EPA-460/3-77-007
June 1977
INVESTIGATION OF DIESEL-
POWERED VEHICLE EMISSIONS:
VIII. REMOVAL OF EXHAUST
PARTICIPATE FROM
MERCEDES 300D DIESEL CAR
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-460/3-77-007
INVESTIGATION OF DIESEL-POWERED
VEHICLE EMISSIONS: VIII.
REMOVAL OF EXHAUST PARTICIPATE
FROM MERCEDES 300D DIESEL CAR
by
Karl J. Springer
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Drawer 28510
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68-03-2116
EPA Project Officer: Ralph C. Stahman
Prepared for
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
June 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, P.O. Drawer 28510, 8500 Culebra Road,
San Antonio, Texas 78284, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2116.
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-460/3-77-007
11
-------
FOREWORD
This project was conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the Department of Emissions Research, Automotive Research Divi-
sion of Southwest Research Institute. The EPA Project Officer was Mr.
Ralph C. Stahman. Assisting the Project Officer on this project, and
hereby acknowledging his assistance, was Mr. John J. McFadden, also of
the Ann Arbor, Michigan, EPA Laboratories.
This project was under the overall direction of Mr. Karl J. Springer,
Director of the Department of Emissions Research who served as Project
Manager. Mr. Orville J. Davis was responsible for the experimental lab-
oratory evaluations. The project began in July 1975 and was authorized
by Modification 3 to Contract No. 68-03-2116. It was known within South-
west Research Institute as Project No. 11-4016-002 and constituted Part VIII
of a long-range investigation of diesel emissions begun in 1966.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of the project described in this report was to in-
vestigate the potentialities of reducing the particulate exhausted from
diesel-powered passenger cars by the use of available lead trap technology.
From a total of 48 particulate trap items, or combinations, involving some
377 screening tests, a system was identified that initially reduced exhaust
particulate from a 1975 Mercedes 300D diesel car by two-thirds. This car,
uncontrolled, could emit 0.312 g/km or 25.1 kg in 80,450 km (50,000 mi) of
operation. The system included front and rear agglomerator devices that
mounted where the usual front resonator and rear muffler were located.
Each agglomerator was packed with Texaco, Inc. alumina coated steel wool.
An inertial separator (Ethyl Corp. tangential anchored vortex or Houston
Chemical Co. swirl tube) was mounted at the outlet of the rear agglomerator.
The system was, when relatively new, found to be effective not only on part-
iculate but reduced exhaust hydrocarbons, odor, smoke, benzo(a)pyrene, and
sulfate. Acceleration performance was reduced due to the substantial in-
crease in backpressure due to the trap system. Proof of principal experi-
ments included 12,068 km (7500 mi) of durability testing on the MVMA test
cycle. The agglomerators ceased to function as a trap after about 4843 km
(3010 mi), of which 2000 km (1227 mi) was by the MVMA durability test.
The test was continued even though the agglomerators appeared to have reached
equilibrium. The durability test was continued to establish the potential
of agglomeration-separation and to investigate the effect of the particu-
late removal system on sulfate and other emissions. During the test, the
inertial separators continued to remove some particulate and were even
found slightly effective with the standard factory system, on the order of
10 percent or less. Complete test details and results are presented.
IV
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
I. SUMMARY 1
II. INTRODUCTION 4
A. Background 4
B. Objective 5
C. Definition of Particulate 5
D. Project Conferences 5
E. Acknowledgment 6
III. DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE, FUEL, PARTICULATE TRAPS, AND
PROCEDURES 7
A. Test Vehicle Description 7
B. Test Fuels 7
C. Particulate Traps 9
D. Test Plan and Procedure 11
E. Analytical Methods 16
IV. RESULTS 31
A. Road-Exhaust System Temperature Survey 31
B. Particulate Trap Screening Results 38
C. Evaluation 52
D. Durability Evaluation 88
LIST OF REFERENCES 107
APPENDICES
A. Pictorial Illustrations and Schematic Drawings of
Lead Particulate Traps
B. Mercedes 300D Road and Chassis Dynamometer Tem-
perature Profiles
C. Particulate Trap Evaluation Data, Single Components
and Combinations
D. Particulate and Sulfate Emission Rates, Mercedes
300D With and Without Particulate Trapping System
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (conf d)
E. Gaseous Emissions and Fuel Economy Computer
Print-Outs
F. Odor Data and Related Emission Measurements, Mer-
cedes 300D With and Without Particulate Trapping
System Installed
G. Noise Data
H. Exhaust System Backpressures Measured During MVMA
Mileage Accumulation
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 MVMA Durability Mileage Accumulation Driving Course 17
2 Schematic Section of Dilution Tunnel for Diesel
Particulate Sampling 19
3 Equipment Arrangement for Particulate Trap Test
and Evaluation 20
4 Particulate Tunnel and Related Equipment 21
5 Smoke and Gaseous Emissions From Mercedes 300D
During Transient Cycles 23
6 Odor and Related Exhaust Emission Measurements 26
7 Measurement of Exhaust Temperatures During Road
and Chassis Dynamometer Driving Cycles 33
8 Swirl Tube and Cyclone Separators 43
9 Various Texaco Alumina Coated Steel Wool Particu-
late Trap Configurations A-IF and A-IR 45
10 Various Agglomerator-Separator Particulate Trap
Combinations 46
11 Agglomerator Configurations Utilizing Alumina
Spheres of Various Sizes 48
12 Lead Trap Agglomerator-Separator Integral Designs 50
13 Texaco Alumina Coated Particulate Traps, Configu-
rations A-IE and A-IM and HCC Backpack Filter Box 51
14 Baseline and Texaco Packed Trap Particulate Experi-
mental Results, Screening and Evaluation - Hot FTP
Tests 56
15 Typical Mercedes 300D "Cold Start" Smoke Trace,
Factory Muffler System 61
16 Typical Mercedes 300D "Cold Start" Smoke Trace -
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS Trap System 62
17 Typical Mercedes 300D SET-7 Smoke Trace, Factory
Muffler System 64
18 Typical Mercedes 300D SET-7 Smoke Trace - A-IF,
A-IR, TAVS Trap System 65
VI1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Figure Page
19 Typical Mercedes 300D FET Smoke Trace, Factory-
Muffler System 66
20 Typical Mercedes 300D FET Smoke Trace - A-IF, A-IR,
TAV Trap System 67
21 Comparison of Odor Ratings from Trap and Standard
Exhaust Equipped Mercedes 300D 72
22 TIA by DOAS versus "D" Odor Rating by Trained Panel
for Trap and Factory Exhaust Configurations, Mer-
cedes 300D 76
23 DOAS Results for Samples Obtained During Various
Transient Cycles 79
24 Trap System, Factory System and Rear Bumper Instal-
lation of Separator to A-IR 89
25 Differential Pressures of A-IF and A-IR Agglomera-
tors During MVMA Durability Test of Mercedes 300D
Equipped with A-IF, A-IR and TAVS System 94
26 Exhaust Manifold Pressure at 88.5 km/hr (55 mph)
Cruise During MVMA Durability Test, Mercedes 300D
Equipped with A-IF, A-IR and TAVS Trap System 95
27 Diesel Exhaust Particulate Collected by the Ethyl
TAV Separator 102
s
28 Diesel Exhaust Particulate Collected by the HCC
Swirl Tube Separator 103
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1 Description of Mercedes 300D Diesel Powered Test
Vehicle 7
2 DF-2 Fuel Properties with 1973 Bureau of Mines
DF-2 Fuel Properties for Comparison 8
3 Description of Particulate Trap Components 12
4 Odor Test Conditions 28
5 Mercedes 300D Road and Chassis Dynamometer Temper-
ature Profiles - 1383 sec, 12.07 km, Federal Light
Duty Test (FTP) 34
6 Summary of Particulate Removal Experiments, Mer-
cedes 300D 39
7 Particulate and Sulfate Rate Summary 54
8 EPA Smokemeter Readings During 1975 FTP, Mercedes
300D With/Without Particulate Trap System 58
9 EPA Smokemeter Readings During SET-7, Mercedes 300D
With/Without Particulate Trap System 59
10 EPA Smokemeter Readings During FET, Mercedes 300D
With/Without Particulate Trap System 60
11 Transient Cycle Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Con-
sumption, Factory and Trap Systems - Mercedes 300D 68
12 Listing of Average Odor Panel Ratings - Mercedes
300D (100:1 Dilution) 70
13 Rough Comparison of "D" Odor Ratings, Mercedes
300D With/Without Particulate Trap System 73
14 Exhaust Analyses Taken Simultaneously with Odor
Ratings During Steady State Conditions - Mercedes
300D 74
15 DOAS Results During Various Transient Cycles, Mer-
cedes 300D With/Without Particulate Trap System 77
16 Detailed Hydrocarbon Analysis of Samples Taken
During Steady State Odor Tests 80
17 Detailed Hydrocarbon Analysis of Samples Taken
During Various Transient Cycles 81
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (conf d)
Table Page;
18 BaP Emission Rates with and Without Particulate
Traps - Mercedes 300D 83
19 Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen Analyses of Par-
ticulate Collected on 47 mm Fiberglass 84
20 Summary of Sound Level Measurements - dBA Scale,
Mercedes 300D 85
21 Acceleration Times for Mercedes 300D with and
Without Particulate Trap System (Windows Up, Air
Conditioner Off) 87
22 History of Trap System and System Component Par-
ticulate Removal Efficiencies from Initial Screening
to Final Durability Test 90
23 Gaseous Emissions and Fuel Rates During MVMA Dura-
bility Test of Particulate Trap System - Mercedes
300D 96
24 Dynamometer Exhaust System Pressures - Mercedes
300D With and Without Trap System Installed 100
25 Particulate Collected by TAVS or HCC Swirl Separa-
tors During MVMA Distance Accumulation 105
-------
I. SUMMARY
A four-part project was performed to investigate the potential of
using available lead trap technology to reduce particulate emissions from
a 1975 Mercedes 300D, 5 cylinder diesel-powered car. The major findings
are summarized as follows:
Road Exhaust Temperature Survey - The three transient driving cycles
of interest: the urban or Federal Test Procedure (FTP), the sulfate emis-
sions test (SET), and the highway fuel economy test (FET) were driven on
the road and a variety of exhaust temperature profiles obtained. These
profiles were then simulated during chassis dynamometer testing by use of
multiple blowers turned "on" and "off" as the vehicle speed was varied.
In contrast to the Federal Test Procedure for gaseous emissions and fuel
economy testing, the underhood temperatures, such as exhaust manifold tem-
perature, etc., were best simulated with the hood down. The standard test
procedure involves a single cooling fan with the hood fully opened.
Screening - A wide variety of hardware items were obtained through
the courtesy of Houston Chemical Company. Ethyl Corporation, and Texaco, Inc.
These companies had extensive experience in trapping lead particulate from
gasoline fueled cars but had not tried their devices on diesel particulate.
For screening purposes, the 23 minute city driving schedule featured in
the FTP was employed during which time particulate was collected on dupli-
cate, preweighed 47 mm fiberglass filters. A 45.7 cm (18 in) diameter by
4.88 m (16 ft) long dilution tunnel, handling a nominal 14.15 m3/min (500 CFM),
allowed dilution of the entire exhaust flow of the car. The definition of
the particulate was in terms of the collection system in which the filter
temperature was always less than 52°C (125°F). Dilution was sufficient to
prevent condensation of water on the filter even though the filter collected
sulfate and unburned fuel and oil aerosols along with carbon or soot
particulate.
A total of 377 runs were made of some 48 components or combinations
of components. In general, the test items could be considered either an
agglomerator or a separator, even though there were several integral sys-
tems and the combination of separate components into a total system. The
screening tests identified the Texaco alumina coated steel wool packed de-
vices to work best on particulate from the Mercedes 300D. Two units were
evaluated—one designated A-1F which was fairly small and oval in cross
section that replaced the front muffler or resonator. The other, and most
effective of any component evaluated, was designated A-IR. It fit into the
place where the larger factory rear cylindrical muffler was located. The
best separator found was a relatively high pressure drop inertial unit—
the Ethyl single tangential anchored vortex (TAVS). The Houston Chemical
Company (HCC) swirl tube separator, also a relatively high pressure drop
inertial device, was found to have some promise for separation of once ag-
glomerated particulate.
During the screening test, it was found that the combination of the
A-IF, A-IR, and TAVS was effective in reducing particulate from 0.312 g/km
to about 0.11 g/km, or by two-thirds. The SwRI target for this project was
-------
a 50 percent reduction. Although this reduction was accompanied by almost
eight times increase in exhaust backpressure, this was not considered so
excessive as to discontinue the experimentation. Incidentally, at the rate
of 0.312 g/km, the car could exhaust 25.1 kg (55.3 Ibs) of particulate in
80,450 km (50,000 mi).
Evaluation - This third part of the project investigated the effect
of the particulate system on gaseous emissions of hydrocarbons (HC) , carbon
monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), smoke, odor, noise, acceleration
performance, fuel economy, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), sulfate, non-reactive hy-
drocarbons, and elemental analysis of the particulate. At the start of
the extensive evaluation, the A-IR had 1727 km (1073 mi) and the A-IF had
915 km (569 mi) of operation. The major effects for the replicate FTP, SET,
and FET test cycles are listed as follows for the particulate system rela-
tive to the standard factory system under comparable test conditions:
HC - about 40 percent less
CO, NOX - no change
Fuel Consumption - slight increase
Noise - directional, higher exhaust exit noise
Exhaust Pressures - substantially higher at 50 mph, 279 mm Hg
(11 in Hg) versus 25 mm Hg (1 in Hg) , i.e. , 11
times higher
Odor - noticeably less and different odor characteristic
DOAS - lower as per panel ratings
Smoke - lower overall, lower but broader peaks during
acceleration
Sulfate - 10 percent of factory system
BaP - about half factory system
Acceleration Rate - up to 20 percent decrease at WOT
The major concerns with the system were the substantial exhaust backpressure;
major effect on wide-open throttle performance; and, of course, the life of
the agglomerators. The noticeable, and in some cases substantial, effect
on hydrocarbons, odor, smoke, sulfate, and BaP required that further in-
vestigation be given the particulate removal system.
Durability - Throughout the screening and evaluation tests, the ef-
fectiveness of the A-IR unit tended to decrease and it was known that event-
ually the system would fill and either plug up or equilibrate somehow. The
only way to find this was to accumulate a reasonable amount of road operation
with intermittent test and evaluation. Fortunately, the system was designed
by SwRI to fit well enough under the car for operation over the durability
test course (on public roads) normally used for emissions durability testing.
From analysis of the particulate emission rates and backpressure read-
ings, it was estimated that the trap system reached equilibrium after about
2000 km (1227 mi) of durability testing. At that time, the A-IF had accum-
ulated 4041 km (2512 mi) and the A-IR had accumulated 4853 km (3010 mi) of
total operation, including screening and evaluation. At that point in the
durability test, the Texaco alumina coated steel wool filled units were
working presumably as agglomerators and no longer as traps and agglomera-
tors. The durability test was continued to 12,068 km (7500 mi) to investigate
-------
the potential of agglomeration-separation and to determine the effect of
the particulate removal system on sulfate and gaseous emissions such as HC.
No size distribution measurements were taken before and after the A-IR for
example; and, therefore, it is presumed that the unit did in fact agglomerate
the exhaust particulate. This presumption is borne out by the ability of
the separators to function better than originally predicted during screening.
During the final evaluation, after 12,068 km (7500 mi) of MVMA testing, it
was found that the particulate trap system was still removing sulfate. The
efficiency had dropped from 90 percent, at the start, to about 50 percent.
A total of 12,068 km (7500 mi) of durability operation was given the
A-IF and A-IR during which time both the TAVS and swirl separators collected
particulate which was subsequently weighed and the bulk density determined.
It was found that when the A-IF and A-IR were new and acting as traps (as
well as agglomerators) , the density of the particulate was 0.066 g/cm3. Af-
ter equilibrium was reached and the A-IF and A-IR units were operating pre-
sumably as agglomerators, the density dropped to 0.034 g/cm3, although the
volume collection rate was not greatly different. When used with the stock
factory exhaust system, the inertial separators collected particulate with
a density of about ten times more than that with the A-IF, A-IR-TAV system.
The mass collection rate in the separators was about the same as when the
agglomerators were new. The volume collection rate was, therefore, much
less due to the much higher density of particulate. The particulate was
much more dense as if compacted by the separator when used alone with the
factory system during the final 4023 km (2500 mi) of the 16,090 km (10,000 mi)
durability test.
In conclusion of this summary, the Texaco alumina packed agglomerators
were quite efficient when new in trapping and removing particulate. These
units were also effective in reducing sulfate, HC, BaP, and odor from the
Mercedes 300D. But, the life of the system is relatively short, on the
order of 4853 km (3016 mi). Exhaust backpressure on the engine is quite
high, and much needs to be done to reduce this detrimental effect while in-
creasing life and retaining other advantages.
The separators worked to a limited, but surprising, extent with the
agglomerators and even the factory system. Particulate thus collected had
a higher density with the factory system and would be expected to be on
the order of 10 percent of the total particulate exhausted. Additional
work will be necessary to fully exploit the full potential of both the ag-
glomerators and separators identified and evaluated in this project, as
well as better define the side advantages of the agglomerator on odor, HC,
BaP, and sulfate.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
For many years, the diesel engine has dominated intercity trucking
and both intercity and intracity buses. In these applications, the diesel
has demonstrated a clear superiority over all other power plants in terms
of fuel economy and durability. In recent years, a renewal of interest in
mid-range diesels for use in urban delivery trucks has been evident. The
basic reason given has been the superior fuel economy. This trend is ex-
pected to continue with the real possibility of diesel-powered, light-duty
vehicles(LDV's) becoming much more popular. The particulate exhausted
from diesels is one of several currently non-regulated emissions that is
of concern, especially if the anticipated growth in diesel cars occurs.
A. Background
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1965 were specific in expressing con-
cern over odor and smoke from diesel-powered vehicles. This legislation
prompted a long-range investigation of diesel emissions which began in
1966 at Southwest Research Institute's Department of Emissions Research.
This continuing activity, currently in its eleventh year, has resulted
in a large number of reports and papers on the subject and has formed the
basis for a number of other studies regarding diesel emissions on behalf
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).d~28)
The original project was concerned with visible smoke and noticeable
odor, both classed as "nuisance" emissions which interferred with the gen-
eral welfare. Much was learned in how to measure odor and smoke and the
types of conditions which would result in obvious discharges. In the in-
tervening years, a steady broadening of this activity included unburned
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) (now
regulated emissions), methods of control and procedural development.
During the last few years, an increasing variety of non-regulated
materials in diesel exhaust have come under scrutiny. Measurement of
particulate, aldehydes, polynuclear organic matter, sulfate (SO4=), sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and several other contaminants have been investigated in an
attempt to quantify emissions for which little data is currently available.
Although diesel smoke and particulate have been thoroughly researched,
the fundamental combustion mechanisms by which both are formed in a diesel
engine are yet largely unknown. Most efforts to collect and remove the
particulate, once formed in the combustion chamber, have been failures.
The relatively high concentrations of particulate and the large exhaust
volumes of the diesel engine used in trucks, for which most research had
been directed, were contributing factors to the lack of success. The two
controlling factors, however, have been the extremely small particulate
size and extremely low effective aerodynamic diameter or density.(2^) Not
only is diesel particulate "too small" and "too light", there is "too much"
* Superscript numbers in parentheses refer to the List of References at
the end of this report.
-------
for practical collection from the heavy-duty application. Thus, the cur-
rent "state of the art" of diesel particulate collection and removal is
that there is no way to accomplish it effectively.
B. Objective
The objective of this project was to evaluate the potential of using
combinations of available lead traps for removal of diesel particulate
from a diesel-powered car. Lead traps are those items developed for re-
moving products of combustion of lead additive treated gasoline in gaso-
line-powered cars. The goal was to achieve at least a 50 percent reduction
in particulate emission rate and then investigate other aspects such as ef-
fect of the removal system on regulated and selected unregulated emissions
and potential durability.
The approach was to perform exploratory and evaluative experiments
with a Mercedes 300D car using available hardware furnished through the
courtesy of those companies that had background and experience in the re-
moval of particulate from the combustion of leaded gasoline. The labora-
tory effort involved a survey of exhaust system temperatures, screening
tests of candidate particulate traps, evaluation of the particulate re-
moval system effect on emissions other than particulate and 16,090 km
(10,000 mi) of durability testing.
C. Definition of Particulate
There are many ways to define particulate.^"' For purposes of this
project, diesel exhaust particulate was defined as whatever was collected
on a Gelman Type A fiber glass filter (47 mm diameter) with a 0.0142 SM-^/min
(0.5 SCFM) isokinetic sample rate of air diluted exhaust that does not ex-
ceed 52°C (125°F) at the face of the filter and on which water does not
condense. Although this definition is contrary to most physical definitions
of exhaust contaminants in that it is in terms of the method used, it does
adequately describe the material collected. The key item is the air dilu-
tion technique which permits collection of the particulate at a relatively
low, quite realistic ambient temperature yet without the troublesome water
condensate.
D. Project Conferences
In addition to several meetings both at SwRI and at EPA - Ann Arbor
with the Project Officer regarding this project, on-site visits by the
Project Officer and the SwRI Project Leader were made to the three com-
panies who assisted in this project. The initial visits were to describe
the project objective and goal and to enlist the cooperation and obtain
available hardware and technical advice necessary to the project.
On September 9, 1975, a meeting was held at Texaco Research Center,
Beacon, New York with Mr. Ralph Stahman, EPA Project Officer; Mr. Karl
Springer, SwRI Project Leader; Mr. William Tierney and others of the Texaco
Research staff in attendance. On September 26, 1975, a similar meeting
with Dr. Roy Sugimoto and Mr. John Wisnewski of Houston Chemical Company
and Mr. Karl Springer was held in Corpus Christi, Texas. A third such
-------
meeting was held on October 13, 1975 with Mr. Dennis Lenane and Mr. Karl
Springer at the Ethyl Corporation Research Laboratories in Ferndale,
Michigan. A status review meeting with Mr. Tierney and the Texaco staff
was held in May 28, 1976 at Beacon, New York, at which time the results
of this project were discussed and further assistance requested by the SwRI
Project Leader.
E. Acknowledgment
This project could not have been conducted without the cooperation
and assistance of Texaco, Inc., Houston Chemical Company, Division of PPG
Industries, and Ethyl Corporation. Key individuals who patiently and cheer-
fully lended themselves were Mr. William Tierney (Texaco), Dr. Roy Sugimoto
and Mr. John Wisnewski (Houston Chemical), and Mr. Dennis Lenane (Ethyl).
These individuals went out of their way to be cooperative both in preparing
and lending hardware items and in the giving of their experience and tech-
nical guidance for which SwRI is grateful.
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE, FUEL, PARTICULATE TRAPS, AND PROCEDURES
This section describes the test vehicle, fuels, particulate traps,
test plan and procedures followed.
A. Test Vehicle Description
Table 1 lists particulars that describe the 1975 Mercedes 300D die-
sel automobile used as the primary test vehicle. The 5 cylinder 300D model
was first introduced into the U.S. in 1975 with similar design features but
better acceleration performance than its 4 cylinder counterpart. The ve-
hicle was procured from the local Mercedes dealer as a requirement of the
contract and is government owned. It was used on the companion work under
the basic contract. The results of the vehicle evaluation and emissions
characterization were published in the Part VII final report, Reference 28.
For additional description of the Mercedes 300D, please see Reference 30,
an SAE paper.
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF MERCEDES 300D
DIESEL POWERED TEST VEHICLE
Model 300D
Model Year 1975
Vehicle ID 12019885
Type of Vehicle Sedan
Number of Doors 4
Number of Passengers 5
Color Brown
Odometer, km 8,106
Number of Cylinders 5
Displacement, litres 3.0
Bore, m x 10~2 9.10
Stroke, m x 10~2 9.24
Compression Ratio 21:1
Output Power, kw 57.4
at rpm 4200
Transmission Type Auto
Speeds 3
Rear Axle Ratio 3.46
Tire Size 645.14
Empty Weight (Scale), kg 1588
Test Weight (Inertia), kg 1814
B. Test Fuels
Table 2 lists the fuel inspection results of the two fuels used,
coded EM-176-F and EM-260-F. The EM-176-F was used until August 25, 1976
and is the same fuel used in Part VII evaluations of the same Mercedes
300D.(28) EM-260-F was used to perform the durability mileage accumulation
and subsequent emission testing. Both test fuels were Gulf No. 2 DF-2
-------
03
TABLE 2. DF-2 FUEL PROPERTIES WITH 1973 BUREAU OF MINES
DF-2 FUEL PROPERTIES FOR COMPARISON
Test Fuels
1973 Bureau of Mines Survey
Test
Gravity, °API
Viscosity at 100°F
Kinematic, CS
Saybolt Univ. , sec
Sulfur content, wt%
C residue on 10% wt%
Ash, wt%
Cetane number
ASTM
D287
D445
D88
D129
D1266
D524
D482
D613
D976
EM-176-F
36.4
2.6
34.8
0.23
47.6 (1)
EM-260-F
36.3
2.59
34.7
0.234
48.6(D
Max.
36.7
2.79
35.3
0.251
0.110
0.002
48.7
Min.
35.8
2.56
34.5
0.192
0.091
0.001
46.9
Avg.
36.4
2.67
34.9
0.228
0.102
0.001
47.9
Distillation temp. °F
Vol. recovered
D86
IBP
10%
50%
90%
End Point
% Recovery
% Re s i due
% Loss
FIA,%
Aromatics
Olefins
Saturates
368
424
482
571
623
99.0
1.0
0.0
D139
25.6
2.7
71.7
350
414
493
579
642
99.0
1.0
0.0
27.3
3.2
69.5
378
430
498
580
624
366
423
493
571
613
373
426
495
575
620
Flash Point
(1)
Calculated
D93
150
149
-------
diesel fuel with sulfur level increased to 0.23 percent sulfur by weight-
by adding ditertiary butyl disulfide additive. After careful consideration
of a variety of fuels, these fuels were selected as being most typical of
average fuels in use and, therefore, best able to answer the requirements
of this program. This is illustrated by the data in Table 2.
C. Particulate Traps
This subsection describes the various components and systems involved
in this project. The object was to evaluate available lead trapping equip-
ment that might have promise for the trapping of particulate from diesel
cars. The visits made to the three companies (Texaco, Houston Chemical,
and Ethyl), known for their excellence in developing successful traps for
removal of lead products of combustion in gasoline fueled automobiles, were
all successful in obtaining cooperation and the loan of devices and other
assistance in this project. Before describing the specific items, it may
be helpful to discuss the general approach taken.
1. Approach
In preparation for this project and prior to the visits with three
assisting companies, it became apparent that there were many possibilities
for evaluation. In each case, however, for the unit to work, it was felt
that it must either agglomerate, separate, or do both functions. The nature
of the particulate from diesel combustion is such that any system or combi-
nation of components to effect agglomeration and separation will have to
function under three very adverse conditions or criteria that describe die-
sel particulate. They are:
(1) too small
(2) too light
(3) too much
a. Agglomeration
Agglomeration devices can apparently range from large, empty
containers in which a simple change in direction occurs to the more sophis-
ticated alumina coated substrates. In between are various types of wire
screens, meshes, chopped metal lath that serve apparently as surfaces for
impact of particulate on the substrate and on other particles. The surface
charge and other surface characteristics of the individual particles are
relied on to bring about groupings of many such particles, so that the size
and aerodynamic diameter or density is such to allow easier collecting and
permanent separation. The agglomerate thus formed is expected to only re-
side temporarily in the agglomerator and continually and/or periodically
break-away through many possible mechanisms and be re-entrained by the ex-
haust flow in a much larger and hopefully much easier to separate physical
state. The so-called "sticky" and "greasy" nature and appearance of some
diesel exhaust particulate indicates the presence of many exhaust products
other than strictly elemental carbon or lamp black. This, coupled with
the relatively low exhaust system temperatures are relied on to make agglom-
eration work. Without successful agglomeration, there is less chance of
diesel particulate removal.
-------
The nature of the light-duty diesel operation, as contrasted
with that of a heavy-duty truck, will definitely aid agglomeration by per-
mitting lower exhaust temperatures. There has been some consideration of
burning or oxidizing the particulate on the agglomerator or collection de-
vice. Again, the measured temperatures of the Mercedes 300D diesel car,
even at the exhaust manifold, were so low as to preclude this possibility,
even with the more active catalysts applied to the alumina coating. There
could be a possibility of "soft" particulate of unburned fuel hydrocarbons,
partially oxygenated hydrocarbons and other non-soot particulate to oxidize
at the temperatures encountered during light-duty operation.
Catalytic oxidation of carbon with the exhaust temperatures
of the Mercedes 300D car would involve a new type of catalyst. The catalyst
could also serve to increase fixation of SO2 to SO3 and thereby increase sul-
furic acid mist. In short, the use of catalytic surface treatments to the
agglomerator has possibly more drawbacks than advantages. Accordingly,
further study of and possible use of these treatments was deferred until
a later project.
b. Separation/Removal
Separation and collection is the other major part of the par-
ticulate removal system. Because of the mass of particulate expected, on
the order of 0.27 g/km or 21.72 kg (about 48 Ibs) in 80,450 km (50,000 mi),
the collection and storage of the particulate, assuming 50 percent is in-
deed separable, is a formidable task. Filters, bags, pleated and other
similar arrangements for total removal are excellent for short periods of
time but lack the non-plugging feature required for extended operation.
Thus, total filtration through membrane type media, bags, etc. as an initial
separation system was not considered practical.
Such a method may have some promise as a final removal or
cleanup item. Its practicality, even under these circumstances, would
depend on the efficiency of the primary separation item. Collection in
or immediately after the primary separation method also has its importance
since the once separated particles must be automatically collected in a
quiescent locale where the exhaust flow will not re-entrain the particulate
and purge the system. This type of operation (i.e., store-purge) was not
considered satisfactory for the intent of this project.
Separation devices include cyclones, impingers, and swirl
tubes, to name a few basic techniques. It was planned to use several size
and design cyclone type and swirl tube type components in conjunction with
collection techniques/designs normally used with such items in lead trap-
ping. Generally, these collection chambers are small relative to the amount
of particulate that is desired to be removed. Since the test plan was mainly
proof of principle exploratory type testing, the chamber volume was of no
immediate concern. It would be important in the event a specific design
would work.
2. Component Description
From the survey of available lead trapping equipment, it was found
that both agglomerating devices, separation or removal items and agglomeration-
10
-------
separation/removal systems were available. Some of the agglomeration-
separation/removal systems were packaged as a single, "all-in-one" con-
tainer device, such as a replacement for a conventional exhaust muffler.
Table 3 is a brief listing and description of the items of hardware fur-
nished by the assisting companies or by SwRI in conjunction with one of
the companies. To assist in describing these items, schematic or cut-away
drawings are included in Appendix A through the courtesy of the cooperating
companies. Various photographs of the major items evaluated are shown in
Section IV "Results" of this report.
D. Test Plan and Procedure
Once the items for test were identified and obtained, the plan of
test and experimental procedures followed in four steps.
1. Step 1 - Screening
The individual items and combination systems were screened for
their potential ability for diesel particulate trapping. The screening
test consisted of connecting the item (or series of items) to the vehicle
exhaust and performing three to ten replicate runs. During each run, two
47 mm fiberglass filters were obtained for particulate weight gain. Each
run was a full 23-minute urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS), commonly
known as the LA-4. Most often, the series of runs would include at least
one cold start. Only particulate (fiberglass) filters were obtained and no
gaseous emissions, smoke, or sulfate, etc. were taken. This allowed the
screening of the greatest number of possibilities in terms of individual
items as well as combinations. The actual test plan evolved as test data
was obtained and after the basic component testing was completed.
The test vehicle conditions were to operate at 1814 kg (4000 Ibs)
test weight since the curb weight of the Mercedes 300D is 1588 kg (3500 Ibs)
to which 136 kg (300 Ibs) is added according to the Federal Register. Road
load included the 10 percent allowance for air conditioning. During all
screening tests, the road cooling effect was simulated by using up to six
fans in stages to maintain and control the exhaust gas inlet temperatures
to the trapping system as close as possible to that measured on the road.
The test plan included replicate tests to evaluate repeatability
with both the stock muffler system as well as those trap items that appeared
to have promise. Day to day reproducibility as well as vehicle baseline
drift were documented by running the stock system periodically throughout
the screening part of the project.
As the various components were tried, not only the effect on par-
ticulate but the effect on vehicle exhaust system backpressure was noted.
The backpressure and temperature measurements were recorded during a series
of steady-state cruise conditions. From this initial screening data, the
more promising and practical items might be modified and re-run or combined
with other promising items to attempt to obtain a system. From this series
of component-combination experiments, the best system was identified. This
system was then further evaluated in the next step.
11
-------
TABLE 3. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICULATE TRAP COMPONENTS
Company/
Designation
HCC-115
HCC-115A
HCC-125
Description
HCC-127
HCC-137
HCC
HCC
HCC
HCC
HCC
HCC
HCC
Ethyl
Ethyl
Combination System Small to Medium 1/8" +_
1/16" Al^Oo spheres in packed bed for ag-
glomeration with cylcone for a separator
Same as HC-115 except larger, nominal 1/4"
A1_O spheres in use
^- 3
(Plymouth Fury size muffler) advanced com-
bination design was a dual bed agglomerator
with parallel-Al2O3 spheres in packed beds of
nominal 1/4" dia swirl tube separator
Uses a cyclone inlet (tangential) followed
by fiberglass filter. Not practical for
diesel except as possible final element
Basically an agglomerator that uses small to
medium size A12O3 spheres. Can also filter
or collect to some extent
Particulate Filter cylindrically pleated
fiberglass used in conjunction with HC-115
as final filter
Back pack final filter. Contains 0.93 m2
(10 ft2) area of fiberglass membrane filter
media
Large Cyclone, large conventional cyclone
design
Medium Cyclone, same design as large
Small Cyclone, smallest size available,
same design
Swirl tube separator and collection chamber
Mini swirl tube separator and collection
chamber. Smaller unit for higher swirl rate
Agglomerator - Container is packed with
chopped lath
TAV (Tangential Anchored Vortex) included
two such units, either or both'may be used
alone or in conjunction with Ethyl agglomer-
ator. TAV is basically a separator
12
-------
TABLE 3- DESCRIPTION OF PARTICULATE TRAP COMPONENTS (Cont'd)
Company /
Designation
Texaco
A-IF
Texaco
A-1R
Texaco
A-2R
Texaco
A-1M
Texaco
A-IE
Description
Agglomerators - fired alumina coated packed
steel wool design 1 front muffler
Agglomerator - fired alumina coated packed
steel wool design 1 rear muffler
Agglomerator - same as A-lR but without
alumina coating
Agglomerator - cylindrical inconel mesh
screen coated with fired alumina in a
cylindrical housing similar in design to
HC-137, radial flow
Agglomerator - alumina fired on packed steel
wool in 10.2 cm (4 inch) stainless steel elbow
axial flow
13
-------
2. Step 2 - Trap System Evaluation
Once a trapping system was found that met the 50 percent reduc-
tion goal, then a variety of evaluations were performed.
a. Particulate and Sulfate Evaluations
The one best trapping system was then subjected to a series
of particulate and sulfate emissions tests in which the following sequence
was run.
(1) FTP cold
(2) 10 minute soak
(3) FTP hot
(4) 10 minute soak
(5) SET
(6) 10 minute soak
(7) FET
Note: 1975 FTP =0.43 FTPC +0.57 FTPh
This sequence was repeated twice and then the standard muf-
fler system installed and emission tests repeated. In this sequence, the
usual Federal Test Procedure was followed using a single fan of 150 m^/min
(5300 CFM) running continuously rather than using staged, multiple fans.
A simple gate valve was installed between the vehicle exhaust pipe and the
dilution tunnel to simulate the backpressure of 17.8 cm Hg (7.0 in Hg) at
80.5 km/hr (50 mph) at the engine manifold experienced when operating with
the standard muffler system.
b. PNA - BaP Emissions
The same test sequence used for particulate and sulfate (Step
2.a. above) was repeated to acquire the larger 20.3 x 25.4 cm (8 x 10 in)
fiberglass filters for analysis of benz-alpha-pyrene (BaP), a compound that
is indicative of the polynuclear aromatic (PNA) content in the exhaust. A
single filter from each type of test was analyzed. The test conditions
were identical to those maintained during the particulate-sulfate evaluation.
c. Smoke
The vehicle was operated on the same test sequence as listed
in Subheading a. "Particulate and Sulfate", but with the exhaust from the
vehicle directed through a U.S. EPA full flow light extinction smokemeter.
This separate series of tests involved two each sequences with the particu-
late trap system and one such sequence with the standard system at simulated
backpressure of the trap system. All other operating conditions were in ac-
cord with the Federal Test Procedure in terms of cooling fan, inertia weight
and road load settings.
d. Gaseous Emissions
Following the particulate and sulfate test series in Step
2.a. above, the gaseous emissions of unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon
14
-------
monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), DNPH aldehydes, non-reactive
hydrocarbons (NRHC) and diesel odor analytical system (DOAS) traps and
fuel economy were obtained. The following sequence was run:
(1) 1975 FTP from cold start
(2) 10 minute soak
(3) SET
(4) 10 min soak
(5) FET
The above sequence was repeated twice, with trap system in-
stalled, for usual gaseous emissions of HC, CO, NOX, fuel economy and DOAS.
Only one such test sequence was sampled for DNPH aldehydes and NRHC. Then,
the factory system was installed and the test sequence run twice, but at
normal standard exhaust system backpressure of nominal 2.54 cm Hg (1 in Hg)
at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph) at the engine manifold. Both groups of tests were
made with the single continuously operated cooling fan per the 1975 Federal
Test Procedure.
e. Odor and Related Measurements
A five day odor test series using the trained SwRI odor panel
was performed. The first three days were with the trapping system installed,
while the last two days were with the standard exhaust system (one day at
normal "low" backpressure and one day at the backpressure consistent with
the particulate trap system.
Each day included the cold start and then seven steady-state
conditions run in replicate (three times) randomly. Simultaneous with the
steady-state runs, DNPH aldehydes were sampled and composited to give seven
samples. DOAS traps were taken (21 samples) and NRHC (seven typical condi-
tions) were obtained along with the usual HC, CO, NO , CO9 , etc. of the raw
x *--
exhaust. Except for DNPH aldehydes, which were obtained once with the trap
system and once with the standard system ("low" backpressure), gaseous emis-
sions were obtained during all steady-state runs on the last two days of
trap and both days of the standard system.
In the afternoon of each odor testing day, three transient
conditions were analyzed by the odor panel with four replications each.
No gaseous or other emission measurements were taken during the transient
runs .
f. Noise
Exterior sound level measurements were taken during the pre-
scribed SAE J-986a with the trap-equipped vehicle for comparison to meas-
urements taken earlier during Part VII.^28^ Interior and exterior measure-
ments were also taken during constant speed drivebys and during curb idle.
g. Performance
Acceleration performance, in terms of the time required to
accelerate from
15
-------
(1) 0 - 64.4 km/hr (0 - 40 mph)
(2) 0-96.5 km/hr (0 - 60 mph) and
(3) 32.2 - 96.5 km/hr (20 - 60 mph)
were measured with the trap system installed for comparison to previous,
I P£O
similar data with the standard system.^0'
3. Step 3 - Durability
The test plan was to accumulate up to 16,090 km (10,000 mi) or
until the system durability or effectiveness deteriorated. The test mile-
age was to be accumulated using the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
(MVMA) 11-lap test course specified by the Federal Register for light-duty
vehicle emissions durability purposes. The SwRI test course, shown in Fig-
ure 1, was run at 88.5 km/hr (55 mph) top speed in accordance with EPA
Mobile Sources Advisory Circular No. 37, dated December 20, 1973. Lap 11
is a series of wide-open throttle (WOT) accels to 88.5 km/hr (55 mph); and
no modification was made to this procedure even though for sulfate dura-
bility work, the accelerations have been limited to normal part throttle
driving habits.
The plan involved periodic particulate testing at 4023 km
(2500 miles), 8045 km (5000 miles), 12,068 km (7500 miles) and 16,090 km
(10,000 miles) of MVMA durability. These particulate tests consisted of
a series of 3 hot 23 min UDDS cycles in succession. At 8045 and 16,090
km, the plan called for tests for particulate, using' the test sequence
in step 2. a. in both the trapping system and standard exhaust configura-
tions. Only particulate measurements were taken. Two cold start days
were made with each system.
E. Analytical Methods
The best reference, and one that is relied on in this report to
describe the analytical methods, is that given in the Part VII final
report, Reference 28. Rather than repeat in detail the analytical pro-
cedure descriptions given in Reference 28, the methods critical to this
project will be described in some detail and summary descriptions of
other techniques given with suitable referencing.
1. Particulate
This was the most pertinent of all measurements made as this
was the basis for success of the project. The mass rate of emission
of particulate was determined by collecting a known amount of particulate
matter on a preweighed glass fiber filter. The 47 mm diameter Gelman
Type A glass fiber media was the principal size and type of filter disc
employed. Particulate mass rates were also obtained using both an 8 x 10
size fiberglass filter for polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compound analysis
and by Fluoropore (Millipore Corp.) 47 mm plastic filter media with 0.5
micron mean pore flow size for sulfate collection .
The basic technique for sample collection was to dilute the
exhaust with prefiltered air much the same as the constant volume sampler
16
-------
Events Per Mile
Driving Mode
55 mph Top Speed
Stops
Normal Accelerations from Stop
Normal Accelerations from 20 mph
Wide-Open Throttle Accelerations
and Fast Deceleration
Idle Time
SwRI Course
1.02
0.92
1.11
0.09
AC No. 37
1.01
0.91
1.11
0.10
13.64 Sec.
Institute
road
Stop
G
Decel
H
Light-'I
t
South Lap: "A" to "H"-4.8 km (3.0 mi)
North Lap: "H" to "A"-4.7 km (2.9 mi)
11 Laps =52.3 km (32.5 mi)
North
Lap
J
Decel
Marbach Rd.
-Light
-Loop
410 N.W.
Lap
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Speed
km/hr
64
48
64
64
56
48
56
72
56
89
89
mi/hr
40
30
40
40
35
30
35
45
35
55
55
FIGURE 1. MVMA DURABILITY MILEAGE ACCUMULATION DRIVING COURSE
17
-------
(CVS) does with the exhaust in the LDV-FTP for gaseous emissions. The
definition of particulate was in terms of the dilution and collection
media and, importantly, the temperature at the point of filtration. In
keeping with EPA definition of particulate from Reference 27, anything
that was collected on Type A glass at a temperature not to exceed 51.7°C
(125°F) other than condensed water was considered diesel particulate. The
particulate thus included aerosols and unburned fuel-like matter.
The nominal 0.457 m (18 inch) diameter by 4.88 m (16 ft) long
dilution tunnel used to dilute and cool the exhaust is shown in the Figure
2 schematic drawing. The pertinent dimensions, flows, velocities, and
the relationship of the various components which make up a particulate
collection system are indicated. A micro balance, with 1 microgram
accuracy and housed in a special humidity, temperature controlled en-
vironment, was used to weigh the filters before and after the test. The
weighing box is supplied with pre-filtered scrubbed air at a constant
22.2 ± 0.6°C (72 ± 1°F), 10.6 ± 0.3 g/kg (74 ± 2 grains/lb dry air)
humidity at 0.3 m3/hr (10 CFM).
The dilution tunnel was quite capable of handling the entire
exhaust from the Mercedes 300D diesel powered car without exceeding the
51.2°C (125°F) sample temperature. The dilution tunnel nominal flow of
14.15m^/min (500 CFM) was not excessive in overdiluting necessarily but
is greater than would normally be used in a gaseous emissions test by
conventional CVS technique.
In order to achieve a sufficient sample and because there is no
convenient means to switch particulate samples at the 505 second point
in the city driving schedule, all cold start FTP's were for the entire
23 minutes on a given filter. The ten minute soak period was then ob-
served and then an additional full 23 minute city driving cycle repeated
from a hot start. The other two transient driving cycles were from a
hot start with the sample for the SET and for the FET collected on sep-
arate filters.
The four sample systems permitted the collection of two (2)
each particulate samples on 47 mm glass and when required two (2) each
sulfate samples on 47 mm Fluoropore media. The testing sequence of
cold-hot FTP, SET and FET was repeated on several successive days. This
test sequence was then performed with the high-vol sampler to obtain
larger amounts of particulate for PNA analysis using the 8 x 10 size
glass filters.
The various photographs in Figure 3 show the dilution tunnel
in use with the Mercedes 300D car. The dilution tunnel was located along-
side the car, as shown in the two top and lower right views. The positive
displacement blower and the four sampling filter system is shown in the
upper and center left views. Figure 4, upper left view, shows the four
probe assembly for the 47 mm filters and the larger, single, 8 x 10 size
filter. An overall view of the dilution tunnel is shown in the upper
right view. The two center views show the background filter holder
(left) and the insertion of a 47 mm glass filter on one of the filter
holders of the 4 probe system.
18
-------
610mm
(24in)
4.88m (16ft)
840mm (33in)-
FILTER ENCLOSURE
76mm (Sin) RAW
EXHAUST TRANSFER TUBE
230mm (9in)
MIXING ORIFICE
HI-VOL
SAMPLE PROBE
OR 4 EA. i/2" ID ISOKINETIC
SAMPLING PROBE
FIGURE 2. SCHEMATIC SECTION OF DILUTION TUNNEL FOR DIESEL PARTICULATE SAMPLING
-------
FIGURE 3. EQUIPMENT ARRANGEMENT FOR PARTICULATE TRAP
TEST AND EVALUATION
20
-------
*
FIGURE 4. PARTICULATE TUNNEL AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
21
-------
The lower left view of Figure 4 shows a used 8 x 10 size filter
and new and vised 47 mm glass and Fluoropore filters. The small disc
to the far right in this photograph is the Fluoropore filter used for
sulfate. The lower right photograph shows the humidity and temperature
controlled environmental chamber in which the before and after weights
were determined to 1 microgram sensitivity.
2. Sulfate
The barium chloranilate (BCA) method for analysis of sulfuric
acid mist (sulfate) in gasoline exhaust has been well documented. Its
use with diesel engines, both light and heavy duty, was described in Part
VTI final report. Reference 28. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), important for a
sulfur balance, was not measured in this project. Satisfactory sulfur
balance was obtained for the Mercedes 300D test car during the Part VII
evaluation.' ' Validation of the sulfate analysis method was described
in Reference 28. The lower right view in Figure 5 shows the BCA and
Beckman UV spectrophotometer instrumentation used.
3. Polynuclear Aromatic Matter - PNA
PNA compounds as a class and as individual contaminants were of
interest in this project. Although there are several laboratory procedures
available for their analysis, the major difficulty was analysis of PNA
materials in diesel exhaust and of equal importance, the collection of
a sample in a form suitable for such laboratory analysis. The current
state-of-the-art in diesel PNA analysis is undergoing fairly rapid change,
there being much concern over current available techniques. For lack of
a better method, a thin layer chromatography method^ ' for analysis of
BaP was used. This is the method used in the latter part of the Part VII
effort and is described in detail in Reference 28.
An 8 x 10 size fiberglass filter was needed to collect sufficient
particulate for BaP analysis. The extractions and analyses were performed
by the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education, the sister institu-
tion to SwRI.
4. Elemental Analysis
Determination of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen weight percentages
in diesel particulate were performed by Galbraith Laboratories. Carbon
and hydrogen were measured using ASTM method D-3178 and nitrogen was mea-
sured using ASTM D-3179. The results were corrected for blank filter con-
tent, which was reported to be very low. Sulfur analyses of the particulate
were performed by X-ray fluorescence.
5. Smoke
There is currently no recognized U. S. smoke test procedure for
light duty passenger car exhaust. Although the heavy duty schedule of
speed and load versus time can be used with the light duty vehicle by a
chassis dynamometer version of the test, it is uncertain whether this test
is indeed representative of the way the smaller, higher speed diesels
22
-------
FIGURE 5. SMOKE AND GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM
MERCEDES 300D DURING TRANSIENT CYCLES
23
-------
operate. Specifically, engine rated speed, that engine rpm when maximum
brake horsepower occurs, is considered higher than that normally encountered
in passenger cars in urban use. The visible smoke emission from the Merce-
des 300D was continuously recorded during operation of the vehicle over the
three transient driving cycles (FTP, SET, FET) but with the CVS disconnected.
These cycles will be described in the next section.
The two top photos of Figure 5 show the Mercedes 300D with stand-
ard exhaust system (left) and the Ethyl TAV separator (right) , as prepared
for the smoke tests. Note in both cases a short 0.61 meter (24 inch) ex-
haust pipe extension of 50.8 mm (2 inch) exhaust pipe was used. The PHS
smokemeter is mounted at the end of this pipe so that the centerline-of the
light beam is 127 mm (5 inches) from the tip of the pipe. The usual light
duty water brake Clayton 50 hp chassis dynamometer with belt drive inertia
system was employed. A two-pen strip chart recorder was used to monitor
smoke opacity and vehicle speed. The usual driving aid was used to drive
the transient LA-4, SET or FET speed versus time trace.
6. Gaseous
The cold start 1975 FTP was the basic transient procedure used
for measurement of gaseous emissions of HC, CO, NOX as well as for fuel
economy. The diesel procedure was originally described in Reference 33
and modified in later Federal Registers. Hydrocarbon values were obtained
by the continuous hot flame ionization analysis.^9' The Federal Test Pro-
cedures for gaseous emissions were followed without exception. No evapor-
ative hydrocarbon tests were made.
In addition to the usual HC, CO and NOX measurements, samples
were continuously taken and collected in reagents for wet chemical analysis
or in suitably packed traps for later odor analysis. These samples were
withdrawn in the stainless steel pipe section connecting the exhaust di-
lution point (below the CVS filter box) and the CVS inlet. Several probes
were inserted into this pipe section, one probe for the DNPH bubblers and
one for each of the three odor trapping systems for the diesel odor analy-
tical system (DOAS). These probes were located adjacent to the probe used
to obtain the continuous HC sample. All sample lines and interfaces were
heated as required to maintain sample integrity for diesels. HC sampling
and diesel odor analytical systems (DOAS) traps were taken at gas tempera-
tures of 191°C (375°F). Aldehyde samples were obtained by use of large
glass bubblers immersed in ice water.
A digital integrator was used to integrate the time-concentration
signal from the HC analyzer, a flame ionization detector with linear
response. The other continuous samples depended on their absorbing materials,
reagent for wet collected samples, and chromosorb in the case of the diesel
odor traps to integrate a total representative sample for the entire 1975
FTP. It should be understood that each FTP included the standard three
separate bags for gaseous emissions. The integrator for HC was wired to
give three separate integrations.
In the case of wet collected and odor traps, the entire 23-minute
(Bags 1 and 2) and the third bag 505-second portion of the 1975 FTP were
24
-------
taken in a single collector (bubbler or trap). This was necessary to ob-
tain sufficient sample for analysis and preclude the problem of switching
after the first 505 seconds of the run (cold start bag).
All runs were made with the CVS main blower slowed to a nominal
5.38 m per minute (260 CFM). The reason was to prevent overdilution of
the already air-dilute exhaust and maintain the sensitivity of analysis.
No problems were encountered by operating at this lower-than-normal speed
once the CVS was calibrated and propane checked. The two center photographs
of Figure 5 show the test set-up used. Shown is the CVS, HC oven, and
analyzer sections and trapping interfaces for aldehydes and DOAS.
7. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses
The following are brief descriptions of the analytical methods
used during the odor evaluations.
a. Evaluation by Trained Panel
The EPA (PHS) quality-intensity (Q/I) or Turk kit method of
evaluation of dilute samples of diesel exhaust odor' ' was employed to
express odor judgements by the trained ten-person SwRI odor panel. The
kit, shown in the upper left photo of Figure 6, includes an overall "D"
odor in steps 1 through 12, (12 being strongest) that is made of four
sub-odors or qualities. These comprise burnt-smokey "B", oily "O", aro-
matic "A", and pungent "P" qualities each in a 1 through 4 intensity
series, 4 being strongest. Special odor sampling, dilution, and presen-
tation facilitiesd'2) for diesel odor research were developed ten years
ago using design criteria obtained in field studies of atmospheric di-
lution of bus and truck exhaust. Horizontal exhaust at bumper height
from a city bus was found to be diluted to a minimum reasonable level of
100:1 before being experienced by an observer. This dilution level was
used in the odor test of the Mercedes 300D, although it is uncertain that
this is the reasonable minimum dilution level from a diesel powered pas-
senger car. References 1 and 4 describe the odor facility and References
2, 3, and 4 describe the development of procedures and operating conditions
for research purposes.
The top right view of Figure 6 is of the odor room and panel.
The center left view shows the instrumentation for HC, CO and NOX while
the center right view is of the DOAS sampling/trapping interface. The
lower left view is of the DNPH analytical instrumentation. The lower
right view shows the DOAS liquid column chromatograph.
b. Odor Test Conditions
The odor measurement procedures applied to the diesel powered
cars was in keeping with that used in Part VII (28), and was based on the
extensive previous work with diesel exhaust odor measurement from other
light and heavy duty diesel vehicles. The basic philosophy was to charac-
terize odor over a range of loads and speeds that could be encountered
to include steep uphill plus moderate trailer towing as well as moderate
load and no load conditions.
25
-------
FIGURE 6. ODOR AND RELATED EXHAUST EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
26
-------
Table 4 lists pertinent operating data for each of the test
conditions. The steady state runs were made at thr
-------
TABLE 4. ODOR TEST CONDITIONS
Engine High Speed, rpm
Engine Inter Speed, rpm
Engine Idle Speed, rpm
Fuel Rate High,
(kg/hr)
Mid,
(1)
No,
(1)
high speed
inter speed
high speed
inter speed
high speed
inter speed
Idle
Drive Gear, high speed
inter speed
Vehicle km/hr at high speed
inter speed
Steady State Operation
2900
1740
640
11.3
4.0
7.5
2.0
3.7
1.9
0.5
D-3
D-3
90.1
53.1
Idle-Accel km/hr, start
end
Driven in
Odor Test rpm
km/hr
Accel time, sec.
Accel Range, km/hr start
end
D riven in
Odor Test rpm
km/hr
Accel time, sec.
Decel range, km/hr, start
end
Driven in
Odor Test rpm
km/hr
Decel time, sec.
Transient Conditions
0
31.4
D-l
3150
24.1
3.5
40.2
80.5
D-3
3170
72.4
7.5
80.5
48.3
D-3
2800
56.3
9.6
(1)
Denotes fuel rate at high load, no load and a load
midway between a high and no road load
28
-------
d. Partially Oxygenated Compounds - DNPH
In keeping with Part VII, aldehydes were measured by the 2,
4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) method. The DNPH method, described in
Reference 28, was recommended by EPA-RTP as being more valid for diesel
work than the previously used MBTH method. Wet collection traps are used,
a GC is employed, and there are many intermediate steps in the preparation
of the sample once collected relative to the previously used method.
Seven separate samples were obtained. Each sample contained
the three replications and represented 12 to 15 minutes of sample absorption
in the glass bubbler trap system with 4 to 5 minutes of trapping each run.
The seven runs were made on the first day of the two day sequence for each
vehicle configuration. The lower left photo in Figure 6 shows the DNPH
analytical instrumentation.
e. Characterization of Non-Reactive Hydrocarbons
The measurement of non-reactive hydrocarbons (NRHC), was per-
formed using a gas chromatograph procedure developed by EPA (RTP)/3^
This procedure uses a single flame ionization detector with a multiple
column arrangement and dual gas sampling valves. The timed sequence selec-
tion valves allow for the baseline separation of air, CH4, C2H4, C2H2, C3Hg,
C3Hg, CgHg and CjHQ. Although only CH4, C2Hg, C2H2, C3Hg, and CgHg are
considered non-reactive, C2H4, C-^Hg and C7Hg were determined during the
course of the analysis. Only the non-reactive hydrocarbons are used in the
calculation of NRHC emission rates, but all individual hydrocarbon data is
useful in the emissions characterization.
Samples were obtained directly from the bag samples of FTP,
SET and FET transient cycles and the 7-modes used during all odor testing
and analyzed in the NRHC system. Individual NRHC values were determined
and a NRHC value for the bag or run was calculated. This value was then
used to determine the NRHC emission rates for these tests. By knowing the
NRHC and HC emission rates, it was possible to determine the fraction of
NRHC in the total HC. A detailed description of the individual columns,
temperature, flow rates, etc. may be found in Reference 34. The lower left
photo in Figure 5 illustrates the NRHC analytical instrumentation that was
used for this analysis.
f. Diesel Odor Analytical System
As one result of approximately five years of research, spon-
sored under the CAPE-7 project of CRC APRAC, A.D. Little developed a proto-
type liquid chromatograph for use in predicting diesel exhaust odor. Called
DOAS for diesel odor analytical system, the system provides two results,
one being an indication of the oxygenate fraction called LCO for liquid
chromatograph oxygenates, and the other called LCA for liquid chromatograph
aromatics. These were found by earlier research by ADL to represent the
major odorants in diesel exhaust. The ADL studies had shown a correlation
of the TIA (total intensity of aroma) to sensory measurements by the ADL
odor panel. TIA is equal to 1 + Iog10 LCO.
29
-------
Both LCD and LCA are expressed in micrograms per liter of ex-
haust using either the test fuel or a reference component for calibration.
The CO is, by virtue of its use to express TIA, considered the most impor-
tant indication of diesel exhaust odor by this method. An entire series of
reports have been published by ADL describing their work with diesel odor/
Reference 40 describes the DOAS and its use, while Appendix C in this same
reference describes the sample collection procedure. Rather than repeat
these instructions, this section will describe how the system was employed
in this series of tests. The lower right view of Figure 6 is of the DOAS
instrument.
To obtain DOAS samples required odor test mode times of 6 min-
utes to allow up to 5 minutes of trapping. The first minute was to achieve
a stable operating speed and load. Panel evaluation is normally during the
third minute of the run. No serious problems of tire or engine overheating
were encountered with this schedule.
The sampling interface system, shown by the center right photo
in Figure 6, follows good laboratory practice as applied to diesel hydro-
carbon measurement. Most of the sampling system was housed in an oven held
at 190°C (376°F). Additional details of this sampling interface are given
in Reference 28.
When operating the Mercedes 300D on the 1975 FTP transient
LA-4 test, it was estimated that the long sampling time of 31.4 minutes
would compensate for the intentionally diluted (estimated 5 to 7:1) ex-
haust by the CVS method. Recall the dilution level was held to a minimum
to prevent over-dilution of the already air-rich diesel exhaust.
g. Vehicle Noise
This series of tests was intended to determine the maximum
interior and exterior sound levels, in dBA scale, during idle and various
driving modes. SAE J986a, "Sound Level for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,"
describes a test procedure that formed the basis for measurement and vehicle
operation. A General Radio Type 1933 Precision Sound Level Analyzer- Gen-
eral Radio Type 1562-A Sound Level Calibrator, and General Radio Wind Screen,
meeting the requirements of International Electrotechnical Commission Pub-
lication 179, were used. Please refer to Reference 28 for a more complete
description of the noise test as well as data on several diesel-powered cars.
30
-------
IV. RESULTS
This section describes the findings of this project and includes
subsections dealing with the road-exhaust system temperature survey,
screening tests of traps components, evaluation of the trap system and
durability operation.
A. Road-Exhaust System Temperature Survey
Preparatory to evaluation of the particulate trapping devices, it
was necessary to determine the exhaust system temperatures of the Mer-
cedes 300D. The exhaust system temperature has an influence on component
selection and location. More importantly it has an influence on col-
lection efficiency and what is collected as well as what is retained.
It is a complicated effort because the particulate is a complex mixture
of aerosols (soft particulate) and solids (hard particulate).
For example, sulfate is a part of the particulate in diesel exhaust
with about 2 percent of the fuel sulfur converted and exhausted as sul-
furic acid mist. The effect of lower temperatures on the collection
(storage) and higher temperatures on purge (removal) means that the par-
ticulate trap probably should be at the coolest part, the end, of the
exhaust system. This would also be the case for unburned fuel or par-
tially burned fuel and/or lubricating oil. However, some of these products
may be burnable if the proper conditions existed, one of which is suf-
ficient heat. This means the particulate trap should be located at the
hottest point in the system, immediately after the engine exhaust manifold.
The major component in most diesel exhaust particulate is not aerosols,
but is solid particulate in the form of lamp black, soot or ash residue. The
carbonaceous material requires substantial energy to ignite, once exhausted
from the combustion chamber. Therefore, location of the trap is of less
consequence with respect to system temperature. The collectability of the
solid particulate is likely a function of the other particulate aerosols
and temperature. For example, some diesel particulate is greasy and sticky,
inferring such a possibility. By locating the trap in the coolest region
of the vehicle exhaust system, advantage might be taken of a possible com-
bination effect and improve collection efficiency.
The above discussions are meant to indicate the importance exhaust temper-
atures played in this project. It is known from experience that the single
150 m^/min (5300 CFM) cooling fan required in the 1975 FTP emissions test
does not necessarily simulate the vehicle exhaust temperatures of the road.
It serves to bring air to the vicinity of the front of the car and radiator
and thereby promote sufficient cooling of the engine during the emissions
test. For screening tests of particulate traps, this single fan was un-
satisfactory. How much additional cooling and where to effect the vehicle
cooling in the chassis dynamometer laboratory was unknown chiefly because
the exhaust system temperatures during road operation were unknown.
31
-------
1. Road Temperature Survey
The road temperature surveys thus had the goal of defining the
exhaust system temperatures over various driving cycles to allow their
simulation during driving of these same cycles in the laboratory on the
chassis dynamometer. To overcool or undercool during trap screening would
result in distorted or possibly an incorrect evaluation.
Figure 7 shows various views of the Mercedes 300D prepared for the
temperature survey. The two top photographs show the "fifth" wheel used
for vehicle speed (left view) and the bumper level ambient air thermo-
couple (right view). The two center photographs show the six pen tem-
perature recorder, the temperature integrator and the digital temperature
read-out. Not shown are the power supplies, the driving aid and related
"fifth" wheel accessories in the front seat of the car. The lower left
photo shows the location of the under-hood thermocouples at the exhaust
manifold flange, water out, air intake manifold and crankcase oil. Not
shown are the various thermocouples placed in the exhaust system.
Three technicians were required to acquire the field data. The driver
did not steer the car but applied power and brake normally to achieve the
speed versus time driving profiles of the UDDS (LA-4) featured in the FTP,
the SET (S-7 cycle) and the FET. The right front seat technician actually
steered the vehicle down a long, straight, flat stretch of little used
Texas highway. The right rear seat technician operated the instruments
and recorded temperatures from the digital temperature read-out. The key
to simulation of the transient driving cycles was to use the fifth wheel
speed signal as the dynamometer speed signal and match this speed to that
required on the pre-printed driving aid just as would be done if the car
were on a chassis dynamometer.
The most critical exhaust temperatures, those which changed most
rapidly, were recorded continuously while others, such as engine water,
oil, air intake were recorded manually at periodic intervals during each
run. In addition to the FTP, run from hot start, SET and FET, data at
48.3 km/hr (30 mph) and at 96.5 km/hr (60mph) steady state cruise were
obtained. Table 5 is a summary of the temperature profile data taken
during the UDDS of the 1975 FTP. The runs were from a warmed-up vehicle
condition and represented operation in one direction for run 1 and then
in the opposite direction for run 2. The temperatures are fairly explana-
tory with the table footnotes explaining whether the values were from the
continuous trace or whether taken manually from the digital indicator.
The most important finding was the exceptionally low exhaust system tem-
peratures measured. Even though the bumper ambient was 31°C (88°F), all
the exhaust temperatures were below a maximum of 528°C (1011°F), at the
engine exhaust manifold. The average engine exhaust manifold temperature
was about 190°C (374°F) over the 23 minute long UDDS (FTP) test cycle.
This means that the relatively higher temperatures, of say above 250 to
300°C, were encountered very briefly and that the temperature profile
was greatly skewed to the lower end of the 528-120°C max-min range.
At the other extreme of the exhaust system, some 4 m (157 inches)
from the engine, the exhaust outlet temperature of the rear muffler was
32
-------
FIGURE 7. MEASUREMENT OF EXHAUST TEMPERATURES DURING
ROAD AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER DRIVING CYCLES
33
-------
TABLE 5. MERCEDES 300D ROAD AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER TEMPERATURE PROFILES
1383 sec, 12.07 km, FEDERAL LIGHT DUTY TEST (FTP)
Road
Reading
Exhaust Manifold, "c'1'
Integrator, °C
Pipe Flange, "c'1'
Muffler 1 Inlet, °C(1'
Integrator, °C
Muffler 1 Outlet, °C(1)
Integrator, °C
Muffler 2 Inlet, Oc(1)
Muffler 2 Outlet, °C<2>
Bumper Ambient, °c'3'
Water Out, °c'3'
Engine Air In, °c'3'
Oil Sump, °C<3>
Exhaust Man, mm Kg'1'
( maximum-minimum )
(1) visual estimates of
'^' readings taken every
'3' readings taken every
Run 1
190
(544-120)
175
(440-143)
170
(335-135)
165
165
(315-140)
161
155
(303-135)
153
(221-137)
31
(33-29)
71
(87-62)
47
(67-42)
94
(99-93)
continuous trace
minute
two minutes
Run 2
190
(528-136)
175
(433-153)
170
(345-139)
172
165
(305-139)
167
155
(298-140)
164
(250-103)
31
(32-29)
69
(78-61)
42
(61-37)
94
(98-91)
Avg.
190
175
170
169
165
164
155
159
31
70
45
94
Run 3(4)
180
(376-144)
177
170
(365-133)
165
(313-123)
156
160
(255-120)
148
155
(251-120)
150
(221-117)
24
(25-23)
56
(73-48)
36
(41-33)
94
(99-91)
Dyno
Run 4 ' 5 '
180
(396-148)
178
170
(438-130)
165
(338-125)
158
160
(275-122)
149
150
(271-120)
146
(227-72)
25
(26-23)
57
(69-40)
37
(39-34)
93
(97-84)
25 25
(58-5.2) (57-5.2)
(4) fan located 2.87 m
'5) fan located 4 . 39 m
(6' fan located 5.92 m
i r±\
Run 5
-------
substantially cooler. The average of 159°C is 31°C (56°F) less than the
average at the engine. The range of temperatures is much narrower being
25Q-103°C (482-217°F). The maximum temperature at the end of the standard
Mercedes exhaust system is half that of the exhaust from the engine indi-
cating that the exhaust system, front muffler, rear muffler and connecting
piping act as both a heat exchanger as well as a heat sink. The temperature
excursions during acceleration,- for example, were substantially lower at
the tailpipe relative to the engine manifold.
An average exhaust manifold temperature over the UDDS of 190°C
(374°P) must be considered "cool" and hardly sufficient to ignite carbon
or even, possibly, to ignite partially burned fuel or oil products of
combustion. The average outlet temperature at the tailpipe of 159°C
(318°F) is, on the other hand, considered quite conducive to trapping of
many aerosols such as sulfuric acid mist, partially burned fuel and oil
etc.
The other exhaust temperatures shown on Table 5 were obtained at
various points throughout the system. The system consisted of two 4.13 cm
(1.625 inch) diameter pipes running parallel from the engine exhaust mani-
fold flange to a "Y" junction 55.9 cm (22 inches) in length. From the
"Y" to the front pipe flange, the distance was 35.6 cm (14 inches) and
utilized a 4.76 cm (1.875 inch) diameter pipe. This is the "pipe flange
listed in Table 5, a thermocouple located 92.27 cm (35.625 inches) from
the engine manifold.
Another 141 cm (55.5 inches) of pipe is used to convey exhaust to
the face of the front muffler,the first of two mufflers used in the stack
system. The Muffler 1 inlet thermocouple was located 5.1 cm (2 inches)
before the front muffler and the outlet thermocouple was located 5.1 cm
(2 inches) beyond the front muffler outlet. These two temperature
measuring locations are listed next on Table 5. The front muffler is of
oval design with overall length of 27.3 cm (10.75 inches), width of 25.1
cm (9.875 inches) and thickness of 10.8 cm (4.25 inches).
Another 95.3 cm (37.5)inch length of exhaust tubing then connects
to the rear muffler, a cylindrical shaped unit of 59.4 cm (23.375 inch)
length, and 17.8 cm (7 inch) diameter. The rear inlet thermocouples were
located 6.35 cm (2.5 inch) in front and 5.1 cm (2 inch) after the rear
muffler. The final item of the system is a short straight tailpipe of
20.3 (8 inch) length and 5.1 cm (2 inch) diameter.
These intermediate exhaust temperatures range in average and max-
min values between the exhaust manifold and the Muffler 2 outlet (at the
tailpipe) in descending order as expected. The remadning four tempera-
tures, bumper ambient, water out, engine air in, and oil sump are listed
to document the vehicle/engine operating temperatures. Although the FTP
temperature profiles were most important to this project, the other con-
ditions and cycles were surveyed to obtain a broader data base. These
measurements, made at 48.3 km/hr (30 mph), 96.5 km/hr (60 mph) and over
the SET and FET driving cycles are summarized on Tables similar in format
to Table 5 in Appendix B. They indicate that, as the average speed in-
creased, the average exhaust temperatures likewise increased, as expected.
35
-------
Further analysis of this data is deferred to another time since the most
important data to this project is during the UDDS, Table 5. Such measure-
ments over these cycles have rarely.- if ever, been done in this way, es-
pecially with a diesel car and will likely have long range usefulness.
2. Chassis Dynamometer Simulation
Given the road temperature profiles in the form of a continuous
recorder trace, as well as maximum, minimum and average data, the next
step was to attempt the same extent of cooling in the chassis dynamometer
laboratory. Originally it was thought that a large,variable flow fan,
normally used for motorcycles, would be appropriate since the outlet
velocity varied as the vehicle speed. 736 m3/min (26000 CFM) The large,
cooling fan, shown partially by the lower right photograph of Figure
7, is capable of 87 km/hr(54 mph)cooling air velocity from a 0.5m2 opening
71.1 m (28 inch) wide by 68.6 m (27 inch)high duct cross section.
Somewhat to our surprise, it was found that this fan would
overcool the exhaust system and that the exhaust manifold temperature
was disproportionately lower relative to the other exhaust system tem-
peratures. Fairly decent agreements of the exhaust system temperatures
were obtained only when the outlet of the large cooling blower was moved
to 5.92 m (233 inches) from the front bumper. The extent of the agree-
ment may be seen by comparing the average road to run 5. The large fan,
even 6 meters from the car, still overcooled the engine, and front part
of the exhaust system. The laboratory ambient was lower than the road
ambient as indicated by the bumper thermocouple and this contributed some
to the lower laboratory dynamometer temperature profile.
One interesting observation found early in the runs with the
large blower was the effect of whether the hood was "up" or closed. When
the hood was closed, the exhaust temperature at the engine manifold was
noticeably affected. In order to simulate the road profiles, it was
necessary to close the hood. This brought the engine temperatures and
exhaust manifold temperature up and closer to the values measured on
the road.
Appendix B contains the results of similar experiments and
attempts to replicate the road temperature profiles in the dynamometer
laboratory. Fairly good success was obtained, with hood down, using
the large variable flow blower. It still had to be rolled back from
the car some 4.39 meters (173 inches) or else the vehicle was overcooled.
Please refer to Appendix B for the cruise tests at 48.3 km/hr (30 mph)
and 96.5 km/hr (60 mph) and the transient SET and FET experimental data.
It soon became apparent that the large variable flow blower
was overcooling the standard car, and it would have to be moved far from
the car to simulate the road. It also became quite apparent that such
a distance would not be possible on the chassis dynamometer planned for
screening tests, one with ample floor space to the right of the vehicle
for the exhaust and trap components and the dilution tunnel. Of real
concern was whether the large single blower could properly cool the
exhaust system when located to the right of the vehicle in the open
36
-------
laboratory instead of under the car. Most of the experimental hardware
would not physically fit under the car, nor was this a requirement for
experimentation.
As a result of these apparent conflicts, a new method of
cooling the car was developed which consisted of the usual 150 m-Vmin
(5300 CFM) fan used for FTP testing of LD vehicles and five ducted
blowers each capable of 42.5 m3/min (1500 CFM). These blowers were
fitted with 1.52 m (5 ft.) long 20.3 cm (8 inch) diameter sheet metal
ducts that served to direct and locate the cooling flow where desired.
Then, each fan motor was wired through a toggle switch on a small
panel that could be manually switched "on" or "off". Thus, by care-
fully locating the fans and predetermining when the fan should be
turned "on" or "off", a close simulation of the vehicle temperatures
could be obtained. The under car stock muffler system temperatures
were simulated by the six fans better than the single large blower.
It did require another technician to watch the vehicle speed trace
and turn the fans "on" and "off". In general, no fan was used between
0-8 km/hr (0-5 mph) and then the single FTP fan (150 m /min) would be
turned on and left on until the speed dropped below 8 km/hr (5 mph).
Other fans would be added as the speed increased and turned off as
the speed decreased.
When a test of a candidate trap was made, the exhaust was di-
rected out under the front passenger door and the device located on the
lab floor. One or more of the smaller blowers would then be relocated
to blow directly on the experimental test items. The switching pro-
cedure would be modified as necessary to again simulate the road FTP
values. All screening tests involved replicate tests from a "hot11
start. For convenience and since the traps all had a common feed
exhaust point, the temperature simulation was based on the inlet to the
usual front muffler, a point 2.32 m (89.5 inches) from the exhaust mani-
fold. Prior to each new experimental series, the temperature profile
was adjusted as necessary by altering fan location and their "on-off"
sequencing. Using up to six fans and the manual control gave a flexible
approach to road temperature simulation regardless of the type, size,
or shape of trap encountered.
The photographs of Figure 3 show the arrangement of the five
cooling fans. For the stock system, the arrangement in the left center
and lower left photos was used; namely the FTP fan in the center (largest)
with one blower directly below running under the radiator of the car.
Then, one blower was located on each side terminating at the lower con-
trol arms and inside the left and right front tires. Then, two more
blowers, one on each side of the car terminating just behind each tire
and directed at an angle to force the air under the car were used.
For evaluation of traps during screening tests, the arrangement
shown in the three right views of Figure 3 was used. The device was
connected to the exhaust directed from under the right front floorboard.
One or more blowers would then be moved, as shown, and directed on the
test item.
37
-------
B. Particulate Trap Screening Results
Approximately 9654 km (6000 mi) of laboratory operation were accumu-
lated in the extensive screening tests made with the Mercedes 300D car.
These tests did not commence until 6436 km (4000 mi) of street and highway
operation had been accumulated to stabilize engine and exhaust system de-
posits. In all, a total of 42 "cold" start and 335 "hot" start 23 minute
UDDS particulate runs were made of 48 traps or combinations. This total
includes the periodic baseline runs made with the factory standard exhaust
system.
In Part VII, it was found that the particulate emission rates for this
Mercedes 300D test car are basically independent of the test cycle. Refer-
ence 28 lists particulate emission rates as follows:
1975 FTP 0.306 g/km
FTP cold 0.307 g/km
FTP hot 0.306 g/km
FET 0.242
SET 0.232
The higher speed and duty cycles of the FET and SET gave lower values than
the FTP but not grossly lower. The FTP hot values are about average for
the screening test.
Table 6 is a chronological summary listing of all the screening tests
made as well as periodic baseline tests. This table is the basis for the
discussion that follows and contains average g/km results for hot start,
cold start (usually only one test), and the average system temperatures
and pressures. In the case of the stock system, the "inlet" would be the
inlet to the front muffler and the "outlet", the outlet of the rear muffler.
For the trap or combination of trap items, the "inlet" would be the inlet
to the first item in the system, normally at the 2.32 m (89.5 in) from the
exhaust manifold flange.
The "outlet" was the outlet of the item (if a single item was eval-
uated) or the outlet of the final item if a series combination system was
evaluated. Each item is described briefly and in terms consistent with
the designation of Table 3. Also, the first item mentioned in a system
was the first item through which exhaust was passed.
Appendix C is a detailed listing of each run of each test and is the
basic reduced data from which the averages on Table 6 are obtained. The
Appendix C tables, one for each item or system or baseline series, indicate
the run-to-run repeatability as well as the extent to which, for a given
series of tests, a trend might have occurred such as increase/decrease in
pressure drop, efficiency, or temperature.
Listed at the bottom of each Appendix C table is a summary of the pres-
sures and temperatures obtained during a series of steady-state engine/
vehicle operations at idle, 0 km/hr, 16.1 km/hr (10 mph), 32.2 km/hr (20 mph),
48.3 km/hr (30 mph), 64.4 km/hr (40 mph), 80.4 km/hr (50 mph), and 96.5 km/hr
(60 mph). This series was made at the conclusion of each test series and
38
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE REMOVAL EXPERIMENTS
MERCEDES 300D
*
Average Avg. System System Pressures, @
Date
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-23
-27
-28
-28
-29
-30
-76
-76
-76
-76
-76
-76
-2-76
-4-
-5-
-6-
-9-
-10
-12
-13
-16
-18
-20
-23
-24
76
76
76
76
-76
-76
-76
-76
-76
-76
-76
-76
System
Description
Factory Stock
Mufflers
HCC Small Swirl
HCC Small Cyclone
HCC Large Cyclone
Texaco A-1R
HCC-137(1) Agg.
Ethyl Agg
Ethyl TAVS
Texaco A-1R
with Exit Cavity
Bus Muffler, empty
Bus Muffler, full
Texaco A-1R &
Ethyl TAVS
Texaco A-1R 8t
Small Swirl
Texaco A-1R &
Large Cyclone
HCC-137fl)& Ethyl
TAVP
Factory Stock
Mufflers
Ethyl Agg & TAVS
HCC-115
HCC-115A
Type Particulate
Test s/km
FTPC
FTPh
FTPr
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
256
27Q
250
257
242
208
223
097
090
248
223
301
259
235
204
176
130
250
246
252
168
123
238
176
198
170
266
189
307
263
271
390
234
228
211
Temp. , °C
Inlet
173
180
176
177
186
179
173
163
160
164
165
165
165
165
166
160
167
160
162
163
167
163
164
162
169
168
180
164
168
163
175
173
167
174
170
80. 5 kph, mm Hg
Outlet Inlet
138
161
163
166
156
151
136
157
152
139
148
154
152
148
151
157
150
126
87
123
135
140
137
144
127
139
145
141
147
144
159
137
130
130
129
28. 9
25.8
198. 0
78.7
47. 3
27. 8
15. 1
83. 1
49. 5
3.4
5.6
162.6
76.2
137. 2
66.0
23. 3
123.0
127.0
147. 3
Outlet AP
14.0 15.9
7.5 17.7
27.1 170.2
21.1 58.4
5.0 43.3
6.2 20.9
8.0 6.9
8.2 75.6
3.9 45.8
3.2 0. 5
5.6 0.9
3.5 157.5
5.0 73.7
20.0 119.4
0.6 66.0
10.5 11.6
3.9 114.3
19.0 106.7
15. 9 137. 1
39
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE REMOVAL EXPERIMENTS
MERCEDES 300D (Cont'd)
Average Avg. System System P ressures, @
Date
Z-25-76
2-26-76
2-27-76
3-02-76
3-03-76
3-04-76
3-05-76
3-08-76
3-09-76
4-27-76
4-29-76
5-03-76
5-04-76
5-05-76
5-06-76
System
Description
HCC-125
Texaco A-IF Agg.
Texaco A-IF &
Texaco A-IR
HCC-137<1'Agg.&
Ethyl TAVg
HCC-137 Agg. <2)
Ethyl TAVd
Factory Stock
Mufflers
Texaco A-IF &
Ethyl TAVs
Texaco A-IF, A-IR,
Ethyl TAVS
Factory Stock
Mufflers
Texaco Wire
Wool Only
Texaco A-1M Radial
Center Inlet
Texaco A-1M Radial
Outershell Inlet
HCC-137, w/
3/8" spheres
HCC-137, w/
3/16" spheres
Type Particulate
Test
FTPC
FTPn
FTPC
FTPn
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPc
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
g/km
0. 297
0.246
0.256
0. 209
0. 176
0. 099
0.350
0. 233
0. 334
0.265
0. 342
0.264
0. 418
0.292
0. 258
0. 179
0. 113
0.092
0. 260
0. 313
0. 248
0.201
0. 376
0. 266
0. 318
0. 305
0. 399
0. 305
0. 341
0. 302
Temp.
Inlet
164
162
150
159
160
162
175
166
167
164
171
167
175
169
169
166
172
164
186
179
146
148
179
165
178
166
180
167
172
166
, °C 80. 5 kph, mm
Outlet Inlet Outlet
122
131 34.0 4.3
146
161 35.5 8.4
132
146 84.0 2.2
136
144 119.4 3.3
153
161 24.3 3.7
130
131 37.4 3.7
154
148 23.4 10.8
134
144 116.8 4.5
107
120 160.0 3.4
165
156 23.0 9.9
151
153 26.5 4.7
165
157 38. 3 7. 1
163
155 50.4 5.2
146
152 28.9 5.2
138
153 28.6 5.2
Hi?
A P
29.3
26. 1
82.2
116.8
20.5
35.5
13.4
111.8
157. 5
12. 1
21. 5
29. 9
48.6
22.4
23. 0
(1) Exhaust Flow radially outward
I-' Exhaust Flow radially inward
40
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE REMOVAL EXPERIMENTS
MERCEDES 300D (Cont'd)
Average Avg. System System Pressures, @
Date
5-06-76
5-07-76
5-10-76
5-11-76
5-12-76
5-13-76
5-17-76
5-18-76
5-20-76
5-21-76
5-24-76
5-26-76
6-09-76
System
Description
HCC-Mini Swirl
Separator
Factory Stock
Rear Muffler Shell
w/ 3/8" spheres
Rear Muffler Shell
w/ 3/16" spheres
Texaco A-IR,
HC Mini Swirl
Back Pack
w/ fine Media
Back Pack
w/ med. Media
Back Pack
w/ coarse Media
Texaco A-IE
Axial Flow
C anni ster
Texaco A-IE &
Texaco A-IR
Texaco A-IE,
Texaco A-IR &
Ethyl TAVS
Factory Stock
Mufflers
Texaco A-IF,
Texaco A-IR &
Type Participate
Test K/km
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FPTC
FTPh
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
FTPh
FTPh
FTPC
FTPh
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
295
351
327
457
259
217
232
372
186
132
100
170
270
222
256
247
158
116
116
326
182
165
Temp.
,°C 80. 5 kph, mm
Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet
162
180
172
166
165
170
168
165
166
165
168
165
163
161
179
180
180
174
186
167
213
220
155 68.6 5.8
158
154 22.4 9.5
89
145 94.0 10.6
83
143 175.2 10.8
131
145 111.8 5.6
129 69.0 1.2
133
129 76.2 2.6
126
136 22.4 2.8
189
180 106. 7 10. 3
133
133 157. 5 3.9
110 200.7 0.4
149 19.2 9.0
149
177 188.0 3.0
HS
AP
66.0
12. 7
83.8
165. 1
109. 2
69.7
73. 7
19.6
96.5
155. 9
200. 7
10. 3
185. 0
Ethyl TAV3
(Pipe & A-IF Insulated)
6-10-76 Texaco A-IF,
Texaco A-IR !
Ethyl TAVS
(Not Insulated)
FTPh
0. 165
169
130
182. 9
2. 4
180. 5
41
-------
serves to provide basic data not otherwise easily obtained during the tran-
sient UDDS operation.
The first experiment summarized on Table 6 was a 10 run variability
test, one cold UDDS, and nine replications from a hot start using the stan-
dard, factory equipped exhaust system. The hot start run average of
0.270 g/km may be compared with the 0.311 qfkm recorded earlier. Recall
that the exhaust temperatures are somewhat different due to a difference
in vehicle cooling.
Appendix Table C-l lists the individual run results. The nine hot
start results ranged from 0.262 to 0.282 g/km for the average of 0.270 gfkm.
The coefficient of variation was 3.2 percent based on a standard deviation
of 0.009 g/km. The repeatability of the replicate runs is termed excellent
and is indicative of the repeatability of replicate tests with the candidate
trap systems.
Looking over the Table 6 summary for items that resulted in reduced
particulate, it is interesting to note that the Texaco A-IR steel wool
coated with A12C>3 did the best. The particulate rate of 0.090 g/km was an
encouraging initial result for this approach. Of all the agglomerators,
which this system was assumed to be, this item worked the best and continued
to be the most effective.^ '
Of all the separators tried, the Ethyl TAV seemed to work the best
along with the Houston Chemical small swirl. In any event, the separators
were, by themselves, only partially successful, giving rates of 0.204 to
0.208 on replicate FTP hot 23 minute runs. The two top views of Figure 8
show the HCC small swirl disassembled and some of the particulate collected
by the separator (right view). An interesting observation was made of the
appearance of the swirl collected material. It was largely spherical in
shape as if compacted inside of the swirl collector. The tiny balls rolled
freely and evidently were made in spite of the stainless steel hardware
cloth packing inside the collection chamber used to prevent re-entrainment
of the collected particulate.
Another Houston Chemical swirl tube, of smaller size than that run
earlier on January 27, 1976, was tried on May 6, 1976 and found to have
little effect even at the higher backpressures and swirl rates. Inertial
separation of the particulate is a very difficult problem and most efforts
had little success. The hope is that when the best available separator is
used in conjunction with an agglomerator, the particulates purged from the
agglomerator will be heavier, bigger, or denser so that some inertial sep-
eration can occur.
On May 12, 1976, the HCC mini swirl was connected to the outlet of
the Texaco A-IR to see if this combination would be an improvement over
the Texaco A-IR plus sigle Ethyl TAVS. In both cases, May 12, 1976 and
February 10, 1976, the removal of particulate was due to the A-IR, not the
separator.
The two center views of Figure 8 show the swirl tube under test as
a single component, left view, and in combination with the Texaco A-IR
42
-------
vtftsir. v
FIGURE 8. SWIRL TUBE AND CYCLONE SEPARATORS
43
-------
with exit cavity. The two lower views are photographs of the various con-
ventional cyclone separators evaluated. The left view shows the interior
of the collection box. Their installation and test arrangement was shown
earlier in Figure 3, upper and lower right views. Although the swirl tube
separator showed some promise, the conventional cyclones were incapable of
removing much particulate alone. This is indicated by the results listed
on Table 6 for January 27 and 28, 1976.
Figure 9 shows various views of the muffler configurations prepared
by SwRI and provided to Texaco for packing with steel wool similar to that
of an industrial "Brillo pad", coating with alumina and then fired at
1000°F to achieve a permanent bond and develop the porous structure
desired. The upper left view shows both the A-IR and A-IF units with end
covers removed. The alumina is white when new.
The upper right view of Figure 9 shows the detail of the steel wool
matrix before alumina coating. The 4/29/76 run was with a rear muffler
packed with the steel wool used by Texaco but not coated with alumina.
This experiment indicated that the wire only was able to remove about
one-third of the particulate. This same size and shape rear muffler
housing, filled with alumina coated steel wire by Texaco, was able to
remove on the order of two-thirds of the particulate.
The right center view of Figure 9 shows the exit end of the A-IR
after limited operation. The left center view shows the inlet face of
the A-IR. The lower left view shows the two end plates, the entry
cone and the exit, orginally a flat plate. The lower right view shows
the exit cavity added to the A-IR to see if some particles might not
drop out or collect. This was unsuccessful as found on 2/5/76 on Table 6.
The small open volume, intended to allow agglomerates to settle out,
should have improved performance and definitely not increased particulate.
Apparently, the units collection efficiency changed because later tests
on 2/10/76 likewise produced particulate above the 0.090 g/km found
initially. Even with the TAV separator, performance was 0.123 g/km,
still a respectable- reduction from the stock rate of 0.279 g/km.
The upper left photo of Figure 10 shows the Ethyl agglomerator
in combination with the Ethyl TAV. The agglomerator run on 2/2/7'6 as
a single unit was not effective and neither was this combination, as
may be seen on Table 6 on 2/20/76. The TAV did show some promise (see
2/4/76 data on Table 6) and it is shown in combination with other items
such as the Texaco A-IF and A-IR in the upper right view, Texaco A-IR with
cavity in center right photo and the HCC 137 agglomerator lower left view.
The use of the HCC 137 agglomerator plus the Ethyl TAV (2/16/76)
resulted in 0.189 g/km, an average rate lower than either unit produced
when used separately. The HCC 137 gave 0.223 g/km and TAV gave 0.204
g/km. In all these photographs, only one half of the TAV is used since
it was found that the TAV single or TAVS, on Table 6, was more effective
than the dual configuration tested on 3/4/76. When both halves of the
Ethyl TAV were run together, the g/km average value was 0.264 versus the
0.204 value for the single or one-half of the TAV run on 2/4/76. Although
the baseline seems to trend higher with time and continued operation, it
44
-------
FIGURE 9. VARIOUS TEXACO ALUMINA COATED STEEL WOOL
PARTICULATE TRAP CONFIGURATIONS A-IF AND A-IR
45
-------
FIGURE 10. VARIOUS AGGLOMERATOR-SEPARATOR
PARTICULATE TRAP COMBINATIONS
46
-------
is clear that the single TAV is a better size for the 5 cylinder exhaust
low rate than is the dual. This was expected since the dual TAV can han-
dle a large, high power to weight gasoline car.
The lower two photos show the Texaco A-IF(left view) and the A-IF plus
A-IR(right photo) under test. These tests were made on 2/26/76 and 2/27/76
respectively and indicated the major reduction in particulate was due to
the Texaco A-IR unit. The average particulate of 0.099 g/km can be
compared to the factory mufflers tested on 2/18/76 and 3/5/76, which gave
0.263 and 0.292 g/km respectively. The particulate was reduced on the
order of 36 percent of the average of these two baselines.
A number of other components that depended on trapping by use of a
packed bed were evaluated. An empty rear muffler shell, A--IR was fitted
wlth inlet and outlet screens and filled with alumina spheres of various
diameters. This arrangement is shown in the upper left photo of Figure
11 with two sizes of alumina, a nominal 4.8 mm (3/16 inch) and 9.5 mm (3/8
inch) diameter.
The two sizes of Houston Chemical alumina spheres were tried in the
relatively large rear muffler shell in which the exhaust was allowed to
travel axially up through the packed bed. The results of these tests,
on 5/10 and 5/11/76, were somewhat encouraging, but still had much less
efficiency than the Texaco A-IR spherical shaped balls in the upper right
photo. The center right photograph shows the large tank-like cylindrical
muffler used in experiments with city buses. The muffler featured a
packed bed containing a 27.2kg(60 Ib) charge of A12O3 spheres of nominal
6.4mm (0.25 inch) coated with a copper oxide catalyst,(12) The catalyst
coated balls are poured into the muffler as shown in the left center
photo.
The lower photographs of Figure 11 show the HCC 137 agglomerator
disassembled (left view) and under test (right view). This was a very
interesting and compact design (see Appendix A for pictorial schematic)
in that the flow through the bed was radial instead of axial having
possibilities for lower pressure drop as well as possibly longer life.
Several sizes of alumina balls, packed into the annular chamber, were
tried as well as operating the unit with radial inflow and with radial
outflow through the packed bed. The original design for lead trapping
was for the flow to pass through the agglomerating media radially inward,
from the outer annulus to the inner cylinder. When run backwards, on
1/30/76, slightly more particulate was removed than when run as intended
on 3/3/76. Although neither configuration gave an impressive removal
of particulate, some insight on gas velocities and possible agglomeration
mechanisms can be inferred. Higher face velocities apparently resulted
in improved collection of the particulate.
Two experiments were made using the Houston Chemical 137 design
where the size of alumina bead was varied. The tests on 5/5/76 were with
a packed bed of nominal 3/8 inch spheres while the 5/6/76 experiments
used nominal 3/16 inch spheres. These alumina balls supplied by Houston
Chemical were a different porosity and apparently softer than the 1/4"
spheres tried earlier. Neither experiment was considered successful.
47
-------
'
FIGURE 11. AGGLOMERATOR CONFIGURATIONS UTILIZING
ALUMINA SPHERES OF VARIOUS SIZES
48
-------
A variety of ingenious designs of integral agglomerator, separator/
collector lead trap devices were evaluated. These were all Houston Chemi-
cal Company designs and are shown in test or partially disassembled on Fig-
ure 12 and in more detail by the pictorial schematics of Appendix A. The
HCC 115, 115A, and 125 designs were evaluated with little success in terms
of diesel particulate trapping efficiency. All designs had been demonstrated
to be very effective in auto exhaust lead trapping and removal, however. All
designs depended on agglomeration principally through the use of packed beds
of alumina spheres with swirl or similar separators and wire mesh entrainment.
As the screening evaluation progressed, two additional configurations
involving the Texaco alumina coatings were of interest. The upper left
photograph of Figure 13 shows a design that is quite similar to the HCC-
137 radial flow agglomerator. The annular element is inconel wire mesh
coated with fired alumina furnished by Texaco.^39) This element was inserted
into the larger cylindrical housing and designated Texaco A-IM. The idea
was to run this element with exhaust entering the center of the element
and flowing radially outward. Then the direction was reversed and the
flow directed radially inward. The data on 5/3/76 and 5/4/76 indicated
some particulate removal when the flow was radially outward. The
improvement, however, was not enough to continue this design in the project.
The hope was that the radial inflow would be effective so that the unit
could be installed in the engine compartment at the engine exhaust mani-
fold outlet.
The other SwRI design which hoped to capitalize on location near
the engine to possibly use burn-off potential of available engine heat
was a 10.2 cm (4 inch) diameter long radius weld 45 degree elbow of
stainless steel with short straight sections on both ends. The packed
system is shown in the center right photo of Figure 13 with the installa-
tion under the engine firewall shown in the left center photo. Tests of
this unit, called A-IE on 5/20/76, were partially successful, but at a
fairly high backpressure.
More tests were made of the Texaco A-IE unit, in combination with the
Texaco A-IR,on 5/21/76 and then in combination with the Texaco A-IR and
Ethyl TAVS. The exhaust backpressures for the system climbed substantially
to 200 mm Eg (about 8 inches Hg at 50 mph). The overriding influence in
these, as in all previous tests with the Texaco A-IR, has been the Texaco
A-IR. Further attempts to develop a pre-trap that used engine heat to
oxidize fuel like particulate were discontinued.
The lower two photos of Figure 13 show the Houston Chemical back-
pack system for absolute filtration of the vehicle exhaust. Houston
Chemical has widely used the "backpacks" for total and final filtration
of gasoline car exhaust in conjunction with their studies of lead traps.
The "backpack" can mount on the car trunk lid. The exhaust was filtered
by about 0.93m2 (io ft2) of glass fiber filter paper located on an
accordian type stainless steel backing. The left view shows the box
opened and the used fiberglass media in the accordian configuration.
The backpack assembly is shown under test in the lower right view.
49
-------
FIGURE 12. LEAD TRAP AGGLOMERATOR-SEPARATOR INTEGRAL DESIGNS
50
-------
FIGURE 13. TEXACO ALUMINA COATED PARTICULATE TRAPS
CONFIGURATIONS A-IE AND A-IM ANDHCC BACKPACK FILTER BOX
51
-------
On May 12, 13, and 17.- three experiments were made with Houston
Chemical "backpacks" equipped with a fine, medium and coarse fiberglass
filter media furnished by Houston Chemical for trial. In the case of
the runs with the fine and medium media, the filters were quite successful
for a few runs in removing the particulate. Then, the system backpressure
would rapidly increase and create a bypass through or around the media,
usually around one edge or one corner. This would preclude the filter
from functioning as desired and the test terminated. In the case of the
coarse media, it was sufficiently coarse to apparently allow much of
the particulate to pass directly through the filter. Further tests were
discontinued with this approach.
Combining the Texaco A-IF with the Ethyl single TAV gave 0.170 g/km
(3/8/76). An even lower value of 0.092 g/km was measured on 3/9/76 when
the Texaco A-IF, A-IR and TAV_ were combined. In terms of the nearest
o
baseline, this gave 32 percent of the factory standard exhaust system.
The overriding factor in all experiments involving the Texaco A-IR is
the Texaco A-IR. This relatively large cylinder of alumina coated steel
wool dominated particulate removal experiments.
On May 28, 1976, a visit was made by the writer to Texaco, Beacon,
New York and a full discussion of the results held with Mr. William
Tierney and members of his staff. After reviewing the data and con-
sidering the backpressure of theA-IEand its apparent level of efficiency,
it was decided that the A-IF would probably do as well or better than the
A-IE. The A-IF was prepared earlier and retains the outside shape of the
front resonator of the Mercedes 300D exhaust system.
As a final series of tests, the Texaco A-IF, A-IR and Ethyl TAVS were
run with and without the A-IF and front pipe insulated. Except for higher
system backpressures with the system partially insulated, there was no
effect noted on particulate removal. No indication of a temperature
increase across A-IF was noted that might mean burn-off of trapped soft
particulate (fuel oil vapors, etc.). Even though the TAVS imposes a higher
backpressure, the component test efficiences were better for the TAVS than
other separators such as the HCC mini swirl, making the Texaco A-IR and Ethyl
TAVS the preferred combination. The use of a separator, such as the TAVS
after the Texaco A-IR could be argued, since these experiments show the
TAV to have only a minimal effect. Eventually, the A-IR will either plug or
purge. If the unit plugs, the life will be very important. If the unit pur-
ges, then it is important to collect as much of the purge as possible. This
is the reason for the separator.
C. Evaluation
Once the Texaco A-IF. A-IR and Ethyl TAVS trap system had been iden-
tified as promising for diesel particulate removal, the next step was to
perform a series of experiments to evaluate its effect on other emissions
of interest, fuel economy, noise and performance. For purposes of discus-
sion, each category is described separately.
52
-------
1. Particulate and Sulfate
Duplicate glass and Fluoropore 47 mm filter samples were obtained
by the following sequence, using the single EPA cooling fan in accordance
with the Federal Register.
FTP 23 minute cold start
10 min soak
FTP 23 minute hot start
10 minute soak
SET 23 minute
10 minute soak
FET 12 minute
The above sequence was performed several times to establish the effect of
the filter system on sulfate and particulate and then repeated with the
factory exhaust system. To make the results as comparable as possible,
the baseline runs were made at the same backpressure at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph)
as the trap system by adjusting a gate valve in the exhaust pipe between
the vehicle and the dilution tunnel. A nominal 178 mm (7 in) of mercury
was imposed by the trap system.
Table 7 is a summary of the pertinent particulate and sulfate emis-
sion rates in grams (particulate) and milligram (sulfate) per kilometer of
test operation. Listed first are the average particulate and sulfate emis-
sion rates from the previous evaluation of this car in factory stock con-
figuration. These initial evaluations were made over eight months earlier
i TON
and reported in the Part VII final report.v ' These initial tests were
made at the normal exhaust backpressure.
Listed next on Table 7 are the most important average data from
that contained in Appendix D. Appendix D includes listings for each trial
in terms of mass per unit of time, distance and mass of fuel consumed.
Note the generally good agreement between both sets of factory standard
exhaust systems, even though the tests were made at grossly different ex-
haust system backpressure and substantial time and vehicle operation en-
sued in the interim.
Of the three particulate rates on Table 7, the most important is
that by the 47 mm glass filter, the first column of data. When the trap
system was run against the standard exhaust system, set to 178 mm Hg (7 in
Hg) at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph) and the single standard EPA cooling fan used,
the reduction in particulate ranged from 32.5 to 41.8 percent depending on
test cycle.
These values indicate substantial reductions in particulate but
are not as large as those found during the screening tests reported earlier
where 60 percent reduction was fairly common during the hot start FTP. The
reasons for this apparent fall-off in effectiveness are not understood and
their investigations beyond the scope of this project. There are, however,
some possible effects that may explain part of the loss.
53
-------
TABLE 7. PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATE SUMMARY
Particulate g/km
Test Exhaust System
1975
FTPp
FTP Factory Exhaust ^ '
Factory Exhaust '^)
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS
Net Reduction' '
Percent Reduction^)
Factory Exhaust
Factory Exhaust
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS
Net Reduction
Percent Reduction
FTPh Factory Exhaust
SET
FET
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Factory Exhaust
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS
Reduction
Percent Reduction
Factory Exhaust
Factory Exhaust
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS
Reduction
Percent Reduction
Factory Exhaust
Factory Exhaust
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS
Reduction
Percent Reduction
Glass
0.306
0.295
0.198
0.097
32.9
0.319
0.332
0.220
0.112
33.7
0.311
0.268
0.181
0.087
32.5
0.232
0.204
0.137
0.067
32.8
0.242
0.201
0.117
0.084
41.8
( 28 }
from Part VII Final Report, original
backpressure adjusted to 178
mm Hg (7 in
Fluoropore
0.272
0.293
0.155
0.138
47.1
0.266
0.332
0.167
0.163
49.1
0.277
0.264
0.144
0.120
45.4
0.220
0.219
0.117
0.102
46.6
0.221
0.199
0.097
0.102
51.3
tests, factory
8 x 10
0.321
0.286
0.188
0.098
34.3
0.349
0.316
0.230
0.086
27.2
0.300
0.264
0.154
0.110
41.7
0.238
0.209
0.120
0.089
42.6
0.258
0.188
0.104
0.084
44.7
exhaust
Sulfate
mg/km
9.15
8.440
1.413
7.027
83.3
10.09
9.789
1.863
7.926
81.0
8.44
7.423
1.074
6.349
85.5
10.27
11.700
0.855
10.845
92.7
11.22
9.669
0.641
9.028
93.4
Hg) at 80.1 km/hr
net reduction is factory exhaust at increased backpressure minus
net
percent reduction — _
x 100%
trap system
54
-------
Figure 14 is a chronological plot of every hot start evaluation
of the Texaco A-IR, the unit in the system that has been responsible for
the particulate removal as well as the A-IF and A-IE. Also plotted are
the hot start factory standard baseline tests made throughout the screening
test period. The difference between the factory stock, top graph, and the
experiments with the steel wool coated with alumina (Texaco), bottom graph,
is the reduction. On several occasions, notably February 5 and 10, 1976;
March 9, 1976; and May 21 and 24, 1976, the A-IR plus A-IF or A-IE and/or
TAVS resulted in significantly lower particulate than the baseline which
was on a slight upward trend with time (engine/vehicle operation).
For example, the most recent screening test, the back-to-back eval-
uation of June 14-25, 1976, gave a 65 percent reduction, from 0.327 g/km
on May 7 and May 26 baselines to 0.116 g/km on May 24, 1976. These tests
were with the trap system external to the car and with several cooling fans
to simulate road temperature profiles.
The next set of experiments was made with the trap system located
under the car in an insulated (from manifold to the exit of the A-IF unit)
and normal uninsulated condition. Several fans were used but the profiles
not exactly replicated since this series was to evaluate the importance of
the insulation which evidently was not important.
The trap particulate rate, for some unknown reason, jumped from
0.116 g/km on May 21-24, 1976 to 0.165 g/km on June 9-10, 1976. When the
single EPA cooling fan was used with the under-car mounted trap system, the
particulate rate increased again to 0.181 g/km. Could the cooling fan and
the mounting of the system under the car be responsible for this increase?
Simultaneous with the increases in particulate rate with the trap,
ostensibly due to cooling and mounting, the baseline with the factory ex-
haust decreased from 0.327 g/km on May 7-26, 1976 to 0.268 g/km on June
23-25, 1976. Two changes were made; namely, the use of the single EPA
cooling fan and the artificial increase in exhaust backpressure to 178 mm Hg
(7 in Hg) at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph). Both possibly might affect particulate
rates although the extent to which either parameter would reduce particulate
emissions is unknown.
Thus, the reduced effectiveness of the particulate trap may be
viewed in terms of the history and circumstances of the screening versus
evaluative type tests. It is hard to attribute both the reduced particu-
late from the factory system and the increased particulate from the trap
system to the same change in cooling; and, without more data on the effect
of backpressure on the formation of particulate, this engine parameter re-
mains mainly an "interesting observation".
Returning to Table 7, it is interesting to note the quite consis-
tent g/km rates of particulate by the 47 mm Fluoropore filters as compared
to the 47 mm glass. The slightly greater effectiveness indicated by the
Fluoropore filters can be attributed to the consistently lower particulate
rates by the Fluoropore versus fiberglass collecting media. Although the
particulate rates were quite comparable by all three filters, 47 mm glass,
8 x 10 glass and 47 mm Fluoropore, with the standard factory exhaust system,
55
-------
Ul
en
CT
0,
(0
i-H
P
u
!o
a,
0.400 r
0. 375
0. 350
0.325
0. 300
0.275
0.250
0.225
0.200
0.175
0.150
0.125
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.025
0.000
No Tests 3/9/76 to 4/27/76
10/75
6/23-25/76
high backpressure
- IF
A-IR.
A-IR
- with cavity-^
r-A-IF,TAV
Texaco wire (only)
A-IR,HCC
mini swirl
A-IF,A-IR,TAVS
(insulated
under
not insulated
under car)
6/14-16/76
A-IF,A-IR,
TAVS (under
car)
A-IE,A-IR A-IE,A-IR,TAVS
<,— No Tests Run
_L
en
CM
(N
\
in
i-l ^
CN (N
in in
Ji
Months
FIGURE 14. BASELINE AND TEXACO PACKED TRAP PARTICULATE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
SCREENING AND EVALUATION - HOT FTP TESTS
-------
this was not the case with the Fluoropore. Why the Fluoropore collected
less (or fiberglass collected more) is unknown. Please note that the 8 x
10 fiberglass samples resulted in essentially equivalent particulate rates
though performed on a separate test sequence with a different sample probe
system.
Finally, Table 7 shows the most dramatic reduction in exhaust sul-
furic acid mist, sulfate, ever encountered at SwRI. The system, probably
the Texaco fired alumina, removed on the order of 80 to 90 percent of the
sulfate. Stated in a different way, the particulate trap system resulted
in about 6 to 20 percent of the sulfate emission of the factory system.
Apparently.- the Texaco A-IR and A-IF units act as substantial traps for
removal and temporary storage of sulfuric acid mist. Just how long the
sulfuric acid will remain in the traps before purge is largely unknown.
It is interesting to see that the sulfate represents 2.9, 2.7, 5 and 4.7
percent of the total particulate for the FTPC, FTP,, SET and FET tests,
respectively, based on the factory exhaust system. This agrees very well
with the earlier data reported on this and four other LD diesel cars.^ '
2. Transient Cycle Smoke Emissions
The natural or common tendency is to relate visible smoke to par-
ticulate, or attempt to do so. Tables 8, 9, and 10 are readings of smoke
opacity by the EPA end-of-stack smokemeter which monitored the smoke discharge
of the vehicle continuously during the 1975 FTP, SET and FET driving cycles.
Listed first on all three tables are the average results of a similar series
of experiments with the factory stock system at normal backpressure. These
readings were taken ten months earlier and reported in Part VII final re-
(7R}
port. ^o; The agreement is quite good, as was mentioned earlier for parti-
culates and sulfates, between the factory system initially evaluated in
October 1975 and the retest at increased backpressure in August 1976. It is
difficult to find any consistent difference that might be attributable to the
increased backpressure or the time-mileage change between tests.
The factory stock exhaust smoke was run once for back-to-back com-
parison with the trap system. The backpressure was adjusted to match the
trap system and only the one EPA cooling fan used.
From Table 8, the 1975 FTP results, it is apparent that the trap
system nearly eliminated the very brief but noticeable cold start puff of
smoke. The smoke peak at hot start was also reduced, but not as much. The
particulate trap resulted in slightly lower smoke during all idle periods
even though idle smoke from the factory standard Mercedes 300D is on the
order of 4 to 6 percent opacity. Acceleration peaks are quite common to
diesels, but the trap seemed largely ineffective under this type of condition.
On one occasion (one run) the trap system apparently purged during
an accel, resulting in a peak of three times the factory system opacity.
This occurred during the accel to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph) in the hot start (505
sec) portion of the test. Except for these few instances, the ability of
the trap to remove particulate would go unnoticed since the effect on visible
emissions is a minor one. Figures 15 and 16 are reproductions of the smoke
57
-------
TABLE 8. EPA SMOKEMETER READINGS DURING 1975 FTP MERCEDES 300D
WITH/WITHOUT PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM
Smoke Readings from Trace, % Opacity
Factory
Smoke Condition 10/1975 (!)
Cold Start, Peak % 36.8
Cold Idle , Average %
(after start) 6.2
First Accel, Peak %
(after cold idle) 21.4
Idle at 125 sec, Average \ 5.1
Accel at 164 sec, Peak %
to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph) 20.7
Hot Start, Peak % 29.3
A-IF, A-IR, and
TAV0 Particulate Difference
o
Factory Trap System 8/23/76 -
8/23/76^2) Run 1 Run 2 Avg. Trap Avg.
38.0 5.3 7.0 6.2 31.8
6.0 4.0 4.7 4.4 1.6
12.0 10.5 11.0 10.8 1.2
4.5 2.9 3.3 3.1 1.4
20.5 20.0 18.0 19.0 1.5
18.5 9.7 8.3 9.0 9.5
Hot Idle, Average %
(after start)
First Accel, Peak %
(after hot idle)
Idle at 125 sec, Average %
(during final 505 sec)
Accel at 164 sec Peak %
to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph)
(during final 505 sec)
4.5
6.5
3.3
8.7
4.5
8.0
5.3
7.5
2.0
5.0
2.5
23.2
2.8
5.6
2.8
12.0
2.4
5.3
2.7
17.6
2.1
2.7
2.6
-10.1
Part VII Final Report, runs made in October 1975.
exhaust backpressure adjusted to 178 mm Hg (7 in Hg) at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph)
58
-------
TABLE 9. EPA SMOKEMETER READINGS DURING SET-7 MERCEDES 300D
WITH/WITHOUT PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM
Smoke Condition
Hot Start, Peak
Smoke Readings from Trace, % Opacity
Factory
10/1975(1)
31.5
Factory
8/23/76(2)
14.0
A-IF, A-IR, and
TAVS Particulate
Trap System
Run 1 Run 2 Avg.
9.8 8.3 9.1
Di fferenco
8/23/76 -
Trap Avg.
4.9
Idle, Average %
(after start)
4.5
3.5
3.0
3.3
1.5
First Accel, Peak %
to 26.1 km/hr
6.5
i.O
4.5
4.7
4.6
3.4
Accel at 189 sec, Peak
from 16.1 km/hr
to 90.9 km/hr
5.5
3.0
2.0
2.9
0.1
Accel at 527 sec, Peak
from 0 km/hr
to 57.1 km/hr
9.8
20.0
24.7
22.4
-14.4
Accel at 638 sec, Peak
from 15.6 km/hr
to 91.7 km/hr
4.0
4.5
15.0
11.0
13.0
Accel at 944 sec, Peak %
from 22.5 km/hr
to 90.9 km/hr
4.5
4.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
(Dfrom Part VII Final Report, runs made in October 1975.
'2'exhaust backpressure adjusted to 178 mm Hg (7 in Hg) at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph).
59
-------
TABLE 10. EPA SMOKEMETER READINGS DURING FET MERCEDES 300D
WITH/WITHOUT PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM
Smoke Readings From Trace, % Opacity
Factory Particulate Trap System Difference
Smoke Condition 10/1975(1) 8/23/76 Run 1 Run 2 Average 8/23/76-Trap Avg.
Hot Start, Peak % 26.0 20.0 9.4 6.9 8.2 11.8
Idle, Avg. %
(after start) 3.5 5.3 3.5 3.8 3.7 1.6
1st Accel, Peak %
to 79.6 km/hr 8.0 12.0 4.0 4.8 4.4 7.6
Accel, Peak %
to 94.9 km/hr 4.5 6.0 6.0 4.4 5.2 0.8
(1)from Part VII Final Report, runs made in October 1975.
(2)exhaust backpressure adjusted to 178 mm Hg (7 in Hg) at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph)
60
-------
FIGURE 15. TYPICAL MERCEDES 300D "COLD START" SMOKE TRACE, FACTORY MUFFLER SYSTEM
-------
FIGURE 16. TYPICAL MERCEDES 300D "COLD START" SMOKE TRACE
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS TRAP SYSTEM
-------
trace and by comparing one to the other, some idea of the smoke reduction
possibilities may be estimated.
On Figure 16, the trap system resulted in a wider peak during the
accel to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph) than when the factory system was installed
(Figure 15). Possibly the trap system was purging and the peak represents
the purge of material, particulate previously stored in the trap.
Figures 17 and 18 are typical traces taken from the 420 to 710 sec-
ond portion of the SET cycle—the area where two accelerations from rest
are made, the second one at about 530 seconds has a fairly rapid rate of
acceleration. Note the rather high peak recorded with the trap system dur-
ing the acceleration indicating a brief but noticeable purge.
The remainder of the time, the smoke trace is generally lower
than the factory system, Figure 17. Table 9 lists more details for
specific comparison. Both trials showed over double the smoke peak
opacity during the rapid accel. Otherwise the ratings are not particularly
different, or indicate a different conclusion than the one given earlier.
The FET, described on Table 10, is depicted by the engine start,
acceleration sequence shown in Figures 19 and 20. The lower smoke shown in
Figure 20 relative to Figure 19, attests to the performance of the trap
system. An interesting reversal in accel smoke was the apparent reduction
in smoke opacity by the trap system during the accel to 29.6 km/hr. Although
particulate is not necessarily smoke, smoke seems related in many instances
to particulate by a general comparison of the smoke ratings and the par-
ticulate data of Table 7.
In summary, the smoke tests indicate the particulate trap system
offers some advantages in reducing visible emissions, taken as above 3 to
4 percent opacity by the EPA smokemeter. This occurred chiefly during engine
start and idle. The trap system failed to consistently reduce visible emis-
sions during acceleration of the vehicle. In fact, on two occasions, the
peaks were higher and/or wider than with the factory system indicating some
purge of the unit may have been happening.
3. Transient Cycle Gaseous Emissions
Table 11 lists the average of the replicate gaseous emission and
fuel economy test results for the Mercedes 300D with and without the part-
iculate trap system installed. Also listed are the average values measured
during the evaluation of the vehicle during the Part VII initial testing
of the Mercedes 300D in November of 1975.
Comparing the factory system average results with the Part VII re-
sults, it is evident that there was excellent agreement between CO, NOX,
and fuel consumption. HC, during the 1975 FTP, was about double that of
the Part VII results, 0.19 g/km versus 0.10 g/km. HC emissions during the
SET and FET were the same as Part VII.
Comparing the three run average trap system results to the two run
factory results indicates no noteworthy difference in CO or NOX. HC were
63
-------
r-0
FIGURE 17. TYPICAL MERCEDES 300D SET-7 SMOKE TRACE, FACTORY MUFFLER SYSTEM
-------
FIGURE 18. TYPICAL MERCEDES 300D SET-7 SMOKE TRACE, A-IF, A-IR, TAVS TRAP SYSTEM
-------
0,-r-
FIGURE 19. TYPICAL MERCEDES 300D FET SMOKE TRACE/FACTORY MUFFLER SYSTEM
-------
FIGURE 20. TYPICAL MERCEDES 300D FET SMOKE TRACE
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS TRAP SYSTEM
-------
TABLE 11.
TRANSIENT CYCLE EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
FACTORY AND TRAP SYSTEMS-MERCEDES 300D
Cycle Configuration
Run
1975 Factory Exhaust Part VII
FTP 1(2)
2(2)
Average
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS 1
2
3
Average
FTPC Factory Exhaust Part VII
1
2
Average
2
3
Average
FTPfi Factory Exhaust Part VII
1
2
Average
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS 1
2
3
Average
(1)
SET Factory Exhaust
A-IF, A-IR, TAV-
FET Factory Exhaust
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS
Part VII
1
2
Average
1
2
3
Average
Part VII
1
2
Ave rage
1
2
3
Average
HC
g/kn
0.10
0.22
0.16
0.19
(0.31)
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
(0.10)
0.10
0.25
0.17
0.21
(0.34)
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.06
(0.09)
0.09
0.14
0.14
0.14
(0.22)
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.05
(0.08)
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.08
(0.13)
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
(0.06)
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.07
(0.11)
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.03
(0.05)
CO
g/km
0.53
0.53
0.55
0.54
(0.87)
0.47
0.51
0.47
0.48
(0.77)
0.55
0.56
0.55
0.55
(0.88)
0.51
0.54
0.50
0.52
(0.84)
0.46
0.50
0.55
0.53
(0.85)
0.42
0.49
0.44
0.45
(0.72)
0.39
0.38
0.40
0.39
(0.63)
0.35
0.36
0.34
0.35
(0.56)
0.36
0.34
0.35
0.34
(0.55)
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.31
(0.50)
NOX
g/km
1.07
0.95
1.01
0.98
(1.58)
0.86
1.01
0.91
0.93
(1-49)
1.10
0.98
1.01
0.99
(1.59)
0.89
1.02
0.96
0.96
(1.54)
0.95
0.98
1.00
0.99
(1.59)
0.84
1.00
0.86
0.90
(1.45).
0.98
0.86
0.85
0.85
(1.37)
0.82
1.01
0.80
0.88
(1.42)
0.99
0.86
0.89
0.88
(1.42)
0.79'
0.97
0.88
0.88
(1.42)
Fuel
Cons
1/100 km
9.90
9.85
10.15
10.00
8.88
9.60
9.33
9.27
10.53
10.45
10.15
10.30
9.44
10.01
10.13
9.86
8.54
9.16
9.82
9.49
8.15
9.26
8.49
8.63
8.05
8.05
7.94
8.00
7.48
8.79
7.89
8.05
7.84
7.81
7.64
7.72
6.98
8.68
7.75
7.80
Fuel
Economy
mpg
23.80
23.89
23.18
23.53
26.50
24.51
25.22
25.41
22.36
22.50
23.16
22.83
24.93
23.51
23.23
23.89
27.54
25.66
23.94
24.80
28.87
25.41
27.71
27.33
29.27
29.26
29.63
29.44
31.45
26.76
29.81
29.34
30.03
30.12
30.79
30.46
33.70
27.10
30.35
30.38
(1) From Part VII Final Report, runs made in November 1975.'28'
(2} Backpressure adjusted to 128mm Hg at 80.1 taa/hr (50 mph)
(3! Average expressed in gra-Tis/nile
68
-------
on the order of one-third to one-half that with the factory system. This
is an interesting finding in that it indicates the particulate trap system
is removing some of the unburned hydrocarbons, fuel, and/or partially burned
oil from the exhaust and not just sulfuric acid mist. The reductions in HC
from the trap point to other possibilities, such as Deduced oxygenates or
aldehydes, polynuclear aromatic compounds, odorants, etc.
Fur1 consumption was slightly, on the order of 0.3 to 0.7 H/100 km
out of 8 to 10 &/100 km, lower during the FTP with the trap system. This
was reflected in a 1 to 1.5 mpg increase out of 25 to 28 mpg, a negligible
and uncertain effect. During the SET, the fuel consumption was unchanged;
while on the FET, the fuel consumption was slightly higher. The overall
fuel consumption result is no change based on operating both exhaust systems
at the same nomimal backpressure.
The data summarized on Table 11 is from the computer print-out
sheets included as Appendix E. The run-to-run repeatability was quite
satisfactory as evident from Table 11. For more details, please refer
to Appendix E.
4. Odor Ratings
Table 12 is a summary of the odor panel ratings for the Mercedes
300D with and without the particulate trap installed. The three days of
panel observations with the trap system are shown as an average in the
first column. The factory system odor tests included both normal and
increased backpressure experiments on August 9 and 11, 1976. For comparison,
the two day average results obtained earlier and reported in Part VII final
report(28) are listed. This summary is based on a substantial set of back-
to-back measurements contained in Appendix F. The specific operating test
conditions were defined in Table 14 in terms of engine speed, fuel rate,
vehicle rear wheel power output and speed.
The last two columns of data on Table 12 are the net odor differ-
ence, in most cases a reduction, found when using the particulate trap
system. Note the consistent and substantial changes in odor intensity and
quality levels by comparing the trap to the factory exhaust system. This
difference was lessened by comparing the trap to the factory exhaust set
to the same backpressure as the trap system. Could it be that the increased
exhaust backpressure had an influence on perceived exhaust odor? No re-
search has been reported on such an effect since such an experiment has,
to the author's knowledge, not been performed. The consistency of the re-
sults and the care in performing the experiment reinforce the validity of
the data.
The really significant changes were noted at cold start and de-
celeration. Except for the acceleration condition, where the trap had
no effect and backpressure also had no effect, the trap did result, for
one reason or another, in lower perceived odor.
In one instance, during the highest speed, highest load run, an
increase in odor was noted from the trap equipped car. Possibly this was
due to some sort of purge of the trap, making the values higher by virtue of
69
-------
TABLE 12
LISTING OF AVERAGE OCOR PANEL RATINGS-MERCEDES300D
(100:1 Dilution)
Vehicle
Condition
Intermediate
Speed,
Intermediate
Speed,
Mid Load
Intermediate
Speed,
High Load
High Speed,
No Load
High Speed,
Mid Load
High Speed,
High Load
Idle-Accel
Acceleration
Deceleration
Trap System
Odor
Kit
Installed
(3 day avg)
Factory System Installed
Normal Backpressure Increased BP
(2 day avq)* 8/9/76 8/11/76
Steady State Results
D
B
9
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
0
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
3
O
A
P
1.
0.
0,
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
4
9
4
2
2
0
8
2
1
1
0
7
2
0.1
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0
1
3
9
4
2
1
8
0
6
2
3
5
9
8
4
6
5
9
4
3
2
6
9
4
5
3
2
0
6
4
6
2
8
3
3
1
9
r
1
1
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2:
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2_
I.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
3.
1.
1.
1.
0.
3
0
9
6
5
2
0
9
5
3
0
0
9
4
3
5
0
9
7
6
0
0
0
8
6
8
0
0
7
5
9
0
0
7
6
Transient
8
0
0
7
5
6
0
9
7
4
5
0
0
8
4
4
0
0
n
~
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
3.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3
0
9
4
3
0
0
9
3
2
0
0
0
3
2
3
0
0
3
4
9
0
0
5
6
1
1
0
4
7
2
0
8
4
3
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
7
0
5
5
4
4
9
5
4
1
1
9
3
1
2
7
9
4
4
3
2
0
7
5
4
1
0
7
4
2
7
0
4
C
2
Results
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
3.
1.
1.
0.
n _
5
0
0
4
4
T
0
0
3
3
7
0
0
4
7
,
0
3
7
9
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
9
0
6
4
4
3
0
8
5
C
2
0
3
3
4
9
0
0
4
8
Odor Change Odor Change
Factory (8,9/76) Factory (8/11/76)
M in us Trap Sy s tejn M1 n u s Trap^\r sj:em
0.9
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.3
1.1
0
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.2
0
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.6
+0.1
0.1
0
0
0.4
-<-0.1
+0/3
1.5
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.6
2.6
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.3
0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.4
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0
0.1
0.3
0.1
+0.4
0.1
+0.1
0
+0.4
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0
0.3
0.1
0.2
+0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.2
0.1
+0.1
1.0
0.2
0.5
0
0.3
2.1
0.4
0.9
0.3
0.3
,es ts c: Mercedes ?CCD rady on
70
-------
the trapped odorants being driven off. Another theory is that some trapped
unburned hydrocarbons, fuel or fuel-like substances, were partially oxidized
during the highest temperature engine condition.
There are many ways to evaluate the odor data and Figure 21 is one
way to show ^n odor "map", as well as compare test configurations. The top
graphs show the "D" odor intensities to slightly increase or decrease with
power. Notable is the slight decrease in odor with power, at 1740 rpm,
while the opposite was true with 2900 rpm engine speed. These trends are
fairly evident and occurred regardless of the exhaust configuration. The
"D" intensities were lower with the trap system under nearly all speeds and
loads, including idle.
The bar graphs at the bottom of Figure 21 depict the relative odor
level for each configuration and all 11 conditions. Each condition is il-
lustrated by a group of three bars. The first bar is a measure of the "D" +
"B" + "O" + "A" + "P" average ratings for three replicate days of testing
with the particulate trap. This representation gives about equal weight
to the "D" intensity and the sum of the four quality ratings. The middle
bar is for the factory exhaust system run at normal backpressure, while the
third bar is for this same system at increased backpressure to simulate that
imposed by the particulate trap system.
The center bar for the factory system was always the highest
except for the accel during which no major differences were shown. The
left bar, for the particulate trap, was always the lowest except during
the high power at 2900 rpm. The extremely low value under the cold
start condition was a surprise. An even greater surprise was the apparent
effect of exhaust system backpressure on the odor with the factory system.
The third bar was consistently lower than the factory system with normal
backpressure, although not as low as the particulate trap.
To summarize the extensive odor measurements, the six steady
states, idle cold start and three transients as well as all eleven conditions
are averaged on Table 13. The "D" odor levels were lower overall with the
traps and, according to the percent reductions, substantially so during the
cold start. A 21 percent overall reduction in "D" odor intensity was found
for the traps relative to the factory system with increased backpressure.
An even greater reduction, on the order of 40 percent overall, was noted
relative to the factory system at normal backpressure.
This improvement in observed odor was somewhat a surprise and the
reason for it is not fully understood. The ability of the trap system to
remove certain aerosols such as, for example, unburned fuel and oil mist
expressed in terms of HC on Tables 11 and 14 and sulfate makes the apparent
reduction in odor somewhat understandable.
5. Chemical Analyses During Odor Tests
Table 14 is a summary of the gaseous emissions measured in the raw
exhaust at the same time odor measurements were taken. The values on
Table 14 include the results of the tests made about four months earlier
and reported in Part VII. HC were definitely higher during the previous
71
-------
4 n
^"^
~Q Tiday SveraKfe'
Q -a/09/76- Factory; nonhal
ft/11/7^
_X---^
Np : fdid i High No . Mid ; High idle j Idle
P^ercei)t Po^er .Percent Power j ' j Acce|L
1740 rpmj
,Pe£cent Power j
'""2900 "rpTii
Accel I
lecel
Colji [
Stajrt
FIGURE 21. COMPARISON OF ODOR RATINGS FROM TRAP AND
STANDARD EXHAUST EQUIPPED MERCEDES 300D
72
-------
TABLE 13. ROUGH COMPARISON OF "D" ODOR RATINGS
MERCEDES 300D WITH/WITHOUT PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM
Six Steady Cold Three All Eleven
States Idle Start Trans. Conditions
Factory 4/1976^ 2.5 2.9 3.4 2.6 2.6
Factory Normal BP 2.4 2.2 3.4 2.5 2.5
Factory Inc BP 1.7 1.7 2.9 2.1 1.9
Avg Traps 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.7 1.5
Percent Reduction^ 37.5 31.8 76.5 32.0 40.0
Percent Reduction(3) 11.8 11.8 72.4 19.0 21.1
Part VII Final Report runs made 4/1976.
^ ^Factory Normal Backpressure-Trap x 100%
Factory Normal Backpressure
Factory Increased Backpressure-Trap 1009-
Factory Increased Backpressure
73
-------
TABLE 14. EXHAUST ANALYSES TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS
DURING STEADY STATE CONDITIONS-MERCEDES300D
Factory System Installed
Vehicle
Condition
Intermediate
Speed,
No Load
Intermediate
Speed,
Mid Load
Intermediate
Speed,
High Load
High Speed,
No Load
High Speed,
Vild Load
Hich Speed,
Hlah Load
Idle
Exhaus t
Emission
HC, ppmC
CO , ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
CO2, c/0
TIA
LCO, ug/1
LCA, pg/1
HC, ppmC
CO , ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL , ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
co2, %
TIA
LCO, ug/1
LCA, Ug/1
HC, ppmC
CO , ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
CO2, *
TIA
LCO, U9/1
LCA, vig/i
HC, ppmC
CO , ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL , ppm
co2, %
TIA
LCO, yg/1
LCA, Mg/1
HC , ppmC
CO , ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL , ppm
NOX-CL , ppm
CO2, *
TIA
LCO, ug/1
LCA, pg/1
HC , ppmC
CO , ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
CO-,, %
TIA
LCO, yg/i
LCA, Ug/1
HC , pproC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL , ppm
MOjc-CL, ppm
CO; , %
TIA
LCC , '-9,1
LCA, -ja '1
Normal Backpressure
(2 day avo) * 8/9/76
79
187
71
64
73
2.6
1.6
4.4
7.5
68
146
189
167
177
4.4
1.7
5.1
9.8
60
132
276
243
252
5.6
1.7
4.7
8.0
61
235
104
88
98
3.1
1.7
4.2
8.0
43
159
341
312
320
6.4
1.7
5.2
8.8
46
148
490
456
•J6-;
9.4
1.8
5.5
8.1
119
172
1C4
8;
95
2.5
1.7
-J.6
10.6
35
207
86
65
80
2.4
1.5
3.2
3.7
36
183
227
172
184
3.6
1.5
3.1
4.0
22
155
329
247
258
5.7
1.5
3.4
4.4
39
316
120
90
101
3.0
1.5
3.2
5.3
11
183
393
323
327
6.3
1.6
4.0
4.5
13
169
547
450
452
9.2
1.6
4.2
5.0
71
188
112
30
105
2.5
1.5
3. 3
4.5
Increased BP
8/11/76
39
202
77
68
83
2.
1.
2.
3.
33
169
217
167
178
4.
1.
2.
3.
21
193
332
253
265
5.
1.
2.
2.
34
282
155
105
118
3.
1.
2.
3.
9
178
409
333
337
7.
1.
2.
2.
16
160
565
444
450
10
1.
3.
4.
50
197
158
117
130
T
1
1
2
.9
,4
.8
Trap System
Installed
(3 day avq.)
26
235
104
91
94
2.
1.
1.
.6
.1
.4
.8 0.6
5
,4
4
.3
9
3
1
.8
5
4
3
7
1
3
2
.6
.4
.4
.0
. 3
.7
.2
.6
.3
24
201
251
206
209
4.
1.
1.
0.
22
175
343
285
289
5.
1.
1.
0.
26
292
139
120
124
3.
1.
2.
1.
24
205
435
364
369
7.
1.
2.
3.
47
262
531
449
453
10.
1.
3.
5.
43
256
134
112
120
2
1.
1.
1
.6
2
7
,8
8
2
6
8
4
3
2
1
3
5
8
4
.5
.6
.6
.8
.7
.3
.8
. 1
Change
Change
Factory (8/9/76) Factory (8/11/76)
minus Trap System minus Trap System
9
-28
-18
-26
-14
0.
0.
1.
3.
12
-18
-24
-34
-25
1.
0.
1.
3.
0
-20
-14
-38
-31
0.
0.
1.
3.
13
24
-19
-30
-23
0.
0.
1.
4.
-13
-22
-42
-41
-42
0.
0.
1.
1.
-34
-93
16
1
1
1.
0
0.
0.
28
-68
-22
-22
-15
0.
0.
1.
3.
2
4
8
1
0
3
4
2
1
3
8
6
4
2
0
2
1
1
2
1
3
6
8
2
2
5
2
13
-33
-27
-23
-11
0
0
1
3
9
-32
-34
-39
-31
0.
0.
0.
3
1
18
-11
-32
-24
0.
0.
0.
2,
8
-10
16
-15
6
0.
0.
0.
2.
-15
-27
-26
-31
-32
0
0
- 0.
0.
-31
-102
34
5
3
0
0
0
1
7
-59
24
5
I'D
0
Cj
'j
1
.3
.3
.4
.2
.1
.2
,7
.0
.1
.1
.5
.0
.1
1
,1
6
.2
.2
.6
a
.1
.2
.6
.5
^
.2
.5
74
-------
evaluation than with the factory system at either normal backpressure on
8/9/76 or at increased backpressure on 8/11/76. Th- effect of backpressure
on the gaseous emissions was to produce some higher, some lower and some
unchanged with no real trend necessarily evident.
The last two columns of Table 14 show the difference between the
normal backpressure and the trap system and between the increased back-
pressure and the trap system. Most of the net differences are negative (-)
meaning the emissions increased with the trap. HC reacted both ways, de-
creasing during the 1740 rpm, no and mid power modes, 2900 rpm, no load
mode and the idle. The opposite was true during two modes at 2900 rpm, mid
and high load. Only occasionally were the differences considered of major
importance and the lack of consistency makes the effect of the trap on
gaseous emissions of little apparent significance. For more, detailed,
data for each run in each configuration, refer to Appendix F.
6. Odor by DOAS
An indication of exhaust odor was evaluated by the DOAS during
both steady-state and transient vehicle operation.
a. Steady State Results - Also listed on Table 14 are the
average DOAS results summarized in Appendix F. These results, in terms
of LCA, LCO and TIA,are best illustrated by plotting TIA versus "D" in-
tensity by the odor panel. This is shown on Figure 22. The agreement
between the odor intensity by the two, quite different methods, is some-
what encouraging in that if odor by the panel was lower or higher, then
TIA was likewise lower or higher.
Note the solid, or full load, points cover a wide range of
odor intensities from "D"-0.9 up to "D"-3.1. The net difference values
on Table 14 consistently show reductions in LCO, LCA and TIA with the trap
system. The greatest difference, and most consistent, was found when com-
pared to the factory system at normal backpressure. The increased back-
pressure factory system resulted in lower TIA and therefore, when com-
pared to this configuration, the trap had less relative effect. Thus, the
TIA gives the same basic conclusion and tends to rank the configurations
in the same order as the odor panel ratings.
b. Transient Results - Table 15 is a summary of the DOAS results
of samples collected during various transient cycles. Listed first are
the results reported in Part VII. The TIA values obtained on 7/19/76 are
all higher than those initially obtained in November 1975. The TIA values
are not greatly different even though the LCO and LCA values appear for
the FET cycle quite different, higher than the FTP and SET cycles.
The important item from Table 15 is the fairly consistent
run-to-run DOAS results with the particulate trap system. These results
are very low, relative to either factory system. The net differences and
percent reductions, shown on Table 15, indicate the effect of the trap
system during cold start 1975 FTP, the SET and FET cycles. TIA reductions
of about 46 to 72 percent are listed.
75
-------
O1740 rpm
£72900 rpm
Qldle
O8/6/76 Trap System
A 8/9/76 Factory, Normal BP
D8/11/76 Factory, Increased BP
Load
Load
Load
3.0 t~
2.5
2.0
H
EH
1.5
—(--
-{- -
1.0 -- I
-ei-aft
-I-
• *
M i
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
"D" Diesel Odor Rating by Panel
5.0
FIGURE 22. TIA BY DOAS VERSUS "D" ODOR RATING BY TRAINED PANEL
FOR TRAP AND FACTORY EXHAUST CONFIGURATIONS-MERCEDES 300D
76
-------
TABLE 15. DOAS RESULTS DURING VARIOUS TRANSIENT CYCLES
MERCEDES 3ODD WITH/WITHOUT PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM
DOAS RESULTS
Factory (11/1975)(1)
Factory Normal BP
(7/1976)
Particulate Traps
Net Difference
Factory (7/1976)-Traps
% Reduction
Run
No.
Avg
1
2
3
Avg
LCA, yg/£
FTP
1.43
3.40
0.84
0.33
0.24
0.47
FET
2.27
2.03
0.43
0.76
0.40
0.53
SET
1.45
2.75
0.53
0.41
0.24
0.39
LCO, yg/£
FTP
0.73
1.39
0.38
0.19
0.13
0.23
FET
1.
1.
0.
9.
0.
0.
33
57
51
59
30
47
SET
0.92
1.40
0.38
0.23
0.15
0.25
FTP
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
86
14
58
27
11
32
TIA
FET
1.12
1.20
0.71
0.77
0.48
0.65
SET
0.89
1.15
0.58
0.37
0.17
0.37
2.93 1.50 2.36 1.16 1.10 1.15 0.82 0.55 0.78
86.2 73.9 85.8 83.5 70.1 82.1 71.9 45.8 67.8
Part VII Final Report runs made November 1975.
2Q'
-------
The bar graphs of Figure 23 illustrate the values listed on
Table 15. It should be remembered that the samples are collected contin-
uously throughout the driving cycle and are obtained to only give some rel-
ative indication of odor during transient operation. Of interest is the
effect of cycle average speed and duty cycle on producing more LCO and, of
course, TIA. The same stairstep appearance is evident for the particulate
trap system LCA and TIA.
7. Aldehydes
Due to a series of instrument problems, no valid aldehyde data can
be reported. It may be speculated, however, that the aldehydes were likely
trapped, especially the higher molecular weight of the group, such as cro-
tonal, hexanal, and benzaldehyde. This speculation is backed up by the
other evidence of reduced odor, exhaust hydrocarbons, and BaP.
8. Detailed Hydrocarbon Measurements
Measurement of various .HC1 s in the exhaust'were obtained during both
steady state, odor test conditions, as well as during the various transient
cycles.
a. Steady State Results - Table 16 lists as-measured concentra-
tions of the various HC emissions measured during the seven steady state
odor test conditions. Listed first are the previously reported data for
this car for comparison. The runs made on 8/9/76 were with normal back-
pressure. Generally, the standard system tested on 8/9/76 gave the same,
or more often, lower concentrations than the original test series. In many
cases, the two factory exhaust system tests gave results of good approxi-
mation to one another in light of the test procedure.
Just as the 8/9/76 results were generally lower than the ori-
ginal test, so were the results with the trap system generally, although
not always, higher than the 8/9/76. Overall, it is hard to discern a con-
sistent difference as indicated by the plus and minus "difference" values
of Table 16.
b. Transient Cycle Results - Table 17 lists the nonreactive
hydrocarbon values in mg/km by the various transient procedures. Listed in
the first column are the results obtained about eight months earlier with
the standard car from Part VII final report. For the most part, methane,
ethylene, and acetylene values are comparable except for the FTP methane,
which was higher. Of interest was the presence of ethane, propylene,
benzene and toluene that was not reported detectable, or negligible, in
the earlier tests.
The third column of Table 17 lists the HC results, with the
trap system installed. The back-to-back tests reveal generally small
differences, except for methane and ethylene. Why these hydrocarbons
were lower, on the order of 20 percent, with the trap system is unknown.
78
-------
o?
a
4.0
3.0
2.0
--1—.—
ft
tH
fa
EH
W
to
EH
EH
W
Itn
Cn
O
u
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8 -
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-i—r —
EH
H
W
ft
EH
W
&H
ltd
ife
W
:CO
r-t—i—-
-IrU—£0-
B I
w
I r .. . -T _r l_ !_, r
'~r
U£L
_r
^_
-E-i:
P3
il.
•r
Factory
11/1975
Facto :ry
7/1976
Particulate
Traps
FIGURE 23. DOAS RESULTS FOR SAMPLES OBTAINED
DURING VARIOUS TRANSIENT CYCLES
79
-------
TABLE IS. DETAILED HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING STEADY STATE ODOR TESTS
opmC
Vehicle
Condition Configuration
Intermediate
Speed,
No Load
Intermediate
Speed,
Mid Load
Intermediate
Speed,
High Load
High Speed,
No Load
High Speed,
Mid Load
High Speed,
High Load
Idle
Factory (D
Factory
Trap System
Difference
Factory d'
Factory
Trap System
Difference
Factory '!'
Factory
Trap System
Difference
Factory'1'
Factory
Trap System
Difference
Factory (1)
Factory
Trap System
Difference
Factory
Factory
Trap System
Difference
Factory
Factory
Trap System
Difference
Methane
CH4
4.1
3.0
4.2
-1.2
3.9
2.5
3.0
-0.5
3.2
1.7
2.1
-0.4
5.8
5.7
5.8
-0.1
3.5
1.3
0.6
0.7
3.2
1.1
1.4
-0.3
4.8
3.5
1.6
-1.1
Ethylene
C2H4
8.1
7.3
8.4
-1.1
8.7
8.4
7.6
0.8
6.5
5.9
5.2
0.7
9.3
10.1
11.7
-1.6
5.4
3.8
3.7
0.1
4.5
3.6
3.8
-0.2
10.1
7.7
9.2
-1.5
Ethane
C2
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H6
.3
.2
.4
.2
.4
.3
.3
.3
.2
.2
.5
.6
.7
.1
.3
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.6
.4
.3
.1
Acetylene
C2H2
1.3
1.5
1.6
-0.1
1.2
1.9
1.5
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.2
0.1
1.7
2.8
2.4
0.4
1.1
1.0
1.1
-0.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
-0.1
1.6
1.6
2.0
-0.4
Propane
CjHs
tr*
0.0
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
0.1
tr
0.1
tr
tr
0.2
-0.2
tr
0.0
tr
0
0.0
tr
0
0.1
tr
tr
Propylene
CJH
2.
2.
2.
-0.
2.
2.
2.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
2.
2.
3.
-1.
1.
0.
1.
-0.
1.
0.
0_L
0
3.
2.
2.
0.
16
3
1
6
5
5
S
2
3
7
6
4
2
2
2
9
7
1
8
5
7
0
9
9
2
5
4
1
Benzene
C6H6
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.3
1.5
-0.2
1.3
0.6
1.3
-0.7
2.8
2.7
1.4
1.3
0.9
1.1
4.2
-3.1
1.2
1.0
1.8
-0.8
2.9
1.8
1.9
-0.1
Toluene
CvHe
0.6
0.2
0.9
-0.7
0.4
0
0.6
-0.6
0.2
0
0.6
-0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
-0.1
0.3
0
0.4
-0.4
0.2
0
1.0
-1.0
0.8
0.3
0.8
-0.5
(1)
From Part VII Final Report runs made November 1976.(28)
tr trace
Factory 8/9/76, normal backpressure
Trap System 9/4/76
80
-------
TABLE 17. DETAILED HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING VARIOUS TRANSIENT CYCLES
Emission Rate, mg/km
Emission
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Cycle
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
Factory
11/75 (1)
3.94
3.34
4.25
14.49
9.39
8.49
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.81
trace
3.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Factory Trap Difference
( 2)
7/2/76 System 7/2/76-Trap System
7.63
3.45
2.86
15.34
9.93
8.38
0.78
0.44
0.32
2.47
1.92
1.67
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.11
2.48
2.09
5.22
2.86
2.36
3.71
0.0
0.0
6.00
2.36
1.76
12.82
6.92
5.04
0.78
0.44
0.32
1.60
1.13
0.82
0.0
0.0
0.62
3.71
1.63
1.18
4.58
2.41
2.63
2.11
0.0
0.58
1.63
1.09
1.10
2.52
3.01
3.34
0
0
0
0.87
0.79
0.85
0
0
-0.62
0.40
0.85
0.91
0.64
0.45
-0.27
1.60
0
-0.58
( 1) ( 78 }
From Part VII Final Report, runs made in November 1975.
(2)Backpressure adjusted to 128 mm Hg at 80.1 km/hr (50 mph) .
81
-------
9. BaP Results
The 8 x 10 size filters, described earlier, were used to obtain
the particulate samples for BaP analysis. These filters were obtained
during the three transient test cycles. The reductions in BaP, shown on
Table 18, were quite substantial, ranging from 25 percent during the FTP
hot 23 minute run, to 79 percent during the SET. The reduction during the
23 minute cold FTP was 51 percent to give a combined 1975 FTP result of
33 percent. A 58 percent reduction during the FET was found. Overall, a
reduction in BaP, regardless of method of expression, of about 50 percent,
was found when the particulate trap system was used.
These are substantial reductions which are consistent with the
overall reduction of hydrocarbons and sulfuric mist. Exactly why the trap
system appears to be more effective during the SET and least effective
during the 23 min FTP from hot start is unknown. The reductions are sig-
nificant and represent important documented evidence of the trapping and
removal of BaP from diesel exhaust.
10. Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen Measurements
Table 19 lists the percent carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen found in
the particulate collected by the 47mm fiberglass filter discs. The two
runs listed represent two different days of operation for each exhaust con-
figuration. In most cases, the run to run repeatability was quite good.
To attempt placing the carbon and hydrogen analyses into some per-
spective, a hydrocarbon to carbon (H/C) ratio was calculated in which the
two percentages found are assumed to represent 100 percent of the filter
weight. This calculation is shown on Table 19 and reveals that during both
cold and hot FTP operation, the ratio of hydrogen to carbon on the filter
increased meaning that much more carbon was removed by the trap than hydrogen
containing particulate such as unburned fuel or oil mist. This is not to
say that the trap was not removing both carbon and hydrogen containing
materials, but that it was apparently removing more carbon particulate.
During the SET and FET, the H/C ratio did not follow the same trend
as during the FTP meaning that the trap system was not as preferential to
the predominately carbon particles as in the lower temperature lower duty
cycle tests. The SET and FET usually produce lower overall unburned hydro-
carbons and this may be a reason.
The nitrogen values on Table 19 indicate the trap releases nitro-
gen, or a compound that analyzes as nitrogen. There is no obvious explan-
ation for this behavior and it is recommended that these values be used
with caution. It could be that the increased percent nitrogen on the fil-
ter was influenced by a gross reduction of other contaminants and is, in
reality, no change.
11. Noise Measurements
Table 20 is a summary of the noise measurements made with the part-
iculate trap equipped Mercedes 300D. Also listed are the results of the
82
-------
TABLE 18. BaP EMISSION RATES WITH AND WITHOUT
PARTICULATE TRAPS-MERCEDES 300D
Test
1975 FTP
FTPCold
FTP
Hot
SET
FET
Factory
Rate Normal BP
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/km
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/km
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/km
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
pg/km
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
yg/km
0.226
0.062
7.207
0.160
0.041
5.088
0.276
0.078
8.806
0.261
0.058
4.664
0.273
0.038
3.528
Trap
System
0.151
0.042
4.810
0.078
0.020
2.490
0.207
0.058
6.560
0.055
0.012
0.984
0.115
0.016
1.484
Difference
(Fact-Trap)
0.075
0.020
2.397
0.082
0.021
2.598
0.069
0.020
2.246
0.206
0.046
3.680
0.158
0.022
2.044
%
Re duct.
33.2
33.3
33.3
51.3
51.2
51.1
25.0
25.6
25.5
78.9
79.3
78.9
57.9
57.9
57.9
83
-------
TABLE 19. CARBON, HYDROGEN AND NITROGEN ANALYSES OF
PARTICULATE COLLECTED ON 47mm FIBERGLASS
Test Exhaust Carbon, % Hydrogen, % H Nitrogen, %
Type Config. Run 1 Run 2 Avg. Run 1 Run 2 Avg. C Run 1 Run 2 Avg.
FTPo Factory 79.1 78.6 78.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.54 0.7 0.6 0.7
C
Trap 78.0 70.6 74.3 4.7 4.2 4.4 0.71 1.5 — 1.5
FTPh Factory 70.5 79.9 75.2 4.0 3.9 4.0 0.63 0.6 0.5 0.6
Trap 78.3 73.2 75.8 4.8 5.4 5.1 0.81 1.5 1.5
SET Factory 68.7 63.3 66.0 3.5 3.6 3.5 0.64 0.5 0.4 0.5
Trap 80.3 80.3 80.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.55 1.3 1.3
FET Factory 67.8 53.6 60.7 4.4 4.0 4.2 0.83 0.7 0.7 0.7
Trap 71.4 70.6 71.0 5.4 4.8 5.1 0.86 1.6 1.6
84
-------
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS - dBA SCALE
MERCEDES 300D
SAE J986a
Accel Driveby
Exterior Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Blower On^3-)
Off
48.3 km/hr Driveby
Exterior Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Blower On(a)
Off
Factory System
from Part VII
Trap System
Installed
Difference
Trap-Fact.
Percent
Increase
71.5
71.8
79
76.5
59.5
58.8
75.8
63.8
84
78
79
77
60.8
60.5
74
69.5
12.5
6.2
0.0
0.5
1.3
1.7
-1.8
5.7
14.9
7.9
0.0
0.6
2.1
2.8
-2.4
8.2
Engine Idle
Exterior ^
67
74
9.5
Interior
Blower On(a)
Off
68.5
54.5
68.5
58
0
3.5
0
6.0
Windows up, fresh air blower on high
At 3.05 m
85
-------
test made with the factory exhaust system in July 28, 1975 and previously
included in the Part VII final report.^2^^ The summary data are derived
from the more detailed replicate runs listed in Appendix G.
The difference column in Table 20 shows that during the SAE drive-
by exterior test that the trap-equipped car was noisier than the standard
factory-equipped car. The right to left reading was 12.5 dBA higher than
standard and to a large extent was due to the exhaust exit pointing directly
toward the side of the road. The sound level meter registered the directional
noise which apparently was generated by and emanated from the TAVS exhaust
exit. When the acceleration test was performed in the opposite direction
(left to right) with the sound meter on the passenger (right) side of the car,
the noise was about 6 dBA higher. The meter was apparently still sensitive
to the increased exhaust noise as it passed through the trap system and the
noises produced by the exhaust and exiting from the TAVS separator.
The interior measurements, made with the fresh air blower off, were
noticeably higher with the particulate system, on the order of 5.7 dBA dur-
ing the 48.3 km/hr cruise and 3.5 dBA during the idle. When the blower was
turned on, it masked the extra noise from the exhaust system. The parti-
culate system equipped Mercedes was only slightly louder than the factory
exhaust during the cruise at 48.3 km/hr. The increase amounted to 1.3 and
1.7 dBA and was due apparently to the change in exhaust direction, horizon-
tally and transverse to the car direction instead of longitudinally with the
car direction.
The increase in noise is of interest from a documentation stand-
point but should not be considered indicative of what a well designed sys-
tem might produce. The TAV was merely attached to the exit of the tail-
pipe at bumper level and the exhaust pointed from the TAV horizontal and
transverse to the vehicle.
12. Performance
The backpressure imposed on the engine exhaust by the front A-IF,
rear A-IR Texaco agglomerators and the Ethyl TAVS separator was appreciable.
In fact, the increase in backpressure due to the trap system was about
178 mm Hg at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph) . This would be expected to impede per-
formance under wide-open throttle (WOT) acceleration.
To investigate the extent to which acceleration was affected, a
series of WOT's were made and are compared in Table 21 with the standard
exhaust system and backpressure of the same vehicle tested during the ori-
ginal evaluation and reported in Part VII.(2^) The increase in time for
the 0-64.4 km/hr (0-40 mph) was 1.5 sec or a 13.9 percent. The increase
in time for the 0-96.5 km/hr (0-60 mph) accel was 4.6 sec or 20.4 percent,
while the 32.3-96.5 km/hr (20-60 mph) time was 4.1 sec or 21 percent.
These are significant increases in acceleration times and repre-
sent a noticeable reduction in vehicle performance during those driving
situations involving maximum acceleration rate. It is uncertain how the
trap system could be redesigned to reduce the substantial backpressure ex-
perienced and thereby regain the loss in WOT accel performance. Certainly,
86
-------
TABLE 21. ACCELERATION TIMES FOR MERCEDES 300D WITH
AND WITHOUT PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM
(Windows up, air conditioner off)
Exhaust 0-64.4 km/hr(1) 0-96.5 km/hr(2) 32.2-96.5 km/hr
Config. Direction Time, Sec. Time, Sec. Time, Sec.
Factory
System
N
S
Avg.
10.8
10.8
22.7
22.3
22.5
(3)
19.6
19.3
19.5
Trap
System
N
S
Avg.
12.5
11.9
12.3
27.7
26.6
27.1
23.3
23.9
23.6
Net Increase
in Time, Sec.
1.5
4.6
4.1
Percent Increase
in Accel
Time
13.9
20.4
21.0
(1)0-40 mph
o\ r
^'0-60 mph
(3)20-60 mph
87
-------
some improvements can likely be made without loss in particulate removal
efficiency. It is felt, however, that particulate agglomeration and sep-
aration will no doubt require some work to be done on the gas in terms of
some pressure drop. If the gas is not accelerated and made to do certain
things, the particulate will likely pass through the system and not be col-
lected. There is, no doubt, a point of optimum removal for the backpressure
imposed. Work needs to be done along these lines but was beyond the scope
of this project. In the system's current configuration, it was considered
satisfactory to demonstrate "proof of principle" but was not considered sat-
isfactory otherwise.
D. Durability Evaluation
The third major segment of the work plan involved accumulating 16,090 km
(10,000 mi) of operation over the modified MVMA driving cycle with the trap
equipped Mercedes 300D. The two top photos of Figure 24 depict two views
of the entire trap system including the interconnecting exhaust piping. Al-
so shown in each of these views is the standard factory exhaust system for
comparison. The two center views and lower left view illustrate the instal-
lation of the trap system. As shown, the A-IF and A-IR just barely fitted
under the car as they were intentionally made as large as possible. The
TAVS was close-coupled to the A-IR outlet yet was located beyond the bumper
and oriented so the exhaust exited horizontally and to the left or street
side of the car. The lower right view is with the exit cone removed from
the A-IR unit.
1. Effect of Trap System on Particulate Emissions
Insofar as the effectiveness of the particulate trap system is con-
cerned, the durability testing is considered an extension of the already
2853 km (1767 mi) of operation on the A-IR and the 2041 km (1268 mi) on
the A-IF agglomerators accumulated during the screening and evaluative test-
ing. Figure 14, presented earlier, illustrated the baseline and various
systems involving the Texaco packed agglomerators during screening. The
efficiency decreased some during the 1161 km (1001 mi) on A-IR during the
screening tests.
The efficiency of the trap system components versus amount of oper-
ation are summarized on Table 22. The first part of Table 22 is captioned
"Screening" and is a restatement of results involving either the A-IR or
A-IF either alone or in conjunction with the TAV . The distance operated
is given and represents mainly that accumulated during the extensive chassis
dynamometer testing. The most important column on Table 22 is the percent
reduction. Note that on the order of 66 percent reduction in particulate
was obtained when the A-IR was new. At the conclusion of the screening
tests, the A-IR had accumulated 1611 km, A-IF 799 and the A-IF, A-IR, TAVS
combination was about 50 percent effective.
The next set of values on Table 22 are those obtained during the
evaluation phase of the project. Note that efficiency at this point (1727 km)
A-IF, 915 km A-IR was about 33 percent by the FTPC or FTPn. The 1975 FTP
is a mathematical combination by the following:
1975 FTP =0.43 FTPC +0.57 FTPh
88
-------
FIGURE 24. TRAP SYSTEM, FACTORY SYSTEM AND
REAR BUMPER INSTALLATION OF SEPARATOR TO A-IR
89
-------
TABLE 22. HISTORY OF TRAP SYSTEM AND SYSTEM COMPONENT
PARTICULATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FROM INITIAL
SCREENING TO FINAL DURABILITY TEST
Test
Point
Initial
Screen
Initial
Screen
Screen
Screen
Screen
Eval
Test
Type
Distance, km
A-IR
A-IF
Factory
BPU)
g/km
Trap System Red.
Description
g/km %
Screening
FTP
FTP^
1975 FTP
FTPc
FTPh
1975 FTP
FTPC
FTP
1975 FTP
FTPC
FTPh
1975 FTP
FTPC
FTPh
1975 FTP
FTPC
FTP,
1975 FTP
FTPh
0
0
268
268
709
709
890
890
1611
0
0
141
141
322
322
426
426
799
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.282
.267
.282
.267
.363
.278
.363
.278
.339
.303
.339
.303
.326
A-IR
A-IR
A-IR
A-IR
A-IF
A-IF
A-IF
A-IF
A-IF
A-IF
A-IF,
A-IF,
A-IF,
New
New
+ TAV_
O
+ TAVS
New
New
+ A-IR
+ A-IR
+ TAVS
+ TAV
5
A-IR, TAVS
A-IR, TAVS
A-IR, TAVS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
097
090
168
123
256
209
176
099
258
179
113
092
165
65
66
66
40
53
48
29
24
26
51
64
58
23
40
33
66
69
68
49
.6
.3
.0
.4
.9
.1
.5
.8
.8.
.5
.4
.8
.9
.9
.3
.7
.6
.4
.4
Evaluation
FTPC
FTPh
1975 FTP
SET
FET
1727
1727
1727
1727
915
915
915
915
b
b
b
b
0
0
0
0
.332
.268
.204
.201
A-IF,
A-IF,
A-IF,
A-IF,
A-IR, TAVS
A-IR, TAVS
A-IR, TAVS
A-IR, TAV0
0.
0.
0.
0.
220
181
137
117
33
32
32
32
41
.7
.5
.9
.8
.8
90
-------
TABLE 22. (Contd) HISTORY OF TRAP SYSTEM AND SYSTEM COMPONENT
PARTICULATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FROM INITIAL
SCREENING TO FINAL DURABILITY TEST
Test
Point
Start
Durab.
2500
Durab.
Test
Type
FTPC
FTPh
1975 FTP
FTPC
FTPh
1975 FTP
Distance, km Factory
Trap System
Red.
A-IR
2853
2853
6875
6875
A-IF BP u} g/k
.m
Description g/km
Durability
2041
2041
6063
6063
b
b
TAVC
TAVI
0.332^3' A-IF, A-IR,
0.268^ A-IF, A-IR,
b 0.332^4) A-IF, A-IR, TAV,
b 0.268(4) A-IF, A-IR, TAV
0.220
0.181
0.345
0.246
33.7
32.5
32.9
- 3.6
8.2
3.1
5000
Durab.
FTPc
FTPh
1975 FTP
SET
FET
10898 10086 b 0.289
10898 10086 b 0.250
10898 10086 b 0.209
10898 10086 b 0.161
A-IF, A-IR, TAVs 0.281
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS 0.229
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS 0.209
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS 0.194
3.1
8.8
6.4
0
-21.3
7500
Durab.
FTPh
14921 141Q9 b 0.232 A-IF, A-IR, TAVS 0.247 - 6.9
Final
(7700)
Durab .
FTPc
FTPh
1975 FTP
SET
FET
15243 14432 b 0.256
15243 14432 b 0.232
15243 14432 b 0.214
15243 14432 b 0.206
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS 0.308
A-IF. A-IR, TAVS 0.247
A-IF. A-IR, TAVS 0.198
A-IF, A-IR, TAVS 0.148
-20.3
- 6.5
-12.4
7.5
9.3
d)"a" designates test at normal backpressure.
"b" designates test at backpressure equivalent to that of the trap system at
80.5 km/hr (50 mph).
'2^A-IR and A-IF agglomerators removed at 12,068 km (7500 miles) of MVMA operation.
Additional 4023 km (2500 miles) MVMA accumulated with factory mufflers with
either TAVS or HCC swirl separators attached. Final factory system baseline
obtained with 16090 km (10,000 miles) MVMA. A-IF, A-IR and TAVS reinstalled
and data obtained after 322 km (200 miles) of additional MVMA obtained.
^Factory and particulate trap system results at start of durability test taken
to be same as that obtained during evaluation. The difference of 1126 km is
due to extensive laboratory operation during evaluation.
(4)Factory baseline not obtained at 4023 km (2500 miles) of MVMA operation. Used
baseline obtained during evaluation.
91
-------
The last part of Table 22 lists the results of the durability test.
The start results were taken to be the same as that measured during the
evaluation phase although substantial additional operation was made with the
trap system to obtain odor and other chemical measurements. Thus, at the
start of the MVMA service accumulation, the A-lR had 2853 km and the A-1F
unit had 2041 km of operation. A retest was not made and it was assumed
that the results were still operative and thus, the 33 percent reduction
values carried over.
At 2500 miles of MVMA durability, the A-lR had 6875 km and the A-1F
had 6063 km of total operation and the efficiency of the system had deterio-
rated to 8.2 percent by the FTPh test. A calculated 1975 FTP value of 3.1
percent is shown at this time indicating that the A-lR and A-1F units ap-
parently had saturated or reached equilibrium and their effectiveness as a
trap had diminished substantially. This finding was not unexpected since
both units have a finite interior volume and were expected to act as a trap
and physically remove particulate for only a limited period.
The durability test of the A-IF, A-IR, TAVS system was continued
to 12,068 km (7500 mi) of MVMA service to investigate the potential of both
A-IF and A-IR units to act as agglomerators. Only with extended operation
could the A-IF and A-IR units be accurately evaluated and the possibilities
of agglomeration defined. The extended service accumulation also made pos-
sible determinations of the effect of the particulate removal system on
sulfate and gaseous emissions such as HC.
The 5000 mile durability test was more rigorous and involved back-
to-back testing of the trap system against the factory system. These results
showed about the same effectiveness of the total system as at the 2500 mile
test. The 3.1 percent FTPC, 8.8 percent FTP^ and 6.4 percent 1975 FTP results
indicate that the TAVS was, like the 2500 mile results, the major item respon-
sible for improvement. The TAVS will be discussed shortly.
The final inspection, made after 7500 miles of durability testing
are shown on Table 22 to confirm the overall lack of a consistent reduction.
Considering the 12.4 percent increase by the 1975 FTP, the 7.5 percent re-
duction by the SET and the 9.3 percent reduction by the FET, it is clear that
the trap system continued to be ineffective in reducing particulate after
sustained operation. At least, these dynamometer tests were unable to indi-
cate an overall, consistent reduction.
The durability data on Table 22 is a condensation of the g/km listed
in Appendix D as Table D-4. Table D-4 is a complete compilation of all par-
ticulate rates measured during the durability test of the A-lF, A-lR, TAVS
system with the factory system results listed for comparison. At 7500 mi
of MVMA, it was decided that further operation of the entire trap system
would not yield any additional information regarding system operation. Con-
sequently, it was decided to remove the system and continue operation of
the car to 10,000 mi of MVMA testing, but with the factory exhaust system
plus TAVS installed.
The promising results of the TAVS justified additional evaluation
of both the TAVS and HCC swirl separators during the final 2500 mi segment
92
-------
of specific interest. The final evaluation of the A-IF, A-IR, and TAVS
was therefore delayed until the road testing was completed. Accordingly,
the car had accumulated 16,090 km (10,000 mi) of MVMA, but the A-IF, A-IR,
TAVS system—12,068 km (7500 mi) of MVMA r.orvioo.
On the completion of the durability testing, the final test re-
vealed extraordinarily high particulate during the initial cold start FTPC
of 1.025 g/km versus the usual 0.3 g/km average value (Table D-4). This
was discovered after the entire final series of tests was completed. After
analysis of these results, it was theorized that the act of removing and re-
installing the system, including the rough treatment given the units in doing
so, probably dislodged some of the particulate leading to the three times
normal value of the first cold start test. It was further speculated that
the approximate two week period,while the agglomerators waited for evaluation,
may have resulted in "drying-out" of the particulate, cracking, flaking, or
spalling of the particulate further allowing a much higher particulate emis-
sion rate than normal.
In any event, it was decided that the final test series should be
re-run following a brief period of MVMA preconditioning immediately prior
to the particulate testing. This was done and on 11/18/76, the final test
series, at 16412 km (10,200 miles) MVMA and 14432 km A-IF and 15,243 km
A-IR, was performed. It is this final test series on Table D-3, used in
the Table 22 summary.
An important question is, when did the A-IF and A-IR units cease
to act as traps? Since trap efficiency necessarily had to be determined
at specific intervals, it is not possible from the data to state the mile-
age specifically. However, a reasonable estimate would place the life of
the A-IF and A-IR at about 4827 km (3000 mi) total or at about 1974 km
(1227 mi) into the MVMA durability test. This estimate is based in part
on Figures 25 and 26 (to be discussed shortly) and the fact that the effi-
ciency of the A-IR and A-IF units was seriously degraded at the 4023 km
(2500 mi) inspection. The difference in MVMA and total mileage was due
to the extensive screening and component tests as well as the emissions
evaluation testing. A more important point was the finding that even though
the A-IR and A-IF units ceased to act as traps, they did not plug solid and
apparently continued to act as agglomerators, the original intent of the
units as far as SwRI was concerned.
The fact that the Texaco alumina coated wire maze did act as an
agglomerator is indicated by the continued separation of particulate by
the Ethyl TAV unit.
s
2. Effects of Trap System on Gaseous Emissions
The effect of the trap system, defined as A-IF, A-IR, and TAVS on
emissions of HC, CO, NOX, and fuel consumption/economy is summarized on
Table 23. As a baseline comparison at the start of the road durability
test, the gaseous emissions data obtained during the evaluation phase are
relisted from Table 11. The 1975 FTP results indicate the loss in effective-
ness of the A-IF, A-IR combination as a remover of unburned hydrocarbons
during the course of the 12,068 km (7500 mi) of road operation. The units
-------
120,—
110 -
miles 0
km 0
800
1287
1600
2574
2400
3862
3200
5149
4000
6436
4800
7723
5600
9010
6400
10,297
7200
11,584
FIGURE 25. DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURES OF A-IF AND A-IR AGGLOMERATORS DURING MVMA
DURABILITY TEST OF MERCEDES 300D EQUIPPED WITH A-IF, A-IR AND TAVS SYSTEM
-------
360
340
320
Cn
W
300
0)
n
s
w
to
0)
n
CM
•O
H
O
m
•H
fi
(fl
VD S
^ 4J
to
3
rtj
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
miles 0
km 0
800
1287
1600
2574
2400
3862
3200
5149
4000
6436
4800
7723
5600
9010
6400
10,297
7200
11,584
FIGURE 26. EXHAUST MANIFOLD PRESSURE AT 88.5 km/hr (55 mph) CRUISE DURING MVMA
DURABILITY TEST, MERCEDES 300D EQUIPPED WITH A-IF, A-IR AND TAVS TRAP SYSTEM
-------
TABLE 23. GASEOUS EMISSIONS AND FUEL RATES DURING MVMA
DURABILITY TEST OF PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM-MERCEDES 300D
Test
Cycle
1975
FTP
FTP
FTPh
FET
MVMA Test
km (miles)
0
8045
(5000)
16,090
(10,000)
0
16,090
(10,000)
0
8045
(5000)
16,090
(10,000)
0
8045
(5000)
16,090
(10,000)
Test
Configuration
Factory (D
Trap
Factory (2)
Trap
Factory
Trap
(4)
Factory
Trap
(1)
Factory (D
Trap
Factory^
Factory(3)
Factory
Factory
(3)
Factory(1)
Trap
Factory
Trap
Factory'
(2)
Emission Rates,
g/km
HC
0.19
0.06
0.13
0.07
0.12
0.10
0.21
0.06
Factory(2) 0.12
0.14
0.05
0.12
0.07
0.11
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.06
CO
0.54
0.48
0.43
0.51
0.46
0.46
0.55
0.52
0.48
0.53
0.45
0.42
0.47
0.46
0.35
0.34
0.33
0.30
0.21
0.32
0.32
NOx
0.98
0.93
0.81
0.93
0.94
0.92
0.99
0.96
0.96
0.99
0.90
0.80
0.76
0.88
0.84
0.88
0.99
0.70
0.90
0.81
1.00
Fuel
Cons.
£/100 km
10.00
9.27
8.44
9.58
8.52
8.76
10.30
9.86
8.96
9.49
8.63
8.11
8.45
7.99
7.99
7.79
8.11
7.74
8.05
7.11
7.09
Fuel
Econ.
23.53
25.41
27.88
24.56
27.62
26.86
22.83
23.89
26.26
24.80
27.33
29.01
27.85
29.45
29.45
30.23
29.15
30.40
29.22
33.09
33.19
(1)Average of three runs per Table 11 during evaluation at exhaust backpressure
equivalent to trap system
'At backpressure equivalent to trap system
'At normal factory exhaust system backpressure
(4)Discontinued A-IF. A-IR and TAVS trap system at 12,068 km (7500 miles)
MVMA operation. Remounted system after vehicle with factory muffler
and TAVS/swirl, reached 16,090 km (10,000 miles) MVMA. Actual distance
on A-IR was 15,243 km (9475 miles) and on A-IF was 14,432 km (8970 miles).
96
-------
apparently continued removing HC longer than particulate, as noted by the
still-low HC emissions of 0.07 g/km after 8045 km (5C~3 mi) of MVMA operation.
The effect of the trap system remained about the same on CO and NOX
as was found during the evaluation, namely a negligible effect. Although the
data is far from consistent, fuel consumption tended to increase more times
than not with the trap system bringing about a small overall decrease in
fuel economy or mileage. Mingled within this effect is the variability of
the basic test and the difficulty of truly matching by artificial means the
exhaust backpressure imposed by the trap system when operating the factory
or stock system. Accordingly, the fuel economy effect is not clear from
these results. It is likely that with the increased backpressure due to the
trap system, some increase in fuel consumption could occur. This effect,
however, is not conclusively demonstrated by the test data.
One interesting set of experiments with the factory exhaust system
was to run an extra FTPn after the usual FTPR but with normal backpressure.
This was done during the 8045 km (5000 mile) and the 16,090 km (10,000 mi)
inspections. In both instances, HC was apparently reduced some and NOX
reduced very slightly if at all with reduced backpressure. In one instance,
fuel consumption was slightly greater (due ostensibly to reduced exhaust
backpressure) and in one case it was unchanged. CO had a very slight in-
crease and a slight decrease and was inconsistent. The differences thus
shown are so small, except HC, as to be considered negligible thus lending
credence to the previous finding that the trap system effects on fuel con-
sumption are probably not due to increased backpressure, but are in fact
experimental variation.
The computer sheets that provide additional detail are included in
Appendix E as Tables E-26 to E-31 for the 8045 km (5000 mile) inspection and
as Tables E-32 to E-38 for the 16,090 km (10,000 mi) inspection.
3. Effect, of Trap System on Sulfate
During the evaluation phase of this project, it was found that
the trap system,principally the A-1F and A-lR agglomerators resulted in the
collection of approximately 90 percent of the sulfuric acid mist (sulfate)
emissions. Although it was known that the agglomerators deteriorated in
terms of particulate trapping efficiency prior to accumulation of 4023 km
(2500 miles) of MVMA driving, the removal of sulfate was of interest after
12068 km (7500 miles) of MVMA operation.
Table D-5 of Appendix D is a listing of the sulfate emission test
(SET) results after 14,109 km (8769 miles) of A-1F and 14,921 km (9273 miles)
of operation on A-lR. The factory system, at exhaust backpressure equivalent
to the trap system, resulted in 12.601 mg/km of sulfate. This compares
fairly well with that measured during the evaluation of 11.7 mg/km. The
trap system resulted in an average of 5.174 g/km during the final evaluation
and then 5.265 mg/km during the re-run of the final test. Recall the final
test, after 12,389 km (7700 miles) was a re-run of the 12,068 km (7500 miles)
of MVMA trap operation because of the abnormally high cold start particulate.
The problem of abnormal and unrepeatable particulate was not experienced
with the sulfate measurements.
97
-------
Using an average of 5.220 mg/km for the trap, this represents a
58.5 percent reduction. The sulfate trapping is not as good as that meas-
ured during the evaluation some 12,068 (7500 mi) earlier (93.4 percent),
but it is apparent that the agglomerators continue to trap and remove sul-
furic acid mist from the exhaust. This is a very interesting and possibly
important finding. Even though the alumina coated steel wool of the A-IF
and A-IR reached a loaded or equilibrium state with respect to exhaust part-
iculate much earlier, the traps have apparently continued to be effective,
though substantially less, in collected sulfate.
Although sulfate (sulfuric acid aerosol) acts as a particulate
and can be collected on a 0.5 micron filter, it also adsorbs on and within
the tremendous surface area of the fired alumina. The sulfate will enter
and apparently be retained, by the alumina coating crystal structure even
though carbon and carbonaceous particulate are not collected. The specific
collection mechanism is not fully understood nor is the form of the sulfate,
once collected. More importantly, it is not known what the purge or storage-
purge cycle of the fired alumina is in this system.
The potential of the alumina coated steel wool material for removal
of sulfate has not been fully evaluated. Although it would be best to reduce
sulfate production, for example, in a gasoline powered car by combustion and
catalyst control, the simple trapping of sulfate might be of some benefit,
assuming the material once collected would not be purged during certain types
of driving.
One final comment on the data on Table D-5 is with regard to the
experiment made with the factory exhaust system at equivalent 80.5 km/hr
(50 mph) exhaust backpressure and at normal backpressure. The results of
these two single SET tests, made on 11/2/76 and on 11/3/76 indicate the
higher backpressure gave higher sulfate emissions, 12.607 versus 9.916 mg/
km. The difference in backpressure was about 29.2 cm (11.5 in. Hg). It is
difficult to attribute higher sulfate emissions to higher exhaust back-
pressure on the basis of this single test. Possibly some purge of sulfate
may have occurred on the first day of running although this is not certain.
In any event, it would be interesting to investigate this in some future
program.
4. Effect of Trap System on Engine Exhaust Backpressure
Table H-l of Appendix H lists the exhaust system backpressures
measured at approximately 160 km (100 mile) intervals during the 16090 km
(10,000 mile) MVMA operation. Actually, six different exhaust system con-
figurations were operated during the course of the MVMA operation. Most
of the readings were taken with the A-1F, A-IR, TAVS combination since it
was tested for 12,068 km (7500 mi) of the 16,090 km (10,000 miles) covered
bv the road test.
In order to obtain an overall trend of the increase in component
pressure differentials and overall system backpressures, the results are
plotted on Figures 25 and 26. The gap in the graphs between 1272 and 3353 km
was during the time the TAVS was replaced by the HCC swirl separator to in-
vestigate its potential and to see how much reduction in backpressure the
98
-------
swirl tube would allow. Accordingly, the graph is shown by a broken line
in this region.
Figure 25 shows the pressure drop across the front unit, the A-1F
(lower curve) and the rear unit, the A-1R (upper curve) as a function of
distance. The pressure drops across both units increased with time,
especially the rear unit where most of the system efficiency was achieved.
Overall, the pressure drop across the rear agglomerator doubled
from 66 to 132 mm Hg (2.6 to 5.2 in. Hg) at 55 mph cruise (during lap 10
of the MVMA road cycle. The pressure increase due to the front or A-1F
agglomerator was almost double, from 30 to 53 mm Hg (1.2 to 2.1 in. Hg).
It is interesting to note the "knee" in the curve of the rear agglomerator
occurred at about 2000 km (1243 miles) into the MVMA testing which coincides
with the time at which the trap system reached equilibrium and its efficiency
deteriorated to the point where the A-IR (and A-IF) began to presumably act
as agglomerators and not as collectors of the particulate.
Figure 26, a graph of the exhaust manifold backpressure imposed
by the trap system, shows a similar trend. The "knee" of the curve
occurred earlier than that shown by Figure 25 but still is consistent with
the estimated time at which the agglomerators were no longer traps and
collectors. Note that the pressure at the exhaust manifold increased
rapidly and essentially doubled during the course of the experiment.
The data points on both Figures 25 and 26 are not as consistent
and uniform as one would expect. It should be remembered that during lap
10, the high speed cruise, the driver reads the several static and differ-
ential pressure gage indications into a tape recorder noting the date,
mileage, and time of day.
Some of the scatter is no doubt due to the method of data taking
and influenced somewhat by road, wind and other operating conditions. It
also may be possible that part of the scatter is real and due to possible
build-up of particulate in the system prior to purge. It may be possible
that the mechanism of agglomerator action was one of partial build-up and
then, due to increased backpressure a partial purge and then the process
repeated itself.
At the conclusion of the MVMA operation, the pressures were
carefully obtained by two technicians over lap 10, the high speed lap.
These values, for the factory exhaust systems with and without the swirl
separator are listed at the bottom of Table H-l.
At the conclusion of each dynamometer evaluation, pressures were
obtained at various steady-state cruise conditions. Table 24 lists these
results. Regrettably, not all pressures were measured at the start of the
test. Selected measurements were taken with the factory exhaust system
at the conclusion of the test. These are listed on Table 24 for direct
comparison with the trap system pressures taken then and at earlier intervals,
In addition to this discussion of the increased, essentially
doubled, exhaust system pressures during the MVMA cycle durability test,
99
-------
TABLE 24. DYNAMOMETER EXHAUST SYSTEM PRESSURES -
MERCEDES 300D WITH AND WITHOUT TRAP SYSTEM INSTALLED
Exhaust System Pressures, mm Hg
Front
Speed
km/hr
0
(0)0)
16.1
(10)
32. 2
(20)
48.3
(30)
67.6
(40)
80. 5
(50)
96.5
(60)
Test
km
0
4023
8045
12068
12068
12068
0
4023
8045
12068
12068
12068
0
4023
8045
12068
12068
12068
0
4023
8045
12068
12068
12068
0
4023
8045
12068
12068
12068
0
4023
8045
12068
12068
12068
0
4023
8045
12068
12068
12068
Test
Conf .
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
FactH)
Fact(5)
Trap
Trap
Trap
TraP(^
Fact(4)
Fact(5)
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Fact'4'
Fact(5)
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Fact(4)
Fact(5)
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
FactK)
Fact(5)
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Fact(4)
Fact<5)
Trap
Trap
Trap
Trap
Fact(4)
Fact*5'
Muf/Trap
Manif.
23
26
22
9
0
64
69
67
47
9
104
103
99
75
9
109
112
108
129
15
183
179
181
150
22
282
277
280
271
37
386
394
396
379
56
In
15
23
20
19
6
0
51
66
64
65
37
0
74
102
93
93
65
4
79
106
105
105
75
6
132
178
168
179
140
15
193
273
277
278
267
22
259
373
384
391
376
37
Out
17
19
11
6
0
47
49
49
37
0
73
75
75
65
4
80
84
82
75
6
142
148
144
140
15
234
235
235
261
19
350
353
357
363
32
Rear
Muf/Trap
In
10
15
17
11
6
0
41
47
47
47
37
0
56
67
75
71
62
0
61
77
80
78
70
0
107
138
140
140
135
4
160
224
228
224
252
8
221
340
348
340
361
15
Out
2
4
2
2
6
0
17
20
22
19
37
0
26
34
37
32
62
0
28
39
39
34
65
0
52
75
75
65
135
4
86
121
121
112
247
8
123
185
185
168
361
9
AP(D
Front
6
7
7
0
0
13
15
17
0
0
19
22
22
0
0
20
24
26
0
0
28
34
36
0
4
37
43
48
4
4
45
50
57
6
8
AP(2)
Rear
13
11
9
0
0
26
22
26
0
0
37
36
36
0
0
41
39
43
4
0
65
65
73
0
0
97
99
108
3
0
127
136
151
0
0
(l)Pressure drop across Texaco A-1F or factory front muffler.
'-'Pressure drop across Texaco A-1R or factory rear muffler.
increased backpressure sec to 150 mmHg at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph).
normal backpressure.
100
-------
the exhaust system pressures are clearly too high to be commercially ac-
ceptable. In order to prove the principal of the trap system, the durabi-
lity test was performed even though the backpressure was considered excessive
at the start and unacceptable at the end of the test. It is expected that
to remove particulate, the gas must work and therefore experience a pres-
sure drop. In this case, the pressure drops and system backpressure are
considered unacceptably high.
Estimates were made of which item contributed the most restric-
tion or backpressure on the engine. The three major elements of the system
and their order of effectiveness were the A-IR rear agglomerator (about 40
percent), the TAVS separator (about 35 percent), and the front muffler
(about 15 percent). While the A-IF and A-IR units experience a steady
linear increase in pressure drop, the TAVS imposed about 135 mm Hg (5.3 in
Hg) while the HCC swirl separator imposed about 81 mm Hg (3.2 in Hg) at
80.5 km/hr (50 mph) cruise.
5. Effect of Separators on Particulate Collection
As indicated by the screening tests, the TAVS was more effective
than the HCC swirl separator even though the TAV imposed a higher backpres-
sure. What the dynamometer screening tests did not predict was the some-
what surprising amount of particulate collected by both when operating in
conjunction with the A-IF, A-IR agglomerator combination or even when con-
nected to the usual factory system.
Figure 27 shows what was found the first time the TAVS was opened
and particulate was found. The upper left view shows the disassembled TAVS
and the upper right view the amount of particulate dumped out of the TAVS
from both entry (or swirl) end as well as the trap (or collector) and after
981 km (610 miles).
Although most of the material could be "dumped-out", some remained
as shown by the center left photo as a "cake", or layer on the interior walls
of the separator. This material had to be scraped out. The pile of wire
squares in the center left and two lower photos is the chopped lath that is
packed into both ends of the separator. These act to prevent re-entrainment
of the collected particulate.
The consistency of the particulate is indicated some by the left
center and lower left views. It was flour-like in handling characteristics,
very fine, dry and powdery and difficult to handle and keep from becoming
airborne. The fine powder nature of the particulate lacked the greasy or
sticky nature of some diesel exhaust particulate.
The HCC swirl tube separator is shown by the two top photos of
Figure 28 as installed on the Mercedes 300D instead of the Ethyl TAVS.
Note that the exhaust is turned up from the conical outlet of the A-IR,
under the bumper, and then directed vertically up through the swirl tube.
The lower left view shows the steel mesh cloth used to pack the collection
cavity and prevent re-entrainment of the particulate.
101
-------
FIGURE 27. DIESEL EXHAUST PARTICULATE COLLECTED
BY THE ETHYL TAV_ SEPARATOR
102
-------
FIGURE 28. DIESEL EXHAUST PARTICULATE COLLECTED
BY THE HCC SWIRL TUBE SEPARATOR
103
-------
The lower right view illustrates the type of particulate collected
by this separator in conjunction with the A-IF and A-IR units. The appear-
ance and consistency of the collected particulate was somewhat different
from that found in the TAVS. The swirl collected particulate was, to a
great extent, shaped in tiny spheres. These spheres were possibly formed
by the swirl or rotational action of the device. In any event, the matter
collected was somewhat encouraging.
Table 25 is a complete listing of the weights and volumes of the
particulate collected by the TAV or swirl separators at various intervals
of MVMA test distance. In addition, Table 25 lists the incremental distance
traveled for each quantity of particulate collected permitting calculation
of incremental and average collection rates in terms of mg/km and cm3/km.
The quantities thus collected permitted bulk density determination by dividing
the mass by the volume to give a g/cm density value.
Listed first on Table 25 are the TAVs results of 13.45 mg/km during
the first 1255 km (780 miles) of MVMA. During the last 5,000 miles of
operation from 4172 to 11551 km (2593 to 7179 miles) the average collection
rate was 5.79 mg/km. During these same intervals, the volume collection rate
changed but very slightly from 0.208 to 0.178 cm3/km. Of importance, the
bulk density was much higher at first 0.066 g/cm3 and then much lower at the
end of the test, 0.034 g/cm3.
Apparently, the type of agglomerates exiting the AI-R changed such
that the resulting density of the material collected was half that at the
start. It is uncertain when the particulate became half as dense as that
at the start, but quite likely the change was associated with the A-IF and
A-IR "loading-up" and reaching equilibrium at about 2000 km (1243 miles)
of MVMA operation.
The HCC swirl separator collected at the rate of 3.72 mg/km when
connected to the A-IF, A-IR system. This is substantially less than the
13.45 mg/km with the TAVS. It may be best to compare the swirl to the TAV
collection rate during the last part of the test of 5.79 mg/km. The density
of 0.028 was essentially the same as the 0.034 g/cm3 of the TAVg at the end
of the test. These results tend to confirm that the A-IR reached equi-
librium at about 2000 km (1243 miles) of the MVMA test.
Listed at the bottom of Table 25 are the results of the TAVS and
swirl, in conjunction with the factory system. These experiments were made
during the final 4023 km (2500 miles) of the test and revealed that not only
were both high pressure drop inertial separators able to collect some of the
exhaust particulate from a standard Mercedes 300D diesel car, but the bulk
densities were on the order of ten times heavier than the densities from the
trap system.
Note that the TAVg average collection rate was 20.04 mg/km versus
5.79 mg/km. The two test increments resulted in greatly different rates
in terms of mg/km and cm3/km. If the initial collection interval were dis-
counted due to possible discharge of metallic or related muffler materials,
the 10.62 mgAm with the TAVS is not grossly different than the 12.27 mg/km
104
-------
TABLE 25. PARTICULATE COLLECTED BY TAVS OR HCC SWIRL SEPARATORS
DURING MVMA DISTANCE ACCUMULATION
MVMA
Distance
Incremental
Distance
km
miles
km
924 574
1255 780
Average
1958 1217
3173 1972
Average
923
331
miles
574
206
626
1215
389
755
4172
5223
6574
8418
10362
11551
3593
3246
4086
5232
6440
7179
981
1051
1239
1657
1818
1223
610
653
770
1030
1130
760
Average
13139 8166(1) 1200
14328 8905(2) 1036
Average
746
644
Amount Volume
Collected Collected
Collection Rate
grams
A- IF,
13.49
4.07
cnP
A-IR and TAVS
175
75
mg/km
14.615
12.290
13.452
cm-ykm
0.189
0.226
0.208
A-IF, A-IR and HCC Swirl
2.10
4.97
A-IF,
6.70
6.47
6.46
9.26
11.00
6.0
Factory
35.35
11.00
68
200
A-IR and TAVS
240
200
225
300
250
160
Stock and TAVS
75
40
3.354
4.090
3.722
6.829
6.156
5.213
5.588
6.050
4.906
5.790
29.458
10.618
20.038
0.108
0.165
0.136
0.245
0.190
0.182
0.181
0.138
0.131
0.178
0.062
0.039
0.050
Bulk
Density
g/cnr
0.077
0.054
0.066
0.031
0.025
0.028
0.028
0.032
0.029
0.031
0.044
0.038
0.034
0.471
0.275
0.373
16006
9948
1527
Factory Stock and HCC Swirl
949 18.74 90 12.27
0.059
0.208
(1) Several large hard particles in the deposits
(2) Approximately 483 km (300 miles) with low backpressure, due to broken clamp before first muffler
-------
with the HCC swirl separator. In any event, the material thus collected
was much more dense than that collected by the TAV or swirl when used with
the Texaco alumina coated agglomerators.
6. Discussion
Based on an average 1975 FTP particulate emission rate of 0.312 g/km
for the factory standard exhaust equipped Mercedes 300D, a total of 25.1 kg
(55.3 Ibs) of particulate would be exhausted in 80,450 km (50,000 miles). If
the entire 25.1 kg had 0.066 g/cm3, then a container with 380 litres (13.4
ft-* or 100 gallons) volume would be needed. If only half were actually
collected, then about 50 gallons of particulate would have to be stored unless
more frequently removed than on 80,450 km (50,000 mile) intervals.
If half the particulate were collected based on a bulk density of
0.034 g/cm3, then 369 litres, about the same volume, would be collected as
in the previous case based on 0.066 g/cm3 density for total collection.
These volumes of particulate are quite large and represent the ranges of
volumes necessary over 80,450 km (50,000 miles) of driving.
Assuming a separator such as TAVS were perfected for use with
factory exhaust system, then, using 0.373 g/cm3 density, the volume of
particulate, if say one-fourth of the particulate could actually be collected,
would be 16.8 litres, about 4.4 gallons. The likelihood of this density of
particulate and one-fourth of the total collectable by an inertial separator
has not been demonstrated. If, however, the average rate of collection by
the TAVS of 20.04 mg/km were obtained during the 80450 km, then the mass
collected would be 1.612 kg, or about 6 percent of the mass of particulate
exhausted. The 1.612 kg would require a collection volume of approximately
4.32 litres (1.14 gallons). This is manageable and possible with some
trouble and at the increase in exhaust backpressure at 88.5 km/hr (55 mph)
of 57 mm Hg (2.24 in. Hg), from 23 for the stock system to 80 mm Hg at the
engine exhaust manifold.
This increase in backpressure could possibly be reduced some
without reduction in collection efficiency through design changes. In fact,
it is not certain whether improvements in collection efficiency might not
be obtained through advanced design and development of the TAV or a
similar high pressure drop inertial separator. In summary, it could be
possible to achieve some measure of collection with inertial separation,
a device that is relatively rugged, reliable, and not prone to changes in
pressure drop, plugging, or deterioration. A 10 percent reduction in par-
ticulate, however, seems below that necessary to justify the expense to de-
sign, develop and fabricate such a separator for diesel-powered cars.
106
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor
and Smoke - Part I," Final Report to the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare under Contract No. PH 86-66-93, March 1967.
2. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "An Investigation of Diesel-
Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke," Paper FL-66-46 presented at the NPRA
Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, Philadelphia, September 15-16, 1966.
3. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor
and Smoke - Part II," Final Report to the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare under Contract No. PH 86-67-72, February 1968.
4. Stahman, Ralph C., Kittredge, George D., and Springer, Karl J., "Smoke
and Odor Control for Diesel-Powered Trucks and Buses," SAE Paper 680443
presented at SAE Mid-Year Meeting, Detroit, May 20-24, 1968 (also SAE
Transactions).
5. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor
and Smoke - Part III," Final Report to the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare under Contract No. PH 22-68-23, October 1969.
6. Springer, Karl J. and Dietzmann, Harry E., "An Investigation of Diesel-
Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke - Part IV," Final Report to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare under Contract No. PH 22-68-23,
April 1971.
7. Springer, Karl J. and Hare, Charles T., "Four Years of Diesel Odor
and Smoke Control Technology Evaluations - A Summary," ASME Paper
69-WA/APC-3 presented at ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Los Angeles,
November 16-20, 1969.
8. Dietzmann, Harry E., Springer, Karl J., and Stahman, Ralph C., "Diesel
Emissions as Predictors of Observed Diesel Odor," SAE Paper 720757 pre-
sented at SAE National Combined Farm, Construction, and Industrial
Machinery and Powerplant Meetings, Milwaukee, September 11-14, 1972
(also SAE Transactions).
9. Springer, Karl J. and Dietzmann, Harry E., "Diesel Exhaust Hydrocar-
bon Measurement - A Flame lonization Method," SAE Paper 700106 presented
at SAE Meeting, Detroit, January 12-16, 1970.
10. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Emis-
sions - Part V," Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. PH 22-68-23, April 1974.
11. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Control of Diesel Exhaust
Odors," Paper 26 presented at New York Academy of Sciences Conference
on Odors: Evaluation, Utilization and Control, New York, October 1-3,
1973.
107
-------
12. Springer, Karl J., "Field Demonstration of General Motors Environmental
Improvement Proposal (EIP) - A Retrofit Kit for CMC City Buses," Final
Report to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. PH 22-
68-23, December 1972.
13. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Diesel Emission Control
Through Retrofits," SAE Paper 750205 presented at SAE Automotive En-
gineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 24-28, 1975.
14. Springer, Karl J. , "Emissions from Diesel and Stratified Charge-Powered
Cars," Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency under Con-
tract No. PH 22-68-23, EPA Report No. EPA-460/3-75-001-a, December 1974.
15. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Emissions and Economy of Four
Diesel Cars," SAE Paper 750332 presented at SAE Automotive Engineering
Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 24-28, 1975.
16. Springer, Karl J., "Emissions from a Gasoline- and Diesel-Powered Mer-
cedes 220 Passenger Car," Report to the Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. CPA 70-44, June 1971.
17. Springer, Karl J. and Ashby, H. Anthony, "The Low Emission Car for
1975 - Enter the Diesel," Paper 739133 presented at Eighth Annual
IECEC Meeting, Philadelphia, August 13-16, 1973.
18. Springer, Karl J. and Hare, Charles T., "A Field Survey to Determine
Public Opinion of Diesel Engine Exhaust Odor," Final Report to the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Contract No. PH 22-
68-36, February 1970.
19. Hare, Charles T. and Springer, Karl J., "Public Response to Diesel
Engine Exhaust Odors," Final Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. CPA 70-44, April 1971.
20. Hare, Charles T., Springer, Karl J., Somers, Joseph H., and Huls,
Thomas A., "Public Opinion of Diesel Odor," SAE Paper 740214 presented
at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, February 25-March 1,
1974.
21. "Guide to Reduction of Smoke and Odor from Diesel-Powered Vehicles,"
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Programs Publications
No. AP-81, September 1971.
22. Springer, Karl J., and Ludwig, Allen C., "Documentation of the Guide
to Good Practice for Minimum Odor and Smoke from Diesel-Powered Ve-
hicles," Final Report to the Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare under Contract No. CPA 22-69-71, November 1969.
23. Springer, Karl J., White, John T., and Domke, Charles J., "Emissions
from In-Use 1970-1971 Diesel-Powered Trucks and Buses," SAE Paper
741006 presented at SAE Automotive Engineering Meeting, Toronto, Octo-
ber 21-25, 1974.
108
-------
24. Kennedy, Gordon J., White, John T., Springer, Karl J. , and Ingalls,
Melvin N., "Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Trucks Tested on a Road
Course and by Dynamometer," SAE Paper 750901 presented at the Automo-
bile Engineering Meeting, Detroit, October 13-17, 1975.
25. Hare, Charles T. and Springer, Karl J., "Exhaust Emissions from Uncon-
trolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion En-
gines," Final Report Part 5 (Heavy-Duty Farm, Construction, and In-
dustrial Engines) to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
No. EHS 70-108, EPA Report No. APTD-1494, October 1973.
26. Hare, Charles T., "Methodology for Determining Fuel Effects on Diesel
Particulate Emissions," Final Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-02-1230, EPA Report No. EPA-650/2-75/056,
March 1975.
27. Hare, Charles T., Springer, Karl J. , and Bradow, Ronald L. , "Fuel and
Additive Effects on Diesel Particulate Emissions - Development and
Demonstration of Methodology," SAE Paper 760130 presented at SAE Auto-
motive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 23-27,
1976.
28. Springer, Karl J., "Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Emissions -
Part VII," Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-2116, August 1976.
29. Fennelly, Paul F., "The Origin and Influence of Airborne Particulates,"
American Scientist, Vol. 64, January-February 1976.
30. Oblander, Kurt and Fortnagel, Manfred, "Design and Results of the Five-
Cylinder Mercedes-Benz Diesel Engine," SAE Paper 750870 presented at
SAE Automobile Engineering Meeting, Detroit, October 13-17, 1975.
31. "Diesel Fuel Oils, 1973", Bureau of Mines Petroleum Products Survey
No. 82, November 1973
32. Sawicki, E., Corey, R. C., and Dooley, A. E., Health Lab Sci. (Suppl.
1) , 56-59, 1970.
33. Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 151, Part III, August 7, 1973,
34. Turk, Amos, "Selection and Training of Judges for Sensory Evaluation
of the Intensity and Character of Diesel Exhaust Odors," Report to
the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, 1967.
35. Black, F. M., High, L. E., and Sigsby, J. E., "Methodology for Assign-
ment of a Hydrocarbon Photochemical Reactivity Index for Emissions
from Mobile Sources," Final Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Report No. EPA-650/2-75/025, March 1975.
36. Lenane, D. L., "Status Report - Trapping Systems for Automotive Exhaust
Particulates," October 1973.
109
-------
37. Lenane, D. L., "Particulate Lead Traps," Report to the French Asso-
ciation of Petroleum Technicians, Application Technology Section,
Paris, France, January 23, 1975.
38. Leak, R. J. , Brandenburg, J. T., and Behrens, M. D., "Use of Alumina-
Coated Filaments in Catalytic Mufflers - Testing with Multicylinder
Engine and Vehicles," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 2,
October 1968.
39. Leak, R. J., Brandenburg, J. T., and Behrens, M. D., "Use of Alumina-
Coated Filaments in Catalytic Mufflers - Testing with Single Cylinder
Engine," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 2, October 1968.
110
-------
APPENDIX A
PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATIONS AND SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS
OF LEAD PARTICULATE TRAPS
-------
>
— HOUSTON CHEMICAL COMPANY —
PARTICULATE TRAP
PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATION
HC-115
(HOC-US)
-------
— HOUSTON CHEMICAL COMPANY —
PARTICULATE TRAP
(SPLIT FLOW)
PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATION
2-20-74
HC -125
(HCC-125)
-------
^
Jff
-AIR-MAZE-
— HOUSTON CHEMICAL COMPANY-
PARTI CULATE TRAP
WITH FIBERGLASS FILTER ELEMENT
PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATION
J HC CLCLL&ND
HC-127
(HCC-127)
-------
i
Ul
-AIR-MAZE -
-HOUSTON CHEMICAL COMPANY-
PARTICULATE TRAP
WITH ALUMINA COATED STAINLESS STEEL
WOOL FILTER ELEMENT
HC-130
(HCC-130)
-------
HOUSTON CHEMICAL COMPANY
ALUMINA BEADS FILTER ELEMENT
11-22-74
HC 137
(HCC-137)
-------
FILTERED
EXHAUST
FIBER GLASS FILTER ELEMENT
-HOUSTON CHEMICAL COMPANY-
PART ICULATE FILTER
1-15-73
-------
.--"'* '"•-' V ___._- -__-_____-
I
CD
HOUSTON CHEMICAL COMPANY
AUTOMOTIVE EXHAUST
EVALUATION FILTER
10-23-72
-------
•I I ; /F : -
* t fj'Tt^V X /C i t*r.£>.A-'F /
-------
, -V -1 ---
{/
A-10
-------
Figure 2. Agglome ra* or an:! Prototype Anchored Vortex Trap
(36)
-------
SINGLE OUTLET
DUAL OUTLET
I
1-J
to
Figure 3. Tangential Anchored Vortex Traps^36' 37)
-------
PROIJUCTS
AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE
DEVELOPMENTS
•WILLIAM T. TIERNEY
PROJECT MANAGER
TEXACO INC.
P. O. BOX 5OO
BEACON, NEW YORK 12508
TEL. (AREA 914) 831-34OO
December 2, 1975
Mr. Karl Springer
Southwest Research Institute
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio,, Texas 78284
Dear Karl:
We have forwarded the diesel exhaust smoke filter
units to you for your tests on the Mercedes 300D via the
United Parcel Service. A copy of the invoice is attached
for your reference.
In order to estimate the exhaust "back pressure
characteristics of the units we conducted flow tests on each
of the components. Copies of these test results are attached
for your information. You will note that we have tested each
unit with both a flat discharge end plate and a conical end
plate configuration for each of the two filters. As you can
see, the conical discharge results in a reduction in the
pressure drop across the unit particularly in the higher gas
flow ranges. You may wish to test these filters in both con-
figurations in order to determine the actual effect on car
performance and back pressure.
There are other filter configurations that could be
used should the conical discharge elements not properly fit
the underfloor exhaust system space available. For example,
we could pack a subsequent unit with a shorter axial length
of material thus providing a plenum which should reduce the
back pressure associated with the sharp entry into a flat
discharge plate exit pipe. This is a detail., however, that
can be looked at In a subsequent situation.
The units that have been forwarded were packed at
a density that was our best guess at proper filter efficiency-
exhaust back pressure balance. The filter element restriction
can be changed, if necessary, "by either reducing the axial
length of the element or by decreasing the packing density.
A-13
This is recycled paper
-------
Mr. Karl Springer - 2 - 12-2-75
This too, however, would be the subject of a subsequent test,
We are looking forward to receiving information on your
initial evaluation so that we may consider the steps
desirable for subsequent tests.
If you have any questions on this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours very truly,
^7#
¥TT-khc
Attachments
NOTE: I am attaching a second copy of this letter for
your transmittal to Ralph Stahman should you desire.
A-14
-------
-------
>
I
-Ir- -
i
a.
+"~&"". - "
" 'V L.
. hj 1 "
3
£
b- . - "
•
~ ~3
_ _ i-
Hi M
- -
: ::
.... . —
— _ .. .
i
- • -
. .
- -- -
£0
._ _
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
V
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
r
_
^
-
-
-
X
v^
-
_
-
-
-
S
s
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
•;
-
-.
-
-
_
f
-
i
~"
-
i
-
0
-
-
_
-
-
"•
1
~
G
•
-
s
_
-
:
-
M-
-
-
M
-
j
_
1*1
T
h
1
l-i
-?
-
s
-
i
c
-
Fj
'•i
«r
-
If
-
V
-
I
-
y
V,
-
-
-
'/
-.
-
-
y
-
-
-
-
._,
F
"
--
-
-
~
/
-
-
-1;
-
/
-
/
-
-
-
/
-
S
-
s
-
-j
5
t
r
-
*v,
^
-
-
-
D
U
-
0
-
X
_
'
-
>
-
L
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
--
4
--
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
- ^
--
i
-
- -
-
--
-
- •
?
-
-
-
-
...
-
i»i
-
p
-
-
T-
-
-
>t
-
c
-
-
-
-
^
-
-
-
-
-
-
-•
-
-
--
-•
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
—
-
-
-
,
-I-
1
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-1
_1
--
-
-
-
••
-
-
-
-
1
i
/
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
C
-
-
\
-
-
y
-
-
-
-------
>
I
--
---
---
---
-
~ ~
a
a
y
&
n
u
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
^
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
J
xL
?
f
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
j
-
-
-
-
-
._.
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
~
-
~
.
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
3
r,
-
-
T
-
p
-
-
-
--
1C
s
-
-
F
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
••
^i
-
-
-
-
i
7
•-
*
--
j
-
—
•>
-
-
f?
_
• —
-
-
P
-
-
--
-
-
s
-i
-
-
s
-
_
-
;
-
--
s
-
...
_
1
-
s
V
A
:
—
7
It
I
~
::
.
^
-
s
-
\
)(
j
J
-
-
-
-
j
_
t
E
il
_
V
-
S
-
-
-
b
1
-
-
i
I
1
-
-
^
-
~~
0
R
A
-
^
0
7
-
A
-
/
-
\
\
\
_
-
-
/
F
_
^
—
—
-
-?
--
f
T
/
-
-
-
L
-
r-
^/
J
T
— ••,
f
?
-
A
[
X
/
-
-
-
/
-
-
iJ
V
/
-
/
-
Q
f
-
1
-
-
/
-
D
^
/
--
T
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
/
-
~
-
-
-
i
-
/
-
-
-
-i
^
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
--
/
-
^
-
-
-
T
r
-
-
/
-
-
-
D
-
-
i '
-
-
-
y1
A
\.
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
-
0
-
}
-
-
/
-
-
--
/
1 _
I
_.
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
u
-
-
(
-
-
j
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
f
-
-
-
/-
--
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-,
-
7
:
-
-
f
>.
r
-
/
-
-
t
-
/
_
_.
>
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..— i_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~^
-
-
-
-
-
{-
-
-
-
i
•-
-
-
-
£
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
--
-
-
-
7\
\_H
-
-}
1
-
rr
-
-
-i
-
1
t:
~\ 1
\
-h
4-
- 1-
-
~T-
L_,
i •i
-T'-f
'"> ~ T
~
(
I
_
f
jp;
— i — ;
_^
-
.
r
;
-
-
-
-
i
t
-
'. \
J
4 -.
•4
4-
^ t
T
[H
..1
-
"L
^
-i+
_i
-
-
—-
-t
H
_
r
_i
^
J
'.
-
-
-
J
-
-
-
-t
.
^,
-
il
1
-
"i
-
-
f>
"
-
i
-^
;
_
--
--
-
_L
-
rr-m "
-------
•
- *
t - " J 1
ft |f -
03 I
.
. 1
i. !
f:,2 J
b' 1
-> J -H 44 4 " r
-f— '• T-1 - -|" "ft " '
V I
U> " 1
', OZ '"IT
. P.; . ....-."•.:::
i
^
.
-- • '
- -p • -t
II
- --1 : _l-t
-- -- - - - - j
T-
------ ;H - •
_LiLiii=. ii:t£c. JF.._I
-_- o-j*E£
- - • - -*~s V[^4
\ - ~H-
------ S I
- - - - \ ~f\tyi
------ \ |
!
1 1- 4- ' i I-
II - I I [' '
4-1 :~T -"-' "
i 1 - „ . .
ii - -'
i
--- 1- t - - - :
j
j i
•'•HM— "4-t H -r
_ j.... . . ., _ - . ..
4- t - L - --
, \.-.\J,
1 'l 1 ^ -^
^ -n
' L-J ' " ^co" ..;::.£
i
_]
i
j - :" ~r r^i R,: 3
._ U-L i ' .J_L:. _ —
^
1
1
-
—
?
L,
f<
r
-
^
-
r
c
I/
•
-
>1|
f
_
-
^'
^J
-
/
-j
I
^
'
?
/
\
~
'
/
-
~'
~
*J\
-
.
-
-
/
'
-
-
t
(J
r
^
I
^
X
^
L;
n
-
-
x
-
pv
VN
-
-
/
-
-
'
-
-
"'
-
:
\
r
.
•
-
H
.
h
i
,
-•
-
,*•
^
-
-
-
-
C
'
-
!J
-
(
*
-
-
•
s
-
-
_
1
-
-
\
,
-
-
^
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
.'
-
-
-
-
-
.f
t
-
-
(
•n
t
/
-
-
-
_ .
*
i
-
--
- ~
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
•-
-
-
-
...
-
--
-
---
( if
--
-
--
-
s
--
-
-
-
-
:
-
-
.
i
-
i
-
1
-
.
:
-
.
•
*
-
-
-
-
.
ft
-
-
-
-
h
-
--
-
. i
-
5
-
~
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
'
"
-
-------
AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE
DEVELOPMENTS
WILLIAM T. TIERNEY
PROJECT MANAGER
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
TEXACO INC.
P. O. BOX 5O9
BEACON, NEW YORK 125O8
TEL. (AREA 914) 831-34OO
March 10, 1976
Mr. Karl J. Springer
Southwest Research Institute
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio., Texas 7828^-
Dear Karl:
I appreciated receiving the information on the
current status of the diesel filter test and would like
to have a short note from you containing information on
the tests to date. In line with your requests, I discussed
the two test units you wish to evaluate in the near future
with John Brandenburg. I find that a duplicate of the large
unit you have already tested, was prepared,_, however^, the
alumina material has not been deposited on it. This then
is exactly what you want - a filter housing containing just
the steel wool, ¥e are forwarding this to you today by
United Parcel.
You will note that we have welded two "screens"y
one on each end of the filter. The steel wool is packed
in two ten inch long "biscuits" with approximately three
inches of space between the two in the center of the filter.
¥e have flowed this on our air flow calibration rig. The
gas flow quantities were higher than the exhaust flow
expected from the car and we have noted no tendency for
the steel wool biscuit to move in the outer tube. It
might be desirable to drill about four holes in the outer
case and insert rods into the center of the steel wool
biscuit,, welding the rods at the outside of the case. This
will insure that the upstream biscuit does not move under
the impact of exhaust vibrations since the stainless steel
wool may lose some of its temper as a result of exhaust
temperature. We feel that the dead space between the biscuits
is important to the effectiveness of the filter. The unit you
have already tested was constructed in the same manner. The
unit to be supplied has the same weight of steel wool as the
one already in your hands. I note that in my letter to you
of December 2 I failed to provide you with the data on the
two units you have tested. The following table will confirm
the values provided over the telephone yesterday.
A-19
This is recycled paper
(see next page
-------
Mr. K. J. Springer - 2 - March 10, 1976
Weight (grams)
Filter
SS Wool
Case
&
Supports
Alumina
TOTAL
Ml-l 602 3608 1428 5638
M2-1 1199 5831 2752 9782
M2-2 1202 5880 None 7082
M3-1 267* 538 545 1353
*Inconel Mesh
Note: All Weights are taken following drying at 300°P to
remove adsorbed water.
The steel wool unit has the same weight of wool as shown for
the M-2 unit in the table above.
You indicated that you wish to test a radial flow
unit. For this purpose we are supplying an element similar
to that previously used as a catalyst support for the work
done on the emissions tests on the Army jeep equipped with
the TCCS engine. The support for the alumina is a woven
inconel mesh. Sample pieces of the uncoated material have
been forwarded for your inspection. We do not have a steel
wool unit. The detail of the catalytic unit is contained
in the attached SAE Paper No. 740563 (see Figures 2 & 7).
The element you will receive has an outer wrap of
stainless steel sheet with 1/2" diameter perforations. I
feel that the combination of the area reduction imposed by
the perforations in both the outer and inner surfaces and
the suggested conical outer wrap "muffler" case will provide
fairly uniform gas flow through the unit. I am enclosing a
copy of Drawing No. CS-D-5104 which suggests a muffler con-
figuration. The initial tests should be made with exhaust
flow in the directions shown. You may wish to reverse-flow
the unit to see if there is any difference between causing
the gas to enter the filter on a large surface or the much
reduced surface which would be the case with reverse flow.
The detail data on the radial flow element is also shown
in the above table as M-3-
A-20
-------
Mr. K. J. Springer - 3 - I-Iarch 103 1976
You will be interested to know that the potential
of the alumina material as a diesel smoke filter has "been
appreciated by several engine companies, and as a result,
we are now considering the supply of additional test units.
During our conversation I mentioned the indication
we had that the filter unit appreciably reduces diesel exhaust
odor. When you have had an opportunity to consider this matter,
I would appreciate hearing from you. You are aware of the fact
that the steel wool unit we have sent to you has utilized, the
last of the large size filter housings and,, should we wish to
evaluate additional designs, it will be necessary for us to
have another unit. Of course, if the test program on the wool
unit is short-lived, we could, remove the filling and. repack.
The next unit that would be of interest would, be one containing
more biscuits with a shorter axial flow path. Since, as you
indicated, the current unit has quite low back pressure, I'd.
suggest the use of higher packing density. A definitive evalu-
ation however would suggest that packing density and the number
of biscuits should be considered as separate items for evaluation.
For your convenience, I am attaching an extra copy of
this letter which you may wish to give to Jack McPadden for his
file. If you have any questions on the foregoing, please do not
hesitate to let me know.
Very truly yours,
¥. T. Tierney
WTT-khc
Attachments
cc: Mr..J. J. McFadden
(with copy of drawing)
A-21
-------
ITEXACO]
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE TEXACO INC.
DEVELOPMENTS P. O. BOX 5O9
WILLIAM T. T1ERNEY BEACON. NEW YORK 125O8
PROJECT MANAGER TEL. (AREA 914) 831-3400
May 10, 1976
Mr. Karl J. Springer
Southwest Research Institute
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio., Texas 78284
Dear Karl:
Last Friday, May 7, we returned the elbowed sections
to you via United Parcel Service. These have been packed for
smoke filter service with the alumina support based on stain-
less steel wool. A sketch of the rod support structure is
attached for your information.
As I mentioned to you in the past, other means for
assuring good retention of the filter material could be used
for a commercial unit,, however, the welded rod is a simple way
for us to approach this problem. The unit is completely packed
without dead space. For your information, the table below lists
the weight of the units and the packing in grams as well as the
ratio of alumina to steel wool.
A B
Case 2570 2572
Steel Wool 236 236
Case + SW + alumina 3189 3275
Alumina (calcined) 383 467
Ratio Al 0 1.62 1.98
Should you wish to weigh the elements to determine
how much particulate matter has been retained it should be
dried at about 250° to insure that all free water has been
removed from the alumina since the above table lists the
dry weight.
We will be interested in learning of the results of
the tests on these units.
Best regards,
12 •fe-*
P.S. - For your internal
use, I am attachlfl
T-khc 3 copies of the
o-? c-,,_„. pj-,-1- This is recycled paper invoice that
accompany the
rmient;. WTT
-------
;f.c4*J %
10 S^j&L^JL^A S^Xfc-f (lOf jUf*. !/<.-£,/
fj^r^J^sv?)
A-23
-------
APPENDIX B
MERCEDES 300D ROAD AND CHASSIS
DYNAMOMETER TEMPERATURE PROFILES
-------
TABLE B-l. MERCEDES 300D ROAD AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER TEMPERATURE PROFILES
1200 sec, 48.3 tan/hr LEVEL ROAD CRUISE
Reading
Exhaust Manifold, °C(1)
Integrator, °C
Pipe Flange, °C(1'
Muffler 1 Inlet, "c^1'
Integrator, °C
Muffler 1 Outlet, "c'1'
Integrator, °C
Muffler 2 Inlet, «C<1>
Muffler 2 Outlet, °C(2)
Bumper Ambient, °c'3'
Water Out, °c(3>
Engine Air In, °C<3'
Oil Sump, °C(3)
Exhaust Man, mm Hg'1'
Gage, mm Hg<2)
Pipe Flange, mm Hg'2'
Muffler 1 Inlet, mm Hg(2>
Muffler 2 Inlet, ram Hg(2)
Run 1
190
(280-136)
170
(220-130)
160
(178-125)
148
150
(165-124)
142
145
(160-119)
143
(165-129)
32
(32-31)
57
(64-55)
39
(40-38)
92
(95-91)
Road
Run 2
170
(248-136)
150
(193-130)
140
(160-123)
129
130
(138-120)
123
125
(135-118)
124
(130-114)
28
(29-25)
51
(56-49)
32
(33-30)
89
(91-84)
Avg.
180
160
150
139
140
133
135
134
30
54
36
91
184
(186-182)
160
(162-159)
148
150
(151-149)
141
147
(148-145)
137
(138-136)
23
(23-23)
44
(45-42)
29
(30-29)
89
(92-85)
14
(15-13)
14
(15-13)
14
(15-13)
12
(12-11)
7
(8-7)
Dyno
176
(180-172)
160
165
(170-160)
155
(157-152)
134
136
(140-132)
150
135
(140-132)
132
(138-91)
27
(27-27)
53
(53-52)
37
(46-35)
93
(94-89)
15
(15-15)
12
(13-10)
14
(15-13)
11
(11-11)
7
(8-7)
Avg.
180
160
158
141
143
146
141
135
25
49
33
91
15
13
14
12
7
(maximum-minimum)
J 11 visual estimates of continuous trace (4) fan located 2.87 m from bumper
2' readings taken every minute (5) fan located 4.39 m from bumper
' •*)
readings taken every two minutes
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2. MERCEDES 300D ROAD AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER TEMPERATURE PROFILES
600 sec, 96.5 km/hr LEVEL ROAD CRUISE
Road
Dyno
Reading
Exhaust Manifold, "c'1'
Integrator, °C
Pipe Flange, °c(1>
Muffler 1 Inlet, "c'1'
Integrator, °C
Muffler 1 Outlet, "c'1'
Integrator, °C
Muffler 2 Inlet, "cd'
Muffler 2 Outlet, °C<2)
Bumper Ambient, °c'3)
Water Out, °c(3'
Engine Air In, °c(3)
Oil Sump, °C(3'
Exhaust Man, mm Hg'1'
Gage, mm Hg'2'
Pipe Flange, mm Mg'2'
Muffler 1 Inlet, mm Hg'2)
Muffler 2 Inlet, ram Hg<2)
Run 1)
300
(412-260)
270
(358-252)
255
(295-228)
248
245
(275-225)
235
235
(270-220)
234
(247-223)
31
(32-31)
79
(79-78)
39
(40-38)
101
(102-100)
Run 2
310
(464-288)
295
(420-270)
285
(343-245)
294
280
(320-245)
277
265
(308-233)
260
(278-237)
28
(29-25)
78
(79-77)
34
(36-29)
101
(102-98)
Avg.
305
283
270
271
263
256
250
247
30
78
37
101
320
(322-312)
312
—
306
(308-305)
297
288
(288-285)
276
285
(289-280)
273
(274-267)
23
(23-23)
81
(82-81)
42
(43-40)
102
(103-102)
54
(57-52)
57
(58-56)
77
(70-76)
51
(51-51)
33
(33-32)
332
(336-312)
315
(321-305)
300
(303-288)
286
275
(278-258)
262
270
(276-260)
248
(274-81)
27
(27-27)
75
(83-38)
42
(45-34)
101
(106-89)
63
(64-62)
52
(53-51)
67
(69-66)
49
(49-49)
31
(31-30)
Avg.
326
312
315
303
292
282
269
278
261
25
78
42
101
59
55
72
50
32
(maximum-minimum)
'D visual estimates of continuous trace
(2) readings taken every minute
(3) readings taken every two minutes
fan located 2.87 m from bumper
fan located 4.39 m from bumper
B-3
-------
TABLE B-3. MERCEDES 300D ROAD AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER TEMPERATURE PROFILES
1398 sec., 21.74 km, SULFATE (SET) S-7 CYCLE
_ Reading _
Exhaust Manifold, °c(1>
Integrator, °C
Pipe Flange, °C(1)
Muffler 1 Inlet, °C(1)
Integrator, °C
Muffler 1 Outlet, °C(1)
Integrator, °C
Muffler 2 Inlet, °C(1)
Muffler 2 Outlet, °C<2)
Bumper Ambient,
Water Out, °c<3>
Engine Air In, °C<3)
Oil Sump, °c(3'
Exhaust Man, mm Hg'^-'
Run 1
260
(544-132)
210
(425-145)
205
(335-138)
196
195
(303-137)
189
187
(293-135)
184
(226-127)
32
(37-29)
76
(86-66)
46
(71-38)
97
(101-93)
Road
Run 2
250
(512-140)
200
(405-150)
200
(325-138)
204
190
(298-138)
196
196
(288-134)
195
(258-131)
32
(33-31)
72
(77-64)
40
(51-36)
97
(101-93)
Dyno
Avg
255
205
203
200
193
193
192
190
32
74
43
97
Run 1(4)
225
(384-156)
223
205
(375-123)
200
(338-130)
199
190
(283-118)
188
190
(283-111)
188
(253-114)
26
(27-25)
66
(79-46)
37
(41-34)
98
(103-91)
31
(57.0-5.2)
Run 2*5)
220
(384-144)
223
200
(378-114)
200
(330-110)
202
190
(273-105)
190
190
(275-103)
187
(251-92)
26
(27-26)
68
(81-53)
40
(48-37)
98
(104-90)
31
(59.6-5.2)
(Max-Min)
(1) Visual Estimates of Continuous Trace
(2) Readings Taken Every Minute
(3) Readings Taken Every Two Minutes
(4) Fan located 2.87 m from Bumper
(5) Fan located 4.39 m from Bumper
B-4
-------
TABLE B-4. MERCEDES 300D ROAD AND CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER TEMPERATURE PROFILES
765 sec., 16.48 km, FUEL ECONOMY TEST (FET) CYCLE
Reading
Exhaust Manifold, "C
Integrator, °C
Pipe Flange, °C(1)
Muffler 1 Inlet, °C(1)
Integrator, °C
Muffler 1 Outlet, «
Integrator, °C
Muffler 2 Inlet, °C
(1)
Muffler 2 Outlet, °C<2)
(3)
Bumper Ambient, °C
Water Out, 'C<3'
Engine Air In, °C<3'
Oil Sump, °C<3>
Road
Run 1
260
(464-128)
240
(368-150)
215
(293-145)
213
205
(270-155)
204
200
(265-150)
201
(230-171)
32
(37-31)
76
(81-71)
41
(48-38)
98
(101-97)
Run 2
290
(516-132)
270
(423-155)
240
(345-148)
238
230
(313-153)
226
220
(303-155)
222
(262-188)
32
(32-32)
75
(79-72)
39
(44-37)
98
(102-96)
Avg
275
265
223
226
213
215
210
212
32
75
40
98
Dyno
Exhaust Man, mm Hg
(1)
Run
255
(344-160)
254
240
(335-150)
230
(300-150)
232
215
(268-140)
214
200
(273-138)
202
(254-85)
27
(27-26)
71
(81-50)
41
(46-37)
99
(104-89)
41
Run 2'5'
260
(348-160)
259
245
(345-150)
235
(315-153)
236
220
(265-158)
219
210
(285-155)
209
(254-114)
27
(28-26)
74
(82-63)
42
(51-39)
101
(105-92)
40
(55.7-10.4) (66.0-9.1)
(Max-Min)
(1) Visual Estimates of Continuous Trace
(2) Readings Taken Every Minute
(3) Readings Taken Every Two Minutes
(4) Fan located 2.87 m from Bumper
(5) Fan located 4.39 m from Bumper
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
SINGLE COMPONENTS AND COMBINATIONS
-------
TABLE C-l. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 1-23-76
Description of Item; Factory Mufflers - Stock System Initial Baseline
Average temperatures, °C
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Parti culate
g/km
0. 256
0. 280
0. 263
0. 259
0. 268
0. 265
0. 279
0. 282
0. 262
0. 269
Exh.
Manifold
192
211
210
210
204
204
204
199
199
198
Muffler
No. 1
Inlet
173
187
185
181
184
182
180
174
175
174
Muffler
No. 1
Outlet
138
168
165
169
164
163
165
158
160
159
Avg. Hot
0. 270
204
180
161
At 80. 5 km/hr during test the following pressures were noted:
P! - 28. 89 mm Hg
AP - 15. 88 mm Hg
14. 01 mm Hg
No steady state temperatures or pressures taken after these runs
C-2
-------
TABLE C-2. P ARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 1-27-76
Description of item: HCC Small Swirl Separator
Average Temperature °C
Run Type Particulate
No. Test g/km
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
Avg. Hot
0. 250
0. 238
0. 258
0. 251
0. 281
0. 257
Steady State
0
Exhaust
Manifold
194
196
198
198
197
197
Pressures and
16. 1
Vehicle
32. 2
Trap
Inlet
176
174
178
179
178
177
Trap
Outlet
163
164
167
168
167
166
Temperatures
Speed, km/h
48. 3
Temperatures, °
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
26
46
68
93
157
135
114
0. 9
1. 9
Neg
26
55
72
91
154
131
125
4.6
4. 6
Neg
26
49
64
92
162
145
138
P
6.5
5.6
0. 7
25
43
59
93
180
161
149
r
64. 4
cU)
26
44
66
95
212
195
182
80.4
25
48
79
99
256
238
224
96. 5
26
54
85
105
312
300
282
ressures, mm Hg
8.4
6.5
1. 1
15.9
12. 1
3. 7
25. 8
17. 7
7. 5
38. 3
26. 2
11.6
(1)
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warm up
C-3
-------
TABLE C-3. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 1-Z8-76
Description of item: HCC Small Cyclone Separator
Avg.
Hot
Average Temperatures, °C
Run.
No.
1
2
3
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Particulate
R/km
0. 242
0. 213
0. 203
Exhaust
Manifold
206
201
204
Trap
Inlet
186
178
180
Trap
Outlet
156
151
151
0. 208
202
179
151
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
0
16. 1
32. 2
Speed, kph
48. 3
64.4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, °c(1)
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
28
84
78
96
168
125
112
7.6
7.6
Neg
34
60
77
95
160
130
110
35.6
33. 0
3. 7
29
53
71
95
168
148
122
55.
50.
6.
28
48
66
95
188
168
140
Pressures,
9 66.0
8 58.4
5 8.4
27
47
70
96
226
206
170
mm Hg
121. 9
109. 2
15.9
27
50
80
100
284
262
215
198. 0
170. 2
27. 1
28
58
86
107
360
332
278
274.3
236.2
38.3
( ' After 5 minute, 80. 4 km/hr warm up.
C-4
-------
TABLE C-4. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 1-28-76
Description of item;HCC Large Cyclone Separator
Avg.
Average Temperatures, °C
Run
No.
1
2
3
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 209
0. 232
0. 227
Exhaust
Manifold
191
201
209
Trap
Inlet
172
176
172
Trap
Outlet
136
137
134
0. 223
200
173
136
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
0
16. 1
32. 2
Temperatures ,
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before Trap
After Trap
26
50
78
97
164
131
112
28
60
80
95
160
132
108
25
59
75
95
168
148
118
Pressures, mm
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
2. 5
2. 5
0
15. 2
10. 1
4. 7
20. 3
15. 2
5. 5
48. 3
oc(l)
26
49
65
94
184
165
131
Hg
25.4
20. 3
5. 5
64.4
26
47
68
94
220
200
158
55.9
40. 6
14. 1
80. 4
26
49
74
97
256
250
200
78. 7
58.4
21. 1
96.5
27
55
83
103
336
322
260
114. 3
83. 8
31. 1
After 5 minute, 80. 4 km/hr warm up.
C-5
-------
TABLE C-5. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 1/29 and 1/30/76
Description of Item: Texaco A-IR, Alumina Coated Steel Wool Agglomerator
System AP, mm Hg
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
Avg. Temperatures, °C
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 100
0. 078
0. 089
0. 090
0. 097
0. 086
o. 092
0. 097
o. 090
Exhaust
Manifold
195
199
203
206
196
203
201
203
201
Trap
Inlet
155
155
163
163
160
161
162
160
160
Trap
Outlet
141
144
156
157
148
156
157
158
152
38.
38.
38.
39.6
41. 6
40. 5
40. 2
39.5
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
0
16.1
32. 2
48.3
64.4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, °c(1)
26
50
70
99
176
145
180
26
54
66
96
162
131
167
26
46
56
94
162
132
140
Pressures, mm
3.2
4. 7
Neg
12. 1
12. 1
0
17. 0
15.9
2.8
25
42
56
93
180
144
136
Hg
20. 7
17. 2
3.9
26
45
62
94
214
182
153
31.6
28. 2
4. 7
26
49
75
98
258
222
186
47. 3
43.3
5. 0
26
55
84
104
318
276
240
67.6
61.8
8.0
5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-6
-------
TABLE C-6. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 1/30 and 2/2/76
Description of Item:HCC-137 Packed Bed Agglomerator, Nominal
(8 mm) 1/4 inch diameter alumina spheres
Avg. Temperatures, °C
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 203
0. 223
0. 231
0. 224
0. 248
0. 222
0.216
0. 243
0. 223
Exhaust
Manifold
198
203
205
205
203
203
202
205
203
Trap
Inlet
163
166
166
166
164
163
163
165
165
Trap
Outlet
144
150
149
149
139
148
147
150
148
System AP, mm Hg
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
20. 2
20. 9
20. 7
20. 8
21.5
21.5
20. 9
20. 9
20. 8
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
Speed, kph
0
16. 1
32. 2
48.3
64.4
80. 4
96. 5
Temperatures, " c(^>
24
53
72
101
186
145
162
24
59
70
98
166
162
23
50
60
97
166
137
120
Pressures, mm
0.9
2. 2
Neg
5.8
5.2
0
9.2
7.6
0.9
24
43
57
96
182
149
141
Hg
9. 7
8.0
1.3
23
44
60
94
210
184
162
18.5
14. 0
3. 4
24
47
69
98
258
231
199
27.8
20.9
6.2
24
56
84
105
320
291
252
40. 7
30.8
9.5
'•'•'After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-7
-------
TABLE C-7. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/2 and 2/3/76
Description of Item: Ethyl Corp. Agglomerator packed with Chopped Lath
Avg. Temperatures, °C
System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 270
0. 247
0. 245
0. 253
0.301
0. 259
0. 270
0. 267
0. 259
Exhaust
Manifold
196
201
202
204
191
201
203
204
202
Trap
Inlet
164
162
166
166
I6l
165
169
162
165
Trap
Outlet
149
148
155
154
145
154
158
149
152
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.8
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
0
16.1
32. 2
Temperatures, °
26
59
73
100
182
158
168
25
60
70
98
165
136
142
25
54
63
97
169
139
137
Pressures, mm
0.2
0.9
Neg
2.8
2. 2
0.9
4.3
2.8
1.3
48. 3
cd)
25
47
62
96
186
150
142 '
Hg
5. 0
3. 2
1. 5
64.4
26
46
64
96
214
186
172
9.5
4. 7
4. 3
80.4
26
49
73
98
258
230
212
15.1
6.9
8.0
96. 5
26
54
82
103
318
290
269
23.4
10.3
12.9
imnuU-, 80.4 km/hr \varnmp
C-8
-------
TABLE C-8. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/3 and 2/4/76
Description of Item: Ethyl
'TAV" Separator, single
Avg. Temperatures, °C
System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 205
0. 201
0. 209
0. 235
0. 207
0. 208
0. 200
0.200
0. 204
Exhaust
Manifold
206
208
213
204
206
208
210
2iO
209
Trap
Inlet
166
172
174
165
164
164
162
164
166
Trap
Outlet
149
158
159
148
148
150
147
148
151
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
74. 9
75. 7
74.9
74. 9
74. 9
74. 9
74.9
74.5
75. 0
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
0
16. 1
32.2
Temperatures, °
27
54
73
99
184
128
125
24
60
68
96
164
130
122
24
48
59
94
168
140
131
Pressures, mm
4. 7
3.9
0
15.9
12.9
1.9
26. 3
20. 2
4. 7
48.3
c(D
25
44
57
93
184
155
142
Hg
27. 1
23.3
4. 7
64.4
23
45
63
95
220
190
175
49. 5
45.4
4. 5
80.4
24
48
75
99
268
238
218
83.1
75.6
8. 2
96.5
24
56
84
104
336
305
282
127. 9
113. 0
13.3
U)After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-9
-------
TABLE C-9. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/5/76
Description of Item: Texaco A-IRwith exit cavity and center bed temperature
Average Temperature,
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.176
0.129
0.126
0. 146
0.134
0.121
0. 128
0. 128
0. 130
Exhaust Trap
Manifold Inlet
160
161
167
163
170
166
171
171
-t1) 167
Trap
Center
159
158
157
154
159
156
161
l6l
158
°C
Trap
Outlet
157
150
149
143
153
148
153
153
150
System AP, mm I
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
45.8
45.8
45.8
43.6
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Before Trap
Trap Center
After Trap
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
16.1
32.2
Speed, kph
48.3 64.4
Temperatures,
Pressures, mm Hg
80.4
U/Exhaust manifold temperature not recorded during these runs
^"' 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
96.5
25
50
69
97
150
170
175
25
57
72
96
135
140
160
26
49
60
93
133
140
148
26
44
57
93
150
150
145
27
44
58
93
180
180
158
27
47
72
96
220
220
190
26
52
80
102
283
283
243
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
4. 7
5. 8
Neg.
14.6
14. 0
0
17. 7
16.6
0
19.1
17. 7
0.9
33.7
30. 3
2. 8
49.5
45.8
3.9
70. 0
65.8
6.5
C-10
-------
TABLE C-10. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/6/76
Description of Item: Bus Catalytic Muffler, Empty
Avg. Temperatures, "C System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 255
0. 248
0. 248
0. 250
0. 250
Exhaust
Manifold
189
195
195
195
194
Trap
Inlet
156
160
163
160
160
Trap
Outlet
119
128
129
128
126
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
0.9
0. 9
0.9
0. 9
0.9
Steady State Temperatures and Pressures
Speed, k'ph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
0
16.1
32. 2
Temperatures, °
24
59
82
100
163
140
138
23
64
79
98
166
136
129
23
56
64
97
167
142
126
Pressures, mm
Neg
0.9
Neg
0.6
1.3
Neg.
1. 1
0. 9
0.5
48.3
cd)
24
53
64
96
174
151
130
Hg
1. 5
0.9
0. 7
64.4
24
48
66
96
21 3
184
148
3. 2
0. 7
2.9
80. 4
24
48
72
99
255
228
179
3.4
0.5
3. 2
96.5
25
53
81
103
312
285
224
5. 1
0.5
5.1
(I/After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-ll. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/6 and 2/9/76
Description of Item: Bus Catalytic Muffler with 60 Ibs Alumina spheres
8mm (1/4 inch) nominal size
System AP,
Avg. Temperatures, °C -mm Hg at 80.4
Run Type
No. Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
Particulate
g/km
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
305
284
258
232
246
208
234
241
252
Steady State
0
Exhaust
Manifold
1
1
1
1
91
93
98
95
191
1
1
1
1
96
97
93
94
Trap
Inlet
160
162
168
162
162
163
165
162
163
Trap
km/hr
Outlet after run
120
128
140
133
87
123
130
90
123
0. 9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0. 9
0.9
0. 9
0. 9
Pressures and Temperatures
16.1
32.
Speed,
kph
2 48.3
64.4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, °CU)
>ld
24
59
73
95
160
150
121
24
58
63
93
152
132
122
24
43
53
93
160
140
125
1
1
1
24
42
54
93
80
55
30
24
46
66
94
212
191
142
25
53
79
100
260
232
156
24
60
85
107
320
292
175
Pressures, mm Hg
0
0.6
Neg
0. 3
1.5
Neg
1.5
0.9
0. 4
1
0
0
. 7
.9
. 7
3.1
1. 3
2.8
5.6
0.9
5.6
9.2
0.9
8.4
(l)After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-12
-------
TABLE C-12. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/10 and 2/11/76
Description of Combination:
Texaco A-IR Agglomerator with exit cavity and
Ethyl TAV single separator
System AP,
Average Temperatures, °C
Run Type
No. Test
1 Hot
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Cold
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
Avg. Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 117
0. 117
0. 107
0. 112
0. 168
0.136
0.138
0. 137
0. 123
Exhaust
Manifold
198
200
197
198
201
199
198
200
198
A-IR
Inlet
165
162
162
164
167
166
162
163
163
Between
Units
152
151
151
149
144
153
146
146
150
Ethyl
Outlet
143
141
141
139
135
143
136
138
140
mm Hg at 80.'
km/hr
after run
152.4
147. 3
147. 3
147. 3
149.9
149.9
147. 3
149.9
148. 8
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
0
16.1
32. 2
Speed,
48.
kph
3 64. 4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, ° c(^>
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before Comb.
After Comb.
Before Comb.
AP
After Comb.
Before A-IR
AP
After A-IR
Before TAVS
AP
After TAVS
24
32
54
89
144
105
152
12.
12.
0
7.
2.
4.
7.
7.
0
24
32
44
89
128
102
131
7 40. 6
7 40.6
0
6 38. 1
5 12. 7
7 23.4
6 27. 9
6 27. 9
0
24
32
43
86
142
118
118
Pres
53.3
53.3
0
53.3
17.9
31.7
38.1
38.1
0
24
32
46
86
164
138
118
24
34
53
90
210
179
140
24
38
72
96
264
232
180
24
42
82
103
332
295
235
sures, mm Hg
58.
58.
0
58.
20.
37.
43.
40.
0.
4 101.6
4 101. 6
1.5
4 104.1
3 35.6
4 65.4
2 76. 2
6 73. 7
2 1.9
162.6
157.5
3.5
160. 0
50.8
104.6
121.9
116.8
4.2
228.6
221.0
6.2
236. 2
71. 1
160.6
175. 3
167.6
6.7
(1'After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup.
C-13
-------
TABLE C-13. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/12/76
Description of Combination:
Texaco A-IRAgglomerator with exit cavity and
HCC small swirl separator
System AP
Average Temperatures,
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.238
0.176
0.178
0.170
0.188
0.164
0.183
0. 174
0.176
Exhaust
Manifold
196
195
194
197
197
195
190
193
194
A-IR
Inlet
164
158
161
168
168
161
160
161
162
Between
Units
143
149
145
157
159
150
146
146
150
°C
Cyclone
Outlet
137
143
139
152
154
144
141
140
144
mm Hg at 80.4
k.m/hr
after run
58.4
58.4
55.9
58.4
61.0
55.9
58.4
55. 9
57. 7
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
16.1
32. 2
48.3
64.4
80.4
Temperatures,
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before Comb.
After Comb.
Pressures, mm Hg
1 'Alter 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
96.5
24
41
55
94
116
85
108
24
40
55
94
126
106
102
24
39
51
94
148
130
108
24
39
54
93
168
146
122
24
40
58
94
204
183
148
24
42
70
97
26 1
238
210
24
45
80
101
316
295
252
Before Comb.
AP
After Comb.
Before A-IR
AP
After A-IR
5.1
7.6
Neg.
5. 1
2.5
0
20. 3
20. 3
0
15.2
12.7
2.0
25.4
25.4
0.4
25.4
22.9
4. 1
30. 5
30.5
0.4
30. 5
25. 4
5. 0
50.8
50. 8
0.4
53.3
45. 7
11.0
76.2
73.7
5.0
81.3
66.0
18.7
111. 8
106. 7
8. 2
114.3
86.4
29.9
C-14
-------
TABLE C-14. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/13/76
Description of Combination:
Texaco A-IR Agglomerater with exit cavity and
HCC large cyclone separator
System AP,
Average Temperatures, ?C mm Hg at 80.4
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
Avg. Hot
Particulate
£
0
5 /km
0.198
0. 175
0.166
0. 170
Steady
16.1
Exhaust
Manifold
202
201
201
201
State Pres
32.2
A-IR
Inlet
169
171
165
168
sures and
Speed,
48.3
Between
Units
148
164
154
159
Cyclone
Outlet
127
144
134
139
km/hr
after run
114. 3
114. 3
114. 3
114. 3
Temperatures
kph
64. 4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, °c'^)
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man. 1
Before Comb. 1
After Comb. 1
27
33
46
87
40
00
25
27
37
47
88
132
102
108
27
36
47
88
144
120
102
27
37
50
90
164
140
106
27
40
64
95
206
182
130
27
46
79
101
272
239
180
28
50
85
107
336
302
222
Pressures, mm Hg
Before Comb.
AP
After Comb.
Before A-IR
AP
After A-IR
Before Cyclone
AP
After Cyclone
5. 1
7.6
Neg
5.1
5.1
0
5. 1
2. 5
0
30. 5
27. 9
r 1 1
> *
30. 5
12. 7
14. 0
12. 7
10. 2
2.2
45.7
38.1
4. 7
43. 2
22.9
21.3
22.8
17.8
4.9
48. 3
43. 2
5. 2
48. 3
25.4
24.3
25.4
20.3
5.2
88. 9
78. 7
11.8
86.4
43.2
46. 7
48.3
35.6
11.3
137. 2
119. 4
20.0
137. 2
66.0
72.8
78. 7
58.4
18.7
195.6
172. 7
29.9
198.1
86.4
108.3
111.8
83.8
28. 0
(1)
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-15
-------
TABLE C-15. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/16/76
Description of Combination:HCC-3i 7, packed bed agglomerator and Ethyl TAV
single separator
System AP,
Average Temperatures,
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
Avg. Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.266
0.188
0. 191
0.192
0.194
0.182
0. 186
0. 188
0.189
Exhaust
Manifold
198
195
190
188
184
184
181
182
186
Before Between
HCC-137
180
162
i68
165
165
166
162
163
164
Units
165
154
164
158
157
i6l
154
156
158
"•* /~*
After
TAVS
145
137
149
141
141
141
137
140
141
mmHg at 80. 4
km/hr
after run
53. 3
63.5
63.5
63. 5
63.5
63.5
63.5
63. 5
63.5
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
0 16. 1
32.2
Speed,
48. 3
Temperatures, °C
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exh. Man.
Before Comb.
After Comb.
-
40 45
62 55
80 80
146 141
130 130
156 132
28
43
49
85
158
150
142
28
42
53
85
170
164
148
kph
64.4
(1)
27
43
64
90
205
201
179
80.4
47
80
98
258
254
228
96.5
53
84
104
328
326
290
Pressures, mm Hg
Before Comb.
AP
After Comb.
Before HCC-1
AP
5.1 10.2
10. 2 10. 2
Neg. 0
375.1 10.2
2.5 2.5
After HCC-137 2.4 8. 2
Before TAVS
AP
Alter TAVS
2.5 10.2
2. 5 10. 2
0 0
15. 2
15. 2
0
15. 2
2.5
13.0
12.7
12. 7
0
20.3
20.3
0
20.3
2.5
17.8
17.8
17.8
0
40.6
40.6
0
38. 1
10. 2
33.2
33.0
33. 0
0
66.9
66.0
0.6
66.0
15.2
53.2
53.3
53.3
0.9
96. 5
96. 5
0.9
96. 5
17.8
15.6
81.3
81.3
2.8
'Ait.-r 5 minute, bO.4 km/hr \varmup
C-16
-------
TABLE C-16. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/18/76
Description of Item:
Factory Mufflers, Second Baseline in
Standard Stock Configuration
Avg. Temperatures, °C
Muffler
Run Type Particulate Exhaust No. 1
No. Test g/km Manifold Inlet
1 Cold 0.
2 Hot 0.
3 Hot 0.
4 Hot 0.
5 Hot 0.
6 Hot 0.
7 Hot 0.
8 Hot 0.
9 Hot 0.
10 Hot 0.
Avg. Hot 0.
307
247
257
253
261
256
278
260
276
276
263
186
188
185
184
186
188
180
181
187
183
187
168
163
162
161
163
165
160
i6i
169
164
163
Muffler System AP, mm Hg
No. 1 at 80.4 km/hr
Outlet after run
147
145
144
142
144
147
140
141
146
145
144
11.6
11.9
' 11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Muffler
After Muffler
0
25
45
42
76
112
85
80
16.1 32.2
Temperatures,
25 26
37 37
39 43
78 82
120 144
103 129
92 115
Speed,
48.
°cU)
26
39
47
86
165
148
132
kph
3 64.4
27
40
52
89
212
188
168
80.4 96.5
26 26
46 50
65 79
87 103
248 316
236 300
212 272
Pressures, mm Hg
Before Muffler No. 1
AP
After Muffler No. 1
0.9
0.9
0
2. 8 6.0
2.4 4.1
0.4 2.0
6.5
4.3
2.2
14.0
7.3
5.8
23.3 34.5
11.6 17.4
10.5 16.2
'^After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C- 17
-------
TABLE C-17. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/20/76
Description of Combination:
Ethyl Agglomerator and Ethyl TAV single
Average Temperatures
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 250
0. 256
0.277
0. 288
0. 255
0. 268
0.278
0.275
0. 291
0. 271
Exhaust
Manifold
211
210
214
200
196
201
202
200
194
203
Agg-
Inlet
175
195
181
174
168
168
173
168
171
175
Between
Units
157
181
161
158
157
155
159
154
153
159
, °c
TAVS
Outlet
146
171
150
147
148
145
149
144
136
148
System AP,
mmHg at 80. 4
km/hr
after run
106. 7
111. 8
111. 8
116. 8
114. 3
109. 2
109. 2
109. 2
106. 7
110. 6
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before Agg.
Before TAVC
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
(1)
16.1
32.2
48.3
64.4
Temperatures, "
Pressures, mm Hg
Alter 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
80.4
96.5
23
28
56
81
146
118
130
23
25
36
78
144
124
115
23
27
32
81
160
145
122
23
29
38
83
188
170
138
23
32
46
87
220
202
168
23
34
58
93
276
260
212
23
38
78
101
344
335
275
Before Agg.
AP
After TAVS
2.5
3.8
Neg
20.3
20.3
0
33.0
33.0
0
38.5
38. 5
0. 2
76.2
73.6
1.7
123. 0
114.3
3.9
177.8
170. 2
7. 1
C-18
-------
TABLE C-18. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/23/76
Description of Item: HCC-11 5 Agglomerator-Separator-Trap
"all in one" trap system
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run Type Particulate Exhaust
No. Test g/km Manifold
1 Cold 0.
2 Hot 0.
3 Hot 0.
4 Hot 0.
5 Hot 0.
6 Hot 0.
7 Hot 0.
8 Hot 0.
9 Hot 0.
10 Hot 0.
Avg. Hot 0.
Steady
390
262
242
232
220
228
224
230
229
238
234
State
0
211
211
211
202
208
206
200
204
201
205
Pressures and
16.1 32.2
Trap Trap
Inlet Outlet
173
173
171
-
163
167
166
164
166
165
167
137
136
137
-
127
134
-
124
128
126
130
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
104.
101.
101.
104.
106.
106.
106.
106.
106.
106.
105.
1
6
6
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
3
Temperatures
Speed, kph
48.3
64.4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, °cU)
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
25
51
76
101
184
135
160
25 24
62 57
79 69
97 97
136 180
138 149
130 120
24
46
59
96
196
165
125
24
45
59
96
234
202
150
24
48
71
99
288
260
192
24
54
82
105
372
338
258
Pressures, mm Hg
Before Trap
AP 1
After Trap
7.6
0.2
Neg.
22.9 38.1
20.3 35.6
2.8 5.0
43.2
40.6
5.9
81.3
71. 1
11.6
127. 0
106.7
19.0
185.4
157.5
27.8
(1)
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-l'
-------
TABLE C-19. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/24/76
Description of Item:HCC -115A Agglomerator-Separator -
in one" trap system
'all
Avg. Temperatures, "C System AP, mmHg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 228
0.206
0. 216
0.215
0.216
0. 216
0.210
0. 202
0.210
0. 222
0. 211
Exhaust
Manifold
207
2il
206
208
204
207
204
208
205
219
208
Trap
Inlet
174
171
168
169
168
170
168
170
167
181
170
Trap
Outlet
130
133
124
129
124
128
124
128
129
143
i29
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
134.6
132.1
129.5
129.5
132. 1
132.1
132. 1
134.6
137. 1
137.1
132.9
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
0
16.1
32. 2
Temperatures, °
22
42
46
91
132
78
88
22
35
39
90
116
100
85
21
35
43
90
152
125
95
Pressures, mm
5. 1
7.6
Neg
27.9
25. 4
2. 2
48. 3
45. 7
4. 1
48.3
cU)
21
37
47
91
176
150
110
Hg
55.9
50.8
4. 7
64.4
22
41
56
94
220
195
142
99.1
71. 1
9.7
80.4
22
45
70
99
280
252
142
147. 3
137. 1
15.9
96.5
22
51
82
104
356
330
255
215.9
193.0
23.4
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
'After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-20
-------
TABLE C-20. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/24 and 2/25/76
Description of Item:HCC-125 Agglomerator-Separator "all in one"
trap system
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
a
to
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
/km
. 284
. 246
. 297
. 236
.242
. 238
. 240
. 236
. 240
. 250
. 246
. 240
. 253
. 243
. 248
.246
Exhaust
Manifold
196
194
195
203
200
192
193
197
193
191
183
178
195
185
180
191
Trap
Inlet
166
162
164
164
164
160
161
163
I6l
161
161
163
164
163
163
162
Trap
Outlet
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
97
26
22
47
45
31
29
34
30
31
31
-
33
32
33
31
at 80.4
after
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
km/ hr
run
5
3
5
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
9
8
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Ambient Air
Intake
Engine
Engine
Air
Water
Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before
Trap
After Trap
0
23
39
43
90
139
75
100
16.1 32.2
T e mp e r atu r e s ,
22 23
36 37
38 46
89 90
140 155
105 128
99 110
Speed,
48.3
°c(i)
23
37
48
91
180
152
118
kph
64.4
23
39
49
93
216
190
132
80.4
22
41
59
97
260
242
156
96.
22
46
77
101
320
305
188
5
Pressures, mm Hg
Before
AP
Trap
After Trap
0. 2
0
0
8.9 11.2
8.8 10.8
0 0
11. 7
10.4
0.9
20.5
18.1
2.1
34. 0
29.3
4.3
43.
35.
6.
0
5
7
5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-21
-------
TABLE C-21. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/Z6/76
Description of Item:
Texaco A-IF Agglomerator packed with alumina
coated steel wool
Avg. Temperatures. °C System AP, mm Hg
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
9 Hot
10 Hot
Avg. Hot
Ambient Ail-
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Particulate
g/km
0. 256
0.205
0. 208
0. 201
0.210
0. 207
0. 214
0. 212
0.204
0. 224
0. 209
Steady State
0
24
41
44
90
Exhaust Manifold 122
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
80
108
1.8
0.9
0
Exhaust Trap
Manifold Inlet
202 150
204 162
195 154
201 160
192 156
201 l6l
197 156
197 157
194
188 162
197 159
Trap
Outlet
146
166
155
164
158
164
158
161
163
161
161
at 80.4
km/hr
after run
22
22
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
.4
.4
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
. 3
.3
.3
. 1
Pressures and Temperatures
Speed,
16.1 32.2 48.
Temperatures, °C(1)
24 24 24
31 34 36
37 42 46
88 89 92
130 148 176
89 110 132
100 110 128
Pressures, mm Hg
9.3 13.1 14.9
3.7 7.5 9.3
2.8 4.7 4.7
kph
3 64.4
24
40
55
95
216
178
170
24.3
16. 8
6.5
80.4
24
44
69
99
260
225
222
35.5
26. 1
8.4
96.5
24
49
81
104
312
278
278
50.4
39.2
11.2
5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-22
-------
TABLE C-22. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 2/27/76
Description of Combination:
Texaco A-IF and Texaco A-IR Agglomerators
Average Temperatures,
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.176
0.093
0.094
0.092
0.097
0.106
0.095
0.104
0.101
0.110
Exhaust
Manifold
197
196
194
196
195
197
197
196
195
197
A-IF
Inlet
160
156
166
161
166
160
163
162
163
Between
Traps
149
148
161
155
161
151
156
155
158
°C
A-IR
Outlet
132
138
153
145
153
141
147
145
149
System AP ,
mm Hg at 80
km/hr after
71.0
71.0
72.8
74.7
76.6
76.6
76.6
76.6
76.6
76.6
.4
run
Avg. Hot 0.099 196 162 157 146
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
75.3
Speed, kph
16.1 32.2
Temperature, °C
48.3
(1)
64.4
80.4
Ambient
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before A-IF
After A-IR
Pressures, mm Hg
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
96.5
22
36
44
90
104
70
110
22
31
37
89
116
86
95
23
30
37
88
140
112
98
23
32
40
89
172
138
110
24
34
46
92
212
178
142
23
39
63
97
268
230
190
24
44
78
103
340
296
250
Before Comb.
AP
After Comb.
Before A-IF
AP
After A-IF
Before A-IR
AP
After A-IR
9.
5.
2.
6.
1.
4.
7.
3.
2.
3
6
8
9
8
8
5
7
8
20.5
16.8
3.7
24.3
5.6
16.8
18.7
14.9
2.8
28.
26.
3.
33.
5.
26.
24.
20.
2.
0
1
7
6
6
2
3
5
8
31
29
2
39
14
26
26
22
2
.7
.9
.8
.2
.9
.2
.2
.4
.8
56.0
52.3
2.8
65.3
18.7
50.4
44.8
39.2
3.7
84
82
2
100
28
72
67
59
4
.0
.2
.2
.8
.0
.8
.2
.8
.7
121.4
117.7
4.1
145.7
56.0
97.1
95.3
87.8
6.5
C-23
-------
TABLE C-23. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 3/2/76
Description of CombinatiomHCC- 137 packed bed Agglomerator(l)
and Ethyl TAV single separator
Avg. Temperatures,
Run Type Particulate Exhaust HCC-137
No. Test g/km
1 Cold 0.
2 Hot 0.
3 Hot 0.
4 Hot 0.
5 Hot 0.
6 Hot 0.
7 Hot 0.
Avg. Hot 0.
Steady
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before HCC-137
After TAVS
Before Combination
AP
After Combination
Before HCC-137
AP
After HCC-137
Before TAVS
AP
After TAVS
350
226
230
234
237
231
239
233
State
0
25
37
60
87
128
102
145
7.6
7.6
0
7.6
5. 1
0.4
7.6
7.6
0
°C System AP, mm Hg
TAVS
Manifold Inlet Outlet
195 175
188 166
190 170
183 164
185 165
188 168
184 166
186 166
136
152
150
137
142
146
142
144
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
114.
114.
111.
111.
111.
114.
116.
113.
3
3
8
8
8
3
8
5
Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
16.1 32.2 48.3
Temperatures, °c(2)
25 25 25
36 33 33
50 43 46
87 87 88
132 140 164
102 128 148
122 112 115
Pressures, mm Hg
25.4 38.1 43.6
25.4 38.1 40.6
0 0 0. 4
25.4 40.6 40.6
2.5 7.6 7.6
18. 7 28. 0 31. 8
17.8 30.5 35.6
18.0 30.5 35.6
000
64. 4
25
35
51
90
196
188
138
76. 2
75. 2
1.5
76.2
12. 7
61.6
3.8.1
35,6
6.5
80.4
25
38
66
96
252
240
178
119. 4
116.8
3.3
121.9
20. 3
97.1
101.6
104.1
3. 4
96.5
25
41
79
101
324
313
235
180.3
172.7
6.0
175.3
25.4
147.6
150.0
147.3
5.6
^ 'Gas entering designated inlet
(-'Alter 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr \varmup
C-24
-------
TABLE C-24. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 3/3/76
Description of Item:HCC-137 Packed Bed Agglomerator^)
Avg. Temperatures, "C System AP, mm H^
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 334
0. 262
0. 265
0. 260
0. 266
0. 262
0. 277
0.265
Exhaust
Manifold
201
205
202
202
199
197
199
201
HCC-137
Inlet
167
172
162
-
161
163
164
HCC-137
Outlet
153
166
156
159
163
-
-
161
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before HCC-137
After HCC-137
Before HCC-137
AP
After HCC-137
Speed, kph
0
16.1
32.2
48.3
64.4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, "C'^)
24
47
68
90
140
118
150
24
56
79
97
144
120
132
24
57
75
100
150
132
125
Pressures, mm
1.8
1.8
0
2.8
2.8
0
6.5
6.5
0
24
53
65
101
172
144
120
Hg
7.5
7.5
0
24
54
72
106
212
178
140
14. 0
13.1
0.9
24
46
72
106
248
225
172
24.3
20.5
30 7
24
50
82
106
308
282
218
34.6
29.0
6.5
U)Gas entering designated inlet
(2)After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-25
-------
TABLE C-25. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 3/4/76
Description of Item:
Ethyl Dual Anchored TAV
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.342
0. 264
0.261
0. 268
0. 258
0. 270
0.264
Exhaust
Manifold
201
200
211
208
208
206
207
TAV
Inlet
171
162
171
169
169
166
167
TAV
Outlet
130
124
136
132
134
131
131
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
33.6
33.6
33.6
31. 8
33.6
33.6
33.2
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
0
16.1
32. 2
T e mp e r atu res, "
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before TAV2
After TAVz
24
51
67
91
144
100
100
24
45
55
89
142
108
96
24
44
52
90
152
122
95
Pressures, mm
Before TAV£
AP
After TAV 2
0.9
2.8
neg
6. 5
7. 5
neg
9. 5
12. 1
neg
48. 3
cd)
24
45
56
92
180
148
105
Hg
18.9
19. 4
neg
64.4
24
50
69
96
208
182
132
22.4
22.6
0
80.4
24
54
79
99
256
235
165
37. 4
35. 5
3. 7
96.5
24
60
85
103
328
302
230
57.9
50.4
6. 2
5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-2o
-------
TABLE C-26. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 3/5/76
Description of Item:
Factory Mufflers, Third Baseline in Standard
Stock Configuration
Avg. Temperatures, "C
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
Avg. Hot
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Particulate
g/km
0.418
0. 270
0.295
0.306
0.286
0. 281
0.316
0. 292
Steady State
0
22
46
Engine Water 64
Engine Oil
100
Exhaust Manifold 155
Before First
Muffler 122
After First Muffler 115
Before First
AP
Muffler 0. 9
0.9
After First Muffler 0
Muffler Muffler
Exhaust No. 1 No. 1
Manifold Inlet Outlet
196 175 154
198 172 153
199 174 150
202 174 152
186 162 141
187 167 149
183 163 143
192 169 148
Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
16.1 32.2 48.3 64.
Temperatures, ° C * '
23 22 22 22
43 40 39 40
62 49 51 55
97 94 94 95
140 152 168 204
116 134 152 192
105 115 130 162
Pressures, mm Hg
2.8 6.2 6.5 13. 1
2.8 4.3 4.7 8.4
0 1.9 1.9 6.5
System AP, mm Hg
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
14.0
14.0
14.0
14. 0
14.0
14.2
14.2
14.1
4 80.4 96.5
22 22
42 47
69 80
97 103
248 304
240 300
210 262
23.4 35.1
13.4 19.6
10.8 17.0
(l)After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-27
-------
TABLE C-27. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 3-8-76
Description of Combination: TexacoA-IFAgglomerator and Ethyl TAV
Separator, single
System AP,
Average Temperatures, °C mmHg at 80.4
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
Avg. Hot
Particulate
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g/km
. 258
. 182
. 178
. 176
. 184
. 177
. 178
. 179
Exhaust
Manifold
203
201
202
198
200
202
200
200
A-IF
Inlet
169
166
165
169
164
168
165
166
Between
Units
151
159
155
161
153
160
156
157
TAVS
Outlet
134
146
141
148
139
147
142
144
km/hr
after run
104. 1
104. 1
101.6
101.6
106.7
106. 7
106.7
104. 6
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
0 16. 1
32. 2
Speed
48.
, kph
3 64. 4
80. 4
96. 5
Temperatures, °O^'
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before A-IF
After TAVs
24
44
67
96
162
122
132
24
53
62
94
152
122
122
24
47
56
93
160
130
114
24
40
55
93
180
142
118
Pressures,
Before Com.
AP
After Comb.
Before A-IF
AP
After A-IF
Before TAVS
AP
After TAVS
7.
7.
0
5.
2.
3.
2.
2.
0
6 22. 9
6 22. 9
0
1 25. 4
5 7.6
7 16. 8
5 15. 2
5 15. 2
0
35.6
35.6
0
38. 1
10. 2
30. 1
25.4
25. 4
0
43.
43.
0.
43.
10.
30.
30.
30.
0
24
41
59
94
220
178
142
mm Hg
2 76. 2
2 71. 1
2 2. 0
2 76. 2
2 17. 8
1 57. 0
5 55. 9
5 55. 9
0
24
44
71
98
268
230
178
116. 8
111. 8
4. 5
119. 4
27.9
88. 8
88. 9
83. 8
1.9
24
48
82
103
336
298
232
167.6
162. 6
7. 6
167.6
35.6
128. 9
132. 1
124. 5
3.0
1)
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warm up
C-28
-------
TABLE C-Z8. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 3-09-76
Description of Combination: Texaco A-IF Agglomerator, Texaco A-IR
Agglomerator and Ethyl Anchored TAV, single.
Average Temperatures,
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
9 Hot
10 Hot
Average, Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 113
0. 094
0. 093
0. 085
0. 090
0. 089
0. 090
0. 088
0. 099
0. 096
0. 092
Steady State
Exhaust A-IF
Manifold Inlet
198 172
205 165
203 162
206 164
200 163
199 166
203 163
204 163
200 164
205 164
A-IR
Inlet
141
147
144
142
146
151
145
145
147
146
202 164 146
Pressures and Temperatures
°C
System AP.
TAV3
Outlet
107
121
119
115
120
126
119
118
122
121
120
mm Hg at 80.4
km/hr after run
142. 2
147. 3
147. 3
144. 8
147. 3
147. 3
147. 3
147. 3
149.9
152. 4
147. 8
Speed, kph
0
16. 1
32
.2 48.
3
Temperatures
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before A-IF
Before A-IR
Before TAV
After TAV
Before Comb.
AP
After Comb.
Before A-IF
AP
After A-IF
Before A-IR
AP
After A-IR
Before TAV3
AP
After TAVp
24
45
73
94
140
118
135
150
130
12. 7
12. 7
0
12. 7
2. 5
11. 2
7. 6
5. 1
3. 7
2. 5
2. 5
0
24
52
72
92
136
115
118
142
128
38. 1
38. 1
0
40. 6
7. 6
29. 9
30. 5
12. 7
16.8
15. 2
15. 2
0
49
62
92
144
130
115
125
92
55
55
0
55
10
44
45
20
24
25
25
0
25
47
59
92
168
152
125
122
115
Pressures
. 9 61.
.9 61.
0
. 9 61.
. 2 12.
. 8 46.
. 7 50.
. 3 20.
. 3 28.
. 4 27.
. 4 27.
0
, mm
0
0
0
7
7
8
3
0
g
9
64. 4
80. 4
96.
5
, °c(O
24
48
64
94
208
195
158
138
125
Hg
104.
101.
1.
109.
20.
82.
86.
35.
48.
50.
50.
0
1
6
3
2
3
2
4
6
6
8
8
25
49
77
98
264
238
195
170
150
160.
157.
3.
160.
30.
127.
132.
50.
72.
78.
76.
3.
0
5
4
0
5
0
1
8
3
7
2
7
24
48
80
102
328
290
242
208
185
218
213
5.
218
35
177
185
71
104
114
106
6
. 4
. 4
8
. 4
. 6
. 5
. 4
. 1
. 6
. 3
. 7
. 2
(1)
After 5 minute,
4 km/hr warm up
C-29
-------
TABLE C-29. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 4/27/76
Description of Item:
Factory Mufflers, Fourth Baseline, in
Standard Stock Configuration
Avg. Temperatures, °C
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.260
0.298
0.316
0.314
0. 317
0.312
0.323
0.309
0.313
Exhaust
Manifold
205
199
198
202
197
201
200
201
200
Muffler
No. 1
Inlet
186
179
176
180
177
179
180
179
179
Muffler
No. 1
Outlet
165
160
157
152
159
152
152
161
156
System AP, mm Hg
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
12. 7
12. 7
12. 1
12. 1
12. 5
12. 1
12. 1
12. 1
12.2
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before First Muffler 160
After First Muffler 156
Before First Muffler 0. 9
AP
After First Muffler
0
27
44
65
93
172
160
156
0.9
0.9
0
16.1 32.2
Temperatures ,
26 26
48 42
65 53
92 92
168 176
152 164
148 148
Pressures, mm
3.4 6.2
2.4 3.7
0.9 1.8
48.3
•c»)
25
40
52
92
200
180
160
Hg
7.3
4. 1
2.4
64.4
25
40
58
94
230
220
192
13.6
7.8
5.8
80.4
25
44
72
97
280
276
240
23.0
12.1
9.9
96.5
26
48
81
103
332
328
296
35.1
18.9
15.3
(1)
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-30
-------
TABLE C-30. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 4/29/76
Description of Item: Texaco A-IRpacked with steel wool only,
no alumina coating
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
Avg. Hot
Particulate Exhaust Trap Trap at 80. 4 km/hr
g/km
0. 248
0.205
0.205
0.205
0.210
0.197
0.198
0.188
0. 201
Manifold Inlet Outlet after run
196 146 1
189 141 1
190 145 1
188 144 1
188 145 1
190 152 1
194 151 l
199 155 1
191 148 1
51 14.0
46 14.0
50 14.0
49 16.8
51 17.7
57 17.7
56 18.6
60 19.0
53 16.8
Steady State Temperatures and Pressures
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
0
24
48
71
97
Exhaust Manifold 188
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
148
148
0.9
0.9
0
Speed, kph
16.1 32.2 48.3
Temperatures, ° C^ '
24 24 24
43 40 40
60 52 53
94 93 93
174 180 200
134 140 158
134 140 158
Pressures, mm Hg
5.2 8.4 9.3
4.7 7.5 8.4
0 0 0.9
64.4 80.4 96.5
25 26 26
43 46 50
64 76 83
95 98 104
230 280 340
189 235 290
189 239 296
16.4 26.5 38.8
14.0 21.5 30.8
2.4 4.7 7.1
' 'After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-31
-------
TABLE C-31. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/3/76
Description of Item:
SwRI-Texaco A-IM Radial Separator Center Inlet,
Inconel Mesh Annular Element Alumina Coated
Ayg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
Avg. Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.376
0.255
0.269
0. 260
0. 273
0. 265
0. 276
0.261
0. 266
Exhaust Trap Trap
Manifold Inlet Outlet
203 179 165
204 177 169
179 162 153
173 158 150
173 158 150
191 167 160
187 167 158
190 168 160
186 165 157
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30. 8
30.8
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
0
32
44
70
92
Exhaust Manifold 180
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
150
158
0.9
0.9
0
Speed, kph
16.1 32.2 48.3 64.4
Temperatures, UCU)
25 24 23 23
48 41 37 37
69 53 49 55
92 92 92 93
172 179 205 227
144 156 171 206
144 148 158 190
Pressures, mm Hg
6.5 10.8 12.1 23.3
4.7 8.4 9.3 17.7
0.9 0.9 1.7 3.7
80.4 96.5
23 23
40 44
68 79
96 101
276 324
258 300
238 292
38.3 57.9
29.9 46.7
7.1 10.8
(1)
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-32
-------
TABLE C-32. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/4/76
Description of Item: SwRI-Texaco A-IM Radial Separator,
Outershell Inlet
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.318
0.289
0. 293
0. 298
0.325
0.308
0.312
0.309
0.305
Exhaust
Manifold
196
190
190
189
189
189
188
182
188
Trap
Inlet
178
162
164
-
167
174
163
168
166
Trap
Outlet
163
159
158
155
148
165
148
155
155
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
48.6
48.6
49.5
48.6
48.1
48.6
48.6
48.6
48.6
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
0
16.1
32.2
Temperatures, "
27
44
69
93
180
150
170
26
47
68
92
172
146
148
24
49
56
92
180
160
146
Pressures, mm
1.8
1.8
0
6.5
6.5
0
14.9
14.9
0
48.3
cU)
24
37
50
92
196
175
156
Hg
22.4
22.4
0
64.4
24
37
56
93
226
212
185
29.9
29.5
2. 2
80.4
24
39
64
96
276
266
235
50.4
48.6
5.2
96.5
24
43
77
100
336
330
295
80.3
72.8
8.9
(1)After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-33
-------
TABLE C-33. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/5/76
Description of Iterrr.HCC-137 Radial Agglomerator, with 9.5mm (3/8
inch) diameter HCC, alumina spheres
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Parti culate
g/km
0.399
0.297
0.306
0. 295
0. 298
0.310
0.318
0.315
0.305
Exhaust
Manifold
195
193
183
184
178
183
178
185
183
Trap
Inlet
180
176
170
170
158
169
166
163
167
Trap
Outlet
146
162
152
159
149
157
148
159
152
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
23. 4
23.3
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.4
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
0
16.1
32. 2
Temperatures,
34
46
70
92
172
145
168
29
51
70
92
172
148
150
29
47
62
92
180
162
152
Pressures, mm
1. 7
1.7
0
4.3
4. 3
0
6.5
6.5
0
48.3
'C(l)
28
48
57
92
200
175
159
Hg
8.4
7.9
0.9
64.4
28
43
62
92
238
218
198
16. 8
13.4
2.4
80. 4
27
46
73
97
276
250
225
28. 9
22.4
5.2
96.5
28
49
82
102
336
335
280
44. 0
32. 7
8.4
Alter ? minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-34
-------
TABLE C-34. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/6/76
Description of Item:HCC-137 Radial Agglomerator with 4.8mm (3/16
inch) diameter HCC, alumina spheres
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.341
0.304
0.312
0.303
0. 298
0. 296
0.307
0. 295
0.302
Exhaust
Manifold
183
184
178
184
177
180
176
181
180
HCC-137
Inlet
172
170
167
170
164
166
160
166
166
HCC-137
Outlet
138
157
150
158
149
153
148
157
153
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
22.0
22.4
22.9
22.8
22.8
22.8
22.8
22. 8
22.8
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before HCC-137
After HCC-137
Before HCC-137
AP
After HCC-137
0
34
48
79
94
164
140
175
1.8
1.8
0
16.1 32.2
Temperatures, "
34 28
51 50
77 70
93 92
162 164
135 152
145 140
Pressures, mm
4.6 7.5
4.6 7.5
0 0.4
48.3
cU>
27
48
57
91
180
168
148
Hg
8.4
7. 8
0.6
64.4
27
43
62
92
220
212
178
17.0
13.6
2.4
80.4
27
43
74
95
268
255
225
28.6
23.0
5. 2
96.5
27
45
82
100
324
310
275
41 .6
31.8
8.4
(•'•'After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-35
-------
TABLE C-35. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/6/76
Description of Item: HCC Mini-Swirl Tube Separator
Ayg. Temperatures, "C System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.262
0. 285
0. 294
0.307
0. 295
Exhaust
Manifold
189
205
202
203
200
Separator
Inlet
155
165
163
165
162
Separator
Outlet
148
159
156
158
155
at 80.4
after
66
66
66
66
66
km/hr
run
.0
.0
.0
.0
. o
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Separator
After Separator
Before Separator
AP
After Separator
0
16.1
32. 2
Temperatures, °
25
47
64
89
172
142
140
24
54
62
89
168
138
132
24
50
57
89
180
152
142
Pressures, mm
5. 0
5.0
0
12.7
12.7
0
20.3
20. 3
0.4
48.3
C(D
24
44
57
90
200
165
155
Hg
22.9
22.9
0.6
64.4
24
43
59
90
236
200
186
43.2
40.6
2.8
80.4
25
46
72
96
292
248
235
68.6
66.0
5.8
96.5
25
52
81
101
350
316
298
111.
101.
8.
8
6
9
( '
After 3 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-36
-------
TABLE C-36. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/7/76
Description of Item:
Factory Mufflers, Fifth Baseline,
Standard Stock Configuration
Ayg. Temperatures, °C
in
Muffler Muffler System AP, mm Hg
Run Type Particulate Exhaust No. 1 No. 1 at 80. 4 km/hr
No. Test g/km
Manifold
1 Cold 0.351
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
Avg. Hot
0.307
0.318
0.312
0.333
0.322
0.346
0.350
0.327
200
194
186
189
187
188
189
193
189
Inlet Outlet
180 1
183 1
169 1
170 1
169 1
169 1
170 1
174 1
172 1
58
56
52
54
52
53
54
58
54
after run
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
11.9
11.9
11.9
12.0
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
0
16.1
32. 2
Speed, kph
48.3
64.4
80. 4
96.5
Temperatures, "C* '
Ambient Air
Intake Air
24
48
Engine Water 74
Engine Oil
92
Exhaust Manifold 180
Before First
Muffler 150
After First Muffler 145
24
50
73
92
168
145
135
24
44
57
92
172
155
140
25
46
56
92
190
170
150
24
46
60
93
224
210
185
24
44
72
96
290
262
230
24
72
81
101
328
327
288
Pressures, mm Hg
Before First
AP
Muffler 0. 9
0.9
After First Muffler 0
3.4
2. 8
0.6
6. 2
4.3
1.9
7. 1
4. 7
2.4
13.6
7.6
5. 2
22.4
12.7
9.5
34.6
18.3
14. 0
5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-37
-------
TABLE C-37. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/10/76
Description of Item: Texaco A-IR Agglomerator shell filled with
9.5mm (3/8 inch) diameter HCC alumina spheres
Avg. Temperatures, "C System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.457
0.313
0. 282
0.254
0. 249
0. 245
0. 242
0. 232
0.259
Exhaust
Manifold
202
208
201
207
200
207
199
208
204
Agg.
Inlet
166
166
163
165
162
167
162
169
165
Agg.
Outlet
89
149
138
150
140
150
138
152
145
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
86.4
83.8
83.8
83.8
83.8
83.8
83.8
83.8
83.8
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before Trap
After Trap
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
0
16.1
32. 2
48.3
64.4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, °C\^/
23
49
75
103
196
155
165
22
60
79
102
184
148
178
23
49
65
99
188
155
182
Pressures, mm
7.6
7.6
0
22.9
20.3
0.6
35.6
33. 0
2.4
23
48
58
93
212
172
165
Hg
38.1
35.6
5.0
23
44
64
94
240
200
160
70.0
53.3
6.7
23
45
77
97
292
250
170
94.0
83.8
10.6
23
50
83
103
360
300
188
132.0
121.9
8.3
(1)
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-38
-------
TABLE C-38. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/11/76
Description of Item:
TexacoA-^IR Agglomerator shell filled with 40 8mm
(3/16 inch) diameter HCC alumina spheres
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
Avg. Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 217
0. 188
0.250
0.252
0. 240
0. 232
0.238
0.225
0.232
Steady State
0
Exhaust Agg. Agg.
Manifold Inlet Outlet
Pres
16.1
208 170
216 171 1
214 170 1
209 179 1
190 164 1
192 167 1
188 162 1
189 163 1
200 168 1
83
45
43
,44
45
45
39
42
43
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
160.0
144.8
149.9
154.9
152.4
154.9
154.9
154.9
152.4
sures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
32.2 48.3
64. 4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, °C^'
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
24
49
78
96
Exhaust Manifold 196
Before Trap
After Trap
170
178
25
54
77
93
180
155
188
25 25
49 45
67 62
93 92
186 203
160 175
182 172
25
44
66
93
244
201
164
25
48
78
96
300
250
168
25
104
84
102
380
322
215
Pressures, mm Hg
Before Trap
AP
After Trap
15. 2
15.2
0
35.6
33.0
0.9
50.8 58.4
48.2 55.9
2.8 3.4
111.8
106.7
6.9
175.2
165.1
10.8
259.0
238.8
16.2
5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-39
-------
TABLE C-39. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5-12-76
Description of Combination: Texaco A-IR, packed with alumina coated steel
Agglomerator and HCC Mini-swirl tube separator.
Average Temperatures
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
g/km
372
189
182
184
192
181
184
190
Exhaust
Manifold
214
207
206
204
202
205
209
206
A-IR
Outlet
165
172
163
165
159
164
166
171
A-IR
Inlet
150
166
161
162
153
161
163
170
, °c
HC
System AP,
mm Hg at 80.4
Outlet km/hr after run
131
148
144
145
136
144
146
154
104.
101.
101.
101.
101.
101.
104.
104.
1
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
Avg.
Hot
0. 186
206
166
162
145
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
16. 1
32. 2
48. 3
64. 4
80. 4
Temperatures, °C(-0
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Before Comb.
After Comb.
Before Comb.
AP
After Comb.
Before A-IR
AP
After A-IR
Before Mini-Sw.
AP
After Mini-Swirl
Pressures, mm Hg
' After 5 minute. 80. 4 km/hr warm up
102. 3
25
48
76
97
186
150
122
25
53
76
93
172
141
155
26
47
62
93
180
151
142
25
41
58
92
198
165
148
25
42
62
93
232
202
165
25
46
76
97
290
254
202
25
48
82
102
360
320
255
7.6
7. 6
0
7. 6
2. 1
5. 2
5. 0
5. 0
0
25.
25.
0
25.
12.
12.
12.
12.
0
4
4
4
5
D
7
i
38.
38.
0.
38.
16.
21.
20.
20.
0.
1
1
4
6
7
0
3
3
4
40.
40.
0.
40.
17.
22.
22.
22.
0.
6
6
7
6
4
9
9
9
6
71.
68.
3.
71.
27.
43.
43.
40.
2.
1
7
0
8
9
0
2
6
8
111.
109.
5.
112.
41.
70.
68.
66.
5.
8
2
6
6
7
2
6
0
8
165.
154.
9.
166.
52.
112.
111.
101.
9.
1
9
5
0
9
8
8
6
3
C-40
-------
TABLE C-40. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/13 and 5/14/76
Description of Item:HCC Back Pack with Fine Filter Media
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate Exhaust
g/km
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
053
063
090
110
124
Test
198
197
217
132
Manifold
196
204
207
208
209
stopped after
214
198
200
204
Pack
Inlet
160
164
167
169
160
16 minutes
171
162
164
165
Pack
Outlet
1
1
1
1
26
31
33
34
136
(1)
1
1
1
1
31
11
28
29
at 80. 4 km/hr
after
47.
62.
63.
72.
74.
78.
78.
78.
69.
run
6
6
5
8
7
7
7
7
7
U)Exhaust pipe separated before back pack.
Steady State Conditions were not run.
C-41
-------
TABLE C-41. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/14 and 5/17/76
Description of ItemrHCC Back Pack with Medium Filter Media
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg.
Test
Hot
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Back Pack Inlet
Back Pack Outlet
Back Pack Inlet
AP
Back Pack Outlet
Avg. Temperatures,
Parti culate
g/km
0. 072
0. 100
0. 142
0. 171
0. 187
0.199
0. 206
0. 216
0. 170
Steady State
0
Exhaust Pack
°C System AP
Pack
Manifold Inlet Outlet
206
206
205
206
200
196
190
191
199
Pressure.
16.1
166
168
169
170
166
163
159
159
165
130
133
134
136
132
129
120
121
129
, mm Hg
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
49.
65.
68.
71.
73.
73.
73.
73.
69.
5
4
6
1
7
7
7
7
1
s and Temperatures
Speed, kph
32.2 48.3
64. 4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, ° G' '
24
47
75
96
Id 184
t 152
.et 167
24
50
73
94
176
143
145
24 23
44 39
57 54
93 92
180 198
150 162
134 134
24
40
60
93
232
200
150
23
4
73
96
282
252
190
23
45
81
101
340
315
232
Pressures, mm Hg
t 7.6
10. 2
et Neg.
17.8
20.3
Neg.
25.4 27.9
25.4 30.5
0 0
48. 3
50.8
0.9
76.2
73.7
2.6
101.6
99.1
5.2
(I/Alter 5 minute, &0.4 km/hr warmup
C-42
-------
TABLE C-42. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/18/76
Description of Item:HCC Back Pack with Coarse Filter Media
Avg. Temperatures, °C
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Avg.
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0. 270
0. 238
0. 227
0. 228
0. 216
0. 217
0. 212
0. 222
0. 215
0. 222
Exhaust
Manifold
192
192
193
194
188
194
193
196
195
193
Pack
Inlet
163
159
161
161
156
163
161
165
164
I6l
Pack
Outlet
126
130
133
137
124
141
133
138
139
136
System AP, mm Hg
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
17. 7
16.6
17. 7
17. 7
17. 7
18. 1
18. 5
18. 9
19. 0
18. 0
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Back Pack Inlet
Back Pack Outlet
Speed, kph
16.1
32. 2
48.3
64.4
Temperatures, °c(i)
Pressures, mm Hg
(1)
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
80.4
96.5
24
48
74
96
180
146
162
24
51
73
93
172
140
140
24
43
58
93
177
150
130
24
40
57
92
194
160
131
24
41
62
94
226
198
150
24
44
74
97
280
250
182
24
47
81
102
328
302
225
Back
AP
Back
Pack
Pack
Inlet
Outlet
1. 8
1.8
0
4.6
4.6
0
7. 1
6.5
0
8.
7.
0.
9
5
9
14.
12.
1.
9
5
5
22.4
19.6
2.8
35.3
29. 7
5.4
C-43
-------
TABLE C-43. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5-20-76
Description of item: SwRI, Texaco A-IE, Axial Flow Cannister,
packed with alumina coated steel wool.
Average Temp. , °C
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Type
Test
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g /km
0. 256
0. 178
0. 190
0. 216
0. 220
0. 326
0. 312
0. 270
0. 265
Exhaust
Manifold
179
184
179
183
178
179
176
182
181
Cannister
Outlet
189
191
179
184
178
180
176
172
183
System AP mm Hg
at 80. 4 km/hr
after run
88. 9
91.4
91.4
91.4
94. 0
96.5
91. 4
91. 4
91. 4
Avg.
Hot
0. 247
180
180
92.4
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
0
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
Cannister Out. 140
16. 1
32. 2
48. 3
64.4
80.4
Temperatures, °c(1)
Pressures, mm Hg
.1)
After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
Burn off may have occurred
96.6
24
43
70
92
160
140
24
39
58
88
148
125
24
37
47
88
160
148
24
37
49
88
184
172
24
39
58
91
224
215
24
43
72
95
274*
278*
25
48
82
101
348*
352*
Cannister In.
AP
Cannister Out.
7. 6
7. 6
0
22.9
20. 3
0.6
35.6
30. 5
1. 8
40. 6
38. 1
2. 4
68.6
63. 5
6.0
106. 7
96.5
10. 3
152.4
134.6
16.4
C-44
-------
TABLE C-44. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5-21 76
Description of Combination: Texaco A-IE Axial Flow Cannister and Texaco
A-IR Alumina Steel Wool Coated Agglomerate vs
Average Temperatures, ° C
Run Type
No. Test
1 Cold
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
Avg. Hot
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
A-IE Outlet
A-IR Inlet
A-IR Outlet
Particulate
g/km
0. 158
0. 125
0. Ill
0. 105
0. 112
0. 108
0. 106
0. 143
0. 116
Steady
0 1
24
46
74
93
180 1
188 1
132 1
172 1
State
6. 1
24
49
73
92
72
50
18
35
Exhaust
Manifold
198
197
192
198
197
195
197
198
196
Pressures
A-IE
Outlet
180
172
173
170
178
177
175
175
174
A-IR A-IR
Inlet Outlet
146 133
136 130
140 133
135 127
143 137
141 135
140 133
138 134
139 133
System AP,
mm Hg at 80. 4
km/hr after run
142.
137.
137.
137.
137.
142.
149.
154.
142.
2
1
1
1
1
2
9
9
2
and Temperatures
Speed,
kph
32. 2 48. 3 64. 4
Temperatures, "C'^'
24
42
56
92
176
152
125
125
24
40
54
92
196
174
140
128
24
41
60
93
236
218
180
158
80.4
24
44
73
96
288
275
232
200
"
24
48
81
101
360
350
300
260
Pressures, mm Hg
Before Comb.
AP
After Comb.
Before A-IE
AP
After A-IE
Before A-IR
AP
After A-IR
12. 7
15. 2
Neg
12. 6
7. 5
5. 1
5. 1
5. 1
0
35. 6
38. 1
Neg
35. 9
23. 3
12. 9
12. 7
10. 2
0
50. 8
50. 8
0
50. 6
35. 2
15.5
15. 3
15. 3
0
70.
70.
0
70.
50.
20.
20.
20.
0
0 104. 1
0 101.6
1. 5
1 103. 7
0 67. 7
1 35. 0
3 35. 6
3 33. 0
1. 5
157. 5
155. 9
3. 9
156. 8
103. 0
54. 0
53. 3
48. 3
3.9
221. 0
215. 9
6. 7
221. 0
143. 1
79. 0
78. 7
71. 7
5. 7
(1)
After 5 minute, 80. 4 km/hr warm up
C-45
-------
TABLE C-45. P ARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5-24-76
Description of Combination: Texaco A-IE, Axial Flow Cannister, Texaco A-IR
and Ethyl TAVS, Separator
Average Temperature, °C
Run Type
No. Test
1 Hot
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
Avg.
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Man.
A-IE Outlet
A-IR Inlet
A-IR Outlet
TAVS Outlet
Particulate Exhaust A-IE
A-IR
g_/km Manifold Outlet Inlet
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
25
47
75
95
184
180
140
150
148
116
117
120
116
112
114
116
118
116
Steady State
16. 1
25
44
67
92
172
165
115
132
138
203
206
208
207
211
210
214
214
210
188
183
186
177
188
189
187
190
186
146
142
145
138
144
146
146
146
144
A-IR
Outlet
119
116
117
109
112
116
117
120
115
System AI
mm Hg at
TAVS 80.4km/h
Outlet
109
111
112
104
107
111
112
115
110
after rui^
190. 5
190. 5
193.0
190. 5
190.5
193.0
198. 1
200. 7
193. 7
Pressures and Temperatures
32.
25
42
55
90
182
159
130
122
118
Speed,
2 48. 3
Temperatures
25
41
55
90
202
182
148
122
116
kph
64.4
, 'C^
25
43
66
93
240
205
188
135
130
80. 4
25
47
76
96
304
242
240
167
162
96.6
25
51
83
102
376
362
305
210
205
Pressures, mm Hg^ '
Before Comb.
AP
After Comb.
15.
15.
0
2 45. 7
2 45. 7
0
71
71
0
. 1 76.2
. 1 76. 2
0
132. 1
132. 1
0
200. 7
200. 7
0. 4
284. 5
284. 5
1. 8
' 'After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
(2)High Back Pressure, therefor only one steady state series was run
C-46
-------
TABLE C-46. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 5/26/76
Description of Item:
Factory Mufflers, Sixth Baseline, in Standard
Stock Configuration
Ayg. Temperatures, °C
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Avg.
Type
Test
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Particulate
g/km
0.320
0.331
0.334
0. 319
0.322
0.328
0. 325
0.326
Exhaust
Manifold
198
185
185
203
190
189
185
191
Muffler
No. 1
Inlet
173
163
163
174
167
168
164
167
Muffler
No. 1
Outlet
145
145
146
155
150
151
148
149
System AP, mm Hg
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
9.7
9.9
9.7
10. i
10. 1
10.1
10.1
10. 0
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
Speed, kph
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
Exhaust Manifold
Before First Muffler
After First Muffler
Before First Muffler
AP
After First Muffler
0
30
48
73
89
168
142
135
0.4
0.4
0
16.1 32.2
Temperatures,
30 30
54 51
76 66
89 90
168 176
142 155
128 138
Pressures, mm
1.5 3.7
1.5 3.4
0 0.9
48.3
»cU)
31
46
60
90
196
172
152
Hg
4. 7
3.4
1.3
64.4
31
47
66
90
244
208
182
11.6
6.5
4.8
80.4
31
48
76
95
288
265
232
19. 2
10.3
9.0
96.5
31
53
84
102
344
331
288
30. 4
16.1
14.0
5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-47
-------
TABLE C-47. PARTICULATE TRAP BACK PRESSURE
Date: 6-07-76
Description of item: Texaco A-IE Axial Flow Cannister, Restriction
as Received and After Removal of one half of Coated Brillo packing.
Inlet Restriction, mm Hg
km/hr
0
16.
32.
48.
64.
80.
96.
1
2
3
4
4
6
As
Received
7.
22.
35.
40.
68.
106.
152.
6
9
6
6
6
7
4
After Packing
Removed
5
15
25
30
48
78
111
. 1
. 2
. 4
. 5
. 2
.7
. 8
5/20/76
6/07/76
C-48
-------
TABLE C-48. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 6/9 and 6/10/76
Description of Combination:
Texaco A-IF, A-IRanu Ethyl TAVS, under
car. Exhaust pipe and A-IFinsulated with
2 layers of fiberglass. EPA cooling fan
only.
Run Type
No. Test
i Hot
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Cold
Avg. Hot
Avgo
Particulate A-IF
g/km
0. 200
0. 157
0. 160
0. 154
0. 161
0. 160
0. 164
0. 182
0. 165
Inlet
204
225
217
225
22l
232
220
213
220
Temperatures, "C System AP,
A-IR
Inlet
198
201
190
200
196
209
195
179
198
TAVS
Outlet
175
180
168
177
175
190
173
149
177
mm Hg
at 80.4 km/hr
after run
177.
177.
177.
177.
177.
179.
182.
185.
178.
3
3
5
3
3
9
4
0
4
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
0
16.1
Speed,
32.2 48.
kph
3 64.4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, °c(l)
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
24
49
74
99
Exhaust Manifold 187
A-IF Inlet
A-IF Outlet
A-IR Inlet
TAVS Inlet
TAVS Outlet
248
272
238
222
167
24
44
62
95
176
212
230
215
215
160
24 25
41 41
55 57
92 92
182 210
212 212
208 209
200 198
200 190
153 143
25
42
62
93
254
250
238
218
195
140
24
48
77
97
3i6
304
290
265
222
150
24
56
84
103
419
388
367
328
268
177
Pressures, mm Hg
A-IF Inlet
A-IR Inlet
TAVS Inlet
TAVS Outlet
15. 2
10. 2
0.9
Neg
50. 8
40.6
16.8
Neg
71.1 78.
58.4 6l.
28.0 28.
Neg Neg
7 129.5
0 106.7
0 50. 0
; 1.5
188.0
157.4
84. 0
3.0
254.0
215.9
123.0
5.0
(l)After 5 minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-49
-------
TABLE C-49. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATION DATA
Date: 6/10/76
Description of Combination:
Texaco A-IF, A-IR and Ethyl TAVS, under
car. Not insulated, EPA Cooling fan only.
Avg. Temperatures, °C System AP, mm Hg
Run Type
No. Test
1 Hot
2 Hot
3 Hot
4 Hot
5 Hot
6 Hot
7 Hot
8 Hot
Avg.
Parti culate
g/km
0.156
0. 154
0. 169
0. 154
0. 166
0. 168
0. 177
0.174
0. 165
A-IF
Inlet
165
173
171
172
168
170
168
167
169
A-IR A-IR
Inlet Outlet
135 1
143 1
143 1
143 1
138 1
142 1
139 1
139 1
140 1
24
33
35
33
27
32
28
28
30
at 80. 4 km/hr
after
160.
163.
165.
168.
170.
170.
173.
175.
168.
run
7
3
8
2
5
5
0
6
4
Steady State Pressures and Temperatures
0
16. 1
Speed, kph
32.2 48.3
64.4
80.4
96.5
Temperatures, ° CU)
Ambient Air
Intake Air
Engine Water
Engine Oil
23
49
76
94
Exhaust Manifold 190
A -IF Inlet
A-IF Outlet
A-IR Inlet
TAVS Inlet
TAVS Outlet
160
185
155
160
124
24
53
75
92
174
148
160
138
148
114
24 25
47 43
60 56
92 90
179 208
156 164
158 158
135 135
138 130
103 98
25
43
62
92
256
204
190
165
140
97
25
47
78
97
322
260
242
210
175
118
26
52
75
103
424
328
335
268
220
149
Pressures, mm Hg
A-IF Inlet
A-IR Inlet
TAVS Inlet
TAVS Outlet
15.2
10. 2
0.9
Neg.
43.1
35.6
13. 1
Neg.
61.0 71.1
50.8 55.9
24.3 25.2
Neg. Neg.
119.4
99.1
46.7
0.7
182.9
152.4
76.6
2.4
246.4
208.3
113.9
3.9
minute, 80.4 km/hr warmup
C-50
-------
APPENDIX D
PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
MERCEDES 300D WITH AND WITHOUT PARTICULATE TRAPPING SYSTEM
-------
TABLE D-l. PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
MERCEDES 300D WITH PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM (47 mm FILTERS)
Particulate Emission Rates
Test
(Date)
1975 FTP
(6/14/76)
(6/15/76)
(6/16/76)
Average
FTPC
(6/14/76)
(6/15/76)
(6/16/76)
Average
FTPh
(6/14/76)
(6/15/76)
(6/16/76)
Average
SET
(6/14/76)
(6/15/76)
(6/16/76)
Average
FET
(6/14/76)
(6/15/76)
(6/16/76)
Average
Fluoropore
g/km
0.150
0.158
0.156
0.155
0.160
0.161
0.186
0.169
0.143
0.156
0.134
0.144
0.101
0.128
0.122
0.117
0.074
0.106
0.113
0.097
g/hr
4.727
4.953
4.924
4.868
5.025
5.041
5.846
5.304
4.503
4.886
4.229
4.539
5.640
7.180
6.887
6.569
5.739
8.227
7.799
7.255
g/kg fuel
1.442
1.380
1.414
1.412
1.402
1.340
1.533
1.425
1.472
1.411
1.325
1.403
1.113
1.229
1.282
1.208
0.762
1.010
1.172
0.982
g/km
0.211
0.189
0.194
0.198
0.257
0.186
0.217
0.220
0.176
0.191
0.176
0.181
0.130
0.138
0.142
0.137
0.109
0.121
0.131
0.117
Fiberglass
g/hr
6.629
5.939
6.086
6.219
8.073
5.862
6.838
6.924
5.539
5.998
5.518
5.685
7.222
7.759
7.957
7.646
8.466
9.374
10.145
9.328
g/kg fuel
2.007
1.655
1.763
1.808
2.265
1.558
1.794
1.872
1.812
1.729
1.740
1.760
1.427
1.329
1.481
1.412
1.122
1.149
1.366
1.212
Sulfate Rates
mg/km
2.210
1.008
1.022
1.413
3.150
1.218
1.221
1.863
1.500
0.849
0.872
1.074
0.915
0.855
0.796
0.855
0.663
0.606
0.655
0.641
mg/hr
69.428
31.874
32.121
44.474
98.983
38.753
38.369
58.702
47.133
26.685
27.407
33.742
51.242
47.876
44.753
47.957
51.454
47.031
51.019
49.835
mg/kg fuel
20.8
8.8
9.3
12.97
28.00
10.22
10.12
16.11
15.45
7.70
8.62
10.59
10.08
8.22
8.33
8.88
8.29
5.79
6.88
6.99
-------
TABLE D-2. PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
MERCEDES 300D WITH FACTORY EXHAUST SYSTEM AND BACKPRESSURE SAME AS TRAP SYSTEM (47 mm FILTERS)
Particulate Emission Rates
o
Test
(Date)
1975 FTP
(6/22/76)
(6/23/76)
(6/24/76)
Average
FTPC
(6/22/76)
(6/23/76)
(6/24/76)
Average
FTPh
(6/22/76)
(6/23/76)
(6/24/76)
Average
SET
(6/22/76)
(6/23/76)
(6/24/76)
Average
FET
(6/22/76)
(6/23/76)
(6/24/76)
Average
Fluoropore
g/km
0.288
0.311
0.279
0.293
0.303
0.382
0.310
0.332
0.278
0.258
0.256
0.264
0.212
0.221
0.223
0.219
0.190
0.202
0.204
0.199
g/hr
9.075
9.787
8.769
9.210
9.552
12.000
9.755
10.436
8.716
8.118
8.026
8.286
11.824
12.400
12.517
12.247
14.798
15.354
15.877
15.343
g/kg fuel
2.738
2.888
2.618
2.748
2.495
3.110
2.524
2.710
2.921
2.721
2.689
2.777
2.219
2.319
2.340
2.293
2.055
2.125
2.206
2.129
g/km
0.300
0.304
0.281
0.295
0.327
0.364
0.304
0.332
0.280
0.260
0.264
0.268
0.192
0.198
0.224
0.204
0.204
0.194
0.206
0.201
Fiberglass
9/hr
9.441
9.562
8.852
9.285
10.295
11.401
9.578
10.425
8.797
8.174
8.305
8.426
10.792
11.107
12.526
11.475
15.765
15.054
15.455
15.425
g/kg fuel
2.832
2.835
2.656
2.774
2.686
2.959
2.479
2.708
2.942
2.742
2.789
2.824
2.015
2.083
2.340
21.46
2.196
2.088
2.217
2.167
mg/km
8.320
9.216
7.785
8.440
8.909
12.606
7.851
9.789
7.876
6.658
7.736
7.423
10.024
12.181
12.896
11.700
7.384
10.130
11.492
9.669
Sulfate Rates
mg/hr
261.62
289.56
244.60
265.26
279.91
396.06
246.65
307.54
247.82
209.22
243.05
234.36
567.69
689.91
729.82
662.47
572.60
785.76
891.31
749.89
mg/kg fuel
78.4
84.1
73.9
78.8
72.5
102.6
63.9
79.7
82.9
70.1
81.4
78.1
105.2
127.8
135.3
122.8
79.7
109.3
124.0
104.3
-------
TABLE D-3. MERCEDES 300D PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES (8 x 10 SIZE FILTERS)
Test Date g/km g/hr g/kg fuel
Texaco A-1F, A-1R and Ethyl TAVS Traps
1975 FTP
FTPC
FTPh
SET-7
FET
6/17/76
6/18/76
Average
6/17/76
6/18/76
Average
6/17/76
6/18/76
Average
6/17/76
6/18/76
Average
6/17/76
6/18/76
Ave rage
0.201
0.174
0.188
0.249
0.212
0.230
0.164
0.145
0.154
0.123
0.118
0.120
0.106
0.101
0.104
6.318
5.472
5.895
7.833
6.677
7.255
5.176
4.563
4.870
6.909
6.620
6.764
8.239
7.833
8.036
1.819
1.805
1.812
2,120
2.332
2.226
1.592
1.407
1.499
1.272
1.220
1.246
1.097
1.045
1.071
Factory Stock Mufflers
1975 FTP
FTPC
FTPh
SET-7
FET
6/29/76
6/25/76
Average
6/29/76
6/25/76
Average
6/21/76
6/25/76
Average
6/21/76
6/25/76
Average
6/21/76
6/25/76
Average
0.289
0.282
0.286
0.318
0.313
0.316
0.268
0.259
0.264
0.206
0.212
0.209
0.179
0.196
0.188
9.110
8.878
8.994
9.998
9.843
9.920
8.440
8.150
8.295
11.585
11.866
11.726
13.894
15.186
14.540
2.463
2.464
2.464
2.589
2.697
2.643
2.368
2.289
2.328
2.575
2.650
2.613
1.929
2.112
2.021
D-4
-------
TABLE D-4. PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES OBIrtlNED DURING
MVMA DURABILITY TEST OF TRAP SYSTEM
(Variable Fan Cooling Employed)
Distance, km (mi)
Total Test Type Particulate Rate
Date MVMA
0
(0)
9/20/76 4023
(2500)
10/1/76 8045
10/2/76 (5000)
10/1/76
10/2/76
10/1/76
10/2/76
10/1/76
10/2/76
10/6/76 8045
10/7/76 (5000)
10/6/76
10/7/76
10/6/76
10/7/76
10/6/76
10/7/76
A- IF A-1R Conf. Test g/km
g/hr
g/kg fuel
2041 2853 These results taken to be the same as that
(1268) (1767) obtained during evaluation. Refer to
Tables D-l and 2 for this data (6/15-23/76)
6063 6875 Trap(l) FTPC 0.345 10.833 4.129(2)
(3768) (4273)
FTPh 0.247 7.602 3.378(3)
0.252 7.926 3.446(3)
0.241 7.564 3.296(3)
Average 0.246
10,086 10,898 Trap(4) FTPC 0.312
(6268) (6773) 0.249
Average 0.281
FTPh 0.239
0.218
Average 0.229
SET 0.227
0-190
Average 0.209
FET 0.202
0.185
Average 0.194
10,086 10,898 Fcty(7> FTPC 0.260
(6268) (6773) 0-318
Average 0.289
FTPh 0.227
0.273
Average 0.250
SET 0.187
0.230
Average 0.209
FET 0.130
0.191
Average 0.161
7.679
9.814
7.834
8.824
9.490
6.851
7.171
12.711
10.620
11.666
15.635
14.820
15.228
8.149
9.991
9.070
7.122
8.558
7.840
10.435
12.859
11.647
10.073
14.771
12.422
3.373
2.981(2)
3.358
3.269(3)
2.98l(3)
3.125
3.057
3.057(6)
2.800(6)
2.929
3.110(2)
3.806(2)
3.458
3.104(3)
3.734(3)
3.419
2.742(5)
3.372(5)
3.057
2.890(6)
2.429
D-5
-------
TABLE D-4 (Confd.) PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES OBTAINED DURING
MVMA DURABILITY TEST OF TRAP SYSTEM
(Variable Fan Cooling Employed)
Distance, km (mi)
Date MVMA
11/2/76 16,090
11/3/76 (10,000)
11/2/76
11/3/76
11/2/76
11/3/76
11/2/76
11/3/76
11/4/76 16,090
11/5/76 (io,000)
11/4/76
11/5/76
11/4/76
11/5/76
11/4/76
11/5/76
11/18/76 16f412
11/19/76 (10,200)
11/18/76
11/19/76
11/18/76
11/19/76
11/18/76
11/19/76
Total Test Type
A- IF A-1R Conf. Test
14,109 14,921 Fctyt7) FTPC
(8769) (9273) Fcty<8)
Fcty(7) FTPh
Fcty(8)
Fcty(7) SET
Fcty(8)
Fcty^7) FET
Fcty(8)
14,109 14,921 Trap(10) FTPC
(8769) (9273)
FTPh
Average
SET
Average
FET
14,432 15,243 TrapdD FTPC
(8970) (9474)
Average
FTPh
Average
SET
Average
FET
Average
Parti culate
g/km
0.256
0.306
0.232
0.270
0.214
0.257
0.206
0.216
1.025
0.184
0.240
0.176
0.208
0.203
0.194
0.199
0.152
0.167
0.159
0.383
0.232
0.308
0.269
0.224
0.247
0.204
0.192
0.198
0.159
0.136
0.148
g/hr
8.358
9.652
7.279
8.456
11.944
14.302
16.054
16.725
32.205
5.775
7.536
5.532
6.534
11.224
10.806
11.015
11.808
12.949
12.379
12.024
7.266
9.645
8.398
7.032
7.715
11.376
10.627
11.002
12.336
10.556
11.446
Rate
g/kg fuel
2.515
2.899(9>
2.455
2.858
2.261
2.706
2.460
2.568
8.809
1.577
2.356
1.728
2.042
2.110
2.042
2.076
2.009
2.207
2.108
3.286
1.989
2.538
2.662
2.200
2.431
2.142
2.021
2.082
2.101
1.600
1.851
'DA-1F, A-1R, TAVS. TAVS not emptied prior to test
(-** Based on 9.86 £/100 km fuel consumption
(•*) Based on 8.63 t/100 km fuel consumption
-\ - I F , A- 1 R , TAV'
TAVS em: tied prior to 10/1/76 FTPC
D-6
-------
TABLE D-4 (Cont'd.) PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES OBTAINED DURING
MVMA DURABILITY TEST OF TRAP SYSTEn
(Variable Fan Cooling Employed)
(5)Based on 8.05 A/100 km fuel consumption
(6)Based on 7.80 A/100 km fuel consumption
' Factory mufflers installed at equivalent backpressure to trap system
381 cm Hg (150 in. H2O) at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph)
(8)Factory mufflers at normal backpressure
(9)Based on 8.96 A/100 km fuel consumption, same as 11/2/76 FTPC
(10)After installation on car, no preconditioning, 11/4/76 FTPC resulted
in apparent removal of loose matter inside system
(ID Additional 322 km (200 miles) of MVMA service accumulation as pre-
conditioning prior to retest
D-7
-------
TABLE D-5. SULFATE EMISSION RATES OBTAINED AT COMPLETION OF
MVMA DURABILITY TEST OF TRAP SYSTEM
(Sulfate Emission Test Cycle)
Date
Distance, km (mi)
Total
MVMA
11/2/76 16090
11/3/76 (10,000)
A-1F_
14109
(8769)
A-1R
14921
(9273)
Test
Conf.
Fcty
Fcty1
(2)
Sulfate Rate
mg/km
12.607
9.916
mg/hr
705.8
555.1
mg/kg fuel
133.5
105.0
11/4/76 16090 14109 14921
11/5/76 (10,000) (8769) (9273)
Trap
(4)
Average
5.948
4.399
333.0
246.6
5.174 289.8
62.6
46.3
54.5
11/18/76 16412 14432 15243
11/19/76 (10,200) (8970) (9474)
Trap
(5)
Average
6.059
4.470
5.265
339.2
250.3
294.8
63.8
47.0
55.4
(1)Variable fan cooling employed
>2)Factory mufflers installed at equivalent backpressure to tray system
381 cm Hg (150 in. H20) at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph)
(3)Factory mufflers at normal backpressure
(4)After installation on car, no preconditioning, 11/4/76 FTPC resulted
in apparent removal of loose matter inside system
(5'Additional 322 km (200 miles) of MVMA service accumulation as pre-
conditioning prior to retest
D-8
-------
APPENDIX E
GASEOUS EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY
COMPUTER PRINT-OUTS
1975 FTP
FTPC
FTPh
SET
FET
-------
TABLE
U'MT NO. TEST NO. 1
VMMCLK MUOFL *E&CFDF3 ^onD
TFST TYPF FTP-C FTY STOCK
H»WOMFTFR 7 *(!.*! MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMF. 23.9 DEG. C
"tL. HUMIDITY 59 PCT.
f » H A U S T EMISSIONS
E-l.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
HATE 7/ l/7b
ENGINE 3.UU LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS 3 PAG
MFGR. CODE -0
TEST W T . 1587 KG
^ R. 197S
HUM) LUit
F.. 1 (>
HET BULB TEMP
Abs. HUMIDITY
18.3 DEC. C
11.1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
tl
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G?, ?9e,i MM. neo
RAG WE SUITS
RAG NO.
RLOWFR REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
co
cu
CO
CO
C02
coe
co?
rev
NOX
NOX
NOX
MOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
co
CO?
NOX
HC
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRO METER
R A c K r, R o PPM
SAKPLF MhTEP
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRO Mt-TER
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
REAOING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRO MbTER
REAOING/SCALE
HACKURD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
RACKGRD METER
HACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRAT ION
CONCENTRAT ION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRAT ION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS U4AMS
MASS MG
READING/SCALE
REAPING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
7331
13.0/3
5?
2.H/3
10
Ib.S/*
5b
. 7/*
?
bl.fa/5
1 . 8H
5. 7/2
.07
59.b/2
59.b
3.8/2
3.8
51
1 . 78
Sb.3
1.37
3.2b
1773.*3
5.93
1.37
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.53 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.o7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.95 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
INLE1 PRESS., Gl 2*1.3 MM. H80
BLUWER INLEI TEMP. *b DEG. c
7518
B.9/3
35
1.3/3
5
in.*/*
35
. h/*
S
35.t/?
l.OP
3.*/e
.09
35.3/?
35.3
3. 8/2
3.B
31
31
.91
31 .8
b9
50
J b Cl * . 9 5
5.P9
I.b9
27
3.9/5
B
ie.9/»
*3
. a/*
i
sn. 1/2
i ,*b
2.2/2
.Ob
52.fl/2
52.8
3.0/2
3.0
2U
HO
l.*0
50. 1
.b*
2.b2
1*37.03
S.*l
.b*
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 9.85 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
10TAL CVS FLOW = 2H5.5 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE:
E-2.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO.
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 3000
TEST TYPE FTP-C FTY STOCK
BAROMETER 741.17 MM OF HG.
DRY 8ULB TEMP. 23.3 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 70 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., G2, 31H.8 MM. H20
PAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
DATE ?/ 2/7b
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS 3 BAG
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS MG
1
7112
11.2/2
28
2.3/2
5
Ifa. 7/*
57
.i/*
3
bO.0/2
1.78
2.8/2
.07
58.7/2
58.7
5.1/2
5.1
21
51
1. 72
51.0
. 77
3.27
1722.10
b.05
. 77
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.lb Gram^KILOMETRE
.55 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
272.01 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.01 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
12.1/2
2b
1 .2/5
2
10.2/*
31
.b/*
2
31.5/2
.1?
3.1/2
.08
35.1/2
35. 1
1.2/2
1.2
21
31
.81
31.2
1.21
3.10
1 5 h 1 . U 0
b.01
1.21
MFGR.CUUF. -0 V R . 11 7 5
TEST WT. 15H7 KG NUAD LOAIJ
WET BULB TEMP 1 S . 1 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.B MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 251.0 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. tb DEC. c
3
7112
lb.1/2
32
7.0/2
11
lb.7/*
57
.I/*
3
bO.0/2
1.78
2.8/2
.07
58.7/2
58.7
5.1/2
5. 1
20
51
1.72
51.0
.b3
3.27
1722.10
b.05
.b3
8.1 h w
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 10.15 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 201.0 STL). CU. METRES
-------
TAitlF E-3.
I I H | I Ml.
VI M | f | | MM,)! L n
IF M 1 U'F FTP-G
1t a T ' 1i1. i
HU OF •> innii F T
t-' & H r r w A H s
It APf"'f 1 F >l 71 1 . I 7 Ml OF Mi; .
Dp Y Hill !• 1 F ''P , PC? . H I'F G , L
PF L . MH-'IDI r Y 7 1 PC I .
F K H A 11S I F " I S S 1 Ml 13
J 0 I F . P P F- S S . , '- P , 3 11M . H MM.
MM. 1 S
m M«F " i.F VHL u r i oos
i'C 5AMP| F MfTFH PF AD I HG/SC ALE
IT r,AMP| I PPM
i'C HACKCM) MIlFli WF ADIMU/SCALE
ril SAMPI f '-if TEH HE. AD INI./SCAl E
fil SAMPLE PI'M
rii llAi.Kl.M) MFTFW HEADING/SCALE
i n UALMJWD I'PH
f'V SAMPl.F MFTFF? WF ADlHIi/SCALt
r 11 p s A M u L F. P F K r, F M i
r'V IIAFKCMI) MFTFW HE AU I Nli/STALF
PUP MAC KG''D PFU'CENT
HIM SAMPLE MFTFFi rtF AH IHG/SCALE
i'li» 3A1(>LI PPM
MO HA(.Ki;iJI) PCM
i'C CIIUI F u 1 I' A I I IIH PF'M
r 11 f 11 M F K' I It A T I 11N PF'M
r D p ciiNrfiiTWAtTDN P C T
MI>» f (l'vi;F ^ I WA I ION PPM
HI MASS (. kAM.S
fli MASS GiJAMS
r n^ MASS i,RAMS
"H» MASS GWAMS
"F I I,Ml F D hASS MC
i'F I RH TF I; MASS TO
f F IGMTt D HASS ( Of
«E lf,"TF n MASS >jnx
(I'niiM (t,\LAMCF EUF( C
'I AL CVS F I I'M = i ^
a
?
1 .
Ml
.
1 .
3.
^ .
F,q
.1.1/5
J h
. P/P.
F
. 7/*
Sll
.?/*
4
. n / r
^5
. P./P
PR
. H/P.
. R
, R/p
•^
1 n
HH
4 7
.b
31;
M2
•» 1
H R
1 PbJS
b.P/P
] P
3. 7/p
7
i . n/*
IP
1 ,n/*
^
3 P . H / P
. 'IP
3.P/P
. MR
en . 4/p
PT. H
P.R/P
r .H
c,
PM
.R'l
pF, , R
.311
3 . OH
1117.57
'•.PI
?H 8 3
'U 1 / P
I H
3.S/P
7
11 .5/*
3H
.H/*
-1
4h . 3/P
1. 3.3
3.3/P
.111
tt>. 4/e
4F, . H
3.D/P
3.0
1?
34
) .Pb
13.7
. 38
P. PP
1 PR4 .4 }
=,.111
-------
TABLE
E-4.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION HESUI.TS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO.
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 300D
TEST TYPE FTP-C PART TRAPS
BAROMETER 71?.70 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. ?3.9 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 78 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE ?/ 7/7b
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS 3 BAG
H
RLOWER DIF. PRESS., G?, 317.5 MM. H?O
RAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
COS
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
HC
ro
CO?
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER RE AD ING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
7?lb
31 . 8/1
3?
19.0/1
19
18. O/*
b?
3. I/*
11
59. b/?
1. 77
?. 1/2
.Ob
53. 7/?
53.7
5. 7/a
15
IS
1.71
51.1
,H7
3.05
Ib8?.19
b.08
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.Ob GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.51 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
?5b.9b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.01 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
MFGR. CODE -0
TEST wr. 3SOO KG
WET BULB TEMP ?1.1 OEG. C
AHS. HUMIDITY 11. 9 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1H75
HUAD LUAI)
) . 1 KW
BLUWER INLET PRESS.,
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
r,i ?bi.b MM.
It DEG. C
. 8/1
15
11 .3/*
38
i.e/*
b
33. i/a
.95
?. 8/2
.07
31 .H/?
31. *
a. 1/2
2.1
P
31
.88
3
155?
12
13
?0
b.19
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 9.bO LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = ?01.9 STD. CU. METRES
7555
J 4.0/1
It
b. 3/1
b
1?.H/*
t 3
l.l/*
3
50. t/?
I.H7
. Ob
f 9.b/a
•+9. fa
?. I/?
a.i
8
38
1.11
17.7
. ?7
a. 17
His. n 3
5. 91
-------
TABLE E-5.
1175
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMI S3 IONS' TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. 3
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 300D F
TfcST TYPE 1-TP-C PART TRAPS
HAROMFTF.R 7tl.H3 MM OF HG.
OHY 8IIL8 TEMP. 83.9 DEC. C
RFL. HUMIDITY 7t PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
RLOWER OIF. PRESS., G8, 30H.R MM. H80
RAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
PATE ?/ B/7b
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE s CYL.
COMMENTS 3 BAG
II
HC
HC
HC
HC
ro
co
co
co
C08
C08
C08
C08
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C08
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGHD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGHD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
6ACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
7Slt
81.3/1
81
15.8/1
IS
15.b/*
53
1. ?/*
S
58.7/8
1. 7t
8.t/8
.Ob
H9.S/8
H9.S
1.5/8
1.5
8
tS
i.bS
48.8
.8b
8.9H
1788.39
5.78
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C08
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.05 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.t7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
8H9.8H GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.91 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
MFGR. CODE -U 1R. 1975
TEST «T. JbOO KG KUAD LOAD
ET BULB TEMP 80.b DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY It.I MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., C, 1 85t.O MM. H80
BLOWER INLET TEMP. <*f DEG. c
8H .0/1
20
10. 8/*
31
1 .b/*
5
33.1/8
.^s
8.8/8
.07
8S. 7/8
21.7
1.9/8
1 . 1
t
88
.88
87.9
.31
3.09
1551.90
5.75
3
7588
1H .1/1
It
7. 3/1
7
11. b/*
39
1 .O/*
3
H5.8/8
1. 30
8.b/8
.07
18. fa/8
t8.b
1.9/8
1.9
tO. 9
.8t
8.81
18S7.39
H.HO
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 9.33 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 807.0 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. ;; ; TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 3000
TEST TYPE FTP-C FTY STOCK
BAROMETER 7*0.11 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 59 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
E-6.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 7/ l/7b
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS 2 6AG
MFGR. CODE -n
TEST WT. 1587 KG
YR. 1R75
HU A D LOAD
R.I KW
WEI BULB TEMP
ABS. HUMIDITY
18.3 DEC. C
11.1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G?, 392.1 MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 211.3 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. >*5 DEG. c
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS MG
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
i
7339
13,0/3
52
2.1/3
10
Ib.S/*
5b
.?/*
2
bl.b/2
1.81
5.7/2
.07
S9.b/2
59.fa
3.8/3
3.8
11
51
1.78
5b.3
1.37
3.2b
1773.13
5.93
1.37
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.25 Grama/KILDMETRE
.5b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
279.9fa GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.98 GRAMS/KILOHFTRE
2
12907
8. 9/3
35
1 . 3/3
5
1D.H/*
35
.b/*
2
35.t/2
1.00
3.1/2
.09
35.3/2
35.3
3.8/2
3.8
31
31
.91
31.8
1 .bS
3.50
lbOH.95
5. 89
I.b9
3
7339
13.0/3
52
2.1/3
10
lb.5/*
Sfa
. ?/*
2
bl.b/2
1 .81
2.7/2
.07
59.b/2
59.b
3.8/2
3.8
11
51
1.78
5b. 3
1.37
3.2b
1773.13
5.93
1.37
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 10.15 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 201.2 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE E-7. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT MO. TEST NO.
VFHICI.E MODEL MERCEDES 3000
TeST TYPE FTP-C FTY 3TOCK
BAROMETER 7H1.17 MM OF HG.
DRY RUL8 TEMP. 23.3 DEC. C
RtL . HUMIOI TY 70 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE 7/ 2/7b
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS 2 BAG
HFGR. CODF -0
TEST riT. 1587 KG
WET BULB TEMP 19.4 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.8 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YH. 1975
KOAO LOAD
8 . t
flLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2, 30H.8 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 25t.U MM. H2U
BLOWER INLET TEMP. tb DEG. C
HAG
RAG
RESULTS
NO.
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
ro
CO
coe
COS
C02
ro?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
HC
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BALKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
8ACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
REAOING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS M G
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
It .8/2
88
2.3/2
5
Ib. 7/*
57
bO.0/2
1. 78
2.8/2
.07
58.7/2
58. 7
5. t/a
s.t
51
1 . 72
Sf.O
. 77
3.27
1722. HO
b.05
. 77
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.1 7 Grams/KILOMETRE
.55 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
272.09 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
i.oi GRAMS/KILOMETRE
12.1/2
2b
1 .2/2
2
10.2/*
3H
. h/*
2
3H.5/2
.17
3.1/2
.OH
35.1/2
35.1
H .2/8
H .2
2H
31
.81
31.2
1 .21
3.10
IShl.QO
b.01
1.21
It .2/2
28
2. 3/2
5
Ib. 7/*
57
.I/*
3
bll.U/2
1 . 78
2.8/2
.07
bH . 7/2
58. 7
S.t/2
5.t
SI
1.72
St . U
.77
3.27
1728. HO
b.OS
.77
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 10.15 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW : ailt.n STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLF
UNIT hO. TEST Nl). J
VEHICLE MODEL MERCFDFS smiu n
TEST TYPE FTP-C PART TRAPS
BAROMFTEK 741.17 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. ??.R ote. c
HtL. HUMIDTTY 73 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
HATE 7/ b/7b
F N G 1 N F 3 . (1II L I T R f- 5 C Y L .
COMMENTS f RAG
M F t; R . CODE -11
TF.ST Wl. 151111(1 KG
YR. 1975
ROAD LOAD
8 . t K W
*E I BOLB TEMP
A US. HUMIDITY
1.t PEG. C
13.1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., GS, jot.a MM. H?O
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl ?54.n MM. H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 43 DEG. c
HAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE MFTER
HC SAMPLE PPM
nc BACKGRD METER
HC HACKGRI) PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO HAOGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCAI E
Rf AUING/SCALE
RE ADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD MFTER
RE ADING/SCALF
CO? HACKGKD PERCENT
MOX SAMPLE METER
MOX SAMPLE PPM
MOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRA I ION
CO CONCENTRATION
CO? CONCENTRATION
MOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
MOX MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
I
7clhcl
8.0/?
1 h
14 . ?/*
50
I.?/*
1.5S
}.?/?-
,ne
tb. H/?
tb.8
) n
1
.4 7
44 . b
.35
3.n?
1 b (I 3 . '+ 1
5.49
WEIGHTED MASS HC -n5
WElGHTFO MASS Co .51
KFIGHTEO MASS CO? ? r, ? . B 3
WEIGHTED MASS NOX .Ri
G R A M S / K I L 0 M E T H E
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMF TRF
GR AMS/K ) L|)MFTRE
I?bl5
b.?/?
1?
3 . 7 / P
7
q.e/*
3?
I . 0 / *
3
3 e . 8 / P
.1)8
?B
.H4
?b.f-
.30
3.08
J 44 7.57
5.?J
CARBON BALANCE FUEL cOMSUMP I I UN = 1.44 l
TOTAL CVS FLUrt = ?!?.? S T ^ . <- U . MElRKS
fl.0/2
Ib
3.?/?
b
14, 7/*
50
I.?/*
t
S?.1/?
1.55
3 . a / ?
.08
4b.8/?
tb, 8
1U
t4
1.47
4t .b
.35
3.0?
1 b 0 3 . 1 1
5.48
PER HUNDREI' KlLOMETKLS
-------
TABLE E-9.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT MO. TEST NO. 2
vfHici.t MODEL MERCEDES 3000
IFST TYPE FTP-C PART TRAPS
HAROMfUR 7HJ.70 MM OF Hfi.
ORY RilL« TEMP. ?3.9 DEG. C
WEL. HUMIDITY 78 PCT.
FXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE ?/ 7/7b
ENGINE 3.on LITRE s CYL.
COMMENTS 2 BAG
MFGR. COL/F -0
TEST rfT. 3 50 CO KG
"ET BULB TEMP Si.I DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY it.9 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YH.
k U A n L U A 0
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G?,
RAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
"LOWER REVOLUTIONS
MM. H?O
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
rO?
CO,?
roj
cop
NUX
NOX
M NOX
I, NOX
o
HC
CO
co?
NOX
HC
ro
CO?
MOX
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRD MFTER
RACKC.RD PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACHGRO MFTER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
HEADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METEH
READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
HACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRAT ION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTFD MASS
HC
CO
CO?
.0? GWAMS/KILOMETHE
.51* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
?b8.o3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.P8 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
i
721b
31.0/1
31
19.0/1
11
1 8. n/*
be
3.H/*
u
51. b/2
1.7?
.Ob
S3. 7/2
53. 7
2. 7/a
?. 7
15
tq
1 .71
51. »
. * 5
3.05
2. 19
h.09
21.B/1
a?
15 .?/!
15
11 .3/«
38
1 .8/*
fa
3 3 . q / ?
.95
€".8/2
.07
31.t/S
31 .t
S. */?
31
. HP
3.H3
155?. 20
b.11
INLET PRESS., Gl Pbl.b MM. H20
BLUHER INLET TFMP.
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. ;;; TEST NO. 3
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 3000 F
TEST TYPE FTP-C PART TRAPS
BAROMETER 741.43 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.1 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 74 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
E-10. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 7/ B/7b
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS 2 BAG
MFGR. CODE -0
TEST NT. 3500 KG
•JET BULB TEMP 20.b DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 14.1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
Y R . .1175
KOAD LOAU
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G2, 304.8 MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
co
CO
C02
CO?
C02
COS
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
7514
21. 3/1
21
15.2/1
IB
15.b/*
53
1. ?/*
5
58.7/2
1. 74
2.4/2
.Ob
41.5/S
41.5
1.5/2
1.5
8
45
l.bS
48.2
.2b
2. 14
1722.3S
5.78
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.os GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.50 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
271.33 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.qb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
24 .0/1
24
11.H/l
2U
10.S/*
34
1 . b / *
5
33.q/2
.15
2.R/2
.07
21.7/2
21.7
1 .1/2
1.1
fc
2R
.88
27.q
.31
3.01
1551.10
5.75
BLOWER INLET PRFSS., Gl 254.0 MM. H20
BLUWER INLET TEMP. 44 DEG. c
3
7514
21.3/1
21
15.2/1
15
15.b/*
53
1.7/*
5
58.7/2
1.74
2.4/2
.nb
41.5/2
41.5
1.5/2
1.5
45
l.b?
4H.2
.2b
2.14
1722.31
5. 78
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 10.13 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = SOb.1 STO. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE E-ll.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UN I 1 HO. TEST NO.
vtHici.E MODEL MERCEDES SOLID
TEST TYPE FTP-H FTY STOCK
BAROMETER 7 H(1. 41 MM OF HG.
OHY HUL8 TEMP. ?5.b DEC. C
RI-.L. HUMIDITY bU PCT.
FXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G?, 317.5 MM. H?O
BAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC HACKGRD PPH
TO SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? RALKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGKD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
DATE 7/ l/7b
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS ? BAG
fl
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
TO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC MASS MG
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.14 Grams/KILOMETRE
.sn GKAMS/KILOMETRE
.53 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.98 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1
7518
13. I/?
?7
8
i?.q/*
43
.3/*
1
50. I/?
l.4b
?.?/?
.Ob
5?.8/?
5?. 8
3.0/?
3.0
?0
HO
1.40
50.1
5.bb
. bH
1?. 7/?
as
s.n/?
b
q.7/*
3?
O.O/*
n
33. 5/?
. 07
35.?/?
35.?
3.b/?
3.b
an
3)
.88
31. 9
1 .09
3.H?
1533. 7R
b. 18
MFGR. CODE -0 YH. lq?5
TEST wT. 1587 KG MJAt) LOAD
WET BULB TEMP ?0.0 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY l?.b M I LL I GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl ?5t.() MM. HdO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. ^5 DEG. c
7518
13.t/2
?7
3.9/2
8
la.s/*
4 3
. 3/*
1
50. I/?
1.4b
?.?
.Ob
8 . H KW
5?. 8
3.0/8
3.0
?0
40
1 . 4U
50. 1
5.bb
CARSON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = q.ih LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = ?l)5.7 STD. CU. METRES
-------
UNIT NO, TEST NO.
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 300D
TEST TYPE FTP-H FTY STOCK
BAROMETER 740.92 MM OF HG.
DRY BUL8 TEMP. 23.9 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY b2 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
TABLE E-12-
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LTGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 7/ 2/7b
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE S CYL.
COMMENTS 2 BAG
MFGR. LODE - [)
TEST WT. 1587 KG
WET BULB 1EMP 18.9 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.8 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1975
KUAD LOAD 8.4 Kw
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., G2, 304.8 MM. H?0
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER INLET PRESS., 61 251.0 MM. H20
BLOWER INLEI 1EMP. 37 DEC. C
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
CO?
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C05
NOX
HC
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READ I NG/ SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS MG
1
7532
15.8/2
32
7.0/2
If
13.I/*
44
.3/*
1
49.b/2
1 .44
2.b/2
.07
St.5/2
54.5
3. 7/2
3.7
19
41
1.38
51.2
.b3
2.74
1449.05
5.81
.b3
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.14 Grams'KILOMETRE
.55 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2b3.o7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
l.DO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2
12933
14 .2/2
as
5.2/2
10
10.O/*
33
.4/*
1
33.P/E
.95
3.9/2
. 10
34 .8/2
34.8
3. 7/2
3.7
19
31
.85
31.4
I.Ob
3.51
1538.58
b.12
l.Ob
3
7412
Ih. 1/2
32
7.0/2
14
lb.7/*
57
.9/*
3
bO.0/2
1.78
2.8/2
.07
58.?/2
58. 7
5.4/2
5.4
20
52
1.72
54.0
.b5
3.38
1777.07
b .04
.b5
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 9.8? LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 211.b STU. CU. METRES
-------
TAMLF E-13.
VEHICLE FHISSKIN HtSULTS
Mr, i 1 MII.
VFMiril
TF 51 I rP
if. s I no, ]
IDH "F«CFnFS 3nni) 1-1
I- TJ'-H PAPT TP.APS
(IIP >M . 1 7 MM OF Mr;.
11 MY Km. H T F HI'. ?'! . S HKG. L
WF I . i'11'i KM T r h I PC I .
F X M A 11 '= 1 F n I S S I r> r-' .S
ill I'M) u OIF. PlvFsS.,
n M, HI i.iji I a
MM. '411.
HI IIHF I.' KF VHI.UT I IIMS
LIGHT DUTY FMISSIONS TEST
CYl .
r>ATF_ 'X I-/7K
FHGIHF 3.nn LlTRt
r o M H F n T s p BAT,
MM. H?(|
tit
r n
rn
rn
f' i P
n)p
r 11 P
Mil*
nil >
"I ; K
'MIX
M(
m
H{
rn
ro?
MOX
( MITI-H RF AI'lNIi/SCALE
HAT nr.ki, MITFW Wt AOING/STALE
HAC,HG"I> PPM
SA'iMIJ MFTFI-J WK ADINGX3CALE
S A "i'I F PPM
MAC. KG Kl) MITFH I'F AD tMI./SCAl F
HACM. Kl) PPM
SANPI.F MFIF.U FJF A[> I NI,/3C A| E
SA-i"l I PF RLF NT
MACM>KU PF RCF i. (
S A'iH|_t MFTFR RF AD ING/S CALF
SA'U'LF PPM
MACK''.i'D PPM
rnnCKN K'AT inu PPM
rnM:F MTKAT KIN prr
CCNCFivT^A T TUN PPM
MASS GWAM3
MASS GRAMS
"iASS I.WAMS
MASS
"K II;HTF i) MASS HC
wK K;HT F n MASS co
I--F KHTFD MASS co
Hiu«tf<
INIFI IFMP.
71 R1
n. I X?
J fl
1 . SXP
1 J .SX«
.NX*
3
'1 b . 3 X P
1.11
3 . 3XP
.m
t h. 1 Xc?
1 h . 1
3. IX?
3.H
1 S
3H
1 . ?h
^3.7
. 3S
P.P?
f .H 3
5 .nb
1 P. SM S
i .q/ p
i n
1 . 7X?
q.PX.
. q x *
3
3J .PXP
. R 7
T.tXP.
.n-i
S1.5X?
P4 . S
3 . 1 X?
3. 1
7
p. 7
. 71
?>.h
, jc,
P. R9
l^'+B. 77
5. J5
7^83
1 . 1 X
-------
TABLE
UNIT MU. TEST NO. e
VEHICIE MODEL MERCEDES 3110-0
TEST TYPE FTP-H PART TRAPS
BAROMFTER 74P.70 MM OF MG.
DRY HIILB TEMP. P 4 , 4 DFG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 74 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
E-14.
1975
VEHICLF EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TFST
DATE ?/ 7/7h
ENGINE 9.00 LITRE
COMMFNT3 P HAG
MFGR. CODE -0
SCYL. TESTHT. 3 5 n 0 K G
FT HULH TEMP Pl.l OFG. C
ABS, HUMIDITY 11,b MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1975
KOAD LOAD
8.4 KW
RLOHER OIF. PRESS., GP, 31?.4 MM. H?O
RAG RESULTS
R A G NO.
RLOWfcR REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACKGWD MtTER RE AD ING/SCALE
HC RACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO nACKGRQ MITER READING/SCALE
CO RACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE MFTFR RE A D I NG/ SC ALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COP RACKGRD PERCENT
MOX SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
M 0 X S A M P L t PPM
NOX R AC KG PD MFTER READING/SCALE
MIX HACKGRU PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPH
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
w E I G H T E 0 MASS H C .04 (J R A M S / K
WEIGHTED MASS CO .49 i; ^ A M S / K
''EIGHTEu MASS CO? PIH.IJh GRAMS/K
WEIGHTED MASS NOX 1 . 0 0 G R A fi S / K
RFiON MALA'JCE FUpi. CONSHMPIJON = 9
ITAI. CVS FLOri = 2flR.5 STD. CD. ME
1
7555
13.0/1
13
b , 3/1
b
1P.9/*
4 3
1 . I/*
3
50.4/P
1.47
P.4/P
. Ob
49. b/p
49 . h
P.l/P
P. 1
1
3H
1.41
47.7
.PI
? . 49
1 45b. 54
5. 89
ILOMETRE
I L 0 M F T R E
T 1 . 0 M f- | R F
II. OMF THE
. ?b 1 I TRES PF 1' HUNDRED
TRF 3
P
1P9J b
J7.1/1
17
IP. 7/J
1 5
1H.5/*
35
I.I/*
3
33.fi/?
.95
3.P/P
.OR
31 .7/P
3J .7
P.b/P
P.S
c,
in
. H 7
P9 . 4
. 3«
3. 3«
1 5 3 b . 9 3
b.PI)
Kll OMf: IRES
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 254.0 MM. HPO
ULUWER INLFT TEMP, 43 DEC. c
3
7555
13.0/1
13
b. 3/1
b
1P.9/*
13
l.l/*
3
S 0 . H / P
1.17
2.4/P
.Ob
49.b/p
IP. b
P. 1/2
7
1R
1.^1
47.7
.PI
P. '41
4Sb.54
S . R9
-------
UNI r MO. 111 TEST NO. 3
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES BOOD F
T F 3 T T r P F K T P-H PART TRAPS
B 4 rt n M r T t R 7 H 1 . 4 3 MM OF H G .
nny RIJLB TEMP. 25.0 DEC. c
"F. L . HUH IOIT Y b7 PCT.
F.XHAUST EMISSIONS
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 7/ 8/7b
ENGINE 3.on LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS 2 BAG
MFGR. COUP. -n
TEST NT. ISMfl KG
WET 8ULB TEMP 211.b DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 13.h MILLIGRAMS/KG
"I w. 197S
KU Ml LUAU
H . 4
BLOWER OIF. PRHSS., G?,
MM. H?O
BLOWEH INLET PRF.SS./ GI 251*.o MM.
INLET TEMP. tt DEG. c
RAG
PAG
RESULTS
NO.
RLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
ro
CO
CO
CO
ro?
CO?
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
HC
ro
C02
NOX
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHO METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE MFTER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLF Mf.TER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGHD MFTER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE MFTER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
RACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
75??
If. 1/1
It
7. 3/1
7
11 .b/*
39
1 .O/*
3
H5. 5/2
1.30
2.b/2
.07
t2.b/2
8
34
l.?H
HO. 9
.21*
2.21
12b7.39
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS co?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.nb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.HH GRAMS/KILOMETRE
227.37 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.Pb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2H. J /I
21
Ib. 9/1
17
9. 7/*
32
32.0/2
.89
2.2/2
.lib
29. t/?
29.4
2.2/2
2.2
8
29
.94
27.3
.4b
3.14
147b.34
5.53
3
75P2
14.1/1
14
7.3/1
7
11 .b/*
39
1 .O/*
3
49.2/2
1 . 1U
.n?
42.b/2
42. b
1 .9/2
1 .9
8
34
1.24
40 . 1
.24
2.21
12b7. 39
4 .92
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 8.49 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 2llb.9 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE E-16. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE If l/7b TIME -U HRS.
MODEL 1175 MERCEDE3-300D SET-7 FTY STOCK
DRIVER DT TEST WT. 1587 KG.
WET BULB TEMP 19 C DRY BULB TEMP ?(, C
SPEC. HUM. 11.1 GRAM/KG BARO. 7*0.f MM HG.
DISTANCE 21.738 KM
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOwER DIP. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
M C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
,L NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
-J NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOg COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOS MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .10
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .38
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 215
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,8b
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL I.t2
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.5
COS GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bO
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL IS. b?
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 3.11 LITRE I 5 CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 53.1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL 8t7.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO l.BHt
23.33 MINUTES
2H8.1 MM. H20
2SH.b MM H20
Hb DEG. C
317t7
20R18
12.8/2
2b
1.0/2
2
IH.b/*
f 1
.I/*
1
S8.t/2
1.73
2.9/2
.08
bb.1/2
bb.l
3.3/2
3.3
2t
tb
1 .bb
b3.2
0.0
2.11
8.11
tfaSI.34
18.71
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .1
CO GRAMS/MIN .t
C02 GRAMS/MIN 201
NOX GRAMS/MIN .81
S02 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 8.05 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
E I.-l 7.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DA^ 7 / 2/7b
MODEL 1^75 MKKCfDES 3UU-D
U» I vF R BY
*tT BULB TFMP 18 C
'-. P F C . HUM. q.q GRAM/KG
DISTANCE ?1.738 KM
TIME -n HRS.
SET-7 FTY STOCK
TEST WT. 1587 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?5 C
BARD. 7tl.2 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE i s CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 19.1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL HH7.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO l.Bft
PUN DURA TI ON
HLUHER INLET PRESS.
HLOwtR OIF. PRESS.
HLOWER INLET TEMP.
OYNn REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
RLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.29 MINUTES
251.0 MM. H20
30H . R MM H20
H3 OEG. C
20771
R1 1(1
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKT,RD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER RE AD ING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO (UCKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
COj SAMPLE MKTEH READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PLRCENT
COj BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CQ2 HACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGHD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENlRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CU MASS (GRAMS)
COg MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE: .nfa
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE .to
co? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 213
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .RS
so? GRAMS/KILOMETRE p.no
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .SH
co GRAMS/KG of FUEL
co? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 12.bl
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
15.5/2
31
8.9/2
18
1S.5/*
53
.b/*
2
57.5/2
1 . 70
3.1/2
.08
b8.3/2
b8. 3
H .t/2
H .H
15
f 1
I.b3
fat. 5
0.0
1.38
8.73
18.55
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
CO? GRAK8/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
SOS GRAMS/MIN
.1
.80
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 7.11* LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE E-18.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 7/ b/7b
MODEL 1*72 MERCEDES 3000
DRIVER DT
WET BULB TEMP go C
SPEC. HUM. 13.3 GRAM/KG
DISTANCE 21.738 KM
TIME -0 HRS.
SET? PART TRAPS
TEST WT. 1587 KG.
ORY BULB TEMP 21 C
BARO. 711.3 MM HG.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE I 5 CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 70.1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL 817.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.8ft
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.01 MINUTES
251.0 MM. H20
MM H20
301.8
15
31117
50521
8130
DEG. C
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRO PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .os
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .35
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 200
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .82
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .81
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.5
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b2
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 12.10
302 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
8.8/2
18
2.5/2
5
11.I/*
18
. ?/*
2
51.8/2
l.bl
2.0/2
.05
5S.O/2
51.0
3.1/2
3.1
13
13
1.5b
Sb.O
0.0
l.lb
7.fa2
1355.Ob
17.77
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN .3
COg GRAMS/MIN 189
NOX GRAMS/MIN .77
302 GRAMS/MIN fl.OO
.1
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 7.18 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE £-19.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
0*TE 7/ 7/7b
MODEL 1^75 MERCEDES-300D
DRIVER DT
WET BULB TEMP ?i C
SPFC. HUM. 13.b GRAM/KG
DISTANCE 21.738 KM
TIME -o MRS.
SET? PART TRAPS
TEST WT. 1587 KG.
DRY BUL« TEMP ?5 C
BARO. 7*?.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. ?
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE I s CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. b7.0 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
FUEL 847.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.8HH
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
as.30 MINUTES
3 MM. HaO
30H.8 MM H?0
tb DEC. C
318bl
8*25
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRO PPM
COa SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
co? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRO PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX OACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOS COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOa MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .03
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,3b
COS GRAMS/KILOMETRE 23fa
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.01
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1).00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .39
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL *.<*
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bH
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.51
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.flO
11.5/1
11
5.0/1
5
1H .q/*
51
I.?/*
1.87
.07
7o.b/a
?n.b
3.b/2
3.b
7
HH
1 .B?
b7.5
0.0
.bf
7.q?
SllS.bf
ai.ss
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .0
CO GRAMS/MlN .3
CO? GRAMS/MIN ??Q
NOX GRAMS/MIN .9*
soe GRAMS/MIN o.oo
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 8.79 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE E-20. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE ?/ 8/7b
MODEL 1175 MERCEDES 3000
DRIVER DT
WET 8ULB TEMP IB C
SPEC. HUM. 10.9 GRAM/KG
DISTANCE 31.738 KM
TIME -0 MRS.
SET7 PART TRAPS
TEST WT. 1587 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP af C
8ARO. ?tl.f MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE I 5 CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 55.5 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION ae.qi
BLOWER INLET PRESS, ast.o
BLOWER DIF. PRESS. 30t.8
BLOWER INLET TEMP. ts
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 311St
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS eotl
BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 8t31
FUEL 8f7.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO
It MINUTES
MM. HaO
MM H20
DEG. C
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
M
tSJ
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
COS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COa SAMPLE PERCENT
COg BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COa BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOa COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
COa MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOa MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .0*
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,3t
COa GRAMS/KILOMETRE ale
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .80
SOa GRAMS/KILOMETRE O.QO
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .to
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.0
COa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b3
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 11.15
SOa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
la
e.t/i
a
13.77*
Hb
.q/*
3
57.S/a
1.71
a.5/2
.07
ti.i/a
bi.q
e.va
a.t
10
M
l.bS
SH.B
0.0
.88
7.21
4511.15
17.38
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .0
co GRAMS/MIN .3
cog GRAMS/MIN aoo
NOX GRAMS/MIN .7b
SOa GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 7.81 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE r:-zi.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE If l/7b TIHE -0 HRS.
MO[)EL 197S MERCEDES 3000 FET FTY STOCK
DRIVER Df TEST WT. 1587 KG.
WET BULB TEMP iq c DRY auLf TEMP 2? c
SPEC. HUM. 11.H GRAM/KG BAHO. 7*0.«» MM HG.
OI3TANCF. lb.H7b KM
PUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
SLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE I 5 CYL.
GVH n KG
REL. HUM. 50.8 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL 8*7.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.8-M
12.78 MINUTES
?5H.O MM. H?Q
MM HgO
SO*.8
H8
DEC. C
BHin
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CD BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GHAMS/KILoMETRE .Ob
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE .at
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 209
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,8b
so? GRAMS/KILOMETRE o.oo
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .sb
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL S.?
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b?
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.05
so? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL o.oo
13. 5/?
27
3.0/2
b
18. 3/*
b3
.?/*
1
75.1/2
?.31
2.3/2
.Ob
SI.
H.5/2
*.S
82
87. 7
0.0
1.05
5.b8
3Hf8.31
1H.23
o.oo
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/HIN .f
co? GRAMS/MIN ??o
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.11
SO? GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 7.81 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE E-22.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE ?/ 2/7b TIME -0 MRS.
MODEL 1975 MERCEDES 300-D FET FTY STOCK
DRIVER BY TEST WT. 1587 KG.
WET 8ULB TEMP IS C DRY BULB TEMP ?t C
SPEC. HUM. 12.3 GRAM/KG BARO. 7HO.q MM HG.
DISTANCE Ib.t7b KM
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE i 5 CYL.
GVW o KG
REL. HUM. b2.fl PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL 8H7.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.8f+
12.7b MINUTES
251.0 MM. H20
301.8 MM H20
15 DEG, C
23771
1137b
BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 8130
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .OB
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .35
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 205
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .89
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.21
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL s.t
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bl
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.73
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
11.2/2
38
7.0/2
It
18. 8/*
b5
.b/*
2
73.5/2
2.25
3.1/2
.08
90.0/2
90.0
27
59
2.18
8b.3
0.0
1.30
5.80
3372.51
It.bB
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAM3/MIN .5
C02 GRAMS/MIN ?b>*
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.15
302 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
. 1
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 7.bt LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE L--Z3. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 7/ b/7b
MODEL 1^75 MERCEDES 300D
DRIVER DT
WET BULB TEMP 19 C
SPEC. HUM. 12.b GRAM/KG
DISTANCE lb.H7b KM
TIME -o HRS.
FET PART TRAPS
TEST WT. 1587 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2» C
BARO. 7fl.2 MM HG.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE i s CYL.
GVH 0 KG
REL. HUM. bb.2 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
FUEL 8H7.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO l.BHt
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
RLOWER CU. CM /REV.
11.83 MINUTES
25'».0 MM. H20
30H.8 MM H20
HH DEC. C
22322
1055Q
BH3H
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METEH READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILoMETRE .0*
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .31
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 187
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .71
so? GRAMS/KILOMETRE o.oo
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ,b3
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.3
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b3
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.3P
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
11 .b/2
23
5.7/2
11
18. H/*
bH
l.O/*
3
72.1/2
2.20
2.5/2
.07
8*. 8/2
Bt .8
1*
57
2.15
83.0
0.0
.b2
5.17
3082. 21*
13.0*
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN .*
CO? GRAMS/MIN 2bl
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.10
302 GRAMS/MIN O.OO
.1
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = b.18 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE E-24.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE I/ 7/7b
MODEL 1975 MERCEDES 300D
DRIVER TJ
WET BULB TEMP 21 C
SPEC. HUM. 14.1 GRAM/KG
DISTANCE lb.47b KM
TIME -0 MRS.
FET PART TRAPS
TEST WT. 1587 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 24 C
6ARO. 745.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE I 5 CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 7t.l PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL 847.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.844
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DVNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.bS MINUTES
254.0 MM. H20
312.4 MM H20
4b DEC. C
23743
11279
8414
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .02
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .32
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 233
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .97
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .32
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 4.4
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b5
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.24
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.Ofl
15.9/1
Ib
9.5/1
10
18.b/*
b4
1.8/*
b
82.0/2
2.5b
2.3/2
.Ob
94.1/2
94. 1
5.2/2
5.2
8
55
2.51
89.9
0.0
.39
5.32
3837.8b
Ib.Ob
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .0
CO GRAMS/MIN .4
CO? GRAMS/MIN 303
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.27
S02 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = S.bS LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE E-Z5. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 7/ 8/7b
MODEL 1^75 MERCEDES SHOD
DRIVER OT
HET BULB TEMP go C
SPEC. HUM. 13.3 GRAM/KG
DISTANCE lb.H7b KM
TIME -0 HRS.
FET PART TRAPS
TEST WT. 1587 KG.
DRY BULH TEMP ?t C
BARO. 7H1.H MM HG.
FUEL BH7.3 G/LITRE
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE I 5 CYL.
GVH 0 KG
REL. HUM. 70.1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
FUEL HC RATIO 1.81**
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.bt MINUTES
25*.0 MM. H20
MM H20
317.5
2322b
11275
8H13
DEG. C
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRO PPM
COg SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILoMETRE .01
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .31
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 208
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .SB
SOS GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .b2
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL H.7
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bH
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.Hi
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
21 .*/!
21
8.9/1
q
lb.8/*
58
.b/*
2
75.1/2
2.31
3.2/2
.08
85. 7/2
85. 7
2.8/2
2.8
1H
52
2.2f
83. H
0.0
.b7
5.05
1H.51
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MlN
C02 GRAHS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
SO? GRAMS/MIN
.1
1.15
o.oo
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 7.75 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
GASEOUS EMISSIONS
AT 8045 KM (5000 MILES)
OF MVMA ACCUMULATION ON VEHICLE;
FACTORY STOCK AND A-1F, A-1R AND TAVS
PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM
km miles
A-1F Total 10409 6469
MVMA 8045 5000
A-1R Total 11220 6973
MVMA 8045 5000
E-27
-------
TABU E-E6. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
197S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT un. TEST NO. i
VI-HlcU MUhFL "-"FRCEOES-lnOD 75
TfST T fPE FTP F1Y SK
DATE 10/ 5/7b
E^GJNE 3.on LITRE 5 CYL,
COMMENTS 3 BAG 150 IN. HP
TFP 7jq.9n MM QF HG.
DWY HULH TfMp. Pn.t) OFG. C
RFL , Hi|*T01 TY b7 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
OIF. PI?ES3., GP, 3n'».H MM. HPO
>MClr,H|E.O "ASS HC
WElGHTfn MAS? CO
WElGHTEn -MASS COP
'•'ASS N()X
,13 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
PPh.17 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,R1 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
MFGR. cooe -o YR, iq?s
TEST ivT, 15R7 KG ROAD LOAD
WET BULB TEMP ib.l DEG, C
ABS. HUMIDITY in,i MILLIGRAMS/KG
HLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl PSH.O MM. HPO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 1*3 DEG, c
HAT;
HAG
HUO.'
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
ro
CO
COP
COP
COP
COP
MOX
MOX
NOX
MOX
HC
Co
POP
oinx
HC
t:«
COP
MOX
HC
WfcSUL TS
NO .
vE R REVOLUTIONS
SAMPLE M'F TFW
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRO METER
R ATK GRO PPM
SAMPLE METER
3 JMPL E PPM
''ACKGRO ME IER
BACK '» HO PPM
SAMPLF METER
SAMPLF PERCE.
rtACKGwo METER
REAOING/SC*LE
READING/SCALE
PE AOING/SCALE
RF AOING/SCALE
RFAOING/SCALE.
NT
READING/SCALE
8ACKGRO PERCENT
SA^PLF METER
3&MPLF PPM
HACK^RO METFH
n A c K r, H o PPM
Ci»NCE ^1 RAT ION
CO'-iT f NT WAT I UN
roNf E NTRAT ION
COMCENTRATION
^ASS I;HAMS
^ A 5 s G P A M s
''ASS r.RAMS
•'AS>S GRAMS
•'ASS MG
KFADING/SCALE
RE*DING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
7S1S
Pb.h/P
S3
1H .0/1
PR
52, b/*
lit
3B.3/*
80
R?.b/3
i.sa
b. 1/3
.09
H 9 , 3 / S
H9 , 3
3 , 5/g
3.S
PR
39
i U U
Hb.P
«ql
2 , 5t
J *7b, >»B
H.8?
• ql
?
1PRR1
1H , 7/P
?9
9.5/P
1 9
75,3/*
7H
P5 ,P/*
sn
^9, 3/3
• "5
S,b/3
.nq
P9 ,b/2
P9 , b
P , 3/P
P,3
1?
ss
. 77
?7, 4
. h1*
P . 8P,
1357.98
H .91
,ht
1
7511?
3b, 7/1
37
in. o/i
10
SI ,5/*
H9
13, S/*
13
7P.7/3
1,3?
1 , 1/ j
,nb
**b ,9/P
"»b , 9
. 8/P
.8
PR
35
l.Pb
"ih, P
,8'9
P , P8
1P9P ,n?
'*, Rl
, R9
CARHON
TDTAL CVS
FUEL
LITPFS PFR HllNDHEfl KILOMtTRES
PI17.C1 STn. CD. "ETRtS
-------
TABLE
E-27.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TtST
UNIT NO. TEST NO, 1
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES icon
TEST TYPE FTP TRAPS 5K MJLES
BAROMETER 7<4}.4h MM OF- HG,
DRY RllLO TEMP. ??.? DEG. C
REL, HUMIDITY tq PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE 9/3D/7h
ENGINE- 3,00 LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS 3 BAG
MFGR. CODE -n YH, 1975
TtST WT. 1587 KG ROAD LOAD
WET BULB TEMP 15,b DEC, C
ABS, HUMIPITY 8,1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
fl , H KW
M
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G?, 317.5 MM. H
-------
TARLE E-Z8. VEHICLE EMISSION RFSULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
HfJl f "f>, 111
vtHiCLF «npfL M(.
TEST r r P F FTTH f T Y
TEST NO, 1
3nno
SK M I L t S
DATE ID/ 5/7b
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS e BAG ISO IN. BP
tR 719. 9M MM OF HG ,
nwy HULH TEMP. pn.n DEC. c
BEL. HUMIDITY
EXHAUST f ^I
h7 PCT,
DIP. PRFSS., G2, 3n».B MM, HpO
ir.Hun MASS HC
innrf n UASS en
IGHTFO MASS CO?
lr.HfFn MASS NOX
.1?. GRAMS/K ILOMfTRt
,i»? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.PR GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,BO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
MFGR, CODE -o
TEST *T. 1587 KG
WET BULB TEMP lh,l PER, C
ABS. HUMIDITY 10,1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, GI ?s*.o MM,
BLOWER INLET TEMP. tb DEG, c
YR, 1175
ROAD LOAD
R ,H KW
HAG
HAG
HLCIJ
HC
HC
HC
HC
C"
rn
CO
CO
CO?
Cn?
CO?
CM?
NOX
IjdX
NOX
NOX
Ht
c:n
CO?
NUX
HC
CO
rn?.
NOX
HC
R F .S o L T S
NO.
vE » a^ vriLUT I ONS
SAMPLF MFTFR
SAMPLF PPM
nAc*GRn MF.TFR
HAfKGRIJ PP'<
3AM^LF MFTF.R
SAMPLE PPM
RAQHr.Rn METER
HACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
REAOING/SC»LF
RF ADI NG/SCAUE
HE«nlNG/SCALF
READING/SC*LE
RF AOING/SCALE
1
750?
3b,7/l
37
10, 1/1
in
51.5/*
H 9
13, S/*
13
78,7/3
SAMPLE PERCENT 1.3?.
HACKGRO MFTER
READING/SCALE
BACKCRD PERCENT
SAMPLF "ETFR
SAMPLE PPM
H AfK iJRI) K'f If R
"ACKGHO PPM
Cfl'JCENTRAT ION
CflNfF MTRAT t ON
Co. MCtNiTRAT ION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
w*SS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS G"4MS
MASS MG
READING/SCALE
"FADING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
H.l/3
.Oh
t b . 9/2
1b , 9
,8/P
.8
2R
35
1 . ?b
tb .2
, o n
?. , 2b
1 87R.11*
H,7b
.88
g
1 28B]
1H.7/2
29
9,5/2
19
75. 3/*
7>t
25, 2/*
50
"»9, 3/3
,R5
S,b/3
.09
29 , b/8
29 , b
2,3/2
?.3
12
25
.77
27, >»
,b3
2.79
13H3.b5
* ,Rb
,b3
3
7502
3b.7/l
37
10, 1/1
10
51. 5/*
H 9
13. 5/*
1 3
72,7/3
1 . 32
H.l/3
,0b
Hb , 9/2
tb , 9
, 8/2
.8
?B
35
1 , 2b
Hb.2
,8R
? , ?.b
127H.H1*
t.7b
,RR
CARBON HALA"ICE FUEL CONSUMPTION = R.ll LITRES PfR HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLP-V = ?rT»,7 STD, CU.
-------
TABLE E-29.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO,
VEHICLE
TEST TYPE FTPH
TEST NO. 3
MERCEDES 30C1D
FTY 5K MHES
DATE in/ 5/7b
ENGINE 0.00 LITRE ^ CYL.
COMMENTS 2 BAG NORMAL HP
MFGR, coot -o
TEST WT. 1587 KG
YR, 1975
ROAD LOAD
8 ,4 KW
BAROMETER 739.b5 MM OF HG.
DRY RULB TEMP. ?!.? DEG. c
REL, HUMIDITY 5b PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOwER niF. PRESS., G?, 317.5 My, H20
HAG RESULTS
BAG NO,
REVOLUTIONS
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
M
HC
READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD
HC BACKGRD P P M
co SAMPLF MFTER READING/SCALE
co SAMPLE PPM
co BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
coz SAMPLE MPTF.R READING/SCALE
co2 SAMPLE PERCENT
co? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
cos BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
H C "1A S S GRAMS
CO MASS GR6'"S
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC MASS MG
WEIGHTED MASS HC .07
WEIGHTEO MASS CO ,17
wflGHTFJO MASS CO? ? 2 H . * 1
WEIGHTED M4SS NOX .7 fc,
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRt
GRAMS/KILOMETRt
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WET HULH TEMP
ABS, HUMIDITY
lh.1
DEG. C
MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl dbH.O MM. H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP, 13 DEG. C
1
7513
23,b/l
24
12.0/1
1?
44 ,b/*
4?
3,4/*
3
7?, 3/3
1.31
3.9/3
.Ob
43,7/5
43.7
1,2/2
1.2
13
37
a. •»!
.as
. 3H
12901
19,9/1
20
It, 0/1
1H
3H ,2/*
32
SO, 7/3
.88
3,9/3
,(lb
2B.t/2
.8
7
29
.82
27.7
.38
3.27
.38
CARBON BALANCE FUFL CONSUMPTION =
TOTAL CVS FLfM = 2'lh.7 STD. CU.
B.45 LITRES PER
METRES
HUNDRED KILOMETRES
3
. 7513
2 3 . b / 1
2H
12.0/1
12
Ht, b/*
42
3.H/*
3
72.3/3
1,31
3.9/3
.Ob
H3. 7/2
H3.7
1.2/2
1 .2
13
37
l,2b
42.b
.HI
2,HI
1285.25
H , 34
.HI
-------
E-30. FXHAIIST FntSSIONS
VEHILLF NUMf
SINGLE H*r, SAMPLE
I'MF. in/ S/7fc fJHt -d HR.S.
••""'Ot'L 117"; MFP.CEPF S-3(1110 Ft! FTY SK MILES
O H I »• E W hp iFJbrwT. 15H7KG.
*F T HULK iM-p jh c utvr BULU TFMP ?? c
<»P(-C. HUM. H.I GKAM/KG bAKO. 73q.b MM HG.
OISfA'JCF Lb.1?h KM FUF.L 817.3 G/LITPF
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE I 5 CYL.
G v w n K G
REL. HUM. 53.e PCT
MFASURED FUEL o.oo KG
FUEL HC RATIO 1.811
DUN PUPATION
1^.77 MlNUTtS
RLOriEK DIF. PRESS. 317.b Mh H?0
HLO*F;R INLET TFMP. if, DEC. i
OYNiJ HFvni |il IONS ?3S17
nLCi^fK CM. CM /RFV. P10S
KF SUITS
SAht'i f
ItACKl.KD
r> A c M j K u
SAMf'I.F
HC
MC
Ht
HC
CO
CO
CO
LO
CM?
CO?
Co?
NOX SAMPLI-
MFTFH WF.ADING/SCALE
HFTTK RK ADING/SUALE
RFAOING/SCALE
HF. AOING/SLALE
SAKPI F
SAMPLt
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
B A C K G K u
IIACKGKl)
CliNCF.NTHA ! ION
CnhCFNTHAlION
cnr;rENrtF FUEL
SO? r,i?AnS/Ki; nK FUEL
. n ?
?07
.7M
ii. nu
1.11
l.b
3ls?
n .no
HC
cu
CO?
NtlX
so?
GRA'1S/M LN
G ft A H S / HIN
G R A H S / M T N
GRA"S/MIN n.nd
BALANCE. FUEL CONPIPMPT IIIM = 7.7H LITWfS PfR HUNDRED KILOMFTRtS
-------
TABLE E-31.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 9/30/7b TIME -II MRS.
MODEL 1975 MERCEDES-30PD FET TRAPS 5K
DRIVER BP TEST WT. 158? KG.
WET BULB TFMP ib C DRY BULB TEMP ?3 C
SPEC. HUM. 7.S GRAM/KG UARO. 7t3.5 MM HG.
DISTANCE )b.t7b KM
TEST NO. S
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE I s CYL,
GVW n KG
REL. HUM. H3.b PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
1 It 0 0
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER RE At'ING/SC ALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGPD METER READING/SCALE
M CO? BACKGRO PERCENT
w NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
w NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
FUEL 8f7.3 G/LITRF FUEL HC RATIO
12.78 MINUTES
?5t.P MM. H?0
30^.8 MM H?0
tb OEG. C
?P. 3/1
?B
lb.5/1
Ib
70.b/*
39
2.3/*
1
51.1/?
2.3t
1.5/2
.05
33.8/3
IDl.f
.3/3
.9
15
3b
2.30
100.7
0.0
.71
3.5?
3557.b3
It .83
O.UO
HC GPAMS/KILoMETRE
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
.?!
21b
.HU
O.DU
. b3
3.1
31bb
13.50
n.oo
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SO?
GRAMS/MIN
GRAMS/MIN
GRAMS/MIN
GRAMS/MIN
GRAMS/MIN
. 3
278
l.lb
n.oo
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = R.D5 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
GASEOUS EMISSIONS
AT 16090 KM (10,000 MILES)
OF MVMA ACCUMULATION ON VEHICLE;
FACTORY STOCK AND A-IF, A-IR AND TAVS
PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM
km miles
A-IF Total 14432 8970
MVMA 12068 7500
A-IR Total 15243 9475
MVMA 12068 7500
E-34
-------
TABLE E-32.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TES1
UNIT MO. TEST NO. 1 DATE ll/
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 300 !„> ENGINE
TEST TYPE FACTORY STOCK COMMENTS
BAROMFTER 7H9.05 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 3b PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., GS, 317.5 MM. H?O
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
l/7b
3.no LITHE 5 CYL.
1975 FTP COLD 1 U 0 0 u
H
1
Ul
Ul
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
r.o
CO
C02
C02
C02
COS
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
COS
NOX
HC
CU
COS
NOX
HC
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKG^D METER READING/SCALE
BACKfiHO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER RE AU ING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGKI) METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PFM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS MG
1
750H
57.0/1
5?
1.5/1
2
t7
3. I/*
3
35.8/2
1.53
2.2/2
.08
59.2/2
59. 2
.a/5
.8
5b
58.5
.83
2.7b
1503.91
5.b3
.83
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.12 GRAMS/KILOMETRF
.tb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
528.3b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
. qt GRAMS/KILOMETRE
MFGR. CODE -0 YR. 1975
TESTWT. 15B7KG hOADLOAD
MILE TEST 3 BAG
WEI BULB TEMP 15.b DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 2bb.7 MM. H50
BLOWER INLET TEMP. -o DEG. c
B. t KW
2
15900
13.0/1
13
1.5/1
1
33. O/*
31
3. I/*
3
51.b/5
.Bfa
5.5/2
.08
3b.5/5
3b.5
.8/2
.8
12
57
.78
35.8
.bb
3. Oh
. Sb
.bb
3
7502
5t .0/1
2*
t.0/1
t
HI .S/*
39
5.b/*
3
30.7/2
1.28
1.9/2
.07
5S.b/2
55.b
.7/5
.7
20
35
1.21
55.U
.bb
2.31
125Y.52
5.29
.bb
CARBON FiALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 8.5? LITSES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FtOW = 209.1 STO. CU. METRES
-------
E-33. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT CUTY EMISSIONS TtST
UNIT NO. TEST
VEHICLE M00f._ '1EBCFOES J'
TEST TYPE T°AP
BAROMf rER JC.J
DRY BULB TE«P.
REL. HUMIDITY
EXHAUST E
DATE ll/ 8/7b
ENGINE
M OF HG.
s.o OFG.
?H PCT.
OIF, PRFSS., G?, ?i,b.7 MM.
HAG
MFGR. CODE -0
3.00 LITRE 5 CYL. TEST «T. ISR? KG
1975 FTP 10000 MILE TEST 3 BAG
YR, 1975
ROAD LOAD
H,H KH
WET 8ULB TEMP 13,3 DEG, C
ABS. HUMIDITY >»,7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 330.? MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP, H3 DEG. C
HC
HC
HC
en
en
CO
CO
M en?
* ?8f
CO?
NOX
NOX
NDX
HC
CO
f"OX
HC
co
CO?
NOX
HC
WEIG
HEIG
ivElG
NO. 1
,f_y PEVOLUTinNS 7H9P
S4"PLF "FTFR READING/SCALE ?n,9/i
SJwp|_f PPM ?5
^i-KHRQ MgTFR READING/STALE b.s/i
f-ACKGROPPM 7
S4MPLF METER READING/SCALE na.7/*
SAMPLE PP^' ^b
B*CKGRO MF.TER READING/SCALE 3.B/*
BicKGRn PPM t
SAMPLE MFTE" REAOING/sr ALE HO.2/3
SAMPLE PERCENT 1 . * 7
HAC^GRO M F T E " REAOTNG/SCALE 3,?/3
HACKGPO PERCENT ,0b
S4>xPLF "ETER PFADING/SCALE "58.1/2
S4MPLFPPM 58.1
i4r.KG«n MFTFW READING/SCALE ,b/2
^ACXGRIIPPM ,b
CnMCEMfRATinNPPM 19
COMCFMTRAT ION PCT 1.H2
CPHCEMTRAT ION PPM 57. b
"ASS P.PAMS ,b2
U4SS GRAMS 2.70
x 4 S S G R A '
'4 S ) H 7 5 , 0 2
«ASS GRAMS 5. IB
"ASS UG
HTEn MASS
HTF.O »ASS
HfEn "ASS
HTFD M4SS
.b2
HC .10 GRAMS/K ILOKE TKE
CO ,Hh GRA'.'S/K JLOMET WE
CO? P9t.b7 UWAMj/KlLO^ETRE
MOX .9? r.RAMS/KlLQMF.TRE
2 3
l?93b 7510
17,b/l 19.0/1
IB 19
b.0/1 7.5/1
b 8
31, b/* H0.7/*
29 38
2,0/* 1.2/*
2 1
5H.H/3 73.9/3
.87 1.32
H ,H/3 5.0/3
.07 .08
38.2/2 59,0/2
38.2 59.0
,b/2 ,b/2
.b .b
12 12
27 3b
.81 1,25
37. b 58.5
,bB .HO
3. Ob 2. 3b
1H5H. U 130H.33
5.85 5,27
,h8 .HO
CARBON rtSL»Nf6 FM£L CO^SU^PTInw = H.7b LITRfS PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL Cvs fLrv = Pio.t STn. cu. METRES
-------
UNIT NO. ;;; TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 30HD
TEST TYPE FACTORY STOCK
BAROMETER 7t1.05 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMp. 25.0 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 3b PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
RLOWER DIF. PRESS., G?, 317.5 MM. H?n
RAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TABLE E-34. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE ll/ l/7b MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE s CYL. TEST WT. 1537 KG
COMMENTS 1175 FTP COLD lonotl MILE TEST 2 BAG
YR. 1975
NOAO LOAD
8 .1 KW
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
M C02
1 C02
3 C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
SACKGRD METER
BACKGWD PPM
SAMPLh METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
8ACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
Rt-.ADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PERCEN
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
RACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRAT ION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS MG
READING/SCALE
T
READING/SCALE
Rt ADING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
7SOt
57.0/1
27
1.5/1
2
41.t/*
17
3. I/*
3
35.8/5
1.53
2.2/2
.08
51.2/2
SS.2
.8/2
.8
2fa
12
1.15
58.5
.83
2.7fa
1503.11
5.b3
.83
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS coe
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.if GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.18 Gf
-------
TA6LF E-35.
197b
ii'JM m). ; ; ; TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL MERCFDES 3000
TEST TYPE FACTORY STOCK
HARDHpTER 749.n5 MM OF H G .
DRY miLB TEMP. 8h.l DE(,. C
REL. HUMIDITY 3t HCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE ll/ l/7b MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 3.no LITRE 5 CYL. TEST WT. 1587 KG
COMMENTS 1975 FTP HOT lonnn MILE TEST 2 HAG
YR. 1975
K 0 A IT L U A U
H . f KW
«ET 8UL3 TEMP lb.1 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.3 M I LL I UP AMS/ KG
n
i
CD
p L o w E R niF. PRESS., 02, 317.5 MM. H ? n
RAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
HLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC () A C K f, R 0 MFTER READING/SCALE
HC 8ACKGRO PPM
TO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPt F PPM
CO (3ACKGRD METER RE AU I NC./SC ALE
CO f) A C K i; R L) PPM
C05 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
T02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 UACKGRU METER RE M) ING/SCALE
C02 GACKGPU PERCENT
NdX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NdX SAMPLE PPM
NOX HACKGHU METER RtAUIMU/SCALE
NOX RACi\Gf<0 PPM
HC CONCENIRATION PPM
ru CONCENTRATION PPM
r.Od CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GKAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC MASS Mb
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl ?bl.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 13 UEG. c
i
7502
23.0/1
23
H .n/1
1
HI.5/*
39
?.b/*
3
30.7/2
1 .?B
1.9/2
.07
S5.b/2
55.b
.7/2
. 7
19
35
1 .21
55.0
.b3
2. 31
1255.20
5.31
.b3
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
. i j. GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.Yb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
?lt.nS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.88 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2
1290B
17. n/1
1 7
5. (I/)
5
33. 5/*
31
20.5/2
.HI
1 .9/2
.07
32.3/2
32.3
.h/2
.b
12
2fl
.75
31.7
.b9
3.20
1327. 9lj
5.2B
.fa9
3
7502
23.0/1
23
t .0/1
H
tl.S/*
39
2.b/*
3
30.7/2
1.28
1.9/2
.07
5S.b/2
55.b
.7/2
. 7
19
35
i.21
55.0
.b3
2.31
1255.20
5.31
CARBON BALa'JLE FUEL CONSUMPTION - 7.99 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FL.UW = 2119.? STL/. CU. KETPFS
-------
TABLE
E-36.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. ;;; TEST NO.
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 30C1 0
TEST TYPE FACTORY STOCK
BAROMETER 7HB.51 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 2b.7 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 3? PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
PLONER OIF. PRF.SS., G2, 3cf2.b MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
DATE U/ l/7b MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 3.LIO LITRE 5 CYL. TEST WT. 1587 KG
COMMENTS 1975 FTP HOT 1UUOO MILE TEST 2 BAG R2
>R.
KOAD LOAD
8 . H KW
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
^ C02
U) CO?
^ C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CU2
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE MEIER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAhS
MASS MG
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPrl
PPM
PCT
PPM
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.Ob GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.35 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
211.13 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.81 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1
7502
15.0/1
15
1.3/1
1
33.7/*
31
l.S/*
1
70.5/3
1.27
2.0/3
.03
52.1/2
52.1
1.0/2
1.0
11
29
1.25
51.2
1.R8
>.85
,3b
WEI BULB TEMP lb.1 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.1 M ILL I GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 271.8 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. ib DEG. c
2
1290b
12.fl/l
12
1.5/1
5
25.5/*
21
2.n/*
2
tb.3/3
.80
3.1/3
.05
33.1/2
33.1
.8/2
.H
R
21
. 75
32.3
.13
2.38
1 3 11 . R 3
5.27
.13
3
7502
15.0/1
15
1 .3/1
1
33. 7/*
31
l.S/*
1
70.5/3
1.27
2.0/3
.03
52.1/2
52.1
1.0/2
1.0
11
29
1.25
51.2
.3b
1.88
1272.11
1.85
.3b
CARUON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION : 7.99 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOw = 2Mb.5 ST&. CD. METRES
-------
T A i; I F E-37.
FXH4UHT EMISSIONS FHOM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
VtHICLE NUMBE«
DATF. H/ l/7b
MODEL 197^ ME«CtOFS 3UHO
DRIVER BP
*£T dULB TEMP IK C
S P F C . HUM. b . 7 G R A M / K G
I I ME -0 HRS.
FE1
1FST WT. 1587 KG.
UP.Y BULb TEMP ?b C
BAKU. 7HH.n MM HG.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 3.0 LITHE S CYL,
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 31.3 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURAUUN
PLOKER INI.ET PRESS.
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.
RLOWER INLtT TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HLOWtR CU. CM /RFV.
12.77 MINUTES
S71.H hM. H20
38?. b MM H?0
Hb OFG. C
1 1
KAG HtSUL fS
w
1
^
o
HC
HC
HC
HC
CU
CO
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
CO?
CO?
NdX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
Su?
HC
CO
CO?
NflX
so?
SAMPLE MtTER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
tiACKGHD MbTEH RE AO I NG/SC ALE
RACKGHO PPM
SAMPLt METEH READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
8ACKGRO METF.R READING/SCALE
BACKGhO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKRKO METER READING/SCALE
BACKr,Ro PERCENT
SAMPLE MEUP HEADING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKfiHu METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRA1 IUN PPH
CONCENTKAIION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
COc EN I RATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GKAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC GHAMS/KILoHETflE
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GKArtS/KILOMETSt
SO? GRAMS/MLUHETRE
HC GrtAMS/I^G Of- FUEL
CO GRAMS/KG oH HiEi.
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GHAnS/KG UF FUEL
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
1P8
LI
.
S
31
13.
0.
.05
.3?
.81
.on
RJ
. H
?b
5?
nn
HC
no
CO?
NOX
so?
?0
f .0/1
>4
b?.b/*
bO
3.S/*
3
th.?/?
?.07
.nu
31.B/3
95. 1
1 .?
17
5H
?.UO
SH .H
0.0
.Bl
5.3H
3105. Hb
13. H3
0.00
GHAMS/MIN
.1
1.05
n.DO
r.A»8iiN
FHFL CON-SUMP i
7.u LITHFS
-------
TABLE E-38.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VtHICLE N U M B F R
DATE Li/ B/7b TIME -0 HHS.
MODEL 197S MtRCFOES 3UII-D Ft 1 TRAPS IflK
DRIVER RP TES1 isT. 0 KG.
WET BULB TEMP j.q c DRY RULH TEMP ?? c
SPEC. HUM. 11.? GRAM/KG riARU. 7Sl.b MM HG.
niSfAMCE
KM
TEST NO. ?.
ENGINE j.o LITRE 5 CYL.
G V W I) K G
RfcL. HUM. 5D.b PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
B L 0 K f K CO. CM /R F V.
FUEL =»H7.3 G/LITRF FUEL HC RATIO 1.8>tt
13.7? MINUTES
27S . 3 MM. H?0
3 t ? . 9 MM H ? 0
tS OEG. C
11387
B3bl
RAG
HC
HC
HC
HC
CU
CU
CO
CO
CU?
CO?
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NfJX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
SO?
HC
CU
CO?
NOX
SO?
RESULTS
SM-lPLt METER
SAMPLE PPM
RACKGhD METER
8ACIM-&0 PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BAcKGKD METER
bACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
BEADING/SCALE
READING/ SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKC-RD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
COCEN [RATION
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS ( G K A M S )
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
?7
7.0/1
7
18.fa/*
bO
.b/*
Hb.7/?
1 .S/?
.07
3H.?/3
1 U ? . b
1.?
Si
55
? .OH
lOl.b
0.0
1.01
31?8.8?
O.dCI
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE
co c-. RAMS/KILO METRE
CO? GRAMS/MLOMF1 RE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
HC GRAhS/KR OF FUEL.
C n G R ft M S / n, P
CO? GRAMS/KG
NOX GRAnS/KG
SO?
OF
OF
Or
OF
FUEL
FUEL
FUEL
FUhL
.3?
U.OU
) .02
h.H
31bl
J b.h?
n. on
HC GRAMS/MIN
CU
CO?
[JOX
s u tf
G R A M s / M T N
GRAMS/MTN
t) R A M S / M I N
GKAMS/MTN
. i
n. n 11
CARBON BALANCE F U F L C Ur • S U M PI IU i
LITRES PER HUNHKtf) KILOMETRES
-------
APPENDIX F
ODOR DATA AND RELATED EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
MERCEDES 300D WITH AND WITHOUT
PARTICULATE TRAPPING SYSTEM INSTALLED
-------
TABLE F-l. COMPARISON OF ODOR RATINGS
(Mercedes 300D with Particulate Trap System)
Operating
Condition
Inter Speed
No Load
Inter Speed
Mid Load
Inter Speed
High Load
High Speed
No Load
High Speed
Mid Load
High Speed
High Load
Idle
Idle-Accel
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
Date
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
B/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/70
8 / o / 7 o
A v e r a g e
"D"
Composite
1.2
1 . 4
1.7
1.4
0.8
1.2
0.9
1.0
0. 7
1 . 4
0.9
1.0
1. 7
1. 1
1 0
1.3
2. 0
2.0
1.4
1.8
2.2
2. 7
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.3
1 . 2
1. 5
2. 1
1.4
1.3
1.6
2.3
2. 1
2. 1
2. 2
1. 7
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.8
0.8
0. 7
0.8
"B"
Burnt
0. 7
1.0
i. 0
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.9
0. 8
0. 5
0.9
0. 7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0. 8
0.9
1. 2
1.0
0. 8
1. 0
0. 8
1.0
1. 0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1. 0
1.0
0. 8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0. 8
0.6
0.5
0. 7
0. b
"0"
Oily
0.4
0. 4
0. 4
0.4
0.3
0. 3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0. 5
0
0. 2
0. 5
0. 4
0. 2
0. 4
0.6
0. 7
0.4
0.6
0. 7
0.9
0. 8
0.8
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 4
0. 5
0. 5
0. 1
0.4
0.7
0.8
0. 3
0.6
0. 5
0.3
0.1
0. 3
0
0.1
0. 1
0.1
"A"
Aromatic
0. 1
0.3
0. 2
0. 2
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0.1
0. 2
0.1
0. 1
0. 2
0.2
0. 1
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0. 1
0. 2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0. 2
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0. 5
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
0. 2
0. 2
0.3
0. 2
0
0
0.1
"P"
Pungent
0. 1
0.2
0. 2
0. 2
0. 1
0. 1
0
0.1
0
0.2
0. 1
0.1
0. 2
0.1
0
0. 1
0.2
0.4
0. 2
0. 3
0. 5
0.6
0.6
0. 6
0. 4
0. 2
0
0.2
0. 5
0. 3
0. 1
0.3
0.5
0. 5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
F-2
-------
TABLE F-2, VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 300 D with A- IF, A- IR and TAVS Trap
Date: August 2, 1976
Run
No.
6.
11.
15.
2.
8.
18.
1 .
9.
19.
5 .
12.
17.
7.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16.
24.
26.
27.
32.
22.
25.
29.
31.
23.
28.
30.
33.
Operating
Condition
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Average
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Average
Idle
Average
Idle -Acceleration
Average
Acceleration
Average
Deceleration
Average
"D"
Composite
1.6
0
2. 0
1.2
0
1 .3
1.1
0.8
0
0.9
1. 1
"677
1.6
2. 1
1.4
1. 7
1. 7
2.4
2.0
2.0
0
3.6
3.0
2. 2
3. 1
1.6
1.4
2. 0
2.1
2.1
2.6
1.6
2.1
2.3
2.1
2. 1
2.8
2.3
1.4
2.0
2.0
1 . 4
i. 7
"B"
Burnt
0.9
0
1. 3
0. 7
0
0.7
1. 0
0.6
0
0. 8
0. 8
0. 5
0.9
0. 9
1. 0
0.9
0.9
1. 7
0.9
1. 2
0
1.3
1 . 1
0. 8
1. 0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
0. 8
1.0
1.0
i. 0
1. 0
0.9
1.0
0. 5
1. 0
i. 0
0.9
0.9
"0"
Oily
0.6
0
0.6
0.4
0
0.6
0. 3
0. 3
0
0. 1
0.3
0.1
0. 7
0.7
0. 1
0.5
0.9
0. 4
0. 4
0.6
0
1. 0
i. 0
0. 7
1. 0
0.3
0. 1
0. 5
0. 4
0. 4
0.8
0.4
0. 5
0.9
0. 5
0.8
0.6
0. 7
0. 3
0. 5
0.6
0. 4
0.5
"A"
Aromatic
0. i
0
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. i
0. 1
0. 1
0
0
0.3
0. 1
0
0.3
0.4
0. 2
0. 1
0. i
0. 4
0.2
0
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.2
0. 4
0. 5
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.9
0. 5
0.6
0.4
0.6
"P"
Pungent
0. 3
0
0.1
0.1
0
0. 1
0.3
0.1
0
0
0
0
0. 1
0.4
0. 1
0. 2
0. 1
0. 3
0.3
0. 2
0
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0. 3
0. 4
0.5
0. 3
0.8
0.3
0. 5
0.4
0. 4
0.4
0.6
0. 5
0.4
0. 4
0. 4
0.1
0. 3
Cold Start
0.1
0.6
0. 2
F-3
-------
TABLE F-3. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D with A-IF, A-IR and TAVS Trap System
Date: August 4, 1976
Run
No.
7.
11 .
16.
4.
14.
ZO.
3.
13.
21.
5.
10.
17.
2.
8.
15.
1.
9.
19.
6.
12,
18.
23.
28.
29.
31.
24.
26.
30.
33.
22.
25 _
27.
32.
Operating
"D"
"B"
Condition Composite Burnt
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Average
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Average
Idle
Average
Idle -Acceleration
Average
Acceleration
Average
Deceleration
Average
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1 .
1 .
1.
1.
1.
i .
1 .
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
1 .
1.
1 .
1 .
1.
1 .
1 .
1 .
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
2.
0.
0.
1.
1 .
L .
8
4
1
~4
0
1
6
2
4
8
1
4
0
3
1
1
5
6
8
0
4
0
8
7
1
6
1
3
1
3
5
6
4
i
2
1
2
1
9
9
0
1
0
1 .
1.
0.
1 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1 .
1 .
1 .
1.
1 .
1 .
1 .
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
i.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
17
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
9
0
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
9
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
9
0
9
9
6
8
8
"O"
Oily
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
oT
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
i .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o7
0.
0.
0.
0.
cT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6
4
2
4
3
3
3
3
5
8
3
5
4
4
4
"4
0
6
6
7
9
0
9
9
4
4
3
4
4
5
5
6
5
8
8
6
8
8
3
3
3
3
3
"A"
Aromatic
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
4
1
3
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
4
4
5
4
3
5
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
1
3
4
I
3
1
2
"P"
Pungent
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
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
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
3
3
4
4
9
6
6
1
1
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
5
6
6
4
5
1
1
1
_!_
1
Cold Start
0. S
0. 5
0.1
F-4
-------
TABLE F-4. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D with A-IF, A-IR and TAVS Trap System
Date: August 6, 1976
Run
No.
10.
13.
14.
1.
7.
20.
5 .
8.
19.
4.
16.
21.
6.
12.
18.
2.
11.
15.
3.
9.
17.
23.
26.
28.
31.
22.
25.
29.
32.
24.
27.
30.
33.
Operating
"D"
"B"
Condition Composite Burnt
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Average
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Idle
Average
Idle -Acceleration
Average
Acceleration
Average
Deceleration
Average
Cold Start
2.6
1. 1
1.4
1. 7
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0. 7
1. 0
0.9
0. 7
1.3
1. 0
1.0
1.3
2. 1
0. 8
1.4
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.5
1.5
1. 1
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.6
1. 1
1.3
2.3
2.0
2. 1
l.j
2. 1
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0. 7
1. 0
1. 0
0.9
l. 0
1. 0
0.9
0. 7
0.9
0. 8
0. 7
0. 5
0. 7
0. 7
1.0
0. 8
0.8
1.0
1. 1
0. 4
0. 8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1: 0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1. 0
0. 7
0. 7
0.8
1. 0
1. 0
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0. 7
"0"
Oily
0.6
0. 1
0. 4
0. 4
0. 1
0
0.1
0. 1
0
0
0. 1
0
0
0. 3
0. 2
0. 2
0. 3
0.9
0. 1
0. 4
0. 7
0. 7
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
0. 3
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.3
0. 1
0. 4
0. 3
0.3
0. 1
0.1
0. 2
0.1
0. 1
0.1
"A"
Aromatic
0. 3
0.1
0.3
0. 2
0
0. 1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.1
0. 3
0.1
0. 2
0.3
0. 1
0. 7
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.4
0. 7
0.3
0. 4
0
0. 2
0. 1
0.3
0. 2
0
1 1 pi i
Pungent
0. 7
0
0
0. 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0. 4
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0. 3
0.3
0. 2
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
0. 1
0
0
0
0. 1
0
0. 1
0
0. 1
1.0
0.9
0.3
0. 4
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
F-5
-------
TABLE F-5. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D with Standard Exhaust System and Backpressure
Date: August 9, 1976
Run
No.
6.
11.
15.
2.
8.
18.
i .
9.
i9.
5.
12.
17.
7.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16.
24.
26.
27.
32.
22.
25.
29.
3l.
23.
28.
30.
33.
Operating
"D"
"B"
Condition Composite Burnt
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Average
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Average
'idle
Average
Idle - Ace ele r ation
Average
Acceleration
Average
Deceleration
Average
1.8
2.9
2.1
2.3
2.0
2.3
1. 7
2.0
1. 7
2. 2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2. 7
2.3
2.3
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.9
3.0
3.4
2.9
3.1
1.5
2. 7
2.4
2. 2
2.7
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.3
2. 1
1.9
2.2
2.6
3.1
2.4
2. 7
2. 7
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
i.O
1.0
1. 0
i.O
0.9
l. 0
1.0
i. 0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1. 0
i. 3
1.0
1. 0
1. 1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1. 0
"0"
Oily
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
i.O
0. 7
0.9
0.9
i.O
1. 0
i.O
1.0
1. 0
l. 0
1.0
l.'O
l. 0
1.0
i. 0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.9
1. 0
0.8
1.0
1 . 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
i. 0
1.0
i.O
i. 0
i.O
1.0
1.0
i.O
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0. 3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0. 4
0.3
0. 3
0.3
0.4
0. 3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0. 4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.4
0
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0. 3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
"P"
Pungent
. 0.3
0. 4
0.3
0. 3
0. 1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0. 1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0. 7
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0. 7
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.6
0. 3
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.4
0. 4
0.3
O.i
0. 3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1. 0
0.6
0. 7
0. 7
Cold Start 3.4 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9
F-6
-------
TABLE F-6. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D with Standard Exhaust System and
Same Backpressure as Trap System at 50 mnVi
Date: August 11, 1976
Run
No.
10.
13.
14.
1.
7.
20.
5.
8.
19.
4.
16.
21.
6.
12.
18.
2.
11.
15.
3.
9.
17.
23.
26.
28.
31.
22.
25.
29.
32.
24.
27.
30.
33.
Operating
"D"
"B"
Condition Composite Burnt
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Average
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Average
Idle
Average
Idle -Acceleration
Average
Acceleration
Average
Deceleration
Average
2.5
1.6
1.1
1. 7
1.4
1.5
1. 2
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.3
1. 1
1.6
1.3
2.1
1.7
2.0
2.4
2.1
2. 2
2.5
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.5
1. 7
2.0
1.8
1.6
2.3
1.9
1.9
1. 8
2.6
3. 0
2.3
1.9
2.3
2.3
2. 2
2.2
1.0
1.0
0. 9
1.0
0.9
0. 8
0.9
0.9
0. 8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
i.O
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
i.O
1.0
1. 0
1.0
i.O
1. 0
1.0
"0"
Oily
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0. 4
0.5
0. 2
0. 4
0.4
0.3
0. 1
0. 4
0. 7
0.4
0.8
0.6
0. 7
0.7
1. 0
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0. 4
0.4
0. 4
0. 5
0. 5
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.0
0. 8
0. 8
0.6
0.9
0.9
0. 8
"A"
Aromatic
0.5
0.6
0.3
0. 5
0. 5
0.3
0. 3
0.4
0. 1
0
0.1
0. 1
0.5
0.3
0.4
0. 4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0. 5
0.6
0. 1
0. 4
0.6
0. 4
0. 4
0.5
0. 5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0. 8
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
0. 1
0.3
n pi r
Pungent
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0. 1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0. 1
0.1
0. 4
0.2
0. 2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0. 5
0.4
0.4
0.1
0. 1
0. 2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.5
0. 3
0.3
0.4
0. 4
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0. 3
0.4
Cold Start
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.8
F-7
-------
TABLE F-7. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
(Mercedes 300D with Participate Trap System)
TJ
CD
Operating
Condition
Inter, Speed
No Load
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Inter. Speed
High Load
High Speed
No Load
High Speed
Mid Load
High Speed
High Load
Idle
Date
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
8/2/76
8/4/76
8/6/76
Average
HC,
27
26
25
26
29
25
19
24
24
24
17
22
18
31
29
26
29
29
14
24
48
56
37
47
55
37
38
43
CO,
ppm
188
283
235
235
155
207
240
201
164
183
178
175
230
316
330
292
193
202
221
205
240
269
278
262
240
254
273
256
NDIR
NO,
ppm
99
107
106
104
251
233
270
251
352
337
339
343
119
151
147
139
437
436
432
435
524
532
536
531
140
124
137
134
C.
NO,
ppm
93
83
97
91
210
206
201
206
282
288
285
285
113
122
124
120
373
367
353
364
442
458
447
449
118
102
115
112
L.
NOX,
ppm
98
84
99
94
215
210
203
209
285
292
289
289
1 18
124
130
124
378
370
360
369
445
462
453
453
128
107
125
120
DOAS Results
COz,
%
2.7
2. 5
2. 7
2.6
4.5
4. 4
4. 8
4.6
5.8
5.3
6.2
5.8
3.4
3.3
3.6
3.4
7. 7
7.0
7.3
7.3
10.6
10.3
10. 7
10.5
2.8
2.4
2.8
2.7
Air Flow,
kg/ min
1. 78
2.00
2.63
2.14
2.45
2.65
2.65
2.58
2.56
2.64
2.68
2.63
3.65
4.19
4.16
4.00
4.00
4.15
4.16
4.10
4.03
4. 11
4. 09
4.08
0.77
0_82
0.80
0. 80
LCA,
UK/1
-
0. 7
0.7
_
-
1.0
1.0
_
-
1.0
1.0
_
-
1.2
1.2
_
-
2.1
2.1
_
_
4. 1
4. 1
.
_
2. 2
2. 2
LCD,
US/1
-
1. 0
1.0
_
-
1. 1
1. 1
^
-
1 . 1
1 . 1
_
-
1. 3
1.3
_
.
1.9
1.9
_
-
2. 7
2. 7
-
1.8
1. 8
TIA
-
1 .0
1.0
_
-
1.0
1.0
_
_
1. 1
1. 1
_
-
1. 1
1. 1
_
_
1.3
1.3
.
_
1.4
1.4
_
1. 2
1.2
-------
ID
TABLE F-8. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D with A-IF, A-IR and TAVg Trap System
Date: August 2, 1976
Run
No.
6.
11 .
15.
2.
8.
18.
1.
9.
19.
5.
12.
17.
7.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16.
Operating
Condition
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Average
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Average
Idle
Average
HC,
ppmC
32
28
20
27
32
40
16
29
28
32
12
24
32
40
12
18
40
32
16
29
64
56
24
48
60
72
32
55
CO,
ppm
155
240
169
188
169
141
155
155
197
141
155
164
197
268
226
230
169
240
169
193
226
268
226
240
283
212
226
240
NDIR
NO,
ppm
88
99
111
99
251
25i
251
251
386
323
348
352
88
134
134
119
437
476
398
437
555
502
515
524
156
134
130
140
C
NO,
ppm
90
85
105
93
200
215
215
210
290
260
295
282
95
120
125
113
340
420
360
373
430
445
450
442
130
115
110
118
. L.
NOX,
ppm
95
90
110
98
205
220
220
215
295
260
300
285
100
130
125
118
350
425
360
378
430
445
460
445
140
120
125
128
CO2,
Air
Flow
% kg/min
2.
2.
2.
2.
4.
4.
4.
4.
6.
5.
6.
5.
2.
3.
3.
3.
6.
8.
7.
7.
9.
11.
10.
10.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5
8
7
7
4
4
8
5
0
2
2
8
8
7
6
4
9
7
6
7
7
1
9
6
9
5
9
8
1 .
1.
1 .
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
3.
4.
4.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
70
78
86
78
45
44
45
45
51
55
62
56
22
89
83
65
97
98
04
00
98
09
02
03
75
78
77
77
-------
I
M
o
TABLE F-9. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
Vr-hiclf-: Mnrcedcs 300D with A-IF , A - IR , and TAVS Trap System
D.iir: August 4, 1976
Run
No.
7.
1 1 .
lf>.
•1.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
S.
10.
17.
2.
8.
15.
1 .
9.
19.
6.
12.
18.
Operating
Condition
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Average
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Idle
Average
HC,
ppmC
28
28
22
26
22
28
24
25
20
38
14
24
28
36
30
3l
24
•40
24
29
56
56
56
56
34
40
36
37
CO,
ppm
283
297
268
283
226
226
169
207
169
212
169
183
339
325
283
316
212
197
197
202
226
297
283
269
268
283
212
254
NDIR
NO,
ppm
107
107
107
107
218
239
243
233
309
360
343
337
138
166
150
151
•165
447
395
436
514
532
551
532
126
115
130
124
C.
NO,
ppm
78
80
90
83
202
200
216
206
270
300
295
288
117
130
120
122
350
370
380
367
440
460
475
458
105
85
H5
102
L.
NOX,
ppm
80
83
90
84
205
205
220
210
275
305
295
292
116
132
123
124
355
375
380
370
445
460
480
462
110
90
120
107
DOAS Results
C02l
%
2.6
2.3
2. 7
2.5
4.6
3.9
4.6
4. 4
5. 7
5.2
5.1
5.3
3.3
3.4
3.3
3. 3
7.0
6.9
7. 1
7.0
10.6
9.8
10.6
10.3
2.5
2.1
2. 7
2.4
Air Flow,
kg/ min
I. 98
1.98
2.05
2.00
2.69
2.65
2.61
2.65
2.60
2.66
2.67
2.64
4. 25
4. 16
4. 17
4.19
4.07
4.19
4. 18
4.15
4.12
4.09
4.11
4. 11
0.83
0.83
0.81
0.82
LCA,
W/l
0.5
0.3
-
0. 4
0.6
0.6
0. 5
0.6
0. 7
0.6
0. 5
0.6
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
4.6
5. 7
3.4
4.6
8. 2
7.0
6.9
7.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
LCO,
uR/1
1 . 7
1. 7
-
1. 7
1.9
1. 7
3. 1
2. 2
1.6
2. 4
2.2
2. 1
1.8
2.5
3.9
3. 1
4.0
3.6
3.2
3.6
4.6
4.6
3.9
4. 4
2.0
1.6
1.8
1.8
T1A
1 . 2
1 . 2
-
1. 2
1 .3
1. 2
1.5
1 .3
1 . 2
1 .4
1.4
1.3
1 .3
1. 4
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7
1. 7
1.6
1. 7
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
-------
TABLE F-10. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D with A-IF, A-IR, TAVS Trap System
Date: August 6, 1976
Run
No.
10.
13.
14.
1.
7.
20.
5.
8.
19.
4.
16.
21.
6.
12.
18.
2.
11 .
15.
3.
9.
17.
Operating
Condition
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Ave rage
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Average
Idle
Average
HC,
ppmC
42
16
18
25
12
24
22
19
16
20
14
17
28
28
32
29
18
12
12
14
42
36
32
37
36
46
32
38
CO,
ppm
197
254
254
235
311
169
240
240
169
183
183
178
297
254
439
330
197
240
226
221
311
283
240
278
311
240
268
273
NDIR
NO,
ppm
95
111
111
106
284
301
226
270
360
330
326
339
162
138
142
147
447
438
4l2
432
551
551
505
536
158
130
122
137
C.
NO,
ppm
130
80
80
97
209
198
195
201
285
290
280
285
123
120
130
124
340
365
353
353
435
450
455
447
125
110
110
115
L.
NOX,
ppm
130
85
82
99
210
200
200
203
290
295
282
289
130
130
130
130
350
370
360
360
445
455
459
453
135
125
115
125
C02,
Air
Flow,
% kg/min
2.
2.
2.
2.
4.
4.
5.
4.
6.
5.
6.
6.
3.
3.
3.
3.
6.
7.
7.
7.
10.
10.
10.
10.
2.
2.
2.
2.
7
7
7
7
6
6
1
8
0
9
6
2
4
5
9
6
9
4
5
3
4
9
9
7
9
6
8
8
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
64
63
62
63
63
62
69
65
70
72
61
68
26
14
08
16
20
13
14
16
09
09
09
09
79
83
78
80
DOAS Results
LCA, LCO,
pg/1 pg/1 TIA
* One bubbler taken for
each 3 runs of the
same condition.
0. 7 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.1 1.0
1.0 1.1 1.1
1.2 1.3 1.1
2. 1 1.9 1.3
4. I 2. 7 1.4
2. 2 1.8 1.2
-------
TABLE F-ll. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
Mrrcedes 300D with Standard Exhaust System and Backpressure
D.itc: August 9. 1976
I
M
NJ
Run
No.
b.
1 1 ,
15.
2.
8.
18.
1.
9.
19.
5.
12.
17.
7.
1-1.
20.
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16.
Operating
Condition
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter. Speed
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Average
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Average
Idle
Average
HC,
ppmC
32
42
32
35
34
38
36
36
28
10
28
22
44
28
44
39
8
14
12
11
14
16
8
13
60
74
84
71
CO,
ppm
283
169
169
207
183
226
141
183
169
155
141
155
397
283
268
316
226
169
155
183
197
155
155
169
226
169
169
188
NDIR
NO,
ppm
95
72
91
86
230
226
226
227
343
326
318
329
122
115
122
120
395
369
416
393
565
510
565
547
130
103
103
112
C.
NO,
ppm
60
60
75
65
160
170
185
172
245
245
250
247
85
90
95
90
305
335
328
323
430
455
465
450
105
80
85
90
L.
NOX,
ppm
75
75
90
80
175
180
198
184
260
253
260
258
95
98
110
101
310
340
330
327
435
455
465
452
115
95
105
105
DOAS Results
C02>
%
2.6
2.6
2. 2
2.4
4. 3
2.0
4.6
3.6
5. 7
5. 5
5.9
5. 7
3. 1
2. 7
3.2
3.0
6.5
4.9
7.4
6.3
9.4
7.3
10.9
9.2
2.7
2.4
2.5
2. 5
Air Flow,
kg/min
2.60
2.61
2.55
2.59
2.59
2.62
2.56
2.59
2.63
2.66
2.63
2.64
4. 07
4. 12
4.06
4.08
4.01
4. 00
3.96
3.99
4.07
4.06
3.92
4.02
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
LCA,
yg/i
3.4
4.5
3.3
3. 7
4.6
4.0
3.5
4.0
4.8
4. 1
4. 2
4.4
5.0
6.3
4.7
5.3
3.9
5. 1
-
4.5
4. 1
5.9
-
5.0
4.0
5. 1
4.5
4.5
LCO,
ug/l
3. 4
3.8
2.4
3. 2
3.3
3.6
2. 4
3. 1
4. 2
3. 1
2.9
3.4
3.7
3.6
2.4
3. 2
3.6
4.3
-
4. 0
4.0
4.3
-
4. 2
3.1
3.9
2.8
3. 3
TIA
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.5
1 .5
1.6
1.4
1. 5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1. 4
1.5
1.6
1.6
_
1.6
1.6
1.6
_
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
-------
TABLE F-12. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D with Standard Exhaust System and Same Backpressure as Trap System at 50 mph
Date: August 11, 1976
Run
No.
10.
13.
14.
1.
7.
ZO.
5.
8.
19.
4.
16.
21.
6.
12.
18.
2.
11 .
15.
3.
9.
17.
Operating
Condition
Inter. Speed
No Load
Average
Inter Speed.
Mid Load
Average
Inter. Speed
High Load
Ave rage
High Speed
No Load
Average
High Speed
Mid Load
Average
High Speed
High Load
Average
Idle
Average
HC,
ppIYlC
50
30
36
39
Z6
34
40
33
10
30
24
21
32
38
32
34
8
12
8
9
12
28
8
16
32
68
50
50
CO,
ppm
183
212
212
202
141
197
169
169
212
226
141
193
325
268
254
282
197
169
169
178
197
141
141
160
212
183
197
197
NDIR
NO,
ppm
64
84
84
77
239
210
202
217
330
313
352
332
186
154
126
155
386
425
416
409
565
519
611
565
174
162
138
158
C.
NO,
ppm
63
70
70
68
172
160
170
167
250
235
275
253
90
120
105
105
315
335
350
333
445
435
453
444
125
115
110
117
L.
NOX,
ppm
80
85
85
83
185
170
180
178
260
250
285
265
100
125
130
118
320 ._
340
350
337
450
440
460
450
135
130
125
130
DOAS Results
CO2,
%
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.9
4. 4
4. 4
4.6
4. 5
5.9
5. 7
6. 2
5.9
3. 3
3.6
3.6
3.5
6.9
6.9
7. 4
7. 1
10. 3
10. 4
10. 4
10.4
2.8
2. 8
2.6
2. 7
Air Flow,
kg/ min
2.69
2.63
2.62
2.65
2.63
2.62
2.63
2.63
2. 71
2. 72
2.67
2. 70
4.26
4.06
4. 15
4. 16
4. 22
4. 14
4. 13
4.16
4.17
4. 14
4.02
4. 11
0. 83
0. 82
0. 82
0. 82
LCA,
PB/1
4. 5
3.2
3.9
3.9
4.5
3.6
3. 4
3.8
3. 2
2.6
2.5
2.8
4. 1
3. 7
3.3
3. 7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
4. 0
5. 7
3. 1
4.3
1. 7
3.6
3.1
2.8
LCO,
Vig/1
2. 4
2.2
2. 4
2.3
3. 0
2. 3
2. 0
2.4
2. 2
2.2
1.8
2. 1
2.6
2. 3
1.9
2.3
2. 1
2. 1
2.3
2. 2
3. 3
3. 4
2. 3
3.0
1. 0
2. 0
1.8
1.6
TIA
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.3
1. 4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1. 4
1.3
1 . 3
1.4
1.3
1.5
1. 5
1. 3
1. 4
1.0
1.3
1.3
1. 2
-------
APPENDIX G
NOISE DATA
-------
TABLE G-l. MERCEDES 300D FACTORY EQUIPPED DIESEL CAR
NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: July 28, 1975
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 42-44 After Test 42-44
Exterior at 15.24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
Ambient: Before Test 42-44 After Test 42.44
Pass
Wind: 6.0 km/hr SSE
Pass
1st
m ^"^
70
71.5
iff 76
m 79
Constant Speed 48.3
2nd
71.
71.
75
78.
5
5
5
3rd
71.5
72
77
79
Arithmetic
Average ^ '
71.
71.
76.
79
5
8
5
km/hr Driveby
Exterior at 15.24 m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Frest Air Blr On
1st
59.5
59
64
75.5
2nd
59.5
58.5
63.5
76
3rd
59.5
58.5
63.5
75
Arithmetic
Average
59.5
58.8
63.8
75.8
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
Ambient: Before Test 42-44 After Test 42-44
Test 1 - Direction A
Interior 54 (68.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 67
58
66.5 64.5
Test 2 - Direction B
54.5 (68.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
66.5
59
66.5 64.5
Max
Reading
68.5
67
According to SAE J-986a
^ 'Average of the two highest readings that are within 2 dB of each other.
G-2
-------
TABLE G-2. MERCEDES 300D DIESEL CAR NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
(with A-IF, A-IR, and TAVS traps)
Date: August 27, 1976
Wind: 7.0 km/hr SSE
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test
Exterior at 15.24m^1^
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
40-45
1st
83
76
77
78
Constant Speed
Ambient: Before Test
Exterior at 7.62m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
40-45
1st
60.5
61
69
74
Engine Idle ,
Ambient: Before Test
Test 1
40-45
After Test 40-45
Pass
2nd
85
78
77
79
48.3 km/hr Driveby
After Test 40-45
Pass
2nd
60
60
68
74
Vehicle at Rest
After Test 40-45
- Direction A Test 2
Arithmetic
3rd Average '2'
82 84
78 78
75 77
79 79
Arithmetic
3rd Average'2^
61 60.8
59.5 60.5
70 69.5
73 74
Max
- Direction B Reading
Interior
58 (68.5 Blr On)
58 (68.5 Blr On)
68.5
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 69.5 61.5 66.5 65.0
Radiator
Aux.BlrOn73 61.5 66.5 65.0
Front Rear Left Right
69 61.5 65.5 64 69.5
74 61.5 65.5 64 74
)According to SAE J-986a.
)Average of the two highest readings that are within 2 dB of each other.
G-3
-------
APPENDIX H
EXHAUST SYSTEM BACKPRESSURES MEASURED
DURING MVMA MILEAGE ACCUMULATION
-------
TABLE H-l. EXHAUST SYSTEM BACKPRESSURE DURING MVMA
DURABILITY TEST OF PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM - MERCEDES 300D
88.5 km (55 mph) During Lap 10
Backpressure Readings, mm Hg
Distance
km
0
170
305
470
611
772
922
1084
1234
1272
1517
1667
1828
1976
2138
2286
2388
2590
2735
2886
3033
3191
3353
3490
3651
3790
3942
4092
Test
Conf
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2(2)
2(3)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Man
199
178
178
187
178
262
252
262
280
174
142
144
215
206
215
224
206
206
242
224
243
243
234
224
280
262
284
284
271
271
Front
in
211
187
168
187
187
271
262
262
280
174
138
144
215
206
206
224
228
206
228
224
243
243
234
234
262
262
284
280
280
271
Muf/Trap
out
181
150
140
150
150
234
215
234
252
140
108
112
178
178
178
196
187
187
205
196
205
187
187
206
234
234
252
262
243
243
Rear
in
172
140
131
150
140
215
206
224
243
129
97
99
178
178
168
187
150
150
178
187
187
168
178
187
224
224
243
262
234
224
Muf/Trap
out(l)
99
84
75
75
75
131
121
131
140
18
0
13
93
93
84
84
75
75
84
78
84
84
84
84
121
127
140
140
121
131
Front
AP
28
30
34
30
34
34
34
34
37
34
32
32
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
37
37
34
37
37
41
41
39
Rear
AP
65
64
64
67
71
93
90
90
97
110
37
90
84
90
84
90
93
93
101
101
101
101
104
104
97
97
105
108
103
103
4023 km (2500 mile) particulate tests
4312
4462
4616
4756
4906
5054
5223
5279
5372
5524
5681
5839
5992
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
275
280
284
284
280
280
310
206
181
280
280
284
297
275
280
284
284
280
280
299
206
178
280
280
280
290
243
243
243
252
243
243
271
159
131
243
243
252
271
224
234
243
252
243
243
262
140
121
234
234
252
262
131
131
140
140
140
140
140
9
9
131
131
140
140
34
38
41
41
38
38
41
48
48
41
41
45
48
90
101
112
112
101
99
112
112
112
93
93
108
103
H-2
-------
TABLE H-l. (Cont'd) EXHAUST SYSTEM BACKPRESSURE DURING MVMA
DURABILITY TEST OF PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM - MERCEDES 300D
4023 km (2500 mile) particulate test (cont'd)
Backpressure Readings, mm Hg
Distance
km
6141
6296
6457
6507
6743
6901
7054
7200
7355
7504
7656
7805
7964
8116
8270
8418
8991
9140
9300
9445
9594
9742
9895
10048
10199
10349
10508
10652
10801
11111
11255
11404
11554
11707
11858
12099
12244
12397
12545
12703
Test
Conf
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8045
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
Man Front Muf/Trap Rear Muf/Trap Front
280
290
323
206
178
284
271
280
290
310
280
280
310
290
280
290
km (5000
295
310
299
299
316
299
340
310
310
299
323
323
243
349
310
310
310
323
323
12068 km
159
150
159
150
140
in
280
284
299
187
178
261
271
275
278
280
280
280
280
280
280
290
mile)
290
299
299
299
299
290
323
290
290
290
299
303
239
321
293
290
290
299
295
(7500
140
150
138
151
140
out
243
262
262
131
112
224
243
224
234
262
247
262
262
243
243
252
in
243
262
252
131
112
215
224
224
230
243
243
243
243
234
243
243
out(l)
131
140
140
9
9
140
121
127
112
140
131
131
112
112
121
131
AP
41
47
49
52
45
41
45
41
39
43
45
45
47
43
47
49
Rear
AP
97
103
112
123
108
93
103
93
95
106
103
99
101
99
101
112
emission & particulate tests
262
280
243
271
280
275
271
269
278
262
271
280
168
252
271
280
267
262
271
mile)
121
140
112
133
131
278
271
243
262
271
271
262
262
271
258
262
262
140
234
252
271
262
243
262
particulate
108
112
108
131
127
136
131
149
149
131
127
140
140
140
133
140
140
19
112
131
127
122
121
140
tests
112
112
121
116
131
43
47
47
47
47
45
49
47
47
50
49
49
75
52
48
50
47
52
52
15
15
19
15
15
99
103
112
112
108
108
116
112
114
116
116
120
131
121
116
116
116
118
118
0
0
0
0
0
H-3
-------
TABLE H-l. (Confd) EXHAUST SYSTEM BACKPRESSURE DURING MVMA
DURABILITY TEST OF PARTICULATE TRAP SYSTEM - MERCEDES 300D
12068 km (7500 mile) particulate test (cont'd)
Backpressure Readings, mm Hg
Distance
km
12845
13006
13139
13292
13442
13601
13744
13895
14045
14196
14328
14479
14642
14787
14936
15086
15247
15390
15539
15689
15850
16006
End of Test
Test
Conf
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5(4)
5(4)
5(4)
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 (5)
6(5)
Man
146
140
150
47
127
103
103
58
65
41
168
56
127
131
131
103
121
131
121
118
127
153
80
23
Front
in
140
131
131
37
112
93
93
65
56
37
159
19
112
121
116
99
103
114
120
112
112
140
68
11
Muf/Trap
out
127
112
108
9
93
84
82
60
50
28
155
17
105
103
108
97
103
105
112
112
112
112
68
9
Rear
in
116
112
112
0
92
77
75
47
47
28
142
88
90
97
93
84
93
93
93
95
92
59
0
Muf/Trap
out(D
112
107
116
0
93
78
75
41
47
28
140
86
84
95
92
84
90
93
92
97
86
59
0
Front
AP
15
15
15
13
17
11
11
9
9
7
4
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
Rear
AP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test Configuration
1. A-IF, A-IR, TAVS
2. A-IF, A-IR
3. A-IF, A-IR, Swirl
4. Factory, Swirl
5. Factory, TAVS
6. Factory
'Rear muf/trap outlet same as TAVs/Swirl separator In.
|^|Rear outlet cone removed from A-IR to check system pressures
}Rear outlet cone replaced after improving flow transition by grinding welds,
(4'Front muffler damaged,readings in error
^'Measured by two technicians
H-4
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read I HOW ct ions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-460/3-77-007
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Emissions: VIII,
Removal of Exhaust Particulate from Mercedes 300D
Diesel Car
6, "STORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
11-4016
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
June, 1977
7. AUTHOR(S)
Karl J. Springer
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
AR-1175
9. PERFORMING ORG\NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Drawer 28510
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No. 68-03-2116
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report 7/75 - 2/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRAC1
The objective of the project was to investigate the potentialities of
reducing the particulate exhausted from diesel-powered passenger cars
by the use of available lead trap technology. The particulate exhausted
from diesels is one of several currently non-regulated emissions that
is of concern, especially if the anticipated growth in diesel cars occurs.
A system including front and rear agglomerator devices, packed with
alumina coated steel wool, and an inertial separator, were mounted in
place of the usual front resonator and rear muffler. When relatively
new, the system was found to be effective on particulates and also
reduced exhaust hydrocarbons, odor, smoke, benzo (a) pyrene, and sulfate.
Acceleration performance suffered due to increased backpressure from
the system. The life of the system is relatively short, less than 5000 km.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS |c. COSATI Field/Croup
Exhaust Emissions
Diesel Engines
Particulate
Hydro carbon s
Odor/Smoke
Light-Duty Vehicles
Particulate Traps
Control Technology
8. Dl
IBU'
19. SECURITY CL'AS
(Inis Report}
21. NO. OF PAGES
266
?0. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |