EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT USING
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
by
Charles T. Hare
Karl J. Springer
FINAL REPORT
Part 4
SMALL AIR-COOLED SPARK IGNITION
UTILITY ENGINES
Contract No. EHS 70-108
Prepared for
Emission Characterization and Control Development Branch
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
and
National Air Data Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
May 1973
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SAN ANTONIO CORPUS CHRISTI HOUSTON
-------
c
m
to
70
r>
i
•:
•:.
EMISSIONS RESEARCH LABORATORY
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE \R-888
Post Office Drawer 28510, 8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT USING
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
by
Charles T. Hare
Karl J. Springer
FINAL REPORT
Part 4
SMALL AIR-COOLED SPARK IGNITION
UTILITY ENGINES
Contract No. EHS 70-108
Prepared for
Emission Characterization and Control Development Branch
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
and
National Air Data Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
May 1973
Approved:
John M. Clark, Jr.
Technical Vice President
Department of Automotive Research
-------
ABSTRACT
This report is Part 4 of the Final Report on Exhaust Emissions
from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Com-
bustion Engines, Contract EHS 70-108. Exhaust emissions from five
gasoline-fueled, air-cooled utility engines were measured using two
types of steady-state procedures, and some measurements were taken
during transient operation. The engines tested were a 3. 5 hp Briggs &
Stratton model 92908 (this engine was the only one with a vertical crank-
shaft), a 4 hp Briggs & Stratton model 100202, an 18 hp Kohler model
K482, a 2 hp Tecumseh model AH520 type 1448, and a 12. 5 hp Wisconsin
model S-12D. The Kohler engine was a 2-cylinder model, and the re-
maining engines were single-cylinder units. The Tecumseh engine was
a 2-stroke, and the remaining engines were 4-strokes. Engines of this
type are often referred to as "small utility engines" or just "small engines'
The two procedures used for small engine tests were a 9-mode
procedure which was being recommended by SAE at the time the tests
were run (early 1971), and a modified version of the "EMA-California"
13-mode procedure. The SAE Small Engine Subcommittee has since
revised its recommended procedure significantly, but the newer ideas
had not been advanced when the subject tests were run.
The exhaust products measured during the emissions tests in-
cluded total hydrocarbons by FIA; hydrocarbons, CO, CO^, and NO by
NDIR; OT by electrochemical analysis; light hydrocarbons by gas
chromatograph; total aliphatic aldehydes (RCHO) and formaldehyde
(HCHO) by the MBTH and chromotropic acid methods, respectively;
particulate by an experimental dilution-type sampling device; and
exhaust smoke (Tecumseh 2-stroke engine only) using a PHS full-flow
smokemeter.
The engines were operated on small electric dynamometers,
and the emissions results are used in conjunction with statistics on
utility engine population and usage to estimate national emissions impact.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The project for which this report constitutes part of the end
product was initiated jointly on June 29, 1970 by the Division of Motor
Vehicle Research and Development and the Division of Air Quality
and Emission Data, both divisions of the agency known as NAPCA. Cur-
rently, these offices are the Emission Characterization and Control Develop-
ment Branch of MSACP and the National Air Data Branch of OAQPS,
respectively, Office of Air and Water Programs, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The contract number is EHS 70-108, and the project
is identified within Southwest Research Institute as 11-2869-001.
This report (Part 4) covers the small utility engine portion of
the characterization work only, and the other items in the characteri-
zation work have been or will be covered by six other parts of the final
report. In the order in which the final reports have been or will be
submitted, the seven parts of the characterization work include; Loco-
motives and Marine Counterparts; Outboard Motors; Motorcycles;
Small Utility Engines; Farm, Construction and Industrial Engines;
Gas Turbine "peaking" Powerplants; and Snowmobiles. Other efforts
which have been conducted as separate phases of Contract EHS 70-108
include: measurement of gaseous emissions from a number of aircraft
turbine engines; measurement of crankcase drainage from a number of
outboard motors; and investigation of emissions control technology for
locomotive diesel engines; and those phases either have been or will be
reported separately.
Cognizant technical personnel for the Environmental Protection
Agency are currently Messrs. William Rogers Oliver, and David S.
Kircher, and past Project Officers include Messrs. J. L. Raney, A. J.
Hoffman, B. D. McNutt, and G. J. Kennedy. Project Manager for
Southwest Research Institute has been Mr. Karl J. Springer, and Mr.
Charles T. Hare has carried the technical responsibility.
The offices of the sponsoring agency (EPA) are located at 2565
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 and at Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; and the contractor (SwRI) is located at
8500 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas 78284.
Several groups and individuals have contributed to the success
of the small utility engine part of this project. Appreciation is first
expressed to Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kohler Co., and Teledyne
Wisconsin Motor for providing engines on a loan basis for test purposes.
The cooperation of Tecumseh Products Co. is also appreciated, although
the Tecumseh engine was purchased by the contractor (not using contract
funds) rather than being obtained on loan. Individuals within these com-
panies who provided technical assistance included Messrs. George Houston
of Briggs & Stratton, Larry Bernauer of Kohler, K. S. Sanvordenker of
111
-------
Tecumseh, and John Gresch of Teledyne-Wisconsin. Additional assistance
was provided by Mr. Barton H. Eccleston of the Bureau of Mines and the
SAE Small Engine Subcommittee as a whole.
The SwRI personnel involved in the small engine tests included
Harry E. Dietzmann, research chemist; Russel T. Mack, lead technician;
and Joyce McBryde and Joyce Winfield, laboratory assistants. These
people all made major contributions which are sincerely appreciated.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
FOREWORD iii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OBJECTIVES 2
III. INSTRUMENTATION, TEST PROCEDURES, AND
CALCULATIONS 3
A. Analytical Instrumentation and Techniques 3
B. Description of the "SAE 9-Mode" Emissions
Test Procedure 10
C. Description of the "Modified EMA 13-Mode"
Emissions Test Procedure 12
D. Estimation of Unmeasured Emissions 13
E. Measurement of Emissions During Transients 15
IV. EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS 17
A. Gaseous Emissions 17
B. Smoke Emissions (2-stroke engine only) and
Particulate Emissions 33
C. Emissions During Transients 37
V. ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS AND NATIONAL
IMPACT 40
A. Development of Emission Factors 40
B. Estimation of National Impact 45
VI. SUMMARY 53
LIST OF REFERENCES 55
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
APPENDIXES
A. Emissions Data From 13-Mode Tests
B. Emissions Data From 9-Mode Tests and
From 30-Mode Test on B & S 92908 Engine
C. Graphical Representation of Emissions
During Transient Conditions
VI
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 Main Gaseous Emissions Analysis System 4
2 FIA Control Unit (foreground) and Oven/Detector
Unit (background) 4
3 NDIR Hydrocarbon and (High-range) CO Analyzers 4
4 Bubblers for Aldehyde Sampling and Gas Chroma-
tographs for Light Hydrocarbon Analysis 4
5 Air Flow Measurement System Used for Small
Engine Tests 6
6 Details of Exhaust System Typical of Those Used
for Small Engine Tests 6
7 Experimental Dilution-Type Particulate Sampler 6
8 PHS Full-Flow Light Extinction Smokemeter 6
9 Briggs & Stratton 100202 Engine on Test Stand,
First View 8
10 Briggs & Stratton 100202 Engine on Test Stand,
Second View 8
11 Kohler K482 Engine on Test Stand, First View 8
12 Kohler K482 Engine on Test Stand, Second View 8
13 Wisconsin S-12D Engine on Test Stand, First
View 9
14 Wisconsin S-12D Engine on Test Stand, Second
View 9
15 Tecumseh AH520 Type 1448 Engine on Test
Stand, First View 9
16 Tecumseh AH520 Type 1448 Engine on Test
Stand, Second View 9
VII
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
Figure Page
17 Briggs & Stratton 92908 Engine Driving AC
Generato'r Used as Dynamometer 11
18 Wattmeter (center) Used to Measure Power
Output of Briggs & Stratton 92908 Engine 11
19 Variable Transformer Used to Control Load on
Briggs & Stratton 92908 Engine 11
20 Resistive Load Bank Used to Dissipate Power
Generated by Briggs & Stratton 92908 Engine 11
21 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Small Engines
as Functions of Load and Speed 25
22 CO Emissions from Small Engines as Functions
of Load and Speed 26
23 NOX Emissions from Small Engines as Functions
of Load and Speed 27
24 Aldehyde Emissions from. Small Engines as
Functions of Load and Speed 28
25 2% Opacity Smoke from Tecumseh 2-stroke
Engine 36
26 3% Opacity Smoke from Tecumseh 2-stroke
Engine 36
27 5% Opacity Smoke from Tecumseh 2-stroke
Engine 36
28 6% Opacity Smoke from Tecumseh 2-stroke
Engine 36
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Test Conditions for SAE 9-Mode (1971) Procedure 10
2 Test Conditions for "EMA" 13-Mode Procedure 13
3 Mass Emissions from Small Engines Operated
on the 9-Mode Procedure 18
4 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Small Engines by
Load and Speed in Mass Rates (g/hr) and Brake
Specific Rates (g/hphr) 19
5 Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Small Engines
by Load and Speed in Mass Rates (g/hr) and
Brake Specific Rates (g/hphr) 20
6 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions from Small
Engines by Load and Speed in Mass Rates (g/hr)
and Brake Specific Rates (g/hphr) 21
7 Aliphatic Aldehyde (RCHO) Emissions from
Small Engines by Load and Speed in Mass Rates
(g/hr) and Brake Specific Rates (g/hphr) 22
8 Summary of 13-Mode Composite Emissions
Results for Small Engines 24
9 Average Mode Brake Specific Emissions from
Small Engines 29
10 Average Light Hydrocarbon Emissions from a
Briggs & Stratton 92908 Engine 30
11 Average Light Hydrocarbon Emissions from a
Briggs & Stratton 100202 Engine 31
12 Average Light Hydrocarbon Emissions from a
Kohler K482 Engine 32
13 Average Light Hydrocarbon Emissions from a
Tecumseh AH520 Engine 33
14 Average Light Hydrocarbon Emissions from a
Wisconsin S-12D Engine 34
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Page
15 Summary of Light Hydrocarbon Analysis for
Small Engines 35
16 Average Smoke Opacity from a Tecumseh AH520
2-stroke Engine, 1-inch Diameter Pipe 37
17 Particulate Emissions from Small Utility Engines 38
18 Small Engine Evaporative Emission Estimates 44
19 Emission Factors for Small Utility Engines 46
20 Previous Estimates of Nationwide Small Engine
Populations (1968) 46
21 Outdoor Equipment Sales and Population
Estimates 47
22 Breakdown of 1966-1970 Small Engine Production
by Application 47
23 Estimates of Current Small Engine Populations
(12/31/72) 48
24 National Emissions Impact Estimates for Small
Engines 50
25 Comparison of Small Engine National Impact
Estimates with EPA Nationwide Air Pollutant
Inventory Data 51
26 Summary of Seasonal, Regional, and Urban-
Rural Variations in Small Engine Emissions 51
x
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The program of research on which this report is based was
initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency to (1) characterize
emissions from a broad range of internal combustion engines in
order to accurately set priorities for future control, as required,
and (2) assist in developing more inclusive national and regional air
pollution inventories. This document, which is Part 4 of what is
planned to be a seven-part final report, concerns emissions from
small utility engines and the national impact of these emissions.
Some emissions data on small engines were becoming available
at about the time the subject work was being performed'1' 2', which was
approximately February through May 1971. These additional data helped,
but were of limited usefulness due to the operating conditions at which the
engines -were run. The procedures used for the subject work were chosen
with the intent of gathering the most useful results, but little consideration
has been given to the potential usefulness of these procedures for anything
except research purposes. All the subject tests were performed in the
SwRI Automotive Research and Emissions Research Laboratories by mem-
bers of the Emissions Research Laboratory staff.
The impact portion of this report was first presented in Quarterly
Progress Report No. 6<3) on the subject contract (1/15/72). * Detail
refinements and updated statistics have been incorporated into this Final
Report.
*This report was published in the July 1972 issue of Automotive
Engineering, the monthly journal of the Society of Automotive
Engineers.
Superscript numbers in parentheses refer to the List of References at
the end of this report.
-------
II. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the small utility engine part of this project
were to obtain exhaust emissions data on a variety of engines, and
to use these data along with available information on number of engines
in service and annual usage to estimate emission factors and national
impact. The emissions to be measured included total hydrocarbons by
FIA; HC, CO, CO2 and NO by NDIR; O2 by electrochemical analysis;
light hydrocarbons by gas chromatograph; aldehydes by wet chemistry;
particulates by gravimetric analysis; and smoke (2-stroke engine only)
by the PHS light extinction smokemeter. These exhaust consitutents
are essentially the same as those measured during all tests on gasoline-
fueled engines tested under this contract.
The objectives included implicitly the operation of test engines at
a variety of loads and speeds to permit "mapping" exhaust characteristics.
They also included use of either accepted or new calculation techniques
to arrive at composite emissions which could be used to derive factors and
national impact.
-------
III. INSTRUMENTATION, TEST PROCEDURES, AND CALCULATIONS
Although two major types of test procedures were utilized during
the small engine tests, the same instrumentation package and analysis
techniques were used for both procedures. It seems logical, therefore,
to consider the procedures separately from the standpoint of engine
operation, but to describe the instrumentation package only once. Tech-
niques used for estimation of emissions not measured (fuel evaporation
and oxides of sulfur) are also outlined in a separate section.
A. Analytical Instrumentation and Techniques
Emissions measurements on the small spark-ignition utility engines
were the first tests conducted under the subject contract, although re-
porting priorities on some of the other engine categories were higher. The
delay caused by the priorities means that quite some time has elapsed since
the small engine tests (about 20 months) and during this time a considerable
evolution in instrumentation and techniques has taken place. Consequently,
both hardware and methods employed for small engine tests and analysis
may seem somewhat out of date compared with those used on other engine
categories.
The emissions measured on a continuous basis during steady-state
tests included total hydrocarbons by FIA; CO, CO2» NO, and hydrocarbons
by NDIR; and O2 by electrochemical analysis. Attempts were made to
measure total paraffins (and consequently total non-paraffins) using a sub-
tractive column before the FIA, but the results were disappointing. It was
likewise attempted to measure N©2 using an electrochemical analyzer, but
again no reliable results were achieved (the chemiluminescent instrument
was not available at the time). Batch samples were taken over 3-minute
periods for aldehyde analysis, using the MBTH method^ ' for total aliphatic
aldehydes (RCHO) and the chromotropic acid method' ' for formaldehyde
(HCHO). Bag samples were also acquired for light hydrocarbon analysis
(methane through butane - 7 compounds). The chromatograph employed
for this latter analysis used a 10 ft. by 1/8 inch column packed with a
mixture of phenyl isocyanate and Porasil C preceded by a 1 inch by 1/8
inch precolumn packed with 100-120 mesh Proapak N.
Some of the analytical instruments are shown in Figures 1-4, with
Figure 1 showing instruments mounted in the main analysis cart (oxygen
and electrochemical NOX analyzers at top; NO, low-range CO, and CO2
analyzers at center; 4-pen recorder bottom center). Figure 2 shows the
FIA control unit and electrometer in the foreground, and the FIA oven/
detector unit at left in the background. Cramped space prevented direct
photographs of these instruments. Figure 3 shows the NDIR hydrocarbon
analyzer and the high-range CO analyzer, mounted on a separate small
cart. Figure 4 shows the gas chroma tog raphs used for light hydrocarbon
analysis, and the sample collection system for aldehydes (bubblers at left).
-------
Figure 1. Main Gaseous Emissions
Analysis System
Figure 2. FIA Control Unit (foreground)
and Oven/Detector Unit (background)
Figure 3. NDIR Hydrocarbon and (High-
range) CO Analyzers
Figure 4. Bubblers for Aldehyde
Sampling and Gas Chromatographs for
Light Hydrocarbon Analysis
-------
All the emission concentration data acquired on the small engines
except FIA total hydrocarbons and aldehydes were on a "dry" basis, and
were originally given on the dry basis in progress reports. For this report,
however, all emission data are expressed on a wet basis except the data on
concentrations during transients. Air and fuel rates were measured during
the small engine tests where possible, but fuel system design of the two
Briggs & Stratton engines made fuel measurement impractical. In these
cases fuel rate was calculated from exhaust composition and air rate using
the Spindt method(°). Air rates were measured using a laminar flow
element such as that shown in Figure 5, and fuel rates were measured
volumetrically using a graduated burette and timer.
It was considered desirable to test the engines with stock mufflers
in place, but these mufflers had perforated outlets rather than tubular out-
lets, so adapters were made as shown in Figure 6 for the Kohler K482. The
adapters were made of stainless steel, and served to connect the muffler
outlet to the stainless steel "mixing chamber" suggested by SAE. The
mixing chamber shown in Figure 6 was used on the two larger engines, and
was fabricated from a stainless steel beaker with a considerable amount of
reinforcement. A smaller chamber was used for the three smallest engines.
The idea behind the mixing chambers was to make certain that the exhaust
gases sampled were not stratified, that is, that they were part of a homoge-
neous mixture. It was found necessary in some cases to heat the mixing
chambers to keep the wall temperatures at or above 160°F, considered to be
the lowest acceptable temperature.
Figure 7 shows the experimental dilution-type particulate sampler
used for small engine tests. This instrument was developed in order to
meet contract objectives, and sample filtration occurred at about 85°F and
1 atmosphere. A sample of exhaust gas was withdrawn from a point down-
stream of the muffler (the mixing chamber was not used for particulate tests)
at a rate as near isokinetic as possible, with sampling times of about 5
minutes. The sample was immediately mixed with a known flow of dilution
air (prepurified dry compressed air) to cool it and prevent condensation of
water, then filtered through a pre-weighed membrane filter having 0.45
micron mean flow pore size. The flow of dilute sample was then measured
with a dry gas meter (continuously and totalized). Exhaust sample flow,
which was set quite accurately by the two large flowmeters, was determined
even more accurately by subtracting the dilution flow from the total flow.
The filter -was reweighed after use to determine the amount of particulate
collected. It should be noted that although care was taken to withdraw
sample from the exhaust pipe at a velocity equal to the bulk exhaust velocity,
the sampling was not truly "isokinetic" due to exhaust pulsations and multi-
dimensional flow in the pipe.
In total, about 120 particulate samples were acquired from the
small engines, including several speeds and loads which were taken to be
representative of normal operation. Unused filters were kept in a dessicated
-------
Figure 5. Air Flow Measurement
System Used for Small Engine
Tests
Figure 6. Details of Exhaust
System Typical of Those Used
for Small Engine Tests
Figure 7. Experimental Dilution-
Type Particulate Sampler
Figure 8. PHS Full-Flow Light
Extinction Smokemeter
-------
chamber, and were dried out again following use to establish a stable base-
line. The balance used to weigh the filters (nominal weight 500 mg) had an
accuracy of ±0. 1 mg over the range of measurements taken, and the
instrument "zero" was checked between each two independent weighings.
The filters were weighed a minimum of four times both before and after
use, and the last two weights had to be within 0. 2 mg of each other. The
last two weights were averaged to obtain the values used in computations.
During the sampling period, temperatures and pressures were recorded
throughout the system, permitting calculation of sample flowrate to 3
significant figures.
For the single 2-stroke engine tested, a Tecumseh 2 hp unit, exhaust
smoke •was measured using a PHS full-flow light extinction smokemeter
such as the one shown in Figure 8. The conditions under which smoke
opacity was measured included several loads and speeds, but the physical
arrangement of the test cell dictated the use of a rather long exhaust pipe,
which is considered undesirable for smoke tests. It should also be noted
that the smoke opacity figures for the Tecumseh engine were based on a
1 inch diameter exhaust pipe, and that the PHS smokemeter was used as
a research tool only and not because it is recommended for such use. The
PHS meter probably gives reasonably accurate results on "white" smoke,
but some research into the matter would be necessary before it could be
recommended as a rigorous quantitative technique.
Due to different sampling system and operating schedules, particu-
late sampling could not be conducted while gaseous emissions were being
measured. This comment on separate tests also applies to smoke measure-
ments made on the Tecumseh 2-stroke engine.
The test engines and dynamometer equipment used are shown in
detail beginning with Figure 9. Figures 9 and 10 show the 4 hp Briggs &
Stratton model 100202 engine on the test stand, and Figures 11 and 12
show the 18 hp Kohler K482. The large metal enclosure covering the
couplings and drive shaft was a safety shield, and it was used on three of
the engines as permitted by sampling system configurations.
The 12. 5 hp Wisconsin S-12D engine is shown in Figures 13 and 14,
and the 2 hp Tecumseh AH520 engine is shown in Figures 15 and 16. Due
to the location of the exhaust outlet on the Tecumseh (directly over the
output shaft), a sharp right angle bend in the exhaust pipe was necessary
to clear the flexible coupling as shown in Figure 16. Both the small
coupling and the pipe configuration were considered undesirable from a
technical standpoint, but neither appeared to affect the emissions results
significantly.
The vertical-crankshaft Briggs & Stratton model 92908 engine re-
quired a different power absorption system, since it could not be operated
-------
Figure 9. Briggs & Stratton
100202 Engine on Test Stand,
First View
Figure 10. Briggs &t Stratton
100202 Engine on Test Stand,
Second View
Figure 11. Kohler K482 Engine
on Test Stand, First View
Figure 12. Kohler K482 Engine
on Test Stand, Second View
-------
Figure 13. Wisconsin S-1ZD
Engine on Test Stand, First View
Figure 14. Wisconsin S-1ZD
Engine on Test Stand, Second
View
Figure 15. Tecumseh AH520
Type 1448 Engine on Test Stand,
First View
Figure 16. Tecumseh AH520
Type 1448 Engine on Test Stand,
Second View
-------
10
on a horizontal-shaft dynamometer. A special stand was constructed
as shown in Figure 17, with a 3500 watt AC generator mounted under-
neath, its rotor supported by the engine crankshaft via a high-speed
flexible coupling. The stroboscopic tachometer was used to set and
measure engine speeds, but no analog rpm readout was installed.
Figure 18 shows the wattmeter used to measure engine output (center
of photograph). This instrument was placed in the line between the
generator and the variable transformer shown in Figure 19. This trans-
former controlled the engine load, and power was dissipated in the re-
sistive load bank shown in Figure 20.
B. Description of the "SAE 9-Mode" Emissions Test Procedure.
This test procedure represented a first attempt by the Small
Engine Subcommittee of the SAE Engine Committee to arrive at
a uniform way of gathering meaningful test data. Required emission
measurements included hydrocarbons, CO, CC>2> and NO, with Q£ being
required for 2-stroke engines only. The procedure called for a single
operating speed (manufacturer's rated rpm), with a combination of loads
and fuel/air mixture settings as described in Table 1. The procedure
has some validity because many small engines operate at or near rated
speed a majority of the time, but since other operating conditions are
simply not represented, it is not very useful from the characterization
TABLE 1. TEST CONDITIONS FOR SAE 9-MODE (1971) PROCEDURE
Mode Speed *Fuel/Air Mixture Load
1 Mfr. rated Lean Best Power Full
2 " " " " " Half
3 " " " " " None
4 " " Fuel Rich Full
5 " " " " Half
6 " " " " None
7 " " Fuel Lean Full
8 " " " " Half
9 " " " " None
^criteria explained in text
standpoint. The three mixture settings were included in an attempt to
represent the range of operating conditions which might be encountered
in the field, but it was later decided that most engine operators could
probably get reasonably close to the "lean best power" condition by simple
-------
11
Figure 17. Briggs & Stratton
92908 Engine Driving AC
Generator Used as Dynamometer
Figure 18. Wattmeter (center)
Used to Measure Power Output
of Briggs & Stratton 92908 Engine
Figure 19. Variable Transformer
Used to Control Load on Briggs &
Stratton 92908 Engine
Figure 20. Resistive Load Bank
Used to Dissipate Power Generated
by Briggs & Stratton 92908 Engine
-------
12
adjustment. Even if a considerable variation existed from engine to engine,
it should be somewhat self-canceling due to errors on both the rich and
the lean sides of "lean best power".
The "lean best power" carburetor setting was the leanest mixture
the engine would tolerate at rated speed and full load without loss of power.
The rich and lean conditions were arrived at by progressively changing
the carburetor mixture setting in either the rich or the lean direction until
a 1% drop in power was noted. Given the accuracy of dynamometer systems
and the effects of vibration, these latter conditions were difficult to arrive
at in a repeatable manner.
Each engine was tested on the SAE procedure at least twice, with
one additional run on the Tecumseh AH520 engine (at lower-than-rated
rpm) and one additional run on the Briggs & Stratton 92908. A variation
on the SAE procedure was also run on the Briggs & Stratton 92908, having
30 modes and a total of four engine speeds as well as variation in mixture
and load. No particular time interval was allotted to each mode of the
procedure, but rather the stabilization of emissions and time required
to obtain batch samples became the criteria. Normally, each mode
required 10 minutes or more, with even longer times being the rule when
the mixture was being changed. In order to set the mixture most accurately
prior to modes 4 and 7, the lean best power condition was re-established
before changing to the off-design condition. In some cases, the power
at the re-established lean best power condition was quite different than
that for mode 1 due to drifting with time; so power data for modes 4 and
7 may not be just less than for mode 1, as might be expected.
C. Description of the "Modified EMA 13-Mode" Emissions
Test Procedure
Although other similarities existed, the only major points inten-
tionally made common with the EMA-California procedure^) for the subject
tests were the speed-load schedule and the weighting factors given the
modes. This 13-mode schedule is also the same as that to be used for
gaseous emissions certification of new heavy- duty diesel engines beginning
with the 1974 model year. The main reason for alluding to the "EMA" pro-
cedure at all is that it is familiar to many researchers in industry and
government, which makes less explanation necessary.
A summary of the test conditions is given in Table 2, showing that
this procedure essentially "maps" the emissions at two speeds as a func-
tion of load. The procedure was run as given three times on the Briggs &
Stratton 92908, and twice on the other engines. In addition, another set of
test conditions was chosen for each engine, except the Tecumseh. The new
"rated" speed was set between the previously-run rated and intermediate
speeds, and the new "intermediate" speed about 400 to 500 rpm below the
previous intermediate speed. The idea of these changes was to acquire
emissions data at two other speeds, to get a better picture of how emissions
-------
13
TABLE 2. TEST CONDITIONS FOR "EMA" 13-MODE PROCEDURE
Mode Speed Load Mode Weight
1 Low Idle None 0.20/3=0.0667
2 ^Intermediate None 0.08
3 " " 25% 0.08
4 " " 50% 0.08
5 " " 75% 0.08
6 " " Full 0.08
7 Low Idle None 0.20/3=0.0667
8 Mfr's. Rated Full 0.08
9 " " 75% 0.08
10 " " 50% 0.08
11 " " 25% 0.08
12 " " None 0.08
13 Low Idle None 0.20/3=0.0667
£•
1.00
*peak torque speed or 60% of rated speed, whichever is higher
varied over the entire speed range. The procedure was then run once for
each of the four engines.
For the 13-mode procedure as well as the 9-rnode described
earlier, the length of time spent in each mode was dictated by stability
of emissions and batch sampling requirements, rather than the desire
to run a mode in any particular time. The stabilization period for these
small engines often did not consist of a gradual asymptotic approach to a
constant value, but rather consisted of somewhat periodic variations
around a central value. In this latter case, it was necessary to observe
the chart readout for quite a long period of time to make certain that the
correct central value was chosen. It is assumed that these small varia-
tions were due to inability of the engines to maintain a constant speed
with precision, and also to the rather simple carburetion systems used
(as compared to larger industrial engines).
As already noted, the weighting factors shown in Table 2 were used
to calculate cycle composite emissions from the small engines. The
rationale used to justify these factors is given in section V with the esti-
mation of emission factors and national impact.
D. Estimation of Unmeasured Emissions
The subject contract was limited by time and financial constraints
to measurement of those emissions which were considered most significant
-------
14
and for which reliable techniques were available. According to these
criteria, it was decided to estimate emissions of sulfur oxides (SOX)
and evaporative hydrocarbons rather than attempt to measure them.
Crankcase or "blowby" emissions were considered also, but all the
4-stroke engines tested had their crankcases vented to the carburetor,
which eliminates crankcase emissions. Small 2-stroke engines such
as the one tested use crankcase induction, so they produce no crankcase
emissions. For calculation purposes, it will be assumed that the test
engines are representative of standard practice, and thus that crank-
case emissions from small engines are negligible.
Evaporative losses of hydrocarbons for which small engines are
responsible include spillage during fueling operations (including mixing
of oil and gasoline for 2-stroke machines), losses from the fuel tank and
carburetor while running, and losses from the fuel tank and carburetor
while the machine is stopped. Spillage losses are simply not within the
scope of this contract, but other investigations (not specifically on small
engines) are filling this need. Running losses from the fuel tank and
carburetor are quite possibly significant, but no information is available
from which they can be estimated intelligently. Evaporation while the
machine is not in use is the only category of evaporative loss which can
be estimated using available data, so all further discussion here will
concern this type of loss alone.
Losses from the carburetor during the cool-down period of an
automobile (called the "hot soak") are quite high because the engine is
enclosed and has a large heat capacity, and because the carburetor sits
on top of the engine. None of these three conditions holds for small en-
gines, however, since their carburetors are generally side-draft and not
mounted atop the engine, and since the engine is much smaller and less
enclosed. Carburetor hot-soak losses are therefore probably small, and
the rather small float chambers mean that diurnal breathing losses from
the carburetor can probably be neglected, also. Elimination of the other
evaporation processes then, has left diurnal loss from the fuel tank as
the only significant evaporation loss which can be estimated from reason-
able assumptions.
Diurnal breathing losses are primarily functions of fuel vapor
pressure, vapor space in the tank, and the diurnal temperature swing.
The standard low and high temperatures for evaporation loss measure-
ments have been pretty well established at 60 ° F and 84° F, respectively,
and several studies have been conducted to determine the effects of fuel
Reid vapor pressure (Rvp), etc. Without going into too much detail, fairly
accurate estimates can be made by assuming some typical Rvp for the fuel
and dividing the numbers developed for cars at that Rvp by the applicable
ratio of fuel tank volumes. For example, if 30 g/day tank HC loss were
determined to be representative for a car with a 15 gallon tank, a com-
parable value for a small engine with a 1 gallon tank would be 30/(15/1)
-------
15
g/day or 2g/day if Rvp and the temperature extremes were held constant.
Based on the results of several studies(8, 9) and the assumption that a sum-
mer fuel Rvp of 9. 0 psi is typical10), the factor to be used for small en-
gine evaporative emissions is 2. 0 g HC/(gallon tank volume day). This
figure will be used later in the report when total emission factors and
national impact are estimated.
Instrumentation for measurement of sulfur oxides in the exhaust
of internal combustion engines has not been developed to the same point as
that for other common pollutants, so it has become more or less accepted
practice to calculate sulfur oxide emissions based on fuel sulfur content.
The assumption is usually made for convenience that all the sulfur oxidizes
to SC>2» and thus the mass emission rate of SC>2 is taken to be 2. 00 times
the rate at which sulfur is entering the engine in the form of fuel (2. 00 is
the ratio of the molecular weight of SC>2 to the atomic weight of S). This
technique is fairly accurate for 4-stroke engines (where substantially all
the fuel is being burned), but it should be modified for 2-stroke engines
to reflect the fact that a substantial fraction of the fuel is not being burned
(that is, some of the fuel sulfur is being emitted without being oxidized).
This modification is made by assuming that the fraction of fuel sulfur
going to SC>2 is the same as the fraction of the fuel burned, which can be
determined from hydrocarbon mass emissions. Emission rates will be
calculated and included in section V, based on assumed fuel sulfur con-
tents'^/ of 0. 043% by weight for the regular fuel used in small engines.
E. Measurement of Emissions During Transients
The reason for measuring emissions during transients is that
they are not included implicitly in the other test procedures on which the
small engines were operated, such as they are in procedures for auto-
mobile testing, for example. The goal of these measurements was not
necessarily to determine mass emissions as a function of time, but
rather to compare concentrations during transients to those for steady-
state conditions which form the starting and ending points for the transients.
The transient measurements were taken on three of the five engines, with
the Briggs & Stratton 92908 excluded due to the absence of analog rpm
readout, (although emissions were recorded during cold starts for this
engine), and the Wisconsin S-12D excluded because its throttle was dif-
ficult to control.
To acquire emissions data from transients in a useful form, it was
necessary to record engine rpm as a function of time. The recorder used
for transients had four channels, so only three remained for concentration
data; and the constituents chosen for analysis were hydrocarbons, CO, and
NO. It should be noted here that concentration data for hydrocarbons were
"wet", and that those for CO and NO were "dry". These CO and NO data
-------
16
during transients are the only concentration data in this report which are
on a dry basis (insufficient data were acquired for conversion to wet basis),
and they will be presented only in the form of graphs in Appendix C. These
graphs depict engine rpm and concentration data as functions of time, and
they will be discussed in section IV with the other emission results. It was
necessary to draw the graphs because recorder chart traces for the NDIR
instruments are not directly proportional to concentration, and this non-
linearity would have resulted in difficult-to-read scales had the charts been
reproduced directly.
The graphical records given in Appendix C are the most representa-
tive of several runs made over each transient condition. Some of the trans-
ients were repeated three or four times, in order to get a good feel for the
results, before a representative trace was chosen. The transient con-
ditions run on each of the three engines included: a rapid deceleration
from rated speed and no load to idle by closing the throttle; a rapid decelera-
tion (or lug-down) from rated speed and full load to intermediate speed and
full load by increasing the load; a rapid acceleration from intermediate
speed and full load to rated speed and full load by decreasing the load;
and a rapid acceleration from idle to high speed and no load by opening
the throttle. Other conditions run on one or two engines included; a
simultaneous rapid reduction of load and throttle to go from rated speed
and full load to idle; an acceleration from intermediate speed and part
load to (preset) full load at rated speed by opening the throttle; and a
load change at essentially constant speed (throttle controlled by governor).
Cold start transients were run on one engine to observe variation in emis-
sions during engine warmup.
-------
17
IV. EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS
Emissions data taken on the small engines during this study
are given in complete form in the Appendixes. Appendix A contains
data from the 13-mode tests, Appendix B contains data from the 9-
mode tests and the special 30-mode tests on the Briggs & Stratton
model 92908 engine, and Appendix C consists of graphical representa-
tions of emission concentrations during transients.
A. Gaseous Emissions
Data developed on the 9-mode procedure are summarized in
Table 3, with either 2 or 3 runs averaged on each engine. These data
are of limited usefulness for impact purposes, but from a characteriza-
tion standpoint they are useful in verifying the effects of change in fuel-
air ratio. As expected, hydrocarbons and CO were generally highest
during the "rich" modes (4-6) and lowest during the "lean" modes (7-9),
with the "lean best power" modes (1-3) falling in between. Again as
expected, the trend in NOX was the opposite of that for hydrocarbons and
CO, but no strong variation in aldehyde emissions with fuel-air ratio
could be observed. The additional step of converting the 9-mode data to
a brake specific basis has not been taken, but power data are available in
Appendix B should the brake specific numbers be required.
Data developed on the 13-mode procedure are treated in more
detail, since they are considered more useful in both characterization
and impact calculations. To begin, average mass emissions and brake
specific emissions have been tabulated as functions of load and speed
for each engine. Hydrocarbon data are given in Table 4, CO data in
Table 5, NOX data (as NO2) in Table 6, and aliphatic aldehyde data (RCHO
as HCHO) in Table 7. These tabular data could be plotted as rudimentary
emission "maps", if so desired, but this step has not been taken for this
report. The maps would be rather rough due to the small number of data
points represented, and it would be recommended that considerably more
data be acquired before attempting to construct maps.
The data in Tables 4 through 7 provide an indication of variation
in emission rates with engine size and type, and all these runs were made
with the carburetor adjusted for lean best power operation at rated speed.
The procedure followed was to run 2 or more 13-mode tests using rated
and intermediate speeds, then to run 1 test or more using "high intermediate1'
(2nd highest speed listed) and "low intermediate" (4th highest) speeds instead.
This independence of runs added an unwanted variable, namely day-to-day
changes in carburetor setting for lean best power operation, to the data.
For some engines, the change was not significant, but for others it was.
In summary, data scatter makes finer analysis of mode-by-mode emissions
from the individual engines only marginally useful, so further analysis will
be concentrated on composite (cycle) emissions and those averaged over
the engines tested by type (4-stroke and 2-stroke).
-------
TABLE 3. MASS EMISSIONS FROM SMALL ENGINES OPERATED ON THE 9-MODE PROCEDURE
Average Mass Emissions in g/hr by Mode
Constituent
HC
CO
NQxasN32
RCHO as
HCHO
Engine
B&S 92908
B&S 100202
Kohler K482
Tec. AH520*
Wisc.S-12D
B&S 92908
B&S 100202
Kohler K482
Tec. AH520*
Wisc.S-12D
B&S 92908
B&S 100202
Kohler K482
Tec. AH520*
Wise. S-12D
B&S 92908
B&S 100202
Kohler K482
Tec. AH520
Wisc.S-12D
1
32.
20.
144.
274.
79.
365.
244.
3750.
319.
2530.
16.
48.
55.
4.
39.
1.
1.
7.
3.
2.
7
3
2
6
4
8
50
4
12
76
64
03
90
2
30.
10.
76.
137.
65.
459.
24.
1890.
276.
2030.
7.
23.
30.
1.
9.
1.
1.
3.
2.
1.
7
4
4
9
4
99
2
8
69
51
01
24
13
08
72
3
17. 4
13.0
84.6
70.3
54.8
84. 9
63. 7
1960.
157.
1260.
3.64
2. 55
3.32
0. 82
3.40
0.94
0.48
1. 70
1. 32
1. 10
4
48.
25.
158.
318.
102.
876.
687.
4450.
723.
3520.
3.
21.
38.
1.
22.
1.
1.
5.
2.
2.
3
9
85
0
5
66
0
51
20
95
92
29
5
41.
19.
86.
181.
93.
760.
292.
1940.
569.
2960.
4.
14.
25.
1.
6.
0.
0.
3.
1.
1.
4
4
4
0
74
2
7
33
56
88
61
28
88
74
6
17.
17.
95.
107.
74.
236.
249.
2050.
266.
1600.
3.
0.
2.
0.
2.
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
7
7
6
6
05
96
96
89
92
61
44
94
38
32
7
26.
16.
124.
248.
62.
84.
93.
2670.
75.
1390.
35.
59.
109.
9.
78.
1.
1.
3.
3.
2.
2
6
4
5
5
4
7
2
54
9
25
34
45
40
45
8
27. 5
9. 28
63.8
137.
53.0
305.
18.8
1000.
93.3
1320.
10. 8
21.6
44.5
2.96
21.0
1. 00
1.04
2.24
2.48
1.68
9
15. 1
12.8
71.8
89. 1
33.6
56.3
37.4
1570.
139.
618.
6.19
2.30
5. 10
2. 03
4. 34
0.99
0. 58
1.80
1.34
1.42
-f Average of 2 runs at 4500 (rated) rpm and 1 run at 3600 rpm
oo
-------
TABLE 4. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS* FROM SMALL ENGINES BY
LOAD AND SPEED IN MASS RATES (g/hr) AND BRAKE SPECIFIC RATES (g/hphr)
Jv/Lass Emissions, g/hr, by % Full Load
Brake Specific Emissions,
g/hphr, by % Full Load
Engine
B&cS 92908
B&S 100202
**Kohler K482
Tecumseh
AH 520
Wisconsin
S-12D
Speed, rpm
Idle(1730)
2200
2600
3100
3600
Idle(1700)
2200
2600
3100
3600
Idle(1120)
1800
2300
3000
3600
Idle(3310)
3500
4500
Idle(1090)
1850
2300
3000
3600
0
22 2
«— £< , £<
14.8
24.6
28.6
17. 7
20.0
16.9
12.6
13.4
4. 18
301.
195.
94.4
161.
120.
78.4
74.8
80.6
20. 2
34.8
51.4
59.7
73.3
25
11.6
19.4
12.2
28.0
12.1
12.0
8.86
5.48
94.5
103.
93.6
114.
102.
105.
32.1
34.2
38.6
62.7
50
10.4
22.3
13.8
35.8
16.0
16.2
19.0
15.8
110.
113.
81.3
125.
153.
156.
34.5
20.1
45.1
82.6
75
11.3
31.0
16.8
50.7
21.9
21.2
25.3
10.0
152.
125.
103.
182.
208.
211.
38.3
18.3
62.4
107.
100
39.6
75.6
48. 2
35. 1
22.1
12.3
19.6
11.2
483.
148.
125.
234.
356.
294.
39.5
28. 2
83.4
119.
25
19.7
31.0
15.4
36.6
22.0
16.7
9.84
6.28
41.3
35.0
26. 1
29.8
211.
230.
18. 9
20.1
16.1
25.0
50
9.81
17.3
8. 79
23.4
15.2
12.1
11.5
5.10
24.4
19.6
11.6
16.7
193.
175.
10.8
5.91
9.60
17.6
75
5.65
16.1
6.86
22. 2
14.1
10.8
10.8
4.51
22.7
21.5
9.81
16.5
191.
176.
7.98
3.66
8.91
15. 3
100
15.5
26.7
15.4
10.8
10.8
4.76
6.64
3.75
54.3
18.0
8.99
15.7
227.
180.
6.08
3.76
8.87
12.7
* Average Emissions for cases in which more than one run was made.
**Emissions from the test engine may be higher than typical for the model due to carburetor setting.
-------
TABLE 5. CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS* FROM SMALL ENGINES BY
LOAD AND SPEED IN MASS RATES (g/hr) AND BRAKE SPECIFIC RATES (g/hphr)
Mass Emissions, g/hr, oy % Full Load
Brake Specific Emissions,
g/hphr, by % Full Load
Engine Speed, rpm
B&S 92908 Idle(1730)
2200
2600
3100
3600
B&S 100202 Idle{1700)
2200
2600
3100
3600
**Kohler K482 Idle(1120)
1800
2300
3000
3600
Tecumseh Idle(3310)
AH 520 3500
4500
Wisconsin Idle(1090)
S-12D 1850
2300
3000
3600
0
189.
23.4
301.
12.5
134.
197.
219.
218.
203.
20.6
547.
944.
910.
1920.
1970.
137.
127.
241.
72. 7
482.
741.
873.
1540.
25
9.50
262.
11.5
347.
151.
166.
23.4
24.7
1320.
1480.
2190.
2080.
280.
400.
524.
556.
841.
1560.
50
6.58
299.
12.2
499.
200.
238.
215.
61.2
1720.
1790.
1750.
1990.
400.
472.
537.
73.8
1260.
2550.
75
6.42
486.
35.7
860.
322.
566.
726.
132.
2980.
I960.
2080.
3460.
487.
524.
647.
64.3
1720.
3490.
100
727.
852.
804.
484.
358.
524.
125.
108.
5500.
3000.
2770.
4710.
568.
642.
916.
446.
2440.
4450.
25
16.1
421.
14.6
461.
275.
229.
26. 0
28.3
576.
508.
608.
316.
576.
706.
308.
327.
350.
624.
50
6.21
233.
7. 77
328.
190.
176.
130.
39.8
383.
311.
250.
312.
502.
530.
168.
21. 7
269.
543.
75
3.21
253.
14.6
380.
208.
286.
309.
59.8
444.
307.
198.
265.
446.
480.
135.
12.9
246.
499.
100
284.
294.
257.
148.
175.
204.
42.4
36.4
618.
335.
199.
539.
372.
390.
141.
59.5
259.
474.
•f Average Emissions for cases in -which more than one run was made.
** Emissions from the test engine may be higher than typical for the model due to carburetor setting
[NJ
o
-------
TABLE 6. OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NOX) EMISSIONS* FROM SMALL ENGINES BY
LOAD AND SPEED IN MASS RATES (g/hr) AND BRAKE SPECIFIC RATES (g/hphr)
Engine
B&S 92908
Mass Emissions, g/hr, by % Full Load
Brake Specific Emissions,
g/hphr, by % Full Load
B&S 100202
Kohler K482
Tecumseh
AH 520
Wisconsin
S-12D
Speed,rprn
Idle(1730)
2200
2600
3100
3600
Idle(1700)
2200
2600
3100
3600
Idle(llZO)
1800
2300
3000
3600
Idle(3310)
3500
4500
Idle(1090)
1850
2300
3000
3600
0
o
i.
0.
1.
4.
n
0.
0.
0.
3.
i
1.
2.
2.
5.
o
0.
0.
o
1.
1.
3.
3.
2Q
10
61
39
30
1 C.
19
61
69
14
OA
37
18
59
44
45
42
92
56
13
67
40
21
25
2.
0.
8.
3.
1.
2.
9.
9.
2.
4.
5.
10.
0.
1.
4.
4.
8.
5.
84
95
30
72
33
40
33
58
09
20
18
6
66
16
24
42
21
42
50
4.
1.
9.
5.
6.
8.
15.
20.
5.
11.
20.
29.
0.
1.
24.
36.
19.
8.
63
31
78
47
04
25
2
7
16
0
0
2
89
38
2
2
1
33
75
7.
1.
25.
4.
7.
6.
7.
32.
4.
47.
51.
32.
1.
1.
52.
69.
36.
8.
46
32
6
68
51
40
88
0
94
0
2
0
31
64
8
0
0
71
10
0
0
2
12
17
12
58
54
4
68
68
42
2
2
63
102
40
15
0
.92
.89
.21
.'5
.9
.8
.0
.0
.42
.5
.3
.4
.58
. 38
. 4
t
. 1
. 5
25
4.
1.
10.
4.
2.
3.
10.
10.
0.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
81
51
5
77
42
35
4
9
91
40
44
74
36
00
49
60
42
17
50
4.
1.
6.
3.
5.
6.
9.
13.
1.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
7.
10.
4.
1.
I
37
01
23
51
75
08
21
4
15
89
86
90
14
56
55
6
06
77
75
3.
0.
10.
1.
4.
3.
3.
14.
0.
5.
4.
2.
1.
1.
11
13
5
1
73
68
4
98
85
24
35
3
74
60
87
88
22
38
.0
.8
. 15
. 24
100
0.36
0.31
0. 70
4. 04
8. 74
4. 96
19.7
18. 1
0. 50
6. 02
4. 91
2. 79
1. 73
1. 48
9. 75
13.6
4.33
1.65
* Average Emissions for cases in which more than one run -was made.
-------
TABLE 7. ALIPHATIC ALDEHYDE (RCHO) EMISSIONS* FROM SMALL ENGINES BY
LOAD AND SPEED IN MASS RATES (g/hr) AND BRAKE SPECIFIC RATES (g/hphr)
Engine Speed, rpm
Mass Emissions, g/hr, by % Full Load
Brake Specific Emissions,
g/hphr, by % Full Load
B&S 92908 Idle(1730)
2200
2600
3100
3600
B&S 100202 Idle(1700)
2200
2600
3100
3600
Kohler K482
Tecumseh
AH 520
Wisconsin
S-12D
1800
2300
3000
3600
Idle(3310)
3500
4500
1850
2300
3000
3600
0
o
0.
0.
o
0.
0.
1
2.
1.
2.
3.
n
0.
1.
n
0.
0.
0.
1.
34
55
61
23
30
50
54
27
30
27
95
86 -
94
27
31
59
88
99
22
25
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
3.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
47
50
30
63
72
97
69
60
17
38
62
78
83
25
50
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
1.
2.
4.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
54
69
36
74
09
07
97
17
40
58
96
39
62
60
75
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
4.
3.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
53
78
58
70
59
25
45
71
64
96
23
54
10
93
100
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
1.
10.
6.
2.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
78
93
58
90
97
91
65
57
72
63
71
87
77
84
25
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
76
65
41
73
75
35
03
67
42
47
36
46
35
50
50
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
42
45
27
48
91
19
42
54
76
79
30
41
34
34
75
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
28
34
30
32
39
39
42
33
51
64
26
51
30
28
101
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
27
29
22
30
67
44
77
42
80
62
26
38
29
30
* Average Emissions for cases in which more than one run was made.
-------
23
The 13-mode composite mass emissions and brake specific
emissions are given in Table 8, including individual runs and averages
for the 5 engines tested. The mode data were weighted according to
the schedule shown in Table 2 to compute the composite results, and
runs were made at two sets of speeds on 4 of the engines to provide a
crude basis for constructing emission maps. A lower set of operating
speeds was not practical for the Tecumseh AH520 because it had a rather
narrow power band, and composite emissions for run 3 on the Wisconsin
S-12D engine (basic data given in Appendix A, p. A-13) were not computed
because the CO data for the run were not usable. The composite data are
not extremely consistent, and the degree of variation seems to be charac-
teristic of all the engines tested rather than just one or two of them. The
average brake specific emissions for 4-stroke engines show reasonable
consistency, however, with variation in NOX over a range of 3-to-l and
variation in the other emissions of about 2-to-l.
The final analysis of the major 13-mode gaseous emissions data
is to take averages of brake specific emissions over the 4-stroke engines
(and list corresponding values for the single 2-stroke engine tested) at
each speed/load condition. The results of this analysis are given in Table
9, and they represent the best estimate of variation in brake specific
emissions with speed and load which can be constructed from the subject
tests. The large differences in characteristic emissions from 2-stroke and
4-stroke engines are again apparent in these data. Had procedures been
more highly developed at the time these data were acquired, power incre-
ments would probably have been 12. 5% rather than 25%. It does not appear
that the closer spacing would have improved understanding of emission
patterns in the 25% to 100% load range, but no doubt the 12. 5% load point
would have been very interesting.
To provide better visualization of the average mode data, they
have been graphed and appear as Figures 21 through 24. Figure 21 shows
hydrocarbon emissions, and it uses a dual ordinate due to the order-of-
magnitude difference in emissions from 2-strokes and 4-strokes. The
reference arrows and different plotting symbols used for Figure 21 should
eliminate confusion if the graph is examined carefully. It should be noted
that percent of full load was chosen as the independent variable because
the four speeds were not always the same for the 4-stroke engines. The
more general speed classifications make it logical to use speed as a para-
meter.
Figure 22 shows CO emissions, with those from the 2-stroke engine
being consistently higher. It is widely held that brake specific CO from
2-strokes should be equal to or lower than that from 4-strokes, so perhaps
the subject comparison should be treated carefully until more data are
available. It might be noted that minimum CO from 2-strokes tends to
occur near rated speed, so the bias of the 13-mode procedure toward lower
speeds (60%) may keep any CO advantage from showing up in composite
-------
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF 13-MODE COMPOSITE EMISSIONS RESULTS FOR SMALL ENGINES
Engine
B&S 92908
B&S 100202
Kohler K482
Tec. AH520
Wise. S-12D
Run
2
3
4
5
Avg.
1
2
3
Avg.
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
Avg.
1
2
Avg.
Rated/
Intermediate
Speeds, rpm
3600/2600
3600/2600
3600/2600
2200/3100
3600/2600
3600/2600
3100/2200
3600/2300
3000/1800
3600/2300
4500/3500
4500/3500
3600/2300
3000/1850
Composite
Mass Emissions, g/hr
HC
29.4
32.6
34. 7
19.3
29. 0
13.5
11.8
18. 8
14.7
122.
198.
136.
152.
176.
140.
158.
52.6
40. 7
46.6
CO
475.
381.
360.
153.
342.
208.
199.
244.
217.
1840.
1980.
2010.
1940.
426.
291.
358.
1250.
840.
1040.
NOX
3.22
1.97
3.55
5. 21
3.49
10.6
13.4
9.95
11.3
29.2
13.7
11.5
18. 1
0.96
1. 35
1. 16
20.4
20.4
20.4
RCHO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 51
.66
.56
--
.58
.61
.55
--
.58
.45
.61
--
.03
. 58
.43
. 50
.45
. 13
.29
Composite
Brake
Specific Emissions, g/hphr
HC
25.8
26.9
28.4
.16.8
24.5
11. 7
9.67
17. 4
12.9
22.9
43. 1
25. 3
30.4
232.
197.
214.
15.6
12.7
14.2
CO
417.
315.
295.
133.
290.
181.
163.
226.
190.
345.
429.
375.
383.
561.
410.
486.
369.
262.
316.
NOX
2.82
1.63
2.91
4. 53
2.98
9.22
11.0
9.21
9.81
5.49
2.97
2. 13
3. 53
1.26
1.90
1.58
6.04
6.35
6. 20
RCHO
0.45
0. 55
0.46
--
0.49
0.53
0.45
0.49
0.46
0.78
- -
0.62
2.07
2. 01
2.04
0.43
0. 35
0. 39
-------
f. IS
A.
X
(Jl
10
® 4-STRODE CAMER.A&E OF A
2- STROKE.
o
2\. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
250
ZOO
150 1
St.
1OO
cO
50
50
PERC
75
OV- FOIL \_OAD
IOO
O
SMAU ENGINLS AS FUNCTIONS OF LOAD AK)D
-------
70O
feOO
50O
_£
A.
JC
O
U
(f\
03
30O
eoo
IOO
2S
I
SO 15
PERCENT OF FUL\_ LOAD
INTERMEDIATE
•O
IOO
21. CO BM\SS>\ONS
SHPvlL
AS FUNCTIONS OF U3Ab AMV> SPEEfc
tx)
-------
fc 5
a-
> 4 h
O -\ -
Z ^ r-
t/l
cO
2 -
O
Ht&H INTERMEDIATE
©4-STRODE^AMERA&t ov 4-
(v ENCHWE)
_L
25"
FIGURE 23. NOX EMISSIONS FROM SM/M-L
50 75
PERCfNl OF FULL LQA.t>
K)tS AS FUNCTIONS OF L0*t>
too
S>f ^E i>
-------
2.5 -
2.O -
1.5
>
o
•Z
u
Cfl
I.O
0.5
INTERMEDIATE
INTERMEDIATE.
04-STROK.E (AMERA&E. OF 4
A 2- STROKE (\
INTERMEDIATE
INTERMEDIATE
J_
_L
O
25
50 75
PERCthn OF FULL LOAD
24. ALDEHYDE EM\S£\ONS FROH SMALL ENGINES AS FUNCTIONS OF LOAt)
IOO
S?FJ£D
00
-------
29
data. The particular engine tested, however, seemed to have higher
CO emissions as engine speed increased, contrary to the common
rule of thumb.
TABLE 9. AVERAGE MODE BRAKE SPECIFIC
EMISSIONS FROM SMALL ENGINES
Const! - Engine
Average 4-Stroke Brake
Specific Emissions
(g/hp hr) at % Load
tuent
HC
CO
NOX
as
N02
RCHO
as
HCHO
Speed
Low Inter.
Intermed.
High Inter.
Rated
Low Inter.
Intermed.
High Inter.
Rated
Low Inter.
Intermed.
High Inter.
Rated
Low Inter.
Intermed.
High Inter.
Rated
25
25.5
25.7
16.9
24.4
294.
371.
250.
357.
2.66
2.22
6.44
5.14
0.56
0.50
0.69
0.64
50
15.1
13.7
10.4
15.7
187.
185.
164.
306.
4.70
4. 90
5.59
5.64
0.60
0.32
0.38
0.45
75
12.6
13.0
9.10
14.6
198.
215.
192.
301.
5.08
5.83
5.94
5. 10
0.32
0. 32
0.38
0.45
100
21.7
13.3
9.98
10.7
304.
223.
189.
299.
4.84
6.22
7.41
6.64
0.46
0.33
0.41
0.33
2-Stroke Brake Specific
Emissions (g/hp hr)
at % Load (1 engine)
25
50
75
100
211. 193. 191. 227.
230.
175. 176.
180.
576. 502. 446. 372.
706. 530. 480. 390.
1.36 1.14 1.22 1.73
2.00 1.56 1.38 1.48
2.42 1.76 1.51 1.80
2.47 1.79 1.64 1.62
The NO emissions depicted by Figure 23 show lower values for
the 2-stroke engine than for the average of the 4-strokes, as expected.
The relatively weak dependence on speed and load for 4-strokes is some-
what surprising, however, and may be due to inability of the carburetion
systems to maintain relatively constant F/A over the range of operating
conditions. This same cause may be associated with scatter in the other
emissions data, as well. Aldehyde emissions, shown in Figure 24, were
quite a bit higher for the small 2-stroke engine tested than for the 4-strokes.
This same trend was observed during other tests on 2-stroke engines con-
ducted under this project, so it comes as no surprise. In Figure 24, as in
the others, any confusion which may exist regarding applicability of the
parameters shown to the corresponding curves can be eliminated by refer-
ence to Table 9.
To complete the presentation of gaseous emissions data, Tables
10
-------
30
through 14 contain average light hydrocarbon emissions from the small
engines on a mode-by-mode wet concentration basis. Most of the data
points represent averages of two or more runs, but some of the 13-mode
data are from one run only. Consistency from run to run was reasonably
good, although the freshness of the fuel had a considerable effect on butane
emissions. Propane concentrations were uniformly low because little
propane was present in the fuel, and because propane is not a common
combustion product.
TABLE 10. AVERAGE LIGHT HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM A BRIGGS & STRATTON 92908 ENGINE
Data Taken During 13-Mode Tests with Mfr's.
Recommended Carburetor Setting
Engine
Speed, rpm
Idle (1710)
2600
3600
Wet Concentration by
Load
None
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
Data Taken
Fuel-Air
Mixture
Lean Best
Power
Rich
Lean
CH4
1180
848
488
535
786
871
373
363
560
832
497
During
C2H6
52
52
25
25
26
28
64
43
46
26
29
9 -Mode
C2H4
405
364
208
212
259
269
409
283
249
274
241
Tests
C3H8
5
3
3
4
3
5
3
4
5
3
5
at Rated
Wet Concentration by
Load
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
CH4
284
362
252
693
645
306
154
358
141
C2H6
31
32
36
30
42
40
49
45
48
C2H4
178
Z10
179
266
254
240
236
280
248
C3H8
1
1
2
3
11
1
1
2
2
Species,
C2H2 <
954
487
315
293
352
408
309
270
319
367
298
Engine
Species,
C2H2 <
142
207
190
302
317
187
129
211
127
ppm
C3H6
143
140
83
99
87
90
164
112
119
98
108
rpm
, C4Hjo
78
30
31
39
33
56
20
37
39
26
36
(3600)
ppm
C3H£
102
100
102
124
130
75
124
126
97
, C4Hi0
3Z
31
27
23
52
10
23
14
42
The application of the light hydrocarbon data for the purposes of
this project is primarily determining the fraction of total hydrocarbons
which could be classed as combustion products rather than unburned fuel.
Such a determination could be useful in estimating the overall reactivity
of the exhaust hydrocarbons, if desired. Since butane is almost entirely an
unburned fuel constituent, and since propane is present in such small amounts,
-------
31
the remaining analysis will concentrate on only five compounds (methane,
ethane, ethene, acetylene, and propene). The mole percentages of total
hydrocarbons (on a per carbon atom basis) which are actually light hydro-
carbon combustion products are given in Table 15. Some other products
of combustion having higher molecular weights are undoubtedly present,
but the analysis used for this project could not measure them. Most
studies on exhaust hydrocarbon composition, however, indicate that a
large percentage of heavier hydrocarbons are in fact unburned fuel.
Consequently, the compounds analyzed probably give a good indication of
the level of combustion products compared to total hydrocarbons.
TABLE 11. AVERAGE LIGHT HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM A BRIGGS & STRATTON 100202 ENGINE
Data Taken During 13-Mode Tests with Mfr's.
Recommended Carburetor Setting
Engine
Speed, rpm
Idle (1680)
2600
3600
Data
Fuel -Air
Mixture
Lean Best
Power
Rich
Lean
Wet Concentration by Species,
Load
None
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
Taken
Load
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
CH4
TT3TJ
523
320
167
300
324
91
92
74
114
108
During 9
CH4
154
78
89
230
195
267
106
40
261
C2H6
-~58~
36
28
18
28
20
25
32
22
16
31
-Mode
Wet
C2H£
24
21
22
20
28
32
22
12
43
, C2H4
438
200
202
110
202
234
119
140
127
99
129
Tests at
£3%
3
2
1
1
5
1
1
0
0
0
Rated
C2H2 C
11 30
352
286
128
230
333
114
110
96
110
91
ppm
3H6
140
90
72
50
90
108
42
50
52
50
60
C4H10
58
22
14
10
16
60
6
12
8
15
26
Engine rpm (3600)
Concentration by Species,
, C2H4
137
126
106
145
144
184
128
112
243
C3H8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
C2H2 C
100
80
89
168
141
78
90
56
172
ppm
3H6
67
57
37
70
77
84
59
45
92
C4H10
10
8
4
10
12
14
9
3
14
As expected, the percentage of total hydrocarbons present as
combustion products is substantially higher for 4-stroke engines than for
the 2-stroke engine, due to the comparatively large amount of fuel being
short-circuited in the 2-stroke engine. The concentrations of these five
compounds were similar for both types of engines, however, but the butane
-------
32
TABLE 12. AVERAGE LIGHT HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM A KOHLER K482 ENGINE
Data
Taken During
Recommended
Engine
Speed, rpm
Idle (1130)
1800
2300
3000
3600
Data
Fuel -Air
Mixture
Lean Best
Power
Rich
Lean
13 -Mode
Tests with
Carburetor
Wet Concentration
Load
None
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
CH4
3130
2660
1200
703
978
3000
635
802
3180
256
170
969
509
352
590
404
4970
2790
295
4080
1630
Taken During 9-
C2H6
207
178
22
56
47
29
381
20
17
59
19
63
23
27
63
49
33
33
29
26
20
C2H4 C
1680
1390
279
208
375
413
275
197
167
19
124
405
207
207
299
207
257
224
169
2310
190
by
3H;
9
T~
3
6
6
7
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
Setting
Species
8 C2H2
2140
1210
598
293
813
938
656
1890
236
134
96
969
302
188
204
197
882
246
155
297
216
Mfr's.
, ppm
, C3H6
467
197
77
49
65
75
112
74
62
86
61
162
110
96
77
78
105
121
87
112
79
C4H10
295
57~
17
17
27
39
24
19
27
21
9
44
22
13
14
11
15
19
10
25
10
Mode Tests at Rated Engine rpm (3600)
Wet Concentration
Load
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
CH4
436
337
736
408
306
647
339
312
422
C2H£
16
29
45
22
22
35
20
46
25
C2H4 C
138
203
186
195
146
275
161
166
172
3Hj
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
by Species, ppm
3 C2H2
178
173
372
198
194
537
176
104
272
C3H6
84
95
113
83
102
110
86
51
105
C4Hio
20
11
22
11
24
15
26
7
28
concentrations (reflecting unburned fuel concentrations) were about 10 times
higher for the 2-stroke engine than for the 4-strokes. The relative
concentrations of compounds by category is also interesting, with
-------
33
paraffinic compounds highest, followed in order by olefins and the only
alkyne measured (acetylene).
B. Smoke Emissions (2-stroke engine only) and
Particulate Emissions
Smoke emitted by the Tecumseh AH520 type 1448 engine, a small
2-stroke, was measured using the PHS full-flow smokemeter. Before
going into the numerical results by mode, some idea of the appearance
of smoke emitted by the engine can be gained by examining Figures 25
through 28. In numerical order, these photographs show smoke which
registered 2%, 3%, 5%, and 6% opacity on the smokemeter's recorder
TABLE 13. AVERAGE LIGHT HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM A TECUMSEH AH520 ENGINE
Data Taken During
Rec ommended
13-Mode Tests with Mfr's.
Carburetor Setting
Engine
Speed, rpm
Idle (3310)
3500
4500
Data
Fuel-Air
Mixture
Lean Best
Power
Rich
Lean
Load
None
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
Taken
CH4
412
211
258
300
306
230
641
350
350
219
273
During
Wet
C2H6
71
66
46
31
48
38
115
60
68
40
48
9 -Mode
Concentration by Species, ppm
C2H4
280
332
242
186
224
238
428
256
288
166
295
Tests at
C3H8
4
4
4
4
18
2
8
6
34
24
3
Rated
Wet Concentration
Load
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
CH4
240
245
312
242
355
332
230
190
174
C2H6
92
87
114
25
42
60
148
106
83
C2H4
346
346
397
143
201
309
610
382
308
C3H8
12
6
74
13
7
5
10
10
6
C2H2
406
429
204
214
193
114
364
455
354
162
128
Engine
C3H6
233
180
179
127
181
216
258
252
212
156
210
C4H10
203
174
232
220
245
374
136
268
210
250
232
rpm (4500)
by Species, ppm
C2H2
77
88
366
190
210
206
73
108
74
C3H6
290
256
522
180
267
175
420
283
188
C4Hi0
174
101
222
174
226
64
146
131
114
-------
34
TABLE 14. AVERAGE LIGHT HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM A WISCONSIN S-12D ENGINE
Data Taken During 13-Mode Tests with Mfr's.
Recommended Carburetor Setting
Engine
Speed, rpm
Idle (1070)
1850
2300
3000
3600
Load
None
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
None
25%
50%
75%
100%
CH4
184
613
333
271
201
251
598
347
225
123
157
554
371
373
311
433
587
455
520
570
647
Wet
C2H&
37
49
23
22
18
20
55
37
27
15
20
62
37
28
30
20
49
36
21
22
17
Concentration by
C2H4
175
296
168
173
140
140
357
214
162
116
135
396
227
214
185
191
367
251
210
220
225
C3H8
3
5
1
1
0
0
7
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
0
3
3
1
1
4
Species,
C2H2 C
153
469
211
152
101
108
381
189
164
69
70
384
196
189
126
188
404
226
236
235
250
ppm
3H6
92
127
81
75
79
76
154
103
70
32
52
181
104
113
91
95
152
110
100
98
94
C4Hi0
42
32
23
11
12
13
25
15
7
4
5
30
18
18
20
16
20
19
13
21
14
Data Taken During 9-Mode Tests at Rated Engine Speed (3600)
Fuel-Air
Mixture
Lean Best
Powe r
Rich
Lean
Load
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
None
50%
100%
CH4
441
377
531
420
614
253
131
424
349
Wet
C2H6
25
22
50
20
30
20
28
20
34
Concentration by
C2H4
209
196
194
208
246
140
128
187
208
C3H8
2
0
4
1
2
0
1
0
0
Species,
C2H2 C
170
179
347
213
286
109
110
184
141
ppm
3^6
95
88
137
98
110
76
64
92
102
C4H10
15
12
24
52
24
14
26
15
22
-------
35
Compound
CH4
C2H6
C2H4
C2H2
C3H6
Total
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF LIGHT HYDROCARBON
ANALYSIS FOR SMALL ENGINES
Mole % of Total Hydrocarbons (ppmC) as Several Compounds
B&S B&S Kohler Wise. Avg. four Tecum,
92908 100202 K482 S-12D 4-strokes AH520
7.9
9.8
7. 0
0. 7
4. 1
29.5
7.4
13.5
10. 9
1.9
6.3
40.0
8. 7
10. 3
7. 2
1.4
3.9
31. 5
7. 2
7.9
8. 7
1.3
6.0
7.8
10.4
8.4
1. 3
5. 1
0.9
1.6
1.4
0.4
1.6
31. 1
33.0
5.9
trace while the pictures were being taken. This white smoke, which probably
consists mainly of oil droplets, seems more visible for a given opacity value
than black smoke is. Two factors which help to account for the difference
are that white smoke exhibits much stronger "forward" scattering than
black smoke does, and that a given opacity level of white smoke may con-
tain a substantially higher concentration of particles than an equivalent
opacity level of black smoke(H). The greater visibility may also be due
partially to greater contrast with the background than would be the case
for black smoke.
In scrutinizing the opacity values attached to the photos and those
given in tabular form later, it should also be noted that they are based on a
plume issuing from a 1 inch diameter stack. For comparison, smoke
measurements taken on diesel engines are usually on plumes issuing from
stacks 2 inches to 5 inches in diameter. During the smoke measurements
(as well as the gaseous emissions tests), the Tecumseh engine was operated
on a fuel mixture of 16 parts gasoline to 1 part oil (240 ml oil per gallon
gasoline). The particular oil used was Harley-Davidson SAE 40 2-stroke
engine oil, chosen because it was available when needed, not because of
assumed greater applicability to the engine under test than other oils.
Average opacity data are given in Table 16 for a number of conditions, and
the LBP data were averaged over both 13-mode and 9-mode operation. The
fuel/air ratio seemed to have a significant effect on smoke, with richer
mixtures consistently producing higher opacity. The effects of engine speed
and load, however, appeared to be mixed.
Data on particulate emissions from all the small engines are given
in Table 17. They display somewhat more scatter than the data for other
categories (which was acquired later), due to both instability of engine
operation and the lack of some detail refinements made to the sampler and
the technique in the interim. The data in general do not seem to depend
-------
36
Figure 25. 2% Opacity Smoke
from Tecumseh 2-stroke Engine
Figure 26. 3% Opacity Smoke
from Tecumseh 2-stroke Engine
Figure 27. 5% Opacity Smoke
from Tecumseh 2-stroke Engine
Figure 28. 6% Opacity Smoke
from Tecumseh 2-stroke Engine
-------
37
TABLE 16. AVERAGE SMOKE OPACITY FROM A TECUMSEH AH520
2-STROKE ENGINE, 1-INCH DIAMETER PIPE
Engine % Opacity at % Max. Load
F/A Mixture Speed, rpm 0 50 100
LBP 3500 5.8 3.5 3.5
4500 2.7 3.7 4.5
Rich 3500 6.5 5.5 6.0
4500 6.2 4.2 5.8
Lean 3500 1.5 2.0 2.5
4500 1.8 1.8 2.8
strongly on engine speed, but a positive relationship between power output
and particulate concentration does seem to exist.
The results for the 4-stroke engines are fairly consistent, with the
single vertical-crankshaft engine (Briggs & Stratton 92908) a little higher
than the others. The 2-stroke emitted particulate at a considerably higher
rate, however, presumably due to the presence of lubricating oil droplets
in the exhaust. Most of the filters used for collecting particulate from the
4-strokes were colored a tan or light brown color by the exhaust (they were
originally white), but the exhaust from the 2-stroke engine colored the
filters a dull yellow. Data on the small engines correlate quite well with
those acquired on other types of 2- and 4-stroke engines tested under this
project, including motorcycles and industrial engines.
C. Emissions During Transients
The reason for measuring emissions during transients is to determine
whether or not they exceed steady-state emissions to such an extent that they
could be significant to the overall emissions from small engines. It is
generally accepted that transient conditions make up only a relatively small
fraction of the total operating time of small engines, so to be significant,
an excursion would have to be considerably outside normal values for
steady-state modes.
Graphs depicting small engine transient emissions (HC on a wet
basis, CO and NO on a dry basis) are given in Appendix C. It can be
assumed that engine rpm, load, and emissions are constant (stabilized)
to the left and right of the time intervals over which the graphs are drawn.
Note that on most of these plots there is a measurable lag between change
in engine operation and a corresponding change in emissions. This time
lag can be attributed to recorder and instrument response, residence time
-------
38
TABLE 17. PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM SMALL UTILITY ENGINES
Individual Results, mg/SCF Exhaust
Condition
Engine
B&S
92908
B&S
100202
Kohler
K482
Tecumseh
AH520
Wisconsin
S-12D
rpm
1700
3000
3000
1700
2200
2200
2600
2600
3100
3100
3600
3600
1600
1600
2300
2300
3000
3000
3300
3600
3300
3500
3500
4500
4500
4500
1150
1850
1850
2300
2300
2300
3000
3000
3600
3600
3600
Load
None
None
Full
None
None
Full
None
Full
None
Full
None
Full
None
Full
None
Full
Half
Full
None
Full
None
Half
Full
None
Half
Full
None
None
Full
None
Half
Full
None
Full
None
Half
Full
Run
1
2.39
3. 18
3.68
1. 77
1.62
1. 80
0.46
1.88
1.43
1. 71
1. 56
2. 54
2.09
1.90
1. 10
2.93
0. 92
3.95
0. 61
1.76
20. 3
31. 1
46.4
22. 3
26.7
30. 1
0. 94
0. 35
3. 13
0. 88
1. 04
2.41
1. 30
1. 74
1.63
0. 72
1. 13
Run
2
2. 11
2.64
2.97
2.29
2.42
1.41
0.76
1.21
2. 33
1.89
3.79
1. 02
2. 90
1. 80
1.81
1.82
0.44
2.45
0. 39
0.85
26. 1
31.0
61. 0
21.7
27. 1
40.0
0. 87
1.89
1.28
1.45
2. 25
1.76
1. 73
2. 31
1. 82
1.49
1. 55
Run
3
2.05
5.65
5.99
2.08
2.22
3. 07
--
2.84
--
--
--
2. 33
2.66
--
0.62
1.91
0. 50
--
40.9
35. 5
48. 7
24. 5
22. 7
31. 1
1. 75
0.62
--
0.81
--
--
0.63
--
0.98
--
--
Run Run Run
456
1.84
3.55 3.37 --
4.96 3.58 --
__
._
__
__
__
--
__
--
..
__
__
__
0.39
1.64 3.27 --
0.50
__
30.1 31.9 --
--
60.4
__
__
26.5
1.49 1.16 0.88
0.56
__
1.09
__
._
1.40
__
--
__
__
Average
mg/SCF
2. 10
3.68
4.24
2.05
2. 09
2.09
0.61
1. 78
1. 88
1.80
2.68
1. 76
2. 55
1.85
1.46
2. 38
0. 59
2.64
0. 50
1. 31
29.9
32. 5
54. 1
22. 8
25. 5
31.9
1. 18
0.86
2. 20
1.06
1.64
2.08
1.24
2.02
1.48
1. 10
1.34
-------
39
in the sample lines, and time for the gases to come to equilibrium in the
exhaust "mixing chamber". These contributions to the time lag are listed
in the assumed order of increasing importance.
Although some definite excursions do occur in the graphs, most of
them do not represent a total amount of emissions (perhaps expressed as
average concentration above the line connecting initial and final values,
multiplied by the peak duration) which would affect the overall picture very
much. Unless it is shown that transients constitute an unexpectedly large
percentage of operating time by some subsequent study, they can probably
be neglected for calculation of emissions impact.
The last two graphs in Appendix C, Figures C-20 and C-21, show
emissions during a cold start and idle for the Briggs & Stratton 92908 lawn-
mower engine. The ambient temperature was somewhat lower when run
CSl (upper) was conducted (75° F) than when run CS2 was conducted (90° F),
which probably accounts for part of the difference in the two curves.
These graphs show that the engine warms up rapidly after starting (even
at slow idle), and this fact plus the relative infrequency of cold starts
and the moderate excursions mean that cold starts probably have little
significance in overall small engine emission levels. It is likely that
many other air-cooled engines such as motorcycle engines, would exhibit
the same sort of rapid warmup, making cold starts relatively unimportant.
-------
40
V. ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS AND NATIONAL IMPACT
To determine emission factors for small engines individually,
mass emissions data based on an assumed operating cycle are required.
Extending available data to the population of small engines further re-
quires knowledge of the breakdown of the population according to size
and type. Estimation of national impact depends not only oru£rnis_sion
rates, but also on. to_tal._engine population and average annual usage.
The type of analysis described here results in factors and estimates
on a brake specific basis. It is not considered reasonable to attempt an
analysis based on fuel consumed, since fuel used in small engines is
largely sold with automotive fuels and thus cannot be quantified.
A. Development of Emission Factors
The engines tested in the small engine part of the project were
chosen on the basis of manufacturer's recommendations, an assessment
of current small engine market as given in several sources^ ^» ^' *^» ',
and a desire to represent to some extent the size range of currently avail-
able small engines. The engine choices were also made to coincide in part
with engine models tested at the Bureau of Mines Bartlesville Research
Station in a cooperative program with the SAE Small Engine Sub-
committeeO). Each of the engines is probably used in a variety of
ways, although records on the end uses of engines are difficult to find.
The Briggs & Stratton 92908 is used primarily on walking rotary
lawnmowers, and in that application it is probably the single most popular
small engine in use nationwide. The Briggs & Stratton 100202 engine is
typical of engines used on small electric generators, compressors, pumps,
reel-type lawnmowers, and minibikes (although Briggs & Stratton generally
does not supply engines to manufacturers for minibike use). The Kohler
K482 is typical of engines used on portable generators and mobile refrigera-
tion units. The Tecumseh AH520 Type 1448 is used primarily on snow
throwers, and the Wisconsin S-12D is typical of engines used in garden
tractors, portable generators, and other applications. The engines tested
are widely used, they include products of several manufacturers, and they
are varied regarding size and type, but they do not represent a statistical
sample of small engines used in the United States. This contract is not
intended to gather baseline data on the entire category of small engines, but
rather to make a comprehensive study of a few engines.
The category of engines in question here includes household, lawn
and garden, industrial, agricultural, and recreational applications of small
2-stroke and 4-stroke gasoline-fueled utility engines. The category does
not include motorcycles, outboard motors, chain saws, snowmobiles, or
ATV's. The category does include minibikes except those powered by
motorcycle engines.
-------
41
Duty cycles of small engines are as varied as their applications,
so this is an area which calls for a sound estimate based on the best
available information or the alternative large research effort. The con-
cepts of duty cycles, load factors, and test procedures, while certainly
not identical, are all tied together closely when it comes to emissions
measurements. Ideally, a separate duty cycle could be developed for
each engine application oy monitoring speeds and loads on a large sample
of engines during typical operation, out this task has not yet been under-
taken. For the purposes of the present analysis, one test procedure
which approximates widely-encountered duty cycles should oe sufficient.
Many small engines, perhaps the numerical majority, are of the vertical-
crankshaft type, rated from 3 to 3.5 hp, and used primarily on rotary
lawnmowers. This application must be given strong consideration in
determining an average duty cycle and load factor, and unlike most of
the other applications, some information is available on the load factor
involved in mowing grass.
Briggs & Stratton Corporation conducted a series of tests to
determine power required for grass-cutting by first measuring fuel
consumed during the mowing operation and then correlating engine power
output with fuel consumption by dynamometer operation. This procedure
showed that, on the average, about one hp is used in cutting grass'^1-1).
For engines rated at 3 to 4 horsepower which will probably produce 85%
of rated power at normal ambient conditions, the one hp output means
a load factor of 30% to 40%. Maximum crankshaft speeds in rotary mower
application are frequently limited by safety considerations, especially
when the olade exceeds 20 inches in length. For a 22 inch mower, for
example, maximum governed speed would generally be set at 3300 rpm
or less to prevent blade tip speed from exceeding 19, 000 feet per minute,
a generally-accepted maximum. Crankshaft speed and power output can
be relatively steady if the grass density and length remain constant and
if the ground is even, but power or speed or both will change if the other
factors do. Except for relatively light grass on flat ground, speed and
load can be expected to vary to some extent.
Some of the remaining applications of small engines, such as
pumping, electric power generation, refrigeration, and blower service
are characterized by constant-speed, constant-load operation at medium
to high power levels. The manufacturers of small engines generally do
not recommend sustained operation of their products at more than 80 or
85% of rated power, and in most cases manufacturers who use small
engines in their end products do not count on the engines for more than
50 to 60% of rated power for continuous operation. Other applications,
such as recreational vehicles, garden tractors, and motortillers make
use of a variety of engine speeds and loads, and it is difficult to say what
a fair load factor or operating sequence might be.
-------
42
While it is not obvious just what the perfect duty cycle and test
prodecure for small engines should be, it is obvious that operation only
at rated speed does not represent real operation of most small engines.
It seems reasonable that a test procedure encompassing a range of
speeds and loads is more representative of the real situation, and so
mass emissions values generated during operation on the modified
EMA 13-mode cycle will be used in developing factors and estimates.
That is, all the data generated during 13-mode runs will be used including
runs with revised speeds (or "mapping" runs), but the 9-mode data from
this program and from the SAE tests will not be used. Another reason
for this choice is that the 40% load factor inherent in the EMA-type cal-
culations seems much more reasonable than the over-50% factor assumed
by the writers of SAE paper 720198 (that is, the emissions numbers used
by the writers were generated while the engines were producing 50-70%
of rated power).
As part of the test program emissions from several of
the small engines were measured under transient conditions. These
measurements showed that, in general, emissions during transients
changed quite smoothly between values expected during steady-state
runs at the starting and ending conditions. Some of the measurements
showed a "hump" or a brief excursion of unexpectedly high concentrations
of CO and/or hydrocarbons during the transient, but these excursions
generally did not last long enough to become really significant in the
overall picture. A complicating factor here was the presence of the ex-
haust mixing chamber, which undoubtedly tended to prolong the indicated
emissions changes for the smaller engines. The same general com-
ments apply to cold starts for small engines, that is, emissions may
be outside normal limits briefly, but not to so great an extent that the
overall emissions are altered significantly by the cold start. It should
also be recognized that small air-cooled engines require a far shorter
time to achieve normal operating temperature than do automotive power-
plants, due to the absence of water jacketing and much smaller overall
bulk. For the purposes of this project, then, emissions during transients
will not be considered in developing factors.
In the raw data on small engine emissions, both formaldehyde
(HCHO) and total aliphatic aldehyde (ECHO) concentrations are reported.
Since the latter concentration value includes the former, it has been
decided to use the RCHO concentration and the molecular weight of for-
maldehyde to arrive at mass-based aldehyde emissions. The reason for
this procedure is that not all the structures of the molecules are known,
so a molecular weight per carbonyl group must be assumed in order to
convert from concentration to mass. When mass emissions are presented,
then, RCHO will be given "as HCHO" in much the same way as NOX is
given "as NO£. "
The report on small engine tests conducted by the Bureau of
Mines'^' has been reviewed in some detail, and it appears that raw
-------
43
data from that study agree quite well with raw data generated under
this contract for those modes which can be compared directly. It is
difficult to utilize some of the data in the Bureau of Mines report be-
cause the mid- and low-power points used for the smaller engines are
not the same as those used in tests under this contract, and because
only the single 3600 rpm speed was used. In addition, the lean and rich
off-design conditions specified in the SAE small engine emissions meas-
urement procedure are useful for research, but not for characterization,
so two-thirds of the Bureau of Mines data and the same fraction of the
SAE procedures conducted in the subject program cannot be used directly
here. In order to make certain that engines tested under the subject
contract were typical, emissions measured under conditions directly
comparable to some of those used in the Bureau of Mines tests were
calculated in terms of g/rated hp hr and compared to the earlier resultsU>3.
In most cases agreement was quite good, with the engines tested
under this contract falling within the range reported for similar engines
in the Bureau of Mines-SAE work.
For the purpose of determining emission factors, each of the
three engine groups was assumed to be composed of test engines in dif-
ferent proportions. It was assumed that the lawn and garden/4-stroke
category was made up of 90% Briggs & Stratton 92908 engines and 10%
Briggs & Stratton 100202 engines; that the lawn and garden/2-stroke
category was entirely Tecumseh AH520 Type 1448 engines; and that
the miscellaneous/4-stroke category was composed of 10% B & S 92908,
14% Wisconsin S-12D, 74% B & S 100202, and 2% Kohler K482 engines.
The composition estimates were made on the basis of limited production
and sales information, so their accuracy is questionable, but emissions
from the test engines were similar enough to make the impact estimates
relatively insensitive to category composition. All the factors were
derived as explained above except that the NOX factor for the Briggs &
Stratton 100202 engine was changed from 9.81 to 4.65 for computation
purposes due to the atypical lean mixture this particular engine seemed
to prefer (which caused high NOX emissions). The factor was altered
by correcting it to values which correspond to the "rich" portion of the
9-mode tests rather than the "lean best power" carburetor setting used
in 13-mode tests. This change is well justified by both the Bureau of
Mines data and the information developed under this contract, and is
consistent with the idea that emission factors based on small samples
should be conservative.
Particulate emissions from small engines were measured using
an experimental dilution-type particulate sampler, but due to considerable
scatter present in the data and a relatively small backlog of experience
with the instrument, care must be taken not to overstate the accuracy
which has been achieved. The engines were not operated on a fixed test
procedure, primarily because the number of repetitions of each condition
considered necessary would have made the time required prohibitive.
-------
44
Within this framework, then, 2.5 mg/SCF exhaust for small 4-stroke
engines and 25 mg/SCF exhaust for small 2-stroke engines seem to be
reasonable estimates based on available data. In order to relate exhaust
volume to some more usable term, exhaust mass generated during the
modified EMA 13-mode tests was converted to SCF/hr (assuming that
the exhaust molecular weight equalled that of air). These volume rates
were then divided by the weighted power output to determine volume of
exhaust per unit of work produced in SCF/hp hr, and weighted means
of 175 SCF/hp hr and 285 SCF/hp hr were calculated for 4-stroke and
2-stroke engines, respectively. Combining these relationships with the
above concentration figures, the "brake specific particulate" estimate
for small 4-stroke engines is 0.44 g/hp hr, and that for small 2-stroke
engines is 7. 1 g/hp hr. Given that these estimates are based only on the
5 test engines, it is assumed implicitly that the 4-stroke engines in ques-
tion do not consume large quantities of lubricating oil and that the fuel:
oil ratio of 16:1 is typical of small air-cooled 2-stroke engines.
All the material in this section thus far has dealt with exhaust
emissions, but evaporative losses remain to be computed. These losses
will not be included with exhaust hydrocarbon emission factors, but they
will be included as a separate number in the impact calculations. Using
the loss factor of 2. 0 g HC/(gallon tank volume day) which was developed
in section III. D. , along with the fuel tank volumes shown in Table 18,
diurnal losses were calculated and also appear in Table 18. The ap-
proximate average molecular weight of the hydrocarbons evaporated
from standard emissions test fuel with an Rvp of 9. 0 is about
58 g/g mole(°), which means that the average molecule evaporated
is somewhere near butane in structure.
TABLE 18. SMALL, ENGINE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION ESTIMATES
Standard Tank Evaporative Hydrocarbon
Engine Volume, gal. Emissions, g/day
B & S 92908 0. 25 0. 5
B & S 100202 0.75 1.5
Kohler K482 *3.50 7.0
Tecum. AH520 *0. 25 0.5
Wise. S-12D 2. 75 5.5
* No standard tank available - volume assumed.
Due to the predominance of engines similar to the Briggs &
Stratton 92908 in the lawn and garden category, all these engines will
be assumed to have 1-quart tanks for estimates of factors and impact.
The remaining engines will be assumed to have 1 gallon tank capacity
for each 6 rated horsepower, an average figure for a large number of
small engines used in light-duty applications. Evaporative emissions
from small lawn and garden engines are seasonal, and they should occur
-------
45
over the same season as engine usage. Fuel left in the tank will change
composition in a matter of days to the point where significant evaporation
no longer occurs, so it should make little difference whether or not fuel
is left in the tank during the off-season. Evaporative emissions from the
small engines used in other than lawn and garden applications will like-
wise be assumed to be seasonal.
Emissions of sulfur oxides (SOX) have been calculated using the
method outlined in section III. D. and a calculated fuel consumption for
each category of small engines. These fuel consumption figures were
computed using data from the 13-mode tests on the five small engines,
and they are assumed typical of the population for purposes of this report.
Emission factors for small engines which are based on all the
foregoing analysis, data, and assumptions are given in Table 19. Most
of the major variations between engine types have already been discussed
in section IV, so it remains only to note the differences between the two
categories of 4-stroke engines. These differences are primarily due to
rather heavy weighting of the miscellaneous group toward the Briggs &
Stratton 100202 and Wisconsin S-12D engines on a power basis, whereas
the lawn and garden group is weighted mostly toward the Briggs fk
Stratton 92908 engine. Since so few engines were tested, the degree to
which these estimates represent the real population in the field is not
known.
B. Estimation of National Impact
In addition to the emission data already developed, estimation of
national impact requires data on the population of engines in service and
their breakdown according to size and type. The best current sources for
this type of information are the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute"3 and
the U.S. Department of Commerce. (1$» !"• 1 ?) The latter source was
used along with an assumed engine life of five years to arrive at population
estimates used in SAE paper 720198(2), and these estimates are shown
in Table 20. The Industrial Reports referenced in SAE paper 720198 were
for 1968 and earlier, so the populations estimated in Table 20 can probably
be assumed to apply to 1968.
Information on sales and populations from OPEI press releases^ ^)
is summarized in Table 21, indicating fairly stable sales for walking
mowers and motor tillers. Sales of garden tractors (assumed to be larger
than lawn tractors) and snow throwers appear to be increasing somewhat
more rapidly. Finally, a more detailed analysis of small engine production
(up to 15hp or 26 in3 displacement) for the years 1966 through 1970 is
given in Table 22. (I3' Although the coverage of each set of statistics dif-
fers somewhat from the others, it appears that there is no substantial
-------
46
TABLE 19. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SMALL UTILITY ENGINES
Pollutant
Hydrocarbons
(Exhaust Only)
CO
NOX as NO
RCHO as
HCHO
Particulate
*SOX as SO2
Engine Application/Type
Lawn & Garden/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/Z-stroke
Miscellaneous/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/2-stroke
Miscellaneous/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/4-stroke
Lawn & Gar den/2-stroke
Miscellaneous/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/4-stroke
Lawn &: Garden/2-stroke
Miscellaneous/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/2-stroke
Miscellaneous/4-stroke
Lawn &; Garden/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/2-stroke
Miscellaneous/4-stroke
Brake Specific
Emissions, g/hp hr
23. 2
214.
15. 2
279-
486.
250.
3.17
1.58
4.97
0.49
2.04
0.47
0.44
7.1
0.44
0.37
0.54
0.39
* Not measured - calculated on basis of 0. 043% fuel sulfur content
by weight (10).
TABLE 20. PREVIOUS ESTIMATES OF NATIONWIDE SMALL
ENGINE POPULATIONS (1968)(2)
Engine Type
Lawn and Garden, 4-stroke
Lawn and Garden, 2-stroke
Miscellaneous, 4-stroke
Average Rated hp Engines in Service
3.43
3.43
3.86
36,200, 000
2,500*. 000
5,550,000
Total
44,250,000
-------
47
TABLE 21. OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT SALES AND
POPULATION ESTIMATES*12^
Sales or Population for Sales Year
ending in Calendar Year (in Millions)
Type of Equipment *1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967
Walking mowers 5.45 5.2 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.56 4.9
Lawn tractors and 0.74 0.68 0.875 0.95 1.0 0.93 0.25
riding mowers
Garden tractors 0. 265 0. 25 ** ** ** ** **
Total lawn & garden 6.455 6.13 5.575 5.65 5. 7 5.49 5.15
Estimated total in use 43.
Motor tillers 0.43 0.43 0.365 0.365 0.375 0.375 0.350
Snow throwers 0.33 0.315 0. 265 0.245 0. 265 0. 255 0. 185
* predictions
** included with lawn tractors and riding mowers
TABLE 22. BREAKDOWN OF 1966-1970 SMALL ENGINE PRODUCTION
BY APPLICATION*13)
Number Percent of
Application Produced x 10"^_ Total
Riding mower 2.84 7.1
Walking mower 23.67 59.4
Garden tractor 1.19 3.0
Motor tiller 1. 70 4.3
Snow thrower 1.18 3.0
Other lawn fc garden 1. 31 3. 3
Total lawn & garden 31.89 80.0
Recreation 1.10 2.8
Industrial 2.65 6.6
Agriculture 0.97 2.4
Miscellaneous 3. 27 8. 2
Total 39.88 100.0
-------
48
disagreement. If it is assumed that the technique resulting in Table 20 is
accurate enough for the purposes of this report and that a 15% increase
in engine population has occurred since the end of 1968, then estimates
of the current population can be calculated. The results of these calcu-
lations are given in Table 23, and they will be assumed to apply for
calculation of national emissions impact.
TABLE 23. ESTIMATES OF CURRENT SMALL ENGINE
POPULATIONS (12/31/72)
Engine Type Engines in Service
Lawn & Garden, 4-stroke 41,600,000
Lawn & Garden, 2-stroke 2,880,000
Miscellaneous, 4-stroke 6, 380, OOP
Total 50,900,000
The last few years have seen an increase in the number of garden
tractor and riding lawn mower sales, both of which would tend to increase
the average power of engines sold. There has been a corresponding in-
crease, however, in the number of snow throwers and other applications
of smaller engines, which would tend to decrease the average power of
engines sold. The net effect of these changes on average power is probably
negligible, so the power figures given in Table 20 will be adopted for use
in impact calculations.
Accurate information on annual usage of small engines is not
available in any of the references uncovered during the course of this
contract. The effort required to obtain such data would be very great,
and it remains to be seen if such an effort is justified solely on the basis
of increased accuracy in estimating emissions from small engines. The
SAE estimate of 50 hours operation per year as an overall average in this
small engine category seems reasonable, and no data are available which
indicate otherwise. In order to check this estimate for a given application,
several reasonable smaller assumptions could be made and another result
calculated as shown in the example below for lawnmowers.
Assumptions: 1. each residential lawn covers 10,000 ft
2. to account for commercial usage (plants,
schools, etc.) and sharing among families,
each mower cuts 2 lawn areas
3. each mower cuts a 15-inch swath after
correcting for overlap, corners, etc.
4. mower speed is 2 ft/sec
5. grass growing season is 180 days
6. cutting interval during season is 10 days
-------
49
annual usage = area cut x cuttings per year x
area cut/unit time
- in nnn ft-2 ~> 180 days 1 1 hr 12 in
= 10, 000 if* x 2 x <-— x x x
10 days 15 in(2 ft/sec) 3600 sec 1 ft
- 40 hours
Another way of performing such a set of calculations might be to find the
number of single-family dwelling units, schools, parks, churches, etc. ,
and assign an arbitrary area to each one. One could then assume a value
for grass-cutting speed (area per unit time) and arrive at a total usage
for all lawnmowers. No matter which procedure is employed, basic as-
sumptions must be made in lieu of extensive research. Considering that
engines used in some applications (such as snow throwers and edgers)
are probably used less than lawnmowers, and that engines in other ap-
plications (such as recreational, industrial, and agricultural) are probably
used more than lawnmowers, the overall estimate of 50 hours usage per
year still seems logical, and will be used for calculations.
Based on all the foregoing analysis, national emissions impact
of small engines has been calculated and is presented in Table 24 along
with emissions per engine in service. The contribution of small engines
to the nationwide air pollution problem can perhaps better be assessed
by comparing small engine emissions with EPA National Inventory Data(*°),
as is shown in Table 25. It should be noted that the EPA data are for 1970,
but that the small engine emissions are assumed applicable to the end of
1972. The growth rate in small utility engine sales is currently around
6% per year, and no major change in that rate seems likely. Some fluc-
tuations occur from year to year, of course, but the domination of the
market by sales for lawn and garden applications seems to assure a
measure of stability.
Although no data are currently available on the geographical dis-
tribution of small engines in service, it seems reasonable that the density
of lawn and garden equipment is proportional to the density of suburban
and rural single-family dwelling units. This statistic may be available
from the Bureau of the Census, or as an alternative, manufacturers
probably have a good idea of the regional distribution of their sales. The
miscellaneous category is probably distributed more in proportion with
the population, disregarding urban/suburban or rural residency.
It has already been noted that small engine usage is highly seasonal,
occurring almost entirely during the "summer half" of the year. The
length of the season for lawn work varies from perhaps 5 months in the
northern states to 9 months or more in the southern states, indicating
that small engine usage may be considerably higher in the South than
-------
50
TABLE 24.
NATIONAL EMISSIONS IMPACT ESTIMATES
FOR SMALL ENGINES
Mass Emissions
Pollutant
Hydrocarbons
(Exhaust)
Hydrocarbons
(Evaporative)
Hydrocarbons
(Total)
CO
NOX as NO 2
ECHO as
HCHO
Particulate
SOX as SO 2
Engine Application/ Type
Lawn & Gar den/ 4- stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 2-stroke
Miscellaneous/ 4- stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 2-stroke
Miscellaneous /4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 2- stroke
Miscellaneous /4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 4- stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 2-stroke
Miscellaneous /4-stroke
Lawn & Gar den/ 4- stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 2-stroke
Miscellaneous /4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 2-stroke
Miscellaneous /4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 2-stroke
Miscellaneous /4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/4-stroke
Lawn & Garden/ 2- stroke
Miscellaneous/4- stroke
g/unityr
1,590
14, 700
1,170
113
113
290
1, 700
14,800
1, 460
19, 100
33,400
19,300
217
108
384
34
140
36
31
470
34
26
38
30
ton/yr
73, 000
46,600
8,250
5, 170
358
2, 040
78, 100
47,000
10,300
878,000
106, 000
136, 000
9,970
344
2, 700
1,540
444
255
1,400
1,500
240
1,200
120
210
Total for
Pollutant,
ton/yr
128, 000
7,560
135, 000
1, 119, 000
13, 000
2, 240
3, 200
1, 500
-------
51
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF SMALL ENGINE NATIONAL IMPACT
ESTIMATES WITH EPA NATIONWIDE AIR POLLUTANT INVENTORY DATA
1970 EPA Inventory Data,
106 tons/yr^8)
Contaminant
HC
CO
NO
All Sources
34.7
147.
22.7
33.9
25.4
Mobile Sources
19.5
111.
11. 7
1.0
0. 7
Small Engine Estimates
as % of
All Sources
0.389
0.761
0.0573
0.0044
0.013
Mobile Sources
0.692
1.01
0. Ill
0.15
0.46
Particulates
in the North. This trend should hold almost as well for engines used in
agriculture and industry as for those used in lawn and garden work, since
they are virtually all operated outdoors.
To summarize variations in emissions based on season, region,
and urban/rural considerations, Table 26 has been prepared to show small
engine emissions classified by these three factors. The table is based on 1970
data^1"', assuming: (1) that the number of small engines in each region
is proportional to its population; (2) that the numbers of lawn and garden
engines in urban/suburban and rural areas are proportional to the suburban
and rural populations, respectively; and (3) that small engines are used
5 months in the northern region, 7 months in the central region, and 9
months in the southern region. The northern region is roughly between
49° and 43° N. latitude, the central region between 43° and 37°, and the
south region is between 37° and 31°. States straddling the established
TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF SEASONAL, REGIONAL, AND URBAN-RURAL
VARIATIONS IN SMALL ENGINE EMISSIONS
Percentage
of Annual Nationwide Emissions by Season
Urban/ Suburban Areas
Region
Northern
Central
Southern
Dec-
Feb
0. 0
0. 0
0.0
Mar-
May
0. 75
9. 18
8.61
Jun-
Aug
2.27
13. 77
8.61
Sep-
Nov
0. 75
9. 18
8.61
Dec-
Feb
0.0
0. 0
0. 0
Rural
Mar-
May
0. 50
5.62
5.37
Areas
Jun-
Aug
1.50
8.44
5.37
Sep-
Nov
0.50
5.62
5.37
Subtotals
6.27
51. 81
41.94
Subtotals 0.0 18.54 24.65 18.54 0.0 11.49 15.31 11.49
Totals
61. 73
38.29
100.02
-------
52
borderlines were placed in the regions containing the majorities of their
populations. This seasonal/regional analysis is really simplistic, but it
does yield some valuable results. It appears, for instance, that a subs-
tantial majority of small engine emissions occur in urban/suburban areas
rather than rural areas. These emissions would not be directly additional
to those from automobiles and other sources, however, because they are
released mainly during non-working hours and weekends. It is also inter-
esting to note in Table 26 that around 40% of small engine emissions appear
to occur in the midsummer months, and that few emissions occur in mid-
winter. Spring appears to account for about 30% of small engine emissions,
and fall the remaining 30%. The regional breakdown estimates that the
central region probably receives about 52% of small engine emissions, the
northern region about 6%, and the southern region about 42%. These
percentages are similar to those for population (55.6%, 9-4%, and 35.0%
for central, northern, and southern regions, respectively), but are
weighted a little more heavily toward the southern region due to the more
favorable climate for outdoor work and the longer grass-growing season.
-------
53
VI. SUMMARY
This report is the end product of a study on exhaust emissions
from small air-cooled, gasoline-fueled utility engines, and it is Part 4
of a planned seven-part final report on "Exhaust Emissions from Uncon-
trolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion
Engines," Contract EHS 70-108. It includes test data, documentation,
and discussion on detailed emissions characterization of five engines
(one 2-stroke and four 4-stroke), as well as estimated emission factors
and national emissions impact. As a part of the final report on the char-
acterization phase of EHS 70-108, this report does not include information
on aircraft turbine emissions, outboard motor crankcase drainage, or
locomotive emissions control technology. As required by the contract,
these three latter areas have been or will be reported on separately.
The emission measurements on the five small engines were con-
ducted in the Emissions Research Laboratory and the Engine Laboratory
of the Department of Automotive Research by the staff of the Emissions
Research Laboratory. Data were acquired during steady-state operation
according to both the "EMA 13-mode" (modified version) and "SAE 9-mode"
procedures, and some information was developed during transient operation,
also.
The exhaust products measured included total hydrocarbons by FIA;
CO, CO2> NO, and hydrocarbons by NDIR; O^ by electrochemical analysis;
light hydrocarbons by gas chromatograph; aldehydes by wet chemistry;
particulates by gravimetric analysis; and smoke (for the 2-stroke engine
only) by the PHS light extinction smokemeter. Fuel evaporative losses
and SOX emissions were calculated rather than being measured, and emis-
sion factors and national impact were computed for hydrocarbons (total),
CO, NOX, RCHO (aldehydes), particulate, and SOX.
Expressing small engine emissions as percentages of 1970 national
totals from all sources, small engines appear to account for approximately
0. 4% of hydrocarbons, 0. 8% of CO, 0. 06% of NOX, 0. 004% of SOX, and
0.01% of particulates. As percentages of 1970 mobile source emissions,
small engines are estimated to be responsible for about 0. 7% of hydrocarbons,
1.0% of CO, 0.1%ofNOx, 0.2%ofSOx, and 0. 5% of particulates. The impact
of small engine emissions has been estimated for three regions based on
population and climatic considerations, with the result that about 6% of
small engine emissions appear to occur in the northern region, 52% in the
central region, and 42% in the southern region.
If it is decided that small engine emissions may become significant
in the national picture, it seems obvious that further research would be
required to establish a more reliable baseline. It would be necessary
-------
54
first to test additional engines of various sizes and types, preferably a
statistical sampling of in-service units or long-term tests on new units.
Other very weak points in the current status of information are number
of engines in use, operating patterns, and annual usage. These areas
would probably best be handled on a survey basis, but are quite necessary
to making accurate assessments. The possible future importance of the
small engine category can be appreciated by considering that small engines
rank second only to highway vehicles in number of engines currently in
use, although of course they are much smaller in size. This fact combined
with rapidly growing sales and populations of these engines makes the
potential future impact of small engine emissions much greater than it
is at present.
-------
55
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. B. H. Eccleston and R. W. Hum, "Exhaust Emissions from Small,
Utility, Internal Combustion Engines." Paper 720197 presented at
SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, January 1972.
2. J. A. Donahue, et al, "Small Engine Exhaust Emissions and Air
Quality in the United States." Paper 720198 presented at SAE Auto-
Motive Engineering Congress, Detroit, January 1972.
3. Hare, C. T. and Springer, K. J., "Emission Factors and Impact
Estimates for Light-Duty Air-Cooled Utility Engines and Motorcycles, "
Quarterly Progress Report No. 6, Contract EHS 70-108, January 1972.
4. Sawicki, E. , et al, The 3-Methyl-3-benzathiazalone Hydrazone Test,
Anal, Chem. 33:93. 1961.
5. Altshuller, A. P. , et al, Determination of Formaldehyde in Gas
Mixtures by the Chromotropic Acid Method, Anal. Chem. 33:621.
1961.
6. R. S. Spindt, "Air-Fuel Ratios from Exhaust Gas Analysis." SAE
Paper 650507, 1965.
7. Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 221 Part II, Subpart J, November
15, 1972.
8. D. T. Wade, "Factors Influencing Vehicle Evaporative Emissions."
SAE Paper 670126, 1967.
9. P. J. Clarke, et al, "An Adsorption-Regeneration Approach to the
Problem of Evaporative Control." SAE Paper 670127, 1967.
10. Petroleum Products Survey No. 73, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, January 1972.
11. Optical Properties and Visual Effects of Smoke-Stack Plumes, A
cooperative study: Edison Electric Institute and U.S. Public Health
Service, publication No. 999-AP-30, Cincinnati, 1967.
12. Press Releases from Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Inc. ,
11/28/72, 12/1/71, 12/22/70, 1/12/70, 12/6/68; 734-15th Street
Northwest, Washington, D. C. 20005.
13. Implement &: Tractor magazine, issues of I/7/73, 4/7/72, 1/21/71,
5/21/70, 8/21/69, and others.
-------
56
LIST OF REFERENCES (Cont'd)
14. "Machines and Equipment on Farms with Related Data, 1964 and
1959, " Statistical Bulletin No. 401, Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 1967.
15. "Internal Combustion Engines, 1968, " U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1970.
16. "Internal Combustion Engines, 1969," U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1971.
17. "Internal Combustion Engines, 1970, " U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1972.
18. 1970 EPA Air Pollutant Inventory Estimates, Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
19. The World Almanac, 1972 edition, Luman H. Long (ed), Newspaper
Enterprise Association, Inc., New York, 1971.
20. Communication to Mr. Barry McNutt of EPA from Mr. George Houston
of Briggs & Stratton Corporation, through EMA.
-------
APPENDIX A
Emissions Data From 13-Mode Tests
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
nt»o
.2.4,00
ZIoOO
200
SlfOo
$(eOO
3^00
3t»oo
/ IpZO
Observed
Power,
hp
0-04
0.0*7
O./oO
AZ&
/.8t
3.06,
0-04
2..9S"
2-/4
1-41
0-70
' o.ol
0-O4
Fuel,
lbm/hr
0-S2.
Ag^
0-9^
/.f>8
f.32-
1-13
0.S&
IS*
^•?-1
/.7f
1.41*
i-is-
t>-£2>
Air,
lbm/hr
£.2
1.L
ie>.8
ll.Q
14.8
t&.z
lo.-L
1.£",0
^^.fl
2D-4
\1.L>
Ik.S"
le.O
Temperature, °F
Intake
8£
SL,
St.
8C,
8£
86
&6
n
_BL
8S-
64
84
B4
Exhaust
3.40
IBS'
300
410
45-Q
&4<>
2-sr
9S-0
(oio
k3D
,£•86
^•sr
Qi-b
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
74,5^0
^>»o
1,100
S/5VJO
9,/^a
?y<»0
/^^>oo
4,zz»o
&?*o
7,^>flO
^y00d
5}3»o
13,400
NDIR
HC,
ppmC£,
8«>a
lf/0
S-83
^•8^)
70Z
lel.2.
32.4
5"93
S28
4
k-S7
B-34
9.0&
7-A9
/.f?
9.^5-
£.0£
(p-2/
^.^4
fe^S'
NDIR
C02,
%
7.01
7-74
8.4 /
£.27
7.07
£.73
6,97
//.8
£.«?
8-U
f.Al
ID.L
L.bb
NDIR
NO,
ppm
5-4
8/
95"
ID°I
&l
13
W
)131>
94
Z&7
no
138
-54
Polar.
02,
%
2.,6>
0.8
0.7
/•2
/.r
0.9
/.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.8
o.1?
At
Engine
4 STR.ATTON
Date
Wet Bulb Temperature
Procedure
Run 2
Barometer, in Hg 2.6. 8
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
H,S"0
2.k>f)D
2-toOt>
7.6,00
2.L>0&
2*(oOO
Ilko
3(t>oe>
1(c>OD
3(oOO
3 boo
3(,>oo
1730
Observed
Power,
hp
0.03
O.O&
D.feZ
/•30
i.ts-
2.^6
0,07
3.4%
Z-33
1,1,1
o.&s
* O.10
O'OS~
Fuel,
lbm/hr
0.43
6.1Z
o.&4
0.&8
t.88
Ui
O-S'L
l.tz.
J..H
1.1,2.
I.BO
\.0(o
O-S4
Air,
lbm/hr
£••7
.B
11.4
l + l
/0-2
k-l.
2-4-4
il.1
/1.3
fj.o
lf.3
b,i
Temperature, °F
Intake
83
83
84
B4
&4
84
&4
es"
sr
bt.
8(>
6L
6?
Exhaust
210
320
38£
410
410
sso
430
6, Bo
Uo
Lio
t>oo
5&Q
41*0
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
I3,8oo
OlrfOO
S,t>00
S,1DO
1,100
IS,4t>e>
13, boo
5,50t>
<$,3oo
SjOD
4,so*
4,H>o
t k>,000
NDIR
HC,
ppmC6
743
471
3 S3
351
3ZS
413
4-H
S93
463
311
27-4
NDIR
CO,
%
3-k3
4>o1
2*1
^.r)&
£.1.1,
S.OI
1.00
4.00
&.12-
£.bl*
3.4T-
0.11
L-BO
NDIR
C02,
%
£-37
7-37
8-S4
8-57
L-99
S-21
l.iy
8.17
t,-3l
8.34
Loo
11-3
S.°>0
NDIR
NO,
ppm
35"
SS
91
I0(g
Ik
35-
54
J77
58
/S9
Z^S"
2.88
ss-
Polar.
02,
%
2.8
0.1
0.£-
/.f
1.2.
;.r
2-3
0.8
o.7
0-7
0,7
03
2.3
Engine
4
Date
Procedure
Run ^
>- MODE
71 Wet Bulb Temperature 13 F
Barometer, in Hg 2.6. ft4- Dry Bulb Temperature _M_F
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
\^D
2-bOD
ilaOO
tloOO
lleOO
t.1,00
I18o
SifO'O
3 fao&
3 tffOO
3 & & &
3 (po o
I1Z.O
Observed
Power,
hp
0-04
0-OS
o.u
1-31
1.1?
JL.1l
0.0$
3.21
2,41
I.LO
0.11
''0,01
0.04
Fuel,
lbm/hr
0>4<>
0.&I
£>.B4
O.lb
1-14
\.°IO
0-S5-
I Q f—
* / £J
1 * IS O
M4
/./3
P.57
Air,
lbm/hr
S--2
9.2.
/^4
/f.8
/a.4
11.1
5". 8
23.7
3M
11.1
no
ll*.2.
U
Temperature, °F
Intake
78
78
n o
o
?«
*7^
7?
79
80
81
84
SS"
84
n
Exhaust
HO
2.15-
3l>e
410
410
£-60
2B£
Io1£-
i»to
US
b20
(oOO
490
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
2. 0,OOO
1 0^ 1 0 o
1,500
iiot>
%IDt>
11,10°
l%4f>*
b,ooo
Z.SO*
ftftOO
1,100
4,400
\1,-iOO
NDIR
HC,
Ibf
G>41
101
758
•
^g
4^5"
4S*?
S02
272.
NDIR
CO,
7. 02.
6.84
4.LU
s.i*
s-.W
10.*
Ltd
{,.13
3^4
3.U
z.bi
s>,sl
$.01
NDIR
C02,
t>.67
8'4o
10.2
LIB
1.13
S.IB
i><&l
8.1Z
II. 0
11.2
11.2.
il.£
7.02
NDIR
NO,
ppm
47
BB
HI
172-
I1B
41*
JZ4
Ml
624
loll.
4IB
W1
£2
Polar.
02,
2 -4
O.I*
0-4
0.1
0.1
1.0
/••3
0.4
0.4
£>'£
o.s
0,S
L5
Engine
Procedure
Run 4
- MODE
Date 4/2>0/71 Wet Bulb Temperature
Barometer, in Hg z^-02- Dry Bulb Temperature JLL F
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
nio
2.2.00
•2.7-00
tlOO
•2-T-OO
z-ze>o
nno
3100
3100
3if>o
3IOD
3/0o
t&3o
Observed
Power,
hp
0-£>4
o.os
<9.£9
l.o&>
JL.O&
z.st*
D.t>4
3.13
2.j£
LSI
0.11
'' 0,0 B
0-04
Fuel,
lbm/hr
0'4S"
o-st
6.1*4
0.1*1
0-73
A3?
0-4-4
/.73
t.ZO
\.6S
o.te
o.7<)
0.47
Air,
lbm/hr
S--7
7.9
o
340
400
43o
4Gf>
230
t>IO
(,20
S90
S70
&30
L(*0
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
pprnC
"1,390
6,100
4,7oo
3,BXO
3,S^O
9,7*0
8,100
%£)£>0
3,100
$,tot>
3,000
Ifiso
8,2-00
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
410
3t>8
2J»e
24b
2&0
(004
502.
£44
23>l
181
l£1
418
4/4
NDIR
CO,
%
3-Zb
O.S4
o.rt
O.li
0.10
8.80
3.6,4
7-42.
0.39
4»./4
0.14
o-n
3-Z7
NDIR
C02,
%
B4
Ml*
IIS
11*
Polar.
02,
%
0,8
0.9
\4
2-1
S.I
I-7.
I.I
03
1-Z
2-3
2.2
^B
/.2.
Engine
STRATTON 92.9 06 Date
Wet Bulb Temperature
Procedure
Run S
- MODE
Barometer, in Hg 2.9.0fc Dry Bulb Temperature
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
\1OO
ZleOO
Zd>DO
2,boo
2./*Oo
3-&>£>O
Uoo
3&GO
3&00
3bo&
JjieOO
Si>00
/t?^
Observed
Power,
hp
D.O£
O.lg
O-HO
1.30
L3o
2.
loOt>
660
Z&0
ezo
730
to SO
Sl>0
HO
2 SO
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
M/boo
b,70o
4,700
SjOOO
WOD
ijQoo
IS,ZOO
tjloOD
1,700
1/bOO
'/4S»
IjSSD
I4,rt>(>
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
968
^o&
34,3
45-2.
SSB
237
°I3Z
ik>\
lt>0
/2ft
/08
97
67
NDIR
CO,
%
7-47
£.43
2.1€
3.1°!
^r-3Z,
4-1*0
7.31
l-OS
1.1k
o.no
£>.31
0.3/
k-fi
NDIR
C02,
%
6<£b
OQ202
- MODE
Date 4-/S/7)
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature _^3_ F
Dry Bulb Temperature _Z^_ F
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
]73D
3.bOO
3-kOO
ZkOO
ZbOO
2&00
1100
3&>oo
3t>0t>
3t>oo
3koo
3 boo
I1OO
Observed
Power,
hp
O-QZ'
O.tS
0.1S
1.40
5.0S"
Z.LC
0-iO
•3.00
2.$t>
! u>o
0'9o
''0.2.S-
G-OS'
Fuel,
lbm/hr
0>4b
0,1*4
O.?g
MB
f^a
1.Z1
0,4 £•
2,03
I-^O
t>4t>
HZ
o.lo
0,42.
Air,
lbm/hr
5--1
i.e>
\o.l
<4.4
W.6
a.B
S4
30.0
^4.^
3.1.0
11.4
13.B
•s.4
Temperature, °F
Intake
no
no
10
no
7Z
72.
72
7Z
73
73
74
74
74
Exhaust
tzo
2%to
3l»o
4o
230
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
I2.fi OO
SflOD
1,3t>o
3,€ot>
4)000
Z,s-oo
\3-,ooo
1,400
1/bSV
lt 5 DO
IjISO
IjOOO
WOO
NDIR
HC,
pprnC^
9s-4
48/
3U
3&l>
3^&
Z2£-
843
lib
144
111
IS
9/
74 4
NDIR
CO,
%
1-IB
5-32
3.2T.
2.9?
^.7^
^-3
0'49
DAI
e,3t
lo.LZ
NDIR
C02,
%
^•4^
1.01
\0,A
10.7
8.74
9-69
ML
/M
fl.g
f/.9
//.7
fl.7
6,-3f
NDIR
NO,
ppm
41
8S
2<0
150
402.
743
Z7
ZS"ff»
/8Z^>
(340
674
*4*
i?
Polar.
02,
%
:2,6
£>.4
p.3
d>.2.
.S
JL-1
04
O.S"
0-1
1-4
l-T-
3.S-
Engine
4
Procedure
Run 2.
STRATTON 1002.02. Date 4-/fc/7»
_________^ Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature 52. F
Dry Bulb Temperature J»L F
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
1100
2.2.DO
iT-OC>
1.1-00
2.ZOO
2-toO
\1SO
3100
310°
3i£>o
3IOO
SIDO
neo
Observed
Power,
hp
O.OS
£>.1(>
0'SS"
l.os
/.S£T
a, os.
O.OS
3.1S-
S.-SC
htS
Q.tO
'" O'ZO
0.0S"
Fuel,
lbm/hr
0- 44
0-SS"
O.lok
D.1Z
1.2.0
1-4&
0.4-4
/•98
13k
1.32.
C.<}1
O-74
0.4 U
Air,
lbm/hr
£-4
k>.<0
%,1
IZ.&
is-.z
(9.7
^•4
ZQ.to
Z3.3
/7-9
/3-7
9-s-
s.4
Temperature, °F
Intake
1O
14
74
74
75"
74
74
74
75-
75-
1t>
is-
7£
Exhaust
2.1.O
2.20
•2.10
30
47 0
34o
"2.DO
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
IS-,100
%qoo
s,s-0o
^,100
s-,tt>oo
4 ,£t>o
tfytoo
2.ffSt>
4,200
4,100
1,bOO
£,100
l&,&00
NDIR
HC,
ppmC6
*?8/
5~5"5"
345
321*
3i£
2ol
131
(,1
114
1*02
320
4zl
1020
NDIR
CO,
%
7.08
£-3£>
3-B&
3-lk
4.VB
3.bo
7.2.3
0.8?
^%
2-3S
O.B4
4-2-7
7.UZ
NDIR
C02,
%
ST.95-
7.sr
*?.9/
9.9;
9-fs
9.^9
S-B8
1\.L
8.4?
ID.S
{\.L,
1.54
5.6k
NDIR
NO,
ppm
2.3-
33
162
SB\
511
\\oo
11-
2.41*0
314
I0lt>
82?
8<)
Zi
Polar,
02,
%
3.£
f.B
1.1
LI
(.0
I.I
4.0
0,U
o.S"
t).k
1-0
0.1
3.5-
Engine E.R1G-G-5 4 STRATTON \002.01
Procedure
Run 3
Date
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature s> F
Dry Bulb Temperature _Z^_ F
oo
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpni
1/20
230O
2300
2.3OO
2300
ZZOO
ilffO
ZioOO
3100D
3lt>00
3k>00
3t>ot>
II ZO
Observed
Power,
hp
0.0
0>\
z.e>
&.i*
$•£
M.3
o,n
tC4
/,'-2
7-i
S.I
'• 9-3
o.o
Fuel,
lbm/hr
y.s?
2.4,3
«.!£•
S-.2£"
-^.44
4.?a
/.^£
/2-^
f^.3
7-^8
t,,&>4
S.lefi
(44
Air,
lbm/hr
\0>S
£4-0
31.3
F/.ff
73- f
95.^
tf.t
IBS.
1D&-
84.8
47.3
.£•2.0
\O,S
Temperature, °F
Intake
74
74
74
74
IS*
74
72
?a
73
80
78
77
76
Exhaust
?7£"
5/f
405-
5/0
^>^r
7i>o
2.10
685"
8/0
740
1,20
£10
344T
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
3b, OOO
bAoo
6,100
leflOO
4,11)0
3,300
43, {too
4jV>°°
S,4oo
4,2.00
^I0t>
IflO*
35.4*t>
NDIR
HC,
ppmC6
417
4 OS
385
2/4
/04
2.41
2.52,
44
NDIR
CO,
%
5-^3
S.t>6
t>.ie>
Ic.ltS'
2.41
2.4Z
s.n
s.n
MS
4.27
S.10
7>2I
534
NDIR
C02,
%
5. at
B.OZ
7-4i
8,oz
lo<<}
10.9
s-.ft,
9.27
s>.&
W?
&~4&
?./ۥ
S.M
NDIR
NO,
ppm
1,2.
LI
IS
' tse>
1340
I if 10
77
510
331
396
ISI
IS
m
Polar.
02,
%
€-.4
2.4
<.lo
t.z
1.3
1.3
t.£-
o.S
o.i.
0,6
{.0
I.S
S.B
Engine
Procedure
Run 2-
Date 3/24/71
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature s<° F
Dry Bulb Temperature _££_ F
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
mo
1100
^Boo
(Boo
/330
1&33
It Iff
2.O3&
3&o&
3ooi>
3- 5 ,2 3
3ooo
1140
Observed
Power,
hp
O.o
0-1
2-3
4-S"
1-7
5.1
0-0
13-9
/0.^
1.0
3-k
'' *•/
<9,O
Fuel,
lbm/hr
2.H
2.zo
SAS
i^.^
58.7
-5^-?
IOB-0
//.9
1/9.0
4/.0
7/.0
^J?.9
36. i
\l>£
Temperature, °F
Intake
8Z
8^
8;>
84
5sT
5r
83
35
88
sa
3^
59
90
Exhaust
5.3 £»
£.10
34O
440
$40
l*4£
ZQS'
teo
110
lo(,0
&4.S-
4SS"
£4^
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
pprnC
lei, &OO
z&jBoo
10, ZOO
Q^oe
QjOoo
19,3.00
Hbjloo
4,3.00
4,100
4,100
SjlOD
IZjbOO
nijQoo
NDIR
HC,
ppmCfc
<-77<9
l^oo
IBo
(o<)0
700
S"0
41ZO
NDIR
CO,
%
t>'Ai
t>.qo
l.ol
m
B.?o
/0.&4
(c»2S
4.(*o
4>20
•4-S-D
(e.i>0
1-40
b.OO
NDIR
C02,
%
430
£-50
1,00
7-SS
b.SO
s-.Zo
2.&>D
9,80
9.9d>
9.6o
7. Bo
(,.10
3-7
Ito
flft
-5-3
144
Wo
6,30
310
9£"
tt
140
Polar.
02,
%
13
3£"
2.5"
A 8
A 4
/./
&.£
At
0-8
M
/.<
2.;
8-Z
Engine
Procedure
Run 3
Date 3/25/7 I Wet Bulb Temperature
Barometer, in Hg 2.6. 90 Dry Bulb Temperature
fo8 F
Zl_ F
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
/1 00
23OO
230O
2303
S.So?
Z300
IHO
3(eOO
3boo
3loOO
Bkoo
3bOO
to*ro
Observed
Power,
hp
0-0
O.I
3 A
le.O
9.0
11. °l
0-0
M.fr
11. 0
1.4
3,e>
'" 0-Z,
0,0
Fuel,
lbm/hr
/.93
2.QQ
4-10
S-.Lb
8'ia
IO>1
l,*r'6
H.r
iO'b
&.37
£-73
-S1. 39
/•02,
Air,
lbm/hr
Temperature, °F
Intake
-74.
7-5"
7^
7i
'/7
73
79
78
33
9Z
74
79
75
Exhaust
440
430
.S/0
6,10
7Z9
VIZ)
i-ro
32,0
qoo
830
13 o
6,40
Bkf>
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
51 j 6, oo
11,400
Lfioo
5,100
(f,OOO
htOoo
Ie0j6>00
5,10°
5-jloo
4£00
3,o
*&1
lib
133
137
130
tfilD
NDIR
CO,
%
6.87
4.1Z
3*1*
3-SZ
S.\°l
b.58
4.00
s~.as-
3.94
*
3-32,
4.IZ
NDIR
C02,
%
3.nt>
7/28
7.£0
S-z t>
1-H
k.oS-
4-00
I.Ob
8.IS-
8>fe Dry Bulb Temperature
5
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
3300
3 $00
3£oo
3s~o^>
3£oo
3SOO
32oo
qsoo
4S~oo
•4500
•4 £00
Qsoo
3 3 SO
Observed
Power,
hp
o.iq
O-Zl
O.£O
0.83
/ H
I,(p0
0-Z.O
l.(p&
1.Z3
0.9<
0.5-8
'" 0.2-8
0-2.1
Fuel,
lbm/hr
0.6>8
l.^-i.
1.02-
O.bL
Air,
lbm/hr
*7.4
6.1
11.0
13.9
in. I
23.2,
?-£.
a- 4.4
\°t.1
/?.0
4*0
S><*0
SSO
5(*0
£40
47O
3go
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
pprnC
•^,3.00
40, &oo
37,100
40,000
^£,{,00
S4,t>oo
4t>/&oo
4°l, -*-°°
qi-fOoo
40,2-00
42r^<90
3% ooo
44,40°
NDIR
HC,
ppmC6
47£~0
39to
375-0
4/S^o
-?6/0
6oS"o
39ao
4B90
4^20
3B40
4.080
3&bo
4SfO
NDIR
CO,
%
3't>B
3.41
s-.//
S.SO
s.fi
-7-97
3.31
6*5-9
£.02.
^.^Z
£•.^4
4-70
3.4S
NDIR
C02,
%
n.S4
*?.00
Z43
^-97
^.-30
t,.oo
?-S£
^•.9/
^..S"0
6-35"
£.
4.0
4.1*
S.le
&.S
<7-9
-M
^•i
42.
^•S"
^•.o
Engine TECONSE^ A^S2Q T
Procedure ^
Run '
1448
Date A-/12V 71
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature
Dry Bulb Temperature
80
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
33oo
3500
3S-00
3soo
3&00
3Soo
3300
4S-0&
4srot>
4 BOO
4sot>
4 £60
3300
Observed
Power,
hp
Q.2-0
0-2-2-
0.47
0.71,
/•OS
i-42-
0.10
1 S3
f i7
O.VL
O.S-S-
'• 0.27
0-20
Fuel,
lbm/hr
O.tog
o.no
IDS'
/-23
/.S9
2.10
O.teK
*..IS~
I -IS
I.4Z
t-2.4
0,31-
O.te&>
Air,
lbm/hr
7. I*
8-2.
/M
13.7
UA
22.7
7-4,
2.4-2.
IB.7
Ib3
H-f>
//.*
7.4
Temperature, °F
Intake
73
7-f
74
74
15-
lie
77
78
73
?f
7^
600
•Z 1, 1.00
3e,4°0
4 -i/Opo
SI, Loo
2>^,Boo
40,1,00
3.^000
28, &oo
y-Sfloo
lk,4oo
32,400
NDIR
HC,
ppmC6
37^^)
3e>8o
31*o
4S10
5-640
72-40
4S30
4>3e>
3750
B4IO
Wo
3ooo
3710
NDIR
CO,
%
J2.86
-2-38
j.li
4-s&
4-31
3.3G
3.S7
3.01.
3.1,0
1-33
4-1S
3.S4
3.et>
NDIR
C02,
%
8.81
9.37
8.3o
7-33
tan
U7
8- IB
7-9 /
7-33
b-2°l
8*5
B-84
&-2L
NDIR
NO,
ppm
7k
sr
7k
&4
°IB
142
n
fi^
W
104
104
llt>
tl
Polar.
02,
%
3-8
3-4
3.4
4-0
4-°l
(*.4
3.1,
4.B
3.%
3.4
3.1
2.1
3-7
Engine
AVXS20 T
Date
/7»
Procedure
Run ^
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature _(t>s F
Dry Bulb Temperature -ILL. F
UO
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
iOSO
Z300
2300
Z300
2300
2300
1130
3bOO
31000
JtbOO
SloOO
3boo
4-n
3,-S
'• 0'~.
0 • '-
Fuel,
lbm/hr
0>5I*
i.<*\*
2.2rl
JS.43
3.10
4-:' 2
0,kO
8.7S"
t>-*Z
er^f-f
4>0b
3.4 Z
T-77
Air,
lbm/hr
?-A
< i t
*• • / ' i
2&.1
31-Z
S1.0
60.3
9.4
.0
37'£~
B-Z
Temperature, °F
Intake
7fc
76
77
79
go
3o
75
8/
82
82
82
32.
ao
Exhaust
3(*0
45~o
SteO
720
8/0
83d
ZSO
°i4b
B£6
%oc
72.^
, &40
3ot>
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC.
ppmC
(2, ooo
°i,000
4jtooo
S.,100
{jSOO
1,2*0
3Aoo
4,8<3o
6)400
SjlVO
£,100
n>soo
1 bj 2.00
NDIR
HC,
ppmC6
S~£>4
32-3
IW
111
Hz
^37
2.1$
30&
^93
*4£
.?z?
NDIR
CO,
%
1-01
t-4*.
3.BL
0.2&
D-ito
t.41
f.76
3-87
8-70
7-00
6.5.9
7-00
0-IS
NDIR
C02,
%
y/,2
5,35
10,2,
f!-9
f/.5
ffl.4
10. (,
fc.72
^.ii
7-45
8-?fc
7>11
l.tl
NDIR
NO,
ppm
7£
88
/87
/f3o
/7^C
1UO
W
IBB
13Z
15~£
133
99
93
Polar.
02,
%
Engine VA)\5CO
S- >2.D
Procedure
Run >
Date 3/30/71
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature
a9'.2>0 _ Dry Bulb Temperature
>
i—*
j^
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
lisro
\b£o
185-0
IBSO
1&S~0
t&SD
{150
3Ooo
3ooo
3ooo
3ooo
3ooo
USD
Observed
Power,
hp
0, i
0.1
f.'7
3-Z
4-<&
tf> £
0-:>
9"?
7-0
4-^
2-4
'" 0-2
0-1
Fuel,
lbm/hr
O-loD
(.30
\.&
2.47
3-ZO
3.93
fl.1,3
b.lz
ST.S7
4-34
3.1Z
Z.~d
0-x$
Air,
lbm/hr
9.*
M-3
*}+>'£
31. S
42.1
£3.8
$.&,
$2,4
&B.7
-S3.S
28. *)
27. <"
Q.lo
Temperature, °F
Intake
80
3o
3o
a/
82
94
BZ
9i>
87
57
3.6
93
8Z
Exhaust
35-0
330
4TO
«*T80
^.-90
•7 ho
340
970
130
040
7/0
^90
.320
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
7,0<90
^7000
5}4»o
4,3.00
"3,300
2., 7 o&
®,40t>
3, loo
3, (s>OQ
3, 3 oo
3,^00
7/8f>o
&,40i>
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
£&U
4&1
Z°l\
3.41?
fa/
tl>0
^o3
t,<*
5-t,
^
95"
31S-
710
NDIR
CO,
%
2.^7
t>.17
4 37
3-24
2..71,
3.10
1-71
&.&>1
4-9/
^•5-g
4.11
g-.LS
3-l3>
NDIR
C02,
%
IO.&
&*>£>
4.LZ
10.1
1.SO
q.os
H-t,
8.1 £
9-40
t.Lo
9.8 /
B.SD
1£>.*>
NDIR
NO,
ppm
89
89
A/5"
086
1S70
1300
UB
£73
l»lt»
421
2.SO
/54
^
Polar.
02,
%
/./
i>0
0,9
1.4
2,7
2.1
1.1
D.4
O>4
0<3
0,4
O.ie
1,0
Engine
S-12.D
Procedure
Run 2
Date 3/31/71
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature
Dry Bulb Temperature _§£L F
m
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
i\z°
Z30O
Z$ot>
£.200
2300
Z-Boo
neo
3L,0&
Sleoo
3teDO
3d>oo
3 boo
115-0
Observed
Power,
hp
0^
0-1
Z.A
3.9
s-7
7-z
o.i
!•-
7.0
4-B
2.L,
"0-3
o.o
Fuel,
lbm/hr
0.1*0
\.^
Jg.'S-O
3-<9
4-2, ft
&.ot*
0-*3
Z-31
7-9f
?./8
^r.2£
-f ?3
^.&^
Air,
lbm/hr
8-t
17.2,
52-2
40-£
5^-0
5?. 3
3.£>
*4.Z
&!.£>
10.1
^£••2
jz.o
3-i
Temperature, °F
Intake
SZ
8z
8Z
8S
84
ft 4
^r
9o
8,,
3 7
57
ar
84
Exhaust
400
400
.S.5-0
670
S?o
Bio
S20
9&>Q
'110
370
$20
ns.o
-?S"d
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
7/5J?o
8.5&0
S^&D
4,^oo
3, zoo
Z.,100
9,2eo
4iOo&
4,3)60
L>,1DO
lo.lOO
1 Df K>0
ll.ioQb
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
^A
!BZ
130
427
4<7&
NDIR
CO,
%
NDIR
C02,
%
f0-£
8.11
*3\
lo-Z
lo.b
9.7/
0.83
*-?7
^.'7
5,89
^.Aff
t-35
8'W
NDIR
NO,
ppm
4,4
70
/7J
^9^
/no
\\SO
ss
141
11
no
BS
7f
to2
Polar.
02,
%
/.L
/.t
^.tf
f.fl
I.L
Z.I
1.*>
/•9
/.5"
LZ
£>.L
O.B
i.s
Engine
Procedure
Run &
Date A/l/71
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature _^1_ F
Dry Bulb Temperature _IL. F
-------
APPENDIX B
Emissions Data From 9-Mode Tests
and From 30-Mode Test on B & S 92908 Engine
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
2&>oo
Skoo
3t>t>o
ZiaOO
3Uoo
2(*£>S
3koo
3t>oo
2.6,00
Observed
Power,
hp
3, ft
IS&
O.OB
3-5-0
1,70
o,o<)
3.41*
4.72.
O.O&
Fuel,
lbm/hr
/.9fc
/.84
M4
*./4
2.0£*
*-Ze
/•?£•
/.?«>
f,/J
Air,
lbm/hr
a.ff.n
30'?>
15.1
Z *;.•?
2 '.*
f^.Z
AST.*?
2.0-^
llp-2.
Temperature, °F
Intake
Bfe
89
^0
94
^
°l*>
^
34
95-
Exhaust
fc40
fe3o
^to
720
Wo
-T70
770
(*t,o
sns
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
G,1e90
l,boo
S,3oo
L,?.oo
7; IP*
sr,9oo
4,loo
fjtOO
4,6,0*
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
331
475"
3X1,
42^
5-54
3&7
JS--T
430
Z41
NDIR
CO,
%
5-S-7
B.3i
l-M
7-36
/f-3
«.?ff
6.89
9.97
f*.3
g.^7
/^.O
NDIR
NO,
ppm
tan
101
239
2t>4
Be>
151
IS&o
f93
407
Polar.
02,
%
0.8
i.O
1.0
03
o,3
0.7
1.1
0,1
03
Engine
\ SlRATTON 92906
Procedure 9- MODE
Date 4/Z&/1 \
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature
Dry Bulb Temperature
Run
to
I
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
J&oo
lleOO
SloOO
3 &>oo
5&>oo
3k oo
S&oo
3t>oo
3&,ot>
Observed
Power,
hp
3.34
I,7O
O.O3
3. bo
l.8>2.
0.11
3.40
/.?€>
o. to
•-
Fuel,
lbm/hr
(.13
I.S-&,
1.0Z-
£.25-
l.&'l
I.2Z
1.7!
/.£
kZQ
510
170
70S'
(e3O
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
S,ISi>
l>,loo
3tSoo
7/fe oo
&,zt>0
^.t)0&
3,*i>*
^ 003
S, oo o
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
337
4'S
2.13
44l>
4&Z
3*>.?3
3.11
G.fO
Z.S4
&.(,£
NDIR
C02,
%
7.0*
8-4-i-
11.7
7.04
t»&1
9-31
fl<3
?.7Z
lt>S
NDIR
NO,
ppm
4.09
/£3
303
103
87
118
It4o
SToS-
S4I
Polar.
02,
%
f3
/,/
/.I
O.°t
0:9
0,1
1.1
A/
I- I
Engine
4 ST RAT TOM
Procedure
Run 3
Date 4-/2.9/71
Barometer, in Hg
Wet 'Bulb Temperature 12- F
Dry Bulb Temperature JL§L F
a
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
3(eOO
31000
3koo
36>oo
36>oo
3&0D
3 boo
$?*00
3 $> oo
Observed
Power,
hp
3,03
Moi>
fr,ooo
4,ffoo
3,403
NDIR
HC,
ppmC£,
381
2.L&
24)
SI7
4IZ
ZSI
^73
25-2
H7
NDIR
CO,
%
^.H
O.BI
0.2.7
1.1(0
3J3
0-43
0,70
O'i&
O'll
NDIR
C02,
%
I/-0
It- 1
II. 1
130
JO-io
12.3
n.(
I2.O
10.1
NDIR
NO,
ppm
ll. oo
is. so
2-^5
/7B
t>t>3>
^4
Al ID
ISIS'
3&4
Polar.
02,
%
0.7
1.1
3.}
O.le
0..ST
I.I
J.I
I-Z.
2-.%
Engine
STRATTON 92-908
Procedure
Run *
Date 4-/3o/7> Wet Bulb Temperature
Barometer, in Hg 29.03 Dry Bulb Temperature
^8 F
^fL F
tfl
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
Engine
Speed,
rpm
StoOO
3l>oo
3t,oo
3loo
3Joo
3l£>o
Zkoo
2.boo
2boo
£300
2300
3L3oo
3t>o°
36,00
3boo
Observed
Power,
hp
3,io
h£TZ
D.Ol
3-S-j
1.14
o.ot
.2.98
M7
o.o7
H*>
1-34
0-9'?
x-94
1.41
t>.0&
Fuel,
lbm/hr
l-t,&
/.2S"
/.
Exhaust
IZo
1050
lelO
ID DO
S10
£40
SZO
310
310
^50
400 '
340
?5o
loo
(olO
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
£,5oo
4,5-QO
4,500
Q,loo
4jOoo
k,t>oo
^,000
4,4oo
(0,400
°l,000
4,200
7,5-00
H,soo
•4,720
3f(t>00
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
3AS
J.14
Z7S1
605-
583
40S
144
34 &
3°>S
71Z
3b1
£11
?27
^43
/8?
NDIR
CO,
%
hit
0.11
0.11
1,Sl>
0-ZI
0.11
8-60
D-34.
0-44
f-ll
0-3-1
0-34
s.o'i
o-34
0.11
NDIR
C02
%
\\.o
I2.\
II-3
l,.£€
II. 0
/o.t>
SSI
I).1?
/;.?
le>.ll
II-S
10.1
8-Z°i
i^.o
//•7
NDIR
NO,
ppm
13. 00
1020
0.81
02.
1020
I7Z
^•3
870
/B4
H4
i>2t>
121
J.S--4
1130
444
Polar.
02,
%
O-lo
1-2.
2.7
t-l
A3
3.8
I.S
I.S
/,3
1.7
\,n
J.7
O.B
l.o
I.&
Engine BRl^&S 4 STR.AT10N <)X90b Date S/4/71
Procedure 5O-MODE MAPPIN)& Barometer, in Hg
Modes * ~ *^ _
Wet Bulb Temperature
-------
Mode
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Engine
Speed,
rprn
2>ioo
Bioo
3ioo
2.loOO
•IbOO
Jbco
3 boo
3&oo
3loo
3100
31 oo
2-bOo
-ZloOO
i&oD
Observed
Power,
hp
3.13,
l-ko
Q.O&
2.T}
L4S
o.on
J.12-
\>W
D.OB
3.12.
1,6,8
o.ol
-2.95
I-4 1
£>>£>£"
Fuel,
lbm/hr
1. 9 9
1.04
0.&4
1.70
0,64
a.tpt
I.(,-L
1-32-
i,oi>
I-ITL-
I,o4
o.&o
i.S-3
0-81
0.66
Air,
lbm/hr
20-4
15.&
12-4
17-sr
I3,o
1.1
23.2.
2D-4
17, S-
io.^
17, 0
iS.te
/7-S-
12.0
ID.&
Temperature, °F
Intake
9/
to
9/
9o
92.
3i
90
9/
?D
1i
9/
9;
It
13
H
Exhaust
bloO
k>40
S70
£-fO
telD
SOO
730
telO
Io20
(oZO
-510 '
5-5-0
£30
4lo
400
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
B.ioo
2,100
3, too
i,(eOO
2.,te>00
if(,00
3,t>oo
*>,t,oo
3,looo
3floo
3, (oo
3,100
3., boo
<2,l>0t>
2/600
NDIR
HC,
ppmCf,
4>S%
30Z
2-04
l*?Z
114
3.7$
236
ios
it>1
44i>
232.
383
l»3o
±1£-
2b&
NDIR
CO,
%
5.60
O.S4
0.34
1.ZO
0,24
0,15
l.e>*>
o.tj
0.14
535
O.IZ
0.14
1-44
0.14
0.14
NDIR
COz,
%
s-.-epj
11.7
12.0
-S'.IZ
/'•7
//.9
IIS
n.7
ID.&
7.?i
II. I
lo.o
(,.14.
11. 3
//./
NDIR
NO,
ppm
N)&
Modes
"o~
F
F
tfl
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
3 bS>0
BteOO
31,00
3<**>o
-3* DO
3*00
3&£>0
3600
3&>oo
Observed
Power,
hp
4,B^
LSO
O-ZS
3.0$-
l.so
o-io
}-°io
I.5S
O'tS
'.
(
Fuel,
lbm/hr
2,13
1.31
oSo
2'40
/•sz
t>
lo,ooo
l,ie>t>
l,(>oc>
4,000
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
2.10
\\<\
2t&
141
183
III.
30
V)
»4
4-H
3.03
3.1S
0.S8
o.\1
0.&?
NDIR
C02,
%
12.2
I2.S
12-b
to.4
\{.0
lo-1
!*.£
//.?
M.T
NDIR
NO,
ppm
2.0*10
1310
2.^2.
^£"7
9gf
il>3
2440
nat>
wo
Polar.
02,
%
t>.£
tf-8
tf>-8
0.4
0.£-
^).i
^.8
2-2-
2-1
Engine
Procedure 9- HOPE
Run *
STRATTOM
Date 4-/W71 Wet Bulb Temperature _§^_ F
Barometer, in Hg 2.9.45 Dry Bulb Temperature _2±_ F
tfl
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
3l*oo
ZloOO
Sboo
3(eOO
3t>oo
3t>00
3boo
3(f&o
Shoo
Observed
Power,
hp
3-05"
l.loS-
0-30
2, IS
t.ss
o-iz
2.10
/.s-s-
0'3O
-.
Fuel,
lbm/hr
2,2/
M7
D$1
Wb
\.£0
031
J.,0$
l.4*r
0.70
Air,
lbm/hr
3o.z
zz-2
lz.3
Sfi'S'
20. 0
/2.3
30. £
22.9
/2-3
Temperature, °F
Intake
Bo
&0
&0
So
80
&0
So
Bo
Bo
Exhaust
7GO
430
Boo
(olfi
44 o
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
3,/Po
3-jOOO
4,0oo
5,1000
4,000
S'rfoo
*,4oo
i,&0°
4, 6~oo
NDIR
HC,
ppmCfc
133
120
2.D2.
Z£>&
20°!
261
//.7t>
&.I7
o,k<\
NDIR
C02,
%
//.3
H-1
I2.O
^^7
/0.8
tti
I7--I
13.3
11,0
NDIR
NO,
ppm
Who
I36o
11,4
7B4
1 ooo
8°l
3-410
12.10
278
Polar.
02,
%
0.4
1,0
t><1
0'?>
0,£-
O.B
0.7
l.t>
2.1>
Engine
4 STRATTTQN \QOX01
Procedure *- HODE
Run *
Date -4-/7/7<
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature
Dry Bult> Temperature
F
F
00
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
3loOO
3t>oo
36oo
Shoo
3(>e>£>
3&>oo
3hoo
3(,oo
3 boo
Observed
Power,
hp
13-Z
f>-7
0.2
13.4
1*3
o.z
/s. 7
&.?
o.z
•-
Fuel,
lbm/hr
Iff. 3
b-3
•4-3
103
(e.k
4-c
lt>.O
t.z
4-2
Air,
lbm/hr
/27.
82-5"
Si. 4
12.1.
9?.?
£-2-0 '
/*&.
9>4.0
k>20
$00
740
470
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
WSO
3,400
£,koo
4/Soo
3,100
6,,3oo
3,1 OO
3,400
StO£0
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
2,0 &
t&o
233
U.3
2.00
"LI I
til.
'ffff
AD/
NDIR
CO,
%
5.51
337
MS
&,.i>Z
4. let
7-2o
4.H
3-27
^4B
NDIR
C02,
%
1.00
im
7,70
8.10
9.5-9
7.29
9-sa
lo.i.
B.ZS-
NDIR
NO,
ppm
4^f
341
77
'Z4&
^rl3
hi
Qso
318
8?
Polar.
oz,
%
0.7
I.O
I.S
0,7
0.7
1-3
D.IO
I'Z
1-7
Engine
Procedure
Run '
- MODt
Date 3/1/71
Barometer, in Hg
Wet Bulb Temperature
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
34.oo
3t>OO
3&>oo
3 boo
3laOO
3leOO
3i>00
Shoo
3(eOO
Observed
Power,
hp
M-&
7.S-
0-2.
/fir.O
7.*
0,7.
/4-7
7,5"
o-3
Fuel,
lbm/hr
/2.»
7.&S1
-5:0.3
/^.3
7.so
-5^OO
//.O
6,66
4-?f
Air,
lbm/hr
/ 3^.
S&:7
so-z
13 f.
9(,.rJ
fe.2.
131.
&
^IS
07^-
75-5-
.575-
1>ff
9/o
5-70
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
4,400
3,t,oo
t>;S-t>°
4,&o&
.£•
//.ff
8-S-/
NDIR
NO,
ppm
&1O
WS
47
4/4
4 ig,
£>0
ins
774
/2-4
Polar.
02,
%
o.S
o.B
/.£•
o-r
c.g
l.£
O'S-
0.9
/•(>
Engine
K482.
Procedure
Run z
Date 3/2.4-/7> Wet Bulb Temperature
Barometer, in Hg .2.9.00 Dry Bulb Temperature
F
F
dd
I
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
4S"£>0
^S~oo
4s~oo
4 soo
40
toOO
St>o
&/.£•
£3o
^3g
£>4o
l>3o
&zo
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
31,000
3/,Bo°
3-t>,/Oo
41/400
3% Ooo
W) 00
30,400
frrffio
i^oo
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
31JO
3i4o
2.6OO
3700
3700
37&o
37Zo
3-1SO
3.B/D
NDIR
CO,
%
2. 16
.2.78
3-z?
s;y.i
S-.01
s-./s-
O.&T.
O.Bi.
Z-2-3
NDIR
C02,
%
8-2^
8-81
8.94
WO
t»44
6>-7o
6*8
<*.?&>
I'lk
NDIR
NO,
ppm
2.17
H3
fo
9/
83
9/
3^2.
/7Z.
Ifi
Polar.
02,
%
^.fc
3.9
4-2.
^•5-
3-9
J.g
4-9
4-S
3-4
Engine
AUS2O T 14-48
Procedure
Run ]
Date ^/>2-/7t Wet Bulb Temperature fefe F
Barometer, in Hg 29->s Dry Bulb Temperature JLiL F
td
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
4S~oo
AS oo
4SOO
^lr7
D^lp
0-2&
Ut
9. 14
0-2.5
•-
Fuel,
lbm/hr
2.04
1-48
o.67
.2.44
1-1,1.
1.01
l.&l
1-31
0-BO
Air,
lbm/hr
24,1
n.z
10.1
24-7
16.1
n.s
23,&
11.0
11.2.
Temperature, °F
Intake
&4
84
64
8r
Bs-
85-
8S"
8<*
QU
Exhaust
l,3o
teo
5bo
t>Z£-
510
S-LZ
t»so
{er/0
bOO
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
3J,t,oo
iv,soo
24,t,oa
^,lpDO
31,2.00
34., Vi>°
34,9*0
Zlj/OD
2.1,000
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
3kio
2S-&0
2.O30
4 520
Soio
30io
3.1ZO
3-330
zoqo
NDIR
CO,
%
3L..40
3.0S-
3.51
£•78
(0.07
4-L-B.
o.So
o,S8
A35"
NDIR
C02,
%
B«44
<).os
%3S-
6>-2j
7.83>
9-47
4-44
10.1
1-90
NDIR
NO,
ppm
2»t>
133
112.
&4
103
IOS
4i,<}
307
290
Polar.
02,
%
4.9
3.4
3-2.
4>3
3.1
3.1
S.I
4-0
3-4
Engine TECUMS£V\ AH520 TI446
Procedure ^
Date 4V >3 /7\
Barometer, in Hg 2.9.
wet Bulb Temperature
Dry Bulb Temperature
F
F
Run
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
SIpOO
3&>oo
3bOO
3hoo
3(fOo
3t>oo
3(,oo
36 oo
Shoo
Observed
Power,
hp
1-43
0-82.
0,2.2-
I-4S
O.&lo
0.2.2.
1.41
O.&o
0-2-1-
•-
Fuel,
lbm/hr
2.08
/.3fc
0:70
2.37
l.'-t>
0.7.3
I.'.'L
l.<4
0,10
Air,
lbm/hr
3-4-0
lf.4
0^
3-4.0
lle.lc,
fi.fc
34.0
<4.°l
e.k
Temperature, °F
Intake
68
3B
&°>
5 '4
S3
93
31
8;?
3*»
Exhaust
bio
£30
440
sno
S30
45"o
6>ZO
$rt>o
440
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
sz, Boo
37,2-00
1>3,00a
loOjOOO
41,400
3t>,l>OD
HjbOO
3(,,i>e>t>
34/Boo
NDIR
HC,
ppmC6
4k/o
4i Bo
Zlto
Sta(,0
SDO
40IS"
4sno
40S~0
34SS'
NDIR
CO,
%
3.00
S.Bff
3.36
S.IS
t>4&
4-iS-
f'S'O
/.96
J.95-
NDIR
C02,
%
t*.
t»4
4.0
3.S
Engine
Procedure
Run 3
T1AA6 Date 4-/14/71 Wet Bulb Temperature
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
Bka>o
3t*oo
3 boo
3l>oo
36oo
3 bo 5
3f>oo
3&e>0
3(,oo
Observed
Power,
hp
9-3
4.7
0-4,
,
Fuel,
lbm/hr
7-86
S.02.
-?-37
e.s'S'
&.03
J1.^
^•77
4-93
l.S/
Air,
lbm/hr
9/-Z.
^z.£-
37. •?
•?/.&
i.3,7
^6.7
9/.Z
{,3,1
^.7
Temperature, °F
Intake
08
88
86
83
89
88
8"?
a?
83
Exhaust
980
8£tf
?.os
^io
83o
i>s~o
1 030
&80
75-fi
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
3,koo
4,loo
s~,4oo
4, too
^100
(,,400
3tooo
3tboo
3/0 00
NDIR
HC,
ppmC^
68
IO&
'2,0
Ilk
1st
ISL
kZ.
81
73
NDIR
CO,
%
.s-.tz
Ip-l4
S-,7^
fe.93
5./Z
*>•&!
B-Z1)
•44L
2.31
NDIR
C02,
%
8.^9
8.75
?,9S
8.08
7.^0
840
11-0
f.97
10,8
NDIR
NO,
ppm
Sio
0-01
/Z3
3o<*
/28
I0&
1 1S-o
411
ISZ
Polar.
02,
%
Engine \/0*S»CQN)SI KJ S-12.D
Procedure —.L
Run *
Date 3/30/7 I Wet Bulb Temperature 57 F
Barometer, in Hg 2.9.12. Dry Bulb Temperature _§^-_ F
td
-------
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
Engine
Speed,
rpm
3&0o
SfoOO
3oo
Zkoo
31*00
3(rOO
3t>oo
$600
Observed
Power,
hp
Q.S
4-6
o.H>
9-6-
4-8
03
9-t>
4-1
O'*
•-
Fuel,
lbm/hr
1.41
•S.loO
3-4o
B-B&,
l>.4l>
3.1 &
1*1,
.£•.03
ZPio
Air,
lbm/hr
9/.9
H-9
3&.B
1$.o
IAI
40-0
44.2.
i-4.1
40.o
Temperature, °F
Intake
86
88
88
as
8ft
88
3o
70
13t>
110
Wet Concentrations
FIA
HC,
ppmC
^,zoo
4,10°
S'.S'OO
4,000
^3oa
7,100
s,?oo
3,200
4,000
NDIR
HC,
ppmC6
>3l
IbS
JLOI
173
141
301
13
\o£
133
NDIR
CO,
%
S.I*-
i-S7
b.lo
7'0t>
&lk>
8.17
2. ,97
4-OS
4.0S-
NDIR
C02,
%
9^4
8-34
8-iS-
6-f>7
t>42>
i*.<)3
10-b
lO.o
)0.0
NDIR
NO,
ppm
£>o
IS&
Bl
ill
?s-
4o
1020
4t>4
l&
Polar.
02,
%
o-s
0.4
o.t.
0.2
&.B
o.t>
0,4
0.4
0.7
Engine WlSCQMSIK) S-12.D
Procedure ^-"ODB
Run 2-
Date 3/3'/'» Wet Bulb Temperature 7Z F
Barometer, in Hg 2-6.93 Dry Bulb Temperature J*4_ F
-------
APPENDIX C
Graphical Representation of Emissions
During Transient Conditions
-------
C-2
a
I
i
si
O
a
Sr
3
z
RPM
ID
ZO 30
-r\nt , S.S-CJONC:
40
BRlC-C-i
3.TRAT1 0\) \OO7O1 EWGIMt
UOAt<> AMD 27CO RPM (NO
T I ^ ) — CONS"! AMT I.OAL.., THRQTT L t
2500
200O
O
q isoo
J
2 I00°
I
t/
2 I
iA
-2
5OO- a I
uJ
Si
uJ
2
4 -
O"-
10
2D
20
FICrURE C-Z . TRAK5SIT1DM
BRIC-C-S
RPM (.TUV-L \-OAO) i\MD 22SO RPM^TOUL LOAD) FOR T rtt
IOO2.0Z ENGIML (RONT2.C) - CONS>T/V\rr THRQTVH-, LOAD \ IOC R E Ai I I\J t
-------
C-3
/OOO1- - 4 U
0
LI 4
6
-i h
O
5 2.
O
2
i
FVG-UR.E. C-3 .
lOW BtTVsttM IkOO RPf\ (HAH- LOAD) MOD I6OO
STRAT1ON IO01O2. EMC-lfOU (RUNTib )- CONSTiVOT
llWuf- LOAD) TOR THE.
-OT 1 It , LOM"-
ISOO -
o
ill IOOO
z
a:
500-
Ou
t-
•2
'
- co
io
2O
3O 40
, StXONQS
50
. rtt,
C-4 . TRANSITION &ETWLfclO 220O RPM (fOUL LOAD) AMD 3S1S RP^l(fOI-L LOPvO} TOR TV\J_
&R1&&S ^. ST RATTON IOOZ02 CNC-IM t ( RUN T 4 A) — CONST AMT Tf^ROTT L t, DECRtAil WC- UOAD
-------
C-4
k «- 4 U
2 \soo
t^
if)
z
cc
6
IOOO
500
o
ul
z
o
S '
5 r
, r
6
RPt-1
4,0
FIO-ORE C.-S.
nOM EETK)tl:^\ 22OO RPM(h\AlF UOftt ) AMD 2i5O RPM (NO UV-L-) fOR THE 5RlfrC.i £,
1O02OZ ENX-ilOL (RUM ^5^) — CDMSTAfviT THROTTLE , DFr Rf All \X> ). DAD (_&CMEPMOB
COMTROLI i B
•iPEEU' DURioJC-
TBAI-Jiif MT
ZSOO
Jl.
IOOO
I
o:
o"
o
ul
r
a.
DC
o
lU
co
HC.
IO
HC.
20
30 40
Tlr'lfc SECOMDS
so
4>0
C-fe . TRAMS>ITIOM 6E.TKJE.&M Z^OO RPM (PART LOAD) AWD 3
-------
C-5
25^0 r
2COO
g 1500
I/I
500
I/I
i
O
ul
i
o.'
in
6
ul
- l/l
TIME
FI&-ORE C.-7. TRM^ilTlOM BE.THOEEN 5foQO RPM (_R)kl_ UOAD) AMD 2\2S RPM ^MO LOAD) FOR THE
SRI&&S. ^ STE.ATTO(O >0020X EM&llslt (^EOM T~7B^ — THROTTLE. tL05>ir>0&x LOAD
CO
iOOD
I
8
o
ul
s
ISOO
1000
o
z
I-
UJ
15
a!
8
O
f 4
O
g 2
ui
2
3
2
LU
30 40
, SECONOS
50
fcO
FIG-URE C.-S . TR.'\MSIT\OM &ETU)EE(0 I&50 RPM (NO LOM>) AND 3300
BRVGG.S i. S.TRATTOM 100201 EN&I^E (S.UM TQC) —
LOAB) FOR. THE.
X THRfiTTl-E, BEIWG- OPEWED
-------
C-6
SCO -
O foOO
c
10 r
a.
o
6 -
a
2 4
FIGAJRE. c-? .
tow BETWEEN) itso RPM CNO LOA.D) AMD \oi_t ^MQ LO/VL) FOR THE.
K4B2. E tOMME. (RUN T i. 6) - CONSTANT LOAD . T HROT T V t CUOSvlOC-
\ooOr
BOO
600
i
O
4OO
20O-
2 10
u
ul
a
2 6
I
0
ul
2 fe
Hi
a /L
2
i^
o
£ 2.
O
a:
o
o 4
i/i
o
UJ
h
|
10
20 3O 4O
TIME, SECONDS
SO
F1G-URE t-lO. TR^r^)S\T^O^) BETWEEN) (DLE^MOuOAC) AMCi 2.100 RPK1 (.MO LO^D) FOR THt
K.OWUER K4-82 E MC-I ME- (.RUN T2 B) COMSTAMT V-OAO^THROT T tt BtlKJ&OPEMED
-------
C-7
IOCO
eoo
i
0 foOO
o_
0
4 AOO
tt
o
2
2OO
0
\0
K
7
.J
i.
0-6
o
7
c
s <>
2
a;
c
c
2
i)
2
- | z.
<•
0
^2
* O
r
[L
U
54
u
1
o
u!
2 3>
-^'
< 2.
6
o
z.
—
^
£ '
ll
2
c
•z.
— u o
RPM
lO
20 50 40
TIME, SttOMDS
50
t-U . TRAMSITVOM 6.ETWEEM 5TSO RPt^ ( F OUU l_OAD> AMD IBOO RP M I.FOU L l-OM>) FOR
V^OHUER K4&2- ENtlME. l^RUN T 4 t) — tOMSTAr^-v THPOT Tl n , LOAD (M CP.fcAil MO-
IOOO
800
60O
O
ul
d
7.
ZOO -
a
o
i
o «,
ul
40O(- 4 -
cc
Q
L i nU
w
I
o
u
ci<
i-
2 -
O "-
HC
L_
O
RPM
10
20 50 4O
TIME, SECOMOS
50
fcO
C-12. . TRAMSmOW BETME-EW 3T25 RPM (FOUU UOAO) *WD I8OO KPH (^PART LOAD) FOR. THE
KOHLER K482 ENCINC- (RUN T7B)— CONSTMOT LOAD , THlROT T L E- C-LOSIMC-
-------
C-8
eoot- B
j
j
2
4:
o"
ou
5>0
2
< 6
2 *
2 5
4 -
h u. 3i-
Ri-M
20
50 4O 50 fed
c.-i i . TR^Ma.n>OM
THt
1600 RPM (PMIT uc^o) A.ND 5700 RPM (t oi-u LOAD) FOR
CO^^S^^^)T UOA.D, TRROTTLt BtlWC-
-------
C-9
fc
V-
fjrrx
400
- "2 5
o
a
tu
a.
^ 4
o
5
Q.
5
Si 4
O
Si LU LJ
i 30O - at 3 !- c* 3
0
*
01 " 1 tf
c5 o
2 §
$ 200(- * Z
\ S)
Z
2
o
l£
<
too j- g i
^
^
o- o
u
- 1 *
I
jr.
a
ul
- Si '
uJ
— o
10
20
30
4O
50
RPr-v-
NO
6O
TIME.,
H&URE C-CV
4SOO RPH (.MO 1_OM>) AMD 3OOO RPfl(NO UO^D) FOR. t^t TEC.UMSEH
1448 EM&I/VJE. (RUI~) TIA) — COWSTAWT LOAD, THROTTL.E CLOSIIO&-
500
400
300
O
a>
Z00
O
\oo -
I-
2
O
uJ
ITIO(0 &ETWE.6IO 45OO RPM (.FOUL LOAD) AMD 3300 RPM (FULL LOAD) TORTHE-
TECOHSEH AHS2O ^YPE 1*46 EM&INiE. (.ROM T2.D)— C0^4STAMT THROTTLE., LO(\O IWCREAS.IM&-
-------
C-10
4OO
-1GO
zoo
./i
c
uJ
ti<
co_
I
O
20 JO
Tine.,
40
50
C-lfc . TRWOSITIOW BETIOE.E.W 33OO RPMCfUU- LOAD) AMD ASOO RPM (fULU U(VSO) FOR. THE
AHSZO TYPE. )44fl ENfrVlOt. l^RUM T4&) — COkiSTAKJT THCOTTUE, WOAO
£.00 r
4OO
J: 300
2.0O
IOO
O
ul
Ul
2
5 r
ID
3O
TIME., SECONDS
4O
5O
fcO
. TRANSIT tOM BtTi^SS tM 34OO RPM (.POLL UOAtJ ) A(OO 44-00 RPM (fULL LOAD) FOR THl.
AH5.20 TVPt V448 eWMMt (RUM Tfc&N— COMS.T ^^J-^ THBOTTLt , DEC REASlMC- WOAO
-------
C-ll
400 L
!
e
2
Of 20O -
§
Li
I
o
111
lil
2
.1
a
<
3 -
2O HO
TIME. ,
50
to
FlQrURE C.-V8 IRWOitTIOM BtTWfctM 450O RPM IfXH-L LOAB) AMD 32OO RPM (MO 10<\D> FOR. THE.
TECUMStH KKS20 TVPt 1446 EKK-IWt (ROM T TA ) — TKKOTTLE. (LLOilUt-^ l_OAD DEC K.EASI IOC-
6 r
a.
•3
500r
400 -
300 -
200 -
lOOl-
o1-
Ul
I
o
ul
RPM
HC,
O
1
\D
i
2.0
I I
3D 4O
TIME, SEC-OAJD2.
• CO
I I
SO 6>O
F16-URE. C-\> .
BfcT'OEENJ 31OO RPM iMO LOAD) AMD 4T*\MT UOAD,THR01TVE- BElMt
-------
C-12
4,0
ISO
FlCrURE C-
9O 12O
TIMt, S6.COIODS
2.0. COUD START AMD I01-E- FOR BRI&OS ^STRATTON 92.908 EM&IME, 4/3O/71
I8O
«> r
I
8
i
o
ill
o
2
80
O1-
4 -
<* 3 -
I
<0
of
5
OL
F*CrUR6C-21 .COLD START AMD \DLt FOR. BR1&GS STRATTOW
*5 to 7S
TirAt, itCOMDS
EM&IUEx£i/4/TI
90
CSi)
------- |