EPA-460/3-77-001
January 1977
HEAVY-DUTY FUEL
ECONOMY PROGRAM -
PHASE I,
SPECIFIC ANALYSIS
OF CERTAIN
EXISTING DATA
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-77-001
HEAVY-DUTY FUEL
ECONOMY PROGRAM -
PHASE I,
SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN
EXISTING DATA
Melvin N. Ingalls and Robert I,. Mason, PhD.
Southwest Research Institute
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68-03-2220
EPA Project Officer: Andrew W. Kauperl
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
January 1977
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the
Library Services Office (MD-35) . Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Southwest Research Institute, 8500 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas
78284, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2220. The contents of this
report are reproduced herein as received from Southwest Research
Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those
of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-77-001
n
-------
FOREWORD
This project was conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the Department of Emissions Research of Southwest Research Ins-
titute. This phase of the project began in August 1975 and was completed
in November 1976. The project was conducted under EPA Contract No. 68-03-
2220 and was identified within Southwest Research Institute as Project
11-4311.
The EPA Project Officer for this project was Mr. Andrew Kaupert of
the Emissions Control Technology Division, Office of Mobile Source Pollu-
tion Control, Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mr.
Karl J. Springer, Director of Department of Emissions Research at South-
west Research Institute, served as Project Manager. This phase of the pro-
ject was under the supervision of Mr. Melvin N. Ingalls, Senior Research
Engineer, as Project Leader. Dr. Robert L. Mason, Senior Research Statis-
tician, performed most of the statistical analysis.
Project review meetings involving EPA and SwRI personnel, either
at SwRI or the EPA facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan were held on July 15,
1975; August 4 and 5, 1975; October 15, 1975; January 6, 1976; April 13
and 14, 1976; May 25, 1976; and July 29, 1976.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of several specific items of
analysis conducted on heavy-duty vehicle data generated from two EPA
projects. The purpose of the analysis was to provide information on
the relationship between engine dynamometer fuel consumption and emis-
sions,and fuel consumption and emissions of trucks in actual use. Two
separate tasks are covered. In the first task, ten specific items of
analysis were performed on the gasoline-powered and diesel-powered
truck fuel consumption and emissions data generated under EPA Contract
68-03-2147, "Study of Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles." In the
second task, the data from CRC Project CAPE-21-71, "Truck Driving Pat-
tern and Use Survey," were utilized in an attempt to develop modal co-
efficients for both the 9-mode heavy-duty gasoline and 13-mode heavy-duty
diesel emissions tests that would allow the 9 and 13-mode BSFC values to
reliably predict fuel economy of trucks in actual use. This latter
attempt was largely unsuccessful.
IV
-------
SUMMARY
This study was undertaken to assist EPA in addressing two basic
issues. The first issue was whether a steady-state, heavy-duty emission
test would reflect truck emission levels obtained during transient driving
cycles. This would indicate that a steady-state certification test could
be capable of predicting driving cycle emissions. If a steady-state test
could predict driving cycle emissions, it is desirable to know if changes
in heavy-duty emission control systems will alter or invalidate the rela-
tionship between the steady-state emissions and the driving cycle emissions.
The second item addressed was whether the brake specific fuel con-
sumption (BSFC) obtained from the heavy-duty certification tests (gasoline
and diesel) could be used to predict truck fuel economy in actual use. In
addressing these two issues, two different sets of existing heavy-duty data
were used. The findings are summarized separately in the following para-
graphs .
1. Gasoline Truck Cycle Analysis
To investigate the relationship between steady-state emissions and
transient driving cycle emissions, data from the 18 gasoline-powered trucks
tested under EPA Contract 68-03-2147 were analyzed to answer 10 specific
questions asked by EPA. In that project, fuel consumption and exhaust
emissions data were obtained on heavy-duty trucks ranging from 7700 kg
(17,000 Ibs) to 18,370 (40,500 Ibs) GVW on chassis dynamometers. A chassis
version of the 9-mode FTP was conducted on all trucks. Eight different
constant speed tests, three different sinusoidal cycles, and four different
average speed transient driving cycles were run on each truck at three dif-
ferent inertia settings. The data used in this analysis were fuel rate,
HC, CO, and NOX emissions in grams/min. The results of the analysis are
summarized below on an item-by-item basis.
Item 1 - How well does test-to-test variability of a cycle com-
pare with cycle-to-cycle variability for cycles of the same average speed?
For all cycles?
It was determined that test-to-test variability of the emission
levels was significantly smaller than the cycle-to-cycle variability for
different type chassis dynamometer cycles at the same average speed. Thus,
emission and fuel rate differences between steady-state, sinusoidal and
fully transient driving cycles could be evaluated.
Item 2 - How well can fuel consumption and emissions measured
by the present 9-mode FTP predict the fuel consumption and emissions over
other cycles?
For all three load levels both mode 1 (idle) and the composite
9-mode FTP are highly correlated with other operating conditions (steady
state, sinusoidal and transient) in the production of HC. Also, for all
load levels, modes 2, 4, 6, 8 (16" of mercury manifold vacuum) are highly
correlated with other operating conditions in the production of CO and the
use of fuel. However, in no case does an individual mode or the composite
9-mode value highly correlate with any other operating condition for all
v
-------
loads and all emissions. Using a technique known as quadratic programming,
new weights for the composite 9-mode FTP were developed. Like the original
9-mode FTP, the weights for the new FTP are restricted to being positive
and summing to one. However, some modes were assigned zero as a weighting
factor. The effect of reweighting is to increase the correlations between
the predicted and actual emissions for the sample of vehicles in the study.
Looking at only the 32 t 8 and 48 ± 8 sinusoidal and the 16,
24, and 32 average kilometers per hour transient cycles, HC emissions
predicted from the reweighted composite 9-mode FTP are highly correlated
with actual HC emissions for each cycle-load combination. Predicted and
actual NOX emissions are highly correlated for each cycle-full load com-
bination. NOX emissions for other cycle-load combinations, and CO emis-
sions and fuel consumption for all cycle-load combinations are less re-
liably predicted.
The weighting factors developed as part of the quadratic program-
ming solution result in the highest correlation between predicted and actual
emissions possible under the restrictions that a) each of the weighting
factors is positive and b) they sum to one. By completely relaxing these
restrictions and allowing the weighting factors to take on any value, the
correlation between predicted and actual emissions can be increased. Or-
dinary least squares (OLS) is a technique which can be used to develop these
unrestricted weights. A modification of the ordinary least squares technique
known as stepwise OLS was used to determine the most important modes since
the number of vehicles is only marginally greater than the number of modes
and emissions from one mode are highly correlated with emissions from other
modes. The stepwise OLS technique selects and weights those of the modes
which best predict emissions. Not all modes are selected. It should be
pointed out that for engineering reasons it is more desirable to have all
modes included, because the fewer the modes, the easier it is to control
emissions of those modes only, leaving the majority of the engine operation
untouched. However, this method will identify those modes which best pre-
dict the emissions and fuel rate.
For all load levels, mode 1 (idle) and mode 9 (closed throttle)
best predict HC emissions from the 32 +_ 8 and 48+8 sinusoidal and 8, 16,
24, and 32 average kilometer per hour transient driving cycles. Over the
same cycles, mode 7 (3" mercury manifold vacuum) best predicts CO emissions
under a full load condition. NOX emissions are best predicted using modes
3 (10" mercury manifold vacuum) and 7 for all driving-load combinations.
Finally, fuel consumption is best predicted using mode 5 (19" mercury mani-
fold vacuum) for all driving-load combinations.
It is not recommended that the weighting factors produced here
be considered for use as weighting factors for a certification test. One
of the reasons for this recommendation is that a different set of weighting
factors was produced for each emission, cycle type and vehicle load combi-
nation, giving 60 different sets of weighting factors. In alsmost every
sot, there was at least one mode where the weighting factor equalled zero.
A second reason is that the relationships between the 9-mode emissions and
driving cycle emissions are highly dependent on certain vehicle controlled
parameters. When the physical reasons behind the correlations were examined
-------
it was found that with the possible exception of HC, emissions and fuel
rate from the transient driving cycles were strongly influenced by vehicle
weight/engine power ratio. This parameter was not taken into account in
the analysis of this question. Thus a different set of trucks would pro-
bably give a different set of weighting factors. Some of the correlations
obtained may be useful in impact analysis, if the truck groups are similar
to those tested here.
Item 3 - Will substituting a WOT mode for the 3" vacuum mode of
the 9-mode cycle improve the correlation between the 9-mode cycle and
other cycles?
It was determined that substituting a WOT mode for 3" vacuum
mode of the 9-mode FTP would not improve the correlation between 9-mode
emissions or fuel rate and other cycle emissions or fuel rate. Nor does
substituting the WOT mode alleviate any of the other problems associated
with correlating the 9-mode and driving cycle emissions listed under Item
2. This finding should not be taken to indicate that a WOT mode should
not be part of any future heavy-duty gasoline certification test. From an
engineering viewpoint, a WOT mode may be necessary to ascertain emissions
levels with carburetor enrichment in operation.
Item 4 - How does the percent change in fuel rate and emissions
for various levels of control measured over the 9-mode cycle compare with
the change in fuel rate and emissions over other cycles?
Changes in 9-mode FTP fuel rate and emissions from precontrolled
to 1970 and 1974 levels of control were found not to correlate with changes
in dynamometer driving cycle fuel rate and emissions from precontrolled
to 1970 and 1974 levels of control. This lack of ability to predict changes
in chassis dynamometer transient driving cycle emissions from changes in
9-mode emissions reveals a second area of possible concern in the develop-
ment of future steady-state engine dynamometer cycles.
Item 5 - How different are the rpm-time profiles and manifold
vacuum-time profiles for a given transient cycle and load for different
trucks?
The majority of the 18 gasoline-powered trucks tested did not
have similar patterns of engine operation (rpm and manifold vacuum) for
the same driving cycle. This finding also impacts on cycle development
studies, since it indicates that one engine cycle (in terms of rpm and
power) will not be equivalent to the same driving cycle for all trucks.
Item 6 - For an average speed of 32 kph, how well do sinusoidal
fuel consumption and emissions approximate a fully-transient cycle fuel
consumption and emissions? Above 32 kph, how well does a steady-state
approximate a sinusoidal cycle ?
The relationships between steady-state test cycle and sinu-
soidal test cycle emissions and fuel rate and between sinusoidal cycle
and completely transient test cycle emissions and fuel rate were determined.
As would be expected, there is a decreasing correlation for all variables
VI1
-------
of any two cycles as the cycles become less alike. This implies that steady-
state and sinusoidal test cycles should not be used to determine emissions
from transient driving cycles.
Item 7 - Does load setting have the same effect on fuel rate and
emissions for each average speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with
average speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with different cycles at
the same average speed?
In general, it was found that changes in vehicle load alone
cannot account for changes in emissions or fuel rate for various test cycles
at a constant speed and that speed does alter the effect of load on emis-
sions and fuel rate. In general, at one load setting emissions and fuel
rate do vary with speed. Speed seems to affect NO and fuel rate more
than HC and CO. On a fleet average basis, except for NOX at 8 kph and all
emissions and fuel rate at 64 kph steady state and 64 kph ± 3 kph sinusoidal
cycle emissions and fuel rate varied with different cycles at the same
average speed. These results indicate that speed, load and cycle type must
be considered together in any comparison of engine modal emissions with
vehicle test cycle emissions.
Item 8 - How does the SARR data compare with other 32 kph tran-
sient driving cycles?
The average cumulative frequencies of vehicle speed and engine
rpm from the 32 km/hr cycles were compared with the averages from the San
Antonio Road Route studies. The cumulative frequencies of vehicle speed
and engine rpm from the two projects were different. It is not known if
these differences are due to differences in truck fleet composition or to
actual differences in cycles. However, this analysis may indicate that
average speed alone is not sufficient to describe a transient driving cycle.
Both vehicle speed and engine rpm cumulative frequencies must also be defined.
Item 9 - Can fuel rate and emissions be highly correlated with
percent time at idle?
The relationship between test cycle emissions (or fuel rate)
and percent time spent at idle for the various test cycles was examined.
While there is a negative trend of emissions and fuel rate with percent
time at idle, it is not sufficient for predictive pruposes . Normalizing
the variable improves the correlation as does using an exponential equa-
tion form for CO, NOX and fuel rate. However, only for fuel rate was the
improvement sufficient enough that it might be used for predictive purposes.
This analysis indicates that emissions from a transient driving cycle can-
not be predicted by comparing the percent time at idle with a driving cycle
whose emissions are known.
Item 10 - Develop corrections to heavy duty emission factors
for vehicle speed, vehicle weight, power/load ratio and mileage.
Regression equations were developed for the effects of speed,
load, power/load ratio and mileage on emissions and fuel rate for heavy-
qasoline trucks. Separate equations w.;re developed for each level
vni
v
-------
of emission control. In addition to the data from Contract 68-03-2147,
data from the San Antonio Road Route studies (Contracts EHS 70-113 and
68-03-0441) were used in the analysis. The primary use for t.lu-se IIHIIVS-
sion equations is to provide the means to adjust published truck emission
factors for speed, load, power/load ratio and miloaqe.
In summary, this analysis tends to indicate that the current 9-
mode test (or variations of the 9-mode test) could not be expected to ade-
quately predict emissions of gasoline powered trucks operating under actual
driving condition. With additional work in this area, predictions adequate
for ambient impact studies could possibly be developed. It was also found
that the 9-mode procedure cannot adequately predict changes in emissions
during actual driving cycles as the levels of emission control are changed.
2. Diesel Truck Cycle Analysis
To investigate the relationship between diesel steady-state and
transient driving cycle emissions, emissions and fuel rate in g/min from
the 12 diesel trucks tested under EPA Contract 68-03-2147 were analyzed for
nine of the same ten items requested for the gasoline-powered trucks. In
that contract, fuel rate and exhaust emissions were obtained on 12 diesel
trucks ranging from 9070 kg (20,000 Ibs) to 33,000 kg (73,000 Ibs) GVW. A
chassis version of the 13-mode FTP was conducted on all trucks. Eight dif-
ferent constant speed tests, three different sinusoidal tests, and four dif-
ferent average speed transient driving cycles were run on each truck at
three different inertia settings. The results of the analysis of that data
are summarized below on an item-by-item basis.
Item 1 - How well does test-to-test variability of a cycle com-
pare with cycle-to-cycle variability for cycles of the same average speed?
For all cycles?
It was determined that for all but a few of the test cycles, test-
to-test variability of emission levels was significantly smaller than the
cycle-to-cycle variability for different type chassis dynamometer cycles
at the same average speed. Thus, emission and fuel rate differences be-
tween steady-state, sinusoidal, and fully transient driving cycles could
be evaluated.
Item 2 - How well can fuel consumption and emissions measured
by the present 13-mode FTP predict the fuel consumption and emissions
over other cycles?
For the composite 13-mode emissions and fuel rate only HC and
NOX were highly correlated with any of the chassis dynamometer cycles.
The individual modal HC and NC> generally were highly correlated with some
X
of the chassis dynamometer cycle HC and NOX, while CO and fuel rate only
rarely showed high correlations with the chassis dynamometer results. There
is no one mode in which all the emissions and fuel rate are highly correlated
with any of the test cycles.
It was found that, except for CO, there were positive linear
relationships between the composite 13-mode emissions and fuel rate and the
ix
-------
chassis dynamometer sinusoidal and transient driving cycle emissions and
fuel rate for individual combinations of emission specie and test cycle.
Using a technique known as quadratic programming, new weighting factors for
the 13-mode test were developed. Like the FTP 13-mode weighting factors, the
new factors were restricted to being positive and summing to one. However,
some of the modes were assigned zero as a weighting factor. The correlations
using these new weighting factors were always better, sometimes greatly
better than the original correlations. The reweighted composite 13-mode
NOX emissions were highly correlated with the transient driving cycle emis-
sions. While there is a different set of NOX weighting factors for each
vehicle load and test cycle combination, the NOX correlations are high
enough to be useful in predicting driving cycle NOX for the diesel engine
mix used in this study. The reweighting was also done using all emission
species and fuel rate as if they were one variable, producing one set of
weighting factors for each test cycle and test weight combination. The cor-
relations from these weighting factors were not as good as those using the
various emissions individually.
A stepwise regression was also performed to determine what the
weighting factors would be if unconstrained and to identify those modes
which best predict the emissions and fuel rate. The mode that entered the
equation first was the one that best correlated with test cycle results.
For each emission type, there was one mode which generally, though not al-
ways, entered first. For HC, emissions mode 2 (intermediate speed, 2 percent
power) generally entered first. For CO emissions, modes 8 (rated speed,
100 percent power) and 10 (rated speed, 50 percent power) were entered
first most often. For NOX, mode 2 was entered first for the empty load
tests; while mode 5 (intermediate speed, 75 percent power) was generally
entered first for the half and full load tests. For fuel rate, only for
the empty load tests was there one mode, idle, that was generally entered
first.
It is not recommended that the weighting factors produced by this
analysis be considered for use as weighting factors for a certification test.
One of the reasons for this recommendation is that a different set of weighting
factors was produced for each emission, cycle type and vehicle load combination,
giving a total of 60 different sets of weighting factors. In almost every set
there was at least one mode where the weighting factor equalled zero. A
second reason is that the relationships between the 13-mode emissions and
driving cycle emissions are highly dependent on certain vehicle controlled
parameters. Fuel rate and probably emissions were found to be strongly in-
fluenced by vehicle weight/engine power ratio. This parameter was not taken
into account in the analysis of this question. Thus, a different set of
trucks would probably give a different set of weighting factors.
Item 3 - Item 3 applied to the gasoline powered trucks, but not
to the diesel powered trucks. It is mentioned here merely to keep the item
numbers consistent between the gasoline and diesel truck analyses.
Item 4 - How does the percent change in fuel rate and emissions
for various levels of control measured over the 13-mode cycle compare with
the change in fuel rate and emissions over other cycles?
-------
In general, changes in 13-mode FTP fuel rate and emissions from
precontrolled to 1974 level of control were found not to- correlate well
with changes in driving cycle fuel rate and emissions from precontrolled to
1974 levels of control. The exceptions to this were NOX and fuel rate for
certain cycles. This lack of ability to predict changes in transient driving
cycle emissions from changes in 13-mode emissions reveals a second area of
possible concern in the development of future steady-state engine dynamometer
cycles.
Item 5 - How different are the rpm-time profiles and percent power-
time profiles for a given transient cycle and load for different trucks?
The majority of the 12 diesel trucks tested did not have similar
patterns of operation (rpm and percent power) for the same driving cycle.
This finding also impacts on cycle development studies, since it indicates
that one engine cycle (in terms of rpm and power) will not be equivalent to
the same driving cycle for all trucks.
Item 6 - For an average speed of 32 kph, how well do sinusoidal
fuel consumption and emissions approximate a fully-transient cycle fuel con-
sumption and emissions? Above 32 kph, how well does a steady-state approxi-
mate sinusoidal cycle?
The relationship between steady-state test cycle and sinusoidal
test cycle emissions and fuel rate and between sinusoidal cycle and completely
transient test cycle emissions and fuel rate were determined. Except for
fuel rate, there is a decreasing correlation for all variables of any two
cycles as the cycles become less alike. Only for NOX emissions are the cor-
relations high enough that a transient driving cycle could be predicted
adequately from a sinusoidal cycle or a sinusoidal cycle be predicted from
a steady state cycle. This analysis indicates that, except for NOX, steady
state and sinusoidal test cycles should not be used to determine emissions
from transient driving cycles.
Item 7 - Does load setting have the same effect on fuel rate and
emissions for each average speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with
average speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with different cycles at the
same average speed?
The effect of vehicle weight on fuel rate and emissions for each
average speed was investigated. Load setting alone was generally not sta-
tistically significant in its influence on emissions and fuel consumption.
For HC, load setting did have a different effect on emissions for different
speeds; but only occasionally did the relationship of HC emissions with load
change significantly with speed. Except for the sinusoidal test cycles, load
did not have the same effect on CO, NOX and fuel rate for each average speed.
Fuel rate and emissions also varied with average speed at the same load set-
ting. However, whether speed had a statistically significant influence on
fuel consumption and emissions was dependent on the type of test cycle and
emission type. Based on averages for all trucks, the fuel rate and emissions
differed with different cycles at the same average speed for about half the
time. However, individual trucks varied greatly from the average pattern.
These results indicate that speed, load and cycle type must be considered
XI
-------
together in any comparison of engine modal emissions with vehicle test cycle
emissions.
Item 8 - How does the SARR data compare with other 32 kph transient
driving cycles?
The average cumulative frequencies of vehicle speed and engine
rpm from the 32km/hr cycles were compared with the averages from the San
Antonio Road Route studies. The three dynamometer driving cycle speed
distributions were all fairly similar to each other between 20 and 65 kph.
However, they differed from one another at the high and low speed ends. The
average SARR vehicle speed distribution was different from the three dyna-
mometer cycles. The rpm distributions of the two studies were shown to be
statistically different. It is not known if these differences are due to
differences in truck fleet composition. However, this analysis may indi-
cate that average speed alone is not sufficient to describe a transient
driving cycle. Both vehicle speed and engine rpm cumulative frequencies must
also be defined.
Item 9 - Can fuel rate and emissions be highly correlated with
percent time at idle?
The relationships between test cycle emissions (or fuel rate) and
percent time spent at idle for the various test cycles were examined. Fuel
rate can be highly correlated with percent time at idle for all trucks
using logarithmic equations with a common slope but different intercepts.
The HC emissions can be highly correlated to percent time at idle but only
if a different equation is used for each truck. How well CO and NOX can
be correlated to percent time at idle differs from truck to truck. This
analysis indicates that no one equation can be used to predict HC, CO or
NOx driving cycle emissions from percent time at idle. While fuel rate
can be predicted from percent time at idle, it is not known if this re-
lationship will change with different cycles and different fleet compo-
sitions .
Item 10 - Develop corrections to heavy duty emission factors
for vehicle speed, vehicle weight, power/load ratio and mileage.
Regression equations were developed for the effects of speed,
load, power/load ratio and mileage on emissions and fuel rate for heavy-
duty diesel trucks. Separate equations were developed for each level of
emission control. In addition to the data from contract 68-03-2147, data
from the San Antonio Road Route studies (Contract 68-01-2113) were used in
the analysis. The primary use for these regression equations is to provide
the means to adjust published truck emission factors for speed, load power/
load ratio and mileage.
In summary, this analysis of diesel emissions data tends generally
to indicate the current 13-mode test could not be expected to adequately
predict emissions of diesel powered trucks operating under actual driving
conditions. However, the- l?-mode NOx emissions developed here may be usefu]
in predicting in-service diesel truck emissions for ambient air impact studies
if the truck groups arc similar to those tested here. With additional work
XII
-------
in this area, relationships adequate for ambient air impact studies could
possibly be developed for EC and CO. It was also found that the modal pro-
cedure could adequately predict changes only in NOX and fuel rate for some
cycles as levels of emission control are changed.
3. Gasoline Weighting Factor Development
This study did not result in a simple set of weighting factors
that would relate the 9-mode BSFC to on-the-road fuel economy. It did show
that there was no simple correlation between the 9-mode BSFC and vehicle
fuel economy since variables such as vehicle weight and power/weight ratio
must be considered. A rather cumbersome and empirical method that could
predict vehicle fuel economy was explored. While considerable engine test-
ing would be required to develop the method, it may warrant further con-
sideration.
4. Diesel Weighting Factor Development
As was the case with the gasoline weighting factor development,
this study did not result in a simple set of weighting factors that would
relate the 13-mode composite BSFC to on-the-road fuel economy. The study
did show that there was no simple correlation between the 13-mode composite
BSFC and the vehicle fuel economy since the additional variables of vehicles
weight/engine power ratio and engine rated power also affect vehicle fuel
economy. An empirical method that could predict vehicle fuel economy was
explored. While considerable engine and vehicle testing would be required
to develop the method, it may warrant further consideration. However, con-
sidering the small differences in BSFC for diesel engines currently in use,
it appears that proper engine to vehicle matching is more important than
differences in BSFC in obtaining the best possible fuel economy.
Xlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
SUMMARY v
LIST OF FIGURES xvii
LIST OF TABLES xxi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Objectives 1
B. Report Organization 1
II. DATA BASES AND STATISTICAL METHODS 2
A. Data Bases
B. Statistical Methods 4
III. GASOLINE TRUCK CYCLE ANALYSIS 5
Item 1 - How well does test-to-test variability of a
cycle compare with cycle-to-cycle variability
for cycles of the same average speed? For all
cycles? 5
Item 2 - How well can fuel consumption and emissions
measured by the present 9-mode FTP predict the
fuel consumption and emissions over other
cycles? 6
Item 3 - Will substituting a WOT mode for the 3" vacu-
um mode of the 9-mode cycle improve the cor-
relation between the 9-mode cycle and other
cycles? 26
Item 4 - How does the percent change in fuel rate and
emissions for various levels of control meas-
ured over the 9-mode cycle compare with the
change in fuel rate and emissions over other
cycles? 31
Item 5 - How different are the rpm-time profiles and
percent power-time profiles for a given
transient cycle and load for different trucks? 37
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
Item 6 - For an average speed of 32 kph, how well do
sinusoidal fuel consumption and emissions ap-
proximate a fully-transient cycle fuel con-
sumption and emissions? Above 32 kph, how
well does a steady-state approximate a sinu-
soidal cycle? 42
Item 7 - Does load setting have the same effect on
fuel rate and emissions for each average
speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with
average speed? Do fuel rate and emissions
vary with different cycles at the same aver-
age speed? 42
Item 8 - How does the SARR data compare with other
32 kph transient driving cycles? 52
Item 9 - Can fuel rate and emissions be highly corre-
lated with percent time at idle? 57
Item 10 - Heavy-Duty Emissions Factor Analysis 67
IV. DIESEL TRUCK CYCLE ANALYSIS 88
Item 1 - How well does test-to-test variability of a
cycle compare with cycle-to-cycle variability
for cycles of the same average speed? For all
cycles? 88
Item 2 - How well can fuel consumption and emissions
measured by the present 13-mode FTP predict
the fuel consumption and emissions over other
cycles? 89
Item 3 - Item 3 applied to the gasoline-powered trucks
but not to the diesel-powered trucks. 106
Item 4 - How does the percent change in fuel rate and
emissions for various levels of control meas-
ured over the 13-mode cycle compare with the
change in fuel rate and emissions over other
cycles? 106
Item 5 - How different are the rpm-time profiles and
manifold vacuum-time profiles for a given
transient cycle and load for different trucks? 106
xv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
Item 6 - For an average speed of 32 kph, how well do
sinusoidal fuel consumption and emissions ap-
proximate a fully-transient cycle fuel con-
sumption and emissions? Above 32 kph, how
well does a steady-state approximate a sinu-
soidal cycle? 114
Item 7 - Does load setting have the same effect on fuel
rate and emissions for each average speed? Do
fuel rate and emissions vary with average
speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with
different cycles at the same average speed? 114
Item 8 - How does the SARR data compare with other
32 kph transient driving cycles? 118
Item 9 - Can fuel rate and emissions be highly cor-
related with percent time at idle? 123
Item 10 130
V. GASOLINE WEIGHTING FACTOR DEVELOPMENT 150
VI. DIESEL WEIGHTING FACTOR DEVELOPMENT 186
LIST OF REFERENCES 216
APPENDICES
A. Description of Vehicles Tested and Listing of
Special Computer Programs
B. Data in Support of Gasoline Truck Data Analysis
C. Data in Support of Diesel Truck Data Analysis
D. Data in Support of Gasoline Truck Weighting Factor
Analysis
E. Data in Support of Diesel Truck Weighting Factor
Analysis
F. Working Curves from EPA Analysis of Ethyl Truck and
Bus Study
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate vs 9-Mode Fuel Rate
for 9 Single Axle Trucks 19
2 Modal Fuel Rate vs Engine Displacement for 18 Gas-
oline-Powered Trucks 20
3 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate vs Vehicle Test
Weight for 9 Single Axle Trucks 22
4 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate at Zero Slope Point
vs Engine Size for 9 Single Axle Trucks 23
5 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate vs 9-Mode Fuel Rate
for 9 Single Axle Trucks 25
6 Transient 32 kph HC and CO Emissions as a Function
of 32 kph Sinusoidal HC and CO Emissions 44
7 Transient 32 kph NO Emissions and Fuel Rate as a
Function of 32 kph Sinusoidal NOX Emissions and
Fuel Rate 45
8 Sinusoidal 48 kph HC and CO Emissions as a Func-
tion of 48 kph Steady-State HC and CO Emissions 46
9 Sinusoidal 48 kph NOX Emissions and Fuel Rate as
a Function of 48 kph Steady-State NOX Emissions
and Fuel Rate 47
10 Sinusoidal 64 kph HC and CO Emissions as a Func-
tion of 64 kph Steady-State HC and CO Emissions 48
11 Sinusoidal 64 kph NOX Emissions and Fuel Rate as
a Function of 64 kph Steady-State NOX Emissions
and Fuel Rate 49
12 Cumulative Percent Time Versus Vehicle Speed for
the San Antonio Road Route and Three 20 mph Driv-
ing Cycles from Contract 68-03-2147 59
13 Cumulative Percent Time Versus Engine Speed for
Gasoline-Powered Trucks Tested on CAPE-21, San
Antonio Road Route, and 20 mph Driving Cycles from
Contract 68-03-2147 61
14 HC Emissions as a Function of Percent Time at Idle
for Nine Gasoline-Powered Trucks 63
xvn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (conf d)
Figure Page
15 CO Emissions as a Function of Percent Time at
Idle for Nine Gasoline-Powered Trucks 64
16 NOX Emissions as a Function of Percent Time at
Idle for Nine Gasoline-Powered Trucks 65
17 Fuel Consumption as a Function of Percent Time at
Idle for Nine Gasoline-Powered Trucks 66
18 Normalized CO as a Function of Percent Time at
Idle 68
19 Normalized Fuel Consumption as a Function of Per-
cent Time at Idle 68
20 NOX Emissions from Two Half Load Transient Cycles
as Functions of 13-Mode NOX Emissions in grams per
Minute 98
21 Comparison of Percent Change in Driving Cycle NOV
X,
Emissions with Percent Change in 13-Mode NOX
Emissions 109
22 Comparison of Percent Change in Driving Cycle Fuel
Consumption with 13-Mode Percent Change 110
23 Cumulative Percent Time Versus Vehicle Speed for
Two Diesel Truck Studies 125
24 Cumulative Percent Time Versus Engine rpm for Two
Diesel Truck Studies 127
25 Average Time Spent in Various Engine rpm Manifold
Vacuum Conditions for All 35 Gasoline Trucks in
New York CAPE-21 Study 159
26 Average Time Spent in Various Engine rpm Manifold
Vacuum Conditions for All 26 Gasoline Trucks in
Los Angeles CAPE-21 Study . 160
27 Manifold Vacuum - Engine rpm Matrix Showing Engine
Operating Areas in Terms of Throttle Position 161
28 Fuel Consumption Versus Engine Speed at 3" Intake
Manifold Vacuum for Four Engines 163
29 Fuel Consumption Versus Engine Speed at 10" Intake
Manifold Vacuum for Four Engines 164
XVlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Figure Page
30 Fuel Consumption Versus Engine at 16" Intake Mani-
fold Vacuum for Four Engines 165
31 Fuel Consumption Versus Engine at 19" Intake Mani-
fold Vacuum for Four Engines 165
32 Test Weight vs LA-4 Fuel Economy for 6 Trucks
Tested under Contract 68-01-0472 171
33 Nine-Mode BSFC vs LA-4 Fuel Economy for 6 Trucks
Tested under Contract 68-01-0472 171
34 Normalized Fuel Rate as a Function of Manifold
Vacuum Average of 4 Engines 172
35 LA-4 Miles/Gallon as a Function of 9-Mode BSFC
with Weighting Factors from CAPE-21 Percent Fuel
Used 176
36 LA-4 Fuel Rate Normalized to 16,000 Ib vs Optimized
9-Mode Fuel Rate Normalized to 400 CID for 6 Trucks
Tested under Contract 68-01-0472 178
37 20 mph Driving Cycle Normalized Fuel Rate Versus
Vehicle Weight for Several Trucks Tested under
Contract No. 68-03-2147 179
38 Engine CID vs LA-4 Fuel Rate at Certain Vehicle
Weights for 6 Trucks Tested under Contract 68-01-0472 180
39 Percent Difference from Fuel Rate Regression Line
vs 9-Mode BSFC for 6 Trucks from Contract 68-01-0472 182
40 Engine CID vs LA-4 Fuel Rate at Certain Vehicle
Weights 183
41 Average Time Spent in Various Percent Engine Speeds
and Percent Power for All 17 Diesel Trucks in the
Los Angeles CAPE-21 Study 195
42 Average Time Spent in Various Percent Engine Speeds
and Percent Power for All 14 Diesel Trucks in the
New York CAPE-21 Study 196
43 Diesel Truck Percent Power-Percent Speed Matrix
Showing Engine Operating Areas 197
xix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (conf d)
Figure Page
44 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate as a Function of
Vehicle Test Weight for Seven Nonturbocharged
Diesel Trucks 203
45 32 kph Fuel Rate as a Function of 13-Mode Composite
BSFC for Six Nonturbocharged Diesel Trucks 204
46 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate as a Function of
Weight/Power Ratio for Seven Nonturbocharged
Diesel Trucks 207
47 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate at Constant Weight/
Power Ratio as a Function of Engine Rated Power 208
48 Composite 13-mode Fuel Rate as a Function of Engine
Rated Speed for Eight Nonturbocharged Diesel Engines 209
49 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate at Constant Weight/
Power Ratio Versus Composite 13-Mode Fuel Rate Using
CAPE-21 Weighting Factors 211
50 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate at Constant Weight/
Power Ratio Versus Composite 13-Mode Fuel Rate Using
FTP Weighting Factor 212
51 32 kph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate at Constant Weight/
Power Ratio Versus Composite 13-Mode Fuel Rate Using
Optimized Weighting Factors 213
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Relationships Between Modal and chassis Dynamo-
meter Cycle Emissions Having Correlation Coeffi-
cients above 0.9 for Empty Load Tests (All Vari-
ables in Terms of grams/minute), Sample Size:
Nine Single Axle Gasoline Trucks 8
2 Relationships Between Modal and chassis Dynamo-
meter Cycle Emissions Having Correlation Coeffi-
cients above 0.9 for Ha]f Load Tests (All Vari-
ables in Terms of grams/minute), Sample Size:
Nine Single Axle Gasoline Trucks 9
3 Relationships Between Modal and Chassis Dynamo-
meter Cycle Emissions Having Correlation Coeffi-
cients above 0.9 for Full Load Tests (All Vari-
ables in Terms of grams/minute), Sample Size:
Nine Single Axle Gasoline Trucks 10
4 Correlation Coefficients Between FTP Results and
Driving Cycle Results for Nine Single Axle Gas-
line Trucks 11
5 Correlation Coefficients Between the Modes of the
9-Mode Gasoline Heavy-Duty FTP 12
6 Order of Entry in Stepwise Multiple Regression
for Individual Modes of the Gasoline Heavy-Duty
9-Mode FTP for Nine Gasoline Trucks 14
7 Correlation Coefficients from Regression Analysis
Between Reweighted 9-Mode Results and Driving Cy-
cle Results for Nine Single Axle Trucks 16
8 Regression Equations Relating Reweighted Compo-
site 9-Mode Emissions and Fuel Rate to Various
Driving Cycle Emissions and Fuel Rate for Nine
Single Axle Gasoline Trucks 17
9 Results of Special REgression Analysis to Opti-
mize Correlation Between 9-Mode Fuel Rate and
20 mph Driving Cycle Fuel Rate for Nine Single
Axle Trucks 24
10 Comparison of 9-Mode Composite Results for Regu-
lar 9-Mode FTP and a 9-Mode Test Including Wide
Open Throttle 27
11 Relationships Between Modal and Chassis Dynamo-
meter Cycle Emissions Having Correlation Coeffi-
cients above 0.9 for 9-Mode FTP Composite Results
with WOT Replacing 3" Mode 28
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table
12 Correlation Coefficients Between Results from WOT
9-Mode Tests and Driving Cycle Results for Nine
Single Axle Trucks 29
13 Correlation Coefficients Between Reweighted WOT
9-Mode Tests and Driving Cycle Results for Nine
Single Axle Trucks 30
14 Correlation Coefficients Between Driving Cycle
Emissions and 9-Mode Emissions for Several Ver-
sions of the 9-Mode Test Cycle 32
15 Average Percent Change in Hydrocarbons for Vari-
ous Levels of Emission Control (Pre-1970 Base
Level) 33
16 Average Percent of Change in Carbon Monoxide for
Various Levels of Emission Control (Pre-1970 Base
Level) 34
17 Average Percent Change in Oxides of Nitrogen for
Various Levels of Emission Control (Pre-1970 Base
Level) 35
18 Average Percent Change in Fuel Rate for Various
Levels of Emission Control (Pre-1970 Base Level) 36
19 Relationship Between Change in 9-Mode Composite
Emissions and Change in Driving Cycle Emissions
for 1970 to 1973 Level of Emission Control (Aver-
age Pre-1970 Base Level) 38
20 Relationship Between Change in 9-Mode Composite
Emissions and Change in Driving Cycle Emissions
for 1974 Level of Emission Control (Average Pre-
1970 Base Level) 39
21 Gasoline-Powered Truck Pairs Showing Similar Man-
fold Vacuum and Engine rpm Distributions Using
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test 41
22 Linear Regression Equations and Correlation Coef-
ficients of Fuel Consumption and Emissions for
Various Driving Schedules 43
23 Comparison of Gasoline Truck HC Emissions in
grams/minute from Different Driving Cycles at the
Same Average Spued (Half Load Data) 53
xxi i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table Page
24 Comparison of Gasoline Truck CO Emissions in
grams/minute from Different Driving Cycles at the
Same Average Speed (Half Load Data) 54
25 Comparison of Gasoline Truck NOX Emissions in
grams/minute from Different Driving Cycles at the
Same Average Speed (Half Load Data) 55
26 Comparison of Gasoline Truck Fuel Rate in grams/
minute from Different Driving Cycles at the Same
Average Speed (Half Load Data) 56
27 Percent Time and Cumulative Percent Time Spent in
Vehicle Speed Intervals from the 32 kph Transient
Driving Cycles of Contract 68-03-2147 and from
San Antonio Road Route Studies 58
28 Comparison of Time Spent in Various rpm Intervals
for Several Gasoline-Powered Truck Studies 60
29 Percent Time in Idle Mode for Various Driving
Cycles 62
30 Exponential Curve Fit Results for CO and NOX
Emissions and Fuel Consumption as a Function of
Driving Cycle Percent Time at Idle 62
31 Averages of Some Important Variables from Several
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Truck Studies 70
32 Results of Regression Analysis of Emissions and
Fuel Consumption as a Function of Weight/CID for
Various Gasoline Truck Groups 71
33 Average Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Sev-
eral Heavy-Duty Truck Groups 73
34 Results of Regression Analysis for HC Emissions
as a Function of Vehicle Speed for Various Engine
Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 75
35 Results of Regression Analysis for CO Emissions
as a Function of Vehicle Speed for Various Engine
Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 76
36 Results of Regression Analysis for NOX Emissions
as a Function of Vehicle Speed for Various Engine
Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 77
XXlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table Pa9e
37 Results of Regression Analysis for Fuel Consump-
tion as a Function of Vehicle Speed for Various
Engine Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 78
38 Results of Regression Analysis for HC Emissions
as a Logarithmic Function of Speed for Various
Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 79
39 Results of Regression Analysis for CO Emissions
as a Logarithmic Function of Speed for Various
Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 80
40 Results of Regression Analysis for NOX Emissions
as a Logarithmic Function of Speed for Various
Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 81
41 Results of Regression Analysis for Fuel Consump-
tion as a Logarithmic Function of Speed for Vari-
ous Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 82
42 Average Emissions from the 20 mph Transient Cycle
for Gasoline Trucks Tested under Contract
68-03-2147 83
43 Results of Regression Analysis for Emissions and
Fuel Consumption as a Function of Mileage and
Weight/CID for Various Truck Groups 85
44 Results of Regression Analysis for Emissions and
Fuel Consumption as a Function of Weight and
Weight/CID for Various Truck Groups 86
45 Average Test Weights for Various Gasoline Truck
Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 87
46 Diesel Truck Variables Having Correlation Coeffi-
cients Greater than 0.9 for Empty Load Tests 91
47 Diesel Truck Relationships Between Modal and
Chassis Dynamometer Cycle Emissions Having Corre-
lation Coefficients Greater than 0.9 for Half
Load Tests, Sample Size: 12 Diesel Trucks 93
48 Diesel Truck Relationships Between Modal and
Chassis Dynamometer Cycle Emissions Having Corre-
lation Coefficients Greater than 0.9 for Full
Load Tests, Sample Size-. 12 Diesel Trucks 95
xxiv
-------
LIST OP TABLES (cont'd)
Page
Correlation Coefficients from Between 13-Mode FTP
Results and Dynamometer Test Cycle Results for 12
Diesel Trucks 97
50 Correlation Coefficients Between Modes of the 13-
Mode Diesel Heavy-Duty FTP 100
51 Order of Entry in Stepwise Multiple Regression of
Individual Modes of the Diesel Heavy-Duty 13-Mode
FTP for 12 Diesel Trucks 101
52 Correlation Coefficients from Regression Analysis
Between Reweighted 13-Mode Results and Driving
Cycle Results for 12 Diesel Trucks 104
53 Average Percent Change in Diesel Emissions and
Fuel Consumption Between Pre-1974 and 1974 and
Later Diesel Trucks 107
54 Relationship of Change in 13-Mode Composite Re-
sults to Change in Driving Cycle Results for 1974
and Later Diesel Trucks (Average Pre-1974 Base
Level) 108
55 Diesel Truck Pairs Showing Similar Percent Power
and Engine rpm Distributions Using the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test 112
56 Diesel Truck Pairs with Similar Percent Time in
Various Power and rpm Intervals 113
57 Results of Regression Analysis on Emissions and
Truck Rate for Several Chassis Dynamometer Test
Cycles 115
58 Comparison of Diesel Truck HC Emissions in grams/
minute from Different Driving Cycles with the
Same Average Speed (Half Load Data) 119
59 comparison of Diesel Truck CO Emissions in grams/
minute from Different Driving Cycles with the
Same Average Speed (Half Load Data) 120
60 Comparison of Diesel Truck NOX Emissions in
grams/minute from Different Driving Cycles with
the Same Average Speed (Half Load Data) 121
xxv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (conf d)
Comparison of Diesel Truck Fuel Consumption in
grams/minute from Different Driving Cycles with
the Same Average Speed (Half Load Data) 122
62 Percent Time and Cumulative Percent Time Spent in
Various Speed Intervals for the 32 kph Diesel
Transient Cycles under Contract 68-03-2147 and the
San Antonio Road Route Studies 124
63 Comparison of Time Spent in Various rpm Intervals
for Two Diesel Truck Studies 126
64 Percent Time at Idle for Various Diesel Dynamo-
meter Test Cycles 128
65 Regression Results for Emissions and Fuel Rate as
a Function of Percent Time at Idle 129
66 Averages of Some Important Variables from Two
Diesel Truck Studies 131
67 Results of Regression Analysis of Emissions and
Fuel Rate as a Function of Weight/CID for Various
Diesel Truck Groups 132
68 Average Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Two
Diesel Truck Studies 134
69 Results of Regression Analysis for HC Emissions
as a Function of Vehicle Speed for Various Diesel
Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 136
70 Results of Regression Analysis for CO Emissions
as a Function of Vehicle Speed for Various Diesel
Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 137
71 Results of Regression Analysis for NO Emissions
as a Function of Vehicle Speed for Various Diesel
Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 138
72 Results of Regression Analysis for Fuel Consump-
tion as a Function of Vehicle Speed for Various
Diesel Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 139
73 Results of Regression Analysis for Emissions as a
Logarithmic Function of Speed for Various Diesel
Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 141
xxvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table Page
74 Results of Regression Analysis for CO Emissions
as a Logarithmic Function of Speed for Various
Diesel Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 142
75 Results of Regression Analysis for NOX Emissions
as a Logarithmic Function of Speed for Various
Diesel Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 143
76 Results of Regression Analysis for Fuel Consump-
tion as a Logarithmic Function of Speed for Vari-
ous Diesel Truck Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 144
77 Average Emissions from the 20 mph Transient Cycle
for Trucks Tested under Contract 68-03-2147 145
78 Results of Regression Analysis for Emissions and
Fuel Rate as a Function of Mileage and Weight/CID
for Two Diesel Truck Groups 146
79 Results of Regression Analysis for Emissions and
Fuel Rate as a Function of Weight and Weight/CID
for Various Diesel Truck Groups 148
80 Average Test Weights for Various Diesel Truck
Groups from Contract 68-03-2147 149
81 Average Percent Time Spent in Various Engine rpm-
Manifold Vacuum Conditions for All Gasoline
Trucks from Los Angeles and New York 152
82 Average Percent Time Spent in Various Engine rpm-
Manifold Vacuum Conditions for All 26 Gasoline
Trucks from Los Angeles CAPE-21 Study 153
83 Average Percent Time Spent in Various Engine rpm-
Manifold Vacuum Conditions for 20 Single Unit
Gasoline Trucks from Los Angeles CAPE-21 Study 154
84 Average Percent Time Spent in Various Engine rpm-
Manifold Vacuum Conditions for Six Gasoline Trac-
tor-Trailers from Los Angeles CAPE-21 Study 155
85 Average Percent Time Spent in Various Engine rpm-
Manifold Vacuum Conditions for All 35 Gasoline
Trucks from New York CAPE-21 Study 156
86 Average Percent of Time Spent in Various Engine
rpm-Manifold Vacuum Conditions for 31 Single Unit
Gasoline Trucks from New York CAPE-21 Study 157
xxvi i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (conf d)
Table Page
87 Average Percent Time Spent in Various Engine rpm-
Manifold Vacuum Conditions for Four Gasoline
Tractor-Trailers from New York CAPE-21 Study 158
88 CAPE-21 Gasoline Trucks Average Percent Time
Spent in Modes of 9-Mode FTP 167
89 Summary of 9-Mode Weighting Factors Calculated
from CAPE-21 Data 169
90 Comparison of 9-Mode BSFC and LA-4 Fuel Economy
for Six Trucks Tested under Contract 68-01-0472 170
91 Average Estimated Percent Fuel Used in Given rpm-
Manifold Vacuum Intervals for All CAPE-21 Trucks
(New York and Los Angeles) 174
92 Average Estimated Percent Fuel Used for the Six
Manifold Vacuum Modes of the 9-Mode FTP 175
93 Comparison of 9-Mode BSFC and LA-4 Fuel Economy
for Six Trucks Tested under Contract 68-01-0472 175
94 Percent of CAPE-21 Truck Operating Time Repre-
sented by Various Engine Speed and Manifold Vacu-
um Modes (All Trucks from New York and Los
Angeles) 184
95 Percent Time in Percent Power and Percent Engine
Speed Intervals for All Diesel Trucks Tested in
CAPE-21 Study 188
96 Percent Time in Percent Power and Percent Engine
Speed Intervals for All Los Angeles Diesel Trucks
Tested in CAPE-21 Study 189
97 Percent Time in Percent Power and Percent Engine
Speed Intervals for Los Angeles Single Unit Die-
sel Trucks Tested in CAPE-21 Study 190
98 Percent Time in Percent Power and Percent Engine
Speed Intervals for Los Angeles Tractor-Trailer
Diesel Trucks Tested in CAPE-21 Study 191
99 Percent Time in Percent Power and Percent Engine
Speed Intervals for All New York Diesel Trucks
Tested in CAPE-21 Study 192
XXVlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table Page
100 Percent Time in Percent Power and Percent Engine
Speed Intervals for New York Single Unit Diesel
Trucks Tested in CAPE-21 Study 193
101 Percent Time in Percent Power and Percent Engine
Speed Intervals for New York Tractor-Trailer
Diesel Trucks Tested in CAPE-21 Study 194
102 Average Percent Time Spent in Modes of the 13-
Mode FTP for CAPE-21 Diesel Trucks 199
103 Summary of 13-Mode Weighting Factors Calculated
from CAPE-21 Data 200
104 Comparisons of 13-Mode BSFC Using Different
Weighting Factors for 12 Diesel Trucks 202
105 Rated Power for 12 Diesel Trucks Tested under
Contract 68-03-2147 205
106 Composite 13-Mode Fuel Rate Using Three Sets of
Weighting Factors for 12 Diesel Trucks 210
107 Percent of CAPE-21 Truck Operating Time Repre-
sented by Various Percent Engine Speed and Per-
cent Power Modes 215
xxix
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This report contains the results of the latest in a series of studies
conducted by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) on emissions from engines
used to power trucks and buses above 2122 kg (6000 Ibs) gross vehicle weight
(GVW). The reports of these studies(1-14)* cover work done at Southwest
Research Institute starting in 1967 on behalf of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and its predecessor the National Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration. This report presents the analysis of two main data bases for cer-
tain specific items required by EPA as part of their overall effort to con-
trol heavy-duty engine emissions. The report contains only the results of
Phase I of a two-phase project entitled "Heavy-Duty Fuel Economy Program,"
EPA Contract 68-03-2220. The second phase of the project involving lab-
oratory testing of some recent developments in engine systems will be re-
ported in a separate volume upon completion of that phase.
A. Objectives
Phase I of the project has two tasks which, while interrelated, have
separate objectives. The two tasks are a data analysis task and a weighting
factor determination task. The objective of the data analysis task was to
provide the EPA with answers to 10 specific items involving fuel consumption
and emissions from both gasoline and diesel powered trucks. The data for
the analysis was mainly from EPA Contract 68-03-2147, "Study of Emissions
from Heavy-Duty Vehicles," supplemented by data from other studies where
necessary. The objective of the second task is to develop modal coefficients
for both the 9-mode heavy-duty gasoline and 13-mode heavy-duty diesel emis-
sions tests that would correlate the 9 and 13-mode BSFC values to fuel
economy of trucks in actual use. The results of the CAPE-21 study ^5) were
to be used in the development of the modal coefficients.
B. Report Organization
The main body of this report is divided into five sections. The
first section describes the various data bases used in the analysis as
well as describing the statistical computer programs used. The next two
sections contain the results of the data analysis task of this phase, one
section for gasoline-powered truck results and one section for diesel truck
results. The last two sections contain the analysis done to obtain fuel
consumption modal coefficients from the CAPE-21 information; one section
contains the 9-mode gasoline truck analysis and the other section contains
the 13-mode diesel analysis.
* Superscript numbers in parentheses designate List of References at end
of this report.
-------
II. DATA BASES AND STATISTICAL METHODS
This section describes the various data bases used as well as des-
cribing the statistical computer programs used and some of the special
statistical techniques.
A. Data Bases
There were three main data bases used for this study. In addition,
data from several other studies were used as required. The following
paragraphs briefly describe each of the data bases used.
Thirty Truck Study
Data from this study was used in the data analysis task of Phase I.
In this project, fuel consumption and exhaust emissions data were obtained
from heavy-duty vehicles operated on chassis dynamometers. A total of 30
trucks were evaluated, ranging from 7700 kg (17,000 Ibs) to 33,000 kg
(73,000 Ibs) GVW. The vehicles included 18 gasoline trucks (or truck-
tractors) and 12 diesel trucks (or truck-tractors). The evaluations in-
volved an on-the-road determination for setting dynamometer power and the
evaluation on chassis dynamometers of several steady-state, sinusoidal
and driving cycle operating conditions. Chassis version 9-mode or 13-mode
evaluations were conducted as appropriate on all vehicles. Each of the
vehicles was evaluated at three inertia weights and dynamometer road-
load settings to simulate an empty vehicle, half payload, and full rated
GVW. On two gasoline and two diesel vehicles, the entire emissions test
sequence was repeated and determinations were made using alternate driving
cycles. This work was performed under Contract 68-03-2147, titled "Study
of Emissions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles . " All tests in this study were
conducted on a chassis dynamometer. Throughout this report, where data
from this study is used, the word "dynamometer" is to be understood to
mean chassis dynamometer.
Descriptions of the trucks used in this study are contained in Ap-
pendix A. Fuel consumption and emission results in terms of grams per
minute were used throughout the data analysis task. For fuel consumption
and emissions results for individual trucks in this study, refer to the
project final reports.(13' 14) Reference 13 contains all of the tests
results from the gasoline trucks and the results of the cycle testing on
the chassis dynamometer for the diesel trucks. Reference 14 contains the
results of the diesel 13-mode tests conducted on the 12 diesel trucks.
Truck Driving Pattern and Use Survey (CAPE-21)
Truck operation data from this study were used in the weighting fac-
tor determination task of Phase I. The study was conducted under the
auspices of the Coordinating Research Council, Inc. and designated CRC
Project Ko. CAPE-21-71. The January 1976 CRC APRAC Status Report describes
the project as follows:
-------
"Objective
The objective of this project is to develop background infor-
mation on heavy-duty truck traffic patterns and use in major
urban areas to allow formulation of a recommendation for an
average truck driving cycle to be used in future emission
testing programs.
Current Status
In the first phase, of this two-phase program, Wilbur Smith
and Associates compiled available information on truck char-
acteristics, type of industry, trip characteristics relating
the intensity of truck use and location within the New York
and Los Angeles urban areas. Final reports documenting the
Phase I New York and Los Angeles studies have been published.
In Phase II the results of Phase I were used to select and
categorize heavy-duty vehicles for the purpose of instrumenting
and operating a sample of one hundred trucks representative of
the total truck population in New York City and the Los Angeles
Basin areas. Wilbur Smith and Associates conducted the New
York City survey while the Environmental Protection Agency con-
ducted the Los Angeles survey.
Each vehicle was instrumented for one week maximum, although
lesser periods were used contingent upon the observed day-to-
day route and use pattern variation, the availability of the
truck, and the effect of seasonal variations. Engine rpm,
vehicle speed, load factor, engine water temperature, and
time were recorded at a rate of each data point per 0.8 sec-
ond. In addition, a daily log was kept of the average daily
ambient pressure and temperature; road conditions; and a sub-
jective indication of traffic, route and operational conditions.
A Phase II final report covering the New York City field survey
is scheduled for publication in 1976 and will conclude the CRC
study. The Phase II Los Angeles field survey report will be
published by the Environmental Protection Agency."(15)
Descriptions of the trucks tested under the CAPE-21 project are
also contained in Appendix A.
San Antonio Road Route Studies
Data from these studies were used for comparison purposes in the data
analysis task of Phase I. The San Antonio Road Route studies comprised
three projects undertaken for the EPA. In the first study, the fuel econ-
omy, exhaust mass emissions, and operational performance of 25 gasoline-
powered trucks from model years 1970 through 1972 were obtained during
operation on a 7.24 mile course in San Antonio, Texas, using a constant
volume sampler. This work was performed under EPA Contract 70-113.(7)
The second study obtained the same information from 10 diesel trucks, model
years 1970 through 1973 over the same road course. This study was done
-------
under EPA Contract 68-01-2113.The third study obtained the fuel
economy, mass emissions and operational performance from a group of
10 pre-controlled (pre-1970) gasoline-powered trucks over the same road
course. This project was conducted under EPA Contract 68-03-0441. (I**)
Descriptions of each set of trucks are contained in Appendix A.
For fuel consumption, emmisions and operational data for individual trucks,
see the final reports for the projects.^7'11'12^ The final report for
the 10 pre-controlled gasoline-powered trucks (Contract 68-03-0441) also
contains comparisons of the results from the three studies.
Other Studies
It was necessary to make limited use of data from other studies.
Data from the Ethyl Truck and Bus Study (ETABS) was used for comparison
purposes in both the data analysis and weighting factor determination
tasks. This study was conducted under Public Health Service Contract
PH-86-62-12, "Survey of Truck and Bus Operating Modes in Several Cities."
For details of the study, refer to the project final report.(16) The
present study also made use of a previously unpublished EPA analysis of
the raw data from the ETABS project. This EPA analysis, in the form of
a set of curves, is included in this report as Appendix F.
Data from two other studies done at SwRI was used in the weighting
factor determination task. One of these studies contained complete fuel
consumption and emission maps of four truck engines as part of a broad
study of gasoline-powered truck emissions under EPA Contract 70-110. For
details of the project, refer to the final report. ^ The other study
contined fuel consumption and emissions from six truck engines tested on
an engine dynamometer and then installed in truck chassis and tested on a
chassis dynamometer. This work was part of a heavy-duty emission control
technology study performed for the EPA under contract 68-01-0472. For
details of the project, refer to Reference 10.
B. Statistical Methods
Where possible, standard statistical computer program packages were
used for both tasks of Phase I. The two primary computer programs used
were the UCLA Biomedical Statistical Programs (BMD) and the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). These package programs are in
general use throughout the country and most statisticians are familiar
with their contents. Where no mention is made of the computer program
used in an analysis, it is understood that one of these two programs was
used.
Occasionally it was necessary to develop a special program in order
to perform the required analysis for a given item. Where this is done,
the features and use of the program are explained with the results of the
analysis. Fortran listings of these special programs are included in
Appendix A.
-------
III. GASOLINE TRUCK CYCLE ANALYSIS
This section covers the results of the analysis of 10 specific
items requested by the EPA. These items of analysis used the fuel
consumption and emissions data in grams per minute obtained by SwRI
under Contract 68-03-2147, "Study of Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles."
A familiarity with the contents of the reports generated by that Contract
(References 13 and 14) is essential in understanding the analysis con-
tained in this section. Other data bases were sometimes used to supplement
this data. Each of the 10 items will be covered separately in the following
paragraphs.
Item 1 - How well does test-to-test variability of a cycle compare
with cycle-to-cycle variability for cycles of the same average speed? For
all cycles?
The data from the two gasoline-powered trucks (Nos. 17 and 18) that
ran replicate tests were used to answer this question. An analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was run for fuel rate, HC, CO, and NOX for each of the
three vehicle loads (empty, half, and full) tested. The steady-state,
sinusoidal, and transient driving cycles were compared at common average
speed designations of 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40. These speed designations
correspond to speeds of 8, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 kilometers per hour (kph),
respectively. Only at 32 kph were all three types of cycles (steady state,
sinusoidal and driving) used. At the other speeds, only two of the three
cycle types were used. The ANOVA was a partially nested analysis in that
the replicates were nested within truck number.
Additional sources of variation in the data included effects due
to replicates within each truck and truck-by-cycle interaction. The effects
due to replicates within each truck were assumed to be random. If the truck-
by-cycle interaction was non-significant, then the truck-by-cycle sum of
squares was pooled with that of the cycle by replication-within-truck inter-
action to increase the error degrees of freedom. The cycle by replication-
within-truck interaction was also assumed to be negligible to allow a test
for significant difference between tests.
The 72 results (three emissions and fuel consumption at each of six
speeds for three different loads) of tests for significant differences
between cycles and between tests-within-truck are given in Appendix B as
Tables B-l through B-4. It appears that, in general, the cycles differ
significantly among themselves (except for the 64 kph tests), while the
tests show relatively no change. This is further supported by measurements
of the actual variability. The upper values in each table represent the
cycle variability, (MSC-MSE)/N;* while the lower numbers are the test-to-
test variability, (MSR(T)-MSE/2.* It is again evident that the cycle-to-
cycle variability far exceeds the test-to-test variability. Where an
*MSC - mean square cycle (i.e., cycle sum of square/deg. of freedom)
MSB - mean square error
MSR(T) - mean square replication within truck (i.e., tests with truck sum
of square/deg. of freedom)
N - sample size
-------
F test on the truck-by-cycle interaction indicated no significance, the
pooled MSB was used, otherwise the unpooled MSB corresponding to cycle
by replication within truck variation was used.
The purpose of this analysis is to try and gain some indication
of whether or not emission differences between different cycles at the
same average speed are real or just the result of test-to-test variations.
One way to determine this is to compare the significance of the F ratio
from the test-to-test and cycle-to-cycle variations given in Appendix
Tables B-l through B-4. There are, of course, four possible combinations.
The test-to-test variation can be not significant and the cycle-to-cycle
variation can be either significant or not significant; or the test-to-
test variation can be significant and the cycle-to-cycle variation can be
either significant or not significant.
If the test-to-test variation is not significant, then the cycle-to-
cycle variation can be evaluated with some degree of assurance that test-
to-test variation is not unduly influencing the conclusions. If, however,
the test-to-test variation is significant, the evaluation of emissions
differences between cycles becomes more difficult. If the cycle-to-cycle
variation is not significant, while the test-to-test variability is, then
it is probably safe to conclude that there is no significant variation
in that emission (or fuel consumption) between cycles. If the cycle-to-
cycle variation is significant, then it is not possible to ascertain what
part of the difference is due to test-to-test variability and what part
is due to the cycle-to-cycle variation.
In the analysis of the gasoline results, the 24 kph empty load NOX
and the 8 kph full load fuel, had significant test-to-test variation.
Both of these conditions had significant cycle-to-cycle variations as
well. This fact should be kept in mind when using the analyses presented
in this report.
In summary, it appears that for all but a few of the test cycles,
test-to-test repeatability was not significant so that emission and fuel
changes between cycles of the same speed can be evaluated. It should be
pointed out in closing this discussion that the evaluation of the test-
to-test variability was based on an absolute minimum of data (two repli-
cate tests on two trucks). Thus, the results of this analysis should be
used with care.
Item 2 - How well can fuel consumption and emissions measured by
the present 9-mode FTP predict the fuel consumption and emissions over
other cycles?
For this item, the data for the nine single axle gasoline-powered
trucks were used so that differences due to truck type would not com-
plicate the analysis. The first analysis done was to obtain a correla-
tion matrix to determine the correlation between the 9-mode FTP fuel and
emission rates (for composite 9-mode results, as well as each individual
mode) and the fuel and emission rates from the other driving cycles. This
was done for each of the three vehicle test loads separately. Throughout
the discussion of this item and the items that follow, it should be kept
in mind that all emissions, whether modal, composite 9-mode, or a chassis
-------
dynamometer test cycle, are expressed in grams/minute since this was how
the data was furnished from Contract 68-03-2147. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show
part of the results of this correlation matrix. Only correlations of like
variables with correlation coefficients above 0.9 are shown and no corre-
lations between modes of the 9-mode test are shown. From the tables, it
can be seen that only the composite 9-mode HC emissions, of all the 9-mode
composite emissions, correlate well to the transient emissions. The empty
and half load 9-mode composite fuel rate did correlate with the idle fuel
rate, but not to any of the driving cycles. While individual variables
for each mode will correlate with various test cycles, there is no one
mode in which all of the emissions and fuel rate correlate with any of the
driving test cycles.
Since the composite 9-mode emissions are normally of the most inte-
rest, Table 4 presents the correlation coefficients of the composite 9-
mode emissions or fuel rate and the same variable from the other test
cycles. As can be seen from the table, there is, in general, a strong,
positive linear trend for most of the cycle emissions. However, only a
few of the cycle emissions have correlation coefficients sufficiently large
to use the composite 9-mode results to predict actual vehicle emissions.
This being the case, no regression coefficients were obtained for any of the
cycles. For a description of the cycles, see Reference 13. A list of the
different cycles used is included in Appendix A as Tables A-9 and A-10.
A step-wise multiple regression analysis using a forward selection
procedure was performed using emissions and fuel rate from three of the
four transient driving cycles and the 32 and 48 kph sinusoidal cycle as
functions of the modal emissions and fuel rate from the 9-mode test. The
significance levels for both inclusion or exclusion of the modes were set
at 0.05. In this analysis, a zero intercept was assumed, but the modal
coefficients (weighting factors) were not constrained to be positive nor
were they contrained to sum to 1.0. The analysis showed that many of the
modal emissions and fuel rate were highly correlated with other modes,
particularly for fuel rate. This does not mean that some of the modes are
not important, only that for this particular set of nine trucks, some of
the modal emissions (or fuel rate) are a multiple (possibly plus a constant)
of other modes. With a different set of trucks these correlations could
change. The correlation coefficients between modes are shown in Table 5.
The modal regression coefficients relating the modal emissions and
fuel rate to the various dynamometer cycle emissions and fuel rate are
contained in Tables B-5 to B-8 of Appendix B. The modal coefficients are
shown to the 0.05 significance level. Generally, this required two modes,
although sometimes one and sometimes three modes were used. The coef-
ficients of determination (r2) given in Tables B-5 to B-8 should not, in
general, be directly compared with the correlation coefficients (r) given
in Table 4. The correlation coefficients in Table 4 reflect the correlation
between one independent variable (9-mode composite emission or fuel rate)
and one dependent variable (cycle emission or fuel rate). The coefficients
of determination in Tables B-5 to B-8, on the other hand, generally reflect
the correlation between two or more independent variables, and the one de-
pendent variable.
-------
TABLE 1. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MODAL AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER CYCLE
EMISSIONS HAVING CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS ABOVE 0.9 FOR EMPTY LOAD TESTS
(ALL VARIABLES IN TERMS OF GRAMS/MINUTE)
SAMPLE SIZE: NINE SINGLE AXLE GASOLINE TRUCKS
K Composite 9-mode Average
HC CO
NOx
Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
II.
32 kph sine HC
16 kph trana. HC
24 kph trans. HC
32 kph trans. HC
Mode 1 (Idle)
HC
24 kph trans. NOX 0 kph S/S Fuel
CO NOX
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
0 kph S/S HC
48 kph sine HC
8 kph trans. HC
16 kph trans. HC
24 kph trans. HC
32 kph trans. HC
III. Modes 2, 4, 6, 8 (16" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO NOX
IV. Mode 3 (10" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC
CO NOx
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
48 kph S/S HC
32 kph S/S CO
48 kph S/S CO
48 kph sine CO
16 kph S/S CO
24 kph S/S CO
0 kph S/S Fuel
64 kph S/S Fuel
8 kph trans. Fuel
16 kph trans. Fuel
Fuel Rate
64 kph S/S HC
V. Mode 5 (19" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO
Correlates with:
NO,
64 kph S/S Fuel
Fuel Rate
Ib kph S/S HC
24 kph S/S HC
88 kph S/S HC
VI. Mode 7 (3" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO NO,
Correlates with:
48 kph S/S Fuel
8 kph trans. Fuel
Fuel Rate
VI!.
16 kph trans. NO,
Mode 9 (closed throttle)
No correlations
-------
TABLE 2. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MODAL AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER CYCLE
EMISSIONS HAVING CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS ABOVE 0. 9 FOR HALF LOAD TESTS
(ALL VARIABLES IN TERMS OF GRAMS /MINUTE)
SAMPLE SIZE: NINE SINGLE AXLE GASOLINE TRUCKS
I. Composite 9-mode Average
HC CO
NOX
Correlates -with:
Fuel Rate
II.
32 kph sine HC
48 kph sine HC
16 kph trans. HC
24 kph trans. HC
32 kph trans. HC
Mode 1 (Idle)
HC
CO NOX
Correlates with:
0 kph S/S Fuel
Fuel Rate
0 kph S/S HC
8 kph trans. HC
16 kph trans. HC
24 kph trans. HC
III. Mode 2, 4, 6, 8 (16" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO NOX
Correlates with:
32 kph S/S HC
16 kph s/S HC
0 kph S/S Fuel
Fuel Rate
16 kph S/S CO
24 kph S/S CO
32 kph sine CO
0 kph S/S CO
48 kph S/S CO
8 kph S/S CO
IV. Mode 3 (10" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC
CO
NO,
Correlates with:
0 kph S/S Fuel
64 kph S/S Fuel
8 kph trans. Fuel
Fuel Rate
V.
64 kph S/S HC 64 kph sine NOX
Mode 5 (19" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO NOX
Correlates with:
24 kph S/S HC
8 kph S/S CO
VI. Mode 7 (3" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO
NOX
Correlates with:
64 kph S/S Fuel
Fuel Rate
64 kph S/S Fuel
32 kph sine Fuel
8 kph trans. Fuel
Fuel Rate
16 kph trans. NOX
VII. Mode 9 (closed throttle)
No correlations
-------
TABLE 3. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MODAL AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER CV CLE
EMISSIONS HAVING CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS ABOVE 0. 9 FOR FULL LOAD TESTS
(ALL VARIABLES IN TERMS OF GRAMS/MINUTE)
SAMPLE SIZE: NINE SINGLE AXLE GASOLINE TRUCKS
I.
Composite 9-mode Average
HC CO
NO,
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
II.
sine HC
sine HC
trans. HC
trans. HC
32 kph
48 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph trans. HC
Mode 1 (Idle)
HC
CO
NO,,
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
8 kph trans. HC 0 kph S/S CO
16 kph trans. HC
24 kph trans. HC
32 kph trans. HC
III. Modes 2, 4, 6, 8 (16" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO NOX
Correlates with:
0 S/S Fuel
Fuel Rate
V.
16 kph S/S HC
8 kph S/S CO
16 kph S/S CO
24 kph S/S CO
32 kph S/S CO
48 kph S/S CO
IV. Mode 3 (10" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO
NOV
Correlates with:
~53~k~ph" S/S NO,
64 kph s/S HC 64 kph s/S NOX
Mode 5 (19" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO
Correlates with:
64 kph . S/S fuel
8 kph trana. fuel
Fuel Rate
NO,,
64 kph S/S Fuel
Fuel Rate
8 kph S/S HC
24 kph S/S HC
8 kph S/S CO
16 kph S/S CO
24 kph S/S CO
VI. Mode 7 (3" of mercury manifold vacuum)
HC CO
NOx
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
Mode 9 (closed throttle)
16 kph trans. NOX
No correlations
10
-------
TABLE 4. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN FTP RESULTS AND DRIVING
CYCLE RESULTS FOR NINE SINGLE AXLE GASOLINE TRUCKS
Test
Desc.
00 SS
05 SS
10 SS
15 SS
20 SS
30 SS
40 SS
55 SS
20±5
30±5
40±2
05 Avg.
10 Avg.
15 Avg.
20 Avg.
Empty Load
HC
0.838
0.242
0.382
0.078
0.439
0.556
0.410
-0.230
0.934
0.837
0.403
0.860
0.953
0.933
0.934
CO
0.767
0.877
0.825
0.856
0.806
0.715
0.428
0.299
0.515
0.805
0.657
0.784
0.819
0.834
0.771
NOX
-0.504
0.058
0.596
0.400
0.775
0.654
0.544
0.672
0.832
0.818
0.527
0.564
0.802
0.941
0.762
Fuel
0.941
0.341
0.608
0.750
0.766
0.772
0.875
0.637
0.712
0.589
0.685
0.865
0.803
0.656
0.695
HC
0.715
-0.117
0.436
0.031
0.476
0.552
0.290
0.162
0.915
0.947
0.378
0.884
0.939
0.948
0.941
Half Load
CO
0.727
0.882
0.845
0.850
0.812
0.671
0.218
0.195
0.781
0.808
0.579
0.809
0.877
0.794
0.687
NOy
0.307
0.281
0.642
0.530
0.800
0.761
0.521
0.735
0.822
0.857
0.604
0.760
0.787
0.886
0.829
Fuel
0.947
0.497
0.599
0.791
0.751
0.735
0.869
0.342
0.754
0.702
0.741
0.866
0.814
0.743
0.610
HC
0.538
0.192
0.520
0.053
0.649
0.595
0.362
0.285
0.937
0.951
0.377
0.890
0.966
0.960
0.964
Full Load
CO
0.677
0.890
0.816
0.852
0.736
0.560
0.146
-0.098
0.470
0.737
0.549
0.803
0.846
0.867
0.816
NOy
-0.809
0.177
0.584
0.385
0.749
0.768
0.679
0.857
0.845
0.862
0.673
0.683
0.757
0.851
0.861
Fuel
0.895
0.558
0.604
0.754
0.774
0.774
0.868
0.178
0.673
0.423
0.487
0.899
0.829
0.500
0.547
-------
TABLE 5. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN THE MODES
OF THE 9-MODE GASOLINE HEAVY-DUTY FTP
Mode Condition Idle 16" 10" 19" 3" CT
HC Emissions
1 Idle 1.000
2,4,6,8 16"
3 10"
5 19"
7 3"
9 CT
1 Idle 1.000
2,4,6,8 16"
3 10"
5 19"
7 3"
9 CT
1 Idle 1.000
2,4,6,8 16"
3 10"
5 19"
7 3"
9 CT
0.905
1.000
0.852
0.924
1.000
0.651
0.845
0.605
1.000
0.871
0.942
0.934
0.683
1.000
0.821
0.836
0.840
0.550
0.868
1.000
CO Emissions
0.867
1.000
0.747
0.881
1.000
0.845
0.953
0.803
1.000
0.651
0.758
0.682
0.800
1.000
0.978
0.862
0.804
0.818
0.641
1.000
V Emissions
X
0.674
1.000
0.691
0.951
1.000
0.617
0.754
0.682
1.000
0.690
0.745
0.803
0.676
1.000
0.909
0.767
0.801
0.580
0.724
1.000
Fuel Consumption
1 Idle 1.000
2,4,6,8 16"
3 10"
5 19"
7 3"
9 CT
Sample size - Nine single axle gasoline trucks
0.
1.
983
000
0
1
1
.982
.000
.000
0
1
0
1
.980
.000
.999
.000
0
0
0
0
1
.971
.995
.994
.995
.000
0
0
0
0
0
1
.973
.977
.977
.976
.964
.000
12
-------
To obtain Correlation coefficients from the stepwise regressions to
compare with Table 4, the composite emissions or fuel rate would first have
to be calculated using the coefficients in Tables B-5 to B-8 and a regression
performed using the composite emission and the dynamometer cycle emission.
Of course, where only one mode was used in the stepwise regression, it is
the composite value and the square root of its coefficient of determination
can be compared with the corresponding correlation coefficient in Table 4.
From an engineering standpoint, there are many problems with using
only one or two discrete points of engine operation to predict the emissions
and fuel rate when the engine is in a vehicle and operating over a wide
range of speed and power. First, the data represents only 9 trucks operating
at certain vehicle weights and vehicle weight to engine power ratios. Other
trucks , vehicle weights and weight/power ratios could have different relation-
ships. Secondly, the relationship between one engine operating point and
other operating points is very much subject to change as emissions regulations
and fuel economy pressures cause changes in engine design and operational
schedules of ignition, carburetion, and emission control systems. For these
reasons, a table similar to Table 4 was not prepared for the stepwise re-
gression results.
The stepwise regression results can be used to determine which of
the modes or combination of modes best predicts emissions and fuel for the
vehicle cycles. Table 6 shows the order that each mode was entered for
each emission type and each test cycle. For each emission type there is
normally one mode which generally entered first. For HC, the idle mode
enters first for the transient cycles and the closed throttle mode generally
enters first for the sinusoidal cycles. For CO, the 16 inch mode enters
first most often. For NOX, either the 10 inch or 3 inch mode is entered
first. For fuel rate, the mode that enters first is split between the 16
inch, 19 inch and 3 inch mode, with the 19 inch mode being first most often.
To determine if the nine modes could be reweighted to obtain a new
set of composite values which would better correlate to driving cycles,
with the constraints that the weighting factors be positive and that
they sum to 1.0, a special analysis was performed. As was suggested by
EPA, linear programming techniques were used to obtain modal coefficients
that were constrained to be positive and sum to 1.0. The computer program
used was based on Lemke's complementary pivot method to solve the quadratic
minimization of Z(y-y")". The actual computer algorithm was obtained
from Reference 17. A Fortran listing of the program used is included in
Appendix A. The quadratic program solutions are contained in Appendix B
as Tables B-9 through B-12 for HC, CO, NOX, and fuel rate, respectively.
The form of the equation is :
Y = AXi + 8X2 + CX3 + DX4 + EX5 + FXg
where Y is driving cycle HC, CO, NOX or fuel rate.
X]_, X2, X3, etc., are individual modal values of HC, CO, NOX
or fuel rate.
A, B, c, etc., are the regression coefficients for the individual
modes.
13
-------
TABLE 6. ORDER OF ENTRY IN STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION FOR INDIVIDUAL MODES
OF THE GASOLINE HEAVY-DUTY 9-MODE FTP FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
HC Emissions
CO Emissions
Test Cycle
Transient
Sinusoidal
Transient
Sinusoidal
Transient
Sinusoidal
Test Cycle
Transient
Sinusoidal
Transient
Sinusoidal
Transient
Sinusoidal
10
15
20
20
30
10
15
20
20
30
10
15
20
20
30
10
15
20
20
30
10
15
20
20
30
10
15
20
20
30
Idle
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
Idle
4
4
5
5
4
3
4
5
6
6
3
3
3
4
3
16"
5
4
3
4
4
5
3
3
5
6
4
3
3
4
4
16"
5
6
4
6
6
2
6
4
2
2
5
5
5
2
2,R*7
10'
6
3
6
7
3
6
5
4
4
4
3
5
6
3
3
NO
10'
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
3
5
2
1
1
5
5
19"
3
5
5
5
5
3
4
5
6
5
5
4
5
5
5
Emissions
19"
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
4
4
6
6
6
4
3"
4
6
4
3,R*6,8
1
4
6
6
3
3
6
6
4
6
6
3"
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
CT
Empty
2
2
2
1
6
Half
2
2
2
1
1
Full
2
2
2
1
1
CT
Empty
6
5
6
4
3
Half
6
5
6
5
3
Full
4
4
4
3
6
Idle
Load
3
3
3
3
5
Load
3
2
4
4
6
Load
4
5
5
4
4
Idle
Load
4
3
3
3
4
Load
4
4
4
3
3
Load
3
4
4
2
2
16"
1
1
6
1
1
1,R*6
1
6
5
1
1
1
2
5
3
16"
1
-
!_
-
1
2
2
-
"
10
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
3
2
4
3
3
3
1
2
Fuel
10
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
19"
6
6
5
6
6
7
6
5
1
5
6
6
6
3
6
Rate
19"
_
1
1
1
1
_
1
1
1
1
—
-
1
1
3"
2
2
1
4
3
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
3"
3
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
4
1
1
3
4
CT
5
5
4
5
2
5
5
2
6
3
5
4
4
-
5
CT
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
3
3
4
3
Test Cycle
Transient 10
15
iO
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 1,0
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Test cycle
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
* K means removed
14
-------
It should be noted that while the gasoline heavy-duty emission test
has nine modes, modes 2, 4, 6, and 8 are all at the same engine operating
condition. These modes have been combined for this analysis, giving six
separate modes. Note that a zero intercept was assumed. Also, it should be
pointed out that if an unconstrained regression analysis results in any
coefficients that are negative, a regression analysis which constrains the
coefficients to be positive will have at least one zero coefficient. *••*-'
The appendix tables present the equation coefficients, which are the modal
weighting factors, except for the 16 inch mode, where the coefficient must
be divided by four. There is a separate equation for each driving cycle
and load for each emission or fuel rate.
While not listed in the tables, the correlation coefficients for these
equations were all above 0.9. It should be clearly understood that this
was not the correlation coefficient for a linear fit of the observed driving
cycle emission to calculated composite 9-mode emission. Rather, the corre-
lation coefficient reflects the fit of the driving cycle value to the six
different modal values from the 9-mode test.
In order to obtain a better understanding of the usefulness of the
new weighting factors, a linear regression was performed using the compo-
site 9-mode results using the new weighting factors and the emissions or
fuel consumption from the various driving cycles. The correlation coef-
ficients are shown in Table 7.
In almost every case, the reweighted composite 9-mode value improved
the correlation. In a few cases, the correlation coefficient from the re-
weighted values showed a slight decrease.
While reweighting did, in general, improve the correlation, it produ-
ces a different set of weighting factors for each driving cycle and emission
combination. The 60 equations relating the reweighted 9-mode emissions and
fuel rate to the driving cycle emissions and fuel rate are shown in Table 8.
Whether these equations from the reweighted 9-mode emissions should be used
to predict emissions from other cycles is a matter of judgment. However,
it is felt that these correlations are still not good enough for all the
uses to which these correlations might be subjected.
The reason that some of the reweighted correlation coefficients were
lower than the FTP correlation coefficients remains unknown. However, since
the purpose of the reweighting was to obtain the best possible set of weighting
factors, a review of the method seemed in order. The quadratic programming
technique used to reweight the modes was necessitated by the two constraints
on the weighting factors requested by the EPA. One constraint was the
weighting factor (which are the coefficients in the equation) must all be
positive; the other was that the weighting factors sum to 1.0.
As a consequence of the least squares approach, the method neces-
sarily tried to generate modal coefficients that would give composite emis-
sions or fuel rate identically equal to the dynamometer test emission or
fuel rate. In other words, an equation relating composite 9-mode and dyna-
mometer test cycle emissions or fuel rate would have a slope of 1.0. How-
ever, it is not really necessary that the composite 9-mode value be equal
15
-------
TABLE 7. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FROM DEGRESSION ANALYSIS BETWEEN
REWEIGHTED 9-MODE RESULTS AND DRIVING CYCLE RESULTS FOR
NINE SINGLE AXLE TRUCKS
Test
Desc.
20±5
30±5
10 Avg.
15 Avg.
20 Avg.
Empty Load
HC
0.942
0.938
0.975
0.975
0.960
CO
0.891
0.976
0.868
0.870
0.754
NOX
0.884
0.849
0.980
0.958
0.869
Fuel
0.856
0.748
0.887
0.776
0.785
HC
0.940
0.957
0.939
0.966
0.932
Half Load
CO
0.748
0.844
0.885
0.865
0.783
NOy
0.878
0.891
0.983
0.921
0.920
Fuel
0.870
0.829
0.863
0.855
0.735
HC
0.927
0.957
0.944
0.975
0.939
Full Load
CO
0.613
0.692
0.668
0.889
0.849
_NOK_
0.907
0.957
0.903
0.922
0.938
Fuel
0-783
0.704
0.869
0.603
0.675
-------
TABLE 8. REGRESSION EQUATIONS RELATING REWEIGHTED COMPOSITE 9-MODE
EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE TO VARIOUS DRIVING CYCLE EMISSIONS AND
FUEL RATE FOR NINE SINGLE AXLE GASOLINE TRUCKS
Empty load
Cycle
a
b
r
Half load
a
b
r
Full load
a
b
r
HC Emissions
20 ± 5
30 ± 5
10 avg .
15 avg.
20 avg.
- 0.864
0.178
- 0.155
0.134
0.376
1.106
0.961
1.059
0.984
0.946
0.943
0.938
0.975
0.975
0.960
- 1.093
- 0.645
0.023
0.035
0.107
1.120
1.086
1.031
1.001
1.001
0.940
0.957
0.939
0.966
0.932
- 2.532
- 0.840
- 1.554
0.037
0.076
1.247
1.101
1.284
1.019
1.035
0.927
0.957
0.944
0.952
0.939
CO Emissions
20 ± 5
30 ± 5
10 avg.
15 avg.
20 avg.
- 4.590
- 0.489
8.028
4.44
17.626
1.226
1.045
0.871
0.901
0.706
0.891
0.976
0.868
0.870
0.754
0.360
- 1.382
9.105
5.738
26.511
1.086
1.106
0.869
0.936
0.691
0.748
0.844
0.885
0.865
0.783
27.163
36.473
25.494
10.407
43.27
0.695
0.555
0.662
0.863
0.669
0.613
0.692
0.668
0.889
0.849
NOY Emissions
A
20 ± 5
30 ± 5
10 avg.
15 avg.
20 avg.
20 ± 5
30 ± 5
10 avg.
15 avg .
20 avg.
0.158
- 0.171
0.128
0.526
0.992
-87.426
-48.539
-20.886
18.159
26.374
0.960
1.047
0.915
0.783
0.734
1.532
1.286
1.187
0.855
0.842
0.884
0.849
0.980
0.958
0.869
0.856
0.748
0.887
0.776
0.785
- 0.209
- 0.449
0.190
0 . 596
0.535
Fuel
-60.443
-47.213
- 4.253
- 4.413
34.447
1.051
1.108
0.889
0.760
0.851
Rate
1.335
1.256
1.034
1.034
0.813
0.878
0.891
0.983
0.921
0.920
0.870
0.829
0.863
0.855
0.735
- 0.262
0.067
0.513
0.599
0.996
- 42.991
-496.43
- 13.181
18.830
- 2.491
1.059
0.994
0.705
0.778
0.706
1.215
3.617
1.098
0.871
1.011
0.908
0.957
0.903
0.922
0.938
0.783
0.704
0.869
0.603
0.675
form of equation: Y = a + bx
where:
X - Reweighted composite 9-mode emission or fuel
Y = cycle emission or fuel
r = correlation coefficient
17
-------
to the dynamometer test cycle value, only that it can predict the test
cycle value. It was then realized that the constraint that the modal
coefficients sum to 1.0 is an unnecessary constraint. It is possible to
make any group of coefficients sum to 1.0 simply by summing the coefficients
and dividing each individual coefficient and the dependent variable y
by the sum of all the coefficients. To be sure, this changes the absolute
value of the composite emission (or fuel rate); but it does not change
the correlation coefficient of the equation. Thus, both constraints are
not required to generate an optimum set of weighting factors.
Another way to obtain the best possible correlation between composite
modal values and dynamometer test cycle values, is to use a non-linear
regression analysis such as found in the UCLA BMD statistical program.
This program allows all of coefficients to be constrained to positive
values. The coefficients(and the composite values) can then be recal-
culated by dividing each of the coefficients and the composite values by
the sum of the coefficients. It should be emphasized that the linear pro-
gramming techniques used to generate the reweighted values contained in
this section is not incorrect, it is simply overly restrictive since a re-
gression with one constraint will give a better fit than a model with two
constraints.
Since it was also requested that one set of weighting factors be
obtained using all emissions and fuel consumption as if they were one
variable it was decided to use the method of constraining the coefficients
only to positive values then normalizing the coefficients to sum to one
after the regression was performed to obtain this set of weighting factors.
The positive constrained regression coefficients for each test cycle
are given in Appendix B as Table B-13. The normalized regression coef-
ficients (normalized to sum to 1.0) are contained in Table B-14.
While obtaining correlation coefficients for reweighted 9-mode re-
sults completed the required analysis on this item, some further work was
felt to be necessary on the fuel consumption relationship. Figure 1 is a
plot of the 32 kph fuel rate as a function of the reweighted composite
9-mode fuel rate. The regression equation and coefficient of determination
(r^) are shown on the figure. The coefficient of determination of 0.54
indicates that this would be a poor relationship to use to predict 32 kph
fuel rate from the composite 9-mode fuel rate.
Before proceeding further, it was felt that some examination of the
reasons for the poor relationship between the fuel rates should be done.
There are several factors that could influence the relationship. A mathe-
matical reason has already been explained. There are also physical reasons.
The modal fuel rates from the 9-mode test are a function of engine size as
can be seen by Figure 2. While the 32 kph fuel rates were all for the half
load condition, the actual test weight of each truck was different.
It was felt that perhaps normalizing the 9-mode modal fuel rates to
our engine size and the 32 kph fuel rates to one test weight would give a
better relationship. This was done and the quadratic optimization program
rerun to obtain new 9-mode weighting factors. When the 32 kph fuel rate
18
-------
-—, As taken data using
I—J recalculated weighting factors
Y = 34.45 + 0.812X
r2= 0.540
m
3
M-l
SS
•P
(0
•H
cn
QJ
JJ
(0
3
b
i-(
U
>i
U
Oi
•H
>
ft
M
CN
n
220
200
180
160
140
120
-..f7-I
^-
"p~i_~
:yr
cr
tit
n:
^i-
120 140 160 180 200 220
Composite 9-mode Fuel Rate, g/min
240
FIGURE 1. 32 KPH DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE VS. 9-MODE
FUEL RATE FOR 9 SINGLE AXLE TRUCKS
19
-------
Mode
Vac.
o
D
0
A
L\
Q
i
2
3
5
7
9
Idle
16
10
19
3
CT
c
•H
tn
tu
-g
(TJ
K
0
600
500
400
300
100
200 »i::_i'
4-0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Engine Displacement, litres
8.0
9.0
FIGURE 2. MODAL FUEL RATE VS. ENGINE DISPLACEMENT
FOR 18 GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS
20
-------
(taken at 7000 kg test weight) was plotted as a function of the new
composite 9-mode fuel rate (normalized to 5.65 litres), the relation-
ship was obviously so poor that no regression analysis was performed.
While plotting the 32 kph fuel rate versus test weight for the pre-
ceding analysis, an interesting characteristic was observed. For each
engine size, the curve of 32 kph fuel rate versus test weight had a point
of zero slope at some test weight (see Figure 3). Without examining the
theoretical reasons for this, it was assumed that this point represented
the same power-to-weight ratio or something similar for all trucks. When
the fuel rate at this point was plotted against engine size, a strong li-
near relationship was found to exist (see Figure 4).
It was reasoned that perhaps the fuel rate at this particular vehicle
weight could be predicted from 9-mode composite fuel rate since both were
a function of engine size. The modal weighting factor optimization programs
was again rerun using the 32 kph fuel rate at the vehicle weight where the
fuel-rate vehicle weight curve had a zero slope. These values, taken from
Figure 3, are shown in Table 9, together with the calculated 9-mode com-
posite fuel rate and 32 kph fuel rate.
Figure 5 is the plot of the composite 9-mode fuel rate using the new
optimized weighting factors and 32 kph fuel rate. The linear regression
equation is also shown. This method greatly improves the relationship,
giving a correlation coefficient of 0.916. This correlation coefficient
can be compared with those obtained using empty, half, and full load shown
in Table 2. The largest correlation coefficient for fuel rate and the 32
kph driving cycle in Table 2 was 0.783 for half load. The maximum variation
of any of the nine single axle trucks is about 9 percent.
Bear in mind that the 32 kph fuel rates are at different vehicle
weights depending on the size of the engine. However, with a knowledge
of how the 32 kph fuel rate varies with vehicle weight for a given engine
size, the fuel rate at any other vehicle weight could be predicted. To
do this would be well beyond the scope of this project.
Since the weight-to-size ratio is a factor in relating 9-mode compo-
site fuel rate to 32 kph transient fuel, it is possible that it is a factor
for all transient cycle fuel rate relationships. Whether or not some simi-
lar analysis is required to correlate the 9-mode composite emissions with
transient cycle emissions is not known. Unfortunately, it is beyond the
scope of this project to investigate this possibility.
In summary, the results of the analysis of this item showed that while
there was a strong linear relationship between the 9-mode composite fuel
consumption and emissions (in grams/minute) and most test cycles, the re-
lationship was not good enough to predict driving cycle emissions or fuel
consumption for most purposes. Reweighting the modes improves the corre-
lation but gives a different set of weighting factors for each test cycle
and emission. It was found that the reweighting technique requested was
overly restrictive and that better correlations could probably be obtained
using the alternate method suggested. The fuel consumption correlation can
be greatly improved if the test cycle fuel consumption value for each truck
21
-------
c
•H
0)
-p
Q)
P
0)
iH
U
o
c
•H
Q
JZ
a
260
240
220
200
180
160
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Vehicle Test Wt., kg
9000
10,000
FIGURE 3. 32 KPH DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE VS. VEHICLE
TEST WEIGHT FOR 9 SINGLE AXLE TRUCKS
22
-------
Y = -66.98 + 0.012X
r2= 0.834
300
0)
iH
O
•rH
.C
+J 1-1
(0 U3
C 0
•rH H
6 0)
\ N
D>
Cfi
- n3
(U BC
JJ
(0 OJ
H 3
0) U
fa 0)
+J
3
U1 fa
•H 0)
•H 0)
CN
ro
250
200
150
5 6
Engine Size, litres
FIGURE 4. 32 KPH DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE AT ZERO SLOPE POINT
VS. ENGINE SIZE FOR 9 SINGLE AXLE TRUCKS
23
-------
TABLE 9. RESULTS OF SPECIAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS
TO OPTIMIZE CORRELATION BETWEEN 9-MODE FUEL RATE
AND 20 mph DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE
FOR NINE SINGLE AXLE TRUCKS
Truck No.
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
17
32 kph Driving Cycle
Fuel Rate, g/min(2)
157.0
213.0
193.0
178.0
164.5
218.0
239.0
205.5
196.0
Reweighted 9-mode
Fuel Rate, g/min
173.4
219.2
191.9
192.2
162.7
206.4
235.2
201.7
180.4
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Manifold Vacuum
In. Hg.
Idle
16
10
16
19
16
3
16
CT
Weighting
Factor
0.000
0.147
0.320
0.147
0.000
0.147
0.092
0.147
0.000
gasoline powered truck numbers from Contract 68-03-2147
fuel rate at (vehicle weight, kg)/ ((litres-3.344)/.0164)
= 60.2
24
-------
'v 32 kph data at vehicle wt. where fuel curve
^ has zero slope. 9-mode weighting factors
recalculated to give best estimate of 32 kph data
Y = -12.85 + 1.0664X
r2= 0.839
c
•rl
&
CD
O
U
CP
C
•H
•H
Q
£
(N
m
260
240
220
200
160
140
120
::~p'L:."~p;'
ET7!^
---;[.:--
A
H
7^~
— Xv+—
-------
is taken at the same value of a parameter that is a function of both vehicle
weight and engine size. It is felt that this method would also improve the
emissions correlations.
Thus, it is believed that this item has been investigated as far as
it should be under the present allocation of effort, but that additional
work should be done. This additional work would seem to have a good pos-
sibility of improving the correlation between 9-mode emissions and driving
cycle emissions.
Item 3 - Will substituting a WOT mode for the 3" vacuum mode of the
9-mode cycle improve the correlation between the 9-mode cycle and other
cycles?
The 9-mode FTP runs from the 18 gasoline trucks tested were repro-
cessed to give new weighted emissions and fuel rates using a WOT mode in
place of the 3" vacuum mode. Table 10 shows the comparison of the two 9-
mode tests for HC, CO, NO , and fuel rate for all 18 trucks. In general,
replacing the 3" mode with a WOT mode resulted in little change in the
weighted HC emission, an increase in CO, a decrease in NOX, and a slight
increase in fuel rate. These 9-mode results with the WOT mode were used
to generate a new correlation matrix to determine if this method produces
emission values with better correlations with any of the driving cycle
emissions.
The variables showing high correlation are shown in Table 11. This
list can be compared with the list using the regular 9-mode FTP given in
the previous section. The composite CO emissions using the WOT mode cor-
relate well with the 48 kph steady-state cycle for empty and half load,
where they did not with the 3" mode. The composite NOX emissions using the
WOT mode no longer correlate with the 24 kph transient NOX as they did
using the 3" mode.
The relationships between the composite WOT 9-mode emissions and the
driving cycle emissions of the same type are shown in the form of correla-
tion coefficients in Table 12. The correlation coefficients using the WOT
mode from Table 12 can be compared with those using the 3" vacuum mode from
Table 4. The comparison shows no change in HC emission correlations using
the WOT mode, changes but no trend for CO emissions, and worse correlations
for NOX and fuel when the WOT mode is used.
To determine if reweighting the WOT mode would improve the correla-
tions, the special linear programming analysis was rerun using WOT in
place of the 3" mode. A new series of weighting factors were obtained for
the 60 driving cycle, load, and emission combinations. The weighting fac-
tors, which are the coefficients of the constrained regression equations,
are included in Appendix B as Tables B-15 through B-18.
A correlation matrix was obtained for all three loads using the re-
weighted composite 9-mode results with the WOT mode substituted for the 3"
mode. The correlation coefficients showing the relationship between the re-
weighted WOT 9-mode emissions and the various driving cycles are shown in
Table 13. Comparing Table 12 and Table 13, it can be seen that reweighting
26
-------
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF 9-MODE COMPOSITE RESULTS
FOR REGULAR 9-MODE FTP AND A 9-MODE TEST
INCLUDING WIDE OPEN THROTTLE
9-mode fuel
g/min
WOT
Truck
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
9-mode HC
g/min
FTP
3.31
4. 19
3.09
3. 08
2.85
5.56
4.60
8. 25
5. 00
5. 03
3.44
7.13
3.74
4. 59
4.23
5.46
3.15
3. 13
WOT
3.37
4.57
3.69
3.34
2.81
5.83
4.68
8.42
8.53
5.25
3.43
7.52
3.97
4. 77
4. 77
5.61
3.21
3.39
9-mode CO
g/min
FTP
39.68
51. 93
23.10
31.67
37.52
26.22
46.32
64.34
29.76
35. 18
31.21
102.06
33.25
80. 06
90.37
89.25
16.53
8.64
WOT
43.19
86.63
54.44
54.14
31.89
44.78
58.32
72.59
44.41
64.90
33.04
128.97
58.02
95.49
116.00
102.69
27.18
32.62
9-mode
g/min
FTP WOT FTP
2.90 2.76 132.2 132.58
3.03 1.54 166.9 181.86
4.65 2.75 139.4 149.97
2.47 1.75 141.9 147.87
2.02 2.46 117.9 118.03
4.52 3.54 152.9 159.46
2.61 2.17 171.1 170.42
2.98 2.95 151.3 156.46
3.61 2.75 125.3 132.84
7.29 4.90 202.1 201.72
3.04 2.82 142.3 142.17
2.60 2.00 188.6 199.82
4.43 3.30 160.7 168.51
0.92 0.75 169.2 176.41
1.95 1.74 181.4 190.51
2.14 2.01 161.5 166.64
1.44 1.29 130.2 138.00
1.82 1.14 142.9 157.43
Note: rpm at 3" Hg mode varied from 2000 to 2100
while rpm at WOT was essentially 2000.
27
-------
TABLE 11. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MODAL AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER
CYCLE EMISSIONS HAVING CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS ABOVE 0.9 FOR
9-MODE FTP COMPOSITE RESULTS WITH WOT REPLACING 3 INCH MODE
1. Composite 9-mode
HC CO NOX Fuel Rate
Correlates with empty load
20 mph sine HC 30 mph S/S CO 0 mph S/S Fuel
10 mph trans HC 30 mph sine CO
15 mph trans HC
20 mph trans HC
2. Composite 9-mode
HC CO NOX Fuel Rate
Correlates with half load
20 mph sine HC 30 mph S/S CO 0 mph S/S Fuel
30 mph sine HC
10 mph trans HC
15 mph trans HC
20 mph trans HC
3. Composite 9-mode
HC CO NOV Fuel Rate
Correlates with full load
20 mph sine HC 0 mph S/S Fuel
30 mph sine HC
10 mph trans HC
15 mph trans HC
20 mph trans HC
28
-------
TABLE 12. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN RESULTS
FROM WOT 9-MODE TESTS AND DRIVING CYCLE RESULTS FOR
NINE SINGLE AXLE TRUCKS
Test
Desc.
00 SS
05 SS
10 SS
15 SS
20 SS
30 SS
40 SS
55 SS
20±5
30±5
40±2
05 Avg.
10 Avg.
15 Avg.
20 Avg.
Empty Load
HC
0.835
0.238
0.347
0.028
0.419
0.592
0.478
-0.276
0.940
0.831
0.446
0.853
0.946
0.939
0.931
CO
0.877
0.651
0.741
0.817
0.827
0.926
0.800
0.358
0.876
0.953
0.896
0.862
0.800
0.742
0.479
NOX
-0.581
0.176
0.388
0.260
0.597
0.739
0.813
0.343
0.630
0.628
0.860
0.105
0.193
0.524
0.178
Fuel
0.949
0.211
0.558
0.662
0.704
0.755
0.884
0.553
0.639
0.521
0.561
0.229
0.740
0.607
0.634
HC
0.715
-0.126
0.409
-0.021
0.469
0.598
0.360
0.155
0.916
0.935
0.409
0.876
0.930
0.949
0.939
Half
CO
0.875
0.734
0.846
0.854
0.789
0.914
0.676
-0.189
0.765
0.720
0.705
0.820
0.662
0.823
0.271
Load
NOX
-0.165
0.286
0.416
0.312
0.554
0.743
0.794
0.425
0.470
0.579
0.882
0.490
0.202
0.600
0.338
Fuel
0.960
0.385
0.550
0.703
0.678
0.700
0.849
0.240
0.693
0.627
0.633
0.838
0.752
0.686
0.492
HC
0.540
0.139
0.487
0.002
0.653
0.651
0.432
0.247
0.936
0.952
0.406
0.886
0.964
0.960
0.964
Full
CO
0.811
0.766
0.725
0.837
0.819
0.874
0.659
-0.532
0.293
0.460
0.327
0.874
0.836
0.604
0.558
Load
NOX
-0.795
0.203
0.386
0.300
0.650
0.836
0.853
0.513
0.373
0.506
0.704
0.101
0.179
0.603
0.313
Fuel
0.914
0.441
0.541
0.663
0.715
0.763
0.854
0.137
0.605
0.348
0.403
0.895
0.199
0.441
0.494
-------
Ul
o
TABLE 13. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN KEWEIGHTED WOT
9-MODE TESTS AND DRIVING CYCLE RESULTS FOR NINE SINGLE AXLE TRUCKS
Test
Desc.
20±5
30±5
10 Avg.
15 Avg.
20 Avg.
Empty Load
HC
0.947
0.928
0.974
0.977
0.963
CO
0.947
0.984
0.920
0.845
0.560
NOX
0.749
0.704
0.315
0.618
0.409
Fuel
0.856
0.748
0.887
0.779
0.775
HC
0.940
0.947
0.940
0.969
0.938
Half
CO
0.882
0.798
0.792
0.930
0.369
Load
NOX
0.508
0.626
0.269
0.717
0.474
Fuel
0.870
0.829
0.863
0.813
0.676
HC
0.927
0.957
0.944
0.979
0.943
Full
CO
0.468
0.649
0.904
0.787
0.717
Load
NOX
0.430
0.504
0.238
0.768
0.417
Fuel
0.771
0.578
0.868
0.527
0.562
-------
in general improves the correlation. To aid in comparing the various
composite 9-mode results that have been calculated, the correlation
coefficients for the non-steady state test cycles from each calculation
method are shown in Table 14. Examination of this table reveals that for
both the 9-mode tests with the 3" vacuum mode and the tests with the WOT,
reweighting the modes improves the correlation. However, the reweighted
WOT 9-mode correlations are not greatly different from the reweighted
regular 9-mode correlations. Therefore, it must be concluded that sub-
stituting a WOT mode for the 3" vacuum mode of the 9-mode cycle will not
improve the correlation between the 9-mode cycle and other cycles.
Item 4 - How does the percent change in fuel rate and emissions for
various levels of control measured over the 9-mode cycle compare with the
change in fuel rate and emissions over other cycles?
For this item, four levels of control were defined; pre-1970, 1970
to 1973, 1974 to 1975 Federal, and 1975 California. The pre-1970 truck
emissions and fuel rate were used as the base levels. The percent changes
were calculated for each emission type and fuel rate. These percent changes
are shown in Tables 15 through 18. Keeping in mind that the sample size is
small, some trend may be seen from the tables. As would be expected, the
average 9-mode HC levels decrease with increasingly strict standards. This
change is always reflected in the HC emissions for the driving cycles; but
for the 1970 and 1974 standards, the HC reduction is not always seen in the
steady-state and sinusoidal cycles. The percent change from the base HC
level of the 16 kph and 32 kph driving cycle and the 89 kph steady-state
cycle for the 1970 and 1974 standards show essentially no change from the
one level of control to the next. All other cycles, with the exception of
the idle cycle, show a decrease in HC emissions from 1970 (but not neces-
sarily a decrease from pre-1970) as the standards become stricter.
The 9-mode CO emissions levels also decreased with increasingly
stringent standards. Again, this change in always reflected in the driving
cycles, but not always in the steady-state or sinusoidal cycles. All cycles
show a decrease from 1970 (but again, not necessarily a decrease from pre-1970)
as the standards become more stringent.
The 9-mode NOX emissions increased from pre-1970 to the 1970 standard
configuration and again from 1970 to the 1974 configuration. Only the NOX
levels from trucks built to 1975 California standards showed a decrease
in 9-mode NO from pre-1970 levels. The driving cycles all showed an in-
crease in NOX over the levels from pre-1970 trucks, with the 1975 Cali-
fornia trucks showing the smallest increase.
The 9-mode fuel rate decreased from pre-1970 to 1970 trucks, then
increased for 1974-1975 Federal standard trucks. The 1975 California
trucks show the largest 9-mode fuel rate decrease from the pre-1970 trucks.
The driving cycles for all levels of control have lower fuel rates than the
pre-1970 driving cycles.
It should be pointed out that the pre-1970 trucks were all at least
six years old when tested and undoubtedly had experienced some performance
deterioration. It is probable that both NOX and fuel rate for the pre-1970
31
-------
TABLE 14. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN DRIVING CYCLE EMISSIONS AND
9-MODE EMISSIONS FOR SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE 9-MODE TEST CYCLE
Test
Emission Desig-
Type nation
1IC 20±5
30:x5
40± 2
05 AVG.
10 AVG.
15 AVG.
20 AVG.
CO
-------
TABLE 15. -AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE IN HYDROCARBONS
FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF EMISSION CONTROL
(PRE-1970 BASE LEVEL)
Level of Emission Control
9-Mode
Steady State
Idle
15
30
55
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
Driving
10
20
Sample Size
1970-1973
-12.7
-75.8
-22.1
+61.5
-18.2
+ 8.9
+ 9.9
+81.3
-42.5
-29.2
4
1974-1975
Federal
-20.0
-28.0
-38.5
+ 34.2
-18.8
-16.9
-12.4
+61.7
-41.9
-33.9
8
1975
Calif.
-41
-96
-95
-90
-79
-34
-60
-73
-67
-62
2
.5
.1
.2
.3
.7
.2
.0
.9
.4
.5
33
-------
TABLE 16. AVERAGE PERCENT OF CHANGE IN CARBON MONOXIDE
FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF EMISSION CONTROL
(PRE-1970 BASE LEVEL)
Level of Emission Control
9-Mode
Steady State
Idle
15
30
55
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
Driving
10
20
Sample Size
1970-1973
-28.3
-21.4
+ 21.6
+29.2
-38.3
-18.0
+ 1.1
+32.9
-14.4
-18.9
4
1974-1975
Federal
-36.
-28.
- 8.
+10.
-59.
-24.
-26.
+15.
-31.
-29.
8
1
7
1
4
2
0
9
0
1
0
1975
Calif.
-81.
-87.
-87.
-78.
-65.
-46.
-74.
-63.
-60.
-55.
2
5
4
9
0
7
0
1
7
7
7
34
-------
TABLE 17. AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE IN OXIDES OF NITROGEN
FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF EMISSION CONTROL
(PRE-1970 BASE LEVEL)
Level of Emission Control
9-Mode
Steady State
Idle
15
30
55
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
Driving
10
20
Sample Size
1970-1973
+71.3
+ 36.4
- 9.4
+49.5
+59.0
+63.4
+ 37.0
+ 5.1
+80.7
+45.4
4
1974-1975
Federal
+83.1
-18.2
+64.9
+ 22.1
+128.7
+83.8
+75.6
+19.8
+149.8
+96.4
8
1975
Calif.
-20.
+81.
+19.
-31.
+ 79.
+ 7.
+ 27.
-12.
+65.
+44.
2
0
8
4
5
4
0
8
3
1
7
35
-------
TABLE 18. AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE IN FUEL RATE
FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF EMISSION CONTROL
(PRE-1970 BASE LEVEL)
Level of Emission Control
1974-1975
1970-1973
9-Mode
Steady
State
Idle
15
30
55
- 2.
- 7.
- 9.
- 2.
- 0.
3
7
9
7
6
Federal
+10.
+ 3.
+22.
+14.
- 2.
1
9
8
8
6
1975
Calif.
- 8
-17
+22
+14
+ 8
.8
.6
.7
.3
.3
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
-13.
- 5.
-12.
0
5
5
+ 5.
+ 9.
+ 0.
7
2
4
- 4
+ 6
+ 1
.8
.1
.6
Driving
Sample
10
20
Size
-15.
-13.
4
7
0
- 2.
- 2.
8
2
0
- 8
- 2
2
.0
.8
36
-------
trucks were affected by this deterioration since both are at least par-
tially a function of combustion efficiency. Thus, the baseline value
for NOX may be lower and the fuel rate higher than would have been seen
is the pre-1970 trucks were tested when new.
Using the pre-1970 emissions as a base, the percent change in 9-mode
emissions and the percent change in chassis dynamometer cycle emissions
for each truck was used in a regression analysis. A separate regression
was performed for each emission and cycle type. This then defined the
relationship between percent change in 9-mode emissions and percent change
in test cycle emissions for each emission and test cycle.
Table 19 shows the correlation coefficients and the linear equations
from the regression analysis for the 1970 to 1973 level of emission control.
Except for steady-state idle, the correlation coefficients indicate a strong
linear relationship between changes in 9-mode emissions and fuel rate and
changes in the other test cycle emissions and fuel rate. However, there
were only four trucks in the 1970 to 1973 category. With only four data
points, the correlation coefficients should be used with great care. An
examination of the residuals from the equations reveals that there are
large variations from the calculated relationships even for cycles with
correlation coefficients above 0.9. The slopes of the lines indicate that
the relationship between the 9-mode changes and other cycle changes are
greatly different for each emission and test cycle combination. The inter-
cept value, representing no change in the 9-mode emission from the average
pre-1970 emission, is often unexplainable in terms of the physical consi-
derations. For instance, several times this value is over 100 for both HC
and CO. This means that for no change in 9-mode emissions, a change of
over 100 percent could be expected in that particular emission and test
cycle. It is not recommended that these equations be used to predict chan-
ges in driving cycle emissions from changes in 9-mode emission without fur-
ther data.
The correlation coefficients for the relationship of the 9-mode and
test cycle emission changes for the post-1974 emission control level are,
in general, not high enough to indicate a good linear relationship (see
Table 20). Thus, it appears that for the post-1974 emission levels, driv-
ing cycle emission changes from pre-1970 levels cannot be predicted from
the 9-mode test. Since there were only two trucks tested which met the
1975 California emission standards, the regression analysis was not per-
formed on those trucks.
Item 5 - How different are the rpm-time profiles and manifold vacuum-
time profiles for a given transient cycle and load for different trucks?
It was decided that the best way to approach this problem was to ob-
tain rpm-manifold vacuum matrices for the 18 gasoline trucks tested, simi-
lar to those produced by the CAPE-21 project. A special computer program
was written to process the data tapes generated under Contract 68-03-2147
to obtain the desired matrices. The matrices for the 16 kph and 32 kph
driving cycles for all 18 trucks are included in Appendix B as Tables B-19
through B-62. For the 16 kph transient cycle and the 32 kph transient
cycle at half load on each truck, these matrices were condensed into time
37
-------
TABLE 19. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANGE IN 9-MODE COMPOSITE EMISSIONS
AND CHANGE IN DRIVING CYCLE EMISSIONS FOR 1970 TO 1973 LEVEL OF EMISSION CONTROL
(AVERAGE PRE-1970 BASE LEVEL)
HC CO NOV Fuel Rate
Cycle
Idle SS
15 SS
30 SS
55 SS
a
-74.76
4.27
101.50
5.10
b
0.08
2.07
3.14
1.83
r
0.454
0.963
0.920
0.982
a
-9.62
109.29
106.38
-4.61
b
0.42
3.11
2.73
1.19
r
0.452
0.958
0.929
0.906
a
99.29
-111.98
-27.08
-101.82
b
0.88
1.44
1.08
2.26
r
-0.857
0.985
0.941
0.984
a
-6.59
-6.38
1.24
2.49
b
0.48
1.50
1.70
1.31
r
0.438
0.995
0.945
0.822
20 +_ 5 21.77 1.01 0.901 18.23 1.28 0.976 -101.66 2.32 0.987 -11.00 0.86 0.814
30 +_ 5 15.95 0.47 0.795 56.54 1.96 0.992 -74.05 1.56 0.947 -1.13 1.87 0.974
w 40+2 119.10 2.97 0.965 104.22 2.52 0.997 -13.82 0.27 0.840 -8.79 1.58 0.962
CD
10 Avg. -35.05 0.59 0.888 9.55 0.85 0.987 -60.85 1.99 0.989 -13.05 1.14 0.936
20 Avg. -17.11 0.95 0.991 6.92 0.92 0.997 -84.30 1.82 1.000 -10.42 1.10 0.945
form of equation: y = a + bx
where: y = percent change in driving cycle emissions or fuel rate
x = percent change in 9-mode emissions or fuel rate
r = correlation coefficient
sample size: Four 1970 to 1973 model gasoline trucks
-------
TABLE 20. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANGE IN 9-MODE COMPOSITE EMISSIONS
AND CHANGE IN DRIVING CYCLE EMISSIONS FOR 1974 LEVEL OF EMISSION CONTROL
(AVERAGE PRE-1970 BASE LEVEL)
HC
CO-
NOX
Cycle
Idle SS
15 SS
30 SS
55 SS
20 + 5
30 + 5
40 + 2
10 Avg.
20 Avg.
a
9.76
-40.66
37.18
-29.51
5.96
27.45
62.46
-23.72
-18.88
b
1.88
-0.11
0.15
-0.54
1.14
1.99
0.04
0.91
0.75
r
0.601
0.053
0.070
0.367
0.600
0.712
0.021
0.732
0.468
a
17.22
85.39
97.50
-60.05
-11.04
1.56
57.64
-9.07
-6.70
b
1.27
2.59
2.41
-0.02
0.36
0.79
1.18
0.61
0.62
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
r
.706
.934
.914
.024
.408
.856
.819
.707
.526
a
-57.73
9.94
-20.67
73.99
82.07
52.80
-38.54
128.82
77.90
b
0.48
0.66
0.52
0.66
0.02
0.28
0.70
0.25
0.22
r
0.672
0.644
0.755
0.807
0.018
0.314
0.895
0.319
0.369
a
-4.68
7.12
8.31
-6.98
1.88
2.50
-8.90
-11.80
-13.62
b
0.85
1.55
0.64
0.44
0.38
0.67
0.92
0.95
1.16
r
0.524
0.513
0.347
0.397
0.324
0.458
0.832
0.809
•0.765
form of equation: y = a + bx
where: y = percent change in driving cycle
x = percent change in 9-mode
r = correlation coefficient
sample size: Eight 1974 or later gasoline trucks meeting Federal emission standards
-------
spent in various rpm intervals (regardless of vacuum) and time spent in
various vacuum intervals (regardless of rpm). The cumulative percent times
were then calculated for both the rpm and vacuum for each truck. The cumu-
lative distributions for each truck were then compared with the distribution
of each of the other trucks, one at a time, usinq the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) "
test.
Table 21 lists truck pairs which showed no significant difference
(at the 0.05 level) in cumulative distributions. As an aid to understanding
this table, a description of the gasoline trucks is included in Appendix A.
It is interesting to note, from Table 21 , that for the 32 kph transient
cycle, only two pairs of trucks (Nos. 2 and 6 and Nos. 3 and 12) had cumu-
lative vacuum distributions that were not significantly different. This
excludes the repeat and alternate runs of Trucks 17 and 18 which, of course,
should agree with each other.
Trucks 2 and 6 are both single axle trucks, so it is not surprising
that they would have similar vacuum distributions. In fact, it is sur-
prising that only two of the single unit trucks and none of the tractor-
trailers have vacuum distributions that agree with each other. It is in-
teresting that Trucks 3 and 12 had similar vacuum distributions despite
the fact that Truck 3 is a single unit truck and Truck 12 is a tractor-
trailer which has a slightly different 32 kph transient cycle.
Eight pairs of trucks have rpm distributions for the 32 kph cycle
which are not significantly different from each other, not counting repeat
and alternate runs of Trucks 17 and 18. The two trucks within a similar
pair are both from the same truck type (single unit or tractor-trailer) in
all cases. While more trucks have rpm distributions than vacuum distri-
butions that agree, at the most, only four of the nine single unit trucks
have rpm distribution that agree with each other and only two of the trac-
tor-trailers have rpm distributions that agree. It is again interesting
that two different type trucks, Truck 13 (a tractor-trailer) and Truck 15
(a single unit, 3-axle truck), have similar rpm distributions despite the
fact that the two 32 kph driving cycles are somewhat different.
The 16 kph driving cycle data show more pairs of trucks with vacuum
and rpm distributions that are not significantly different than the 32 kph
driving cycle. In many of the 16 kph pairs, both trucks are not of the
same type. Of all the distributions, only the rpm distributions for Truck
pair 3 and 6 and Truck pair 5 and 6 show agreement for both the 32 kph and
16 kph transient cycles.
Since differences in rpm and manifold vacuum for trucks operating
over the same driving cycle have important implications in the development
of possible new certification cycles, it was decided to compare the matrices
on a cell-by-cell basis. To do this, data were written in vector form (in-
stead of matrix form) by extending each vacuum row by the next lower one.
For example, the data had the following form, y-v, where "k" referred to
IK
rpm and was the fastest moving index and "j" referred to vacuum and was the
second fastest moving index.
The extended vector for each truck was compared with the vector of
40
-------
TABLE 21. GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCK PAIRS SHOWING SIMILAR
MANIFOLD VACUUM AND ENGINE RPM DISTRIBUTIONS
USING KOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV TEST
I- Truck pairs with similar distribution (at 0.05 level) of time at
various manifold vacuum levels for half load, 32 kph transient
driving cycle.
(2, 6) (18, 18R)
(3, 12) (18, ISA)
(17, 17R) (ISA, 18R)*
(17, 17A)
II. Truck pairs with similar distribution (at 0.05 level) of time in
various engine rpm intervals for half load, 32 pkh transient
driving cycle.
(2, 3) (5, 8)
(3, 4) (13, 15)
(3, 6) (13, 18R)
(4, 6) (15, 18R)
III. Truck pairs with similar distribution (at 0.05 level) of time at
various manifold vacuum levels for half load, 16 kph transient
driving cycle.
(2, 7) (15, 17)
(2, 13) (15, 17A)
(7, 13) (17, 17A)
(10, 14) (18, 18R)
IV. Truck pairs with similar distribution (at 0.05 level) of time in
various engine rpm intervals for half load, 16 kph transient
driving cycle.
(3, 6) (7, 14) (8, 12) (14, 18) (18, 18R)
(5, 8) (7, 16) (11, 14) (14, 18R) (18, ISA)
(5, 17R) (7, 18) (11, 16) (16, 18)
(6, 11) (7, 18R) (11, 18) (16, 18R)
(7, 11) (7, 18A) (14, 16) (17, 17A)
*A is alternate cycle
R is repeat test using original cycle
41
-------
each other truck, one at a time, using the KS test statistic. This was
done for both the 16 kph and 32 kph average speed driving cycles. All
trucks differed significantly (at the 0.05 level) except for 7 and 13,
17 and 17R, and 18 and 18R for 16 kph. In 32 kph, all trucks except
Trucks 17 and 17R, 17 and 17A, 17R and 17A, and 18 and ISA differed sig-
nificantly. It can be concluded that in the majority of the cases, the
trucks did not have similar distributions of percent time spent at various
combinations of rpm and vacuum.
Item 6 - For an average speed of 32 kph, how well do sinusoidal fuel
consumption and emissions approximate a fully-transient cycle fuel con-
sumption and emissions? Above 32 kph, how well does a steady-state approx-
imate a sinusoidal cycle?
The approach to this item was to perform a linear regression on all
gasoline trucks to determine if there was a relationship for fuel consump-
tion and emissions between the 32 kph sinusoidal cycle and the 32 kph tran-
sient cycle; the 64 kph sinusoidal and the 64 kph steady-state. The 48 kph
sinusoidal cycle was also compared to the 48 kph steady-state. A linear
regression was performed on the half load results for each emission and
fuel consumption. The regression coefficients and correlation coefficient
for each regression are shown in Table 22. The scatter plots are shown in
Figures 6 through 11.
As would be expected, there is a decreasing correlation for all vari-
ables of any two cycles as the cycles became less alike. Fuel consumption
in grams per minute correlates better than emissions for all three cases.
The most obvious use for this data is to determine if sinusoid excursions
about a given speed could be used to predict emissions and fuel consumption
for transient cycles. The answer is a matter of judgment and depends on
how accurately the transient emissions are desired. In general, the cor-
relation coefficients indicate that except for the 64 kph correlation, the
correlations are not sufficient for most purposes and their use is not
recommended.
It should also be pointed out that the correlation shown between
the 32 kph sinusoidal cycle and the 32 kph average speed transient cycle
is for one specific transient cycle. The correlation between the sinu-
soidal and transient cycle for other transient cycles with different char-
acteristics could be different.
Item 7 - Does load setting have the same effect on fuel rate and
emissions for each average speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with
average speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with different cycles at
the same average speed?
These three questions were included as one item since they can all
be answered by performing a multiple regression analysis using load, speed,
and speed times load as the variables for each emission type and each test
cycle type for each truck.
This analysis was performed using data from each of the 18 trucks,
with separate regressions for each of the 4 emissions and each of the 3 cycle
42
-------
TABLE 22. LINEAR REGRESSION EQUATIONS AND CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS OF FUEL CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS FOR
VARIOUS DRIVING SCHEDULES
Form of equation: y = a + bx
Correlation
Driving Cycles (Half Load) a b Coefficient
I. 32 kph, sine (± 8 kph) vs
transient
HC 3.659 0.383 0.478
CO 43.279 1.182 0.567
NO 2.113 0.307 0.499
Fuel Consumption 48.742 0.902 0.662
II. 48 kph, sine (± 8 kph) vs
steady state
HC 1.083 0.166 0.399
CO -3.182 0.827 0.847
NOX 1.331 0.460 0.646
Fuel Consumption -5.581 1.003 0.939
III. 64 kph, sine (± 3 kph) vs
steady state
HC -0.252 +0.995 0.941
CO -3.138 +0.939 0.901
NOX 0.615 +0.940 0.923
Fuel Consumption 15.526 +0.947 0.973
43
-------
18
i f.
J.O
14
rH
O
>< 12
o ±£
c •*•*
'p 0) in
in m
6 c
& £ 8
J-fi
tC >; 6
CN
m
4
2
0
220
200
1 Rfl
160
£ 14°
. 0
•g c 120
**v O
6 tn
2 § 100
E-i
8.C 0~
Q, 80
^ 60
A r\
Ofl
0
*;•.-*
; 7 " "
-:::.'^-l:
- : ".:-.-.:
.•".LI"
. : : : :_ .
----1- -
- \- -
- . : t ' :: .
- Lx"*"
- •
_ . . . .
. -: - -
::: --;
--.:-=:
.
;'-'-.
. •'. ::_
: O :
- -
--*
- :
.-••.I. -
•"it"
:-..;.-. -
- r
-:" : - :
3 : :
.: -[::-L:
" !-' . j"r
^>^
CG
; _ . .
:-: •
-_,. --
:'.:. •"•
\
o
-
-" - "
: 0
7^>
_. 7_:.^
~_
"•:_- .'.-
' . 1 . - -
;:-:.::-
Q]^,
^^ -
° - i :
© ^.
n! '
r^r—
.: f^ ' ' !-~~
i - -
":._r ...
_. ^i
i," ~ ;
::-_• ::,
:-.:: :.--_
f^"^ ::_
;:.-- iF:-
..: . :
^
_ _,
, . i.
"^:-;::
h! Q
::1: :•.:-
:. ~-
-7-J177:
: .
T-, -
^:i:::i
•:.- 1 : : . :
".fe
~^£*':
7::-j-:-7
liili^i
— i —
77:7. h:.: : r
-Ti.r:
:--rf::-:
-T:.^.
..:7f7-_:.
.. J.- .
•:-:r:'.'
- ^ : r_. :7
"-7^>
-"rrlrr-::
P-"-!.-:1-
-^^:-
=^^-
:::.:k:7.
--:-;-:! ~:
t_r.:-
-.-_-[:-:
f ^:-
: 1
./-.i" ..
- - i •--
-^
**^~
i-.-.-l::-'
f:-". .::
•:..z..:.7
^•:f:-::
:-r.:r:::.r
— . .
r;- :".:.
-
.:.T ~ '
..-.: :.-.
— \L**^
:- : "::
- ;.]:';:
•::[;:=:
::^:-
--]-•"
-::-[.•::
-.:!::::
.. : . : r: . .
.. . . _
•::.. '...-
1 1- " — ' - - ' - .,.-:,,"•:,..! •••-
02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
HC, grams /min, 32 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
- •'.]•'.:.
— _• —
• r • -
.':.\=-
i : ••":;+":•:"
i •-:}--:
"I:'"
r •
•-.t:.
. '-:-/
/
/;;---
- i
-^~
-;:fh":T;
^3^
:"-:"i:":;
-:-..:_
©^
^ . : _ :
.:--.\---
&
~^/
'/"
./. ....
0
-::";-<3
: -
: ;
t.'-i
i -
.... j.17..:
^
-_..r-.:_
• --|: :•-
:;;:{:::
. - | . . ..
/
^ :'"~
•...- ....
-..- ~-
— -€
V
3 7
- f- '-
-\-TT-
&
---'.:-/-.
--./:
t-:-\':-~-
!o
7777177 :7|
: VJ
:.. [--lour
^~
•..-:.:•}:---
:/
£-—
—4—
O"
-.:..;.::..
.:-["•
r: :.\r.-~
^
. \...
__[__
,:^:,
: : r_ '.-
:-. i.:.
" "t"
r::-.|.:
. . ! j.. .!. .
--•:i..:.
r. . .
•.::!":..
l: .-
... —
1 1
N^
/::-::
:::.|:. :
1
: ' . "" •
/._:::_..
1 ---
:;,_!..__
t
- .;.!..-:
Lr.-.[ .:-
:
-;--•-"
. - - .
.. ..I":::
- t --
. . f
: P"
-----t-..-
:;::" -'
:":: :"::":
:-- - -
i
^_J_7__
:IL: I.:..:
.77:71.::::
•:-•!.:.:
r
- :.;.-.:
—.-}—:-.
•--f-- -
__j.._-
.... ;..-.
. . .- \ . - ..
:-:}':._-:-
":-:':~:'.:.
/ ":".:
_ :.f '.:
.:::: "_;..
-77.77; -;:
-H7T-: :-
.1-F-T.
T7TTH
:::,7,.:.
.•:!.!.:.
.„.,,...
7... '::~
... . ..
. . .„.( . .
r-.:-::
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CO, grams/min, 32 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
FIGURE 6. TRANSIENT 32 KPH HC AND CO EMISSIONS AS A
FUNCTION OF 32 KPH SINUSOIDAL HC AND CO EMISSIONS
44
-------
23 4 5 67 8 9 10 11
NOX, grams/min, 32 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
300
c
•H
I"
4J
- C
C
-------
0)
4J
- id
C 4J
•H CO
\ >i
U> T3
E id
id 0)
^ -P
Cn w
- x:
o a
ac x
CO
0123456789 10 11
HC, grams/min,48 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
12
13 14
200
.p
i
4J
CO
05
-H
e
\
to
E
rB
150
100
- 50
wm
:.i_
S* &
-' O
D
H
^f
--:--:(.:•.
z:
XT7"
:4:-.:
3L
-:.::[„:;:
0 50 100 150
CO, grams/min, 48 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
:-!.:•
•~J
200
FIGURE 8. SINUSOIDAL 48 KPH HC AND CO EMISSIONS AS A
FUNCTION OF 48 KPH STEADY-STATE HC AND CO EMISSIONS
46
-------
•P5
1"4
1 *
£ 23
CO
®:a
^
i
£L
In
^
:4?~
i
=t~
Ee
123456789
NOX, grams/min, 48 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
10
300
250
I?
200
-O
i-H
fri
a
co
150
100
~^
::-r^:
.--...:.-t:--:
X
^F
x
^
z
^
v^
G"y6TS
•or
:.--|--
r_^-.t=i
-H^
7ELEE3EE
•jfcff-~-=-
^F-
_~~~: p.rrr
100
150 200 250 300
Fuel Flow, grams/min, 48 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
350
FIGURE 9. SINUSOIDAL 48 KPH NOX EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
AS A FUNCTION OF 48 KPH STEADY-STATE NOX EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
47
-------
/ -
6 •
0) c
4J 0 -
(0
^ 1 A
•|"1 *L 4
^•0
6 S
2 w
01 .c
M &2
-
0.
1 : 1
.
...
::. i i
): -T.
:..- ::^
- _ -7
,
$&
~L.y<:
i/
if
10 , c_
i 150
(C
a)
-p
CO
£
100
c
•1-t
£
U)
e
? en
^-i 50
U
0
- 4""-"
f - -
: -•(•--:•
• • t- •
- - 1
--T-
. .: . _p:i:
_. - - -- j— -;-
:: T ::.-
. — . . .
- ; :
_ I
:i" "
-—^":
--
:.v.|-,_.
:'-^ -..-..
-,.~\~—
:-r.^-
: _ . ^ : : .
---
....
-. :":-}=-
T
:--: T-_
. . ,
TT:I
- I-
-t
-- — --
::- h- -
--.-^7 1
-----
;i:-7J:-::
r-~- -
~ _i:--:
— -h "
:rv f:"
- -!
--t~"
— . —
--'-F77'
- -i —
- • •-
•°,
X
i
.:-[-;--.
— i —
-F:"-: -.".:
.;•:(:. :
:.:•}"•-.
.- j:- :
77-1---:
:-
" _- -
-,
i:.. -_-_-:
:-.-. - -
Qu-
-- -ffgr
\Dy^
/--:]•--:-
;
QBPXoi i -
: ;
— M .
-^- - —
i..:.
::.r: :r."
i
O
: r
- - - 1 --
—/
-> x^o -
Q-
---/
3 w
T i < i
t
...i."-"
:" I --:
i
5-
|
-i/
/!-
f
i.
H;. ..
i -:
•
- -
-.' \-: ::
' ' : .
•t/
^/j
Trip';:
.-:.:-,:-
... i : :
. .-!••:.
::L :
T
-1"' ".-
::. h.-:
:;:•[:..
7i:|-::-::
ryT
j
1
.:-.: •-'
::.. .-...
i-. :--"•-
::.,:'..
77' j : : : .
:•.[•--
: iij-..:
.: :"r7:.-
t - -
t - .
! 1
I
- .[.-
-t
-: - -
vf
:-: '--'
":~ "r
::"--i::
1- -
-I":-
- . ,
-vi; :
-. ;..
-::! -
J-
' ''
)
i
-
1
.
:::' :T.
:: ;
: - i
... i
!
r . . rj~i . - ~
0 50 100 150 20
CO, grams/min, 64 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
FIGURE 10. SINUSOIDAL 64 KPH HC AND CO EMISSIONS AS A
FUNCTION OF 64 KPH STEADY-STATE HC AND CO EMISSIONS
48
-------
0)
4-1
113
X Q,
10
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
NOX, grams/min, 64 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
400
380
360
S 5 340
32°
A
ft
300
0)
CM
280
260
240
220
180
&
JEL
r
180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440
Fuel Flow, grams/min, 64 kph Sinusoidal Cycle
FIGURE 11. SINUSOIDAL 64 KPH NOx EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE AS A
FUNCTION OF 64 KPH STEADY-STATE NOx EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
49
-------
types, resulting in 216 equations. The coefficients for these equations
are shown in Appendix B, Tables B-63 through B-74 together with indica-
tions of "goodness of fit" of each equation. It should be pointed out that
for these equations, load was kg/1000 and speed in kph/8. This was done to
obtain variables of the same order of magnitude, so that the load times
speed term would not be unduly influenced by large differences in magnitude
of the values. The form of the equation calculated is shown below:
emission = constant + bi (load) + b2 (speed) + b3 (load x speed).
To answer the first question, "Does load have the same effect on emis-
sions for each average speed?" we can look at how load varies at a constant
speed. Since speed is a constant, the equation reduces to:
emission = new constant + (b^ + b3 x speed) load
where new constant = constant + b2 x speed.
If load had the same effect on emissions for each average speed, the
load coefficient in the reduced equation (bi + b3 x speed) would be the
same for each speed. In other words, the emission change with load would
be independent of speed. As can be seen from the reduced equation, as long
as the coefficient for the load times speed term (b3) is not zero, this will
not be the case. Thus, it can be said that in general, speed does alter the
effect of load on emissions. The questions are then, "Is this a significant
effect?" More importantly, "Is load even a significant variable at a given
speed?"
To answer these questions, the significance of each of the coefficients
was examined using an F statistic. The significant coefficients are marked
in Appendix B as Tables B-63 through B-74. Examining the tables, load at a
given speed, coefficient b]^, appears to be a significant variable for HC on
33 percent of the trucks for the sinusoidal tests and 6 percent of the trucks
on both the transient cycle and steady-state tests. The load times speed
coefficient b3 is significant for 6 percent of the trucks on the sinusoidal
cycle and 11 percent of the trucks each on the driving and steady-state cycles.
Six percent of the trucks in each of the test cycle types had HC emissions
that are significantly affected both by load and by load times speed. Thus,
it appears that HC emissions from some trucks were significantly influenced
by load setting at a given speed, but only for one truck on the steady-state
and one truck on the driving cycle did speed significantly alter the effect
of load on HC emissions.
The same type of analysis can be done for CO, NOX/ an(j fuel consump-
tion. In general, except for CO emitted during the sinusoidal cycle, load
at a given speed was not significant for CO, NOX, or fuel. It should be
noted that this does not mean that these emissions and fuel consumption are
not, at least partially, functions of load, it means that either load alone
does not account for all of the change seen at constant speed, or that the
data are unable to show it.
To summarize, load is generally not statistically significant in its
influence on emissions or fuel consumption at a given speed. For approxi-
mately three fourths of the trucks relationships of emissions and fuel con-
sumption with load do not change significantly from one speed to another.
50
-------
The next question was: Do fuel rate and emissions vary with average
speed? To answer this question, load is held constant and the general
equation reduces to:
emissions = new constant + (b2 + (b3 x load)) speed
where new constant = constant + b]_ (load) .
If the reduced coefficient, b2 + (b3 x load), is significantly different
from zero for the test cycle and emissions (of fuel consumption) under
consideration, then there is a variation with speed.
The different test cycles were examined individually beginning with
the transient driving cycles. For HC, speed at a given load, coefficient
b3, is a significant variable for 28 percent of trucks and load times
speed, coefficient b3,is significant for 11 percent of the trucks. For
CO, speed at a given load is significant for 22 percent of the trucks and
load times speed is significant for 28 percent of the trucks. For NOX,
speed at a given load is significant for 100 percent of the trucks and load
times speed is significant for 28 percent of the trucks. For fuel consump-
tion, speed at a given load is significant for 56 percent of the trucks and
load times speed for 28 percent of the trucks.
The sinusoidal test cycles showed a few trucks where speed at a given
load is a significant variable. This is probably because there are only
three speeds, 32, 48, and 64 kph which are generally in the mid-power range
of the engine and so require little change in engine operating condition.
For HC, speed was a significant variable for 6 percent (one truck) of the
trucks and load times speed for 6 percent (one truck) of the trucks. For
CO, speed was significant for 6 percent of the trucks and load times speed
was significant for 22 percent of the trucks. For NOx, speed was significant
for 6 percent of the trucks and load times speed for none of the trucks.
For fuel consumption, speed was significant for 17 percent of the trucks and
load times speed for none of the trucks.
The steady-state test cycles showed speed at a given load as a signifi-
cant variable more often than the sinusoidal test cycles. For HC, speed is
a significant variable for 28 percent of the trucks and load times speed for
11 percent of the trucks. For CO, speed is significant for 22 percent of
the trucks and load times speed for 28 percent of the trucks. For NOX, speed
is significant for 56 percent of the trucks and load times speed for none
of the trucks. For fuel consumption, speed is significant for 66 percent of
the trucks and load times speed for 17 percent of the trucks.
To summarize, except for the sinusoidal cycle, speed has a statis-
tically significant influence on HC and CO emissions at a given load for
approximately one quarter of the trucks. Further, speed has a statistically
significant influence on NOX at a given load for 56 percent to 100 percent
of the trucks, excluding the sinusoidal tests. Finally, speed has a statis-
tically significant influence on fuel consumption at a given load from a 56
to 66 percent of the trucks, again excluding the sinusoidal tests.
The last question of this item is: Do fuel rate and emissions vary
51
-------
with different cycles at the same average speed? For emissions and fuel
consumption to be the same at a given speed and load for each of three cycles,
the coefficients of the equations for that emission would have to be the same
for each cycle. An examination of Appendix B Tables B-63 through B-74 in-
dicates that this is generally not the case. However, it is felt that a
more direct way to answer this question is to directly compare the emissions
and fuel rate for the same average speed and load conditions on each truck.
These comparisons are shown in Tables 23 through 26 for HC, CO, NOX,
and fuel rate, respectively. Since the test-to-test variability for these
cycles has not been defined, it is difficult to determine at what level the
cycle-to-cycle differences at the same speed are significant. However.-
some insight may be gained by examining the average values of all trucks
for each cycle at a given speed.
For HC emissions, there appears to be little difference between the
64 kph steady-state and sinusoidal (±4 kph) emissions and between the 32
kph sinusoidal and transient emissions. For the other speeds, the average
HC emissions for the steady-state cycle are appreciably lower than the cor-
responding transient or sinusoidal cycle.
The average CO emissions from the steady-state cycles are appreciably
lower than the corresponding transient or sinusoidal cycle for all speeds
except 64 kph. The average CO emissions from the 64 kph steady-state and
sinusoidal cycles are essentially the same.
There is apparently little difference in NOX emissions between the
8 kph steady-state and transient cycles and between the 64 kph steady-
state and sinusoidal cycles. At other speeds, the average NOV emissions
J\.
from the steady-state cycles are lower than the NOX emissions from the cor-
responding transient or sinusoidal cycles.
There is little difference in average fuel rate values from the 48
kph steady-state and sinusoidal cycles and from the 64 kph steady-state
and sinusoidal cycles. The fuel rates for corresponding cycles at other
speeds are not equal.
To summarize, for all of the emissions, some of the test cycles
gave equivalent results at some of the tested speeds. The 64 kph steady-
state and sinusoidal cycles always had equivalent average emissions (and
fuel consumption). It should be emphasized that individual truck emissions
(and fuel consumption) varied from the relationships found in the average
data and these average trends should not be used to define relationships
for an individual vehicle.
Item 8 - How does the SARR data compare with other 32 kph transient
driving cycles?
To answer this question, the average percent time frequency distri-
butions of vehicle speed and engine rpm from the San Antonio Road Route
(SARR) were compared with the same data from the 18 gasoline trucks from
Contract 68-03-2147- The time-in-manifold vacuum was not compared since
it conveys little information without a knowledge of the corresponding en-
gine speeds. First, the percent time in various vehicle speeds for the
52
-------
TABLE 23. COMPARISON OF GASOLINE TRUCK HC EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MINUTE
FROM DIFFERENT DRIVING CYCLES AT THE SAME AVERAGE SPEED
(HALF LOAD DATA)
Avg. Speed, kph
Cycle
Truck 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Coeff. of
Var.
8
SS
0.15
0.82
0.49
6.33
2.64
0. 77
0.86
1.76
1.44
1.57
0.31
3.38
0.53
0. 77
1.66
0. 93
0.12
0. 11
1.37
0.11
6.33
111%
Trans
1. 45
2. 00
2. 09
3.35
3. 11
5. 77
2.11
8.85
5. li
4. 04
2.49
4. 83
3. 05
5.96
5.05
5. 89
0.86
2.14
3. 79
0. 86
8.85
54%
16
SS
0.12
0.96
0. 73
0. 76
2.04
0.72
0.88
1.87
1.22
1.28
1. 13
3.97
0.50
0.73
2.01
1. 18
0.09
0.09
1.13
0.09
3.97
82%
Trans
3. 74
3.51
4.13
3.34
4. 20
7. 11
3.98
12. 84
3.99
6. 82
3.67
7. 94
4.66
9. 58
6.93
7.84
2.16
3.45
5.55
2. 16
12.84
49%
24
SS
0.40
1.07
0. 75
0.75
4.30
0.66
1.08
1.81
1.32
1.39
1.48
3. 71
0. 72
0.83
2.61
0.99
0.09
0. 10
1.34
0.09
4.30
86%
Trans
2. 71
3.11
3.27
3.45
2.82
5. 97
3.40
9.92
5.44
9.25
4.33
9.79
6.54
11. 01
8.98
9. 28
1. 55
4.72
5.86
1.55
11. 01
52%
SS
0.35
1.16
1.36
0.84
2.08
1. 15
1.30
2.05
1.51
1.55
1.65
4.02
0.95
0.86
2.60
0.99
0.10
0.10
1.37
0.10
4.02
68%
32
Sine
7.97
8.59
6. 59
4. 17
3.56
7.47
10. 14
19. 20
7.57
7. 46
5.24
13. 72
3. 10
5.90
8.55
4. 25
5.03
5.88
7.47
3.10
19.20
52%
48
Trans
3.81
4. 10
4.19
4. 03
3.90
6.05
4.52
11.82
7.51
10.60
4. 56
10.29
6. 90
12.28
7.43
8.43
2. 18
4.65
6.51
2.18
12.28
47%
SS
0. 78
1.99
2. 02
1.83
1.47
2. 09
1. 75
2.31
2.24
2. 22
2.36
5. 28
1.61
0.52
3.30
2. 09
0. 18
0. 13
1. 90
0. 13
5. 28
62%
Sine
6.07
4. 14
4.34
3. 27
2.89
7.98
7.67
13.06
6.31
3.93
2.52
6.98
1.86
2.17
6.42
3.44
3.24
1.07
4.85
1.07
13.06
60%
64
SS
1.02
3.06
2.67
3.31
1.19
2.97
1.65
2.37
2.99
3.39
3.35
6.51
2.66
0.21
3.60
2. 78
0.40
0.30
2.47
0.21
6.51
62%
Sine
2.52
3.09
1.97
3.33
1.31
2.88
2.52
2.69
3.22
4.36
3.47
6. 74
2.63
1.24
3.49
2. 73
0.62
0.42
2. 74
0.42
6.74
53%
-------
TABLE 24. COMPARISON OF GASOLINE TRUCK CO EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MINUTE
FROM DIFFERENT DRIVING CYCLES AT THE SAME AVERAGE SPEED
(HALF LOAD DATA)
Avg. Speed, kph
Cycle
Truck 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Coeff. of
Var.
8
SS
1. 7
35.3
6.9
2.6
16.1
7. 8
23.3
50.8
29.2
17.9
7.9
125.8
13.9
45.4
60. 9
29. 8
3.0
4.8
26. 8
2.6
125.8
113%
16
Trans
19.5
43. 8
32. 0
11. 8
15.5
11.3
48.6
50. 0
42.6
40.2
25.8
73.2
27.3
63.3
55.5
73. 7
0.7
23.6
36.6
0.7
73. 7
59%
SS
2.3
41. 1
13.9
8.6
14. 1
10. 1
21. 2
47. 8
23.5
17.6
30.4
144. 3
14.9
47. 4
72.9
38. 1
2.9
5. 1
30. 9
2.9
144.3
110%
Trans
53.5
61.2
50.8
38.7
55. 2
30.4
67. 0
74.2
52.1
83. 0
32.2
128.8
58.2
107.3
88.4
96.7
13.5
52. 0
63.5
13.5
128.8
46%
24
SS
2. 3
45. 0
11. 3
7. 8
14.8
6.6
23. 5
44. 0
23. 7
16.3
38. 2
131. 3
20.5
48. 0
97. 0
31.9
3.3
7.2
31.8
2.3
131.3
106%
Trans
41. 0
57.6
50.6
32.1
32.3
27. 9
60.3
61.8
68. 1
108.2
44. 2
180.9
102. 2
135.5
138.2
147.6
10. 1
79.7
76.6
10. 1
180. 9
63%
SS
2.6
36.5
19.1
8. 7
14. 7
17. 7
32.6
52. 5
26. 1
16.4
38.3
138.8
23. 2
47.5
96. 0
23. 7
3.8
7.4
33.6
2.6
138.8
102%
32
Sine
31. 1
69.4
34.8
57. 7
39.4
42.4
83.5
74.4
29. 7
33. 1
38. 1
127.4
32.4
86.6
56. 9
71. 7
25.1
21.6
53.1
21.6
127.4
52%
48
Trans
90. 2
68. 7
64.6
70. 1
102. 5
48. 2
85. 9
91.1
84. 5
171.4
51. 8
216.1
131. 5
181.3
170. 1
187; 2
20. 3
104. 1
107. 8
20. 3
216. 1
52%
SS
3. 1
58. 8
29.4
17.5
11. 7
29.3
34. 1
51. 7
30. 1
15.5
48. 7
143.8
32.9
45.9
115.8
50.4
5.7
11.9
40.9
3. 1
143.8
90%
Sine
42. 4
74.4
31. 1
42. 8
51.3
35. 2
68.9
53.1
28.8
40. 0
38.8
182.6
30. 5
78.6
81.3
98.8
16.3
20.2
56.4
16.3
182.6
69%
SS
4. 7
68.4
34.5
32.4
27.8
32. 7
25. 7
21. 7
32. 8
29.5
64.3
140. 1
35.4
71.9
126. 1
55.0
14.4
17.2
46.4
4.7
140.1
79%
64
Sine
41. 8
74.3
24.8
51.8
37. 5
28. 1
46. 4
33.2
30.6
59.9
63.9
165. 1
33.9
72.6
95.5
54.0
12.5
23.3
52.7
12.5
165.1
67%
-------
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF GASOLINE TRUCK NOX EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MINUTE
FROM DIFFERENT DRIVING CYCLES AT THE SAME AVERAGE SPEED
(HALF LOAD DATA)
Ln
Ln
Avg. Speed, kph
Cycle
Truck 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Avg.
Min.
Max,
Coeff. of
Var.
8
SS
0.28
0.19
0.68
0.40
0.57
0.82
0.56
0.24
0.42
1.12
0.48
0.43
0.81
0.67
0.37
0.93
0.64
0. 74
0.57
0.19
1.12
43%
16
Trans
0.48
0.42
1.13
0.56
0.6l
0.89
0.49
0.36
0.70
0.90
1.30
0.46
1.60
0.49
1.15
0.48
0.44
0. 95
0. 75
0. 36
1.60
48%
SS
0.35
0.27
1.51
0.51
0.67
1.21
0.68
0.27
0.50
2.13
0.75
0.69
1.11
0.82
0.71
1.05
0.66
0.69
0.81
0.27
2.13
57%
Trans
1. 04
1.84
2.46
1.18
0.87
2.01
1.51
0.84
1.44
2.04
2.48
0.86
2.96
0.82
2.02
0.68
1. 11
1.54
1.54
0.68
2. 96
44%
24
SS
0.28
0.27
1.25
0.73
0.67
1.17
0.78
0.24
0.68
1.90
0.89
0.31
2.08
0.86
1.35
1.01
0.67
0.99
0.90
0. 24
2.08
58%
Trans
1.86
2. 25
3.47
1.94
1.89
2.83
2.16
2.73
2.47
3.49
4.95
1.26
4.11
1.17
3.70
1.08
1.72
2. 24
2. 52
1.08
4.95
42%
32
SS
0.86
0.85
3.30
1.00
1.41
2.58
1.54
0.88
1.70
2.93
1.07
0.52
2.83
1.15
1.01
1.53
0.84
1.32
1.52
0.52
3.30
55%
Sine
2.90
2. 75
8.09
2.86
2.63
5. 22
3.73
2.93
4.12
6.03
3.32
1.90
3.92
1.68
10.43
3.17
2.66
2.96
3.96
1.68
10.43
56%
Trans
2.09
3.70
5.35
2.75
2.05
4.12
3.11
3.54
3.33
4.32
5.39
1.49
5.99
1.45
3.74
1.39
2.60
3.50
3.33
1.39
5.99
41%
48
SS
3.01
1.56
6.14
2.05
3. 68
4.24
2.76
3.22
5.31
5.80
3.09
3.36
6.48
1.61
3.14
3.41
1.40
2.68
3.50
1.40
6.48
44%
Sine
2.32
2.57
7.80
3.43
2.79
6.51
4.06
3.64
4.51
8.02
5.2l
3.28
6.19
2.23
9.92
4.41
2.52
5.83
4. 74
2.23
9.92
47%
64
SS
6.33
4.84
9.00
5.52
8.69
7.88
5.60
10.01
10.25
17.92
7.23
8.79
16.35
4.66
4.59
8.05
3. 78
7,63
8. 17
3. 78
17.92
46%
Sine
7.39
4.79
8.55
4.88
7.01
8.71
5.92
11.08
8.71
18.78
6.10
6.50
13.95
3.44
7.90
8.11
3.59
9.40
8.05
3.44
18.78
46%
-------
TABLE Z6. COMPARISON OF GASOLINE TRUCK FUEL RATE IN GRAMS/MINUTE
FROM DIFFERENT DRIVING CYCLES AT THE SAME AVERAGE SPEED
(HALF LOAD DATA)
Avg. Speed, kph
Cycle
Truck 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
S 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Coeff. of
Var.
8
SS
98.9
104.8
98.5
67.1
96.6
120.3
151.0
106.5
87.9
161.6
115.0
166.7
146.0
185. 4
148.8
158.3
119.5
146. 1
126.6
67.1
185.4
26%
16
Trans
47.3
85.3
76.8
61.4
58.6
78.5
99.2
81.3
76.1
96.8
93.6
101.0
91.4
114. 7
115.4
106.3
62.8
104.8
86.2
47.3
115.4
23%
SS
103. 7
118.6
130.4
85. 1
94. 0
135.5
158. 7
107.3
89. 1
195.3
141.8
203.4
163.6
206.3
190. 2
167.2
125.0
174.0
143.8
85. 1
206.3
28%
Trans
88.6
131.0
119.3
103. 7
110.6
126.1
152.4
127.7
107.9
159.3
126.5
167.9
147.6
187.0
176.3
149.1
102.6
161.5
135.8
88.6
187.0
21%
SS
90.9
114. 2
108.0
85.6
78. 7
117. 7
158. 4
92.9
89.9
167.6
156.0
168. 8
196. 7
187.0
250.8
149. 1
100.3
211. 1
140. 2
78.7
250.8
36%
24
Trans
98.3
130.5
140.8
116.4
112.0
140.0
168.9
143.4
149.0
207.1
183.7
229.6
208.9
226.5
249.7
206. 1
123.5
216.9
169.5
98.3
249.7
28%
SS
110.8
150. 1
155.8
125.3
105.6
167.6
222.6
129.3
127.1
181.1
152.0
182.3
201.3
198. 7
218.5
158.6
146. 1
227.5
164.5
105.6
227.5
23%
32
Sine
125.0
175.1
187.4
183.7
138.9
199.8
244.8
179.6
140.8
183. 7
176.3
208.0
192.2
237.4
251.5
204. 1
172.8
178.6
187.8
125.0
251.5
18%
Trans
153. 0
177. 0
185.9
168.9
180.9
187. 1
225.9
198.3
182.3
286.3
202.3
272.0
265. 7
283.3
274.4
249.1
172.6
270.3
218.6
153.0
286.3
21%
SS
123.7
173. 1
183.4
157. 2
126.2
201.2
234.5
154.8
155.9
203.4
219. 1
278.0
271. 7
257.2
298.7
223.7
174. 1
261.3
204.8
123.7
298.7
26%
48
Sine
132.9
181. 0
190.5
179. 7
157. 1
217. 4
251. 7
164.9
148.1
219.2
210.1
301.3
222.4
245.4
305.1
250.4
171.8
262.1
211.7
132.9
305.1
24%
64
SS
184. 1
248.3
228.4
220.6
201. 2
240.9
271.5
226.4
225.3
339. 7
264.3
353.0
326.6
385.6
300.9
270.5
220.8
340.3
269.4
184.1
385.6
22%
Sine
187.9
242.5
194. 1
223. 7
223.8
252.0
274.5
232. 3
209.0
347.9
254. 7
370.8
308.4
372. 7
301.6
270.0
212.6
345.6
268.0
187.9
372.7
22%
-------
three 32 kph driving cycles used in Contract 68-03-2147 and the percent
time in various vehicle speeds for the SARR were compared. This com-
parison is shown in Table 27. The comparison is shown in miles/hour, since
the SARR data was obtained and analyzed in those units. As an aid to visual-
izing the differences between the SARR and the dynamometer driving cycles, the
cumulative percent time for each of the cycles is shown in Figure 12. As
can be seen from the table and the figure, the dynamometer driving cycles
are all fairly similar to each other. The SARR, however, differs from the
dynamometer cycles in that it has less time at idle, more time between idle
and 32 kph, and less time between 50 and 80 kph.
The comparison of the average engine rpm distribution for all gaso-
line trucks driven on the three dynamometer cycles and the average SARR
engine rpm distribution is shown in Table 2 8, together with the rpm distri-
butions from CAPE-21 and the Ethyl Truck and Bus Study (ETABS). The cumu-
lative percent time is shown in Figure 13 for the SARR, the 18 truck dyna-
mometer study, and the New York CAPE-21 data.
From the table and figure, it is evident that the three cycles do not
show good agreement. The New York CAPE-21 data has over 20 percent of the
time at idle and another 20 percent under 1000 rpm. The 18 truck dynamo-
meter study has the same percent time at idle as the New York CAPE-21 but
much less time at speeds under 2000 rpm and more time than the New York
CAPE-21 at speeds above 2000 rpm. While the SARR has less time at idle,
it has more time in the 1000 to 2000 rpm range than either of the other
two cycles. The difference between the dynamometer cycle data and the
CAPE-21 data is of interest, since it is understood that the dynamometer
cycles were developed from the New York CAPE-21 data. However, the anal-
ysis of Item 5 showed that the rpm profile varied from truck-to-truck.
Therefore, the differences between the dynamometer cycles and the CAPE-21
data could be caused by a different fleet composition. Also, the composite
average speed of the New York CAPE-21 trucks is not known by SwRI.
Item 9 - Can fuel rate and emissions be highly correlated with per-
cent time at idle?
For this item, the data from the nine single axle trucks was used.
The relationship of fuel flow and emissions to percent time at idle for
the various driving cycles was to be investigated by normalizing the vari-
ables. The technique proposed to normalize the fuel flow and emissions
was to ratio the fuel and emission values for the various percent times
at idle to the value at 100 percent idle. This was done and linear regres-
sion performed on the normalized variables. Table 29 shows the percent
time at idle for the various driving cycles used. The correlation coeffi-
cients between normalized HC, CO, NOX and fuel flow and percent time at
idle are -0.33, -0.39, -0.60, and -0.81, respectively. The scatter plots
for HC, CO, NOX, and fuel flow are shown in Figures 14 through 17, respect-
ively. The scatter plot of the normalized data is also shown on same figure.
From this analysis, it appears that the emissions do not correlate with
driving cycle time at idle sufficiently to be able to predict emissions for
driving cycles from idle emissions. Depending on the accuracy needed, the
fuel flow relationship may be adequate.
Examining the scatter plots for CO, NOX, and fuel, it becomes evident
57
-------
TABLE 27. PERCENT TIME AND CUMULATIVE PERCENT TIME SPENT
IN VEHICLE SPEED INTERVALS FROM THE 32 kph TRANSIENT
DRIVING CYCLES OF CONTRACT 68-03-2147 AND FROM
SAN ANTONIO ROAD ROUTE STUDIES
Single Unit
2 Axle (2D)
Speed
Interval
kph
0-3.2
3.2-6.4
6.4-9. 7
9.7-12.9
12.9-16.1
16.1-19.3
19.3-22.5
22.5-25.7
25.7-29.0
29.0-32. 2
32.2-35.4
35.4-38.6
38.6-41.8
41.8-45.1
45.1-48.3
48.3-51.1
51.5-54. 7
54. 7-57.9
57.9-cl.l
01. 1-64. 4
04.4-67.6
67.6-70.8
70.8-74.0
74.0-77.2
77.2-80.4
80.4-83.7
83.7-86.9
86.9-90.1
90.1-93.3
93.3-96.5
Avg. Spd.
kph
Single
3 Axle
Cum.
Time
28.
1.
1.
1.
4.
1.
1.
4.
1.
5.
1.
1.
6.
1.
6.
0.
0.
3.
0.
7.
1.
0.
4.
0.
2.
0.
0.
5.
33.
95
50
83
50
49
50
83
83
66
16
33
50
16
60
82
83
67
00
83
15
00
83
66
83
83
33
66
66
31
Time
28.
30.
32.
33.
38.
39.
41.
46.
48.
53.
54.
56.
62.
63.
70.
71.
72.
75.
76.
83.
84.
85.
89.
90.
93.
93.
94.
99.
95
45
28
78
27
i {
60
43
09
25
58
08
24
90
72
55
22
22
05
20
20
03
69
52
35
68
00
66
Time
37.
0.
4.
0.
5.
1.
0.
5.
0.
5.
0.
0.
3.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
3.
0.
0.
4.
0.
2.
0.
0.
3.
0.
10.
31.
62
81
06
95
55
76
95
55
68
55
95
81
79
14
62
28
14
89
28
25
81
68
47
27
44
28
28
11
28
83
78
Unit
(3D)
Tractor
Trailer (TT)
Cum.
Time
37.
38.
42.
43.
48.
50.
51.
57.
57.
o3.
o4.
65.
69.
69.
70.
71.
71.
73.
73.
76.
77.
78.
82.
82.
85.
85.
85.
88.
89.
100.
62
43
49
44
99
75
70
25
93
48
43
24
03
17
79
07
21
10
38
63
44
12
59
86
30
58
86
97
25
08
Time
37.
0.
3.
0.
5.
0.
0.
3.
0.
4.
0.
1.
4.
0.
5.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
5.
0.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10.
32.
50
80
99
40
45
78
66
72
66
79
93
06
79
93
59
40
40
20
53
86
53
40
75
53
52
27
27
27
27
78
78
SARR
Cum.
Time
37.
38.
42.
42.
48.
48.
49.
53.
53.
58.
59.
60.
65.
66.
72.
72.
72.
74.
74.
76.
76.
77.
83.
83.
88.
88.
88.
88.
89.
100.
50
30
29
69
14
92
58
30
96
75
68
74
53
46
05
45
85
05
58
44
97
37
09
62
14
41
68
95
22
00
Time
14.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
5.
5.
4.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
32.
54
51
29
60
25
98
64
89
26
65
15
03
15
84
04
08
75
88
45
29
67
57
57
70
48
81
50
19
12
12
18
Cum.
Time
14.54
17.05
19. 34
21. 94
25. 19
29. 17
33.81
38. 70
43. 96
49. 61
55.76
61. 79
67. 94
73.78
78.82
82. 90
85.65
87. 53
88. 98
90. 27
91. 94
93. 51
95.08
96.78
98.26
99.07
99. 57
99.76
99.88
100. 00
58
-------
0)
4-J
C
0)
o
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60
Vehicle Speed, mph
FIGURE 12. CUMULATIVE PERCENT TIME VERSUS VEHICLE SPEED FOR THE
SAN ANTONIO ROAD ROUTE AND THREE 20 mph DRIVING CYCLES FROM
CONTRACT 68-03-2147
SARR
Single Unit
2 axle
Single Unit
3 axle
— Tractor Traile
-------
TABLE 28. COMPARISON OF TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS RPM
INTERVALS FOR SEVERAL GASOLINE-POWERED
TRUCK STUDIES
CAPE-21
rpm(a)
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
L. A.
0.00
0. 53
9. 33
6. 74
6.69
4. 18
4. 28
5.01
5. 82
7. 21
6.31
7. 79
10. 74
11. 80
6.68
2. 57
1. 18
0. 56
0.41
0. 26
0. 23
0. 03
N. Y.
0. 17
6.66
21.40
13.04
10. 72
8.64
7. 13
6. 70
5. 68
4. 50
4.08
2. 94
2. 31
1. 72
1. 21
0. 79
0.44
0. 21
0.06
0. 02
0. 01
0. 00
ETABS*
(All cities)
0. 02
6.59
20. 81
12. 32
8. 53
8. 28
8.01
7. 55
8. 13
5. 23
3. 92
2. 97
2. 54
2. 00
1. 38
0. 96
0.61
0. 34
0. 14
SARR**
0. 00
0. 15
5. 20
10.40
5.36
6. 20
8. 94
11. 65
12. 94
11. 00
7. 74
4.46
3.76
3. 00
2.40
2. 00
0. 90
0. 50
0. 20
0. 08
18 Truck
Dyno Study***
0. 13
0. 03
9. 11
21. 53
3. 26
3. 14
3. 13
3. 34
4. 25
4. 91
6.59
8.71
7- 53
7. 72
6. 54
4.88
2. 90
1.36
0. 28
0. 03
* ETABS - Ethyl Truck and Bus Study
** SARR - San Antonio Road Route Studies
###18 Truck Dyno Study - 32 kph driving cycles from
Contract 68-03-2147
(a'rpm is mid-point of interval for all but SARR data.
For SARR data rpm is end of interval.
60
-------
T)
0)
-»j
n)
U
•H
13
c!
cu
(-1
00
a
W
0)
pa
a)
fi
a
0)
o
>H
(U
On
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
San Antonio Road Route
Avg. Speed 20 mph
Contract 68-03-2147
20 mph Driving Cycle
New York CAPE-21
Avg. Speed not known
3000
3500
4000
Engine Speed, rpm
FIGURE 13. CUMULATIVE PERCENT TIME VERSUS ENGINE SPEED FOR GASOLINE-POWERED
TRUCKS TESTED ON CAPE-21, SAN ANTONIO ROAD ROUTE, AND 20 mph DRIVING
CYCLES FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
-------
TABLE 29. PERCENT TIME IN IDLE MODE FOR VARIOUS DRIVING CYCLES
Test
Description
Idle SS
5 Average
10 Average
15 Average
20 Average
Cycle
Description*
D2GAS
D2GAS
D2GAS
D2GAS
Average
Speed , kph
0
8
16
24
32
Percent Time
at Idle
100
56
42
37
21
.7
.4
.9
.2
*See Reference 13 for complete description of cycles.
TABLE 30. EXPONENTIAL CURVE FIT RESULTS FOR CO AND NOX
EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION AS A FUNCTION
OF DRIVING CYCLE PERCENT TIME AT IDLE
form of equation: y =
Correlation
Coefficient
Normalized CO, g/min 60.54 -0.012 -0.73
NOV, g/min 18.31 -0.071 -0.85
X
Normalized Fuel Consumption, g/min 249.66 -0.020 ~0.94
Y = CO or NOX emission
X = percent time at idle
Sample size: 9 gasoline powered trucks
62
-------
c
•H
o
a:
20 40 60 80
Percent Time at Idle
100
*
O
O
rH
O
U
33
U
ES
0)
N
•H
O
2
20 40 60 80
Percent Time at Idle
100
FIGURE 14. HC EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION OF PERCENT
TIME AT IDLE FOR NINE GASOLINE POWERED TRUCKS
63
-------
c
•H
B
O<
o
u
0)
rH
T3
O
O
rH
O
U
u
o
u
M
•H
O
2
80
60
40
20
20 40 60 80
Percent Time at Idle
100
12
10
O
a
O
A
Truck
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
Q
o s
0 17
80
100
Percent Time at Idle
FIGURE 15. CO EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION OF PERCENT
TIME AT IDLE FOR NINE GASOLINE POWERED TRUCKS
64
-------
Y = 18.3e
-0.071X
c
•H
\
cn
ro
tn
O
20 40 60 80
Percent Time at Idle
100
of
O
O
rH
X
O
2
X
i
O
2
TJ
(1)
N
•H
500
400 :p;-- :—-,-\;=_:-:VT--- :^LV: i^.-.:7-ir:^ =
300
200
100
Truck
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
17
20 40 60 80
Percent Time at Idle
100
FIGURE 16. NOX EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION OF PERCENT
TIME AT IDLE FOR NINE GASOLINE POWERED TRUCKS
65
-------
200
c 150
•rH
6
cn
(8
(-1
cn
0) 100
50
20
40 60 80
Percent Time at Idle
100
Truck
T3
H
O
O
0)
3
fa
,H
0)
3
fa
8
iH
fa
QJ
fa
(1)
N
•H
40 60 80
Percent Time at Idle
100
FIGURE 17. FUEL CONSUMPTION AS A FUNCTION OF
PERCENT TIME AT IDLE FOR NINE GASOLINE POWERED TRUCKS
66
-------
that the method used to normalize the data may not be the most appropri-
ate. Another method would be to use the average emission or fuel level
at the 21.2 percent idle condition and adjust the values of the emissions
and fuel for each truck at all idle levels by subtracting the amount that
each truck varies from the average at the 21.2 percent idle point. Thus,
each truck's curve retains the same shape as the unnormalized curve and is
simple moved up or down the y axis. In examining the plots of the emis-
sions and fuel consumption, it was felt that HC would not benefit substan-
tially from this alternate analysis and that NOX need not be normalized
at all. However, the CO and fuel consumption relationships might be im-
proved using this method.
Figure 18 shows the CO emissions normalized as explained in the pre-
ceeding paragraph. This method results in a better linear fit. The cor-
relation coefficient is -0.66. From the appearance of the scatter plot,
a nonlinear curve would probably fit the data better. However, the apparent
discontinuity between 37.9 percent idle and 42.4 percent idle that can be
seen for all trucks on the CO emissions raises the question of whether the
CO emissions are really a function of the percent time at idle or if it is
just a fortuitous relationship for these particular cycles.
It appears that a better fuel flow relationship could also be obtained
by this normalization technique. The scatter plot of fuel consumption nor-
malized by this technique as a function of percent time at idle is shown in
Figure 19. It is evident that this relationship would fit a nonlinear curve
better than a straight line, so the straight line regression was not per-
formed.
Thus, it appeared that the correlation to percent time at idle for CO
and NOX emissions and fuel consumption could be improved by using some-
thing other than a straight line. An exponential curve fit of the form
y = ae^x was tried on the normalized CO, normalized fuel consumption, and
NOX- A good fit was obtained for fuel consumption as can be seen in Figure
19. It is likely that some other curvilinear function would provide a
better fit for NOX. The coefficients of the exponential curve fit are
shown in Table 30.
Item 10 - Heavy Duty Emissions Factor Analysis
Four items of analysis were required to assess the effects of speed,
load, and power/load ratio on heavy-duty vehicles. The analyses need to
be performed using several available heavy-duty data bases. The data
bases to be considered are (1) 25 gasoline trucks tested over SARR, (2)
10 precontrolled gas trucks tested over the SARR, and (3) 18 gas trucks
tested over a transient 20 mph driving cycle. For this item, the data
and results are presented in mixed metric-English units as requested,
since the results will be used in mixed metric form in another EPA pub-
lication.
Item 10-1 - For each of the three data bases, a regress-
sion should be performed for emissions as the dependent vari-
able, weight/power ratio as the independent variable. The
weight is the vehicle test weight and the power is CID for
gasoline trucks. The regression should be linear, unless
67
-------
c
•iH
£
0)
r-H
"0
(0 oP
t-l CN
CP
I— <
- fN
o o
u u
0)
N O
•H in
O O
2 O
Y = 60.5e
-0.012X
20
40 60
Percent Time at Idle
80
100
Y = 53.1 - 0.4X
FIGURE 18. NORMALIZED CO AS A FUNCTION OF
PERCENT TIME AT IDLE
Truck
200
150
o
0)
3
fc,
•O
(U
N
§
En 100
m
o
O
2
50
-¥-= 249,7e--°-02X '
40 60
Percent Time at Idle
80
100
o
D
O
A
k
a
0
O
0
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
17
FIGURE 19. NORMALIZED FUEL CONSUMPTION AS A FUNCTION OF
PERCENT TIME AT IDLE
68
-------
a plot of the data indicate a better functional
form. Within each data base, separate regressions
should be performed for each of the following model
year groupings: pre-1970 gas, 1970-1973 gas, 1974-
1975 gas, and the 1975 California gas.
All emission data should be expressed in grams/
mile. For data bases 1 and 2, the SARR emission data
should be used (HC, CO, NOX, and FC) . For data base
3, the 20 mph emission data should be used (HC, CO,
NOX, and FC) . If multiple tests were performed on
the same truck at different loads, these data points
should be included and assumed independent. The
average weight/power ratio should be computed for
each of the data base/model year groups.
Table 31 contains the average weight/CID ratio for each of the truck
groupings. Also available in the table are average test weight, average
CID, and average mileage of each group.
Linear regression analyses were performed for each truck group with
emissions or fuel consumption as the dependent variable and weight/CID
ratio as the independent variable. The regression equations for each
emission and fuel consumption of each truck group are contained in Table 32.
Examining the results of the regression analyses shown in Table 32,
it appears that weight/CID has a significant effect on emissions and
fuel consumption for about one half of the truck groups. Since displace-
ment is, in general proportional to some design point power, the weight/
CID ratio could be thought of as a weight/rated power ratio. The slopes
of the equations HC, CO and fuel are all positive, indicating that for
a given size engine, as vehicle weight increases, fuel consumption and
HC and CO emissions also increase. This result is expected for fuel con-
sumption. Since it takes more work to move a larger vehicle, the same size
engine would naturally require more fuel. The physical reasons behind the
increase in HC and CO emissions with increased weight/CID are not as ap-
parent. For CO, one possible explanation is that the "power valve" is
open more at higher weight/CID ratios causing an increase in CO.
The regression equations, in general, had small coefficients of
determination (r^) , even on truck groups where the emissions and weight/
CID relationship was indicated to be significant. In an effort to improve
the coefficients of determination, an exponential curve fit was also
performed since examination of the plots indicated that an exponential
equation might better fit some of the data. While this regression analysis
did improve some of the coefficients of determination slightly, it also
decreased others. Overall, it was felt that there was little to be
gained by using an exponential fit.
The small values of r and large standard error values indicate
a considerable amount of data scatter. This should not be too surpri
since it has been shown in past studies that engine model (i.e. ,
manufacturer, size, ancilary equipment and model year) was the most
69
-------
TABLE 31 . AVERAGES OF SOME IMPORTANT VARIABLES
FROM SEVERAL HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE TRUCK STUDIES
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Group*
SARR Pre-1970 Gas
SARR 1970-1973 Gas
1974-1975 Gas
Pre-1970 Gas
1970-1973 Gas
Average
Wt . , Ibs
16,512
16,341
21.772
21,892
20,933
Average
Wt./CID
49.72
45.92
54.10
61.46
55.27
Average
Mileage
58,845
23,881
11,112
68,413
53,853
Average
CID
344.4
353.2
399.
352.5
313.85
No. of
Trucks
10
25
24
12
12
* Data Source: Group 1 - EPA Contract 68-03-0441
Group 2 - EPA Contract EHS 70-113
Group 3 - EPA Contract 68-03-2147
to 5
70
-------
TABLE 32. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
AS A FUNCTION OF WEIGHT/CID FOR VARIOUS GASOLINE TRUCK GROUPS
Group
1. SARR Pre-1970 Gas
2. SARR 1970-1973 Gas
3. 1974-1975 Gas
4. Pre-1970 Gas
5. 1970-1973 Gas
6. 1975 California Gas
1. SARR Pre-1970 Gas
2. SARR 1970-1973 Gas
3. 1974-1975 Gas
4. Pre-1970 Gas
5. 1970-1973 Gas
6. 1975 California Gas
1. SARR Pre-1970 Gas
2. SARR 1970-1973 Gas
3. 1974-1975 Gas
4. Pre-1970 Gas
5. 1970-1973 Gas
6. 1975 California Gas
1. SARR Pre-1970 Gas
2. SARR 1970-1973 Gas
3. 1974-1975 Gas
4. Pre-1970 Gas
5. 1970-1973 Gas
6. 1975 California Gas
Constant Wt/CID ± Std.Dev.
15.513
-15.818
10.572
20.686
0.437
6.366
222.769
12.506
40.448
123.319
207.919
-0.357
0.728
8.788
11.161
10.113
10.109
6.482
0.071
0.066
0.159
0.156
0.165
0.150
HC Emissions
0.408 + 0.840
0.716 + 0.184
0.152 + 0.063
0.105 + 0.131
0.364 + 0.085
0.067 + 0.036
CO Emissions
0.321 + 1.078
4.095 + 2.984
4.799 + 1.191
4.800 + 1.019
1.917 + 2.094
3.479 + 0.999
NOX Emissions
0.125 + 0.065
0.037 + 0.098
0.016 + 0.027
-0.063 + 0.026
-0.017 + 0.047
0.043 + 0.013
Fuel Consumption
0.002 + 0.001
0.003 + 0.001
0.002 + 0.000
0.001 + 0.000
0.001 + 0.001
0.001 + 0.000
0.029
0.397***
0.212*
0.061
0.647**
0.464
0.011
0.076
0.425***
0.690***
0.077
0.752*
0.319
0.006
0.016
0.362*
0.014
0.749*
0.714**
0.336
0.425***
0.544**
0.166
0.776*
Std. Err.
31.96
7.242
6.717
10.956
7.549
2.542
41.039
120.379
127.668
85.419
185.979
70.802
2.459
3.971
.899
.202
.158
2.
2.
4.
0.893
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.051
0.028
No. of
Trucks
10
25
24
12
12
6
10
25
24
12
12
6
10
25
24
12
12
6
10
25
24
12
12
6
Notes :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Weight = truck wt/1000 = lb/1000
CID = cubic inch displacement for both gasoline and diesel
Fuel is in gallons/mile
Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
Group 1 - EPA Contract 68-03-0441
Group 2 - EPA Contract EHS 70-113
Group 3 - EPA Contract 68-03-2147
to 6
71
-------
significant variable in explaining differences in emission levels from
a large group of trucks. Thus, the data used in this analysis is in
reality what statisticians term "nested" data; that is, within the
data, there are individual slopes. Unfortunately, in this study, there
are insufficient data to identify each of the groups.
One other caution should be mentioned before ending the discussion
on this item. The data points used for each truck group are, in general,
few in number. Also, the weight/CID range covered by the SARR trucks is
small. To aid in comparison of the data base average emissions, average
emissions for each data base are given in Table 33 .
Item 10-2 - For each of the model year groups within
data base 3, plots should be made for emissions versus average
speed. The speed cycles to be considered are 5, 10, 15, and
20 mph transient cycles; 30 and 40 mph sinusoidal cycles; and
55 mph steady-state cycle. The half load data points should
suggest an appropriate regression form (log (emissions) provided
the best fit for light-duty with a linear and quadratic term
for speed). Speed should be expressed in mph and emissions in
grams/mile, and fuel consumption in gallons/mile.
These regression equations will be normalized to either
the average speed of the SARR or the average speed of the CAPE-
21 data. The normalization will be performed by EPA.
All trucks of a given model year group will be combined
for the regressions unless examination of individual truck
plots indicates that a better approach would be to regress
each truck separately and average those results.
As mentioned in the discussion of Item 10-1, engine model has been
shown to be a significant variable in studies of truck emissions. The
trucks within data base 3, the 18 gasoline-powered trucks tested at the
seven different average speed conditions, provide an excellent example of
"nested" data.
In order to obtain the best possible prediction model for changes
in emissions with speed, a technique involving using indicator (or dummy)
variables to change the intercept and, if necessary, slope with indivi-
dual truck was employedd^)_ The ^a^a were first fit to this equation.
emissions = bQ + b^ (speed) + ^2 *2 + ^3 X3 + ^4 X4 +
where _ 0 if i truck not used
xi 1 if ith truck used.
In other words, the data is represented by i straight lines, each
with a different intercept, but common slope. Next, the data was pro-
cessed to determine if it could be represented better by straight lines
72
-------
TABLE 33. AVERAGE EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
FOR SEVERAL HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK GROUPS
Emissions, grams/mile
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Group*
SARR Pre-1970 Gas
SARR 1970-1973 Gas
1974-1975 Gas**
Pre-1970 Gas
1970-1973 Gas
1975 California Gas
HC
35.38
17.08
18.81
27.13
20.53
10.12
CO
238.0
201.0
300.08
418.35
313.85
195.10
NOX
6.81
10.48
12.04
6.27
9.14
8.93
Fuel
gal/mi
0.19
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.23
No. of
Trucks
10
25
24
12
12
6
* Data Source: Group 1 - EPA Contract 68-03-0441
Group 2 - EPA Contract EHS 70-113
Group 3 - EPA Contract 68-03-2147
to 6
** For Groups 3 to 6, emissions are averages of all trucks in the group
at empty, half, and full weight for the 20 mph transient driving cycle.
73
-------
with different intercepts and different slopes. The equation used was;
emissions
bQ + b1 (speed) + b2 x2 + b3 x3 + b4
+ bn+l X12 + bn+2 X13 + bn+3 X14
where . .th
0 if i truck not used
x-i = -t-v,
1 if itn truck used
x = 0 if ith truck not used
ii x.^* (speed) if ith truck used.
The hypothesis that the individual slope coefficients do not
improve the fit was tested by the F ratio of the residual mean square
due to adding extra slope variables to the common slope equation,
divided by the residual mean square of the individual slope equation.
If the F ratio was not significant at the 0.05 percent significance
level, the common slope equation was deemed adequate.
The regression coefficients for this study are given in Tables
34 through 37. Where a common slope could be used, the individual slopes
are not given. The plots of the equations are not included in this re-
port but were previously mailed to EPA, ECTD, Ann Arbor, Michigan. It
was suggested by EPA that perhaps a logarithmic equation might fit the data
since this equation form provided the best fit for light-duty emissions as
a function of speed. Therefore, the procedure detailed above was repeated
twice. The first equation used was:
In (emissions) = bQ + b, (speed).
The second repetition used the equation:
In (emissions) = bQ + b^ (speed) + b2 (speed2).
In general, these equation forms gave slightly better coefficients
of determination. For CO and NOX, there was considerable improvement in
the coefficients of determination. More importantly, these equation forms
permitted the use of a common speed coefficient for each truck group for
a given emission. Since the equation forms with the speed squared term
gave the best coefficients of determination, it is felt that this equation
form should be used to describe the effect of speed on emissions for HC,
CO, and NOX. The equation coefficients for each of the emissions by truck
group are given in Tables 38 through 41 .
To aid in normalizing this data base to some given speed, the average
emissions for the 20 mph transient driving cycle are given in Table 42 for
each truck group. While only the half load data was used in the above anal-
ysis, the average emissions at empty and full load are shown for comparison.
Item 10-3 - For the 1974-1975 gas trucks in data base 3, a
regression should be performed with emissions (20 mph cycle) as
the dependent variable and mileage as the independent variable.
74
-------
TABLE 34. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR HC EMISSIONS AS A
FUNCTION OF VEHICLE SPEED FOR VARIOUS ENGINE GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Group
Pre-1970
Gas
1970-73
Gas
1974-75
Gas
1975 Cal.
Gas
Note: 1.
2.
3.
4.
Truck
No.
5
8
14
16
1
3
9
12
2
4
6
7
10
11
13
15
17
18
Equation form:
Speed in miles
Intercept
43.454
70. 198
62. 877
58. 880
27. 646
28. 917
38. 760
46. 602
21. 103
27,418
51.865
23, 131
48. 507
26.460
33. 755
53. 249
11. 615
25. 171
Y = b0 + bx (speed)
per hour
Emissions in grams/mile
Significance: *
**
***
= 0.05
= 0. 01
= 0.001
Speed
Coefficient
-1.204±0.177
0.715*>
Std.
Error
15.415
n
28
-0.652±0.103
-0.355±0.182
-0.522
-1. 086
-0.361
-0.919
-0.479
-0.625
-1. 073
-0.224±0.087
-0.516
0. 728**'
8. 937
28
0.797***
7. 946
56
3. 778
14
-------
TABLE 35. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR CO EMISSIONS AS A
FUNCTION OF VEHICLE SPEED FOR VARIOUS ENGINE GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Group
Pre-1970
Gas
1970-73
Gas
1974-75
Gas
1975 Cal.
Gas
Note: 1.
2.
3.
4.
Truck
No. Intercept
5
8
14
16
1
3
9
12
2
4
6
7
10
11
13
15
17
18
Equation form: Y = DQ +
Speed in miles per hour
366. 707
402. 289
637. 892
651. 178
330. 852
334. 461
412. 244
768. 615
407.875
193. 326
170. 703
426. 636
548. 050
252. 150
352. 905
690.440
93.079
278. 206
bj (speed)
Speed
Coefficient
-6.419±2.
-6. 568±1.
-6. 943±2.
-2. 384
-2.864
-6.673
-9. 015
-3. 595
-2. 867
-12. 096
-2. 259±1.
138
321
316
442
Emissions in grams/mile
Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0. 01
*** = 0. 001
0.498-*
Std.
Error
186.353
n
28
0.802***
115. 130
28
0.738***
100.590
56
0.616**
88.866
14
-------
TABLE 36. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR NOX EMISSIONS AS A
FUNCTION OF VEHICLE SPEED FOR VARIOUS ENGINE GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Group
Pre-1970
Gas
1970-73
Gas
1974-75
Gas
1975 Cal.
Gas
Truck
No.
14
16
1
3
9
12
2
4
6
7
10
11
13
15
17
18
Intercept
6.489
2. 578
5. 750
5.411
5. 531
13.389
8. 521
3. 864
6.
5.
16,
18.
414
936
431
888
182
245
126
13.216
4. 611
9.008
Note: 1. Equation form: Y = bg + bj (speed)
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Emissions in grams/mile
4. Significance: * = 0.05
** =0.01
*** = 0.001
Speed
Coefficient
-0.002±0.061
0. 326
-0.043
0.017
0.076±0.022
0. 105±0.068
0.077
0. 197
0. 062
0. 352
-0.035
-0.047
0. 042
0.097±0.029
0.716-**
Std.
Error
2.648
n
28
0.829***
1. 935
28
0.754***
2. 953
56
0.745**=
1. 793
14
-------
TABLE 37. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR FUEL CONSUMPTION AS A FUNCTION OF
VEHICLE SPEED FOR VARIOUS ENGINE GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
GO
G roup
Pre-1970
Gas
1970-73
Gas
1974-75
Gas
1975 Cal.
Gas
Note: 1.
2.
3.
4.
Truck
No.
5
8
14
16
1
3
9
12
2
4
6
7
10
11
13
15
17
18
Equation form: Y =
Speed in miles per
Intercept
0. 263
0. 290
0. 397
0. 355
0. 214
0. 259
0. 269
0. 366
0. 289
0. 262
0. 291
0. 330
0. 356
0. 200
0. 349
0. 383
0. 249
0. 359
bg + t>i (speed)
hour
Emissions in grams/mile
Significance: * = 0
** = 0
*** = o
.05
.01
. 001
Speed
Coefficient
-0.004±0.001
0.683***
Std.
Error
0. 060
n
28
-0.003±0.001
0.723***
0. 049
28
-0.004±0.001
0.623***
0.069
56
-0.003±0.001
0.701**
0. 054
14
-------
TABLE 38. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR HC EMISSIONS AS A
LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION OF SPEED FOR VARIOUS TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Group
Pre-1970
Gas
1970-73
Gas
1974-75
Gas
1975 Cal.
Gas
Note: 1.
2.
3.
4.
Truck
No.
5
8
14
16
1
3
9
12
2
4
6
7
10
11
13
15
17
18
Intercept
4. 597
5. 533
5. 258
5. 314
3.486
3. 570
4. 103
4. 528
3. 951
4.015
4. 348
4.088
4. 527
4.050
4. 171
4. 509
3.015
3. 782
Equation form In (Y) = DQ + b
Speed in miles per hour
Emissions in grams/mile
Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
***
= 0. 001
Spd. Coeff.
-0.153*0.026
-0.065±0.015
-0.096±0.012
-0.071±0.059
(speed) + b2 (speed^)
Spd. ^Coeff.
Std.
Error
n
0.0016±0.0004 0.838*** 0.529
28
0.0004±0.0002 0.903*** 0.312
28
0.0009±0.0002 0.856*** 0.350
56
-0.003±0.0010 0.777*** 0.856
14
-------
TABLE 39. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR CO EMISSIONS AS A
LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION OF SPEED FOR VARIOUS TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
oo
o
G roup
Pre-1970
Gas
1970-73
Gas
1974-75
Gas
1975 Cal.
Gas
Truck
No.
5
8
14
16
1
3
9
12
2
4
6
7
10
11
13
15
17
18
Intercept
6.690
6.661
7. 523
7. 522
6. 348
6. 263
6. 705
7. 799
6. 519
6.024
5. 616
6. 598
6. 733
6. 204
6. 584
6. 965
4.002
5. 722
Spd. Coeff.
-0. 117±0.029
Spd. 2 Coeff. r2
Std.
Error
0.0015±0.0005 0.633*** 0.602
n
28
-0.097±0.024
0.0010±0.0004 0.805*** 0.484
28
-0.078±0.015
0. 0008±0. 0002 0.733*** 0.439
56
-0.039±0. 064
Note: 1. Equation form: In (Y) = bQ = bj (speed) + b2 (speed2)
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Emissions in grams/mile
4. Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0. 01
*** = 0.001
0. 0004±0.0011 0.567** 0.935
14
-------
TABLE 40. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR NOX EMISSIONS AS A
LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION OF SPEED FOR VARIOUS TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
00
Group
Pre-1970
Gas
1970-73
Gas
1974-75
Gas
1975 Cal.
Gas
Truck
No.
5
8
14
16
1
3
9
12
2
4
6
7
10
11
13
15
17
18
Interc
1. 369
1. 765
1.064
1. 155
1. 731
2. 503
2. 122
1. 505
2. 062
1. 983
2. 500
2.055
2. 709
2.632
2. 758
2. 580
1. 854
2. 385
Spd. Coeff.
0.042±0.023
O.OlliO.Oll
-0. 004±0. 00-9
-0.010±0.014
2
Note: 1. Equation form: In (Y) = bQ + bj (speed) + b2 (speed'')
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Emissions in grams/mile
4. Significance: * = 0. 05
** =0.01
*** = 0.001
Spd. ^Coeff.
Std.
Error
-0.0007±0.0004 0.371* 0.465
-0.OOOliO.0002 0.803*** 0.221
0.0002*0.0.001 0.665*** 0.255
0.0003±0.0002 0.766** 0.207
n
28
28
56
14
-------
TABLE 41. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR FUEL CONSUMPTION AS A
LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION OF SPEED FOR VARIOUS TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
G roup
Pre-1970
Gas
Truck
No.
5
8
14
16
Intercept
-0.953
-0.833
-0.399
-0.553
Spd. Coeff.
-0.063±0.006
Spd. 2Coef£. r2
Std.
Error
0.0008±0.0003 0.913*** 0.133
28
oo
to
1970-73
Gas
1974-75
Gas
1
3
9
12
2
4
6
7
10
11
13
15
-1. 160
-0.916
-0.875
-0.442
-0.621
-0.736
-0.593
-0.425
-0.327
-1.679
-0.348
-0.259
-0.06l±0.007
-0.081±0.011
0.0008±0.0001 0.902*** 0.145
28
0.0011±0.0002 0.786*** 0.326
56
1975 Cal.
Gas
17
18
-1.028
-0.553
-0.057±0.008
0.0008±0.0001 0.931*** 0.116
14
Note: 1. Equation form: In (Y) = DQ + bj (speed) + 03 (speed )
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Emissions in grams/miles
4. Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0. 01
*** = 0.001
-------
1974-1975 Gas
Pre-1970 Gas
1970-1973 Gas
1975 California Gas
TABLE 42. AVERAGE EMISSIONS FROM THE 20 mph TRANSIENT CYCLE
FOR GASOLINE TRUCKS TESTED UNDER CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Empty Load, g/min
HC CO NOV
17.5 200.0 12.28
20.28 352.9 5.47
15.62 254.2 9.14
9.24 148.2 8.19
Half Load, g/min
HC
CO
NO,,
19.86 296.2 12.23
25.18 278.8 4.91
20.16 353.5 9.43
10.41 192.3 9.19
Full Load, g/min
HC
CO
NO,
24.96 417.2 11.05
29.07 572.0 4.91
29.86 378.3 9.54
11.21 266.0 9.73
00
-------
Weight/power ratio should be included as a covariate (this as-
sumes that for all size trucks, the same deterioration rate holds).
The same type of regression analysis should be performed for all
trucks in data bases 1 and 2. SARR emission values should be
used in these regressions.
The required regression analysis on these data bases was performed.
The results are shown in Table 43. Only for fuel consumption is there more
than one truck group where the regression is considered significant. Even
for those regressions considered significant, the r2 value indicates a good
deal of data scatter. Considering that these were all in-service trucks
with a wide variation in maintenance quality, the data scatter is probably
not surprising.
Of more interest is the variation in value of the mileage coefficient
of the various truck groups for a given emission specie and the negative
coefficients for CO and fuel consumption. Negative coefficients for NOX
can be rationalized on the basis of decreased combustion efficiency with
engine age.
For gasoline-powered trucks, the in-use surveillance project (EPA
Contract 70-113)/19) may provide additional useful information on emis-
sion changes with mileage. In particular, Appendix F of the final report
for that project may be helpful.
Item 10-4 - For each of the model year groups within each
of the three data bases, a regression should be performed with
emissions as the dependent variable and test weight as the inde-
pendent variable. Test weight/power ratio should be included
as a covariate. The emissions will be the SARR emissions for
data bases 1 and 2 and the 20 mph cycle for data base 3.
The average test weight should be computed for vehicles
in data bases 1 and 2. The average test weight for the empty,
half load, and full load tests should be computed for each of
the model year groups in data base 3 as well as for all gas
trucks in data base 3.
These regressions will later be normalized by EPA to the
average test weight and average weight/power ratio built into
the tabled emission values. These regressions will be able to
predict the effects of changes in load (where load is the dif-
ference in average test weight).
The necessary regression analysis was performed on all data bases.
The results are presented in Table 44. This table shows the regression
coefficients for the relationship between each emission and vehicle weight
and weight/CID. Within each emission a separate equation is shown for each
level of emission control. For HC, CO, and fuel consumption, the majority
of the truck groups had regression equations that were significant. In
addition, the coefficients of determination are often above 0.600. It is
probable that some of the data scatter in this analysis is due to the dif-
ferences in emissions caused by ending model, as previously mentioned. How-
ever, for purposes of average truck populations, the present analysis should
suffice.
84
-------
TABLE 43. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
AS A FUNCTION OF MILEAGE AND WEIGHT/CID FOR VARIOUS TRUCK GROUPS
Group
1. SARR Pre-1970 Gas
2. SARR 1970-73 Gas
3. 1974-75 Gas
Constant Mileage/10000
Wt/CID
-8.508
-18.958
10.500
1. SARR Pre-1970 Gas 233.308
2. SARR 1970-73 Gas -40.342
3. 1974-75 Gas 151.491
1. SARR Pre-1970 Gas -0.116
2. SARR 1970-73 Gas 9.107
3. 1974-75 Gas 10.384
1. SARR Pre-1970 Gas 0.065
2. SARR 1970-73 Gas 0.052
3. 1974-75 Gas 0.171
HC Emissions
2.376 + 1.890
2.264 +_ 0.664
0.068 + 2.752
0.362 +_ 0.789
0.667 +_ 0.153
0.152 + 0.064
0.196
0.606***
0.212
CO Emissions
-0.353 +_ 2.673
38.115 +10.547
-105.687 +46.937
0.179 + 1.116 0.007
3.264 + 2.428 0.420**
4.917 + 1.095 0.536
NOX Emissions
0.127 + 0.160
-0.230 +_ 0.436
0.734 + 1.176
0.111
0.042
0.015
Fuel Consumption
0.002 +_ 0.002
0.010 + 0.002
-0.012 + 0.016
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.067 0.314
0.100 0.018
0.027 0.034
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.611*
0.635***
0.438**
No. of
Std. Err. Trucks
31.088
6.141
6.875
43.978
97.502
117.279
2.639
4.035
2.939
0.025
0.023
0.041
10
25
24
10
25
24
10
25
24
10
25
24
Notes: 1. Equation form: y = bg + b
2. Ratio = (weight/1000 )/CID ••
3. Emissions in grams/mile
4. Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
5. Group 1 - EPA Contract 68-03-0441
Group 2 - EPA Contract EHS 70-113
Group 3 EPA Contract 68-03-2147
(miles/1000) + b2 (ratio)
(Ib/1000)/in3
85
-------
TABLE 44. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
AS A FUNCTION OF WEIGHT AND WEIGHT/CID FOR VARIOUS TRUCK GROUPS
Group
Constant
Wt/1000
Wt/CID
HC Emissions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
SARR Pre-1970 Gas
SARR 1970-73 Gas
1974-75 Gas
Pre-1970 Gas
1970-73 Gas
1975 Calif. Gas
43
-9
13
28
0
6
.477
.993
.193
.098
.516
.495
5
2
2
3
0
0
.927+7.000
.122+0.466
.268+0.331
.534+1.070
.853+0.569
.172+0.085
-2.
-0.
-0.
-1.
0.
171+3
165+0
809+0
274+0
039+0
.011
.236
.145
.428
.231
0
0
0
0
0
0
.106
.689***
.757***
.575*
.717**
.508
32.782
5.447
3.819
7.766
7.119
2.435
CO Emissions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
SARR Pre-1970 Gas
SARR 1970-73 Gas
1974-75 Gas
Pre-1970 Gas
1970-73 Gas
1975 Calif. Gas
196
70
87
171
212
9
.385
.960
.414
.235
.014
.708
-8
21
40
22
43
8
.736+8.801
.291+9.501
.640+7.021
.845+9.797
.937+5.593
.814+2.239
3.
-4.
-12.
-4.
-14.
804+3
754+4
423+3
116+3
798+2
.786
.814
.070
.917
.269
0
0
0
0
0
0
.127
41.217
.247* 111.061
.778***
.806***
.883***
.795*
81.108
71.090
69.943
64.412
NOX Emissions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
SARR Pre-1970 Gas
SARR 1970-73 Gas
1974-75 Gas
Pre-1970 Gas
1970-73 Gas
1975 Calif. Gas
5
9
11
9
10
6
.581
.250
.276
.938
.064
.597
1
0
0
-0
-0
0
.102+0.415
.168+0.345
.099+0.256
.083+0.319
.486+0.311
.111+0.028
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
0.
349+0
033+0
026+0
030+0
167+0
.179
.175
.112
.127
.126
0
0
0
0
0
0
.628*
.017
.023
.367
.224
.799*
1.944
4.038
2.956
2.312
3.888
0.798
Fuel Consumption
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
SARR Pre-1970 Gas
SARR 1970-73 Gas
1974-75 Gas
Pre-1970 Gas
1970-73 Gas
1975 Calif. Gas
Notes: 1. Equation
2. Weight in
0
0
0
0
0
0
form:
.124
.093
.175
.180
.166
.155
y b
pounds and
3. Fuel consumption in
4. Significance: * =
** 3
* * * —
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 +
.010+0.005
.010+0.002
.014+0.002
.011+0.003
.012+0.001
.004+0.001
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
002+0
002+0
004+0
003+0
004+0
bx (weight/1000) + b
CID in cubic
inches
.002
.001
.001
.001
.001
0
0
0
0
0
0
.703*
.772***
.851***
.800***
.909***
.812*
0.022
0.018
0.021
0.025
0.018
0.026
2 (( wt/1000) /CID)
gallons/mile
0.
0.
0.
05
01
001
No. of
Std. Err. Trucks
10
25
24
12
12
6
10
25
24
12
12
6
10
25
24
12
12
6
10
25
24
12
12
6
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
to 6
- EPA Contract 68-03-0441
- EPA Contract EHS 70-113
- EPA Contract 68-03-2147
86
-------
The average test weights for data bases 1 and 2 are shown in
Table 31. The average test weight for the empty, half, and full load
tests for each of the model year groups in data base 3 as well as the
average test weight for all gasoline trucks in the data base are given
in Table 45.
TABLE 45. AVERAGE TEST WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS GASOLINE
TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Test Weight, Ib
Empty Load Half Load Full Load
Pre-1970 Gas 13752 21753 30255
1970-1973 Gas 12852 20654 29304
1974-1975 Gas 13568 21753 30005
1975 California Gas 12351 20254 28754
All Gas Trucks 13315 21342 29766
Average 21474
87
-------
IV. DIESEL TRUCK CYCLE ANALYSIS
This section covers the results of the analysis of 10 specific items
requested by EPA. These items of analysis used the fuel consumption and
emissions in grams/minute from the 12 diesel trucks tested by SwRI under
Contract 68-03-2147, "Study of Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles." A
familiarity with the contents of the reports generated by that contract^ ' '
is essential in understanding the analysis contained in this section. Other
data bases were sometimes used to supplement this data. Each of the 10
items will be covered separately in the following paragraphs.
Item 1 - How well does test-to-test variability of a cycle compare
with cycle-to-cycle variability for cycles of the same average speed? For
all cycles?
The data from the two diesel-powered trucks (Nos. 24 and 25) that
ran replicate tests were used to answer this question. An analysis of var-
iance (ANOVA) was run for fuel rate, HC, CO, and NOX for each of the three
vehicle loads (empty, half, and full) tested. The steady-state, sinusoidal,
and transient driving cycles were compared at common average speed desig-
nations of 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40. These speed designations correspond
to speeds of 8, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 kilometers per hour (kph) , respect-
ively. Only at 32 kph were all three types of cycles (steady-state, sinu-
soidal, and driving) available. At the other speeds, there were only two
of the three cycle types available. The ANOVA was a partially nested anal-
ysis in that the replicates were nested within truck number.
Additional sources of variation in the data included effects due to
replicates within each truck and truck by cycle interaction. The effects
due to replicates within each truck were assumed to be random. If truck
by cycle interaction was not significant, then truck by cycle sum of
squares was pooled with that of the cycle by replication-within-truck in-
teraction to increase the error degrees of freedom. The cycle by replication-
within-truck interaction was assumed to be negligible to allow a test for
significant difference between tests and for comparisons between test and
driving cycle variability.
The results of the 72 tests (three emissions and fuel consumption
at each of six speeds for three different loads) for significant differences
between cycles and between tests-within-truck are given in Appendix C as
Tables C-l through C-4. From the indication of significance of the F ratio,
it appears that, in general, the cycles differ significantly among them-
selves (except for the 64 kph cycles) while the tests show relatively no
change. This is further supported by measurements of the estimated varia-
bility. The upper values in each table represent the estimated cycle
variability, (MSC-MSE)/N*, while the lower numbers are the estimated test-
to-test variability, (MSR(T)-MSE)/2. The truck by cycle interaction F
ratio was checked for significance. Where not significant, the pooled MSE
*MSC - mean square cycle
MSE - mean square error
MSR(T) - mean square repeats within truck
N - sample size
88
-------
was used in the calculations; where significant, the unpooled MSE was
used. From an examination of the numeric values of the estimated varia-
bility, it is also evident that the cycle-to-cycle variability far ex-
ceeds the test-to-test variability.
The purpose of this analysis is to try and gain some indication of
whether or not emission differences between different cycles at the same
average speed are real or just the result of test-to-test variations. One
way to determine this is to compare the significance of the F ratio from
the test-to-test and cycle-to-cycle variations given in Appendix Tables
c~l through C-4. There are, of course, four possible combinations. The
test-to-test variation can be not significant and the cycle-to-cycle varia-
tion can be either significant or not significant; or the test-to-test
variation can be significant and the cycle-to-cycle variation can be either
significant or not significant.
If the test-to-test variation is not significant, then the cycle-to-
cycle variation can be evaluated with some degree of assurance that test-
to-test variation is not unduly influencing the conclusions. If, however,
the test-to-test variation is significant, the evaluation of emissions dif-
ferences between cycles becomes more difficult. If the cycle-to-cycle var-
iation is not significant, while the test-to-test variability is, then it
is probably safe to conclude that there is no significant variation in
that emission (or fuel consumption) between cycles. If the cycle-to-cycle
variation is significant, then it is not possible to ascertain what part of
the difference is due to test-to-test variability and what part is due to
the cycle-to-cycle variation.
In the analysis of the diesel results, the 32 kph full load HC, the
24 kph empty load NOX, the 8 kph empty load fuel, and the 64 kph full load
fuel all had significant test-to-test variation. All of these except the
64 kph full load fuel had significant cycle-to-cycle variations as well.
This fact should be kept in mind when using the analyses presented in this
report.
In summary, it appears that for all but a few of the test cycles,
test-to-test repeatability was not significant so that emission and fuel
changes between cycles of the same speed can be evaluated. It should be
pointed out in closing this discussion that the evaluation of the test-
to-test variability was based on an absolute minimum of data (two replicate
tests on two trucks). Thus, the results of this analysis should be used
with care.
Item 2 - How well can fuel consumption and emissions measured by the
present 13-mode FTP predict the fuel consumption and emissions over other
cycles?
For this item, data from all 12 truckswere used. The first analysis
done was to obtain a correlation matrix to determine the correlation be-
tween the 13-mode FTP fuel and emission rates (for composite 13-mode re-
sults as well as each individual mode) and the fuel and emission rates from
the other driving cycles. This was done for each of the three vehicle test
loads separately. Throughout the discussion of this item and the items
that follow, it should be kept in mind that all emissions, whether modal,
composite 13-mode, or a chassis dynamometer test cycle, are expressed in
grams/minute since this was how the data was furnished from Contract 68-03-2147.
89
-------
Tables 46, 47, and 48 show part of the results of this correlation matrix.
Only correlations of like variables with correlation coefficients above
0.9 are shown and no correlations between modes of the 13-mode test are
shown.
An examination of the tables shows that for the composite 13-mode
emissions and fuel rate, only HC and NOX correlated with any of the chassis
dynamometer cycles. The composite HC emissions correlated with the higher
speed steady-state HC emissions at empty load and the medium speed steady-
state HC emission at half and full loads. The composite NOX emissions cor-
related with an increasing number of cycles as load increased from empty to
full. It is especially interesting to note that the 13-mode composite NOX
correlated with the full load 16, 24, and 32 kph transient driving cycle
NOX. The 13-mode composite NO emission is the only emission species that
correlates with any of the transient driving cycles. The HC and NOX emis-
sions from the individual modes generally correlated with some of the dyna-
mometer cycle emissions, while the CO and fuel rate only rarely correlated
with the dynamometer cycle results. The modal emissions and fuel rate from
the 100 percent power points at both speeds (modes 6 and 8) did not have
correlation coefficients over 0.9 for any of the test cycles at any of the
three loads. While individual variables for each mode will correlate with
various test cycles, there is no one mode in which all of the emissions and
fuel rate correlate with any of the test cycles.
Since the composite 13-mode emissions are normally of the most inter-
est, Table 49 presents the correlation coefficients of the composite 13-
mode emissions or fuel rate and the same variable from the other test
cycles. For a complete description of the cycles, see Reference 13. A
list of the different cycles used is included in Appendix A as Tables A-9
and A-10. As can be seen from the table, there is a strong, positive lin-
ear trend for all emissions except CO. However, except for the NOX emissions
from the transient driving cycles, only a few of the cycle emissions have
correlation coefficients sufficiently large to use the 13-mode results to
predict actual vehicle emissions. To help visualize the physical meaning
of correlation coefficients on the order of 0.9, the NOX emissions from
the half load, 24 and 32 kph transient cycles are plotted as a function
of the 13-mode composite NO., emissions in Figure 20. It should be remem-
1^
bered that these relationships are for a specific group of trucks run on
specific test cycles. Whether the relationships would generalize to all
trucks and any cycle with the same average speed is not known. It should
also be pointed out that the 13-mode emissions used are in grams/minute,
not the usual grams/bhp-hr. With these facts in mind, however, it appears
that 13-mode NOX could be used to predict vehicle NOX emissions under cer-
tain conditions.
A stepwise multiple regression analysis using a forward selection
procedure was performed using emissions and fuel rate from each of the
four transient driving cycles and 32 and 48 kph sinusoidal cycle as func-
tions of the modal emissions and fuel rate from the 13-mode test. The
significance levels for both inclusion or exclusion of the modes were set
at 0.05. In this analysis, a zero intercept was assumed, but the modal
coefficients (weighting factors) were not constrained to be positive nor
were they constrained to sum to 1.0. The analysis showed that many of the
modal emissions and fuel rate were highly correlated with other modes,
particularly for fuel rate. This does not mean that some of the modes are
not important, only that for this particular set of 12 trucks, some of the
90
-------
TABLE 46. DIESEL TRUCK VARIABLES HAVING CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS GREATER THAN 0. 9 FOR EMPTY LOAD TESTS
II.
III.
Composite 13-Mode
HC
EMPTY LOAD
CO
NOX
Correlates with:
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
55 S/S HC
40 sine HC
Modes 1, 7, 13 (Idle)
HC
55 S/S HC
CO
NC\
Correlates with:
Idle S/S HC
Mode 2
Idle S/S CO
55 S/S CO
Idle S/S NOX
5 S/S NOX
10 S/S NOX
15 S/SNOX
5 Avg. NOX
10 Avg. NOX
15 Avg. NOX
Fuel Rate
Fuel Rate
Idle S/S Fuel
HC
CO
NO,
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
15 S/S HC
20 S/S HC
30 sine HC
All NOX except
idle S/S
IV.
Mode 3
HC
CO
Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
55 S/S HC
40 sine HC
All except Idle
S/S and 5 S/S
Mode 4
HC
CO NOV Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
55 S/S HC
40 sine HC
20 S/S NOX
30 S/S N0x
40 S/S NOX
55 S/S NOX
10 Avg. NOX
15 Avg. NOx
20 Avg. NOX
VI.
Mode 5
HC
CO
NO,
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
55 S/S HC
55 S/S NOX
10 Avg. NOX
20 Avg. NOX
91
-------
TABLE 4o(cont'd). DIESEL TRUCK VARIABLES HAVING CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS GREATER THAN 0.9 FOR EMPTY LOAD TESTS
VII. Mode 6
HC
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
VIII. Mode 8
HC
Mode 9
HC
40 S/S HC
55 S/S HC
Mode 10
HC
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
55 S/S HC
40 sine HC
Mode 11
HC
30 S/S HC
CO NOy
Correlates with none of the cycles
CO NO.,,
Correlates with none of the cycles
CO
NOX
Correlates with:
55 S/S NO,
CO
Correlates with:
55 S/S
CO
Correlates with:
All except Idle
S/S, 5 S/S and
10 S/S NOX
Fuel Rate
Fuel Rate
Fuel Rate
Fuel Rate
Fuel Rate
Mode 12
HC
CO
NOX
Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
40 sine HC
All ,
and 5
except Idle S/S
S/SNOX
92
-------
TABLE 47. DIESEL, TRUCK RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MODAL AND CHASSIS
DYNAMOMETER CYCLE EMISSIONS HAVING CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
GREATER THAN 0. 9 FOR HALF LOAD TESTS
Sample Size: Twelve diesel trucks
II.
HALF LOAD
Composite 13-Mode
HC
CO
NO,
Modes 1, 7, 13 (Idle)
Fuel Rate
Correlation with:
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
40 sine HC
55 S/S NOX
5 Avg. NOX
10 Avg. NOX
15 Avg. NOX
20 Avg. NOX
HC
CO
NO,
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
Idle S/S HC
Idle S/S CO
Idle S/S NOX
5 S/S NOX
15 S/S NOV
Idle S/S Fuel
20 S/S Fuel
III.
Mode 2
HC
CO
NO,
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
IV.
10 S/S HC
15 S/S HC
20 S/S HC
Mode 3
All NOX, except
Idle S/S, 15 Avg.
and 20 Avg. NOX
HC
CO
NO,
Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
40 sine HC
All NOX, except
Idle SS, 5 S/S
and 10 S/S NO
40 S/S Fuel
V.
Mode 4
HC
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
40 sine HC
CO
NOx
Correlates with:
40 S/S NOX
55 S/S NOX
20 sine NOX
30 sine NOX
40 sine NOX
5 Avg. NOX
10 Avg. NOX
15 Avg. NOX
20 Avg. NOX
Fuel Rate
VI.
Mode 5
HC
55 S/S HC
40 sine HC
CO
NO,
Correlates with:
55 S/S NOX
20 sine NOX
30 sine NOX
5 Avg. NOX
15 Avg. NOX
20 Avg. NO
Fuel Rate
93
-------
TABLE 47 (Confd). DIESEL TRUCK RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MODAL AND CHASSIS
DYNAMOMETER CYCLE EMISSIONS HAVING CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS GREATER
THAN 0. 9 FOR HALF LOAD TESTS
Sample Size: Twelve diesel trucks
MI, Mode 6
HC CO NOV Fuel Rate
Correlates with none of the cycles
VIII. Mode 8
HC CO NOx Fuel Rate
Correlates with none of the cycles
IX. Mode 9
HC CO NOX Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
40 sine HC 55 S/S NOX
20 sine NOX
30 sine NOX
5 Avg. NOX
10 Avg. NOX
15 Avg. NOx
20 Avg. NOX
X. Mode 10
HC CO NOX Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
Correlates with:
Correlates with:
30 S/S HC 40 sine CO 55 S/S NOX
40 S/S HC 20 sine NOX
40 sine HC
XI. Mode 11
HC CO NO^ Fuel Rate
30 S/S HC 20 S/S CO 20 S/S NOX
30 S/SNOX
40 S/S NOX
55 S/S NOX
20 sine NOX
30 sine NOX
40 sine NOX
5 Avg. NOX
15 Avg. NOX
XII. Mode 12
HC CO NOX Fuel Rate
20 S/S HC 20 S/S CO 15 S/S NOX
40 S/S HC 20 S/S NOX
30 S/S NOX
40 S/S NOX
55 S/S NOX
20 sine NOX
30 sine NOX
40 sine NO-,
94
-------
TABLE 48. DIESEL TRUCK RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MODAL AND CHASSIS
DYNAMOMETER CYCLE EMISSIONS HAVING CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
GREATER THAN 0. 9 FOR FULL LOAD TESTS
Sample Size: Twelve diesel trucks
FULL LOAD
I.
II.
Composite 13-Mode
HC
CO
NO,
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
40 sine HC
Modes 1. 7. 13 (Idle)
Correlates with:
55 S/S NOx
20 sine NOX
30 sine NOX
10 Avg. NOX
15 Avg. NOX
20 Avg. NOX
Fuel Rate
HC
CO
NO,
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
Idle S/S HC
Idle S/S CO
Idle S/S N
15 S/S NO
Idle S/S Fuel
20 S/S Fuel
10 Avg. Fuel
III.
IV.
Mode 2
HC
CO NO«
Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
10 S/S HC
20 S/S HC
30 S/S HC
5 S/S NOX
10 S/S NOX
15 S/S NOX
20 S/S NOX
30 S/S NOX
40 S/S NOX
40 sine NO,
Mode 3
HC
CO NOx
Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
10 S/S NOX
15 S/S NO
20 S/S NOX
30 S/S NOX
40 S/S NOX
55 S/S NOX
V.
Mode 4
HC
CO NOx
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
30 S/S NOX
40 S'S NOX
40 sine NO,
95
-------
TABLE 48. iCont'd) DIESEL TRUCK RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MODAL AND CHASSIS
DYNAMOMETER CYCLE EMISSIONS HAVING CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS GREATER
THAN 0. 9 FOR FULL LOAD TESTS
Sample Size: Twelve diesel trucks
VI.
VII.
Mode 5
HC
40 sine HC
Mode 6
HC
CO
NO,
Correlates with:
Fuel Rate
55 S/S NOX
20 sine NOX
30 sine NOX
40 sine NOX
5 Avg. NOX
10 Avg. NOX
15 Avg. NOX
20 Avg. NOX
CO NOX
Correlates with none of the cycles
40 sine Fuel
Fuel Rate
VIII.
IX.
Mode 8
HC
CO
NOV
Correlates with:
55 S/S NOX
Fuel Rate
Mode 9
HC
CO NOX Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
30 S/S HC
40 S/S HC
40 sine HC
40 sine CO 55 S/S NOX
20 sine NOX
30 sine NOX
10 Avg. NOX
5 Avg. NOX
20 Avg. NOX
Mode 10
HC
30 S/S HC
40 S'S HC
CO
Correlates
40 S/S CO
NOX
with:
30 S'S NOX
Fuel Rate
Mode 11
HC
30 S/S HC
CO
NO,,
Correlates with:
20 S/S CO
5 S/S NOX
15 S/S NO,
20 S/S NO,
30 S/S NO,
40 S/S NO,
40 sine NO
Fuel Rate
XII.
Mode 12
HC
CO NOX
Fuel Rate
Correlates with:
20
30
4'.".
S S HC
S;S HC
S S HC
5 S/S XOX
10 S/S N'Cx
15 S/S NOX
20 S/S XOX
30 S S XOX
40 S S NOX
96
-------
TABLE 49. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FROM BETWEEN 13-MODE FTP RESULTS
AND DYNAMOMETER TEST CYCLE RESULTS FOR 12 DIESEL TRUCKS
Test
Desc.
00 SS
05 SS
10 SS
15 SS
20 SS
30 SS
40 SS
55 SS
20 + 5
30 + 5
40 + 2
05 Avg.
10 Avg.
15 Avg.
20 Avg.
HC
0.580
0.777
0.618
0.703
0.778
0.934
0.952
0.920
0.751
0.690
0.938
0.638
0.638
0.600
0.676
Empty
CO
0.137
0.361
0.294
0.228
0.113
-0.194
-0.143
0.139
0.359
0.382
0.050
0.596
0.490
0.548
0.518
Load
NOX
0.550
0.791
0.799
0.800
0.833
0.844
0.842
0.915
0.846
0.863
0.837
0.851
0.885
0.872
0.885
Half Load
Fuel
0.716
0.516
0.604
0.649
0.744
0.768
0.857
0.797
0.614
0.794
0.355
0.685
0.806
0.769
0.771
HC
0.614
0.796
0.682
0.818
0.849
0.945
0.967
0.787
0.552
0.533
0.818
0.754
0.733
0.663
0.702
CO
0.342
0.517
0.369
0.182
-0.028
-0.120
-0.059
0.483
0.916
0.327
-0.093
0.439
0.632
0.733
0.716
NOX
0.404
0.779
0.788
0.784
0.813
0.851
0.845
0.950
0.917
0.889
0.841
0.905
0.917
0.922
0.937
Fuel
0.651
0.535
0.654
0.678
0.765
0.829
0.884
0.850
0.785
0.798
0.854
0.862
0.847
0.867
0.875
HC
0.653
0.823
0.763
0.831
0.857
0.955
0.945
0.668
0.325
0.481
0.902
0.591
0.536
0.668
0.590
Full
CO
0.308
0.450
0.361
0.163
0.090
0.002
0.166
0.744
0.743
0.800
0.402
0.669
0.736
0.831
0.810
Load
NOX
0.508
0.811
0.812
0.788
0.822
0.881
0.865
0.934
0.921
0.929
0.884
0.882
0.918
0.918
0.917
Fuel
0.642
0.557
0.657
0.645
0.742
0.833
0.873
0.858
0.780
0.824
0.878
0.787
0.803
0.825
0.828
-------
0)
rH
O
+J
c
0)
•H
(T;
C
it)
M
E- c
•H
x; e
o<\
x tr>
n
a
<4-l
i-l
(0
ffi
O
40
30
20
10
10 20 30
13 Mode NOX, g/min
Y = 0.674 + 0.641X
r2 = 0.877
r = 0.937
&
-P
c
0)
•H
^1
EH C
x; "e
X CP
o
> 2
IT)
a
30
20
10
^
oua^p'^
e
10 20 30
13 Mode NOX, g/min
}
Y =
^2 =
r =
0.671 + 0.467X
0.850
0.922
FIGURE 20. NO EMISSIONS FROM TWO HALF LOAD TRANSIENT CYCLES AS
FUNCTIONSXOF 13-MODE NOX EMISSIONS IN GRAMS PER MINUTE
98
-------
modal emissions (or fuel rate) are a multiple (possibly plus a constant)
of other modes. With a different set of trucks, these correlations could
change. The correlation coefficients between modes are shown in Table 50.
The modal regression coefficients relating the modal emissions and
fuel rate to various dynamometer cycle emissions and fuel rate are contained
in Tables C-5 to C-8 of Appendix C. The coefficients are shown to the
0.05 significance level. Generally this required two modes, although
sometimes one and sometimes three modes were used. The coefficients of
determination (r2) given in Tables C-5 to C-8 should not, in general, be
directly compared with the correlation coefficients (r) given in Table 49.
The correlation coefficients in Table 49 reflect the correlation between
one independent variable (13-mode composite emission or fuel rate) and one
dependent variable (dynamometer cycle emission or fuel rate). The co-
efficients of determination in Tables C-5 to C-8 on the other hand, generally
reflect the correlation between two or more independent variables, and one
dependent variable.
To obtain correlation coefficients from the stepwise regressions to
compare with Table 49, the composite emissions of fuel rate would have to
be calculated using the coefficients in Tables C-5 to C-8 and a regression
performed using the composite emission and the driving cycle emission. Of
course, where only one mode was used in the stepwise regression, it is the
composite value and the square root of its coefficient of determination can
be compared with the corresponding correlation coefficient in Table 49.
From an engineering standpoint, there are many problems with using only
one or two discrete points of engine operation to predict the emissions and
fuel rate when the engine is operating in a vehicle over a wide range of
speed and power. First, the data represents only 12 trucks operating at certain
vehicle weight and vehicle weight to engine power ratios. Other trucks,
vehicle weights and weight/power ratios could have different relationships.
Secondly, the relationship between one engine operating point and other oper-
ating points is very much subject to change as emission regulations and fuel
economy pressures cause changes in engine design and scheduling of the fuel
injection system. For these reasons a table similar to Table 49 was not
prepared for the stepwise regression results.
The stepwise regression results can be used to determine which of
the modes are most important in predicting emissions and fuel rate from
test cycles by examining the order in which the mode was entered in the
regression analysis. Table 51 shows the order that each mode was entered
for each emission type and each test cycle. For each emission type there
was one mode which generally, though not always, entered first. For HC
emissions, Mode 2 generally entered first. For CO emissions, Modes 8 and
10 were entered first most often. For NOX, Mode 2 was entered first for
the empty load tests, while Mode 5 was generally entered first for the half
and full load tests. For fuel rate, only for the empty load tests had one
mode, idle, that was generally entered first.
To determine if the 13 modes could be reweighted to obtain a new set
of composite values which would better correlate to driving cycles, with
the constraints that the weighting factors be positive and that they sum
to 1.0, a special analysis was performed. Linear programming techniques
were used to obtain modal coefficients that were constrained to be posi-
tive and sum to 110. The computer program used was based on Lemke's
99
-------
TABLE 50. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN MODES OF THE
13-MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY FTP
Idle
Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode
2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12
HC EMISSIONS
Idle
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Mode 5
Mode 6
Mode 8
Mode 9
Mode 10
Mode 11
Mode 12
1. 000 0. 918 0. 943 0. 925
1.000 0.966 0.955
1.000 0.992
1.000
0. 832
0. 916
0. 953
0. 971
1. 000
0. 703
0. 740
0. 784
0.795
0.867
1. 000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
853
863
917
903
913
911
000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
879
933
978
976
970
837
932
000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
918
953
987
987
955
793
912
989
000
0. 935
0. 943
0.986
0. 973
0. 923
0. 768
0.917
0. 980
0.992
1. 000
0. 917
0. 973
0. 985
0. 970
0. 927
0. 748
0. 888
0. 975
0. 984
0. 987
1.000
CO EMISSIONS
Idle
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Mode 5
Mode 6
Mode 8
Mode 9
Mode 10
Mode 11
Mode 12
1.000 0.874 0.681 0.761
1.000 0.910 0.904
1.000 0.948
1. 000
0. 889
0. 849
0. 676
0. 806
1. 000
0. 638
0. 670
0. 690
0.672
0.603
1. 000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
602
695
710
704
670
839
000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
721
855
774
822
869
601
803
000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
857
930
867
931
851
581
698
892
000
0. 747
0. 928
0. 948
0. 937
0. 713
0. 559
0. 665
0. 818
0. 951
1.000
0. 704
0. 924
0.969
0. 931
0. 671
0. 591
0.682
0. 793
0. 914
0. 990
1. 000
NOX EMISSIONS
Idle
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Mode 5
Mode 6
Mode 8
Mode 9
Mode 10
Mode 11
Mode 12
Idle
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Mod e 5
Mode 6
Mode 8
Mode «
Mode 10
Mode 11
Mode 12
1.000 0.912 0.877 0.890
1.000 0.985 0.963
1.000 0.983
1. 000
1.000 0.985 0.979 0.979
1.000 0.988 0.985
1.000 0.999
1. 000
0.910
0. 944
0. 957
0. 989
1. 000
FUEL
0. 983
0. 987
0. 998
0. 999
1. 000
0.861
0. 822
0. 829
0.894
0. 941
1. 000
RATE
0. 985
0. 990
0. 998
0. 998
0. 999
1.000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
899
871
890
940
974
984
000
986
987
998
999
998
998
000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
894
936
956
982
992
930
971
000
986
985
997
998
997
996
999
000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
866
944
964
981
981
897
941
993
000
986
985
997
998
997
996
999
000
000
0.866
0. 966
0. 975
0. 973
0. 962
0. 840
0. 895
0. 973
0. 989
1. 000
0.991
0. 990
0. 994
0.993
0. 994
0.993
0.996
0. 997
0. 997
1. 000
0. 876
0. 980
0. 969
0. 962
0. 955
0.855
0. 891
0. 959
0. 973
0. 988
1.000
0.989
0.989
0. 978
0. 977
0. 980
0. 981
0. 982
0. 983
0. 985
0. 991
1. 000
Sample Size: 12 diesel trucks
100
-------
TABLE 51.
ORDER OF ENTRY IN STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF INDIVIDUAL MODES OF THE DIESEL HEAVY-DUTY 13-MODE FTP
FOR 12 DIESEL TRUCKS
Test Cycle
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Test Cycle
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Idle
2
10
2
2
4
5
4
3
6
4
4
7
8
7
2
Idle
5
6
10
8
6
2,R6*,15
—
3
4
10 .
5
5
6
7
7
Mode 2
1
1
1
1
1
1,R9*,12
1
1, RIO*, 12
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
Mode 2
11
7
8
7
5
10
8
7
7
4
4
6
7
12
4
Mode 3
7
9
9
11
10
3
—
7
4, RIO*, 13
—
3
4
4,R11*,14
4.R12*
5,R9*,12
Mode 3
9
11
7
9
9
12
9
9
8
9
10
4,R12*
—
4,R11*,12
10
Mode 4
5
8
5
6
5,R12*
7
10
5
8
5
8
5
5
5
3
Mode 4
3
1
9
6
11
11
7
4
3
8
7
10
3
3
9
Mode 5
Empty
4
7
4
7
2
Half
10
9
2
9
1
Full
9
6
9
9
1
Mode 5
Empty
6
9
2
10
1
Half
3
2
1
1
2
Full
2
2
2
2
2
HC Emissions
Mode 6
Load
9
3
8
8
6
Load
11
8
6
2
6
Load
11
3, RIO*
2,R7*,10
2,R8*,10
4
CO Emissions
Mode 6
Load
2
10
3
2
10
Load
5,R9*,12
6
6
9
3
Load
11
11
—
5
11
Mode 8
3
2
6
12
9
13
6
11
14
7
10
8
16
13
10
Mode 8
4
2
5
4
2
•
14
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
•1
1
Mode 9
10
5
10
4, RIO*, 13
11
6
7
13
7
—
6
11
6R13*,17
6
11
Mode 9
8
4
6
5
4
4
—
10
—
6
3
3
4
8
8
Mode 10
6
4
7
9
7
8
3
8
11
8
12
9
12
11
7
Mode 10
1
8
1
1
3
1
' 1
11
6
5
9
7
5
9
3
Mode 11
a
6
—
5
8
4
5
4
5
—
5
—
15
—
8
Mode 11
7
3
—
11
8
7
5
.5
10
11
8
o
9
6
6
Mode 1 2
•
—
—
3
3
3
2
2
9
3.R12*
3
2,R7*
2
3
3
Mode 12
10
5
4
3
7
8
4
0
5
7
6
8
a
10
5
* R moans removed
-------
TABU; 51 (cont'd). ORDER OF ENTRY IN STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF INDIVIDUAL MODES OF THE DIESEL HEAVY-DUTY 1.1-MOPE FTP
FOR 12 DIESEL TRUCKS
O
Test Cycle
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Idle
7
3
7
3
9
2,R7«,10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mode 2
1.R10'
1
1
1
1
6
5
7
9
—
10
—
4
—
Mode 3
3
9
4
7
4
11
3
3
10
3
10
9
5
—
4
Mode 4
8
7
6
10
6, RIO*
13
10
4
8
4
7
6
4
3
3
Mode 5
Empty
9
8
5
9
5
Half
S,R14*,16
—
1
1
1
Full
8
1
1
1
1
NOX Emissions
Mode 6
Load
4
5
3
8
3
Load
15
9
5
3
9
Load
5
8
6
5
10
Mode 8
2
—
2
2
2
9
8
6
7
—
7
9
6
9
Mode 9
—
2
—
4
—
3
7
—
4
6
1
3
8
—
6
Mode 10
6
6
—
5
8
4
6
8
5
5
3
4
—
7
5
Mode a
—
—
9
—
—
1.R12*
1
—
6
8
4,R9*
5
7
—
7
Modn 1.?
e,
4
ft
6
7
8
4
9
—
7
6
—
3
8
8
Fuel Consumption
Test Cycle
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Sinusoidal 20
30
Transient 10
15
20
Idle
1
4
2
1
1
4
2
2
2
2
3
5
2
2
4
Mode 2
2
1,R5*,9
5
8
6
6
6
5
5
8
7
6
6
7
Mode 3
—
2
4
2
2
1
4
3
3
1
4
4
3
Mode 4
—
3
—
3
3
2
—
5
—
—
4
2,R9*
—
—
2
Mode 5
Empty
8
—
7
—
—
Half
8
—
—
10
Full
3
8
9
1
Mode 6
Load
5
7
1,R6*,9
6
7
Load
5
4
1
1
9
Load
5
4
1
1,R5*,10
6
Mode 8
4
—
—
5
—
1
—
—
—
1,R6*
1
—
—
—
--
Mode 9
6
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
4
—
2
—
5
3
—
Mode 10
—
6
3
—
—
3.
—
—
4
—
6
—
—
Mode 11
3
10
10
4
4
7
7
3
7
8
7
10
3
8
5
Mode 12
7
8
8
7
5
6
5
7
6
7
6
8
7
7
—
R means removed
-------
complementary pivot method to solve the quadratic minimization of £(y-y)2
The actual computer algorithm was obtained from Reference 17, A Fortran
listing of the program used is included in Appendix A.
In this case, "y" is chassis dynamometer test cycle measured emission
or fuel consumption and "y" is the calculated reweighted 13-mode composite
emission or fuel consumption. Note that this method causes the chassis
dynamometer test cycle results and 13-mode results to try to obtain numer-
ical equivalency. In other words, if £(y-y)^ equals zero, then a straight
line relating y to y would have a slope of 1.0. The form of the equation
generated to obtain the new weighting factors is:
Y = AX-L + BX2 + CX3 + DX4 + EX5 + FXg
where Y is driving cycle HC, CO, NOX or fuel rate.
X-^, X2, X3, etc. are individual modal values of HC, CO, NOX or fuel
rate.
A, B, C, etc. are the regression coefficients for the individual
modes.
It should be noted that while the diesel heavy-duty emission test has
13 modes, modes 1, 7, and 13 are all at idle. These modes have been com-
bined for this analysis, giving 11 separate modes. Note that a zero inter-
cept was assumed. Also, it should be pointed out that if an unconstrained
regression analysis results in any coefficients that are negative, a re-
gression analysis which constrains the coefficients to be positive will
have at least one zero coefficient.(21) The equation coefficients are the
modal weighting factors, except for the idle mode where the coefficient
must be divided by three. There is a separate equation for each driving
cycle and load for each emission or fuel rate.
The regression coefficients and coefficients of determination for the
60 equations obtained are contained in Appendix C as Tables C-9 through C-12.
It should be clearly understood that the coefficients of determination lis-
ted with the regression coefficients are not the coefficients of determina-
tion for a linear fit of the observed driving cycle to calculated composite
13-mode emissions. Rather, the coefficients of determination reflects the
fit of the driving cycle value to the 11 different modal values from the
13-mode test.
It can be seen from the tables that except for NOX, modes 3, 9, and
11 generally had a zero weighting factor regardless of emission, load, cycle
or speed. Except for CO, modes 4 and 10 generally had a zero weighting
factor. This means that for HC and fuel rate, five of the eleven different
modes had zero for a weighting factor.
In order to obtain a better understanding of the usefulness of the
new weighting factors, a linear regression was performed on the composite
13-mode results using the new weighting factors and the emissions or fuel
consumption from the respective driving cycles. The correlation coeffi-
cients are shown in Table 52.
103
-------
TABLE 52. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FROM REGRESSION ANALYSIS BETWEEN
REWEIGHTED 13-MODE RESULTS AND DRIVING CYCLE RESULTS FOR TWELVE DIESEL TRUCKS
Test
Desc.
20 +_ 5
30 + 5
10 Avg.
15 Avg.
20 Avg.
HC
0.897
0.883
0.808
0.743
0.826
Empty
CO
0.959
0.979
0.948
0.901
0.899
Load
NOX
0.946
0.957
0.983
0.975
0.973
Fuel
0.689
0.860
0.868
0.830
0.823
HC
0.777
0.822
0.858
0.810
0.869
Half
CO
0.953
0.946
0.927
0.955
0.894
Load
NOy
0.970
0.956
0.970
0.964
0.969
Fuel
0.834
0.843
0.892
0.897
0.903
HC
0.634
0.694
0.692
0.791
0.723
Full
CO
0.846
0.896
0.939
0.959
0.934
Load
NOX
0.948
0.949
0.958
0.942
0.941
Fuel
0.824
0.858
0.848
0.858
0.863
-------
Comparing the correlation coefficients using the FTP weighting fac-
tors in Table 49 and those using the recalculated weighting factors in
Table 52, it can be seen that in all cases, the recalculated weighting
factors produce a better fit than the FTP weighting factors. In general,
the reweighted 13-mode correlations are not felt to be good enough to
use the reweighted 13-mode emissions and fuel rate to predict driving cy-
cle emissions and fuel rate. The exception is NOX emissions, where the
reweighted correlations may be high enough to use the reweighted NOX as
a predictor for driving cycle NO .
X
The linear programming techniques used to reweight the modes were
necessitated by the two constraints on the weighting factors requested by
the EPA. One constraint was the weighting factors (which are the coeffi-
cients in the equation) must all be positive; the other was that the
weighting factors sum to 1.0. As a consequence of the least squares
method, the method necessarily tried to generate modal coefficients that
would produce composite emission or fuel rate identically equal to the
dynamometer test emission or fuel rate. In other words, an equation re-
lating 13-mode and dynamometer test cycle emissions or fuel rate would
have a slope of 1.0. However, it is not really necessary that the com-
posite 13-mode value be equal to the dynamometer test cycle value, only
that it can predict the test cycle value. It was then realized that the
constraint requiring the modal coefficients sum to 1.0 is an unnecessary
constraint.
It is possible to make any group of coefficients sum to 1.0 simply
by summing the coefficients and dividing each coefficient and the depend-
ent variable (y) by the sum. To be sure, this changes the absolute value
of the composite emission (or fuel rate); but it does not change the cor-
relation coefficient of the equation. Rather than develop a new program
including the two restraints, to generate an optimum set of weighting fac-
tors , there is another way to obtain the best possible correlation between
composite modal values and dynamometer test cycle values. This is to use
a nonlinear regression analysis such as found in the UCLA BMD statistical
program which allows all of coefficients to be constrained to positive
values. Then recalculate the coefficients (and the composite values) by
dividing each of the coefficients and the composite value by the sum of
the coefficients. It should be emphasized that the linear programming
technique used to generate the reweighted values contained in this sec-
tion is not incorrect, it is simply overly restrictive since a regression
with one constraint will give a better fit than a regression with two
constraints.
Since it was also requested that one set of weighting factors be
obtained using all emissions and fuel rate as if they were one variable,
it was decided to use the method outlined in the above paragraph to obtain
this set of weighting factors. The coefficients constrained to be posi-
tive for each test cycle are given in Appendix C as Tables C-13, the re-
gression coefficients normalized to sum to 1.0 are contained in Table C-14.
In ending the discussion on this item, it should be pointed out that
it may also be possible to obtain a better correlation of the 13-mode emis-
sions or fuel consumption and driving cycle emissions or fuel consumption
if the engine power/vehicle weight ratio relationship to emissions were
fully explored and accounted for. However, the effort allotted to this
item does not permit exploration of these possibilities.
105
-------
Item 3 - Item 3 applied to the gasoline-powered trucks but not to
the diesel-powered trucks. It is mentioned here merely to keep the item
numbers consistent between the gasoline and diesel truck analyses.
Item 4 - How does the percent change in fuel rate and emissions for
various levels of control measured over the 13-mode cycle compare with the
change in fuel rate and emissions over other cycles?
For this item,two levels of emission control were defined, pre-1974 and
1974 and later model years. The average emissions and fuel consumption in
grams/minute for the diesel trucks in each of the two groups was calculated for
the 13-mode test, four steady-state conditions (idle, 24, 48, and 88 kph) , three
sinusoidal conditions (32, 48, and 64 kph) , and two driving cycles (16 and 32
kph). Note that only 11 of the 12 diesel trucks were used in this item since
one truck was a 1975 California diesel. Using the pre-1974 values as the base,
the percent change from pre-1974 to 1974 and later model years was calculated
for each of the test cycles. The results are shown in Table 53.
The average 13-mode emissions and fuel consumption decreased from
pre-1974 to 1974 and later. The steady-state, sinusoidal and transient
driving cycles all showed decreases in HC and NOX emissions from pre-1974
to 1974 and later models. However, for CO and fuel consumption, some
cycles showed an increase in average level from pre-1974 despite the fact
that the average 13-mode levels decreased from pre-1974 to 1974 and later
models. These results might be useful in estimating national average
changes, if the 11 diesel trucks tested are assumed to be representative
of the national diesel truck population. However, these results tell lit-
tle about the relationship between changes in 13-mode emissions and changes
in other test cycle emissions.
In an effort to help define this relationship, the percent change
from the average pre-1974 value was calculated on each truck individually
for each emission type on each test cycle. For a given emission (or fuel
consumption), this gave a value of percent change for each truck. For
each emission, a regression analysis was then performed with the percent
change in each of the test cycles (other than the 13-mode) emissions as
the dependent variable and the percent change in 13-mode emissions as the
independent variable. Since there was only one truck which was manufac-
tured to meet the 1975 California diesel standards, the regression analysis
did not include that truck. The results of these regressions are shown
in Table 54.
Of the three emissions and fuel consumption, only for NOX and fuel
consumption did the regressions show the majority of the relationships to
be significant. For the transient driving cycles, the regressions were
significant for both NOX and fuel consumption. Since the relationship be-
tween the 13-mode test and actual driving cycles are of interest, the NOX
and fuel consumption relationships between 13-mode and the 16 and 32 kph
driving cycles have been plotted as Figures 21 and 22. The regression
lines are also shown on the figures.
Item 5 - How different are the rpm-time profiles and percent power-
time profiles for a given transient cycle and load for different trucks?
106
-------
TABLE 53. AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE IN DIESEL EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
BETWEEN PRE-1974 and 1974 AND LATER DIESEL TRUCKS
Percent Change in Average Values
from Pre-1974 to 1974 and later
Cycle HC CO NOX
13-Mode - 9.94 -30.06 -21.03
Steady State
Idle -20.00 -49.88 - 9.73
24 kph -24.25 +4.29 -39.29
48 kph -16.43 +5.73 -39.66
88 kph -16.72 -65.87 -26.58
Sinusoidal
32 kph -22.53 -38.82 -25.73
48 kph -21.70 -33.18 -26.47
64 kph -15.40 -20.96 -39.66
Transient
16 kph -17.60 -39.55 -21.14
32 kph -17.52 -39.23 -19.35
Fuel
Consumption
- 4.05
-11.90
+ 0.25
- 3.74
- 6.47
- 3.44
- 1.08
+ 0.59
- 3.29
- 4.62
Sample Size: 6 pre-1974 diesel trucks
5 1974 and later diesel trucks
107
-------
TABLE 54. RELATIONSHIP OF CHANGE IN 13-MODE COMPOSITE RESULTS
TO CHANGE IN DRIVING CYCLE RESULTS FOR 1974 AND LATER DIESEL TRUCKS
(AVERAGE PRE-1974 BASE LEVEL)
Cycle
Steady-State
Sinusoidal
Transient
Steady-State
Sinusoidal
Transient
Steady -State
Sinusoidal
Transient
Steady-State
Sinusoidal
Transient
Average
Speed , kph
0
24
48
88
32
48
64
16
32
0
24
48
88
32
48
64
16
32
0
24
48
88
32
48
64
16
32
0
24
48
88
32
48
64
16
32
.(b)
(a) Slope +
Intercept Standard Error
-15.1.1
-16.61
- 8.78
-14.47
-23.03
-19.43
- 9.65
-16.52
-17.89
-45.73
7.01
-15.77
-64.34
-47.82
-29.45
-42.22
8.54
8.15
11.58
-25.92
-29.79
-11.91
7.02
6.69
-29.21
2.28
2.86
-7.43
6.63
1.41
-3.15
1.66
4.61
5.04
3.06
0.69
HC
0.49 + 0.51
0.77 + 0.24
0.77 + 0.22
0.23 + 0.35
-0.05 + 0.74
0.23 + 0.48
0.58 + 0.34
0.11 + 0.56
-0.04 + 0.45
CO
0.14 +0.58
-0.38 + 1.65
-0.72 + 1.74
0.05 + 0.42
-0.30 + 0.97
0.12 + 0.90
-0.71 + 1.21
1.03 + 0.56
1.58 + 0.60
NOX
1.01 + 0.76
0.64 + 0.39
0.47 + 0.22
0.70 + 0.21
0.89 + 0.35
0.94 + 0.29
0.50 + 0.12
1.11 + 0.33
1.06 + 0.24
Fuel Rate
1.10 + 0.41
1.58 + 0.75
1.27 +_ 0.39
0.82 + 0.17
1.26 +_ 0.35
1.41 + 0.43
1.10 + 0.20
1.57 +_ 0.32
1.31 + 0.34
r2
0.238
0.781
0.797
0.125
0.002
0.069
0.492
0.012
0.002
0.019
0.017
0.053
0.005
0.031
0.006
0.102
0.531
0.700
0.373
0.474
0.595
0.788
0.679
0.778
0.848
0.795
0.865
0.713
0.595
0.782
0.885
0.815
0.783
0.910
0.892
0.831
Std.
Dev.
33.4
15.4
14.8
22.8
48.8
31.7
22.3
37.1
29.8
26.5
75.2
79.4
19.0
44.1
40.9
55.3
25.5
27.2
48.5
24.7
14.3
13.3
22.6
18.5
7.8
20.9
15.4
18.6
34.4
17.8
7.8
16.0
19.6
9.2
14.5
15.7
Sig.
Level
Form of Equation:
where:
Y = a s bx
Y = percent change in driving cycle HC
X = percent change in 13-Mode HC
Significance level:
= p < 0.05
= p < 0.01
•• c < 0.001
108
-------
60
40
0*
0)
o 20
c
•H
S-) 'S' 0
O r-
(Ti
A H
p, |
r-l
c & -20
-H (0
(U O
G1 <
(0
U 0
.p ^ -40
c
0)
o
-60
X
i 40 '
0)
rH
U
O
tr> on
C
•H
>
•H
Q r~
en
£" 0 -
^ d) u •
a)
c en
•H (0
0) 0)
f-n f> OH
|> 20
^ e
U 0
-p M-l
£
0)
u „„
^ -40
0)
eu
-60
-e
-
-
-
•>
-£
T —
—
~
r
1
|
-J__
r-
•"'
i
!
- --
|
:;:
•
-—
—
!
— i—
h "
o
-- —
--
-
— -
!
r —
|
/
—
i
i
I
i
-1 -
--
-
— -
j
i
1
J
1
["
i
i
--.-/
/ \
-
/
G
—
--
--
-
7
- i --
SO -60 -40
Percent Change in 13-mode
— r
—
i
i
:
\
\
--
i
l
1
..L_...
. : :j -
/
"
j
..J . .
t
/
/
i
T
A
0
.._. _
1
!
i
y
i
i
i '-
i
/
/
•
)
-----
|
|
O
\ /
/\
_y i
7f
f~\
L
—
—
-: i ~:
-20 0
NOX from Avg.
i /
y
/ \
-
0
0--
/
/
-60
i
-40
t
i
,
: /
/
/
c
Vlx
\
1
1
i
1
1
-. i
20
Pre-1974
/'
/
|
j
o
'/'
i
i
1
1
" "" /
/
i
i
i
/
/.
\
i
_^_
\ \
"• ' \
— •'- --:
i |
i
40
/
|
I
;
1 !
i l
-20 0
: — . j-
1 1 1
20 40
Percent Change in 13-mode NOX from Avg. Pre-1974
FIGURE 21. COMPARISON OF PERCENT CHANGE IN DRIVING CYCLE
NOX EMISSIONS WITH PERCENT CHANGE IN 13-MODE NOX EMISSIONS
109
-------
(U
i-l T
U r-
O
V
CP ^l
C Cu
•H cr>
to >
J= E
a o
.H C
o
C -H
•H 4->
0) g
en a
c o
(0 Cfi
J= C
u o
u
JJ
C ,H
U D
^ Cn
0)
eu
OJ
U <3*
>< r-
u -
CP 01
C i-l
•H 04
•H
X
ft
c
•H
-------
It was decided that the best way to approach this problem was to ob-
tain rpm-percent power matrices for the 12 diesel trucks tested, similar to
those produced under the CAPE-21 project. A special computer program was
written to process the data tapes generated under Contract 68-03-2147 to ob-
tain the desired matrices. The matrices for the 16 and 32 kph driving cycles
for all 12 trucks are included in Appendix C as Tables C-15 through C-44. For
the 16 kph transient cycle and the 32 kph transient cycle at half load on each
truck, these matrices were condensed into time spent in various rpm intervals
(regardless of power) and time spent in various percent power intervals (re-
gardless of rpm). The cumulative percent times were then calculated for both
the rpm and percent power for each truck. The cumulative distributions for
each truck were then compared with the distribution of each of the other
trucks, one at a time, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS)(22^ test.
Table 55 lists truck pairs which showed no significant difference (at
the 0.05 level) in cumulative distributions. As an aid to understanding this
table, a description of the diesel trucks is included in Appendix A. There
are 78 possible truck pairs, excluding the repeat cycles for Trucks 24 and
25. For the 32 kph transient cycle, 12 truck pairs had similar cumulative
percent power distributions and four truck pairs had similar cumulative rpm
distributions. The truck pairs that are similar are often not the ones that
would be predicted from engine and body style. For instance. Trucks 23 and
24 are both tractors powered by Detroit Diesel 8V-71N engines and yet none
of the cumulative distributions calculated were similar for the two trucks.
Yet, Truck 19, which was a 2-axle van, had a percent power distribution simi-
lar to Trucks 26 and 27, both of which were tractors. Truck 26 was powered
by a Detroit Diesel 6L-71N and Truck 27 was powered by a Cummins V8-903.
The two trucks powered by Cummins NTC-290 engines, Trucks 21 and 25, had
similar percent power and rpm distributions.
For the 16 kph transient cycle, 24 truck pairs had similar percent
power distributions and eight truck pairs had similar rpm distributions.
Here again, the similar truck pairs were not always the ones that might be
expected. Only one truck pair (Trucks 21 and 25) showed agreement for both
the power and rpm distributions on both the 32 and 16 kph cycles.
Since differences in rpm and percent power for trucks operating over
the same driving cycle have important implications in the development of
possible new certification cycles, it was decided to compare the matrices
on a cell-by-cell basis. To do this, data were written in vector form (in-
stead of matrix form) by extending each percent power row by the next lower
one. For example, the data had the following form, yjk, where "k" referred
to rpm and was the fastest moving index and "j" referred to percent power
and was the second fastest moving index.
The extended vector for each truck was compared with the vector of
each other truck, one at a time, using the KS test statistic. This was
done for both the 16 and 32 kph average speed driving cycles. Table 56
lists the trucks with similar vectors for the 32 and 16 kph transient driv-
ing cycles. Five pairs of trucks had similar percent time vectors on the
32 kph transient driving cycle. Ten pairs of trucks had similar percent
time vectors on the 16 kph transient driving cycle. There were more diesel
truck pairs than gasoline truck pairs with similar percent time distribu-
tions. However, it must be concluded that in the majority of cases, the
diesel trucks did not have similar distributions.
Ill
-------
TABLE 55 . DIESEL TRUCK PAIRS SHOWING SIMILAR PERCENT POWER
AND ENGINE RPM DISTRIBUTIONS USING THE
KOLM.OGOROV SMIRNOV TEST
I. Truck pairs with similar distribution (at the 0. 05 level) of time in
various percent power intervals for the half load 32 kph transient
driving cycle.
(19, 26) (23, 26)
(19, 27) (23, 27)
(21, 24)
(24, 25)
(21, 25) (24, 25A)
(21, 26) (25, 25A)
(21, 29) (27, 29)
II. Truck pairs with similar distribution (at the 0.05 level) of time in
various engine rpm interval s for the half load 32 kph transient
driving cycle.
(20, 21) (21, 25)
(20, 24) (24, 25A)
III. Truck pairs with similar distribution (at the 0. 05 level) of time in
various percent power intervals for the half load 16 kph transient
driving cycle.
(25A, 26)
(25A, 29)
(26, 29)
(19,
(19,
(19,
(20,
(20,
(20,
(21,
20)
29)
30)
23)
27)
29)
22)
(?.l,
(21,
(21,
(21,
(22,
(22,
(22,
24)
25)
25A)
26)
24)
25A)
29)
(23,
(23,
(23,
(24,
(24,
(24,
(24,
26)
27)
29)
25)
25A)
26)
29)
IV. Truck pairs with similar distribution (at the 0. 05 level) of time in
various engine rpm intervals for the half load 16 kph transient
driving cycle.
(20. 21) (21, 25) (24, 25)
(21, 25A (24, 27)
(20, 25) (23, 26) (27, 29)
112
-------
TABLE 5.6. DIESEL, TRUCK PAIRS WITH SIMILAR PERCENT TIME IN
VARIOUS POWER AND RPM INTERVALS
I. Truck pairs with similar (at the 0. 5 level*) percent time in
percent power and rpm intervals for 32 kph transient driving
cycles.
(21, 24) (24, 25)
(21, 25) (25, 25A) **
(23, 26)
II. Truck pairs with similar (at the 0. 5 level*) percent time in
percent power and rpm intervals for 16 kph transient driving
cycles.
(20, 27) (21, 24) (22, 24) (24,25)
(20, 29) (21, 25) (22, 29)
(21, 22) (21, 25A)** (23, 26)
defined by the Kolmogorov Smirnov test statistics
* A is alternate test cycle
113
-------
Item 6 - For an average speed of 32 kph, how well do sinusoidal fuel
consumption and emissions approximate a fully-transient cycle fuel con-
sumption and emissions? Above 32 kph, how well does a steady-state approx-
imate a sinusoidal cycle?
The approach to this item was to perform a linear regression on all
diesel trucks to determine if there was a relationship for fuel consumption
and emissions between the 32 kph sinusoidal cycle and the 32 kph transient
cycle; the 64 kph sinusoidal and the 64 kph steady-state. The 48 kph sinu-
soidal cycle was also compared to the 48 kph steady-state. A linear re-
gression was performed on the half load results for each emission and fuel
consumption. The regression coefficients and coefficient of determination
for each regression is shown in Table 57. Scatter plots of the data are
contained in Appendix C as Figures C-l through C-12.
From the table, it can be seen that NOX had the highest correlations
for all three of the cycle pairs while CO had the lowest. For all types
of emissions, the 64 kph sinusoidal and the 64 kph steady-state cycles
were highly correlated. Except for fuel rate, there is a decreasing cor-
relation for all variables of any two cycles as the cycles became less alike.
The most obvious use for this data is to determine if sinusoidal excursions
about a given speed could be used to predict emissions and fuel rate for
fully transient cycles having the same average speed.
For CO emissions, the correlations are obviously not sufficient. For
i , and fuel rate, the answer is a i
A
the accuracy required of the prediction.
HC, NO.,, and fuel rate, the answer is a matter of judgment, depending on
A
It should also be pointed out that the correlation shown between the
sinusoidal cycles and the transient cycles is for a specific transient
cycle. The correlation between the sinusoidal and transient cycles for
other transient cycles with different characteristics could be different.
Item 7 - Does load setting have the same effect on fuel rate and emis-
sions for each average speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with average
speed? Do fuel rate and emissions vary with different cycles at the same
average speed?
These questions were included as one item since they can all be ans-
wered by performing a multiple regression analysis using load, speed, and
speed times load as the variables for each emissions type and each test
cycle type for each truck. This regression analysis was performed using
data from each of the 12 trucks with separate regressions for each of the
four emissions and each of the three cycle types, resulting in 144 equa-
tions. The coefficients for these equations are included in Appendix C
as Tables C-45 through C-47 together with indications of "goodness of fit"
of each equation. It should be pointed out that for these equations, load
was kg/1000 and speed in kph/8. This was done to obtain variables of the
same order of magnitude so that the load times speed term would not be
unduly influenced by large differences in magnitude of the values. The
form of the equation calculated is shown below:
emission = constant + b^ (load) + b2 (speed) + b3 (load x speed).
114
-------
TABLE 57. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON EMISSIONS AND
TRUCK RATE FOR SEVERAL CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER TEST CYCLES
Dependent
Variable
32 kph Transient
48 kph Sinusoidal
64 kph Sinusoidal
Independent
Variable
Intercept
HC Emissions
32 kph Sinusoidal 0. 368
48 kph Steady State 0.717
64 kph Steady State , -0.071
Slope
± Std. Dev.
0.519±0.Ill
0.680±0.134
1. 184±0. 194
0.686
0. 721
0.789
32 kph Transient
48 kph Sinusoidal
64 kph Sinusoidal
CO Emissions
32 kph Sinusoidal
48 kph Steady State
64 kph Steady State
5.465
2.048
0. 926
0.635±0.551 0.118
0.791±0.438 0.246
1.074±0.295 0.569
32 kph Transient
48 kph Sinusoidal
64 kph Sinusoidal
NO-v- Emissions
32 kph Sinusoidal
48 kph Steady State
64 kph Steady State
2. 501
-0.070
0. 665
0.923±0.070 0.946
2. 166±0. 182 0.934
1.791±0.099 0.971
32 kph Transient
48 kph Sinusoidal
64 kph Sinusoidal
Fuel Rate
32 kph Sinusoidal 7. 544
48 kph Steady State -23.995
64 kph Steady State 108. 008
1.046±0.140
1.485±0. 166
0.979±0.137
0. 848
0. 888
0. 837
115
-------
To answer the first question, "Does load have the same effect on
emissions for each average speed?", we can look at how load varies at a
constant speed. Since speed is a constant, the equation reduces to:
emission = new constant + (b-, + b-j x speed) load
where new constant = constant + b- x speed.
If load had the same effect on emissions for each average speed, the
load coefficient in the reduced equation (b-^ + b2 x speed) would be the
same for each speed. In other words, the emission change with load would
be independent of speed. As can be seen from the reduced equation, as
long as the coefficient for the load times speed term, b-j, is not zero,
this will not be the case. Thus, it can be said that, in general, speed
does alter the effect of load on emissions. The question is then, "Is this
a significant effect?" More importantly, "Is load at a given speed even a
significant variable?"
To answer these questions, the significance of each of the coefficients
was examined using an F statistic. The significant coefficients are marked
in Appendix Tables C-45 through C-47- Examining the tables, load at a given
speed, coefficient b-, appears to be a significant variable for HC on 17 per-
cent of the trucks for the sinusoidal tests and for none of the trucks on
the transient driving and steady-state cycles. The load times speed coef-
ficient, b2, was not significant for any of the trucks on the sinusoidal
cycle or steady-state cycles. Eight percent (one truck) of the trucks in
both the sinusoidal cycle and the driving cycle had HC emissions that were
significantly affected both by load and by load times speed. Thus, it ap-
pears the HC emissions were not significantly influenced by load setting
at a given speed and only on one truck from both the sinusoidal and driving
cycles did speed significantly alter the effect of load on HC emissions.
The same type of analysis can be done for CO, NOX, and fuel consump-
tion. In general, load at a given speed was not significant for CO, NOX,
or fuel. It should be noted that this does not mean that these emissions
and fuel consumption are not, at least partially, functions of load; it
means either that load alone does not account for all of the change seen
at constant speed or that the data are unable to show it. However, load
times speed is significant for a large portion of the trucks for CO, NO ,
and fuel on all test cycles except the sinusoidal tests.
To summarize, load setting is generally not statistically significant
in its influence on emissions and fuel consumption at a given speed. For
HC, load setting does have a different effect on emissions for different
speeds, but only occasionally does the relationship of HC emissions with
load change significantly with speed. For CO, NOX, and fuel consumption,
while load at constant speed is generally not significant, the load times
speed term generally is significant (except for the sinusoidal test cycles).
This indicates that for CO, NOX, and fuel consumption, load does not have
the same effect on emissions for each average speed.
The next question was: Do fuel rate and emissions vary with average
spt-i-cl; To answer this question, load is held constant and the general
equation reduced to:
emissions = new constant + (b2 + (b3 x load)) speed
wlii-iv iit-w constant =• constant + b\ (load).
116
-------
If the reduced coefficient, B2 + (B x load), is significantly different
from zero for the test cycle and emissions (or fuel consumption) under con-
sideration, then there is a variation with speed.
The different test cycles were examined individually beginning with
the transient driving cycle. For HC, speed at a given load, coefficient
b2 is a significant variable for 50 percent of the trucks and load times
speed coefficient b-, is significant for 8 percent (one truck) of the trucks.
For CO, speed at a given load is not significant for any of the trucks;
but load times speed is significant for 58 percent of the trucks. For NOX,
speed at a given load is significant for 33 percent of the trucks and load
times speed is significant for 75 percent of the trucks. For fuel con-
sumption, speed at a given load is significant for 83 percent of the trucks
and load times speed for 83 percent of the trucks.
The sinusoidal test cycles showed few trucks where speed at a given
load is a significant variable for any of the variables except NOX. For HC,
speed was not a significant variable for any of the trucks and load times
speed for 8 percent (one truck) of the trucks. For CO, speed was signifi-
cant for 8 percent (one truck) of the trucks and load times speed was signi-
ficant for 17 percent of the trucks. For NOx, speed was significant for
42 percent of the trucks and load times speed for 17 percent of the trucks.
For fuel consumption, speed was significant for 8 percent (one truck) of the
trucks and load times speed for none of the trucks.
The steady-state test cycles showed speed at a given load as a signifi-
cant variable more often than the sinusoidal test cycles. For HC, speed was
a significant variable for 25 percent of the trucks and load times speed for
none of the trucks. For CO, speed was not significant for any of the trucks,
but load times speed for 67 percent of the trucks. For NOx, speed was sig-
nificant for 17 percent of the trucks and load times speed for 50 percent of
the trucks. For fuel consumption, speed was significant for 75 percent of
the trucks and load times speed for 74 percent of the trucks.
To summarize, fuel rate and emissions do vary with average speed.
However, whether speed at a given load had a statistically significant in-
fluence on fuel consumption and emissions was dependent on the type of test
cycle and emission type. Speed at a given load had a statistically signi-
ficant influence on HC emissions on 0 to 50 percent of the trucks. In
general, speed at a given load did not have a statistically significant
influence on CO emissions. The exception was one truck on the sinusoidal
cycles. Speed at a given load had a statistically significant influence on
NOx for 33 to 75 percent of the trucks; on fuel consumption for 8 to 83
percent of the trucks.
The last question of this item is: Do fuel rate and emissions vary
with different cycles at the same average speed? For emissions and fuel
consumption to be the same at a given speed and load for each of three
cycles, the coefficients of the equations for that emission would have to
be the same for each cycle. An examination of Appendix Tables C-45 through
C-47 indicates that this is generally not the case. However, it is felt
that a more direct way to answer this question is to directly compare the
117
-------
emissions and fuel rate for the same average speed and load conditions on
each truck. These comparisons are shown in Tables 58 through 61 for HC,
CO, NOX, and fuel consumption, respectively. Since the test-to-test vari-
ability for these cycles has not been defined, it is difficult to determine
at what level the cycle-to-cycle differences at the same speed are signi-
ficant. However, some insight may be gained by examining the average values
of all trucks for each cycle at a given speed. For HC emissions, there
appears to be little difference between the 8 kph steady-state and 8 kph
transient. For the higher speeds, the average steady-state HC emissions
are appreciably higher than the average transient cycle HC emissions. There
is apparently little, if any, difference between the average steady-state
HC emissions and the average sinusoidal HC emissions at any of the tested
speeds. It must be pointed out that individual truck emissions will vary
from the pattern shown by the average emissions, so care must be taken in
how the data is used.
The average CO emissions from the transient cycles are appreciably
higher than the average CO emissions from the steady-state tests at all
tested speeds. While the average CO emissions from the sinusoidal cycles
are all higher than the average steady-state CO emissions, the values are
close enough that further analysis is needed to determine if the differences
are significant.
There is apparently little difference in the average NOX emissions
between the 8 kph steady-state and the 8 kph transient cycle. The other
transient cycles (16, 24, and 32 kph) all have average NOX values that
are appreciably higher than the average NOX values for the corresponding
steady-state speed. The average NOX emissions from the 32 kph sinusoidal
cycle is appreciably higher than the 32 kph steady-state average NOX emis-
sions, while the 48 kph sinusoidal NOX emissions are appreciably lower
than the 48 kph steady-state NOX emissions. The 64 kph sinusoidal and
steady-state NO., emissions are approximately equal. Except for the dif-
X.
ference in fuel consumption between the 32 kph transient cycle and the
32 kph steady-state cycle, the fuel consumption at a given speed was within
+_ 10 percent of the average for each test cycle.
To summarize, for all of the emissions, some of the test cycles gave
equivalent results at some of the tested speeds. The 64 kph steady-state
and sinusoidal cycles always had equivalent average emissions (and fuel con-
sumption) . Again, it should be emphasized that individual truck emissions
(and fuel consumption) varied from the relationships found in the average
data and these average trends should not be used to define relationships
for an individual vehicle.
Item 8 - How does the SAKR data compare with other 32 kph transient
driving cycles?
To answer this question, the average percent time frequency distri-
butions of vehicle speed and engine rpm from the San Antonio Road Route
(SARR) were compared with the same data from the 12 diesel trucks from
Contract 68-03-2147. The time-in-percent power was not compared since
percent power was not obtained on the SARR trucks. First, the percent
time in various vehicle speeds for the three 32 kph driving cycles us^-d
118
-------
TABLE 58. COMPARISON OF DIESEL TRUCK HC EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MIN
FROM DIFFERENT DRIVING CYCLES WITH THE SAME AVERAGE SPEED (HALF LOAD DATA)
Average
Speed
08
08
16
16
24
24
32
32
32
48
48
64
64
Truck Number
Cycle
SS
Trans
SS
Trans
SS
Trans
SS
Sine
Trans
SS
Sine
SS
Sine
19
2.36
1.90
3.16
2.50
4.48
2.58
4.55
3.65
2.83
3.81
3.30
4.40
5.51
20
0.69
0.61
0.73
0. 76
0.78
0.95
0.69
1.16
0.76
0.81
1.17
0.72
0.67
21
0.43
0.50
0.62
0.63
0.43
0. 70
0.50
1.21
0.60
0.59
0.85
0.65
0.55
22
0.90
1.24
3.47
1.40
2.65
1.43
3.88
2.68
1.33
3.28
2.97
2.70
2-. 50
23
1.21
0.78
1.36
1.06
1.71
1.15
1.59
1.16
1.29
1.82
1.71
1.83
1.91
24
1.74
.98
1.96
1.32
2.29
1.65
1.86
1.91
1.72
2.12
2.54
2.18
2.82
25
1.40
1.36
2.23
1.79
1.71
1.99
1.99
3.27
1.70
1.58
2.71
1.69
1.61
26
0.73
0.48
0.87
0.63
1.04
0.71
1.04
0.87
0.83
0.95
1.03
1.15
1.24
27
1.53
1.20
3.39
1.43
3.79
1.78
3.35
2.93
1.68
1.40
4.20
1.88
2.30
28
1.19
1.08
1.83
1.31
1.72
1.55
1.85
1.83
1.61
1.55
1.99
1.32
1.57
29
1.90
1.00
2.33
1.14
2.83
1.31
2.76
1.57
1.08
2.48
2.07
2.49
2.52
30
1.20
0.67
1. 31
0.84
1.46
0.96
1.50
1.07
1.09
1.54
1.45
1.96
1.92
Avg .
1.27
.98
1.94
1.23
2.07
1.40
2.13
1.94
1.38
1.83
2.17
1.91
2.09
-------
TABLE 59. COMPARISON OF DIESEL TRUCK CO EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MIN
FROM DIFFERENT DRIVING CYCLES WITH THE SAME AVERAGE SPEED (HALF LOAD DATA)
10
O
Average
Speed
08
08
16
16
24
24
32
32
32
48
48
64
64
Truck Number
Cycle
SS
Trans
SS
Trans
SS
Trans
SS
Sine
Trans
SS
Sine
SS
Sine
19
2.6
2.0
3.4
2.7
3.4
3.1
4.6
3.9
4.5
4.2
3.0
5.0
6.2
20
1.1
1.4
1.1
2.2
1.5
3.4
1.6
2.3
2.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
21
2.0
3.6
3.3
6.2
2.3
7.9
2.8
5.4
9.0
3.5
5.7
4.3
4.6
22
1.5
6.9
3. 3
10.6
2.4
12.6
3.0
9.3
13.5
2.4
9.0
4.4
7.3
23
4.8
3.4
3.5
6.6
2.8
9.1
2.1
2.0
11.4
1.8
2.8
1.2
1.2
24
4.3
4.5
4.7
6.7
5.1
9.0
3.3
2.4
12.2
3.6
4.7
2.4
3.0
25
2.3
3.7
4.7
5.8
4.0
8.3
5.2
6.4
7.8
5.9
6.7
8.6
7.6
26
1.0
1.9
1.1
3.3
1.3
4.1
1.5
1.3
7.7
1.2
1.5
0.9
1.1
27
V-9
3.6
3.4
6.2
3.4
9.0
2.9
3.2
14.5
1.7
6.6
2.3
3.4
28
3. 7
3.5
5.6
7.4
4.8
11.6
5.3
6.6
9.1
4.9
7.2
6.5
6.6
29
3.4
1.9
4.4
2.2
5.3
2.7
5.2
3.2
2.2
4.7
3.8
4.0
4.8
30
0.9
0.8
1.0
2.0
0.9
3.1
1.2
2.2
1.5
0.9
2.4
1.0
2.8
Avg
2.5
3.1
3.3
5.2
3.1
7.0
3.2
4.0
8.0
3.0
4.6
3.5
4.2
-------
TABLE 60. COMPARISON OF DIESEL TRUCK NOX EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MIN
FROM DIFFERENT DRIVING CYCLES WITH THE SAME AVERAGE SPEED (IIALF LOAD DATA)
Average
Speed
08
08
16
16
24
24
32
32
32
48
48
64
64
Truck Number
Cycle
SS
Trans
SS
Trans
SS
Trans
SS
Sine
Trans
SS
Sine
SS
Sine
19
2.10
1.74
2.45
2.48
3.39
3.32
3.51
4.12
4.75
4.15
4.69
7.18
7.36
20
1.98
3.57
2.43
5.90
3.00
7.67
3.44
8.61
10.93
6.55
8.18
11.65
11.40
21
3.12
3.77
6.01
7.12
5.02
9.07
5.78
10.60
12.86
11.24
13.20
17.08
18.98
22
3.07
4.30
5.76
7.12
7.02
8.81
6.98 '
8.55
12.42
11.41
12.38
22.71
24.83
^23
8.22
9.41
10.57
16.01
14.37
20.20
17.05
28.09
27.06
27.34
36.35
47.66
49.13
24
4.56
5.85
5.70
10.13
7.04
13.07
6.68
14.35
16.72
10.28
18.29
15.86
17.98
25
1.47
2.88
3.41
5.63
2.86
7.42
3.92
7.15
11.05
5.91
10.86
11.71
12.83
26
2.11
2.90
2.97
5.22
3.42
6.83
4.03
7.33
9.82
6.23
8.82
11.27
11.53
27
1.66
3.43
3.19
5.71
4.13
9.03
4.74
8.62
11.57
6.28
12.19
12.67
15.35
28
2.62
2.12
3.59
3.57
3.47
4.63
4.02
4.37
4.99
4.95
5.47
7.25
6.98
29
1.58
1.81
2.19
2.93
2.82
4.00
3.37
4.87
5.53
5.15
6.01
7.98
8.52
30
2.05
2.16
2.37
3.72
2.78
5.77
3.41
6.13
6.38
5.30
7.66
9.95
10.80
Avg.
2.88
3.66
4.22
6.30
4.94
8.32
5.58
9.40
11.17
8.73
6.00
15.25
16.31
-------
TABLE .61. COMPARISON OF DIESEL TRUCK FUEL CONSUMPTION IN GRAMS/MIN
FROM DIFFERENT DRIVING CYCLES WITH THE SAME AVERAGE SPEED (HALF LOAD DATA)
fO
to
Average
Sliced
OH
00
16
16
24
34
32
32
32
48
48
64
6-1
Cycle
SS
Trans
SS
Trans
SS
Trans
SS
Sine
Trans
SS
Sine
SS
Sine
19
69.23
64.68
84.08
91.08
124.57
118.01
130.05
177.48
168.40
139.38
162.35
238.50
253.29
20
120.16
109.22
146.56
178.40
183.33
228.21
191.52
276.12
283.73
299.12
273.82
382.26
361.83
21
124.83
109.59
237.60
189.03
188.96
236.94
242.28
283.87
296.43
351.31
301.74
439.75
444.99
22
42.01
91.61
158.24
151.66
138.39
190.73
216.94
254.17
257.56
254.55
267.12
326.11
331.41
23
119.23
104.64
154.42
172.22
202.15
218.90
210.86
251.45
279.53
296.49
317.99
413.56
402.97
24
205.03
130.09
256.67
216.86
310.99
287.92
263.75
323.65
346.33
360.52
403.83
465.30
461.16
25
91.36
110.01
208.35
187.01
168.30
240.09
217.90
253.22
284.71
261.80
302.52
413.16
424.05
26
86.44
73.20
112.10
121.93
139.34
162.52
154.45
188.47
205.45
194.82
204.00
309.52
303.68
27
92.09
104.65
185.85
152.32
220.51
215.64
231.03
195.78
282.26
227.16
318.52
363.31
384 . 34
28
109.10
83.19
171.31
128.99
153.33
157.47
171.39
179.30
179.79
183.46
192.13
247.76
243.74
29
69.50
59.59
90.90
92.81
115.86
125.59
125.72
158.00
168.71
166.21
186.16
244.50
263.74
30
90.09
60.88
100.42
94.89
124.25
130.91
138.53
156.52
158.47
181.65
189.30
279.32
274.84
101.59
91.78
158.88
148.10
172.50
192.74
191.20
224.84
242.61
243.04
259.96
343.59
345.84
-------
in Contract 68-03-2147 and the percent time in various vehicle speeds for
the SARR were compared. This comparison is shown in Table 62. As an aid
to visualizing the differences between the SARR and the dynamometer drivinq
cycles, the cumulative percent of timo for each of HIP eyrlos is shown in
Figure 23.
As can be seen from the table and the figure, the dynamometer driving
cycles are all fairly similar to each other (between 20 and 65 kph), how-
ever, they differ from one another at the high and low speed ends. The
SARR differs from the dynamometer cycles in that it has less time at idle,
more time between idle and 32 kph, and less time between 50 and 80 kph.
The comparison of the average engine rpm distribution for all diesel
trucks driven on the three 32 kph dynamometer cycles and the average SARR
engine rpm distribution is shown in Table 63. Unlike the comparison done
on the gasoline-powered trucks, the CAPE-21 and ETABS diesel data were not
available in a form that permitted comparison with the SARR data. The
average cumulative percent time is shown in Figure 24 for the 12 diesel
trucks and the SARR study.
From the table and the figure, it is evident that the rpm distri-
bution of the two studies are somewhat different. The SARR trucks had
less time at idle, more time between 1100 and 1700 rpm, and less time above
1700 rpm. However, the maximum difference between the two distributions
is about 18 percentage points at 1700 rpm. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for
statistical difference indicates that the two cumulative distributions are
significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Item 9 - Can fuel rate and emissions be highly correlated with per-
cent time at idle?
Data from the steady-state idle and the four transient driving cycles
from all 12 trucks were used in this item. Table 64 lists the percent time
at idle for each of the cycles. In order to obtain the best possible cor-
relation for changes in emissions and fuel rate with time at idle, a tech-
nique developed by Daniel and Wood^18) was used. The technique involves
using indicator (or dummy) variables to change the intercept and, if neces-
sary, slope with individual truck. This technique was also used in the
analysis of Item 10-2 for both the gasoline and diesel trucks. It is more
fully explained under Item 10-2 in the gasoline truck analysis section
(Section III).
All 12 diesel trucks were combined for each emission and tests were
made to determine whether a linear model using a common slope or one with
different slopes was most adequate. An F statistic was utilized and re-
flected the ratio of the error sum of squares for the model with different
slopes to the error sum of squares for the increase from the common to the
different slope model. In all cases, the F statistic was significant
(p < 0.05) indicating individual fits of each truck were best. A logarith-
mic model did not yield any improvement except for fuel rate where a common
slope model was obtained.
The regression coefficients for each emission type are given in Table
65 including the logarithmic fit for fuel rate. Examining Table 65, the
123
-------
TABLE 62. PERCENT TIME AND CUMULATIVE PERCENT TIME SPENT
IN VARIOUS SPEED INTERVALS FOR THE 32 kph DIESEL TRANSIENT CYCLES
UNDER CONTRACT 68-03-2147 AND THE SAN ANTONIO ROAD ROUTE STUDIES
Single Unit
2 axle (2D)
Speed
Interval %
kph
0.0
3. 2
6.4
9.7
12.9
16. 1
19. 3
22. 5
25.7
29. 0
32. 2
35. 4
38.6
41.8
45. 1
48. 3
51. 5
54. 7
57.9
61. 1
64. 4
67.6
70.8
74. 0
77.2
80.4
83.7
86.9
90. 1
93. 3
Time
3.
6.
9.
- 12.
16.
- 19.
- 22.
25.
29.
32.
35.
38.
41.
- 45.
48.
51.
54.
57.
61.
- 64.
67,
70.
74.
77.
80.
83.
86.
90.
93.
96.
2
4
7
9
1
3
5
7
0
2
4
6
8
1
3
5
7
9
1
4
6
8
0
2
4
7
9
1
3
5
41.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
3.
0.
0.
5.
0.
5.
0.
0.
6.
0.
4.
0.
0.
4.
0.
2.
0.
0.
2.
0.
4.
0.
8.
, 17
, 13
82
39
. 52
, 30
39
77
78
78
20
91
71
52
91
10
65
03
26
52
81
26
73
26
26
21
39
16
39
67
Single Unit
3 axle (3D)
Cum.
Time
41.
41.
43.
43.
44.
45.
45.
49.
50.
51.
56.
57.
62.
63.
64.
70.
71.
75.
75.
75.
80.
80.
83.
83.
84.
86.
86.
90.
91.
100.
17
30
12
51
03
33
72
49
27
05
25
16
87
39
30
40
05
08
34
86
67
93
66
92
18
39
78
94
33
00
Time
20.
1.
7.
1.
2.
8.
1.
5.
0.
0.
4.
0.
6.
0.
0.
6.
0.
10.
0.
0.
8.
0.
8.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
85
77
63
09
18
17
63
59
54
68
63
82
27
82
82
95
82
63
41
54
17
27
72
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Tractor
Trailer (TT)
Cum.
Time
20.
22.
30.
31.
33.
41.
43.
48.
49.
50.
54.
55.
61.
62.
63.
70.
71.
81.
82.
82.
91.
91.
100.
85
62
25
34
52
69
32
91
45
13
76
58
85
67
49
44
26
89
30
84
01
28
00
Time
34.
1.
4.
1.
1.
5.
0.
2.
0.
1.
7.
0.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
0.
5.
0.
5.
0.
0.
9.
0.
2.
0.
0.
28
04
77
19
79
37
45
38
75
19
90
89
77
15
30
00
30
71
60
75
37
30
66
60
60
09
45
35
00
00
SARR
Cum.
Time
34.
35.
20.
41.
43.
48.
48.
51.
52.
53.
61.
62.
66.
66.
67.
67.
67.
74.
74.
75.
80.
81.
86.
87.
88.
97.
97.
100.
28
32
09
28
07
44
89
27
02
21
11
00
77
92
22
22
52
23
83
58
95
25
91
51
11
20
65
00
Time
18.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
4.
4.
4.
5.
6.
6.
7.
6.
4.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1,
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97
28
35'
o2
75
99
58
38
49
95
20
18
76
15
47
50
72
55
86
67
68
83
18
58
56
09
80
51
27
08
Cum.
Time
18.
21.
23.
26.
28.
31.
35.
39.
44.
49.
54.
60.
67.
74.
81.
85.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
92.
94.
95.
97.
98.
99.
99.
99.
100.
97
25
60
22
97
96
54
92
41
36
56
74
50
65
12
62
34
89
75
42
10
93
11
69
25
34
14
65
92
00
Avg. Speed, 33. 16
kph
31.83
31. 31
31. 25
124
-------
-e—e—e-
D2DIE
~ D3DIE
A £ TTDIE
SARR
100 r —
-P
C
0)
M 0
K) ^
Ln 0)
10
20
30
40 50 60
Vehicle Speed, kph
70
80
90
100
FIGURE 23. CUMULATIVE PERCENT TIME VERSUS VEHICLE SPEED FOR TWO DIESEL TRUCK STUDIES
-------
TABLE 63. COMPARISON OF TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS RPM
INTERVALS FOR TWO DIESEL TRUCK STUDIES
12 Truck
Dyno Study
(b)
SARR
(c)
wa;
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
% Time
0.06
6.38
24.35
2.43
1.26
2.09
4.71
8.79
18.49
15.56
9.34
3.70
1.35
1.05
0.41
0.04
Cum. % Time
0.06
6.44
30.79
33.22
34.48
36.56
41.27
50.06
68.55
84.11
93.45
97.15
98.50
99.55
99.96
100.00
% Time
0.00
2.81
9.45
11.64
6.44
7.74
10.89
12.41
12.97
12.20
7.64
3.98
1.29
0.40
0.14
0.00
Cum. % Time
0.00
2.81
12.26
23.90
30.34
38.08
48.97
61.38
74.35
86.55
94.19
98.17
99.46
99.86
100.00
(a) j-pm is midpoint of interval for 12 truck study and end of
interval for SARR study
(k>) 12 Truck Dyno Study - 32 kph half load driving cycles under
Contract 68-03-2147
SARR - 10 diesel trucks tested on San Antonio Road Route
under Contract 68-01-2113
126
-------
12 diesel trucks, Contract 68-03-2147
SARR
C
0)
u
a)
>
•^
-P
I
3
u
500
1000
1500 2000
rpm
2500
3000
3500
FIGURE 24. CUMULATIVE PERCENT TIME VERSUS ENGINE RPM FOR TWO DIESEL TRUCK STUDIES
-------
TABLE 64. PERCENT TIME AT IDLE FOR VARIOUS DIESEL
DYNAMOMETER TEST CYCLES
Cycle
D2DIE
D3DIE
TTDIE
Cycle No.
390741665
1527266763
1137788723
555005187
882238513
202042971
743630625
1200794289
767793819
802433547
605752003
462050771
Speed
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
20
Truck
19- 29
28, 30
20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25,
26, 27
i
Percent Time
At Idle
58. 7
48. 3
35. 7
40.4
58. 2
42. 7
33. 2
16. 8
71. 1
51. 7
37. 0
32. 6
128
-------
TABLE 65. REGRESSION RESULTS FOR EMISSIONS AND FUEL, RATE AS
A FUNCTION OF PERCENT TIME AT IDLE
Truck Slope
No. Intercept ± Std. Dev.
HC Emissions
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
4.
1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
015
173
853
637
666
300
603
100
480
962
659
265
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
034±0.
009±0.
005±0.
006±0.
012±0.
018±0.
019±0.
009±0.
020±0.
015±0.
012±0.
010±0.
004
002
001
002
001
001
004
001
003
001
002
000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
964
877
876
835
989
997
882
982
954
980
950
997
Fuel Rate
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
198.
373.
387.
322.
362.
458.
384.
266.
356.
209.
202.
178.
4
2
8
5
3
8
2
6
0
8
9
0
-1.
-3.
-3.
-3.
-3.
-4.
_ 3
-2.
-3.
-1.
-1.
_ i
873±0.
458±0.
668±0.
040±0.
440±0.
354±0.
659±0.
560±0.
450±0.
870±0.
934±0.
697±0.
633
371
417
481
416
453
303
326
537
196
641
246
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
745
968
963
930
958
969
980
954
931
968
752
941
Truck
No.
Intercept
Slope
± Std. Dev. r2
CO Emissions
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
5.
4.
12.
18.
14.
15.
11.
8.
17.
12.
3.
2.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
5.
136
510
494
497
559
456
650
682
104
512
563
704
In
007
619
680
514
598
840
639
264
568
087
013
811
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
(Fuel
-0.
044±0.
043±0.
120±0.
157±0.
139±0.
150±0.
108±0.
089±0.
177±0.
199±0.
029±0.
023±0.
Rate)
030±0.
016
006
007
006
024
023
009
026
044
036
003
014
001
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
726
942
990
996
921
936
981
792
843
784
970
464
966
Truck
No.
Intercept
±
Slope
Std. Dev.
r2
NOX Emissions
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
5.
13.
16.
15.
35.
21.
13.
11.
14.
5.
6.
7.
364
709
120
254
012
514
651
950
933
785
518
290
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
048±0.
136±0.
160±0.
144±0.
344±0.
205±0.
139±0.
116±0.
152±0.
050±0.
062±0.
070±0.
019
023
028
026
045
028
027
024
025
009
022
014
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
684
922
916
911
950
948
896
889
925
914
725
890
Notes: 1. Form of equation, except In (Fuel Rate) emissions = bQ + bj (% time at idle)
2. Form of equation for In (Fuel Rate) ln(fuel rate) = bQ + t>l (% time at idle)
3. Number of data points for each equation = 5
-------
variation in slope for each truck are plainly evident for each of the
o
emissions. The coefficient of variation (r ) for the relationships
generally indicates a good fit, especially for HC emissions.
The conclusion, then, is that fuel rate can be highly correlated
with percent time at idle using a logarithmic equation with all trucks
having a common slope but different intercepts. The exhaust emissions
can, in general, be correlated to percent time at idle but only if a
different equation is used for each truck.
It should be kept in mind that this regression analysis was done
using percent time at idle from a particular set of driving cycles.
Whether the relationship would be the same for other driving cycles with
the same average speed is not known.
Item 10
Four items of analysis are required to assess the effects of speed,
load, and power/load ratio on heavy-duty vehicles. The analyses need to
be performed using available heavy-duty data bases. The data bases to be
considered for the diesel trucks are (1) 10 diesel trucks tested over the
SARR and (2) 12 diesel trucks tested over a transient 20 mph dynamometer
driving schedule. For this item, the units of measure are expressed in
mixed English-metric as requested since the results are to be used in that
form in another EPA publication.
Item 10-1 - For each of the two data bases, a regres-
sion should be performed for emissions as the dependent vari-
able, weight/power ratio as the independent variable. The
weight is the vehicle test weight and the power is CID. The
regression should be linear unless a plot of the data indicate
a better functional form. Within each data base, separate re-
gressions should be performed for each of the following model
year groupings: pre-1974 diesel, 1974-1975 diesel, and 1975
California diesel.
All emission data should be expressed in grams/mile.
Where multiple tests were performed on the same truck at
different loads, these data points should be included and
assumed independent. The average weight/power ratio should
be computed for each of the data base/model year groups.
Table 66 contains the average weight/CID ratio for each of the
truck groupings. Also available in the table are average test weight,
average CID, and average mileage of each group.
Linear regression analyses were performed for each truck group with
emissions or fuel consumption as the dependent variable and weight/CID
ratio as the independent variable. The regression equation for each emis-
sion and fuel consumption of each truck group are contained in Table 67.
Examining the results of the regression analyses shown in Table 67,
it appears that weight/CID has a significant effect on CO emissions for
all truck groups. For fuel rate and NOX emissions, weight/CID has a
130
-------
TABLE 66. AVERAGES OF SOME IMPORTANT VARIABLES
FROM TWO DIESEL TRUCK STUDIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Group*
SARR Pre-1974 Diesel
1974-1975 Diesel
Pre-1974 Diesel
1975 California Diesel
Average
Wt . , Ibs
38,676
35,400
39,778
49,000
Average
Wt/CID
63.45
67.67
55.76
57.31
Average
Mileage
107,525
17,202
185,167
1,856
CID
637.2
548.
719.00
855.00
No. of
Trucks
10
15
18
3
* Data Source: Group 1 - EPA Contract 68-01-2113
Group 2 - EPA Contract 68-03-2147
to 4
131
-------
TABLE 67. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
AS A FUNCTION OF WEIGHT/CID FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS
Group
Constant
Wt/CID
+ Std. Dev.
r2 Std. Err.
No. of
Data
Points
HC Emissions
1. SARR Pre-1974 Diesel 7.231
2. 1974-1975 Diesel 3.919
3. Pre-1974 Diesel 6.297
4. 1975 California Diesel 2.420
-0.055 + 0.036
-0.000 +_ 0.009
-0.031 + 0.012
-0.001 + 0.002
0.225
0.000
0.279*
0.158
2.140
1.174
1.623
0.098
10
15
18
3
CO Emissions
1. SARR Pre-1974 Diesel -28.591
2. 1974-1975 Diesel -1.838
3. Pre-1974 Diesel 11.404
4. 1975 California Diesel 4.200
0.821 + 0.261
0.333 +_ 0.108
0.362 +_ 0.098
0.073 + 0.000
0.553*
0.424**
0.462**
1.000***
15.366
13.935
12.870
0.000
10
15
18
3
NO__ Emissions
1. SARR Pre-1974 Diesel 10.147
2. 1974-1975 Diesel 9.092
3. Pre-1974 Diesel 4.726
4. 1975 California Diesel 10.930
0.135 +_ 0.111
0.311 +_ 0.093
0.570 +_ 0.119
0.345 + 0.062
0.158
0.460**
0.590***
0.969
6.516
12.086
15.696
2.523
10
15
18
3
Fuel Consumption
1.
2.
3.
4.
SARR Pre-1974 Diesel 0.150 0.001 + 0.001 0.082 0.047
1974-1975 Diesel 0.132 0.001 + 0.001 0.290* 0.072
Pre-1974 Diesel 0.141 0.002 + 0.000 0.656*** 0.037
1975 California Diesel 0.160 0.002 + 0.000 0.988 0.008
10
15
18
3
Notes: 1. Weight = truck wt/1000 = lb/1000
2. CID = cubic inch displacement
3. Fuel is in gallons/mile
4. Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
5. Group 1 - EPA Contract 68-01-2113
Group 2 - EPA Contract 68-03-2147
to 4
132
-------
all truck groups. For fuel rate and NOX emissions, weight/CID has a sig-
nificant effect for half of the truck groups. Since displacement is, in
general, proportional to some design point power, the weight/CID ratio
could be thought of as a weight/rated power ratio. The slopes of the equa-
tions for CO, NOX, and fuel are all positive, indicating that for a given
size engine, as vehicle weight increases, fuel consumption, NOX, and CO
emissions also increase. This result is expected for fuel consumption.
Since it takes more work to move a larger vehicle, the same size engine
would naturally require more fuel. Emissions of NOX are also known to in-
crease with engine power, so the same reasoning could explain the NOX be-
havior. The physical reasons behind the increase in CO emissions with in-
creased weight/CID are not apparent. It is also interesting to note that
all of the diesel HC emissions have negative slopes with weight/CID, while
the HC emissions from gasoline-powered trucks (shown in Section III, Table
32) all have positive slopes.
The regression equations, in general, had small coefficients of de-
termination (r2), even on truck groups where the emissions and weight/CID
relationship was indicated to be significant. In an effort to improve the
coefficients of determination, an exponential curve fit was also performed
since examination of the plots indicated that an exponential equation might
better fit some of the data. While this regression analysis did improve
some of the coefficients of determination slightly, it also decreased others.
Overall, it was felt that there was little to be gained by using an expo-
nential fit.
The small values of r2 and large standard error values indicate a
considerable amount of data scatter. This should not be too surprising
since it has been shown in past studies that engine model (i.e., manufac-
turer, size, ancillary equipment and model year) was the most significant
variable in explaining differences in emission levels from a large group
of trucks. Thus, the data used in this analysis is in reality what statis-
ticians term "nested" data; that is, within the data, there are individual
slopes. Unfortunately, in this study, there are insufficient data to iden-
tify each of the groups.
One other caution should be mentioned before ending the discussion
on this item. The data points used for each truck group are, in general,
few in number. Also, the weight/CID range covered by the SARR trucks is
small. To aid in comparison of the data base average emissions for each
data base, average emissions for each data base are given in Table 68.
Item 10-2 - For each of the model year groups within data
base 2, plots should be made for emissions versus average speed.
The speed cycles to be considered are 5, 10, 15, and 20 mph
transient cycles; 30 and 40 mph sinusoidal cycles; and 55 mph
steady-state cycle. The half load data points should suggest
an appropriate regression form (log (emissions) provided the
best fit for light-duty with a linear and quadratic term for
speed). Speed should be expressed in mph and emissions in grams/
mile, and fuel consumption in gallons/mile.
133
-------
TABLE 68. AVERAGE EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
FOR TWO DIESEL TRUCK STUDIES
Emissions, grams/mi
1.
2.
3.
4.
Group*
SARR Pre-1974 Diesel
1974-1975 Diesel
Pre-1974 Diesel
1975 California Diesel
HC
3.
3.
4.
2.
71
90
59
36
CO NOV
23
20
31
8
.5
.72
.58
.40
18
30
36
30
.74
.13
.53
.73
gal/mi
0
0
0
0
.19
.22
.22
.26
Trucks
10
15
18
3
* Data Source: Group 1 - EPA Contract 68-01-2113
Group 2 - EPA Contract 68-03-2147
** For Groups 3 and 4, emissions are averages of all trucks in the group
at empty, half, and full weight for the 20 mph transient driving cycle
134
-------
These regression equations will be normalized to either
the average speed of the SARR or the average speed of the CAPE-
21 data. The normalization will be performed by EPA.
All trucks of a given model year group will be combined
for the regressions unless examination of individual truck
plots indicates that a better approach would be to regress
each truck separately and average those results.
As mentioned in the discussion of Item 10-1, engine model has been
shown to be a significant variable in studies of truck emissions. The
trucks within data base 2, the 12 diesel-powered trucks tested at the
seven different average speed conditions, provide an excellent example
of "nested" data.
In order to obtain the best possible prediction model for changes
in emissions with speed, a technique involving using indicator (or dummy)
variables to change the intercept and, if necessary, slope with individual
truck was employed.'1°' The equations used are described in Section III
of this report under the analysis of Item 10-2 for the gasoline-powered
trucks.
First, the data was processed to obtain an equation for each truck,
each equation with a different intercept but a common slope. Next, the
data was processed to determine if it could be represented better by
straight lines with individual slopes. The hypothesis that the slope co-
efficients do not improve the fit was tested by the F ratio of the resi-
dual mean square due to adding extra slope variables to the common slope
equation, divided by the residual mean square of the individual slope
equation.'1°' If the F ratio was not significant at the 0.05 significance
level, the common slope equation was deemed adequate.
The regression coefficients for this study are given in Tables 69
through 72. Where a common slope could be used, the individual slopes
are not given. The plots of the equations are not included in this report,
but were previously mailed to EPA, ECTD, Ann Arbor, Michigan. It was sug-
gested by EPA that perhaps a logarithmic equation might fit the data since
this equation form provided the best fit for light-duty emissions as a
function of speed. Therefore, the procedure detailed above was repeated
twice. The first equation used was:
In (emissions) = bg + b^ (speed).
The second repetition used the equation:
In (emissions) = bg + t>i (speed) + b2 (speed2) .
In general, these equation forms have slightly better coefficients
of determination. More importantly, these equation forms permitted the
use of a common speed coefficient for each truck group for a given emission.
Since the equation forms with the speed squared term gave the best coef-
ficients of determination, it is felt that this equation form should be
used to describe the effect of speed on emissions forHC, CO, and NOX. The
135
-------
TABLE 69. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR HC EMISSIONS AS A
FUNCTION OF VEHICLE SPEED FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 58-03-2147
G roup
P re-1974
Diesel
1974-75
Diesel
1975 Calif.
Diesel
Truck
No.
19
21
22
23
27
28
24
25
26
29
30
20
Intercept
14.340
6. 382
10.226
8. 554
10.607
9. 605
9.893
12.658
4. 183
8. 315
6. 102
5. 482
Speed
Coefficient
Std.
Error
-0. 156±0.020
0. 762'
2. 148
42
-0. 145±0.037
-0.236
-0.052
-0.126
-0.083
-0.098±0.024
0.
0.773**
1. 611
1.036
35
Note: 1. Equation form: Y = DQ + b
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Emissions in grams/mile
4. Significance: * = 0. 05
** = 0. 01
*** = 0.001
(speed)
-------
TABLE 70. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR CO EMISSIONS AS A
FUNCTION OF VEHICLE SPEED FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
U)
-J
Group
Pre-1974
Diesel
1974-75
Diesel
Truck
No.
19
21
22
23
27
28
24
25
26
29
30
1975 Calif.
Diesel
20
Intercept
29
42
59
41
44
Note: 1. Equation form; Y = bg + b-
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Emissions in grams/mile
4. Significance: * = 0. 05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
589
875
126
312
185
47.932
53.524
39. 505
23.120
16.636
11.493
15.299
(speed)
Speed
Coefficient
-0.722±0.099
Std.
Error
10.585
n
42
-1.077±0.122
-0.647
-0.414
-0.271
-0.161
-0.278±0.058
0.886***
0. 822
5. 331
2. 525
35
-------
TABLE 71. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR NOV EMISSIONS AS A
FUNCTION OF VEHICLE SPEED FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Ul
CD
G roup
Pre-1974
Diesel
1974-75
Diesel
Truck
No.
19
21
22
23
27
28
24
25
26
29
30
Intercept
16.647
41. 334
42.425
90.305
35.084
20.049
66.412
30.227
26.898
18.160
8. 546.
Speed
Coefficient
Std.
Error
-0. 137±0.068
0.930**'
7. 307
42
-0.731±0.247
-0.041
0. 027
-0.106
0. 808
0.678*** 10.785
35
1975 Calif.
Diesel
20
31.949
Note: 1. Equation form: Y = DQ + bj (speed)
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Emissions in grams/mile
4. Significance: * = 0. 05
** = 0. 01
*** = 0.001
-0.081±0.241
0. 022
10.492
-------
TABLE 72. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR FUEL CONSUMPTION AS A FUNCTION OF
VEHICLE SPEED FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONT RACT 68-03-2147
Group
Pre-1974
Diesel
1974-75
Diesel
Truck
No.
19
21
22
23
27
28
24
25
26
29
30
1975 Calif.
Diesel
20
Intercept
0. 351
0.488
0.448
2. 293
0. 455
0. 391
0.456
0. 357
0. 206
0. 185
0. 192
0. 334
(speed)
Note: 1. Equation form: Y = DQ +
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Fuel Consumption in gallons /mile
4. Significance: * = 0. 05
** = 0. 01
*** = 0. 001
Speed
Coefficient
-0.008±0.019
Std.
Error
n
0. 132
1. 992
42
-0.005±0.001
-0.004
-0.001
-0.001
-0.001
-0.003±0.001
0. o o 5 ^ '^'''
0. 542
0. 036
0. 054
35
-------
equation coefficients for each of the emissions by truck group are given
in Tables 73 through 76.
To aid in normalizing this data base to some given speed, the average
•-missions for the 20 mph transient driving cycle are given in Table 77 for
each truck group. While only the half load data was used in the above anal-
ysis, the average emissions at empty and full load are shown for comparison.
Item 10-3 - For the 1974-1975 diesel trucks in data base
2, a regression should be performed with emissions (20 mph cycle)
as the dependent variable and mileage as the independent variable.
Weight/power ratio should be included as a covariate (this as-
sumes that for all sized trucks, the same deterioration rate
holds). The same type of regression analysis should be performed
for all trucks in data base 1. SAKR emission values should be
used in these regressions.
The required regression analysis on these data bases was performed.
The results are shown in Table 78. Three of eight truck groups had re-
gressions that were considered significant. These three consisted of both
of the CO regressions and NOX for the 1974-1975 group. Even for those
regressions considered significant, the r^ value indicates a good deal of
data scatter. Considering that these were all in-service trucks with a
wide variation in maintenance quality, the data scatter is probably not
surprising. Of more interest is the variation in value of the mileage
coefficient of the two truck groups for a given emission specie and the
negative coefficients for HC and fuel consumption. Also of interest is
the positive mileage coefficients for NOx. This means that NOX emissions
increase as mileage increases. The reasons for the behavior of these
emissions is not immediately apparent. All things considered, it is not
recommended that these equations be used to define the behavior of diesel
truck emissions with mileage without further study.
Item 10-4 - For each of the model year groups within each
of the two data bases, a regression should be performed with
emissions as the dependent variable and test weight as the in-
dependent variable. Test weight/power ratio should be included
as a covariate. The emissions will be the SARR emissions for
data base 1 and the 20 mph cycle for data base 2.
The average test weight should be computed for vehicles
in data base 1. The average test weight for the empty, half,
and full load tests should be computed for each of the model
year groups in data base 2 as well as for all diesel trucks in
data base 2.
These regressions will later be normalized by EPA to the
average test weight and average weight/power ratio built into
the tabled emission values. These regressions will be able to
predict the effects of changes in load (where load is the dif-
ference in average test weight).
140
-------
TABLE 73. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR EMISSIONS AS A
LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION OF SPEED FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Group
Pre-1974
Diesel
1974-75
Diesel
1975 Calif
Diesel
Note: 1.
2.
3.
4.
Truck
No.
19
21
22
23
27
28
24
25
26
29
30
20
Int. Spd. Coef
3. 275
1. 671
2'^8 -0.055±0.
2.461
2. 785
2. 593
2. 679
2. 594
1.930 -0.051±0.
2.459
2. 253
2. 1928 -0.072±0.
ficif
010
Oil
208
Equation form: In (Y) = bg + b^ (spee
Speed in miles per hour
Emissions in grams/miles
Significance: *
= 0. 05
Spd. 2 Coefficient
0. 0004±0. 0002-
0.0005±0.0002
0.0006±0.0003
** = 0.01
***= 0. 001
r2 Std. Error n
0.907*** 0.249
0. 939
42
0.846*** 0.250
35
0. 707
-------
TABLE 74. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR CO EMISSIONS AS A
LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION OF SPEED FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-Z147
G roup
Pre-1974
Diesel
1974-75
Diesel
1975 Calif.
Diesel
Truck
No.
19
21
22
23
27
28
24
25
26
29
30
20
Int.
3. 766
4. 490
4. 939
4. 089
4.486
4. 707
4. 132
4. 317
3.471
3.445
3. 197
3. 3753
Sped. Coeffic
-0.092±0.019
-0.072±0.020
-0.088±0. 028
Spd. 2 Coefficient
0.0010±0.0003
0.0006±0.0003
0.0008±0.0005
Note: 1. Equation form: In (Y) = DQ + b>i (speed) + 02 (speed^)
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Emissions in grams/mile
4. Significance: * = 0. 05
** = 0. 01
*** = 0.001
Std. Error n
0.743*** 0-. 475
0.780*** 0.467
0. 912** 0. 791
42
35
-------
TABLE 75. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR NOX EMISSIONS AS A
LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION OF SPEED FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Group
Pre-1974
Diesel
1974-75
Diesel
Truck
No.
19
21
22
23
27
28
24
25
26
29
30
Int.
3.069
4. 121
4. 149
4. 959
3. 942
3. 272
4. 393
3. 916
3.. 841
3. 292
3. 751
Spd. Coefficient
-0. 043±0.005
-0. 054±0. 012
1975 Calif.
Diesel
20
4.1480 -0.074±0.025
Spd. Coefficient
0,0006±0.0001
r2 Std. Error n
0. 970--* 0. 125
42
0.0009±0.0002
0.0012±0.0004
0.733*** 0.276
35
0. 692
0.373
Note: 1. Equation form: In (Y) = bQ
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Emissions in grams/mile
4. Significance: * = 0. 05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
(speed) + b2 (speed )
-------
TABLE 76. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR FUEL CONSUMPTION AS A
LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION OF SPEED FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Group
Pre-1974
Diesel
1974-75
Diesel
1975 Calif.
Diesel
Truck
No.
19
21
22
23
27
28
24
25
26
29
30
20
Inter. Spd. Coefficient
-1.465
-0.801
-0.958
-0.305
-0.921
-1.253
-0.568
-0.766
-1. 181
-1. 325
-1. 273
-0.6721
-0.029±0.025
Spd. Coefficient
0.0003±0.0004
Std. Error.
0.363* 0.635
42
-0.043±0.0004
0.0005±0.0001
-0.545±0.112
0.0007±0.0002
0.949**- 0.095
0.896* 0.292
35
Note: 1. Equation form: In (Y) = bg + b^ (speed) +
2. Speed in miles per hour
3. Fuel Consumption in gallons/mile
4. Significance: * = 0. 05
** = 0.01
*#* = 0.001
-------
TABLE 77. AVERAGE EMISSIONS FROM THE 20 mph TRANSIENT CYCLE
FOR TRUCKS TESTED UNDER CONTRACT 68-03-2147
1974-1975 Diesel
Pre-1974 Diesel
1975 California Diesel
Empty Load, g/min
HC
CO
FC
4.05 12.9 21.71
4.92 18.8 29.20
2.41 6.3 19.65
Half Load, g/min
HC
CO
3.89 19.1
4.73 31.4 37.67
2.25 8.4 32.71
N0y FC
30.06
Full Load, g/min
HC
CO
NO>
3.93 31.5 40.23
4.31 46.2 45.47
2.45 10.8 40.85
FC
-------
TABLE 78. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
AS A FUNCTION OF MILEAGE AND WEIGHT/CID FOR TWO DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS
Group
1. SARR Pre-1974
Diesel
2. 1974-1975
Diesel
1. SARR Pre-1974
Diesel
2. 1974-1975
Diesel
1. SARR Pre-1974
Diesel
2. 1974-1975
Diesel
1. SARR Pre-1974
Diesel
2. 1974-1975
Diesel
Constant Mileage/10000
Wt/CID
Std. Err.
No. of
Trucks
6.191
4.234
-33.275
-4.447
8.867
8.195
0.155
0.133
HC Emissions
0.082 +_ 0.059 -0.053 + 0.034 0.391
-0.267 + 0.227 0.002 + 0.009 0.104
CO Emissions
0.369 +_ 0.460 0.833 + 0.267 0.591*
2.210 + 2.767 0.316 + 0.111 0.453*
2.028 10
1.157 15
15.719
14.133
NOX Emissions
0.101 +_ 0.200 0.138 + 0.116 0.187 6.842
0.760+2.453 0.305+0.099 0.464* 12.529
Fuel Consumption
-0.000 +_ 0.001 0.001 +_ 0.001 0.091 0.050
-0.001 + 0.015 0.001 + 0.001 0.289 0.075
10
15
10
15
10
15
Notes: 1. Equation form: y - bg +• b-^ (miles/1000) + b2 ratio
2. Ratio = (weight/1000)/CID = (lb/1000)/in3
3. Fuel consumption in gallons/mile
4. Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
5. Group 1 - EPA Contract 68-01-2113
Group 2 - EPA Contract 68-03-2147
146
-------
The necessary regression analysis was performed on all data bases.
The results are presented in Table 79. This table shows the regression
coefficients for the relationship between each emission and vehicle weight
and weight/CID. Within each emission, a separate equation is shown for
each level of emission control. For CO, NOX, and fuel consumption, the
majority of the truck groups had regression equations that were significant.
In addition, the coefficients of determination for these three variables
are often above 0.600. It is probable that some of the data scatter in
this analysis is due to the differences in emissions caused by engine model,
as previously mentioned. It is not recommended that the HC equations be
used to predict HC emissions with changes in vehicle weight. Whether the
equations for the other three variables should be used is a matter of
judgment.
The average test weights for data base 1 is shown in Table 66. The
average test weight for the empty, half, and full load tests for each of
the model year groups in data base 2 as well as the average test weight
for all diesel trucks in the data base are given in Table 80.
147
-------
TABLE 79. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
AS A FUNCTION OF WEIGHT AND WEIGHT/CID FOR VARIOUS DIESEL TRUCK GROUPS
1. SARR Pre-1974 7.647
Diesel
2. 1974-1975 Diesel 3.506
3. Pre-1974 Diesel 6.567
4. 1975 California 2.420
Diesel
1. SARR Pre-1974 -12.528
Diesel
2. 1974-1975 Diesel -6.289
3. Pre-1974 Diesel 8.497
4. 1975 California 4.200
Diesel
Wt/1000
Wt/CID
HC Emissions
-0.018 + 0.066 -0.051 + 0.042
0.059 + 0.019
-0.071 +_ 0.046
-0.001 + 0.003
-0.025 + 0.010
0.015 + 0.032
0.234
0.457*
0.379*
0.158
CO Emissions
-0.711+0.390 1.001+0.250 0.697*
0.636+0.236 0.067+0.133 0.641**
0.764 + 0.338 -0.131 +_ 0 . 235 0.599**
0.086 + 0.000 1.000**'
Std. Err.
2.275
0.901
1.556
0.098
13.533
11.449
11.478
0.000
No. of
Trucks
10
15
18
3
10
15
18
3
1. SARR Pre-1974 1.584
Diesel
2. 1974-1975 Diesel 4.202
3. Pre-1974 Diesel 7.558
4. 1975 California 10.930
Diesel
NOX Emissions
0.379 + 0.141 0.039 + 0.090 0.585*
0.699 +0.163
-0.745 + 0.437
0.404 + 0.073
0.018 + 0.092
1.051 + 0.304
0.787*<
0.656**
0.969
4.887
7.908
14.838
2.523
10
15
18
3
1. SARR Pre-1974 0.070
Diesel
2. 1974-1975 Diesel 0.101
3. Pre-1974 Diesel 0.127
4. 1975 California 0.160
Diesel
Fuel Consumption
0.004 +_ 0.001 -0.000 +_ 0.000 0.879***
0.004 +_ 0.001 -0.001 +_ 0.000 0.783***
0.004 +_ 0.001 -0.001 +_ 0.000 0.903***
0.002 + 0.000 0.988
0.018
0.042
0.021
0.008
10
15
18
3
Notes: 1. Equation form: y = b0 + b-^ (weight/1000)
2. Weight in pounds and CID in cubic inches
3. Fuel consumption in gallons/mile
4. Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*«* = 0.001
5. Group 1 - EPA Contract 68-01-2113
Group 2 - EPA Contract 68-03-2147
to 4
((wt/1000)/CID)
148
-------
TABLE 80. AVERAGE TEST WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS DIESEL
TRUCK GROUPS FROM CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Test Weight, Ib
Empty Load Half Load Full Load
Pre-1974 Diesel 20920 39423 59093
1974-1975 Diesel 19403 35806 55209
1975 California Diesel 24504 49000 73513
All Diesel Trucks 30586 38715 58676
Average 39326
149
-------
V. GASOLINE WEIGHTING FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
This section covers the analysis done in an attempt to develop a
set of weighting factors that could be applied to the 9-mode FTP test for
heavy-duty gasoline-powered trucks which would relate the 9-mode BSFC to
on-the-road fuel economy. Additional modes were to be considered if neces-
sary. The data and results in this section and presented in mixed English-
metric units since the data was furnished in that form.
Data Base
The data from the CRC CAPE-21 study was the primary data used in this
analysis. There were 35 gasoline-powered trucks tested in New York City
and 26 in Los Angeles. A description of the trucks is included in Appendix
A. The CAPE-21 data used was in the form of a matrix for each truck showing
percent time spent in a set of rpm and manifold vacuum intervals.
Approach
The basic approach was to attempt to develop weighting factors utiliz-
ing the present 9-mode test as much as possible, but also considering the
addition of other modes that could be added to the present procedures with
no change in test equipment and reasonable increases in test time. The
first step would be to obtain the percent time matrices for each truck, to-
gether with descriptions of the trucks.
Once the mv-rpm matrices were assembled, they were divided by truck
into groups by body style. The first question to be answered was: Can
the current 9-mode procedure to used as is for a fuel consumption test,
with possibly some reweighting of the modes? In other words, do the trucks
operate enough of the time in the range covered by the 9-mode procedure?
It should be kept in mind that the 9-mode procedure really has only five
different mv-rpm modes plus idle. To determine if this is so, the percent
time spent at the 9-mode speed and vacuum modes would be calculated for
each truck along with the group average, maximum, minimum, range, standard
deviation and coefficient of variation. Whether the 9-mode schedule can
be used or not, weighting factors would be calculated from percent time in
mode divided by total average percent time in all modes. If the average
percentage time spent in these modes and the range and coefficient of vari-
ation are acceptable, then the present 9-mode schedule could be used with
the calculated weighting factors. If the new weighting factors are close
enough to the present weighting factors, consideration would be given to
using the present factors.
It could be entirely possible that the current 9-modes would not
cover a sufficient amount of the truck's operating time. If this is so,
then other modes would be considered. The initial method of choosing the
modes would be to try and add additional vacuum modes at 2000 rpm. If
this did not yield sufficient average operating time and acceptable coef-
ficients of variation, then additional vacuum modes at a single additional
speed would be tried.
150
-------
The assumption implicit in the above procedure is that if the BSFC
from the various modes is weighted by the percent of time that mode is
actually encountered on the road, then there will be a correlation between
test BSFC and on-the-road fuel economy. It was recognized that some means
of correlating the weighting factors resulting from this study with actual
truck operation was needed. It is important to show that if an engine has
a lower composite BSFC than another engine on the test stand, it will have
a lower fuel consumption in actual transient operation in a truck. It was
decided to use the data from EPA Contract 68-01-0472 to attempt this cor-
relation. Under that contract, six gasoline engines were tested using the
9-mode FTP on an engine test stand obtaining both horsepower and fuel con-
sumption for each mode. Thus, modal and composite BSFC's were available.
These six engines were also installed in trucks and tested on a chassis
dynamometer using the 1975 light-duty FTP. While the trucks were not all
operated on the chassis dynamometer at the same inertia weight, the inertias
were all close enough that the data should be usable.
Analysis
The first item of analysis was to obtain average percent-time matrices
for all the CAPE-21 trucks and various sub-sets of the trucks. Table 81
shows the average percent-time matrix for all of the CAPE-21 gasoline trucks.
Note that the manifold vacuum is in one inch of mercury intervals and the
engine speed in 200 rpm intervals. The manifold vacuum and rpm values
shown are for the midpoint of the interval. Tables 82, 83,and 84 contain
the average percent time matrices for all Los Angeles trucks, Los Angeles
single unit trucks, and Los Angeles tractor trailers, respectively. Tables
85, 86, and 87 contain the same information for the New York City trucks.
Examining the two matrices containing the average percent time for all trucks
in each city, it can be seen that the Los Angeles all-truck matrix shows a
different pattern of operation than the New York all-truck matrix.
As an aid to visualizing the operational patterns from the two cities,
Figures 25 and 26 show the Los Angeles and New York all-truck matrices
with the percent operation time divided into intervals and shaded to en-
hance the distinction between intervals. Figure 27 shows which regions of
the matrix are considered engine idle, closed throttle and wide open throt-
tle (WOT) operation. Comparing Figures 25 and 26, the New York mv-rpm
pattern does not show the large amount of operating time in the 2700 to
2900 rpm range seen in Los Angeles operation. The New York matrix indi-
cates a large amount of time spent in the 900 to 1500 rpm range at 12 to
20 inches of mercury manifold vacuum, while the Los Angeles matrix shows
a much smaller amount of time at these operating conditions.
These distinctly different operating patterns for the two cities
make the development of 9-mode weighting factors that would be applicable
nationwide more difficult. In an effort to understand these differences,
some available data on time in various rpm intervals from the San Antonio
Road Route studies and an EPA analysis of the Ethyl Truck and Bus Study
(ETABS) were compared with the CAPE-21 data. In this case, the total time
spent in each rpm interval for all manifold vacuums was calculated from the
CAPE-21 data for both New York and Los Angeles. This comparison was also
needed for Item 8 of Section III of this report and is shown in Table 28 of
Section III. The rpm level indicated is the midpoint of the interval,
except for the SARR data, where the indicated rpm is the upper limit of
151
-------
TABLE 81. AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS ENGINE RPM-MANIFOLD VACUUM CONDITIONS
FOR ALL GASOLINE TRUCKS FROM LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK
Engine
Speed,
200 ruin Manifold Vacuum, 1 inch of Hg Intervals
Inlervala 012 3 4_ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
400 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.17 0.34 0.41 1.00 1.64 0.24 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
f,00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.34 1.00 2.30 2.55 3.34 4.80 1.01 0.39 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
800 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.21 0.54 1.36 2.19 2.16 1.49 1-09 0.14 0.04 0.01 0.01 0,00
1000 0.04 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.26 0.50 0.20 0.23 0.39 0.59 1.18 1.90 1.64 0.55 0.14 0.04 0.01 0.00
1200 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.71 0.28 0.22 0.27 0.32 0.45 0.76 0.71 0.74 0.36 0.12 0.02 0.00
1400 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.41 0.43 0.65 0.53 0.24 0.03 0.00
1600 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.31 0.26 0.29 0.33 0.35 0.50 0.56 0.37 0.07 0.00
1800 0.05 0.22 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.35 0.48 0.39 0.11 0.00
2000 0.05 0.22 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.31 0.33 0.29 0.27 0.21 0.25 0.19 0.24 0.26 0.39 0.34 0.14 0.01
2200 0.04 0.22 0.33 0.24 '0.17 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.31 0.18 0.16 0.25 0.15 0.19 0.20 0.26 0.28 0.14 0.02
2400 0.02 0.24 0.43 0.35 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.13 0.02
2600 0.01 0.19 0.65 0.53 0.28 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.09 0.01
2800 0.00 0.12 0.71 0.63 0.39 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.28 0.27 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.01
3000 0.00 0.08 0.41 0.37 0.26 0.1-9 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.00
3200 0.00 0.04 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00
3400 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
3600 0.00 0.01 0:04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
3800 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
4000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-------
TABLE 82. AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS ENGINE RPM-MANIFOLD VACUUM CONDITIONS
FOR ALL 26 GASOLINE TRUCKS FROM LOS ANGELES CAPE-21 STUDY
Engine
Speed,
ZOO rpm __ Manifold Vacuum, 1 Inch o! Hg. Intervals
Intervals 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25_ 26
' 200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
600 o.OO 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.19 0.47 1.14 2.03 3.59 0.77 0.85 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
800 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.34 0.56 0.77 1.27 1.09 1.82 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00
1000 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.56 1.18 2.59 0.66 0.16 0.05 0.03 0.00
1200 0.01 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.31 0.70 0.79 0.37 0.16 0.04 0.00
1400 o.Ol 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.84 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.27 0.34 0.56 0.54 0.33 0.07 0.01
1600 0.01 0.13 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.19 0.20 0.26 0.30 0.42 0.59 0.44 0.15 0.01
1800 0.00 0.14 0.27 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.21 0.19 0.25 0.24 0.35 0.49 0.48 0.21 0.01
2000 o.OO 0.16 0.41 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.22 0.40 0.37 0.48 0.54 0.47 0.42 0.24 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.31 0.38 0.47 0.25 0.02
2200 0.00 0.22 0.50 0.33 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.23 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.41 0.25 0.05
2400 o.OO 0.31 0.76 0.62 0.33 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.25 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.25 0.23 0.35 0.22 0.05
2600 0.00 0.22 1.29 1.08 0.54 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.49 0.51 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.26 0.17 0.03
2800 o.OO 0.09 1.44 1.33 0.82 0.63 0.51 0.45 0.43 0.45 0.58 0.54 0.61 0.55 0.58 0.52 0.42 0.37 0.25 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.18 0.12 0.01
3000 0.00 0.04 0.70 0.72 0.52 0.37 0.27 0.19 0.21 0.25 0.30 0.31 0.37 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.27 0.24 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.00
3200 o.OO 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
3400 o.OO 0.17 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00
3f>00 o.OO 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00
38°0 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
4000 o.OO 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
4200 o.OO 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4400 o.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Note: Headings are midpoint of interval
-------
TABLE 83. AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS ENGINE RPM-MANIFOLD VACUUM CONDITIONS
FOR TWENTY SINGLE UNIT GASOLINE TRUCKS FROM LOS ANGELES CAPE-21 STUDY
2000 rpni
200 0.00
400
600
HOO
1000
1200
1400
1600
IBOO
2000
2200
2-100
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3BOO
4000
4200
4-100
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0. 01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.06
0. 10
0. 1Z
0. 14
0. 14
0. 13
0. 12
0. 1Z
0. 11
0.06
o.oz
0. 01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 01
0.03
0. 05
0.09
0. 1Z
0. 19
0. Z9
0.44
0.49
0.54
0. 60
0.56
0. Z9
0. 12
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 01
0.03
0.05
0.08
0. 11
0. 16
0.21
0.26
0.38
0.71
1. Zl
1.40
0.68
0. 18
0.05
0.02
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.09
0. 11
0. 16
0.20
0.21
O.Z6
0.36
0.57
0.84
0.54
0.24
0.13
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 01
0.03
0.05
0.07
0. 10
0. 14
0. 19
O.Z1
0. Z2
0.3Z
0.46
0.66
0.36
0. 10
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.07
0. 10
0. 1Z
0. 18
0.21
0. ZO
0. Z9
0.43
0.50
O.ZS
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.08
0. 1Z
0. 15
0. 18
0. 19
O.Z9
0.4Z
0.45
0. 18
0.08
O.OZ
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
g
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.08
0. 11
0. 14
0. 15
0. 18
0.26
0.43
0.43
0.22
0.08
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
o.oz
0.03
0.04
0. 06
0.08
0. 11
0. 14
0. 16
0. 17
O.ZS
0.46
0.47
O.Z7
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.01
o.oz
0.03
0. 06
0.07
0. 11
0. 15
0. ZO
o.zz
0.23
0.36
0.62
0.61
0.34
0. 12
0.04
0.01
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.08
0. 11
0. 16
0.20
0.23
0.25
0.37
0.62
0.59
0.35
0. 13
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Manifold Vacuum, 1
J £
0.00
o.oz
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.07
0. 11
0.07
O.ZZ
O.Z3
0.25
0.37
0.64
0.69
0.44
0. 16
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
J J
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.09
0. 12
0. 18
0. 26
0. Z6
0.25
0.36
0.54
0. 60
0.41
0.20
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
!•»
0.00
0.05
0.09
0.08
0.09
0. 10
0. 14
0. 19
0. 25
0.30
0.28
0.37
0.53
0.61
0.45
0. 19
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
J _)
0.00
0.03
0.22
0. 12
0. 10
0. 11
0. 16
0.23
0.25
0. 27
0.25
0.37
0.48
0.55
0.37
0. 14
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
. Inch
1 f\
1 O
0. 00
0.03
0.45
0.40
0. 12
0. 12
0. 15
0. 20
0.23
0.25
0.23
0.31
0.36
0.43
0.30
0. 1Z
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
of Hfi.
0. 00
0.08
0.97
0. 64
0. 17
0. 16
0. 17
0. 22
0. 26
0. 26
0.25
0.32
0.37
0.38
0. 26
0. 12
0.04
0. 01
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
Intervals
Ip in on
J o
0.00
0. 04
2.26
0. 82
0. 24
0. 20
0. 20
0.20
0.23
O.ZS
0. 22
0.24
0. 27
0.25
0. 18
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
i 7
0.00
0, 02
4. 19
1.33
0.35
0. 21
0.23
0.23
0. 23
0. 2Z
0. ZO
0.21
0.22
0.21
0. 14
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C.U
0.00
0.00
0.87
1. 16
1.03
0.31
O.Z9
0. 29
0. 28
0. 24
0. 19
0. 20
0.20
0. 19
0. 12
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
f i
L, 1
0. 00
0. 00
1. 08
1. 87
2.49
0.74
0.37
0.35
O.ZS
0.29
0.22
0.20
0. 17
0. 15
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•) J
Lc.
0.00
0. 00
0.02
0. 20
0.74
0. 90
0. 63
0.47
0.42
0.37
0.30
0. 27
0. 21
0. 17
0. 09
0. 05
0. 01
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 03
0. 18
0,43
0. 63
0.69
0.57
0.44
0.34
0. 27
0. Zl
0. 15
0. 07
0. 04
0.01
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
Z4
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0. 04
0, 19
0. 38
0.49
0. 51
0.48
0.40
0.35
0. Z6
0. 16
0. 09
0. 04
0. 01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.01
0.07
0. 18
0. Z5
0. 26
0. Z3
0. 19
0, 15
0. 11
0. 05
0. 02
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
t t
26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
o.oz
0.34
0.06
0.59
0.03
0.02
0.01
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Note; Headings are midpoint of interval
-------
TABLE 84. AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS ENGINE RPM-MANIFOLD VACUUM CONDITIONS
FOR SIX GASOLINE TRACTOR-TRAILERS FROM LOS ANGELES CAPE-21 STUDY
Engine-
Speed,
200 rpm
Intervals
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
Manifold Vacuum, 1
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00
00
00
00
01
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
00
00
00
02
04
04
05
09
14
28
55
92
5.7
21
13
07
07
01
00
00
00
00
2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
3.
4.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00
00
01
02
04
05
06
14
21
33
55
49
56
38
07
51
18
25
28
02
00
00
3
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0. 03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.08
0. 12
0. 17
0.35
0.66
1. 15
0.86
0. 30
0.09
0. 10
0. 15
0. 17
0. 04
0. 00
4
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00
00
01
02
03
03
03
04
06
08
11
22
46
75
47
20
06
06
10
09
12
01
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00
00
01
01
20
02
02
03
04
07
1]
17
37
56
40
15
06
07
09
05
11
02
6
0. 00
0. 00
0.01
0. 02
0.02
0. 04
0.03
0.05
0.07
0. 12
0. 12
0. 19
0.40
0.57
0.33
0. 11
0. 06
0.08
0. 12
0.08
0. 11
0. 03
7
0.00
0. 00
0.01
0. 02
0. 03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0. 18
0. 11
0. 15
0.33
0.47
0.25
0.08
0. 05
0.05
0.08
0. 06
0. 07
0.02
8
0.00
0. 01
0.01
0. 02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0. 11
0. 1 1
0. 14
0.26
0.40
0. 19
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.01
9
0.00
0. 01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.08
0. 1 1
0. 15
0.28
0.38
0. 19
0.07
0.06
0. 06
0.07
0. 07
0. 08
0. 02
10
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00
00
02
03
05
05
05
04
06
11
13
22
36
47
18
09
09
09
09
08
09
02
11
0.00
0. 00
0. 02
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0. 11
0. 22
0. 18
0.23
0.39
0.39
0. 18
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.02
12
0.00
0. 00
0. 02
0.03
0.05'
0.05
0.05
0.06
0. 36
0.97
0.48
0.20
0.33
0. 34
0. 13
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0. 07
0.05
0.01
13
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00
00
02
05
06
07
07
07
21
74
42
22
35
37
14
07
05
06
06
05
05
01
14
0.01
0. 03
0.04
0. 07
0.08
0. 09
0. 09
0. 11
0.30
1. 08
0.43
0. 24
0.42
0.47
0. 17
0. 09
0. 04
0.05
0.06
0. 05
0. 04
0.01
Inch of Hg.
15
0.00
0. 04
0. 08
0. 09
0. 12
0. 12
0. 10
0. 14
0.37
1.43
0.36
0. 28
0.37
0.43
0. 20
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0. 04
0. 03
0.01
16
0. 00
0. 08
0. 52
0. 13
0. 13
0. 14
0. 13
0. 18
0.43
1.25
0.30
0. 23
0.31
0.37
0. 17
0. 06
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
Interval
17
0. 00
0. 18
1. 72
0. 26
0. 22
0. 22
0.24
0. 29
0. 50
0.97
0. 35
0. 23
0. 29
0.35
0. 18
0.06
0.03
0. 04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0. 00
s
18
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00
22
28
63
22
17
13
13
16
22
17
17
19
23
12
04
02
02
02
01
01
00
19
0. 00
0.45
1. 60
1. 06
1.25
0.21
0. 13
0. 11
0.09
0. 16
0. 16
0. 16
0. 20
0. 21
0. 12
0. 04
0. 03
0.03
0. 03
0.02
0.01
0. 01
20
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00
24
45
87
69
31
17
16
16
15
16
16
20
27
15
04
03
02
02
01
01
00
21
0.00
0.00
0. 09
1. 66
2.91
0. 59
0. 22
0. 14
0. 13
0. 13
0. 17
0. 14
0. 23
0.33
0. 16
0.05
0.03
0.02
0. 02
0.01
0. 01
0. 00
22
0.00
0. 00
0. 05
0. 11
0.37
0.43
0. 31
0. 23
0. 14
0. 13
0. 15
0. 18
0. 22
0.24
0. 12
0. 06
0. 03
0. 02
0. 02
0.02
0.00
0.00
23
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00
00
04
06
07
17
24
24
28
21
13
12
11
09
06
03
01
01
01
05
00
00
24
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 12
0.09
0. 09
0. 18
0.29
0.40
0.43
0.42
0.37
0.27
0.22
0. 12
0.05
0.03
0. 03
0. 02
0.01
0. 00
0.00
25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 1 1
0. 13
0.05
0. 06
0. 07
0. 23
0. 29
0.31
0. 23
0. 19
0. 16
0. 12
0. 09
0. 08
0.04
0. 02
0. 01
0. 00
26
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.03
0. 03
0. 01
0. 00
0. 01
0.02
0. 27
0. 02
0.01
0. 01
0.00
0. 01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Note: Headings are midpoint of interval
-------
TABLE 85.
Engine
AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS ENGINE RPM-MANIFOLD VACUUM CONDITIONS
FOR ALL 35 GASOLINE TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK CAPE-2J STUDY
iim rpm
Interva Is
200
•ion
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
Manifold Vacuum
0
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0. 11
0. 15
0. 18
0.21
0.25
0.27
0.26
0.23
0. 19
0. 18
0. 14
0. 11
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
0. 00
0.02
0. 05
0. 11
0. 18
0. 19
0. 20
0.22
0.24
0.24
0.21
0. 18
0. 18
0. 18
0. 19
0. 17
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
3
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.09
0. 15
0. 19
0.21
0.20
0.20
0. 18
0. 17
0. 14
0. 12
0. 11
0. 11
0. 10
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
4
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.09
0. 13
0. 15
0. 19
0. 17
0. 16
0. 14
0. 13
0. 10
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.08
0. 12
0. 14
0. 16
0. 16
0. 16
0. 12
0. 11
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
6
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.08
0. 13
0. 15
0. 17
0. 17
0. 17
0. 13
0. 11
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.08
0. 13
0. 15
0. 17
0. 17
0. 16
0. 14
0. 11
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.07
0. 12
0. 14
0. 17
0. 18
0.15
0. 14
0, 12
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.08
0. 14
0. 16
0. 18
0. 17
0. 16
0. 14
0. 13
0. 10
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.09
0. 17
0. 18
0.20
0.20
0. 15
0. 14
0. 14
0. 12
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11
0.00
0.04
0.06
0. 11
0. 17
0. 19
0. 18
0. 18
0. 16
0. 13
0. 13
0. 12
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12
0.00
0.06
0.09
0. 13
0.27
0.20
0. 22
0.21
0. 17
0. 13
0. 14
0. 12
0. 10
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
, 1 Inch of Hg. Intervals
13
0.00
0.09
0. 14
0. 18
0.41
0.35
0.24
0.23
0. 19
0. 15
0. 13
0. 13
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.03
0. 01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14
0.00
0. 26
0.54
0.20
0.80
1. 17
0.37
0.31
0.24
0. 19
0. 17
0. 15
0. 11
0.07
0.04
0. 02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15
0.02
0.57
1.61
0.28
0. 27
0.41
0.35
0.27
0.24
0. 17
0. 14
0. 12
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.02
0. 01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16
0. 15
0.68
3.65
0.69
0.31
0.30
0.38
0.30
0.23
0. 15
0.36
0. 11
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17
0.07
1.67
3.59
1.95
0.53
0.35
0.33
0.37
0.25
0. 15
0. 12
0. 10
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.01
0. 01
0.01
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18
0.01
2. 80
4.30
3.24
0.85
0.42
0.34
0.31
0.37
0. 19
0. 12
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19
0.00
0.32
5.70
2.85
1.64
0.62
0.35
0.35
0.24
0.28
0.30
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
0.00
0.03
1. 19
1.79
2.44
1. 10
0.52
0.39
0.20
0. 17
0. 13
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
21
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.56
0.94
0.71
0.51
0.39
0.32
0.24
0. 17
0. 14
0. 10
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22
0.00
0.00
0.04
0. 11
0.47
0.70
0.71
0.55
0.35
0.22
0. 15
0. 10
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0. 12
0.35
0.53
0.54
0.47
0.32
0.24
0. 17
0. 13
0. 10
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.08
0. 17
0.32
0.32
0. 24
0. 19
0. 12
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00-
Note: Headings are midpoint of interval
-------
TABLE 8fc. AVER Ac; E PERCENT OF TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS ENGINE RPM-MANIFOI D VACUUM CONDITIONS
FOR 31 SINGLE UNIT GASOLINE TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK CAPE-21 STUDY
Engine
Speed,
2000 rpm Manifold Vacuum, 1 Inch of Hg. Intervals
Intervals 0 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO Zl ZZ Z3 24 25 26
200 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
400 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.28 0.63 0.74 1.69 1.74 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
600 0.02 O.Ob 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.15 0.59 1.79 4.06 3.90 4. ZZ 5.47 1.06 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
800 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.20 0.28 0.73 2.13 3.41 2.60 1.63 0.54 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
1000 0.06 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.28 0.44 0.86 0.25 0.31 0.54 0.86 1.70 2.59 0.97 0.45 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00
1200 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.14 O.lt> 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.37 1.27 0.41 0.29 0.33 0.38 0.61 1.14 0.74 0.69 0.36 0.08 0.00 0.00
1400 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0. ZO 0.18 0. Z3 0. Z4 0.37 0.36 0.39 0.32 0.29 0.30 0.54 0.54 0.73 0.52 0.19 0.00 0.00
1600 0.09 O.Z8 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.18 O.Z1 0. Z3 0.30 0. Z5 0. Z9 0.37 0. Z9 0. Z9 0.39 0.41 0.57 0.54 0.36 0.01 0.00
1800 0.09 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.25 0. Z3 0. ZZ 0.23 0.36 0.23 0.20 0.34 0.35 0.47 0.36 0.32 0.00
2000 0.10 0.28 0. Zt, 0.20 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.31 0.17 0.26 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.06 0.00
2200 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.15 0.40 0.12 0.11 0.33 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.00
2400 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.13 0.06 0.00
2600 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.08 1.10 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.00
Z800 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 0. OZ 0.00
3000 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0. OZ 0. OZ 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00
3200 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.02 O.OZ 0. OZ 0. OZ O.OZ 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
3400 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
3600 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3800 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Note: [leadings are midpoint of interval
-------
TABLE 87. AVFRAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS ENGINE R PM-MANIFOL.D VACUUM CONDITIONS
FOR FOUR GASOLINF TRACTOR-TRAILERS FROM NEW YORK CAPE-21 STUDY
00
Sp.-.-d,
200 rpni
Intervals
200
4 on
600
«00
1000
uoo
MOO
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2«00
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
Manifold Vacuum
0
0.00
il. 00
0. 00
0. 01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0. 00
u.OO
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
0. 01
0. 01
0.01
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.05
0. 07
0.07
0. 10
0. 16
0. 24
0.38
0.51
0.4'5
0. 21
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
0.01
0.02
0.02
0. 12
0. 23
0. 18
0. 1 1
0. 07
0.06
0.08
0. 15
0. 22
0.40
0.71
1.07
0.92
0. 11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0. 12
0. 18
0.23
0. 13
0.07
0.05
0.09
0. 11
0. 18
0.28
0.43
0.37
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.05
0. 14
0. 15
0. 17
0. 14
0.07
0.09
0.06
0.09
0. 15
0. 18
0.21
0. 12
0. 14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.07
0. 13
0. 16
0. 12
0. 11
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.08
0. 17
0. 16
0. 17
0.08
0. 10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0. 10
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0. 05
0.07
0. 11
0. 14
0. 13
0.07
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.08
0. 12
0. 12
0.06
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8
0.00
0.01
0.01
0. 04
0.06
0.07
0. 10
0.06
0.05
0. 04
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
9
0.00
0.02
0.04
0. 05
0. 11
0. 11
0. 13
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.04
0. 04
0.05
0. 08
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
10
0.00
0.01
0.04
0. 11
0.24
0. 20
0. 17
0. 14
0.06
0.04
0. 04
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
1 1
0.00
0.02
0.04
0. 13
0. 19
0.23
0. 15
0. 18
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
, 1 Inch of Hg. Intervals
12
0.00
0.03
0.06
0. 12
0. 16
0. 19
0. 16
0. 17
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13
0.00
0. 04
0.08
0. 13
0. 19
0.21
0.22
0. 23
0.09
0.07
0. 06
0.07
0.07
0. 10
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
14
0.01
0.08
0. 15
0. 22
0.35
0.41
0.34
0.36
0. 16
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.02
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15
0.01
0. 14
0.22
0. 27
0.36
0.38
0. 29
0.38
0.25
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
16
0.00
0. 24
0. 50
0.35
0.37
0.37
0. 34
0.39
0.34
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.02
0. 02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17
0.00
1.45
1. 17
0.55
0. 52
0.49
0.41
0. 38
0.41
0. 13
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.01
0. 03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18
0. 00
10.97
4.95
1.92
0.73
0. 67
0.67
0.42
0.46
0. 34
0. 16
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19
0. 00
Z. 34
7.49
4.81
1. 13
0.70
0.80
0.82
0.33
0. 13
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
0. 00
0.01
2. 15
2.99
1.27
0. 79
0.41
0.37
0.21
0. 13
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0. 04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21
0.00
0. 00
0. 13
0.69
0. 74
0. 53
0. 26
0. 17
0. 13
0. 10
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
22
0.00
0. 00
0. 01
0. 18
0.65
0.78
0. 62
0.45
0.30
0. 16
0. 10
0. 12
0. 14
0. 14
0. 13
0.09
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.03
0. 13
0.32
0.60
0.56
0.49
0.41
0.49
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.28
0. 15
0.09
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
24
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.09
0. 10
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 01
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NoU-: Headings are midpoint of interval
-------
Manifold Vacuum, inches of mercury *
^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JJ3 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
'<- interval headings are midpoint of interval
< 0.10
0. 1 0 to 0. 39
0.70to0.99
1 . 00 to 1 . 49
2.00to2.99
> 3. 00
:;:;S: 0.40 to 0.69
1.50 to 1. 99
FIGURE 25. AVERAGE TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS ENGINE RPM
MANIFOLD VACUUM CONDITIONS FOR ALL 35 GASOLINE TRUCKS
IN NEW YORK CAPE-21 STUDY
159
-------
Manifold Vacuum, inches of mercury*
0123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Z6
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
* 1600
! 1800
* 2000
| 2200
co 2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
W
* interval headings are midpoint of interval
3. 00
FIGURE 26. AVERAGE TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS ENGINE RPM
MANIFOLD VACUUM CONDITIONS FOR ALL 26 GASOLINE TRUCKS
IN LOS ANGELES CAPE-21 STUDY
160
-------
Manifold Vacuum, inches of mercury*
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26
TJ
ft
w
•H
tn
c
H
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
I Idle Region I /"
Wide I
| Open
Throttlei
I (WOT) I
I Region
Cruise Region
|Closed Throttle I
Region
I
Increasing Power
*interval headings are midpoint of intervals
FIGURE 27. MANIFOLD VACUUM - ENGINE RPM MATRIX SHOWING
ENGINE OPERATING AREAS IN TERMS OF THROTTLE POSITION
161
-------
the interval. The ETABS data which is the average of all trucks from three
cities (Detroit, Los Angeles, and San Francisco) agree well with the New
York CAPE-21 data, but there is no other agreement among the data sets.
Since there is a difference in the mv-rpm patterns for New York and
Los Angeles, the calculations for the 9-mode weighting factors were done
for each city individually as well as for the combined data from both cities.
However, before calculating the weighting factors, one of the basic ques-
tions to be resolved was just how large an rpm-manifold vacuum area should
each mode be assumed to represent. At the extreme, the rpm interval from
1000 to 3000 rpm could be used with the manifold vacuum divided up among
the five modes so that all the vacuum intervals are used. Originally it
was planned that the modes would be defined as idle and five vacuum inter-
vals in the 2000 rpm ± 200 rpm interval. The vacuum intervals were to be
2 to 4 inches, 8 to 12 inches, 14 to 18 inches, 18 to 20 inches and 20 to
26 inches (CT). Idle was to be determined by visual inspection of each
truck's matrix. However, a cursory examination of Figures 25 and 26 revealed
that if the rpm was restricted to 2000 ± 200, very little of the non-idle
operating time would be accounted for.
The non-idle portion of the 9-mode test was originally conceived to
represent part throttle accels, cruise, part throttle decels, full load,
and closed throttle conditions/20^ The speed, 2000 rpm, was chosen as
"typical" or "average". The question arises if all of the matrix must be
covered to fulfill the intent of the 9-mode test or if there are smaller
areas, that would account for an acceptable amount of operating time.
One way to increase the total time accounted for in the 9-mode anal-
ysis of the CAPE-21 data would be to widen the speed interval used. The
manifold vacuum interval could also be increased. However, it is not
known how far from the exact 9-mode conditions the intervals can be extend-
ed before the fuel consumption no longer qgrees closely with 9-mode condi-
tions. Engine maps which show fuel consumption could be examined to de-
termine just how much the operational area could be increased and still be
represented by the 9-mode condition. To help in determining how large
the interval could be, plots of fuel consumption versus engine rpm at
various manifold vacuum levels have been constructed for four engines
tested at SwRI under Contract EHS 70-110.
The engines mapped were a 1969 Dodge 318 CID V8, a 1969 Chevrolet
250 CID 16, a 1969 IHC 304 CID V8, and a 1969 Ford 300 CID 16. No claim
is made that these are typical engines. They serve only as convenient ex-
amples. Since the purpose of fuel weighting factors is to compare engine-
to-engine using BSFC, it is not necessary that the fuel rate duplicate
that occuring on the road. What is necessary is that the slope of the
manifold vacuum line be approximately the same for each engine over the
rpm range considered. Thus, if one engine had a lower fuel rate at 10
inches vacuum and 2000 rpm, it would also have a lower fuel rate at 10
inches vacuum and all other engine speeds within the range considered.
Figures 28 through 31 show fuel consumption versus engine rpm
for 3", 10", 16", and 19" manifold vacuum for all four engines. If the
i-oiu.t.mt vacuum lines for all the engines had the same slope, then the
162
-------
c
•H
C
0
•H
-P
tn
o
u
-------
c
•H
C
0
•H
4J
CL,
V)
c
o
u
0)
3
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
- - 1
Constant 'Manifold
Vacruram = :10 in. Hg1.
L
1000
1500 2000 2500
Engine Speed, rpm
'69 IHC 304 CID
'69 Ford 300 CID
'69 Dodge 318 CID
•69 Chev. 250 CID
-I
3000
FIGURE 29. FUEL CONSUMPTION VERSUS ENGINE SPEED AT 10"
INTAKE MANIFOLD VACUUM FOR FOUR ENGINES
164
-------
c
•H
C
o
•H
(fi
C
0
o
QJ
D
C
•H
e
c
o
cr,
c
o
u
a;
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Constant Manifold
Vacuiim = 16 ;ini. Hg
1000
1500 2000 2500
Engine Speed, rpm
3000
FIGURE 30. FUEL CONSUMPTION VERSUS ENGINE AT 16"
INTAKE MANIFOLD VACUUM FOR FOUR ENGINES
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
onstant Manifold
Vacuum = 19 in. Hg
1000
1500 2000 2500
Engine Speed, rpm
3000
FIGURE 31. FUEL CONSUMPTION VERSUS ENGINE AT 19"
INTAKE MANIFOLD VACUUM FOR -FOUR ENGINES
'69 IHC 304 CID
'69 Ford 300 CID
'69 Dodge 318 CID
'69 Chev. 250 CID
'69 IHC 304 CID
'69 Ford 300 CID
'69 Dodge 318 CID
'69 Chev. 250 CID
165
-------
2000 rpm fuel consumption comparison between trucks would hold at all other
speeds. Then, the 2000 rpm speed of the 9-mode FTP could be used to com-
pare fuel consumption of trucks, even if the majority of operating time was
not at 2000 rpm.
The figures show differences in the slopes of the lines of constant
vacuum. However, the slopes are, in general, reasonably similar except
for the Ford engine at 10" vacuum and the Dodge at 19" vacuum. While this
is an admittedly small selection of engines, it does lend some justifica-
tion to extending the speed range represented by the 9-mode test.
The choice of the size of the rpm-manifold vacuum areas that should
represent the modes of the 9-mode test were thus rather arbitrarily chosen
to be a balance between using strictly the modal speed and vacuum point
defined by the FTP and extending the areas to cover the entire operating
region. Basically, the areas chosen, except for idle and closed throttle
(CT), were +_ 1.5 inches of mercury manifold vacuum either side of that
specified by the 9-mode test, with an rpm interval from 1700 to 2900 rpm.
The closed throttle area is from 20.5" to 26.5" manifold vacuum and 900 to
2100 rpm. The idle mode was the most subjective of the modes used. Since
idle speed and manifold vacuum were not recorded when the trucks were tested,
an exact definition of idle for each truck is not available.
The method used to determine idle operation for this analysis was
to examine the rpm-mv matrix for each truck. Then, two or three cells
were picked between 16" and 22" of vacuum and within the three speed in-
tervals where the percent-time in the cell increased greatly from the time
in adjacent cells. It was sometimes difficult to distinguish between idle
and low speed closed throttle; but in general, the method appears to be
satisfactory for this analysis.
The percent-time matrices from each truck were processed using a compu-
ter program written to choose the extended 9-mode conditions from the matrix
for each truck and determine the average, minimum, and maximum time spent
in each mode for the group of trucks processed. The resulting computer
printouts showing both individual truck and average percent time spent in
each of the modes for nine different groupings of the data are contained
in Appendix D as Tables D-l through D-9. Also shown are the minumum,
maximum, and standard deviation for each group. The average percent-time
in mode for each group is shown in Table 88.
The 9-mode weighting factors were then calculated from these average
percent time-in-mode values. The percent time at idle is used as the idle
weighting factor since it is assumed that all idle time in the operating
matrix is used in determining the percent time at idle. Because the re-
maining modes do not represent all of the non-idle operation of the ve-
hicle, the percent time-in-mode cannot be used as a weighting factor.
However, if the total vehicle non-idle operating time is divided by the
total time in the non-idle modes, a multiplication factor is obtained.
This factor can be applied to the percent time in each of the non-idle
modes to yield a weighting factor.
166
-------
TABLE 88. CAPE-21 GASOLINE TRUCKS AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT
IN MODES OF 9-MODE FTP
Data Base
Idle
NY + LA (All) 24. 96
NY + LA (SU)* 25. 69
NY + LA (TT)** 20. 76
LA (All) 14. 28
LA (SU) 15. 15
LA (TT) 10.65
NY (All) 32. 90
NY (SU) 32. 83
NY (TT) 33. 39
* SU-Single U
** TT- Tractor
Average Percent Time in Mode
C.T.
11. 03
11. 68
7. 22
12. 79
14. 21
6.86
9. 71
9. 97
7. 67
19'
3. 15
3. 86
4. 01
3. 21
2. 62
2. 64
2.49
16"
4. 22
6. 50
5. 72
9. 74
2. 53
2. 58
2. 11
10"
3. 59
6. 20
5.64 10.72
6. 17
3.43
2. 07
2. 21
0. 95
9.94
14. 00
2. 83
2. 81
3. 02
Total
Percent
Time
53. 14
3. 19 3. 85 3. 81 5. 69 53. 98
2. 89 6. 35 2. 33 9. 12 48. 67
53. 53
55. 20
47. 90
52. 66
53. 05
49. 64
167
-------
This was done for each of the nine categories of trucks. The re-
sulting 9-mode weighting factors are shown in Table 89. These weighting
factors, then, are the 9-mode weighting factors representing the percent-
time-in-mode experienced by the trucks tested in the CAPE-21 project. The
current 9-mode heavy-duty FTP weighting factors are also shown for comparison.
As can be seen from the table, the differences between the New York
and Los Angeles weighting factors in the idle, CT, and 3" modes for all
trucks are greater than the difference between single unit and tractor-
trailer trucks within either one of the cities. Since there is a greater
difference between cities than between vehicle types within a city and in-
formation for weighting each city's driving patterns is not available, it
is felt that the overall combined New York and Los Angeles weighting fac-
tors are probably the best ones to use.
Data from six engines tested under Contract 68-01-0472 were repro-
cessed using these new weighting factors as a "proof test" to determine if
the new 9-mode BSFC would correlate with driving cycle fuel economy. The
new composite 9-mode BSFC values are shown in Table 90, together with the
BSFC values using the 9-mode FTP weighting factors for comparison. As can
be seen from the table, the maximum BSFC difference using the two weighting
factors is 4.5 percent (engine 6-0).
Also shown in the table is the normalized fuel economy (miles/gallon)
from chassis dynamometer tests of trucks with these six engines installed
driving the LA-4 driving cycle. It was necessary to normalize the fuel
economy since the trucks were tested at different inertia settings. The
fuel economy was normalized to 16,000 Ib. A factor of 0.11 mpg/1000 Ib
was used to normalize the fuel economy (see Figure 31). The actual fuel
economy for each truck is shown in Figure 32. The BSFC and mpg values
shown in Table 90 are plotted as Figure 33 for better comparison. As can
be seen from the figure, the 9-mode BSFC and the LA-4 fuel economy do not
show a good correlation for either of the weighting factors. Part of the
difficulty in using this data is the narrow range of BSFC and fuel economy
of these six engines. However, this is the only known data that has both
9-mode BSFC and driving cycle fuel economy for the same engines.
At this point, it was requested that a new approach to the weighting
factor problem be tried. This approach was based on obtaining weighting
factors using the percent of fuel consumed accounted for by the 9-mode
test rather than percent of time. The method used was to plot normalized
fuel rate versus manifold vacuum of the four gasoline engines mapped under
Contract EHS 70-110. The data to obtain this plot were taken from the final
report for that contract titled "Exhaust Emissions from Gasoline-Powered
Vehicles Above 6000 Ib Gross Vehicle Weight" and dated April 1972. The
data from each engine were normalized using the 3000 rpm, 100 percent power
point as 1.00. Fuel rate at other conditions was obtained from the ratio
of the fuel rate at the desired condition to the fuel rate at 3000 rpm,
100 percent power. The manifold vacuum and normalized fuel rate for the
four engines was averaged for each of the constant speed data sets. The
resultant plot of average normalized fuel rate versus average manifold
vacuum is shown in Figure 34.
168
-------
TABLE 89. SUMMARY OF NINE MODE WEIGHTING FACTORS
CALCULATED FROM CAPE-21 DATA
Modal Weighting Factor
Data Base
NY+LA (All)
NY+LA (SU)*
NY+LA(TT)*#
LA (All)
LA (SU)
LA (TT)
NY (All)
NY (SU)
NY (TT)
Maximum
Minimum
Federal
Register
Idle
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
250
257
208
143
152
107
329
328
334
334
107
232
C.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
T.
292
308
205
278
301
166
330
333
314
333
166
143
19"
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
085
084
082
085
085
077
089
086
102
102
082
057
16"
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
112
101
180
141
121
233
085
086
086
233
085
308
J
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
LO"
096
100
066
121
131
082
072
073
041
131
041
147
3"
0.165
0. 150
0. 259
0. 232
0. 210
0. 336
0.095
0. 093
0.123
0.336
0.093
0.113
* SU - Single Unit
** TT - Tractor Trailer
169
-------
TABLE 90. COMPARISON OF 9-MODE BSFC AND LA-4 FUEL ECONOMY
FOR SIX TRUCKS TESTED UNDER CONTRACT 68-01-0472
9-mode Weighted BSFC
LA-4
Engine
No.
2
3-0
4-0
5-00
6-0
7-0
1974
Weighting factors
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
726
735
794
726
916
767
CAPE- 21 %
Weighting factors Diff . **
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
722
733
818
756
875
748
-0.
-0.
+3.
+4,
-4.
-2.
6
3
0
1
5
5
Normalized*
mpg
4.
5.
4.
5.
5.
5.
5
3
7
3
2
0
Avg. 0.782
Coeff.
of Var. 8.9%
Avg. 0.775
Coeff.
of Var. 7.6%
Avg. 5.0
Coeff.
of Var. 6. 7%
* Normalized to 16, 000 Ibs vehicle test weight using . 11 mpg/1000 Ibs
** Percent difference between 1974 weighting factors and CAPE-21
weighting factors - 1974 is base value.
170
-------
my
Eco
<
en
&
•73
0)
N
0
2
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
10(
, , . -, ,
!
i -.-.
':-
"::
" TJnir
j •
l~~
i^^^*^"^^
i
i
i -i.
! :~"
i
-:..
rTTT
=7:
frli
:
in:
1
DOO
- --
•Vj
. :_.
— 1—
—i-riT^r
(ty
:;;r
. ~;
- -._
- 1 - "•
H-
T-rtr-l
~ irt L ." "" _
-i:
ii".
: " : . r.
/IT
^~
12(
:-:'
rn:
_-. r ^
•.-•
:rr
•__
r: —
"-::•:
-— .
: _~
•7-.
DOC
...:
-:.-
.:::.
^*^^i
- - \ . , .
....
-- - -
14(
DOC
•*^-.
-AS
1
'
-
-
16(
i
~
.....
•\
j—
*— ~
>-
- ~
1 — -^
._.
DOC
- -
:-rr--rl
-;--[:r-
,^
/
£
^•~—
. :
.r.
ir
:-
..n
-
IS
. --fr^1
/
/;:
i-:.:
""*^K
r~
-Z : . .
- - 4 -"-
-"• '•"
DOO
- :
i
1
: : I
-- -1 .
.
-rr4-Yrt= 6.703 -O.OOQ11X
:.^*
~~rr
:T_:
--•
_ .
':—
1 — <.
-. :
—
200
= ;.769):
^
:• (-;:
-_:.r-:
;:v.
00
— i
r~-
~~*
.-HH :
-
22(
i.r.rrj
t - - -
:::;t::;-:
--'"j.-i-!
.„_]_._
:::!|-;:/
.:i-;i-.::-
H-
. 1
DOO
:-.7-
::::
::.:_-
'_:~
.:~
:-7
bu^-
-: ' "-
: :^ ,:. : rr
240
::::
' '
r—
_. „
">T-rv
:i-_-:i:":E
: :; ::"
. ! _ _
i!i:_I:.'
I
~^
-^^:
:. ;-
- — 1 — -
00
:
i - —
7.0
Vehicle Test Weight, Ibs
FIGURE 32. TEST WEIGHT VS. LA-4 FUEL ECONOMY FOR 6 TRUCKS
TESTED UNDER CONTRACT 68-01-0472
I i .. I L.I. : i
5.0
4.0
3.0
0.60
0.65
0.70 0.75 0.80
9 Mode BSFC, Lb/hp hr
0.85
0.90
FIGURE 33. NINE-MODE BSFC VS. LA-4 FUEL ECONOMY FOR 6 TRUCKS
TESTED UNDER CONTRACT 68-01-0472
171
-------
1.1
1.0
a) . 6
0)
D
fc,
0)
N
•H
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Manifold Vacuum, in. of Hg.
FIGURE 34. NORMALIZED FUEL RATE AS A FUNCTION OF
MANIFOLD VACUUM AVERAGE OF 4 ENGINES
172
-------
This data was then cross-plotted to give a curve of average normalized
fuel rate versus rpm with lines of constant vacuum to facilitate obtaining
a matrix showing fuel rate in an rpm-manifold vacuum matrix. A computer
program was then written to multiply each element in this matrix by the
corresponding element in the percent-time matrix from the CAPE-21 study to
give a fuel consumed matrix. The program summed all the elements in this
matrix, then calculated a percent of total fuel consumed for each element.
The matrix showing percent of fuel consumed as a function of rpm and mani-
fold vacuum is presented in Table 91. From this matrix, the percent of fuel
consumed in each of the modes of the 9-mode test was calculated using the
modal definitions previously established. The percent of fuel used in each
mode is shown in Table 92. Note that the total percent fuel used that is
covered by the 9-mode test is 47.1 percent.
The 9-mode weighting factors were then calculated as was previously
done with the percent time matrix. That is, the calculated percent fuel
consumed at idle was assumed to account for all of the idle fuel consumed,
with the remaining percent fuel consumed in each mode equal to its fraction
of the total time accounted for by the 9-mode test. The resulting 9-mode
weighting factors are also shown in Table 92.
As was done with the weighting factors from the percent-time matrix,
these weighting factors were used to calculate a new composite 9-mode BSFC
for the six trucks from Contract 68-01-0472. These new values of composite
BSFC are shown in Table 93 together with the 1974 weighting factors and
the CAPE-21 percent time weighting factors. Also shown is the fuel econo-
my for each truck from the LA-4 chassis dynamometer test. The fuel econo-
my is plotted as a function of BSFC in Figure 35.
As can be seen from the figure, the percent fuel consumed method
decreases the spread in the BSFC, but does not improve the correlation
between the 9-mode BSFC and LA-4 fuel economy. Thus, it is not recom-
mended that these weighting factors be used in any application where one
truck would be compared to another truck.
It may be that there is not a single set of weighting factors that
will correlate BSFC to on-the-road fuel economy. There are two things
that can be done that may help to ascertain if this correlation is pos-
sible. The first, is to use the results of Item 2 of the Gasoline Truck
Data Analysis in Section III of this report to see if a set of weighting
factors can correlate the fuel consumption from the 9-mode test to the fuel
consumption from transient chassis dynamometer tests. Another analysis that
could be done is to check whether any set of weighting factors would corre-
late the composite 9-mode BSFC and the LA-4 fuel economy of the six trucks
that have been used to check the usefulness of the CAPE-21 weighting fac-
tors . This could be done using the same linear programming technique de-
veloped for Item 2 of the Gasoline Truck Data Analysis Task.
The second of these approaches was tried first. It was planned to
obtain new weighting factors that would best relate composite BSFC to the
LA-4 fuel economy. However, because of constraints in the regression
analysis program, it was necessary to use composite 9-mode fuel rate and
LA-4 fuel rate in the analysis. The 9-mode fuel rate was normalized to
173
-------
TABLE 91. AVERAGE ESTIMATED PERCENT FUEL USED IN
GIVEN RPM-MANIFOLD VACUUM INTERVALS FOR ALL
CAPE-21 TRUCKS (NEW YORK AND LOS ANGELES)
MHM/MV
pull, n
fOO. 0
h 0 0 .
HOO.
1000.
1 ? 0 0 .
If 00.
Ibllll.
1ROO.
2000.
2200.
2HHO.
2bOO.
epnn. n
3 n a 0 . 0
3?oo. n
3fOO. 0
3f>nn. o
3800. 0
fflDO. (.1
t?00, (I
f f 0 0 . 0
R P M / M V
2 o o . n
flKJ. 0
bOO.
o n n .
l n u u .
mm.
1400.
IhUn.
1800.
f! n o o .
2200.
2f 00.
2bOO.
r' H 0 0 .
jnfio.
Jr'OU.
3f on.
3bOO.
3 H 0 0 .
•*nOO. u
f?oo. n
•* •* o o . o
u
,00
.(it)
.01
.03
.Ob
.07
.08
.11
.12
. 1^
.12
.07
.Of
.OD
.00
.00
.00
,00
,00
.on
,00
.on
M
.On
.00
. It
.07
.2b
. t b
.21
.23
,2b
,3b
. 2S
.32
. 1 1
.fb
.31
.It
.Ob
.02
.02
, 00
.00
. i;n
1
o.oo
0.00
.Of
.11
, Ib
.23
.2S
. t .1
. 5ii
,5h
,bf
,7ft
, b 7
.f 8
,3c?
.17
.OS
.Of
0,00
0 , 0 0
0,00
0,00
15
n.oo
o.oo
.38
,nn
. in
. ib
• is
.c'll
. 2f
.3b
. 2t
.2?
.33
• ' *
.t^b
.10
.05
.Ocf
.02
0,00
0,00
iJ , U U
2
0.00
0.00
.03
.10
.ib
.21
. 2b
. 3H
, b*
.75
. 8S
i. n
2.17
c>.b7
1 . 5 +
. ?0
• 28
.1?
.13
.Of
0.00
0.00
Ib
11 . 0 0
n . 1 1 ; i
7. HV
. r*n
. iu
.12
. 1H
. I 'i
• 2 3
,2H
. 3f
.23
. 2^
. 2rt
• * *
.Ud
.03
.02
0.00
o . nu
o.oo
o.oo
3
0.00
n.oo
.03
.08
.12
.is
. £5
. -in
. -9 «"
.ft
,bO
i.nn
I.b5
2 . 1 1
If31
. b5
.23
.12
.12
.OH
0,00
o.on
17
0.00
(i.nn
. Bb
.tb
,15
.12
.15
.r'l
.22
, 2b
, 1 H
, 2n
, 22
. 2f
. Ib
.0?
.03
.02
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
f
0.00
0.00
.03
.Ob
,12
.Ib
, 22
. 2b
. 2S
. 3r?
. 34
. 5c>
,8.1
1 . c^r1
, Hb
, t2
.25
.11
,08
.Of
0.00
O.UO
18
0 . U 0
t'.nu
1.01
, hi,
,20
.13
.1 3
• I V
.21
.17
.It
.It
.15
.is
, iu
.05
.03
,01
O.Oi)
o.nu
o.oo
o.oo
5
0,00
0.00
.02
.Ob
.10
.It
.18
.22
.25
.2b
.32
.to
* bl
.87
,5S
.IS
.13
. 10
.07
0 , 0 0
0,00
n . o o
IS
0.00
o . n n
1.2b
, bb
« 35
.15
,12
. It
,12
.1?
.20
.13
.13
. 1
-------
TABLE 92. AVERAGE ESTIMATED PERCENT FUEL
USED FOR THE SIX MANIFOLD VACUUM MODES
OF THE NINE MODE FTP
Mode
Idle (Mode 1)
16" (Modes 2, 4, 6, 8)
10" (Mode 3)
19" (Mode 5)
3" (Mode 7)
CT (Mode 9)
Total
Average-Estimated
Percent Fuel Used
in Mode
13.64
4.73
6.29
2.51
17.95
1.96
Weighting Factor
From Percent
Fuel Used
0.136
0.122 (total for
4 modes)
0.162
0.065
0.463
0.051
47.08
TABLE 93. COMPARISON OF 9-MODE BSFC AND LA-4 FUEL ECONOMY
FOR SIX TRUCKS TESTED UNDER CONTRACT 68-01-0472
9-Mode Weighted BSFC
1974
Engine Weighting
Number Factors
2
3-0
4-0
5-00
6-0
7-0
Avg.
iff. of Var.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
8.
726
735
794
726
916
767
782
9%
CAPE-21 Weighting Factors
% Time % Fuel
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
722
733
818
756
875
748
775
6%
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
596
588
598
625
612
589
601
4%
LA-4
Normalized*
4.5
5.3
4.7
5.2
5.1
4.8
5.0
6.7%
Normalized to 16,000 Ibs vehicle test weight using the inverse function,
gallons/mile to obtain a better linear fit—factor is 0.0044 gallons per
mile/1000 Ibs GVW
175
-------
Trucks Tested Under Contract 68-01-0472
c
o
(0
u
J7./-
-:-;K-.-
-:-rr-.:
. Y:u:.-
- — ::tr-:
| . ~ -
• YHY^-
Yr-Y;
-•..~ ::
_ . —
.
i --"I-Yr
D.40
. — |
— . .
._-
'
....
"."
•V
. _.
.-.;•:
•"
_.:.
--
....
.; .
0
: •.
•
p - • •
.45
-" [; _:
1
-" -i . •"-
... .
: • ri".
:::.i™
;•-!.--
."• •"
,.
::-
;
.
-
" *"
.---.
:-..
; -
0.
50
:::•
—
- -
1
':'•'
: :-
0.
::"
:-:.-
.-
'
.
55
....
-
,
::::
-
•
~ :
ft
.-•-
—
-:.-.
-
!:-::
:::.
\ "
\z
t^\
^
. : ;::
•".;•;
".::
--
0.
:-
•--.
"--
..-A
-."•:.'•
-—
60
K
:
••-.:
-.-
'
-:"
(~>
~ "
'-'--'•]
,::r.
....
.:: -
_-.::-
-.•-:
~~'_
•-
U-
:;..-
-:""
~.'.^.
i
i
1
7~
A'.
::-•:!
--::-|
-- . t
i
;:
:
;
1
3.65
Composite 9 Mode BSFC
FIGURE 35. LA-4 MILES/GALLON AS A FUNCTION OF 9~MODE BSFC
WITH WEIGHTING FACTORS FROM CAPE-21 PERCENT FUEL USED
176
-------
400 CID since the modal fuel is a function of CID (see Item 2, Section III).
The LA-4 fuel rate was normalized to 16,000 Ibs vehicle test weight. Using
these values, the new weighting factors were obtained.
The resulting composite 9-mode fuel rate and the LA-4 fuel rate were
plotted and a linear regression line calculated. The plot and equation
together with the correlation coefficient are shown in Figure 36. It is
apparent that this relationship is not sufficiently linear to use as the
basis of a comparison between the 9-mode test and on-the-road fuel economy.
The approach was not pursued further since the other approach which was
being done concurrently as part of Item 2, Section III showed greater pos-
sibilities of success.
This approach used data from Contract No. 68-03-2147 and involved
reweighting the modal weighting factors to correlate the composite 9-
mode results with the driving cycle results. As mentioned in the Gasoline
Truck Data Analysis section of this report, the key factor in relating the
9-mode fuel rate and 20 mph driving cycle fuel rate was the determination
of what vehicle test weight to use. It was found the fuel rate for each
size engine varied with test weight in a non-linear fashion but that for
each engine size, there was a point of zero slope at some test weight.
The test weight at which this zero slope occurred was found to be a linear
function of CID. The fuel rate at this zero slope point was also found to
be a function of CID (see Figure 4, Section III).
It was felt that the data scatter around the linear relationship was
perhaps caused by differences in engine thermal efficiency (i.e., BSFC).
If this was so, then a method would be available to correlate 9-mode BSFC
to road fuel economy since fuel rate in grams/min can be converted to mi/gal
if the fuel density and average cycle speed are known. Using Figures 3
and 4 from Section III, a curve of fuel consumption normalized to an assumed
constant BSFC (i.e., assuming all data fell on the regression line of Fig-
ure 4) versus vehicle test weight was developed for the nine single axle
trucks tested under Contract 68-03-2147 (see Figure 37).
The LA-4 fuel rate for the six trucks from Contract 68-01-0472 was
calculated at tested vehicle weight. Then, using Figure 37, the percent
change in fuel rate from the test weight to vehicle weight at the point of
zero slope of the fuel rate curve was calculated. This percent change was
applied to the as-measured fuel rate of the six trucks to give the fuel
rate at the "zero slope" vehicle weight. This fuel- rate was then plotted
as a function of engine CID (see Figure 38). As with the trucks from Con-
tract 68-03-2147, the LA-4 fuel rate at these vehicle weights appears to
be a strong function of CID.
If it can be shown that the percent variation of each point from
some average line through the data is a function of the engine BSFC, the
relationship will be complete. But which BSFC? There are four different
composite 9-mode BSFC's that have been calculated for this set of data,
each composite BSFC using different weighting factors. The percent dif-
ference between each data point and the straight line fit of the data was
calculated and plotted as a function of each of the four sets of 9-mode
composite BSFC's. The best relationship was with the "CAPE-21 percent-
177
-------
240
o
o
o
o
4-1
TJ
OJ
M
•H
0
2
C
•H
e
c
•H
0)
-P
220 -
200
180
160
0.:043X
100
120
140
160
Optimized Composite 9-Mode Fuel Rate, g/min, from Modal
Values Normalized to 400 CID
FIGURE 36. LA-4 FUEL RATE NORMALIZED TO 16,000 Ib VS. OPTIMIZED 9-MODE
FUEL RATE NORMALIZED TO 400 CID FOR 6 TRUCKS TESTED UNDER
CONTRACT 68-01-0472
178
-------
0 >
>- u
o ^
a: uj
Q
_j
x <
Q- S
2: tr
o <
u_ =>
o
300 r-
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
3000
TRUCK
O i
Q 2
O 3
A 4
D 5
8
l\ 10
C) 15
A 17
_L
CLD
318
366
361
345
292
391
392
361
477
427
345
LURES
5.21
6.00
5.92
5.66
4.79
6.41
6.42
5.92
7. 82
7.00
5.66
_L
_L
_L
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
90DO 10000
VEHI'CLE TEST WEIGHT,
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
170C
KG
FIGURE 37. 20 MPH DRIVING CYCLE NORMALIZED FUEL RATE VERSUS VEHICLE WEIGHT FOR SEVERAL TRUCKS
TESTED UNDER CONTRACT NO. 68-03-2147
-------
-U
X
0) -.
fH ^T
U O
•H (N
.C I
a) a
> H
u
c
•H
* s
rH
0) rH
3 m
On 3
tr
<3* W
I
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
110
160
150
Y = 66.98 + 0.746X
Curve from Contract
68-03-2147
^
m
t=J=:
••
i
-:-4
if
/
2k
6
300
350 400
Engine CID
450
FIGURE 38. ENGINE CID VS. LA-4 FUEL RATE AT CERTAIN VEHICLE
WEIGHTS FOR 6 TRUCKS TESTED UNDER CONTRACT 68-01-0472
180
-------
time" weighting factors. Next, the CID versus LA-4 fuel rate linear re-
lationship was changed slightly to a curvilinear relationship to improve
the relationship of the 9-mode composite BSFC and the percent difference
from the average line. The final relationship between BSFC and percent
difference is shown in Figure 39. The final shape of the CID versus fuel
rate curve is shown in Figure 40. Also shown are estimated lines of cons-
tant BSFC and the data points from the six trucks.
To summarize, a possible methodology for estimating fuel economy
has been derived. As envisioned, the urban driving miles per gallon would
be obtained for each engine at several vehicle weights (or even 1000 Ib
intervals) as follows.
First, the composite 9-mode BSFC is calculated using the CAPE-21 per-
cent time weighting factors. Next, urban fuel economy is obtained from a
curve similar to Figure 40 which would have urban fuel economy at the "zero
slope" weight as a function of CID with lines of constant BSFC. Lastly,
the fuel economy at other vehicle weights could be calculated using a curve
similar to Figure 37. The curve would show nominal fuel economy as a func-
tion of vehicle weight for various engine CID values. The percent difference
between the fuel economy at the desired weight and fuel economy at the "zero
slope" weight would be calculated and the percent difference applied to the
previously obtained fuel economy.
This method seemed sufficiently promising to pursue to this point.
No further evaluation or improvement of this method was undertaken in this
study because of its grossly empirical approach to fuel economy estimation
and the large amount of vehicle testing required to make it work. For
these reasons, it was deemed more cumbersome than desired for this project.
-However, this technique may merit additional EPA consideration in the future.
There remains one item in this task to be addressed. Only 53.1 per-
cent of the CAPE-21 vehicle operating time was accounted for by the 9-mode
procedure. This would normally not be judged as sufficient coverage. Part
of the objective of this task was to define additional test modes, if neces-
sary, so that the modal gasoline test adequately represents the average
CAPE-21 truck operational pattern. Five additional modes were chosen from
study of the CAPE-21 operational patterns. Four of these additional modes
are listed in Table 94. The fifth mode was an additional closed throttle
mode. Subsequent study has determined that fuel consumption varies little
with speed at closed throttle so that one closed throttle mode could be
used to represent all closed throttle operation.
The total area covered by the 9-mode test was presented previously
representing 53.1 percent of the operating time. The four new modes, plus
extension of the CT mode to include all closed throttle operation gives
a new total operating time covered of 75.7 percent. The percent time re-
presented by each mode is shown in Table 94. Of course, more or less time
could be used for the total time represented, if the area of each mode re-
presented were changed. It is obvious, however, that the four new modes
are in the areas of relatively high percent operating time.
181
-------
Engine
+10
i Q
+ 6
0)
(rt
« +4
r— |
01
? + ->
0)
6(-
O -H
>-l I-J 0
M-l U
0) 0
O -H
C 03 o
01 03 ~ ^
^ 01
0> ^
m en _ d
LW 0) *i
•H (H
Q
£ - 6
C
0)
!H
0) Q
-in
-1 9
-.
I::
•<-::
:}^~~.
: -?. :
.
:-:.
_ ..
'•'--
- -,
.„
....
••-•
—
.-
—
::.-
~::
--^:"
-;:
u
D
O
|
j
i - .
" ..(:-"
:: 1-
--. 1
- , -i
- (
--:-•)--:-.
-. :-":
— , - ::
i
i
(.
.
-- '-
t '
i
.:--[-"-
i-
- - -
_ : ::-
-1 ' -
_ . | .
- -{-"
-..,,. (
: •
, /
/
/
2
3
1
7
. ~ .
>-
V
-
'
•
--
,-:.
....
F-
- -
t-— -
.
L^
/
D
.
...
- --
- —
L:
'-•--
•
::
/
{ -
A
i
j
j . -
r ::71-. :
1 ' '
-.| —
" t
. .1 .
•|
/
/
!
..-.:
-
/
•-.
-
•
f
/
.--.
4
j
s
s
> ^
f
J
["•"-
:;:•
. : .
/
r
— -
'-•
/
/
11-
:
•-
/
/N
/• Li
.... . :_
.--.-.-. .-.-.
'-'"' '-'•-
--.--• .-.--
_~
1
I
1
[
... |
~T"! " :
.- . ,
-:.:.-.l :-_
.-;: L.
•65 .70 .75 .80 .85
9-Mode BSFC Using CAPE-21 Percent Time Weighting FActors
FIGURE 39. PERCENT DIFFERENCE FROM FUEL RATE
REGRESSION LINE VS. 9-MODE BSFC FOR 6 TRUCKS
FROM CONTRACT 68-01-0472
.90
182
-------
280
0,
0)
-P
-------
TABLE 94. PERCENT OF CAPE-21 TRUCK OPERATING TIME REPRESENTED
BY VARIOUS ENGINE SPEED AND MANIFOLD VACUUM MODES
(ALL TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK AND LOS ANGELES)
I. Modes of 9-Mode FTP Percent Time
3" Hg. vacuum, 2000 rpm 6.
10" Hg. vacuum, 2000 rpm 3.
1 £.'! Urr Tra^TiTiTn ^HOn -KT-im A
.20
.59
16" Hg. vacuum, 2000 rpm 4.22
19" Hg. vacuum, 2000 rpm 3.15
C. T. 2000 rpm 11.03
Idle 24.96
Total 9-Mode FTP 53.15
II. Suggested Additional Modes
6" Hg. vacuum, 2700 rpm 3.25
13" Hg. vacuum, 2700 rpm 4.36
14" Hg. vacuum, 1100 rpm 4.04
19" Hg. vacuum, 1100 rpm 7.05
Total Additional Modes 18.70
III. Additional C.T. 3.84
IV. Total Percent Time 75.69
184
-------
While this study did not produce a simple set of weighting factors
that would relate 9-mode BSFC to on-the-road fuel economy, it did investi-
gate the various methods that appeared promising and did show that there
is no simple relationship between 9-mode BSFC and vehicle fuel economy.
185
-------
VI. DIESEL WEIGHTING FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
This section covers the analysis done in an attempt to develop a set
of weighting factors that could be applied to the 13-mode FTP test for
heavy-duty diesel-powered trucks which would relate the 13-mode brake spe-
cific fuel consumption (BSFC) to on-the-road fuel economy. Additional modes
were to be considered if necessary.
Data Base
The data from the CRC CAPE-21 study was the primary data used in this
analysis. There were 14 diesel-powered trucks tested in New York City and
17 in Los Angeles. A description of the trucks is included in Appendix A.
The CAPE-21 data used was in the form of a matrix for each truck showing
percent time spent in a set of percent rpm and percent power intervals.
The percent power was calculated from rail pressure, rack position, or
throttle position depending on the truck. The conversion model was de-
veloped by EPA from manufacturers data]2^)
Approach
The basic appraoch was to attempt to develop weighting factors uti-
lizing the present 13-mode test as much as possible, but also considering
the addition of other modes that could be added to the present procedures
with no change in test equipment and reasonable increases in test time.
The first step would be to obtain the CAPE-21 percent time matrices for
each truck, together with descriptions of the trucks.
Once the matrices were assembled, they would be divided by truck into
groups by body style. The first question to be answered would be: Can the
current 13-mode procedure be used "as is" for a fuel consumption test, with
possibly some reweighting of the modes? In other words, do the trucks op-
erate enough of the time in the range covered by the 13-mode procedure? It
should be kept in mind that the 13-mode procedure really has ten different
modes plus idle. To determine if this is so, the percent time spent at the
13-mode speed and power modes would be calculated for each truck along with
the group average, maximum, minimum, range, standard deviation and coeffi-
cient of variation. Whether the 13-mode schedule can be used or not, weight-
ing factors would be calculated from percent time in mode. If the average
percentage time spent in these modes and the range and coefficient of vari-
ation are acceptable, then the present 13-mode schedule could be used with
the calculated weighting factors. If the new weighting factors are close
enough to the present weighting factors, consideration would be given to
using the present factors.
It could be entirely possible that the current 13-modes would not
cover a sufficient amount of the truck's operating time. If this is so,
then other modes would be considered. The initial method of choosing the
modes would be to try and add additional power modes at either of the two
rpm levels of the 13-mode test. If this did not yield sufficient average
operating time and acceptable coefficients of variation, then additional
power modes at a single additional speed would be tried.
The assumption implicit in the above procedure is that if the BSFC
from the various modes is weighted by the percent of time that mode is
186
-------
actually encountered on the road, then there will be a correlation between
test BSFC and on-the-road fuel economy. It was recognized that some means
of correlating the weighting factors resulting from this study with actual
truck operation is needed. It is important to show that if an engine has
a lower composite BSFC than another engine on the test stand, it will have
a lower fuel consumption in actual transient operation in a truck. II w.i:;
decided to use the data from EPA Contract 68-03-2147 to attempt this correlation.
Analysis
The first item of analysis was to obtain average percent-time matrices
for all the CAPE-21 trucks and various sub-sets of the trucks. Table 95
shows the average percent-time matrix for all of the CAPE-21 diesel trucks.
The percent power and percent rpm values shown are for the midpoint of the
interval. The column headed "motor" gives the percent time that the en-
gine was motoring at each percent rpm. Engine idle is the zero percent
rpm, zero percent power cell. The column headed "row total" gives the
total percent time spent in each percent rpm regardless of power. The column
headed "col sum" gives the percent time spent in each percent power regard-
less of rpm. Tables 96, 97, and 98 contain the average percent time matrices
for all Los Angeles trucks, Los Angeles single unit trucks, and Los Angeles
tractor trailers, respectively. Tables 99, 100 and 101 contain the same in-
formation for the New York City trucks. Examining the two matrices con-
taining the average percent time for all trucks in each city, it can be
seen that the Los Angeles all-truck matrix shows a different pattern of
operation than the New York all-truck matrix.
As an aid to visualizing the operational patterns from the two cities,
Figures 41 and 42 show the Los Angeles and New York all-truck matrices with
the percent operating time divided into intervals and shaded to enhance the
distinction between intervals. Figure 43 shows the matrix with various
regions of engine operation indicated on the matrix. Comparing Figures
41 and 42, it can be seen that the Los Angeles matrix shows a large amount
of time at high engine speed and moderate to high power; while the New York
matrix shows a much smaller amount of time at these operating conditions.
The New York matrix shows more operating time at low speed, low power con-
ditions than the Los Angeles matrix. The trucks in New York also apparently
operated over a wider power range at low speeds than did the Los Angeles
trucks. These distinctly different operating patterns for the two cities
make the development of 13-mode weighting factors for fuel consumption
that would be applicable nationwide more difficult.
Since there is a difference in the operating patterns for New York and
Los Angeles, the calculations for the 13-mode weighting factors were done
for each city individually as well as for the combined data from both cities.
However, before calculating the weighting factors, one of the basic questions
to be resolved was just how large an rpm- power area should each
mode be assumed to represent. At the extreme, the whole matrix (less the
motoring column) could be divided up among the 11 different modes of the
13-mode test. However, as explained in the analysis of the CAPE-21 data
for gasoline-powered trucks, the relationship between fuel rate and rpm
and fuel rate and power can vary from engine to engine. Thus, when com-
paring engines, an engine with a lower fuel rate at one rpm and power con-
dition may not necessarily have a lower fuel rate at another rpm and power
condition. This would indicate that it is not prudent to let the fuel rate
187
-------
TABLE 95. PERCENT TIME IN PERCENT POWER AND PERCENT ENGINE SPEED INTERVALS
FOR ALL DIESEL TRUCKS TESTED IN CAPE-21 STUDY
kPM MOTOR 0 10
-?o ci.oo n. nn o.oo
-in .nu
U 1.15
1 II .70
o .no
28.25
.12
.00
l.ub
.23
?n .13 .in .22
30 1.15 .12 .27
"D 1.35
•;o i.b2
h IJ 2.15
M 70 2.75
00
00 SO 3.1b
10 2.bb
ino 2.05
Mil .tS
1?0 .10
.15
.lb
.15
.25
.38
.3b
.28
.U5
.110
.2b
.25
.32
.51
.78
.b2
.52
.05
.01
130 .00 11.00 0.00
itu .on o.oo o.oo
roL
SUM 20.22 30.37 5.11
PERCENT POHER
20 30
0.00 (1.00
.00 .01
I.Ob .33
.21 .11
.21 .It
.11 .It
.23 .11
.22 .2t
.28 .28
.50 .5t
.8t .11
.75 .lb
.58 .bb
,0b .08
.01 .00
O.PO 0.00
o.oo n.oo
5.15 t.7t
to
0.00
.00
.2fa
.10
.10
.13
.18
.20
.23
.50
1.11
1.08
.bl
.10
.01
.00
0.00
t.bl
50
0.00
.00
.27
.07
.01
.13
.15
.lb
.11
.t3
1.11
1.17
.bl
.11
.01
0.00
0.00
•*.5B
bO
0.00
.00
.It
.115
.08
.11
.15
.1?
.18
.3b
1.08
l.lb
.bt
.It
.01
.00
0.00
t.28
70 80
0.00 0.00
.00 .00
.01 .07
.Ob ,0t
.01 .10
.12 .15
.17 .20
.20 .2t
.11 .25
.3t .31
1.02 I.Ob
l.lb 1.21
.bO .57
.18 .22
.01 .02
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
t.23 t.SO
10
n.oo
.00
.ot
.03
.ot
.08
.18
.28
.31
.b5
1.51
l.bB
.7b
.25
.03
0.00
0.00
b.Ol
100
0.00
.00
.02
.00
.00
.01
.03
.05
.10
.27
.82
.lb
.71
.20
.Ot
.00
0.00
3.31
ROM
TOTAL
0.00
.03
32.73
1.81
2.01
2.51
3.25
3.71
t.70
7.tB
13. It
13.78
8.85
1.10
.25
.01
.00
NOTE: Areas marked are taken to represent the modal operating
conditions from the diesel 13-mode test.
-------
TABLE 96. PERCENT TIME IN PERCENT POWER AND PERCENT ENGINE SPEED INTERVALS
FOR ALL LOS ANGELES DIESEL TRUCKS TESTED IN CAPE-21 STUDY
CD
PC T
RPM
-20
-10
0
10
50
30
10
50
bO
70
HO
SO
ino
110
120
130
110
MOTOR
0.00
.00
.ib
.58
.78
.SS
1.25
I.b7
2.18
3.53
1.12
3.7S
3.13
.51
.OS
.00
.00
23. bS
0
0.00
0.00
17.07
.07
.Ob
.07
.Ofa
.08
.11
.31
.51
.15
.3S
.01
.00
0.00
o.no
IS. 30
10
0.00
.00
.30
.13
.11
.10
.11
.15
.27
,fa3
1.1S
1.01
.88
.07
.01
0.00
0.00
I.Sb
20
0.00
0.00
.5b
.08
.Ob
.07
.OS
.12
.2b
.70
1.33
1.22
.Sb
.OS
.01
0.00
0.00
5.51
30
0.00
.00
.20
.01
.01
.01
.Ob
.10
.23
.73
1.58
1.55
1.07
.10
.00
0.00
0.00
5.73
PERCENT
10
0.00
.00
.13
.02
.02
.02
.05
.07
.17
.b7
1.78
1.78
1.11
.12
.01
0.00
0.00
5.S5
POWER
SO
0.00
.00
.11
.01
.02
.02
.03
.05
.12
.55
1.77
l.Sl
1.08
.11
.00
0.00
0.00
5.82
bO
0.00
.00
.OS
.00
.01
.01
.02
.01
.11
.13
1.7b
1.88
,S7
.17
.01
0.00
0.00
5.51
70
0.00
.00
.07
.01
.01
.01
.02
.05
.08
.38
l.bS
l.Bb
.88
.21
.01
0.00
0.00
5.21
80
0.00
.00
.05
.01
.01
.02
.02
.03
.OS
.3S
1.58
1.77
.78
.25
.01
0.00
0.00
5.02
10
0.00
.00
.03
.01
.01
.02
.03
.01
.10
.53
2.17
2.20
.SI
.2S
.02
0.00
0.00
b.35
100
0.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.03
.33
1.30
1.31
.bS
.25
.02
0.00
0.00
3.S8
D n u
KU Ft
TOTAL
0.00
.02
IS. 10
.S8
1.10
1.3b
1.7b
2.11
1 . OS
S.20
21.08
20.72
12.85
2.25
.18
.00
.00
-------
TABLE 97. PERCENT TIME IN PERCENT POWER AND PERCENT ENGINE SPEED INTERVALS
FOR LOS ANGELES SINGLE UNIT DIESEL TRUCKS TESTED IN CAPE-21 STUDY
PCT
fiPM
-PD
- 1 n
n
10
?n
*u
to
m,
Ml
'0
Rfl
in
inn
no
IPO
HO
no
COL
SUM
MOTOR
0.00
0 .00
. 38
.37
.58
.85
1.05
1.30
5.01
2.5t
3.53
3.12
1.31
.20
.00
0.00
0.00
17.21
(1
n . n n
0 . f 1 11
20.58
.11
.11
.13
. 10
.11
.lb
.33
.52
.tb
.17
.ot
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.83
10
0.00
.00
.50
.2t
.21
.15
.IS
.20
.2b
.52
.15
l.QS
.50
.Ob
.01
0.00
0.00
t.5t
20
0.00
0.00
.22
.It
.10
.11
.13
.13
.55
.53
l.OS
l.tB
.75
.08
.01
0.00
0.00
t.SB
30
n .00
0.00
.17
.08
.Ob
.Ob
.08
.13
.23
.55
l.tO
1.S7
.81
.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.73
PERCENT
to
0.00
.00
.13
.Ot
.03
.03
.07
.07
.15
.51
l.bt
2.17
1.07
.13
.00
0.00
0.00
fa.Ot
POWER
50
0.00
.00
.51
.02
.02
.02
.Ot
.Ob
.12
.tl
1.75
2.tb
1.05
.15
.00
0.00
0.00
b.27
bO
0.00
.01
.13
.01
.01
.02
.03
.ot
.OS
.3t
1.77
2.bl
.17
.13
.01
0.00
0.00
b.18
70
0.00
.01
.OS
.01
.02
.01
.02
.03
.Ob
.2b
1.S8
2. to
.85
.21
.01
0.00
0.00
5.55
80
0.00
.01
.Ob
.01
.01
.02
.03
.03
.07
.30
1.11
2. OS
.83
.25
.01
0.00
0.00
t.qo
so
0.00
.01
.05
.03
.02
.03
.05
.07
.11
.bb
2.3b
2. It
.83
.21
.01
0.00
0.00
7.31
100
0.00
.00
.02
.01
.01
.01
.01
.03
.Ob
.tl
1.7S
2. It
.85
.20
.01
0.00
0.00
S.bt
ROW
TOTAL
0.00
.05
28. 2t
1.05
1.17
l.tl
1.81
B.23
3.59
7,tt
11. Sb
2t.88
10. Ot
1.7t
.07
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE 98. PERCENT TIME IN PERCENT POWER AND PERCENT ENGINE SPEED INTERVALS
FOR LOS ANGELES TRACTOR TRAILER DIESEL TRUCKS TESTED IN CAPE-21 STUDY
PERCENT POWER
ri_ 1
ftPM
-?0
-10
0
10
20
30
to
50
bO
7(1
Ru
90
ino
110
IPO
130
itn
COL
SUM
MOTOR
0.00
.00
.50
.70
.88
1.08
1.3b
1.87
2.7t
t.07
t ,9l
t.lb
t.12
.b8
.It
.00
.00
27.22
0
o.nn
0.00
15. Ib
.05
.03
.03
.Ot
.Ob
.13
.3t
.55
.ts
.50
.03
.1)0
0.00
0.00
17.38
10
0.00
0.00
.35
.07
.05
.07
.08
.12
.28
.b9
1.32
.99
1.09
.08
.01
0.00
0.00
5.19
20
0.00
0.00
.75
.05
.03
.Ot
.Ob
.11
.27
.79
J .tb
1.08
1.09
.09
.01
0.00
0.00
S.8t
30
0.00
.00
.21
.02
.02
.02
.05
.08
.22
.82
I.b8
1.32
l.lb
.10
.01
0.00
0.00
5.7t
to
0.00
.00
.It
.01
.01
.02
.03
.08
.18
.7b
l.Bfa
l.Sb
1.13
.11
.01
0.00
0.00
5.91
50
0.00
0.00
.09
.00
.01
.01
.02
.Ot
.12
.b2
l.Bo
l.bl
1.09
.It
.01
0.00
0.00
5.58
bO
0.00
0.00
.Ob
.00
.01
.01
.02
.Ot
.12
.ta
1.75
i.ta
.97
.19
.01
0.00
0.00
5. It
70
0.00
0.00
.05
.01
.01
.01
.02
.Ob
.09
.ts
I.b9
l.Sb
.90
.21
.01
0.00
0.00
5.08
80
0.00
.00
.Ot
.01
.01
.01
.02
.Ot
.10
.ta
1.79
l.bO
.7b
.25
.02
0.00
0.00
5.08
90
0.00
.00
.02
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
.09
.tb
2. Ob
1.80
.95
.33
.02
0.00
0.00
5.78
100
0.00
0.00
.00
0.00
0.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.2t
l.Ot
.8b
.bl
.28
.02
0.00
0.00
3.08
NUN
TOTAL
0.00
.00
17.38
.9t
I.Ob
1.32
1.73
2.52
t.Sfa
10. Ib
21.92
18. tS
It. 39
2.52
.25
.00
.00
-------
TABLE 99. PERCENT TIME IN PERCENT POWER AND PERCENT ENGINE SPEED INTERVALS
FOR ALL NEW YORK DIESEL TRUCKS TESTED IN CAPE-21 STUDY
RPM
-PI)
-I 0
0
10
?0
10
to
10
bO
7f)
SO
10
100
HO
IPO
130
ito
COL
SUM
MOTOH
u.ou
.00
1.11
.flS
1.13
1.3t
l.tb
1.55
1.7t
1.8Q
I.b3
i.ei
.7t
.37
.11
.01
0.00
lb.00
0
0.00
0.00
tl.H2
.17
.1*
.18
,2b
.27
.17
.It
.20
.25
.15
.Ob
.00
0.00
0.00
t3.Bl
10
0.00
0.00
1 .18
.35
.37
.tB
.t5
• 37
.37
.37
.27
.15
.08
.03
.01
O.OD
0.00
5.28
20
0.00
.00
l.bb
.37
.31
.3t
.to
.3b
.30
.2b
.at
.18
.11
.03
.01
0.00
0.00
t.b7
30
o.no
.02
.tl
.37
.2b
.27
,3t
.to
.3t
.30
.28
.2t
.lb
.05
.01
0.00
0.00
3.53
PERCENT
to
0.00
0.00
.to
.11
.11
.afa
.35
.35
.31
.21
.30
.at
.11
.07
.01
.00
0.00
3.1b
POWER
50
0.00
.00
.ta
.15
. 11
.27
.30
.30
.28
.21
.30
.27
.23
.08
.01
0.00
0.00
3.08
bO
0.00
.00
.21
.11
.lb
.22
.31
.33
.2b
.28
.2b
.21
.2t
.11
.01
.00
0.00
2.71
70
0.00
0.00
.13
.ia
.18
.2t
.35
.38
.33
.aa
.as
.31
.3b
.It
.oa
0.00
0.00
3.00
80
0.00
.00
.01
.08
.20
.30
.tl
.ta
.tt
.31
.ta
.53
.31
.18
.03
0.00
0.00
3.87
10
0.00
0.00
.Ob
.ot
.08
.lb
.37
.57
.7t
.80
.88
I.Ob
.58
.21
.ot
0.00
o.oo
5.51
100
0.00
0.00
.03
.00
.01
.02
.Ob
.10
.18
.11
.33
.St
.11
.It
.Ob
.01
0.00
3.t1
ROW
TOTAL
0.00
.03
tl.21
2.82
3.21
t.08
S.Ob
S.tb
s.ts
5.31
5.3fa
5.3t
3.18
I.t7
.33
.02
0.00
-------
TABLE 100. PERCENT TIME IN PERCENT POWER AND PERCENT ENGINE SPEED INTERVALS
FOR NEW YORK SINGLE UNIT DIESEL TRUCKS TESTED IN CAPE-21 STUDY
w
Dp T
r L 1
RPM
-PO
-] U
II
10
20
30
HO
50
80
70
PO
IU
ion
110
i?n
13n
IHl)
CUL
SUM
MOTOR
O.UO
.00
1.81
.bl
.81
.Bb
.13
1.22
1.31
1.35
1.12
.85
.SH
.33
.07
0.00
0.00
11.81
0
-o.no
O.UO
Hb. 32
.1H
.f!7
.08
.30
.35
.11
.12
.08
.Ob
.03
.01
.01
0.00
o.no
H7. 75
10
0.00
0.00
.H8
.22
.35
.bO
.Hb
.31
.33
.28
.23
.21
.11
.OH
.02
0.00
0.00
3.bH
20
0.00
0.00
.HI
.H3
.55
.30
.21
.30
.35
.3H
.31
.28
.18
.Ob
.02
0.00
0.00
3.82
30
0.00
0.00
.50
.51
.28
.2H
.27
.32
.3b
.3b
.33
.33
.2b
.01
.01
0.00
0.00
3.17
PERCENT
HO
0.00
0.00
.3b
.21
.2H
.21
.32
.28
.31
.32
.37
.21
.2b
.1H
.02
.01
0.00
3. HI
POWER
50
0.00
.00
.b2
.lb
.2H
.33
.31
.31
.21
.30
.3b
.31
.28
.15
.02
0.00
0.00
3.88
bO
0.00
.01
.28
.12
.18
.2H
.38
.38
.21
.31
.31
.3H
.2H
.11
.03
.00
0.00
3.31
70
0.00
0.00
.15
.10
.20
.33
.SH
.58
.Hb
.33
.28
.HI
.23
.22
.OH
0.00
0.00
3. 88
80
0.00
0.00
.12
.12
.23
.HI
.58
.71
.bH
.H3
.30
.H7
.27
.23
.07
0.00
0.00
H.58
10
0.00
0.00
.01
.08
.11
.01
.33
.b3
.13
.87
.83
.81
.3H
.21
.08
0.00
0.00
5.22
100
0.00
0.00
.03
.01
.01
.01
.02
.07
.20
.33
.3b
.35
.1H
.17
.13
.01
0.00
1.85
ROW
TOTAL
0.00
.01
51.17
2.71
3.28
3.77
H.7H
S.H8
S.7H
5.3H
H.bl
H.71
2.88
1.88
.52
.02
0.00
-------
TABLE 101. PERCENT TIME IN PERCENT POWER AND PERCENT ENGINE SPEED INTERVALS
FOR NEW YORK TRACTOR TRAILER DIESEL TRUCKS TESTED IN CAPE-21 STUDY
PERCENT POWER
KC 1
rtPM
-?U
-in
0
10
?u
3u
HO
*0
hO
H 70
<£>
£>
RO
S(l
ino
1)0
170
no
140
COL
SUM
MOTOR
o.uo
11.00
2.12
i.o4
1.3b
l.bS
1.85
1.8o
2.00
a. 13
5.01
i.b2
.81
.HO
.15
.02
o.no
IS. 08
u
o.uo
0.00
38.44
.20
.IS
.25
.2*
.20
.15
.lb
.28
.31
.25
.OS
.00
0.00
0.00
HO. 85
10
0.00
0.00
3.11
.45
.3?
.31
.44
.42
.41
.43
.31
.10
.Ob
.02
.00
0.00
0.00
b.Sl
20
0.00
.00
2.59
.33
.28
.37
.48
.to
.2b
.21
.IS
.11
.07
.01
.00
0.00
0.00
5.31
30
0.00
.Of
.48
.21
.24
.2S
.40
.4b
.32
.2b
.24
.1?
.OS
.01
.00
0.00
o.no
3.20
40
0.00
0.00
.44
.18
.lb
.24
.38
.3S
.31
.2?
.2*
.20
.1*
.02
.00
0.00
0.00
2.S7
50
0.00
.00
.28
.13
.14
.22
.28
.30
.27
.28
.2b
.24
.20
.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.b3
bO
0.00
0.00
.lb
.10
.14
.20
.2b
.2S
.23
.25
.22
.25
.24
.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.3S
70
0.00
0.00
.11
.13
.17
.18
.21
.23
.23
.24
.23
.23
.28
.08
.00
0.00
0.00
2.33
BO
0.00
.00
.07
.Ob
.18
.83
.28
.31
.28
.3b
.52
.58
.34
.14
.00
0.00
0.00
3.34
SO
0.00
0.00
.04
.01
.05
.21
.40
.51
.bO
.75
1.07
1.24
.7fa
.21
.00
0.00
0.00
5.87
100
0.00
0.00
.04
0.00
.01
.04
.OS
.12
.lb
.OS
.13
,b8
1.4S
.11
.01
0.00
0.00
e.s?
nun
TOTAL
0.00
.04
47.88
2. 84
3.30
4.31
5.31
5.44
5.23
5.43
5.70
5.81
4.80
1.18
.17
.02
0.00
-------
Percent Power *
"10TOR 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-20
-10
0
* 10
jj
£ 20!
u
S 3(>
O,
40 W
140
interval headings are midpoint of interval
<0.10
0.10 to 0.39
0.40 to 0.69
0.70 to 0.99
1.00 to 1.49
1.50 to 1.99
2.00 to 2.99
<3.00
=41, AVERAGE TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS PERCENT ENGINE
SPEEDS aiND POWER FOR ALL, 1? DIESEL TRUCKS IN
TIE 'MS CaED-21. STUDY
195
-------
Percent Power *
Motor
100
c
OJ
o
V-l
0)
0.
T3
a
0)
w
* interval heading are midpoint of interval
<0-10 { | 0.70 to 0.99
a o.
10 to 0. 39
0.40 to 0.69
1.50 to 1.99
2.00 to 2.99
FIGURE 42. AVERAGE TIME SPENT IN VARIOUS PERCENT ENGINE
SPEEDS AND PERCENT POWER FOR ALL 14 DIESEL TRUCKS IN
THE NEW YORK CAPE-21 STUDY
196
-------
Percent Power*
Motor 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90
100
1
1
V
Cn
•H
Q_
1
p
- ---- -
Idle
_ _ _
t
i
i
r
i
- - - -
- - ---
-- -I-H
_
ereasa
ng Povi
--
._._
er -
-
- -
(
i
| \
-
^ Increasing Sj^eed -
---— -
Elated
•• -MI
• •••
*
S
o
0)
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
* Invertal heading are mid-point of interval
FIGURE 43. DIESEL TRUCK PERCENT POWER-PERCENT SPEED MATRIX
SHOWING ENGINE OPERATING AREAS
197
-------
at each mode be represented by a large area of the matrix. With this in
mind and in an attempt to be compatible with the gasoline truck analysis
in Section V of this report, the matrix cells represented by each of the
modes of the 13-mode test were chosen as the intervals outlined in Table 95.
The idle mode was represented by the matrix cell labeled zero percent
speed and zero percent power. The engine speed intervals labeled 90, 100,
and 110 percent speed were chosen to represent the rated speed modes. The
engine speed intervals labeled 50, 60, and 70 percent speed were chosen to
represent the intermediate speed modes. Within each speed, the two percent power
mode was represented by the zero percent power cell; the 25 percent power
mode by the 20 and 30 percent power cells; the 50 percent power mode by the
50 percent power cell; the 75 percent power mode by the 70 and 80 percent
power cells; and the 100 percent power mode by the 100 percent power cell.
The percent-time matrices from each truck were processed using a
computer program written to choose the 13-mode conditions from the matrix
for each truck and determine the average, minimum, and maximum time spent
in each mode for the group of trucks processed. The resulting computer
printouts showing both individual truck and average percent time spent in
each of the modes for nine different groupings of the data are contained
in Appendix E as Tables E-l through E-9. Also shown are the minimum, maxi-
mum, and standard deviation for each group. The average percent time in
mode for each group is shown in Table 102.
The 13-mode weighting factors were then calculated from these average
percent time-in-mode values. The percent time at idle is used as the idle
weighting factor since it is assumed that all idle time in the operating
matrix is used in determining the percent time at idle. Because the re-
maining modes do not represent all of the non-idle operation of the vehi-
cle, the percent time-in-mode cannot be used as a weighting factor. How-
ever, if the total vehicle non-idle operating time is divided by the total
time in the non-idle modes, a multiplication factor is obtained. This
factor can be applied to the percent time in each of the non-idle modes to
yield a weighting factor. Note that the 13-mode test contains no motoring
mode. Nor should it, since the fuel is essentially shut off at motoring.
Therefore, the time spent in motoring is not used in the above procedure;
and the 11 modes are assumed to represent 100 percent of the truck operation.
The 10 non-idle modes, therefore, represent 100 percent time minus the idle
percent time. Note that this does not mean the emissions of HC, CO, and
NOX are zero at motoring conditions, only that the fuel rate at the motoring
condition is negligible.
The modal weighting factors thus obtained are shown in Table 103 for
the various groups of trucks. These weighting factors, then, are the 13-
mode weighting factors representing the percent time-in-mode experienced
by the trucks tested in the CAPE-21 project. The current 13-mode heavy-
duty FTP weighting factors are shown for comparison. Also shown are the
weighting factors from 12 diesel trucks tested under Contract 68-03-2147.
These weighting factors were developed by optimizing the relationship be-
tween modal fuel and 32 kph driving cycle fuel rate.
As can be seen from the table, the differences in the New York and
Los Angeles weighting factors at idle; 75 percent power at intermediate
speed; and 25, 50, and 75 percent power at rated speed are greater than
tlit.- difference between single unit and tractor-trailer trucks within either
198
-------
TABLE 102 . AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE 13-MODE FTP FOR CAPE-21 DIESEL TRUCKS
Average Percent Time in Mode
Intermediate rpm Power
Data Base
NY + LA (all)
NY + LA (SU) *
NY + LA (TT) **
LA (all)
LA (SU)
LA (TT)
NY (all)
NY (SU)
NY (TT)
Idle
28
33
24
17
20
15
41
46
38
.25
.45
.96
.07
.58
.16
.82
.32
.44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
.57
.63
.53
.56
.61
.53
.57
.65
.52
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
25
.05
.93
.13
.13
.83
.29
.96
.04
.90
50
0.79
0.75
0.81
0.72
0.59
0.78
0.87
0.91
0.85
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
3
1
75
.60
.95
.38
.03
.75
.17
.30
.15
.66
100
0.42
0.59
0.31
0.38
0.58
0.26
0.47
0.60
0.37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
.69
.38
.88
.87
.66
.99
.46
.10
.73
3
3
3
4
5
4
0
1
0
Rated rpm Power
25
.09
.22
.00
.99
.25
.85
.78
.20
.46
50
1.
2.
1.
3.
3.
2.
0.
0.
0.
97
18
84
12
63
84
57
72
46
75
3.94
4.23
3.75
5.76
6.63
5.28
1.73
1.84
1.65
100
1.96
1.93
1.97
2.26
3.19
1.75
1.59
0.67
2.28
Modal
Total
45.32
51.26
41.56
38.88
44.32
35.91
53.13
58.20
49.33
* SU - Single Unit
** TT - Tractor
-------
TABLE 103 . SUMMARY OF 13-MODE WEIGHTING FACTORS
CALCULATED FROM CAPE-21 DATA
Modal Weighting Factor
Intermediate rpm
Data Base
NY + LA (all)
NY + LA (SU) *
NY + LA (TT) **
LA (all)
LA (SU)
LA (TT)
NJ
0 NY (all)
NY (SU)
NY (TT)
Optimized 32 kph***
Federal Register
Idle
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
283
335
250
171
206
152
418
463
384
192
20
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
024
024
024
021
020
022
029
029
029
384
08
25
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
086
072
963
081
061
094
101
092
107
000
08
50
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
033
028
037
027
020
032
045
041
048
000
08
Power
75
0.067
0.072
0.062
0.039
0.025
0.048
0.118
0.142
0.094
0.177
0.08
Rated rpm Power
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
.018
.022
.014
.014
.019
.011
.024
.027
.021
.000
.08
2
0.029
0.014
0.040
0.033
0.022
0.041
0.024
0.005
0.041
0.130
0.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
.130
.120
.136
.190
.176
.198
.040
.054
.026
.000
.08
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.083
.082
.535
.119
.122
.116
.029
.033
.026
.000
.08
75
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
166
158
170
219
222
216
089
083
093
000
08
100
0.082
0.074
0.089
0.086
0.107
0.072
0.082
0.030
0.129
0.199
0.08
* SU - Single Unit
** XT - Tractor
*** Diesel truck data from Contract 68-03-2147—weighting factors optimzed by regression analysis
to give best correlation between 32 kph half load fuel consumption and 13-mode fuel consumption
-------
one of the cities. Since there is a greater difference between cities
than between vehicle types and information for weighting each city's driv-
ing patterns is not available, it is felt that the overall combined New
York and Los Angeles weighting factors are probably the best one to use.
The 13-mode data from the 12 diesel trucks tested under Contract 68-
03-2147 were reprocessed using these new weighting factors to determine if
the new composite 13-mode BSFC would correlate with driving cycle fuel econ-
omy. The new composite 13-mode BSFC values are presented in Table 104, to-
gether with the BSFC values using the 13-mode FTP weighting factors and the
weighting factors obtained from the optimization study presented in Section
IV of this report. Note that the BSFC values in the table are in terms of
kilograms per kilowatt hour. There is little difference in BSFC between
trucks. The coefficient of variation varies from 4 to 6 percent depending
on the method used. The turbocharged trucks all have a lower BSFC than the
nonturbocharged trucks. When BSFC is averaged for the nonturbocharged engines
separately, the coefficient of variation for the BSFC using CAPE-21 weighting
factors is 2.4 percent. The BSFC values calculated using the CAPE-21 weight-
ing factors differ only slightly from the BSFC values using the FTP weighting
factors for each individual truck. Using the FTP value as a standard, the
maximum difference was -2.8 percent for Truck 26. The differences in BSFC
values using the optimized weighting factors were somewhat greater, the
largest difference being 19.3 percent, again, for Truck 26.
It is logical to expect that fuel economy.- or its inverse, fuel con-
sumption, in actual vehicle operation would be a function of vehicle weight.
Indeed, this was demonstrated on a previous project. The trucks tested
under Contract 68-03-2147 also show this relationship as seen in Figure 44.
For each truck, the 32 kph driving cycle test weights and corresponding
fuel rates are listed in Appendix E as Table E-10. Figure 44, the fuel rate
in grams/minute, from a 32 kph average speed driving cycle is plotted against
vehicle weight in kilograms. Because there is a definite BSFC difference be-
tween the turbocharged and nonturbocharged engines, only the nonturbocharged
engines were used in this analysis to avoid introducing additional variables.
Truck 30 was not included because of some question about the 32 kph fuel rate
data. Since each truck was tested at three different inertia weights, it is
possible to determine the relationship between 32 kph fuel rate and vehicle
weight for each truck.
For purposes of comparing the 13-mode BSFC with driving cycle fuel
rate, a vehicle weight of 12,000 kg was chosen as a convenient weight which
would require a minimum of extrapolation to include most of the trucks. The
32 kph fuel rate for each truck at a vehicle weight of 12,000 kg is shown
in Table 104.
The BSFC and 32 kph fuel rate values shown in Table 104 are plotted
as Figure 45 for better comparison. As can be seen from the figure, the
13-mode composite BSFC and 32 kph driving cycle fuel rate do not show good
correlation for any of the three methods used to obtain a composite BSFC.
Using the experience gained from a similar analysis done for CAPE-21
gasoline-powered trucks (Section V of this report), it was felt that the
vehicle weight to engine power ratio was an important variable to consider.
Table 105 shows the maximum power at rated speed for each truck tested.
The vehicle weight to engine power ratio for the three inertia weights
201
-------
TABLE 104. COMPARISONS OF 13-MODE BSFC USING
DIFFERENT WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR 12 DIESEL TRUCKS
Truck No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
13-Mode Composite BSFC(kg/kw-hr)using: 32 kph
1974 FTP CAPE-21 Optmized Driving Cycle
Weighting % Time 32 kph* Fuel
Turbocharged Factor W. F. W. F. g/min**
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
0. 284
0. 265
0. 262
0. 268
0. 291
0. 277
0. 262
0. 285
0. 277
0. 277
0. 286
0. 295
0. 280
0. 267
0. 264
0. 272
0. 285
0. 272
0. 264
0. 277
0. 280
0. 282
0. 289
0. 294
0. 329
0. 296
0. 288
0. 304
0. 343
0. 318
0. 293
0. 340
0. 322
0. 311
0. 336
0. 327
227
246
218
231
222
239
196
209
183
156
161
Average
S.D.
C. of V.
Average Non-Turbo(8)
S.D.
C. of V.
Average Turbo (4)
S.D.
C. of V.
0. 277
0. Oil
4.0%
0. 284
0. 007
2.4%
0. 264
0. 003
1. 1%
0. 277
0. 010
3. 5%
0. 282
0. 007
2.4%
0. 267
0. 004
1.4%
0. 317
0. 019
5.9%
0. 328
0. Oil
3.8%
0. 295
0. 007
2. 3%
'"Weighting factors determined from optimizing relationships of modal fuel and
32 kph driving cycle fuel rate.
:*At 12000 kg test weight
202
-------
400
350
300
c
•H
e
Cn
01
.p
td
0>
3
CM
OJ
iH
U
O
Cr>
C
250
200
150
100
50
o
k
D
Q
0
Truck No.
19
23
24
26
27
28
29
I
I
I
5000
1000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Vehicle Test Weight, kg
FIGURE 44. 32 kph DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE AS A FUNCTION
OF VEHICLE TEST WEIGHT FOR SEVEN NONTURBOCHARGED DIESEL TRUCKS
203
-------
Truck No.
23
24
26
27
28
29
FTP
W.F.
O
0
CAPE-21
W.F.
OPTIMIZED
W.F.
A
k
350
O
O
ro
3
C
•H
g
OJ
U CP
U
Cn
C
•H
>-i
D
JC
U,
200
150
100
Ltt
i
I
0.20
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
13-Mode Composite BSFC, kg/kw-hr
FIGURE 45. 32 kph FUEL RATE AS A FUNCTION OF 13-MODE
C''Ml 'SITE BSFC FOR SIX NONTURBOCHARGED DIESEL TRUCKS
204
-------
TABLE 105. RATED POWER OF 12 DIESEL TRUCKS TESTED
UNDER CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Max. Power
@ Rated RPM Weight/Power Ratio , kg/kw
Truck No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Turbocharged
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Kw
133
266
227
172
209
219
216
155
230
134
124
145
Empty Load Half Load
39.
41.
48.
64.
53.
50.
51.
46.
48.
54.
58.
49.
3
7
9
5
2
7
6
8
4
1
6
9
54.
83.
97.
129.
106.
101.
103.
93.
96.
82.
75.
76.
7
7
7
0
5
4
1
6
8
8
1
4
Full Load
68.
125.
146.
193.
159.
152.
154.
140.
145.
136.
89.
126.
4
6
6
6
7
1
7
4
1
9
8
3
205
-------
tested on each truck is also shown. The 32 kph driving cycle fuel rate for
7 of the non-turbocharged trucks is plotted as a function of the vehicle
weight to engine power ratio for each truck in Figure 46. From the figure
it can be seen that in general, the 32 kph fuel rate increases as weight
to power ratio increases. As with the plot of fuel rate versus vehicle
weight, the trucks seem to be ordered by engine power with the higher power
engines giving a higher 32 kph fuel rate.
The 32 kph fuel rate at a constant weight to power ratio of 60.0 is
plotted as a function engine maximum power in Figure 47. It appears
that there is a good relationship between engine maximum power and the 32
kph driving cycle fuel rate at a constant weight to power ratio. But, it
can be shown that the 13-mode composite fuel rate using the CAPE-21 weighting
factors is also a function of engine maximum power at rated speed. See
Figure 48. Note that the scatter about the estimated 0.280 kg/kw-hr BSFC
line is apparently a function of BSFC. The composite 13-mode fuel rate from
the three sets of weighting factors is listed in Table 106.
The 32 kph driving cycle fuel rate at three constant weight to
power ratios is plotted in Figure 49 as a function of the 13-mode composite
fuel rate for 7 non-turbocharged diesel engines. Note that there is a
definite relationship between the 13-mode composite fuel rate and the 32 kph
fuel rate at a constant weight to power ratio. However, there is some
scatter in the data. If it is hypothesized that the relationship is also
a function of BSFC, and a line of constant BSFC drawn through the date, the
scatter about the line appears to be caused by differences in BSFC.
Thus it appears that truck fuel consumption (or alternately fuel
economy) on the road is a function of vehicle weight, engine power, and
specific fuel consumption (i.e., thermal efficiency). It is felt that the
data presented here is not sufficient to accurately define these relation-
ships. However, the trucks tested under Contract 68-03-2147 do represent
a large portion of the diesel engine makes currently in use. Considering the
small differences in BSFC seen between engines, it appears that optimum
engine to vehicle matching may be more important than BSFC in obtaining
the best available fuel economy for a given vehicle.
The above analysis used the BSFC and composite fuel rate calculated
from the CAPE-21 derived weighting factors. The question arises as to
whether the other weighting factors presented in Table 103 would give
as good results. To answer this question, the composite fuel consumption
from the FTP and optimized weighting factors was plotted versus the 32 kph
driving cycle fuel rate at a weight to power ratio of 60.0 in Figures 50
and 51. From the figures it appears that CAPE-21 weighting factors give a
better relationship than the FTP weighting factors and about equally as
good a relationship as the optimized weighting factor. The 32 kph driving
cycle was reportedly developed from CAPE-21 data. The fact that the per-
cent time in mode from the CAPE-21 data gives a composite fuel consumption
that correlates with a 32 kph cycle developed from CAPE-21 data when vehicle
weight and engine power are also considered, gives credence to the method
used to determine the modal weighting factors.
The remaining item in this study is to identify additional modes that
206
-------
c
-H
e
0)
4-1
m
05
0)
3
rH
o
u
c
-H
•H
M
Q
o
o
0
350
300
250
200
150
100
Truck No.
19
23
24
26
27
28
29
/
I
I
j_
20
40 60 80 100 120
Vehicle Weight/Engine Rated Power, kg/kw
140
160
FIGURE 46- 32 kph DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE AS A FUNCTION
OF WEIGHT/POWER RATIO FOR SEVEN NONTURBOCHARGED DIESEL TRUCKS
207
-------
•v, O
C
O
- &
CD
4-> II
to
A 0
• H
.-I 4-1
M
0) 0)
r-l S
U 0
^^
4-1
O1 X
C tr
•H -rH
•H ?
Q 4-1
CN
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
D
O
0
c>
(\
Truck No.
19
23
24
26
27
28
29
o
100
1
1
120 140 160 180 200 220
Engine Maximum Power @ Rated Speed, kw
240
FIGURE 47. 32 kph DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE AT CONSTANT WEIGHT/POWER
RATIO AS A FUNCTION OF ENGINE RATED POWER
208
-------
Pu
CM
I
w
PJ
<
u
(fl
PS
0) C
3 -H
fc E
-------
TABLE 106. COMPOSITE 13-MODE FUEL RATE USING
THREE SETS OF WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR 12
DIESEL TRUCKS
Composite 13-Mode Fuel Rate, g/min
Truck No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Turbocharged
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
FTP
Weighting
Factor
224
433
377
295
370
372
363
277
400
233
209
260
CAPE-21
Weighting
Factor
225
437
375
294
364
366
358
268
401
235
216
260
Optimized
Weighting
Factor
181
324
307
234
301
294
291
225
314
190
170
209
210
-------
o
•H
-P
(fl
PS
S-l
0)
o
ft
-P
DI
•H
01
-P
(0
4-1
Oi
c
0
u
C
-H
\
CP
•1)
•P
(0
0)
0)
iH
O
U
•H
M
Q
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
ISO
1-60
140
O
O
0
Truck No.
19
23
24
26
27
28
29
_L
_L
_L
150
J
200 250 300 350 400
Composite 13-Mode Fuel Rate Using CAPE-21 Weighting Factors g/min
FIGURE 49. 32 kph DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE AT CONSTANT WEIGHT/POWER
RATIO VERSUS COMPOSITE 13-MODE FUEL RATE USING CAPE-21 WEIGHTING FACTORS
211
-------
Truck No.
o
•H
4J
(-1
QJ
O
a
OJ
4-1
(fl
C
o
C
•H
E
\
Cn
01
4J
Cn
01
(H
O
u
C
•rH
•H
!H
Q
O 19
L\ 23
Ci 24
O 26
0 27
£) 28
|\ 29
280 r
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
.277
200
250
300
350
400
450
Composite 13-Mode Fuel Rate Using FTP Weighting
Factors, g/min
FIGURE 50. 32 kph DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE AT CONSTANT WEIGHT/POWER RATIO
VERSUS COMPOSITE 13-MODE FULL RATE USING FTP WEIGHTING FACTOR
212
-------
O
-H
-P
0)
3
O
0)
3
-p
c
-------
would increase the percent operating time (as defined by the average
CAPE-21 percent time matrix) represented in the diesel modal test. An
examination of Table 95 indicates several operating areas where the CAPE-21
trucks spent a proportionally large amount of time. It is immediately obvious
that 80 percent of rated speed line (75 to 85 percent speed interval) con-
tains a good deal of operating time. To suggest additional modes at this
speed, however, would not be in keeping with the guidelines that additional
modes add a minimun of cost, time and complexity. Since the areas of matrix
represented by the 13-mode test were somewhat arbitrarily chosen, the 80
percent speed areas could be covered by simply extending the 100 percent
rated speed mode representation to include the 80 percent speed cells. There
are 4 additional power modes at rated speed that would add significantly
to the percent time represented by the diesel modal test. These modes are
90, 60, 40, and 10 percent power, all at rated speed. In addition one mode
at idle speed and 15 percent power would seem to be needed.
The total area covered by the 13-mode test was shown previously to be
45.32 percent for the overall CAPE-21 study. This is 57.03 percent of the
total non-motoring time. The five new modes, plus the extension of the rated
power area, gives a new total operating time covered of 65.91 percent or 82.62
percent of the total nonmotoring time. The percent time represented by each
by each mode is shown in Table 107. Of course, more or less time could be
used for the total time represented, if the area of each of the modes were
changed. It is obvious, however, that the five new modes are in areas of
relatively high percent operating time.
To summarize this part of the project, it was found that there is no
direct relationship between the 13 composite BSFC (regardless of weighting
factors used) and vehicle fuel consumption (or fuel economy). Rather,
vehicle fuel consumption is a function of vehicle weight, engine power and
thermal efficiency (represented by composite BSFC). A relationship was
obtained between vehicle fuel rate on a 32 kph driving cycle developed from
CAPE-21 and the 13-mode composite BSFC using CAPE-21 derived weighting
factors with vehicle weight and engine power also included as variables.
However, this is an empirical relationship developed from only seven non-
turbocharged diesel engines. More data is needed before a satisfactorily
precise relationship can be developed. Finally, the study indicated that
for diesel engines now in use, proper engine to vehicle matching is more
important in obtaining the best available fuel economy than engine to engine
differences in BSFC.
214
-------
TABLE 107. PERCENT OF CAPE-21 TRUCK OPERATING TIME
REPRESENTED BY VARIOUS PERCENT ENGINE SPEED
AND PERCENT POWER MODES
Mode Speed Percent Power Percent Time*
I. Modes of the 13 Mode FTP
1,7,13 Idle 0 28.25
2 Intermediate 2 . 57
3 Intermediate 25 2.05
4 Intermediate 50 . 79
5 Intermediate 75 1. 60
6 Intermediate 100 . 42
8 Rated 100 1. 96
9 Rated 75 3.94
10 Rated 50 1. 97
11 Rated 25 3.09
12 Rated 2 .69
Total 13 Mode 45. 32
Total Nonmotoring 57. 03
II. Suggested Additional Mode
Idle 15 2.12
Rated 10 1.95
Rated 40 2. 98
Rated 60 3.02
Rated 90 4. 28
Total Additional Modes 14. 35
III. Additional Time from Increased Area of Rated Speed 6. 22
IV. Total Percent Time 65.91
V. Percent of Total Nonmotoring Time 82. 62
*From all CAPE-21 diesel trucks tested in Los Angeles and New York
215
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Emissions from Trucks Above
6000 Ib GVW Powered by Spark-Ignited Engines. " Final Report to the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Contract No. PH
86-67-72, March 1969.
2. Springer, K. J., Williams, G. L., Olsen, Robert W., and Mills, Ken-
neth D., "Emissions from Gasoline-Powered Trucks Above 10,000 Ib GVW
Using PHS Proportional Sampling Techniques." Paper 53C presented at
AIChE Symposium on Research and Development in Automotive Air Pollution
Control—61st Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, December 1-5, 1968.
3. Olsen, Robert W. and Springer, Karl J., "Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-
Duty Vehicles." Paper 690764 presented at SAE National Combined Fuels
and Lubricants and Transportation Meetings, Houston, November 4-7, 1969.
4. Tyree, Clifford D. and Springer, Karl J. , "Studies of Emissions from
Gasoline-Powered Vehicles Above 6000 Ib Gross Vehicle Weight-" Final
Report to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Con-
tract No. PH 86-67-72, July 1970.
5. Springer, Karl J. and Tyree, Clifford D., "Exhaust Emissions from
Gasoline-Powered Vehicles Above 6000 Ib Gross Vehicle Weight-" Final
Report to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. EHS
70-110, April 1972.
6. Springer, Karl J., "Baseline Characterization and Emissions Control
Technology Assessment of HD Gasoline Engines." Final Report to the
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. EHS 70-110, Novem-
ber 1972.
7. Ingalls, Melvin N. and Springer, Karl J., "In-Use Heavy-Duty Gasoline
Truck Emissions." Final Report Part I (Mass Emissions From Trucks
Operated Over a Road Course) to the Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. EHS 70-113, February 1973.
8. Storment, John O. and Springer, Karl J., "A Surveillance Study of
Smoke from Heavy-Duty Diesel-Powered Vehicles - Southwestern U.S.A."
Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
No. EHS 70-109, June 1973.
9. Ingalls, Melvin N., "Baseline Emissions on 6,000 to 14,000 Pounds
Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks-" Final Report to the Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-0467, June 1973.
10. Urban, Charles M., Springer, Karl J., and Montalvo, Daniel A., "Emis-
sions Control Technology Assessment of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Engines."
Final Report No. EPA-460/3-74-007 to the Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-03-0472, December 1973.
216
-------
11. Ingalls, Melvin N. and Springer, Karl J., "Mass Emissions From Diesel
Trucks Operated Over a Road Course." Final Report No. EPA-460/3-74-017
to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-2113,
August 1974.
12. Ingalls, M. N. and Springer, K. J., "Mass Emissions From Ten Pre-
Controlled Gasoline Trucks, and Comparisons Between Different Trucks
on a Road Course." Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. 68-03-0441, April 1975.
13. Urban, Charles M. and Springer, Karl J., "Study of Emissions From
Heavy-Duty Vehicles." Final Report No. EPA-460/3-76-012 to the En-
vironmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2147, May 1976.
14. Urban, Charles M. and Springer, Karl J., "13-Mode Diesel Emission
Test Results on 12 Trucks." Final Report to the Engine Manufacturers
Association under EMA Contract, February 20, 1976.
15. CRC APRAC Status Report, Coordinating Research Council, Inc., January
1976.
16. Ethyl Corporation, "Survey of Truck and Bus Operating Modes in Several
Cities." Final Report No. GR 63-24 to the U.S. Public Health Service
under Contract No. PH 86-62-12, June 1963.
17. Ravindran, Arunachalum, "A Computer Routine for Quadratic and Linear
Programming Problems." Communication of the Association of Computing
Machinery, Algorithm 431, Vol. 15, September 1972, pp. 818-820.
18. Daniel, Cuthbet and Wood, Fred S., Fitting Equations to Data, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, 1971, Chapter 8.
19. Ingalls, Melvin N. and Springer, Karl J., "In-Use Heavy-Duty Gasoline
Truck Emissions-" Final Report Part II (Surveillance Study of Control
Equipped Heavy-Duty Gasoline-Powered Vehicles), No. EPA-460/3-002-b,
to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. EHS 70-113,
June 1974.
20. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, "Historical Development of
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engine Dynamometer Emissions Test Cycle and Emis-
sions Standards1', undated.
21. Khuri, A. I., "A Constrained Least Squares Problem." Communications
in Statistics, pages 82 to 84, Volume B5, Number 1.
22. Siegelf Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., New York, 1956, pages 127-136.
23. France, Chester, "Engine Horsepower Modeling for Diesel Engines."
EPA Technical Support Report for Regulatory Action, No. HDV 76-03,
October 1976.
217
-------
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLES TESTED AND
LISTING OF SPECIAL COMPUTER PROGRAMS
-------
TABLE A-l. DESCRIPTION OF GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES TESTED
UNDER CONTRACT 68-03-2147
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
<*18
Desc. *
Year
Make
D2GAS
D2GAS
D2GAS
D2GAS
D2GAS
D2GAS
D2GAS
D2GAS
D3GAS
TTGAS
D3GAS
TTGAS
TTGAS
TTGAS
D3GAS
D3GAS
D2GAS
TTGAS
1970
1974
1973
1975
1965
1975
1974
1974
1973
1974
1974
1972
1974
1969
1974
1966
1975
1975
Dodge
Chevrolet
Ford
IHC
Chevrolet
Ford
IHC
Dodge
IHC
IHC
Chevrolet
Ford
CMC
Ford
CMC
Chevrolet
IHC
Ford Cal.
Engine
Dodge - 318
Chevrolet - 366
Ford 361
IHC 345
Chevrolet - 292
Ford - 391
IHC - 392
Dodge 361
IHC - 345
IHC - 478
Chevrolet - 366
Ford 477
CMC - 427
Ford 391
CMC 427
Chevrolet - 366
IHC 345
Ford 389
* Description Code:
D2GAS Single Unit, Two-Axle Gasoline Truck
D3GAS - Single Unit, Three-Axle Gasoline Truck
TTGAS Gasoline Truck Tractor (All Two-Axle) Used
with Single-Axle Trailer During Road Work
** Meets California Emission Requirements
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2. DESCRIPTION OF DIESEL TRUCKS
TESTED UNDER EPA CONTRACT 68-03-2147
No.
Description*
19
20**
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
D2DIE
TTDIE
TTDIE
TTDIE
TTDIE
TTDIE
TTDIE
TTDIE
TTDIE
D3DIE
D2DIE
D3DIE
Bus
Bus
Year
1972
1975
1973
1971
1972
1975
1975
1974
1972
1967
1975
1975
1972
1975
Make_ Engine
Ford Caterpillar 1150
Ford Cummins NTCC-350
IH Cummins NTC-290R
Mack Mack ENDT-675
IH Detroit Diesel 8V-71N
Ford Detroit Diesel 8V-71N
IH Cummins NTC-290R
Ford Detroit Diesel 6L-71N
IH Cummins V8-903
Dodge Cummins NH-220
IH Caterpillar 3208
IH Detroit Diesel 6V-53N
CMC Detroit Diesel 6V-71N
MCI Detroit Diesel 8V-71N
*Description Code:
D2DIE - Single Unit, Two-Axle Diesel Truck
D3DIE - Single Unit, Three-Axle Diesel Truck
TTDIE - Diesel Truck-Tractor (All but one were 3-Axle)
Used with Tandem-Axle Trailer During Road Work
Bus - Two-Axle Diesel Bus
**Meets California Emission Requirements
A-3
-------
TABLE A-3. DESCRIPTION OF CAPE-21 TRUCKS TESTED IN NEW YORK CITY
Truck
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
16
17
20
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
42
43
44
45
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
64
65
Fuel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Diesel
Model
Year
71
70
66
69
72
70
69
52
74
73
73
66
69
69
67
61
69
74
64
63
71
61
72
65
71
65
71
72
65
72
65
70
61
60
73
71
69
67
61
71
69
72
74
74
69
61
62
66
64
Body
Type
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
TT
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
TT
SU
SU
TT
SU
SU
SU
TT
SU
SU
SU
SU
TT
TT
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
TT
SU
TT
TT
SU
SU
TT
SU
SU
TT
TT
GVW
16660
17990
13000
18000
14000
50000
17990
19500
19700
17820
24000
10000
10000
58900
48860
11000
27000
58900
24500
50000
20500
41040
18500
39700
60000
11250
10000
58900
14000
25500
41970
16000
19500
29000
50500
44860
72760
58900
32000
68000
50000
Body
Mfgr.
IHC
IHC
Chev.
Dodge
IHC
Ford
Chev.
Mack
IHC
IHC
CMC
IHC
Ford
CMC
White
Mack
IHC
White
Brockway
CMC
Mack
IHC
IHC
CMC
IHC
Ford
Mack
CMC
Ford
D. Reo
Dodge
CMC
CMC
CMC
IHC
Mack
IHC
Engine
Mfgr.
IHC
IHC
Chev.
Dodge
IHC
Ford
Chev.
Mack
IHC
IHC
Chev.
IHC
Ford
Chev
D. Reo
Mack
Cummins
IHC
D. Reo
Cont.
Chev.
Mack
IHC
Cummins
IHC
Cummins
Cummins
Chev.
IHC
D.D.
Cummins
Ford
Mack
Cummins
Chev.
Ford
D. Reo
Dodge
Chev.
Cummins
Cummins
D.D.
D.D.
Cummins
IHC
Cummins
Mack
Cummins
IHC
Cummins
Engine
Size
391
304
292
318
304
477
350
510
304
345
379
345
361
400
540
464
477
292
572
351
540
345
464
304
743
504
351
478
671
855
300
540
292
361
400
318
305
672
855
568
318
855
478
855
540
672
743
A-4
-------
TABLE A-4. DESCRIPTION OF CAPE-21 TRUCKS TESTED IN LOS ANGELES
Truck
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
12
13
14
15
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
51
Fuel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Propane
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Diesel
Propane
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Model
Year
70
70
71
74
74
73
65
66
68
63
74
64
73
74
71
67
71
73
70
72
73
67
69
69
69
64
71
60
70
73
Body
Type
TT
TT
SU
SU
TT
SU
SU
TT
SU
SU
TT
SU
SU
TT
SU
TT
SU
SU
SU
SU
TT
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
TT
TT
SU
SU
SU
SU
TT
SU
TT
SU
TT
SU
TT
TT
SU
TT
TT
GVW
32000
16000
10000
10000
10000
32000
18200
20500
20200
23000
18060
24000
21000
22000
27500
22000
16000
24000
34000
23000
24000
35000
20500
23000
Body
Mfgr.
CMC
CMC
Chev.
CMC
Ford
Ford
Ford
IHC
IHC
Ford
Ford
IHC
Ford
CMC
IHC
Ford
CMC
Chev.
Ford
Ford
IHC
Chev.
IHC
IHC
Ford
Engine
Mfgr.
CMC
CMC
Chev.
CMC
D.D.
Ford
Ford
Ford
IHC
IHC
D.D.
Ford
Ford
Cummins
IHC
D.D.
D.D.
Ford
CMC
IHC
D.D.
Ford
D.D.
CMC
Cummins
Chev.
D.D.
Cummins
Ford
Dodge
Cummins
Cummins
Ford
IHC
D.D.
Chev.
IHC
Cummins
D.D.
Cummins
IHC
Ford
D.D.
Engine
Size
305
351
350
250
568
390
352
532
265
304
568
330
330
855
345
568
568
361
305
304
568
391
568
351
743
350
568
855
391
318
855
855
534
345
568
366
548
855
568
743
304
361
568
A-5
-------
TABLE
A- 5. DESCRIPTION OF SAN ANTONIO ROAD ROUTE TEST VEHICLES
TESTED AFTER JANUARY 1972
Truer
No.
1
2
>
4B
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Model
Year
1971
1970
1972
1970
1970
1972
1970
1972
1972
1972
1970
1972
1972
1972
1970
1970
1970
Make
IHC
Chev.
IHC
Ford
Chev.
Ford
CMC
Ford
Ford
Ford
Dodge
IHC
IHC
IHC
Ford
Ford
White
GVW Ibs
16,000
18,000
19,000
10,000
18,000
24,000
19,500
27,500
24,000
19,200
24,000
22,500
17,000
24,500
10,000
10,000
30,000
Engine
CID
345
350
304
300
350
330
351
391
330
361
318
345
304
345
300
300
400
Cyl.
V8
V8
V8
16
V8
V8
V6
V8
V8
V8
V8
V8
V8
V8
16
16
16
Body
Style
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
Stake
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
Tractor
Date
1/27/72
2/9/72
2/22/72
3/6/72
3/22/72
4/4/72
4/13/72
4/26/72
5/4/72
5/23/72
6/6/72
6/19/72
7/7/72
7/17/72
7/24/72
8/3/72
8/22/72
Mileage
9,849
7,155
474
19,556
16,573
10,032
31,563
40
8,847
6,180
41,882
7,376
20,417
2,067
26,651
26,428
38,326
Test Wt.
11,945
13,605
14,530
9,740
13,580
17,645
14,010
19,150
17,600
14,870
17,325
16,430
13,275
17,625
9,590
9,050
21,380
Trans-
mi Psion
4-Std
4-Std
5-Std
3-auto
4-Std
5-Std
4-Std
5-Std
5-Std
4-Std
4-Std
5-Std
4-Std
5-Std
3-auto
3-auto
5 Hi-Lo*
•Hi-Lo means two speed rear axle
-------
TABLE A-5 (cont'd).
DESCRIPTION OF SAN ANTONIO ROAD ROUTE TEST VEHICLES
TESTED AFTER JANUARY 1972
Truck
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Model
Year
1971
1971
1970
1970
1971
1969
1970
1970
Make
IHC
IHC
White
CMC
Chev.
Dodge
Chev.
Dodge
GVW Ibs
32,000
32,000
30,000
32,500
24,000
16,000
32,000
24,000
Engine
CID
478
478
400
427
350
318
366
318
Cyl.
V8
V8
16
V8
V8
V8
V8
V8
Body
Style
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Van
Stake
Van
Date
9/3/72
9/12/72
9/18/72
9/25/72
10/2/72
10/12/72
10/20/72
11/27/72
Mileage
37,043
56,956
38,496
71,977
30,690
46,235
5,207
37,000
Test Wt.
23,080
23,075
20,975
22,290
17,165
12,735
20,880
17,065
Trans <-
mission
5 Hi-Lo
5 Hi-Lo
5 Hi-Lo
5 Hi-Lo
4-Std
4-Std
5-Std
4-Std
-------
TABLE A-6. DESCRIPTION
TRUCKS TESTED ON
OF PRECONTROLLED GASOLINE POWERED
THE SAN ANTONIO ROAD ROUTE
Truck
No.
G-l
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
I «-'
G-8
G-9
G-10
Model
Year
1967
1968
1967
1969
1967
1968
1965
1965
1966
1969
Make
Ford
IHC
Ford
Chevy
Dodge
IHC
Chevy
CMC
Chevy
Ford
GVW Ibs
17,000
18,200
10,000
18,000
19,500
27,500
19,500
19,500
34,400**
43,500**
Weight-lbs
12,400
14,900
9,140
13,475
13,875
18,960
14,850
15,970
22,650
28,900
Empty
Wt.
7,800
11,600
8,280
8,950
8,250
10,420
10,200
12,440
11,300
14,300
Engine
CID
330
304
300
350
318
345
292
351
366
391
Cyl.
V8
V8
16
V8
V8
V8
16
V6
V8
V8
Body
Style
Van
Van
Van
Van
Stake
Dump
Van
Van
Tractor
Tractor
Trans-
mission
4-Std
4-Std
Auto
4-Std
5 Hi-Lo*
5 Hi-Lo*
4-Std
5 Hi-Lo*
4 Hi-Lo*
5 Hi-Lo*
Mileage
84,256
69,156
57,686
38,795
39,005
56,461
46,486
94,552
30,471
71,581
* Hi-Lo means two speed rear axle
**Gross Combined Weight
-------
TABLE A-7. DESCRIPTION OF DIESEL TRUCKS OPERATED OVER SAN ANTONIO ROAD ROUTE
Truck
No.
D-l
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
Model
Year
1972
1970
1971
1970
1973
1973
1973
1970
1973
1970
Chassis
Mfgr.
Ford
IH
IH
White
IH
Mack
Mack
Mack
Mack
Ford
Engine
Mfgr.
Caterpillar
Cummins
Det. Diesel
Cummins
Caterpillar
Mack
Det.- Diesel
Mack
Cummins
Det. Diesel
Engine
Model
1150
V903
6-71
NHC-250
1160
ENDT 676B
8V-71
ENDT 67 3B
NTC-290
4L-53
Engine
CID
573
903
426
855
636
672
568
. 672
855
212
Cyl.
V8
V8
16
16
V8
16
V8
16
16
14
Type
Aspiration
Natural
Natural
Normal
Natural
Natural
Turbocharged
Normal
Turbocharged
Turbocharged
Normal
Trans-
mission
5 spd
15 spd
10 spd
10 spd
5 spd
10 spd
10 spd
10 spd
10 spd
5 spd
Body
Style
Van
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Van
GW or
GCH
24,000
58,000
58,000
58,000
58,000
72,000
72,000
58,000
72,000
17,000
Test
Weight
18,820
42,800
41,500
39,490
37,610
49,460
50,580
41,090
50,980
14,430
Mileage
33,075
295,262
182,320
99,533
8,741
12,545
12,499
294,010
17,487
119,775
-------
TABLE A-8. FORTRAN LISTING OF PROGRAM TO CALCULATE
NEW MODAL WEIGHTING FACTORS
PROGRAM LInPRGC It- PUT, OUT PUT, TAPES = INPUT, TAPE b=OUTPUT)
C R E M A P r P
C SINCF THIS Pf-.OGRAh IS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS, IT CAN BE
C PUN AS n IS WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MODIFICATION OR
C iNSTf- U( Tinr.'. IN SUCH CASE FULLOW THE INPUT FORMAT AS GIVEN
C
C PROUPAM (-OR SOLVING LINEAR AND QUADRATIC PROGRAMMING
C PPObl tKS I'J THF- KOKh W=M*Z+Q, w.Z=0, IN AND Z NONNE.GATIVE
C tiY LFhKF/S ALGORITHM.
C
C MAIN PROGRAM whICH CALLS THE SIX SUBKOUT INES-MATR IX ,
C IM1 1A,NEM,A.S, SORT, PIVOT AND PPR1NT IN PRuPER ORDER.
C
Olv AM(bl.,bCI), U(50J, BCSO, SO) , A(50)
ON H(.MJ), Z(S(J), MbASIS(lllO) , XC5U,2CJ) , Y(50), XX(2U,20)
IN I EU£* DEbC ( ih )
C UF.SCC1P f H'fj DF PAKAnFTFRS IN COMMON
C AM A T-UJ PIMENSIUNAL ARRAY CONTAINING THE
C FLF-.MEN1S OF- MATRIX M.
C '-' r SINGLY hUrtSChlPTED ARRAY CONTAINING THE
C f LEMfchTS OF VECTOR U.
C Li AN INTEGER VARIABLE INDICATING THE NUMBER OF
C Mtk/iTli.rsS TAKEN FOK LACH PROBLEM.
C rt A IwO DII'FNSIONAL ARRAY COf^TAlNlNG THE
C fiLEhfMIS f-F THE INVLR5E OF THE CURRENT BASIS.
C f- « SINGLY SUBSCRIPTED AKRAY CONTAINING THE VALUES
C 'IF n v^hlAHLES IN EACn SOLUTION.
C L A blNULY SUriSCRlPTED ARRAY CONTAINING THE VALUES
C OF L V*Kl AoLtS IN EACH SOLUTION.
c I«LI ^N INTEGER VARIAHLE TAKING VALUE i OR s DEPEND-
C ING [iN MiEiHER VARIABLE w OR Z LEAVES THE BASIS
c ^E] SIMILAR T(. NLI WUT INDICATES VARIABLE ENTERING
c NL^> AN iimbtK VARIABLE INDICATING ^HAT COMPONENT
C ('F * OP L VARIABLE LEAVES THE BASIS.
C '*E? Sli-iJLAF' Tu NL2 OUT INDICATES VARIAHLt ENTERING
C « A Sli-bLY SUBSCRIPTED ARRAY CONTAINING THE
C ELFMf-NTS DF THt TRANSFORMED COLUMN THAT IS
C Fr.TE'-lNG THE BASIS.
C 1R Af» II-ThbF-R VARTAttLF lUuOTlNG THE PIVOT R0rt AT
C EACH iTtKAllON. ALSU USED TO INDICATE TERMINA-
C TIUN OF A i-KOHLEM BY Glv]Nb IT A VALUE OF 11100.
C Mhrt.^ls a MNuLY St'BSCRlPTFD ARR A Y- IND 1C ATOR FOR THE
c MASK VAU-BLES. TWU INDICATORS ARE USED FOR
C F.AlH o^SIC VAKlfibLE-ONt INDICATING WHETHER
C If IS A A OR Z AND ANOTHEh INDICATING WHAT
C CO'Pi'NfNl OF W OR Z.
C
A-10
-------
TABLE A- 8 (cont'd). FORTRAN LISTING OF PROGRAM TO CALCULATE
NEW MODAL WEIGHTING FACTORS
C HEAD IN THE VALUE OF VARIABLE IP INDICATING THE
C NUMBER OF PROBLEMS TO BE SULVtD.
READ(5,3) IP
C
C READ IN THE VALUES FOR K AND M
C
READ ( S , t [) ) K , h
til FORMAT «.I?,3X,Ii?)
C
C READ THE ELEMENTS OF THE X MATRIX CASE BY CASE
C
DO i?[j J = 1,K
?0 READ (5,30) CX(I, J),I=1,M)
30 FORMAT (ll(32X,Fb.n/)3EX,Fh.O>
C
C CALCULATE XIX MATRIX (KXK)
C
DO 1U I=1,K
DO 10 J=I,K
xxcif J)=n.u
DO 18 JJ=1,M
1H XX(IfJ)=XX(I,J)+X(JJ,IJ*Xl,JJ,J)
in YXC J, I)=xx(I, j)
C
C DERIVE AM MATRIX ( ( 2K + j? ) X ( ?K + 2 ) )
C
DO 13 1 = 1 , K
no i a j = i ,K
13 AM(I, J.)=d.O*XXtI, J)
K1=K+1
DO 15 1=1, K
DO 15, J = M^KE
AM(I, J)=D.O
15 AM (J, I) =0.0
DO It 1 = 1, K
I1=K+I
A M c : i , 1 1 ) = i . o
AM( II, !)=-!. 0
AH(K3, !)=-!. i)
AM(K5,I)=1.0
AM( I,K3)=1.0
It AM(I,K2)=-l.n
DU lb I=Kl,Kri!
00 lb J=K1,K*
lb AM(I,J)=0.0
C
C VARIABLE NO INDICATES THE CURRENT PROBLEM BEING SOLVED
TF (NU.GT.1P) GO TO 5
WRlTECb,?) NO
a FORMAT ClHl,loXr UHPRObLEM NO. ,12)
A-ll
-------
TABLE A-8 (cont'd). FORTRAN LISTING OF PROGRAM TO CALCULATE
NEW MODAL WEIGHTING FACTORS
C hfcaP IN THE Slit Of- THE MATRI* M
K E /• I.' (. 5 , 3 > N
1 F U * M A T ( T ? )
C PrtlJ(,k£M LAl.LlM. SEQUENCE
TALL KATKlx (N)
C t-'Af-AMKTfK is INDICATES THF PROdLEM SIZE
CALL ril I'l A (N)
C SlNCf- FIIK "NY PKUhLFM TERM 1 NA I ION CAN OCCUR IN INITIA,
C NE"hAb UK SfyKT S'inKmjTlNF, THE VALUE OF IK IS MATCHED WITH
C in 00 Tn Cnf.O wriFTn£K To CONTINUE '> GO TO NEXT PROBLEM.
\f ( iK.F.G. 1UUUJ bU fO 1
H CALL I^KDAS (K)
IF ( J.R.EW.1UOU) GU TO 1
CALL SORT IN)
If- ( iH.EU.lU(lG) GO TO 1
C A L I P I V 0 T ( N )
r- o TO "*
S STOP
FNP
siihi.nu T INE MATRIX CN)
C POKPOSt - TO INJ1IAI.I/F. AND RhAU IN THE VARIOUS INPUT DATA
C
i AM,U,L1,h,NL1 , NL2, A,rJF 1,NE5, IK , MB A 3 I S , h , Z , I ZR , M, X , Y , K , DESC
niMEr'SlON AM ^,11, Si,) > IHSO-I/ b ( S 0 r 5 0 ) > A ( 5 0 )
f) I ^E IMS I Or. W(bli), Z(Sn), MbAblSUOO)
nj MENSION x(c1n,^iij,r(su),xx(.En,c?u),xY(?u)
TNTEL.EK HESLf Ib) ,FhTilh)
C
C K SriOULP NOT HE LARG-tR THAN 213, AND Mf50. IFMTrl,E AND IDESC = 1»2
C
READ (5,bU) I P M f/1D E S C
SO FORMATCl2f^X,I?)
K DFbC = IDE3C*H
KEAu (S»le?) (I'ESC( I) - 1 = 1 fKuESC)
K^AU (5,1^) (FMI (. I), 1 = 1 ,KFMT)
WKIIE (b,511 iDESCf I) , I = 1,KDF.SC)
c,? hMK^ATC* *,*JrjPOf FORMAT = *»IRA1U/))
5J t-U^MAtf* * , (. H A J. (. / ) )
C
C PEAP THE ELEMENTS UF THE Y VECTOR CASE BY CASE
C
w t- « u» f 5 , f- M T ) (V(I),I=l,l?J
C
C CALCULATE X!Y MATKlv (KK1)
C
00 11 T = 1 ,r
> y t I j =().()
no 11 .I = I,M
j j v v (i j = x u n + v (. J) * x (j, i)
C
A-12
-------
TABLE A- 8 (cont'd). FORTRAN LISTING OF PROGRAM TO CALCULATE
NEW MODAL WEIGHTING FACTORS
C CALCULATE THE ELEMENTS OF THE Q VECTUR
C
DO 17 1=1, K
0(I)=-?.ii*XY(I)
J = I + K
M Q C J ) = 1 . G
GKK3)=1.U
0 C K 8 J = - - 9 q S 9 S 8
C IN ITERATION 1, BASIS INVERSE IS AN IDENTITY MATRIX.
DO 5 J = 1,N
DO t 1=1, N
IF CI.EO.J) GO TO 3
B(I, J)=(J.O
GO TO •*
3 b(I,J)=1.0
f CONTINUE
5 CONTINUE
RETURN
FNL)
SUBROUTINE INITIA (N)
C PURPOSE-TO FIND THE INITIAL ALMOST COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTION
C BY ADDING AN ARTIFICIAL VARIABLE ZO.
C
COMMON AM,Q,Ll,6,NLl,NLa,A,Nei,NE2,lR,M6ASIS,W,Z,IZR,M,X,Y,K,DESC
DIMENSION AM(5H,5U), '-) C 5 0 J , « ( 5 0 , 5 0 ) , A(5U)
DIMENSION W(t,nj, ZtSO), MBASI S ( 100 ) , X C 50 , 2fJ ) , Y ( 50) , XX ( 20 , 50 )
INTEGER DESC(lh)
C SET ZO EQUAL TO THE MOST NEGATIVE Q ( I )
1=1
J = E
1 IF (Q(I).LE.ti(J)) GO TO S
T=J
2 J=J+1
IF (J.LE.N) GO TU 1
C UPDATE w VECTOR
IR = I
T1=-QCIRJ
IF (Tl.LE.H.n) GO 10 q
DO 3 I=1»N
U(i)=Q(I)+Tl
3 CONTINUE
Q(IRJ=T1
C UPDATE BA.SIS INVERSE AND INDICATOR VECTOR
C OF BASIC VAPJABLFS.
DO t J = 1 , N
BCJflR) =-l.U
K(J)=Q(J)
Z ( J J = G . 0
MbASIS(JJ=J
MBASIS(L)=J
CONTINUE
A-13
-------
TABLE A-8 (cont'd). FORTRAN LISTING OF PROGRAM TO CALCULATE
NEW MODAL WEIGHTING FACTORS
T L \' - I h
I =H> I k
»• f* /•, s .' si i R) = n
" h A 5 1 S ( L ; = U
w( lwj=n.i:
ZU = G(UJ
I. J =1
c PRINT it-it INITIAL ALMOST COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTION
^ R i T h o, s)
q FORMAT C3(/).5X,2SHINITlAL ALMOST COMPLEMENTARY ,
1 HHSOLUTIUN)
no ? I=I/N
wK!TF(h,h) 1,^(1)
b FORMAT f lllX,eHW(., If ,SH) = ,F15.5)
? C 0 N T I M J K
wwlFL(b,P) ZU
fl FORMAT (J rj* , HHZO=,F15.&)
H INK ilk (b,Hi)
111 FUki-iAT ISX, 3HHPROBLEM HAS A TRIVIAL COMPLEMENT AH Y ,
J
P E 1 1 1 H N
END
SUhl-TiOTlNf NthhAS (NJ
C PUKPnSF - T0 FIND THE NEW HASiS COLUMN TO ENTER IN
C TtKhS uF TriE CUKWENl BASIS.
C
Ar,,t;,L IrBfNLJrNLPfA^ElfNES/lR/MBASISfW/Z/lZRfM/XfY^K
ON AM(5fj,SLl), 0(50), B(5U,50), A(50)
niMENSIC/M w{t.rj), ZC50), MBASlS(100),Xt50,2ll), Y(50),XXC20,eO)
INlEbEW UESC(lb)
C IF Ml IS NEITHER 1 NOK 2 THEN THE VARIABLE Zo LEAVES THE
C HA?TS INDICATING TERMINATION ^iTh A COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTION
IP (NL 1 . E.U. 1 J u (i Tu c*
it- ( N L ' . 1 1 j . a ) b (j r u b
!•• * j r t f b , J )
I FUHMAT (Sx , cfr'HCOHPLEMENTARY SOLUTION)
CALL t f'KIr, f ( N)
T K = 1 1 M 1 1 i
PE
C UPOATr. -Jf w hA;,lC COLUMN bV MULTIPLYING BY BASIS INVERSE.
P U f T = J , u
1 1=11. lr
I.'U 3 j£J f N
H I l = Ti-i- ( i , J)*AM(J
fl I 1 ) = T J
•+ CfiuTlNUr
t f T L1 x i" .
A-14
-------
TABLE A-8 (confd). FORTRAN LISTING OF PROGRAM TO CALCULATE
NEW MODAL WEIGHTING FACTORS
5 NEl=l
NEE'rNLc"'
00 b I = 1,N
A(I)=B(IfNE2)
b CONTINUE
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE .-SORT (N)
PURPOSE - TO FIND THE PIVOT ROW
USE OF (SIMPLEX-TYPE)
FOR NEXT ITERATION BY
MINIMUM RATIO RULE.
THE
IN ANY ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION N8 SHOULD BE RE-
PLACFD d> B-ll VvhERE H IS I HE NUMBER OF BITS IN
THE FLOATING POINT MANTISSA AS CLASEN SUGGESTS IN
COMM. ACM^/OL-^ (l^bb),80?-3.
COMMUN AM,U,Ll,B,NLl,NL.?,A,NEl,Ne2,IR,MBASJS,W,Z,lZR,M,X,Y,K,uESC
DIMENSION AM(5U,50)» 0(50), B(5t),50), A(bH)
DIMENSION' Kbfl), Z(5U), MBASIS(l()0),X(5l),20), Y(5U),XX(20,2n)
INTEGER DESCdb)
A M A X = A ft S ( A ( 1) )
DO 10 1=5,N
IF(AMAX.GE.ABS(A(1)))GO TO in
AMAX=ABS(A(I))
10 CONTINUE
TOL=AMAX*2.0**(-37)
1 = 1
1 IF (A(I).GT.U.Cl) GO TO 2
1 = 1+1
IF(I.GT.N)GO TU R
GO TO 1
IR=I
3 1=1+1
IF (I.l.T.N) l-U TO 5
IF (A(I).GT.I).f)) GO TO t
GO TU 1
IF (T2.GF.-T1) GO TO 3
IR=1
GO TO 3
5 PETUKN
C FAILURE OF THE RATIO RULE INDICATES TERMINATION WITH
C NO COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTION.
7 FORMAT ISX,37HPROBLEM HAS NO COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTION)
WRITc(b,8) Li
... 8._F_U_RMAT CiOX,13HITERATION NO.,H)
IRslUOO
RETURN
4 IF(uUZR).GT.TOL)GU TO b
WR1Th(b,11)
11 FORMATC5X,22HCUMPLEMENTARY SOLUTION)
CALL PPKINT(N)
IK = 1 u IIP
R t T U K N
END
A-15
-------
TABLE A- 8 (cont'd). FORTRAN LISTING OF PROGRAM TO CALCULATE
NEW MODAL WEIGHTING FACTORS
Ir.K HjvUT C H )
C HjrfH(i:rt - TU ^tKM >h THE KiVOl OPERATION bY UPDATING THE
C ZNvERsh LF THE BASIS AND Gl VECTOR.
C
rifEr'MUf A -i(bl:,5Li) , i.vCSLU, bCUUBll), A(5U)
ni'.M'SIl'K *(b(U, /.(50), MBASISCllltn ,X(5UrPH) , Y(50) ,XX(20,20)
T.'J 1 1 i'f l< DESCf J tO
fui 1 J = 1,N
1 K( IK, I j=h(. IK, I .I/A (IP)
fH 3 RJ=0 (!»)/&( JR)
DO 3 I=1,N
IK fl.hu. IK) GO TO 3
U(n=w(l;-i-(IfO*A(I)
Of) P. J = 1,N
HCI, J)=b(I, J)-B(IP, J)*AU)
? Llif 'TlNl.it
3 i:Oi'iTIMjF
c uprATh THF. i^ojcATdK VECTUK OF BASIC VARIABLES
f-j L J = * M A S 1 S I I K )
L = f'tl^
Sl L)
)=Nt 1
^ K A S I ,S f L ) = TJ E £
I i=l 1 + 1
P t" T U I' N
f- NU
suBkuuTiht PPkirjl IN)
C KlhHPbF. - TC PhjNT THE CUKRENl SOLUTION TO COMPLEMENTARY
c ^' HI im.tr-' *r-ij THE ITERATION NOMBEK.
c
01 HENS TON AM(Mi,5U),lj(bli),B(50,5U),A(blJ),X(50,2rj),Y(50)
niMF.NJilON 'VCbtO/Z(5U)
TNTEUEK Ph^C( J h)
HR1TKO,1) LI
J FORMAT C U'x, 13HITERATION
J J =n .
p K | r^hi.'.ISl I )
K?=.r,r>AMS(j)
IF ( Mf J ) . i'f . (. . i' .) Uu in 3
f.i. J ) =n . n
"' H t f ^. (. u. 1 J i'" 10 r>
t-Kj It ( K , 4 1 K ) , t ( J )
M H 1 1- :••/•. I (IIX,rh/(fll
-------
TABLE A-8 (conf d). FORTRAN LISTING OF PROGRAM TO
NEW MODAL WEIGHTING FACTORS
GO TO 7
$ *'RITE(b,h) Kl,QfJ)
b FORNM (.lilX
7 1=1 tJ
IF (J.LF..N) C,0 TO
PHI NT Si1
5(1 FUR NAT I * 1 * )
WRIIL |.b,F>l) iLfcSt ( 1) , i =1, H)
SI FOR>rtT f * *, (F-A J ll/ ) )
W K J I t I. b , h 0 )
h(> FORMAT (.////, mix, *REGRI-SSlniM CoEF 'F 1C T EhT S* )
WR I I t: O, bi j
bJ FUMMAT ( 1 7X , * IULb*, J 1 X , *MU|.)t c5 * , M X , * MUL'h 3 * , M X , *MOL)F. t*,HX,*MUDE S
1*, HX,*I"'UI>E b*J
VsKlTt ( b » ta cJ ) ( H 6 ( J ) , J = 1 , b J
b? FORMAT ( SX,bFlB.b)
WRITE (bfblj)
WRITE Cb»b?)
b? FORMAT (jL?x,*MGDE B*, qx, *f"ouE S*,SX,*MUDE io*,8Xf*MoDE II*,SX,*MDU
IE ) 2 * .1
WHITE (b/bej (bB(J), J=7, J i)
WRITtf b,bH)
bS FORMATf////)
W R 1 T t ( h / 1 2 )
I? FORM**! C/f2X,*CAiJH Mi.*,3X,*PhEDICTED Y* , 5 X , *OPSER VED Y* , 7 X , *RtS I D
JUAL*.7^»* IDLE *,SX,*K'DE ?*,MX,*MODE 3*,HXr*MOI)E H*,9X,*,^OnE S*)
nu ji .IJ-I/M
Y Y = y > * v ( J J J * Y ( J J )
REM Jo) = Y( JJ)-SUMf JJ)
WRITE 'h, 13) JJ,bLiM(jJ),YtJjJ»Rbt>(JJ)'X(JJf].>»XCJJf2}'X(JJrd),
1X(JJ'H),X(JJ,B)
1J PSEpS + t-E.TUJj^KESljJ)
WRITE f h , I 7 )
17 FORMAT f /t?.X,+l ASE NO.*, 3bX, *MCiDE b*,HX,*MOOE H*,q>,*MUDE q*rqX
JOE Id*, fa<, *Ml'DE 11*,HX,*MOOE lr>*)
D U c 1 1 J J = 1 / M
20 WKlft (b,18j JJ, X (JJ, h), X IJJ, 7), x ( JJ,8) ,X( JJ, R),X( JJ, 10), X( JJ, 11)
16 FORMAT I'M, IS, 33X, 7F15. 5)
WRITE l b , i 4- ) R S
J4 FORMAT (. / , .1 0 X , * K E S J D U A L. S li M U F S U U A R E i> =*,FJS.fa)
S 1 C, M A = P, w H T t R S )
WRITECb, ^ 1 JSIfehA
?1 FORMAT (2bx/*&IG MA = * , F I ? . b )
CHV )
WRITE Cb,l^) R
JS FORMAT (liiX , ?f,hCORRELA i ION COEFFICIENT = , F 1 'i . b )
*"RITE fb,lb) H2
]h FORMAT ( IUX, 30HCUEFFIC IENI OF UL 'I ERM I N A T I ON =,Fl0.b)
RE ri.lKN
F ND
A-17
-------
TABLE A-9. DESCRIPTION OF STEADY STATE AND SINUSOIDAL
TEST CYCLES FOR ALL TRUCKS TESTED UNDER CONTRACT 68-03-2147
Cycle
Designation
OOSS 0
05SS 8
10SS 16
15SS 24
20SS 32
30SS 48
40SS 64
55SS 89
Steady State Cycles
Description
operation at idle
operation at constant 8 kph
operation at constant 16 kph
operation at constant 24 kph
operation at constant 32 kph
operation at constant 48 kph
operation at constant 64 kph
operation at constant 89 kph*
Cycle length
seconds
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Cycle
Designation
Avg Speed
kph
Sinusoidal Cycles
Speed Variation
kph (AV)
Description
20 +_ 5
30 + 5
40 + 2
32
48
64
+ 8.0
+ 8.0
+ 3.2
sinusoidal speed time
relationship, +_ 8.0
or (3.2) kph about average
speed with frequency de-
termined by time for WOT
accel from -Av to + Av
for each truck
* or max speed if vehicle could not reach 89 kph
A-18
-------
TABLE A-10. DESCRIPTION OF CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER TRANSIENT DRIVING CYCLES
Vehicle
No. Desc.
1-8 , 17 D2GAS
17 Alt. D2GAS
Alternate
09, 11, D3GAS
15, 16
10, 12 TTGAS
13, 14
18
18 TTGAS
Alt. Alternate
19, 29 D2DIE
28, 30 D3DIE
20-27 TTDIE
24 Alt. TTDIE
Alternate'
# 1
25 TTDTE
Alt. Alternate
# 2
Cycle
Desc.
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
20
05
10
15
2d
0'.
10
ir,
20
EPA Cycle
Number
180622075
925077131
1874219417
1638B63867
1162034257
334486913
2012212305
1674619155
1245377313
532860011
1566793097
400624235
1031942939
2058474153
2109872435
380668241
310823643
1718373307
1204338883
1188064411
390741665
1527266763
113778723
555005187
882238513
202042971
743630625
1200794289
767793819
802433547
605752003
462050771
1624531969
2112632739
201419497
999014859
1640346049
3143551683
1790747657
51384161
Duration,
seconds
576
580
603
637
651
500
611
601
714
623
644
736
777
656
727
753
699
676
786
745
652
675
779
772
791
761
641
734
827
776
697
669
824
782
749
66 8
829
775
708
749
Avg . Speed ,
km/hr
8.50
16.53
24.67
33.63
7.65
15.86
24.23
33.30
8.24
16.11
24.01
31.78
8.23
16.79
24.01
32.78
7.85
16.65
23.67
31.39
8.91
15.56
23.51
33.17
8.04
15.65
24.09
31.82
8.22
16.50
24.00
31.32
7.63
16.49
24.75
31.34
8.62
15.83
24.33
31.52
A-19
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA IN SUPPORT OF GASOLINE TRUCK DATA ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE B-l. COMPARISON OF CYCLE-TO-CYCLE AND TEST-TO-TEST
VARIABILITY FOR HC FROM GASOLINE TRUCK TESTS
Empty Load
Half Load
Full Load
Average Speed
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
all steady state
all sinusoidal
.all driving
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
all steady state
all sinusoidal
all driving
Var. la'
0.65
3.12
3.53
2.92
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
2.71
0.60
0
<0.01
<0.01
0
0
0
0
0
<0.01
Sig. (b) Var. Sig.
Cycle- to-Cycle
* 0.69 *
*** 3.32 **
*** 4.02 **
*** 6.33 ***
n.s. 1.62 **
n.s. 0.03 u.s.
n.s. 0.10 ***
n.s. 6.59 n.s.
n.s. 0.67 ***
Test-to-Test
n.s . 0 n.s .
n.s. 0 n.s .
n.s. <0.01 n.a.
n.s. 0.08 u.s.
n.s. 0 u.s.
n.s. 0 n.s.
n.s. 0 n.s .
ii.s . 0 n.s .
u.s. 0.25 *
Var. Sig.
1.02 **
4.52 **
4.77 **
12.28 ***
12.08 **
<0.01 u.s.
0.23 ***
15.05 ***
0.73 ***
0 u.s .
0 n.s.
0 n.s.
0.01 U.S.
0 n.s.
0 n.s.
<0.01 n.s.
0 n.s.
0.05 n.s.
N
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
aVariability: cycle-to-cycle = (MSC-MSE)/N
test-to-test = (MSR(T)-MSE)/2
(b>Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
n.a. = not significant
Note 1: Where possible, as determined by significance of F ratio
from truck by cycle interaction, the pooled MSE was used
in the calculations.
2: Values of "0" reflect negative estimates.
3: MSC - mean square cycle value
MSE - mean square error
MSR(T) - mean square repeat value within each truck
N sample size
8-2
-------
TABLE B-2. COMPARISON OF CYCLE-TO-CYCLE AND TEST-TO-TEST
VARIABILITY FOR CO FROM GASOLINE TRUCK TESTS
Empty Load
Half Load
Full Load
Average Speed
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
all steady state
all sinusoidal
all driving
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
all steady state
all sinusoidal
all driving
Var. U)
33.29
317.87
516.75
639.12
11.69
1.30
40.58
0.02
284.63
0
0
0
0
0.39
0.20
0
0.40
0
Sig. (b) Var . Sig.
Cycle- to-Cycle
** 36.41 **
*** 486.44 **
* 835.10 ***
*** 817.63 **
** 33.39 *
* 0.98 ii. a.
11.3. 939.67 ***
n.s . 0 ii.s.
*** 447.05 ***
Test-to-Test
n.s. 0.13 n.o.
n.s . 2. 33 n.s.
n.s. 0.27 n.s.
n.s. 0 n.o.
n.s . 0 .14 11. s .
n.s. 0 n.s.
n.s. 0 n.s.
n.s. 0 n.s.
11.3. 5.31 n.s.
Var. Sig.
140.84 **
1080.77 ***
1707.08 ***
1462.50 ***
1201.10 ***
19.04 **
3238.76 ***
575.16 **
625.56 ***
0 ii . a .
0 11.3.
0 n.s.
19.10 n.s.
0 11. s.
1.42 n.s.
0 n.s.
17.07 n.s.
6.72 n.s.
N
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
(a)Variability: cycle-to-cycle = (MSC-MSE1/N
test-to-test (MSR(T)-MSE)/2
"•"'significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
n.s. = not significant
Note 1: Where possible, as determined by significance of F ratio
from truck by cycle interaction, the pooled MSB was used
in the calculations.
2: Values of "0" reflect negative estimates.
3: MSC mean square cycle value
MSE mean square error
MSR(T) mean square repeat value within each truck
N - sample size
B-3
-------
TABLE B-3. COMPARISON OF CYCLE-TO-CYCLE AND TEST-TO-TEST
Average Speed
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
all steady state
all sinusoidal
all driving
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
all steady state
all sinusoidal
all driving.
(a)varia
Empty
Var.la'
<0.01
0.19
0.58
0.67
0.57
0
8.89
2.60
0.75
0
0
0.02
0.01
0
0
0
0.12
0.02
±>ilitv: cvc
Load Half Load
Sig.lD) Var. Sig.
Cycle-to-Cycle
n.s. 0 n.s.
* 0 . 18 *
*** 0.50 *
*** 0.97 ***
* 2.19 **
n.s. <0.01 u.3.
*** 11.31 ***
*** 4.55 ***
*** 0.87 ***
Test-to-Test
n.s. 0 n.s.
n.s. 0 n.s.
** 0 n.s.
n.s. 0.03 n.s.
ii . 5 . 0 n.s .
U.S. 0 U.S.
n.s. 0.05 n.s.
* 0.08 n.s.
* 0.02 n.s.
=le-to-cvcle = (MSC-MSE1/N
Full Load
Var. Sig.
0.02 *
0.38 *
0.91 **
0.97 ***
0.50 *
0 n.S.
6.18 ***
12.05 ***
0.86 ***
0 n.s.
0 n.s.
<0.01 n.s.
0 n.s .
0 n.s.
0 n.s.
0 U.S.
0 n.s.
0.01 n.s.
N
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
test-to-test = {MSR(T)-MSE)/2
'k)Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
n.s. = not significant
Note 1: Where possible, as determined by significance of F ratio
from truck by cycle interaction, the pooled MSE was used
in the calculations.
2: Values of "0" reflect negative estimates.
3: MSC mean square cycle value
MSE - mean square error
MSR(T) mean square repeat value within each truck
N - sample size
B-4
-------
TABLE B-4. COMPARISON OF CYCLE-TO-CYCLE AND TEST-TO-TEST
VARIABILITY FOR FUEL RATE FROM GASOLINE TRUCK TESTS
Load
Half Load
Full Load
Average Speed
Var. (aj
Sig.tb' Var
Cycle- to-Cycle
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
all steady state
all sinusoidal
all driving
1672.09
558.39
0
297.71
0
2.93
5805.38
3620.34
2402.26
* 1426
** 271
n.s. 0
** 423
n.s. 1
U.S. 6
*** 9003
*** 3731
*** 3168
.91
.23
.82
.65
.23
.37
.88
.29
Sig. Var
** 941
* 25
n.s. 256
** 372
n.s. 262
u.s. 13
*** 11871
*** 2824
*** 3484
Sig.
.98 ***
.00 n.s.
.85 *
.83 **
.93 **
.90 n.s.
.92 ***
.97 ***
.37 ***
N
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
a
Test-to-Test
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
all steady state
all sinusoidal
all driving
0
10.69
0
5.12
0
0
164.89
79.33
0
n.s. 8
u.s. 50
n.s. 0
n.s. 0
n.s. 10
n.s. 0
* 28
* 0
u.s. 9
.12
.42
.63
.38
.09
u.s. 17
n.s. 17
n.s. 1
U.S. 0
n.s. 6
n.s. 0
ii. H. 74
n.s. 17
n.s. 0
.42 *
.18 n.s.
.19 u.s.
n.s .
.54 n.s.
n.s .
.15 U.S.
.40 n.s.
n.s.
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
(a)Variability: cycle-to-cycle (MSC-MSEJ/N
test-to-test = (MSR(T)-MSE)/2
-------
TABLE B-5. COEFFICIENTS FOR STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
TEST CYCLE HC EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION OF MODAL HC EMISSIONS FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16"
Idle
10"
19"
3"
CT
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff.
Entered
Empty Load
Driving
5
10
15
20
1.0954
1.0169
0.8144
0.8394
0.1093
0.0824
0.1118
0.994
0.989
0.982
0.978
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.6486
0.4654
0.3922
0.3253
0.968
0.974
Half Load
to
I
Drivi ng
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
1.0145
0.9797
0.8189
0.8288
0.6694
0.1325
0.0971
0.1535
0.5537
0.2595
2
2
2
1
1
0.978
0.970
0.980
0.966
0.944
0.975
Pull Load
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
1.0906
1.3113
0.9705
1.0650
0.9758
0.7160
0.1538
0.1165
0.1868
0.4635
0.3457
0.986
0.980
0.989
0.980
0.956
0.977
Note: Variables entered to 0.05 significance level
-------
TABLE B-6. COEFFICIENTS FOR STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
TEST CYCLE CO EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION OF MORAL CO EMISSIONS FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
Chassis
Cycle
Driving
5 .
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
16" Idle 10" 19" 3" CT
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
Empty Load
0.6226 1 0.4556 2 0
1.5758 1 0
0-9694 1 0.0761 2 0
0.8404 2 0.1804 1 0
0.7133 1 0.6293 2 0
1.2216 1 0
Half Load
0.4287 2 0.9192 1 0
0.4504 1 0.6309 3 0.1380 2 0
1.5982 1 0
0.2857 1 1.2517 2 0
0.7872 2 1.1840 1 0.0666 3 0
1.7221 1 0
Full Load
0.8640 1 0.3091 2 0
1.6439 1 0.1176 2 0
1.1616 1 0.1574 2 0
1.9135 2 0.2906 1 0
1.5717 1 0.1930 2 0
1.2231 2 0.2406 1 0
r2
.978
.888
.941
.935
.964
.950
.983
.972
.895
.938
.993
.855
.973
.969
.979
.972
.972
.954
Note: Variables entered to 0.05 significance level
-------
Chassis
TABLE B-7. COEFFICIENTS FOR STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
TEST CYCLE NOX EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION OF MODAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16"
Idle
10"
19"
3"
Empty Load
CT
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff.
Entered
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.0647
0.0508
0.1663
0.2291
0.2848
0.2874
0.3164
1
1
Half Load
0.0755
0.0850
0.1468
0.1076
0.1421
0.807
0.994
0.986
0.964
0.974
0.955
Dri vi ng
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.1443
0.2017
0.7461
0.8886
1
2
2
2
0.1873
0.2112
Full Load
0.0309
0.1051
0.0725
0.1542
0.2369
0.2290
0.960
0.988
0.981
0.981
0.957
0.960
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.6496
0.8185
12.4960
12.8974
19.4349
0.0345
0.0772
0.2005
0.1893
0.0416
0.0701
0.0540
0.1177
0.2718
0.2197
0.952
0.992
0.993
0.993
0.962
0.988
Note: Variables entered to 0.05 significance level
-------
TABLE B-8. COEFFICIENTS FOR STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
TEST CYCLE FUEL RATE AS A FUNCTION OF MODAL FUEL RATE FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
Chassis
Cycle
16"
Idle
10"
19"
3"
CT
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff.
Entered
Driving
5
10
15
20
Empty Load
0.4762
0.7319
1.4125
1.8532
-0.6638
-0.8175
0.990
0.994
0.996
0.997
Sinusoidal
20
30
1.4936
1.5420
0.986
0.983
Half Load
Driving
5 0.4875
10 0.7889
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
1
1
1.1945
2.1258
1.6425
1.6810
-1.0751
0.990
0.995
0.994
0.996
0.993
0.991
Full Load
Driving
5
10
15
20
0.5247
0.8794
0.3872
0.5414
0.992
0.993
0.987
0.988
Sinusoidal
20
30
-1.4437
-2.0160
2.4097
2.6468
0.996
0.994
Note: Variables entered to 0.05 significance level
-------
M
I
H
O
TABLE B-9. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST CYCLE HC EMISSIONS
AS A FUNCTION OF 9 MODE HC EMISSIONS
FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16 in.
Idle
10 in.
19 in.
3 in.
CT
Full Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Half Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Empty Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1462
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0015
0.1813
0.7464
0.8357
0.7591
0.4423
0.6410
0.8435
0.7296
0.6443
0.3776
0.5439
0.8636
0.7104
0.7129
0.5002
0.3965
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0095
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1940
0.0000
0.0000
0.1371
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0879
0.0000
0.0231
0.0000
0.0162
0.1108
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0331
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0218
0.1190
0.2083
0.2107
0.0000
0.0062
0.0658
0.2029
0.2664
0.2536
0.1312
0.2409
0.5577
0.3590
0.1565
0.0929
0.1489
0.4140
0.2224
0.1364
0.0732
0.1104
0.2954
0.0187
-------
TABLE B-10. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST CYCLE CO EMISSIONS
AS A FUNCTION OF 9 MODE CO EMISSIONS
FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16 in.
Idle
10 in.
19 in.
3 in.
CT
Full Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Half Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Empty Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.1570
0.6791
0.2014
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0955
0.0000
0.0297
0.0000
0.0159
0.3142
0.0000
0.0232
0.4052
0.3082
0.0261
0.0000
0.0000
0.0865
0.6180
0.5993
0.4045
0.2184
0.3792
0.5501
0.3982
0.3684
0.3251
0.2928
0.3326
0.1022
0.3750
0.7311
0.6278
0.2195
0.2015
0.2984
0.5934
0.4867
0.3272
0.2057
0.4528
0.6054
0.2577
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.2022
0.1927
0.4236
0.2689
0.2857
0.1625
0.1038
0.2971
0.1585
0.1341
0.1068
0.0820
0.1787
0.0463
0.0444
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-------
TABLE B-ll.
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST CYCLE NOX EMISSIONS
AS A FUNCTION OF 9 MODE NOX EMISSIONS
FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16 in.
Idle
10 in.
19 in.
3 in.
CT
W
H
ro
Full Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Half Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Empty Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3777
0.7740
0.0554
0.0000
0.0000
0.4157
0.4738
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1043
0.6697
0.5591
0.2968
0.0000
0.0000
0.6065
0.3146
0.1631
0.0000
0.0000
0.5670
0.4197
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0864
0.2102
0.2015
0.0902
0.0000
0.0386
0.1756
0.1983
0.0959
0.1151
0.0504
0.1570
0.2117
0.2684
0.2460
0.1658
0.1682
0.3732
0.0000
0.0000
0.2049
0.4465
0.4943
0.2718
0.1997
0.3074
0.3456
0.6546
0.6366
0.5167
0.0781
0.0624
0.1286
0.2555
0.2260
0.0947
0.0633
0.1442
0.2167
0.2115
0.0752
0.0778
0.1337
0.0949
0.1330
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.2766
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-------
TABLE B-12.
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST CYCLE FUEL RATE
AS A FUNCTION OF 9 MODE FUEL RATE
FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16 in.
Idle
10 in.
19 in.
3 in.
CT
Dd
Full Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Half Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Empty Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.8298
0.0000
0.4706
0.0000
0.0000
0.3436
0.5182
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0371
0.1777
0.5677
0.0000
0.0000
0.1698
0.1780
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0749
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0165
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.6356
0.5634
0.0000
0.0000
0.1031
0.5866
0.6228
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4500
0.4956
0.0000
0.6375
0.2421
0.3076
0.3423
0.5816
0.4811
0.6702
0.4134
0.3772
0.9464
0.7964
0.3121
0.5500
0.5044
0.0004
0.1845
0.2873
0.0568
0.0943
0.0000
0.0007
0.2267
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0262
0.1202
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-------
TABLE B-13. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FROM NON-LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS,
TEST CYCLE COMBINED EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE AS A FUNCTION OF 9-MODE
COMBINED EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE, FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
Cycle
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
16'
Idle
10"
19"
3"
CT
Full Load
Half Load
Empty Load
0.0710
0.3210
0.4854
0.1469
0.0000
0.3293
0.3162
0.6258
0.6093
0.3165
0.3954
0.1623
0.1118
0.0546
0.0000
0.0000
0.0203
0.2616
0.3045
0.1961
0.5882
0.2708
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0,6762
0.5905
0.0000
0.0119
0.0912
0.0871
0.1755
0.0081
0.0142
0.0664
0.0000
0.0288
0.0000
0.0000
0.2222
0.0000
0.0000
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
0.2728
0.2512
0.3951
0.2546
0.0000
0.3344
0.0000
0.5884
0.8535
0.3172
0.7200
0.0000
0.2344
0.2059
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1409
0.0788
0.7675
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.6236
0.2857
0.0000
0.0339
0.1545
0.1980
0.3660
0.2214
0.2438
0.1616.
0.0000
0.0065
0.0000
, 0.0000
0.4109
0.0450
0.0000
0.987
0.978
0.982
0.976
0.973
0.974
0.986
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
0.0000
0.2014
0.4574
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0642
0.6068
0.7154
0.5404
0.5841
0.1229
0.2505
0.1535
0.0000
0.0124
0.0000
0.2251
0.0520
0.2913
0.7678
0.3562
0.0000
0.0785
0.0000
1.0069
0.5793
0.0000
0.0224
0.1447
0.0809
0.2820
0.0946
0.0887
0.0922
0.0000
0.0016
0.0000
0.0000
0.3820
0.2203
0.0000
0.983
0.987
0.986
0.985
0.985
0.985
0.992
0.984
0.984
0.986
0.989
0.981
0.980
0.993
Note: Coefficients constrained to be positive
B-14
-------
TABLE B-14. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR COMBINED EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
FOR TEST CYCLES AS A FUNCTION OF 9-MODE COMBINED EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
COEFFICIENTS NORMALIZED TO SUM TO 1.0
Cycle
16'
Idle
10"
19"
3"
Full Load
Half Load
Empty Load
CT
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
0.3048
0.1985
0.4341
0.1899
0.0000
0.2736
0.0000
0.6573
0.6743
0.3485
0.5371
0.0000
0.1918
0.1814
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1009
0.0645
0.6762
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4464
0.2338
0.0000
0.0379
0.1221
0.2175
0.2731
0.1585.
0.1995
0.1424
0.0000
0.0051
0.0000
0.0000
0.2942
0.0368
0.0000
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
0.0000
0.1872
0.3953
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0596
0.6158
0.6652
0.4670
0.5353
0.0741
0.1752
0.1424
0.0000
0.0115
0.0000
0.2063
0.0314
0.2037
0.7125
0.3615
0.0000
0.0678
0.0000
0.6072
0.4050
0.0000
0.0227
0.1346
0.0699
0.2584
0.0570
0.0620
0.0855
0.0000
0.0015
0.0000
0.0000
0.2303
0.1541
0.0000
Driving
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
40
0.0724
0.3056
0.5339
0.1500
0.0000
0.2652
0.3084
0.6389
0.5801
0.3481
0.4038
0.1182
0.0900
0.0532
0.0000
0.0000
0.0223
0.2671
0.2217
0.1579
0.5736
0.2765
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4924
0.4754
0.0000
0.0121
0.0868
0.0957
0.1792
0.0059
0.0114
0.0647
0.0000
0.0274
0.0000
0.0000
0.1618
0.0000
0.0000
B-15
-------
TABLE B-15, REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST CYCLE HC EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION
OF 9-MODE HC EMISSIONS WITH WOT REPLACING 3" MODE FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16 in.
Idle
10 in. 19 in.
WOT
CT
B)
I
Full Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Half Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Empty Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0355
0.0000
0.0000
0.0245
0.0000
01649
0.0000
0.0504
0.3391
0.7464
0.8083
0.6948
0.4423
0.6389
0.8386
0.7278
0.6255
0.4501
0.5873
0.8636
0.6888
0.6854
0.5076
0.4187
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0035
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0921
0.1170
0.0000
0.0682
0.0000
0.0000
0.1243
0.0000
0.0323
0.0000
0.0736
0.0838
0.0000
0.0028
0.0063
0.0620
0.1170
0.1442
0.0816
0.0000
0.0839
0.0910
0.1521
0.1887
0.2536
0.1181
0.2214
0.5577
0.3583
0.1550
0.0827
0.1406
0.4057
0.2384
0.1364
0.0589
0.0993
0.2899
0.0212
0.950
0.989
0.972
0.944
0.976
0.968
0.984
0.974
0.970
0.977
0.985
0.989
0.984
0.973
0.975
2.883
1.019
2.033
4.548
2.180
1.825
1.022
1.574
2.740
1.756
1.194
0.791
1.078
2.178
1.062
-------
TABLE B-16. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST CYCLE CO EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION
OF 9-MODE CO EMISSIONS WITH WOT REPLACING 3" MODE FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16 in.
Idle
10 in.
19 in.
WOT
CT
td
Full Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Half Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Empty Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1412
0.1207
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3799
0.4638
0.2284
0.0000
0.0000
0.3952
0.1788
0.0000
0.2961
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3229
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0281
0.0085
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4914
0.0254
0.7282
0.8698
0.7215
0.4996
0.8074
0.5149
0.4592
0.4594
0.8504
0.3750
0.5266
0.5941
0.5914
0.1739
0.3708
0.1511
0.1302
0.2785
0.1775
0.1926
0.1052
0.0769
0.1825
0.1214
0.1036
0.0782
0.0635
0.1231
0.0386
0.0474
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0937
0.0000
0.5129
0.0000
0.1636
0.2855
0.0000
0.4151
0.982
0.952
0.950
0.918
0.946
0.952
0.980
0.883
0.971
0.954
0.978
0.958
0.923
0.986
0.995
14.494
21.532
38.390
37.069
30.022
19.998
10.833
44.370
16.198
18.267
11.427
13.653
26.132
7.316
3.856
-------
TABLE B-17. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST CYCLE NOX EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION
OF 9-MODE NOX EMISSIONS WITH WOT REPLACING 3" MODE FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16 in.
Idle
10 in.
19 in.
WOT
CT
CD
I
Full Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Half Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Empty Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.5363
0.4427
0.0297
0.0000
0.0000
0.4000
0.2301
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3553
0.2639
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1243
0.2417
0.2697
0.3697
0.2946
0.1019
0.2033
0.2873
0.3246
0.3392
0.0972
0.1975
0.3121
0.3172
0.3320
0.2506
0.2494
0.5779
0.5383
0.4516
0.4119
0.4828
0.5950
0.4819
0.4304
0.5032
0.4613
0.6137
0.5628
0.4849
0.0888
0.0662
0.1228
0.0920
0.2538
0.0863
0.0837
0.1177
0.1935
0.2303
0.0444
0.0772
0.-0741
0.1200
0.1832
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.909
0.968
0.933
0.836
0.889
0.874
0.968
0.923
0.871
0.893
0.885
0.955
0.922
0.959
0.935
0.854
0.795
1.441
2.994
2.336
0.940
0.737
1.638
2.569
2.465
0.791
0.847
1.704
1.262
1.772
-------
TABLE B-18. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST CYCLE FUEL RATE AS A FUNCTION
OF 9-MODE FUEL RATE WITH WOT REPLACING 3" MODE FOR NINE GASOLINE TRUCKS
16 in.
Idle
10 in. 19 in.
WOT
CT
Cd
I
Full Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Half Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Empty Load
Driving
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.8311
0.1967
0.8008
0.0000
0.0000
0.3436
0.5230
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0371
0.3201
0.5345
0.0000
0.0000
0.1689
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0749
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0165
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7633
0.7754
0.0000
0.0000
0.6125
0.5866
0.6228
0.0000
0.0100
0.2815
0.4500
0.4956
0.0000
0.7106
0.0000
0.2367
0.2246
0.5816
0.4770
0.3875
0.4134
0.3772
0.9464
0.6699
0.1841
0.5500
0.5044
0.0000
0.0927
0.1992
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.993
0.984
0.985
0.988
0.984
0.994
0.994
0.992
0.991
0.989
0.994
0.993
0.994
0.985
0.981
18.974
33.031
43.388
38.128
44.248
15.686
17.657
28.711
30.211
33.008
15.245
18.118
22.639
35.657
40.470
-------
TABLE B-19. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-V7CULM INTERVALS FOR 16 kph CYCLE
1 ]0«PH RPM ?no 4fiO 600 «00 IPno ]?00 1400 1600 IPOO 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3«00 4000 »200 4400
.? vac
n
1
?
3
4
5
*
1
«
9
10
1 1
\?
13
1*
15
16
17
IP
19
?0
?1
22
?3
2*
?S
2*
27
2P
0
.IP
0
n
0
J»
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
n
n
0
0
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
n
0
n
0
0
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
0
n
n
0
n
0
n
0
0
.IP
n
."»7
15.97
0
n
n
n
n
n
0
n
n
n
0
n
0
n
0
n
n
n
n
n
.37
0
0
n
0
.1"
0
n
27.2*
u?
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
.37
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.IP
0
.93
.37
.37
0
0
.56
24*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1"
.1"
.IP
0
0
0
0
.IP
.18
IP
0
0
0
0
.37
?**
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1"
.IP
n
0
.IP
0
0
0
.IP
.IP
.37
0
.IP
0
.37
0
0
0
.18
• IP
0
1,69
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
.37
.37
0
.IP
.37
.IP
0
.IP
.37
.56
.18
.56
.75
.75
.75
.56
.56
.18
0
JR
.37
Z^?5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.7S
1
.n
5*
0
.37
.56
.IP
'o
.37
.37
0
0
.75
.IP
.37
0
0
0
.18
.56
U?
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
U2
0
0
.in
.37
.Ifl
.IP
.IP
0
0
.37
.37
.IP
. "
.75
.75
2.81
.93
1.87
,75
.37
.56
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
.18
.75
.IP
0
.18
0
0
.56
.37
0
0
.93
.56
.18
.75
.37
0
0
0
0
J8
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.56
0
0
0
.18
.18
,37
.37
0
.37
0
.56
.18
0
.18
0
0
.37
.18
.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
.18
.1"
0
.37
0
.18
0
0
.18
.18
0
0
,18
.56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TftBLE B-20. PERCENT TIME IN FPM-VBCUUM INTEKVMS FOR 16 kph CYC1£
TRUCK 2 10MPH RPH 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 62
VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
?1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
47
0
0
0
0
.17
3135
24^2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.35
.35
.35
1872
159
.88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
0
0
0
.35
0
47
0
.17
35
0
0
.70
0
1.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
47
.17
.17
.17
J7
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.35
.53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
0
.35
0
0
0
.35
.17
.35
0
.17
.17
0
0
.17
35
.17
P8
l.*l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
.17
0
0
0
.17
.53
.17
0
.17
.17
.17
0
.17
•3S
.35
.53
1J>6
.88
.17
.17
.53
.70
0
n
0
0
0
0
106
.35
0
47
.35
.17
0
0
.17
47
.17
0
0
.35
0
0
.35
.53
35
.17
.17
.53
.88
0
0
0
0
0
0
.70
0
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.70
.35
0
.35
1.06
1.23
.70
0
.17
.35
35
0
1.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
0
.17
0
.17
.17
.17
.35
,35
.53
0
.70
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.35
.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
.53
0
0
35
.17
47
.70
0
.35
.35
.53
.53
.53
.53
0
.70
1.06
.70
.70
35
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
.17
0
.17
47
.17
.35
.53
35
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
47
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
.70
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-21. PEH2OT TIME IN RPM-VACIO1 INTERVALS FOR 16 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 3 10MPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2600 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3BOO 4000 4200 **00
TFST 62 V»C
0
1
2
3
*
5
f,
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
J7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J5
123?
32.9?
3«
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J5
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
n
0
.35
.17
.88
.52
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
.17
0
0
0
0
.35
.17
.17
0
.52
.35
0
.35
.17
123
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
J7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
.17
.17
.17
.17
0
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
.17
0
.35
.17
0
0
0
52
1/13
0
0
0
0
0
.35
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.35
0
.35
.17
.88
.17
.35
.17
• 17
0
0
1.2 3
1.93
0
0
0
0
0
.70
.35
.35
0
0
0
.17
0
.35
.17
.17
.35
.35
0
,17
.17
.52
0
.17
.35
.35
0
.17
1.40
0
0
0
0
0
.88
.35
.35
.17
0
0
.17
.17
.17
.17
0
.52
.17
0
0
.35
0
.52
.35
LOS
.35
.35
.17
,70
.88
0
0
0
0
0
.68
0
J7
0
0
0
.17
.17
.17
.17
.17
.35
.35
.17
1.93
0
.52
.70
.17
0
0
.17
.17
.70
0
0
0
0
0
.70
.17
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
.35
0
0
0
.35
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
0
.35
.52
0
0
0
0
0
.35
.17
0
.17
.88
0
.17
0
.17
.17
.17
.52
.17
0
.17
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.35
0
0
.35
0
0
.17
.17
0
• 35
1.05
.17
.17
.35
.35
.52
• 35
.17
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
.17
.17
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TRELE B-22. PERCENT TIME IN HPM-VBCUUM IWIEKVMS FOR 16 kph CTO£
TRUCK * 10MPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 IflOO 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3BOO *000 *200 **00
TEST 6? V»C
0
1
2
3
4
s
f,
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
?0
?1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
.17
.17
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
4.54
2S/.9
1.9?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
0
.34
0
.34
751
L22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
J7
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
.52
0
.17
0
.69
1.74
l£2
J7
X22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
0
.3*
0
.17
0
.17
0
0
.17
.34
0
.34
0
0
0
0
.17
J7
332
?.79
.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
.52
.69
0
0
.3*
0
0
0
0
.17
.34
.17
.52
.5?
.69
.17
.52
.34
.6"
.34
US 7
33?
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
139
.52
0
.3*
0
.34
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.69
.87
J7
.17
.52
.17
.52
1.22
157
1.D4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.fl7
.52
.17
.17
.17
.34
.34
.52
0
0
.34
.ft"9
.69
.52
.5?
.69
L2?
.87
.17
.69
.69
1.22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.34
.17
0
.17
0
.3*
.17
.17
.17
.17
0
0
0
.17
0
0
a7
0
.17
.17
.52
1,04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
.17
.34
.17
0
0
.3*
.34
.52
.52
.3*
.3*
• .34
.34
.34
.17
.17
.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABI£ B-23. PERCENT TIME IK RPM-VACUtM INTERVALS FOR 16 kph CTCIZ
TOIICK 5 ]0«PH RPM ?00 400 600 800 10(10 1?00 1*00 1600 IflOO 2000 2200 3*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 *000 4200 **00
TFST 6? VAC
0
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
R
9
10
11
12
13
1*
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
?2
23
2*
25
26
?7
?e
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
n
0
.91
L28
6j»3
3*J9
3*6
0
.!«
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
.18
.1"
0
0
0
0
.IS
.18
0
0
0
.IB
0
0
.55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
.11
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
0
0
0
.18
0
0
0
.55
.36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
0
0
.36
0
0
0
.18
0
0
0
0
.73
.18
.18
.18
.18
.36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.IP
0
n
0
n
.36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.36
.18
.18
.IP
0
.18
l.*7
.73
0
0
0
0
0
0
UO
0
0
48
0
.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.36
0
0
.36
0
J8
0
.55
a?o
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.02
0
.16
0
J8
0
.18
.36
0
J6
.55
.18
J3
.18
0
.55
0
0
0
0
.18
2*
1,65
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.57
.36
0
,36
.36
.18
.18
0
0
.IP
0
0
.1"
0
0
0
0
0
0
.36
0
0
WT
UO
0
0
0
0
0
1.65
.91
.18
.18
0
.18
0
0
.55
0
0
.18
0
0
0
J8
.18
.36
.36
.36
.36
.55
.73
.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
1/.5
0
0
36
0
0
0
0
.36
.36
0
.36
.18
.18
.73
.73
.73
.55
.91
.55
.36
.36
.36
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,65
0
0
.18
0
.18
0
0
0
0
.18
0
0
.36
0
0
.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
0
0
0
0
0
.18
.18
0
0
.18
0
0
0
0
.18
0
.18
0
0
0
.36
.18
.18
0
0
0
0
0
.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
.18
0
0
0
J8
.18
0
0
.18
.18
0
0
.18
•18
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ja
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
0
0
0
0
J8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-24. PERCENT TIME IN KPM-V8CUUM INTERVAIB FOR 16 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 6 10MPH RPM 200 *00 600 800 1000 1?00 1400 1600 1HOO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 62 VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
?0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.35
3.36
3.36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
47
0
0
.17
4,60
4.43
845
ItlflH
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
0
0
0
0
0
,17
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.35
flfl
L59
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
.35
.17
0
0
.17
.17
.17
0
.17
0
0
0
.17
.53
.35
1>1
.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
,17
0
.17
.17
0
0
.17
.17
.17
0
0
.35
0
0
.53
.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
.17
0
47
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
0
35
0
0
0
1.41
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
0
0
47
0
Q
0
0
0
.17
.17
.35
.17
.35
.53
70
.35
0
17
U34
.88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JO
.17
0
0
.35
.53
.17
.35
.17
.17
0
.53
.17
.53
.88
0
0
47
47
17
.35
1.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
.70
0
.53
0
0
47
.17
0
.17
.17
.17
0
0
.17
.35
.35
.88
.70
.35
1.06
1,24
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
.53
0
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
47
.35
.70
.88
1.95
.70
.88
.53
.17
0
.17
.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
.53
0
0
0
.35
.17
.17
0
47
0
0
0
.53
.17
0
0
0
47
0
17
.17
.35
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3*
.35
.17
.17
.17
0
0
0
.17
.35
.53
.53
.17
.53
.17
.17
0
0
0
47
.53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
.35
0
.70
.53
.17
.35
.53
.17
0
3S
47
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
.17
47
0
.17
.35
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-2S. PERCENT TIME IN KTM-VACUIM INTERVALS FOR 16 kph CTCLE
TRUCK 7 IIIMPH RPM ?00 400 *00 POO 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1«00 2000 ?200 8400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3fnn 4000 4800 4400
TEST f-7
V4C
n
1
2
3
4
5
*.
7
fl
q
10
11
1?
n
14
is
i*
17
i»
)•»
?n
?1
2?
23
24
25
26
?7
2H
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
n
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
n
n
0
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
n
n
p
n
0
n
n
n
n
0
0
n
n
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
n
.17
.35
44JQ
.S2
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
n
0
J7
0
.17
0
0
.17
n
,35
.5?
.52
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
JO
.17
.17
47
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
,35
.15
.17
.35
.17
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
.17
.17
0
0
.17
0
J7
0
0
.17
n
0
0
0
.70
.5?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
n
0
.17
.17
.17
0
0
n
0
0
.17
0
0
0
.17
U>5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
n
.17
,17
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
.52
1^3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
0
0
0
J7
0
0
0
J7
0
n
J7
0
0
0
n
ft
0
0
.35
70
,8B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
0
47
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
.35
.52
.35
.52
,52
1.05
1.05
.70
.52
.52
.17
0
L.05
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
U?3
0
J7
47
0
J7
0
.17
0
0
47
0
0
0
.52
.35
.52
.88
.17
0
0
.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.70
.17
.35
.17
0
0
.17
.17
0
0
.17
.70
,17
.17
.35
0
0
0
.17
0
.35
.70
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
.70
.17
0
.17
0
0
J7
.17
.17
0
35
.70
0
.35
.70
1.40
.17
.52
.52
0
J7
0
.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
.35
0
0
.17
0
.70
.17
.35
.17
.52
.17
.17
.17
U23
,8R
0
.17
0
0
47
.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.35
0
.17
0
47
47
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
47
0
.17
0
J7
.35
.17
.17
0
L23
.17
.17
0
J7
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
0
.35
0
.35
0
.35
.17
.35
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
ft
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
ft
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TRHE£ B-26. PEFCENT TDE IN RFM-VftCUUM HiTEKVAI£ FOR 16 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 8 10MPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1?00 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2300 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 62 VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
.35
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
10.95
3233
.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
35
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
47
0
0
.88
.88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
.35
1.06
1.06
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
47
0
0
0
0
.35
47
0
.17
0
47
.17
.35
.17
1.41
.35
0
0
0
0
0
35
47
47
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
.35
1^3
0
0
0
0
0
.35
.70
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.35
0
.35
.35
.35
0
.35
.35
.17
.53
.35
.35
.17
.35
2£5
.70
0
0
0
0
0
2*7
J7
0
.35
0
0
47
0
.35
0
0
0
35
.70
0
.17
0
47
35
0
0
47
.88
.70
0
0
0
0
0
1.41
.35
47
35
.17
.17
0
47
0
0
35
0
.17
.17
0
.35
1,06
.53
1.06
£8
1J06
.35
.53
.53
0
0
0
0
0
35
47
0
0
35
.17
0
0
.35
.35
.17
.17
.53
0
.35
.17
.70
0
.88
.17
.53
.17
0
.53
0
0
0
0
0
.35
J5
.17
0
35
0
0
35
.17
.35
.88
0
0
47
0
35
0
.17
0
.35
.17
0
.17
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
47
47
.17
.17
.17
0
.17
.17
47
.53
0
0
J7
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
0
.35
0
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-27. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-VACIXJM INTERVALS FOR 16 kph CTCLE
TPIJCK 9 10HPH PPM
TEST *2 VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
?s
26
27
28
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
,16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
flon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fl
0
0
0
0
0
17,66
1.83
0
0
0
0
p
0
0
0
1000
.16
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
.16
.16
0
."3
.50
8.00
23.00
1.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1200
0
.16
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
.33
.50
,66
.50
.33
1.50
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
1400 1600
.33 0
.33
0
0
.16
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
.33
.16
.33
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
46
0
.16
.16
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,66
0
0
0
0
0
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
J3 .16 .66 346 2.33 j66 00000000
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
.16
.16
,16
.16
1,00
1.00
U3
,50
0
,83
.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.33
46
0
46
0
0
0
.33
0
46
0
0
46
0
46
.16
1.00
0
.66
.33
0
0
0
0
.33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
.16
.33
0
.66
.33
0
0
.33
J6
.16
.33
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
.16
46
0
.16
LOO
0
46
0
.33
.83
.66
0
.33
.50
.50
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
J6
J6
0
0
0
46
.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
.16
146
0
0
0
0
.16
J3
0
46
0
0
0
0
46
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
.16
.33
.16
.66
0
0
0
0
0
.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
J6
0
.33
.33
.66
L/>6
.66
.83
.66
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
B-28. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-VAORW INIERVMS FOR 16 kph CYO£
TRUCK 10 IOMPH PPM ?oo *no 600 aoo 1000 1200 1*00 1*00 IROO ?ooo 2200 2*00 2&oo aeoo 3000 3200 3400 36oo seoo *ooo *aoo **oo
TEST 6? VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
fl
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.15
249
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
.15
.31
.31
.15
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.47
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
.15
0
.15
.31
0
45
0
n
0
0
0
45
.15
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
-I*
.15
0
0
0
f
0
n
0
0
0
0
.15
n
.15
1.09
9.40
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
.15
0
n
n
0
.15
0
0
0
0
r
c
n
0
.15
1.V7
6/6
.1?
.31
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
.15
0
45
0
0
.47
0
.15
.15
.15
.15
0
0
0
45
45
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
.15
.31
.15
.31
7.36
3.44
.31
.47
.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
45
0
0
0
0
n
45
45
45
A*
0
7.52
.04
45
0
.15
.*?-
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ji
0
.15
0
.31
.47
0
.15
.15
n
0
.31
0
.15
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
.15
•15
0
.15
0
0
0
•31
0
.15
0
.15
45
31
0
0
• 15
.31
.31
0
.31
0
0
0
0
.78
.15
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
.15
.15
0
0
.47
.31
45
.15
.15
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
n
.78
.31
.15
0
.15
45
.15
45
45
45
.15
.15
.47
0
.31
.47
.62
.62
.15
.62
.78
.31
.62
.15
0
0
0
0
0
.31
3J6
J5
45
.31
45
.15
0
.15
0
0
Jl
.15
45
.31
.15
.47
.31
.15
.78
.78
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
235
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A7
0
.15
.47
.15
.15
0
.15
.31
0
0
0
0
0
.31
J5
.15
0
.15
0
0
.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
,15
.15
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
J5
0
0
.15
0
0
45
0
J5
0
0
0
.31
.47
,47
0
.15
45
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
.15
0
0
.15
.15
0
.47
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
us
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J5
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-29. PERCENT TOE IN RPM-VBCUUM INTERVALS PER 16 kph CYCLE
TBUCK 11 10MPH RPM ?00 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1*00 1600 JBOO 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3BOO *000 4200 4*00
TEST ft2 VAC
a
i
s
0
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
• 16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
Jft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1ft
,1ft
.1ft
0
.32
40.65
e^flp
.1ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
.16
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
.16
0
0
j49
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
.32
.49
.1ft
0
0
.32
32
.32
0
.16
J6
.65
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
.16
.16
0
.16
.1ft
.65
1,63
AS
.98
.65
.32
>9
.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
Jft
.16
0
0
0
0
.49
.16
.65
•16
.16
.32
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1ft
.1ft
Jft
.16
.Ifr
J2
0
.1ft
0
.1ft
0
n
.16
.16
0
0
.16
0
.16
0
.81
.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
J2
.16
.16
.16
.32
0
.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
•32
.16
.16
0
.16
0
.32
0
0
0
.32
.49
•81
.65
.98
.98
.49
L31
0
.32
.32
•49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•49
32
0
0
0
46
.65
0
0
46
.32
0
.16
.32
0
0
.32
.16
.16
0
0
.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.98
.65
.16
•49
0
0
46
0
.16
0
.16
.32
0
0
0
.16
0
.32
.16
0
.16
.32
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
,16
1.63
.32
32
.32
0
.16
.If,
0
0
.65
0
.32
.32
.32
1.63
.65
.32
.49
.32
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
131
0
32
.16
.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.49
.16
.32
0
•16
•16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABIE B-30. PEBCENT TIME IN HPM-VBCUUM INTERVALS FOR 16 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 13 10MPH BPM ?00 400 600 800 1000 1300 1400 1600 1800 2000 3200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 62 V0C
0
1
2
3
4
5
f.
7
p
o
10
11
12
13
14
15
1*
17
IP
1°
20
?1
22
23
?4
2*
2i<-
?7
2fi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
as
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.31
17.91
30.S?
0
0
0
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
as
J5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.31
0
0
.62
1.09
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J5
0
.15
0
J5
0
0
15
0
Jl
0
.15
0
.15
.62
.31
1,24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
J5
a5
.15
.15
as
.31
.15
.31
.15
.15
.31
.77
>6
J7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.46
.31
.31
.15
.62
.62
1.55
1J09
.62
.77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
.15
as
0
0
45
0
15
J5
0
0
J5
0
0
0
0
31
,31
0
.93
.46
0
0
0
0
0
0
.77
.15
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
.46
0
0
0
.15
0
.93
.15
.15
0
0
.15
0
1.40
0
0
0
0
0
.46
.93
.31
0
.15
0
0
0
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.31
.93
.93
.31
.46
.46
0
.15
.15
U24
0
0
0
0
0
.77
.46
0
.15
0
.15
J5
0
0
0
0
0
0
.31
.31
.46
.31
.15
as
0
0
0
us
.62
0
0
0
0
0
2*9
1.09
0
.15
0
as
0
as
0
0
0
0
as
.15
.31
0
0
0
as
0
as
0
as
.62
0
0
0
0
0
A6
200
0
0
.15
0
0
0
.15
.15
as
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
.31
.15
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7 1
.31
as
.15
as
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
31
0
0
0
0
Jl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABI£ B-31. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-VaCUUM INTERVAL FOR 16 kph OfCLE
THUCK 13 10MPH RPM 200 *00 600 800 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 *000 *200 **00
TEST 62
VAC
0
J\
2
3
*
5
6
7
R
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?3
2*
25
26
27
2B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6J>5
ZDl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.31
1JB6
37*2
241
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
.6?
.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
.15
.31
.31
.62
12*
,*6
.77
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
J5
0
P
.46
.15
0
.15
.15
J5
,*6
.93
.77
0
45
#3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
J5
0
.15
.15
J5
0
0
0
.31
0
0
0
0
J5
.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•15
0
0
0
0
0
.93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.31
0
0
.15
0
.62
.93
.15
.15
•31
.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
.15
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
.93
.77
L24
L24
•77
0
J5
.15
.31
.31
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.46
.31
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
J5
0
31
0
0
.15
.62
0
0
0
0
0
.77
.15
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
L2*
.62
.15
0
0
.15
0
•31
0
0
0
0
0
.77
.15
0
as
.15
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
•15
0
.15
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.*6
0
0
0
0
0
.62
.15
0
0
0
.31
• 15
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
.15
0
.1 =
.15
.62
0
0
0
0
0
LOB
>6
0
0
J5
0
,31
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
JS
0
.15
45
0
0
0
0
.15
46
0
0
0
0
0
LOB
• 15
.15
0
.15
0
J5
0
.77
LOB
-15
0
0
•15
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
•15
• 15
0
0
0
0
0
0
.93
.31
.15
.*6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
.*6
L86
.15
0
0
0
0
45
•15
0
0
0
0
0
0
.77
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
J5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLES B-32. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-VBCUIM INTERVALS FOR 16 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 14 10MPH PP« 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 3200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 62 VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
f.
7
s
9
in
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2fl
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
0
0
f
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
o :
o :
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
.31
1V1
3^n
.4ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J5
0
0
0
0
0
1.71
.46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
0
0
.15
0
0
0
.15
0
.46
1.09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.46
.15
0
.31
.93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
J5
0
45
0
0
.31
0
0
0
.77
.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
as
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J5
0
0
0
45
0
J5
.15
.15
1.09
.62
2.95
.62
.31
.15
0
0
.93
0
0
0
0
0
.31
45
0
0
0
45
0
.15
0
0
.31
45
J5
.15
.15
0
.31
0
0
.15
0
.15
0
Wi
.31
0
0
0
0
LH4
A6
Jl
0
Jl
0
45
0
0
Jl
0
.15
0
0
0
0
45
.62
0
.15
.15
0
0
.31
.62
0
0
0
0
341
0
.31
J5
0
0
Ab
J5
0
0
45
J5
.15
45
.31
.77
.46
.93
2A9
0
0
46
0
0
.62
0
0
0
0
L24
.31
.15
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
.15
.62
.77
.93
.31
.15
Jl
.15
•15
.15
.31
.62
0
0
0
0
&33
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
1AO
45
£2
Jl
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.71
.15
.31
0
.15
0
.15
0
0
0
.15
•15
15
0
0
J5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
B-33. PERCH*? TIME IN RPM-VACUCM INTEKVM5 FOR 16 kph CTCLE
TRUCK 15 10MPH RPM ?00 400 600 600 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 3200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 6? VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
f.
7
ft
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
46
.49
V3
.98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.49
575
33£fl
.32
.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
0
0
.16
46
0
0
0
0
.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
.49
46
.16
0
0
0
0
.16
46
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
J6
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
.32
.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
.16
0
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
.16
.16
.49
0
0
.16
£2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
J6
•16
.98
.32
.32
0
>9
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
32
J2
.16
US
.98
2A6
.32
J6
0
J6
.82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
A9
.16
AS
46
1.48
1.97
£2
.32
.16
0
.49
.65
0
0
0
0
0
£2
.16
0
•16
.16
•16
.16
.82
32
0
•65
J2
.65
.65
0
0
.16
.32
0
.16
J6
.32
.32
.65
0
0
0
0
0
1J1
.32
.16
.65
0
.16
.32
.16
.16
.16
,49
0
0
.82
.49
0
•32
0
.16
A9
.32
32
.65
.16
0
0
0
0
0
1.48
.16
46
J6
0
0
46
0
.16
.49
£2
.65
.49
.16
.32
342
46
46
AS
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.49
• 16
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-34. PETCQ7T TIME IN RPM-VBCUUM INTERV7VLS FOR 16 kph CTCLE
TRUCK 16 10MPH PPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2BOO 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 *000 *200 **00
TEST 62
VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
2?
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
20/>B
25.9P
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
•16
J6
0
.16
0
46
0
.16
0
J6
0
0
3?
.82
.*9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
0
0
0
J6
0
•16
J6
0
0
0
.16
.65
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.*9
0
0
0
0
32 P
.9H
A9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
46
.49
.82
.16
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.*9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
0
.16
,*9
.32
0
.49
A9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
.16
0
.16
.16
46
0
.65
.16
.49
.65
.*9
•65
.49
J2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.82
.16
0
0
.16
0
0
-49
0
0
.16
.32
0
•32
0
•16
1.31
0
0
32
.62
.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
.65
0
0
.32
.16
.16
.16
0
-*9
.16
0
.49
.65
0
.49
1.31
1.97
.49
.65
.49
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ul
0
0
.16
0
.32
32
.16
.*9
.16
0
0
.16
0
•16
J2
.16
0
32
.16
•82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.98
0
0
0
.32
46
46
32
.16
.16
.65
.*9
w65
.16
.*9
.32
.49
•32
J6
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.98
.16
0
0
32
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3?
131
1.15
0
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABI£ B-35. PERONT TOE IN RPM-VSCUtM INTEKVMS FOR 16 kph CTCLE
TRUCK IT IOHPH PPM ?00 400 600 800 1000 1300 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 62 VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
.17
.17
,35
17,49
25>4
J7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
0
0
0
47
.17
0
0
0
47
.70
.53
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
47
0
47
47
.17
0
0
0
0
0
47
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
•35
0
0
.17
.35
.17
l?3
.70
0
0
1.06
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
J7
53
0
47
47
0
0
47
0
0
0
123
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
•17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
J7
• 17
J7
•35
O5
.88
.35
•70
•35
•70
• 17
0
0
JO
Ul
0
0
0
0
.17
•17
47
0
n
J7
47
•17
.17
.17
0
0
.17
.17
• 35
0
.17
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
0
194
.17
0
0
0
35
0
0
53
35
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
.17
.35
.88
.17
0
0
0
•53
0
.17
0
0
.53
•70
•17
0
0
0
.70
0
0
.17
• 17
0
•17
0
•17
0
.35
.17
.17
L06
£8
.17
L*l
.70
ai2
.70
•35
0
.17
.53
47
.53
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.35
.35
.17
.35
.17
0
0
.17
123
ID 6
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.35
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
•17
.17
.35
.17
53
.17
.53
0
£8
53
.53
0
47
.17
•17
0
0
0
0
•17
0
•17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
.17
47
.35
0
0
.17
0
.17
.35
0
.17
0
0
•17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•17
0
0
0
.17
0
47
0
•17
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
•17
•17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
J7
0
0
.17
0
0
0
.17
47
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-36. PERCENT TINE; IN RPM-VACUUM INTERVALS FOR 16 kph CYCLE
TBUCK 17 1 OMPH BPM ?ofl 400 600 flOO 1000 1?00 1*00 1600 1BOO 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2BOO 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 *000 *200 **00
TEST 62 VAC
0
1
?
3
*
5
6
7
p
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1C
19
?0
21
22
23
?4
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
."3
14.11
15.90
13.4?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
J"
J7
47
0
fi
47
0
47
0
n
.53
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
.17
.17
0
.35
0
35
0
.17
0
35
35
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
.17
47
0
0
n
.17
.35
.53
.53
0
.35
.70
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•35
0
0
0
0
47
.35
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
47
1*3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
.53
.17
47
.17
47
.17
47
0
.53
0
.17
.17
LAI
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
.17
0
0
47
0
0
.53
0
,35
.70
.35
.35
.17
.17
.70
35
35
0
0
194
.53
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
.53
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.53
.70
.53
.35
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.35
.53
.35
0
0
0
.88
0
•17
0
.17
.17
.17
.35
0
.17
.53
0
47
35
.17
.70
.70
2JJ2
L06
.53
.53
.35
.35
.35
.35
.53
0
0
0
0
.17
0
35
35
0
0
0
0
53
0
U
.70
1.76
.35
47
47
.35
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
.35
0
•17
J7
47
47
47
53
47
0
.17
0
.35
0
.17
,17
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
.17
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
47
0
35
47
.35
•17
.88
.53
.17
.17
.70
.17
47
.17
0
0
0
47
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
47
0
35
0
47
0
0
0
0
IT
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
47
0
47
47
0
0
0
35
0
47
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TMBIE B-37. PERONT TIME IN KPM-VN3XJM INTEKVM£ FOR 16 kph OCCLE
TRUCK 17 10MPH WPM ?QO 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 62
VAC
0
1
2
3
«
5
6
7
P
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1ft
17
IP
19
?0
21
22
23
24
?S
?IS
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
0
3.47
13J9
28;>9
5?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
0
0
0
n
.17
0
0
47
0
.34
0
0
0
0
.52
J7
0
n
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.34
0
.34
.17
0
0
0
47
0
J7
,34
<69
3*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
.34
0
.17
52
.17
J7
.52
.86
.5?
.17
J7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
-17
.17
0
•34
0
0
0
0
0
.34
0
34
.17
.17
1.0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
J7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3*
.69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
•17
0
.3*
0
J7
0
0
.17
.52
J4
.69
J4
J7
.52
47
J7
U)4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
47
0
0
0
.17
0
J4
.17
47
0
0
.52
.34
0
.3*
0
0
.17
L56
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
J7
0
0
.17
J7
47
0
0
47
0
52
0
0
47
0
J7
J7
47
0
.34
.52
.86
0
0
0
0
.52
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
.52
.17
0
.34
.34
.52
.86
.86
.86
52
.52
.52
0
.34
.34
.52
.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.I7
0
0
.17
J7
0
47
47
0
a2s
0
52
.3*
.52
L04
.86
0
.34
J4
.34
.17
47
0
0
0
0
0
.34
.34
0
0
0
J4
.17
0
0
0
.34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
47
3*
0
0
0
0
0
.34
0
0
0
0
0
47
52
J4
.52
156
.69
•69
•34
.34
.52
0
.17
.17
.3*
.17
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
.17
0
•17
.17
0
0
.3*
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
• o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
47
.17
0
0
.34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
47
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-38. PERCENT TIME IN HPM-VRCUUM INTERVALS FOR 16 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 18 10MPH RPM ?PO 400 600 800 1000 1200 1*00 1600 IflOO 8000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 *000 *200 **00
TEST 62 VAC
0
1
2
3
*
S
6
7
fl
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
Ifl
19
20
21
?2
23
2*
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
.31
0
0
.as
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1?
.31
46^P
1.71
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
as
as
0
0
0
0
as
.15
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
as
1.0 9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
as
45
0
0
0
as
as
0
0
as
0
45
45
.4ft
45
.31
.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
as
31
.31
1.71
62
46
.31
.46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
J5
0
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
.15
0
iS
0
0
0
.77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
as
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jl
0
.62
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
.31
.15
45
0
.31
.31
0
0
45
.31
.31
.77
.46
.77
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
0
.93
0
0
0
0
.46
.46
0
.15
.15
0
.15
0
45
.15
.15
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
.15
.31
.46
0
0
0
0
.77
.15
.15
31
45
0
0
45
0
.15
0
.31
.31
.31
.31
.62
.46
.46
0
0
0
.15
0
.15
.31
0
0
0
0
0
1,40
0
45
.15
.15
0
0
0
.15
0
0
.15
45
.77
as
2jb4
0
.46
0
31
45
45
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
341
45
45
.15
0
0
45
.31
45
45
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
45
0
45
45
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
2JBO
0
Jl
31
0
0
45
0
.15
0
0
0
45
45
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.24
.93
.46
45
45
0
as
.15
0
0
0
45
.46
.15
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
.15
0
.15
45
Jl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TftBI£ B-39. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-V7COUM INTERVALS FOR 16 kph OfffiE
TRUCK 18 10MPM RPM ZOO *00 600 800 1000 1300 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 *000 *200 **00
TEST 62 VAC
0
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
fl
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
.15
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
**£*
1.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
.15
45
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
.30
0
0
0
0
0
.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
.15
45
0
0
0
0
J5
.15
.*5
.»5
0
0
.30
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
JO
.30
.30
3J3
151
JO
45
J5
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JO
.45
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.75
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
n
.15
45
0
0
0
0
IS
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
.60
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JO
0
0
0
0
45
0
.30
.*5
.*5
.60
.*5
151
.*5
1.06
45
45
0
45
.30
.30
30
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
J5
.15
0
0
0
45
>5
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
45
45
0
JO
.90
0
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
.15
.30
0
.15
.15
.15
.30
0
.15
AO
L36
L36
257
221
.15
.30
0
.15
45
JO
45
.30
0
0
0
0
0
1.06
45
.30
0
.15
.90
.60
0
£0
.15
.15
0
.*5
L21
.60
.60
0
.15
.15
0
0
45
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
1-81
JO
45
J5
0
JO
.15
0
0
JO
-15
.75
•15
.75
.30
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
166
J5
45
.15
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
•15
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
121
.75
0
0
JO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
1KSLE B-40. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-VBCWW INTERVMB FOR 16 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 18 10MPH
TEST 62
HPM
VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
fl
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
Ifl
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
200 400
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
600 1000 1200
000
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
.31
12,92
3\04
.31
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
.15
45
0
.62
46
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
.15
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U)9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600
0000000
0
0
0
0
45
0
45
45
0
J5
0
.31
0
45
.15
.15
0
.15
2Jfl
.93
J62
0
.46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.15
.15
.31
.15
.15
0
.31
.15
,31
0
0
.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
as
0
0
0
0
0
.*&
.15
.77
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
0
.77
0
0
0
0
.31
.15
.15
0
0
•15
31
J5
45
.15
.46
.31
.93
.15
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
.62
0
0
0
0
.46
,46
.15
0
.15
0
0
45
45
0
45
45
0
0
J5
.15
1.0 9
45
.31
45
.15
0
0
.31
45
0
0
0
2600
0
.31
.62
.15
.15
.15
0
.15
.15
0
0
A6
.46
.31
.15
45
2.49
.15
0
0
45
0
0
.15
.**
0
0
0
0
3000
0
0
124
31
45
45
0
.15
45
0
0
0
0
0
.31
.62
.15
45
0
.15
.15
.31
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
3200
0
0
136
.15
0
0
0
45
45
0
45
31
0
45
.15
.31
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
0
0
0
0
3400
0
0
248
31
31
45
0
0
45
0
0
45
.15
0
0
45
45
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
•15
0
0
0
0
3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
00000
0
L.71
3L
0
.15
0
0
as
0
0
45
0
J5
0
0
0
0
0
0
as
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
45
0
as
.15
0
0
.15
0
31
J5
.93
0
.15
Jl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
as
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-41. PERCENT TUB IN RPM-VACUUM INTERVALS FOR 32 kph CYCLE
ronrx 1 ?0"PM 4PM ?oO *riO 6nn BOO 1000 )?00 1*00 1600 IflOO ?000 ?200 2*00 2600 2800 .1000 3200 3*00 3600 3flOf) *000 »200 *»PO
TFST ft* V»C
0
1
''
1
*
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
n
i*
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?3
?*
2S
26
27
2fl
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
0
0
0
n
n
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
.16
2J6 ;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
n
.16
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
?5.?.n
.«3
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
.16
0
.33
.33
1.16
.50
.66
.«3
.50
LOO
LOO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
0
0
J6
J6
J6
0
.16
.33
.16
.16
.16
.50
0
.16
.16
133
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
0
n
0
0
0
.16
.16
.33
0
.16
0
.16
0
16
.33
46
.66
.50
33
.16
L66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
.16
0
0
.16
.16
0
.16
.16
0
.16
0
LOO
.16
SO
L33
.33
.33
.16
.16
.16
LI 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.33
.50
0
33
J6
0
J6
0
.33
0
0
.33
,16
.50
.50
.16
0
.16
.33
.16
0
.66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.33
0
,33
0
.16
0
J6
.33
0
.16
0
.16
,16
B3
.33
.16
33
0
.16
0
.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
0
33
.50
.16
.16
.83
0
.16
0
L66
LOO
,83
.16
0
33
0
0
33
.16
.66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.33
.16
.50
.50
.66
0
.16
.16
.83
LOO
.50
.33
.16
16
.16
0
.16
.16
.33
.16
J.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L16
.50
0
0
0
.16
0
U>0
LOO
.33
0
.16
.16
33
100
0
0
.16
0
.33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.00
.16
.16
.16
.50
.33
L50
0
0
0
0
.16
0
46
0
0
.33
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.50
.66
.66
.33
.50
L50
.66
46
.66
0
0
.16
.83
.83
0
.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
2J30
46
.16
0
0
0
.16
J6
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
B-42. PEH3NT TIME IN FPM-VRCUM INTERVALS FOR 32 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 2 20HPH RPM 200 400 600 600 1000 1300 1400 1600 1800 2000 ?200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600 3600 4000 4200 4400
-TEST 64 VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ifl
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
- 0
• -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
536
19.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
.32
0
0
.16
0
J6
.32
0
£5
.81
1.79
48
.81
.81
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
.16
32
46
0
J6
0
46
.32
0
0
0
0
.16
.65
46
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
.16
0
0
.32
4*
4*
0
J6
0
0
0
.48
.32
46
.16
.65
.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
>8
.16
0
.16
0
a 6
0
0
0
0
J6
.16
3?
46
0
J6
.32
.81
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
46
0
•16
0
46
0
0
J6
0
0
0
0
.16
.32
.65
.16
46
0
.97
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
.16
.32
,1ft
.16
0
46
0
42
,*8
U4
46
.81
.16
LJ4
.32
.97
.16
0
0
.97
0
0
0
0
0
0
PI
.32
46
.*8
0
.16
J6
.32
.*8
.4S
>8
.81
1.62
130
- .16
46
0
.16
46
46
0
0
1.14
0
0
0
0
0
0
.97
.16
0
32
.65
.32
U4
46
.97
.81
2.76
0
0
0
0
.16
46
0
0
0
.16
AB
AS
46
0
0
0
0
0
.32
.32
;6
0
.32
46
.16
.32
.16
0
.48
>8
.65
32
.16
.16
S28
U4
130
.32
.32
.16
.32
.16
0
0
0
0
0
>8
0
.32
0
46
0
.46
32
144
1*6
46
0
46
0
32
0
.16
.32
0
.48
.16
.16
.32
.16
0
0
0
0
0
.81
.16
0
0
0
144
32
2.76
.48
46
.32
0
.32
0
£1
.97
32
0
46
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.32
46
.16
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABtZ B-43. PERCENT TOE IN RPM-VACIXM INTEKVMS FOR 32 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 3 ?OMPH RPM ?00 400 600 600 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 3000 2200 3*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3flOO *000 4200 4400
TEST ft* VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2ft
0
0
• 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
. 0
. 0
0
0
. 0
.0
. 0
0
0
0
. 0
. 0
. 0
0
. 0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AS
25AO
142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
0
46
0
J6
0
*4
0
JO
.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
32
0
0
.48
0
J6
.48
.32
.64
32
J64
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.48
0
AS
.80
.16
32
.32
.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
J6
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
J6
J6
J6
0
32
0
J6
0
.32
32
128
0
0
0
0
0
A8
0
J6
as
J6
J6
0
A8
.16
.16
.32
1>4
.96
.80
.16
.16
.48
46
.16
0
.40
46
1.60
32
0
0
0
0
1.92
46
32
J6
.16
0
0
.16
32
J6
£4
96
0
.48
44
AS
.64
.6*
.32
0
32
3?
142
46
0
0
0
0
0
2A1
32
0
0
32
46
0
.16
.64
0
32
0
J6
46
0
46
46
0
46
.16
0
.32
.16
LZ8
0
0
0
0
0
.48
44
32
32
32
0
44
44
£0
140
142
.48
0
to
.48
142
32
46
46
0
0
46
.16
.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.44
J2
J6
46
J6
.16
1.92
128
0
46
•16
.16
.16
.16
0
.32
0
0
.32
0
.16
32
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
L28
32
.16
46
3121
.16
0
46
.48
46
0
0
0
46
.16
.16
.16
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
46
0
.16
0
.16
.48
.64
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3?
0
.48
.32
.80
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
.16
.64
.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABIB B-44. PERCan1 TIME IN KPM-VRCUUM INTERVAL FOR 32 kph CTCLE
TRUCK * 20MPH PPM 200 400 600 flOO 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 *000 *200 **00
TEST 6* VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IP
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
16,72
*J8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.48
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.6*
.96
.64
3.37
.80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
.3?
0
.32
.32
0
.6*
U2
.96
.96
.80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
32
.32
0
.16
0
0
0
0
.16
.48
.96
.16
.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
Aft
0
.32
.16
0
0
0
0
.32
.32
0
.16
.48
L60
2A1
.96
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
.64
0
.16
0
.16
.16
.16
0
.16
.16
.32
.48
.48
.64
0
0
0
.16
n
.32
IAO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L28
.16
.48
.32
.64
0
•16
.32
.32
.32
1.60
1.60
L28
.32
.48
.64
• 64
0
• 32
.32
1.28
.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
176
0
J6
.48
.16
0
0
.32
0
.64
1.60
.3?
.16
.64
.32
.32
.64
.32
0
.16
.64
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.4*
.16
J6
.16
,*8
.16
.48
.96
1.28
L28
.32
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
.32
.96
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U2
.16
0
32
.32
.48
.48
.96
0
0
.16
0
0
0
.16
.32
.16
0
.16
,*8
.32
.80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
U2
0
.16
.32
.32
.6*
.96
.32
.16
0
.16
.16
0
.96
.6*
.80
.*8
.32
.32
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.6*
0
.16
.80
2A1
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-45. PQCEOT THE DJ RPM-VRCUW1 INIERVM£ FOR 32 Iqph CYCLE
TRUCK 5 ?OMPH PPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600 3600 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64 VAC
0
1
2
3
4
•j
6
7
ft
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
in
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
flf,
?$•»
12,07
10.7?
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
.51
0
0
,34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3*
.17
.51
.34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.34
.51
0
.51
.34
.51
.51
.69
.34
.69
.34
V>3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3*
0
.17
0
47
.17
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.34
.34
.17
0
.17
0
U21
.51
0
0
0
0
0
0
.69
.17
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
J7
0
0
0
.69
1.03
0
0
0
0
.51
.34
1.03
1.73
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.76
0
J7
.17
.17
0
.17
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
.14
.34
1.2 1
.17
0
0
0
0
0
2.24
0
,17
.17
.51
0
47
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
.69
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
.34
0
0
0
0
0
.34
1.03
.34
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
J7
.17
0
0
.51
.34
0
.51
0
0
0
0
.17
.51
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.90
.17
0
.69
.34
0
0
47
.69
0
.34
.3*
.17
.34
.34
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
v?l
.17
0
0
0
0
0
2.76
.17
0
.17
.17
0
0
.17
.17
.17
.17
.17
.17
.17
0
0
.17
.17
0
.3*
.17
.17
.34
.17
0
0
0
0
0
2,76
.17
.17
0
.34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3*
.17
0
.34
0
.34
0
0
.17
.34
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.6"9
.B6
,34
• 17
.17
.34
.69
.34
1.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
.17
.3*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.73
.17
.3*
0
.34
.69
.51
.34
.17
0
.34
0
.17
47
0
.17
0
.17
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2^4
0
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.34
.34
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,94
.3*
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TRBIE .B-46, PERCENT TIME IN FPH-VHCUCM IOTEFWMB FOR 32 kph CTd£
TRUCK 6 20MPH BPM POO 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64 VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
.15
45
n
0
0
0
0
n
n
.15
.31
3J«
11.78
859
.79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
.15
0
.15
.31
,79
1.91
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.15
0
45
45
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
.79
.63
1,59
.79
1.27
a?2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
.31
.15
.47
.15
.15
.63
.15
45
45
45
.15
1.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.31
0
J5
0
0
45
0
45
0
0
0
0
45
.79
.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.31
0
.15
0
0
0
.31
0
.79
.95
.31
.15
.79
0
.15
.15
.15
45
0
.31
.15
1.43
0
0
0
0
0
0
.31
.95
.31
.47
.15
.31
.15
.47
.31
45
.31
.15
.31
.15
0
.15
.47
L75
.15
0
0
.*7
1.59
0
0
0
0
0
0
127
.95
45
.15
.63
0
.31
.15
.15
.79
>7
.79
.15
.*7
0
.15
0
0
0
.31
.15
.31
1.11
,*7
0
0
0
0
0
.31
.79
.31
.15
31
0
0
.47
1.27
159
.63
1.27
.79
.31
J9
f>3
A3
.63
.63
.15
0
0
0
.47
0
0
0
0
0
0
.79
.15
.47
45
.15
.95
.79
1.75
47
0
.31
45
.15
0
0
.31
J 5
.15
0
.31
0
.31
.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
1*3
.15
.47
.79
.63
.79
.79
.79
.15
0
0
45
J5
0
0
0
.15
0
.15
0
.31
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
0
0
0
45
.47
.15
0
.79
45
0
.15
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
45
.79
.79
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
B-47. PERCENT TIME DJ RPM-VBOXM INTERVALS FOR 32 kph CTCXZ
TPUCK 7 ?0"PH RPM ?00 400 600 800 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 4000 »200 **00
TFST 6* V»C
0
]
?
3
*
•5
IS
7
f
9
10
I 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
?5
26
27
2f>
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
a
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fl
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
o ;
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
n
0
0
.16
0
0
0
o
0
n
.32
2-\S6
4*
0
0
n
0
0
n
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
J?
.16
.16
0
.16
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
.16
,«0
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
46
.64
0
.16
,32
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.32
0
0
0
0
.32
.96
.96
.4*
0
U2
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
.16
.16
.16
.32
.64
.*8
.32
.16
.48
.32
0
.16
L12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
n
46
.64
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
.16
0
142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
.16
.32
0
.16
0
.16
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
.16
.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
.32
.32
.80
.48
32
.16
128
.80
.64
.80
.32
.48
.32
0
.16
0
46
142
46
0
0
0
0
0
J6
1.60
.80
.64
0
.48
.16
.32
*e
48
.48
142
.16
.48
0
0
0
.32
0
.16
.16
.32
.80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
209
32
0
0
48
.32
0
0
.16
0
.48
1.76
.32
0
.32
46
0
0
.32
.16
46
.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.96
.32
.32
.16
.32
.96
1.44
2J09
46
46
0
46
0
0
.16
.16
32
46
0
0
46
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
142
32
.16
46
46
1J2
.96
JBO
.48
.16
.16
.16
.32
.64
46
.32
J2
0
0
.32
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.12
0
46
.16
46
32
0
.16
46
0
46
46
0
0
0
0
0
.16
46
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
.16
.64
.64
1.28
1J2
48
0
0
J6
0
32
0
0
46
0
0
J2
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
46
32
.16
.48
.64
U8
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-48. PERCENT TIME IN RTM-VBCOUM INIERVAIB TOR 32 kph CVcXE
TRUCK 8 20MPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 3000 2200 3400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64 V«C .
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
K
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1«
19
20
21
22
23
2*
25
?6
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
n
6j»5
1V2
.96
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
.16
.3?
0
0
0
0
JiS
0
0
0
0
J6
0
.16
.32
.32
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
.16
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
J6
.16
46
46
J*fl
0
.16
48
.PO
.96
.96
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•16
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
.32
J6
J6
0
0
.32
.48
.48
.32
•*8
0
1.12
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•16
.16
46
.16
J6
0
0
0
0
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
1.93
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.96
0
0
.32
0
0
.16
.16
0
32
.32
0
.16
.32
LI 2
0
.32
.32
.32
.16
.96
.16
1.61
64
0
0
0
0
0
U2
AB
32
0
46
.16
J6
0
0
.16
32
.*8
32
.32
.32
>8
J6
0
0
.6*
0
.32
.16
.*"
0
0
0
0
0
.48
0
0
32
32
0
32
0
46
0
0
.16
•3?
.48
.16
.48
.16
.16
.32
.32
0
0
0
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
J2
.32
.32
.64
.16
.16
.32
0
.16
LAB
.96
.48
32
.16
0
0
0
0
0
.32
1.12
0
0
0
0
0
32
.*«
32
0
.4fl
32
.48
.32
.16
0
0
1J2
.80
.64
.32
0
0
32
0
0
.32
J6
46
.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
L29
0
0
J6
0
0
46
0
46
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
.48
.32
.16
.16
.16
0
.16
.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
AB
46
.32
.16
0
0
>8
•48
1J7
Z25
46
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
.16
46
.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
.64
0
46
.16
0
0
0
2.74
>8
J6
0
J6
32
0
.48
0
J6
.48
32
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.48
.80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
.16
0
0
>8
.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
.48
142
L77
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-49. PERCENT ITfE IN RPM-VRCULM INTERVALS FOR 32 kph CfdE
TRUCK 9 20MPH RPM 200 *00 600 800 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 380ft *000 *200 »*00
TtST 6*
VAC
0
1
2
3
*
•5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
in
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.*]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
19.83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
.13
.27
.41
13,96
1*7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
.13
0
0
.13
0
0
.13
0
0
0
.13
.13
.13
0
.13
.41
.69
.41
.97
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
J3
0
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.41
.55
.13
0
0
0
0
.27
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
.13
.13
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
.55
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
.13
0
n
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
0
Ul
.83
.27
.97
Ul
J3
.97
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
.13
0
.13
0
.13
.13
.13
0
.13
0
.69
.69
.69
.83
.41
.13
.55
0
0
0
2*9
0
.13
0
.27
0
0
0
.13
.13
.13
0
.13
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.41
.83
0
0
0
4.60
.13
.41
0
,13
.13
0
0
0
.27
0
.13
0
.13
.27
.41
.13
.55
.69
153
.41
•27
.13
.41
.13
0
0
0
2.79
.13
.13
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
.27
.13
.13
.27
0
.13
.27
.13
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.27
0
0
0
V7
.27
0
0
0
Ul
0
.13
0
0
.13
0
.13
.13
0
0
.27
0
43
0
0
0
0
.41
.13
0
0
0
5.16
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
.69
n
.8.1
.97
.27
.13
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
•V58
.*!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-50. PERCOfT TIME IN KPM-VaCUUM BTTEFWU.S FOR 32 kph OfCLE
TCUCK 10 20"PH PPM ?nt) 400 600 800 lOOO ]200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
- TEST 64 VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ft
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
1ft
17
Ifl
19
?0
21
22
23
?*
?5
?6
27
2«
.5 5
1.23
0
0
0
0
?7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
.13
0
0
c
0
0
n
0
.13
.13
n
.n
.13
3^S
3.03
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
0
.13
0
,?7
n
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
.13
1^9
7.30
.27
.13
0
n
0
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
.13
0
0
0
.13
.27
.27
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.?7
.13
.55
.55
.55
1.10
,27
.27
,13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
.55
.27
.96
.55
.96
.41
0
.13
.68
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
0
0
.41
.55
.13
.13
.41
,13
0
0
.13
.13
.13
0
0
.41
.41
0
0
0
0
1JO
.27
0
.13
.55
0
.27
,13
.27
.13
.55
,55
,?7
.13
.68
.55
1.10
.?7
.96
.27
0
.13
.27
.6fl
,13
0
0
0
0
L51
.82
.27
J3
.27
.13
.13
0
.13
.13
0
.13
0
0
.41
.55
.13
.13
.68
0
0
.13
.13
.41
0
0
0
0
0
1,65
3J6
0
.13
.41
.13
.13
.27
0
.68
.27
.68
.55
.55
.68
.41
.41
0
0
.27
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
?,89
1033
.55
.41
.13
.13
.55
0
.13
.27
.13
.27
.13
.13
0
0
.13
.41
.13
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.61
>1
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
,13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.55
.27
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
f
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
p
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
•BVBLE B-51. PERCENT TIME IN HPM-VBCUIM INTERVALS FOR 32 kph CTCLE
TRUCK 11 ?0"PH RPM
TEST 6* VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
fl
9
10
11
1?
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2?
23
2*
25
26
27
28
POO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
f>00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
.27
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800 1000 1200 1400
0000
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
41
eZl
31.65
L52
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
.27
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
.13
.13
.13
.13
0
0
0
43
0
0
j69
Al
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.27
0
.27
.13
0
0
.83
21
0
• 13
.55
0
0
0
0
0
0
1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800
0000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.41
.41
0
0
.13
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
.69
.41
.13
.41
.S3
.27
.13
0
21
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
J3
0
J3
13
0
0
.13
0
0
43
0
0
.13
0
.13
.83
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
.13
.13
0
0
0
43
J3
0
.13
0
0
•13
.13
.13
.55
.27
.13
.41
0
.69
£1
0
0
0
0
0
.96
£7
.27
.13
0
.13
.13
0
.27
.13
.13
.13
.55
>1
.13
.41
.13
.13
.96
.41
.13
.55
.55
0
0
0
0
0
1.38
.69
.41
.13
0
J3
0
.41
.13
0
0
0
0
.27
.13
0
0
.41
0
43
J3
.55
.27
0
0
0
0
0
.13
3J3
.B3
.55
.96
0
0
.13
.27
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.41
43
21
.55
J3
.41
43
0
0
0
0
3000
0
0
0
no
554
.27
.41
0
0
43
.41
0
.13
.13
21
.55
.69
.27
.27
UO
>1
21
0
.27
0
0
0
0
0
3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
0000000
0
0
0
290
21
43
.13
0
0
0
J3
0
.13
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.70
J69
0
0
0
.13
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2*3
43
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TRHI£ B-52. PERCENT TIME IN FPM-VBCWM INTERVMS FOR 32 kph CYdZ
TRUCK \2 ?0*PH 9PM ?00 400 600 BOO 1000 1?00 1400 1600 1HOO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64 VAC
0
1
?
3
4
5
6
7
H
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
1ft
17
Ifl
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17.16
Ifl.* 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
J3
0
0
54
.54
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
.13
.27
0
.13
0
0
J3
0
0
.?7
0
£\
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
.13
0
43
0
0
.27
0
LOB
54
21
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.27
0
.13
.27
.13
.27
.HI
.27
,40
.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
0
.27
0
0
0
43
J3
0
£1
21
0
.13
.40
.27
.13
0
.67
.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
.67
0
0
.13
.13
.13
.27
.13
J3
0
0
•13
.27
>0
0
21
J3
.13
0
0
0
.13
1/18
0
0
0
0
0
1A8
>o
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
.40
.13
.13
.13
.67
.40
.27
.54
.54
.54
.40
.27
.13
.94
0
0
0
0
0
L21
.40
21
,13
.13
0
.13
0
.40
.40
.27
0
.13
,40
.40
.54
.40
.54
.13
.13
0
.13
J3
.67
0
0
0
0
0
635
£1
.54
>0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
kl
0
0
43
.54
0
.27
J3
.94
.13
.40
0
54
•94
0
0
0
0
0
4.05
3fc4
.27
43
43
0
0
0
J3
0
.13
.13
.13
0
.81
.13
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
.13
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.02
0
0
0
0
.13
0
£1
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TKELE B-53. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-VBCUW JNIERVAIS FOR 32 kph CYCLE
TRUCK 13 20MPM
TEST 64
RPM
VAC
0
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
18
13
14
15
16
17
Ifl
19
20
?1
22
23
24
25
26
27
PR
CO
?00
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
J3
.13
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
eoo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
21
18t24
17J6
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
AO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
&
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>o
0
0
0
0
0
0
1400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
.40
.27
*7
.27
J3
>0
0
0
0
0
0
1600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
21
J3
0
.13
.13
.27
.27
0
0
.40
J3
0
0
0
0
1600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
0
13
0
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0
0
0
0
0
2000
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
.13
0
J3
J3
0
0
J3
0
J3
0
.54
0
0
0
0
2200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
J3
.13
.27
•13
.27
.54
.67
21
.13
0
J3
121
J3
0
0
0
2400
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
.13
21
0
64
21
J3
>0
.40
.13
.13
AO
0
0
0
J3
0
J3
.81
0
0
0
2600
0
0
.40
.27
0
21
0
.40
21
0
0
0
43
27
0
0
.13
0
.27
.54
0
.13
.13
.40
.94
0
0
0
2600
0
0
.54
.40
0
0
0
0
.27
.13
13
0
.13
.54
0
.54
LOB
1J5
1.08
>0
13
0
J3
.27
.67
0
0
0
3000
0
.81
.27
.54
.13
.13
>o
.01
.21
.40
0
.13
0
.27
.13
.67
.40
.81
.61
.27
0
.13
.27
• 13
.67
0
0
0
0
3200
0
3JO
&\
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
.27
•27
•13
0
21
•13
0
0
0
0
3400
0
7.16
.54
.*o
0
0
0
.40
0
.13
.13
0
.13
0
.27
.67
.61
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
3600
0
2.43
.13
43
.13
.27
.40
0
.13
.13
.27
.27
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
43
.13
0
0
0
0
0
3800
0
242
.40
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
21
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4000
0
21
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-54. PERCENT TIHE IN RPM-VBCWM INTEHVAIS FOR 32 kph CTCI£
TRUCK 14 20*PH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3BOO 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64 VAC
n
1
2
3
4
5
ft
7
ft
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
If.
17
]«
19
?0
?1
22
23
24
?5
2*>
27
?fl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
n
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
n
n
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1?
.13
43
19.S9
16JJP
f
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
ft
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,S4
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
0
0
43
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
AO
&
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
.54
.40
.13
.*o
.40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
J3
43
J3
0
0
.40
.27
.27
J3
J3
.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
.13
0
0
.40
JS7
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
.13
J3
43
.13
.27
43
.40
.40
43
0
0
1.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
43
J3
AO
.40
.27
0
.54
.54
0
.13
0
.13
0
21
.94
.27
0
0
0
0
.27
.13
.27
.13
.81
.27
.40
.40
0
.13
.54
.94
.13
43
.13
J3
.40
.13
.54
.27
0
0
0
AO
£4
0
0
0
0
7.16
0
.27
.13
0
0
J3
43
.13
.13
.27
.54
£1
.40
.81
1.4 8
.27
.54
.27
.27
.27
.13
27
.40
•40
0
0
0
0
4.72
.67
43
.40
43
.27
.27
.13
.13
.13
0
.27
.13
.40
0
0
.81
.13
.13
.13
.13
0
.27
21
.27
0
0
0
0
7.56
0
.27
0
•13
•13
0
•13
0
0
0
0
LOB
.13
.27
.13
.27
0
0
43
.40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.75
.27
J3
0
.13
.13
0
0
0
J3
0
43
.13
21
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L62
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.40
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABIZ B-55. PEBONT TD« IN FPM-V7VCUM INTERVALS FOR 32 kph CTCLE
TRUCK IS 20MPH RPH ?00 400 bOO 800 1000 1300 1400 1600 IflOO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64 VAC
a
i
S
0
1
?
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
?1
22
23
24
25
?6
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
as
0
0
7.77
27*3
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
J3
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
0
a 3
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
as
0
J3
J3
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
.55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a 3
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
.41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
as
.27
.13
as
0
0
0
.41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
J3
0
138
.41
0
J3
.97
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a 3
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
.13
.13
13
as
.27
0
.27
.13
55
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
.69
Al
0
as
0
.41
.27
.83
152
A3
.83
2.1
.27
as
.27
At
0
0
0
0
.41
a3
0
0
J3
0
0
Al
.27
J3
.13
0
Al
.13
.27
.41
.55
.69
152
27
.27
0
55
£3
0
0
0
0
236
.13
.13
.13
0
.13
21
>1
.55
.69
0
27
.27
.13
.13
0
.27
.13
•13
43
J3
0
J69
Al
0
0
0
0
2.91
.13
55
UP
236
263
1.25
.B3
55
.13
.83
.13
55
J3
.13
0
.55
.55
•27
21
0
.27
21
Al
0
0
0
0
236
.69
0
.27
.13
0
.27
.13
.41
.27
.41
.13
.13
.13
.55
Ul
L38
0
.27
0
.13
0
as
21
0
0
0
0
1.38
.27
0
0
0
21
.13
0
0
J3
>1
21
43
0
0
Al
.27
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-56. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-VftCUUM INTERVALS FOR 32 kph CYCLE
TRUCK \(s 20MPH RPM ?00 400 600 800 1000 1200 1*00 1600 IflOO 3000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 4000 4200 4*00
TEST 6*
VAC
0
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ifl
19
?0
21
22
23
24
25
26
?7
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
n
0
f
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
454
28*5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
J3
0
0
0
0
2*1
.41
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
0
0
.13
.27
0
0
.13
21
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
0
.13
.13
1.37
.27
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
as
0
.13
.27
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
0
.13
.13
.41
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
0
.41
.13
0
0
.13
as
.27
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
.13
.27
.13
0
.13
.13
.13
.27
.13
0
0
.82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•82
.13
.13
0
0
.13
.13
•13
0
Al
0
.82
21
21
Al
.68
.55
21
.13
43
0
.68
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
.96
.68
.13
.13
0
J3
43
55
43
.27
.68
.41
.27
.27
.13
.82
.41
E20
.55
0
.41
21
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2A1
43
.27
.41
0
Al
.13
0
21
,13
0
0
0
0
.13
.68
2J4
.41
55
55
.41
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2f>\
41
;s
.13
.27
.13
41
.13
.41
21
.55
.41
.55
.41
1.79
L23
55
.13
.41
21
•27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.92
J82
.55
.41
L65
6J06
.41
.27
.27
.27
0
.27
.13
as
.55
.27
as
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
as
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TRBLE B-57. PERCENT TOE IN RPM-VBOXM INTEHVMS FOR 32 kph CTd£
TRUCK 17 ?OHPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64
VAC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2?
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
£57
5.14
7f1
9/-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
.16
0
.16
0
0
J2
.32
•16
46
0
0
0
o
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
•16
.16
J6
0
0
.32
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
.3?
.3?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
•16
.32
0
0
.48
L2B
.60
0
0
.*8
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J6
.16
0
.16
0
0
0
.3?
0
.16
.6*
0
0
3?
12«
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
.16
L60
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.64
.16
.16
.16
J6
/?2
.16
.32
.64
.96
U2
.32
.32
.96
J2
.32
.80
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
.16
46
46
.48
jBO
0
.32
0
0
.16
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.64
J6
0
0
0
•60
.16
.32
.48
.16
0
0
0
.16
.48
.48
.32
>8
.80
.96
.32
.48
.16
0
0
.16
.32
0
J6
>8
?z
0
0
0
.so
0
.32
.32
.16
.64
.64
1.12
1.44
46
.16
.16
•16
.16
.32
.64
46
.60
.80
L76
0
46
0
0
J2
0
0
0
0
.96
46
J6
46
46
.6*
225
160
.48
32
.64
•64
Z13
.64
.32
32
.32
J6
.16
.16
0
0
•32
J6
32
0
o
0
0
.32
.96
0
.32
249
1>*
>e
.16
.16
.32
.32
LI 2
.16
46
,16
0
0
.16
0
0
.16
0
J2
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
.48
.16
0
.16
0
0
0
.48
0
.16
.32
0
.48
.64
.16
0
.16
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
.32
0
.16
.32
0
.16
.16
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
.16
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
.32
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABI£ B-58. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-VBCUIM INTERVALS FOR 32 Jq?h CYCLE
TRUCK 17 20MPH RPH 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3flOO *000 *200 **00
TEST 64
VAC
0
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
Ifl
19
20
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
.17
.17
.34
5/1 ft
13.99
255
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
J7
.17
0
.17
.17
.17
4.09
.51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.68
0
0
.17
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
.34
.51
J7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
47
0
.17
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.3*
•34
0
.17
.51
.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
153
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J7
0
J7
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
0
,17
.17
.68
.3*
0
0
0
.3*
U9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
.17
0
0
0
.17
.3*
.17
0
0
.3*
.17
.17
.51
0
.3*
0
.17
•17
0
0
1.36
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.3*
J*
.34
0
0
.34
.17
1-70
.68
.68
.51
.51
1.53
.51
.51
0
,51
0
0
.17
.17
0
142
0
0
0
0
U9
.3*
.51
.3*
.3*
.3*
.3*
U9
L02
0
.17
J*
J7
.17
.17
.3*
.68
102
1.87
.17
.85
J7
J7
J7
.85
0
0
0
0
238
47
0
•17
•51
• 34
•51
.51
.17
.51
.68
-3*
U9
•34
J4
.17
• 17
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
.68
0
0
0
0
.85
136
47
.51
1.87
.51
.17
.51
.34
.51
L02
1.02
J7
0
0
0
0
J7
0
0
.17
0
J7
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.17
.51
.17
.17
.17
.34
0
1.02
.51
.17
.3*
.85
136
47
0
0
0
.34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3*
.51
0
.17
.17
.17
.17
.17
0
.17
.51
.17
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.17
,17
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
0
0
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
0
.34
0
.3*
.51
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABIZ B-59. PESCan1 TDK IN RPH-VBOXM DfTERVMS FOR 32 kph CfCLE
TRUCK 17 20MPH RPM ?00 »00 600 POO 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 £000 ?200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3800 4000 *200 4*00
TEST 6* V«C
0
1
?
3
*
S
f>
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
.16
0
0
.16
0
.16
0
32
32
.32
.16
.16
.80
0
.32
L28
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
0
J6
0
0
0
.32
0
32
32
1A*
J6
J6
A*
32
.64
.16
0
.»e
.6*
J6
0
0
0
32
46
.16
.16
,*R
46
46
.16
.*8
.*8
.*8
.48
.*e
.64
1.12
.64
.32
.16
0
.16
0
.16
0
J2
<*8
32
0
0
0
.80
0
0
.32
*4
.6*
.64
1.44
U2
fO
46
.16
.32
.32
.48
.48
.64
.32
•eo
142
16
0
0
0
.32
.16
0
0
0
.80
46
0
.16
>8
.32
LI 2
22*
.80
>8
.16
.*8
3JD4
.80
.16
.32
.64
.48
.16
.32
0
.32
.16
0
.48
0
0
0
0
.96
>8
.48
.32
1.60
2,88
0
.48
0
0
.16
0
.32
.32
.32
0
0
1 &
• l o
.16
.32
0
46
.16
.16
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.48
.16
.16
0
0
.48
.32
.48
.80
.16
0
.16
.64
.16
.16
.32
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.16
0
.32
.16
.16
.16
0
.16
0
.16
0
0
0
1 A
•1 D
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.32
0
0
0
0
.16
0
0
0
J6
J6
0
•\y
•3C.
46
0
J6
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-60. PEHCOn1 TDE IN HEW-VftCUUM INTERVALS FOR 32 kph CtCLE
TRUCK 18 20MPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64 V»C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
.13
0
.40
28.91
5^1
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
J3
0
0
.13
.40
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
.13
.13
.13
0
0
.27
21
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
.27
.13
.94
.54
.27
0
27
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
.13
0
0
0
0
0
•13
0
0
0
0
.81
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
.13
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
.13
.27
0
0
0
0
0
.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
.13
?7
>o
.40
34
0
.13
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
.67
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
0
• 13
.13
.13
.54
0
0
.13
.27
0
0
.13
0
13
0
0
0
0
.13
0
1.08
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.27
.13
.13
0
.13
0
.27
.13
.13
.67
.27
>0
.67
0
.27
.54
.94
.13
.27
.40
.13
.27
.94
0
0
0
0
0
1.08
.27
.'7
.27
0
21
.27
.13
.40
.13
21
.40
.81
lie
.40
.27
J3
.27
0
0
J3
0
.13
1.08
0
0
0
0
0
W4
.27
0
13
0
.27
.67
>0
.27
.27
.*"
40
.67
.81
.13
0
.40
.13
.27
0
0
0
J3
.13
0
0
0
0
0
6.62
.27
>o
.13
0
.27
.27
0
.13
J3
*o
54
.13
0
0
.27
0
.13
0
0
0
•13
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
837
.94
0
43
0
43
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
.13
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
•40
.13
.13
.13
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-61. PERCENT TIME IN RPM-VAOXM lOTHWALS FOR 32 kph CK3E
TRUCK 18 ?OMPH RPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3*00 3600 3600 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64 VAC
0
1
?
3
4
5
f>
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
IS
16
17
in
19
20
21
?2
23
24
25
?6
27
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• 0
0
0
0
0
,?7
2630
.*!
n
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
.13
0
10.13
ft
ft
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
.82
.13
.27
.41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
J3
J3
0
J3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
•13
0
.27
.13
.27
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
.13
0
.13
0
0
.68
>1
.27
0
0
.41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.54
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.13
.27
0
J3
0
0
.13
0
.13
J3
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.41
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.41
0
.27
.13
.13
.13
.68
.41
.54
.27
0
.27
0
.13
.13
.68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
.13
0
.54
.13
.27
.41
.27
.82
.95
.27
L09
.27
.13
0
.27
0
.27
.68
0
0
0
0
0
0
•13
.27
.27
0
0
0
0
.27
.13
.41
.54
.27
.95
.41
.54
.54
.13
.68
.27
.41
.13
.41
.68
0
0
0
0
0
1.50
.68
0
-27
.13
0
.27
.41
.13
21
.13
0
.54
0
0
.13
0
43
0
.27
>1
.13
£4
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.94
.66
.13
.54
J3
.27
.41
.68
.27
.13
0
21
.68
.27
.41
ft
0
£7
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
646
J3
J3
0
0
J3
0
.13
0
.13
0
0
0
•13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.47
.95
0
.27
0
.0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J3
0
0
0
.13
0
• 13
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TRHLE B-62. PERCHIT TOG IN HPM-VMCXU4 INTEFWAIS FOR 32 kph CYO£
18 20MPH RPK 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 IflOO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
TEST 64
VAC
0
1
?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
11,
17
IP
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.13
0
0
.13
.54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b
.13
.13
.27
.27
0
0
37
0
0
0
.40
.40
0
0
.13
0
43
0
0
LOS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
J3
0
.40
43
>o
0
.40
0
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
.13
0
43
.27
0
.13
0
0
J3
0
43
.13
0
0
43
.13
.27
0
Zl
.54
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.67
.27
0
0
.27
43
.13
.13
.27
.27
.94
.81
we
.54
1.75
.54
.54
.13
.54
.13
.40
43
.40
.*o
0
0
0
0
0
£83
J3
J3
.27
.27
.40
.27
.*o
>o
.27
.13
.94
.40
.94
.13
0
.13
43
.27
0
0
0
.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.2V
.40
43
.13
.*"
0
0
.27
0
.27
21
0
.81
43
.13
0
.13
0
.13
.27
43
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
AO
0
43
.13
0
.13
0
0
.27
0
0
,13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.27
0
.13
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE B-63. COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS. DRIVING CYCLE HC
Truck
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
OB
* 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Constant
Coefficient
1. 3779
1. 7224
1.5121
5.1663
3.2989
7.8311
2.8448
9.2844
3.8143
0.2504
1.1159
3.4272
0.4113
5.4822
4.2224
4.3493
0.6658
1.7750
Std. Error
1. 70936
2.4627
2.5149
0.6220
1.9126
3.8917
2.6412
7.8590
4. 1 740
2. 0400
0.6059
1.7024
1.1604
2.2890
2.8277
1.8253
1 . 4428
0.4334
Load
Coefficient
0. 0173
0.0777
0.0549**
-0.3448
-0.0384
-0.0199
-0.1294
0.0349
-0.1330
0.2506
0.0998
0.0305
0.1128
-0.0378
-0.0058
0.0448
0.0371
-0.0200
Std. Error
0. 3066
0.3315
0.3401
0.0845
0. 2613
0.5293
0.3587
1.0690
0.3095
0.1513
0.0460
0.1262
0.0860
0.1697
0.2097
0.1353
0.2393
0.1034
Speed
Coefficient
0. 2700
-0.2293
0.0624**
-0.6069
-0. 2974
-1.1675
-0.5379
-1.4693
-2.0493
2.0908*
0.4948
1.7784*
1.1594*
1.1847
0.4531
0.2294
0.2149
0.7705***
Std. Error
0.6242
0.8992
0.9183
0.2271
0.6984
1.4211
0.9644
2.8697
1.5241
0.7449
0.2213
0.6216
0.4237
0.8358
1.0325
0.6665
0.5269
0.1583
Load x Speed
Coefficient
0.0573
0. 1017
0.0746**
0. 1283
0.0688
0. 1329
0.1630
0.3014
0. 2992*
-0.0149
0.0108
-0.0045
0.0125
0.0357
0.0762
0.0763
0.0324
-0.0148
Std. Error rz
0. H20
0. 1210
0.1242
0.0308
0.0954
0.1933
0. 1310
0.3903
0.1130
0.0552
0.0168
0.0461
0.0314
0.0620
0.0766
0.0494
0.0874
0.0378
0.6015
0.6566
0.6342
0.8844
0.3126
0.2762
0.6500
0.3912
0.8411
0.8968
0.9214
0.8945
0.9276
0.8131
0.7364
0.8599
0.5601
0.8110
Goodness of
Std. Dev.
0.6991
0.6722
0. 7214
0.1859
0.6029
1. 1788
0. 7894
2.3806
1.9869
0.9711
0.3501
0.8104
0.5524
1.0896
1.3460
0.8689
0.5330
0.5003
Fit
Coeff. of Var.
24. 03
18.98
21.11
5.3S
17.18
16.48
22.55
21.12
30.56
11.86
9.03
9.98
10. 75
11.98
17.48
10.98
28.20
14.04
Significance: * - 0.05
** - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
Truck
TABLE B-64.
Constant
COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, DRIVING CYCLE CO
Load
Speed
Load x Speed
Goodness of Fit
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Coefficient
14.8787
63.0070
36.1581
12.8002
11.2317
15.1234
62. 422Z
70.9620
24.9323
-23.1271
6.4480
28.4447
2.1312
27.7354
54. 7943
21.5895
3.6237
4.1491
Std. Error
36.2887
38.7899
34.0128
36.8081
49.8382
31.9631
37.8454
45.6146
9.3779
20.6628
14.9302
23.1151
12.5280
10.4632
16.7169
31.9502
21.5316
9.0376
Coefficient
-1.5669
-3.0017
-1.3383
-2.2489
-2.7441
-1.6928
-3.6716
-5.1098
-0.0039
1.8000
1.1760
0.4138
-0.5601
0.2452
-2.7095
1.2252
-0.8974
0.1656
Std. Error
6.5093
5.2216
4.5992
4.9993
6.8084
4.3476
5.1402
6.2044
0.6953
1.5321
1.1338
1.7139
0.9289
0.7758
1.2395
2.3690
3.5707
2.1570
Coefficient Std. Error
8.5362
-17.2291
-5.7169
-6.6945
-1.2721
-8.0791
-12.2013
-29.7545
4*2614
28.3859**
6.8874
27.8075*
3.8503
22.2380***
-13.7004
14.2802
-1.9987
27.9330**
13.2508
14.1641
12.4197
13.4404
18.1984
11.6713
13.8192
16. 6561
3.4243
7.5450
5.4517
8.4404
4.5746
3.8206
6.1041
11.6666
7.8622
3.3000
Coefficient Std. Error rz
1.0956
3.6264
2.0622
3.1958
3.6704
2.8169
3.0494
6.4066*
0. 7240*
0.8680
-0,0586
i.1999
2.3869***
1.1264**
4.0681***
1.7110
1.6450
-1.2240
2.3769
1.9066
1.6794
1.8255
2.4861
1.5875
1.8769
2. 2655
0.2539
0.5594
0.4140
0.6258
0.3362
0.2833
0.4526
0.8650
1.3038
0. 7876
0. 6444
0. 7408
0. 7040
0. 8459
0. 8499
0.8176
0.6840
0.8553
0. 9585
0.9726
0.6131
0. 9698
0.9894
0.9914
0.9877
0.9377
0.7150
0.9253
Std. Dev.
14.8416
10.6670
9.7560
11.0012
15.7095
9.6819
11.3112
13.8171
4.4641
9.8360
8.6257
11.0033
5.9636
4.9811
7.9576
15.2090
7.9539
10.4321
Coeff. of Var.
34.94
16.64
19.71
29.44
29.12
29.04
18.74
18.45
7.63
10.01
23.93
7.79
7.42
4.07
6.90
11.96
45.87
15.58
Significance: * - 0. 05
** - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
TABLE B-65.
COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, DRIVING CYCLE NOX
TrurV
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Constant Load
Coefficient Std. Error Coefficient StH. Frm*
-0.4608
-2.0814
-1.0338
-1.5521
0.2038
-0.7488
-0.4929
-1.7395
-0.9212
-0.6062
-0.8890
-0.1535
-0.1177
-0. 2941
-1.1657
-0. 4943
-0.9241
0.1075
0.5720
0.9710
0.7185
0.9400
0.7091
0.4506
0.4129
1.2708
0.3727
0.4221
0.9297
0.1539
0.9869
0.1029
1.0098
0.3094
0.3389
0.1950
0.0511
0.2207
0. 1246
0.1668
-0.0283
0.0722
0.0310
0.1352
0.0472
0.0490
0.0490
-0.0038
0.0447
-0.0056
0.1127
0. 0456
0.1253
0.0045
0.1026
0.1307
0.0972
0.1277
0.0969
0.0613
0.0561
0.1728
0.0276
0.0313
0.0706
0.0114
0.0732
0.0076
0.0749
0.0299
0.0562
0.0465
Speed Load
vOGLXlClGHt " "~"~ — - "" -
0.5696*
1.7330***
1.4550***
1 . 4940**
0.5822*
1.3406***
0.6597***
1 . 2322*
1.1650***
1.6705***
1.2465**
0.3381***
1.3141**
0.1009*
1 . 7404**
0.7097***
0.8336***
0.8375***
oi.u. .c-rrur ^oeiliciem
0.2089 0.0204
0.3546
0.2624
0.3422
0.2589
0.1645
0.1508
0.4640
0.1361
0.1541
0.3395
0.0562
0.3604
0.0376
0.3687
0.1130
0.1237
0.0712
-0.0927
-0.0263
-0.0934
-0.0040
-0.0416
0.0202
-0.0248
-0.0243*
-0.0428**
0.0135
0.0035
-0.0120
0.0152**
-0.0670*
-0.0302**
-0.0284
-0.0177
x Speed
Std. Error rz
0.0375 0.9430
0.0477
0.0355
0.0466
0.0354
0.0224
0.0205
0.0631
O.OlOl
0.0114
0.0258
0.0042
0.0267
0.0028
0.0273
0.0084
0.0205
0.0170
0.9676
0.9861
0. 9436
0.9209
0.9910
0.9879
0.9343
0.9781
0. 9844
0.9331
0.9809
0.9201
0.9884
0.8834
0.9236
0.9820
0.9601
Goodness of Fit
Std. Dev.
0.2340
0.2670
0.2061
0.2810
0.2235
0.1365
0.1234
0.3849
0.1774
0.2010
0.5371
0.0733
0.4698
0.0490
0.4807
0.1473
0.1252
0.2251
Coeff. of Var.
15.52
12.31
6.80
16.50
16. 12
5.75
7.08
20.62
9.75
7.10
16.68
6.90
14.01
5.11
19.31
16.37
8.48
10.69
Significance: * - 0.05
** - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
I
C!
Truck
TABLE B-66.
Constant
COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE
Load
Speed
Load x Speed
Goodness of Fit
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Coefficient
15.0451
44. 2784
52.2296
30.7537
38.5212
60.4860
76.4258
56.9679
33.5454
-0.9232
47.0421
30.0019
33.8180
76.6073
78.5374
50.3635
28.6492
60.0237
Std. Error
22.3933
51.7084
30.6485
30.8679
37.7220
39.8291
43.1397
40. 2709
6.8489
19.0017
22.6618
16.7100
19.0605
20.2609
29.5810
25.4814
20.0163
10.1014
Coefficient
1.3876
2.1952
-0.4860
-0.0487
-2.5686
-1.3743
-1.7244
-1.7041
0.2428
3.1587
0.4184
1.5521
0.6424
-0.1764
-0.5927
0.9581
-0.0921
0.2746
Std. Error
4.0168
6.9605
4.1443
4.1925
5.1532
5.4175
5.8593
5.4776
0.5078
1.4089
1.7209
1.2390
1.4133
1.5023
2.1933
1.8893
3.3194
2.4109
Coefficient Std. Error
22.1821*
15.3462
17.5177
19.7477
16.7326
17.0569
18.7096
-3.4904
27.8452***
57.8498***
27.1197*
45.7890***
34.4226***
33.7734**
20.4813
26.5962*
23.4714*
54.8029***
8.1769
18.8812
11.1912
11.2714
13.7741
14.5435
15.7524
14.7048
2.5009
6.9384
8.2749
6.1016
6.9599
7.3982
10.8014
9.3045
7.3089
3.6885
Coefficient
1.3649
2.0516
2.0037
1.8268
3.1836
2.4160
2.6898
6.0871**
0.7033**
0.1744
0.8097
0.7672
1.6108*
1.3874*
2.5678*
1.4968
2.1444
-1.7394
Std. Error rz
1.4667
2.5416
1.5133
1.5309
1.8817
1.9782
2.1395
2.0001
0.1854
0.5145
0.6284
0.4524
0.5160
0.5485
0.8009
0.6899
1. 2121
0.8803
0.9537
0.9041
0. 9630
0.9614
0.9562
0.9412
0.9447
0.9631
0.9961
0.9887
0.9431
0.9899
0.9873
0.9830
0.9708
0.9695
0.9790
0.9743
Std. Dev. Coeff. of Var.
9.1586
14.2196
8.7910
9.2258
11.8904
12.0646
12.8936
12.1984
3.2602
9.0452
13.0925
7.9543
9.0732
9.6446
14.0812
12.1297
7.3942
11.6600
9.53
10.54
6.83
8.19
10.01
8.83
8.10
8.40
2.54
4.78
9.08
4.22
5.06
4.76
6.91
6.87
6.27
6.23
Significance: * - 0. 05
** - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
TABLE B-67. COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, SINUSOIDAL CYCLE HC
Truck
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
-------
TABLE B-68.
Truck
COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, SINUSOIDAL CY CLE CO
Constant
Load
Speed
Load x Speed
Goodness of Fit
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1Z
13
14
15
16
17
18
Coefficient
43.5751
16.8823
15.5063
-94.9727
-104.2846
-106.7746
-64.5196
-118.0304
-15.6143
-47.4838
5.9948
23.5817
-141.0860
92.0072
-313.4276
-132.7539
-89.2263
92.0660
Std. Error
24.3100
33.5366
101.0081
46.0828
63.6435
38.9838
39.9910
91.6492
54.5872
66.3694
16.3514
64.7952
81.2470
74. 7086
199.4076
115.6017
33.2796
32.2619
Coefficient
-6.7494
6.1382
4.5346
23.3484*
21.8619
25.5450**
25.2942**
30.5232
4.8353
6.6308
0.7580
6.2783
16.9118*
-0.2083
37.3044
20.0721
24. 2744**
-10.3917
Std. Error
4.3606
4.5144
13.6583
6.2590
8.6943
5.3025
5.4316
12.4660
4.0474
4.9210
1.2417
4.8043
6.0241
5.5393
14.7852
8.5714
5.5190
7.7000
Coefficient
-6.9453
2.1320
0.0004
13.2577
9.1229
16.9111*
9.7546
16.5667
3.6223
5.0360
5.8614
10.1268
19.0821
-23.3805
47.2087
14.4881
11.2209
-7.8901
Std. Error
3.9095
5.3933
16.2438
7.4109
10.2349
6.2693
6.4312
14.7387
8.7785
10.6733
2.6296
10.4202
13.0659
12.0144
32.0681
18.5907
5.3519
5.1883
Coefficient
2.3383*
-0.1348
-0,2739
-2.3947
-1.3648
-3.2240*
-2.6606
-3.3234
-0.3567
-0.2200
-0.0252
0.0235
-1.8798
1.9912
-4.1864
-1.4341
-2.7352*
1.0907
Std. Error
0.7013
0.7260
2.1965
1.0066
1.3982
0.8527
0.8735
2.0047
0.6509
0.7914
0.1997
0.7726
0.9688
0.8908
2.3777
1.3784
0.8875
1.2383
rz
0.9379
0.8104
0.1705
0.8935
0.8806
0.9177
0.9523
0. 7876
0.5771
0.7763
0.8582
0.8741
0.7791
0.9336
0. 7261
0.8456
0. 9095
0.5427
Std. Dev.
5.5388
5.1377
16.1402
7.6729
11.1757
6.5784
6.6586
15.4655
14.4757
17.6002
5.2627
17.1828
21.5455
19.8116
52.8800
30.6559
6.8487
20.7459
Coeff. of Var.
13.59
7.50
44.29
15.60
23.27
16.77
10.89
26.96
35.88
35.08
10.86
10.36
47.94
19.65
42.44
30. 71
28. 70
58.59
Significance: * - 0. 05
** - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
TABLE B-69. COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, SINUSOIDAL CYCLE NOX
Truck
No.
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
T
i 11
o
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Constant
Coefficient
-8.6836
2.0830
3.5181
0.4919
2.8867
2.5117
5.2036
9.9863
-1.8775
-4.5206
-0.7201
-2.2916
7.6141
0.9653
16.0347
3.0198
2.6172
-6.0109
Std. Error
6.6330
6.4208
6.8703
4.0489
7.4780
3.5880
2.9414
13.2577
8.6023
13.6559
2.0677
3.5586
14.9861
2. 0404
11.4521
4.4158
2. 4965
1.8170
Load
Coefficient
1 . 4006
-0.2162
0.3376
-0.0089
-0.8317
-0.1405
-0.5210
-2.0382
-0.0355
-0.3610
-0.0139
-0.1531
-1.2180
-0.1141
-0.8692
-0.4450
-0.3504
0.4130
Std. Error
1.1898
0.8643
0.9290
0.5499
1.0216
0.4880
0.3995
1.8033
0.6378
1.0126
0.1570
0.2639
1.1111
0.1513
0. 8491
0.3274
0.4140
0.4337
Speed
Coefficient
2.0736
-0.2408
0.1129
0.3868
0.2580
O.Z404
-0.3253
-0.5949
1.2741
1.9139
0.2442
1.0070
-0.5388
-0.0005
-1.6571
0.2614
-0.0540
2.0103***
Std. Error
1.0667
1.0326
1.1049
0.6511
1.2026
0.5770
0.4730
2.1321
1.3834
2.1961
0.3325
0.5723
2.4100
0.3281
1.8417
0.7101
0.4015
0.2922
Load
Coefficient
-0.2162
0.1046
0.0246
0.0266
0.1298
0.0776
0.1117
0.3176
0.0003
0.0978
0.0581
0.0284
0.2798
0.0344
0.1541
0.0715
0.0760
-0.1185
x Speed
Goodness of Fit
Std. Error r^
0.1913
0.1400
0.1494
0.0884
0. 1643
0.0785
0.0642
0.2900
0.1026
0.1628
0.0253
0.0424
0.1787
0.0243
0.1366
0.0527
0.0666
0.0697
0.6728
0.6796
0.5311
0.7903
0.8014
0.9075
0.8482
0.7488
0.6022
0 . 7943
0.9598
0.9106
0.7896
0.8210
0.2389
0.8379
0.7614
0.9253
Std. Dev. Coeff. of Var.
1.5113
0.9836
1.0978
0.6741
1.3131
0.6055
0.4897
2.2372
2.2812
3.6214
0.6655
0.9437
3.9741
0.5411
3.0369
1.1710
0.5138
1.1684
3S.06
27.04
14.24
17.30
32.37
9.63
11.33
40.94
42.75
36.84
13.96
23.78
38.83
25.39
44.69
26.68
17.67
21.93
Significance: * - 0.05
** - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
Truck
TABLE B-70.
Constant
COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, SINUSOIDAL CYCLE FUEL RATE
Load
Speed
Load x Speed
Goodness of Fit
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Coefficient
16.7681
99.3765
108.0672
26.2615
19.2564
66.2307
160.1759
-17.3924
14.8527
9.7369
104.8201
-0.1728
49.5107
181.5764
15.6637
27.6083
46.7091
57.5150
Std. Error
86.5670
176.9246
56.6927
96.0212
94.2084
60.6172
45.1817
129.9892
73.8323
107.3232
24.0018
22.4994
116.8968
132.2908
106.3050
35.1241
76.4864
30.6469
Coefficient
5.6600
-1.7780
8.9750
16.4850
2.8332
15.4997
8.9408
16.9904
4. 7343
-0.3215
-1.3294
3.8102
4.5325
-6.6698
19.7852
8.7094
14.6512
-5.7390
Std. Error
15.5280
23.8160
7.6660
13.0417
12.8698
8.2450
6.1366
17.6809
5.4743
7.9575
1.8227
1.6683
8.6674
9.8088
7.8820
2.6043
12.6843
7.3146
Coefficient Std. Error
15.3329
5.5845
4.4851
13.4306
13.2906
14.4107
9.2480
18.8925
16.8810
26.9954
9.7437
37. 1441***
22.6114
5.8902
26.0633
20.2541*
15.2210
37.5507***
13.9214
28.4525
9.1171
15.4418
15.1503
9. 7483
7.2660
20.9045
11.8735
17.2594
3.8599
3.6183
18.7990
21.2746
17.0956
5.6486
12.3003
4.9285
Coefficient
0.4960
1.7626
-0.1043
-0.8074
1.3896
-0.9936
-0.5382
-0.6386
0.0635
1.0839
0.9110
0.3488
0.3384
2.1882
-1.6314
-0.1945
-0.8334
0.2610
Std. Error r^
2.4972
3.8300
1.2328
2.0973
2.0697
1.3259
0.9869
2.8434
0.8804
1.2797
0.2931
0.2683
1.3939
1.5774
1.2676
0.4188
2.0398
1.1763
0.8303
0.7266
0.8097
0.7743
0.9214
0.8653
0.8339
0. 7873
0.8658
0.9215
0.9809
0.9963
0.8411
0.8585
0.8379
0.9767
0.7915
0 . 9499
Std. Dev.
19.7235
27.1042
9.0590
15.9877
16.5429
10.2289
7.5228
21.9352
19.5793
28.4606
7.7249
5.9665
30.9993
35.0186
28.1905
9.3144
15.7403
19.7073
Coeff. of Var.
12.74
13.76
4.64
8.39
9.26
4.63
2.93
11.52
10.81
11.37
3.63
2.00
11.54
11.74
9.43
3.80
8.11
7.23
Significance:* - 0.05
** - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
TABLE B-71. COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, STEADY STATE HC
Truck
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T 10
-J
W 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Constant
Coefficient
0.4802
1.8854
0.1534
4.4831
-1.4548
6.1447
1.1049
5.9020
0.9755
1.0933
0.4852
1.4284
0.5532
1 . 0249
1 . 7029
2. 4008
0. 7636
1.2919
Std. Error
0.53,16
1.8948
0.4536
3.1135
3.7121
5.0941
1.7802
2.7302
0.5429
1.0615
0.4814
0.9751
1.1516
1.9816
0.6341
2.3393
0.2869
0.8635
Load
Coefficient
0.0632
-0.1325
0.0335
-0.3437
0.4325
-0.3090
-0.1276
-0.3775
-0.0186
0.0007
0.0003
0.0013
-0.0340
-0.0283
-0.0106
-0.0826
-0.1156*
-0.1826
Std. Error
0.0954
0.2551
0.0613
0.4229
0.5071
0.6929
0.2418
0.3714
0.0403
0.0787
0.0366
0.0723
0.0854
0.1469
0.0470
0.1734
0.0476
0.2061
Speed
Coefficient
-0.0021
-0.0349
0.2740*
-0.2333
1.4754*
-0.7675
0.0204
-0.6053
0.1141
0.3025
0.2403*
0.7198*
0.1863
-0.0785
0.0578
-0.1344
-0.1637**
-0.0581
Std. Error
0.0949
0.3383
0.0810
0.5558
0.6627
0.9094
0.3178
0.4874
0.0970
0.1895
0.0859
0.1741
0.2056
0.3538
0.1130
0.4176
0.0512
0.1542
Load x Speed
Coefficient
0.0252
0.0425
-0.0052
0.0470
-0.1608
0.0794
0.0490
0.0751
0.0148
0.0052
0.0101
0.0058
0.0200
0.0284
0.0178*
0.0380
0.0343***
0.0l6l
Goodness of Fit
Std. Error r^
0.0170
0.0455
0.0110
0.0755
0.0905
0.1237
0.0432
0.0663
0.0072
0.0141
0.0065
0.0129
0.0152
0.0262
0.0084
0.0310
0.0085
0.0368
0.5650
0.4800
0.9119
0.0681
0.3061
0.0674
0.6191
0.0796
0.8238
0.6282
0.8491
0.9020
0.6834
0.2833
0.7650
0.2920
0.5527
0.0465
Std. Dev.
0.4704
1.1272
0.2815
2.0129
2.5311
3.3379
1.1509
1.7889
0.5590
1.0931
0.60i6
1.0041
1.1859
2.0404
0.6529
2.4088
0.2293
2.1561
Coeff. of Var.
65.25
53.10
19.70
81.51
82.52
108.96
63.25
61.67
27.12
40.52
29.02
20.42
57.93
107.25
23.24
83.75
92.95
281.54
Significance: * - 0.05
** - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
w
I
Truck
TABLE B-72.
Constant
COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, STEADY STATE CO
Load
Speed
Load x Speed
Goodness of Fit
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Coefficient
12.8387
51.5901
2.8256
-7.9322
75.7108
19.2489
23.8397
66.9604
19.8117
-0. 2086
16.3457
39. 7044
35.9110
36.7107
76.9631
56.5504
47.1238
-0.5441
Std. Error
21.5769
21.3036
9.7556
14.6372
105.3846
15.7919
64.3291
17.3359
*
36.9560
36.2736
5.8088
78.0899
66.3513
76.1079
35.6580
92.2243
47.1511
22.8349
Coefficient
-3.2533
-3.1034
1.2691
0.3810
-14.9127
-2.4598
-2.9708
-2.9504
-0.9965
-0.5908
-0.6351
-0.7122
-4.4840
-3.5860
-3.4537
-5.8231
-10.4032
-0.6295
Std. Error
3.8704
2.8677
1.3191
1.9880
14.3965
2.1480
8.7372
2.3580
2.7401
2.6895
0.4411
5.7900
4.9197
5.6431
2.6439
6.8380
7.8194
5.4501
Coefficient
-4.0497
-3.4192
3.3675
5.5167*
-24.0924
-6.4467*
-1.0927
-6.1676
2.4869
7.2704
4.3411***
26.9285
-5.0036
1.7508
-7.2332
-6.5107
-16.9725
10.1822*
Std. Error
3.8521
3.8033
1.7416
2.6132
18.8142
2.8193
1 1 . 4846
3.0950
6.5977
6.4759
1.0370
13.9413
U.8456
13.5874
6.3660
16.4647
8.4178
4.0767
Coefficient
1.4171
1.1809*
-0.1651
0.0008
5.7561*
1.4811***
1.5550
0.7882
0.4355
0.2910
0.2524**
0.3528
1.7612
1.6438
1.5949**
2.3084
4.0663
-0.7680
Std. Error
0.6910
0.5120
0.2355
0.3549
2.5702
0.3835
1.5598
0.4210
0.4892
0.4802
0.0788
1.0337
0.8783
1.0074
0.4720
1.2208
1.3960
0.9730
rZ
0.4388
0.7362
0.6594
0.8335
0.5319
0.7827
0.4845
0.1737
0.4136
0.5637
0.9405
0.6922
0.5463
0.5850
0.7257
0.5182
0.5006
0.2921
Std. Dev.
19.0892
12.6727
6.0530
9.4633
71.8566
10.3475
41.5904
11.3592
38.0542
37.3514
7.2595
80.4103
68.3230
78.3694
36.7176
94.9647
37.6780
57.0176
Coeff. of Var.
176.01
24.53
28.13
49.88
164.82
51.97
89. 18
26.08
90.11
92.77
17.72
47.84
124.38
86.92
40. 77
115.28
237.47
166.01
Significance: * - 0. 05
** - 0.01
*** - 0. 001
-------
TABLE B-73.
COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
FROM 18 GASOLINE TRUCKS, STEADY STATE NOX
W
I
Truck
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Constant Load
Coefficient Std. Error Coefficient stH IT ,.,.„,.
-1.6036
-3.3195
0.1374
-1. 2550
1.6057
-1.3171
-0.3195
-4.5464
-2.2317
-3.1582
-0.7085
-0.3958
-6.1710
-0.4028
-2.2429
-1.7283
-1.5694
-0.8673
1.2914
3.7979
4.7259
2.1309
2.6366
3.9317
1.3949
4.3516
1.4491
2.9725
1.6486
1.8548
4.0151
0.8262
1.7279
2.388»i
2.2826
0.6947
0.0888
0.1616
-0.3889
-0.0161
-0.2389
-0.1393
-0.0870
0.1977
0.0508
0.0504
-0.1036
0.0084
0.3342
0.4604
0.0996
0.1239
0. 0435
-0.0826
0.2316
0.5112
0.6390
0.2894
0.3602
0.5348
0.1895
0.5919
0.1074
0. 2204
0.1252
0.1375
0.2977
0.0613
0.1281
0.1771
0.3785
0.1658
Speed
ft-t of fi s^iAmt O*. J TT
v_/o exjicient
0.9791***
1.6482*
0.5520
0.7340
-0.0234
1.0691
0.4508
2.0606**
1.3432***
2.0120***
0.5091
0.4844
3.0460***
0.3694*
1.2228***
0.9978*
0.8474
0.9340***
oiu. x-rroi
0.2305
0.6780
0.8437
0.3804
0.4707
0.7019
0. 2490
0.77S9
0.2587
0.5307
0.2943
0.3311
0.7168
0.1475
0.3085
0.4264
0.4075
0.1240
Load
Coefficient
-0.0255
-0.0712
0.1758
0.0200
0.0844
0.0716
0.0513
-0.0558
-0.0088
0.0037
0.5911
0.0015
-0.1014
-0.0044
-0.0240
-0.0267
-0.0006
0.0085
x Speed
Std. Error rfc
0.0414 0.8891
0.0913
0.1141-
0.0517
0.0643
0.0955
0.0338
0.1057
0.0192
0.0393
0.0223
0.0246
0.0531
0.0109
0.0229
0.0316
0.0676
0.0296
0. 7876
0.8541
0.8567
0.6193
0.8482
0. 9249
0. 8330
0.9092
0. 8694
0.8505
0.5056
0. 7406
0.6698
0.7987
0.5217
0. 7586
0.8168
Goodness of Fit
Std. Dev.
1. 1425
2.2592
2.9323
1.3777
1.7978
2.5762
0.9018
2.8514
1.4921
3.0608
2.0603
1.9099
4.1344
0.8508
1.7793
2.4594
1.8240
1.7347
Coeff. of Var.
44.65
80. 75
55. 25
55.78
73.84
55.90
34.15
68.95
39.27
47.17
60.93
99.78
71.71
54.74
58.52
90.12
76.80
55.79
Significance: * - 0. 05
** - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
TABLE B-74.
COErFICIENTS FROM
FROM 18 GASOLINE
MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION OF EMISSIONS DATA
TRUCKS, STEADY STATE FUEL RATE
M
I
Truck
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
li
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Constant
Coefficient
44.9127
50.8613
61.3236
29.0631
49.5575
79.0829
76.8252
53.1119
21.0174
67.8128
82.2847
55.5732
83.1367
97.3336
122.7408
117.4684
73.1570
75.9231
Std. Error
45.5329
61.4037
44.1309
56.2200
81.7587
51.5378
78.5669
65.0549
47. 2430
58.2851
15.5042
60.1010
33.6559
40. 2042
36.6860
46.5426
76.1103
14.2665
Load
Coefficient
-2.0111
-1.3200
-1.7069
-2.1672
-5.6288
-3.9140
-1.4643
-2.9214
-0.4493
-0.2825
-1.9454
-0.3993
-1.3378
0.1696
-1.4733
-3.6254
-7.7802
1.4832
Std. Error
8.1675
8.2656
5.9674
7.6358
11.1690
7.0101
10.6710
8.8487
3.5029
4.3216
1.1774
4.4562
2.4954
2.9810
2.7201
3.4509
12.6219
3. 4050
Speed
Coefficient Std. Error
18.4085*
23.4119*
17.9267*
22.4137*
14.9656
13.1633
25.8522
18.6144
27.5665**
33.0907**
17.5241***
44.2166***
26.8849***
24.0584**
15.5736*
9.6968
14.6159
39.1329***
8.1289
10.9623
7.8786
10.0369
14.5963
9.2010
14.0264
11.6142
8.4342
10.4056
2.7679
10.7298
6.0086
7.1776
6.5495
8.3092
13.5879
2.5470
Load x Speed
Coefficient
1.0329
1.1215
1.1878
1.0982
2.2941
2.1505
1.3052
1.4354
0.3965
0.4048
0.8320***
0.2116
0.9103
0.7884
1.1491*
1.7057*
3.2866
-0.9986
Std. Error rz
1.4581
1.4757
1.0653
1.3632
1 . 9940
1.2515
1.9051
1.5797
0.6254
0.7715
0.2102
0.7956
0.4455
0.5322
0.4856
0.6161
2.2534
0.6079
0.8391
0.9169
0.9328
0.9112
0.8253
0.9150
0.8767
0.8721
0.8690
0.8569
0.9684
0.8941
0.9485
0.9H1
0.9079
0.8723
0.8234
0.9406
Goodness of Fit
Std. Dev.
40.2833
36.5266
27.3818
36.3477
55.7472
33.7697
50.7955
42.6267
48.6468
60.0171
19.3761
61.8869
34.6560
41.3989
37.7761
47.9256
60.8190
35.6226
Coeff. of Var.
29.02
20.36
16.59
24.88
38.06
19.17
23.04
26.87
30.80
25.93
10.81
24.49
14.79
16.66
16.01
22.97
34.65
14.83
Significance: * - 0. 05
#* - 0.01
*** - 0.001
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA IN SUPPORT OF DIESEL TRUCK DATA ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE C-l. COMPARISON OF' CYCLE-TO-CYCLE AND TEST-TO-TEST
VARIABILITY FOR HC FROM DIESEL TESTS
Avg.
Speed
Empty
Var. (a7
Load
Half
Sig. (b) Var. Sig.
Full
Var. Sig.
N
Cycle- to-Cycle
All
All
All
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
steady state
sinusoidal
driving
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
146
269
039
022
000
000
020
010
080
* 0.
** 0.
n.s. 0.
* 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
* 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
119 *
208 **
017 n.s.
200 **
117 n.s.
000 n.s.
020 ***
090 *
060 n.s.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
075 **
101 **
068 *
267 ***
401 **
000 - n.s.
030 ***
190 ***
060 ***
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
Test-to-Test
All
All
All
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
steady state
sinusoidal
driving
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
003
003
015
002
000
014
080
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0
003 n.s.
002 n.s.
000 n.s.
000 n.s.
000 n.s.
000 n.s.
060 **
090 n.s.
n.s.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
004 n.s.
001 n.s.
Oil n.s.
018 **
009 n.s.
004 n.s.
070 *
010 n.s.
010 n.s.
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
(^Variability: cycle-to-cycle = (MSC-MSE)/N; test-to-test = (MSR (T)-MSE)/2
(^Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
n.s. - not significant
Note: 1. Where possible, as determined by significance of F ratio from truck by
cycle interaction, the pooled MSE was used in the calculation.
2. Values of zero reflect negative estimates
3. MSC - mean square cycle value
MSE - mean square error
MSR(T) - moan square repeat value within truck
N - sample size
C-2
-------
TABLE C-2. COMPARISON OF CYCLE-TO-CYCLE AND TEST-TO-TEST
VARIABILITY FOR CO FROM DIESEL TESTS
Avg.
Speed
Empty
Var. ^a;
Load
Half
Sig. ^ Var. Sig.
Full
Var.
Cycle-to-Cycle
All
All
All
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
steady state
sinusoidal
driving
0.000
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
000
350
616
000
000
460
950
960
n.s. 0.466 *
n.s. 2 .
n.s. 9.
n.s. 10
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
*** 0.
* 0
* 6.
103 *
744 ***
.883 ***
256 *
000 n.s.
430 ***
n. s .
7g ** *
2
15
41
39
64
0.
47
30
21
.93
.778
.352
.708
.622
304
.850
.12
.42
Test-to-Test
All
All
All
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
steady state
sinusoidal
driving
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
000
649
000
000
,000
,000
7.720
1.430
0.040
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
n.s. 0.
* 0
* 0
n.s. 0
095 n.s.
000 n.s.
000 n.s.
048 n.s.
.074 n.s.
.238 n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.070 n.s.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
1.
0.
660
248
000
694
000
303
370
.030
Sig. N
* 4
** 4
* 4
*** g
** 4
n.s. 4
*** 12
** 6
*** e
n.s. 4
n.s. 4
n.s. 4
n.s . 6
n.s. 4
n.s. 4
n.s. 12
n.s. 6
n.s. 8
(a)Variability: cycle-to-cycle = (MSC-MSE)/N; test-to-test = (MSR (T)-MSE)/2
(b)
Significance:
* = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
n.s. =- not s,i qni fionnt:
Note: .1. Where possible, a:; do term i.ned by slgnl ff.icanco of F ratio from truck by
cycle interaction, the pooled MSB was used in the calculation.
2. Values of zero reflect negative estimates
3. MSC - mean square cycle value
MSB - mean square error
MSR(T) - mean square repeat value within truck
N - sample size
C-3
-------
TABLE C- 3. COMPARISON OF CYCLE-TO-CYCLE AND TEST-TO-TEST
VARIABILITY FOR NOX FROM DIESEL TESTS
Avg.
Speed
Empty
Var. (a'
Load
Half
Sig. (b) Var. Sig.
Full
Var. Sig.
N
Cycle-to-Cycle
All
All
All
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
steady state
sinusoidal
driving
0.
0.
2.
4.
1.
0.
20.
8.
5.
038
241
078
302
880
440
550
500
840
n.s. 1
n.s. 6
*** 12
** 90
* 14
n.s. 0
*** 66
*** 7
*** 15
.083 **
.437 **
.908 **
.180 ***
.814. *
.666 *
.530 ***
.440 ***
.540 ***
5
19
44
55
73
6
244
14
31
.169 **
.098 *
.719 **
.965 ***
.388 **
.733 **
.18 ***
.43 ***
.86 ***
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
Test-to -Test
All
All
All
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
steady state
sinusoidal
driving
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
033
000
114
000
000
000
270
860
250
n.s. 0
n.s. 0
* 0
n.s. 0
n.s. 0
n.s. 0
** 0
** ^
* 0
.000 n.s.
.000 n.s.
.000 n.s.
.000 n.s.
.000 n.s.
.217 n.s.
.080 n.s.
.690 *
.420 *
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
073 n.s.
000 n.s.
000 n.s.
122 n.s.
427 n.s.
163 n.s.
780 n.s.
380 n.s.
530 **
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
(^Variability: cycle-to-cycle = (MSC-MSK)/N; test-to-test = (MSR (T)-MSE)/2
(^Significance: * = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
n.s. = not significant
Note: 1. Where possible, as determined by significance of F ratio from truck by
cycle interaction, the pooled MSB was used in the calculation.
2. Values of zero reflect negative estimates
3. MSC - mean square cycle value
MSE - mean square error
MSR(T) - mean square repeat value within truck
N - sample size
-------
TABLE C-4,. COMPARISON OF CYCLE-TO-CYCLE AND TEST-TO-TEST
VARIABILITY FOR FUEL RATE FROM DIESEL TESTS
Avg.
Speed
Emptv
Var. (
a/
Sig. (b) Var.
Load
Half
Sig.
Full
Var.
Cycle-to-Cycle
All
All
All
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
steady state
sinusoidal
driving
1505.
2395.
0000.
111.
0000.
32.
8569.
7028.
4056.
2
8
0
7
0
1
7
2
5
*** 481.
** 366.
n.s. 356.
n.s. 1334.
n.s. 0000.
n.s. 28.
*** 15776.
*** 7362.
*** 6974.
3 *
4 *
4 **
3 ***
0 n.s.
4 n.s .
8 ***
6 ***
Q ***
0000.
82.
3419.
6238.
2584.
0000.
12967.
9577.
10814.
Sig.
0 n.s.
0 n.s.
o **
4 ***
7 **
0 n.s.
3 *
3 ***
3 ***
N
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
Test-to-Test
All
All
All
8 kph
16 kph
24 kph
32 kph
48 kph
64 kph
steady state
sinusoidal
driving
32.
0000.
40.
49.
0000.
116.
129.
150.
88.
4
0
5
8
0
8
0
1
3
* 18.
n.s. 6.
n.s. 27.
n.s. 24.
n.s. 32.
n.s. 0000.
* 11.
* 279.
* 118.
7 n.s.
3 n.s .
2 n.s.
2 n.s.
8 n.s.
0 n.s.
9 n.s.
1 n.s.
^ ***
56.
0000.
23.
24.
0000.
130.
1157.
98.
311.
0 n.s .
0 n.s.
1 n.s.
7 n.s.
0 n.s.
9 *
8 n.s.
4 n.s.
6 **
4
4
4
6
4
4
12
6
8
(b)
'variability: cycle-to-cycle = (MSC-MSE)/N; test-to-test = (MSR (T)-MSE)/2
Significance: * = 0-05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
n.s. = not significant
Note: 1. Where possible, as determined by significance of F ratio from truck by
cycle interaction, the pooled MSB was used in the calculation.
2. Values of zero reflect negative estimates
3. MSC - mean square cycle value
MSB - mean square error
MSR(T) - mean square repeat value within truck
N - sample size
-------
TAIU.K C-5. C:i'r:i H1IKNI-. H.HI .T|l 1-ttlSK MIM.I ll'l.i: IU.C :i:K.V.KlN ANALV.I.i
DIKSKL TKST CVCLK IIC r MI.-vSIONS AS A HINCTION Ol M MilllK IIC KMI.'-SIONS
Idl.
Ornvr
TreneLent
10
19
20
Slnueoldi!
20 1.3684 1
30
Mode 8
Order
Cvcl« Coeff. Entered
Trtaelent
10
15
ZO
Slnuiold*!
20
to
Idle
Order
Circle Coeff. Entered
Tre-nileAt
10
15
ZO
SLmuoldtl
ZO
30
Mode 8
Order
Crcle Coeff. Entered
Transient
10
15
ZO
SUrotoLdAl
20
30
Idle
Order
Crcle Coeff. Entered
Tr&ailent
10
15
ZO
SlBttealdAl
20
30
Mode 8
Order
Crcle Coeff, Entered
Trtndeot
10
]»
20
Slnueoldel
20
JO
Mudr 2 Mude 1 Mode -4 MuJv 5 MuUe 0
Order Order Ordrr Ortlrr Oriinr
EMPTY LOAD
O.T027
0.7906
0. 8Z62
0.7646
1.2J65
Mode 9 Mode 10 Mode 11 Mode 12
Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Cocff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeft. Entered r2
EMPTY LOAD
0.925
0.910
0.922
0.974
0.969
Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6
Order Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
RAJLF LOAD
0.4373 1 0.3107 2
0.8019 1
0.7408 2 0.6007 1
1. 1543 1
Z. 1159 1
Mode 9 Mad* 10 Mode 11 Mode 12
Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Catered Coeff. Entered Coeff. ~ Entered r^
HALF LOAD
0.950
0.919
-0. 2864 3 0. 973
0.923
-0.4769 2 0.977
Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6
Order Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff Entered
FULL LOAD
0. 7099 1
0. 7482 1
0. 7174 1
1.0828 1
1. 1504 1
Mode 9 Made 10 Mode 11 Mode 12
Order Order Order Order
Coeif. Entered Coeff. Entered Cocff. Entered Cocff. Entered r2
FULL LOAD
0.902
0.921
0.890
0.876
0.908
Notai Variable* •ni«rrd to 0.0) •lininc*nc« Itvel
-------
TAIIl.li C-6. (..UKKt'lCIKNTii I OH .•: I I I'Wl.M-: Mlll.l'H'1.1. ItKCIlK.'iMoN ANAl.YMIi
I>IKM:L TKST I:YCI.K co KMISSIONS A.-. A I-'UNIITMN OK 11 MIUIK c'u KMISSIONS
Cycle
Transient
10
IS
20
Slnuaoidal
20
30
Cycle
Transient
10
IS
20
Sinn • old al
20
30
Cycle
Transient
10
15
20
Slnuioidal
20
30
Cycle
Traaalent
10
IS
20
&nu«oid»l
20
30
Transient
10
IS
20
SUraioldal
20
30
Transient
10
S5
20
Slnuaoldal
20
30
Ul. Mode 2
Order Order
Coeff. Flntrred Coeff, Knterfd
Mode 8 Mod* 9
Order Order
Coeff, Entered CoefC. Entered
0.0472 2
0.0292 2
Idle Mode 2
Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
1.5590 3
1. 1194 2
Mode 8 Mode 9
Order Order
CoefL Entered Coeff. Entered
0.0665 2
0.0897 2
0. 1394 1
Idle Mode 2
Order Order
Mode S Mode 9
Order Order
0. 1229 1
0.2054 1
0.2685 1
0.2626 1 -0.4840 J
0.2820 1
Mode ) Mode 4 Mud« 5 Mmlr (.
Order Order Order Order
Co.-ff. Knter.-d Corff, EntiT.-d Cm-ff. Kill •• r.-il C...-ff. FnlerK?
EMPTY LOAD
0.1278 2 0.0173 3
0.0368 2
0. 2059 1
0.0172 2
O.S264 1
Mode 10 Mode 11 Mode 12
Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered r^
EMPTY LOAD
0.3692 1 0.971
0.9337 1 -0. 5054 3 0.966
0.2941 3 0.956
0.4790 1 0.973
0. 2282 3 0. 988
Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6
Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coefl. Entered Coeff. Entered
BA.LF LOAD
0. 1639 1
0. S627 3 0.2907 1
0. 3992 2
0. 19S3 2
Mode 10 Mode 11 Mode 12
Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered r*
HALF LOAD
' 0. 969
0.974
0.946
0.5040 1 0.971
0.4570 1 0.960
Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6
Order Order Order Order
Coeff Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
FULL LOAD
0.3635 2
0.4485 2
0.4670 2
0.61050 2
0. 2586 2
Mode 10 Mode 11 Mod. 12
Order Order Order
Coeff Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered _ rz
FULL LOAD
0.968
0.977
0.965
0.948
0.944
C-7
Note: VarUblr* *nt«red to 0.0) •Ignifictnc* l«v«l
-------
TABI.T T-7. rOKrTiriKNTS KOII STKI'WISK Mlll.TIIM.t: HW ill KSSION ANALYSIS
DltsKL TKST CYCLK NO, EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION UK u wont NO, tMi.-vsioN
Crel.
Traaelent
10
15
20
Slaueoldal
20
30
Crcl.
Traaelent
10
15
20
Slnueoldal
20
30
Crcle
Traaalcat
10
IS
20
Slanaoldal
20
30
Crcl*
Traaaieat
10
15
20
SUmioldal
20
30
Crcl*
Traaei*nt
10
15
20
oftaaeoldal
20
30
Crcle
Idle Mode 2 Mode ) Mode 4
Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
EMPTY LOAD
1. 1288 1
1.4829 1
1.9380 1
2.4357 1 -0.3994 3
1.7385 3 1.3139 1
Mode 8 Mod* 9 Mod* 10 Mod* 11
Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
EMPTY LOAD
0.0345 2
0.0421 2
0.0592 2
0.682 2
0.0914 3
Idle Mode 2 Mode 3 Mod* 4
Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
HALF LOAD
1.8463 2 0.1825 3
2.2731 Z
2.4243 2
2.7066 2
3.4714 2
Mode 8 Mode 9 Mode 10 Mode 11
Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
HALF LOAD
0.6111 1
0.7829 1
Idle Mod* 2 Mode 3 Mod* 4
Ord«r Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
FULL LOAD
2. 1828 2
2.8286 2
2.9252 2
4.1839 2
3.6622 2
Mode 8 Mode 9 Mod* 10 Mod* 11
Order Order Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
M.xle 5 Mode A
Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coed. tillered
Mode 12
Order
Coeff. Entered r2
0.990
0.992
0. 99Z
0.985
0.992
Mode 5 Mode 6
Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
0.0973 1
0.2084 1
0.3025 1
Mode 12
Order
Coeff. Entered r2
0.989
0.988
0.987
0.986
0.976
Mode 5 Mode 6
Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
0. 1940 1
0.2779 1
0.3381 1
0.4133 1
Mode 12
Order
Coeff. Entered r^
FULL LOAD
10
IS
20
Slmeotdel
20
50
O.JiJO
0.984
0.980
0.982
0.988
0.983
Nolei V.rUbU. entered to 0.05
-------
TAHI.H C-H. COK.KHCIKNTS |.'(i|< STKI'WISK Mil I.TIIM.K II KC.II KSSION ANALYSIS
DIKSKL TEST CYCLK KUKL HATK AS A FUNCTION OK II MODK KUKL HATE
Idle Moil? 2
Order Order
Cycl* Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
Transient
10 2.3830 2
IS 5.9958 1
20 4.8216 1
Slnuioldal
20 7. 2008 1
30 2. 1749 1
Mode 8 Mode 9
Order Order
Crclfl Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
Transient
10
15
20
Slnaeoidat
20
30
Idle Mode 2
Order Order
Cycle Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
Transient
10
15
20
SiBuaoidal
20
30
Mode 8 Mode 9
Order Order
Cycle Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
Tnaaleot
10
IS
20 0. 3204 1
SLnuaoldal
20 0. 7598 1
30
Idle Mode 2
Order Order
Tranaleot
10
15
20
Slnuaoldal
30
Mod* 8 Mode 9
Order Order
CrcU Coeff Entered Coeff. Entered
Transient
10
It
20
Slnmoldil
20 1.2030 1 -1.0966 2
30
McxU 1 MO,). 4
Order Ordor
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
EMPTY LOAD
2.1239 2 -1.1446 3
Mode 10 Mode 11
Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
EMPTY LOAD
Mode 3 Mode 4
Order Order
Coetf. Entered Coeff. Entered
HALF LOAD
-1.1308 2
1.2927 1
Mode 10 Mode 11
Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
HALT LOAD
Mode 3 Mode 4
Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
FULL LOAD
1.M69 1
Mode 10 Mod. 11
Order Order
Coeff. Entered Coeff. Entered
FULL LOAD
C-»
Moili- 5
Coeff.
Order
Entered
Mode 12
Order
Entered
Mode 5
Coeff.
Order
Entered
Mode 12
Order
Entered
Mode 5
Coeff.
0.6660
Order
Entered
Mode 12
Order
Entered
0. 1088
0.986
0.979
0.994
0.985
0.982
Mode 6
0.2524
0.3282
Order
Entered
0.982
0.984
0.986
0.998
0.976
Mode 6
0.2971
0.3990
Order
Entered
0.974
0.976
0.978
0.988
0.977
Note! Variable* entered to 0. 05 •tgnlflcance level
-------
TABLE C-9. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR REWEIGHTING 13-MODE HC EMISSIONS
FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS
O
H
O
Idle
(1,7,13) 2
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.327
0.247
0.286
0.000
0.000
0.327
0.180
0.211
0.000
0.000
0.366
0.224
0.186
0.000
0.000
0.501
0.514
0.273
0.976
0.803
0.360
0.507
0.299
0.908
0.803
0.455
0.599
0.493
0.803
0.779
3
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5
0.0352
0.0535
0.320
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.170
0.466
0.000
0.000
0.109
0.030
0.266
0.000
0.000
Mode
6
Full
0.137
0.184
0.121
0.011
0.015
Half
0.063
0.144
0.026
0.000
0.000
Empty
0.070
0.147
0.0256
0.000
0.000
Coef. of
8
Load
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.013
0.158
Load
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Load
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.092
0.000
11
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.092
0.197
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.105
0.220
Deter.
r2
0.923
0.950
0.927
0.871
0.901
0.958
0.949
0.957
0.911
0.920
0.946
0.931
0.949
0.956
0.954
-------
TABLE C-10. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR REWEIGHTING 13-MODE CO EMISSIONS
FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS
Idle
(1,7,13) 2
3
4
5
Mode
6
Coef. of
8
9
10 11
12
Deter.
r2
Full Load
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.358
0.053
0.262
0.511
0.252
0.000
0.000
0.038
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.054
0.000
0.240
0.349
0.000
0.000
0.306
0.286
0.359
0.435
0.251
0.174
0.002
0.012
0.012
0.067
0.031
0.113
0.177
0.252
0.118
0.236
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000
0.032 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.974
0.982
0.965
0.941
0.950
Half Load
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.569
0.271
0.163
0.368
0.147
0.000
0.000
0.398
0.000
0.241
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.051
0.202
0.000
0.108
0.232
0.195
0.243
0.310
0.098
0.144
0.015
0.021
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.042
0.067
0.110
0.000
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.026
0.128 0.000
0.197 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.426 0.000
0.192 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.972
0.982
0.955
0.977
0.978
Empty Load
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.509
0.481
0.393
0.332
0.241
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.115
0.119
0.000
0.202
0.402
0.422
0.098
0.067
0.173
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.017
0.007
0.004
0.000
0.021
0.024
0.038
0.014
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.031
0.247 0.000
0.410 0.000
0.178 0.000
0.216 0.015
0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.170
0.976
0.953
0.964
0.986
0.992
-------
TABLE C-ll. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR REWEIGHTING 13-MODE NOX EMISSIONS
FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS
O
M
NJ
Idle
(1,7,13) 2
3
4 5
Mode
6
8
9
10
11
12
Coef. of
Deter.
r2
Full Load
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.233
0.132
0.000
0.020
0.246
0.588
0.414
0.660
0.618
0.290
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.081
0.000
0.000 0.128
0.000 0.171
0.000 0.201
0.000 0.046
0.000 0.315
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.037
0.082
0.014
0.079
0.032
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.157
0.117
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.201
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.980
0.975
0.975
0.975
0.976
Half Load
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.200
0.351
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.653
0.433
0.638
0.575
0.025
0.038
0.000
0.106
0.108
0.343
0.000 0.043
0.000 0.164
0.000 0.197
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.138
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.038
0.010
0.059
0.000
0.000
0.029
0.042
0.000
0.153
0.025
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.164
0.306
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.162
0.985
0.984
0.986
0.985
0.972
Empty Load
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.152
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.772
0.726
0.453
0.568
0.546
0.000
0.082
0.245
0.000
0.088
0.000 0.031
0.000 0.042
0.000 0.114
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.088
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.027
0.013
0.059
0.025
0.043
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.051
0.000
0.077
0.221
0.000
0.072
0.175
0.296
0.032
0.991
0.987
0.985
0.973
0.977
-------
TABLE C-12. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR REWEIGHTING 13-MODE FUEL RATE
FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS
O
M
ui
Modes
Idle
(1,7,13) 2
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
0.673
0.520
0.000
0.087
0.000
0.663
0.304
0.191
0.558
0.000
0.545
0.400
0.156
0.299
0.000
0.046
0.044
0.481
0.636
0.392
0.162
0.422
0.384
0.000
0.471
0.348
0.448
0.500
0.156
0.757
3
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.126
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5
0.070
0.235
0.430
0.000
0.591
0.000
0.177
0.177
0.000
0.237
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6
Full
0.205
0.192
0.088
0.033
0.000
Half
0.106
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
Empty
0.029
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
8
9
10
11
Coef. of
12
Deter.
r2
Load
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
000
000
000
244
017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.977
0.978
0.980
0.979
0.978
Load
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
068
076
130
221
093
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.117
0.221
0.199
0.985
0.987
0.989
0.984
0.980
Load
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
078
130
134
110
168
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.075
0.000
0.022
0.209
0.435
0.000
0.985
0.982
0.986
0.975
0.984
-------
TABLE C-13. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR DIESEL TEST CYCLE COMBINED EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
AS A FUNCTION OF 13-MODE COMBINED EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE, COEFFICIENTS CONSTRAINED TO BE POSITIVE
Mode
Idle
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12 r2
Empty Load
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
O
M Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Transient
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
2.2954
3.2218
3.9815
5.6197
2.1419
2.4979
2.7044
3.9370
4.2995
2.8559
3.2771
3.4165
4.2445
3.2356
2.5626
0.1363
0.1694
0.3810
0.3450
0.8495
0.0000
0.0484
0.0393
0.0000
0.5963
0.0000
0.0000
0.1289
0.3060
0.4034
0.2602
0.2854
0.2642
0.0000
0.4222
0.3358
0.5245
0.6653
0.2166
0.6140
0.2538
0.2668
0.3407
0.2866
0.9905
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0042
0.0000
0.0000
0.0155
0.1084
0.1455
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Half Load
0.0268
0.0209
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Full Load
0.0534
0.0764
0.0561
0.0000 0.0490
0.0073
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0080
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0885
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0920
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000 0.9877
0.0000 0.9855
0.0000 0.9901
0.0000 0.9846
0.0000 0.9874
0.0000 0.9878
0.0000 0.9892
0.0000 0.9918
0.0000 0.9862
0.0000 0.9838
0.0000 0.9809
0.0000 0.9809
0.0000 0.9836
0.0000 0.9805
0.0000 0.9798
-------
o
TABLE C-14. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR DIESEL TEST CYCLE COMBINED EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
AS A FUNCTION OF 13-MODE COMBINED EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE, COEFFICIENTS NORMALIZED TO SUM TO 1.0
Mode
Transient
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Trnasient
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Transient
5
10
15
20
Sinusoidal
20
30
Idle
0.9249
0.8527
0.8763
0.8605
0.9409
0.6275
0.8904
0.8732
0.8199
0.8474
0.9337
0.7023
0.9427
0.9104
0.8832
0.8635
0.8152
0.6465
2
0.0454
0.0506
0.0461
0.0824
0.0578
0.2489
0.0000
0.0000
0.0147
0.0085
0.0000
0.1466
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0262
0.0771
0.1018
3
0.0296
0.0967
0.0776
0.0571
0.0000
0.1237
0.1096
0.1174
0.1590
0.1432
0.0470
0.1510
0.0000
0.0705
0.0689
0.0693
0.0722
0.2499
4
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
5
Empty
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Half
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0009
0.0000
0.0000
Full
0.0546
0.0043
0.0280
0.0296
0.0000
0.0019
6
Load
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Load
0.0000
0.0094
0.0063
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Load
0.0027
0.0148
0.0198
0.0114
0.0124
0.0000
8
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0134
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0192
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0232
0.0000
9
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
10
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
11
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
12
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-------
TABLE C-15. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 19 10MPH RPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1600 3000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 62
n
i
K
PWR
-2
2
6
10
1*
16
22
26
30
3*
36
*2
46
SO
5*
56
62
66
Y A
70
7*
78
82
a f
HO
O A
vo
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
170
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
152
1
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
i
1
2
0
1
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 5
0
0
- 1
^ I
2
0
1
o
1
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - .
2
_... 2 .._
5
- . 7 _
6
2
2
*
0
0
0
1
0
0 .
0 -
0 ..
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
2
6
3
10
12
15
6
3
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. _ 4
1
2
7
5
5
I
0
2
1
0
3
_ _. 5
— 0
o
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
~0
- S
. 2
3
3
— 11
14
1
- 1
0
1
0
0
2
2
3
_... 2
- . 2
- 1
1
- 0
0
...a
...- 0
0
2
0
._ 2
3
-.9
5
5
s
1
6
0
0
o
o
_o
1 —
-.1 ._.
- - 0 - —
o
._ 0
- -
- —
o
~~—2- ~
0 --
0
0
0
o
o
0- -
1
1
1
1
2
2 -
4 —
7
0
1
0 __
0
0 -._
0 ._
0 . -
X
o
"LTJII
i _
0-...
1 — -
0 — ..
1 —
0
I
1- -
I
0
3 -
0
0 — -
2
0 —
0
2
0 _
1
1
0
2
~\.~-.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
o
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
. 1
0
0
0
.— 1-
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
. - 0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
-------
TABLE C-16. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 20 10MPH RPM 200 400 600 600 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
ST 62 PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
1 A
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
399
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
?
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
7
B
12
4
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
- o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IS
8
16
10
10
I c
18
12
8
5
1
4
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
5
3
5
15
4
4
1
4
6
'4
1
2
2
0
1
0
1
~z
1
2
*
9
1
1
0
2
0
2"_-
1
11.1.3
~ i
_ 4
2
3
~ 1
3
1
2
1
0
2
2
~~~Z
3
1
3
4
0
0
2
0
2
r _i i
. 0
0
2
1
— - o
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"_1 '
"TIT"
0
0
o
5
0
o
0
— - o
0
J.°
0
0
0
_HQ
~~ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.11 ° 1
0
-— o
0
0
0
j - —
— - o
1. °1~
0
" 0
0
0
'.11.9
17 o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0 " , ~
0
o "111H
o
o H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o lH
0 ~
0
0 _
o TII in.
o "1~H
0
0 HUH
0
-------
TABLE 017. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 21 10MPH RPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 62
PUR
-2
2
6
10
14
22
26
30
34
42
46
50
58
62
62
66
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
404
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
3
2
1
1
1
1
8
1
0
1
0
2
o
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
6
6
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
12
3
1
3
10
2
3
2
1
3
4
0
1
0
1
1 _"
'2
8
0
5
3
2
4
0
0
2
1
3
0
1
8
3
I
2
0
0
a
" 6
i
~3
- 2
~ 1
" 6
" 6
5
3
1
" 5
" 6
1
- *
" 1
- 1
~_ I
2
2
13
_ 2
1
~ 0
.'_ 1 1. 1
"~3~1~~
3
._ ^
2
7 -
0
0 "~
1
2 ;
1
o
4 "~
_ ?.!_".
12
1
0
i~
0
0
0
0 ""
1 ~
1
4
1 ~
0~~
0
o ~
0 ""
0
0 ~_
1
0
0 ~~~
o _""
0
0
o
0 J
0
0
0
0
0
0 '__
0
0
0 ^
0_
0
0
0"^
0
0
0 ~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0~
0
0
0
Q
°"T~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-18. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
_ TRUCK 22 10MPH RPM ZOO 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 62
>UR
2
6
10
14
18
26
30
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
82
86
90
94
98
g
0"
g
0
0
g
0
g
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
g
g
0
1
g
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
401
g
j
0
1
1
0
Q
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
J
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
g
1
0
1
1
g
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
g
0
0
0
0
0
12
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1 1
5"
10
5
2
3
1
3
0
1
1
3
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
25
10
8
5
...*__
g
1 . .
4
1
0
1
2
3
1
0
J
3
10
3
_ 3
2
d
i
p
i
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
3
s
,
- *
Ll
LI
~ 2
77 I
1
i
i
^ 0
2
2
0
1
1
I 0
1
1
2
_ 0
2
13
Q
.. o
L o
0
1
I
0
g
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
L.I
6
o
0
g
0
-
0
g
LLL i
"__o
0
i
i
L o
L o
0
i
o_
.
_L o
g
~ 0
0
0
g
LL. «
LLLLo
0
. 0
LL o
LL o
.. 0
0
0
LL o
.LL. o.
9
''„ 0
L o
0
LLLLo
0
—
0
g
LL o
LLL-0.
0
o
0
0
LL o
0
0
_L_o
L o
L_. P
—
0
0
0
0
— _ _
0
g
0
— _ 0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
. _. o _ .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
g
0
0
0
0
0
_ 0
g
0
... 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LLo
0
0
0
0
0
---
0
g
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.„.. o
-------
TABLE C-19. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER
CLE
TRUCK
TEST
23 10M*M RP* 200 *00 600 800 1000 IZO'1 1*00 1600 180J » 3200 3*00 3600
FWR
-2
2
6
10
1*
22
26
30
3*
36
*2
*6
50
5*
58
62
66
TO
T*
78
82
86
90
«*
98
0
31
0
0
10 19
\
3
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
389
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
23
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I)
3 * ) 3 5
0 0 » 2 6 ^
0 0 0 * 7 1
00003,
j
0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 00
ooooo
0 0 0 0 0 .
ooooo
ooooo
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 _
0 0 0 00
0 0 0 0 0 __
OOOOO
•90.0 0
9000
9 __ 0 __ 0 0
•
. ) 0 0 0
» 0 0 0
} 0 0 0
.
) 0 0 0
30 0 0
.30 0 0
90 0.0
9 0 0 0
^9.0 0 0
9 00,0
9000
» o " o o
-
9000
1 - ..-
) 0 . 0 .. 0
!-•
DO 0 0
»_o o.o
. - - -
• _ o _ o o
0 0
0 0
0 0
00
0 0
? I
I I
-------
TABLE C-20. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 24 10MPH
TEST 62
RPM
PWR
-2
Z
6
10
1*
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
200 4
~ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
409
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
800 1000 1200 1400 1600
002
370
0 1 0
000
1 1 0
000
010
010
000
000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
1
2
7
5
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1800
14
6
5
1
a
7 15
9
7
2
4
4
0
2
3
1
1
4
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2000
2
2
4
~2
~6
IT
7
. _7
2
7l3
14
8
""_ 5
~ 4
'~_ 2
"" 4
"7.3
4
_ 6
1
__ 1
~ 2
1 3
2
0
17
2200 2400 2600
" o
0
0
0
. .. 0 777
.._.. 2
.77 o "1
3
2
1
1
"V * -777
o
. »
o
.-.. 0 __..
r o ~_~~_
i
i
1.77
r i r
77 i ...77
0
0
90
o77_7
0
0
0
o _7.
_o
oTTT
o _Z
...
o__
0
1
3
i 77
i
i
*~
»777_
i 7
0
0
o 77
1 77
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
)
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2800 3000
0
0
0
0 "
"o
0 .....
~ o ~
0
o
0 . ..
o
7777 o ~I
o
_. "
o
o
~LO T
^- o _ _
"777.0
7_7_o__
0
7777o 7
777 o
~o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3200 3400 3600
0
0
0
" 0 .
0
0
0
" ~ o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o ~
0
0
0
o ....
0
0
0
0
0___
0
0
0
0 '_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 _~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o_
0
0
0
0 " "
o "
0 .
o _ .'_"_. 7 MLT~_~
o
0
0
0 ~ "~
o . njr_7JZ
0
0 _
0 ~
0
o . . .T.'.rzi
0
o _ "7... 7_
_ o ". .._ '_'__ 7 7Z
o _._ _ 77777777
_ Q~ " ._ _ .._717._..Z7
o 7 77
0
-------
TABLE c-21. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TEST 62» PWR
-2
2
6
10
1*
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
.". 82
". *'
90
94
98
0000
0 32 379 3
0010
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0 47
500
000
0 0 0
000
1 01
000
000
0 1 0
0 1 1
00 A
000
000
.
9
! i
1
0
a
1
0
1
a.
1
Q
I
J
o
0
0
4
5
7
4
8
12
9
8
10
7
10
0
3
3
1
1
1
1
0
1
4
_2
6
9
6
10
10
10
3"
3
1
1
1
2
" "4
0 _1~_
' 0 "~~~
0
0
_ o . ..
1 -
1
5
~ 2 ~~
2
1
3
o
0
2
' — -- —
2
o ;~
" i
0 . "_'..
o ir."
0
1
0
o
o
0
0
0
2
2
I
0
— - "
0
0
o
0 _11
o ^T
0
0
0 ..
0
o"
0
0
0
o ~^
1
0
o
0
_
0
0
0 ~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
Q
o
o
(1
0
0
0
_.. o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
fl
o
0
0
0
_ o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
Q
o
Q
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
Q
0
Q
0
0
0
0
- - . - - - -
. .- . —
- -_
. __ _ •
__
'
.. . .-_-
.
-- •- •
"~
— -JM.-..-1U1
..
-------
TABLE C-22. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
(
TRUCK 25 10MPH RPM ZOO 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2*00 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 62
PUR
2
6
10
14
16
22
30
36
4?
46
50
Ci
58
70
74
78
62
86
90
94
96
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
404
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
2
2
3
8
3
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
1
5
0
2
2
1
1
2
0
" 1
1
1
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
?
2
3
3
3
18
6
Z' 6
_Z 8
3
2
3
1
1
0
"" 1
0
0
15
2
0
0
2
Z
__ }
- . _ 3
_ 1
4
.1 1
Z *
I 3
~_ 5
.Z 3
3
9
0
1
1 o
._ 3
0
23
0
0
0
0 _ .
....» .~.
1
.1.1 7-Z.
0
.2 ZZ
~ i7ZZ7
.— Z . Z77
3
_.Z. i.ZZ
T" i_z
."- Z ~
4.ZZ
4
1 Z.
3
6
20
0
0
0
0 .1".
oz_7z
0
o _Z7 i
0
o ZZ7
oZZZ
ozr
o I
o Z
oZ
o Z
oZZL
0
0 ^
o Z
PZI"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
"
0
0
0
0
Z. o
. 0
_ 0
0
"IL 0
TZZo
Z. o
~^ o
__Z.o
Z.V- o
Z o
Z o
0
0
J 0
ZZ .0
0
0
0
0
^0
0
0 ,
0
._ o
o z;
'-- 0
o
0
o
- Z o
0
o
0
0
0
o
~ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'.'. o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0 ."_
0
0
0
0
. . o ._..".".
o \ Z
~-0 Z Z.
0
o
0
- 0
0
0
o Z
0
o
o
.
— - •-
-• -
- — —
... - ..
- - ---
. .
- - --
-
-------
TABLE C-23. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-PPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 2« JOMPH RPM 200 400 600 600 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST
PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
36
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
90
98
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
402
1
o
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0"
0
0
0
4
0
o
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
o
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
3
1
7
6
2
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
1
.
2
8
5
8
4
5
6
11
2
0
2 .
1
2
10
1
0
1
4
9
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
5
2
3
11
8
3
4
3
6
4
0
4
2
18
8
0
1
"~ 0
0
0
1
" 4
5
1
2
~ 1
" 4
_ 2
_ T
2
5
2
1
2
35
~ 1
0
...o._i:
0
• 1
0
o
"" 0
0
o ;
0
o ".
0
""".:'
0
1 "
... 1
0
0
o
0
26
o
0
o 7
0
0 _TT
0
or:
0
0
0 _
0
b /T
0 ~
o 7
0 ..
0
0. . .
o ' L.
0
0
0
0 T
0
o.::;:
0
0 ~
0
Q
0
o /
0
0 _
o ~
o
o TT
0
o !
0
0 ._'_
0
0 "___'
0
0"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ~
o IT
0
0 _
0
0 .'.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ._
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 . .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- - — —
. . .
—
. . _ — —
_
. . -_ . . — —
". " ~T~
'. ""^n
"" IVIIIZ
_ -•— — ' - —
' ~" ~ **
" "~ "—-• "
— • —
•
._
. .
.
..
. ....
.::;'.. .._-___
-------
TABLE C-24. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWEH-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH
TRUCK 25 10MPH RPM
TEST &A. PMR
-2
2
.6
10
14
18
22
26
T 30
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
TO
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
442
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0 1 3 5 11
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
8
0
1
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
15
5
2
2
9
8
5
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
12
1800 2000 2200
10 13 _4
1
2
11 1
2
1
2
1
3
1
n
1 9
~- 1 „
4
5
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
14
0
1
1
1.3 _
6
i 2
1 _
0
5
3
1
0
3 "
8
1
1
1
0
0
o ~
0
3
1
0
28
0
0
1
0
0
2
3
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
14
2400
_lo
_Io
0
H o
~_o
0
o
21 o
0
11 .p
0
0
77 p
0
0
__'_ 0
17 o
.-P
77.0
0
~ 0
0
^ 0
0
0
0
2600
__0
1 o
0
— •
' _ 0
'~\ 0
0
77 o
0
~ 0
0
0
17" o
0
0
111 o
0
_. 0
"~" 0
o
0
0
0
0
0
2800 3000
_1 o 7 "17
'_'_"_ 0
0
0
"117 o ~
_ 0
71 o
.11 o 17
0
1 0
~ 0
0
11 p.l_
0
0
2^0
777 o
_ o _
1 o
177 'o
0
0
7" o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3200 3400 36
_ _. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~~. o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0 ...
o "']'
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
o I
0
0
0
0 "'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_..
-- - -
-- —
_.
- - —
_ . .
_
- . _ _ .-
..-.
- - -
-------
TABLE C-2S. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 26 10MPM HPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 62
PWR
-2
2
14
30
38
54
A?
70
86
90
94
98
0 01 1 6 4 9 IS
0 362 21 0 0 1 15
0 0 0 1 0 0 1 10
01000004
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 S
-
00000001
00000001
00000000
00000002
00000003
13
' i
5
9
3
I
1
0
1
7
7
~ 0
1
11
S
2
2
1
_ .2
1
1
4
3 _ _ 3 ._ 0 .!_ 0
T o i "^"_ o o
T - 0 . 0/0
2 . 0 0^0
1 . T . 0 I.. 0 ."_. 0
1 _ .0 .__" •„_ 0
_o '_ o^_ o."_l o
1 " 0 0 " 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 ~ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-26. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
_ TRUCK 27 10HPH RPM 200 400 600 600 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 62
PNR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
38
42
46
50
54
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
454
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
3
6
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
19
6
10
13
10
6
6
1
1
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
2
0
3
12
2
4
3
11
13
10
~7
~4
3
4
T.3
~~ 3
-To
"~"b
~ 3
0
0
"' °
V °
J
1
0
0
1
4 "' ._
4
o
2
6 ~ ~
T 3 TT
T 3 rr
'". * ~
2 ~
1
1
"T2~T~
'TT"°"~T
T.~ o_"T_
"~ ° "~
o ~T
~ 0
4
0 ~~
T 0
__ 0 -
0
0
0
10
2 "....
l~_
3 " T
...
i "~
3 TT_
2 1H
5
4 _T.
0
2
o TT
i~
o TT.
i "IT.
» 7
2 ;~
3'~~
0
1
07
0
2
4
T
1
0
0
0
l
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
i
2
0
1
1
4
0
1
0
0
4
3
0
._ 0 _
0
~~o"
0 ~"
~. 0
IT _ o
. T_ o
~ 0
IIT'.o. _.
0
1 ..__
TI o _
~TO~
TTTi /
TO "~
~TO
"TT"
0
TO
0
TT3'"V
2
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.. 0
0
0
0
0
0
T o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-27. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 28 10HPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 62 PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
A gL
^o
so
54
58
62
66
7 ft
f 0
78
A?
OC
* *
Bo
OA
vy
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
292
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
5
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
2
6
13
5
3
2
2
0
2
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
18
7
4
5
4
1
3
1
0
1
4
z
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
*
27
_15
T f
1 6
4
2
7
2
1 1
1 1
~_ 4
~ 5
1 1
11 3
1~ \
0
1 i
_
z
\
I
z
3
91
1
'~ 3
.11 4
4
5
"'_ 3
9
5
. 4
3
1~ 0
" 1
1
0
2
I
1
0"
0
- - - B
2 1_
1
11 ° -H
11. o '-
3
0 1
ll_
1
1 0
T oir
. 2 _1
~" 1 11
~ o n
11 1 H
llloZl.
i —
i i~"
. 1 "
0
0
3
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
i
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' J _ 0
Ho
". 0
0
0
lo ....
0
.0
— y
~~ 0 .
1~1 0
0
. ._ o ._
0
_..l o _ _
0 ~
~. 9
0
0
11 "o
~
0
0
o~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-28. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 29 10HPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
..TEST 62
PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
42
46
SO
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
330
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
7.
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
1 .
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
_ 2.^
4
8 .
12
19
5
5
2
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
4 .
1
4
2
1
2
4
4
7
1
1
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
_ 1
1
17
11
5
3
2
2
0
3
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
5
0
1
z
0
2
1
4
_0
o
0
1
la
. 4
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
o
___ 0 __.
1
1
0
1
2 ._„
. ... 2 ._
0
1
.— 1
.1 _
"~"o~
_ o "
2
„
4 ...
"~~ 2 71
— 3 -
0
~~o' ~
o 7~
... ^
\~
i .
^ _._..
o
0
o
0
1 "
o
0
0 _
0
1
0
1
0 ."_..
3
0
1 ~~
9
1
0
0
0 ~'
0
2
1
9
g
0
o
0 -
0
o
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
i.._
0
0
0 .7
0
0
1
0 _".
0
1
0
1
7
o
0
o
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
o
_ 0
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
L o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
0 -
0
0
0
0
o . ...
0
0
0 . .. . _
0 ._
0
0
0 _ .._
0 _
0 ._ . . . _
0
0 J
0 .
0
o _Z ~
0
0
-------
TABLE C-29. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 16 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 30 10HPH RPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 62
PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
C A
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
278
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
14
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
4
4
8
6
10
16
1
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
7
19
. 3
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
3
12
87
20
5
2
2
6
3
4
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
~2
_ -2
3
2
6
1
1
0
1
2
;3
l
2
770
>
~ ~ i
"6
7 i
' i
2
2
0
2"
77°
0
0
7 o I"
77 o _.7_
0
_ 0 .
i 7
_o
2
6 . .
8 7
z
:2
2_
2 7777
7-7 i 7
~ 7* 77
.. z._.
~ 0
0
."i~7
- - 0 - -•-
i
i
^
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
1
o 7 o
0 ~ 0
77 o o
mo,L 9 „
~ o 7 o
77 o '__ o „
.77 1 0
0 .0
0 0
. 2 0
7 o 7 o
~7 o ~7 o
77 o 77 o
0^
0 _ _
77 2" 77 o
77^ »"777o 7
"77". 1 777 "z
77~o""~o
'I! i 7 i
7 o - o
'~~_~ o 7 o
777.0 o
0 0
0 0
Oft
0
2 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-30. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-HPM INTERVALS FOR 3Z KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 19 90MPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64
_..
.-
-
. . .
— - -
_ . .
'iriii~
PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
96
30
34
38
42
46
SO
54
sa
62
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
5
0
0
. 0
g
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
g
0
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
216
0
0
0
o
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
o
49
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
o
o
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
o
1
1
1
0
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
o
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
1 1
1
o
o
1
I
2
1
0
0
o
. 0
0
0
0
0
- 0
• 0
0
0
0
0
13
o
2
2
3
13
5
7
- 2
5
1
4
0
- 1
0
0
0
0
0
o
1
._. 0
9
2
3
3
6
. 5
3
2
._ 3
- 1
2
- 6
.. 2
-_ 1
i
2
1
0
_ 1
0
1
1
3
g
1
2.
I
3
_~~2
2
9
-. - 3
-. 2
0
2
3
— 1
0
0
2
0
1
1
_ 2
... 9
&
3
1
0
3
0
- Z
5
_ — »
- 1
1
3
2
I
— 1
1
0
2
0
— 0
_... 1
. _ 22
o
o
1
2
0
. ~2 _
.... 0 -
4
— i
- - 2
o
o
2
Q
0
--- 4
1
_... 1
3
5
. _. 1
36
g
0
0
o
o
0 _
0
1
0-
1
o
o
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
3
1
25
Q
o
o
o
n
0
0
o
0
1
1
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Q
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Q
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- .
... .
--
--
. -
- - —
._._-_
-------
TABLE C-31. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 20 20MPH HPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64
o
i
K
PXR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
82
86
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
217
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
8
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
6
10
7
6
2
3
2
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
6
8
18
16
14
8
15
3
23
8
2
1
r
i"
0
i
0
i
_ i
2
2
0
0
3
0
2
0
9
6
5
" 4
4
17
17
'" 4
~ 7
"~ 3
4
1
2
5
0
17
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
4
3
2
0
1
1
; 3
3
0
3
0
0
3
10
6
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
Q
~ 1
0
0
0
'" 0
"7 o
"~ 0
0
0
1
0
'__ 0
~~o
0
0
0
; o
0
-~-°~.
~L o
... o —
0
" 0
~ 0
"~ 0
' 0
o
~ ° _!'
H ° 7.
0
0
~L~. °
0
l.\P.."._
"°~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~°r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-32. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-HPM INTERVALS FOR 3Z KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 21 20MPH HPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64 PHR
-2
2
6
10
___...-__-..... ^
HIT'HI ' " l8
_.II'l~-~" TI"" a2
777_ 26
3o
34
I_" 38
wriT" "" *2
46
SO
._. _ 5^
58
62
66
70
"III" "II ' 7*
III 78
82
H -_ 86
90
II 9*
98
0
o
_ 0
- o
o
0
I °
0
o
0
o
0
0
o
— - o
0
0
0
0
~ 7 " '
0
0
0
0
_; 7 o
0
0
0 2
0
0
II *
0
0
0
0
1
o
0
0
0
_._ t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'25
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
6
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
t
2
0
0
0
I
0
2
0
1
77 i
' 0
2
" 0
1
13
5
4
4
2
0
0
0
1
9
11
4
12
9
10
9
10
6
1
6
"~ 9
7
6
4
0
1
2
9
2
5
3
2
0
".. 3
38
2
0
" 2
"~ 4
" ~ 3
1
~ 6
T
2
.. j
~~ 2
3
2
7
10
0
a
2
"7 o
0
T °
6
2
' i
32
1
2
2 - -
1 "~
r
0
"0
o
1
o
— z—--
3
2
~~ \~~J__
1
*II
1
0
"0 7
0
_3 __
0
— - 2
I l 11
14
0
Q
0
0
J -- - ••
0
0 _
0
0 "
0
0
0777
0
0
"TV!
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
o~~~
077
9~'
o 77
6
0
0
0
07
0
0
6 _
0
0
o 77
0
0 "
0
0
0
0 ~
0
0
o 7
0
0
0
°"~
0 "~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ~
0
0 _
o
0
6
o 7
0
p
0
0
0
0
o 7
0
0
0 ^
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 "~
0
0
o 7
0
0
0
0 ._
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. .. _
—
—
_ —
--
— - —
...
-
—
-------
TABLE C-33. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
I ' • • - . -
TRUCK 22 20MPM RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64
PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
34
38
SO
54
62
TO
j^
78
82
86
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
223
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
11
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
s
2
2
1
1
0
0
4
e
10
16
5
3
3
6
0
1
2
2
2
2
5
1 „
i
i
31
3
2
4
16
4
1
0
1
0
1
0
4
2
o
2
1
14
65
2
1
3 .
_.. *._.
7
18
8
1.
2
0
0
0_
_ ^
1
o"
__^ <>_„
0_
1
»5
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
i
0
1
0
.2
1
0
12
1
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
1
0
T_".
0
-Jl 1
"2
1
1
n 2
Z_o
5
13
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. _ 0
'___ 0
Ho
HO
_ i
0
17 o
HO
o
0
"_. 0
0
0.
1_ 0
. 0 ....
0
0 .
0
.1 o ~!
I. o..y._
"_ 0
.— ~ V .'—
_~"_o IT
0
~"_" 0 ~~
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
Q.
0
o"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
p
.0
o .
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
0 _"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-34. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 23 20MPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64
___ _ — .
1
-
- -
..... -
...
. . ...
-
-
PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
"7. 0
. 77 0
0
.-1 " " 0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
o
_"7 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
219
0
0
. 0
0
0
_ o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
4
s
6
2
0
0
0
1
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
8
19
9
1
_ 2
. 2
.. 0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
8
7
IS
13
2
2_
5
2
._. 2
5
22.
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
i
2
4
1
0
1
2
3
6
"1 1
._ 11
11
5
3
5
12
Jl
9
2
3
2
2
. 1
1
17
»2
0
3
1-0
0
_ 1
"0
71 1
. 1
— -
1
.... o
/I
712
Z o
2
1
2
~~ 0
_ 4
0
1
3
19
13
0
_. i HI
771 oil 7
J___
1.7 o 7~T
71.0 17
~ o ~^_
i
0
0
773 777
7 A 77
77 o~T
~~~i
.. .. .0 ___.
.. . 0
.71 6' 77
_....o
.172. .77
0
_.. i _
0
0
0
oil"
.0.711
o
o 77
o_7
o77_
p
0
o_
o 77
o 7
o "71"
o7~
0 .
o_._.
9~7
o.._
o 77"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
io
,.0
_ 0
.. 0
0
0
0
_..o
~7o
_~"o
7o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o _
1 0
o
0
0
0
I o"
0
0
0
. . 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
'"_ 0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-35. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 3Z KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 24 20MPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64
PWR
-2
6
10
18
22
30
34
38
46
SO
54
58
62
66
70
78
86
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
Q
0
0
0
10
4
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
. 1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
5
12
12
1 0
4
4
_ 2 J
3
1
16
1
;.a
1 z
5
1 A
2
1
7_ 16
0
2
0
3
9
5
4.
11
18
5
5
14
2
6
3
2
1
4
2
24
0
0
2
3
2
__ 0
.1
2
1
3
0
Illi
1 o
1 i
2
77_o
~ 0
i
" 24
0 0_ .
_ 7 o o \
0 0
0 0
0 0
. _ 1 0 .
T-.'ilHol'l
_7o_._7o 71
i i
77 . 1 777777 o 17' '_
~~ i'~ o ~
111 2771_i
TlTTTlo "77777710 I.I
_7 2 _ _o 7.1.
2 0 "
1 2 7I7o_77
0 0
11 1 177 o _
On
o 7 7o 77
0 "0 "
717io7~ o 771
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 _
ol
ol
0
0
0
0
ol
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
_0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 '_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-36. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 24 20MPH RPM 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2BOO 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64R PWR
-2
6
•~~ ' 10
~1::1 "
"7" 22
26
49
46
~ ' ~" " 50
71711 5e
62
70
74
78
71 82
86
90
~ 94
98
0 .
".::"•
1 o
0
0
^ o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7 o
0
o
o
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.„
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' 0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
g
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
3
g
1
2
4
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
3
1
3
14
T
15
1 1
2
1
3
12
15
7
5
9
. 5
6
7 4
12
" 27
0
j
0
8
3
2
2
6"
9
4
6
T 7
4
2
3
IV 3
1
7 4
7 i
~_ 26
0
o
0
. -~ 0
„ *
0
0
0
~ 0
2
1
1
7~ 0
2
777.71*
20
. _ 0 0
0 0
71 Oil Oil
_o ~_ o .7
0 0
._ o - *
0 0
1 0
77 o _ 7 o .11
lliril" o ~71
~ z ^ o 7"."
~ i ~~~Q \7
0 0
~2~"0
__ o o
0 0
o _ . o .. __
L* 71 .0 'L-
717T17I7* IT
0 '
g
0
0
0 _
0
0
o 7
0
0 _
0
0
0
0
0
o 7
0
0
0
o 7
0
g
0
0
0
0_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
~ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
0
0
0
0
0
77 o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-37. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 3E KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 25 20MPH RPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64 PUR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
SO
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000175
5 223 5 3 3 0
000020
001072
000001
000001
000002
000001
000001
12
4
1
3
2
2
a
i
0
0
0
?
1
9
1
5
8
11
12
7
16
1
0
1
2
2
0
o
3
0
0
1
0
4
z
£
5
10
i
1
3
1
5
1
IT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
2
1.
1
0
3
1
1
_ 0
0
0
0
0
0
.~ 0
_1~. 0
0
0
0
0
. !"_! o
_ 0
0
" o
"Z o
.."" 0
~ 0
._ o
11~0
0
0
o
".'.' o
'.'.' 0
0
~~p
0
0
~'-~ o
._ 0
_" 0
o
0
o
._. 0
0
0
._ . o
0
0
0
Q
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
_ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
_
_ -—
. ..
- -
—
. — :l«-r™.
"zzirz
- — .— _. —
- .
„_
„
-•
— .-
-
-------
TABLE C-38. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 25 20MPH RPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1BOO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64R
PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
46
50
54
58
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
224
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
6
4
1
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
4
0
4
1
1
1
2
3
6
5
2
0
1
2
7
S
4
11
7
0
0
0
3
6
1
1
0
1
2
11
15
10
4
3
5
5
" 5
9
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
10
42
4
0
o
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
'2 ^
10
2
2
2
5
..*....
. 0 ...
3
8
9
2
0
*'..."!
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
o 77~
0
2
6
1 -
0 ._._
>--
1 -
0
1
0
3
'•i'.~.l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o 7
0
0
0
0
0
0 _
0
0
0 ....
0 _.
0
p "
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0 __
0 _
0
0
0
o .
0
p— -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7 o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 _
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0 "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 _. 7L7Z
0
•
o
o ~ "
0
0 ...
0 .
0
0
0
0 ... ...
0
o 7771777
-------
TABLE C-39. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-HPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 25 20MPH RPM ZOO 400 600 600 1000 1300 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64A
>WR
-2
2
6
10
14
IB
22
26
34
42
56
66
70
7*
62
90
98
000029
0 1 200 3 4 1
000000
001000
000100
000000
000011
000000
000000
000000
oooooo
13
s
3
IB
4
1
0
1
1
0
0"
0
20
3
1
7
6
3
4
3
5
3
0
9
4
0
2
5
5
8
7
S
7
11
7
2
35
2
_ 1
0
0
1
_ 2
1
1
2
IT
; 2
2"
17
2
2
%
30
0
0
0
0
0
1
19
" 0
I
2
3"
2~
•~
21
0
o
0 ~
0
0
_~ 0
-
0
_:
__ .
__.
0
_ o _.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 __
0
0 ~
j:.
_ .
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o "
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ _
0
0 „
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ..
0
0
0
- , —
-
•
—
— ' • • — -
'" — — - —
- • — ' "
_ -. —
-• -- »» - — -
- - —
... .,
-.-. - -__.
1 •• •• • "~ — —
—
-------
TABLE C-40. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 26 20MPH RPH 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2*00,2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64
PWR
2
6
10
14
18
22
34
38
42
46
50
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
214
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13 ...
3
2
5 "
3
1
4.
5
11
a
i
i
2
21
4
4
1
0
0
0
0
5-
9
f
1
4
9
?n
4
4
5
3
0
1
1
2
2
4
2
18
6
0
3
0
27
0
0
2
3
_4 ,.
2
• ~
0
-
4
4
5
2
10 :
6
4
1
3
1 T
1 „
0
2
4
1
2r :
0
0
1
4
2
0
2
1
2
J
0
2
0
1
3
2
2
1
0
1
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
-2-0
0
0
"o~7
~I.oi;
,.-.\ ...
_. 0
0
1
0
0 I
0 "
To 7
~T_ o TT
o
0
0
0
___ o___.
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. ._. 0
0
0
~" 0
TT o
0
, - 0
T. 0
0
_. 0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
T 6
0
0
0
0
IT o
-^
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ~
o - - _ . I HI ^1
0
0 -
0 II
0 '_' ....
0 . .
0
0
0
0 _. .._
0
0 ~
0
0 T TT
o .... i m im
o I "I ~" ~H ITTT
o ~ m~
o ;~
0
0
-------
TABLE C-41. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 27 20MPM RPM ?00 400 600 600 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 2400 2600 2600 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64 PUR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
36
* ^
42
46
50
64
58
62
66
70
74
78
62
86
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
221
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•3
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
5
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
3
10
16
5
4
1
2
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
13
3
1
5
2
~8
10
3
10
~ 1
~ 1
" 4
7 4
7 7
"_ t>
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
4
26
12
0
2
8
1
. *
0
~'l
1
77 2
1
_ _ j
1
"2
6
" \
77 i
" 1
3
1
7" 0
2
3
12
25
3 .._
11 1 ...T
*
2
3
177 * "7
7 2 777"
_ _ s
1776.71
77 * 717
17.3 _~'_
'77* 2 77.
1 71 2~T
~7i ~~"
".711?. Ill'
i
~~_ 2 771
71 ° "71*
7Z
3
7 ° 717
3
3 -
_ 3 _
"721777
0 .._.
o 7_
2 7
1 1
o 7
i
o 1
o 7
2 71
o
i
o" 17"
o
i ' 17
2 ~^. '
o 77
i 1
1 7
0
o "
0
0 "
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I .._
1
0
0
1 '_"
o 7
o
0
0
0
1
1
2
Q-~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
__ o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
" 0 ~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-42. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 28 20MPM RPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64
PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
96
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
7
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
118
z
1
0
0
?
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
4
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
3
3
10
3
4
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
6
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
5
5
7
10
9
15
9
7
5
3
5
10
15
17
1
4
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
21
5
"~ jg
—
22
20
7 5
5
6
4
7 1*
'^ 17
7" 3
7 3
3
_7 *
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
8
a
3
a
13
14
_ 23
~ 18
6
Z
0
7 o
2
"7" 1
*
"" 0
0
1
1
0
0
1
3
1
0
11
3
0
1
2
2
3
. -2
"I.' 0
4
7 o
7 i
777 i
2
777 i
i
"77: 5
77 o
._. o
i
Q
Q
0
~ Q
2
0
'^ 7 »
Q
0
0
1
._. o,_.
7.- i "/-^
777 o__
7"o77~
_ ^
77 o 77
Q
Q
7.77 i
~ \~::
^- 6777
0.777"
i
i
0
o" "
~_ 0
~"o77"
°
°7
~o
7_77«__
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
77 o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0 -
0
0 ' . ~"~~
0
o 7~7
o :
0 .
o 777 "77
o 777
o 77 777
o ...7
o - 77~77 77
o 7777
o .7777
o 7"77""7i:
"o T:L
o
0
-------
TABLE C-43. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 29 20MPH RPM 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1*00 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64 PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
42
46
50
54
58
62
70
82
90
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
1
1
0
0
0
5
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
10
0
0
~ 5
3
2
4
2
4
. 1
0
0
z
.'. I
' 1
1
1
..." 2
0
2
7
12
0
3
— ' 2
3
9
. 5
7
2
5
1
6
1
2
1
~0
7 2
0
12
19
._ 2
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
1
5
. 1
3
. 6
77 z
3
"_ 1
3
1
12
82
..._ 0
0
1
J
0
.._ 0
T o
0
1
1
0
0
2
IT 0
I~'o
7-1" o
\
.2
2
0
.... 20
0
0
0
0
- 0
1
0
7
2
0
.3
0
0
_l.i~
~2
0
JI 3 .__
0
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-44. TIME (SECONDS) SPENT IN PERCENT POWER-RPM INTERVALS FOR 32 KPH CYCLE
TRUCK 30 20MPH RPN 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
TEST 64 PWR
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
2
1
2
5
5
5
1
1
0
1
0
~_ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
3
6
5
6
8
15
9
5
3
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
6
~ 16
19
6
13
10
7 7
13
9
2
21
6
10
" 0
3
1
~ " 0
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
.0.
~~ 2
7
13
18
.. 2
"i
~ 7
7
~~ 3
0
.7. i
15
"77.7.
__~ 1
. 2
1
7 1
1
77 1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
"" 1
0
2
12
15
~ 16
17
"~ 4
~~ 5
17
77 20
' '_ 7 6
...3
2
2
0
3
2
0
" 2
0
0 I 11
o .._
. 2 __
~o
0
77 o 77
7_ « -IL
. i _
1 1 77
_. ^._.
4
0 _~
_ o 7~
~ "177777
2
, ~~i7
7.7" i 77
2
i 7777
77 z "77 _
~i ""
77 i 7
i
0 "_"
- i -
3
0
0
0
0
0
o77
l ..
0
2 7771
1 77"
0
v i
0 ~
Q --
0
i - ~
2.7777
i
o 77 "77
o
i
2 7.7.
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
"__ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
7 o
0
7~7~o"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 , . ..
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. ....
-.- .. —
_
-_ . -
—
. ._ . —
—
_ _
_ . . —
_
".~:~~~
. '""77~7 77777 7777777
" • •
-_ __
.... — - —
-------
TABLE C-45. COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION
OF EMISSIONS DATA FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS, DRIVING CYCLE EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
O
l
Truck
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Constant
Coeff .
1.2750
0.6067
0.4717
1.3583
0.5317
0.7633
1.1750
0.2967
0.7383
1.1325
0.7408
0.4876
3.0323
0.7333
1.8333
3.2834
4.033
3.2500
2.8000
0.8000
1.9499
4.9536
0.4905
0.0090
:ance :
Std.
Error
0.7950
0.1695
0.1381
0.1666
0.1310
0.1495
0.4846
0.0580
0.2261
0.2506
0.6309
0.0511
1.2492
1.1319
1.1562
1.3537
1.4168
2.2807
1.9126
1.7122
1.6258
4.5466
1.8960
1.6532
* = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** - O.001
Load
Coeff.
0.0332
-0.0025
0.0036
-0.0027
0.0092
0.0045
0.0106
0.0041
0.0250*
-0.0069
0.0323
0.0055
-0.2134
0.0180
0.0225
0.0945
-0.0832
-0.1080
0.0067
-0.0792
-0.0787
-0.2003
0.1438
0.1013
Std.
Error
0.1081
0.0071
0.0058
0.0069
0.0055
0.0062
0.0202
0.0037
0.0094
0.0192
0.0674
0.0039
0.1699
0.0471
0.0482
0.0564
0.0590
0.0950
0.0800
0.1092
0.0677
0.3475
0.2026
0.1263
Speed
Coeff.
HC Emissions
0.4314
0.0680
0.0503
0.1680*
0.2120**
0.2463**
0.2527
0.1083***
0.3350**
0.1577
0.1535
0.1368***
CO Emissions
-0.2655
0.2000
0.7300
0.9200
-1.0032
-1.4466
0.6134
-0.3201
-1.3299
-1.3924
0.4344
-0.1431
Load X Speed
Std.
Error
0.2903
0.0619
0.0504
0.0608
0.0479
0.0546
0.1769
0.0212
0.0826
0.0915
0.2304
0.0187
0.4561
0.4133
0.4222
0.4943
0.5173
0.8328
0.6984
0.6252
0.5937
1.6602
0.6923
0.6037
Coeff.
0.0216
0.0004
-0.0005
-0.0055
-0.0041
-0.0013
-0.0053
0.0006
-0.0105*
0.0007
-0.0110
0.0003
0.1196
0.0153
0.0414*
0.0558*
0.1399***
0.2133***
0.0337
0.1633**
0.2119***
0.3516*
-0.0312
0.0452
Std.
Error
0.0395
0.0026
0.0021
0.0025
0.0020
0.0023
0.0074
0.0013
0.0034
0.0070
0.0246
0.0014
0.0620
0.0172
0.1759
0.0206
0.0215
0.0347
0.0291
0.0399
0.0247
0.1269
0.0740
0.0461
Goodness of Fit
r2
0.7170
0.5816
0.3998
0.8409
0.8586
0.9336
0.3712
0.9663
0.7151
0.7714
0.2004
0.9830
0.8404
0.7267
0.9505
0.9683
0.9723
0.9710
0.8176
0.9482
0.9861
0.8738
0.2304
0.7327
Std.
Dev.
0.2408
0.0906
0.0738
0.0891
0.0701
0.0799
0.2590
0.0309
0.1209
0.1248
0.1502
0.0255
0.3785
0.6051
0.6180
0.7236
0.7573
1.2191
1.0224
0.9152
0.8691
2.2639
0.4513
0.8232
Coeff.
of Var.
10.93
12.17
11.36
6.30
6.76
5.67
14.81
4.77
7.81
8.53
12.86
2.82
12.69
24.36
9.57
6.71
10.17
13.42
16.08
19.17
10.05
23.14
20.67
36.19
-------
TABLE C-45 (cont'd). COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSIONS
OF EMISSIONS DATA FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS, DRIVING CYCLE EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
n
i
Truck
No. .
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Constant
Coeff.
0.8908
1.2117
1.3133
0.6634
2.1684
2.1117
0.1667
1.1367
0.3600
1.9468
-0.4182
1.1247
35.8855
55.3783
50.6468
18.5204
56.7214
74.8646
33.9807
29.5167
49.7762
74.6342
-0.1134
31.9625
cance :
Std.
Error
0.8606
0.8128
1.4704
0.6387
1.2078
0.6634
0.9414
0.8689
1.1575
0.8438
0.8891
1.0626
13.7240
14.5284
16.4018
13.0935
8.7713
18.9050
18.4740
8.8933
14.9443
20.8816
20.3744
10.9736
* = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
Load
Coeff.
-0.0249
-0.0142
-0.0160
0.0616*
0.1075
0.0166
0.0263
-0.0262
0.0324
-0.0319
0.1010
-0.0246
-0.8304
0.1381
0.4400
1.4069*
0.0358
-0.2121
1.6300
0.1054
-0.0859
-1.0716
2.5783
-0.1628
Std.
Error
0.1170
0.0339
0.0612
0.0266
0.0503
0.0276
0.0392
0.0554
0.0482
0.0645
0.0950
0.0812
4.3146
0.6052
0.6832
0.5454
0.3654
0.7875
0.7695
0.5672
0.6225
1.5958
2.1775
0.8386
Speed
Coeff.
NOX Emissions
0.1912
0.5724
0. 7947
1.8204***
4.0861***
0.6911
0.4061
1.0263*
1.0794*
0.0749
0.9642
0.6669
Load X Speed
Std.
Error
0.3142
0.2968
0.5369
0.2332
0.4410
0.2422
0.3437
0.3173
0.4227
0.3081
0.3247
0.3880
Coeff.
0.1001*
0.0774***
0.1025*
0.0288*
0.0674**
0.1321
0.0952***
0.0824**
0.0588**
0.0829**
0.0198
0.0744
Std.
Error
0.0427
0.0124
0.0224
0.0097
0.0184
0.0101
0.0143
0.0202
0.0176
0.0235
0.0347
0.0297
Goodness of Fit
r2
0.9634
0.9874
0.9772
0.9916
0.9940
0.9970
0.9886
0.9815
0.9754
0.9517
0.9828
0.9534
Std.
Dev.
0.2607
0.4345
0.7860
0.3414
0.6456
0.3546
0.5032
0.4644
0.6187
0.4202
0.2116
0.5291
Coeff.
of Var.
8.73
6.56
9.10
4.17
3.49
3.07
7.13
7.36
8.78
9.82
6.26
11.09
Fuel Consumption
13.9302
29.8935***
33.8345***
37.5379***
32.5998***
34.4724**
26.9390**
28.6143***
19.6429**
6.8974
33.4560**
20.4547***
11.5840
5.3050
5.9891
4.7811
3.2029
6.9031
6.7557
3.2474
5.4569
7.6249
7.4397
4.0069
2.2070
1.1735***
1.2273***
0.6167**
0.9746***
1.7529***
1.2252**
1.0566***
1.6263***
2.4144**
0.0408
1.1662**
1.5755
0.2210
0.2495
0.1992
0.1334
0.2875
0.2810
0.2071
0.2273
0.5827
0.7951
0.3062
0.9503
0.9918
0.9913
0.9920
0.9966
0.9920
0.9886
0.9945
0.9923
0.9701
0.9893
0.9885
9.6111
7.7659
8.7674
6.9990
4.6886
10.1054
9.8751
4.7536
7.9883
10.3977
4.8492
5.4641
9.21
3.91
4.11
3.93
2.43
3.98
4.80
3.37
4.26
6.81
4.48
4.68
-------
TABLE C-46. COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION
OF EMISSIONS DATA FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS, SINUSOIDAL CYCLE EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
O
l
CD
Constant
Truck
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Coeff.
3.5499
0.4439
0.3634
4.8422
0.2906
1.4161
1.8945
-0.0639
3.7350
1.6525
5.3517
0.7568
0.3834
-1.1944
-5.1997
8.3446
-17.2995
-17.4996
-0.0332
-11.3564
-6.5331
6.1416
5.8648
-4.2198
Significance:
Std.
Error
3.8248
0.8164
0.4091
1.0720
0.4669
0.9314
1.1316
0.3627
2.8450
0.5012
1.0876
0.3263
5.3523
3.3543
5.0485
2.7379
17.5701
20.2791
3.1577
9.2369
12.0747
7.3735
2.4887
1.7496
* = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
Load
Coeff.
-0.3328
0.0513
0.0541*
-0.0644
0.0133
-0.0184
0.1238*
0.0379
0.0032
0.0421
-0.5072**
-0.0293
0.0735
0.2819
0.6141*
0.0907
1.3662
1.3737
0.2347
1.2803
0.6681
0.1014
-0.5160
0.6349**
Std.
Error
0.5202
0.0340
0.0170
0.0447
0.0194
0.0388
0.0471
0.0231
0.1185
0.0383
0.1162
0.0249
0.7279
0.1397
0.2103
0.1140
0.7319
0.8447
0.1315
0.5892
0.5030
0.5635
0.2660
0.1337
Speed
Coeff.
HC Emissions
0.1598
0.0375
0.0200
-0.2283
0.1275
0.1075
-0.0367
0.0992
-0.0875
-0.0165
-0.3101
0.1300
CO Emissions
0.7053
0.3750
0.8833
-1.5166*
2.5499
1.9666
1.0000
1.2167
0.5000
-0.9044
-0.2287
0.7919*
Std.
Error
0.6151
0.1313
0.0658
0.1724
0.0751
0.1498
0.1820
0.0583
0.4575
0.0806
0.1749
0.0525
0.8607
0.5394
0.8119
0.4403
2.8256
3.2612
0.5078
1.4855
1.9418
1.1858
0.4002
0.2814
Load X
Coeff.
0.0439
-0.0058
-0.0067
0.0037
0.0010
0.0040
-0.0147
-0.0014
-0.0028
-0.0029
0.0613*
0.0035
-0.0193
-0.0337
-0.0596
0.0506*
-0.1665
-0.1327
-0.0304
-0.1257
-0.0281
0.0841
0.0709
-0.0783*
Speed
Std.
Error
0.0837
0.0055
0.0027
0.0072
0.0031
0.0062
0.0076
0.0037
0.0191
0.0062
0.0187
0.0040
0.1171
0.0225
0.0338
0.0183
0.1177
0.1358
0.0212
0.0947
0.0809
0.0906
0.0428
0.0215
Goodness of Fit
r2
0.7301
0.6126
0.8952
0.7844
0.8945
0.7210
0.8888
0.8804
0.1620
0.6570
0.9552
0.9476
0.6557
0.6739
0.8425
0.9739
0.5768
0.6259
0.5914
0.7434
0.7429
0.7798
0.8985
0.8843
Std.
Dev.
0.6455
0.2431
0.1218
0.3192
0.1390
0.2773
0.3370
0.1080
0.8472
0.1390
0.1442
0.0905
0.9033
0.9989
1.5034
0.8153
5.2320
6.0388
0.9403
2.7505
3.5956
2.0456
0.3299
0.4853
Coeff.
of Var.
16.10
23.63
15.48
12.59
9.36
12.66
13.69
11.24
29.15
7.50
6.55
6.30
20.95
35.39
25.92
10.18
84.84
84.66
13.18
76.88
47.52
25.15
9.027
18.99
-------
TABLE C-46 (cont'd). COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION
OF EMISSIONS DATA FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS, SINUSOIDAL CYCLE EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
O
l
Constant
Truck
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Load
Std.
Coeff.
-2.
-1.
-4.
-3.
-13.
-2.
-2.
-5.
-0.
4.
-0.
-0.
-28.
32.
57.
126.
548.
62.
45.
-66.
-24.
167.
1.
-2.
5330
8181
2221
3380
5704
1235
0587
2892
8916
4948
8144
9412
9901
6653
9424
0318
1885
6644
4277
9217
9133
1961
9065
8648
Significance :
Error
4.
4.
3.
9.
13.
5.
2.
2.
1.
1.
3.
2.
192.
86.
119.
70.
304.
59.
98.
96.
80.
51.
120.
75.
*
**
***
2808
0637
5442
5330
2906
6916
8652
7335
3930
5742
5738
2971
9404
5504
2963
6151
8754
9040
7553
7745
0133
5582
0946
5056
= 0.
= 0.
= 0.
Coeff.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
14.
4.
2.
3.
-12.
5.
2.
10.
2.
-4.
4.
3.
005
01
001
5564
2878
3373
1492
5903
5655
2004
6602*
1140
2278
1661
3111
8584
9192
1632
5578
9523
6191
0271
7437
2231
6947
5182
9169
Std.
Error
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
26.
3.
4.
2.
12.
2.
4.
6.
3.
3.
12.
5.
5822
1693
1476
3971
5536
2371
1193
1743
0580
1203
3819
1755
2408
6052
9692
9414
6993
4952
1136
1725
3329
9402
8350
7703
Speed
Coeff.
Std.
Error
NOX Emissions
1.1660 0.6884
0.7958 0.6535
2.1467*' 0.5700
1.9167 1.5331
5.9016* 2.1373
1.2292 0.9153
0.7150 0.4608
1.5934 0.4396
0.7109* 0.2240
-0.0816 0.2532
0.9431 0.5747
1.2398* 0.3694
Fuel Consumption
27.3128
27.2406
38.1284
8.0604
-78.0444
34.0291*
28.0547
37.6263
32.8621
-0.6709
24.6736
27.4405
13.0281
13.9188
19.1849
11.3561
49.0291
9.6336
15.8815
15.5630
12.8675
8.2914
19.3132
12.1426
Load X Speed
Coeff.
-0.0644
0.0074
-0.0144
0.0751
0.0069
0.0030
0.0288
-0.0440
0.0489**
0.0684*
0.0013
-0.0234
-0.9508
0.0510
0.1049
0.2197
3.7326
0.1630
0.4628
-0.7802
0.7031
1.4953
0.1150
-0.1463
Std,
Error
0.0936
0.0272
0.0237
0.0639
0.0890
0.0381
0.0192
0.0280
0.0093
0.0193
0.0614
0.0282
4.2199
0.5798
0.7991
0.4730
2.0423
0.4013
0.6615
0.9926
0.5360
0.6336
2.0641
0.9280
Goodness of Fit
r2
0.8304
0.9343
0.9580
0.9058
0.9376
0.9533
0.9761
0.9566
0.9958
0.9594
0.9526
0.9316
0.6935
0.9225
0.8772
0.9077
0.6956
0.9766
0.9243
0.8737
0.9688
0.9221
0.9287
0.8890
Std.
Dev.
0.7225
1.2101
1.0554
2.8388
3.9577
1.6949
0.8532
0.8140
0.4148
0.4367
0.4739
0.6372
32.5633
25.7732
35.5244
21.0280
90.7866
17.8384
29.4076
28.8165
23.8266
14.3018
15.9233
20.9447
Coeff.
Of Var.
12.71
11.70
7.41
19.10
11.03
9.30
8.11
8.13
3.34
6.99
7.35
7.42
16.23
8.25
10.19
7.44
31.33
4.31
9.18
11.68
7.55
6.64
8.04
10.53
-------
TABLE C-47. COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION
OF EMISSIONS DATA FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS, STEADY-STATE EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
Constant
Load
o
i
Truck
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Coeff.
1.6838
0.7495
0.4236
2.1959
0.9313
1.8019
1.5143
0.3736
2.1602
0.8360
1.4070
0.9976
2.1002
1.3268
2.8508
1.1775
5.1565
10.4922
3.1482
4.5427
7.6012
9.5082
3.7214
3.5279
Significance:
Std.
Error
1.3942
0.1443
0.0789
1.0118
0.2407
0.4041
0.4719
0.1764
1.1759
0.4335
1.4456
0.2628
1.6328
0.4069
2.1385
3.6799
2.6495
6.0403
1.0102
4.0573
6.8723
8.4473
2.9559
2.4498
* = 0.05
** - 0.01
*** = O.001
Coeff.
0.0612
-0.0084
-0.0015
0.0033
-0.0012
-0.0173
-0.0003
0.0045
0.0020
0.0241
0.0563
-0.0139
0.0578
-0.0295
-0.1121
-0.0512
-0.1385
-0.4236
-0.0536
-0.3422
-0.4013
-0.9244
0.0003
-0.2946
Std.
Error
0.1896
0.0060
0.0033
0.0421
0.0100
0.0168
0.0197
0.0113
0.0490
0.0331
0.1545
0.0201
0.2221
0.0169
0.0891
0.1533
0.1104
0.2516
0.0421
0.2588
0.2863
0.6456
0.3159
0.1872
Speed
Coeff.
HC Emissions
0.2816
0.2677
0.0303*
0.1228
0.0963*
0.0012
0.0388
0.0755*
0.1413
0.1601
0.2573
0.0851
CO Emissions
0.2781
0.1215
0.8364
0.9937
-0.8520
-1.7601
0.2185
-1.0346
-1.8783
-2.5011
0.4251
-0.8315
Std.
Error
0.2489
0.0258
0.0141
0.1806
0.0430
0.0721
0.0842
0.0315
0.2099
0.0773
0.2581
0.0469
0.2915
0.7265
0.3818
0.6570
0.4730
1.0784
0.1804
0.7243
1.2269
1.5081
0.5277
0.4374
Load X
Speed
Goodness
Std.
Coeff .
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0068
0009
0007
0038
0020
0056
0013
0019
0058
0081
0205
0044
0074
0047
3821*
0120
0536*
1237*
0223**
1286*
1515**
3972**
0399
1098**
Error
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0339
0011
0006
0075
0018
0030
0035
0020
0087
0059
0276
0036
0396
0030
0159
0274
0197
0449
0075
0462
0511
1153
0563
0334
r2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6612
5605
4165
0396
7955
5587
0228
7971
0500
2655
1353
7840
3951
7795
7082
5645
3936
4123
8584
4852
5150
6414
0781
5494
of Fit
Std.
Dev.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
2.
4.
3.
6.
1.
4.
7.
9.
1.
2.
9137
1669
0912
1699
2784
4673
5456
2040
3597
4669
7443
2831
0701
4705
4728
2551
0636
9843
1681
6912
9464
0987
5218
6387
Coeff.
of
25
21
19
48
18
23
35
22
60
33
33
19
30
28
55
76
85
129
23
145
152
106
38
122
Var.
.60
.70
.89
.09
.31
.74
.11
.97
.24
.34
.46
.72
.57
.37
.67
.67
.89
.24
.00
.84
.94
.68
.29
.02
-------
TABLE C-47 (cont'd). COEFFICIENTS FROM MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION
OF EMISSIONS DATA FROM 12 DIESEL TRUCKS, STEADY-STATE EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATE
o
I
tn
Constant
Truck
No.
Coeff.
Std.
Error
Load
Coeff.
Std.
Error
Speed
Coeff.
Std.
Error
NOx Emissions
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1.5372
0.1855
1.8449
1.5944
-0.7741
5.2835
2.8468
0.2390
-0.1654
2.5941
0.1512
0.4578
1.5822
5.1046
5.0652
2.8707
6.2154
5.8784
5.1384
5.0665
3.5484
1.4479
1.9182
2.8586
-0.1551
-0.1800
-0.2175
-0.1218
-0.1218
-0.3227
-0.2800
-0.2429
-0.1068
-0.1723
-0.0350
-0.1602
0.2152
0.2126
0.2110
0.1196
0.2589
0.2449
0.2140
0.3232
0.1478
0.1107
0.2050
0.2185
0.1653
1.0064
1.0723
1.5536**
5.1874***
-0.1016
-0.1042
1.1441
1.1294
0.0511
0.7126
0.9192
0.2825
0.9113
0.9043
0.5125
1.1096
1.0495
0.9173
0.9045
0.6335
0.2585
0.3424
0.5103
Fuel Consumption
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
36.7757
58.5992
90.3184
35.8909
60.. 8678
164.7096
98.1502
43.4219
92.6861
98.9432
40.0312
53.6404
Significance:
33.8315
41.1359
37.6141
48.4329
36.5613
59.3689
40.3234
42.6543
55.0088
37.2420
48.6381
35.8264
* = 0.
** = 0.
*** = 0.
-1.6962
-1.7047
-1.5927
-1.1961
-1.0930
-3.1436
-2.4905
-2.3766
-2.4634
-3.6240
-2.2304
-2.7768
005
01
001
4.6012
1.7135
1.5668
2.0174
1.5229
2.4730
1.6796
2.7206
2.2913
2.8461
5.1982
2.7379
19.0803**
31.2964***
31.8222***
34.7257***
33.5607***
23.0442*
19.5758*
25.8755**
21.1065*
9.3716
17.6295
18.8009
6.0399
7.3439
6.7152
8.6467
6.5273
10.5990
7.1989
7.6150
9.8206
6.6488
8.6833
6.3960
Load X Speed
Coeff.
0.1055*
0.0821*
0.0952
0.0593*
0.0682
0.1461
0.1197**
0.1012
0.0588
0.0854***
0.0398
0.0682
1.1047
0.9873**
0.8862**
0.6393
0.7763*
1.4840*
1.2125***
1.1597
1.2427**
1.7221**
1.4399
1.3160*
Std.
Error
0.0384
0.0380
0.0377
0.0213
0.0462
0.0437
0.0382
0.0577
0.0264
0.0198
0.0366
0.0390
0.8215
0.3059
0.2797
0.3602
0.2719
0.4415
0.2999
0.4857
0.4091
0.5081
0.9280
0.4888
Goodness of
r2
0.9247
0.7875
0.8272
0.9203
0.9283
0.7967
0.7713
0.7575
0.8475
0.8962
0.9464
0.8326
0.9564
0.9505
0.9553
0.9197
0.9564
0.9136
0.9405
0.9195
0.9029
0.9028
0.9576
0.9261
Std.
Dev.
1.0369
5.9024
5.8568
3.3194
7.1868
6.7972
5.9414
5.8581
4.1030
1.5595
0.9876
3.0790
22.1715
47.5651
43.4929
56.0025
42.2754
68.6476
46.6255
49.3185
63.6061
40.1139
25.0412
38.5891
Fit
Coeff.
of Var
23.24
68.84
53.43
29.00
27.80
57.23
76.14
71.92
50.52
29.51
21.70
49.87
15.53
18.75
15.52
25.07
16.33
20.19
18.93
25.19
25.33
21.36
16.19
22.38
-------
i.nu t
P = predicted
• O = observed
?.75 +
2.50 t
P
R B.25 *
E
D
I
C
T 2.00 +
E
D
A
N C i.7S t
D £ °
bo *
0 . 0
B U
S * 1.^0 t
E c
R .H
v S P
E 2 . 0 P
D •" 1.25 +
f . P
S ! o o
1.00 t P
p
p
n
. p
.750 •«• 0
! o
.500 t
. . . i... .t. ... + .... + . ..• + •••
•
0 .
*
|
•
P +
.
.
P
t
.
P ....
«
P f
0 0
•
.
.
t
•
.
0
•
t
•
•
+
•
•
•
•
*
.
t
.+*•«.+<•«'+»«>•+••••+•(*•
90 1.5 *.! 2.7 3.3
1.2 1.8 2.* 3.0 3.b
32 kph Sinusoidal HC, g/min
FIGURE C-l. 32 kph TRANSIENT HC EMISSIONS
VERSUS 32 kph SINUSOIDAL HC EMISSIONS
C-52
-------
3.85 +
3.50 t
R....
E- 3.15
T
£G 2.80
ao
_____ 1..7S.
l.fQ t
P = predicted
O = observed
* means P = O
1.05 f
*
P 0
0
.50 1.5 2.5 3.5 f.5
1.0 2.0 3.0 f.Q 5.0
48 kph Steady-State HC, g/min
FIGURE C-2. 48 kph SINUSOIDAL HC EMISSIONS
VERSUS 48 kph STEADY-STATE HC EMISSIONS
C-53
-------
5.
• c - predicted
O = observed
* means P =O
^.n +
•» .5 t
•
P
R
E f .0 t
D
I
C
T d
E -a 3.5 +
D jj
W> .
A j
D ^, ^.n +
«i p
T) • K
0 '3 0
B 5
s .3
E w e.s t o
R H P
v •* . u
E ^
D . P
? . n t
0 0
PP
! P 00
1.5 t
0
p
i .n t
P
u
*
.
•
t
t
p .
\
.
t
.
P
.
•
f
.
.
.
J
•
•
m
^
0 t
.
.
,
.
t
.
.
;
t
•
,
t
•
*
,...+.. ..+. ..*.!
1.05 1.75 g^fs 3.15 3.85
.700 l.HO 2.10 2.80 3.50 .„_..
64 kph Steady-State HC, g/min
FIGURE C-3. 64 kph SINUSOIDAL HC EMISSIONS
VERSUS 64 kph STEADY-STATE HC EMISSIONS
C-54
-------
• '••••'••••''•••'T>>aMT»»«»TBll»fTaB0*TA99«TVVB«T<
15,0 •»• p = predicted „, _. _
_ , * means P = O
f O = observed
„ , 0
13.5 I n !
L2.0 + +
.0 P !
_R_
_E_r
D 10.5 +
_T . PP
JE-_q ^ oQ •
Ahn
.
JL o-"
_p u . o P o
__.-"?• so •»• P
-51 _« •
-5-3-" • pp
AH • P
. P
R "_ b.OO
3.00 «•
0
1 .^0 +
i ' • • • « T • •••'•••*T«»««T«««aT« •••T«»**T***«T***aTc*«aTa
10 g.7 1.5 b.3 8.1 1.1
1.8 3.h S.f ?.? 1.0
32 kph Sinusoidal CO, g/min
FIGURE C-4. 32 kph TRANSIENT CO EMISSIONS
VERSUS 32 kph SINUSOIDAL CO EMISSIONS
C-55
-------
q. no + a
*
• P = predicted
• O = observed
B.?5 ; *meansP=0
7.50 +
.
P
R h.75 t
E . 0
0
I
C
T c h.no *
E g
D "Sb °
A p !
N ° 5.25 t
0 la
• rH •
0 g
8 g
S £ 4.50 +
E ^ . PP
R ^ P
V oo
E *
D 3.75 t P
•
! pp
3 . n o + P
0
•
! o
! o
1 . 5 0 + 0
...*....t....f....f.... + ....-t-....H
1.5 2.5 3.5
*
.
•
+
*
«
0
*
0 +
.
.
p
p
•f
.
p
;
.
.
«
.
*
.
.
.
,
0 +
.
.
0 *
.
»
;
.
t
•....+....+....+....
4.5 5.5
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 S.O
48 kph Steady-State CO, g/min
FIGURE C-5. 48 kph SINUSOIDAL, CO EMISSIONS
VERSUS 48 kph STEADY -STATE CO EMISSIONS
C-56
-------
• •T*
_.__
mi . 7
~1 fc
—
P b
R
_E_7."
__!.. .
C C 5
Tj
E ^
D M
0
N *d
0 2
0
B>
0 C
S ™
E a
R ^
E 3
D
2
!'_".-_.. ._ 1
.50
.75
.00
---
.?5
. 50
. 75
.00
.25
,50
750
•
•
. P = predicted
. O = observed
* * means P = O
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
•
•
•
4-
•
•
•
+
•
•
•
•
+
•
0 P
•
•
.0 P
pp
•
•
+ P
*
.P
•
0
0
o
•
•
..4. ... + ....>.». . + ....•<
•
•
•
0.
p.
•
•
•f
0
•
o P !
P f
•
•
P
+
ft
•
P 0
*
+
•
•
•
•
•«•
•
•
•
•
0 +
•
•
•
•
+
•
•
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
+
•
K • + • ••^••••^•••-^-•••'^••••*
1.5 2.5 3.5 f.S 5.5
1.0 2.0 ?.H H.O 5.0
64 kph Steady-State CO, g/min
FIGURE C-6. 64 kph SINUSOIDAL CO EMISSIONS
VERSUS 64 kph STEADY-STATE CO EMISSIONS
C-57
-------
P = predicted
• O = observed
27.5 f
;
25.0 t
P 22.5 +
R
E
D
1 c
C -a 20.0 +
T ~5
£ cm ,
D £
O
A Z 17.5 +
N c
D .2 . 0
to
a
02- P
B H 15.0 +
3 42
E ^
R fM
V °° . 0
E 12.5 + OP
D
0
0 0
P
10.0 f 0
P
P
! p
7.50 +
P
. PP 0
! 0
5.00 f 00
!...+....+....+....+.. ..+....+....*....*..
p .
.
+
o .
t
t
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
*
•
•
*
•
+•
•
•
•
•
t
•
.
.
.
t
.
•
.
t
.
•
*
*
..t,. .. + ..!
7.50 12.5 17-5 22.5 27.5
5.no 10.0 15.0 20.U 25.0
32 kph Sinusoidal NOX, g/min
FIGURE C-7. 32 kph TRANSIENT NOX EMISSIONS
VERSUS 32 kph SINUSOIDAL NOX EMISSIONS
C-58
-------
• •T«»»« + -a.»4'.»«,»i4'««-»Tw«»» + -»»» + »»»«T«»»»T»-«»T-»,
38.5 *
p
* P = predicted
O = observed
jej Q 4. * means P =O
31.5
__E
__R- 28.0 f
£
.__D .
—I
—C-'-S-
-.1. g 2f .5 +
-£ >.
^
_a-3
__a...S . Q
a_-w i7,s +
F -^
—t~-o,--
_R.J^
w oo
x--^
—£ . PP
0 if.O f
0
P 0
0
. Q
10.5- + P
.- . . 0
-.OP
. *p
7.00 + P
. 0
0
0
3.50 + f
,.*....-*-...-4'. ... + .... + ,..- + .... + .•.- + -••«•*'«•••*
f.SO 7.50 10.5 13.S lb.5
3.00 h.OO 9.00 1P.O 15.0
48 kph Steady^State NO , g/min
X
FIGURE C-8. 48 kph SINUSOIDAL, NOX EMISSIONS
VERSUS 48 kph STEADY-STATE NOX EMISSIONS
C-59
-------
sn
p to
R
E
0
I
C 35
T .3
E S
o "£i
A -^ 30
N 2
D "3
'V
0 o
a S o
-------
*
- • P - predicted
„. ,"" * O = observed
3^0 *
* means P = O
??n +
_P 300 t
R...
- -E-- c
___D.. '?L. . .
T .|_. . 0
C ^280 *
T a,-
F **"*
D BJ
A 3 2faD +
N h
Dl_ - ._ *
a..^....
w "
— fl --§
_i.£..2tD t
_ — E--_tt
K .••" •
y rvj
_ E ^ P2D +
. ^
* "
2DD t
P
. P
iao + o
. P
.0 0
1 bO +0
" + t t + t
0 .
p
t
p
•f-
P 0
.
0 0
Q +
f
PP
^
0
•
*
.
*
.
.
.
*
.*
"
.
•
+
.
•
+
.-I-. ..t. ... + .. ..t. .. .f 1
157.5 192.5 2?7.5 2b^.5- 297.5
17S.Q 210.U cit^.O aSO.O 315.U
32 kph Sinusoidal Fuel Rate, g/min
FIGURE C-10. 32 kph TRANSIENT FUEL RATE EMISSIONS
VERSUS 32 kph SINUSOIDAL FUEL RATE EMISSIONS
C-61
-------
0
1+00 + P = predicted *
O = observed *
* means P = O
?5n f
*
P
R
E
0 3?S t
I •§ 0
C ^
T oo
E „- . 0
D ^ 300 + PP
«
A -3 . P
N 3
D k
^ ?75 t U
0 |
B S 0
S g P
E w
R x P5n +
E oo
D -*
200 t t
P 0 !
. 0
P
175 + +
P
. H
0
• *•• «-^» • «-T, • ••T« • •.T* « « -'••••T.- • • ^ • • • •^••••T*»«>^*
13^ Ib5 1^5 ??5 355
irn isn IPH ?io gnn g?o
48 kph Steady-State Fuel Rate, g/min
FIGURE C-ll. 48 kph SINUSOIDAL FUEL RATE EMISSIONS
VERSUS 48 kph STEADY-STATE FUEL RATE EMISSIONS
C-62
-------
• + •«•* + »«•. + »... + ,»».„ + ..•- + „••••*"»••- + -•»• + •••-"*-. ,*T.
•
H-.75. + +
P - predicted
O = observed
* means P = O *
% •
450 + P +
0
P
R . 0
. E ^00 t PP
- D
i g
c E n
-T ^
_£_. k 37.5 +
_ JX *
"i P
JL * . CJ
--N-- | • p
F—I
~o"-S
-B "1
S a . P 0
E .3 325 t
R
V a
E .
Do- Ll
300 t P
p
£75 -1- n
P
0
0
250 +
P (
12 5" " "I?1/* " 2 ? b 275 3^5 i?S
1SU rTlP e-^M '-ID (I 350
64 kph Steady-State Fuel Rate, g/min
FIGURE C-12. 64 kph SINUSOIDAL FUEL RATE EMISSIONS
VERSUS 64 kph STEADY-STATE FUEL RATE EMISSIONS
C-63
-------
APPENDIX D
DATA IN SUPPORT OF GASOLINE TRUCK WEIGHTING FACTOR ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE D-l..
PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MOOES OF THE
NINE MODE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY FTP
F0« bl TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
(ALL TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK AND LOS ANGELES)
TRUCK IDLE
MODE GA30LINE HEAVY
CT iq IN.
02NY
03NY
04NY
05NY
ObNY
07NY
08NY
09NY
11NY
12NY
13NY
IbNY
17NY
20NY
2SNY
2bNY
28NY
29NY
30NY
31NY
32NY
33NY
35NY
38NY
39NY
44 NY
4BNY
SONY
S1NY
52NY
S9NY
blNY
b4NY
02LA
(I3LA
04LA
05L A
13LA
14LA
171 A
19LA
21LA
40.54
34.47
23.38
22.11
52.42
13.47
15.38
23.87
19,89
25.55
lb.9S
30.9?
lb.40
ts9,44
22.b2
27,bl
bl,50
31,00
57,91
57,84
18.84
3b.81
2b.l5
51,79
23.14
13.11
35.bO
32.48
27.70
48.fc,3
31.27
lb.51
ti.Rn
17.21
49.04
17.70
10.52
13. J9
9.13
H?.9b
lb.57
11 .38
Sb.25
8.5b
12.33
0.00
12.04
18,b9
15,bb
3,50
b.51
13.71
13.38
b.04
9,22
7,88
12.10
3.20
5,37
14.84
7.25
b.99
12.07
7.05
b.58
13,91
17,17
18.88
8,33
*.37
0.00
13,40
10,95
5.49
8.42
17.97
9.32
5.30
11.52
12.75
9.88
5.b5
5.77
14.38
14.55
2b.lO
5.37
23.18
8.2b
8.87
9.15
27.35
8.93
0,00
1,94
l.3b
3,bO
1.7*
2.83
3.35
2,38
5.84
2,20
?.b»
1.71
1.2b
.22
2.40
.f>3
.39
.94
.39
.99
1.87
2.97
3.32
1.19
3.5b
21.93
1.01
2,90
3,90
.88
2.03
l.4b
4.b?
.59
3.18
3.b4
1.92
5.17
4. 38
2.71
5.40
2.71
l.on
3.13
1.99
7.21
3. *2
DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
lb IN,
10,19
2.81
1.29
3. OP
l.bb
2.85
3.71
2.40
4,bO
3.b3
3.83
1.85
1.1?
,2V
2.45
,0b
,48
.90
.33
1.45
2.19
2.81
3.75
l.bO
2.77
*.21
1.51
3.74
7.73
.8*
2.13
2.19
.98
.71
2.48
3.74
29.77
19. Ob
5.37
3.09
b.b8
3.18
2.31
3.43
2.17
b.97
5.75
4.02
10 IN.
1.82
2.40
.*»o
2.24
1,94
2.47
3.37
2.82
3.57
3,bb
2,b2
.98
2.21
.17
3,20
,lb
.*5
,83
.33
3,b5
I,b4
3,98
3.15
2.22
.05
2.13
1.30
1.01
1.59
.85
1.72
8,bb
1.54
1.82
.97
4,28
1,50
4.10
4.b9
1.28
5.70
1.^3
2.23
4.05
2.13
8.40
8,b2
7.55
3 IN
4,32
3.57
2.b2
9,43
5,04
9. 52
5.b9
2,b8
4,70
4,20
I.b4
2,02
ltl»
tH
5.42
0,00
I.b9
2,38
.57
1.02
2.03
.27
3.2b
l.Sb
o.oo
.51
1.4b
4,23
2.23
3.01
4.4b
0,00
5,20
1.15
2,00
12,47
.11
3,00
19,95
1.81
1.15
1.40
1.12
20.90
91.31
11. bO
8,bb
14,18
Total
56.87
57.23
48. 24
56. 12
66.30
37.65
45. 21
47. 53
44.64
48.46
55.56
49.58
25.33
75.60
50.93
35. 11
71. 50
48. 12
66.58
71. 53
40.48
64.01
58.51
66.69
33.89
41.89
54.28
55.31
48.64
62.63
59. 58
38.14
67.49
33.00
60. 42
51.71
49.47
50. 29
57.90
71.40
61.60
25.97
86.09
48.46
56.12
45.20
62.36
49.45
D-2
-------
D-l. (cont'd) PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE
NINE MODE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY FTP
FOR bl TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
(ALL TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK AND LOS ANGELES)
TRUCK IDLE
S MODE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
CT 19 IN, Ib IN, 10 IN. 3 IN,
Total
2 SLA
2bLA
28LA
30LA
32L*
3SLA
3bLA
39LA
4QLA
42LA
43LA
47LA
48LA
AVG.
MAX,
MIN.
RANG
3.D.
Coef.
of
Var.%
9.88
lb.2b
10,73
1?,28
11.72
23, S8
10,93
10,72
fa. 20
8.81
2.95
9,75
8.34
24, 9b
b9.4f
1,93
b7,5l
lb,59
66.5
9,bb
12,50
14,80
22,9*
13.31
b,80
15.55
5.17
10.25
9,Hif
8.22
lb.22
20.3?
11.03
27.35
0.00
27.35
5.85
53. 0
"2.05
5.99
«*.30
4,81
3.b2
f .08
b,93
3.53
3.1*!
5.3*
^.25
3.72
3.12
3.15
21.93
0.00
21.93
2.97
94.3
5.22
b.23
b.bl
4.7f
f ,19
3,4b
7.25
5.09
4.9B
9,89
b,9H
4,b2
•».17
4,22
29.77
.Ob
29.71
4.48
106.2
19.17
b.84
7.79
3.25
3.32
3,42
3.07
3.73
12. b?
9,b9
5.73
5.23
b.29
3.59
19.17
.05
19.12
3.32
92.5
.88
7.73
8.40
4,37
4.35
3.2b
b.b9
25.43
13.74
I,b2
30. bl
25. 8b
18. Ib
b.20
31,31
0,00
31,31
7,b7
123.7
46". 8"6
55.55
52.63
57.39
40.51
45.00
50.42
53.67
51.25
44. 79
58. 70
65.40
60.45
53. 14
11. 75
22.1
D-3
-------
TABLE D-2.
•01 '-it
TI^F SPt\T I\ MOOES OF Thfc
ODE GASOLINE HfAVY UUTY FTP
TPUCKS Ff.0^ TH£ CAPE-21 STUDY
(SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK AND LOS ANGELES)
TRUCK IDLE
•'DOE
r.T
HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
I^, lb IN, 10 IN,
Total
02NY 40. 54
03NY jH.i*7
OHN'Y 21.38
ObNY 22,1]
ObNY b2,H?
08NY lb.3R
OSNY 23. H7
11NY 19. wq
12NY 2b,R«i
13NY Hb.qs
IbNY 30. q?
1 7NY I b.H.i
20NY bS.H'i
•
2bN Y 22 , b2
2bNY 27. h]
28NY bl.SO
2 9 N Y 31,00
3 1 N Y S 7 , H H
32NY 18. HH
33NY 3b,fll
3bNY 2b,15
38NY SI. 79
44NY 13.11
HbNY 3S,bO
HRNY 32, HS
49NY 2 7 . 7 f 1
bUMY Hb,b3
b 1 N Y 31,27
52NY lb.51
b9N Y H q , R r
blNY L7.21
OHIA 11, IS
ObLA S.J3
07LA H 7,qb
10LA Ib.b?
13LA bb.2^
IHLA s , b9
1 7L A q , hS
19LA 1 ,q j
21 1 A LJ r
1 Lfl H , 5 h
2HLA 12,11
2bLA q,«K
2bLA lb,2n
2 8 L A J 1 1 . 7 1
30LA i ?. ps
3?L A 11,72
35LA > P
. ™ c
2. HO
.03
.39
.9H
.99
1.8?
2.97
3,32
J.19
21.93
1.01
2,qu
3,qp
.PR
2.113
l.Hb
H.b7
.b9
b.17
H.3H
2.71
b, HO
1 ,00
3.J 1
l,qq
7.21
3.*2
2,H4
2. Ob
S.99
4,30
4,81
3,b?
H .OR
b,q3
10,19
2,81
1,29
3.08
l.bb
3.71
2, HO
4,bO
3,b3
3,83
1.H5
1.12
el
I
2.H5
,0b
,48
,90
1.45
2,1^
2,81
3.7b
l.bU
H.21
J.51
3.7H
7.73
,84
2.13
2.19
,SR
.71
19, Oh
S.37
3.09
b.b8
2,31
3, HI
?.»7
b,97
b,75
4,02
5.22
b,23
b,bl
H, 7H
4,19
3.4b
7.2b
1,82
2,40
.qo
2,24
1,94
3,37
2.82
3,b?
3,bb
2,b2
.98
2.21
i-m
. 7
3,20
,lb
,*b
,81
3,bb
l.bH
3,98
3.15
2.22
2.13
1.30
1,01
I.b9
,H5
1.72
S.bfa
1.S4
1.B2
4,10
4,b9
1,28
5, 70
2,23
4tnb
2,13
8.40
8,b2
7,55
19,17
b,84
7.79
3,25
3,3?
3,42
3,1)7
4,32
3,b7
?.b2
9,43
5,04
5,b9
2,b8
4,70
4,20
l.bH
2.02
1.1*
. 19
b.H?
0,00
I,b9
2, 3B
1,02
2,03
.27
3.2b
l,5b
.bl
1.4b
4,23
2.23
3,01
4,4b
0,00
5.20
1.15
1,00
19,95
1,81
l.lb
1,12
20.90
31,31
11, bO
8,bb
14,18
,88
7.73
8,40
4,37
4,35
3,2b
b,b9
56.87
57. 23
48.24
56.12
66.30
45.21
47. 53
44.64
48.46
55.56
49.58
25.33
75.60
50. 93
35.11
71.50
48.12
71.53
40.48
64.01
58.51
66.69
41.89
54. 28
55.31
48.64
62.63
59.58
38. 14
67.49
33. 00
50. 29
57. 90
71.40
61.60
86.09
48. 46
56.12
45.20
62.36
49.45
46.86
55.55
52.63
57.39
40. 51
45. 00
53.67
D-4
-------
.TABLE p-2. (cpnt'dJPtRC&NT TIMfc SPENT IN MOOES Of- THfc
NINff NiDDE GASOLINE HFAVY DUTY FTP
F-OR c,? TRUCKS FROM THE CAPO31 STUDY
(SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK AND LOS ANGELES).
1 MODE GASOLINE: HfcAVY DUTY PROCt'DUPE
FRUCK
4QIA
42LA
47LA
48LA
AVG,
MAX,
WIN,
RANG
8.0,
101
b
B
9
8
«?b
bl
1
b?
lb
,E
,20
.81
,75
.31*
.bl
.44
.13
.51
.53
CT
10.d5
1.4H
lb.
20.
11.
if.
0.
??.
b.
25
17
hR
•)<;
on
3S
02
n IN. ib
3. HI 4
5,34 1
3.7? "*
3. ja f
3.11 3
31,13 11
0 , 0 0
51,13 11
3.J8 3
IN,
.18
,R1
.be
,1?
,8S
.Ob
.Ob
.00
,1?
10 IN,
1 ? . b ?
l.bl
?>.t?i
b,?1
3,81
11,1'?
.lb
11,0 1
1,47
3
13
1
??>
18
5
31
f)
31
h
IN,
.7H
,b2
.Rh.
.lb
,bS
.31
, 0 0
.31
.71
Total
51.25
44. 79
65.
60.
53.
86.
25.
60.
11.
40
45
98
09
33
76
38
Coef.
of
Var.% 64.3
51. 5
99.7
82.3
91.1
119.3
21.1
D-5
-------
TABLE D-3.
PFwCFNT TIME SPENT IN MODES DF THE
NTNF MODE GASOLINE HEAVY niJTY FTP
F-OR 9 TRUTKS FROM THE TAPF-P1 STUDY
(TRACTOR-TRAILERS FROM NEW YORK AND LOS ANGELES)
TRUCK
9 MODE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
IDLE CT 19 IN. )b IN. 10 IN, 3 IN.
07NY
3HN/Y
39NY
bINY
n?L A
03L A
12LA
391 A
•+31 A
AVH.
MAX.
MTN.
RANG
S.D.
Coef.
of
Var.%
13.17
57.91
P3.JH
39. OH
17.7D
1 D , 5 2
1) ,3fi
1 0 . 7 2
2.95
?n.7b
=.7.91
2,95
51. 9b
J7.30
83.3
b.
7.
*.
J2,
9.
5.
5.
5.
8.
7.
12.
H.
8.
a.
37.
51
05
37
75
8R
h5
37
17
?2
P2
75
37
38
K8
1
2.83
.^
3.5h
3. IR
3.h>t
i."e
2,71
.39
39. 8
2,85
.33
2,77
2.H8
3.7H
29,77
3. 18
b.35
29.77
.33
29,11
8.97
141. 3
2.H7
.33
.05
.^7
•*,?R
1.50
1.^3
3,73
5.73
2.33
5.73
,05
5,b8
82.0
9.52
.57
o.no
2,00
12.17
.11
l.HO
25.13
30,bl
9.1?
30,bl
0,00
30,bl
11.bb
127.9
Total
37.65
66.58
33.89
60.42
51.71
49.47
25.97
53.67
58. 70
48.67
66.58
25.97
40.61
13.46
27. 7
D-6
-------
E>-4. PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES QF THE
NINE MODE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY FTP
FOR 35 TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
(ALL TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK)
TRUCK IDLE
9 MODE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
CT 19 IN, lb IN. 10 IN.
Coeff.
Var.% 45.7
3 IN,
Total
02NY
03NY
OHNY
OSNY
ObNY
07NY
OBNY
CUNY
11NY
12NY
13NY
IbNY
X7NY
20NY
25NY
2bNY
28NY
29NY
30NY
31NY
32NY
33NY
35NY
38NY
39NY
HHNY
H5NY
H8NY
H9NY
SONY
51NY
5ENY
S9NY
falNY
bHNY
AVG.
MAX,
MIN,
RANG
S.D.
H0.5H
3H.H7
23,38
22,11
52, HE
13. H?
15.38
23,87
IS, 89
25.55
3fa,95
30,92
1 b , I H 0
b9,HH
22, b2
27. bl
bl.SO
31,00
57,91
57. 8H
1B.8H
3b,8l
2b,15
51,79
23, 1H
13,11
35, bO
32,^8
27,70
»8.b3
31.27
lb,51
19,80
17.21
39, Of
32.90
b9.* f
13.11
5b,33
15. OH
0.00
12. OH
18. b9
15, bK
3,5(1
b.Sl
13,71
13.38
b.OH
9.22
7,88
12,10
3.20
5.3?
1H,8H
7.25
b.99
12,07
7.05
fa. 58
13,91
17.17
1U.88
8,33
H.37
O.Od
13. HO
10.95
5,H9
8.H2
17,97
9.32
5.30
11.52
12.75
9.71
18,88
0.00
18.88
5,02
n.on
1.9H
l,3b
3,bO
1.7H
2,83
3,35
2,38
5,8H
2,20
2,bH
1.71
l,2b
,22
2, HO
,03
,39
,9H
,39
,99
1,87
2.97
3.32
1.1*
3.5b
21.93
1,01
2.91)
3,90
.88
2,03
l.Hb
H.fa7
.59
3.18
2.b2
21, 91
n.rtn
21.93
3,b3
10,19
2,81
1.29
3. OH
l.bb
2.85
3.71
2. HO
H,bO
3,b3
3,83
1.85
1.12
.21
2.H5
,0b
,H8
.90
.33
l.Hb
2.19
2.81
3.75
l.bO
2,77
H.21
1.51
3.7H
7.73
,8H
2.13
2.19
.98
.71
2.H8
2.53
10.19
,0b
10,13
2.03
1.82
2. HP
.10
2.2H
1.9H
2.H7
3.37
2.82
3.?.7
3,bb
2.b2
,98
2.21
.17
3.20
.lb
.HS
.83
,33
3.fa5
l.bH
3. 98
3.15
2.22
.05
2.13
1.30
1,01
1,59
.85
1.72
8,bh
1.5H
1.82
.17
2,07
R.bb
.05
8,bl
1.59
H.32
3.57
2,b2
9.H3
5, OH
9.52
5.b9
2,b8
H.70
H.20
l.bH
2,02
1.1*
.11
5.H2
0.00
I.b9
2.38
.57
1,02
2,03
.27
3.2b
1 ,5b
0.00
.51
l.Hb
*.23
2.23
3,01
H.Hb
0,00
5.20
1.15
2,00
2.83
9.52
0,00
9.52
2,38
56.87
57. 23
48. 24
56. 12
66.30
37.65
45. 21
47.53
44.64
48.46
55.56
49.58
25.33
75.60
50.93
35. 11
71.50
48.12
66. 58
71.53
40.48
64.01
58. 51
66.69
33.89
41.89
54. 28
55.31
48.64
62.63
59.58
38.14
67.49
33.00
60.42
52.66
75.60
25.33
50.27
12.37
51. 7
138.6
80. 2
76.8
84. 1
23.5
D-7
-------
TABLE D-5.
PERCfc.NT TIME SPENT IN KODES OF THE
NINE MORE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY FTP
Hjk 31 TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
(SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS FROM NEW YORK)
wont GASOLINE HFAVY
DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
TRUCK
OPNY
H3 NY
0 1 N Y
HSfjY
ObMY
08MY
09NY
1 1NY
12NY
13NY
IbNY
17NY
r1 0 IM Y
2SnY
2bN f
28NY
29(s,Y
3lMY
32NY
3 ^NY
35NY
38NY
UNY
15 NY
t8NY
19NY
50|sjY
51NY
52NY
59MY
blMY
A v r; .
MAX,
WIN,
R A N f ;
s.».
TDLf
10.51
31,.
.17
23,38
22.11
52,
15,
23,
19
25
}b
30
lb
b9
22
t>7
hi
31
5 7
18
3b
2b
51
13
35
32
27
18
n
i b
H9
1?
,1*2
.38
.8?
,H9
.55
.q5
.92
.10
.*»1
.be
.hi
,5f.
. n 0
.81
,P1
.91
,15
.79
.11
.br,
.18
.70
.b3
.27
.^1
.81]
.?!
C
0.
12.
18,
15.
3.
13.
13.
b.
9,
7.
12.
3.
s.
11.
7.
b.
12.
b.
n.
17.
18.
8.
n.
13,
1U.
5.
8.
17.
9.
5.
1 1.
T
on
01
b9
bb
50
7)
38
0*
22
88
10
2i'
3?
HH
25
99
n?
SB
91
17
88
33
on
in
95
19
12
97
32
,30
52
19
o.
1.
1.
3.
1.
3.
2.
5.
2.
2.
1.
1.
•
2.
•
•
•
•
1.
2.
3.
1.
21.
1.
2.
3.
•
2.
IN.
00
qi
3b
bO
71
35
38
81
20
bl
71
-------
TABLE D-6.
PERCfNT TIME SPENT IN MOOES OF THE
MINE MODE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY FTP
FOR 4 TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
(TRACTOR-TRAILERS FROM NEW YORK)
TRUCK IDU
GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE
CT 19IN. Ib IN, 10 IN, 3 IN,
Total
07NY
30NY
39NY
b4NY
AVG.
MAX.
MIN.
RANG
5,0,
Coef.
of
Var.%
13.47
57.11
23.14
39fQ*
33.39
57,91
13, 4 ?
44,44
19,45
58.3
b.Sl
?.0!!i
4.37
1?.75
7.b7
12.75
4.37
8.38
3. 58
46. 7
2.83
.39
3.5b
3.18
2.H9
3.Sb
,39
3.17
1,43
57.4
e.85
,33
e.7?
e.48
2.11
P,8S
.33
E.52
1,80
56. 9
?,47
.33
.05
,"
,95
2,47
.05
?,4?
1,08
113. 7
9,5?
,57
0,011
2,00
3,Q
-------
TABLE D-7. P£*CE*T TIME SPENT 1^ MODES OF THE
MNE 'iQDF GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY FTP
FQK j£h TWUOS FROM THF CAPE-JBl STUHY
(ALL TRUCKS FROM LOS ANGELES)
1 MODE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE
TR"CK I'11 F CT 19 IN. ib IN. 10 IN. 3 IN. Total
02LA
TJ3LA
Of L A
05L A
07L A
ini A
12LA
13LA
If LA
17LA
HL A
2JL«
2f LA
251. A
2bL*
r>8L A
30LA
32LA
35LA
3bLA
31L A
f nLA
f c?LA
f .n A
17LA
f « L. A
AVij.
MAX.
MIN.
RANG
b.l».
Coeff.
of
Var.%
l f . 7 n
I'l.bt
1 J. J 1
•4.13
f7.Mb
lb.^?
11.36
5^.25
H.bS
l.bS
1.S3
H.Sb
1^. 33
S.Rfc
lb.2b
10.73
17. PR
11. 7d
23.18
10.13
lu.72
b.2fl
H.P1
d.15
1.75
8. -14
i f . ? a
5b.^S
J.13
5H.32
1 2 . n q
84.6
1.88
5.b5
5.77
If .38
If .55
2b,10
5.37
23. 1H
8.2b
H. ^7
1.15
27.35
8.13
l.bb
1 2 . 5 L.
If ,H(I
2?. it
13. 3]
b . 8 0
15.55
b.17
1 D . 2 5
l.f f
8.2?
lb.22
? n . 3 ?
12.71
27.35
5.17
22. 18
h.SO
50.8
3,b«f
1.12
5.17
f .38
2.71
5 . f 0
2.71
1.0 Ll
3.13
1.11
7.2J
3.f2
2.ff
2.05
5.11
f .30
f .81
J.b2
f .08
H.13
3.53
^.•*1
5.3f
f.25
1.72
3.12
3.8b
7.21
1.00
b.21
1.52
39.4
3.7*
21.77
11. Ob
5,3?
3.01
b.b8
3.18
2.31
3.f3
2.17
fa. 17
5.75
f .02
5.22
b.23
b.bl
f ,7f
f .11
3,f b
7.25
5.01
f .18
1.81
b.qf
f ,b?
t.17
b.sn
21.77
2.17
27. bO
5.7b
88.6
f .28
1.50
f .10
f .bl
1.28
5.70
1.13
2.23
f .05
2.13
8.fO
8.fa2
7.55
11.17
b.8f
7.71
3.25
3.32
3.f2
3.07
3.73
12. b7
l.bl
5.73
5.23
b.21
5.bf
11.1?
1.28
17.81
3.12
69.5
12. f 7
.11
3.00
11.15
1.81
1.15
l.f 0
1.12
20.10
31.31
11. bO
H.bb
If .18
.88
7.73
8.f 0
f.37
f.35
3.2b
b.bl
25. f 3
13. 7f
I.b2
30. bl
25. 8b
18. Ib
10.72
31.31
.11
31.20
1.81
91.5
51.71
49.47
50.29
57.90
71.40
61.60
25.97
86.09
41.60
56.12
45.20
62.36
49.45
46.86
55.55
52.63
57.39
40.51
45.00
50.42
53.67
51.25
44.79
58. 70
65.40
60.45
53.53
86.09
25.09
61.00
11.28
21.1
D-10
-------
PERCtNT TIME SPENT Ir. Mni)ES nF Inf.
NINE "(ODE GASOLINE; HEAVY OOTY MP
FOR 51 THUCKS FROi THE CAPF--21 STUDY
(SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS FROM LOS ANGELES)
GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MOOES
TRUCK
04LA
05LA
07LA
10LA
13LA
14LA
17LA
19LA
21LA
24LA
25LA
2bLA
28LA
30LA
32LA
35LA
3bLA
40LA
42LA
47LA
48LA
AVG,
MAX.
MIN,
RANG
S.D.
I OLE
13.19
9 . 1 3
47. Mb
1^.57
5b.P5
h ,h9
* f ^ J
1 Q "3
elsb
12.33
9.88
lb.?b
10.73
1 V . 2 8
11.72
? :) . 98
1 '• ' . 9 3
b , ?n
8.81
9,75
8.34
15. IS
_5 « « c j
1 Q ^
r- ji O3
13. lb
CT
5.77
14 , 3«
14.55
? b . 1 n
23, IP
H.Pb
8. 8?
9 , 1 S
2 7 , 3b
8.93
9 . bb
12.50
14.80
22 , 9*
13,31
b . 8 r,
15.55
10.25
9.f 4
lb.2?
20.37
14.21
27.35
5.77
21. 58
b,4l
1 9
5
4
2
5
1
-l
1
?
3
2
2
5
4
f
3
4
b
3
5
3
3
<+
7
1
b
1
TN.
.17
.38
.71
.40
.no
. 13
,99
,21.
,*2
,44
.05
,99
.30
.81
.b?
.08
Q '^J
U |
i34
.?2
.12
.0]
.2J
.00
. 21
.b2
1 rl
1 Q
5 .
3.
b ,
2.
3.
2.
b .
5.
4,
5.
b.
b.
4 ,
*.
3 .
7.
•
9.
4,
'f-
5.
* •
2.
lb .
3.
T'J.
Ob
3 ?
04
b8
31
43
1?
97
75
02
22
23
bl
7*
1 9
4b
?5
9R
89
b2
17
7?
Ob
17
89
Sb
10
*
<+ .
1.
5 .
i? .
4.
2.
8.
8 .
7,
19,
h.
7.
3 ,
3.
3 .
3.
12 .
9.
5.
h.
b.
19.
1.
17.
4.
IN.
1 n
b9
2R
?n
2 3
05
1 3
to
bf>
55
1 7
H4
?9
P5
32
4c'
07
b7
b^
23
29
1 7
17
2«
89
13
3
^
i^i
j .
i.
i.
?n.
31,
11.
1*,
*
7.
«.
4.
*.
3 .
b ,
13.
1.
25 .
IS.
9.
3J .
.
30.
8.
IN,
00
95
81
15
1?
90
31
bn
bb
1.8
88
73
40
3?
35
2^
b9
74
b?
8b
lb
94
31
BH
43
89
Total
50.29
57.90
71.40
61.60
86. 09
48.46
56.12
45.26
62.36
49.45
46.86
55.55
52.63
57.39
40.51
45. 00
50.42
51.25
44.79
65.40
60.45
55. 20
86.09
40.51
45.58
10.48
Coef.
of
Var.% 86.9
45.1
40.4
62.2
66.9
89.4
19. 0
D-ll
-------
TABLE D-9.
PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MQOE3 OF THE
NINE MODE GASOLINE HEAVY Dim FTP
FOR 5 TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
(TRACTOR-TRAILERS FROM LOS ANGELES)
TRUCK IDLE
9 MODE GASOLINE HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
CT 19 IN, lb IN, 10 IN, 3 IN,
Total
02LA
03LA
121*
39L.A
13LA
AVG,
MAX,
MIN,
RANG
S.D,
Coef.
of
Var.%
17,70
io.se
11,38
1U.72
e.9s
10. bS
17,70
*.9S
1-*,7S
5.23
49.1
9,88
5,bS
5,37
5.17
8.22
b.8b
9,88
5,17
*.?1
2,09
30.5
3,feH
1.92
2.71
3.53
f,25
3.21
1.25
1.^2
2,33
.''I
28.3
3.7*
29,77
3,18
5,09
b,9t
9,74
29,77
3,18
2b,59
11,29
115.9
1.28
1,50
1,93
3.73
5,73
3,f3
5,73
l.SP
1.23
1.71
50.7
12,1?
,11
1,10
25,13
30, bl
11,00
30, bl
,11
30,50
13,79
98.5
51.71
49.47
25.97
53.67
58.70
47.90
58.70
25.97
32.73
12.73
26.6
D-12
-------
APPENDIX E
DATA IN SUPPORT OF DIESEL TRUCK
WEIGHTING FACTOR ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE E-l.
PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE 13-MODE DIESEL HEAVY-DUTY FTP FOR 31 TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
(ALL TRUCKS FROM LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK)
13 MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
INTERMEDIATE HP* POWER MATED RPP POWER
T8UC*
Obi*
1SLA
20L A
22LA
23LA
27LA
29L»
31L»
33LA
Stl. A
37LA
3BLA
11LA
11LA
1SLA
»bLA
5RA
27\Y
31NY
3bNY
37> Y
12NY
1 3*1
53NY
5»NY
5SNY
SkNY
57NY
bONY
bZNY
bSNY
Ay6.
MAX.
"IN.
RANG
S.D.
C.V.
IDLE
Ib.Jb
10.18
1. 15
11,33
is.es
?1 .73
lb , 1 1
11.7}
15.98
1.53
5.51
13. b2
1* . 07
21 .9b
33.58
11.78
11 ,•»»
bl.72
21.51
33,32
? 1 ,97
?9 , 81
29.28
17.25
tl.07
"5.7?
»9,1Q
12.17
37,12
5b,79
lZ.2b
Z8.25
83.32
1.53
91.79
1^.17
.b«
OZ PCT
.11
,08
. 59
.52
.57
.37
.31
, lb
,BR
,23
,b9
,28
.73
l.bZ
.2*
,51
l.bO
»*9
.Ob
0,00
,h9
,95
,5b
,»1
,11
.23
,19
2, lb
.70
.07
1.07
.57
2,lb
0,00
2. lb
.50
.11
25 PCT
.3b
.18
8.09
1 ,b5
1.97
1.50
.92
1.75
1.25
2.19
2.08
1.71
3.1b
2.53
.39
2.17
1,30
1.38
b2
,11
1.19
1.87
2,7b
,bb
.Bb
1.37
.bO
.12
l.bS
.99
I.Ob
l.lb
.11
10.27
0.00
1.03
2.00
."5
1,91
2,13
3.15
2.33
3.09
2,39
l.bO
10. Z7
0,00
10.27
1.8b
l.lb
100PCT
.05
.10
,19
. 21
.09
.57
,17
.01
r.z3
,71
2,20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
,0b
,19
,90
,35
1,92
0.00
,11
0.00
.lb
0,00
1.28
, 71
.28
.01
.03
.12
2,20
0.00
Z.20
.57
1.35
02 PCT
l.bl
3,13
,20
,bb
,75
,12
1.21
,25
,bO
.08
,19
.10
1.32
.88
1.19
.31
1.01
.17
0,00
.01
.02
5.19
,11
,08
,10
.22
0,00
.08
0,00
0.00
.18
,b9
5.19
0.00
5,19
1.09
1.58
25 PCT
7.83
12,51
2,10
2,75
1,10
Z.2Z
8.78
3,95
5.05
1,31
,bS
,05
.bl
,bb
.58
,55
,18
,bO
0,00
.31
,18
.12
1,01
,1b
1.81
1.01
0,00
,19
.35
.03
1.17
3.09
12.51
0.00
12,51
3.10
1.00
so PCT
1,58
5,12
1.72
2,80
2,59
l,0b
5,72
2.10
5,15
l.lb
1.89
2,82
1.S7
3.37
3.73
2,97
.99
,3b
0,00
.15
.33
0,00
2.57
,3b
1.01
,17
0,00
,21
.17
,01
2.35
1,97
5.72
0.00
5.72
1.7S
.M
75 PCT
B.28
b.lb
3.8b
S.b9
1,33
2,0b
b.9b
3.88
1,91
5.29
11.00
7,11
2.79
b.19
8.11
9.80
1.03
1,01
0,00
,12
2,85
0,00
5.19
1.08
l.Sb
1,51
0.00
.53
.18
.17
b.10
3.91
a. oo
0.00
11.00
3.18
• •1
100 PCT
2.23
,23
2,77
3,22
,bb
1.28
*,3l
1.25
3,5b
,38
5.02
7,05
.02
,8b
.22
2.31
,01
1,71
0.00
.27
l.bl
0.00
1.3b
1.02
.58
0.00
0.00
.lb
,07
.02
15.13
l,9b
15,13
0.00
15,13
3.08
1.57
"UUAL
TOTAL
11, bl
38,19
29.75
32,91
35.20
35.37
15,85
bD.15
39,80
17.52
35,19
39.81
39,13
19,10
52,31
38. bl
29.78
72.71
21. bb
as, 75
12. 9b
3b,13
19,02
57.13
51. bO
55.20
55. 1Z
55.17
18,51
bl.10
15.15
15.32
85.75
17.52
b8. 23
11.01
.31
MOTOR
2b.fa3
31.11
11. b3
30,82
23.50
37,27
2b,20
9,7b
27,01
9,7b
11,12
lb,02
30,81
13, bl
25,b5
22.18
13,55
5.77
lb.10
3.57
2,11
18.21
19.32
18. bS
2b.2S
31. bZ
15.37
7.71
11,11
12.33
5.17
20.22
11.21
2.11
lb.10
11.57
.*»
1 U 1 «t'
NONMOTOR
,Sb71
.SS11
.3185
.1757
.IbOl
,5b38
,b213
.bbbb
,5153
,1911
,1133
,1710
,5b5S
.5721
.7010
.19bS
.5275
.771b
,2939
.8892
.1390
,b9BO
,b07b
.7023
.7103
.8073
,bSll
,fa012
.5181
.7001
.I77b
.5703
,8892
. 1911
,b9Sl
!zb!7
-------
TABLE E-2. PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE THIRTEEN MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY FTP FOR IS TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-81 STUDY
(ALL TRACTOR TRAILERS FROM LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK)
13 MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
INTERMEDIATE RPM POWER RATED RPM POWER
TRUCK
27NY
3*NY
*2MY
53NY
SSNY
SbNY
bQNY
bSNY
ObLA
15LA
ZOLA
22LA
27LA
33LA
3*LA
*1LA
H5LA
*bLA
S1LA
AVG.
MAX.
MIN.
RANG
S.D.
C.V.
IDLE
b*.72
21.51
2S.B*
*7.2S
tS.72
*S.10
37.12
12. 2b
ib.2b
10.18
*.3S
1*.33
21.73
15. SB
1.53
IS. 07
33.58
1*.7B
1*.S*
2*.Sb
bf.72
1.53
b3.1S
17.03
.bB
02 PCT
,*s
.Ob
.ss
.1*
.23
.IS
.70
1.07
.11
.08
.ss
.52
.37
.68
.23
.73
.2*
.51
l.fao
.53
l.bO
.Ob
1.5*
.*0
.75
25 PCT
1.38
.b*
.03
3. OS
.78
1.H7
S.b*
2.20
.3fa
.18
8. OS
l.t>5
1.50
1.25
2. IS
3.1b
.3S
2.17
*.30
2.13
8. OS
.03
8. Ob
2.05
.Sb
SO PCT
.bb
.3S
0.00
1.35
.35
.bS
1.70
I.b7
.13
.05
2.55
.53
.5*
.3b
1.33
l.OS
.15
.Sb
1.3*
.81
2.55
0.00
2.5S
.bS
.85
75 PCT
I.Ob
l.lb
0.00
2. no
1.S1
2.*3
2.33
2.3S
.17
.12
2.73
.52
.b2
1.87
2.7b
1.37
.12
l.bS
.SS
1.38
2.7b
0.00
2.7b
.S*
.bB
100PCT
.*S
.SO
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
.28
.03
.05
.10
.*s
.2*
.57
.lb
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
.Ob
.31
1.28
0.00
1.28
.*2
1.3S
02 PCT
.17
0.00
5. IS
.08
.22
0.00
0.00
.18
l.bl
3.*3
.20
.bb
.*2
.bO
.08
1.32
1.1S
.31
1.0*
.88
5. IS
0.00
5. IS
1.3*
1.52
25 PCT !
.bO
0.00
.12
.*b
1.01
0.00
.35
1.17
7.83
12.5*
2. *0
2.75
2.22
5.05
1.3*
7.bl
*.S8
3.55
3.*B
3.00
12.5*
0.00
ie.s*
3.33
1.11
>0 PCT :
.3b
0.00
0.00
.3b
.*7
0.00
.17
2.35
*.S8
5.12
1.72
2.80
I.Ob
5.15
l.lb
1.S7
3.73
2.S7
.ss
1.8*
5. IS
0.00
5.15
1.77
.^b
75 PCT
1.0*
0.00
0.00
1.08
*.51
0.00
.18
b.*0
8.28
b.lb
3.8b
S.bS
2. Ob
*.S*
S.2S
2.7S
8.1*
S.80
1.03
3.75
S.BO
0.00
S.80
3.1*
.8*
100 PCT
1.7*
0.00
0.00
1.02
0.00
0.00
.07
15. *3
2.23
.23
2.77
3.22
*.28
3.5b
.38
.02
.22
2.3*
.01
1.S7
1S.*3
0.00
15. *3
3.5b
l.BO
MOUAL
TOTAL
72.71
St. fab
3B.13
57.13
55.20
55.12
*B.S*
*S.1S
*l.bl
38. IS
2S.75
32. SI
35.37
3S.8Q
17.52
3S.13
52.3*
38. b*
2S.78
*1.5b
72.71
17.52
55. IS
13.07
.31
MOTOR 1
5.77
lfa.10
*8.2*
18. bS
31. b2
15.37
11.**
S.*7
2b.b3
31.11
I*.b3
30.82
37.27
27.01
S.7b
30.81
25. bS
22.18
*3.5S
23. 7S
*8.2*
5.*7
*2.77
12.15
.51
TUTAL/
40NMOTOR
.771b
.2S3S
.bSBO
.7023
.8073
,bS13
.5*81
,*77fa
,5b71
.55**
.3*85
.*7S7
,5b38
.5*53
,1S*1
.5b55
.70*0
,*SbS
.5275
.5522
.8073
.1S*1
.b!31
,15b7
.£837
-------
TABLE E-3. PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE THIRTEEN MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY FTP FOR 12 TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
(ALL SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS FROM LOS ANGELES AND MEW YORK)
13 MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
INTERMEDIATE RPM POKER RATED RPM POKER
TRUCK
23LA
24LA
31LA
37LA
3BLA
»*LA
3bNY
37NY
*3NY
S*NY
S7NY
b2*Y
AVG.
MAX.
MIN.
RANG
5.0.
c.v.
IDLE
18.25
lb ,*1
** .73
5.51
13. bS
2* .4b
83.32
21.47
24. 28
HH.07
H2.*7
Sb.74
33. *S
83.32
5.51
77.81
21.84
.bS
02 PCT
.57
. 3*
.lb
,b4
.28
I.b2
0.00
.b4
.Sb
.**
2.1b
.07
.b3
2.1b
0.00
2.1b
.b*
1.01
25 PCT
1.47
.42
1.75
2.08
1.71
2.53
.35
1.71
2.7b
2.85
3.41
.bb
1.43
3.41
.35
3.5b
1.00
.52
50 PCT
.74
.32
.55
.74
.38
.73
. lb
1.11
1.08
1.0*
l.S*
.52
.75
l.S*
.lb
1.38
.34
.S3
75 PCT
.80
.*!
I. It
.bb
.Bb
.bO
.*!
10.27
1.03
.45
3.15
3.04
i.ts
10.27
• *1
4.8b
2.78
l.*3
100PCT
.04
. *7
.0*
.71
2.20
0.00
.35
1.42
.**
.lb
.7*
.01
.54
2.20
0.00
2.20
.73
1.23
02 PCT i
.75
1.21
.25
.44
.*0
.88
.01
.02
• *1
.10
.08
0.00
.38
1.21
0.00
1.21
,34
1.02
!S PCT i
t.HO
8.78
3.45
3.bS
3.05
7.bb
.31
.18
*.o*
1.8*
• *4
.03
3.22
8.78
.03
8. 75
2.8*
.88
iO PCT
2.54
5.72
2.*0
*.B4
2.82
3.37
.15
.33
2.57
1.01
.2*
.0*
2.18
S.72
.0*
S.bB
1.84
.87
75 PCT J
* . 33
b.4b
3.88
11.00
7.**
b.14
• *2
2.85
S.*4
l.Sb
.53
.17
*.23
iiloo
.17
10.83
3.3*
.74
LOO PCT
.bb
*. 31
1.25
5.02
7.05
.Bb
.27
l.bl
1.3b
.58
.lb
.02
1.43
7. OS
.02
7.03
2.27
1.17
nuUAL
TOTAL
35.20
*S.8S
bO.15
35.44
34.81
*4. *0
85.75
42. 4b
*4.02
S*.bO
55. *7
bl.*0
51. 2b
85.75
35.20
50.55
13. 4b
' .27
MOTOR 1
23.50
2b.20
4.7b
1* . 12
lb.02
13. b4
3.57
2.1*
14.32
2b.2S
7.7*
12.33
1*.S5
2b.2S
2.1*
2*. 11
8.13
.Sb
1 V 1 *U'
40NMOTOR
.tbOl
.b213
.bbbb
.*133
,*7*0
.572*
.8842
.*340
.b07b
.7*03
.b012
.700*
.5488
.8842
,i»133
.*7bO
.1344
.2337
-------
TABU: E-4.
PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MOOES OF THE THIRTEEN MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY FTP FOR 17 TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-Z1 STUDY
(ALL LOS ANGELES TRUCKS)
13 MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
INTERMEDIATE RPM POWER RATED RPM POWER
TRUCK
ObLA
1SLA
ZOLA
22LA
23LA
27LA
2SLA
31LA
331*
31LA
37LA
3SLA
11LA
111.A
1SLA
IbLA
51LA
AVG.
MAX.
MIN.
RANG
S.D.
C.V.
IDLE
Ib.Bb
10.18
1.35
11.33
18.25
SI. 73
lb.11
11.73
IS. SB
1.53
5.51
13. bE
It. 07
21. Sb
33.58
11.78
11. SI
17.07
11.73
1.53
13.20
10.11
.bl
oa PCT
.11
.08
.ss
.se
.57
.37
.31
.lb
.88
.S3
.bS
.SB
.73
i.ba
.SH
.51
l.bO
.Sb
I.b2
.08
l.S»
,1b
.81
as PCT
.3fa
.18
8. OS
l.bS
1.S7
1.50
.S2
1.75
1.25
2. IS
S.08
1.71
3.1b
2.53
.3S
2.17
1.30
2.13 •
8. OS
.18
?. Si
1.85
.87
SO PCT
.13
.05
2.55
.53
.7S
.51
.32
.55
.3b
1.33
.7S
.38
l.OS
.73
.15
.Sb
1.31
.72
2.55
.05
a. so
.bl
- -.86
75 PCT
.17
.12
8.73
.52
.80
.b2
.»!
1.1S
1.87
8.7b
.bb
,8b
1.37
.bO
.12
l.bS
.SS
1.03
2.7b
.12
a.b»
.88
.80'
100PCT
.05
.10
.ts
,2f
.OS
.57
.H7
.0*
.!(>
1.23
.71
2.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.Ob
.38
a. 20
0.00
a. 20
.58
1.53
02 PCT
l.bl
3.H3
.20
,bb
.75
.t2
1.21
.25
.bO
.08
.»s
.»0
1.32
.88
1.1"*
.31
1.0»
.87
3.»3
.08
3.35
.'^
.fl
as PCT !
7.83
12.5-f
2.»0
a. 75
».to
2. 22
8.78
3.S5
5. OS
1.3H
3.faS
3.05
7.bl
7.bb
».S8
3.55
3.>f8
•».SS
12. S»
1.3*
11.20
a.-o
.51
SO PCT
H.S8
5.12
1.72
2.80
2.SS
I.Ob
5.72
2.fO
5.15
l.lb
f ,8S
2.82
1.S7
3.37
3.73
a.s?
.SS
3.12
5.72
.SS
H.73
1.53
.»•>
75 PCT
8.28
b.lb
3.8b
S.bS
•».33
2. Ob
b.Sb
3.88
».Sif
S.2S
11.00
7. It
2.7S
b.lS
8. It
S.BO
1.03
S.7b
11.00
1.03
S.S7
a.bs
.»7-
LOO PCT
2.23
.23
2.77
3.22
.bb
».28
H.31
1.25
3.5b
.38
5.02
7.05.
.02
.Bb
.22
2.3*
.01
a.2b
7.05
.01
7.01*
a. 08
.•»!
MUUAL
TOTAL
tl.bl
38. IS
2S.75
32. SI
35.20
35.37
15.85
bO.15
3S.80
17.52
35. »S
,3S.81
3S.13
*S.*0
52. 3H
38. b»
2S.78
38.88
bQ.15
17.52
H2.b3
S.bB
.as
MOTOR 1
2b.b3
31.11
If ,b3
30.82
23.50
37.27
2b.80
S.7b
27.01
S.7b
1*.12
lb.02
30.81
13. bS
2S.faS
22.18
13.55
23. bS
13.55
S.7b
33. 7S
S.b»
.11
IUI AL/
NONMOTOR
.Sb71
.5511
.3185
.1757
.IbOl
.Sb38
.b213
.bbbb
.5153
.1S11
.1133
.1710
.Sb55
.5721
.7010
.ISbS
.5275
.5117
.7010
.1S11
.SOS8
.1202
.8335
-------
TABLE E-S.
PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE THIRTEEN MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY FTP FOR 11 TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-ZI STUDY
(LOS ANGELES TRACTOR TRAILERS)
13 MODE OIE3EL HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
INTEHMEDIATE RPM POWER RATED RPM POWER
TRUCK
Obi*
1SLA
SOL*
22LA
27LA
33LA
3tLA
»1LA
1SLA
tbLA
SlLA
»V6.
MAX.
MIN.
RANG
S.D.
c.v.
IDLE
lb.2b
10.18
t.3S
I*. 33
81.73
1S.S8
1.53
1^.07
33. S8
It. 78
IH.St
IS.lb
33.58
1.53
32.05
8.53
.Sb
02 PCT
.11
.08
.ss
.52
.37
.88
.23
.73
.81
.51
l.bO
.53
l.bO
.08
1.52
.13
.82
25 PCT
.3b
.18
8. OS
l.bS
1.5D
1.25
2. IS
3.1b
.3S
2.17
1.30
8.2S
8.09
.18
7. SI
2. at
1.00
SO PCT
.13
.05
2.55
.53
.5»
.3b
1.33
l.OS
.15
.Sb
1.3»
.78
2.SS
.OS
2.50
.?»
.ss
75 PCT
.17
.12
2.73
.52
.be
1.87
2.7b
1.37
.12
l.»>5
."
1.17
2.7b
.1!
e.b»
.^S
.at
100PCT
.05
.10
.HS
.2*
.57
.lb
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
.Ob
.2b
1.23
0.00
1.23
.38
l.*3
02 PCT
l.bl
3.H3 •
.20
.bb
.»2
.bO
.08
1.32
l.H
.31
1.0»
.S9
3.1*3
.08
3. 35
.•»s
.••fc
25 PCT !
7.83
12. 5»
2. tO
2.75
2.22
5.05
1.31*
7.bl
H.S8
3.55
3.»8
t.85
12. S»
1.3»
11.20
3.30
.b8
io PCT ;
t.S8
5.12
1.72
2.80
I.Ob
5.15
l.lb
l.<»7
3.73
i.*l
.IS
2. at
S.15
.ss
».lb
l.bl
.87
»S PCT J
8.28
b.lb
3.8b
S.bS
2. Ob
t.st
S.2S
2.7S
8.1->
S.8Q
1.03
5.28
S.80
1.03
8.77
e.7»
.Si
LOO PCT
2.23
.23
2.77
3.22
t.28
3.5b
.38
.02
.22
8.31
.01
1.7S
».2B
.01
».Z7
l.bl
.«
nuu*L
TOTAL
11. bl
38. IS
29.75
32. SI
35.37
3S.80
17.52
3S.13
52. 3»
38. bt
2S.78
35. SI
52.31
17.52
31.82
i.7»
.2»
MOTOR 1
2b.b3
31.11
it.b3
30.82
37.27
27.01
S.7b
30.81
25. b5
22.18
13.55
27.28
13.55
S.7b
33. 7S
S.*1*
.35
1 U 1 «L/
40NMOTOR
.5b71
.SStt
.3tBS
,t?57
.5b38
.5tS3
.IStl
.5bS5
.70tO
.ISbS
.5275
.S03S
.7010
,1S»1
.SOSi
.1331
.2b»2
-------
TABLE E-6.
PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE THIRTEEN MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY FTP FOR
(LOS ANGELES SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS)
b TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
13 MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
INTEHMEDIATE RPM POWER RATED RPM POWER
TRUCK
23LA
2SLA
31LA
37L*
3BLA
HtLA
AVG.
MAX.
MIN.
RANG
s.o.
c.v.
IDLE
18.25
Ib.tl
»»,73
S.51
13. hi
2t.''b
20.58
-»t.73
5.51
3S.22
13. »2
.bS
02 PCT
.57
.3»
.lb
.bS
.25
I.b2
.bl
I.b2
.lb
l.»b
.53
.87
25 PCT
1.S7
.S2
1.75
2.08
1.71
2.53
1.83
2.53
.12
l.bl
.53
.29
50 PCT
.7S
.32
.55
.71
.38
.73
.51
.7S
.32
.»7
.21
.35
75 PCT
.80
.tl
1.19
.bb
.8b
.bO
.75
1.19
.»!
.78
.27
.35
100PCT
.09
.t7
.OH
.71
2.20
0.00
.58
2.20
0.00
2.20
.8»
l.*3
02 PCT i
.75
i.ei
.25
.»9
.»0
.88
.bfa
1.21
.25
.9b
.35
.S3
>S PCT !
t.fO
8.78
3.95
3.bS
3.05
7.bb
S.25
8.78
3.05
5.73
a. 37
.»s
50 PCT
2.59
5.72
2.HO
H.B9
2.82
3.37
3.b3
5.72
2.»0
3.32
1.3b
.38
75 PCT
».33
b.9b
3.88
11.00
7.HH
b.lS
fa.b3
11.00
3.88
7.12
2.57
.31
100 PCT
.bb
».31
1.25
5.02
7.05
.8b
3. IS
7.05
.bb
b.39
2.bS
.83
nuuAL
TOTAL
35.20
15.85
bO.15
35. tS
39.81
H9.40
•»».32
bO.15
35.20
2».SS
9.59
,ii
MOTOR 1
23.50
2b.20
9. 7b
1'».12
lb.02
13. bS
17.21
2b.20
S.7b
Ib.tf
b.31
.37
I VI t AUf
MONMOTOR
.fbOl
.b213
.fabbb
.f!33
,
-------
TABLE E-7.
PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE THIRTEEN MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY FTP FOR 1» TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
(ALL NEW YORK TRUCKS)
13 MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
INTERMEDIATE RPM POWER RATED RPM POWER
TRUCK
27NY
3HNY
3bNY
37NY
»2NY
»3NY
S3NY
S»NY
SSNY
SbNY
57NY
bONY
b2NY
bSNY
AVG.
M»X,
MIN.
RANG
S.D.
C.V.
IDLE
bH,7?
21.51
83.32
21.17
21.8*
21.28
H7.2S
HH.07
HS, 72
••«». 10
»2.H7
37,12
Sb.71
12, 2b
Hi. 82
83.32
12. 2b
71. Ob
18. 7b
.*5
02 PCT
.*1
.Ob
0.00
.bi
.15
.5b
.HH
.HH
.73
.11
2. Jb
.70
.07
1.07
.57
2.1b
0.00
2.1b
.Sb
.18
25 PCT
1.38
.b*
.35
1.71
.03
2.7b
3.01
2.85
.78
1.H7
3.°1
S.bH
,bb
2.20
l.lb
S.bH
.03
S.bl '
1.57
.BO
SO PCT
.bb
.31
.lb
1.11
0.00
1.08
1.35
l.OH
.35
.«>S
i.s*
1.70
.52
I.b7
.87
1.70
0.00
1.70
.Sb
,k*
75 PCT
I.Ob
l.lb
.HI
10.27
0.00
1.03
2.00
.15
1.11
2.H3
J.15
2.33
3.01
2.31
2.30
10.27
0.00
10.27
2.*fl
1.01
100PCT
.Hi
,10
.35
1.12
0.00
.HH
0,00
,lb
0,00
1.28
,7*
.28
.01
.03
.*?
l."2
0.00
l.«<2
.57
1.11
02 PCT
.17
0.00
.01
.02
5.11
.HI
.08
.10
.22
0.00
.OB
0.00
0.00
.18
.*b
5.11
0,00
5.11
1.17
2.1b
25 PCT
.bO
0,00
.31
,H8
.12
H.OH
.Hb
1.8H
1.01
0,00
.HI
.35
,03
1.1?
.78
H.OH
0.00
H.OH
1.0?
1.1?
SO PCT
.3b
0,00
.15
.33
0.00
2.57
.3b
1.01
.H?
0.00
.2H
.17
.OH
2.35
.57
2.57
0.00
2.57
.8*
l.*k
75 PCT
l.OH
0.00
.H2
2.85
0.00
S.HI
l.OB
l.Sb
H.S1
0.00
.53
.18
.17
b.HO
1.73
b.HO
0.00
b.HO
2.20
1.27
100 PCT
1.7H
0,00
.27
l.bl
0,00
1.3b
1,02
.58
0,00
0.00
.lb
.07
.02
1S.H3
1.51
15. HI
0.00
1S.H3
H.01
2.1*
muu*L
TOTAL
72,71
2H.bb
85.75
H2.1b
3b,13
HI. 02
57,13
SH.bO
55,20
55,12
55. H7
H8.SH
hi. HO
H5.15
53,13
85,75
2H,bb
bl.01
1H.81
.28
MOTOR
5.77
Ik. 10
3.57
2.1H
HB.2H
11.32
IB.bS
2b.2S
31. bJ
15.37
7.7H
11. HH
12.33
5.H7
Ik. 00
H8.2*
2.1*
Hb.10
12. k2
.?<
lUTALS
NONMOTOR
,771b
.2131
.681?
.H310
.bIBO
,b07b
.7023
,7H03
,8073
,bS13
,b012
.SH81
.700H
,H77b
,b377
.8812
.2111
.5151
.1SB3
.2*11
-------
TABLE E-8.
PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE THIRTEEN MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY FTP FOR
(NEW YORK TRACTOR TRAILERS)
6 TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
13 MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
INTERMEDIATE RPH POWER RATED RPH POMER
TRUCK
27NY
31NY
1JMY
S3Nr
55NY
SbNY
bONY
b5NY
AVG.
MAX.
MIN.
RANG
S.D.
C.V.
IDLE
b».72
21.51
21.81
17. ?S
15.72
IS. 10
37.12
12. 2b
38.11
bl.72
12. 2b
SE.Ib
lb.83
.11
02 PCT
.IS
.Ob
.ss
.11
.23
.IS
.70
1.07
.52
1.07
.Ob
1.01
.3b
.71
25 PCT
1.38
.bl
.03
3. OS
.78
1.17
S.fal
2.20
l.SD
S.bl
.03
S.bl
1.78
.s»
SO PCT
.bb
.3S
0.00
1.35
.35
.bS
1.70
I.b7
.85
1.70
0.00
1.70
.bl
.7b
75 PCT
l.Ofa
l.lb
0.00
2.00
1.S1
2.13
2.33
2.3S
l.bb
2.13
0.00
2.13
.8b
.52
100PCT
.IS
.SO
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
.28
.03
.37
1.28
0.00
1.28
.IS
1.31
02 PCT
.17
0.00
5. IS
.08
.22
0.00
0.00
.18
.73
5. IS
0.00
5. IS
1.80
8.17
25 PCT
.bO
0.00
.12
.1b
1.01
0.00
.35
1.17
.Ifa
1.17
0.00
1.17
.11
.Sb
50 PCT
.3b
0.00
0.00
.3b
.17
0.00
.17
2.35
.1b
2.35
0.00
2.35
.78
l.bS
75 PCT
1.01
0.00
0.00
1.08
1.51
0.00
.18
b.10
l.bS
b.10
0.00
b.10
2.11
1.18
100 PCT
1.71
0.00
0.00
1.02
0.00
0.00
.07
15.13
2.28
15.13
0.00
15.13
5.35
2.31
nuuAL
TOTAL
72.71
21. bb
3b.l3
57.13
55.20
55.12
18.51
15.15
IS. 33
72.71
21. bb
18.05
11.52
.2S
MOTOR
5.77
lb.10
18.21
IB.bS
31. b2
15.37
11.11
5.17
IS. 08
18.21
5.17
12.77
11.10
.75
IUI «L/
NONMOTOR
.771b
.2S3S
.bSBO
.7023
.8073
.bS13
.5181
.177b
.blB8
.8073
.2S3S
.5133
.170b
.2757
-------
TABLE E-9.
PERCENT TIME SPENT IN MODES OF THE THIRTEEN MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY FTP FOR
(NEW YORK SINGLE AXM) TRUCKS)
b TRUCKS FROM THE CAPE-21 STUDY
13 MODE DIESEL HEAVY DUTY PROCEDURE MODES
INTERMEDIATE RPM POWER RATED RPM POWER
THUCK
3bNY
37NY
»3NY
5»KY
S7KY
b2NY
AVG.
MAX.
«IN.
RANG
s.o.
c.v.
IDLE
83.38
81.97
2s. ee
tH.07
H2.H7
Sb.7S
-»b.32
83.32
21. s?
bl.3S
21.83
.»7
02 PCT
0.00
.bS
.5b
.»H
e.ib
.07
.bS
e.ib
0.00
e.ib
,7S
1.20
25 PCT
.35
1.71
a.7b
2.85
3. SI
.bb
2.0V
3. Si
.35
3.5b
1.38
.bB
50 PCT
.lb
1.11
1.08
1.0*
l.S»
.52
.SI
l.St
.lb
1.38
.»s
.5»
75 PCT
.»!
10.27
1.03
.ss
3.15
3. OS
3.15
10.27
.»!
S.8b
S.bB
1.17
100PCT
.35
1.S2
.»•»
.lb
.71*
.01
.bO
1.S2
.01
1.S1
.bS
1.15
02 PCT ;
.01
.02
.HI
.10
.08
0.00
.10
.•»!
0.00
.»!
.lb
1.51
!S PCT !
.31
,»8
t.0»
1.8»
.»S
.03
1.20
».0»
.03
t.Ol
1.53
1.27
»0 PCT •
.15
.33
2.57
1.01
,2»
.Of
.72
2.57
.0»
a. S3
.t?
i.»»
PS PCT
.»2
2. 85
S.VS
l.Sb
.S3
.17
l.B»
s.ts
.17
5.32
2.05
1.11
100 PCT
.27
l.bl
l.Sb
.58
.lb
.02
.b7
l.bl
.02
l.SS
.bb
1.00
nuu AL
TOTAL
85.75
H2.Sb
HS.02
SH.bO
55. »7
bl.HO
58.20
85.75
H2.Sb
»2.7S
If. 87
.2b
MOTOR 1
3.57
2. I1*
IS. 32
2b.2S
7.7»
12.33
11. BS
2b.2S
a.i»
24.11
S.»l
»7S
l u l m\.f
40NMOTOR
.88S2
.»3SO
.b07b
.7H03
.b012
.700H
,bb30
.BBS2
. *3SO
.1503
.1521
.22S»
-------
TABLE E-10. TEST WEIGHT AND 32 kph DRIVING CYCLE FUEL RATE
FOR 11 DIESEL TRUCKS TESTED UNDER CONTRACT 68-02-2147
32 kph Driving Cycle
Truck
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Test Weight, kg"
Empty
5
11
11
11
11
11
11
7
11
7
7
,216
,113
,113
,113
,113
,113
,113
,258
,113
,258
,258
Half
7
22
22
22
22
22
22
14
22
11
9
,258
,226
,226
,226
,226
,226
,226
,515
,226
,113
,299
Full
9
33
33
33
33
33
33
21
33
18
11
,072
,340
,340
,340
,340
,340
,340
,773
,340
,371
,113
Empt
133.
220.
242.
213.
226.
218.
211.
180.
222.
173.
153.
Fuel Rate ,
g/min*
y Half
14
77
50
27
45
87
36
09
00
49
03
168.
283.
296.
257.
279.
261.
284.
205.
282.
179.
168.
40
73
43
56
53
26
71
45
26
79
71
Full
164.94
326.20
365.79
295.78
314.35
319.68
347.96
240.52
342.20
258.70
160.15
* Data from Appendix D of Final Report under Contract 68-02-2147, "Study of
Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles," EPA-460/3-76-012, dated May 1976.
E-ll
-------
APPENDIX F
WORKING CURVES FROM EPA ANALYSIS
OF ETHYL TRUCK AND BUS STUDY
-------
The figures contained in this appendix are working curves
from an EPA analysis of the raw data from the "Survey of Truck
and Bus Operating Modes in Several Cities," by Ethyl Corporation
under Contract No. PH86 -62 - 1 Z. This analysis was done around
1V71 7Z. It is presented here since some ol tin: data was used L'o r
comparison purposes in the present project. The curves are pre-
sented here as made available by EPA with some touch-up for legi-
bility.
F-2
-------
tDE IN U S I
500
1000
1500
ZOOO
RPM
2500 3000 3500
FIGURE F-l. RPM VERSUS PERCENT TIME FOR LOS ANGELES TRUCKS TESTED UNDER ETAB STUDY
4000
-------
I * 0 t IN USA
3500
4000
FIGURE F-2. RPM VERSUS TIME FOR SAN FRANCISCO TRUCKS TESTED UNDER ETAB STUDY
-------
MADE IN USA
OJ
o
he] in
I
-------
I A 0 t IN US*
5. 0 "
cr>
e
H
tl
-------
TABLE F-l. SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE INTERPRETATION
OF PERCENT TIME IN VARIOUS RPM INTERVALS
FROM FIGURE F-4.
KPM
Interval
0-300
300-500
500-700
700-900
900-1100
1100-1300
1300-1500
1500-1700
1700-1900
1900-2100
2100-2300
2300-2500
2500-2700
2700-2900
2900-3100
3100-3300
3300-3500
3500-3700
3700-3900
IVrc.
r>0
0
0
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
, o.
.07,
.07,
.30,
.01,
.62,
.68,
.52,
.46,
.15,
.89,
.64,
.54,
-44,
.32,
-24,
-15,
. 10,
.04,
0
0
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(Mil Ti mo Vn 1 110:1 .ih
KPM InU'ivai:;
, 0,
-39,
-52,
.05,
.58,
.78,
.54,
.59,
.39,
-15,
.80,
.65,
.52,
.43,
.29,
.22,
.13,
.08,
.03,
0
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
.02
.07,
.77,
.30,
.72,
.60,
.62,
• 49,
.39,
.02,
.81,
.59,
-51,
.42,
.27,
-19,
.12,
.06,
.03,
2.32,
3.85,
2.08,
1.54,
1.71,
1.55,
1.54,
1.25,
1.00,
0.72,
0.57,
0.49,
0.38,
0.25,
0.16,
0.11,
0 06,
0.02,
2.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Total IV'rcon 1 Ti mr>
i n KI'M 1 n 1. c r v, i 1
74
60
59
68
57
62
41
25
91
70
52
48
33
25
15
10
04
02
0.
6.
20.
12.
8.
8.
8.
7.
8.
5.
3.
2.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
02
59
81
32
53
28
01
55
13
23
92
97
54
00
38
96
61
34
14
F-7
-------
O t II USA
500
4000
FIGURE F-5. RPM VERSUS PERCENT NON-IDLE TIME FOR ALL TRUCKS TESTED UNDER ETAB STUDY
-------
> E IN US*
13
12 ill:
11
10
s 8
l-rj
I
5 T;;;
4 :;::
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
manifold vacuum, inches of mercury
FIGURE F-6. MANIFOLD VACUUM VERSUS PERCENT TIME FOR LOS ANGELES TRUCKS, ETAB STUDY
-------
I A 0 C IH US.
12
246 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
manifold vacuum, inches of mercury
FIGURE F-7. MANIFOLD VACUUM VERSUS PERCENT TIME, SAN FRANCISCO TRUCKS, ETAB STUDY
-------
10 12 14 16 18 ZO 22 24 26
manifold vacuum, inches of mercury
FIGURE F-8. MANIFOLD VACUUM VERSUS PERCENT TIME FOR DETROIT TRUCKS, ETAB STUDY
-------
.01 IN USA
1 3
1 1
10
01
a
c 7
H] (J
i >->
M 4>
to a
10 1Z 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
manifold vacuum, inches of mercury
FIGURE F-9. MANIFOLD VACUUM VERSUS PERCENT TIME FOR ALL, TRUCKS, ETAB STUDY
-------
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Heavy-Duty Fuel Economy Program
Phase I, Specific Analysis of Certain Existing Data
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-460/3-77-001
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Melvin N. Ingalls and Robert L. Mason
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
AW-11-4311
9. PEHFORMINGORG \NI2ATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2220
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Phase I Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of several specific items of analysis conducted
on heavy-duty vehicle data generated from two EPA projects. The purpose of the
analysis was to provide information on the relationship between engine dynamometer
fuel consumption and emissions and fuel consumption and emissions of trucks in
actual use. Two separate tasks are covered. In the first task, ten specific
items of analysis were performed on the gasoline-powered and diesel-powered truck
fuel consumption and emissions data generated under EPA Contract 68-03-2147,
"Study of Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles". In the second task, the data
from CRC Project CAPE-21-71, "Truck Driving Pattern and Use Survey" were utilized
to attempt to develop modal coefficients for both the 9-mode heavy-duty gasoline
and 13-mode heavy-duty diesel emissions tests that would correlate the 9 and
13-mode BSFC values with fuel economy of trucks in actual use. This latter
attempt was largely unsuccessful.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Fuel Consumption
Exhaust emissions
Statistical analysis
Trucks
t>. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI l-'lcld/Group
Heavy-duty Vehicles
9-mode emission tests
13-mode emission tests
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
425
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |