United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
EPA 460/3-84-015
March 1985
Air
oEPA
Emission Characterization of a
2-Stroke Heavy-Duty Diesel
Coach Engine and Vehicle With
and Without a Particulate Trap
-------
EPA 460/3-84-015
Emission Characterization of a 2-Stroke
Heavy-Duty Diesel Coach Engine and Vehicle
With and Without a Particulate Trap
by
Terry L. Ullman
and
Charles T. Hare
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68-03-3073
Work Assignment 7
EPA Project Officer: Robert J. Garbe
Task Technical Representative: Thomas M. Baines
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
March 1985
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations — in limited quantities — from the
Library Services Office, Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth
Road, Ann Arbor Michigan 48105.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas, in
fulfillment of Work Assignment 7 of Contract No. 68—03—3073. The
contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from Southwest
Research Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company product names is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. 460/3—84—15
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The project on which this report is based was initiated by Work
Assignment No. 7 of EPAContract 68—03—3073, received by SwRI on April
20, 1982. The contract was for “Pollutant Assessment Support for the
Emission Control Technology Division.” Work Assignment No. 7 of that
contract was specifically for “Preliminary Investigation of Trap/Oxidizer
in a Heavy-Duty Bus Engine.” The work was identified within SwRI as
Project No. 05—6619—007.
The Project Officer and the Technical Project Monitor for EPA’s
Technology Assessment Branch during the Work Assignment were Mr. Robert
J. Garbe and Mr. Thomas M. Baines, respectively. SwRI Project Director
was Mr. Karl J. Springer, and SwRI Project Manager was Mr. Charles T.
Hare. The SwRI Task Leader and principal investigator for the Work
Assignment No. 7 effort was Mr. Terry L. tillman. Lead technical per-
sonnel were Mr. Patrick Medola and Mr. Raul R. Martinez.
We would like to express our appreciation to Detroit Diesel
Allison Division for supplying the engine; the VIA Metropolitan Transit
Company of San Antonio for supplying the Coach used in this program, at
nominal cost; and Corning Glass Works for supplying the uncatalyzed trap
substrates and technical information.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Diesel soot or smoke has been regarded as a nuisance pollutant and
potential health hazard, especially in congested urban areas where diesel
buses operate. A non-catalyzed particulate trap was studied as an exhaust
aftertreatmeflt device on a heavy-duty DDAD 6V71 diesel coach engine, and
later, on a similarly-powered in—service GMC RTS-II bus. The emphasis of
the program was on gathering exhaust emissions information during parti-
culate accumulation by the trap. The work also included trap shell arid
hardware fabrication, installation, and devising a workable regeneration
scheme. Regeneration was accomplished using an in—exhaust—pipe burner
to raise the engine’s idle exhaust gas temperature from 120to 700°C.
Emissions characterization included regulated emissions (HC, CO, and
NOx) along with particulate, selected hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols,
and odor. The particulate matter was characterized in terms of sulfate
content, C, H, N, S, metal content, and soluble organic fraction. The
soluble organic fraction was further analyzed for benzo(a)pyrene (SaP),
C, H, N, S, and boiling point distribution.
Exhaust emissions from the DDAD 6V71 coach engine were characterized
over the 1979 13—mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or shorter versions
of this modal test, over the 1984 Transient FTP, and over an experimental
bus cycle. Emissions from the GMC RTS-II coach were characterized over
an experimental heavy-duty vehicle chassis driving cycle and over an
experimental chassis driving cycle developed for testing buses.
Particulate emissions were reduced by an average of 79 percent over
both steady-state and transient operation using the trap. Smoke emissions
with the trap in place were essentially zero during all modes of operation,
including full-rack acceleration. Although the trap was quite effective
in reducing carbonaceous particulate emissiOnS, it had a variable effect
in reducing the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the total particulate.
Some reduction in sulfate emissions were also noted. The effect of the
trap on regulated and other unregulated emissions was generally minimal.
Differences in brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) with the trap
were also minimal.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
I. ] NTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY 3
III. TEST PLAN, DESCRIPTION OF TEST APPARATUS, AND PROCEDURES USED
FOR EVALUATION 7
A. Test Plan 7
B. Fuels
C. Test Engine and Test Vehicle 10
D. Regeneration—Burner Development 10
E. Description of Trap and Fuel Burner Installations 14
F. Test Procedures, Engine Dynamometer 16
G. Test Procedures, Chassis Dynamometer 27
H. Analytical Procedures 29
IV. RESULTS 37
A. Baseline Repeat 37
B. Trap Particulate Accumulation and Regeneration 41
C. Gaseous Emission During Regeneration 50
D. Gaseous Emissions 53
E. particulate Emissions 70
V. QUALITY ASSURANCE 91
REFERENCES 93
APPENDICES
A. 13-MODE RESULTS
B. TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS FROM DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE WITHOUT TRAP
C. TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS FROM DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE WITH TRAP
D. CHASSIS TEST RESULTS FROM GMC RTS-II COACH WITHOUT TRAP
E. CHASSIS TEST RESULTS FROM GMC RTS-II COACH WITH TRAP
V
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Burner Assembly Used in Exhaust Duct 11
2 Regeneration Burner Assembly 13
3 Regeneration Burner with Cover Removed 13
4 Particulate Trap Installed in Exhaust System 15
5 Trap Inlet Diffuser Prior to Installation 15
6 Overall View of Engine and Exhaust System Used for
Particulate Trap Evaluation 17
7 Exhaust System for DDAD 6V71 Trap Experimentation 18
8 View of Bus with Trap Exhaust System Installed for Road
Work and Chassis Dynamometer Testing 19
9 Graphic Representation of Torque and Speed Commands for the
1984 Transient FTP Cycle for a 250 hp at 2200 rpm Diesel
Engine 22
10 Graphic Representation of Torque and Speed Commands for the
Experimental Bus Cycle for a 250 hp at 2200 rpm Diesel
Engine 25
11 Secondary Dilution Tunnel for Particulate Mass Rate by
90 mm Filters 26
12 Large 20x20 Filter Holders Attached to Primary Tunnel
of CVS 26
13 Chassis Dynamometer Inertia Wheels and Eddy Current
Power Absorption Units 27
14 GMC RTS-II Coach on Heavy-Duty Chassis Dynamometer Rolls 30
15 GMC 1 S-II Coach Alongside CVS 30
16 Heavy-Duty Chassis Driving Cycle 31
17 Heavy—Duty Chassis Bus Driving Cycle 31
18 Emissions Cart for Determining Concentrations of HC, CO,
C0 2 , and NO in Raw Exhaust 33
19 Sampling System Used to Collect Emission Samples for
AldehydeS, Phenols, and DOAS 33
v ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT’D).
Figure Page
20 DDAD 6V7l with Insulated Exhaust System and Particulate
Trap Aftertreatment 42
21 Trap Temperature and Pressure Traces Over the Cold—
Start Transient Cycle 44
22 Trap Temperature and Pressure Traces Over the Hot—
Start Transient Cycle 45
23 Trap Temperature and Pressure Traces Over the Bus Cycle 46
24 Inlet of Particulate Trap Prior to Regeneration 47
25 Inlet of Trap Following Regeneration 47
26 Failed Trap after Outlet Temperature Peaked at 990°C 50
27 Pressure and Temperature Trace and Gaseous Emissions Trace
During Trap Regeneration 52
28 Smoke Emissions During WOT Acceleration From a Stop With
Exhaust Bypassing Trap 73
29 Smoke Emissions During WOT Acceleration From a Stop With
Exhaust Routed hrough the Trap 74
30 Modal Particulate Rates from the DDAD 6V7l Coach Engine 76
31 Modal Sulfate Rates from the DDAD 6V7l Coach Engine 79
32 Boiling Point Distribution of SOF from Cold- and Hot-Start
Transient Test of DDAD 6V7l Coach Engine With Trap, With
Internal Standard 88
33 Boiling Point Distribution of SOF from Bus Cycle Test of
DDAD 6V7l Coach Engine With Trap, With Internal Standard 88
34 Boiling Point Distribution of SOF from Cold- and Hot-Start
Transient Test of GMC RTS-II Coach With Trap, Without
Internal Standard 89
35 Boiling Point Distribution of SOP from Bus Cycle Test of
GMC RTS—II Coach With Traf Without Internal Standard 89
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Composite Emission Rates from a DDAD 6V71
Coach Engine and a GMC RTS-II Coach Vehicle With and
Without a Particulate Trap 5
2 Particulate Trap Evaluations, 6V71 Coach Engine 8
3 Properties of the Two Diesel Test Fuels 9
4 Burner Exhaust Temperatures Obtained With Various Fuel
Pressures 14
5 Listing of 13—Mode and 7—Mode Weighting Factors 20
6 Original and New Baseline 13-Mode Emission Results from
the DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine 37
7 Transient Map Results From the DDAD 6V7l Coach Engine 39
8 Comparative Baseline Emissions From the DDAD 6V7l Coach
Engine 40
9 Smoke Opacity from the DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine in the
Baseline Configuration 40
10 Full Load Performance of DDAD 6V7l at Rated Speed With
Increasing Backpressure 41
11 Burner Emissions with Corresponding Fuel Flow and Burner
Exhaust Temperatures 50
12 Summary of 13-Mode Emission Results From the DDAD 6V7l
Coach Engine 54
13 Exhaust and Trap Temperature Over 13—Mode Steady—State
Operation 55
14 Summary of Average Transient Emissions From the DDAD 6V71
Coach Engine 57
15 Summary of Average Transient Emission From a GMC
RTS-II Coach 58
16 Summary of Individual Hydrocarbons From Transient
Operation of the DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine 60
17 Summary of Individual Hydrocarbons From Transient Chassis
Operation of the GMC RTS-II Coach 61
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)
Table Page
18 Summary of Aldehydes from Modal Operation of the
DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine in Baseline Configuration 62
19 Summary of Aldehydes from Modal Operation of the
DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine with Trap 63
20 Minimum Detectable Values of the DNPH Procedure 64
21 Summary of Aldehydes from Transient Operation of the
DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine 65
22 Summary of Aldehydes from Transient Operation of the
GMC RTS—II Coach 66
23 Minimum Detectable Values of Phenols Procedure 67
24 Summary of TIA from Modal Operation of the DDAD 6V71
Coach Engine With and Without Trap 68
25 Summary of TIA from Transient Operation of the DDAD
6V71 Coach Engine With and Without Trap 69
26 Summary of TIA from Transient Operation of the
GMC RTS—II Coach With and Without Trap 70
27 Smoke Opacity from the DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine
Without Trap 72
28 Summary of Modal Particulate Emission from the
DDAD 6V7l 75
29 Sulfate Emissions Summary From Modal Operation of the
DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine 78
30 Sulfate Emission Summary From Transient FTP Operation
of DDAD 6V7l Coach Engine With and Without Trap 81
31 Sulfate Emission Summary From Transient Testing of the
GMC RTS-II Coach With and Without Trap 81
32 Summary of Elemental Analysis of Total Particulate From
the DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine 82
33 Summary of Elemental Analysis of Total Particulate From
the GMC RTS-II Coach 84
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)
Table Page
34 Summary of Soluble Organic Fraction From the DDAD
6V71 Coach Engine 85
35 Summary of Cycle and Composite Soluble Organic Fraction
From the DDAD 6V7l Coach Engine 85
36 Summary of Soluble Organic Fractions From the GMC RTS—II
Coach 86
37 Summary of Benzo(a)Pyrene Emissions 86
38 Boiling Point Distribution of Soluble Organic Fraction
From the DDAD 6V7l Coach Engine 87
39 Elemental Composition of Soluble Organic Fraction 90
xi
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the years, diesel soot and smoke have been regarded as a
nuisance pollutant and a potential health hazard, especially in con-
gested urban areas where diesel buses operate. Among the limited
technologies currently available to reduce diesel particulate emissions,
the particulate trap appears to be one method which may be adaptable
under some conditions. Although some experiments with particulate
traps and associated regeneration schemes have been conducted with
light-duty diesel engines and vehicles, relatively little information has
been published on the application of particulate trap technology to heavy-
duty diesel engines and vehicles.
The objectives of this work were to: 1) evaluate the effectiveness
of a—low-mileage trap installed on a heavy—duty diesel bus engine, 2)
develop a method of regeneration, and 3) characterize the emission levels
during trap use compared to baseline. The trap used in this work was a
ceramic substrate manufactured by Corning. The basic substrate was of
the same type used in the manufacture of monolithic catalytic converters.
The substrate was not coated with any catalytic material, and alternate
channels of the substrate were blocked in order to cause the exhaust gases
to “filter” through the walls of the substrate. The project was to be
carried out on a two—stroke DDAD 6V7l coach engine tested on an engine
dynamometer (for which baseline data had already been accumulated), and
then repeated on a similarly—powered bus vehicle tested on a chassis
dynainome te r.
Emissions from the engine with trap, mounted on a engine dynamometer,
were characterized over steady-state operation of the 13—mode FTP, 1 as
well as over the 1984 Heavy—Duty Transient FTP. (2 ) Emissions were also
measured over an experimental transient bus cycle. In addition, exhaust
emissions from a bus vehicle with a similar engine were characterized
over an experimental driving cycle for testing heavy—duty vehicles under
transient conditions on the chassis dynamometer, with and without the
trap. Emissions were also measured over a chassis dynamometer version of
the transient cycle meant to represent bus operation.
*N thers in parentheses designate references at the end of this report.
-------
II. SUMMARY
One of the current strategies to meet the EPA proposed particulate
standard of 0.25 g/hp—hr (0.34 g/kW-hr) for heavy—duty diesel engines is
to use a particulate trap. Changes made to diesel engines to reduce NO
emissions generally result in greater particulate emissions. Utilizing
a particulate trap, as an exhaust aftertreatment to reduce particulate
emissions, would allow manufacturers to adjust the engines to meet more
stringent NO emission standards. Although some work with particulate
traps has been conducted on light-duty diesel applications, relatively
little work has been published on trap application to heavy-duty diesel
engines. This program was conducted as a preliminary investigation into
the application of a non—catalyst particulate trap on a heavy-duty bus
engine as well as on a coach vehicle. A bus engine and coach vehicle
were chosen for this demonstration because buses contribute to much of
the urban particulate levels, ( 3 ) to which many people are exposed.
In addition, preliminary demonstration of a trap application would be
helpful if retrofitting is considered. The emphasis of the program was
to accumulate exhaust emissions information, but the program also in-
cluded trap shell and hardware fabrication, installation, and devising a
workable regeneration scheme.
The test engine used in this program was DDAD 6V71 coach engine, for
which emissions had been characterized in another program conducted for
EPA. The test vehicle used in this program was a 1980 GMC RTS—II in—
service coach. This bus was also powered by a DDAD 6V7l coach engine.
This engine is a 2-stroke direct—injected diesel engine which uses a
blower for scavenging. Hence, the temperatures of the exhaust gases are
generally lower than from a similarly rated 4—stroke diesel engine. In
order to regenerate the particulate trap, that is, to oxidize the trapped
particles, temperatures near 600°C (1112°F) are generally required. At
rated power conditions of 135 kW at 2100 rpm on No. 1 diesel fuel, the
maximum exhaust temperature was 522°C measured near the exhaust manifold.
The non-catalyzed trap was made of Corning EX-47 material in the
form of a cylinder measuring 12 inches long by 11.25 inches diameter.
This substrate material had 100 cells/in 2 and had a mean pore size of
12—13 microns. (5) An in—exhaust—pipe fuel burner was developed for
regeneration of the trap. Considering the potential bus vehicle appli-
cation of the trap, it was thought that regeneration at idle would be
most reasonable. For regeneration, idle exhaust gas temperature was
raised from about 120°C to 700°C by the burner.
Exhaust emissions from the DDAD 6V71 coach engine were measured
over the 1979 13—mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or shorter versions
of this modal test, over the 1984 Transient FTP, and over an experimental
bus cyc1e. ( 1 -’ 2 ’ 6 Exhaust emissions from the GMC RTS—II coach were
characterized over chassis versions of truck and bus cycle operation. C ,8)
Following trap accumulation of particulate, regeneration was successfully
accomplished during engine idle operation using the burner. Several
cycles of trap curnulation—regefleratiOfl were completed during emissions
3
-------
test work on the engine dynainometer. The trap and exhaust system were
then transferred to a coach vehicle. The bus was successfully operated
over the road in a service-like manner during trap particulate accumu-
lation. After regenerating the trap on the bus, regulated and unregu-
lated emissions were determined over chassis versions of the heavy-
duty transient cycles for trucks and buses during trap particulate
accumulation. Upon completion of testing the bus with the trap, emissions
without the trap were determine using the same chassis test procedures.
Table 1 summarizes the composite results obtained during this program
and includes baseline data (without trap) and results from Coach vehicle
testing without the trap, determined under other programs. As expected,
the trap reduced particulate emissions substantially. Over transient
testing of the engine with the trap, the total particulate emission was
reduced by about 65 percent. Transient testing of the coach vehicle
with the trap indicated a 92 percent reduction in total particulate
emissions. It should be noted that total particulate emission levels
from the coach vehicle were very high. Over steady—state testing of the
test engine with the trap, total particulate emission was reduced by 79
percent on the basis of 7—mode composite. During the steady—state test
work, the trap efficiency ranged from 95 percent during the full load!
intermediate speed condition to 38 percent during the 50 percent load/
rated speed condition. The trap was quite effective in reducing the
amount of observed “carbon black” typically found on the particulate
filter, but it had a variable effect in reducing the soluble organic
fraction (SOF) of the total particulate. Smoke emissions were essentially
reduced to zero under all modes of operation including full—rack accel-
eration.
For the test engine, the trap reduced the brake specific SOF by 45
percent over the 7—mode composite, 38 percent over the transient com-
posite, and 63 percent over the bus cycle. SOF over transient chassis
testing with the trap was reduced by about 88 percent. Of the SOP
submitted for analysis of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), the levels of BaP were
found to be minimal and no dependence on the trap can be readily assessed.
The sulfate portion of the total particulate was also determined.
The trap appeared to be responsible for a 79 percent reduction in 7—mode
composite sulfate emissions from the engine alone. Transient composite
sulfate emission was reduced by 67 percent. A trend to lower sulfate
emission also appeared from transient cycle composite results obtained
over chassis testing of the coach vehicle with the trap; but over the
bus cycle with the trap, the sulfate increased. The potential of a non-
catalyzed trap to stOre and purge sulfate aerosols over various operating
conditions was not determined in this program.
The effects of the trap on regulated and other unregulated emissions
were generally minimal. Emissions of hydrocarbons were generally
reduced by a few percent for the engine alone and by almost 34 percent
for the coach vehicle, Considering individual hydrocarbons (C 1 through
C 3 along with benzene and toluene), some reduction in the overall total
of individual hydrocarbons, mostly ethylene, was associated with use of
4
-------
TABLE 1. SUMI”IARY OF COMPOSITE EMISSION RATES FROM A DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE AND A
GMC RTS-II COACH VEHICLE WITH AND WITHOUT A PARTICULATE TRAP
NOTE: Superscript n ers in parentheses represent corresponding units
New baseline — these data acquired prior to installation of trap
Data were also acquired in front of the trap and were: MC 1.79, CO 6.38, NOx 9.91 g/kW—hr ,
with a BSFC of 0.286 kg/Kw—hr
Most of this total was comprised of formaldehyde and benzaldehyde
Transient composite was composed of a 1 cold and 3 hot transient runs
ephenol 2—n—propylphenol was noted at a level of 58 mg/kW—hr, but potential analysis
finterference makes the measurement quiestionable
Below the minimum detectable levels
trap Federal smoke for DDAD 6V7l coach engine were: A 4.0, B 7.0. C 7.2 percent opacity;
with trap: A <1, B <1, C <1 percent opacity; without trap, the GJ4C RTS-II coach was regarded as a
h 0 Y bus, with trap, no smoke emissions were visible
Based on four runs for particulate
Below minimum detectable level of 0.0002 jig RaP/leg SOF
1 Original baseline data obtained under previous contract. BSFC for “baseline 13—mode, transient,
and bus cycle were 0.308, 0.323, and 0.339, respectively.
U i
composite Emission Rates
Test Configuration
(1)
DDAD 6V7l Coach Engine
(2
G14Z FrS-II Coach
Without Trap (Baseline)
With Trap
Without Trap
With Trap
Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
13—Mode
Transient
Bus Cycle
13—Mode
Transient
Bus Cycle
Transient
Bus Cycle
Transient
Bus Cycle
Hydrocarbons, HCa
g/kW—hr ( 1 ), g/Ium 2 , (g/kg fuel)
64 b
(5.69)
190 a
(6,46)
193 a
(6.39)
160 b
(5.87)
1.89
(6.39)
1.83
(6.16)
1.56
(3.85)
2.25
(4.46)
1.02
(2.56)
1.47
(3.09)
Carbon Monoxide, co
g/kW_hrU), g/i ( 2 ), (g/kg fuel)
962 a,b
(33.4)
518 a
(17.6)
413 a
(13.7)
624 b
(21.8)
(15.0)
4.12
(13.9)
53.6
(132)
70.6
(140)
44.7
(112)
66.0
(139)
Oxides of Nitro 991 NOR”
g/kW—hr 1 , g/km , (g/kg fuel)
979 a,b
(34.0)
817 a
(27.8)
902 a
(29.9)
1000 b
(35.0)
777
(26.2)
8.59
(28.9)
10.2
(25.2)
12.9
(25.6)
fo.s
(27.1)
11.4
(23.9)
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
kg fuel/kW—hr 1 , kg/km 2
0288 a ,b,J
9294 a,j
0302 a,j
0286 b
0296
0.297
0.405
0.504
0.398
0.476
Test Cycle
7—Mode
Transient
Bus Cycle
7—Mode
Transient
Bus Cycle
Transient
Bus Cycle
Transient
Bus Cycl
Total Individual H
ng/kW—hr 1 , mg,i , 2), (mg/kg fuel)
Not
Run
l9o
(610)
Not
Ran
Not
Run
110
(380)
120
(400)
200
(500)
220
(440)
93
(230)
97
(200)
Total Aldehydes
mg/kW brU), mg,’km 2 ) , (mg/kg fuel)
29 ’
(95)
3l
(95)
l2
(36)
28
(91)
46 C
(160)
120 C
(412)
41 d
(100)
170
(350)
190 d -
(470)
120
(260)
Total Phenols
mg/kW-hr
Not
Run
e,j
e,j
f
f
f
f,d
f
f ,d
f
Total Intensity of Aroma (TIPs)
by LCP. (by LCo)
l.SS
(1.20)
l.8O
(1.66)
Not
Run
1.86
(1.99)
1.88
(1.22)
1.70
(1.71)
2 .l 5
(2.56)
1.81
(2.14)
2 • 20 d
(2.50)
—
1.85
(2.18)
Total Particulat
g/kW_hrU), g,i.ai 2), (g/kg fuel)
O.7O
(2.3)
0 , 75 a
(2.6)
O 7 B
(2.6)
0.15
(0.48)
029 h
(0.98)
025 h
(0.84)
(11)
6.2
(12)
0.35
(0.88)
0.43
(0.90)
Sulfate, SO(
mg/kW—br( 1 ), Ilg/km(2 ) , (mg/kg fuel)
25
(81)
28
(87)
Not
Run
5.2
(17)
9.3
(31)
23
(78)
13
(32)
16
(33)
11
(27)
24
(51)
Soluble Organic Fraction (So?)
g/kW—hr 1 ), g/km 2 ) , (mg/kg fuel)
0.20
(0.65)
O.4O
(1.2)
O.54
(1.6)
0.11
(0.36)
0.25
(0.84)
0.20
(0.67)
0.31
(0.75)
0.41
(0.81)
0.040
(0.10)
0.049
(0.10)
Ba?, lJg/kW—hr (l) ,
ug/km( 2 ). (jig/kg fuel)
<0.04k
<0.08k
<0.11’
0.12
(0.38)
0.28
(0.92)
0.11
(0.37)
0.0502
(0.12)
< 0008 i
0.055
(0.14)
0.022
(0.044)
-------
the trap. The trap appeared to have mixed effects on the emission of
aldehydes and the odor index, referred to as total intensity aroma (TIA).
There was little difference in emissions of CO or NOx attributed to the
trap. Differences in BSFC with the trap were minimal. It is difficult
to say whether or not the relatively small changes noted above were due
to the exhaust gases passing through the particulate—laden trap, or
whether the changes were due to influences on engine backpressure (which
ranged from 3.0 to 6.0 in. Hg during testing with the trap) or simply
test—to-test repeatability. Much more detailed work would be needed to
isolate the effect of the particulate—laden trap on various hydrocarbon
species, aldehydes, NOx, and sulfate emissions.
During regeneration of the trap, with the test engine at idle and
the fuel burner operating, the HC and NOx emissions were similar to the
levels obtained during idle; but the level of CO emission was about 10
times greater. Total particulate emissions and the level of SOF over the
regeneration “cycle” were above the levels obtained during normal idle
with the trap, but were still lower than the levels obtained without the
trap. Sulfate emission during regeneration was about 3 times greater
than that from idle without the trap, and sulfur accounted for approxi-
mately 7 percent of total particulate. No significant change in smoke,
selected hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols, or odor (by DOAS) occurred
during regeneration of the trap.
6
-------
III. TEST PL1 N, DESCRIPTION OF TEST APPARATUS, AND
PROCEDURES USED FOR EVALUATION
The intent of this program was to characterize regulated gaseous emissions
along with particulate arid unregulated emissions from the DDAD 6V71 coach engine,
with and without particulate trap aftertreatment, using both engine dynamometer
and chassis dynamometer test procedures. This section describes the test plan,
as comprehensive as possible within the effort available, used to collect and
analyze emissions samples. It also gives some of the pertinent specifications
and description of the engine, vehicle, fuels, trap, and burner used in this
program. Procedures are described, including both engine and chassis dynamo-
meter test procedures used to generate and acquire the emission samples, and
the procedures used to analyze the samples.
A. Test Plan
The basic test plan used in this program initially required confirming a
portion of baseline emissions from the test engine (DDAD 6V71 coach engine).
After approval of the baseline “repeat data” by the Project Officer, the parti-
culate trap was to be installed, and during trap accumulation experiments, a
method for regeneration was to be developed. Following successful accumulation/
regeneration cycles of the trap, exhaust emissions were to be characterized.
Table 2 illustrates the maximum extent of emission characterization to be per-
formed. With the engine on the engine dynamometer, emissions were to be deter-
mined over both steady—state and transient cycle operation during trap accumu-
lation. Emissions listed in Table 2 were also to be measured during the regen-
eration process insofar as possible.
Assuming that the engine dynamometer test work was completed, the trap
and regeneration system were to be transferred to an actual bus vehicle and
operated in a “service—like” manner during trap accumulation. Following a few
successful cycles of accumulation/regeneration, the bus (with the trap) was to
be tested on the chassis dynamometer over transient cycles in order to measure
the emissions shown in Table 2. The testing of this bus was to be coordinated
with on—going test work for EPA (Contract No. 68-O2—3722), under which a
similar emission characterization of the bus run without the trap would be
conducted, if possible.
B. Fuels
The fuel used during testing of the DDAD 6V71 coach engine on the engine
dyriamorneter was coded EM—400—F. This was a No. 1 diesel emissions test fuel,
and was the same fuel used during previous work with this engine in which the
baseline emissions were characterized under Contract No. 68—03—2884. (3) The fuel
used during road work and chassis testing of the bus was EM—455-F. This fuel was
also a No. 1 diesel fuel, and met the specifications for No. 1 emissionS test fuel.
Pertinent properties of both fuels used in this program are given in Table 3.
7
-------
TABLE 2. PARTICULATE TRAP EVALUATIONS, 6V71 COACH ENGINE
Test Sequence
Emission Measurement(s) EPA Transient Bus Steady- Federal
or Characterization Cold Hot Transient States Smoke
Visible smoke, PHS comparison traces only 13 modes 1 set
Regulated gaseous 2 2 2 13 modes
Aldehydes 2 2 2 7 modes
Individual HC 2 2 2 --
Odor Index (DOAS) 1 1 1 7 modes
Phenols, filtered 1 1 1 —-
Particulate Mass 2 2 2 7 modes
C,H,N,S 1 1 1 7 modes
Sulfate 2 2 2 7 modes
Metals 1 1 1 7 modes
Solubles, mass 2 2 2 7 modes
C,H,N,S 1 Compositea 1
Boiling Range 1 Composite 1 —-
BaP 1 Composite 1 compositeb
aT. “composite” consists of 1 cold—start filter and 6 hot—start
extracts
Steady—state “composite” consists of weighted combination of extracts
from 7 modes
cEmissions should be measured during regeneration
8
-------
TABLE 3. PROPERTIES OF THE TWO DIESEL TEST FUELS
Fuel Code
EM—455—F EM—400—F
Fuel Description DF—l Emissions DF—l Emissions
Test Fuel Test Fuel
Properties
Density, g/m2 0.809 0.812
Gravity, °API 43.0 42.9
Cetane Index, (D—976) 47.5 49.0
Viscosity, cs (D—445) 1.7 1.69
Flash Point, °C 53 70
Sulfur, wt. % (D—1266) 0.19 0.17
Gum, mg/lOO m9 4.6
Carbon, wt. % 86.37
Hydrogen, wt. % 13.54
Nitrogen, wt. % 0.006
FIA:
Aromatics, % 13.6 10.5
Olefins, % 3.8 1.5
Saturates, % 82.6 88.0
Distillation (D—86)
IBP, °C 187 190
10% point, °C 207 203
20% point, °C 210 207
30% point, °C 214 209
40% point, °C 217 212
50% point, °C 219 214
60% point, °C 222 217
70% point, °C 226 221
80% point, °C 231 227
90% point, °C 242 238
95% point, °C 262 258
EBP, °C 294 293
recovery, % 99 99
residue, % 0.5 1
loss 0.5 0
9
-------
C. Test Engine and Test Vehicle
A 1979 DDAD 6V71 coach engine, which had been used as a test engine in
another program, was chosen for this project. The engine was originally a
125—hr emissions test engine and was received by SwRI for use under EPA
Contract Nos. 68—03—2707(10) and 68—03—2884. Under those contracts, emissions
were characterized in both baseline and malfunction configurations. The
malfunction configuration included changing injectors, retard of timing,
maladjustment of throttle delay mechanism and increases in intake air
restriction. Once the program was completed, the engine was reset back to
manufacturer’s specifications using the engine’s original 125—hr injectors.
The DDAD 6V7l coach engine is a V—6 configuration with a displacement
of 426 cubic inches. It developed approximately 175 to 180 hp (observed)
on No. 1 diesel fuel at 2100 rpm. Low idle was set at 400 rpm. Engine
rotation is clockwise (viewed from flywheel). This engine operates on a
two-stroke cycle and uses a “Roots” type blower for scavenging. Maximum
restrictions of 25 in. H 2 0 inlet depression and 6 in. Hg exhaust backpressure
were set at maximum power conditions for 13-mode baseline emissions testing.
Transient operation restrictions of 17 in. H 2 0 inlet depression and 4 in. Hg
exhaust backpressure were set a maximum power conditions for transient power
performance map and transient cycle baseline emissions testing.
For chassis test work, Bus No. 356, a 1980 GMC RTS—II powered by a
DDAD 6V7l coach engine, was obtained locally from VIA Metropolitan Transit
Company of San Antonio. This particular bus was randomly selected. The bus
was tested in the “as—received” configuration, in that no adjustments or
verification of manufacturer’s specifications were conducted. This bus vehicle
had a GVWR of 36,000 ibs; 13,000 lbs on the front axle and 23,000 lbs on the
single rear axle with dual wheels. The bus was equipped with an automatic
transmission. All test work was conducted with the bus air conditioning not
operating. This bus and engine had accumulated 163,732 miles. No major
maintenance had been performed (only routine preventive maintenance). General
observaitons indicate that this bus was relatively smoky. The low idle speed
of the engine was 600 rpm.
D. Regeneration—Burner Development
To regenerate a non—catalyzed particulate trap, temperatures up to
1200°F are required. (11) Regeneration techniques generally consist of
methods to obtain this high trap temperature by means of engine—generated
exhaust heat or by externally supplied heat sources, such as fuel injection,
torch heating, etc. There were concerns over the ability to generate 1200°F
temperatures in the trap with this engine, because it was a 2—stroke design
with blower scavenging, which results in cooler exhaust gases than would be
obtained from a similarly—sized 4—stroke diesel engine. Obtaining high
exhaust temperatures on the engine dynamometer was readily conceivable,
but it was likely that attempts to reproduce high power operation on the chassis
dynamometer would result in tire or transmission damage. Considering possible
regeneration schemes, the most promising ones would take place during idle,
using an externally supplied heat source to raise the trap temperature.
10
-------
Ideally, the heat source would be simple and easily constructed, and
able to use the onboard fuel, namely No. 1 diesel fuel. The most direct
method to obtain the high temperature needed appeared to be the use of an
in—exhaust-stream fuel burner or heater. An initial attempt to increase
the exhaust gas temperature at idle (400 rpm on stationary test engine)
was to utilize two Robert Bosch cold starting aids (intake air preheaters).
These devices are readily available in Europe, but not in the United States.
They are quite compact, and have a built-in 24 volt thermal ignition source.
These devices are normally applied in the intake manifold, and are located
where the flow of air is fully developed around the flame holders. After a
brief experiment with the two units, we found them unsuitable for trap regen-
eration purposes. The fuel flow was much too low (about 1 lb/hr), and the
units would require careful placement in the exhaust duct to achieve clean
burning.
As an alternative, a fuel burner combustor assembly from a distillate-
fueled fan—forced portable space heater was obtained at reasonable cost (about
$100) from Stone Construction Equipment,Inc. The steady-state conibustor
assembly consisted of a burner can, containing the fuel nozzle and spark
igniter, and a secondary chamber for additional air. The unit was rated for
approximately 160,000 BTU/hr. Modifications were made to adapt the “burner
can” to the exhaust system. Figure 1 illustrates the basic layout of the
SPARK
Figure 1. Burner assembly used in exhaust duct
“fuel burner” as used in this program. The burner assembly was constructed
so that it could be removed from the exhaust system and the “combustor can”
cover removed for modification to the burner can during development experiments.
Selection of this burner-nozzle size was based on the following assumptions:
1. Idle Exhaust Flow @ 400 rpm of DDAD 6V—71 is about
500 lb/hr @ 200°F (660°R)
2. Specific heat of exhaust gases (at idle) is the
same as for air @ 0.24 BTU/lb °R
3. Heating Value of No. 1 diesel fuel is 18,000 BTU/lb
11
-------
4. Exhaust gases would have to reach 1200°F (1660°R) to
initiate trap regeneration, and
5. Fuel rate of burner = 500 lbS/hr x 0 24 BTU/lb.°R x (1660°R-660°R)
18,000 BTU/lb fuel
= 6.67 lb fuel/hr
6. Assume 7—10 lb fuel/hr nozzle flow would be needed to
account for system heat losses.
The selected spray nozzle was designed to operate with a nominal fuel
pressure of 125 to 90 psig. The burner flame was ignited by use of a
spark plug with extended electrodes.
Since regeneration was to be conducted during idle, exhaust
oxygen was expected to be about 18 percent. Assuming a/f ratio of 14.6
for burner operation, only 146 lbs/hr of the 500 lb/hr exhaust (air)
flow would be needed for combustion of 10 lb/hr burner fuel, so no pro-
blem with oxygen deficiency was expected.
Preliminary operation of the regeneration burner shown in Figure 2,
was performed. The spark ignition system worked well, and burner
light-off was easily achieved. The flame obtained with this first attempt
appeared to be very rich, in that it was smokey and very yellow in color.
The fuel nozzle flowrate was determined to be about 5 lb/hr at 100 psi.
This flowrate was well below the 7—10 lb/hr anticipated to provide some
latitude for system heat loss and burner inefficiency.
Some very preliminary experiments with air deflection into the
nozzle fuel spray portion indicated the need for improvement of the air
handling method. A relatively crude air deflector was made to introduce
the combustion air in a swirling motion as shown in Figure 3. This made a
vast improvement in the appearance of the flame quality, and gave burner
exhaust temperature of about 800°F. Performing a few experiments with
attempts to introduce more air in front of the flame, instead of after the
flame, caused the ignition to be somewhat erratic and the flame to be too
lean (blue in color, but some puffs of white smoke). Based on these
observations, larger nozzles were ordered; one at 7 lb/hr at 100 psi, and
one at 9 lb/hr at 100 psi.
The 9 lb/hr fuel burner nozzle was installed in the burner assembly.
Following some adjustment of the nozzle position, the burner developed
exhaust temperatures in the range of 1200°F. The “cleanest” flame, with
respect to observed odor and eye irritants, was obtained when the nozzle
was positioned for a yellow—white flame. Not much more”optimization” of
the flame burner assembly was planned for this program.
Following some engine operation at higher load, the burner assembly
was removed from the system and checked. Much of the air handling fin
assembly, which had been formed of brass shim stock, had cracked away.
The air handling fin assembly was recut of heavier materials and the
burner assembly was generally improved for durability.
12
-------
Figure 2. Regeneration burner assembly
Figure 3. Regeneration burner with cover removed
13
-------
In working with the burner, some problems with ignition were pre-
valent. These problems were overcome by reducing the fuel spray pressure
to approximately 25 psig. Once ignition occurred, the fuel pressure was
increased to 110 psig to obtain a good flame.
The fuel burner was mounted into the exhaust system. The burner was
successfully ignited and operated in the vertical position. Burner exhaust
temperatures are given in Table 4. From work with the burner, very little
eye irritation or odor from the burner exhaust were noted with a fuel
pressure of 100 psig. Below 100 psig, the odor and eye irritation in-
creased dramatically. Above 100 psig, only a “dry heat” odor was noted.
TABLE 4. BURNER EXHAUST TEMPERATURES OBTAINED
WITH VARIOUS FUEL PRESSURES
Burner
Fuel Pressure Exhaust Temp .
50 psig 1000°F
75 psig 1163°F
100 psig 1300°F
110 psig 1375°F
125 psig 1480°F
E. Description of Trap and Fuel Burner Installations
The particulate trap used in this work was obtained through Corning
Glass Works. The trap material was Corning “Cordierite” and was desig-
nated as Corning “EX—47”. The Cordierite material (2MgO .2Al 2 0 3 5Si0 2 ) has
a porosity of 49 to 50 percent with a mean pore size of 12.5 microns.
The substrate configuration was 100 square cells/in 2 with a wall thickness
of 0.017 inches. The Cordierite has a thermal expansion of 12x10 7 in/in°C
(average value from 25—1000°C), and has a melting point of 1410°C. Alter-
nate cells or square channels of the monolithic configuration were plugged
with a cement designated as Corning “CF—37”. 5 The intentional plugging
causes particulate laden exhaust gases, which enter a square channel at
the front of the trap, to filter through the channels’ walls to adjacent
channels for exit out the back of the trap.
The ceramic portion of the trap was 12 inches long and 11.25 inches
in diameter. Each substrate was built up from nine sections of 4 inch
square segments cemented together, then machined to a round shape. The
substrate was packed into a stainless steel shell by Arvin Automotive.
The finished trap assembly was approximately 11.5 inches in diameter and
26 inches long. Thermocouples and pressure fittings were placed about 3
inches up- and down-stream of trap surface. Figure 4 shows the trap
installed in the exhaust system used in this test work. A single
“diffuser”, illustrated in Figure 5, was welded into the trap inlet to
prevent the hot gases needed for regeneration from concentrating in the
center of the trap. Two trap assemblies were ordered from Corning in
case of trap failure during regeneration or the need to lower exhaust
pressure drop.
14
-------
Figure 5. Trap inlet diffuser prior to installation
Figure 4. Particulate trap installed in exhaust system
15
-------
Figure 6 shows the engine’s left and right bank exhausts brought
together for single entry into the exhaust system (lower right portion of
Figure 6). A side view of the exhaust system is given in Figure 7. There
were three damper valves and one shut—of f valve, along with the regeneration
burner and dummy—trap spool piece. During normal engine operation, or
trap particulate accumulation, engine exhaust was routed across the main
exhaust damper (item 2) and through the trap or the duxruny-trap spool
piece (item 5); while the burner by—pass damper (item 3), burner—trap
damper (item 4), and by—pass shut—off valve (item 6) were closed. The
by—pass shut-off valve was to be either completely closed or completely
open for accumulation or regeneration, respectively. The purpose of
the by—pass shut—off valve was to provide a positive exhaust gas seal
during engine operation for trap particulate accumulation. In order to
initiate regeneration with the engine at idle, the by-pass shut-off
valve and the burner—by—pass damper were opened, and the main exhaust
damper was closed. Once ignition of the burner was established, the
burner—trap damper was opened while the burner—by-pass damper was closed.
If the trap exit temperature indicated too high a regeneration tempera-
ture, the burner-trap and burner—by—pass dampers were to be adjusted to
reduce heat and oxygen input to the trap; or the fuel to the burner was
to be shut off and the engine’s exhaust gas flow routed through the trap
for cooling purposes.
Once sample collection was completed on the engine mounted to the
engine dynamometer, the trap was regenerated and the “clean” trap and
the associated exhaust piping system were transferred from the stationary
engine to the bus vehicle. The completed system is shown in Figure 8.
The fuel burner was removed for test work to prevent potential deterior-
ation to the burner assembly. Note the additional gate valve mounted
parallel with the fuel burner position. This additional valve was used
to “bleed off” excess idle exhaust gases during fuel burner operation
for regeneration. The fuel burner had been set up to perform using the
exhaust gas flow from a 400 rpm idle. The bus mounted engine was set up
for 600 rpm idle. The higher idle speed of the bus engine altered the
combustion characteristics of the fuel burner, such that high temperatures
needed for regeneration were not attainable. By bleeding off the
additional idle exhaust gases created by the 600 rpm idle, the fuel
burner transfer from the engine dynamometer to the bus was simplified,
and burner fuel consumption was also conserved (by not having to heat
all of the additional idle gases to near 1300°F).
F. Test Procedures, Engine Dynainorneter
Emissions from the 1979 DDAD 6V71 Coach engine were measured during
both steady—state and transient engine exercises. Steady—state operation
and measurement techniques were based on the 1979 13-mode Federal Test
Procedure (FTP). Transient operation and measurement techniques
were based on the 1984 FTP and 1986 Proposed Heavy-Duty FTP, which
includes particulate sampling and analysis.( 2 S) In addition, emissions
were measured over an experimental transient bus cycle.
16
-------
riyure . uverail view oi engine and exhaust system
used for particulate trap evaluation
17
i
J
-------
EXHAUST OUT
H
1. BURNER
2. MAIN EXHAUST DAMPER
3. BURNER-BYPASS DAMPER
4. BURNER-TRAP DAMPER
5. TRAP
6. BYPASS SHUT-OFF VALVE
EXHAUST IN
Figure 7. Exhaust system for DDAD 6V—71 trap experimentation
-------
Figure 8. View of bus with trap exhaust system installed
for road work and chassis dynamometer testing
The 13—mode test procedure is an engine exercise which consists of
13 individual modes of steady—state operation. Starting with a fully
warmed engine, the first mode is an idle condition , This idle is then
followed by 2, 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent load at intermediate speed
followed by another idle mode; then to rated speed - 100, 75, 50, 25,
and 2 percent of full load, followed by a final idle mode. Intake air,
fuel, and power output are monitored along with other data to be used in
calculating modal emission rates. A 13—mode composite emission rate is
calculated on the basis of modal weighting factors as specified in the
Federal Register.
Unregulated emissions were measured over 7 modes of steady—state
operation instead of 13 modes. This 7-mode procedure is a variation of
the 13—mode procedure and consists of only the 2, 50 and 100 percent
loads at intermediate and rated speeds, plus one idle condition.
On the basis of the 13-mode FTP weighting factors, 7-mode composite
emissions were computed using weighting factors shown in Table 5. As the
number of modes decreases, each modal point represents more time in mode
and a wider range of power; thus the weighting for each of the 7 modes
must be increased compared to its factors for 13—mode use. For both the
13—mode and 7—mode procedures, the idle condition accounts for 20 percent
of the composite value (equivalent to 20 percent of operating time). (12)
19
-------
TABLE 5. LISTING OF 13-MODE AND 7-MODE WEIGHTING FACTORS
13—Mode 7—Mode
Mode Engine Speed/Load, % Wt. Factor Mode Wt. Factor
1 Idle 0.067
2 Intermediate/2 0.080 1 0.12
3 intennediate/25 0.080
4 Intermediate/50 0.080 2 0.16
5 Intermediate/75 0.080
6 Intermediate/100 0.080 3 0.12
7 Idle 0.067 4 0.20
8 Rated/100 0.080 5 0.12
9 Rated/75 0.080
10 Rated/50 0.080 6 0.16
11 Rated/25 0.080
12 Rated/2 0.080 7 0.12
13 Idle 0.067 ____
Composite 1.000 Composite 1.00
Transient engine operation was performed in accordance with the 1984
Transient FTP for Heavy—Duty Diesel Engines. 2 The procedure specified a
transient engine exercise of variable speed and load, depending on the power
output capabilities of the test engine. The cycle required relatively rapid
dynamometer control, capable of loading the engine one moment and motoring
it the next. The system used in this program consisted of a GE 570 hp motoring/
600 hp absorbing dynamometer (rated at 3150 to 7000 rpm) with a suitable control
system fabricated in—house.
The 1984 Transient cycle is described in the Federal Register by means
of percent torque and percent rated speed for each one—second interval, over
a test cycle of 1199 seconds duration. The 20—minute transient cycle,
developed from heavy—duty truck data, is composed of four five—minute segments.
The four segments are described below:
Transient Cycle
Segment Time, sec .
New York Non-Freeway (NYNF) 297
Los Angeles Non-Freeway (LANF) 300
Los Angeles Freeway (LAF) 305
New York Non-Freeway (NYNF) 297
In order to generate the transient cycle for the DDAD 6V—71 engine, the
engine’s full power curve was obtained from 400 rpm to maximum no load engine
speed. Data from this “power curve,” or engine map, was used in conjunction
with the specified speed and load percentages to form the transient cycle.
20
-------
As an example, a graphic presentation of speed and torque commands
which constitute an FTP transient cycle for a 250 hp diesel engine is
given in Figure 9. For this example, the resulting cycle work was 11.68
kW -hr (15.66 hp—hr) based on a peak torque of 880 N•m (650 ft—lbs) and a
rated speed of 2200 rpm. The relatively large negative torque commands
shown in the figure are to insure that the “throttle,” or rack control,
goes closed for motoring operation.
The two NYNF segments, which are initial and final cycle segments
of the transient cycle, together contain approximately 23 percnet of the
total reference work called for by the transient cycle. The LANF segment
contains 20 percent, and the IJAF contains 57 percent of the total transient
cycle reference work. This comparison illustrates that most of the work
is produced during the LAF cycle segment.
The transient cycle is perceived as a lightly-loaded duty cycle.
The average duty factor over the entire transient cycle is approximately
20 percent of available engine power. The NYNF only calls for an average
of 9 percent of the maximum power available from the engine; whereas the
LANF calls for approximately 15 percent and the LAF requires about 45
percent. In addition, each NYNF segment contains 165 seconds of idle and
27 seconds of motoring, the LANF contains 98 seconds of idle and 79
seconds of motoring, and the LAF segment contains 11 seconds of idle and
45 seconds of motoring.
Of the 1199 seconds of the transient cycle, closed rack commands
account for 617 seconds. Therefore, the engine must attempt to produce
the reference cycle work within the remaining 582 seconds. These statistics
mean that the engine has to produce an equivalent of 40 percent of its
These observations stress the relative importance of pollutant emissions
during idle, accelerations and medium— to light—loads conditions.
A Transient FTP Test consists of a cold—start transient cycle and a
hot—start transient cycle. The same engine control or command cycle is
used in both cases. For the cold—start, the engine was operated over a
“prep” cycle, then allowed to stand overnight in an ambient soak temperature
of 20 to 30°C (68 to 86°F). The cold—start transient cycle begins when the
engine is cranked for cold start—up. Upon completion of the cold—start
transient cycle, the engine is shut down and allowed to stand for 20 minutes.
After this hot soak period, the hot—start cycle begins with engine cranking.
All engines react somewhat differently to the transient cycle commands,
due to both cycle and engine characteristics. In order to judge how well
the engine follows the transient cycle command, engine responses are com-
pared to engine commands using least squares regression techniques and
several statistics are computed. According to the Federal Register, the
following regression line tolerances should be met. (2)
21
-------
LAF
LANF
297 sec. 305 sec. 300 sec.
1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 1100 300 200 100 0
TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9. Graphic representation of torque and speed commands for the
1984 Transient FTP cycle for a 250 hp at 2200 rpm diesel engine
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
4.J
I
NYNF
297 sec.
-100
-200
-300
2500
2000
E
1500
1000
500
700
600
500
1130
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
I I I I I I I I I I I I
-------
REGRESSION LINE TOLERANCES
Speed
Torque
Brake Horsepower
Standard Error of
Estimate (SE) of Y on X
100 rpm
13% of Maximum
Engine Torque
8% of Maximum
Brake Horsepower
Slope of the
Regression Line, N
0.970
1.030
0.83—1.02 Hot
0.77—1.02 Cold
0.89—1.03 (Hot)
0.87—1.03 (Cold)
Coefficient of 2
Determination, R
0.9700 1/
0.8800 (Hot) 1/
0.8500 (Cold)1/
0.9100 1/
Y Intercept of the
Regression Line, B
±50 rpm
±15 ft lbs
±5.0 of
brake horsepower
1/ Minimum
In addition to these statistical parameters, the actual cycle work produced
should not be more than 5 percent above, or 15 percent below, the work
requested by the command cycle.
If the statistical criteria are not met, then adjustments to throttle
servo linkage, torque span points, speed span points, and gain to and from
error feedback circuits can be made in order to modify both the engine out-
put and’ the dynamometer loading/motoring characteristics. After completion
of the cold—start and the hot—start transient cycles, transient composite
emissions results are computed by the following;
Brake Specific = 1/7 (Mass Emissions, Cold) + 6/7 (Mass Emissions, Hot )
Emissions 6/7 (Cycle Work, Cold) + 6/7 (Cycle Work, Hot)
Similar to the 1984 Transient FTP cycle which was developed from heavy—
duty truck data, a bus cycle was developed from CAPE-2l bus data. The bus
cycle was first introduced as a research test cycle during the heavy—duty
diesel baseline test work. (13) It was used in this program to indicate
emissions trends from the DDAD coach engine in city bus applications. The
833 second transient bus cycle is composed of three segments, as shown below.
Bus Cycle
Segment Time, Seconds
New York Combined 273
Los Angeles Combined 287
New York Combined 273
23
-------
As an example, a graphic presentation of the speed and torque commands which
constitute the bus cycle used for a 250 hp diesel engine is given in Figure
10. For this example, the resulting cycle work was 5.57 kW—hr (7.47 hp-hr)
based on a peak torque of 880 N•m (650 ft—lbs) and a rated speed of 2200 rpm.
The bus cycle was rim only as a hot—start test cycle, and was always pre-
ceded by a 20—minute soak.
The engine was also operated over the 1979 Smoke FTP exercise.
It essentially consists of a 5—minute idle followed by full throttle
acceleration to rated speed, and finally, a full throttle lug—down from
rated speed to intermediate speed. This transient smoke test cycle was
run only for the measurement of smoke emissions.
During steady—state or modal engine exercises, regulated and some
unregulated gaseous emissions can be sampled from the raw exhaust stream
since a representative and proportional sample can be obtained. ob-
taining proportional samples during transient engine operation requires
the use of a constant volume sampler (CVs). 6 All transient cycle
test work run for regulated emissions of HC, CO, and NOx, as well as
particulate was conducted with a main tunnel flow of 1000 SCFM, which
provided approximately a 4:1 cycle dilution ratio of the total exhaust
introduced for gas sampling. Unregulated gaseous emissions of aldehydes,
individual hydrocarbons, phenols, and odor were sampled from the primary
tunnel during the transient testing. During these runs for regulated
emissions, particulate mass emissions were determined by use of a small
secondary dilution tunnel. This small secondary tunnel, shown in Figure
11, is attached to the primary tunnel and dilutes the primary-diluted
exhaust further to an overall ratio of about 12:1. The small secondary
dilution tunnel was operated at approximately 4 SCFM total flow in order
to collect particulate on two 90 mm T60A20 Pallflex filters, in series.
Weight gains from these two filters were used to determine the filter
effeciency. If the filter efficiency was greater than or equal to 95
percent, then only the weight gain from the first filter was used; whereas
if the filter efficiency was less than 95 perc rit, then weight gains
from both filters were used to determine the total particulate mass
emission from the engine.
In order to obtain large particulate samples for organic extraction
and to obtain samples of total particulate for other analysis during
transient operation, the primary tunnel was operated as a single—dilution
CVS. To obtain approximately a 12:1 dilution ratio, the CVS flow was
increased to about 4500 SCFM during the transient cycle, which permitted
collection of large quantities of particulate on 20x20 inch filters.
Large filter holders and the associated tunnel are shown in Figure
12. This same CVS system was used to collect particulate samples for
steady—state operation of the engine, by altering the main dilution tunnel
flow to accommodate the total exhaust from the engine without exceeding
52°C (125°F) at the particulate filter face. Figure 12 shows portions of
the CVS sampling system.
24
-------
NYC
700
600
500
L400
300
200
100
0
-103
-200
-300
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
I I
900 800
NYC
273 sec.
LAC
287 sec.
I I I I I
700 600 500 1400 300
273 sec.
200 100
Time, Seconds
Figure 10. Graphic representation of torque arid speed commands for the
experimental bus cycle f or a 250 hp at 2200 rpm diesel engine
700
600
500
1400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
12500
2000
1500
1000
500
1 1L11
4 - I
‘4-
S
-o
C
a
E
0
C-,
C,
a-
1
0
I-
E
a
L.
S
C
a
0
C-)
0
a,
a)
C ’.
N.)
U i
J
0
-------
Figure 11. Secondary dilution tunnel for
particulate mass rate by 90 mm filters
Figure 12. Large 20x20 filter holders attached
to primary tunnel of CVS
26
-------
G. Test Procedures, Chassis Dynamometer
Emissions from the 1980 GMC RTS-II coach vehicle were measured over
a chassis version of the heavy—duty transient test and the heavy—duty
transient bus cycle. Emissions measurement techniques were essentially
the same as used during engine dynamometer testing of the bus engine.
Test procedures outlined in the EPA Recommended Procedure were followed
as closely as was practical. (7)
The procedure specified a speed-time exercise to be followed,
similar to that used in chassis dynarnometer testing of light—duty
vehicles. The chassis dynamometer used in this program was essentially
a tandem-axle Clayton heavy-duty chassis dynamometer modified by the
addition of eddy current power absorbers Electronic programming of
the system enables obtaining essentially any required speed—power curve.
By utilizing an electrical signal from the vehicle braking system,
electrical braking of the dynamometer rolls is also provided. Each of
the absorption units in tandem has dual rolls that are 8.625 inches in
diameter. Inertia simulation is provided by. an appropriate combination
of directly—connected inertia wheels. The inertia wheels and eddy current
power absorbers are shown in Figure 13. Maximum inertia simulations
readily attainable are 49,000 pounds for single—drive-axle vehicles and
76,000 pounds for tandem-drive—axle vehicles. Using the programmable
dynaxnometer, the procedure developed for road load simulation of a
vehicle on the dynamometer involves establishing the speed-power curve,
determining of inertia simulation, and determining system friction.
Figure 13. Chassis dynamometer inertia wheels and
eddy current power absorption units
p
4
L : :
27
-------
The equation selected for calculation of the speed—power curve to be
used for evaluations on the chassis dynamometer is as follows:
BLP = FX0.67(H—0.75)WX(V/50) 3 + 0.OO125XLVWXV/50
Where:
RLP = Road Load Power in horsepower
F = 1.00 for tractor—trailer and 0.85 for city bus
H = Average maximum height in feet
W = Average maximum width in feet
LVW = Loaded vehicle weight in pounds
V = Velocity in mph
The equation used for determination of dynamometer torque and load are
as follows:
Dynamometer Torque = HPX134.8/mph, foot—pounds
Dynainometer Load = Torquexl2/Load Arm in inches, pounds
In keeping with the general provision in the EPA Recommended
Procedure , ’ ) the equivalent inertia set in the dynaxnometer system for
evaluation of a tractor—trailer was equal to 70 percent of the gross
combined weight. For buses, the equivalent inertia is equal to the sum
of the empty weight, plus half passenger load, plus the driver (at 150
pounds per person), plus the equivalent inertia weight of the nonrotating
vehicle wheel assemblies. For the GMC RTS—II, an inertia weight of 28,300
pounds was used in this test work. A deviation equal to one percent of
the total inertia, rather than the 250 pounds specified in the EPA
Recommended Procedure, was assumed to be within acceptable limits for
such test work.
With the vehicle installed on the dynamometer and with the appropriate
inertia wheels connected, the total system absorbed horsepower was
determined using coastdowns. This was accomplished by obtaining repeatable
55 to 5 mph coastdown speed vs time data and then solving for the instan-
taneous decelerations. From instantaneous decelerations, the power
absorption of the vehicle-dynamonieter system was determined as a function
of vehicle speed. The speed—power curve for programming into the dyna-
mometer controller was then determined by difference between the total
power required on the road (based on previous documentation obtained
under Contfact 68—02—3722) and the power absorbed by the vehicle—dynamometer
system. (14,
Total road load for the bus was 76.2 hp at 50 mph. Of this total,
40.8 hp was due to air resistance, and the balance of 35.4 was attributed
to rolling resistance.
28
-------
Figure 14 shows the rear axle of the bus on the front pair of rolls of
the programmable dynamometer. The fans are used to minimize the potential
for tire damage. Tire pressure was 100 psig, which is the normal inflation
pressure during in—service operation. Figure 15 shows the front portion
of the bus along with the driver’s station for monitoring road load, speed,
roll counts and driver’s aid. To the left of the bus in this figure is
the single—dilution CVS used in conjunction with heavy—duty chassis test
work. Since all test work was performed under transient operation of the
bus, all emission samples were taken from the CVS. This single—dilution
CVS has a capacity from 1000 to 12,000 SCFM. The tunnel is 46 inches in
diameter and is 57 feet long. Similar to the CVS system used for engine
dynainometer testing, this single—dulition CVS has the capacity to obtain
three 20x20 filter samples of particulate matter along with additional
samples needed for analysis of the total particulate. Unlike the systems
used with the engine dynamometer, this system used two 47 mm Pallflex
filters to determine the particulate mass emissions and the respective
filter efficiency.
The speed vs time trace, referred to as the Heavy—Duty Chassis Transient
Test Cycle, is given in Figure 16. Of the 1060 second duration of the cycle,
326 seconds are idle. The distance over the test is 5.57 miles. The maximum
speed called for by the cycle is 58 mph. The speed vs time trace of the experi-
mental bus cycle is given in Figure 17 for comparison. Of the 1191 seconds
duration of the cycle, 396 seconds are idle. The distance over the test is
2.90 miles. Both cycles originated from CAPE—21 data accumulated on several
heavy-duty trucks and buses during in—service operation.
I-I. Analytical Procedures
The analytical systems used for each category of emission measurements
are described in this section. The section is divided into two parts, the
first dealing with gaseous emissions characterization and the second with
total particulate emissions and the constituents of the total particulate.
Gaseous emissions included MC, CO , C02, NOx, and some unregulated pollutants.
Unregulated gaseous emissions included individual hydrocarbons, aldehydes,
phenols, and odor. Particulate emissions included determination of the
total particulate mass, and its content of sulfate, metals, carbon, hydrogen,
and nitrogen. The soluble fraction of the total particulate was determined
using methylene chloride extraction. This soluble fraction was characterized
for BaP content, boiling point distribution, and for carbon, hydrogen,
nitrogen and sulfur content.
1. Gaseous Emissions
Regulated gaseous emissions of HC, CO, and NOx were measured ac-
cording to the 1979 13-mode FTP and the 1984 transient FTP. 1 ’ 2 ’ 6 The
regulated emissions along with CO 2 were determined from raw exhaust samples
29
-------
Figure 14.
GMC RTS-II coach on heavy-duty
chassis dynamometer rolls
Figure 15. GMC RTS-II coach alongside CVS
30
-------
100
80
60
40
20
0’
L
1100
a)
a)
04
U)
100
8or
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
‘Ti
a)
0)
04
U)
Figure 16.
I I I I I I I I I I
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Time, Seconds
Heavy—duty chassis driving cycle
6or
a)
a)
04
U)
QL
L_
1200 1100 1000 900
60
50
40
a)
a)
LU 04
U)
10
0
I I I I I I
800 700 600 500 400 300
Time, Seconds
Heavy—duty chassis bus driving cycle
200 100 0
Figure 17.
-------
taken during the 13—mode steady-state procedure using the instrumentation
shown in Figure 18. These same four constituents were determined in dilute
exhaust samples taken during the transient procedure. The transient pro-
cedure required that HC be determined from integration of continuous
concentration monitoring of the CVS dilute exhaust. The procedure provides
the option of determining CO, C02, and NO from either dilute sample bags
or from integration of continuous concentration monitoring.
Hydrocarbons were measured over both test procedures using the
specified heated sample train (190°C). During steady—state operation,
raw exhaust sample was transferred to a Beckman 402 heated flame ionization
detector (HFID) by heated Teflon sample line. During transient oepration,
CVS-diluted exhaust was taken from the main dilution tunnel using the
prescribed heated probe and heated filter, and was transferred to the 402
HFID by heated stainless steel sample line. (2)
Carbon monoxide was measured during both engine test procedures
using non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) instruments. Emissions of CO 2 were
also determines by NDIR for use in fuel consumption calculations by
carbon balance. Both CO and CO 2 were determined from raw exhaust samples
transferred by heated Teflon sample lines during the 13—mode procedure.
During transient test procedures, CO and CO 2 levels were determined from
proportional dilute exhaust bag samples.
NO emissions were determined by chemiluminescence (CL) from raw
exhaust during steady—state operation, and from dilute sample bags during
transient operation. NOx correction factors for intake humidity were applied
as specified in the applicable test procedures for steady—state or transient
testing. In the case of the transient test operation on the engine dynamo—
meter, the engine intake humidity and temperature were controlled to 60-90
grains/lb of dry air and 68—86°F so a NO correction of 1.00 could be used.
Some selected individual hydrocarbons (IHC) were determined from
dilute exhaust bag samples taken over transient cycles using the CVS. A
bag sample of raw exhaust was also taken during the regeneration mode. A
portion of the exhaust sample collected in the Tedlar bag was injected into
a four- co1wnn gas chromatograph using a single flame ionization detector
and dual sampling valves. The timed sequence election valves allowed the
baseline separation of air, meth 5 ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane,
propylene, benzene, and toluene.
Aldehydes and k g es were determined using the 2,4-dinitrophenyl-
hydrazine (DNPH) method. Raw exhaust samples were taken during steady-
state operations whereas dilute samples were taken from the main CVS dilu-
tion tunnel during transient testing. In both cases a heated Teflon sample
line and filter were maintained at 190°C (375°F). The procedure consists of
bubbling filtered exhaust gas, dilute or raw, through glass impringer traps
containing a solution of DNPH and HC1 kept at 0°C. The sample apparatus
used for collecting the aldehyde sample is shown on the left side of Figure
19. The aldehydes form their respective phenylhydrazone derivatives
(precipitates). These derivatives are removed by filtration, and sub-
sequently extracted with pentane and evaporated in a vaccum &ven. The
32
-------
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Emissions cart for determining concentrations of
HC, CO, C0 7 , and NO in raw exhaust
Sampling system used to collect emission samples for
aldehydes, phenols, and DOAS (left to right)
i ‘
33
-------
remaining dried extract, which contains the phenyihydrazone derivatives, is
dissolved in a specific volume of methanol with anthracene internal standard.
A portion of this dissolved extract is injected into a liquid chromatograph
and analyzed using an ultraviolet detector to separate formaldehyde, acrolein,
acetone, propionaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde, methylethyketone, crotonaldehyde,
hexanaldehyde, and benzaldehyde.
Phenols, which are hydroxyl derivatives of aromatic hydrocarbons,
were measured using an ether extraction procedure detailed in Reference 15.
Dilute samples were taken from the main CVS dilution tunnel during
transient operation only. Dilute exhaust samples were filtered and collected
in impingers containing aqueous potassium hydroxide (as shown in Figure 19).
The contents of the impingers were acidified with sulfuric acid, then
extracted with ethyl ether. This extract was injected into a gas chroma—
tograph equipped with an FID in order to separate 11 different phenols
ranging in molecular weight from 94.11 to 150.22.
Total intensity of aroma (TIA) was quantified by using the Coordi-
nating Research Council Diesel Odor Analytical System (DOAS). Dilute or
raw sample, depending on engine operation, was drawn off through a heated
sample train and into a trap containing Chromosorb 102 as shown in right
portion of Figure 19. The trap waslatereluted and injected by syringe
into the DOAS instrument, which is a liquid chromatograph that separates an
oxygenate fraction (liquid column oxygenates, LCO) and an aromatic fraction
(liquid column aromatics, LCA). The TIA values (TIA by LCO preferred) are
defined as:
TIA = 1 + log 10 (LCO, Jg/9L )
or
TIA = 0.4 + 0.7 logio (LCA, Mg/i)
A.D. Little, the developer of the DOAS instrument, has related 16
this fraction of TIA sensory measurement by the A.D. Little odor panel.
The system was intended for raw exhaust samples from steady-state operating
conditions, but for this program, dilute samples of exhaust were taken in
order to determine a TIA value for transient operation. Where dilute
samples were taken, the resulting values were increased in proportion to
the overall cycle dilution ratio.
2. Particulate Emissions
Particulate emissions were determined from dilute exhaust samples
utilizing various collection media and apparatus, depending on the analysis
to be performed. Particulate has been defined as any material collected
on a fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter t or below a temperature of
51.7°C (J25°F), excluding condensed water . 6 The 125°F temperature limit
and the absence of condensed water dictates that the raw exhaust be
diluted, irrespective of engine operating mode. The temperature limit
generally requires dilution ratios of approximately 12;l (total mixture:
raw exhaust).
34
-------
Total particulate-rate samples were collected on 90 mm Paliflex
T60A20 fluorocarbon—coated glass fiber filter medja, by means of a double—
dilution technique for transient operation and a single—dilution technique
for steady-state operation during stationary dynainometer test work. Only
single-dilution techniques were used during chassis dynamometer test work.
Gravimetric weight gain, representing collected particulate, was determined
to the nearest microgram after the filter temperature and humidity were
stabilized. This weight gain, along with CVS flow parameters and engine
data, was used to calculate the total particulate mass emission of the engine
under test.
Smoke and total particulate are related in that the relative
level of smoke opacity indicates the relative level of particulate. The
absence of smoke, however, does not indicate the absence of particulate.
Smoke was determined by the end—of—stack EPA—PHS smokemeter, which mon-
itored the opacity of the raw exhaust plume as it issued from the 3 inch
diameter exhaust pipe. Smoke opacity was determined for 13—mode operation,
power curve operation, and for the smoke FTP.
Since total particulate, by definition, includes anything collected
on fluorocarbon—coated glass fiber filter media, there has always been an
interest in finding out what constitutes the “total particulate.” The
following paragraphs describe the methods and analysis used to determine
some of the properties of the total particulate.
Sulfate, originating from the combustion of sulfur—containing fuel,
was collected as part of the particulate matter in the form of sulfate
salts or sulfuric acid aerosols. A 47 mm Fluoropore (Millipore Corp.)
fluorocarbon membrane filter with 0.5 micron pore size was used to collect
the sample. This total particulate sample was ammoniated to “fix” the
sulfate portion of the particulate. Using the barium chioranilate (BCA)
analytical method, the sulfates were leached from the filter with an
isopropy]. alcohol—water solution (60% IPA). This extract was inlected into
a high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC) and pumped through a column
to scrub out the cations and convert the sulfate to sulfuric acid. Passage
through a reactor column of barium chioranilate crystals precipitates out
barium sulfate and releases the highly tJV—absorbing chloranilate ions.
The amount of chioranilate ion released was determined by a sensitive
liquid chromatograph (N detector at 301—313 nanometers. ‘Su) fate” should
be understood to mean S04 as measured by the BCA method.”
Carbon, hydrogen, metals, and other elements that make up the
total particulate are also of interest. A sample of “total particulate”
was collected on 47 nun Type A (Gelman) glass fiber filter media for the
purpose of determining the carbon and hydrogen weight percentages. This
analysis was performed by Galbraith Laboratories using a Perkin-Elrfler
Model 240B automated thermal conductivity CHN analyzer. A sample of total
particulate matter was also collected on a 47 mm Fluoropore filter for the
determination of trace elements such as calcium, aluminum, phosphorus, and
sulfur by x-ray fluorescence. This analysis was conducted at the EPA, ORD
Laboratories in Research Triangle Park, NC using a Siemens NRS—3 x—ray
fluorescence spectrometer.
35
-------
Diesel particulate generally contains significant quantities of
condensed fuel-like or oil—like hydrocarbon aerosols generated in in-
complete combustion zones. In order to determine to what extent total
particulate contains these various hydrocarbons, large particulate—laden
filters (20x20 inch) were washed with an organic solvent, methylene
chloride, using 500 mi soxhiet extraction apparatus. The dissolved portion
of the “total particulate” carried off with the methylene chloride solvent
has been referred to as the “soluble organic fraction” (SOF). All filter
handling, extraction processes, and handling of col3centrated SOF were
carried out according to EPA recommended protocol. The SOF may be
composed of anything carried over in the extraction process, so its
composition is also of interest. Generally the SOF contains numerous
organic compounds, many of which are difficult to isolate and quantify.
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) is considered to be a very general indicator
of the relative poly nuclear aromatic (PNA) content of the SOP. The
analytical method used for the determination of BaP is described in
Reference 16. The procedure is based on high—performance liquid chroma-
tography to separate BaP from other organic solubles in particulate matter,
and it incorporates fluorescence detection to measure BaP. The instrument
used was a Perkin-Elmer 3D liquid chromatograph equipped with a MPF—44
fluorescence spectrophotometer. Excitation was at a wavelength of 383
nanometers, and emission was read at 430 nanometers.
The boiling range’of the SOF was determined by SwRI’s Army Fuels
and Lubricants Laboratory using a high—temperature variation of ASTM-
D2887—73. Approximately 50 mg of the SOF was dissolved in solvent and an
internal standard (C g to C 11 compounds) was added. This sample was then
submitted for instrumental analysis of boiling point distribution. In
some cases, insufficient sample was available to use internal standards.
Carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, and nitrogen were determined for the
SOF. Carbon and hydrogen content of the”dried” extract were determined by
Gaibraith Laboratories using a Perkin—Elmer 240B automated thermal con-
ductivity CHN analyzer. A portion of the extract was submitted to SwRI’s
Army Fuels and Lubricants Laboratory for nitrogen analysis by chemilumin-
escence and sulfur analysis by x —ray fluorescence.
36
-------
IV. RESULTS
This section describes the results obtained from numerous emissions
measurements and sample analyses conducted on both the 1979 DDAD 6V71
coach engine with the trap and the 1980 GMC RTS—II coach vehicle with and
without the trap. It is divided into five parts. The first part presents
the results obtained to qualify the baseline emissions established for
the DDAD 6V71 engine in an earlier program. The second part describes some
of the pertinent details associated with trap particulate accumulation
and regeneration processes used and gives a general chronology of emission
sampling conducted during the program. A third part details the relative
changes in I- iC, CO, C0 2 , NOx and 02 gas concentrations as the trap under-
went the regeneration process. The fourth and fifth parts detail the
accumulated gaseous and particulate data obtained during the test work.
Overall emission trends and general remarks are given along with the
results.
A. Baseline Repeat
The DDAD 6V7l coach engine was mounted on the stationary dynaxnometer.
This was the same engine characterized under Contract No. 68—03—2706 in
both baseline and malfunction configurations. Upon completing installa-
tion of the engine and the exhaust system, experiments were conducted to
develop the fuel burner to be used for regeneration. After regeneration
fuel burner design and performance were acceptable, emphasis was placed
on acquiring “baseline repeat” data.
A single 13-mode emissions tests was run on the DDAD 6V71 for com-
parison to results acquired prior to the malfunction program. The
“original baseline” 13—mode test was conducted prior to maladjustment in
that program. The “new baseline” 13-mode test run for this program was
conducted with the engine reset to manufacturer’s specifications. Copies
of the computer printouts from both the “original baseline” (run in
replicate) and “new baseline” 13—mode tests are given in Appendix A as
Tables A—i, A—2, and A—3 for reference. Thirteen—mode composite values
from these tests are given in Table 6.
TABLE 6. ORIGINAL AND NEW BASELINE 13-MODE EMISSION RESULTS
FROM THE DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
13-Mode FTP
Emissions, g/kW-hr BSFC
Test Notes HC CO NO kg/kWhr
a
Original Baseline 2.37 9.92 9.60 0.29
New Baselineb 1.64 9.62 9.79 0.288
aAverage of two tests
b New Baseline” represents results “without trap”
37
-------
Except for HC emissions, the results from the new baseline test were
nearly the same as those from the original baseline runs. Examining the
modal results, the lower HC emissions appeared in all modes of operation.
In order to check the baseline emissions over the transient test
cycle, the DDAD 6V7l was mapped using No. 1 diesel fuel, EM—400—F. This
is the same fuel as used in the baseline/malfunction program under Contract
No. 68-03-2706. Results from this most recent transient map and the
original baseline map are given in Table 7. The maximum power obtained
over the most recent map was about 6 percent greater than over the
original map. Using the most recent map data, the transient cycle work was
about 4.3 percent greater, and the bus cycle work was about 3.6 percent
greater than obtained with the original map data. Considering that this
engine was maladjusted and then reset back to manufacturer’s specifications,
the repeatability appeared to be good.
Replicate transient cycle FTP and bus cycles were conducted on the
engine in order to establish or confirm the engine’s transient emissions
baseline for regulated emissions of HC, CO, NOR, and particulate. Tran-
sient composite and bus cycle results from these tests are given in Table
8, along with similar results from “original baseline” testing and
“return to baseline” testing. Copies of the computer printouts from
transient testing to establish a “new baseline” are given in Appendix B.
Three transient cold—starts were run and are given as Tables B—i, B—2,
and B-3. Two hot-starts are given as Table B-4 and B-5, and two bus
cycles are given as Tables B—6 and B—7. “Return to baseline” test work
was conducted immediately after the engine had completed test work in the
malfunction configuration and the engine was reset to manufacturer’s
specifications. A more complete table of transient emissions will be
given later, in Table 14.
Gaseous and particulate emissions from the “new baseline” repeated
reasonably well compared to the levels obtained over the “original base—
line”runs and the single run for the “return to baseline” emissions. As
with the 13—mode test results, the HC emissions were down slightly. Over
transient test operation, o and NO emissions from the “new baseline”
were slightly lower. The particulate emissions repeated quite well. The
BSFC from the Mnew baseline” decreased by about 9 percent and the cycle
work was up by about 10 percent over the transient composite from the
“original baseline”.
In addition to repeat gaseous emission tests, a “new baseline” was
conducted for comparison of sn ke emissions as well. Results from
Operating the engine over the Federal Smoke Test are given in Table 9.
Repeatability of the smoke data was excellent. In addition, steady—state
smoke was also checked and found to be slightly lower. Maximum power
smoke over the “original baseline” ranged from 2.3 to 2.5, whereas the
“new baseline” values ranged from 1.5 to 1.7 percent opacity. For 1260
rpm/full load operation, “original baseline” smoke ranged from 7.5 to 8.6,
and the “new baseline” smoke ranged from 6.2 to 7.5.
38
-------
TABLE 7. TRANSIENT MAP RESULTS FROM THE DDAD 6V71
Engine New Baselinea Original Baseline
Speed, rpm Torque, ft. lb. Torque, ft. lb .
400 520 430
500 528 486
600 555 520
700 568 540
800 568 546
900 574 556
1000 574 554
1100 568 558
1200 561 546
1300 555 538
1400 555 534
1500 541 521
1600 535 508
1700 524 501
1800 510 488
1900 497 478
2000 485 462
2100 469 443
2200 450 420
New Baselinea Original Baseline
Idle Speed 400 rpm 400 rpm
Max. Power 188 hp @ 2100 rpm 177 hp 8 2100 rpm
Max. Torque 574 ft—lb @ 900 rpm 558 ft—lb @ 1100 rpm
Transient Test Work, hp—hr
Segment 1 1.48 1.41
Segment 2 2.42 2.36
Segment 3 7.05 6.73
Segment 4 1.48 1.41
Total 12.42 11.91
Bus Cycle Work, hp—hr
Segment 1 1.73 1,67
Segment 2 2.54 2.44
Segment 3 1.73 1.67
Total 6.00 5.79
a,,N baseline” represents “without trap”
39
-------
TABLE 8. COMPARATIVE BASELINE EMISSIONS FROM THE DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
Cycle
Type
Regulated Emissions, g/kW-hr
HC CO NO Part .
Cycle BSFC
kg/kW-hr
Cycle Work
kW—hr
Transient
Composite
Bus Cycle
Transient
Composite
Bus Cycle
New Baselinec
NOX emissions based on bag measurements
NO values projected from results obtained from continuous NO
measurements
C1INew Baseline represents “without trap”
TABLE 9. SMOKE OPACITY FROM THE DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
IN THE BASELINE CONFIGURATION
Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity
Smoke Opacity, %
‘ ‘ ‘‘ ‘‘B’’
Original Baseline
New Baseline
3.3 6.9 7.3
4.0 7.0 7.2
anNe baseline” represents “without trap”
Original
Baseline
.96
0.72
11.02
0.83
Return
to
Baseline
2.47 5.87
2.72 4.65
1.73 5.76
Transient
Composite
Bus Cycle
• 26
1.52 5.86 10.87
0.71
1.05
0.323
0.339
0.316
0.322
0.294
0.302
8.03
3.31
8.10
3.47
8.85
4.09
1.90 5.18
1.93 4.13
8.17 0.75
9.02 0.78
40
-------
On the basis of these values, no gross change in the “original baseline t ’
was noted. Hence, it was assumed that the unregulated emissions values
obtained during the “original baseline” work would be adequate to represent
the engine in its present test configuration, so that the values could be
used for comparative purposes when the emissions characterizations with the
trap were completed.
B. Trap Particulate Accumulation and Regeneration
Prior to mounting the particulate trap into the exhaust system, a brief
look at power and backpressure dependence was conducted. The results, given
in Table 10, indicate about a 2 percent decrease in power with a 2.4 in. Hg
increase in 13-mode exhaust restriction.
TABLE 10. FULL LOAD PERFOR1 CE OF DDAD 6V7l AT RATED SPEED
WITH INCREASING BACKPRESSURE
Exhaust Backpressure, in. Hg 4.2 60 a 8.4
Intake Restriction, in. H 2 0 25.5 25.2 24.6
Air Box Pressure, in. Hg 13.0 14.3 16.0
Engine Speed, rpm 2100 2100 2100
Brake Horsepower, observed 182.5 180.2 176.5
a13....mode set points were 6.0 in. Hg exhaust backpressure and 25.0 in. Hg
intake restriction
A single trap was installed in the exhaust system as shown in
Figure 20. With the trap in place and all engine exhaust routed through
the trap, the exhaust backpressure during maximum power operation was
approximately 4.2 in. Hg. It was decided that the i p across the trap
would be monitored during the 2100 rpm/50 percent load condition During
this condition, an initial trap Ap was recorded as 26 in. H 2 0. Five hot—
start transient cycles were conducted, representing a total work output
of 58.4 hp—hr, and the Ap increased to approximately 37 in. H 2 0. It was
decided that this would be a sufficient trap loading to attempt regenera-
tion.
The regeneration was conducted with the use of the burner and the
engine at idle. The trap exit temperature reached a maximum of 635°C.
After gradually cooling the trap, using idle gas flow, the engine was
brought up to 2100 rpm/SO percent load and the trap Ap was observed as 16
in. H 2 0. It was not known why the trap Ap, after regeneration, was lower
than the clean Ap. The trap was visually inspected and no problems were
noted. The regeneration had proceeded very slowly and no thermal shocks
were suspected. The trap face had been cleaned of all particulate.
41
-------
Figure 20. DDAD 6V71 with insulated exhaust system
and particulate trap aftertreatment
With all the exhaust flow routed through the trap, the exhaust gases
were diverted to the CVS. The CVS was operated with all particulate filter
systems in operation in order to help stabilize the tunnel and sampling
apparatus in anticipation of low particulate emissions. Four hot—start
transients were run. The trap Ap had been increased to 33 in. }- 2Oat the
2100 rpm/50 percent load condition. During the next regeneration, the
trap exit temperature reached a maximum of 585°C with a stable inlet gas
temperature of 620°C. After cooling the trap, the Ap was 12 in. H 2 0 at
the reference engine condition of 2100 rpm/SO percent load.
The latest trap Ap was about hale the level initially obtained. It
was decided that the trap Ap appeared to be very sensitive to any
initial engine operation after regeneration. When the reference con-
dition was held for a relatively long time (5 minutes), the trap Ap
would increase gradually even though the exhaust temperatures had essen-
tially stabilized. More attention was given to minimizing any engine
operation immediately after regeneration was completed, until the trap
Ap could be recorded.
The engine, with trap, was operated over a cold—start transient cycle
for smoke measurement, then over seven modes of the 13-mode test to collect
emission samples for aldehydes and DOAS. The trap L p measured 38 in. H 2 0
after about 2 hours of engine operation. The trap was regenerated and the
exit temperature reached a maximum of 675°C with a stabilized inlet
temperature of 63 0°C. After allowing the trap to cool, the trap Ap was
10 in. H 2 0 at the reference condition.
42
-------
A 13-mode emissions test was conducted while measuring raw gaseous
emissions before and after the trap. The next day, replicate cold— and
hot— start transient tests, along with replicate bus cycles were run for
regulated emissions, particulate (by 90 mm double dilution tunnel), and
for samples of individual hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols, and DOAS. Trap
temperature and pressure data were taken over the cold-start transient
cycle, and over the bus cycle. Continuous traces of these data are given
in Figures 21, 22, and 23,’ respectively. Temperatures in and out of the
trap are labeled as “P in” and “T out.” Differential pressure across the
trap is labeled as t iP and the backpressure trace is labeled as “BP.” The
maximum trap inlet temperature reached during the 1984 Transient FTP was
about 360°C 1 occurring around 650 seconds into the cycle. Similarly the
maximum trap outlet temperature was about 330°C near the same point in
the cycle. Over the bus cycle, the maximum trap inlet and outlet temp-
eratures were 320 and 210°C, respectively, occurring near 430 seconds into
the engine dynamometer cycle. The trap had accumulated particulate for
about 3.5 engine hours.
The CVS flow rate was set up’to 5000 cfm and the 20x20 filter holders
were engaged. Replicate cold— and hot-start transient cycles along with
replicate bus cycles were run in order to collect particulate samples. In
addition, cold— and hot-start transient, and bus cycles were run to
determine smoke opacity using the end of stack smokemeter. These tests
were followed by runs for 13—mode and power curve smoke as well as the
Federal Smoke Cycle. Zero smoke opacity was reocrded for all modes of
engine operation with the trap. Engine—trap hours since the last regen-
eration were about 6.5 hours. The trap p measured 54 in. H 2 0.
Assuming that clean trap E\p was 12 in. H 2 0, the t p had increased by
about a factor of 4.5. Since there was substantial trap loading, pre-
parations were made to characterize as many of the exhaust emissions during
regeneration as possible. Figure 24 shows the loaded trap inlet. Raw
exhaust samples of HC, CO, C0 2 , NOx, IHC, aldehydes, phenols, and DOAS
were collected. Dilute exhaust samples of particulate were collected on
various filter media for elemental and soluble analysis. During regenera-
tion the trap exit temperature increased from 550°C to a peak of 710°C in
about 36 seconds, while the inlet gas temperature was held at 600°C. The
fuel to the burner was shut o f when the trap exit temperature reached
700°C. The inlet gas temperature to the trap dropped quickly to about
320°C. As the temperature of the trap started to decrease, the fuel
burner was re—ignited, but promptly turned off due to a sudden spike in
the exit temperature from about 705°C to 800°C. The trap exit temperature
fell back to 705°C within 10 seconds. The trap was allowed to cool
gradually, and the engine was shut down. The trap was visually checked and
no damage was apparent. Figure 25 shows the trap inlet after regeneration.
Records of trap L p across this clean up after regeneration indicated a
p of 15 in. H 2 0. This regeneration event is described in greater detail
in the next section.
43
-------
AR BP, 7 MP,
/N.gtO i ii C
O —10 —500
4o- —400
30 — —300
20 —4 —200
—2 —100
—0 .— 0
Figure 21. Trap temperature and pressure traces over the cold—start transient cycle
-------
— 500
-4
-3a’
— zoo
— /00
—0
BP,
1W Mg
— 10
—I
L i i
—‘
—4
—2
—0
Figure 22. Trap temperature and pressure traces over the hot—start transient cycle
-------
AF BP,
,wH D IPIH 5
50 — IC
—t
—6
—4
—2
—o
7rMe,
— 500
-300
— 200
— I x
—0
Figure 23. Trap temperature and pressure traces over the bus cycle
-------
Figure 4. inlet or particulate trap prior to regeneration
Figure 25. Inlet of trap following r y rieratiou
47
-------
Particulate samples were collected over seven modes of steady—state
operation. Each mode was held for approximately 20 minutes in order to
acquire adequate samples for characterization of the total particulate.
The CVS flow rate ranged from 1000 cfm, at idle, to near 7000 cfm, for the
maximum power condition in order to provide single dilution of the total
exhaust. Following the completion of engine operation for particulate
sampling, the trap p was 51 in.. 1120 at the reference condition. The trap
inlet temperature was raised to 615°C. Once the trap exit temperature
reached 530°C, the trap exit temperature rapidly increased to 780°C in 28
seconds. At this point, the fuel to the burner was shut off and the trap
exit temperature peaked at 790°C. The trap was allowed to cool gradually.
A i p of 12 in. H2O was measured at reference conditions. Following some
steady—state operation to measure trap p at various light loads, the
regeneration process was repeated to insure that a clean trap would be
transferred to the bus vehicle. The trap inlet temperature was held stable
at 620°C and the trap exit temperature stabilized at 590°C. The trap was
allowed to cool and the engine was shut down. The trap was visually
inspected and no problems were noted.
The bus vehicle was fitted with the same exhaust system used for
engine dynamometer test work. A new reference condition to measure
the p of the trap was set as 1260 rpm with the transmission in neutral.
During an initial check, the trap E p was 7 in., 1120. Since our objective
was to accumulate particulate on the trap in a, service—like manner, the
bus left SwRI enroute to the “San Antonio Road Route” with all exhaust
gases routed through the trap. This route has been used in several
programs over the years and includes typical city driving with stop—and-
go traffic as well as a few minutes of high speed freeway driving. The
route takes approximately 30 minutes to complete seven miles. 7
After a total of 24 miles of road work, the trap Ap increased to 30
in. 1120. The fuel burner was ignited, and the fuel pressure was brought
to 110 psi, but the burner outlet temperature would not exceed 530°C.
The engine in the bus idled at 600 rpm and thus provided too much exhaust
gas relative to the fuel input to the burner. The exhaust system was
modified by adding a gate valve in parallel with the burner, in order
to “bleed off” excess idle exhaust gases generated by the 600 rpm idle.
Regeneration was attempted again. The inlet to the trap was raised
to 615°C. When the trap exit temperature reached 490°C, the exit temp-
erature increased to 580°C in 10 seconds, so the fuel to the burner was
shut off., The exit temperature of the trap continued to rise and peaked
to 755°C in about 45 seconds. The trap was reheated with 635°C inlet gas
and reached an exit temperature of 63O°C The trap was allowed to cool
gradually and the trap Ap measured 11 in, 1120 at the reference condition.
The bus was returned to the road route with the exhaust gases by-
passing the trap. The exhaust was routed through the trap for the start
of the first road route cycle. The bus was operated over the road route
twice, accumulating 15 miles. The trap Ap increased to 27 in. H 2 O. The
bus accumulated another 16 miles as it was returned to the lab with all
the exhaust gases passing through the trap. The trap Ap was 40 in. H 2 0
48
-------
prior to regeneration. Because the trap was thought to be heavily loaded
with particulate, the inlet temperature to the trap was held to 520°C
allowing the trap exit temperature to gradually increase to about 450°C
over a 10 minute period. The inlet gas temperature was brought up to
600°C. The trap exit temperature gradually reached 715°C then started to
cool down to 610°C while the inlet temperature was brought up to 630°C.
When both temperatures were stable, the fuel to the burner was shut off
and the idle gas bleed valve was closed. The trap exit temperature in-
creased from 610°C to 740°C over 60 seconds, then gradually cooled.
Regeneration was assumed to be complete. The engine was shut down and
the bus was prepared for emissions testing on the chassis dynamometer.
Chassis testing included operating the bus with the trap over the
cold—start transient driving cycle, then three hot—start cycles followed
by two bus cycles. Although continuous temperature and pressure data
across the trap were recorded, the format of the chart recording could
not be reproduced for the report 0 Over cold and hot transient chassis
testing, the maxmimum trap inlet temperature reached 475°C, the maximum
outlet temperature reached 460°C. The highest backpressure recorded was
about 8 in, Hg and the differential trap pressure exceeded the transducer
range of 80 in. H 2 0. During the chassis version of the bus cycle, the
trap inlet reached 400°C and outlet reached 330°C near the end of the
cycle 0 Both regulated and unregulated emissions samples were taken
using the single dilution CVS set for 7000 CF . Upon completion of chassis
testing, the trap A measured 65 in. H 2 0 at the reference condition. The
inlet temperature of the trap was held near 520°C for 20 minutes allowing
the trap exit temperature to reach 500°C. The inlet gas temperature was
increased to 560°C 0 When the trap exit temperature increased to 535°C
the exit temperature began to increase faster and reached 630°C in
about 60 seconds. The inlet temperature was gradually raised to 654°C
and the exit temperature started to decreased to 545°C, then started to
increase 0 When the trap exit temperature gradually reached 570°C, it
rapidly increased to 700°C in 18 seconds. The fuel burner was shut off,
but the temperature kept increasing and peaked to 990°C, 66 seconds after
the fuel to the burner was shut off. The trap was allowed to cool and the
Ap measured 4 in 0 H 2 0 at the reference condition 0
Visual inspection of the trap outlet showed signs of particulate
breakthrough. Figure 26 shows the failed trap cut in half. A large crack
across the body of the trap, near the outlet portion is clearly visible.
The cells near the crack were distorted with some of the walls melted
away. In addition to the main crack, there were about 4 hairline cracks
across the ceramic cells originating from the outer edge of the trap
surface (O.D.) and extending about 1 to 2 inches into trap body.
49
-------
Figure 26. Failed trap after outlet temperature peaked
to 990°C (inlet at bottom of figure)
C. Gaseous Emissions During Regeneration
In order to determine the emissions during regeneration, raw exhaust
gases were sampled continuously during the regeneration process. Portions
of the exhaust gas concentrations measured during regeneration are attri-
buted to engine idle, fuel burner and trap regeneration emissions. Table
11 gives steady-state emissions of the burner exhaust while operated at
TABLE 11. EXHAUST EMISSIONS WITH CORRESPONDING
AND BURNER EXHAUST TEMPERATURES
FUEL FLOW
Steady State Emission, g/hr
Fuel Flow
lb/hr
Burner Exh,
Temp., °C
Idle Before Regeneration
15
23
63
22 e
Of f
With Burner at
50 psiC
75 psi
100 psi
110 psiC
125 psi
a,d
During Regeneration
Idle After Regereration
25
12
5
6
6
14
13
a
237
183
63
31
26
396
20
a
84
83
83
81
82
71
59
a
78 b
8.9
9.9
lO.l
lO.5 ’
bd
10.1’
2.2
540
630
700
750
804
750
Of f
amtegrated raw emission
bNOX 196 ppm and 02 15.13%
T0ta fuel for engine idle and fuel burner
SS1r1 trap
Burner fuel pressure of 110 psi
e el for engine idle
levels were: HC 118 ppm, CO 1720 ppm, CO 2 3.83%,
50
-------
various fuel pressures. These emissions were determined shortly after
burner development was completed. Emissions “during regeneration” were
processed using the gaseous concentrations integrated from 3.5 to the 11.5
minutes portion of the trap regeneration shown in Figure 27. This period
represents the time interval in which the burner was ignited, particulate
was oxidized, burner was turned of f, and the trap allowed to cool down.
Continuous traces of pressures and temperatures which occurred during
the trap regeneration for which emissions were measured are given in the
top portion of Figure 27. Emission traces of HC, CO, C0 2 , NOR, and 02
are given in the lower portion of Figure 27. These traces are the result
of monitoring the regeneration of the trap which had accumulated 54 in. H 2 0
Ap. Prior to the start of regeneration the engine was run to check the Ap
and to insure that the trap was warm (relative to room temperatures).
The engine was brought to an idle. At one minute, as indicated in
Figure 24, the “bypass valve” and the “bypass damper” were opened. This
reduced the flow through the trap causing the trap Ap to drop from 7 to
2.3 in. H 2 0 and the engine backpressure to drop from 0.4 to 0.1 in. Hg.
At this time, the HC concentration appeared to change from 64 to 120 ppm
C for some unknown reason. (It is doubtful that the change was due to
alteration of backpressure alone).
The fuel burner was ignited at 2.5 minutes, then the main exhaust
damper was closed around 3.5 minutes. Normally, the “main exhaust damper”
is closed prior to burner ignition to cause all the idle exhaust gas to
flow through the burner, but the sequence was inadvertently changed during
this run. The HC concentration exceeded 800 ppm C during burner ignition
and likely reached 1000 ppm on the basis of previous emission measurements.
Concentration of CO 2 increased in Proportion to the fuel consumed by the
fuel burner.
After ignition of the burner was established, both HC and CO concen-
trations decreased rapidly. Once the main exhaust damper was closed, the
HC and CO concentrations increased substantially. Most of this change was
likely due to changes in fuel burner air flow conditions. The burner-trap
crossover damper was opened at 3.7 minutes, then the bypass damper was
moved to the half closed position at 4 minutes. This caused an increased
portion of the hot burner exhaust gases to flow through the trap. The trap
inlet gas temperature went from 250 to 400°C. This inlet was held near
400°C for almost one minute, then the bypass damper was fully closed at 4.8
minutes increasing the trap inlet temperature to near 500°C. The bypass
valve was closed at 5.3 minutes to insure that all gases were routed
through the trap.
The HC concentration increased rapidly with the increase in trap in-
let temperature from 160 ppm to 256 ppm C, then it began to fall. It is
assumed that lighter hydrocarbon or fuel-like matter was being driven off
the walls of the exhaust system and the trap. As temperatures in the
system increased, partial oxidation of the hydrocarbons appeared as in-
creases in CO concentrations. By 5.5 minutes, the trap inlet temperature
reached 540°C and the trap exit temperature began to increase from about
51
-------
Figure 27. Pressure and temperature trace and gaseous emissions trace
during trap regeneration
L i i
-------
150°C. As the trap inlet and exit temperatures reached 595 and 400°C, respec-
tively, the trap p peaked to 10 in. H 2 0. At this point, concentrations of
CO and CO 2 were still increasing while 02 and HC concentrations were decreasing.
Concentrations of N0 changed very little, but did seem to peak along with the
trap Ap and backpressure. Even though the trap inlet temperature continued
to increase slightly, the trap Ap began to drop off.
At eight minutes, the trap inlet and exit temperatures reached 600°C
and 520°C, respectively, and the trap Ap started dropping rapidly and the
exit temperature began to rise quickly. The C02 concentration simultaneously
began to increase to 7 percent and the 2 concentration went down to 11.9
percent. The CO concentration was in excess of 3000 ppm at this point. By
8.9 minutes, the CO 2 concnetration started to decrease and the 2 concentration
was gradually increasing. When the trap exit temperature peaked to 710°C,
the fuel to the burner was shut off. As the exit temperature started to
decline, the burner was re—ignited at 9.2 minutes, but was promptly turned
off as the exit temperature spiked to 800°C.
The MC concentration, which had reached a minimum of about 16 ppm
during regeneration with the fuel to the burner shut off, started to gradually
increase as the trap cooled. Concentrations of CO and CO 2 started to decrease
while the °2 concentration increased. The trap Ap continued to fall off as
the trap cooled.
The main exhaust damper was opened at 11.2 minutes and the burner-
trap—crossover was closed. It appears that regeneration or oxidation
reactions continued until the trap exit temperature fell below 400°C at
11.5 minutes. Sampling continued until the trap exit temperature reached
200°C, 13.6 minutes from the start of sampling. Results from measurements
of unregulated emissions over this regeneration cycle are reported along
with summary tables of the respective emissions 0 The trap Ap at the ref-
erence condition of 2100 rpm/50 percent load was 15 in. H 2 O.
D. Gaseous Emissions
Gaseous emissions of HC, CO , and NO were determined for the DDAD 6V71
coach engine over the 13—mode FTP, the 1984 Transient FTP, and the bus cycle
using a transient-capable engine dynamometer facility. These species
were also determined for the 1980 GMC RTS—II coach vehicle over a chassis
version of the 1984 Transient FTP and the bus cycle. Results from analysis
of samples for selected individual hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols and total
intensity of aroma (TIA) may also be considered gaseous emissions, and are
presented in this section of the report.
l Thirteen-Mode Emissions
Once the baseline repeat data on the DDAD 6V71 coach engine were
approved, the trap was installed in the engine’s exhaust system. Two cycles
of accumulation/regeneration were conducted on the trap prior to any emissions
sampling. The engine’s exhaust backpressure was 6.5 in. Hg and the inlet
depression was set to 25 in 0 H 2 0. During a single 13—mode FTP, gaseous
emissions concentrations were determined from both before and after the trap
by use of appropriate valves and heated sample lines.
53
-------
The 13—mode composite results from this test are given in Table
12, along with the results obtained over the “original” and “new” baseline.
Copies of the corresponding computer printouts are given in Appendix A
and give detailed information obtained on a modal basis.
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF 13-MODE EMISSION RESULTS FROM THE DDAD 6V71
COACH ENGINE
13-Mode FTP
Emission, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr) — BSFC
Test Notes HC CO — NO kg/kW-hr, (lb/hp-hr )
Original Baselinea 2.37 9.92 9.60 0.297
(1.77) (7.40) (7.16) (0.488)
Without Trap 1.64 9.62 9.79 0.288
(New Baseline) (1.22) (7.18) (7.30) (0.474)
Before Trap 1.79 6.38 9.91 0.286
(1.34) (4.76) (7.39) (0.471)
After Trap 1.68 6.24 10.00 0.286
(1.25) (4.66) (7.46) (0.471)
aAverage of two runs
The effect of placing the trap in the exhaust system appears to be
relatively minor, on the basis of comparison between the “new baseline” and
the “before trap” values. The 13—mode composite CO emission, measured
bef ore the trap was 34 percent lower than without the trap in the system.
Composite HC emission was about 9 percent higher with the trap in place.
The slight difference in NOx and BSFC were likely due to test—to—test
variability.
Comparison of 13—mode composite emissions from the “new baseline”
and “after trap” indicate the same trends as noted above. In comparing 13—
mode composite emission results from “before” and “after” the trap, there
were essentially no significant changes due to the trap itself. The measure-
ments were made back—to—back to reduce problems in variability and the same
engine parameters were used to process data. The composite hydrocarbon value
after the trap was about 6 percent lower than determined before the trap.
In comparing modal data, some reduction in hydrocarbons seemed apparent,
especially during the idle and 2 percent load condition where fuel—like
aerosols are typically found. Emissions of CO were slightly lower measured
after the trap, during the higher load, higher exhaust heat conditions.
Virtually no definite changes in NO are readily attributable to the trap,
but slightly higher NOx emission rates were noted after the trap during
high load, high exhaust heat Conditions.
54
-------
Temperature data corresponding to 13-mode testing with the
trap are given in Table 13. Exhaust temperatures were monitored at the
termination of each exhaust manifold. Trap inlet and outlet temperatures
were monitored about 3 inches upstream and downstream of the trap substrate .
Temperatures were recorded near the end of each rno ie Since the trap was
relatively massive, the thermal inertia of the trap was substantial. This
caused the trap exit temperature to be higher than the inlet temperature
during all but the maximum power condition of the 2nd segment of the 13—mode
test. As shown in Figure 20, the exhaust system and trap were well in-
sulated. The maximum exhaust temperature reached was near 520°C, and the
maximum trap inlet and outlet temperatures both reached 498°C.
TABLE 13. EXHAUST AND TRAP TEMPERATURE OVER 13-MODE
STEADY-STATE OPERATION
Exhaust, oca Trap, oca
Mode Right Left Inlet Outlet
1 130 130 120 150
2 121 124 111 118
3 179 181 163 163
4 253 256 238 238
5 371 374 355 355
6 486 489 480 480
7 124 124 155 205
8 522 515 498 498
9 460 454 437 442
10 354 360 338 345
11 251 255 250 252
12 187 188 182 198
13 110 110 115 130
aT recorded near end of
sampling time for a given mode
Unregulated emissions of aldehydes, TIA, and those related to
particulate emissions were determined for seven modes of the 13—mode FTP.
Results from these determinations will be presented in sections designated
for discussion of these species. No steady—state emissIons were measured
for the GMC RTS—II coach vehicle.
2. Transient Emissions
Transient cycle emissions from the DDAD 6V71 coach engine were
measured and calculated in accordance with the 1984 Transient FTP and the
proposed 1986 Transient FTP (which includes particulate). The power map
established during the “baseline repeat” emissions testing was used to
generate the transient command cycle used to evaluate the effect of the trap.
peplicate runs of cold— and hot—start cycles, as well as bus cycles, were
55
-------
run with particulate trap aftertreatment. Copies of the respective computer
printouts are given in Appendix C, Tables C-i through C—6. The average of
these replicate test results are given in Table 14. Results obtained from
this engine for the “original baseline,” “return to baseline,” and the
“new baseline,” all obtained without particulate trap, are also presented.
In comparing the emission levels “without trap” to those obtained
“with trap,” the most significant change in transient emissions occurred for
particulate. Cold— and hot—start particulate emissions were reduced by 54
and 61 percent, respectively. Bus cycle particulate was reduced by 68
percent. Discussion of particulate data will be given in a later section.
Gaseous .emissions of HC were essentially unchanged with the trap
over cold- and hot—start transient testing Results from the bus cycle
indicated a slight decrease (5.2 percent) in HC emissions due to the trap.
Emissions of CO over cold— and hot—start transient test with the trap were
about 14 percent lower than obtained without the trap. However, no change
in CO emission levels were noted over the bus cycle. Emissions of NOx over
transient testing were about 5 percent lower with the trap than without it.
This was opposite of the trend noted for NOx emissions over the 13-mode
steady-state FTP. No change in BSFC was noted. Although all transient tests
were statisically valid, the work over transient cycle testing with the trap
was generally 5 percent lower than obtained over “without trap” runs.
The GMC RTS-II coach vehicle powered by a similar DDAD 6v71 coach
engine was operated over the heavy—duty chassis driving cycle and over a
chassis version of the heavy-duty bus cycle. Chassis testing for gaseous
emissions with trap artertreatment was limitea to single runs over these
cycles due to problems encountered with regeneration of the ‘trap. Replicate
runs for gaseous emissions were conducted without the trap. Copies of the
computer printouts from tests without the trap are given in Appendix D,
Tables D—l through D—6. Computer printouts from chassis testing with the
trap are given in Appendix E, Tables E-1 through E—3. Table 15 summarizes
the regulated emissions results obtained from chassis testing. Fuel
economy is also given to enable computation of emissions on a fuel specific
basis for comparison purposes.
Gaseous emissions determined during chassis test work utilized a
single dilution CVS system from which particulate emission samples were also
collected. In order to stay below the 125°F limit for particulate collection
purposes, the CVS was operated near 7000 cfm. Use of this relatively high
dilution rate caused the gaseous emission concentrations to be relatively low.
In order to’ compensate for high dilution ratios, more sensitive ranges on
gaseous emissions analyzers were used. Test-to—test variability over chassis
testing is greater than for stationary engine testing. Since more sensitive
ranges were used, test-to—test variability tends to be greater than when
emission concentrations are greater. In addition, for chassis test work, the
operator controls the engine through feedback from the drivers aid and is
likely to be less repeatable that the computer controlled engine testing
conducted on the engine dynamometer. In cases where the vehicle could
not match the driver’s trace during accelerations, the operator went to
wide—open—throttle (WOT), or full rack, until the trace could be followed
again, Incidentally, during most aôcelerations, the opezator fully depresses
the foot pedal.
56
-------
TABLE 14.. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS FROM THE
DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
Return to Baseline (After Maladjustment )
BSFC,
Regulated Exnissions,g/kW—hr(g/hp-hr ) kg/kW—hr
HC CO NOXa Part. ( lb/hp—hr )
6.03
(4.50)
Original Baseline
0.372
(0.612)
11.01
(8.21)
0.86
(0.64)
5.84
(4.36)
9.79
(7.30)
0.70
(0.52)
0.313
(0.515)
5.87
(4.38)
9.96
(7.43)
0.72
(0.54)
0.323
(0.529)
4.65
(3.47)
11.02
(8.22)
0.83
(0.62)
0.339
(0.557)
Cycle
Type
Start
f
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
e
Bus
Cycle
ColdC
Start
HotC
Start
Transient
Composite
C
Bus
Cycle
Coldd
Start
e
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
e
Bus
Cycle
e
Cold
Start
C
Hot
Start
Transient
Composite
BusC
Cycle
5.04 8.98
(3.76) ( 670 )b
5.88 9.32
(4 39) ( 695 )b
5.76 9.26
(4.30) (6.91)
5.86 10.87
(4.37) ( 8 11 )b
t out TrajD
0.86
(0.64)
0.68
(0.51)
0.71
(0. 53)
1.05
(0.78)
(New Baseline)
2.49
(1.86)
2.47
(1.84)
2.47
(1.84)
2.72
(2.03)
1.93
(1.44)
1.70
(1.27)
1.73
(1.29)
1.52
(1.13)
1.85
(1.38)
1.91
(1.42)
1.90
(1.42)
1.93
(1.44)
1.88
(1.40)
1.89
(1.41)
1.89
(1.41)
1.83
(1.36)
Cycle Work,
kW-hr
(hp-hr)
6.77
(9. 07)
8.24
(11.05)
8.03
(10.77)
3.31
(4.41)
7.41
(9.93)
8.22
(11.02)
8.10
(10.86)
3.47
(4.65)
8.25
(11.05)
8.95
(12.00)
8.85
(11.86)
4.09
(5.48)
7.68
(10.30)
8.48
(11.37)
8.37
(11.22)
3.92
(5. 25)
8.61
(6.42)
8.10
(6.04)
8.17
(7.10)
9.02
(6.72)
0.64
(0. 48)
0.77
(0. 57)
0.75
(0.56)
0.78
(0. 58)
0 • 354
(0. 583)
0.310
(0. 510)
0.316
(0. 520)
0.322
(0. 530)
0.317
(0. 522)
0.290
(0.476)
0.2 94
(0.483)
0.302
(0.496)
0. 325
(0. 534)
0.291
(0. 478)
0.296
(0.48 6)
0.297
(0.488)
4.73
(3. 53)
5.26
(3.92)
5.18
(3.87)
4.13
(3.08)
4.06
(3.03)
4.52
(3.37)
4.45
(3.32)
4.12
(3.08)
With Trap
8.36 029 g
(6.24) (0.22)
7.67 030 g
(5.72) (0.22)
029 g
(5.80) (0.22)
8.59 0 • 25 g
(6.41) (0.19)
NO emissions determined from bag samples
NOx values projected results obtained with
Continuous NOx measurement
Single test
Average of three tests
Average of two tests
Average of four tests
total particulate value
based on two runs for regulated
emissions and two runs for parti-
culate emissions only
57
-------
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS FROM A
GMC RTS—II COACH
Fuel Economy
Cycle Regulated Emissions g/km, (g/mile ) liter/lOO km kg/km Distance
Type HC CO NO , C Part. ( miles/gal) ( lb/mile) kin, (miles)
Without Trap
COlda 1.78 68.40 11.86 5.45 60.76 0.492 8.25
Cycle (2.86) (110.05) (19.08) (8.77) (3.88) (1.75) (5.13)
a
Hot 1.52 .51.10 9.92 4.25 48.24 0.390 8.83
Cycle (2.44) (82.22) (15.95) (6.48) (4.88) (1.38) (5.49)
Transient 1.56 53.57 10.20 4.42 50.03 0.405 8.75
Composite (2.51) (86.20) (16.41) (7.11) (4.74) (1.44) (544)
a
Bus 2.25 70.59 12.94 6.22 62.34 0.504 4.79
Cycle (3.62) (128.06) (20.82) (10.00) (3.78) (1.79) (2.98)
With Trap
Coldb 1.10 59.64 10.75 0.59 56.30 0.456 8.53
Cycle (1.76) (95.95) (17.29) (0.94) (4.18) (1.62) (5.30)
Hoth 1.01 42.31 10.85 0.31 48.07 0.389 8.70
Cycle (1.63) (68.08) (17.46) (0.49) (4.89) (1.38) (5.40)
Transient 1.02 44.70 10.84 0.35 49.25 0.398 8.68
Composite (1.65) (72.06) (17.43) (0.56) (4.79) (1.41) (5.39)
1.47 66.05 11.35 0.43 58.83 0.476 4.69
Cycle (2.37) (106.27) (18.26) (0.70) (4.00) (1.69) (2.92)
aAverage of two tests
bEased on single run
cNO emissions determined from bag samples
58
-------
The trap reduced particulate emissions by 92 and 93 percent over the
composite transient and bus cycle run on the chassis’ dynamometer. Further
discussion of particulate reduction will be given in a later section of this
report.
The trap appears to have reduced the HC emissions over transient
chassis testing by 35 percent. Emissions of Co were also reduced but by
varying degrees. Over the truck cycle, the composite CO emissions were
reduced by about 17 percent with the trap. Over the bus cycle, only a 7
percent reduction in CO was noted. Changes in NO emissions were mixed. The
cold-start truck cycle indicated a 9 percent reduction in NOx emissions with
the trap, whereas the hot—start indicated the opposite. Over the bus cycle,
the trap appeared to be responsible for a 12 percent reduction in NOx emissions.
Little, if any, change in NO emissions can be attributed to the trap itself.
No significant change in fuel economy can be attributed to the use of the trap.
Even though the test engine and the engine in the RTS—II coach
were both DDAD model 6V71, the differences in emissions without the trap
were significant. On a fuel specific basis, HC, CO, NOx, andparticulate
from the test engine were 6.46, 17.6, 27.8, and 2.58 g/kg of fuel, respectively.
Emissions of HC, CO NOR, and particulate from the vehicle’s engine were 3.85,
132, 25.2 and 10.9 g/kg of fuel, respectively. Emissions of NOx were similar,
but CO and particulate emissions from the bus vehicle’s engine were almost
5 times those of the test engine. Emission of HC from the coach vehicle
engine was about half that of the stationary-mounted engine.
3. Selected Individual Hydrocarbons
Some individual hydrocarbons (IHC) were determined from dilute
exhaust samples taken in replicate over transient operation of the DDAD
6V71 coach engine run on the engine dynamometer. Results from these
analyses are given in Table 16 along with “baseline” values. The term
“baseline” is used in the following tables to denote data accumulated
during a previous program and are presented in this work to represent the
engine’s emission “without trap.” In addition, raw exhaust samples for IHC
were obtained during regeneration of the trap, and these results are also
given in Table 16 for reference.
Over cold— and hot-start transient operation, levels of ethylene
and propylene were about 20 percent lower with the trap. Levels of methane
were below the background levels during these tests. Over the bus cycle,
the brake specific levels of ethylene and propylene were about the same as
obtained over cold— and hot-start transient testing with the trap. Analysis
of raw exhaust samples obtained during trap regeneration showed ethylene
and propylene to be predominant, but the presence of benzene, toluene, and
acetylene were also indicated. It is uncertain what portions of these
species can be attributed to engine idle, burner exhaust, or regeneration
itself.
Individua l, hydrocarbons were also determined over chassis versions
of the transient tests for trucks and buses. Results from analysis of
single samples of CVS dilute exhaust, with and without the trap, are given
in Table 17. Only methane, ethylene, and propylene were detected above
background levels. The levels of these species were reduced with the use of
the trap.
59
-------
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
Cycle Type Units Methane Ethylene Ethane Acetylene Propane Propylene Benzene Toluene “ Total ”
Baselinea1e mg/test 790 410 63 1300
Cold mg/kW—hr 120 60 9.2 190
Start mg/kg fuel 320 160 23 500
Base ljnea,e mg/test —— 1000 27 520 86 — — 1600
Hot mg/kW—hr 120 3.2 61 10 190
Start mg/kg fuel 390 11 200 33 630
With Trapa mg/test 690 320 1000
Cold mg/kW—hr 89 31 130
Start mg/kg fuel 270 130 400
With Trapa mg/test 760 170 930
Hot mg/kW—hr 89 20 110
Start mg/kg fuel 310 70 380
With Trapa mg/test 310 41 120 470
Bus mg/kW-hr 78 10 32 120
Cycle mg/kg fuel 260 35 110 400
Regenerationbld g/m 3 exh. 7300 96 630 0 1900 1260 870
mg/kg fuel 52 290 3.8 25 75 50 35 530
Measured dilute
Measured raw
This is slightly lower than the level generally noted for background
It is uncertain what portion of these emissions are due to idle exhaust gases, burner exhaust gases
or trap regeneration. Recall, that the burner was not optimized.
eBaseline represents “without trap”
-------
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM TRANSIENT CHASSIS
OPERATION OF THE GMC RTS-II COACH
Cycle Type Units Methane Ethylene Propylene
Without Trap mg/test 460 1300 -—
Cold mg/kin 58 170 230
Start mg/kg fuel 120 340 460
Without Trap mg/test 470 970 290
Hot mg/km 54 110 197
Start mg/kg fuel 140 280 524
Without Trap mg/test 370 650
Bus Cycle mg/km 78 140
mg/kg fuel 160 280
With Trap mg/test 8.10
Cold mg/km 95
Start mg/kg fuel 210
With Trap mg/test 810
Hot mg/km 93
Start mg/kg fuel 240
With Trap mg/test 82 450
Bus Cycle mg/kin 17 97
mg/kg fuel 37 200
On a fuel specific basis, emissions of ethylene were nearly the
same for both engine and chassis dynamometer testing. Trends toward
lower levels of ethylene, propylene, and methane were noted over both types
of testing when the trap was used.
4. Aldehydes
Aldehydes were determined in replicate from CVS diluted samples
taken over cold- and hot—start transient testing of the DDAD 6V71 coach
engine. Raw exhaust samples were collected over each of seven selected modes
of the 13-mode FTP, inc’uding a sample during trap regeneration 0 Aldehyde
levels obtained during 7—mode operation in the baseline configuration
(without trap) and with the trap are given in Tables 18 and 19, respectively.
The DNPH method for sample collection was used in both cases. However, a
gas chromatographic procedure was used to analyze samples from “baseline”
operation during an earlier program, and a liquid chromatographic procedure
61
-------
TABLE 18.
SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE
DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
am addition no crotonaldehyde,
were found.
Gas Chromotographic Procedure
methylethylketone, benzaldehyde or
was used to analyze samples obtained with the trap in this program. The
liquid chromatographic analysis is preferred due to its ability to resolve
the acetone peak, observed using the gas chromatographic analysis, into
peaks representing acrolein, acetone, and propionaldehyde. Minimum detect-
able values for both methods of analysis are given in Table 20.
Formaldehyde was prevalent for both configurations of the coach engine
with and without the trap. Although a greater variety of species were
detected from analysis of samples obtained from engine operation with the
trap, total aldehydes were about the same. In addition,, the lower the
concentration of the species, the more difficult it is to be certain of
the quantative value of the species. Aldehyde emissions during regeneration
were lower than obtained over the idle mode.
Table 21 gives the aldehydes emission levels obtained over cold-
and hot-start transient testing, and over the bus cycle. As mentioned
earlier, baseline values (without trap) were obtained during a previous
program. More formaldehyde and hexanaldehyde, but less isobutyraldehyde ’
emissions were noted with the trap.
Aldehvdealb
Condition, rpm/load, %
Units
pg/rn 3 exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg fuel
Test
1260
2
1600
970
540
260
1260
50
960
590
12
48
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
pg/rn 3 exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg fuel
220
130
73
34
230
140
2.9
11
Isobutyraldehyde
g/m 3 exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg fuel
340
210
120
56
360
220
4.5
18
100
Idle
100
50
2
2100
480
4700
870
760
1300
85
4500
820
720
13
——
34
12
270
53
100
130
39
78
150
——
820
92
——
780
0.93
——
5.9
3.7
——
22
—— —— — — —— 210
—— —— —— —— 200
—— —— —— —— 74
—— — — —— —— 22
62
-------
TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF ALDEHDYES FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE
DDAD 6V7l COACH ENGINE WITH TRAP
Test Condition, rpm/load, %
a 1260 1260 1260 2100 2100 2100 Trap
Aldehyde Units 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2 Regeneration
Formaldehyde jig/rn 3 exh. 2000 240 490 740 960 840 390
mg/hr 1200 140 86 700 900 770 70
mg/kW—hr 590 1.5 —— 5.1 13 290 ——
mg/kg fuel 300 5.6 96 19 41 93 16
Acetaldehyde jig/rn 3 exh. 550 -— —- —- 170 190 130
mg/hr 320 160 180 120
mg/kW—hr 160 1.1 2.6 44
mg/kg fuel 41 4.3 8.2 14
Acrolein jig/rn 3 exh. 120
mg/hr 71
mg/kW—hr 36
mg/kg fuel 9.1
Propionaldehyde jig/rn 3 exh. 370 —- -— 60 110 62 26
mg/hr 220 60 110 57 4.6
rng/kW—hr 110 0.44 1.6 21 ——
mg/kg fuel 28 1.7 4.9 6.9 1.0
Acetone jig/rn 3 exh. 500 300 76 140 64 63 50
mg/hr 290 180 45 24 60 59 46
rng/kW—hr 150 3.7 0.46 —— 0.44 0.86 17
mg/kg fuel 38 15 1.8 27 1.7 2.7 5.5
Crotonaldehyde jig/rn 3 exh. 140 -— 44 69
mg/hr 84 26 12
mg/kW—hr 42 0.27 -—
mg/kg fuel 11 1.0 2.8
Isobutyraldehyde jig/rn 3 exh. 290 —— — — —— —— 100 29 b 20 b
mg/hr 170 97 27 3.6
mg/kW—hr 86 1.4 9.9 -—
mg/kg fuel 22 4.4 3.2 0.80
Methylethylketone jig/rn 3 exh. 660 410 100 82 94 100 87 61
mg/hr 390 240 62 14 88 97 81 11
mg/kW—hr 193 5.0 0.64 —— 0.64 1.4 30 ——
mg/kg fuel 49 21 2.4 16 2.4 4.4 9.7 2.4
Hexanaldehyde jig/rn 3 exh. 1800 —— —- 51 210 590 400 25 b
mg/hr 1100 9.0 200 560 370 4.5
mg/kW—hr 540 —— 1.5 8.1 140 ——
mg/kg fuel 140 10 5.5 25 44 1.0
Benza ldehyde jig/rn 3 exh. 280 38 150 —— 150 77 76 79
mg/hr 170 22 91 140 72 70 14
rng/kW—hr 83 0.50 0.94 1.0 1.0 26 ——
mg/kg fuel 21 1.9 3.6 3.8 3.3 8.4 3.1
aLiquid Chrornatographic Procedure
btti are below the minimum detectable values associated with reliable results
63
-------
TABLE 20. MINIMUM DETECTABLE VALUES OF THE DNPH PROCEDURE
Molecular jJg/m 3 Mm. Detection Value
Compound Weight per ppm ppm hg/rn 3
Formaldehyde 30.03 1250 0.01 15
Acetaldehyde 44.05 1830 0.01 20
Acroleina 56.07 2330 0.01 25
Acetonea 58.08 2415 0.01 25
Propionaldehydea 58.08 2415 0.01 25
Isobutyraldehyde 72.11 3000 0.01 30
Methylethylketone 72.12 3000 0.01 30
Crotonaldehyde 70.09 2915 0.01 30
Hexanaldehyde 100.16 4165 0.01 40
Benzaldehyde 106.13 4415 0.01 45
ausing the gas chromatographic procedure, these three species are
designated as “acetone”
Aldehydes were also determined in dilute exhaust samples collected
from the single—dilution CVS system during transient chassis testing of
the GMC RTS—II coach vehicle. Since the chassis dynamometer test work
utilized the single—dilution CVS for gaseous and particulate sample col-
lection simultaneously, the gaseous emissions were relatively dilute. In
order to improve aldehyde sample recovery, a composite aldehyde sample was
collected over one cold—start and three hot-start transients. This sample
was considered to be the best compromise between accuracy and level of
effort and coincided with the methods to be used under Contract 68—02—3773
to establish emissions without the trap.
Results of analysis for aldehydes for the vehicle with and without
the trap are given in Table 22. Over the chassis test work, more species of
various aldehy es were noted without the trap than with the trap. Form-
aldehyde, propionaldehyde, hexanaldehyde and benzaldehyde emissions over
the truck cycle appeared to be greater with the trap. Over the bus cycle,
only propionaldehyde and hexanaldehyde emissions appeared to be greater with
the trap, all others being reduced below the detectable level.
Overall, it appears that the trap probably had little effect on
aldehyde emissions. Although there were changes in aldehyde emissions with
and without the trap during this brief test program, the degree of change
relative to the sensitivity of the procedure is relatively small and mixed.
64
-------
TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION OF THE DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINEaIe
Form— Acet— Propian- Isobutyr- Methylethyl Hexan- Benz-
Cycle Type Units aldehyde aldehyde aldehyde aldehyde ketone aldehyde aldehyde
Baseline ” mg/test 190 180 33
Cold mg/kW—hr 27 25 4.7
Start mg/kg fuel 76 70 13
Baselineblf mg/test 170 44
Hot mg/kW-hr 21 5.4
Start mg/kg fuel 67 17
b,f
Baseline mg/test 40
Bus mg/kW-hr 12
Cycle mg/kg fuel 36
3: With Trap’ mg/test 340 17 26 5 • 0 d 16 17 140
Cold mg/kW—hr 44 2.2 3.4 0.65 2.1 2.3 18
Start mg/kg fuel 140 6.8 11 2.0 6.5 7.1 57
With Trapc mg/test 220 16 17 4 • 8 d 15 61 d 74
Hot mg/kW-hr 26 1.9 2.0 0.57 1.8 0.72 8.8
Start mg/kg fuel 90 6.6 6.9 2.0 6.2 2.5 30
With TrapC mg/test 360 32 d 8 21 6 • 2 d 80
Bus mg/kW—hr 91 0.82 2.1 5.4 1.6 20
Cycle mg/kg fuel 310 2.8 7.1 18 5.4 69
Average of two runs
Ga5 Chromatographic Procedure
Chromatographic Procedure
Values over both runs were below the reliable minimum detectable level
In addition, no acrolein, acetone, crotonaldehyde were noted for the samples processed
Baseline represents “without trap”
-------
TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF ALDEHDYES FROM TRANSIrNT OPERATION OF THE GMC RTS-II COACH a,e
Cycle Type Units Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Propionaldehyde Methylethylketone Hexanaldehyde Benzaldehyde
Without prapb mg/test 200 18 d 12 d 79 d
Transient mg/km 23 2.1 1.3 9.2 5.3
Composite mg/kg fuel 56 4.8 3.2 22 13
c d d d
Without Trap mg/test 390 68 37 87 160 56
Bus mg/kin 82 14 7.6 18 34 12
Cycle mg/kg fuel 170 29 16 37 69 24
b d d
With Trap mg/test 1000 74 360 150
Transient mg/kin 120 8.5 42 17
Composite mg/kg fuel 300 21 103 42
C
With Trap mg/test 350 210
°‘Bus mg/km 75 46
Cycle mg/kg fuel 160 96
Based on results from single sample analysis
Composite sample derived over 1 Cold + 3 Hot Transient Tests run in sequence
dC0mP0s) te sample derived over 2 Bus Cycles run in sequence
Based on concentrations which were below the minimum detectable level for reliable values
em addition, no acrolein, acetone, crotonaldehyde, isobuturaldehyde were found in any of these samples
-------
5. Phenols
Phenols were determined using a wet chemistry procedure outlined
in Section III, H.l. and described in detail in Reference 13. Dilute exhaust
samples were collected over transient and bus cycle operation of the DDAD
6V71 coach engine and the GMC RTS—II coach vehicle. In addition, a raw exhaust
sample was collected during regeneration of the trap. The detection of indivi-
dual phenols in dilute or raw exhaust is quite variable. The respective
minimum detection levels are given in Table 23. During previous baseline work
(without trap), only 2—n—propylphenol was noted over the cold- and hot—start
transient test cycle (no phenols sample was taken over the bus cycle). Levels
for the baseline cold—start were 130 mg/test, 19 mg/kW-hr and 15 mg/kg fuel.
This phenol has a relatively high molecular weight and is difficult to quantify
due to potential interferences. Analysis of dilute exhaust samples collected
over transient operation with trap aftertreatment indicated no phenols emissions
above the minimum detectable limits over the cold—start, hot—start or the bus
cycle for either the test engine or the bus engine. Analysis of the raw
exhaust sample collected during regeneration indicated a “phenol” concentration
of 160 pg/rn 3 exhaust or 6.3 mg/kg fuel. No other species of phenols were noted.
TABLE 23. MINIMUM DETECTABLE VALUES OF PHENOLS PROCEDURE
Molecular pg/rn 3 Mm. Detection Value
Phenol Group Weight per ppm ppm pg/rn 3
Phenol 94.1 3915 0.002 6
Salicylaldehyde 122.1 5080 0.002 12
rn-cresol 1 1082 a
p—cresol J
p—ethylpheno l
2—isopropylpheflOl a a a a
2,2—xylenol 127.8 5316 0.002 12
3, 5—xylenol
2,4, 6-trimethylphenol
2—n—propylphenOl 136.2 5666 0.001 6
2,3,5—trirnethyiPheflol 136.2 5666 0.002 12
2,3,5,6—tetrarnethYlPheflOl 150.2 6249 0.002 12
aAve rage
6. Total Intensity of Aroma
Total intensity of aroma (TIA) was determined over steady—state
and transient operation of the DDAD 6V71 on the engine dynamometer with the
trap. Results from 7 modes of steady—state testing with the trap are given
in Table 24 along with results obtained previously with the engine in a
baseline configuration (without trap). In addition, TIA during trap regen-
eration is also given. All of the results given in Table 24 are based on raw
67
-------
TABLE 24. SUMMARY OF TIA FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE DDAD 6V71
COACH ENGINE WITH AND WITHOUT TRAP
Test Condition Test LCA TIAa LCO TIAID
rpm/load, % Configuration ig/9 LCA ig/9. LCO
1260/2 BaselineC 62.9 1.66 1.04 0.92
With Trap 186. 1.99 11.5 2.02
1260/50 Base1ine 71.3 1.70 0.78 0.79
With Trap 194. 2.00 13.1 2.12
1260/100 BaselineC 5.76 0.93 1.55 0.92
With Trap 193. 2.00 17.3 2.24
Idle BaselineC 26.4 1.39 1.49 1.17
With Trap 37.6 1.50 5.40 1.74
2100/100 BaselineC 69.4 1.69 4.56 1.66
With Trap 110. 1.83 10.4 2.02
2100/50 BaselineC 74.2 1.71 3.17 1.50
With Trap 101. 1.80 7.70 1.89
2100/2 BaselineC 103. 1.81 2.93 1.47
With Trap 80.1 1.73 5.29 1.73
Regeneration of Trap 63.7 1.66 5.92 1.77
7—Mode Baseline 43.9 1.55 1.58 1.20
Composite With Trap 123. 1.86 9.75 1.99
TIA A = 0.4 + 0.7 (log LCA, Mg/i)
TIALCO = 1.0 + log LCO, Mg/ 2
Note: Highest value of TIA is generally taken to be representative
of relative odor intensity.
CBaseline represents “without trap”
68
-------
exhaust samples. TIA computed on the basis of liquid column oxygenate (LCO)
fractions were greater than those calculated on the basis of the liquid column
aromatic (LCA) fractions using the diesel odor analysis system (DOAS). Over
all the modes, there was generally little differences when the trap was used.
TIA during regeneration was essentially the same as for idle during trap
particulate accumulation.
Dilute exhaust samples were collected during transient operation of
the engine with the trap on the engine dynamometer. Comparative results are
given in Table 25. LCA and LCO concentrations were increased by a factor of
6 to account for the overall dilution of the raw exhaust by the CVS. The TIA
by LCA, with the trap, was higher than without the trap. The opposite may be
noted for the TIA by LCO. There were no comparative data over the bus cycle
run with the trap.
TABLE 25. SUMMARY OF TIA FROM TRANSIENT OPERATIONa OF THE DDAD 6V7l
COACH ENGINE WITH AND WITHOUT TRAP
Test Transient LCA TIA LCO TIAC
Configuration Cycle pg/ 9 .. LCA iig/.Q LCO
Baselined Cold 144. 1.91 10.2 2.01
Hot 93.9 1.78 3.66 1.56
Composite 101. 1.80 4.59 1.66
With Trap Cold 43. 1.54 1.9 1.28
Hot 146. 1.91 1.6 1.20
Composite 131. 1.88 1.64 1.22
Bus Cycle 72.6 1.70 5.1 1.71
aMeasurement during transient operation required dilute exhaust sampling.
The values given in this table are based on a nominal dilution ratio of
6:1.
bTIALCA = 0.4 + 0.7 (log LCA jig/Z)
CTIALCO = 1.0 + log LCO pg/Z
Note: Highest value of TIA is generally taken to be representative of
relative odor intensity.
dBaseline represents “without trap”
69
-------
TIA determined from single dilute exhaust samples, taken during
chassis testing of theGMC RTS-II vehicle run over both truck and bus
driving schedules, are given in Table 26. Since the CVS used was a single—
diultion type, the LCA and LCO concentrations were increased by a factor
of 18 to try to account for dilution of the raw exhaust over the transient
cycle. TIA determined by DOAS over transient chassis operation essentially
indicated that the trap had no effect on the level of TIA.
TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF TIA FROM TRANSIENT OPERATIONa OF THE
GMC RTS-II COACH WITH AND WITHOUT TRAP
Test Transient LCA TIAb LCO TIAC
Configuration Cycle p 9/2. LCA pg/i LCO
Without Trap Transient
Composite 319 2.15 36.4 2.56
Bus Cycle 103 1.81 13.7 2.14
With Trap Transient
Composite 376 2.20 31.5 2.50
Bus Cycle 119 1.85 15.3 2.18
aBased on dilute exhaust sampling, the values given in this table
are based on an assumed dilution ratio of 18:1.
bTIA = 0.4 + 0.7 (log LCA pg/2.)
CTIALCO = 1.0 + log LCO pg/ 2 .
Note: Highest value of TIA is generally taken to be representative
of relative odor intensity.
E. Particulate Emissions
The purpose of trap after treatment is to reduce particulate emissions.
In order to determine the effects of the trap on particulate emission rates
and the character of the total particulate, samples were collected on
several filter media for a variety of analyses. These analyses included
total mass, sulfate, elemental analysis andorganic extractables. Selected
extractables were analyzed for benzo—a—pyrene (BaP), boiling range, and
elemental content of C, H, N, and S. The following sections will detail
the results obtained from smoke measurements and the various analyses
conducted on the total particulate.
1. Smoke Emissions
Smoke and particulate emissions are related, smoke levels being a
measure of the visible portion of particulate matter. Changes in par-
ticulate emissions are indicated by corresponding changes in smoke opacity,
if the levels are high enough. Smoke data were accumulated on the DDAD
6V71 coach engine without the trap under a previous program and again under
70
-------
this program to confirm that the engine had not shifted significantly
from the established baseline. Results from these smoke measurements are
given in Table 27 These baseline values, representing “without trap”
operation, were generally low over most modes of operation except for full
load conditions.
When the trap was installed, the visible smoke during all engine
operation essentially measured zero smoke opacity. Although the smoke
opacity was virtually zero during all transient operation, including the
Federal Smoke Test, the Transient FTP and the bus cycle, some white-blue
smoke was noted for a brief period (5—8 seconds) during the first portion
of the third segment of the transient test. This observed puff of smoke
appeared to coincide with the trap exit temperature rising from an average
of 150 to 300°C (around 625 seconds into the transient cycle) and the inlet
temperature to the trap going from 150 to 340°C. It was thought that
during the initial portion of the transient test, the trap was loading
up with organic material and condensable hydrocarbons. These were sub-
sequently boiled off when the trap was heated above approximately 250°C.
Attempts to document this observation using the smokemeter were unsuccess-
ful. It is assumed that the brief condition was dependent on conditions
of trap loading which were not repeatable.
As mentioned earlier, the GMC RTS—II coach received for this work
was considered to be a relatively smoky bus by general observations 0 With
the bus under full throttle acceleration, the smoke appeared to be near
60 percent opacity (a No. 3, based on use of Ringleman chart). The trap
system was installed on the bus and several comparative photographs were
taken during operation with the exhaust routed through the trap and then,
bypassing the trap. Figure 28 shows the smoke plume with the exhaust
bypassing the trap.. Figure 29 shows no smoke plume with the exhaust routed
through the trap. These pictures were taken as the bus was accelerated
from a stop with “wide—open—throttle” and with no transmission upshift.
2. Total Particulate
On the basis of substantial reductions in smoke opacity by the
trap, significant reductions in total particulate were also anticipated 0
Total particulate was reduced over almost all operation of the engine and
vehicle by the use of the trap. Total particulate emissions were determined
over seven steady—state modes of the 13—mode test operation of the DDAD 6V7l
coach engine. Particulate emissions were also measured during regeneration
of the trap. Samples were collected for 20 minutes in each mode. Results
from single—dilution measurement of total particulate, over these 7 modes
with exhaust routed through the trap, are given in Table 28 along with parti-
culate emissions determined in a previous program (without trap). Figure 30
graphically illustrates the significant reductions in total particulate
emissions due to the trap.
The trap reduced particulate by almost 90 percent during full load
operation at intermediate and rated speed. The trap was less effective at
light load conditions such as the 2 percent load conditions.. The trap was
least effective during the 50 percent load/rated speed condition where
efficiency was 38.5 percent. Filter weights obtained from various samples
and computations over these modes were checked and no problems were found.
71
-------
TABLE 27. SMOKE OPACITY FROM THE DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
WITHOUT TRAP
Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity
Smoke Opacity, %
Configuration “a” “b”
Baseline a 6.9 7.3
Without Trap 4.0 7.0 7.2
Steady-State Smoke Opacity
13-Mode FTP Smoke Opacity, %
Mode RPM Power, % Baseline Without Tra
1 Idle —— 0.2 0.0
2 1260 2 0.2 0.0
3 1260 25 0.3 0.0
4 1260 50 0.4 0.3
5 1260 75 0.9 0.8
6 1260 100 8.6 7.5
7 Idle -— 0.3 0.0
8 2100 100 2.3 1.5
9 2100 75 0.5 0.2
10 2100 50 0.3 0.0
11 2100 25 0.3 0.0
12 2100 2 0.3 0.0
13 Idle -— 0.2 0.0
Power Curve Smoke
Smoke Opacity, %
RPM Baseline Without Traps
2100 2.5 1.7
1900 2.2 1.8
1700 3.7 2.0
1500 4.1 3.2
1300 7.3 5.2
1260 7.5 6.2
1200 10.5 7.0
aW hOU Trap represents the “new baseline”
72
-------
Figure 28. Smoke emissions during WOT acceleration from a
stop with haust bypassing trap (upper photo taken at
start, lower photo taken about 30 meters from start)
73
-------
Figure 29. Smoke emissions during WOT acceleration from a
stop with exhaust routed through the trap (upper photo
taken at start, lower photo taken about 30 meters
from start)
74
-------
TABLE 28. SUMMARY OF MODAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FROM THE DDAD 6V71
Test Condition Test Particulate Rate Relative
rpm/load, % Configuration mg/rn 3 exh. g/hr g/kW-hr q/Jcg fuel Trap Eff., %
1260/2 Baseline 12.45 7.54 4.21 2.00 63 3
With Trap 4.73 2.77 1.39 0.71
1260/50 Baseline 22.27 13.59 0.28 1.12 76 0
With Trap 5.53 3.26 0.07 0.28
1260/100 Baseline 161.46 98.93 1.01 3.96 95 2
With Trap 7.94 4.71 0.05 0.19
Idle Baseline 8.64 1.53 1.82 66 0
With Trap 2.95 0.52 0.58
2100/100 Baseline 74.89 71.27 0.54 1.99 92 9
With Trap 5.36 5.04 0.04 0.14
2100/50 Baseline 42.37 39.97 0.61 1.91 38 5
With Trap 26.24 24.59 0.36 1.12
2100/2 Baseline 19.72 18.57 6.88 2.02 59 4
With Trap 8.17 7.54 2.79 0.90
(Regeneration of Trap) 7.04 1.26 0.28 N.A.
Composite of 7-modes
Brake Specific, Fuel Specific,
g/kW-hr g/kg fuel
Baseline 0.70 2.27
With Trap 0.15 0.48
-------
____ ! .Bas i !J_(Without’Tr p .— -—.- - .
100 ..1:_ . .L__ -D1.wiu .ra4 H .
90 . _-i __ __. .
L. - Reg neraftc
80- .
70 - -. -.-+—- - . ..--.- - - p
•1
60 \r_ _r__±. _ .III. _ ..
50 - .--..-.
4 )
40. . ..
C)
r4 . - -
30- -- . ... . .......
1 —
100 50 2 Idle 2 50 100
Intermediate Speed Rated Speed
Percent of Full Load
Figure 30. Modal particulate rates from the DDAD 6V71 coach engine
76
-------
The 7—mode composite brake specific particulate was reduced from
0.70 to 0.15 g/kW-hr with the trap, a 78.5 percent reduction in total par-
ticulate emissions. Similarly, the 7—mode composite fuel specific parti-
culate rate was reduced from 2.27 to 0.48 g/kg fuel with the use of the
trap. During regeneration, the particulate emission rate was about 2.5
times that obtained during the idle condition with the trap. On a fuel
specific basis, the particulate rate during regeneration was reduced from
0.58 to 0.28 g/kg fuel due to the increased fuel consumed by the burner.
Particulate emission results obtained during transient test work on
the DDAD 6V7l coach engine were given (eariler in the report) in Table 14,
along with gaseous emission results. The transient cycle composite par-
ticulate emissions were reduced 61 percent, from 0.75 to 0.29 g/kW—hr, by
use of the trap. Over the bus cycle, total particulate was reduced 68
percent, from 0.78 to 0.25 g/kW—hr. On a fuel specific basis, transient
cycle composite particulate values were reduced from 2.55 to 0.98 g/kg fuel
and bus cycle values were reduced from 2.58 to 0.84 g/kg of fuel. Seven-
mode composite fuel specific values obtained without the trap were similar
to transient composite values, but with the trap, the 7-mode composite
fuel specific value was much lower than obtained over the transient
composite. This difference was likely due to the higher trap efficiencies
for full load operation during the 7—mode steady-state test work.
Particulate emission results obtained du-rin.g transient test work
on the GMC RTS-II coach were given (earlier in the report) in Table 15,
along with gaseous emission results. Recall that the bus was relatively
smoky and that the trap p,indicating trap load, increased rather quickly.
Fuel specific particulate emissions of the vehicle were 4.3 times those of the
base engine. Over the cold— and hot—start truck chassis cycles, the com-
posite particulate emissions were reduced 92 percent, from 4.42 to 0.35
g/km, with the trap. Total particulate emissions over the bus cycle were
reduced 93 percent, from 6.62 to 0.43 g/km, with the trap. For comparative
purposes, fuel specific particulate emissions were reduced from 10.9 to
0.88 g/kg of fuel over the transient composite of the truck chassis cycles.
Fuel specific particulate was reduced from 12.3 to 0.90 g/kg of fuel over
the chassis version. of the bus cycle.
Comparing emission results from the DDAD 6V71 coach engine to
those obtained from the GMC RTS-II coach show that with the trap in place,
both had particulate emissions near 1.0 g/kg of fuel. If a BSFC of 0.300
kg fuel/kW-hr is assumed; then the particulate rate from the bus engine
used in the coach would be 0.30 g/kW—hr or 0.22 9/hp-hr with the trap.
3. Sulfate
Total particulate samples were collected on Fluorpore filter
media for analysis of sulfate emissions. Sulfate emission results over
7 modes of steady-state operation of the 1979 DDAD 6V71 coach engine with
and without trap, along with emissions during regeneration are given in
Table 29 and are illustrated in Figure 31. Sulfate mass emissions were
reduced over all modes of steady—state operation with the trap. The trap
77
-------
TABLE 29.. SULFATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE IDDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
Sulfate Emission Rates
Test Condition Test mg/rn 3 S0 4 as %
rpm/load, % Configuration Exhaust mg/hr mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel of Fuel Sa
1260/2 Baselineb 0.40 240 130 63 1.2
With Trap 0.10 58 29 15 0.29
1260/50 Baselineb 1.4 880 18 72 1.3
With Trap 0.18 100 2.1 8.9 0.17
1260/100 Baselineb 2.4 1500 15 60 1.1
With Trap 0.34 200 2.0 7.9 0.16
Idle Baselineb 0.56 100 120 2.2
With Trap 0.19 33 37 0.72
2100/100 Baselineb 2.8 2700 21 76 1.4
With Trap 0.39 360 2.6 10 0.20
2100/50 Baselineb 2.5 2400 36 110 2.0
With Trap 0.95 890 13 40 0.79
2100/2 Baselineb 0.70 630 230 69 1.3
With Trap 0.08 70 26 8.4 0.17
(Regeneration of Trap) 1.6 290 64 1.2
Composite of 7-modes
Brake Specific, Fuel Specific,
mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel
Baseline b 24.8 80.6
With Trap 5.2 17.2
aNO 1 Diesel Fuel has 0.18 percent by weight sulfur.
bBaseline represents “without trap”
78
-------
L1T T I 11
I
2600 - j_-i-
- - - - - I t__
2400 H ±T1 Tr H r
2200 - -
________ j — — — ‘I
2000 - -,--4-H—— - --- - - ‘-- -
4- J [ z±Thi
1800
E 1600 --:-——- --—--±--—r--
q - t 4 r t I
i o \ I
a) \ -I I
t p • 1 . ,/
1200 - ____ - —— ------ -
\--- H- --f -- - -
- — --- - ——- - -±— —-—-- -
100 50 2 Idle 2 50 100
Intermediate Speed Rated Speed
Percent of Full Load
Figure 31. Modal sulfate rates from the DDAD 6V7l coach engine
79
-------
generally reduced sulfate mass emissions by 85 percent except at the 50
percent load/rated speed condition and idle condition, which showed re-
ductions of 63 and 67 percent, respectively. The trap reduced the 7-mode
composite sulfate emissions by 79 percent from 24.8 to 5.2 mg/kW-hr. The
percent of fuel sulfur converted to sulfate averaged about 0.35 percent with
the trap, compared to 1.5 percent without the trap. During regeneration,
the sulfate mass emissions were almost 9 times greater than those obtained
during the idle condition with the trap, likely due to the purge of
accumulated sulfates.
Sulfate emission results from transient testing of the DDAD 6V7l
coach engine with the trap are given in Table 30, along with baseline
(without trap) levels obtained in an earlier program. Comparison of these
results indicate that lower, sulfate emissions occurred with the use of the
trap over both cold- and hot—start transient tests. No comparative base-
line sulfate data were taken over the bus cycle. Sulfate emissions over the
bus cycle with the trap were greater than the transient composite values.
Sulfate emissions from the GMC RTS-II coach vehicle with and with-
out the trap, over transient chassis testing, are given in Table 31. On
the basis of transient composite results, brake specific sulfate emissions
were only slightly lower with the trap than without it. On the basis of
the chassis bus cycle, the opposite trend appeared. Considering all the
data, it would appear that the trap tends to reduce sulfate emissions over
some modes of operation, but may cycle through a purge of accumulated
sulfate during other operating conditions.
4. Elemental Analysis
Elemental analysis was performed on samples of total particulate
collected over both steady—state and transient operation of the DDAD 6V7l
coach engine. Results from these analyses are given in Table 32. The
accuracy of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen determinations are primarily
dependent on the amount of sample provided for analysis. In all cases of
collecting particulate with the trap, particulate samples were relatively
small, and hence the accuracy is difficult to assess. Baseline values
which represent operation without he trap were established in an earlier
program. Except for the 2100 rpin/50 percent and 2 percent load conditions,
the carbon and hydrogen contents were substantially reduced with the trap.
No comparative data were taken for nitrogen content. Sulfur content was
lower with the trap. Most of the “metals” detected by x—ray difraction
were also reduced. During regeneration, the carbon content was quite low,
but the “sulfur” content was relatively high, which corresponds with
sulfate measurements.
Results from elemental analysis of particulate samples collected
over the transient cycle are also given in Table 32. The carbon and hydro-
gen content were about the same, with or without the trap. This was
surprising, considering the values obtained from steady—state derived
particulate with the trap. The trap appears to reduce the sulfur content
of the transient—derived particulate, but increases in iron content were
noted.
80
-------
TABLE 30. SULFATE EMISSION SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT FTP OPERATION
OF DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE WITH AND WITHOUT TRAP
Test Sulfate Rate SO4 as %
Configuration Cycle Type mg/test ing/kW-hr mg/kg fuel of Fuel Sa
Baseline Cold 190 28 75 1.4
Hot 230 28 89 1.6
Transient
Composite 220 28 87 1.5
With Trap Cold 100 13 40 0.79
Hot 73 8.7 30 0.58
Transient
Composite 77 9.3 31 0.6].
Bus Cycleb 91 23 78 1.53
aNO 1 Diesel fuel had 0.17 percent by weight sulfur
bResults based on average of two runs. Sulfate results over bus cycle showed
poor repeatability: (138 and 43.4 mg/test, 35.1 and 11.1 mg/kW—hr,
118 and 37.4 mg/kg fuel, and 2.32 and 0.73 % fuel S conversion).
CBaseline represents “without trap”
TABLE 31. SULFATE EMISSION SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT TESTING OF THE
GMC RTS-II COACH WITH AND WITHOUT TRAP
Test Sulfate Rate SOt as %
Configuration Cycle Type mg/test mg/km mg/kg fuel of Fuel Sa
Without Trap Cold 140 17 34 0.60
Hot 110 12 32 0.56
Composite 110 13 32 0.57
Bus Cycle 77 16 33 0.57
With Trap Cold 190 22 49 0.86
Hot 78 8.9 23 0.40
Composite 94 11 27 0.47
Bus Cyclc 110 24 51 0.89
No. 1 Diesel fuel (EM-455—F) had a 0.19 percent by weight sulfur
Based on single run
81
-------
TABLE 32. SUMMARY OF ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PARTICULATE FROM THE DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
DDAD 6V71
Condition Test Element, Percent by Weight of Total Particulate
rpm/load, % Configuration C H S N Mg K Al Si P Cl Ca Cr Fe Zn Sb Pb 0Total C
1260/2 Baseline 59.8 9.0 1.90 ci b b 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.28 b a b 0.14 a a b 2.8
With Trap 37.4 4.9 0.25 3.5 b a a a b a 0.19 b b a b b b b 0.2
1260/SO Baseline 69.2 10.4 2.94 ci b b 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.04 0.33 a a a 0.15 a a b 4.3
With Trap 46.0 7.1 0.38 1.1 b a a a b b 0.2 b b a b b b b 0.2
1260/100 Baseline 84.9 2.7 0.40 d b b 0.06 0.07 a 0.06 0.12 b a a a a b b 1.0
With Trap 57.7 3.4 0.43 0.9 b b b b b b 0.08 b b b b b b b 0.1
Idle Baseline 68.9 9.9 3.45 d b b 0.03 0.08 a a 0.36 a 0.84 b b a a b 5.7
With Trap 20.3 3.3 0.83 2.3 b a b a b a 0.49 b a b a b b b 0.5
2100/100 Baseline 67.2 3.5 1.58 ci b b 0.52 0.56 0.12 0.03 0.36 b a 0.26 0.19 a a b 5.0
With Trap 46.9 4.7 1.89 2.3 b b b b a b a b b a b b b b 0.0
2100/50 Baseline 60.4 7.5 2.45 d b b 0.68 0.75 0.11 a 0.26 b b 0.31 0.13 b b b 4.9
With Trap 78.7 11.3 1.09 0.6 b a h a b b 0.05 b b b b b b b 0.0
2100/2 Baseline 65.3 9.6 1.15 ci a b 0.03 0.13 0.09 0.05 0.51 a a 0.31 0.11 a a b 2.9
With Trap 67.9 10.2 0.14 1.9 b b b a b b 0.08 b b 0.39 b b b b 0.1
Regeneration 34.7 5.4 7.22 1.2 a a a a b b 0.38 b a b b b b b 0.4
DOAD 6V7l
Transient Test
Cycle Configuration C H “5” N K Al Si P Cl Ca Cr Mn Fe Zn Sn Sb Pb “ Total”C
Cold Start Baseline 77.0 10.1 1.80 0.77 b b 0.03 0.04 0.12 a 0.24 b a a a a b b 2.6
Transient With Trap 77.9 10.3 0.23 1.1 a 0.06 a a b b 0.15 b b 0.67 b b b b 0.9
Hot Start Baseline 67.7 8.4 1.44 0.70 b b 0.03 0.05 0.11 a 0.25 a a b a a a b 2.9
Transient With Trap 72.2 10.5 0.35 1.1 b 0.28 a 0.30 b b 0.14 b b 1.33 b b b 1) 2.1
Bus Cycle Baseline d ci d d d d ci d ci d ci d ci 1 ci ci ci ci ci
With Trap 61.6 9.1 a 1.8 a 0.13 0.07 0.48 b a 0.51 b b 1.26 b b b b 2.5
Element detected but was below the level of quantitation
Element was not detected
“Total” represents the percent of total mass detected by x-i- y nad does not include Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen or Oxygen
No Data
-------
Elemental analysis was also performed on samples of particulate
generated by the GMC RTS—II coach vehicle over chassis testing with and
without the trap, and the results are given in Table 33. No comparative
carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen data were obtained without the trap. Carbon
and hydrogen content of particulate with the trap were relatively low
compared to transient tests of the DDAD 6V7j. coach engine, but were more
like the values obtained over steady—state test work of the test engine
with the trap. Percents of sulfur were generally higher with the trap,
as were the elements calcium and iron.
5. Soluble Organic Fraction
The soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the total particulate was
obtained from soxhiet extraction of 20x20 inch Pailfiex filters using
inethylene chloride as a solvent. Results from steady—state operation over
7 modes are given in Table 34 for the DDAD 6V7l coach engine run with and
without the trap. Results from a 7-mode composite of these individual
modes are given in Table 35, along with results obtained over cold- and
hot-start and bus transient testing of the test engine. SOF emissions are
presented in Table 35 on a brake specific and fuel specific basis, as
well as a percent soluble basis. Table 36 gives results from transient
chassis testing of the GMC RTSII coach with and without the trap.
From Table 34, the percent of solubles in particulate collected
during operation with the trap increased substantially over most of the
7 modes tested. However, the mass emission rate of SOF was substantially
lower over most of the 7 modes. SOF emissions during the 2100 rpm/50
percent load condition increased from 14.1 to 20.5 g SOF/hr with the use
of the trap. Recall that for this mode, the total particulate was reduced
38 percent with the trap. This was unexpected, and may be due to a SOF
storage and purge phenomenon. Solubles are generally considered to be
unburned fuel-like materials and/or lubricating oils which condense and
are collected as particulate at or below 125°F. The trap was in the raw
exhaust stream where temperatures range from about 250 to 932°F (120 to
500°C) from idle to maximum power operation, respectively. Hence, it
is likely that the trap would have little ability to reduce SOF emissions
or may purge previously collected solubles over load conditions where the
trap temperature exceeds the boiling range of materials identified as SOF.
it is interesting that SOF emissions during regeneration were noticeably
greater than reported for the idle condition with the trap.
Referring to Table 35, the 7—mode composite brake specific
emission of SOF was reduced 45 percent from 0.20 to 0.11 g SOF/kW-hr.
Over cold— and hot—start transient testing of the engine alone, the tran-
sient composite SOF emissions were reduced by 38 percent from 0.40 to
0.25 g SOF/kW-hr with use of the trap. A greater reduction in brake
specific SOF emissions (63 percent) was noted over the bus cycle.
Table 36 indicates relatively low values of SOF for the bus
without the trap, when compared to levels obtained for the test engine.
Over the transient composite of chassis testing, the trap reduced the
specific SOF emissions by 87 percent, from 0.75 to 0 l0 g SOF/kg fuel.
Over the bus cycle, the fuel specific SOF emissions were reduced 88 percent,
from 0.81 to 0 l0 g SOF/kg fuel by use of the trap.
83
-------
TABLE 33. SUMMARY OF ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PARTICULATE FROM THE GMC RTS-II COACH
bElement detected but was below the level of quantitation
Element was not detected
The element of Ti was also detected, but was below the level of quantitation
No data
Transient
Cycle
Cold Start
Transient
Hot Start
Transient
Bus Cycle
GMC RrS—II
Test
Configuration
Without Trap
With Trap
Without Trap
With Trap
Without Trap
With Trap
C
d
48.3
d
32.9
d
48.8
H
d
1.75
d
1.0
c i
1.2
S
0.20
0.74
0.19
0.90
0.16
0.38
N
d
0.2
d
a
d
a
Element,
Mg K
b 0.01
b 0.04
0.04 a
a 0.10
0.02 a
b 0.11
Percent by Weight
Al Si P
a a 0.09
a a 0.11
b b 0.06
0.12 0.47 a
b a 0.04
a a a
of Total ParticulateC
Cl Ca Cr Mn
0.02 0.05 b 0.05
a 0.39 b a
0.02 0.03 b a
0.14 1.80 a b
0.02 0.02 b b
a 0.95 b b
Fe
Zn
Sn
Sb
Pb
‘Total’
0.13
0.10
0.03
b
b
0.5
0.97
a
b
b
b
1.5
0.11 0.08 0.03
1.42 b b
a a b
0.71 b a
b b 0.3
b b 4.0
b b 0.1
b b 1.8
-------
TABLE 34. SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FARCTION FROM THE DDAD 6V71
COACH ENGINE
Test Modal Soluble Organic Fraction
Condition Baselinea With Trap
rpm/load, % % SOF g SOF/hr %SOF g SOF/hr
1260/2 83.3 6.28 67.7 1.88
1260/50 53.0 7.20 80.8 2.63
1260/100 14.5 14.3 35.8 1.69
Idle 56.4 0.864 89.2 0.464
2100/100 20.9 14.9 35.7 1.80
2100/50 35.2 14.1 83.4 20.5
2100/2 69.5 12.9 87.1 6.57
Regeneration NA NA 51.8 0.653
NA = Not Applicable
aBaseline represents “without trap”
TABLE 35. SUMMARY OF CYCLE AND COMPOSITE SOLUBLE ORGANIC
FRACTION FROM THE DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
Test Cycle Composite Soluble Organic Fraction
Cycle Baseline With Trap
Composite % SOF g SOF/kWhr g SOF/kg Fuel % SOF 9 SOF/kW-hr g SOF/kg Fuel
7-mode
Composite 28.9 0.20 0.65 75.0 0.11 0.36
Cold Start
Cycle 56.8 0.49 1.3 84.4 0.24 0.74
Hot Start
Cycle 56.1 0.39 1.2 82.7 0.25 0.86
Transient
Composite 56.2 0.40 1.2 82.9 0.25 0.84
Bus Cycle 64.6 0.54 1.6 81.8 0.20 0.67
85
-------
TABLE 36, SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTIONS FROM THE GMC-RTS-II COACH
Without Trap With Trap
% SOF g SOF/kxn g SOF/kg Fuel % SOP SOP/km g SOF/kg Fuel
Cold Start 8.4 0.46 0.93 12.4 0.073 0.16
Hot Start 6.6 0.28 0.72 11.2 0.035 0.09
Transient
Composite 6.9 0.31 0.75 11.4 0.040 0.10
Bus Cycle 6.6 0.41 0.81 11.4 0.049 0.10
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) content of the SOF was determined for composite
samples from 7-mode testing, cold— and hot—start transient testing, and
operation over the bus cycle. Results from these analyses are given in
Table 37. For the DDAD 6V71 coach engine without the trap (baseline config-
uration), no BaP concentrations above the minimun detectable level of 0.0002
pg BaP/mg SOF were found. When the trap was used, BaP levels appeared to
increase, but the levels given in Table 37 are still quite small and are
relatively close to the limits of detection. BaP levels from the GMC RTS-II
coach with and without the trap were also very low.
TABLE 37. SUMMARY OF BENZO(a)PYRENE EMISSIONS
Cycle DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine GMC RTS—II Coach
Composite Rates Baseline With Trap Rates Without Trap
7-mode pg BaP/mg SOF << 0 . 0002 a 0.0011 pg BaP/mg SOF b b
Composite pg BaP/kW—hr << 0 • 04 a 0.12 pg BaP/kin
jig BaP/kg fuel << 0 • 13 a 0.38 jig BaP/kg fuel
Transient jig BaP/mg SOP << 00002 a 0.0011 pg BaP/mg SOF 0.0002 0.0014
Composite jig BaP/kW—hr << 0 08 a 0.28 pg BaP/km 0.050 0.055
jig BaP/kg fuel << 0 • 24 a 0.92 pg BaP/kg fuel 0.12 0.14
Bus pg BaP/mg SOF <( 00002 a 0.0006 pg BaP/mg SOF << 0 • 0002 a 0.0004
Cycle pg BaP/kW—hr <<0.ll 0.11 pg BaP/km <<0.0080 0.022
jig BaP/kg fuel <<0.32 0.37 pg BaP/kg fuel << 0 • 020 a 0.044
No BaP above the minimum detectable level of 0.0002 jig BaP/mg SOF
No comparative data taken
86
-------
High temperature boiling point distributions of the cold— and hot—
start transient composite SOF from the DDAD 6V71 coach engine with and without
the trap were run. In addition, SOP from the bus cycle was processed. These
three samples were of sufficient quantity to allow the use of internal standard.
Results from these boiling point distributions are tabulated in Table 38.
Comparing results from transient operation with and without the trap, SOP
from runs made with the trap appear to contain about the same portion of lower
boiling range, but a lower portion of higher boiling range material. The bus
cycle SOF also had a low portion of higher boiling range material.
TABLE 38. BOILING POINT DISTRIBUTION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION
FROM THE DDAD 6V71 COACH ENGINE
Boiling Temperature of Distillation Point, °C
Distillation Baseline With Trap
Point Transient Bus Cycle Transient Bus Cycle
IBP 307 a 340 325
10% point 391 396 397
20% point 412 418 422
30% point 432 435 442
40% point 452 450 461
50% point 474 465 479
60% point 503 480 503
70% point 542 499 622
80% point 607 530
90% point
EP point
Recovery, % 84 85 72
@ 640°C
aNO comparative data taken
Figures 32 and 33 represent the GC boiling point distributions for
the DDAD 6V71 coach engine composite transient SOP and for bus cycle SOP with
the trap (no comparative figure for the baseline configuration is available).
These figures (run with internal standard C 9 —C 11 for quantitative purposes)
show that the bulk of the material elutes at 20 to 28 minutes retention
time, which indicates a boiling range similar to paraffinic materials with a
range of 20 to 40 carbon atoms. Peaks at 4—6 minutes retention time coincide
with the solvent used and peaks at 11—14 minutes retention time coincide with
the internal standard. Peaks near 9 minutes retention time were attributed
to column contaminant. Figures 34 and 35 represent the GC boiling range from
the composite transient SOF and bus cycle SOF from the GMC RTS—II chassis
test work with the trap. Quantities of SOF were too small to allow for the
87
-------
• I
U)
x
42000
36000
U
w
-I
U)
30000 -
I-
-J
U-
24009
RI in mm.
Figure 32. Boiling
transient
36000
8 12 20
point distribution of SOF from
test of DDAD 6V71 coach engine
with internal standard
24 28
cold- and hot-start
with trap
U)
x
32000
r
U)
x
t.J
I-
-J
4-
r
a
0 4
RT in sin.
Figure 33. Boiling point distribution of SOF from bus cycle test
of DDAD 6V71 coach engine with trap with internal standard
8 12
28008
24000
L
16
32
L
88
-------
42000
‘ p
S
U )
N
K
U i
I .-
- 4
-j
A.
a
U
S
w
U )
( 9
K
(4
I-
-J
a-
a
36000
28000
21000
e
RI in sin.
Figure 34. Boiling point distribution of SOF from cold- and hot-start
transient test of GMC RTS—II coach with trap without internal standard
Figure 35. Boiling point distribution of SOF from bus cycle test of
GMC RTS—II coach with trap without internal standard
U)
4 8
12
16
28 24 28 32
L b
K
8 4 0 12 16 28 24 28 32
RI in sin. .
89
-------
use of internal standard in those latter cases, hence, no quantification data
or boiling point distribution were tabulated as in Table 38. These figures
indicate that the major portion of the SOF had a boiling range similar to a
para.ffinic material with about 20 to 24 carbon atoms. This apparent shift
to the lighter boiling range is thought to be due to engine variability.
Elemental composition of some of the composite SOF samples were
determined and are given in Table 39. With the exception of the sulfur, the
percent of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen content of the transient composite
SOF with or without the trap was almost the same. For both the test engine
and the coach vehicle, the nitrogen appears to be slightly greater over bus
cycle operation than over cold— and hot—start transient operation.
TABLE 39. ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION
Element, DDAD 6V71 Coach Engine DDAD 6V71 Coach
Percent Baseline - With Trap With Trap
of SOF Transient Bus Cycle Transient Bus Cycle Transient Bus Cycle
C 84.68 a 85.96 85.28 79.81 82.41
H 13.15 a 13.04 12.93 11.78 12.49
N 0.24 a 0.24 0.49 0.59 1.04
S 0.49 a 0.31 0.40 0.38 0.46
aN data taken
90
-------
V. QUALITY ASSURANCE
All work under this program was conducted in accordance with the
Quality Assurance Project Plan submitted when the Work Assignment was in—
itiated. Results obtained from the various sampling and analysis techniques
used were checked and reviewed in order to eliminate potential errors in
raw data, instrument reading, computer processing errors, or computations.
System checks such as propane recovery checks, torquemeter verification,
introduction of standard gases into instrumentation, and weight chamber control
measures were carried out in order to provide quality measurements. Un-
regulated chemistry samples were processed as carefully as possible during
the work—up stages of the procedure in order to verify proper operation of
liquid and gas chromatographic instrumentation, respectively. No quality
problems were apparent and the results reported herein are believed to be
accurate relative to the specific procedures used in analysis. Details of
procedures and computer programs used in this project are available through
Reference 18.
91
-------
REFE RENCES
1. Federal Register, “Heavy-Duty Engines for 1979 and Later Model Years,”
Thursday, September 8, 1977.
2. Federal Register, “Gaseous Emission Regulations for 1984 and Later
Model Year Heavy—Duty Engines,” Vol. 45, No. 14, January 21, 1980.
3. Toepel, R.R., Bennethum, J.E., and Heruth, R.E., “Development of
Detroit Diesel Allison 6V—92TA Methanol Fueled Coach Engine,” SAE
Paper 831744 presented at the Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, San
Francisco, California, October 31—November 3, 1983.
4. Test Results of DDAD 6V71 obtained under EPA Contract No. 68—03—2884
titled “Basic Characterization Support for the Emission Control Technology
Division”, Phase 8 title “Unregulated Emissions Characterization of
Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Engines and Vehicles (Heavy—Duty Diesel
Engines Under Malfunction Conditions) 0 ”
5. Information supplied by Janice Hale of Corning Glass Works.
6. Federal Register, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and
New Motor Vehicle Engines; Particulate Regulation for Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines,” Wednesday, January 7, 1981.
7. France, C.J., Clemmens, W., and Wysor, T. “Recommended Practice for
Determining Exhaust Emissions from Heavy—Duty Vehicles Under Transient
Conditions,” Technical Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, February 1979.
8. Heavy—Duty Bus Chassis Cycle No. 2143765149 developed from CAPE—2l data
9. Test Results of Vehicle 3-8 obtained under EPA Contract No. 68—03—3773
titled, “Characterization of Heavy—Duty Emissions under Transient
Driving Conditions.”
10. Progress Reports No. 27—34 under EPA Contract 68—03—2706 titled
“Unregulated Emissions Characterization of Heavy—Duty Diesel and Gasoline
Engines and Vehicles 0 ”
11. Urban, C.M., Landman, L.C., and Wagner, R.D., “Diesel Car Particulate
Control Method,” SAE Paper 830084 presented at the International Congress
and Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February 28—March 4, 1983.
12. Springer, K.J., “Characterization of Sulfates, Odor, Smoke, POM and
Particulates from Light and Heavy—Duty Engines — Part IX,” Final Report
EPA 460/3—79—007 prepared under Contract No. 68—03—2417 for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, June 1979.
93
-------
REFERENCES (CONT’D).
13. Martin, S.F., “Emissions from Heavy—Duty Engines Using the 1984 Transient
Test Procedure, Volume II — Diesel,” Final Report EPA 460/3-81—031 pre-
pared under Contract No. 68-03—2603 for the Environmental Protection
Agency, July 1981.
14. Urban, C.M., “Dynainometer Simulation of Truck and Bus Road Horsepower,”
Task I, Draft Interim Report on EPA Contract 68—02—3772.
15. Smith, L..R., Parness, M.A., Fanick, E.R.., and Dietzmann, H.E.,
“Analytical Procedures for Characterizing Unregulated Emissions from
Vehicles Using Middle—Distillate Fuels,” Interim Report, Contract No 0
68—02-2497, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, April 1980.
16. Levins, P.L 0 , and Kendall, D.A., “Application of Odor Technology to
Mobile Source Emissions Instrumentation,” CRC Project CAPE 7-68 under
Contract No. 68—03—0561, September l973
17. Memo from Craig Harvey, EPA, to Ralph Stahinan and Merrill Korth, EPA,
on February 26, 1979.
18. Swan S.J., and Williams, R.L., “Liquid Chromatographic Determination
of Benzo(a)pyrene in Diesel Exhaust Particulate: Verification of the
Collection and Analytical Methods,” Research Publication GMR—3127,
General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan, October 1979.
19. Ingalls, M.N., Springer, K.J., “Mass Emissions from Diesel Trucks
Operated Over a Road Course,” Final Report prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68—01-2113, August 1974.
20. Montalvo, D.A.,, and Uliman, T.L., “Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Preliminary Investigation of Trap/Oxidizer on a Heavy-Duty Bus Engine
Work Assignment No. 7 of Contract 68—03—3073” prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, June 1982.
94
-------
APPENDIX A
13-MODE RESULTS
-------
TABLE A—i. 13.MOOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE iq,,
ENr,INEI IIDAD bV .71 COACH NO .1 DIESEL , RASELINE BAROMETER 2 .t8
1F . T NO. 01.01 FUELs EM.*nQ.F PROJECT,11 . 583fl .D0$ DATEs 05/12/RI
.. 0 ae.fl •eeeSaS 5flflOaflafl 5S •eaaSeeOSeO
Pr)v FR ENGINE TORQ(JF POWER FuEL p INTAKE PIOX MEASURED CAlCULATED
NOnE SPEED 065 063 FLOW FLOW HUMID CORP NC Co C02 NOX CRAMS / HOUR MODE
PC I COND / RPM N X N KM KO/MIN MO/MIN C/KG FACT PPM PPM PCT PPM NC Co NOX
SaSe eeS .5 .aeeflSeefl S. SOCSCOS . aeeeaaaeSaa Sae. ...a. .0fl05 5 — eweS Cee 0 • COSSOCeSOSS fleaS ee e . . 0._a.—..—. .fl0 .O .*
IDLE / *00• 0 . .0 •O1* 3.*S 7.1 •q q 208, 101, .73 110, 23, 22, * . £
2 2 IPIrER / 121,0 IS. 2,0 •0b3 J?,flQ •R5 27 ?, 1*b 1,05 100, qb. jUl. ijO, C
3 c IPflER / 3 1,0, t$h. 2*,S .128 l2 ,0? 7.1 ,q;q 2*8, 80, 2,18 215, 08, Sb, 237, 3
so INTER / i?bfl. 373, *q,? •?03 l? oP 7.1 2*8, bj, 3,b7 980, 8*, 40, lq4• I
S 75 INTER I 121,0. g;q 5 73.7 •?qC t l.q* 7,1 , 5$ b*, 1S , 5,34 51,5• qO 104, 580, S
h 100 INTER / 121,0, 741, , R,4 •%Ib 11.83 7.1 , c8 2 1 ’ , 5775, 7,25 820, 74, 3703, 822. b
7 IDLE I 40 1I• 0, ,0 •014 3,* 7.1 •454 214, 101, .73 195, 2*, 22, 4b . 7
a uijo RATED / 2100. ;Q? . 111.? .5% LR.*s 7,1 •4S8 3Ib• 11 , 1, 1,3 840, 177, 1212, t3 7, $
q 75 RATED / LflO . * i. 4 1,4 .471 18 ,50 7,1 •4 58 328, 173, 5,1 SOD, 181,, 188, 850, 4
10 c i) RATED / 2100. bS,b .344 18,59 7,1 . SQ 128, 40, 9 .ql 395, q , ççq ,
11 25 RATED / 2100, L* . 12,8 .242 18, 1 ,j ,q 5 q 928 . 43, P, b 215, t. 101. abS. 11
12 2 PAlEr) / 2100, I C. 2,7 .151 1e, 5 7,1. lIb, 101, 1..bR 120 , [ 83 , 111. 20 2 , 12
11 IDlE / ‘Po0 0. ,0 .01* 1, 2 7.1 .434 232, L1 , .81 IbO, 23, 22, 44, 11
ScanS. a..aw.aaee .e
C aflaeSSS 5aflaSSS 0 5SSflO 5SS•SS •______SS0flS5SSS S•CS •S05SCfl•fl5 •CflSSflflSSSfl —S 5SOSSCSaS•
CALCULATED F/A F/A PI T HC F/A F/A POWER B5FC MODAL
M0I)E G PAM$/KG.FUFL GPAM$/KW.HR DRY ‘PHI’ COPR PCT CORP CORP WEIGH? MODE
HC Co NOX NC CO NOX MEAS ayoICH FACT CALC MEAl FACT KG/KW.HR FACTOR
— SaS aaeaSSeeeSeSS.a . CC Ce •.efl . e e.e..we . SeS .C.SS.SeS•••fl aea..e S.. •eneaana•SSSS•S na. 00 0 50a 5 5.e
I ?7.cb PL’ .7R 59,47 ****** ** *** ***** ,q yq flbl7 ö 057 •qq? •UOIb .7,b ,441 •**** .0 1 ,7 1
2 25,?’) lb .48 28,43 *8. 5 52,21 55.18 .0053 ,n 87 .484 .0052 .1,3 1.011 1,41k •080 C
I 11.45 7.24 3 fl , 1, 5 3,1,0 2,24 4,bS •OjQR ,0b81 • 7 ,474 ,010S .2, 5 1,011 .311 .010 3
4 b.Q* 3,33 32.41 ),71 .82 8,00 ,0j70 .0b87 ,247 .41,5 .017* 2 ,8 1.011 ,P 4 4 .080 4
s c.1i ,4i, 13,1? 1.22 1 ,42 7,Rb .0241, flb87 3S8 .451 •O?SP 2 ,1 1,010 •?3S .080 5
b ?. S * ** 32, 4 . 37,b l,JS ,0358 ,0b87 51b .432 .031,5 1.1 1,011 , 251 .080
7 ?q .1,2 ?h ,? 55,43 a***** *.**** ***** •0O*fl .0b87 0SI ,44? ,003b —1.0 ,487 ****A ,01,7 7
8 *,46 33,42 4 ,I0 1 IS 4,2* 10,1,5 .032% flh81 .47* .4*0 .0315 w3 ,1 1,048 , Cb D .080 8
4 b.S? k ,bh 30,10 1.44 t. 1 8,5,4 •OeSb •fl5,87 .452 .0243 .4,3 1.0*4 .27* ,080 I
in *.sa p ,74 1,41, 8,5? ,D 1qO . 5,87 ,?7b ,4b3 ,0187 .1,7 1,0*4 , 90 * .080 10
11 1 ,4I . I, ,Q’ S,1? ç, I 3.07 11,11 ,0131 .05,87 ,tqi .47* ,012P a?,3 1,050 ,*?1 .080 1)
1 14 .R 12.05 p1,48 1 7.44 i1,3* 75.38 .0082 ,g 91 .120 •483 .0082 .,S 1.051 3,PbS .080 1$
I) ? ,7? 27.23 ç4,44 ****** *** ** ***** •n 3q •Q1, 87 •057 , 41 ,00*tl 3,5 ,qee **** ,Obl 13
ee*se.nee .afla • 5a5aflOaCflOC S 0 encase. Se•aeseaas 5s 50e50 .seene flSeeeeeSeSO eeasaeeoee .__flSaS SSS eSC 5Sfl e 5 50 5S 5S
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING i3.MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC — .— .. .— I GRAM/KWeHR ( 1.801 GRAM/BHP—NR
P 5CC ———a.—. •R7j GRAM/KM—HP ( 7 , 134 GRAM/BlIP—HR
BSNOX a—.—” e 4,732 GRAM/KWCHR C 7,2b0 GRAM/B$IP.HR
BSHC + ASNOX • 1?,1 b GRAM/KW .HR C 4 ,Obl GPAM/BHP—HR )
CORP. RSFC • • ,?% KG/FW SHR C ,*87 LBS/BHP.HR I
-------
TABLE A—2. 13.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1q79
Nh1NE DDAD bVu ’71 COACH NO.1 DIESEL , BASELINE BAROMETER 29,18
TEST NO, (11 O1 FUELs EM.400eF PROJECT,11.S830 .008 DATE$ 0SI12/I
._ ._..._._
Po R ( GINf TnRuIJ POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE NOX MEASURED CALCULATED
sPU O 0 1 S OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID CORP MC Co CO2 NOX GRAMS / HOUR MODE
PC CON !) / RPM N X N KM KG/WIN Kr,,MIN C/KG FACT PPM PPM PCT PPM MC CO MDX
_._..__
t lOLL / *00, a, .0 •ni* ss ,i ,9*0 Iqa. iiq, .81 isa. i , ii, we,
2 IN1E / lPbO, l ’ s , 1,8 ,Oi 3 L2 .oq b.1 .940 2b0, jib, 1,11 130, 8 ?, 92, 1,2b, 2
3 25 INTER / 1?bO . IPh. 24.5 .128 12,09 b,1 •q j lab, 80, 2,23 231, 82, 51. 2*8, 3
co TWTER / 1?bU. 133. 99,2 .203 12,09 b ,1. , 92 2Ib, 58, 3,bO 390, 82, 39, ‘sOS, 4
s ‘S INTER / 1?bO• 559, 73,7 •?q2 12,02 5,1 ,943 252, I5 , 1.34 57S, Sb, 10*, 581, 5
b LflO INTFR / 1?bO , 7*b, 98.8 ,*Ib 1l,Q9 5,1 .9*8 215, 5795, 7 1b 830, 79. 372a 0 810. 5
, ‘ • . ,0 •OI 3,511 5,1 •9*O 220, 98, •bq iio, 2%, 2?, *5, 7
100 RATED / 2100, 599, 131,8 .5% lI . 7 5,1 ,9** 312, 1125, 5,72 820, 173, 1183, 1327, 8
q 7 RATFD / 2100, ‘iwq. 98,7 .471 I8, 1 5,1 •983 3211, 189, 8.3* 1170, 179, 158, 9
I I) so RATED I 2100, fl0 55•q ,349 18,sS 5,1 , 92 122, 82, a, a no, 180, 9*, 581, 10
It 5 RATED / 2100, j49 , 32,8 .242 18, 3 •9*i 3 • 91, 5,55 210, 121, 101 110, 11
12 2 RATED / 2100, 12, 2,7 •153 18,74 5,1 , 41 328, 101, ISSe 115, 178. 10 , 190, 12
13 IDLE / *00 , 0, •0 ,DI* 34? 5,1 .980 236, 105, .81 155, H, 21. *9, 13
—
•_____._._.._____._..___._.._..._._. . ...... •_. . .._. . ..a. .. . ._.. .. . .. .....,,.,... .,. • • ••• U
CALCULATED F/A F/A WET MC F/A F/A PONER BSFC MODAL
GRAMS,g(r,.FUfL GRAMS/KPI.HR DRY ‘PHI’ CORR PC , CORN CORN 14118147 MODE
14C CO NOX MC CO NOX MEAB STOICH PACT CAL.C 141*8 PACT KG/KW.KR FACTOR
— •••••• • • S• —•••••• •,,,?...,.,,.,...
I 21,03 ? ,5S 5R ,9 1 ****a* *aaa** ***** ,0039 ;.nsel ,016 ,9 1 ,0040 8,1 ,989 ****a •0 57 I
2 2 1,57 2* I3 32,98 *5,9) 51,37 70,20 ,0053 , b$7 ,077 ,922 ,00SI 10,2 1,007 2,11* ,D$O S
3 10 .67 7,1* 32,20 3,3% 2,2* 10,12 ,01fl7 ,obl7 ,154 •978 ,0107 ,* 1,008 ,)13 ,0I0 I
‘I 6,73 3,22 33.33 1 .bb ,80 8,23 ,a95 ,955 .0171 1,8 1.005 ,2*5 ,080 S
S 1,92 S. 6 33,)? 1,17 1,92 7,08 , ?‘o* .0687 ,3SS ,951 .0212 3,0 1,008 ,235 ,0 00 I
b 2,qg 33.27 .?b 37,81 8,43 ,fl350 pflbB7 •S10 p911 ,0361 ,9 1.004 ,2 82 .080 5
7 3(1.71 ?7, ’ sO 5S,7b *.**** ***** ,0099 ,055 .942 ,003* •Io, .932 ***** •0 5 , 7
P ‘ 1 ,8* 13.10 37,12 1.31 8,97 10,05 .0323 fl587 •*70 ,939 ,0119 .1.1 1,0*9 ,1bO .080 8
9 6.32 5,95 27,08 1.81 3,70 7,75 ,0255 ,0587 ,371 .951 •0212 —1,0 1,084 ,278 ,080 9
10 P .S ‘I.IR 2S .8 ’ s 2.73 1,112 0,21 ,OZR8 .27* •968 .0187 .1,0 1,0*4 .101 ,080 10
II 12. ’IS B,9* 2 ’ s,pq 5.51 3,07 jO,bS .0131 •0587 ,J90 .97% ,O120 .2,1 1,0*6 .823 .080 11
12 19.36 11,83 20.68 66,1 *fl ,5 70,90 ,0082 .0587 ,12O , a3 ,0082 .,S 1,085 3,277 ,080 1?
13 2R.2125,39 .ii.** aa**** *a*** •0039 ,0b8? ,99j ,008fl 3,8 ,985 ***** .067 13
— _._.____.__
CYCLE COMPOSITE (JSING 13.MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
HSHC .——. — —— 2,33’s GRAM/KW.HR ( 1,791 GRAM/MHP.HR )
OSCo ———u 9,872 GRAM/KM—HR C 7,355 GRAM/BlIP—HR )
I SsNOX . ..... 9,450 GRAM/KPd.MR C 7,055 GRAM/BHP .HR
RSHC , RSNO $ 11,792 GRAM/KM.HK C 8,797 GRAM/BHP.HR )
CORP. BSFC • . .297 Kr,/Kw—HR C .488 LSSIBHP—HR )
-------
TABLE A—3. 13—MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
************ ****#*
49.13
9.82
8.65
8.23
8.47
10.93
8.40
8.29
9.95
73.14
27,14 31.43
2.26 1.84
1.18 .73
.79 1.27
.43 39.64
.89 8.42
1,30 1.21
2.01 .87
3.86 1.71
48,90 27 .47
BAROMETER 29.34
DATE: 3/10/83
MEASURED
HC CO C02 NOX
PPM PPM PCT PPM
152. 63. .76 170.
196. 114. 1.08 120.
164. 68. 2.20 245.
164. 52. 3.48 415.
166. 138. 5,16 600.
120. 5838. 6.83 840.
158. 68. .76 165.
204. 1014. 6.32 880.
224. 108. 5.08 505.
234. 52. 3.73 340.
230. 52. 2.46 205.
240. 68. 1.57 125.
162. 68. .76 170.
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR MODE
HC CO NOX
17. 14. 56. 1
68. 79. 123. 2
58. 48. 253. 3
59. 37. 435. 4
60. 96. 623. 5
43. 3966. 847. 6
18. 15. 52. 7
120. 1135. 1474. 8
131. 121. 844. 9
135. 58. 556. 10
129. 57. 333. 11
131. 74. 196. 12
18. 15. 55. 13
POWER BSFC
CORR CORR
FACT KGIKW—HR
.984
1.005 1,512
1.004 .298
1.004 .242
1.006 .235
1.012 .247
.990
1.046 .254
1.046 .271
1.047 .298
1,043 .390
1.043 3.078
.986
MODAL
WEIGHT MODE
FACTOR
.067 1
.080 2
.080 3
.080 4
.080 5
.080 6
.067 7
.080 8
.080 9
.080 10
.080 11
.080 12
.067 13
ENGINE: DDAD 6V—71 COACH NO.1 DIESEL BASELINE REPEAT
TEST—I FUEL: EM—400—F PROJECT: 05—6619—007
POWER ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE NOX
MODE SPEED OBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID CORR
PCT COND / RPM N X M KW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG FACT
I IDLE / 401. 0. .0 .014 3.86 37. .905
2 2 INTER / 1260. 19. 2.5 .063 12.26 37. .910
3 25 INTER / 1260. 195. 25.8 .128 12.25 33. ,906
4 50 INTER / 1260. 381. 50.3 .204 12.25 34. .912
5 75 INTER / 1260. 574. 75.7 .299 12.25 34, ,915
6 100 INTER / 1260. 758. 100.0 .417 12.02 29. .910
7 IDLE / 400. 0. .0 .014 3.18 29. .865
8 100 RATED / 2100. 613. 134.8 .596 19.06 34. .9(7
9 75 RATED / 2100. 457. 100.5 .475 19.06 34. .911
10 50 RATED / 2100. 305. 67.1 .348 19.21 29. .895
11 25 RATED / 2 )00, 152. 33.4 .227 18.86 34. .902
12 2 RATED / 2100. 12. 2.7 .144 18.86 29. .888
13 IDLE 1 399. 0. .0 .014 3.80 34. .892
GRAMS /KW—HR
HC CO
CALCULATED
MODE GRAMS/KG—FUEL
HC CO NOX
1 19.62 16.24 64.73
2 17,85 20.67 32.32
3 7.54 6.16 32.81
4 4.84 2.99 35.53
5 3.36 5.36 34•77
6 1.73158.42 33.83
7 20.36 11.51 59.99
8 3.36 31.72 41.20
9 4.60 4.26 29.59
10 6.45 2.79 26.62
11 9.47 4.21 24.44
12 15.23 8.56 22.79
13 20.87 17.50 63.66
F/A F/A WET HC F/A F/A
DRY “PHI” CORR PCT
NOX MEAS STOICH FACT CALC MEAS
.0037 .0685 .055 .991 .0037 —.0
.0052 .0685 .076 .988 .0053 1,9
.0105 .0685 .154 .978 .0106 .2
.0167 .0685 .244 .967 .0165 —1.2
.0245 .0685 .357 .952 .0243 —.6
.0349 .0685 .509 .935 .0346 —.7
.0038 .0685 .056 .992 .0037 —1.9
.0314 .0685 .459 .942 .0300 —4.4
.0251 .0685 .366 .953 .0240 —4.4
.0182 .0685 .266 .965 .0177 —2.7
.0121 .0685 .176 .976 .0118 —2.3
.0076 .0685 .112 .984 .0076 -.2
.0038 .0685 .055 .991 .0037 —1.3
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13—MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC = 1.652 GRAM/KW—HR ( 1.232 GRAM/BHP—HR
BSCO = 9.627 GRAM/KW—HR ( 7.182 GRAM/BHP— 14R (
BSNOX = 9.817 GRAM/KW—HR ( 7.324 GRAM/BHP—HR )
BSHC + BSNOX = 11.469 GRAM/KW—HR ( 8.555 GRAt4/BHP—HR )
CORR. BSFC - = .289 KG/KW—HR ( .475 LBS/BHP-IIR )
-------
TABLE A-4.
13—MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
ENGINE: DOAD 6V71 COACH BEFORE PARTICULATE TRAP
TEST—02—O1 FUEL: EM—400—F PROJECT: 05—6619—007
BAROMETER 28.85
DATE: 04/20/83
MEASURED
HC CO C02 NOX
PPM PPM PCT PPM
192. 68. .80 158.
232. 114. 1.04 109.
180. 74. 1.95 218.
174. 63. 3.36 367.
166. 157. 5.08 550.
132, 2405. 6.92 753.
166. 74. .80 163.
204. 1199. 6.49 847.
224. 183. 5.53 525.
252. 68. 3.79 308.
256. 63. 2.62 188.
276. 68. 1.61 109.
196. 74. .88 163.
CA LCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR MODE
HC CO NOX
21. 15. 54. 1
85. 83. 126. 2
67. 54. 252. 3
62. 44. 406. 4
60. 109. 608. 5
50. 1700. 844. 6
20. 18. 62. 7
119. 1322. 1490. 8
126. 197. 896. 9
150. 79. 574. 10
143. 69. 333. 11
143. 70. 180. 12
20. 15. 53. 13
POWER ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE NOX
MODE SPEED OBS OBS FLOW FLOW HUMID CORR
PCI COND / RPM N X M KW KG/WIN KG/WIN G/KG FACT
1 IDLE / 400. 0. .0 .015 3.52 64. .946
2 2 INTER / 1260. 15. 2.0 .065 11.68 64. .968
3 25 INTER / 1260. 184. 24.3 .119 11.72 64. .970
4 50 INTER / 1260. 368. 48.5 .195 11.65 64. .972
5 75 INTER / 1260. 552. 72.8 .294 11.57 64. .975
6 100 INTER / 1260. 735. 97.0 .420 11.49 61. .971
7 IDLE / 400. 0. .0 .017 3.45 64. .951
8 100 RATED / 2100. 624. 137.2 .605 18.27 64. .977
9 75 RATED / 2100. 468. 102.9 .495 18.28 64. .973
10 50 RATED / 2100. 312. 68.6 .366 18.45 69. .986
11 25 RATED / 2100. 156. 34.3 .240 18.30 71. .990
12 2 RATED / 2100. 12. 2.7 .139 18.38 71. .990
13 IDLE / 400. 0. .0 .015 3.58 71. .985
CALCULATED
F/A
F/A
WET NC
F/A
F/A
POWER
BSFC
NODAL
MODE
GRAMS/KG-FUEL
NC CO NOX
GRAMS/KW-HR
HC CO NOX
DRY
MEAS
510 ICH
“PHI”
CORR
FACT
CALC
PCT
MEAS
CORR
FACT
CORR
KG/KW—HR
WEIGHT
FACTOR
1
23.48 16.59 59.49
******
.0043
.0685
.063
.990
.0039
—8.8
1.016
*****
.067
1
2
21.86 21.37 32.29
43.31 42.34
63.97
.0056
.0685
.082
.988
.0051
—8.6
1.034
1.916
.080
2
3
9.30 7.55 35.19
2.74 2.22
10.36
.0103
.0685
.150
.979
.0094
—8.6
1.034
.285
.080
3
4
5.32 3.75 34.66
1.28 .91
8.36
.0169
.0685
.247
.967
.0160
—5.4
1.034
.233
.080
4
5
3.41 6.19 34.49
.83 1.50
8.35
.0257
.0685
.374
.952
.0240
—6.6
1.033
.234
.080
5
6
1.97 67.56 33.52
.51 17.53
8.70
.0368
.0685
.538
.935
.0334
—9.4
1.034
.251
.080
6
7
20.35 18.09 61,83
**********
* * *
.0049
.0685
.071
.990
.0039
—19.0
1.014
.067
7
8
3.27 36.44 41.05
.87 9.63
10.86
.0334
.0685
.487
.939
.0309
—7.5
1.073
.246
.080
8
9
4.24 6.62 30.16
1.22 1.91
8.71
.0273
.0685
.399
.948
.0261
—4.6
1.075
.269
.080
9
10
6.85 3.58 26.13
2.19 1.15
8.36
.0200
.0685
.292
.963
.0180
—10.0
1.072
.298
.080
10
11
9.92 4.79 23.07
4.17 2.01
9.70
.0133
.0685
.194
.973
.0126
—5.2
1.072
.392
.080
11
12
17.09 8.33 21.56
53.13 25.90
67.03
.0076
.0685
.112
.982
.0078
2.5
1.068
2.911
.080
12
13
21.86 16.44 58.18
******
.0043
.0685
.062
.988
.0043
1.7
1.006
* *
.067
13
MODE
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13—MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC = 1.789 GRAM/KW—HR ( 1.335 GRAM/BHP—HR
85CC - 6,381 GRAM/KW—HR ( 4.760 GRAM/BHP—HR
BSNOX = 9.907 GRAM/KW—HR C 7.390 GRAM/BlIP—HR
BSHC + BSNOX = 11.595 GRAM/NW—HR ( 8.725 GRAM/BHP—I-IR
CORR. BSFC — = .286 KG/KW-HR C .471 LBS/BHP—HR
-------
TABLE A—5. 13—MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13—MODE
BSHC 1.678 GRAM/KW-HR
BSCO 6.245 GRAM/KW-HR
BSNOX = 10,004 GRAM/KW-HR
BSHC + BSNOX 11.682 GRAM/KW—HR
CORR. BSFC — = .286 KG/KW—HR
WEIGHT FACTORS
1.252 GRAM/RHP—HR )
( 4.659 GRAM/BHP—HR C
( 7.463 GRAM/BHP-HR )
C 8.715 GRAM/BHP—HR )
C .471 LBS/BHP—HR )
POWER
ENGINE
TORQUE
POWER
FUEL
AIR
INTAKE
NOX
MODE
SPEED
OBS
OBS
FLOW
FLOW
HUMID
CORR
PCT
COND / RPM
N
X
N
KW
KG/MIN
KG/MIN
G/KG
FACT
ENGINE:DDAD
6V71
COACH
AFTER
PARTICULATE
TRAP
BAROMETER
28.85
TEST—02—01
FUEL :EM—400—F
PROJECT:05—661 9-007
DATE:04/20/83
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
IDLE
INTER
INTER
I NTER
INTER
INTER
IDLE
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
RATED
IDLE
/ 400.
/ 1260.
/ 1260,
/ 1260.
/ 1260.
/ 1260.
/ 400.
/ 2100.
/ 2100.
/ 2100.
/ 2100.
/ 2100.
/ 400.
0.
15.
184.
368.
552.
735.
0.
624.
468.
312.
156.
12,
0.
.0
2.0
24.3
48.5
72.8
97.0
.0
137.2
102.9
68.6
34.3
2,7
.0
.015
.065
.119
• 195.
.294
• 420
.017
.605
.495
• 366
.240
.139
.015
3.52
11 • 68
11.72
11.65
11.57
11.49
3.45
18.27
18.28
18.45
18.30
18,38
3.58
64.
64.
64.
64.
64.
61.
64.
64.
64.
69.
71.
71.
71.
MODE
.946
.968
.970
.972
.975
.971
.951
.977
.973
.986
.990
.990
.985
MEASURED
HC CO C02 NOX
PPM PPM PCT PPM
140. 74. .80 163.
222. 120. 1.04 109.
182. 74. 1.96 218.
174. 63. 3.36 367.
156. 110. 5.08 545.
110. 2329. 6.92 758.
108. 74. .80 169.
168. 1166. 6.49 867.
196. 170. 5.30 510.
248. 68. 3.79 308.
252. 63. 2.51 188.
276. 68. 1,71 109.
184. 68. .88 163.
CALCULATED
GRAMS / HOUR MODE
HC CO NOX
16. 16, 56. 1
82. 88. 126. 2
61. 54. 251. 3
62. 44. 406. 4
57. 118. 603. 5
41. 1649. 850. 6
13. 18. 64. 7
98. 1287. 1526. 8
115. 191. 909. 9
148. 79. 574. 10
141. 72. 347. 11
135. 66. 170. 12
19. 14. 53. 13
1
GRAMS/KG—FUEL
HC CO NOX
17.22 18,15 61.72
CALCULATED
GRAMS/KW—HR
HC CO
************
NOX
F/A
DRY
MEAS
.0043
F/A
STOICH
.0685
“PHI”
.063
WET HC
CORR
FACT
.990
F/A
CAIC
.0039
F/A
PCI
MEAS
—9.3
POWER
CORR
FACT
BSFC
CORR
K6/KW—HR
MODAL
WEIGHT
FACTOR
1.016
.067
1
2
20.93 22,51 32.30
41.46 44.59
64.00
.0056
.0685
.082
.988
.0051
—8.6
1.034
1.916
.080
2
3
9.36 7.51 35.01
2.76 221
10.31
.0103
.0685
.150
.979
.0094
—8.2
1.034
.285
.080
3
4
5.32 3.75 34.66
1.28 .91
8.36
.0169
.0685
.247
.967
.0160
—5.4
1.034
.233
.080
4
5
3.21 6.70 34.17
.78 1.62
8.28
.0257
.0685
.374
.952
.0240
—6.6
1.033
.234
.080
5
6
1.64 65.51 33,79
.43 17.00
8.77
.0368
.0685
.538
.935
.0333
—9.5
1.034
.251
.080
6
7
13.33 18.22 64.56
* *****‘* **
*** *
.0049
.0685
.071
.990
.0039
—19.5
1.014
*****
.067
7
8
2.70 35.41 42.07
.71 9.38
11.12
.0334
.0685
.487
.940
.0309
—7.6
1.073
.246
.080
8
9
3.87 6.42 30.59
1.12 1.85
8.83
.0273
.0685
.399
.950
.0250
—8.5
1.075
.269
.080
9
10
6.74 3.59 26,13
2.16 1.15
8.36
.0200
.0685
.292
.963
.0180
—10.0
1.072
.298
.080
10
11
10.18 4,99 24.08
4,28 2.10
10.12
.0133
.0685
.194
.974
.0121
—9.1
1.072
.392
.080
ii
12
16.13 7.85 20.33
50.15 24.41
63.19
.0076
.0685
.112
.981
.0083
8.7
1,068
2.911
.080
12
13
20.56 15.14 58.29
.0043
.0685
.062
.988
.0043
1.5
1.006
.067
13
MODE
-------
APPENDIX B
TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS FROM DDAI) 6V7].
COACH ENGINE WITHOUT TRAP
-------
TABLE B—i. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C—TRANS.
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05—6619-007
BAROMETER 735.84 MM HG(28.97 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.O DEG F)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—40. PCT , CVS—34. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 7.9 GM/KG( 55.3 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
1
NYNF
296.0
32.23 C 1137.9)
0.00 C 0.0)
.05 C 1.66)
0.00 ( 0,00)
159.2 C 5622.)
2
LANF
299.9
32.24 C 1138.3)
0.00 C 0.0)
.05 C 1.66)
0.00 C 0.00)
161.4 C 5698.)
3
LAF
305.0
32.24 C 1138.6)
0.00 C 0.0)
.05 C 1.66)
0.00 C 0.00)
164.1 C 5196.)
4
NYNF
297.9
32.23 ( 1138.1)
0.00 C 0.00)
.05 C 1.66)
0.00 C 0.00)
160.3 C 5659.)
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION
O CONCENTRATION
CO2 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
29.61
23.
31.
.41
40. 1
22.23
33.
24.
.56
43.2
8.64
81.
121.
1.49
111.4
31.91
31.
39.
.37
36.5
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL
BS MC
BS CO
BS c02
BS NOX
8$ FC
8.43 C
1,86 C
4.83 C
994. C
8.50 C
.318 C
11.31)
1,39)
3.60)
742.)
6 • 34)
.5 24)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
ENGINE
NO.01
TEST NO.D1—2 RUN1
ENGINE
MODEL
78
DDA
6V—71N
DATE
4/
5/83
ENGINE
7,0 1(426.
CID)
V—6
TIME
CVS NO.
19
DYNO
NO.
3
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
14.6/12/
29.
20.0/12/
40.
44.2/12/
88.
19.3/12/
39.
MC
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
6.2/ 1/
6.
7.8/ 1/
8.
8.4/ 1/
8.
8.0/ 1/
8.
CO
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
33.9/13/
31.
27.8/13/
25.
58.0/12/
126.
43.2/13/
40.
CO
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.1/13/
0.
.5/13/
0.
.1/12/
0.
.4/13/
0.
002
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
55.5/11/
.45
68.7/11/
.60
82.9/ 3/
1.53
52.2/11/
.41
002
BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PCT
6.9/11/
.04
6.8/11/
.04
3,0/ 3/
.05
7.7/11/
.05
NOX
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
40.6/ 2/
41.
43.8/ 2/
44.
37.3/ 3/
112.
37.5/ 2/
38.
NOX
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.5/ 2/
1.
.6/ 2/
1.
.2/ 3/
1.
1.0/ 2/
1.
HC MASS GRAMS
2.14
3.02
7.66
CO MASS GRAMS
5,67
4.60
23.12
002 MASS GRAMS
1185.6
1647.5
4475.8
NOX MASS GRAMS
12.21
13.34
34.96
FUEL KG (LB)
.380 ( .84)
.526 C 1.16)
1.433 C
KW HR (HP HR)
.87 C 1.17)
1.34 C 1.80)
5.11 C
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
2.45 ( 1.83)
2.25 C 1.68)
1.50
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP FIR)
6.50 C 4.85)
3.43 C 2.56)
4.53
BS 02 G/KW HR (G/HP FIR)
1358.95 (1013.37)
1227.41 C 915.28)
876.23
BSNOX 61Kw HR (G/HP HR)
14.00 ( 10.44)
9.94 C 7.41)
6.84
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
.435 C .715)
.392 C .644)
.281
3.16)
6.85)
KW HR (HP FIR)
61KW HR (G/HP FIR)
G/KW HR (6/HP FIR)
6 1KW HR (G/HP HR)
6 1KW HR (6/HP FIR)
KG/KW HR (LB/HP FIR)
C 1.12)
C 3.38)
C 653.40)
C 5.10)
C .461)
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
2 • 86
7 • 32
1077 • 8
11 • 20
.347 C .77)
1.11 C 1.49)
2.57 C 1.92)
6.59 C 4.92)
970.05 ( 723.37)
10.08 C 7.51)
.312 C .513)
4.83
.57 C .43)
1.80 C .81)
90.9
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/IB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
-------
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
002 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
002 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (IB)
KW HR (HP HR)
TEST NO.D1—2- RUNI
DATE 4/15/83
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
NYNF
296.0
32.62 ( 1151.7)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 ( 1.52)
0.00 ( 0.00)
161.1 C 5689.)
41.02
20.
35.
.28
39.5
1 ,82
6.65
825.7
12.17
,266
.87 C
2
LANF
300.0
32.63 ( 1152,1)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.04 C 1.52)
0.00 ( 0.00)
163.4 ( 5768.)
22.51
30.
23.
.55
43.3
2 • 82
4.36
1638 • 9
13.54
.523
1.30
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO.
3
LAF
304.9
32.62 ( 1151.8)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.52)
0.00 C 0.00)
166.0 C 5861.)
B • 84
75.
77.
1.44
108 • 4
7.22
14.85
4388.8
34.42
1.401 C
4.90
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR)
0/KG FUEL (0/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYN F
298.0
32.63 ( 1152.3)
0.00 C 0.00)
.04 C 1.52)
0.00 C 0.00)
162.3 C 5731.)
34.24
25.
32.
.34
36. 1
2 • 29
5.98
1009.6
11.21
.324
1.06
4.59
.56 C .42)
1.82 C .83)
90.4
ENGINE
ENGINE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
NO.01
MODEL 78 DDA 6V—71N
7.0 L(426. CID) V—6
19
TABLE B—2. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
BAROMETER 747.21 MM HG(29.42 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG C(73.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCR IPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFN)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
PROJECT NO. 05-6619—007
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—SI, PCI , CVS—22. POT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9.0 GM/KG( 62.9 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
NC
BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
7.6/
CO
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/PPM
CO
BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
.8/13/
CO2
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/PCI
75.5/12/
002
BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/pPM
NOX
BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
2/
‘F
(jJ
18.8/12/
8.0/ 1/
26.9/13/
1.5/13/
68.1/11/
7.2/11/
43.9/ 2/
.6/ 2/
41.4/12/
8.4/ 1/
96. 5/13/
22.0/13/
81.4/ 3/
4.0/ 3/
36.5/ 3/
.4/ 3/
27.
8.
37.
1.
.32
.04
40.
0.
.59)
1.16)
16,1/12/
8.0/ 1/
36. 1/13/
1.5/13/
87.0/12/
13.6/12/
36.7/ 2/
.6/ 2/
38.
8.
25.
I.
.59
.04
44.
1.
1 • 15)
1.75)
83.
8.
98.
20.
1.50
.06
Ito.
1.
3.09)
6.57)
32.
8.
33.
1.
.38
.05
37.
1.
.71)
1.42)
BSHC 0 1KW HR (C/HP HR)
BScO G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BS O2 G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KM HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
85 140 0/KW HR CG/HP HR)
BSOO G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BSCO2 GIKW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX 0/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
2.11 C
7.69 C
954.61 (
14.07 C
.308 C
1.57)
5.73)
711.85)
10.49)
.506)
2.16 C
3.34
1255.92
10.37 C
.401
1.61)
2.49)
936.54)
7.73)
.659)
8.13
1.74
3.92
967.
8.78
.309
1.47
3.03 C
895.82
7.03 (
.286
10.90)
1.30)
2.92)
721 •)
6.54)
.509)
1.10)
2.26)
668,01)
5.24)
.4 70)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
2.17
3.64
953.42
10,59
.306
1.62)
C 4.21)
C 710.97)
C 7.89)
C .503)
-------
TABLE B—3. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05-6619-007
TOTAL
BS NC
BS CO
BSCO2
BSNOX
BSFC
8.17
1.95
5.45 (
1009. (
8.55
.323 (
10.95)
1.45)
4.07)
752.)
6.38)
532)
NYN F
295.9
32.28 C 1139.8)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.47)
0.00 C 0.00)
159.4 C 5628.)
2
LAN F
299.9
32.28 C 1139.8)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.47)
0.00 ( 0.00)
161.6 C 5704.)
3
LAF
304.9
32.28 C 1139.7)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.47)
0.00 C 0.00)
164.2 C 5799.)
4
NYNF
297.9
32.27 C 1139.6)
0.00 C 0.00)
.04 ( 1.47)
0.00 C 0.00)
160.4 C 5665.)
ENGINE
ENGINE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
NO • Dl
MODEL 78 DDA 6V—71N
7.0 L(426. CID) V—6
19
TEST NO,D1—2— RUN1
DATE 4/18/83
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
BAROMETER 735.33 MM HG(28,95 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.O DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—27. PCI , CVS—26. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 5.9 GM/KG( 41.1 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
HG SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
13.6/12/
27.
19.9/12/
40.
45.0/12/
90.
17.8/12/
36.
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
6.0/ 1/
6.
6.0/ 1/
6.
6.0/ 1/
6.
6.0/ 1/
6.
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
38.4/13/
36.
27.4/13/
25.
65.1/12/
145.
39.9/13/
37.
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.1/13/
0.
.1/13/
0.
.3/12/
1.
.2/12/
0.
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
92.5/12/
.42
68.8/11/
.60
82.3/ 3/
1.52
87.7/12/
.39
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
11.3/12/
.04
6.9/11/
.04
2.8/ 3/
.04
12.2/12/
.04
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
36.5/ 2/
37.
43.2/ 2/
43.
37.1/ 3/
111.
35.7/ 2/
36.
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.3/ 2/
0.
.4/ 2/
0.
.2/ 3/
1.
.6/ 2/
1.
DILUTION FACTOR
31.59
22.18
8.70
33.82
NC CONCENTRATION
PPM
21.
34.
85.
30.
CO CONCENTRATION
PPM
35.
25.
139.
36.
O2 CONCENTRATION
PCI
.38
.56
1.48
.35
NOX CONCENTRATION
PPM
36.2
42.8
110.8
35.1
HC MASS GRAMS
1.96
3.18
8.02
2.76
CO MASS GRAMS
6.49
4.61
26.66
6.76
C02 MASS GRAMS
1111.9
1651.2
4448.8
1024.5
NOX MASS GRAMS
11.04
13.23
34.79
10.78
FUEL KG (LB)
.357 (
.527 C
1.427 C
.330
KW HR (HP HR)
.91 C
1.36 C
4.87 (
1.03 C
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR CG/HP HR)
BS O2 G/KW HR CG/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
.79)
1.22)
1.16)
1.82)
2.16
7.14
1222.16
12.13
.392
1.61)
5.32)
911.37)
9.05)
.644)
2.34
3.40
1216.67
9.75
.388
3.15)
6.53)
KW HR (HP HR)
01KW HR (0/HP HR)
61KW HR (6/HP HR)
01KW HR (0/HP HR)
01KW HR (0/HP HR)
KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
1.75)
C 2.53)
907.27)
( 7.27)
C .639)
.73)
1.38)
1.65 C
5.48 C
913.63 C
7.14 (
.293 (
1.23)
4.08)
581.29)
5.33)
.482)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
2.68 C
6.57 (
995.61
10.47
.321 (
2 • 00)
4.90)
742.42)
7.81)
.527)
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR)
0/KG FUEL CO/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
6.70
.82 ( .61)
2.54 C 1.15)
90. 1
-------
TABLE B—4. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H—TRANS.
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05—6619—007
1
NYNF
296 • 0
32.35 C 1142.1)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.31)
0.00 ( 0.00)
159.8 ( 5641.)
2
LANF
300.0
32.36 C 1142.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.04 ( 1.31)
0.00 C 0.00)
162.0 C 5719.)
3
LAF
305 • 0
32.37 C 1142.8)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 ( 1.31)
0.00 C 0.00)
164.7 C 5816.)
4
NYNF
297 • 9
32.34 ( 1142.0)
0.00 C 0.00)
.04 C 1.31)
0.00 ( 0.00)
160.8 C 5677.)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL
BS HC
BSCO
BS 02
BSNOX
BSFC
9.26
1.88
5.41
901. C
8.14
.289
12 ,42)
1.40)
4.04)
672.)
6.07)
.475)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
ENG I NE
ENG I NE
ENG I ME
CVS NO.
N0.D1
MODEL 78 ODA 6V—71N
7.0 1(426. CID) V-6
19
TEST NO.01—2 RUN)
DATE 4/ 5/83
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
BAROMETER 735.33 MM HG(28.95 IN HG)
CRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEG C(78 .O DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFN)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCNN (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—39. POT , CVS—31. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.2 GM/KG( 57.7 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C,F. 1.0000
U i
HO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
18.3/12/
6.9/ 1/
37.
7.
24.3/12/
7.0/ 1/
49.
7.
45.4/12/
7.8/ 1/
91.
8.
18.5112/
7.9/ 1/
37.
B.
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
48,1/13/
45.
61,5/13/
59.
60.1/12/
132.
45.9/13/
43.
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
2.8/13/
3.
3.4/13/
3.
.2/12/
0.
1.1/13/
1.
002 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
52.9/11/
.42
72.2/11/
.64
82.8/ 3/
1.53
51.3/11/
.40
002 BCKGRD METERIRANGE/PCT
8.4/11/
.05
8.3/11/
.05
3.8/ 3/
.06
7.8/11/
.05
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
37.3/ 2/
37.
50.7/ 2/
51.
39.5/ 3/
119.
38.7/ 2/
39.
NOX BCKGRD METER1RANGE/PPM
.8/ 2/
1.
.9/ 2/
1.
.2/ 3/
1.
.9/ 2/
1,
DILUTION FACTOR
HO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPI4
c02 CONCENTRATION POT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
31,35
30.
42.
.37
36.5
20.60
42.
55.
.59
49.8
8.65
84.
126.
1.48
118.0
32.61
29.
41.
.36
37.8
MC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
002 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
2.76
7.82
1083.0
11.16
.349 ( .77)
1.10 ( 1.47)
3.92
10.34
1755.7
15.44
.564 C 1.24)
1.77 ( 2.37)
7.97
24.22
4451.9
37.16
1.427 C
5.17 C
2.72
7.74
1052.2
11.63
.339 C
1.23 C
8SHC 01KW HR (0/HP HR)
BS 0 0 1KW HR (G/HP HR)
BS 02 01KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX 0 1KW HR (0/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
2.52 ( 1.88)
7.13 ( 5.32)
987.98 C 736.73)
10.18 C 7.59)
.318 C .523)
2.22 ( 1.66)
5.85 C 4.36)
993.43 C 740.80)
8.74 ( 6.51)
.319 C .524)
1.54
4.69
861.48
7.19
.276
3.15)
6.93)
KW HR (HP HR)
01KW HR (0/HP HR)
G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
01KW HR (0/HP HR)
0 1KW HR (0/HP HR)
KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
.75)
1.65)
1.15)
C 3.50)
C 642.40)
C 5.36)
( ,454)
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
2.21
6 • 29
855.15
9.45
.276
C 1.65)
C 4.69)
C 637.69)
C 7.05)
( .453)
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR)
0/KG FUEL (0/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
7.03
.76 C .57)
2.62 C 1.19)
90.0
-------
BAROMETER 734.57 MM HG(28.92 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75,O DEG F)
TABLE B—5. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H—TRANS
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05—6619—007
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
002 C0NCENTRAT ON
NOX CONCENTRATION
NYNF
296.0
32.34 C 1141,9)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.40)
0.00 C 0.00)
159.7 C 5640.)
33.68
25.
37.
.35
35.9
2
LAN F
300.0
32,34 C 1141.9)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.40)
0.00 C 0.00)
161.9 C 5716.)
22.05
40.
51.
.56
47. 1
3
LAF
305.0
32.34 C 1141.8)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.40)
0.00 C 0.00)
164,6 C 5811.)
9.30
85.
111.
1.38
106.6
4
NYN F
298.0
32.32 ( 1141.3)
0.00 C 0.00)
.04 C 1.40)
0.00 C 0.00)
160.7 ( 5676.)
36.50
29.
33.
.32
34.0
ENGINE
ENG I NE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
NO • Dl
MODEL 78 DDA 6V—71N
7.0 L(426. CID) V—6
19
TEST NO.D1—2— RUN1
DATE 4/18/83
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCR4PTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ENGINE—32. PCI , CVS—26. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 6.0 GM/KG( 42.1 GRAINS/LB)
HC
HC
co
CO
002
002
w NOX
d NOX
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
HETERIRANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
16.3/12/
7.4/ 1/
42.1/13/
1.4/13/
88. 0/12/
11.8/12/
36.4/ 2/
.5/ 2/
33.
7.
39.
1.
.39
.04
36.
1.
23. 7/12/
7.2/ 1/
57.0/13/
2.2/13/
68.8/11/
6.8/11/
47.7/ 2/
.6/ 2/
PPM
PPM
PCI
PPM
4 5.9/12/
7.8/ 1/
54. 2/12/
.9/12/
77.6/ 3/
2.8/ 3/
35,8/ 3/
.3/ 3/
18.1/12/
7.4/ 1/
38.0/13/
1.6/13/
82.7/12/
11,4/12/
34.7/ 2/
.7/ 2/
47.
7.
54.
2.
.60
.04
48.
1.
1 • 17)
2.24)
HC
MASS
GRAMS
2.34
3.78
CO
MASS
GRAMS
6.96
9.69
C02
MASS
GRAMS
1029.2
1656.5
NOX
MASS
GRAMS
10.97
14.59
FUEL KG
(LB)
.331 C
.73)
.532
KW
HR (HP HR)
1.04 C
1.39)
1.67
92.
8.
116.
2.
1 .42
.04
107.
1.
2.94)
6.58)
BSHC G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BScO G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BS O2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
36.
7.
35.
1.
.36
.04
35.
1.
.67)
1.38)
2.26
6.72 (
992.96
10.58
.319
TOTAL
85 HO
BS CO
8S 002
BS NOX
BSFC
1.68)
5.01)
740.45)
7.89)
.525)
8.05
21.23
4163.8
33. 55
1.334
4.91
1.64
4.33
848.59
6.84
.272
2.26
5.80
991.71
8.74
.318
KW HR (HP lIR)
G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
6/KW HR (C/HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
61KW HR (C/HP HR)
KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
1.69)
4.32)
739.51)
6.51)
.524)
8.64
1.95
5.10 C
902.
8.05
.290
2.69
6.24
949.0
10.46
.306
1.03
2.62
6.06
922.21 C
10,16 C
.297 C
11.59)
1.45)
3.81)
673.)
6.00)
.476)
1.22)
3.23)
632.79)
5.10)
.447)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
1.95)
4.52)
687.69)
7.58)
.488)
GRAMS /T EST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
C/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER ElF.
6.75
.78 C .58)
2.69 C 1.22)
90.0
-------
TABLE B—6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
BUS CYCLE
PROJECT NO. 05—6619—007
BAROMETER 734.57 MM HG(28.92 IN HG)
D Y BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.O DEG F)
TEST NO.01—I RUN1
DATE 4/ 5/83
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
MC MASS GRAMS
cø MASS GRAMS
c02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (L8)
KW HR (HP HR)
TOTAL
BS HC
BS CO
BS O2
BSN OX
BSFC
4.16 C
1.93 (
4.20 (
962. (
9.01 (
.308 (
5.58)
1.44)
3.13)
717.)
6.72)
.506)
27.44
33.
23.
.44
39.4
2 • 80
3 • 86
1186.6
11.09
.380 (
1.13 C
2
287.9
32.18 C 1136.2)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.38)
0.00 C 0.00)
154.6 C 5458.)
21 .09
31.
58.
.58
52.0
2.73
10.40
1651.8
15 • 38
.530 C
1.84 C
3
272.9
32.17 C 1
0.00 C
.04 C
0.00 C
146.5 C
27.84
30.
19.
.43
39 • 3
2.51
3 • 23
1162.7
11.02
.371 C
1.19 C
38.
8.
19.
0.
.48
.04
40.
3.56
.86 C .64)
2.78 C 1.26)
86.0
ENGINE
ENGINE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
NO.D 1
MODEL 78 ODA 6V—71N
7.0 L(426. CID) V—6
19
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—38. PCT , CVS—31. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.2 GM/KGC 57.4 GRAINS/LB)
273.9
32.18 C 1136.3)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.38)
0.00 C 0.00)
147.1 C 5193.)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
—3
MC
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
19.6/12/
39.
19.0/12/
38.
8.2/ 1/
MC
GO
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
6.4/ 1/
25.2/13/
6.
23.
7.6/ 1/
61.6/13/
8.
59.
21.3/13/
CO
C02
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
.1/13/
58.8/11/
0.
.48
.1/13/
71.1/11/
0.
.63
.1/13/
58.2/11/
7.3/11/
c02
NOX
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
7.2/11/
40.2/ 2/
.04
40.
7.4/11/
52.9/ 2/
•04
53.
40.3/ 2/
2/
NOX
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.8/ 2/
1.
.9/ 2/
1.
136.0)
0.0)
1.38)
0.00)
5173.)
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
GO CONCENTRATION PPM
O2 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
BSHC G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BS 0 G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSGO2 G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSNOX 6 1KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
.84)
1.51)
1.17)
2.47)
2.49 C
3.42 C
1053.84 C
9.85 C
.337
1.86)
2.55)
785.85)
7.34)
.554)
.82)
1.60)
1.48
5.64
896.82
8.35
.288
KW HR (HP HR)
G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
0 1KW HR (6/HP HR)
6 1KW HR (G/HP HR)
0 1KW HR (6/HP HR)
KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
C 1.11)
C 4.21)
( 668.76)
C 6.23)
C .473)
2.10 C
2.71
974.50 C
9.24
.311
1.57)
2.02)
726.69)
6.89)
.512)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHRCG/HPHR)
6/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
-------
TABLE B—7. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
B—TRANS
PROJECT NO. 05—6619—007
ENGINE NO.01
ENGINE MODEL 78 ODA 6V—71N
ENGINE 7.0 L(426. CID) V—6
CVS NO. 19
BAROMETER 733.55 MM HG(28,88 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEC C(77.O DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
O2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
U i NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
002 CONCENTRATION POT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
002 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
BSHC 6 1KW HR (6/HP FIR)
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP FIR)
BS O2 G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP FIR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP FIR)
BSHC G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BS O G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BS O2 6/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (C/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TEST NO.01—2— RUN1
DATE 4/18/83
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
2.65
9.20
1539.7
14.61
.76) .494
1.48) 1.77 (
1.63) 1.50 (
2.39) 5.18
725.01) 867.56 C
7.27) 8.23 C
.511) .278 C
PART I CULATE RESULTS,
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
CVS—25. PCT
GRAINS/LB)
2.67
3.54
1087.1
10.78
1.09) .348 ( .77)
2.38) 1.13 ( 1.51)
1.11) 2.37 ( 1.77)
3.87) 3.14 C 2.34)
646.94) 965.48 ( 719.96)
6.14) 9.57 C 7.14)
.457) .309 C .508)
TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
ENGINE—28. PCT
5.7 GM/KG( 40.0
1
2
3
274.0
288.0
272.9
32.28 C 1139.9)
32.29 C 1140.2)
32.30 C 1140.4)
0.00 C 0.0)
0.00 C 0.0)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.43)
.04 ( 1.43)
.04 C 1.43)
0.00 ( 0.00)
0.00 ( 0.00)
0.00 C 0.00)
147.6 C 5212.)
155.2 C 5480.)
147.1 C 5194.)
16.9/12/ 34.
17.6/12/ 35.
18.6/12/ 37.
5.6/ 1/ 6.
5.8/ 1/ 6.
6.0/ 1/ 6.
23.3/13/ 21.
55.0/13/ 52.
23.2/13/ 21.
.4/13/ 0.
.4/13/ 0.
.2/13/ 0.
95.0/12/ .43
67.2/11/ .58
96.2/12/ .44
11.2/12/ .04
6.4/11/ .04
11.5/12/ .04
38.8/ 2/ 39.
49.8/ 2/ 50.
39.0/ 2/ 39.
.7/ 2/ 1.
.6/ 2/ 1.
.7/ 2/ 1.
30,51
22,83
29.97
28.
30.
31.
21.
51.
21.
.40
.54
.40
38.1
49.2
38.3
2.42
3.54
1073.0
10.76
.343
1.10
2.19
3.20
972.25
9.75
.311
4.00
1.93
4.06
924.
9.03
.296
5.37)
1.44)
3.03)
689.)
6.73)
.486)
2.79
.70 ( .52)
2.36 C 1.07)
84.0
-------
APPENDIX C
TRANSIENT TEST RESULTS FROM DDAD 6v71
COACH ENGINE WITH TRAP
-------
TABLE C—2. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05—6619—007
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
BAROMETER 733.55 MM HG(28.88 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEG C(78.O DEG F)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—54. PCI , CVS—53. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.5 GM/KG( 80.5 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY CF. 1.0000
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW $10. CU. METRES(SCF)
TOTAL
BS NC
BS CO
BSCO2
BS NOX
BSFC
7.90
1.96
4.24
990. (
8.05 (
.317
10.59)
1.46)
3.16)
738.)
6.01)
.521)
NYNF
296.0
32.14 ( 1134.9)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.04 ( 1.44)
0.00 ( 0.00)
158.8 ( 5606.)
2
LANF
300. 1
32.12 C 1134.1)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.44)
0.00 ( 0.00)
160.8 C 5680,)
3
L AF
305.0
32.14 C 1134.8)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.44)
0.00 C 0.00)
163.6 C 5776.)
4
NYN F
298.0
32.12 C 1134.3)
0.00 C 0.00)
.04 C 1.44)
0.00 ( 0.00)
159.8 C 5641.)
.33)
.63)
ENGINE
NO.01
TEST
NO.01—2 RUN1
ENGINE
MODEL
78
ODA
6V—71N
DATE
4/21/83
ENGINE
7.0 L(426 .
CID)
V—6
TIME
CVS NO.
19
DYNO
NO. 3
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
c O2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
002 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
13.6/12/
8.6/ 1/
30.6/13/
2.0/13/
90.5/12/
11.9/12/
33.6/ 2/
.5/ 2/
27.
9.
28.
2.
.41
.04
34.
1.
20.8/12/
9.6/ 1/
30.1/13/
2.2/13/
67.2/11/
7.2/11/
39.9/ 2/
.7/ 2/
42.
10.
28.
2.
.58
.04
40.
1.
48.3/12/
10.0/ 1/
48.1/12/
1.2/12/
79.0/ 3/
3.7/ 3/
33.9/ 3/
.4/ 3/
97.
10.
101.
2.
1.45
.06
102.
1.
18.1/12/
10.0/ 1/
37.1/13/
1.4/13/
86.4/12/
13.6/12/
33.6/ 2/
.9/ 2/
36.
10.
34.
1.
.38
.05
34.
1.
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
00 CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
32.59
19.
26.
.37
33.1
22.90
32.
25.
.54
39.2
9.13
88.
95.
1.40
100.6
34.51
26.
32.
.34
32.7
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
002 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (lIP HR)
1.73
4.76
1065.7
10.05
.341 (
.82 C
3.01
4.69
1581.8
12.07
.505 C
1.29 C
8.26
18.04
4188.1
31.48
1.341 (
4.77 (
2.44
6.02
983.4
10.00
.316
1.01 C
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BS O G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BS O2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
.75)
1.10)
1.11)
1.73)
2.11
5.80
1299.17
12.26
.415
1.57)
4.32)
968.79)
9.14)
.683)
2.96)
6.40)
2.33
3.63
1226.15
9.35
.392
KW HR (HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
0 1KW HR (0/HP HR)
G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
1.74)
2.71)
914.34)
6.98)
.644)
.70)
1.36)
1.73
3.78
877.56
6.60
.281
C 1.29)
2.82)
C 654.39)
4.92)
C .462)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
1.79)
4.42)
723.10)
7.35)
.512)
2.40
5.93 C
969.69 C
9.86 C
.312 C
3.45
.44 C
1.38 (
84.7
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR(G/HPHR)
0/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
-------
BAROMETER 736.35 MM HG(28.99 IN HG)
DRY BUI B TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.0 DEG F)
TABLE c—3. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H—TRANS.
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05—6619-007
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
O2 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (18)
KW HR (HP HR)
NYNF
295.9
32.39 ( 1143.9)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.42)
0.00 ( 0.00)
160.0 C 5648.)
34 • 88
22.
32.
.34
32.9
2.00
5.88
982.5
10.07
.315
1.01
2
LANE
300.0
32.40 C 1144.2)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.42)
0.00 C 0.00)
162.2 C 5728.)
22.91
35.
36.
.53
43 • 2
3.32
6.87
1584.7
13.41
.507
1.62
3
LAF
305.0
32.39 ( 1143.8)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.42)
0.00 C 0.00)
164.9 C 5821.)
9.30
84.
94.
1.38
104.4
7 • 98
18.02
41 64.7
32.93
1.333
4.85
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR)
0/KG FUEL (0/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
4
NYNF
297.9
32.41 C 1144.4)
0.00 C 0.00)
.04 C 1.42)
0.00 C 0.00)
161.1 C 5689.)
35.87
26.
37.
.32
32.6
2.42
6.88
957.6
10.05
.308
1.01
2.10
.25 C .18)
.85 C .39)
81.7
ENGINE
ENGINE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
NO • D 1
MODEL 78 ODA 6V—71N
7.0 1(426. CID) V—6
19
TEST NO.D1—1
DATE 4/21/83
T I ME
DYNO NO. 3
RUN1
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW Sb. CU. METRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—62. PCT , CVS—49. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 13.5 GM/KG( 94.6 GRAINS/LB)
1
NOX HUMIDITY C,F. 1.0000
KC
HC
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
15.8/12/
10.1/ 1/
32.
10.
22.5/12/
10.0/ 1/
45.
TO.
46.4/12/
10.0/ 1/
10.
10.4/ 1/
10.
CO
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
35.4/13/
33.
48.2/13/
45.
47.6/12/
100.
40.7/13/
38.
CO
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.5/13/
0.
9.1/13/
8.
1.1/12/
2.
.4/13/
CO2
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
85.8/12/
.38
67.0/11/
.58
77.7/ 3/
1.42
83.8/12/
12.6/12/
.37
.04
C02
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
12.8/12/
.04
7.4/11/
.04
3.1/ 3/
.05
NOX
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
33.4/ 2/
33.
43.8/ 2/
44.
34.9/ 3/
105.
33.0/ 2/
2/
0.
NOX
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.5/ 2/
1.
.6/ 2/
1.
.1/ 3/
0.
PPM
PPM
PCI
PPM
BSHC 0/Kw HR (G/HP HR)
BS O G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
BSGO2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC 1 (0 1KW HR (18/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
.70)
1.35)
1.99
5.84
976.01
10.00
.313
TOTAL
BS HC
BS CO
BSCO2
BSNOX
BSFC
1.48)
4.35)
727.81)
7.46)
.515)
2.94)
6.51)
1 • 12)
2.17)
1.53)
3.17)
730.26)
6.18)
.516)
2.05
4.25
979.29
8.29
.314
KW HR (HP HR)
0/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
0/KW HR (0/HP HR)
KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
8.49 C
1.85
4.44
906.
7.83 C
.290 C
.68)
1.35)
1.64
3.71
857.90
6.78
.275
11.38)
1.38)
3.31)
676.)
5.84)
.477)
C 1.23)
2.77)
C 639.73)
5.06)
C .451)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
2.40
6.84
951.21
9.98
.306
1.79)
5.10)
709.31)
7.44)
.504)
-------
TABLE c—4. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H—TRANS.
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05—6619—007
BAROMETER 733.04 MM HG(28.86 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.0 DEG F)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—64. PCI , CVS—50. PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 14.1 GM/KG( 99.0 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1,0000
2.80
.33 C .25)
1.13 ( .51)
84 • 0
ENGINE
NO.01
TEST NO.D1—2 RUN1
ENGINE
MODEL
78
DDA
6V—7IN
DATE
4/21/83
ENGINE
7.0 L(426.
CID)
V—6
TIME
CVS NO.
19
DYNO
NO. 3
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRI PT ION
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCEM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
NYN F
296.1
32.09 C 1133.2)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.04 C 1.40)
0.00 C 0.00)
158.6 C 5599.)
U i
2
3
LANF
LAF
NYNF
300.1
305.0
298.0
32.10 C 1133.6)
32.09 C 1133.2)
32.10 ( 1133.5)
0.00 C 0.0)
0.00 C 0.0)
0.00 C 0.00)
.04 C 1.40)
.04 ( 1.40)
.04 ( 1.40)
0.00 C 0.00)
0.00 C 0.00)
0.00 ( 0.00)
160.8 ( 5677.)
163.3 ( 5768.)
159.6 C 5637.)
23.7/12/ 47.
48.0/12/ 96.
18.5/12/ 37.
10.0/ 1/ 10.
10.2/ 1/ 10.
11.8/ 1/ 12.
50.7/13/ 48.
50.5/12/ 107.
37.2/13/ 34.
1.1/13/ 1.
1.4/12/ 3.
5.3/13/ 5.
67.7/11/ .58
78.6/ 3/ 1.44
84.7/12/ .37
7.1/11/ .04
3.1/ 3/ .05
14.0/12/ .05
44.0/ 2/ 44.
33.5/ 3/ 101.
32.6/ 2/ 33.
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE NETER/RANGE/PCT
O2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
16.8/12/
9.0/ 1/
36.7/13/
1.3/13/
84.9/12/
11.9/12/
32.6/ 2/
.6/ 2/
34.
9.
34.
1.
.37
.04
33.
1.
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION POT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
35.33
25.
32.
.33
32.0
22.57
38.
46.
.54
43.3
9.17
87.
100.
1.40
99.7
35.40
25.
29.
.32
31.4
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
c02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
2.28
5.92
967.9
9 71
.311 (
.96 C
3.51
8.54
1600.6
13.32
.513 C
1.63 (
8.19
19.05
4182.2
31.14
1.339 C
4.87 C
2.34
5.41
949.6
9.60
.305
1.01 C
.69)
1 • 29)
1.13)
2.18)
1.77)
4.59)
750.34)
7.53)
532)
2.95)
6.53)
2.16
5.25
984.59
8.20
.316
1.61)
3.92)
734.21)
6. 11)
.519)
BSHC 0 1KW HR (0/HP HR)
2.37 (
1.68
BSCO 01KW HR (0/HP HR)
6.16 (
3.91
BSCO2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
1006.22 C
858.86
BSNOX 0 1KW HR CG/HP HR)
10.09 C
6.40
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
.323 C
.275
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
PARTICULATE RESULTS,
TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
8.47 ( 11.36)
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
GRAMS/TEST
BSHC G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
1.93 ( 1.44)
G/KWHRCG/HPHR)
BS O G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
4.59 C 3.43)
G/KG FUEL (0/LB
FUEL)
BSOO2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
909. C 678.)
FILTER EFF.
BSNOX 0 1KW HR (G/HP HR)
7.53 C 5.61)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
.291 ( .479)
.67)
1.36)
1.25)
2.92)
640.45)
4.77)
.452)
2.31
5.34
936.35
9.46
.301
1.72)
3.98)
C 698.24)
7.06)
.495)
-------
BAROMETER 735.84 MM HG(28.97 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEG C(78.O DEG F)
TABLE c—S ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
BUS CYCLE
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05—6619—007
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
O2 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
O2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
274.0
32.50 ( 1147.5)
0.00 ( 0.0)
.04 C 1.44)
0.00 C 0.00)
148.6 C 5247.)
30.34
26.
21.
.39
35.2
2.21
3 • 60
1071.2
10.01
.342 (
1.09
2
288 • 0
32.48 C 1147.0)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 ( 1.44)
0.00 C 0.00)
156.1 ( 5512.)
23.05
27.
51.
.53
46.9
2.47
9.33
1507.8
14.01
.484
1.74
3
273.0
32.50 C 1147.6)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.44)
0.00 C 0.00)
148.1 C 5228.)
30.64
27.
19.
.39
35.3
2.32
3 • 36
1062 • 8
10.00
.340
1.10
GRAMS IT EST
G/KWHR C G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (GlIB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
.81
.21 C .15)
.70 C .32)
72 • 8
ENGINE
ENGINE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
NO.D1
MODEL 78 ODA 6V—71N
7.0 L(426. CID) V—6
19
TEST NO.D1—1
DATE 4/21/83
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
RUN1
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 2OX20 RATE SCMM (SCFH)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW SID. CU. METRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—66. PCI , CVS—49. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 14.0 GM/KG( 97.7 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
16.7/12/
33.
17.6/12/
35.
17.5/12/
35.
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
7.8/ 1/
8.
8.0/ 1/
8.
8.0/ 1/
8.
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
24.2/13/
22.
57.4/13/
55.
23.4/13/
21.
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.9/13/
1.
2.3/13/
2.
1.6/13/
1.
c O2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
95.4/12/
.44
66.7/11/
.57
94.7/12/
.43
?
‘
G02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
12.9/12/
35.7/ 2/
.5/ 2/
.04
36.
1.
7.8/11/
47.5/ 2/
.6/ 2/
.05
48.
1.
12.1/12/
35.9/ 2/
.6/ 2/
.04
36.
1.
BSHC G/KW HR CG/HP HR)
BSCO G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
BS O2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
.75)
1.46)
1.51)
2.46)
733.67)
6.85)
5 17)
2.03 C
3.31 (
983.87 (
9.19 (
.315 C
TOTAL
BS HC
BS CO
BS O2
BSNOX
BSFC
1.07)
2.34)
1.06)
3.99)
644.37)
5.99)
.456)
1.42
5.35
864.12
8.03
.277
KW HR (HP HR)
01KW HR (S/HP HR)
G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
G/KW HR (S/HP HR)
KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
3.93
1.78
4.14 C
927, (
8.66 C
.297 C
.75)
1.47)
1.58)
2.28)
722.96)
6.80)
.510)
2.12
3.06
969.51
9.12
.310
5.27)
1.33)
3.09)
691.)
6.45)
.488)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
-------
TABLE C—6. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
BUS CYCLE
TEST NOD 1—2 RUN1
DATE 4/21/83
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
PROJECT NO. 05—6619—007
BAROMETER 732.54 P’ 4 HG(28,84 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.7 DEG C(80.0 DEG F)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—60. PCI , CVS—54, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 13.7 GM/KG( 95.9 GRAINS/IB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
274,0
32.16 C 1135.5)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.43)
0.00 C 0.00)
147.0 C 5192.)
2
288.0
32.18 C 1136.2)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 ( 1.43)
0.00 C 0.00)
154.6 C 5460.)
3
273.0
32.16 ( 1135.6)
0.00 C 0.0)
.04 C 1.43)
0.00 C 0.00)
146.5 C 5173,)
PARTICULATE RESULTS, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90MM PARTICULATE RATES
ENGINE
ENGINE
E MG I NE
CVS NO.
NO.D1
MODEL 78 DDA 6V—7 IN
1.0 1(426. CID) Y—6
19
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMN (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM CSCFM)
TOT. 90MM RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTAL FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
DIESEL EM—400—F
BAG CART NO. 1
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
18,6/12/
37,
18,9/12/
38.
18.8/12/
38.
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
9.4/ 1/
9.
9.6/ 1/
10.
9.6/ 1/
10.
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
23.5/13/
21.
58.2/13/
56.
22.6/13/
21.
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.4/13/
0.
.6/13/
1.
3.9/13/
4.
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
94.8/12/
.43
66.7/11/
.57
94.5/12/
.43
O2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
11.7/12/
.04
7.0/11/
.04
12.1/12/
.04
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
35.6/ 2/
36.
47,5/ 2/
48.
35.8/ 2/
36.
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.7/ 2/
1.
.9/ 2/
1,
1,2/ 2/
1,
DILUTION FACTOR
30.58
23.04
30.71
HC CONCENTRATION
PPM
28.
29.
28.
CO CONCENTRATION
PPM
21.
54.
17.
CO2 CONCENTRATION
PCI
.39
.53
.39
NOX CONCENTRATION
PPM
34 .9
46.6
34.6
HC MASS GRAMS
2.37
2.54
2.39
CO MASS GRAMS
3.52
9.63
2.86
c02 MASS GRAMS
1060.8
1507.3
1048.3
NOX MASS GRAMS
9.82
13.79
9.71
FUEL KG (LA)
.339 C
.484 C
.335 C
KW I (HP HR)
1.08 C
1.74 C
1.08 C
.75)
1.45)
1.07)
2.33)
BSHC G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
2.20
BS O G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
3.26
BSCO2 G/KW HR (G/HP HR)
981.10
BSNOX G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
9.08
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
.314
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP HR)
3.90
(
5.23)
BSI-IC 01KW HR (G/HP I -fR)
1.87
(
1.40)
BSCO G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
4.11
(
3.06)
BSCO2 G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
927.
C
691.)
BSNOX 01KW HR (0/HP HR)
8.54
C
6.37)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
.297
C
.488)
C 1.64)
C 2.43)
C 731.61)
6.77)
.516)
1.46
5.54
867.50
7.94
.278
•74)
1.45)
C 1.09)
C 4.13)
C 646.89)
C 5.92)
C .458)
2.21 C
2.64 (
969.47
8.98 C
.310 C
1.65)
1.97)
722.93)
6.69)
.509)
GRAMS/TEST
G/KWHR (G/HPHR)
G/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
FILTER EFF.
.83
.21 C .16)
.71 C .32)
72.2
-------
APPENDIX D
CHASSIS TEST RESULTS FROM GMC RTS-II
COACH WITHOUT TRAP
-------
TABLE D-1.
CFTP VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05—6855—001
TEST NO. 3831 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 80 DDAD 6V71
ENGINE 7.0 L( 426. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16329. KG(36000. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 3—8
DATE 5/19/83
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 12837. KG(28300. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
DIESEL EM—455—F
ODOMETER 259722. KM(161384. MILES)
BAROMETER 738.12 MM HG(29.06 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 45, PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRI PT ION
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76 .,0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 8.9 GM/KG
NYNF
2
LANF
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
NYNF
.94
HC
CO
O2
NOX
254.0
193.14 ( 6819.8)
10.81 (381.6)
.07 ( 2.30)
863.7 C 30496.)
16. 3/21/
8.81 1/
51. 8112/
.5/12/
72. 2/13/
20.2/13/
31,3/ 1/
.9/ 1/
83. 94
4.
108.
.11
9.0
1.90
108.14
1761.7
14.10
612.3
.77 (
98.46
2.47 C 3.98)
140,70 (226.38)
2292.1 (3688.0)
18.35 (29.52)
285.0
193.14 ( 6819.8)
10.81 (381.6)
.07 ( 2.30)
969.1 C 34218.)
19.1/21/ 10.
8.4/ 1/ 4.
56.1/12/ 121.
.7/12/ 1.
84.7/13/ .18
20,3/13/ .04
39.2/ 1/ 12.
1.0/ 1/ 0.
69. 92
5.
118.
.14
11.4
3.02
132.98
2521.4
19.88
865. 7
1.84 C 1.14)
58.11 C 4.05)
1.64 C 2.64)
72.22 (116.20)
1369.3 (2203.2)
10.80 (17,37)
267.0
193.19 ( 6821.4)
10.81 (381.6)
.07 ( 2.30)
908. 1 C 32064.)
36.6/21/ 18.
8.0/ 1/ 4.
90.2/12/ 222.
1.0/12/ 2.
89.8/12/ .40
11.4/12/ .04
97.0/ 1/ 29.
1.4/ 1/ 0.
31 • 53
14.
215.
36
28.5
7.55
227. 52
6054.3
46.63
2033. 5
4.36 C 2.71)
57.67 ( 4.08)
1.73 ( 2.79)
52.20 ( 83.99)
1389.1 (2235.1)
10.70 (17.21)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
254.0
193.10 ( 6818,2)
10.81 (381.6)
.07 ( 2.30)
863.5 C 30489.)
14. 4/2 1/
7.5/ 1/
73. 0/13/
.7/13/
61. 6/13/
20.2/13/
26.8/ 1/
1.0/ 1/
101.81
3.
70.
.09
7.7
1 • 74
69.95
1379.1
11 • 97
472.2
.86 C
67.70 C
45.223
11.35
5.78
9.29
2.01 C 3.24)
81.13 (130.54)
1599.5 (2573.6)
13.88 (22.33)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATiON PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
002 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS. OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
8.
4.
110.
.15
• 04
9.
0.
.48)
2.39)
7.
4.
.12
• 04
8.
0.
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MILE)
(GRAMS/MILE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
.54)
3.47)
CFTP COMPOSITE RESULTS
1,81 ( 2.92)
68.78 (110.67)
1496.25 (2407.47)
11.82 (19.02)
7.83 1
3.984
62.88
( 4.87)
( 8.784)
( 3.74)
FILTER EFF. 98.83
-------
TEST NO. 3832 RUN
VEHICLE MODEL 80 ODAD 6V71
ENGINE 7.0 L( 426. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16329. KG(36000. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 3—8
DATE 5/20/83
BAG CART NO. 1
DYMO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
FIYNF
254.0
191.31 ( 6755.1)
9.59 (338.5)
.03 ( .99)
850.6 ( 30034.)
5.
134.
.12
9. 3
2.30
132.63
1883.7
16.62
663.4
.76 (
107.64
2
LANF
285.0
191.25 ( 6753.0)
9.59 (338.5)
.03 ( .99)
954. 1 ( 33689.)
22. 1/21/
10.6/ 1/
60. 9/12/
1.2/12/
90. 4/13/
24.1/13/
40.2/ 1/
2.3/ 1/
64.30
6.
128.
.15
11.3
3.20
142.64
2623.4
22. 50
902.9
1.85 ( 1.15)
60.18 ( 3.91)
3
LAF
267.0
191.32 ( 6755.5)
9.59 (338.5)
.03 ( .99)
894.1 ( 31572.)
15.
227.
.37
26.8
7.65
236.37
6083. 3
50.08
2047.2
5.20 ( 3.23)
48.69 ( 4.83)
4
NYNF
254.0
191.24 ( 6752.8)
9.59 (338.5)
.03 C .99)
850.3 ( 30024.)
4.
79.
.09
7. 8
1.92
78. 13
1454.0
13.92
500. 1
.86 (
71.99
C FT P
1 • 14
68.01
1388.87
11.89
COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.80)
(109.43)
(2234. 69)
(19. 13)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
44 • 478
10.81
5.13
8.25
TABLE D—2.
CFTP VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05—6855—001
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 13.3 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 12837. KG(28300. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
DIESEL EM—455—F
ODOMETER 259722. KM(161384. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.09
BAROMETER 735.58 MM HG(28.96 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 67. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRI PT ION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
Co CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
19. 7/2 1/
10.5/ 1/
62.9/12/
1.1/12/
7 9. 4/13/
24. 2/13/
33.4/ 1/
2.0/ 1/
74.49
10.
5.
1 39.
2.
.17
• 04
10.
1.
.47)
2.19)
5.
10.8/ 1/
5.
11.0/ 1/
6.
134.
94,7/12/
237.
83.2/13/
83.
2.
1.8/12/
3.
2.1/13/
2.
.19
92.2/12/
.42
67.9/13/
.14
.04
13.5/12/
.05
24.3/13/
.05
12.
92.9/ 1/
28.
28.9/ 1/
9.
1.
2.9/ 1/
30.37
1.
2.6/ 1/
91.12
1.
3.02 ( 4.85)
174.12 (280.15)
2473 O (3979.1)
21.82 (35.10)
1.73 ( 2.78)
76.92 (123.76)
1414.7 (2276.2)
12.13 (19.52)
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.47 ( 2.37)
45.48 ( 73.18)
1170.5 (1883.3)
9.64 (15.50)
.53)
3.27)
3.60)
(146.40)
(2724.3)
(26. 08)
2.24
90.99
1693. 2
16.21
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
8.672 ( 5.39)
4.114 C 9.071)
58.63 ( 4.01)
FILTER EFF. 99.54
-------
TABLE D-3. HFP
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05—5855—001
TEST NO. 3831
VEHICLE MODEL
ENGINE 7.0 L(
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16329. KG(36000. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 3—8
DATE 5/19/83
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 12837. KG(28300. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
DIESEL EM—455—F
ODOMETER 259722. KM(161384. MILES)
NC
CO
CO 2
NOX
NYNF
254.0
191.63 ( 6766.5)
9.62 (339.8)
.06 ( 2.29)
852.2 ( 30093.)
4.
81.
.10
8 5
1.95
80. 52
1513.8
13.53
520. 3
.86 (
74.58
2.26 ( 3.64)
93.39 (150.27)
1755.8 (2825.1)
15.69 (25.24)
2
LANF
285.0
191.61 C 6765.8)
9.62 (339.8)
.06 C 2.29)
956.2 ( 33762.)
17. 6/2 1/
7.8/ 1/
4 7. 6/12/
.5/12/
80. 7/13/
20.6/13/
36.6/ 1/
1.2/ 1/
74.76
5.
97.
.13
10.5
2.73
108.21
2297.7
18.85
782.5
1.87 C 1.16)
51.73 ( 4.55)
1.46 C 2.35)
57.88 C 93.13)
1229.0 (1977.5)
10,08 (16.22)
HFTP COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.45 C 2.34)
51.20 ( 82.37)
1156.25 (1860.40)
9.75 (15.68)
3
LAF
267. 0
191.65 C 6767.3)
9.62 (339.8)
.06 ( 2.29)
896.0 ( 31637.)
13.
189.
.31
24.9
6.60
196.64
5047. 1
41.82
1699.0
5.21 C 3.24)
40.32 ( 5.83)
1.27 C 2.04)
37.76 ( 60.75)
969.1 (1559.2)
8.03 (12.92)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
4
NYNF
254 • 0
191.59 ( 6764.9)
9.62 (339.8)
.06 C 2.29)
852. 1 ( 30086.)
14. 5/21/
8.5/ 1/
69. 5/13/
1.5/13/
59. 9/13/
20. 2/13/
25.5/ 1/
1.4/ 1/
105.11
36. 988
10.73
4.21
6.77
3.
65.
.08
7.2
1.50
64. 53
1302.1
11.44
445.0
.85 C
64.88
1.77 ( 2.84)
76.12 (122.48)
1535.9 (2471.3)
13.49 (21.71)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG CLB)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
8.788 C 5.46)
3.447 ( 7.600)
48.48 C 4.85)
FILTER EFF.
97. 72
RUN 1
80 ODAD 6V71
426. CID) V—6
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG C(77.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.0 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
BAROMETER 737.87 MM HG(29.05 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 49. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
RUN TINE SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X2O RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTiON FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
t4OX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
.98
15, 4/2 1/
7.5/ 1/
85. 1/13/
2.5/13/
6 6. 3/13/
20.6/13/
29.7/ 1/
1.2/ 1/
93.37
9.
33.4/21/
17.
4.
8.1/ 1/
4.
100.
81.8/12/
195.
1.
1.0/12/
2.
.17
80.0/12/
.34
.04
11.3/12/
.04
11.
85.5/ 1/
25.
0.
1.7/ 1/
36.66
0.
8.
4.
85.
2.
.13
• 04
9.
0.
.54)
3.15)
7.
4.
68.
.
04
8.
0.
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
HC
CO
C02
NOX
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
(GRAMS/MILE)
(GRAMS/MILE)
(GRAMS/NILE)
• 53)
3.63)
-------
TABLE D-4.HFTP
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05—6855—001
TEST NO. 3832 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 80 DDAD 6V71
ENGINE 7.0 L( 426. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW16329. KG(36000. LBS)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/JOOKM (MPG)
VEHICLE NO. 3—8
DATE 5/20/83
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
NYNF
254.0
191.51 C 6762.0)
9.60 (338.8)
.03 C 1.01)
851.4 C 30065.)
4.
83.
.10
8.0
1.98
82.39
1504.1
14.44
518. 1
.84 C
76.23 C
2
LANF
285.0
191.49 ( 6761.5)
9.60 (338.8)
.03 ( 1.01)
955.3 ( 33731.)
5.
103.
.13
10.3
2.98
114.79
2293.5
20.82
784.7
1.90 ( 1.18)
50.98 ( 4.61)
HFTP COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.58 C 2.55)
51.01 ( 82.07)
1144.13 (1840.91)
10.08 (16.22)
3
LAF
267.0
191.53 C 6762.8)
9.60 (338.8)
.03 ( 1.01)
895.1 ( 31607.)
38. 1/21/
11.3/ 1/
81. 8/12/
1.4/12/
84. 8/12/
13. 8/12/
81.2/ 1/
3.1/ 1/
34. 11
14.
186.
.33
23.3
7.00
194.25
5346. 6
43.91
1792.8
5.26 C 3.27)
42.12 ( 5.59)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
4
NYNE
254.0
191.47 C 6760.8)
9.60 (338.8)
.03 ( 1.01)
851.3 C 30059.)
4.
62.
.06
5. 7
2.10
61.36
1012.4
10.32
352. 5
.87 (
49.89
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 13.5 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 12837. KG(28300. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
DIESEL EM—455—F
ODOMETER 259722. KM(161384. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTiON FACTOR 1.10
18. 9/2 1/
11.0/ 1/
86. 6/13/
1.5/13/
70. 1/13/
25. 3/13/
29.4/ 1/
2.4/ 1/
87.88
BAROMETER 735.08 MM HG(28.94 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 70. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRI PT ION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT• 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
CO2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
U ’ co CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
MC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
MC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
2 1. 8/2 1/
11.1/ 1/
50.7/12/
.9/12/
84. 1/13/
25. 1/13/
37.1/ 1/
2.4/ 1/
70. 98
11.
6.
108.
2.
.18
.05
11.
9.
6.
87.
1.
.14
.05
9.
1.
• 52)
3.09)
6.
11.4/ 1/
6.
195.
67.1/13/
65.
3.
1.7/13/
2.
.37
54.5/13/
.11
.05
23.6/13/
.04
24.
22.2/ 1/
7.
1.
2.9/ 1/
115.86
1.
2.36
98.06
1790.2
17.18
3.79)
(157.78)
(2880.5)
(27. 65)
1.57 ( 2.52)
60.33 C 97.08)
1205.5 (1939.6)
10.94 (17.61)
(GRAMS/MILE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
1.33 C 2.14)
36.92 ( 59.41)
1016.2 (1635.1)
8.35 (13.43)
.54)
4.72)
3.86)
(113.07)
(1865.5)
(19.02)
2.40
70. 28
1159.4
11.82
8.8 77
3.448
48.01
5.52)
C 7.603)
( 4.90)
38. 077
11.04
4.29
6.90
FILTER EFF. 96.30
-------
TABLE D-5.
BUS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05—6855—001
TEST NO. 3831 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 80 DDAD 6V71
ENGINE 7.0 L( 426. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16329. KG(36000. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 3—8
DATE 5/19/83
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 12837. KG(28300. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
DIESEL EM—455—F
ODOMETER 259722. KM(161384, MILES)
BAROMETER 737.11 MM HG(29.02 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 52. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.3 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.99
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFN)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
c O2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
MC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1193. 0
191.26 ( 6753.5)
9.63 (340.1)
.07 ( 2.39)
3995.8 (141093.)
5.
80.
.09
7.7
11.18
373.90
6823.9
57.89
2353.0
4.81 C 2.99)
60.51 ( 3.89)
2.33 C 3,74)
77.79 (125.17)
1419.8 (2284.4)
12.04 (19.38)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAM S/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
29. 261
12.44
6.09
9.80
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
4.806 ( 2.99)
2.353 ( 5.188)
60.51 ( 3.89)
HC
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
17.6/21/
9.
HC
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
8.0/ 1/
4.
CO
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
83.2/13/
83.
CO
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.9/13/
1.
C02
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
64,3/13/
.13
C02
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
20.2/13/
.04
NOX
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
26.8/ 1/
8.
NOX
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
1.0/ 1/
0.
DILUTION FACTOR
96.47
0•1
BUS
COMPOSITE RESULTS
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
2.33
( 3.74)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
77.79
(125.17)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1419.77
(2284.41)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
12.04
(19.38)
FILTER EFF. 98.07
-------
TABLE D-6.
BUS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05—6855—001
TEST NO. 3832 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 80 DDAD 6V71
ENGINE 7.0 L( 426. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16329, KG(36000. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 3—8
DATE 5/20/83
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 12837. KC(28300. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
DIESEL EM—455—F
ODOMETER 259722. KM( 61384. MILES)
BAROMETER 733.55 MM HG(28.88 IN HG)
RELATIVE HIJ4IDITY 74. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 14.4 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.14
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
O2 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
MC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/N I LE)
1189.8
191.08 C 6747.1)
9.54 (336.8)
.03 ( 1.03)
3978.8 (140493.)
5.
84.
.10
7.6
10.39
387.81
7187.2
65.93
2473.9
4.77 ( 2.96)
64.17 ( 3.67)
2.18 ( 3.51)
81.39 (130,95)
1508.3 (2426.9)
13.84 (22.26)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/NI LE
30. 197
12.21
6.34
10.20
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/ 100KM (MPG)
4.765 ( 2.96)
2.474 ( 5.455)
64.17 C 3.67)
HC
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
19.9/21/
10.
MC
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
11.0/ 1/
6.
CO
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
87.4/13/
88.
CO
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
1.7/13/
2.
C02
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
69.5/13/
.14
C02
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
23.5/13/
.04
NOX
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
27.7/ 1/
8.
NOX
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
2.1/ 1/
1.
DILUTION FACTOR
88.61
-4
HC
CO
C02
NOX
BUS COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.18 ( 3,51)
81.39 (130.95)
1508.32 (2426.88)
13.84 (22.26)
FILTER EFF. 98.76
-------
APPENDIX E
CHASSIS TEST RESULTS FROM GMC RTS-II
COACH WITH TRAP
-------
TABLE E-1. CFTP
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05—6855—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 80 DDAD 6V71
ENGINE 7.0 Ic 426. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A-3
GVW16329. KG(36000. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 356
DATE 5/16/83
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 12837. KG(28300. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
DIESEL EM—455—F
BAROMETER 742.19 MM HG(29,22 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 46. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG C(73.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 8.2 GM/KG
NYNF
2
LANF
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
MYN F
.92
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
254 • 0
195.99 ( 6920.3)
10.95 (386.6)
.12 C 4.40)
876.6 C 30951.)
285.0
195.94 ( 6918.6)
10.95 (386.6)
.12 C 4.40)
983.3 ( 34721.)
267.0
195.90 ( 6917.3)
10.95 (386.6)
.12 C 4.40)
921.0 C 32522.)
254.0
195.87 ( 6916.2)
10.95 (386.6)
.12 ( 4.40)
876.1 C 30934.)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
CO2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
76.90
2.
105.
.12
8.8
1.00
107.11
1851.5
13.62
639.2
.74 C .46)
107.11 C 2.20)
4.
117.
.14
11.1
2.14
133.81
2519.0
19.33
864.5
1.83 C 1.13)
58.51 ( 4.02)
10.
195.
.34
29.4
5.06
209.62
5796.0
47.86
1940.5
5.10 ( 3.17)
47.04 ( 5.00)
2.
57.
.08
7.0
1 • 15
58.09
1299.1
10.86
440.5
.87 C
62.85 C
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAM S/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
5 • 002
1.29
.59
.94
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
8.529 C 5.30)
3.885 C 8.566)
56.30 C 4.18)
t 1
1’.)
14,8/21/
7.
18 4/21/
9,
29.7/21/
15.
15.4/21/
8,
11.0/ 1/
6.
11.0/ 1/
6.
11.0/ 1/
6.
11.0/ 1/
6.
54. 1/12/
116.
59.3/12/
130.
89.3/12/
219.
72.8/13/
71.
5.0/12/
9.
5.7/12/
11.
10.2/12/
19.
14.7/13/
13.
78.1/13/
.16
89.0/13/
.19
91.2/12/
.41
68.0/13/
.14
25.4/13/
.05
27.3/13/
.05
19.6/12/
.07
30.6/13/
.06
33.1/ 1/
10.
41.9/ 1/
12.
32.0/ 2/
32.
29.3/ 1/
9.
3.6/ 1/
1.
4.6/ 1/
65.69
1.
2.7/ 2/
30.95
3.
5.8/ 1/
91.76
2.
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
002 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
002 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1.35
145.21
2510.0
18.47
C 2.17)
(233.65)
(4038 • 5)
(29.72)
1.17 ( 1.89)
73.27 (117.89)
1379.4 (2219.4)
10.58 (17.03)
CFTP
COMPOSITE RESULTS
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.10
C 1.76)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
59.64
( 95.95)
002
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1344.32
(2163.01)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
10.75
(17.29)
.54)
3.74)
.99 ( 1.60)
41.11 C 66.15)
1136.7 (1829.0)
9.39 (15.10)
1.32 ( 2.13)
67.05 (107.89)
1499.6 (2412.9)
12.53 (20.17)
FILTER EFF. 79.94
-------
TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL
ENGINE 7.0 L(
TRAN9.IISSION A—3
GVW16329. KG(36000. LBS)
9i
( )
MC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/Pp14
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/ppM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/pcT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
VEHICLE NO. 356
DATE 5/16/83
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
NYNF
254.0
195.82 ( 6914.4)
10.93 (385.8)
.12 ( 4.27)
875.7 ( 30922.)
14. 5/2 1/
11.0/ 1/
73.4/13/
8 • 1 / 13/
6 5.3/13/
25. 1/13/
28.7/ 1/
3.4/ 1/
95.77
2.
63.
.09
7.5
.92
64.50
1377.2
12.92
468. 1
.82
70.60
2
LAN F
285.0
195.80 ( 6913.7)
10.93 (385.8)
.12 ( 4.27)
982.5 ( 34693.)
4.
79.
.12
9.8
2.09
90.82
2105.3
18.80
712.4
1.83 ( 1.14)
48.13 C 4.89)
3
LAF
267.0
195.81 ( 6914.2)
10.93 (385.8)
.12 C 4.27)
920.5 ( 32504.)
9.
150.
.32
28. 1
4.80
161.02
5388.0
50.60
1787.2
5.19 C 3.23)
42.57 ( 5.53)
4
NYN F
254.0
195 73 C 6911.2)
10.93 (385.8)
.12 ( 4.27)
875.4 C 30909.)
2.
51.
.08
7.0
.99
51.56
1225.4
12.00
413.8
.86
59.75
8.695 ( 5.40)
3.381 C 7.456)
48.07 ( 4.89)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
2.671
.79
.31
.49
TABLE E-2.
RUN 1
80 DDAD 6V71
426. CID) V—6
HFTP VEHiCLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05—6855—001
BAROMETER 741.68 MM HG(29.20 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 56. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG C(77.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.4 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 12837. KG(28300. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
DIESEL EM—455—F
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.02
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
6.
28.7/21/
14.
14.8/21/
72.
1/
6.
11.0/ 1/
6.
11.0/ 1/
7.
89.3/13/
90.
73.6/12/
170.
63.5/13/
.13
9.6/13/
9.
8.4/12/
16.
10.6/13/
.05
80.3/13/
.17
87.1/12/
.39
63.6/13/
9.
27.3/13/
.05
19.4/12/
.07
27.9/13/
1.
37.1/ 1/
4.3/ 1/
11.
1.
30.7/ 2/
2.7/ 2/
31.
3.
28.4/ 1/
4.9/ 1/
MC
CO
CO 2
NOX
.51)
3.33)
7.
6.
61.
10.
.13
.05
8.
.
.53)
3.94)
1.85)
( 96.92)
(2303.4)
(22. 57)
1.12 ( 1.80)
78.70 (126.63)
1680.4 (2703.8)
15.77 (25.37)
1.14
49.64
1150.6
10.28
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.84)
79.86)
1851.4)
16. 53)
.92 ( 1.49)
31.03 ( 49.92)
1038.2 (1670.5)
9.75 (15.69)
HFTP COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.01 C 1.63)
42.31 C 68.08)
1161.14 (1868.27)
10.85 (17.46)
1.15
60.24
1431.6
14.02
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
FILTER EFF. 76.72
-------
TABLE E-3.
NY BUS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05—6855—001
TEST NO. I RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 80 DOAD 6V71
ENGINE 7.0 L( 426. CID) V—6
TRAN94ISSION A—3
GVW16329. KG(36000. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 356
DATE 5/16/83
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 12837. KG(28300. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
DIESEL EM—455—F
BAROMETER 740.41 MM HG(29 .15 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 40. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEG C(78.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 8.4 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.93
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
NY BUS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
t O2 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
I O2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1193.8
194.79 C 6878.2)
10,82 (381,9)
.12 C 4.34)
4093.4 (144538.)
3.
65.
.09
7.3
6.91
310.01
6560 • 7
53.26
2233.8
4.69 C 2.92)
58.83 C 4.00)
1.47 C 2.37)
66.05 (106.27)
1397.8 (2249.1)
11.35 (18.26)
NY BUS
1.47
66.05
1397.82
11.35
COMPOSITE RESULTS
C 2.37)
(106.27)
(2249.09)
(18.26)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAM S/TE ST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
2.039
.91
.43
.70
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
4.694 C 2.92)
2.234 ( 4.926)
58.83 C 4.00)
FILTER EFF.
78.35
HC
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/PPM
13.3/21/
7.
HC
BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
7.5/ 1/
4.
CO
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/PPM
71.3/13/
70.
CO
BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
3.9/13/
4.
C02
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/PCT
63.4/13/
.13
C02
BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PCI
22.1/13/
.04
NOX
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/PPM
26.8/ 1/
8.
NOX
BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
2.2/ 1/
1.
DILUTION FACTOR
98.97
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read 1,j wuctf on: on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA 460/3—84—015
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSIO NO.
4. TiTLE ANDSUBTITLE
EMISSION CHARACTERIZATION OF A 2-STROKE HEAVY-DUTY
DIESEL COACH ENGINE AND VEHICLE WITH AND WITHOUT A
PARTICULATE TRAP
5. REPORT DATE
March 1985
6.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Terry L. Ullman
Charles T. Hare
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORG NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
Department of Emissions Research
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68—03—3073
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
‘inal (4—20—82 to 5—28—83)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. AbSTKAcT
Diesel soot or smoke has been regarded as a nuisance pollutant and potential
health hazard, especially in congested urban areas where diesel buses operate.
Exhaust emissions from a DDAD 6V—71 coach engine and a similarly—powered 1980
GMC RTS—II coach, fitted with a non—catalyzed particulate trap, were characterized
over various Federal Test Procedures for heavy—duty engines, including an experi-
mental test cycle for buses. Regeneration was accomplished using an in—line
burner in the exhaust to raise the engines’ idle exhaust gas temperature from
120 to 700°C. Trap testing included approximately 15 hours of engine operation
and 100 miles of bus operation. particulate emissions were reduced by an
average of 79 percent and smoke emissions were nil using the trap. The effect
of the trap on regulated and other unregulated emissions was generally minimal
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI Field/Group
Exhaust Emissions
Coach Emissions
Bus Emissions
Heavy—Duty Diesel Bus Engines
Particulate Trap
Particulate
Reduction
Emissions Characterizatio
1 DISTR BUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
137
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220.1 (9 73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
B. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approvcl, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author’s affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma•
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example “Release Unlimited.” Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220.1 (9-73) (Ruverse)
------- |