Report On The Determination
Of
Mass Emissions From Two-Cycle
Engine Operated Vehicles
Prepared for
Department of Health, Education & Welfare
"The work upon which this publication
is based was performed pursuant to
Contract No. CPA22-60-91 with the
National Air Pollution Control
Administration, CPE, Public Health
Service, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare."
By
H.J. Wimette
Research Director
R.T. VanDerveer
Vice President & General Manager
OLSON LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED
22805 Michigan Avenue
Dearborn, Michigan 48124
-------
ABSTPACT:
Two-cycle spark ignited motorcycle engines are evaluated
for exhaust emissions from the standpoint of both concentration
(percent) and mass (gms/mile) according to current and projected
Federal Testing Procedures for light duty vehicles (under 6,000
pound GVW). Seven two-cycle and one four-cycle motorcycle
were tested for Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Hydrocarbons,
Nitrogen Oxide and Dioxide using Non-Dispersive Infrared,
Non-Dispersive Ultra-violet, flame ionization and gas chro-
matographic analytical techniques. The inconsistencies in the
test method as applied to motorcycles are pointed out and
suggestions are made for further studies.
CONCLUSION:
The seven two-cycle motorcycles tested per the current Federal
test cycle for light duty vehicles under this contract
averaged 4429 ppm Hydrocarbon (IIC) as Hexane equivalent and
4.34 percent Carbon Monoxide (CO). The corresponding mass
figures calculated per those 1970 Federal procedures are 3.59
and 6.81 gms/mile respectively. Calculated per the proposed
1972 procedures (proportional bag sample) the figures are 11.8
and 26.35 grams per mile. A rationale for the discrepancies is
suggested, and it is also the author's opinion that of the two
test methods employed the precision and accuracy of the 1970
analytical procedures are considerably superior to those, of the
proposed 1972 method because of long experience with ths former
-------
Project 1-1107
January 23, 1970
and the converse with the latter.
Although one would suspect a priori that the average
Carbon number of the exhaust Hydrocarbons from tv;o-cycle
engines would be higher than that of four-cycle engines
because of the different types of engine lubrication the
gas chromatographic data shows a Carbon number well within
the expected range for the latter class. This limited
data would suggest only a most modest contribution to
atmospheric hydrocarbon loading as a lubricating oil con-
tribution .
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PAGE
Introduction
Instrumentation
Test Procedures
Discussion Of Results
Contribution To Overall Pollution
Suggestions For Further Study ...
References
1
2
3
5
10
11
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Vehicle Identification.
Summary of Continuous seven-mode cycle
Non-Dispersive Infrared Analysis.
Summary of Corrected & Uncorrected Bag
Sample Data (NDIR, NDUV, & FI).
Mass Emissions As Determined From seven-mode
Cycle Data.
Mass Emissions As Determined From Variable
Dilution Bag Sample.
Summary Of Gas Chromatography Data. •
FID Vs NDIR
Flow Schematic For Exhaust Gas Analysis
System.
Calibration Curve For OLI Constant
Volume Sampler.
Exhaust Concentration Data Sheet.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS-CONTINUED
TITLE
PAGE
Figure 5 Comparison Of Emissions Of Two-cycle
Motorcycles and Device Equipped
Passenger Cars.
APPENDIX
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Hydrocarbon Code Identification.
Typical Exhaust Hydrocarbon Analysis
by Gas Chromatography.
An Analysis Of The Two-cycle Combustion
Process.
Yamaha Autolube
Calibration Of Constant Mass Sampler.
Gas Chromatography Data.
-------
Olson Laboratories Incorporated
January 22, 1970
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this project was to gain a preliminary estimate
of both the concentrations and mass emissions from a group
of two-cycle motorcycles comprising the most popular makes and
displacements. To provide a frame of reference a popular
four-cycle engine pov/ered machine was also tested.
Two-cycle engines have been suspect from the standpoint of a
high emission potential because of the nature of their com-
bustion process. Appendix C describes two-cycle SI combustion
as compared to four-cycle SI engines.
The eight motorcycles tested during this project are described
in Table 1. The oldest machine was a 1967 model, the next
oldest a 1968, with the balance being 1969's. No formal
inspection or tune-up procedures were employed on any of the
'cycles, although they were all road and dynamometer
evaluated for proper operation before being tested. All the
motorcycles were obtained from either rental agencies or private
owners. Within the constraints of sample size it is believed that
the "cycles tested are representative of currently sold and owner
operated two-cycle motorcycle engines.
22805 MICHIGAN AVE., DEARBORN, MICHIGAN 48124 • PH. 313 27 48450
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970
All the machines v/ith the exception of the Yamaha 250 Enduro were
tested v/ith Indolene 30 gasoline. Inadvertently the latter
'cycle was tested for both emissions and. GC analysis with tank
fuel as received. Determination of either the grade or brand
of the fuel could not be made on that cycle.
It is of interest to consider the method of lubricating the
engines tested in this program. As is generally known the conven-
tional method of lubricating two-cycle engines is simply to add
oil to the fuel and intimately mix immediately prior to pouring
the fuel into the tank. Alternately one can place the oil in
the tank either prior to or subsequent to tank filling with gaso-
line. The possibilities for gross error in oil to fuel ratios
as compared to recommended ratios either way this procedure is
carried out are obvious. In the engines that were tested in
this program lubrication was supplied from an oil reservoir
through a proportioning pump which introduced oil into the en-
gine.
Attached as appendix D is a section from a Yamaha Service
Manual which describes in very general terms the operation of
their "Autolube" system. Such a system generally adds one quart
of oil to every 10 gallons of fuel which represents a 40:1 fuel-
oil ratio.
INSTRUMENTATION:
All the 'cycles v/ere tested using the following instrumentation:
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970 -3-
1. Beckman Model 315 Low KG analyzer.
2. Beckman Model 315 High HC analyzer.
3. Beckman Model 315 CO analyzer.
4. Beckman Model 315 C02 analyzer.
5. Beckman Model 315A NO analyzer.
6. Horiba Model UVA-1 N02 analyzer.
7. MSA Flame lonization analyzer.
8. Clayton Model CT-200 Chassis Dynamometer.
9. Olson Laboratories 'Variable Volume Constant Mass Sampler
Analyzers numbered 1-5 are all Non-Dispersive Infrared
while number 6 is Non-Dispersive Ultra-violet.
TEST PROCEDURES:
All of the motorcycles were, tested over the seven-mode HEV7 cycle.
It was recognized that in all probability that the typical
motorcycle driving pattern bore little resemblance to the seven-mode
cycle, but lacking information on such a driving pattern, the use
of the seven-mode cycle would at least allow a comparison of the
emissions from the motorcycles to those of motor vehicles now sub-
ject to Federal Standards.
The criterion for determining the success of each run was
whether or not the acceleration modes could be completed within the
times specified by the Federal.Register. To accomplish this, the
Clayton dynamometer was altered by removing the fixed 2000 pound
inertia wheel. As indicated in Table 1, a 500 pound inertia
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970 -4-
wheel was used for the larger motorcycles to simulate acceleration
performance, while inherent system inertia was sufficient for the
smaller motorcycles. In all cases the power absorption unit was
not used. This practice is commonly adopted in the testing of
lightweight, foreign automobiles. Since it has been observed that
four-cycle engine exhaust concentration emissions vary little within
the broad constraints of horsepower and inertia settings, it is
believed that similar results apply to two-cycle vehicles.
The exhaust gas analysis system, as shown schematically in
Figure 2, incorporates an Olson Laboratories Variable Volume Constant
Mass Sampler. Samples for both the continuous and bag analysis were
diluted using the Constant Mass Sampler. This was done to avoid
insofar as possible any "wall" effects in the analytical train in
view of the expected high Hydrocarbon, concentrations. The calibration
curve for the Constant Mass Sampler appears in Figure 3 and the
method used for calibration of the sampler is described in Appendix
E. The desired dilution range was selected as an approximate 10:1
air/exhaust ratio. To achieve this ratio the air delivery was varied
in 40 CFM increments until the proper mix was achieved. Figure 4,
the calculation sheet for one run on the Yamaha 180, illustrates the
dilution ranges encountered. The mass sampler heat exchanger was not
cooled, but was actually used as a heat sink to average out the diluted
exhaust at temperatures of 46-52° C which further reduces the pos-
sibility of condensation of the high molecular weight Hydrocarbons
(from the oil) peculiar to this study.
From the diluted exhaust samples continuous analyses were made for
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970 ~5~
HC, CO, C02 and MO over the HEV7 test cycles. N02 and Flame
lonization Hydrocarbons v;ere measured only on the bag samples
with the Plane lonization instrument using a fuel of 60% N^-
40% Ej with air as the oxidizer. The bag samples were also
tested for NDIR HC, CO, NO, and C02 concentrations. Samples
for the gas chromatographic analysis were drawn from the bag
sample into two-liter glass flasks. These samples were packed in
dry ice and immediately transported to the subcontractor for
analysis. Before introducing the samples to the G.C. the
flasks were heated to 70% C by means of a heating mantel.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS:
The seven-mode cycle "Hot Start" data appears in Table 2. The
data was calculated according to the Federal procedures for the
1968 emission standards. The carbon dioxide (C02) corrected
value also appears in this table. The Hydrocarbon value was added
to the total Carbon correction on all modes. The high con-
centrations of Hydrocarbons encountered significantly affected
the correction factors and would have given higher emissions if
this factor was only used on the decel modes as prescribed by
the Federal Register. In all cases the data shows the engine
operating with a rich mixture which is probably characteristic
of a two-cycle motorcycle as well as the baseline four-cycle
engine. As was mentioned earlier no attempt was made to make
adjustments on these motorcycles.
Table 3 is a summary of the diluted bag sample analysis. In
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970 -6-
comparing the corrected values for Hydrocarbon (HC) and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) in Table 3 with those from Table 2, we
find an average difference of about 10 per cent. The average
Hydrocarbon value obtained for all 3 motorcycles by the 7-mode
analysis was 4404 as compared to 3943 for the bag analysis.
The respective Carbon Monoxide values were 4.61 and 4.12.
Considering we are comparing a closed verses an open cycle this
agreement could be considered quite good. This close agree-
ment however was not shown in the mass emission calculations
by the two different methods.
The oxides of nitrogen determined by bag sample analysis were
much higher than the seven-mode cycle data. The seven-mode cycle
data is the more logical and probably the correct value. The
bag samples were probably contaminated from previous tests due to
moisture in the system and hang-up. These bags were carefully
flushed'with clean air between samples but it is obvious from
the data that the interference of moisture and N02 hang-up was
probably contributing greatly to the response.
Mass emissions as determined from these two sets of data
appear in Tables 4 & 5. There is a noticeable difference in the
mass emissions as determined by these two methods. The oxides of
Nitrogen differences are readily explainable by the large concen-
tration differences determined by the two methods. The differences
seen between the values for Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide are
less easily explained.
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970 -7-
The greatest influence on this calculation is the exhaust
volume per mile as determined by the two different methods. If one
for example takes the V mix calculated in Table 5 for the Yamaha 130
and divides by the correction factor we obtain a corrected exhaust
volume per mile of 19.2 which.compares to 4.8 as determined by the
empirical formulae from the Federal Register (45 CFR § 85.37).
Another difference which affected the results was that the
flame ionization data was used to calculate Hydrocarbon emissions
in Table 5 (bag samples) and the NDIR multiplied by a factor of
1.8 was used for Table 4. This factor as can be seen by Figure 1
was incorrect as the actual ratio came out 1.33.
Other factors which affected the comparison were the different
methods used to determine the correction factors, and inherent
errors involved in measurement of temperatures, pressure, and
mass flow rates.
Mass emissions calculated by the seven-mode data cannot be
expected to agree with the Variable Volume Mass Sampler data. It
is obvious from the difference in the calculations and sampling
techniques that were used that we really are trying to compare
two different things. As to which method is correct, we believe
that both methods suffer from inadequacies as these methods .
were specifically designed for a four-cycle passenger car. This
data is presented only as a comparison of emissions based on present
sampling procedures.
The large differences between the two methods of calculations
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970 ~8~
shows a need for the development of more appropriate driving cycles
and sampling procedures. We can only conclude that the actual
emissions found by newer methods will be within the ranges reported.
Table 6 is a summary of the Gas Chromatography data and the
complete data by compound appears in Appendix F.
In addition to the actual concentrations of individual compounds
the reactivity of each compound has been computed using the G.M.
reactivity index . Individual compounds were identified using
•) •>
the data of McEwen and Jackson .
The Hydrocarbon names have been abbreviated on the data sheets
and the identifications are given in Appendix A. The reactivity
of the Hydrocarbons is a measure of its smog forming potential. The
higher the reactivity number the faster the Hydrocarbon will
react in the smog forming photooxidation reaction.
Appendix B is a typical automobile exhaust calculation of
individual Hydrocarbons and reactivity. In comparing this set
of data with that determined from the two-cycle emissions we see an
order of magnitude difference in both concentration of Hydrocarbons
and reactivity. However, the higher emissions from the two-cycle
engines should be weighted on a grams per mile basis rather than
a per cent or ppm basis as reported. The data does show that
the overall reactivity when compared on the basis of Hydrocarbon
concentration is nearly equivalent to a typical automobile exhaust.
The total Hydrocarbons determined by gas Chromatography are very
close to the flame ionization data obtained although less in each
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970 -9-
case. This G.C. data is, however, representative of greater than
2
90% of the total Hydrocarbons. McEwen ' reports average Carbon
numbers in the range of 3.40 to 5.95. Since the highest average
Carbon number reported (5.9) falls within this range and since this
particular cycle (Suzuki 250) has oil pumped directly to the
main bearings and rod lower end rather than being pre-mixed or
injected with the fuel, the contribution of the oil to the Hydro-
carbon measured could be considered slight for these two-cycle
engines. If the oil were actually contributing to the overall
Hydrocarbon measurement we would expect higher average Carbon
numbers for the other two cycles.
It should be noted that the Yamaha 250 was not run on the same
fuel as the other two motorcycles.
Also, because of the small volume of the tanks and the difficulty
of completely draining the tank before filling with the test
fuel it would be possible for this residual fuel to affect the
overall composition. However, we feel the data as presented is
valid for the purpose of obtaining typical emissions of individual
Hydrocarbons especially those formed primarily in the engine such as
acetylenes and the lower Carbon number paraffins and acetylenes.
CONTRIBUTION TO OVERALL POLLUTION
The U.S. Department of Transportation shows that in 1966 pas-
senger cars traveled a total of 744,844 million miles, motorcycles
traveled a total of 6,396 million miles. According to the latest
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970
in format ion the two-cycle motorcycles account for 39% of the
motorcycle sales.
Using the overall average mass emissions from Table 4 for tv/o-
cycle motorcycles and assuming that all passenger cars meet the
standards of 2.2 grams per mile of Hydrocarbon and 23 grams per
mile of Carbon Monoxide we arrive at the following information:
1. Two-cycle motorcycles emit 0.65 of the pas-
senger car Hydrocarbon emissions and 0.11 of
the Carbon Monoxide emissions.
2- This amounts to approximately 11,300 tons per
year of Hydrocarbons and 20,100 tons per year
of Carbon Monoxide.
Figure 5 is a graph comparing the range of Hydrocarbons experienced
on a single device equipped passenger car as compared with the
motorcycle emissions on a grams per mile basis as determined
from Table 4. The Carbon Monoxide emissions are significantly
lov/er than the passenger car but the Hydrocarbon range is
greater by approximately a factor of 3. Therefore, even though the
motorcycles at present represent a small percentage of the total
overall vehicle emissions as the cycle becomes more popular it could
be a significant contributor to air pollution in the near
future.
According to the U.S.D.T. study' there was an increase in sales
of motorcycles of 32.4 percent form 1965 - 1966. More up-to-date
information on 'cycle population and other tv/o-cycle engine
machines such as boats, lawn-mowers, chain saws and ski-mobiles
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970 -11-
would most likely show an even more significant contribution
to air pollution than we can presently estimate.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Before a more accurate picture of overall two-cycle emissions
can be determined a study of actual population types and numbers
should be made of all two-cycle engine machines. Also, a study
should be made of driving or operating conditions peculiar to
the various types. With this type of information and equipment
designed around these operating parameters and using the most
advanced types of instrumentation available a study should be
made which would give us a more accurate index of the contribution
the two-cycle engine is making to air pollution.
-------
Project # 1-1107
January 23, 1970 -12-
REFERENCES:
1. C.S. Tuesday and \1.A. Glasson, "Hydrocarbon Reactivity
in the Atmospheric Photo-oxidation of Nitric Oxide".
Paper presented at ACS Meeting, Atlantic City, September
1965.
2. D.J. McEwen "Automobile Exhaust Hydrocarbon Analysis by'~
Gas Chromatography", Anal. Chem. Vol. 38 (1966) page 1047
3. M.W. Jackson "Effects of Some Engine Variables and
Control Systems on Composition and. Reactivity of Exhaust
Hydrocarbons". SAE Transaction Vol. 75, 1967, page 114,
SAE publication #660404.
-------
Final Report
Project #1017
September 24, 1969
Table 1
Vehicle Identification
Displacement Vehicle Model
Manufacturer CC Weight Pounds Year
Honda
Yamaha
Yamaha
Yamaha
Yamaha
Yamaha
Suzuki
Yamaha Endura2
350
180
100
50
80
305
250
250
325
300
212
174
185
384
325
275
1969
1968
1969
1969
1967
1969
1969
1969
Dyno Inertia 3
Mileage Pounds
New
6282
736
1292
11916
1249
28
No
Odometer
500
Rolls only
Rolls only
Rolls only
Rolls only
500
500
500
1. Four-cycle engine.
2. Used premixed fuel-oil mixture of 40:1
3. Horsepower absorption, unit not used.
-------
Final Report
Project # 1-1017
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF CONTINUOUS 7 -MODE CYCLE
NON-DISPERSIVE INFRARED ANALYSIS
Vehicle
Honda 350 4-cycle
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Average
Yamaha 180 2-cycle
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Average
Yamaha 100 2-cvcle
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Average
Yamaha 50 2-cycle
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Average
HC/NDIR
602
558
585
582
4260
4785
4632
4560
3585
3963
3600
3716
3299
4204
3993
3832
ppm
ppn
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
6.
6.
6.
6.
2.
1.
2.
2.
4.
3.
4.
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
CO
43 %
63 %
50 %
52 %
79 %
92 %
84 %
52 %
26 %
73 %
53 %
19 %
68 %
14 %
64 %
49 %
NO
ppm
292
297
294
171
242
297
237
203
185
84
159
319
369
450
379
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
8.
8.
8.
8.
9.
10.
9.
9.
8.
8.
8.
8.
9.
9.
8.
9.
C02
18 %
04 %
14 %
13 %
63 %
20 %
39 %
74 %
59 %
89 %
22 %
57 %
34 %
22 %
93 %
IS %
-------
Final Report
Project #1-1017
TABLE 2 Cont'd
SUMMARY OF CONTINUOUS 7 -MODE CYCLE
NON-DISPERSIVE INFRARED ANALYSIS
Vehicle
Yamaha 30 2-cycle
Run #1
Run #2
Average
Yamaha 305 2-cycle
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Average
Suzuki 250 2-cycle
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Average
Yamaha 250 2-cycle
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Average
HC/NDIR
2407
2232
2345
5840
6166
5996
6447
6112
5155
4248
4483
4628
4629
5603
5674
6141
5806
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppra
ppm
ppm
ppm
npm
ppm
.ppm
ppm
ppm
1.
1.
1.
6.
6.
6.
3.
5.
6.
5.
6.
7.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
CO
65 %
76 %
70 %
62 %
55 %
58 %
19 %
73 %
10 %
83 %
59 %
46 %
50 %
54 %
22 %
19 %
31 %
NO
ppm
368
244
306
100
159
114
546
230
130
158
126
434
212
94
168
137
133
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppra
C02
11.
11.
11.
4.
5.
4.
. 7.
5.
6.
6.
5.
4.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
90 %
86 %
82 %
61 %
34 %
82 %
95 %
68 %
17 %
61 %
71 %
76 %
81 %
10 %
37 %
10 %
19 %
-------
September 24, 1969
Final Report
Project # 1-1017
Table 3
Vehicle &
Test No.
Honda 350
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Average
Correction
Factor: 2.73
Average
Corrected:
Yamaha 180
Run #1
Run £2
Run #3
Average
Correction
Factor: 10
Average
Corrected :
Yamaha 100
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Average
Summary Of
Bag Sample
HC/NDIR
ppm Hexane
455
365
375 .
398
1,087
490
490
490
490
4,900
350
375
390
372
Corrected & Uncorrected
Data (NDIR, NDUV &
HC/FID CO
ppm Hexane %
750 2.30
750 2.20
750 2.05
750 2.18
2,048 5.95
595 .35
595 .28
690 .26
627 .30
6,265 3.0
525 .40
55.0 .41
550 .46
542 .44
FI)
NO N02 NOX
ppm ppm ppm
125 36 161
100 14 114
113 25 138
308 68 377
25 74 99
25 109 134
37 138 175
29 107 136
290 1,070 1,360
37 81 110
25 92 117
12 97 109
25 90 115
C02
ppm
3.10
2.75
2.65
2.83
7.73
.87
.85
.80
.84
8.40
.62
.62
.62
.62
Correction
Factor: 11.03
Average
Corrected
4,103
5,973
4.85
276
993 1268 6.84
-------
September 24, 1969
Final Report
Project # 1-1017
Table 3 - Cont'd
Vehicle &
Test No.
Yamaha 50
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Average
Correction
Factor: 15.31
Average
Corrected
Yamaha 80
Run #1
Run #2
Average
Uncorrected
Correction
Factor: 16.48
Average
Corrected :
Yamaha 305
'Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Average
Summary Of
Bag Sample
HC/NDIR
ppm Hexane
220
275
240
245
3,751
150
145
148
2,439
630
630
640
685
646
Corrected &
Data (NDIR,
HC/FID
ppm Hexane
300
410
390
367
5,611
250
250
250
4,120
920
900
900
920
910
Uncorrected
NDUV
CO
%
.21
.18
.18
.19
2.91
.07
.08
.08
1.32
.48
.49
.52
.44
.48
& FI)
NO
ppm
50
75
62
62
949
50
75
63
1038
25
37
50
12
31
NO 2
ppm
90
102
76
89
1,363
56
56
56
923
169
187
187
156
175
NOX
ppm
140
177
138
152
2327
106
131
119
1961
194
224
237
168
206
C02
ppm
.55
.55
.55
.55
8.42
.67
.62
.65
10.71
.60
.46
.67
.62
.59
Correction
Factor:
Average
Corrected:
9.32
6,021 •
8,481
4.47
289
1631 1920
5.50
-------
Final Report
Project ft 1-1017
September 24, 1969
Table 3 - Cont'd
Vehicle &
Test No.
Suzuki 250
Run #1
Run #2
Run #3
Run #4
Average
Correction
Factor: 6.38
Average
Corrected :
Yamaha 250
Run #1
Run #2
Run S3
Average
Summary Of
Bag Sample
HC/NDIR
ppm Hexane
1000
815
860
1325
1000
6380
790
845
780
805
Corrected &
Data (NDIR,
HC/FID
ppm Hexane
1355
1210
1210
2030
1452
9261
950
970
1020
980
Uncorrected
NDUV & FI)
CO
%
.83
.76
.80
.93
.83
5.30
.63
.66
.59
.63
NO
ppm
37
37
37
175
72
459
50
12
37
33
N02
ppm
200
66
80
95
110
702
102
124
86
104
NOX
ppm
237
103
117
270
182
1161
152
136
123
137
C02
ppm
.70
.71
.65
.55
.65
4.15
.60
.67
.60
.62
Correction
Factor:
Average
Corrected:
8.15
6561
7987
5.13
269
848
1117
5.05
-------
Final Report
Project #1-1017
TABLE 4
MASS EMISSIONS AS DETERMINED FROM 7-MODE CYCLE DATA X
Inertia 2
Honda 350 500
Yamaha 180 450
Yamaha 100 350
Yamaha 50 325
Yamaha 80 335
Yamaha 305 500
Suzuki 250 500
Yamaha 250 500
Average 2-cycle only
Exhaust HC CO
Volume g/mi g/mi
Cu.Ft.Per Mile3
6.0 0.62 12.95
4.8 3.86 4.0
2.5 1.64 3.47
1.9 1.28 2.2
2.14 .88 1.20
6.0 6.48 11.38
6.0 4.9 12.91
6.0 6.14 12.53
3.59 6.81
NOX
g/mi
0.096
0.062
0.022
0.039
0.036
.075
.069
0.043
0.049
1. Average values from Table 2 used for calculations.
2. Determined either by dynamome
weight plus 150 pounds.
3. Calculated per 45 CFR § 85.87
Mass Emission Equations:
HC Mass = ppm Hexane v i o v c
106
CO Mass = % CO X Exhaust
100 Mile
NO Mass = ppm NO Exhaust
ter loading or by the vehicle
v Exhaust Volume
A Mile Density HC
Volume v Dcnsit,, rn
Volume npnsitv NO.
106
Mile
-------
Final Report
Project ff 1-1017
Table 5
Mass remission As Determined
From Variable Dilution Bag Sampler Data
HC g/m
CO g/m
Honda 350
Yamaha 180
Yamaha 100
Yamaha 50
Yamaha 80
Yamaha 305
Yamaha 250
Yamaha 250
91.8
192.0
91.0
91.5
92.3
185.0
186.0
185.0
6.75 '
11.8
4.83
3.28
2.26
16.5
26.5
17.8
66.0
19.1
13.3
5.76
2.45
29.4
51.2
38.6
0.69
1.42
0.57
0.76
0.60
1.76
1.84
1.39
Average For
2-cycle engines
11.8
26.85
1.19
1 Average values from Table 3 were used for these calculations.
2 As determined by Flame lonization.
3 Vmix = Diluted exhaust volume in cubic feet per mile, corrected to standard
conditions.
Mass F.mission F.quations:
1 1C Mass = ppm Propane
~~
CO Mass =
CO
100
NO Mass = ppm NO
106
X 3 X Vmix X Density HC
X Vmix X Density CO
X Vmix X Density N02.
-------
Final Report
Project # 1-1017
September 24, 1969
Table 6
Summary Of Gas Chromatography Data
Total Paraffins PPM Carbon
Average Carbon Number
Total Paraffins PPM
Percent Paraffins
Reactivity (G..M.)
Total Olefins PPM Carbon
Average Carbon Number
Total Olefins PPM
Percent Olefins
Reactivity (G.M.)
Total Aromatic PPM Carbon
Average Carbon Number
Total Aromatics PPM
Percent Aromatics
Reactivity (G.M.)
Test
Yamaha
25239.
.5.
5038.
56.
6044.
8397.
4.
2059.
23.
16785.
9579.
7.
1232.
13.
3883.
n
250
91
01
97
79
73
21
08
82
21
9
73
77
29
89
32
Test
Yamaha
21414
5
3958
45
5053
8990
4
2007
23
18998
18777
8
2309
26
7540
#2
305
.2
.41
.61
.83
.94
.99
.48
.28
.24
.6
.27
.13
.94
.74
.09
Test #3
Suzuki 250
25698
5
4514
57
5830
4270
4
900
11
9247
15922
7
2098
26
5834
.69
.69
.7
.02
.47
.41
.74
.23
.37
.14
.49
.59
.32
.50
.11
-------
Final Report
Project # 1-1017
September 24, 1969
Table 6 Continued
Summary Of Gas Chromatography Data ^
Total Acetylenes PPM Carbon
Average Carbon Number
Total Acetylenes PPM
Percent Acetylenes
Reactivity (G.M.)
Grand Totals:
PPM Carbon
PPM Hexane
PPM Compound
Reactivity (G.M.)
Maga Index
G.M. Index
Average Carbon Number
Test
Yamaha
1090
. 2
542
6
23
44307
7384
8873
26737
0
3
4
n -i
250
.34
.01
.18
.11
.28
.07
.523
.133
.24
.625
.013
.993
Test
Yamaha
728
2
361
4
24
49911
8318
8636
31616
0
3
5
305
.57
.02
.19
.18
.18
.03
.5
.875
.88
.723
.661
.779
Test
Suzuki
811.
2.
404.
5.
10.
46702.
7783.
7917.
20972.
0.
2.
5.
#3
250
57
01
41
11
72
89
84
52
5
4
674
649
89
9
1 All data corrected by the factor
15
CO + C02 + 6 HC
-------
^2,100
;:•::•]:::.).,.. > :
jjrjr-y.-
l-rf- 2000
1900
^Figure 1
Flame lonization VS Non-Dispersive
Infrared as Hexane. Data taken
from analysis of bag samples.
-X -1200
£1100
determined by
' [I^LL!::!::::!-:.: least_ squares, method.
y = 1.33x + 53.5
Project #1-1107
September
10 Millimeters to the Centimeter
-------
Beckman
315
G-3
Dia-Pump
Project #1-1017
September 11, 1969
Beckman
315
Beckman
315
Beckman
315A
Horiba
AIA
Refrigeratior
Bath
MSA
Drier
(Drierite)
i
Variable
Dilution
Sampler
ii
1
Exhaust Probe
Tedlar
Bag
(Bag Sample)
(Figure 2) Flow Schematic for Exhaust Gas Analysis System
-------
c
2
Calibration Curve For OLI Constant
""". 1 """"1". . . _~"7 . r"~~T.''".'". t". n"TT~ ~ '"__ lil^TT'_ VJT " "~ ! : • ~-~~~'. " ^ '~~i""'""™~": "" ™
Barometric Pressure
Project |#1-1017
Volume Sampler
,: 3:;;:;; in- v:-m:
liil
-------
Figure 4
EXHAUST CONCENTRATION DATA
Date 7
o
0
J
1
2
3
4
6
7
-zo bb) rl O IG
ct No. 1-1107 Vehicle
MODE
Idle
0-25
30
10-1 s
15
15-30
_5Q=2JI,
Idle
0-25
30
30-15
15
15-30
50-20
I Idle
LD-25
30 H
3_0-1.5_
15
15-30
50-20
Idle
0-25
30
30-15
. 15
L5-30
50-20
_Jdle
0-25^
30
30-15
15
15-30
50-20
HC
CO C02 (
Me.ter.:._.ppm_:Meterl % Vieteri %
198 .08 .17
565 -58 1.12
375
405
.25 1.35.
Yamaha 180
Run No. 319
Odorne ler
Device
T5~
:o-co?
Fa.Q.U.o
40.67
7.36
8.22
.11 1 .50 H9.19
.08 .74
450 .29 1.25
14.11
8.29
450 .15 .29 121.13
187 .07 .17
385 .26 1.07
4?^ ! .45 1.37
42.59
9.61
7.23
315 .15 .50 117.88
385 I .05 .72
475
. 475
.38 1.25.
14.98
7.81
71 .24 120.41
! 1
HC = 4260 PPM
CO = 2.79%
i • r
B.aq Sajpple •'
__ |
490 ! .35 .87
' |
HC = 4855 PPM
CO - 3.47%!
FID J1190 propane
^ 0
CORRECTED .H°O
r: HC CO ££
nrsm ' 7,
EL05.3 L3.25j.0':2
4156 4-27i.244
TOTAL
WEIGHT"
HC ' CO VALUE
1 T)T3TI 5 A
338 ! >l4 ';
1014 !l.04
3082 ;2.05 .118 364 .74 nnn KC
5488 2.11 .062
5714 1.13 ,050
3729 2.40i.455
9508 3.17 .029
7964 2.98 .042
3f;qq 2.501.244
3072 3.251.118
5632 2.681.062
i 340 .13 '4315
286 .06 :
1697 il.09 I % CO
276 .09 : 2.79
334 1 .12
902 ! .61
362 .38 Dom HC
349 .17 4204
5767 .75 .050 288 .04
3709 2.97 .455
9695 4-29 .029
.042
.244
.118
.062
.050
! 1688 |1.35 ! % CO
281 .12 ! 2.79
1 ,
t
' ppm HC
.45Sl : °L CO
9.91
.099
.042
4855 3.47L244
.11.8
1.062
.050
.ASS
.099
30.121" Hq; Two Pumps; :40°C i .0^9
i
i
i
i
!
!
i
< 1
i ;
Idle
0-25
30
30-15
15
•.-30
,jO-20
i
i
i
.244
.118
.062
•
pp^ HC
1
: 7n CO
1 ;
;
i
i pom HC
1 i P"
1.050! ' i
' .4551 i "L r.o
(
j
1
.
i
1
.042
.244
.118
.062
.050
.455
.090
i
1
i
. ' oprri HC
r " " r
i
i % co
i
!
NO ppm_
4260
HC ppm
2.79
CO
-------
lint unit 3HT or tT x or mm
jhoY ml/1 .oteHuB UIDITAHOqHOO 8JOHTUIOO 3IHqAH3 IHa
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Final Report
Project # 1017
APPENDIX A
HYDROCARBON CODE IDENTIFICATION
IB
N3
IP
tC=>
220M3
CP
23DM3
2KP
3KP '
NHX
»!CP
22OKP
24DMP
223TM3
33D.XP
CKX
230MP
2MHX
3MHX
UNK 3
3EP '
224TMP
MCKX
22DKHX
223T(-'.P
24DMHX
32OI--.HX
234 TKP
233TiVP
23OHMX .
3MK?
225TMKX
T 5 2DV.CHX
NOC
C12DMCHX
NN
NO
M.A
B2
TOL
EBZ
PX1
MX
OX
IPR32
KPRB2
1V.3E32
IMCEBZ
135TH3Z
1 M2EBZ
TQB2
124TM3Z
I9B2
SBB2
l.K3;P^32
123T.--.32
1 M4 ! PS32
iV,2IPR32
PARAFFINS
NF.TKANE
ETHANE
PROPANE
I -BUTANE
N-BUTA.VE
I-PENTANE
N-PENTASTE
2«2-DIMETHYLBuTANE
CYCLOPENTAN'E
2o3-DiMETKYLBuTANE
2-V.ZTKYLPENTANE
3-".ETHYLPZNVANE
N-HEXANE
MEVHYLCYCLOPENTAN'E
2«2-DIMETHYLPENTANE
2 « 4-D I METHYLPENTANE
2«2«3-TRIMETHYLBUTANE
3t3-D!KETHYLPENTANE
CYCLOHEXANE
2.3-D!l-'.ETKYLPENTANE
2-XETHYLHEXANE
3-f-:ZTHYLHEXANE
UNXNOUN 3
3-ETHYLPENTANE
2 1 2 < «-T(5 1 V.ETHYLPENT ANE
HETKYLCYCLOHEXANS
2 1 2-O I METHYLHEX A^E
2.2t3-TRiy^THYl-P£NTANE
2 1 '.-D I KETHYLHEXANE
3 c 3-D I MITHYLHEXANE
2.344-TRIwrTKYLPENTANE
2.3.3-TRIKETHYLPEN7ANE
2.3-DIMETHYLHEXANE
S-f.'.ETHYLHEPTANE
2 . 2 . 5-TR I .'•'.ZTHYLHExANE
TRANS- I . 2-D I METHYLCYCLOHEXANE
N-OCTANE
ClS-1 .2-DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
N-NONANE
.N-DECANE
ACETYLENES
ACETYLENE
METHYLACETYLENE
AROMATICS
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBEN2ENE
PARA-XYLENE
META-XYLENE
ORTHO-XYLENE
I-PSOPYLBEN2ENE
N-P.^CPYLEEN2ENE
l-.v.ETHYL-3-HTHYLEENZENE
1-KETHYL-A-ETKYLBEN2ENE
1 •3.5-TRIf--.ETHYLBENZENE
1 -METHYL-2-ETHYLBENZENE
TERT-SUTYLBENZENE
1 .2o4-TRIMETHYLB£NZENE
I-BUTYLBENZENE
SEC-SUTYLBENZENE
l-KZTHYL-3-I-PROPYLBENZENE
I «2«3-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
1 -METHYL-4- I -PRCPYLEENZENE
• l-KETHYL-2-I-PROPYLBENZENE
AROMATICS CONTINUED
13DEB2 1i3-OIETHYLBENZENE
1M3NPRSZ 1 -METHYL-3-f-'-PRGPYLBEN2ENE
IM4NPRB2 1-METMYL-4-N-PROPYLBEN2ENE
NBBZ N-BUTYLBENZENE
12DEBZ 1.2-D1ETHYLBEN2ENE
13DM5EBZ 1 i3-DIMETHYL-5--ETHYL6ENZENE
14DEB2 I .4-DIETHYL.BENZENE
OLEFINS
ETHYLENE
PROPYLENE
PROPADIENE
IB 1-BUTENE
iBE I-BUTENE
138 1,3-BUTAOIENE
T2B TRANS-2-8UTENE
C2B CIS-2-BUTENE
UNK 1 UNKNOWN 1
3M1B 3-KETHYL-1-BUTENE
IP I-PENTENE
2K1B 2-METHYL-1-BUTENE
2M13B 2-METHYL-l.3-3UTAD1ENE
T2P TRANS-2-PENTENE
C2P CIS-2-PF.NTENE
2M2B 2-METHYL-2-BUTENE
T13P TRANS-1«3-PENTADIENE
33DM1B 3.3-D1METHYL-1-BUTENE
C13P ' CIS-JO-PENTAOIENE
CPE CYCLOPENTENE
4MIP 4-METHYL-l-PENTENE
23DM1B 2.3-OIMETHYL-1-BUTENE
4MC2P 4-METHYL-CIS-2-PENTENE
4MT2P ^ 4-METHYL-TRANS-2-PENTENE
2M1P "' 2-METHYL-l-PENTENE
1HX 1-HEXENE
2E1B 2-ETHYL-1-BUTENE
C3HX CIS-3-KEXENE
T3HX TRANS-3-HEXENE
T2HX TRANS-2-HEXENE
C2HX C1S-2-HEXENE
2M2P 2-METHYL-2-PENTENE
3V.T2P 3-METHYL-TRANS-2-PENTENE
3KC2P 3-METHYL-CIS-2-PENTENE
23OM2B 2.3-DIMETHYL-2-BUTENE
233TM1B 2.3,3-TRtMETHYL-l-BuTENE
34DM1P 3«4-DI METHYL-1-PENTENE
5M1HX 5-KETHYL-1-HEXENE
CHXE CYCLOHEXENE
5MT2HX 5-METHYL-TRANS-2-HEXENE
34DMC2P 3« 4-O1METHYL-CIS-2-PENTENE
SMC2HX 5-METHYL-CIS-2-HEXENE
34DMT2P 3.4-OIMETHYL-TRANS-2-PENTENE
IMP 1-HEPTENE
T3HP TRANS-3-HEPTENE
C3HP CIS-3-HEPTENE
244TM1P 2«4«4-TRIKETHYL-l-Pt:NTENE
3E2P 3-ETHYL-2-PENTENE
T2HP TRANS-2-HEPTENE
C2HP C1S-2-HEPTENE
244TK2P 2.4.4-TRIMETHYL-2-PENTENE
4MCHXE 4-KETHYLCYCLOHEXENE
3MCHXE 3-ttETHYLCYCLOHEXENE
1MCHXE 1-XETHYLCYCLOHEXENE
IOC 1-OCTENE
2E1HX 2-ETHYL-1-HEXENE
23DM2HX 2«3-OIMETHYL-2-HEXENE
T2OC TRANS-2-OCTENE
26DM3HP 2,6-DlMETHYL-3-HEPTENE
C20C CIS-2-OCTENE
-------
Final Report
Project # 1017
APPENDIX B
Table 1 - Typical Exhaust Hydrocarbon Analysis by Gas Chromatography and Calculation of Total Hydrocarbon
Reactivity Jridex 1
PEAK
COMPONENT
PARAFFINS
1 METHANE
2 ETHANE
6 PROPANE
a IB
10 N3
16 IP
19 NP
25 22DMS
20 CP
29 230M3
30 2*P
31 3«P
33 NHX
37 MCP 22OMP
30 Z'-DKO 223TKD
10 33DMP CHX
42 23OMP 2MHX
43 3MHX UNK 3
44 3EP 22&TMP
45 NHP
47 MCMX 22DMHX
48 LINK 5
09 223TMP 25OMHX 24DMHX
50 33OMHX 234 IMP 233TMP 23DMHX
51 UNK 6
52 UNK 7
53 3MMP
54 225TMMX T12DMCHX
55 NCC
56 U.-JK 1 1
57 UNK 12
59 CI2DMCHX
60 UNK 13
6 I UNK 1 5
62 6
0.90
10.31
in. 21
7.03
1.10
O.f.O
4.57
4.67
2.91
3.96
. • I»O'j
3. in
o.on
i.oo
1 .33
21 .07
1 .09
O.OO
0.00
5.90
16.71
2.71
1 .24
O.75
1 ..91
0.03
O.O3
0.30
O.OO
0. 1O
0.10
0. 17
0.00
0.00
0. 17
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.03
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
O.OP
0.12
0.00
O.OO
.05
.27
.66
«5O
.34
.56
.06
.59
.64
.50
.90
.30
.50
• 50
.50
.30
.51
.60
.50
.50
.60
.50
.50
.63
• 6O
.46
.50
.50
.70
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.42
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.40
.40
269.22
7O.O6 O.OO
0.00 3.90
REACT.
INOEX
0.00
7.21
0.00
1 .03
13.09
30.28
12.37
1 .40
Oi94
0.49
7.42
4.77
6.26
3.52
4.14
1 .33
6.0O
2.OO
27.39
2.06
1 .20
O.OO
0.97
26.73
4.06
1 .06
1 .23
3.06
1 .21
0.05
0.45
O.OO
0.15
0. IS
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.30
0.45
O.20
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 1O
o.oo
O.OO
191.53
O.OO
0.00
157.72
7O.O6
0.00
(con't)
Reprinted from M.W. Jackson, "Effects of Some Engine Variable
.._and.r Con..trp.l....,S.y..s.terns., On ..Composi ti.on...and. Reac tivi ty ,p_f ..Exhaus t
Hydrocarbons", SAE transactions Vol. 75 (1967). SAE"publication"
# 660404.
-------
Final Report
Project # 1017
Table 1 (con'i)
APPENDIX. B - CONTINUED
CONCENTRATION
PEAK
39
50
63
64
66
69
72
73
74
75
77
78
79
80
0]
82
S3
O4
3
5
7
9
1 1
13
14
15
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2C
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4 1
42
43
44
45
46
i7
49
51
52
S3
54
05
57
50
60
61
62
65
67
70
71
04
COMPONENT
AROMATICS
HZ
TOL
EHZ
PX MX
OX
IP3UZ
NPDtJZ
1M3EUZ IM4COZ
J 35TMDZ
IK2EBZ
TOOZ I24TMOZ
IBOZ SUbZ
1M3 !f>RI)r I23TKOZ
1 M4.1 PRrJI!
1 K2 1 PrjflZ
l3DF.li:: IM3NP>JDZ
IM4NPKUZ NUDZ 12CEOZ I3DMSEUZ 14OELJZ
OTllCP AtJOMATICS
SUD-TOTAL
OLEr.NS
ETHYL FINE
P!7OPYLCNE
PROPADIEN'E
1O 1BE 13R
T2Q
C2Q
UNK 1
3M10
IP
2M1D
2M13B '
T2P
C2P
2M2D
T13P
33OM1O
C13P
CPE
4M1P
23DH1D
4MC2P 4MT2P
LK'X 2
2M1P 1HX
2EIO
C3HX T3HX T2HX C2MX
2«2P
3MT2P
3MC2P
23OM2B 233TM1Q
34OMIP
SMI MX
CMXE
5MT2H>: 34QMC2P 5MC2HX 34DMT2P
1 HP
T3HP C3HP
24ATK1P 3E2P T2HP
C2HP UNK 4
244TK2P 4MCMXE 3MCHXE
1MCHXC
UN< 8
tJNK 9
IOC 2E1HX UNX 10
230M2MX T2OC
26OM3MP
C2OC
UN< 14
UNX 16
UNK 1 O
UN< 2C
(j.sx 25
UN< 27
UM< 29
OTHER CLEF INS
SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL
PPMC
9'>. 33
6X1.30
4V.5O
90.30
56.29
0.71
25.09
SV.79
20.47
20.29
79.46
5. 12
19.26
0.00
6.02
20. ?9
19.56
130.63
1350.29
204.60
176. "9
30. 10
170. 71
27.09
1 5.65
0.90
6.02
0.43
24.00
12.00
16.06
8.43
3O.53
O.OO
3.01
0.00
3.01
6.02
1 2 . 64
6.62
0.00
6.02
7.22
7.22
V.63
3.01
0.43
8.43
0.00
4.82
10.23
21 .67
45.75
9.03
6.02
4.21
13.24
O.OO
5.42
3.01
10.23
5.4C
O.60
0.30
O.OO
0.60
1 .20
1 .50
O.OO
O.60
O.OO
0.00
973.73
3450.67
PPM
1 6 . 50
90. •'• 7
5 . 94
I 1 . .79
7. 04
0.30
2. GO
6.42
2.27
3.14
O. 36
0.51
2.03
O.OO
0.60
2.03
I .96
1 1 .00
174.48
102. 34
59.00
10.03
44.70
6.77
3.91
0.23
1 .20
1 .69
4.82
2.41
3.37
1 .6^
7.71
O.OO
0.50
0.00
0.60
1 .00
2.11
i . ;o
0.00
1 .00
1 .20
I .20
1 .61
.0.50
1 .40
1 .30
0.00
0.69
1.71
3. 10
6.54
1 .29
O.D2
0.60
1 .81
O.OO
0.60
0.30
1 .28
O.6O
0.07
0.04
O.OO
0.07
0. 13
0.17
O.OO
0.06
0.00
0.00
2O3.48
O06.O4
R£L''T 1 VE
REACT.
C.56
2.20
?.03
4.92
4.41
1 .64
1 .70
4.10
0.64
3.60
3.3O
1 .00
5. GO
2.90
2.9O
4.20
3.40
5.OO
2.00
5.93
3.90
6.04
16.96
12.03
4 .00
4. SO
3.56
5.76
6.27
13.05
9.15
32.20
6.OO
3.56
6.QO
30.90
3.90
3.73
6.61
4.00
3.39
3.90
Q.4Q
27. 12
20.30
17.00
52.90
2.50
2.50
5.93
1 1 >OO
2.54
7.00
9.40
5.90
13.00
9.73
7.00
7.00
2.80
32. 4O '
6. 00
4. 2O
6.OO
6.OO
6.00
6.OO
6.00
6.00
6.OO
6.00
REACT.
1N3CX
9.27
199.04
12.O7
53.53
31 .03
0.49
4.09
26.33
19.65
1 1 .32
27.60
o.r-i
1 1 .76
0.00
1 .75
1 1 .80
6.65
39 . 30
489. 15
294.74
349.O5
39. 13
269. OR
120.54
47.07
0.90
5.51
6.00
27.74
15. 10
43.99
15.42
240. 12
0.00
I .79
0*00
23.47
3.91
7.86
7.30
O.OO
3.4Q
4.70
10.11
43.54
10.10
23.80
68.59
0.00
I .72
10.11
34.06
16.60
9.03
7.72
3.55
23.49
O.OO
4.74
2.63
3.58
21 .94
0.45
0. 16
0.00
O.40
0.80
1 .00
0.00
0.36
O.OO
O.OO
1843. 19
2523. O7
-------
Final Report
Project #1017
APPENDIX C
An Analysis Of The Two-Cycle Combustion Process
The two-stroke cycle engine was developed by Sir Dugald Clark
in 1878. As the name implies, the basic difference between the
two and the four cycle engine is the number of piston strokes
required to complete one cycle of events. Referring to the illus-
trations (Figures 1 & 2) below, the two-cycle engine requires two
strokes of the piston and one revolution of the crankshaft to com-
plete one cycle of operation comprising intake, compression,
power and exhaust, while the four cycle requires four strokes and
two revolutions.
A diagrammatic cross section of a three-port, two-stroke en-
gine is shown in Figure 3. "A" represents the crankcase inlet
port, which is fully uncovered when the piston is at the outer
end of its stroke. "B" is the transfer port, which is uncovered
by the piston as it approaches the inner end of the stroke. In
the drawing the piston is shown in the position where it begins
to uncover the transfer port. An expansion stroke has just taken
place, and the burnt gases are shown escaping through the exhaust
port, which is partly uncovered by the piston before the latter
begins to uncover the transfer port. During the interval be-
tween the beginning of exhaust-port opening and the beginning
of transfer-port opening the blowdown period enough of
the burnt gases in the combustion chamber must escape through
-------
Final Report
Project #1017 APPENDIX C - Cont'd
the exhaust port to cause the pressure in the combustion chamber
to drop to that in the crankcase. During the remainder of the
in-stroke and the early part of the out-stroke, while both
ports are open, the inflow of fresh charge under pressure through
the transfer port blows some of the remaining burnt gases from
the combustion chamber. This is known as the scavenging process.
Naturally, there is some mixing of combustible mixture with
burnt gases, and it is impossible in an engine of this type to
completely scavenge the combustion chamber of burnt gases and
to prevent loss of fresh charge through the exhaust port before
the latter is closed. In order to prevent "short-circuiting" of
the flow of gases through the engine as far as possible, the pis-
ton is provided with a deflector D opposite the transfer port,
which is intended to deflect the incoming current of mixture
upward on the side of the cylinder at which it enters, compel-
ling it to pass down on the opposite side and sweep the burnt
gases before it.
This type of scavenging is designated "loop" in order to
c \
distinguish it from the type of engine which does not have such
a deflector and is called "cross-scavenged".
This short "circuiting" or loss of the fresh air-fuel mix-
ture out of the the exhaust is the basic deficiency of the two-
cycle engine, and the main reason why fcr a given displacement
it does not develop twice as much power as a four-cycle engine.
The other predominate reason is the poor scavenging of the burnt
exhaust gases from the cylinder due to mixing with the fresh
-------
Final Report
Project #1017 APPENDIX C - Cont'd
incoming air-fuel mixture.
In order to overcome this basic engine characteristic many
attempts have been made to improve the scavenging efficiency of
two-cycle engines, and hence their specific power output. Per-
haps the best known of these is a separate pump or blower which
is found on all two-cycle diesel engines. Other approaches have
used rotary exhaust valves, conventional automotive type poppet
valves, sleeve valves, reverse loop scavenging, opposed pistons
and U-cylinders. All these means add cost and complexity of course,
which to a greater or lesser degree detract from the main two-cycle
engine attributes of low cost and simplicity.
If the basic scavenging process for a two-cycle engine is
examined from the standpoint of predicting exhaust emissions it
is apparent that in all probability the emissions will be high
for the same reason that the average BMEP (Brake Mean Effective
Pressure) and consequent power output is low poor cylinder
scavenging. In the ideal scavenging process the fresh incoming
air-fuel mixture would push the residual gases before it without
mixing or exchanging heat with them, and this process would con-
tinue until all the burned gases had been replaced with fresh mix-
ture, at which point the flow would cease. In this idealized
scavenging process not only is the cylinder filled with fresh
mixture, but also no fresh mixture escapes from the exhaust
ports. However, in actual engines of course, the fresh mixture
actually does mix and exchange heat with the residual gases during
the scavenging process and some portion of the fresh mixture is
-------
Final Report
Project #1017 APPENDIX C - Cont'd
lost through the exhaust ports. The amount of fresh mixture loss
to the exhaust will vary primarily with the efficiency of the
scavenging process, and hence for a given operating condition
will be a function of specific engine design.
This loss of carburetted mixture through the exhaust port is
believed to be prima facie evidence that the exhaust emissions
in terms of concentration of hydrocarbons and partially-oxidized
hydrocarbons for a two-cycle engine is of a significantly higher
order than emissions from a four-cycle engine.
-------
The resulting combustion
pressure forces vhe piston
downward (power stroke)
furnishing power to turn the
propeller. As piston descends
it closes intake port "A" r.nd ^
compresses mixture charge r7
-------
Transfer Port
•-;••'•'.-..: Detail: •;.• •;
Three-Jfort type of
Two-stroke engine
-------
APPENDIX D
CHAPTER II YAMAHA AUTOLUVE
A. WHAT IS YAMAHA AUTOLUBE?
Yamaha Autolube is an automatic engine lubrication system based on
a revolutionary "separate lubrication" principle, which outmodes the
conventional 2-stroke pre-mixed system.
B. FEATURES OF YAMAHA
AUTOLUBE:
1. The oil pump is driven by the engine
through a reduction gear, and is
connected to the throttle valve of the
carburetor which is controlled by the
accelerator grip.
2. Lubricating oil is fed to the engine
after being automatically metered in
proportion to engine rpm and throttle
opening. Thus the engine provides and
regulates its own lubrication.
3. Yamaha Autolube eliminates lubri-
cation problems peculiar to 2-stroke
engines with the conventional
"pre-mix" system, and improves ~ .
many inherent advantages of
2-stroke design. (Fig. 2-1 & 2) i> ;
a. Autolube supplies only the flow
of engine lubricant the engine
needs for its specific operating
condition, allowing:
1) Savings in oil consumption.
2) Decreased carbon accumulation.
3) Decreased exhaust smoke, and
4) More effective engine
lubrication.
YAMAHA Autolube
Motor oil
Straight
gasoline
2-2
v..
-------
Final Report
Project #1017
APPENDIX E
Calibration of Constant Mass Sampler (CMS):
Before the system can be used to measure exhaust, the
Roots blower must be calibrated. This can be done by the
following procedure.
1. Operate system until equilibrium temperatures are reached.
2. Introduce pure propane (99.5 +) by means of a wet test
meter or other accurate flow measuring device into the
inlet of the heat exchanger.
Note: If a wet test meter is used, the propane
should be preconditioned by passing it through
a water bubbler. Also in the final calibration
a water vapor correction must be made.
3. Measure concentration of propane at inlet to large Roots
blower, using NDIR analyzer of FID that has been accurately
calibrated with propane calibration gases.
4. Repeat at different propane flow rates until several data
are obtained.
5. Plot propane flow rate as concentration. A straight line
which passes through the origin should be obtained.
6. Calculate flow rate using perfect gas laws
( PV = nRT ) and the following formula.
-------
Final Report
Project #1017
APPENDIX E - Cont'd
Blower flow rate, CFM =
Pure Propane flow rate, (CFM X 106)
measured Propane concentration (PPM)
7. Example of Calculations:
a. Assume: 300 liters/hour C3Hg introduced 650 PPM
/' C3H8 measured
i
3
Then: liters X hours X ft
• 3 3
hour 60 min/hr. 28,32 liters/ft = ft /min,
3 63
ft X 1 X 10 = ft /min.
min. PPM
300 X 1_ X 1
3
60 28.32 = 0.1765 ft /min,
0.1765 X 1,000,000 = 272.0 ft/min.
650
b. Make correction for 1^0 vapor present at ambient
temperature e.g., Temp = 21.8° C, Vapor HO = 19.7
mm Hg. Barometer = 760 mm
Then: 760 - 19.7 = 740.3 mm Hg.
740.3 X 272 ft3/min. = 264 ft3/min. dry air,
760
c. Determine density of air at ambient temperature
and pressure.
-------
Final Report
Project #1017
APPENDIX E - Cont'd
d. Then: Lbs/ft X ft /min. = Pounds/minute of air,
e. Knowing number of pump revolutions and time
determine revolutions per minute (rev/min).
f. Then: Lbs. X min. = Lbs.
min rev. rev.
g. Lbs X rev.
rev. 1 = Pounds, etc.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |