United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
EPA-460/3-81-023
August 1981
Air
c/EPA
Emission Characterization of an
Alcohol/Diesel-Pilot Fueled
Compression-Ignition Engine and
Its Heavy-Duty Diesel Counterpart
-------
EPA-460/3-81-023
Emission Characterization of an
Alcohol/Diesel-Pilot Fueled
Compression-Ignition Engine and
Its Heavy-Duty Diesel Counterpart
by
Terry L. Ullman and Charles T. Hare
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68-03-2884
Task Specification 6
EPA Project Officer: Robert J. Garbe
Task Branch Technical Representative: Thomas M. Baines
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
August 1981
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from
the Library Services Office (MD-33), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas, in
fulfillment of Task Specification 6 of Contract No. 68-03-2884. The
contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from Southwest
Research Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication Mo. EPA-460/3-81-023
11
-------
FOREWORD
The project on which this report is based was initiated by Task
Specification No. 6 of EPA Contract 68-03-2884, received by SwRI on
August 1, 1980. The contract was for "Basic Characterization Support
for the Emission Control Technology Division." Task Specification No.
6 of that contract was specifically for the "Characterization of Emis-
sions from Volvo Heavy-Duty Diesel and Diesel/Alcohol Engines." The
work was identified within SwRI as Project No. 11-5830-006.
The Project Officer and the Branch Technical Representative for
EPA's Technology Assessment Branch during the Task Specification were
Mr. Robert J. Garbe and Mr. Thomas M. Baines, respectively. SwRI Pro-
ject Director was Mr. Karl J. Springer, and SwRI Project Manager was
Mr. Charles T. Hare. The SwRI Task Leader and principal investigator
for the Task Specification No. 6 effort was Mr. Terry L. Ullman. Lead
technical personnel were Mr. Richard L. Mechler and Mr. Clay D. Suhler.
We would like to express our appreciation to Volvo Truck Corporation
of Sweden for supplying both the production diesel engine and the proto-
type alcohol engine, with diesel pilot injection. We especially appre-
ciate the direction and assistance of Mr. Ernst Holmer and Mr. Bert-Inge
Bertilsson of Volvo.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The uncertainty of petroleum-based fuel availability has created a
need for diversifying into alternative fuels. Volvo Truck Corporation
of Sweden has developed a prototype dual-fuel truck-size diesel engine
with diesel fuel pilot injection for compression-ignition and subsequent
alcohol injection for main combustion. This approach is attractive because
it requires no new technology, and because the energy efficiency of the
engine is retained essentially intact while consuming low-octane fuels.
Exhaust emissions from this prototype dual-fuel engine were characterized
with methanol, ethanol, and ethanol with 30 percent water (wt%). In
addition, the effects of an oxidation catalyst on methanol and ethanol
exhaust were investigated. Emissions were also measured for a heavy-duty
diesel engine of similar design.
Emission characterization included regulated emissions (HC, CO, and
NOX) along with total particulate, unburned alcohols, individual hydro-
carbons, aldehydes, phenols, and odor. The particulate matter was charac-
terized in terms of particle size distribution, sulfate content, C, H,
S, metal content, and soluble organic fraction. The soluble organic frac-
tion was further studied by determining its elemental composition (C,H,
S,N), boiling point distribution, BaP content, relative make-up of polar
compounds, and bioactivity by Ames testing.
Exhaust emissions from the various test configurations were charac-
terized over the 1979 13-mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or shorter
versions of this modal test, and over the 1984 Transient FTP- In addi-
tion, regulated gaseous and particulate emissions were determined over an
experimental bus cycle developed from CAPE-21 bus data.
Particulate and NOX emissions were significantly reduced; whereas
hydrocarbons and CO increased with the use of the alcohol fuels as com-
pared to the diesel engine. Levels of aldehyde emissions were also higher
with the alcohol fuel, and significant quantities of unburned alcohol
were detected. The catalyst reduced unburned alcohols, HC, and CO emis-
sions, but had little effect on total particulate as compared to levels
noted for the alcohol test configurations (methanol and ethanol) without
catalyst. The catalyst caused substantial conversion of the fuel sulfur
(in the pilot injected diesel fuel) to sulfate. Emission levels and trends
for the ethanol+water configuration were similar to those for the methanol
configuration.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY 3
III. TEST PLANS AND DESCRIPTION OF ENGINES, FUELS AND PROCEDURES 9
A. Proposed Test Plan 9
B. Description of Test Engines 11
C. Description of Test Fuels 16
D. Test Procedures 20
E. Analytical Procedures 28
1. Gaseous Emissions 28
2. Particulate Emissions 33
3. Soluble Organic 35
IV. RESULTS 39
A. Preliminary Results and General Test Notes 39
B. Gaseous Emissions 46
1. HC, CO, and NOX 47
a. 13-mode FTP 47
b. Transient FTP 51
c. Bus Cycle 53
2. Selected Individual Hydrocarbons 53
3. Unburned Alcohols 59
4. Aldehydes 59
5. Phenols 62
6. Total Hydrocarbons - FID Response 69
7. Odor - TIA 78
C. Particulate Emissions 78
1. Total Particulate 81
2. Smoke 85
3. Sulfate 87
4. Elemental Composition 91
5. Particle Size Distribution 94
6. Soluble Organic Fraction 95
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
a. Elemental Composition
b. Boiling Point Distribution
c. Fractionation by Relative Polarity
d. Benzo(a)pyrene
e. Ames Response
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
102
102
103
109
110
116
A. Thirteen-Mode FTP Test
B. Transient Test Results
C. Transient Test Results
D. Transient Test Results
Configuration
E. Transient Test Results
F. Transient Test Results
Configuration
Results - All Configurations
from the Diesel Configuration
from the Methanol Configuration
from the Methanol-Catalyst
from the Ethanol Configuration
from the Ethanol-Catalyst
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Volvo TD-100C Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Engine 12
2 Volvo TD-100A Heavy-Duty Dual-Fuel Truck Engine 12
3 Arrangement of the Injection Pumps on the Dual-Fuel
Volvo TD-100A 13
4 The Cylinder Head with Two Injectors 13
5 The Fuel Jets in the Combustion Chamber 14
6 Installation of Catalyst with Backpressure Device 15
7 Volvo Exhaust Backpressure Device used with Catalyst 17
8 Graphic Representation of Torque and Speed Commands for
the 1984 Transient FTP Cycle based on a Power Map of the
Volvo TD-100C Diesel Engine 23
9 Graphic Representation of Torque and Speed Commands for
the Bus Cycle based on a Power Map of the Volvo TD-100C
Diesel Engine 25
10 Basic Layout of Transient Cycle Heavy-Duty Diesel CVS
with Large Double Dilution Sampler for Three 20x20
Inch Filters 26
11 Sample Collection End of Large Single Dilution CVS
Tunnel 27
12 Soxhlet Extraction of Particulate for Soluble Organic
Fraction 36
13 Catalyst Warm-up Profiles With and Without a Backpressure
Device During Transient FTP Operation 45
14 illustration of Diesel Pilot and Alcohol Fuel Injection
Schedules Measured During 13-Mode FTP 50
15 Modal Particulate from the Volvo Test Engines 83
16 Modal Sulfate Rates from the Volvo Test Engines 89
17 Particle Size Distribution from Modal Operation of the
Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine on Methanol 96
VI1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure
18 Particle Size Distribution from Modal Operation of the
Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Methanol and
Catalyst 97
19 Average of Particle Size Distribution from Modal
Operation of the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine on
Methanol and Methanol with Catalyst 98
20 Particle Size Distribution from Transient Operation of
the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine 99
21 HPLC Response to Cold-Start Diesel Transient SOF 104
22 HPLC Response to Hot-Start Diesel Transient SOF 104
23 HPLC Response to Cold-Start Methanol Transient SOF 105
24 HPLC Response to Hot-Start Methanol Transient SOF 105
25 HPLC Response to Cold-Start Methanol-Catalyst Transient
SOF 106
26 HPLC Response to Hot-Start Methanol-Catalyst Transient
SOF 106
27 HPLC Response to Hot-Start Ethanol-Catalyst Transient
SOF 107
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Composite Emission Rates from the Volvo-
TD-100C Diesel Engine and the Volvo TD-100A Diesel
Pilot/Alcohol Engine 4
2 Planned Emission Measurements for Characterization of
Volvo Test Engine 10
3 Specifications for the Volvo Series TD-100 Engine 11
4 Analysis of Amoco 2D Emissions Fuel, EM-465-F 18
5 Dupont Specification and Typical Analysis of
Methanol Fuel, EM-469-F 19
6 "Synasol" Solvent Union Carbide Specification and
Analysis of Ethanol Fuel, EM-466-F 19
7 Properties of Fuels Used in the Volvo Program 20
8 Listing of 13-Mode and 7-Mode Weighting Factors 21
9 FID Relative Sensitivities 30
10 Preliminary Test Results from Volvo TD-100A Dual-
Fuel Engine 41
11 Heavy-Duty Diesel Regulated Emission Limits, 1979-1986 47
12 Gaseous Emission Summary from 13-Mode Operation of the
Volvo Test Engines 48
13 Regulated Emissions Summary from Transient FTP
Operation of the Volvo Test Engines 52
14 Transient Emissions Summary from Bus Cycle Operation
of the Volvo Test Engines 54
15 Percent of Fuel Carbon Calculated from Transient
Operation of the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine 55
16 Individual Hydrocarbons from Transient Operation of
the Volvo Test Engines 56
17 Individual Hydrocarbons from Modal Operation of the
Volvo TD-100C Diesel Engine 57
IX
-------
Table
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Page
18 Individual Hydrocarbons from Modal Operation of the
Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Methanol 57
19 Individual Hydrocarbons from Modal Operation of the
Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Methanol and
Catalyst 58
20 Individual Hydrocarbons from Modal Operation of the
Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Ethanol + Water 58
21 Unburned Alcohol Summary from Transient Operation of
the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine 60
22 Unburned Alcohol Summary from Modal Operation of the
Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine 61
23 Summary of Aldehydes from Transient Operation of the
Volvo Test Engines 63
24 Summary of Aldehydes from Bus Cycle Operation of the
Volvo Test Engines 64
25 Summary of Aldehydes from Modal Operation of the Volvo
TD-100C Diesel Engine 65
26 Summary of Aldehydes from Modal Operation of the Volvo
TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Methanol 66
27 Summary of Aldehdyes from Modal Operation of the Volvo
TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Methanol and Catalyst 67
28 Summary of Aldehydes from Modal Operation of the Volvo
TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Ethanol + Water 68
29 Summary of Phenols (Filtered) from Transient Operation
of the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine 70
30 Summary of Phenols (Filtered) from Modal Operation of
the Volvo TD-100A Diesel Engine 71
31 Summary of Phenols (Filtered) from Modal Operation of
the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Methanol 72
32 Summary of Phenols (Filtered) from Modal Operation of
the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Methanol and
Catalyst 73
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table
33 Summary of Phenols (Unfiltered) from Transient
Operation of the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine 74
34 Summary of Phenols (Unfiltered) from Modal Operation
of the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Methanol 75
35 Summary of Phenols (Unfiltered) from Modal Operation
of the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine with Methanol
and Catalyst 76
36 Summary/Comparison of "Total" Unregulated Hydrocarbons
and Hydrocarbons Measured by Continuous HFID During
Transient Operation of the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel
Engine 77
37 Summary of TIA by DOAS from Transient Operation of
the Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine 79
38 Summary of TIA by DOAS from Modal Operation of the
Volvo TD-100A Dual-Fuel Engine and the TD-100C Diesel
Engine 80
39 Particulate Emission Summary from Modal Operation of
the Volvo Test Engines 82
40 Particulate Summary from Transient Operation of the
Volvo Test Engine 84
41 Composite Particulate Rates from Modal and Transient
Operation of the Volvo Test Engines 85
42 Summary of Smoke Opacity from the Volvo Test Engines 86
43 Sulfate Emissions Summary from Modal Operation of the
Volvo Test Engines 88
44 Sulfate Emission Summary from Transient FTP Operation
from the Volvo Test Engines 90
45 Composite Sulfate Rates from Modal and Transient
Operation of the Volvo Test Engines 91
46 Summary of Elemental Analysis of Total Particulate from
Modal Operation of the Volvo Test Engines 92
47 Summary of Elemental Analysis of Total Particulate from
Transient Operation of the Volvo Test Engines 93
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
48 Summary of Soluble Organic Fraction from Modal
Operation of the Volvo Test Engines 100
49 Summary of Soluble Organic Fraction from Transient
Operation of the Volvo Test Engines 100
50 Elemental Composition of Soluble Organic Fraction from
Transient Operation of the Volvo Test Engines 102
51 Boiling Point Distribution of Soluble.Organic Fraction
from Transient Operation of the Volvo Test Engines 103
52 Summary of Transient Composite and 7-Mode Composite
Benzo(a)pyrene Emissions from the Volvo Test Engines 109
53 Summary of Ames Response to Transient Composite and
Modal Composite SOF from the Volvo Test Engines 112
54 Summary of Ames Response to Individual Modal Samples
of SOF from the Volvo Test Engines 113
Xll
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Worldwide dependence on petroleum products and associated economic
problems have become quite apparent over the last decade. The uncertainty
of petroleum-based fuel availability for transportation and production of
goods and services has created a need for diversifying into alternate fuels.
Alcohols constitute a renewable fuel source which has been available for
years, but which has not been used as primary engine fuel because petroleum
distillates were less expensive to produce. The Volvo Truck Corporation
of Sweden has developed a pilot-injected diesel/alcohol engine which can
utilize a broad variety of alternative fuels. The approach represented
by this engine is attractive because it requires no new technology, and
because the energy efficiency of the engine is retained essentially in-
tact. Up to 85 percent of diesel fuel normally used can be replaced by
an alternative fuel, depending on the load factor.
The prototype dual-fuel engine was made from a standard diesel engine
by adding a small diesel injection pump and injectors for pilot injection
of diesel fuel, and adjusting the standard diesel injection pump to inject
alcohol fuels through the injectors normally used. Pilot injection of
diesel fuel allows efficient use of low cetane fuels such as methanol,
ethanol or even ethanol mixed with water, d-i The prototype engine has
been operated successfully in heavy-duty truck and bus applications, with
only minor mechanical problems. It is uncertain what effects the use of
alternative fuels will have on mobile source emissions, particularly those
which are currently unregulated. Lower emissions of smoke and NOX, already
reported in the literature, make alcohol fuels appear to be a viable diesel
fuel supplement.
The objective of this work was to characterize the emissions behavior
of a Volvo truck-size (186 kW at.2200 rpm) turbocharged diesel engine,
equipped with diesel fuel pilot injection for ignition and alcohol for main
combustion. The emissions of this engine were compared to those from a
similar conventional diesel engine. The diesel pilot/alcohol engine emis-
sions were characterized during operation with neat methanol, neat ethanol,
and ethanol mixed with water. The effects of an oxidation catalyst on meth-
anol- and ethanol-fueled engine exhaust were also studied. Ethanol with
30 percent (by weight) water (140 proof) was studied as an alternative fuel,
because direct use of ethanol containing substantial amounts of water
achieves a higher total energy balance from raw material to useful work
output than use of more completely distilled ethanol (near 200 proof).
Emission characterization included regulated emissions (HC,CO and
*Superscript numbers in parentheses designate references at end of report.
-------
along with total particulate, unburned alcohols, individual hydro-
carbons, aldehydes, phenols, and odor. In addition to these items, the
particulate matter was characterized in terms of particle size distribution,
sulfate content, C,H,S, and metals content, and soluble organic fraction.
The soluble organic fraction was further studied by determining its ele-
mental content (C,H,S,N), boiling point distribution, BaP content, rela-
tive make-up of polar compounds, and bioactivity by Ames testing.
Exhaust emissions from the various test configurations were charac-
terized over the 1979 13-mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or shorter
versions of this modal test, and over the 1984 Transient FTP. In addi-
tion, regulated gaseous and particulate emissions were determined over an
experimental bus cycle developed from data derived by the Coordinating
Research Council CAPE-21 project. In this CRC study, trucks and buses
were instrumented and operated in typical use in Los Angeles and New York
City.
The 13-mode FTP is currently used for regulatory purposes of heavy-
duty diesel emissions. The transient FTP will be optional for the 1984
model year, and will be mandatory by 1985. The 1986 proposed transient
FTP includes both gaseous and particulate emission measurement/regulation.
Thirteen-mode FTP emission measurements were conducted during individual
modes of steady-state operation. Transient FTP emission measurements
were conducted during both cold-start and hot-start cycles.
-------
II. SUMMARY
Volvo Truck Corporation of Sweden has developed a prototype dual-
fuel Volvo truck-size (186 kW at 2200 rpm) engine equipped with diesel
fuel pilot injection for ignition and subsequent alcohol injection for
main combustion. Pilot injection of diesel fuel allowed efficient use
of low-cetane fuels, while providing good performance over the entire
operating range from cold start-up and idle to maximum power at rated
speed. The prototype dual-fuel engine consumed only diesel fuel during
light load conditions. The low-cetane, main energy fuel was added as
output power demand increased.
Emissions from the dual-fuel engine were characterized during opera-
tion with neat methanol, neat ethanol, and ethanol mixed with water. The
effects of an oxidation catalyst on the exhaust of the methanol- and
ethanol-fueled engine was also studied. The Volvo TD-100C diesel engine
was used for emission comparisons and was of the same basic model as that
modified to build the dual-fuel engine (Volvo designation TD-100A).
Exhaust emissions from the various test configurations were characterized
over the 1979 13-mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or shorter versions of
this modal test, and over the 1984 Transient FTP.
Table 1 summarizes the composite results from six test configurations,
which include diesel, methanol, methanol with catalyst, ethanol, ethanol
with catalyst, and ethanol with 30 percent water (wt %). Seven-mode com-
posite results given in the table are from an abbreviated version of the
13-mode test procedure which does not include some of the intermediate
load conditions. Detailed test results may be found in the Results sec-
tion of this report (Section IV). With such a broad variety of emission
measurements available for six test configurations, the level of effort
alloted for sample collection and sample analysis was based on importance
of useful information obtained and similarities in measured emission trends.
For the Volvo TD-100C diesel engine, both the 13-mode composite and
the transient composite gaseous emission rates, as well as fuel consumption
and unregulated emissions, all appear to be in ranges typical of direct-
injected, turbocharged, truck-sized diesel engines. The NOX emissions
reported during this program were not corrected for engine intake air
humidity due to uncertainty about validity of the correction when oxygen-
containing fuels (such as alcohols) were used. For comparison purposes,
NOX values for the diesel configuration given in the table have not been
corrected for intake humidity.
The emission levels were similar for both transient and steady-state
test procedures, but tend to be slightly higher for the transient test
procedure. Emission results from the Volvo TD-100C diesel engine serve
as reference, since the Volvo TD-100A dual-fuel engine was of the same
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF COMPOSITE EMISSION RATES FROM THE VOLVO-TD-100C DIESEL
ENGINE AND THE VOLVO TD-100A DIESEL PILOT/ALCOHOL ENGINE
Composite Emission Rates
Federal Teat Procedure (FTP)
hydrocarbon, HCb
g/kw-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Carbon Monoxide t CO
g/kw-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Oxides of Nitrogen, NOXC
y/kw-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Brake Specific Fuel Consump.d
kg fuel/kw-hr, (Ib fuel/hp-hr)
Test Cycle
Total Individual HC
mg/kw-hr
Total Unburned Alcohols
mg/kw-hr
Total Aldehydes8
mg/kw-hr
Total Phenols
mg/kw-hr
Total Particulato
g/kw-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Sulfate, S04"
mg/kw-hr, (% of ParticuJate)
Soluble Organic Fraction (SOP)
mg/kw-hr, (% of Particulate)
BaP
ug/kw-hr
Ames Response 3
(revertant/plate x!03)/kw-hr
Engine Test Configuration
Diesel
Volvo TD-100C
13-mode
1.05
(0.78)
3.18
(2.37)
ll.SBf
(8.86)
0.262
(0.431)
7 -mode
100
Does Mot
Apply
19
Mot
Run
0.69
(0.52)
45
(6.5%)
200
(28%)
0.64
490
Transient
1.15
(0.85)
4.04
(3.01)
11.19
(8.34)
0.288
(0.473)
Transient
130
Does Not
Apply
14
35
0.70
(0.52)
38
(5.4%) •
220
(32%)
3.7
580
Methanol
Volvo TD-100A
13-mode
1.45
(1.08)
9. 55
(7.12)
5.26
(3.92)
0.486
(0.799)
7 -mode
67
2200
88
17
0.30
(0.23)
14
(4.6%)
200
(66%)
0.86
310
Transient
1.95
(1.45)
10.29
(7.67)
7.31
(5.45)
0.531
(0.873)
Transient
180
4900
250
24
0.39
(0.30)
16
(4.1%)
280
(73%)
1.7
510*
180
Methanol-Catalyst
Volvo TD-100A
13-fflodeh
0.16
(0.12)
0.83
(0.62)
6.79
(5.06)
0.482
(0.792)
7 -mode
32
950
140
14
0.51
(0.38)
220
(43%)
70
(14%)
0.08
120
Trans lent*
0.22
(0.16)
3.74
(2.79)
7.89
(5.89)
0.547
(0.900)
Transient
66
890
260
48
0.37
(0.27)
98
(27%)
60
(16%)
0.33
710
Ethanol
Volvo TD-100A
13 mode
1.65
(1.23)
10.52
(7.84)
6.85
(5.11)
0.395
(0.650)
7-mode
Not
Run
Transient
2.27
(1.69)
12.89
(9.61)
7.38
(5.50)
0.435
(0.715)
Transient
600
2300
240
44
0.35
(0.26)
14
(4.0%)
190
(53%)
0.32
790
E thanol -Ca ta lys t «
Volvo TD-100A
13 mode
0.60
(0.45)
3.10
(2.31)
7.98
(5.95)
0.400
(0.657)
7-mode
Not
Run
Transient
0.63
(0.47)
4.24
(3.16)
8.62
(6.43)
0.448
(0.737)
Transient
220
480
250
33
0.38
(0.28)
89
(23%)
40
(11%)
3.7
2900
Bthanol+30* Mater
Volvo TD-100A
13-mode
1.89
(1.41)
9.99
(7.45)
4.46
(3.32)
0.495
(0.814)
7-mode
220
860
91
Not
Run
0.33
(0.24)
17
(5.2%)
190
(58%)
1.2
90
Transient
Not
Run
Transient
Not
Run
with backpressure device engaged during idle and motoring.
HC value reported here is based on measurements by HFID. FID response is
very low for unburned alcohols and other species of unregulated emissions
13-mode NO* correction factor for intake humidity was computed but not
.applied
Computed on the basis of measured diesel consumption and alcohol consumption
combined
TBenealdehyde was not included in the total composite value
NOX value is reduced to 10.89 gAw-hr (8.12 g/hp-hr) when the intake
humidity correction for NOX is applied
^Phenols were determined from only selected modes
VWithout backpressure device at idle
.Average of data with and without backpressure device
Average of brake specific response with and without metabolic
activation from all 5 strains
Results from first and second group respectively
-------
basic design.
Methanol
The dual-fuel engine was operated on methanol with no engine
performance problems during either the steady-state or transient testing.
The only adjustments made after initial set-up were adjustments of the
alcohol injection pump to compensate for differing volumetric heating
values of the alcohol fuels tested. Maximum power with methanol was set
to 186 kW (250 hp) at 2200 rpm. The maximum torque obtained after adjust-
ment was similar to that obtained from the diesel engine. Gaseous emis-
sions of HC and CO were greater for the dual-fuel engine on methanol than
for the diesel engine. Total hydrocarbon values given in Table 1 for
alcohol fuel configurations are low due to low response of the HC instru-
ments to unburned alcohols, aldehydes, and other species. Use of methanol
in the dual-fuel engine increased CO by 60 percent over the diesel version.
Compared to the diesel engine, NOX emissions were reduced by 56 percent
for the 13-mode cycle, and 35 percent for the transient. Brake specific
fuel consumption was higher for alcohols due to the greater mass of alco-
hol needed to achieve power output comparable to diesel fuel.
Emission of total particulate matter dropped by approximately
50 percent when methanol was used. With less diesel fuel consumed due
to substitution of methanol, total sulfur entering the engine was reduced,
causing sulfate to decrease about 60 percent compared to that from the
diesel engine. A significant portion of the total particulate from the
methanol configuration (about 70 percent) was soluble using methylene
chloride for extraction of the soluble organic fraction (SOP). As with
the other configurations tested, the brake specific benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)
was significantly higher for the transient composite than for the 7-mode
composite. Brake specific BaP from transient operation with methanol was
lower than for the diesel engine, but the BaP from the 7-mode composite
was higher with the methanol than with the diesel. The average brake
specific Ames response from the five strains tested with and without meta-
bolic activation was lower for the methanol configuration than for the
diesel configuration.
Methanol-Catalyst
An oxidation catalyst was also tested with the methyl alcohol
as an exhaust aftertreatment device to reduce unburned alcohol and other
emissions. The catalyst, manufactured by Unikat of Sweden and designated
as a Type U210, was added to the engine and was not specifically optimized
for the application. As expected, the catalyst reduced HC and CO emissions
substantially from the levels noted in the methanol configuration. The
indicated total hydrocarbons were very low for both test procedures. The
catalyst was very effective in reducing unburned alcohols and some indi-
vidual hydrocarbons, but appeared to have little effect on the aldehyde
emissions. The CO level was reduced substantially during the 13-mode
procedure, due to significant reductions in CO during the maximum torque
condition and other heavy load conditions. The CO level from the trans-
-------
lent FTP was not reduced as much, because during the transient cycle
the engine is not as heavily loaded (time-weighted basis). NOx emissions
appear to have increased when the catalyst was used with methanol. Some
of the additional NOx emission noted from the transient composite was due
to the use of an exhaust backpressure-increasing device, but the back-
pressure device was not used during the 13-mode test. The exhaust back-
pressure device operated during closed rack conditions. It was used as
a fast warm-up aid, and to maintain higher catalyst temperature during
idling or motoring conditions, by increasing the exhaust backpressure at
these conditions. Transient composite fuel consumption was also increased,
because the backpressure device required more diesel fuel to maintain idle
speed when engaged.
Although the catalyst reduced unburned fuel-like matter and CO,
the total particulate level was about the same as for the methanol con-
figuration and 50 percent lower than the diesel particulate levels for the
transient procedure. Seven-mode composite particulate actually increased
by 67 percent over the methanol configuration, but was still 26 percent
lower than the diesel 7-mode particulate level. Analysis of particulate
composition showed that 7-mode sulfate had been increased by a factor of
five over the diesel engine level, and to 15 times that of the methanol
configuration. Increases in transient composite sulfate were also noted,
but not to the same extent because the catalyst was cooler during the
cold- and hot-start transient tests. As with hydrocarbons, the soluble
organic fraction of the particulate was substantially reduced by the cata-
lyst. The catalyst also reduced the level of BaP compared to the methanol
configuration. Although reductions in SOF and BaP occurred with the cata-
lyst, the average brake specific Ames response was significantly increased
over the transient composite, where the catalyst heat may have been minimal.
The Ames response for the 7-mode composite SOF was relatively low with the
catalyst.
Ethanol
Methanol (CH3OH) and ethanol (C^OH) are somewhat similar alco-
hols, but ethanol has a higher volumetric heating value. The dual-fuel
engine's alcohol fuel injection pump was adjusted to obtain 186 kW maximum
power on each alcohol. At these settings, maximum torque was about 5 per-
cent lower with ethanol than with methanol due to the volumetric charac-
teristics of the injection pump. Based on similar 13-mode emission trends
between methanol and ethanol, only transient operation was characterized
extensively.
With ethanol, HC and CO emissions were slightly higher than for
the methanol configuration, but considerably higher than the diesel config-
uration. Aldehyde emissions were at about the same level as for methanol
Unburned alcohols were lower with ethanol, but individual hydrocarbons
were about 3 times those of either the diesel or the methanol configura-
tion. The 13-mode composite NOx emission with ethanol was 24 percent
higher than for methanol due to substantially higher NOX emissions in the
maximum power mode. Brake specific fuel consumption reflects the differ-
-------
ences in heating values. The total particulate and sulfate emission rates
from transient operation with ethanol were about 10 percent lower than
from the methanol configuration. The soluble organic fraction was also
somewhat lower, and the brake specific BaP level was about one fifth that
of the methanol configuration. Although the BaP level was lower, the
brake specific Ames response was about twice that from transient operation
in the methanol configuration, and was similar to the level noted for the
methanol-catalyst configuration.
Ethanol-Catalyst
When the catalyst was used with ethanol, HC and CO were reduced,
but not to the same extent as for the methanol-catalyst configuration.
The catalyst reduced the unburned alcohol and individual hydrocarbon levels
substantially, but little effect on total aldehyde emissions was noted.
The transient composite NOx emission increased 14 percent over that from
the ethanol configuration, when the catalyst and backpressure device were
used. Similar to the methanol-catalyst configuration, the fuel consump-
tion increased in the ethanol-catalyst configuration due to use of the
backpressure device. Total particulate, sulfate, and SOP emissions fol-
lowed the same trends as noted for the methanol-catalyst configuration.
The brake specific BaP level was almost 10 times that of the methanol-
catalyst configuration and was the same level as obtained from the diesel
engine. The transient Ames response was the highest of any of the test
configurations.
Ethanol + Water
Emissions with ethanol and 30 percent water (wt %) were very
similar to emissions with methanol. If equal volumes of ethanol with
30 percent water (wt %) and methanol were injected into separate combus-
tion chambers, the mass of individual carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms
in the chamber would be very nearly equivalent. Changing to ethanol with
30 percent water, from methanol, required only minor adjustments of the
maximum rack stop (although a slight reduction in maximum torque was noted
similar to when ethanol alone was used). This net energy-to-volume simi-
larity would allow eaey interchangeability between neat methanol and
ethanol by adjusting the ethanol water content to about 30 percent (wt %).
Based on 13-mode composite emissions, ethanol+water produced slightly
higher HC and CO, but lower NOX emissions than the methanol configuration.
Aldehydes were about the same, but unburned ethanol was lower and IHC was
higher than with the ethanol configuration. The 13-mode NOX from the
ethanol+water configuration was lowest of the six configurations tested.
Thirteen-mode composite particulate emissions were very similar to the
methanol configuration, and were about 50 percent lower than from the
diesel configuration. The sulfate and SOF portions of the total particu-
late were essentially the same as for methanol. BaP content was higher
than for the methanol configuration, but the 7-mode composite Ames response
was lowest of all the configurations tested.
-------
Bus Cycle
As mentioned earlier, regulated gaseous and particulate emissions
were also measured during a transient bus cycle. The bus cycle includes
more accelerations and decelerations, and produces 50 percent less work
in 30 percent less time than the transient cycle. Emissions from the
bus cycle were generally higher than those from the transient composite
FTP. Bus cycle emissions followed the same trends as indicated for the
transient composite results. Details of the bus cycle emissions are given
in the text of the Results section of this report.
-------
III. TEST PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF ENGINES, FUELS, AND PROCEDURES
The intent of this program was to characterize regulated gaseous
emissions along with particulate and unregulated emissions from a Volvo
diesel pilot/alcohol engine run on several alcohol fuels and using an
oxidation catalyst as an aftertreatment. In addition, a conventional
Volvo diesel engine of similar design was to be characterized for emission
comparison. This section describes the proposed test plan which was used
as a guide in the program. The diesel pilot/alcohol engine and its diesel
counterpart are also described. Some discussion is given to explain the
operation and interaction of the diesel pilot/alcohol injection systems.
Specifications for the diesel fuel and the alcohols are given along with
some of their properties. Procedures are described, including the tests
used to generate and acquire the emission samples, and the analytical
procedures used to characterize the emission samples.
A. Proposed Test Plan
A test plan was conceived for operating both the prototype dual-
fuel engine and its conventional diesel counterpart. Proposed engine/
control/fuel test configurations planned for testing included the follow-
ing:
Proposed Test Configurations
Engine
Diesel/Alcohol
Diesel
Fuel
Methanol + pilot diesel
Ethanol + pilot diesel
Ethanol(70)/water(30) + pilot diesel
Ethanol (70) /water (30) + pilot diesel
Ethanol + pilot diesel
Methanol + pilot diesel
Diesel
Aftertreatment
None
None
None
Oxidation catalyst
Oxidation catalyst
Oxidation catalyst
None
The planned program included emission measurements of both regulated
and unregulated emissions for each of the test configurations shown above.
Each test configuration was to be tested over both steady-state and tran-
sient operation. Table 2 shows the maximum potential extent of emission
characterizations. Delays, additions, and modifications occurred due to
needs for preliminary data, engine operational changes, and equipment utili-
zation. Thus, the level of effort applied to emission characterization
under some test configurations was modified. Flexibility in the test plan
was utilized to reduce the number of emission measurements required in some
configurations, on the basis of useful emission information obtained, and
similarities of measured emissions trends.
-------
TABLE 2. PLANNED EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FOR
CHARACTERIZATION OF VOLVO TEST ENGINE
Exhaust Constituent (s)
Measured or Characterized
Visible Smoke, 2 meters3
Regulated Gaseous Emissions
02
Unburned Alcohols
Individual Hydrocarbons
Aldehydes
Phenols
Odor Index, DOAS
Particulate Characterization
Mass
Size Distribution
C, H, N, S, & O
Metal content
Sulfate
Characterization of
Solubles in Particulate
Mass
Boiling Range
BaP
Ames Bioassay
HPLC Fractionation0
C, H, N, S, & 0
Test Sequences
Transients
Cold
1
/
,
/
/
/
•
/
/
•
/
/
/
/
/
/
'
2
/
/
/
•
/
/
Hot
1
/
/
/
/
•
/
/
/
/
/
•
/
/
/
/
/
2
/
/
/
/
•
/
13-Mode
1
/
/
/
2
/
/
Seven (7)
Extended
Modes
/
/
/b
/b
/
/
/b
/
/
/b
/b
• b
/
/
V
/
'
(Full)
Power
Curve
/
Bus
Transients
1
/
/
,
/
•
/
2
/
/
v
^should run Federal Smoke, too, if a part of testing done on appropriate dvno
also measured during other six modes of 13-mode, not on extended basis
d to Quantitative determinations of aromatic, transitional, and oxygenated fractions
10
-------
All the planned test configurations were characterized to some ex-
tent, except ethanol and water with pilot diesel and oxidation catalyst.
Emission characterization included regulated emissions (HC,CO and NOX)
along with total particulate, unburned alcohols, individual hydrocarbons,
aldehydes, phenols, and odor. In addition to these items, the particu-
late matter was characterized in terms of particle size distribution,
sulfate content, C,H,S, and metals content, and soluble organic fractions.
The soluble organic fraction was further characterized by determining its
elemental content (C,H,S,N), boiling point distribution, BaP content,
relative make-up of polar compounds, and its bioactivity by Ames testing.
B. Description of Test Engines
The diesel engine, shown in Figure 1, was designated as a Volvo TD-
100C. It is a direct-injected, turbocharged diesel engine which produces
186 kW (250 hp) at 2200 rpm. Figure 2 shows the diesel pilot/alcohol
engine, or dual-fuel engine, which was designated as a Volvo TD-100A. The
dual-fuel engine is essentially a TD-100 series modified to accept low-
cetane fuels by utilizing pilot injection of diesel fuel. Some of the
specifications common to both engines are given in Table 3.
TABLE 3. SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE VOLVO
SERIES TD-100 ENGINE
Maximum Output
Maximum Torque
No. Cylinders
Bore
Stroke
Displacement
Compression Ratio
Maximum Idle
Minimum Idle
Turbocharger Boost
Firing Sequence
Direction of Rotation
(250 hp) at 2200 rpm
(686 ft Ibs) at 1400 rpm
186 kW
915 N'm
6
120.65 mm (4.750 inches)
140.00 mm (4.112 inches)
9.6 liters (586 in.3)
15:1
2400 - 2500 rpm
475 - 525 rpm
80 - 100 kPa (11.5 - 14.2 psi)
1-5-3-6-2-4
Clockwise (from front)
The pilot diesel fuel is injected through an additional fuel system.
This pilot diesel fuel system consists of a relatively small distributor-
type injection pump (shown on the left side of Figure 3) and single hole
injectors, one for each cylinder, oriented at the outer limit of the com-
bustion chamber in the piston crown as shown in Figure 4. The main fuel,
a low-cetane fuel like methanol, is injected through the "original fuel
system," utilizing an inline injection pump and four-hole injectors cen-
trally located in the combustion chambers. The "original fuel system"
has been modified to provide for the necessary capacity to inject fuel
with lower energy per unit volume and still obtain rated power.
11
-------
Figure 1. Volvl TD-100C heavy-duty
diesel truck engine
Figure 2. Volvo TD-100A heavy-duty
dual-fuel truck engine
-------
Figure 3. Arrangement of the injection pumps on the dual fuel Volvo TD-100A
Figure 4. The cylinder head with two injectors
13
-------
The fuel rate is controlled by an aneroid which senses the inlet
manifold pressure, to avoid overfueling at low engine speeds. At low
loads, only diesel fuel is injected. A critical point is that at which
the alcohol fuel begins to be injected as the load is increased. If the
quantity of diesel fuel injected is too low, HC emissions will be high.
Too much diesel fuel, however, will result in smoke. The diesel fuel is
injected against the air swirl so that the fuel droplets are picked up
and carried around the center of the cylinder by the air, forming a rich
air/fuel zone and preventing the fuel from hitting the wall of the combus-
tion chamber in the piston (Figure 5).(D
Figure 5. The fuel jets in the combustion chamber
The dual-fuel engine is operated in a manner similar to a conven-
tional diesel engine. Cold start-up operation calls for the use of a pre-
heater in the intake air system, prior to and after cold-start cranking.
Activating the ignition switch energizes the preheater for 50 seconds
before the engine is cranked. The preheater is located in the connecting
pipe between the turbocharger and the intake manifold. Upon starting,
the preheater is re-energized for 50 seconds or until the water tempera-
ture reaches 50°C (122°F), whichever occurs first. Solenoid actuators
are used on both fuel injection pumps, as shown in Figure 3. During the
preheat mode and cranking, the alcohol fuel pump is held to the "OFF"
fuel position to prevent quenching of cold-start combustion by the alcohol,
Simultaneously, the diesel pump is held to "ON", or to the "high flow"
position. After the engine has started and the second phase of preheat
has expired, the alcohol fuel pump is switched to the "ON" fuel position
and will deliver fuel on rack demand. As soon as the rack (located on
the alcohol pump) is moved from the idle position, electrical contact is
broken and the diesel pump is switched to "OFF", or to the "low flow"
position, in anticipation of demand for alcohol injection. Variations of
this "recommended cold-start procedure" were used during emission test
work. These variations will be described later in the report.
14
-------
An oxidation catalyst, manufactured by Unikat AB of Sweden, was
supplied in order to investigate its effect on emissions, especially
unburned fuel and particulate. The catalyst, which weighed 41 kg and
contained 15dm3 (915 in.3) of catalytic compound, was designated as a
Type U210. The catalyst had been chassis tested for about 50 hours of
operation prior to use in this program. The catalyst was installed approx-
imately 61 cm (2 ft) downstream of the turbocharger exhaust outlet. After
part of the planned testing had been completed, it was decided that a
backpressure-increasing device should be used to promote faster catalyst
warm-up during the transient cycle test work. Figure 6 shows the instal-
lation of the catalyst along with the backpressure device, which is moun-
ted on the turbocharger outlet. The pipe connecting the backpressure
device to the catalyst was insulated in order to retain as much exhaust
heat at the catalyst as possible.
Figure 6. Installation of catalyst with backpressure device
15
-------
The backpressure device, illustrated in Figure 7, is typically instal-
led as a fast warm-up device for cold start-up, and is also used as an
exhaust brake. For test purposes with the catalyst, the device was acti-
vated by electrical contact only during closed rack operation, which in-
cluded idle conditions during steady-state operation and idle plus "cut
throttle" operation during transient testing. When activated, the device
restricts exhaust flow, forcing the engine to work against a backpressure
and reducing air intake so that combustion temperature and exhaust temper-
ature rise. Activation of the device increases the backpressure at idle
from virtually atmospheric pressure to 50 kPa (7 psig) and increases the
maximum backpressure from 13 kPa (2 psig) to 150 kPa ("21 psig) at "high
idle" speed/2)
C. Descriptions of Test Fuels
Fuels required for the Volvo characterization program included No.
2 diesel fuel, commercial methanol, and commercial (denatured) ethanol.
Analyses of the three fuels are given in Tables 4 through 6. The diesel
fuel used throughout the test work was a 2D Emissions Test fuel, meeting
the specifications found in the Federal Register for such fuels.(3) The
methanol was obtained commercially from DuPont in drums, and was at least
99.9 percent methanol. The commercial ethanol used was composed of about
1 part methyl isobutyl ketone, 1.4 parts ethyl acetate, and 1 part unleaded
gasoline per 100 parts "alcohol" (predominantly ethanol). A sample of
this commercial mixture was checked for miscibility with water at water
levels exceeding 35% by volume, with good results. This denatured etha-
nol was procured in drums. The dual-fuel engine was also operated on
ethanol and 30 percent water (by weight). The ethanol and water blend
was mixed in 50 gallon batches, consisting of 106.0 Ibs of water to 249.5
Ibs of ethanol, and mechanically agitated for 15 minutes. This fuel blend
will be referred to in this text as "ethanol + water".
Table 7 compares some of the properties of the various fuels used in
this program. Properties for diesel fuel, methanol, and ethanol are docu-
mented in various sources. Properties of "ethanol + water" were calcu-
lated on the assumption that the ethanol and water were consumed in the
combustion chamber in the same manner as if the fuel blend were introduced
as a fuel compound. Of the four fuels listed, diesel fuel has the highest
heating value and cetane number, followed by ethanol, then methanol. Simi-
larly, diesel fuel has the highest stoichiometric A/F ratio, follow d h
ethanol, methanol, and ethanol + water. This order of fuel'properties ^
can also be seen for flash point, heat of vaporization, H/C mole ratio
0/C ratio, and percent of fuel carbon. The properties of methanol and'
"ethanol + water" are very similar. The four fuels all have different
liquid densities, and this property should be noted in that some of the
emissions will be presented in terms of measured fuel usage
16
-------
1,234
667
18 17 16 15 14
Seal
Cooling air discharge
Bushings
Return spring
Piston rod
Piston sealing ring
Washer
Nut
0-ring
Lock nut
Cylinder head
Seal
Nipple
Piston
Cylinder
Wear washer
Bearing housing
Shutter housing cover
Shutter
Shutter housing
Hole for tow speeds
Drffusor
Exhaust Pressure governor
A. From exhaust turbine
B. To catalyst
C. Throttle position actuated 390 kPa (55 psig)
compressed air connection
Figure 7. Volvo exhaust backpressure device used with catalyst
17
-------
TABLE 4. ANALYSIS OF AMOCO 2D EMISSIONS FUEL, EM-465-F
Cetane Number
Cetane Index
Gravity, "API
D-86 50% pt. °F
Density, g/mJl
Cloud point, °C (°F)
Flash point, °C (°F)
Viscosity, cs
Gum, mg/100 mi
Total solids, mg/mJZ,
Metals in fuel, X-ray
Carbon, %
Hydrogen, %
Nitrogen, ppm
Sulfur, %
Aromatics, %
Olefins, %
Saturates, %
Distillation, D86, °C
IBP
5% point
10% point
20% point
40% point
60% point
80% point
90% point
95% point
EP
44.
45.8
34.5
498
0.852
58 (136)
2.42
13.6
87.0
12.7
166
0.24
28.4
1.0
70.6
168 (334)
200 (392)
213 (416)
229 (444)
250 (482)
270 (518)
296 (564)
313 (596)
329 (624)
342 (648)
18
-------
TABLE 5. DUPONT SPECIFICATION AND TYPICAL ANALYSIS OF
METHANOL FUEL, EM-469-F
Comments
Methanol, wt %
Specific gravity (25/25C)
Distillation range (1 atm)
First drop to dry, C
Nonvolatiles, wt %
Acetone, wt %
Acidity (as acetic acid),
wt %
Alkalinity (as ammonia),
wt %
Carbonizable substances,
platinum cobalt scale
(APHA)
Permaganate test,
minutes
Color, platinum cobalt
scale (APHA)
Hydrocarbon test, clouding
when diluted with
2 parts water
Specification
min. 99.85
max. 1.0
max. 0.0005
max. 0.002
max. 0.0020
max. 0.00030
max. 35
min. 50
max. 5
none
Typical Analysis
99.98
0.78891
0.5
<0.0001
<0.0014
0.0013
<0.00005
10
56
0
Passes
TABLE 6. "SYNASOL" SOLVENT UNION CARBIDE SPECIFICATION AND ANALYSIS
OF ETHANOL FUEL, EM-466-F
Comments
Specific gravity
Distillation, 760 mm
Acidity
Ethyl Acetate
Water
Color
Odor
Suspended Matter
Specification
0.789-0.793 @ 20/20°C
IBP 74.5 °C minimum
DP 79.5 °C maximum
0.005% wt. max., calc.
as acetic acid
1.15 to 1.45% wt.
0.50% wt. max.
15 platinum-cobalt, max.
Mild and non-residual
Substantially free
Analysis
0.7911
76.4
78.7
0.002
20/20°C
°C
°C
WTP
1.45 WTP
0.08 WTP
5 PTC
"APPROVED"
"APPROVED"
19
-------
TABLE 7. PROPERTIES OF FUELS USED IN THE VOLVO PROGRAM
Property
Liquid Density
Boiling Point(s)
Flash Point
Lower Heating Value
Heat of Vaporization
Stiochiometric A/F Ratio
Cetane Number
Lower Heat Values
H/C Mole Ratio
O/C Mole Ratio
Percent Fuel Carbon
Units
kg/m3
°C
°C
MJAg
KJ/kcj
1
MJ/dm3
Diesel
852
168 - 342
58
42.8
300
14.6
45
36.5
1.66-1.85
0
86-88
Methanol
796
65
11
19.7
1100
6.4
3
15.7
4.00
1.00
37
Ethanol
794
78
21
27.0
840
9.0
8
21.4
3.00
0.50
52
Ethanol
+ Watera
868b
N.D.C
N.D.
18.9
1260
6.3
N.D.
16.2
4.10
1.05
37
a"Ethanol + water" represents neat ethanol mixed with 30 percent by
weight water
Properties calculated on the assumption that the ethanol + water
mixture is consumed as a compound
calculated from API gravity
not determined
D. Test Procedures
Emissions from the Volvo TD-100C diesel engine and the Volvo TD-100A
dual-fuel engine were measured during both steady-state and transient
engine exercises. Steady-state operation and measurement techniques
were based on the 1979 13-mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP). Transient
operation and measurement techniques were based on the 1984 FTP and 1986
Proposed FTP, which includes particulate.
The 13-mode test procedure is an engine exercise which consists of
13 individual modes of steady-state operation. Starting with a fully
warmed engine, the first mode is an idle condition. This idle is then
followed by 2, 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent load at intermediate speed
followed by another idle mode, then to rated speed - 100, 75, 50, 25, and
2 percent of full load, followed by a final idle mode. Intake air, fuel,
and power output are monitored along with other data to be used in calcu-
lating modal emission rates. A 13-mode composite emission rate is calcu-
lated on the basis of modal weighting factors as specified in the Federal
Register.
(4)
Most unregulated emissions were measured over 7 modes of steady-state
operation instead of 13 modes. This 7-mode procedure is a variation of
the 13-mode procedure and consists of only the 2, 50, and 100 percent
loads at intermediate and rated speeds, plus one idle condition.
On the basis of the 13-mode FTP weighting factors, 7-mode composite
emissions were computed using weighted factors. Table 8 shows the respec-
20
-------
tive weighting factors used. As the number of modes decreases, each modal
point represents more time in mode and a wider range of power; thus the
weighting for each of the 7 modes must be increased compared to its factor
for 13-mode use. For both the 13-mode and the 7-mode procedures, the idle
condition accounts for 20 percent of the composite value (equivalent to
20 percent of operating time).
TABLE 8. LISTING OF 13-MODE AND 7-MODE WEIGHTING FACTORS
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
13-Mode
Enqine Speed/Load, %
Idle
Intermediate/2
Intermediate/25
Intermediate/50
Intermediate/75
Intermediate/100
Idle
Rated/100
Rated/75
Rated/50
Rated/25
Rated/ 2
Idle
Composite
7 -Mode
Wt. Factor
0.067
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.067
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.067
1.000
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Composite
Wt. Factor
0.12
0.16
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.16
0.12
1.00
Transient engine operation was performed in accordance with the 1984
Transient FTP for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines.' ' The procedure specifies
a transient engine exercise of variable speed and load, depending on the
power output capabilities of the test engine. The cycle requires rela-
tively rapid dynamometer control, capable of loading the engine one moment
and motoring it the next. The system used in this program consisted of
a GE 200 hp motoring/250 hp absorbing dynamometer coupled to a Midwest
500 hp eddy current (absorbing) dynamometer, with a suitable control sys-
tem fabricated in-house.
The 1984 Transient cycle is described in the Federal Register by means
of percent maximum torque and percent rated speed for each one-second in-
terval, for a test cycle of 1199 seconds duration. The 20-minute transient
cycle, developed from heavy-duty truck data, is composed for four five-
minute segments. The four segments are described below:
Transient Cycle
Segment Time, sec.
New York Non-Freeway (NYNF) 297.
Los Angeles Non-Freeway (LANF) 300.
Los Angeles Freeway (LAP) 305.
New York Non-Freeway (NYNF) 297-
In order to generate the transient cycle for the Volvo engine, the engine's
full power curve was obtained from 400 rpm to maximum no load engine speed.
21
-------
Fre e suiting cycle work was 11.68 kW hr (15.66 hp ™****
on a £ak torque of 880 N-m (650 ft Ibs) and a rated speed <*™°^
The relatively large negative torque commands shown in the figure are to
insure that the "throttle," or rack control, goes closed for motoring
operation.
A Transient FTP Test consists of a cold-start transient cycle and a
hot-start transient cycle. The same engine control or command cycle is
used in both cases. For the cold-start, the diesel engine was operated
over a "prep" cycle, then allowed to stand overnight in an ambient soak
temperature of 20 to 30°C (68 to 86°F). The cold-start transient cycle
begins when the engine is cranked for cold start-up. Upon completion of
the cold-start transient cycle, the engine is shut down and allowed to
stand for 20 minutes. After this hot soak period, the hot-start cycle
begins with engine cranking.
All engines react somewhat differently to the transient cycle com-
mands due to both cycle and engine characteristics. In order to judge
how well the engine follows the transient cycle command, engine responses
are compared to engine commands and several statistics are computed.
According to the Federal Register, the following regression line tolerances
should be met:
REGRESSION LINE TOLERANCES
Standard Error of
Estimate (SE) of Y on X
Slop* of ttt*
Regression Lint, H
Coefficient of
Determination, R
Y Intercept of the
Regression Line, B
_!/ Minimum
Speed
100 rp»
0.970
1.030
0.970O_1/
150 rpei
Torque
13» of Maxinvn
Engine Torque
0.83-1.03 Hot
0.77-1.03 Cold
0.8800 (Hot)J/
0.8500 (Cold)_l/
±15 ft lb»
Brake Horsepower
Bt of MaxlBun
Brake Horsepower
0.89-1.03 (Hot)
0.87-1.03 (Cold)
0.9100 _!/
15.0 of brake
horsepower
In addition to these statistical parameters, the actual cycle work pro-
duced should not be more than 5 percent above, or 15 percent below, the
work requested by the command cycle.
If the statistical criteria are not met, then adjustments to throttle
servo linkage, torque span points, speed span points, and gain to and from
error feedback circuits can be made in order to modify both the engine out-
put and the dynamometer loading/motoring characteristics. After completion
of the cold-start and the hot-start transient cycles, transient composite
22
-------
Cr
NJ
LO
2500 r
NYNF
297 sec.
LAP
305 sec.
LANF
300 sec,
NYNF
297 sec.
Jiu
J_
1200 1100 1000 900 300 700 600 500
TIME, SECONDS
400
300
200
100
Figure 8. Graphic representation of torque and speed commands for the 1984
Transient FTP cycle based on a power map of the Volvo TD100C diesel engine
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
-------
emission results are computed by the following:
Brake Specific _ 1/7 (Mass Emission, Cold) + 6/7 (Mass Emission, Hot)
Emissions ~ 1/7 (Cycle Work, Cold) + 6/7 (Cycle Work, Hot)
Similar to the 1984 Transient FTP cycle which was developed from
heavy-duty truck data, a bus cycle was developed from CAPE-21 bus data.
The bus cycle was first introduced as a research test cycle during the
heavy-duty diesel baseline test work. (15^ It was used in this program
to indicate emission trends from the Volvo test engines in city bus
applications. The 833 second transient bus cycle is composed of three
segments, as shown below. A listing of the speed and torque cycle sched-
ule is given in Reference 15. A graphic presentation of the speed and
torque commands which constitute the bus cycle used for the Volvo TD-100C
Bus Cycle
Segment Time, seconds.
New York Combined 273
Los Angeles Combined 287
New York Combined 273
diesel engine is given in Figure 9. The resulting cycle work was 5.57 kW
hr (7.47 hp hr) based on a peak torque of 880 N«m (650 ft Ibs) and a rated
speed of 2200 rpm. The bus cycle was run only as a hot-start test cycle,
and was always preceded by a 20-minute soak.
The engine was also operated over the 1979 Smoke FTP exercise.*4^
It essentially consists of a 5-minute idle followed by full throttle ac-
celeration to rated speed, and finally, a full throttle lug-down from
rated speed to intermediate speed. This transient smoke test cycle was
run only for the measurement of smoke emissions.
During steady-state or modal engine exercises, regulated and some un-
regulated gaseous emissions can be sampled from the raw exhaust stream
since a representative and proportional sample can be obtained. Obtain-
ing proportional samples during transient engine operation requires the
use of a constant volume sampler (CVS). Figure 10 shows the basic layout
of the double-dilution CVS used to comply with the 1984 Transient FTP
and the 1986 Proposed Transient FTP<5>, which includes the measurement
of particulate. All transient cycle test work during this program was
conducted with a main dilution tunnel flow of 2000 SCFM, which provided
approximately a 4:1 cycle dilution ratio of the total exhaust introduced
Regulated and unregulated gaseous emission samples were taken from the
main dilution flow. Particulate-related samples required that a portion
in^ S exhaust from ^e ™*in tunnel be diluted further, to an over-
all dilution of 12:1. The small double-dilution tunnel was operated at
approximately 4 SCFM total flow in order to collect particulate on two
90 mm TA60A20 Pallflex filters in series. Weight gains from these Zo
filters were used to determine the total particulate mass emission from
: dOUf e-dilUti°n tu-e* -s operated at approximately
in order to accumulate large particulate samples on
24
-------
o
o
o
-------
Muffler*
Filter
Box (290 SCTM)
Double Dilution
Tunnel (1.76 I.D.)
379 SCPM Double Dilution-
Tunnel (16 inch Di«.)
0 leal*
100 inch»i
-Transfer Tube
(129 SCTH)
filter Holder
(20 x 20)
riou Bequletlng
Section (3 at 12SECTH)
H««t
Puap (3758CTM) 'T~h
Muffler Q
Figure 10. Basic layout of transient cycle heavy-duty diesel CVS with
large double dilution sampler for three 20x20 inch filters
26
-------
three 20x20 inch filters. It also provided auxiliary particulate sampling
stations for smaller 47 mm filters. This same CVS system was used to col-
lect particulate samples from steady-state operation of the Volvo diesel
engine, by altering the main dilution tunnel flow to accommodate the total
exhaust from the engine without exceeding 52°C (125°F) at the particu-
late filter face.
Particulate samples and other emission measurements from steady-state
operation of the Volvo dual-fuel engine were obtained from a steady-state
test facility which utilizes a single-dilution CVS having a capacity rang-
ing from 1,000 to 12,000 SCFM. Figure 11 shows the sample collection end
of this 1.16 m (46 in.) diameter, 17.4 m (57 ft) long stainless steel
single-dilution CVS tunnel. The steady-state facility also incorporates
an exhaust diverter valve which allows the engine operating condition to
be stabilized before the exhaust is diverted to the CVS for particulate
collection. Power absorption is provided by a Midwest 500 hp eddy current
dynamometer and its associated controller. The controller was needed in
order to maintain steady-state operation, especially at the 1400 rpm maxi-
mum torque condition since the dual-fuel engine's torque curve fell off
sharply below 1500 rpm.
Figure 11. Sample collection end of large single dilution CVS tunnel
27
-------
E, Analytical Procedures
The analytical systems used for each category of emission measure-
ments are described in this section. The section is divided into two
groups, the first dealing with gaseous emissions characterization and the
second with total particulate emissions and the constituents of the total
parti culate. Gaseous emission included HC, CO, CO2, NOx, and some un-
regulated pollutants. Unregulated gaseous emissions include individual
hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols, unbumed fuel, and odor. Particulate
emissions included determination of the total particulate rate, and its
content of sulfate, metals, carbon and hydrogen. The size distribution
of the particles was measured, as well as the fraction soluble in methy-
lene chloride. This soluble fraction was characterized for carbon, hydro-
gen, sulfur, nitrogen, BaP content, boiling point distribution, fraction-
ation (by relative molecular polarity) , and bioactivity by the Ames test.
1. Gaseous Emissions
Regulated gaseous emissions of HC, CO, and NOX were measured ac-
cording to the 1979 13-mode FTP and the 1984 transient FTP- The regulated
emissions along with CO2 were determined from raw exhaust samples taken
during the 13-mode steady-state procedure. These same four constituents
were determined in dilute exhaust samples taken during the transient pro~
cedure. The transient procedure requires that CO and C02 be determined
from bag samples of dilute exhaust, and, provides that NOx niay be deter-
mined from the same dilute sample bags or from integration of continuous
NOX concentration monitoring. For this program, the continuous NOX,
measured by chemi luminescence, was used to determine the NOxemissions .
The same instrument was used for both the 13-mode raw exhaust measurement
and for the transient continuous dilute sample taken from the main dilu-
tion tunnel. Although the transient procedure only specifies one dilute
exhaust Tedlar sample bag, the system used in this program uses one sample
bag for each segment. This allows a better understanding of individual
cycle segment contributions to the total emissions measured. Another CL
instrument was used to measure NOx from the dilute bag sample, but this
reading has typically been 10 percent lower than indicated by continuous
measurement technig^ies. ^^'
Carbon monoxide and CO2 were measured during both engine test pro-
cedures using non-dispersive infrared detector (NDIR) instruments. The CO
measurement is of interest in both procedures because it is a regulated
pollutant. The CO2 measurement is of interest because it is used in the
calculation of fuel usage by carbon balance along with the CO and the HC
emissions. Both CO and CO2 are determined from the raw exhaust during
the 13-mode procedure and are determined from dilute exhaust bag samples
during the transient test procedures.
28
-------
Hydrocarbons were measured during both test procedures using the
specified heated sample train and heated flame ionization detector (HFID),
a Beckman 402 HFID. As with other gaseous emissions, HC measurements
during steady-state procedures were taken from raw exhaust, and measure-
ments during transient procedures were taken from the dilute exhaust.
During transient test procedures, a continuous dilute sample taken from
the main dilution tunnel was integrated for total hydrocarbons.
The heated HC probe and overflow calibration technique used in
total HC measurements are unique to the heavy-duty transient FTP. Details
as to the measurement of the regulated gaseous emissions may be found in
Reference 4 for the 13-mode procedure, and in Reference 3 for the trans-
ient procedure.
The intent of both procedures is to determine the "total" HC emis-
sions from the test engines. It is generally assumed that the exhaust hydro-
carbons emitted from a diesel engine are of the same general composition
as the parent fuel. The total is based on the indication from HFID instru-
ments. It has been shown in References 6 and 7 that FID response to vari-
ous species of alcohols, individual hydrocarbons, aldehydes, and phenols
often differs from response to fuel-like constituents, and is affected by
oxygen synergism and physical construction of the FID. Some reported FID
response factors given in Reference 6 are repeated in Table 9.
Both Federal Test Procedures mentioned above also specify methods
of emissions computations. In making accommodations for this project, modi-
fication to these emissions computations had to be incorporated in order
to account for the dual-fuel combustion. The 13-mode data reduction calcu-
lations involve intake airflow rate and both measured and computed fuel
rate, with measured emissions, to compute composite emissions rates. Equa-
tions for calculation of fuel/air ratio are based on the combustion of
diesel fuel with a H/C mole ratio of approximately 1.8. The H/C ratio of
methanol is 4.0 and that of ethanol is 3.0. The other major difference
was that the alcohol fuels contain oxygen. Complicating the 13-mode emis-
sion calculations was the fact that the engine consumes varying relative
amounts of diesel fuel and alcohol fuel, depending on load condition.
The 13-mode computer program was modified to take these variations into
account. In addition to f/a ratios calculated from the carbon balance of
emission measurements and from measured fuel and air quantities, the f/a
ratio was calculated on a "diesel fuel equivalent" basis. The "diesel
fuel equivalent" was based on converting the measured portion of alcohol
into a mass of diesel fuel on the basis of heating value. The diesel equi-
valent of the alcohol fuel was added to the measured diesel fuel, and
this "total diesel fuel" was used to calculate the diesel equivalent f/a
ratio. This diesel f/a equivalent ratio was used to compute the NOX
correction factor. The NOX correction factor was computed and is given
in the printout, but was not applied to the NOX emissions measured be-
cause it is uncertain that the computed correction factor has any valid-
ity for engines not operated solely on diesel fuel. For this program,
29
-------
TABLE 9. FID RELATIVE SENSITIVITIES
(6)
RELATIVE
COMPOUND SENSmvrry
Normal Parafflni
Methane 0.97
Ethane 0.97
Propane 0. 98
Butane 1.09
Pentane 1.04
Hexane 1. 03
Heptane 1. 00
Octane 0. 97
Nonane 0. 98
Aldehydes
Butyraldehyde 0. 62
Heptanolc aldehyde 0. 77
COMPOS 3»^Y
Aromatlcs (cont.)
1,2.4-Trl-
methylbenzene 0. 97
1,3.5-TH-
methylbenzene 0. 98
Isopropylbenzene 0. 97
n-Propylbenzene 1.01
lM2-Iaopropyl-
benzene 0. 99
lM3-Iaopropyl-
benzene 1.01
!M4-lBopropyl-
benzene 0. 99
sec. -Butylbenzene 1. 00
tert. -Butylbenzene 1.02
n-Butylbenzene o. 98
Unaaturates
Acetylene 1.07
Ethylene 1.02
Hexene-1 0. 99
Octene-1 1.03
Decene-1 1.01
Alcohols
Methanol 0. 23
Ethanol 0. 46
n-Propanol 0. 60
laopropanol 0. 53
n-Butanol 0. 66
Isobutanol 0. 68
aec.-Butanol 0.63
tert. -Butanol 0. 74
Amyl alcohol 0.71
Methyllsobutyl-
carbinol o. 74
MethyUmyl alcohol 0. 65
Hexyl alcohol 0. 74
Octyl alcohol 0. 85
Decyl alcohol 0. 84
era*. »SS£
Aldehydes (coat.)
Octaldehyde
Caprlc aldehyde
Aromatlcs
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
para-Xylene
meta-Xylene
ortho-Xylene
lM2-Ethylbenzene
IMS-Ethylbenzene
lM4-Ethylbenzene
1,2.3-Trl-
methylbenzene
0.78
0.80
1.12
1.07
1.03
1.00
1.04
1.02
1.02
1.01
1.00
0.98
~> ,JESJ£
Aclda
Formic
Acetic
Propionlc
Butyric
Hexanolc
Heptanolc
Octanolc
Eaters
Methylacetate
Ethylacetate
Isopropylacetate
aec. -Butylacetate
Isobutylacetate
n-Butylacetate
leoamylacetate
Methylamylacetate
Ethyl -(2)-
ethylhexanoate
Hexylcaproate
Celiosolve acetate
Nitrogen Compound
AcetonitrUe
Trlmethylareine
tert. -Butylamlne
Diethylamlne
Aniline
dl-n-Butylamine
Ketonea
Acetone
Methylethylketone
Methyllsobutyl-
ketone
Ethylbutylketone
Dllsobutylketone
Ethylamylketone
Cyclohexanone
0.01
0.24
0.40
0.48
0.63
0.61
0.65
0.20
0.38
0.49
0.52
0.54
0.55
0.62
0.63
0.72
0.78
0.50
0.39
0.46
0.54
0.61
0.75
0.75
0.49
0.61
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.80
0.72
30
-------
the diesel H/C ratio was entered as 1.85, corresponding to a hydrocarbon
molecular weight (per carbon atom) of 13.8759. Additional 13-mode infor-
mation regarding dual-fuel usage, the various f/a ratios, and exhaust oxy-
gen was printed out for each of the 13 modes and will be discussed in the
Results, Section VI.
As with the 13-mode procedure, certain program modifications were
necessary in order to compute the 1984 Transient FTP and bus cycle emis-
sions. The modifications concerned the computations of fuel consumption
on the basis of carbon balance via HC, CO, and CO2 emissions. Additional
calculations were included to compute the percent of fuel carbon for each
segment of the transient test, based on actual measured diesel and alcohol
fuel usage during that segment. The computed percent fuel carbon was then
used in calculating the fuel consumption reported as brake specific fuel
consumption (BFSC). This fuel calculation used a fuel carbon fraction
of 0.866 as a multiplier for the HC mass emission. HC mass emission was
computed using an exhaust HC density of 0.5768 kg/in3 (16.33 g/ft3) ^3^ on
the basis of a H/C ratio of 1.85. For comparison, the percent of fuel
carbon for diesel, methanol, and ethanol are 87, 38, and 26, respectively.
As with the 13-mode procedure, no NOx correction for humidity was applied
to the transient results. In the case of transient test operation, the
engine intake humidity and temperature were controlled to 60 - 90 grains/
Ib of dry air and 68 - 86°F, so a correction factor of 1 was actually used.
Some selected individual hydrocarbons (IHC) were determined from
dilute exhaust samples using a CVS. Samples were taken over seven indi-
vidual modes of steady-state operation and over the cold-start and hot-
start transient cycles. A portion of the dilute exhaust sample collected
in a Tedlar bag was injected into a four-column gas chromatograph using
a single flame ionization detector and dual sampling valves. The timed
sequence selection valves allowed the baseline separation of air, methane,
ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene, and toluene.(8)
Aldehydes and ketones were determined by using the 2,4-dinitrophenyl-
hydrazine (DNPH) method.(8) Raw exhaust samples were taken during steady-
state operation; whereas dilute samples were taken from the main CVS dilu-
tion tunnel during transient testing. In both cases a heated sample line
and filter were maintained at 190°C (375°F) . The procedure consists of
bubbling filtered exhaust gases, dilute or raw, through glass impinger
traps containing a solution of DNPH and HC1 kept at 0°C. The aldehydes
and ketones (also known as carbonyl compounds) react with the DNPH to
form their respective phenylhydrazone derivatives (precipitates). These
derivatives are removed by filtration followed by pentane extractions
evaporated in a vacuum oven. The remaining dried extract, which contains
the phenylhydrazone derivatives, is dissolved in a specific volume of
toluene with anthracene internal standard. A portion of this dissolved
extract is injected into a gas chromatograph and analyzed using a flame
ionization detector to separate formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, iso-
butyraldehyde, methylethylketone, crotonaldehyde, hexanaldehyde, and
benzaldehyde.
31
-------
Phenols, which differ from alcohols in having the hydroxyl group
(-CH) attached directly to an aromatic ring, were measured using an ether
extraction procedure detailed in Reference 8. Raw exhaust samples were
taken during steady-state operation, and dilute samples were taken from
the main CVS dilution tunnel during transient operation. Exhaust samples
were collected in impingers containing aqueous potassium hydroxide. The
contents of the impingers were acidified with sulfuric acid, then extract-
ed with ethyl ether. This extract was injected into a gas chromatograph
equipped with an FID for the determination of various phenols as follows:
Molecular
"Phenol" Weight
Phenol 94.11
Salicyaldehyde 122.13
m-Cresol 108.15
p-Cresol 108.15
2,3-xylenol I22.il
3,5-xylenol 122.17
p-ethylphenol 122.17
2-isopropylphenol 136.20
2,4,6-trimethylphenol 136.20
2,3,5-trimethylphenol 136.20
2,3,5,6-tetramethylphenol 150.22
At the start of the program, both filtered and unfiltered exhaust samples
were analyzed. The unfiltered exhaust samples appeared to indicate the
same trends but with lower response than obtained using a filtered sample.
The unfiltered exhaust sample was dropped in favor of the filtered ex-
haust sample on the basis of better recovery.(8)'
Unburned fuel quantities were also determined for both modal and
transient operation. In most cases, unburned fuel includes aldehydes,
phenols, and specific hydrocarbons along with the actual aerosols and/or
gas phase evaporated fuel. Unburned fuel, for this program, meant speci-
fically unburned alcohol. For unburned methanol, dilute or raw exhaust
(depending on engine operation) was drawn through glass bubblers contain-
ing distilled water at 0°C in order to condense out and collect unburned
methanol S^ The level of methanol collected was determined by gas chrom-
atograph using an FID. Unburned ethanol was determined by collecting a
dilute exhaust gas sample in a Tedlar bag and processing a small portion
of this sample through a gas chromatograph procedure described in Refer-
ence 9.
Total intensity of aroma (TIA) was quantified by using the Coor-
dinating Research Council Diesel Odor Analytical System (DOAS). Dilute or
raw sample, depending on engine operation, was drawn off through a heated
sample train and into a trap containing Chromosorb 102. The trap was later
32
-------
eluted and injected by syringe into the DOAS instrument, which is a liquid
chromatograph that separates an oxygenate fraction (liquid column oxygenates,
LCO) and an aromatic fraction (liquid column aromatics, LCA). The TIA
values are defined as TLA = 1. + logio (LCO, yg/£) or TIA = 0.4 + 0.7 log1Q
(LCA, yg/£) (TIA by LCO preferred). A.D. Little, the developer of the DOAS
instrument, has related this fraction to TIA sensory measurement by the
A.D. Little odor panel. (10> The system was intended for raw exhaust sam-
ples from steady-state operating conditions, but for this program, dilute
samples of exhaust were taken in order to determine a TIA value for trans-
ient operation. Where dilute samples were taken, the corresponding TIA
values were increased proportional to the dilution ratio.
2. Particulate Emissions
Particulate emissions were determined from dilute exhaust samples
utilizing various collection media and apparatus, depending on the analy-
sis to be performed. Particulate has been defined as any material col-
lected on a fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter at or below a tempera-
ture of 51.7 °C (125 °F), excluding condensed water.^ The 125 °F tem-
perature limit and the absence of condensed water dictates that the raw
exhaust be diluted, irrespective of engine operating mode. The tempera-
ture limit generally required dilution ratios of approximately 12:1
(total mixture:raw exhaust).
Total particulate-rate samples were collected on 90 mm or 47 mm
Pallflex TA60A20 fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter media by means
of double dilution or single dilution techniques. Gravimetric weight
gain, representing collected particulate, was determined to the nearest
microgram after the filter temperature and humidity were stabilized. This
weight gain along with CVS flow parameters and engine data were used to
calculate the total particulate mass emission of the engine under test.
Smoke and total particulate are related in that the relative level
of smoke opacity indicates the relative level of particulate. The ab-
sence of smoke, however, does not indicate the absence of particulate.
Smoke was determined by the end-of-stack EPA-PHS smokemeter which moni-
tored the opacity of the raw exhaust plume as it issued from the exhaust
pipe. Smoke opacity was determined for the 13-mode operation, power
curve operation, and for the smoke FTP.^ '
Since total particulate, by definition, includes anything collected
on fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter media, there has always been
an interest to find out what constitutes the "total particulate ." The
following paragraphs describe the methods and analysis used to determine
some of the properties of the total particulate.
33
-------
Particle size distributions were determined using a Sierra Series
220 cascade inertial impactor. Dilute exhaust particles having a variety
of shapes and densities were fractionated and collected according to their
aerodynamic characteristics. The aerodynamic size gives information re-
lating to the physical size, shape and density of the particulate, indi-
cating how the particles may behave in the environment. Pre-weighed
stainless steel impactor discs were used for stage collection, and a pre-
weighed fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter was used as a back-up
filter to collect all particulate aerodynamically smaller than the lowest
cut-off (0.11 microns Effective Cut-Off Diameter, or BCD). Impactor flow-
rate was selected to provide individual stage separation from 7.4 to 0.11
microns ECD.
Sulfate, orignating from the combustion of sulfur-containing fuel,
was collected as part of the particulate matter in the form of sulfate
salts or sulfuric acid aerosols. A 47 mm Fluoropore (Millipore Corp.)
fluorocarbon membrane filter with 0.5 micron pore size was used to collect
the sample. This total particulate sample is ammoniated to "fix" the
sulfate portion of the particulate. Using the barium chloranilate (BCA)
analytical method, the sulfates are leached from the filter with an
isopropyl alcohol - water solution (60% IPA). This extract is injected
into a high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC) and pumped through a
column to scrub out the cations and convert the sulfate to sulfuric acid.
Passage through a reactor column of barium chloranilate crystals precipi-
tates out barium sulfate and releases the highly UV absorbing chloranilate
ions. The amount of chloranilate ion released is determined by a sensi-
tive liquid chromatograph UV detector at 310-313 nanometers. "Sulfate"
should be understood to mean 804= as measured by the BCA methodS8^
Carbon, hydrogen, metals, and other elements that make up the to-
tal particulate are also of interest. A sample of "total particulate" was
collected on 47 mm Type A (Gelman) glass fiber filter media for the pur-
pose of determining the carbon and hydrogen weight percentages. This
analysis was performed by Galbraith Laboratories using a Perkin-Elmer
Model 240B automated thermal conductivity CHN analyzer. This instrument
was designed for analysis of liquid samples. In order to accommodate
the particulate sample on a filter, the filter must be folded or rolled
over itself. As the temperature is increased, the glass fiber media
collapses on itself, sometimes locking in some of the particulate. For
this reason significant inaccuracies can occur. One of the ways to im-
prove the accuracy was to collect relatively high particulate loadings.
This was possible for steady-state operation but difficult for transient
testing.
A sample of total particulate matter was also collected on a 47 mm
Fluoropore filter for the determination of trace elements such as calcium
aluminum, phosphorus, and sulfur by X-ray fluorescence. This analysis
was conducted at the EPA, ORD laboratories in Research Triangle Park,
N.C. using a Siemens NRS-3 X-ray fluorescence spectrometer.
34
-------
3. Soluble Organics
Carbon has long been recognized as an excellent adsorbing medium for
hydrocarbon aerosols. Similarly, it has been recognized that carbonaceous
particulate could readily adsorb hydrocarbons present in the exhaust. In
order to determine to what extent total particulate contains these vari-
ous hydrocarbons, particulate filter samples were washed with an organic
solvent, methylene chloride. The dissolved portion of the "total particu-
late" carried off with the methylene chloride solvent has been referred
to as the "soluble organic fraction" (SOF). As with total particulate
the SOF may be composed of anything carried over by the extraction process,
so its composition is also of interest. Generally the SOF contains numer-
ous organic compounds, many of which are difficult to isolate and to quan-
tify. Some SOF has been shown to be mutagenic using the Ames test.
Relatively large amounts of soluble organic fraction (some 300 mg)
are generally needed for elemental characterization and Ames testing.
Large 500 x 500 mm (20x20 in.) Pallflex filters were used to collect
correspondingly large amounts of total particulate for extraction. As
mentioned earlier, both CVS units used in this program can collect three
20x20 particulate samples simultaneously. These filters are weighed to
determine the particulate loading, then stored in glassine bags within
a brown paper envelope. Several of these envelopes are grouped and sealed
in a Tedlar bag purged with nitrogen. The Tedlar bags are then stored
in a freezer until needed for extraction. These steps generally take
place within a few hours of sample collection, and are carried out under
yellow light (ultraviolet light filtered out using Kodak "yellow chrome
II" film).
When specific total particulate samples are selected for extractions,
the corresponding filters are pulled from freezer storage and extracted
in soxhlet extractors as shown in Figure 12. After adequate cycling time,
the solvent (methylene chloride) containing the extractables is filtered,
then evaporated to "dryness" in a preweighed vial using blown-in nitrogen.
The weight of the "dried" extract is determined, and the SOF percent of
total particulate calculated. "Dried" refers to the complete removal of
the solvent. The vial contents are either distributed for analysis or
stored in the freezer for subsequent analysis or shipment. As with fil-
ter handling, all extraction steps were carried out under yellow light.
Carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, and nitrogen were determined for the SOF.
Carbon and hydrogen content of the "dried" extract was determined by
Galbraith Laboratories using a Perkin-Elmer Model 240B automated thermal
conductivity CHN analyzer. A portion of the extract was submitted to
SvRI's Mobile Energy Division for nitrogen analysis by chemiluminescence
and sulfur analysis by X-ray fluorescence.
35
-------
Figure 12. Soxhlet Extraction of particulate for soluble organic fraction
The boiling range of the SOF was determined by SwRI's Mobile Energy
Division using a high-temperature variation of ASTM-D2887-73. Approxi-
mately 50 mg of the SOF was dissolved in solvent and an internal standard
(Cg to GH compounds) was added. This sample was then submitted for
instrumental analysis of boiling point distribution.
Another portion of the SOF sample was submitted for fractional sep-
aration. The method involves separation of the extractables into a series
of fractions of increasing polarity. A high performance liquid chroma-
tographic procedure which utilizes a variable solvent program is used to elute
increasingly polar compounds. BaP, 9-flurorenone and acridine standards
are injected to indicate the types of compounds eluted in each region of
the chromatogram.
BaP is considered to be an elementary indicator of the relative PNA
content of the SOF. The analytical method used for the determination of
BaP is described in Reference 12. The procedure is based on high-perfor-
mance liquid chromatography to separate BaP from other organic solubles in
particulate matter, and it incorporates fluroescence detection to measure
BaP. The instrument used was a Perkin-Elmer 3B liquid chromatograph equip-
ped with a MPF-44 fluorescence spectrophotometer. Excitation was at a
wavelength of 383 run, and emission was read at 430 nm.
36
-------
As mentioned earlier, there is concern about the potential health
effects impact that diesel exhaust may have. The emphasis of this concern
has been placed on the SOF which was submitted for Ames testing.
The Ames test,as employed in this program, refers to a bacterial
mutagenesis plate assay with Salmonella typhimurium according to the method
of Ames.(13) This bioassay determines the ability of chemical compounds or
mixtures to cause mutation of DMA in the bacteria, positive results occurring
when histidine-dependent strains of bacteria revert (or are mutated) geneti-
cally to forms which can synthesize histidine on their own. Samples of SOF
were shipped under dry ice to EG&G for Ames test response. Details of this
procedure can be found in References 13 and 14.
37
-------
IV. RESULTS
This section describes the results obtained from numerous emission
measurements and sample analysis conducted on both the Volvo TD-100C
diesel engine and the Volvo TD-100A dual-fuel engine. It is divided
into three parts. The first part gives preliminary emission test re-
sults used to decide on engine timing and cold start-up procedures, along
with general test notes which describe some of the pertinent details and
the chronology of the accumulated test results. The next two parts de-
tail the accumulated gaseous and particulate data, respectively. Over-
all emission trends, comparisons of data, and general remarks are given
along with the results.
A. Preliminary Results and General Test Notes
The dual-fuel engine was installed in the SwRI transient test
facility which includes a 28-170 m3/minute (1000-6000SCFM) double-
dilution CVS and a transient-capable dynamometer and control system. All
transient work and some selected steady-state work were conducted in this
test facility. This is the same facility used for the EPA "Baseline"
Contract 68-03-2603, "Emissions from Heavy-Duty Gasoline and Diesel Engines
Used in Vehicles Above 8,500 Pounds Gross Vehicle Weight." Extensive
steady-state characterization was conducted in SwRl's steady-state test
facility which utilizes a 28 to 340 m3/minute (1,000 to 12,000 SCFM)
single dilution CVS.
Following initial setup and operational checkout of the engine,
Mr. Bert-Inge Bertilsson (of Volvo) adjusted the linkage connecting the
rack of the diesel pump to the alcohol pump, changing the low flow stop
setting of the diesel pump on the basis of HC and smoke emissions at 1400
rpm motoring and full load conditions. Static engine timing of the alco-
hol fuel injection pump was not changed from the "as-received" setting
of 24°BTDC. Using the rack stop adjustment inside the alcohol pump, the
maximum power was set to 186.5 kW (250 hp) at 2200 rpm, with methyl alco-
hol as the main fuel and using 13-mode intake and exhaust restrictions.
Intake restriction and exhaust backpressure used in this emission charac-
terization program are listed below. The 13-mode restrictions were based
on certification data for a diesel TD-100C engine, and transient restric-
tions were based on "typical" limits for intake and exhaust restrictions.
Restrictions at Maximum Power
Intake, mm 1^0 Cin H2O) Exhaust, mm Hg (in Hg)
13-Mode 660 (26.0) 91 (3.6)
Transient 300 (11.8) 74 (2.9)
39
-------
Preliminary test results were requested by the Project Officer in
order to choose between a static timing of 24° or 19°BTDC for alcohol
injection timing. Information was also requested in order to establish
a cold-start procedure which would be suitable for use with the trans-
ient cycle FTP. Following several delays related to dynamometer control,
torque transducer, and driveline vibration (near idle speed of 500 rpm)
problems; the engine was mapped under transient conditions according to
the 1984 FTP, and a transient cycle control tape was generated.
The same engine control tape for the transient cycle, based on the
24°BTDC map, was used for both 24°BTDC and 19eBTDC transient tests.
Results from these preliminary transient tests are given in Table 10.
The 13-mode results were processed per the 1979 procedure, which
utilized the carbon balance and measured fuel to determine the regulated
emission rates. Methanol fuel consumption was converted to "equivalent
diesel fuel" on the basis of heating value. This "equivalent diesel fuel"
was added to the measured diesel fuel used, and the emissions data pro-
cessed through the 13-mode computer program normally used for diesel
engines. Humidity corrections for NOX were_ applied to the preliminary
data. Thirteen-mode HC and NC^ emissions were about as expected, but
CO levels were significantly higher than those obtained by Volvo. Several
checks, including CO instrument calibration and methanol interference,
were made. An additional ice trap was used to assure a dry CO measure-
ment. No cause for the relatively high CO was found. "HC" represents
total hydrocarbons indicated using a Beckman 402 heated flame ionization
detector (HFID).
The transient results were quite repeatable. Run 3 of the transient
test cycle was run with the cycle control tape started 25 seconds after
the engine was started. The 25 second delay was to allow time for the
preheat cycle to expire and for the alcohol fuel pump to be "ON" during
the first active engine demand which occurs at 23 seconds from the start
of the cold-start transient cycle. The engine, as received, had a shorter
preheat cycle after start-up than anticipated. The preheat cycle expired
automatically between 30 and 40 seconds. No significant difference be-
tween the third cold-start and the other two cold-starts at 24°BTDC can
be attributed to the 25 second delay of the cycle.
The timing of the alcohol injection pump was changed from the as-
received 24°BTDC to 19°BTDC. Both steady-state and transient test data
showed definite changes due to 5° timing retardation of the alcohol in-
jection pump. The most notable and expected results were a reduction in
NOx emissions and an increase in fuel consumption. In addition, the
particulate emissions, which were already relatively low at 24°BTDC, de-
creased even further with retarded timing of alcohol injection. It was
noted that the cold-start, with either timing, had slightly lower particu-
late emissions than the hot-start transient. These relatively low particu-
late rates were determined, as usual, from collection by two 90 mm filters
in series. Filter efficiency averaged about 83 percent, which is lower
than for most diesel-only engines tested.^5) Based on these results,
40
-------
TABLE 10. PRELIMINARY TEST RESULTS FROM VOLVO TD-100A DUAL FUEL ENGINE
Run 1
HC, g/bhp-hrd
CO , g/bhp-hr
CO2 i g/bhp-hr
NOx, g/bhp-hr
Part . , g/bhp-hr
BSFC, lb/bhp-hrc
Cycle Power, hp-hr
Run 2
HC, g/bhp-hrd
CO , g/bhp-hr
CO 2> g/bhp-hr
NOX , g/bhp-hr
Part . , g/bhp-hr
BSFC, Ib/bhp-hr
Cycle Power, hp-hr
Run 3a
HC, g/bhp-hrd
CO, g/bhp-hr
CO2, g/bhp-hr
NOX, g/bhp-hr
Part., g/bhp-hr
BSFC, Ib/bhp-hr
Cycle Power, hp-hr
Cold Trans
1.45
7.08
659.
5.73
0.27
0.886
15.52
1.62
7.69
647.
5.83
0.26
0.905
15.25
1.38
7.47
646.
5.64
0.28
0.873
15.16
24°BTDC
Hot Trans
1.34
6.19
629.
5.70
0.30
0.842
15.43
1.33
7.09
627.
5.72
0.28
0.840
15.37
1.32
6.48
619.
5.67
0.32
0.835
14.96
13-modeb
1.239
7.289
—
5.553
—
1.273
7.434
—
5.487
—
19°BTDC v
Cold Trans
1.43
8.37
707.
4.92
0.22
0.980
15.37
1.43
8.67
705.
4.84
0.22
0.960
15.42
Hot Trans
1.34
7.79
684.
4.88
0.24
0.930
15.62
1.38
7.86
690.
4.75
0.25
0.934
15.50
13 -mode
1.123
7.559
—
4.143
—
1.065
7.484
—
4.156
—
Run 3 was to determine if there was a significant difference in cold-start procedure,
namely, the cycle control tape was delayed by 25 sec. from engine start-up
13-mode results are reported from calculations based on equivalent diesel fuel- NOX correction
applied
BSFC was calculated from carbon balance - utilizing a calculated percent carbon in the dual fuel
HC as indicated by Sectarian 402 HFID
-------
it was decided by the Project Officer that emissions characterization
whould be pursued with static timing of the alcohol injection at 19°
BTDC due to lower emissions of NOx and particulate.
As mentioned above, the second preheat cycle was running approximately
30 to 40 seconds. Additional checks into the circuitry were made, and it
was discovered that the engine cooling water temperature sensor was defec-
tive. An additional cold-start procedure was run, manually holding the
alcohol pump to "OFF" for 50 seconds. The result was that the engine
could not follow the first active portion of the transient cycle, as
anticipated, and also that it produced slightly higher HC emissions as
noted from continuous HC traces. Since after only 25 seconds of idle
from cold start-up the alcohol was undergoing combustion, it was decided
that the preheat would be terminated manually 23 to 25 seconds after en-
gine and test cycle start. Details of the cold-start sequence were de-
scribed in Section III.B., page 14.
Having completed the preliminary tests, the dual-fuel engine was
mapped in the "methanol" test configuration with the alcohol pump set
to 19°BTDC. Methanol configuration refers to the dual-fuel diesel engine
adjusted to operate on methanol (main fuel) , with pilot injection of
diesel fuel in varying proportions depending on speed and load. Both
a 1984 transient FTP control tape and a bus cycle control tape were gen-
erated.
Chronologically, the methanol configuration was run first. The
engine operated well, and appeared to follow the active portions of the
transient cycle. Several initial tests were repeated for various reasons
which included incomplete data recovery, or void sample collection along
with some engine-related solenoid actuation problems. Optimization of
the dynamometer controls continued in an attempt to stay within statis-
tical requirements. As testing progressed, it appeared that engine-
driveline vibration began to interfere with torque measurement at idle.
This caused the rack position to vary slightly, which broke the electrical
contact activating the diesel pump solenoid, switching it from "high"
flow to "low" flow. This situation appeared to have no effect on steady-
state engine operation, but it was uncertain what effect it might have on
transient operation and emissions. On the basis of information received
at the time, switching of the diesel pump solenoid was of little or no
consequence and testing continued. The driveline vibration resonance
occurred around 800 rpm, but the fringe of the vibration began around the
500 rpm engine idle speed. Dynamometer control and statistical results
were somewhat uncertain from day to day because of the engine idle, dyna-
mometer control, and dynamometer driveline vibration interaction.
Following completion of transient testing in the methanol configuration,
an oxidation catalyst was installed in the exhaust system about 0.6 m
(2 ft) from the turbocharger outlet. No adjustment to the alcohol in-
jection pump was made. This test configuration was referred to as the
"methanol-catalyst" configuration. Several transient tests were conducted
42
-------
in this configuration while striving to obtain the best statistical
results with closed rack during idle. In the meantime, Volvo requested
that the rack be fully closed during idle to insure electrical contact
for the diesel solenoid operation. In order to assure throttle closure,
a large negative torque command was issued during idle commands. With
the throttle fully closed, the engine may have been motored more than for
previous runs. Results from these runs did not appear to be representa-
tive, and were not used. Other methods of dynamometer control were pur^
sued.
As testing of the methanol-catalyst configuration was being completed,
a conference was held with Mr, Ernst Holmer of Volvo. It was decided that
the dual-fuel engine should be operated with the diesel pump set to "low"
flow, after cold start-up using "high" flow. This meant that the problem
with intermittent solenoid actuation during idling periods could be by-
passed. He also requested that a backpressure device be used with future
catalyst testing in order to reduce warm-up time of both the engine and
the catalyst. Additional transient tests were requested to verify the
influence of the "high" flow diesel actuation and the influence of the
actual start-up "puff" on particulate measurements.
The catalyst was removed from the dual-fuel engine exhaust system
and the alcohol fuel was changed from methanol to ethanol. Due to the
significantly greater heating value of ethanol, the alcohol injection
pump was adjusted to account for the difference. The injection pump was
adjusted to obtain 186.5 kW at 2200 rpm. This configuration was referred
to as the "ethanol" test configuration. Following the completion of
13-mode FTP gaseous emission testing, the additional hot-start transient
runs requested by Volvo were conducted. To insure positive rack closure,
a large negative torque command was issued during idle commands. The first
test was conducted with particulate sampling as normal, and with the
diesel fuel flow switched to "high" flow at closed rack conditions. The
second hot-start transient used the identical command program, but the
90 mm particulate sample activation was delayed by 10 seconds in order
to miss the engine start-up "puff." The third hot-start transient was
conducted with particulate sampling as normal, but with the diesel fuel
flow switched to "low" flow throughout the test. Detailed results of
these three runs are given in Appendix E as Tables E-2, E-3, and E-4.
Essentially no difference between the three tests could be attributed to
the variables intentionally changed. Volvo preferred that the "low" flow
setting be used on subsequent transient tests, including cold-starts.
Following these special tests, normal command tapes were once again used.
Initial cold-start transient tests, run with the diesel fuel set to
"low." caused the engine to false start. It was agreed that the "high"
diesel flow would be used for the first 23 seconds, and that the pump
would then be switched to "low" flow. Vibration during idle conditions
continued to cause problems with meeting statistical requirements, but
were not thought to have any substantial effect on the emissions. While
testing was being completed for the ethanol configuration, a backpressure
device to be us«d with the catalyst was received.
43
-------
Following completion of the ethanol configuration, the catalyst and
the backpressure device were installed on the dual-fuel engine. This
configuration was referred to as the "ethanol-catalyst-backpressure"
configuration. The backpressure device was activated by closed rack con-
ditions such as motoring or idle. The device is described in Section III.
B Diesel fuel consumption had to be increased by means of adjustment
to the diesel pump and the linkage connecting the diesel and alcohol
injection pumps in order to maintain 500 rpm idle speed. Driveline vibra-
tion still continued to be an annoyance, so in order to change the reso-
nant frequency, a stiffer torque meter was installed (100K in Ib) .
Following the completion of transient tests in the ethanol-catalyst-
backpressure configuration, the alcohol fuel was changed from ethanol to
methanol. A few transient tests were conducted in this "methanol-catalyst-
backpressure" configuration in order to see what effect the backpressure
device might have. No 13-mode FTP emission tests were conducted in this
configuration, but idle emissions were measured with the device engaged.
The intent of the backpressure device was to increase and help main-
tain catalyst temperature, thereby decreasing the catalyst warm-up time
during the cold-start. Figure 13 shows catalyst inlet and outlet temperature
profiles during cold- and hot-start transient operation with and without
the backpressure device. The backpressure device caused the catalyst inlet
temperature profile to appear more erratic and to attain higher peak values.
The catalyst inlet gas temperature profile from both the cold-start and the
hot-start transient overlapped after 500 seconds with the backpressure
device. This overlap occurred after only 375 seconds without the back-
pressure device. Similarly, the catalyst outlet temperature overlapped
earlier (490 seconds) without the backpressure device than with the de-
vice (650 seconds). Without the backpressure device, the catalyst outlet
temperature reached 200°C after 415 seconds, whereas it took 450 seconds
with the device. Both catalyst inlet and outlet temperatures were in-
creased after 900 seconds of the transient cycle with the use of the back-
pressure device. Overall, the backpressure device appears to have rela-
tively minor influence on the warm-up profile of the catalyst.
Following completion of the tests with methanol-catalyst-backpressure,
the catalyst was removed and the backpressure device disabled. Some
additional runs were made in the methanol and ethanol fuel configurations
in order to repeat part of the unregulated sample collection. Upon com-
pletion of these runs, the engine was moved to the steady-state, single-
dilution CVS test facility to undergo extended steady-state emissions
testing.
The engine was adjusted to the methanol configuration. Aldehydes
were taken over 11 modes of the 13-mode procedure, including all 10 of
the intermediate and rated speed power modes along with one idle mode.
Samples for particulates, individual hydrocarbons, unburned methanol,
and odor index were taken for seven modes of operation (they included
44
-------
*.
ct>
Q
CO
500
400
300
200
100
0
500
400
300
200
100
L
WITH BACKPRESSURE DEVICE
Cold Start Catalyst In Tenperature
Cold Start Catalyst Out Tenpenature
Hot Start Catalyst In Terrperature
Hot Start Catalyst Out Terrperoture
WITHOUT BACKPRESSURE DEVICE
1000
800
600
'400
200
0
1000
800
600
400
200
n>
CD
1
1200 1100
1000
900 800 700 600
Time, Seconds
500
'(00
300
200
100
Figure 13.
Catalyst warm-up profiles with and without a backpressure
device during transient FTP operation
-------
the 2, 50, and 100 percent load conditions at both rated and intermediate
speeds, plus an idle mode).
Similar samples were collected with the dual-fuel engine in the
methanol-catalyst configuration. In order to collect sufficient particu-
late sample at idle, as well as for other modes, sample times of up to
one hour were required. Following light engine load conditions, the
engine was operated at high power to burn off any raw fuel or oils which
might have accumulated in the exhaust system. An additional idle mode
was run in the methanol-catalyst-backpressure configuration in order to
determine what effect the backpressure device had on emissions.
In the course of the program, it was decided not to conduct steady-
state testing of the dual-fuel engine in either the ethanol or the etha-
nol-catalyst-backpressure configurations. Since no data had been collec-
ted using ethanol and 30 percent water by mass, it was decided that some
steady-state characterization should be conducted. Changing from the
methanol to the "ethanol+water" configuration required only minimal ad-
justments to the alcohol injection pump since both "fuels" have similar
heating values on a volume basis.
Aldehydes, individual hydrocarbons, unburned ethanol and particulate
were measured for seven modes of operation. Test modes included the 2,
50, and 100 percent load conditions at both rated and intermediate speeds.
Idle data from the dual-fuel engine in the methanol fuel configuration
were used for the ethanol+water configuration, since no fuel other than
diesel was consumed at idle. Fuel measurements at the 1400 rpm/2 percent
load condition also indicated that only diesel fuel was consumed at this
condition, but it was nevertheless repeated because it was near the point
at which the alcohol fuel was added. There were significant similarities
in regulated as well as unregulated emissions between the ethanol+water
configuration and the methanol configuration. Due to these similarities,
transient testing in the ethanol+water configuration was not conducted in
favor of obtaining transient diesel engine data.
While the steady-states were underway, an EPA correlation program
had been completed in the transient facility. The diesel Volvo TD-100C
was installed in the transient test facility. Once the transient FTP
testing was completed, the engine remained in the facility for steady-
state characterization similar to that conducted on the dual-fuel engine.
Upon completion of sample collection, the test phase of the program ended.
B. Gaseous Emissions
The term "gaseous emissions" usually refers to HC, CO, and NOX, which
are currently regulated emissions. This section presents the results of
emission measurements which include not only these regulated gaseous emis-
sions, but also individual hydrocarbons, unburned alcohols, aldehydes,
and phenols. These additional species are generally included in a quali-
tative way as part of the "total hydrocarbon." Odor intensity, which has
been shown to correlate with the presence of these and other gas phase
46
-------
emissions, is also presented.
1. HC, CO, and NOX
These regulated pollutants were measured over the 1979 FTP as
well as the 1984 Transient FTP. In 1984, the transient test procedure
will be optional in lieu of the 13-mode test procedure. In 1985, the
transient test procedure will become mandatory, and in 1986 the trans-
ient test procedure will include particulate measurement and regulation.
For perspective, some of the proposed standards, beyond 1979, are listed
in Table 11.
TABLE 11. HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL REGULATED EMISSION LIMITS, 1979-1986
Regulated Emissions (g/hp-hr)
FTP HC CO NOX Particulate
1979 13-mode 1.5 25. 10.0 Nonea
13-mode (opt.) — 25. 5.0 Nonea
1984 13-modeb 0.5 15.5 9.0 None3
Transient13 1.3 15.5 10.7 Nonea
1985 Transient 1.3 15.5 10.7 Nonea
1986 Transient 1.3 15.5 4.0 .25
^Federal Smoke Regulations
Manufacturer may certify by either procedure
a. 13-mode FTP
Two 1979 13-mode Federal Test Procedures for gaseous emis-
sions were conducted in six test configurations. The six included the
Volvo TD-100C diesel engine as received, and the Volvo TD-100A dual-fuel
engine in the methanol, methanol-catalyst, ethanol, ethanol-catalyst-
backpressure and ethanol+water test configurations. A summary of aver-
age 13-mode gaseous emissions from the six test configurations is given
in Table 12. Copies of the individual 13-mode computer printouts are
given in Appendix A, providing detailed information on a modal basis.
The diesel engine had slightly lower HC and substantially
lower CO than did the alcohol-fueled configurations without catalyst,
all of which had very similar HC and CO emissions. As expected, the cata-
lyst was most effective with methanol, reducing the HC and CO by 90 per-
cent; whereas with ethanol the catalyst reduced HC and CO levels by about
65 percent. Although CO levels from the alcohol configurations with cata-
lyst were three times those of the diesel engine, they were still below
the 1984 limit. It should be noted that the HC values reported here are
based on measurements by HFID. The FID response is very low for unburned
alcohols and some other species of unregulated emissions.
The diesel configuration had the highest emission of NOV.
A.
The NOX emission rates shown in Table 12 are without the usual correction for
47
-------
TABLE 12. GASEOUS EMISSION SUMMARY FROM 13-MODE
OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
13-Mode
Test
Configuration
Diesel
Methanol
Methanol
-Catalyst0
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Cat.-Bp.d
Ethanol
+ Water
Emissions3 ,
HC
1.05
(0.78)
1.45f
(1.08)
0.16f
(0.12)
1.65*
(1.23)
0.60f
(0.45)
1.89f
(1.41)
gAw-hr
CO
3.18
(2.37)
0.55
(7.12)
0.83
(0.62)
10.52
(7.84)
3.10
(2.31)
9.99
(7.45)
(g/hp-hr)
NOX
11.886
(8.86)
5.26
(3,92)
6.79
(5.06
6.85
(5.11)
7.98
(5.95)
4,46
(3.32)
BSFC?
kg/kw-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0.262
(0.431)
0.486
(0.799)
0.482
(0.792)
0.395
(0.650)
0.400
(0.657)
0.495
(0.814)
Computed on the basis of molecular weight of the
fuel or fuel combination used
NOX correction factor for intake humidity was
computed but not applied
Without backpressure device
with backpressure (Bp.) device - engaged only at idle
NOX value is reduced to 10.89 gAW-hr (8.12 g/hp-hr)
fwhen the intake humidity correction for NC^c is applied
HC values reported here are based on measurements
by HFID. FID response is very low for unburned
alcohols and some other species of unregulated emissions
9BSFC is in terms of dual fuel rather than diesel fuel
where applicable
46
-------
intake air humidity. The correction was omitted to facilitate compari-
sons between the diesel fuel configuration and the alcohol configurations.
NOX correction for intake air humidity was not applied to any of the alco-
hol configuration results, because of the uncertainties in computation
of such a correction factor where fuels containing water and oxygen are
involved. Copies of the computer printouts, with the humidity correction
applied to the diesel engine's emissions, are given in Appendix A, Tables
A-l and A-2.
Considering only the alcohol-fueled configurations without
catalyst, ethanol had the highest NOX emissions, followed by methanol,
then ethanol+water. It appears that the catalyst was associated with
increased NOX emissions, although emission levels before and after the
catalyst showed only minor increases in NOx- The ethanol-catalyst con-
figuration was run using a backpressure device active during idle. NOX
emissions at idle increased by about 30 percent with the device engaged.
The backpressure device was not used for the methanol-catalyst configura-
tion during the 13-mode FTP.
Brake specific fuel consumptions for the various configura-
tions are also given in Table 12. As discussed in Section III.D., fuel
consumption was computed on the basis of the measured mass of combined
fuel. The relatively high BSFC values for alcohols can be ranked accord-
ing to their heating value on a mass basis. The amounts of diesel fuel
and alcohol fuel usage were dependent on the load condition. Figure 14
illustrates graphically the variable fueling schedule used for the metha-
nol, ethanol, and ethanol+water configurations.
The amount of diesel fuel injected is constant at each
engine speed, whereas the alcohol portion changes with load. The relative
amount of alcohol consumed during a given mode is proportional to the
heating value of the alcohol used. Diesel fuel consumed by the Volvo die-
sel TD-100C is also shown in order to indicate the amount of diesel fuel
replaced by alcohol. Variation in alcohol consumption during the 2200
rpm/2 percent load condition (mode 12) was due to difficulty in measuring
low fuel flow with a relatively large meter. In addition, it appears
that "neat" ethanol can be conserved by consuming ethanol mixed with water.
This trend may be due to ignition timing effects, or improved turbocharger
performance which could improve engine efficiency. The ethanol+water was
measured as a mixture, and the water content was calculated assuming 30
percent by mass. The measured density of the ethanol+water mixture indi-
cated that the actual water content was 29 percent by mass.
On a 13-mode composite basis, diesel fuel consumption was
reduced from 0.28 kg/min with the diesel engine, to 0.097 kg/min with the
dual-fuel engine. This represents a 65 percent substitution of alcohol
for diesel fuel over the 13-mode composite. Details of 13-mode fuel con-
sumption may be found in the reduced copies of the computer printouts which
are given in Appendix A. Fuel molecular weight was also computed on a
modal basis, and is given in these printouts.
49
-------
1 .60
1.50
1 -10
1 . 30
I.JO
1 . 10
1.00
c;
2-
11.90
E?
"0.80
rt
™ 0.70
?r
J3
\ 0. 00
a
e
3
0.50
0.40
0. JO
O.JO
0. 10
0 . 00
""•
— | . t>0
Y/\ Diesel
_ \^?\ Methanol
|#
Ethanol
FsN Water
ts
~
^
^1
7
/
/
',
\
/
/
V
/
/
/
'<
^
;
^
;
j
-
-.
:-
--.
/
s
s,
y
'.
7
/{
7
/
/
/
'-';
f'f
f^
'<•
''
--
^
^
/• *
*-
'>
/
y
•
•-
v
;•
P
/
S
V
\
\
\
i^
•.-
';
7
/
r?
s
/
/
/
/
2.
i*'
,s
'*
ss
sS
^
' *•
fS
' '
. /
"ff
-X
-':
',f
^
::
'?
f
-.-
^
/
.-
*.
-
'/
'.
^
\
V
O
\
S
S
'-
*
-
-'•
/
/
v<
n
rt
3"
3
O
» W +
D rt ft
H- 3" 3" I
O DP pi Pi
in 3 3 ft
re o o o
t— ' t— ' ( — ' N
o o n n
o o o o
3333
r* htj r-h hti
H- H- t— H-
i£J lO ifl \Q
C B C C
K M H H
B PI PI U
rt rt rt rt
H- h^ h~ H-
O O O 0
3333
^
/
'
'.
/
/
/
f
^
^
/
/
/
,/
?;
X1
/
(
-•
'.;
\'
•-:
;-
~r
\~
•\
/
j
rq
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
s
s
s,
s
^
.. •
f
\ '
.'.
:•:
.,•.
- .
,-.
..
;
''"'
^
—
/
/
/
^
/
/
';
/x
^
f
"-
;
f
'
V-
/
/
•T-
;
•'•,
. j
•.''
.N_
':
/
/
/
f
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
<
,'*
•<>
,'•
T
,1
7
/
/
/
—
_
r~
s
/
j
r
/
/.
/.
-r\
t /
X
s*
»x
^
^
'^
*^
^•'
/
/
\
^'
^-
% •
r
•'.
^
0
\
\
\
\
•;
;••
t'
1
7~
-
^; N
> ^ -
i . -.'• _„
/ ^-' .-'.-
' j
l.SO
1.40
1 . 3n
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
o.en
O.TO
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
10
11
12
13
Mode
Figure 14. Illustration of diesel pilot and alcohol fuel injection
schedules measured during 13-mode FTP
-------
b. Transient FTP
The transient test procedure was run with the engine on
the transient-controlled stationary dynamometer, the total exhaust trans-
ferred to a double-dilution CVS, and primary dilution at a nominal flow
rate of 2000 CFM. Transient cycle particulate emissions were determined
via a 4 CFM (total flow) secondary dilution system using 90 mm Pallflex
filters. Transient cycle gaseous emissions of CO and CC>2 were determined
from proportional bag samples of the primary dilution flow. Integrations
of individual analyzer outputs were used to determine emissions of HC and
NOX. The transient test consists of a cold-start cycle, 20 minute soak,
then a hot-start cycle. The results from these cycles are combined into
a composite transient result as described in Section III.C.
A summary of the average gaseous emission results obtained
from transient testing is given in Table 13. The results from the cold-
start and the hot-start represent averages of several individual tests.
Reduced copies of computer printouts for these individual tests are given
in Appendices B, C, D, E, and F; for diesel, methanol, methanol-catalyst
(including methanol-catalyst-backpressure), ethanol, and ethanol-catalyst-
backpressure configurations, respectively. Appendix Tables B-l, C-l,
D-l, E-l, and F-l give additional qualifying information for individual
tests, and indicate whether or not the results were included in the aver-
age values in Table 13. Transient FTP composite values given in Table 13
were computed using the average cold and hot FTP values. Particulate emis-
sion rates are also given in Table 13, but discussion of these data will be
reserved for the particulate section of the report.
The HC values given in this report represent the total hy-
drocarbons indicated by the Beckman Model 402 HFID, It has been noted
that the FID has low response to some species of oxygenated hydrocarbons,
such as alcohols and aldehydes. In addition, NOX values reported for
transient operation in this section were not corrected for engine intake
air humidity due to the use of a humidity- and temperature-controlled
intake air system.
Both the diesel engine and the dual-fuel engine appear to
be slightly cold-start sensitive in regard to HC, CO, and NOx emissions.
All these gaseous emissions and the calculated BSFC were higher for the
cold-start than for the hot-start transient test. Comparing transient
composite results, emissions of both HC and CO were higher with the alco-
hol-fueled engine configuration than for the diesel configuration. HC
and CO were highest with ethanol, although CO levels were still below
the proposed 1984 standard. NOx emissions were similar for both alcohols,
and were relatively low compared to the diesel configuration. The oxida-
tion catalyst with the backpressure device appears to have reduced emis-
sion of HC and CO as expected, and to have increased NOX somewhat. From
steady-state data, some increase in NOX occurred during idle when the
backpressure device was operating. The catalyst appeared to be more active
in the methanol configuration.
51
-------
TABLE 13. REGULATED EMISSIONS6 SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT
FTP OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test
Configuration
Diesel
Methanol
Hethanol
-Catalyst
Methanol
-Cat. Bp.c
Ethanol
Ethanol
cycle
Type
Cold
Start
Sot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Conpoaite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Regulated
^/kw-hr,
HCd
1.58
(1.18)
1.08
(0.80)
1.15
(0.85)
1.98
(1.48)
1.94
(1.45)
1.95
(1.45)
0.36
(0.27)
0.13
(0.10)
0.16
(0.12)
0.62
(0.46)
0.21
(0.16)
0.27
(0.20)
2.28
(1.70)
2.27
(1.69)
2.27
(1.69)
0.79
(0.59)
0.60
(0.45)
0.63
(0.47)
CO
4.84
(3.61)
3.90
(2.91)
4.04
(3.01)
11.85
(8.84)
10.03
(7.48)
10.29
(7.67)
5.54
(4.13)
3.29
(2.45)
3.61
(2.69)
6.09
(4.54)
3.49
(2.60)
3.86
(2.88)
13.29
(9.91)
12.82
(9.56)
12.89
(9.61)
5.65
(4.21)
4.01
(2.99)
4.24
(3.16)
Emissions",
(q/hp-hr)
NOxP
11.78
(8.79)
11.09
(8.27)
11.19
(8.34)
7.55
(5.63J
7.27
(5.42)
7.31
(5.45)
7.44
(5.55)
7.38
(5.50)
7.39
(5.51)
8.90
(6.64)
8.31
(6.20)
8.39
(6.26)
7.48
(5.58)
7.36
(5.49)
7.38
(5.50)
8.77
(6.54)
8.60
(6.41)
8.62
(6.43)
Part.
0.80
(0.60)
0.68
(0.51)
0.70
(0.52)
0.36
(0.37)
0.40
(0.30)
0.39
(0.30)
0.26
(0.19)
0.34
(0.25)
0.33
(0.24)
0.28
(0.21)
0.42
(0.31)
0.40
(0.30)
0.34
(0.25)
0.35
(0.26)
0.35
(0.26)
0.34
(0.25)
0.39
(0.29)
0.38
(0.28)
cycle BSFC"
kg/kw-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0.306
(0.502)
0.284
(0.468)
0.288
(0.473)
0.561
(0.922)
0.526
(0.873)
0.531
(0.873)
0.538
(o.aesr
0.515
(0.946)
0.518
(0.852)
0.622
(1.022)
0.567
(0.933)
0.575
(0.946)
0.451
(0.742)
0.432
(0.711)
0.435
(0.715)
0.465
(0.764)
0.445
0.732)
0.448
(0.737)
Cycla work
kw-hr
(hp-hr)
10.29
(13.79)
10.54
(14.13)
10.50
(14.08)
11.27
(15.10)
11.27
(15.11)
11.27
(15.11)
11.13
(14.92)
11.19
(15.01)
11.19
(15.00)
10.62
(14.24)
11.37
(15.24)
11.26
(15.10)
11.45
(15.36)
11.38
(15.26)
11.39
(15.27)
10.95
(14.67)
11.01
(14.76)
11.00
(14.75)
is in terms of dual fuel rather than dieael fuel where applicable.
Approximately 80%, by mass, of the fuel consumed during a transient
cycle was alcohol. Heating values arei diesel at 42.90 KJAg (18,400
BTO/lb), methanol at 19.88 MJAg (8,550 BTO/lb), and ethanol at 27.01
KJAg (11,600 BTO/lb)
NO, values presented here are based on continuous measurement by
chemiluminescence. NO, values for some runs were also computed from
bag sample measurement by CL and are reported in the corresponding
Appendix. Intake humidity was controlled - NOjj correction of 1.00
used in all cases for transient NO*.
jBp. stands for backpressure device
TIC values reported here are based on indication by HFID (Beckman 402) .
FID response has been reported to be very low for unburned alcohols and
(scae other species
Regulated emissions include HC, CO, NO,, and partlculate aa proposed
for 1986 Transient FTP
52
-------
c. Bus Cycle
Emission levels were also determined for the transient bus
cycle. The bus cycle was run 20 minutes after completing the hot-start
transient cycle, or 20 minutes after completing another hot-start bus
cycle. A summary of the average gaseous emissions results is given in
Table 14. Reduced copies of these bus cycle tests are presented in Ap-
pendices which correspond to the fuel configurations listed for trans-
ient FTP results. Generally, all the HC, CO, and NOX emissions were
higher for the bus cycle than for the transient FTP. The most significant
difference between the two cycles appears to be the increase in CO emis-
sions from the alcohol-fueled configurations. A significant increase in
CO was not observed in the diesel configuration, although diesel HC and
NOX were somewhat higher.
The BSFC's were higher for the bus cycle than for corres-
ponding transient FTP's. Fuel consumption has been reported in terms
of "dual" fuel which has a significantly lower heating value per unit mass
than does No. 2 diesel fuel. The BSFC data given in Tables 13 and 14
are computed on the basis of carbon balance. They are somewhat dependent
on measured alcohol and diesel fuel consumed during the test, in that a
''percent fuel carbon" is calculated from the measurements and used in the
carbon balance computations for fuel consumption.
The percent of fuel carbon for No. 2 diesel is usually
around 87 percent. Some of the calculated "percent of fuel carbon" values,
by fuel and by bag of the transient test, are given in Table 15. The per-
cent fuel carbon values for methanol and ethanol are 38 and 52 weight per-
cent, respectively. In general, calculated percent of fuel carbon ranged
from a low of 46 to a high of 66, depending on the type of alcohol used,
the cycle activity and loading, and the amount of diesel fuel used. Higher
percentages of alcohol by weight were used in the methanol configuration,
due to the lower heating value of methanol as compared to ethanol.
Overall, the results from the transient test agree fairly
well with those of the 13-mode test procedure. HC emissions were only
slightly higher from the transient FTP. Thirteen-mode CO emissions were
higher for the transient procedure, especially with methanol-catalyst-
backpressure configuration. The diesel configuration had higher NOX for
the 13-mode than for the transient FTP, but dual-fuel engine configura-
tions had higher NOX for the transient FTP than for the 13-mode. The NOX
reduction using alcohols may be cycle-sensitive, due to NOX reduction during
the high-power steady-state modes. BSFC was consistently higher on the
transient procedure, for reasons already explained.
2. Selected Individual Hydrocarbons
Some individual hydrocarbons were determined from dilute exhaust
samples and processed by chromatographic techniques to separate methane,
ethylene, ethane, acetylene, propylene, propane, benzene and toluene.
Higher molecular weight hydrocarbons were not measured. Samples were
53
-------
TABLE 14. TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM BUS CYCLE
OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test Cycle
Configuration Type
Diesel Bus
Methanol Bus
Methanol Bus
-Catalyst
Methanol Bus
-Cat.-Bp.c
Ethanol Bus
Ethanol Bus
Transient Emissions
q/kW-hr, (q/ho-hr)
HC° CO
1.34
(1.00)
1.96
(1.46)
0.38
(0.28)
0.31
(0.23)
2.94
(2.19)
0.86
(0.64)
4.59
(3.42)
25.56
(19.06)
10.43
(7.78)
9.21
(6.87)
24.23
(18.07)
8.15
(6.08)
N0xb
12.44
(9.28)
8.46
(6.31)
8.00
(5.97)
9.20
(6.86)
8.11
(6.05)
10.42
(7.77)
Part
0.82
(0.62)
0.60
(0.45)
0.22
(0.16)
0.24
(0.18)
0.60
(0.45)
0.38
(0.28)
Cycle BSFCa Cycle Work
kgAW-hr kW-hr
(IbAp-hr) (hp-hr)
0.294
(0.484)
0.566
(0.931)
0.548
(0.901)
0.591
(0.971)
0.453
(0.745)
0.478
(0.786)
4.64
(6.21)
5.29
(7.10)
4.98
(6.68)
4.84
(6.49)
4.88
(6.54)
4.51
(6.05)
BSFC is in terms of dual fuel rather than diesel fuel
where applicable. Approximately 80%, by mass, of the
fuel consumed during a transient cycle was alcohol.
Relative heating values are: diesel at 42.90 MJ/kg
(18,400 BTU/lb) , methanol at 19.88 MJAg (8,550 BTU/lb) ,
and ethanol at 27.01 MJAg (11,600 BTU/lb)
NOX values presented here are based on continuous
measurement by chemiluminescence. NOX values for some
runs '.:ere also computed from bag sample measurement by
CL and are reported in the corresponding Appendix. Intake
air humidity was controlled - NOX correction of 1.00 need
in all cases of transient NO,,
c ^
Bp. stands for backpressure device
HC values reported here are based on indication by HFID
(Beckman 402). FID response has been reported to be very
low for unburned alcohols and some other species.
54
-------
TABLE 15. PERCENT OP FUEL CARBON CALCULATED FROM TRANSIENT
OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE
Fuel
Configuration
Methanol
Methanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Trans.
Bus
Trans.
Bus
Test Segment,
Percent Fuel Carbona
50
49
50
50
47
46
48
47
44
48
45
51
51
51
Alcohol Portion
Used, % Wt.
81.6
79.3
80.6
77.3
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Trans.
Bus
Trans.
Bus
65
63
68
66
60
60
61
60
58
62
58
64
63
65
77.6
73.9
76.3
69.1
^Percent fuel carbon of: No. 2 Diesel is typically 87 percent by wt.
Methanol = 38%
Ethanol - 52%
processed from cold- and hot-start transient operation, and from seven
individual modes of steady-state operation. Results from transient
operation in the diesel, methanol, methanol-catalyst, ethanol, and etha-
nol-catalyst configurations are summarized in Table 16. Steady-state
results are given in Tables 17, 18, 19 and 20 for the diesel, methanol,
methanol-catalyst and ethanol+water configurations, respectively. Of all
the individual hydrocarbons mentioned above, methane and ethylene were
predominant. Relatively small concentrations of ethane, acetylene, pro-
pylene, and benzene were indicated by the procedure. No propane was de<-
tected. In most cases toluene was detected, but chromatographic inter-
ference, thought to be caused by unburned fuel, makes it difficult to
verify the presence of benzene and toluene. As a matter of convenience
for comparison purposes, "total" individual hydrocarbons are given for
transient operation in Table 16 and are merely the sum of the individual
hydrocarbon concentrations, excluding toluene. There is little or no
difference between cold-start and hot-start transients, except where the
catalyst was used.
55
-------
TABLE 16. INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONSb FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
T»at
Con fig .
Diesel
Hethanol
Hethanol
-Catalyst
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Trans
Cycle"
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Individual Hydrocarbon
Units
rig/teat
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
ngAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/teBt
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
ragAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
>'.<.- thane
220
21
69
150
14
49
360
33
59
400
35
66
440
40
70
300
27
48
1200
110
240
1200
100
240
1200
120
250
1000
98
220
Ethylene
1600
160
520
1000
95
330
840
76
140
1200
100
200
550
50
87
300
27
48
4300
370
830
4600
400
950
1300
120
270
1100
100
230
Ethane Acetylene Propylene
46
4.5
15
—
20°
1.8
3.2
24"
2.1
4.0
17a
1.5
2.8
53
4.6
10
64
5.6
13
69
6.6
14
52
4.9
11
240
23
75
—
7.5°
.7
1.2
2.1°
.2
.4
—
420
37
82
440
39
91
120
12
25
84
8.0
18
530
52
170
—
360
33
59
470
41
79
120
11
20
41
3.7
6.9
480
42
93
480
42
99
—
—
Benzene Toluene
180
18
59
—
140
13
23
68
5.9
11
23"
2.1
3.9
—
320
28
63
160
14
33
—
_-
—
1600
140
250
800
70
130
450
41
72
150
13
24
500
44
98
260
23
54
230
22
47
200
19
44
IHC j
"Total"
2800
280
910
1150
110
380
1700
160
290
2200
180
360
1100
100
180
660
60
110
6800
600
1300
6900
600
1426
2700
260
560
220O
210
479
°Trace amounts, relative to resolution of procedure. Presence is questionable
No propane detected
CThese values are likely to vary as much as ± 500 mg/test. It is doubtful that
toluene was formed and these values were likely caused by unknown interference
Toluene was not used in the "Total," due to the significant uncertainty of
its presence.
-------
TABLE 17. INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TD-100C DIESEL ENGINEa
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Methane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Units
rag/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mg/kg fuel
1400
2%
1400
50*
1400
100%
Idle
2200
100%
2200
50%
690
340
180
2500
1200
640
2100
24
83
2200
2%
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
rag/kg fuel
1200
600
310
6900
3400
1800
—
2000
31
130
—
2500
19
86
980
830
1800
—
1500
—
6500
36
150
—
5700
64
230
2100
620
230
17000
5000
1900
2000
590
220
6500
1900
710
IHC procedure also separates ethane, propane, benzene and toluene.
No propane, acetylene, or toluene were detected. Dilute exhaust
samples were taken with CVS flowrates of 2000 CFM for Idle and the
2* loads, 3000 CFM for the 50% loads, and 5000 CFM for 100% loads.
TABLE 18. INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH METHANOL
b
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Methane
Units
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mg/kg fuel
Ethylene mg/hr
mgAg fuel
Acetylene mg/hr
fuel
Propylene mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
1400
2%
a
4800
1700
1200
370
130
89
1100
390
260
1400 1400
50% 100*
— a 1500
11
25
1100 1400
16 100
40 23
—
— —
2200
Idle 100%
240 — 3
—
210
740 7400
41
630 88
370
2
4
2300
13
27
2200 2200
50% 2*
— a 620
150
71
2200 7400
24 1800
49 850
400
98
46
2400
590
280
Background levels exceeded sample levels
bIHC procedure also separated ethane, propane, benzene and toluene. Small
concentrations, near the limits of detectability, of ethane, benzene and
toluene were noted, but their presence is doubtful. Propane was not
detected. Dilute exhaust samples were taken with CVS flowrate of 3000 CFM,
nominal.
57
-------
TABLE 19 INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH METHANOL AND CATALYST*
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Methane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Units
mg/hr
mgAg fuel
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
1400
2*
1200
430
270
2200
790
500
—
—
1400
50*
1300
19
47
363
5
13
—
—
1400
100*
970
7
16
181
1
3
—
—
2200
Idle 100*
210 880
5
170 11
410 570
3
340 7
__
—
2200
50*
800
9
18
620
7
14
—
—
2200
2*
3100
820
310
2700
710
270
—
440
120
43
IHC procedure also separates ethane, propane, benzene and toluene. No
propane, acetylene, benzene or toluene were detected during operation
with catalyst.
This idle condition was run without the backpressure device. Another
sample from idle with the backpressure device operable was taken but none
of these species were detected.
TABLE 20. INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE
VOLVO
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propylene
TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH ETHANOL + WATERb
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Units
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg f ue 1
mgA'T
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/hr
mg/hW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
1400 1400
2* 50*
— * 7100
110
270
5000 6400
1800 96
1200 240
440
7
16
1200
17
43
1200
450
310
1400
100* Idle0
24000 240
180
400 210
22000 740
160
370 630
850
6
14
1600
12
28
2200
100*
2900
15
31
9200
49
100
390
2
4
__
__
2200 2200
50* 2*
5500 2500
58 650
120 270
3200 12000
34 3000
68 1300
410
110
45
1300
340
140
2900
760
320
^Background level exceeded sample level
IHC procedure also separates propane, benzene and toluene, but none of these
were detected. Dilute samples were taken with CVS flowrates of 6000 CFM at
=100\ conditions and 2000 CFM at all other conditions
Idle data duplicated from methanol configuration
58
-------
In comparing the diesel engine to the dual-fuel engine, it
should be noted that the diesel engine uses direct injection of diesel
fuel into the center of the combustion chamber; whereas, the dual-fuel
engine uses the smaller pilot injection of diesel tangent to the swirl
of the combustion chamber. This point is especially important in com-
paring emissions at idle, and at light load conditions like 1400 rpm/2
percent load, where only diesel fuel is consumed. The diesel engine shows
higher emissions of methane and ethylene at idle and light loads than the
dual-fuel configuration. From the transient data, the ethanol configura-
tion produced the highest "total" individual hydrocarbons, primarily due
to the high emission rates of ethylene. The catalyst had little effect
on methane, but it reduced ethylene significantly. Most levels of the
individual hydrocarbons were relatively low, except that the ethanol+water
configuration showed high levels of methane and ethylene.
3. Unburned Alcohols
Since the FID response is typically low for alcohols, it was
important to determine the quantity of unburned alcohol in the exhaust
by another procedure. Table 21 summarizes the results from analysis of
unburned alcohols during both transient FTP and bus cycle testing. Re-
sults of modal testing are given in Table 22. Unburned methanol was
trapped in a wet bubbler containing water, and unburned ethanol was deter-
mined from dilute exhaust bag samples. Both samples were processed through
the appropriate GC procedure.
There was not much difference in alcohol emissions between the
cold-start and hot-start transients. The catalyst reduced the unburned
alcohol for both fuels. There was more unburned alcohol from the metha-
nol configuration than from the ethanol configuration. In steady-state
testing, the bulk of the unburned alcohol occurred at 50 percent load
conditions and at the 2200 rpm/2 percent load condition. The catalyst
was very effective in oxidizing the unburned alcohols at the 100 percent
load conditions and at the 2200 rpm/50 percent load condition. No
alcohol consumption was noted during idle or during the 1400 rpm/2
percent load condition. Considering both test procedures, transient
and steady-state, less unburned ethanol was emitted (in ethanol-fueled
configurations) than unburned methanol (in methanol-fueled configurations).
4. Aldehydes
Aldehydes were determined by the DNPH procedure, which detects
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, isobutyraldehyde, methylethylketone,
crotonaldehyde, hexanaldehyde, and benzaldehyde. Samples were taken from
dilute exhaust during transient operation, while samples of raw exhaust
were taken during steady-state operation. The procedure was intended for
use with raw exhaust, and it is difficult to obtain a concentrated sam-
ple from the dilute exhaust within the 20 minute duration of the trans-
ient cycle or the 14-minute bus cycle. Samples were taken over 11 modes
59
-------
TABLE 21. UNBURNED ALCOHOL SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE
Test
Configuration
Methanol
Methanol
-Catalyst
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Catalyst
Transient
Cycle
Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Bus
Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Bus
Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Bus
Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Bus
mg/test
52000
56000
55000
19000
13000
9600
10000
4300
25000
26000
26000
11000
7000
4700
5000
3900
mg/kw-hr
4700
4900
4900
4100
1200
840
890
890
2200
2300
2300
2300
670
450
480
860
mg/kg fuel
8400
9300
9200
6900
2200
1500
1600
1500
4900
5400
5300
5000
1400
1000
1100
1800
Fuel refers to dual fuel used, which has
a lower heating value than diesel fuel alone
60
-------
TABLE 22. UNBURNED ALCOHOL SUMMARY FROM MODAL
OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Test
Con fig.
Methanol
Methanol
-Catalyst
Ethanol
+ Water
Units
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuelc
/ 3
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg f ue 1
1400a
2%
1100
380
140
91
5700
2000
710
160
1400
50%
300000
130000
1900
4700
250000d
110000
1600
4000
250000
110000
1600
4000
1400
100%
16000b
9400
69
150
780
460
3.3
7.7
31000
18000
130
4000
2200
Idle3 100%
160000
150000
830
1800
1400e 32000
150 30000
170
120 360
f 52000
51000
270
560
2200
100%
700000
500000
5300
1000
250000
180000
1900
4100
140000
100000
1100
2200
2200
2%
370000
200000
49000
23000
180000
94000
25000
9300
210000
120000
31000
13000
bNo alcohol consumption was noted during idle or during 1400/2% condition
This value was based on an incomplete sample (1 of 2 bubblers), and may
be atypically low
Computed on the basis of dual fuel, including water
This value was much larger than expected on the basis of 13-mode HC emissions,
and should be interpreted with caution
No methanol is introduced during idle, so it is assumed that this value is a
result of uncertainty in the quantitative procedure near the detection limit
Idle data duplicated from methanol configuration
-------
of the 13-mode steady-state procedure (idle was only sampled once) in
the methanol and the methanol-catalyst configurations. An additional
aldehyde sample was taken at idle with the dual-fuel engine backpressure
device engaged. Based on the accuracy of the DNPH procedure and the
level of effort required to process the samples, steady-state charac-
terization of aldehydes was reduced to include 7 modes of steady-state
operation of the diesel and the ethanol+water test configurations.
Of the compounds detectable by the DNPH procedure, only formal-
dehyde, acetaldehyde, hexanaldehyde and benzaldehyde were prevalent. The
presence of benzaldehyde is suspect, in that it is often found as an arti-
fact of the procedure itself. Summaries of the aldehyde results from
transient cycle and bus cycle operation are given in Tables 23 and 24,
respectively. Summaries of aldehyde results from steady-state operation
in diesel, methanol, methanol-catalyst and ethanol+water configurations
are given in Tables 25, 26, 27, and 28, respectively.
For a given test configuration, there is little or no differ-
ence in aldehyde emissions between the cold-start and the hot-start
transient cycles conducted without the catalyst. The diesel configura-
tion emitted relatively low levels of aldehydes. The methanol configura-
tion had higher aldehydes, primarily higher formaldehyde, than the diesel
configuration. The ethanol configuration also had higher aldehydes than
the diesel configuration, the major differences being higher formaldehyde
and acetaldehyde. With methanol, the catalyst reduced acetaldehyde dur-
ing transient operation, but tended to increase formaldehyde. With etha-
nol, the catalyst reduced the levels of transient cycle formaldehyde,
but increased acetaldehyde. The same trends can be noted for bus cycle
operation.
During steady-state operation, aldehydes were higher with the
dual-fuel engine on methanol than with the diesel engine. With ethanol+
water, formaldehyde was formed in about the same amounts as with the
methanol configuration, but more acetaldehyde was produced. The effects
of the catalyst were mixed on steady-states run with methanol. Aldehydes
were increased at the light loads and idle, but were reduced at the high
loads where the catalyst temperature was sufficient to oxidize the un-
burned fuel species. Use of the backpressure device at idle, in con-
junction with the catalyst, appears to have reduced the levels of alde-
hydes detected.
5. Phenols
Phenols were determined using a wet chemistry procedure as out-
lined in Section III.E.I and described in detail in Reference 8. The
detection of individual phenols in either dilute or raw engine exhaust
appears to be quite variable. In the early stages of this program, it
was uncertain whether better results would be obtained from the filtered
sample procedure or from the unfiltered sample procedure. It was reasoned
that filtering the particulate out of the exhaust sample at 190°C (375°F)
could keep the sample clear of particulate, causing less interference.
-------
TABLE 23 . SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDESa FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test
Con fig.
Diesel
Methanol
Methanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Trans.
Cycle
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Units
mg/test
mgAw-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mgAU-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mgAw-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/test
mg/kw-hr
mgAg fuel
Formalde-
hyde
180
18
59
140
13
46
1900
190
330
2400
230
430
2600
250
400
3000
260
470
2000
170
380
1700
150
350
820
80
170
370
33
75
Acetalde-
hyde
—
—
490
48
84
210
21
38
120d
11
18
20d
1.8
3.2
1500
130
280
900
80
180
3200
300
660
2200
200
440
Benzalde-
hydeb
j. *~
76
7.4
24
d o
yy
9-j
. 3
33
2900
280
490
1600
160
290
750
73
120
160
14
24
2500
210
480
3000
260
610
__
—
—
360
32
73
"Total"0
Al HphvH^1^
*i-t-'-iCJ.i_y utJo
180
18
59
140
13
46
2400
240
414
2600
250
470
2700
260
420
3000
260
470
3500
300
660
2600
230
530
4200
380
830
2600
230
520
a
DNPH procedure also separates acetone, isobutyraldehyde, methylethylketone
crotonaldehyde, and hexanaldehyde. No methylethylketone, crotonaldehyde or
hexanaldehyde were found. Acetone and isobutryaldehyde appeared sporadically
and were very low. The presence of acetone is also difficult to assess because
bof the potential for contamination of the DNPH procedure by acetone background
cBenzaldehyde may be an artifict of the DNPH procedure and it appeared sporadically
Benzaldehyde is not included in the "total" because of the uncertainty of its
presence
Trace amounts relative to the resolution of this procedure.
63
-------
TABLE 24. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES3 FROM BUS CYCLE OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test
Config. Cycle
Diesel Bus
Methanol Bus
Methanol Bus
-Cat.-Bp.
Ethanol Bus
Ethanol Bus
-Cat.-Bp.
Units
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
Formalde-
hyde
96
21
70
1300
280
460
1800
370
620
2400
490
1100
590
140
270
Acetalde-
hyde
—
—
— —
840
180
310
—
—
—
1500
310
680
1100
250
510
Benzalde-
hyde
—
—
_*_*
3400
740
1200
—
—
2700
540
1200
—
—
__ —
"Total"
Q
Aldehydes
96
21
70
2100
i 460
770
1801
i 370
i 620
3900
800
1800
1700
380
780
DPHN procedure also separates acetone, isobutyraldehyde,
methylethylketone, crotonaldehyde, and hexanaldehyde. No
methylethylketone, crotonaldehyde or hexanaldehyde were
found. Acetone and isobutryaldehyde appeared sporadically
and were very low. The presence of acetone is also dif-
icult to assess because of the potential for contamination
, of the DNPH procedure by acetone background.
Benzaldehyde may be an artifact of the DNPH procedure and
it appeared sporadically
Benzaldehyde is not included in the "total" because of the
uncertainty of its presence
64
-------
TABLE 25 . SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM MODAL
OPERATION OF THE VOLVO VD-IOOC DIL'SEL ENGINE3
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
CTl
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Hexanaldehyde
Benzaldehydec
Units
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mgAg fuel
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
1400
2%
3400
1200
600
310
190
68
34
17
400
140
70
36
1400
50%
1800
720
11
48
— — T-
370
150
2.3
10
240
96
1.5
6.4
1400
100%
1200
630
4.9
22
180
94
0.72
3.2
310
160
1.2
5.5
2200
Idle 100%
3100 780
360 750
4.2
310 17
_„
270
260
1.5
5.9
400
47
40
2200
50%
1300
980
11
39
___
420
320
3.6
13
2200
2%
3800
2200
650
240
19b
11
3.2
1.2
640
370
110
40
No acetone or methylethylketone was noted for either fuel configuration
Isobutyraldehyde, crotonaldehyde and hexanaldehyde appeared sporadically,
at low levels
Trace amounts, relative to the resolution of this procedure
and
'Benzaldehyde may be an artifact of the DNPH procedure
-------
TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM MODAL OPERATION OF
THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH METHANOL3
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
en
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzaldehyde0
Units
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m exh .
mg/hr
mg/kw~hr
mg/kg fuel
1400
2%
2400
820
290
200
690
240
86
56
1400
25%
3800
1400
41
89
29b
11
0.31
0.70
2600
1000
29
64
1400
50%
10000
4200
62
150
260
110
1.6
4.0
860
360
5.3
13
1400
75%
7100
3800
36
81
350
180
1.7
3.8
900
480
4.6
10
1400
100%
3000
1800
13
30
140
82
0.60
1.3
Idle
730
85
73
— —
800
93
70
2200
100%
2000
1900
10
23
17b
16
0.09
0.19
2200
75%
17000
15000
110
210
100
80
0.62
1.2
1300
1100
7.7
15
2200
50%
32000
23000
250
520
600
440
4.7
10
900
660
7..1
15
2200
25%
35000
2300
490
730
810
520
11
17
4500
2900
61
93
2200
2%
10000
5300
1300
600
1100
600
150
69
1600
850
200
98
^o acetone or methylethyIketone was noted for either fuel configuration
Isobutyraldehyde, crotonaldehyde and hexanaldehyde appeared sporadically, and
at low levels
Trace amounts, relative to the resolution of this procedure
CBenzaldehyde may be an artifact of the DNPH procedure
-------
TABLE 27. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE
VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH METHANOL AND CATALYSTa
RPM and. PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Formaldehyde
Ace t aldehyde
Benzaldehydec
Units
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
3
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
1400
2%
3000
1000
360
230
140
48
17
11
620
210
75
47
1400
25%
3000
1100
31
69
b
63
24
0.69
1.5
650
250
7.1
16
1400
50%
3700
1600
23
57
320
140
2.1
5.0
1400 1400
75% 100%
1500 1100
790 650
7.5 4.7
18 11
230
140
1.0
2.4
Idle
2700
300
250
150
17
14
1200
130
110
2200
100%
2600
2500
14
30
,
63
60
0.33
0.72
290
270
1.5
3.2
2200
75%
45000
40000
280
580
230
200
1.4
2.9
5400
4800
34
70
2200
50%
61000
45000
480
1000
340
250
2.7
5.7
1700
1200
13
27
2200
25%
59000
38000
810
1300
460
300
6.4
10
3900
2500
53
87
2200
2%
17000
8800
2300
870
3600
1900
500
190
2100
1100
290
110
Idle
w/Bp.
1900
170
98
b
33
2.9
1.7
140
13
7.5
NO acetone or methylethyUtetone was noted for either fuel configuration
Isobutyraldehyde, crotonaldehyde and hexanaldehyde appeared sporadically, and
, at low levels
b
Trace amounts, relative to the resolution of this procedure
Benzaldehyde may be an artifact of the DNPH procedure
-------
00
TABLE 28. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE
VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH ETHANOL + WATER
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
He xan a 1 dehy de
Benzaldehyde
Units
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
3
yg/m exh .
mg/hr
mgAw-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m exh.
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mg/kg fuel
1400
2%
3800
1300
470
320
900
320
110
78
—
400
140
50
35
1400
50%
2000
830
13
31
380
1600
24
59
210
87
1.3
3.3
—
1400
100% Idlea
5200 730
2000 85
22
51 73
510
300
2.2
5.0
310
180
1.3
3.1
100 800
61 93
0.45
1.0 79
2200
100%
11000
11000
60
12
13000
13000
68
140
170
170
0.92
1.9
110
110
0.59
1.2
2200
50%
14000
10000
110
220
16000
1200
120
250
110
78
0.82
1.6
240
180
1.9
3.8
2200
2%
48000
2600
700
290
2800
1600
410
170
—
170
92
24
10
Idle data duplicated from methanol configuration
-------
The unfiltered sample was also considered because it was thought that the
phenols might be attached to the particulate, and would be extracted in
the collection bubbler. Both filtered and unfiltered samples were pro-
cessed in the methanol and methanol-catalyst configurations, for both
transient and steady-state operation. Based on similarities between the
methanol configuration and the ethanol+water configuration, no samples
were processed for the ethanol+water configuration. By the time the
diesel engine was to be characterized, it was decided to process only
filtered phenol samples, on the basis that the filtered phenol procedure
had been shown to have higher recovery factors during qualification
experiments. ' '
Summaries of filtered phenol results are given in Table 29 for
transient operation, and in Tables 30, 31, and 32 for steady-state opera-
tion. Results from the unfiltered procedure are given in Table 33 for
transient operation, and in Tables 34 and 35 for steady-state operation.
Fewer "total" phenols were generated with methanol than with either etha-
nol or diesel during transient operation. The filtered phenol data in-
dicate that more highly substituted phenols may be formed with the cata-
lyst. At idle, the catalyst appears to have little effect. Using the
backpressure device and catalyst at idle, the phenols were reduced slight-
ly. It is difficult to decide whether to attribute changes in emissions
to the back-pressure on the engine, or to its effect of slightly raising
the temperature of the catalyst. Considering the relatively uncertain
accuracy of the phenol procedure, it is difficult to establish trends
from the data.
6. Total Hydrocarbons - FID Response
As mentioned in several places throughout this report, total
hydrocarbons were measured using a Beckman Model 402 heated flame ioni-
zation detector. References (6 and 7) have shown that the FID response
to unburned alcohols and some species of unregulated emissions is quite
variable, depending on FID construction. The reported FID response fac-
tors, given in Table 9 of Section III.E.I from Reference 6, were used in
conjunction with transient cycle "total" emission rates of unburned alco-
hols, individual hydrocarbons, individual aldehydes, and individual phe-
nols to compute a "total" hydrocarbon emission rate. These "total" hydro-
carbons , along with the hydrocarbons measured by continuous HFID during
transient testing, are given in Table 36.
For the diesel configuration, unburned fuel was not measured
directly as it was for the unburned alcohols. However, the HFID response
to unburned diesel fuel-like constituents is assumed to be 1.0 by design;
and unburned fuel is therefore accounted for in the continuous measurement
of total hydrocarbons by HFID. The "total" (unregulated) hydrocarbons
for the diesel configuration are substantially lower than the HFID total
hydrocarbons due to the absence of a "total unburned fuel" in the sum-
mation. This would imply that levels of unburned diesel fuel-like con-
stituents could be about 1200 mg/kW-hr for the cold-start, and about 950
69
-------
TABLE 2'J. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (FILTERED) FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE
m-cresol
Teat
Con fig.
Diesel
Methanol
Methanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Trans.
Cycle
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Salicyl-
Units Phenol aldehyde
Big/test — 240
ngAW-hr 23
mgAg 75
mg/test — 32
ngAW-hr 2.9
ngAg 10
mg/test —
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test —
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
ngAW-hr
ngAg
mg/teBt
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test 3?.. 38
mgAW-hr 2.8 3.4
ngAg 6 • 2 7.5
mg/test 27 —
mgAW-hr 2 . 4
mgAg 5.5
mg/test —
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test — —
mgAW-hr
mgAg
+
p-cresol
120
12
39
—
64
6.2
12
170
16
26
200
18
31
13d
1.1
2.5
—
230
22
48
100
9.8
22
5"
26
2.5
8.1
__
120
11
18
71
6.3
11
190
17
37
110
9.6
22
34
3.2
6.9
—
2,3,5 tri-
ne thy Iphenol
57
5.5
18
12
1.1
3.9
19d
1.8
3.2
—
—
8.4d
0.7
1.6
12
1.0
2.4
—
2,3,5,6^
23
2.2
7.2
14d
1.4
2.6
—
—
630
56
120
280
24
57
—
35
3.4
7.7
2nppC
490
48
156
230
21
75
170
16
29
180
17
32
440
42
67
230
20
35
23d
2.0
4.5
—
620
59
130
120
11
25
"Total"
Phenol
960
93
300
270
25
89
190
18
32
260
25
47
730
69
110
500
44
77
930
83
180
430
37
87
880
84
100
260
24
55
*p-ethylphenol, 2-isopropylphenol, 2,3-xylenol, 3,5-xylenol, 2,4,6-trimethylphenol
2,3,5,6-tetramethylphenol
2-n-propylphenol
The»e levels are very low and are close to the ninimum detectable level; their presence and
quantity »re difficult to insens.
-------
TABLE 30. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (FILTERED) FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE
VOLVO TD-100C DIESEL ENGINE
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Phenol
Salicyl-
aldehyde
m-cresol +
p-cresol
a.
5
2,3,5 tri-
methyl
phenol
2,3,5,6°
d
2 npp
p-ethylphenol
Units
yg/m3
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
3
yg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
, 3
yg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
1400
50% Idle
130
52
0.81
3.5
190 200
76 23
1.2
5.1 19
140
56
0.87
3.7
—
240 61
96 7.2
1.5
6.4 6.1
__ __
7300 310
2900 36
45
190 31
, 2-isopropylphenol, 2,3-xylenol,
2200
100%_
80
76
0.42
1.7
160
150
0.84
3.4
—
36*
34
0.19
0.78
9700
9300
52
210
3 , 5-xylenol,
2,4, 6- trimethylphenol
These levels
are very low
and are close to the
detectable level; their presence and quantity
to assess.
minimum
are difficult
°2 , 3 , 5 , 6-tetramethylphenol
2-n-propylphenol
71
-------
TABLE 31. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (FILTERED) FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH METHANOL
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
-J
to
Phanol
Salicyl-
aldohyde
m-cresol +
p-cresol
5b
2,3,5 tri-
oethyl
phenol
2,3,5,6°
a
2 nDD
* "fr
Units
ug/m
mg/hr
mgA*-hr
mgAg fuel
pg/m
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
ngAg fuel
ug/»
mg/hr
mgAH-hr
mgAg fuel
ug/m
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
ug/m
mg/hr
mgAH-hr
mgAg fuel
ug/ra
mg/hr
mgAw-hr
mgAg fuel
\ tff /in
uy/B
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
1400
2%
120
42
15
10
250
87
31
21
220
76
27
18
570
200
71
48
84
29
10
7.0
3400
1200
430
290
1400
50*
140
59
0.87
2.1
—
2ia
8.9
0.31
0.69
240
100
1.5
3.6
33a
14
0.21
0.51
2800
1200
18
43
1400
100%
70
41
0.3O
0.67
—
71
42
0.31
0.69
92
54
0.39
0.89
_—
, —
3300
1900
14
31
Idle
..
60
7. a
—
6.0
85
10
—
8.5
270
31
—
26
42'
4.9
—
4.2
26a
3.0
—
2.6
2500
290
—
250
2200
loot
44*
42
0.23
0.50
34a
33
0.18
0.39
61
59
0.33
0.70
—
640
620
3.4
7.4
2200
50%
65
48
0.51
1.1
„
47
34
0.36
0.76
..
7.2a
5.3
0.06
0.12
42"
31
0.33
0.69
1500
1100
12
25
2200
2%
72
38
9.3
4.4
130
69
17
7.9
83
44
11
5.1
300
160
39
18
36 a
19
4.6
2.2
12B
6.4
1.6
0.7
780
420
102
48
These levels are very low and are close to the minimum detectable level;
their presence and quantity are difficult to assess.
p-othylphenol, 2-isopropylphcnol, 2,3-xylenol, 3,5-xylenol, 2,4,6-trimethylphenol
2, 3,5,C-tetramcthylpheiioi
' 2-n-propylphenol
-------
TABLE 32 . SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (FILTERED) FROM MODAL OPERATION OF
THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH METHANOL AND CATALYST
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Phenol
Salicyl-
aldehyde
m-cresol +
p-cresol
5b
2,3,5 tri-
methyl
phenol
2,3,5,6°
2 npp
Units
Ug/m
mg/hr
mgAH-hr
mgAg fuel
Vig/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
ug/m
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
Vjg/m
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
VJg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mgAg fuel
pg/m
rog/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
Vig/m
mg/hr
mgAH-hr
mgAg fuel
1400
2%
27°
9.3
3.3
2.1
79
27
10
6.1
98
34
12
7.7
240
83
30
19
393
13
4.6
2.9
34S
12
4.3
2.7
2000
690
250
160
1AQO
50%
80
34
0.50
1.2
—
75
32
0.47
1,1
—
2ia
9.0
0.13
0.32
—
2200
950
14
34
1400
100%
57a
34
0.25
0.57
—
54a
32
0.23
0.54
230
—
—
——
31°
18
0.13
0.30
—
1200
710
5.2
12
Idle
220
24
—
20
71
7.8
—
6.4
49a
5.4
—
4.5
230
25
—
21
54a
6.0
—
5.0
—
1700
190
—
160
2200 2200a
100* 50%
35a
33
0.18
0.40
—
—
—
—
32a
30
0.17
0.36
61
58
-.32
0.69
—
—
—
—
—
—
1600
1500
8.3
18
2200 Idle +
2% B. P.
76
6.8
—
3.9
__
110
9.8
—
5.6 .
170 89
88 80
23
8.7 4.6
13a 52a
6.8 4.6
1.8 —
0.67 2.6
1300 650
680 58
180
67 33
Sample void
These levels are very low and are close to the minimum detectable level;
their presence and quantity are difficult to assess.
p-ethylphenol, 2-isopropylphenol, 2,3-xylenol, 3,5-xylenol, 2,4,6-trimethylphenol
2,3,5,6-tetramethylphenol
2-n-propylphenol
-------
TABLE 33. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (UNFILTERED) FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE
Test
Config.
Me th anal
Methanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Trans.
Cycle
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Units
mg/test
mgA^-hr
«gAg
mg/test
mgA**~hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
»gAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAw-nr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
mg/test
mgAW-hr
mgAg
Salicyl-
Phenol aldehyde
— 15 d
1.5
2.6
— —
—
—
11 d -
1.0
2.1
6.3 d 70
.6 6.2
1.3 14
—
— 23
2.2
4.9
m—cresol
+
p-cresol 5 a
— 20 d
1.9
3.4
20 37
1.9 3.6
3.5 6.7
— 17
1.6
2.5
—
70 20
6.1 1.7
14 3.8
8.0*
0.7
1.6
— 18
1.7
3.7
7.2 d 220
0.7 21
1.5 48
2,3,5 tri-
nethylphenol 2,3,5,6
9.6 d
0.9
1.6
20 —
2.0
3.7
—
—
4.8d 170
.4 15
.9 34
— 270
24
55
— —
7.2d 19
0.7 1.8
1.5 4.1
c
120
11
20
220
21
39
230
22
36
370
33
58
—
—
130
12
27
380
36
81
"Total"
160
15
28
300
28
53
250
24
39
370
33
58
280
24
55
350
32
72
150
14
31
660
62
140
ap-ethylphenol, 2-isopropylphenol, 2,3-xylenol, 3,5-xylenol, 2,4,6-trimethylphenol
b2,3,5,6-tetromethylphenol
^2-n-propylphenol
These levels are very low and are close to the minimum detectable levels; their presence
and quantity are difficult to assess.
-------
TABLE 34. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (UNFILTERED) FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH METHANOL '"
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
Phenol
Salicyl-
aldehyde
m-cresol +
p-cresol
5b
2,3,5 tri-
methyl
phenol
2,3,5,6°
2 npp
Units
yg/m
rog/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
yg/m
rog/hr
ragAW-hr
mgAg fuel
yg/m
mg/hr
rogAW-hr
mgAg fuel
yg/m
rog/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
yg/m
mg/hr
mg/fcw-hr
mgAg fuel
yg/m
mg/hr
mgAW-hr
mgAg fuel
yg/m
mg/hr
mg/kH-hr
ragAg fuel
1400
2%
98
34
12
8.2
140
49
18
12
140
49
18
12
490
170
61
41
550
190
68
46
2000
700
250
200
1400
50%
140
59
0.87
2.1
—
99
42
0.62
1.5
210
89
1.3
3.2
19"
8
0.12
0.29
1900
800
12
29
1400
100%
—
48a
28
0.20
0.46
57
34
0.25
0.56
—
_.
1500
880
6.4
14
Idle
65
7.6
—
6.5
98
11
—
9.4
14S
1.6
1.4
320
37
—
32
30°
3
~~
2.6
91
9 A
• 1
1800
210
—
180
2200
100%
74
71
0.39
0.85
—
25fl
24
0.13
9.29
—
—
—
1700
1600
8.8
19
2200
50%
120
88
0.94
2.0
—
39°
29
0.02
0.65
—
29a
21
0.22
0.47
48a
OR
J3
0.37
0.47
1500
1100
12
25
2200
2%
67
36
8.8
4.1
130
69
17
7.9
150
80
20
9.2
360
190
46
22
26°
14
3.4
1.6
—
1100
590
140
68
These levels are very low and are close to the minimum detectable level;
their presence and quantity are difficult to assess
p-ethylphenol, 2-isopropylphenol, 2,3-xylenol, 3,5-xylenol, 2,4,6-triraethylphenol
2,3,5,6-tetramethylphenol
2-n-propylphenol
-------
TABLE 35. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (UNFILTERED) FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE
VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE WITH METHANOL AND CATALYST
RPM and PERCENT LOAD IN MODE
CTl
Phenol
Salicyl-
aldehyde
rr.-cresol +
p-cresol
5b
2,3,5 tri-
ne thy 1
phenol
2,3,5,6°
2 npp
Units
ug/m
mg/hr
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
Mg/m
mg/hr
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
ug/m
mg/hr
mg/kK-hr
mg/kg fuel
1'9/m
mg/hr
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
|jg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
. 3
pg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
, 3
pg/m
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
1400
2%
41a
14
5.0
3.2
—
18a
6.2
2.2
1.4
130
45
16
10
26a
0.9
3.2
2.0
810
280
100
63
1400 1400
50* 100%
-.
29a
12
0.18
0.43
90 243
39 14
0.57 0.10
.1.4 0.24
—
1300 960
560 570
a.; 4.1
20 9.6
2200
Idle 100%
740
700
3.9
8.3
140
130
0.72
1.6
260
250
1.4
0.3
130
120
0.66
1.4
150
140
0.78
1.7
1100 700
120 660
3.7
99 7.9
2200
50%
1200
880
9.4
20
91
70
0.5
1.6
__
ioa
7.3
0.08
0.17
1300
950
10
21
2200
2%
9.4
4.9
1.3
0.48
__
__
130
68
18
6.7
25a
13
3.. 4
1.3
1600
830
220
82
Idla-f
B. P.
SI
7.2
—
4.1
..
140
12
—
6.9
130
12
—
6.7
36a
3.2
—
1.8
__
860
77
—
44
aThese levels are very low ancl arc close to the minimum detectable level;
their presence and quantity rir<- difficult to assess
p-ethylplienol, 2-isopropyJphpnol, 2,3-xylenol, 3,5-xylenol, 2,4,6-trimethylphenol
..?, 3,5,6-tetramethylphenol
'J-n-propylphenol
-------
TABLE 36. SUMMARY/COMPARISON OF "TOTAL" UNREGULATED HYDROCARBONS AND
HYDROCARBONS MEASURED BY CONTINUOUS HFID DURING TRANSIENT
OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE
Configuration
Diesel
FID Response Fact.b
Cold Meas. Total
Cold Adj. Total
Hot Meas. Total
Hot Adj. Total
Methanol
FID Response Fact.b
Cold Meas. Total
Cold Au]. Total
Hot Meas. Total
Hot Adj. Total
Methanol + Cat.
FID Response Fact.b
Cold Meas. Total
Cold Adj. Total
Hot Meas . Total
Hot Adj . Total
Ethanol
FID Response Fact.b
Cold Meas. Total
Cold Adj. Total
Hot Meas. Total
Hot Adj. Total
Ethanol + Cat.
FID Response Fact.b
Cold Meas. Total
Cold Adj. Total
Hot Meas. Total
Hot Adj. Total
"Total" "Total"
Unbumed Individual
Alcohol Hydrocarbons
mgAw-hr mgAw-hr
N.A.
0.23
4700
1080
4900
1130
0.23
0.46
2200
1010
2300
1060
0.46
670
310
450
207
1.00
1.00
160
160
180
180
1.00
1.00
600
600
600
600
1.00
260
260
210
210
"Total"
Individual
Aldehydes
rogAw-hr
0.05
0.12
240
29
250
30
0.06e
0.15f
300
45
230
35
0.249
380
91
230
55
"Total"
Individual
Phenols3
mgAw-hr
0.75
0.75
18
13
25
19
0.75
1200
280
840
190
100
100
60
60
260
16
260
16
69
52
44
33
0.75
83
62
37
28
0.75
84
33
24
18
Sum
of
"Totals"
gAw-hr
5.12
1.28
5.36
1.36
1.63
0.46
1.20
0.30
3.18
1.72
3.17
1.72
1.39
0.69
0.91
0.54
Hydrocarbons
Measured by
Cont. HFID
g/kw-iu:
280
280
110
110
18
0.9
13
0.7
93
70
25
19
0.39
0.35
0.15
0.13
1.58
__
1.08
1.98
1.96
0.49''
0.17
2.28
2.27
0.79
0.60
a Total phenols were based on "filtered" phenols procedure which has shown better recovery than the
unfiltered phenol procedure during' procedural qualifications
fc FID response factors are on a weight basis and were taken directly from reference or interpolated
from FID responses given for species of similar molecular structure
C Acetaldehyde has al[ interpolated response of about 0.30, whereas formaldehyde has a response
estimated to be about .05
d FID response based on 25% acetaldehyde + 75% formaldehyde - weighted for a sum of 0.12
e FID response based on 2% acetaldehyde + 98% formaldehyde weighted for a sum of 0.06
fFID response based on 40% acetaldehyde + 98% formaldehyde - weighted for a sum of 0.15
gFID response based on 75% acetaldehyde + 25% formaldehyde - weighted for a sum of 0.24
hAverage of methanol + Cat. and methanol + Cat. + B.P.
77
-------
mgAW-hr from the hot-start transient cycles. Considering the alcohol
fuel configurations, the "total" (unregulated) hydrocarbons were approxi-
mately double the hydrocarbons indicated by the continuous HFID measure-
ment. The most significant contribution to the "total" (unregulated)
hydrocarbons was the unbumed alcohol emissions followed by the IHC emis-
sions. Contribution of the aldehydes to "total" (unregulated) hydrocar-
bons was moderate, and the contribution of phenols was insignificant.
The "total" hydrocarbons were significantly reduced by the catalyst, which
appears to have significantly reduced the unburned alcohol and the IHC
emitted by the non-catalyst configurations.
7. Odor-TIA
TIA results were determined using the DOAS analysis of traps
which collected compounds related to odor intensity.(8'1°) This chroma-
tographic procedure separates an oxygenate fraction (liquid column oxy-
genates, LCD) and an aromatic fraction (liquid column aromatics, LCA) .
The TIA values are defined as TIA = 1 + Iog10 (LCO, yg/&) or TIA = 0.4 +
0.7 logic (LCA U9/^) » (TIA by LCO preferred). The procedure was developed
for steady-state raw exhaust samples, but was adapted to transient dilute
exhaust samples by use of the CVS. Table 37 summarizes the results from
transient test operation. TIA results from the diesel transient operation
were high for the cold-start, and low for the hot-start. Very little
difference in TIA exists between methanol- and ethanol-fueled configura-
tions, with or without catalyst. The catalyst reduced LCA significantly
for both methanol and ethanol.
TIA results from steady-state test configurations are given
in Table 38, and include 7 modes of methanol and methanol-catalyst opera-
tion along with three modes of diesel operation. The TIA values for die-
sel operation were slightly higher than those for the methanol configura-
tion. TIA values for idle, and for 1400 rpm at 2 percent load, were rela-
tively high for the methanol fuel configuration. The odor index values
at these and other modes were significantly reduced with the catalyst, ex-
cept for the condition at 2200 rpm and 2 percent load, for which an in-
crease was noted.
C. Particulate Emissions
Although heavy-duty diesel particulate emissions are not scheduled
to be regulated until 1986, they have been measured for some time and
have been recognized as a potential problem in the application of diesel
engines. In order to determine particulate emission rates and to charac-
terize the total particulate, samples were collected on several filter
media for a variety of analyses which included total mass, sulfate, ele-
mental analysis, particle sizing, and organic extractables. Particulate
samples were always taken from the dilute exhaust using a CVS.
76
-------
TABLE 37. SUMMARY OF TIA BY DOASa PROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TD100A DUAL FUEL ENGINE
Fuel Transient
Configuration Cycle
Diesel Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Bus
Methanol Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Bus
Methanol + Cold Start
Catalyst Hot Start
Composite
Bus
Ethanol Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Bus
Ethanol + Cold Start
Catalyst Hot Start
Composite
Bus
LCA
29.7
4.24
10.14
2.60
3.70
3.44
-
-
-
-
2.22
1.53
1.63
3.36
-
-
_
LCO
yg/g.
7.20
1.20
2.06
—
3.30
3.50
3.30
4.17
1.59
2.79
2.62
1.14
4.16
3.18
3.32
3.57
3.42
5.04
4.81
5.28
TIA
1.86
1.08
1.19
1.10b
1.47
1.53
1.52
1.61
1.17
1.45
1.41
1.06
1.60
1.50
1.51
1.55
1.53
1.70
1.68
1.72
3These measurements were based on diesel fuel standard.
Samples were taken from dilute exhaust of approximately
6:1 for overall transient cycle.
Based on TIA
= 0.4 + 0.7 log LCA
79
-------
TABLE 38. SUMMARY OF TIA BY DOAS FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE
VOLVO TD-100A DUAL-FUEL ENGINE AND THE TD-100C DIESEL ENGINE
Modal
Condition
rpm/load %
1400/2
1400/50
1400/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
Fuel
Configuration
Methanol
Meth-Cat.
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.a
Methanol
Meth-Cat.
Diesel
Methanol
Meth-Cat.
Meth-Cat. + BP.
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Methanol
Meth + Cat.
Methanol
Meth-Cat .
LCA
yg/A
70.
16.
27.
5.6
—
4.3
—
77.
37.
7.7
12.
__
2.4
—
3.9
—
76.
10.
LCO
yg/&
34.
9.5
8.5
2.7
—
2.5
1.9
33.
18.
6.5
4.1
1.5
3.3
1.0
4.7
0.7
7.3 •
9.9
TIA
2.5
1.4
1.9
1.4
—
1.4
0.8
2.5
2.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.2
0.6
0.8
1.7
^Sample void
80
-------
1. Total Particulate
Total particulate emission rates are given in Table 39 for the vari-
ous fuel configurations tested under steady-state modal operation. Fig-
ure 15 shows the relative total particulate mass rates. Comparison was
simplified because both test engines were of similar design and had the
same rated speed and power. Particulate emissions from the diesel con-
figuration exceeded those of the alcohol configurations except at the 2
percent load conditions. At the 2 percent load conditions, the methanol
and the ethanol+water configurations show significantly higher particu-
late than either the diesel or the methanol-catalyst-backpressure con-
figurations. The backpressure device was engaged only at idle, and re-
quired more diesel pilot injection to maintain idle speed. Idle particu-
late rate from the diesel engine was greater than for the methanol con-
figuration of the dual-fuel engine.
Although the dual-fuel used only diesel fuel at idle, there are
significant differences in the manner in which the diesel fuel is in-
jected. The diesel engine uses a large 4-hole injector mounted in approx-
imately the center of the combustion chamber; whereas the dual-fuel engine
uses a similar but smaller injector and injects the pilot diesel fuel
against the swirl within the combustion chamber (refer to Section III.A.).
These differences in diesel fuel injection between engines may explain
the significantly different particulate emission rates observed for the
1400 rpm/2 percent load condition, at which only diesel fuel pilot in-
jection is active. About 81 percent of the fuel consumed by the dual-
fuel engine at 2200 rpm/2 percent load consisted of diesel pilot injec-
tion. Idle data from the methanol configuration were also used for the
ethanol+water configuration, because they are taken to be identical (only
pilot injected diesel fuel is used at idle, so idle emissions should be
independent of the alcohol used). Relative to the diesel engine, major
particulate reductions with both methanol and ethanol+water configura-
tions were noted where substantial amounts of alcohol were substituted
for diesel fuel, beyond the 2 percent load conditions.
Catalysts are usually considered a method for reducing emissions
but total particulates were substantially increased in the alcohol con-
figurations when the catalyst was used. Addition of the catalyst in-
creased the particulate emissions substantially at the higher load condi-
tions where exhaust heat was sufficient to activate the catalyst. The
catalyst reduced particulate emissions at idle and light load conditions
where exhaust temperature was relatively low. With low-temperature ex-
haust from idle and light loads, the catalyst appeared to act as a par-
ticulate trap. Above about 25 percent load, catalyst temperatures ele-
vated enough to begin oxidation reactions. At this point, the total
particulate emission increased sharply. A significant portion of this
particulate matter is made up of sulfate generated by the catalyst.
Sulfate will be discussed in the next section.
81
-------
TABLE 39. PARTICULATE EMISSION SUMMARY FROM
MODAL OPERATIONS OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Engine/Fuel Configuration
Condition
rpm/load, %
1400/2
1400/50
1400/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
Units
mg/m3 exh.
g/hr
g/kw-hr
g/kg fuela
mg/m3 exh.
g/hr
g/kw-hr
g/kg fuela
mg/m3 exh.
g/hr
g/kw-hr
g/kg fuel3
mg/m3 exh.
g/hr
g/kw-hr
g/kg fuela
mg/m exh.
g/hr
g/kw-hr
g/kg fuela
mg/m3 exh.
g/hr
g/kw-hr
g/kg fuela
mg/m exh .
g/hr
g/kw-hr
g/kg fuela
Diesel
53.53
19.21
9.63
4.93
45.67
18.29
0.28
1.22
134.06
69.87
0.54
2.41
66.92
7.85
—
6.65
81.56
77.97
0.44
1.78
103.83
78.25
0.88
3.11
84.49
49.15
14.49
5.37
Methanol
116.48
40.54
14.48
9.72
21.91
9.30
0.14
0.34
15.61
9.19
0.07
0.15
48.63
5.67
—
4.85
6.79
6.56
0 .04
0.08
23.30
17.10
0.18
0.38
117.44
62.72
15.30
7.20
Methanol
-Catalvst
47.10
16.25
5.80
3.66
48.95
21.08
0.31
0.75
89.75
52.98
0.39
0.89
16.68 c
l.S4c
—
1.52°
72.74
68.96
0.38
0.82
80.70
58.87
0.63
1.33
50.90
26.49
6.97
2.61
Ethanol
+ Water
91.77
32.42
11.58
7.95
19.62
8.22
0.12
0.31
22.92
13.30
0.10
0.22
48.63b
5.6^
—
4.85b
10.25
10.15
0.05
0.11
34.20
25.27
0.27
0.54
122.42
67.59
17-79
7.37
"Fuel" represents total fuel input to engine and includes water, alcohol, and diesel
These values were duplicated from the methanol configuration since only diesel fuel
^is used
"Particulate data for Methanol-Catalyst-Backpressure were:
1.18 g/kg fuela
16.01 mg/m6 exh., 1.43 g/hr,
82
-------
80
100 50 2
Intermediate Speed
Idle
2 50
Rated Speed
100
Percent of Full Load
Figure 15. Modal p'articulate from the Volvo test engines
83
-------
Cold Start
0.80
0.36
0.26
0.28
0.34
0.34
Hot Start
0.68
0.40
0.34
0.42
0.35
0.39
Composite
0.70
0.39
0.33
0.40
0.35
0.38
Bus Cycle
0.82
0.60
0.22
0.24
0.60
0.38
Particulate rates determined for cold- and hot-start transient
cycles and the bus cycle are given in Table 40, along with composite
transient results. These particulate emissions were also given along
with gaseous emission data in Tables 13 and 14.
TABLE 40. PARTICULATE SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test Transient Particulate g/kW-hr
Configuration
Diesel
Methanol
Methanol-Catalyst
Methanol-Catalyst-
Backpressure
Ethanol
Ethanol-Catalyst-
Backprpssure
In the diesel configuration, the cold-start runs produced more par-
ticulate than the hot-start runs, which seems to be typical of most of
the diesel engines tested under the EPA "Baseline" Contract. The dual-
fuel engine configurations gave lower particulate for the cold-start
than for the hot-start FTP. The catalyst appears to have reduced par-
ticulate from the cold-start, but increased particulate from the hot-
start. The catalyst reduced particulate from the bus cycle by about
half. Considering the modal information, the catalyst may have reduced
particulate from the cold-start by acting as a trap at lower exhaust
temperatures. Particulate from the hot-start may have increased be-
cause the catalyst was warmer, being able to produce sulfate while oxi-
dizing fuel-like constituents which would have condensed as particulate
during the cold-start. The reduction of particulate emissions from the
bus cycle run with catalyst may be due to the catalyst being able to
oxidize a greater mass of organic (fuel-like) particulate matter than
it produces as sulfate, or to storage.
Table 41 gives the computed 7-mode composite (based on the 13-mode
composite weighting factors) and the transient composite particulate
rates on a brake specific and a fuel specific basis. There is very good
agreement between the 7-mode and the transient composite for the diesel
configuration. The transient composite is somewhat higher than the modal
composite in the methanol configuration without aftertreatment, but is
substantially lower than the modal composite when the catalyst is used.
84
-------
TABLE 41. COMPOSITE PARTICULATE RATES FROM MODAL AND
TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test _7-Mode Composite Transient Composite
Configuration g/kW-hr _gAg fuel g/kW-hr gAg fuel
Diesel 0.69 2.53 0.70 2.43
Methanol 0.30 0.64 0.39 0.73
Methanol-Catalyst 0.51 1.07 0.33 0.64
Methanol-Catalyst-
Backpressure 0.51 1.07 0.40 0.70
Ethanol -NotRun- 0.35 0.81
Ethanol-Catalyst-
Backpressure -NotRun- 0.30 0.85
Ethanol+Water 0.33 0.67 -Not Run-
The greater disagreement between the modal composite and the transient
composite when the catalyst was used is due to the catalyst's heat sen-
sivity and the load variations among the cycles. The transient cycle
consists of mostly light loads, but the 7-mode composite includes sub-
stantial operating time at loads of 50 percent or more (56 percent of
the 7-mode composite).
2. Smoke
Smoke and particulate emissions are related, smoke level being a
measure of the visible portion of particulate matter. Changes in particu-
late emissions may be indicated by corresponding changes in smoke opacity,
if the levels are high enough. Smoke opacity was determined using an end-
of stack PHS smokemeter. Table 42 gives a summary of smoke opacity data
collected from all six fuel configurations; namely, diesel, methanol,
methanol-catalyst, ethanol, ethanol-catalyst, and ethanol+water.
Smoke factors for acceleration, lug, and peak are all well below
the 1980 standards, for the dual-fuel engine. In the diesel configuration,
there was reasonable agreement with manufacturer's data for the accelera-
tion and peak factors, but the lug factor was much higher than the manu-
facturer's value of about 7 percent opacity. Examination of the diesel
smoke chart indicated that smoke opacity increased sharply in the last four
seconds of the lug procedure run under automatic dynamometer/engine control.
The lug factor should be about 7-9 percent opacity on the basis of the power
curve smoke, which also simulates a maximum rack lug-down from rated speed.
85
-------
TABLE 42. SUMMARY OP SMOKE OPACITY FROM THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity'
Test
Configuration
Smoke Opacity, %
Accel. Lug
Diesel
Methanol
Methanol - Catalyst
Ethanol
Ethanol - Catalyst
Ethanol + Water
1980 Standard
Steady-State
13-Mode FTP
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
RPM Power, %
500
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
500
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
500
RPM
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1300
Idle
2
25
50
75
100
Idle
100
75
50
25
2
Idle
Diesel
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.2
7.0
9.0
Peak
15.3 15. Ob
6.0 0.8
2.6 0.7
5.7 1.4
3.6 2.7
— NOT RUN —
20.0 15.0
Smoke Opacity
Smoke Opacity, %
Diesel Methanol Meth.-Cat. Ethanol
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.2
2.0
6.0
0.5
3.5
5.0
5.3
3.1
1.4
0.2
Power
Power
0.1
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.1
0.7
0.8
1.1
2.0
2.0
0.1
Curve
Curve
Methanol Meth.-Cat
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.3
2.3
2.2
1.4
0.1
0.2
0.4
1.0
1.4
1.3
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.8
1.9
2.1
0.3
Smoke Opacity
Smoke Opacity
Ethanol Eth
0.6
0.4
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.4
0.1
0.4
1.1
1.8
2.4
2.3
0.2
1.0
0.7
1.4
3.0
3.1
0.2
.-Cat.
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
2.3
2.6
32.6
23.3
6.9
10.9
4.7
50.0
Eth. -Cat. Eth. + Water
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.0
1.7
1.4
0.1
0.9
0.8
1.2
2.2
2.4
0.1
Eth. + Water
0.9
0.8
1.5
2.0
4.0
2.5
0.6
1.1
1.2
1.4
3.0
3.5
0.4
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.2
These values were based on a single run of the FTP smoke test
This value may be in error and is likely to be 7 - 9 percent opacity on the
Kao-lo „<: „ .,-.
basis of power curve data
86
-------
The catalyst reduced accel and peak factors on both methanol and ethanol,
but the lug factor appeared to increase for the ethanol-catalyst configu-
ration. Modal and power curve smoke were all very low for the dual-fuel
engine. Most of the smoke opacities listed are considered hardly visible
usually below five percent opacity.
3. Sulfate
Sulfate was determined from samples of total particulate collected
on 47 mm Fluoropore filter media, and processed by the BCA method. Ta-
ble 43 summarizes the sulfate results from 7 modes of steady-state opera-
tion taken over four test configurations. In order to visualize the
trends, Figure 16 shows the relative sulfate mass rates. Taking the
diesel configuration as base, the methanol and ethanol+water configura-
tions had very low sulfate rates, especially above the 2 percent load
condition. These two alcohol configurations showed almost identical
sulfate results. Since the sulfate originates from the sulfur in the
fuel, less diesel fuel consumed by the dual-fuel engine meant less sul-
fur was available to be converted to sulfate. Sulfate rates have been
expressed in terms of "mg/kg C fuel" and "mg/kg D fuel." The "C" repre-
sents fuel as measured on the combined basis of diesel fuel used for
pilot injection and alcohol fuel used for combustion. The "D" repre-
sents only the diesel fuel used. The percent of fuel sulfur converted
to sulfate was computed on the basis of the diesel fuel used.
Probably the most notable sulfate trend was the dramatic increase
in sulfate as a result of the catalyst. Tremendous increases in sulfate
were noted for the high power modes, where exhaust heat insured that the
catalyst was active. The fuel sulfur conversion reached 97 percent at-
the maximum power condition. Since the sulfate is collected as part of
the total particulates, the sulfate measured at maximum power in the
methanol-catalyst-backpressure configuration accounts for 83 percent of
the total particulate. The catalyst appeared to reduce sulfate emissions
during idle and the 2 percent conditions, possibly due to a sulfate stor-
age phenomenon.d^
Sulfate results from transient operation are given in Table 44.
The methanol and ethanol configurations emitted similar levels of sul-
fate, which were about half that of the diesel engine. Application of
the catalyst to the alcohol configurations increased the transient
sulfate levels substantially. The transient composite sulfate level
from the methanol-catalyst configuration increased sharply again when
retested with the backpressure device. Use of the backpressure device
required more pilot injection of diesel fuel. Transient composite sul-
fate levels from the methanol-catalyst-backpressure configuration were
about 30 percent higher than the ethanol-catalyst-backpressure configura-
tion. This relatively large difference may be attributed to a slightly
greater catalyst activity when methanol is used.
87
-------
TABLE 43. SULFATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Condition
1400/2
1400/50
1400/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
Test mg/m"
priTTfi miration Rfhaust
^V'll J_ -L.M vij. d WA*-**l *
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth. + Water
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth. + Water
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth. + Water
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth. + Water6
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth. + Water
Diesel
Methanol
Meth . -Cat .
Eth. + Water
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth. + Water
3.0
3.1
1.4
3.7
5.4
1.2
20.
1.6
5.6
1.4
41.
1.4
4.7
3.1
0.84
3.1
7.4
1.6
59.
1.7
5.2
1.2
34.
1.6
5.3
3.4
1.5
4.3
mg/hr
1100
1100
510
1300
2100
520
8400
690
2900
850
17000
790
550
370
77
370
7100
1600
57000
1700
3900
860
24000
1200
3100
1800
780
2400
mg/kw-hr
410
390
180
460
33
7.7
120
10
23
6.2
120
5.8
--
—
—
—
40
8.7
320
8.8
44
9.2
260
12
900
440
210
630
mgAg
C Fuelb
280
260
110
330
140
19
300
25
100
14
290
12
470
320
44
320
160
19
680
18
160
19
540
23
330
210
77
250
mg/kg 804 = as %
D Fuel0 of Fuel S*
280
260
110
330
140
19
1400
100
100
140
2700
120
470
320
44
320
160
200
7000
200
160
110
3200
150
330
240
110
310
3.9
3.6
1.5
4.6
2.0
1.2
19.
1.4
1.4
1.9
37.
1.7
6.5
4.4
0.61
4.4
2.2
2.8
97.
2.8
2.2
1.5
44.
2.1
4.6
3.3
1.5
4.3
Percent of fuel sulfur converted to sulfate was computed
on basis of the diesel fuel alone. The diesel fuel had
a reported sulfur content of 0.24 percent by weight.
^ mg/kg C fuel represents sulfate on a combined fuel basis
'mg/kg D fuel represents sulfate on the basis of the diesel portion of
,the combined fuel
Data from idle with backpressure device were 0.84 mg/m3, 77 mg/hr, 44 mg/kg D fuel0,
and 0.61 percent fuel sulfur conversion
These data duplicated from idle condition of methanol configuration
88
-------
100 50 2
Intermediate Speed
Percent of Full Load
Figure 16. Modal sulfate r'ates from the Volvo test engines
89
-------
TABLE 44 . SULFATE EMISSION SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT FTP OPERATION
FROM THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test
Config.
Diesel
Methanol
Methanol
-Catalyst
Methanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Transient
Cycle
Cold
Hot
Composite
Cold
Hot
Composite
Cold
Hot
Composite
Cold
Hot
Composite
Cold
Hot
Composite
Cold
Hot
Composite
Sulfate Rate
mg/test
520
390
410
170
170
170
670
900
870
710
1500
1400
170
160
160
930
1000
990
mg/kw-hr
51
36
38
14
16
16
60
80
77
67
130
120
15
14
14
83
90
89
C fuel0
170
130
140
27
29
29
110
160
150
110
240
220
31
31
31
180
200
200
D fuelc
170
130
140
170
160
160
650
870
840
690
1500
1400
160
150
150
900
1000
990
804 as %
of Fuel Sa
2.3
1.8
1.9
2.3
2.3
2.3
9.1.
12.
12.
9.6
20.
19.
2.3
2.1
2.1
13.
14.
14.
Average diesel fuel consumption was 1.02 kg/transient cycle for dual fuel
applications. The fuel had a reported sulfur content of 0.24 percent by weight
DmgAg C fuel represents sulfate on a combined fuel basis
"mg/kg D fuel represents sulfate on a diesel fuel basis only
90
-------
Results from 7-mode composite and transient composites are given
in Table 45. In non-catalyst configurations, results from 7-mode composites
TABLE 45. COMPOSITE SULFATE RATES FROM MODAL AND TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test 7-Mode Composite Transient Composite
Configuration mg/kW-hr" mg/kg C fuela mgAw~hr mgAg C fuela
Diesel 145 160 38 140
Methanol 14 30 16 29
Meth.-Cat. 220 470 77 150
Meth.-Cat.-Bp. 220 470 120 220
Ethanol — NOT RUN — 14 31
Eth.-Cat.-Bp. — NOT RUN — 89 200
Eth. + Water 17 35 — NOT RUN --
mg/kg C fuel represents sulfate on the basis
of total "combined" fuel input
and transient composites were in agreement. When the catalyst was used,
the 7-mode composite sulfate level was higher than the transient composite
level due to the higher exhaust temperatures and higher loads run during
the 7-mode testing. For the methanol configuration, the 7-mode brake
specific sulfate increased from 14 to 220 mg/kW-hr with the addition of
the catalyst. This 0.2 gAW-hr increase in brake specific sulfate prob-
ably accounts for the increase in 7-mode brake specific total particu-
late from 0.30 to 0.51 g/kW-hr.
4. Elemental Composition
Elemental analysis of the total particulate required two particu-
late samples. The carbon and hydrogen content of the total particulate
were determined from particulate samples collected on glass fiber filter
media by oxidation techniques. Sulfur and metal content were determined
from particulate samples collected on Teflon membrane filter media (Fluoro-
pore) using X-ray fluorescence techniques. The carbon and hydrogen were
determined by Galbraith Laboratories, and the sulfur and metals were deter-
mined by EPA-RTP.
Tables 46 and 47 give the results from elemental analysis of steady-
state and transient particulate samples. The results are presented as
91
-------
TABLE 46. SUMMARY OF ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PARTICULATE FROM
MODAL OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
<£>
to
Condition
rpm/load, *
1400/2
1400/50
1400/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
Test
Configuration
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth.+Water
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth.+Hater
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth.+Water
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Meth.-Cat.Bp
Eth.+Water4
Diesel
Mothanol
tteth.-Cat.
Eth.+Water
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth.+Water
Diesel
Methnnol
Meth.-Cat.
Eth.+Water
Element,
C
86.8
75.9
75.9
71.0
66.8
47.1
18.8
46.5
91.3
77.2
10.0
54.3
59.1
65.8
40.4
43.5
65.8
63.6
77.4
2.4
48.9
82.7
69.7
19.0
68.6
71.2
69.4
73.9
70.0
H
10.4
10.5
10.4
9.6
7.9
4.5
2.3
4.5
0.9
1.9
1.2
1.2
6.4
8.7
5.8
6.2
8.7
1.7
6.2
1.7
2.5
2.5
3.2
1.5
2.7
8.3
6.5
7.1
8.5
"S"
1.04
0.55
0.72
0.62
2.98
2.92
8.75
2.51
1.26
2.53
9.68
1.54
1.15
1.32
1.34
1.28
1.32
2.73
7.04
10.91
5.26
1.76
1.75
8.38
0.79
0.65
0.53
0.62
0.93
Percent by Weight of "Total
Ca
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.20
0.35
0.15
0.70
0.08
0.52
0.12
0.74
0.27
0.12
a
1.56
0.12
0.40
3.16
0.18
2.82
0.11
0.27
0.06
0.17
0.04
b
a
0.43
Na
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
0.51
b
b
b
b
b
a
b
b
a
a
b
a
a
0.12
0.30
b
b
b
a
_Mg_
b
a
0.02
b
a
a
0.01
a
b
0.03
a
a
b
0.02
b
b
0.02
0.02
0.11
0.01
a
b
a
0.01
b
b
b
a
a
Fe
b
a
b
b
0.15
a
b
b
a
1.61
0.11
a
b
b
a
b
b
0.32
1.58
0.19
0.59
a
a
0.08
b
b
b
b
b
Particulate"
Zn
a
a
a
a
0.16
0.29
a
a
a
a
a
b
b
0.14
a
b
0.14
0.30
1.63
0.09
1.25
0.11
0.20
a
b
b
a
a
a
p
0.05
a
a
0.03
n.07
a
a
a
a
b
a
a
a
a
b
b
a
0.14
0.85
0.06
0.76
0.04
0.10
a
a
a
b
b
0.09
Al
b
a
a
b
b
b
0.85
b
a
b
0.65
b
b
b
b
a
b
0.04
b
0.36
0.38
0.01
b
0.34
b
b
b
0.08
b
Totnl
Ti Met«l,»
b
a
a
b
b
b
b
a
b
a
a
a
b
b
b
a
b
b
a
0.01
b
b
a
a
b
b
b
b
0.11
0.83
0.08
0.12
0.10
0.63
0.64
0.74
0.70
0.43
2.67
0.88
0.74
1.10
0.28
—
1.56
0.28
1.46
7.33
0.90
5.80
0.30
0.57
0.61
0.47
0.19
—
0.08
0.54
"Element was detected but was below the level of quantisation
Element was not detected
CTotal metals include all elements listed except C, H, and S
Data duplicated from methanol configuration
-------
TABLE 47. SUMMARY OP ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OP TOTAL PARTICULATE
FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test
Configuration
Diesel
Methanol
Methanol
-Catalyst
Methanol
-Cat.-Bp.
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Catalyst
Trans .
Cycle^
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Element Percent by Weight of Total Particulate
C
70.
70.
44.
52.
24.
25.
31.
27.
63.
57.
43.
35.
H
4.7
4.4
5.6
7.0
3.6
3.2
3.7
3.4
6.3
5.6
3.8
2.7
"S"
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.3
7.8
6.2
5.3
9.2
0.80
0.75
5.6
7.2
Ca P
0.27 0.10
0.19 0.08
0.42 0.18
0.34 0.15
0.44 0.14
0.37 0.14
0.31 O.lla
0.15a — -b
0.38 0.14
0.17a b
o.na — -b
O.lla b
Al
0.10a
b
0.05a
0.05a
6.8
8.9
2.3
2.1
0.11
0.06a
2.2
2.2
Total0
Metals %
0.38
0.27
0.65
0.54
7.38
9.41
2.72
2.25
0.62
0.23
2.31
2.31
^These values approach the limits of quantitative analysis by X-ray technique
Presence of this element was below the limit of detectability
"Total Metals" consists only of Ca, P, and Al
93
-------
percent of each element in the total participate sample analyzed. The
total participate sample varies with the filter type used.*-1'' Total
participate is defined in terms of Teflon-coated glass fiber filter media
(Pallflex TA60A20, for this program).(5) Glass fiber filters tended to
overestimate the total particulate, while the Teflon membrane filter
results correlated well with the Teflon-coated glass fiber values.
Of all the elements determined, carbon and hydrogen generally
make up the bulk of the total particulate followed by sulfur and oxygen.
In addition, trace amounts of a wide variety of elements which range from
sodium (23 atomic weight units) to barium (137 atomic weight units). Of
the trace elements, calcium, phosphorus, iron, and aluminum were most
commonly found in detectable quantities. Carbon and hydrogen content
were very similar among the various configurations at light load and
at idle, which may be expected since only diesel fuel was consumed
at light loads. Methanol and ethanol+water configurations were simi-
lar, with lower carbon content than for the diesel configuration at
the 50 percent load conditions. Carbon content from full load condi-
tions with methanol alone was higher than with ethanol+water. The
catalyst was very effective in reducing carbon content of the particu-
late from the higher-powered modes of operation, where catalyst heat
was sufficient for oxidation to take place. Sulfur content, noted as
sulfate earlier, was substantially increased at these same high-heat
power modes with the catalyst, otherwise sulfur content of the total
particulate was relatively low. The sulfur content was relatively high
during the maximum power modes run with methanol and ethanol+water.
Similarly, the total of trace materials was relatively high for maximum
power operation. It is interesting that a variety of trace elements
was detected for both the maximum torque and the maximum power condi-
tions where alcohol substitution for diesel fuel was greatest. Many
of the trace metals detected by X-ray fluorescence are assumed to have
originated from the fuel refining process, engine oil, and engine wear.
In comparing results from the transient testing, carbon and hvdro-
gen content appear to be independent of cold or hot start-up. Carbon
content was lower for the methanol and ethanol configurations. The
catalyst reduced carbon content, but not to the extent noted from the
modal information. Use of the catalyst significantly increased the
aluminum and sulfur levels in the particulate. The use of the backpres-
sure device in conjunction with the catalyst appeared to coincide with
lower aluminum content. It is assumed that the aluminum may have origi-
nated from the catalyst.
5. Particle Size Distribution
Particle sizing by the Sierra Model 220 cascade impactor was used
to obtain particle size distributions from 7 modes of steady-state
operation and from transient cycle operation of the dual-fuel engine.
The size distribution plots are influenced strongly by the back-up
filter, which generally accounted for approximately 50 percent or more
94
-------
of the particulate collected. Problems with the back-up filter sticking
to its 0-ring seal, and with determining the weight gains of the indivi-
dual impactor stages were causes for inaccuracies. In order to improve
accuracy, the impactor set was operated during several transient cycles,
or for one hour of steady-state operation. Due to the level of effort
required and the quality of information obtained, particle sizing was
limited to the methanol and the methanol-catalyst configurations for
modal testing, and to transient testing of the methanol, methanol-catalyst,
ethanol, and ethanol-catalyst configurations.
Particle size distributions from modal operation are given in
Figures 17 and 18 for the methanol and the methanol-catalyst configurations,
With the catalyst, the size distribution shifted to larger particles at
idle, but shifted toward smaller particles at the higher power modes. The
"averages" of the particle size distributions for both configurations
are given in Figure 19. The average plot for the methanol configuration
included six modes of operation (2200 rpm/2 percent load condition
was void). The average plot for the methanol-catalyst configuration
included seven modes of operation (idle data with and without the back-
pressure device were averaged together and used as one mode). The
average particle size distributions indicated that more of the particles
tended to be smaller when the catalyst was used. This effect may be due
to the increased presence of sulfate particles as a result of the catalyst.
Particle size distributions from transient operation are given in
Figure 20. In the methanol and ethanol fuel configurations, about 70
percent of the particles were less than 0.11 micron BCD (Effective Cutoff
Diameter). Application of the catalyst appears to have reduced the per-
centage of particles under 0.11 pm diameter to about 50 percent. It is
possible that by eliminating some of the fine aerosols associated with
unburned fuel in transient operation, the catalyst eliminates a portion
of the smaller particles, which shifts the distribution plot to the left.
This process would lead to comparative preponderance of larger particles
from the catalyst-equipped configurations. This trend is just opposite
of that shown for steady-state operation. The difference may be due to
limited sulfate formation in the catalyst during the transient testing,
whereas significant sulfate was emitted during high-powered steady-state
operation. In addition, sulfate storage and purge may also occur in the
catalyst during transient operation. Overall, the particle size distribu-
tions from the alcohol-fueled configuration were similar to those commonly
reported for diesel engine particulate. (19)
6. Soluble Organic Fraction
The soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the total particulate was ob-
tained from particulate samples collected on 20x20 inch Pallflex filters
with soxhlet extraction procedures using methylene chloride. The SOF
has been reported as a percentage of the total particulate, and is refer-
red to as percent solubles. This result gives an indication as to the
95
-------
10
c
o
Q
O
W
0)
+J
-------
7.4 !=t:E:
w
c
o
M
U
•H
g
OJ
-P
0)
•H
Q
U
•H
-P
.37 gSi
.11
20
40 60 80
Cumulative Percent
90 95 98 99
Smaller than BCD
99.9
Figure 18. Particle size distribution from modal operation of the
Volvo TD-100A dual-duel engine with methanol and catalyst
97
-------
7.4
o
n
o
8
w
(U
-p
p
0)
r-t
O
.11
20 40 60 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent Smaller than ECD
99.9
Figure 19. Average of particle size distribution from modal operation of the
Volvo TD-100A dual-fuel engine on methanol and methanol with catalyst
98
-------
7.4 g
4.5
2.8 -
w
C!
o
n
o
•r-1
e
p
o
M
0)
-P
0)
•H
Q
O
•H
-P
1.6
.95
.60
.37
.11
20 40 60 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent Smaller than ECD
99.9
Figure 20. Particle Size distribution from transient operation
of the Volvo TD-100A dual-fuel engine
99
-------
nature of the total particulate matter, but it makes it difficult to
compare SOF emission rates of the various test configurations. Table 48
TABLE 48. SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Percent Solubles in Total Particulate and
Condition
ran/load, %
1400/2
1400/50
1400/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
7 -mode
Composite
(Soluble Particulate Rate (g/n
Diesel
90 (17.)
54 (9.9)
6.8 (4.8)
81 (6.4)
9.3 (7.3)
9.7 (7.6)
87 (43.)
0.196
gAW-hr
Methanol
91
34
6.
81
21
25
83
0.
g/
(37.)
(3.2)
2 (0.6)
(4.6)
(1.4)
(4.4)
(52.)
201
Meth.-Cat.
93 (15.)
5.5 (1.2)
1.2 (0.6)
66b (1.2)
3.3 (2.3)
3.1 (1.8)
57 (15.)
0.072
gAW-hr
r»
Eth. + Water
97 (31.)
40 (3.3)
23 (3.1)
81 (4.6)
15 (1.5)
19 (4.8)
73 (49.)
0.3.91
gAW-hr
summarizes both the SOF mass emission rates and percent solubles from
modal operation, and Table 49 summarizes the results from transient opera-
tion. Composite values were computed, and they are also given in the tables.
TABLE 49. SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION FROM TRANSIENT
OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test
Percent Solubles in Total Particulatea and
(Soluble Particulate Ratio (g/kW-hr))
Configuration
Diesel
Methanol
Meth.-Cat.
Ethanol
Eth. -Cat.
Cold -Start
35
62
19
48
16
(.28)
(.22)
(.05)
(.16)
(.05)
Hot -Start
31
75
15
53
10
(.21)
(.30)
(.051)
(.19)
(.04)
Calc. Composite
32
73
16
53
11
(.22)
(.29)
(.05)
(.19)
(.04)
39
76
45
65
32
Bus
(.32)
(.46)
(.10)
(.39)
(.12)
Particulate samples collected on 20X20 inch Pallflex filter media and
extracted using methylene chloride
Idle solubles with backpressure device were 16 percent and (0.23 g/hr)
100
-------
The percent solubles from modal operation of the diesel engine were
typical; namely, a relatively high percentage of organic material at low
power modes and idle, decreasing as the load was increased. The methanol
and the ethanol+water configurations also showed the same trends in regard
to the percent solubles, but differed considerably in SOF emission rate.
The dual-fuel engine produced less organic solubles than the diesel at
idle, but more at the 2 percent load conditions. As mentioned before,
this effect may be due to differences in diesel fuel injection geometry
between the diesel engine and the dual-fuel engine. The SOF emission
rates were similar for both the methanol and ethanol+water configura-
tions, except for the maximum torque condition.
The catalyst reduced SOF modal emission rates in all cases except
the maximum torque and the maximum power conditions. The catalyst
was especially effective in reducing SOF emissions during idle and the
2 percent load conditions where exhaust temperature is relatively low,
perhaps acting as a trap. Use of the backpressure device at idle re-
duced the SOF emissions even further. The 7-mode composites of the
solubles were about the same except for the methanol-catalyst configura-
tion, which showed significant reductions of SOF emissions from the light
loads and idle. Although the 7-mode composite SOF values of the diesel
engine and the methanol configuration are similar, their SOF emissions
for individual modes were very different.
The organic solubles were higher from the cold-start transient
than for the hot-start transient in the diesel configuration. This
result seems logical, since more unburned diesel fuel-like material
would be emitted from a cold engine than from a hot engine; and this
material would be collected as total particulates and later be extracted
as organic solubles. The SOF emission rates from the methanol and etha-
nol configurations were lower for the cold-start than for the hot-start,
just the opposite of the diesel engine. If it is assumed that the cold
dual-fuel engine emits unburned alcohol-like material, then it is possible
that it may be lost in the extraction process by evaporation because of
its low boiling point. No difference was noted in the SOF emissions
between cold-start and hot-start transients with the catalyst. Although
the catalyst is a temperature-sensitive device, the significant reduc-
tions noted in the SOF emission rates may be the result of the catalyst's
ability to act as a trap.
The transient composite SOF emission was highest for the methanol
configuration, followed by the diesel and the ethanol configurations.
The catalyst reduced the SOF emission by 80 percent in both alcohol
fueled configurations. Transient composite SOF emissions were higher
from the methanol configuration than from the ethanol configuration,
which may be due to different heats of vaporization. The methanol has
a higher heat of vaporization, which may have more of a quenching effect
on the diesel pilot fuel than does the ethanol. The bus cycle showed
the same trends as noted for the transient composite, but with higher
overall SOF emission rates. Characterization of the soluble organic
fraction is of special interest because it contains a variety of organic
compounds which are created through diesel combustion.
101
-------
0.28
0.21
76.7
77.1
9.6
9.9
0.47
0.37
0.73
0.77
a. Elemental Composition
Organic solubles from cold- and hot-start transient oper-
ation of the diesel engine and the dual-fuel engine in the methanol and
the methanol-catalyst configurations were analyzed for carbon, hydrogen,
nitrogen, and sulfur content. Table 50 lists the elements as a percent
of the soluble organic fraction. Overall, there was no appreciable dif-
ference between the three configurations with respect to carbon and
hydrogen content. The catalyst appears to have increased the nitrogen
content and decreased the sulfur content of the SOF relative to the diesel
and methanol configurations.
TABLE 50. ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION
FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test Test SOF Element, Percent of SOF
Configuration Cycle g/kW-hr C H N S_
Diesel Cold
Hot
Methanol Cold 0.22 84.1 13.1 0.29 0.72
Hot 0.30 84.5 12.9 0.35 0.50
Methanol Cold 0.05 77.9 10.6 0.72 0.50
-Catalyst Hot 0.06 80.0 11.2 0.75 0.60
b. Boiling Point Distribution
The organic soluble fraction resembles a very heavy oil
or a varnish. A high-temperature GC-simulated boiling point distribution
with internal standard (Cg-C^) was conducted on SOF from cold and hot
transient operation of the diesel engine, and from the dual-fuel engine
in the methanol and the mathanol-catalyst configurations. The boiling
point distribution was determined from gas chromatographic output
normally used with petroleum oil or fuel samples. The numerical results
of these analyses are presented in Table 51. All samples showed rela-
tively high levels of "residue," that is about 34 percent of the SOF
sample submitted could not be volatilized below 606°C, which was the
maximum column equivalent temperature reached during the procedure used.
Extracts from the diesel hot-start and the methanol hot-start were very
similar. All the boiling point distributions appeared to be similar
up to the 40 percent point. The catalyst seems to have reduced some
of the middle weight paraffins, in that the 60 percent point is 571°C
instead of 518°C for the methanol case.
102
-------
TABLE 51. BOILING POINT DISTRIBUTION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION
FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Boiling Temperature at Distillation Point,°C
Distillation Diesel Methanol Meth.-Cat.
Point Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot
IBP 269 292 312 285 285 310
10% point 381 384 389 392 381 387
20% point 414 414 415 415 410 415
30% point 440 436 440 435 436 439
40% point 469 460 471 456 467 469
50% point 502 485 514 482 506 512
60% point 555 519 589 518 558 571
70% point 580 588
80% point
90% point
Recovery. %
@ 606°C 64 72 61 72 65 63
c. Fractionation by Relative Polarity
The composition of the soluble organic fraction of the
total particulate is complex, and its separation into individual com-
pounds is very difficult. Fractionation of the SOF by high performance
liquid chormatography (HPLC) separates the soluble portion into a series
of fractions of increasing molecular polarity. Figures 21 through 27
show the HPLC chromatographic outputs for direct comparison of the rela-
tive concentration of increasingly polar compounds from cold and hot
transient operation of the diesel engine and the dual-fuel engine.
Each figure contains three traces, one representing the
solvent composition, a second representing the ultraviolet detector
response, and the other representing the fluorescence detector response.
Initially, the solvent is composed of 95 percent hexane and 5 percent
methylene chloride, a relatively non-polar mixture. This solvent mixture
is used from the start of the chromatogram to 17 minutes into the elution
period. During this period, non-polar compounds elute. BaP elutes at
eight minutes into the run. Many non-polar PNA compounds also elute
during this period, and give ultraviolet and fluorescence responses.
After 17 minutes, the polarity of the solvent is increased at a rate of
5 percent methylene chloride per minute. During this transition period
of solvent polarity, more polar compounds are eluted, giving fluorsecence
and ultraviolet spectra. At the end of this transition period (36 minutes
into the run), the solvent is 100 percent methylene chloride and 9-fluorenone
elutes. With 100 percent methylene chloride, even more polar compounds
elute. Acridine elutes during this polar period (at about 70 minutes).
103
-------
I
80
1
I
/•
1
• 1 .
'
1
- r
-. i
4 -
~1~~
— I
i
i
_ i
1
- • H
" 1
':
-'.-•
-
^ '
1 "
I -
t
1
)
-j
!
;- ;
.'--.
- "
;
— '
-1--.
_->^
--!--
-
— -'"
' __,
- -.
ULTI
A
/
i \
-_
RAVI
:
^—
!
i
.. .-:
. ~;\
4 -'
|
OLE.T
/\
,-•
1
(\
j!
-1
I-
\
M
A /
J\J
i
i i i i
70 60 50 40
• ! -
\,
V
~ ~ L "
SOLA
1
\l
(
"
- • -•
- 1--
"• .
f} '•'
\=
AS
V
1
/ENT POLARIC
r~
1. .]_.._
; r
\ T
\
-.
: -
X^-
\-
\
:\
• j
i
• •
\
\
\
\
\
\
•'- r-r
t
P¥
. • ,
•
,
t-
T '
_ ;
1
. !
(
1
1
-r
-
i
i
~fl
"T
-
i:
•;•.
.
" ;
1 1
30 20 10 0
Time, minutes
Figure 21. HPLC response to cold-start diesel transient SOF
-- SOLVENT POLARITY
i— ULTRAVIOLET JH
| :
i
50 40 30
Time, minutes
Figure 22. HPLC response to hot-start diesel transient SOF
104
-------
I
.80
70
I
60
I
50
40
Time, minutes
30
Figure 23. HPLC response to cold-start methanol transient SOF
80 70
Time, minutes
Figure 24. HPLC response to hot-start methanol transient SOF
105
-------
5 3- SOLVENT 'POLARITY
10
o
50 40 30
Time, minutes
Figure 25. HPLC response to cold-start methanol-catalyst transient SOF
SOLVENT POLARITY
Time, minutes
Figure 26. HPLC response to hot-start methanol-catalyst transient SOF
106
-------
Time, minutes
Figure 27. HPLC response to hot-start ethanol-catalyst transient SOF
Figures 21 and 22 show the chormatograms from the HPLC
fractionation of the SOF from the cold-start and hot-start transient
tests of the diesel configuration. Fluorescence from the cold-start
indicated non-polar PNA compounds (such as BaP) with only slight response
at the end of the transition region and some response at 50 minutes, near
the end of the polar compound region. Ultraviolet response seemed rela-
tively high at the end of the transition region. Fluorescence from the
hot-start indicated few non-polar compounds, but did show a peak near
the end of the non-polar region. Generally, fluorescence from the tran-
sition region was minimal, with some response near the beginning and end
of the polar solvent region. For some reason, the ultraviolet response
was very high, particularly in the region where BaP elutes and at the
beginning of the polar region.
HPLC chromatograms for the cold- and hot-start transient
tests of the methanol configuration are given in Figures 23 and 24,
respectively. Fluorescence from the cold-start with methanol was rela-
tively strong in the non-polar PNA region of the chormatogram. No
fluorescence was noted in the transition region, but there were definite
peaks around 47 and 50 minutes of the polar region. Ultraviolet response
107
-------
was minimal for the cold-start with methanol. Fluorescence from the hot-
start with methanol showed some presence of BaP-type compounds, but not to
the extent noted from the cold-start. Similar to the cold-start, there
was no response in the transitional region for the hot-start methanol
sample. Also, there was a relatively strong fluorescence peak around
40 minutes, about the beginning of the polar region, and an absence of
the compounds which had been seen around 50 minutes. A significant ultra-
violet response was noted at 50 minutes.
Results from cold- and hot-start transient tests of the
methanol-catalyst configuration are shown in Figures 25 and 26. The
fluorescence responses from the cold-start sample were extremely large
in the non-polar region. Several compounds were also noted at the end
of the transition region. As with the cold-start methanol, there was a
definite fluorescence peak around 47 and 50 minutes, but it was signifi-
cantly larger when the catalyst was used. The ultraviolet response was
fairly significant in the non-polar region as well as near the end of
the transition region. As may have been expected with a hot-start
catalyst sample, fluorescence in the non-polar region was significantly
reduced from that of the cold-start with catalyst. It is interesting
that the catalyst seemed to have no effect in reducing the fluorescence
peak noted around 40 minutes or the ultraviolet peak around 50 minutes
noted for the hot-start methanol configuration. In fact, the traces
from the hot-start methanol and the hot-start methanol-catalyst confi-
guration are almost identical beyond the non-polar region.
A sample from the hot-start ethanol-catalyst configuration
was submitted for HPLC fractionation and is shown in Figure 27. The
fluorescence emissions were noted early in the non-polar region and in
the polar region at about 50 minutes. The ultraviolet response was
minimal except for the near transition-polar region, where it was
significant.
The hot-start results are weighted more heavily than cold
in the composite calculations, so they are considered very important in
total population exposure. The hot-start sample from the methanol con-
figuration had more fluorescence response in the early polar region and
less response in the non-polar region than the hot-start sample from the
diesel configuration. The catalyst appeared to have little effect on the
hot-start methanol fluorescence response, although the catalyst signifi-
cantly affected the cold-start results. The response from the ethanol-
catalyst hot-start sample was very different from the methanol-catalyst
hot-start, in that the ethanol-catalyst sample had strong fluorescence
peaks around 3 minutes and 50 minutes, and had a relatively high ultra-
violet peak around 40 minutes.
108
-------
d. Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) is often an indicator of PNA content
in the soluble organic fraction. BaP content was determined for transient
composite SOF from diesel, methanol, ethanol, methanol-catalyst, and
ethanol-catalyst test configurations. In addition, BaP content was de-
termined for 7-mode composite SOF from diesel, methanol, methanol-catalyst,
and ethanol+water test configurations. Transient composite SOF was made
up of the organic extract from one cold-start, plus six hot-start total
particulate samples collected on 20x20 inch filters. The 7-mode composite
SOF was made up by combining portions of individual modal extracts into
one common sample on the basis of modal emission rate of total particulate,
the modal weighting factor, and the modal percentage of extractables.
The BaP results from both the transient composite and the
7-mode composite from the various test configurations are given in Table
52. The brake specific BaP was also computed for comparison purposes,
and takes into account the BaP concentration, SOF rate and the work pro-
duced. In all cases, the BaP was lower for the 7-mode composite than for
the transient composite from a given configuration.
TABLE 52. SUMMARY OF TRANSIENT COMPOSITE AND 7-MODE COMPOSITE
BENZO(A)PYRENE EMISSIONS FROM THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Test
Configuration
Diesel
Methanol
Methanol
-Catalyst
Ethanol
Ethanol
-Catalyst
Ethanol
+Water
Cycle
Composite
Transient
7-Mode
Transient
7-Mode
Transient
7-Mode
Transient
7-Mode
Transient
7-Mode
Transient
7-Mode
Benzo(a)pyrene Emissions
BaP/mg SOF yg BaP/kW-hr yg BaP/kg fuel
0.0168
0.0032
0.0061
0.0043
0.0055
0.0011
0.0017
0.0921
0.0064
3.7
0.64
1.7
0.86
0.33
0.08
0.32
3.7
1.2
13.
2.4
3.2
1.8
0.60
0.17
0.74
2.4
109
-------
Generally, unhurried fuel-like matter is emitted during light load operation
where the diesel combustion mixture is very lean. Levels of BaP from tran-
sient operation in the methanol, methanol-catalyst and ethanol+water con-
figuration were all very similar and lower than for the diesel configu-
ration. The 7-mode composite BaP level from the diesel and methanol con-
figurations were somewhat similar. The catalyst was effective in reducing
the 7-mode composite BaP level from the methanol configuration, but had
little effect on the transient composite BaP level. In contrast, when
ethanol was used, the catalyst significantly increased the transient
composite BaP level. The reason for such an increase is puzzling, but
may be due to the relative amount of oxygen introduced into the combustion
chamber as fuel.
e. Ames Response
The Ames test, as employed in this program, refers to a
bacterial mutagenesis plate assay with Salmonella typhimurium according
to the method of Ames.(13) 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 histi-
dine on their own. Samples of the soluble organic fraction representing
transient composites and 7-mode composites, were submitted for bioassay
over five tester strains, TA1535, TA1537, TA1538, TA98 and TA100.
All five strains are histidine-dependent cells by virtue
of mutations within the histidine functional genetic unit. When these
histidine-dependent cells are grown on minimal medium agar plates con-
taining a limited amount of histidine, only those cells that revert to
histidine independence are able to form colonies. The trace amount of
histidine allows all the bacteria plated to undergo a few divisions,
which is essential for mutagenesis to occur. It is these histidine-
independent revertants which are scored as colonies against a slight
background growth consisting of histidine-requiring cells that have
depleted the histidine present within the minimal medium.
In addition to mutations in the histidine functional
genetic unit, all the tester strains have a defective lipopolysaccharide
coat which allows large molecules to permeate the bacterial wall, thus
increasing bacterial sensitivity to mutagenic aromatic compounds.
Furthermore, a U.V. mutation decreases bacterial sensitivity to addi-
tional mutagenic agents. TA1535 and its plasmid-containing counterpart,
TA100, detect base pair substitutions, while TA1537 (and TA1538 with its
plasmid-containing counterpart, TA98) respond to frameshift mutagens.
The plasmids present in TA98 and TA100 are believed to cause an increase
in error-prone DNA repair which leads to many more mutations. Thus, the
five tester strains in tandem provide a very sensitive method for the
detection of potential mutagenic environmental samples.
11C
-------
Samples of the organic soluble fraction from transient
composites and 7-mode composites of the various engine configurations
were submitted for bioassay over the five tester strains, with and
without metabolic activation. The extractables were tested in two
separate groups. The first group consisted of transient composite SOF
samples from methanol, methanol-catalyst, ethanol, and ethanol-catalyst
configurations. The second group consisted of transient composite
samples from methanol and diesel configuration along with 7-mode com-
posite samples from the diesel, methanol, methanol-catalyst and the
ethanol+water configurations. Results from these tests are given in
Table 53. In addition, the second group also contained samples from
seven individual steady-state modes from the diesel, methanol and
methanol-catalyst configurations. These individual modal SOF samples
were tested using only the TA98 tester strain, with and without metabolic
activation. Results from these individual modal tests are given in
Table 54.
Results given in both Tables 53 and 54 include the slope
of dose response, which represents the statistically determined slope of
the function representing revertants per plate versus micrograms SOF
dosage. This result is termed "specific activity," and is an indication
of the level of mutagenic potential of the extract. In Table 53, results
are also given in terms of brake specific response, which represents the
specific activity multiplied by the SOF brake specific emission rate.
The units for the brake specific response are then
revertants/plate
kW-hr
The "revertants per plate" per "kW-hr" is useful for comparison purposes,
but has no practical meaning. Samples from the first group were tested
twice over a period of one and one-half months. The specific activities
from these replicate tests are given in Table 53 under the headings,
"Test 1" and "Test 2." The average of these specific activities was
used in conjunction with the brake specific emission of SOF to calculate
the brake specific response.
Within the first group, there was good repeatability
between the two tests from both the methanol and the ethanol config-
urations, but not when the catalyst was used. The ethanol configuration
had twice the specific activity of the methanol configuration. The
specific activities of both the methanol and ethanol configurations were
substantially higher when the catalyst was used. Since the catalyst
reduced the SOF emission, the brake specific response from the methanol-
catalyst configuration was almost the same as from the methanol configu-
ration. The specific activity of the ethanol-catalyst configuration
increased greatly, so that the brake specific response was generally
greater than from the ethanol configuration, even though the SOF emission
was substantially reduced by the catalyst.
Ill
-------
TABLE 53. SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO TRANSIENT COMPOSITE
AND MODAL COMPOSITE SOF FROM THE VOLVO TEST ENGINESa
Total Soluble
Strain TA98
Strain TA100
Strain TA1535
Strain TA1537
Strain TA1S38
Engine Test
Configuration
Methanol
Trans -1
Meth-Cat.
Trans . 1
Ethanol
Trans.1
Eth.-Cat.
Trans . 1
Repeat
Methanol
Trans . 2
Diesel
Trans.2
D J.6S6 1
7-Mode
Methanol
7-Mode
Meth.-Cat.
7-Mode2
Eth.+Water
7-Mode2
Part. Organic
Rate Fract.
g/kH-hr g/kW-hr
0.39 0.29
0.33 0.05
0.35 0.19
0.38 0.04
0 . 39 0 . 29
0.70 0.22
0.69 0.20
0.30 0.20
0.51 0.07
0.33 0.19
Metab.
Activ.
Status
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Specific
Activity^
Test 1 Test 2
1.5 2.3
3.4 2.8
21.8 17.2
14.1 19.6
4.3 3.8
6.8 7.0
37.5 42.8
21.8 66.3
0.4
0.6
2.1
2.5
0.9
0.6
2.3
2.8
1.3
2.2
0 . 04
0.06
Brake
Specific
Responsec
0.55
0.90
0.98
0.84
0.77
1.31
1.61
1.76
0.12
0.17
0.46
0.55
0.18
0.12
0.46
0.56
0.09
0.15
0.08
0.11
Specific
Activity13
Test 1 Test 2
3.2 5.1
2.7 2.9
9.3 24.4
8.3 40.1
9.8 11.8
7.8 6.9
4.0 57.7
18.2 141
1.7
2.2
8.8
6.2
16 . 3
3.5 • —
3.9
3.6
4.4
5.2
1.6
1.4
Brake
Specific
Response0
1.20
0.81
0.84
1.21
2.05
1.40
1.23
3.18
0.49
0.64
1.94
1.36
3.26
0.70
0.78
0.72
0.31
0.36
0.30
0.27
Specific
Activity13
Test 1 Test 2
0.0 0.0
0.2 0.1
0.0 0.2
0.4 2.1
0.0 0.1
0.2 0.4
0.0 1.1
0.2 0.6
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.2 —
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
Brake
Specific
Response0
0.0
0.04
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.0
0.15
0.0
0.04
0.0
0.06
0.0
0.02
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.02
Specific
Activity*)
Test 1 Test 2
0.3 0.4
0.7 0.6
19.2 10.9
3.0 16.3
1.1 1.0
3.0 1.2
87.4 74.7
33.2 438
0.1
0.1
1.6
1.0
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.1
Brake
Specific
Response0
0.10
0.19
0.75
0.48
0.20
0.40
3.24
9.42
0.03
0.03
0.35
0.22
0.04
0.12
0.06
0.10
0.04
0.04
0.0
0.02
Specific
Activity1*
Test 1 Test 2
1.1 0.8
3.4 3.8
35.1 12.5
6.5 22.8
2.3 3.8
5.4 6.0
5.8 51.8
37. 308
0.2
0.4
1.8
2.4
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.8
2.3
0.2
0.5
Brake
Specific
Response0
0.28
1.04
1.19
0.73
0.58
1.08
1.15
6.90
0.06
0.12
0.40
0.53
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.16
0.06
0.16
0.04
0.10
°SOF was submitted and tested in two separate groups. The first group is designated by a "1" and the second group is
designated by a "2" in the "Engine Test Configuration" column. In the first group, duplicate tests were conducted
in order to establish test to test repeatability.
Specific activity results from statistical analysis of revertants of bacteria culture per microgram of SOF dose
°BraJce specific response has units of: millions of revertants/plate per kilowatt hour
-------
TABLE 54. SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL MODAL SAMPLES
OF SOF FROM THE VOLVO TEST ENGINES
Sample
Test
Condition
rpm/%load
1400/2
1400/50
1400/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
7-Mode
Composite
7-Mode
Brake Spec .
TA98
Metabolic
Activation
Status
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yea
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Diesel Conf iquration
Soluble
Fraction
g SOF/hr
17.0
9.9
4.8
6.4
7.3
7.6
43.
12. 2d
—
—
Specific
Activity3
106rev./)Jg SOF
0.6
0.6
1.7
2.2
2.6
1.2
0.9
2.3
10.6
4.7
2.8
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.9d
0.6d
—
—
Specific
Rateb
106rev./hr
10.2
10.2
16.8
21.8
12.5
5.8
5.8
14.7
77.4
34.3
21.3
12.2
34.4
30.1
11.0°
7.3°
0.18d
0.12
Methanol Configuration
Soluble
Fraction
g SOF/hr
37.
3.2
0.6
4.6
1.4
4.4
52.
12. 5d
—
—
Specific
Activitya
106rev/ug SDF
0.5
0.5
9.9
9.9
11.0
2.6
0.6
0.6
12.8
12.3
6.9
6.7
0.5
0.7
2.3d
2.8d
—
Specific
Rateb
106rev./hr
18.5
18.5
31.7
31.7
6.6
1.6
2.8
2.8
17.9
17.2
30.4
29.5
26.0
36.4
28. 8C
35.0°
0.46d
0.56d
Meth
Soluble
Organ. Prac.
g- SOF/hr
15.
1.2
0.6
1.2
2.3
1.8
15.
4.5d
—
. -Cat . Conf iguration
Specific
Activity"
106rev./ugSOF
2.7
2.8
6.8
15.7
1.2
0.9
5.9
6.2
7.9
17.3
6.1
16.5
2.3
4.5
1.3d
2.2d
—
Specific
Rate13
106rev./hr
40.5
42.0
8.2
18.8
0.7
0.5
7.1
7.4
18.2
39.8
11.0
29.7
34.5
67.5
5.8C
9.9C
0.09d
0.16d
Specific activity has units of: millions revertants/plate per microgram of SOF dose
Specific rate has units of : millions revertants/plate per hour
Computed on the basis of 7-mode brake specific response from composite sample and a 7-mode
,composite power output of 62.2kW
Data transferred from Table 53.
Note: A blank filter was processed, specific activity of TA98 with metabolic activation
was 0.2, without metabolic activation was 0.4 10 revertants/plate per microgram dose
-------
The second group of SOF samples contained another sample
from the methanol configuration in order to tie the two test groups
together for comparison purposes. Unfortunately, the Ames test response
from the repeat methanol sample did not resemble the results from the
first group. The poor "repeatability" could have been due to a change
in the bacteria strains which may have occurred during the four-month
time period between the testing of the two groups. Within the second
group, the diesel transient SOF sample had higher specific activities
and brake specific responses than the methanol transient SOF sample.
If it could be assumed that the results from both test groups (for the
methanol configuration) were equivalent, it would imply that the Ames
response to the transient diesel samples would approach the magnitude
of the response to the transient samples from the dual-fuel configurations
with catalyst.
The 7-mode composite SOF samples were tested for Ames
response as part of the second group. The modal composite diesel generally
had greater specific activity than the modal composite methanol, although
this trend varied with tester strain. Strain TA98 indicated that modal
composite methanol activity was higher than modal composite diesel
activity, whereas strain TA100 indicated an opposite trend and the other
strains showed no real difference between the two. Comparisons between
specific activities of the modal composites from the methanol and the
methanol-catalyst configurations showed minimal differences, but the
brake specific response was lower with the catalyst due to the signifi-
cant reductions in brake specific SOF emission. Generally, the specific
activity from the modal composite of the ethanol+water configuration
was lower than from the methanol configuration, at least for strains
TA98 and TA100.
The individual modal responses using TA98 are given in
Table 54 and indicate that the specific activity from idle and the "two
percent load" conditions were about the same for both the diesel and the
methanol configurations. Above these light-load conditions, the specific
activity from the methanol configuration was significantly higher than
that of the diesel configuration. These trends in steady-state responses
may explain the different trends noted for transient composite and steady-
state modal composite samples. Modal composite results, using TA98,
indicated greater specific activity for the methanol configuration than
for the diesel configuration. Trends from the transient test were just
the opposite. Considering the individual modal data, the 7-mode composite
results from the methanol configuration would be expected to yield higher
activities because the 7-mode composite included more heavily loaded
operation than the transient test. The sepcific activity of the transient
composite sample from the methanol-catalyst configuration was higher than
for the modal composite sample. Individual modal data indicated that the
specific activity, with the catalyst, increased during the light loads
-------
and decreased during the maximum torque mode, with little or no change
during the maximum power mode. Once again, considering the modal data,
the more lightly-loaded transient test results would be expected to have
a higher specific activity than the more heavily loaded 7-mode composite.
Overall, Ames response to transient composite SOP samples
indicated that methanol and ethanol configurations had less potential
for bioactivity than the diesel configuration, but that the addition of
the catalyst may have substantially increased the level of bioactivity
above that of the diesel configuration. Seven-mode composite results
indicated that the methanol had a higher potential for bioactivity than
the diesel, considering only strain TA98, and that the catalyst actually
reduced this potential. Individual modal data indicated that the methanol
configuration had about the same potential for biological activity as the
diesel configuration, at the light load conditions, where only diesel fuel
was comsumed. This potential appears to have increased as more methanol
was substituted for diesel fuel; yet as more methanol was substituted,
the quantity of SOF decreased substantially. Individual modal data
indicated that the catalyst significantly increased the potential for
bioactivity during the light loads.
In addition to testing various soluble organic fractions
extracted from particulate samples collected on Pallflex filter media, a
blank filter was also extracted using the same procedure. The resulting
extract (3.1 mg) was processed for Ames response using strain TA98. The
results indicated that some activity was apparent. This response, al-
though notable for a blank, may be the result of background activity
scaled up by the use of a small sample.
115
-------
REFERENCES
1. Holmer, E., Berg, P. S., and B-I Bertilsson, "The Utilization of
Alternative Fuels in a Diesel Engine Using Different Methods",
SAE Paper No. 800544, Congress and Exposition, Cobo Hall, Detroit,
February 25-29, 1981.
2. Volvo Service Manual - Diesel Engines, Section 2, General.
3. Federal Register, "Gaseous Emission Regulations for 1984 and Later
Model Year Heavy-Duty Engines", Vol. 45, No. 14, January 21, 1980.
4. Federal Register, "Heavy-Duty Engines for 1979 and Later Model Years",
Thursday, September 8, 1977.
5. Federal Register, "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles
and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Particulate Regulation for Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engines", Wednesday, January 7, 1981.
6. MoNair, H. M., and E.J. Bonelli, "Basic Gas Chromatography." Varian
Aerograph, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598, February 1965.
7. Canton, E. J., S. S. Lestz and W. E. Meyer, "Lean Combustion of
Methanol-Gasoline Blends in a Single-Cylinder SI Engine", SAE Paper
750698 presented at the Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, Houston, Texas,
June 1975.
8. Smith L.R., Parness, M. A., Fanick, E. R., and Dietzmann, H. E.,
"Analytical Procedures for Characterizing Unregulated Emissions from
Vehicles Using Middle-Distillate Fuels." Interim Report, Contract
68-02-2497^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, April 1980.
9. Bykowski, Bruce B., "Gasohol, TEA, MTBE Effects on Light-Duty Emissions",
Final Report of Task No. 6, Contract 68-03-2377 for Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1979.
10. Levins, P. L., and Kendall, D. A., "Application of Odor Technology
to Mobile Source Emission Instrumentation," CRC Project CAPE 7-68
under Contract No. 68-03-0561, September 1973.
11. Information Report of the Measurement and Characterization of Diesel
Exhaust Emissions (CRC-APRAC Project No. CAPI-1-64), prepared by the
Chemical Characterization Panel of the CRC Program Group on Composition
of Diesel Exhaust.
116
-------
REFERENCES (Cont'd)
12. Swarin, S. J., and Williams, R. L., "Liquid Chromatographic Determination
of Benzo(a)pyrene in Diesel Exhaust Particulate: Verification of the
Collection and Analytical Methods", Research Publication GMR-3127,
General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan, October 1979.
13. Ames, B., J. McCann and E. Yamasaki, "Methods for Detecting Carcinogens
and Mutagens with the Salmonella/Mannalian-Microsome Mutagenicity Test."
Mutation Research, 31, pp, 347-364, 1975.
14. McCann, J., et al. "Detection of Carcinogens as Mutagens in the Salmonella/
Microsome Test: Assay of 300 Chemicals." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.,
Vol. 72, No. 12:5135-5139, December 1975.
15. Martin, S. P., Urban, C. M., "Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines
Using the 1984 Transient Test Procedure Volume 1 - Gasoline."
Draft Final Report being prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2603, July 1981.
16. Ingalls, M. N., and Karl J. Springer, "Measurement of Sulfate and
Sulfur Dioxide in Automotive Exhaust", Final Report EPA-460/3-76-015
prepared under Contract No. 68-03-2118 for the Environmental Protection
Agency, August 1976.
17. Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Evaluation of Filter Media for Quantative
Collection of Particulate Matter From Engine Exhaust", Final Report
prepared for Environmental Protection Agency under EPA Contract No.
68-02-1211, March 29, 1977.
18. Internal Memo from Terry L. Ullman to Karl J. Springer, Southwest
Research Institute, Department of Emissions Research, Pallflex vs.
Glass fiber Filter Media, June 1979.
19. Springer, Karl J. , "Characterization of Sulfates, Odor, Smoke, POM
and Particulates From Light and Heavy-Duty Engines - Part IX."
Final Report EPA 460/3-79-007 prepared under Contract 68-03-2417
for the Environmental Protection Agency, June 1979.
117
-------
APPENDIX A
THIRTEEN MODE FTP TEST RESULTS - ALL CONFIGURATIONS
-------
TABLE A-I
i3-Mor>E FEDERAL nitstu EMISSION trcLE 1979
EMMNEi VOIVO TD-ion C DIFSFL
nsTlflb-Ol FUELl FM-HhS-F
BAROMETER 29,IS
PROJECTi]l-SR10-onb DATFl 03/20/81
•>
\
PC f rnNo / I.PM
i
f
i
4
s
u
7
H
M
10
1 1
12
1 3
JfHF -
2 TNTE R ,
?S INTER ,
Sd TNTFW -
»S INTFH -
1 n o INTER ,
I ' ' I F. /
inn PATFD >
»S RATFD -
V RATED t
?S PAfFD >
2 HATED /
roi E >
' SHIP.
/ 14110.
/ IH on ,
/ 1 M (JM .
' mno.
> 14 fid.
' SOO.
' 22im,
' i?^nn.
' 2 2 tin.
' ??UO.
1 20UM ,
' S(lO .
OPS
N X M
I'.
14.
21 7.
439.
bhS.
R79.
0.
778.
5flh.
388.
118.
1 b.
0.
POhER
OBS
KW
.0
2.0
31.8
b4 .4
17.1
128.1
.0
179.4
135,0
B9.4
45, b
3,1
.0
FLOW
KG/MIN
. n20
. 0 b 5
.115
,250
, 3bO
,484
,020
.731
,5bb
,420
,270
.153
.020
ATH
FLOW
KG/MIN
?'.4S
7.15
7.31
7'.Pb
1.01
9.99
2,29
IB. SI
1 b,SS
11.80
12. 9h
11. Sb
2.14
INTAKE
HUMID
C/Kf,
3.1
3.1
3,1
3.1
3.1
3.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1,5
1.5
1.5
NOX
CORR
MCT
.889
,890
,899
,9 1 0
.117
.124
.101
.123
,919
.115
,910
,904
,ini
HC
PPM
4BO,
488.
312,
288,
IBB.
112.
4R8.
100.
120.
13b.
2on,
49b.
49b,
MEASURED
CO CO?
PPM PCT
15?,
231,
131,
HI.
HI.
332,
311.
311.
50b.
112,
311,
srih,
412,
l.bB
1.83
4,2b
b.B9
8,79
10, bl
1.59
8,88
7.52
b,21
4.bO
2.71
l.bB
NOX
PPM
330,
115,
blS,
1200,
IbSO,
1755,
IbO,
1200,
100,
590,
385,
18S,
340,
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC CO NOX
32.
102,
bS,
bb,
SO.
31.
35,
53,
58.
58,
73,
Ibb,
"•
bl,
11,
1 JB ,
83,
55,
183.
15,
31b,
157,
331,
224 ,
333,
55,
bl,
117,
3bb,
778,
12H,
1455,
75,
1794,
1221,
711,
401.
1BO,
b7,
MODE
1
2
9
4
S
b
7
H
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
S
b
7
9
9
10
11
1?
13
("Al. CHLATFD
C.PAMS/KG.FIIFL GRAMS/KW.HP
HC CO
27. S2 SI. 4?
Pb. 1 U 25.14
7,49 20.41
4.42 S.S5
?.11 2.54
1 . 1 h b.29
29. h? 3", 52
1.21 7,22
1.70 13.4?
?.1f) H.27
i fl ! 1 1 3 b .' 3 ?
M.47 4b.93
Mnx HC
qn ,qq ******
'".n4 51.19
42.ni ?.ns
51. HI) 1.01
S K . '» 7 .51
SO. )4 ,?b
b3.91 «***»*
4II.9U .3(1
H S , 9 •{ .S3
F H . 3 ri . b *>
24 . 79 1,59
ll.bl) 48. b 7
Sb,94 ******
CO NOX
****** *****
49,7f| 58, 9)
5,59 11,50
1,29 12,07
.Sb 12,51
1.42 11,29
****** *****
l,7b 10,00
3,39 9,04
3.74 7.99
4,1] 8,80
97. bl 52, bb
****** *****
F/A F/A
DRY
MEAS STOICH
,(JORO ,ObB7
,0091 ,0h87
,0199 ,0b87
,0319 ,0h87
,0401 .ObB7
,04Sb ^Ob87
,n08b ,0b87
,1)397 ,0ti87
,0344 ,0h87
.0285 '.ObB7
,0201 .ObH7
,ni33 .Ob87
,0084 ,ob87
"PHI"
,117
,133
,290
,4fa5
,SB4
,708
,12b
,578
,501
,H5
, JUS
,193
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.983
.182
,9bl
.939
.924
.910
,9H4
.123
.131
.944
.958
.974
.183
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
,0084 5,0
,0090 «,9
,0204 2,3
,0322 ,9
,040b 1,3
,0487 ,1
,0080 •7,0
,0411 3,5
,0351 2.2
,0292 2,5
,0218 4,4
,0133 .3
,0084 .1
POWER
CORR
FACT
,987
,997
,998
,998
1.003
1 ,010
,994
1,055
1 ,042
1,032
1,02?
1.015
,192
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
1.9b7
.274
.233
.221
.223
*****
.232
.241
.273
.317
2,b49
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
,0b7
.080
,080
,Q8n
,080
,080
,0b7
,080
,080
,OBO
,080
,080
,0b7
MODE
1
2
3
4
S
b
7
B
9
in
1 1
12
13
CVCLF COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
Q cur
oon L
O f« f f\
BSHC * RSNOX e n
CORR
. BSFC - n
040 GRAM/KW«HR
mrDAU/i/kj»MR
oKMM/^Hw^R
OPQ rDAUyvbVvHR
,BCi oKflnX"'"'''^
,Bb9 GRAM/KW-HH
,2b9 KG/KW-HR
t
\
t
\
(
(
77b
1 * * D
? in i
C f J 11 i
6O7R
§ U f D
8.855
»H2
GRAM/BHP-HR )
GRA-M/BHP*HR )
GRAM/BHP«HR )
LBS/BHP-HR )
NOX CORRECTION APPLIED
t
-------
TABLE A-2. 13.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1179
ENGINI-i VOLVO TD-100 C DIESEL BAROMETER 2S.OH
TtSTj (lb-02 FUEL I EM-4b5-F PROJEC T | 1 l-5830-l)0b DATEl 03/20/81
i
U)
pnwpH rf|(;l
PCT _ COND /
l
2
3
4
5
t
7
8
1
10
11
12
11
2
?5
SO
75
ino
inn
75
5(1
?5
2
IDI.F /
INTER /
INTER /
INTER /
INTER /
INTER /
IDLE /
RATED /
RATED /
RATED /
RATED /
RAlfn /
IDLE /
'•it
RPH
snn.
141)0.
14 on.
1 400.
1400.
1 4 \) 0 .
5iin.
22on ,
2?uo ,
22nn.
2?on.
22on,
sun.
TnRQUfc
UBS
N * M
U.
18.
221.
441.
bb2.
882.
0.
773.
579.
387.
193.
15.
0.
POWER
OB3
KW
,0
2,b
3?, 4
b4.b
17,11
121,3
.0
178.1
133,4
81,1
44.4
3.1*
,0
MILL
FLOW
KG/MIN
,021
,072
,150
,250
.357
.488
,018
.734
,5b7
,41R
,2b2
, 14b
,021
AIR INTAKt
FI nw HUMID
KG/MIN G/KG
2'. 37 4 b
7'. 13 4
7'. 30 4
7,72 4
8.R5 4
1.17 4
2'.?b 4
18*. 41 4
lb.42 4
14. b2 4
12'. 70 4
11 '. 4 9 4
2.30 4
b
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NOX
CORR
FACT
,102
,101
,110
,111
,924
.131
.885
,117
.112
,90b
,B98
.BIO
,90b
HC
PPM
488,
448,
3,1 h.
280,
204,
128,
480,
112,
124.
128,
23b.
4 ?2,
480,
MEASURED
CO C02
PPM HCT
372.
319,
425,
151,
151,
425,
412,
351,
532,
431,
30b,
425.
385,
I,b3
2,02
4,40
7,07
1,01
10, 9b
1,51
8,88
7,52
b,21
4,4b
2,bO
1,51
NOX
PPM
340,
240,
b45,
1245,
1710,
1785,
340,
1215,
900,
515,
380,
180,
330,
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC CO NOX
37,
14,
bb,
b3,
52,
38,
32,
bO,
bO,
54,
Bb,
157.
37,
5b,
Ibb,
173,
fa8,
75,
228,
54,
357,
481,
355,
215,
271,
51,
75,
14b,
310,
715,
1221,
1455,
b4,
1B10,
1212,
710,
312,
172,
75,
MODE
1
2
i
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MOOF
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
H
1
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GMAMs/Kr.-FUfL f.RAMS/KW.HR DRY
2H
? 1
f
4
2
I
?9
1
1
2
5
17
?1
nr
.R1
. 71
. 3b
,?n
. >4 3
t 28
.03
• ' "
.75
.lb
.45
.11
.1)8
CO
43. 73
38.24
11.17
4,51
3.52
7.79
49.50
8.12
14.15
14.14
13. b8
31.88
.4b.33
NOX
5P.
33.
1»3.
52.
57.
41.
59.
41.
35.
?R.
24.
19.
5H.
B2
R8
19
93
1)3
b;
ni
U
b2
32
18
(• 1)
h7
HC cn NOX MEAS STOICH
****** ****** ***** ,0010 . n b B 7
3b.lH b3,74 5b,4? ,11101 .Ob87
2.05 5.34 12,03 ,0207 ,0b87
,18 1.05 12,21 ,032b .nfa87
.54 .78 12.58 ,0405 ,nh87
,?1 1.7b 11, 2b ,0492 ,0b87
****** ****** ***** ,0081) .Ob 8 7
.34 2,01 10. H ,04nn '.nb87
.45 3,bl 1.08 ,0347 ^Qb87
,bl 3.18 7,17 ,02B7 ,nb87
1.13 4.85 8,82 ,0207 ,0h87
45. Rn 81.17 41,12 ,0]?7 '.0^87
****** ****** ***** ,0092 .Ob87
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-
8SHC + BSNOX B 12,007 GRAM/KW-HR
CHRR. 8SFC - * ,2b2 KG/KW-HR
"PHI"
,130
,147
,301
,474
,590
, Plb
,117
,5H 3
,505
,4J8
,302
,18b
,134
WET HC
CORH,
FACT
.184
.180
,1bO
.937
.121
.907
.984
.123
,934
,944
.959
.175
,984
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
,0082 •8,1
,0100 .1,1
,0210 l.b
,0330 1,4
,0420 3,7
,0502 2,2
,0080 -,b
,0411 2,7
,0351 1,4
,0212 1,7
,0212 2,2
,0127 -.0
,0080 -13,5
POWER
CORR
FACT
.lib
1,004
1,004
l.OOb
1,010
l.Olb
1,001
I,0b3
1,053
1,043
1,033
1,027
1,001
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
l.bbl
,277
.231
,218
,223
*****
,233
,242
,270
,343
3,480
*****
MODAL
HEIGHT
FACTOR
,0b7
,080
,080
,080
,080
,080
,0b7
,080
,080
,080
,080
,080
,0b?
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
1
10
11
1?
13
MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
/ n U Q rDAUyUUD.UD ^
1
(
f
(
ell U 11
• * ~
8.170
8.957
,430
GKAM/BHP*HR )
GRAM/BHP»HR )
GRAM/BHP-HR )
LBS/BHP-HR )
NOX CORRECTION APPLIED
-------
TABLE A-3.
FEOFRAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
EMf.TNEl VOLVO TD-100 C DTE3FL
TESTlOb-ni FUELl FM-HfeS-F
«,„
1
f
1
H
f,
b
7
8
q
10
ll
1 2
1 3
PPA'FR F
S
PC T CDNn
TPLf
? 1 U T F R
?S INTtR
Sll UITFR
75 TNTFR
inn INTFR
TOLE
ino RATED
75 RATFO
SO RATED
?S RATED
I PATFO
IDLF
T. INF
PFHI
/ son.
/ nnn.
/ 1 4 on ,
/ i sun.
/ JHOO.
/ I4un.
/ sun.
/ 28im.
/ 2?on ,
/ 2200 .
/ 2PIIII.
/ en no.
/ sun.
BAROMETER 29.lt
PROJECTl) l-5H30-nOb DATEl 03/20/Kl
TnROUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKt
DBS DBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
N X M Krt KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG
0. .0
14. 2.0
217. 31,8
4 J9. b4 ,4
bbS. 97,4
879. 128,9
n, ,o
77H. 179.4
58b. 135.0
3BR. 89.4
19B. 45. b
Ib. 3.4
n. ,n
,020 2.45
.ObS 7.)5
.145 7.31
.250 7.8b
.31.0 9.01
.484 q.qq
.020 2.29
,731 1 B . S 1
,5bb lb.55
,420 14.BO
,270 12. 9b
.153 11, Sb
.020 2.1*
3,
3.
3.
3.
3,
3.
4 ,5
*,5
4.5
4 ,5
4,5
4.5
4,5
NOX
COKR
FACT
.em
,890
,«qq
,9in
.''H
,9?»
,901
,923
.919
,915
,910
,904
,9ni
MEASURED
HC CO C02 NOX
PPM PPM PCT PPM
480, 452,
488, 239,
312, 439,
288, 191,
188, 111,
112, 332, 1
488, 319,
100, 319,
120, SOb,
13b, 412,
2UO, 319,
49h, SOh,
"»9b, 412,
I,b8 330,
1,B3 195,
4,2b b!5.
b,R9 1200,
B,79 Ib50.
O.bl 1755,
1,59 3bP,
8,88 1200,
7,52 900,
b,21 590,
H.bO 385,
2,71 185,
I,b8 340,
CALCULATED
CRAMS / HOUR
HC CO NOX
32. hi.
102, 99,
b5, 178,
bb, H3,
50, 55,
34. 183.
)S, 45,
53. 317,
58, 458,
SB, J34,
71, 224,
Ibb, 333,
34, 55,
72,
132,
407,
855,
1330,
1575,
84,
1941,
1328,
781,
441,
199,
75,
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
t
7
U
9
10
11
12
13
•
MOOF
i
2
3
4
5
t
7
B
q
10
) 1
12
1 1
f) p A " S / K '
HT _ co
?7.<;2 51 ,4H
ah. 10 25. 3S
7.49 20.4*
4.42 S.Sh
?.1l 2.54
1 . Ib h.?9
?q.Kb 3R.S1
1.^1 7.?2
1.70 13.47
?. 3n 13. ?S
4.49 11.84
1 R. 1 1 3h. 3 3
CALCIH
5-FUFL
t.nt
hi .27 *
1 3, 74
4h. 72
Sh, 9b
bl .bl
S4 ,?S
ATED
GRAMS/KM. HR
HC CO NOX
***** ****** *****
SI. 19 49,71 bb.U
2.05 5,59 12,78
1.03 1.29 13,27
.SI ,5b 13, bS
.2b 1.42 12, ?2
7n, q* ****** ****** *****
44,30
39,09
11.02
?7.2b
?l ,h 7
.30 1.7b 10,83
,43 3.39 9.8H
.bS 3,74 8.74
1.59 4.91 9,b7
4n.fa7 97. bS 58,25
^R.47 4K.95 h?.?! ****** *i**** *****
F/A F/A
DRY
MEAS STOICH
,0080 ',nbB7
,0091 ,nbB7
,0199 ,nb87
,0319 ,0b87
,0401 ,0b87
,04Bb ,nbB7
,OOBb .nb87
,0397 ,0b87
,0344 ,0b87
.0285 ,0b87
,0209 .Ob87
,0113 ,0b87
.OOH4 .01,87
"PHI"
,117
,133
,290
,4fa5
,584
,708
,12b
,578
,5U1
,*15
,305
tl«
.123
WFT HC
CORR
FACT
.983
.982
,9bl
.939
,924
.910
,984
,923
.934
,944
.958
,974
.983
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0084 5,0
,0090 -,9
,U204 2.3
.0328 .9
,040b 1,3
.0487 ,1
,unso »7,B
,0»11 3,5
.0351 2.2
.0292 2.5
,0218 4,4
,0133 .3
.UOB4 .,2
POWER
CORR
FACT
,987
.997
,998
,998
1.003
1.010
,994
1.055
1.042
1.032
1.022
1,015
,992
BSFC
COHR
KG/Krt-HH
*****
I,9h7
,274
.233
.221
,223
*****
.232
.241
.273
.347
2,b49
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
,0b7
,080
,UBO
,080
,080
,080
,0b7
,080
,080
,080
,080
,080
,0b7
MODE
1
I
3
4
5
k
7
8
9
JO
11
1?
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC + B3NOX s 1?
CORR. B3FC « »
040 GRAM/KW-HR
nRQ rDAU/KW^HR
,1109 ij"'^"/""*'''"
,813 GRAM/KM-HR
.853 GRAM/KH-HR
,2b3 KG/KH-HR
f
\
t
\
(
I
(
7 "3 k
2inj
t 3 U C
8.813
9.589
,»32
GRAM/flHP«HR '
GRAM/BHP«HR '
GRAM/BHP-HR !
GHAH/BHP-HR ]
LHS/BHP-HR )
-------
TABLE A-3 (cont'd). U-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1171
EMOINFf VOLVO TD-ion C DIESFL
TEsTjOb-ni FUELl EM-H5-F
Tom njESFl ALCOHOL
MODE
1
2
)
1
5
t
7
8
q
10
1 1
i a
13
FHH PAKT PART
KK/MJN KG/MIM KG/MIN
. n 1 1h .01 Pb .
,nh<;n .IIHSO
. 14 f. 1 .1451 .
. ?5n? ,?5n2 .
. JSifl . ^5iR .
.H R^R .YR1H ,
.niqb . n i ib .
.7101 ,7jn1
. mil, 1 . ^hh 1 ,
.1 ni .^115 .
.Pbqfi ,?b18 .
. 1 5P7 . 1 5?7 .
,nin7 ,0)q?
nonn
nnno
nono
noon
on on
oono
nnno
nono
nonn
noon
nnnn
nono
noon
WATFR
PART
KG/MIN
.nnno
,0000
,0000
,ooon
,0000
,0000
,0000
,i)onu
.nnno
.nono
,0000
.0000
,0000
BAROMETER ?1,15
PROJECTl ll-5830»00h DATEl 03/?0/B1
EQTV. FUEL
DIESFL MOLE
KG/MIN WE
.Ollb 1J,
.nbso 13.
,lt51 13.
,?50? 13,
,351R 13,
,i»818 13,
.Ollb 13,
,7301 13,
,5bhl 13,
,H115 13,
,?b18 13,
,)5?7 13.
.0117 13,
IGHT
B7bH
87bH
R7bH
87bH
87b4
87bt
87b1*
87b4
B7b'«
B7h'»
87b4
R7bH
87b1
HC
KWFT
FACTOR
,1835
,1B33
,1b01
,1310
,1838
,1015
,1Rt3
,15?8
,113b
,1HHt
,1571
.1748
,1B34
Y
WATER
INTAKE
,00b3
,00b3
,00b3
,00b3
,ntlb3
,00b3
,007?
,0072
,0073
,007?
.007?
,007?
,0073
F/A RATIO
MASS
FUEL
,0080
,oon
,0111
,0311
,0401
,048b
,008b
,0317
,0344
,0?85
,0501
,0133
,0084
FUEL
CARBON
,0080
,0011
,0111
,0311
,0401
,048b
,008b
,0317
,0344
,0285
,0?01
,0133
,0084
EOIV,
DIESEL
,0080
,0011
,0111
,0311
,0401
,048b
,D08b
,0317
,0344
,0285
,0201
,0133
,0084
tXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
-------
TABLE A-4. IS-MODI FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLI 1979
Nti VOLVO TO-inn c DJESFI
TFSTI nh-ti? FIJELI f
BAROMETER 29,01
PROJECT|1l'5B30«Onb OATEl 01/20/11
MOOF
I
?
i
H
S
h
7
R
9
10
J 1
1<>
1 )
POWFR tNr, irjr
s^e ^ r>
PfT CMUn / HPM
£
?5
5U
75
[no
i n n
75
50
PS
?
JHLt / 500.
] tin ft / nuo.
IMTFR / UUO.
INffR / IHDn.
I N T fc R / 1 <4 0 fl .
INTER -
TOLE
RATED
RATFl) /
RATFO /
RATF D -
RAfFO /
10LF ,
i no n.
' sun.
' ??OI).
' 2?no.
' ??on.
' ??nn.
' ??.(IO.
' son.
ToRfJHF
OHS
N X H
0.
18.
??1.
mi.
hh?.
HB?.
n.
779.
571.
387.
in.
15.
0.
POWER
ons
KW
.0
2. fa
3?,*
bt ,b
97.0
1?9.3
.0
178.1
133.1
89.1
11.1
3.1
.0
FI/EL
FLOW
KG/MIN
,o?i
,07?
. isn
.250
.357
,188
,01R
.731
,5h7
.lib
.2b?
.lib
.021
AIR IMTAKF.
FLOW HUMID
KT./MIN G/KG
2,37 1 b
7,n 1 ^
7.jn H 5
7,7? 1 5
8.B5 1 5
9,97 1 5
?:?b
18. Hi "
lb.i»2 *
11, b2 *
12.70 »
ll.»9 *
2.30 1
t 1
» 1
t 1
» 1
f 1
1
9
NOX
CORR
FACT
,902
,90J
.110
,119
,1?1
.131
.885
.117
,^12
,10b
.898
.890
,90h
MEASURED
HC en co?
PPM PPM PCT
188. 37?,
HH8, 311,
31b, 125,
280, 159,
2111. 159,
128, 125,
180, 112,
11?. J59,
121, 532.
128, 139,
?3b, 30b,
172, 125,
HBO, 38S,
J,b3
2,02
H.HO
7,n7
9,09
10, 9b
1.51
8,88
7.52
b,21
1,1b
2,bn
1.59
NOX
PPM
J10,
210,
b15,
1215,
1710,
1785,
3HO,
1215,
900,
595,
380,
180,
330,
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUB
HC CO NOX
37,
1«,
bb,
b3,
52,
38,
32,
bO,
bO,
51.
Bb,
157,
37,
Sb,
IbS,
173,
be.
75,
2?8,
51,
357,
H82,
353,
215,
279.
5H,
83,
Ib2,
1P8,
8b!>,
1)21,
libl,
73,
1971,
1329,
780,
13b,
H3,
82,
MODE
1
<•
)
4
5
fa
7
H
9
10
11
12
1 i
>
CALCULATED F/A F/A
"DDE GRAM.s/xG-FurL T.HAMS/KW.HR DRV
HC co NO* HC co NOX MEAS STOICH
i
:
i
H
<,
h
7
a
9
10
11
12
1«
i
?«.RM •*!.
?l . 71 IB.
7. ID H.
H.PM H.
?.*i 3.
I.?" 7.
pi.ni 11.
1 . 1h 8.
1.75 11.
f. IK |H.
5.15 11.
J7.11 11.
?9 , nfl H b ,
75 K5.?3
Pt. 17. SH
17 17, H 7
51 57. bl
5? (,1.7J
79 S3. 37
Si h^.bb
IP 11. HJ
Ih Jl.flH
tH 31 ,??
hR P7.7?
B9 ?.2.n3
J u L U O 1
J H r» T . H 1
****** ****** ***** ,0090 ,nbB7
3b.l7 b3,75 b2,S7 ,0101 ,0b87
2.05 S.3H 13,22 ,0207 .OhB?
.98 1,05 13,39 ,03«b ,ObB7
.51 .78 13. bl ,OH05 .Ob87
.29 1.77 12,10 ,0«»92 ,ObB7
****** ****** ***** ,0080 .Oh87
,J1 2.01 11.08 .0100 .Ob87
.15 3,bl 9,9b ,03H7 ,ObB7
,bl *.1b 8,7b ,n,?8S ,nh87
1.93 1.H5 9.83 ,0207 ,0b87
<»5.80 8], 20 5b.ll .0128 ,ObB7
****** ****** ***** | U 0 9 c ,pbB7
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13"
BSHC + RSNOX « H.OO? GRAM/KW-HR
CORK. BSFC - » ,2bl KG/KH-HR
•PHI"
,131
,117
,301
,H7H
,i90
,71b
,117
,583
,505
.lib
,302
,18b
1 4 U
, 1 31
MODE WE
(
t
\
t
\
I
(
WFT HC
CORR
FACT
.981
.980
,1bO
.937
.^21
.907
.181
.123
.131
.9H*
.959
.175
Q OB
. HBt
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.008? -8,
,0100 «1,
,0210 1,
,0330 1.
.0120 3,
.U502 2,
,0080 .,
.0111 ?,
,0351 1,
,0292 2,
,0212 2,
,0127
nno n • i ^
i u i j o 1 1 • i j v
9
1
b
1
7
2
b
7
H
3
2
0
POhEH
CORR
FACT
,91b
1,001
1,001
l.OOb
1.010
l.Olb
1,001
1.0b3
l.ObS
1.0H3
1,033
1,027
In n i
, Dill
BSFC
COHR
KG/KW.HH
*****
l.bhl
,277
,231
,218
,223
*****
,?33
,21?
,?b9
,313
2,180
*****
MODAL
HEIGHT
FACTOR
,01,7
,osn
,oao
,080
,080
,080
,0b7
,080
,nno
,ORO
.080
,080
ft L. "1
i Ob /
MODE
1
2
3
1
5
b
?
8
9
10
11
ia
1^
3
TGHT FACTORS
.787
811 U 1
0 t ~ 3
8q i a
• • * *
9,700
,130
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP*HR
GRAM/BHP'HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
)
\
J
\
/
)
)
-------
TABLE A-4 (cont'd). 13.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGTNEj VOLVO TO.viin C OUSEL BAROMETER 29,OH
TESTi ob-02 FUELl EM-4h5-F PROJECT ; 1 1.58 30-OOb OATEl 03/20/81
MODE
i
P
3
'4
5
b
7
B
1
J U
1 J
I?
> l*
TOTAL
F'llFl
K G / ^ T N
.0212
,n7?8
, l^n1*
,?Sn2
.35t,fl
.43R3
,niq i
.7311
,5h(,9
.•Us?
,?l-?3
.14^9
,n?J2
OIF Stl.
P4RT
K r, / M i N
.02)2
.0718
. 15ns
.?Sn?
. 35hB
. ^ H B 3
,(U8t
.7319
,5bh9
.^IS?
,?h?3
. 1H51
,n?)2
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
.oouo
.ounn
.nnnn
. u ci n n
.0000
. o o n D
.oonn
.oono
.oonn
.nonn
.oono
.nonn
,nuon
WATFR
PART
KG/MIN
.onnn
,0000
,0000
.oono
,uooo
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,1)000
,0000
,0000
,0000
EQIV.
DIESEL
KG/MIN
.02)2
,0718
,1504
.P508
,3Sb8
,HBR3
.Olfll
,7339
,5bh9
,*157
,?b23
. HSI
.021?
FUEL
MOLF
WEIGHT
13,87b'»
13,B7bH
13,87ht
11,B7bl»
13,87bH
13,H7bH
13,87bH
13,87bt
13,87bt
13,87bt
13,87bt
13,87bi*
13,87faH
HC
KWtT
FACTOR
.SBHO
,980*
,H^9b
,937H
,TP12
,90bb
,S8H3
,9229
,9337
,9HHH
,9592
,9753
.9843
Y
WATER
INTAKE
,0073
,0073
,0073
,0073
,0073
,0073
,00bb
.OOlib
,00bb
,nObb
,00bb
,nobb
,0079
F/A
MASS
FUEL
,0090
,0101
,0207
,032b
,0*05
,0493
,0080
,OHOO
,0347
,0285
,0207
,0128
,0092
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
,0090
,nini
,0207
,032b
,0405
,0492
,0080
,0400
,0347
,0285
,0207
,0128
,0092
EQIV,
DIESEL
,0090
,0101
,0207
,032b
,0405
,0492
,0080
,0400
,0347
,0285
,0207
,0128
,0092
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
-------
TABLE A-5. U.MOOE FFHEHAL nitstL {MISSION CYCLE is;s
INr.lNFj VOLVO in-innC DIESEL » MtTHANOL
TEjT:m-oi Flit i if n
IS HTDC
PROJFCTi H-So44-oni
DATEios/u/an
I
CD
POrtfH fNG INF
MnnF gPrfn
PCT conn / RP'<
l
?
i
H
5
s
7
H
S
10
1 1
1 2
1 9
mi F
! I f" T E R
?5 INIFR
SO INTfO
75 TNTFH
|iill II'TER
HM.E
inn PATEO
75 RATf D
sn RATFO
? S H A T F. 0
? HATtD
.IOLE
/ SJII.
/ nnn.
/ Him.
/ J f uo .
/ nnu.
/ Hun.
/ Sjl'.
/ ?2IJM.
/ P8[in.
/ 2?on.
/ 82UU.
/ 2?IIO.
/ 530.
TiiHijllE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
UBS OHS FLOW FLOW HUMID
N < M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG
II. .0
IS. ?,8
cHS. 35,11
4811. 70,4
7i
-------
TABLE A-5 (cont'd). U.MODE FEDERAL DIESF.L EMISSION CYCLE 1171
ENGINFi VOLVO
TtST|lH-rH
ionc OTESEL + METHANOL
FUEL|EM.Mb5-F
11 BTDC
PROJF.CTlll-SOHH-Oni
OATElOq/U/80
MODE
1
2
3
H
5
t
7
R
q
in
1 1
1 3
1 3
TOTAL
FlIEl
KG/MTN
.ninfl
.nb*h
.Pb?1*
.4<1<;S
. 78-n
i . t nui
.niRfl
1 .5SH
i.iam?
,R??7
.^233
, ? 4 ,-> 1
. .niHR
DIFSFL
PAKT
KT,/MTN
.OlflH
.nb^b
. HI21
.1018
. IM2H
. 1 11 3 8
.niRB
. lam
. 12R 7
. I?t2
. 1 2b3
.1227
.01 8H
ALCOHOL
PAHT
KI-./MIN
,'iono
.nnno
.ibna
,313b
.hfll 1
i .nni i
.ounn
l.tlR2
1.H555
.bIHS
. 3S7D
.lllb
.nono
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
.noon
.0000
.0000
,0000
,nonn
,0000
,0000
,nnno
,0000
,0000
,onoo
,0000
,nono
FQIV'.
DIESEL
KG/MIN
.0188
.nb^h
.1751
.283U
.H1H2
,Sb45
.niRH
.7B77
,hlH1
.HHSb
.3010
,1778
,0)88
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
13,B7b«*
13,87b1*
21 ,2300
25,2>»Sb
27,3tH3
28,5332
13,87bH
28,7b8b
28,052H
2b,75bl«
2t.3503
11,2702
13,B7b1*
HC
KWtT
FACTOR
,1711
,1751
,128b
,R8b3
.BSSt
,8321
.1783
,85bl
,8725
,B1Hi+
,11?b
,1>«bb
,171H
Y
WATER
INTAKE
,0lb1
,01b1
,01b1
,01b1
.Olbl
,01h1
,nibi
,nibi
,01h1
,01b1
,01b1
,01b1
,01b1
F/A
MASS
FUEL
,007H
,0013
,Q3faO
,0bl2
,OBOb
,0181
,0075
,0834
,0723
,0583
,0425
,0223
,0075
RAT
FUF.L
CARBON
,0074
,0013
,03bO
,HbU
,080b
,Q1B1
,0075
,0834
,0723
,0583
,0425
,0223
,0075
10
EQIV,
DIESEL
,0074
,0013
,0241
,0350
,0428
,0505
,0075
,0423
,0375
,031b
,0251
,01b4
,0075
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
17,5000
17,2500
13,3700
1,8800
7,2500
5,2500
17,3700
8,2500
1,b300
11,2500
12,7500
15,2500
J7.3700
-------
TABLE A-6. 13.MODE FEDERAL ojEStL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
inc.INF.iVOLVO Tp-ionc DIFSEL * MJTHANOL 19 BTOC
lt'ST|ii)»n4 FULL! fM«4b5-F PROJECT I 11-5044-001
DATEl 09/19/10
>
I
.„„,
1
t
)
V
5
b
7
B
q
in
1 1
1 1
\ i
P'lrtfH F'T.P.'F
SPF Fli
PCT CO NO / fi P *
ini F / s?"i.
l INTt-H / 14011.
as INTFR / nun.
so I NrF.R / ) 4 un ,
75 I UTE R l 1H (in .
11)0 I^JTEM / 14UI1.
I D|_ F / 525 .
1 nu H * T ED / ??no .
75 RATED / 22UO.
so oAiEO / ??nn.
?s K A T E r> / ? ? u n .
? H4iF.r> / ??un.
TliRcjIlf
nns
N X M
n.
19.
219.
"77.
71b.
95h'.
n.
nai .
h 1 4 .
4 in.
205.
\ b.
0.
POWER
OPS
KW
.0
2.8
35.0
70,')
105.0
1*0.2
.0
189,1
1*1, b
94 ,4
17.2
3.7
.0
FUEL
Fl OH
KG/MIN
,nj9
,nb9
,237
.19?
,79b
1.081
,nis
1.559
1.14b
, 798
,471
.151
.Olfl
MR
FLOW
KG/MIN
2,b2
h.qb
7.?5
8,11
9.R?
11.24
2,53
18. 7b
lb,?4
11, 3b
12. ?b
10, Bl
2.53
INTAKE NOX
HUMID CORR
G/KG FACT
10,9
in, 9
in. 9
in,9
in. 9
10,9
12.3
U.5
11.5
11.5
11,5
11,5
11.5
l.OOb
l.OOb
i.ons
l.on4
1.003
l.ons
1.015
I. 010
1.0)1
1.012
1,013
1 ,011
1.U15
HC
PPM
200.
45b,
700,
440,
148,
44,
17b,
114,
312,
5ni,
blO,
4fa4,
19b.
MEASURED
CO CO?
PPM PCT
30b.
720,
814.
1970,
3444 ,
41Sb,
?bb.
b53.
359,
4b5,
1153.
922,
?«»Zi
l.bfl
2,41
5.19
8,09
9,94
11,12
I,b8
8,90
7.80
b,b3
5,04
2.R1
l.bfl
NOX
PPM
son,
550,
SS5,
710,'
B80,
480,
3WO,
325,
230,
155,
225,
500,
CALCULAHO
GRAMS / HOUR
HC CO NOX
13,
59,
13b,
98,
11,
14 ,
11.
84 ,
155,
209,
220,
131,
13,
41,
235,
rf99 ,
7i2,
U40,
22kb,
33,
kk2,
315,
71l!
509,
37,
109,
29J,
J5b,
405,
SS2,
783,
98,
59fc,
4bb,
282,
U3,
203,
103,
MUDk
1
c!
1
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
CALCULATED
HdDF
1
?
1
s
S
b
7
8
4
10
1 1
) ?
1 1
GP»''S/K(..FUFL
Mr _ rn
11.77 J^.hT 95
1 H . 14 S7.04 71
9. mi ? 1 .til J?S
1.12 3b,50 13
. Bb 9H . 3? 11
. >i ?4 . B5 I ?
in.tn 11,14 91
.90 7.08 b
?.?5 4.59 b
4.17 7. If) 5
7. 7b ?b. 1 9 5
1 4.H 1 55. 9B 22
(1.55 14.09 95
Nnx
.15
.ri9
. 09
. '2
,5'*
i '11
,h8
.3?
.78
.R9
.7J
,?9
.?5
r.RAMS/KH.HR
HC cn NOX
t**«»* ****** *****
21. ?0 84.3? *****
3.R9 B.53 10,17
1 .411 11.17 5,78
..H 15, b? 5.25
.10 Ib.lb S.5B
«»*«** ****** *****
.45 3,50 3,15
1.09 ?.?3 3,29
2.52 1.70 2,99
4.b7 15.71 3,45
3-4.93 13S.bb 54,0?
**tt** ****** *****
F/A F/A
OHY
MEAS STOICH
.0074 '.nb87
.0100 '.nb87
.0310 ,0'''''*
.OKU .1217
,na?o '.J325
,0975 ,1379
,0071 ,0h87
.11841 ^I3qt»
,0714 ,1152
,05b2 .1289
,0390 ,1155
,014? .O7b7
.0072 '.Ob87
CYCLE COMPOSITF USING 13-
BSHC i BSNOX x (,
CORR. RSFC • =
( T t 3 \J*\ r* ' ' / r\ n — l •'»
C J n PDAM/tfW«MR
fSCiJ uKAn/^n»n'»
,?55 GRAM/KW-HR
,b7B GRAM/Krt-HR
,478 KG/KW-HR
"PHI"
,107
,145
,332
,503
,blB
,707
,1U1
,b03
,5^8
,43b
,338
,1B5
.105
HET HC
CORR
FACT
.98?
.974
.933
.88?
.849
.B2b
.981
.859
,877
.897
.9?b
,9b8
.98?
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.OU82 11,8
,0121 21.3
,03b2 9,8
,0b77 10,4
,0895 9,2
,1049 7,b
,008? 15,b
,082b "1,7
,0709 -,7
,0584 3,9
.041? 5,5
,0157 10,9
,008? 13,8
POWER
CORR
FACT
,999
1,004
1,005
1,009
1,017
1,024
1,004
1.0b4
1,051
1,039
1,0?9
1.020
1,003
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW«HR
*****
1,473
,404
.418
,44R
.453
*****
,4b5
,4b2
,488
,585
2, J7b
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
MCTOR
,0b7
,080
,080
,080
,080
,080
,Qb7
.OHO
,OHO
,080
,080
,080
,0b7
MODE
1
t
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE WE.IGHT FACTORS
/ 1 nut rOAU/auo.uD \
l
t
\
t
c
(
*•"•**
71 n p
t 4 U C
l|9B2
.787
nRAM/RHP.HH 1
GR4M/DHP-HR )
GRAM/HhP-HR )
LB3/BHP-HR )
-------
TABLE A-6 (cont d). n-noDE FFDFRAI. DIESEL EMISSION CYTLE
i VOL vo TD-mnr DIFSF.I + MFTHANOL is HTOC
TESTjOl-04 FUELi EM-4b5-F PROJECT j U-50H 4-001
DATEl Oq/jq/BO
MODF
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
q
ID
11
1?
11
TOTil.
FHFl
KG/MTM
.lllql
.ObRb
.?3k5
,49i7
.711, 4
i .nR]*
.0178
i .sspq
1 . l'< i, 3
.7S83
.^jpq
. 1ST 5
, n i B n
HIFSFI
PflHT
KR/MIN
.'Hqi
.HhBb
.lots
. iut.j
. 1 OhU
. 1U4S
,ni?8
. 1 3^b
. 131 ?
. 1 570
.1280
. 12?T
. n i s o
ALCOHOL
PART
KO/MIN
.rmnn
.noon
. 1 .3 1 7
.3855
,bSH3
,q7qn
.nnnn
1.H532
1 .01^7
,b71 9
.3^q
.0?8S
.nono
WATEH
PART
KG/MIN
,onno
,nnno
,ncinu
,oono
,0000
,onnu
,noou
.nooo
,0000
,OUOQ
.0000
.0000
.nono
En TV'.
DTFSFL
KG/MIN
.oiqi
.ObRb
,lb5b
,28^b
.*237
.5550
.017H
,?qob
,59Bb
,H35q
,28h7
,)3bl
,01BO
FUF L
MOLF.
WEIGHT
13,B7bt
ll.B7bH
iO,275b
2
-------
TABLE A-7. 13.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL IWISSIUN CYCLE 1979
VOLVO in-moc OIESEL * MHHAMOL » CATALYST AT is BTDC
TEST|li?-nl
FIIELt EM-Hb5-F
PROJECT I 1 I -5(11 1-00 1
""OF
1
t
5
b
7
fl
q
in
1 1
1?
1 )
PC T
mi
7S
1 ill]
1 nu
75
5d
?S
z
p f'Jf, II'F
SPFF 1;
roi t
I'm R
[MTFR
T '. T F I?
vi nu -
TfHF -
PATfH >
RATEO /
WATED /
W A T F 0 >
RATEn /
IOLF /
/ 51?.
/ lion.
' 1400.
/ lino.
' 1400.
' 5 HI.
PPOO.
' 2?un.
c>ann.
??nn.
' ??un .
' 5 90.
TilRHUK
(IMS
N J M
I'.
21?!
712.
9911.
0.
8?7.
b2H.
414.
20b.
Ib.
0.
POWER
OB3
Ktv
.0
2.8
3b.2
108.8
1H5.2
.0
190. h
1HJ.B
95.1
47.5
3.7
.0
FUEL
FLOW
,01B
,072
^781
1.117
,niB
1 , 57B
1,145
,800
,480
.18?
,niB
AIR
FIOH
KG/MIN
b!
7.
8.
9,
U.
t .
19.
1 b.
1H.
'^f
10.
2.
97
bl
41
90
hi
S I
20
14
»b
42
Bfa
50
INTAKt
HUMID
G/KC.
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
4
4
H
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOX
CORR
FACT
,055
.051
!o?l
,012
,004
,055
.013
.019
,02b
,035
,04b
,055
HC
PPM
IOH|
3h|
22,
10.
12.
13.
*7.
3b.
*3,
bO,
38.
MEASURED
CO C0i»
PPM PCT
is!
in.
133,
bb.
bh.
SB,
lOb,
lOb,
127,
111.
1.78
2, HI
S.WS
7,99
9,94
11, HH
1.73
9,23
8.09
b,89
S.3H
3, 30
1.57
NOX
PPM
140,
550,
845,
135.
440,
b?0 ,
HBO,
150,
285,
270,
335,
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC CO NOX
1.
11.
13,
1,
b,
J.
1.
8,
13,
is!
17,
3.
5,
8S,
3l|
Si.
7k,
a,
bb,
HI.
78,
bfl.
70,
87,
320,
38*.
S14,
b70,
877.
91,
1009,
bbB,
I^J,
298,
244,
MOOF
i
4
b
b
7
B
-1
10
11
12
13
ro
MOOF
i
2
1
4
<;
b
7
B
n
10
11
l i
13
T" T
CALCULATED
GRA"S/KG-FUFL GHAM3/KW.HR
nr _ en
.HO 5.09
4 . IS 19.74
.77 1.73
.?H 1 . In
.19 1 ,?3
.05 J . 14
.70 7.h 7
, nH . 7 n
.11 .72
.51 2. 3b
1.57 b.lb
?,44 _ 15. 1 5
Nnx HC
Ml, IS ******
74 .1 1 b.7K
23. Be .35
lb.99 .1?
ll.?H .Ob
1 l.nB .1)2
R 9.40 ******
IH.bb .0*
9.73 .09
1,79 .15
)H. 34 .31
??, 39 4 ,5b
hl.SH ******
en NOX
****** *****
30,57 *****
,77 10, b4
.54 7,08
.53 b.lb
.43 b,04
****** *****
.35 5,29
.35 4,bB
.82 4.43
1.43 b,27
J8,7b bS,09
****** *****
F/A F/A
DRY
MEAS STOICH
,0071 ,0b87
,0104 ,ObB7
,0358 ,1037
,0h05 .1220
,0800 ,1320
,0974 ,138?
,0073 ,0b87
,0811 ,1314
,0709 ,135?
,05bO .1282
,0391 .1148
,01b9 .0811
,0072 .Ob87
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-
n cur
n5nL
acrn
Pol- If
BSNO
BSHC
CPRR
—
4 BSNOX B b
. BSFC - »
14? rPAUykM^HR
,^TC ufTHn^nn^riri
7bl GRAM/KHvHR
|b45 GRAM/KX.HH
,787 GRAM/KW,HR
,181 KG/KW-HR
"PHI"
,1U3
, 1S2
,345
,49b
,bUb
,704
, 107
,59b
,5?4
,437
,341
,eu?
,1U5
WET HC
CORH
FACT
.981
.175
,9?b
,885
.85?
.827
.981
,R55
,B73
.894
.983
,9b2
.983
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
,0085 20,1
,Ullb 11,1
,0399 11,3
,0b51 7,b
,OBbl 7,b
,1023 5,0
,U083 12,8
,0847 1,9
,0727 2,b
,0594 b,l
,0118 7,0
,0187 10,5
,0075 4,b
POWER
CORK
FACT
,111
,S97
,998
1,000
1,008
1,017
1,001
l.OSb
1,043
1,032
1.021
1.013
,197
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HH
*****
1,553
,44U
,4 lh
,428
,451
*****
,470
,Hbl
,4B9
,594
2.Bb9
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
,Db7
,080
,080
,OBO
,OBO
,080
,0b7
.080
,080
,080
,OHO
,080
,Ub7
MOUE
1
?
3
4
5
b
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
_
C LO
p 3 D O
4.9R7
S.0b3
.79?
PRAM/RHP iju ^
GRAM/BHP*HR )
GRAM/BHP-HR )
GRAM/BHP-HR )
LBS/8HP-HR )
-------
TABLE A-7 (cont'd).
FEDERAL oustl EMISSION cvcit 1979
ENGINE! VULVO TD.UIOC DIESEL + METHANOL * CATALYST AT 19 BTDC
TFsTtnj-01 FIJELl EM-4h5-F PROJECT |] l-S044«oni
DATEl 10/02/80
HOOF
i
2
3
4
5
b
7
B
q
in
11
i f
1 3
i
TOT»L
FUEL
K&/MTN
,ni7R
. n 7 i i
,?bq4
,*rm i
. 78?R
1 . 1 U7
.niQi
1 .S?7b
1 . 1 ^l*q
.PGnS
.«8n3
. \ Hi 7
,nl78
DIF.SFL
PAHT
KT./MIN
.11178
.n?>q
.ins?
. lH7b
.1070
. HIIS
. n i B i
.1371
. 1 31 b
.13)1
. 1 3?8
. 1291)
.(1178
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
.noun
.onnn
,)b37
,3qb5
.b757
1 .0111
.onnn
i .^ns
i .nm
.bbBb
. 1H75
.H537
. n i] o a
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
,onoo
,oonn
,0001)
, U 0 U U
,nnnu
,onno
,ouno
,oono
,onno
,ooou
.oono
,oann
,oono
FQIV'.
DIF.SFL
KG/MIN
.0178
,n?is
,1810
.?qni
,H1RO
,5708
. 0) B 1
.ROOD
.5979
.H39b
,?9?7
,1515
,0178
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
13,B7b1*
13,87bt
ei.1711*
?S,Oi*i|l
S7.17B2
2P,S159
13,87bl*
28,7702
27,8bS3
2b, 3SbO
23,5251
lb, bl)S2
13,87b1
HC
KWET
FACTOR
,980b
,9751
,9259
,8BH8
,BS] 9
,8274
,9812
.BS^b
,873'*
,8qH5
,9233
,9b2t*
,9829
Y
WATER
INTAKE
,ni83
,01B3
,0183
,01H3
,nifl3
,0183
,0183
,0183
,niB3
,0183
,0183
,0183
,0183
F/A RATIO
MAS3
FUEL
,0071
,0104
,0358
,0b05
,0800
,nq7>*
,0073
,OB3l
,0709
,OBbO
,0391
,01h9
,0072
FUEL
CARBON
,0071
.0101*
,0158
,ObOS
,0800
,0974
,0073
,0831
,0709
,05bO
,0391
,0ib9
,0072
EQIV,
DIESEL
,0071
,0104
,0241
,0348
,0427
,0498
,0073
,0421
,0370
,0308
,0238
,0143
,0072
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
18,b3DO
17,b300
13,2500
9,8750
7,2bOO
5,0750
17,b250
8,2500
9,8750
11,2500
J3.12SO
15,7500
17,8750
Ul
-------
TABLE A-8. U.KODF FtntRAL DHSEL MISSION CYCLE 1979
(Nr.lNfi VOLVO TO.inOC DIESEL » MtTHANOL * CATALYST AT 19 BTOC
ns'l'i?-n^ FlltLl EM-Hb5-F PROJECT 1 1 l.SOHH-001
OATtl 10/02/10
>
i
P'V.F w F'lf, 1 UF
MfiDF S
PCI r ii N n
i I nit
t S I NT F P
i ?*> T N T F H
H «;o i N T F r>
S 7"; JNTFR
t |lin INfFP
7 im F
R i nn H A Tfn
q 7b 04TEO
in 5 u w A T t n
1 1 ?S RATFO
12 2 R»TED
i } ir>LF
PI ^ n
/ hPM
/ im
/ 2?MO
/ 2?ilO
/ 22UO
/ 2?UO
/ 510
TnBWlf POWER
CiHS
N X
0
f
. 2H 7
. H 95
7H2
, ISO
(1
B?7
. h20
. "li
20h
lb
i)
DBS
M K« «
.0
2.B
3b,2
. 72 , b
1118.8
1HS.2 1
.0
110, b 1
. 1H2.8 1
15,3
H7.5
3.7
.0
FUEL AIR INTAKE
FLOW FLOW HUMJD
G/MIN KG/»T'J G/KG
.oifl 2.nq 10
,07? b.90 10
,2bb 7,51 1U
,5H B.17 10
,802 9.88 1U
.113 1 l^HH 10
,018 2.H3 10
,572 1B'.9H 10
.151 1 b . 2 1 10
,812 1H.J7 10
,H73 12.30 10
,1H2 10'.71 10
,020 2'.Hh 10
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
.0
,0
.n
,n
."
.0
.n
,n
NOX
CORH
FACT
l.OOH
1,003
,198
, 19H
,191
,989
l.OOH
.992
.993
,115
,99fl
1 ,001
1.U03
MEASURED
HC CO
PPM PPM
lb, 3H,
108, 2bb,
7k. 7H,
38. 11H,
20. 133,
12. 125,
S. 3H,
lb, 80,
28, 95,
HI, lUh,
bb, 159,
72, 13B,
HI, 10b,
C02 NOX
PCT PPM
l.bB 3bO,
2.HH SbO,
5, HI bSfl,
7.5H 790,
9,71 870,
11,00 9bO,
l.bB HHO,
,15 h20,
,99 H90,
,89 355,
,2b 290,
.18 2H5,
I,b2 320,
CALCULATED
GRAMS /
HC CO
li ^
IS, SH,
lb, 21,
10, 5H,
b, b7,
H, 75,
1. •».
S, 80,
It, ".
17, 79,
IS, 102,
21. 71,
3, 15,
HOUR
NOX
77.
3??,
H 1 3,
581 ,
717,
935,
s?,
lOlb,
b95,
H33,
30!) ,
221,
7b,
MODI.
i
t
i
»
s
b
7
8
1
10
11
1?
13
Til CIILATED
MOOF GR»MS/KG-FUFL
MT co
I .17 H.07
2 H. 1*7 ?! .(,7
i .99 I.BO
H .11 1.75
S .12 1 . HO
b .nh 1.12
7 ,SH H .OS
B .10 .as
9 .PO 1.07
10 .15 1 ,b9
11 ,f,B l.bl
12 I.9H 7.2H
H P.5S 1 3.09
NOX
70.17
7H , H5
25, BH
) fl.ll)
I1* ,R9
lH.no
T.RAMS/KW-HR
HC
******
b.95
,HH
.13
.1)5
.03
rn NOX
****** *****
33, b9 *****
.80 11. H2
,75 8,11
, b? b, si
.5] b.HH
Hh.ns ****** ****** *****
i o . 7 ?
10. Oh
8.89
10.73
?0.98
.05
.10
.18
.HI
S.bb
.H2 5,33
.52 H.B7
,R3 H.5H
?.is b.n
?1.IO bl,13
bH,H8 ****** ****** *****
F/A F/»
ORY
MEAS STOICH
,007H j.0b87
,niOh ,0b87
,0357 .1038
,0b2b '.1231
,0820 '.1121
,0182 ,1180
,007H ,ObB7
,OB3B .1312
,0717 ,1350
,0575 ,l28b
,0388 .11*?
,0172 '.0822
,onno .0^87
"PHI*
,107
,15H
, 3HH
,5Ql
,b20
,'18
,108
,b02
.531
,HH7
, 3HO
,aoi
,11'
WET HC
CORR
FACT
,982
,175
,921
,810
,8S»
.833
.182
.BSb
,B75
,81b
.125
,1bt
.183
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
,0080 8,8
.0117 11,2
.0383 7,1
,0b22 «,7
,0850 3.7
.0985 ,3
,0080 fl,l
,0839 ,1
,0718 ,1
,OS9b 3,7
,0410 5,7
,0181 5,5
,0078 -3,3
POWER
CORR
FACT
,115
1,001
1,002
1,005
1,013
1.025
1,009
1.0b2
1.0H7
1,037
l,02b
1,017
,qqq
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW.HR
*****
1.552
,H»1
,*27
,*37
,HH1
*****
,Hbb
,Hb2
,193
.582
2,BbH
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
,l)b7
,080
,neo
,080
,oso
,080
,0b7
,(180
,080
,080
,080
,080
,Db7
MODt
1
2
3
H
5
h
7
8
q
10
11
12
n
CYCLE COMPOSITE MSTNG 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
RSHC
RSCO
PSNO
HSHC
CORR
» BSNOx « 7
, BSFC - s
,lb5 GRAM/KH-HR
,812 GRAM/KH-HR
,121 GRAM/KW.HR
,01H GRAM/KW.HR
,H81 KG/KW-HR
( ,123
( .bb5
( S.lbl
( 5.212
( .791
GRAM/BHP-HR
GfiAM/RHP-HH
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
LBS/BHP-HR
.
-------
TABLE A-8 (corrt'd). n.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINEt VOLVO TD-100C DIESEL + METHANOL + CATALYST AT 19 BTDC
TESTI02-02 FUHl EM-4h5-F PROJECT | H«5044-001 DATEl 10/02/80
MODE
1
2
1
f
5
b
7
fl
9
1 r\
\ 0
1 1
1 S
I 3
TOTaL
FHEl
KG/MTN
.n i a\
.07? I
. 3hl,S
.c;lg^
. Rfl?4
1 . 1 1 Jt
,ni7f»
1 ."5778
1 . 1 5 l 3
.8121
. H 7?9
.18?!
.Hi qfe
DIESEL
PART
KR/MIN
.niflj
.I>7?1
.1U'43
. inhi
.1083
. i o 7 n
.ni7«
. 1 3B9
. 1 335
.1313
.1317
. i sne
. lU 1 b
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
.iinno
.uunn
.it??
.•»ni
.bRHl
i .nobn
. nnnn
i.ta??
1 ,ni78
.ben?
. 3398
.11639
.0000
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.onoo
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,oono
,0000
,nooo
,0000
FOIV*.
DIESEL
KG/MIN
,01Bi
,0721
.17H9
,P9b?
,H?77
,57no
.0178
,79H2
,bO]9
,'*'*l*b
.3R98
,1530
,ni9b
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
13,87bt
13,B7b1*
21,1885
as, 8805
27,2318
28,1b03
13,87bH
58,7201
27,8197
2b,Hm
23.3855
lb,b7'*U
13,87bH
HC
KWET
FACTOR
,9B?2
,9752
,9291
,8901
,85HO
,8335
,9838
,85bS
,8751
,B9Hb
,9250
,9b>tll
,9829
Y
WATER
INTAKE
,nuo
,01bO
,01bO
,QlbO
,01 bO
,01bO
,01bO
,01bO
, f ) 1 b 0
,01bD
,01bO
,01hO
,01bO
F/A
MASS
FUEL
.0071*
,010b
,0357
,Qb2b
,0820
,0982
,0074
,0838
,0717
,0575
,0388
,0172
,0080
RAT
FUEL
CARBON
,0071
,010b
,0357
,0b2b
,0820
,0982
,0074
,0838
,0717
,0575
,0388
,0172
,0000
10
EQIV,
DIESEL
,0074
,0l0b
,0240
,0357
,0437
,0503
,0074
,042b
,0375
,0315
,0238
,0144
,0080
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
19,1250
18,0000
13,7500
9,8750
7,3750
5, 1250
18,1200
8,2500
9,8750
11,2500
13,2500
lb,0000
18,0000
Ul
-------
TABLE A-9. U-MODE FEDERAL niESEl EMISSION cvcu 1979
DIESFU'ETHANOU AT 19 BTDC
F.M.»i,5-F PROJKT I ll-5830«0nt.
VOLVO TD-IOP
TFsTirn-ni
DATEl 10/17/80
pnWFP tNC.INF
MnnE S^FEn
PCT _ COND / RPH
1
2
9
4
<,
b
7
R
9
10
11
12
I 3
j*f.
* MOOF
1
2
3
4
S
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TfHE
J INTER
?5 INTEH
*0 INTER
n JNTIR
110 INTER
IDLE
inn RATED
H RATED
10 RATED
PS RATED
2 BATED
.IDLE
/ HO
/ 1»00
/ HOO
/ mno
/ lino
/ linn
/ MO
/ 22nn
/ 2200
/ 221)0
/ 2?on
/ 2?00
/ 6in
ToRQUf POWER fUU AIR INTAKE
OBS OBS FLO* Fi nw HUMID
N X M Kft KG/MJN KG/MTN G/KG
0. ,U .Old ?'.35 12
1C. 2,b .074 b'.Hh 12
232. 31.0 .198 7.11 12
Hb4f bB.O .407 R.]B 12
, b^b, 102.0 ,B9b S.«9 1?
, 929. I3b,2 ,825 11.08 12
0. ,0 ,020 ? 15 1?
801. 185.0 1.19b 18.71 12
bOI. 138.7 .934 U.71 11
40|. 92.5 .bib 14.15 12
201. 4b.f .43R )e.bb 12
IB. 4,1 .198 IP, 94 12
. 0. ,0 .019 J,3S if
. 1
, 1
1
. 1
. 1
1
. 1
1
1
1
. 1
. 1
, 1
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG. FUEL
MC C0
10,81 35.57
]?.10 51. bS
It, )7 25.78
7,10 48.03
),?? 52.11
, Ib 2b.fio
in. 1 1 30.34
.14 Oo
1.V2 in. 13
5.20 15.14
J3,I2 S^.bS
?l .03 59.29
1 j,?7 31 ,nn
NOX
C.RAMS/KW.HR DRY
HC co NOX MEAS STOICH
***** ****** ****** ***** ,0079 ,nbB7
73. hb
31 ,bb
19. bS
H,Db
17.12
?l.H 93.78 ***** ,0109 'QbB7
t,2^ 8.99 11,04 ,n2«0 ,0m
S.SS 17,25 7, Ob ,0504 ,09bO
,45 18. 2b b,b8 ,0b29 ,1001
.Ob 9,74 b.es ,0754 .1030
95. RO **#••* ****** ***** ,008h '.Ob87
14,04
11 ,60
^.57
q.Jl
1R.42
.1* 3.80 5,45 ,ObH7 ,1038
,b\ 4.09 »,b4 ,05b5 ,1025
E.21 b.44 1.07 ,04b3 .0991
7,4$ ?2.5? 5,29 ,n3Sn .O'HS
bl.39 173. Hb S3,7b ,01H3 .0800
91,51 ****** ****** ***** ,008J .Ob87
"PHI"
,115
,15^
.331
.525
,b2S
.732
,12b
,b23
,551
,4b7
.372
,229
,11'
NOX
CORR
FACT
,0b3
,0bn
.047
,034
,02b
.019
.Ob?
,027
,032
.03R
.041
,055
,0h3
WET HC
CORR
FACT
,982
.1"
.^2
^902
.878
,BbO
,980
J«B1
,894
.910
,930
.9b2
.982
MEASURED
HC CO C02
PPM PPM PCT
17b, 292,
308, b9b.
93b, 837.
752. J792,
IbR. 3881.
24, 2349,
184. 279,
5b, 70b,
184. b39,
504, BOO,
992. 1597,
8)2, 12QR,
208, 2bb,
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
,0079 «,b
.0122 11. b
,0306 9.0
,053b b,4
,0b77 7,b
,0787 4.3
,OOR8 2.0
,0b54 1.1
,0378 2,2
,0488 5,4
,0377 7,b
,0194 b.O
,0082 1,9
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
b * LJ^ _*•_•_•_ • 1 U L t*BAU«bfU_UD / l »« ^ r*B*LijnLm_Ljn
BSHC * R8NOX 8.619 GRAM/KK-HR
CORR. BSFC • .39? KG/KH-HR
1
(
(
(
i . J
-------
TABLE A-9 (cont'd). IB-MHOF FEDERAL DHSEL EMISSION CYCLE
ENGINEi VOLVd TD-100 A PltSF L+FTHANOL AT 19 HTDC
TEST|U3-01 FUELi EM.*b5-F PROJECT | 1 1-5830-OOb
MOOF.
i
i
3
*
5
b
7
B
9
10
U
12
13
l
ToTiL
FilEl
KG/MTN
.Olpi*
,0739
. 1975
,*070
,5959
,8Et;l
v ,02QO
1,19«;S
,93Tb
.bSfcO
,*379
, I97fa
..Pl9'
DIESEL
PART
KG/MIN
.OlB*
.0739
.1005
,10*1
,10t.b
,10(2
,0200
. 1 358
,U70
,128*
.12bb
.12**
.0187
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
,0000
.0000
,0971
.3029
,*«9J
.n<"f
.ooon
1.0597
.SObb
.SJ?b
.3113
.0732
,0000
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,oono
,oono
.DUOU
,0000
,0000
,0000
F-QTV'.
DIF5EL
KG/MIN
.nifl*
,0739
• Ifcl?
,?9S2
.*153
,559*
,0200
,80**
,b359
,*b!3
.3230
,i7nb
,01F7
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
i3.B7b*
13,B7b*
17,2*59
19,7085
2n,b02i
21,Z*b7
13,87b*
21,*287
21,137*
20,3999
19,3*35
ib,2733
)3,87b*
HC
KWfT
FACTOR
,9823
,97*0
,9*lb
,902*
,fl7fl*
.B5S7
,980*
,8811
,89*1
,9097
,9298
t^bl8
,9Blb
Y
WATER
INTAKE
,DJ03
,0203
,0203
,0203
,0203
,n?n3
,0203
,0203
,0203
,0203
,0203
,0203
,0203
DATE! 10/17/HO
F/A
MASS
FUEL
,0079
,0109
,0280
,050*
,0b29
,075*
.OOSb
,0b*7
,05b5
,0*b3
,0350
,0183
,0081
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
,0079
,0109
,0280
,050*
,rib29
,07S*
,OOBb
,0b*7
,05b5
,0*b3
,0350
,0183
,0081
EQIV,
DIESEL
.0079
,o;o9
,0229
,03bS
,0*38
,0511
,D08b
,0*35
,0385
,032b
,025B
.0158
,0081
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
18,b250
18,0000
15,2500
10,0000
7,3750
5,oono
18,0000
8, 3750
9,8750
11 ,b250
13,5000
1 b , 5 1.1 0 0
18,8750
-------
TABLE A-IO.
FEDERAL HIFSEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
VOLVO TD»inn A DIESFL*ETHANOL AT 19 BTOC
TEST|ni-n2 FUEL I fM.4b5»F PROJE CT ll 1-5830-DOb
DATE I 10/22/80
POHFS F NT, INF
MOOE SPFFD
PCT > rOND / PPM
1
H
5
h
7
R
9
in
1 1
1 1
1 3
r
pi
74
i no
inn
75
^0
rt
2
. . .
IDLE ,
INTER -
INTER ,
INTER /
INTER >
INTER /
IDLE i
RATED i
R A T \ 0 /
RATED >
RATFD t
RATED /
IDLE >
' 1400.
' HOP.
I 1400,
' MOO.
' 1400.
' 510.
' 2200.
' 2200,
' 2200.
' 2200.
' 2200.
' *?"n'
TOROUF
OBS
N X M
o'.
ID.
232.
4b4.
b9b.
93h.
0.
807.
b04.
402,
201.
IB,
0.
POWER
OBS
KW
.0
2.b
34,0
bB.O
102,0
137.2
,0
IBfa.O
139,1
92, t
4b,3
H.I
.0
FUEL
Ft OW
Kf./MTN
.019
,5Bb
,R34
.018
1 ,?01
,909
,b7(l
,426
.19]
,019
ATR
FLOW
KG/MIN
7^02
eji7
ll'.50
2,3b
19.18
lb,75
1 4, J 5
12,81
11, 1^
2.3b
INTAKl
HUMID
(V/KC.
8.1
•.1
8.1
8.1
8,1
1,1
8.1
8.1
1,1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
NOX
CORR
FACT
!ibi
|9bB
,9b9
,9b4
,9bB
,9b7
, 9b7
.9bb
,9b&
,9b4
HC
PPM
20B,
312.
944.
784,
240,
\t ,
164 ,
48,
ISO.
184 ,
7bB,
bOB,
184,
MEASURED
CO C02
PPM PCT
279,
b93,
841,
3M5|
2475,
271 ,
720,
hlH,
814,
1555,
1208,
2bb.
s!u
7.71
9,40
11,13
1,81
9,30
8,14
7,07
5,49
3,30
l.bR
NOX
PPM
bis|
725,
BbS,
920,
540,
b40,
440,
320,
220,
230.
510,
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR N(irf
HC CO NOX
11,
18o|
181,
bb,
17,
lit
27,
BB,
IbO,
2hS,
ISO,
12,
2S3,
30b,
970,
17R2 ,
143b,
32,
723.
54b,
b?4,
1011.
b94 ,
3S,
3"!
b9o|
871,
10J,
1049,
b14 ,
400,
233,
21b,
111.
1
•4
b
h
7
a
9
in
11
1 2
1 i
>
I
MODE
1
2
•)
4
5
t
7
R
9
10
11
12
1 3
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GoAHS/KG.FUEl GRAMS/KWp-HR DRY
Hr
JF.bO 33
l?.^9 55
\f.,fl 2S
7,h5 *1
1 ,R7 50
.15 28
m.no ?9
, 17 10
1 ,M 10
1.98 15
?n.41 39
It.hS bO
j P. 85^31
CO
.55
.49
,RO
.09
.73
,• 7»
in?
.no
.52
,bS
.40
.13
NOX
*****
81 ,b5
31.79
21,13
1 9. b4
17.41
94, R2
l».53
Il.b2
9,95
'.is
IB. 79
97,37
HC co NOX MEAS STOJCH
****** ****** ***** .0077 '. 0 h 6 7
2J.3b 97,8? ***** ,OJ09 'ob87
5,30 B.''9 11,08 ,P?7? 0845
2.bb 1*.27 7,34 ,0474 ,0952
,bS 17.47 b.7b .ObOO .0'*'**
.13 10, 4h b,35 ,0711 ,.1059
****** ****** ***** ,0077 .Ob87
',15 3.89 5,b4 ,(lb12 .1041
,bl 3. ^2 »,6b ,0547 ,1021
1.71 b.74 4,32 ,0458 .0993
5.74 Pi, 85 5,04 .0314 ,0935
14.21 170.8? 53, Ob ,017J ^0711
****** ****** ***** ,0081 .Ob87
•PHI*
,113
.iss
.322
,498
,b01
.710
.113
,b08
,53b
,4bl
.357
.219
.118
WFT HC
CORR
FACT
',983
,97fc
.942
,90b
.883
.8b3
.981
.882
.897
.911
,932
,9b3
.983
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MtAS
.0080 3,0
.0120 9,5
.0307 12,7
,0517 9,0
,ObSb 9,1
,0775 b,0
,0089 15,2
,0b53 3,2
,05bb 3,4
,0486 5.9
,03b7 9,8
,0190 9,7
,0082 1,2
POWER
CORR
FACT
.992
,997
,99fl
1,002
1.010
l,01b
1.000
1.05b
1.040
1.030
1.020
1.012
,991
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
1.7b8
.149
,347
.311
.359
** *» *
.3bB
.377
.122
,540
2.791
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
,0b7
,080
,080
,OUO
,080
.PRO
,0b7
,OHO
.080
,080
,080
,080
,0h7
MODI
1
2
)
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
11
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
a»ur i cut retuivb-UD t i tea rDAU/IUD_UD ^
B$HC « MNOX l,4bl GRAM/KW*>HR
CORP. BSFC • ,398 KG/KW*HR
i
t
\
(
(
• f 4
-------
TABLE A-IO (cont'd). U.MODF FEDERAL DHSFL EMISSION CYCLE 1171
ENGINEl VOLVO TD-100 A OIESEL*ETHANOL AT 1 1 BTDC
PROJfCTlll«5B30*OOb
DATEl 10/22/80
MODE
l
2
3
»
5
b
7
8
1
10
11
12
13
TOT^L DIESEL
FUEL PART
KG/MTN KG/MIN
.OlBb .OIBb
,07(,0 ,07bO
,)175 .1005
.lljb ,10b7
.«!8<;5 .1070
,Pm .1083
,nlBl .0181
l.?0*t .13*H
,1oi» ,1301
,bbgB ,12M
,*J»1 .1213
,il}3 ,1*58
.QUO . .0110
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
,0000
.0000
.0171
,38h1
.'OflS
.7252
.0000
1.0710
.7713
.SH04
.J1ST
.Obit
,0000
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
,0000
EQIV.
DIESEL
KG/MIN
.OlRb
,n7bO
,IM7
,»B77
,HOR1
,5b51
.nifii
.BOfll
.bJIB
,1703
,3158
,lb71
,0110
fUfL
MOLE
WEIGHT
13,B7bH
13,B7b>»
17,Pi*«»1
11,5393
2n,«i551
21,?15e
13,67bit
21,'*7bO
«1 ,OHB1
«0,H303
11,1835
Ib.Obll
13,87tH
HC
KWET
FACTOR
,1831
,l75b
,1H?6
,10b5
,8832
,Bb?7
,1810
,8823
,8170
,1111
,1322
,Mb33
,182b
Y
WATER
INTAKE
,0130
,0130
,0130
,0130
,0130
,0130
.0130
,0130
,0110
,0130
,0130
,0130
,0130
F/A
MASS
FUEL
,0077
,0101
,0?7P
,OH7H
.ObOO
,0731
,0077
,0b32
,05H7
,oH*e
,033H
,0173
,0081
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
,0077
,0101
,0272
,0^7*
,ObOO
,0731
,0077
,0b32
,n5H7
,0>»SB
,0331
,0173
,OOB1
EQIV,
DIESEL
,OU77
,0101
,0223
,031*7
.n'+n
,OH1b
.0077
,0i*25
,037*
.0321
,021*1
,0151
,0081
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCtNT
18,b300
17,7500
li*,2500
10,2500
7, 7500
5,2500
17,5000
8.3800
1,8HOO
ll,25on
13,1300
lb.2500
IB.bOPO
-------
TABLE A-ll. 14-''or>F FFmp»i OHSFI fMtsspn rvcif. 1479
l'if,["|. V/ni vn T!) pin A DfFSH. * tTHAWIL + CATALYST AT 11 RTDt
Hst! MH.MI FijFIt FM-ij hb-FF. TH PPiiJlc f I I 1-SR in-niih
DATH ll/Mb/HH
P.I . f u r ' r. '
"ciU r, Pi ^
Pf t rntiii /
i \b. bq, t.
'1 nil , 71?, 1 <)'< , •»
•inn. rt'i. 1J9.P
son, n, , n
FIIU
F 1 Ow
,n?i
,11 7 P
,? i q
.tup
, S9 1
,RJ?
, npq
U piii M1H1 / fPilP. glH. 187. b I.PUq
q 7 S W A r F n /
pi SI. pi t. Tt I) /
'PMII. hill. iHll.h
J?mi. '107. 44.7
.qm
,b7n
MU
Fi.nw
1.K1
7.111
7. HI
R'. 4t
9.1, n
11.1?
1 .Pfi
H.q5
h.bH
t .H?
II PS fc'ATfh / PP'IH. ?'H. *• b , 9 ,TI5 ?.S7
IP p & a T r o /
1 ) P1LF /
>?Mi. IH. 1,1
M:fl. n, ,11
.111
,030
ri.q?
1.71
INTAKE hux
HllMII) fdl.IV HC
(,/Kf. FACT PPM
7,1" ,^11 bjj.
7 , » . 9 ? ; i H n ,
7M qun M 4 M
?!
7,
7 .
7 ,
7,
7,
7,
, q Ml ? b •« ,
i 9S<» HH ,
,Hb? ?»,
.^HS hO,
.IS1* lh.
.MIR h R ,
.IIP iSh,
',1 .9*1 11?,
7,1 ,H?I ibn.
7,1 ,9ph UlR,
CO
PPM
1HO,
»?s.
jqq,
HOS ,
1H9«,
SI?..
171.
141.
IHh,
319,
Iflb,
Illh ,
119,
fiFD
cn?
PCT
3.3b
P. 39
S , 19
7,?5
q , q>»
11 ,»»
1,b 7
q.Ho
8, PH
7,m
b.'jq
?, H*
3,30
NOX
PPM
hJO,
blS,
bhd.
RPS,
10JO,
JObS,
b7S,
71S,
ssn,
190,
jnfl,
?H5.
7?S,
CAICUL
&HAM.S /
HC CO
J. 19.
41, lb?,
91, Ibl,
b7, 377,
?», 5?b,
H. 301,
3. 1?,
9. 13H.
33, 1 i 9 ,
h5, 18H,
107, S>»9,
S?, 195,
b, ?1,
ATtO
MOX
108,
371.
H33,
b3c!,
717.
qq i ,
JOb,
1 ?0 7 ,
7qo,
>»qii,
3?5,
?qh ,
1?7,
MO PI
1
f
i
V
5
t>
7
U
q
J n
1 1
l f
l i
i .... ,..............._.__....-_.... «._._.
M r k\ r.Ui 4TF 1) F/A
° "l)')F r,pM«3/kf,.Hin r,WA^S/KW.HF< DRV
«r f ii !•('> MC en NMX v'F.AS
? 7.S? l^.iil HS.1S R,?? 38, ?b 13, ?b .nplH
3 7.PII IP.?!) IP.Ic1 P. 7? 'l,h| 1?,«»S ,npq7
4 ^.7^ IS.hS ?b,?H ,<17 5,1*? 9, H 8 ,11'IRb
S ,t-7|t.RpPi3.'l7 .pi S.fH 7,h3 ,n(j?l
1. , ) h K.M'l |1,1li .Mb ?,IH 7.1H ,n74n
111 l.h? •• . r> 7 ?.l? .7" l,9h ''t?? ,fIHSb
11 H.MTI pi . P 4 1.TS P.P" 1.1) ^.93 ,Ml?b
IP b.^7 PM.tH 7,|i'> ^,71 M7.RR 7?,7h .IMP?
CYCU r.OMpnSTTF U
F/A
STOICH
,nh87
.100?
• l 'U?
.tlhP7
'.nhR7
"PHI"
,?3H
|sin
,bJ9
.'17
,?39
,bJH
,S'*I
|l7b
,?M1
vI9
*****
|lb9
*.sm
1.91R
*****
MODAL
Ht 1GHT
FACTOR
,0h7
,11 HO
,ORO
.OHO
,0h7
.OHO
!o«o
.OHO
, OHO
,0b7
MODI
1
M
5
b
7
8
q
10
1 1
1?
1 4
SING 1 3-Mfjot WLHiHT FACTORS
/iM/KW-H» ( ,><55 GWAM/RHP-HH 5
AM/KW-HH ( g.P.?1 GRAM/RHP-HH )
AM/KW-HH ( 5,qR7 KKAM/BHP-HH )
AM/Krt-HR ( b,<
-------
TABLE A- 1 I (cont'd).
FFIHUL imsu
cvu f- iq?q
(Nr.TMf; V0| VC.i TP inn A niKSFI. + HUANML » PATAI VST
[Fr,Tj n4-(l) Mlfl; F-H.Hhh-FF.TH PRO.IF Cl ! 1 1 -S H 10-fl
Till M (i [c riF 1 M r "Mill
Hi'inF- MIH PAK1 (>4WT
KI',/"T '•' l< r,/Ml t\ H f, /!•' [ M
1 . Hr10 1 , MPn 1 . Illllll:
P .n7?'4 ,il?P'4 .HIMIO
3 . ? 1 i *
'+ .''4 I 3,H7h4
,11(1 no , I 7R5 1 7,3h41
,nnnn .pqih i9fr.S'm
.('lino ,4Uh 2(l,h?P(l
,01111(1 .Shl3 21 ,28114
,0(1011 .0?q 1 1 3,H7h4
.OII'IO ,R1?7 21,4483
,0il(l|) ,h25q PI ,00h7
.OilOO ,47?8 2(l,33t.O
,0(1(1(1 ,3045 !R,qb33
,0011(1 ,1307 14,1374
.oniin ,n?qi; I3,fl7b4
nr
K^r T
FAC row
.qbfl 1
,q 7hp.
,q4 n
,qi2R
.H?q3
, Rhdfl
,qb5J
,HBP(1
,Hqb2
,qi IP
, q 140
,q 757
,qha?
AT
Oh
Y
14 HTOC
D A T K t 11/Oh/HO
F/A HATH!
rt A T f- R
INT AKt
t
i
,
i
,
,
•
.
t
,
t
,
t
01
111
0)
[1]
IM
111
111
0)
01
01
01
0)
01
q
q
q
q
5
5
5
11
15
15
1 5
IS
15
MASS
F-UFL
. 0 1 h 3
,0104
,02q7
,()4Hb
,0h21
,0740
,01h4
,0h43
,0552
,045b
,0325
,012?
, 0 1 h b
FUH.
CARBON
,OJh3
,0104
,0217
,04Rk
,0h?l
,074(1
,0lb4
,0b43
,0552
,045h
,0325
,01?2
, 0 1 h h
I
QIV,
OIESFiL
•
»
9
•
.
fl
.
•
.
t
t
ff
1
Olb3
0104
0242
0355
0432
0501
01K4
0432
03 7 H
0321
0244
0120
Olhb
tXHAUSI
OXYGtN
PtHChNT
1 b,8800
1 8,2500
14,2500
10,0100
7, 1 300
4 , 7600
17,0000
R , 2 5 0 0
10,0100
11,3700
1 3, 3700
17,b20Q
Ih.BBOO
-------
TABLE A- 12. M
r ii I :l | mil VM Hi
r L \ r ; 'i * *
1 l LI f / r, i... . i. . . fl
," .' M » l» / 1 'll.il . l(< . rJ-.t,
1 ,"•. »'TH.' / 1 '1 MM . r' H. It . r1
« VI t . J H, / | | ^ '1 b b . b 3 , h
', Jr. '. 1 F i* / 1 H '"1 . 7" 1 . 1 II ? . H
1, l nn '• U i/ / M MM . 'i *K . 1 '7 . ?
7 "1 F / VHI . 1' . . fl
H | 1 1 ' 1 U r, t f n / ,» P ' ' ' 1 , K't. IH7.S
•I 7'. i>A ! F n / rVnP, l,ln. ItO.b
in ti « MF 11 / ,Vn'i . Mil 7. q < , '
1 | r-S iJA TF !• / ,'Pnll. ,)IH. Mb,1*
IP ^ •_• A t Hi / P ,> i ' , t . IK. 3.7
11 1 ni f / Sun. ii. , rj
.'OH FMiiPni niFr.FL (rtissTn'« r.Yr.tr iq>«
pifi A riTF.stu « F TMAM.M. * r.Ar*LYSt «r iq HTOC
FHFll FM-»hh-FLTH PNIIJI f,T| 1 1-t.H Jii-nni, OATH I
FHFl »|D If'TAKI; Mix
F i H'M FI nw HUM] n f.npw
Kfi/;'TIJ kf./HfU f./Hf, F»f. T
, 0?fl 1 . Rt q , b , H7S
,n7u b.Ri 'n,
bR, 1Kb,
Ib, 1S4,
tfl, IHb,
Iflfl, iMi>,
ft* , It1,,
S^h , t ?«i ,
Sb. ?!?.
me MOK
PCT PPM
3 , H 0 b J 0 ,
e , 3 s SHI,
S.HO hRO,
B , 1 R R 0 11 ,
ii).e7 qjs.
11, Sb 1080,
J.HII hsn.
q , t o 7io,
H,18 SSS,
7 , 3M H ) 0 ,
S.tl «?S,
j,q? ?HO ,
},3h SRH,
/07/HII
C*LCUL»TI 0
GWAM.S / MfillH
Hf LO N0>
1, IH, «>7,
?7, nn. 4?,-,
HH, 177, til.
bt, ^q, ss<.,
? l , son, 7?s ,
jo, nob, nqj,
3, l'i ^t,
«», ibo, i ibq.
?0, 1 b 7 , R 1 1 ,
MB, 17H , SH /,
qM , i!7H , H? J ,
SJ, ?SH, ?77,
«., ??, 100.
"oni
1
f
i
t
s
b
;
H
q
j n
1 1
1 1
1 3
r f t f. ii| .MF 11
1Jlif>F f.pV" /Kf~,.F llf i i,l'AI'R/K W-HP
nr rn .ifn M( r.n NOx
"
•» .,.4" 11'. >M 7K.t'' III. Ml Sfl,r>fl »*»»»
3 K.)B 1 >4 . M 7 P''.Vl c',^7 S.1H JP.OI
t ^.Sh 11. ""b P'.'IK . 'I 1 t.HO 8, IIS
'j .^KIl.tK 4,t,h .?fl M.R7 7,115
I. .?! ».lr, •».•"< .(« ?.^b 7,?t
H .Ir" ''.f1! K.HV .(i1, ,Pb b,?3
q . 'S ''.''t. t . ^s .It ] . 1 H S,7b
n, i .P'I I.'\P •'.it, .•;! i .R1; *>,Rt
ii i.n ''.HI i.F-1, r1.!!? S.HM H.SR
IP K.»C, IJ.K'I ",'JI P'l.RII tR.bq 71. Rt
CYCI ( rn
...... _
n.SHC i H-Sf.llx =
rn"i'. ILSH: - =
F/A F/A «f r HC
t)PV "PHJ" TOP.H
"FAS STOICH FACT
niCP nUUl ?P1 Qkl
('I|TC B fl " ~ ' t^^^ ( T n /
.I'lOt .nhH7 ,lbl .S7F,
, fl J ) R .oHbb f^h7 .q^H
.nil1; .osbi «^3b ,qo?
.ohsi .mm ,hbi ,R7t,
. 071 l .109? , 7?H .FtSq
MICC nLQJ ?PQ QU1
,II|TT .IIKO/ ,rCT .THJ
, nhsn . i o?q ,bies , RBI
,05hq .|0?l ,S5B ,hTH
.oso1; .nqqq .^UH .qOH
.niRh .nsbs .YOM ,qn
1 1 i L j fif>R7 ? 3 R 9 h fi
xpcisiiF USTNT, i i-wnnf- WFIGHT FA(
Qq^ rOAMyUM — HR f MM*5
l"?llb TBAM K»«-HH f r1 * 191
> q i F, CRAM Kh-HH ( s'qiib
^,'siiq fiwAM/KwIhW ( b'.WH
.tic" KG/KM-HH ( ,b>H
F/A F/A
PC T
CALC MtA3
0 J h ? b ^
,01 1 b 11,3
,0 3»H q,s
.Oljb
)
}
HSFC MfinAl
CflHB f.tl(.HT
Kli/KH-HW FACTUH
***AA Ob7
1 , bib ,f!HO
.ISB .OHO
,3bb .080
.H1* ,OHO
,3S3 ,OHO
***** 11 U?
• wwww | ' l D '
.IbO ,080
, 17H ,ORO
.MSI .OHO
, b f 1 , U fl 11
3.77M ,080
ftft*** n u 3
••••• | M n '
MflOK
P
1
M
S
b
R
q
10
) l
i -i
1 J
-------
TABLE A-12 (cont'd) .u-*
FFPHUI nitsfi MMSSION cvcu
lur, tlvf; Vll| VO TO Kill A MFSF.I + MHAMlL » TATAI.YST AT 19 fiTDC
HM: 114-n? FMtLi FM-4hh-FE.TH Ptfl).
Till .M
Mnnf rut i
KG/MT^
i ,n?7 1
f . n ,>n i
1 .P?ib
4 . H i i (~
5 .hi nS
b ,R 1(1,5
7 . n .' o i
s? \ .? 1 ?5
9 ,T»i J
1 II . 7 HUH
11 . «; n i- *
1 ? . f1 •* •* n
1 ) . n ? q 7
hO
U)
ill f :;H M rnnni
o ft |< T ^ A W 1
Ur/'M''! Kf, />MM
JV7? .11(11111
.n;ni ,ill"in
. Mir, i .\?13
. 1 lit 4 . KIR 7
.HIM? .MM
. 1 ill A . ; * 1 )
,011(10 .5151 2M,55H>*
.nodd ,3hii ii.biqo
.OIIIHI ,?n3() Ih.^t1*?
. onnri ,m^7 M,H7bH
n (: l : i i-5P3(i»u(ib DATt i
HC Y F'/A
KWFT WATER MASS
( AflOR JNTAKt FUFL
,qh ;n ,oj 5t .0151"
,4757 .0151* ,010H
, ^ 3 1 I , 0 I 5 <» ,0318
,q(llh ,015H ,0516
,H753 ,0154 ,0b53
,R5H4 ,0)51+ ,0751
.^blt ,0154 .0)56
,RK15 ,0154 ,0b50
,Rq44 ,0154 ,05b4
,qn?q ,0154 ,0505
,7 ,0154 ,03Hb
,9555 ,0154 ,0?23
,qh?5 ,0154 ,01b3
I 11/07/HO
WAT
FUtL
CARHON
,OI5
-------
TABLE A-13.
FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1179
ENr.lNFt Vt'LVn TD-IOO A D1ESFL*FTHANOL»30PCT WATER
TEST nn. 05-01 FIIELj FM-*b5-F PROJECTlll-5830-OOb
DATEI o3/ob/m
MI, or
l
?
3
t
5
h
7
fl
q
10
1 1
12
1 3
1
•P> MOOF
i
2
3
1
5
h
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
PCT CDND
IfLI
i T N T F R
f S I N T F If
Ml p.TFR
75 IN T F P
Ptn T'JTER
IDLf
in ci RATFO
7S RAU.n
6U RATff)
PS RATFO
? RATIO
_ I OLE
•
t-T.TMF
/ I-PM
/ 5UO.
/ lion.
/ i«nn .
/ Him.
/ 1 1 u n .
/ nun.
/ soo.
/ 221)11.
/ f ? n n .
/ e?2nn.
/ ??uo.
/ t ? 0 U .
/ sun.
CAI cm
r.pAMs/Kf.-FUFL
HT _ co
1 1.1B 31. bl
15.42 bl . Ib
11.77 iR.hh
4. 52 2b,l>l)
1.02 37.1?
1,41 4 b , h7
11. hh 33.11
1.70 1.P9
?.17 2. hi)
3. PI b.Sb
1.11 25. bl
| 7. 79 17. b?
11.11 3^.94
llfIX
TnHOUF POWEH FUEL AIR INTAKE
DBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
a t M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN
o. ,o .11 15 2,11
19. 2,8 ,0b7 b.90
P.iM. 32.7 .212 7.03
lib. bS.1 ,1bb 7.71
b7(J. 98,2 ,735 8,8?
813. 130,9 l.Obfl 10.39
0. ,0 ,015 2.15
111. 187. b 1,578 18.22
bU). llD.b 1.150 15.77
408. 91.1 ,823 13J81
204. 17.0 .190 12.21
17. 3.8 ,155 10. RO
0, .0 ,015 2.14
4TED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KW.HH DRY
HC cn NOX MEAS STOICH
***** ****** ****** ***** ,00b9 .Ob87
75 .94
2?, 51
11. Ob
R. 73
b.43
22. 21* 88,20 ***** ,001B ,0b89
S'.23 8,28 10,03 ,0347 .0811
1.93 11.33 1,73 ,0b01 .OH*
1.3b Ib.bB 3,92 ,0831 .0987
'.bl 2?, 85 3.15 ,1035 .1011
99.03 »«**«* ****** ***** ,0071 ,0b87
h.MI
b.05
5.b7
7. 51
,8b 2.1h 3,08 ,087? .103H
1.07 1.27 2,17 ,0735 ].inU
l.t»1 3,15 2,98 ,0597 ,p18l
S.bl 15,99 1,71 ,0401 .0911
2b.98 43.12 115.45 b5,42 ,0144 ,072b
97. Pb ****** ****** ***** ,0073 ,OhB7
G/KG
b,2
b,1
b,1
5,1
b.B
7,2
b,8
b.B
7,2
'.2
b,1
7.0
7,0
"PHI*
,101
.in
, 310
,503
,b33
,752
,101
,bl 3
,531
,155
,315
.187
,10b
NOX
CORR
FACT
.942
.151
,9sn
,940
.153
.157
.155
,953
.158
,158
,152
.152
.151
WM HC
CORK
FACT
.981
.178
.918
.105
,B77
.858
.185
.871
.rtl?
.908
.933
,9b9
,9BS
MEASURED
HC CO C02
PPM PPM
217, 247,
350, 703,
870, 725,
585, IR77,
525, 3b12,
288, 5503,
208, ?Sb,
215, 111,
330, 211,
IIP, 157,
818, 1220,
bin, BJ5,
212, 2bB,
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
,0075 8,7
,0110 12,8
,0303 5.5
,0501 7,5
.Obbb b,S
,0792 2,7
,0071 3.3
.ObIS 1,8
,05b8 5.2
,0181 7.8
.0311 10. b
,0158 lb.0
,0071 i.b
PCT
1,53
2,20
5,07
7,71
9,bk
11,07
l.SO
1.25
8.28
7. 11*
5,3b
3,00
1,50
NOX
PPM
110,
S3S,
538,
480,
525,
1b5,
IbS,
3bS,
313,
212,
220,
210,
IbO,
POWER
CORR
FACT
,18b
,195
.115
,198
1,00?
l.OOi
,9Bb
1,051
1,033
1.022
1,011
1.009
,981
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC CO
12, 28,
t,?, 21b,
171, 271,
lib, 711.
131, lb3B,
10, 2110,
12. il,
Ibl, 10b,
150, 179,
159, 321,
2h8, 752,
Ib5, 112,
13, 32,
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
1,150
,41b
,428
,118
,4Bb
*****
.480
,475
,511
.bib
2,403
*****
NOX
10,
305,
3?8,
301,
3B5,
"12,
11,
577,
118,
280,
221 ,
251,
11,
MODAL
WEIGHT
f ACTOR
,0b7
,080
,080
,080
,080
,080
,Db7
,080'
,080
,080
,080
,080
,0b7
MOOE
i
t
)
H
s
b
7
B
9
in
11
J t
1 4
MODE
i
2
3
H
5
fa
7
8
1
in
U
15
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13»MQDE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC i ASNOX s b.513 GRAM/KW.HR
CiiRR. B3FC • a ,118 KG/KW-HR
(
(
(
(
C
1 ', 1 0 1
7.191
3.111
1.B59
.811
GRAM/BHP-HR
GRAM/BHP.HR
GRAM/HHP-HR
GRAM/BHP-HR
LB3/BHP-HR
)
)
)
)
)
-------
TABLE A-13 (corrt 'd) . i J-MODK FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1179
ENGINE) VOLVO TD»l()n A nUSEL + ETHANOLMOPCT WATtH
TF3T NO.nS-.01 FUf.Ll EM-tbS-F PROJECT | 1 1-5830-OUb
D»TEi 03/nb/ai
MtiOF
1
?
3
H
5
b
7
n
q
10
H
12
13
Ui
TOUL
FUEl.'
KG/MIN
,nm?
,0ht,9
,2*?2
,*h(,a
.73S3
1 ,nb79
,ni«;?
1 .57«*
1 . 15nl
,B2l*
,tB9b
. 15*7
.nu*
DIFSEL
PART
K G / M I N
.01* ?
,'ihha
. 1 U 2 9
.1107
.me
. less
.0152
.1395
. i 35n
.1319
. i .n 3
. 125U
.015*
ALCDHDL
PAH1
KG/MIN
.nnno
.OOD5
.0975
.2*89
,*3hR
,b598
.nnnn
1 .0072
,710h
,*fl*l
.2*91*
.0208
.0000
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
,0001)
,0002
,OH18
,10b7
,1872
.2828
,nono
,*317
.30*5
.2075
, 10b9
,QU89
,0000
EQIV'.
DIESFL
KG/MtN
. ,ni*7
,nbh5
,lbH*
,2b77
,3RbB
,5*lb
.0152
.7750
.5B33
,*373
.2907
.1 3B1
.015*
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
13.87b*
13,9185
17.2059
19,l*bl
20,31*7
20,8395
13,87bH
21,3233
20,8399
20,1831
18,7289
1*,7H8
13,B7b*
HC
KWET
FACTOR
,98*3
,9779
,9*22
,9053
,8?71
,B575
,98*5
,n?BD
,892*
,9082
,933H
,9b8S
,98tS
Y
WATER
INTAKE
,0099
,0103
,0199
,0319
,0*52
,055b
,0109
,0*93
,0*28
,0357
,0253
,0125
,0112
F/A
MASS
FUEL
,00b9
,0098
,03*7
,0b09
,0839
,1035
,0071
,0872
.0735
,0597
,0*0*
,01**
,0073
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
,00b9
,0097
,0287
,0*b9
,Ob2S
,07bl
,0071
,0b3*
,05*0
,OH*7
,031b
,01 Jb
,0073
EQIV,
DIESEL
,00b9
,0097
,023S
,03*9
,0**1
,0525
,0071
,0*28
,0373
,0317
,02*0
,0129
,0073
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
O.OODO
0,0000
-------
TABLE A-14. 13-wnot FEDE»*I DIEstL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
L'JOIMF | VOLVO TD-lnU A DIESF.l «t THANOL +30PCT WATER
TtST Np, 115-02 FUFLl EM-1b5-F PHOJfCtJ11-5830-OOb
OATEl 3/Ob/il
pr>.-.f i' ^ <>r,\m
PC T CONn / I.P'1
l
?
)
•t
s
h
7
B
q
1 u
1 1
1 ?
1 3
irn.F ,
i 1 N T F W ,
?S IMF B ,
111 THUK ,
75 INTEP -
i no PUf- w ,
IDLE -
i ii (i R A r (• n i
75 R « T E n ,
SO MATED /
i»5 R» TFn t
i HATEO ,
.IDLE ,
1 Sun .
/ 1 "* Mil „
/ ri n n .
> 1 "4 III) .
' non.
' 11UO.
' sun.
' c?2l)0.
> ??on.
' ??Dii.
' /"iN
2
32
b5
98
J JU
187
110
91
1 7
1
,n ,nii
,B ,0b5
.7 ,212
, M , Ihfl
.2 ,73b
.9 1,012
.U .015
,b 1 ,5b9
.b 1.111
,1 . H23
,0 ,190
.0 ,lb9
.0 ..013
AIR
FLOW
KG/MIN
2,19
b.flb
7. in
7,7b
8.R5
10.39
2.15
17.97
15.77
11.23
12.11
1 0.71
INTAKE
&/KG
7.J
7,3
7.1
7.8
7.8
7,b
7.b
7.8
" . 3
8.3
B.3
8.3
8,3
NOX
COBH HC
FAfT PPM
.q7S 2JS,
,971 389,
,9bh 855,
,9bfl 5b5,
,9l,h 500,
,9b? SOU.
,9bh 225 ,
,9ht> 285,
,973 315,
.971 H10,
,97h 8U5,
.979 b80,
,981 2U7,
MEASURED
CO C02
PPM PCT
293,
71h,
7bO,
1H17,
3538,
5501,
2Sb,
H9,
219,
170,
1229,
9Sb,
211,
l.Sfl
2,28
5. 19
7.81
9,bb
10,97
1.51
9,13
8,30
7,00
5,31
3,03
1,52
NDX
PPM
170,
S02,
525,
IhS,
178,
IbO,
175,
350,
300,
230,
205.
237,
105,
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC CO NOX
12,
b5,
IbS,
1 ? 1 •
128,
91 ,
13,
152,
151 ,
Ib2,
2b1,
191 ,
11,
31,
238,
271,
723,
IbOO,
2872,
29,
39k,
172,
310,
7bl,
531.
25.
"2,
?72,
313,
297,
353,
392 ,
IB,
539,
185,
271,
207,
215 ,
MODt
1
?
3
»
5
b
7
B
q
10
1 1
1 1?
U
i
ro
l
2
3
H
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
1 3
TAL CULATED
GP4MS/KG-Fllf L GRAMS/KW.HR
KT to NOX HC Co
ii.n2 3b,?s qi.ns ****** «*»»•*
Ib.hS bH.iS H9.I5 23.19 85,28
i 1 .12 1 9. u 21 .51 5.03 8.19
1.12 25. 71 in. 57 1.H5 1 1.05
1 ,H9 3h.23 7.99 1.30 lb,29
1.15 15, 9 j *>.?b ,b9 21, q1
11.111 32.51 9R,SO ****** ******
1.K2 i.Pil 5,73 .fll 2,11
?.Pb 2.59 5.78 1.07 1.23
1.?7 b.BH 5.19 1.72 3.bl
9.00 25.90 7. 05 5.h2 lb.17
|9.|H 5?.1b 21.22 18.71 133.89
M.11 11.17 R5.22 ****** ******
! • . • •
NOX
*****
97,55
9.57
1,51
3.59
2.99
*****
2.87
2,71
2, 88
1.10
51. Ib
*****
F/A F/A
DRY
MF:AS STOICH
.OObb '.DbB7
, 0 0 q b . n b 8 7
.0311 ,0811
,0b08 .0931
,0838 .098b
,1010 .1027
,0070 ,ObB7
,0880 .1035
,0710 ,1012
,0581 .0981
,0107 .0911
.0159 .0735
.OOhl .Ob87
•PHI»
,09b
.110
.337
,5f)2
,b35
,717
,1U2
,bia
,51h
,115
, 11H
,201
,089
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MOOE WE
Dcur _-_-_-— f i o DC roiu*i/u_UD r
BSHC + H9NOX a b
CORR. BSFC
• 3
go ^3 ijnw^/f\ii^ii'»
,93b GHAM/KW-HK
3OU rDAUyirbhKUD
BcDO laK^^r^"""™
.180 GRAM/KW.HR
.192 KG/KW-HR
1
(
(
hFT HC
CORR
FACT
.983
.977
,911
,901
.877
,85k
.98*1
,87b
,89*
,910
.931
,9bB
,981
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.U07B 17,7
,0113 18.0
,0309 8,9
,0510 8,9
.Ubbl b.l
,0787 b,9
,007h 8,2
,ObS7 2,9
,OS70 9,2
,0173 8.3
,0318 9,1
,Dlb2 9,5
,0071 22,1
POWER
CORK
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FACT
,988
,993
,995
,999
,003
,009
,988
,051
,03b
,027
.017
,012
,989
DSFC
COHR
KG/Krt.HH
*****
1,120
.lib
,130
,119
,173
*****
,17b
,1*7
.511
.bll
2.521
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
,0fa7
,080
,080
,080
,080
,080
,0b7
,ORO
,080
,080
,080
,080
,0b7
MODE
1
2
"i
1
t,
b
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
ICHT FACTORS
1 ui3 ro«u/auD_uo <
A . ^ i j
7.112
J| Q 1
I 1 " t
l.blO
.809
GRAM/BHP-HR )
GRAM/HHP-HR )
LBS/BHP-HR )
-------
TABLE A-14 (cont'd). 13.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
NKi VOL VO TD-lnO * DIESRL + ETHANOL-f 30PCT WATER
TEST NU.nS-02 FUELl EM-HbS-F PROJECT| I I-5BJU-OOb
DAU'I 3/Ob/Hl
TOTAL
MflDF FUEl
KG/MTN
1 ,nU3
f .nbc,5
3 .?4?a
4 ,4bp4
•; ,73u>
b 1 ,04?(l
7 .0 1 i*9
R l.5bq?
1 1 . i Inb
JO ,R?q4
11 .4Hqh
12 . 1 bq3
13 ,n np
DIESEL
PART
K r, / M T N
,01«»3
.Ob55
. 1029
.1107
.) 1 34
. i inn
.U 14 9
. I3b8
. 1295
.1319
,1333
. \ 30R
.0132
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.0000
.oq7s
.2504
.4358
,b58R
.0000
1.002?
,bRb7
.4841
.2494
,02b9
.oonn
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
,OOOD
,0000
.0418
,1073
, J 8bB
,2823
,ooon
,4297
.2943
,2075
.ICJbq
,0115
.00011
EQIV.
DIESEL
KG/MTN
.0143
,0b55
.Ib44
,2bRb
, 3B83
,51b5
.0149
,7b9
-------
APPENDIX B
TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS FROM THE DIESEL CONFIGURATION
-------
TABLE B-l. NOTES CONCERNING TEST RESULTS GIVEN IN APPENDIX B
Test No.
Cold Start
B-2
B-3
B-4
Hot Start
B-5
B-6
B-7
Bus Cycle
B-8
B-9
Notes
Passed statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions.
Passed statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions.
Passed statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions.
Passed statistical requirements,
emissions.
Passed statistical requirements.
emissions.
Passed statistical requirements.
emissions.
Results used for regulated
Results used for regulated
Results used for regulated
Failed statistical requirements, torque r2 = .869. Results
used for regulated emissions.
Passed statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions.
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2.
ENGINE NO.D26
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE 0,0 L(
CVS NO, 10
01 VOLVO DIESEL
0, DID) 1-6
CAROMCTER 745,24 MM ME (29 ,34 If! I1G)
DRY BULB TEMP, 24,4 DEG C(76,0 DEC F)
DAC RESULTS
PAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER Dir r
MM. M20(IN, 1120)
i
U)
['LOWER INLET P MM, I-I2QUN, M20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
KLOUER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD, CU, METRES(SCF)
MC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
11C MASS GRAMS-
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS CRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LD)
KW MR (MP MR)
ESI-IC G/KW MR (G/h'P MR)
DSCO G/KW MR (G/MP MR)
B5C02 D/KW IIR (G/MP MR)
DSNOX G/KW MR (G/HP MR)
ESrC KG/KW MR (LD/MP MR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW MR (IIP MR)
DSI-IC G/KW MR (G/MP MR)
PSCO G/KW MR (G/MP MR)
CSC02 G/XU MR (G/MP MR)
BSNOX C/KW MR (G/MP MR)
DSFC KG/KW MR (LD/MP MR)
10.30 (
1,50 (
4,70 (
962, (
11,92 (
,307 (
13,01)
1,10)
3,57)
717.)
0,89)
,505)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C- TRANS,
PROJECT NO. 11
TEST NO.D26-1
DATE 3/24/01
TIME 1135
OYNQ NO, 5
RUN1
DIESEL EM-46S-T
DAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY > ENGINE-50, PCT t CVS- 72, PCT
ADSQLUTE HUMIDITY 9,0 Gf1/KG< 60,4 GRAINS/UK)
NiiX HUMIDITY
1.0000
1
NYNF
751,0 (29,6)
566,4 (22,3)
50,0 (122,0)
6179,
296,0
300,9 (10627,)
40.3/22/ 40,
G,4/ 2/ 0,
52, 0/1 3/ -49,
,4/13/ 0,
20, O/ 3/ ,32
2,4/ 3/ ,04
11.4/13/ 34,
.7/ 2/ 1,
40,55
32,
47,
,29
33,5
5,53
16,61
1575,2
19,26
,5.1.1 ( 1
1,22 ( 1
4,56 ( 3
13,59 ( 10
1200,97 ( 961
15,76 ( 11
,410 <
2
LANF
751,0 (29,6)
566,4 (22,3)
50,0 (122,0)
6262,
300,0
304,9 (10769.)
32,4/22/ 32,
0,9/ 2/ 9,
36.1/13/ 33,
,1/13/ 0,
24. 6/ 3/ ,40
2.5/ 3/ ,04
14.2/13/ 42.
,9/ 3/ 3,
32.91
24,
32,
,36
39,9
4,19
11,47
2030,3
23,25
,13) ,650 ( 1,43)
,64) 1,95 ( 2,61)
,40) 2,15 ( 1,61)
,14) 5,90 ( 4,40)
,10) 1043,72 ( 770,30)
,75) 11,95 < 0,91)
6S7) ,334 ( ,550)
7,
LAF
751,0 (29,6)
566,4 (22,3)
50,0 (122,0)
6360,
305,0
310.1 (10952,
33.0/22/ 33,
9.0/ 2/ 9.
47.0/13/ 44,
.2/13/ 0.
54, 21 3/ .95
3,2/ 3/ .05
34.7/13/ 104,
.!/ 2/ 0,
14,01
25,
42,
,90
104,0
4.40
15.22
512G.M
61,69
1,629 (
6,02 (
,73 (
2,53 (
051,49 ( 6
10,24 (
,271 (
)
3,59)
0,00)
,54)
t , 00 )
34,95)
7.64)
,4-55)
4
NYN!"
751,!? (29,6)
5/i6,4 (22,3)
50,0 (122,0)
61 99.
297,0
301.0 (10661.)
71.2/22/ 21,
9. 1/ ?..' 9.
19,3/13,' 10.
.1/13/ 0.
16,5/ .V .26
3*1 / ~l / f\£
t -\l -Jf * V-J
11.0/13/ 33,
,7/ 2/ 1.
50,27
12,
17,
,21
32.2
2,14
5,9.7
1170,2
j 1"' , u' fi
'^374 (
1,11 ( 1
1,92 ( 1
5.3f! ( 4
1054,39 ( 7SJ6
16,75 ( 12
,337 (
, 82 )
,4?;
,44)
.01)
.26)
.49)
554)
PARTICIPATE DATA/ TOTAL FOR 4 DAGG
90MM
FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SC,M(GCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TE5T
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW MR
(G/HP MR)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/KG FUEL (G/Lfi FUEL)
,904
1,347
.130
/ "1 '/ ' r "I
\ J i . / W .'
o ; A (i "J >"-, i
u \ * lj ' i *.i i
,4256 t .1931)
PART. G/KW-HR C6/HP-HR) 0.79 (0.59)
20 X 20 FILTERS
CAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
0~> oo { ^ "•'?
c * / u \ L. V -j
-------
r,-/:,!.•.': MOPI.L 01 VOLVO DIEGEL
''';:..;,',•;; o.o it o, CUD 1-6
..: ,'•:;. 10
r.-FOMETLT, 7-13.46 MM I,'G(29,27 IN IIC)
'„(• ::ULD TEMP, 25,0 DEC C(77,0 ULIJ f
TABLE B-3. ENGINE GrtlOGION f.'EGULTS
C-TRANC,
TEST NO.H26-2 RUN1
DAIL 3/25/01
FROJICI
COJ
:-<'G r^suLTc
L'AC WHtCK
[iCGCRIPTION
f.LOWCR PIP P MM, 1120 (IN, 1-120)
r.'LG'U'EP INLET P MM, !I20(IN, M20)
f.-.'.OWEr,' INLET IEMP, DEC, C(HEG, F)
I.'LOU'ER PEVOLUTIONS
TIME rEC'jNIiG
TOTtM. FLUW STB, CU. METREG(GCF)
IIC CAMPLE METER/RANCE/PPM
,'ic IICKCRB METER/RANGE/PPM
CO CAMPLE METER/KANGE/PPM
CO BCKORD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO 2 CAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 I'CKGRC' METER/RANGE/PCT
w NOX SAMPLE ME] ER/RANGE/PPM
i NOX t.'CKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
IIC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO.? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
MC MAGG GRAMS
CO MAD;! CRAMG
C02 MAGG GRAMS
NOX MACS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LIO
KW I!R (IIP MR)
DC! 1C C/KU' MR (G/!,'P HR)
BGCO CAW MR (G/lTP MR)
BDC02 C/KU1 IIR (G/IIP HR)
BGNOX G/KU MR (G/MP HR)
DCFC KG/KW liR (LH/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR) 10,20 (
BSMC G/KU MR (G/IIP MR) 1,67 (
BSCO C/KW IIR (G/IIP HR) 5,04 (
BSC02 G/KU MR (G/HP MR) 957, (
BGNOX G/KU MR (G/IIP HR) 11-60 (
BGFC KG/KW HR (LD/MP MR) ,306 (
13,70)
1,24)
3,76)
714.)
0,65)
,503)
riME i;05 DIESEL EM -46:
DYNO NO. 5 HAG CAAT NO.
RELATIVE HUfJlUTY , ENGINE -52. PCT > CVG-411, PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,6 GM/KG( 73,9 Gfv'AlN5/lJ<) NOX
1 2 A
NYNF LANF LA';
754,4 (29,7) 7a4,4 (29.7) 754,4 (29,7;
584,2 (23,0) 504.2 (23.0) 504,2 (23.0)
49,4 (121,0) 49.4 (321,0) 49,4 (121,0)
6100, 6263, 6369,
296,0 300,0 305,0
300,0 (10597.) 304,1 (10739.) 309,2 (10V21.)
44.7/22/ 45, 32,4/22/ 32, 32,9/22/ 33,
9,0/ 2/ 9, 9,0/ 2/ 9, 0,6/ 2/ ?,
56.6/13/ 54, 37.3/13/ 35, 47.G/13/ 45,
.2/1J,/ 0, ,3/13/ 0. ,2/13/ 0,
19, 7/ 3/ ,32 25, 0/ Z/ ,41 54, ?./ 3/ .95
2,9/ 3/ ,04 2,0/ 3/ .04 2./V 3/ ,04
10.G/13/ 32, 14.0/13/ 42, 34.1/13/ 102,
1,3/ 27 1. 1,1/ 2/ 1. 1,1/ 2/ 1,
43,07 32.7,5 14,01
36. 24. ?:i,
53, 34, 43,
,27 ,37 ,?1
31,0 40,0 101,2
6,21 4,14 4,44
10,41 11,09 15,61
1501.5 2030.6 5154,0
17,70 23,75 59,80
,409 ( 1,00) ,653 ( 1,44) 1,630 ( 3
1,15 ( 1,54) 1,97 ( 2,64) 6,01 ( 8
5,41 ( 4.04) 2,10 ( 1,57) ,74 (
16.05 ( 11,97) 6,04 ( 4,50) 2,60 ( 1
1300,70 ( 975.96) 1034,69 ( 771,57) 057,63 ( 639
15,50 ( 11,56) 12,06 ( 8,99) 9,96 ( 7
,426 ( .701) ,331 ( ,545) ,273 (
[•'ARTICULATE DATA* TOTAL FOR 4 BAQ3
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW GCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KU HR (0/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR GAG FUEL (G/1.B FUEL;
1
iiuKiiuTi c,r. i .oom-
/)
.V>
2J
U
IV
3 !''
?
10
,61)
,06)
,55)
,94)
,53)
,43)
•44D)
,911 (
1,332
, 1297
,4235
4 , ; > ( •> i , () )
9 , 4 ( I '.! 3,0)
62CO.
.:-' 7.0
"-.I (lw.',33,J
,(>/:•?.:/ •::,
, 'V ?' V •
,2/l3/ 17,
»V13/ 0-
, '// j,/ , 2h
,n/ .;/ ,04
..'j/M/ 32,
.'V '.'/ 1.
51' . H'/
13.
37.
30',"0
2,31
5.92
1143.4
17,75
,366 (
1,15 ( 1
2.02 < 1
5,16 ( 3
996,68 ( 743
15,47 ( 11
.319 (
32,19;
< ,0967}
( .1921)
,01)
,54)
.bO)
,05)
.22)
,54)
524)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 0.78 (0.58)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCK(SCF)
83,25 (2940,4)
-------
TABLE B-4.
ENGINE NO.D26
ENGINE MODF.L 01 VOLVO DIESEL
ENGINE 0,0 L.( 0, CID) 1-6
cvs NO, 10
BAROMETER 745,24 MM HG(29,34 IN IIG)
DRY BULB TEMP, 23,3 DEC C(74,0 BEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM, II20(IN, 1120)
BLOWER INLET p MM, H2Q(IN, H20>
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(BL"G, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW GTD, CU. METRES(SCF)
w
I
Ul
HC SAMPLE
IIC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
CO 2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
W.OX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
HETER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METFR/RANGE/PCT
rilLUTION FACTOR
!-!C CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
MDX CONCENTRATION PPM
I-1C MAGG
CO MASS
002 MASS
NOX
FUEL KG (
KW HR (HP
GRAMH
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
DSilC G/KW HR (G/HP MR)
DGCO G/KW HR (G/HP IIR)
DSC02 G/KW IIR (G/MP IIR)
DSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP I-IR)
BSFC KG/KW IIR (LB/IIP I1R)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
I'OTAL KW I-IR (IIP
BSHC
B5CO
BGCfl?
,%'NO'X
BSFC
G/KW
G/KW
R/K'W
G/KW
KG/KW
HR
HR.
HR
I-IR
II R
IIR)
(C/HP
(G/HP
(G/HP
(G/I-IP
.(LB/HP
IIR)
I-IR)
HR)
MR)
IIR)
10.20 (
J ,49 (
4,69 (
951, (
11,03 (
,304 (
13,70)
1 .11)
3-49)
709,)
8,02)
,499)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS,
PROJECT NO, 11--504'4--001
TEST NO,B26"3
BATE 3/26/81
TIME 9 ,'37
DYNO NO, 5
RUN1
DIESEL EM-46S-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY > ENGINE-62, PCT > CVG-52, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11,3 GM/KG( 70,9 GRAING/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1,0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
756,9 (29,0) 756,9 (29, G) 756,9 (29, B)
576,6 (22,7) 576,6 (22,7) 576,6 (22,7)
49,4 (121,0) 49,4 (121,0) 49,4 (121,0)
6179, 6263, 6367,
296,0 300,0 305,0
300,4 ( 10611.) 304,5 (10755.) 309,6 (10934.)
34,7/22/ 35, 31.9/22/ 32, 32,3/22/ 32,
8,2/ 2/ G, 9,0/ 27 9, ?,0/ 2/ 9,
46.9/13/ 44, 36,6/137 34, 47,6/13/ 45,
-5/13/ 0, ,2/13/ 0, ,.1/13/ 0,
19,5/ 3/ ,31 25, I/ 3/ ,41 53, D/ 37 ,94
3,0/ 3/ ,05 3,0/ 3/ ,05 3,17 3/ ,05
11,3/13/ 34, 13,9/137 42, 33,9/137 102,
,77 2/ 1, ,7/27 1, ,9/27 1.
41,75 32,22 14,13
27, 23, 24,
43, 33, 43,
,27 ,36 ,90
33,3 40,9 100,7
4,63 4,07 4,20
14,91 11,67 15,54
1476,4 2034,6 5083,8
19,15 23,05 59,64
,47G ( 1,05) ,652 ( 1,44) 1,615 ( 3
1,16 ( 1,56) 1,95 ( 2,61) 6,04 ( S
3,99 ( 2,90) 2,09 ( 1,56) ,71 (
12,85 ( 9,59) 6,00 ( 4,47) 2,57 ( 1
1273, OG ( 949,34) 1045,92 ( 779.94) 842,32 ( 620
16,51 ( 12,31) 12,26 ( 9,14) 9,38 ( 7
,412 ( ,677) ,335 ( ,551) ,260 (
PARTICULAR DATAr TOTAL FOR 4 BAGG
90MM FILTER
G AMPLE FLOW SCM(GCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KU IIR (G/IIP MR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
756,9 (29,0)
576,6 (22,7)
49.4 (12.1,0)
6200,
297,0
301 ,4 (1.0647, )
09 ( 9/f.) / I-/ ,
0,97 ?./ 9.
19,67137 10,
.3/137 0,
16,37 3/ ,26
3.17 37 ,05
11,27137 33,
,77 27 1,
50,l3C
13.
17,
,21
32 , 0
2.34
6.03
1175,3
18,90
,56) ,376 (
,09) 1,13 ( 1,
,53) 2,07 ( 1,
,92) 5,32 ( 3,
.12) 1035,71 ( 772,
.37) 16,65 ( 12,
440) ,331 ( ,5
,005 ( 31.27)
1,373
.1337 ( ,0997)
-4401 ( ,1996)
S3)
52)
54)
96)
33)
42)
45)
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) 0.85 (0.63)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(GCF)
81.2P (2C70.S)
-------
L'.'CJNE NO.D26
ENGINE MODEL
'.'SINE
VC NC,
0.0
10
LI
01 VOLVO DIESEL
0. CID) 1-6
TABLE B-5. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.D26-1 RUN1
DATE 3/24/01
TIME 2,22
DYNO NO, 5
'\r.C»nER 7-J-J.22 MM I!C(29.30 IN KG)
,":r DULD TEMP. 25,6 DEC C(70,0 DEO D
PROJECT NO, 11
DIESEL EM-465T
CAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY > ENGINE-55, PCT > CVS-72, PCI"
ADSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11,4 GM/KG( 00.0 CRAINS/LD) NOX HUMIDITY C,r, 1,0000
W
|:AG NUMDER
DESCRIPTION
1XOUCR DIF P
IxC'JLR INLET
DI.OUER INLt.1
."LCUER REVOLUTION'S
MME SECONDS
TOT^-L FLW STD. CU, METRES(SCF)
MM, I!20(IN, 1120)
P MM. 1120(IN. 1120)
1EMP, DEC, C(DEG, F)
HC CAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
IK. DC,\GRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO .'.AMPLE METER/RANGC/PPM
CO DCKCRO ,1ETER/RANGE/PPM
r(i: SAMf'LE METER/RANGE/PCT
co 2 IICNGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANCE/PPM
NCX L-CKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
HJLUTION FACTOR
11C CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
11C
CO
CO?
NPY
MASS GRAMS
MASS CRAMS
MASS CRAMS
MASS GRAMS
fUEI. KG (LIO
,VW MR (IIP MR)
DSIIC CAW IIR (G/liP IIR)
DSCO GAU MR (G/ITP MR)
DSC02 G/KW IIR (G/IIP MR)
DSNOX GAU IIR (G/IIP MR)
PSFC KG/KW IIR (LD/IIP MR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 DAGS
TOTAL KW MR (HP IIR)
BSMC GAU MR CO/HP HR)
PSCO G/KW IIR (G/h'P MR)
DSC02 C/KW MR (G/HP HR)
P5NOX C/Mv1 IIR (C/IIP HR>
DSFC KG/KW !IR (LD/ilP IIR)
10,99 (
1,01 (
3,73 (
075, (
10.70 (
.279 (
14,73)
,76)
2,70)
652.)
0,04)
,458)
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
726,4 (23,6) 726,4 (20,6) 726,4 (20,6)
566,4 (22,3) 566,4 (22,3) 566,4 (22,3)
50,0 (122,0) 50.0 (122,0) 50,0 (122,0)
6179, 6262, 6360.
296,0 300,0 305,0
300, a (10623,) 304.0 (10766.) 310,0 (10940.)
L'l.0/22/ 22, 24.0/22/ 25. 2S.9/22/ 29,
9, 1/ ?./ 9, 0.9/ 21 9. 0,3/ 2/ 0.
22.B/13/ 21, 30.3/13/ 20, 56.0/13/ 54.
,6/13/ 1, ,0/1J/ 1, 1.0/13/ 1,
17, 2/ 3/ ,27 23, 9/ 3/ ,39 54, 6/ 3/ ,96
2,0/ 3/ ,04 2.7/ 3/ ,04 2.0/ 3/ ,04
10.G/13/ 32, 13.3/13/ 40, 34.0/13/ 102,
,0/ 2/ 1, ,9/ 2/ 1. l.O/ 2/ 1,
40,09 34,04 13,09
13. 16, 21.
20. 26, 51,
,23 ,35 ,92
31.6 39,2 101,1
2,24 2,04 3,79
6,90 9,34 1C, 43
1200,7 1945,0 5203,0
10,19 22,03 59, 92
,410 ( ,90) ,621 ( 1,37) 1,654 ( 3
1,52 ( 2,04) 2,06 ( 2,76) 6,27 ( 0
1,47 ( 1,10) 1,30 ( 1,03) .60 (
4,53 ( 3,30) 4,54 ( 3,39) 2,94 ( 2
041.01 ( 627,74) 945.30 ( 704,91) 029,64 ( 610
11,96 ( S.92) 11,10 ( 0.27) 9.55 ( 7
.269 ( ,443) ,302 ( ,496) .264 (
PARTICULATE DATA* TOTAL FOR 4 DAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(GCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR C/KG FUEL (C/LB FUEL)
N^r.v'l
?"*6 , 4 i'i-iii!
566, -1 (LV.J)
bO.O (1JJ.O)
6 LCI .
i"~'7 ,0
301. e i, >
JJ.1/2LV ..'1.
o,.?/ :•/ c,
21, 2/1 1; 19,
1,0/13,' 1,
IS,?/ 3/ ..::-
2,6/ 3/ .04
10.4/13/ 31,
.O/ 21 1,
52.19
13.
1C,
,21
30,3
2,27
6,29
1101,7
17,52
,65) ,370 (
,41) 1,13 ( 1
,45) 2,00 ( 1
,19) 5,5S ( 4
,67) 1041,32 ( 776
,12) 15,44 ( 11
434) ,333 (
,944 ( 33,34;
1,290
,1174 ( ,0075)
.4211 ( ,1910)
,03)
,52)
,47)
,14)
,56)
,51;
540)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 0.67 (0.50)
20 X 20 PILTERG
SAMPLE FLOW
CCH(CCF)
83.C7 (2924.0)
-------
TABLE B-6.
ENGINE NO,D26
ENGINE MODEt
ENGINE 0,0 L(
CUB NO, 10
01 VOLVO DIESEL
0, CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 742.95 MM HG(29,25 IN KG)
DRY BULK TEMP, 25.0 DEC C(77,0 DEC! F)
E'AG RESULTS
DAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DLOWER DIP p
MM, H20(IN, 1-120)
H20(IN, H20)
PEG, C(DEG, F)
BLOWER INLET F' MM,
BLOIv'ER INLET TEMP,
DLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD, CU, METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
Cf)2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
W NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
_^i NOX DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LE)
KW IIR (IIP MR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP MR)
DSCO G/KW IIR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW MR (G/IIP MR)
DSNOX G./NU HR (G/IIP MR)
DSFC KG/KW MR (LD/IIP IIR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW IIR (IIP MR)
10,52 ( 14,11)
BSHC
DSCO
DSCO?
DSNOX
DSFC
PART.
G/KU MR
G/KW MR
G/KU MR
G/KW IIR
KG/KW IIR
G/KW-HR
(G/HP HR)
(G/HP HR)
(0/1 IP IIR)
(G/IIP HR)
(LD/IIP MR)
(G/HP-HR)
1.10 (
3,94 (
092, (
11, 14 (
.20-1 (
0.68 (0
,02)
2,94)
665.)
G.31)
,460)
.5!)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
TEST NO.H26-2 RUN1
DATE 3/25/01
TIME 1152
DYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
DIESEL EM--465-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-52, PCT , CVS-42, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,6 DM/KG( 73,9 GRAINS/IB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F. 1,0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
754,4 (29,7) 754,4 (29,7) 754,4 <29,7)
534,2 (23,0) 504.2 (23,0) 504,2 (23,0)
49,4 (121,0) 49,4 (121,0) 49,4 (121,0)
6179, 6263, 6369,
296,0 300,0 305,0
299,8 (10509.) 303,9 (10733,) 309.0 (10914,)
23,3/22/ 23, 25.0/22/ 25, 31,0/227 31,
9,2/ 2/ 9. 9,0/ 2/ 9, 0,9/ 2/ 9,
21.9/13/ 20, 30,0/13/ 28, 56,2/13/ 54,
,1/13/ 0, ,4/13/ 0, .3/137 0,
15,77 3/ ,25 23,77 3/ ,39 53, 4/ 3/ ,93
2,6/ 3/ ,04 2,3/ 3/ ,04 2,4/ 3/ ,04
10,1/137 30, 13.6/13/ 41. 33.7/13/ 101,
1,1/ 2/ 1, 1,0/ 2/ 1. 1,47 2/ 1,
52,01 34,34 14,24
14, 16, 23.
20, 27, 52,
,21 ,35 ,90
29,3 39,9 99,7
2,46 2,84 4,05
6,81 9,43 10,56
1155,4 1953,0 5007,2
16,79 23,21 58,93
,370 ( ,82) ,623 ( 1,37) 1,618 (
1,20 ( 1.61) 2,02 ( 2,71) 6,12 (
2,06 ( 1,53) 1,41 ( 1,05) ,66 (
5,69 ( 4,24) 4,67 ( 3,40) 3,03 (
965,19 ( 719,74) 966,76 ( 720,91) 030,88 ( 61
14,03 ( 10,46) 11,49 ( 0,57) 9,62 (
,309 ( ,508) ,309 ( ,507) ,264 (
PARTICIPATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER-
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KU MR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
A
NYNF'
754,4 (29,7)
584,2 (23.0)
49,4 (121,0)
6200.
297,0
300,8 (10625.)
21.5/22/ 21,
3,77 2/ 9.
21.9/.13/ 2o,
.6/13/ J.
15, 7/ 3/ ,25
2,2/ 3/ ,03
11.0/13/ 33,
l.l/ 2/ 1.
52,65
13,
19.
,22
31, G
2,25
6,60
1192.6
18,30
3 57) ,382 (
8 21) 1.10 ( J
49) 1,90 ( 1
2 26) 5,64 ( 4
9 59) 1006,74 ( 750
7 10) 15.44 ( 11
,434) ,322 (
.940 < 33.4?)
1 , 280
.1216 ( .0707)
,4276 < .1939)
,04)
,59)
, 4.1 )
,21)
,73)
,52)
530)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
F.U.,30 (2942,0)
-------
TABLE B-7.
w
03
NO.nPA
MOFCL 01 VOLVO DIESEL
' VHIMC 0,0 L( 0. CID) I- 6
''.'J::> NO. 10
Mp.nmnrR 745.24 MM HG(29,34 IN HO
r-'a rUJlfl TEMP, 25.0 DEO C(77,0 DEC F)
'••ni? RESULTS
I'.'iH NUMPCR
nrr r MM, H20(iN, 1120)
FH.flWCR JWIITT P HM, H20(IN, 1120)
m..ou.rR TNLCT TCMP. DEG, CXBEG, F)
MOWER Rp.'CiLunoNr.
TOTAL n.OW Sin. CM, METRES(SCF)
,'ir SAMPLE MF.TER/RANGE/PPM
HP HCKGRP METFR/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPI.F MFTER/RANGE/PPM
CO DCKGRP METFR/RANGE/PPM
f.02 SAMPLE MFTER/RANGF/PCT
C02 HCKBRD MfTTCR/RANGII/PCT
NO.V SAMPl F MFTER/RANGE/PPM
METFR/RANGfl/PPM
PILlirTON FACTOR
HC CnNCrNTRATION PPM
nn nowct'NTRATinN PPM
CO? CONCflNTRATION PCT
MX rONi-FNTRATION PPM
Hf: MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMD
nn? MADS GRAMS
NflX MASS fiRAMG
FUC! KG (I-D)
KW MR (IIP !!R)
FiPJIC G/KW JIR (G/IIP I!R)
r
nnnoa G/MJ IIR (G/HP MR)
BSNOX G/KW MR (G/IIP MR)
PBFC KB/KU IIR (ID/IIP MR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
FOTAI. KW MR (IIP
KSHC
B5CO
B3CQ2
BSNOX
8SFC
PART.
G/KU HR
G/KU IIR
G/KW IIR
B/KH HR
KG/KW IIR
G/KW-HR
MR)
(G/IIP MR)
(G/MP HR)
(C/MP MR)
(G/MP IIR)
(LD/HP IIR)
10.10 (
1.11 (
4,02 (
910, (
11. U (
,270 (
C6/HP-HR) 0.7O CO
13,55)
,83)
3.00)
679.)
0.47)
,477)
.52)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
PROJECT NO. 11 5044-001
TEST NO.D2A-3
DATE 3/26/01
TIME 10J20
DYNO NO. 5
RUN!
DICGEL EM 465-T
DAG CART NO, I
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-53. PCT . CVS-52, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,7 CM/KG( 75,1 GRAINS/LD) NOX HUMIDITY C.F,
.0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
756,9 (29,8) 756,9 (29.8) 756,9 (29,8)
576.6 (22,7) 576,6 (22,7) 576,6 (22.7)
49,4 (121,0) 49,4 (121,0) 49,4 (121,0)
6179, 6263, 6360,
296,0 300,0 ;505.0
300,4 ( 10600,) 304,4 (10753.) 309,5 (10933.)
21.S/22/ 22. 24.S/22/ 25, 23.0/22/ 29.
9,0/ 2/ 9, 8,3/ 2/ B, 7,9/ 2/ 0,
22.3/13/ 20, 30.2/13/ 28, 54.4/13/ 52.
•1/13/ 0, ,1/13/ 0, .1/13/ 0,
15, 9/ 3/ ,25 23, 6/ 3/ ,38 53, 5/ 3/ ,93
3, I/ 3/ ,05 2,9/ 3/ ,04 3, I/ 3/ ,05
9.7/13/ 29, 13.1/13/ 39, 32.7/13/ 98,
,0/12/ 0, ,7/2/1, ,8/2/1,
52.15 34,49 14,21
13. 16, 21,
20, 27, 50,
.21 ,34 ,G9
29,2 38,6 97,3
2,25 2,89 3,83
6,93 9,57 17,94
1134,3 1096,9 5050,1
16,75 22,50 57,60
,363 ( ,80) ,606 ( 1,34) 1,605 ( 3
1.06 ( 1,42) 1,93 ( 2.59) 6,05 ( 0
2.13 ( 1.59) 1,50 ( 1,12) ,63 (
6.54 ( 4,87) 4,95 ( 3,69) 2,97 ( 2
1070,14 ( 798,01) 901,40 ( 731,83) 035,01 ( 622
15,fll ( 11.79) 11.64 ( 0,68) 9,52 ( 7
,343 ( ,564) ,313 ( ,515) ,265 (
PARTICIPATE DATA. TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90HM TILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCH(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW MR (G/HP MR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
4
NYNf
756.9 (29,0)
576,6 C??,7>
49.4 (121 ,0)
6199.
297,0
301,3 (10643.)
20./1/22/ 21,
7,0/ 2/ 0,
19.9/13/ 13,
,t/13/ 0,
15. O/ 3/ ,25
3,3/ 3/ ,05
10, A/13/ 32.
,7/ 2/ 1,
52,56
13,
10,
,20
31,0
2.2S
6,19
1112.0
17,88
,54) ,356 (
,11) 1,06 ( 1
,47) 2,12 ( 1
,21) 5,04 ( 4
.67) 1049,13 ( 782
.10) 16,07 ( 12
,78)
,42)
,50)
,35)
,34)
.58)
436) ,336 ( ,552)
,073 ( 30,82)
1,393
,1379 ( ,1029)
.4754 ( ,2156)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCH(SCF)
81.00 (2061,0)
-------
TABLE B-8.
ENGINE NO.D26
ENGINE MODEL.
ENGINE 0,0 L(
CVS NO, 1.0
01 VOLVO DIESEL
0, CID) 1-6
BAROMETER 742,44 MM HG(29,23 IN HG)
PRY BULB .TEMP. 22.0 DEG C(73,0 DEO E)
DAP RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER
BLOWER
m nur.o
DIE P MM. 1120(IN, 1-120)
INI F:T P MM, I!20(IN, H20)
INLET TEMP, DEG. C(DEG. E)
FLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FI..OW STD, CU, METRES (SCE)
HC,
HC
CO
CO
SAMP1.F HETER/RANOE/PPM
BCKORfi METER/RANGE/PPM
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
DCKGRD MFTFR/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
CO? BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
W NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
^ NQX CCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS-
FUEL KG (LD)
KW HR (HP IIR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO 0/KW HR (0/1 IP HR)
I'lSCn? G/KW HR (G/HP IIR)
BHNOX G/KW IIR (G/HP IIR)
nSEC KG/KW IIR (LiVIIP IIR)
TOTAL TEST RESI.II TS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KW MR (HP
BSHC
ffSCO
P5CD2
FCNOX
fiSEC
G/KU
G/KW
G/KW
G/KW
KG/KW
IIR
HR
HR
HR
IIR
HR )
(d/UP
(G/HP
(G/HP
(G/HP
(LB/H
IIR)
HR)
HR)
IIR)
P HR)
4,63 (
1 .32 <
4,75 (
936, (
12,08 (
,299 (
6,20)
,99)
3,54)
690.)
9,01)
,471)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
TEST NO,D26-1 R'UNl
DATE 3/25/31
TIME 2J30
DYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
DIESEL EM-4^5--E
BAG CART NO, J.
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE- -59, PCT » CVC-42. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,5 GM/KG( 73,4 CRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1.0000
1
754.4 (29,7)
5C4.2 (23,0)
49,4 (121,0)
5697,
272,9
275,8 ( 9742.)
754,
504.
,4 (29,7)
,2 (23,0)
49,4 (121,0)
6010,
207,9
291,0 (10277.)
754,4 (29.7)
504,2 (23,0)
49,4 (121,0)
5693,
272.7
275,6 ( 9735.)
22..1./22/
8,3/ 2/
26, 4/137
,4/13/
10, 3/ 3/
2,0/ 37
9,5/137
,97 2/
45,05
14,
23,
,25
27,6
2,23
7.50
1268,0
.1.4,57
,406
1 , 2'-1
1,02
6.14
1037,59
11,92
,332
22,
O
U 4
24,
0,
,29
,04
20,
1,
(
(
(
(
( 77
(
(
,89)
1,64)
1,36)
4,58)
3,73)
0,09)
,546)
19.9/22/
9,0/ ?./
24.3/137
.3/137
22,47 3/
2,7/ 3/
15,3/137
,9/ 2/
36 , 53
11,
21,
,32
45.0
1 , 06
7,28
1715,4
25,07
,547
1,97
,95
3 , 70
072, IB
12,72
.270
20,
9,
22,
0,
.36
,04
46,
1,
( 1
f 1
\ «U
(
( 2
( 650
( 9
( i
,21)
,64)
,71)
,76)
,39)
,49)
457)
21.3/22/
8,0/ 2/
25,3/13/
,3/137
19,27 3/
2,87 37
10,6/137
,9/ 2/
4-2.8S
13,
no
t*.ji- *
,27
30,8
2,03
7,20
1344,0
16,24
, 42?
1,43
1,41
5,02
937,20
11,33
,299
21,
-\
) i
23.
0.
,31
,04
32,
1,
(
(
(
(
( 69
(
(
,95)
1,92)
1,05)
3,74)
0,07)
0,45)
-492)
PARTICIPATE DATA, TOTAL EOR 3
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 0.83 (0.62)
90MM FILTER-
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER EOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SCM(SCE)
G/TEST
G/KU HR (G/MP HR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
,2774
( 23,02)
.?orn)
4240)
SCM(SCF)
1
5S.75 (2004,4)
-------
TABLE B-9.
NO,H26
MOHEI 0) VOLVO DIESEL
0,0 L( 0, CID) 1-6
fVfi NO, 10
HAROMETER 711,68 MM HG(29,20 IN no
DRY :
-------
APPENDIX C
TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS FROM THE METHANOL CONFIGURATION
-------
TABLE C-l. NOTES CONCERNING TEST RESULTS GIVEN IN APPENDIX C
Table No.
Cold Start
C-2
Notes
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
Hot Start
C-9
C-10
C-ll
C-12
C-13
Uncertain if throttle return spring was connected - this
would have allowed the throttle to close slower. Passed
statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions.
Broken throttle return spring was noted prior to run -
replaced spring. Failed statistical requirements, torque
intercept - 16.7 indicating that engine was being motored
during idle. Results used for regulated emissions. NOx
by bag measurement was 7.52 g/kW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept - 17.7
Results used for regulated emissions. NC^ by bag measurement
was 7.40 g/kW-hr. NOX emission estimated to be 7.57 g/kW-hr
on the basis of bag NOx measurements.
Additional runs were made to optimize dynamometer/engine
control prior to this test. Passed statistical requirements.
Results used for regulated emissions. NOX by bag measurement
was 7.02 g/kW-hr.
Passed statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions.
This test was conducted much later for additional unregulated
chemistry data and required the use of a 100K TQ meter.
Results not used for regulated emissions. Failed statistical
requirements, torque, and power slope were -23 and 5.2 respec-
tively. Actual power more than 15 percent below cycle power.
Passed statistical requirements but actual power was more
than 15 percent below cycle power. Results not used for
regulated emissions. Particulate emission void.
Same as C-2.
Passed statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions. NOX bag measurement was 7.29 g/kW-hr.
Passed statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions. Particulate not taken. NOX by bag measurement
was 7.09 g/kw-hr. NOX emission estimated to be 7.24 g/kW-hr
on the basis of bag NOx rneasurement.
Same as C-5.
Sarc as C-5.
C-2
-------
TABLE C-1.(CONT'D). NOTES CONCERNING TEST RESULTS GIVEN IN APPENDIX C
Table No. Notes
C-14 Same as C-7, but passed statistical requirements.
C-15 Same as C-7, but passed statistical requirements. Results
not used for regulated emissions.
Bus Cycle
C-lb Same as C-2. NOx by bag measurement was 9.65 g/kW-hr.
C-17 Same as C-2. NOx by bag measurement was 9.89 g/kW-hr.
C-18 Failed statistical requirements, torque and R2 were low.
Results used for regulated emissions. NOx by bag measure-
ment was 8.45 g/kW-hr.
C-19 NO statistical data. Results used for regulated emissions.
C-20 Failed statistical requirements, torque R2 1.4 percent low,
Actual power more than 15 percent below cycle power. Results
not used for regulated emissions. NOX by bag measurement
was 9.26 g/kW-hr.
C-3
-------
TABLE C-2.
ENGINE NO.D?0
ENGINE MODEL 80
ENGINE 9.6 L(586.
CVS NO. 10
VOLVO DUAL
CID) L-6
FUEL
BAROMFTFR 740.66 MM HG(29.16 IN HG)
DRY UULH TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEC F)
HAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DTF * MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOUER INLET P MM. H20CIN. H20)
RLOVFR INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TI1E SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
coa
n
i
SAMPLF
OCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
COZ HCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX IKKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPN
.1ETER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
NF TER/RANGE/PPN
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
ME TER/RANGE/PPM
HE TER/RANGE/PPH
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU HR (HP H
-------
TABLE C-3.
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 LC586. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 740.92 MM HGC29.17 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.7 DE6 CC80.0 OEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN- H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. HETRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
O NOX SAMPLE
I NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPH
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPH
CO CONCENTRATION PPH
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR C6/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX 6/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC 6/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 6/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
10.78 ( 14.46)
2.19 ( 1.63)
11.25 ( 8.39)
941. ( 702.)
7.73 ( 5.77)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .567 ( .932)
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .44 (.33)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
COLD TRANSIENT
TEST NO.20-2 RUN
DATE 9/23/80
TIME 09:25
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-D01
DIESEL EN-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-50. PCT , CVS-55. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.1 6H/KG( 77.6 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
673.1 (26.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6181.
296.0
296.0 (10454.)
2
LANF
673.1 (26.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6264.
300.0
300-0 (10594.)
3
LAF
673.1 (26.5)
523.2 (Z0.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6371.
305.0
305.1 (10775.)
4
NYNF
673.1 (26.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120,0)
6202.
297.0
297.0 (10489.)
5
8
.8/22/
.5/ 1/
54.2/12/
18
3
9
1
-3/12/
.6/ 3/
.!/ 3/
.0/13/
.O/ 2/
42.92
21.
113.
.25
26.2
3.52
39.02
1363.8
14.82
.777
1.03
3.43
38.00
1328.14
14.43
.757
29.
9.
116.
1.
.30
.05
27.
1.
( 1.71)
( 1.38)
( 2.56)
( 28.33)
( 990.39)
( 10.76)
( 1.245)
S.6/22/
8.77 1/
89.4/13/
.6/13/
24. 9/ 3/
2.8/ 3/
9.5/13/
1.0/ 2/_
31.98
35.
87.
.36
27.4
5.97
30.56
2001.6
15.72
1.195
1.92
3.11
15.91
1041.99
8.18
.622
43.
9.
90.
1.
.41
.04
28.
1.
( 2.63)
( 2.58)
( 2.32)
( 11.86)
( 777.01)
( 6.10)
( 1.022)
14.1/22/
9.5/ I/
80.4/13/
.7/13/
58. 3/ 3/
2.7/ 3/
20.9/13/
1.0/ 2/
12.83
62.
77.
.99
61.8
10.88
27.26
5537.7
36.08
3.444
6.68
1.63
4.08
828.59
5.40
.515
71.
10.
80.
1.
1.03
.04
63.
1.
( 7.59)
( 8.96)
( 1.21)
( 3.04)
( 617.88)
( 4.03)
( .847)
S.7/22/
9.9/ 1/
74.1/13/
.9/13/
17. O/ 3/
2.8/ 3/
10.1/13/
.9/ 2/
47.67
19.
71.
.23
29.5
3.24
24.50
1246.4
16.77
.694
1.15
2.82
21.29
1083.11
14.57
.603
29.
10.
73.
1.
.27
.04
30.
1.
( 1
( 1
( 2
( 15
( 807
( 10
(
.53)
. 54)
. 10)
.87)
.68)
.87)
991)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90HH FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
scntscF)
6/TEST
6/KU HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/KS FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAHPLE FLOW
SCH
-------
TABLE C-4.
ENGINE NO.D?0
r.NGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(586. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 739.90 MM HG(29.13 IN HG)
DRY OULU TEMP. 26.1 DE6 C(79.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
OAC NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
QLOUER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
F)
O
I
HC SAMPLE
HC GCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO QCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
COZ FKKGRO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX flCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
1ETER/RANGE/PPM
HETER/RANGE/PPH
C1ETER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
HF TFR/RANGE/PCT
MCTER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPN
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (6/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC K6/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
RSC02 G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
10.91 (
1.92 (
11.9* (
929. (
8.78 (
.561 C
14.6*)
1.43)
8.91)
693.)
6.54)*
.923)
*Est. BSNOX e/kW-hr (G/hP-hr) 7.57 (5.65)
Part. 6/kW-hr (G/hP-hr) .38 (.28)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
COLD TRANSIENT
TEST NO.20-3 RUN
DATE 9/24/80
TIHE 10:35
DTNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-50. PCT , CVS-55. »CT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.8 GM/KGC 75.9 6RAINS/L8) NOX HUMIDITY C.F- 1.0000
1
NYNF
650.2 (25.6)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6181.
297.0
295.6 (10441.)
2
LANF
650.2 (25.6)
523.2 (20.6)
45.9 (120.0)
6262.
299.0
299.4 (10577.)
3
LAP
650.2 (25.6)
523.2 (20.61
48.9 (120.0)
6370.
305.0
304.6 (10759.)
4
NYNF
650.2 (25.6)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6202.
297.0
296.6 (10476.)
6
11
58
19
3
.0/22/
.21 1/
.8/12/
.4/12/
.4/ 3/
.5/ 3/
9.5/13/
.71 21
40.98
19.
125.
.26
27.8
3.26
42.90
1402.8
15.73
.799
1.04
3.15
41.42
1354.48
15.19
.771
30.
11.
128.
1.
.31
.05
29.
1.
C 1.76)
C 1.39)
( 2.35)
( 30.89)
(1010.04)
( 11.33)
( 1.267)
8.17227
11. I/ 1/
94. 4/ 137
1.0/1J/
25.37 HI
3.17 37
10.9/137
.8/ 27
31.44
30.
92.
.37
32.0
5.17
32.24
2011.9
18.34
1.209
1.96
2.64
16.48
1028.43
9.38
.618
41.
11.
96.
1.
.41
.05
33.
1.
I 2.67)
C 2.62)
( 1.97)
C 12.29)
( 766.90)
( 6.99)
( 1.016)
13.5/227
12.87 17
84.2713/
1.17137
58.17 37 1
2.77 37
25.6/137
.77 21
12.88
55.
80.
.99
76.1
9.75
28.55
5507.5
44.35
3.429
6.75
1.44
4.23
815.42
6.57
.508
67.
13.
85.
1.
.03
.04
77.
1.
( 7.56)
C 9.06)
C 1.08)
( 3.15)
( 608.06)
( 4.90)
( .835)
7.1/22/
19.37 1/
SO.4/13/
1.5/13/
16. 5/ 37
2.67 37
10.4/13/
.71 21
48.88
16.
77.
.22
30.6
2.82
26.66
1215.7
17.35
.690
1.17
2.41
22.82
1040.43
14.85
.591
35.
19.
80.
1.
.26
.04
31.
1.
( 1
( 1
( 1
( 17
( 775
( 11
\ *
.52)
.57)
.80)
.02)
.85)
.07)
971)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
6/KH HR (6/HP HR)
1.074 ( 37.94>
1.114
.1020 ( .0761)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/K6 FUEL (6/LB FUEL) .1818 ( .0825)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCMfSCF)
79.56 (2809.9)
-------
TABLE C-5.
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
COLD TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO. 11-50*4-001
ENGINE NO.020
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(586. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
TEST N0.20-1C RUN
DATE 9/29/80
TIME
DYNO NO. 5
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
BAROMETFR 739.90 MM HG(29.13 IN HG)
DRY BUL3 TEMP. 27.8 DEG C(S7.0 DEC F)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-44. PCT , CVS-60. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.4 Kri/KG( 72.8 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0DQO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP » MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
1
NYNF
660.4 (26.0)
520.7 (20.5)
A3.9 (120.0)
61 81.
296.0
295.8 (10448.)
LANF
660.4 (26.0)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6?62,
299.8
299.7 (10584.)
5
LAP
660.4 (25.0)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6371 .
305.0
304.9 (10769.)
4
NYNF
660.4 (26.0)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (123.0)
6201.
296.9
296.8 (10481.)
o
I
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 I) C K f, R D
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPH
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (L8)
KV HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (H/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW KR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
8SC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
11.38 ( 15.27)
1.85 ( 1.38)
11.47 ( 3.55)
893. ( 666.)
7.55 ( 5.63)
( .892)
6.3/22/ 31.
11
56
18
2
8
.•57 1/ 12.
-0/12/ I'M.
.4/12/ 1.
.6/ 3/ .30
.6/ 3/ .04
.0/13/ 24.
.&/ 2/ 1.
42.83
20.
117.
.26
23.3
3.44
40.41
1403.8
13.21
.R23 ( 1.81)
1.14 ( 1.53)
3.01 ( 2.24)
35.39 ( 26.39)
1229.33 ( 915.71)
11.57 ( 8.63)
.721 ( 1.185)
7.9/227
11. O/ 17
50.2/12/ 1
.4/127
25.07 37
2.4/ 3/
9.7/13/
.5/ ?/
31.76
29.
• 103.
.37
28.6
5.01
35.87
2042.1
16.41
1.235
2.04
2.45
17.54
993.64
8.02
.604
40.
11.
06.
1.
.41
.04
29.
1.
( 2.72)
t 2.74)
( 1.83)
( 13.08)
( 744.69)
( 5.98)
< .993)
13.0/227
10.77 17
90.9/137
.9/13/
58. 6/ 3/ 1
2.07 3/
23.7/13/
,5/ 21
12.76
55.
88.
1.01
70.6
9.72
31.11
5623.0
41.20
3.510
7.01
1.39
4.44
802.05
5.88
.501
65.
11.
92.
1.
I .04
.03
71.
1.
( 7.74)
C 9.40)
( 1.03)
( 3.31)
( 598.09)
( 4.38)
( .823)
5.5/227
10. 9/ 1/
70.7/13/
.8/13/
15.57 3/
3.07 3/
9.0/13/
.5/ 21
52.42
17.
67.
.20
26.6
2.86
23.20
1092.8
15.08
.607
1.19
2.41
19.56
921.31
12.72
.512
27.
11.
69.
1 .
.25
.05
27.
1 .
( 1
( 1
( 1
( 14
( 637
( 9
(
.34)
.59)
. 80)
.59)
.02)
.48)
842)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FDR 4 BAGS
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .32 (.24)
90MN FILTER
SAMPLE FLOU
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
70 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCMCSCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
6/K6 FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
SCfl(SCF)
1.109 ( 39.16)
1.080
.094? ( .0707)
.1749 ( .0793)
80.53 (2844.2)
-------
TABLE C-6.
FNGtNE EMISSION RESULTS
COLD TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO, ll»SO**-nnl
ENGI'IE H(
ENGINE MpnFl BU VOL
ENT.lNf l.h Lf5Ph. CIO) |.
CVS NO. in
FUH
OARO'IKTER THl',93 MM HCid'q.dl I'J Hf.)
DRY RMLR TfM?. pi.j nfr; Cf?1*." HI C F)
BAG RESULTS
RAT, NtlHflfp
PFSCRIPlTON
Pi.nrfrp nTF
BLOWER
n...^- ,..,., . P "M. H?n(iN, U20)
HLOWFW TNLFT TEMP. OEI;'. C(OEG. F)
BLOWfR BFVnLllTIONS
TIME SF.cnNns
TOTAl F| OH Srn. CU. METKE3(SCF)
n
i
CD
HC
HC
CO
CO RCKoRD
Co? ^^Mp(E MFIERXRANGEXPCT
co? HCKC.RD MFTER/RANGEXPCT
NOX SAMPLE MrTER/RANGtXPPM
NOX BCKfiRO MrTfctf/RANGE'/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
Hf CONCENTRATION PPM
CO fONr;F MH«TION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PTT
NOX CONeFNrWAI ION PPM
HC MASS
CO MASS
Cn? MASS GRAMS
NOX M*Ss GRAMS
FUEL KG fLR)
hrt HR (HP HR)
HSHC G/KW HR (R/Hp HR)
HSCO G/KW HR (r./Hp H«)
BSCO? G/Kw HB (GXHP HR)
BSNOX G/Hh HP (G/HP HM
BSFC KG/KIN HH (LB/HP HP)
TOTAL TEST Bt'SMLrS H BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO? G/KW HP (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HP (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HW (LB/HP Hk)
11.59
7.**
.5b3
PART. 6/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .35 (.26)
15.19)
bBb.)
5.55)
TFST N0.20-2C RUN
RATE 9X30X80
TIME 091*5
DYNO NO, s
DIESEL EM«*bS-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , fNGINf-57. PCT , CV3-bl, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.5 GMXKGl 73,* GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1,0000
1 ? 3
NYNF LANF LAF
bhs'.S (?b.2) bbS.S (2b,2) bbS.S (2b,2)
5P0.7 (20.5) 520.7 (20.5) 520.7 (20,5)
*B.9 (120,0) H8.9 (120,0) *8.9 (120,0)
bl81, b2h3, b370,
?9h.O 299,9 305,0
29b.5 (10*73.) 100,* (10bl2,) 305, b (10793.)
b.3X22X 31, 8,bX22X *3, 13.5X22X b8.
12, IX IX 12, 11. 9X IX 12, 12, SX IX 11,
58.2X12X 127, *9.7XI2X 105, 91,*X13X 92,
?.RXl?X 5, 4.5X12X 8, 9.8X13X 9,
19. *X 3X ,31 25. 2X 3X ,»1 b0.3X 3X 1,07
1.2X 3X ,05 3, IX 3X ,05 3, IX 3X ,05
7.9XHX 2*. 9.2X13X 28, 23,*X13X 70.
.SX 11 1, ,bX 2X 1, ,HX 2X I,
*n.98 31, *9 12.3b
?n'. 3i, 5b.
119. ***. 81,
'.?b .37 1.03
23.? 2b.<' b«».5
3.35 S.*5 9,87
*0.93 32.98 28,83
1*31.7 2009.0 5737,7
13'.13 15. HB *0,b*
'.8b2 ( 1.90) 1.21* ( 2.b8) 3,593 ( 7
T.13 ( 1.52) 1,99 ( 2,b7) b.9b ( 9
2',95 ( 2,20) 2,7* ( 2,0*) 1.H2 ( 1
3b.l2 ( 2b,9H) Ib.Sb ( 12,35) *,1* ( 3
I?b3.5b ( 9*2,23) 1008, b7 ( 752,17) 82H,b5 ( fal*
11.59 ( B,b*) 7,77 ( 5,80) 5,8* ( *
'.7bl ( 1.851) ,blO ( 1,002) ,Slb ( ,
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR H BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR GXTEST
MULTIPLIER FOR GXKW HR (GXHP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR GXKG FUEL (GXLfl FUEL)
»
NVNF
bbS,5 (2b,2)
520,7 (20,5)
*8,9 (120,0)
b203,
297,0
297, b (10510.)
b,OX22X 3D,
12, OX IX 12,
90,7X11X 92,
8.7X13X 8,
17, 2X 3X ,?7
3, OX 3X ,05
9.1X13X 27,
,7X 2X 1,
*b,79
IB,
82,
,23
2b,S
3,10
20, *5
1250,7
15,09
,9?) ,711 ( 1
,33) 1,25 ( I
.Ob) 2,»9 ( 1
,09) 22,80 ( 17
,9*) 1002,0* ( 7*7
,3b) 12,09 ( 9
8*9) ,b70 ( ,
t,ObS ( 37, b2)
1,127
,099» ( ,07*8)
,17bb ( ,0801)
,57)
,b7)
,85)
,00)
,22)
,02)
93b)
80 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
80,35 (2838,1)
-------
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL GO VOLVO DUALEUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(5C6, CID) L-o
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 747,01 KM I!G(29,41 IN IIG)
DRY BULB TEMP, 20.6 DEC C(67,0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM, 1120(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. 1-120(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEC, C(DEG, F)
BLOWC
EVOLUTIONS
o
i
vO
TIME SECOND:,
TOTAL FLQIJ 3TD. CU, METRES(3CF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PFM
HC L
J3GFC
KU HR
G/KU
G/KL'
? G/KW
; G/KW
(IIP
HR
!IR
HR
n i \
IIR
HR)
(G/HP
(G/HP
(G/HP
(C/HP
(LB/HP
HR)
IIR)
HR)
HR)
HR)
10,26 i
2,31 <
10,36 <
964, (
7,01 (
,576 <
: 13
: i
: o
' -7
: s
t
.76)
,72)
,10)
19,)
,23)
946)
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-00;
DIESEL EM--465-F
SfiG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ENGINE-5G, F'CT
CVE
PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 3.? GM/KC< 62,2 GRAING/LB')
NOX HUMIDITY C,l
1
NYNF
685,8 (27,0)
530,7 (20,9)
48,9 (120,0)
6102,
296,0
270,4 (10537,)
LANF
685,0 (27,0)
530,7 (20,7)
48,9 (120,0)
6265,
299,9
302,4 (10601,)
3
LAF
685,8 (27,0)
530,7 (20,9)
48,9 (120,0)
6371.
305,0
307,5 (10361.)
4
NYNF
685,8 (27,0)
530,7 (20,7)
48,9 (120,0)
6202,
'•'96»^
29?74 (10573.)
6
3
52
18
1
5
,l/22/
,7/ I/
.A/12/
,1/12/
,0/ 3/
,7/ 3/
,9/13/
,3/ 2/
44,30
22,
110,
,26
17,5
3,31
33,29
1434.6
10,00
,330
1.03
3,71
37,25
1395,61
9,72
,307
31,
9,
112,
0,
,29
,03
1C,
0,
( 1
( 1
( 2
( 27
(1040
( 7
( 1,
8
3
78
1
24
3
7
,33)
,3C)
,76)
,78)
,70)
,25)
327)
PARTICULATE DATA
70.MM
FILTER
SAMPLE
,2/22/
,0/ I/
,0/13/
,4/13/
,5/ 3/
,0/ 3/
,1/13/
,3/ 2/
32,64
33,
75,
,35
21,0
5,77
26,24
1762,7
12,16
1,155
1,CO
3,20
14,55
1030,32
6,75
,640
f TOTAL
FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
41,
0,
77,
1,
,40
,05
21,
0,
( 2,55)
( 2,42)
< 2,38)
( 10,85)
( 311,56)
( 5,03)
( 1,053)
FOR 4 DAGS
SCH(SCF)
G/TE3T
G/KU HR
14.0/22/
3,9/ I/
68.2/13/
1.7/13/
56, 2/ 3/
3,0/ 3/
20.5/13/
,3/ 2/
13,30
62,
63,
,95
61,2
10,97
22,56
5323,9
36,00
3,263
6 1 u6
1,73
3,55
837,50
5,66
,514
(G/HP HR)
70,
9,
66,
2,
,99
,05
61,
0,
( 7
( 8
( 1
( 2
( 624
( 4
(
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
5,
3,
73,
1,
16,
2,
8,
,
,20)
,52)
,27)
,65)
3/22/
5/ I/
7/13/
7/13/
2/ 3/
7/ 3/
1/13/
3/ 2/
50,09
13,
70.
,21
24,0
3,17
24,32
1174,7
13,75
,654
1,07
2,75
22,66
.53) 1074,75
,22)
845)
1,286 (
,739
,0915 (
,1590 (
12,81
,60?
45,43)
,0682)
,0721)
27,
7,
72,
••)
»_ *
,26
,04
24,
0,
( 1
( 1
( 2
( 16
( 316
( 9
( 1,
.44)
,44)
.20)
,90)
,36)
.55)
001)
PAtfT. G/KW-HR
(G/HP-HR) .39 (.29)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCH(SCF)
81,43 (2376,0)
-------
TABLE C-8.
ENGINE NO.020
tNGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(586. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETFR 740.66 MM HG(29.16 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26-7 DEC CCJO.O DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
U A G N UM n E R
OESCRIPTION
I3LOUER DIF C MH. H20(IN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H?0(IN. H20)
OLOUER INLET TEMP. DFG- C(DEG. F)
OLOUER REVOLUTIONS
Tint SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
PROJECT MO. 11-5044-001
TF.ST NO.20-1
DATE 9/22/80
TIME 12:17
DYNO NO. 5
RUN 1
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-46. PCT , CVS-58. P/C T
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.3 GM/KG( 72.1 6RAINS/LB) NOJt HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0300
1
NYNF
550.2 (25.6)
573.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6182.
296.0
296.1 (10460.)
2
LANF
650.2 <25.6)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6264.
300.0
300.1 (10598.)
3
LAF
650.2 (25.6)
,523.2 (20.6)
48.9 C120.0)
6370.
305.0
305.1 (10778.)
4
HYNF
650.2 (25.6)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6202.
296.9
297.1 (10493.)
O
I
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC nCKGRD HETER/RANGE/PPH
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD 1ETER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 HCKHRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX fICKGRO METER/RANGE/PPH
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (L3)
KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
8SC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
3SCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
12.02 (
1.84 (
10.83 (
912. (
7.10 (
16.12)
1.37)
8.08)
630.)
5.30)
.538 ( .884)
5.9/2Z/
10. O/
92.5/1
.7/1
18. 1/
3. 1 /
1/
37
37
3/
3/
8.4/13/
.77
44
2/
.42
30.
10.
94.
1.
.29
.05
25.
1.
8
9
.1/22/
.77 1/
40.
10.
50.77127 108.
28
3
.3/127
.37 37
.47 3A
10.9/137
20.
91.
—
24
3
31
131
13
.
1
2
24
10?7
24
.4
.40
.32
8.7
.83
718
.28
.65
.40
.36
10.78
•
559
( 1
( 1
( 1
( 18
( 766
( 8
I •
.58)
.72)
.97)
.19)
.10)
.04)
921)
PARTICULATE DATA
90MH
.77 27
27.92
31.
104.
.42
32.0
5.36
36.39
2281.9
18.38
1.310
2.22
2.41
16.38
1027.04
8.27
.589
, TOTAL
1.
.47
.05
33.
1.
<
(
(
{
2.89)
2.98)
1.80)
12.21)
( 765.86)
(
(
FOR
6.17)
.969)
4 BAGS
13.4/22/
9.77 I/
92.2/137
.6/13/
62. 6/ 3/ 1
3.47 3/
21.5/13/
.67 2/
11.85
58.
89.
1.07
63.9
10.19
31.67
5963.2
37.30
3. 656
7.15
1.43
4.43
833.72
5.21
.511
67.
10.
93.
1.
1.11
.05
64.
1.
( 8.06)
( 9.59)
( 1.06)
( 3.30)
( 621.71)
( 3.89)
( .840)
S.7/22/
10-07 1/
90.87137
.6/137
18. 9/ 3/
3. I/ 37
9.5/13/
.6/ 21
42.57
19.
89.
.26
27.9
3.19
30.81
1396.5
15.87
.782
1.36
2.34
22.60
1024.42
11.65
.574
28.
10.
92.
1.
.30
.05
29.
1 .
( 1.73)
( 1.83)
( 1.74)
( 16.86)
( 763.91)
( 8.68)
( .944)
FILTER
SAMPLE
FLOU
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTI»LIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
67TEST
G/KW HR
(G7HP HR)
1.054 { 37.23)
1.137
.0946 ( .0705)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/K6 FUEL (G/LB FUEL) .1758 ( .0798)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .39 (.29)
?0 X 20 FJLTERS
SAMPLE FLOU
SCN(SCF)
80.37 (2838.5)
-------
TABLE C-9. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(586. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 740.92 HM HGC29.17 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 OEG C(78.0 OEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P HM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DE6. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRESCSCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
O
I
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
_!_ NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPH
HETER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX 6/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
10.81 (
2.07 (
9.51 (
893. (
7.49 (
14.49)
1.54)
7.09)
666.)
5,59)
BSFC KG/KM HR (LB/HP HR) .535 ( .880)
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .46 (.34)
TEST NO.20-2
DATE 9/23/80
TIME 10:05
DYNO NO. 5
RUN 1
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-50. PCT , CVS-52. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.5 GM/K6( 73.3 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0DOO
1
NYNF
650.2 (25.
523
48
296
.2 (20.
6)
6)
2
LANF
650.2 (25.6)
.9 (120.0)
6181.
296.0
.2 (10463.)
6.1/22/
9.6/ M
67.
m
15.
2.
9.
-
2/13/
6/1 3/
8/ 3/
3/ 3/
0/13/
8/ 21
51.43
21.
64.
.22
26.2
3.59
21.97
1175.4
14.86
.657
1.06
3.38
20.69
1106.49
13.98
.619
30.
10.
66.
1.
.25
.04
27.
1.
( 1
( 1
( 2
C 15
( 825
( 10
( 1.
523
48
.2 (20.6)
.9 (120.0)
6262.
299.9
300.1 (10600.)
7.71221
9.0/ 1/
82.8/13/
.45)
.42)
.52)
.43)
.11)
.43)
017)
—
23.
2.
9.
-
PARTICULATE DATA,
90HH
4/13/
6/ 3/
4/ 3/
3/13/
71 21
33.90
30.
81.
.35
27.3
5.18
28.18
1911.2
15.65
1.137
1.96
2.65
14.41
976.92
8.00
.581
TOTAL
39.
9.
83.
0.
.38
.04
28.
1.
( 2.51)
( 2.62)
C 1.97)
( 10.74)
( 728.49)
( 5.97)
( .955)
FOR 4 BAGS
3
LAF
650.2 (25.
523.2 (20.
48.9 (120
6370.
305.0
6)
6)
.0)
305.3 (10783.)
13.3/22/
8.5/ 1/
81.6/13/
.6/13/
56. 61 3/ 1
2.6/ 3/
19.8/13/
.71 21
13.26
58.
78.
.96
58.7
10.30
27.81
5361.4
34.28
3.320
6.65
1.55
4.18
806.48
5.16
.499
66.
9.
82.
1.
.00
.04
59.
1-
< 7
( 8
( 1
( 3
( 601
( 3
(
4
NYNF
650.2 (25.
6)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120
6202.
297.0
.0)
297.2 (10498.)
S.6/22/
9.0/ M
74.6/13/
.6/13/
16. 4/ 3/
2.7/ 3/
9.7/13/
.8/ 2/
49.43
19.
72.
.22
28.5
3.27
24.82
1201 .0
16.18
.32) .674
.92) 1.14
.15) 2.86
.12) 21.74
.39) 1051.74
.85) 14.17
821) .590
28.
9.
74.
1 .
.26
.04
29.
1 .
( 1
( 1
( 2
( 16
( 784
( 10
(
.49)
.53)
.13)
.21)
.29)
.56)
970)
FILTER
SAMPLE
FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCH(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR
(G/HP HR)
1.109 ( 39.17)
1.081
.1000 ( .0746)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/K6 FUEL (6/LB FUEL) .1868 ( .0847)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCH(SCF)
80.44 (2841.2)
-------
TABLE C-IO.
ENGINE NO.020
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(586. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 7*0.92 MM H6(29.17 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEC C(78.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DLOUER OIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
<"> NOX SAMPLE
— NOX BCKGRD
ro
METER/RANGE/PPM
HETER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PPH
HETER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANSE/PPH
NETER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
8SC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS I BAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR C6/HP HD)
BSNOX G/KU HR (6/HP HR)
10.78 ( 14.46)
2.10 C 1.57)
9.55'( 7.12)
892. ( 665.)
5.68 ( 4.23)
8SFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR) .539 ( .887)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR)
*Est. BSNOX g/kW-hr (G/hp-hr) 7.24 (5.40)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST NO.20-2 RUN 2
DATE 9/23/80
TINE 10:45
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO. 11-50*4-001
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG C1RT NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-51. PCT , CVS-58. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.7 GM/KG( 74.8 6RAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
647.7 (25.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6181.
296.0
295.8 (10447.)
2
LANF
647.7 (25.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.*)
6265.
300.0
299.8 (10589.)
3
LAP
647.7 (25.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6370.
305.0
304.8 (10767.)
4
NYNF
647.7 (25.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6201.
297.0
296.7 (10481.)
5
7
67
16
3
6
.8/22/
.11 1/
.5/13/
.6/13/
.3/ 3/
.1/ 3/
-2/13/
.8/ 2/
49.86
21.
64.
.21
17.9
3.66
22.00
1153.3
10.13
.696
1.05
3.47
20.89
1094.83
9.61
.660
29.
a.
66.
1.
.26
.05
19.
1.
( 1.
( 1.
( 2.
( 15.
( 816.
( 7.
7.
7.
82.
.
24.
7/22/
61 M
5/13/
4/13/
O/ 3/
38.
8.
83.
*
3.2/ 3/ .
53)
41)
59)
58)
45)
17)
7.
-
( 1.086)
PARTICULATE DATA,
90HM
1/13/
8/ 21
33.32
31.
80.
.34
20.4
5.37
27.98
1881.7
11.70
1.120
1.96
2.74
14.30
961.84
5.98
.572
TOTAL
0.
39
05
21.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
1.
2.47)
2.62)
2.05)
10.66)
717.24)
4.46)
.941)
13.2/22/
8.0/ 1/
82.0/13/
.2/13/
57. 21 3/ 1
3.1/ 3/
15.8/13/
1.0/ 21
13.11
58.
79.
.96
46,4
10.28
27.97
5379.9
27.05
3.323
6.64
1.55
4.21
810.34
4.07
.501
66.
8.
S.4/22/
7.8/ 1/
82. 75.2/13/
0.
.5/13/
.01 16. 71 3/
.05
47.
1.
( 7.33)
( 8.90)
( 1.15)
( 3.14)
( 604.27)
( 3.04)
( .823)
3.0/ 3/
7.5/13/
.8/ 21
48.54
20.
72.
.22
21.8
3.34
24.98
1201.7
12.35
.678
1.13
2.95
22.05
1060.56
10.90
.598
27.
8.
7*.
0.
.27
.05
23.
1 .
( 1.49)
( 1.52)
( 2.20)
( 16.44)
( 790.86)
( 8.13)
( .983)
FOR 4 BASS
FILTER
SAMPLE
FLOU
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KU HR
(6/HP HR)
0.000
0.000
( 0.00)
0.0000 (0.0000)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/K6 FUEL (G/LB FUEL) 0.0000 (0.0000)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOU
SCN(SCF)
79.68 (2814.2)
-------
TABLE C-1 I.
ENGINE NO.D23
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 LCS86. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 739.65 MM HG(29_12 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG CC77.0 DEG F)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST N0.20-1H RUN 1
DATE 9/29/80
TIMF 11:20
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENSINE-50- PCT , CVS-57.
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.2 GM/KG( 71.1 6RAINS/LB)
PCT
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF r
3LOUER INLET
BLOWER INLET
MM. H20CIN. H20)
P MM. H20CIN. H?0)
TEMP. DFG. C(DEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU.
METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
I NOX SAMPLE
r~. NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
HETER/RANGE/PPN
METER/RANGE/PPH
1ETER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
HETER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG CLB)
KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
USCO G/KU HR CG/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR CLR/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW IIR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
11.41 ( 15.30)
1.81 ( 1.35)
10.14 ( 7.56)
828. ( 617.)
7.13 ( 5.32)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .502 ( .826)
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .38 (.28)
560
520
48
295
6.
13.
85.
—
16.
2.
8.
1.
1
NYNF
.4 (26.
.7 (20.
0)
5)
.9 (120.0)
6182.
296.0
.5 (10437.)
71221
O/ 1/
2/13/
4/13/
1/ 11
71 If
0/13/
21 21
50.04
21.
S3.
.22
22.9
' 3.51
23.67
1166.9
12.95
.664
1.14
3.07
25.10
1021 .89
11 .34
.582
33.
13.
86.
0.
.26
.04
24.
1.
( 1
( 1
660
520
2
LANF
.4 (26.0)
.7 (20.
5)
48.9 (120.0)
6263.
299.9
299.4 (10574.)
7.71221
.46)
.53)
12.
91.
,
23.
2-
9.
1.
( 2.29)
( 18
( 762
( 8
(
.72)
.02)
.46)
957)
PARTICULATE DATA,
90HH
O/ 1/
7/13/
5/13/
5/ It
8/ If
1/13/
4/ 21
33.97
27.
90.
.34
26.0
4.62
31.38
1864.2
14.90
1.123
2.08
2.22
15.08
896.14
7.16
.540
TOTAL
38.
12,
93.
0.
.38
.04
27.
1.
( 2.48)
( 2.79)
( 1.66)
( 11.25)
( 668.25)
( 5.34)
( .887)
FOR 4 BAGS
3
LAF
660.4 (25.
520.7 (23.
48.9 (120
6369.
305.0
0)
5)
.0)
304.4 (10753.)
13.1/22/
12. 8/ 1 /
84.1/13/
.7/13/
56. 21 11
3.0/ 11
23.2/13/
1.7/ 21
13.37
54.
81.
.95
68.0
9.40
28.61
5270. 8
39.59
3.291
6.97
1.35
4.11
756.58
5. 68
.472
65.
13.
84.
1.
.99
.05
70.
2.
( 7
( 9
( 1
( 3
( 564
( 4
(
4
NYNF
660.4 (26.0)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6200.
297.0
296.4 (10468.)
6.0/22/ 30.
11. 9/ I/ 12.
80.8/13/ 81.
.7/13/ 1.
16. 1/ 11 .26
3.0/ 11 .05
8.8/13/ 26.
1.7/ 21 2.
50.20
18.
78.
.21
24.7
3.10
27.01
1145.7
13.98
.26) .654 (
.34) 1.22 (
.01) 2.54 (
.06) 22.11 ( 1
1.44)
1.64)
1.89)
6.49)
.18) 937.87 ( 699.37)
.24) 11.44 (
777) .535 (
8.53)
.880)
F ILTER
SAMPLE
MULTIPL
FLOW
IER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR
(6/HP HR)
1.1D2 ( 38.93)
1.085
.0951 ( .0709)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL CG/L8 FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
.1892 ( .0858)
79.55 (2809.9)
-------
TABLE C-12.
ING P.F nn'.
ENGINE MOnFl RO VOLV" PHIAL FUPL
E NG1NF l.i, LfSPh. CH>) I -h
CVS rJO. m
DRY
l? TN HG)
TJ.MP. ph'.l DFC, r.(7i.n nrr,
BAG RfSHLTs
RAT, MIIMRFR
O
I
HLOWFH DTF P MM. H?0(1N. M?0)
HtOUFR TNLFT F MM. li?fl(IN. H?ll)
HLOWfR INLFT TtMP. nE(,'. C(OE.G. F)
HiHrtFR RFVOLnTIONS
Tl^f SECONDS
TOTAL FLOU STII. CM'. ".E TI-
NT SAMPLE MMKR/R.ANGI /PPH
HC RCKr.PD MF n R/RANGt/PP'*
CO SAMpLF MFTFH/RAMGt/PPM
CO RCKftRO MF TER/RAMGf /PPM
CO? SAMpi E MF TEH/RANGE/FCT
co? rirKcan MFTFR/RANGE/per
NOX SAMPLt MpTE.K/RANGKXPPM
MF TER/RANGL/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC fONcFNTRJTION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? f.ONCFMTRsTION PCT
NO* CONCENTRATION PPM
HC
CO MASs GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GPAMS
FUEL KG tin)
KW HP (HP HR)
B3HC G/KH HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO? G/KW HR (G/HP HP)
BSNOX G/KW HR (f./HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW MR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TF3T RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KM HR (HP HR)
BSHC r,/Kw HR (G/HP HR)
PSCO G/KN HR (G/HP HH)
BSCO? G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/HH HR)
H3FC
11.31 ( 15.17)
1.10 ( 1.43)
in.II ( 7,54)
B51. ( b34.)
7.4? ( 5.53)
HH fLH/HP HK) .515 { .8*7)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST NO,?0«2H RUN g
DATE q/2S/80
TIME
DYNO NO, 5
DIESEL t
BAG CART NO,
PROJECT NO, U-50M-001
1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-tB. PCT , CVS-57, PCT
ABSOLUTE-. HUMIDITY 10,5 r,M/KG( 73,3 GRAIN3/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1
NYNF
bbn.4 (?b.O)
51R,2 (?0,4)
48.1 (120,0)
blBH,
?.m.o
215.3 (10430,)
b,l/22/ iO,
in.b/ i/ 11,
83.7/13X 84,
.7/13/ 1,
lb,2/ 3/ ,2b
3,0/ 3/ ,05
8.1XUX 24,
1.2/ 2/ 1.
41.82
?n,
81.
.21
23.?
3.41
28.00
1150. b
13.10
.h57 ( 1.45)
l.lb ( l.Sb)
P.14 ( 2,11)
24.15 ( 18.01)
112,20 ( 731,88)
11.30 ( 8,43)
'.5b7 ( ,131)
2
LANF
bhO.4 (2b,
518,2 (20.
48,1 (120
b2bl ,
211,1
0)
4)
.0)
211,2 (lOSbb,)
7.S/2?/
I.I/ I/
8i,n/l3/
,B/13/
23, B/ J/
3, I/ 3/
1.5/13/
l.l/ 2/
33, 5b
28,
87,
.34
27,3
4,85
30, 2b
18bb,8
15,b3
1,120
2,02
2.40
14.11
124,13
7,74
.555
38.
10,
10,
1.
.31
.05
28,
1.
2.47)
2,71)
1.71)
11,18)
b81,72)
5,77)
( ,113)
3
LAF
bbO.4 (2b,0)
518,2 (20,4)
48,1 (120,0)
b3h1,
305.0
304,3 (10741.)
12.1/22X b4,
1.4X IX 1,
B4.7X13X 85,
,bX13X 1,
57, 5X 3X 1,01
3, IX 3X ,05
23.4X13X 70,
i,ox ax i ,
11,03
5b,
81.
."
b1,3
1,71
28,85
5403,1
40, 3b
3,3bb ( 7,42)
b,12 ( 1,28)
1,41 1,05)
H.17 3,11)
780, bS 582,13)
5,83 4,35)
,4Bb ,711)
4
NYNF
bbO,4 (2b,0)
518,2 (20,4)
48,1 (120,0)
b200,
2lb,1
21b,2 (1041,3, )
5,8X22X 21,
1.0X IX 1,
81,S/13X 82,
,b/13X 1,
17, IX 3/ ,27
3,4X 3/ ,05
1.1/13X 27,
l.OX 2X 1,
47,2b
20,
",
.??
2b,2
3,43
27,21
1203,2
14, Rb
,b8H ( 1
1,21 ( 1
2,82 ( 2
22,50 ( lb
112,13 ( 731
12, 2b ( 1
,5b4 ( ,
.51)
,b3)
,u>
,78)
.83)
• 1«>
127)
PARTICIPATE DATA, TOTAL FOR » BAGS
FILTER
SAMPLF FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
GXTEST
GXKW HR (GXHP HR)
G/KG FUEL (GXLB FUEL)
PART. 6/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .39 (.29)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
l,07b ( 37,111
1.111
,0182 ( .0732)
,110b ( ,08b5)
78.80 (2783,3)
-------
TABLE C-13.
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL GO VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(586, DID) L~6
CV3 NG, 10
BAROMETER 752,0s1 MM 110(29,61 IN H6>
DRY BULK TEMP, 17,2 DEC C(63,0 BEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BECCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP p MM, I!20(IN, H2H)
BLOWER IMLET ? MM, H20dN, 1120)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEC, CfDFfi, D
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 31 D, CU, METRES (3CF)
METER7RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/FCT
METER/RANCE/FCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
LILUTION FACTOR
i-IC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS CRAMS
CO MASS CRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NDX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LEO
KW HR (iiP HR)
BSIIC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
DGCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
B3C02 G/KW HR (G/liP HR)
BONCX G/KW HR (G/HP IIR)
DSFC KQ/KW IIR (LB/HP HR)
1QTAL TEST RESULTS A DAGS
o
1
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
C02
NOX
NCX
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKCRD
SAMPLE
BCKCRLi
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
TOTAL KU IIR (HP
BSKC
BSCO
E3C02
BSN'OX
BSFC
G/KW
G/KW
G/KW
G/KW
KG/KW
HR
HR
IIR
IIR
IIR
HR)
(G/HP
(G/HP
(G/HP
(G/HP
(LD/HP
HR )
HR)
HR)
HR)
HR)
10,38 (
2.5''. (
0,89 (
731, (
7,67 (
,560 (
13,92)
1,91)
6.63)
694.)
5,72)
,921)
C-TRANS,
TEST NO.D20-2 RUN
DATE 11/10/00
TIME
DYNO NO, 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ,
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
PROJECT NO, 11- 5044-00
DIESEL EM-465-r
BAG CART NO, 1
-53, PCT , CVS-20, PCT
6,5 GM/KG( 45,7 GRAIN3/LD) NOX HUMIDITY C,
', 1,0000
PART.
VOID
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
685, 8 (27,0) 685, S (27,0) 685,8 (27,0)
530,9 (20,9) 530,9 (20,9) 530,9 (20,9)
48,9 (120.0) 48,9 (120,0) 40,9 (120,0)
6101, 6266, 6372.
296,0 300,0 305.0
300,9 (10620.) 305,1 (10774,) 310,2 (10957.)
9.1/22/ 46, B.6/22/ 43, 14.4/22/ 72,
9,6/ I/ 10, 9,3/ I/ 10, 11, O/ I/ 11,
71.9/13/ 70, 72.B/13/ 71. 62.3/13/ 60,
,6/13/ 1, ,5/13/ 0, ,6/13/ 1,
17, 7/ 3/ ,20 24, U 3/ ,40 55, 3/ 3/ ,97
3,0/ 3/ ,06 3, I/ 3/ ,05 3,1/ 3/ ,05
6.8/13/ 20, 8.1/13/ 24, 22.2/13/ 67,
>2/ 2/ 0, ,!/ 2/ 0, ,2/ 2/ 0,
45,53 32,53 13,63
36, 33, 62.
69. 70, 58,
,23 ,35 ,93
20,1 24,2 66,5
6,31 5,89 11.02
24,13 24,78 20,91
1244,4 1901,2 5261.0
11,56 14,14 39.40
.754 ( 1,66) 1.176 ( 2,59) 3,233 ( 7
1,00 ( 1,34) 1,07 ( 2,50) 6,42 ( 8
6,30 ( 4,70) 3,15 ( 2,35) 1,72 ( 1
24,10 ( 17,97) 13,23 ( 9,90) 3,26 ( 2
1243,27 ( 927,11) 1061,48 ( 791,54) 819,58 ( 611
11,55 ( 3,62) 7,53 ( 5,65) 6,15 ( 4
,753 ( 1,239) ,630 ( 1.036) ,504 (
PARTICULATE DATA? TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW 3CWSCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEGT
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
4
NYNP
685,8 (27,0)
530,9 (20,9)
48,9 (120,0)
6202,
296,9
301,9 (10664.)
5.S/22/ 29-
10. 2/ I.' 10.
67.1/13/ 65.
,5/13/ 0,
16.4/ 3/ ,26
3 1 2/ 3/ > 05
D — / 1 7 1 O<~
O.w'/ll-/ i^tj»
.!/ 2/ 0.
49,55
1 1
i / *
64,
•"> 1
t _ -L
24,9
3.3^
22. 4n
117D.2
14,40
,14) .640 ( 1
,/.!) 1,09 ( 1
.20) 3,05 ( 2
,43) 20,57 ( 15
.16) 1079,85 ( 805
,59) 13,20 ( 7
G2?) ,594 (
1,332 ( 47,03)
,915
,0031 ( ,0657)
,1573 ( ,0713)
B3.49 (294S.O)
,43)
,46)
.27)
,34)
,24)
,04)
977)
-------
TABLE C-14.
VGT>,E
NO.D20
".CDCL
9,6 L
10
'v'Olv'O DUAL FUEL
CIIO L--6
:::«RJ,-1ETER 752.07 MM ;,'C(2'?,61 IN HG)
DRY 3UL[! Tu-P. 20.0 M.3 C(60,0 DEG F)
FAG RESULTS
SAG NUriDCn _
.-:;'5uER' Dir'Y' MM, H20(IN. 1120)
L'Li.'WER INLET P MM, H20UN. H20)
BLCWER INLET TEriP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
lOjUTR REVOLUTIONS
lIhC SECONDS
TQr,
-------
TABLE C-15.
ENGINE NO, 20
ENGINE MODEL
ENGINE
CVS NO, 10
GO VOLVO DUALrUEL
LC06. CID> L-i
BAROMETER 751.84 MM I IS(29,60 IN 11C)
1'iRY DULL1 TEMP, 20,6 DfG C(69,0 DEG F)
BAG RESULT;;
BAG NUMDER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM, M2C(IN, 1120)
b'LGUL'R INLET P MM, I,'2G(!N, 1120)
BLOu'Ef; INLET TEMP. DEC, CdEC, F)
KLOUER REVOLUTIONS
TIKE SECONDS
TOTAL fLCL! GTD, CU, METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE KETER/RANGE/PPM
HC E'CKGRD METER/RftNCE/PPM
CO SfiMPLE METER/RnNGE/PPI-l
CO CCKGRD METE1YRANGE/PFM
L02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PC I
SG2 PCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
o i^'iX oAMPLE fiETER/RANGE/PPM
1 hOX HCKGRD METLP/Rr:NGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CG2 CONCENTRATION PL" f
NOX CONCENTRATION PPii
HC MASS GRAMS-
CO MAES GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LID
KU IIR (HP HR)
f.'CHC G/KU HR (G/HP ;,'R)
BSCO b/KW IIR (G/IIP !:R)
KCG2 G/KU HR (C/HP .HR)
DGNOX C/KU MR (G/HP MR)
Ff£FC KG/KW HR (LL7HP HR)
OTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BfiCE
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR) 10,30 (
DSHC G/KU !!R (G/MP HR) 2,30 (
£!£CO G/KU HR (G/HP HR) 0,68 (
FSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP IIR) 907, (
I-fpNOX G/KU IIR (G/MP HR) 7,05 (
ir'iFC KG/KU IIR (LH/HP HR)' ,542 (
13.81)
1.71)
6,47)
676.)
5,26)
.891 )
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H- TRANS,
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-OOJ
TEST N0.20-2M
DATE 11/1G/80
TIME
DYNO NO, 5
RUN
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAC CART NO, 1
, ENGINE-43, PCT » CV3-20, PCT
7,3 GM/KG( 51,0 GRAINS/LI;/ NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1.0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
6C5.G (27.0) 605,0 (27.0) 6G5.G (27.0)
528,3 (20, S) 523,3 (20,8) 52C,3 (20,8)
40.9 (120.0) 40.7 (120.0) 40.9 (120.0)
6102, 6263, 6371,
296.0 299,9 305,0
301,0 (10630.) 304,9 (10769,) 310,2 (10955.)
S.7/22/ 28. 7.3/22/ 37, 13, A/22/ 60.
6,3/ I/ 6. 6.B/ I/ 7, X.4/ I/ 7.
72.9/13/ 71, 71.9/13/ 70, 7Q.3/13/ 70,
-9/13/ 1, 5.2/13/ 5, 18.D/13/ 17,
15. 4/ 3/ ,24 22,7 / 3/ ,37 55, 4/ 3/ .97
2,9/ It ,04 3, I/ 3/ ,05 3. I/ 3/ ,05
6.6/13/ 20, 7.7/13/ 23, 20.1/13/ 60,
,5/2/1, ,4/2/0, ,6/ 2/ 1,
52,68 35,41 13,58
22, 30, 61,
70, 65, iO,
. 20 , 32 . 93
19,4 22.8 59.8
3,87 5,30 10,98
24,43 22,98 21,72
1107,5 1796,2 5272,1
11,14 13,30 35,47
,640 ( 1,41) 1,058 ( 2,33) 3,241 ( 7
1,06 ( 1,43) 1,04 ( 2.47) 6,37 ( 0
3,63 ( 2,71) 2,88 ( 2,15) 1,72 ( 1
22,96 ( 17.12) 12,50 ( 9.32) 3,41 ( 2
1040,80 ( 776,19) 976,40 ( 728,16) 020,17 ( 617
10,47 ( 7,31) 7.23 ( 5.39) 5,57 ( 4
,602 ( ,990) ,575 ( ,946) ,509 (
PART 1CUL ATE DATA* TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(GCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LD FUEL)
4
NYNF
605,3 (27,0)
520,3 (20,0
40,9 (120,0)
6200,
296,9
301.0 (10661.)
S.4/22/ 27,
7,0/ I/ 7,
71.0/13/ 70.
13.2/13/ 12.
16, 3/ 3/ ,26
3,3/ 3/ ,05
7.5/13/ 22,
,5/ 2/' 1,
49,30
20,
5G ,
,21
21.9
3,53
20,27
1160,2
12.65
,15) ,639 ( 1
,54) 1,03 ( 1
,29) 3,44 ( 2
.54) 19,72 ( 14
,57) 1128,65 ( C41
,15) 12,31 ( 9
037) ,622 ( 1,
1.324 ( 46.73)
,920
,0093 ( .0666)
,1640 ( .0748)
.41)
.30)
,56)
.70)
,63)
.10)
022)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .39 (.29)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
83,59 (2952,5)
-------
TABLE C-16.
fNGlNE NO-D20
FNGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUFL
CNG1NC V.6 L(586. CID) 1-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 740.66 MM HGC29.16 IN H6)
DRY OUL9 TFMP. 23.9 DEC CC75.0 OEG F)
BAG RESULTS
3AG NUMBER
BLOWER OIF f MM. H20(IN. H20)
OLOUFR INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TFMP. DEG. C(DE6. F)
ULOWfR REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT?
TEST NO.20-1 RUN 2
DATF 9/22/80
TIME 12:53
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
DIESEL EH-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENSINE-53. PCT , CVS-54.
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.1 6H/KGC 70.4 GRAINS/LB)
PCT
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1-0300
1
647.7 (?5.5)
5?3.2 (20.61
48.9 (120.0)
569t.
272.3
272.7 ( 9632.)
447.7 (25.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
6005.
287.6
287.6 (10158.)
647.7 (25.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
5695.
272.8
272.8 ( 9634.)
n
i
CD
HC SAMPLE
HC 3CKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
CO? aCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
MtTER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LO)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
8SCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LO/HP HR)
6.7/221
9.7/ 1/
64.1/12/
.2/127
21.07 3/
2.4/ 3/
9.9/13/
.6/ 27
37.65
24.
139.
.30
29.2
3.76
44.10
1513.1
15.25
.868
1.57
2.40
28.15
965.69
9.74
.554
33.
10.
143.
0.
.34
.04
30.
1.
( 1.91)
( 2.10)
( 1.79)
( 20.99)
( 720.12)
( 7.26)
( .911)
6.8/227
8.77 17
74.8/127 1
.17127
26.87 3/
2.17 37
12.87137
.97 21
29.17
25.
169.
.41
37.6
4.21
56.47
2149.5
20.68
1.295
2.39
1.76
23.63
899.36
8.65
.542
34.
9.
73.
0.
.44
.03
38.
1.
t 2.86)
( 3.21)
( 1.31)
( 17.62)
( 670.65)
t 6.45)
< .891)
6.2/227
8.97 17
56.97127 1
.17127
21.47 37
2.37 3/
10.7/137
.37 27
37.15
22.
120.
.31
31.9
3.54
38.19
1555.0
16.62
.883
1.60
2.21
23.84
970.55
10.37
.551
31.
9.
23.
0.
.35
.04
32.
0.
(
<
(
(
1.95V
2.15)
1.65)
17.78)
( 723.74)
(
(
7.74)
.906)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
OSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
5.56 (
2.07 (
24.96 (
939. (
9.45 (
7.45)
1.54)
18.61)
700.)
7.05)
.548 ( .901)
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .64 (.43)
PARTICIPATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCMCSCF)
G/TEST
6/KW HR (G7HP HR)*
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/KG FUEL (67L3 FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
.735 ( 25.96)
1.133
.2039 ( k1520)
.3720 ( .1687)
55.63 (1965.0)
-------
TABLE C-17.
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(S86. CID) 1-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 740.66 MM HGC29.16 IN MG)
DRY 8ULO TEMP. 24.4 DEC C(76.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF f MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
o
I
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
Mfc TER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RAN6F./PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
HETER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPH
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPH
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
5.51 (
2.12 (
24.94 (
964. (
7.64 <
7.40)
1.58)
18.59)
719. )
5.69)
BSFC K6/KU HR (LB/HP HR) .575 ( .945)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .63 (.47)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT?
TEST NO-20-1 RUN 3
DATF 9/22/80
TIME 1:29
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
DIESEL EN-465-F
BAG C4RT NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , EN6INE-52. PCT , CVS-54. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.2 6M/KG( 71.4 GRAINS/LD) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0DOO
1
*47.7 (25.5)
5?3.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
5696.
272.8
272.8 ( 9635.)
6.7/227 33.
9.7/ 1/ 10.
61.9/127 137.
.1/12/ 0.
21. 3/ 3/ .34
2.5/ 3/ .04
R.0/13/ 24.
.5/ 27 1.
37.18
24.
133.
.31
23.6
3.75
42.31
1531 .7
12.31
.877 ( 1.93)
1 .57 ( 2.10)
?.39 ( 1.78)
27.00 ( 20.14)
977.59 ( 728.99)
7.85 ( 5.86)
.560 ( .920)
647.7 (25^.5)
523.2 (20.6)
48. 9 (120-0)
6005.
287.7
287.6 (10158.)
6.9/22/ 34.
9.07 17 9.
74.3/127 17?.
.1/127 0.
27.37 37 .45
2.1/ 37 .03
10.2/137 30.
.57 21 1.
28.63
26.
167.
.42
30.0
4.25
55.97
21 95.8
16.50
1.318 ( 2.91)
2.37 ( 3.18)
1.79 { 1.33)
23.59 C 17.59>
925.57 ( 690.19)
6.96 ( 5.19)
.555 ( .913)
647.7 (25.5)
523. 2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
5695.
272.7
272.7 ( 9633.)
6.3/227 31.
8.27 17 8.
58.2/127 127.
.17127 0.
21.77 37 .35
2.27 37 .03
8.7/137 26.
.57 27 1.
36.60
23.
124.
.32
25.5
3.69
39.24
1588.1
1S. 30
.974 ( 2
1.58 ( 2
2.34 ( 1
24.90 ( 18
1007.89 ( 751
8.44 ( 6
.618 ( 1.
.15)
.11)
.75)
.57)
.59)
.29)
017)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 3 BA6S
90HN FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCMCSCF)
G/TEST
G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/K6 FUEL (67LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOU
SCH(SCF)
.737 ( 26.03)
1.130
.2050 ( .1528)
.3567 ( .1618)
55.58 C1963.1)
-------
TABLE C-18.
ENGINE NO.D20
FNGINE KODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(586. CIO) L-6
CVS NO. 10
QAROMETER /59.U MM HGC29.10 IN HG)
DRY BULH TEMP. 28.3 DEC C(83.0 OFG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
OLOUER DIF P MM. H?0(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
OLOUER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOU STD. CU. NETRES(SCF)
F)
HC
HC
CO
CO
o
i
ro
o
SAMPLE
UCKGRD
SAMPLE
OCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
HETER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENT RATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GR^MS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP
BSHC
BSCO
6SC02
BSNOX
BSFC
G/KU
G/KU
G/KU
G/KU
KG7KU
HR
HR
HR
HR
HR
HR)
(G/HP
(G7HP
(G/HP
(G/HP
(LB/HP
HR)
HR)
HR)
HR)
HR)
5.01 (
1.83 1
27.18 (
949. (
7.77 (
.595 (
: 6.72)
: 1.37)
: ?0.27)
: 708.)
: 5.79)
: .978)
FNGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST N0.20-2B RUN 3
DATE 9/29/80
TIME
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
DIESEL EH-465-F
BAG CART MO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENSINE-42.'PCT , CVS-60. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.3 GH7KG( 71.8 GRAINS7LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0300
1
660.* (26.0)
513.2 (20.*)
48.9 (120.0)
5694.
272.7
272.0 ( 9605.)
660.4 (26.0)
518.2 (20.4)
4*.9 (120.0)
6010.
287.9
237.1 (10139.)
660.4 (26.0)
518.2 120.4)
48.9 (120.0)
5695.
272.8
272.0 ( 9608.)
5.9/227
9.
52.
O/
1/
6/12/ 1
.47127
20.
3.
5/
1 /
7.7/1
-
11
38
?
3/
3/
3/
2/
.66
30.
9.
39.
1.
.33
.05
23.
1.
5.
9.
75.
.
24.
2.
9.
•
134.
m
22
3
42
141
11
.
1
2
28
.4
.26
.53
4.1
.68
855
.41
.32
30.21
1004
8
*
.71
.30
608
( 1
( 1
( 1
.89)
.89)
.73)
( 22.53)
( 749
( 6
\ •
.21)
.19)
999)
PARTICULAR DATA,
90MH
47227
I/ 17
37127 1
7/127
5/ 37
87 37
0/137
77 27
32.01
18.
169.
.36
26.2
3.01
56.43
1579.1
14.38
1.249
2.20
1.37
25.70
855.95
6.55
.569
TOTAL
27.
9.
75.
1.
.40
.04
27.
1.
5.67227
10.0/ 17
28.
10.
57.1/127 124.
2.75)
2.94)
1.02)
19.17)
638.28)
FOR
4.38)
.935)
3 BAGS
1.8/127
20.87 37
2.87 37
8.5/137
.87 27
38.27
19.
118.
.29
24.7
2.90
37.23
1462.4
12.86
.878
1.41
2.06
26.45
1038.99
9.14
.624
3.
.34
.04
25.
1.
( 1
C 1
C 1
t 19
( 774
( 6
( 1.
.93)
.89)
.54)
.72)
.77)
.81)
025)
FILTER
SAMPLE
FLOU
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
G7TEST
G7KU HR
(6/HP HR)
6/K6 FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
.750 ( 26.50)
1.108
.2211 ( .1649)
.3715 ( .1685)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .55 (.4!)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOU
SCM(SCF)
55.12 (1946.9)
-------
TABLE C-19. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
ENGINE NO.020
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(586. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 741.93 MM HG(?9.21 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG C(77.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF f MM. H20CIN- H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SF CONOS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
TFST N0.20-1R RUN
BATE 9/30/80
TIME 11:20
RYNO NO. 5
DIESEL EH-465-F
BAG C*RT NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-52. PCT , CVS-60.
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.5 GN/KG( 73-7 6RAINS/LB)
PCT
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0300
1
670.6 (26.4)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
5693.
272.3
272.8 ( 9635.)
670.6 (2<.4)
5?3.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
601 0.
2B7.S
288.0 (10171.)
670.6 (26.4)
523.2 (20.6)
48.9 (120.0)
5693.
272.6
272.8 ( 9635.)
o
I
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METF.R/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
HETER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KV HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW IIR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
5.08 (
1.79 (
6.81)
1.34)
25.17 ( 13.77)
905. ( 675.)
9.00 ( 6.71)
.548 ( .901)
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .58 (.43)
6.
9.
61.
3.
20.
3.
9.
•
0/22/
8/ 1/
6/12/ 1
7/12/
6/ 3/
4/ 3/
3/13/
9/ 21
38.50
20.
126.
.28
26.9
3.20
39.94
1404.2
14.03
.844
1.43
2.23
27.85
979.21
9.78
.589
30.
10.
36.
7.
.33
.05
?8.
1.
( 1.86)
( 1.92)
( 1.66)
( 20.77)
( 730.20)
( ' 7.30)
( .968)
5.5/227
9.2/ M
72-9/12/ 1
3.3/12/
24. 4/ 3/
3.3/ 3/
10.4/13/
.87 21
32.19
19.
157.
.35
30-4
3.09
52.73
1836.3
16.77
1.1 50
2.22
1.39
23.73
826.46
7.55
.518
28.
9.
68.
6.
.40
.05
31.
1.
( 2.54)
( 2.98)
t 1.04J
( 17.70)
( 616.29)
( 5.63)
( .851)
S.5/22/
10. O/ M
55.7/12/ 1
3.5/12/
20. 4/ 3/
3.8/ 3/
9.8/13/
.9/ 21
39.08
18.
111.
.27
28.6
2.83
35.24
1357.0
14.92
.789
1.43
1.99
24.73
952.14
10.47
.554
28.
10.
20.
7.
.33
.06
29.
1.
( 1
( 1
( 1
( 18
( 710
( 7
(
.74)
.91)
.48)
.44)
.01)
.81)
910)
PARTICIPATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 3 BASS
90HH FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCH(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KU HR (6/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/K6 FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCH(SCF)
.764 ( 27.00)
1.090
.2146 ( .1600)
.3917 C .1777)
55.28 (1952.3)
-------
TABLE C-20.
ENGINE NO.1'20
ENCll'.E 'v'.^LC
ov'S ;;o, 10
X' VOLVO DUALFUEL
j, CIJ) I- 6
i' A i \ C.'' _ i r. R / 311 o 4 M h
PRY DULB TEMP. 22.2
PAG
:;C(27,40 IN HG)
DCG C(72,0 DEG F)
BAG NUMDER
PLOUER DIF P iVI,
BLOUER INLET P MM
BLOWER INLET TEMP
BLOWER REVOLUTION
TIM: SECONDS
H20(IN, H20)
. M20(IN, 1120)
. PEG, C(DEG, F)
S
rjfAL FLOU STIi. CU, METRES (SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/
RANGE/PPM
HC PCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/
RANCE/PPM
CO PCKGRP METER/RANGE/PPM
n
i
fv>
ro
C02 SAMPLE METER/
R,tNGE/PCT
CL'2 PCKGRD METER/PANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE ilETER/
r/CX L'CKGRJ.i MEIER/,
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NCX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS CRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX ,ViSS CRAMS
RnNGE/PPM
RV.i/b'E/PPM
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
FUEL ,\G (LP)
KU IIR (HP MR)
BSKC G/KU h'R (G/HP IIR)
S'JCO C/KU MR (G/HP MR)
F3C02 G/KU
D3NOX G/KU
HSFC KG/KU
R (G/I,'P IIR)
R (G/HP HR)
R (LB/IIP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 DAGS
TOTAL ,\U h'R (JIP HR)
USMC G/KU HR (G/IIP HR)
FSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCQ2 C/KU I!R (G/HP IIR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/KP MR)
I-'SFC NG/'KW HR (LB/IIP HR)
4,59 ( 6,15)
2,26 ( 1,69)
19,21 ( 14,32)
713.)
7,95)
963,
10,66 (
,597 (
,982)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
PROJECT NC, 11-3044-001
TEST NO,20-IB
BATE 11/13/30
TIME
DYNO NO, 5
RUN
DIESEL EM-465-F
RELATIVE HUMIDITY r ENGINE-37, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 6.2 GM/KG( 43,5 GRAINS/LP)
BAG CART NO,
CVS-20, PCT
1
NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1,0000
603.3 (27,0)
528,3 (20,0)
43,? (120,0)
5694,
272,6
277.2 ( 7792.)
605,8 (27,0)
528,3 (20,8)
40,? (120,0)
6011,
237,8
292,7 (10337,)
635,3 (27,0)
52G.3 (20,8)
43,9 (120,0)
5692,
272,6
277,1 ( 9789.)
5,5/22/
6,5/ I/
91.5/13/
5.4/13/
10, 4/ 3/
2,6/ 3/
7.5/13/
,4/ 2/
43,72
21,
36,
,26
23,0
3,42
27,39
1290,5
14,04
,776
1,29
2,65
21,63
1007,05
11,51
.602
28, 5,6/22/ 23, 5,4/22/ 27,
7, 6,5/ I/ 7, 6,5/ I/ 7.
92, 50.0/12/ 106, 33.3/13/ 83,
5, 1.7/12/ 3, 2.5/13/ 2,
,29 23, O/ 3/ ,37 19, 4/ 3/ ,31
.04 2,e/ 3/ ,04 3, I/ 3/ .05
28, 11.0/13/ 33, 10.1/13/ 30,
0, ,4/ 2/ 0, ,4/ 2/ 0,
34,70 -11,57
22, 21.
101, 80,
,33 ,27
32,5 30,0
3,66 3,29
34,56 25,71
1776,1 1245, C
10.19 15.72
( 1,71) 1,164
( 1,73) 2,06
( 1,98) 1,78
( 16,13) 16,31
( 750.96) 863,92
( 8,58) 0,35
( ,989) ,566
PARTICIPATE DATA* TOTAL
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
( 2,57)
( 2,76)
( 1,33)
( 12,54)
( 644,23)
( 6,60)
( .931)
FOR 3 BAGS
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
,801 (
1,24 (
2,65 (
20,66 (
1,77)
1,67)
1,97)
15,41)
1081,52 ( 806,49)
12,80 (
,644 (
G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL
(G/LB FUEL)
9,54)
1,058)
,71
,92
,20:
,33'
PART. 6/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .60 (.45)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
,711 ( 32,19)
9
25 ( ,1510)
91 ( ,1530)
58.25 (2057.4)
-------
APPENDIX D
TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS FROM THE METHANOL-CATALYST CONFIGURATION
-------
TABLE D-l. NOTES CONCERNING TEST RESULTS GIVEN IN APPENDIX D
Table No.
Methanol &
Catalyst
Cold Start
D-2
D-3
D-4
Notes
Hot Start
D-5
D-6
D-7
Bus Cycle
D-8
rvg
Passed statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions. NOX by bag measurement was 7.12 g/kW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements TQ intercept - 18.6. Results
used for regulated emissions. NOX by bag measurement was 7.43
g/kW-hr.
Volvo requested that throttle be fully closed during idle
to insure electrical contact for solenoid operation. In order
to assure throttle closure large negative torque command was
generated by the control tape. With the throttle fully
closed the engine may have been motored more than for previous
runs. Results from these tests were not used for regulated
emissions. Failed statistical requirements, TQ intercept
-18.8, torque and power slope about 4% high. Further runs
for record with negative TQ command were discontinued and
other methods of dynamometer control were pursued.
Failed statistical requirements, TQ intercept -16.4. Results
used for regulated emissions.
Passed statistical requirements. Results used for regulated
emissions.
Same as D-4 but test passed statistical requirements. Results
not used for regulated emissions.
Failed statistical requirements, TQ intercept -16.8. Results
used for regulated emissions. NOX by bag measurement was 7.76
g/kW-hr.
2
Failed statistical requirements, TQ R 3 percent low. Results
used for regulated emissions. NOX by bag measurement was 7.81
g/kW-hr. NOX emission estimated to be 8.03 g/kW-hr on the basis
of bag NOX.
D-2
-------
TABLE D-l (CONT'D). NOTES CONCERNING TEST RESULTS GIVEN IN APPENDIX D
Table No.
Methanol &
Catalyst &
Back Pressure
Device
Cold Start
D-10
Notes
D-ll
Hot Start
D-12
D-13
Bus Cycle
D-14
Volvo requested that a backpressure device be used in
conjunction with the catalyst. The device is only effective
at closed throttle conditions such as motoring and at idle
and serves as a "fast engine and catalyst warm-up device."
Idle diesel fuel rate was increased to maintain curb idle
speed. Results used for regulated emission. Failed statis-
tical requirements, torque, and power slope about 2 percent
high, torque and power intercept - 29.5 and -5.3 respectively.
measurement was 8.18 g/kW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements, TQ intercept - 24.8%. Cycle
power >15 percent below cycle command power. Results used
for regulated emissions. NOX by bag measurement was 8.47
g/kW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements,- TQ and Power intercept were
-32.9 and -6.6, torque and power slope were '^6 percent high.
Results used for regulated emissions.
Failed statistical requirements, TQ and power slope were
1 percent and 4 percent high, respectively. Results used
for regulated emissions.
Failed statistical requirements, TQ R slightly low. Results
used for regulated emissions.
D-3
-------
TABLE D-2.
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MOOFL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 LC>86. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 747.?7 MM HG(?9.4? IN HG)
DRY OULF1 TEMP. 25.6 DEG CC78.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DfSCR IPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWFR INLET P HH. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DFG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWFR REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. HETRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPH
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPH
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPH
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPH
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METFR/RANGE/PCT
, NOX SAMPLE HETER/RANGE/PPH
NOX BCKGRD ^ETER/RANGE/PPH
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPH
HC MASS GRAHS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW H3 (G/HP HR)
BSCO? G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR) 11.08 (
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR) .30 (
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 5.36 (
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 910. (
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 7.72 (
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP.HR) .538 (
14.86)
.23)
4.00)
679.)
5.76)
.885)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
COLD TRANSIENT
TFST N0.21-1C RUN
DATE 10/ 3/80
TIME
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO. 11-5J44-001
DIESEL EH-465-F
BAG CIRT NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGTNE-49. PCT , CVS-61. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.2 6M/KG( 71.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F.
1.0000
1
NYNF
670.6 (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6182.
296.0
299.1 (10563.)
LAl
670.6 (26.*)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6262.
299.9
303.0 (10700.)
3
LAF
670.6 (24.*)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6371.
305.0
308.2 (10886.)
NYNF
470.& (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6201.
297.0
300.0 (1059i.)
4
9
57
.3/22/
. 4/
1/
.2/12/ 1
3.5/12/
19
3
7
1
'
.O/
. 21
.8/1
.O/
42
1
11
B
22
2
39
3/
3/
3/
21
.01
2.
5.
26
.5
.15
.96
22.
9.
24.
7.
.30
.05
23.
1.
1406.9
12
.
1
1
35
1251
11
»
.88
810
.12
.91
.55
.46
.46
720
( 1.
( 1.
( 1.
( 26.
( 933.
( 8.
79)
51)
43)
51)
22)
55)
( 1.184)
2.9/227
8.9/ M
50.87137
7.27137
25.77 37
3.27 37
9.1/13/
.9/ 27
31.46
6.
41.
.37
26.5
1.05
14.35
2065.9
15.36
1.208
2.01
.52
7.14
1028.09
7.64
.601
PARTICIPATE DATA, TOTAL
90MM
15.
9.
48.
6.
.42
.05
27.
1 .
t 2
( 2
(
( 5
t 766
< 5
(
FOR 4
.66).
.69)
.39)
.32)
.65)
.70)
988)
BAGS
1.8/227
7.67 17
13.3/137
7.6/137
57.07 37 1
3.17 37
25.4/13/
.8/ 21
13.32
2.
5.
.96
75.3
.39
1.8S
5417.1
44.41
3.314
6.85
.06
.27
790.64
6.48
.484
9.
8.
12. 1
7.
1.5/22/ 7.
8.77 17 9.
6.8/13/ 15.
6.3/13/ 5.
.00 16.57 3/ .26
.05
76.
1.
( 7.31)
( 9.19)
( .04)
( .20)
( 589.58)
( 4.83)
( .795)
3.07 3/ .05
7.8/1J/ 23.
.87 21 1.
50.58
-1.
9.
.22
22.5
-.22
3.22
1196.3
12.91
.636 (
1.10 (
-.20 (
2.93 (
1089.87 ( 81
11.76 (
.579 (
1.40)
1.47)
-.15)
2.19)
2.72)
8.77)
.953)
FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
S/KW HR
(G7HP HR)
1.279
.946
( 45.18)
.085* ( .0637)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/K6 FUEL (6/LB FUEL) .1585 ( .0719)
PART. 6/KV/-HR (6/HP-HR) .25 (.19)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
81.88 (2892.0)
-------
ENGINE NO.DSf]
ENGINE MODEL so VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE R.b L(58b. CIO) l.-b
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETfR 717.7P MM HG(?9.H1 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP, S5,n DE5 C(77,n DtG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. HaotlN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, H20(IN. H?0)
BLQWER INLET TEMP, DEG. CCDEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 3TD. CU. METRES(SCF)
TABLE D-3. ENGINE EMISSION RtsuiT3
COLO TRANSIENT
TEST N0.21-2C RUN
DATE 10X 7/80
TIME
DYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
COS SAMPLE
COS BCKGPO
NO* SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
M E T F R / R 4 N G E / P P M
METER/RANGE/PPM
j DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS MASS GRAM3
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
8SHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
HSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HP)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS t HAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HP)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
11.Ib ( 14,97)
.HI ( .31)
5.7) ( 4.2b)
115. ( bBS.)
7.1b ( 5,34)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR1 .538 ( ,88H)
PART. G/KV/-HR (6/HP-HR) .25 (.19)
DIESEL EM-HbS-F
BAG CART NO, i
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-SI, PCT , cvs-47. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,2 GM/KGC 71,7 GRAIN3/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1,0000
b?0
520
48
299
23.
q
54.
f
18.
2.
b.
t
NYNF
.b (2b
.7 (20
,4)
.5)
,9 (120,0)
blBl,
29b.O
.5 (10577.)
3/11/
8X IX
OX12X
b/lSX
BX 3X
7X 3X
bX13X
7X ?X
42,54
1^..
112.
.2b
19.2
2.37
39.21
1431.4
10,98
.754
1.12
2.13
35.15
1283,38
9,84
.b7b
23.
10,
lib.
1,
.30
.04
20,
1.
( 1
C 1
( 1
( 2b
( 957
( 7
C 1.
LANF
b70,b (2b,
520.7 (20.
48,9 (120
b2b4.
300,0
4)
5)
,0)
303.5 (10719
Ib.SXilX
9.2X IX
52.7X13X
1.5X13X
25, 2X 3X
2,bX 3X
7.9X13X
,8X 2X
32,09
7.
48.
.37
22.8
1.29
lb.81
2070.7
13, 8b
,bb) 1,215
,50) 2,02
,59) ,b4
.21) 8.33
,01) 1025.97
,34) b.57
111) ,b02
PARTICULATE DATAi TOTAL
90MM
20 X
FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
Ib
9
50
1
,*
.)
t
t
t
f
1
.04
24
1
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
•
•
2,bB) •
2,71)
.48)
b,21)
7b5,07)
4,90)
,990)
3
LAP
b70.b (2b.
520.7 (20,
48,9 (120
b370,
305,0
4)
S)
,0)
308, b (10900.)
11.1X11X
7,bX IX
9.7X13X
1.4X13X
57.0X 3X 1
2.7X 3X
23.9X13X
l.OX 2X
13,33
4,
7,
.97
70.7
,72
2,55
545b,2
41, 7b
3,34b
b.8b
.11
.37
795,33
b,09
,488
11.
8.
8,
1.
,00
.04
72.
1.
( 7
( 9
(
(
( 593
( 4
(
4
NYNF
b70,b (?b,4)
520,7 (20,5)
48,9 (120,n)
k?OE ,
297,0
300,5 (10bl3,)
9.2X11X 9,
B,3X IX 8,
18.5X13X Ib.
1.5X13X 1.
lb,8X 3/ ,2?
2,7/ 3/ ,04
8.3/13/ 25,
,8/ 2/ 1,
49,58
1,
15,
,23
24.2
,19
5,18
1250,8
13,93
,38) ,b8b ( 1
,20) 1,17 t 1
,08) ,lb (
,28) 4.14 ( 3
,08) 1070.45 ( 798
.54) 11,92 ( 8
802) ,587 ( ,
.51)
,57)
,12)
.31)
,24)
,89)
9bb)
FOR 4 BAGS
SCM(SCF)
GXTEST
GXKW HR
(GXHP HR)
GXKG FUEL (GXLB FUEL)
SCM(SCF)
1.243 ( 43,92)
.975
.0873 ( ,0b51)
,lb24 ( .0737)
82.82 (2925.1)
-------
tNCIM NO.D20
ENGlNt MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
INGINE 9.f, L(586. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAKOMEUR 734.90 Mn HGI29.13 IN HG )
UkY BULd TEMP, 26.7 DEC CI80.0 DEC F}
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DE SCRIPT ION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20UN. H20 )
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METfcR/RANGE/PPM
METER/HANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
MfcTER/RANGE/PPM
METER/HANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CU MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
t-UEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (C/HP Hk)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR I
BSFC KC/KW HR (LB/HP HK)
NEGATIVE TORaUE COMAND
TABLE D-4. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
COLD TRANSIENT
TEST N0.21-4C RUN
DATE 10/ 9/80
TIME
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
t)
1
o
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL Kh HR (HP HR) 12.14
BSHC G/Kh HR (C/HP HR) .68
BSCO C/KH HR (G/HP HR) 7.09
BSC02 C/KW HK IG/HP HR) 838.
BSNOX C/KW HR (C/HP HR) 6.57
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .526
16.27)
.51)
5.28)
625.)
4.90)
.865)
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY t ENCINE-46. PCT , CVS- 0. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.2 CM/KG! 71.3 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
670.6 (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6205.
297.0
296.7 (10481.)
2
LANF
670.6 (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6267.
300.0
299.7 (10586.)
3
LAF
670.6 (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6372.
305.0
304.7 (10763.)
4
NYNF
670.6 (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
46.9 (120.0)
6204.
297.0
296.7 (10479.)
28. 9/ 2/ 39. 23. 8/ 2/
11. 21 21 11. 11. 7/ 21
64.9/12/ 1*5. 61.7/13/
.3/12/ I. .8/13/
17. 9/ 3/ .29 25. 4/ 3/
2.2/ 3/ .03 2.4/ 3/
20. I/ 21 20. 25. 5/ 21
l.O/ 2/ 1. l.l/ 2/
44.16 31.69
18. 12.
144. 58.
.25 .38
19.1 24.4
3.07 2.16
49.59 20.40
1376.8 2080.6
10.85 14.01
.846
1.18
2.61
42.12
1169.43
9.22
.718
1 1.86) 1.285
( 1.58) 2.21
1.95) .97
31.41) 9.22
872.05) 940.15
6.88) 6.33
1.181) .581
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL
90HH FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
24. 20. 9/ 21 21.
12. 10. 5/ 21 11.
60. 18.9/13/ 17.
1. 1.1/13/ 1.
.41 57. 8/ 3/ 1.02
.04 2.21 3/ .03
26. 73. 21 21 73.
1. 2. I/ 21 2.
13.10
11.
16.
.99
71.3
1.97
5.52
5515.7
41.54
2.83)
2.97)
.73)
6.87)
701.07)
4.72)
.955)
FOR 4 BAGS
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
3.556 7
7.52 10
.26
.73
733.05 546
5.52 4
.473
G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL
(C/L8 FUEL)
16
10
34
1
15
2
25
1
.84)
.09)
.20)
.55)
.63)
.12)
777)
1.219 (
.983
.0810
.1540
.BX 21 17.
.7/ 21 11.
.9/13/ 32.
.6/13/ I.
.9/ 3/ .25
.!/ 3/ .03
.I/ 21 25.
.7/ 21 i.
52.02
6.
30.
.22
23.4
1,08
10.49
1202.6
13.30
.698
1.22
.88
8.59
984.45
10.89
.571
43.04)
( .0604)
1 .0696)
1.54)
1.64)
.66)
6.40)
734.11)
8.12)
.939)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .20 (.15)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
80.10 (2829.0)
-------
- TABLE D-5.
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO. 11-5944-301
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 l_(586. CIO) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 747.37 MM HGC29.42 IN HG)
DRY BULH TEMP. 27.8 DEC C(82.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRI PTION
BLOWER DIP P MM- H20(IN. H20)
BLOUER INLET P MH. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOUER RESOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOU STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
TEST N0.21-1H
DATF 10/ 3/80
TINE
DYNO NO. 5
RUN 1
DIESEL -EH-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , EN6INE-43. PCT , CVS-56. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.2 SM/KG( 71.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.DDOO
1
NYNF
670.6 (26.A)
520.7 (?0-5)
48.9 (120.0)
6181.
296.0
298.9 (10556.)
LANF
670.6 (26.4)
5?0.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6262.
299.9
302.8 (10695.)
3
LAF
670.6 (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6370.
305.0
308.0 (13879.)
4
NYNF
670.5 (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
62Q1 .
297.0
299.8 (10591.)
W
i
-vl
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC 8CKGRD HETER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPH
CO BCKGRD NETER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02
NOX
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
| BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (6/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
11.15 ( 14.96)
.15 ( .11 )
2.97 ( 2-21)
879. ( 656.)
7.57 ( 5.64)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .517 ( .849)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .3! (.23)
14
9
50
1
16
2
7
1
.1/11/
.9/ I/
.1/13/
.6/13/
.3/ 3/
.8/ 3/
-0/13/
.1/ 21
50.48
4.
45.
.22
19.9
.76
15.59
1190.2
11.40
.645
1.12
.68
13.87
1058.66
10.14
.574
14.
10.
47.
1.
.26
.04
21.
1.
( 1.4Z)
( 1.51)
( .50)
( 10.34)
( 789.44)
( 7.56)
( .944)
13.1/11/
9.5/ I/
38.4/13/
1.2/13/
24. 6/ 3/
2.8/ 3/
9.1/13/
.9/ 2/
33.05
4.
35.
.36
26.5
.68
11.78
1991.4
15.35
1.156
2.03
.34
5.81
982.36
7.57
.570
1 3.
10.
35.
1.
.40
.04
27.
1.
( 2.55)
( 2.72)
( .25)
( 4.33)
( 732.55)
( 5.65)
( .937)
9.3/11/ 9.
8.3/ I/ 8.
8.6/13/ 8.
1.0/13/ 1.
56. 7/ 3/ 1.00
2.8/ 3/ .04
25.4/13/ 76.
1.0/ 21 1.
13.41
2.
6.
.96
75.3
.30
2.31
5404.2
44.35
3.309 (. 7.29)
6.90 ( 9.25)
.04 ( .03)
.34 ( .25)
783.73 ( 584.40)
6.43 I 4.80)
.480 ( .789)
7.6/11/
8.1/ 1/
12.1/13/
.8/13/
16. 6/ 3/
2.8/ 3/
8.0/13/
1.0/ 2/
50.34
-0.
10.
.22
23.2
-.06
3. 39
1221.5
13.29
.651
1.11
-.05
3.07
1103.90
12.01
.588
8.
8.
11.
1 .
.26
.04
24.
1 .
( 1.44)
( 1.48)
( -.04)
( 2.29)
( 823.18)
( 8.95)
( .967)
PARTICULATE DATA,'TOTAL FOff 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOkl SCHCSCF)
SCH(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LQ FUEL)
1.293 ( 45.68)
.935
.0839 ( .0625)
.1623 ( .0736)
81.24 (2869.5)
-------
TABLE D-6.
ENGINE N0.n?0
ENGINE MODEL BO VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9,b L(58b. cio) L»B
CV3 NO, 10
BAROMETER 7t7,78 MM Hr,(?9.44 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24. •» DEC c(?b.o DEC FJ
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBFR
DtSCRIPTTON
BLOWER njF P MM
a
i
CO
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
hCKRRD
SAMPLE
BCKGBO
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
H?0(IN, H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM, HJotiN, H?O)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(D£G. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOVi STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METEH/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/R4NGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
MC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG fLB)
KW HR fHP HR)
BSHC G/KH HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC03 G/KW HR CG/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KN HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO? G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
B3NOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
11,19 ( IS.OS)
.ID ( .08)
3.72 ( 2.78)
8fa7. ( b47.)
7.17 ( S.3S)
BSFC KG/KW HS (LB/HP HR) ,613 ( .843)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .36 (.27)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST N0.21-2H RUN
DATE 10X 7/80
TIME
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO, 11-S044«001
DIESEL EM-4bS-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-SB, PCT , CV3-47, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.1 GMXKGt 70,7 GRAIN5/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1.0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
b?0.b (2b.4) b70,b (2b.4) b70.b (2b,4)
520.7 (20.5) 520,7 (20,5) 520.7 (20,5)
48.9 (120,0) 48.9 (120,0) 48,9 (120,0)
b!03. b2b4, b370.
297,0 300.0 305,0
300.4 (10bl2,) 303,4 (1071b») 308,5 (10898.)
13.5X11X 13, 12.8X11X 13. 10.4X11X 10,
12. SX IX 13, 11. OX IX 11, B.9X IX 9.
b5.9X13X b4, 4B.7X13X 4b. 13,bX13X 12,
5.7X13X 6, 5.9X13X 5. 5.2X13X 5.
lb.7X 3X ,27 23, bX 3X ,38 Sb.lX 3X .99
2.9X 3X .04 2,7X 3X .04 2.7X 3X ,04
b.5X13X 20. 8.5X13X 2b, 24.7X13X 74.
1.3X 2X 1, 1.3X 2X 1. l.SX 2X 2.
»8.9b 34.44 13, Sb
1. 2. 2.
58. 40, ?.
.22 .34 ,95
18.4 24,4 72.8
.?! .37 .IB
20.32 14,07 2,b7
1224.9 1907,1 5354,5
10.55 14,14 42, 9B
,b7S 1,49) 1.117 ( 2.4b) 3,27b 7
1.20 l.bl) 2.02 ( 2,71) b,83 9
.18 .13) .19 ,14) ,0b
lb.88 12.59) b,97 5,20) .39
1017.49 758.74) 944,93 704. b3) 783,54 584
8.77 b,54) 7,01 5,23) b.29 4
•5bO ,921) ,553 ,910) ,479 (
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR GXTE8T
MULTIPLIER FOR GXKW HR (GXHP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (CXLB FUEL)
4
NYNF
b?o,b (eb,4)
520.7 (?0,S)
48,9 (120.0)
b201,
297,0
300,4 (lObOB,)
9.2X11/ 9,
B,3X I/ B,
20.0X13/ 18,
4,b/13/ 4,
lb,7X 3/ ,27
2,bX 3/ ,04
7.9X13/ 24,
l.SX ?/ 2,
49, 8b
1,
It,
.23
22,2
,n
4,74
1249.4
12,78
.22) ,b87 ( 1
.Ib) 1,17 ( 1
.04) ,lb (
.29) 4. Ob ( 3
.28} 10b9,25 ( 797
,b9) 10,94 ( B
788) .588 ( ,
1.289 ( 45.54)
,941
.0838 ( .OfaeS)
,lb3S ( ,0741)
tfl>
,S7)
.12)
,02)
• a*)
,15)
9bb)
ZO X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
82.55 (2915,5)
-------
NEGATIVE TORSUE COW1AND
TABLE D-7. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
ENGINE NO.020
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(586. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 739.90 MM HGI29.13 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 27.8 DEC C182.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P HP. H20UN. H2U )
SLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. CIDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. Cu. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METtR/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKCRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METEK/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS CRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP hR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW Hk (G/HP HR)
BSNUX G/KH HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KM Hk (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR) 11.66
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR) .59
6SCO G/KW HR {G/HP HR) 4.93
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 809.
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 6.74
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .506
15.63)
3.67)
603. )
5.03)
.832)
TEST NO. 2
DATE 10/
1-bH RUN
9/80
TIME 03: 35
DYNO NO
RELATI VE
ABSOLUTE
1
NYNF
670.6 (26.
520.7 (20.
48.9 (120
6182.
296.0
. 5
HUMIDITY , ENCINE-43. PCT t
DIESEL Ett-465-F
BAG CART NO.
CVS- 0. PCT
HUMIDITY 10.3 GM/KG( 72.0 GRAINS/LB) NOX
2
LANF
4) 670.6 (26.4)
5) 520.7 (20.5)
.0) 48.9 (120.0)
6265.
300.0
295.5 (10436.) 299.4 (10576.)
20. 9/ 2/
10. I/ 2/
74.7/13/
2.1/13/
16. 11 3/
2.4/ 3/
21. 7/ 2/
l.O/ 2/
48.63
11.
72.
.23
20.7
1.88
24.69
1245.5
11.71
.745
1.34
1.40
18.47
931.83
8. 76
.557
PART
21. 19. 6/ 2/ 20.
10. 9.6/ 2/ 10.
74. 52.0/13/ 49.
2. 2.3/13/ 2.
.27 22. 9/ 3/ .37
.04 2.5/ 3/ .04
22. 25. 4/ 2/ 25.
1. l.l/ 2/ 1.
35.44
10.
47.
.33
24.3
1.77
16.36
1832.2
13.94
1.64) 1.130 2.49)
1.79) 2.11 2.83)
1.05) .84 .63)
13.78) 7.77 5.79)
694.86) 869.68 648.52)
6.53) 6.62 4.93)
.916) .536 .882)
ICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF»
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR C/KW HR
3
LAF
670.6 (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6371.
305.0
304.5 (10755.)
21.17 2/ 21.
9.6/ 2/ 10.
21.2/13/ 19.
2.4/13/ 2.
54. 9/ 3/ .96
2.3/ 3/ .04
70. O/ 2/ 70.
l.l/ 2/ 1.
13.87
12.
17.
.93
69.0
2.14
5.88
5184.9
40.18
3.344 7.
7.00 9.
.31
.84
740.49 552.
5.74 4.
1
HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
4
NYNF
670.6 (26.4)
520.7 (20.5)
48.9 (120.0)
6203.
297.0
296.5 (10472.)
15. 6/ 2/ 16.
9.5/ 21 10.
35.5/13/ 32.
2.3/13/ 2.
15. 8/ 3/ .25
2.4/ 3/ .04
23. 5/ 2/ 24.
l.O/ 2/ 1.
52.37
6.
30.
.22
22.5
1.07
10.48
1168.1
12.77
37) .678 1
39) 1.21 1
23) .89
63) 8.64 6
18) 963.21 718
28) 10.53 { 7
.478 .785) .559 (
1
1
(G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (C/LB FUEL)
.183 ( 41.79)
.011
.0867 ( .0647)
.1714 ( .0778)
.49)
.63)
.66)
.44)
.27)
.85)
919)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .25 (.|9)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
79.45 (2806.0)
-------
ENGINE N
ENGINE MUOEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE t.b LCS«i>. CID) L-b
CVS NO, 10
TABLE D-8. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST N0.21-1B RUN 2
DATE 10/ 3/80
TIME
DYNO NO. 9
PROJtCT NO, 11-5044-001
ER 747,87 MM HG^.HS IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. ?7.J PFG C(81.0 DEC F)
BAG RfSULTS
BAG NUMRER
BLOwER OIF P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, HSOCIN, HSO)
BLOrtER INLET TEMP, OEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME 3ECON03
TOTAL FLOW 3TO. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
a
i
HC
HC
CO
CO
COS
C02
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
SAMPLE
RCKGBO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/HANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAM3
COS MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB>
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HS)
BSC02 G/K* HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/K* HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 SAGS
TOTAL KW HH (HP HP)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
PSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/Krt HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/Krf HR (LB/HP HR)
»,94 {
.37 (
9.97 (
95», (
7. '8 (
,5Sb (
b.b2)
.28)
711.)
5,15)
DIESEL EM.«»b5.F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-»5. PCT , CVS-b5, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,3 GM/KGC 72,2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F. 1,0000
b70.b (2b,4) b70.b (2b.4) b70,b (2b,H)
520.7 (20.5) 520.7 (20,5) 520,7 (20,5)
48.9 (120.0) 4B.9 (120.0) 48,9 (120,0)
Sb94, bD09, Sb92,
272,7 287,8 272, b
275. 0 ( 9713.) 290,2 (10250.) 274.9 ( 9709.)
11.7XMX 12. 9.9X11/ 10, 8,5/llX 8,
b,5X IX 7, b.SX IX 7. b,2X IX fa,
bb.b/lSX bS, b2,9/13X bl, 34,bX13X 32,
1.0X13X 1. 1.0X13X 1, 1.1X13X i,
19, BX 3X .32 24, 5X 3X ,40 19, SX 3X ,31
2,bX 3X ,04 2.7X 3X ,04 2.4X 3X ,04
7,bX13X 23. 9.7X13X 29. 8.2X13X 25.
1.3X 2X 1. 1.2X 2X 1, ,7X 2X 1.
41.14 33.02 42, 2b
5, », if
b2, 58, 30,
.28 .3b ,28
21.5 88. 0 23.9
,85 .59 ,38
19.97 l«T,7i 9,55
1407,4 1907,3 139b,4
11.33 15, Si 12, Sb
.801 ( l,7b) 1.158 ( 2,55) .788 ( 1
1.39 ( l.Bb) 2,19 ( 2,93) l,3b ( 1
.bl ( ,4b) .27 ( ,20) ,28 (
14.37 ( 10,76) 9.02 ( b,72) 7,00 ( 5
1012.71 ( 755,18) 872,33 ( bSO.SQ) 1024.30 ( 7b3
8.15 ( b.OB) 7.10 ( 5,29) 9.21 ( b
,57b ( .947} .530 ( ,871) ,578 (
PARTICUIATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW 8CMC8CF)
MULTIPLIER FOR GXTEST
MULTIPLIER FOR GXKW HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL CGXLB FUEL)
.74)
.83)
.21)
.22)
.82)
.87)
950)
.895 (
,938
,1900
,341b
31, bj)
( .1*17)
( .1550)
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .2! (.16)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOM
SCM(SCF)
55,HI (115^,8)
-------
TABLE D-9.
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO, ll-SOtt-Ol
a
i
ENGINE NO.D2P
ENGINE MODEL 8n VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE l.b LCSBb. CIP) L-b
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 7H7.01 MM HGO1.H1 IN HG)
D"Y BULB TEMP, 25.b OF.G C(7B,0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOwER DIP
P MM. HJOUN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, HJOCIN, H2o)
BLOivER TNLET TEMP, DEB. CtDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD, CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
RCKGRD
SAMPLE
RCKGRD
cna SAMPLE
CO? 8CKGRD
NO* SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/PANGF,/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C05 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (L9)
Kw HR (HP HR)
B3HC G/KW HR fG/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC03 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HP)
8SFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
8SHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (L8/HP HR)
,3h (
1U.11 (
7.04 (
.S40 (
b.73)
.27)
8.13)
bB3.)
5.25)
.888)
Part. 6/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .21 (.16)
*Est. BSNOX G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) 8.03 (5.99)
TEST N0.21-2B RUN
DATE 10/ 3/80
TIME
DYNO NO, 5
DIESEL EM-HbS-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-41, PCT , CVS-58, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,2 GM/KGC 71,3 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1,0000
b70
520
48
273
13.
b.
81.
,
11.
2,
b,
•
.b (2b.
.7 (20,
.1 (120
5b55.
272,8
.3 ( 1b
b/11/
B/ I/
3/13/
8/13/
5/ 3/
7/ 3/
7/13/
8/ 2/
41,5b
7,
71.
.27
11.3
1,10
25,02
13b5.5
10,10
,807
i.ts
.77
17,55
158.15
7.01
.Sbb
4)
5)
,°)
52.)
It,
7,
81,
1.
.31
,ot
20.
1,
( 1
( 1
(
( 13
( 71H
( 5
( ,
,78)
.11)
.58)
.01)
.tl)
.21)
131)
b70
520
48
210
1,
b ,
b4,
,
23,
2,
B,
1
PARTICULATE DATA,
9QMM
,b (2b.
.7 (20,
,1 (120
bOll,
287,1
4)
5)
.0)
,4 (10258
S/ll/
7/ I/
3/13/
1/13/
5/ 3/
S/ 3/
b/13/
b/ 2/
34,48
3,
bO.
,34
25.1
.41
20,31
1832,3
13,13
l.llb .
2.21
,22
1.18
827. 1b
b,30
.504.
TOTAL
1
7
b2
1
.)
1
•
t
t
.38
,04
2b
1
(
(
(
(
(
C
C
t
•
2.4b)
2,17)
,17)
bninn
t.bl)
.821)
b?0
520
48
275
B.
7.
33.
,
11.
2.
7.
t
,b (2b,
.7 (20.
,1 (180
Sb14,
272,7
4)
5)
,0)
.1 ( 1717.)
S/ll/
O/ I/
B/13/
8/13/
b/ 3/
5/ 3/
4/13/
7/ 2/
42.05
1.
21.
.28
21.5
.21
l.tl
1318,4
11,31
,7Bb
1,38
,lb
b!ee
1012, b?
8,11
,5b1
8,
7.
31.
1,
,31
,04
22.
1.
( 1
( 1
(
( 5
( 755
( b
\ •
,73)
.85)
.12)
,08)
.15)
.11)
13b)
FOR 3 BAGS
FILTER
SAMPLE
FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR
(0/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
.81
.13
.18
.818 ( 31,72)
,134
,18bl ( ,1388)
80 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
5b,15 (1183,3)
-------
TABLE D-IO.
ENGINE NO.D20
tNO INC MODEL 00 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 1(506, CUD L-6
CYS NO, 10
N.VcCMETER 739.65 MM HG(29,12 IN M6)
DRY BULB TEMP, 21,7 DEC C(71,0 DEO F)
I'f.G RESULTS
HAG NUMF'ER
FLOWER filf P MM, 1 120 (IN, H20)
HLOU'tk INLET P MM, 1120 (IN, H20)
MOWER INLET TEMP, DEB, C(flEG« D
[iLOUER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 3TD, CU, METRES(SCF)
HC
!IC
CO
CO
CO.?
co:
NiJX
NOX
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
I'CKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CAHPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
[(CKCRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
,'IC CONCENTRATION PPM
LO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
MC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO: MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU HR (IIP liR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP MR)
MCO G/KW HR (G/MP HR)
LSC02 G/KU MR (G/MP HR)
H3NOX G/KW MR (G/MP MR)
KSFC KG/KW HR (LB/IIP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 DAGS
TOTAL KU ;,'R (HP MR)
10,09 ( 14.41)
I;1:; ic
LTCO
ssco:
/KU
(G/MP MR)
G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
G/KU MR (G/HP HR)
tJ/KW HR (G/HP HR)
KG/KW MR (LC/HP MR)
MFC
PART. 6/KW-HR (6/HP-HR)
,51 (
6,1? (
1056, (
9.19 (
,626 (
.38)
4,62)
783.)
6,85)
1,030)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS,
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
TEST NO.D21-1 RUN1
DATE 11/14/80
TIME 10JOO
DYNO NO, 5
DIESEL EM-465-F
SAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY » ENGINE-65, PCT » CVS-45, FCT
ASSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,0 GM/KG( 75,6 GRAINS/LS) NOX HUMIDITY C.F
1,0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
680,7 (26,8) 680,7 (26,8) 680,7 (26,0)
525,0 (20,7) 525,0 (20,7) 525,0 (20,7)
48,9 (120,0) 48,9 (120,0) 48,9 (120,0)
6103, 6264, 6371,
296,0 300,0 305,0
275,6 (10440.) 279,4 (10577.) 304.6 (10757.)
24.3/21/ 24, 19.6/21/ 20, 19.0/21/ 20,
12, 3/ I/ 12. 12, 2/ I/ 12, 12, O/ I/ 12,
52.6/12/ 112, 46.7/13/ 44, 19.6/13/ 18,
1.0/12/ 2, 2.2/13/ 2, 2.0/13/ 2,
20, 6/ 3/ ,33 27, 6/ 3/ ,45 62, 2/ 3/ 1,11
3,6/ 3/ .06 3,5/ 3/ ,05 3,l/'3/ ,05
B.G/13/ 26. 10.5/13/ 31, 27.6/13/ 83,
,6/ 2/ 1. ,5/ 2/ 1, ,5/ 2/ 1.
38, Cl 29,17 12,07
12, 3, 9,
108, 41, 16,
,28 ,40 1,06
25,8 30,9 82,4
2,10 1,35 1,55
37.26 14,28 5,52
1505,2 2200,9 5930,5
14,61 17,71 48,01
,872 ( 1,92) 1,263 ( 2,79) 3,629 ( 8
1,09 ( 1,46) 1,98 ( 2,66) 6,76 ( 9
1,92 ( 1,43) ,68 ( ,51) ,23 (
34,15 ( 25.47) 7,20 ( 5.37) ,02 (
1379,58 (1020,75) 1109,46 ( 827,32) 076.94 ( 653
13.39 ( 7. 90) 0,73 ( 6,66) 7,10 ( 5
,799 ( 1.313) .637 ( 1,047) ,537 (
PARTICULATE DATAi TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW MR (G/MP MR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
A
NYNF
600,7 C;.C)
525,3 (20,7)
48,9 (120,0)
6202.
297,0
296,5 (10472.)
13.6/21/ 14,
10, 7/ I/ 11.
34.8/13/ 32,
1.7/13/ 2,
24, I/ 3/ ,39
3,2/ 3/ ,05
11.7/13/ 35,
,4/ 2/ 0,
uw » wO
3,
30.
,34
34, C
trrr
4 Ow
10,36
1070,1
19,74
,00) 1.059 ( 2
.07) 1,05 ( 1
,17) ,52 (
,61) ?,82 ( 7
,94) 1772,61 (1321
,27) 10,71 ( 13
C82) 1,003 ( 1.
1,223 ( 43,21)
,578
,0870 ( ,0669)
,1433 ( ,0650)
,33)
,41)
,39)
,32)
,04)
,76)
650)
.30 (.22)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
91,09 (2864.0,
-------
TABLE IM I.
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 00 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(506, CID) L-6
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 747,52 MM I!G(29,43 IN HC)
DRY DULB TEMP- 10,3 DEC C(65,0 DEO F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
L'LDUEF DIF r
3LOUEF INLET
HLOWEf INLET
I'LGUEf REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLGJ CTD,
MM. 1120(IN, 1120)
P MM. i 120(IN. H20)
BEG, C(DEO, F)
METRES(GCF
TEMP.
HC CAMPLE
L!)
CO
C02
CO 2
SAMPLE
L;CKGRD
SAMPLE
DCKORD
NOX SAMPLE
UJ
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PF'M
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANCE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
; i-n
PPM
PCT
PPM
DILUTIDN1 FACTOR
!!C CONCENTRATION
CC CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
N'JX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS CRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU HR (HP IIR)
B3HC G/KW IIR (G/HP IIR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BGC02 G/KW IIR (0/1 IP IIR)
BCNOX G/KU IIR (G/HP HR)
TGTAL TEST RESULTS 4 DAGJ
TOTAL
BSHC
BZCQ
BSC02
BGNOX
BSFC
KM HR
G/KW
G/KW
G/KW
G/KW
KC/KW
(HP
MR
IIR
IIR
HR
IIR
HR)
(G/HP
(G/HP
(G/IIP
(G/HP
(LB/HP
HR)
HR)
IIR)
HR)
IIR)
10
5
10
0
,
1
j
,
33 (
71 (
?0 (
5H , (
1
6
60 (
16 (
13.36)
,53)
4,46)
759,)
6,42)
1,013)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS,
TEST N0.21-2C RUN1
DATE 11/17/00
TIME 10147
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
DYNO NO, 5 BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY r ENGINE-72. PCT , CVS-25, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9,6 GM/KG( 67,3 GRAINS/LLO NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1234
NYNF LANF LAF
685,0 (27,0) 605.G (27,0) 635, S (27,0)
530,9 (20.9) 530,9 (20,9) 530,9 (20,9)
47,0 (110,0) 47,0 (110,0) 47,C (113,0)
6100, 6265, 6372,
295,9 300,0 305.0
299.5 (10500.) 303,7 (10725.) 300.3 (10903.)
21, A/21/ 22, 18.9/21/ 19. 20.3/21/ 20,
6,6/ I/ 7. 3,3/ I/ 3, 3,3/ I/ G,
49, A/12/ 105. 40.C/13/ 3D, 16.6/13/ 15.
-2/12/ 0, -7/13/ 1, ,G/13/ 1,
20, 4/ 3/ ,33 29, I/ 3/ ,40 57, 4/ 3/ 1,01
2,7/ 3/ ,04 2,7/ 3/ ,04 ' 2,0/ 3/ .04
B.l/13/ 24, 10.3/13/ 31. 24.7/13/ 74,
1,1/ 2/ 1, ,9/ 2/ 1, ,7/ 2/' 1,
39,30 27,61 13,20
15, 11, 13,
103. 37, 14,
,29 .44 ,97
23,3 30,1 73,4
2,61 1,90 2,24
35,94 12,99 5,03
1581,0 2446,1 5497.0
13,36 17,43 43, 3B
,095 ( 1,97) 1,412 ( 3,11) 3,327 ( 7
,99 ( 1,33) 1,05 ( 2,40) 6,44 ( S
2,63 ( 1.96) 1,03 ( ,77) ,35 (
36,24 ( 27,02) 7,03 ( 5,24) ,70 (
1593,92 (1100,59) 1323,31 ( 906,79) 053,02 ( 636
13,47 ( 10,04) 9,46 ( 7,05) 6,74 ( 5
,902 ( 1,403) ,764 ( 1,255) .517 (
PARTICULATE DATA; TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCMCSCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW IIR (G/HP !!R)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
NYNT
635. G (27,0)
530.9 (20,9)
47, D (118,0)
6203,
297,0
300,7 (10619.)
11.4/21/ 11,
G-,3/ I/ 3,
25.5/13/ 23,
, B/13/ 1 <
13. C/ I/ ,30
3,0/ 3/ ,05
b',C/13/ 26,
,0/ 2/ 1.
43,97
3,
22,
, 26
25,5
.57
7,01
1412,1
14,69
,34) ,734 ( 1
,63) 1,05 ( 1
,26) ,54 (
,5S) 7,40 ( 5
.69) 1330,47 ( 993
.02) 13,93 ( 10
550) ,695 ( i,
1.2C6 ( 45,41)
• 943
,0913 ( ,0631)
,1431 ( ,0672,'
,62)
.41)
.40)
.52)
,10)
,3S)
143)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR)
.27 (.20)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
(2721.2)
-------
TABLE B-12.
FJ.'CINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL oo VOLVO DUALFUEL
HIGINE 9,6 L(5B6, CUD L-6
C'.1: NO. 10
BAROMETER 739.14 MM HG(29,10 IN IIG)
DRY 3ULD TCMP. 20.3 DEC C(33,0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
PAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
KLCWER DIT P MM,
['LOWER
HLOUER
20(IN. H20)
INLET P MM, II20(IN, H20)
INLET TEMP, DEC. C(DEG, F)
['LOUCR REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STLi,
HC
CU. METRES (3CF)
CAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
IIC DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO CAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO 3CKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
CO2 I'CKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
0 NdX CAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
A NOX I'CKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
IIC MAS3 GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MAG3 CRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU IIR (IIP HR)
3311C G/KW HR (G/IIP IIR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
33C02 G/KW HR (G/IIP IIR)
BSNOX G/KU IIR (G/HP HR)
B3FC KG/KU IIR (LB/HP HR)
TCJTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KU IIR (IIP IIR)
11,3? ( 15,25)
BSMC
B3CO
v^co^
33NOX
BSFC
G/KW
G/,l\W
G/KU
G/KU
KG/KU
IIR
IIR
HR
IIR
IIR
(G/IIP
(G/I!P
(G/HP
(G/HP
(LB/HP
HR)
HR)
HR)
HR)
IIR)
,21 (
3,6
996
3.6
• •"} \j
3 i
, (
? (
7 (
.16)
2,71)
743.)
6,43)
,964)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
TEST NO.D21--1 RUN1
DATE 11/14/30
TIME 10J50
DYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11 5044-001
DIESEL EM-465-F
DAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY » ENGINE-43, PCT , CVS-45, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,6 GM/KG( 74,4 GRAING/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
680,7 (26, G) 680,7 (26,8) 680,7 (26. G)
525,0 (20,7) 525,3 (20,7) 525,3 (20.7)
48,9 (120,0) 48,9 (120.0) 48,9 (120,0)
6130, 6265, 6371.
296,0 300,0 305,0
295,1 (10421.) 299,1 (10565.) 304,2 (10743.)
15.3/21/ 15, 15.1/21/ 15, 18.2/21/ 10,
12,07 I/ 13, 12, 3/ I/ 12, 11,37 I/ 12,
51.B/13/ 49, 34.3/13/ 32, 19.2/13/ 17,
1.1/13/ 1. 1.1/13/ 1, 1.0/13/ 1,
19, ?/ 3/ ,32 27,47 3/ .45 62,97 37 1,12
3,07 3/ ,05 2,97 37 .04 3,07 3/ ,05
8.4/13/ 25, 10.C/13/ 32, 28.0/13/ 04,
,7/ 27 1, ,67 2/ 1. ,7/ 27 1.
41,50 29,50 11,92
3, 3, 7,
47, 30, 16,
,27 .41 1,08
24.4 31,7 83.2
.47 .56 1,30
16.16 10.45 5.67
1463,4 2223,1 6009,1
13,78 18,12 48,42
,304 ( 1,775 1,236 ( 2,33) 3,701 ( 3
1,16 ( 1,56) 2,04 ( 2,73) 7,00 ( 9
.41 ( ,30) .27 ( ,20) ,19 (
13,89 ( 10,36) 5,13 ( 3,82) .81 (
1262,30 ( 941.35) 1093,37 ( 015,32) 053,30 ( 640
11,05 ( G.S4) 8,89 ( 6,63) 6,92 ( 5
,691 ( 1,136) ,631 ( 1,037) ,529 (
PARTICULATE DATAr TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/L3 FUEL)
4
NYNF
680,7 (26,0)
525,3 (20,7)
40.9 (120,0)
6202,
297,0
296.1 110459,)
12.3/21/ 12,
12.17 I/ 12,
30,1/137 20,
1,1/M/ 1,
21.77 3/ .35
3,3/ 3/ ,05
11.1/13/ 33,
,6/ 2/' 1,
37.79
0.
26,
.30
32,6
,08
9,01
1610,2
1C. 45
.16) ,379 ( 1,94)
,3C) 1.17 ( 1,57)
,14) .0? ( .05)
,60) 7,69 ( 5,73)
,41) 1380,44 (1029,40)
.16) 15,74 ( 11,74)
870) ,750 ( 1,233)
1,236 ( 43,67)
.966
,0850 ( ,0634)
,1440 ( ,0657;
PART. 6/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .40 (.3»>
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCH(SCF)
80,39 (2039,4.
-------
ENGINE NC.MO
ENGINE MODEL CO VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE v\o LdOo, GIL) 1.-6
BAROMETER 740,16 MM HG(29,14 IN HG)
DRY DULL; TE;"
HC SAMPLE h:r:R/R;:KCc/PPM
HC DCKORH HrTfR/R.-iNGE/PPM
CL' SAMPLE fiETEr;/Rr
1 J t OU
,758 ( 1
1,13 ( 1
,01 (
6,73 ( 5
1220,69 ( 910
13,44 ( 10
.642 ( 1,
,67)
.52)
.01)
.1?)
.27)
,02)
055)
PART1CULATE DATAr TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
PART. 6/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .42 (.31)
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOU
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOU SCM(SCF)
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KU HR (G/IIP HR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
1,242 ( 43,36.)
,961
,0046 ( ,0631)
,1543 ( ,0700)
79,94 (2823,5)
-------
TABLE D-14. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
PROJECT NO, 11- 5044-001
."''CINE NO.DSO
Ff.'OINE rtGLT.L '30 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENC I.'.'E 9..: L'.Sfii. CI.'O L L
• /.'C NO. 10
PAROMETER 7J9.6C MM IIGC?9,12 IN IIG)
HRY SULP TEMP, 26.7 DEG C(00,0 DEG F)
I-'AC RESULTS
SLOWER DIP P MM. H20(IN, 1120)
SLOWER INLET P MM, 1120(IN, H20)
DLCiWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
fcLOUHR REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECOND1!
ilJfAL FLOW STD, CU, METRES (SCF)
HC SAMPLE HETER/RANGE/PPM
HC DCKGRD hETER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANCE/PPM
CO DCKCRD MlTER/RhNGE/r-PH
CJ2 SAMPLE METER/R.VJGE/PCT
tt NCX SAMPLE riETEP/RANCE/PPM
J. NCX DCKjaLi MLTEii/RANCE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
;IL CONCENTRATION PPM
ro2 cc.va.rRA/ioN TCT
NGX CuNCENTRATIC'N PPM
HC MASS Gr.'Ai-lS
CO MASS CI/AMC
CC2 rIAKS CRAMS
NOX MASS CRAMS
FUEL KG (Lf:)
KU !IR (IIP IIR)
!':S1,'S 5/KU HP (G/HP I!R)
[;SCO G/Kiv' IIR (G/HP HR)
M:C02 G/KU HR (G/HP IIR)
BSNJX G/KU HR (G/HP IIR)
FSFC KS/KW HR (LD/HP IIR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 SMS
TOTAL MJ HR (HP i!R) 4,84 (
rOi.'C G/KU HR (C/HP IIR) .31 (
SECO bVMv' IIR (G/HP HR) 9,21 (
BSC32 G/.\U' HP (G/HP IIR) 1037, (
.'•IWOX C/K'X' HR (G/HP HR) 9,20 (
iC.rC KC/K* HR (LB/HP HR) .590 (
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .24 (.18)
6.49)
,23)
774.)
6,86)
TEST NO.D21-1 RUN1
DATE 11/14/00
TIME 12J30
DYNO NO. 5
PIESEL EM-465-F
&AG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENOINE-40. PCT , CVC-45, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,3 GH/KG( 75,4 GRAINS/LIO NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1
630,7 (26.0)
525,8 (20,7)
50,0 (122.0)
5694,
272,6
271,3 ( 95C2.)
630,7 (26,8)
525,8 (20,7)
50,0 (122,0)
6011,
237,8
286,4 (10116.)
680.7 (26,8)
525,8 (20,7)
50,0 (122.0)
5694.
272,7
271,3 ( 9582,)
14.2/21/
9
64
1
21
3
3
,3/ I/
,0/13/
,9/13/
,0/ 3/
,fi/ 3/
,2/13/
,97 27
37,24
5,
60,
,30
23,7
,80
18,32
1468,7
12,29
,836
1,34
,59
14,01
1093,18
7,15
,623
14,
9,
63,
2,
,35
.06
25,
1,
( 1
( 1
(
( 10
( 815
( 6
( 1.
.84)
,30)
,44)
,45)
.1C)
.32)
023)
11
8
54
2
26
3
11
1
,67217
,37 I/
,0/137
,0/137
,67 3/
,57 3/
,6/137
,0/ 2/
30,34
4.
43,
,38
33,7
,50
16,13
2012,4
10,47
1.189
2,16
,27
7,45
929,92
Q.53
,550
12,
8,
51,
2,
,44
,05
35,
1,
( 2
( 2
(
( 5
( 693
( 6
(
,62)
,90)
,20)
,56)
,44)
,36)
903)
9
8
35
2
22
3
7
1
,2/21/
,77 I/
,6/13/
,0/13/
,4/ 3/
,5/ 37
.2/137
,07 27
36,54
1,
31,
,31
26,6
,11
9,64
1542,5
13,30
.033
1.33
,09
7,22
1155,85
10,34
,624
7,
9,
33,
2,
.36
,05
28,
1.
( 1
( 1
(
( 5
( 861
( 7
( 1,
,84)
,7?)
,06)
,39)
,92)
,71)
026)
PARTICULATE DATA. TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90NM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOU
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOU
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LE FUEL)
SCM(SCF)
,066 ( 30.58)
958
!l97Q ( ,1475)
,3350 ( .1519)
55,51 (1960,7)
-------
APPENDIX E
TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS FROM THE ETHANOL CONFIGURATION
-------
TABLE E- 1. NOTES CONCERNING TEST RESULTS GIVEN IN APPENDIX
Table No.
Ethanol
Notes
E-2
E-3
E-4
Cold Start
E-b
E-6
E-7
E-B
E>9
Volvo requested runs to verify the influence of high flow
diesel actuation and the influence of the actual start up
"puff" on particulate measurement. E-l, E-2 and E-3 are
a very limited series and were conducted using a negative
torque command to insure reliable diesel solenoid operation.
Passed statistical requirements. Particulate sampling
conducted as normal. Diesel fuel flow would switch to
"high" flow at closed throttle conditions. Particulate
rate by 90mm and by 20X20 inch filter samples yielded
0.30 and 0.27 g/bhp-hr respectively. Results not used for
regulated emissions.
Passed statistical requirements. The 90mm particulate
system was activated 10 seconds after engine start-up/cycle
start-up. Particulate rate by 90 mm and by 20X20 inch
filter sample yielded 0.25 and 0.26 g/bhp-hr, respecitvely.
Results not used for regulated emissions.
Passed statistical requirements. Particulate sampling
conducted as normal but the diesel fuel flow was switched
to "low" flow throughout the test. Particulate rate by
90mm and by 20X20 inch filter samples yielded 0.30 and
0.26 g/bhp-hr, respectively. Results not used for regulated
emissions. Volvo perferred that the "low" flow setting be
used on subsequent runs.
Failed statistical requirements. Used standard "0" torque
command control. Torque intercept, -15.5. Results used
for emissions.
Volvo requested that diesel fuel flow be set to "low"
flow even for cold start-up. Engine false started on
"low11 fuel flow, dynamometer engaged. Passed statistical
requirements. Results used for regulated emissions. NOX
by bag measurement was 7.20 g/kW-hr.
It was agreed that "high" flow diesel would be used for the
first 23 seconds then switched to low flow. Failed
statistical requirements, torque intercept -15.4. Results
used for regulated emissions.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -18.1,
power slope 1.4 percent high. Results used for regulated
emissions. NOX by bag measurement was 7.09 gAW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -20.8.
Results used for regulated enissions
E-2
-------
TABLE E-1 (CONT'D) . NOTES CONCERNING TEST RESULTS GIVEN IN APPENDIX E
Table No.
E-10
Hot Start
E-ll
E-12
E-13
E-14
E-15
E-16
Bus Cycle
E-17
E-18
E-19
E-20
Notes
Failed statistical requirements, torque and power slope
.5 and 4.4 percent high. Run primarily for additional
chemistry samples. Results used for regulated emissions.
Same as E-5, but passed statistical requirements. Results
used for regulated emissions.
Same as E-6, but failed statistical requirements - torque r^
2 percent low. Results used for regulated emissions.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -16.1.
Results used for regulated emissions.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -18.1
and power slope 1.4 percent high. Results used for regulated
emissions.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -20.2.
Results used for regulated emissions. NOX by bag measure-
ment was 7.12 g/kW-hr.
Passed statistical requirements. Run primarily for
additional chemistry samples. Results used-for regulated
emissions. NOX by bag measurement was 7.20 g/kW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -16.4.
Results used for regulated emissions. NOX by bag measure-
ment was 8.39 g/kW-hr.
9
Failed statistical requirements, torque r 4 percent low.
Results used for regulated emissions; NOX by bag measure-
ment was 8.22 g/kW-hr.
2
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept and r
were -17.6 and .816, respectively. Results used for
regulated emissions.
2
Failed statistical requirements, torque r 1 percent low.
Run primarily for chemistry samples. Results used for
regulated emissions.
E-3
-------
fNG Plf
FNr.INf
CVS NO.
FUEL
HG)
HULH
BAG RESULTS
BAT,
m
qn VOLVO OU»l
LfSPK. CIO) 1 -b
OFT,
HLOrtFH nlF P MM. H?nriN. H?0)
BLOHFR INIFT p MM. Hi?n(lN. H2n)
BLOWFR TNLFT TEMP. DF(j'. C(n£G, F)
BI.OWFR RFVnLnTIONS
TIMF SECONDS
TOTAi FLnw 3TO. Cu. MfTKESfSCF)
HC SAMp| E MfTEH/RANGt/PPM
HC RCKr.Rn MFTER/RAMGF/PPM
Cn SAMpt E MFTF. R/RANGL/PPM
cn RCKRBD MFTF W/RANGF./PPM
Cn<> SAMpLE 'MFTFH'WA'sr.f- /MCT
CO? HCKr.RQ MFTEP/HANGF/PCT
Nnx sAMpi f MF r[R/R4i,r,[/PPM
/PPM
TABLE E-2 FNGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST N0.28-1H RUN
PATE in/lS/UO
TIMF
DYNn NO, 5
PROJECT NO. H«b011-(i01
Nnx RCKr.cn M* u
DiuiTTfiN F«CTIIR
HC rONrFMTH/sT ION PpM
cn roN^rNTR^rION PPM
cna roNrFNTrfATinN
NflX (.ONrfNTRA f TUN
HC MASS CRAMS
cn MASS GRAMS
cn? MASS GRAMS
Nnx MASS GRAMS
FIIFL KG fL«)
KW HP (HP
HSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP MR)
KSCO? G/KW HP (G/HP HP>
BSNOX G/K^J HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LH/HP hfi)
TOTAL TEST RF3HLTS H RAGS
TOTAL KW H« (HP HR)
BSHf r./Krt HR (G/HP HR)
HSCi) r,/KW HR (G/HP HR)
HSCO? G/KW HP (G/HP HR)
BSNfiX c/KM wR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KR/KW HP (LB/HP HR)
11.13 ( 1».12>
2.IS ( I.b3)
13.»1 ( 10.00)
( bas.)
,M9S ( ,711)
DIESEL EM-»fc5-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINF-H8, PCT , CVS-H8, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,b GM/KG( 73,8 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F, l.OOHU
1
NYNF
b73,l (2b,5)
520,7 (20.5)
»B,9 (120,0)
hlP?,
89h'.n
292.9 (10315,1
b.7/28/ 31,
9. I/ I/ 9,
9b.9/l3/ SB,
.7/13' 1,
lb.1/ 3/ ,2b
8.7/ 3/ ,01
b.1/13/ IS,
.b/ 8/ J,
18. SO
81 '.
95.
.82
IB. 5
»'.12
32.51
1181.5
in. 38
.53b 1
I'.nfa l
3.87 8
30, h3 88
1111.17 830
9.77 7
'.501
8
LANF
b73.l (2b.S)
520.7 (20.5)
1H.9 (180.0
h8b3.
899,7
8Sb,7 (10181
8.1/88/ 11
7, I/ I/ 7
51.3/18/ 117
.1/18X 1
8b,2/ 3/ ,1
2,;/ s/ ,0
8.1/13/ 21
,7/ 8/ 1
30,18
33,
113,
.3S
23,7
5.72
39,12
8111.9
13,11
,1») ,997 (
.12) 2,07 (
,89) 8,7b (
.81) 18.89 (
.81) 1019,55 (
.89) b,19 (
889) ,181 (
)
.)
.
,
,
,
3
1
,
•
8.80)
8,78)
8. Ob)
11,08)
7bO,8R)
1,81)
,791)
3
LAP
b73.1 (2b,5)
520.7 (20,5)
18,9 (120,0)
b371,
305,0
301.9 (lOfabl.)
13.7/88/ b9,
7,5/ I/ 8,
b5,8/12/ 117,
.1/18/ 1,
bO.1/ 3/ 1,07
8,7/ 3/ ,01
20.3/13/ bl,
,8/ 8/ 1,
18,87
b2,
1*1.
1,03
faO,8
in,7b
19, bB
5710,3
31,71
8,785 b
b,90 9
l,5b 1
7,81 5
828,08 b!7
5,01 3
,395 ,
1
NYNF
b73,l (8b,5)
580,7 (20,5)
IB, 9 (180,0)
b201,
297,0
893,8 (10377.)
S.fi/82/ 89,
7,n/ i/ 7,
83,7/lJ/ 81,
,9/13/ 1,
lb,7/ 3/ ,27
2,b/ 3/ ,01
b,9/13/ 81,
,B/ 8/ 1,
18,31
82.
81,
,23
19,9
3,77
27,88
1888,3
11,17
,01) ,551 ( 1
,8?) 1,10 ( 1
,lb) 3,13 ( 8
,37) 85,10 ( 18
.50) 1113,51 ( 830
,7b) 10,17 ( 7
b50) ,501 ( ,
.28)
,H7)
,5h)
,91)
.35)
,59)
889)
PARTICULME DATA, TOTAL FOR 1 BAGS
90MM
FILTER
8AMPLF FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
G/TE3T
G/KW HR
(G/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL CG/LB FUEL)
1.838 ( 13,71)
.'57
,08faO ( ,0b11)
,1989 ( ,0908)
PART. 6/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .40 (.30)
80 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
79.01 (8790,5)
-------
BO VOLVO DUAL
CTD) i -b
ENGINE MO.nan
FNGINF MOoFL
ENGINE 9l(, L(
CVS NO. In
BAROMETER 7 3 Vr B i MM HRfSrt.89 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. ?b.t HER C(79.0 OfG F)
BAG RFSUl TS
BAG NllMRf-R
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER nu~ P MM. H?O(IN. nao)
BLOWER INLFT P MM. HPoriN. 1120)
BLOWFR INLFT TEMP. DFG'. C
-------
N0'.n?n
Mnnri. Bfi vouvn DUAI
FNGINF 9.k l.fSHb. CIH) I -b
CVS NO. In
Fun.
TABLE E-4. FNGTNE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST Nn,?2-JH RUN
DATE 10/15/80
TIME
DYNO NO, 5
BAH('uETrR 71l'.8l
DRY RIJLH Tfl. cu.
H?ntIM. M?0)
. H?drIN. M?0)
TEMP. OEG'. unpc.
m
i
HC
HC
Cn
CO
CO?
CO? RCKr.BD
Nnx SAMp| £
NOX PCKr.no MFTFH/RANGK/PPM
SAMpi t MFTFH/RANGK/PPM
RCKGRO MFTFR/PANGE/PPM
MFTF.W/RANGF /PPM
. /PCM
/PC r
/PCT
xri'M
FACTIlR
HC co'Jr.r NTrtiTloN PPM
CO fONcFNTRrtTION PPM
CO? ClINCF NTR4TION PCT
NOX CflNCFNTRiT ION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
cn? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG fLR)
Kw HR (HP HHI
BSHC G/Krt HR (G/HP MR)
BSCO G/KW HR fG/Hp HR)
BSCO? G/K« HP (G/HP HFO
BSNOX G/Krt HP (G/HP HK)
BSFC KG/KW HP (LR/HP HR
TOTAL TEST RESULTS »
TOTAL KH HR (HP HR)
BSHC G'Kw MB (G/HP MR)
HSro G/KW HR (G/HP MR)
BSCO? G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNQX r,/K* uR (G/HP MR)
BSFC KG/HW HR (Lfl/HP Hh)
11.21 f 15.03)
2.16 ( l.bl)
13.3b
ins.
l.lb)
,H?B ( .703)
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
DIESEL E
BAG CART NO.
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , F.NGINE-HB, PCT , CVS-bQ, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.1 GM/KG( 73,8 GHAJNS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1
NYNF
b45.? (25. 4)
5 18'. 2 (20.H)
HB.1 (120,0)
blR2.
?1h'.0
213.3 (I03b0,)
7
10
1b
Ib
2
h
1
,)/?
,8/
?/
I/
.4/13/
.1/1
.3/
,7/
.4/1
,0/
41
?
q
•
IB
4
3?
3/
3/
3/
3/
?/
.>'
5.
5.
22
.3
,"
>
3b,
U.
IB.
1.
,2b
,04
11.
1.
2
LANF
b45,? (25,
518,? (20,
48,1 (120
H2b4,
3nn,o
217,2 (104
7
9
54
2b
3
B
117b'.2
10
•
1
3
30
1018
1
•
.2b
511
.07
.1»
,3*
,15
.58
Hlb
( 1
( 1
2
22
818
7
,
.17)
.44)
.1»)
.bl)
.81)
.14)
Bib)
pARTICULATE DATA
10MM
FILTER
SAMPLE
,8/23/
,3/ I/
4)
4)
.0)
17.)
31,
1.
,b/12/ 117,
,2/12/
,!/ 3/
,U/ V
,1/13/
,1/ 2/
30. Jl
30.
11*.
.38
23,3
S.lb
31,55
2081,3
13, 2b
,180
2,01
2,47
18,13
lib, 28
fa, 35
n,
,t3
.05
24.
1,
( 2.
( i.
I 1.
( I*.
( 742,
( H,
3
L»F
b45.2 (25,4)
518,2 (20,4)
48,1 (120,0)
b371,
305,0
302,3 (10b7b,)
13
7
b5
bO
2
20
Ib)
80)
84)
1?)
13)
73)
,4b1 ( ,771)
, TOTAL
FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
FOR 4
BAGS
,8/22/ bl,
,B/ I/ B,
,4/12/ 14b,
,2/12/ 0,
,1/ 3/ 1,08
,1/ 3/ ,04
,1/13/ bO,
.I/ 2/ 1,
12, Ib
b2,
14J,
1,04
51,4
10, Bl
41, 4b
5758.0
34,33
2,751 ( b
b,12 ( 1
l,5b ( 1
7,15 ( 5
831,80 ( b20
4,1b C 3
,31'7 (
SCM(SCF)
G/TtST
G/KW
G/KG
HR (G/HP HR)
FUEL
(G/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
b45,2 (25,4)
518,2 (?U,4)
48,1 (120,0)
b?ni,
217,0
214,2 (10312.)
b
8
84
Ib
3
b
,0b)
.28)
.Ib)
.33)
.27)
,70)
b53)
1,131 (
1,050
,0137
,2110
,3/22/ 32,
,4/ I/ B,
,3/13/ 85,
,7/13/ 1,
,4/ 3/ ,?b
,0/ 3/ ,05
,1/13/ 21,
.I/ 2/ 1,
41,17
?3.
82,
.22
11,8
3,15
28,11
Ilb4,4
11,13
,531 ( 1
1,12 ( 1
3,51 ( 2
25,07 ( 18
1035,74 ( 772
1,10 ( 7
.H72 ( ,
31,14)
( ,0b11)
( ,0113)
.17)
.51)
,k?)
.70)
,35)
.38)
777)
PART. 6/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .40 (.30)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
71,21 (8717,b)
-------
ENGINE Nn'.nen
FNGINE MODEL «n voi.vn IHIAI. FUEL
ENGINE i'. b I f Sfih. CTPM l.,b
cvs MO. m
BAROMETER
DRY BULB
c MM HG(?fl.11 I
PH.1* f)Ff, C(7b.O
TABLE E-5. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
COLO TRANSIENT
TEST Nn,22-JC RUN
DATE in/17/811
TIME OHIO
DYNO NO, b
F)
PROJECT NO, 11-50HH-001
DIESFL E
BAG CART NO.
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-58, PCT , CVS-57, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.5 GM/KG( BQ.b GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1.0000
m
i
BAG RFSHI.TS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H?onN.
BLOWER INLFT p MM. HPOUN. H?O)
BLOWER TNl.FT TEMP. HFG'. C(DEG. F)
Bl OWE R REVOLUTIONS
TIME SEcofjns
TOTAL FLOW STD. Cll'. MFTPFS(SCF)
HC SAMpLfc MpTER/RANGF/F'PM
HC BCKGRD MFTEP/RANGE/FPH
CO SAMPLE MpTER/RANGEXPPM
CO BCKr,HD MpTER/RANGE/PPM
CO? SAMpLE MpTER/RANGE/PCT
CO? BCKr.RD MpTER/RANGt/PCT
NOX SAMPLE MFTEH/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKfiRD MpTER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
co MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
KW HR (HP HH1
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
B.SC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HP,)
BSFC KG/KW HP (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS H BARS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HP)
BSHC G/KW HK (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HP)
BSCO? G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .36 (.27)
11.30 ( 15.15)
2.15 ( l.bO)
13.17 (
Ibl. (
7.15 (
7lb.)
5.33)
1
NYNF
b5n'.2 (25. b)
518'.e (2CI.H)
HB'.S (120,0)
bi an,
215.1
pqn'.b (10H05,)
b,H/S2/ 32,
1 , 7 / 1 / IKt
SO.7/1?/ 108.
,3/12/ it
11. 0/ 3/ ,30
3,H/ 3/ ,115
7.7/13/ 23,
.7/ 2/ 1,
H?.t)8
23'.
inn'.
'.25
22. •»
3.B5
3S.H5
13bq.5
12. hi
'.h33 ( 1
1'. 12 ( 1
3.H5 ( 2
32. 1H C 23
1227. H3 ( 115
11,31 ( 8
'.5b8 ( ,
2
LANF
b50,2 (25, b)
518.2 (20. H)
H8.1 (120, D)
b2b3,
211,1
21B.S (105H5.)
H.B/22/ HH,
1,7/ J/ 10,
53.7/12/ 115,
,3/12/ 1,
57, 1/ 3/ ,Hb
3,5/ 3/ ,05
B.1/13/ 27,
,H/ 2/ 1,
28,27
J5,
112,
.tl
25.1
5.15
38,77
2223,5
1H,78
.HO) 1.0H7 ( 2,31)
,50) 2,10 ( 2,81)
,57) 2.BH ( 2.123
,S7) 1B.H8 ( 13,78)
,51) 10B1.R2 ( 710.31)
,H3) 7, OH ( 5.25)
133) .HIS ( ,82U)
J
LAP
b50,2 (25, b)
518.2 (20, H)
H8.1 (120,0)
b370,
305,0
303, b (10725,)
1H.1/22/ 70,
8,5/ I/ 1,
b2,0/12/ 137,
,2/12/ n,
b3,5/ 3/ 1,13
3,5/ 3/ ,05
22.7/13/ bB,
,8/ 2/ 1,
11, b2
b3.
131.
1,08
b7,H
10, 1b
Hfa,35
b02b,B
31,15
2,885 ( b
b,1S ( 1
1,58 ( 1
b,b7 ( H
8b7,30 ( bHb
5,b3 ( H
,ns (
H
NYNF
b50,2 (25, b)
518,2 (20, H)
H8.1 (J20.0)
b202,
217,0
215, b (10HH2.)
5.1/22/ 21,
1,0/ I/ 1,
83,0/13/ 83,
,5/13/ 0,
17, b/ 3/ ,28
3,b/ 3/ ,0b
8.7/13/ 2b,
i, ox ex i,
H5,Bb
21,
81,
,23
25,2
3,50
27,81
1221,8
1H.25
,3b) ,b5B ( 1
,32) 1,13 ( 1
.18) 3,01 ( 2
.17) 2H,^,5 ( 18
,75) 10BS, HO ( 801
,20) 12,58 ( 1
b83) ,H12 ( ,
,23)
.52)
,30)
,30)
,3S)
,38)
801)
PARTICIPATE DATA, TOTAL FOR H BAGS
10MM
FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HH
(G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
en x
20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
1.21H ( H2.87)
,182
,0870 ( .ObHI)
,1118 ( ,0870)
80,75 (2852,2)
-------
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE HODEL 00 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(506, CID) L--6
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 746,76 MM HG(29,40 IN HG)
DRY HULK TEHP, 21,7 DEC C(71,0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOUER DIP P MM, H20(IN, H20)
BLOUER INLET P MM, H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
DLOUER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD, CU, HETRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKCRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
TABLE E-6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C TRANS.
TEST NO,22-2C RUN1
DATE 10/20/80
TIME 11105
DYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
m
i
oo
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LED
KM HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW MR (G/HP MR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
DSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP
BSHC G/KU HR
BSCO G/KW HR
PSC02 G/KW HR
BSNOX G/KW HR
BSFC KG/KW HR
PART. 6/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .34 (.25)
HR)
(G/HP HR)
(G/HP HR)
(G/HP HR)
(G/HP HR)
(LB/HP HR)
11.51 ( 15,43)
2.27 ( 1.69)
13,68 ( 10.20)
991. ( 739.)
7,48 ( 5,58)
,465 ( ,765)
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY t ENGINE-69, PCT , CVS-41, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11,4 GM/KG( 79,9 GRAINS/LLO NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1,0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANP LAP
678,2 (26,7) 678,2 (26,7) 670,2 (26,7)
520,7 (20,5) 520,7 (20,5) 520,7 (20,5)
48,9(120,0) 48,9(120,0) 40,9(120,0)
6177, 6262, 6371,
295,3 299,9 305,0
298,7 (10549.) 302,8 (10694.) 308,0 (10880.)
7.3/22/ 36, 9.7/22/ 48, 14.7/22/ 73.
11, 5/ I/ 12, 11. I/ I/ 11. 9,9/ I/ 10.
52.5/12/ 112, 54.2/12/ 116, 66.1/12/ 148,
,7/12/ 1. ,7/12/ 1, .7/12X 1,
19, 3/ 3/ ,31 26, 9/ 3/ ,44 66, 2/ 3/ 1.19
2,6/ 3/ ,04 2,8/ 3/ ,04 3,0/ 3/ ,05
7.8/13/ 23, 9.1/13/ 27, 24.3/13/ 73,
,5/ 2/ 1, .5/2/1, l.O/ 2/ 1,
41,31 29,32 11,09
25, 38, 64,
109, 113, 142,
,27 ,40 1,15
22,9 26,9 71,9
4,31 6,55 11.44
37.82 39.74 50,82
1432,3 2215,0 6461,6
13,07 15,57 42.36
,642 ( 1.41) 1,040 ( 2,29) 3,105 ( 6
1,16 ( 1.56) 2,14 ( 2,87) 6,97 ( 9
3,72 ( 2,77) 3.06 ( 2,28) 1,64 ( 1
32,62 ( 24.32) 18,55 ( 13,83) 7.30 ( 5
1270.22 ( 953.17) 1033.96 ( 771.02) 927.51 ( 691
11,27 ( 8,41) 7,27 ( 5,42) 6,08 ( 4
,553 ( ,910) ,435 ( .793) ,446 (
PARTICULATE DATA; TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HR (D/KP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KO FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
670.2 (26.7)
520,7 (20,5)
48,9 (120,0)
6201,
296,9
299,8 (10590.)
6,7/22/ 34,
12, O/ I/ 12,
85.D/13/ 86,
1.9/13/ 2,
16. 9/ 3/ ,27
2,0/ 3/ ,0-1
9.0/13/ 27,
,7/ 2/ 1.
47,64
22.
83,
,23
26,2
3,80
29,03
1249,2
15,05
,85) ,569 ( 1
,34) 1,24 ( 1
,22) 3.06 ( 2
,44) 23,42 ( 17
,65) 1007,98 ( 751
,53) 12,14 ( 9
733) ,459 (
1,239 ( 43,78)
,976
,0848 ( ,0632)
,1822 ( ,0826;
,25)
,66)
.29)
.46)
,65)
,05)
754)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCH(SCF)
82.41 (2910.6)
-------
TABLE E-7.
EMISSION RESULTS
COtn TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO, U-50HY-001
ENGINE. NO'.DPn
ENG1MF MOnFL BO VOLVO DUAL FIIFl
ENGINE q.h L(5Rb. CIO) L.I,
CVS NO. )n
HG(2q.23 IN HG)
l)t G C(7?.n DEG F)
BAROMETER ^?'si
DRY BULB TpMP. ?
BAG RESULTS
BAG NIIMRFR
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20(IN. H?0)
BLOWER INLFT P MM. H?OUN. nan)
BLOWfR JMLFT TEMP. nEG-. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME. SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW s-fn. cu. METRESCSCF)
HC sAMptf MFTER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKr,RD MFTEH/RANGE./PPM
CO SAMPLE MFTFR/HANGE/PPM
CO BCKp,RD MpTERXRANGEXPPM
CO? SAMpi E MFTER/RANGE/PCT
co? HCKGRD M'FTERXRANGF/PCT
NOX SAMPLE MpTER/RANGEXPPM
NOX BCKGHD MFTF.R/P.ANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PcT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LR)
KW HR (HP HR}
BSHC G/KW HP (G/HP HP)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO? G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
m
i
vO
TOTAL TEST RESULTS <* RAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP MR)
BSHC R/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCQ G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/HP HP)
G/KW HP
BSCO?
RSNOX
BSFC
(G/HP HR)
Kr,/KW HR (Lrt/HP HR)
7.37 I
. M H 5 (
. b8)
0b.)
.50)
731)
TEST N0.22-2C HUNR
HATF 10X22XBO
TIME 10148 DIESEL EM.4bS-F
OYNO NO, 5 BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-bl, PCT , CVS-42, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.5 GM/KG( 73. f GRAIMS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C
1 2 3
NYNF
b52
523
48
2q?
b.
q.
52.
1
18.
?.
7.
•
' B
'?
r.q
bi
?qs
'. i
(25.
(20.
(120
RO,
.q
7)
b)
,0)
LANF
b52,8 (25
5?3,? (20
4B,q (12
b2bl.
3011,0
.7)
.b)
0.0)
(I0tq5.) 301,0 (10b33,)
b/??/ 33,
?/
?>/!
?/l
a/
q/
b/i
t/
*?.
2
I/
?/ 1
?/
3/
3X
3/
?/
.!»b
t.
1,
12.
o.
,30
,C1H
23.
0.
q, 1/22/
B,8/ I/
sq.n/ia/
,2/l?/
Sb.q/ 3/
3,0/ 3/
q,b/13/
,s/ e/
2q,r?b
37,
4b,
1,
i2q,
o.
,14
,05
21.
1.
MO'. 12b,
1
•
a?
4
37
140
12
f
*
1
'4
37
3qj
12
•
2h
.•»
'.13
.,"
4.0
'.72
(.20
'.nl
.ns
.58
.2H
.bl
bis
( 1,37)
( 1,35)
( 3.05)
( 2H.03)
(1037, HS)
( q.to)
( 1,010)
,*0
28,2
b,**
HH ,07
21H5.8
lb,22
1,028
2,oq
3,08
31, oq
10tb,?R
7.77
,tq2
LAF
bSe.8 (25
523,2 (20
,F,
it
1,0000
NYNF
,7)
.b)
b52,8
523,2
48. q (120,0) 48, q
b370,
305,0
(25,
(20,
(120
7)
b)
,0)
b201,
30b,3 (10B1B.)
15.0/22/
7,3/ IX
b7,OX12X
,3/12/
bi.q/ s/
2,q/ 3/
23, a/13/
,7/ ?/
11,13
bB,
145,
I.Ob
bq,o
12,04
51,70
75,
7.
151,
1.
1,10
,04
70,
1,
2q?
2R8.1
,o
(10531,)
b,q/22/
H,3/
Bb,2/l
,4/1
17, 4/
3.2X
8,7/1
,b/
4b
2
I/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
a/
,2b
t.
35,
11,
87,
0,
,28
,05
2b,
1,
85,
,
25
4
2q
23
,b
,0b
,^
&q4b,3 1255,0
( 2,27)
C 2.80)
( 2,30)
C 15.73)
( 780.21)
( 5,?q)
( ,80R)
40,45
2,848
7,11
l.bS
7,27
83b,S4
s.bq
,401
( b.2B)
( 1,53)
( 1.2b)
( 5,42)
( baj.81)
( 4,g4)
( ,bsq)
14
,
1
3
24
1058
12
,
,bO
sbq
,n
.^
,81
,02
,31
480
C 1
( 1
( 2
C 18
( 788
( q
( ,
,25)
,sq)
,55)
,50)
,Sfa)
,18)
?sq)
PART. 6/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .35 (.26)
qoMM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X £0 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
G/TFST
G/KW HR (G/HP HH)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
SCM(SCF)
1,238 ( ^3,71)
.172
,0853 C ,0b3h)
[ ,0870)
81,80 (2889,?)
-------
ENGINf NO.D20
ENGINt MIJDf-L HO
ENGINE <>.i, L(5«6.
CVS NO. 10
BAROMt rt R 7V). 55 MM
(JkY BULb TFflP. 22. H
VOLVU DUAL FUtL
C1D) L-6
HG(.?f*.51 l.N H&)
DEC C(73.0 DtG F>
TABLE E-8. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
COLO TRANSIENT
TEST N0.22-1C RUN
DATE lG/29/oO
TIME 2:47
DYNO NO. 5
PKOJttl Nil. 11-tM
.-oil
m
0
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
HCKGRD
SAMPLE
8CKGRD
SAMPLT
BCKGHD
SAMPLE
HCKGRD
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMRtR
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20IIN. H20)
P.LOWCP INLET P rH. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWCR INLET TFKP. DEC. ClUtG. f}
BLOWfP RtVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STO. CU. MtTREStSCF)
Mt TbR/RAN&t/PPM
Mt TLk/KANOL/PPM
fFHC/RANGt/PPM
Mf Ttrt/RANOE/PPM
MTTEf/RANGt/PCT
ft TEH/RANGE/PCT
METfK/HANGC/PPM
KkTlk/RANGt/PPM
DILUTION FACTO*
HC CUNCrNTRAIION PPM
CO CONCt NTWAUUN PPM
C02 CONCCNTKATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
co MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS CRAMS
MIX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW MR (HP MR)
BSHC C/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HK1
BSC02 G/KW HK (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HK (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KH HR (LH/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HK (HP Hk) 11.55
BSHC G/KU HK (G/HP HK) 2.06
BSCD G/KK HR (G/HP HR) 12. b7
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 948.
BSNOX G/KH HR (G/HP HR ) 8.00
BSFC KG/KW H« (LB/HP HR) .445
15.49)
1.53)
9.60)
707. )
5.97)
.731)
DIESFL FM-465-F
BAG CA^T NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-55. PCT , CVS-20. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9.5 GM/KC1 66.8 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.f-. 1..IUOO
1
NYNF
685.8 (27.0)
530.9 C20.9)
46. 9 (120.0)
6180.
295.9
300.0 ( 10597. )
6.0/22/ 30.
9.4/ I/ 9.
48.0/12/ 101.
.9/12/ 2.
18. 4/ 3/ .29
2.9/ 3/ .0*
8.3/13/ 25.
.6/ 2/ 1.
43.57
21.
9b.
.25
24.2
3.63
34.29
1380.5
13.91
.587 1.30)
1.06 1.42)
3.42 2.55)
32.28 24.07)
1299.58 969.10)
13.09 9.76)
.553 .90'*)
2
LANF
685.8 (27.0)
530.9 (20.9)
48.9 (120.0)
6265.
300.0
304.2 (10743.)
B.5/22/ 42.
10. O/ I/ 10.
50.B/12/ 108.
.7/12/ 1.
26. I/ 3/ .43
2.5/ 3/ .04
10.3/13/ 31.
.67 2/ 1.
30.34
33.
105.
.39
30.2
5.76
37.21
2171.6
17.59
1.027 2.26)
2.15 2.88)
2.68 2.00)
17.30 12.90)
1009.55 752.82)
8.18 6.10)
.477 .785)
3
LAF
685.8 (27.0)
530.9 (20. '»
48.9 (120.0)
6371.
305. 1
309.3 (10925.)
13.8/22/ 69.
9 . 2 / 1 / '1.
63.7/12/ 142.
.6/12/ I.
63. 3/ 3/ 1.13
3. 1/ 3/ .05
25.9/13/ 78.
1.2/ 2/ I.
11.66
61.
137.
1.09
76.5
10. d4
49.18
6148.5
45.26
2.957 1 6.52)
7.20 ( 9.65)
1.51 ( 1.12)
6.63 ( 5.1U)
854.35 ( 637.09)
6.29 ( 4.69)
.411 I .675)
4
NYNF
68 5. H (27.0)
5JO.V (.J.
l.H/ 1 J/ / .
17.0/ J/ . ..'/
3.U/ 'i/ .10
9.5/ 1 V ?N .
I.// 11 1 .
4 7 . 4 1,
iO.
ad.
.2 J
27.-;
3. ^
2H.02
1246.9
l'j.(,6
.b6h (
1.14 (
3 . 0 b (
24. b4 (
10V1.91 I a
13.72 I
. 4 1 •> (
)
1 .04)
.0)t2',)
84.33 (2978.5)
-------
TABLE E-9, ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
COLD TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO, U-S044-001
ENGINE NO'.DSO
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.i LfSab. CID) L-b
CVS NO, In
BAROMETER ?S3'.3b MM HG(29',bb IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. ?a'.a DEC c(72.o DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM, H20UN. H20)
BLOWER JNLET P MM, HJOCIN, H2p)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER DEVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. cu. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE MFTER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKQRD MFTER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMpLE MpTER/RANGE/PPM
co BCKGRD MPTER/RANGE/PPM
CO? SAMpLE MpTER/RANGE/PCT
COS BCKGBD MFTER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMpLE MfTER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD MpTER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MAS? GRAMS
CO MAS? GRAMS
COS MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR1
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
Bsco2 G£KW HB (G/HP HR)
BSNOX GXKW HR (G/HP HP)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
m
I
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP MR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G'KW HR (G/HP HR)
2.55
13.27
981.
7.95
( 14.985
( 1.90)
( 9.90)
J 733.)
< 5.93)
TEST N0.22-2C
DATE 10/30/80
TIME 10159
OYNO NO, 5
RUN
DIESEL EM-HbS-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGlNE-bl. PCT , CVS-24, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIpITY 10.3 GM/KG( 72,3 GRAINS/LB) NOX
1
NYNF
bBS^B (27,0)
530.9 (20,9)
48.9 (120,0)
L 1 D 1
D 1 B i %
29b'.0
301. b (10b52,)
b,8/22/ 34,
ST y i y 9 .
. f / 4 ' ^ •
99 , 2/13/ 101 g
1.5/13/ 1.
18, b/ 3/ ,30
Sn / a / QH
• *' 3* $ u1*
8,3/13/ 25,
197/ 8/ 2,
43',, 04
2t'
Bbf
qa.
i ?°
. 3b
»eo
23'.2
H' 45
^
34,51
1 4 5 h . 2
A T 3 p a ••
13. 3b
',b33 ( 1
i'0ns C i
4 37 C 3
33,90 ( 25
1430,45 ClObb
13.12 C 9
'.b22 C 1,
2 3
LANF LAF
bBS.8 (27.0) bSS.B (27,0)
530.9 (20.9) 530,9 (20,9)
48,9 (120,0) 48,9 (J20.0)
b2b4, b370.
299,9
305. b (10795
9.S/22/ 48
8,5/ I/ 9
50,8/12/ 108
.7/12/ J
2b,9/ 3/ ,4
?,8/ 3/ ,0
9.9/13/ 30
1,7/ 2/ 5
£9,3?
39S
105,
,40
28,0
fa, 93
37,34
2235, 9
lb,39
,40) 1,05S C
,37) 2, Ob {
,2b) 3,3b C
.28) 18,10 (
,b9) iOB4,OS C
,78) 7,95 I
022) »510 C
305,0
,) 310,8 U097B.)
, lb,0/22/ 80,
, 10, O/ I/ 10,
, b2,7/12/ 139,
, ,7/12/ i,
* bl,b/ 3/ 1,09
* S,S/ 3/ ,D4
„ 2S.O/13/ 75,
, 1,5X S/ 2.
ie,oo
71,
i348
I.Ob
73,7
IS.bb
48,33
b032,S
43,82
2,325 2,893 C b
2,773 b,93 { 9
2,513 1.83 C 1
13,50) b,98 ( 5
808,38) 870,34 ( b49
5,933 b,32 ( 4
0839J ,417 ( ,
HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
4
NYNF
bS5,8 (27,0)
530.9 (20,9)
48,9 (120,0)
b202,
297,0
302, b (10b89,)
7.0/22/ 35,
10, 0/ I/ 10,
81.8X13X 82,
1.5/13/ 1,
lb,3X 3/ ,2b
2,2/ 3/ ,03
9.3/13/ 28,
l,5X 2/ 2,
49,45
85,
80,
,23
2b,3
4,43
28,04
1255,3
15,23
,38) ,5b9 ( 1
,29) l,lb ( 1
,3b) 3,82 ( i
,20) 24,18 { IB
,02) 1082,52 ( 807
,71) 13,14 ( S
b8b) ,491 ( ,
,25)
,5b)
,85)
,03)
,24)
,79)
807)
pARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR <* BAGS
90MM
FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL CGXLB FUEL)
1,321 ( 4b,hb)
,924
,0827 ( ,0bl7)
,1795 ( ,0814)
BSFC" KG)KW HR (LB/HP HR)
PART. 6/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .34 (.25)
80 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
S6MJSCF3
84.25 (2975,7)
-------
TABLE E-IO.
ENGINE: EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS,
PROJECT NO, ll-;044-0i.
ENGINE NQ.D20
ENGINE MODEL 00 VOLVO DUALFUEL
L'NGJNE 9,6 L(586, CIH) L-6
CVS Nfi, 10
BARChETER 751,08 MM HG(29,57 IN HG)
DRY BULK TEMP, 23.? DUG C(75,0 DEC F)
DAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
to
BLCUER DIF P MM, H20CIN, H20)
&LOIO INLET P MM, H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
PLOUER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD« CU, METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD HETER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RAN6E/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS CRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU Hft (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO C/KU HR (G/HP HR)
FSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KQ/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 DAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
&SFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
11,78 ( 15,79)
2,34 ( 1,75)
9,28)
690,)
5,14)
12,45 (
(
925.
6,90 (
,440 (
,723)
TEST N0.22-1C RUN
DATE 11/19/80
TIME 11J03
DYNO NO, 5
DIESEL EM-465-F
DAO CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-49, PCT , CVS-17, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIBITY 9,2 GM/KG( 64,1 GRAINS/LEO NOX HUMIDITY C,F,
),0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
688,3 (27,1) 688,3 (27,1) 688,3 (27,1)
530,9 (20,9) 530,9 (20,9) 530,9 (20,9)
48,9 (120,0) 48.9 (120,0) 48,9 (120,0)
6133, 6267, 6372,
296,0 300,0 305,0
300,4 (10608.) 304,4 (10753.) 309,5 (10933,)
7,2/22/ 36, 9,2/22/ 46, 15.2/22/ 76,
9,8/ I/ 10, 8,5/ I/ 9, 8,6/ I/ 9,
57.7/12/ 125, 48.3/12/ 102, 50.6/12/ 107.
17^7/ 3/ ,28 26*,0/ 3/ ,43 62',7/ 3/ 1,12
3,0/ 3/ ,05 2,5/ 3/ ,04 2,7/ 3/ ,04
5.3/13/ 16, 7.8/13/ 23, 25.0/13/ 75,
,3/ 2/ 0, ,3/ 2/ 0, ,4/ 2/ 0,
44.84 30,48 11,81
27, 38, 68,
123, 99, 103,
.24 ,39 1,08
15,6 23,2 74,6
4.62 6,61 12.12
42,97 35.13 37,18
1308,7 2163,7 6116,5
8,97 13,50 44,15
,616 ( 1,36) 1,023 ( 2,26) 2,941 ( 6
1,10 ( 1,48) 2,15 ( 2,88) 7,40 ( 9
4,20 ( 3,13) 3,08 ( 2,30) 1,64 ( 1
39,07 ( 29,13) 16,37 ( 12,21) 5,02 ( 3
1189,70 ( 887,16) 1008,25 ( 751,85) 826,23 ( 616
8,16 ( 6,08) 6,29 ( 4.69) 5,96 ( 4
,560 ( ,920) ,477 ( ,784) ,397 <
PARTICULATE DATAi TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCH(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
688,3 (27,1)
530,9 (20,9)
48,9 (120,0)
6202,
296 , 9
301,3 (106-11.)
/»,5/22/ 32,
8,2/ I/ 8,
90.7/13/ 91.
17*,3/ 3/ ,28
2.6/ 3/ ,04
8.6/13/ 26,
,4/ 2/ 0.
46,47
24,
89,
.24
25,4
4,21
31,27
1308,9
14. 6?
,48) ,600 ( 1
,93) 1,13 ( 1
,22) 3,74 ( 2
,75) 27,74 ( 20
,12) 1161,27 ( 865
,45) 12,97 ( 9
653) ,532 (
1,303 ( 46,03)
,933
,0792 ( ,0591)
,1801 ( ,0817)
,32)
.51)
,79)
,69)
,96)
,67)
875)
PART. 6/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .30 (.22)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOU
SCH(SCF)
82.64 (2918.9)
-------
TABLE E-l
ENGINE N0'.n?n
ENGINE MODEL RO VOLVn
ENGIME S'.b L(5Hh. CIO) L-b
CVS NO. In
FUEL
BAROMFTFK ?3h'3t, MM HGCOB.99 IN 116)
DRY BULB TEMP. ?M.4 DEG Cf7t.ll DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMRFR
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. HJOUN. H20)
BLOWER T.NLFT P MM. HSOCIN. n*o)
BLOWER 1NLFT TEMP. DFG'. CtDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD'. cuf. METKES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE MFTER/RANGE/PPM
HC RCKGRD MFTER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPIE MFIER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKr,RD MpTER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE MFTER/RANGE/PCT
co? BCKRRO MFTER/RANGE/PCT
Nnx SAMpLE MpTER/RANGE/PPM
NQX BCKcRD MFTER/R*NGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MAS3 GRAMS
CO MASs GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP MR)
BSHC G/KW HR (K/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR «7/H> HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HP (G/HP HP)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HIV)
m
Ul
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR) 11
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 2
BSCO G/KW UK (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
bSNOX G/Kw HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
,39 C
,15 (
,5b (
<
(
(
.28)
.bO)
100.
7.01
5.22)
KNRTNE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO, 11-5QHH-001
TEST NO^-1H
DATE in/17/BG
TIME oiasu
DVNO NO, S
RUN
DIESEL EM-»bS-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-SB, PCT , CVS-bO, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11,5 GM/KC( 80,b GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
I
NYNF
b5n'.2 (25. b)
518.2 (20.4)
48.9 (120,0)
bl82,
29b.O
294.7 (104Q7.)
b.7/22/ 33,
10, 7/ I/ 11,
91.2/13/ 92,
.4/13/ 0,
lb.8/ 3/ ,27
3,b/ 3/ ,0b
7.7/13/ 23,
,8/ 2/ 1,
4/.S4
23,
9n.
,21
22'. 3
3,88
30.77
1153.3
12. Sb
.509 ( 1
1,13 ( 1
3.43 £ 2
27. Ib ( 20
1017,82 ( 758
ll. na ( B
',449 ( e
2
LANF
b50.2 (25, b)
SJB, 2 (20,4)
48,9 uao.o)
b2b3,
300,0
298,5 (10544,3
B.5/22/ 43,
10,2/ ]/ 10,
50.5/12/ 107,
,J/12/ 0,
2b,0/ 3/ ,43
3,5/ 3/ ,05
B.9/13/ 27,
,?/ 2/ 1,
30,4?
33.
104.
,37
2b,0
5,bb
3b,lb
2040,1
14,83
,12) ,9bi S,li)
,52) 2,12 2,84)
85b) 2,b7 1,995
,25) 17,09 1(2,753
,995 9b4,28 7J9,Ob5
o2»>S 7,ni 5,23)
7385 ,454 ,747J
J
LAP
faSO,2 (25, b)
518,2 (20,4)
48,9 (120,0)
b372.
305,0
303,7 (10727,)
14.2/22/ 71,
%?/ I/ 9,
bH,S/12/ 14H,
,2/l?/ 0,
bl.B/ 3/ 1,10
3, I/ }/ ,05
22.2/13/ b7,
88/ B/ 1,
11,9?
b3,
138,
I.Ob
bb,0
10,97
48, b7
58b9,7
38,33
2,807 ( b
7,01 ( 9
l,5b ( 1
b,94 ( 5
837,24 { b24
5.47 ( 4
,400 C ,
4
NYNF
faSO,2 (25, b)
518,2 (20, »)
48,9 (150,0)
b2Q3,
297,0
295,7 (10443.)
b,4/22/ 32,
9,0/ I/ 9,
81.9/13/ 82,
,3/13/ 0,
lb,B/ 3/ ,27
3,e/ 3/ ,05
8.5/13/ 2b,
,7/ 2/ 1,
4R.04
23,
BO,
,e?
24,9
3,95
27,45
11SO.D
14,09
,19) ,542 ( 1
,40) 1,13 ( 1
,17) 3,49 ( 2
,18) 24,22 ( 18
,33) 1050,23 ( 783
,08) 12,44 ( 9
bSB) ,479 { ,
,20)
.5?)
,bO)
,0b)
,lb)
,27)
787)
PARTICULAR DATA,, TOTAL FOR » BAGS
90MM
FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/7EST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HR CG/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
1,249 ( 44, IS)
,955
,0838 ( ,Ob2E>)
,1981 ( ,0899)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) ,36 (,27)
20 X 50 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM
-------
TABLE E-12. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
_. HOT TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO, ll-SOiH-OOl
ENGINE NO',020
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 1,fc LfSib. CIO) L-b
CVS NO. in
BAROMETER f»b",7b MM HG(21>0 IN HG)
DRV BULB TfMP. ps'.l DEC CfBI.O DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P HM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER JNLET P MM, HZO^IN. H2p)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER DEVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS,
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRESfSCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMpLE
BCKG'RD
SAMPLE
BCKQRD
CO? SAMpLE
C02 BCKQRD
NOX SAMpLE
NOX BCKGRD
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MpTER/RANGE/PPM
MfTER/RANGE/PPM
MpTER/'RANGE/PPM
MPTER/RANGE/PCT
MFTER/RANGE/PCT
MpTER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FA.CIOR
HC CONgENT,R|TION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KM HR (HP HR1
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR* (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG>KW HP (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST (irSULTS 1 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/Hp HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO? G/KW MR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KQ/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
11.11 ( 11.13)
2,«1 ( l.bb)
11.10 ( 4.11)
Ml.)
*.OS)
h.77 (
'.HI J
,717)
PART. 6/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .35 (.26)
TEST N0.22-2H RUN
DATE 10/20/80
TIME
DVNO NO, S
DIESEL E
BAG CART NO.
1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGlNE-^3. PCT , CV3-3k, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.8 6M/KG( 75.5 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1
NYNF
8 (2b,7)
520'.7 (20.5)
18.1 (120,0)
blBO,
2
LANF
b78.2 Ob.7)
520.7 (20.5)
18.4 (120.0)
LAF
b78,2 (2b.7)
(20.7 (20. S)
18,4 (120,0)
JS8.S (105C7.)
902,4 (10b48.)
305,0
108.1 (10883,)
NVNF
b78,2 (2b,7)
520,7 (20,b)
HB,4 (UO.O)
b202,
247,0
211,1 (10511*,)
7.1/22/ 35,
10. 1/ }/ 10,
11. B/13/ 13.
l.B/ll/ 1.
11. I/ I/ ,25
2.B/ I/ ,01
b.7/13/ 20,
,7/ 2/ 1.
to, 11
25,
40.
•?l
11.3
i;i2
31.37
1181.8
ll'.OI
,»31 1.14)
r.os i.ii)
1.10 3. Ob)
24,78 22.20)
1045.27 lib. 71)
10,48 7.81)
'.512 .841)
8.S/22/ 12,
1.B/ I/ 10.
S0,b/12/ 107,
,1/12/ 2,
21, 1/ I/ ,10
2, I/ I/ ,01
B.l/13/ 21.
,7/ 2/ 1,
31.44
33.
101,
.3b
23,7
5.72
3b,58
2003,1
13,71
,412 t.OB)
1.48 2,bb)
2.84 2.15)
18,15 13, 7b5
1010,24 751,37)
b,42 S.lb)
.175 ,781)
11.3/22/ b7.
B.7/ I/ 4,
b8,4/12/ lib,
,4/12/ 2,
b1,4/ I/ l.lb
1,2/ I/ ,01
21,b/ll/ b6,
.•/ 2/ I,
11,33
54,
111.
1,1«
b1,0
10,12
53,55
b21B,B
37,72
3.034 b
7,00 1
1,11 1
7,bS 5
144,57 b70
5,34 4
.433 .
.bl)
.34)
.11)
.70)
.Bl)
,02)
712)
b.b/22/
B,2/ I/
B2.0/13/
1.6/13/
lb,7/ 3/
3,2/ 3/
7.7/13/
,7/ 2/
48,30
25,
74,
,22
22,4
4,31
27,75
1148,0
12,88
,513
1.10
3,13
25,28
1041,44
11,73
,415
33,
B,
««,
1,
,27
,05
«3,
1,
1,20)
1,47)
2,43)
18,85)
813,84)
8,75)
,813)
PARTICULATI DATA, TOTAL FOR 1 BAGS
40MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
C/KM HR (G/HP HR)
l,27b ( 15,08)
.418
,0851 ( ,0bl5)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL) .1871 ( ,0850)
20 X CO FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
82,bb (2111,1)
-------
ENGINE NO',D30
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL fUEL
ENGINE l.b LfSnb. CID) L-fa
CVS NO'. lo
TA-RI P F-l^ 'ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
._._._._"_ HOT TRANSIENT
TEST N0.22-2H RUNR
DATE 10/22/80
TIME 11132
DYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO. U«5044-00i
BAROMETER
HG(31,23 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. PB'.I DEG c(84.o DEC
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUM6ER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER D!F P MM, H30(IN. H20)
BLOWER JNLET P MM, H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLF.T TEMP. DEG'. CtDEG. F)
BLOWER DEVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE MpTER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKjjRD MpTER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMpLE MpTER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKQRD MpTER/RANGE/PPM
C03 SAMpUE MpTER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKjjRD MpTER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE MpTER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD MpTEP/RANGE/PPM
m
ui
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PpM
COP CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CQ2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG fLB)
KW HR (HP HR1
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCQ2 GfcKW Hp (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G?KW HP, (G>HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
8SCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
11.41 ( IS, Hi)
13. is (
.
'.»*! (
bb8.)
5.311
DIESEL EM.4b5«F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE"*?. PCT , CVS-HO, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.7 GM/KG( 75.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
J
NYNF
b5n.2 (25. b)
620.7 (20'.5)
48.1 (120,0)
blB2.
3 q k n
C T a 9 U
31?'.3 (10411.)
7,4/22/ 37,
10. 3/ I/ 10,
1?,0/13/ 13,
1.0/13/ 1,
lb,2/ 3/ ,2b
Z.7/ I/ .04
K. § r r 3' 1™"
B.0/13/ 24,
,4/ J/ 0,
41' 52
9 i
37.
f r
11.
'.32
33'05
4.b5
3! .37
11B3.1
13,31
',518 ( 1.
l'.U ( 1,
4'.20 ( 3,
38'835 ( 21.
lQbl'.Q7 { 717,
12.10 ( 1,
.4b8 ( .7
3
3
LANF LAF
b50.2 (35. b) b50.2 (35, b)
520,7 (20,5) 530.7 (20,5)
48,1 (130,0) 48,1 (130,0)
b2b4, b37l.
300,0
301,3 U0b38
B.8/32/ 44
B,8/ I/ 1
S2.3/12/ 112
,5/12/ 1
24, 8/ 3/ ,4
2, I/ 3/ ,0
1.2/13/ 28
,S/ 2/ 1
31,15
35,
10B,
.3b
27BD
b.lS
38,03
1112,0
15,57
14) ,138 (
4B) 2,10 (
13) 3.13 (
14) 18.13 J
51) 141.52 (
035 ?,l*2 {
bIS ,447 {
305,0
„} 30b,3 (10830.)
, 14.7/32/ 73,
, B.2/ I/ 8,
, bb,7/13/ 150,
, ,b/13/ 1,
0 bl,b/ 3/ 1,01
4 3,7/ 3/ ,04
, 22,b/13/ bS,
,s/ e/ i,
12,00
fab,
144.
l.Ob
b7,2
11, bH
51,28
5121,8
31,41
2.07) S.B37 ( b
2,813 7,13 ( 1
2.11) I,b3 ( 1
13,533 7,20 ( 5
708,0b) 832,14 ( b30
5,53) 5,53 ( 4
,735J .318 { .
4
NYNF
b50,2 (25, b)
520,7 (20,5)
48,1 (120,0)
b202,
217,0
298,2 (10533.)
7,3/32/ 3b,
7,h/ I/ 8,
82, a/13/ 82,
1.2/13/ i,
lb,2/ 3/ ,2b
2,b/ 3/ ,04
8.7/13/ 2b,
,5/ 2/ 1,
41,73
21,
BO,
,22
25,7
4,17
27,72
1115,0
14,fab
.25) ,5*2 ( 1
,5b) l.lb ( 1
.22) 4,21 ( 3
.37) 23,10 ( 17
.53) 1030,50 ( 7b8
.12) 12. b4 ( 1
b55) -,4bB ( ,
.20)
,5b)
,20)
,82)
.45)
,42)
7b1)
pARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
10MM
FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
3CM(SCn
CUTEST
G/KW HR «G/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
1,355 ( 44,33)
,158
,0834 ( ,0b22)
,1182 ( .0811)
PART. G/KW-HR (G.HP-HR) .36 (.27)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCMCSCF)
81,4b (2877,0)
-------
ENGINE NO'.Dan
ENGINE MODEL BO VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE S.I LfSQb. CIO) L-b
CVS NO. lo
TABLE E-14. ENGINE EMISSION RISULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST N0.22-1H RUN
DATE 10/21/80
TIME
OYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, )l"5044»001
BAROMETER 741,$5 MM HG(21.51 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. ?7.2 DEC C(B1,0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER pIF P MM. H?n(IN, H20)
BLOWER JNLFT P MM], H?O(IN, H2o)
BLOWER INLFT TEMP. DEC. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER DEVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMpLE MpTER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKQRD MpTER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMpLE MpTER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKfjRD MpTER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE MpTER/RANGE^PCT
C02 BCKcBD MpTER/RANCE/PCT
m NOX SAMpLE MpTER/RANGE/PPM
_!_ NOX BCKGRO MFTER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACJOR
HC CONfPNTRjTlON PPM
CO CONrENTR|TION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MA3| GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR>
B3HC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO? GIKW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KM HR (HP HR) 11.bO (
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR) ]
BSCO J5/KW HR (0/HP HR) 11
BSCO? (J^KW HR (G/HP HR) '
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 7.81
BSFC K6>KW HR (LB/HP HR) .411
DIESEL EM.HbS.F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-%3, PCT , CVS-JO, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY S.9 GM/KG( H,0 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1
NYNF
(37.0)
LANF
bBS.B (J7.0)
430. 9 (?0,1)
.
(10514.)
b2b«».
300,0
304,0 (10738,)
3
LAF
b8S.8 (87,0)
(30,1 (20.S)
18.S (120,0)
b371,
305,0
301.2 (10122.)
NYNF
bBS.B (27,0)
530,1 (20,1)
48,1 (120.0)
b201,
217,0
301,0 (10b30,)
b
10
15
1
1?
3
B
,3/22/
.?/ \/
.B/13/
.B/13/
.6/ 3/
,3/ 3/
,b/ll/
,8/ |/
45'.8b
21J
IB.
.23
2s!o
3'. 70
33.03
12bl.5
14'.37
'.868
i!i«
i'.2*
21.38
1123,12
12.71
,4lb
31, 7,8/22/
10, B.2/ I/
17, Sl.3/12/
2, ,B/12/
,28 2b,0/ 3/
,05 3.4/ 3/
2b, 10.0/13/
1. .B/ 2/
30.48
31.
lOfa,
.37
21,2
6,43
37,57
208b,0
lb,17
1.11) .Mb
i.ii) a. 13
2.4b) 2,54
21.11) 17, bl
838.10) 177.81
1.63) 7,15
,816) ,4b2
".
B,
101,
1.
.»3
,06
30,
1.
2,17)
2.8b)
1.10)
13,13)
781,15)
5.13)
,7bO)
13.1/22/ bb,
11, 3/ I/ 11,
b5,1/12/ 14b,
,7/12/ 1,
b2,b/ 3/ 1,11
3,0/ 3/ ,05
24.1/13/ 75,
,B/ 2/ 1,
11,80
65,
l»»i
1,07
74,1
1,8b
S0,7b
b075,0
43,80
2, lib b,43)
7,11 1,b4)
1,37 1.02)
7. Ob 5,27)
•45, Ib b30,a4)
b.01 4,54)
,40b ,bb7)
5,7/22/
B,B/ I/
8?,3/13/
2.2/13/
17, 0/ 3/
3,4/ 3/
1,2/U/
,B/ 2/
47,51
20,
80.
.22
2b,7
3,43
27, HI
1213,1
15,38
,551
1.15
2,18
24,24
1054,11
13, Ib
,478
28.
1,
82,
2,
.27
,05
27,
1.
( 1
( 1
( 2
( IB
( 78b
( 1
( ,
,21)
,54)
,22)
,07)
,11)
,1b)
78b)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
15,55)
1.44)
l.bO)
bB4.)
5.B2)
.710)
PART. S/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .32 (.24)
10MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
10 X CO FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
G/TE8T
G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
SCM(SCF)
1,300 ( 45.12)
,134
,0805 ( .Obfll)
,18b4 ( ,084b)
•3.1b (21bS,S)
-------
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 30 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(586, CIH) L-6
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 753,11 MM h'G(29,65 IN HG>
DRY BULB TEHP, 22.2 DEG C<72,0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM, H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, H20UN, H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STIU CU, METRES(SCF)
TABLE E-15. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
TEST NO,22~2H RUN1
DATE 10/30/80
TIME 0
DYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11-504-4-001
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
m
HC
HC
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX' SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER./RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS 6RAHS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW MR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW MR <0/HP MR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/MP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 DAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW MR (G/HP HR)
BGCO G/KU MR (C/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX C/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU lift (LB/HP HR)
11,20 ( 15*02)
2,40 ( 1.05)
12,39 ( 9.41)
918, < 685,)
Q.02
,430
s, v t!;
,707)
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-SB, PCT 7 CVS-22, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9,3 GM/KG( 63,4 GRAIN3/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C..F, 1,0000
1
NYNF
685,G (27,0)
525,8 (20.7)
48,9 (120,0)
6181.
296,0
301,3 (10653,)
LANF
685,8 (27,0)
525,8 (20.7)
48,9 (120,0)
6264,
299,9
305,3 (10801,;
3
LAF
685,0 (27,0)
525,0 (20,7)
48,9 (120,0)
6370,
305,0
311,0 (10934,)
4
NYNF
685,8 (27,0)
525,8 (20,7)
48,9 (120,0)
6202,
297,0
302,3 (10694.)
7, A/22/
9,5/ I/
91.4/13/
1.3/13/
16, 6/ 3/
3,4/ 3/
B,6/13/
1,3/ 2/
48,33
28,
90,
,21
24,6
4,32
31,71
1179,3
14,18
,513
1,11
4,35
28,66
1065,80
12,81
,460
37,
10,
92,
1,
,26
,05
26,
1,
(
(
(
1,14)
1,48)
3,25)
9
9
47
24
3
10
1
< 21,37)
( 794,77)
(
9,55)
,770)
,0/22/
,3/ I/
,6/1'V
,9/ 3/
,!/ 3/
, 1/13/
,3/ 2/
31,88
36,
98,
,36
29,0
6,33
34,96
2015,6
16,96
,946
2,07
3,06
16,88
973,05
8,19
,457
45,
9,
101,
1,
,41
,05
30,
1,
< 2
{ 2
( 2
< 12
( 725
( 6
,09)
,78)
,28)
,59)
,61)
,11)
7S<)
15,7/22/ 78,
9,5/ I/ 10,
64.6/12/ 144,
,7/12/ 1,
59, 7/ 3/ 1,06
2,3/ 3/ ,04
24,4/13/ 73,
1,2/ 2/ 1,
12,42
70,
139,
1,02
72,0
12,49
50,29
5795,6
42,82
2,774 (
6,83 (
1,83 (
7,36 (
843,03 ( 63
6,27 {
,406 (
6,12)
9,16)
1,36)
5,49)
2,41)
4,67)
,667)
6,4/22/
8,5/ I/
79.3/13/
,6/13/
17, 3/ 3/
2,9/ 3/
9,5/13/
1,2/ 2/
46,67
23,
78,
,23
27,3
4,09
27,35
1290,3
15,83
,579
1,19
3,45
23,06
1007,81
13,35
,483
32,
9,
79,
1,
,28
,04
29,
1.
(
(
(
1,28)
1,59)
2.57)
( 17,20)
( 811,18)
9,95)
,803)
PARTICULATE DATAr TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .35 (.26)
90MM FILTER-
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCN(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LD FUEL)
SCM(SCF)
1,375 ( 48,56)
,C88
.0793 ( ,0592)
,1344 < ,0036)
84,62 (2988,7)
-------
TABLE E-16.
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
PROJECT NO. 11-50')-1-001
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(586, CID) L-6
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 751,08 MM HG(29,57 IN HG)
DRY BIO TEMP, 25,6 DEG C(78,0 DEC F)
PAG RESULTS
PAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM, H20UN, H20)
DLOWER INLET P MM, H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
BLOUER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD, CU, METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGICD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS CRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
6SCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
m
i
oo
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
[(SCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
11,45 ( 15,36)
2,42
12,28
930,
7.36
.436
1,81)
9.16)
693.)
5,49)
,717)
TEST N0.22-1H RUN
DATE 11/19/80
TIME 11{43
DYNO NO, 5
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY » ENGINE-45, PCT r CVS-22. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9,3 GM/KG( 65,0 GRAINS/LID NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
688,3 (27,1) 688,3 (27,1) 688,3 (27,1)
533,4 (21,0) 533,4 (21,0) 533,4 (21,0)
48.9 (120,0) 48,9 (120,0) 48,9 (120,0)
6182, 6265, 6371,
296,0 300,0 305.0
300,6 (10618, > 304,7 (10761.) 309,8 (10943,)
7.4/22X 37, B.6/22/ 43, 14.9/22/ 75,
7,7/ I/ 8, 7,5/ I/ 8. 8,5/ I/ 9,
51.0/12/ 108, 47.2/12/ 99, 52.1/12/ 111,
,6/12/ 1, ,7/l2/ 1, ,8/12/ 1.
17. I/ 3/ ,27 26, I/ 3/ ,43 61, I/ 3/ 1,08
2,8/ 3/ ,04 2,8/ 3/ ,04 2,5/ 3/ ,04
7.2/13/ 22, 8.7/13/ 26, 24.3/13/ 73,
,5/ If 1, ,5/2/1, ,5/ 2/ 1,
46,66 30,39 12,15
29, 36, 67,
106, 96, 107,
,23 ,39 1,05
21,3 25,6 72,5
5,10 6,32 11,94
37.10 34,17 38,49
1271,0 2150,2 5956,3
12,22 14,91 42.96
,564 ( 1.24) 1,011 ( 2,23) 2,841 ( 6
1,11 ( 1,49) 2,11 ( 2,83) 7,12 ( 9
4,60 ( 3,43) 2,99 ( 2.23) 1,68 ( 1
33,45 ( 24,95) 16,19 ( 12.07) 5,40 ( 4
1146,00 ( 854.57) 1019.06 ( 759,92) 836,16 ( 623
11,02 ( 8,22) 7,07 ( 5,27) 6.03 ( 4
,509 ( ,836) ,479 ( ,788) ,399 ( ,
PARTICULATE DATA; TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MH FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW Hft (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
688,3 (27,1)
533,4 (21,0)
48,9 (120,0)
6202,
297,0
301,6 (10652.)
6,4/22/ 32,
7,2/ I/ 7,
89.8/13/ 90,
1.5/13/ 1,
16, 7/ 3/ ,27
2,4/ 3/ ,04
8.3/13/ 25,
.5/ 2/ 1,
48.16
25,
88,
.23
24,5
4,38
30,87
1271,4
14,15
,26) .581 ( 1
.55) 1,11 ( 1
,25) 3,95 ( 2
,03) 27,83 ( 20
,52) 1146,33 ( 054
.50) 12,76 ( 9
656) .524 (
1,375 ( 48,56)
,885
,0773 ( .0576)
,1771 ( ,0803)
,28)
,49)
,95)
,75)
,82)
,51)
861)
PART. S/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .31 (.23)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
84.17 (2972,0)
-------
TABLE E-17. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO, U-Stnm-OOl
ENGINE NO'.D20
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE S.b LfStib. CID) L-b
CVS NO. lo
BAROMETER Jlb'bn MM HG(2q'.OP IN HO)
DRY BULB TEMP. ?s'.0 DEC C(77'.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS'
BAG NUM&ER
BLOWER DIF p MM. naodN. H20)
BLOWER JNLET P MM, H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG'. C(DEG. F5
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW SID'. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMpLE
HC BCKQRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKrjftD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
rn NOX SAMPLE
_ NOX BCKGRD
MfTER/RANGE/PPM
MpTER/RANGE/PPM
MpTER/RANGE/PPM
MfTER/RANGE/PPM
MpTER/RANGE/PCT
MpTER/RANGE/PCT
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LR)
KW HR (HP HFM
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HRJ
BSNOX G/KW Hp (G/HP HR)
BSFC KGVKW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAG3
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR) ..-- . -,---
BSHC d/KW HR (G/HP HR) S.
,1S
.H3
,859 ( 30,34)
.
-------
ENGINE NC
ENGINE MOoEL 80 VOLVO DUAL FUEL
ENGINE 9.b LfSHb. CIO) L*b
CVS NO. lb
BAROMETER 73blbQ MM HG(29'.00 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. pb'.l DEG C(79.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER 6IF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, H2onN, H20)
BLOWER JNLET TEMP. DEG'. C(D£6. F)
BLOWER DEVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS. .
TOTAL FLOW STD. cu. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMpLE MFTER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD MFTER/RANGE/PPM
co SAMPLE MFTER/RANGE/PPM
co BCKKRD MFTER/RANGE/PPM
co2 SAMPLE MFTER/RANGE^PCT
co2 BCKQRD MFTER/RANGE/PCT
m NOX SAMPLE MFTER/RANGE/PPM
i NOX RCKGRD MFTER/RANGE/PPM
o
DILUTION FACJOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONpENT.R|TlON PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MAS) GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASj GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR1
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G;KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW H§ (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KM HR (HP HR) 1,92 (
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 2,85 (
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 23.** (
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 411. (
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 7.39 (
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) '.lib I
Part. G/KW-HR (6/HP-Hr) .63 (.47)
TABLE E-18. ENGTNE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
TEST N0.22-2B RUN
DATE 10/17/80
TIME 11110
DYNO NO, S
PROJECT NO, H-S011-001
DIESEL EM.<»b(-F
BA6 CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-SJ, PCT , CVS-faO, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.b GM/KG( 81.3 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1.0000
b'.bO)
2.11)
5.51)
,7lb)
bSOJ2 (25. b)
518,2 {20.1)
18.9 (120.0)
Sb95,
272,7
271.3 t 1581.)
t.7/22/ 38,
B.7/ I/ S,
5S.1/1*/ 120,
,5/lfc/ 1,
20, 7/ ]/ .33
3. I/ I/ ,05
7,1/13/ 22,
,9/ I/ 1.
38. 3*
30,
lib-
.28
21^3
l',bb
3b.SO
1101.9
ij'.os
.b13 ( 1
1.12 ( 1
3'29 2
25.77 19
991.91 739
7.80 5
'.151 ,
b50.2 (25. b)
518.2 (20.1)
11.9 (120.0)
bOlO.
287,8
28b,3 (10111.)
7,b/22/ 38,
B,b/ I/ 9,
bS,l/12/ 115,
.S/12/ 1,
23, 7/ 3/ .39
1.5/ 3/ ,05
B.1/13/ 25.
,B/ 2/ 1.
31,25
2*.
HI,
,33
2»,3
I.Bb
1b,88
1715.9
13.30
.12) .813 ( I.Bb)
.90) 2.11 ( 9.81)
,1b) 2,31 { 1.72)
.22) 22,26 ( lb,S9)
,b9) 828, bB ( bl7,95)
.82) b,31 ( 1,71)
717) ,100 ( ,fa57)
bS0.2 (25, b)
518,2 (20,1)
18.9 (120,0)
Ib95,
272,7
271,1 ( 9SB1.)
7,3/22/ 17.
B,l/ I/ 8.
51.1/12/ 109,
,5/12/ 1.
21, O/ M ,31
3, I/ 3/ .05
8.0/13/ 21,
,B/ 2/ 1,
37, 9b
2^,
lOb,
,29
21,1
SSI
13,38
1130.1
12,01
,bS7 1
1.10 1
3.22 2
23, 8b 17
1022,72 7b2
8.59 b
,'»70
.»5)
.88)
.10)
.80)
.bS)
.10)
773)
PARTICIPATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90MM
FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HA
(G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/Kfl FUEL (0/LB FUEL)
,8b
,9b
,1^
.»»
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLO*
SCM(SCF)
,8b2 ( 30,»3)
( ,1*57)
( ,203b)
56,21 (1951,2)
-------
TABLE E-19.
ENGINE NO.020
ENGINE MODEL rtO VOLVU DUAL t:ULL
ENGINE 9.6 L (5B6. CIO) L-6
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 7S3.ll MM HG129.65 IN MG)
DRY UUIR TFMP. 24.4 OEC CI76.U OFG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBFR
BLOWER DIF ¥
BLOWER INLET
BLOWER INLET
MM. H201IN. H20)
P MM. ri20( IN. H2U)
TEMP. DEC. CtUtG. F)
BLOVtER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STO. CU.
KETRES(SCF)
m
ro
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
KtTEK/RANGE/PPM
METER/KANGE/PPM
METER/kANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
MEHK/RANGE/PCT
METER/KANGE/PCT
METER/RANGt/PPM
METER/kANGE/PPM
~ DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (Lfi)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC C/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX C/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW M (LB/HP Hk)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP Hk ) 4.81
ESHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 2.92
BSCO G/KVi HR (G/HP HR) 23,77
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 9B4.
BSNOX G/Kb Hk (G/HP HRJ 8.74
BSFC KG/KH HR ILB/HP HR) .461
6.45!
2.18}
17.739
734. )
6.52!
.7573
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HOT TRANSIENT
PROJECT NO. 11-5044-001
TEST
DATE
TIME
OYNO
N0.22-2H RUN
10/30/aO
NO. 5
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY t ENGINE-54. PCT , CVS-20. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.4 GM/KGl 72.9 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
685.8 127.0)
525.8 (20.7)
48.9 (120.0)
5694.
272.7
277.6 ( 9803.)
2
685.8 127.0)
525.8 (20.7)
48.9 (120.0)
6011.
287.8
293.0 (10349.)
685.8 (27.0)
525.8 (20.7)
48.9 (120.0)
5693.
272.7
277.5 ( 9802.1
7.2/22X 36.
8.3/ I/ 8.
53.3/12/ 114.
.5/12/ 1.
20. 21 3/ .33
2.7/ 3/ .04
7.7/13/ 23.
.9/ 21 I.
39.42
28.
112.
.28
22.1
4. 45
36.14
1447.7
11.73
,674 J 1,49)
1.41 « 1,89)
3,16 2.36)
25.68 19.15)
1028.55 766. 99 j
8.33 6.2U
.479 .7881
7.4/22/ 37.
7.7/ I/ 8.
62.6/12/ 139.
.5/12/ 1.
23. 1/ 3/ .37
2.3/ 3/ .04
9.5/13/ 28.
.!/ 21 0.
34.18
30.
136.
.34
28.3
4.99
46. 32
1827.6
15.85
.879 1,949
2,05 2.75J
2.43 1,81J
22.56 16.82)
889.92 663.6XJ
7.72 5.75)
.428 ,703)
7.3/22X
8.0/ I/
47.9/12/
.6/12/
20. I/ 3/
2.5/ 3/
9.1/13/
.21 21
39.77
29.
98.
.29
27.2
4.58
31.80
1454.0
14.45
.661
1.35
3.41
23.63
1080.62
10.74
.491
36.
B.
101.
1.
.32
.04
27.
0.
1.46)
1.80)
2.54)
17.62)
805.82)
8.01)
.807)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
PART. 6/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .60 (.45)
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
SCMJSCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR 4G/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL JG/LB FUEL)
.917 ( 32.37)
.925
.1925 ( .1436)
.4180 ( .1896)
57.59 (2033.9)
-------
NE NO.D2C
ENGINE KOHn. 80 VOLVO DUALFUEL
FNIilNE 9, A I. (506, ClfD L-6
CV'J NO. 10
BAROMETER 74U.54 nh UG<29,47 IN KG)
DRY BULB TchP, 22,0 flUC C(73,0 DEG F)
DAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF P MM, H2CMIN, H20)
£
-------
APPENDIX F
TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS FROM THE ETHANOL-CATALYST CONFIGURATION
-------
TABLE F-l. NOTES CONCERNING TEST RESULTS GIVEN IN APPENDIX F
Table No.
Ethanol &
Catalyst
& B.P.
Notes
Cold Start
F-2
F-3
F-4
Hot Start
F-5
F-6
F-7
Bus Cycle
F-8
F-9
Preparations for runs with ethanol with catalyst and back-
pressure device, included, resetting of diesel fuel flow
at idle and efforts to reduce the driveline vibration which
had increased significantly from the start of test work on
this engine.. As a result of severe driveline vibration
a larger torque meter (100K) was installed.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -23.6
and power slope was 9 percent high. Results used for
regulated emission. NOX by bag measurement was 7.51 g/kW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -25.5.
Cycle power was 15 percent below command cycle power.
Results used for regulated emissions, NOx by bag measure-
ment was 7.98 gAw-hr.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -24.1.
Results used for regulated emissions. NOx by bag measure-
ment was 8.04 g/kW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements, torque slope 1.086 and power
slope 1.117. Results used for regulated emissions. NOx by bag
measurement was 7.24 g/kW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -15.7.
Results used for regulated emissions. NOx by bag measurement
was 7.59 gAW-hr.
Failed statistical requirements, torque intercept -18.0.
torque and power R were .86 and .89 respectively. Results
used for regulated emissions.
Failed statistical requirements, torque R 0.872. Results
used for regulated emissions.
Failed statistical requirements, torque R2 0.0866. Results
used for regulated emissions.
F-2
-------
ENGINE NO.D23
ENGINE MODEL GO VOLVO HUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(5G6, CUD L-6
CVS NO, 10
•BAROMETER 744,90 MM HG(29,33 IN HG5
DRY BULB TEMP, 22,2 DEO C(72,0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM, H2CKIN, H20)
BLOUER INLET P MM, 1120(IN, M20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEC, C(DEG, F)
BLOUER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STB, CU, METRES(3CF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX-SAMPLE
NGX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (L3)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/MP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
B3C02 G/KW MR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
B3FC KG/KU HR (LB/HP MR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 DAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP -HR)
B3CO G/KU HR (G/HP MR)
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KU •- "••
BSC02
BSNOX
BSFC
(G/HP HR)
KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
11.62 (
,67 (
5,87 (
1017, (
7,70 (
,466 (
TABLE F-2. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
-C-TRANS,
TEST NQ.23-3C RUN1
DATE ll/ 6/30
TIME {!{}}
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
15,5?)
,50)
4,37)
75B.)
5,74).
,766)
DIESEL EH-465-F
DAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY » EN6INE-60, PCT , CVS--32, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,2 GM/KG( 71,6 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1
NYNF
680,7 (26.8)
523,3 (20,3)
48,9 (120,0)
6102,
296,0
273,2 (10532.)
5.3/227 27,
9,0/ I/ 10.,
49,2/127 104,
,5/12/ 1,
20, A/ 3/ ,33
3,2/ 3/ ,05
8,3/13/ 25,
,9/ 2/ 1,
38, C7
17.
101,
,28
23,9
2,92
35,17
1551,4
13,65
,653 ( 1.44)
1,02 ( 1,37)
2,07 ( 2,14)
34,55 ( 25,77)
1523,96 (1136,42)
13,41 ( 10,00)
,642 ( 1,055)
2
LANF
680,7 (26, B)
523,3 (20,8)
42,9 (120,0)
6265,
300,0
302,2 (10673,)
4,3/22/ 22,
9,4/ I/ 9.
49.9/13/ 47,
1,1/137 1,
29,07 37 ,4D
3,07 37 .05
9.9/13/ 30,
1,0/27 1.
27,65
13,
45,
,43
28,7
2.19
15,90
2397,7
16,59
1,097 ( 2,42)
2,06 ( 2,77)
1,06 ( ,79)
7,71 ( 5,75).
1163,48 < 867,61)
8,04 ( 6,00)
,532 < .875)
3
LAF
680,7 (24.8)
528.3 (20,8)
48,9 (120,0)
6371.
305,0
307,3 (10354.)
4,2/227 21.
10. 0/ I/' 10,
29.2/13/ 26,
i.1/13/ 1,
66, I/ 3/ 1.19'
2,97 37 ,04
25,0717V 75,
l.O/ 2/ 1,
11,26
12,
25,
1.14
74,2
2,07
8,82
6442,0
43,59
3,051 ( 6,73)
7,39 < 9,91)
,23 ( ,21)
1,19 ( ,89)
871,54 ( 649,71)
5,90 ( 4,40)
,413 (. ,678)
4
NYNF
680,7 (26,8)
523,3 (20,0)
43,9 (120,0)
6202,
297,0
279,1 (10566.)
2.7/22/ 13,
7,37 17 10,
28.1/13/ 25,
1,47137 1,
19,07 3/ .30
3,07 37 ,05
9.5/13/ 28,
l.l/ 2/ 1,
43,43
4.
24,
,26
27,3
i r.-
t G.J
8,27
1423,6
15,62
,615 ( 1
1,15 ( 1
,56 (
7,19 ( 5
1237,04 ( 922
13,57 ( 10
,535 (
,36)
.54)
,42)
,36)
,46)
.12)
879)
PARTICULATE DATA* TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90HM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST .
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
1,237 ( 43,71)
,975
,0839 ( ,0626)
( ,(
,1800
,0017)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .34 (.25)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
83,40 (2945,6)
-------
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 30 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9.6 L(506, CUD L-6
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 742,19 MM liG(29,22 IN HG)
DRY SULB TEMP, 20,0 DUG C(43,0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
SLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIhE SECONDS
TOTAL FLDU STD. CU, METRES(SCF)
TABLE F-3. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS,
TEST NO.D23-1 RUN1
DATE 11/10/30
TIME jjjjj
DYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
HC CAMPLE
!!C BCKGRD
CO CAMPLE
CO DCKCRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKCRD
NOX SAMPLE
-n NOX EtCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANCE/PPM
METLR/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
*" DILUTION FACTOR
IIC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMC
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU HR (HP MR)
BSHC G/KU h'R (G/HP HR)
BSCO C/KU MR (G/HP HR)
PSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
DSNOX G/KW IIR (G/HP HR)
FSFC KG/KM HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TECT RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KU h'R (IIP HR)
D5IIC G/KU HR (G/HP MR)
BSCO G/KU h'R (G/HP KR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
PSNOX G/KW h'R (G/HP HR)
HGFC KG/KU H.r< (LB/HP HR)
10,42 ( 13,98)
,81 ( ,61)
5.67 ( 4,23)
1036, ( 773.)
9.74 ( 7.26)
.467 ( .767)
DIECEL EM--465--F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY i ENGINE--62, PCT , CVS-46, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9,2 GM/KG( 64,7 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
1
NYNF
713,7 (28,1)
546,1 (21,5)
37,8 (100,0)
6130,
296,0
304,0 (10736,)
24,2/H/ 24,
9,3/ I/ 10,
B7.9/13/ 89,
1.3/13/ 1,
19, O/ 3/ ,30
3, I/ 3/ ,05
9,6/13/ 29,
,0/ 2/ 1,
42,43
15,
86,
,26
28,0
2,56
30,34
1433,2
16.26
,581 ( 1.28)
,96 ( 1,29)
2,65 ( 1,90)
31,45 ( 23,45)
1490,67 (1111,59)
16,86 ( 12,57)
,602 ( ,990)
2
LANF
713,7 (28,1)
546,1 (21,5)
37,8 (100,0)
6264,
300,0
308,1 (10382,)
22,B/11/ 23,
9,2/ I/ 9,
43.3/13/ 40,
1.1/13/ 1,
26, I/ 3/ ,43
2.0/ 3/ ,04
11.2/13/ 34,
,7/ 2/ 1,
30,95
14,
38,
,39
33,0
2,46
13,78
2174,2
19,46
,980 ( 2.16)
1.90 ( 2,55)
1.29 ( .96)
7,24 ( 5,40)
1142,79 ( S52.18)
10,23 ( 7,63)
,515 ( ,847)
3
LAF
713,7 (28,1)
546,1 (21,5)
37,8 (100,0)
6370,
305,0
313,3 (11066.)
24,1/H/ 24,
9,3/ I/ 9,
26.2/13/ 24,
1.3/13/ 1,
59, 6/ 3/ 1,06
2,3/ 3/ ,04
27.5/13/ 82,
,6/ 2/ 1,
12,60
16,
22,
1,02
81,9
2,80
7,91
5849,9
49,07
2,735 ( 6,03)
6,55 ( S,7Q)
,43 ( ,32)
1,21 ( ,90)
893,62 ( 666,37)
7,56 ( 5,59)
,410 I ,607)
4
NYNF
713,7 (28,1)
546,1 (21,5)
37,8 (100,0)
6201,
296,9
305,0 (10772.)
12.3/11/ 12,
3,8/ I/ 9,
24.0/13/ 21,
1.4/13/ 1,
17, 7/ 3/ ,28
2,9/ 3/ ,04
9.7/13/ 29,
,6/ 2/ 1,
46,83
4,
20,
,24
28,7
,64
7,06
1337,2
16,72
,568 ( 1
1,01 ( 1
,64 (
6.99 ( 5
1324,05 ( 987
16,56 ( 12
,563 (
,25)
,35)
,48)
,21)
,34)
,35)
925)
PARTICULATE DATAi TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
PART. G/KW-HR (S/HP-HR) .31 (.23)
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOU
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOU
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KG FUEL (G/L£ FUEL)
SCM(SCF)
1,234 ( 43,59)
,997
,0956 ( ,0713)
,2049 ( ,0930)
82.10 (2899,9)
-------
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 80 VOLVO BUALFUEL
ENGINE: 9,6 L(5S6, cno L-6
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 744,73 MM HC(29,32 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP, 21.1 DEG C(70,0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM, H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, 1-120(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
ELOUER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD, CU, METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
DCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRB
NOX SAMPLE
NQX PCKGRD
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB) '
KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP MR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
DSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/MP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS A DAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU KR (G/HP HR)
BGNOX G/KW HR (G/HP MR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LE/HP HR)
TABLE F-4. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TK'ANS,
TEST NO.D23-2 RUN1
DATE 11/11/00
TIME 9MO
DYNQ NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
10,73 ( 14,45)
,89 (
5,42 (
1022, (
8,08 (
,462 (
,66)
4,04)
762.)
(5,42)
,759)
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY r ENGINE-64, PCT > CVS--51. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,1 GM/KG( 70,3 GRAING/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1,0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
678,2 (26,7) 670,2 (26,7) 678,2 (26,7)
525,3 (20,7) 525,3 (20,7) 525,3 (20.7)
51,7 (125,0) 51,7 (125,0) 51,7 (125,0)
6182, 6266, 6371.
295,9 299,9 305,0
296,0 (10456.) 300,0 (10593.) 305,1 (10775,)
27.8/21/ 28, 25.4/21/ 25, 25,9/217 26,
10,47 I/ 10, 10, O/ I/ 10, 10, 3/ I/ 10,
91.3/13/ 92, 42.4/13/ 39, 24.1/13/ 22,
1.0/13/ 1, 1,0/13/ 1. 1.0/137 1,
19,67 3/ ,31 26, 9/ 3/ ,44 61.7/.3/ 1,10
2,7/ 3/ ,04 2,7/ 3/ ,04 2,7/ 3/ ,04
8.6/13/ 26, 10,4/13/ 31, 27,5/13/ 83,
,Q/ 2/ 1, ,7/ 2/ 1, ,6/ 2/ 1,
41,02 29,96 12,17
13, 16, 16,
89, 38, 20,
,27 ,40 1,06
25,1 30,4 82,0
3,01 2,73 2,39
30,04 13,11 7,10
1438,6 2203,0 5916,2
14,19 17,47 47,87
,613 ( 1,35) ,994 ( 2,19) 2,771 ( 6
,99 ( 1,33) 1,97 ( 2,65) 6,77 ( 9
3,04 ( 2,26) 1,33 ( 1,03) ,43 (
31,09 ( 23,18) 6,64 ( 4,95) 1,05 (
1500,77 (1119,12) 1115,60 ( 831,90) 873,67 ( 651
14,31 ( 10,67) 8,05 ( 6,60) 7,07 ( 5
,618 ( . 1,016) ,503 ( ,028) ,409 (
PARTI CULATE DATA? TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
70MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
67B.2 (26,7)
525,8 (20,7)
51,7 (125,0)
6204,
296,0
297,1 (10492,)
15.1/21/ 15,
10, O/ I/ 10,
25.0/13/ 22,
,9/13/ 1,
1B,7/ 3/ ,30
2,8/ 3/ ,04
9.7/13/ 29.
,6/ 2/ 1,
44,18
IT
O ,
21,
,26
28,5
,92
7,32
1402,4
16,17
,11) ,597 ( 1
,08) 1,04 ( 1
,32) ,39 (
,70) 7,06 ( 5
,49) 1352,44 (1003
,27) 15,59 ( 11
673) ,576 (
1,250 ( 44,15)
,958
,0890 ( ,0663)
,1926 ( ,0874)
,32)
,39)
,66)
,26)
,51)
,63)
947)
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .38 (.28)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
81,60 (2882,2)
-------
TABLE F-5. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
ENGINE NO,H23
ENGINE MODEL 00 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(58i. CID) L-6
CVG NO, 10
PAROMETER 744,98 MM KG(29,33 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP, 26,7 DEG C(80.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
HAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOUER DIF P MM, H20CJN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, II20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD, CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
EiCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKORD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX DCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
,'!C CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS CRAMS
c;
HC
CO
C02 MASG GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS-
FUEL KG (LB)
KW IIR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/KP MR)
BSCO G/KW MR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 DAGS
'OTAL KM HR (HP
BSHC G/KW HR
BSCO G/KU HR
BSC02 G/KW HR
BSNOX G/KU HR
BGFC KG/KW IIR
HR)
(G/HP MR)
(5/HP HR)
(C/MP HR)
(G/HP HR)
(LB/HP HR)
11,95 (
,46 <
4,12 (
964, (
8,19 <
,443 (
: 16,03)
: ,34)
, 3,07)
: 719,)
: 6,11)
: ,727)
TEST N0.23-5H
DATE ll/ 6/30
TIME !,'::;
DYNO NO, 5
RUN1
DIESEL EM--465--F
SAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY t ENGINE-47, PCT i CVS-32, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,3 GM/KG< 72,4 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
PART. 6/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .38 (.28)
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
683,3 (26,9) 683,3 (26,9) 683,3 (26,9)
523,3 (20,8) 523,3 (20,3) 523,3 (20,8)
50,0 (122,0) 50,0 (122,0) 50,0 (122,0)
6131, 6264, 6372,
297,0 300,0 305.0
297,4 (10505.) 301,4 (10645,) 306,6 (10329.)
18.5/21/ 18, 17,0/21/ 17, 18.6/21/ 19,
10, O/ I/ 10, 9,0/ I/ 9, 8,2/ I/ 8,
59.2/13/ 57, 41.3/13/ 38, 30.1/13/ 27,
•9/13/ 1, ,7/13/ 1, tG/13/ 1,
18, 8/ 3/ ,30 28, 1/ 3/ ,46 65, 0/ 3/ 1,18
3,2/ 3/ ,05 3,0/ 3/ ,05 2,Q/ 3/ ,04
7.6/13/ 23, 10.6/13/ 32, 30.6/13/ 92,
1,0/ 2/ 1. 1,0/ 2/ 1, 1,0/ 2/ 1,
43,40 28,67 11,32
9, 3, 11,
55, 37, 26,
,25 ,42 1,14
21,9 30,9 90,9
1,49 1,44 1,98
19,12 12,95 9,18
1330,5 2305,2 6401,0
12.44 17,79 53.29
.585 ( 1,29) 1,056 ( 2,33) 3,029 ( 6
1,15 ( 1,54) 2,20 ( 2,94) 7,44 ( 9
1,30 ( ,97) .66 ( ,49) ,27 (
16,62 ( 12,39) 5.90 ( 4,40) 1,23 (
1199,64 ( 894,58) 1050.06 ( 783,03) 859,81 ( 641
10,81 ( 0.06) 3,10 ( 6,04) 7,16 ( 5
,508 ( ,835) ,481 ( ,791) ,407 (
PARTICULATE DATAr TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
4
NYNF
683,3 (26,
528,3 (20,
50,0 (122
6202,
296,9
9)
3)
,0)
293,4 (10540.)
11.4/21/
3, I/ I/
26.S/13/
•9/13/
19, O/ 3/
2,3/ 3/
8.7/13/
1,0/ 2/
43,48
3,
23,
,26
25,2
.60
7,98
1436,5
14,39
,68) ,618
,90) 1,16
,20) ,52
,92) 6,88
,16) 1238,79
,34) 12,41
669) ,533
1,261 ( 44,52)
,955
,0799 < ,0596)
,1006 < ,0819)
83,26 (2940,6)
11,
3,
24,
1,
,30
,04
26,
1,
( 1,36)
( 1,56)
( ,39)
( 5,13)
( 923,77)
( 9,26)
( ,877)
-------
ENGINE NO,D20
ENGINE MODEL 00 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(536, CIB) 1-6
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 742,44 MM MG(29.23 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEHP, 25,0 DEG C(77,0 DE6 F)
DAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
.DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM, H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, 1120(IN, M20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 3TD, CU, METREG(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
CO2 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PF'M
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
^ DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CD CONCENTRATION PPM
C02.CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LD)
KU MR (HP HR)
ESHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
B3CO G/KU MR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
3SNOX G/KW MR (G/HP MR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
B3HC G/KU MR (G/HP MR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP MR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
D3FC KG/KU HR (LB/HP MR)
TABLE F-6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
- - H-TRANS,
TEST NO.D23--1 RUN!
DATE 11/10/30
TIME 15!,'}
DYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
10,49 ( 14.04)
,64 (
3,92 (
994, (
8,87 (
,446 (
,47)
2,92)
741.)
6,61)
,733)
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO, 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY » ENDINE-52, PCT i CVS-17, PCT
ABSOLUTE MUMIDITY 10,5 GM/KG( 73,7 GRAINS/LS)
NOX MUMIDITY C.F, 1,0000
706
546
51
295
18,
9,
47,
1,
17,
3,
7,
d
1
NYNF
,1 (27,
,1 (21,
,7 (125
6202,
297,0
8)
5)
,0)
,1 (10424.)
A/117
67 I/
0/13/
7/13/
4/ 3/
I/ 3/
B/13/
17 2/
47,18
9,
42,
,23
23,3
1,57
14,47
1250,4
13,17
,485
1,03
1,53
14,08
1216,41
12,31
,472
19,
10,
44,
1,
,28
,05
23,
0,
( 1
( 1
( 1
( 10
( 907
( 9
( 9
LANF
706,1 (27,
546,1 (21,
C)
5)
51,7 (125,0)
6265,
300,0
298,1 (10530.)
20,7/117
9,4/ 17
37.6/13/
1,6/137
25,47 37
2,37 37
10.2/13/
,!/ 2/
31,90
12,
33,
,37
30,6
2,00
11,36
2037,0
17,44
,07) ,915
,33) 1,91
,14) 1,05
.50) 5,94
,08) 1065,61
,55) 9,12
776) ,479
PARTICIPATE DATA* TOTAL
90MM
FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
21,
9,
35,
1,
,41
,04
31,
0,
( 2,02)
( 2,56)
( ,78)
( 4,43)
( 794,62)
( 6,80)
< ,707)
FOR 4 BAGS
SCMCSCF)
G/TEST
G/KU HR
3
LAF
706,1 (27,0)
546,1 (21
,5)
4
NYNF
706,1 (27,
546,1 (21,
51,7 (125,0)
6371,
305,0
303,2 (10703.)
23.7/11/
10, O/ I/
27,3/13/
1.3/13/
60, S/ 3/
2,0/ 3/
27.1/13/
,!/ 2/
12,37
15,
23,
1,04
81,4
2,55
0,08
5771,6
47,18
2,696
6,54
,39
1,24
802,87
7i 22
,412
(G/HP MR)
24,
10,
25,
1,
1.08 -
,04
81,
0,
( 5
( 3
(
(
( 658
( 5
( ,
,94)
,77)
,29)
,92)
,36)
,30)
678)
1,267
,941
51
,7 (125
6203,
296,9
8)
5)
,0)
295,2 (10426,)
12,
9,
24,
1,
18,
2,
9,
4
9/117
9/ 11
9/1 3/
3/137
37 37
7/ 3/
0/13/
I/ 2/
45,21
3,
21,
,25
27,0
,56
7,21
1365,1
15,23
,579
1,01
,55
7,14
1351,76
(
,0897 (
G/KG FUEL (G/LE FUEL)
,2013 (
15,03
,573
44,73)
,0669)
,0913)
13,
10,
22,
1,
,29
,04
27,
0,
( 1
( 1
(
( 5
(1008
( 11
C t
,28)
,35)
,41)
,32)
,01)
,24)
942)
PART. G/KW-HR (6/HP-HR) .39 (.29)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
81,58 (2801,2)
-------
ENGINE NO,020
ENGINE MODEL 00 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(586, CUD L-6
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 744,73 MM HG(29,32 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP, 25,6 DEC C(7G,0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
FAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM, H20(IN, M20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, !I20(IN, M20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEG, C(DEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW CTD, CU, METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKCRD METER/RAMGE/PF'M
CO .SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKCRD METER/RANCE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
^ NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
7 NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
IIC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU HR (HP MR)
BSHC 6/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW MR (G/HP IIR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
PSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TABLE F-7. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
TEST NO.D23-2 RUN1
DATE 11/11/30
TIME 10J25
DYNO NO. 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
oo
TOTAL TEST RESULTS A BAGS
TOTAL KU MR (HP HR)
BSCO
BSC02
BSNOX
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/KP HR)
G/KW H,r< (G/HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
10.58 ( 14,18)
,70 (
4.00 (
994.
8.74 (
,449 <
i
K'C/KW IIR (LD/HP HR)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .39 (.29)
.53)
2.99)
741.)
6.52)
.737)
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-50. PCT » CVS--43, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.3 GM/KG( 72.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1 2 3
NYNF LANF LAF
680,7 (26,8) 680,7 (26,0) 680,7 (26,0)
525.8 (20,7) 525.3 (20,7) 525.8 (20,7)
51.7 (125.0) 51,7 (125.0) 51,7 (125,0)
6132, 6266, 6372,
296.0 300.0 305,0
295,9 (10452.) 299,9 (10594.) 305,0 (10773.)
20.1/21/ 20. 21.9/21/ 22. 25.0/21/ 25,
10, I/ I/ 10, 9,9/ I/ 10, 10, O/ I/ 10,
51.0/13/ 48, 37.2/13/ 34. 26.2/13/ 24.
1.0/13/ 1. 1.3/13/ 1. 1.5/13/ 1,
17, 8/ 3/ ,28 24, 9/ 3/ ,41 61, 2/ 3/ 1,09
3. 1/ 3/ ,05 2,7/ 3/ .04 2,7/ 3/ .04
7.6/13/ 23, 9.8/13/ 30, 27,3/13/ 82,
,8/ 2/ 1. .6/2/1, ,6/ 2/ 1,
46,01 32,57 12,28
10, 12, 16,
46, 32, 22,
,24 ,37 1,05
22,1 28,9 81,5
1,74 2,13 2.78
15,99 11,29 7,65
1290,2 2009,6 5859,2
12,53 16,60 47,53
,533 ( 1,17) ,898 ( 1,98) 2,736 ( 6
1.06 < 1.43) 1.85 ( 2.48) 6,65 ( 3
1,64 ( 1.22) 1.15 ( ,86) .42 (
15.03 ( /11.21) 6.11 ( 4.55) 1,15 (
1212.62 ( 904.25) 1087.17 ( 810.70) 880,49 ( 656
11,77 ( 8,73) 0,93 ( 6,70) 7,14 ( 5
,501 ( ,823) .406 ( .799) ,411 (
PARTICULATE DATA. TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCH(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KG FUEL (G/LE FUEL)
4
NYNF
680.7 (26,8)
525,3 (20,7)
51,7 (125,0)
6203,
297,0
296,9 (10488.)
14.2/21/ 14.
9.7/ I/ 10,
26.0/13/ 23,
1.7/13/ 1,
18, O/ 3/ ,29
2,6/ 3/ ,04
9.4/13/ 20,
,5/ 2/ 1,
45.96
5,
21,
,25
27,7
,31
7,43
1353,9
15,75
,03) ,577 ( 1,27)
,92) 1,01 ( 1,35)
,31) ,80 ( ,60)
.86) 7,35 ( 5,48)
,50) 1340,64 ( 999,72)
,33) 15,60 ( 11,63)
676) ,571 ( ,939)
1,274 ( 45.01)
,940
,0839 ( .0663)
.1981 ( ,0899)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
81,28 (2870.9)
-------
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 30 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 L(5Gi, CUD L--6
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 742,44 MM HG(29,23 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP, 23,? DEC C(75,0 DEC F!
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIP P MM, H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, 1120(IN, K20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP, DEO, C£>
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRI'i
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER7RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANCE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS CRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW .HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KU MR (G/MP MR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP MR)
3SNOX G/KW MR (G/HP MR)
BSFC KG/KW HR
6000,
207,7
286,4 U0114.)
600,7 (26,0)
525,8 (20,7)
51,7 (125,0)
5693,
272,6
271,3 ( 9584,)
17,
8,
42,
20'!
2,
S,
1,
7/n/
9/ I/
Q/13/
3/13/
9/ 3/
B/ 3/
9/13/
3/ 2/
18,
40,
0,
,34
,04
27,
1,
17
9
46
2o
11
1
,9/li/
,?/ I/
,9/13/
.,1/13/
,9/ 3/
,S/ 3/
,3/13/
,3/ 2/
10,
44,
0,
.,41
,04
34,
1,
31
21
•j
9
!?/13/
l6/ 3/
,8/ 3/
,9/13/
,3/ 2/
10,
29,
0,
,34
,04-
30,
39,11
32,5
39,05
39,
,30
25,4
1,42
12,22
1467,5
13,16
,614 (
1,27 <
i , 1 1 (
9,61 (
1154,28 (
10,37 <
.483 (
1,33)
1,70)
,83)
7,16)
860,74)
7,73)
,794)
43,
,36
32,7
1,37
14,29
1910,8
17,90
,876 (
1,93 (
,69 (
7,20 (
963,21 (
9,02 (
,441 <
1,93)
2,66)
,52)
5,37)
718,27)
6,73)
,726)
23,
,30
23,4
1,07
3. 93
1475,5
14,72
,637 (
1,25 (
,85 (
7,13 (
1177,27 (
11,75 <
.508 (
1,40)
1,63)
,63)
5,32)
877,39)
8,76)
.835)
PARTICULATE DATA* TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) ,38 (=283
90MM FILTER-
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
B/KG FUEL {0/LB FUEL)
,877 ( 30,96)
,946
,2093 ( ,1565)
,4449 < ,2018)
55,52 (1961,0)
-------
ENGINE NO.D20
ENGINE MODEL 30 VOLVO DUALFUEL
ENGINE 9,6 LC5C6, CID) L~4
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 742,44 MM HG(29,23 IN HG)
DRY SULB TEMP, 26.7 DEC C<30<0 DEC F)
PAG RESULTS
PAG NUMBER
['LOWER DIP P MM. H20(IN, 1120)
BLOWER INLET P MM. II20CIN, H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC, C(DEG, F)
FLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD, CD, METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX DCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METERVRANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
0 DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU IIR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/KP HR)
BSCO G/KU IIR (G/HP IIR)
BSC02 G/KW IIR (G/HP HR)
B3NOX G/KW HR (G/MP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KU MR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW IIR (G/KP HR)
BCC02 G/K'J lift (G/MP HR)
PSNOX G/KU HR (G/HP HR)
BSrC KG/KW MR (LB/MP HR)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) .36
4,51
,84
8,44
1097,
10,68 i
,405
(.27)
TABLE F-9. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS,
TEST NO.D23-2L' RUN1
DATE 11/10/30
TIME jj.'j;
BYNO NO, 5
PROJECT NO, 11-5044-001
6,05)
,43)
6,29)
020.)
7,96)
,797)
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY » ENGINE-4G, PCT > CVC-45, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,i GH/KB( 74,3 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F. 1.0000
1
430.7 (26,8)
525.8 (20.7)
51,7 (125,0)
5694,
272,6
271.4 ( 9587.)
480,7 (26.3)
525,8 (20.7)
51,7 (125.0)
6008,
287,7
284,4 (10116.)
3
430.7 (24,8)
525,G (20.7)
51,7 (125.0)
5694.
272.7
271,4 ( 9507.)
18
9
50
21
3
9
1
,6/1 I/
,0/ I/
,4/13/
,3/ 3/
,2/ 3/
,2/13/
,5/ 2/
38.25
10,
44,
,30
24,1
1,55
14>52
1471,7
13,56
,629
1,23
1,21
11,34
1149,38
10,59
,491
19,
9,
47,
1,
,34
,05
23,
2,
( 1
', 1
(
( 8
( 857
( 7
,39)
,72)
,90)
,46)
,09)
,90)
17
9
49
25
£.
12
1
( ,807)
,1/11/
,B/ I/
ivi3/
>5/ 3/
• 8/ 3/
,0/13/
,4/ 2/
31,71
8,
45.
,37
34,5
1,25
14,98
1966,0
13,92
,900
1,97
,63
7,59
995,59
9,53
,456
17,
10,
46,
0.
,42
,04
36,
1,
( 1
( 2
/
I 5
i 742
( 7
/ ,
,98)
,65)
,47)
,44)
,41)
,14)
749)
14
8
30
21
2
10
1
,2/ll/
,0/ I/
»Q/13/
,4/13/
,5/ 3/
,8/ 3/
,5/13/
,4/ 2/
33,14
6,
27,
,31
30,2
1,00
3,53
1518,6
15,46
,657
1,25
,80
6,80
1211,42
12,50
,524
14,
8,
28,
0,
.35
,04
32,
1,
I
(
(
(
1,45)
1,68)
,40)
5,07)
I 903,51)
(
9,32)
,862)
PARTICULATE DATA* TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90HM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
G/TEST
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KB FUEL (G/LB FUEL).
SCM(SCF)
,001 ( 31,11)
,941
,2033 ( ,1557)
,4307 ( ,1954)
55,43 (1965,0)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA '460/3-81-023
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Emission Characterization of an Alcohol/Diesel-Pilot
Fueled Compression Ignition Engine and its Heavy-Duty
Diesel Counterpart
5. REPORT DATE
August 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Terry L.Oilman and Charles T. Hare
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORG "VNIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78285
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2884
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (Aug. 1980 - Aug. 198H
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes results from emissions testing of a prototype diesel engine,
developed by Volvo Truck Corporation of Sweden, which uses pilot injection of
diesel fuel for compression ignition of alcohol fuel injected for main combustion.
In addition to this dual-fuel engine, emission testing was also conducted on a
heavy-duty diesel engine of similar design. Both engines were tested over the
1979 13-mode FTP, or shorter versions of this modal test, and over the 1984
Transient FTP as well as an experimental bus cycle. The dual-fuel engine was
characterized with methanol, ethanol and ethanol with 30 percent water (wt %) .
An oxidation catalyst was also used with methanol and ethanol.
Emission characterization included regulated emissions (HC, CO, and NOx) along
with total particulate, unburned alcohols, individual hydrocarbons, aldehydes,
phenols, and odor. The particulate matter was characterized in terms of particle
size distribution, sulfate content, C, H, S, metal content, and soluble organic
fraction. The soluble organic fraction was studied by determining its elemental
composition (C,H,S,N), boiling point distribution, BaP content, relative make-up
of polar compounds, and bioactivity by Ames testing.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Alcohol-Diesel Exhaust Emissions
Methanol-Diesel
Ethanol-Diesel
Oxidation-Catalyst
Heavy-Duty Diesel Exhaust Emissions
Transient Test
Federal Test Procedure
Pilot Injection
Bus Cycle
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
235
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- | |