of stacked flat-
sheet metal elements that contain the heat storage mass. If the
coolant temperature flowing in-between the stacked elements is
higher than the heat storage mass melting point (167°F), latent
heat is absorbed and stored. During the ensuing cold start, the
stored heat is then delivered to the cooler engine coolant. Once
the circulating coolant reaches 167°F, the heat storage mass begins
storing latent heat again.
The heat storage mass inside the sealed metal elements is the
molten salt Ba(OH)*8H20. The latent heat of the pure molten salt
is 88.5 Wh/kg, and the heat conductivity in its solid state is 1.26
W/mK. The Heat Battery core is surrounded by a high-vacuum
insulation which limits ambient heat losses to approximately 3 W at
-4°F.
-------
-6-
IV. Description Of Test Vehicle And Heat Battery Integration
The test vehicle was a flexible-fueled 1990 Audi 80 four-door
sedan, equipped with a manual 5-speed transmission, air
conditioning, and radial tires. The vehicle had approximately
5,000 miles when it was received by EPA. The 1.8-liter engine has
a rated maximum power output of 75 kW at 5,500 rpm with gasoline
fuel and 80 kW at 5,500 rpm with M85 fuel. The vehicle was tested
at 1,304 kilograms (2,875 Ibs) inertia weight and 6.4 actual
dynamometer horsepower. This vehicle was loaned to the U.S. EPA by
Volkswagen of America.
A detailed description of this test vehicle and special
methanol-blend modifications is included as Appendix A.
The integration of the Schatz Heat Battery into the test
vehicle's coolant system was performed by Volkswagen of America.
Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the vehicle's coolant system as
it was tested by EPA.
Figure 2
Coolant System Configuration
1 Engine
2 Pump
3 Heat Battery
4 Heater Core
5 Oil Cooler/Heater
Q Radiator
7 Electric Valves
8 Thermostat
-------
-7-
Two switches inside the passenger compartment dictated the
Heat Battery configuration. The first switch enabled the
circulation of coolant prior to the starting of the engine. This
switch initiated a Bosch electric pump (2), which circulated the
coolant through the Schatz Heat Battery (3). The Heat Battery in
turn transferred stored heat to the cold coolant, and thus the
engine (1) prior to start. At this point, the radiator thermostat
is still closed so that all the heated coolant passes through the
cold engine. This is referred to here as a "preheat" test.
The second switch allowed for the Schatz Heat Battery to be
taken out or placed in the coolant system with the use of two
electric valves (7) . If stock (heat battery out of the coolant
circuit) emission levels were required, a single switch would close
electric valve 7a and open 7b. This would allow coolant to pass
from the engine through the oil heater/cooler (5), the heater core
(4) , and then back to the engine, with the thermostat closed during
a cold start. If the Heat Battery was to be included in the
coolant system, the same switch would then open electric valve 7a
and close 7b. Now the Heat Battery would be present before the
heater core and after the oil heater/cooler. This is referred to
here as a "no preheat" test. This same electric valve
configuration would be utilized if a coolant preheat test was
desired. The pump would operate until just prior to starting the
engine. At that point, the pump switch would be manually switched
off, and the Heat Battery would remain in the coolant system for
the remainder of the FTP.
V. Test Facilities And Analytical Methods
Two separate sites were used for testing at the two different
ambient temperatures. EPA emissions testing at 75°F was conducted
on a Clayton Model ECE-50 double-roll chassis dynamometer using a
direct-drive variable inertia flywheel unit and a road load power
control unit. Emissions testing at 20°F was conducted on a Labeco
Electric single-roll chassis dynamometer using a direct-drive
variable inertia flywheel unit and a road load power control unit.
Both sites utilized a Philco Ford constant volume sampler that has
a nominal capacity of 350 cfm. Both test sites also used the same
emission analyzers. Exhaust hydrocarbon (HC) emissions were
measured with a Beckman Model 400 flame ionization detector (FID).
CO was measured using a Bendix Model 8501-5CA infrared CO analyzer.
NOx emissions were determined with a Beckman Model 951A
chemiluminescent NOx analyzer.
Exhaust formaldehyde and methanol emission samples could only
be measured at the 75°F test site. Exhaust formaldehyde was
measured using a dinitrophenol-hydrazine (DNPH) technique.[13,14]
Exhaust carbonyls including formaldehyde are reacted with DNPH
solution forming hydrazine derivatives; these derivatives are
separated from the DNPH solution by means of high performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC), and quantization is accomplished by
spectrophotometric analysis of the LC effluent stream.
-------
-8-
The procedure developed for methanol sampling and presently
in-use employs water-filled impingers through which are pumped a
sample of the dilute exhaust or evaporative emissions. The
methanol in the sample gas dissolves in water. After the sampling
period is complete, the solution in the impingers is analyzed using
gas chromatographic (GC) analysis.[15]
Some of the emission results in this report for M85 fuel are
computed using the methods outlined in the "Final Rule For
Methanol-Fueled Motor Vehicles And Motor Vehicle Engines," which
was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 11, 1989.
Because our cold room test cell is not equipped to measure methanol
and formaldehyde emissions, we have also included a hydrocarbon
result for M85 fuel which is what would be obtained if the exhaust
was treated as if the fuel were gasoline.
VI. Test Procedures
This program had as its goal the evaluation of a Schatz Heat
Battery for the reduction of unburned fuel and CO emissions, and
improvements in fuel economy during the cold start portion of the
FTP (Bag 1), using either gasoline or M85 fuels.
The evaluation consisted of three phases which are discussed
separately in the following two sections. The first phase was a
Schatz Heat Battery heat release check. Before testing for
emission levels, it was necessary to determine if the Heat Battery
was functioning properly.
The second phase of this evaluation consisted of emissions
testing with gasoline (indolene clear) fuel conducted over the FTP
cycle. The vehicle, equipped with the Schatz Heat Battery, was
tested first at an ambient temperature of 75°F and then at 20°F.
Testing at each ambient temperature consisted of three different
Heat Battery configurations. The first configuration had the Heat
Battery out of the coolant system and hereafter is referred to as
the stock configuration. The vehicle was then tested with the Heat
Battery in the coolant system (no preheat), and the last
configuration again had the Heat Battery in the coolant system but
with a 60 second preheat prior to engine start (preheat).
The last phase consisted of the same ambient temperature and
Heat Battery configuration testing as described in the previous
paragraph, but M85 fuel was utilized in this phase of testing
instead of gasoline.
VII. Schatz Heat Battery Check
This first phase of the evaluation ensured that the Heat
Battery supplied by Autotech Associates, Inc. functioned properly,
and that the unit was being sufficiently "charged" during each LA-4
prep cycle. A full Heat Battery charge occurred when the
temperature of the coolant leaving the Heat Battery was the same as
the coolant temperature entering it.
-------
-9-
Two thermocouples were installed to monitor these
temperatures. The thermocouple measuring coolant temperature into
the Heat Battery was located approximately 25 mm from the entrance
of the Heat Battery, whereas the thermocouple measuring coolant
temperature out was located approximately 250 mm downstream of the
unit.
At the conclusion of the LA-4 prep cycle, a coolant
temperature trace revealed that the two temperatures leaving and
entering the Heat Battery were approximately equal, denoting a
fully charged Heat Battery. After about a 15-hour soak at 75°F,
the same temperature data was taken with only the Bosch pump
circulating coolant; the engine was not running during this test.
Figure 3 is a summary of these results.
Figure 3
Pump Circulation Of Coolant
Heat Battery Coolant Temperatures
200
160
120
80
40
Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit)
Battery Out
Battery In
50 100
150 200
Time (seconds)
250
300
350
Engine Not Operating
The initial spike in battery-out (engine-in) coolant
temperature is the result of the approximately one gallon of
coolant that was trapped inside the Heat Battery during the vehicle
soak. The maximum temperature of this peak was above the melting
point of the molten salt, 167°F. After approximately 60 seconds of
coolant circulation, the temperature entering the Heat Battery
(engine-out coolant temperature) reaches approximately 122°F.
Again, these results were acquired with the engine not operating
and at an ambient temperature of 75°F.
-------
-10-
A third thermocouple was needed to monitor coolant temperature
when the Heat Battery was bypassed (stock configuration) . This
thermocouple was located approximately 12 5mm downstream of the
engine. Data from this stock configuration was then compared with
coolant temperature results obtained when the Heat Battery was
S™ 61? ^i lnd Wlthout a 60 second preheat when tested over the
FTP. This data was gathered after an LA-4 prep cycle and an
approximate 15-hour soak at 20°F. Zero seconds here denotes key-on
of the engine during the Bag 1 portion of the FTP. This data was
also obtained using M85 fuel. Figure 4 summarizes these results
200
160 -
120 -
Figure 4
Engine Out Coolant Temperatures
Audi 80 During FTP With M85 Fuel
Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit)
Stock
No Preheat
• Preheat
50 100 150 200 250
Time (seconds)
* Preheat Was 60 Seconds
300 350
The "no preheat" trace represents engine-out coolant
temperatures when the Heat Battery was utilized without any coolant
circulation prior to engine start. The "preheat" trace utilized a
60 second coolant circulation prior to the start of the FTP.
The preheat trace begins at approximately 90°F instead of the
20°F ambient temperature. The first acceleration of the FTP does
not occur until 20 seconds after key-on, and the second idle begins
at 125 seconds. During this second idle, which lasts approximately
38 seconds, the coolant temperatures do not change significantly
with all three configurations.
In the stock configuration, the coolant temperature increases
at a steady rate until approximately 270 seconds into the FTP. The
stock coolant temperature did not change until well into the first
acceleration, however during the test of the Heat Battery with no
preheat, coolant temperature rose much faster than the stock
-------
-11-
configuration and resulted in about a 60°F difference after only 60
seconds into the FTP. With the 60 second preheat period, there is
an additional difference of 25°F in coolant temperatures from no
preheat levels after 60 seconds into the FTP. After approximately
130 seconds into the FTP, coolant temperatures with and without
preheat reach the same level and the advantage of preheating ends.
Stock coolant temperature reaches Heat Battery levels after about
280 seconds into the FTP.
VIII. Discussion Of Test Results
A. Gasoline Fuel
This evaluation consisted of three separate phases. The first
phase, a familiarization with the operation of the Heat Battery has
already been discussed. The results commented on in this section
represent the second phase of this evaluation, results obtained
from testing at ambient temperatures of 20°F and 75°F with indolene
clear fuel. All test results referred to hereafter were acquired
during the Federal Test Procedure. Bag 1 emission levels are given
in grams (g) of emissions over the test segment (Bag 1) except for
formaldehyde, which are presented in milligrams (mg) over Bag 1.
Composite FTP emissions are given in grams per mile (g/mi) except
for formaldehyde, which are presented in milligrams per mile
(mg/mi).
During the 20°F and 75°F testing, results were obtained from
three different Heat Battery configurations. "Stock" results were
obtained by removing the Schatz Heat Battery from the engine
coolant system via a switch located inside the passenger
compartment that controls two electric valves described previously.
"No Preheat" results were obtained by switching the Heat Battery
into the engine coolant system. The coolant would circulate only
after the engine was started. "Preheat" results were obtained by
again leaving the Heat Battery in the engine coolant system but
also switching on an auxiliary pump 60 seconds prior to engine
start. This auxiliary pump was able to circulate the coolant
through the Heat Battery and engine prior to engine start. The
coolant would act as a heat transfer medium by taking stored heat
from the Heat Battery and releasing heat to the cold engine block.
A 60 second preheat prior to key-on may be impractical in order to
accommodate a driver's desire for a quick start/drive sequence,
however, this preheat period ensured a warmed engine prior to key-
on for these laboratory experiments. The pump was shut off at the
same instant the engine was started and emission samples taken.
Figure 5 presents Bag 1 hydrocarbon (HC) emission levels for
gasoline fuel tested in an ambient temperature of 20°F, hereafter
referred to as cold room testing. Presented along with Bag 1
results are Bag 3 levels for comparison. Generally, Bag 3 levels
remained constant for each Heat Battery configuration evaluated.
However, with the Heat Battery present in the coolant system at the
start of Bag 3, some emission level changes can be noticed,
particularly during 20°F testing. However, this report will only
-------
-12-
examine cold start (Bag 1) improvements. HC emissions (unburned
fuel) levels were reduced almost 35 percent, from 13.95 grams to
9.12 grams, from stock values by the use of the Heat Battery during
Bag 1. By circulating the coolant 60 seconds prior to key-on
(preheat), HC emission levels were reduced an additional 52 percent
(to 4.35 grams) from no preheat levels. By preheating, HC emission
levels were reduced almost 70 percent when compared to levels from
the stock configuration.
Figure 5
Gasoline Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
Hydrocarbon Emissions, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
13.95
Stock, Bag 3 & 0.39
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3 \ 0.33
9.12
Preheat, Bag 1
Preheat, Bag 3 \ 0.3
4.35
0 5 10 15
Exhaust Hydrocarbons (grams)
The Heat Battery proved to be very efficient at reducing the
causes of excess CO emissions during Bag 1 as seen in Figure 6.
Cold room reductions of CO emission levels were even more
substantial than HC reductions on a percentage basis. Incomplete
combustion during cold start caused Bag 1 levels of CO to reach
202.9 grams. With the addition of the Heat Battery, CO levels were
lowered approximately 54 percent to 94.3 grams. With the 60 second
preheat, CO levels dropped an additional 23 percent to 47.8 grams
during the Bag 1 segment. This results in an overall CO reduction
of almost 77 percent when compared to stock results, a substantial
reduction.
By allowing the engine to warm to operating temperature in
less time after key-on (reducing the fuel enrichment period), fuel
economy during the Bag 1 segment also increased. From Figure 7,
with the Heat Battery present in the coolant system, fuel economy
increased 9 percent from 21.1 miles per gallon to 23.0 miles per
-------
-13-
Figure 6
Gasoline Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
Carbon Monoxide Emissions, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
Stock, Bag 3
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3
Preheat, Bag 1
202.9 I
94.3
3.4
47.8
Preheat, Bag 3 \ 3.9
0 50 100 150 200 250
Exhaust Carbon Monoxide (grams)
Figure 7
Gasoline Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
Fuel Economy, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
S,o=k.Ba9,
Stock, Bag 3
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3
Preheat, Bag 1
Preheat, Bag 3 jjjj
21.1
23
30.4l
24
30.1!
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Miles per Gallon
-------
-14-
gallon even without a preheat period. A 60 second preheat
increased fuel economy an additional 4 percent from no preheat
levels to 24.0 miles per gallon, an overall fuel economy
improvement of approximately 14 percent during the cold start (Bag
1) portion of the FTP.
Generally, emission levels of NOx at cold start are not as
high as levels of NOx generated when the engine has warmed. NOx
emissions during the Bag 1 segment might be expected to increase
with the use of the Heat Battery. This happened with gasoline
testing as presented in Table 3. The use of the Heat Battery
without preheat increased NOx emission levels 120 percent from 0.5
grams to 1.1 grams during Bag 1. The presence of a 60 second
preheat caused NOx emission levels during the cold start segment to
increase another 73 percent above no preheat levels. Overall,
preheating increased Bag 1 NOx emissions to 1.9 grams, up from 0.5
grams without the Heat Battery.
Table 3
Schatz Heat Battery, 20°F Testing
Bag l Of FTP Cycle
Gasoline Fuel
HC CO NOX
Category g g g MPG
Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
13.95
9.12
4.35
202.9
94.3
47.8
0.5
. 1.1
1.9
21.1
23.0
24.0
This 1.4 gram increase in Bag 1 NOx only increased the FTP
composite NOx level from 0.1 grams per mile to 0.2 grams per mile
as seen in Table 4. Most NOx emissions occur later during the FTP
cycle when the engine is warm and operated under load. Generally,
the changes in Bag 1 emissions levels are reflected in the weighted
FTP levels, especially for hydrocarbon and CO emissions, because
most of these pollutants are generated during cold engine/catalyst
operation. For example, the 70 percent reduction in Bag 1
hydrocarbon emissions with preheating resulted in a composite FTP
emission rate reduction of approximately 66 percent. Similarly,
the 77 percent reduction in Bag 1 CO levels with the same preheat
period resulted in a 66 percent reduction for composite FTP CO
emission rates. However, the magnitude of Bag l fuel economy
improvements are not reflected in overall FTP fuel economy. The 14
percent increase in Bag 1 fuel economy with preheating only
resulted in a 3 percent FTP fuel economy improvement.
-------
-15-
Table 4
Schatz Heat Battery, 20°F Testing
Composite FTP Emission Levels
Gasoline Fuel
HC CO NOX
Category g/mi g/mi g/^i MPG
Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
0.88
0.60
0.30
12.6
6.3
3.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
24.7
25.1
25.3
The next testing with gasoline fuel was performed at a soak
temperature of 75°F. The 20°F Heat Battery configurations were
used here; stock, no preheat (Heat Battery only), and preheat (Heat
Battery with a 60 second preheat prior to key-on). Exhaust
methanol and formaldehyde emissions levels were also measured
during this testing. This 75°F testing was conducted in a test
cell different than that used for the 20°F testing.
Reductions in unburned fuel, CO, and fuel consumption during
Bag 1 were again noted during this testing. These reductions were
not as great as those from the 20°F testing. Figure 8 is a summary
of hydrocarbon results from this testing. The use of the Heat
Battery without preheat reduced Bag 1 levels arlmost 10 percent from
2.72 grams to 2.46 grams. Preheat levels of 2.39 grams were
measured, which resulted in an overall hydrocarbon reduction of
over 12 percent when compared to stock levels.
Similar reductions were also noted in Bag 1 CO emission
levels, as can be seen in Figure 9. There was only a modest 2
percent reduction, from 33.0 grams to 32.2 grams, noted without
utilizing a preheat period. This was an unexpected event, and no
unusual driving conditions or engine/Heat Battery problems were
noted during this testing that might have contributed to this
unexpected result. However, when a 60 second preheat was used, Bag
1 CO levels were reduced to 12.6 grams, a 62 percent reduction from
stock levels.
Table 5 presents the rest of the Bag 1 emission and fuel
economy results. The 10 percent reduction of unburned hydrocarbons
without preheat resulted in only a 2 percent improvement in Bag 1
fuel economy. Similarly, the 12 percent reduction in hydrocarbons
experienced when preheating resulted in a 4 percent increase in
fuel economy during this test segment.
-------
-16-
Figure 8
Gasoline Fuel, 75 Deg. F Testing
Hydrocarbon Emissions, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
Stock, Bag 3
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3
Preheat, Bag 1
Preheat, Bag 3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Exhaust Hydrocarbons (grams)
Figure 9
Gasoline Fuel, 75 Deg. F Testing
Carbon Monoxide Emissions, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
Stock, Bag 3
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3
Preheat, Bag 1
Preheat, Bag 3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Exhaust Carbon Monoxide (grams)
-------
-17-
Table 5
Schatz Heat Battery, 75°F Testing
Bag 1 of FTP Cycle
Gasoline Fuel
NMHC HC HCHO CO NOx
Category g g rag g g MPG
Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
2.43
2.19
2.18
2.72
2.46
2.39
34
33
44
33.0
32.2
12.6
1.3
1.2
1.6
25.2
25.6
26.3
An unexpected result was also noted in Bag 1 NOx levels. With
the absence of a preheat period, NOx levels decreased by 8 percent
from 1.3 grams to 1.2 grams. However, when preheating was
utilized, NOx levels increased to 1.6 grams, a 23 percent increase
from stock levels. Without preheating, Bag 1 formaldehyde levels
remain unaffected by the Heat Battery. However, when preheating
was used, formaldehyde levels increased 29 percent, from 34 to 44
milligrams.
This 29 percent increase in Bag 1 formaldehyde only results in
an FTP composite rate increase of 1 milligram per mile, as seen in
Table 6. The only substantial decrease in FTP composite emission
rates occurred with CO when preheating. The 62 percent reduction
observed in Bag 1 resulted in a emission rate reduction of 48
percent, from 2.7 grams per mile to 1.4 grams per mile. Bag 1
changes in hydrocarbons and fuel economy do not materially affect
composite FTP results.
Table 6
Schatz Heat Battery, 75°F Testing
Composite FTP Emission Levels
Gasoline Fuel
NMHC HC HCHO CO NOx
Category g/mi g/mi mg/mi g/mi g/mi MPG
Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.21
0.20
0.19
3
3
4
2.7
2.6
1.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
25.2
25.2
25.3
-------
-18-
The use of a Schatz Heat Battery without preheat has little
effect on reducing emission levels or fuel consumption when testing
at 75°F conditions. This may be the result of the coolant system
configuration. The routing of the coolant carrying hoses is being
reconfigured to correct inefficient heat transfer between the Heat
Battery and the engine.
Another problem may be present as the result of the electric
valves. If the valves leaked slightly during stock testing,
inaccurate emission levels and fuel economy values resulted. These
effects may be difficult to detect during cold room testing. The
reconfiguration of the coolant system will assist in guantifying
the effectiveness of the Schatz Heat Battery as an emission
reduction concept.
B. M85 Fuel
Once gasoline testing was complete, the fuel tank was drained
and then filled with a blend of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent
gasoline (M85), and the same test sequence used during gasoline
testing was followed.
Hydrocarbon values presented here were levels that would be
obtained if the exhaust was treated as if the fuel were gasoline.
Exhaust methanol and formaldehyde sampling capabilities were not
available during cold room testing.
Preheat hydrocarbon and CO reductions are even higher with M85
fuel during cold room testing than with gasoline fuel. Figure 10
presents Bag 1 hydrocarbon results from cold room testing with M85
fuel. Without preheat, HC levels were reduced approximately 26
percent, from 16.88 grams to 12.54. Preheating the engine for 60
seconds resulted in another 59 percent reduction to 2.53 grams HC
for an overall reduction of 85 percent from stock levels. Engine
start and run was also significantly improved with the use of a
preheat. The longer 10 second crank period necessary during stock
20°F testing was eliminated at the beginning of the FTP during this
testing. Cold start driveability was also improved although it is
not quantitatively described here. The engine operated in a much
smoother manner after cold start.
CO emission reductions at 20°F were also very substantial as
can be seen in Figure 11. The use of the Heat Battery lowered CO
emission levels from 169.6 grams to 73.5 grams, a reduction of 57
percent. Preheating reduced Bag 1 CO emission levels an additional
26 percent to 28.4 grams, an overall reduction of 83 percent fron
stock values.
Figure 12 presents changes in Bag 1 fuel economy at 20°F.
Fuel economy, with the no preheat configuration, improved from 11.9
to 13.4 miles per gallon, an increase of almost 13 percent.
Preheating for 60 seconds improved fuel economy an additional 5
percent to 14.1 miles per gallon, an overall Bag 1 improvement of
2.2 miles per gallon or 18 percent from stock levels.
-------
-19-
Figure 10
M85 Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
*Hydrocarbon Emissions, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
Stock, Bag 3 H 1.16
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3 % 0.54
Preheat, Bag 1
2.53
Preheat, Bag 3 \ 0.4
0 5 10 15 20
Exhaust 'Hydrocarbons (grams)
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement
procedure with a propane calibrated FID
Figure 11
M85 Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
Carbon Monoxide Emissions, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
Stock, Bag 3 m 8.3
No Preheat, Bag 1
73.5
No Preheat, Bag 3 m 7.5
Preheat, Bag 1
Preheat, Bag 3
-------
-20-
Figure 12
M85 Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
Fuel Economy, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
Stock, Bag 3
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3
Preheat, Bag 1
Preheat, Bag 3
5 10
Miles per Gallon
20
Table 7 presents all the M85 20°F test results for the Bag 1
segment of the FTP. The substantial reductions of CO and HC
emission levels with no preheating were also accompanied by lower
NOx emission levels. During gasoline testing referred to
previously, lower NOx levels were noted only when there were no
substantial reductions in HC and CO during Bag 1. The use of the
Heat Battery without preheat actually reduced NOx levels by 9
percent from 2.3 grams to 2.1 grams. However, when preheating the
engine for 60 seconds, NOx levels increased 19 percent from no
preheat levels, an overall increase of 9 percent from the stock
value.
Table 7
Schatz Heat Battery, 20°F Testing
Bag 1 of FTP Cycle
M85 Fuel
*HC CO NOX
Category 999 MPG
Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
16.88
12.54
2.53
169.6
73.5
28.4
2.3
2.1
2.5
11.9
13.4
14.1
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement procedure with a propane
calibrated FID.
-------
-21-
Table 8 presents composite FTP emission levels and fuel
economy results for M85 testing at 20°F. Again, Bag 1 reductions
of hydrocarbons and CO are consistent with FTP emission rate
reductions. For instance, the 83 percent reduction in Bag 1 CO
when preheating resulted in an FTP emission rate reduction of 73
percent. The changes in Bag 1 NOx levels during this testing did
not affect composite FTP NOx rates. FTP fuel economy only
increased by 4 percent from 14.0 to 14.6 miles per gallon with no
preheat, then remained constant at 14.6 miles per gallon when a
preheat period was utilized.
Table 8
Schatz Heat Battery, 20°F Testing
Composite FTP Emission Levels
M85 Fuel
*HC CO NOx
Category g/mi 9/mi g/mi MPG
Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
1.44
0.96
0.24
11.4
5.7
3.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
14.0
14.6
14.6
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement procedure with a propane
calibrated FID.
After the cold room M85 testing was completed, the same Heat
Battery configurations were tested at an ambient temperature of
75°F. Figure 13 presents Bag 1 exhaust methanol levels for each
Heat Battery configuration evaluated at this temperature. Without
preheat, exhaust methanol levels were reduced from 2.96 grams to
2.76 grams, a 7 percent reduction. When utilizing a preheat
period, methanol emissions were reduced an additional 15 percent to
2.30 grams, an overall reduction of 22 percent from stock levels.
Bag 1 CO results are given in Figure 14. Without preheat, CO
emission levels increased 9 percent, to 22.6 grams from 20.7. No
reason for this unexpected occurrence is given here. Again, there
were no unusual driving conditions, engine or Heat Battery problems
noted during this testing. With a 60 second preheat, however, CO
levels dropped to 12.3 grams, a 41 percent reduction from stock
levels.
-------
-22-
Figure 13
M85 Fuel, 75 Deg. F Testing
Methanol Emissions, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
Stock, Bag 3 m
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3
0.3
Preheat, Bag 1
L,
Preheat, Bag 3 %
0.33
2.96 '
2.76
2.3
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Exhaust Methanol (grams)
3.5
Figure 14
M85 Fuel, 75 Deg. F Testing
Carbon Monoxide Emissions, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
Stock, Bag 3
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3
Preheat, Bag 1
Preheat, Bag 3
3.9
4.7
12.3
20.7
22.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Exhaust Carbon Monoxide (grams)
-------
-23-
Formaldehyde levels measured during this testing are presented
here in Figure 15. Although there was only small amounts of
exhaust formaldehyde noted with gasoline fuel during Bag 1, an
increase was noted when a preheat period was used. However, with
M85 fuel, formaldehyde levels decreased with the use of the Heat
Battery. Without preheating, Bag 1 formaldehyde levels are reduced
from 274 milligrams to 231 milligrams, a reduction of 16 percent.
Preheating reduces formaldehyde an additional 12 percent to 197
milligrams. This results in a 28 percent reduction in Bag 1
formaldehyde levels.
Figure 15
M85 Fuel, 75 Deg. F Testing
Formaldeyde Emissions, Bags 1&3
Heat Battery Configuration
Stock, Bag 1
Stock, Bag 3
No Preheat, Bag 1
No Preheat, Bag 3
Preheat, Bag 1
Preheat, Bag 3
274
231
197
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Exhaust Formaldehyde (milligrams)
Fuel economy values from this testing are given in Table 9.
There was no significant change in fuel economy without preheating
during Bag 1. With the use of a preheat period, Bag 1 fuel economy
improved from 14.9 miles per gallon to 15.2 miles per gallon, a
very small 2 percent improvement from stock levels. NOx levels
remained approximately constant during each Heat Battery
configuration at about 1.1 grams during this testing. It was
observed that with M85 fuel, reductions in measured hydrocarbons
and methanol exhaust levels were approximately egual in each Heat
Battery configuration evaluated. For example, with a 60 second
preheat at 75°F, measured hydrocarbons were reduced by 20 percent
whereas exhaust methanol levels were reduced 22 percent during Bag
1.
-------
-24-
Table 9
Schatz Heat Battery, 75°F Testing
Bag 1 of FTP Cycle
M85 Fuel
NMHC *HC CH30H HCHO CO NOx
Category g g g mg g g MPG
Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
0.67
0.63
0.56
1.75
1.65
1.40
2.96
2.76
2.30
274
231
197
20.7
22.6
12.3
1.1
1.0
1.1
14.9
14.8
15.2
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement procedure with a propane
calibrated FID.
The composite FTP results are presented in Table 10 below.
Again, FTP composite levels of methanol and CO follow the same
trend as Bag 1 changes. Measured hydrocarbon changes were
approximately equal to exhaust methanol changes during this testing
also. For example, the 14 percent reduction in FTP composite
levels of methanol seen when preheating resulted in an 8 percent
reduction in measured hydrocarbons. Composite FTP NOx levels and
fuel economy results remained unchanged. Formaldehyde FTP levels
decreased by 21 percent when the engine was preheated for 60
seconds.
Table 10
Schatz Heat Battery, 75°F Testing
Composite FTP Emission Levels
M85 Fuel
NMHC *HC CH30H HCHO CO NOx
Category g/mi g/mi g/mi mg/mi g/mi g/mi MPG
Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.22
0.21
0.19
19
18
15
1.8
2.3
1.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
14.7
14.5
14.8
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement procedure with a propane
calibrated FID.
-------
-25-
IX. Evaluation Highlights
1. The addition of a Schatz Heat Battery, with a 60 second
preheat period prior to the start of the FTP, reduced Bag 1 CO
emission levels approximately 80 percent for both gasoline and M85
fuels when tested at an ambient temperature of 20°F. Substantial
cold temperature CO reductions were also observed without a preheat
period during the Bag 1 segment of the FTP. CO emissions were
reduced over 50 percent for both fuels when tested at this ambient
temperature without a preheat.
Significant reductions of CO, when tested in an ambient
temperature of 75°F, were only observed when preheating the engine.
With a preheat, the heat battery was able to reduce CO levels by 60
percent with gasoline fuel and 40 percent with M85 fuel at this
temperature.
2. A substantial reduction in unburned fuel was also noted during
testing at 20°F. With gasoline fuel, unburned hydrocarbons during
Bag 1 were reduced 35 percent with the addition of the Heat Battery
and almost 70 percent with the Heat Battery plus a preheat, when
compared to stock levels. Reductions in unburned fuel emissions
were noted during 75°F testing, however, these reductions were not
as great as 20°F results. A 10 percent reduction was noted without
a preheat at this temperature and a 12 percent reduction with a
preheat for gasoline fuel.
Exhaust methanol measurement capabilities were not present
during cold room testing. Thus, for M85 fuel tested at 20°F,
measured hydrocarbon emission levels are presented. These values
were obtained by treating the exhaust as if the fuel were gasoline.
HC levels were reduced 26 percent without a preheat period and 85
percent with a preheat when compared to stock levels. There was
also a reduction of exhaust methanol for testing at 75°F. Methanol
exhaust levels were reduced 7 percent without preheating and 22
percent with a preheat period when compared to stock levels.
3. Fuel consumption is very high during the cold start Bag l
portion of the FTP. By heating the engine to a steady-state
operating condition faster, fuel economy was improved during the
Bag 1 portion of the FTP with both gasoline and M85 fuels during
testing at 20°F.
For gasoline fuel, fuel economy improved by 9 percent during
Bag 1 without a preheat. A 14 percent improvement was noted when
preheating at the same conditions. Greater fuel economy
improvements with M85 fuel were noted during 20°F testing. Bag 1
fuel economy improved 13 percent without preheating and 18 percent
with preheating. No significant improvements were note in fuel
economy when tested at 75°F for either fuel.
-------
-26-
X. Future Efforts
Future efforts will be made to better quantify the
relationship between coolant temperature, exhaust temperature, and
catalyst efficiency. A Horiba modal analysis system has been
installed at EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory, and this
analyzer will be used to monitor second-by-second exhaust emission
levels both before and after the catalytic converter. While it is
not possible to obtain methanol or formaldehyde modal analysis, CO,
NOx, and FID-measured hydrocarbon emission levels will be
determined. It is also not possible to perform modal analysis at
an ambient temperature of 20°F.
Future efforts will also include the reconfiguration of the
coolant system to remove the electric valves. The coolant will
also no longer pass through the oil cooler/heater. These results
will better represent the use of the Schatz Heat Battery as an
emissions control device. The Heat Battery will then be physically
removed from the test vehicle to obtain true stock emission levels.
The work described above will first be carried out with
gasoline fuel. Once capabilities are installed, M85 and M100 fuels
will also be utilized for modal analysis.
XI. Acknowledgments
The Schatz Heat Battery evaluated in this test program was
supplied by Autotech Associates, Inc., located in Farmington Hills,
Michigan. Autotech is the United States representative for Schatz
Thermo Engineering of Munich, Germany, the manufacturers of the
Heat Battery. The flexible-fueled Audi test vehicle was supplied
by Volkswagen of America.
The authors appreciate the efforts of James Garvey, Steven
Halfyard, Robert Moss, Rodney Branham, and Ray Ouillette of the
Test and Evaluation Branch, ECTD, who conducted the driving cycle
test and prepared the methanol and formaldehyde samples for
analysis. The authors also appreciate the efforts of Jennifer
Criss and Leslie Cribbins of CTAB, ECTD, for word processing and
editing support.
XII. References
1. "Evaluation Of Resistively Heated Metal Monolith
Catalytic Converters On An M100 Neat Methanol-Fueled Vehicle, Part
II," Piotrowski, Gregory K., EPA/AA/CTAB/89-09, December 1989.
2. "Evaluation Of Camet Resistively Heated Metal Monolith
Catalytic Converters On An M100 Neat Methanol-Fueled Vehicle, Part
III," Piotrowski, Gregory K., and R. M. Schaefer, EPA/AA/CTAB/91-
03, July 1991.
-------
-27-
3. Air Injection To An Electrically-Heated Catalyst For
Reducing Cold Start Benzene Emissions From Gasoline Vehicles," SAE
Paper 902115, Heimrich, Martin J., 1990.
4. 1975 Federal Test Procedure, Code of Federal Regulations.
Title 40, Part 86.
5. "A Resistively Heated Catalytic Converter With Air
Injection For Oxidation Of Carbon Monoxide And Hydrocarbons At
Reduced Ambient Temperatures," Piotrowski, Gregory K.,
EPA/AA/CTAB/89-06, September 1989.
6. United States Code 7401, Public Law 101-549, Section
202(j), November 15, 1990.
7. "Resistive Materials Applied To Quick Light-Off
Catalysts," SAE Paper 890799, Hellman, Karl H., et al., March 1989.
8. "Recent Results From Prototype Vehicle And Emission
Control Technology Evaluation Using Methanol Fuel," SAE Paper
901112, Hellman, Karl H., and G. K. Piotrowski, May 1990.
9. "Evaluation Of A Resistively Heated Metal Monolith
Catalytic Converter On A Gasoline-Fueled Vehicle," Piotrowski, G.
K., EPA/AA/CTAB/88-12, December 1988.
10. "Evaluation Of A Resistively Heated Metal Monolith
Catalytic Converter On A M100 Neat Methanol-Fueled Vehicle," Blair,
D. M., and G. K. Piotrowski, EPA/AA/CTAB/88-08, August 1988.
11. "Closeup: SAAB will use the Schatz Heat Battery," Ward's
Engine and Vehicle Technology Update, Volume 17, Number 10, May 15,
1991.
12. "Cold Start Improvements With A Heat Store," SAE Paper
910305, Schatz, Oskar, February 1991.
13. Formaldehyde Measurement In Vehicle Exhaust At MVEL,
Memorandum, Gilkey, R. L., OAR/OMS/EOD, Ann Arbor, Mi, 1981.
14. "Formaldehyde Sampling From Automobile Exhaust: A
Hardware Approach," Pidgeon, W., EPA/AA/TEB/88-01, July 1988.
15. "Sample Preparation Technigues For Evaluating Methanol
and Formaldehyde Emissions From Methanol-Fueled Vehicles and
Engines," Pidgeon, W., and M. Reed, EPA/AA/TEB/88-02, September
1988.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
Test Vehicle Specifications
Vehicle Type
Fuel .
Mileage When Received
Engine;
Cylinders
Displacement
Bore-
Stroke
Compression Ratio
Maximum Output
1990 Audi 80
Indolene Clear, M85
5,000 miles
8,000 kilometers
4 in-line
1.8 liter
81.0 mm
86.4 mm
10.0
75 kW at 5,500 rpm with gasoline
80 kW at 5,500 rpm with M85
Exhaust System
Oxygen controlled closed loop
system with a 3-way catalyst
Fuel System
Fuel Injection, Digifant II/I-System
Modified for Multi-Fuel Operation
Transmission Type
Equivalent Test Weight
Actual Dynamometer Horsepower
5-speed Manual
1304 Kilograms
6.4
------- |