EPA/AA/CTAB/TA/82-5
Interim Report on the Status
of the In-House Participate Trap Study
by
Larry C. Landman
February, 1982
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.
Control Technology Assessment and Characterization Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
-2-
BACKGROUND
Diesel engines are becoming available in increasing numbers in passenger car
service because of their good fuel economy in comparison to cars equipped
with conventional gasoline fueled engines. Although the exhaust of vehicles
equipped with Diesel engines, is relatively clean with respect to unburned
hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO), it contains total particulate
emissions (TP) that are 30 to 50 times greater than those produced by
vehicles equipped with catalyst equipped, gasoline engines.
Several approaches to the control of Diesel emissions are being pursued by
the automotive industry, EPA, and others. These include operating mode
modifications, engine design and component modifications, fuel
modifications, and exhaust treatment devices.(3)*
This interim report summarizes the results (through January 21, 1982) of an
on-going, in-house study. The purpose of that study is to evaluate the low
mileage performance of Diesel exhaust particulate traps. It is important to
note that this program is concerned only with the performance of particulate
traps at low mileage; hence, no durability data were generated.
*Numbers in parentheses designate References at the end of this paper
-------
-3-
CONCLUSIONS
1. Durability data are conspicuously lacking for most of these traps.
However, we are shipping the NGK #1 trap (which has shown, in this test
program, good regenerative capabilities and trapping efficiencies in
excess of 60%) to Southwest Research Institute, an EPA contractor, to
conduct such durability testing. Also, SwRI is testing a Corning EX-47
12 inch non-catalyzed trap and currently has accumulated over 18,000
miles on it. EPA selected these two traps for high mileage testing
after evaluating their performances in this low mileage program.
2. The procedure used in-house by EPA, running a vehicle at 60 mph for 8
minutes throttled and then for 4 minutes unthrottled, is an adequate
technique for regenerating traps under laboratory conditions; however,
it might not be practical in everyday driving. Other methods have been
reported, the latest are the methods used by Johnson-Matthey (i.e.
injecting fuel into the cylinder during the exhaust stroke) and by Ford
(i.e. using an externally fueled burner (6)).
3. Sulfate emissions, especially on the highway (HWFE) test cycle, were
increased with catalyzed traps. However, several catalyzed traps were
able to regenerate on the HWFE cycle and thus may not require a special
regeneration cycle.
4. CO emissions were higher on the regeneration cycle than on either the
FTP or HWFE cycles due to the increase in the fuel/air ratio associated
with the regeneration method which was used.
5. None of the traps tested in this program suffered a "melt down" due to
the high temperatures. However, the Corning/UOP cracked, and the Texaco
A-1R separated.
6. The traps which were successfully regenerated all displayed an
oscillatory nature in their TP emissions and exhaust gas back pressure
(EGBP).
-------
-4-
7. The fuel economy data were mixed and not statistically significant. A
discussion of the effect of trap-oxidizers on fuel economy can be found
in Appendix E.
TEST PROGRAM
This program has, through 1981, tested 15 particulate traps using three
production passenger cars. The test vehicles which were used are a 1975
model year Mercedes Benz 300D, 1978 model year Peugeot 504 Diesel, and 1981
model year Toyota Crown Super-Deluxe Diesel. (This latter vehicle is not
currently certified for sale in the USA.) A complete description of these
vehicles can be found in Tables 1 through 3 respectively. A listing of the
traps can be found in Table 4.
Emission data generated in the program can be found in Appendix A. Also
compiled (in Appendix B) are the emissions data on all certification
vehicles tested at EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory for which
particulate data were measured.
Due to the nature of this program, testing of a given trap was usually
terminated for one of the following four reasons:
1. Trapping efficiency less than 30%,
2. Very high initial exhaust gas back pressure (EGBP),
3. Inability of trap to be regenerated using throttling, or
4. Damage to the trap.
-------
-5-
Preliminary results of Ames tests from vehicles in this program can be found
in Appendix C-l. Appendix C-2 contains preliminary Ames results from other
EPA test programs and includes data from in-use and certification vehicles.
A summary of these preliminary data is presented in Appendix C-3. The
reader should be cautioned that there may be substantial variability in Ames
data. There may be problems in variability resulting from 1) extractions at
varying periods of time prior to Ames testing, 2) differing Ames results
from testing portions of the same sample on different days, 3) varying
exhaust NO- concentrations during sample collection, and 4) differing Ames
results from different samples generated by the same car over the same test
sequence. (16, 17, and 18)
Since these data are preliminary and are few in number, we have not
generated any conclusions from these data. These data will be supplemented
in the near future. At that time, we plan to do additional quantitative
analyses.
The Ames procedure was described by an EPA contractor, Southwest Research
Institute (15);
The term "Ames Bioassay" is colloquial, and it refers to a
bacterial mutagenesis plate incorporation assay with Salmonella
typhimurium according to the method of Ames, et al. This
bioassay determines the ability of chemical compounds or
mixtures to cause mutation of DNA in the bacteria, positive
results occurring when histidine-dependent strains of bacteria
revert (or are mutated) genetically to forms which can
synthesize histidine on their own. The observable positive
indication of mutation is the growth of bacterial colonies on
plates of nutrient media containing minimal histidine, with the
number of revertants per amount of substance tested (or
"specific activity") being the quantitative result. The
observable negative indication is the lack of such growth. A
third result occurs when the substance tested is toxic to the
bacteria, but this result can not be interpreted in terms of
mutagenesis. Results of the Ames Bioassay have been shown to
correlate strongly with carcinogenic action on animals for
individual chemicals. No such results are known for complex
mixtures of chemical substances.
-------
-6-
Table 1
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
1975 Mercedes Benz 300D
Vehicle Identification Number: 11511412019885
Engine
type 4 Stroke Cycle IDI Diesel, In-Line 5
bore x stroke 3.58 x 3.64 inches
displacement 3.0 Liter/183 CID
compression ratio 21.0:1
maximum power @ rpm 77 horsepower @ 4000 RPM
fuel metering Diesel Fuel Injection
Drive Train
transmission type 3-speed automatic
Chassis
type 4 door sedan
.tire size 175 SR14
test weight 4000 pounds
dynamometer horsepower 13.2
-------
-7-
Table 2
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
1978 Peugeot Diesel 504
Vehicle Identification Number: 504ACO-2700783
Engine
type 4 Stroke Cycle IDI Diesel, In-Line 4
bore x stroke 3.7 x 3.26 inches
displacement 141 CID
compression ratio 22.5:1
maximum power @ rpm 71 Horsepower @ 4500 RPM
fuel metering Diesel Fuel Injection
Drive Train
transmission type 4-speed manual
axle ratio 3.70
N/V 51.4
Chassis
type 4 door sedan
tire size 175 x 14
test weight. 3500 pounds
dynamometer horsepower . 12.3
-------
-8-
Table 3
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
1981 Toyota Diesel Crown Super-Deluxe
Vehicle Identification Number: K-LS110-SEMFSY
Engine
type . 4 Stroke Cycle IDI Diesel, In-Line 4
bore x stroke 3.54 x 3.39 inches
displacement 2188cc/133.5 CID
compression ratio 21.5:1
maximum power @ rpm 62 horsepower @4200 RPM
fuel metering Diesel Fuel Injection
Drive Train
transmission type 5-speed manual
Chassis
type 4 door sedan
tire size E78-14B
test weight 3000 pounds
dynamometer horsepower 12.0
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMMARY OF TRAPS USED IN IN-HOUSE TEST PROGRAM THROUGH JANUARY 21, 1982
TRAP
Texaco A-1R
Texaco A-1R with CST-1 coating
Texaco A-1R with CST-1 coating 02
Balston filter (disposable trap)
Johnson-Mat they JM-4 #1
Johnson-Mat they JM-4 #2
ICI Saffll
ICI Saffil Generation #4
Corning EX-40 6" non-catalyzed
Corning EX-47 6" non-catalyzed
Corning EX-47 6" with CST-1 Coating
Corning EX-47 12" non-catalyzed
Corning EX-47 12" with UOP Coating
NGK *1 (2OO cpsl. 0.012" thickness)
NGK #2 ( 1OO cpsl, O.O17" thickness)
CAT . ?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
SUBSTRATE
'Carpenter 20' mesh
'Carpenter 20' mesh
'Carpenter 20' mesh
Fibrous material
'3O9 Stainless' mesh
'309 Stainless' mesh
Mesh of alumina
'Saffll' fibers
Mesh of alumina
'Saffll' fibers
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
FLOW
Axial
Axial
Axial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Radial
Wai 1
Wai 1
Wai 1
Wai 1
Wai 1
Wai 1
Wai 1
REGENERATIONS
Only partial
Regen on HWFE
Regen on HWFE
Not attempted
Regen on HWFE
Regen on HWFE
Yes; 3 times
avg 450 Ml
Not attempted
Not attempted
Not attempted
Attempted; but
no EGBP drop
Yes; 2 times
over 200 Ml
Yes; 2 times
161 miles
Yes; 3 times
avg 479 M1
Yes; 4 times
avg 115 Ml
'VEHICLE
Mercedes
Mercedes
Mercedes
Mercedes
Peugeot
Peugeot
Mercedes
Mercedes
Toyota
Mercedes
Mercedes
Mercedes
Mercedes
Mercedes
Toyota
Mercedes
DATES TESTED
5/79 -
7/79
10/79 -
9/79 -
11/79 -
3/80 -
6/79
1/80
1O/79
12/79
7/80
8/79 - 9/79 &
10/79
1O/8O -
9/81 -
9/79
1/8O
1/80 -
2/80 -
4/81 &
9/81
1O/81 -
11/81 -
4/81
1O/81
2/80
4/80
- 10/81
1/82
1/82
-------
-10-
REGENERATION TECHNIQUE
Regeneration is any procedure by which the trap is .purged of accumulated
particulates (usually by oxidation) and is returned to its "zero-mile"
condition.
The technique used in this program to achieve the conditions necessary for
regeneration to occur (i.e. achieve a temperature of at least 950°F) was to
throttle the intake air for 8 minutes followed by an additional 4 minutes of
unthrottled operation, all while driving at 60 mph steady state on a chassis
dynamometer. Throttling increases the fuel/air ratio which increases the
exhaust gas temperature. The hot exhaust gas causes regeneration of the
trap. Throttling was accomplished by having an individual (other than the
driver) manually operate a throttle which EPA had installed between the air
cleaner and the intake manifolds.
Three other regeneration techniques were considered for use in this program:
1. A secondary flame, such as used in oil furnaces would produce high
temperatures in the trap without affecting engine performance.
2. Operation of the engine at high speed and high load conditions can
produce sufficiently high exhaust gas temperatures.(6)
3. Catalysts might provide a sufficient exotherm to raise the exhaust
gas temperature sufficiently to oxidize the Diesel particulates
under certain operating conditions.
The technique of throttling was considered the easiest to do and requires
little special equipment.
While this method is acceptable for laboratory testing, it is not
necessarily representative of a system which might be used commercially.
-------
-11-
Trap Description and History
Only mechanical particulate trapping systems were tested as part of this
study. (Other systems such as electrostatic precipitation, thermal
precipitation, and cyclone separation have also been investigated in other
studies as possible trapping systems for particulate emissions from
light-duty Diesel powered vehicles.(6))
Mechanical trapping mechanisms, shown in Figure 1, consist of impaction,
interception, and diffusion.
IMPACTION
(Wire Mesh or
Ceramic Fiber)
Non-Blockable
INTERCEPTION
(Porous Ceramic)
Blockable
(Full Filtration)
DIFFUSION
(Porous Ceramic,
Wire Mesh And
Ceramic Filter)
Figure 1
Mechanical Trapping Mechanisms (6)
Impaction and diffusion are the primary trapping mechanisms of a
wire mesh or ceramic fiber trap. The larger sizes of
particulates impact on filaments of the mesh and adhere to the
surface of the filaments or [to] particulate material previously
collected on the filaments. Some of the smaller sizes of
particulates migrate to the surfaces of the filament or
previously collected particuiate material by diffusion and are
retained. This type of trap is sometimes called a nonbloclcable
trap, because an exhaust flow path will usually exist which
cannot be blocked by the accumulation of particulate matter.
Although these traps tend to have relatively low pressure drops,
disadvantages that have been observed include moderately low
collection efficiency and blow-off of collected particulates.
Interception is the primary trapping mechanism of a porous
material trap, although diffusion may also enhance the
collection efficiency of this type of trap. Particulates larger
than approximately the mean pore size of the material are
intercepted and prevented from passing through the material. As
-------
-12-
additional particulate material is accumulated on the surface of
the trapping material, the effective pore size may be reduced,
thereby causing efficiency to increase with the collection of
smaller sizes of particulates. Traps using the interception
method of collection are sometimes called blockable, or full
filtration traps. Although blow-off of collected particulates
is not a problem with this type of trap, back pressure and rate
of back pressure increase tend to be somewhat higher than with
non-blockable traps.(6)
The 15 traps tested to date are:
1. Texaco A-1R Trap:
This trap was 6.7 inches in diameter and 23 inches in length. It
employed axial flow and used as a substrate a metal wool mesh coated
with alumina (called "Carpenter 20"). (See Figure 2.) The trap was
received from Texaco Laboratories on April 26, 1979, was installed on
the Mercedes 300D, and began testing on May 5, 1979.
INSULATION
ALUMINA-COATED METAL WOOL
SUBSTRATE
INLET
GAS
OUTLET
GAS
PERFORATED
BAFFLES AND
RETAINERS
GAS
SPREADER
Figure 2
A Typical Texaco Trap with a
Portion of the Container Removed
-------
-13-
Exhaust backpressure (EGBP) readings were taken two or three times a day
at 40, 50, and 60 MPH steady state conditions. The plan was to perform
mileage accumulation until the EGBP was twice the "zero-mile" value of
30.9 inches H20 at 60 MPH. (No muffler was installed.)
After accumulating 780 miles, the trapping efficiency had dropped from
60% to 30% and the EGBP had doubled. The trap was then regenerated
using throttling. After that regeneration, the efficiency had returned
to the "zero-mile" values; however, the EGBP was at 50.0 inches H-0
at 60 MPH. A visual inspection of the trap showed a "clean" core with
substantial particulates on the sides.
The trap was sent to the local Climax Molybdenum laboratory, where it
was installed in a recirculating oven at 925°F for 6 1/2 hours. Visual
inspection indicated no residual carbon particulates. The trap was
reinstalled on the test vehicle and the EGBP was measured at 34.9 inches
of H20 at 60 MPH which was very close to the "zero-mile" values.
Testing on this trap was then terminated.
This trap exhibited a significant reductions in both TP (50%) and HC
(40% to 50%) emissions and relatively low EGBP penalty.
2. Englehard CST-1 Coating of a Texaco A-1R Trap:
A second Texaco A-1R trap was coated by Engelhard with a catalytic
material they designated as CST-1. Since this coating is being
patented, Englehard did not reveal its composition to EPA.
Prior to testing, a visual inspection of the trap showed a separation
between the coated mesh and the trap tubing. This separation was
apparent at both ends but was not continuous since light could not be
seen through any part of the trap. The decision was made to install the
trap on the Mercedes and to begin testing.
Daily measurements failed to show any increase in EGBP with mileage
accumulation. However, after the initial two "zero-mile" highway (HWFE)
-------
-14-
tests, the TP measured on the HWFE tests had increased to about three
times the baseline (i.e. dummy trap or empty trap container) values.
In order to explain the high TP emissions measured on the HWFE test
cycles, additional tests were performed on July 23, 1979, and sulfate
(SO,) measurements of the TP data were taken. This additional testing
consisted of a cold start 2-bag LA-4, a 10 minute soak, a hot start
2-bag LA-4, a preconditioning highway cycle, and two HWFE sample
cycles. The resulting data appear in the following table:
Test Cycle
Cold LA-4 Bag 1
Cold LA-4 Bag 2
Hot LA-4 Bag 1
Hot LA-4 Bag 2
TP(g/m)
.450
.297
.347
.257
S04(g/mi)
.0631
.0141
.0922
.0167
% so4
14.0%
4.75%
26.6%
6.49%
HWFE .699 .4310 61.7%
HWFE .653 .4350 66.6%
The above data explain the high TP emissions found on the HWFE tests
since most of that total particulate was sulfate particulates rather
than carbon particulates.
This trap exhibited a significant reduction in HC (90%), CO (over 95%),
and FTP TP (40%) emissions. Also, there was no indication that
regeneration was necessary in the approximately 1,000 miles accumulated.
- •>
Ames tests performed on the TP (only strains TA98 and TA100 were run due
to small quantity of extractable organics) indicated fairly normal
Diesel particulate activity. A thorough analysis of the results of all
the Ames tests associated with this program will be performed by EPA in
the future.
-------
-15-
3. Englehard CST-1 Coating of a Second Texaco A-1R Trap:
The first Texaco-Englehard CST-1 trap had a visible separation of the
trapping medium from the wall. While this separation did not run the
full length of the trap, it appeared that the trap may have been damaged
either during the catalyst coating operation or during thermocouple
placement. The first (non-catalyzed) A-1R trap was oven-baked to remove
all particulate and sent for catalyst treating. There was no separation
evident in this trap, which was designated CST-1 #2. This second
catalyzed A-1R trap was installed on the same car, and tested to
determine if the lower trapping efficiency of the first catalyzed trap
was due to that separation or to some other phenomena.
Zero-mile testing of this trap confirmed the reduced TP trapping
efficiency found on the HWFE test cycles using the first catalyzed A-1R
trap. Based on the high sulfate emissions, that reduced efficiency is
probably due to the increased sulfates generated in the trap which would
raise the total particulate sampled during the test. These traps are
thus replacing carbon based particulates with sulfate particulates.
This replacement makes the trap appear to be less efficient.
To determine the durability of the trap, the test vehicle with the CST-1
//2 trap installed was put on mileage accumulation. The mileage was
accumulated on a dynamometer using an LA-4 driving cycle. Exhaust gas
back pressure (EGBP) measurements were taken at 40, 50, and 60 mph
steady state every 22.5 miles. Highway cycles were run when the EGBP
reached higher levels. These highway cycles usually caused the EGBP to
drop significantly. Mileage accumulation continued for approximately
2,000 miles.
-------
17.88
19.30
20.01
20.01
20.70
22.76
24.53
25.55
24.53
26.10
28.08
29.40
30.06
23.77
33.36
37.72
39.76
38.74
38.02
41.45
42.13
42.83
44.93
47.06
55.22
58.35
57.30
-16-
The EGBP rose very gradually as shown below:
Miles EGBP (inches of water)
Accumulated 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph
"Zero-mile"
249
492
742
1,000
1,220
1,510
1,757
1,965
The emissions data from the testing, performed after the mileage
accumulation, were scattered; however the data demonstrate that the
efficiency of the trap to reduce FTP TP emissions was greatly diminished.
Still not resolved is the issue of how this trap would perform on low
sulfur fuel.
4. Balston Filter:
In order to evaluate the feasibility of a disposable trap, Balston
Filter Corporation was contacted. For a feasiblity study, a 7-parallel
tube configuration was specified. Each tube was constructed of fibrous
material and plugged at the outlet end, thus producing radial flow. The
filter holder was not installed under the car but rather at the inlet to
the dilution tunnel.
Unfortunately, one of the seven trapping elements failed after the
second sequence of zero-mile tests. The trapping efficiency (for FTP
TP) dropped from 90% on the first FTP to 30% on the second FTP. Due to
the failure of one of the trapping elements, we cannot determine whether
the efficiency would have stabilized; and, if so, what that efficiency
would have been.
-------
-17-
5. Johnson-Matthey JM-4 #1 Trap:
The Johnson-Mat they JM-4 //I trap is a catalyzed knitted wire (called
"309 Stainless") mesh design which is incorporated into the exhaust
manifold. This trap was 5.1 inches in diameter and 16.9 inches in
length. The exhaust gas flows radially through the mesh where oxidation
of the Diesel particulate is supposed to take place. (See Figure 3.)
Both the exact configuration of the mesh and the composition of the
catalyst were considered trade secrets, and neither was revealed to
EPA. The trap was installed on a 1978 Peugeot 504 Diesel.
Exhaust Gas
Flow
Exhaust
Catalyzed
309 Stainless
Filter
Elements
Figure 3
The Johnson-Matthey Particulate
Trap and Exhaust Manifold (JM-4)
"Zero-mile" testing indicated significant reductions of HC, CO, and FTP
TP emissons; however, the HWFE TP emission was higher than the baseline
values. The FTP TP trapping efficiency was reduced to zero by the 600
mile point. The 600 miles were accumulated by running LA-4 cycles with
occasional HWFE cycles. The EGBP would drop significantly when HWFE
cycles were run. Because the FTP, HWFE, and LA-4 tests at 600 miles all
-------
-18-
showed TP emissons higher than the corresponding baseline values and
because the EGBP was quite high, the testing of this trap was terminated.
In order to explain the high TP emissions measured on the test cycles,
additional tests were performed, and SO, data were taken. This
additional testing consisted of. a cold start 2-bag LA-4, a hot start
2-bag LA-4, and two HWFE test cycles. That sequence of four tests was
performed both with the trap and without the trap (i.e. baseline).
Those data appear in the following table:
Trap
Baseline
JM-4-#l
Test Cycle
Cold LA-4 Bag 1
Cold LA-4 Bag 2
Hot LA-4 Bag 1
Hot LA-4 Bag 2
HWFE
HWFE
Cold LA-4 Bag 1
Cold LA-4 Bag 2
Hot LA-4 Bag 1
Hot LA-4 Bag 2
HWFE
HWFE
TP(g/mi)
.545
.592
.401
.384
.374
.302
.392
.164
.564
.183
.677
.784
S04(g/mi)
.01714
.0074
.0127
.00576
.0190
.0167
.268
.038
.447
.1445
.586
.677
% so4
3.14%
1.25%
3.17%
1.50%
5.08%
5.52%
68.4%
23.1%
79.3%
79.0%
86.5%
86.3%
The above data explain the high TP emissions since most of that total
particulate was sulfate particulates rather than carbon particulates.
-------
-19-
6. Johnson-Matthey JM-4 #2 Trap:
The JM-4 #2 trap is quite similar to the JM-4 #1 trap with the exception
that EGBP is lower and more stable in the JM-4 #2. This is due to a
redesign of the earlier version which improved flow characteristics,
according to Johnson-Matthey.
Testing of the trap for 600 miles produced emission results similar to
the JM-4 #1 trap except that the FTP TP emissions did not deteriorate.
Johnson-Matthey personnel suggested that the solution to the increased
sulfate emissions was to put an additional 1,000 miles on the trap.
The 1,000 miles were accumulated at 55 mph steady state conditions.
However, that added mileage did not substantially reduce the sulfate
emissions.
This trap was then tested using a low sulfur content fuel (less than 12
ppm sulfur). Those tests indicated substantial reductions in HC (95%),
CO (96%), and FTP TP (60%) emissions with only a moderate increase in
HWFE TP emissions (28%) relative to the baseline data.
7. ICI Saffil Trap:
This trap, designed by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited (ICI),
consists of a series of parallel labyrinths which facilitate diffusion
trapping of submicron particles on the "Saffil" (a polycrystalline
alumina, Al-O.,) fiber as the exhaust gas flows radially down the
labyrinths formed by crimped woven wire. (See Figures 4 and 5.) (The
current use of the "Saffil" fiber is in furnace linings at about
1450°C.) Silver nitrate was applied to the fibers as a catalyst. The
dimensions of the container were 5.3 inches in diameter and 20.8 inches
in length.
The trap was installed on the Mercedes, and testing began on August 2,
1979. "Zero-mile" data indicated a trapping efficiency of 45% (for FTP
TP). After 600 miles, the EGBP had doubled and the TP emissions
exceeded the baseline values. At this point, the trap was regenerated
by throttling.
-------
'Saffil'
-20-
Woven
Wire
Ceramic
Cement
Perforated
Metal Tube
Figure 4
The ICI Particulate Trap with Part of
the Container and Filter Elements Removed
Exhaust Gas
Flow
Saffil
(A12 03) Fiber
Wire Mesh
Figure 5
Cross Section of the Filter
in the ICI Particulate Trap
-------
-21-
Following the regeneration, both the EGBP and the trapping efficiency
returned to close to the zero-mile values. After 300 miles, the EGBP
had again doubled and the TP emissions were approaching the baseline
values. The trap was again regenerated by throttling, and again both
the EGBP and TP returned to close to the zero-mile values.
Those two regenerations did not appear to help either the fuel economy
or the FTP NOx emissions, both of which continued to deteriorate
slightly during the 1,300 miles accumulated on this trap.
Additional tests were performed, and sulfate data were taken. Those
data appear in the following table:
Test Cycle TP(g/mi) S04(g/mi) % 804
Cold Start LA-4 Bag 1
Cold Start LA-4 Bag 2
Hot Start LA-4 Bag 1
Hot Start LA-4 Bag 2
HWFE
HWFE
1.010
.727
.865
.884
.602
.591
.039
.2267
.0456
.0130
.0797
.0539
3.86%
31.2%
5.27%
1.47%
13.2%
9.12%
The above data indicate that sulfates are not a major problem for this
catalyzed trap.
The results of the Ames tests performed on the TP basically showed
normal Diesel particulate reactivity.
One of the important questions concerning "regeneration techniques" is
that of vehicle emissions during the regeneration. Because the
ICI-Saffil Trap had demonstrated good regenerative capabilities in the
past, it was decided to load up the trap and sample the vehicle
emissions during the regenerative cycle. The previous regenerations had
indicated that the following cycle successfully regenerated the trap:
-------
-22-
1) Steady State 60 mph until temperature stabilization,
2) Throttled Inlet at 9.0" Hg Vacuum for 8 minutes at 60 MPH,
3) Unthrottled Inlet for 4 minutes at 60 MPH.
To sample the regeneration, one set of exhaust CVS bags was taken during
the throttled 8 minute period and one bag during the 4 minute
unthrottled period. Corresponding particulate filters were also taken.
Prior to running the ICI regeneration sampling attempt, the cycle was
run on the test vehicle with the "dummy trap" (an empty trap container)
installed (on October 15 & 16, 1979). This would give us baseline
values to determine the results of the regeneration.
The ICI trap was then installed and put on LA-4 mileage accumulation.
The first mileage loading was quite light and resulted in only about 10"
HO increase in EGBP. A regeneration was attempted on 10-19-79 using
the cycle described above. A small decrease in EGBP was noted. The
vehicle was returned to mileage accumulation and loaded to a 60 mph EGBP
of 62.9" H20. The regeneration cycle was again attempted. This time
the trap regenerated successfully, and the 60 mph EGBP was reduced to
42.8" H20.
In comparison to the "dummy trap" data, regeneration data indicate that:
1) Hydrocarbons remain about the same,
2) CO rises significantly but is still quite low in absolute numbers,
3) NOx is slightly reduced,
4) Fuel economy was not noticeably affected, and
5) Particulate emissions were down 42% during the throttled cycle and
12% during the unthrottled cycle.
-------
-23-
These results clearly indicate that, for this vehicle/trap combination,
the regeneration cycle is successfully oxidizing the particulate, not
just blowing the particulates out of the trap and into the atmosphere.
The emission results indicate that there is no significant emission
penalty in running a regeneration cycle. These results indicate that on
this vehicle and with this trap, using FTP and HFET cycles to evaluate
total emissions, including particulate, is sufficient and a
"regeneration test" procedure may not be needed to evaluate emissions
during regeneration.
The other result of this testing series was the continued capability of
the ICI trap to successfully regenerate. The low mileage trap has been
regenerated five times and has accumulated over 1750 miles. The low
mileage data indicate that the ICI trap has the potential for
satisfactory durability.
8. ICI Saffil Fourth Generation Trap:
A second ICI- Saffil trap, with increased density of the Saffil fibers
compared to the first ICI trap, was installed and tested on the Mercedes
from October, 1980 through April, 1981 and then was later installed and
tested on the Toyota during September and October of 1981.
When this trap was tested on the Mercedes, the FTP TP emissions actually
increased over the baseline values. (Even if the one questionable test
were ignored, the FTP TP emissions with the trap exceed the average TP
emission from the five dummy (i.e. baseline) tests. The trap was then
baked at 1000°F for two hours and installed on the Toyota.
When tested on the Toyota, this trap produced a reduction of FTP TP of
only 27.8%. However, the EGBP at 60 mph never exceeded 27.1" compared
to a baseline of 12.5".
A phenomenon associated with this trap is that the baseline TP emissions
of both vehicles increased after this trap was tested. After several
more tests, the baseline returned to normal. This happened with both
-------
-24-
vehicles when tested with the ICI Saffil fourth generation trap. Since
only the' TP emissions were affected (i.e., all other measured
parameters, HC, CO, NOx, CO , and fuel economy, all returned
immediately to their respective baseline values),- it is likely that
small amounts of trap material were deposited in the exhaust system and
were later deposited on the particulate collection filters.
9. Corning EX-40 6" Non-catalyzed Trap:
The Corning EX-40 (non-catalyzed) trap is a cellular ceramic honeycomb
with porous walls which act as the filter medium. The filter concept
involves blocking alternate cell channel openings on the monolith face
in a checkerboard type fashion as seen in Figure 6. The opposite end is
similarly blocked but one cell displaced so that the gas cannot flow
directly through a given channel. The exhaust gas enters the upstream
open end of the cells. Since the downstream end of the cell is blocked
with a ceramic plug, the exhaust gas is forced through the porous wall
to exit through an adjacent cell, as shown in Figure 7. (5)
INLET
-
XA
&
'
;
i
/
f
;
\
I
^
5?
\
V
\
&<*)
S
-------
43.85
54.44
68.52
over 73.2
59.76
73.14
over 73.2
over 73.2
over 73.2
over 73.2
over 73.2
over 73.2
-25-
The trap tested by EPA was 6 inches long by 5.66 inches in diameter
(called a 6 by 6). The length of the trap is quite easily extended.
The trap was installed on the Mercedes, and EGBP readings were taken
after 7.5 miles of accumulation. The high EGBP readings shown below
indicated that the 12 inch version might yield comparable efficiencies
but at lower EGBP, so after one test sequence the trap was removed.
(Full scale on the EGBP measurement system was 73.2 inches of water.)
EGBP (in inches of water)
Odometer 30 mph 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph
34,907
34,914
34,962
34,982 54.15
The single set of emission results indicates a significant reduction in
both HC and TP emissions.
10. Corning EX-47 6" Non-catalyzed Trap:
The Corning EX-47 trap is the same design and size as the EX-40 trap but
with increased porosity. The increased porosity was supposed to
decrease the EGBP penalty without sacrificing the high trapping
efficiency of the EX-40 trap. However, when this trap was installed on
the Mercedes and the EGBP measured, it was found to exceed (at
"zero-mile") 105 inches of water at 60 mph. (The range of. the EGBP
measurement system had been extended from 73.2 to 105 inches of water.) .
Thus, only the "zero-mile" emissions were measured.
Based on only the "zero-mile" data, the EX-47 trap, like the EX-40,
showed a significant reduction (over 60%) in TP emissions as well as a
moderate reduction in HC emissions.
-------
-26-
11. Englehard CST-1 Coating of a Corning EX-47 6" Trap:
A second EX-47 6-inch trap was sent to Englehard where the same CST-1
catalyst used on the Texac'o trap was applied. The trap was installed
on the Mercedes and testing began in January, 1980. The EGBP was
acceptable at "zero-mile" but rose very rapidly (from 53.2 to 91.67
inches of water at 50 mph during the first 125 miles). A regeneration
was attempted but no reduction in EGBP was noted.
Based on only the "zero-mile" data, this trap exhibited signficant
reductions (over 60%) in HC, CO, and FTP TP. However, the HWFE TP had
increased above its baseline values. The trap was removed to allow
testing of the 12 inch EX-47 traps.
12. Corning EX-47 12" Non-catalyzed Trap:
The Corning EX-47 12" trap has the same diameter (5.66 inches) but is
twice as long as the EX-47 6" traps. The trap was installed on the
Mercedes, and testing began on February 12, 1980.
After the EGBP rose by a factor of 4 (from 25.56 to 101.1 inches of
water at 50 mph), the trap was successfully regenerated. The trapping
efficiency and EGBP returned to zero mile values. The trap was tested
and loaded a second time and again successfully regenerated.
Upon completion of that second regeneration, mileage was accumulated on
the trap without running HWFE cycles. The mileage accumulation would
consist of FTP and LA-4 tests. When either performance or fuel economy
became so degraded that a driver would notice a problem existed, an
attempt to regenerate the trap would be made. This testing sequence
continued until after 456 miles the 60 mph EGBP was above 365" H^O
(compared to a "zero-mile" value of 36.7 inches of water at 60 mph and
driveability of the vehicle was noticeably affected. The test vehicle
would not idle and often stalled.
-------
-27-
The trap was then regenerated. The test vehicle with some difficulty
was accelerated to 60 mph steady state speed to achieve temperature
stabilization. The trap began to regenerate itself without throttling.
The 60 mph steady state EGBP dropped from about 365" H~0 to about 230"
H^O without throttling. The inlet manifold vacuum was then set to 9"
Hg and the regular regeneration sequence commenced. Bag and particulate
samples were taken for the 8 minute throttled portion and for the
following 4 minute unthrottled portion. An additional reduction in EGBP
was noted when the regeneration cycle was rerun. The trap outlet
temperature rose very quickly when the throttling was first performed.
The temperature difference between trap inlet and outlet indicated
significant particulate exothermic oxidation. The EGBP returned to
zero-mile values. The final FTP, HFET, and LA-4 test data indicated
reduced trapping efficiency. This indicated that high temperature
experienced during the regeneration and/or that the high back pressure
noted during the mileage accumulation may have damaged the trap.
The results of the EX-47 12 inch non-catalyzed trap testing are
impressive. - The regeneration interval of 200+ miles and the high (65%+)
trapping efficiency show a good combination of measured performance
parameters. The testing with the trap extremely loaded indicated that
the trap would either regenerate or cause the vehicle to perform so
poorly that a driver would recognize that a problem existed.
Durability of the ceramic style trap has not been evaluted. During the
889 miles of testing, the trap performed well.
13. UOP Coating of a Corning EX-47 12 inch Trap:
A second Corning EX-47 12 inch trap was coated by Universal Oil Products
Inc. (UOP). Th-3 catalytic washcoat used was identified as
PZM-10171-01031138. Further details were not provided by UOP.
The trap was installed on the Mercedes, and testing began on April 17,
1981. However, it was removed after concerns were voiced over whether
-------
-28-
the test vehicle was still stable. (Baseline testing indicated a
significant increase in FTP TP emissions in the test vehicle between
October, 1980 and April, 1981.)
Additional baseline (i.e. with the dummy trap) testing indicated that
the Mercedes was stable.
Testing of the UOP EX-47 trap resumed on September 1, 1981. The
emission data indicated significant reductions in HC, CO, and FTP TP;
however, the HWFE TP exceeded the baseline values.
The EGBP (at 60 mph) increased from its "zero-mile" value of 35.3 inches
of water to 121.4 inches after 414 miles, at which time the trap was
regenerated using a 16 minute, 60 mph steady state, throttling process.
The EGBP returned to close to its "zero-mile" value (45.9" of water at
60 mph). After 100 miles, the EGBP had risen to 102.002 inches of water
at 60 MPH, the trap was successfully regenerated for a second time, and
the EGBP was measured at 39.65 inches at 60 mph. The EGBP again began
to increase as mileage was accumulated until October 28, 1981 (at an
odometer reading of 42,802) the pressure began to drop. After
performing an FTP the next day, the trap was examined and found to have
a radial crack 2/3 of the way down the trap which split the unit into
two pieces. Testing was terminated.
14. NGK #1 Trap:
NGK-Locke, Inc. provided a cellular, ceramic, monolith trap which, like
the traps submitted by Corning, employs filtration through porous
walls. The specifications of this trap (designated DHC-101) are:
Length: 12 inches
Diameter: 5.66 inches
Cell Structure: 200 cells per square inch
Wall Thickness 0.012 inches
The trap was installed on the Toyota, and testing began in October, 1981.
-------
-29-
The "zero-mile" data indicated good efficiency and low EGBP (only 25.46
inches of water at 60 mph compared to the baseline of 11.5 to 12.2
inches). After accumulating 1082 kilometers (672 miles), the EGBP had
increased to 119.3 inches at 60 mph, but the trapping efficiency on the
FTP had also increased to 82%.
After regeneration, the EGBP decreased to 30.0 inches, close to its
"zero-mile" value, and the efficiency dropped to 63%. After
accumulating an additional 708 kilometers (440 miles), the EGBP had
increased to 108.2 inches, and the efficiency increased to 82% again.
The trap was then regenerated again, the EGBP dropped to 21.7 inches,
and the efficiency dropped to 43%. After accumulating an additional 830
kilometers (516 Miles), the EGBP increased to 88.4 inches, and the
efficiency increased to 49%.
The trap was then regenerated (for a third time), the EGBP dropped to
32.25 inches, and the efficiency increased to 70%.
The trap is averaging more than 60% efficiency in reducing FTP TP, and
more than 75% efficiency in reducing HWFE TP. Also, the trap is
averaging 771 kilometers (479 miles) between regenerations.
15. NGK #2 Trap:
NGK-Locke, Inc. provided a second trap identical to their first except
that this trap has only 100 cells per square inch with a wall thickness
of 0.017 inches. The trap was installed on the Mercedes, and testing
began in November, 1981.
The test results are similar to the NGK #1 trap except:
1. The "zero-mile" EGBP is higher (38.10 inches at 60 mph),
2. The EGBP dropped to 78.2, 70.38, and 56.3 inches at 60 mph after
the first three regenerations,
-------
-30-
3. The distance between regenerations is averaging 185 kilometers (115
miles), and
4. The trapping efficiencies are averaging 87% on both FTP and HWFE.
-------
-31-
SUMMARY
A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the traps follows
in Table 5.
The possibility that the trap-oxidizer might affect fuel economy has been of
some concern.(14) To examine this possibility, graphs of fuel economy,
trapping efficiency, and EGBP versus mileage accumulation were plotted.
(See Figures 8 to 15.) These graphs indicate that there is a tendency for a
loss of fuel economy as EGBP increases; however, the data (Appendix A)
indicate that the overall (i.e. arithmetic mean) fuel economy with the trap
is not significantly different from the fuel economy without the trap (i.e.
with the "dummy" trap).
Even though this test program is not complete, we can select the best traps
from among those already tested. Based on trapping efficiency (on both FTP
and HWFE) together with regeneration capabilities (either on the HWFE cycle
or on the regeneration cycle used in this program), the "best" traps tested
to date in this program are the 12 inch, non-catalyzed, monolith traps
(i.e. Corning EX-47, NGK #1, and NGK #2).
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMMARY OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TRAPS USED IN IN-HOUSE TEST PROGRAM THROUGH JANUARY 21, 1982
TRAP
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Texaco A-1R
1. Good initial efficiency 1.
2. Relatively low EGBP 2.
3. Good adaptability to 3.
catalyst coating
Questionable regen. capabilities
Large & heavy
Not available In quantity before 1984
Texaco A-1R (#1 & 02)
with CST-1 coating
1. Very slow EGBP rise
2. Regenerates on HWFE
3. Extremely low gaseous
HC & CO results '
4. Extremely low extractable
organlcs rate
1. Low total trapping efficiency
2. Increased sulfate output
3 . Large & heavy
Balston filter (disposable trap)
1. Very high Initial efflc.
1. No regen. capabilities
2. Lack durability data
(test trap fat led)
dohnson-Matthey JM-4 (H1 8.
1. Large HC & CO reductions
2. Acceptable EGBP penalty
3. Regenerates on HWFE
4. High Initial FTP efficiency
Increased sulfate emissions
ICI Saffil
1. Proven regen. capability 1.
2. Acceptable EGBP drop 2.
3. Good noise suppression 3.
4. Good catalyst capabilities
Large & heavy
Questionable durability
Poor Initial trapping efficiency
ICI Saffil Generation #4
1. Very low EGBP
1. Low effIclency
-------
TABLE 5 (CONT. )
SUMMMARY OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TRAPS USED IN IN-HOUSE TEST PROGRAM THROUGH JANUARY 21. 1982
TRAP
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Corning EX-40
1 . High efficiency
1 . High EGBP
Corning EX-47 6" non-catalyzed
1. High trapping efficiency 1. High EGBP
2. Moderate HC & CO reduction 2. Limited range (expect
about 100 Ml between regen.)
Corning EX-47 6" with CST-1 Coating 1. High initial efficiency 1. High EGBP
2. Large HC & CO reduction 2. Limited range between regen.
3. Suspected Increased sulfate emissions
4. Poor regen. capabilities
Corning EX-47 12" non-catalyzed
1. High efficiency 1.
2. Proven regen. capabilities 2.
May be damaged by worst case regen.
Relatively short range (2OO Ml
between regen.)
Corning EX-47 12" with UOP Coating
1. Large HC & CO reduction
2. Good regen. capabilities
Relatively short range (16O Mi
between regen.)
NGK H\ (high density. 2OO cps1)
1 . High efficiency
2. Moderate EGBP Increase
3. Good range capabilities
(4BO Mi between regen.)
NGK H2 (norma.l density, 1OO cps 1 )
1 .. High efficiency
Rapid EGBP rise after regen.
Relatively short range (115 Ml
between regen.)
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the A-1R/CST-1 tt 1 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
1OO% +
EGBP at 6O mph Fuel
(Inches of water) Economy
(B) (mpg)(F)
+45 + 28
9O%
8O%
70%
60%
50%
40%
3O% +•
_ _ - -E E
4O
+ 3O
27
+ 35 •«• 26
C I
t-t OJ
n> -p-
I
00
+ 25
-T B/L
20%
25
24
10% +
Legend:
B/L = baselIne
0%
+....+....+..
324 325
326 327
328 . 329 330
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
331 332
333
-------
Fuel Economy. Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the A-1R/CST-I #2 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
7O%
EGBP at 6O mph Fuel
( Inches of Ecori
water) (B) (mpg)(F)
B/L F.E. 9 38.OOO ml (25.7 mpg)
+ 65 +
6O%
50% +• / /
/
/
/
E
40% + F
B
BBB B BB
B B B
BB
BB BB B
B B
•«. BB B
"^ B B
B B
\ BB B
"•- B
^ . BB
3O% +- B/L F.E..'?' 35.0OO ml (23.5 rnpg) -\ B B
B B B ^ B
BB "B ^ B
B B B B B B -B
B BB B B BB BB BB B B ^
2O% +• BB B ^
BB BB B^
BB B V ^
BB
10%
0%
B
6O + 25
55
+• 5O + 24
+ 4O + 23
35
I
+ 3O + 22
H-
00 I
C U>
N Oi
(t> I
VO
-10%
25
-2O%
*....+....+..
358 360
4- 4-
362 364
366 368 37O 372
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
374 376 378 38O
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, arid EGBP versus Mileage for the JM-4 *2 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
100% +
EGBP at 60 mph Fuel
(Inches of water) Economy
(B) (mpg)(F)
+ 9O.O + 3O.O
90%
80% +
7O% +
60% +
5O% +
4O% +
30% +
BB
EB
B B
B BB\ B B B B
B\
BB BB
+87.5 +29.5
+ 85.0 + 29.O
+82.5 +28.5
+80.0 + 28.O
+ 77.5
-r B/L
+ 27.5
+ 75.O +27.0
+72.5 +26.5
+ 7O.O + 26.0
00 I
»-( O
(D I
2O% +
10% +
+67.5 +25.5
+ 65.O + 25.0
+ 24.5
0% + +....+....+..
87 88
89 90 91 92
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
93
94
-------
Fuel Economy. Trapping Efficiency, and EGRP versus Mileage for the ICI Saffil Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
6O%
50% + \
4O% + E
30% + \
20% +
B.
0% +
-10% +
-20%
-30%
B B
Regen
E
EGBP at 60 mph
(Inches of water)
(B)
+ 65
+ 60
55
+ 5O
45
+ 4O
+ 35
30
25
Regen
Fuel
Economy
(mpgHF)
+ 27.0
+ 26.5
+ 26.0
+ 25.5
+ 25.0
+ 24.5
-T B/L
+ 24.0
+ 23.5
+ 23.0
H-
OQ I
C OJ
fD I
M
336
338
340 342 344 346
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
348
35O
-------
Fuel Economy. Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the Corning EX-47 12" non-catalyzed Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
90% +
8O% +
70% +
60% +
50% +
4O% +
30% +
20% +
10%
0% +
. F
B B
B
B
B B
B
.E-
'E—E
B
BB
B
* BB
*B
*
Regen
*B
*
Regen
*
EGBP at SO mph
(Inches of water)
(B)
* 300
•«• 27O
24O
+ 21O
180
ISO
-»• 12O
9O
60
3O
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)(F)
27.0
26.5
26.0
25.5
25.0
+ 24.5
-- B/L
24 .O
23.5
23.0
+ 22.5
H-
JO
C I
ht OJ
(D 00
I
H-1
K)
-10%
384
. + .
386
388
..<• + + + + + + + +
39O 392 394 396 398
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
-------
Fuel Economy. Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the UOP/Cornlng EX-47 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
100% +
EGBP at 6O mph Fuel
(Inches of water) Economy
(B) (rnpgHF)
+ 24.0
+ 130
9O% +•
B
. 120
ao%
11O + 23.5
7O%
60%
50%
40%
30%
2O%
B
B B
.B
B B
. B B
+ 1OO
90
+ 23. 0
SO -T B/L
70
+ 6O +22.5
-»• SO
H-
Qt} I
C LO
n ~~o
m i
4O
3O
+ 22 .O
10%
0%
42O
..•*•.... + .... + ..
421 422
Regen
Regen
423
424 425 426 427
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
E
428
+ 20
B/L EGBP (15.43 in)
429
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the NGK #1 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
100%-+
90%
B
B.
B .
EGBP at 6O mph Fuel
(Inches of water) Economy
(B) (mpg)(F)
12O
28
B
1 1O
BB
80%
70%
6'0%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
O%
I
I
I B
I B
B
BB
B
I
B
B
BB
Regen
*
Regen
Regen
17
18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
1OO
9O
SO
7O
6O
5O
•i- 40
3O
2O
-- B/L ( 11
+ 10
. 4-
37
27
-T B/L
26
H-
IQ
I-
(D O
25
85)
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the NGK #2 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
9O% +
89%
88%
87%
86%
85% +
84%
83%
82%
81%
8O%
BB.
. E
\
B.
B .
SB
E
B
B
.B
B.
BB
EGBP at 6O cnph
(Inches of water)
(B)
ISO
165
15O
+ 135
12O
105
9O
75
6O
45
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)(F)
25
24
-T B/L
+ 23
22
-C
t-t
n>
Regen
*
*
Regen
Attempted*
Regen *
: Regen
*
Regen
*
3O
15
-B/L EGBP
(15.42")
430
431
432
433
434 435 436 437
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
438
439
-------
-42-
References
1. K. Otto, et al, "The Oxidation of Soot Deposits from Diesel Engines,"
SAE Paper No. 800336, February 1980.
2. L. P. Tessier, et al, "The Development of a High Efficiency Diesel
Exhaust Particulate Filter," SAE Paper No. 800338, February 1980.
3. M. J. Murphy, et al, "Assessment of Diesel Particulate Control - Direct
and Catalytic Oxidation," SAE Paper No. 810112, February 1981.
4. S. H. OH, et al, "Mathematical Modeling of Fibrous Filters for Diesel
Particulates - Theory and Experiment," SAE Paper No. 810113, February
1981.
5". J. S. Howitt and M. R. Montierth, "Cellular Ceramic Diesel Particulate
Filter," SAE Paper No. 810114, February 1981.
6. W. R. Wade, "Diesel Particulate Trap Regeneration Techniques," SAE Paper
No. 810118, February 1981.
7. M. J. Murphy, et al, "Assessment of Diesel Particulate Control: Direct
and Catalytic Oxidation," EPA Report No. 600/7-79-232b prepared by
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, October 1979.
8. "Diesel Particulate Trap Study: Interim Report on Status of Study and
Effects of Throttling," EPA Memorandum from T. Penninga to R. Stahman,
dated May 18, 1979.
9. "Second Interim Report on Status of Particulate Trap Study," EPA
Memorandum from T. Penninga to R. Stahman, dated August 18, 1979.
10. "Third Interim Report on Status of Particulate Trap Study," EPA
Memorandum from T. Penninga to R. Stahman, dated November 6, 1979.
-------
-43-
11. "Correction of EGBP in Interim Diesel Particulate Trap Reports," EPA
Memorandum from T. Penninga to R. Stahman, dated December 18, 1979.
12. "Fourth Interim Report on Status of Particulate Trap Study," EPA
Memorandum from T. Penninga to R. Stahman, dated May 27, 1980.
13. "Further Testing of the Johnson-Matthey JM-4#2 Diesel Particulate Trap,"
EPA Memorandum from T. Penninga to R. Stahman, dated July 25, 1980.
14. "Studies of 1984 Heavy-Duty Engine and 1985 Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle
Requirements and Emissions Performance and Defect Warranties," Federal
Register. 46 FR 31677, June 17, 1981.
15. "Characterization of Gaseous and Particulate Emissions from Light-Duty
Diesels Operated on Various Fuels," EPA Report Number EPA-460/3-79-008,
July 1979.
16. L.D. Claxton, "The Utility of Bacterial Mutagenesis Testing in the
Characterization of Mobile Source Emissions: A Review," presented at the
Environmental Protection Agency 1981 Diesel Emissions Symposium,
Raleigh, North Carolina, October 5-7, 1981.
17. R.B. Zweidinger, "Emission Factors from Diesel and Gasoline Powered
Vehicles: Correlation with the Ames Test," presented at the
Environmental Protection Agency 1981 Diesel Emissions Symposium,
Raleigh, North Carolina, October 5-7, 1981.
18. "Explanations and Presentations of Ames Test Data," EPA Memorandum from
R. Dickinson to C. Gray, dated March 4, 1981.
-------
-44-
Appendix A-l
Test Data on Mercedes 300D
-------
VEHICLE I.D. 11511412019885 (1975 MERCEDES BENZ 3OOD)
EMMISIONS (G/MI)
1 Ei 1
NUMBER
7973O4
7973O3
797305
1 Ci 1
DATE
03-22-79
03-23-79
03-23-79
(MI)
29494
29532
29543
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
CYCLE
FTP
FTP
HWFE
FTP (2)
HC
.77868
.36699
. 16229
.57284
.291 1 1
CO
.8877
.9112
.5749
.8994
.O166
2
2
2
2
NOx
.O041
.O478
.0367
.O260
.O3O9
TP
.504
.404
.306
.454
.071
(mpg)
23
24
29
24
.8482
.2037
.3019
.0260
.2514
TRAP TYPE
Basel (ne
Basel tne
Basel Ine
MEAN (COUNT):
.5749
2.0367
.306
29.3019
797036
797040
797431
797432
MEAN
O3-3O-79
O3-30-79
O4-03-79
O4-O3-79
(COUNT) :
29755
29767
29794
298O5
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.25759
. 10726
.27247
.O8971
.265O3
.01O52
.O9848
.01241
.9111
.5957
.9943
.5422
.9527
.0588
.5690
.O378
2
1
1
2
1
.3367
.8852
.9380
. 987O
. 1374
.2819
.4361
.7791
.464
.327
.535
.360
.500
.050
.344
.023
24.3978
28.6537
23.8729
28. 11O9
24. 1354
.3712
28.3823
.3838
45
45
45
45
degree
degree
degree
degree
SwRI elbow
SwRI elbow
SwRI elbow
SwRI elbow
Old trap; used for developing
regenera11 on techn1ques.
-p-
Ul
I
797443
797444
797447
797448
797449
79745O
797451
797452
797453
797454
797629
79763O
797631
797632
797637
797638
797639
79764O
MEAN
04- 1O-79
O4-1O-79
O4-25-79
O4-25-79
04-26-79
04-26-79
O4-27-79
O4-27-79
04-30-79
O4-3O-79
O5-O1-79
05-O1-79
05-02-79
05-O2-79
O5-04-79
O5-O4-79
05-07-79
O5-O7-79
(COUNT) :
30347
30366
3O637
3O658
3O671
30692
3O7O4
3O725
30745
3O766
30779
3O8OO
30813
30834
3O88O
3O89O
30921
3O942
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
STANDARD DEVIATION:
. 3 1 3O6
.O4483
.27529
. 1 1450
N/R
N/R
.24918
.08917
.24O71
.0877O
.2594O
.09270
.27772
.09586
. 3O6OO
.0984O
. 27162
. 1O588
.27412(8)
.O2538
1.O261 1.8594
.5535 1.7893
.9377 1.9666
.5846 1.7922
.9615
.5659
.9373
.5658
.937O
.5553
.9645
.5515
.9342
.5640
.9525
.5619
.6931*
.5269
.8898
.771 1
.8949
.735O
.8942
.7515
.9236
.9306*
.9181
.842O
.9469
.8238
.5265*
.8893
.9271(9) 1.8689(9)
.0923 .1324
.531
.369
N/R
.336
.537
.349
.414
.302
.497
.330
.531
.346
.528
.355
.427
.301
.420
.303
.486(8)
.055
24
29
23
28
24
29
24
29
24
29
23
28
23
28
23
28
31
28
24
2
2028
94O1
9334
9796
3007
2494
6332
5781
5753
7529
6558
5O26
9896
6606
759O
341 1
4244*
5022
9416(9)
4543
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
* Questionable data
-------
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE
STANDARD DEVIATION:
797643
797644
797647
797648
797646
797790
797792
797793
797795
797796
797798
797799
7978O1
7978O2
796946
79703O
797031
none
797O35
797869
none
797871
797872
none
MEAN
O5- 1O-79
05-10-79
O5-1 1-79
05- 1 1-79
O5- 15-79
05- 16-79
O5-17-79
O5-17-79
05-18-79
05-18-79
O5-2 1-79
O5-21-79
O5-22-79
O5-22-79
05-23-79
06-05-79
O6-O5-79
O6-O8-79
O6-O8-79
O6- 1O-79
06-1 1-79
O6-1 1-79
30983
31OO4
31O42
31063
31203
31282
31316
31337
31384
31404
3144O
31457
315O1
31519
31587
31711.
31733
31842
319O1
31922
31962
31969
31983
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
.091 13(8)
.O207O
. 1O615
.O4061
. 1 1003
.05566
• .O7688
.063O9
. 12335
.06017
. 13012
N/R
.15114
.O5878
. 14106
.O4430
.06476
. 16372
.071O4
STATE
. 13622
.O4742
STATE
. 16208
.O5969
RECIRCULATING OVEN 0
(COUNT) :
FTP (9)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE
STANDARD DEVIATION:
. 13599
.O2081
.O584O( 1 1 )
.O11O1
.5588(9) 1.7028(9)
.O155
.9266
.56O2
.8824
.5426
.5528
.5982
.9327
.5822
.839O
N/R
.9293
.5917
.9742
.5487
.6205
.9378
.6022
.2934
1 .9128
1 .8372
1 .8950
1 .8469
1 .7781
1 .9414.
1 .9220
1 .9357
1 .9023
N/R
1 .887O
1 .9062
1 .9677
1 .8251
1 .8582
1 .9719
1 .8537
.332(9)
.025
.213
. 133
. 182
. 133
. 121
. 164
.203
. 151
.274
. 173
.277
. 174
.297
. 189
. 187
.344
.200
29
24.
29
24.
29.
30
27.
23
28.
24
29
24.
28.
23.
30.
28.
23.
28.
,0563(9)
5983
O779
1683
2533
, 25O3
1082
7278
9047
0359
1959
.5857
2994
5861
7862
O292
3422
.4565
9063
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco.
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
Texaco
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
A-1R
REGENERATION
.914O .
.5581
1 .9333
1 .8043
.221
. 14O
24.
29.
1307
3348
Texaco
Texaco
A- 1R
A- 1R
REGENERATION
.9036
.56O5
' 925' F
.9155
.O382
,5743(
.O257
1 .9542
1 .8685
FOR 6.5 HOURS
1 .9274
.0314
11) 1.8596(11)
. OS 1 3
.228
. 132
24.
28.
1269
. 5O97
Texaco
Texaco
A-1R
A-1R
REGENERATION
.249
.052
. 158( 12)
.027
24.
28.
0257
2682
9654(
7520
12)
Testing terminated due to Inadequate
regeneration (only central core was
regenerated with throttling).
* EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 4-1O-79 THROUGH 6-26-79):
*
* RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
.4916
.6118
50 . 8%
38 . 8%
..9984
1.O451
0.2%
-4.5%
1.O244
1.O778
-2.4%
-7.8%
.5210
.4744
47.9%
52.6%
.9687
.9852
-3. 1%
- 1 .5%
-------
797874
797875
797877
797878
797880
797881
797883
797884
797888
797889
06-12-79
O6- 12-79
O6-13-79
O6- 13-79
06-15-79
O6-15-79
06-22-79
06-22-79
06-26-79
O6-26-79
32028
32048
32078
32O97
32130
32150
32220
32241
32310
3233O
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN (COUNT):
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (5)
HWFE(5)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
797893
797894
797896
797897
798623
798624
798621
798627
798629
798630
798632
798633
798635
798636
798638
798639
798641
798642
798642-1-
798644
798649
798649+
MEAN
07-O2-79
07-02-79
O7-O3-79
07-O3-79
O7-06-79
O7-06-79
O7-O9-79
07-10-79
O7-1 1-79
07-1 1-79
07-12-79
O7-12-79
O7-13-79
07-13-79
O7-16-79
O7-16-79
O7-17-79
O7-17-79
O7-17-79
O7-19-79
O7-2O-79
O7-2O-79
(COUNT) :
32427
32448
32494
32514
326O3
32624
32759
32832
32893
32914
32937
32958
33OO2
33022
331 02
33123
33140
3316O
33160
33299
33353
33353
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.25577
.O9287
.24743
.0972O
.28628
. 10808
.3454O
. 1 1592
.2681 1
.09771
.28060
. O39O6
. 1O236
.00942
.02126
N/R
.O2137
.01O5O
.02185
. 00905
.01317
N/R
.02661
N/R
.O2636
N/R
.O5438
N/R
.O4899
N/R
.O3572
. N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
.03207(8)
.01307
.O 1091(3)
. OO2O9
.9089
.5416
.8620
.5251
.9149
.5435
.8988
.5063
.9089
.5475
.8987
.0213
.5328
.O171
.0078
.OOOO
.O275
.OOOO
.O338
.OOOO
.OOOO
.OOOO
.0334
.OOOO
.03 19
.OOOO
.0555
.OOOO
.026O
.OOOO
.0552
.0010
.OOOO
.0349
.0000
.0000
.0340(9)
.O146
. OOO 1(13)
.0003
1 .8692
1 .8996
.9130
.6987
.9489
.8244
.9398
.6337
.8506
.7739
1 .9O43
.0431
1 .7661
. 1O41
1 .8879
N/R
1 .8948
1 .745O
1 .8150
1 .7239
1 .5613
N/R
1 .8780
N/R
1 .8845
1 .8611
1 .9286
N/R
1 .7992
1 .7292
1 .8010
1 .6850
1 .6430
1 .6893
1 .4440
1 .485O
1 .8420(9)
.O734
1 .6531(9)
. 1342
.451
.31 1
.411
.319
.511
.336
.506
.359
.446
.352
.465
.043
.335
.021
.312
.260
.243
.200
.278
.874
.938
.971
.265
1 . 136
.260
1 .040
.311
1 .094
.329
1 .O6O
.315
1 .002
N/R
.253
1 .2OO
.950
.285(9)
.03 2
.894( 12)
.323
24.7543
28.4241
25.0O37
31 .4068
23.9335
28.9866
24.2665
31 .5988
24.8124
29.6644
24 .5541
.4407
3O.0161
1 .4280
25.OO73
35.O949
24 . 7O2O
3O.O265
24.9434
29.6767
32.4160
37.7017
24.4044
37.4207
24.64O8
31 .4167
24.5739
29.5889
25.2482
28.9995
25 . 50O9
31 .3807
31 .3385
27.2O91
34.5386
33.2896
25. 1367(9)
.85O1
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-tR w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Texaco A-1R w
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Engl ehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
Englehard
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-1
CST-
CST-
CST-
CST-
CST-
CST-
CST-
CST-1
CST-1
Coat 1ng
Coat 1ng
Coat 1 ng
Coat Ing
Coat fng
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat fng
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coating
Coat 1ng
Coating
32.5299( 13)
2 . 9065
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 6-12-79 THROUGH 8- 1-79):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
FTP .1155 .O379 .9811 .5892 1.OO99
HWFE .1O55 .OOO2 .9548 2.6359 1.O7O8
-P-
^j
I
-------
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
798933
798934
MEAN
MEAN
798936
793937
798939
798940
798941
798942
798946
798947
none
798948
798949
79895O
798951
798952
798953
none
798954
798955
MEAN
08-01-79
08-O1-79
(COUNT) :
(COUNT) :
O8-O2-79
O8-O2-79
O8-03-79
08-03-79
08-09-79
O8- 10-79
08- 16-79
08-16-79
O8-22-79
O8-22-79
O8-24-79
08-24-79
O8-30-79
O8-30-79
O8-31-79
O9-O5-79
(COUNT) :
33524
33544
33587
336O8
33636
33656
33987
341 12
34281
343O2
34410
34430
34464
34484
34762
34782
34877
3491O
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP ( 1
HWFE( 1
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
HWFE
FTP
FTP
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE
STANDARD DEVIATION:
88 . 4% 96 . 2%
89 . 4% 99 . 98%
.26343 .8837
. 1O893 .5289
1 .26343
) . 1O893
.31260
.O9O20
.24856
N/R
N/R
.21387
N/R
N/R
STATE
N/R
N/R
.22490
.O74OO
.23868
.087OO
STATE
N/R
N/R
.24772(5)
.03860
.08373(3)
.00858
.8837
.5289
.8546
.4993
.7915 ,
.4910
.5310
.8123
.7603
.5330
.8303
.5520
.9O47
.54OO
.8294
:527O
.544O
.8983
.8352(8)
.O497
.5272(8)
.02 14
1.9% 41.1%
4.5-% -163.6%
1.7439 .577
1.5575 .360
1 .7439
1 .5575
.735O
.5193
.7506
.6070
.6860
.7135
.9395
.781O
.8350
.6900
1 .8405
1 .6750
1 .9844
1 .775O
1 .787O
2 . OO67
1 .8506(8)
. 1 151
1 .6900(8)
.0935
.577
.360
.288
.280
.351
. 197
.238
.303
.606
.615
.350
.202
.406
.224
.477
.313
.246
.296
.385(8)
. 110
.289(8)
. 137
0. 1%
7. 1%
26.5641
32. 1971
26
32
26
33
26
31
31
27
23
28
24
30
24
30
23
29
28
23
25
1
30
1
5641
1971
6955
26O3
5O80
9645
0015
O058
9788
8167
6696
1568
1727
12O9
399O
3039
9156
6871
O146(8)
4781
4425(8)
5595
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
REGENERAT
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
REGENERAT
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ON
ON
* EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 8- 1-79 THROUGH 10-16-79):
*
* RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
.9497
.861 1
5 .0%
13 . 9%
.9231
.9827
7 . 7%
1 . 7%
.9696
.9643
4 .0%
3.6%
.7925
.8216
20.7%
17 . 8%
1.O365
1.O299
3 .6%
3 .0%
00
-------
798956 O9- 19-79 34941
798957 O9- 19-79 34962
MEAN (COUNT):
MEAN (COUNT):
* EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE
*
* RATIO OF TEST DATA
*
*
*
*
* TRAP EFFICIENCY:
*
*
*
798959 O9-26-79 35004
798960 09-26-79 35O27
799469 1O-O4-79 35061
79947O 1O-O4-79 35O85
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
* EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE
* RATIO OF TEST DATA
*
*
*
*
*
* TRAP EFFICIENCY:
*
+
*
*
FTP
HWFE
FTP (1)
HWFE( 1 )
. 14236
.O7383
. 14236
.07383
TRAP RELATIVE TO
WITH TRAP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (2)
HWFE(2)
TO TEST
.5458
.7593
45 . 4%
24. 1%
.23029
. 08500
.24870
.O9414
.23950
.01302
.08957
.OO646
TRAP RELATIVE TO
WITH TRAP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
TO TEST
.9182
.9212
8 . 2%
7 . 9%
.7621
.44O1
.7621
.4401
TEST DATA WITH
1 .8417
1 .6316
1 .8417
1 .6316
DUMMY TRAP
.078
.074
.078
.074
(FROM
25.4088
31 .72O7
25.4O88
31 .72O7
Corning
Corning
Test Ing
EX-40
EX-40
terminated due to high EGBP .
8- 1-79 THROUGH 10-16-79):
DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
.8423
.8204
1 5 . 8%
18.0%
.8881
.518O
.8670
.535O
.8776
.0149
.5265
.O12O
TEST DATA WITH
.973O
.9309
2 . 7%
6 . 9%
2.0535
1 .8280
1 .9498
1 .7667
2.0O16
.O733
1 .7974
.0433
DUMMY TRAP
. 1606
.2104
83.9%
79 . 0%
.049
.210
.338
.320
. 194
.204
.265
.078
(FROM
1 . O529
1 .O731
5 . 3%
7.3%
22.7168
28.3144
23.3941
29. 1574
23.O554
.4789
28.7359
.5961
BALSTON
BALSTON
BALSTON
BALSTON
Test Ing
of the
8- 1-79 THROUGH 10-
FILTER
FILTER
FILTER
FILTER
terminated due to failure of one
seven trapping elements.
16-79) :
DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
.9699
.9814
3 . 0%
1 . 9%
1 .O575
1 .0255
-5.8%
-2.6%
.3983
.7534
6O.2%
24.7%
.9554
.9722
-4 . 5%
-2.8%
-p-
-------
79947 1
799472
799473
799474
799475
799477
799478
MEAN
1O-1 1-79
10-12-79
1O-12-79
10-15-79
1O-15-79
10-16-79
1O-16-79
(COUNT) :
351O5
35131
35152
35177
35188
35252
35273
FTP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (4)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(3)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.3O883
.30135
. 1O3OO
.21223
. 0950O
.21836
.O82OO
.26O19
.05199
.09333
.01060
.9336
.9O90
.5320
.8868
.5320
.9104
.5530
.91OO
.O191
.539O
.O121
1 .9554
1 .92O5
1 .8020
1 .9333
1 .822O
1 .9113
1 .829O
1 .93O1
.O191
1 .8177
.O14O
.479
.460
.356
.472
.350
.442
.340
.463
.016
.349
.008
23
23
29
23
28
23
28
23
28
. 432O
.8193
. 1344
.4526
.5961
.3957
. 3O65
.5249
. 1977
. 679O
. 42O1
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
799476 1O-15-79
799476+ 1O-15-79
799479 1O-16-79
799479+ 10-16-79
799480 1O-19-79
79948O+ 10-19-79
NONE 1O-23-79
799483 1O-25-79
799483+ 1O-25-79
35227
35235
35307
35316
35433
35441
35527
3579O
35798
STDY
STDY
STDY
STDY
STDY
STDY
STDY
STDY
STDY
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
.060
.O7O
N/R
N/R
.067
.060
(SITE
.051
.042
.430
.481
.406
.491
.689
.690
MALFUNCTION)
1 .302
.827
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
.943
.009
.990
.088
.783
.768
.897
.055
.294
.358
.249
.363
. 155
.329
. 16O
.303
25
29
24
28
28
31
24
27.
.0
O
.7
. 1
0
. 1
.9
7
23
23
29
23
28
23
28
23
28
25
29
24
28
28
31
24
27.
. 432O
.8193
. 1344
.4526
.5961
.3957
. 3O65
.5249
. 1977
. 679O
. 42O1
.0
O
.7
. 1
0
. 1
.9
7
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Baseline 9 8 MIN THROTTLED
-------
2.OOO miles accumulated
799486
799487
799488
79949O
MEAN
O1-1O-8O
O1-10-8O
O1-15-8O
O1-15-8O
(COUNT) :
37954
37974
38O30
38O42
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
1 .37300*
. 30500
. 18833
.00100
.78O66
.83769
. 1530O
.21496
. 1668
.OOOO
.2162
.OOOO
. 1915
.0349
.OOOO
.OOOO
1 .8195
1 .652O
1 .8188
1 . 703O
1 .8192
.OOO5
1 .6775
.0361
.517*
.562
.372
.888
.444
. 103
.725
.231
25
30
22.
30.
23
2
30.
.O364
. 1726
1924
6885
.6144
011O
4306
3648
Texaco A-1R w Englehard CST-1 Coating H"i
Texaco A-1R w Englehard CST-1 Coating #2
Texaco A-1R w Englehard CST-1 Coating #2
Texaco A-1R w Englehard CST-1 .Coating tt"i
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 1-17-80 THROUGH 1-18-8O):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
.FTP
HWFE
2.3289
1.5455
FTP -132.9%
HWFE -54.6%
.2O58
.OOOO
79 .4%
100.O%
1.0117
1.0081
.9569
2.0139
.9199
.9647
-8.0%
-3.5%
799491
799492
799493
799494
01
O.I
O1
O1
-17-80
-17-8O
-18-8O
- 18-80
38O87
381 OS
38132
38153
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
N/R
N/R
.33521
. O99OO
.9103
.593O
.951O
.5140
1 .7673
1 .6890
1 .829O
1 .6390
.480
.379
.447
.342
26
31
25
31
. 1133
. 1792
.2256
9O93
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
MEAN (COUNT): FTP
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN (COUNT): HWFE
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.33521(1) .9306(2) 1.7982(2) .464(2) 25.6694(2)
N/A .O288 .0436 .023 .6277
.09900(1) .5535(2) 1.6640(2) .360(2) 31.5442(2)
N/A .O559 .O354 .026 .5163
799495
799496
799497
O1-29-80
O1-29-8O
01-3O-80
38205
38218
38265
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
FTP (2)
.26665
.07100
.22274
.2447O
.O31O5
.9O14
.5140
.9142
.9078
.OO91
1
1
2
2
.9643
.8300
.0427
.0035
.O554
. 121
. 131
. 172
. 146
.036
24
29
23
24
. 28O7
.O773
.8886
.O846
.2773
Corning EX-47 6" non-catalyzed
Corning EX-47 6" non-catalyzed
Corning EX-47 6" non-catalyzed
MEAN (COUNT):
HWFE(1) .07100
.5140
1.830O
131
29.0773
-------
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE
RATIO OF TEST DATA
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
801739 01-31-8O 38289
801463 01-31-8O 38298
798961 02-01 -8O 38349
799468 02-OI-8O 3836O
none O2-O1-8O
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE
RATIO OF TEST DATA
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
TRAP RELA
WITH TRAP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP (2)
HWFE(2)
TIVE TO
TO TEST
.7300
. 7172
27.0%
28.3%
. 15769
. 0500O
.08895
. OO20O
STATE
. 12332
.04861
.026OO
.O3394
FEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM
DATA WITH
.9755
.9286
2.4%
7 . 1%
.4735
.O35O
.2510
.O20O
.3622
. 1573
.O275
.O106
DUMMY TRAP:
1 . 1 142
1 . O998
-11. 4%
-10.0%
1 .8834
1 .841O
1 .8403
1 .6820
1 .8618
.0305
1 .7615
. 1 124
TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP
WITH TRAP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
TO TEST
.3679
.2626
63.2%
73.7%
DATA WITH
.3892
.0497
61 . 1%
95.0%
DUMMY TRAP:
1 .O354
1 .0586
-3.5%
-5.9%
.3147
.3639
68 . 5%
63 . 6%
. 109
.312
. 128
.497
. 118
.013
.404
. 131
(FROM
.2543
1 . 1222
74 . 6%
1 2 . 2%
1-17-8O THROUGH 1-18-8O):
.9383
.9218
-6 . 2%
-7.8%
25.7561 Corning EX-47 6" w Englehard CST-1
29.O483 Corning EX-47 6" w Englehard CST-1
24.8488 Corning EX-47 6" w Englehard CST-1
31.O822 Corning EX-47 6" w Englehard CST-1
REGENERATION ATTEMPTED
25.3O24
.6416
30.O652
1 .4382
1-17-8O THROUGH 1-18-8O):
.9857
.9531
-1.4%
-4 . 7%
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
ho
I
-------
801464
801465
801466
801467
8O1468
8O1469
80147O
8O147 1
none
801472
801473
8O1474
8O1730
801731
8O1732
none
8O1733
801737
801979
801987
802070
80207 1
8O2O72
8O2O74
8O2081
802O79
MEAN
02-12-80
O2-12-8O
02-14-80
02-14-80
02-15-80
02-15-80
O2-22-80
O2-22-8O
02-27-80
02-27-8O
O2-28-8O
O2-28-8O
O2-29-80
02-29-8O
03-12-80
O3-13-8O
O3-27-8O
O4-O2-8O
O4-08-8O
04-09-80
04-10-80
04-1 1-80
O4-15-80
O4-16-8O
(COUNT) :
38429
38440
38491
38504
38543
38566
38622
38633
38735
38755
38787
388O7
38837
38851
38917
38985
39246
3931O
39363
39420
39433
39465
39517
39567
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
STEADY
. FTP
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.28587
.0910O
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
STATE
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
STATE
N/R
N/R
. 17424
N/R
STATE
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
.23006(2)
.O7893
.09100( 1)
N/A
.908O
.5220
.91 12
.5340
.9103
.51 10
.8644
N/R
1 .7322
1 . 6O90
1 .7259
1 .6710
1 .7941
1 .7070
1 . 7095
N/R
. 1 1O
.091
. 114
. 184
. 105
.095
. 129
.096
26.9074
31 .9833
26.8053
31 .5125
25.7925
30.6842
26.81O3
N/R
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
REGENERATION
.8971
N/R
.8794
.512O
.8774
.5210
1 . 7094
N/R
1 .7698
1 .775O
1 .8183
1 .8240
. O86
.077
. 107
.092
. 113
.097
27. 1632
N/R
25.9227
29.8238
25.3441
28.6993
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catal yzed
REGENERATION
.9994
.9856
.9376
.9359
1 . 88O1
1 .8533
1 .9852
1 .8778
. 102
. 108
.274
.465
24.36OO
24.2421
22.6712
23.O961
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
. REGENERATION
.951O
.9695
.5665
.5196
.5689
.9251( 13)
.O426
.5319(8)
.O232
1 .677O
1 . 8003
1 .7174
1 .4680
1 .62O3
1 .7948( 13)
.O876
1 .6740(8)
. 1 103
. 178
.233
.205
. 116
. 127
. 163( 13)
. 107
25.8463
24.6623
29.0841
33.6024
30.846O
25.3557(
1 .4626
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
13)
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
non-catalyzed
non-cata 1 yzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
non-catalyzed
. 118( 10) 30.7794(8)
.043
1 .6073
* EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 1-17-8O THROUGH 10- 2-8O):
*
* RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
.8640
.9866
1 3 . 6%
1 . 3%
1.O376
1.25O2
-3.8%
-25.O0/.
.9538
1 .OO76
4 .6%
-0.8%
.3581
.3615
64.1%
63.8%
1.04O6
.9896
4 . 1%
-1 .0%
Ln
U>
I
-------
8O2089
802090
8O2093
8O2094
802097
8O6296
MEAN
O9-24-8O
09-24-80
09-25-80
09-25-80
1O-O2-80
1O-O2-8O
(COUNT) :
39746
39759
39796
39811
39865
39878
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (3)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(3)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.25559
.O8606
.22429
.O8864
. 250O3
.O9525
.24330
.O167O
.08998
.00474
.9096
.4704
.7732
.0462
.9140
.5O36
.8656
.08O1
.34O1
.255O
2.O11 1
1 .6364
1 .9025
1 .6855
1 .8984
1 .6569
1 .9373
.0639
1 .6596
.0247
.466
.297
.440
.305
.437
,31O
.448
.016
.304
.007
22
30
23
30,
23
31 .
23.
3O.
. 71O9
4779
9571
5381
8279
41O6
4986
6852
8089
,5220
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
8O6543
8O6548
8O6553
8O6552
8O7882
8O7883
8O7886
807889
807890
8O7892
8O7893
8O7S94
MEAN
1O-23-80
1O-28-80
02-26-81
O3-O4-81
O3-O6-81
03-06-81
O3-1O-81
04-O2-81
O4-O2-81
O4-O8-81
O4-O8-81
O4-08-81
(COUNT) :
39977
40036
4O664
40694
4O746
4O767
4O81 1
41 126
41 136
41333
41344
41375
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP (4)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(S)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
. O8398
.O7364
.O651 1
. 168O4
.24406
.O8749
.32480
.32198
. 1 1203
.31474
. 10152
.08552
.3O140
.O3846
.O9717
.03218
.5677
.541 1
.6O33
.6341
1 .0734
.5623
1 . 1537
1 .0848
.6043
1 . OS 1 3
.5807
.5960
1 .O983
.O372
.5862
.O292
1 .7954
1 .7617
1 . 8O42
2.0497
2.O956
1 .9021
2.O441
2.O639
1 .8766
2. 1354
1 .8996
1 . 9040
2.0848
.0399
1 .8742
.O901
. 172
.204
.327
.335
.545
.336
1 .419*
.533
.339
.569
.366
.327
.766
.435
.301
.071
28.6632
30.7475
29.5797
27 . 40O2
21 .6846
27.7262
21 .7132
22.3383
28.2538
22.0491
28.0258
27.8745
21 .9463
.3093
28.5339
1 . 1161
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffi
ICI Saffi
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
fourth
fourth
fourth
fourth
fourth
fourth
fourth
fourth
fourth
fourth
fourth
fourth
genera t Ion
genera t Ion
generat Ion
general Ion
generat Ion
generat ion
generat ton
generat Ion
generat Ion
generat Ion
generat Ion
generat Ion
Ln
-fr-
I
Testing terminated due to Insufficient
trapping efficiency.
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 9-24-8O THROUGH 4-16-81):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
FTP 1.1395 1.16O2 1.048O 1.4938
HWFE 1.O217 1.3261 1.O714 .8980
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP -14.0% -16.O% -4.8% .-49.4%
HWFE -2.2% -32.6% -7.1% 10.2%
.9559
.9593
-4 . 4%
-4 . 1%
-------
807898
8O7899
8O8687
808688
MEAN
O4-15-81
O4-15-81
04-16-81
04-16-81
(COUNT) :
41455
41475
41494
415O4
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.31280
. 10621
.27976
.0994O
.29628
.02336
. 1O28O
.OO482
1 .0573
.596O
1 .0791
.5941
1 .0682
.O154
.5950
.OO13
2
1
2
1
2
1
.0670
.8977
.0674
.8702
.0672
.0003
. 884O
.0194
.648
.388
.571
.377
.610
.054
.382
.008
21
28
22
28
22
28
.9558
.2563
.3448
. 1022
. 15O3
.2751
. 1792
. 1090
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
8O8690
8O8691
8O8740
8O8739
MEAN
04-17-81
04-17-81
04-21-81
O4-22-81
(COUNT) :
41544
41552
'41606
41625
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
FTP (2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
. 1 1478
.01287
.03256
.084OO
.09939
.02176
.O2272
.01392
. 1 1O2
.OOOO
.0000
. 1153
. 1 127
.OO36
.0000
.OOOO
2.0743
1 .8433
1 .8616
2 . 0505
2.0624
.0168
1.8524
.O129
.278
1 .071
1. 160
.352
.315
.052
1 . 116
.063
22
28
27
22
22
28
. 1526
.3532
.8063
.4502
.3014
. 21O4
.O798
.3867
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Testing
EX -47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
EX-47 12"
suspended
w UOP Coating
w UOP Coating
w UOP Coating
w UOP Coating
due to quest 1<
whether vehicle Is stable.
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 4-15-81 THROUGH 8- 6-81):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
FTP
HWFE
.3824
.2062
. 115O
.OOOO
1.O010
1.0377
.5912
2.9715
.9877
.9887
I
Ln
Ui
I
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
808744
8O8745
8O8747
8O8748
8O8750
8O8751
8O9067
8O9068
8O907 1
8O9072
8O9075
809076
MEAN
04-28-81
04-28-81
04-29-81
O4-29-81
05-05-81
05-05-81
07-29-81
07-29-81
08-O5-81
08-O5-81
08-O6-81
O8-O6-81
(COUNT) :
41687
417O1
41728
41738
41787
41807
41834
41855
41911
41932
4 I960
41981
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP.
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT):
HWFE
STANDARD DEVIATION:
6 1 . 8% 88 . 5%
79.4% 100.0%
.289O5
. 1 1968
.29025
. 1 14O1
.29302
. 1 1826
.05667*
. 1 1059
.27450
. 10274
.28308
. 1 1O55
.24776(6)
.09385
. 1 1264(6)
.OO616
.9238
.5436
.8899
.5233
.95O7
.5695
.9867
.561O
.9714
.5844
.9826
.5812
.9508(6)
.0378
.5605(6)
.O235
-O.1% 40.9%
-3.8% -197.1%
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1493
7758
.074O
.7676
0585
776O
1268
8147
9552
6642
9848
7147
O58 1(6)
O765
7522(6)
O537
.492
.391
.491
.358
.527
.357
N/R
N/R
.489
.372
.511
.388
. 502 ( 5 )
.016
.373(5)
.016
22
28
22
28
22
28
22
27
23
29
23
28
22
28
1 . 2%
1.1%
5037
4965
4566
342O
7017
1OO5
2888
9490
1682
0654
2185
8986
7229(6)
3878
4753(6)
4389
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
-------
8104O1
8104O2
81O4O4
810405
810407
81O779
810784
81O785
810790
81O791
810787
810788
810789
8 1 167
8 1 168
8 1 17O
8 1271
8 1273
MEAN
O9-O1-81
O9-O1-81
09-03-81
O9-O3-81
O9-O9-81
09-15-81
09-24-81
09-24-81
O9-3O-81
10-O1-81
1O-O9-81
1O-15-81
1O-15-81
1O-2O-81
1O-2O-81
1O-21-81
10-27-81
1O-29-81
(COUNT) :
42O36
42O65
421O4
42116
42159
422O5
42327
42342
42381
42396
42458
42465
42481
42532
42542
42619
427O8
428O2
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
HWFE
FTP
FTP (8)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(S)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
. 1 1O23
.O2442
. 14O42
.01 907
. 10008
.OO762
. 0300O
.OO556
.07481
.O1446
STATE
.09844
.O1617
.06770
.01 197
STATE
.O2329
. 1O971
.O9142
.O3343
.O1532
.00684
.3O76
.0507
.2757
.0361
.2434
.0219
. 1864
.O147
. 1948
.0215
2.0138
1 .83OO
1 .9635
1 .691 1
1 .9717
1 .7136
1 .9685
1 .7196
2.O132
1 .7616
.245
.453
.332
.566
.259
.436
. 197
.631
.274
.631
23.3040
29.4085
22.3305
28. 1 124
23.3112
28.6712
22.7543
28.3533
22.4454
27.9608
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
w UOP
w UOP
W UOP
w UOP
w UOP
w UOP
w UOP
w UOP
w UOP
w UOP
Coating
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coating
Coat Ing
REGENERATION
.3476
. 1O17
.2O73
.O145
1 .9016
1 .7686
2.0266
1.8364
.282
.633
.249
.804
23.2494
28.4189
22.3962
27.8O95
Corning
Corning
Corning
Corning
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
EX-47
12"
12"
12"
12"
w UOP
w UOP
w UOP
w UOP
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
Coat Ing
REGENERATION
.0291
.3579
.2651
.0679
.0363
.O29O
1 .6961
1 .9589
1 .9772
.0404
1 .7521
.O572
.645
.493
.291
.O9O
.600
. 117
28.5858
23.4070
22.8998
.4656
28.4150
.500O
Corning
Corning
EX-47
EX-47
12"
12"
w UOP
w UOP
Coat Ing
Coating
Testing terminated due to radial crack
2/3 way down trap.
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 4-28-81 THROUGH 11-17-81):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
FTP .3642 .2822 .97O2
HWFE .1436 .0657 .9978
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP 63.6% 72.8% 3.O%
HWF E 85.6% 93.4% 0.2%
.5948
1 .6655
1.OOO6
.995O
0.06%
-O.5%
I
Ln
81 1274
81 1275
81 1277
81 1278
81 128O
81 1281
MEAN
1 1-1O-81
1 1-1O-81
1 1-12-81
1 1-12-81
1 1-17-81
1 1-17-81
(COUNT) :
42839
42849
42888
42899
42937
42948
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (3)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(3)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.24975
.09 128
.25987
.O9170
.26283
. 1O1 15
.25748
. OO686
.09471
.00558
.9307
.5311
.8883
.5327
.9303
.5492
.9164
.0244
.5377
.01OO
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
.9580
. 71O9
.O316
. 8 162
.OO39
.7630
.9978
.0372
.7634
.O527
.502
.346
.448
.341
.455
.329
.468
.029
.339
.009
23
28
22
28
23
28
23
28
.3885
.7469
9682
.5051
.2794
.9054
.2120
.2181
.7191
.2016
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
-------
81 1617
81 1618
81 162O
81 162 1
81 1623
81 1624
81 1626
81 1762
81 1764
81 1765
81 1766
81 1768
81 1815
811816
81 1817
81 1818
81 1820
81 1821
81 1823
81 1824
none
MEAN
1 1-25-81
11-25-81
12-O1-81
12-01-81
12-02-81
12-O2-81
12-O9-81
12-09-81
12-O9-81
12-1O-81
12-1O-81
12-1 1-81
12-1 1-81
12-16-81
12-17-8
12-17-8
12-22-8
12-22-8
12-23-8
01-06-82
01-2O-82
(COUNT) :
42989
43004
43045
43059
43091
431O7
432O2
43215
43264
43281
43294
43335
43338
43374
43397
434 1O
43494
435O7
43547
43590
43819
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
STEADY
STEADY
FTP (8)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(8)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.22543
.07731
. 21 1 1O
.O5556
. 17174
.04629
. 1488O
.04778
STATE
. 12539
.O3666
.O9947
.03259
STATE
. 10905
.O3871
. 18491
.04120
STATE
STATE
STATE
. 15949
.O4665
.O47O1
.O1419
.9172
.5150
.8418
.4925
.9006
.4547
.8705
.4684
.8514
.4561
.8498
.44O2
.8667
.4445
.9166
.4349
.8768
.03O5
.4633
.O277
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0467
8273
8357
7006
9O80
6543
OO84
8342
OO77
7915
9680
7176
9643
7493
0677
8752
9758
O756
7688
0759
.065
.055
.069
.051
.076
.053
.062
.061
.049
.034
.055
.036
.058
.024
.065
.037
.062
.008
.044
.013
23
28
24
29
24
31
22
27
22
28
22
28
23
28
22
27
23
1
28
1
5563
9159
8297
0897
8923
926O
1381
7469
9416
2124
9977
8552
O468
935O
O332
3792
3O45
0810
8825
3789
NGK *2
NGK #2
NGK #2
NGK #2
NGK #2
NGK #2
NGK #2
NGK #2
REGENERATION
NGK #2
NGK #2
NGK #2
NGK ff2
REGENERATION
NGK #2
NGK #2
NGK #2
NGK #2
REGENERATION ATTEMPTED
REGENERATION
REGENERATION
* EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 11-1O-81 THROUGH 11-17-81):
*
* RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
.6194
.4964
38. 1%
50. 4%
.9568
.8616
4 . 3%
13 .8%
.9890
1 .OO31
1. 1%
-0.3%
. 1325
. 1298
86 . 8%
8 7.O%
1.OO4O
1.O057
-O.4%
-0.6%
-------
-58-
Appendix A-2
Test Data on Peugeot 504 Diesel
-------
VEHICLE I.D. 504ACO-27OO783 (1978 PEUGEOT 5O4)
EMMISIONS (G/MI)
1 tbl
NUMBER
799861
799862
799867
799868
799869
799870
799871
799872
799873
MEAN
i tb I
DATE
09-12-79
O9- 12-79
10-26-79
10-26-79
10-3O-79
1O-31-79
1O-31-79
1 1-01-79
1 1-O1-79
(COUNT) :
uuum
(MI)
7375
7397
75O1
7521
7541
7552
7572
7586
7606
1 CS 1
CYCLE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE (4)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
8OO5OO
8005O1
80O5O3
8OO504
800506
800507
8005 1 2
8005 1 3
800514
8OO5 1 5
MEAN
1 1-20-79
1 1-20-79
1 1-21-79
1 1-21-79
1 1-28-79
11-28-79
12-1 1-79
12-11-79
12-12-79
12-12-79
(COUNT) :
7854
7874
7917
7928
7987
7998
85OO
8522
8559
857O
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE
STANDARD DEVIATION:
r.c.
HC
.68810
. 2870O
.62320
.2367O
.93810
.78200
.2817O
.82170
. 286OO
.77062(5)
. 12179
.27285
.O2421
.0799O
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
.O896O
N/R
.0326O
. O66OO
.06737(3)
.O3O5O
. 06600 ( 1)
N/A
CO
1.5910
.6260
1 .3980
.586O
1 . 568O
1 .528O
.677O
1 .716O
.6590
1 .5602(5)
. 1147
.637O
.O4OO
.O650
.OOOO
. 1080
-.004O
.O96O
.0000
.0660
.OOOO
.O680
.OOOO
.0806(5)
.O2OO
.0000(5)
.OOOO
NOx
. 1912
.O380
.1561
.0260
. 1371
.OO46
.70O4
. 1748
.1120
1 . 1328(5)
.0744
.9691
. 1831
1 .0354
.9663
N/R
N/R
1 . 1 138
.9775
1 .0794
.98OO
1 . 1145
.936O
1 .0858(4)
.O374
.9650(4)
.0202
TP
.369
.233
.309
.202
N/R
.254
.209
.318
.210
.312(4)
.047
.214
.013
.095
.265
. 153
.943
.096
.703
.654
1.281
.541
1 . 144
.308(5)
.268
.867(5)
.401
(mpg) TRAP TYPE
26
33
24
33
26
32
33
27
33
27
2
33
26
33
26
32
26
34
25
32
25
33
26
33
.1117 Baseline
2192 Baseline
6886 Basel 1ne
8399 Baseline
9561 Baseline
4244 Baseline
4744 Baseline
9346 Basel Ine
9642 Baseline
6231(5)
9364
6244
34O9
6096 Johnson-Mat they
9158 Johnson-Matthey
OO2O Johnson-Matthey
8218 Johnson-Matthey
1377 Johnson-Matthey
3741 Johnson-Matthey
7327 Johnson-Matthey
5947 Johnson-Matthey
942O Johnson-Matthey
34O4 Johnson-Matthey
O848(5)
3277
4094(5)
7418
JM-4
JM-4
JM-4
JM-4
JM-4
JM-4
JM-4
JM-4
JM-4
JM-4
#1
tt\
H\
H\
tt\
#\
tt\
#1
*1
H\
Testing terminated after 6OO miles due
to higher TP emissions (on FTP, LA-4,
& HWFE) than baseline, also high EGBP.
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA FROM BASELINE TESTING (9-12-79 THROUGH 3-13-79):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
.O874
.2419
9 1 . 3%
75.8%
.0528
.OOOO
94 . 7%
100.0%
.9683
.9822
.9716
4.07O4
3.2% 2.8%
1.8% -307.0%
.9443
1.OO24
-5.6%
0. 2%
-------
8OO517 02-29-8O
800518 O3-12-8O
8OO530 03-13-8O
8368
8378
8687
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
FTP
FTP
HWFE
FTP (2)
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/A
N/A
1 .3410
1 .5440
.6880
1 .4425
. 1435
1 .0895
1 .0967
1 .0360
1 .0931
.OO51
.336
.318
.209
.327
.013
27.9779
27.2677
32. 1563
27.6228
.5O22
Basel 1ne
Basel Ine
Base) Ine
MEAN (COUNT):
HWFE(1) N/A
. 688O
1.O36O
. 2O9
32. 1563
8O0531
8O0532
8OO533
8O0534
800524
8OO525
8OO526
8OO527
8O0528
8O0529
8O0521
BOOS 1 6
8OO535
8OO537
MEAN
03-27-8O
03-27-80
03-28-8O
O3-28-8O
O4-02-8O
04 -02 -SO
O4-O9-8O
O4-O9-8O
O4-1O-8O
04-10-80
O4-17-8O
O4-22-8O
O5-22-8O
O5-22-8O
(COUNT) :
8736
8749
8792
8806
8879
8897
8954
8979
9O35
9059
9246
9315
9351
9374
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.O2850
N/R
.O518O
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
. 16O1O
.09450
.O8O13O)
.O7023
.O9450( 1)
N/A
.O560
.0120
. 122O
.0020
. 175O
.O12O
. 1750
.0160
. 191O
.016O
.OO6O
.2010
. 1220
.OOOO
. 1489(7)
.05 15
. O09 1(7)
.OO65
1 . 1099
.9790
.9714
.8970
1 .0617
.9300
.9846
.9830
.9913
.9480
.846O
.9568
.9859
1 .O140
1 .0088(7)
.0556
.9424(7)
.0572
. 186
.223
. 140
N/R
N/R
.764
.274
1 . 182
.290
.992
.816
. 137
. 178
1 .095
.201(6)
. O66
.845(6)
.344
24
32
29
36
27
34.
27
32
27
32
35
27
28
33
27
1
34.
1
.8644
.6494
.7264
.3474*
.2441
.7736
.3931
.5472
.6889
. 373O
. 51O9
9936
.3714
.8871
.6177(7)
.4681
O127(7)
. 58O4
Johnson-Mat they
Johnson- Mat they
Johnson-Mat they
Johnson- Mat they
Johnson- Mat they
Johnson-Mat they
Johnson -Mat they
Johnson -Mat they
Johnson -Mat they
Johnson -Mat they
Johnson- Mat they
Johnson-Mat they
Johnson -Mat they
Johnson- Mat they
JM-4 #2
JM-4 #2
JM-4 HZ
JM-4 #2
JM-4 #2
JM-4 »2
JM-4 H2
JM-4 HI
JM-4 #2
JM-4 H2
JM-4 #2
JM-4 H2
JM-4 02
JM-4 #2
o
I
Similar to JM-4 H\ but with superior
flow characteristics.
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA FROM BASELINE TESTING (9-12-79 THROUGH 3-13-8O):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
. 1O4O
.3463
89 .6%
65 . 4%
.0975
.O141
9O.2%
98 . 6%
.8995
.9592
.6413
3.9671
10.0% 35.9%
4.1% -296.7%
.9996
1 .02O5
-O.O4%
2 .0%
1.OOO tulles accumulated
* Questionable data
-------
800519 06-03-80 1O428
8O0520 06-O3-80 10443
803659 06-O4-80 1O499
8O36SO 06-04-8O 1O519
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE
RATIO OF TEST DATA
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
8O3628 07-O3-80 10624
8O3629 O7-O9-80 10654
8O3630 07-O9-80 1O667
8O3631 07-15-8O 1O717
80363H- 07-15-80 10717
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (2)
HWFE(2)
.6231O
. 13700
.29760
.056OO
.46035
.23O16
.O965O
.05728
TRAP RELATIVE TO
WITH TRAP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
FTP (2)
HWFE
TO TEST
.5974
.3537
4 O.3%
64 .6%
.02340
.04950
N/R
N/R
N/R
.03645
.O1846
N/A
N/A
. 40OO .
.OOOO
.2890
.OOOO
.3445
.0785
.OOOO
.OOOO
TEST DATA FROM
.9879
.844O
.9756
.8640
.9818
.OO87
.854O
.0141
BASELINE
.457
1 .591
.436
1 .488
.446
.015
1 .540
.073
TESTING (9-
22.
32.
26.
31 .
24.
2.
31 .
12-
7344
4518
6088
5449
6716
7396
9984
6413
Johnson-Matthey JM-4 #2
Johnson-Mat they JM-4 #2
Johnson-Matthey JM-4 #2
Johnson-Matthey JM-4 #2
79 THROUGH 3-13-8O):
DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
.2257
.OOOO
77.4%
100.0%
.0490
.0530
- . 0090
.OOOO
.OOOO
.0510
.OO28
.0000(3)
.0000
.8755
.8692
12.5%
1 .4230
7 .23OO
-42.3%
13. 1% -623.0%
.73O1
.8671
.776O
.759O
.803O
.7986
.O969
.7793(3)
.O222
. 144
. 1 13
.286
.259
N/R
. 128
.022
.272(2)
.019
-1O
-4
27.
27.
33.
33.
32.
27.
32.
8932
96OO
.7%
.0%
13O9
8548
9384
4533
3531
4928
51 19
2483(3)
8123
Johnson-Matthey JM-4 #2 w low sulfur
Johnson-Matthey JM-4 #2 w low sulfur
Johnson-Matthey JM-4 H2 w low sulfur
Johnson-Matthey JM-4 #2 w low sulfur
Johnson-Matthey JM-4 #2 w low sulfur
fuel
fuel
fuel
fuel
fuel
EFFECT OF LOW SULFUR FUEL ON ABOVE TRAP COMPARED TO SAME TRAP TESTED WITH NO. 2 DIESEL FUEL (3-22-8O THROUGH 6-4-8O):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH LOW SULFUR FUEL TO TEST DATA WITH NO. 2 DIESEL FUEL:
FTP .1570 .2652 .7964 .4885 1.O198
HWFE N/A .OOOO .8445 .267O .96O8
-------
-62-
Appendix A-3
Test Data on Toyota Crown Diesel
-------
VEHICLE I.D. K-LS110-SEMFSY (1981 TOYOTA CROWN SUPER-DELUX)
EMMISIONS (G/MI)
1 tb 1
NUMBER
810714
810715
81O717
81O719
81072O
81O721
810725
810726
MEAN
i ti i
DATE
O9-O1-81
09-O1-81
O9-02-81
O9-03-81
O9- 1O-81
09-10-81
09-15-81
O9-15-81
(COUNT) :
UUUM
(KM)
173O
1737
1812
1864
1906
1943
2O8O
2090
1 ti 1
CYCLE
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (4)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(4)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
81O732
81O935
81O936
810938
81O939
81094O
810942
81O943
MEAN
09-24-8
10-O1-8
10-O1-8
1O-O6-8
10-O7-8
10-O7-8
10-08-8
1O-08-8
(COUNT) :
236O
2446
2456
2539
2564
2623
2653
2678
FTP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP (5)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(3)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
HC
.38349
. 18551
.18121
.372O4
.36574
. 18465
.35640
. 17678
.36942
.01 137
. 182O4
.O0397
.21746
.33636
. 14405
.33187
.31036
. 151 18
.31753
. 15006
.3O272
.O4881
. 14843
.00383
CO
1 . 1801
.5809
.5888
1 . 1150
1 . 1998
.5944
1 . 1255
.5815
1 . 1551
.0413
.5864
.0064
1 .O196
1 .O705
.5848
1 .051 1
.9942
.5728
1 .0445
.5615
1 .O360
.O296
.5730
.0117
NOx
.3974
. 1950
.2716
.4581
.59O3
.3013
.4865
. 1317
1 .4831
.O8O6
1 .2249
.0766
.5550
.4551
.2018
.5562
.5388
.2244
.5161
.2100
1 .5242
.04 19
1.2121
.0114
TP
.309
. 195
.219
.316
.365
.238
.322
.211
.328
.025
.216
.018
.268
.237
. 133
.215
. 184
. 128
.213
. 112
.223
.031
. 124
.011
r . c .
(mpg)
25
34
34
26
24
34
26
34
25
34
27
25
33
26
26
34
26
34
26
34
.9541
.5527
.6704
.2304
.9378
.3181
.2327
.4391
.8388
.6147
.4951
. 1511
. 1 144
.9754
.8778
.6589
.4624
.3343
. 1 157
.5698
.4654
.4531
.2606
.3518
TRAP TYPE
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
Dummy Trap
ICI Saffll
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
ICI Saffl
fourth generation
fourth generation
fourth generation
fourth generation
fourth generation
fourth generation
fourth generation
fourth generation
OJ
I
Testing terminated due to
trapping efficiency.
insuffIctent
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 9- 1-81 THROUGH 1O-21-81):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWF E
.8259
.7810
17.4%
21.9%
.9175
.9659
8.2%
3 . 4%
1 . O209
1.OO21
-2. 1%
-0 . 2%
.7217
.5799
27.8%
42. 1%
1 .O172
.9955
1.7%
-0. 4%
-------
81O945
810946
81 1 153
81 1 154
MEAN
1O-20-81
10-21-81
' 10-21-81
10-21-81
(COUNT) :
2755
2777
2796
283O
FTP
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP (2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
MEAN
(COUNT) :
HWFE(2)
STANDARD DEVIATION:
81 1157
811158
81 1 159
811161
81 1378
81 1379
81 1380
81 1381
81 1576
81 1577
81 1578
81 1642
81 t643
81 1645
81 1646
81 1648
81 1649
81 1788
81 1789
81 179O
81 1792
81 1793
81 1797
812O3O
81 1985
81 1986
81 1987
81 1988
81 1990
81 1991
MEAN
10-22-81
10-27-81
10-27-81
10-28-81
-1O-81
-1O-81
- 12-81
-12-81
-18-81
-19-81
-19-81
-25-81
-25-81
12-08-81
12-08-81
12- 1O-81
12-10-81
12-1 1-81
12- 15-81
12-15-81
12- 16-81
12-16-81 ,
01-O7-82
O1-07-82
O1-08-82
O1-O8-82
O1-12-82
O1- 12-82
01-13-82'
O1- 13-82
(COUNT) :
2925
2961
2983
3O69
3527
3553
3602
3632
4053
4O73
4O98
4171
4195
460?
4631
4686
4708
4763
4805
4827
488O
49O1
5458
5481
5572
5595
5639
5660
5725
5749
FTP
FTP
HWFE
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
FTP
STEADY
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
.35207
.36940
.20612
. 20607
.36074
.O1225
.20610
. 00004
.38914
.34599
. 16529
. 15884
.27745
. 14245
.23063
. 12921
STATE
.32747
. 17030
.28351
. 15453
.351O7
. 13262
.2348O
. 13451
STATE
.34349
. 18716
.40704
. 19454
.24459
. 14436
.27943
STATE
.30177
. 17566
.36439
.2O334
FTP (14) .31291
STANDARD DEVIATION:
.O5679
1 .0536
1 . 1007
.6O76
.6O6O
1 .0772
.0333
.6068
,OO1 1
1 .083O
1 .0565
.5658
.5687
1 .0549
.655O
1 .0664
.63O1
1 . 1277
.5838
.9312
.5837
1 .2275
.6370
1 .O190
.6937
.9934
.5992
1 .0452
.6579
1 .0765
.6738
1 .O366
1 .0773
.6343
1 . 1726
.62O6
1 .0691
.0728
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
^
i
. 5O53
.5201
.2002
. 1572
.5127
.O105
. 1787
. O304
.5009
.4432
. 1203
. 1407
.4741
. 1587
.4767
. 1743
. 3938 '
. 1158
.5439
.2189
.5108
.2412
.54O3
. 2504
.4339
. 1533
.486O
.2181
.4O82
. 1214
.4207
.4173
. 1255
.3707
. 1OO7
.4638
.0525
.281
.260
.233
. 186
.270
.015
.210
.033
.261
. 133
. O86
.046
.063
.039
.048
.032
.099
.045
. 101
.049
. O68
.039
.049
.029
. 154
.061
. 102
.059
N/R
N/R
.066
. 138
.059
.081
.056
. 105
.058
26.3738
.O9O3
34.2515
.4O76
26.3669
27. 1526
35. 1594
34.2159
26.2582
33.4195
26. 1983
33.3197
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
H\
tt\
REGENERATION
26.7916
34.4417
26.3375
33.5389
25.2472
32.9925
25.3540
32.2517
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
H\
H\
H\
H\
H\
H\
H\
H\
REGENERATION
27. 1613
35.3897
26.9243
34. 1865
25.9273
34.O887
26.2588
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK'
NGK
NGK
AM
H\
H\
H\
AM
AM
AM
REGENERATION
26.6623
34.6649
26. 1593
34 .O763
26.3428
.5809
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
H\
H\
#1
tt\
ON
-P^
I
MEAN (COUNT):
STANDARD DEVIATION:
HWFE
.16099(13) .6234(13) 1.1646(12)
.O2434 .O409 .O514
.O5O(13) 33.9804(13)
.016 .87O2
* Questionable data
-------
EFFECTIVENESS OF ABOVE TRAP RELATIVE TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP (FROM 1O-2O-81 THROUGH 10-21-81):
RATIO OF TEST DATA WITH TRAP TO TEST DATA WITH DUMMY TRAP:
TRAP EFFICIENCY:
FTP
HWFE
FTP
HWFE
.8674
.781 1
1 3 . 3%
2 1 . 9%
.9925
1 .0274
0.8%
-2.7%
.9677
.9880
3.2%
1 . 2%
.3889
.2381
61 . 1%
76 . 2%
.9988
.9921
-0. 1%
-0 . 8%
I
ON
-------
-66-
Appendix B
Particulate Data on Certification Tests Conducted at EPA
-------
APPENDIX B-1
DATA ON ALL DIESEL CAR FTP TESTS CONDUCTED BY EPA'S CERTIFICATION DIVISION THROUGH DECEMBER 31. 1981
MFR
AUDI
AUDI
AUDI
AUDI
AUDI
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
ISUZ
ISUZ
ISUZ
ISUZ
ISUZ
ISUZ
ISUZ
MERC
MERC
MERC
VEHICLE
I.D. NUMBER
577-61 1
577-614
577-616
577-616
5O3-637
C1T059
C1TO61
1 1B9-1T06OF
1 1B9-1TO62F
1 1B9- 1TO62F
1 1B9-1TO62F
L14556-FEC
L14556-FEC
L14557
L24555
004646
OO6600
OO6746
00676O
OO6761
007436
016531
016531
L14597
L146O3-FEC
L16591
L16751
L17347-FEC
L17385
L19583-FEC
L19583-FEC
L19583-FEC
L19583-FEC
L19583-FEC
L19583-FEC
L19583-FEC
PFD6O-67O3099
PFD6O-6703O99
PFD6O-67O310O
PFD6O-67O3100
PFD6O-67O3100
PFD60-67O3101
PFD6O-67O31O1
W 123 D 24-Z 114
W 123 D 24-Z 115
W 123 D 24-Z 115
TEST
NUMBER
81O699
8107O1
81O128
810191
8O7069
8O72O6
8O72O7
807958
808O56
8OS310
808537
81O618
81 1781
81O343
81 1572
8O6557
8O4418
8O4674
8O631 1
8O5231
806366
806487
806637
809625
81O447
809953
81O883
81O451
809860
810443
810445
81O518
81 1O14
81 1016
81 1 103
81 1287
8O7237
807385
8O7291
BO74O9
810O73
8O7292
81OO75
805716
805535
805793
TEST
TYPE
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
FE
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
FE
EMIS
EMIS
FE
EMIS
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
EMIS
FE
EMIS
FE
FE
EMIS
FE
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMISSIONS (G/MI)
ODOM .
3918
3943
3949
3993
3897
4123
4098
544O
5531
5599
5789
7777
8415
3993
4103
3968
4039
3953
4O56
3956
4O28
3961
403O
3871
8O01
3932
4591
9887
3969
7847
7890
7934
8687
8643
8731
8957
3861
391 1
3934
3988
4047
3878
4010
3966
3969
4016
HC
.210
. 177
.323
.201
.296
. 172
. 152
. 173
.249
.266
.221
. 182
. 186
. 120
. 118
.322
.312
.274
.378
.340
.427
.267
.265
.216
.222
.250
.299
.273
.221
.309
.335
.317
. 159
. 183
. 182
. 156
. 181
.204
.339
.297
.266
.247
.253
.217
.204
.233
CO
.67
.70
1 . 19
.68
.53
.54
.66
.59
.72
.73
.71
.76
.61
.58
.63
1 .OO
1 .02
1 .24
1 . 18
1 .04
1 .24
.98
.92
.77
.82
.75
.81
.88
.81
.88
.88
.99
.81
.83
.82
.79
.56
.57
.79
.77
.59
.72
.59
.95
.75
.80
NOx
1 . 16
1 .21
1 .33
1 . 14
1 .29
1 .06
1 . 19
1 .07
1 . 15
1 . 12
1 .08
1 .32
1 .38
1 .21
1 .23
1 .48
1 .47
1 .02
1.30
1 .43
1 . 13
1 .59
1.41
1 .43
1 .26
1 .47
1 .40
1 .42
1 .42
1 . 19
1 .23
1.21
1 .42
1 .38
1.31
1 .30
1 . 13
1 .09
1 .06
.99
1 . 18
1 . 1O
1 .07
1 .27
1 .52
1 .43
TP
. 149
. 142
,336
.203
.379
. 163
.207
. 171
.203
.236
.208
. 179
.207
.209
.324
.344
.363
.702
.411
.357
.456
.337
.332
.281
.311
.284
.292
.308
.387
.297
.295
.305
.333
.332
.342
.310
. 192
. 150
.245
.222
. 198
. 181
. 182
.409
.373
.320
MPG
33
36
37
4O
26
35
4O
36
39
41
4O
24
24
24
24
21
2O
19
19
19
2O
20
21
• 22
22
21
2O
21
20
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
40
41
36
37
39
32
35
29
26
26
1
4
O
8
8
O
1
0
5
O
6
8
2
5
1
6
9
7
4
7
3
9
2
1
9
4
5
3
1
6
9
7
O
3
2
9
1
1
2
9
9
7
4
O
1
6
ETW
2750
2750
2625
2625
325O
250O
25OO
250O
25OO
25OO
250O
375O
375O
375O
375O
4000
4250
4750
4750
4750
45OO
425O
425O
4OOO
40OO
425O
4750
4250
450O
45OO
4250
425O
450O
4250
45OO
4250
25OO
2500
2625
2625
2625
2750
2750
350O
35OO
35OO
CID
97
97
97
97
121
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
263
263
263
263
350
35O
35O
35O
350
35O
35O
350
35O
350
350
35O
35O
35O
350
350
350
35O
35O
35O
35O
1 1
11
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
11
147
147
147
ENG.
CONF
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-5
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
V-6
V-6
V-6
V-6
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
EGR
TRAN ?
A3
MS
MS
MS
MS
L3
MS
L3
MS
MS
MS
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
A3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L4
L4
L4
L3
L3
L3
L4
L4
L4
L4
M4
M4
MS
MS
MS
A3
A3
M4
A4
A4
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
TRBO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MODEL
YEAR
82
82
82
82
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
82
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
81
81
81
81
82881
81
82881
81
81
81
-------
MERC
MERC
MERC
MERC
MERC
MERC
MERC
MERC
MERC
MERC
MISS
NISS
NISS
PEUG
PEUG
PEUG
PEUG
PEUG
PEUG
PEUG
PEUG
PEUG
PEUG
PEUG
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLV
VOLV
VOLV
VOLV
VOLV
VOLV
VOLV
W 123 D 24-Z 115
W123D24-Z207
W123D24-Z208
S 123 D 3O-Z 1 18
S 123 D 3O-Z 1 19
W 123 D 3O-Z 116
W 123 D 3O-Z 116
W 126 D 30-Z 12O
W 126 0 3O-Z 120
W 126 D 3O-Z 120
BDW273
BD01 1
BDW271
81-63O
81-630
81-69O
82-276
82-639
82-64O
82-64O
82-650
82-651
82-652
82-653
O71-6O8
O71-6O8
071-608
199-728
306-606
306-606
306-606
306-6O7
306-6O8
306-623
306-623
463-835
O71-6O9
O71-6O9
071-6O9
O71-6O9
071-612
071-612
550-4O6
181-5O8
181-508
181-5O8
181-511
55O-408
550-41O
81 :25
81 :25
81 :26
81 :26
81 :27
81 :28
81:4
80606 1
809855
810009
805612
805614
8056 1O
8O5795
805789
8O58O1
8O9842
81OO37
8O7865
81OO35
806396
806522
8O6349
809766
8O7926
807858
808240
809454
8O9486
809450
8O9452
8O7625
807681
807726
8O6262
805591
805766
806057
8O4693
8O4696
8O649O
8O6638
8O5167
81O189
81O24O
81O355
81O462
809574
809741
809576
81O738
81O769
81O813
81O771
81O736
81O740
8O7456
8O7510
807454
8O7512
8O9309
809294
8O9262
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
FE
FE
FE
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
FE
EMIS
FE
FE
EMIS
FE
FE
EMIS
FE
FE
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
DURB
4O71
3989
4094
3965
3951
3954
4O01
400O
4O4O
4226
405O
4319
4O43
4292
4336
4297
4206
42O3
4O6O
4109
4O92
4O17
4O18
4128
4373
4415
4466
3994
3949
3992
4102
3922
3918
3967
4053
3942
4O15
3969
4O58
41 12
3982
4O4O
3903
3991
4O32
41 1O
3948
3906
3904
4O32
4O88
395O
4013
3622
3881
44135
.215
. 190
. 196
.257
.205
. 197
.221
. 176
.206
.218
. 184
. 197
. 193
.298
.324
. 195
.312
.200
.203
.287
. 122
. 128
. 104
. 162
.366
.345
.232
.396
.233
.272
.329
. 19O
.245
.316
.268
.499
.228
.223
. 196
.204
.238
. 163
.285
. 179
. 172
. 150
. 175
.200
.232
.698
.758
.597
.723
.275
. 184
. 155
.78
1 .01
.80
.99
.82
.91
.92
1 . 1O
1 .09
.93
.90
1 .02
1 .20
1 .42
1 .48
1 .37
1 .26
1 .24
.97
1 .09
.78
1 .45
.74
1 .01
.95
.80
.75
1 . 10
.76
.90
.96
.67
1 . 1O
.74
.80
1 .00
.80
.73
.79
.83
.89
.65
.90
.85
.84
.65
.57
.89
.83
1 .95
2.04
1 .53
1 .66
1 .22
.94
.86
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.42
. 16
. 13
.29
.32
.37
.29
.31
.20
. 13
.00
. 14
. 14
.80
.82
.97
.78
.34
. 1 1
. 13
.08
. 12
.97
.06
.88
.83
.87
.04
.03
.00
.89
.04
.03
.07
.96
.92
.86
.84
.81
.80
.81
.78
.82
. 14
. 15
.97
.22
.01
.05
.29
.26
.23
. 17
.34
.22
.34
.357
.461
.344 .
.436
.375
.409
.382
.548
.501
.484
.276
.239
.226
.399
.384
.492
.310
.326
.252
.283
.238
.239
.272
.223
.208
. 184
. 176
.307
.215
.209
. 182
.206
.263 .
.370
.217
.277
. 191
. 162
. 174
. 185
. 169
. 162
. 197
.239
.207
. 149
. 176
.208
. 181
.319
.379
.281
.315
.292
.307
.421
27.0
28.6
26.9
23.7
24.8
23.7
24.3
24.9
25.9
26.6
28.4
26.8
29.5
25.4
25.6
27.7
27.2
26.8
23.4
23.4
25.3
27.3
28. 1
28.7
42.8
45.6
45. 0
36.0
41.4
42.4
42.8
40.0
38.2
38. 1
38. 0
45.2
43. 1
44. 1
44.9
44.6
43.3
46. 1
40.0
35.8
36. 1
40.5
32. 0
39.7
33.9
28. 1
27.9
25.9
26. 0
29.0
26.2
26.7
350O
35OO
350O
3875
4000
375O
3750
4OOO
4000
4000
3375
3375
3375
3625
3625
3500
375O
3750
375O
375O
375O
375O
350O
350O
2375 .
2375
2375
2625
225O
2250
2250
2375
2375
2375
2375
2250
2375
2375
2375
2375
2375
2375
25OO
2875
275O
2750
2875
2500
2625
35OO
350O
3375
3375
3500
3375
3375
147
147
147
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
17O
17O
17O
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
97
97
97
97 .
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-5
L-5
L-5
L-5
L-5
L-5
L-5
L-6
L-6
L-6
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-6
L-6
L-6
L-6
L-6
L-6
L-6
A4
M4
A4
A4
A4
A4
A4
A4
A4
A4
L3
L3
MS
M4
M4
M4
M4
M5
A3
A3
A3
M5
A3
M5
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
MS
MS
M5
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M5
M5
M5
A3
M5
A3
M4
M4
A3
A3
M4
A3
A3
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
TJO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO,
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
81
82
82
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
82
81
81
81
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
I
c^
00
-------
APPENDIX B-2
DATA ON ALL DIESEL TRUCK FTP TESTS CONDUCTED BY EPA'S CERTIFICATION DIVISION THROUGH DECEMBER 31. 1981
MFR
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
IHC
IHC
ISUZ
ISUZ
ISUZ
ISUZ
ISUZ
ISUZ
NISS
NISS
NISS
NISS
NISS
NISS
NISS
TKM
TOTA
TOTA
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VOLK
VEHICLE
I.D. NUMBER
OOC237
OOC240
OOC241
19J9-9C275F
C1C244
C1C661
C1K136
C1K535
410A
473
B82OOO95
B82OOO95
B8200096
BO709759
BO709759
BO7O9759
SW375
SW376
SW476
SW477
SW479
SW480
SW48O
2ES2T-1
81-FTE-6
81-FTE-7
3O6-61O
071-622
162-562
162-562
TEST
NUMBER
804 7O4
8O4815
8O4813
806951
81O223
.81O230
81O22O
81O232
8O5330
8O5359
8O688O
8O6941
806882
811429
81 1521
81 1551
8O6566
806667
810563
809768
810332
809578
8O9918
810643
8O6959
806888
8O4861
810441
810250
81O257
TEST
TYPE
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
FE
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
FE
EMIS
FE
FE
FE
EMIS
EMIS
FE
EMIS
FE
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
EMIS
FE
EMIS
FE
EMISSIONS (G/MI)
ODOM
3994
391 1
4O36
4121
3996
3924
3948
4008
8145
12265
3865
3929
• 3805
398O
4032
4059
4018
41O6
4O46
3966
3927
3926
3965
4205
3936
3993
3940
3931
3935
3935
HC
.740
.250
.310
.700
. 190
.290
.430
.270
. 190
. 120
.220
. 18O
.240
.350
.350
.3OO
.300
.290
.390
.340
.330
.340
.350
. 120
,41O
.260
.360
. ISO
.200
.200
CO NOx
.60 2.15
.20
.20
.70
.80
. 1O
.40
1 . 1O
.80
.70
1 .20
1 . 10
1 . 1O
1 .40
1 .30
1 .30
1 .00
.90
.90
.90
1 . 1O
. 14
.31
.70
.91
.64
.42
.52
.51
.60
.75
.75
.79
.31
.28
.26
.46
.39
.25
.30
.20
1.5O .93
1.50 .93
.60 1 . 2O
.90 1.17
.80 1.24
1 . 50 1-06
.70 .91
1 . 90 1 . 20
1 .70 1.19
TP
.777
.792
.461
.764
.289
.222
.301
.384
.339
.375
.246
. 173
.289
.346
.234
.258
.301
.254
.237
.236
.255
.243
.258
. 191
.200
. 187
.270
. 173
.361
.316
MPG
18
18
18
18
2O
19
18
21
19
20
31
32
28
32
33
33
32
34
32
32
33
32
32
33
31
32
38
41
28
29
8
8
7
5
6
O
4
2
5
5
4
1
2
O
3
1
O
O
g
7
O
1
6
1
2
1
3
3
5
5
ETW
4750
5000
475O
5000
5OOO
525O
6OOO
550O
45OO
4500
3125
3OOO
325O
300O
300O
3000
2875
30OO
2875
3125
2875
3125
3125
3250
30OO
3125
2375
2375
4OOO
3625
CID
35O
35O
35O
350
379
379
379
379
198
198
137
137
137
137
137
137
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
135
134
134
97
97
97
97
ENG.
CONF
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
L-6
L-6
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
EGR
TRAN ?
L3
L3
L3
L3
L4
L4
L4
M4
A3
A3
M5
M5
M4
MS
M5
M5
M5
M5
MS
M5
M5
MS
MS
M5
M5
M5
M5
M4
M4
M4
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES.
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
TRBO
7
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MODEL
YEAR
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
82
81
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
81
81
82
82
81
81
81
82
81
81
81
82
82
82
ON
-------
-70-
Appendix C
Results of Ames Testing
-------
Appendix C-1
Results of Ames Testing
Sample Test
Number Vehicle
Trap
79O68O Peugeot Baseline
79O691 Peugeot Baseline
79084O Peugeot JM-4 #1
79O852 Peugeot JM-4 #1
8OO29O Peugeot JM-4 t>2
80031O Peugeot JM-4 tfi
HWFE
LA-4
HWFE
LA-4
HWFE
LA-4
Test
Date
11-O6-79
11-06-79
12-O8-79
12-O8-79
O4-O8-80
04-17-8O
Analysts
Date
06-19-8O
06-19-80
O6-27-8O
O6-27-80
O6-19-8O
O6-19-8O
06-27-80
O6-27-80
06-17-80
O6-17-80
06-24-80
06-24-80
O6-17-80
06-17-80
06-24-80
06-24-80
O8-05-80
08-05-80
O87O5-80
O8-05-80
Acti-
vation
Model Predicted Mean
Specific Activity for Strain:
(revertants per plate / ^ig extract)
TA
5
16
2
14
2
1 1
2
13
19
2O6
22
34
56
74
67
73
21 .
23.
8.
1 1 .
100 TA1537 TA1538
.59
.25
.53
.68
. 14
.32
.35
.04
.24
.20
.27
.70
.62
.00
.85
.83
58
,03
29
, 12
1
5
2
3
1
2
1
1
32
132
28
92
27
19
28
15
27
54
3
12
.65
.51
. 10
.72
.08
.20
.96
.96
.39
.85
.52
.30
.79
.20
.57
.56
.87
.79
.92
.64
TA98
2
8
2
1 1
1
2
1
3
41
27
52
28
31 ,
44.
35
30.
21 .
31 .
15.
1 1 .
.55
.24
.40
.97
.64
.47
.72
. 14
.30
.02
.34
.91
86
.04
.60
.89
52
97
65
18
-------
Results of Ames Testing (Continued)
Model Predicted Mean
Specific Activity for.Strain:
(revertants per plate /fig .extract)
sample lest lest
Number Vehicle Trap Cycle
80O26O Mercedes EX-47 12" non-cat. LA-4
800280 Mercedes EX-47 12" non-cat. LA-4
81O011 Mercedes ICI 4th generation HWFE
81O04O Mercedes ICI 4th generation LA-4
Date Date vatlon
O3-18-8O 08-O4-8O +
08-04-8O
03-20-80 08-O5-8O +
08-O5-80
O3-19-81 06-16-81 +
06-16-81
02-2O-81 O6-16-81 +
06-16-81
i TA
2
7
15
17
3O
47
15.
88
1OO TA1537
.41
.21
.07
. 12
.O 10.2
.2 26.4
.7 4.5
.8 5.2
TA1538 TA98
0.88 0
0 . 90 2
11 . 15 12
5. 1O 15
7
14.
4.
13.
.87
.23
.94
.81
. 1
.0
8
1
-------
Appendix C-2
Sample Test
Number Vehicle
790721 Mercedes 30O SD
(980 Cert. Vehicle
79O77 1 Mercedes 300 TD
198O Cert. Vehicle
79O8OO Mercedes 30O TD
1980 Cert. Vehicle
79O891 Peugeot 5O4 Turbo Diesel
198t Calif. Prototype
141 CID
790941 Peugeot 5O4 Turbo Diesel
1981 Cat If. Prototype
141 CW
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
if Ames Testing of Prototype Vehicles
Test
Date
1 1/14/79
11/20/79
11/21/79
12/18/79
12/20/79
Analyst s
Date
06/1 9/8O
06/19/80
06/27/80
06/27/8O
06/19/80
06/19/80
06/27/80
06/27/80
06/1 9/8O
06/19/8O
06/27/8O
06/27/8O
O6/ 18/80
06/18/8O
06/25/80
06/25/80
06/18/80
06/18/80
06/25/80
06/25/80
Model Predicted Mean
Specific Activity for
(revertants per plate / /
Act1~
vat Ion TA10O TA1535 TA1537
+ 11.13
33.72
+ 11 . 18
22.54
+ 5.49
21 .73
+ 8.76
147.27
+ 4.O6
15.97
+ 5.55
15.48
+ 5.15 0.86 O.68
14.35 0.86 1.89
+ 4.43 1.4O O.95
20.16 0.03 1.52
+ 2.50 0.05
14.58 Negative
+ 2.25 O.19
15.79
Strain:
itg extract)
TA1538
7. 14
15.12
11.51
13.47
9.37
17.46
54.77
1 1 .05
4 .28
7.96
7.74
5.91
2.31
6. 1O
2.65
6.45
TA98
15.08
15. 12
15.32
13.47
8.65
17 .46
8.90
1 1 .05
7.34
7.96
7.49
5.91
3.4O
8.95
3. 1O
9. 15
-J
U)
-------
Appendix C-3
Results of_ Ames Testing of In-Use Vehicles
Privately Owned, 1978 Model Year, High Mileage (over 40,000 miles), Oldsmobile. 350 CID, Diesel Cars
Model Predicted Mean
Specific Activity for Strain:
(revertants per plate / /ig extract)
Sample Test
Number Vehicle
79O911
Delta 88
HWFE
Test
Date
12/2O/79
8O0011
8OOO31
8OOO50
800060
Delta 88
Delta 88
Oldsmobl le 98
Oldsmobtle 98
8OOO7O Olds Custom Cruiser Wgn
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
HWFE
01/02/80
O1/1O/8O
O1/16/80
O1/16/8O
O1/23/8O
Analysis Actl-
Date vat Ion
07/30/80 +
07/3O/80
08/15/80 *
08/15/80
08/18/80 +
08/18/8O
07/3O/80
O7/3O/8O
08/15/80
08/15/80
07/30/80
07/30/80
08/18/80
08/18/80
07/29/80 +
07/29/80
08/11/80 +
08/11/80
07/29/80
07/29/80
08/11/80
08/11/80
O7/29/80
O7/29/8O
08/11/80
08/11/8O
TA100 TA1535
5.
19
4
25
6,
20.
3
11
6
12
6
21
7,
22.
7.
8.
6.
15.
4.
8.
5.
21 .
12.
7.
8.
32.
.33
.90
.79
.94
.88
.63
.91
.68
.95
:49
.33
,20
, 16
.78
.53
22
,8O
,37
09
54
14
76
84
78
31
08
TA1537 TA1538
3
8
3
7
3
6
2
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
12
16
6
16
7.
15
3
8.
12.
11 .
3.
9
.46
.06
.86
.42
.80
.42
.78
. 10
.83
.27
. 16
.92
.21
. 7O
.70
.56
. 19
.51
23
,00
23
,25
,42
20
09
78
TA98
3
14
5
13
8
13
3
1O
3
10
7
12
9
13.
1 1
1O
10,
19
1O.
1 1 ,
8.
13.
10.
12.
13.
13.
.84
.23
.08
.96
.37
.98
.84
.59
.68
.01
.34
.49
.66
.03
.31
.75
,45
.32
O8
.03
,65
66
72
52
56
25
-------
Results of Ames Testing from In-Use Program (Continued)
Model Predicted Mean
Specific Activity for Strain:
(revertants per plate /fig extract)
bampie lest
Number Vehicle
80008O Oldsmoblle 98
8O014O Delta 88
BOO 150 Oldsmoblle 98
8OO16O Oldsmoblle 98
8O017O Oldsmoblle 98
8OO19O Delta 88
8OO2OO Oldsmoblle 98
8OO21O Delta 88
lest lest
Cycle Date
HWFE 01/23/8O
HWFE O1/30/8O
HWFE O1/3O/80
HWFE 02/07/80
HWFE 02/O7/80
HWFE O2/25/8O
HWFE O2/14/8O
HWFE O2/2O/8O
Analysis ACTI-
Date vatlon TA100 TA1535
07/29/80 +
07/29/80
07/31/80 +
07/31/80
07/31/80 +
07/31/80
07/31/80 +
07/31/80
O7/31/80 . +
07/31/80
O8/O1/8O +
08/01/80
08/O1/8O +
08/01/80
08/01/80 +
08/O1/80
9
11
3
7
14
23
9
11
8
15
17
18
17
16
1 1 .
48
.66
.50
.86
.54
.21
.03
. 15
.03
. 12
.35
.38
.42
.86
.76
.70
.95
TA1537 TA1538
6
5
8
5
12
8
6
6
6.
5.
1 1 .
14.
6
8
30.
36.
.61
.28
.09
.37
.53
.22
.72
.45
.44
. 17
.78
36
.86
.08
49
9O
TA98
6
1O
6
6
7.
9
1O
7
6.
6.
9.
12.
7 .
7.
1O.
26.
.58
.56
.01
.38
.97
.03
.90
.08
47
77
1
^
u
14 1
59
.99
19
95
31
-------
Appendix C-4
Summary of Ranges of Preliminary Ames Data
No Trap (c)
Uncatalyzed
Trap (c)
Catalyzed
Trap (d)
No Trap (a)
Test
Cycle
LA-4
HWFE
LA-4
HWFE
LA-4
HWFE
LA-4
HWFE
TA
+
2. 14 - 2.35
2.53 - 5.59
2.41 - 15.O7
8.29 - 67.85
19.24 - 30.0
2.25 - 17.86
:1f1c Activity (never
10O
11.32 - 13.O4
14.68 - 16.25
7.21 - 17.12
11 . 12 - 88.8
21 .58 - 206. 2(b)
7.54 - 147. 3(b)
*tants per plate f
TA
+
1 .08 - 1 .96
1 .65 - 2. 10
O.88 - 11.15
---
3.92 - 28.57
27.87 - 32.39
---
2.31 - 54.77
aer mlcrogram of «
1538
1.96 - 2.20
3.72 - 5.51
O.9O - 5. 10
12.64 - 23.03
54.79 - 132.8
3. 10 - 36.90
sxtract) for Stra
TA!
4-
1 .64 - 1 .72
2.40 - 2.55
O.87 - 12.94
4.8 - 35.6O
7.1 - 52.34
3. 1O - 15.32
Ins: ***********
38
2.47 - 3.14
8.24 - 1 1 .97
2.23 - 15.81
11.18 - 44 .04
14. O - 31 .97
5.91 - 26.31
(a) From other test programs.
(b) Questionable value.
(c) From a single vehicle.
(d) From only two vehicles.
-------
-77-
Appendix D
Emissions Measured During Regeneration Cycles
-------
APPENDIX 0
EMISSIONS MEASURED DURING 60 MPH STEADY-STATE REGENERATIONS
VEHICLE I.D. 11511412019885 (1975 MERCEDES BENZ 30OD)
EMISSIONS (g/ml)
i ca i
NUMBER
797445
797445
797446
797446
799476
799476
799479
799479
799480
79948O
799483
799483
8O2070
8O2O70
810787
810787
81 1 17O
81 1 17O
81 1764
81 1764
81 1823
81 1823
81 1824
81 1824
OA
-------
EMISSIONS MEASURED DURING 60 MPH STEADY-STATE REGENERATIONS
VEHICLE I.D. K-LS11O-SEMFSY (1981 TOYOTA CROWN SUPER-DELUX)
EMISSIONS (g/mi)
1 C3 1
NUMBER
81
81
81
81
1576
1576
1788
1788
811986
81 1986
#
1
2
1
2
1
2
i Li i
DATE
1 1-18-81
1 1-18-81
12-1 1-81
12-1 1-81
O1-08-82
O1-O8-82
uuum
(km)
4O53
4053
4763
4763
5595
5595
HC
. 141
. 149
. 139
. 195
. 139
. 175
CO
7
1
a
i
8
2
.090
.968
.769
.410
.015
.849
NOx
1.181
1 . 144
1 . 145
1 .355
1.216
1 .324
TP
. 126
. 125
N/R
N/R
.226
.218
MPG
24,
33.
23.
3O.
24;
. 29.
7
2
9
,5
5
3
TRAP
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
NGK
H\
H\
#1
tt\
#1
H\
THROTTLE CONDITION
Throttled Inlet 9 9" Hg vac for 8 mln
Unthrottled Inlet for 4 minutes
Throttled Inlet * 9" Hg vac for 8 mln
Unthrottled Inlet for 4 minutes
Throttled Inlet 9 9" Hg vac for 8 mln
Unthrottled Inlet for 4 minutes
-------
-80-
Appendix E
Sensitivity Analysis
-------
-81-
The sensitivity of FTP fuel economy (FE) relative to exhaust gas
backpressure (EGBP) is defined to be the quotient of the percent change in
FE divided by the corresponding percent change in EGBP. (The percent change
in FE is calculated by multiplying 100 percent times the quotient of the
change in FE divided by the average FE over that interval, similarly for
EGBP.)
For each of the 17 intervals on the following eight figures, we assumed
that, between regeneration points, the relationship between FE and mileage
accumulation (solid line) was linear, and that the relationship between EGBP
and mileage accumulation (dotted line) was also linear. We will ignore, for
the purpose of this analysis, the fact that for the non-catalyzed Corning
trap (intervals VI, VII, and VIII) the EGBP data were measured at 50 miles
per hour (mph) instead of the 60 mph for the remaining 14 intervals.
Based on the above assumptions of linearity, we calculated the following
sensitivities in each of the 17 intervals between regenerations:
Interval Sensitivity
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII .
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
+1.300
-0.072
+0.278
-0.073
-0.105
-0.070
-0.115
-0.048
-0.027
-0.085
-0.017
-0.042
-0.032
-0.079
-0.050
+0.015
-0.102
-------
-82-
The mean of the above 17 sensitivities is -KJ.040 with a standard deviation
of 0.337. If we consider the sensitivities of intervals I and III to be
outliers and omit them, we obtain a mean of -0.060 and a standard deviation
of 0.036 for the remaining 15 intervals.
For the sensitivity value of -0.060, the new fuel economy value is FE_ =
FE. (1 - 0.030a)/(l + 0.03a), where a is the change in backpressure
divided by the average back pressure. As an example, for an initial fuel
economy value of 26 mpg, and a backpressure rise from 20 to 100 inches of
water at 60 mph,
FE2 = 26 (1 - 0.030 (80)/60)/(1 + 0.030 (80)/60)
FE« = 24 mpg (a 7.7% loss at 100 inches of water backpressure).
As a further example, we could ask what the effect on FE would be if we were
to install a particulate trap on a Diesel vehicle, initially increasing its
EGBP from 20 inches to 40 inches and then gradually loading the trap until
the EGBP increases to 120 inches. Assuming an initial FE of 26 mpg and a
sensitivity of -0.060, installing the trap would result in initially
reducing the FE to 25.0 mpg, and then allowing the EGBP to increase an
additional 80 inches would further reduce the FE to 23.5 mpg. Thus, the
average FE obtained while using the trap would be 24.3 mpg, for an overall
loss of about 7% compared to the 26 mpg of the vehicle without the trap.
Other examples of initial and mileage accumulation backpressure increase
could be considered, in order to simulate different traps and/or
regeneration intervals. The sensitivity value of -0.060 is considered to be
conservative for two reasons. First, data that showed fuel economy
increases concurrent with increased backpressure were deleted in two cases
in the calculation of the mean sensitivity. Second, even though
backpressure increases that occur over mileage reduce fuel economy,
backpressure increases due to trap installation do not always reduce fuel
-------
-83-
economy. By ignoring these counterintuitive examples which exist in the
data (see Appendix A), the sensitivity of -0.060 is considered to be one
that would tend to overpredict fuel economy losses due to trap installation
and mileage accumulation with the trap installed.
-------
Fuel Economy. Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the A-1R/CST-1 #1 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
100% +
9O%
Interval I
EGBP at 6O mph Fuel
(Inches of water) Economy
(B) (mpg)(F)
+45 + 28
80% +
+ 4O +27
70%
6O%
50%
_BB—
— — *~ 1
B B B _. —
+35 +26
CO
+ 3O +25
-T B/L
20% +
+ 25
24
Legend:
B/L = baselIne
0% + +..
324
325
. . + . .
326
327 328 329 33O 331
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
..+....+....+....+....+
332 333
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the A-1R/CST-1 #2 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
70%
Interval II
EGBP at 6O mph Fuel
(Inches of Econ
water) (B) (mpg)(F)
B/L F.E. 0 38.OOO ml (25.7 mpg)
+• 65 +
B
6O%
50%
+60+25
+• 55 +•
30% + B/L F.E. 9 35.OOO mi (23.5 mpg) —** B
B B^-B** B
q£- *"* B B B
B^.-** BB BBB B
B BB ^ **• B BB BB BB B B
20% + — BB B
-' BB BB B
-- "'BB B
B
5O + 24
03
Ln
I
10% -t-
E -»• 4O -i- 23
35
0%
+ 3O •*• 22
-10%
25
-20%
B
36O
..•*•..
374
358
362 364
366 368 370 372
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
376 378 38O
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the JM-4 H"i Trap
FTP Trapping
Eff iciency (E )
100% +
Interval III
EGBP at 6O mph Fuel
(Inches of water) Economy
(B) (mpg)(F)
+ 9O.O + 3O.O
9O% +
B
B
+87.5 +29.5
80% +
70%
60%
5O%
40% +
30% +
20%
10% +
B B
B B
B B
BB
X1" 85.0 + 29.0
+ 75.0 + 27.0
+72.5 +26.5
70.0 +26.0
+67.5 +25.5
+65.0 + 25.O
+ 24.5
I
00
o%
87
. + . .
88
89 . 90 91 92
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
93
94
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the ICI Saffil Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
60% +
50% +
40% + E
3O% +•
20% +
10% +
0%
_
-10% + /
-20% +
-3O%
Interval IV
Regen
EGBP at 60 mph
(inches of water)
(B)
+ 65
+ 60
+ 55
5O
4O
35
30
25
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)(F)
+ 27.0
+ 26.5
+ 26. O
+ 25.5
+ 25.0
+ 24.5
-T B/L
+ 24.0
+ 23.5
+ 23.0
00
^J
I
336 338
34O 342 344 346
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
348 350
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the Corning EX-47 12" non-catalyzed Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
V
9O% +
80% +
70% +
60%
50% +
40%
30%
20% +
10% +
0%
Interval VII Interval VIII
B
BB
EGBP at 5O mph
(Inches of water)
(B)
+ 30O
+ 27O
+ 24O
+ 21O
+ 18O
150
12O
90
6O
3O
Fue,l
Economy
(mpg)(F)
+ 27.0
+ 26.5
+ 26.0
+ 25.5
+ 25.0
+ 24.5
-v B/L
+ 24.0
+ 23.5
+ 23.0
+ 22.5
oo
oo
I
-10% + / + + + . .
384 386
. . + . .
388
390 392 394
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
396
398
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the UOP/Corning EX-47 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E) /
100% +
Interval IX
Interval X /
B ,
EGBP at 60 mph Fuel
(Inches of water) Economy
(B)
(mpg)(F)
24. 0
+ 13O
90% •«•
80%
70%
60%
50%
B
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
120
+ 11O + 23.5
+ 1OO
9O
+ 23. 0
8O -- B/L
70 .
6O +22.5
50
+ 22.0
4O
-t- 3O
2O
B/L EGBP (15.43 In)
O>
VO
I
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the NGK H\ Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
100% +
90%
80%
70%
60%
5O%
40%
30%
20%
10%
o% +
Interval XI
B
B8/
Interval XII
Interval XIII
EGBP at 6O mph Fuel
(Inches of water) Economy
(B) (mpg)(F)
•f
Interval XIV + 120
28
27
-T B/L
11O
1OO
••• 9O
8O
70
6O
5O
4O
3O
2O
-r B/L ( 1 1 .85)
+ 10
26
25
Regen
Regen
Regen
/ - *
+.... + . ... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .. .. + .... + ....+ . ...-•-. ... + .... + .... + .... + . ... + ....-1-.... + .... + .... + .. . . +
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
VD
O
-------
Fuel Economy, Trapping Efficiency, and EGBP versus Mileage for the NGK #2 Trap
FTP Trapping
Efficiency (E)
90% +
89% +
88% +
87% +
86% + E
85%
84% +
83% +
82%
81%
8O%
Interval XV Interval XVI Interval XVII
/ E
.B
Regen Regen
Attempted*
Regen *
: Regen
B.
BB
Regen
EGBP at 6O mph
(Inches of water)
(8)
+ 180
+ 165
+ 150
+• 135
120
1O5
90
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)(F)
+ 25
24
-T B/L
+ 23
+ 75 +
+ 6O
+ 45
+ 3O
+ 15
22
-B/L EGBP
( 15.42")
. + . .
430
431
432
433 434 435 436 437
ODOMETER (hundreds of miles)
438 439
------- |