United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
EPA 460/3-82-003
November 1982
xvEPA
Air
Emission Characterization of a Spark-
Ignited, Heavy-Duty, Direct-Injected
Methanol Engine
-------
EPA 460/3-82-003
Emission Characterization of a Spark-Ignited,
Heavy-Duty, Direct-Injected Methanol Engine
by
Terry L. Ullman
Charles T. Hare
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68-03-3073
Work Assignment 2
EPA Project Officer: Robert J. Garbe
Task Technical Officer: 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
November 1982
-------
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, Environmental Protection Agency,
2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas,
in fullfillment of Work Assignment 2 of Contract No. 68-03-3073.
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 Protec-
tion Agency.
Publication No« 460/3-82-003
11
-------
FOREWORD
The project on which this report is based was initiated by Work
Assignment No. 2 of EPA Contract 68-03-3073, received by SwRI on
December 1, 1981. The contract was for "Pollutant Assessment Support
for the Emission Control Technology Division." Work Assignment No. 2
of that contract was specifically for "M.A.N. Methanol Engine Charac-
terization." The work was identified within SwRI as Project No.
05-6619-002.
The Project Officer and the Technical Project Monitor for EPA's
Technology Assessment Branch during the Work Assignment were Mr. Robert J.
Garbe and Mr. Thomas M. Baines, respectively. SwRI Project Director was
Mr. Karl J. Springer, and SwRI Project Manager was Mr. Charles T. Hare.
The SwRI Task Leader and principal investigator for the Work Assignment
No. 2 effort was Mr. Terry L. Ullman. Lead technical personnel were
Mr. Gregory W. Boyd and Mr. Patrick Medola.
We would like to express our appreciation to Maschinenfabrik
Augsburg-Nuernberg of Germany for supplying the prototype methanol
engine. We especially appreciate the direction and assistance of
Mr. F. Chmela of M.A.N.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The uncertainty of petroleum-based fuel availability has created a
need for diversifying into alternate fuels. Maschninenfabrik Augsburg-
Nurnberg (M.A.N.) of Germany has modified a truck-size diesel engine to
consume solely neat methanol by the addition of a transistorized spark
ignition system. This approach is attractive because it required no new
technology, and because the energy efficiency of the diesel engine is
retained essentially intact while consuming low-cetane fuels.
Exhaust emissions from this methanol engine with oxidation catalysts
were characterized over the 1979 13-mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or
shorter versions of this modal test, and over the 1984 Transient Heavy-
Duty FTP. Emissions 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, C, H, S, metal
content, and soluble organic fraction. The soluble organic fraction was
further studied by determining its elemental composition (C, H, S, N),
boiling point distribution, BaP content, relative make-up of polar com-
pounds, and bioactivity by Ames testing.
Very low levels of HC, aldehydes and other hydrocarbon-like species
were observed. In addition, particulate emissions were extremely low.
Most of the observed particulate emission (70%) was composed of soluble
organic matter which had a relatively low BaP content and low Ames
response. Regulated and unregulated emissions from this spark-ignited
methanol-and-catalyst engine were compared to emissions from a pilot-
injected methanol engine and a comparable diesel engine.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY 3
III. TEST PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF ENGINE, FUEL AND PROCEDURES 7
A. Test Plan 7
B. Description of Test Engine 7
C. Description of Test Fuel and Lubricating Oil 10
D. Test Procedures 12
E. Analytical Procedures 17
IV. RESULTS 25
A. General Test Notes 25
B. Gaseous Emissions 28
C. Particulate Emissions 43
V. EMISSION COMPARISON TO OTHER ENGINES 65
A. Regulated Emission Results 65
B. Unregulated Emission Results 74
C. Particulate Emission Results 82
REFERENCES 87
APPENDICES
A. THIRTEEN-MODE FTP TEST RESULTS
B. TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS
C. LETTERS FROM M.A.N. TO EPA
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine Mounted for Testing 9
2 Left-Side View of M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 9
3 Combustion Chamber Configuration of the M.A.N. D2566
FMUH Methanol Engine 11
4 Catalyst Assembly used on a M.A.N. Spark-Ignited Engine
(with Heated Sample Probe for Emission Measurement before
the Catalyst) 11
5 Graphic Representation of Torque and Speed Commands for
the 1984 Transient FTP Cycle for a 250 hp at 2200 rpm
Diesel Engine 15
6 Secondary Dilution Tunnel for Particulate Mass Rate by
90 mm Filters 18
7 Filter Holders for Large Particulate Sample Acquisition 18
8 Particle Size Distribution from Transient Operation of
the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 48
9 Boiling Point Distribution of SOF from Modal Operation of
the M.A.N. Methanol Engine (along with Extract from used
Crankcase Oil) 53
10 Boiling Point Distribution of SOF from Transient Operation
of the M.A.N. Methanol Engine (along with Extract from
used Crankcase Oil) 53
11 Boiling Point Distribution of SOF from the M.A.N. Methanol
Engine Run with Internal Standard 54
12 HPLC Response to SOF from 1600 rpm/2 Percent Load
Operation 55
13 HPLC Response to SOF from 2200 rpm/2 Percent Load
Operation 55
14 HPLC Response to SOF from 1600 rpm/50 Percent Load
Operation 56
15 HPLC Response to SOF from 2200 rpm/50 Percent Load
Operation 56
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Conf d)
Figure Page
16 HPLC Response to SOF from 2200 rpm/100 Percent Load
Operation
57
17 HPLC Response to Standard Solution used during Processing
SOF Derived from Steady-State Operation 57
18 HPLC Response to SOF from Cold-Start Transient Operation 58
19 HPLC Response to SOF from Hot-Start Transient Operation 58
20 HPLC Response to Standard Solution used during Processing
SOF Derived from Transient Operation 59
21 Fueling Schedules for the Diesel and'Pilot-Injected
Engines over 13-mode Testing 67
22 Mass Emissions over the 13-mode Procedure from the
Diesel, Pilot-Injected, Pilot-Injected with Catalyst, and
Spark-Ignited with Catalyst Engines 68
23 Transient Torque Map from the Diesel and Two Methanol-
Fueled Engines 71
24 Brake Specific Emissions from the Diesel and Methanol-
Fueled Engines 73
25 Unburned Methanol Emissions over 7-mode Cycle for
Methanol-Fueled Engines 75
26 Brake Specific Methanol Emissions from the Methanol-
Fueled Engines 76
27 Seven-Mode Aldehyde Emissions from the Diesel and Methanol-
Fueled Engines 77
28 Brake Specific Aldehyde Emissions from the Diesel and
Methanol-Fueled Engines 78
29 Brake Specific Total Hydrocarbons by HFID and by
Summation of Various HC Analyses 81.
30 Total Particulate from 3 modes of Steady-State Operation 83
31 Brake Specific Total Particulate from the Diesel and
Methanol-Fueled Engines 84
VI11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Composite Emission Rates from the Diesel
and Methanol-Fueled Engines 4
2 Planned Emission Measurements for Characterization of the
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Test Engine 8
3 Specifications for the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 10
4 Properties of Diesel and Methanol Fuels 12
5 Properties of Lubricating Oil Supplied for the M.A.N.
D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 12
6 Listing of 13-mode and 7-mode Weighting Factors 13
7 Heavy-Duty Diesel Emission Standards, 1979-1986 29
8 Gaseous Emission Summary from 13-mode Operation of the
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 30
9 Summary of Catalyst Exhaust Temperatures During
13-mode Testing 31
10 Regulated Emissions Summary from Transient FTP Operation
of the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Engine on Neat Methanol 34
11 Summary of Methane Raw Exhaust Emissions from M.A.N. D2566
FMUH Methanol Engine 36
12 Summary of Selected Hydrocarbons from Transient Operation
of the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 36
13 Minimum Detection Levels of the IHC Chromatographic
Procedure Used 37
14 Methanol Emissions and Catalyst Out Temperature by
Operating Condition 37
15 Unburned Methanol from Transient Operation of the M.A.N.
D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 38
16 Minimum Detectable Values of the DNPH Procedure 39
17 Summary of Aldehydes from Modal Operation of the M.A.N.
D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 39
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Page
18 Formaldehyde from Modal Operation of the M.A.N. D2566
FMUH Methanol Engine with Partially Failed Catalyst 40
19 Summary of Aldehydes from Transient Operation of the M.A.N.
D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine Based on Non-proportional
Sample of Raw Exhaust 40
20 Minimum Detectable Values of Phenols Procedure 41
21 Summary of TIA by DOAS from Modal Operation of the
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 42
22 Summary of TIA by DOAS from Transient Operation of the
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 42
23 Particulate Emission Summary from Modal Operations of the
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 43
24 Particulate Summary from Transient Operation of the
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 44
25 Summary of Carbon and Hydrogen Content in Total
Particulate from Modal Operation of the M.A.N. D2566
FMUH Methanol Engine 45
26 Summary of Elemental Analysis of Total Particulate from
Transient Operation of the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol
Engine 46
27 Analysis of used Crankcase Oil from the M.A.N. D2566
FMUH Methanol Engine 46
28 Summary of Soluble Organic Fraction from Operation of
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 49
29 Elemental Composition of Soluble Organic Fraction from
Transient Operation of the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol
Engine 50
30 Boiling Point Distribution of Soluble Organic Fraction
from Transient Operation of the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH
Methanol Engine 51
31 Summary of Benzo(a)pyrene Emissions from Operation of
the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine 61
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Conf d)
Table Page
32 Summary of Ames Response to Modal Samples of SOF from
the M.A.N. Methanol Engine with Strain TA98 (with and
without Metabolic Activation) 63
33 Summary of Ames Response to Transient Composite of SOF
from the M.A.N. Methanol Engine (with and without
Metabolic Activation) 63
34 Comparative 13-mode Emissions from Three Engines 66
35 Comparative Transient FTP Emissions 72
36 Comparative Totals of Measured Hydrocarbons 80
XI
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Worldwide dependence on petroleum products and associated economic
and environmental problems have become quite apparent over the last decade.
Current dependence on and uncertainty of petroleum-based fuel availability
for transportation and production of goods and services has created a need
for diversifying into alternative 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. Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nurnberg (M.A.N.) of West Germany
has developed a spark-ignited "diesel" engine which can utilize neat
alcohols.(1) The approach represented by this engine is attractive
because it required no new technology, and because the energy efficiency
of the converted engine is retained essentially intact. It has been
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 attractive diesel fuel alternatives.(1»2)
The objective of this work was to characterize the emissions behavior
of the M.A.N. truck-size (147 kW at 2200 rpm) naturally aspirated, 6-
cylinder, spark-ignited, direct-injected methanol engine using an oxidation
catalyst. Results from emissions characterization of this engine, designated
as M.A.N. D2566 FMUH, were compared to emissions from a diesel pilot-injected
methanol engine tested with and without oxidation catalyst, and a comparable
diesel engine.
The exhaust from the M.A.N. methanol engine was characterized in
varying degrees over the 1979 13-mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or
shorter versions of this modal test, and over the 1984 Transient Heavy-Duty
FTP- Emissions characterization in this program included regulated emissions
(HC, CO, NOX and smoke) along with total particulate, unburned methanol,
individual hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols, and odor. The total parti-
culate matter was characterized in terms of particle size distribution,
C, H, S, metals content, and soluble organic fraction. The soluble organic
fraction was further studied by determining its BaP content, bioactivity by
Ames testing, boiling point distribution, relative make-up of polar compounds,
and its elemental content (C, H, N).
The 13-mode FTP is currently used for regulating heavy-duty diesel emis-
sions. The Transient Heavy-Duty 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 and 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.
*Numbers in parentheses designate references at the end of this report.
-------
II. SUMMARY
Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Numberg (M.A.N.) of West Germany has con-
verted a horizontal in-line 6 cylinder compression-ignition diesel engine
into a spark-ignited, direct-injected engine capable of consuming neat
methanol.d) This naturally aspirated alternate fuel engine utilized an
oxidation catalyst for exhaust aftertreatment, and produced 147 kW at
2200 rpm with 77 kg/hr of methanol. The use of methanol fuel in this
engine produced no visible smoke, allowing high rates of fueling at low
engine speeds which resulted in a maximum torque of 836 N*m (612 ft Ib) at
1000 rpm.(3) Although the engine performed well over both steady-state
and transient testing, some problems with spark ignition system component
durability were encountered.
Emissions from this methanol-fueled heavy-duty direct-injected engine
were characterized over the 1979 13-mode and 1984 Transient Federal Test
Procedures for heavy-duty diesel engines, as well as a 7-mode test based
on the 13-mode procedure. Table 1 summarizes the composite results for
regulated and unregulated emissions from this engine. Emission results
from a Volvo diesel pilot-injected engine characterized in methanol and
methanol-catalyst configurations, along with those of a comparable diesel
engine (from previous EPA Contract No. 68-03-2884, Task No. 6), are included
in Table 1 for comparison to the spark-ignited M.A.N. methanol-catalyst
engine.(4) In addition, HC, CO and NOX emissions from a comparable M.A.N.
diesel engine (Model D2566 MLUM) over the 13-mode test procedure are given
in footnote "h" of Table 1.
On the basis of computing exhaust hydrocarbons using a molecular weight
of 13.77 per carbon atom, the hydrocarbon mass emissions from the M.A.N.
spark-ignited engine were very low over both test procedures. The hydro-
carbon mass emission over the 13-mode test procedure was only about a fifth
of that reported for a M.A.N. D2566 MLUM Diesel engine. Specialized
measurement and analysis techniques for unregulated emissions indicated
substantial emissions of unburned methanol during low power steady-state
conditions, and over transient testing. Significant emissions of formal-
delyde were noted over low power steady-state operation, but not during
transient operation. Methane emissions were noted during steady-state
and transient operation, but were at or below the background levels of
the engine intake air (2.2 ppmC). No phenols above the minimum detectable
concentrations were noted over transient operation. Summation of these
individually-determined composites of exhaust hydrocarbon emissions yielded
composite total hydrocarbons of 0.59 g/kW-hr over 7-modes of steady-state
operation and 0.91 gAW-hr over cold- and hot-start transient operation.
These hydrocarbon levels are well below the Federally regulated 1984
13-mode limit of 0.67 g/kW-hr and the 1984 Transient limit of 1.74 g/kW-hr.
The bulk of these hydrocarbons were made up of unburned methanol. The
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF COMPOSITE EMISSION RATES
FROM THE DIESEL AND METHANOL-FUELED ENGINES
Composite Emission Rates
Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
Hydrocarbons, HCa
g/kW-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Carbon Monoxide, CO
g/kW-hr, (g/hp-hr)
b
Oxides of Nitrogen, NOX
g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
kg fuel/kW-hr,c (kg diesel/kW-hr) d
Test Cycle
Total Individual HC
mg/kW-hr
Total Unburned Alcohols
mgAW-hr
Total Aldehydes
mgAW-hr
Total Phenols
mg/kW-hr
Z of Hydrocarbon Species
g/kW-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Total Particulate
gAW-hr, (g/hp-hr)
Sulfate, SO4=
mgAW-hr, (% of Particulate)
Soluble Organic Fraction (SOP)
mg/kW-hr, (% of Particulate)
BaP
Ug/kW-hr
Ames Response
(revertant/platexlO ) AW-hr
Engine Test Configuration
Spark-Ignited
Methanol-Catalyst
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH
13-Mode
0.24h
(0.18)
0.39h
(0.29)
9.13"
(6.81)
0.624
(0.287)
7-Mode
0
530
61
Not
Run
0.59
(0.44)
0.024
(0.018)
Not
Run
14
(59%)
0.06
8.33'g
Transient
0.06
(0.04)
0.42
(0.31)
8.86
(6.61)
0.708
(0.326)
Transient
1.1
910
<1.1
0
0.91
(0.68)
0.057
(0.043)
Not
Run
43
(75%)
0.03
213
Conventional
Diesel
Volvo TD-100C
13-Mode
1.05
(0.78)
3.18
(2.37)
11.88e
(8.86)
0.262
(0.262)
7-Mode
120
Does not
Apply
16
Not
Run
1.07
(0.80)
0.69
(0.52)
45
(6.5%)
200
(28%)
0.64
4902
Transient
1.15
(0.85)
4.04
(3.01)
11.19
(8.34)
0.288
(0.288)
Transient
130
Does Not
Apply
14
35
1.16
(0.87)
0.70
(0.52)
38
(5.4%)
220
(32%)
3.7
5802
Pilot-Injected
Methanol
Volvo TD-100A
13-Mode
1.45
(1.08)
9.55
(7.12)
5.26
(3.92)
0.486
(0.289)
7-Mode
67
2200
88
17
2.37
(1.77)
0.30
(0.23)
14
(4,6%)
200
(66%)
0.86
3102
Transient
1.95
(1.45)
10.29
(7.67)
7.31
(5.45)
0.531
(0.297)
Transient
180
4900
250
24
5.35
(3.99)
0.39
(0.30)
16
(4.1%)
280
(73%)
1.7
5101
1802
Pilot-Injected
Methanol-Catalyst
Volvo TD-100A
13-Modeh
0.16
(0.12)
0.83
(0.62)
6.79
(5.06)
0.482
(0.287)
7-Mode
32
950
140
14
1.14
(0.85)
0.51
(0.38)
220
(43%)
70
(14%)
0.08
1202
Transient1
0.16
(0.12)
3.61
(2.69)
7.39
(5.51)
0.518
(0.295)
Transient
66
890
260
48
1.26
(0.94)
0.37
(0.27)
98
(27%)
60
(16%)
0.33
7101
faHC values on HFID and computed as diesel-like species - see Z of Hydrocarbons for actual total hydrocarbons
cNo NOX correction factor applied to either 13-mode or transient results
Computed on basis of measured diesel and alcohol consumption
Computed on basis of equivalent diesel by lower heating values
fM°x value is reduced to 10.89 g/kW-hr (8.12 g/hp-hr) when the intake humidity correction for NOX is applied
Average of brake specific response with and without metabolic activation from all 5 strains. Superscript
refers to the order of sample submittal and testing
^Composite Response from strain TA98 only
Emissions from a M.A.N. D2566 MLUM over the 13-mode test procedure were:
HC, 1.11 gAW-hr (0.83 g/hp-hr); CO, 3.12 gAW-hr (2.33 g/hp-hr); and NOX, 8.66 gAW-hr (6.46 g/hp-hr)
(data supplied by M.A.N.)
-------
importance of methanol as a pollutant relative to other hydrocarbon
emissions which make up the total is an unanswered question, but one of
importance concerning the regulation of hydrocarbon emissions when
alternate fuels are used.
Carbon monoxide emissions over both test procedures were very low,
due to the oxidation catalyst, and were only about 2 percent of the 1984
Federal emission standard level of 20.8 g/kW-hr. The CO mass emission over
the 13-mode test procedure was only one-eighth of that reported for the
M.A.N. D2566 MLUM diesel engine. NOX emissions over both test procedures
were similar, and were 24 percent below the 1984 13-mode regulated level of
12.1 gAW-hr and 38 percent below the 1984 Transient regulated level of
14.3 g/kW-hr. The NOX emissions from the spark-ignited engine, over the
13-mode FTP, were about 2.3 percent above the level reported for the M.A.N.
D2566 DLUM diesel engine.
Although no smoke opacity was observed during any warm engine operation,
particulate emissions were noted. Particulate emissions were extremely
low, however, and no carbon black was noted on any of the filter media
used for collection purposes. Approximately 83 percent of the particles
were less than 0.6 ym aerodynamic diameter as determined by cascade impactor.
Of the low levels of total particulate emitted, almost 70 percent was
soluble organic material. On the basis of comparative boiling point dis-
tribution data, the SOF appears to be similar to the crankcase oil. Even
though only methanol was consumed, low levels of BaP were noted, and the
bioactivity of the soluble fraction was low. Comparisons between the emis-
sions from the M.A.N. spark-ignited methanol-catalyst engine and those ob-
tained from a diesel engine and the pilot-injected methanol engine with and
without catalyst are detailed in Section V of the text and are summarized here.
Actual total hydrocarbons from the pilot-injected methanol engine were
significantly higher than for its diesel counterpart due to substantial
emissions of unburned methanol, aldheydes, and other HC species. The
addition of a catalyst to the pilot-injected methanol engine reduced emis-
sions of actual total hydrocarbons by reducing unburned methanen; but in some
modes of operations, greater aldehyde emissions were apparent. Using only
methanol, the spark-ignited engine with catalytic aftertreatment produced
even lower total hydrocarbon emissions. Although the level of unburned
methanol was similar to levels obtained for the pilot-injected methanol-
catalyst configuration, steady-state aldehydes were very low, but still
higher than for the diesel engine. Practically no aldehydes were noted
for transient testing on the spark-ignited engine.
Carbon monoxide from the pilot-injected methanol engine was substan-
tially higher than that obtained from the diesel counterpart. Although
significant reduction of CO emissions was observed with the addition of
the catalyst, the CO levels obtained from the spark-ignited methanol-
catalyst engine were even lower. Substantial reductions from the diesel
NOX emission level were obtained with the pilot-injected methanol engine
configurationo Although steady-state NOX appeared to increase when the
-------
catalyst was used, the lower NOX measured without the catalyst may have been
influenced by instrument interference of methanol fuel-like species.
Total particulate and sulfate from the pilot-injected methanol engine
were significantly reduced, but the level of SOF remained about the same as
for the diesel engine. Compared to the diesel engine, BaP and bioactivity
were generally lower for the pilot-injected methanol engine. Addition of
the catalyst to the pilot-injected engine did not reduce total particulate,
due to increased sulfate emission offset by reductions in SOF. The catalyst
did reduce the level of BaP. Addition of the catalyst to the pilot-injected
methanol configuration increased Ames response over transient operation,
but reduced Ames response over steady-state operation. Since only methanol
was consumed in the spark-ignited engine, its particulate emissions were
only one-tenth those of the diesel engine, and were well below the 1986
proposed standard of 0.34 g/kW-hr. With no carbon soot or sulfate, the
bulk of the particulate was SOF, which had lower BaP content and response to
Ames testing than that from the diesel engine.
-------
III. TEST PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF ENGINE, FUEL AND PROCEDURES
The intent of this program was to characterize regulated gaseous emis-
sions along with particulate and unregulated emissions from a M.A.N. D2566
FMUH methanol engine using an oxidation catalyst for exhaust aftertreatment.
This section describes the test plan used in the program. Some of the
pertinent engine specifications and a description of the oxidation catalyst
will be presented. Properties for the neat methanol fuel and the lubricating
oil will also be given. Procedures are described, including both the test
procedures used to generate and acquire emission samples and the analytical
procedures used to characterize the emission samples.
A. Test Plan
The planned program included emission measurements of both regulated and
unregulated emissions from the engine in an "as-received" baseline configu-
ration. The engine was tested over both steady-state and transient operation.
Table 2 illustrates the extent of emissions characterization performed. Since
the M.A.N. engine consumed only methanol, it was anticipated that particulate
levels would be low and collection of particulate samples over steady-state
modes was limited to 2 hours. In the case of transient testing, multiple
runs for particulate collection were limited to 2 cold-starts and 12 hot-
starts. Subsequent analysis of the resulting particulate extractables were
prioritized in order to obtain the most useful information from limited
quantities of extractables. Provisions to extract blank filters were made
in the event that extractable rates were low. Analysis of this blank filter
extract was conducted to account for any "background" contribution to the
analysis of the particulate extractables. In addition to the analyses
listed in Table 2, regulated emissions were measured before and after the
catalyst during a 13-mode FTP.
B. Description of Test Engine
Figures 1 and 2 show the M.A.N. D2566 methanol engine mounted as operated
on a transient-capable stationary dynamometer. This heavy-duty methanol-
fueled test engine was adapted from a diesel engine version normally used
in buses. The horizontal 6-cylinder in-line configuration was modified for
neat methanol consumption by the addition of a transistorized spark-ignition
system. This naturally-aspirated engine developed 147 kW at 2200 rpm with
a fuel flow of 77 kg methanol per hour. Some of the specifications for this
engine are given in Table 3.^3)
-------
TABLE 2. PLANNED EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FOR CHARACTERIZATION
OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL TEST ENGINE
Exhaust Constituents (s)
Measured or Characterized
Visible Smoke, PHS
Regulated Gaseous Emissions
Unburned Methanol
Individual Hydrocarbons
Aldehydes
Phenols
Odor Index, DOAS
Particulate Characterization
Mass
Size Distribution
C, H, N
Metal Content
Characterization of Relative
Solubles in Particulate Priority
Mass 1
Boiling Range 4
BaP 2
b c
Ames Bioassay ' 3
d
HPLC Fractionation 5
C, H, N 6
Test Sequences
Transients
Cold Hot
1
'
/
/
/
/
'
/
/
/
'
/
/
/
/
/
'
2
^
/'
/
/
/
/
1
'
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
'
y
/
/
/
/
^
2
/
/
/
/
/
/
13-Mode
1
/
'
2
'
Seven (7)
Extended-
Modes
'
/
•
/
•
/
/
/
/
/
/
(Full)
Power
Curve
/
relative importance assuming low extractables
composite sample for transients to be tested in replicate over 5 strains
individual samples from steady-state to be tested in replicate over 1 strain
limited to quantitative determinations of aromatic, transitional and
oxygenated fractions
composite sample for transient particle sizing if particulate levels are low
8
-------
Figure 1. M.A.N. D2566 FMUH raethanol engine mounted for testing
Figure 2. Left-side view of M.A.N. D2566 FMUH methanol engine
9
-------
TABLE 3. SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH
METHANOL ENGINE
Maximum Output 147 kW (198 hp) at 2200 rpm
Maximum Torque 836 N*m (627 ft-lb) at 1000 rpm
No. Cylinders 6
Bore 125 mm (4.921 inches)
Stroke 155 mm (6.102 inches)
Displacement 11.4 liters
Compression Ratio 18:1
The methanol is injected directly into a bowl-shaped combustion chamber
formed in the top of the piston. Injecting the methanol directly into this
"M system" combustion chamber, as illustrated in Figure"4, takes advantage
of methanol"s high heat of vaporization by reducing thermal stressing and
recovering heat otherwise lost to the wall.d) The spark-ignition system
used on this engine was composed of a Bosch transistorized ignition control"
module, distributor with inductive pick-up, ignition coil and spark plugs.
The spark plugs were custom designed for this engine (Bosch No. A 241 000 252)
having extended electrodes as shown in Figure 3.
The engine tested in this program had a methanol injection timing of
31 degrees BTDC (static) with a spark ignition timing of 16 degrees BTDC.^
The test engine was equipped with an exhaust catalyst as shown in Figure 4.
Two catalyst assemblies were used in parallel, each handling exhaust from a
separate manifold fed by three cylinders. The catalysts were manufacturered
by Engelhard, and were designated as type PTX-D. They used a Corning 8M 20/400
type substrate, with a unit volume of 1.90 liters (116 in^) and a platinum
loading of 2.75 g/liter (78 g/ft^) which is a relatively high noble metal
content. Both steady-state and transient testing were conducted with engine
intake and exhaust restrictions of 300 mm (12 in) H20 and 74 mm (2.9 in) Hg,
respectively. The backpressure was measured after the catalyst.(3)
C. Description of Test Fuel and Lubricating Oil
The engine was operated on neat methanol. Methanol was obtained com-
mercially in drums, and was at least 99.9 percent pure. For comparative
purposes, Table 4 lists some of the properties of both diesel fuel and
methanol.
Lubrication problems are often encountered when operating any recipro-
cating engine on neat methanol. Some specifications of the lubricating oil
supplied by M.A.N. for this program are given in Table 5. In addition,
a portion of the used engine oil was submitted to analysis for comparison
of properties to those of the soluble organic fraction (SOF) obtained from
the total particulate. Those results will be presented in the Results
section dealing with elemental composition of the particulate (page 46) .
10
-------
Figure 3. Combustion chamber configuration of the
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH methanol engine
Figure 4. Catalyst assembly used on a M.A.N. spark-ignited engine
(with heated sample probe for emission measurement before the catalyst)
11
-------
TABLE 4. PROPERTIES
Property
Liquid Density
Boiling Point (s)
Flash Point
Lower Heating Value
Heat of Vaporization
Stoichiometric A/F Ratio
Cetane Number
H/C Mole Ratio
0/C Mole Ratio
Percent Fuel Carbon
OF DIESEL
Units
kg/m
°C
°C
MJ/kg
MJ/dm
KJ/kg
AND METHANOL
Diesel
852
168-342
58
42.8
36.5
300
14.6
45
1.66-1.85
0
86-88
FUELS
Methanol
796
65
11
19.7
15.7
1100.
6.4
3
4.00
1.00
37.5
TABLE 5. PROPERTIES OF LUBRICATIING OIL SUPPLIED FOR THE
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE^3)
Manufacturer
Trade Name
S.A.E. Viscosity Number
Viscosity Index
Pour Point
Carbon Residue
Density at 15°C
Flash Point
Special Additives
Total Base Number
Type of Base
Deutsch BP AG
Special K7 for Methanol Engine
15 W-40
156
-33°C
1.25 PCT WT
0.888
230°C
None
9.0
Middle East Solvent Refined
D.
Test Procedures
Emissions from the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH methanol 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).^5) Transient operation and measurement techniques
were based on the 1984 FTP and 1986 Proposed Heavy-Duty FTP, which includes
particulate sampling and analysis.^6'7^
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
12
-------
output are monitored along with other data to be used in calculating modal
emission rates. A 13-mode composite emission rate is calculated on the
basis of modal weighting factors as specified in the Federal Register.(5)
Unregulated emissions were measured over 7 modes of steady-state
operations 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 shown in Table 6. 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).(8)
TABLE 6. LISTING OF 13-MODE AND 7-MODE WEIGHTING FACTORS
13-Mode 7-Mode
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Engine Speed/Load, %
Idle
Intermediate/2
Intermediate/25
Intermediate/50
Intermediate/7 5
Intermediate/100
Idle
Rated/100
Rated/75
Rated/50
Rated/25
Rated/2
Idle
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
Mode Wt. Factor
1 0.12
2 0.16
3 0.12
4 0.20
5 0.12
6 0.16
7 0.12
Composite 1.000 Composite 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 relatively
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
system fabricated in-house.
13
-------
The 1984 Transient cycle is described in the Federal Register by means
of percent torque and percent rated speed for each one-second interval, over
a test cycle of 1199 seconds duration. The 20-minute transient cycle,
developed from heavy-duty truck data, is composed of four five-minute
segments. The four segments are described below:
Transient Cycle
Segment
New York Non-Freeway (NYNF)
Los Angeles Non-Freeway (LANF)
Los Angeles Freeway (LAF)
New York Non-Freeway (NYNF)
Time, sec.
297
300
305
297
In order to generate the transient cycle for the M.A.N. engine, the engine's
full power curve was obtained from 400 rpm to maximum no load engine speed.
Data from this "power curve", or engine map, was used in conjunction with
the specified speed and load percentages to form the transient cycle.
As an example, a graphic presentation of speed and torque commands
which constituted an FTP transient cycle for a 250 hp diesel engine is
given in Figure 5. For this example, the resulting cycle work was 11.68
kW hr (15.66 hp hr) based on a peak torque of 880 N*m (650 ft Ibs) and a
rated speed of 2200 rpm. The relatively large negative torque commands
shown in the figure are to insure that the "throttle", or rack control,
goes closed for motoring operation.
The two NYNF segments, which are the initial and final cycle segments
of the transient cycle, together contain approximately 23 percent of the
total reference work called for by the transient cycle. The LANF segment
contains 20 percent and the LAF contains 57 percent of the total transient
cycle reference work. This comparison illustrates that most of the work
is produced during the LAF cycle segment.
The transient cycle is perceived as a lightly-loaded duty cycle. The
average duty factor over the entire transient cycle is approximately 20
percent of available engine power. The NYNF only calls for an average of
9 percent of the maximum power available from the engine; whereas the
LANF calls for approximately 15.percent and the LAF requires about 45
percent. In addition, each NYNF segment contains 165 seconds of idle and
27 seconds of motoring, the LANF segment contains 98 seconds of idle and
79 seconds of motoring, and the LAF segment contains 11 seconds of idle
and 45 seconds of motoring.
Of the 1199 seconds of the transient cycle, closed rack commands
account for 617 seconds. Therefore, the engine must attempt to produce
the reference cycle work within the remaining 582 seconds. These sta-
tistics mean that the engine has to produce an equivalent of 40 percent of
its maximum power for the remaining "non-idle" time of the cycle (582
seconds)„ These observations stress the relative importance of pollutant
emissions during idle, accelerations and medium- to light-load conditions.
14
-------
NYNF
297 sec.
LAP
305 sec.
LANF
300 sec.
NYNF
297 sec.
.a
•—«
i
cr
O
Q.
i
o
XJ
0)
O)
0.
oo
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
2500 r
2000
1500
1000
500
jJL
JLJlu
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-2500
2000
1500
1000
500
I
I
1200 1100 1000 900 300 700 600 500
TIME, SECONDS
400
300
200
100
Figure 5. Graphic representation of torque and speed commands for the
1984 Transient FTP cycle for a 250 hp at 2200 rpm diesel engine
-------
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 engine was operated over a
"prep" cycle, then allowed to stand overnight in an ambient soak tempera-
ture 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 commands,
due to both cycle and engine characteristics. In order to judge how well
the engine follows the transient cycle command, engine responses are com-
pared to engine commands using least squares regression techniques 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
Slope of the
Regression Line, M
Coefficient of
Determinations, R
Y Intercept of the
Regression Line, B
Speed
100 rpm
0.970
1.030
0.9700 I/
±50 rpm
Torque
13% of Maximum
Engine Torque
0.83-1.02 Hot
0.77-1.02 Cold
0.8800 (Hot) I/
0.8500 (Cold) I/
±15 ft Ibs
Brake Horsepower
8% of Maximum
Brake Horsepower
0.89-1.03 (Hot)
0.87-1.03 (Cold)
0.9100 I/
±5.0 of
brake horsepower
I/ Minimum
In addition to these statistical parameters, the actual cycle work produced
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
output and the dynamometer loading/motoring characteristics. After com-
pletion of the cold-start and the hot-start transient cycles, transient
composite emissions results are computed by the following:
Brake Specific
Emissions
1/7 (Mass Emissions, Cold) + 6/7 (Mass Emissions, Hot)
1/7 (Cycle Work, Cold) + 6/7 (Cycle Work, Hot)
16
-------
The engine was also operated over the 1979 Smoke FTP exercise. It
essentially consists of a 5-minute idle followed by two full throttle acceler-
ations to rated speed, and finally, a full throttle lug-down from rated
speed. This transient smoke test cycle was run only for the measurement
of visible smoke emissions.
E. Analytical Procedures
The analytical systems used for each category of emission measurements
are described in this section. The section is divided into two parts,
the first dealing with gaseous emissions characterization and the second
with total particulate emissions and the constituents of the total parti-
culate. Gaseous emissions included HC, CO, CO2, NOX, and some unregulated
pollutants. Unregulated gaseous emissions included individual hydrocarbons,
aldehydes, phenols, unburned methanol, and odor. Particulate emissions
included determination of the total particulate mass, and its content of
metals, carbon and hydrogen. The size distribution of the particles was
determined, as well as the fraction soluble in methylene chloride. This
soluble fraction was characterized for BaP content, bioactivity by the
Ames test, boiling point distribution, fractionation (by relative molecular
polarity), and for carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen content.
During steady-state or modal engine exercises, regulated and some
unregulated gaseous emissions can be sampled from the raw exhaust stream
since a representative and proportional sample can be obtained. Obtaining
proportional samples during transient engine operation requires the use of
a constant volume sampler (CVS). '°f') All transient cycle test work run
for regulated emissions of HC, CO, NOX as well as particulate was conducted
with a main tunnel flow of 1000 SCFM, which provided approximately a 4:1
cycle dilution ratio of the total exhaust introduced. Unregulated gaseous
emissions of aldehydes, individual hydrocarbons, phenols, and odor were
sampled from the primary tunnel during the transient testing. During
these runs for regulated emissions, particulate mass emissions were deter-
mined by use of a small secondary dilution tunnel. This small secondary
tunnel, shown in Figure 6, is attached to the primary tunnel and diluted
the primary dilute exhaust further to an overall ratio of about 12:1.
The small secondary dilution tunnel was operated at approximately 4 SCFM
total flow in order to collect particulate on two 90 mm T60A20 Pallflex
filters, in series. Weight gains from these two filters are used to
determine the filter efficiency. If the filter efficiency is greater
than or equal to 95 percent then only the weight gain from the first
filter is used, whereas if the filter efficiency is less than 95 percent,
then weight gains from both filters are used to determine the total parti-
culate mass emission from the engine.
In order to obtain large particulate samples and for particle sizing
during transient operation, the primary tunnel was operated as a single-
dilution CVS. To obtain approximately a 12:1 dilution ratio, the CVS flow
was increased to about 4000 SCFM during the transient cycle which permitted
collection of large quantities of particulate on 20x20 inch filters.
17
-------
Figure 6. Secondary dilution tunnel for
particulate mass rate by 90 mm filters
Figure 7. Filter holders for large
particulate sample acquisition
-------
Large filter holders and the associated tunnel are shown in Figure 7.
This same CVS system was used to collect particulate samples from steady-
state operation of the engine, by altering the main dilution tunnel flow
to accommodate the total exhaust from the engine without exceeding 52°C
(125°F) at the particulate filter face.
Prior to particulate emission sampling, the dilution tunnel, sample
probes, and filter holders were cleaned to insure against potential inter-
ference from background particulate.
1. Gaseous Emissions
Regulated gaseous emissions of HC, CO, and NOX were measured
according 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 HC be determined from in-
tegration of continuous concentration monitoring of the CVS dilute exhaust.
The procedure provides the option of determining CO, C02 and NOX from
either dilute sample bags or from integration of continuous concentration
monitoring.
Hydrocarbons were measured over both test procedures using the
specified heated sample train (190°C). During steady-state operation,
raw exhaust sample was transferred to a Beckman 402 heated flame ioniza-
tion detector (HFID) by heated Teflon sample line. During transient
operation, CVS-diluted exhaust was taken from the main dilution tunnel
using the prescribed heated probe and heated filter, and was transferred
to the 402 HFID by heated stainless steel sample line. ^ ' The intent of
both procedures is to determine the "total" HC emissions from the engine
under test. It is generally assumed that the exhaust hydrocarbons emitted
from a diesel engine are of the same general composition as the diesel
fuel. The total is usually based on the indication from HFID instruments,
but the FID response to various species of alcohols, individual hydrocarbons,
aldehydes, and phenols often differs from the response to diesel fuel-like
constituents.(9) Special consideration of "total hydrocarbons" will be
expressed in the discussion of the Results section.
Carbon monoxide was measured during both engine test procedures
using non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) instruments. Emissions of CO2 were
also determined by NDIR for use in fuel consumption calculations by carbon
balance. Both CO and CO2 were determined from raw exhaust samples trans-
ferred by heated Teflon sample lines during the 13-mode procedure. During
transient test procedures, CO and CO2 levels were determined from propor-
tional dilute exhaust bag samples.
NOX emissions were determined by chemiluminescence (CL) from raw
exhaust during steady-state operation, and from both dilute sample bags
and integration of continuous NOX concentration monitoring during transient
19
-------
operation. The transient NOX level determined from the bag sample has
generally been lower (5-15 percent) than that indicated by continuous NOX
measurement techniques.d°) No NOX correction factor for intake humidity
was applied for either steady-state or transient testing, due to the uncertain
validity of the factor when oxygen-containing fuels are consumed. In the
case of the transient test operation, the engine intake humidity and tempera-
ture were controlled to 60-90 grains/lb of dry air and 68-86°F.
Unburned methanol quantities were also determined for both modal
and transient operation. For unburned methanol, dilute or raw exhaust
(depending on engine operation) was drawn through glass bubblers containing
distilled water at 2°C in order to condense out and collect unburned
methanol. ^-D The level of methanol collected was determined by gas
chromatograph using an FID specifically calibrated for quantitive purposes.
Some selected individual hydrocarbons (IHC) were determined from
dilute exhaust bag samples taken over the cold-start and hot-start transient
cycles using the CVS. Bag samples of raw exhaust were also taken over
seven individual modes of steady-state operation. A portion of the exhaust
sample collected in the Tedlar bag was injected into a four-column gas
chromatograph using a single flame ionization detector and dual sampling
valvss. The timed sequence selection valves allowed the baseline separa-
tion of air, methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propylene,
benzene, and toluene. ' ^-'
Aldehydes and ketones were determined using the 2,4-dinitro-
phenylhydrazine (DNPH) method. dD Raw exhaust samples were taken during
steady-state operation; whereas dilute samples were taken from the main
CVS dilution tunnel during transient testing. In both cases a heated Teflon
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 HCl kept near 0°C. The
aldehydes form their respective phenylhydrazone derivatives (precipitates).
These derivatives are removed by filtration and were subsequently extracted
with pentane and 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,
isobutyraldehyde, methylethylketone, crotonaldehyde, hexanaldehyde, and
benzaldehyde0
Phenols, which are hydroxyl derivatives of aromatic hydrocarbons,
were measured using an ether extraction procedure detailed in Reference 8.
Dilute samples were taken from the main CVS dilution tunnel during tran-
sient operation only. Dilute exhaust samples were filtered and collected
in impingers containing aqueous potassium hydroxide. The contents of the
impingers were acidified with sulfuric acid, then extracted with ethyl
ether0 This extract was injected into a gas chromatograph equipped with
an FID in order to separate 11 different phenols ranging in molecular
weight from 94.11 to 150.22.
20
-------
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
eluted and injected by syringe into the DOAS instrument, which is a liquid
chormatograph that separates an oxygenate fraction (liquid column oxygenates,
LCO) 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 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. '
The system was intended for raw exhaust samples from steady-state operating
conditions, but for this program, dilute samples of exhaust were taken in
order to determine a TIA value for transient operation. Where dilute
samples were taken, the resulting values were increased in proportion 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 collected
on a fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter at or below a temperature of
51.7°C (125°F), excluding condensed water.^7' The 125°F temperature limit
and the absence of condensed water dictates that the raw exhaust be diluted,
irrespective of engine operating mode. The temperature limit generally
required dilution ratios of approximately 12:1 (total mixture:raw exhaust).
Total particulate-rate samples were collected on 90 mm Pallflex
T60A20 fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter media by means of a double-
dilution technique for transient operation and a single-dilution technique
for steady-state operation. 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
absence of smoke, however, does not indicate the absence of particulate.
Smoke was determined by the end-of-stack EPA-PHS smokemeter, which monitored
the opacity of the raw exhaust plume as it issued from the 3 inch diameter
exhaust pipe. Smoke opacity was determined for 13-mode operation, power curve
operation, and for the smoke FTP.(5)
21
-------
Since total particulate, by definition, includes anything col-
lected on fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter media, there has always
been an interest in finding 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.
A particle size distribution of particulate generated over the
transient cycle was 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 relating to the
physical size, shape, and density of the particulate, indicating how the
particles may behave in the environment. Pre-weighed stainless steel
impactor discs were used for stage collection, and a pre-weighed fluoro-
carbon-coated glass fiber filter was used as a back-up filter to collect
all particulate aerodynamically smaller than the lowest stage cut-off size
(0.06 microns Effective Cut-Off Diameter, or BCD). Impactor flow rate was
selected to provide individual stage separation from 6.5 to 0.06 microns ECD.
Carbon, hydrogen, metals, and other elements that make up the
total particulate are also of interest. A sample of "total particulate"
was collected on 47 mm Type A (Gelman) glass fiber filter media for the
purpose 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. A sample of total
particulate matter was also collected on a 47 mm Fluoropore ffllter 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.
Diesel particulate generally contains significant quantities of
condensed fuel-like or oil-like hydrocarbon aerosols generated during
incomplete combustion. In order to determine to what extent total parti-
culate contains these various hydrocarbons, large particulate-laden filters
(20x20 inch) were washed with an organic solvent, methylene chloride,
using 500 m£ soxhlet extraction apparatus. The dissolved portion of the
"total particulate" carried off with the methylene chloride solvent has
been referred to as the "soluble organic fraction" (SOF). All filter
handling, extraction processes, and handling of concentrated SOF were
carried out according to EPA recommended protocol.^ ^' The SOF may be
composed of anything carried over the extraction process, so its composi-
tion is also of interest. Generally the SOF contains numerous organic
compounds, many of which are difficult to isolate and quantify. SOF from
diesel particulate has almost always been shown to be mutagenic using the
Ames test.
22
-------
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) is considered to be a very general indicator
of the relative poly-nuclear aromatics (PNA) content of the SOF. The analy-
tical method used for the determination of BaP is described in Reference 14.
The procedure is based on high-performance 'liquid chromatography to separate
BaP from other organic solubles in particulate matter, and it incorporates
fluorescence detection to measure BaP. The instrument used was a Perkin-
Elmer 3B liquid chromatograph equipped with a MPF-44 fluorescence spectro-
photometer. Excitation was at a wavelength of 383 nanometers, and emission
was read at 430 nanometers.
Samples of SOF were 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.(15) This
bioassay determines the ability of chemical compounds or mixtures to cause
mutation of DNA in the bacteria, with positive results occurring when
histidine-dependent strains of bacteria revert (or are mutated) genetically
to forms which can synthesize histidine on their own. Samples of SOF were
shipped under dry ice to an EPA contractor (Microbiological Associates, Inc.)
for Ames test response determination.
The boiling range of the SOF was determined by SwRI's Mobile
Energy Research Division using a high-temperature variation of ASTM-
D2887-73. Approximately 50 mg of the SOF was dissolved in solvent and
an internal standard (Cg to C]_i compounds) was added. This sample was
then submitted for instrumental analysis of boiling point distribution.
In some cases, insufficient sample was available to use internal standards.
Another portion of the SOF sample was submitted for fractional
separation. The method involves separation of the extractables into a
series of fractions of increasing polarity. A high performance liquid
chromatographic procedure which utilizes a variable solvent program was
used to elute increasingly polar compounds. BaP, 9-fluorenone and
acridine standards are injected to indicate the types of compounds eluted
in each region of the chromatogram.d6'
Carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen were determined for the SOF.
Relative elemental content of the "dried" extract was determined by
Galbraith Laboratories using a Perkin-Elmer Model 240B automated thermal
conductivity CHN analyzer.
23
-------
IV. RESULTS
This section describes the results obtained from numerous emission
measurments and sample analyses conducted on the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol
Engine tested with an oxidation catalyst. It is divided into three parts.
The first part describes some of the pertinent details and the chronology
of the accumulated test results. The next two parts detail the accumulated
gaseous and particulate data, respectively. Overall emission trends and
general remarks are given along with the results.
A. General Test Notes
The M.A.N. D2566 FMUH methanol engine arrived in good condition on
December 8, 1981. The shipment included necessary ignition system com-
ponents, auxiliary fuel delivery pumps, special engine oil, and an oxida-
tion catalyst assembly as well as reference drawings for engine installation.
Although actual engine mounting was delayed due to an ongoing project, the
ignition system was installed. Contact was made with Mr. F. Chmela of
M.A.N. in Nurnberg, Germany via telex concerning questions of fuel system
set-up. Calibrations of the Flowtron, laminar flow element (LFE), and
the emissions instrumentation were verified. The engine was installed in
our transient-capable test facility, cell 4, and engine operation was
begun January 8, 1982.
The engine operated well until the 2200 rpm/50 percent load was reached.
Beyond this loading the engine began to misfire. At first the problem was
thought to be related to the fuel supply, but it was discovered that a
relay mounted on an engine mounted bracket to provide remote ON/OFF
ignition had failed due to eroded contacts. The relay was replaced and
engine operational checkouts were continued. The engine developed
147 kW (198 hp) at 2200 rpm with a methanol flow of 77.1 kg/hr. The
fuel temperature was approximately 10°C (50°F).
Steps were taken to warm the methanol, which had a relatively low
boiling point (65°C or 149°F), to about 27°C (80°F) . With a fuel tem-
perature of 22°C (72°F), a maximum power of 141 kW (189 hp) was obtained
with a fuel flow of 75.7 kg/hr (166.8 Ib/hr) of fuel. The engine began
to misfire again and the ignition relay showed signs of contact failure,
thought to be caused by the engine vibration. The ignition relay was
replaced again, but this time the relay was isolated from the engine. An
initial 13-mode emissions test was run and no problems with the engine
were encountered. The catalyst exit temperature was monitored, and it
ranged from 520°F during mode 13 (idle) to 999°F during mode 6 (full load/
intermediate speed).
Preparation for a transient map of engine speed and torque were made.
The engine operated well during the warm-up for the map procedure. With
25
-------
the map program, the engine was automatically lugged down to 400 rpm, the
rack was moved to full load condition and the speed was allowed to increase
by about 8 rpm/sec. When the engine speed approached the rated speed of
2200 rpm the torque dropped immediately, and it was thought that the over-
speed governor had engaged prematurely. The catalyst temperature went from
about 516°C (960°F) to 899°C (1650°F) in a matter of seconds. This tem-
perature decreased slowly to about 316°C (600°F) while the engine was
operating at idle speed. It was discovered at that point that the engine
was actually being motored. The engine was stopped immediately. Diagnostics
showed that the ignition had failed during the mapping procedure. The
ignition problem was traced to a failed transistorized ignition control
module. Mr. Chmela was contacted, and arrangements were made for shipment
of replacement parts including another catalyst.
It was thought that the catalyst might have survived the high tempera-
ture excursion. The catalyst assembly was removed and a visial inspection
was made. No problem was noted, and the catalyst substrate appeared to be
intact. Following a 5-day delay, the spare parts arrived and the transis-
torized control module was replaced. The engine operated satisfactorily
and emissions from 1600 rpm/50 percent load and 2200 rpm/100 percent load
were checked and showed emission levels of HC, CO, and NOX similar to
those detected during the initial 13-mode emission test. On the basis of
the repeat emissions test points and catalyst exhaust temperature, the
catalyst was assumed to be satisfactory, and testing was continued as
planned. A transient power map was conducted and further test work was
scheduled.
Following the completion of smoke testing, raw exhaust samples were
taken to measure aldehydes, DOAS, unburned methanol and specific hydrocarbons
over 7 modes of the 13-mode procedure. The coloration of the aldehyde
bubblers indicated high concentrations of aldehydes from both the idle and
the 2 percent conditions. Another 13-mode test was conducted to serve as
a repeat test of the initial 13-mode. The catalyst temperature kept falling
to about 200°C (390°F) while CO and HC continued to increase. This situation
was even worse for mode 2, where catalyst temperature fell to 193°C (380°F).
Although the 13-mode test was completed, it was apparent that the catalyst
was no longer as effective as during the initial 13-mode test, and would
have to be replaced.
The back-up catalyst was installed and the engine was operated at
various power levels for about two hours. According to Mr. Chmela, no
catalyst break-in period was needed, so another 13-mode test was conducted
with the replacement catalyst. Catalyst exhaust temperatures and emissions
were stable during all 13 modes of operation. Emission results from this
test indicated lower HC and CO but significantly higher NOX than initial
13-mode test results. This test was later voided due to low voltage
supplied to the ignition module and another 13-mode test was planned prior
to engine removal.
26
-------
Since catalyst replacement was necessary , processing of steady-state
samples for aldehydes, specific hydrocarbons, unburned methanol and DOAS
was stopped and the samples stored. The collection of these unregulated
emission samples was rescheduled, and emphasis was placed on obtaining
particulate samples over the various operating conditions.
The CVS flow rates were adjusted and arrangements were made to obtain
large particulate samples on 20x20 inch Pallflex filter media. From a
preliminary look at particulate loadings obtained during 1 hour of engine
operation at a 1600 rpm/50 percent load condition, it was decided that each
of the seven steady-state modes would be run 2 hours for filter collection.
Even after 2 hours of sampling, it was difficult to tell visually if a
given filter had been used.
During a run of 2200 rpm/2 percent load steady-state operation for
particulate, the engine began to misfire after about one and a half hours.
The engine was shut down immediately to protect the catalyst. Upon initial
inspection, it appeared that the distributor cap had developed hairline
cracks between two of the towers. A new cap did not correct the problem.
An inductive timing light indicated that a pluse was getting to each
spark plug. It was assumed that the signal triggering the timing light
was insufficient to cause a spark to jump the gap. A new coil corrected
the problem, and the engine developed full power with no further
difficulty.
The CVS flow was adjusted to 4000 cfm for a 12:1 dilution ratio, and
other preparations were made for large particulate sample collection over
the transient cycle. Particulate emissions were extremely low. A total
of 2 cold-starts and 12 hot-starts were run to obtain adequate samples of
total particulate for most analysis. These transient tests were labeled
T-l through T-14. Particulates from multiple test runs were collected on
various filter media in order to acquire a higher particulate load-to-
filter area ratio than obtained over a single transient cycle. Particle
sizing by impactor utilized consecutive runs of 1 cold-start and 6 hot-
start transient cycles (T-2 through T-8). The engine false-started during
the cold-start, so the dynamometer was energized in order to keep the
engine running. Normal transient test cold-start procedure involved
cranking the engine, with the rack closed, until the engine operated on
its own; then the engine is allowed to idle for the first 23 seconds prior
to energizing the motoring/absorbing dynamometer. No rack movement is
made during this "free idle period". In order to guard against false
start-up, cold start-ups were conducted by energizing the dynamometer.
Following completion of transient testing for particulate, the engine
began to misfire during warm-up operation the next day. A SUN ignition
analyzer indicated that every other spark pulse was weak and noisy and
that the wave form was shorter than normal. The distributor cap and
magnetic pick-up were inspected. No fault was noted from a visual inspection
of the overall ignition system. The engine was restarted and operated well;
apparently the problem had disappeared.
27
-------
To characterize gaseous emissions and particulate according to the
proposed 1986 Transient FTP using the double dilution method, the CVS
flow was reduced to 1000 cfm. Both regulated and unregulated gaseous
emissions were sampled from the primary dilution tunnel, and particulate
emissions were determined from the 90 mm double dilution system. Three
Transient FTP sequences were performed, and they include transient tests
labeled T-15 through T-20.
The engine was operated over 7 modes of steady-state operation in
order to collect exhaust samples for aldehydes, IHC, DOAS and unburned
methanol. Another 13-mode emission test was conducted. In addition to
the normal sample probe after the catalyst, another sample probe was
installed in front of the catalyst. Gaseous emissions of HC, CO, C02
and NOX were sampled before and after the catalyst. During the final
13-mode test, the engine developed an intermittent misfire during the second
test segment run at 2200 rpm. The misfire was occasional at the higher
loads, but seemed to increase in frequency at lower loads. The 13-mode
test was completed and the engine was shut down. After verifying that
sufficient samples had been obtained, the engine was removed from the
test facility and returned to M.A.N. of West Germany.
Upon inspection of the test engine and the associated ignition hard-
ware, M.A.N. reported that the probable cause for the repeated ignition
problems were due to heat build-up in the dgnition control module and the
ignition coil. These components were mounted relatively close to the test
engine due to the length of pre-wired connectors supplied by M.A.N. and
because no provisions or other recommendations for mounting were given.
It is surmised that damage or intermittent functioning of the ignition
components was due to the inability of the components to dissipate heat.
M.A.N. has reported that the ignition control module may generate 2 to 3
times more heat in this application than in an automotive application
and that for this reason, the module has been located in the intake air
stream on prototype installations to insure good heat dissipation. Copies
of correspondence between M.A.N. and EPA are given in Appendix C.
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
emissions, but also selected individual hydrocarbons, unburned methanol,
aldehydes, and phenols. These additional species are generally included
in a qualitative way as part of the "total hydrocarbon." Odor intensity,
which has been shown to correlate with the presence of these and other
gas phase 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
28
-------
will be optional in lieu of the 13-mode test procedure. In 1985, the
transient test procedure will become mandatory, and 1986 the transient
test procedure will include particulate measurement and regulation. For
perspective, some of the proposed standards, beyond 1979, are listed in
Table 7.
TABLE 7. HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL EMISSION STANDARDS, 1979-1986
Model
Year
1979
1984
1985
1986
FTP
13-mode
13-mode (opt.)
13-mode
Transient
Transient
Transient
Regulated Emissions (g/hp-hr)
HC CO NOX Particulate
1.5
o~5c
1.3
1.3
1.3
25.
25.
15.5C
15.5C
15.5C
15.5C
10.0
5.0
9.0
10.7
10.7
None_
None^
None_
None^
None
.25e
Federal Smoke Regulations apply
Manufacturer may certify by either procedure
d Subject to revision to 1.0 g/hp-hr
CO measurement requirements for Heavy-Duty diesels may be waived after
1983.
Q
Proposed (not finalized)
a.
13-Mode FTP
Thirteen mode emissions from the M.A.N. methanol engine
were measured and computed on the basis of procedures and computational
methods prescribed in the Federal Register for the 1979 13-mode FTP.
Hydrocarbons were measured using the prescribed sample train, but CO,
CO2 / and NOX were measured using the specified sample train but with a
dry ice and isopropyl alcohol (CO2 ice-IPA) water trap. This type of
water trap has a bath temperature of -76°C, and has been used by SwRI
in the NOX sample stream due to its superior water trapping performance
over the typically used water-ice water trap with a bath temperature
of about 2°C. (17) The C02-IPA water trap was also used in the CO and
CO2 sample trains in this program when it appeared that the water-ice
water trap was insufficient to handle the increased water vapor formed
by the combustion of methanol. Measured concentrations of CO, C02 and
NOX were increased by 0.7 percent of their corrected values to account
for the additional water removal by the CO2-IPA water trap over the
conventional water-ice water trap.
Some modifications and assumptions were made in computing
the 13-mode composite emissions to account for the consumption of oxygen-
containing fuel. A hydrogen- to-carbon ratio of 4.0 and an oxygen-to-carbon
ratio of 1.0 were used to process the 13-mode emissions. These two ratios
29
-------
were used in computing stoichiometric and actual f/a ratios, HC wet-to-dry
correction, and NOx correction factors. Although the NOX correction factor
for intake humidity was computed, it was not applied to any of the results
due to the uncertainty regarding the applicability of the correction when
oxygen-containing fuels are used. Hydrocarbon emission data from the
methanol-fueled engine were computed using a molecular weight of 13.88 per
carbon atom, similar to that used for engines using diesel fuel. The ratio
of molecular weights of methanol to diesel fuel (on a per carbon atom
basis) is 2.31. No correction for variable HFID response to unburned fuel-
like constituents, like unburned methanol, was used.
Three valid 1979 13-mode Federal Test Procedures for gaseous
emissions were conducted during this test program. The results from these
three tests are given in Table 8 along with reference data provided by M.A.N.
TABLE 8. GASEOUS EMISSION SUMMARY FROM 13-MODE OPERATION OF
THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
13-Mode
Test
No.
Date
1/12/82
1/22/82
2/24/82
2/24/82
Emissions
HC
0.23b
(0.17)
0.27
(0.20)
0.68
(0.51)
0.20
(0.15)
7.89d
(5.89)
,g/kW-hr,
CO
0.92b'°
(0.69)
0.36
(0.27)
1.18
(0.88)
0.41
(0.31)
11.05d
(8.24)
(g/hp-hr
N0xa
5.78b
(4.31)
9.00
(6.72)
9.37
(6.99)
9.26
(6.91)
9.36d
(6.98)
BSFC
kg/kW-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0.796b
(1.309)
0.616
(1.014)
0.630
(1.036)
0.632
(1.039)
0.633d
(1.041)
Comment
Manufacturer's
SwRI Initial
Test
Partially
Failed Catalyst
After 35 hrs. on
New Catalyst
Measured Before
Catalyst
No NOX correction factor for humidity was applied to SwRI results
Mode 2 and mode 12 were run at 8.6 percent and 17.2 percent of power
instead of 2 percent of load
Appears that resolution of CO instrument was very coarse
Emission measured in front of catalyst. These results were obtained during
the engine operation for test 3
for the same engine. Copies of the corresponding computer printouts of the
13-mode test results are given in Appendix A, and provide emissions infor-
mation along with measured methanol f/a and diesel equivalent f/a ratios on
30
-------
a modal basis. Since the engine incorporates an oxidation catalyst for
exhaust aftertreatment, catalyst exhaust temperatures were monitored and
are given in Table 9. The minimum light-off temperature for the catalyst
was reported by M.A.N. to be approximately 200°C (392°F).
The first 13-mode test was conducted shortly after the engine
installation was completed. Following completion of some test work, the
second 13-mode test was performed with a malfunctioning or partially failed
catalyst which did not allow the emissions to stabilize during the light
load conditions. Emission concentrations from the second test were recorded
after approximately 5 minutes in mode, which generally corresponds to catalyst
temperatures given in Table 9. The partially failed catalyst was replaced,
and following completion of most test work another 13-mode FTP (Test No. 3)
was performed. Emissions levels before and after the catalyst were determined
during the third 13-mode FTP.
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF CATALYST EXHAUST TEMPERATURES
DURING 13-MODE TESTING
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Condition
Idle
1600/2
1600/25
1600/50
1600/75
1600/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/75
2200/50
2200/25
2200/2
Idle
Catalyst Exhaust Temp, °C(°F)
Test laTest 2a Test 31
313(595)
270(518)
284(544)
324(616)
401(753)
537(999)
408(767)
512(954)
450(842)
387(728)
341(645)
317(603)
271(520)
204(400)°
196(384)
286(546)
339(643)
433(812)
540(1004)
313(595)°
519(967)
462(863)
383(722)
336(636)
307(585)
204(400)°
266(510)
267(516)
292(558)
343(650)
434(813)
544(1012)
299 (570) c
522(972)
457(855)
383(722)
340(644)
307 (585)
368(515)
Temperature of right catalyst exhaust
Average temperature of both catalyst units
Taken after 4.5 minutes in mode
Catalyst light-off temperature approx. 200°C
(392°F)
An average of composite 13-mode emissions from Tests 1 and 3
yielded HC of 0.24, CO of 0.39 and NOX of 9.13 g/kW-hr with a BSFC of 0.624
kg methanol/kW-hr. These results do not agree with the reference data pro-
vided by M.A.N. and given in Table 8 for this engine. Although the levels
of hydrocarbon were about the same, SwRI results for CO were about 58 per-
cent below, and NOX were 58 percent above the levels provided by M.A.N.
31
-------
Emission test documentation was checked, and no fault could
be found with instrumentation or associated data processing. Potential
reasons for these differences may be related to differences in instrumen-
tation. The reference data provided by M.A.N. and given in Appendix Table
A-l indicates that the CO instrument used by M.A.N. may not have been as
sensitive as that used by SwRI, and that M.A.N. determined NOX by measuring
NO with an NDIR instrument without an NO2 to NO converter. In addition,
it was noted that both "2 percent load" conditions (mode 2 and mode 12)
reported by M.A.N. were actually run at considerably more than 2 percent
load. Without extensive comparisons as to emissions measurement and com-
putational methods, comparison of SwRI 13-mode emission levels to M.A.N.
emission levels is difficult.
Emission concentrations determined with the partially failed
catalyst showed significantly higher HC and CO, particularly during the light
load conditions. This difference resulted in composite HC and CO levels
3 times higher than with the functional catalyst. Results from upstream
of the catalyst during the third 13-mode test indicated extremely high
levels of both HC and CO, showing that the functional catalyst was quite
effective in oxidizing these species. Catalyst efficiencies with the new
catalyst were 97, 96, and 1 percent for HC, CO, and NOX, respectively. HC
emission before the catalyst was 40 times that after the catalyst. Assuming
that the bulk of these HC species were unburned methanol and applying the
combined correction for the molecular weight of methanol and HFID response
would increase the before catalyst HC level on a mass basis from 7.89 g/kW-hr
to about 23 g/kW-hr. The CO emission before the catalyst was 27 times that
after the catalyst. As expected, no change in NOx emissions or fuel con-
sumption was noted with changes in catalyst efficiency. The average BSFC
from all 13-mode tests conducted by SwRI was 0.628 kg methanol/kW-hr.
The ratio of lower heating values of diesel to methanol is 2.172 which
results in a diesel equivalent BSFC of 0.289 kg diesel/kW-hrj18^
b. Transient FTP
Transient emissions were measured and calculated in accor-
dance with the 1984 Transient Federal Test Procedure and the 1986 Proposed
Transient Federal Test Procedure (which includes particulate). As with the
13-mode test results, special consideration must be given to the reported
emission levels due to the consumption of oxygen-containing fuel and the
lower HFID response to unburned methanol which makes up a portion of the
exhaust. The combustion products of alcohols also include more water than
those of distillates due to the higher fraction of hydrogen present in the
fuel. No additional corrections to CO concentrations were applied to
account for the higher relative water vapor present in the CVS dilute
exhaust sample. Absence of this correction has been shown to result in
about 2 percent overstatement of CO emission.^) No additional correction
was applied to the calculation typically used to determine the dilution
factor correction. Absence of this correction has been shown to result
in about a 2 percent, or less, understatement of HC, CO, and NOX emission
level when C02 concentration is 2 percent or
32
-------
The influence of this potential error on dilution factor
increases significantly as the difference between the sample and the back-
ground diminish, but as the emission level approaches the background level,
although the percent of error may be large, the effect on the absolute
value reported will be insignificant. Transient HC mass emissions reported
here were based on a HC density of 0.5768 kg/m3 (16.33 g/ft3) as per the
1984 Transient FTP which is based on an assumption of diesel fuel-like
exhaust HC species. No correction was applied to HFID response to unburned
methanol. A "percent of fuel carbon" value for the methanol was entered
as 37.5 percent for use in fuel consumption calculations by carbon balance.
The NOX correction factor was not applied since intake humidity and tem-
perature were controlled to specified limits.
A transient power map of the engine was conducted using
13-mode intake and exhaust restrictions. The resulting rpm and torque
data used to generate the control program are listed in Table B-l of
Appendix B. In addition, the work called for by the command cycle has
been listed for each cycle segment along with the total of all four segments.
Preliminary transient cycles were conducted and the dynamometer/engine con-
trols were adjusted to improve the statistical results.
The results from three Transient FTP sequences are given in
Table 10, and include transient composite emissions results as well as
average transient composite levels of HC, CO, NOX and particulate. Computer
printouts corresponding to the individual cold-start and hot-start tests
processed with continuous and bag NOX are given in Appendix Tables B-2
through B-7. These printouts present the data on a test segment basis,
which indicates the relative contributions from the various test segments.
Statistical results for these tests, T-15 through T-20, are given in
Appendix Table B-8. Although particulate is presented in Table 10, dis-
cussion of these transient particulate levels will be reserved for later.
The first Transient FTP run for regulated emission purposes
was sequence T-15 and T-16, representing a cold- and hot-start, respectively.
Some unregulated gaseous emission samples were taken during these runs. No
operational problems were encountered, and the statistical criteria indicated
that both cold- and hot-start tests were valid. Cold-start T-17 and hot-
start T-18 were run the next day for regulated and unregulated gaseous
emissions. Although the engine operated well, the hot-start test failed
the statistical criteria for the power intercept and total power output.
This result was primarily due to substantial torque output during the
dynamometer-controlled 500 rpm idle which occurred in the last test
segment of the transient cycle. An adjustment to the appropriate dyna-
mometer controls was made, and another Transient FTP was scheduled.
Cold-start and hot-start transient cycles T-19 and T-20 were conducted
without any problems, and both tests passed the statistical criteria.
Emissions of HC and CO over both cold- and hot-start
transient testing were both low primarily due to the use of the catalyst.
During the cold-start, the catalyst exhaust temperature reached 200°C
33
-------
TABLE 10. REGULATED EMISSIONS SUMMARY PROM TRANSIENT FTP OPERATION
OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH ENGINE ON NEAT METHANOL
Test
No.
T-15
Cycle
Type
Cold
Start
Regulated Emissions, gAw-hr, (g/hp-hr)
HCr
0.19
(0.14)
CO
0.80
(0.60)
NOx*3
8.91
(6.64)
N0xc
7.21
(5.38)
Part.
0.08
(0.06)
Cycle BSFC*
kg/kw-hr
(Ib/hp-hr)
0.796
(1.308)
Cycle Work
kw-hr
(hp-hr)
9.19
(12.33)
T-16
T-17
T-18
T-19
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Cold
Start
0.05
(0.04)
0.07
(0.05)
0.47
(0.35)
-0.03d
(-0.02)
0.04
(0.03)
0.38
(0.28)
0.40
(0.30)
0.46
(0.34)
0.80
(0.60)
0.33d
(0.24)
0.40
(0.29)
0.74
(0.55)
9.30
(6.93)
9.24
(6.89)
8.08
(6.03)
8.71d
(6.50)
8.62
(6.43)
8.01
(5.98)
7.71
(5.75)
7.64
(5.70)
6.87
(5.12)
7.32d
(5.46)
7.26
(5.41)
7.20
(5.37)
0.06
(0.05)
0.06
(0.05)
0.07
(0.05)
0.06d
(0.04)
0.06
(0.04)
0.05
(0.04)
0.711
(1.170)
0.723
(1.190)
0.753
(1.238)
0.688d
(1.130)
0.697
(1.145)
0.762
(1.253)
9.36
(12.55)
9.34
(12.52)
9.43
(12.65)
9.68d
(12.98)
9.64
(12.93)
9.12
(12.23)
T-20
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
Average
Transient
Composite
-0.02
(-0.02)
0.04
(0.02)
0.06
(0.04)
0.31
(0.23)
0.37
(0.28)
0.42
(0.31)
8.55
(6.38)
8.47
(6.32)
8.86
(6.61)
7.42
(5.53)
7.39
(5.51)
7.52
(5.61)
0.04
(0.03)
0.04
(0.03)
0.05
(0.04)
0.681
(1.120)
0.693
(1.139)
0.708
(1.165)
9.21
(12.35)
9.20
(12.33)
9.27
(12.43)
Regulated emissions include HC, CO, NOX, and particulate as proposed for 1986
Transient FTP
NOX values based on continuous measurement by chemiluminescence
NOX values based on bag measurement by chemiluminescence within 20 minutes
of sample bag collection
Failed statistical criteria on the basis of torque intercept and total
power (>5% over command)
Average Transient Composite values are based on the first and third
^transient composite
HC mass was computed on the basis that measured HC species have a
density of 16.33 g/ft3 (as normally used for diesel fuel). In addition, no
correction factor has been applied to HFID response to unburned methanol
BSFC was computed on a carbon balance basis and assumes 37.5 percent fuel
carbon
34
-------
(392°F) after 60 seconds and during the hot-start this temperature was
attained after only 50 seconds. Note that although catalyst exhaust tem-
perature corresponded to the catalyst light-off temperature after only 60
seconds of transient operation, the maximum temperature reached over the
transient cycle was only 427°C (800°F). By visually examining the catalyst
exhaust temperature profile, the average catalyst temperature over the
transient cycle was estimated at approximately 300°C (575°F).
Hydrocarbon emissions were actually lower than the background
level in some instances, resulting in computed negative hydrocarbon emis-
sions. Carbon monoxide emissions from the hot-start were half the level
obtained from the cold-start, and were very low for either transient cycle.
Levels of NOX emissions were slightly lower for the cold-start than for the
hot-start. As noted earlier, continuous NOX measurement yielded about 15
percent higher NOX levels than bag NOx measurement. BSFC from the cold-
start was slightly higher than from the hot-start, which has been typical
of engines tested over the Transient FTP.(1°)
Average transient composite values included results from
the first and third Transient FTP's. In comparison to average 13-mode
composite results, transient HC levels were about a third, CO levels were
the same, and NOX levels by continuous monitoring were 5 percent lower.
Transient BSFC was 12 percent higher than 13-mode composite BSFC.
Converting the transient BSFC based on methanol to one based
on diesel fuel yields a transient BSFC of 0.326 kg diesel fuel/kW-hr. This
BSFC was considered to be higher than expected by M.A.N., and Mr. Chmela
has since pointed out in a letter to EPA, given in Appendix C, that the
methanol fueling schedule for this engine was set up for use with an auto-
matic transmission. Unlike the transient test cycle, the automatic trans-
mission does not load the engine below 800 rpm. During transient testing
the engine tends to be overloaded and hence, overfueled below 800 rpm,
which contributes to a higher than expected BSFC.
2. Selected Individual Hydrocarbons
Some individual hydrocarbons were determined from transient dilute
exhaust samples using chromatographic techniques. They were methane,
ethylene, ethane, acetylene, propylene, propane, benzene and toluene.
Higher molecular weight hydrocarbons were not measured. Steady-state
raw exhaust samples were collected in Tedlar bags in order to keep sample
concentrations relatively high. Sample pump flow was maintained at a
relatively high rate and seemed to prevent the formation of condensate
in the sample line or pump.
Of all the individual hydrocarbons mentioned above, only methane was
predominant in raw exhaust samples of steady-state operation. Aside from
some ethylene (0.11 ppmC) detected during maximum power operation, no
other of the individual hydrocarbons mentioned above were detected.
35
-------
Table 11 gives the relative concentration of methane over the seven-mode
samples. In all cases, the methane was lower than the background levels
present in the intake air supply, and thus would be effectively zero.
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF METHANE RAW EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
(Not Corrected for Background)3'
RPM and Percent Load in Mode
Units
ppm
yg/m exh
mg/hr
mg/kw-hr
mg /kg- fuel
1600
2%
1.35
900
430
180
30
1600
50%
0.63
420
200
3
6
1600
100%
1.07
710
350
3
6
Idle
1.63
1100
160
—
40
2200
100%
0.42
280
190
1
3
2200
50%
0.38
250
160
2
4
2200
2%
1.17
670
420
130
17
Background Methane was 2.12 ppm, measured from air intake. All of
the values reported in this table were below the background level.
Ethylene was the only other individual hydrocarbon noted and occurred
during the 2200 rpm/100% load mode. Quantities were as follows:
0.11 ppmC, 140 yg/m-3 exh., 96 mg/hr, 0.7 mg/kw-hr and 1.28 mg/kg fuel.
No background ethylene was detected in the engine intake air.
In order to obtain a proportional sample over the transient cycle,
a dilute exhaust sample was collected. Only methane was detected over the
cold-start transient cycle as indicated in Table 12. None of the selected
hydrocarbons were detected above the background level of the dilution air
for the hot-start transient. Table 13 lists the minimum detection levels
of the procedure used in this program.
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF SELECTED HYDROCARBONS FROM TRANSIENT
OPERATION OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Transient IHC
Methane
ppmC3
yg/m
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
Cold-Start
0.16a
110
70
8
10
Hot-Start
oa
—
—
—
—
Corrected for background levels of methane
(3.07 ppm) using a computed dilution factor of
20 on the basis of CVS gaseous emissions testing.
36
-------
TABLE 13. MINIMUM DETECTION LEVELS OF THE IHC
CHROMATOGRAPHIC PROCEDURE USED
Individual
Hydrocarbon
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Molecular
Weight
16.04
28.05
30.07
26.04
44.11
42.08
78.12
92.15
yg/m
per pprn
665
1165
1250
1085
1835
1750
3245
3830
Minimum
Detection Value.
ppm yg/m
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
3.
Unburned Methanol
Since FID response is typically low for alcohols, it was impor-
tant to determine the quantity of unburned methanol in the exhaust by
another procedure. Unburned methanol was trapped in bubblers containing
water, and processed through an appropriate chromatographic procedure.
Table 14 summarizes the results from analysis of unburned methanol over
seven modes of steady-state operation and includes catalyst exhaust
temperatures.
TABLE 14.
METHANOL EMISSIONS AND CATALYST OUT TEMPERATURE
BY OPERATING CONDITION
Units
yg/m3 exh.
mg/hr
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
Cat. Temp. °F
Composite Unburned Methanol
1600
2%
210000
100000
42000
6500
512
RPM
1600
50%
17000
8200
130
240
675
and
1600
100%
0
—
—
—
1020
Percent of
Idle
99000
15000
—
3600
440
Load
2200
100%
0
—
—
—
980
in Mode
2200
50%
25000
16000
230
340
730
2200
2%
130000
81000
26000
3300
610
0.527 g/kW-hr
0.813 g/kg fuel
As is the case with typical diesel engines, most unburned fuel-
like species were emitted during light load operating conditions (idle
and 2 percent load conditions). During these conditions, the engine
operated at low f/a ratios, and exhaust temperatures were relatively low.
Although the catalyst exhaust temperatures were above the 200°C light-off
temperature, there was apparently insufficient heat and mixing to oxidize
37
-------
all of the unburned fuel. No unburned methanol was detected at either 100
percent load condition, where exhaust heat and catalyst temperature were high.
Seven-mode composites of methanol emission were computed as 0.530 g/kW-hr
and 0.810 g/kg fuel on a brake specific and fuel specific basis, respectively.
Results from transient FTP testing are given in Table 15, and
show unburned methanol levels obtained over repeat runs. Levels from the
two cold-starts were different, whereas the hot-starts repeated quite well.
At first the differences between the two cold-starts were thought to be
due to inaccuracy of sampling, but it appears that these results coincide
with corresponding HFID measurements of total hydrocarbons. Transient
composites were 0.91 g/kW-hr and 1.24 g/kg fuel, and were about double the
7-mode composite level.
TABLE 15. UNBURNED METHANOL FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Units
Transient Cycle
mg/test
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
Composite Unburned Methanol
Cold Start
Test T-15
11000
1200
1600
Test T-17
23000
2500
3200
Avg.
17000
1850
2400
Test T-16
7400
7.90
1100
Hot Start
Test T-15
6700
710
1000
Avg.
7050
750
1050
0.91 gAw-hr
1.24 g/kg fuel
4. Aldehydes
Aldehydes were determined by the DNPH procedure, which detects
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, isobutyraldehyde, methylethyIketone,
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 sample
from the dilute exhaust within the 20 minute duration of the transient cycle.
Samples were taken over 7 modes of the 13-mode steady-state procedure.
Table 16 gives the minimum detectable levels for this procedure.
A summary of aldehyde results from steady-state operation is
given in Table 17. Of the compounds detectable by DNPH procedure, only
formaldehyde was prevalent during light load conditions (2 percent load
and idle). Very small amounts of methylethylketone were noted at both
the 2 percent load conditions. These were the same operating conditions
where unburned methanol concentrations were high and exhaust temperatures
were low. No aldehydes were detected over the other four modes of higher
38
-------
TABLE 16. MINIMUM DETECTABLE VALUES OF THE DNPH PROCEDURE
Min. Detection Value
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Isobutyraldehyde
Methylethylketone
Crotonaldehyde
Hexanaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Molecular
Weight
30.03
44.05
58.08
72.11
72.12
70.09
100.16
106.13
yg/m3
per ppm
1250
1830
2415
3000
3000
2915
4165
4415
ppm ye
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
j/m3
15
20
25
30
0.01 30
0.01 40
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM MODAL OPERATION OF
THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Emissions by RPM and Percent of Load in Mode
1600 1600 1600 2200 2200 2200
2% 50% 100% Idle 100% 50% 2%
Units
Formaldehyde
exh
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
25000
12000
5100
780
N.D.
N.D.
Methylethyl-
ketone
yg/mj exh
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
55
26
11
117
N.D.
N.D.
3000
440
110
N.D.S
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
24000
15000
4900
610
530
330
110
13
aN.D. = Not Detected
power operation. Seven-mode composite brake specific and fuel specific
aldehydes were 61 mg/kW-hr and 95 mgAg fuel, respectively.
In addition, raw exhaust samples generated with the partially
failed catalyst were processed and the results are given in Table 18.
Levels of formaldehyde were 3 times higher during the 2 percent load
conditions and 7 times higher during idle than with the replacement
catalyst. This comparison illustrates the importance of insuring and
maintaining a properly functioning ignition system and oxidation catalyst
for this engine.
39
-------
TABLE 18. FORMALDEHYDE FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE M.A.N. D2566
FMUH METHANOL ENGINE WITH PARTIALLY FAILED CATALYST3
RPM And Percent of Load In Mode
Units
yg/m^ exh
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
1600
2%
73000
35000
15000
2300
Idle
52000
7600
—
1800
2200
2%
69000
43000
14000
1700
Catalyst had apparently deteriorated due to
temperature excursion caused by loss of ignition
control module. These were the only three modes
for which aldehydes were detected.
Replicate dilute exhaust samples were taken over both the cold-
and hot-start transient cycles. Results from analysis indicated no alde-
hydes above the minimum detectable levels, as given in Table 19. Since
no aldehydes were detected in the CVS dilute exhaust, non-proportional
samples were taken from the raw exhaust over cold- and hot-start transient
cycles. These non-proportional samples tended to overstate idle contri-
butions and understate higher exhaust rate conditions. From the non-pro-
portional samples, formaldehyde in concentrations of 0.62 ppmC (or 95 mg/test,
10 mg/kW-hr and 13 mg/kg fuel) were obtained over the cold-start. No formal-
dehyde was detected over the hot-start transient cycle. The small amount
of formaldehyde noted from the cold-start was likely formed during the
initial light-off of the catalyst.
TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE
MoA.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE BASED ON NON-PROPORTIONAL
SAMPLE OF RAW EXHAUST
Transient Aldehydes
Cold Start Hot Start
Formaldehyde
ppmC 0.62 (0.01)a
mg/test 95 (10)
mg/kW-hr 10 (1.1)
mg/kg fuel 13 (1.6)
Values in parentheses illustrate the detectable
limits of aldehydes over the transient cycle and
represent cycles over which aldehydes were not
detected.
40
-------
5.
Phenols
Phenols were determined using a wet chemistry procedure as out-
lined in Section III, E.I. and described in detail in Reference 11. Dilute
exhaust samples were collected over the transient cycle only. The detection
of individual phenols in dilute or raw exhaust is quite variable. The
respective minimum detection levels are given in Table 20. Analysis of
the dilute exhaust samples collected over the transient cycle indicated
that only 2,3,5,6-tetramethylphenol was present. This phenol has the
highest molecular weight of any of the phenols separable by the procedure,
and is difficult to quantify due to interference. Levels of 1.9 yg/m3 and
0.6 yg/m3 were indicated for the cold- and hot-start, respectively, but
their presence is doubtful.
Phenol
Group
TABLE 20. MINIMUM DETECTABLE VALUES OF PHENOLS PROCEDURE
3
Phenol
Salicylaldehyde
m-cresol
p-cresol
p-ethylphenol
2-isopropylphenol
2,2-xylenol
3,5-xylenol
2,4,6-trimethylphenol
2-n-propylphenol
2,3,5,-trimethylphenol
2,3,5,6-tetramethylphenol
a
average
Molecular
Weight
94.1
122.1
108.2a
127.8
136.2
136.2
150.2
yg/irr
per ppm
3915
5080
4499a
5316
5666
5666
6249
Min. Detection Value
ppm
0.002
0.002
yg/m3
6
12
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.002
12
6
12
12
6. Total Hydrocarbons
As mentioned in the discussion of hydrocarbon emissions over both
steady-state and transient testing, hydrocarbons indicated by HFID may be
significantly understated due to poor FID response and due to calculations
using a molecular weight of 13.88 per carbon atom to represent the exhuast
HC species. In order to obtain a more representative total hydrocarbon
emission level, the sum of all hydrocarbon-containing species determined
by specialized analysis may be used to determine actual total of hydro-
carbons. Using 7-mode composite values, the actual total of hydrocarbons,
on a brake specific basis, would be 0.59 g/kW-hr as compared to 13-mode
HFID total hydrocarbons of 0.24 g/kW-hr reported earlier. Similarly, the
transient composite of actual total hydrocarbons would be 0.91 g/kW-hr as
compared to transient HFID total hydrocarbons of 0.06 g/kW-hr. Over both
41
-------
steady-state and transient operation, the dominant contributor to the actual
total of hydrocarbons was unburned methanol.
7. Odor-TIA
TIA results were determined using the DOAS analysis of traps
which collected compounds related to odor intensity.(8,10) This chroma-
tographic procedure separates an oxygenate fraction (liquid column
oxygenates, LCO) and an aromatic fraction (liquid column aromatics, LCA).
The TIA values are defined as TIA = 1 + Iog10 (LCO/ UgA) i or
TIA = 0.4 + 0.7 logio (LCA, ygA), (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 21 summarizes
the results from 7 modes of steady-state operation and Table 2 gives
results from transient operation. A computed 7-mode composite of TIA
was 1.30, slightly lower than the transient composite of 1.61.
TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF TIA BY DOAS FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Modal Condition
rpm/load, % LCA, ygA LCO, ygA TIA
1600/2
1600/50
1600/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
0.96
1.97
0.55
1.49
0.42
0.96
4.19
3.14
4.86
2.61
1.99
1.38
2.00
—
1.48
1.67
1.40
1.27
1.07
1.29
0.84a
Based on comparison to standards developed by ADL
Determined from LCA - all others based on LCO
TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF TIA BY DOAS3 FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Transient Cycle LCA, ygA LCO, ygA TIA
Cold Start
Hot Start
Transient
Composite
0.24
0.78
0.70
4.37
4.02
4.07
1.64
1.60
1.61
These measurements were based on ADL standards,
TIA values computed on basis of LCO.
42
-------
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.
Since the test engine is considered an alternative to conventional diesels,
its particulate emissions were characterized for purposes of comparison.
In order to determine particulate emission rates and to characterize the
total particulate, samples were collected on several filter media for a
variety of analyses which included total mass, elemental analysis, particle
sizing, and organic extractables. Particulate samples were always taken
from the dilute exhaust using a CVS. The dilution tunnel, probes and
filter holders were cleaned prior to particulate sampling from this engine.
1.
Total Particulate
Total particulate emissions over 7 modes of steady-state operation
are given in Table 23. The highest particulate emission was 3.4 g/hr
during the 2 percent load/2200 rpm condition, and the lowest was 0.04 g/hr
during idle. These emissions are extremely low relative to diesel engines
of the same size which typically emit from 200 g/hr during maximum load
condition to about 4 g/hr during idle conditions. Examining the filters
visually, it was often difficult to tell if a given filter had been used.
Brake specific and fuel specific 7-mode composites of total particulate
emissions were calculated as 0.024 g/kW-hr and 0.037 g/kg fuel, respectively.
TABLE 23. PARTICULATE EMISSION SUMMARY FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Condition
rpm/ load, %
1600/2
1600/50
1600/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
7-mode
Composite
Steady-State Particulate
mg/m exh.
1.66
1,77
1.68
0.28
2.82
3.21
5.41
2.71
g/hr
0.793
0.857
0.827
0.041
1.93
2.11
3.38
1.32
g/kw-hr
0.335
0.014
0.007
—
0.014
0.030
1.09
0.024
g/kg fuel
0.051
0.025
0.013
0.010
0.026
0.045
0.137
0.037
43
-------
Particulate emissions from transient testing along with transient
composite particulates are shown in Table 24, and were given in Table 10
along with transient regulated emissions. As with modal testing, transient
particulate emissions were extremely low. Based on lightly-loaded 90 mm •
filter weight gains, less than 1 milligram, computation of average brake
specific particulate over the cold- and hot-start transient cycles yielded
0.066 gAW-hr and 0.056 gAW-hr, with an average transient composite of
0.057 gAW-hr. On a fuel specific basis, cold-start particulate emission
was 0.086 g/kg fuel, the hot-start was 0.080 g/kg fuel; with an average
transient composite of 0.081 gAg fuel. Similar to modal particulate
collection, no carbon black was noted on any of the filters, although a
slightly perceptible discoloration of the used filters was noted. Filter
efficiency of the 90 mm Pallflex filters averaged 81 percent during the
cold-start and 83 percent during the hot-start.
TABLE 24. PARTICULATE SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Transient Particulate,
Test No. Cold-Start Hot-Start Composite
T-15, T-16 0.077 0.063 0.065
T-17r T-18 0.066 0.059 0.060
T-19, T-20 0.055 0.045 0.046
Avg. 0.066 0.056 0.057
2. Smoke
Smoke and particulate emissions are related, smoke level being
a measure of the visible portion of particulate matter. Changes in par-
ticulate emissions may be indicated by corresponding changes in smoke
opacity, if levels are high enough. Smoke opacity was determined using
an end-of-stack smokemeter with 7.6 cm (3 inch) diameter exhaust stack.
The smokemeter was zeroed, and calibration filters of 9, 24.5 and 44
percent opacity were used to check the accuracy of the smokemeter.
The transient Federal Smoke Cycle was programmed and run three
consecutive times as specified in the Federal Register. Results indicated
zero acceleration, zero lug, and zero peak smoke opacities. The smokemeter
was recalibrated, and steady-state measurements were performed. Once again,
zero smoke opacity was noted for all of the 13 modes of steady-state oper-
ation, and for the full power curve. Observation verified that no visible
smoke was present.
44
-------
3. Elemental Composition
Elemental analysis of the total particulate required two particu-
late samples. The carbon and hydrogen contents of the total particulate
were determined from particulate samples collected on glass fiber filter
media. Nitrogen content was also to be assessed, but total particulate
was too low to provide a suitable sample for analysis. The relative contents
of metals were determined from particulate samples obtained over the cold-
and hot-start transient cycles, collected on Teflon membrane filter media
(Fluoropore), and examined using X-ray fluorescence techniques. The carbon
and hydrogen contents were determined by Galbraith Laboratories, and the
metals were determined by EPA-RTP.
Table 25 gives the percent carbon and hydrogen contained in
samples of total particulate collected over steady-state engine operation.
In addition to carbon and hydrogen content, Table 26 gives the relative
content of metal contained in samples of total particulate collected over
cold- and hot-start transient operation.
TABLE 25. SUMMARY OF CARBON AND HYDROGEN CONTENT IN TOTAL PARTICULATE
FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Condition Element, Percent by Weight of Total Particulate
rpm/load C H
1600/2 52.5 10.9
1600/50 54.5 11.7
1600/100 24.8 12.8
Idle 88.0 11.8
2200/100 31.5 7.2
2200/50 63.3 11.3
2200/2 53.6 10.4
Note: These results based on analysis of total particulate collected
on glass fiber filter media. In addition, accuracy is relative
to the gross amount of particulate submitted. Although 2 mg
of diesel particulate are desired, the average filter loading
for the samples submitted was approx. 0.5 mg.
45
-------
TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PARTICULATE FROM
TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Element, Percent by Weight of Total Particulate
H S Cl Na Mg Al P K Ca Fe Zn
Cold
Start 75.6 13.7 2.18 0.30 a 0.60 0.19 0.65 0.27 0.84 a 1.53
Hot
Start 82.7 14.9 0.91 0.09 b 0.19 0.04 0.26 0.02 0.31 a 0.48
Element was detected but was below the level of quantification
Element was not detected
Total particulate from the idle condition had the greatest per-
centage of carbon and somewhat typical percentage of hydrogen , and re-
sembles levels often found for oil or diesel fuel- like materials. The
percentage of carbon was significantly lower for full load conditions.
Carbon and hydrogen content of the total particulate from cold- and hot-
start transient operation resembled that from the steady-state idle
condition. Analyses for metals indicate significant quantities of S,
P, Ca, and Zn present in the cold-start particulate, and to a lesser
extent, in the hot-start particulate. These same species were also found
in analysis of the used engine oil given in Table 27.
TABLE 27. ANALYSIS OF USED CRANKCASE OIL FROM THE
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Viscosity @40°C, centistokes 99.03
Viscosity @100°C, centistokes 14.02
Pentane Insolubles, percent 0.04
Toluene Insolubles, percent 0.03
Total Acid Number, mg KOH/g sample 3.78
Total Base Number,3 6.90
Fuel Dilution (by G.C.), percent 0.16
Wear Metals, Additives, Contaminants
by XRF, ppm
Fe 27
Cu 11
Cr
Pb <60
Ca 900
Zn 1000
P 900
S 7700
1.159x(mg HC104 Per gram sample)
46
-------
4. Particle Size Distribution
Particle sizing by the Sierra Model 220 cascade impactor was used
to obtain a particle size distribution from transient FTP operation. Since
the particulate emissions on the transient cycle were extremely low and the
cascade impactor operated with a very small flow rate, the impactor was
loaded and a sample was collected over 1 cold-start and 6 hot-start
transient cycles.
The particle size distribution resulting from this composite im-
pactor set is plotted in Figure 8. No particles were noted for the first 4
stages of the impactor which correspond to 6.5, 4.0, 2.5 and 1.4 microns
effective cut-off diameter (BCD). From Figure 8, 83 percent of the par-
ticles were found on the back-up filter after the last stage, which has a
cut point of 0.06 micron BCD. Although the total loading was very small
(0.088 mg), the calculated composite brake specific particulate rate from
this impactor was computed as 0.054 g/kW-hr, which agrees well with the
average transient composite value of 0.057 g/kW-hr as determined from 90 mm
Pallflex filters. This correlation indicates that integrity of the sample
was maintained. The back-up filter had only a faint discoloration and no
evidence of carbon black.
5. Soluble Organic Fraction
The soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the total particulate was
obtained from particulate samples collected on 20x20 inch Pallflex filters,
using soxhlet extraction procedures with methylene chloride. The SOF has
been reported as a percentage of the total particulate, and is referred
to as percent solubles. This result gives an indication as to the nature
of the total particulate matter, but makes it difficult to compare SOF
emission rates of the various test configurations. Table 28 summarizes
the SOF mass emissions and percent solubles from both modal and transient
operation.
The percent of extractables indicated on the basis of total re-
covered extractables, including background extractables which contributed
an average of 2.33 mg per filter processed, ranged from about 84 percent
for both 2 percent load conditions to about 21 percent for the full load
intermediate speed condition. The background contribution to the indicated
total percent solubles is also given in Table 28. The engine contribution
was calculated by subtracting the background contribution from the indi-
cated total. The engine contribution to the total SOF is hence used in
calculations of soluble particulate emissions.
Over steady-state operation, the percent extractables ranged from
a high of about 80 percent for both 2 percent load conditions to a low of
about 14 percent for the full load intermediate speed condition. On a
mass rate basis, a maximum of 2.7 g/hr of engine derived soluble organics
was emitted during the 2 percent load/2200 rpm condition, and a minimum of
0.017 g/hr was emitted during the idle condition. A 7-mode composite of
47
-------
to
c
o
n
u
•H
g
Q)
-P
0)
Q
0)
H
U
•rH
-P
rd
CM
0.04
40 60 80 90 95 98 99
Cummulative Percent Smaller than BCD
99.9
Figure 8. Particle size distribution from transient operation of
the M.A.N. D2566 FMUH Methanol Engine
48
-------
TABLE 28. SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION FROM OPERATION OF
M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Solubles from Steady-State Operation
Steady -State
Condition
rpm/load
1600/2
1600/50
1600/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
7 -Mode
Composite
Cold Start
Hot Start
Composite
Percent Solubles in Total
Indicated
Total
85.1
58.4
20.8
61.1
33.1
70.0
83.2
—
83.0
95.6
—
Background
Contribution
4.9
10.2
7.1
20.1
3.6
2.9
2.3
—
Solubles
13.4
3.5
—
Parti culate,%
Engine
Contribution
80.2
48.2
13.8
41.0
29.4
67.2
81.0
59.3
from Transient
69.6
75.4
74.9
Engine Soluble Particulate Emission
g SOF/hr
0.636
0.413
0.114
0.017
0.567
1.418
2.738
0.783
Operation
NA
NA
NA
g SOF/kW-hr
0.268
0.00656
0.000901
—
0.00399
0.0301
0.833
0.0144
0.0459
0.0422
0.0427
g SOF/kg fuel
0.0412
0.0120
0.00181
0.00410
0.00756
0.0303
0.111
0.0223
0.0596
0.0609
0.0607
Background
Contribution
to SOF %
5.7
17.5
33.9
32.8
11.0
4.1
2.8
—
16.1
4.6
6.2
Note: Since extractables were relatively low, engine soluble emissions were computed using
engine contributed solubles, which have been corrected for background extractables
derived from a blank filter from the same batch used during this program. There were
2.33 mg extractables per 20*20 filter used.
-------
the percent extractable was 59.3 percent, which is equivalent to 0.78 g/hr,
or 0.014 g/kW-hr. Extractables were determined for transient operation
as well. Engine derived percent extractables were 69.6 percent and 75.4
percent for the cold- and hot-start cycles, respectively. These values
translate into brake specific SOF emission rates of 0.046 and 0.042 g/kW-hr
for the cold- and hot-start, respectively. The transient composite of
solubles was 75 percent SOF and 0.043 g/kW-hr.
Although the background contribution to SOF may be backed-out by
calculation, samples of SOF submitted for analysis contained a portion of
background SOF. The background portion of SOF in the samples ranged from
34 to 2.8 percent, and is tabulated in Table 28. A cold- and hot-start
composite sample was submitted for Ames testing, and approximately 6.2
percent of the SOF sample was background SOF. Samples of SOF were also
submitted for analysis of BaP, boiling range, HPLC fractionation and
elemental C, H, and N content. In addition, a sample of used oil was
carried through the filter extraction process and was analyzed for BaP
and Ames response.
a. Elemental composition
Organic solubles from cold- and hot-start transient operation
of the methanol engine were analyzed for carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen
content. Table 29 lists the elements as percentages of the soluble
organic fraction. There was no appreciable difference between the cold-
and hot-start results with respect to carbon and hydrogen, but the nitrogen
content was significantly higher for the cold-start extractables.
TABLE 29. ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION FROM
TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
SOF Element, Percent of SOF
g/kW-hr C H N
Cold 0.046 83.7 12.7 0.74
Hot 0.042 85.0 13.5 0.08
b. Boiling Point Dsitribution
A high-temperature GC-simulated boiling point distribution
was conducted on SOF from several of the steady-state operating conditions,
as well as from cold- and hot-transient operation. There was not enough
extract to support the addition of an internal standard (Cg - C^) , in
most cases; however, three samples were run with an internal standard.
The numerical results of these analyses are presented in Table 30. Samples
with internal standard showed recovery ranging from 90 to 94 percent,
whereas, those run without internal standard were assumed to have been
completely volatilized. Since a portion of the SOF was suspected of
50
-------
TABLE 30. BOILING POINT DISTRIBUTION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION FROM
TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Test
Condition
1600/2
1600/50
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
Cold Start
Hot Start
Used Oil
Sample
Code
S-199
S-204
S-212
S-216S
S-22ia
S-226
S-230a
S-236
Boiling Temperature at Distillation Point, °C
IBP
339
317
329
354
344
319
331
334
10
405
401
410
416
409
394
407
399
20
418
417
424
430
424
412
421
414
30
429
429
433
441
435
425
434
426
40
439
441
442
452
448
437
445
437
50
449
452
452
464
460
448
458
448
60
460
465
463
478
474
460
472
459
70
473
480
476
496
494
475
490
473
80
490
498
495
520
521
494
516
491
90 EP Recovery, %
514 604
524 610
523 632
583
628
521 622
563
516 605
100
100
100
91
90
100
94
100
Run with internal standard
-------
originating from the lubricating oil, a sample of used-oil-derived SOF
was also processed. These boiling point distributions are graphically
displayed in Figures 9, 10, and 11 for visual comparison. Sample codes
are given along the right skewed axis of each figure and correspond to
sample codes and corresponding sample labels given in Table 30. All the
boiling point distributions appear to be similar and closely resemble that
of the used-oil-derived SOF.
c. Fractionation by Relative Polarity
The composition of the soluble organic fraction of the
total particulate is complex, and its separation into individual compounds
is very difficult. Fractionation of the SOF by high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) separates the soluble portion into a series of
fractions of increasing molecular polarity. Figures 12 through 20 show
the HPLC chormatographic outputs for direct comparison of the relative
concentration of increasingly polar compounds from both steady-state
and transient operation of the M.A.N. methanol engine.
Each figure contains two traces, one representing the
fluorescence detector response, and the other representing the ultraviolet
detector response. The fluorescence trace starts at time 0. The ultra-
violet trace is scale offset by about 1 minute due to pen offset of the
recorder. 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 (designated by "/\") 0 During this period, non-polar PNA com-
pounds also elute 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 fluorescence and ultra-
violet spectra. At the end of this solvent transition period (36 minutes
into the run and designated by "/N"), 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).
Figure 17 shows the trace resulting from the injection of
the standard used during analysis of SOF derived from steady-state engine
operation. The HPLC response to the standard solution properly identified
the BaP region by both fluorescence and ultraviolet response (at 17 minutes)
and the 9-fluorenone by ultraviolet response (at approximately 37 minutes).
The two peaks of the ultraviolet response shown at about 40 and 44 minutes
were caused by an unknown contaminant in the column used during processing.
Similarly, the fluorescence peak noted around 29 minutes was also attri-
buted to the peculiarities of the column.
The fluorescence responses for all of the SOF samples from
steady-state operation are minimal. A very small peak may be noted for
the fluorescence response at about 2-3 minutes elution time, where a
52
-------
fl R E ft
DISTRIBUTION
iteee
seee
TIME
Figure 9. Boiling point distribution of SOF from modal operation
of the M.A.N. methanol engine (along with extract from used crankcase oil)
ft R E a
DISTRIBUTION
TIME
Figure 10. Boiling point distribution of SOF from transient operation
of the M.A.N. methanol engine (along with extract from used crankcase oil)
53
-------
ft R E fl
DISTRIBUTION
TIME
Figure 11. Boiling point distribution of SOF
from the M.A.N. methanol engine run
with internal standard
54
-------
I I I I I
75
i « AI I i I AT i f i
50 .. 25
Time, minutes
Figure 12. HPLC response to SOF from 1600 rpm/2 percent load operation
:~:::f.lv-:. ":;..-.:: .:;::::
fps^
_ : ...::
:..!::::::::•:•::::::•.
.:..;.-.:..'.!. ..-<-..
:..;:.• :• ..]••
:ii=ys
;• '".:: :i.: :;;!
i :i::.;!..:.!!i":
r
'••'•-.)"•.:••:•:•-.
.'••' .;-. •'..;•
., .- , - _„ *:— n — • — — • — r
... i .... . . . .... , . . , .
.. ': • : ' \ :: . ' . ' .. :':.. '.:-'•]
'..'.'. ; . .' : . • '- ' -
'"-;••' ': "' i".." - • ": •
• . • . ; _
r~AT i ~r r A i r i i
Figure 13. HPLC response to SOF from 2200 rpm/2 percent load operation
55
-------
I J Al I I I A I I I I
Figure 14. HPLC response to SOF from 1600 rpm/50 percent load operation
I I
75
111!
50
I Al
Time, minutes
I I A I I f 1
25 0
Figure 15. HPLC response to SOF from 2200 rpm/50 percent load operation
56
-------
I
75
I I
Figure 16.
I
I
50
I I A
25
I I
0
I I Al I
Time, minutes
HPLC response to SOF from 2200 rpm/100 percent load operation
I I
75
.„_ r- r r ( Aj j- T j-.-^
50
25
Time, minutes
Figure 17. HPLC response to standard solution used during
processing SOF derived from steady-state operation
57
-------
'
rrtmrr
—: t- —
ULTRAVIOLET —sen^-rn-
FLUORESCENCE
I I
75
i i r i AI i f rx~i i ^i ^~i
50
Figure 18
25
Time, minutes
HPLC response to SOF from cold-start transient operati
ion
m
ULTRAVIOLET
I
75
1 T
i r r AI i i
Time, minutes
J3
1" T T i
o
Figure 19. HPLC response to SOF from hot-start transient operation
58
-------
I "AT
Time, minutes
Figure 20. HPLC response to standard solution used during
processing SOF derived from transient operation
59
-------
significant untraviolet response was noted for all of the steady-state SOF
samples at 2 minutes (pen offset = -1. minute). This relatively early
response may indicate the presence of a straight chain hydrocarbon. The
ultraviolet response also indicated unknown compounds at 7 minutes in
Figures 12 and 14 (both 1600 rpm conditions). Only very small peaks in
both the fluorescence and ultraviolet response were noted in the regions
where BaP-type molecules are normally indicated by the standard. The
ultraviolet response at 36-37 minutes indicates the presence of compounds
similar to the 9-fluorenone. A portion of this repsonse may be due to the
remnant of the standard solution. It is recommended that the peaks at
40 and 44 minutes be considered as column-oriented response and not
indicative of the sample.
The fluorescence and ultraviolet response of the HPLC
instrument to the standard solution used to process the SOF samples derived
from transient operation is given in Figure 20 for reference. The fluo-
rescence responses for both cold- and hot-start transient SOF were similar
in that there were small peaks at approximately 3, 13, and 35-36 minutes.
Similar to results from steady-state derived samples, the ultraviolet
response had peaks at 2 and 12 minutes. Ultraviolet response peaks at
38 and 41 minutes may be the results of column interference or a remnant
of the standard solution.
d. Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) content was determined for SOF samples
from 7 modes of steady-state operation and from cold- and hot-start
transient operation. In addition, BaP content was determined for back-
ground SOF derived from blank filter media and from used crankcase oil
taken through the extraction process. Results from analysis for BaP are
given in Table 31. Of the 7 modes tested, the idle condition produced
the highest concentration of BaP. Relatively low concentrations of BaP
were found for the 1600 rpm conditions and none were detected for the
2200 rpm conditions. The 7-mode composite was 0.058 yg BaP/kW-hr based
on engine-derived SOF. Similar to steady-state results, transient operation
also produced very low levels of BaP with a transient composite of 0.027 yg
BaP/kW-hr based on engine-derived SOF. No BaP above the minimum detectable
level was noted for the SOF derived from the blank filter media, and only
a minimal concentration was noted for the SOF from the used crankcase oil.
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.(15) This bioassay determines the ability of chemical
compounds or mixtures to cause mutation of DNA in the bacteria, positive
results occurring when histidine-dependent strains of bacteria revert (or
are mutated) genetically to forms which can synthesize histidine on their
own. Samples of the soluble organic fraction, representing a transient
composite, were submitted for bioassay using five tester strains (TA1535,
60
-------
TABLE 31. SUMMARY OF BENZO(a)PYRENE EMISSIONS FROM
OPERATION OF THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH METHANOL ENGINE
Steady-State Operation
Test
Condition
rpm/load
1600/2
1600/50
1600/100
Idle
2200/100
2200/50
2200/2
7 -mode
Composite
yg BaP/
mg SOF (Total)
0.0006
0.0007
0.0014
0.0120
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0027
Benzo (a)pyrene
yg BaP/
mg SOF (Engine)3
0.0006
0.0008
0.0021
0.0180
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0041
Emissions
yg BaP/
kW-hr (Engine)
0.16
0.005
0.002
—
<0.0008
<0.004
<0.17
0.058
yg BaP/
kg fuel (Engine)
0.025
0.0096
0.0038
0.074
<0.0015
<0.0061
<0.022
0.090
Transient Operation
Cycle
Type
Cold
Start
Hot
Start
yg BaP/
mg SOF (Total)
0.0005
0.0006
Benzo (a) pyrene
yg BaP/
mg SOF (Engine)
0.0006
0.0006
Emissions
yg BaP/
kW-hr (Engine)
0.028
0.027
yg BaP/
kg fuel (Engine)
0.037
0.039
Composite
Oo0006
0.0006
0.027
0.038
Note: Extract from a blank filter was analyzed and indicated <0.0002
which was the minimum detectable level. In addition, extraction
and analyses of used crankcase oil indicated a BaP concentration
of 0.0003 yg/mg of SOF.
Computed on the basis of SOF contribution by the engine, whereas "(Total)"
includes background extractables.
61
-------
TA1537, TA1538, TA98 and TA100). Individual samples of seven steady-state
modes of operation were submitted for bioassay with tester strain TA98.
All five strains are histidine-dependent cells by virtue of
mutations within the histidine functional genetic unit. When these his-
tidine-dependent cells are grown on minimal medium agar plates containing
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 plates 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 additional mutagenic agents.
TA1535 and its plasmid-containing counterpart, TA100, detect base pair
substitutions, while TA1537 (and TA1538 with its plasmid-containing counter-
part, 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 pro-
vide a very sensitive method for the detection of potential mutagenic
environmental samples.
Results given in Tables 32 and 33 include the slope of dose
response, which represents the statistically determined slope of the function
representing revertants per plate versus microgram SOF dosage. This result
is termed "specific activity", and is an indication of the level of muta-
genic potential of the extract. A "brake specific response" was computed
by applying the specific activity to the brake specific emission of SOF.
This results in a term with units of "revertants per plate per kW-hr"
which is useful for comparison purpose, but which has no practical meaning.
From the steady-state results given in Table 32, there was
little difference in the specific activity obtained with the TA98 between
tests with and without metabolic activation. Comparing specific activities,
the most bioactive SOF originated during full load operation, activity
decreasing with decreasing load. Seven-mode composites of these activities
were 0.84 and 0.95x10^ rev/g SOF with and without metabolic activiation,
respectively. When these specific activities are combined with the SOF
emission rates for the various modes of operation, the highest "specific
rate" was obtained for maximum power operation, and the rate generally
decreased with decreasing power output. The computed 7-mode composite
specific rates, with and without metabolic activation, were 0.43 and
0.47xlO& rev/hr, respectively. Using the 7-mode composite power level
of 54.3 kW, the brake specific responses were 0.0079 and 0.0087x10^ rev/kW-hr
with and without metabolic activation, respectively.
62
-------
TABLE 32. SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO MODAL SAMPLES OF SOF FROM THE
M.A.N. METHANOL ENGINE WITH STRAIN TA98
(WITH AND WITHOUT METABOLIC ACTIVATION)
Sample Test
Con di ti on
rpm/% load
1600/2
1600/50
1600/100
Idle
2100/100
2100/50
2100/2
Total
Part. Rate
g/hr
0.79
0.86
0.83
0.041
1.9
2.1
3.4
SOF
Rate
g/hr
0.64
0.41
0.11
0.017
0.57
1.4
2.7
Metabolic
Activation
Status
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Specific
Activity
106 rev,/g SOF
0.1
0.1
0.6
1.0
2.3
1.4
0.1
0.2
3.8
3.2
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
Specific
Rate
106 rev./hr
0.06
0.06
0.25
0.41
0.25
0.15
0.002
0.003
2.1
1.8
0.70
0.56
0.27
0.27
TABLE 33. SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO TRANSIENT COMPOSITE OF SOF FROM THE
M.A.N. METHANOL ENGINE (WITH AND WITHOUT METABOLIC ACTIVATION)
Ames
Test
Strain
TA98
TAlOO
TA1535
TA1537
TA1538
Metabolic
Activation
Status
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Specific
Activity
106 rev./g SOF
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.5
Brake Specific
Response
106 rev./kW-hr
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
63
-------
Results for the submitted composite SOF sample, consisting
of 1/7 cold- and 6/7 hot-start transient SOF, on all five tester strains
for bioactivity are given in Table 33. For TA98, the bioactivity of the
composite transient SOF was increased with metabolic activation. The
average specific activity of the transient composite for tester strain TA98
was near that of the 7-mode composite of specific activity (0.6 vs 0.9).
Of the 5 tester strains used, TA98, TA100 and TA1538 all had similar dose
responses. No response was noted for strain TA1535. Since the same brake
specific composite transient emission of SOF (0.061 g SOF/kW-hr) was applied,
the trends noted for specific activity also apply to the brake specific
response. The average of the brake specific responses over all five tester
strains resulted in 0.021xl06 rev/kW-hr. This is significantly higher
than those obtained for the 7-mode composite, which averaged 0.008x10^
rev/kW-hr (including tests with and without metabolic activation); and may
indicate that substantially more bioactive species are emitted during
speed and load transition periods over transient testing than are emitted
in steady-state testing at various load conditions. Ames response to used
engine oil carried through the SOF extraction process showed no bioactivity
using tester strain TA98. In addition, no correlation between modal BaP
levels given in Table 31 and modal Ames response given in Table 32 was
noted.
64
-------
V. EMISSION COMPARISON TO OTHER ENGINES
This section is intended to compare the emissions from the M.A.N.
D2566 FMUH methanol engine to emission results from the dual-fuel Volvo
TD-100A engine and a similar diesel Volvo TD-100C engine characterized
under Task Specification No. 6 of EPA Contract No. 68-03-2884. Although
the dual-fuel Volvo engine was characterized over 5 configurations including
methanol, methanol with catalyst, ethanol, ethanol with catalyst and ethanol
with 30 percent water, only the methanol configurations will be compared
here. Both the M.A.N. and the Volvo alternate-fuel engines can utilize
fuels derived from a non-petroleum base. Many schemes have been developed
which are capable of producing power from alternate fuels, with a variety
of success and problems.
The M.A.N. engine uses spark ignition, whereas the Volvo dual-fueled
engine uses pilot injection of diesel fuel to initiate the combustion of
methanol. In this discussion, to distinguish between the two direct-injected
engines, the M.A.N. engine will be designated as spark-ignited and the
Volvo dual-fuel engine designated as pilot-injected. Both the Volvo dual-
fuel engine and its diesel counterpart are described in detail in the Final
Report, EPA 460/3-81-023, "Emission Characterization of an Alcohol/Diesel-
Pilot Fueled Compression-Ignition Engine and Its Heavy-Duty Diesel
Counterpart."^4^
A. Regulated Emission Results
Thirteen-mode FTP emission levels of HC, CO and NOX were determined
for all three engines. Engine performance observed during the 13-mode
testing is given below. The diesel engine and the spark-ignited methanol
engine were tested as received.
Test Torque Intermediate Max. Power Rated
Configuration N*m Speed, rpm kW Speed, rpm
Diesel 880 1400 179 2200
Pilot-Injected 958 1400 189 2200
Pilot-Inj.+Cat. 990 1400 191 2200
Spark-Ign.+Cat. 769 1600 142 2200
The pilot-injected engine was tested after a 5° timing retard of alcohol
injection timing and adjustment of both diesel pilot and methanol injection
rates to obtain 186 kW at 2200 rpm with minimum HC emissions.
Methods for computation of 13-mode emission from heavy-duty diesel
engines are specified in the Federal Register.^5) Modifications to these
emission computations had to be incorporated in order to account for the
use of oxygen-containing fuel (methanol), complicated by the fact that
65
-------
the diesel pilot-injected engine consumed varying fractions of methanol
and diesel fuel. Mass emissions were computed on the basis of measured
and corrected concentrations of the emitted species, multiplied by the
molecular weight of each pollutant and by the measured fue],and divided by
the carbon-containing emission concentrations and the molecular weight of
the fuel. For the diesel pilot-injected engine, the molecular weight of
the fuel ranged from 13.88 grams/mole per carbon atom (during idle and the
1400 rpm/2 percent load condition) to 28.77 grams/mole per carbon atom
during maximum power operation, due to the relative mass portions of diesel
and methanol used over the 13-mode procedure, illustrated in Figure 21.
For the spark-ignited methanol-catalyst engine, a fuel molecular weight
of 32.04 grams/mole per carbon atom was used.
Composite 13-mode emission levels for the diesel engine, the pilot-
injected engine in both the methanol and methanol-catalyst configurations,
and the spark-ignited methanol-catalyst engine are given in Table 34 along
with BSFC on a measured fuel and diesel equivalent basis. (1£3)
TABLE 34. COMPARATIVE 13-MODE EMISSIONS FROM THREE ENGINES
Engine Emission Rate, gAW-hr BSFC BSFC
Configuration HCCON0xb kg/kW-hr Diesel Equiv.
0.262 0.262
0.486 0.289
0.482 0.287
0.624 0.287
These mass emission values based on diesel-like HC species.
NOX correction factors for intake humidity were not applied.
The individual mode emission rates for HC, CO, and NOX are illustrated
in Figure 22 on a g/hr basis. The mass of hydrocarbons tabulated above
assumed the exhaust HC species had a molecular weight of 13.88 and a HFID
response factor of unity.
Compared to the diesel engine, 13-mode composite hydrocarbons from
the pilot-injected configuration increased 38 percent with the substitution
of methanol. Increases in hydrocarbons were most significant during the
2200 rpm/25, 50, and 75 percent load conditions where hydrocarbons more
than doubled. The addition of the catalyst significantly reduced total
hydrocarbons for both pilot-injected and spark-ignited methanol engines.
Further discussion of total hydrocarbon emissions will be given after
other hydrocarbon-related emissions have been discussed.
Thirteen-mode composite CO emissions were higher by a factor of 3 for
the pilot-injected methanol engine, relative to the diesel engine. Levels
of CO were extremely high during the 1400 rpm/75 and 100 percent load
66
Diesel
Pilot-Injected
Pilot-In j.+Cat.
Spark-Ign.+Cat.
1.05
1.45a
0.65a
0.24a
3.18
9.55
0.83
0.39
11.88
5.26
6.79
9.13
-------
o>
IS
O>
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Fuel
Diesel
Methanol
•o
CD
+->
O
OJ
'*"> I
O)
2 25 50 75 100 Idle 100 75 50 25
-Intermediate Speed- Rated Speed
Percentage of Full Load
Figure 21. Fueling schedules for the diesel and
pilot-injected engines over 13-mode testing
67
-------
X
o
en
oo
2000
1500
" 1000
500
0
800
s. 600
c
CD
- 400
D
_)
200
0
CJ
O +
QJ •
•1-3-1-3
cu -t-* -t-5 -^
1/1 o o s-
cu i— i— ro
.,- ••- -i- Q.
O Cu D- oo
1650
2460
S_
.c
CD
A
O
300
200
100
0
25 50 75
Intermediate Speed
Percent of Full Load
75 50
Rated Speed
25
Figure 22. Mass emissions over the 13-mode procedure from the diesel, pilot-injected,
pilot-injected with catalyst,and spark-ignited with catalyst engines
-------
conditions. The catalyst reduced CO emissions from both the pilot-injected
and spark-ignited engines to 26 and 12 percent of the diesel engine levels,
respectively.
CO levels from the pilot-injected methanol engine were also measured by
Volvo and Statens Naturvardsverks Bilagaslaboratoriurn (SNV) prior to testing
by SwRI and indicated significantly lower CO levels (1/2 to 1/5) during
1400 rpm/50, 75 and 100 percent load conditions. There were several
differences between testing this engine at SwRI and Volvo or SNV. Alcohol
injection was retarded 5°, 25 percent more pilot diesel injection was used,
and 12 percent lower cetane diesel fuel (44) was used at SwRI. In addition,
SwRI used heated sample lines (190°C) according to diesel practice and a
dry ice-isopropyl alsohol water trap was used in the CO, C02, and NOX
sample trains.(19)
Since completion of the program, Volvo has asserted that a possible
reason for the high CO levels was the dissociation of methanol into H2 and
CO at temperature and pressure conditions similar to those which may have
occurred in the exhaust pipe or even the heated sample line.(20) Volvo
referenced D.L. Hagen's work which showed that a great amount of methanol
will dissociate to CO and H2 at low pressure and high temperature. In fact,
Hagen indicates 100 percent dissociation at 1 atmosphere and 200°C.
If dissociation does occur, it is likely that it would reach equilibrium
within the higher temperature exhaust stream and would not be increased by
use of the heated sample line maintained at 190°C (375°F). Even the remote
possibility of distorting the various emissions levels by use of a heated
sample train is disturbing and some qualification experiments may be needed
to insure accurate determinations of CO, total hydrocarbons, unburned
methanol and aldehydes when methanol fuel is used.
The sample train used for both CO and CO2 showed evidence that all the
water was not trapped within the ice bath water trap used during the 13-mode
procedure when the pilot-injected methanol engine was run. To remove
additional water, dry ice (C02) and isopropyl alcohol were used to lower
the temperature to near -76°C (-105°F) . This system (normally used by SwRI
for the NOX sample train) only removed about 0.7 percent more water vapor
on a volume basis than ideally taken out by the 2°C ice bath water trap
for normal diesel tests.(19) Besides reducing the volumetric contributions
of water vapor, use of the -76°C dry ice trap may have caused some inter-
ference to NDIR-determined CO emissions, and may have contributed to higher
measured concentrations.
Composite NOX emission from the pilot-injected methanol configuration
was 56 percent lower than from the diesel engine. A portion of this re-
duction was due to a 5 degree retard of alcohol injection from 24° BTDC
to 19° BTDC, which yielded lower NOX emissions but higher fuel consumption.
The addition of the catalyst to the pilot-injected engine appeared to cause
a 29 percent increase in NOX. Since it it not likely that the oxidation
catalyst increased in the NOX formation, perhaps the catalyst eliminated
69
-------
an unknown measurement interference present during testing without the
catalyst. Unburned alcohols are one possibility, because alcohols decreased
when the catalyst was added to the pilot-injected engine in the same modes
where NOX levels were higher (See Figure 22). Volvo reported 8.10 and
8.59 grams NOx per kW for this engine, with and without catalyst,
respectively. Besides the differences already noted above, the higher NQX
obtained with the catalyst added is puzzling, and more work is needed.
The 13-mode composite NOX emissions from the spark-ignited methanol-
catalyst engine were also somewhat higher than expected, and significantly
higher than those reported by M.A.N. (58 percent). In addition to some of
the sample train differences noted above, M.A.N. determined "NOX" measuring
NO by NDIR, without an NOX to NO converter. A reason for the significant
difference may be substantial variation of NO to NO2 concentration ratios
found with use of methanol as a fuel. The ratio of N02 to NO has been
shown by Heisey and Lestz(22) to range from 0.04 to 3.6 when using from
0 to 30 percent methanol fumigation into a single cylinder diesel. The
higher NOX levels reported here may be due to differences in instrumentation,
sample handling, and ambient test conditions.
Brake specific fuel consumption over the 13-mode test was based on
measured fuel quantities. As shown in the 13-mode emission tabulation, the
BSFC is substantially higher with methanol, as expected. For comparative
purposes, the dual-fueled and methanol fuel BSFC's were converted to diesel
fuel (19.7 and 42.8 MJ/kg, respectively)i18^ On the basis of diesel equivalent,
the pilot-injected engine showed a 10 percent increase in BSFC compared to
the diesel engine. This result is partially due to testing at 19° BTDC
timing for lower NOX rather than at 24° BTDC timing for best fuel con-
sumption. The diesel equivalent BSFC from the naturally-aspirated spark-
ignited methanol engine was the same as for the turbocharged pilot-ignited
engine.
Transient FTP emissions levels of HC, CO and NOX were also determined
for all three engines. Figure 23 illustrates the results of the transient
mapping used to generate the transient command cycle. The dips in the
torque curves between 600 and 1000 rpm reflect driveline vibration inter-
ferences with torque measurement. The torque maps from the diesel and
pilot-injected engine are similar in shape, but the torque map from the
spark-ignited methanol catalyst engine shows relatively higher torques
at low engine speeds due to high rates of fueling during low speed operation.
Some of the results from these maps are tabulated below. The resultant
transient command cycle work values were 11.68, 12.39, and 9.14 kW-hr for
the diesel, pilot-injected and spark-ignited engine, respectively.
Engine
Configuration
Diesel
Pilot-Injected
Spark-Ign.+Cat.
Max. Map
Torque, N*m
881
988
796
Engine
Speed, rpm
1600
1500
800
Max. Map
Power, kW
181.3
185.8
135.8
Engine
Speed, rpm
2300
2200
2000
70
-------
cr
s_
moo
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
D Diesel
O Pi lot-Injected
• Spark-Ign.+Cat
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Engine Speed, rpm
Figure 23. Transient torque map from the diesel
and two methanol-fueled engines
71
-------
Composite emissions from cold- and hot-start transient cycle testing
are given in Table 35. In addition, the cold- and hot-start levels of
these emissions are shown in Figure 24 along with corresponding 13-mode
composite levels. All of the transient HC mass emissions were computed
using an exhaust HC density of 0.5768 kg/m3 (16.33 g/ft3) on the basis of
diesel fuel-like HC species.
TABLE 35. COMPARATIVE TRANSIENT FTP EMISSIONS
Engine Emission Rate, g/kW-hr BSFC BSFC
Configuration HC CO NOX kg/kW-hr Diesel Equiv.
Diesel 1.15 4.04 11.19 0.288 0.288
Pilot-Injected 1.95 10.29 7.31 0.531 0.297
Pilot-Inj.+Cat. 0.16 3.61 7.39 0.518 0.295
Spark-Ign.+Cat. 0.06 0.42 8.86 0.708 0.326
Methanol and diesel fuel used in the pilot-injected methanol configu-
ration increased total HFID hydrocarbons by 70 percent relative to the
diesel engine. Addition of the catalyst reduced the level of HC by 92
percent. HC emissions from the spark-ignited methanol-catalyst engine
were even lower than from the pilot-injected methanol-catalyst configu-
ration. As with the 13-mode data, further discussion is presented after
individual hydrocarbon and aldehydes data are presented.
Brake specific CO emissions over the transient cycle were 2.6 times
higher for the pilot-injected methanol engine than for the diesel engine,
and compare well with the trend noted for 13-mode composite CO emissions.
Both CO and CO2 were taken from a dilute sample bag using an unheated
sample train. Application of the catalyst to the pilot-injected engine
reduced transient composite CO by 65 percent. This reduction was not as
significant as for the 13-mode test, likely due to much lower catalyst
temperatures during transient testing than over the steady-state testing.
Transient CO emissions from the spark-ignited methanol-catalyst engine
were 88 percent lower than for the pilot-injected methanol-catalyst
engine and were about the same as the 13-mode level. One possible
explanation for this difference is that the catalyst was more active or
more efficient for the spark-ignited engine. This could be due to factors
such as higher operating temperatures or differences in catalyst formulation.
The NOX emissions from the pilot-injected engine over the transient
test (where dilute exhaust is sampled from a constant volume system) were
35 percent below the diesel engine NOX levels. Both the pilot-injected
engine and the spark-ignited engine had similar NOX levels during the
transient testing when sampling from CVS dilute exhaust. This finding
appears to disagree with the variation in 13-mode NOX reported for the
pilot-injected engine, and may indicate that a chemiluminescence (CL)
instrument interference occurred while sampling raw exhaust from the
72
-------
CD
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cold
•
Hot
Transient Transient
i
13-mode
Composite
I
t^vv
S-
CD
w
o
10
6
4
2
n
-
-
I
i
I
^
^\
!
^
i
i
^
I
E^
-
Sos 1x3 f771\ \ \ f77|
2,00
s. 1.50
_c
1
2 i.oo
Ol
0.00 L.
Diesel
m
Pilot-
Injected
Pilot- Spark-Ign.
Inj.+Cat. +Cat.
Figure 24. Brake specific emissions from the
diesel and methanol-fueled engines
73
-------
pilot-injected configuration. NOX emissions over the transient test cycle
from the spark-ignited engine were 20 percent higher than those from the
pilot-injected engine, and show the same trend noted for the 13-mode
emissions.
BSFC over the transient test increased with the use of methanol fuel,
as expected on the basis of 13-mode results. Approximately 80 percent
of the fuel mass consumed over the transient cycle by the pilot-injected
engine was methanol, even though no methanol was used during idle and
light loads. The pilot-injected BSFC's were computed on the basis of
carbon balance, using measured fuel quantities to establish a percent
fuel carbon value. The transient BSFC (diesel fuel equivalent) over the
transient cycle for the pilot-injected engine was 2.8 percent higher than
for the diesel engine. The BSFC over the transient cycle for the spark-
ignited engine was highest of the three, likely due to the higher fueling
schedule at relatively low speeds as compared to the diesel and pilot-
injected engines. The fueling schedule of the spark-ignited engine was
optimized for use with an automatic transmission.
B. Unregulated Emission Results
Determination of unburned alcohol is important from the standpoint of
total hydrocarbon emissions when consuming methanol. Figures 25 and 26 show
the relative unburned methanol emission rates obtained for both methanol-
fueled engines over 7-modes and cold- and hot-start transient operations.
Seven-mode composite brake specific rates are also given in Figure 26.
Most of the unburned methanol from the pilot-injected methanol configuration
was noted during 2200 rpm modes, especially at 50 percent load. Over the
transient cycle, both cold- and hot-start sequences showed similar levels
of unburned methanol at about twice the 7-mode composite level. Addition
of the catalyst caused substantial reductions in unburned methanol over
most of the modes in which the catalyst temperatures were relatively high,
reducing the 7-mode composite by 57 percent. Transient unburned methanol
was reduced 82 percent by the catalyst. Over the transient cycle, the
catalyst used with the pilot-injected engine reached 200°C after about 450
seconds.
Unburned methanol levels from the spark-ignited methanol-catalyst
engine were relatively high during the light loads and zero during the
high load conditions, resulting in a 44 percent lower level of 7-mode
composite unburned methanol than found with the pilot-injected methanol-
catalyst engine. Even though the catalyst reached 200°C within 60 seconds
of cold or hot transient start-up, unburned methanol was 2.4 times higher
for the cold-start than for the hot-start transient.
From the standpoint of potential health effects, the measurement of
formaldehyde emission when using methanol is considered very important
due its high photochmeical reactivity, potential carcinogen!city and eye
irritation qualities. Figures 27 and 28 show the emission rates of aldehydes
obtained from steady-state and transient operation of the three engines.
74
-------
300
250
2001-
o
E
(O
_c
+-)
<1>
ID
S-
— »
150
100
50
0
-
_
_ ITtT
w«
::i::S
i:i:»
I—:
SSs
;S:':::
1
iiii:
il
m
•: •.:'.•:•.
2 50
Intermediate
100 Idle
Speed
Percent of Full
50
Rated Speed
Load
Figure 25. Unburned methanol emissions over 7-mode
cycle for methanol-fueled engines
75
-------
TRANSIENT AND MODAL UNBURNED METHANOL
01
-a
OJ
II
^
Pilot-
Injected
^
Cold Transient
Hot Transient
7-Mode Composite
^
Pi lot-
In j.+Cat.
I
Spark-
Ign.+Cat.
Figure 26. Brake specific methanol emissions
from the methanol-fueled engines
76
-------
50
45
40
35
S-
fi 30
n
o
'£ 25
7-MODE ALDEHYDE EMISSION RATES
a,
-a
20
a;
2 15
10
5
0
i— ro +1 4-> Js<;
to o o s-
a> i— i—
-------
ouu
£ 250
I5 200
r\
§
•S 150
i
LU
1
1
Diesel Pilot- Pilot- Spark- Igr
Injected Inj.+Cat. +Cat.
Figure 28. Brake specific aldehyde emissions from
the diesel and methanol-fueled engines
78
-------
The diesel engine generally showed low (typical for a diesel) emissions of
formaldehyde along with small quantities of acetaldehyde and hexanaldehyde. <8)
The pilot-injected methanol configuration showed much higher formaldehyde
emissions, particularly during 1400 rpm/50 percent load and 2200 rpm/50 and
2 percent load conditions. Over the transient test, the aldehydes (mostly
formaldehyde) increased to about 14 times that of the diesel level, while
the 7-mode composite emissions were higher by a factor of 4.6.
Addition of the catalyst to the pilot-injected engine reduced aldehydes
over the intermediate speed range, but actually increased aldehyde emissions
during rated speed steady-state operation. The 7-mode composite of aldehydes
showed a 97 percent increase with catalyst. It appears that the catalyst
was not efficient enough to oxidize the relatively large quantities of
unburned methanol during 2200 rpm/2 and 50 percent load conditions, and
instead may have partially oxidized the methanol to formaldehyde. Aldehydes
were also higher during transient operation with the catalyst possibly due
to catalytic reduction at some conditions being offset by others where the
catalyst was unable to fully oxidize the formaldehyde or unburned methanol.
Aldehyde levels from the spark-ignited methanol-catalyst engine were
extremely low during the higher-loaded steady-state modes, but were signi-
ficant during prolonged 2 percent load conditions when exhaust temperature
was relatively low and unburned methanol was high. Results from aldehyde
measurements taken with a partially-failed catalyst showed aldehyde emission
rates of 8 g/hr for the idle condition, 35 g/hr for the 1600 rpm/2 percent
load condition and 44 g/hr for the 2200 rpm/2 percent load condition.
These results illustrate that a too small or defective catalyst can signi-
ficantly increase formaldehyde levels. Aldehyde measurements over the
transient cycle indicated no aldehydes from the spark-ignited engine. A
raw, non-proportional sample was taken, and it indicated very low levels
over the cold-start cycle. Since the catalyst used with the spark-ignited
engine warms up quickly and appears to be quite efficient, the cold-start
aldehydes are likely formed only during the relatively short time period
required for catalyst light-off, where the catalyst is only partially
active.
Results from measurement of selected individual hydrocarbons (IHC)
from the diesel engine showed primarily ethylene over 7 modes of steady-
state operation, with methane, acetylene, and propylene found during idle
and the 2 percent load conditions. These compounds were also noted in
transient operation, primarily over the cold-start cycle. Only methane
and ethylene were noted during the hot-start. The 7-mode and transient
composites for the diesel engine were 120 and 130 mg/kW-hr, respectively.
For the pilot-injected methanol engine, all of these four species were
reduced at light loads, during which only diesel fuel was injected.
These individual hydrocarbons were higher during full load conditions,
resulting in a 7-mode composite of 67 mg/kW-hr. The transient composite
for this engine configuration was 180 mg/kW-hr, 38 percent greater than
the diesel engine IHC. Over 7-modes, the addition of the catalyst
reduced the composite to 32 mg/kW-hr. This decrease was due to reduction
79
-------
of ethylene and elimination of acetylene and propylene, even though methane
levels increased. Measurement of IHC emissions from the spark-ignited engine
showed no methane above background levels and only a trace of ethylene,
resulting in a 7-mode composite level of 0 mg/kW-hr. Only a trace of
methane was noted during the cold-start, giving a composite value of 1.1
mg/kW-hr for transient operation.
Over the transient cycle, phenol emissions of 35mg/kW-hr were measured
for the diesel engine as compared to 24 mg/kW-hr for the pilot-injected
methanol configuration. Use of the catalyst with this engine increased
phenols over the transient cycle to 48 mgAw~hr- For both pilot-injected
configurations, the phenols measured were generally of the more highly
substituted species having higher molecular weights. No phenols were
detected over transient operation of the spark-ignited methanol-catalyst
engine. This result may be attributed to a more active catalyst or perhaps
the absence of diesel fuel. Determinations of the total intensity of
aroma (TIA) by the DOAS procedure, which measures oxygenate and aromatic
fraction of exhaust gases, is related to other hydrocarbon analysis. In
comparison to the diesel engine, TIA values were generally lower with
methanol, and the oxidation catalysts on both the pilot-injected and
spark-ignited engines, yielded even lower levels of TIA.
FID responses to the different HC species found in the exhaust are
quite variable, and range from an estimated 0.05 for formaldehyde to 1.0
for species measured by the IHC and phenols procedures.(9) Methanol has
been shown to have an HFID response of about 0.8.(2°) The total hydrocarbons
from 13-mode and transient testing were reported earlier on the basis that
the HC exhaust species were similar to diesel fuel-like species. The
"actual" total hydrocarbons for the engines may be determined by summing
up the results from the various specialized procedures used to determine
unburned methanol, aldehydes, IHC and phenols. The results of this are
illustrated in Figure 29 and presented in Table 36.
TABLE 36. COMPARATIVE TOTALS OF MEASURED HYDROCARBONS
Engine Actual Total Hydrocarbons, g/kW-hr
Configuration 7-Mode Transient
Diesel 1.07* 1.16
Pilot-Injected 2.37 5.3-3
Pilot-Inj.+Cat. 1.14 1.26
Pilot-Ign.+Cat. 0.59 0.91
13-mode + 7-mode aldehyde
Based on these actual measured hydrocarbons, methanol substitution in
the pilot-injected engine increased both steady-state and transient hydro-
carbon mass emissions to 2.2 and 4.6 times those of the diesel engine. The
addition of the catalyst reduced the hydrocarbons to near the level obtained
80
-------
CD
oo 4
o
CO
•!= 3
£ 2
o
o
i.
>, 1
3:
0
Trans. Modal
Diesel
Trans.
I
^
Total HC by HFID
Sum of IHC, Aldehyde, Phenol
Unburned Methanol
Aldehydes Added to HFID
Modal
Pilot-
Injected
Trans. Modal
E>2
15"% >Z
Pi lot-
In j.+Cat.
Trans.
Modal
Spark-Ign.
+Cat.
Figure 29. Brake specific total hydrocarbons by HFID
and by summation of various HC analyses
81
-------
from the diesel engine. Actual total hydrocarbon emissions from the spark-
ignited engine were still quite low, but not nearly as low as indicated
by the total hydrocarbons calculated on the basis of diesel fuel.
C. Particulate Emission Results
Total particulate results from modal testing are given in Figure 30
while transient results and 7-mode composite particulate rates are pre-
sented in Figure 31. Particulate emissions from the diesel engine were
generally low during low power conditions, increasing substantially with
load. Use of methanol in the pilot-injected engine reduced maximum torque
and maximum power particulate by 86 to 92 percent, respectively. Despite
substantial increases in total particulate noted during 2 percent load
condition, where mostly pilot diesel fuel is consumed, both the 7-mode
and transient particulate emissions were reduced by 57 and 44 percent,
relative to the diesel engine.
Addition of the catalyst to the pilot-injected methanol engine sub-
stantially increased the total particulate during the high-load, high-
temperature steady-state operating conditions, but significantly reduced
particulate during idle and the 2 percent load conditions. The 7-mode
composite increased from 0.30 to 0.50 g/kW-hr when the catalyst was
added. Over transient testing both cold- and hot-start particulate were
lower with the catalyst than without. Particulate rates from the spark-
ignited engine were extremely low over both steady-state and transient
operation relative to any configuration tested. No carbon (soot) parti-
culate was visible on any of the filters obtained from the spark-ignited
methanol catalyst engine. The transient composite particulate was 0.06
g/kW-hr which is well below the proposed 1986 limit of 0.34 g/kW-hr
(0.25 g/hp-hr).
"A", "b", and "c" factors of the FTP smoke procedure were reduced by
61, 90, and 30 percent of the diesel engine levels when the pilot-injected
engine was operated on methanol. The addition of the catalyst reduced
the "a" and "c" factors even further. Results from FTP smoke testing of
the spark-ignited engine indicated zero smoke opacity for all three factors.
The relative contributions of sulfate to both steady-state and transient
operation are indicated in Figures 30 and 31. Analysis of the total parti-
culate for sulfate indicated normal amounts of fuel sulfur conversion to
sulfate for the diesel engine over seven steady-state modes. Of the 7-mode
composite total particulate (0.69 gAW-hr) , 6.5 percent was sulfate. The
sulfate rates from both steady-state and transient operation decreased
significantly with methanol substitution in the pilot-injected engine.
However, the addition of the catalyst to the pilot-injected engine increased
the particulate levels dramatically when catalyst temperature was sufficient
to convert sulfur dioxide in the exhaust (originally from combustion of
sulfur in the pilot diesel fuel) to sulfate. Sulfate accounted for 43 and
27 percent of the 7-mode and transient composite particulate levels reported
for the pilot-injected methanol catalyst configuration, respectively. it
was assumed that the spark-ignited engine generated no sulfate emissions,
since the only source of sulfur would be minute amounts of crankcase oil
consumed.
82
-------
80
70
60
S-
^> 50
A
0)
•5 40
o
S. 30
to
£ 20
10
0
Soluble Organic Fraction
Sulfate
Remainder
1— I
0) 4-> 4->
-------
S-
_G
en
*t
01
O
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
£ 0.5
-------
Another major contribution to total particulate was the soluble organic
fraction (SOF), which is also indicated in Figures 26 and 27. As with most
diesel engines, most of the 7-mode composite SOF was generated during the
light load conditions where f/a ratios were very low and cylinder tempera-
tures were relatively low as compared to high load conditions. The SOF
made up 29 and 31 percent of the 7-mode and transient total particulate,
respectively. These levels increased to 67 and 55 percent for the pilot-
injected methanol configuration, due to significant SOF at light loads
where mostly pilot diesel fuel was consumed. The addition of the oxidation
catalyst significantly reduced the SOF contribution to total particulate,
but the increase in the sulfate and the "remainder" (which is discussed
in the next paragraph) kept the total particulate emissions about the same
as without the catalyst. Similar to other emission trends, the spark-
ignited engine emitted very little SOF, but relative to the total parti-
culate, the SOF accounted for 59 and 75 percent of the 7-mode and transient
composite particulate emissions, respectively.
The "remainder" of the total particulate (less sulfate and SOF)
consists of insolubles such as carbon particles, metals, metal oxides,
and other compounds, many of which may exist in a hydrated form (containing
water). Significantly less carbon was noted for the emissions from the
pilot-injected engine than for those from the diesel engine during the
higher-power steady-state modes. Addition of the catalyst increased the
"remainder", especially during the intermediate speed/100 percent load and
the rated speed/100 percent load conditions. A similar increase was also
noted during transient testing. Although a portion of the increase noted
for the "remainder" may be explained by abraded catalytic material and
water molecules associated with various compounds, the relatively large
increase noted with the catalyst cannot be fully explained.
SOF samples from the various engines were analyzed for BaP content.
Brake specific BaP levels of 0.64 and 3.7 yg/kW-hr were noted for 7-mode
and transient composites on the diesel engine. Analysis of SOF from pilot-
ignited methanol configurations showed that 7-mode composite BaP increased
to 0.86 yg/kW-hr, while the transient composite decreased to 1.7 yg/kW-hr.
As with the level of SOF, the BaP decreased to 0.08 and 0.33 yg/kW-hr over
the 7-mode and transient test procedures when the oxidation catalyst was
used with the pilot-injected engine. BaP levels from the spark-ignited
engine were 0.06 and 0.03 yg/kW-hr for the 7-mode and transient test
procedures, respectively. The noted reduction in BaP was likely due to
the absence of diesel fuel combustion.
Ames testing of the SOF derived from use of methanol in the pilot-
injected engine indicated a lower brake specific mutagenic potential than
observed for SOF derived from the conventional diesel engine. Use of the
catalyst with the methanol-fueled pilot-injected engine reduced the brake
specific activity of the SOF even further over steady-state operation, but
significantly increased the brake specific activity over transient operation.
Ames testing of the SOF from the spark-ignited catalyst engine indicated a very
low level of brake specific mutagenic potential compared to both the diesel and
pilot-injected engines.
85
-------
REFERENCES
1. Nietz, A. and Chmela, F., "Results of MAN-FM Diesel Engines Operating
on Straight Alcohol Fuels," Presented at the IV International Symposium
on Alcohol Fuels Technology - Vol. II, Paper B-56, October 5-8, 1980.
2. Holmer, E., Berg, P.S., and Bertilsson, B-I, "The Utilization of
Alternative Fuels in a Diesel Engine Using Different Methods," SAE
Paper 800544, Congress and Exposition, Cobo Hall, Detroit,
February 25-29, 1981.
3. Information supplied by Mr. Chmela of M.A.N.
4. Ullman, T.L., and Hare, C.T., "Emission Characterization of an Alcohol/
Diesel-Pilot Fueled Compression-Ignition Engine and Its Heavy-Duty
Diesel Counterpart," Final Report EPA 460/3-81-023, prepared under
Contract No. 68-03-2884, Task Specification 6 for the Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1981.
5. Federal Register, "Heavy-Duty Engines for 1979 and Later Model Years,"
Thursday, September 8, 1977.
6. Federal Register, "Gaseous Emission Regulations for 1984 and Later
Model Year Heavy-Duty Engines," Vol. 45, No. 14, January 21, 1980.
7. 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.
8. Springer, K.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 No. 68-03-2417
for the Environmental Protection Agency, June 1979.
9. McNair, H.M., and Bonelli, E.J., "Basic Gas Chromatography," Varian
Aerograph, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598,
February 1965.
10. Martin, S.F., "Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines Using the 1984
Transient Test Procedure, Volume II - Diesel," Final Report EPA
460/3-81-031 prepared under Contract No. 68-03-2603 for the
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1981.
11. 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 No.
68-02-2497, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, April 1980.
87
-------
REFERENCES (Cont'd)
12. Levins, P.L., and Kendall, D.A., "Application of Odor Technology to
Mobile Source Emission Instrumentation," CRC Project CAPE 7-68 under
Contract No. 69-03-0561, September 1973.
13. Memo from Craig Harvey, EPA, to Ralph Stahman and Merrill Korth, EPA,
on February 26, 1979.
14. 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.
15. Ames, B., McCann, J., and Yamasaki, E., "Methods for Detecting Carci-
nogens and Mutagens with the Salmonella/Mammalian-Microsome Mutagenicity
Test," Mutation Research, 31, pp. 347-364, 1975.
16. 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.
17. Smith, L.R., and Urban, C.M., "Characterization of Exhaust Emissions
from Methanol and Gasoline-Fueled Automobiles," Final Report EPA
460/3-82-004 prepared under Contract No. 68-03-2884, Task Specifications
11 and 12, and Contract No. 68-03-3073, Work Assignments 1 and 2, for
the Environmental Protection Agency, March 1982.
18. Harvey, C.A., "Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy Determination for
Alternate Automotive Fuels," SAE Paper 820794 presented at the
Passenger Car Meeting, Troy, Michigan, June 1982.
19. Environmental Protection Agency approval for use of C02~IPA water trap
to Karl J. Springer from John W. Bozek, September 17, 1979.
20. Volvo Internal Summary of Report, Report No. LM-90525, dated
February 4, 1982.
21. Hagen, D.L., "Methanol as a Fuel: A Review with Bibliography,"
SAE Paper 770792 presented at the Passenger Car Meeting, Detroit,
Michigan, September 1977.
22. Heisey, J.B., and Lestz, S.S., "Aqueous Alcohol Fumigation of a
Single-Cylinder DI Diesel Engine," SAE Paper 811208.
88
-------
APPENDIX A
THIRTEEN-MODE FTP TEST RESULTS
-------
TABLE A-l. 13-MODE EMISSIONS CYCLE
M*A*N-RECHENZENTRUM
AH_16.1 1.81
NAHE DES BENUTZERS: HERZOG
13 STUFEN ZYKLUS FUER HESELMOTOREN
TAG DER ME~SSUNG:1 .TT.fll
MOTOR TYPE: 02566FMUH
MOTOR NUMMER:39*9124
BAROMETERS!AND: 7*0 TORR
REL.'LUFTFEUCHTIGKEIT: so.o PROZ.
SPEZ .KRAFTSTOFFGEHICHT:0.~796
PRUEFSTANDSNR.: 10
MESSMETrlODE FUER NO: NDIR
BEMERKUNGEN:EPS 16.5 ZYKLUS 5 HIM
>1
N
(U/MIN)
500
K.CO
16CO
16CO
1600
1600
LAST
(N)
6.C
72.0
20t .C
*12 .0
625 .0
836.0
NE BE BKR
(KK) (G/KWH) (KG/H)
0.4 9973.5 *.0
11.5 1535.5 17.7
33.0 737.* 2*. 3
65.9 53*. 8 35.3
100.0 *G5.8 *f).9
133.8 *fc3.8 6*. 7
LUFTVDL
(M3/H)
1*7.2
*63.5
*76. 1
<*83.7
*76. 1
*75.0
LAMBDA
(-)
2.920
2.073
1.553
1 .036
C.771
C.581
RAUCH AR
(BOSCH) (X)
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
L1EFGRI
U)
86.3
8*. 6
86.9
86.3
86.9
86.7
CO NO
(PPM) (PPM)
100 19
150 19
150 58
150 253
100 923
50 1336
HC
(PPMC)
111
93
5.4
33
_ ^
CO*HF
NO*HF
HC*HF
(G/KHHMG/KHH) (G/KHH)
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.04
0. 18
0.60
0.82
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
CO
NO HC
( G/KG MG/KG KG/KG)
4.0
4.2
3.1
2.1
1.0
0.4
O.B 2.4
.0.6 1.4
1.2 0.6
3.7 0.3
9.0 0.2
9.3 0.1
500
7.0
0.3
3.8
1*7.2
3.053
0.0
0.0 86.0
100
TffV
0.02 0.00 0.01
4.2
0.0
2.3
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
669.0
503.0
33*. 0
166.0
115.0
1*7.2 521.7
110.7 5*8.*
73.5 632.5
36,^5 927.5
25.3 1191.5
76.8
60.7
*6.5
33.9
30.1
6*9.3
652.3
650.8
6*5.5
662.9
C.669
0.851
1.108
1.508
1.7*0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
86.2 100
86.6 100
86.4 100
85.7 100
es.o 100
12*0
775
272
58
39
15
15
36
60
69
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.10
1.07
0.70
0.25
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.8
1.1
1.5
2.0
2.4
10.3
8.5
4.0
1.2
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.7
0.9
500
7.C
0.0
BSHC = 0.23 G/
-------
TABLE A-2. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: M.A.N. METHANOL ENGINE WITH CATALYST
TEST-1 FUEL: EM-490-F PROJECT: 05-6619-002
BAROMETER 28.93
DATE: 1/12/82
i
U)
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
POWER
ENGINE
SPEED
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM
/ 527
/ 1600
/ 1600
/ 1600
/ 1600
/ 1600
/ 554
/ 2200
/ 2200
/ 2200
/ 2200
/ 2200
/ 540
TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR 1 MTAKE
OBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID
N X M KW KG/MI N KG/MI N G/KG
0. .0 .072 2.97 4.3
15. 2.5 .250 9.49 5.6
194. 32.5 .392 9.38 6.9
388. 65.0 .574 8.99 4.9
582. 97.5 .786 9.00 3.8
777. 130.2 1.042 9.02 4.0
0. .0 .066 3.09 3.5
627. 144.4 1.248 12.49 4.0
471. 108.4 .976 12.45 4.1
313. 72.2 .772 12.36 4.6
157. 36.2 .546 12.24 4.1
14. 3.1 .394 12.20 4.5
0. .0 .063 3.06 3.9
NOX
CORR
FACT
.920
.938
.972
.934
.919
.927
.887
.922
.921
.920
.905
.905
.897
MEASURED
HC CO
PPM PPM
160. 60.
138. 103.
44. 48.
25. 28.
19. 26.
10. 32. 1
140. 40.
12. 22.
21. 22.
27. 26.
50. 38.
96. 48.
150. 52.
C02
PCT
2.25
2.56
3.98
5.84
8.1 1
1.30
2.14
9.55
7.36
5.53
4.18
3.06
2.04
NOX
PPM
23.
45.
150.
560.
1 125.
1185.
25.
1350.
1035.
530.
220.
100.
31 .
CALCULATED
GRAMS
/ HOUR
MODE
HC CO NOX
14.
50.
12.
7.
6.
3.
12.
5.
8.
11.
18.
34.
13.
10. 6.
52. 37.
25. 127.
14. 474.
13. 939.
15. 941.
6. 7.
15. 1519.
15. 1182.
19. 637.
26. 247.
32. 110.
9. 9.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
GRAMS/KG-FUEL
HC
3.21
3.33
.52
.21
.12
.05
2.95
.07
.14
.24
.56
1 .45
3.31
CO
2.31
3.48
1 .05
.42
.28
.25
1 .62
.20
.26
.41
.79
1.36
2.21
NOX
1 .45
2.49
5.40
13.76
19.91
15.05
1 .66
20.29
20.18
13.75
7.54
4.67
2.16
GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PH 1 "
HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
****** ****** ***** .0243 1546 .157
20.00 20.88 14.98 .0265 1546 .171
.38 .76 3.91 .0421 1546 .272
.11 .22 7.29 .0641 1546 .415
.06 .14 9.63 .0877 1546 .567
.02 .12 7.22 .1159 1546 .750
****** ****** ***** .0214 1546 .138
.03 .10 10.52 .1003 1546 .649
.08 .14 10.90 .0787 1546 .509
.15 .26 8.83 .0628 1546 .406
.51 .72 6.81 .0448 1546 .290
10.93 10.32 35.31 .0324 1546 .210
****** ****** ***** .0223 1546 .144
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.956
.950
.925
.895
.860
.816
.958
.840
.872
.900
.922
.942
.960
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0244 .6
.0278 4.7
.0422 .1
.0607 -5.3
.0825 -5.9
.1117 -3.7
.0232 8.6
.0959 -4.4
.0754 -4.2
.0577 -8.2
.0442 -1.3
.0328 1.1
.0222 -.4
POWER
CORR
FACT
.985
1 .000
.996
.995
.994
1 .000
.992
1 .012
1.013
1.018
1 .020
1 .022
.991
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
6.004
.727
.532
.487
.480
*****
.512
.533
.631
.886
7.400
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 1 3-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
OCM/"W _*. O r\C\A PRAM /\f U/~MQ
BSHC + BSNOX = 9.275 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .616 KG/KW-HR
f 9(19
V . £. vt
( 6.717
( 6.919
( 1.014
fiRAM/RHP— HR \
«jr\r\ii/Dnrnr\ *
ftRAM/RMP— HR "\
vjr\Aivt/ Drii nr\ j
GRAM/BHP-HR )
GRAM/BHP-HR )
LBS/BHP-HR )
-------
TABLE A- 2 (Cont'd). 1 3-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: M.A.N. METHANOL ENGINE WITH CATALYST
TEST-1 FUEL: EM-490-F PROJECT: 05-6619-002
BAROMETER 28.93
DATE: 1/12/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TOTAL
FUEL
KG/MIN
.0718
.2502
.3923
.5737
.7861
1.0416
.0658
1 .2479
.9758
.7725
.5457
.3938
.0680
DIESEL
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
.0718
.2502
.3923
.5737
.7861
1 .0416
.0658
1 .2479
.9758
.7725
.5457
.3938
.0680
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
EQIV.
DIESEL
KG/MIN
.0330
.1151
.1805
.2640
.3618
.4793
.0303
.5743
.4491
.3555
.251 1
.1812
.0313
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
HC
KWET
FACTOR
.9562
.9502
.9252
.8950
.8605
.8159
.9583
.8397
.8716
.9001
.9224
.9417
.9601
Y
WATER
INTAKE
.0070
.0091
.0112
.0078
.0060
.0064
.0057
.0064
.0067
.0074
.0066
.0072
.0063
F/A
MASS
FUEL
.0243
.0265
.0421
.0641
.0877
.1159
.0214
.1003
.0787
.0628
.0448
.0324
.0223
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
.0243
.0265
.0421
.0641
.0877
.1159
.0214
.1003
.0787
.0628
.0448
.0324
.0223
EQIV.
DIESEL
.0112
.0122
.0194
.0295
.0404
.0533
.0098
.0462
.0362
.0289
.0206
.0149
.0103
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
-------
TABLE A-3.
3-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: M.A.N. METHANOL ENGINE WITH CATAYST BAROMETER:28.95
TEST-2 FUEL:EM-490-F PROJECT:05-6619-002 OATE:1/22/82
i
tn
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
POWER
ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE
SPEED OBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUM 10
PCT
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
COND
IDLE
INTER
INTER
INTER
INTER
1 NTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ RPM N X M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG
/ 500. 0. .0 .064 2.74 10.3 1
/ 1600. 14. 2.3 .246 9.00 10.3 1
/ 1600. 186. 31.1 .385 9.00 10.3 1
/ 1600. 374. 62.7 .571 9.03 10.3 1
/ 1600. 566. 94.8 .766 9.00 10.3
/ 1600. 753. 126.1 1.039 8.57 10.3
/ 500. 0. .0 .067 2.67 10.3
/ 2200. 613. 141.2 1.240 12.21 10.3
/ 2200. 460. 105.9 1.000 12.17 10.3 1
/ 2200. 304. 70.0 .768 12.17 10.3 1
/ 2200. 152. 35.0 .576 12.21 10.3 1
/ 2200. 14. 3.1 .406 11.81 10.3 1
/ 500. 0. .0 .069 2.70 10.3 1
NOX
CORR
FACT
.011
.018
.013
.009
.999
.989
.999
.994
.000
.005
.012
.016
.011 1
MEASURED
HC CO
PPM PPM
248. 99.
530. 965.
85. 54.
50. 28.
30. 24.
10. 32. 1
98. 40.
19. 28.
44. 26.
65. 32.
112. 30.
216. 86.
008. 459.
C02
PCT
2.14
2.30
3.98
5.92
8.21
1.43
1 .66
9.88
8.11
6.00
4.52
3.18
1 .99
NOX
PPM
35.
55.
170.
600.
1110.
1275.
40.
1305.
1140.
610.
260.
110.
40.
CALCULATED
GRAMS /
HC
20.
146.
23.
14.
9.
3.
1 1.
7.
17.
24.
41.
76.
88.
CO
15
507
27
14
12
15
8
18
17
21
20
57
77
HOUR
NOX
9.
47.
. 141 .
. 498.
. 891.
. 998.
14.
. 1410.
. 1210.
. 672.
. 285.
. 120.
11.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY "PHI"
HC
5.19
9.89
1 .00
.41
.19
.05
2.64
.10
.28
.53
1 .18
3.13
21.39
CO
3.98
34.40
1 .18
.41
.26
.24
2.09
.25
.28
.47
.58
2.34
18.74
NOX HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
2.31 ****** ****** ***** .0237 .1546 . , 53
3.22 64.13 223.10 20.89 .0276 .1546 .178
6.11 .75 .88 4.54 .0433 . 546 .280
14.53 .22 .23 7.93 .0638 . 546 .413
19.40 .09 .12 9.41 .0859 . 546 .556
16.01 .02 .12 7.91 .1225 . 546 .792
3.43 ****** ****** ***** .0252 . 546 .163
18.96 .05 .13 9.98 .1025 . 546 .663
20.17 .16 .16 11.42 .0830 . 546 .537
14.57 .35 .31 9.59 .0637 . 546 .412
8.23 1.16 .57 8.13 .0476 . 546 .308
4.92 24.36 18.24 38.33 .0347 . 546 .225
2.68 ****** ****** ***** .0258 . 546 .167
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.957
.953
.925
.893
.858
.813
.966
.834
.859
.891
.915
.938
.959
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0234 -1.3
.0264 -4.4
.0422 -2.4
.0615 -3.6
.0835 -2.9
.1128 -7.9
.0181 -28.1
.0989 -3.6
.0825 -.5
.0623 -2.2
.0477 .1
.0342 -1.4
.0231 -10.4
POWER
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CORR
FACT
.997
.009
.008
.007
.009
.009
.001
.021
.020
.022
.021
.019
.999
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
6.430
.737
.542
.481
.490
*****
.515
.555
.644
.967
7.651
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 1 3-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
O^JiC> £OT /^OAM/L'MLJO t C f\C\ I~>O AM /OLIO 1 in \
BSHC + BSNOX = 10.053 GRAM/KW-HR (
CORR. BSFC - = .630 KG/KW-HR (
• j \j y
ftftl
• Q O I
6.990
7.500
1.036
vjnnn/ onr— nr\ /
^RAM/RHP— UP )
V3r\AH/ Dnr nr\ /
GRAM/BHP-HR )
GRAM/BHP-HR )
LBS/BHP-HR )
-------
TABLE A- 3 (Cont'd). 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: M.A.N. METHANOL ENGINE WITH CATAYST
TEST-2 FUEL:EM-490-F PROJECT:05-661 9-002
BAROMETER:28.95
DATE:1/22/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
TOTAL
FUEL
KG/MI N
.0642
.2457
.3855
.5707
.7657
1 .0385
.0665
1 .2396
1 .0000
.7680
.5760
.4059
.0688
DIESEL
PART
KG/MI N
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
.0642
.2457
.3855
.5707
.7657
1 .0385
.0665
1 .2396
1 .0000
.7680
.5760
.4059
.0638
WATER
PART
KG/MI N
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
EQIV.
DIESEL
KG/MIN
.0296
.1 130
.1774
.2626
.3524
.4779
.0306
.5705
.4602
.3534
.2651
.1868
.0317
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
HC
KWET
FACTOR
.9569
.9529
.9245
.8927
.8577
.8130
.9664
.8339
.8591
.8913
.9154
.9383
.9594
Y
WATER
INTAKE
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0166
F/A
MASS
FUEL
.0237
.0276
.0433
.0638
.0859
.1225
.0252
.1025
.0830
.0637
.0476
.0347
.0258
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
.0237
.0276
.0433
.0638
.0859
.1225
.0252
.1025
.0830
.0637
.0476
.0347
.0258
EQIV.
DIESEL
.0109
.0127
.0199
.0294
.0396
.0564
.0116
.0472
.0382
.0293
.0219
.0160
.0119
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
-------
TABLE A-4. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: M.A.N. METHANOL ENGINE WITH CATALYST (AFTER)
TEST- 3 FUEL: EM-490-F PROJECT: 05-6619-002
BAROMETER: 29.20
DATE: 2/24/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
POWER ENGINE
SPEED
PCT COND / RPM
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
IDLE /
INTER /
INTER /
INTER /
INTER /
INTER /
IDLE /
RATED /
RATED /
RATED /
RATED /
RATED /
IDLE /
' 500.
' 1600.
' 1600.
1 1600.
' 1600.
> 1600.
' 500.
1 2200.
> 2200.
1 2200.
' 2200.
' 2200.
' 500.
TORQUE
OBS
N X M
0.
14.
191 .
378.
570.
761 .
0.
605.
458.
301 .
152.
14.
0.
POWER
OBS
KW
.0
2.3
32.0
63.4
95.5
127.5
.0
139.4
105.6
69.4
35.0
3.1
.0
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MI N
.060
.246
.399
.556
.785
1 .031
.054
1 .210
.986
.797
.566
.402
.060
AIR
FLOW
KG/MI N
2.73
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
8.78
2.68
12.03
11 .99
11 .99
11 .95
11 .95
2.70
INTAKE NOX
HUMID CORR
G/KG FACT
1 1 .2
1 1 .2
1 1 .2
1 1 .2
11 .2
11 .2
1 1 .2
1 1 .2
11 .2
11 .2
1 1 .2
1 1 .2
1 1 .2
1 .041
1 .047
1 .037
1 .025
1 .012
.998
1 .015
1 .005
1 .013
1 .022
1 .029
1 .036
1 .041
HC
PPM
76.
159.
38.
19.
13.
7.
65.
5.
14.
20.
35.
96.
65.
MEASURED
CO C02
PPM PCT
40.
84.
40.
30.
28.
44.
50.
34.
38.
40.
62.
52.
50.
2.14
2.56
4.18
5.92
8.41
1 1.18
2.09
9.66
7.55
5.92
4.45
3.42
2.09
NOX
PPM
38.
47.
186.
650.
1 155.
1320.
47.
1275.
1005.
555.
235.
107.
35.
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC CO NOX
6.
42.
10.
5.
4.
2.
5.
2.
6.
8.
13.
31 .
5.
6.
42.
20.
15.
14.
21.
7.
22.
26.
28.
41.
32.
8.
9.
39.
153.
526.
929.
1048.
10.
1376.
1 131 .
643.
257.
108.
9.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
>
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY
HC
1 .61
2.83
.43
.16
.08
.03
1 .41
.03
.09
.16
.37
1 .30
1 .41
CO
1 .63
2.84
.83
.44
.29
.34
2.08
.31
.44
.59
1 .22
1 .32
2.08
NOX
2.54
2.61
6.38
15.75
19.71
16.95
3.21
18.95
19.10
13.45
7.57
4.47
2.39
HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
****** ****** ***** .0224 .1546
18.38 18.48 16.98 .0271 .1546
.32 .62 4.77 .0439 .1546
.08 .23 8.29 .0612 .1546
.04 .14 9.73 .0863 .1546
.02 .17 8.22 .1187 .1546
****** ****** ***** .0203 .1546
.01 .16 9.87 .1017 .1546
.05 .25 10.70 .0832 .1546
.11 .41 9.28 .0673 .1546
.36 1.18 7.34 .0479 .1546
10.07 10.22 34.53 .0340 .1546
****** ****** ***** .0226 .1546
"PH 1 "
.145
.175
.284
.396
.559
.768
.131
.658
.538
.435
.310
.220
.146
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 1 3-MODE WE
DCur _______ - 9O1 (5RAM/KW— HR
acrr\ _______ - 414 fSRAM/KW — HR
DCMAY ______ - Q 9RQ ftRAM/KW— HR
BSHC + BSNOX = 9.460 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .632 KG/KW-HR
/
,
(
(
(
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.957
.949
.921
.892
.855
.816
.957
.837
.867
.893
.916
.934
.958
F/A F/A
PCT
CALC MEAS
.0232 3.4
.0277 2.3
.0442 .7
.0615 .5
.0853 -1.2
.1106 -6.8
.0226 11.7
.0969 -4.8
.0772 -7.2
.0615 -8.6
.0469 -2.1
.0365 7.3
.0226 -.1
POWER
CORR
FACT
.986
.995
.996
.997
.999
.998
.994
1 .014
1 .012
1 .009
1 .012
1 .010
.987
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
6.537
.750
.528
.494
.486
*****
.514
.554
.684
.959
7.642
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
IGHT FACTORS
• 1 50
6.907
7.057
1 .039
GRAM/RHP— HR 1
\jr\ru*i/ Dnn nr\ /
GRAM/BHP— HR )
GRAM/BHP-HR )
GRAM/BHP-HR )
LBS/BHP-HR )
-------
TABLE A-4 (Cont'd). 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: M.A.N. METHANOL ENGINE WITH CATALYST (AFTER)
TEST-3 FUEL: EM-490-F PROJECT: 05-6619-002
BAROMETER: 29.20
DATE: 2/24/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TOTAL
FUEL
KG/MIN
.0605
.2464
.3991
.5563
.7853
1 .0310
.0537
1 .2101
.9864
.7974
.5661
.4021
.0605
DIESEL
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
.0605
.2464
.3991
.5563
.7853
1 .0310
.0537
1.2101
.9864
.7974
.5661
.4021
.0605
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
EQIV.
DIESEL
KG/MI N
.0278
.1134
.1837
.2560
.3614
.4745
.0247
.5569
.4539
.3670
.2605
.1851
.0278
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
HC
KWET
FACTOR
.9566
.9490
.9209
.8924
.8546
.8162
.9574
.8368
.8674
.8926
.9164
.9337
.9576
Y
WATER
INTAKE
.0130
.0130
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0130
.0130
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0130
F/A
MASS
FUEL
.0224
.0271
.0439
.0612
.0863
.1187
.0203
.1017
.0832
.0673
.0479
.0340
.0226
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
.0224
.0271
.0439
.0612
.0863
.1187
.0203
.1017
.0832
.0673
.0479
.0340
.0226
EQIV.
DIESEL
.0103
.0125
.0202
.0281
.0397
.0546
.0093
.0468
.0383
.0309
.0221
.0157
.0104
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
I
oo
-------
TABLE A-5. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: M.A.N. METHANOL ENGINE WITH CATALYST (BEFORE)
TEST- 3 FUEL: EM-490-F PROJECT: 05-6619-002
BAROMETER: 29.20
DATE: 2/24/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
POWER ENGINE
SPEED
PCT COND / RPM
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
IDLE /
INTER /
INTER /
INTER /
INTER /
INTER /
IDLE /
RATED /
RATED /
RATED /
RATED /
RATED ,
IDLE ,
' 500.
' 1600.
' 1600.
' 1600.
' 1600.
' 1600.
' 500.
' 2200.
* 2200.
' 2200.
' 2200.
f 2200.
' 500.
TORQUE
OBS
N X M
0.
14.
191 .
378.
570.
761 .
0.
605.
453.
301 .
152.
14.
0.
POWER
OBS
KW
.0
2.3
32.0
63.4
95.5
127.5
.0
139.4
1 04 . 4
69.4
35.0
3.1
.0
FUEL
FLOW
KG /WIN
.060
.246
.399
.556
.785
1 .031
.054
1 .210
.986
.797
.566
.402
.060
AIR
FLOW
KG/MI N
2.73
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
3.78
2.68
12.03
1 1 .99
11 .99
1 1 .95
1 1 .95
2.70
INTAKE NOX
HUMID CORR
G/KG FACT
11 .2
1 1 .2
1 1 .2
11 .2
11 .2
1 1 .2
11 .2
1 1 .2
11 .2
11.2
1 1 .2
11 .2
11.2
1 .041
1 .047
1 .037
1 .025
1 .012
.998
1 .015
1 .005
1 .013
1 .022
1 .029
1 .036
1 .041
HC
PPM
4540.
3400.
1 744.
704.
624.
276.
4540.
72.
672.
880.
1728.
3200.
4540.
MEASURED
CO C02
PPM PCT
2090.
2577.
1826.
778.
407.
694.
1953.
273.
329.
642.
1625.
1888.
2162.
1.34
1 .80
3.73
5.61
8.21
10.81
1 .30
9.33
7.45
5.68
3.92
2.35
1.34
NOX
PPM
38.
45.
136.
650.
1155.
1305.
47.
1275.
1005.
540.
210.
86.
35.
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR
HC CO NOX
367.
946.
479.
198.
180.
83.
334.
29.
264.
351.
649.
****
366.
328.
1380.
932.
394.
201 .
344.
280.
185.
225.
460.
1130.
1384.
338.
10.
40.
156.
540.
939.
1062.
1 1.
1419.
1 130.
635.
240.
104.
9.
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CALCULATED F/A F/A
GRAMS/KG-FUEL GRAMS/KW-HR DRY
HC
*****
63.97
20.01
5.94
3.81
1 .34
*****
.40
4.46
7.33
19.10
51 .00
*****
CO
90.43
53.32
38.92
11 .79
4.27
5.56
86.82
2.55
3.80
9.61
33.26
57.36
93.21
NOX HC CO NOX MEAS STOICH
2.70 ****** ****** ***** .0224 .1546
2.68 416.15 607.08 17.41 .0271 .1546
6.51 14.95 29.08 4.87 .0439 .1546
16.19 3.13 6.21 8.52 .0612 .1546
19.93 1.88 2.11 9.84 .0863 .1546
17.17 .65 2.70 8.33 .1187 .1546
3.43 ****** ****** ***** .0203 .1546
19.55 .21 1.33 10.18 .1017 .1546
19.09 2.53 2.16 10.82 .0832 .1546
13.27 5.06 6.63 9.15 .0673 .1546
7.06 18.54 32.29 6.85 .0479 .1546
4.29 393.73 442.88 33.14 .0340 .1546
2.48 ****** ****** ***** .0226 .1546
"PH I "
.145
.175
.284
.396
.559
.768
.131
.658
.538
.435
.310
.220
.146
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 1 3-MODE WE
ocr'n _ 11 AR"^ PD A M /\f U — LID
BSHC + BSNOX = 17.252 GRAM/KW-HR
CORR. BSFC - = .633 KG/KW-HR
/
\
(
i
V
(
(
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.969
.960
.926
.897
.857
.821
.970
.841
.869
.896
.924
.951
.969
F/A
CALC
.0220
.0262
.0436
.0601
.0846
.1083
.0214
.0942
.0774
.0608
.0453
.0310
.0221
F/A
PCT
MEAS
-1.7
-3.4
-.7
-1.8
-2.0
-8.7
5.8
-7.4
-6.9
-9.5
-5.5
-8.9
-2.3
POWER
CORR
FACT
.986
.995
.996
.997
.999
.998
.994
1.014
1.012
1 .009
1 .012
1.010
.987
BSFC
CORR
KG/KW-HR
*****
6.537
.750
.528
.494
.486
*****
.514
.560
.684
.959
7.642
*****
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
.067
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
IGHT FACTORS
K Q 07
J • O O /
8.245
f\ QR"^
U . y O— '
12.870
1.041
PP AM /Rl-
JD—UD ^
or\Alvl/ Dnr ~i IIA /
GRAM/BHP-HR )
ftRAM/RI-
4D-1JD 1
Vjr\r\l 1 / DM i "" i ii \ /
GRAM/BHP-HR )
LBS/BHP-HR )
-------
TABLE A-5 (Cont'd). 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: M.A.N. MEfHANOL ENGINE WITH CATALYST (3EFORE) BAROMETER: 29.20
TEST-3 FUEL: EM-490-F PROJECT: 05-6619-002 DATE: 2/24/82
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
TOTAL
FUEL
KG/MIN
.0605
.2464
.3991
.5563
.7853
1 .0310
.0537
1 .2101
.9864
.7974
.5661
.4021
.0605
DIESEL
PART
KG/MI M
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
ALCOHOL
PART
KG/MIN
.0605
.2464
.3991
.5563
.7853
1 .0310
.0537
1 .2101
.9864
.7974
.5661
.4021
.0605
WATER
PART
KG/MIN
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
EQIV.
DIESEL
K3/MIN
.0278
.1 134
.1837
.2560
.3614
.4745
.0247
.5569
.4539
.3670
.2605
.1851
.0278
FUEL
MOLE
WEIGHT
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
32.0433
HC
KWET
FACTOR
.9691
.9599
.9265
.8965
.8571
.8205
.9698
.3413
.8686
.8957
.9236
.9508
.9690
Y
WATER
INTAKE
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0130
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0180
.0180
F/A
MASS
FUEL
.0224
.0271
.0439
.0612
.0863
.1187
.0203
.1017
.0832
.0673
.0479
.0340
.0226
RATIO
FUEL
CARBON
.0224
.0271
.0439
.0612
.0863
.1187
.0203
.1017
.0832
.0673
.0479
.0340
.0226
EQIV.
DIESEL
.0103
.0125
.0202
.0281
.0397
.0546
.0093
.0468
.0383
.0309
.0221
.0157
.0104
EXHAUST
OXYGEN
PERCENT
-------
APPENDIX B
TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS
-------
TABLE B-l. TRANSIENT POWER MAP FROM THE M.A.N. D2566 FMUH
METHANOL ENGINE
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
Torque
N«m
738
768
793
678
796
759
692
111
779
769
764
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
Torque
N»m
743
742
723
690
671
648
608
572
343
0
Idle Speed 500
Transient Command Cycle Power, kW hr
NYNF LANF LAF NYNF Total
1.14 1.75 5.11 1.13 9.14
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2.
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 LC696. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 744.47 MM HG(29.31 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEG C(69.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
8CKGRD
SAMPLE
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
I
OJ
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 (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)
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)
9.19
.19
.80
1091.
8.91
12.33)
.14)
.60)
814.)
6.64)
TEST
DATE
TIME
DYNO NO.
NO.T-15
2/10/82
RUN1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
, ENGINE-62. PCT , CVS-18. PCT
9.6 GM/KG( 67.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.8
33.43 ( 1
0.00 (
.05 ( 1
0.00 ( 0
165.1 (
12. 2/1 2/
9.7/ I/
28.8/13/
1 .7/13/
34. 9/ 3/
3.0/ 3/
3.0/14/
.5/ 2/
22.75
15.
25.
.54
29.2
1 .44
4.72
1632.3
9.22
1.195 (
1 .14 (
1 .27 (
4.13 (
180.5)
0.0)
.93)
.00)
5830.)
24.
10.
26.
2.
.58
.05
30.
1 .
2.63)
1 .53)
.94)
3.08)
1430.66 (1066.84)
8.09 (
1 .048 (
6.03)
1 .722)
2
LANF
299.8
33.44 ( 1 180.9)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
167.4 ( 5910.)
7.4/12/ 15.
11. 0/ I/ 11.
6.8/13/ 6.
1.6/13/ 1.
45. 4/ 3/ .78
3. 1/ 3/ .05
4.8/14/ 48.
.If 2/ 1 .
17.15
4.
5.
.73
47.4
.43
.91
2250.8
15.16
1.640 ( 3.62)
1.75 ( 2.35)
.24 ( .18)
.52 ( .39)
1284.41 ( 957.79)
8.65 ( 6.45)
.936 ( 1.539)
3
LAF
304.9
33.46 ( 1 181 .6)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
170.3 ( 6014.)
6.3/12/ 13.
1 1 .2/ 1/ 11 .
7.5/13/ 7.
1.5/13/ 1.
85. 1/ 3/ 1 .58
3. 1/ 3/ .05
14.2/14/ 142.
.1/ 3/ 0.
8.49
3.
5.
1 .53
141 .4
.27
1 .06
4783.2
46.06
3.484 ( 7.68)
5.17 ( 6.93)
.05 ( .04)
.20 ( .15)
925.59 ( 690.21 )
8.91 ( 6.65)
.674 ( 1.108)
4
NYNF
297.8
33.44 ( 1180.7)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1 .93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
166.2 ( 5870.)
3.9/12/ 8.
12. 7/ I/ 13.
5.3/13/ 5.
1 .4/137 1.
29.97 3/ .49
3.0/ 3/ .05
3.6/14/ 36.
.3/ 2/ 0.
27.06
-4.
3.
.45
36.0
-.42
.68
1368.6
11 .44
.997 ( 2.20)
1 .13 ( 1 .52)
-.37 ( -.28)
.60 ( .45)
1207.43 ( 900.38)
10.09 ( 7.52)
.879 ( 1.446)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
.71
.08 ( .06)
.10 ( .04)
79.7
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .796 ( 1.308)
-------
TABLE B-2 (Cont'd)
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 L(696. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 744.47 MM HG(29.31 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEG C(69.0 DEG F)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.T-15 RUN1
DATE 2/10/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
- BAG NO
X
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
, ENGINE-62. PCT , CVS-18. PCT
9.6 GM/KG< 67.1 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM 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 (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)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR) 9.19 (
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR) .19 (
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR) .80 (
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 1091. (
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 7.21 (
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .796 (
1
NYNF
295.8
33.43 < 1180.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
165.1 ( 5830.)
12.2/12/ 24.
9.7/ 1/ 10.
28.8/13/ 26.
1.7/13/ 2.
34. 9/ 3/ .58
3.0/ 3/ .05
24. 4/ 2/ 24.
.5/ 2/ 1 .
22.75
15.
25.
.54
23.9
1 .44
4.72
1632.3
7.55
1.195 ( 2.63)
1.14 ( 1.53)
1.27 ( .94)
4.13 ( 3.08)
1430.66 (1066.84)
6.62 ( 4.94)
1.048 ( 1.722)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.8 304.9
33.44 ( 1180.9) 33.46 ( 1181.6)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1 .93) .05 ( 1 .93)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 < 0.00)
167.4 ( 5910.) 170.3 ( 6014.)
7.4/12/ 15. 6.3/12/ 13.
11. O/ I/ 11. 11. 2/ I/ 11.
6.8/13/ 6. 7.5/13/ 7.
1.6/13/ 1. 1.5/13/ 1.
45. 4/ 3/ .78 85. I/ 3/ 1 .58
3. I/ 3/ .05 3. I/ 3/ .05
39. 3/ 2/ 39. 38. I/ 3/ 114.
.7/ 2/ 1. .!/ 3/ 0.
17.15 8.49
4. 3.
5. 5.
.73 1.53
38.6 114.0
.43 .27
.91 1.06
2250.8 4783.2
12.37 37.14
1.640 ( 3.62) 3.484 ( 7.68)
1.75 ( 2.35) 5.17 ( 6.93)
.24 ( .18) .05 ( .04)
.52 ( .39) .20 ( .15)
1284.41 ( 957.79) 925.59 ( 690.21)
7.06 ( 5.26) 7.19 ( 5.36)
.936 ( 1.539) .674 ( 1.108)
4
NYNF
297.8
33.44 ( 1180.7)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
166.2 ( 5870.)
3.9/12/ 8.
12. 7/ I/ 13.
5.3/13/ 5.
1.4/13/ 1.
29. 9/ 3/ .49
3.0/ 3/ .05
29. 4/ 2/ 29.
.3/ 2/ 0.
27.06
-4.
3.
.45
29.1
-.42
.68
1368.6
9.25
.997 ( 2.20)
1.13 ( 1 .52)
-.37 ( -.28)
.60 ( .45)
1207.43 ( 900.38)
8.17 ( 6.09)
.879 ( 1 .446)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
12.33) 90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
.14)
.60)
814.)
5.38) (Bag)
1 .308)
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
.71
.08 ( .06)
.10 ( .04)
79.7
-------
TABLE B-3.
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 L<696. CIO) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 744.73 MM HG(29.32 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG C(72.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
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
ro
i
01
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 (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
8SNOX 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/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)
9.36 < 12.55)
.05 ( .04)
.40 ( .30)
976. ( 728.)
9.30 ( 6.93)
.711 ( 1.170)
TEST NO.T-16 RUN1
DATE 2/10/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
, ENGINE-54. PCT , CVS-18. PCT
9.2 GM/KG( 64.6 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
33.70 ( 1189.9)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1 .92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
166.5 '( 5878.)
12.9/11/ 13.
12. 9/ I/ 13.
6.8/13/ 6.
1.7/13/ 2.
29. 1/ 3/ .48
3.2/ 3/ .05
10.7/13/ 32.
.6/ 2/ 1 .
27.83
1 .
5.
.43
31.5
.05
.89
131 7.8
10.04
.960 ( 2.12)
1 .15 ( 1.54)
.04 ( .03)
.77 ( .58)
1147.52 ( 855.70)
8.74 ( 6.52)
.836 ( 1.375)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.9 304.9
33.71 ( 1 190.3) 33.72 ( 1190.6)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1 .92) .05 ( 1 .92)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
168.8 ( 5959.) 171.6 ( 6060.)
14.8/11/ 15. 15.5/11/ 16.
12. 8/ 1/ 13. 12. 3/ 1/ 12.
5.6/13/ 5. 8.2/13/ 7.
1.3/13/ 1. .9/13/ 1.
39. 2/ 3/ .66 83. 7/ 3/ 1 .55
2.9/ 3/ .04 2.8/ 3/ .04
17.6/13/ 53. 51.1/13/ 153.
.5/ 2/ 1 . .4/ 3/ 1 .
20.15 8.65
3. 5.
4. 6.
.62 1.51
52.4 152.4
.26 .46
.76 1.28
1917.9 4740.4
16.91 50.01
1.397 ( 3.08) 3.453 < 7.61)
1.81 ( 2.43) 5.20 ( 6.97)
.14 ( .11) .09 ( .07)
.42 ( .31) .25 ( .18)
1058.40 ( 789.25) 912.05 ( 680.12)
9.33 ( 6.96) 9.62 ( 7.18)
.771 ( 1.268) .664 ( 1.092)
4
NYNF
297.9
33.70 ( 1190.1)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1 .92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
167.6 ( 5918.)
10.8/11/ 11.
14. 4/ I/ 14.
5.7/13/ 5.
.9/13/ 1.
25. 9/ 3/ .42
3.0/ 3/ .05
10.7/13/ 32.
.8/ 2/ 1.
31 .54
-3.
4.
.38
31 .4
-.30
.84
1162.5
10.07
.847 ( 1.87)
1 .20 ( 1.61)
-.25 ( -.19)
.70 ( .52)
968.30 ( 722.06)
8.39 ( 6.26)
.705 ( 1.160)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
.59
.06 ( .05)
.09 ( .04)
81 .1
-------
TABLE B-3 (Cont'd).
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 L(696. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 744.73 MM HGC29.32 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEC C(72.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
CO 2 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
ff> 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 (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 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)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
9.36 ( 12.55)
.05 (
.40 (
976. (
7.71 (
.711 ( 1.170)
TEST NO.T-16 RUN1
DATE 2/10/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ,
ABSOLUTS HUMIDITY
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
, ENGINE-54. PCT , CVS-18. PCT
9.2 GM/KG( 64.6 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
33.70 ( 1189.9)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
166.5 ( 5878.)
12.9/11/ 1
12. 9/ 1/ 1
6.8/13/
1.7/13/
29. I/ 3/ .
3.2/ 3/ .
3.
3.
6.
2.
48
05
28. 4/ 2/ 28.
.6/ 2/
27.83
1 .
5.
.43
27.8
.05
.89
1317.8
8.86
.960 ( 2
1.15 ( 1
.04 (
.77 (
1147.52 ( 855
7.71 ( 5
.836 ( 1.
1.
.12)
.54)
.03)
.58)
.70)
.75)
375)
2
LANF
299.9
33.71 ( 1190.3)
0.00 < 0.0)
.05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
168.8 ( 5959.)
14.8/11/
12. 8/ 1/
5.6/13/
1.3/13/
39. 2/ 3/
2.9/ 3/
43. 4/ 2/
.5/ 2/
20.15
3.
4.
.62
42.9
.26
.76
1917.9
13.85
1.397 (
1.81 (
.14 (
.42 (
15.
13.
5.
1 .
.66
.04
43.
1.
3.08)
2.43)
.11)
.31)
1058.40 ( 789.25)
7.65 (
.771 (
5.70)
1.268)
3
LAF
304.9
33.72 ( 1190.6)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
171.6 ( 6060.)
15.5/11/ 16.
12.3/ I/ 12.
8.2/13/ 7.
.9/13/ 1.
83.7/ 3/ 1.55
2.8/ 3/ .04
42.9/ 3/ 129.
.4/ 3/ 1.
8.65
5.
6.
1.51
127.6
.46
1.28
4740.4
41.89
3.453 (
5.20 (
.09 (
.25 (
7.61)
6.97)
.07)
.18)
912.05 ( 680.12)
8.06 (
.664 (
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
6.01)
1.092)
.04)
.30)
728.)
5.75) (Bag)
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.9
33.70 ( 1190.1 )
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
167.6 ( 5918.)
10.8/11/
14.4/ 1/
5.7/13/
.9/13/
25.9/ 3/
3.0/ 3/
24.4/ 2/
.8/ 2/
31 .54
-3.
4.
.38
23.6
-.30
.84
1162.5
7.57
.847 (
1 .20 (
-.25 (
.70 (
11.
14.
5.
1 .
.42
.05
24.
1.
1.87)
1.61)
-.19)
.52)
968.30 ( 722.06)
6.31 (
.705 (
4.70)
1.160)
.59
.06 ( .05)
.09 ( .04)
81.1
-------
TABLE B-4.
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81
ENGINE 11.4 L(696.
CVS NO. 11
M.A.N. 02566FMU
CID) L-6
BAROMETER 749.55 MM HG(29.51 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEG CC69.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
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
td
i
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 (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)
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)
9.43 ( 12.65)
.47 ( .35)
.80 ( .60)
1032. ( 770.)
8.08 ( 6.03)
TEST NO.T-17 RUN1
DATE 2/11/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RELATIVE
ABSOLUTE
1
NYNF
295.9
33.66 ( 1188.7)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1 .92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
166.3 ( 5872.)
11.9/13/ 47.
8.7/ 1/ 9.
30.6/13/ 28.
1.2/13/ 1.
34.1/ 3/ .57
3.4/ 3/ .05
9.1/13/ 27.
.9/ 2/ 1.
23.23
39.
27.
.52
26.4
3.76
5.14
1581.7
8.41
1.161 ( 2.56)
1.16 ( 1.56)
3.23 ( 2.41)
4.42 ( 3.30)
1359.63 (1013.88)
7.23 ( 5.39)
.998 ( 1.641)
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
HUMIDITY
HUMIDITY
, ENGINE-58. PCT , CVS-26.
8.9 GM/KG( 62.2 GRAINS/LB)
PCT
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
2
LANF
300.0
33.66 ( 1188.6)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
168.6 ( 5953.)
15.4/11/
11. 3/ 1/
6.5/13/
1.7/13/
43. 8/ 3/
3.4/ 3/
14. 5/1 3/
.9/ 2/
17.84
5.
4.
.70
42.8
.46
.84
2159.7
13.79
1.574 (
1.80 (
.25 (
.47 (
15.
11.
6.
2.
.75
.05
44.
1 .
3.47)
2.41 )
.19)
.35)
1201.75 ( 896.14)
7.68 (
.876 ( 1
5.72)
.440)
3
LAF
305.0
33.68 ( 1189.3)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
171.5 ( 6056.)
13.6/11/
11.1/ 1/
8/1 3/
3/1 3/
7/ 3/
O/ 3/
6
1
83
3
14.
11.
6.
1.
1 .55
.05
137.
45.6/13/
.6/ 2/
8.65
4.
5.
1.51
136.3
.37
.97
4728.4
44.70
3.444 ( 7.59)
5.26 ( 7.06)
.07 ( .05)
.18 ( .14)
898.15 ( 669.75)
8.49 ( 6.33)
.654 ( 1.075)
PARTI.CULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.9
33.66 ( 1188.5)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
167.4 ( 5910.)
10.3/11/
12. 1/ 1/
4.5/13/
1.1/13/
27. 7/ 3/
2.8/ 3/
10.1/13/
1 .O/ 2/
29.37
-1 .
3.
.41
29.2
10.
12.
4.
1 .
.45
.04
30.
1 .
-.13
.59
1267.3
9.35
.923 ( 2.04)
1.21 ( 1.62)
-.11 ( -.08)
.49 ( .37)
1049.04 ( 782.27)
7.74 ( 5.77)
.764 ( 1.256)
.62
.07 ( .05)
.09 ( .04)
80.9
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .753 ( 1.238)
-------
TABLE B-4 (Cont'd).
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 L(696. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 749.55 MM HG(29.51 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEG C(69.0 OEG F)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.T-17 RUN1
DATE 2/11/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
, ENGINE-58. PCT , CVS-26. PCT
8.9 GM/KG( 62.2 GRMNS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
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 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
1 C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
00 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 (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 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR) 9.43 (
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR) .47 (
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR) .80 (
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 1032. (
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR) 6.87 (
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .753 (
1
NYNF
295.9
33.66 ( 1188.7)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
166.3 ( 5872.)
11.9/13/ 47.
8.7/ 1/ 9.
30.6/13/ 28.
1.2/13/ 1.
34. 1/ 3/ .57
3.4/ 3/ .05
24. 8/ 2/ 25.
.9/ 2/ 1 .
23.23
39.
27.
.52
23.9
3.76
5.14
1581.7
7.61
1.161 ( 2.56)
1.16 ( 1.56)
3.23 ( 2.41)
4.42 ( 3.30)
1359.63 (1013.88)
6.54 ( 4.88)
.998 ( 1.641 )
2 3
LANF LAF
300.0 305.0
33.66 ( 1188.6) 33.68 ( 1189.3)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.92) .05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
168.6 ( 5953.) 171.5 ( 6056.)
15.4/11/ 15. 13.6/11/ 14.
11.3/ 1/ 11. 11.1/ 1/ 11.
6.5/13/ 6. 6.8/13/ 6.
1.7/13/ 2. 1.3/13/ 1.
43. 8/ 3/ .75 83. 7/ 3/ 1.55
3.4/ 3/ .05 3.0/ 3/ .05
37. 9/ 2/ 38. 37. 9/ 3/ 114.
.9/ 2/ 1. .6/2/1.
17.84 8.65
5. 4.
4. 5.
.70 1.51
37.1 113.2
.46 .37
.84 .97
2159.7 4728.4
11.95 37.12
1.574 ( 3.47) 3.444 ( 7.59)
1.80 ( 2.41) 5.26 ( 7.06)
.25 ( .19) .07 ( .05)
.47 ( .35) .18 ( .14)
1201.75 ( 896.14) 898.15 ( 669.75)
6.65 ( 4.96) 7.05 ( 5.26)
.876 ( 1.440) .654 ( 1.075)
4
NYNF
297.9
33.66 ( 1188.5)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.92)
0.00 ( 0.00)
167.4 ( 5910.)
10.3/11/ 10.
12. 1/ 1/ 12.
4.5/13/ 4.
1.1/13/ 1.
27. 7/ 3/ .45
2.8/ 3/ .04
26. 4/ 2/ 26.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
29.37
-1.
3.
.41
25.4
-.13
.59
1267.3
8.14
.923 ( 2.04)
1.21 ( 1.62)
-.11 ( -.08)
.49 ( .37)
1049.04 ( 782.27)
6.74 ( 5.03)
.764 ( 1.256)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
12.65) 90MM PARTICULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
.35)
.60)
770.)
5.12) (Bag)
1.238)
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
.62
.07 ( .05)
.09 ( .04)
80.9
-------
TABLE B-5.
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 L(696. C1D) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 749.05 MM HG<29.49 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG CC75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
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
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)
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)
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)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
9.68 ( 12.98)
-.03 ( -.02)
.33 ( .24)
944. ( 704.)
8.71 ( 6.50)
.688 ( 1.130)
TEST NO.T-18 RUN1
DATE 2/11/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
1
NYNF
295.9
34.03 ( 1201.7)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.06 < 1.95)
0.00 ( 0.00)
168.1 ( 5936.)
9.1/11/ 9.
11.0/ I/ 11.
4.8/13/ 4.
1.1/13/ 1.
27.8/ 3/ .46
2.7/ 3/ .04
10.3/13/ 31.
1.3/ 2/ 1 .
29.26
-1 .
3.
.42
29.5
-.14
.65
1282.8
9.50
.934 ( 2.06)
1.23 ( 1.65)
-.12 ( -.09)
.53 ( .39)
1042.55 ( 777.43)
7.72 ( 5.76)
.759 ( 1 .249)
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
, ENGINE-48. PCT , CVS-26. PCT
9.0 GM/KG( 63.2 GRA1NS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
2
LANF
300.0
34.02 ( 1201.2)
0.00 < 0.0)
.06 < 1.95)
0.00 ( 0.00)
170.4 ( 6016.)
10.9/11/
11. 5/ I/
5.5/13/
1.0/13/
39. 2/ 3/
2.7/ 3/
16.0/13/
1.0/ 2/
20.17
-0.
4.
.62
47.1
-.00
.79
1945.4
15.36
1 .417 (
1 .83 (
-.00 (
.43 (
11.
12.
5.
1 .
.66
.04
48.
1 .
3.12)
2.45)
-.00)
.32)
1064.81 ( 794.03)
8.41 (
.776 ( 1
6.27)
.275)
3
LAF
305.0
34.04 ( 1201.9)
0.00( 0.0)
.06 ( 1.95)
0.00 ( 0.00)
173.3 ( 6120.)
11.7/11/ 12.
11.0/ I/ 11.
7.0/13/ 6.
.9/13/ 1.
82.2/ 3/ 1 .52
2.8/ 3/ .04
50.8/13/ 152.
.4/ 3/ 1.
8.83
2.
5.
1 .48
151.2
.20
1 .08
4687.9
50.11
3.414 ( 7.53)
5.32 ( 7.14)
.04 ( .03)
.20 ( .15)
880.47 ( 656.57)
9.41 ( 7.02)
.641 ( 1.054)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.9
34.02 ( 1201.1)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.06 ( 1.95)
0.00 ( 0.00)
169.2 ( 5973.)
8.0/11/
11. 8/ 1/
4.7/13/
1.0/13/
26. 7/ 3/
2.9/ 3/
9.9/13/
.9/ 2/
30.56
-3.
3.
.39
28.9
8.
12.
4.
1 .
.44
.04
30.
1 .
-.33
.65
1221.5
9.34
.890 ( 1.96)
1 .30 ( 1.74)
-.25 ( -.19)
.50 ( .37)
941.38 ( 701.99)
7.19 ( 5.37)
.686 ( 1 .127)
.57
.06 ( .04)
.09 ( .04)
85.7
-------
TABLE B-5 (Cont'd). ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS -BAG NO
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 L(696. CIO) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 749.05 MM HGC29.49 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOf. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
C02
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
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
i DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
13 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 (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)
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)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
9.68 ( 12.98)
-.03 ( -.02)
.24)
704.)
.33 (
944. (
7.32 (
.688 ( 1.130)
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.T-18 RUN1
DATE 2/11/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ,
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
X
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
, ENGINE-48. PCT , CVS-26. PCT
9.0 GM/KG( 63.2 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
34.03 ( 1201.7)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.06 ( 1.95)
0.00 ( 0.00)
168.1 ( 5936.)
9.1/11/ 9.
11. O/ I/ 11.
4.8/13/ 4.
1.1/13/ 1.
27. 8/ 3/ .46
2.7/ 3/ .04
27. 6/ 2/ 28.
1.3/ 2/ 1.
29.26
-1.
3.
.42
26.3
-.14
.65
1282.8
8.47
.934 ( 2.06)
1.23 ( 1.65)
-.12 ( -.09)
.53 ( .39)
1042.55 ( 777.43)
6.88 ( 5.13)
.759 ( 1.249)
2
LANF
300.0
34.02 ( 1201.2)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.06 ( 1 .95)
0.00 ( 0.00)
170.4 ( 6016.)
10.9/11/ 11.
11. 5/ 1/ 12.
5.5/13/ 5.
1.0/13/ 1.
39. 2/ 3/ .66
2.7/ 3/ .04
43. 2/ 2/ 43.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
20.17
-0.
4.
.62
42.2
-.00
.79
1945.4
13.77
1.417 ( 3.12)
1.83 ( 2.45)
-.00 ( -.00)
.43 ( .32)
1064.81 ( 794.03)
7.53 ( 5.62)
.776 ( 1.275)
3
LAF
305.0
34.04 ( 1201.9)
0.00( 0.0)
.06 ( 1.95)
0.00 ( 0.00)
173.3 ( 6120.)
11.7/11/ 12.
11. O/ 1/ 11.
7.0/13/ 6.
.9/13/ 1.
82. 2/ 3/ 1 .52
2.8/ 3/ .04
41. 2/ 3/ 124.
.4/ 3/ 1.
8.83
2.
5.
1.48
122.5
.20
1.08
4687.9
40.61
3.414 ( 7.53)
5.32 ( 7.14)
.04 ( .03)
.20 ( .15)
880.47 ( 656.57)
7.63 ( 5.69)
.641 ( 1.054)
4
NYNF
297.9
34.02 ( 1201.1)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.06 ( 1 .95)
0.00 ( 0.00)
169.2 ( 5973.)
8.0/11/ 8.
11. 8/ I/ 12.
4.7/13/ 4.
1.0/13/ 1.
26. 7/ 3/ .44
2.9/ 3/ .04
25. 5/ 2/ 26.
.9/ 2/ 1.
30.56
-3.
3.
.39
24.6
-.33
.65
1221.5
7.97
.890 ( 1.96)
1.30 ( 1.74)
-.25 ( -.19)
.50 ( .37)
941.38 ( 701.99)
6.14 ( 4.58)
.686 ( 1 .127)
PARTtCULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
5.46) (Bag)
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
.57
.06 ( .04)
.09 ( .04)
85.7
-------
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 8)
ENGINE II.4 L(696.
CVS NO. 11
M.A.N. 02566FMU
CID) L-6
TABLE B-6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS
TEST NO.T-19 RUN1
DATE 2/17/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
BAROMETER 733.30 MM HG(28.87 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG CC77.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
SAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
ro
i
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
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
METtR/RANGE/PPM
DI_UTION 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 (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)
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)
9.12 ( 12.23)
.38 ( .28)
.74 ( .55)
1045. ( 780.)
8.01 ( 5.98)
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-55. PCT , CVS-26. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.3 GM/KG( 79.3 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
32.90 ( 1161.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
162.6 < 5740.)
9.8/13/ 39.
7.5/ I/ 8.
29.7/13/ 27.
.6/13/ 1.
33. 3/ 3/ .55
3.2/ 3/ .05
8.8/13/ 26.
.7/ 2/ 1 .
23.87
32.
26.
.51
25.6
3.01
4.97
1511.7
7.96
1.109 ( 2.45)
1 .12 ( 1 .50)
2.69 ( 2.01)
4.44 ( 3.31)
1351.44 (1007.77)
7.11 ( 5.31)
.992 ( 1.630)
2 3
LANF LAF
299.9 304.9
32.91 < 1162.0) 32.93 ( 1162.7)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.93) .05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
164.8 ( 5818.) 167.6 ( 5913.)
I2.6/11/ 13. 11.5/1)/ 12.
9.3/ I/ 9. 9.0/ 1/ 9.
4.0/13/ 4. 4.6/13/ 4.
.6/13/ 1. .9/13/ 1.
44. 7/ 3/ .77 83. 5/ 3/ 1 .54
3.2/ 3/ .05 3. I/ 3/ .05
14.3/13/ 43. 44.9/13/ 135.
.8/ 2/ 1. .4/3/1.
17.46 8.68
4. 4.
3. 3.
.72 1.50
42.2 133.5
.36 .34
.58 .64
2170.9 4604.0
13.29 42.80
1.581 ( 3.49) 3.353 ( 7.39)
1.75 ( 2.35) 5.12 ( 6.87)
.21 ( .15) .07 ( .05)
.33 ( .25) .12 ( .09)
1238.83 ( 923.80) 898.70 ( 670.16)
7.58 ( 5.65) 8.35 ( 6.23)
.902 ( 1.484) .654 ( 1.076)
4
NYNF
297.8
32.90 ( 1161.8)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
163.6 ( 5776.)
6.9/11/ 7.
10. 4/ 1/ 10.
3.7/13/ 3.
.6/13/ 1.
27. 7/ 3/ .45
2.6/ 3/ .04
9.8/13/ 29.
.6/ 2/ 1 .
29.39
-3.
3.
.42
28.9
-.30
.53
1247.4
9.03
.908 ( 2.00)
1.13 ( 1.51)
-.26 ( -.20)
.47 ( .35)
1107.81 ( 826.09)
8.02 ( 5.98)
.807 ( 1.326)
PARTI CULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTI CULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
.50
.05 ( .04)
.07 ( .03)
81 .3
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR) .762 ( 1.253)
-------
TABLE B-6 (Cont'd). ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS
- BAG NO
x
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 L(696. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 733.30 MM HGC28.87 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG CC77.0 DEG F)
3AG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
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
ro
i
DILUTION FACTOR
J 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 (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
3SFC 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)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
.38 (
.74 (
1045. (
7.20 (
.762 ( 1.253)
TEST NO.T-19
DATE 2/17/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
RUN1
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-55. PCT , CVS-26. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.3 GM/KG( 79.3 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
32.90 ( 1161 .5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
162.6 ( 5740.)
9.8/13/ 39.
7.5/ I/ 8.
29.7/13/ 27.
.6/13/ 1.
33. 3/ 3/ .55
3.2/ 3/ .05
26. 5/ 2/ 27.
.7/ 2/ 1.
23.87
32.
26.
.51
25.8
3.01
4.97
1511 .7
8.03
1.109 ( 2.45)
1 .12 ( 1.50)
2.69 ( 2.01)
4.44 ( 3.31)
1351.44 (1007.77)
7.18 ( 5.35)
.992 ( 1.630)
2
LANF
299.9
32.91 ( 1162.0)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
164.8 ( 5818.)
12.6/11/ 13.
9.3/ I/ 9.
4.0/13/ 4.
.6/13/ 1.
44. 7/ 3/ .77
3.2/ 3/ .05
40. 2/ 2/ 40.
.8/ 2/ 1 .
17.46
4.
3.
.72
39.4
.36
.58
2170.9
12.43
1.581 ( 3.49)
1.75 ( 2.35)
.21 ( .15)
.33 ( .25)
1238.83 ( 923.80)
7.09 ( 5.29)
.902 ( 1.484)
PARTI CULATE RESULTS, TOTAL
2.23)
.28)
.55)
780.)
5.37)
90MM PARTI
3
LAF
304.9
32.93 ( 1162.7)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
167.6 ( 5918.)
11.5/11/ 12.
9.0/ I/ 9.
4.6/13/ 4.
.9/13/ 1.
83. 5/ 3/ 1.54
3.1/ 3/ .05
38. If 3/ 116.
.4/ 3/ 1.
8.68
4.
3.
1 .50
115.0
.34
.64
4604.0
36.87
3.353 ( 7.39)
5.12 ( 6.87)
.07 ( .05)
.12 ( .09)
898.70 ( 670.16)
7.20 ( 5.37)
.654 ( 1.076)
FOR 4 BAGS
CULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
(Bag)
Fl
LTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.8
32.90 ( 1161.8)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.93)
0.00 ( 0.00)
163.6 ( 5776.)
6. 9/1 I/ 7.
10. 4/ I/ 10.
3.7/13/ 3.
.6/13/ 1.
27. 7/ 3/ .45
2.6/ 3/ .04
27. 1/ 2/ 27.
.6/ 2/ 1 .
29.39
-3.
3.
.42
26.5
-.30
.53
1247.4
8.30
.908 ( 2.00)
1.13 ( 1.51)
-.26 ( -.20)
.47 ( .35)
1 107.81 ( 826.09)
7.37 ( 5.49)
.807 ( 1.326)
.50
.05 ( .04)
.07 ( .03)
81 .3
-------
TABLE B-7,
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 L(696. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 733.04 MM HG(28.86 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG C(77.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
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 (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
3SNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
3SFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
ro
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
DILUTION F
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
3SCO 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)
9.21 ( 12.35)
-.02 ( -.02)
.31 ( .23)
935. ( 697.)
8.55 ( 6.38)
.681 ( 1.120)
TEST NO.T-20 RUN1
DATE 2/17/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-55. PCT , CVS-26. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.3 GM/KG( 79.3 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
32.90 ( 1161.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.85)
0.00 ( 0.00)
162.5 ( 5737.)
8.0/11/ 8.
10. O/ I/ 10.
4.2/13/ 4.
.4/13/ 0.
27. 7/ 3/ .45
2.7/ 3/ .04
9.7/13/ 29.
1 .4/ 2/ 1 .
29.38
-2.
3.
.42
27.8
-.16
.64
1234.6
8.65
.899 ( 1.98)
1.14 ( 1 .53)
-.14 ( -.10)
.56 ( .42)
1082.13 ( 806.94)
7.58 ( 5.66)
.788 ( 1.296)
2 3
LANF LAF
300.0 305.0
32.88 ( 1 161 .1 ) 32.90 ( 1 161 .8)
0.00 ( 0.0) 0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.85) .05 ( 1.85)
0.00 ( 0.00) 0.00 ( 0.00)
164.7 ( 5815.) 167.5 ( 5915.)
9.9/11/ 10. 11.9/11/ 12.
1 1 .O/ 1/ 11. 10. 3/ I/ 10.
4.4/13/ 4. 5.9/13/ 5.
.2/13/ 0. .1/13/ 0.
37. 8/ 3/ .64 79. 4/ 3/ 1 .46
2.3/ 3/ .04 2.7/ 3/ .04
15.9/13/ 48. 48.5/13/ 146.
1 .3/ 2/ 1 . .6/ 3/ 2.
20.99 9.13
-1 . 3.
4. 5.
.60 1.42
46.4 144.0
-.05 .26
.71 .98
1819.8 4356.7
14.62 46.13
1.326 ( 2.92) 3.173 ( 7.00)
1.78 ( 2.39) 5.16 ( 6.92)
-.03 ( -.02) .05 ( .04)
.40 ( .30) .19 ( .14)
1021.08 ( 761.42) 844.28 ( 629.58)
8.20 ( 6.12) 8.94 ( 6.67)
.744 ( 1 .223) .615 ( 1 .011 )
4
NYNF
297.9
32.90 ( 1161.7)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.85)
0.00 ( 0.00)
163.6 ( 5777.)
7.4/11/ 7.
10. 7/ I/ 11.
3.9/13/ 4.
.6/13/ 1.
27. 5/ 3/ .45
3.4/ 3/ .05
10.4/13/ 31.
1 .3/ 2/ 1 .
29.62
-3.
3.
.40
29.9
-.28
.56
1201 .3
9.36
.875 ( 1.93)
1 .13 ( 1 .51 )
-.25 ( -.18)
.50 ( .37)
1066.86 ( 795.56)
8.31 ( 6.20)
.777 ( 1.277)
PARTI CULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTI CULATE RATES GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
.41
.04 ( .03)
.07 ( .03)
81 .6
-------
TABLE B-7 (Cont'd).
ENGINE NO.D-3
ENGINE MODEL 81 M.A.N. D2566FMU
ENGINE 11.4 L(696. CID) L-6
CVS NO. 11
BAROMETER 733.04 MM HG(28.86 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG CC77.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
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
METER/RANGE/PPM
Cd
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 (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)
TOTAL TEST RES-ULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
3SC02 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS - BAG NOX
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.T-20 RUN1
DATE 2/17/82
TIME
DYNO NO. 4
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-002
DIESEL EM-490-F
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-55. PCT , CVS-26. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.3 GM/KG( 79.3 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
295.9
32.90 ( 1161.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.85)
0.00 ( 0.00)
162.5 ( 5737.)
8. 0/1 I/ 8.
10. O/ I/ 10.
4.2/13/ 4.
.4/13/ 0.
27. 7/ 3/ .45
2.7/ 3/ .04
27. 8/ 2/ 28.
1.4/ 2/ 1 .
29.38
-2.
3.
.42
26.4
-.16
.64
1234.6
8.22
.899 ( 1.98)
1 .14 ( 1 .53)
-.14 ( -.10)
.56 ( .42)
1082.13 ( 306.94)
7.20 ( 5.37)
.788 ( 1.296)
2
LANF
300.0
32.88 ( 1161.1 )
0.00 ( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.85)
0.00 ( 0.00)
164.7 ( 5815.)
9.9/11/ 10.
11. O/ I/ 11.
4.4/13/ 4.
.2/13/ 0.
37. 8/ 3/ .64
2.3/ 3/ .04
42. O/ 2/ 42.
1.3/ 2/ 1.
20.99
-1.
4.
.60
40.8
-.05
.71
1819.8
12.84
1.326 ( 2.92)
1.78 ( 2.39)
-.03 ( -.02)
.40 ( .30)
1021.08 ( 761.42)
7.20 ( 5.37)
.744 ( 1.223)
3
LAF
305.0
32.90 ( 1161.8)
0.00( 0.0)
.05 ( 1.85)
0.00 ( 0.00)
167.5 ( 5915.)
11.9/11/ 12.
10.3/ I/ 10.
5.9/13/ 5.
.1/13/ 0.
79.4/ 3/ 1.46
2.7/ 3/ .04
41.O/ 3/ 123.
.6/ 3/ 2.
9.18
3.
5.
1.42
121 .4
.26
.98
4356.7
38.89
3.173 ( 7.00)
5.16 ( 6.92)
.05 ( .04)
.19 ( .14)
844.28 ( 629.58)
7.54 ( 5.62)
.615 ( 1.011)
9.21 < 12.35)
-.02 ( -.02)
.31 ( .23)
935. ( 697.)
7.42 ( 5.53) (Bag)
.681 ( 1.120)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
NYNF
297.9
32.90 ( 1161.7)
0.00 ( 0.00)
.05 ( 1.85)
0.00 ( 0.00)
163.6 ( 5777.)
7.4/11/
10. 7/ I/
3.9/13/
.6/13/
27. 5/ 3/
3.4/ 3/
28. O/ 2/
1.3/ 2/
29.62
-3.
3.
.40
26.7
7.
11.
4.
1 .
.45
.05
28.
1 .
-.28
.56
1201.3
8.37
.875 ( 1.93)
1.13 ( 1.51 )
-.25 ( -.18)
.50 ( .37)
1066.86 ( 795.56)
7.43 ( 5.54)
.777 ( 1.277)
.41
.04 ( .03)
.07 ( .03)
81 .6
-------
TABLE B-8. TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS AND MODAL
EMISSION RATE SUMMARY
TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS
Cold Cycle
TEST T-15 & T-16
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
TEST T-17 & T-18
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
TEST T-19 & T-20
Standard Error
Slope
Corr. Coef.
Intercept
Points Used
Speed
41.
1.009
0.997
2.0
1179
12.25
41.
1.009
0.997
1.6
1179
12.25
36.
1.006
0.997
0.8
1179
Torque
8.7
0.9394
0.891
-2.1
980
hp-hr (-0.
8.7
0.9280
0.897
4.6
980
hp-hr (-3.
8.2
0.9250
0.908
-2.6
993
Power
5.2
1.004
0.968
-.3
980
7%)
5.2
1.019
0.971
0.3
980
3%)
5.1
0.9969
0.973
-0.3
993
Speed
36.
1.008
0.997
5.0
1179
12.
46.
1.013
0.996
-5.9
1179
12.
35.
1.006
0.997
3.0
1179
Hot Cycle
Torque
8.6
0.9225
0.909
7.1
996
25 hp-hr
8.6
0.8925
0.895
20.7
999
25 hp-hr
8.3
0.9149
0.907
5.0
999
Power
5.3
1.007
0.970
0.5
996
(-2.5%)
5.3
1.016
0.972
1.7
999
(-5.9%)
5.3
0.998
0.971
0.2
999
Ref. Work (Dev. %)
12.25 hp-hr (0.17%)
12.25 hp-hr (-0.8%)
B-15
-------
APPENDIX C
LETTERS FROM M.A.N. TO EPA
-------
MAN. MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG AKTIENGESELLSCHAfT
GESAMTBEREICH
MOTORENFORSCHUNG
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Attn. Mr. Thomas M. Baines
Ann Arbor
Michigan 48105
Ihra Zeichen/
Nachncht vom:
Unaere Zeichen/
Nachncht vom:
Durchwahl 1
Tag.
2221 Chmela
14th June 1982
M.A.N. Spark-Ignited Heavy-Duty Methanol Engine D 2566 FMUH
Dear Mr. Baines,
Thank you very much for the draft of your report on the tests
on our methanol engine. We are very happy about the reasonable
and altogether good results for us. In our development work of
the engine we had so far concentrated on the fuel consumption.
There now appear to be good hopes for further improvements on
the exhaust side, especially in respect of NO .
X
We are surprised about the many failures of the ignition system
of which the majority of cases have only just come to our at-
tention. The fact that a defective ignition coil is involved
points to the likelihood of elevated ambient temperatures and/or
poor heat dissipation from the control unit, resistor and ignition
coil. The heat loss is twice to three times as high as in
normal car ignition equipment. For this reason the ignition
equipment of our test benches is mounted on a metal plate with
good heat conducting properties whereas in our buses it
is arranged in the air intake. Obviously, in view of these
precautionary measures,no problems have as yet been encountered
with the ignition equipment of our test benches, nor in our
buses in Berlin and Auckland.
It would indeed be regretted if, as we feel, the failures which
are not inherent in the system might have reduced the overall
impression.
C-2
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrales: Manfred Lenmngs, Vorstand: Otto Voisard, Vorsitzender: Gerd Wollburg, stellv. Vorsitzender: Fnednch Lau8armair, Wilfned Lochte, Hans Dieter Meissner.
Wolfgang Muller, Gerhard Neipp. Adolf Schilf. Wolfram Thiele: Herbert Redlich. stellv
Sitz der Gesellschaft ist Augsburg. Handels-Reg. Augsburg B 7591.
Telex Tetefon Anschrift Versandanschrift
0622291 (0911)18-1 MAN. Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Niirnberg Wagenladungen: Nbg.-Rbf
bei Durchwahl Aktiengesellschaft StiJckgut Nbg.-Sud1317
Tetegramm 18-Hausruf Post(ach440100.8500 Numbefg 44 Expre&ut Nbg.-Hbf
Ktenwerk Telefax Gr. 2/a Verviattung LKW&ndungen: Nbg.,Katzv
Niirnhnrn (0911)446522 Katzwanaar Str. 101. Nurnbero Gemeindelarifbereich: Nba.-Siid Ti
Str. 100
r. 62 202
Konten
LZB Bayern
Nilrnberg Konto 76 008 200
Postscheckkonto
Nurnberq 39 00-851
-------
MAN. MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
i /
S A ,vi • E E R £ I C H
- R E M F O R S C H U N
EPA, Ann Arbor
- 2 -
Thank you also for the "Procedures Book for Analysis" which will
be valuable for our chemical department in setting up new
measuring procedures.
lhre Zeichen/
Nachncht vom
Unaere Zeichen/
Tag.
Yours faithfully,
M.A.N. MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NORNBERG
Aktiengesellschaft
i.V-
C-3
Vorsitzendet des Aulsichlsrales- Mantted Lennings. Uorsland' Olto Voisard. Voreilzendef: Gerd Wollburg. slellu Vorsiliender. Fnednch LauSermair. Wiltnsd Lochte. Hans Dieter Meissner.
Wolfgang Muller. Gerhard Neipp. Adolf Schiff. Wolfram Thiele. Herbert Redlich slellv.
Sitz der Gesellschaft ist Augsburg Handels-Reg Augsburg B 7591
Telex
0622291
Telegramm
Manwerk
Nurnberq
Telefon Anschrift
(0911)18-1 ^flAN MaschinenfabnkAugsburg-Nurnberg
bei Durchwahl Aktiengesellschaft
18-Hausruf Postfach 44 01 00.8500 Niirnberg 44
Telefax Gr. 2/a Verwaltung
(0911)446522 Katzwanger Str. 101,Numberg
Versandanschrift
Wagenladungen: Nbg.-Rbf.
Stuckgut Nbg.-Sud 1317
Expreflgut: Nbg.-Hbf.
LKW Sendungen; Nbq., Katzwanger Str. 100
GemeinctetanSiereich: Nbg.-Siid. Tarripunkt-Nr. 62 202
Konten
LZB Bayern
Niirnberg Konto 76 008 200
Postscheckkonto
Niirnberg 39 00-851
-------
MAN. MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Attn. Mr. Charles L. Gray,
Director Emission Control .., = n
Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
U.S.A.
ihie Zeichen*
Nachnr.ht vom- .
unser,ze:c-,.",- GFN, chm-ri-su - Chmela
^dtiPnthl V..T. - « .- 1
A ' 'J i Ita 0 ^ ^ ^ |
a,ni:rwa.-. • -j
- 21th July 1982
Your letter to M.A.N. Truck and Bus Corp. dated May 28th, 1982
Dear Mr. Gray,
Thank you very much for the additional copy of the report
on the tests made on our D 2566 FMUH methanol engine. We
are very pleased with the results. As regards the NO -values
we are sure that they can be lowered in the course or further
optimization.
In our letter dtd. June 14th,1982 to Mr. Thomas M. Baines,
we suspected that the failure of the ignition system compo-
nents was due to faulty heat dissipation. In rechecking the
parts returned from SWRI it became clear to us that the control
unit had been screwed onto the engine block together with the
ignition coil, as can be derived from the matching screw
hole pattern on a mount at the fan-belt end of the engine and
the fastening angle made by SWRI. Mounting the control unit,
ignition coil and series resistor on the engine block in this
manner is not allowed in view of the high temperatures and
vibration acceleration existing there. Such an arrangement is
not found in the ignition systems of automotive engines either.
It is surprising that normal engine operation was at all possible
over lengthy periods of time.
C-4
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Manfred Lennmgs. Vorstand: Otto Voisard. Vorsitzender Gerd Wollburg, steltv, Vorsitzender; Fneonch Lauftermair Wilfned Lochte. Hans-Oieier Moissne'
Wolfgang Muller. Gerhard Neipp. Wolfram Thiele; Herbert Redlich. ste!!v.
Silz der Gesellschatl ist Augsburg. Handels-Reg. Augsburg B 7591,
Telex Telefon Anschrift Versandanschrift Konten
5 22 291 (0911)18-0 M.A.N Maschmenfabnk Augspurg-Numoerg Wagenladungen: Nbg.-Rbf Ldnneszentrd.banx -n Bdvern
T>an d bet Durcnwah! Aktienoeseilschait Stuckgut: Nbg -Slid 1317 "Jurnberg i3LZ 760 000 00) 760 C82 00
Tdegramm 18-Hausruf Pcsitacn 44 01 00. 8500 Numoerg 44 Exprebgut: Nbg.-Hbf.
Manwerk Telefax Gr. 2/a Verwaltung Lkw-Sendunaen: Nbg.. Frankenstr. 140 - Postscher*
Nurnberg (0911) 446522 Ka:.r,var.qer S1^ 101 Nurnberg Gememdetambereich- Nbg. Sud. TanfpunKt-Nr. 62 202 JMurnoera ;BLZ 760 iQO 85) 3900 851
-------
IhreZeicnery
Nachncnt vom
nsure Zecne".-
"^ 1 -> -\
MAN. MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT .J ' . J .._i:;. \ r ,J
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor - 2 -
We regret to inform you that the results from the transient
test with the 200 HP Diesel version of this engine are not
available yet.
We are also of the opinion that the comparatively higher con-
sumption values in the transient test are attributable to the
maximum torque curve established by SWRI.
The engine envisaged to run with an automatic transmission is
subjected to load in the vehicle only from approx 800 rpm
upwards. Between 800 and 400 rpm the delivery rate approaches
the excess rate needed for starting, which is approximately
30 % above the full-load delivery rate required at 800 rpm.
With the maximum delivery rate available from the injection
pump the specific fuel consumption in this speed range is
excessively high and surely contributes to an exaggerated
test and consumption figure.
We would appreciate it if your report would take our above
comments into account.
Very truly yours,
M.A.N. MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG
Aktiengesellschaft
•V
C-5
Vorsitzender uos Aufsichtsrates Manfred Lennings. Vorstand Otto Voisara. Vorsilzender: Gerd Wollburg, stellv Vorsitzender Fnednch Lau6ermair, Wilfred Locnte. Hans-Dieter Metsaner.
Wolfgang Mullen Gerhard Neipp, Wolfram Thiele. Herbert Redlich. stellv.
Sitz der Gesellschaft ist Augsburg. Handels-Reg. Augsburg B 7591.
Telex 'Lelef0!' .„ Anschnft Versandanschrift Konten
622291 I09!1 1B"°U, "•'A N Mascn.nemabriK Auqsourq-Nurnberq Waqenladungen- Nbg.-Rbf. LanoeszentralbanK in Bavern.
,-nand beiDurchwahl Aktiengeseilscnaft si a StucVqut- Nbg-Sud1317 Niirnoerg (BLZ 760 000 DO) 760 092 CO
Telegramm 13-Haus™f Postfacn 44 01 00. 8500 Numberg 44 E»preSgut: Nbg-Hbf
Manwerk Teletax Ur.^» a Verwaltjng LkwSendungen- Nbq, Frankenstr. 140 Postscbeck
Nurnberg ,0911) 4465 2^ ^a:z.-,anger Sf 131 Nurnberg Gemeindetanfbereich Nbg-Sud. Tar fpunkt-Nr 62 202 Nurnbera ,BLZ 760 100851 3900-351
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 460/3-82-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EMISSION CHARACTERIZATION OF A SPARK-IGNITED
HEAVY-DUTY DIRECT-INJECTED METHANOL ENGINE
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Terry L. Oilman
Charles T. Hare
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORG "VNIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-3073
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report (12/81-5/82)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Maschninenfabrik Augsburg-Nuernberg (M.A.N.) of Germany has modified a truck-size
diesel engine to consume only neat methanol by the addition of a transistorized
spark ignition system. Regulated and unregulated exhaust emissions from this
methanol engine with oxidation catalyst were characterized over the 1979 13-mode
Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or shorter versions of this modal test, and over the
1984 Transient Heavy-Duty FTP. Emissions characterization included regulated
emissions (HC, CO, and NOX), along with unburned alcohols, aldehydes, other gaseous
organics, total particulate, sulfate, soluble organic in particulate, BaP, and
Ames bioactivity. Emissions from this spark-ignited methanol-and-catalyst engine
were compared to emissions from a pilot-injected methanol engine (dual-fueled) and
a comparable diesel engine.
Very low levels of HC, aldehydes, other hydrocarbon-like species, and total parti-
culate were observed for the spark-ignited catalyst engine. No carbon soot or
smoke opacity was noted for this neat methanol fueled engine and both BaP content
and Ames response of the soluble organic fraction (SOF) was very low. SOF for this
spark-ignited engine appears to have originated from the engine oil, on the basis
of boiling point distribution»
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Alcohol-Diesel Exhaust Emissions
Methanol
Oxidation Catalyst
Heavy-Duty Exhaust Emissions
Particulate
Transient Test
Federal Test Procedure
Spark-Ignited Methanol
"Diesel" Engine
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
128
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |