United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
EPA 460/3-85-001
March 1985
cxEPA
Air
Emissions Characterization of
Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline
Engines and Vehicles
-------
EPA 460/3-85-001
Emissions Characterization of Heavy-Duty
Diesel and Gasoline Engines and Vehicles
by
Terry L. Ullman
Charles T. Hare
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68-03-2706
EPA Project Officer: 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
May 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
Contract No. 68-03-2706. 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. 460/3-85-001
U
-------
FOREWORD
This report is based on work initiated by EPA Contract No. 68-03-2706,
received by Southwest Research Institute on September 20, 1978. This contract
was for “Emissions Characterization of Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Engines
and Vehicles.” The work was identified within SwRI as Project No. 03-5428-
001. The experimental work completed under this contract was performed
intermittently from September 20, 1978 to December 20, 1984. Work over this
time span included experiments with water injection into a heavy-duty diesel
engine to investigate the effect of water injection on emissions, especially
particulate emissions. In addition, emissions from a heavy-duty gasoline engine
were characterized, primarily for investigating the soluble organic fraction of
the particulate emitted by the engine. Emissions from two engines typically
used in buses were characterized in both baseline and maladjusted
configurations in order to determine their emissions sensitivity to wear or
inadequate maintenance (baseline emissions from one of the two engines were
determined under Task No. 8 of EPA Contract No. 68-03-2884).
Contract No. 68-03-2706 was to include emissions characterization from
an advanced state-of-the-art internal combustion engine. However, no heavy-
duty engine was made available, so the remaining technical effort was
redirected to obtain emissions information on current design in-service transit
buses. Test work on these buses was completed December 20, 1984.
The Project Officer and the Technical Project Monitor for EPA’s
Technology Assessment Branch during the conduct of this program was Mr.
Thomas M. Baines. SwRI Project Director was Mr. Karl 3. Springer, and SwRI
Project Manager was Mr. Charles 1. Hare. The SwRI Project Leader and
principal investigator for the effort was Mr. Terry L. Uliman. Lead technical
personnel were Mr. Ernest M. Krueger and Mr. Jim Chessher. Over the 6 1/2
years of the program, the entire staff of the Department of Emissions Research
participated directly and indirectly. Determinations of some unregulated
emissions were conducted by EPA personnel at Research Triangle Park, namely
Dr. Ronald L. Bradow, Dr. Frank M. Black, and Dr. Robert Jungers.
We would like to express our appreciation to several engine manufacturers
and other companies listed below, for supplying test engines, test apparatus and
in some cases, technical direction and assistance.
Mack Trucks, Inc.
American Bosch - now: United Technologies Corporation
Cummins Engines, Inc.
Detroit Diesel Allison Division of General Motors
VIA Metropolitan Transit of San Antonio
Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Laboratory emissions evaluations were performed on heavy-duty diesel
and gasoline engines and vehicles. This work included experiments with water
injection into a heavy-duty diesel engine to investigate the effect of water
injection on emissions, especially particulate emissions. In addition, emissions
from a heavy-duty gasoline engine were characterized, primarily for
investigating the soluble organic fraction of the particulate emitted by the
engine. Emissions from two engines typically used in buses were characterized
in both baseline and maladjusted configurations in order to determine their
emissions sensitivity to wear or inadequate maintenance. In addition, emissions
information on three late model in-service transit buses was obtained over
various chassis test cycles.
Emissions measurements included gaseous and particulate corn ponents.
Regulated pollutants measured were total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide (as necessary for fuel consumption
calculations), visible smoke, and total particulate mass. Unregulated pollutants
measured included aldehydes, phenols, some individual (low molecular weight)
hydrocarbons, and odor index (DOAS) in exhaust gases. Analysis of particulate
matter included sulfate, elemental composition, size distribution, and total
organic soluble mass. The solubles were further analyzed by determining
boiling range, BaP, and Ames bioactivity.
Results from using water injection (unstabilized macroemulsion formed in
the injection pump) showed major reductions in particulate and NO emissions,
except during idle and light load conditions. Emissions of some species of
hydrocarbons, aldehydes and the organic fraction of the total particulate
increased during idle and light load conditions. Test work carried out on the
heavy-duty gasoline engine running at high load confirmed that BaP emissions
did exist, but that the levels emitted were low, and that they decreased with
leaner f/a ratio. Selected maladjustments of the Cummins VTB-903
substantially increased HC, smoke and particulate emission levels.
Maladjustments of the Detroit Diesel 6V-71N coach engine resulted in lower HC
and NO emission levels, but higher CO emissions, smoke, and particulate.
Emissions from the three in-service transit buses proved to be highly variable
from one bus to another. In addition, emissions from each bus were very test
cycle-sensitive.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY 3
III. EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION OF THE MACK ETAY(B) 673A
HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINE WITH AND WITHOUT WATER
IN3ECTION 11
A. Test Engine Description 11
B. General Test Notes 13
C. Results 19
IV. CONFIRMATORY EMISSIONS TEST WORK ON THE CHEVROLET 366
HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE ENGINE 37
A. Background Information and Test Engine
Description 37
B. Special Preparations and Test Fuel 38
C. Sample Acquisition and Emissions Results 39
V. EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION OF A CUMMINS VTB-903 AND A
DETROIT DIESEL 6V-71N IN BASELINE AND MALAD3USTED
CONFIGURATIONS 53
A. Test and Analytical Procedures 53
B. Emissions Characterization of the Cummins VTB-903
in Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 66
C. Emissions Characterization of a Detroit Diesel
Allison Division 6V-71N Heavy-Duty Diesel Bus Engine
in Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 89
VI. EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION OF THREE DIESEL-POWERED
CITY TRANSIT BUSES 113
A. Test Buses and Fuels 113
B. Test Procedures 114
C. Emission Results from Three GMC RTS II
Type 4 Buses 123
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
Page
LIST OF REFERENCES 141
APPENDICES
A. TEST RESULTS FROM MACK ETAY(B) 673A
B. TEST RESULTS FROM THE CUMMINS VTB-903 IN BASELINE AND
MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATIONS
C. EMISSION RESULTS FROM THE DDAD 6V-71N IN BASELINE AND
MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATIONS
D. DISCUSSION OF FILTERED AND UNFILTERED BUS CYCLE AND
EMISSION RESULTS FROM THREE GMC RTS II TYPE 4 BUSES
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Mack ETAY(B)B 673A Mounted for Steady-State
Emissions Testing 12
2 Schematic for Fuel-Water Emulsion Testing 14
3 Water Injection Fuel System Chart Mack ETAY(B) 673A 15
4 Splitter Type Dilution Tunnel System for Particulate 18
5 Particulate Modal Rates for Mack ETAY(B) 673A with
APE Pump, Run With and Without Water 24
6 Sulfate Modal Rates for MAck ETAY(B) 673A with
APE Pump, Run With and Without Water 25
7 Particle Size Distribution for Mack ETAY(B) 673A with
APE Pump, Without Water 27
S Particle Size Distribution for Mack ETAY(B) 673A with
APE Pump, With Water 28
9 Chevrolet 366 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engine Mounted for
Test Work 38
10 From 20 x 20 Inch Filter Holders Used to Obtain
Large Quantities of Particulate 39
11 Graphic Representation of Torque and Speed Commands for the
1984 Transient FTP Cycle Based on a Diesel Engine With
Rated Speed of 2200 rpm With a Peak Torque of 650 ft-lbs 56
12 Graphic Representation of Torque and Speed Commands for the
Bus Cycle Based on a Diesel Engine with Rated Speed of
2200 rpm With a Peak Torque of 650 ft-lbs 58
13 Basic Layout of Transient Cycle Heavy-Duty Diesel CVS
With Large Double Dilution Sampler for Three 20 x 20
Filters 60
14 Cummins VTB-903 Set-up for Testing in the “Maladjusted”
Configuration 66
15 Composite Gaseous Emissions of the Cummins VTB-903 in
Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 70
16 Smoke Opacities from the Cummins VTB-903 in Baseline
and Maladjusted Configurations 76
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONVD)
Figure Page
17 Particulate and Sulfate Rates from Cummins VTB-903
in Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 78
18 Brake and Fuel Specific Particulate from Cummiris VTB-903
in Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 79
19 Brake and Fuel Specific Sulfate from Cummins VTB-903 in
Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 81
20 Detroit Diesel 6V-71N Set-up for Emissions Test
Evaluation 93
21 Regulated Gaseous Emissions from the DDAD 6V-71N in
Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 100
22 Smoke Emissions From the DDAD 6V-71N 103
23 Modal Particulate Rates from the DDAD 6V-71N
Coach Engine 104
24 Modal Sulfate Rates From the DDAD 6V-71N Coach Engine 105
25 Rear Portion of Frame Blocked to Reduce and Stabilize
Axle Load on Chassis Dynamometer 116
26 Rear Axle on Chassis Dynamometer With Tire Cooling Fans 116
27 Bus in Position for Emissions Testing on Chassis
Dynamometer With Single Dilution CVS 117
28 Engine Compartment of GMC RTS II Type 4 Bus 117
29 Heavy-Duty Chassis Driving Cycle (Truck Cycle) 120
30 Heavy-Duty Chassis Bus Driving Cycle (Unfiltered
Bus Cycle) 120
31 One Segment of the CBD Test Cycle 121
vi ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Emissions From the Mack ETAY(B) 673A
With and Without Water Injection 4
2 Summary of Emissions From the Chevrolet 366
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engine 5
3 Summary of Emissions From Baseline and Maladjusted
Bus Engines 7
4 Summary of Emissions From Three GMC RTS H Type 4 Buses
Powered by DUAD 6V-92TA Heavy-Duty Engines Emissions
Test Procedure 9
5 Properties of Test Fuel Used in the Mack ETAY(B)
673A Engine 12
6 1974 13-Mode FTP Results From the Mack ETAY(B) 673A
Run With and Without Water Addition 20
7 1979 13-Mode FTP Results From the Mack ETAY(B) 673A
Run With and Without Water Addition 20
8 Brake and Fuel Specific Aldehyde Rates, Mack ETAY(B) 673A
With APE Pump 20
9 Brake and Fuel Specific Hydrocarbon Rates, Mack ETAY(B)
673A With APE Pump 21
10 DOAS Results For Mack ETAY(B) 673A With APE Pump 22
11 Smoke Opacity Results From Mack ETAY(B) 673A (APE Pump)
With and Without Water Addition 22
12 Summary of Total Particulate and Sulfate Emission Rates
From the Mack ETAY(B) 673A With APE Pump 23
13 Percent Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Particulate
From Mack ETAY(B) 673A Run With and Without Water
Addition 29
14 Elemental Analysis of Particulate Samples From the Mack
ETAY(B) 673A Run With and Without Water 30
15 Summary of Particulate, BaP, NON, and Organic Solubles
From the Mack ETAY(B) 673A With APE Pump 31
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)
Table Page
16 Summary of Ames Response to Individual Modal Samples
From the Mack ETAY(8) 673A Without Water 33
17 Summary of Ames Response to Individual Modal Samples
From the Mack ETAY(B) 673A With Water 35
18 Gasoline Specifications for Chevrolet 366 Tests 40
19 13-Mode Gaseous Emissions From Chevrolet 366 Engine 41
20 Data From Particulate Collection Experiments With
Chevrolet 366 Gasoline Engine 42
21 Disposition of Sample Filters From Test Runs on
Chevrolet 366 Gasoline Engine, 2/29-3/4/80 44
22 Analysis of Particulate Samples Collected on 47 mm
Filters, Chevrolet 366 Gasoline Engine 45
23 Filter Numbers and Collected Particulate Weights,
Chevrolet 366 Gasoline Engine, Full Power Operating
at 2300 rpm, Standard Carburetor Jetting 47
24 Filter Numbers and Collected Particulate Weights,
Chevrolet 366 Gasoline Engine With Lean Carburetor
Setting, 2300 rpm and Full Load 48
25 Data From Particulate Collection Experiments With
Chevrolet 366 Gasoline Engine, Lean Carburetor
Adjustment 49
26 Combinations of Particulate Sample for Subsequent
Analysis 50
27 Summary of Ames Bioassay of SOF From the Chevrolet 366
in “Stock” Configuration on Tester Strain TAIOO 50
28 Summary of Ames Bioassay of SOF From the Chevrolet 366
Adjusted Lean 51
29 Listing of 13-Mode and 7-Mode Weighting Factors 54
30 Composite Results of Regulated Gaseous Emissions From
Cummins VTB-9 03 Run in Baseline and Maladjusted
Configurations 71
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)
Table Page
31 Summary of Individual Hydrocarbons From the Cummins
VTB-903 in Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 72
32 Summary of Total Aldehydes From the Cummins VTB-903
Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 73
33 Summary of PHenols From the Cummins VTB-903
Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 74
34 Summary of DOAS Results From Cummins VTB-903 in
Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 75
35 Smoke Opacity From the Cummins VTB-903 in Baseline
and Maladjusted Configurations 77
36 Composite Particulate and Sulfate Results From Cummins
VTB-903 in Both Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 76
37 Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen Content of Filter
Particulate From the Cummins VTB-903 (Percent by Weight
Based on Type A Glass Fiber Filter Samples) 82
38 Metals Analysis of Filter Collected Particulate From the
Cummins VTB-903 (Percent by Weight Based on Fluoropore
Filter Samples) 84
39 Modal SOF Emissions for the Cummins VTB-903 in Baseline
and Maladjusted Configurations 83
40 Transient SOF Emissions From the Cummins VTB-903 in
Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations 85
41 Computation for Mixing 7-Mode Composite Extract For
Characterization 86
42 Results of Elemental Analysis of SOF From the
Cummins VTB-903 87
43 Boiling Point Distribution of Soluble Organic 88
44 Summary of Ames Response to Transient Composite SOF From
Baseline and Maladjusted Configuration of the Cummins
VTB-903 88
45 Information From DDAD 8V-71N Coach Engine 89
46 Service Data and Condition of VIA Injectors (Type LSN-60)
Tested at SwRI 92
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (coNT’D)
Table Page
47 Hot-Start Transient Emissions From DDAD 6V-71N in
Various Stages of Maladjustment From the Baseline
Configuration
48 Summary of 13-Mode Gaseous Emissions From the
DDAD 6V-71N Coach Engine 97
49 Summary of Average Transient Emissions From the
DDAD 6V-71N Coach Engine 98
50 Summary of Composite Individual Hydrocarbons From
the DDAD 6V-71N 99
51 Summary of Composite Aldehyde Emissions From the
DDAD6V-71N 101
52 Smoke Opacity From the DDAD 6V-71N Coach Engine 102
53 Summary of Total Particulate Emissions From the
DDAD6V-71N 103
54 Summary of Sulfate Emissions From the DDAD 6V-71N 106
55 Summary of Elemental Analysis of Total Particulate From
Modal Operation of the DDAD 6V-71N Coach Engine 107
56 Summary of Cycle and Composite Soluble Organic Fraction
From the DDAD 6V-71N Coach Engine 108
57 Elemental Composition of Soluble Organic Fraction From
the DDAD 6V-71N Coach Engine 109
58 Boiling Point Distribution of Soluble Organic Fraction
From DDAD 6V-71N Coach Engine 110
59 Summary of Ames Response SOF From the DDAD 6V-71N 111
60 Description of Test Vehicles in Houston Metropolitan
Transit Authority 113
61 Properties of the Two Diesel Test Fuels 114
62 Test Plan for Emissions Characterization of Three
In-Service Buses 115
63 Summary of Test Results From Operation of Bus No. 2162 124
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONVD)
Table Page
64 Summary of Test Results From Operation of Bus No. 2126 126
65 Summary of Test Results from Operation of Bus No. 1934 128
66 Summary of Fuel Specific Emissions From Three GMC RTS H
Type 4 Buses Powered by DOAD 6V-92TA Engines 129
67 Summary of IHC From Bus No. 2162 132
68 Summary of IHC From Bus No. 2126 132
69 Summary of IHC From Bus No. 1934 133
70 Summary of Aldehyde Emissions From Operation of Bus
No. 2162 134
71 Summary of Aldehyde Emissions From Operation of Bus
No. 2126 135
72 Summary of Aldehyde Emissions From Operation of Bus
No. 1934 136
73 Summary of Integrated Smoke Opacity From Operation of
Buses on Chassis Dynamometer 137
74 Summary of Results Obtained Over Short-Tests for Smoke 138
75 Summary of Sulfate Emissions 139
76 Summary of Soluble Organic Fraction (SOF) Results From
Transient Chassis Testing 140
xiii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The objective of this work was to gather emissions data pursuant to the
larger program needs of the Environmental Protection Agency. Initially, the
program was designed to characterize emissions from heavy-duty engines using
advanced or novel techniques to reduce emissions. Provisions for testing an
advanced engine were also included in the contract. However, no available
advanced engine was developed to the point that meaningful emissions data
could be obtained. Work reported under this program spans nearly 6 1/2 years,
and includes emissions characterization work in four areas.
The first area investigated was the effect of water injection on heavy-
duty diesel emissions. The approach studied involved mixing water and fuel
within the diesel injection pump and injecting this macroemulsion into the
combustion chamber before the water and fuel had time to separate. A second
area investigated was the apparent potential for heavy-duty gasoline engines to
emit organics such as BaP over certain operating modes. The third area was
emissions from heavy-duty engines and how they change with in-service use
from the standpoint of wear and/or improper maintenance. The fourth area was
emissions from three in-service buses of popular make and model, run on both
No. 1 and No. 2 fuels over various test cycles.
In all cases, emissions characterization was the primary task. Over the
duration of this program, several of the test procedures and analytical
procedures for determining some of the emissions chaFiged. Emissions
characterization studies conducted in the first two areas mentioned were based
on steady-state operation over various modes of the 1979 13-mode Federal Test
Procedure.(l)* Most of the emissions data were obtained from raw exhaust
gases, but all particulate-related emissions were obtained using a dilution
tunnel operated in a “splitter” mode (only a portion of the engine’s exhaust was
diluted for the study of particulate emissions). By the time emissions work was
begun on the bus engines in both baseline and maladjusted configurations, the
l98 Transient Federal Test Procedure(2) had been established for research
purposes, and hence almost all emissions samples were taken from a CVS-
diluted exhaust stream. Emissions characterization of the in-service transit
buses utilized a truck chassis dynamometer and a large CVS. Emphasis was
placed on obtaining emissions over various transient chassis dynamometer test
cycles. Results from these four distinct areas are presented in four separate
parts of this report, and the summary gives the main findings of each area
separately.
*Numbers in parentheses designate references at the end of the report.
-------
II. SUMMARY
Emissions from heavy-duty diesel and gasoline engines and vehicles were
determined on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency. Over the 6 1/2
year time span of this program, emissions characterization work was performed
in four areas. The first area included emissions characterization of a 1977
Mack ETAY(B) 673A heavy-duty diesel engine operated on No. 2 emissions fuel
alone, and then with 30 weight percent of water added. Use of a fuel-water
macroemulsion had shown reductions in smoke emissions, and was viewed as a
potential method to reduce smoke-related particulate emissions along with NO
emissions.
The 314 hp Mack engine was operated at various steady-state conditions
(11 modes of the 13-mode Federal Test Procedure),(1) and emissions were
characterized with and without water added to the fuel. Thirteen-mode
composite emission results are summarized in Table I. For the Mack engine,
use of the unstabilized fuel-water macroemulsion, formed in the injection
pump, caused a 24 percent reduction in NO emission with little change in total
HC or CO emissions. Use of the macroemulsjon increased emissions of selected
individual hydrocarbons and aldehydes, primarily during light (2 percent) load
and idle operation. Substantial reductions in visible smoke were noted with
water addition, and composite total particulate emissions were reduced .54
percent. Reductions in particulate emissions were noted during all operating
conditions except light load and idle. At these conditions, using the
macroemulsion caused increases in the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the
total particulate, even though the composite SOF level was about the same as
the baseline level. Analysis of the SOF for benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) showed 22
percent higher composite levels, mostly due to increased BaP levels at idle,
when using the fuel-water macroemulsion. Results from Ames bioassay of the
SOF indicated that using the macroemulsion slightly increased the potential for
bioactivity (dependent on tester strain used and whether or not metabolic
activation was present).
The second area of emission research under this contract was to replicate
and expand emission characterization of a 1977 model year Chevrolet 366 cubic
inch heavy-duty gasoline engine which had been tested under a previous EPA
Contract (68-03-2417). The earlier work had reported relatively high levels of
BaP and other emissions during high load operation. The same Chevrolet 366
gasoline engine, operated on leaded fuel, was retested in its “stock”
configuration and in a “lean” configuration. Emphasis in this program was
placed on obtaining large quantities of particulate for subsequent Ames analysis
of the SOF by EPA. The results obtained from the retest of this engine are
summarized in Table 2. Upon retest, the gaseous emissions of UC, CO, and
NO agreed well with those found in the earlier work. Relatively large
particulate samples accumulated from engine operation in both configurations
were delivered to EPA and Ames analyses were performed on them. Results of
their analyses are given in Table 2 for record purposes.
A third set of emission characterization tests were performed to establish
how emissions from two heavy-duty transit bus engines change with in-service
3
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF EMISSiONS FROM THE MACK ETAY(B)
673A WITH AND WITHOUT WATER IN3ECTION
Engine
Mack ETAY(B) 673A
Test Configuration
Baseline
With Water
Composite
13-Mode
13-Mode
Hydrocarbons, HC
g/kW-hr
0.60
0.62
Carbon Monoxide, CO
g/kW-hr
1.64
1.75
Oxides of Nitrogen, NO b
gfkW-hr
8.52
6.49
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
kg/k W-hr
0.240
0.239
Total Individual HC
mg/k W-hr
83
Total Aldehydes
mg/k W-hr
9
Total Particulate
g/kW-hr
0.68
0.31
Sulfate, SO4
mg/k W-hr
42
40
Soluble Organic Fraction (SOF)
mg/k W-hr
83a
g a
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)
pg/k W-hr
0.18
O.22a
Ames Responsec N 0 d
(i rev/plate)/kW—hr yesd
12a
13a
12a
19a
a7...Mode composite
bContj 0 s NOx
CResponse on Strain TA98
dMetabolic activation status
4
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM THE CHEVROLET 366
HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE ENGINE
Engine
Chevrolet 366
Test Configuration
Stock
Lean
Test Condition
2300/100%
2300/50%
2300/100%
Hydrocarbons, HC
g/kW-hr
3.80
0.04
Carbon Monoxide, CO
g/kW-hr
268
15.9
Oxides of Nitrogen, NO
g/kW-hr
1.09
2.69
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
kg/kW-hr
0.376
0.389
Total Particulate
g/kW—hr
0.15
0.13
0.11
Soluble Organic Fraction (SOF)
mg/k W-hr
3.1
1.5
0.55
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)
pg/k W-hr
0.16
0.002
0.0003
Ames ResponseC Nod
(i rev/plate)/kW-hr Yesd
14
9.4
18
2.3
2.2
0.8
acomparative data not taken
bRaw exhaust CO was reduced from 6.0% in “stock” configuration
to 0.5% in “lean” configuration
CResponse on Strain TA 100
dMetabolic activation status
5
-------
use from the standpoint of wear and/or improper maintenance. Two heavy-duty
diesel transit bus engines, a 1979 Cummins VTB-903 and a 1979 Detroit Diesel
(DDAD) 6V-71N, were maladjusted such that noticeable increases in smoke
emissions were observed. Emission results from baseline and maladjusted
configurations of both engines are summarized in Table 3.
For the Cumrnins VTB-903 operated on No. 2 emissions diesel fuel,
maladjustments consisted of 0.004 inch increase in injector lash and 4 in. Hg
reduction in turbocharger boost pressure (at rated conditions). These
maladjustments caused the smoke opacities to double from baseline levels.
During 13-mode steady-state and transient FTP’s,(2) the total HC and CO
emissions increased by factors of 4 and 1.6, respectively. Levels of NO
emissions were essentially unchanged by the maladjustments, but there was a 3
percent loss in maximum power and about a 6 percent increase in cycle BSFC.
Individual hydrocarbon emissions of ethylene and propylene during transient
FTP operation increased by a factor of 3. Aldehydes (mostly formaldehyde)
increased somewhat, and phenols were essentially unchanged. As with the
smoke opacities, total particulate on transient FTP operation increased by a
factor of 2.1, mostly due to increased particulate emissions at light load
conditions. Sulfate levels in the total particulate were generally lower by 13
percent with the maladjustments. Elemental analysis of the total particulate
showed that the sulfur level was lower, and that the H/C mole ratio was greater
(particulate was more oily) with the maladjustments. Brake specific emissions
of the soluble organic fraction of the total particulate increased by about a
factor of 3. These results indicate the maladjustments produced no additional
elemental carbon matter, but more adsorbed hydrocarbons. Ames response of
the SOF indicated an order of magnitude greater bioactivity potential due to
the maladjustments.
For the DDAD 6V-71N operated on No. 1 emissions diesel fuel,
maladjustments consisted of installation of 50,000 mile injectors, 2.8 degrees
retard of injection timing, absence of throttle delay, and 7 in. H 2 0 increase of
intake air restriction. These maladjustments caused smoke opacity to triple.
Composite HC emission levels during 13-mode steady-state and transient
operation in the maladjusted configuration decreased by 23 and 10 percent from
baseline levels, respectively. Emissions of CO increased by factors of 1.8 and
4.4 over steady-state and transient operation in the maladjusted configuration.
NO emission levels decreased about 25 percent, and the BSFC increased by
about 6 percent with maladjustment. There was little change in emission of
ethylene or propylene as measured by the IHC procedure. Aldehydes and
phenols increased only slightly. Maladjustment increased the total particulate
by a factor of almost 2.4. Characterization of the total particulate indicated a
decrease in the level of sulfate (32 percent decrease for transient-derived
particulate). The H/C mole ratio indicated that the particulate became more
carbonaceous (drier) with maladjustment. Determination of brake specific SOF
indicated no change in the steady-state composite level, but levels for transient
FTP operation decreased by about 28 percent. Therefore, maladjustments to
the DDAD 6V-71N produced no additional organics in particulate but rather
increased the elemental carbon (soot) which is the opposite of that which
occured with the four-stroke cycle Cummins engine. Essentially no BaP was
detected for either configuration of this engine. Ames response of the SOF
indicated little change in the bioactivity potential due to the maladjustments.
6
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM BASELINE AND MALADJUSTEI) ElliS ENGINI S
aDetermined by continuous monitoring
bSamples submitted but not processed by EPA
C5 . .modes only
d7_mode composite
e< 0002 hg BaP/mg SOF
—3
Engine
Cummins VTB-903
DI)AI) 6V-71N
Test Configuration
Baseline
Maladjusted
Baseline
Maladjusted
Composite
13-Mode
Transient
13-Mode
Transient
13-Mode
Transient
13-Mode
Transient
Hydrocarbons, HC
g/kW-hr
0.96
1.79
3.94
6.98
2.37
2.47
1.82
2.18
Carbon Monoxide, CO
g/kW-hr
2.20
1.87
3.54
3.12
9.92
5.87
17.83
17.12
Oxides of Nitrogen, NOXa
g/kW —hr
9.29
8.48
9.25
7.63
9.60
10.21
6.98
7.52
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
kg/k W-hr
0.254
0.269
0.269
0.288
0.297
0.322
0.316
0.340
Total Individual HC
mg/k W-hr
82 d
103
420 d
300
150 d
190
100 d
200
Total Aldehydes
mg/k W-hr
13 d
100
66 d
99
29 d
31
36 d
Total Phenols
mg/kW-hr
c
15
C
J O
C
58
—-c
340
Total Particulate
g/kW-hr
0.32
0.51
0.57
1.08
0 70 d
0.72
1 • 84 d
1.70
Sulfate, SO4
mg/k W-hr
40
38
33
5 d
28
23 d
19
Soluble Organic Fraction (SOF)
mg/k W-hr
130 d
260
340 d
830
200 d
400
200 d
290
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)
hg/k W-hr
b
._b
e
e
e
e
Ames Responsec I Nod
(i revlplate)/kW—hr Yesd
._b
160
210
1600
2700
60 d
170 d
160
140
lOt$
1 10 d
1)0
120
-------
The foärth area of work included determinations of regulated and selected
unregulated emissions for three in-service GMC RTS II lype 4 buses. All three
late model year buses were powered by DDAD 6V—92TA heavy-duty diesel
engines, but varied in mileage accumulated prior to testing and in the diesel
fuel type used. All three buses were operated over various test cycles for
emissions. Emphasis was given to test work conducted on the transient chassis
cycle and the filtered bus cycle. Emission results from all three buses operated
on these two test cycles are summarized in Table 4.
Comparison of emissions from these three buses indicates a wide range of
variability in exhaust emissions from bus to bus. Emissions varied from bus to
bus operated on the same fuel, and they even varied substantially from cycle to
cycle run on the same bus. Obviously, some difference in emissions from the
individual buses was expected, but not to the extent indicated by the data given
in Table 4. Emission levels of total HC (along with selected individual HC), CO,
integrated smoke, and particulate were highest for bus 1934, which had the
highest mileage of the three buses and operated on No. I diesel fuel. Bus 2162,
with the lowest mileage and operated on No. 2 diesel fuel, had the highest
levels of NOR, sulfate (higher level of fuel-bound sulfur), and soluble organic
emissions of the three buses. Both bus 1934 and bus 2162 had high oil
consumption compared to bus 2126. Bus 2126 had the highest level of aldehyde
emissions, and appeared to be least cycle-sensitive of the three buses. From
the data given in Table 4, it appears that a larger sample of in-service buses
would be necessary to isolate the causes of emissions variability, or to assess
the average emissions from a nationwide fleet of similar design.
Publications
A major portion of the work conducted under this contract has been
reported in technical papers. The work with fuel-water macroemulsion has
been presented in ASME 8O-DGP-4 .(3) Work with the maladjusted bus engines
has been reported in SAE 84O4I6.( ) A technical paper on the emission results
obtained from the three in-service buses is planned.
8
-------
Bus No. (Fuel Type)
(Service, km) Oil Use, km/9.
2162 (No. 2)
(88,617) 764
2126 (No. 1)
(160,698) 1142
1934 (No. 1)
(223,340) 707
Chassis Test Procedure
Transienta
Filtered Busb
Transierita
Filtered Busb
Transienta
Filtered Busb
Hydrocarbons, I- IC
g/kg fuel
1.82
3.39
3.12
4.89
4.35
7.62
Carbon Monoxide, CO
g/kg fuel
18.00
7.26
9.82
7.94
19.92
15.04
Oxides of Nitrogen, NOxC
g/kg fuel
36.86
43.90
32.53
38.99
24.86
31.47
Fuel Economy
km/kg fuel
2.48
2.32
2.74
2.52
2.56
2.43
Total Individual HC
mg/kg fuel
140
150
130
170
370
650
Total Aldehydes
mg/kg fuel
410
610
680
610
350
480
Integrated Smoke
% Opacity
2.9
2.0
2.2
1.8
4.2
2.5
Total Particulate
g/kg fuel
3.95
2.39
2.73
2.16
6.14
5.17
Sulfate, S0 4
mg/kg fuel
220
130
58
44
67
64
Soluble Organic Fraction (SOF)
mg/kg fuel
930
800
670
500
710
270
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM THREE GMC RTS II TYPE 4 BUSES POWERED
BY DDAD 6V-92TA HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES EMISSIONS TEST PROCEDURE
w
alransient composite of cold- and hot-start chassis testing
bExperimental bus cycle filtered to approximate bus operation
CCo tjfluous NOx
-------
Ill. EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION OF THE MACK ETAY(B) 673A
HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINE WITH AND WITHOUT WATER INJECTION
This section of the report describes the experimental set-up and the Mack
engine tested for emissions characterization with and without water injection.
General test notes are given to explain the methods used for engine testing,
along with the procedures used to obtain and process various emissions samples.
The third portion of this section presents the emissions results obtained.
Detailed supporting data are given in Appendix A.
A. Test Engine Description
A 1977 Mack ETAY(B) 673A heavy-duty diesel engine was selected for use
in this program. At the time this engine was chosen, American Bosch (now a
division of United Technologies Corp.) had been working with Mack Trucks Inc.
on the development of a Universal Fuel Injection System (UFIS). The UFIS
system was expected to represent a state-of-the-art fuel system capable of
providing good performance and good BSFC along with low emissions of
particulate and smoke. Another concept from American Bosch for particulate
control included injection of a fuel-water emulsion formed at the injection
pump of the engine and injected into the combustion chamber as a
macroemulsion. Both concepts were readily adaptable to the Mack ETAY(B)
673A engine, and the engine had been used in support of another EPA contract
performed by SwRI to investigate the effect of high pressure fuel injection on
emissions.( 5)
The 1977 Mack ETAY(B) 673A was a turbocharged, aftercooled, in-line 6-
cylinder engine with a displacement of 673 cubic inches and a compression ratio
of 15:1. This engine utilized a tip-turbine-powered intercooler which operated
by bleeding off a portion of the compressed intake air to drive a cooling fan,
which in turn cooled the hot compressed intake air charge before it reached
the intake manifold. Figure 1 shows the engine mounted for dynamometer test
work. During steady-state operation with the standard American Bosch fuel
injection pump (APE pump), a maximum power of 314 hp (234 kW) was observed
at the rated speed of 1900 rpm with 123 lb/hr of No. 2 fuel. A maximum torque
of 1026 ft-lb was observed at an intermediate speed of 1450 with 102 lb/hr of
No. 2 fuel. Curb idle speed was 650 rpm. The fuel used in this phase of the
program was Gulf No. 2 doped to 0.24 percent sulfur to approximate the 1978
“National Average” fuel. Some of the properties of this fuel are given in Table
5.
Based on availability of experimental injection pump equipment,
experiments with macroemulsion of fuel and water were conducted first. Due
to scheduling and proprietary concerns, the UFIS system was never made
available for testing under this program.
1J
-------
Figure 1. Mack ETAY(B) 673A mounted for
steady-state emissions testing
TABLE 5. PROPERTIES OF TEST FUEL USED IN THE MACK
ETAY(B) 673A ENGINE
No. 2
“National Average”
Fuel Type, SwRI Code EM-329-F
A.P.I. Gravity 37.0
Viscosity @ 100°F, cS 2.50
Sulfur, wt. % 0.235
Cetane No. 50.2
Distillation, °F
IBP 328
10 411
50 499
90 578
EP 641
% Recovery 98.5
% Residue 1.30
% Loss 0.20
F.I.A., %
Aromatics 23.0
Olefjns 1.14
Saturates 75.82
Flash Point°F 155
12
-------
A new, calibrated stock American Bosch APE pump and set of injectors
were installed and the injection timing set to 21°BTDC (standard timing).
Water was regulated through a flowmeter, filtered through a 7 mm sintered
metal in-line filter, and fed directly to the injection pump. No fuel/water
emulsifier was used since mixing was accomplished by the mechanical action of
the pump. Nozzle leak-off was fed directly back to the pump. Figure 2 shows
the fuel system schematic for fuel-water emulsion testing. This particular
pump had no torque-limiting cam in order to allow the pump to handle the extra
volume of fuel and water mix (30 lbs of water per 100 lbs of fuel or 30 percent
mass). De-ionized water was supplied for water injection. Figure 3 shows the
working chart for setting the water flow rate for various fuel requirements to
provide 30 percent by mass of water to the injection pump. All modal operation
was run by adjusting speed and fuel rate to be identical with the runs made
without water. Torque was allowed to vary accordingly. The addition of water
seemed to have no effect on the observed power for a given fuel rate. No
unusual noises or vibrations were noted during operation with water injection.
B. General Test Notes
The engine configuration for macroemulsion experiments was such that
the engine could be operated with or without water addition, thereby obtaining
comparative emission samples or measurements. The 19Th-1978 and the 1979
13-mode Federal Test Procedures (FTP) were the basic test cycles used for the
regulated emissions characterization during this program.(1 ,6J Both procedures
start with low idle, then 2, 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent load at intermediate
speed followed by low idle, than to rated speed --lOU, 75,50, 25, and 2 percent of
full load followed by a final low idle condition. Intake air and fuel are
measured during each mode. Unregulated emissions characterizations were
similarly performed, but only for II and 7 modes of steady-state operation (idle
mode was only run once instead of three times as with the FTP).
FTP weighting factors formed the basis for the calculations to determine
cycle composite emission rates and cycle weighted fuel consumption from
modal data. Variations of the basic FTP weighting factors were used to express
nonregulated emissions in consistent units; namely, grams per kilowatt hour for
those experiments in which 11 and 7 modes were sampled. The basically linear
nature of diesel engines emissions with power output makes such an approach
feasible. 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 mode
must be increased to reflect the greater significance. Detailed discussion of
these various weighting factors can be found in Reference 5.
The test procedures and analytical systems used for each category of
emission measurement are described in the following paragraphs. All
particulate-related emissions were determined by sampling dilute exhaust,
whereas gaseous emissions were measured by sampling raw exhaust.
Instruments, sampling, and analysis conformed to Federal Test Procedure where
applicable. Nonregulated emissions were analyzed using methodologies
established during other work.
13
-------
TO NOZZLES
Figure 2. Schematic for fuel-water emulsion testing(
FLOW
CONTROL
VALVE
FILTER
(WATER)
14
-------
70 ’
60
F- I
a)
4 - 4
40
30
2C
- t
Re
T
/
/
T T
7T
T
?E
- -
::
t
IL
__
—
/
I
—
/
/
t. 3
t -Le eY
:: /: 4/
::
: L
!
L.
:_i_
1. ,
20
30 40
PP
water lb/hr
Figure 3. Water injection fuel system chart Mack ETAY(B) 673A
120
110
100
90
- —- - - - - - -. - -
— — A --
11
10
9
50
0
c 1
8
0
4- I
7
4-)
a)
6 U)
‘-4
4-4
5 4
a)
0 10
3
2
1
0
15
-------
Regulated emissions of HC, CO, and NO (expressqd ad NO 2 ) were
measured as specified by the 1974-1978 13-mode FTP.( 6 That is, total
hydrocarbons were measured by a heated flame ionization detector (HFID).
Carbon monoxide and nitric oxide (NO) were measured by non-dispersive
infrared (NDIR) detectors. These regulated emissions were also determined by
the 1979 13-mode FTP, the main difference being that pçides of nitrogen (NO )
was determined by NO chemiluminescence techniques. ’ 1
Selected individual hydrocarbons were determined using a gas
chromatograph procedure developed by EPA-RTP and described in Reference 8.
Seven modes of the basic 13-mode test procedure were sampled (intermediate
speed at 2, 50, and 100 percent load, idle, and then rated speed at 100, 50, and 2
percent load). A raw exhaust sample from each mode was filtered and
collected in a Tedlar bag, then injected into a gas chromatograph utilizing a
single flame ionization detector with a multiple column arrangement and dual
gas sampling valves. The timed sequence selection valves allowed the baseline
separation of air, methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propylene,
benzene, and toluene. Propylene, ethylene, and toluene react easily in the
atmosphere to form photochemical smog.
Al lehydes were measured using the 2,4-dinitrophenyihydrazine (DNPH)
method. ) Basically the procedure, used during each of the 7 modes tested,
consisted of bubbling prefiltered raw exhaust through glass impinger traps
containing a solution of DNPH and HCI kept at 0°C. Following collection,
several intermediate steps are taken to prepare the sample for analysis by gas
chromatograph and separation of various aldehydes from formaldehyde to
benzaldehyde.
The Coordinating Research Council Diesel Odor Analytical System
(DOAS) was used to quantify the total intensity of aroma, (TIA), from 7 of the
11 modes of operation. Raw exhaust was drawn off through a heated sample
train and into a trap containing Chromosorb 102. The sample was later eluted
and injected by syringe into the DOAS instrument, which is a liquid
chromatograph that separates and oxygenate fraction. A.D. Little, the
developer of the DOAS instrument, has re) ted this fraction to hA sensory
measurements by the A.D. Little odor panel. 9 )
Particulate-related emissions were determined from dilute exhaust
samples utilizing various collection media and apparatus, depending on the
analysis to be performed. Particulate had been defined as any material
collected on Type A glass fiber media at or below a temperature of 51 .70C
(125°F) excluding condensed water. The test methodology proposed in the
later diesel particulate standards specifies fluorocarbon coated glass fiber
media for particulate sampling. Particulate emissions were determined for
both configurations by using fluorocarbon-coated glass-fiber filter media in
place of the glass fiber filter media.
The 125°F temperature limit and the absence of condensed water dictates
that the raw exhaust be diluted. In most cases, this dilution averaged about 12
parts of prefiltered air to one part of exhaust. A dilution tunnel was used to
provide mixing and residence time (2 sec) to roughly approximate the minimum
time before exposure in traffic.
16
-------
Large volumes of hot exhaust from heavy-duty diesel engines preclude the
practical dilution of all the exhaust in a laboratory size dilution tunnel, hence a
relatively small amount of the total exhaust was “split” from the main exhaust
flow and diverted to the dilution tunnel. The remainder was vented to
atmosphere. A “muffler splitter” method was considered to be a representative
way to obtain a portion of the total exhaust. All testing was done using steady-
state operating modes which precluded problems of proportional sampling.
Figure 4 shows the dilution tunnel system used to measure all particulate-
related emissions.
Gravimetric weight gain on the fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber media,
representing collected particulate, was determined to the nearest microgram
after the filter temperature and humidity was stabilized. This weight gain
along with I) flow measurements from totalizing gas meters, 2) dilution tunnel
parameters, and 3) engine flow rates, were used to calculate the particulate
mass emissions of the engine at a given operating mode.
Carbon and hydrogen weight percentages in the diesel particulate
collected on glass fiber media were measured using ASTM method D-3178, and
nitrogen was measured using ASTM method D-3179. Values of H and C content
were also expressed in terms of a H/C mole ratio which can be used to compare
various engine configurations. As the ratio becomes larger, a more oily nature
of the particulate is indicated, whereas lower ratios imply a drier or more
carbonaceous type particulate.
Sulfate content of particulate matter was determined from samples
collected on 47 mm Fluoropore (Mihipore Corp.) fluorocarbon membrane filter
media with 0.5 micron pore size. The barium chioranilate analytical (BCA)UO)
method was used to determine the amount of sulfate contained on the filter
samples. Therefore, “sulfate” should be understood to mean S0 4 as measured
by the BCA method.
Trace metals and other elements such as silicon, sulfur, and calcium in
the particulate matter were determined by X-ray fluorescence from samples
collected on 47 mm Fluoropore filter media. These samples were collected
over 7 modes. This analysis was conducted at the EPA, ORD laboratories in
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Organic solubles and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) concentration of the
particulate were determined for 7 modes of operation for each engine
configuration. Due to the analytical procedures used, relatively large samples
were required (on the order of 20 to 40 mg of particulate). These larger
samples were taken by use of a modified ambient air sampler (HiVol) which used
a 203 x 254 mm (8 x 10 inch) Type A glass fiber filter. During collection of
these samples, the HiVol system was used in the dilution tunnel instead of the
multiple sample probe used to collect the four 47 mm filter samples
simultaneously (two Fluoropore, two glass fiber).
The weight of organics extracted from the particulate-laden filter are
reported as a percent of the particulate loading of that filter. The extract was
carried through the Sawicki analysis procedure for determination of BaP. This
procedure involved sample spotting on thin layer chromatographic plates which
17
-------
BULK
EXHAUST
BULK MIXTURE
MEASUREMENT
DILUTION AIR
MEASUREMENT
INTAKE AIR
MEASUREMENT
FUEL
MEASUREMENT
TOTAL
SAMPLE
FILTER
FLOWMETER
450 mm (17.7 in)I.D.
SAMPLE FLOW
TOTALIZING
METER
Figure 4. Splitter type dilution tunnel system for particulate
-------
were subsequently scanned by a fluorescence spectrophotometer. BaP is
considered to be an elementary indicator of the relative polynuclear aromatic
(PNA) levels typically found in diesel exhaust.
The methods for determining organic extractables and BaP content in
diesel exhaust were still being developed during this work, and are therefore
somewhat imprecise, especially when compared to the relatively precise
methods used for regulated emissions. The role of carbon in the exhaust, the
effects on organics by filtering the exhaust, and the type of solvent used in the
preparation of the sample were all unresolved issued in the collection and
determination of BaP. Extraction of organics and determination of BaP content
were conducted by EMSL of EPA-RTP.( 11 ) A portion of the extract was also
submitted for Ames bioassay through EPA.(12)
Particle size distributions were determined for each engine configuration
by use of an Anderson Model 50-810 inertial impactor. Isokinetically sampled
dilute exhaust containing a mixture of particle shapes and densities was
fractionated, and particles were collected according to their aerodynamic
characteristics. The aerodynamic size gives information relating to the
physical size, shape and density of the particulate, indicating how the particle
may behave in the environment. Pre-weighed stainless steel impactor discs
were used for stage collection, and a pre-weighed glass fiber filter was used as
a back-up filter to collect all particulate aerodynamically smaller than the
lowest cut-off stage (0.42 microns Effective Cut-Of Diameter, ECD). Impactor
flowrate was selected to provide individual stage separation from 10.9 to 0.42
microns ECD. Unfortunately, the inertial impactor only sized about 15 percent
of the particulate sample. The remaining 85 percent was trapped by the back-
up filter which collected everything less than 0.42 micron ECD. On the
average, 93 percent of the particulate was below one micron, which leads to the
conclusion that diesel particulate is easily respirable. Visible smoke was
determined by the end-of-stack EPA-PHS smokerneter, which monitored the
opacity of the raw exhaust plume as it issued from the exhaust pipe.
C. Results
Initial test work centered on obtaining 13-mode emission results. During
the time when these experiments were being conducted, both the 1974 and the
1979 13-mode FTP were being used. Table 6 gives the gaseous emission results
calculated using the 1974 FTP calculations method. Reduced copies of the
computer printout are given as Tables A-i and A-2 in Appendix A. A
significant reduction of BSNOX occurred (24 percent) from operation with
water, although slight increases in BSHC and BSCO were noted. There was no
change in the BSFC. The engine was run by fuel rate and speed; no change in
load was observed with water addition.
Results from the 1979 FTP for the 13-mode gaseous emission tests run
with and without water on the Mack ETAY(B) 673A with APE pump are given in
Table 7. Reduced copies of the computer printouts are given as Tables A-3 and
A-4 in Appendix A. These results were about 15% lower than those using the
1974 FTP, because the 1979 FTP method of calculation is very different from
the 1974 FTP method. In addition, measurements included CO 2 by NDIR and
NO by CL. The trends of lower NOx, and slightly higher HC and CO, when run
with water addition, were the same as for the 1974 FTP, despite the differences
in the nominal values of the emissions.
19
-------
TABLE 6. 1974 13-MODE FTP RESULTS FROM THE MACK ETAY(B)
673A RUN WITH AND WITHOUT WATER ADDITION
BSI- IC
BSCO
BSNOx
BSFC
0.707 g/kW-hr
1.924 g/kW-hr
9.875 g/kW-hr
0.241 kg/kW-hr
With Water
Addition
0.743 g/kW-hr
2.118 g/kW-hr
7.499 g/kW-hr
0.241 kg/k W-hr
Percent
Change
+5%
+ 10%
-24%
0%
TABLE 7. 1979 13-MODE FTP RESULTS FROM THE MACK ETAY(B)
673A RUN WITH AND WITHOUT WATER ADDITION
BSHC
BSCO
BSNOX
BSFC
0.603 g/kW-hr
1.638 g/kW-hr
8.518 g/kW-hr
0.240 kg/k W-hr
With Water
Addition
0.620 g/kW-hr
1.749 g/kW-hr
6.494 g/kW-hr
0.239 kg/k W-hr
Percent
Change
+3%
+7%
-24%
0%
Aldehydes were determined for 7 modes by the DNPH method. Composite
a.ldehyde rates for the individual species are given in Table 8 for both runs,
without and with water addition. Although there was little change in the total
aldehydes, it may be noted that a larger variety of aldehydes were measured
during runs with water addition. These other species of aldehydes were
generated primarily at 2 percent load, rated and intermediate speed, and at idle
during runs made with water addition. Modal results for the aldehydes are
given as Tables A-5 and A-6 of Appendix A.
TABLE 8.
BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC ALDEI-IYDE RATES,
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH APE PUMP
Without Water
Result Addition
Without Water
Result Addition
Aldehyde
Without
Water
With
Water
mg/k W-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/k W-hr
mg/kg fuel
Formaldehyde
19.44
78.81
23.95
98.43
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
2.06
0
8.36
0
7.35
0
30.24
0
Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
0
24.75
0
100.35
1.05
1.55
431
6.36
Hexanaldehyde
2.31
9.37
5.51
22.69
Benza ldehyde
0
0
13.96
57.41
Total Ptldehydes
48.56
196.89
53.37
219.44
20
-------
Table 9 summarizes 7-mode composites of the specific hydrocarbons
found during comparative runs. Similar to the aldehyde results, water addition
significantly increased the emissions of some species, primarily during 2
percent load modes and at idle. The overall total of specific hydrocarbons was
slightly higher when water was added. Modal results for specific hydrocarbons
are given in Tables A-7 and A-8 of Appendix A.
TABLE 9. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON RATES
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH APE PUMP
Without Water With Water
Hydrocarbon mg/k W-hr mg/kg fuel rng/kW-hr mg/kg fuel
Methane 7.06 28.62 11.45 47.09
Ethylene 50.81 206.04 57.60 236.95
Ethane 0.17 0.70 0.38 1.56
Acetylene 4.89 19.85 5.11 21.04
Propane 0.02 0.08 0 0
Propylene 20.46 82.97 18.18 74.78
Benzenea
Toluenea
Total Hydrocarbons 83.41 320.26 92.72 381.42
aCould not be determined from chromatogram, fuel interference suspected
Brake and fuel specific rates for benzene and toluerie were not obtained
because of interferences from unknown chemical species contained in several of
the bag samples. The unknown chemical species eluted broadly in the retention
time region of benzene and toluene, making it impractical to determine their
respective concentrations. A sample bag prepared with a trace of the fuel used
in the engine, diluted with zero air, presented a chromatograph with
characteristics similar to those found with the unknown chemical species.
Total intensity of aroma (hA) was determined using the Diesel Odor
Analysis System (DOAS) as described earlier. In order to calculate the TIA,
liquid chromatographic aldehydes (LCA) and liquid chromatographic oxygenates
(LCO) were determined. The DOAS results are given in Table 10. The average
hA values were 1.73 and 1.81 for 7 modes run without and with water addition,
respectively. The most significant change occurred at idle, where TIA
increased from 1.6 to 2.0 with addition of water.
21
-------
TABLE 10. DOAS RESULTS FOR MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITh APE PUMP
1450 rpm 1900 rpm
Configuration DOAS 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Without Water LCA 19.0 21.8 3.3 7.1 3.1 12.6 23.4
LCO 5.8 8.8 2.1 4.3 3.4 7.5 11.0
TIA 1.8 2.0 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.0
With Water LCA 15.6 12.7 4.2 24.3 7.6 11.8 18.8
LCO 7.9 4.8 3.4 14.3 6.5 5.8 10.0
T1A 1.9 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 2.0
tCA and LCO in iig/liter
Use of the fuel-water macroemuision was expected to reduce smoke and
particulate on the basis of preliminary work carried out by American Bosch and
Mack Trucks, Inc. The PUS smokemeter was attached to the end of the exhaust
stack of the Mack ETAY(B) 673A engine for modal and power curve smoke
measurements. The smoke FTP was not run in either configuration due to
requirements for manual control of water addition. Results from modal and
power curve smoke are given in Table it. The effect of water injection on
smoke opacity was very significant. The reduction in smoke was somewhat
greater than 50%, especially during typically high smoke modes (maximum
power and full load/intermediate speed).
TABLE 11. SMOKE OPACITY RESULTS FROM MACK ETAY(B) 673A
(APE PUMP) WITH AND WITHOUT WATER ADDITION
Engine Fuel Rate Smoke Water Rate Smoke
Mode Speed,rpm Load,% lb/hr Opacity,% + lb/hr Qpacity,%
1 6)0 Idle 2.2 0.5 + 0.8 0.3
2 1450 2 9.8 0.6 + 3.0 0.5
3 1450 25 28.5 1.5 + 8.5 0.7
4 1450 50 50.9 2.9 + 15.5 1.0
5 1450 75 75.2 5.2 + 22.5 1.8
6 1450 100 102.3 6.2 + 30.5 2.9
7 650 Idle 2.3 0.5 + 0.8 0.3
8 .1900 100 122.6 4.7 36.7 1.6
9 1900 75 90 .1 3.0 + 27.0 1.6
10 1900 50 62.7 2.8 ÷ 18.8 1.4 ’
11 1900 25 36.9 2.2 + 11.0 1.0
12 1900 2 15.5 0.4 + 4.5 0.1
13 650 Idle 2.3 0.5 + 0.8 0
- Power Curve -
1900 100 122.9 4.5 + 36.7 1.6
1700 100 114.0 4.9 + 33.9 2.5
1300 100 104.8 6.0 + 31.5 4.3
1450 100 102.5 6.2 + 28.0 fi•3
1300 100 93.5 10.0 + 28.0 4.3
22
-------
Particulate samples, using the splitter tunnel system, were taken on
fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber media, namely Paliflex T60A20. Samples were
taken on Fluoropore filter media for sulfate and metals analysis. Particulate
samples for C, I-I, and N were taken on glass fiber filter media to avoid
interference problems associated with cornbusting the fluorocarbon coating on
the Paliflex filter media.
At the time this program was conducted, there were some reservations
concerning the use of Paliflex particulate filter media. Variable rates of
“plugging” for a given filter loading had been experienced on other programs
using Paliflex media for particulate characterization. Manufacturing
variability from batch to batch had occurred, resulting in filter media of
different appearance and density per unit area. An unofficial report of high
background organics from the soxhlet extraction procedure was also mentioned.
The glass fiber media typically collected more “particulate” of an organic
nature than did the Paliflex media. This was expected to cause some difficulty
in relating the results of C, H, and N analysis by glass fiber to the potentially
lower particulate rates determined by the Paliflex media. This problem had
little impact on C, H, and N results and corrections developed were negligible
with respect to the overall accuracy of C, H, and N determinations. Concerns
over the variability of the Paliflex media were resolved by quality control
measures incorporated by the manufacturer. These measures also stabilized
and reduced the levels of background organics to acceptable levels. With
resolution of these two problems, particulate emissions were determined by use
of the fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber media (Paliflex T60A20) to be consistent
with the definition of particulate.
Total particulate and sulfate emissions are summarized on a 13-mode
composite basis in Table 12. These data were compiled from replicate
determinations of emissions from individual modes. The modal data are given
in Tables A-9 through Table A-12 of Appendix A. Plots of these average modal
data for particulate and sulfate emissions are given in Figures 5 and 6,
respectively. Thirteen-mode composite rates were computed as shown in
Tables A-13 through A-16 of Appendix A.
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF TOTAL PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION
RATES FROM THE MACK ETAY(B) 673A Will-I APE PUMP
Brake Specific Fuel Specific
Engine Run Particulate Sulfatea Particulate Sulfatea
Configuration No. g/kW-hr mg/k W-hr g/kg fuel mg/kg fuel
Without Water 1 0.693 41.79 2.830 170.66
2 0.677 42.69 2.758 174.59
Avg 0.685 42.24 2.799 172.62
With Water 1 0.306 38.62 1.266 159.97
2 0.314 41.18 1.299 170.41
Avg 0.310 39.90 1.282 165.19
aFuel u 1E329-F (Gulf No. 2 diesel fuel doped to 0.235 wt. % sulfur)
“National Average”
23
-------
.
U:
2 25 50 75
Figure 5. Particulate modal rates for Mack ETAY(B) 673A with
APE pump, run with and without water
200
150
‘-4
C.)
• 1-4
100
50
..
I
Idle
% Power
100
24
-------
1.4
w
4.4
‘-4
C l )
10,000
4 LEI 1: 41 I I
••
P
II 1Ik .
! 3 .,
1V:1 t Th
t3 H . .-...— . - .
H
— —+ % F t.
- —
c
!
-‘
I
-
—
— -
—
—
—
Idle 2 25 50
% Power
Figure 6. Sulfate modal rates for Mack ETAY(B) 673A with
APE pump, run with and without water
r
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-t
1’
= FE
=
0 zTi :tt ::
75 100
25
-------
On the basis of composite particulate rates, water addition reduced
particulate by 55 percent. Major reductions in particulate emissions were noted
over the higher-loaded modes when water was added. However, some increases
in particulate emissions were noted over the light load (2 percent load)
condition and during idle when water was added. Particulate filters from idle
and the 2 percent load condition appeared to have less carbonaeous material on
them when water was used, but they also appeared to have collected more oily
or unburned fuel-like material.
Use of the fuel-water macroemulsion appeared to have little effect on 13-
mode composite sulfate emissions, although the level was slightly lower (5.5
percent lower) when water was used. On a modal basis, as illustrated in Figure
6, small increases in sulfate emission rates occurred over idle and the light load
conditions. To the contrary, at the full load conditions, significantly lower
levels of sulfate emissions were observed with water addition. Over the 11
modes tested (idle run only once), the percent of fuel sulfur converted to
sulfate increased slightly (from 2.24 percent to 2.40 percent) when the engine
was operated on the fuel-water macroemulsion.
Particle sizing by Anderson Impactor was conducted for five modes during
engine operation without and with water addition, and the results are plotted on
a modal basis in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Recall that the size distribution
plots are “anchored” by the back-up filter. Paliflex filter media was used as the
final or back-up filter during these impactor experiments. Approximately 76 to
91 percent of the collected material was smaller than 0.42 micron Effective
Cutoff Diameter (ECD) during runs without water. With the addition of water,
SO to 96 percent of the collected material was smaller than 0.42 micron ECD.
The idle mode run with water showed the most significant shift to smaller
particle sizes. Overall, no major change in particle size was caused by water
addition. Table A-li of Appendix A shows the percentage plate deposition per
stage for the two operating parameters.
As mentioned earlier, there were some reservations on the use of the
Paliflex media for collecting total particulate samples. Hence, particulate
samples for the determination of C, H, and N content of the total particulate
were taken on both glass fiber and fluorocarbon-coated filter media.
Preliminary samples for C, H, and N analysis were sent to Gaibraith
Laboratories to determine whether of not the fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber
media could be used in this analysis. Galbraith reported, via Ms. Gail Hutchins,
that the fluorocarbon binder used in the Paliflex media produced from 6 to 7
percent, by weight, background carbon reading from a clean blank filter. Since
this percentage was significant relative to typical values obtained from
particulate-laden filters, it was decided that the fluorocarbon-coated glass
fiber media could be used for C, H, and N analysis. Particulate samples
collected on glass fiber media were used for this analysis.
Results from C, H, and N analysis of total particulate samples are given
in Table 13, along with computed 1 - I/C mole ratios for the total particulate.
With exception of the light load conditions, the percent of carbon increased
with use of the fuel-water macroemulsion, whereas the percent of hydrogen
tended to decrease. The H/C mole ratio increased for the light load conditions,
indicating that the particulate was slightly more oily with the macroemulsion
26
-------
10.9
6.8
4.6
: , I
. ,
__
- - -- -
-1
20
40 60 70 80
90 95 98 99
99.9
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD
Figure 7. Particle size distribution for Mack ETAY(B) 673A with
APE pump, without water
27
U)
0
I-i
C)
Q
C)
c i)
c i )
I
it-
IT
.2 .
ii
E :7 :iiii
‘F
i:::
3.2
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42
: ii1 -ttt1 -t
:1!
r
.-
—i-i
hr -
H -- --
I
I I.
t -
i L H I
Jill -
—I-
-4-.-
tTT . ±
T: :
- -
- - - __
I
:
—
=
—
t 1 H
:
.
-1 i
- f -Ff - - 4-
ft .
t+± - 1 I
- -- -- -
-------
.
—
tNlH
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD
Figure 8. Particle size distribution for Mack ETAY(B) 673A with
APE pump, with water
28
p
!/
I
-t t
/ : _L:.
_______ t ±
+
I ’ !
I__
j : j1T - • ,
:
:
_ .__LL
t . jj 1 -
:
:I /
: - - -—±
10.9
6.8
4.6
3.2
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42
j
i’ : t
m
/
it
/
/
:+ i : - t
:1: :1.
‘!i ‘:!:
fI ’ r!Ti
‘I,
I
I 7
I
ini
: -H r
pFF H f ___
: :: : :: 4
—--f---— I
: .:
1 _ . :
:
Ti,T
I t1 I L_I
E
III - H- - -
____
,__-,- f --, I ___
I -
20 40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9
-------
than without. The average H/C mole ratio showed only a minor decrease, from
0.91 to 0.85, when the engine was operated with water addition. The nitrogen
content was generally lower when the macroemulsion was used.
TABLE 13. PERCENT CARBON, HYDROGEN, AND NITROGEN IN PARTICULATE
FROM MACK ETAY(B) 673A RUN WITH AND WITHOUT WATER ADDITION
Speed, rpm! Carbon, % Hydrogen, % H/C Mole Ratio Nitrogen, %
Load, % With Without With Without With Without With Without
1450/2 20.45 28.43 1.45 1.60 0.84 0.67 -- 0.98
1450/50 51.15 40.75 2.15 1.61 0.50 0.76 1.30 1.86
1450/100 74.49 45.17 2.58 0.60 0.41 0.15 —- 0.78
Idle 31.62 42.16 4.51 5.85 1.70 1.65 0.91 0.82
1900/100 45.70 40.21 1.37 1.90 0.36 0.56 0.90 1.19
1900/50 51.05 32.35 1.79 3.00 0.42 1.11 0.56 0.64
1900/2 33.02 35.30 4.72 4.35 1.70 1.47 0.65 0.73
Results from x-ray fluorescence detection of elements present on
particulate-laden 47 mm Fluoropore media from the Mack ETAY(B) 673A,
operated with and without water addition, are given in Table 14. Of the eleven
elements detected, sulfur, calcium and silicon were the most prevalent. The
average percent by weight of sulfur increased from 2.7 to 3.8 when the engine
was operated with 30 percent water injection. Calcium was also somewhat
higher for runs with water. Detection of zinc was limited to engine operation
above 50 percent power. Other elements appeared somewhat randomly, and
were generally very low, less than 0.4 percent.
In order to characterize the organic fraction of the total particulate,
relatively large particulate samples were needed. Originally, particulate
samples were acquired using 8 x 10 inch rectangular-shaped filter media. This
filter size generally provided adequate particulate loading to determine the
soluble portion of the total particulate by soxhiet extraction with rnethylene
chloride. The resulting extractables or solubles were termed the soluble
organic fraction (SOF) of the particulate. This SOF was then analyzed for BaP
content. Interest in the health effects associated with diesel exhaust led to
interest in assessing the bioactivity of the SOF using the Ames bioassay. The
Ames procedure called for a wide range of doses on various tester strains,
hence, original estimates of SOF required were on the order of 600 mg. To
facilitate collecting large samples of total particulate for extraction to obtain
this relatively large quantity of SOF, special 20 x 20 inch filters and holders
were developed. A large single dilution CVS was completed and fitted with
three 20 x 20 inch filter positions. Particulate samples taken on 8 x 10 inch
sheets of Paliflex filter media were stored in favor of obtaining larger
particulate samples on 20 x 20 inch filter media.
29
-------
TABLE 14. ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PARTICULATE SAMPLES FROM THE
MACK ETAY(B) 673A RUN WITH AND WITHOUT WATER
Engine % by Weight
rpm/% load Configuration Al Si P S Cl Ca Ti Cr Fe Zn Pb
1450/2 APE Pump -— —- -— 1.22 -— —- -— —— -- ——
APE + 1120 0.03 0.11 —— 0.15 —— 0.54 —— —— —— ——
1450/25 APE Pump 0.01 0.08 —— 4.6 —— 0.09 0.01 —— 0.61 — —
APE + H 2 0 -— 0.02 -— 5.7 —- 0.12 —- -- —— -— —-
1450/50 APE Pump 0.01 —- —— 3.2 —— 0.03 —— —— —— 0.03
APE + H 2 0 0.02 0.03 —— 5.6 —— 0.12 —— —— —— ——
1450/75 APE Pump 0.01 —— —— 2.5 0.03 0.04 —— —— 0.04 0.29
APE + H 2 0 —— —— —— 3.1 0.02 0.07 —— 0.05 —— ——
1450/100 APE Pump 0.002 0.04 0.03 2.0 0.09 0.07 —— 0.04 0.02
APE + H 2 0 —— 0.02 —— 4.2 —— 0.10 —— 0.08 0.10
Idle APE Pump —— 0.04 —— 3.3 -— 0.16 —— —— — — -— —-
APE + H 2 0 -— —— —— 1.3 -— —— —— 0.21 0.10 -— 0.92
1900/100 APE Pump 0.003 0.02 0.05 2.6 0.02 0.13 —— 0.14 —— 0.12
APE + 1120 0.01 0.02 0.12 6.1 0.41 0.01 —— 0.21 0.21
1900/75 APE Pump 0.02 0.01 2.9 -— 0.04 —— —— 0.03 —-
APE + 1120 0.01 0.01 —— 4.9 -— 0.08 —— —— -- —-
1900/50 APE Pump 0.01 0.02 —— 2.9 —— 0.04 —— —— 0.03
APE + 1120 —— 0.01 —— 4.8 —— 0.09 —— 0.12 0.08
1900/25 APE Pump — 0.01 —- 2.6 —— 0.28 ——
APE + H 2 0 —— —— —— 5.0 —— 0.06 —— 0.28
1900/2 APE Pump —— 0.07 —— 2.2 —— 0.04
APE + H 2 0 —— 0.02 —— 1.4 —— 0.04 0.01
-------
The particulate requirements for Ames testing were later redefined,
reducing the amount of extract required for Ames bioassay from 600 to 150 mg.
An assumed percent extractables was also reduced from 15 to 10 percent. The
Mack ETAY(B) 673A was operated with and without water addition in order to
collect sufficient particulate samples over 7 modes of operation. Total exhaust
was introduced into the large single-dilution CVS, and three 20 x 20 inch
sampling systems were used to collect at least 1.5 grams of particulate matter
in each mode. Assuming that 10 percent of the total particulate was
extractable, 150 mg of SOF was then available for analysis. Acquisition of
these samples completed all characterization requirements on this engine.
These filters were shipped to EPA-RTP for extraction and subsequent
determination of BaP and bioassay.
Particulate samples on 20 x 20 inch filters, obtained from the Mack
ETAY(B) 673A engine run with and without water addition, were processed for
organic solubles (SOP) and BaP. Table 15 gives these results on a 7-mode
composite basis. Although water addition reduced composite 7-mode total
particulate mass emissions by about 58 percent, BaP emissions increased by 25
percent despite no significant change in the brake specific emissions of SOF.
Modal values of organic soluble and l3aP content are given in Tables A-18 and
A-19 of Appendix A, and were used to compute the 7-mode composite rates.
The addition of water to the fuel significantly increased organic solubles (from
1.7 g/hr to 6.1 g/hr) at idle. In addition, a significant increase in BaP levels was
noted at idle and at light load (2 percent) when water was used..
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, BaP, NOR, AND ORGANIC
SOLUBLES FROM THE MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH APE PUMP
Seven-Mode Composites of Emissions
Without Water With Water
Particulatea
g/kW-hr 0.71 0.30
g/kg fuel 2.89 1.23
Solublesa
Percent 11.7 27.0
SoFa
mg/k W-hr 83 81
mg/kg fuel 336 362
BaPa
pg/k W-hr 0.180 0.225
pg/kg fuel 0.729 0.924
NO
j7 W-hr 8.68 6.52
g/kg fuel 35.21 26.80
aDete ined from 20 x 20 samples
31
-------
Results from Ames bioassay of the soluble organic fraction of the total
particulate are given in Tables 16 and 17 for operation without and with water,
respectively. Generally, higher levels of bioactivity were noted over strains
TA98 and TAIOO. The highest level of specific activity was noted on strain
TA98 from the 1900 rpm/100 percent load run with water. Response and brake
specific response were g neral1y greater when water was used.
32
-------
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO INDIViDUAL MODAL SAMPLES FROM THE
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITHOUT WATER
Sample Soluble Strain TA98 Strain TA100
Test Organic Power Metabolic BrakeC BrakeC
Condition Fraction Output Activation Specif ± a b Specific Specif 10 a b Specific
rpm/% load g SOF/hr kW Status Activity Response Response Activity Response Response
1450/2 5.91 5.0 Yes 0.13 0.77 150 0.33 2.0 390
No 0.13 0.77 150 0.40 2.4 470
1450/50 4.84 103 Yes 0.12 0.58 6 0.21 1.0 10
No 0.12 0.58 6 1.1 5.3 50
1450/100 12.9 215 Yes 0.04 0.51 2 0.22 2.8 13
No 0.10 1.3 6 —— —— ——
Idle 1.69 Yes 0.12 0.20 —— 0.45 0.76
No 0.13 0.22 —— 1.2 2.0
1900/100 7.98 231 Yes 0.38 3.0 13 0.37 3.0 13
No 0.31 2.5 11 —— —— ——
1900/50 11.7 115 Yes 0.11 1.3 11 0.20 2.3 20
No 0.13 1.5 13 0.29 3.4 30
1900/2 10.2 5.2 Yes 0.26 2.7 510 0.23 2.3 450
No 0.14 1.4 280 0.32 3.3 630
aSpecific activity has units of revertants/plate/ ig SOF dose and is based on the linear portion of the slope
bof dose response curve
Response has units of 106 revertants/plate/hr and is the product of specific activity and SOF emission rate
Brake specific response has units of i0 3 revertants/plate/kW—hr
-------
TABLE 16 (CONT’D). SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL MODAL SAMPLES FROM
THE MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITHOUT WATER
Sample Soluble Strain TA1535 Strain TA1537 Strain TA1538
Test Organic Power Metabolic BrakeC Brake’ BrakeC
Condition Fraction Output Activation Specifica b Specific Specifica b Specific Specifica b Specific
rpm/V. load g SOFfhr kW Status Activity Response Response Activity Response Response Activity Response Response
1450/2 5.91 5.0 Yes —— — —— 0.07 0.41 83 0.19 1.1 230
No 0.02 0.12 24 0.07 0.41 83 0.28 1.7 330
1450/50 4.84 103 Yes —— 0.06 0.29 3 — ——
No
1450/100 12.9 215 Yes
No
Idle 1.69 Yes —— — —— 0.08 0.14 —— 0.13 0.22
No 0.02 0.034 —— 0.05 0.09 —— 0.22 0.37
1900/100 7.98 231 Yes
No
(-h)
1900/50 11.7 115 Yes —— — —— 0.05 0.59 5
No 0.01 0.12 1 0.06 0.70 6
1900/2 10.2 5.2 Yes —— —— —— 0.08 0.82 160 0.15 1.5 290
No 0.02 0.20 39 0.05 0.51 100 0.10 1.0 200
aSpecific activity has units of revertants/plate/pg SOF dose and is based on the linear portion of the slope
bof dose response curve 6
Response has units of 10 revertants/plate/hr and is the product of specific activity and SOF emission rate
CBrake specific response has units of 10 revertants/plate/kW—hr
-------
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL MODAL SAMPLES FROM THE
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH WATER
Sample Soluble Strain TA98 Strain TA100
Test Organic Power Metabolic Brakec BrakeC
Condition Fraction Output Activation Specifica b Specific Specifica b Specific
rprn/% load g SOF/hr kW Status Activity Response Response Activity Response Response
1450/2 6.96 5.0 Yes 0.97 190 0.45 3.1 630
No 0.16 1.1 220 1.2 8,4 1700
1450/50 3.97 106 Yes 0.23 0.91 9 0.28 1.1 11
No 0.10 1.1 11 —— ——
1450/100 4.64 214 Yes 0.24 1.1 5 0.24 1.1 5
No 0.12 0.56 3 0.75 3.5 16
Idle 6.09 Yes 0.20 1.2 0.30 1.8
No 0.04 0.24 0.63 3.8
1900/100 4.31 236 Yes 0.55 2.4 10 1.2 5.2 22
No 0.48 2.1 9 1.1 4.7 20
1900/50 10.4 118 Yes 0.36 3.7 32 0.18 1.9 16
No 0.12 1.2 11 0.32 3.3 28
1900/2 16.3 3.6 Yes 0.11 1.8 500 0.35 5.7 1600
No 0.09 1.5 410 0.84 14. 3800
aSpecific activity has units of revertants/plate/pg SOF dose and is based on the linear portion of the slope
bof dose response curve 6
has units of 10 revertants/plate/hr and is the product of specific activity and SOF emission rate
dB ke specific response has units of revertants/plate/kW—hr
Average of two determinations
-------
TABLE 17 (CONT’D). SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL MODAL SAMPLES FROM
TUE MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITI-I WATER
Sample Soluble — Strain TA1535 Strain TA1537 Strain TA1538
Test Organic Power Metabolic Brakec Brakec Brakec
Condition Fraction Output Activation Specifica b Specific Specific 3 b Specific Specifica h Specific
rpm/% load g SOF/hr kW Status Activity Response Response Activity Response Response Activity Response Response
1450/2 6.% 5.0 Yes — —— — 0.06 0.42 84 0.13 0.90 180
No 0.02 0.14 28 0.16 1.1 220 0.26 360
1450/50 3.97 106 Yes —— —— —— 0.11 0.44 4 —— ——
No 0.00 0.00 0 0.05 0.20 2 —— ——
1450/100 4.64 214 Yes
No
Idle 6.09 —— Yes — —— —— 0.02 0.12 —— O 24 1.5
No 0.01 0.06 — 0.07 0.43 — 0J2 0.73
1900/100 4.31 236 Yes
No
1900/50 10.4 118 Yes — —— — 0.15 1.6 13 0.24 2.5 21
No 0.02 0.21 2 0.09 0.94 8 0.16 1.7 14
1900/2 16.3 3.6 Yes — —— — 0.05 0.82 230 0.16 2.6 720
No 0.02 0 33 90 0.04 0.65 180 0.30 4.9 1400
aSpecific activity has units of revertants/plate/ug SOF dose and is based on the linear portion of the slope
bof dose respone curve 6
Response has units of 10 revertants/plate/hr and is the product of specific activity and SOF emission rate
CBr e specific response has units of iü revertants/plate/kW
-------
IV. CONFIRMATORY EMISSIONS TEST WORK ON THE CHEVROLET 366
HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE ENGINE
This section of the report describes the test work performed on the
Chevrolet 366 heavy-duty gasoline engine. Emissions characterization work
performed under this program was conducted to confirm and expand the data
base initiated in an earlier program. Some background information is given
along with the description of the engine. Special preparations are described,
and the properties of the test fuel used in this program are compared to those
of the fuel used in the earlier work. At the time this work was performed, the
main emphasis was to obtain large particulate samples for subsequent analysis
of organic solubles, BaP, and Ames bioassay. Results from these analyses are
given along with other results obtained over the course of this portion of the
program.
A. Background Information and Test Engine Description
Under a previous program, EPA Contract No. 68-03-24 17, emission levels
for the Chevrolet 366 heavy-duty asoline engine (modified to meet 1977
California standards) were reported. ) In that study, emission levels from this
gasoline engine were compared to those of a Caterpillar 3208 diesel engine with
EGR. Although particulate levels from the leaded gasoline engine were much
lower than from the diesel engine, the gasoline engine had higher cycle
composite emissions of BaP (3.0 vs 2.5 ig/kW-hr). Test conditions of full
power-1200 rpm and 2300 rpm on the Chevrolet 366 engine showed relatively
high levels of RaP. Higher emissions of benzaldehyde, crotonaldehyde, and
formaldehyde were also noted for the gasoline engine compared to the diesel
engine. In addition, the Chevrolet 366 engine emitted much more methane,
benzene, and toluene than the diesel engine. Based on these results, more work
was needed to explain or isolate the reasons for the high emissions of BaP noted
during full power operation of this gasoline engine.
A test program was developed to verify the previous BaP results and to
discover what variables may have caused those results. The intended test work
on the Chevrolet 366 engine was broken into four basic steps: 1) verify and
quantify previous results obtained almost 2 years before; 2) adjust carburetor to
“lean best power” at the full-power condition and retest; 3) conduct
experiments with unleaded fuel, depending on the results of Steps I and 2; and
4) run tests with catalyst or fuel variations if authorized by the Project Officer
based on Steps 1 through 3.
The 1977 Chevrolet 366 cubic inch heavy-duty gasoline engine had been
modified for EGR and air injection to meet 1977 California emission standards.
The engine was rated for 185 hp at 4000 rpm on regular leaded gasoline, with a
peak torque of 290 ft—lb in the single-exhaust configuration. The compression
ratio of this engine was 7.6:1. The same engine used in the previous work
(Serial No. l9645-72C) was mounted for steady-state dynamometer testing as
shown in Figure 9. In setting up to test the Chevrolet 366 after two years of
non-use, it was noted that the engine had a cracked manifold. A new manifold
and air-injection manifold (tubing) was fitted to the engine along with a new set
of spark plug wires and a revised flywheel adapter.
37
-------
Figure 9. Chevrolet 366 heavy-duty gasoline engine
mounted for test work
B. Special Preparations and Test Fuel
Initial emissions characterization of the Chevrolet 366 engine raised
concerns about high BaP found in the particulate emitted. Special preparations
and care were taken in preparing the sampling systems to be used in this test
work. These preparations included assuring that there were no diesel
contaminants within any of the sampling apparatus. This task was significant,
and included dismantling the dilution tunnel and portions of the”splitter system”
for thorough cleaning.
The splitter system (shown in Section III, Figure 4) was modified to utilize
four “20 x 20” inch filters to collect particulate matter from the entire dilute
stream, although only a fraction of the exhaust could be diluted due to sampling
temperature limitations. Cassettes for the 20 x 20 holders were supplied by
ESRL. These filter holders are shown in Figure 10 attached to the end of the 18
inch-diameter dilution tunnel. Smaller filter holders (47 mm) were used to
collect additional particulate samples for various analyses. Small particulate
samples (47 mm filters) and gaseous emissions were taken initially to check the
engine for repeatability (since previous work) and to compute exhaust mass
flows by mode. Periodic gaseous emissions and 47 mm filter checks were
performed during 20 x 20 sample collection periods.
38
-------
I
Figure 10. From 20 x 20 inch filter holders used to
obtain large quantities of particulate
Original plans called for the same fuel previously used (EM-275-F), but
this fuel had become contaminated by water in the underground tank, so a new
batch having substantially the same specifications was procured. This new fuel
(EM-4ll-F) was ordered using the same requested specifications as th.e previous
material. Some of the fuel properties not specifically called out were
different, however, as shown in Table 18. The difference in aromatic content
caused the most concern, especially since the two fuels had similar octane
numbers.
Another batch of gasoline was ordered on January 28, 1980, with more
carefully defined properties, and it was received on February 19, 1980. This
fuel was coded EM-433-F, and its properties as measured by the supplier
(Howell) are given in Table 18 with those of the other gasolines discussed
previously. The properties of EM-433-F were acceptable, and testing proceeded
with this gasoline.
C. Sample Acquisition and Emissions Results
The primary goal of this program was to attempt replication of large
sample collections performed previously under Contract 68-03-2417, this time
at only two engine operating conditions (2300 rpm and 100% load; 2300 rpm and
50% load). In conjunction with the large samples, a limited number of
39
-------
TABLE 18. GASOLINE SPECIFICATIONS FOR CHEVROLET 366 TESTS
EM—411-F, Gasoline EM—433-F, Gasoline
EN—275—F, Old Gasoline Received 12/79 received 2/19/80,
Property Reported Earlier Div. 10 (12/79) Howell Analysis Div. 10 Analysis Howell Analysis
Gravity, °API 62.8 62.6 59.7
RVP, psi 7.5 8.2 7.9
Octane, F—i 91.8 91.6 92.0
Total S, % 0.030 0.021 0.022
g Pb/gal 1.60 1.63 1.34 1.64
Aromatics, % 49.9 36.3 12.9 12.5 29.8
Olefins, % 5.2 1.1 0.7 0.9
ASTM D86 d
IBP, °F 98 87 91 c 95
5 130 126 135 118
10 150 150 159 130
20 176 182 192 142
30 206 207 160
40 216 219 180
50 220 222 227 207
60 236 237 224
70 242 247 249 246
80 264 264 272
90 302 291 310
95 307 342 312 325
EP, °F 340 386 350 357
Residue 0.4 1.0 1.5 1.0
Loss 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0
p, g/mi 0.7347 0.7283 0.7290 0.740
Earlier value of 54.2 was apparent miscalculation by Howell
SwRI Division 08 result, probably erroneous
d This distillation reported as % evaporated
This distillation reported as % recovered
-------
particulate samples were taken on 47 mm filters to check the engine’s
particulate emission rate. Gaseous emissions were also measured over a
simulated 13-mode test to check for reproducibility of emissions observed
during the “2417” Contract and to compute engine exhaust flows at the test
conditions of interest.
Gaseous emissions from the Chevrolet 366 gasoline engine measured under
this Contract (“2706”) are shown in Table 19, as compared to emissions
measured from the same engine several years earlier under the “2417”
Contract.(5) The most substantial emissions difference occurred in gaseous HC,
with the engine producing higher concentrations than it did in the previous
work. It is possible that some part of this difference was due to use of a
different fuel, but there was no rigorous way of determining the complete
reason or reasons within the scope of this program.
TABLE 19. 13-MODE GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM CHEVROLET 366 ENGINE
Mode
Speed,
rpm
Power, Gaseous Emissions, and Fuel Rate by Contract Number
Power, kW
HC, g/h
CO, g/h
NOR, g/h
Fuel, kg/h
2417
2706
2417
2706
2417
2706
2417
2706
2417
2705
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
700
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
700
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
700
--
1
11
22
33
43
--
88
66
44
22
2
—-
--
0.4
11.2
22.1
33.3
44.5
--
90.0
67.7
45.0
22.7
1.7
--
37
2
5
10
16
143
26
259
6
1
1
2
42
74
6
14
30
63
205
139
342
25
2
2
4
110
198
114
296
801
1987
9130
199
27614
2984
373
132
137
209
185
90
233
862
1807
8750
338
24165
5571
715
274
167
136
2
8
30
91
136
92
2
11
302
161
50
17
1
2
5
33
102
146
80
2
98
179
121
59
16
1
2.6
4.5
6.4
8.5
11.9
15.9
2.6
34.9
23.2
17.5
12.5
7.4
2.6
2.5
4.1
5.9
8.2
11.6
16.5
2.5
33.8
24.3
17.5
11.8
7.0
1.5
Weighted
26.560
27.088
42.60
76.973
3511
3455
72.17
67.45
11.94
11.69
Weighted g/kW-hr
1.60
2.84
132.2
127.5
2.72
2.49
449
432
Data pertinent to particulate collection runs are presented in Table 20.
The test at 2300 rpm/100% load was conducted for 2.25 hours, continuously.
The major criterion used to determine a cutoff point was an increase in p
across the positive displacement pump sampling through 20 x 20 PalIflex filters
to 46 inches 1-120 from the initial value of 42 inches H 2 0. The higher 1 p figure
was about the maximum of which the pump and motor were capable. The
41
-------
TABLE 20. DATA FROM PARTICULATE COLLECTION EXPERIMENTS WITH
CHEVROLET 366 GASOLINE ENGiNE
Engine operating conditions
Date(s) of collection run
Duration of collection run
2300 rpm, 100% load
2/29/80
135 mm
2300rpm, 50% load
3/3/80 and 3/4/80
285 mm
Dilute exhaust flow, total
Raw exhaust into tunnel
Engine exhaust rate, calculated
911.85 kg/h (2010.25 ibm/h)
55.04 kg/h (121.35 ibm/h)
456.82 kg/h (1007.1 ibm/h)
AVG. 924.11 kg/h (2037.27 ibm/h)
AVG. 50.31 kg/h (100.91 ibm/h)
279.42 kg/h (616.00 ibm/h)
Fraction of engine exhaust
entering tunnel
0.1205
AVG. 0.1801
Calculated molecular wt. of
raw exhaust gas
27.84
29.034
Particulate samples & rates
47mm filter type—no.
holder number
collected wt., mg
dilute exhaust filtered, ft3a
47PL-403
1
6.204
104.57
47FH—401
2
4.912
85.43
A47-403
3
8.557
124.04
A47—402
4
8.335
132.70
47FH-402
1
4.919
121.13
47PL-401
2
5.059
148.16
A47-404
3
5.926
139.90
A47-405
4
6.081
149.91
calculated engine particulate
rate, g/h
13.21
12.80
15.35
13.98
5.77
4.85
6.02
5.76
47mm filter type—no.
holder number
collected wt., mg
dilute exhaust filtered, f 3a
1
————
————
2
————
————
---—
3
————
——S-—
—--—
4
—-——
47FH-403
1
4.128
116.25
47PL-402
2
4.754
134.05
A47-406
3
4.885
126.61
A47 -407
4
4.936
136.31
calculated engine particulate
rate, g/h
————
————
——-—
—-——
5.43
5.42
5.90
5.53
20 x 20 Pallflex filter
collected wt., g
PL—40 5
0.9344
PL—406 J PL-407
0.93971 0.9221
PL—408
0.9278
PL—409
1.3000
PL—4l0
1.1944
PL-41l 1 PL—4l2
1.18801 1.0805
__________
composite calculated engine
particulate rate, g/h
13.74
6.03
at 29.92”Hg and 528°R (20°C)
no data
-------
contribution of the 20 x 20 filters themselves to the system pressure drop
changed from about 26.3 inches H 2 0 when clean to 32.5 inches when fully
loaded. The particulate flatter observed was a very light gray in color, almost
indistinguishable from the surface of the filter itself. Using the previously-
determined value of 3.9% by mass, the 3.7240 grains of particulate matter
collected on the four 20 x 20 filters were expected to yield about 14.5 mg
solubles for Ames and haP analysis.
The test at 2300 rpinl5o% load was conducted in two segments of 2.50
hours and 2.25 hours, respectively. The 20 x 20 filters were left sealed in the
tunnel overnight between parts of the collection run. Two sets of 47 mm filters
were used. The particulate netter collected in these runs looked exactly like
that collected at full toad. In this case, the 4.7629 grams of particulate flatter
collected should yield about 124.8 mg solubles at 2.62% by mass (as determined
in Contract “24 17”). Pressure drop across the fiLters increased from about 26.3
inches H 2 0 to 32.4 inches 1 -120 over the total period of the test runs.
Analyzing the total particulate rates observed, good agreement of all
filters and filter systems was noted internal to each operating condition. As
co.npared to results from the “2417” Contract, the latest results showed lower
total particulate emissions at 100% load (14.7 glh average 47 mm G.F. this
work vs 26.1 g/h previously), but approximately equal total particulate
emissions at 50% load (5.8 g/h average 47 mm G.F. this work versus 6.1 g/h
previously).
Filters designated for analysis were shipped to the responsible persons or
organizations. Table 21 shows the disposition of these filters, corresponding
blanks where appropriate, and CABS numbers for the 20 x 20 filters. RTP was
responsible for obtaining the organic soluble fraction (SOF) from the particulate
collected on the 20 x 20 filters. In addition, RIP would determine RaP and
Ames bioassay of the resulting solubles. Small particulate samples collected on
47 mm Fluoropore media were submitted to RTP for analysis by x ray
diffraction. Carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen content of the p .rticulate was
determined by Gaibraith Laboratories, Inc.
Results from analysis of particulate for metals and C, H, and N are given
in Table 22. As expected, the dominant elements were lead, bromine, and
chlorine. If all the lead and halogens were present as the compound Pbt3rCl, the
elemental weight ratios would be 0.64/0.25/0.11. Our samples, represented as
elemental weight ratios, ‘vere 0.52/0.27/0.20 at 100% load, and 0.60/0.29/0. 10
and 0.59/0.30/0.11 at 50% load. The three compounds (Pb, Br, & Cl) constituted
83.5 to 86.6 weight percent of the particulate natter collected on Fluoropore
I ii ter.s.
With regards to C, F -I, and N, the high-power condition apparently yielded
less carbon than the 50% load condition, contrary to expectations since exhaust
CO level was about 6 percent at full power versus about 0.3 percent at half
power. None of the filters collected any visible carbon, such as would be
expected under a “black smoke” condition. If the carbon and hydrogen
percentages determined by combustion were a reliable indication, the samples
of particulate matter would contain only 1 to 2 percent solubles.
43
-------
TABLE 21. DISPOSITION OF SAMPLE FILTERS FROM TEST RUNS ON CHEVROLET 366
GASOLINE ENGINE, 2/29-3/4-80
Engine operating condition
—-
2300 rpm, 100% load
—
2300 rpm, 50% load
Corresponding
blank
Disposition
Date(s) of test
2/29/80
3,’3/80
3/4/80
Fluoropore 47mm filter no(s).
collected wt., mg
Paliflex 47 mm filter no(s) .
collected wt., mg
G.F. 47mm filter no(s) .
collectedwt., mg
G.F. 47mm filter no(s).
collected wt., ing
47FH—401
4.912
47PL—403
6.204
A47—402
8.335
A47—403
8.557
47FH-402
4.919
47PL—401
5.059
A47—404
5.926
A47—405
6.081
47FH—403
4.128
47PL—402
4.754
A47-406
4.885
A47—407
4.936
47FH—406
——
47PL—406
——
A47—412
-—
A47—413
---
R P for X—ray
SwRI for
micro soxhiet
Gaibraith for
CHN
SwRI for
micro soxhiet
Paliflex 20x20 filter no.
assigned no. (EPA)
collected et., mg
PL-405
CABS-S0-0840
934.4
PL—409
CABS-80-0880
1300.0
--
--
-—
rP for
Ames, BaP
Paliflex 20x20 filter no.
assigned no. (EPA)
collected wt., mg
PL-406
cABs—8 0-0 850
939.7
PL—410
C ABs-80—0890
1194.4
-
-—
-—
RTP for
Ames, BaP
Paliflex 20x20 filter no.
assigned no. (EPA)
collected wt., mg
PL-407
CABS-80-0860
922.1
PL-411
CABS-80-0900
1188.0
-
--
-—
RTP for
Ames, BaP
Paliflex 20x20 filter no.
assigned no. (EPA)
collected wt., mg
PL-408
CABS-80-0870
927.8
PL-412
CABS-80—0910
1080.5
--
-—
-—
RTP for
Ames, BaP
-------
u - i
TABLE 22. ANALYSIS OF PARTICULATE SAMPLES COLLECTED ON 47 mm
FILTERS, CHEVROLET 366 GASOLINE ENGINE
Engine Operating Condition
Collection Date
2300rpm, 100% load
2/29/80
2300rpm, 50% load
3/3/80
2300rpm, 50% load
3/4/80
Filter Types, Numbers
Particulate Weight on Filter, mg
Calculated Particulate Rate, g/h
47FH-401
4.912
12.80
A47—402
8.335
13.98
45FH—402
4.919
5.77
A47—404
5.926
6.02
47FH—403
4.128
5.43
A47—406
4.885
5.90
Major Elements in % of particulate
Pb
Br
Cl
C
H
N
— —
43.4
22.6
16.8
——
—-
—-
——
——
——
2.07
1.93
5.45
51.3
24.8
8.9
—-
—-
—-
——
——
-—
8.06
0.66
2.90
50.8
25.9
9.3
——
——
——
——
——
——
8.23
0.61
3.46
Minor_Elements_in_pg_on_filter
Na
Mg
Si
P
K
Ca
Ti
Cr
Fe
Cu
Zn
9.1
2.1
1.6
1.8
0.1
3.6
0.1
--
11.
2.0
5.0
——
——
——
——
——
——
——
--
—-
——
——
14.
2.5
1.1
1.7
0.2
1.6
—-
--
5.1
1.7
5.6
——
——
——
——
——
—-
——
--
—-
——
——
11.
2.1
0.5
1.3
0.1
0.6
-—
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.9
——
——
——
——
——
——
--
—-
——
——
-------
A decision was reached by the Project Officer on May 7, 1980, that we
should proceed to collect additional 20 x 20 filter samples of particulate matter
from the Chevrolet 366 at its existing mixture setting (stock), then proceed to
collect 20 x 20 filter samples at a “lean best power” (our term) setting. All
these additional samples, collected at 2300 rpm and 100% load, are listed in
Table 23. It was understood that since no Ames tests were to be conducted on
these samples, assignment of CABS numbers was not necessary.
The Project Officer was contacted on May 13, and he subsequently
confirmed that the total of 18.96 grams particulate matter would be sufficient
after conferring with Joellen Huisingh of RTP. The additional filters were sent
to Bob Jungers at EPA-RIP on May 14, 1980.
The engine F/A setting was changed in preparation for sample collection
under “lean” conditions. The engine had been operating at about 6 percent CO,
and our targets were 1 percent CO (or less) with reasonable operability and a
drop in power of 1 percent or less from the observed maximum value.
The sequence of carburetor jet configurations evaluated was as follows:
Jet Sizes, Inches Results
Configuration Primary Secondary Load % CO Operability
Stock 0.0632 0.071 208 6.0 OK
Step 1 0.0632 0.062 208 2.8 OK
Step 2 0.0632 0.0542 208 2.1 OK
Step 3 0.0542 0.0542 196 0.2 died at idle
Step 4 0 • 055 b 0.0542 205 0.5 rough idle,
but ran
aldle air screws full out (richest) position
bNo 50 drill = 0.055 in.
The “Step 4” configuration was used for the sample collection under “lean”
conditions, and the engine was left in this trim pending the outcome of all the
particulate analyses.
In contrast to the “stock” (rich) collection experiments, during which
filters increased in pressure drop to system maximum over a period of two to
three hours, filters used for “lean” collection increased in p very slowly. This
difference meant that each set of 4 filters could be used for a longer period of
time, and in the process, that each filter could accumulate a larger mass of
particulate matter. Filter codes and loadings for the eight filters used to
collection particulate matter under lean conditions are summarized in Table 24.
The total amount of particulate matter collected on the eight filters was
46
-------
TABLE 23. FILTER NUMBERS AND COLLECTED PARTICULATE WEIGHTS,
CHEVROLET 366 GASOLINE ENGINE, FULL POWER OPERATING AT
2300 rpm, STANDARD CARBURETOR 3ETTING
Date Used
Filter Number
Wt. Particulate
Collected, g
wt. Subtotal
for Run, g
Collect
Rate,
ion
g/h
5/8/80
5428—P20--O1
1.3593
—02
1.3432
—03
1.3991
—04
1.3616
5.46
1.82
5/9/80
(am)
5428—P20—05
—06
0.9873
0.9825
—07
0.9700
—08
0.9571
3.89
1.94
5/9/80
(pm)
5428—P20—09
-10
—11
0.9623
0.9841
0.9806
—12
0.9643
3.90 1.73
5 12/80
5428—P20-- 13
1.4543
—14
1.4765
—15
1.3875
—16
1.3884
5.71 1.63
47
-------
approximately 23.97 grams, which was considered sufficient for analysis
purposes. After reporting these results to the Project Officer, the samples
were sent to EMSL for solubles, BaP, and Ames analyses. A few samples were
taken on 47 mm filters for other analyses while the 20 x 20’s were being loaded.
TABLE 24. FILTER NUMBERS AND COLLECTED PARTICULATE WEIGHTS,
CHEVROLET 366 GASOLINE ENGINE WITH LEAN CARBURETOR SETTING,
2300 RPM AND FULL LOAD
SwRI Filter CABS Filter Wt. Particulate Collection
Date(s) Used Number Number Collected, g Rate, g/h
5/14-5/19/80 5428-P20- 17 CABS—80-0060 3.7 674
5428-P20-18 CABS-80-0070 3.7905
5428-P20-1 9 CABS-80-0080 3.7667 1.25
5428-P20-20 CABS-80-0090 3.6997
5/20-5/21/80 5428—P20-25 CABS-80-0 100 2.2776
5428-P20-26 CABS-80-01I0 2.2178
5428-P20-27 CABS-80-0120 2.2309 1.05
5428-P20-28 CABS-80-0130 2.2167
Results of analyses performed on the 47 mm filter samples are
summarized in Table 25. This table also contains engine, tunnel, and sample
flowrate data; collected particulate masses; and computed engine particulate
emission rates. The emission rates of 8.1 to 10.6 g/h (Paliflex) (average
emission rate was 9.2 g/hr) computed for lean operation were about 23 percent
lower compared to the rates determined for rich operation, which were 13.2 to
13.7 g/h.
Analysis of particulate matter collected on 47 mm filters, shown in Table
25, can be compared to corresponding results for rich operation. This
comparison shows lower C, H, and N during lean operation, comparable Br and
Cl, and somewhat higher Pb during lean operation.
Of the several samples of particulate generated during the course of this
program, many of the particulate-laden filters were assigned identification
numbers for subsequent solubles, BaP and Ames bioassay analyses. Original
plans called for many replicate analyses, especially on the Ames bioassay.
During the time period that these particulate samples were obtained, much
work on solubles, BaP, and Ames bioassay was being conducted nationwide in
order to assess the potential hazards of materials found in combustion engine
exhaust. To expedite analyses, many of the individual particulate samples were
combined into single samples by EPA in order to streamline the handling and
analyses. Table 24 gives the combinations formed by EPA from the various
samples obtained during this test work.
48
-------
TABLE 25. DATA FROM PARTICULATE COLLECTION EXPERIMENTS WITH
CHEVROLET 366 GASOLINE ENGINE, LEAN CARBURETOR AD3USTMENT
Engine Operating Conditions
2300 rpm, 100% load, lean carburetor adjustment
Date(s) of collection run
Duration of collection run
Dilute exhaust flowrate
Raw exhaust rate into tunnel
Engine exhaust rate, calculated
Fraction engine exh. into tunnel
Raw exhaust m.w., calculated
20x20, 5/14—5/19; 47mm, 5/16
20x20, llh; 47mm, 2.5h max.
all — 905 kg/h (1995 ibm/h)
20x20, 54.8 kg/h; 47mm, 68.5 kg/h
all — 425 kg/h (936 ibm/h)
20x20, 0.1291; 47mm, 0.1613
all — 29.03
20x20, 5/20 & 5/21; 47mm, 5/21
20x20, 8.5h; 47ii n, 6.5h max.
20x20, 887 kg/h; 47mm, 879 kg/h
20x20, 49.5 kg/h; 47mm , 49.5 kg/h
all — 425 kg/h (936 lbm/h)
20x20, 0.1166; 47mm, 0.1166
all — 29.03
Particulate_Samples_and Rates
47mm filter type—number
holder number
collected weight, mg
dilute exhaust filtered, ft 3 a
P47—1
1
7.698
149.5
F47—l
2
4.206
73.6
A47—l
3
9.741
149.7
A47—2
4
7.089
149.2
F47—3
i
10.268
270.4
P47—3
2
12.387
349.3
A47—5
3
15.190
361.5
A47—6
4
14.715
361.5
engine particulate emission
rate (calculated), g/h —
8.5
9.4
10.7
78 b
8.6
8.1
9.6
9.3
Major Elements in
% of Particulate
Pb
Br
ci
C
H
N
c
25.4
2 4 d
<0.1
0.23
0.68
56.2
21.9
12.3
0.19
0.34
0.89
Minor Elements
in_(ig/filter
Na
Mg
Si
p
K
Ca
Ti
V
Cr
Fe
Cu
Zn
Sn
Sb
Ba
c
———
2.2
0.2
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.4
———
is.
1.6
5.2
———
-——
———
36.
5.0
4.7
7.5
0.3
11.
0.3
0.5
1.4
17.
3.9
8.5
1.4
0.4
0.3
—
20x20 Paliflex Filter No.
Collected weight, g
P20—17
3.7674
P20—18
3.7905
P20—19 f P20—20
3.7667 3.6997
P20—25
2.2776
P20—26
2.2178
P20—27
2.2309
P20—28
2.2167
Composite calculated
engine particulate
emission rate, g/h
10.6
9.0
aat 29.92 in Hg and 528°R (20°C)
bprob ly an erroneous result due to filter case leakage
C analysis conducted where blanks appear in this section
result, no explanation
edhec indicate ‘none detected” in this section
49
-------
TABLE 26. COMBINATIONS OF PARTICULATE SAMPLE FOR
SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS
Chevrolet 366 California
Engine Carburetor Set as “Stock” Carb. Set as “Lean”
Condition 2300 rpm/100% load 2300 rprn/5096 load 2300 rpm/l00% load
Assigned CABS-80-084 oa CABS_8 0_088 0a CABS_80_0060b
EPA CABS-80-0850 CABS-80-0890 CABS-80-0070
Sample No. CABS-80-0860 CA BS-80-0900 CABS-80-0080
CABS-80-0870 CABS—80-.09 10 CABS-80-0090
CABS-80-Ol00
CABS-80-01 10
CABS-80-0l 20
____________ ____________ CABS-80-01 30
Combined
EPA
Sample No. CABS-80-0841 CABS—80- .0881 CABS-S0-0131
aThe corresponding filters were tabulated in Table 21
bThe corresponding filters were tabulated in Table 24
Sample CABS—80--.0841 from the “stock” configuration run at 2300 rprnhlOO
percent load was analyzed for organic solubles and BaP Content and resulted in
2.06 percent solubles with a brake specific BaP emission of 0.16 ig BaP/kW-hr.
Similar analysis of sample CABS-80-0881 (2300 rpm/SO percent load) was
conducted and resulted in a 1.15 percent solubles with a brake specific BaP
emission of 0.0019 ig BaP/kW-hr. Both of these SOF samples were tested for
bioactivity using the Ames test on Strain TAIOO. Results from this limited
Ames testing are given in Table 27.
TABLE 27. SUMMARY OF AMES BIOASSAY OF SOF FROM THE
CHEVROLET 366 IN “STOCK” CONFIGURATION ON
TESTER STRAIN TA 100.
Test SOF Metabolic Specific Brake Specific
Condition, Emission, Activation Activity, Response,
rpm/% load mg/k W-hr Status rev/ dose l O 3 rev/piate/kW-hr
2300/100 3.13 Yes 3.0 9.4
No 4.4 14
2300/50 1.53 Yes 1.5 2.3
No 12 1
Analysis of CABS-80-0131, the combined sample for the “lean” carburetor
setting, showed that the soluble organic fraction made up 0.5 percent of the
total particulate collected. Analysis of this SOF indicated BaP as 0.00031 g
50
-------
BaP/kW-hr. Results of bioassay for the SOF are given in Table 28. Compared
to results in Table 27, it appears that potential bioactive compounds in the SOF
were reduced when the engine was readjusted to run lean at full power.
TABLE 28. SUMMARY OF AMES BIOASSAY OF SOFb FROM THE
CHEVROLET 366 ADJUSTED LEAN
Metabolic Specific Activity Brake Specific
Tester Activation rev! ig dose Response, Avg.
Strain Status Test 1 Test 2 1O rev/plate!kW-hr
TA98 No a 6.7 3.7
Yes 1.2 1.6 0.8
TAIOO No a 41 2.2
Yes 1.6 1.4 0.8
TA 1538 No a 0.7 0.4
Yes 1.3 1.0 0.6
alnsufficient data for statistical analysis
bBased on max. power operation, average particulate rate was 9.8 g/hr,
max. power 88 kW, brake specific particulate 0.11 g/kW—hr;
extractables were 0.5 percent by mass or 0.5.5 mg SOF/kW-hr
51
-------
V. EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION OF A CUMMINS VTB-903 AND A
DETROIT DIESEL 6V-71N IN BASELINE AND MALAD3USTED
CONFIGURATIONS
The purpose of this portion of the program was to characterize emissions
from two heavy-duty bus engines in both baseline and maladjusted
configurations. The maladjustments were intended to simulate some degree of
wear and/or lack of maintenance. It was decided that maladjusted
configurations should represent a field condition in which the bus would remain
in service due to adequate performance, but with a “smokey” exhaust. The two
dissimilar engines selected for use in this work were the Cummins VTB-903 and
the Detroit Diesel 6V-71N. This section is divided into three smaller
subsections. Subsection A describes the test procedures, along with the
analytical procedures used to determine the exhaust emissions. Subsection B
describes the work performed and the emissions results from the Cummins VTB-
903. Subsection C describes the work performed and the emission results from
the DDAD 6V-71N. Detailed data are presented in Appendix B for the Cummins
VTB -903 and in Appendix C for the DDAD 6V-71N.
A. Test and Analytical Procedures
During the time period wh n this work was performed, EPA had proposed
a new transient test procedure 2,13) to replace the existing 1979 13-mode
steady-state test procedure for emissions measurement. This new proposed
transient procedure was already being used to establish emission levels from
several different heavy-duty die el and gasoline engines at SwRI under EPA
Contract 68-03-2603 ( 1977 _ 19 8 0 ).U4)
Emissions from both the VTB-903 and the DOAD 6V-71N 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).(l) Transient operation and measurement techniques were
based on the 1984 Transient FTP.(L)
I. Test Procedures
The 13-mode test procedure is an engine emission test cycle 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.
Composite 13-mode emissions are calculatçd on the basis of modal weighting
factors as specified in the Federal Register.U)
Most 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 arid consists of only the 2, 50, and 100 percent loads at
intermediate and rated speeds, plus one idle condition.
53
-------
On the basis of the 13-mode FTP weighting factors, 7-mode
composite emissions were computed using weighted factors. Table 29 shows the
respective weighting factors used. 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 factor for
13-mode use. For both the 13-mode and the 7-mode procedures, the idle
condition accounts for 20 percent of the composite value (equivalent to 20
percent of operating time).
TABLE 29. LISTING OF 13-MODE AND 7-MODE WEIGHTING FACTORS
13-Mode 7-Mode
Mode Engine Speed/Load, % Wt. Factor Mode Wt. Factor
I Idle 0.067
2 Intermediate/2 0.080 1 0.12
3 Intermediate/25 0.080
4 Inter mediate/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 specifies
a transient engine exercise of variable speed and load, depending on the power
output capabilities of the test engine. The cycle requires 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. 200 hp
motoring/25O hp absorbing dynamoiTieter coupled to a Midwest 500 hp eddy
current (absorbing) dynamometer, 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
54
-------
In order to generate the transient cycle for the test 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, were used in conjunction with the
specified speed and load percentages to form the transient cycle. As an
example, a graphic presentation of speed and torque commands which
constituted an FTP transient cycle for a 250 hp diesel engine is given in Figure
11. 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 ibs) 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 the initial and final cycle
segments of the transient cycle, together contain approximately 23 percent of
the total reference work called for by the transient cycle. The LANF segment
contains 20 percent and the LAF 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 cycle 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,
and LANF segment 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 maximum
power for the remaining “non-idle” time of cycle (582 seconds). These
observations for the transient test stress the relative importance of pollutant
emissions during idle, accelerations and medium- to light-load 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
compared 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 inet:
55
-------
NYNF
LAF LANF
NYNF
297 sec. 305 sec. 300 sec. 297 sec,
I I — I
700 700
boo 600
500 500
•‘ 400 400
300 300
200 200
I 1 0
-100 -100
-200 —200
-300 -300
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500
1200 1100 1000 900 300 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
TIME, SECONDS
Figure 11. Graphic representation of torque and speed commands for the 1984
transient FTP cycle based on a diesel engine with rated speed of 2200 rpm
with a peak torque of 650 ft-lbs
I I I I I I I __ I I I I
0
-------
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, M
0.970
1.030
0.83-1.03 Hot
0.77-1.03 Cold
0.89-1.02 (Hot)
0.87-1.03 (Cold)
Coefficient of
Determination, R 2
0.9 700 !/
0.8800 (Hot) 1/
0.8500 (Cold) 1/
0.9 100 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 output and
the dynamorneter 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 1/7 (Cycle Work, Cold) + 617 (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-21 bus data.(15)
The bus cycle was first introduced as a research test cycle during the heavy-
duty diesel baseline test work. It was used in this program to indicate emission
trends from the two engines in city bus applications. The 833 second transient
bus cycle is composed of three segments, as shown below. A listing of the
speed and torque cycle schedule is given in Reference 16. A graphic
presentation of the speed and torque commands which constitute the bus is
given in Figure 12. The resulting cycle work was 5.57 kW-hr (7.47 hp-hr) based
on a peak torque of 880 Nm (650.ft Ibs) at a rated speed of 2200 rpm. The bus
cycle was run only as a hot-start test cycle, and was always preceded by a 20-
minute soak.
Bus Cycle
Segment Time, seconds
New York Combined 273
Los Angeles Combined 287
New York Combined 273
57
-------
NYC LAC NYC
273 sec. 287 sec, 273 sec .
I I I
703 700
600 600
500 500
1400 1400
300 300
200 200
100 100
-103 -100
-200 -200
-300 -300
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
I I I I I — I I
900 800 700 600 500 200 100
Time, Seconds
Figure 12. Graphic representation of torque and speed commands for the bus
cycle based on a diesel engine with rated speed of 2200 rpm with a peak
torque of 650 ft-lbs
I I
1100 300
J
0
-------
The engine was also operated over the 1979 smoke FTP exercise.(17)
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. Obtaining
proportional samples during transient engine operation requires the use of a
constant volume sample (CVS). Figure 13 shows the basic layout of the double-
dilution CVS used to comply with the 1984 Transient FTP and the 1986 Proposed
Transient FTP,(1 8 ) which includes the measurement of particulate. All
transient cycle test work during this program was conducted with a main
dilution tunnel flow set to provide approximately a 4:1 cycle dilution ratio of
the total exhaust introduced. Regulated and unregulated gaseous emission
samples were taken from the main dilution flow. Particulate-related samples
required that a portion of the dilute exhaust from the main tunnel be diluted
further, to an overall dilution of 12:1. The small double-dilution tunnel was
operated at approximately 4 SCFM total flow in order to collect particulate on
two 90 mm T60A20 Pailfiex filters in series. Weight gains from these two
filters were used to determine the total particulate mass emissions from the
engine. The large double-dilution tunnel was operated at approximately 375
SCFM total flow, in order to accumulate large particulate samples on three 20
x 20 inch filters. It also provided auxiliary particulate sampling stations for
smaller 47 mm filters. This same CVS system was used to collect particulate
samples from steady-state operation of the two diesel bus engines, by altering
the main dilution tunnel flow to accommodate the total exhaust from the
engine without exceeding 520C (1 25°F) at the particulate filter face.
2. 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 HC, CO, C0 2 , NON, 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 and
hydrogen. The soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the total particulate was
determined using methylene chloride. This soluble fraction was characterized
for BaP content, bioactivity by the Ames test, boiling point distribution, and for
carbon and hydrogen content.
a. Gaseous Emissions
Regulated gaseous emissions of I - IC, CO, and NO were
measured according to the 1979 13-mode FTP and the 1984 transient FTP. The
regulated emissions along with CO 2 were determinedfrom raw exhaust samples
taken during the 13-mode steady-state procedure. These same four
constituents were determined in dilute exhaust samples taken during the
59
-------
Pumps
(1000—6000 CFM)
Pump
(250 SCFM)
Heat
Auxiliary Filter
/Box (250 SCFM)
(6000 CFM)
(22 inch Dia.)
/
4 SCFM Double Dilution
Tunnel (3.76 I.D.)
(125 SCFM)
100 inches
375 SCFM Double Dilution-
Tunnel (18 inch Dia.)
Filter Holder
(20 x 20)
Flow Regulating
Section (3 at 125 SCFM)
Heat
Exchanger
Pump ______
(375 SCFM)
Muffler
Figure 13. Basic layout of transient cycle heavy-duty diesel CVS with
large double dilution sampler for three 20 x 20 filters
Heat
Scale
0
60
-------
transient procedure. The transient procedure required that total HC be
determined from integration of continuous concentration monitoring of the CVS
dilute exhaust. The procedure provided the option of determining CO, C0 2 , 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 (1900C). During steady-state operation, raw
exhaust sample was transferred to a hydrocarbon instrument containing a
Beckman 402 heated flame ionization detector (1-IFID) by heated sample line.
During transient operation, 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 sample line. The heated HC probe and
overflow calibration technique was used in total HC measurements. Details as
to the measurement of the requlated gaseous emissions may be found in
Reference 1 for the 13-mode procedure, and in Reference 2 for the transient
procedure. The intent of both procedures is to determine the “total” HC
emissions from the engine under test.
Carbon monoxide was measured during both engine test
procedures using non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) instruments. Emissions of CO 2
were also determined 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 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 both dilute sample
bags and integration of continuous NO concentration monitored during
transient operation. The transient NO level determined from the bag sample
has generally been lower (5-15 percent) than that indicated by continuous NOx
measurement techniques. No NO correction factor for intake humidity was
applied br transient testing because the engine intake humidi,ty and
temperature were controlled to 60-90 grains/lb of dry air and 68-86°F.( 2 ’
Some se(ected individual hydrocarbons (IHC) were determined
from dilute exhaust samples using a CVS. Samples were taken over seven
individual modes of steady-state operation and over the cold-start and hot-start
transient cycles. A portion of the dilute exhaust sample collected in a Tedlar
bag was injected into a four-column gas c romatograph using a single flame
ionization detector and dual sampling valves. 10) The timed sequence selection
valves allowed the baseline separation of air, methane, ethane, ethylene,
acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene, and toluene.
Aldehydes and ketone were determined by using the 2,4-
dinitrophenyihydrazifle (DNPH) method.U0) Raw exhaust samples were taken
during steady-state operation; whereas dilute samples were taken from the
main CVS dilution tunnel during transient testing. In both bases a heated
sample line and filter were maintained at 190°C (375°F). The procedure
consists of bubbling filtered exhaust gases, dilute or raw, through glass impinger
traps containing a solution of DNPH and HCI kept at 0 0 C. The aldehydes and
61
-------
ketones (also known as carbonyl compounds) react with the DNPH to form their
respective phenylhydrazone derivatives (precipitates). These derivatives are
removed by filtration followed by pentane extractions evaporated in a vacuum
oven. The remaining dried extract, which contains the phenyihydrazone
derivatives, is dissolved in a specific volume of toluene with anthracene
internal standard. A portion of this dissolved extract is injected into a gas
chromatograph and analyzed using a flame ionization detector to separate
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, isobutyraldehyde, methylethylketone,
crotonaldehyde, hexanaldehyde, and benzaldehyde.
Phenols, which are hydroxyl derivatives of aromatic
hydrocarbons, were measured using an ether extraction procedure detailed in
Reference 10. Raw exhaust samples were taken during steady-state operation,
and dilute samples were taken from the main CVS dilution tunnel during
transient operation. Exhaust samples were collected in impingers containing
aqueous potassium hydroxide. The contents of the impingers were acidified
with sulfuric acid, then extracted with ethyl ether. This extract was injected
into a gas chromatograph equipped with an FID for the determination of various
phenols as follows:
Molecular
“ Phenol” Weight
Phenol 94.11
Salicyaldehyde 122.13
m-Cresol 108.15
p-Cresol 108.15
2,3—xylenol 122.17
3,5-xylenol 122.17
p-ethylphenol 122.17
2-isopropylphenol 136.20
2,4,5-trimethylphenol 136.20
2,3,5-trimethylphenol 136.20
2,3, 5,6-tetramethylphenol 150.22
At the start of the program, both filtered and unfiltered exhaust samples were
analyzed. The unfiltered exhaust samples appeared to indicate the same trends
but with lower response than obtained using a filtered sample. The unfiltered
exhaust sample was dropped in .favor of the filtered exhaust sample on the basis
of better recovery.
Total intensity of aroma (TIA) was quantified by using the
Coordinating Research Council Diesel Odor Analytical System (DOAS).( ) The
dilute or raw sample, depending on engine operation, was drawn off through a
heated sample train and into a trap containing Chromosorb 102. The trap was
later eluted 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
are defined as hA = 1 + log (LCO, ig/s ) or TIA = 0.4 + 0.7 10810 (LCA, & )
(hA by LCO preferred). A.D. Little, the developer of the DOAS instrument,
has related this fraction to hA sensory measurement by the A.D. Little odor
panel. The system was intended for raw exhaust samples from steady-state
62
-------
operating conditions, but for this program, dilute samples of exhaust were taken
in order to determine a hA value for transient operation. Where dilute samples
were taken, the corresponding hA values were increased proportional to the
dilution ratio.
b. 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 at or below a temperature
of 51.7°C (125°F), excluding condensed water. 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
required dilution ratios of approximately 12:1 (total mixture:raw exhaust).
Total particulate samples were collected on 90 mm Pailfiex
T60A20 fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter media by means of a double-
dilution technique for both transient and steady-state engine operation.
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,
were used to calculated 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 smokerneter which monitored the
opacity of the raw exhaust plume as it issued from the exhaust pipe. Smoke
opacity was determined for the 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 to find 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 is ammoniated to “fix” the sulfate portion of the
particulate. Using the barium chioranilate (BCA) analytical method,(10) the
sulfates are leached from the filter with an isopropyl alcohol - water solution
(60% IPA). This extract is injected 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
chloranilate crystals precipitates out barium sulfate and released the highly UV
absorbing chioranilate ions. The amount of chioranilate ion released is
determined by a sensitive liquid chromatograph UV detector at 310-313
63
-------
nanometers. “Sulfate” should be understood to mean SO 4 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 mm 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-Elmer Model 240B
automated thermal conductivity CHN analyzer. This instrument was designed
for analysis of liquid samples. In order to accommodate the particulate sample
on a filter, the filter must be folded or rolled over itself. As the temperature is
increased, the glass fiber ri edia collapses on itself, sometimes locking in some
of the particulate. For this reason significant inaccuracies can occur. One of
the ways to improve the accuracy was to collect relatively high particulate
loadings. This was possible for steady-state operation but difficult for transient
testing.
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, N.C.
using a Siemens NRS-3 x-ray fluorescence spectrometer.
Carbon has long been recognized as an excellent adsorbing
medium for hydrocarbon aerosols. Similarly, it has been recognized that
carbonaceous particulate could readily adsorb hydrocarbons present in the
exhaust. In order to determine to what extent total particulate contains these
various hydrocarbons, particulate filter samples were washed with an organic
solvent, methylene chloride. The dissolved portion of the “total particulate”
carried .off with the methylene chloride solvent has been referred to as the
“soluble organic fraction” (SOF). As with total particulate, the SOF may be
composed of anything carried over by 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 the quantify. Some SOP has been
shown to be mutagenic using the Ames test.
Relatively large amounts of soluble organic fraction (some 300
mg) are generally needed for elemental characterization and Ames testing.
Large 500 x 500 mm (20 x 20 inch) PalIflex filters were used to collect
corresponding large amounts of total particulate for extraction. As mentioned
earlier, both CVS units used in this program can collect three 20 x 20
particulate samples simultaneously. These filters are weighed to determine the
particulate loading, then stored in glassine bags within a brown paper envelope.
Several .of these envelopes are grouped and sealed in a Tedlar bag purged with
nitrogen. The Tedlar bags are then stored in a freezer until needed for
extraction. These steps generally take place within a few hours of sample
collection, and are carried out under y llow light (ultraviolet light filtered out
using Kodak “yellow chrome II” film).U9
When specific total particulate samples were selected for
extractions, the corresponding filters were pulled from freezer storage for
extraction. After adequate cycling time, the solvent (methylene chloride)
64
-------
containing the extractables was filtered, then evaporated to “dryness” in a
preweighed vial using blown-in nitrogen. The weight of the “dried” extract was
determined, and the SOF percent of total particulate calculated. “Dried” refers
to the complete removal of the solvent. The vial contents were either
distributed for analysis or stored in the freezer for subsequent analysis or
shipment. As with filter handling, all extraction steps were carried out under
yellow light.
Carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, and nitrogen were determined for
the SOF. Carbon and hydrogen content of the “dried” extract was determined
by Galbraith Laboratories using a Perkin-Elmer Model 240B automated thermal
conductivity CHN analyzer. A portion of the extract was submitted to SwRI’s
Mobile Energy Division for nitrogen analysis by chemiluminescence and sulfur
analysis by x-ray fluorescence.
The boiling range of the SOF was determined by SwRI’s Mobile
Energy Division using a high-temperature variation of ASTM-D2887-73.
Approximately 50 mg of the SOF was dissolved in solvent and an internal
standard (C 9 and C 11 compounds) was added. This sample was then submitted
for instrumental analysis of boiling point distribution.
BaP is considered to be an elementary indicator of the relative
PNA content of the SOF. The analytical method used for the determination of
BaP is described in Reference 20. The procedure is based on high-performance
liquid chromatography to separate BaP from other organic solubles in
particulate matter, and it incorporated fluorescence detection to measure BaP.
The instrument used was a Perkin-Elmer 3B liquid chromatograph equipped with
a MPF-44 fluorescence spectrophotometer. Excitation was at a wavelength of
3 3 nm, and emission was read at 430 nm.
As mentioned earlier, there is concern about the potential
health effects impact that diesel exhaust may have. The emphasis of this
concern has been placed on the SOP which was submitted for Ames testing.
The Ames test, as employed in this program, refers to a
bacterial mutagenesis plate assay with Salmonella typhimurium according to
the method of Ames. This bioassay determines the ability of chemical
compounds or mixtures to cause mutation of DNA in the bacteria, positive
results occurring when histidine-dependent strains of bacteria revert (or ar
mutated) genetically to forms which can synthesize histidine on their own.
Samples of SOF were shipped under dry ice to EG&G* for Ames test response.
Details of this procedure can be found in References 19 and 21.
*EG&G Mason Research, Inc. is now Microbiological Associates, Inc., 5221
River Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20816. These analyses were done under a
separate EPA Contract (68-03-2923).
65
-------
B. Emissions Characterization of the Cummins VTB-903 in Baseline and
Maladjusted Configurations
This section describes emissions characterization work conducted on the
Cummins VTB-903 in both the baseline and maladjusted engine configurations.
The maladjustments applied to this engine are described. Emission results are
summarized in the text and detailed information is given in Appendix B.
1. Test Engine
The 1979 Cummins VTB-903 (SN 10847565), shown in Figure 14
developed 264 hp at rated speed of 2100 rpm with 98 lb/hr of No. 2 diesel fuel.
This turbocharged 4-stroke V-8 engine, of 903 cubic inch displacement,
produced a maximum torque of 760 lb-ft at intermediate speed of 1500 rpm
with 78 lb/hr of fuel. Following completion of emission characterization in the
baseline configuration, the engine was maladjusted.
I )
* \ .
)
Figure 14. Cummins VTB-903 set-up for testing in the
“maladjusted” configuration
47
0
66
-------
Efforts to set-in the planned maladjustment on this engine were
begun on February 21, 1980. The proposed maladjustment consisted of
increasing the injector lash by 0.002 inch from the standard setting of 0.187 ±
0.001, and reducing the turbocharger boost pressure of about 20 in. Hg by 4 in.
Hg at the max rnum power condition.
Increasing the injector lash was intended to simulate a worn
camrocker assembly or maladjustment of injector lash, which would prevent the
injector plunger from seating to the bottom of the injector cavity and
contribute to nozzle leakage, thereby affecting smoke and gaseous emissions.
A dial indicator, as prescribed by the manufacturer’s injector lash adjustment
procedure, was used to adjust the injector lash. Prior to maladjustment, the
average injector lash was determined to be 0.1887 inch with a standard
deviation of 0.0006 inch. Injector lash of each cylinder was increased by 0.002
inch from its baseline measurement.
Reducing the boost pressure was intended to simulate a hose
connection failure on the boost air duct, or a malfunctioning turbocharger. In
order to induce a controlled bleed of the boost pressure, a 1-inch gate valve was
installed on the 1-inch pipe port normally used to supply filtered boost air to
the auxiliary air compressor. Air vented through the gate valve was returned to
the intake air supply, between the damper used to set intake restriction and the
laminar flow element used to measure intake air during the 13-mode FTP. The
engine was run at maximum power with the boost bleed closed, restrictions
were set, and the boost pressure noted. The boost bleed gate valve was opened
to obtain a 4 in. Hg reduction in the measured boost pressure. Once the boost
bleed was adjusted, intake and exhaust restrictions were allowed to vary as
shown below:
13-Mode Restrictions
Intake, in. l-I 0 Exhaust, in. Hg
Baseline 25. 3.0
Maladjusted 25. 2.5
Transient Restrictions
Intake, in. H 7 0 Exhaust, in. Hg
Baseline 10. 2.0
Maladjusted 10. 1.6
With the combined maladjustment of 0.002 inch injector lash on all
eight injectors and the 4 in. Hg reduction of the boost pressure, the engine was
operated at the same power levels as the baseline configuration. Relatively
minor changes in smoke opacity and gaseous emissions were noted during
steady-state operation with this preliminary maladjusted configuration. The
Project Officer was consulted. It seemed that these preliminary
maladjustments were not severe enough to cause noticeable changes in smoke
or gaseous emissions on a steady-state basis. It was decided to increase the
injector lash by an additional 0.002 inch, making the average injector lash
0.1928 inches.
67
-------
Gaseous emissions and smoke were monitored during steady-state
operation at maximum power, maximum torque, idle, and 2 percent load
conditions. Hydrocarbons almost doubled, and CO increased by about a factor
of 1.5. Smoke opacity at the maximum torque condition increased from about
1.6 to 3.0 percent, still invisible to the human eye. Smoke FTP cycles were run
using the in-line smokemeter and using the same control tape as used for the
baseline engine. The results from these tests are given below:
Federal Transient Smoke Cycle
Configuration Smoke Opacity, %
“A” “ B ”
Baseline 4.4 2.6 5.4
Maladjusted 7.1 3.2 9.4
Although there was only a minor change in the lug factor (“B’), the second
maladjustment caused significant increases in the acceleration and peak factor
smoke opacities. Both the maximum power and the maximum torque conditions
were run for particulate samples. Preliminary results from these particulate
filters indicated that the particulate rate increased by about 65 percent at
these conditions as a result of the latest maladjustment combination. Based on
these results, it was assumed that a detectable change in emissions had
occurred from the combination of 0.004 inch additional injector lash (from
baseline configuration) and a 4 in. Hg reduction of boost pressure (set at
maximum power). This maladjusted configuration was approved by the Project
Officer on February 26, 1980.
2. Emissions Tests Results
After completing emission characterization of the Cummins VTB-
903 engine in the baseline configuration, the engine was maladjusted by
increasing the injector lash by 0.004 inch from the standard setting of 0.187 ±
0.001 and by reducing the boost pressure of about 20 in. Hg by 4 in. Hg (at
maximum power conditions). Samples for maladjusted emission
characterization were taken in the same manner as for the baseline emission
characterization.
In order to simulate a driver demanding the same work load from
the maladjusted engine as from the baseline engine configuration, the baseline
transient control tape was used with the maladjusted engine. The baseline
engine power map used to generate the transient cycle control tape is given in
Table B-i of Appendix B. In a similar approach, 13-mode emissions for the
maladjusted configuration were run at the same load conditions used for the
baseline configuration. Maladjustment reduced the maximum power by
approximately 1 percent and reduced the maximum torque by about 4.5 percent.
The transient test procedure was run with the engine on a stationary
dynamometer with the total exhaust transferred to a double dilution CVS, and
primary dilution at a nominal flow rate of 2000 CFM. Transient cycle
particulate emissions were determined via a 4 CFM (total flow) secondary
dilution system using 90 mm Paliflex filters. Auxiliary samples for sulfate,
metals, and organic extract were taken via a 375 CFM (total flow) secondary
dilution system using 47 mm Fluoropore and 20 x 20 PalIflex filters. Transient
68
-------
cycle gaseous emissions of CO and CO 2 were determined from proportional bag
samples of the primary dilution flow. Integrations of individual analyzer outputs
were used to determine the emissions of 1 - IC and NOx. Transient cycle
unregulated gaseous emissions of aldehydes, odor, phenols and individual
hydrocarbons were determined from proportional samples of the CVS primary
dilution flow.
Modal (or steady-state) engine exercises were run on the same
stationary dynamorneter. Gaseous emissions of I-IC, CO, NO were determined
using the 13-mode FTP. Similarly, unregulated gaseous emissions were
determined from raw exhaust samples over 11, 7, or 5 modes of steady-state
operation. To determine modal emissions of particulate and sulfate, total raw
exhaust was transferred to the CVS. Due to he wide variation in load, idle to
maximum power, the CVS nominal flow rate was changed in order to preserve
the 125°F temperature limit for particulate collection without overdiluting.
Primary CVS flow of about 1000 CFM was used for idle and 2 percent load
conditions, 2000 CFM for 25 and 50 percent load, and 4000 CFM for 75 and 100
percent load. Secondary dilution flow remained the same. Replicate 20 minute
runs were made in order to improve accuracy of results and to insure that
enough particulate matter was collected for organic extraction.
In comparing data following the release of the engine (March 4,
1980), it was discovered that an error in computed load occurred at the 25 and
75 percent power points at rated speed. The actual loads used for these two
points were 17 percent and 67 percent of full power at rated speed (based on
baseline configuration). Since results are reported on brake specific and fuel
specific basis, this error should not affect the results appreciably.
A summary of 13-mode and transient test composite emission rates
of regulated gaseous emissions is given in Table 30 on a brake specific basis.
Examining the 13-mode results, maladjustment increased HC by a factor of 4.1
and increased CO by 1.6 times, with no change in NOR. Maladjusted transient
test composite results showed increases in HC and CO emissions by factors of
3.9 and 1.7, respectively, and showed a trend toward reduced NON. These
relative changes in composite gaseous emissions are illustrated in Figure 15.
Tables B-2 and B-3 of Appendix B also give detailed gaseous emissions
information from transient cycles and 13-mode tests run in baseline and
maladjusted configurations. Examining the cold-start transient test results
indicates that this engine was somewhat cold-start sensitive in both
configurations.
Even though both 13-mode and transient procedures indicated the
same trends, the levels of emissions of HC, CO, and NO were different.
Transient test liCs were about 1.8 times higher than the 13-mode procedure,
but transient CO was only about 90 percent of modal CO. Transient NO was
about 85 percent of modal NOR. Transient BSFC was about 6 percent higher
than 13-mode BSFC. The maladjustment increased BSFC by 6 percent for the
steady-state FTP and by 7 percent for the transient FTP. There was about a 3
percent loss in maximum power observed with the maladjustment.
69
-------
REGULATED EMISSIONS - VTB-9O3
4
CO,
GRAMS 2
HP-HR
0
6
HC, 4
GRAMS
liP-HR 2
0
-ii
.
13-MODE
1 -I
TRANSIENT
Figure 15. Composite gaseous emissions of the Cummins VTB-903 in
baseline and maladjusted configurations
— BASELINE
NOx,
GRAMS
HP-HR
8
6
4
2
0
I
: MALADJUSTED
I
70
-------
TABLE 30. COMPOSITE RESULTS OF REGULATED GASEOUS EMISSIONS
FROM CUMMINS VTB-903 RUN IN BASELINE AND MALAD3USTED
CONFIGURATIONS
Engine Run Emission Rate, g/kW-hr BSFC,
Configuration Cycle No. HC CO NO HC+NO g/kW-hr
Baseline 13-Mode 1 0.944 2.412 0.224 10.169 0.254
Composite 2 0.969 1.988 9.352 10.321 0.254
Avg 0.957 2.200 9.288 10.245 0.254
Maladjusted 13-Mode 1 3.821 4.005 9.134 12.955 0.268
Composite 2 4.055 3.084 0.360 13.415 0.270
Avg 3.938 3.545 9.247 13.185 0.269
Baseline Transient 1 1.87 1.88 8.48 10.35 0.270
Composite 2 1.72 1.81 8.47 10.19 0.269
3 1.79 1.92 6.55 a 8.34 0.268
Avg 1.79 1.87 7.83 9.63 0.269
g• 48 b 10 27 b
Maladjusted Transient 1 6.49 3.12 7.27 a 14.21 0.280
Composite 2 7.01 3.12 7 • 99 a 15.00 0.29.5
Avg 6.98 3.12 7.63 14.61 0.288
aThere i ubt about the integrity of the NO integration hardware for this run
bAverage value is based on runs 1 and 2
In addition to total FIC emission measurements, representative
gaseous samples from selected modes of the steady-state and transient
procedures were processed using gas chromatographic techniques to distinguish
specific individual hydrocarbons. Instrumentation was set to separate and
quantify methane, ethylene, ethane, acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene,
and toluene. A summary of total individual hydrocarbons measured is given in
Table 31 for various operating conditions. Tables B-4 through B-6 of Appendix
B give detailed information on emissions of various species of hydrocarbons
found.
For the Cummins VTE3-903 in the baseline configuration, most of the
above-mentioned hydrocarbon species (except propane) were present in
relatively minor concentrations at the idle and 2 percent power conditions.
Fewer species and lesser concentrations of those present were noted over the
other steady-state modes. Modal data indicated that maladjustment
significantly increased emission of most individual hydrocarbons, especially
toluene and benzene. Some chrornatographic interference appeared to be
present which made it difficult to reliably assess the amount of toluene and
benzene.
71
-------
TABLE 31. SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM THE CUMMINS
VTB-903 IN BASELINE AND MALAD3USTED CONFIGURATIONS
Total Individual Hydrocarbons, Modal
Test Condition Baseline Maladjusted
rpm/% load mg/k W-hr mg/kg fuel mg/k W-hr mg/kg fuel
1500/2 3667 1645 6303 3309
1500/50 18 76 116 481
1500/100 22 106 349 1449
Idle 1287 3009
2100/100 34 157 474 1990
2100/50 57 218 290 1030
2100/2 2295 1259 6406 2286
7-mode Composite 82 300 420 1530
Total Individual Hydrocarbons, Transient
Cold-Start 148 523 321 1080
Hot-Start 96 358 302 1060
Transient Composite 103 382 304 1060
The maladjustment of the VTB-903 increased the composite 7-mode
total composite emissions of “individual hydrocarbons” from 82 to 420 mg/k W-
hr. Of the eight species indicated, ethylene and propylene were predominant
for all the seven selected modes of steady-state operation. Ethylene and
propylene were nearly tripled at steady-state 2 percent load and idle conditions
with the maladjustment.
For transient testing of the VTB-903 in maladjusted configuration,
the level of ethylene and propylene was almost triple the level obtained during
baseline testing. The transient FTP composite of individual hydrocarbons
changed from 103 to 304 mg/k W-hr with maladjustment. In either configuration,
ethylene accounted for approximately 62 percent, and propylene accounted for
approximately 32 percent, of the total individual hydrocarbons measured (fuel
or brake specific basis) during transient testing.
Aldehydes were also of interest as part of the total hydrocarbon
measurements (often the HFID response to aldehydes is minimal) because they
are associated with eye and lung irritation and other possible health effects
problems. Aldehyde emissions from baseline and maladjusted configurations of
the VTB-903 during both steady-state and transient operation are summarized
in Table 32. More detailed aldehyde information may be found in Tables B-7
through B-9 of Appendix 13.
72
-------
TABLE 32. SUMMARY OF TOTAL ALDEHYDES FROM THE CUMMINS VTB—903
BASELINE AND MALAD3USTED CONFIGURATION
Total Aldehydes, Modal
Test Condition Baseline Maladjusted
rpm/% load mg/k W-hr mg/kg fuel g/kW-hr mg/kg fuel
1500/2 45 20 75 40
1500/50 9 36 24 102
1500/100 10 42 5 20
Idle -- 330 -- 2256
2100/100 100 41 53 221
2100/50 7 27 69 243
2100/2 637 350 3031 1079
7-Mode Composite 13 .50 66 241
Total Aldehydes , Transient
Cold-Start 234 325 89 300
Hot-Start 78 294 101 353
Transient Composite 101 369 99 345
Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzaldehyde were prevalent over
transient operation of the VTI3-903 in the baseline configuration. These
species, along with isobutyraldehyde, were mostly found at the 2 percent
load/rated speed and idle steady-states in the baseline configurations. For
transient FTP operation in the maladjusted configuration, benzaldehyde and
acetaldehyde were reduced somewhat, while formaldehyde increased such that
the composite level of aldehyde emissions remained at about 100 mg/k W-hr.
Total aldehydes from the maladjusted cold-start were about half those for
baseline cold-start; but maladjusted hot-start aldehydes were slightly higher
than baseline, hence the transient composites were very close. For steady-
state operation in the maladjusted configuration, levels of all aldehyde species
tended to increase at most of the conditions tested, causing the 7-mode
aldehyde level to increase from 13 to 66 mg/k W-hr.
Phenols, which are hydroxyl derivatives of aromatic hydrocarbons,
were determined using a wet chemistry procedure along with a gas
chromatograph to separate phenol species ranging in molecular weight from
94.11 to 150.22. Phenols have been summarized in Table 33, showing the totals
of the various species of phenols detected over 5 modes of steady-state
operation and transient testing. Individual phenol information is presented in
Tables B-ID through B-12 of Appendix B.
73
-------
TABLE 33. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS FROM THE CUMMINS VTB-903
BASELINE AND MALAD3USTED CONFIGURATION
Test Condition
rpm/% load
1500/2
1500/50
Idle
2 100/100
2100/50
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Transient Composite
Total Phenols, Modal
Baseline
Maladjusted
mg/k W-hr
0
mg/kg fuel
0
mg/k W-hr
175
mg/kg fuel
78.7
0
0
0
0
--
49.9
--
425
0
0
151
633
0.1
0.2
14.6
52.8
Total Phenols,
Transient
15.9 56.2 145 48.8
15.3 57.8 9.5 32.8
15.4 57.6 10.2 28.1
For the VTB-903 baseline configuration, several species of phenols
were noted at 2 percent load/intermediate speed and (in smaller amounts) at
idle. In the maladjusted configuration, no phenols were noted at the 2 percent
load/intermediate speed condition; but there were significant increases in
phenols at idle and rated speed, 50 and 100 percent load conditions. Although
modal data indicated an increase in phenol production, dilute samples from
transient testing indicated the opposite. Transient brake specific levels of
phenols for the baseline and maladjusted configurations of the VTB-903 were 15
and 10 mg/k W-hr, respectively.
Total intensity of aroma (TIA) was quantified using the CRC’s diesel
odor analysis system (DOAS). hA results from DOAS are summarized in Table
34. As mentioned earlier, samples for DOAS, as well as other unregulated
gaseous emissions, were taken from dilute exhaust during transient testing;
whereas modal samples were taken from raw exhaust. The 7-mode composite
values for the VTB-903 were 1.58 and 1.74 for the baseline and maladjusted
configurations, respectively.
The transient composite indicated that TIA almost doubled from
0.69 to 1.05 due to the maladjustment. It is difficult to state that this
relatively large change is real. No change in hA was noted for the maladjusted
cold-start transient cycle, although a slight increase in LCA was observed. TIA
results from the maladjusted hot-start transient were very erratic. If the data
from the second hot-start for both baseline and maladjusted testing were
eliminated, the composite TIA for the maladjusted configuration would have
increased from 1.17 to 1.32 (13 percent), which is in closer agreement with the
10 percent increase noted in 7-mode composite hA results.
74
-------
TABLE 34. SUMMARY OF DOAS RESULTS FROM CUMMINS VTB—903 IN
BASELINE AND MALFUNCTION CONFIGURATIONS
Baseline Configuration Malfunction Configuration
Transient Run LCA LCO LCA LCO
Cycle No. jg/9 . ______ hA gf ug/ TIA
Cold 1 9.95 2.27 1.36 8.28 2.35 1.37
Start 2 5.69 1.63 1.21 11.32 1.48 1.16
Avg 7.82 1.95 1.29 10.05 1.92 1.27
Hot 1 5.54 1.38 1.15 8.09 2.13 1.33
Start 2 1.03 0.29 0.37 5.29 0.48 0.68
Avg 3.29 0.84 0.59 6.69 1.31 1.01
Transient Composite 3.94 1.00 0.69 7.17 1.40 1.05
Transient Compositea 5.87 1.46 1.17 8.37 2.10 1.32
Steady Test Baseline Configuration Malfunction Configuration
State Condition LCA LCO LCA LCO
Mode rpm/% load u h u h TIA pg/9. g/9. TIA
1 1500/2 18.51 8.05 1.91 0.77 0.62 0.78
2 1500/50 8.66 3.91 1.60 31.57 5.37 1.73
3 1500/100 3.02 2.41 1.38 22.60 7.21 1.86
4 Idle 12.75 4.01 1.60 33.97 7.49 1.87
5 2100/100 7.00 3.92 1.59 34.90 11.96 2.08
6 2100/50 5.47 2.63 1.42 33.13 8.08 1.91
7 2100/2 9.45 3.61 1.56 38.49 6.58 1.82
7-Mode Composite 9.37 4.01 1.58 29.56 6.81 1.74
sed on average of both cold-starts and only the first hot-start value
One of the objectives of this work was to characterize the gaseous
and particulate emissions associated with an engine producing “smoky” exhaust.
Changes in smoke opacities from the baseline to maladjusted configurations
were used in evaluating whether or not the maladjustment changes could
simulate a smoky engine. Results from the FTP for smoke are given in Table
35, along with smoke opacity data from the 13-mode engine operation. The
relative changes in smoke opacity are also illustrated in Figure 16.
Modal and power curve smoke were very low for both the baseline
and maladjusted configurations. Maladjustment increased modal smoke
opacities at the 2% load/intermediate speed, at the maximum torque condition,
and somewhat at the maximum power condition. Even though smoke opacity
was increased due to the maladjustments, the smoke opacities were still near or
below the visible limit.
75
-------
10
BASELINE
8 J MALADJUSTED ____
MAX. flAX. “A” “B” “C”
POWER TORQUE ACCEL LUG PEAK
Figure 16. Smoke opacities from the Cummins VTB-903 in
baseline and maladjusted configurations
Since smoke and total particulate are related in that the relative
level of smoke opacity indicates the relative level of particulate, the
maladjustments were expected to cause significant changes in the total
particulate emission levels as well as change the character of the particulate
emitted. The total particulate consists of many substances. Sulfate emissions
are also collected as total particulate.
Table 36 gives composite particulate and sulfate results from 13-
mode and transient test procedures for both baseline and maladjusted
configurations. Figure 17 and 18 show particulate emissions versus percent of
power at intermediate and rated speeds. Transient results are also indicated
for comparison. In addition, Figure 16 indicated the relative modal and
transient emissions of sulfate. Modal particulate data are given in Tables B-13
and B-14 of Appendix B. Modal sulfate data are given in Tables B-l5 and B-l6.
Details regarding the computation of the modal composites of particulate and
sulfate emissions are given in Tables B-17 and B-18 for the baseline and
maladjusted configurations respectively. A summary of transient sulfate
emissions is given in Table B-19 of Appendix B (transient particulate emissions
are given on the original computer printouts given in Tables B-2 and B-3).
TABLE 36. COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RESULTS FROM
CUMMINS VTB- 903 IN BOTH BASELINE AND MALADJUSTED
CONFIGURATIONS
Brake Specific Fuel Specific
Engine Particulate Sulfate Particulate Su lfati
Cycle Configu 4 Ofl g/kW-hr mg/k W-hr mg/kg fuel mg/kg fuel
13-Mode Baseline 0.32 39,5 1.23 153
Composite Maladjusted 0.57 33.3 2.08 122
Transient Baseline 0.51 38.4 1.90 139
Composite Maladjusted 1.08 33.4 3.75 116
76
-------
TABLE 35. SMOKE OPACITY FROM THE CUMMINS VTB-903 IN BASELINE
AND MALAD3USTED CONFIGURATIONS
Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity
Smoke Opacity, %
Configuration “A” n r c 1 1
Baseline 4.4 2.6 5.4
Maladjusted 7.1 3.2 9.4
Steady-State Smoke Opacity
13-Mode FTP - Smoke Opacity, %
Mode RPM Power, % Baseline Maladjusted
1 Idle —— 0.8 1.2
2 1500 2 0.6 1.0
3 1500 25 1.1 1.5
4 1500 50 0.9 1.2
5 1500 75 0.7 1.1
6 1500 100 1.6 2.9
7 Idle —— 1.0 0.8
8 2100 100 0.6 1.1
9 2100 75 0.5 1.0
10 2100 50 0.6 1.0
11 2100 25 1.1 1.3
12 2100 2 1.0 1.0
13 Idle —— 0.5 0.9
Power Curve Smoke
Smoke Opacity,
rpm Baseline Maladjusted
2100 0.2 1.2
1900 0.3 1.7
1700 0.7 2.1
1500 0.9 2.3
1400 2.4
77
-------
6
Sulfate
Particulate
0
0
Baseline
Maladjusted
0
0
I l_ I I I I
2 25 50 75
Power, % at 1500 rpm
100 Idle 100 75 50 25
Power, % at 2100 rpm
Modal
Figure 17. Particulate and sulfate rates from Cummins VTB-903
in baseline and maladjusted configurations
78
0
0
0
0
0
a
U
0
2 Cold- Hot-
Start
Transient
a)
4 J
C l )
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
a)
4- )
0
4 )
-------
7
2 25 50
75 100 Idle 100 75
Power, % at
1500 rpm Power,
50 25 2
% at 2100 rpm
Figure 18. Brake and fuel specific particulate from Cummins VTB-903
in baseline and maladjusted configurations
c i
4.93 3.53
0
0
c i
a
0
0
I I
Cold- Hot-
Start
Transient
11.70
- 5.06
3.0
0 Baseline
o Maladjusted
Fuel Specific Particulate
ci 11.10
o 3.40
2.5 -
2.0
i .5
1.0 -
7.91
14.96
27.03
10.20
a
0
t4-
a
a
0
0
0.5 —
0.0 —
1.4 -
1.2
1.0
0.8
tT’
a
0.6
S
0
4 J
0.4 -
0.2
0.0
16.73
8.59
Brake Specific Particulate
I I I I I I I
I I I
Modal
79
-------
The maladjustment increased particulate emission levels from the
VTB-903 for all steady-state modes tested, particularly at the light loads and
the maximum torque conditions. Particulate rates generally increase from light
load to heavy load conditions for most engines, but the Cummins VTB-903
results were just the opposite, especially in the maladjusted configuration. As
given in Table 36, the 13-mode composite particulate increased 78 percent,
from 0.32 to 0.57 g/kW-hr.
Injector maladjustment was probably the major contributor to
increasing particulate at light loads; and the reduction of maximum boost
pressure, in combination with injector maladjustment, likely caused the
increases in particulate emissions at the high load conditions. During transient
testing, the maladjustment caused the composite brake specific particulate to
increase by a factor of 2.1 (112 percent). The transient test cycle is generally
regarded as a lightly-loaded test cycle, with an overall load factor about 20
percent. From Figure 17, the maladjustment caused significant increases in
particulate emissions over the light load conditions which are predominant
during the transient cycle.
Composite sulfate rates from modal and transient testing were
given in Table 36. Modal sulfate emissions on a brake and fuel specific basis
are shown in Figure 19. Both 13-mode composite and transient composite
sulfate data indicate that sulfate production decreased by approximately 16
percent in the maladjusted configuration. This was not expected, since
maladjustment produced more particulate and higher BSFC. Examining Table
B-19, the maladjusted cold-start transient produced more sulfate than the
baseline cold-start. However, the maladjusted hot-start transient produced less
sulfate than the baseline hot-start. After applying the cold-to-hot weighting
factors, the transient test results followed the 13-mode results, showing a 13
percent reduction of sulfate emission with maladjustment.
The average modal percent of fuel sulfur converted to sulfate
decreased from 1.7 to 1.5 percent with maladjustment. Similar results were
obtained for the transient test with the composite percent of fuel sulfur
converted to sulfate decreasing from 1.7 to 1.4 percent with maladjustment.
Additional samples of total particulate from both engine
configurations were analyzed for elemental composition, by oxidation for C and
H content, and by x-ray fluorescence for other elements. Table 37 gives the
percentage by weight of C, h, and N contained in total particulate samples
collected on 47 mm Type A glass fiber filter media. The H/C mole ratios were
also computed, and are presented in Table 37. Generally, the particulate from
the maladjusted configuration contained slightly more carbon and substantially
higher hydrogen except at the maximum torque and maximum power conditions.
For the VTB-903, maladjustment increased the 7-mode composite
H/C mole ratio of the particulate from 0.84 to 0.95, and increased the transient
FTP composite H/C mole ratio from 0.95 to 1.05. These changes imply that the
nature of the particulate became more “oily” with maladjustment. For the
most part, nitrogen content was lower with maladjustment during modal
operation, but transient operation resulted in slightly higher nitrogen content.
80
-------
0 Baseline
o Maladjusted
Fuel Specific Sulfate
* >100% Variation Between Runs
200 -
180 -
160 -
140
120 —
100 —
80 -
(222)
80 (189)
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
I I I I _ I I I I I
2 25 50 75
Power, % at 1500 rpm
100 Idle 100 75 50 25
Power, % at 2100 rpm
Modal
Figure 19. Brake and fuel specific sulfate from Cummins VTB-903
in baseline and maladjusted configurations
0
0*
Brake Specific Sulfate
(222)
(307)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I I
2 Cold- Hot-
Start
Transient
-1
c i)
L I-I
H
a)
4 )
(I : ’
4-I
r -1
(I )
- c i i
H
c i)
4- )
(d
U)
70
81
-------
TABLE 37. CARBON, HYDROGEN, AND NITROGEN CONTENT OF FILTER
PARTICULATE FROM THE CUMMINS VTB-903 (PERCENT BY WEIGHT
BASED ON TYPE A GLASS FIBER FILTER SAMPLES)
Engine rpm/
% Load
Configuration
N H/c Ratio
C H
1500/2
Baseline
73.37
7.28
0.91
1.18
Maladjusted
77.59
8.19
0.72
1.26
1500/50
Baseline
Maladjusted
57.53
66.74
3.39
5.53
0.84
1.19
0.68
0.99
1500/100
Baseline
Maladjusted
56.89
68.77
2.08
1.67
1.58
0.67
0.44
0.29
Idle
Baseline
Maladjusted
73.62
70.77
5.96
6.26
2.16
1.37
0.96
1.05
2100/100
Baseline
Maladjusted
46.79
75.46
3.71
3.11
1.97
0.89
0.94
0.64
2100/50
Baseline
Maladjusted
50.36
69.10
3.16
6.05
1.22
1.29
0.75
1.04
2100/2
Baseline
Maladjusted
74.37
76.37
5.89
8.04
0.97
0.75
0.94
1.25
Cold Transient
Baseline
1
2
Avg.
68.37
70.33
69.35
5.64
5.19
5.42
0.95
0.98
0.97
0.98
0.88
0.93
Maladjusted
1
2
Avg.
73.01
74.09
73.55
7.68
7.36
7.52
0.92
1.10
1.01
1.25
1.18
1.22
Hot Transient
Baseline
1
2
Avg.
71.14
62.55
66.85
5.91
4.71
5.31
1.01
0.96
0.99
0.99
0.90
0.95
Maladjusted
1
2
Avg.
73.47
73.60
73.54
6.35
6.22
6.29
1.22
1.27
1.25
1.03
1.01
1.02
82
-------
Results from elemental analysis of particulate collected on
Fluoropore filter media for both baseline and maladjusted configurations are
given in Table 38. The elements, S, Mg, Cl, K, and P were most common.
Sulfur was consistently lower in the maladjusted configuration, whereas
phosphorus was slightly higher. No significant changes were noted for Mg, Cl,
or K content due to the maladjustment.
A significant portion of the total particulate is generally made up of
condensed fuel- and oil-like species. Large 20 x 20 inch particulate-laden
filters were extracted to obtain samples of these organics, using methylene
chloride as a solvent. Solute from this extraction process is referred to as the
soluble organic fraction (SOF). SOF emissions over 7 modes of steady-state
operation in both test configurations are summarized in Table 39. Results from
transient test operation are summarized in Table 40.
TABLE 39. MODAL SOF EMISSIONS FOR THE CUMMINS VTB-903
IN BASELINE AND MALAD3USTED CONFIGURATIONS
Total Soluble SOF
Operating Engine Particulate Organic Emission
Condition Configuration Rate, g/hr Fraction, % Rate, g/hr
1500/2 Baseline 27.56 92.10 25.38
Maladjusted 65.65 87.56 57.48
1500/50 Baseline 22.87 18.91 4.32
Maladjusted 30.75 35.34 10.87
1500/100 Baseline 27.92 8.09 2.26
Maladjusted 48.05 10.46 5.03
Idle Baseline 6.01 76.78 4.61
Maladjusted 15.60 51.46 8.03
2100.100 Baseline 28.85 21.58 6.23
Maladjusted 45.15 23.72 10.71
2100/50 Baseline 26.32 19.01 5.00
Maladjusted 51.78 66.63 34.50
2100/2 Baseline 39.57 57.72 22.84
Maladjusted 64.53 81.50 52.59
7-Mode Baseline 23.94 38.51 9.22
Composite Maladjusted 43.13 55.56 23.96
Baseline Maladjusted Unit
7-Mode Composite: Brake Specific SOF 0.13 0.34 g SOF/kW-hr
Fuel Specific SOF 0.50 1.23 g SOF/kg fuel
83
-------
TABLE 38. METALS ANALYSIS OF FILTER COLLECTED PARTICULATE FROM THE CIJMMINS VTB-903
(PERCENT BY WEIGHT BASED ON FLUOROPORE FILTER SAMPLES)
Condition
Speed/
% Load Configuration Na S Cd Mg Cl Cu Al K Zn Sb Si Ca Fe Ba P
Inter , ’ 2 Baseline 0.99 001 a 001 a 0.03
Maladjusted 0.62 001 a 0 o 1 a 0.03
Inter/25 Baseline 334 001 a 001 a 002 a 0.03
Maladjusted 004 a 2.51 002 a 001 a 0 • 03 a 0.05
Inter/5O Baseline 5.45 0 • 01 a 001 a 001 a 0.08 0.07
Maladjusted 004 a 002 a 001 a 009 a 005 a 0.09
Inter/75 Baseline 002 a 002 a 0.20 0.20
Maladjusted 3.31 002 a 002 a 0.05 0.10
Intèr/100 Baseline 6.40 001 a 0.07 0.03 0.20 0.16
Maladjusted 0.02 0 • 01 a 005 a 0.06
Idle Baseline 1.87 001 a 0.12 0.11
Ma ladjqsted 1.14 003 a 0 27 a 0 11 a 0.14
High/100 Baseline 010 a 720 0 01 a 0 01 a 0 • 05 a 0.14 0 • 03 a 0.07
Maladjusted 5.20 0.04 0 • 13 a 0.08 0.06
High/75 Baseline 6.52 0 • 01 a 0 • 01 a 0.10 0.09
Maladjusted 2.85 001 a 001 a 0 01 a 0 03 a 0.08
High/SO Baseline 5.66 0.01 0.01 0.05
Maladjusted 3.08 001 a 001 a 0 03 a 0.06
High/25 Baseline 3.40 003 a ° ° 2 a 003 a 0.03
Maladjusted 2.17 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.12
High/2 Baseline 0.10 0.99 0.06 0.05
Maladjusted 0.87 007 a 0.05 0 04 a 0.06 0.06
Condition Configuration
Cold Baseline 1 2.33 001 a 0.01 0.07 013 a 001 a 001 a 009 a 004 a 010 a 0.03
Transient Baseline 2 0.12 3.25 0.03 0.31 026 a 0.04
Maladjusted 1 a 1.12 a 0.07 0.09
Maladjusted 2 0.07 1.89 0.01 0.03 0.18 0.14
Hot Baseline 1 O.O 6 3.05 0.02 001 a 002 a 001 a 002 a 004 a 0.04
Transient Baseline 2 253 001 a O.O? O.04 0.03
Maladjusted 1 1.81 001 a °°‘a ° ° 2 a 0.06 0.10
Maladjusted 2 2.12 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.13
a These values are very close to the limit of detectability and are subject to a relatively large error in the calculated value shown above.
-------
TABLE 40. TRANSIENT SOF EMISSIONS FROM THE CUMMINS VTB-903
IN BASELINE AND MALAD3LJSTED CONFIGURATIONS
Particulatea Soluble
Transient Engine Emissions Organic SOF Emission
Test Configuration g/kW-hr Fraction, % Rate, g SOF/kW-hr
Cold Baseline 0.65a 59.76 0.39
Start Maladjusted 1 • 46 b 82.59 1.21
[ -Lot Baseline 0.4t9a 49.24 0.24
Start Maladjusted 101 b 7554 0.76
Transient Baseline 0.5l 50.98 0.26
Composite Maladjusted 1 08 b 76.32 0.83
aBased on average of 3 runs
bBased on average of 2 runs
For the VTB—903 in baseline configuration, the soluble portion of the
total particulate ranged from a high of 92 percent (at 2 percent/load
intermediate speed) to a low of 8 percent at the maximum torque condition. In
the maladjusted configuration, the soluble portion ranged from 87 to 10
percent. However, the total particulate emission rate increased such that the
actual mass of soluble material emitted more than doubled during most steady-
state operating conditions for the maladjusted configurations. The 7-mode
composite brake specific emission of SOF increased from 0.13 to 0.34 g
SOF/kW-hr. Over the transient FTP, brake specific SOF emission levels
increased from 0.26 to 0.83 g/kW-hr with maladjustment. Most of the increase
in solubles was attributed to light-load operation.
Weighted portions of SOF were combined to form a composite 7-
mode SOF sample and form a transient composite SOF sample. Composite
transient sample weighting dictates that the ratio of cold to hot sample by 1:6.
Normally this weighting is done by combining the extract of a single 20 x 20
cold-start sample with the extract from six 20 x 20 hot-start samples. Since
only a limited number of filters were available for characterization, only one
cold-start and three hot-start samples were used for extraction. In order to
maintain the cold:hot weighting ratio, 50 percent of the extract from a cold-
start filter was added to 100 percent of the extract from the hot-start filters.
A 7-mode weighted composite extract was formed by incorporating the
respective 7-mode weighting factors, in conjunction with the particulate rate
and the percent of extractables from each of the 7 modes. The individual
extracts were brought to a unit volume, and prescribed portions of the diluted
extracts were combined to form a common 7-mode composite extract. Table
41 illustrates the methodology used to obtain 7-mode composite samples for the
baseline and malfunction configurations. Portions of these composite samples
of SOF were distributed for analysis of C, H, N, and S, boiling point distribution
and Ames bioassay.
85
-------
TABLE 41. COMPUTATION FOR MIXING 7-MODE COMPOSITE EXTRACT FOR CHARACTERIZATION
__________________________ Baseline _________________
Engine
Condition
Weight.
Factor
a
Part.
Rate, g/hr
Extract
Fraction
Extract
TI
Fraction
Extract
Combined
Combined
(W.F.xP.R.xE.F.)
Comp.
On Hand, mg
Extract, mg
Unit
Vol., %
1500/2
0.12
27.56
0.9210
3.046
0.3303
651.5
216.5
33.2
1500/50
0.16
22.87
0.1891
0.692
0.0705
68.5
49.2
71.7
1500/100
0.12
27.92
0.0809
0.271
0.0294
29.6
19.3
65.1
Idle
0.20
6.01
0.7678
0.923
0.1011
239.9
66.3
27.6
2100/100
0.12
28.85
0.2158
0.747
0.0810
53.1
53.1
100.0
2100/50
0.16
26.32
0.1901
0.801
0.0869
76.9
57.0
74.0
2100/2
0.12
39.57
0.5772
2.741
0.2973
450.0
194.8
43.3
9.22l
655.4
Malfunction
1500/2
0.12
65.65
0.8756
6.688
0.2186
1776.4
446.9
25.2
1500/50
0.16
30.75
0.3534
1.739
0.0732
163.9
116.2
70.9
1500/100
0.12
48.05
0.1046
0.603
0.0254
40.3
40.3
100.0
Idle
0.20
15.60
0.5146
1.606
0.0676
233.7
107.3
45.9
2100/100
0.12
45.15
0.2372
1.265
0.0541
93.6
95.8
91.8
2100/50
0.16
51.76
0.6663
5.520
0.2324
531.3
368.6
69.4
2100/2
0.12
64.53
0.8150
6.311
23. 751
0.265’
1046.5
421J
15 6.9
40.3
T’articuiate emission rates based on 90 s n samples
Soluble fractions based on extraction of 20 x 20 samples
-------
Results from elemental analysis of the composite SOP samples are
given in Table 42 along with computed H/C mole ratios. These results indicate
little change in either carbon or hydrogen content of the SOF due to
maladjustments. Similarly, little change in the H/C mole ratio of the SOF was
noted. Nitrogen content of the SOF appeared to be about the same for both
configurations of the VTB-903. Maladjustment did seem to increase the portion
of sulfur found in the SOF, These data imply that, although the amount of SOF
emitted increased substantially with the maladjustments, the makeup of the
SOF was nearly the same as obtained over baseline operation.
TABLE 42. RESULTS OF ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SOF FROM THE
CUMMINS VTB-903
Run Element in SOP, wt. % H/C
Configuration SOF Sample No. C H Na a Ratio
Baseline Transient 1 78.20 10.76 0.27 0.66 1.64
Composite 2 78.26 10.66 1.62
Avg 78.23 10.71 1.63
7—Mode 1 77.46 10.35 0.17 0.77 1.59
Composite 2 77.53 10.46 1.61
Avg 77.50 10.40 1.60
Maladjusted Transient 1 78.18 10.45 0.25 0.78 1.59
Composite 2 77.96 10.54 1.61
Avg 7S.07 10.50 1.60
7-Mode 1 78.01 10.56 0.26 0.96 1.61
Composite 2 78.17 10.36 1.58
Avg 78.09 10.46 1.60
asingle determinations
The boiling point distributions of the composite SOF samples from
both configurations of the VTB-903 are given in Table 43. Overall, little change
in the boiling point distributions of the SOF was noted. The percentages of
extractables recovered over the boiling point procedure were all near 60
percent at approximately 570°C.
Transient composite SOP samples were submitted to EG&G (under
separate EPA Contract) for Ames bioassay, and the results are given in Table
44. For the VTB-903, the specific activities of the SOF generated in the
maladjusted configuration were uniformly greater than in baseline
configuration. SOF was also produced at a higher brake specific rate in the
maladjusted configuration. The effect of these differences is that the brake
specific response was much higher for the maladjusted configuration by factors
of 4 to 13. Brake specific responses were also higher with metabolic activation
in two of the three strains, indicating the presence of indirect-acting mutagens.
87
-------
TABLE 43. BOILING POINT DISTRIBUTION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC
Boiling Point, 0 C
Distillation Transient 7-Mode
Point Baseline Maladjusted Baseline Maladjusted
IBP 294 290 295 283
10% Point 365 349 352 327
20% Point 390 367 378 347
30% Point 413 385 405 364
40% Point 437 407 436 385
50% Point 472 448 497 418
60% Point 543 517
70% Point
80% Point
90% Point
EP Point
Recovery, % 64 59 54 62
at O 581 574 568 560
TABLE 44. SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE TO TRANSIENT COMPOSITE SOF
FROM BASELINE AND MALAD)USTED CONFIGURATION OF THE
CUMMINS VTB-903
Metabolic Specifica Brakeb
Test Actjv. Test Activity Specific
Strain Status Configuration Test 1 Test 2 Response
TA98 No Baseline 0.6 0.6 160
Maladjusted 1.7 2.2 1600
Yes Baseline 0.8 0.8 210
Maladjusted 2.8 3.8 2700
TAI O O No Baseline 2.8 2.8 730
Maladjusted 5.0 3.1 3400
Yes Baseline 2.2 1.5 480
Maladjusted 2.5 2.1 1900
TA1538 No Baseline 0.6 0.3 120
Maladjusted 1.0 1.0 830
Yes Baseline 0.9 0.9 230
Maladjusted 3.3 1.5 2000
? te: Baseline SOF emission was 0.26 g SOFIkW-hr
Maladjusted SOP emission was 0.83 g SOP/k W-hr
aSpecif ic activity has units of revertants per plate! jig SOF
bAverage brake specific response has units of revertants per plate/k W-hr
88
-------
C. Emissions Characterization of a Detroit Diesel Allison Division 6V-71N
Heavy-Duty Diesel Bus Engine in Baseline and Maladjusted Configurations
This section describes emissions characterization work conducted on the
DDAD 6V-71N in both baseline and maladjusted configurations. Selection of
the engine and maladjustments are discussed. Emission results are summarized
in the text, and detailed information is given in Appendix C.
1. Test Engine
Original plans for this phase of the program called for comparative
test work to be conducted on a 2-stroke DDAD 8V-71N coach engine. The
baseline data were to be accumulated in conjunction with EPA Contract No. 68-
03-2602 (in which baseline emissions over the transient test procedures were
established).(14) The original plan for the maladjustment configuration was to
provide noticeable increase in smoke. A 1979 model DDAD SV-71N coach
engine, with 125 durability hours, was submitted for testing under EPA
Contract NO. 68-03-2603 as described in Table 45.
TABLE 45. INFORMATION FROM DDAD 8V-71N COACH ENGINE
Serial No.: 8V/\ 377265
Model Year: 1979
Idle Speed: 400 rpm
Intermediate Speed: 1260 rpm (1200 rpm peak torque)
Rated Speed: 2100 rpm
Intake Restriction: 25 in. H 2 0 at 2100 rpm
Exhaust Backpressure: 6.0 in. Hg at 2100 rpm
FTP for Smoke: “A” = 4.22%, “B” = 8.75%, “C” = 9.10%
13-Mode Emissions: HC = 0.73, CO = 7.47, NO, = 6.99 grarns/bhp-hr
Fuel Type: No. 1 Diesel
Air System at 2100 rpm
Air box pressure (inches mercury) - mm. at full load:
At zero exhaust backpressure: 5.0
At maximum full-load exhaust backpressure: 9.6
Air inlet restriction (inches water) - full-load speed, max.:
Dirty air cleaner (oil bath or dry type) 25.0
Clean air cleaner (with precleaner) (oil bath or dry type) 15.9
Clean air cleaner (less precleaner) (dry type) 11.5
Crankcase pressure (inches water) - max.: 3.0
Exhaust backpressure (inches mercury) - max.:
Full load 6.0
No load 2.6
89
-------
In July of 1979, the DDAD 8V-71N coach engine was installed in the
transient test facility. Various refinements were made to the dynamometer
control circuitry in order to accommodate the right—hand rotation (viewed from
flywheel) of the coach engine. A detailed test plan had been worked out to
provide for transient testing of the engine on No. 2 emissions fuel, followed by
runs on No. 1 fuel, then on No. 1 fuel with intake restriction maladjusted. The
actual settings to be used to simulate a malfunction were to be defined after
baseline requirements under EPA Contract No. 68-03-2603 had been completed.
Several conversations were held with the Project Officer regarding
the selection and application of maladjustments to be run on the SV-71N engine.
Originally, an injector malfunction was considered, but concern over destroying
the emissions history developed for this particular engine caused a reassessment
of the planned injector malfunction. After a rather limited and informal survey
of individuals familiar with this type of engine, a consensus was reached that a
practical maladjustment would be to effectively increase the air intake
restriction. This would not only simulate a dirty air cleaner system, but would
also represent problems associated with a clogged blower intake screen, faulty
positioning of the emergency shutdown damper, loss of blower efficiency,
coking of intake air cylinder ports, or abnormally high exhaust backpressure.
Since no quantitative measurements were readily available to decide
on just how much air restriction constituted a realistic malfunction of any of
these items, the following approach was recommended. The engine would be
operated with “normal” exhaust and intake pressures while smoke and power
were monitored. Percentage step changes in the quantity of intake air would be
made, and changes in smoke and power would be noted.
After completing baseline test requirements (under Contract 68-03-
2603) on No. 2 emissions fuel, the engine was fueled on No. 1 fuel and
experiments to define the level of intake air maladjustment needed to produce
a “smoky exhaust” were conducted. Thirteen-mode restrictions for this 8V-71N
engine were 25 in. H 2 0 intake and 6 in. Hg backpressure, and transient
restrictions were 17 in. H 2 0 intake and 2.5 in. Hg backpressure, at maximum
power. Inlet and exhaust restrictions were set only at maximum power at rated
speed, and restrictions were allowed to vary as the engine speed and load
varied.
The smoke opacity was only 3.5 percent at rated power with No. 1
fuel and transient restrictions. When the air intake restriction was raised to 40
in. H 2 0 the smoke increased to 5.0 percent opacity. Power curve smoke data
were taken with 13-mode restrictions. At rated power, the smoke was only 3.0
percent and at peak torque conditions (1260 rpm/100 percent load) smoke was
7.8 percent. These power curve conditions were repeated with 50 in. H 2 0
intake restriction set at rated power. Full power smoke at rated speed
increased to 5.0 percent while peak torque conditions yielded 10.5 percent
opacity. Due to the relatively minor change in smoke opacity with increased
intake restriction and No. I fuel, the fuel was changed to No. 2 and the full
power conditions were repeated. As the engine was lugged down from 2100 to
1260 rpm with 50 in. H 2 0 (at 2100 rpm), the smoke opacity increased from 7.5
to 15.5 percent. Power decreased with increased intake restriction as
expected. These preliminary data, based on very brief periods of engine
90
-------
operation, indicated that the use of intake air restriction alone would not be
adequate to produce the level of “malfunction” necessary to significantly
influence emissions.
In another conversation with the Project Officer, it was agreed that
air intake restriction, applied to a relatively new engine (125 hrs), would not be
adequate to simulate a high-smoke-emitting in-use engine which would warrant
public complaint. It was decided that the maladjustment would probably have
to produce at least 20 percent smoke opacity when this “new” engine was
operated at peak torque conditions with l-D fuel. To accomplish this target, it
was expected that the engine’s timing would have to be retarded by about 4
degrees in conjunction with about 40 in. H 2 0 intake restriction.
DDAD was contacted by the Project Officer and by SwRI.
Representatives of DDAD would not authorize any more than 2 degrees of
timing retard and were concerned that the use of increased air intake
restriction in combination with 2 degrees of timing retard might damage the
engine. SwRI and the Project Officer felt that at least 4 degrees of timing
retard, in addition to 40 in. H 2 0 intake restriction, would have to be permissible
before this particular engine could be made to produce 20 percent smoke
opacity. Since this engine was being tested under the baseline program under
Contract No. 68-03-2603, we could not assess the engine’s response to only 2
degrees of injection timing retard. Under these circumstances, the DDAD 8V-
71N was disqualified for use under the program (Contract No. 68-03-2706). All
preparations to collect samples were stopped.
Although the effort utilized in studying the smoke sensitivity of the
DDAD 8V-71N seemed to be non-productive, it promoted further thought into
the cause of “smoky exhaust” from 2-stroke coach engine. In May of 1981,
Detroit Diesel Allison Division of GM supplied SwRI (through EPA) with a 1979
DDAD 6V-7lN coach engine for use in this program. This engine was originally
a 125 hr emissions test engine, and was equipped with type 7E60 injectors.
Based on work with the 8V-71N, it was decided that the maladjusted
configuration should include a set of well-used, somewhat substandard injectors
which had been associated with “smoky exhaust” from an in-service bus.
Several bus properties were contacted by the Project Officer and by
SwRI in an effort to obtain a set of “worn” injectors. Based on the difficulty
encountered, it was decided that the injectors should be obtained locally.
Management personnel of VIA Metropolitan Transit Co. of San Antonio were
contacted, and expressed wUlingness to supply high-mileage injectors of types
LSN-60, C60, or N-60 for the purpose of investigating a malfunction.
It was pointed out that VIA did not have any complete sets of faulty
injectors and that injectors rarely failed or deteriorated noticeably in groups;
but rather that they were replaced individually in case they became stuck or
started leaking. T n return for rebuilding injectors loaned to SwRI for the
program, VIA offered to pull sets of LSN-60 injectors having relatively long
accumulated service when buses came in for some other reason. They did so
with two injector sets, and the pertinent service data on these injectors are
given in Table 46, along with results of testing.
91
-------
TABLE 46. SERVICE DATA AND CONDITION OF VIA INJECTORS
(TYPE LSN-60) TESTED AT SwRI
Bus Reason for Injector Miles on Date Opening Spray
No. Maintenance Location Injector Installed Leakage Pressure Pattern
799 Main bearing #1 right 82,987 10/20/78 OK OK good
web failure I /I ! right 82,987 10/20/78 OK OK good
#111 right 82,987 10/20/78 OK OK good
#1 left 82,987 10/20/78 OK OK good
#11 left 82,987 10/20/78 OK OK good
#111 left 82,987 10/20/78 OK OK good
832 #111 left #1 right 150,215 4/21/77 OK OK good
piston and #11 right 150,215 4/21/77 OK OK good
liner broken #111 right 150,215 4/21/77 OK OK good
#1 left 150,215 4/21/77 bada OK good
#11 left 13,003 8/05/80 OK OK good
#111 left 150,215 4/21/77 OK OK badb
alnternal leakage indicating defective plunger or barrel
bi 1 missing, sprayed one jet
These data indicated no problems with the set from bus No. 799.
Two of the injectors from bus No. 832 showed wear or damage. Injector #1 left
would probably not be noticed as a performance problem in the field unless the
internal leakage increased to the point of reducing power output from that
cylinder measurably. It was difficult to project the history of the injector from
#111 left; but probably either the tip was blown off due to explosion of water in
the tip (which could have led to the cylinder damage), or the tip was knocked
off when the piston and liner broke due to some other cause.
The outcome of the injector tests was that those from bus No. 799
did not constitute a malfunctioning set because they were “ok,” while those
from bus No. 832 (#111 left in particular) did not meet the program’s needs
because the malfunction was too severe. These injectors were returned to VIA
“as-received.” Attention was given to obtaining a set of injectors from a bus
which had come in for routine maintenance, but was considerably more “smoky”
than normal at that time.
All efforts to find a set of “malfunctioning” injectors from an in-
service bus, removed from service due to high levels of smoke, were
unsuccessful. In telephone consultation with the Project Officer, it was agreed
that the DDAD 6V-71N coach engine (with 7E60 injectors) would undergo
emissions characterization in the baseline configuration.
The engine was installed in the transient test facility as shown in
Figure 20. The dynarnometer and its associated controls and signal circuits
were reversed to accommodate the right-hand engine rotation (viewed from the
flywheel). Timing was verified to be within 0.003 inch of the timing
specification of 1.500 ± 0.005 inch. Preliminary checks included a full-power
check which yielded 131 kW (176 hp) at 2100 rpm using 35.8 kg fuel/hr (78.9 lbs
92
-------
fuel/hr) of No. 1 emissions fuel, with 13-mode intake and exhaust restrictions of
25 in. H 2 0 and 6 in. Hg, respectively.
The relatively high backpressure was based on the manufacturer’s
13-mode certification data, and represents the use of significant exhaust
muffling due to noise limitations for coach service. In order to establish
reasonable levels of intake and exhaust restrictions for use during transient
testing, Mr. Don Benz of Detroit Diesel was contacted. On consideration of
maintenance and diagnostic information available from shop manuals, transient
restrictions of 17 in. H 2 0 from intake depression and 4 in. Hg backpressure were
considered reasonable by both the Project Officer and Mr. Benz.
Baseline emissions characterization of this engine was performed
under Task Specification No. 8 of Contract No. 68-03-2884. Following two 13-
mode tests, which compared reasonably well with data from similar 6V-71N
coach engines, the engine was mapped and engine/dynamometer control tapes
were generated for transient FTP testing and bus cycle testing in the baseline
configuration. Transient baseline emission characterization included regulated
emissions of aldehydes, individual hydrocarbons, phenols and odor. The total
particulate was also analyzed for sulfate, carbon, hydrogen, and metals content.
The organic soluble fraction of the total particulate was also determined and
analyzed for boiling point distribution, C, H, S, N, and BaP content as well as
Ames response. Following emission measurement and sample collection from
transient operation, the engine exhaust was also characterized over 7 modes of
steady-state engine operation. Each mode was held for approximately 1 hour in
order to acquire adequate particulate samples.
Figure 20. Detroit Diesel 6V-7lN set-up for
emissions test evaluation
93
-------
Considering the difficulty involved in trying to find “malfunctioning”
(but not failed) injectors, it was decided to use injectors that had accumulated
approximately 50,000 miles of city bus service. We were able to obtain a set of
7E60 injectors from “VIA” transient company which had accumulated 48,817
miles, and had been installed in their bus No. 359 in May of 1980. The Project
Officer approved these injectors for use in the maladjusted configuration.
It was decided that the maladjusted configuration should be
representative of a field condition in which the bus would remain in operation
due to adequate performance, but which might be viewed as a “smoky” bus. It
was difficult to decide on what item would cause a realistic malfunction
without representing a part failure. In conjunction with the Project Officer, it
was decided that the maladjusted configuration would be made up of individual
maladjustments to the engine, which collectively would simulate a worn engine.
In addition to substituting these injectors for the baseline injectors, it was
agreed that the maladjusted configuration might also include maladjustments of
the rack, throttle delay, and timing, as well as intake air restriction.
It was decided that the maladjustments would be made in a stepwise
manner; one item of maladjustment would be incorporated, then a hot-start
transient test would be conducted without changing dynamometer control
parameters from the baseline configuration. This procedure would simulate a
driver demanding the same performance from a maladjusted/malfunctioning
engine as from the baseline/stock engine. The hot-start transient emission test
would quantify the relative influence each maladjustment contributed to the
final maladjusted configuration. During the hot transient test, emissions of HC,
CO, NON, particulate and visible smoke (in-line smokemeter) were measured.
The first increment of maladjustment was the substitution of 50,000
mile injectors obtained from an in-use bus. These injectors had accumulated
soot deposits on the tips, but from outward appearance seemed to be in good
condition with no obvious defects. The substitution was straightforward and the
rack adjustments were made according to the service manual. Injector timing
was maintained the same as for the baseline configuration. Emissions were
measured over a single hot-start cycle. Results from this single transient test
are presented in Table 47 along with the average hot-start emission results
from the baseline configuration. The worn injectors caused the CO emissions to
increase by 67 percent and the particulate to increase by 34 percent. NO
decreased 10 percent and fuel consumption increased by 6 percent.
In addition to the worn injectors, the timing was retarded by 0.020
inch in order to simulate a worn cam drive train which occurs normally with
high mileage.(22) This 0.020 inch increase in setting from the 1.500 ± 0.005 inch
timing setting effectively retards the timing by approximately 2.8 degree of
crank angle. ( Following the timing adjustment, a single hot-start transient
test was conducted. As shown in Table 47, the NO was reduced another 22
percent and the fuel consumption increased by 3.6 percent with the retard of
timing. Both CO and particulate emissions increased by about 30 percent.
94
-------
TABLE 47. HOT-START TRANSIENT EMISSIONS FROM DDAD 6V-71N
IN VARIOUS STAGES OF MALAIXJUSTMENT FROM THE BASELINE
CONFIGURATION
Regulated Emissions, Cycle BSFC Cycle Work
Test g/kW-hr, (g/hp-hr ) kg/k W-hr, kW-hr
Configuration HC CO NOYb Part. ( lb/hp-hr) ( hp-hr )
Baseline 2.47 .5.84 9• 79 c,d 0.70 0.313 8.24
Hot Avg. (1.84) (4.36) (7.30) (0.52) (0.515) (11.05)
+50,000 Mile __a 973 8 78 b 0.94 0.331 8.2!
Injectors —- (7.26) (6.55) (0.70) (0.544) (11.00)
+0.020 Inch __a 12.76 681 b 1.34 0.343 8.09
Retard —- (9.52) (5.08) (1.00) (0.565) (10.84)
+No Throttle __a 13.85 677 b 1.45 0.339 8.24
Delay —— (10.33) (5.05) (1.08) (0.558) (11.05)
+Increase 3.35 15.38 6 89 c,d 1.45 0.342 8.22
Intake Rest. (2.50) (11.47) (5.14) (1.08) (0.562) (11.02)
aContjnuousHC inst ment failed--bag HC was used to process data.
blhese NO values based on measurement of sample bag concentration--
Continuous NO instrument undergoing unscheduled maintenance.
CBaseline NO emission by continuous on-line measurement was 9.97 g/kW-hr.
Cumulative maladjustment NOx emission by continuous on-line measurement was
7.63 g/kW-hr.
dpresented on the basis of bag measurement for comparison purposes.
Along with the old injectors and the retard of timing, the throttle
delay mechanism was then adjusted such that essentially no throttle delay
existed. This allowed the engine rack to respond immediately to the throttle
command. It appears from the results of the single hot-start test that the
absence of throttle delay had comparatively little effect on hot-start transient
emissions, although both CO and particulate were increased by about 8 percent
and NO and BSFC were slightly reduced.
An increase in engine air intake restriction was added to simulate a
dirty air cleaner or blower intake screen. The transient intake restriction was
raised from 17 in. H 2 0 to 25 in. H 2 0 (measured at maximum power). The effect
of the increased air intake restriction was minimal in regards to NOR,
particulate and fuel consumption, but it did appear to increase CO emission
somewhat. Results from the hot-start transient with the additional intake air
restriction were also representative of the cumulative effect of all of the
maladjustments.
Comparing the emission results from the cumulative maladjustments
to the average hot-start emissions from the baseline configuration indicated
that substantial changes in emissions had taken place. The HC appeared to
95
-------
have increased by 32 percent, CO increased by a factor of 2.6, NO decreased
by 30 percent, particulate increased by a factor of 2.1, and fuel consumption
increased by 9 percent. Copies of the hot-start transient test results from
maladjustment testing are given in Tables C-I through C—4 of Appendix C.
In addition to the gaseous and particulate emission data, in-line
smoke data were taken during each transient test in order to observe any
change in smoke attributable to the maladjustments. On the basis of the FTP
for smoke, several points were chosen to provide relative smoke information
thought to be indicative of smoke from peak, acceleration, no-load, and
intermediate load conditions. Results from these smoke measurements are
given below:
Hot-Start Transient Smoke Opacity, Percent
Configuration Peak Acceleration No Load Intermediate
Baseline Avg. 5.5 3.7 0.6 0.8
+50K Injectors 15.5 8.7 0.3 2.1
+Retard Timing 25.9 15.6 0.5 4.7
+No Throttle Delay 31.9 13.0 0.4 5.1
+Increase Restr. 31.6 13.5 0.2 3.0
Overall engine operation changed very little relative to the changes
in emissions. Observed power under the baseline and maladjusted
configurations is given below with associated end-of-stack smoke opacities.
Baseline
Max. Power: 440 ft lb at 100 rpm = 175.9 hp Smoke: 2.4%
Max. Torque: 550 ft lb at 1260 rpm = 132.0 hp Smoke: 8.0%
Combined Maladjustment
Max. Power: 420 ft lb at 2100 rpm = 167.9 hp Smoke: 9.8%
Max. Torque: 515 ft lb at 1260 rpm = 123.6 hp Smoke: 23.5%
Even though the smoke and particulate emissions increased
significantly, maximum power and maximum torque were only reduced by 5 and
6 percent, respectively. This would imply that the malfunctioning engine would
probably not be taken out of service on the basis of power loss. The preliminary
data from the various tests were reviewed with the Project Officer, who later
approved the cumulative maladjusted engine for emissions characterization
under the “maladjusted” configuration.
2. Emission Results from the DDAD 6V-71N
Composite gaseous emission levels of the DDAD 6V-71N on the 13-
mode FTP are given in Table 48 for both baseline and maladjusted
configurations. Copies of the computer printouts of the individual 13-mode
tests are presented in Tables C-6 through C-9 of Appendix C and give modal
information along with composite results. Thirteen-mode composite HC was 23
percent lower for the maladjusted configuration than for the baseline
96
-------
configuration. Examining the modal data, significant reductions in HC occurred
in the maladjusted configuration during maximum power and maximum torque
conditions. A 27 percent reduction in NO emissions, primarily due to the
retard in timing, was accompanied by an overall 6 percent increase in BSFC.
Thirteen-mode CO emissions increased by a factor of 1.8.
TABLE 48. SUMMARY OF 13—MODE GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM THE
DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
13-Mode FTP
BSFC,
Test Emissions, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr ) kg/k W-hr,
Configuration HC CO NO ( lb/hp-hr )
Baseline 2.37 9.92 9.60 0.297
(1.77) (7.40) (7.16) (0.488)
Maladjusted 1.82 17.83 6.98 0.316
(1.36) (13.30) (5.20) (0.520)
Several transient FTP’s were run on both engine configurations. The
average transient emission values from these tests are given in Table 49.
Copies of the computer printouts from the individual tests are given in
Appendix C. Notes concerning individual runs made in the baseline
configuration are given in Table C-b. For the baseline configuration, Tables
C-il and C-12 give cold-start transient results, Tables C-13 through C-16 give
hot-start transient results, and Tables C-17 and C-iS give bus cycle results.
The average of the results given in these tables are those given in Table 49.
Tables C-19 through C-21 give results from tests when the engine was returned
to baseline configuration, after testing in the maladjusted configuration was
completed.
Notes concerning individual runs made in the maladjusted
configuration are given in Table C-22. For the maladjusted configuration,
Tables C-23 and C-24 give cold-start transient results, Tables C-25 through C-
29 give hot-start results, and Tables C-30 and C-31 give bus cycle results. The
average of the results given in these tables are those given in Table 49.
Baseline data show a significant difference between the cold- and
hot-start cycle of the transient test. The cold-start produced 6.77 kW-hr as
compared to 8.24 kW-hr from the hot-start. This significant difference was
attributed to the throttle delay mechanism which utilized engine oil as a
working fluid. The higher viscosity of the cold engine oil causes slower throttle
response on the cold-start than on the hot-start. All emissions, including
particulate and BSFC, were higher for the cold-start cycle. The experimental
bus cycle was also run and had slightly higher emissions than the baseline
composite values, except for CO, which was lower. The baseline configuration
did not pass the statistical requirements for any of the transient cycles run, and
in addition the cycle work was about 23 percent below the command cycle
work.
97
-------
TABLE 49. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS FORM
THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Regulated Emissions, Cycle BSFC Cycle Work
Cycle g/kW—hr, (g/hp-hr ) kg/k W-hr, kW/hr,
Type HC co NOya Part. ( lb/hp-hr) ( hp-hr )
Baseline Configuration
Cold 2.49 6.03 11.69 0.86 0.372 6.77
Start (1.86) (4.50) (8.72) (0.64) (0.612) (9.07)
[ -lot 2.47 5.84 9.97 0.70 0.313 8.24
Start (1.84) (4.36) (7.44) (0.52) (0.515) (11.05)
Transient 2.47 5 .87 10.21 0.72 0.322 8.03
Composite (1.84) (4.38) (7.62) (0.54) (0.529) (10.77)
Bus 2.72 4.65 10.27 0.83 0.339 3.31
Cycle (2.03) (3.47) (7.66) (0.62) (0.557) (4.44)
Maladjusted Configuration
Cold 2.18 16.58 7.53 1.66 0.338 8.37
Start (1.63) (15.17) (5.57) (1.46) (0.579) (11.44)
Hot 2.18 16.58 7.53 1.66 0.338 8.37
Start (1.63) (12.37) (5.62) (1.24) (0.556) (11.22)
Transient 2.18 17.12 7.52 1.70 0.340 8.39
Composite (1.63) (12.77) (5.61) (1.27) (0.559) (11.25)
Bus 2.48 20.72 7.98 1.97 0.345 3.80
Cycle (1.85) (15.46) (5.95) (1.47) (0.567) (5.09)
aContinuous NO
Dynamometer control settings established during baseline operation
were not adjusted to compensate for different engine operation in the
maladjusted configuration. In the maladjusted configuration, there was
relatively little difference between the cold-start and hot-start emissions or
work. All of the transient tests, except for one hot-start, run in the
maladjusted configuration passed the statistical criteria for transient testing.
During transient operation, the HC emissions in the maladjusted
configuration tended to be nearly 10 percent lower than for the baseline.
Changes in the CO emissions with the maladjustment were even more
pronounced for transient testing than steady-state test work. The CO emissions
from the maladjusted configuration on the bus cycle were 4.4 times those
obtained for baseline. Transient cycle emissions of NO from the maladjusted
98
-------
configuration were 24 percent lower than the level obtained for the baseline
configuration. The relative changes in regulated gaseous emissions on both 13-
mode and transient FTP’s are illustrated in Figure 21. Changes in BSFC were
not as pronounced for the bus cycle as for the 13-mode or transient FTP’s.
Substantial increases in total particulate were noted with maladjustment.
Particulate emissions will be discussed in greater detail later in the text of this
section.
Dilute exhaust samples were collected and analyzed for several low
molecular weight hydrocarbons or “individual hydrocarbons” (Il-IC). Transient
composites and 7-mode composites of the total of individual hydrocarbons are
given in Table 50. Detailed results of the individual hydrocarbon species are
given in Table C-32 for transient operation, and in Tables C-33 and C-34 for
baseline and maladjusted modal operation. IHC were not determined over the
bus cycle.
TABLE 50. SUMMARY OF COMPOSITE INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS
FROM THE DDAD 6V-71N
Test Transient Composite 7-Mode Composite
Configuration mg/kW-hr mg/k W-hr
Baseline 190 150
Maladjusted 200 104
Ethylene and propylene were the predominant individual
hydrocarbons emitted during both transient and steady-state testing of the
DDAD 6V-7lN coach engine. During transient testing in both configurations of
the DDAD 6V-71N, ethylene and propylene accounted for roughly 62 and 30
percent of the total individual hydrocarbons noted, respectively. Although
there was not much difference in the composite total of individual hydrocarbons
from the transient testing, the composite total of individual hydrocarbons over
the 7 modes tested actually decreased with maladjustment. In testing the
baseline configuration under steady-state conditions, levels of both ethylene
and propylene were highest at the maximum power condition; but they were
significantly lower in the maladjusted configuration. The maladjustment caused
increased emissions of most species of individual hydrocarbons at the 2 percent
load conditions.
Aldehydes were measured using the DNPH procedure. This
procedure was adapted to dilute exhaust samples in order to characterize the
aldehydes during the transient cycle. A summary of total aldehydes from
transient and modal operation is given in Table 51, indicating slightly higher
levels of aldehyde emissions with maladjustment. Detailed aldehyde results for
transient testing are given in Table C-35, and in Tables C-36 and C-37 for
steady-state modal operation.
99
-------
REGULATED EMISSIONS - 6V-71N
8
N0 , 6
GRAMS 4
HP-HR
2
0
15 —
CO, 10
GRAMS
HP-HR
HC, 2
GRAMS
HP-HR I
0
5
0
3
BASELINE
MALADJUSTED
:
13-MODE
TRANS lENT
BUS CYCLE
Figure 21. Regulated gaseous emissions from the DDAD 6V-71N in
baseline and maladjusted configurations
C
0
-------
TABLE 51. SUMMARY OF COMPOSITE ALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM
THE DDAD 6V-71N
Test Transient Composite 7-Mode Composite
Configuration mg/k W-hr mg/k W-hr
Baseline 31 29
Maladjusted 44 36
Formaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde, and benzaldehyde were the only
aldehydes detected over the transient cycle in either configuration.
Formaldehyde was detected in both cold and hot cycle exhaust samples, with
slightly higher levels detected in the maladjusted configuration. Essentially, no
aldehydes were detected over the bus cycle in either configuration, although
some isobutyraldehyde were also detected, but at relatively low levels.
Relative amounts of various phenols were determined by a wet
chemistry procedure sampling dilute exhaust during the transient testing (bus
cycle was not included) and raw exhaust during 5 modes of steady-state testing.
Detailed transient phenol data are given in Table C-38, and steady-state results
are given in Tables C-39 and C-40 for the baseline and maladjusted
configurations, respectively. The most substituted phenol, 2-n-propylphenol,
appeared for both cold- and hot-start cycles and was present for both
configurations. The transient composite brake specific phenol level obtained in
the baseline configuration increased from 58 to 340 mg/k W-hr with
maladjustment. For both configurations, salicylaldehyde and 2-n-propylphenol
were prevalent over the five modes of steady-state operation.
Total intensity of aroma (hA) was determined for both
configurations using the diesel odor analysis system (DOAS). Results from both
transient (excluding the bus cycle) and steady-state testing are given in Tables
C-41 and C-42, respectively. TIA was computed on the basis of both LCA and
LCA. According to the developer, A.D. Little, the higher TIA value is most
representative of odor intensity. For the DDAD 6V-71N, the 7-mode composite
changed from 1.55 to 1.66, and the transient composite decreased from 1.80 to
1.69 for the baseline and maladjusted configurations, respectively. Based on
the relatively small and mixed changes indicated, there was no significant
change in exhaust odor due to the maladjustment of the DDAD 6V-71N.
One of the objectives of this work was to characterize the gaseous
and particulate emissions associated with an engine producing “smoky” exhaust.
Changes in smoke opacities from the baseline to maladjusted configurations
were used in evaluating whether or not the maladjustment changes could
simulate a smoky engine. Smoke opacities were determined using an end-of-
stack EPA-PHS srnokemeter.
Smoke was measured during the 13-mode testing as well as during
the FTP for smoke and during selected steady-state points along the power
curve. These smoke data are given in Table 52 and show significant increases in
almost all power points tested. Figure 22 illustrates the change in smoke FTP
levels with maladjustment. It is interesting, that all of the relatively large
101
-------
TABLE 52. SMOKE OPACITY FROM THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity
Smoke Opacity, %
II II I I VI II II
Configuration A B C
Baseline 3.3 6.9 7.3
Maladjusted 26.8 19.5 38.6
Steady-State Smoke Opacity
13-Mode FTP Smoke Opacity, %
Mode RPM Power, % Baseline Maladjusted
1 Idle —— 0.2 0.1
2 1260 2 0.2 0.1
3 1260 25 0.3 0.1
4 1260 50 0.4 0.3
5 1260 75 0.9 2.8
6 1260 100 8.6 23.5
7 Idle —— 0.3 0.4
8 2100 100 2.3 9.5
9 2100 75 0.5 3.9
10 2100 50 0.3 1.7
11 2100 25 0.3 1.3
12 2100 2 0.3 1.1
13 Idle —— 0.2 0.1
Power Curve Smoke
Smoke Opacity, %
RPM Power, % Baseline Maladjusted
2100 100 2.5 10.0
1900 100 2.2 11.3
1700 100 3.7 14.8
1500 100 4.1 16.3
1300 100 7.3 23.5
1260 100 7.5
1200 100 10.5
102
-------
changes in smoke occurred during the high power conditions above 50 percent
load. Relatively little change in smoke was noted for power points below the 50
percent load conditions.
40 ____
BASELINE
30 [ J MALADJUSTED
ry Iji JIWW
A . MAX. ‘ “B”
POWER TORQUE ACCEL LUG PEAK
Figure 22. Smoke emissions from the DDAD 6V-71N
Since smoke and total particulate are related in that the relative
level of smoke opacity indicates the relative level of particulate, the
maladjustments were expected to cause significant changes in the total
particulate emission levels as well as change the character of the particulate
emitted. Total particulate was determined over both steady-state and transient
operation, in both baseline and maladjusted configurations. Results from these
determinations are summarized in Table 53. Particulate emissions for 7 modes
of steady-state operation of the DDAD 6V-71N in both baseline and maladjusted
configurations, are shown in Figure 23. Detailed particulate results over
various transient test cycles are given along with the gaseous emissions in
Tables C-Il through C-31. A summary of modal particulate emissions is given
in Table C-43.
TABLE 53. SUMMARY OF TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM THE DDAD 6V-71N
Test Total Particulate Emissions, g/k W-hr
Cycle Baseline Maladjusted
Cold-Start 0.86 1.66
Hot-Start 0.70 1.66
Transient Composite 0.72 1.70
Bus Cycle 0.83 1.97
7-Mode Composite 0.70 1.84
103
-------
4OO Q BASELINE
oo.1—. 0 MALADJUSTED
00
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
—S
‘-I
-J
I- )
a.
L,___ __
100 50 2 IDLE
I:TERHEDIATL SPFED
P NCLr1T OF FULL LOAD
Figure 23. Modal particulate rates from the DDAD 6V-71N
coach engine
Seven-mode composites of the particulate emissions in baseline and
maladjusted configurations were 0.70 and 1.84 g/kW-hr, respectively. From
Figure 23, this increase (by a factor of 2.6) was due to substantial increases in
particulate emissions at the full load conditions during steady-state operation.
Transient composite levels of particulate increased from 0.72 to 1.70 g/kW-hr
with the maladjustments. This significant difference in transient particulate
levels is primarily attributed to the absence of throttle delay (similar to a “puff
limiter”), which would not appear to affect steady-state particulate emission
determinations. Results from testing on the transient bus cycle were similar to
results obtained on the transient FTP, namely that the brake specific
particulate level increased by a factor of 2.4 with the maladjustments.
Sulfate emissions originating from the sulfur contained in the fuel,
were determined using the barium chioranilate method on samples of total
particulate collected on fluorocarbon membrane filter media. Sulfate results
from transient and modal testing are summarized in Table 54. Results from
modal testing are presented graphically in Figure 24. Detailed transient and
modal sulfate results are given in Tables C-44 and C-45 of Appendix C,
respectively.
10
0
2 S O 100
TATED SPEED
20 1 -
104
-------
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
a)
1400
L 120C
ioor
60(
D e2. n
: :r:: —.
Intermediate Speed
Rated Speed
Percent of Full Load
1- igure 24. Modal sulfate rates from the DDAD 6V-71N coach engine
105
3000
1 1
:1/
L I H ::::l:::
.1/
Ii
-. . .._: . :. .. ...: ..i .. : .
400.
2 OC
0
.1 .: ::::
ii
100 50
• 1
Idle
2
50
100
-------
TABLE 511. SUMMARY OF SULFATE EMISSIONS FROM THE
DDAD 6V-71N
Test Sulfate Emissions, mg/k W-hr
Cycle Baseline Maladjusted
Cold-Start 28 22
I-lot-Start 28 18
Transient Composite 28 19
7-Mode Composite 25 23
Sulfate emissions from the maladjusted configuration were nearly
equivalent to or slightly less than baseline levels at most steady-state operating
conditions. Composite sulfate results in Table 54 show that maladjustment
reduced the 7-mode composite level by 7 percent, and the transient FTP
composite level by 32 percent. It is likely that the maladjustment caused
deterioration in the combustion process, resulting in less oxidation of the sulfur
contained in the fuel. For the DDAD 6V-71N under transient test conditions,
the reduction in sulfate emissions may have been particularly noticeable due to
fuel-rich accelerations caused by the absence of throttle delay in the
maladjusted configuration.
In addition, a lower percentage of fuel sulfur was converted to
sulfate with maladjustment (data given in Tables C-44 and C-4.5). The most
notable changes in sulfate with maladjustment were a 22 percent reduction of
sulfate at maximum power and a 17 percent reduction at 50 percent load/rated
speed conditions.
Elemental analysis of the total particulate required two particulate
samples. The carbon and hydrogen content of the total particulate were
determined from particulate samples collected on glass fiber filter media by
oxidation techniques. Sulfur and metal content were determined from
particulate samples collected on Teflon membrane filter media (Fluoropore)
using X-ray fluorescence techniques. Table 55 gives the results from elemental
analysis of steady-state and transient particulate samples. The results are
presented as percent of each element in the total particulate sample analyzed.
Of all the elements determined, carbon and hydrogen made up the bulk of the
total particulate, followed by sulfur, then calcium, phosphorus, chlorine,
aluminum, and zinc. The “total,” given in Table 55 does not include C, H, and
N, but does include sulfur and the other elements found. Computed H/C ratios
are given in Table 55 along with computed transient and modal composite H/C
ratio.
Examining the modal data, carbon was lowest and hydrogen highest
(high H/C mole ratio) during light loads and idle where unburned fuel-like
constituents are often found. Maladjustment appears to have increased the
carbon content of the total particulate relative to the hydrogen content,
resulting in a lower H/C mole ratio. Maladjustment of the DDAD 6V-71N
106
-------
TABLE 55. SUMMARY OF ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PARTICULATE FROM
MODAL OPERATION OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Condition Test Element, Percent by Wei 9 ht of Total Particulate
rpm/load, % Configuration C H H/C S” Al Si P Cl Ca Cr Mn Fe Zn Sn Sb Pb Total C
1260/2 Baseline 59.8 9.0 1.79 1.90 b 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.28 b a b 0.14 a a b 2.8
Malad3uSted 56.7 9.7 2.04 1.79 b 0.01 a 0.14 0.06 0.24 b b b a b b b 2.7
1260/50 Baseline 69.2 10.4 1.79 2.94 b 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.04 0.33 a a a 0.15 a a b 4.3
Maladjusted 64.1 8.0 1.49 2.16 b 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.23 a 0.22 a a a a a 3.7
1260/100 Baseline 84.9 2.7 0.33 0.40 b 0.06 0.07 a 0.06 0.12 b a a a a b b 1.0
MaladJusted 87.2 1.3 0.13 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.03 a 0.05 0.04 b b a a b b b 0.4
Idle Baseline 68.9 9.9 1.71 3.45 b 0.03 0.08 a a 0.36 a 0.84 b b a a b 5.7
Maladjusted 53.2 7.6 1.70 3.56 b 0.06 a a 0.18 a b 0.68 b b a b b 4.9
2100/100 Baseline 67.2 3.5 0.62 1.58 b 0.52 0.56 0.12 0.03 0.36 b a 0.26 0.19 a a b 5.0
Maladjusted 88.4 1.6 0.22 0.47 b 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.11 a 0.06 a a a a b 1.0
2100/50 Baseline 60.4 7.5 1.48 2.45 b 0.68 0.75 0.11 a 0.26 b b 0.31 0.13 b b b 4.9
Maladjusted 70.4 5.8 0.98 2.52 b 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.07 0.25 b 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.02 a 0.53 4.0
2100/2 Baseline 65.3 9.6 1.75 1.15 a 0.03 0.13 0.09 0.05 0.51 a a 0.31 0.11 a a b 2.9
..J Maladjusted 58.7 6.9 1.40 1.61 b 0.03 0.18 0.10 0.06 0.26 a a a a a a a 3.1
7—Mode Baseline 1.40
Ccsnposite Maladjusted 1.19
Transient Test
Cycle Configuration H “s Nd.e M si p Cl Ca Cr Mn Fe Zn Sn Sb _ TotalC
Cold Start Baseline 77.0 10.1 1.56 1.80 0.77 0.03 0.04 0.12 a 0.24 b a a a a b b 2.6
Transient Maladjusted 69.7 2.6 0.44 0.60 0.50 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.12 a a a 0.10 a a b 1.6
Hot Start Baseline 67.7 8.4 1.48 1.44 0.70 0.03 0.05 0.11 a 0.25 a a b a a a b 2.9
Transient 4a1ad.justed 77.3 3.4 0.52 0.72 f 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.18 a 0.13 a a a a b 1.5
Transient Baseline 1.49
Composite Maladjusted 0.51
E1ement detected but was below the level of quantitiation
Element was not detected
“Fotal” represents the percent of total mass detected by X-ray and does not include Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen or Oxygen
Mg was not detected in the transient particulate samples
eAddl iOflC1 analysis for Nitrogen was conducted on transient particulate samples
Value from analysis was 4.27 percent. This value seems unreasonably high and probably erroneous
-------
decreased the 7-mode composite H/C mole ratio from 1.40 to 1.19, and
decreased the transient FTP composite from 1.49 to 0.51, implying that the
particulate was “drier” (more carbonaceous) due to maladjustment. Elemental
sulfur content of the total particulate was generally lower for the maladjusted
configurations. Little or no change in lubricating oil-related elements (P, Ca,
Zn) was noted. “Totals” of elements from modal operation in the maladjusted
configuration were lower than for the baseline configuration except at the 2100
rpm, 2 percent load condition. “Total” percent of elements detected by x-ray
decreased with the maladjustment on transient testing also. Nitrogen, analyzed
for transient operation only, also decreased with maladjustment.
In addition to elemental and sulfate analyses of the total
particulate, the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the total particulate was
determined in both transient and steady-state particulate samples from both
configurations. Table 56 gives transient cycle and composite SOF emissions in
both configurations. Individual modal SOF information is given in Table C-46 of
Appendix C. For the maladjusted DDAD 6V-71N, the percent of SOF noted for
most steady-state modes remained about the same as for the baseline
configuration, except for full load conditions at both intermediate and rated
speeds. At these two conditions, the soluble percentages were substantially
reduced with maladjustment. When these soluble percentages are combined
with the corresponding total particulate emissions, the 7-mode composites for
both baseline and maladjusted configurations were the same at 0.20 g SOF/kW-
hr. Over the lightly-loaded transient FTP, maladjustment caused the composite
brake specific SOF level to decrease from 0.40 to 0.29 g SOF/kW-hr (28
percent). On the bus cycle, maladjustment decreased the level from 0.54 to
0.35 g SOF/kW-hr (35 percent). Observations of changes in the H/C mole ratio
of the total particulate generally complement the changes observed for SOF
due to maladjustments.
TABLE 56. SUMMARY OF CYCLE AND COMPOSITE SOLUBLE ORGANIC
FRACTION FROM THE DOAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Test Cycle Composite Soluble Organic Fraction
Cycle Baseline Maladjustment
Composite % SOF g SOF/kW-hr % SOF g SOF/kW-hr
7-Mode
Composite 28.9 0.20 10.7 0.20
Cold-Start
Cycle 56.8 0.49 13.0 0.26
Hot-Start
Cycle 56.1 0.39 18.0 0.30
Transient
Composite 56.2 0.40 17.1 0.29
Bus
Cycle 64.6 0.54 17.9 0.35
108
-------
Weighted portions of SOF extracts from transient FTP operation
were combined to form a composite transient sample. Similarly weighted
portions of SOF obtained from seven individual modes were combined to form a
composite 7-mode sample. Composite SOF samples from both configurations
were analyzed for C, I-I, N, and S, and the results are given in Table 57 along
with computed H/C mole ratios. Only slight variation in these elements
occurred with maladjustment. For the DDAD 6V-71N, the H/C ratio of both
the 7-mode composite SOF and the transient composite SOF were 1.86 in the
baseline configuration and 1.68 in the maladjusted configuration (recall that the
H/C ratio of diesel fuels and lubricating oils is approximately 1.8). No
significant change in nitrogen or sulfur content of the SOF occurred for either
engine when maladjusted.
TABLE 57. ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC
FRACTION FROM THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Test Test Element, Percent of SOF
Configuration Composite ca Ha H/C Nb Sc
Baseline Transient 84.68 13.15 1.85 0.24 0.49
Baseline 7-Mode 79.40 12.46 1.87 0.21 0.56
Maladjusted Transient 80.48 11.32 1.67 0.35 0.57
Maladjusted 7-Mode 82.79 11.77 1.69 0.31 0.57
äAi alysis conducted by Gaibraith Laboratories
bNitrogen content determined by CL
cSulfur content determined by x-ray
The boiling point distributions of the composite SOF samples are
tabulated in Table 58. Results from the baseline transient sample stand out as
having a relatively high initial boiling point and relatively low percentage
recovery compared to the maladjusted transient SOF sample. Samples of
composite SOF from the UDAD 6V-71N were submitted for analysis of BaP
content, but no concentrations above the detection limit of 0.0002 pg/mg SOF
were noted for either configuration.
109
-------
TABLE 58. BOILING POINT DISTRIBUTION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC
FRACTION FROM £ DAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Boiling Temperature of Distillation Point, °C
Distillation Transient 7-Mode
Point Baseline Maladjusted Baseline Maladjusted
IBP 307 230 244 257
10% point 391 368 380 371
20% point 412 398 407 405
30% point 432 418 427 429
40% point 452 437 447 453
50% point 474 458 469 482
60% point 503 481 497 521
70% point 542 510 533 640
80% point 607 .547 583
90% point --- 593
EP point
Recovery, %
at 640°C 84 98 88 70
Composite SOF samples from transient and steady-state operation
were submitted for Ames bioassay. The samples were tested in replicate over 5
strains (TA98, TAIOO, TA1535, TA1537, and TA1538), with and without
metabolic activation. Results from Ames testing are given in Table 59, and
include the slope of dose response, which represents the statistically-
determined slope of the function representing revertants per plate versus
micrograms SOF dosage. This result is termed “specific activity,” and is an
indication of the level of mutagenic potential of the extract. Results are also
given in terms of brake specific response, which represents the specific activity
multiplied by the SOF brake specific emission rate. The units for the brake
specific response are then
thousand revertants/plate
kW-hr
The “thousand revertants per plate” per “kW-hr” is useful for comparison
purposes, but has no practical meaning. The specific activities from replicate
tests are given under the headings, “Test 1” and “Test 2.” The average of these
specific activities was used in conjunction with the brake specific emission of
SOF to calculate the brake specific response.
Of the five tester strains used in the Ames analysis of the transient
composite SOF samples, the highest levels of specific activity from all the SOF
samples were noted for strains TA98 and TA 100. On these two strains, the
specific activities (along with brake specific response) without metabolic
activation were greater than with activation. On strain TA1538, the opposite
was noted. For the transient composite SOF sample, the brake specific
responses with maladjustment were near those obtained on baseline. However,
on strain TAIOO without activation, a noticeably greater brake specific
110
-------
TABLE 59. SUMMARY OF AMES RESPONSE SOF FROM THE DDAD 6V-71N
Test
Configuration
Total
Particulate
Rate
g/kW—hr
Soluble
Organic
Fraction
g/kW—hr
Metabolic
Activation
Status
Strain TA98
Strain TA100
Strain 1535
Strain Tk1537
Strain TA1538
Specifica
Activity
Brake
Specifich
Response
Specific 5
Activity
Test 1 Test 2
Brake
SpecifiCb
Response
Specific
Activity
Test 1 Test 2
Brake
Specifdcb
Response
Specific
Activity 5
Teat 1 Test 2
Brake
Specificb
Response
Specific
Activityd
Test 1 Teat 2
Brake
Spectficb
Response
Test 1
Teat 2
Transient
Baseline
Composite
0.72
0.40
Yea
No
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
140
160
0.5
0.6
0.5
2.5
200
620
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
40
20
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.1
160
40
Transient
Maladjusted
Coaaposited
1.70
0.29
Yes
No
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
120
150
0.6
4.0
0.9
2.9
220
1000
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
15
0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
58
15
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.1
130
29
7—Node
Baseline
Composite 0
0.70
0.20
Yes
No
.2
0.4
0.5
0.2
170
60
0.4
1.8
0.5
1.4
90
320
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
10
10
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
10
0
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.1
120
30
7—Mode
Meladjusted
coi.posite 1
1.84
0.20
Yes
No
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.7
110
100
0.5
1.6
0.7
3.1
120
470
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
20
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0.4
0.1
0.8
0.3
120
40
5 Specific activity results from etatistical analysis — given as “ de1 predicted slope,” “.ean ” represents revertants/iJg SOP dose, samples
b ° in replicate with one to two weeks between runs.
Brake specific response has unite of i 3 revertante/plate/kW—hr, based on average slope of Test 1 and Test 2
Sau.ple CABS—81—4l0
eRe e CABS—81—430
fSaWle CABS-81—400
Sa 1e CABS—81—420
-------
response was obtained with maladjustment. For the 7-mode composite SOF
sample, the differences in brake specific responses from baseline and
maladjusted configurations were minimal. There appears to be a slight trend to
higher brake specific response with maladjustment.
112
-------
VI. EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION OF THREE DIESEL-POWERED
CITY TRANSIT BUSES
The most recent and final phase of the work conducted under this
contract involved emissions characterization of three in-service buses over
various chassis dynamometer driving cycles. The three buses and the fuels used
in this work are described in Section A. Section B describes the analytical and
test procedures along with the various chassis dynamometer test cycles used.
Emission results are summarized in Section C, and detailed emissions
information is given in Appendix D.
A. Test Buses and Fuels
Three buses used in this program were obtained from an in-service fleet
operated by Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority. The total fleet of 760
contained 288 GMC RTS II Type 4 buses, powered by DDAD 6V-92TA engines
and covering model years 1981 through 1984. All the 6V-92TA engines were
fitted with 7G6) series injectors. Houston Metro is currently converting their
operation from No. 1 to No. 2 diesel fuel. Buses of model year 1984 were
operated on No. 2 fuel, and earlier models were operated on No. 1 fuel. The
three buses used in this work were randomly selected by Houston Metro with
the following qualifications: one bus on No. 2 and two buses on No. I fuel,
powered by the 2-stroke DDAD 6V-92TA, no less than 30,000 miles of service
accumulation, no major engine maintenance performed. The three buses chosen
for emissions characterization were No. 2162, No. 2126, and No. 1934, and they
are described in Table 60 along with fuel and oil consumption figures from
recent maintenance records. It should be noted that bus 2126 had better oil
control than either bus 2162 or bus 1934. Properties of the two fuels used for
emissions test work are given in Table 61. The test fuel was supplied through a
fuel metering system in place of the on-board fuel supply.
TABLE 60. DESCRIPTION OF TEST VEHICLES IN HOUSTON
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Bus No. 2162 2126 1934
Bus Model GMC RTS II 04 GMC RTS II 04 GMC RTS II 04
VIN 1G0YT8238DV821917 1GOYT8230DV821426 1G07T8231CV820266
Engine No. 6VF104388 6VF100561 6VF088423
Engine Model “Silver” 6V-92TA “Silver” 6V-92TA “Silver” 6V-92TA
Injectors 7G65 7G65 7G65
Fuel Type No. 2 No. 1 No. 1
Rated Power, hp @ rpm 253 @ 2100 216 @ 2100 216 @ 2100
Start Service September 1983 April 1983 September 1982
Service Accum. mi.a .55,066 99.856 138,781
Fuel Cons., mpg t 3.7 3.6 3.7
Oil Cons., mpqt.b 502 750 464
Major Engine Repair None None None
GVWR, lbs 36,900 36,900 36,900
GVW, Empty, lbs 26,000 26,000 26,000
Capacity, Passengers 53 53 53
aprior to test
bBased on data taken over 1-2 months prior to testing
113
-------
TABLE 61. PROPERTIES OF THE TWO DIESEL TEST FUELS
Fuel Description No. 2 No. 1
Fuel Code EM-597-F EM-400-F
Properties
Density, g/m9 0.849 0.812
Gravity, °API 35.2 42.9
Cetane Index, (D-976) 46.2a 49.0
Viscosity, cS (D-445) 2.52 1.69
Flash Point, 0 C 72 70
Sulfur, wt. % (D-1266) 0.35 0.17
Gum, mg/l00 m -- 4.6
Carbon, wt. % 86.12 86.37
Hydrogen, wt. % 12.92 13.54
Nitrogen, wt. % 0.08 0.0006
FIA:
Aromatics, % 32.10 10.5
Olef ins, % 1.33 1.5
Saturates, % 66.57 88.0
Distillation (D-86)
IBP, oc 190 190
10% Point, 0 C 221 203
20% Point, °C 232 207
30% Point, 0 C 243 209
40% Point, °C 253 212
50% Point, 0 C 263 214
60% Point, 0 C 273 217
70% Point, 0 C 284 221
80% Point, °C 297 227
90% Point, 0 C 314 238
9.5% Point, 0 C 331 258
EBP, °C 345 293
Recovery, % -- 99
Residue, % I
Loss 0
aCeta umber D-613
B. Test Procedures
The test plan, given in Table 62, indicate the various emissions
characterized over a variety of driving cycles and steady-state conditions.
Details concerning chassis testing of the buses and descriptions of the various
cycles used are given in this section, Analytical procedures used to determine
the emissions listed in Table 62 are described.
114
-------
TABLE 62. TEST PLAN FOR EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION
OF THREE IN-SERVICE BUSES
Emissions Characterized
HC,CO
Test Cycle C02,NOx Aldehydes Il -IC Smoke Part. Sulfate SOF
Truck Cycle-Cold X X X X X X X
Truck Cycle-Hot X X X X X X X
Bus Cycle-Filtered X X X X X X X
Bus Cycle-Unfiltered X X X
Central Business Districta x X X
Idle in Drivec X X X X
12.5 mph (20 kph) S.s.c x x x x
25 mph (40 kph) S.S. X X x x
Idle in Neutralb X
Snap Idleb X
Stalib X
CBD cycle run on Buses 2126 and 1934
bprocedure used by Tn-Met Bus Fleet
CSteady...state held for 15 minutes
1. Chassis Dynamorneter Testing
The chassis dynamometer testing in this program was based on the
test procedure outlined in EPA’s “Recommended Practice for Determh)in
Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles Under Transient Conditions.” 24
The procedure specifies a speed-time exercise to be followed similar to that
used in chassis dynamometer testing of light-duty vehicles.
The buses were received from Houston Metro such that only one bus
was out-of-service for testing at any time. Upon arrival, the rear wheel/tire
assemblies were changed to eliminate the risk of damage to Metro’s tires. Once
the bus was positioned on the chassis dynamometer, the rear axle load on the
dynamometer was reduced by blocking up the frame of the bus, as shown in
Figure 25. Figure 26 shows the rear axle tires of the bus positioned on the front
pair of dynamometer rolls, with fans directed to cool the tires. Figure 27 shows
the front portion of the bus along with the driver’s station for monitoring road
load, speed, roll counts and drivers’ aid. To the left of the bus is the single-
dilution CVS used in conjunction with heavy-duty chassis test work. All the
exhaust gases generated were transferred to the CVS by a 4-inch diameter
exhaust tube fitted with an in-line smokemeter as shown in Figure 28. The
single-dilution CVS shown in Figure 27, has a capacity from 1000 to 12,000
SCFM. The tunnel is 46 inches in diameter and 57 feet long. This single-
dilution CVS has the capacity to obtain three 20 x 20 inch filter samples of
particulate matter along with additional samples needed for analysis of the
total particulate.
The chassis dynamometer used in this program was essentially a
tandem-axle Clayton heavy-duty chassis dynamometer modified by the addition
115
-------
Figure 25. Rear portion of frame blocked to reduce and
stabilize axle load on chassis dynamometer
:
I
Figure 26. Rear axle on chassis dynamometer with
tire cooling fans
116
-------
Figure 27. Bus in position for emissions testing on
chassis dynamometer with single dilution CVS
!JTi
Figure 28. Engine compartment of GMC RTS H Type 4 bus
117
-------
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
dynarnometer 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. 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 dynamometer, the procedure developed for road load simulation
of a vehicle on the dynamometer involves establishing the speed-power curve,
determining inertia simulation, and determining system friction.
The equation selected for calculation of the speed-power curve to
be used for evaluations on the chassis dynamometer is as follows:
RLP F><0.67(H - 0.75)W><(V/50) 3 + 0.OO I2SxLVWxV/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 = Hp 134.8/mph, foot-pounds
Dynamometer Load Torque 12/(Load Arm in inches), pounds
In keeping with the general provision in the EPA recommended
Procedure,(24) the equivalent inertia set in the dynamometer system for
evaluation of a tractor-trailer is 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 three GMC RTS-lI Type 4 buses, and inertia weight of 30,000 pounds was
used.
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 versus time data and then solving for
the instantaneous decelerationS. From the instantaneous decelerations, the
power absorption of the vehicle-dynamometer system was determined as a
function of vehicle speed. The speed-power curve for programming into the
dynarnometer controller was then determined by difference between the total
power required on the road (based on previous documentation obtained under
Contract 68_o2_3722)(25 and the power absorbed by the vehicle-dynafliometer
system.(26) Total road load for each of the three buses was 78.3 hp at 50 mph.
Of this total, 40.8 hp was due to air resistance, and the balance of 37.5 hp was
attributed to rolling resistance.
118
-------
The main cycle used for testing is referred to as the “heavy-duty chassis
driving cycle.” This transient truck cycle was outlined in an EPA document
titled “Recommended Practice for Determinipg Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-
Duty Vehicles Under Transient Conditions.” 2 ) The resulting driving cycle,
shown in Figure 29 was based on data accumulated from truck and bus
operation (CAPE_21)C15) and was used in this program as a “Cold- or Hot-Start
Transient” test. Of the 1060 second duration of the cycle, 326 seconds are idle,
and some idle is conducted in neutral. The distance over the test is 5.57 miles.
The maximum speed called for by the cycle is 58 mph.
Since bus operation varies significantly from truck operation, data
accumulated from bus operation (CAPE-21) were used to develop a “heavy-duty
chassis bus driving cycie.”(27) The driving schedule shown in Figure 30 was used
in this program as an “Unfiltered Bus Cycle.” The term “unfiltered” is used to
indicate that this driving cycle was used as-received from computer-generated
interpretation of bus operating data (CAPE-21). Of the 1191 second duration of
the cycle, 394 seconds are idle, all of which is with the transmission in drive.
The distance over the test is 2.90 miles. The maximum speed called for by the
cycle is 36 mph. The unfiltered bus cycle is difficult to follow due to the many
sharp accelerations and decelerations it contains.
A “Filtered” version of this “Unfiltered Bus Cycle” was generated,
and was thought to approach more realistic operation of a transit bus vehicle.
Further discussion and graphic representations of both the “Filtered” and
“Unfiltered Bus Cycles” are given in Attachment D-l of Appendix D and in
Reference 28. Based on the discussion presented in this attachment, the
“Filtered Bus Cycle” was selected over the “Unfiltered Bus Cycle” for more
detailed emissions characterization.
A transient coach operating profile duty cycle has been proposed
and used for evaluation of bus fuel economy. The duty cycle includes four
phases of bus operation; a Central Bysiness District phase, an Idle phase, an
Arterial phase, and a Commuter phase. 29) Emphasis was placed on the Central
Business District (CBD) phase. Based on its acceptance by the industry for the
purpose of fuel economy measurement, emissions were also determined over the
CBD operation. For this work, the CBD cycle was composed of 14 repetitions
of the basic cycle, which included idle, acceleration, cruise and deceleration
modes. An example of this basic cycle is given in Figure 31, and it was repeated
14 times for a chassis driving cycle of 580 seconds and a distance of 2.0 miles
(3.22 km).
Emissions were also measured at three steady-state conditions
including idle, 12.5 mph (20 kph), and 25 mph (40 kph). These conditions were
maintained for 15 minutes to allow time for acquisition of aldehyde and
particulate samples. The idle condition was performed with the transmission in
drive. All emissions test work was conducted with the air conditioning system
off.
In order to obtain additional smoke emission data, three short tests
for smoke were conducted. These short tests had been used by Tn-Met (in the
greater Portland Metropolitan area) to access the smoke emissions of its 710-
bus fleet.( °) In all of these tests, the opacity meter is placed at the exhaust
119
-------
100 60
80 50
- 40
6u
30
40
20
w 20 10
0 0
I I I I I I I ____
1100 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200
Time, Seconds
Figure 29. Heavy-duty chassis driving cycle (truck cycle)
t )
0
100
60
80 50
x60 40
30
4C V
0
0
r 20 U)
10
0 0
1000
100
0
I I I I I I I I I I I I
1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Time, Seconds
Figure 30. Heavy-duty chassis bus driving cycle (unfiltered bus cycle)
-------
stack outlet. An “idle” test was conducted by measuring the opacity of the
exhaust gas exiting at a curbed engine idle in neutral gear. In the “stall idle”
test, the bus was placed in drive and the vehicle’s brakes were applied. The
throttle was then opened to full throttle, bringing the engine speed up against
the internal governor’s resistance to the transmission stall speed. Opacity
measurements were made when the engine was at that maximum RPM. During
the “snap idle” test, the vehicle was in neutral gear. The engine throttle was
rapidly opened to bring the engine RPM up to governor maximum and then
released. This was done three times in rapid succession. Peak opacity levels
were recorded.
2. Analytical Procedures
E
C l )
10
Figure 31. One segment of the CBD test cycle
Regulated gaseous emissions of HC, CO, and NO were measured
along with CO 2 according to the 1984 transient FTP.(2) The transient test
procedure specifies that HC be determined from integration of continuous
concentration monitoring of the CVS-diluted exhaust. The procedure provides
the option of determining CO, C0 2 , and NO from either dilute sample bags or
from integration of continuous concentration monitoring. For HC emissions,
CVS-diluted exhaust was taken from the main dilution tunnel using the
prescribed heated probe and heated filter, and was transferred to the Beckman
402 HFID by heated stainless steel sample line. CO and CO 2 levels were
determined from proportional dilute exhaust bag samples. Concentrations of
both gases were determined by non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) instruments.
NOx emissions were determined from both integration of continuous
concentration monitoring of the CVS-diluted exhaust and from bag samples, by
30
201
0 10 20 30
Time, Seconds
40 50
121
-------
use of a chemiluminescence instrument. NO correction factors for intake
humidity were applie4 as specified in the 1984 transient FTP (amended
November 14, 1983).(31)
Some selected individual hydrocarbons (IHC) were determined from
dilute exhaust bag samples taken over the cold- and hot-start chassis truck
cycle and over the filtered bus cycle. A portion of the exhaust sample
collected in the Tedlar bag was injected into a four-column gas chromatograph
using a single flame ionization detector and dual sampling valves. The times
sequence selection valves allowed the baseline separation of air, methane,
ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene, and toluene.(10)
Aldehydes and ketones were determined using the 2,4-
dinitrophenyihydrazine (DNPH) method.(32) Dilute exhaust samples were taken
from the CVS dilution tunnel during cold- and hot-start chassis truck cycles,
filtered bus cycles, and the three steady-state conditions. A heated Teflon
sample line and filter were maintained at 190°C (375°F). The procedure
consists of bubbling filtered exhaust gases, dilute or raw, through glass impinger
traps containing a solution of DNPH and I-IC! kept at 0°C. The sample
apparatus used for collecting the aldehyde sample is shown on the left side of
Figure 27. The aldehydes form their respective phenyihydrazone derivatives
(precipitates). These derivatives are removed by filtration, and subsequently
extracted with pentane and evaporated in a vacuum oven. The 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, acetaldehyde, acrolein,
acetone, propionaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde, methylethylketone,
crotonaldehyde, hexanaldehyde, and benzaldehyde.
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 at or below a temperature of 51 .70C
(125°F), excluding condensed water. 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
required dilution ratios of approximately 12:1 (total mixture:raw exhaust).
Total particulate-rate samples were collected on 47 mm Pallfiex
T60A20 fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filter media, by means of a single-
dilution technique. 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 was used to calculate the total particulate mass emission from
the bus 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 modified to operate as
an in-line smokerneter. Smoke opacity was monitored continuously during all
bus operation.
122
-------
Sulfate, originating from the combustion of sulfur-containing fuel,
was collected as part of the particulate matter in the form of sulfate salts or
sulfur acid aerosols. A 47 m 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 chloranilate (BCA) analytical method, the
sulfates were leached from the filter with an isopropyl alcohol-water solution
(60% IPA). This extract was injected 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
chloranilate crystals precipitates out barium sulfate and releases the highly UV-
absorbing chioranilate ions. The amount of chloranilate ion released was
determined by a sensitive liquid chromatograph UV detector at 310-313
nanometers. “Sulfate” should be understood to mean S0 4 as measured by the
BCA method.(10)
Diesel particulate generally contains significant quantities of
condensed fuel-like or oil-like hydrocarbon aerosols generated in incomplete
combustion zones. In order to determine to what extent total particulate
contains these various hydrocarbons, a large particulate-laden filter (20 x 20
inch) was washed with an organic solvent, methylene chloride, using 500 m
soxhlet extraction apparatus. The washed filter was carefully dried and
weighed to determine weight loss due to the extraction process. The dissolved
portion of the “total particulate” carried off with the methylene chloride
solvent has been referred to as the “soluble organic fraction” (SOF). The weight
loss of the dried filter is essentially the amount of SOF which had been
collected on the filter as part of the total particulate.(33)
C. Emission Results From Three GMC RTS II Type 4 Buses
Regulated emissions (HC, CO, and NON), along with particulate emissions,
are summarized in Tables 63, 64, and 65 for buses numbered 2161, 2126, and
1934, respectively. The computer printouts for these tests are given in Tables
D-1 through D-14 for bus 2162, Tables D-15 through D-30 for bus 2126, and
Tables D-31 through D-39 for bus 1934. Emission results obtained from the
various cycles run on a given bus are summarized in its corresponding table.
The summary tables also include fuel consumption data.
Fuel consumption was computed by carbon balance, but was also
determined from continuous monitoring by a fuel meter during the test run.
Emissions are presented in the summary tables in terms of mass per unit
distance and mass per unit mass of fuel. In computing fuel economy and
emissions on a fuel specific basis, fuel usage from the carbon balance method
was used. Results from the cold-and hot-start transient tests were weighted
1/7 and 6/7, respectively, and combined to determine composite chassis
transient emissions levels.
For comparative purposes, emissions are summarized on a fuel specific
basis in Table 66. Recall that bus 2162 was tested on No. 2 fuel, and that buses
2126 and 1934 were run on No. 1 fuel. Replicate runs were made on buses 2162
and 2126, and they indicated reasonably good repeatability. A single emissions
test was run on bus 1934, except for a repeat hot-start transient test. The CBD
cycle was not conducted on the first bus tested, bus 2162.
123
-------
TABLE 63. SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FROM OPERATION OF BUS NO. 2162
Emissions Test
Emissions,
HC
Cont.
Co
Bag
g/km, g/kg fuel)
Fuel,
kg
Test
Distance,
km
Fuel Economy
9 /l00 km
(km/kg)
NO
Bag Cont.
Total
Part.
Carbon
Balance
Cont.
Meas.
H
Cold
Start
Transient
Hot
Start
Transient
Transient
Composite
Bus
Cycle
Filtered
Bus
Cycle
Unfiltered
1
0.70
9.64
14.35
16.23
1.78
4.10
9.06
53.5
(1.55)
(21.29)
(31.69)
(35.84)
(3.93)
(2.208)
2
0.75
7.88
14.62
15.17
1.99
3.94
8.95
52.0
(1.70)
(17.90)
(33.20)
(34.45)
(4.52)
(2.271)
Avg
0.72
8.76
14.48
15.70
1.88
4.02
9.01
52.8
(1.63)
(19.59)
(32.44)
(35.14)
(4.22)
(2.240)
1
0.75
7.46
13.73
14.57
1.62
3.69
3.82
9.13
47.8
(1.85)
(18.43)
(33.93)
(36.00)
(4.00)
(2.471)
2
0.72
6.64
13.94
14.92
1.49
3.46
3.69
8.89
46.0
(1.85)
(17.04)
(35.78)
(38.30)
(3.82)
(2.567)
Avg
0.74
7.05
13.84
14.75
1.56
3.58
3.76
9.01
46.90
(1.85)
(17.74)
(34.86)
(37.15)
(3.91)
(2.519)
0.74
7.29
13.93
14.89
1.61
3.64
9.01
47.7
(1.82)
(18.00)
(34.51)
(36.86)
(3.95)
(2.479)
1
1.37
3.20
17.54
19.51
1.18
2.09
2.08
4.78
51.7
(3.14)
(7.32)
(40.13)
(44.64)
(2.70)
(2.288)
2
1.55
3.07
17.80
18.41
0.89
2.03
2.07
4.76
50.4
(3.64)
(7.20)
(41.74)
(43.17)
(2.09)
(2.345)
Avg
1.46
3.14
17.67
18.96
1.04
2.06
2.08
4.77
51.05
(3.39)
(7.26)
(40.94)
(43.90)
(2.39)
(2.317)
1
1.31
25.77
19.33
20.44
3.72
2.58
2.67
4.82
63.4
(2.44)
(48.06)
(36.05)
(38.12)
(6.94)
(1.865)
2
1.28
21.95
18.73
19.60
3.16
2.47
2.53
4.76
61.3
(2.47)
(42.36)
(36.15)
(37.83)
(6.10)
(1.930)
Avg
1.30
23.86
19.03
20.02
3.44
2.53
2.60
4.79
62.35
(2.46)
(45.21)
(36.10)
(37.98)
(6.52)
(1.898)
-------
TABLE 63 (CONT’D). SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FROM OPERATION OF BUS NO. 2162
Emissions,
NC Co
Cont. Bag
g/km, (g/kg fuel)
NOx
- Total
Bag Cont. Part .
Emissions Test
Cycle No.
Idle 1
In—Drive
2
Fuel,
Carbon
Balance
kg
Cont.
Me as .
(5.13) (5.79) (53.15) (56.87) (1.56)
(5.35) (6.04) (53.83) (57.04) (1.49)
(5.24) (5.92) (53.49) (56.96) (1.53)
20 kph
Steady—
State
40 kph
Steady—
State
01
Fuel Economy
2/100 km
(km/kg)
(——)
(——)
37.1
(3. 187)
36.4
(3.244)
36.75
(3.216)
28.7
Test
Distance,
km
5.13
5.22
5.18
10.25
10.28
10.27
0.90 0.83
0.87 0.84
0.89 0.83
1.61 1.62
1.61 1.69
1.61 1.66
2.49 2.58
2.48 2.59
2.48 2.58
1
1.64
1.54
12.91
14.31
0.50
(5.23)
(4.91)
(41.14)
(45.61)
(1.59)
2
1.63
1.53
13.15
13.66
0.53
(5.29)
(4.96)
(42.66)
(44.31)
(1.72)
Avg
1.64
1.54
13.03
13.99
0.52
(5.26)
(4.94)
(41.90)
(44.96)
(1.66)
1
0.95
0.93
9.00
9.62
0.46
(3.91)
(3.83)
(37.04)
(39.59)
(1.89)
(4.115)
2
1.00
0.97
8.64
9.02
0.47
28.5
(4.14)
(4.02)
(35.80)
(37.38)
(1.95)
(4.144)
Avg
0.98
0.95
8.82
9.32
0.46
28.60
(4.03)
(3.92)
(36.42)
(38.48)
(1.92)
-------
TABLE 64. SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FROM OPERATION ON BUS NO. 2126
Tran sient
Composite
HC CO
Cont. Bag
NO Total
Bag Cont. Part .
1.13 3.59 11.81 11.90 1.01
(3.12) (9.82) (29.92) (32.53) (2.73)
Fuel Economy
Z/lOO km
_________ (km/kg)
8.86 45.1
(2.735)
Test
No.
Emissions. g/km. (a/kg fuel)a
Emissions
Cycle
Cold
Start
Tr an s i en t
Hot
Start
Tran si en t
Fuel,
kg
Distance,
Carbon
—
Cont.
Balance
Meas.
km
1 0.88
(2.21)
2 1.02
(2. 51)
Avg 0.95
(2.36)
1 1.14
(3. 16)
2 1.20
(3. 34)
Avg 1.17
(3. 25)
4.14
(10.40)
3.71
(9.14)
3.92
(9.77)
3.78
(10.47)
3.30
(9.18)
3.54
(9.83)
10.96
(27. 52)
11.55
(28.46)
11 • 26
(27.99)
10.65
(29.49)
11.14
(31. 00)
11.90
(30.24)
11.57
(29. 05)
12.13
(29.89)
11 • 85
(29.47)
12.07
(33.42)
11.74
(32. 67)
11.91
(33. 04)
1.20
(3.01)
1.26
(3.11)
1.23
(3.06)
1.03
(2.85)
0.90
(2.50)
0.97
(2.68)
8.72
8.80
8.76
8.85
8.90
8.88
49.0
(2. 511)
50.0
(2.464)
49.50
(2.488)
44.5
(2. 769)
44.3
(2.783)
44.4
(2. 776)
3.47 3.81
3.57 3.80
3.52 3.80
3.20 3.56
3.20 3.50
3.20 3.53
3.25 3.57
1.81 2.00
1.84 1.93
1.82 1.96
2.06 2.31
2.13 2.32
2.10 2.32
Bus
1
1.99
3.46
14.87
15.60
0.91
49.0
Cycle
(5.02)
(8.72)
(37.47)
(39.31)
(2.29)
(2.520)
Filtered
2
Avg
1.89
(4.75)
1.94
(4.89)
2.85
(7.17)
3.16
(7.94)
14.92
(37.52)
14.90
(37.50)
15.37
(38.66)
15.48
(38.99)
0.81
(2.04)
0.86
(2.16)
49.0
(2.515)
49.0
(2.518)
Bus
1
2.00
6.81
15.50
16.16
1.44
55.1
Cycle
(4.47)
(15.23)
(34.67)
(36.15)
(3.22)
(2.237)
Unfiltered
2
Avg
1.56
(3.46)
1.78
(3.96)
6.04
(13.40)
6.43
(14.32)
15.81
(35.07)
16.66
(34.87)
16.98
(37.66)
16.57
(36.90)
1.19
(2.64)
1.32
(2.93)
55.5
(2.218)
55.30
(2.228)
4.56
4.62
4.59
4.61
4.73
4.67
-------
TABLE 64 (CONT’D). SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FROM OPERATION ON BUS NO. 2126
a
Fuel,kg Test Fuel Economy
Carbon Cont. Distance, 27100 km
Balance Meas. km (km/kg)
t\ )
Emissions
Cycle
Test
No.
Emissions,
g/km, (g/kg fuel)
HC
Cont.
CO
Bag
NOx
- --
Total
Part.
Bag Cont.
Centrol
1
1.73
10.49
16.67 18.11
1.74
1.63
1.80
3.23
62.0
Business
(3.44)
(20.84)
(33.12) (35.99)
(3.46)
(1.987)
District
2
1.77
(3.38)
9.21
(17.58)
16.96 18.62
(32.38) (35.55)
1.72
(3.28)
1.69
1.77
3.23
64.5
(1.909)
Avg
1.75
(3.41)
9.85
(19.21)
16.82 18.36
(32.75) (35.77)
1.73
(3.37)
1.66
1.78
3.23
63.25
(1.948)
Idle
1
——
——
—— ——
——
0.75
0.82
——
——
In—Drive
(8.20)
(7.21)
(51.7) (53.6)
(1.42)
(——)
2
——
——
—— ——
——
0.75
0.82
——
——
(7.95)
(6.64)
(52.5) (52.4)
(1.22)
(——)
Avg
——
——
—— ——
——
0.75
0.82
——
(8.08)
(6.93)
(52.10) (53.00)
(1.32)
(——)
20 kph
1
1.92
1.72
10.45 11.18
0.53
1.40
1.58
5.05
34.2
Steady—
(6.92)
(6.20)
(37.66) (40.29)
(1.91)
(3.604)
State
2
2.11
(7.33)
1.89
(6.57)
10.65 11.40
(37.00) (39.60)
0.45
(1.56)
1.46
1.56
5.06
35.4
(3.474)
Avg
2.02
(7.12)
1.81
(6.38)
10.55 11.29
(37.33) (39.94)
0.49
(1.20)
1.43
1.57
5.06
34.8
(3.539)
40 kph
1
1.21
1.19
6.92 7.21
0.46
2.15
2.46
10.0
26.3
Steady—
(5.65)
(5.56)
(32.32) (33.68)
(2.15)
(4.671)
State
2
1.16
(5.32)
l 2O
(5.51)
7.04 7.43
(32.31) (34.10)
0.41
(1.88)
2.19
2.42
10.0
26.8
(4.590)
Avg
1.18
(5.48)
1.20
(5.54)
6.98 7.32
(32.32) (33.89)
0.44
(2.02)
2.17
2.44
10.0
26.55
(4.631)
aFuel specific emissions computed
using carbon balance fuel figure
-------
TABLE 65. SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FROM OPERATION ON BUS NO. 1934
Cold
Start
Transient
Transient
Composite
HC CO _________________
Cont. Bag _______ _______ ______
1.84 9.27 9.54 10.09 3.24
(4.32) (21.34) (22.37) (23.66) (7.60)
1.70 7.84 9.51 9.74 2.42
(4.35) (19.92) (24.32) (24.86) (6.14)
1 3.14 6.20 12.90 12.97 2.13
(7.62) (15.04) (31.30) (31.47) (5.17)
1 2.89 15.95 13.23 13.61 3.91
( .84) (32.25) (26.75) (27.52) (7.91)
Central 1 2.52 17.78 13.99 14.48 3.92
Business (4.66) (32.86) (25.85) (26.76) (7.24)
District
Idle
In—Drive
1
20 kph
Steady—State
40 kph
Steady—State
(12.36) (9.38) (45.46) (47.59) (2.47)
1 2.55 3.27 9.09 10.05 1.05
(9.20) (11.80) (32.80) (36.26) (3. 79)
1 1.38 2.51 6.01 6.26 0.51
(6.23) (11.33) (27.14) (28.26) (2.30)
0.80 0.78
8.83 52.5
(2.345)
8.88 48.3
(2.555)
(——)
10.1 27.2
(4.515)
Emissions Tests
Cycle No.
Emissions, g/km. (g/kg fuel) Fuel. kg Test
N0 Total Carbon
Bag Cont. Part. Balance
Hot
Start
Transient
Distance,
km
1 1.63
(4.23)
2 1.73
(4.47)
Avg 1.68
(4.35)
Fuel Economy
/100 km
(km/kg)
8.03
(20.84)
7.17
(18. 53)
7.60
(19.68)
9.47
(24.58)
9.55
(24.69)
9.51
(24.64)
9.71
(25.20)
9.64
(24.92)
9.68
(25.06)
2.32
(6. 02)
2.24
(5.79)
2.28
(5.90)
8.88
8.90
8.89
Bus Cycle
Filtered
Bus Cycle
Un f 11 te red
Cont.
Me as .
3.76 3.89
3.42 3.58
3.44 3.60
3.43 3.59
3.48 3.63
1.89 1.99 4.59
2.33 2.44 4.71
1.78 1.74 3.30
47.5
(2.595)
47.6
(2.585)
47.6
(2.590)
50.8
(2.426)
60.9
(2.022)
66.6
(1.848)
5.13 34.1
(3.608)
1.42 1.59
2.23 2.39
-------
TABLE 66. SUMMARY OF FUEL SPECIFIC EMISSIONS FROM THREE
GMC RTS II TYPE 4 BUSES POWERED BY
DDAD 6V-92TA ENGINES
Bus Emissions, g/kg fuel Fuel Economy
Cycle No. HC CO NO b NO Part kg km/kg
Cold 2162 1.63 19.59 32.44 35.44 4.22 4.02 2.24
Start 2126 2.36 9.77 27.99 29.47 3.06 3.52 2.49
Transient 1934 4.32 21.34 22.37 23.66 7.60 3.76 2.34
Hot 2162 1.85 17.74 34.86 37.15 3.91 3.58 2.52
Start 2126 3.25 9.83 30.24 33.04 2.68 3.20 2.78
Transient 1934 4.35 19.68 24.64 25.06 5.90 3.43 2.59
Composite 2162 1.82 18.00 34.51 36.86 3.95 3.64 2.48
Transient 2126 3.12 9.82 29.92 32.53 2.73 3.25 2.74
1934 4.35 19.92 24.32 24.86 6.14 3.48 2.56
Bus 2162 3.39 7.26 40.94 43.90 2.39 2.06 2.32
Cycle 2126 4.89 7.94 37.50 38.99 2.16 1.82 2.52
Filtered 1934 7.62 15.04 31.30 31.47 5.17 1.89 2.43
Bus 2162 2.46 45.21 36.10 37.98 6.52 2.53 1.90
Cycle 2126 3.96 14.32 34.97 36.90 2.93 2.10 2.23
Unfiltered 1934 5.84 32.25 26.75 27.52 7.91 2.33 2.02
CBD 2162 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2126 3.41 19.21 32.75 35.77 3.37 1.66 1.95
1934 4.66 32.86 25.85 26.76 7.26 1.78 1.85
Idlea 2162 5.24 5.92 53.49 56.96 1.53 0.89
2126 8.08 6.93 52.10 53.00 1.32 0.75
1934 12.36 9.38 45.46 47.59 2.47 0.80
2 okpha 2162 5.26 4.94 41.90 44.96 1.66 1.61 3.22
2126 7.12 6.38 37.33 39.94 1.20 1.43 3.54
1934 9.20 11.80 32.80 36.26 3.79 1.42 3.61
4Okpha 2162 4.03 3.92 36.42 38.48 1.92 2.48 4.13
2126 5.48 5.54 32.32 33.89 2.02 2.17 4.63
1934 6.23 11.33 27.14 28.26 2.30 2.23 4.52
a 5 minutes
129
-------
Over all types of transient cycle and steady-state operation, HC emissions
were generally lowest for bus 2162, higher for bus 2126, and highest for bus
1934. The lowest HC emissions level was noted over cold-start transient test
operation for bus 2162, and the highest fuel specific HC emissions level was
found for idle operation of bus 1934. Carbon monoxide emissions appeared to
be very cycle-sensitive. The highest level of CO was noted from bus 2162 on
the unfiltered bus cycle, and yet CO from this bus was lowest on the 40 kph
steady-state.
Oxides of nitrogen were determined by both bag and continuous methods.
NO emissions determined by continuous methods yielded from equal to 10
percent higher levels of NOx as compared to bag sample analysis. Trends for
NOx emissions from the three buses were just the opposite of trends noted for
NC. Namely, NO emissions were highest for bus 2162, lower for bus 2126, and
lowest for bus 1934. On a fuel specific basis, NO emissions were greatest
during idle for all three buses, but at idle, mass emissions of NO is low. For a
given bus over the various cycles, emissions of NO tended to be low whenever
emissions of HC and CO were high.
Particulate emissions from the three buses ranged from a low of 1.20 g/kg
fuel for bus 2126 over the 20 kph steady-state, to a high of 7.91 g/kg fuel for
bus 1934 on the unfiltered bus cycle. Just the opposite of NO emissions,
particulate emissions tended to be high whenever HC and CO emissions were
relatively high. Particulate emissions were generally lower for bus 2126 on No.
1 fuel, higher for bus 2162 on No. 2 fuel, and highest for bus 1934 on No. I fuel.
Recall that buses 2162 and 1934 had similar oil consumption, higher than bus
2126.
Comparing cold-start transient to hot-start transient results showed some
cold-start sensitivity. Emissions of NOx were lower for the cold-start.
Particulate emissions and fuel consumption were greater on the cold-start. HC
and CO emissions on both the cold- and hot-start transient tests were similar.
Comparison of composite transient emission levels to those obtained from
the filtered bus cycle indicate generally higher HC emissions on the filtered bus
cycle, except on bus 2162. Emission of CO was generally lower over the
filtered bus cycle than for the composite transient, especially for bus 2162.
Emissions of NO over the filtered bus cycle were about 20 percent higher than
over the transient cycle. Total particulate emissions were 15 to 40 percent
lower on the filtered bus cycles. Fuel economy was slightly worse on the
filtered bus cycle than for the transient cycle.
Comparing results obtained on the filtered and unfiltered bus cycles
indicates that operation over the unfiltered bus cycle, with its rapid throttle
fluctuations, caused dramatic increase in CO and particulate emissions (except
for bus 2126). Unexpectedly, lower emissions of HC and NOx were obtained on
the unfiltered bus cycle. Poorer fuel economy was also noted over the
unfiltered bus cycle compared to the filtered version. The Central Business
District cycle resulted in emission levels similar to those obtained for the
unfiltered bus cycle, but with lower fuel economy. Emissions measured over
the three steady-state conditions indicated higher levels of [ IC and NOx than
130
-------
from the various transient operations. In contrast, the steady-state emissions
of CO and particulate were generally lower than from the transient cycles.
Selected individual hydrocarbons were determined over the cold- and hot-
start chassis transient tests, and over the filtered bus cycle. Results from
analysis of CVS-diluted exhaust gases are given in Tables 67, 68, and 69 for
buses 2162, 2126, and 1934, respectively. From analysis for eight different
hydrocarbon species, only methane and ethylene were noted for all three buses.
Some benzene and toluene were noted for one of the cold-start transient test
conducted on bus 2126. Levels of methane and ethylene were greatest for bus
1934. Ethylene emissions were about the same for 2162 and 2126.
Aldehydes were also determined over the cold- and hot-start chassis
transient cycles, and over the filtered bus cycle. In addition, aldehydes were
determined for three steady-state conditions. Aldehyde results from analysis of
CVS-diluted exhaust gases are given in Tables 70, 71, and 72 for buses 2162,
2126, and 1934, respectively. In all cases, formaldehyde made up the bulk of
the aldehydes noted from the three buses. Generally, the aldehyde levels
measured on the cold-start transient were higher than for the hot-start
transient. The levels noted for the bus cycle were similar to the levels for the
cold-start transient cycle. For all three buses, the totals of aldehyde emissions
over the steady-state conditions were highest for idle, followed by the 20 kph
condition, and then the 40 kph condition.
Smoke opacity was monitored continuously during chassis dynamometer
operation with an in-line smokemeter. Table 73 summarizes the integrated
smoke opacities over the various operating cycles and conditions. Overall, most
of the integrated values were near or below 5 percent opacity. Exhaust plumes
with opacity levels below 3-4 percent are essentially invisible to the human eye.
Although many of the integrated smoke opacities in Table 73 were below this
level, there were many peaks which exceeded 10 percent opacity during
transient test work. These peaks, combined with low levels of smoke opacity
during idle (1.0 percent) yielded relatively low integrated smoke opacity levels
over the entire cycles. Over the cold- and hot-start transient cycle, smoke
emissions were highest for bus 1934 (run on No. I fuel), lower for bus 2162, and
least for bus 2126. For all three buses, smoke opacity over the filtered bus
cycle was lower than for the transient cycle. Smoke opacity for all three buses
on the unfiltered bys cycle was higher than obtained on the filtered bus cycle.
Results over the CBD cycle resembled those obtained on the hot-start transient
cycle. For steady-state operation, smoke opacities were all below 2 percent.
Overall, smoke emissions were less cycle-dependent for bus 2126 than for the
other two buses.
Smoke opacities over a series of short tests were determined for all three
buses, and are summarized in Table 74. Smoke levels during “idle” in neutral
were minimal for all three buses. “Snap idle” smoke opacity was relatively high
for bus 2162, but low for bus 2126. After “snap idle,” “stall” smoke opacity was
surprisingly low for bus 2162. In addition, the difference between stall smoke
opacity from buses 2126 and 1934 was greater than expected, considering that
both these buses were run on No. 1 fuel.
131
-------
TABLE 67. SUMMARY OF IHC FROM BUS NO. 2162
Selected Individual HydrocarbonsC from Bus No. 2162
Emission Test Methane Ethylene
Cycle No. mg/km mg/kg fuela mg/kJfl jpg/kg fuela
Cold 1 1.6 2.7 50 110
Start 2 15 34 55 120
Transient Avg 8.3 18 52 120
Hot 1 11 28 53 130
Start 2 0.6 1.4 52 130
Transient Avg 5.8 15 52 130
Bus Qb 47 110
Cycle 2 58 140
Filtered Avg 12 28 52
aFuel specific emissions based on fuel usage by carbon balance
bBakcground levels exceeded sample levels
CAnalysis includes determination of methane, ethylene, ethane, acetylene,
propane, propylene, benzene, and toluene. For Bus No. 2162, only methane
and ethylene were noted above background levels
TABLE 68. SUMMARY OF IHC FROM BUS NO. 2126
Selected Individual HydrocarbonsC , J from Bus No. 2126
Emission Test Methane Ethylene
Cycle No. mg/km mg/kg fuela mg/km mg/kg fuela
Cold 1 1) 39 56 140
Start 2 12 30 53 130
Transient Avg 14 34 54 140
Hot 1 43 120
Start 2 46 130
Transient Avg 44 120
Bus I 0 b 0 b 63 160
Cycle 2 0 b 0 b 72 180
Filtered Avg 68 T7
aFuel ecific emissions based on fuel usage by carbon balance
bBackground levels exceeded sample levels
CAnalysis includes determination of methane, ethylene, ethane, acetylene,
propane, propylene, benzene and toluene. For Bus No. 2126, only methane
and ethylene and some benzene and toluene were noted above background levels
first cold-start transient: benzene levels were 35 mg/km and 87 mg/kg fuel
and toluene levels were 93 mg/km and 230 mg/kg fuel. These individual
hydrocarbons were not noted over any other runs for Bus No. 2126.
132
-------
TABLE 69. SUMMARY OF IHC FROM BUS NO. 1934
Selected Individual Hydrocarbonsb from Bus No. 1934
Emission Test Methane Ethylene
Cycle No. mg/km mg/kg fuela ma/km mg/kg fuela
Cold 1 22 51 93 220
Start 2
Transient AvgC
Hot 1 72 190 78 200
Start 2
Transient AvgC
Bus 1 160 400 100 250
Cycle 2
Filtered Avgc
aFuel specific emissions based on fuel usage by carbon balance
bAnalysis includes determination of methane, ethylene, ethane, acetylene,
propane, propylene, benzene, and toluene. For Bus No. 1934, only methane
and ethylene were noted above background levels
csingle tests, no replicates
csingle tests, no replicates
133
-------
TABLE 70. SUMMARY OF ALDEFIYDE EMISSIONS FROM OPERATION OF BUS NO. 2162
Aide hyde
Formaldehyde
Ace taldehyde
Acetone
Prop lonaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Isobutyraldehyde
& thy1ethy1ketone
Benza ldehyde
ilexanaldehyde
I- .
Bus
Cold—Start
Transient
Hot—Start
Transient
Bus Cycle
Filtered
Idle
In—Drive
20 kph
Steady—State
40 kph
Steady—State
No.
mg/km mg/kg fuel
mg/km mg/kg fuel
mg/km
mg/kg fuel
mg/km
mg/kg fuel
mg/km mg/kg fuel
mg/km
mg/kg fuel
1
2
Avg
170 370
120 280
140 320
47
110
120
270
2
100
170
T
230
390
310
—
—
—
170
310
240
49 160
67 220
58 190
29
50
40
120
210
160
1
2
Avg
69 150
31 70
50 110
37
1.0
19
91
2.6
47
50
0
25
110
0
55
—
—
63
15
39
21 67
0 0
10 34
8.9
0.79
4.8
36
3.3
19.6
1
2
Avg
50 110
15 35
32 72
12
20
16
31
5].
41
36
7 3
83
17
—
—
—
40
100
70
32 100
8.6 28
64
9.7
9.8
9.8
40
41
40
1
2
Avg
7.1 16
0 0
3.6 8.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
6
0
31
16
—
—
0
52
26
9.2 29
0 0
4.6 14
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
Avg
37 82 30
4.9 11 0.04
21. 46 15
74
0.10
37
25
0
12
57
0
28
—
—
—
43
0
22
12 40
1.9 6.1
7.0 23
1.1
3.4
2.3
4.4
14
9.2
1
2
Avg
21 47
7 16
14. 32
2.4
24
13
5.9
26
34
49
60
54
110
140
120
—
-
43
160
28 88
9.8 32
7.0
12
9.5
29
51
40
1
2
Avg
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
0
0
0
36 110
0 0
18 55
11
0
6
44
0
22
1
2
Avg
47 100
33 75
40 88
3.8
2.2
3.0
9.5
5.6
7.6
0
23
12
0
54
27
—
—
—
0
57
28
18 60
2.6 8.3
10. 34.
16
17
16
67
71
69
Total of Average
300 680 150 370 270 610 — 520 150 470 88 360
-------
TABLE 71. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM OPERATION OF BUS NO. 2126
Cold—Start Hot—Start Bus Cycle 20 kph 40 kph
Bus Transient Transient Filtered Idle In—Drive Steady—State Steady—State
Aldehyde No. mg/km mg/kg fuel mg/kin mg/kg fuel mg/km mg/kg fuel mg/ rjI ing/P çg fuel mg/ps mg/kg tsel mg/Ion mg/kg fuel
Formaldehyde 1 180 450 30 :70 150 380 —— 430 91 330 45 210
2 150 350 110 300 160 410 —— 380 100 350 40 180
Avg 160 400 120 160 —— 96 340 42 200
Acetaldehyde ‘a 80 200 32 90 43 110 —— 200 32 110 12 58
2 —— — — —— —— — — —— —— —— —— —— —— ——
Avg 32 90 43 110 —— 200 32 110 12 58
Acetone 1 90 230 36 100 52 130 —— 210 30 110 18 84
2 35 85 36 99 31 78 —— 50 41 140 12 55
Avg 62 160 36 100 42 —— 130 15 70
Propionaldehyde 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 —— 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 —— 0 0 0 0 0
Avg 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0
H
(-i) Crotonaldehyde 1 12 31 3.6 10 0 0 —— 100 0 0 1.7 8.1
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0
Avg 6 16 5 0 0 —— 50 0 0 0.85 4.0
Isobutyraldehyde 1 40 100 19 54 1.2 3.0 —— 17 0 0 8.2 38
& Methylethylketone 2 3.3 8.1 25 69 1.9 4.7 —— 59 23 80 1.0 4.8
Avg 22 62 T iT —— 38 12 40 4.6 21
Benzaldehyde 1 14 36 0 0 0 0 —— 26 0 0 2.3 11
2 6.7 16 23 63 0 0 —— 0 0
Avg Iö 12 32 0 0 - - 13 0 0 2.4 11
Hexanaldehyde 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 —— 53 0 0 4.2 20
2 22 55 13 37 0 0 —— 0 0 0 0 0
Avg 11 28 6 18 0 0 -- 26 0 0
Total of Average 350 880 230 650 250 610 —— 860 180 610 79 370
aC d blank
-------
TABLE 72. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM OPERATION OF BUS NO. 1934
Cold—Start Hot—Start Bus Cycle 20 kph 40 kph
Transient Transient Filtered Idle In—Drive Steady—State Steady—State
Aldehyde mg/km mg/kg fuel mg/km mg/kg fuel mg/km mg/kg fuel rag/km mg/Kg fuel r 4 g/ qa mg/Kg uel mg/km mg/kg fuel
Formaldehyde 200 480 110 280 140 330 —— 390 80 290 41 180
a
Ace taldehyde
Acetone 17 41 0 0 42 100 —— 88 17 60 4.7 21
Propionaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 —— 0 0 0 0 0
Crotonaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 —— 0 0 0 0 0
Isobutyraldehyde
& Methylethylketone 0 0 0 0 0 0 —— 0 0 0 0 0
Benzaldehyde 0 0 0 0 0 0 —— 50 0 0 0 0
I Hexanaldehyde 0 0 13 35 22 53 —— 16 0 0 0 0
( J
Total 220 520 120 320 200 480 —— 540 97 350 46 200
aC.d blank
-------
TABLE 73. SUMMARY OF INTEGRATED SMOKE OPACITY FROM
OPERATION OF BUSES ON CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER
Test Smoke Opacity, Percent
Cycle No. Bus 216 2 a Bu 212 6 b Bus 1 9 3 4 b
Cold 1 2.4c 2 4 d 55 e
Start 2 2.6 2.4
Transient Avg 2.5C 2 4 d 5 • 5 e
I -lot 1 3• 6 C 20 d 4.0
Start 2 23 d 23 d
Transient Avg c 2 , 2 d 4.oe
Bus 1 2.0C 18 d 25 e
Cycle 2 j•9C 1 gd
Filtered Avg c i d
Bus 1 59 c 21 d 37 e
Cycle 2 4 . 5
Unfiltered Avg 5 c 3 • 7 e
Central 1 2.0 4.5
Business 2 2.3
District Avg 2.2 4.5
Idle 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
In-Drive 2 1.1 LQ
Avg 1.0 1.0 1.0
20 kph 1 1.1 1.0 2.0
Steady- 2
State Avg 1.0 1.0 2.0
40 kph 1 0.9 1.0 2.0
Steady- 2 1.0 =
State Avg 1.0 1.0 2.0
(, J 0 2 Emissions Fuel
bNo. 1 Emissions Fuel
cSmoke trace contained some peaks ranging from 15 to 30 percent
smoke opacity
dSmoke trace contained few sharp peaks, maximums were near 10 percent
smoke opacity
eSmoke trace contained very many sharp peaks, maximums were near
15 percent smoke opacity
137
-------
TABLE 74. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OBTAINED OVER
SI-IORT TESTSa FOR SMOKE
Test Smoke Opacity, Percent
Condition Bus 2162 b Bus 2126C Bus 1 9 3 4 C
Idled 1.0 0.8 0.9
In-Neutral
Snape 1 35.2 7.0 19.5
Idle 2 33.1 6.5 24.5
3 33.0 7.1 23.2
Avg 33.8 6.9 22.4
Stall 1 4.5 5.6 14.8
aSort_tests based on work reported in Reference 30
bN 0 2 Emissions Fuel
c 0 Emissions Fuel
dSmoke opacaity measured at curbe idle speed in netrual gear
epeak smoke opacities over W.O.T. acceleration of engine speed
from curb idle to governed maximum speed while in neutral gear,
three times in rapid succession
t Smoke opacity measured when engine achieves maximum rpm with
full throttle, transmission in drive and vehicle stationary
138
-------
The sulfate portion of the total particulate emissions was determined
using the BCA method, and the results are summarized in Table 75. For all
three buses, sulfate emissions over the cold-start transient cycle were higher
than for the hot-start transient cycle. Comparing transient composite sulfate
levels, bus 2162 had almost 4 times the level of sulfate found for buses 2126 and
1934. Bus 2162 was operated on No. 2 diesel fuel containing 0.35 weight
percent sulfur, and buses 2126 and 1934 were operated on No. I diesel fuel
containing 0.17 weight percent sulfur. For bus 2162, sulfate emissions on the
filtered bus cycle were almost half the level obtained for the transient
composite. For buses 2126 and 1934, sulfate emission levels for the filtered bus
cycle were similar to the transient composite levels.
TABLE 75. SUMMARY OF SULFATE EMISSIONS
Emissions Bus No. 2162 Bus NO. 2126 Bus No. 1934 b
Test Sulfate % SC Sulfate % Sc Sulfate % S
Cycle No. mg/km mg/kgfd Rec. mg/km mg/kgfd Rec. mg/km mg/kgfd Rec .
Cold 1 100 240 2.2 29 74 1.4 46 110 2.1
Start 2 _...._a ___a .. .a 24 58 1.1 - -
Trans. Avg 110 240 2.2 26 66 1.2 46 110 2.1
Hot 1 82 200 1.9 25 69 1.4 23 60 1.2
Start 2 95 240 2.3 16 45 0.9 -— --
Trans. Avg 88 220 2.1 20 57 1.2 23 60 1.2
Composite
Transient 91 220 2.1 21 58 1.2 26 67 1.3
Bus 1 67 150 1.5 21 53 1.0 26 64 1.3
Cycle 2 48 110 1.1 14 34 OJ -- --
Filt. Avg 58 130 1.3 18 44 0.8 26 64 1.3
asample void
bNo replicate run
cpercent of fuel sulfur conversion to sulfate
dmg/kg fuel, based on carbon balance fuel
Samples of total particulate were extracted with methylene chloride to
determine the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the particulate. Results from
determinations of SOF from all three buses are summarized in Table 76. The
percentages of SOF over transient cycle operation for buses 2162 and 2126
were similar and the percentage of SOF for bus 1934 was substantially lower.
When the rate of total particulate emissions is considered, hot-start transient
SOF emissions from buses 2126 and 1934 were similar; whereas, SOF emissions
from bus 2162 were nearly 1.4 times greater. On the filtered bus cycle, SOF
emissions were slightly lower than on the transient cycle for buses 2162 and
2126, but were substantially lower for bus 1934.
139
-------
TABLE 76. SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION (SOF)
RESULTS FROM TRANSIENT CHASSIS TESTING
aNo. 2 Emissions Fuel
bNo 1 Emissions Fuel
CFuel specific emissions based on fuel usage by carbon balance
Emissions
Test
Bus
No. 2162
Bus
No. 2126 b
Bus
No. 1934 b
%
SOF
g/km
glkg
fuelc
%
SOF
g/km
g/kg
fuelc
%
SOF
glkm
g/kg
fuelC
Cycle
No.
Cold
Start
Trans.
1
2
Avg
21.4
24.7
23.0
0.38
0.49
0.44
0.84
1.12
0.98
25.4
28.1
26.8
0.30
0.35
0.32
0.77
0.87
0.82
16.8
16.8
0.54
0.54
1.28
----
1.28
I-lot
Start
Trans.
1
2
Avg
25.2
21.8
23.5
0.4!
0.32
0.36
1.01
0.83
0.92
22.3
26.2
24.2
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.64
0.66
0.65
10.2
10.2
0.24
0.24
0.61
----
0.61
Bus
Cycle
Filtered
1
2
Avg
35.1
30.5
32.8
0.41
0.27
0.34
0.95
0.64
0.80
23.2
23.5
23.4
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.53
0.48
0.50
5.2
5.2
0.11
0.11
0.27
----
0.27
140
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
I. 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. 34, No. 14, 3anuary 21, 1980.
3. Ullman, T.L., Springer, K.3., and Baines, T.M., “Effects of Six Variables
on Diesel Exhaust Particulate,” ASME Paper 80-DGP-42, 1980.
4. Ullman, T.L., I-fare, C.T., and Baines, T.M., “Influence of Maladjustment
on Emissions from Two Heavy-Duty Diesel Bus Engines,” SAE Paper
840416, International Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February
27-March 2, 1984.
.5. Springer, K. )., “Characterization of Sulfates, Odor, Smoke, POM and
Particulates from Light and Heavy Duty Engines - Part IX,” Final Report
to the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-03-2417, EPA
460/3-79-007, )une 1979.
6. Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 175, September 8, 1972.
7. Letter from Mr. )ack Kimberly of American Bosch Engineering &
Research to Mr. Karl Springer of Southwest Research Institute, November
16, 1978.
8. Dietzmann, H.E., Smith, L.R., Parness, M.A., and Fanick, E.R.,
“Analytical Procedures for Characterizing Unregulated Pollutant
Emissions from Motor Vehicles,” Final Report to the Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-2497, February 1979.
9. Levins, P.L., and Kendall, D.A., “Application of Odor Technology to
Mobile Source Emission Instrumentation,” CRC Project CAPE—7-68,
Contract No. 68-02-0561, September 1973.
10. 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. 68-
02-2497, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, April 1980.
11. New Benzo-a-pyrene Analytical Method, source: Dr. Robert )ungers, EPA
Research Triangle Park Laboratories, in: Contract No. 68-02-1777, Tasks
1, 2, 4, and 6. Appendix B, September 1977.
12. Ames, B., McCann, 3., and Yamasaki, E., “Methods for Detecting
Carcinogens and Mutagens with the Salmonella/Mammalian-Microsome
Mutagenicity Test,” Mutation Research, 31, pp. 347-364, 1975.
141
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT’D)
13. 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.
14. Martin, S.F., “Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines Using the 1984
Transient Test Procedure, Volume Il-Diesel,” Final Report EPA 460/3-81-
031 prepared under Contract No. 68-03-2603 for the Environmental
Protection Agency, July 1981.
15. Cosby, J.C., “Heavy-Duty Vehicle Driving Pattern and Use Survey,” Part
1, New York City. Final Report No. APT.D-1523 prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Coordinating Research Council,
APRAC CAPE 21-71, under Contract No. 68-01-0414, May 1973.
16. Smith, M., “Heavy-Duty Vehicle Cycle Development,” EPA 460/3-78-008,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 1978.
17. Martin, S.F., “Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines Using the 1984
Transient Test Procedure Volume I-Gasoline,” Final Report to the
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract 68-03-2603, EPA 460/3-
81-031, July 1981.
18. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 86, Subpart I-Emission
Regulations for New Diesel Heavy-Duty Engines; Smoke Exhaust Test
Procedure, 1979.
19. Memo from Craig Harvey, EPA, to Ralph Stahman and Merrill Korth,
EPA, on February 26, 1979.
20. 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 Publicatio GMR-3127, GM
Research Laboratories, Warren, MI, October 1979.
21. McCann, 3., et al, “Detection of Carcinogens as Mutagens in the
Salmonella/Microsome Test: Assay of 300 Chemicals,” Proc. Nat. Acad,
Sci,U.S.A., Vol. 72, No. 12:5135-5139, December 1975.
22. Springer, K.J., “Field Demonstration of General Motors Environmental
Improvement Proposal (EIP) - A Retrofit Kit for GMC City Buses,” Final
Report for the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract PH 22-68-23,
December 1972.
23. Letter from Mr. Dave Merion of DDAD to Karl Springer of SwRI
discussing timing changes.
142
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT’D)
24. France, C.J., Clemmons, W., and Wysor, 1., “Recommended Practice for
Determining Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles under
Transient Conditions,” Technical Report SDSB 79-08, Environmental
Protection Agency, February 1979.
25. Urban, C.M., “Dynamometer Simulation of Truck and Bus Road
Horsepower,” Task I, Draft Interim Report on EPA Contract 68-02-3773.
26. Urban, C.M., “Dynamometer Simulation of Truck and Bus Road
Horsepower for Transient Emissions Evaluations,” SAE 840340,
International Congress & Exposition, Detroit, February 27 - March 2,
1984.
27. Heavy-Duty Chassis Cycle No. 2143765149 developed from CAPE-21 data.
28. Black, F.M., Ray, W.D., King, F.G., Karches, W.E., Bradow, R.L., Perry,
N.L., Duncan, J.W., and Crews, W.S., “Emissions from In-Use Heavy-Duty
Gasoline Trucks,” SAE Paper 841356, International Congress & Exposition,
Detroit, February 27 - March 2, 1984.
29. Zub, R.W., “Transit Bus Fuel Economy and Performance Simulation,” SAE
Paper 841691, 1984.
30. “Opacity of Noise Tests on Tn-Met Bus Fleet”, Department of
Environmental Quality Vehicle Inspection Program of Portland, Oregon,
Report No. 84-11, September 1984.
31. Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 222, Wednesday, November 16, 1983.
32. Lipari, F., and Swarm, S.J., “Determination of Formaldehyde and Other
Aldehydes in Automobile Exhaust With an Improved 2,4-
Dinitrophenylhydrazine Method,” 3ournal of Chromatograph, 247, pp. 297-
306, 1982.
33. Perez, 1.M., Lipari, F., Seizinger, D.E., “Cooperative Development of
Analytical Methods for Diesel Emissions and Particulates - Solvent
Extractables, Aldehydes and Sulfate Methods,” SAE Paper 840413,
International Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, Febraury 27 -
March 2, 1984.
143
-------
APPENDIX A
TEST RESULTS FROM TIlE MACK ETAY(B) 673A
-------
TABLE A-i. 1974 13-MODE EMISSIONS RESULTS WITHOUT WATER
13—ritID(. FEDERAL DIESEl. FMI ION CYCLE
PROJICT : I ‘—5 428—nf l DATE 1—H—?R TEST NO. I
EJIGIr4F ‘IACI( EIAY(f)—I,?3A JI1HOUT 4420 APE PUMP
MODE 4 ’ 4GINF TIn QUE POWER FUEL Alp EXhAUST FUEL
PFFD FLO8 FLOW FLOW AIR
RPM ‘ X E K w1 K /M1h Kf,/MPI ‘MIN RATIO
I b5 1) si.ii 0.11 .111? 3.84 3.Bb Il lS
2 JM5i 3 1 1 .’4 4..’ •fl?+ q .h3 q• ?r, .1108
3 J’4’tJ 34’4•5 51.5 _2tb 1tJ.?h In.qH . 1120
5 4 )45f hRh.I 1(14.2 .305 13.89 4.2? .028
S 19 .(I trt4b.q 158.9 •S7J 17.20 17.85 •fl33
h 145I$ 1341.1 2 )1.2 .773 21.01 21.78 •4 137
7 bS’ ( 11.14 11.0 ,I)(? 3.89 .9) .11114
A J ’1 iu It ?_j ?3 .A 2?.b7 28•bIl .1133
‘4 14,111 8411.2 I 77.4 •bRO 23.51, 24.24 •tj2
j 1 q 1 , 1 b,.c 3 J2) 4 • 5 ‘q• 5 21 1.1 )3 •n
ii 141’’ 3iIb.? 4’U•q •27q 15.41) 15.88 .018
I? 191 )11 3.2 b•I , •)j7 JP R ? I q9 • q
N.) I 5II (I•4 ) 11.0 .1)1? 3.94 3.91 .0O ’4
MODE IIC CO+ HOst WEIGHTED BSHC BSCUt 65N02++ HUM.
MILL!
PPM PPM PPM KM G /IcW HR 6/KM HR 6/KM HR 6/KG
119 25’. 251 0.00 8 8 R 4.9
2 219 221 293 .37 jS•ql 27.10 47.9% ‘1•
3 231 137 581 4.12 1.83 1•19 io•qe 9 8
jqq 129 88? 8.33 .79 1.02 11•S* 4.9
5 48 224. 1011 12.?? .31 1.4? 11.35 9• I4
1 14 341) jjnq 1b 4O •l 2.03 10 B9 ‘1.9
7 159 131 289 (1.00 R 8 8
bb 258 722 IR.?O .23 1.83 8.92 ‘4 %
9 114 173 123 14.1? •4S 1.3? 8•13 9.4
JO j?b 118 940 9•b3 .95 1.1 b• 7 9 9
11 2Db 149 2b9 9.87 1.55 2.25 b 59 9 ’I
12 253 190 191 •53 1 4•q7 20.45 25,3* 8,9
13 159 182 21q 0.00 R R 8
CYCLE COMPOSITE 8S44C = .70? GRAM/KM HR
BSCO+ = 1.92* GRAM/KM HR
85N02+s= q ,97 5 GRAM/KM HR
BS)IC + BSNO2++: 10.582 GRAM/KM HR
8SFC .291KG/KM HR
+ CONVERTED
++ CONVERTED
WATER PER
TO WET BASIS
TO WET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.? MILLIGRAMS
KG DRY AIR
-------
TABLE A-2. 1974 13—MODE EMISSIONS RESULTS WITH WATER
13—MODE FEDERAL. DIESFL EMISSION CYCLE
PROJ (CI : II—5 .28—fln) DATE t—R—?q TEST NO. 1
fNf,INE : MACP ETAY(B)—b?3A WITH 020 APE PUMP
MODE fNr.fl1 [ IORUUE POWER FUFL AIR EXHAUST FUEL
SPEF() FLO. FLOW FLOW AIR
RPM N X H W KG/WIN IcG/M! i KG/MIN RATIO
I Il_I l 11.1) .1117 +.1)II ‘6.02 .0 11*
, ‘6 7 •n7M q 5ç Q S? .1108
3 i’.cii 3i s 51.5 •2J.b 1fl.7 11.111) .1120
I45ui I,Pk.L 1114.2 •385 j3 ’ 6’4 j3 R3 •n?q
S [ ‘6511 Iii’6h . 6 1 1SR• 54 -9 lb?I, 17.33 .fl3 ’I
h iesn 13q1_I 211.2 .773 2o.2R 21 .flb .038
7 5 jII II•fl .ij .017 3.?? 3.79 .0(15
1 q , ’ 1175.1 233.8 • 2 6 4 a3 ?7•?b .035
9 IquhI 890.2 j?7•j • 81 23.03 23.71 . o
tn 191 1 ! sns• 3 t?U_ ’# •‘G7S i q jg I 9.b3 .1 )25
11 1 III 301.? bo.q .279 j4 .R’6 15.1? •njq
2 (‘hIll 33.? 5.5 .117 JP.bb 1?.?R .un9
13 4 - 5 1 1 1.0 fl (1 .017 3.78 3•79 .005
MODE ( IC CO+ 6(0+. WEIGHTED BSHC BSCOt BSNO2++ HUM.
MILL!
PPM PPM PPM KM G/KW HR C/KM HR C/KM HR G/KG
1 320 b25 132 0.00 R R R ‘6.6
2 320 529 155 .37 1 .13 h2.8b 32 .’6? *.‘#
3 255 208 ‘65? ‘6.12 1.58 2.5? 9.20 ‘6 ’ 6
‘6 178 85 725 9.33 9.1? ‘#.*
S 135 13? 783 12.72 .63 .83 8.12 ‘6*
S 8* 251 799 15.90 .2* 1.51 7.69 *.‘6
7 272 #31 151 0.00 8 R 8
8 58 183 553 18.70 .23 1.25 b•?b O.*
9 125 ‘698 1*.’? .35 • 7 5.35 ‘.‘
10 135 119 *10 S .b3 .5* 1.11 5.35 *,*
11 175 202 257 ‘6.87 1 .2? 2.90 b 31 *.‘6
12 320 ‘ 6Bq 125 .53 18.00 5*.80 23.02 ‘#.*
13 300 Sbq 125 0.00 8 9 9
CYCLE COMPOSITE BSHC .763 GRAM/KM HR
83C0+ = 2.118 GRAM/KM HR
RSNO?+t 7. ’ 6qq GRAM/KM HR
BSHC + BSNO2++ 8.2*3 GRAM/KM HR
BSFC = .2*1KG/KM HR
+ CONVERTED TO
++ CONVERTED TO
WATER PER KG
WET BASIS
WET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.? MILLIGRAMS
DRY AIR
-------
TABLE A-3. 1979 13-MODE EMISSIONS RESULTS WITHOUT WATER
13—MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE jq7q
PROJECT 11—5*29—001 DATE 1—R— - TEST NO.1..
ENGINE i MACK ETAY(B)—b73A WITHOUT H?O APE PUMP.._
POWER ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR - INTAKE NOX MEASURED CALCULATED
MODE SPEED 088 083 FLOW FLOW HUMID CORN - MC Co C02 NOX GRAMS / HOUR MODE
PCT COND / RPM N X N MW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG FACT _ PPM PPM PCI PPM MC CO NOX
1 IDLE / 650 0 — 0,0 .0? 3.81 — I.* ,988 16* _ ?59 1 .*1 eqo 12 37 61 1
2 2 INTER / 1150 31 *? .07 q• q I.* .8 1 2b* 231 1,*3 275 bO 10* 190 2
3 25 INTER / j’+SQ 3*0 51.6 .22 10.6* - •q 03 ._231 1*t - *.7 625 65 * ? a
‘1 co INTER / 1*50 696 10*.? .39 13.7* *.* •qio -- jqq 138 6.98 1037 71 *2 1033 ‘1
5 75 INTER / 1*50 10*7 1 q , 0 17.22 *. ‘ 1 • 15 _ * 2** 8.27 1250 *2 201 15*6 5
6 100 INTER / 1*50 13*1 211.3 •77 20.q3 - 1.’1 .M18 - 6* 3b* *.30 1312 35 366 1*62 6
IDLE / 650 0 0.0 .02 3 .8* *.* •88B____15* _ 138 1.25 325 13 22 77 7
8 100 RATED / 1 q 0 1175 ?33. •*3 27.38 5.* .*2? bb. . 278 S.*1 850 *7 365 1702 8
9 75 RATED / 1*00 Bqo 1??.? .68 23 .*7 S.* - .923 11* lBS 7,0* 732 71 213 1280 q
10 50 RATED / 1900 605 120.5 •*7 19.56 -. s.* .920 176 125 • q 515 90 120 7*7 10
11 25 RATED / 1900 306 60.9 .28 15.59 5.* •91* 20b _lSb ‘1.30 307 93 120 355 11
12 2 RATED / i*oo 33 6.6 .12 12.73 S.* .*08 2b3 I RS 2.19 162 85 116 152 1?
13 IDLE / so 0 0.0 .02 3.q2 5.1 .*0* _._ 1b* 1Bs. 1.1* 250 15 31 63 13
—!
CALCULATED F/A F/A WET HCF/A F/A POWER BSFC MODAL
MODE GRAMS/KG—FUEL GRAMS/MW-HR DRY ‘PHIL. CORR_ PCT CORR CORR WEIGHT MODE
MC CO NOX IIC CO MDX MEAS STOICH FACT _ CALC_ HEAS FACT LB/HP—HR FACTOR
1 11.*7 3S *b 58.17 R N — P .00*6.06?? 068 •99 1.0070 .96* R .067 1
2 13.61 2 3 ,2q ‘10.60 12,91 22,08 38.50 .0079 .0677. - .116 .990 .flOq S _ .971 .977 .080 2
3 5.0? 5,95 38.3? 1.26 1.50 9•6’1 .020* .0677 •3Q l ,953_ .0228 .97* .258 .080 3
‘1 3.08 3,99 ** ,75 .68 •øø q•q 1 .0281 .0677 - .*1b •q3 ’ 1 , 0 32 ’ 1 - .98? .226 .080
5 1.23 5.87 *5.16 .26 1.26 9.72 .0333 .0677 .‘1*2 .922 .0386 - .992 .217 .080 5
6 .75 7 88 *2.30 .16 1.73 q• 2 q .0371 .0677 .5*8 .91*_.O’13? 1.00* .21* .080 b
7 12.21 21.53 71.01 R P N .00*5 .0677 .066 .986 .0062 .968 R .067 7
8 •85 6•57 30,62 •?0 1.56 7.28 .03*0 .0677 .502 • ?1 •Q392 1.026 ,232 .080 8
q 1,73 5•22 31,3b •*D 1 20 7,2? •0?*1 .0677 •*30 .933 .0331 1.01* .227 •090 9
ID 3.15 ‘1.21 26.23 •7S 1,00 6.20 .02*1 .0677 -- .360 .9*3 .0279 1.002 .236 .080 10
11 ‘1.96 7.18 21.23 1.36 1,97 5.83 .0180 .0677 .265 .958 .0206 .9*1 .277 .080 II
12 12.0* 16.52 21.57 12.90 17.56 22.93 .0O 2 .0677 .137 •*77 .o1o7 .991 1.083 .080 12
13 13.98 30,1* bfl .*7 R P P .00*5 .0677 .066 •*87 .005* .968 R ,067 13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13—MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC .603 GRAM/MW—HR ( ,*SO GRAM/BlIP—HR )
BSC O 1.638 GRAM/MW—HR ( 1.222 GRAM/BHP—HR )
BSNOX — 9.518 GRAM/KW—HR ( 6,35* GRAM/Bl IP—HR )
BSIIC + BSNOX * .12i GRAM/KW—IIR ( 6,90* CRAM/BlIP—HR )
CORP. BSFC — = .2*0 KG/KM—HR C •3*5 LBS/BHP—HR )
-------
TABLE A-4. 1979 13-MODE EMISSIONS RESULTS WITH WATER
la—MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE jq q -
PROJECT 11—5*28—001 DATE 1—8—79 TEST NO.1 -
ENGINE MACK ETAY(8)—673A WITH 12O APE PUMP --
POWER ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE NOX -. MEASURED CALCULATED
MODE SPEED OBS 085 FLOW FLOW HUMID CORP - MC Co O2 NOX GRAMS / HOUR MODE
• PCT COND / RPM N X H MW KG/MIN KG/MIN G/KG - FACT PPM PPM PCT PPM MC CO NOX
1 IDLE / 650 0 0.0 .0? 3.98 *. * .8$8_ __320 b3b 1.38 150 23 90 31 1
2 INTER / 1*50 31 ‘ 1.7 .0? 9.51 ‘ 1,’1 320 _5*o 1.91 iqo ?3 a*o 12* 2
3 25 INTER / 1*50 310 51 ,6 .22 io .7S ‘ 1 . ’ 1 - • o3_.255_ 218 ‘1.7* 525 7? 118 421 3
* SO INTER / 1*50 b8b jfl ’ 1 ,2 .38 13.39 _1?8 7.0* 850 62 5q 829 ‘ 1
s 7S INTER / 1*50 10*7 i 5 .O •S? 16.81 ,91S__ _13b_ .1*2 8.37 925 60 115 1128 5
6 100 INTER / 1*50 1391 211.3 ,77 20 .50 - * .* .Si9_- 8* 28* 9.’1l 937 *5 278 138? 6
7 IDLE / 650 (1 0.0 •o2 3.81 *.* .888 _272_*38 - 1 .*7 175 iq Sq 35 7
8 100 RATED / iqoo 1175 233.9 •93 27.01 -- ‘1.4 — . Ib - —- b8_ jqØ 8.57 655 ‘ lB 255 1272 8
q 75 RATED / 1900 8q 177.2 .68 23.18 *. ‘ 1 •qjj - q2 - 13* 7.32 587 55 149 976
10 S D RATED / 1900 bQ5 120.5 .47 19.21 4.4 .907 - - 13b_. 125 6.18 *80 66 115 655 10
Li 25 RATED / 1900 306 60,9 .28 14 .95 ‘ 1•*•_ ,9OI_ __17b 1t — ‘1.52 31? b9 155 339 11
1? 2 RATED / iqoo 33 6,6 .1? 12.75 -- 9 . ’ 1 .893 _ 320 _ 502 2.29 145 97 297 126 12
13 IDLE / 650 0 0.0 ,0? 3.80 ‘ 1.4 •R89_ 3OO._57B • 1.3*. 1*5 22 8* 31 13
-_ -
CALCULATED p/A F/A _WET MC FZA f/A. - POWER BSFC MODAL
MODE GRAMS/KG—FUEL GRAMS/MW—HR DRY - ‘PHI’_. CORR _ PCT CORR CORP WEIGHT MODE
MC CO NOX HC Co NOX PlEAS STOICH -- FACT__.CALC PlEAS FACT LB/HP—HR FACTOR
1 22.03 Bb,o? 29,60 - R P R .0O ’ 14 •0b77 .065 .9a*_.0O7L. .966 R .067 1
2 16,36 51,00 2? 9? 15.51 51.20 26.38 •Qo?8 •ab?7 .116 •98Q•Q096 •97 ’ 1 ,973 .080 2
3 q• 0 q 32 ,95 1,41 2,? 8,lb •0202 • 0 677 •299 •453 .02?7_ - .977 •2 57 ,OBO 3
‘1 2,70 2,57 35,92 •b0 ,S7 7 9b .0289 •ah7 . a_ .0331 - - ,225 .080 *
5 1 ,?b 3.38 33.07 • e .72 7• q .03*0 •ob7? •502 - .922 • 0 q 0 •qq .215 .080 S
6 .9? b D0 29,90 •21 1,32 6.57 • 03 q .0677 .560 ,q13.O 3 7 • - 1.008 •218 .090 6
7 i7 .q 9 56,73 33,08 R P R ,00*b .0677 - .068 .q8 ’ 1_.OD7’1 • .972 P .067 7
8 .86 ‘1.60 22.89 •2D 1.09 S .** ,fl3*’l .0677 - ,soq _,q2o ,Qaqq - 1.029 .231 .080 8
q 1.35 3,6* 23.90 .31 .8* S.d • 02 q .0677 ,*36 .931 ,03 ’ 13 1.015 .227 •080 9
10 2.33 ‘1,02 23.01 .5S ,95 S . ’l’l .02*8 .0677 - .367 ,q’.I _,0 2 - 1.003 .23b .080 10
11 ‘1.0* 9•?* 20.23 1,11 2,5* S,5S .0187 •0677 •?77 - .955 ,Delb .qqe .277 •080 11
12 13.82 *2,2* 17,89 1* ,b8 ‘l* .BB 19.01 ,OO 2 ,0677 ,13b , 7I, •011* -- ,98b 1.078 .080 12
13 21.33 80.90 2q,59 R P P •oo ’ 1b •ob77 ,ObB •q s •0069 .q?2 R .067 13
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13-MODE WEIGHT FACTORS -
B SHC .620 GRAM/Mw—HR - C .962 GRAM/BHP—HR )
BSCO 1.7*9 GRAM/MW—HR ( 1.305 GRAM/B l IP—HP )
BSNOX b.* * GRAM/MW—HR C ‘1.8*4 GRAPI/BHP—HR )
BSHC + BSNOX 7.113 GRAM/MW—HR C 5.307 GRAM/BlIP—HR )
CORR. BSFC — .239 KG/MW—HR C •3 ’1 Les/BHP—HR )
-------
TABLE A-5. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH
APE PUMP, WITHOUT WATER
1450 rpm
2 50
_______ 1900 rpm
100 Idle 100 50
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Aldehyde Rate
Form- pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/k W-hr
Acet- pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/k W-hr
Acetone pg/rn 3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/k W-hr
Isobutyr- pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
rng/kW-hr
Croton- pg/rn 3
aldchyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
H xan— pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
Benz- pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2481.0
2109.3
1635.4
2304.4
1598.2
1414.2
1793.4
1560.5
1957.3
2250.4
579.2
3022.6
2491.9
1514.5
347.5
84.8
48.4
532.0
54.3
87.3
215.4
332.0
19.1
10.7
13.0
21.3
229.5
201.8
0
693.6
274.3
0
1266.0
61.1
0
180.1
58.4
0
191.8
607.0
289.6
404.7
563.4
253.9
456.3
686.4
2086.5
1468.7
3043.1
773.8
2624.3
3246.0
3167.6
464.6
63.6
65.5
710.8
47.1
113.8
450.5
443.9
14.3
14.4
11.3
27.7
479.9
0
0
0
0
183.5
1726.4
245.5
261.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-6
-------
TABLEA-6. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR MACKETAY(B)673A WITH APE PUMP,
WITH WATER
Aldehyde
Rate
1450 rpm
2 50
_______ 1900 rpm
100 Idle 100 50
2
1298.9
1754.6
390.7
373.3
0 2169.1
0 1197.4
0 1055.9
0
0 996.3
0 1818.4
O 258.6
0 275.5
4125.7
2578.5
574.2
548.6
1431.0
1964.3
42.2
9.2
8864.7
2264.1
1996.5
1347.4
1554.8
54.6
13.2
4209. 3
3554.8
505.6
538.6
Form- pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
Acet- pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
Acetone Pg/rn 3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
Isobutyr- pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
Croton- pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/k W-hr
pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
Benz- Pg/rn 3
aldehyde mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/k W-hr
1523.9
1358.9
59 . 1
13.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1412.4
2371.8
42.S
10.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
774.7
16209.4
290.8
68.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
241.9
1684.1
375.0
358.3
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 163.0
0 239.2
0 211.0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 244.7
0 696.2
0 613.9
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
O 81.5
O 395.5
0 56.3
0 59.9
O 253.9
O 1171.8
O 166.7
O 177.6
O 141.8
O 1334.0
0 189.7
0 202.1
0 126.5
0 1330.9
0 189.3
o 201.6
168.6
2884.4
62.0
13.5
893.3
2842.7
2506.8
A- 7
-------
TABLE A-7. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES
MACK ETAY B)673A WITH APE PUMP, WITHOUT WATER
1450 rpm 1900 rpm
Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Methane jig/rn 3 1924.6 699.2 546.1 1451.8 519.4 692.6 1718.2
CE 4 mg/hr 903.1 484.1 560.6 272.2 732.9 672.6 1082.5
mg/kg fuel 201.1 2.1 12.1 250.1 13.2 23.6 154.0
mg/kW—hr 192.1 4.7 2.7 3.2 5.7 164.0
Ethylene pg/rn 3 5430.0 3274.3 6810.8 3233.5 8593.7 6432.1 6286.5
C 2 H 4 mg/hr 2547.5 2266.2 6990.2 606.2 12122.3 6245.6 3959.9
mg/kg fuel 567.3 98.2 150.3 556.8 217.6 218.9 5f ’ .2
mg/kW—hr 542.0 22.1 33.1 52.3 53.3 600.0
Ethane jig/rn 3 99.9 0 0 62.4 0 0 gg•g
C 2 H 6 mg/hr 46.9 0 0 11.7 0 0 62.9
mg/kg fuel 10.4 0 0 10.8 0 0 9.0
mg/kW-hr 10.0 0 0 0 0 9 .
Acetylene pg/rn 3 514.2 0 801.1 286.9 1190.9 173.2 6171
C 2 H 2 mg/hr 241.0 0 821.3 53.7 1894.4 168.0 388.2
mg/kg fuel 53.7 0 17.7 49.3 34.0 5.9 55.2
rng/kW—hr 51.3 0 3.9 8.2 1.4 58.8
Propane jig/rn 3 28.8 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 3 H 8 mg/hr 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kg fuel 3.2 0 0 0 0
mg/kW-hr 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 o
Propylene jig/rn 3 1812.0 1841.1 2318.8 1072.0 2779.1 3565.6 2371.3
C 3 H 6 mg/hr 850.1 1274.2 2379.9 201.0 3920.2 3462.2 1493.6
mg/kg fuel 189.3 55.2 51.2 184.6 70.4 121.3 212.4
mg/kW—hr 180.9 12.4 11.3 16.9 29.6 226,3
a
Benzene pg/m
C 6 H 6 mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
Toluenea pg/rn 3
C 7 H 8 mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
a could not be determined from chromatograin
A—8
-------
TABLE A-B. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES
MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH APE PUMP, WITH WATER
1450 rpm 1900 rpm
Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Methane jig/rn 3 2663.8 1012.2 845.8 4009.0 819.1 765.8 3949.1
CH 4 mg/hr 1242.0 673.4 866.1 763.9 1026.2 659.3 2488.0
mg/kg fuel 276.6 29.3 18.6 673.6 18.4 23.1 353.9
mg/kW-hr 264.3 6.5 4.0 509.3 4.3 5.6 377.0
Ethylene jig/rn 3 9706.4 2138.2 8844.2 12561.3 11034.8 2872.3 11203.8
C 2 H 4 mg/hr 4524.7 1422.1 9055.1 2392.9 13821.4 2472.3 7057.1
mg/kg fuel 1007.6 61.8 194.8 2110.2 247.9 86.8 1003.7
mg/kW-hr 962.7 13.6 42.3 1595.3 58.4 21.0 1069.3
Ethane jig/rn 3 174.8 0 0 237.2 0 0 206.0
C 2 H 6 mg/hr 81.5 0 0 45.2 0 0 129.8
mg/kg fuel 18.2 0 0 39.9 0 0 18.5
rng/kW-hr 17.3 0 0 30.1 0 0 19.7
Acetylene jig/rn 3 909.4 167.8 893.1 1028.5 925.6 189.5 1093.4
C 2 H 2 mg/hr 423.4 111.5 913.4 195.7 1158.0 162.9 687.9
mg/kg fuel 94.3 4.8 19.6 172.6 20.8 5.7 97.8
mg/kW-hr 90.1 1.1 4.3 130.5 4.9 1.4 104.2
Propane jig/rn 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 3 H 8 mg/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kg fuel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/k W—hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propylene jig/rn 3 2878.1 891.4 2709.2 3431.6 3245.2 1351.7 3431.6
C 3 H 6 mg/hr 1341.7 592.9 2773.8 653.7 4064.7 1163.4 2161.5
mg/kg fuel 298.8 25.8 59.7 576.5 72.9 40.8 307.4
mg/kW—hr 285.5 5.7 13.0 435.8 17.2 9.9 327.5
Benzenea jig/rn 3
c 6 u 6 mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
Toluenea Pg/rn 3
C 7 H 8 mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-h r
be dc tcrmlned from chromatograrn
a could not
A— 9
-------
TABLE A-9. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULP TE FROM
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH APE PUMP WITHOUT WATER
(Based on 47 mm Paliflex Media)
Concentration
mg/rn 3 aL
particulate Rate
L 9! l g/kw/hr
Engine
rpm/load %
1450/2
Run
1
7.59
1.73
1.52
15.61
2
14.76
6.88
1.56
1.38
Avg
15.19
7.24
1.65
1.45
1450/25
1
2
Avg
29.96
32.24
31.10
16.27
17.40
16.84
1.26
1.36
1.31
0.32
0.34
0.33
1450/50
1
2
Avg
64.63
69.35
66.99
43.42
46.18
44.80
1.90
2.01
1.96
0.42
0.45
0.44
1450/75
1
2
Avg
135.48
131.30
133.39
115.83
111
113.49
3.40
3.26
3.33
0.74
0.71
0.73
1450/100
1
2
Avg
219.72
190.65
205.19
226.48
198.46
212.47
4.88
4.28
4.58
1.05
0.92
0.99
Idle
1
2
Avg
11.87
11.06
11.47
2.26
2.08
2.17
2.09
1.89
1.97
-——-
———-
“
1900/100
1
2
Avg
98.44
97.09
97.77
135.00
131.67
133.34
2.42
2.36
2.39
0.59
0.57
0.58
1900/75
1
2
Avg
76.80
80.72
78.76
92.15
96.21
94.18
2.26
2.36
2.31
0.53
0.55
0.54
1900/50
1
2
Avg
75.83
80.19
78.01
74.52
78.70
76.61
2.61
2.76
2.69
0.65
0.69
0.67
1900/25
1
2
Avg
50.99
62.24
56.62
39.24
48.02
43.63
2.34
2.88
2.61
0.69
0.86
0.78
1900/2
1
2
Avg
21.94
21.08
21.51
13.81
13.38
13.60
1.95
1.88
1.92
2.66
2.57
2.62
A-lU
-------
TABLE A- 10. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH APE PUMP WITH WATER
(Based on 47 mm Paliflex Media)
Engine
rpm/load %
1450/2
Run
1
Concentration
mg/m 3
Particulate
Rate
g/hr
8.36
g/kg fuel
1.82
g/kw/hr
1.67
18.05
2
17.21
8.01
1.74
1.60
Avg
17.63
8.19
1.78
1.64
1450/25
1
21.67
11.74
0.90
0.23
2
Avg
22.47
22.07
12.15
11.95
0.93
0.92
0.24
0.24
1450/50
1
30.85
20.63
0.90
0.20
2
Avg
25.19
28.02
16.88
18.76
0.73
0.82
0.16
0.18
1450/75
1
50.82
43.59
1.27
0.27
2
Avg
64.92
57.87
54.71
49.15
1.60
1.44
0.35
0.31
1450/100
1
2
Avg
61.29
61.23
61.26
64.68
69.87
67.27
1.39
1.51
1.45
0.30
0.33
0.32
Idle
1
2
Avg
28.96
38.13
33.55
5.50
7.23
6.37
4.58
6.03
5.30
1900/100
1
37.29
51.10
0.92
0.22
2
Avg
39.22
38.26
52.65
51.88
0.95
0.94
0.22
0.22
1900/75
1
47.00
55.77
1.36
0.31
2
Avg
47.69
47.35
56.29
56.03
1.37
1.37
0.31
0.31
1900/50
1
36.99
35.49
1.25
0.30
2
Avg
33.12
35.05
31.94
33.72
1.12
1.19
0.27
0.29
1900/25
1
2
Avg
26.28
21.27
23.77
20.10
16.22
18.16
1.20
0.97
1.09
0.34
0.28
0.31
1900/2
1
32.19
20.21
2.89
6.12
2
Avg
29.06
30.63
18.30
19.25
2.61
2.75
4.82
5.47
A —il
-------
TABLE A-il. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S0 4 FROM
MACK ETAY(B) 673A + APE, WITHOUT WATER
(Based on 47 mm Fluoropore Filters)
Engine
rpm/% load
Concentration
pg/rn 3
Sulfate Rate
mg/hr mg/kg fuel mg/kW/hr
% Sulfur
Recov.
1450/2
Run
1
2
Avg
311.1
216.0
263.6
62.2
67.5
64.9
0.98
0.67
0.83
70.7
48.0
59.4
640.7
454.9
547.8
1450/25
1
2
Avg
3545.5
2786.5
3166.0
1924.9
1475.3
1700.1
149.2
113.5
131.4
37.4
30.1
33.8
2.07
1.57
1.82
1450/50
1
2
Avg
5616.4
6637.5
6127.0
3773.1
4419.7
4096.4
164.8
192.2
178.5
36.7
42.9
39.8
2.28
2.66
2.47
1450/75
1
2
Avg
7322.1
7040.7
7181.4
6260.1
5960.0
6110.1
183.6
174.8
179.2
40.1
37.9
39.0
2.54
2.42
2.48
1450/100
1
2
Avg
7949.1
7566.0
7757.6
8273.4
7864.0
8068.7
178.3
169.5
173.9
39.1
37.3
38.2
2.47
2.35
2.41
Idle
1
2
Avg
1284.5
1647.8
1466.2
244.7
309.9
277.3
222.5
281.7
252.1
————
————
——-—
3.08
3 9Q
349
1900/100
1
2
Avg
6684.8
7266.0
6975.4
9166.8
9857.0
9511.9
164.6
177.0
170.8
39.8
42.5
41.2
2.28
2.45
2.37
1900/75
1
2
Avg
6114.6
6574.5
6344.6
7336.6
7835.9
7586.3
179.8
192.1
186.0
42.6
44.8
43.7
2.49
2.66
2.58
1900/50
1
2
Avg
5751.6
5894.9
5823.3
5651.5
5784.9
5718.2
198.3
203.0
200.7
49.3
50.5
49.9
2.75
2.81
2.78
1900/25
1
2
Avg
3109.8
3442.6
3276.2
2393.2
2656.0
2524.6
142.5
158.1
150.3
41.9
47.7
44.8
1.98
2.19
2.09
1900/2
1
2
Avg
1170.0
1045.9
1108.0
736.2
663.3
699.8
103.7
93.4
98.6
141.6
127.6
134.6
1.44
1.29
1.37
A-l2
-------
TABLE A-12. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S0 4 FROM
MACK ETAY(B) 673A + APE, WITH WATER
(Based on 47 mm Fluoropore Filters)
Engine
rpm/% load
Concentration Sulfate
)Jg/m 3 mg/hr mg/kg fuel
Rate
% Sulfur
Recov.
mg/kW—hr
1450/2
Run
1
2
Avg
311.6
326.9
319.3
67.7
71.1
69.4
62.3
65.4
63.9
0.94
0.99
0.97
673.0
702.5
687.8
1450/25
1
2
Avg
4013.6
3429.3
3721.5
2174.1
1854.0
2014.0
167.2
142.6
154.9
42.6
35.8
39.2
2.32
1.98
2.15
1450/50
1
2
Avg
5867.3
6892.4
6379.9
3923.5
4578.4
4251.0
170.6
199.1
184.9
37.2
43.7
40.5
2.36
2.76
2.56
1450/75
1
2
Avg
5436.0
9046.7
7241.4
4662.6
7623.4
6143.0
136.3
222.9
179.6
29.4
48.2
38.8
1.89
3.09
2.49
1450/100
1
2
Avg
5064.9
5087.4
5076.2
5344.9
5805.5
5575.2
115.2
125.1
120.2
25.0
27.1
26.1
1.60
1.73
1.67
Idle
1
2
Avg
2052.3
2267.1
2159.7
389.9
430.1
410.0
324.9
358.4
341.7
4.50
4.97
4.74
1900/100
1
2
Avg
6568.8
5782.3
6175.6
9002.8
7763.1
8383.0
161.6
139.4
150.5
38.0
32.9
35.5
2.24
1.93
2.09
1900/75
1
2
Avg
6378.2
7318.0
6848.1
7529.0
8458.4
7993.7
183.6
207.3
195.5
41.9
48.4
45.2
2.54
2.87
2.71
1900/50
1
2
Avg
6210.0
5530.1
5870.1
5958.3
5333.2
5645.8
209.8
187.8
198.8
50.5
45.2
47.9
2.91
2.60
2.76
1900/25
1
2
Avg
3689.3
3432.6
3561.0
2821.0
2617.7
2719.4
167.9
156.7
162.3
47.8
44.4
46.1
2.23
2.17
2.25
1900/2
1
2
Avg
1532.7
1761.4
1647.1
946.6
1123.0
1043.8
137.8
160.4
149.1
253.8
224.6
239.2
1.91
2.22
2.07
A-i 3
-------
TABLE A-13. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH APE PUMP, WITHOUT WATER,
Run 1 (13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
Weighted
Engine rpm Power Fuel Particulate S0 4 Wgt. Power Fuel Part. SO=
% Load kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Fact. kW kg/hr 9/hr mg/hr
Idle ——— 1.1 2.26 244.7 0.067 0.07 0.15 16.40
1453/2 5.0 4.4 7.59 311.1 0.08 0.40 0.35 0.61 24.89
1450/25 51.5 12.9 16.27 1924.9 0.08 4.12 1.03 1.30 153.99
1450/50 102.8 22.9 43.42 3773.1 0.08 8.22 1.83 3.47 301.85
1450/75 156.2 34.1 115.83 6260.1 0.08 12.50 2.73 9.27 500.81
1450/100 216.0 46.4 226.48 8273.4 0.08 17.28 3.71 18.12 661.87
Idle 1.1 2.26 244.7 0.067 0.07 0.15 16.40
1900/100 230.5 55.7 135.00 9166.8 0.08 18.44 4.46 10.80 733.34
1900/75 172.3 40.8 92.15 7336.6 0.08 13.78 3.26 7.37 586.93
1900/50 114.6 28.5 74.52 5651.5 0.08 9.17 2.28 5.96 452.12
19’ 0/25 57.1 16.8 39.24 2393.2 0.08 4.57 1.34 3.14 191.46
1900/2 5.2 7.1 13.81 736.2 0.08 0.42 0.57 1.11 58.90
Idle 1.1 2.26 244.7 0.067 ____ 0.07 0.15 16.40
88.90 21.77 61.60 3715.36
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW-hr 0.693
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/ky fuel 2.830
Brake Specific S0 4 , mg/kW/hr 41.79
Fuel Specific S0 4 =, mg/kg fuel 170.66
A-l4
-------
TABLE A-14. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH APE PUMP, WITHOUT WATER
Run 2 (13-mode FTP Weighting Factors)
Weighted
Engine rpm Power Fuel Particulate SO 4 = Wgt. Power Fuel Part. S0 4 =
% Load kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr Fact. kW kg/hr g/hr mg/hr
Idle -—— 1.1 2.08 309.9 0.067 ——— 0.07 0.14 20.76
1450/2 5.0 4.4 6.88 216.0 0.08 0.40 0.35 0.55 17.28
1450/25 50.5 12.8 17.40 1475.3 0.08 4.04 1.02 1.39 118.02
1450/50 103.1 23.0 46.18 4419.7 0.08 8.25 1.84 3.69 353.58
1450/75 157.2 34.1 111.15 5960.0 0.08 12.58 2.73 8.89 476.80
1450/100 214.6 46.4 198.46 7864.0 0.08 17.17 3.71 15.88 629.12
Idle -—— 1.1 2.08 309.9 0.067 ——— 0.07 0.14 20.76
1900/100 231.7 55.7 131.67 9857.0 0.08 18.54 4.46 10.53 788.56
1900/75 175.0 40.8 96.21 7835.9 0.08 14.00 3.26 7.70 626.87
1900/50 114.6 28.5 78.70 5784.9 0.08 9.17 2.28 6.30 462.79
1900/25 55.7 16.7 48.02 2656.0 0.08 4.46 1.34 3.84 212.48
1900/2 5.2 7.1 13.38 663.3 0.08 0.42 0.57 1.07 53.06
Idle ——— 1,1 2.08 309.9 0.067 —— 0.07 0.14 20.76
89.03 21.77 60.26 3800.84
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW—hr 0.677
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 2.768
Brake Specific S0 4 =, mg/kW—hr 42.69
Fuel Specific S0 4 , mg/kg fuel 174.59
A-i 5
-------
TABLE A—15. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH APE PUMP, WITH WATER,
Run 1 (13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
Brake Specific SO 4 , mg/kW/hr
Fuel Specific SO 4 =, mg/kg fuel
Weighted
Power Fuel Part.
kW kg/hr g/hr
s0 4 =
mg/hr
Engine rpm Power Fuel
% Load kW kg/hr
Idle ——— 1.2
Particulate
g/hr
SO 4
mg/hr
389.9
Wgt.
Fact.
0.067
5.50
1450/2 5.0 4.6
8.36
311.6
0.08
1450/25 51.0 13.0
11.74
2174.1
0.08
1450/50 105.5 23.0
20.63
3923.5
0.08
1450/75 158.6 43.2
43.59
4662.6
0.08
1450/100 214.1 46.4
64.68
5344.9
0.08
Idle —-— 1.2
5.50
389.9
0.067
1900/100 236.9 55.7
51.10
9002.8
0.08
1900/75 179.2 40.9
55.77
7529.0
0.08
1900/50 118.1 28.4
35.49
5958.3
0.08
1900/25 59.0 16.8
20.10
2821.0
0.08
1900/2 3.3 7.0
20.21
946.6
0.08
Idle ——— 1.2
5.50
389.9
0.067
Brake Specific Particulate,
g/kW—hr
0.306
Fuel Specific Particulate,
g/kg fuel
1.266
0.08
0.40 0.37
4.08 1.04
8.44 1.84
12.69 2.74
17.13 3.71
0.08
18.95 4.46
14.34 3.27
9.45 2.27
4.72 1.34
0.26 0.56
_____ 0.08
0.37
0.67
0.94
1.65
3.49
5.17
0.37
4.09
4.46
2.84
1.61
1.62
0.37
26.12
24.93
173.93
313.88
373.01
427.59
26. 12
720.22
602.32
476.66
225.68
77.17
26.12
90.46 21.84 27.65 3493.75
38.62
159.97
A—i 6
-------
TABLE A-16. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
MACK ETAY(B) 673A WITH APE PUMP, WITH WATER,
Run 2 (13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW—hr
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel
Brake Specific S0 4 =, mg/kW/hr
Fuel Specific SO 4 =, mg/kg fuel
Power Fuel Particulate
kW kg/hr g/hr
S0 4 = Wgt.
mg/hr Fact .
Engine rpm
% Load
Idle
1450/2
1450/25
1450/50
1450/75
1450/100
Idle
1900/100
1900/75
1900/50
1900/25
1900/2
Idle
Weighted
Power Fuel Part.
kW kg/hr g/hr _____
5.0
51.7
106.0
158.3
213.9
236.1
179.4
117.9
58.8
3.8
1.2
4.6
13.0
23.0
34.2
46.4
1.2
55.7
41.0
28.5
16.7
7.0
1.2
7.23
8.01
12.15
16.88
54.71
69.87
7.23
52.65
56.29
31.94
16.22
18.30
7.23
0.067
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.067
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.067
0.08
0.40 0.37
4.14 1.04
8.48 1.84
12.66 2.74
17.11 3.71
0.08
18.89 4.46
14.35 3.28
9.43 2.28
4.70 1.34
0.30 0.56
_____ 0.08
430.1
326.9
1854.0
4578.4
7623.4
5805.5
430.1
7763.1
8458.4
5333.2
2617.7
1123.0
430.1
0.314
1.299
41.18
170.41
S0 4 =
mg/hr
28.82
26.15
148.32
366.27
609.87
464.44
28.82
621.05
676.67
426.66
209.42
89.84
28.82
0.48
0.64
0.97
1.35
4.38
5.59
0.48
4.21
4.50
2 . 56
1.30
1.46
0.48
90.46 21.86 28.40 3725.15
A-l 7
-------
TABLE A-17. PERCENT PER STAGE OF TOTAL PARTICULATE COLLECTED BY
ANDERSON IMPACTOR FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH APE PUMP,
WITH AND WITHOUT WATER ADDITION
Stage
No.
ECD, 1450 rpm
micron, 2% 50%
1900 rpm
100% ______
Idle
50%
Without Water
1
10.9
0.25
0.07
0.48
0.73
1.3
2
6.8
0.41
0.70
3.9
0.34
0.54
3
4.6
0.57
0.33
3.7
0.95
2.0
4
3.2
1.1
0.56
2.3
1.4
1.2
5
2.0
1.1
0.60
0.36
2.5
2.0
6
1.03
2.4
1.7
1.1
3.7
2.6
7
0.63
1.2
2.5
5.0
6.0
2.4
8
0.42
2.7
2.4
2.2
7.0
3.2
Filter
<0.42
90.2
91.2
81.0
77.4
84.7
With Water
1
10.9
0.74
0.77
0.36
1.1
0.39
2
6.8
1.2
1.2
0.26
1.7
0.43
3
4.6
0.34
2.8
0.08
1.3
0.59
4
3.2
0.20
2.2
0.48
1.9
0.67
5
2.0
0.74
6.4
0.58
3.4
1.1
6
1.03
2.0
2.1
0.68
3.6
1.5
7
0.63
3.6
1.4
0.72
3.4
2.2
8
0.42
1.5
2.1
0.87
3.1
3.0
Filter
<0.42
89.7
81.0
96.0
80.6
90.2
A-i 8
-------
TABLE A-l8.
BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
MACK ETAY(B) 673A, WITHOUT WATER
(Based on 20 x 20 inch Paliflex Media)
Mode
1
2
3
4
Engine
rpm
Engine
Load, %
Power
kW
Fuel
kg/hr
BaP
jig/hr
Part.
g/hr
Org.
Sol., %
SOF
g/hr
Wgt.
Fact
1450
2
5.0
4.4
34.52
7.24
81.6
5.91
0.12
1450
50
103.0
23.0
13.73
44.8
10.8
4.84
0.16
1450
100
215.3
46.4
21.19
212.
6.1
12.9
0.12
Idle
—
1.1
6.79
2.17
78.0
1.69
0.20
5
1900
100
231.1
55.7
BMD
133.
6.0
7.98
0.12
6
1900
50
114.6
28.5
BMD
76.6
15.3
11.7
0.16
7
1900
2
5.2
7.1
48.86
13.6
74.9
10.2
0.12
W.F.
Derived
from
13-Mode
FTP
Power
kW
Fuel
kg/hr
Part.
g/hr
BaP
)Jg/hr
SOF
g/hr
0.60
0.53
0.87
4.14
0.71
16.48
3.68
7.17
2.20
0.77
25.84
5.57
25.4
2.54
1.55
—
0.22
0.43
1.36
0.34
27.73
6.68
16.0
—
0.96
18.34
4.56
12.3
—
1.87
0.62
0.85
1.63
5.86
1.22
89.61
22.09
63.8
16.10
7.42
EMD - Below Minimum Detection Limit
7—Mode Composite
Brake Specific Part., g/kw—hr 0.712
Fuel Specific Part., g/kg fuel 2.89
Brake Specific BaP, ug/kW—hr 0.180
Fuel Specific BaP, pg/kg fuel 0.729
Brake Specific SOF, g/kW-hr 0.083
Fuel Specific SOF, g/kg fuel 0.336
Organic Solubles, % 11.7
-------
TABLE A-19. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7—MODE CYCLE
MACK ETAY(B) 673A RUN WITH WATER ADDITION
(Based on 20 x 20 inch Paliflex Media)
W.F. Derived from 13-Mode FTP
Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Part. Org SOF W 9 t. Power Fuel Part. BaP SOF
Mode rpm Load, % kW kg/hr ig/hr g/hr Sol., % g/hr Fact kW kg/hr g/hr Jg/hr g/hr
1 1450 2 5.0 4.6 29.66 8.19 85.0 6.96 0.12 0.60 0.55 0.98 3.56 0.84
2 1450 50 105.8 23.0 18.57 18.8 21.1 3.97 0.16 16.93 3.68 3.01 2.97 0.64
3 1450 100 214.0 46.4 BMD 67.3 6.9 4.64 0.12 25.68 5.57 8.08 BMD 0.56
4 Idle 1.2 30.56 6.37 95.6 6.09 0.20 — 0.24 1.27 6.11 1.22
5 1900 100 236.5 55.7 2.66 51.9 8.3 4.31 0.12 28.38 6.68 6.23 0.32 0.52
6 1900 50 118.0 28.5 20.37 33.7 31.0 10.4 0.16 18.88 4.56 5.39 3.26 1.66
7 1900 2 3.6 7.0 35.17 19.3 84.6 16.3 0.12 0.43 0.84 2.32 4.22 1.96
C
90.90 22.12 27.3 20.44 7.40
BMD - Below Minimum Detection Limit
7—Mode Composite
Brake Specific Part., g/kW—hr 0.300
Fuel Specific Part., g/kg fuel 1.23
Brake Specific BaP, lJg/kW—hr 0.225
Fuel Specific BaP, ug/kg fuel 0.924
Brake Specific SOF, g/kW—hr 0.081
Fuel Specific SOF, g/kg fuel 0.362
Organic Solubles, % 27.0
-------
APPENDIX B
TEST RESULTS FROM THE CUMMINS VTB-903 IN
BASELINE AND MALAD3USTED CONFIGURATIONS
-------
TABLE B—i. ENGINE D—li SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cummins VTB—903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Baseline Configuration
ENGINE DESCRIPTION
Engine: 1979 Cummins VTB—903 Coach
Rated Power: 278 @ 2100
Maximum Torque: @ 1500
Comments: No. 2 Fuel
ENGINE DATA
Mfg. Spec . Measured
Max. Engine Torque, Ft—Lb @ RPM @ 1500 766 @ 1600
Max. Engine Power, Hp @ RPM 278 @ 2100 270 @ 2100
Cylinder Compression, psi min.—max. (avg.)
Idle RPM 625 650
Comments: Rated Power and Maximum Torque are not applicable
POWER MAPPING (TQ in ft—lb) @ Temp. — 78 Baro. — 29.69
RPM TQ RPM TQ RPM TQ RPM TQ RPM TQ
1100 475 2100 676 3100 4100
1200 519 2200 372 3200 4200
— — 1300 584 2300 180 3300 4300
400 285 1400 687 2400 0 3400 4400
500 355 1500 764 2500 3500 4500
600 428 1600 766 2600 3600 4600
700 435 1700 758 2700 3700 4700
800 438 1800 747 2800 3800 4800
900 438 1900 729 2900 3900 4900
1000 464 2000 707 3000 4000 5000
-------
TABLE B—2. ENGINE D-11 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cuininins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Baseline Configuration
DIESEL TRANSIENT CYCLE
Test D11-1 Test D11—2
Cold Hot Composite Cold Hot Composite Average
BC, g/kW—hr 3.18 1.65 1.87 2.87 1.53 1.72 1.79
CO , g/kW—hr 2.25 1.82 1.88 2.35 1.72 1.81 1.87
C0 2 , g/kW—hr 895. 838. 846. 874. 838. 843. 844.
NOX, g/kW—hr 7.77 8.60 8.48 7.72 8.60 8.47 7.83
SFC, kg/kW—hr 0.287 0.267 0.270 0.280 0.267 0.269 0.269
WORK, kW—hr 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.28 12.31 12.31 12.21
POWER, kw 36.51 26.51 36.51 36.84 26.93 36.92 36.62
Particulate, g/kW—hr 0.60 0.46 0.48 0.67 0.49 0.52 0.51
Filter Eff. % 87. 91. 90. 88. 91. 91. 90.
UzMODE IDLE
Test Test Average Test Test Average
I - IC, g/kW—hr 0.944 0.969 9.957
CO, g/kW-hr 2.412 1.988 2.200 BC, ppmC
Ca 2 , g/kW-hr CO ,
NOX, g/kW—hr 9.224 9.352 9.288 Ca 2 , %
SFC, kg/kW—hr 0.254 0.254 0.254 Fuel, kg/hr
POWER, kW 72 72 72
DIESEL TRANSIENT CYCLE AVERAGE VALUES
g/kg Fuel g/kma
BC, g/kW-hr (g/hp—hr) 1.79 (. 1.33) BC 6.65 2.12
CO. g/kW-hr (g/hp—hr) 1.87 ( 1.39) CO 6.95 2.22
NOX, g/kW-hr (g/hp—hr) 7.83 ( 5.84) NOX 29.11 9.28
Particulate, g/kw-hr (g/hp—hr) 0.51 (0.38) Particulate 1.90 0.60
SFC, kg/kW-hr(lb/hp-hr) 0.269 (0.442) FUEL CONS. 319.
WORK, kW—hr (hp—hr) 12.21 (16.37)
a Using a composite value of 1030 km for the Transient Cycle.
-------
TABLEB—2 (Cont d). ENGINE D-ll SUNMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cummins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Baseline Configuration
DIESEL TRANSIENT CYCLE
Test D1l—3 Test
Cold Hot Composite Cold Hot Composite Average
1-IC, g/kW—hr 2.82 1.62 1.79
CO, g/kW—hr 2.31 1.86 1.92
C0 2 , g/kW—hr 883. 837. 844
NOX, g/]cW-hr 6.22 6.61 6.55
SFC, kg/kW—hr 0.282 0.266 0.268
WORK, kW—hr 12.16 12.14 12.14
POWER, kW 36.48 36.42 36.43
Particulate, g/kW—hr 0.67 0.52 0.54
Filter Eff. % 87 91 90
___________________________________________ IDLE
Test Test Average Test Test Average
BC, g/kW-hr RPM
CO, g/kW-hr BC, pprnC
C0 2 , g/kW-hr CO 1
NOX, g/kW-hr Ca 2 ,
SFC, kg/kW-hr Fuel, kg/hr
POWER, kW
DIESEL TRANSIENT CYCLE AVERAGE VALUES
g/kg Fuel g/kma
BC, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr) 1 - IC
Ca, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr) CO
NOX, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr) NOX
Particulate, g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr) Particulate
SFC, kg/kW-hr(lb/hp-hr) FUEL CONS.
WORK, kW-hr (hp-hr)
a Using a composite value of 1030 km for the Transient Cycle.
-------
TABLE B-2 (Cont’d). ENGINE D-11 SUMNARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cummins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Baseline Configuration
13—MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSiON CYCLL 1979
RU, 2 F1*L
FtJFL : EN—i—F PP(’JECT 11— 504 1 4—9 91
MEASURED
NC Co C02 NOX
PPM PPM PCT PPM
332 133 1,14 SI.)
524 173 1.51 59
IS O 43 3.62 1138
41, 80 5.52 ‘485
766 133 7.25 9j5
513 1353 q .*o 1532
352 P613 1.10 Su
120 16* ? ‘UI 126,6,
665 119 S•7O 1331)
95 11 q ‘4,89 213U
152 1*13 2 9* 130
300 1813 1, ? 7u
348 173 1.11) 51)
CALCULATE)
G44AMS / NOUN MODE
PlC CO MDX
+1 33 21) 1
1 3 121 S) 2
53 135 1 3
313 59 51313 ‘4
30 913 60132
23 ‘443 18+9 6 ,
‘*1 36 19 7
7? ?02 2+95 0
‘44 132 1121 q
5* 131 ‘4131 10
SI) 3.52 21? 11
1131 20(1 121 12
‘42 ‘42 1 13
Ll9iijl:S V 4M —9( 13
1FS1 I) ) )— ?
P( )AEN c ) l; I NE TONDIIE 99 .4CR FUEL AIR. INTAME NOX
M( 1)F SP6FI) OHS OMS FLU . FLOVI HIJMII.) CORN
I CUU) / RI ) ’ 0 A l KM KG/NIH NG/P jtl (/l G FACT
loLL / 4.1311 I I 0,0 .1)2* S I)? 0 ,8
1 2 101I-6, / 11,01) 2* 3.4+ .1191 12.05 0.11 •49 ’4
3 25 I iTL / 16,11,1 250 ‘4,0,5 •J 7 12.42 •qql
‘4 Sti L i- / 151)11 529 03 ,j .629 12.913 0 ,8 •4413
S 75 Ir .TLN / [ 6,111 1 773 [ ?1.* .431 13. * 14,8 • 3
13 l. lfl lITER / 15 1 1 1, 11131 6 , [ ,9 •5R4 , 314.412 R ,o .4,9
7 1’LL / 131311 ,j 11.11 .1122 5,11* 8,13 .9913
B lou NATH / 2101i 845 1913.9 •7*R 21.62 4 tJ •483
9 ‘N NA1FL / 211111 ii* 132.? .519 211.115 .u . RS
I II 50 WAlED / 21011 ‘6140 ‘48• 14 •43 5 I9.3 9 ,
I I 25 ‘ 41L() / 261311 1 513 34,3 .252 i7. ” 9,3 •96613
(2 2 NATEI) / 211111 11 2.4 .179 [ 7,143 9 ,3 •38?
[ 1 10,6 L / NhlI 6 i ,n .923 14 •q. k R • Si
8AH01ET H 29.20
DAlE: 01/24/130
CALCULATED
G RAfr I S/K(,—F’JFL
HI. c’J Olix
U ’
1 210.3? 22 64l 13 ,93
2 13 .N? 22•29 1 ,%S
•3 ‘4,*4 S•SII 113,95
‘4 [ ,R? 2•9’4 2s ,t,9
5 1.14 3 .?2 *6.1(6
I , ,4 ,9 [ ‘4. 11 ,4 s. .ci
? 3 • 4 25,4* 16.39
p 1 .?? ‘4’+9 55,133
3 i .5b ‘4.2* 313,115
III 2 .oIb 5,612 17,137
11 5 ,?b 111 .111 14,34
62 15 .1* I13•7S 11.31,
63 3 I 1.4? iII .1,I,i ’I ,l*
G I’ A MS / I( , — H 2
I-IC CO MDX
N P P
14?.?? 31•1, 114,03
1,31 1.139 ‘4.137
.143 .71) 61,01
•2 ’6 .79 R•?5
•J1+ 3.115 11,42
H R P
• 34 1.162 12.13?
.3? .99 R , ’6 5
•5 ’4 3 ,33 ‘4,139
2,32 ‘6.42 13.33
b?•13 ’+ 83.713 504,713
N N P
F/A F/A ‘SET NC F/A F/A
DRY ‘PHI 1 CONk PCI
MFAS STOICH FACT CALC I-IFA$
•11, 1+9 •0195 •ll?ll •44466 .0)9513 15.4
,ob ’IS • l oO .985 •uu7S 1 ,?
•Olbii •flb9S •230 •q13q •i1b1 1,0
.0256 •9 1,95 • :4b8 .952 •l)25? .3
•fl323 •fl1,qc •*b5 .939 • 16335 3,13
.fl ’422 •Ijbq5 .131)? .922 •l )*3? 2,5
•91 1** •JI1,95 , 11133 .988 ,lI(I514 214.1
• (13*9 .01395 •su • 1i342 —2.0
.0261 .1)1395 .371. .951 ,( 1213S 1,13
,02?b .161395 •3?S •q , 1 122* — .0
.01142 • qç ,2’JS .473 •9t39 —2.1
•9 1 113 •01395 .1*8 .901. .0045 —7.5
•llll*b •661395 •I1I,? .9846 • (1115* 1?,?
PO ’ ER ASFC
CORN CORN
FACT KG,Kp , ..t40
990 4
1,0013 1 .1411
1.010
1.013
1.1)18 ,213
.991 4
1.055 .216
3.0*?
1.0141 .254
1.03*
1.03(1 ‘6,331.
.992 4
MODAL
nEII.;rIl MIJI.)F
F AC I UN
.6113? 1
•n8o 2
.980 3
.08( 1 ‘4
1,
.081) 13
7
.(l13I1 64
.1 14+ 11 9
.080 10
.080 1 1
• 0140 12
.1)13? 33
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13—MOUE NEIGHT F CTflNS
13S I -IC = . h9 GRAM/Nw—HR ( .723 GRAM/O4HP—HR
HSC O — 1.989 GHAM/lI. ,4—hR ( 1.643 G4+AM/I3HP—HR
— q.35? GRAM/kV4 ’164 ( 13.9?? GRAM/NI- 1 I-44 )
NS’-IC 1 . IISNOX = 1(1.321 GRAM/NM—rIP C 7.1390 GRAM/R44PHR
COWl ?. RSFC • = .256 KG/Nw—I-IN ( .41? L (IS/8NP—HR
-------
TABLE B-2 (Cont’d). ENGINE D-1l SUMMARY OF 1 ESULTS
1979 Cuxnrnins VTB—903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Baseline Configuration
I3MODE EED(RAL DIFSEL EMISSION CYCLE 3979
4,A8O .ETtN 29.1?
DATE: O1/2Q, 11
MEASURED
i-IC CU C02 MDX
PPM PPM PCI PPM
34R 173 1.O ‘+9
528 235 1.52 51
1+1 153 3.*5 175
42 134 5 53 ‘+91)
7? 194 7.3+ 95o
SI, 774 9,3? J539
3*4 205 1.1(1 S
1311 151, 7.’+’ 1253
92 133 5.73 33
92 138 ‘4,75 2NIJ
152 IRb 2.92 124
B ’4 212 2.00 55
32” ILIO 1.1? 49
(.ALC IJLAT IJ)
G9AMS / IIIJUP MODE
PlC CL rJuX
91 ‘Ii 19 1
192 153 Sh 2
Sri L’iH 1 S 3
3* [ iii 555 ‘4
29 1*) 1058 5
23 597 l3S? b
‘+1 ‘49 19 7
82 1811 2*25 14
4 1+4, 11111 9
52 152 *53 10
79 19? 2112 11
iS o 2.3 108 12
35 +2 I? 13
MODAL
WEJOHI MODE
FAC 10k
•Ub? I
.0811 2
3
.0 5rJ ‘ I
•ii8U S
• 1j9 1 1 I,
7
.111 )11 8
•1 18 1 1 S
.081] 11)
•FI8IJ 11
•U U 12
•U+’? 13
PUP ’ER MSFC
LI) 14R C1) 1 1 -
FACT PSG/l ’bI 444
•989 8
1.11(14 j• ’ +Jij
1.0 0k
1 . ri , iR •237
1.011
1.013
.qql) 9
1.051 •2jh
1.09 3
1.03? •2 53
1.024
1 o2h 4 ,334,
•99 ? p
C’i I - S VIM—Si’) . # FiiEl_
iFS) ‘11—1 FuEL: E 1_3?I_F PkI)JLCI:11— * ’ +—fli ,1
Pu I- 1 TCIOOUF Pili.ER FIJEL AIR INTAKE MDX
SPEFM IIflsS 1 )135 FLI)b FLU ’ Ht)I’3 1) 48
013 Ci’’ ’ / PPM 1 . I Kb 1 <0,/8 10 4,0/MId l;/1<1, FACT
loLl / 4,511 1 11.0 .1122 5 .Ih •4I ,?
2 2 1O )L 1 / ISOil 24 3.9 •, ,9 12,24 R P3 •+i R
3 S 1 T [ ’ / ik1]ii 254 ‘+11.5 .21) 32.53 9,14 . 7? Ii
4 O 1 TFP / I5iiii 52 ’I 93,] •34ii 13.1,? 8 8 .‘ ?2
S 75 1 1F-< / 151111 77) )?i, ’ 4 • ‘427 13•S5 14.8 . 3
1 . 1101 11-T IM / I5 (’ l 31131 151.4 .514? 1 ’ + .iiS 9,9
7 fl’LF / I-SI, I I L$•II .1+?) 5.13 9.8 .94,?
‘4 I ’ ll P ’f ,Tf) / 2111,1 895 3459 .7414 ?1. 3 9,14 .4714
75 8A1 ) / 21111 +,114 132.7 .51 ), ?Il.)l+ 8.8 .972
i 50 bA 1l) / 2)1111 ‘441+ ‘38,9 .9311 19.49 9,9 .971
I) . ‘5 8ATI) / 2 10+ 15k 34,3 •?‘49 1R,l ’+ 9.8 .059
I . 2 l ATf [ ) / 21I , 11 2.4 .1?? 17.53
13 1’ ’Lf / Ski Ii .1121 5.05 9,9 .957
CA I..CI ILAIE) F/A /A “‘FT MC F/A F/A
M0i1
A S/ . .4 l l -1.
PlC C° • .X
GkAi4S, . ,.,_4-lW
‘IC c i PIlIX
DRY
MEAS
STiller- s
‘P81’
COMR
FAL I
CALC
PCI
MEAS
I
31.18 31.39 1 ’4_s ,2
.no ’ +3
•,it ,qs
•uh2
.999
•nhlS3
23.8
2
33.51 ê ’4• ’ 3+, lii , ??
‘+7.57
‘+2.99 1 1 4•S9
•I l+I7S
•()59 5
•1o?
•985
•(lO ?5
1,0
3
‘4
‘4.15 )h.20
) ,) 28• ’4
1 ,?9
• ‘42
2.+ ’b 4.92
1.22 h 79
•oIb2
.0255
• I84S
• ,hR5
,?33
.35?
.959
•452
•s 11h3
•t 1258
.
1,0
1.11 5 .S1 * )4,9
.24
1 .1k R R1]
•D)LA
• ‘45?
•939
•n33S
4,.
S
.1,4 lh .+ ,? 52.??
.I ’l
3. 1,2 11 .’+?
.11*211
• 1 1595
•kIi ’ +
.922
.111432
2.14
7
Iii. 1* ) ‘ - 1 14.19
9
9 9
•flij ’+5
•+ ,k45
•lih’+
• 8
,rl055
22,5
8
) “5 ‘4,22 54,34
,42
•8 i, J 32
•ol+2
•lk9S
•492
•q37
• p3*h
1.1
9
‘+•j )653
.75
1 .1’) 8,29
•o253
.11545
•371
,951
•028?
3.3
In
2.111 S. ’ 3 17.5?
.53
1.54 4 ,bi
•0223
.0595
.321
•SSR
•u222
—,S
I
5,24 12,92 13.51
2,31
5.59 5.51)
.11 L3 ’ 3
.0555
•2i) li
.979
•r ij34
—.1
12
14.1? 21 ,il 5 111,211
h?_R2
99,53 ‘+c 3l.
•n6qc
•1+b
• 9 ’L
• 9?
— ‘ +
Ii
20,1111 33 ,iil 13.15
5
p 9
.1111*2
•iuhSS
•(I5J
•9+4I4
•(I055
31.4
IYCLO COMPOSITE 1519,; 13—MODE “EIl;+-ll FACTOI1S
ii:,r ’C — •9* ’ + Of’ 48/ 1c9..Hl . ( .704 /
= 2.41? GkM/’c ’-. —p-i6 ( 1 .749 HAM/p4PlP—r1P
s3SNI)X = 4.224 GkAM/ 1414 —s1I ’i ( 5 q9 t;RA l/RPlP —M41
i -+S 1C + 44SM11 +11.11,9 G2AM/ r ’+—HR ( ?.SAh IAM/MtlP ’+lP
COl?9. +ISFC — .25* KG/1< ..—Hr C .417 L BS/ H OP —h P
-------
HC MAS5 G A?,5
CO ‘1455 G A,S
C07 MASS CRAMS
PIOX 1 1455 GPAMb
FUEL i; (LI’)
HP (uP PIP)
1
NYPIF
?‘4I,_q (p9*)
651 1,2 (?S ,b)
*Pi•q (12(1 .0)
131 79.
295 • 9
29b ,5 (1011?).)
37,05
1 11 1.
22.
.32
17 ,8
7.5*
?• Sq
I 0. I )?
.55’, (
1 .3 I C
2
LANF
71113 .9 (29.4)
1350,2 (25.13)
118•9 (120.0)
30U.2
300.6 (10618.)
P 3 4,
11.17
22112.1
J ?.U7
.709 (
2.23 (
3
LAF
7413 ,9 (2R_ )
1350.2 (25 ,b)
‘18.9 (120,0)
13372 ,
305 • o
3115..? (1O?i ,)
1.01 -
- 100.1
14.75
8,
5 1 33b .f .
58
1 ,7%
7,35
‘4
HY P’F
?413 •S (29 ’l)
1350.2 (25.13)
‘4$•q (120.0)
2 7 • o
297.6, (10510.)
*5,44
31.
.12,
.25
15 ,8
5.26
‘4.32
13+1.3
g.qq
. 530 (
9.813) . 1,25 (
.957 C 33,90)
1 .254
.1031 C •U?b8)
,3SM13 C .11331)
ENGINE iU ,C 9 ( 13
ENGINE jc)rL. ?‘4 CU I1 s VIM 903
ENGiNE I’4 .R L(’1 113. C l i )) V..9
LVS NC. ii ,
BAROMETER 751.8* MM p 1,(?q ,h (l IN HG)
Up’ RuIR lElip. DEG C(?2 .u DEG F)
8*1, RESULTS
MAC N;iIlRF l
DESCQIPIIu i
ML0’ ER DIE P MM H2O(Th H20)
BL!IWEI) PILIT P MM, 120(IN. M20)
L0WEP INLET 1EMP. DUG• C(DEG• F)
FILOWEP RFVULbIIIDNS
TIME SEC’ ’.DS
TOTAL fL1’ STU• CU MEIRES(SCF)
TI IBLE 5 -2 (Cont’d). ENGINE D-11 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cuitani s VTB—903 Coach
Fuel No. 2 PHOJECT No, 11—5u ’p l—uigj
Baseline Configuration
TEST 110 . 01 1 _ I RUN
DATE 2/ 1/80
- TIME 01:53 DIESEL EM_321.F
DY’iO NU , 5 - BAG CARl NO, .
RELATIVE HIJI4IOJTY ‘,q PT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8,3 GM/Ks( 7 .8 GRAINS/_LB) N x HUMIDITY C .F . 1.0000
MEIER/RANG(/PPM
.
i - IC
BCMG
IIEIEP/RANGE/ppM
.
. 52•qm,,
53•
73.2/11/
CO
SAMPlE
1ER/RA .4 .C,E ppcp
q .0 / 1
q•
9.1/ 1/
CO
BCI GPD
MEIFRIPM4GF/ppM
213,9/13/
24,
2’+•2/13/
CO
SAMPLE
MEIER,RA’1Gf,PCT
j ,9/j3 /
2.
.5/13/
CO
BCMI,Po
HEIEp/RAf cF,pCI
21.91 3/
•35
27 j / 3,
NUX
NOX
SAMPLE
HcsGrI)
METFR/PA ’. GF,ppM - .
METER/RANGE/PPM
2,5/ 3/
8.2/ 13,
•U4
jq
3,0/ 3,
DILUTIOrj FACTOR
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO Cr)NCCi- IRAy1ON PPM
CO? CIH’JCCNTRATION PC:
NOX. CUNC{NTRAJION PPM
73.
9.
22
1.
• 14 14
•05
.3’..
1.
92 ,3/11/ ‘ 1 2• —
- 9 / 1/ ‘1,
27.7113/
,B/13 / 1,
• 59•3 / 3/ 1. 1)13
3 ,o, 3, .u5
- . 31,?.j3 , 101, - -
1.1/ 2/ 1,
_12. 63 • -
- M l . .
23,
‘+0.3/11/
q•M/ 1/
15.2/li,
j8 ,j , 3/
2 , / 3/
1,1/ 2/
F SC0 G/Kh NP
(1,/HP Hi . )
14SCU2 1,/Kl FIR
(C/NP I s P)
4ISHOX t ,/N , HR
(1,/hp HP)
44SFC KG/MN
(LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESIIL1S
‘4 MACS
THIAL KP. lip (PP
HP)
12.1?
BSRC C,/tcH Up
(C/Hp H p)
( 113,3?)
3.18
HSCO G/rk. HP
(GulP MN)
( 2,37)
2.25
RSCU? C/Ic ” NM
(G/HP HP)
1,139)
C
tiSUOX pp
(C/HP HP)
RqS,
7.?? c 13,80)
MSFC IcC/KM HP
1.22)
1. 7 ’l)
‘4.21)
‘4,23)
959.513)
5.132)
. 581)
i i )
‘3’
1 ,
• 1 1 ’ 4
1.
•95)
I . 5?)
( 3,I’i-)
C 2 S8)
( R jri ,9
( 5,3?)
( ,Sbb)
5.13*
S_ I,? (
12913,79
7.51
•41I (
5.00
.21
9813, b?
7 ,b 2
.31 7
1•Sb)
3,Oo)
3,73)
C 2,39)
C ?35 ,ui)
( 5 .130)
C .52?)
1.13
?bb, 5*
7.913
,2’ +*
- PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR ‘I BAGS
1.50)
C 8S)
5,9*)
L •*O 1)
‘1 ,21
3,4 1,
1073.92
7,20
.3* ’ 1
OMH FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MtJLTIPLIER FOR
MIJLTIPL1EH FOR
MULTIPL 1EM FOR
20 X ?ii FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM ( SCF)
1,/TEST
C/M.d HR (G l4P I -IN)
G’XG FUEL (G/L€. FUEL)
SCM(SCF)
83,138 (2955,7).
-------
E GINE N(’.(: qil
F ’ GIP F iOEl ? ‘4 CU 1INS ‘ TliM1l3
Er.GJNF 14.8 L(Moi. C lU) V—H
C S N!I• Ill
b*2OMETFR 751.8* MM Hc( , q ,hI I IN I i1,)
Opy SULM 1VP ’p. 22.2 UEG C(?2.u [ lEG F)
bAG RESULTS
NAG JMf01
l)ESCRIPT!0
l1LOWE O lE P ‘114 Ii?fl( R2LI)
P( ) E. INLET P (114, 120(1 5. 1420)
1L P Ek ITJLL [ EE 9 p• DEG• C(DEG• F)
NL()I.ER LLVULU1 I [ l’ S
1 I E SErOs!)S
TOTAL FLU .’ STU , CU PIETF4LS(SCF)
TABLE 5-2 (Cont’d). ENGINE D-11 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cuirunins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2 - PHOJECT NO . fl—5u’ .—otu
Baseline Configuration -
TEST NU.D1 1—i RUM
DATE 2/ 1/8(1
TIME ‘121*0 DIESEL tN_321_F
DY O 140, S BAG CARl NO. I
RELATIVE HIJMI [ lITY *9, PCI
AbSOLUTE MIJPIIUITY 8.3 GM,p.G( 57.8 Gp A1NS/Lb) NOXHUM IOIT ’T L.F , 1 ,i)0Ou
I
NYNF
7*b 8 (2q,*)
65 11 ,2 (25.6)
+9. (120,0)
SI RI.
2 q •
- 2 b•p, (Lu+?7 .)
NC
NC
CO
CO
CU?
CU?
‘ 10*
“Ox
SA’ plE
hC GPf)
SAMPLE
13 C ‘ P
SV ’IPLF
S C l 611;
SAMPLE
ME R/RAN E/PF(4
‘lE TER/ . (MIG [ ,pp I4
ME r1/ . A lr,E,pp.4
“E IER/NAN(,F/PCT
HF IEP/RAo,E/PcT
(IL TFp/pA JGE/pp*i
Mf (ER/RANGE/PPM
2
LANE
?*b R (29 . ’I)
bSu .2 (25.6)
*8,9 (120,0) -
--
31 1 0 ,n
300 .b (10618,)
3
LAF
?*b•8 (2q .*)
650.2 (25.6)
+8,9 (120.U)
6372,
305.0
3O5 B (IO8UU .)
P.7/22/
1/
1.1/13/
I .I/ 3/
3,2/ 3/
5 S/l3/
.8/ 2/
‘4
( (VHF
7*6.8 (29.,)
650.2 (25.6)
‘49.9 (12(1.11)
297,6 (10511.)
9.2/22/
q,,q/ 1/
2O 1/13/
•9 ,’ I3
25.6/ 3/
3.1/ 3/
11.2/ 13/
•B/ 2/
+ 6•
IR ,
•05
3’4,
1 ,
8.2/22/
11 .0/ 1/
23 b/13/
I •fl/13/
5R ,+/ 3/
3,1/ 3/
38 . 2/1 3/
.3/ 3/
I)ILOTIUPI FACTO d
P lC COliCCpTpA1j p
f ’ P1
‘+5.53
CO CONCLUTRA1IOM
PP, ,
CU? CO (ICFNIRA1 ION
PCI
p4.
bOX CONCF.HTRA lION
PPM
- --
-
.2*
15,9
HC MASS G AMS
CU MASS GNA S
C D? MASS GUAMS
50* MASS G144145
FUEL KG (L i i)
MW HR (PIP liP)
+1 , -
11 ,
21,
1
1.03
•05
1 ,
12 ,0/ 1/
16,2/13/
I • U / 1 3 /
3•U/ 3/
6.3/13/
.‘ / 2/
ib,
I? ,
1 ’4
1
•0 5
19.
I ,
31.58
1?•
.3? --
32,9
33.
q
1_
•2q
• (1 c
1?.
1•
•q3)
I • 72)
2.4*)
2. ?S)
7k ?. 15)
5.22)
• 538)
31,
20.
.99
113.8
* • 21)
* • 7*
1312.5
9, 11(1
.*70 C
1.28
3 ,27
3 kq (
1022_fIb (
? .tIt (
.32?
I3SHC G/Kl . HR
(G/MP HP)
I 1SCO G/ 1c14 1114
(N/piP HP)
NSCO ? c;,Ic , . , H p ’ .
(s/Hp 4414)
FIS I4OX G/M+ 14 (4
(G/hP ‘114)
NSFC KG/MM Ilk
(LH /NP HP)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS
* SAGS
TOTAL MN (41, (liP
HP)
Ip ,17
liSpiC C ./lcI HP
(6/NP Ilk)
I.h5
C
118CC) G/ ’ . liP
(6/liP 1414)
1.14?
(
NSCD ? C/ M b Ilk
(P/HP HP)
R3ii
C
PS ’IOX G/K’l 14114
((/HP (414)
8 bn
C
HSFC MG/MW 1411
(Lb/lip” 1414)
.26?
5S29•e
66.5*
1.752
3,0?) ?•3* (
5.8*
20*8.6
•666 C
2, q C
2• 5h
pqs ?
8.28
.286
* P • 02
2*.
j 3.
.2*
1?•q
‘4.18
* • SI,
131*,8
10,18
•* j ( .q 3 )
1.27 C 1.70)
2.05)
C 1,91)
( bN7 ,9?)
( b ,j?)
( •*?j)
lb.3?)
1.23)
1 • 35)
P26.)
N..; ()
•*39)
3,Rb)
9 ,8*)
C .55)
( .71)
562.13)
P. b ,7b)
C •393)
- PAMTLCIJLATE PA1A, JI .J1AL F 0 8 ‘4 BAG5
.95
- 753 ,83
3.30
3.60 C
1038.11 (
8 o*
.332
2 _bq)
5• qq)
•5*6)
90 ( 1(1 FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIEP FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
(1OLTIPLIER FOR
20 X 211 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLO”
SCM(SCF)
I EST
6/ 1cM HR (6/HP 1114)
6/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
1.U13 C 35 ?R)
1. 1)15
•u973 C .0726)
.36*8 ( .1655)
SC P I(SCF)
83 ,9* (2Mb+ b)
-------
1 GINE NI, -
E ,191 MUOFL 79 CUtTMINS vTeqn3
1F CI0F 14.9 L( ’ o3. dO) v..
c S NO. III
BAROMETER 7 ’e5, ’I MM Hr.( ’9 ,3. IN HG)
I)f V RULH 11(11’, 2 .0 OEG C(fl ,n DEG F)
Tp BLE 5-2 (Cont’d).
1979 Cummins
- FUel No. 2
Baseline Configuration
TEST 90.011—2 RUN
DATE 2/ ‘4/80 -
TIME 12:58
DYNO NO. S
BAG RESULTS
NAG 9lI ’r,Fk
flfSCRJPTT0
(‘LOWER O lE P MM, h2O(IN H2O)
HLnWEP tILLI 41 . H2U(IN. 1420)
NL (iwEp IP LET TEHP . DEC, C(DEG , F)
14LO E4 PF* ’L (jtIfluS
TINE SECdN ()S
TOTAL FL(h. SIL)• CU, ; -ilRFS(SCF)
UILUTIU FACT’IN
(IC CO”CI r..IPAI ION PP ’
CO CU’JCTN (9*1 Zoo PPP..
CD? CUNCLNTRATIUT4 PC)
901. C0 C1NTRAI10N PPM
(‘C “ASS (;NAMS
CO MASS f,I(AMS
CU? MASS GRAMS
ROY MASS G ’A”S
FUEL KG (L4’)
MN HR (UI’ 94)
1
NY N F
7’+N•R (?9 ’4)
6511.2 (25.6)
‘49,9 (1211 ,0)
6183.
296 II
2 3.9 1038? .)
‘43.
23 ,
•2q -
16.8
7 ,23
‘.9?
j5?q ,5
•soq C
(.3? (
2 3
LANE LAF
7*6,8 (2g . ’.) 7 (6 ,8 ( s . ’+)
650.2 (25.6) - -- bSo.2 ( ?c.b)
‘48•9 (120,0) *8,9 (120.0)
6266. - 6372,
300 (I --- 3u5 a
29? .q 1OS21.) - - 302,9 1Ob99 ,)
13.9/22/ 69. - 17.6/22/ . -- -
13,0/ 1/ 13. -- 12,1/ 1/ 12,
26,4/13/ 2 ’ 4• - 3n9/13/ 28,
2,4/13/ 2, 2,3/13/ 2,
27.7/ 3/ - - 4 5 611,1/ 3/ i.u -
3,9, 3/ - ,Ub - - - ‘I•o, 3/ •Ub
M•7/13/ - 2 q - - - - - 34,7/13/ 10*. - --
,7/ 2/ 1 . .7/ 2/ - 1.
9,1,9
7,35
16.2? --
1.12) .696 C
j 8 ’+) 2,25 C
NY NE
796,8 (2’4 .’4)
650.2 (25.6)
*8,9 (120,0)
6202,
296 9
294,8 1O’41 ’I .)
‘4 ,86
4.61
13! ,6, 1
9 , 00
‘(35 (
1.2?
TUIAL TEST RCSIIL1S ‘4 NAGS
PARTIC(JLATE DATA, TOTAL FOR ‘4 BAGS
ENGINE D-11 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
VTB—903 Coach
PHOJECT 1,0. 115i3 ’4*001
- DIESEL ‘ 4-321-F
- - _BAG CARTN0. 1 -
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ‘43. PCI
- - - ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8 ,b GM/KC(bD.5 GPA1NS/LB) _ _NOX.PlUMIDIT’T C.F. 1,0000
- Hr
SAMPlE ‘IElEN/NANI;F/ppM
1(1.5/22/
5?,
MC
BCWGOC
MFIFk/pA91,E/ppM
q,q , ,
j ,
Co
SAMPLE
WLP/RA GE/PPM
?H.?/I3/
26,
CU
(‘CMG ’L
4IlFR/RAP41,E/PPM
2,5/13/
2,
CU?
S& P1E
‘I TEk,.1-4r 1,E/PCT
22,2/ 3/
,36
C l ’?
MC (;PD
ME 1f6/6ANCF/PCT
‘1,14/ 3/
.07
901
SaMPLE
ME1fk/RA Jl.E 1 PPM -
- - 5.8/13/
jR,
001
BCKGOI’
M€IER,RAOoF,PP9 -
.7/ 2/
1.
8.1/22/
12,2/ 1/
2.i/1 3/
jq•* 1 3/
* U/ 3/
S,b/j3/
•8/ 2/
28 ,R? - 12.39 - ‘42.2?
51, , - - - 77. - - - 29.
- - - - - - 25, - 13. -
- - . ‘+CL__ 1.01 ,25 -
- 28.6 103.6 - Ib ,t)
HS (IC G/k’ FIR (G/i$P FlU)
HSCU 0/NO HR (C/HP HP)
HSC(J2 G/O . HR (C/HP I I )
(OSoUX (;/v . HR (C/UP H#)
HSFC M1,/V ’ HR (LN/HP UN)
5627,8
- 60,03
1,53) _1.? 2 (
3.0?) - - 7•3q (
‘ I 0 .
12,
lb.
2.
.31
.116
17.
1.
• 96)
I • 70)
( 2,96)
2,72)
( 799,58)
( 5,3u)
( , SbS)
5,??
1151.15
6 • 9(1
.371
C 3,93)
‘4.33)
C 85R. ’Il)
C 5,19)
( ,61O)
* • 30
3.2?
962,12
7,23
.308
( 3,?1)
C 2,14)
( 717,45)
( s•aq)
( ,SOR)
- - - 1.82
I • 20
761.71
8, 3
,2’ 13
3 ,qS)
q.q I)
- 1.36)
1. .9o)
I 568.01)
1 h,ub)
I •398)
TOTAL
Ku UN
(HP
HP)
12.28 C 16,4?)
90MM FILTER
(ISHC
C/Kb
HR
(C/HP
P9)
2,8? C 2.1*)
SAMPLE FLOW
ISCO
G/K I
P 14
(l;/HF’
PR)
2.35 (
1,75)
MULTIPLIER
FUN
HSCIJ2
G/KF
HR
(1./HP
HR)
97+, ( i,c ,)
-
MULTIPLIER
FOR
14SNO
i;/lc”
99
(1,/HP
Ilk)
7.?? C 5.76)
MULTIPLIER
FOR
HSFC
r C,/K .
(49
(LB/HP
FIR)
.280 ( ,+ht()
20 X 2(4 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
--
3,8*
3,6*
1072.25
7.10
. 3**
SCM(SCF)
0/TEST
C/KM HR (C/HP NH)
6/MG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
,q ’+ C 33,68)
1.29?
.1016 C .0758)
•3 1 ,3* ( .lb4B)
SCM(SCF) -
- - - 93,49 ( 9 ’ 1 8 ,q)
-------
GIL(ItI(J!J FACTUli
HC CWCL ( - TP I I UN PPP’
C I) CHI.Cl r 1Ri I J Us FP ’
Cop CflI C [ .TNA1IoN ( ‘CT
NOX C0’ cEO.T(’ Al 101) PPri
I- IC HASS C.PANS
CO A5S GPAMS
COp ASS 1) ’S
Mf)X TM ASS G ?AP .S
IUI-L +15 (LI)
lcW HP (HP HP)
NY I - F
?+I. ,8 (24,1+)
bS’ (.2 (. 5 ,b)
‘48•q (12(1.0)
bj 41 ,
2 qi , 1 (1o389 ,)
73.
II ’.
25
lb.2
3 • ‘ In
‘4.73
1 35 ( ’ • 2
9.1 (
.43?
1.32 (
2
LA ME
71+5.8 (24.1+)
(‘50.2 (25.1.)
‘+A•9 (12(1.0)
3110 • Ii
298.1 (111528.)
3 (1 •
• 3q
33.5
5.81
5 .Sb
21(9 • ‘4
14.09
.1 ?11 (
4.2 C
MULTIP?LIeN FLIP
MULTIPLIE’ - ( FoP
41IILTIPLIE ( FOR
DIESEL tM..321_F
BAG CARl 90,
3
LAF
?‘+b H (29 ’4)
(‘50,2 (2S A)
+8,4 (120.0)
3115.0
303.2 (1o?Ub.)
lc?.b S
- 29
1 4 .
1.013
I lb ,b
5.10
3, 5 ’ 4
5555.3
1.71.0 1.
?.+2 ( .
5CM (SC F)
G/ TEST
G/Xw HR (G/HP (14)
5/KG FUEL (5/LB FU .L)
I I
N Y ‘ F
7+5.8 (29.4)
(‘50.2 (25.5)
15,9 (120,0)
52U1.
• 9
255.0 (10*21,)
23.
12.
.2 11
3.99
1285, *
1 II • 1 3
.411 C
1.28 (
.973 1 .38)
I • 223
.0993 ( .07*1)
•372? ( •1b41)
(Cont’d). ENGINE D-1l SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cuinmins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Baseline Configuration
TEST 11(1.1)11 —7 RUN
D TfT 7/ ‘ l/Bti
TInE ui:*5
OYNI ( NO. S
E11GI’ r lI_I•
I- ‘-r; j nE pull L 7 1I MI11 ‘ IS V P341 ’ :3
LI.GJMi (‘1.8 L(4 13• do) v—l i
CVS 511 • Ill
t1A ) 1CMF TEN 7+5.2+ riM 141)(pq , 3 ’i IN HI;)
UPY MIlL’-, I [ p-p 25.11 DE(; C(7- .( ’ r)ELi F)
BAG PFSI.JL IS
HAG 11111-01 P
NE SCN I PT I ur
(1L1l+l - P I ’IF P H2’)( JL n711)
HLO4ER InLE I P ‘IM, 2U( II ) . F (7q)
(iLfl. ,EK INLET Tf-rlP II+rG C(OEG , F)
‘ILIIWER iI l OLlt I I I IUS
T I+’E SLC’)NUS
1l)IAL FLI) STU CL ). FIEIRES(SCF)
P4 0JECT NO, 11—5U’+ ’ 1—OnI
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ‘+3. (‘CT
AI3SQLU1E NLJsIDITY 8.5 G+-i/KG( 50.5 GRAIHS/LB)
-- NOX HIJMIDITI C .F, 1•000(I
HC
SAMPLE
ML1F41/PANI,E/PPM
NC
HCNGIU
HF I [ p/NA ’ -JI;F,PPM
Ct)
SAIPI.E
E1 EH/PAN(;E/PPM
CO
HCI(Got()
HI- FI T/ k 401,1/PPM
CUp
SAIPLI-
‘F I F P/PAU SE/PC I
Cr)?
BCWr ,110
‘E I 1 P/ IQAN(;E/PCT
( lI lA
SAhOLE
1€ Il- R/P44NI/PP-i
NUX
HCPU’,P.D
HF TI- R/HA ’ IGF/PPM
If
12.1/ 2/
I • lit 3/
lP. t l/ 3/
3.3/ i
5.5/13/
.1+1 2/
TABLE 5-2
II ’.S ) )
I .?Ii)
(‘25.)
(‘.112)
• ‘+38)
I4SHC 5/K It H ,? (S/ HP liP)
llSC&I r,/KI ) lIP t( ./HP ‘-IN)
1-45C 112 1,/11v +111 (1,/HP li)
I 4 SNUX (,/I- . HP (G/H ’ P5)
PSI-C +15/ N v. HP (U/HP HP)
11)141. TEST RESULTS ‘A FlAGS
‘+5.
8,2/22/ ‘11.
7.2/22/
35,
1?.
12.7/ 1/
12.
12.7/ 1/ 13.
l2 , / 1/
13
15.
jq , 3 113 ,
1?.
22.4/13/ 20,
15.5/13/
1*.
1.
,9/13/
1,
1.0/13/ 1
1.1/13/
1,
•3 ( 1
2b,S/ 3/
.13 -
S .S/ 3/ 1.05
17.7/ 3/
.28
•05
3,2/ 3/
.05
3 ?/ 3/ .1(1.
3.0/ 3/
.05
1? ,
0 ,
lj ,3/13/
,*/ 2/
3+.
(1,
39•j/j3/ 11 .
•3/ 3/ 1,
5.1/13/
• ‘I/ 2/
18.
U.
• ‘ I l )
1 .??)
1,18)
3,0?)
3.841)
9,91.)
•9i)
1.72)
p.95
( 2.70)
2 5 ’e
( 1.R )
•h9 ( .51)
3.11
C 2.32)
3q54
( 2.541)
2,1+3
C i.Ri)
•R8 C .55)
3.3+
( 2. ’+41)
( 772.1?)
922,37
((1417,81)
7+5,1? 1.5541,13)
1U1IU , 3
(71+5,39)
( ‘.
( 5.17)
Ii ,3q
( 5,22)
.Ij 1. 5,79)
7.89
( 5 R8)
I PT AL
H S 4 4 C
l (S [ ()
H5C( r7
H SN OX
HSFC
P H Pl (HP
1,/Pc (IN
G/Ic lAM
1,/+c+ H
G/K PIP
1 (51+1 . 4 ’ (
HP)
(N/lip I -IN)
(5/HI-’ HP)
(S/Hp HP)
(S/UP HP)
( IN/HP PR)
1? ,31 (
1.53
1.7?
41341• (
(4 ,5( 1
.2”?
P, I-4T]Cl)LATE 0A14, TUTAL FOR 1+ BAGS
q( (I-lM FILTER
SAMPLE FLU
211 X 21’ FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCE)
B ’l , ’l ’+ (2982.5)
‘I
-------
ENGIP [ NU
LPGIRi- !IU1’CL ?9 CurililtiS V 113903
ENC.INE I’4,P L(q03. CII)) V—R
cVs Nfl• II I
BAROMETER 7 U .?1’ PM HG(28 .38 IN HG)
DRY BoLD TEMP. 25.11 DEG C(fl.t1 DE(, F)
(Cont’d). ENGINE D-1l SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Culmnins VTB—903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Baseline Configuration
TEST NU.1 1113 RUN
DATE 2/ S/80 -
TIME 01:25
YNO 110. 5
TOTAL TEST RESULTS * t3Ac.S
IIY N I•
?*ls_8
bSO . .! (25•b)
+8•q (1211.0)
bi 80 .
2 B • o
(10381.)
- PA+ T1CULATE DAJA, TOTAL FOR * BAGS
qOMM FILTER
SAMPLE i-LO’
MULTIPLIER FOR
MIJLTJPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER i-OR -
20 X 211 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
SCM(SCF)
C,, ii- Si
G/XM KR (0/HP HR)
0/KG FUEL (G/LB FUEL)
14
NY N F
7 1 Ib R (2 4)
h50.2 (?S.k)
*8•8 (120 ,0)
1,201.
2 9? • n
29*.M (1o 1? .)
•R1I8 & t.3S)
I • 3+0
•I103 C .0822)
•390? ( •1??2)
TABLE B-2
BAG I FSIILTS
RAG Il1 Wf
Uf.SC”IPTI(N -
MLPMi- P f)!F P MM l ?O( I I I H 2 tj)
nt1 I -4 jEl FT P MM. 020( 10. 112 13)
PL0 1R TULET 1tMP DEG, C(DEG• F)
fiLIIv.F P RE VIJ1U I IONS
I PIE SECI NMS
TOTAL FLOK STI). CU REIRFS(SCF)
PROJECT NL 11—SU* *—0O1
DIESEL tM_321_F
- BAG CARl NO. j
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 91,, PC 1
ABSOLUTE HUMiDITY 9.? GM/icG( 1,14•7 GRAINS/L 13) - - NUX HUMIDIfl C.F. 1.01100
2 -- 3
LANE LAF -
?u, .ll (? .4) -- ?*b lI (29 . )
bSO ,2 (25.b) _NSO .? (25. )
+8•q (120.0) ‘k8.M (120,0)
- b371 ,
3UU fl 305.0
298.0 (1oS2 .) 303.0 (io7u2.) -
MC SAMPl F p*TER/RANC’E/PPM
10,1/22/
S(J•
12 ?/22/ b3 , 15.9/22/ 81),
? .b/22/
3 .
NC RCKGIU MEIER/PARGF./PPM
h .7/ 1/
?
8.0/ 1/ 8, - 8 ?/ 1/ .
.8/ 1/
10,
CO SA PI.E NFJFR,NA0 ,E/PPM
-
?b.9/Ii/
2*
?+ .b/13/ - 22. 28,2/13/ .
1b.1/I -9/
15.
IC HCP GI1, MFIER/PANGE/PPM
1.0/13/
1.
•q/13/ 1. .?/ / i
.7/13/
1.
CC? SA’ PLE MEIER/.RAPIGE/PCT
21.1/ 3/
•3*
b 8/ 3/ . 4 - s+1•q/ 3/ j u’4
1?,’/ 3/
.28
Cl i? sCKG r’ RE(ER/RAN(,E/I’CT
2 S/ 3/
•U14
2./ 3/ •fl 4 ? 3/ 3/ •j 14
?•S/ 3/
•o*
NOX SAMPLE MF1FR/HAMGF/PPM
4 3/13/
L , - -
8 0/13/ 2l 8.2/j3/ - S , - - -
* /j3/
13
NOX RCIcC.UC METER/RAMGE/PPM
•b/ 2/
1.
•9/ 2/ 1. b/ 2/ L -
•?/ 2/
1.
O1LUTIUN FACPJR
38,514
2’ .9 * 12.7*
*7.3*
MC CflMCUp ,TPA11 li ppo
14*.
-
5 b . 7..
- 2H.
CO CUNCII .TRA1L(IN PPM
22.
-
2).---- +. - -
- 1 + .
CD? CO 4CL 1WA 1IOR PCT -
•3 1 1
• 1 4U — 1.01
- .2 +
FOX COl -JC [ RTRA!I0O PPM
12.3
- 23.0 - 8 1 4•j
12.1
MC “ASS GRAMS
7 ‘43
Cl 51, - 12 513
* 814
CO GI4AMS
7•1, 1 ,
7.21 8 4h
14.7?
1C2 MASS &P 0S
1h3 1 R
22 1 )2,5 ssq7,
12 911,14
IIOX TM ASS GHA’
h l44
13.13 *8 7?
b 83
FUEL KG (LO)
•52b
( 1 .1b)
.?i I7( 1 .Sh) 1.781 3.93)
.91?
( • 2)
KM HR ( NC FiR)
l 3*
( 1 .7 )
2.25 ( 3,0?) 7,30 1. q.7M)
1,27
( 1.70)
NSHC r,/K4 HR (G/41 1’ lIP)
5.51,
( ‘.1*)
.2S ( 3.1?) 1.71 1. 1.28)
3.82
( 2.85)
115(0 G/R’. HR (G/HP HO)
‘ . ?3
C 14.??)
.2l1 C 2•39) A 1b ( .90)
3 b
( 2 .R1)
4 ) 5CM? G/K,% H ) ’ (GINO H O)
122 1.ch
c+1i .1 )
q7R•j 5 ( 79 41) 7bh•?7 I 571.7$)
1025.1?
( 7h+ 43)
8S . )X 1,/YR 44 (1./NP HP)
‘,,jl,
( 3.8*)
5 83 ( 9.35) B +.R I ‘4,98)
5 . ’ 4O
14. 4 )2)
I+SFC KG/RI’ HP (Lb/44P HP)
,393
( •b*b)
.31* ( .51?) .2’l* I .1401)
,3?9
.5*1)
TOTAL K M I I I -.
(HP
M M)
12.11, (
1l,. l’)
ISI -IC
G /R
HR
(1,/lIP
FIR)
2.11? (
2.11)
FSCU
(;/+ ‘
l-i#
(1,/UP
HI.)
2,31 C
J ?2)
1 -ISCO ?
0/KM
hi,
(G/llp
HF)
$S+3• (
059,)
OSNUX
0/NI- .
MR
(1,/lIP
HP)
b 22 ( 14 ,0*)
RSFC
KG/ .-
MM
(LB/HP
MM)
,?82 ( •141,14)
5CM(3CF)
82.43 ( T ’I11.3)
-------
DILUIJOI. FACTUI
MC CI rENTpA 11 r)i , PP 1
Cli Lf )T I(;F IRA I TON RPi
C (2 CORCLrINAIJOM PC I
PIOX Cr C l TI (Jon PP 1
NC NASS (,k’4 ’S -
CO ‘.455 GNArlS
CI? ‘ASS G A’ -’S
P (1 ’X ‘PASS (;NA ,s
FUEL Iu; (Lh)
Kw I-IN (lIP liP)
nASPiC 6/1 (1 r1 (G/P (I NH)
IPSCO 6/1(1. (H (0/HP HO)
F4SCO? G/Y, Ilk (r,/i iFr IN)
OS ij o/vk ‘PP ( (;/ lPp PIN)
MSFC tcU/Ir4 M (Lb/HP HI ’)
To I AL K . lp
(HP
Ill-)
MSI-C
F,/I(
ki
(1/ON
lIP)
N C(P
G/l ’
14
(0/HP
H)
P.SCO2
G/K.
l’fi
(‘/hp
Np)
1150401
/
Nb
(U/hP
PIP)
NSFC
1(o/Kw
hk
(11,/NP
i’k)
I
NY ‘ F
7+h•II ( 2 qf)
bSlJ .2 (25. )
‘ 1 11•9 (12(1 ,0)
1, 132 ,
‘II
2 3 ,? (1o3?c•)
?‘l.
IS.
2*
11,3
U •
• qh
j3li4 3
1,3?
•‘llq C
.32 C
2
LANF
?Ib ,8 (2’l ,9)
bSI) ,2 (2c .b)
*8 , ’T (120.0)
b2 15 ,
31) IJ •
77 (10514.)
31 • 79
1 8.
.344
2 5 •q
5 .h?
N • 1p7
2012,2
1+. 73
.1,1,8 (
2.2?
DIESEL E 1 32j_F
BAt.. CARl NO,
3
LAF
74h•k (2 .+)
bSfl .2 (2S ,b)
‘48,4 (120.0)
4,371.
3115 •
3112.? (111b92 .)
12.44
33
2 .
I • 0 ( 1
40.2
- 5 , 1 ,9
S Sdb . 2
52.20
- 1 •751 C
3 ,0*) ? ,3n I,
SCI I(SLF)
S / YE SI
148 (S/Pp 118)
6/1(0 FUEL (0/LB FUEL)
‘4
I-.INI
7+4, l3 (24,4)
BSO.2 (25.6)
‘*13,4 (l2fl .li)
1,202.
? +? (104(144,)
50.13
2*.
13.
.23
12.1
‘.12
* • 32
1232.2
b 41,
•345 (
1.25 (
. ?2 C
1 • 223
.IOU? C .0751)
.37131 C .1715)
TABLE B- 2
Lkr,TPF .J .
E ’ c, TP F ?4(!I L lb 1t.:o 1 \PTH’4,p3
E1k4 + ,R L(9 13 , ITO) V—Il
C\rS 1:fl• jfp
II 13 ?‘k, 25 r Ii lG( /P• 3K TN P-Il .)
U (.Y PULP TFop. 2I • ’ * 01:0 C(?4,,l( t>L (, F)
BAr, FESULTS
P-PAr. ‘ .IJPIIUN
IE .4C ’IPT jOb
kLliWFk LiTI P 1M ?(‘( I *120)
lILPi -EP 1°-LI I I-’ -I 1 9/OLiN. -i?0)
NLUIER INLF I I- ‘IN. 010, C(L [ C., F)
I -I flK 4 RI 4li (i I
TIPIE SECu* 0S
TOTAL I-LOP, Si U Ch• ‘F IPES SCF
(Cont’d). ENGINE D-11 SUMI ’IARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cuminins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Baseline Configuration
(1:51 1I .I ( 1—3 NUN
DAlE /1 S/gI l
TI rf ? 13
5 Kll NO. S
NELAT(VF HL IMII)JTY ‘*4. PCT
A8SOL OFF H0 11 10 11Y
P uJICT ,U• 11—5 JI*—UU1
45 611/1(01 bb.i GPAII-(S/LB)
NUX HtJ.ilDjTy C.F. 1,1(001)
H
I- - . )
PC
S *Pt ‘iEIFR/RA ’Jt /pp 1
.4/2 /
NC
(0
PCNGI,0 E1ER/4A, 1:,E,pp.i
S PLE olFIFp,pA oe,ppIi
7.7/ 1/
32
8.
11.0/22/
7.3/ /
*t)
?.
8.0/22/
? 4/ 1/
IU•
44,
b. ’+/2 ?/
7,9/ 1/
32,
8
cu
C I ?
(1.?
CI-r,ilL. 1FN,P A’1;1:,PP
S4I-PLF. F Il,NAPor 1 pCT
.C ,c(p ( ‘1: IFP,ritoo;r,P-(T
j? ,H/J3/
1.i /t3
i7.ui 3/
IN,
j,
•2k
21,0/13/
•9 /l31
25,5/ 3/
lq .
1.
•*2
2* 5/I3/
1.1/13/
58 ,3/ 3/
22,
1 ,
1,u3
15 , ’ I/J3,
l ,’*/ 3/
ib ,Si 3/
j4
.
•?b
604 4MpLF ( ‘Eli (4/1(Ai I.f/ppM
I,
1 43)/J3/
•o*
2.2/ 3,
•i 13
2,3/ 3,’
•uM
2 3/ 3/
•li*
1404
NCKGIO -Tf IEH/PAJOF /PPM
12
8,4/13 ,
2?,
30.4/13/
Mj .
‘4, ’ */j3/
13
TOTAl. lEST ROSIIL1S ‘1 NAGS
. q 2 )
1 ,7?)
( 2.31)
C 2.81)
( ?*ij,n’*)
( 3,4,11)
.523)
3,12
7 1,
442.41
1 , 1 13
.318
2,6?
• 44,
4,, ,4q
.24*
( i ,Rb)
C 1•q )
( NR7 5n)
C ‘4.8+)
( •+8’*)
3.84,)
S. 711)
3. .511)
3. .73)
3. 564,4?)
3. 5.33)
I ,. •34’+
•78
4 8
756 ,4?
• 240
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FUR ‘4 13465
1. ”,’ C 1.211)
FILTER
1 ,l b ( 1.31,)
SAMPLE FLUA
p3?. ( l. ’4 ,)
MIILT IP I I F ’ 1
FOR
I.,bj (
‘ ,H3)
MULTIPLIER
FOR
•-bb (
,4iR)
* 4 IJLTLPLIEP4
FOR
20 4 2” FiLTERS
• I 1 ?)
1 .h7)
2.58)
?3S ,bR)
‘+. Ib)
• 520)
3.30 C
3• ’*b C
‘PSb ,5b (
5 ,58
•Vjl , (
SCM(SCR)
111.18 (2bb? ,*)
-------
TABLE B—3
TRANSIENT CYCLE STATISTICS
ENGINE D-1l SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cummins VTB—903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Maladjusted Configuration
TEST 011-9
Cold Cycle
Hot Cycle
Speed
Torque
Speed
Torque
Power
Standard Error
41.
6.%
6.%
32.
7.%
Slope
1.004
.968
1.004
1.005
.961
Corr. Coef.
.9953
.9579
.9684
.9971
.9458
Intercept
13
1.2
.2
11.
1.5
Points Used
1176
957
957
1176
975
kW-hr Dev.C
—6.9
—6.9
TEST Dil-lO
Standard Error
44.
8.%
7.%
30.
Slope
.999
.958
.999
.997
Corr. Coef.
.9946
.9325
.9530
.9981
Intercept
21.
1.8
— .1
16.
Points Used
1176
973
973
1176
kW-hr Dev.c
----
-6.2
----
TRANSIENT CYCLE
MODAL RESULTSd
Power
6.%
.998
.9612
.1
975
4.%
1.014
.9413
—.3
1047
Cold Cycle
5 .%
.962
.9120
—.0
1047
—6.7
Hot Cycle
Test Dl1—9 NYNF
LANF LAF
NYNF NYNF
LANF
LAF
NYNF
HC, gram 15.22
CO, gram 10.35
C0 2 , grami.651.0
NOX, gram 8.71
FUEL, kg 0.535
KW—HR 1.32
26.73 48.80
10.64 16.12
2263.3 5370.4
14.56 50.08
0.738 1.732
2.20 7.34
18.93 11.11
7.21 6.73
1363.7 1384.8
7.84 7.53
0.448 0.446
1.27 1.30
24.14
9.61
2106.4
16.28
0.686
2.23
33.82
14.22
5625.0
56.83
1.796
7.32
10.77
6.20
1425.0
8.56
0.458
1.27
TEST Dll-1O
HC, gram 17.19
CO, gram 10.04
CO 2 grarnl7l6.3
NOX, gram 9.93
FUEL, kg 0.558
KW—HR 1.39
28.04 50.93
10.42 17.59
2362.6 6170.6
15.28 54.70
0.770 1.985
2.22 7.34
18.36 12.36
6.41 6.48
1439.6 1410.7
8.63 8.98
0.471 0.456
1.27 1.30
23.24
9.36
2294.7
17.47
0.744
2.23
34.26
15.26
5962.9
62.39
1.902
7.34
10.51
5.73
1358.6
9.54
0.437
1.27
CTest kW—hr minus Reference kW—hr divided by
dEarometric Pressure: Test Dll—9 746 mm Hg
the Reference kW-hr times 100%.
Test 0-11—10= 739mm Hg.
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Cont’d). ENGINE D-ll SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cummins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
r a1adjusted Configuration
DIESEL TRANSIENT CYCLE
Test Dl1—9 Test Dil-lo
Cold Hot Composite Cold Hot Composite Average
HC, g/XW—hr 9.05 6.59 6.94 9.38 6.62 7.01 6.98
CO, g/kW—hr 3.66 3.03 3.12 3.64 3.03 3.12 3.12
C0 2 , g/kW—hr 879 870 871 957 908 915 893
NOX, g/kW—hr 6.70 7.36 7.27 7.25 8.11 7.99 7.63
SFC, kg/kW—hr 0.285 0.279 0.280 0.310 0.292 0.295 0.288
WORK, kW—hr 12.12 12.12 12.12 12.21 12.14 12.15 12.14
POWER, kW 36.36 36.36 36.36 36.63 36.42 36.45 36.40
P rticu1ate, q/kW—hr 1.42 1.01 1.07 1.49 1.01 1.08 1.08
Filter Eff. 1 88 86 86 84 89 88 87
_______________________________________________ IDLE
Test D11—3 Test 011—4 Average Test Test Average
HC, g/kW—hr 3.821 4.055 3.938
CO, g/kW—hr 4.005 3.084 3 545 HC ppmC
C0 2 , g/kW-hr CO,
NOX, g/kW-hr 9.134 9.360 9.247 C0 2 ,
SFC, kg/kW-hr 0.268 0.270 0.269 Fuel, kg/hr
POWER, kW 69 69 69
DIESEL TRANSIENT CYCLE AVERAGE VALUES —
g/kg Fuel g/kma
MC, g/kW—hr (g/hp-hr) 6.98 ( 5.21) HC 24.24 8.23
CO , g/kW—hr (g/hp-hr) 3.12 ( 2.33) CO 10.83 3.68
NOX, g/kW—hr (g/hp-hr) 7.63 ( 5.69) NOX 26.49 8.99
Particulate, g/kW—hr (g/hp-hr) 1.08 ( 0.81) Particulate 3.75 1.27
SFC, kg/kW—hr(lb/hp-hr) 0.288 (0.474) FUEL CONS. 339
WORK, kW—hr (hp—hr) 12.14 (16.27)
a Using a composite value of 1030 kin for the Transient Cycle.
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Cont’d). ENGINE D-11 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cuzniuins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Ma1adj1 rf n r tiern
______ 13-MODE FEDERAL C1ESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1919
L2
ENCINL:918—903 MALFUNCTION +.004 AND BOOST BLEECOF4IN.HG
— t SI P .C. 1 FLIL: EP.— ’ .08—F PROJLCT:11—5428—OCI DATE: 3/03/80
I P.GIP.E IUKUUE PLNF H..LL AIR INTAKE NOX P€ SURE0 CALCULATED______
MICE SPE!J ._ UBS LOS FLOW FLOW CUR HC - CO C02 NOX GRAMS / hOUR MODE
PC i (LjP / P N X M 1W KG/Nih KG/NIP. 0/KG FACT PPM PPM PCI PPM PlC CD P.OX
1 hOLE / 660. 0. .0 .C22 5.12 3.3 .874 456. 292. 1.14 54. 50. 64. 17.
2 IP.IEP / 15CC. 20. 3.2 .098 12.27 3.3 .878 124C. 312. 1.92 72. 356. 214. 59. 2
— 3 ? . I T [ / I- - C . 2513. 40.5 .21? 12.51 3.3 .887 528. 225. 3.86 231. 176. 148. 219. 3
4 ‘C P.11k / 15CC. 529. 63.1 .333 13.19 3.3 .895 e85. 218. 6.29 605. 291. 176. 560. 4
5 15 1P.TFP .. 15CC. 773. 121.4 .438 13.38 3.3 .902 1328. 452. 8.38 1090. 438. 283. 1003. 5
6 100 1N1F / 1500. 917. 153.4 .619 13.74 3.3 .915 480. lCil. 9.83 1506. 194. 811.1702. 6
7 1011 / P6G. 0. .0 . .022 5.09 3.3 .814 318. 1.11 56. 79. 70. 18. 7
6 100 RATED / 2100. 868. 190.9 .764 21.02 3.3 .906 568. 438. 8.09 1230. 340. 499. 2071. 8
9 75 RI1FC / 21CC. 604. 132.1 .559 19.31 3.3 .898 6CC. 292. 6.63 770. -421. 296. 1144. 9
10 SC PA CD I 2100. 448. 98.4 .461 -18.95 3.3 .894 656. 278. 5.49 475. 341. 280. 698. 10
11 ? 3TFO / 2100. 156. 34.3 .283 16.29 3.3 .865 480. 266. 3.42 166. 241. 263. 237. 11
12 2 A1EG / 2100. 19. ‘..? .200_ 17.41 3.3 .881 688. 319. 2.33 93. 347. 321. 135. 12
33 ILLE I (60. 0. .0 .022 .0Z 3.3 .875 440. 265. 1.14 65. 49. 60. 21. 13
LALCULATEC F/A F/A WET HC F/A F/A POWER B SFC MODAL
MICE 1 A S/KG-FUF L CkAMS/K W—F-R DRY “PFIL” CORP POT CIJRM LCRR WEIG h PT MODE
P lC CC NCY. NC CC NOX MEAS SIUICPl FACT CALC MEAS FACT KG/KW—I R FACTOR
- ---------
1 31.c’ i .92 12.91 $$ $*$ *#$* 4 ***44 .0043 .0695 .062 .989 .C057 33.7 .997 ****$ .C67 1
2 bC. 9 36.3 10.08 111.3’. 66.80 18.52 .0080 .0695 .115 .982 .0C98 22.7 1.013 1.814 .Ce O 2
3 13.67 11.64 11.28 .35 3.65 5.42 .0170 .0695 .244 .967 .0184 8.4 1.016 .309 .080 3--
4 14.5? 8.63 28.05 3.50 2.12 6.14 .G255.O 95 .366 .947 .0297 16.5 1.020 .235 .080 4
5 1A.f- 10.14 38.13 3.61 2.33 8.26 .0329 .0695 .473, .931 •C393 19.6 1.024 .211 .080 5
6 5.72 21.83 45.62 3.26 5.21 11.C9 .0452 .0695 .651 .920 .0455 .7 1.030 .235 .C80 6
- - 7 59.93 53.31 13.40 C4**** $*$$*+ * **ó .0043 .0695 .062 .989 .0057 32.9 1.004 •**$$ •C67 7
P 7. 2 lI .. 4 .Ti 1. 18 2.61 10.85 .0365 .0695 .525.934 .0376 3.1 1.068 .225 .080 6
9 I2. #. 2 3.16 2.23 8.62 .0290 .0695 .417 .945 .031? 7.5 1.062 .238 .C20 c
IC 12.31__10.13 Ib. .5 .46 2.135 1.IC .0244.0695 .351 .954 .0259 6.2 1.055 .266 .C80 IC______
• 11 14.15 15.49 13.96 1.02 7.68 8.92 .0155 .0 95 . 24 .970 .C164 5.3 1.044 .475 .C80 11
32 28.69 26.70 11./C i.15 76.65 32.22 .C115 .0695 .166 .979 .0114 —.9 1.039 2.771 .CAG 12
17 ‘36.74 ‘ .4.’5 15.60 ***#$* ***4** *$*4* .0045 .0695 .064 .989 .0057 28.4 .999 **$*$ •C67 1)
— CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13—MODE WEIGHT FACTORS --
- 3.621 GRAM/lck—I -R 2.850 CRAM/Oh-P—HR_______________________________________________
8501) 4.005 CRAM/KW—h-R______ ( 2.987 ‘GRAP /8h-P—HP I_______________________________________
OSNOX 9.134 GRAM/KW—h-R I 6.81’. CRAM/Oh-P—HR
BSHC + BSNCX • 12.955 GRAM/KR—FsR I 9.664 CRAMIBHP—HR I
C1)kR. I3SFC — .268 KG/KW—h-R 1 .441 18S/BhP—ItR I -
j
-------
TABLE B-3 (Cont’d). ENGINE D-ll SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cununiris VTB-9O3 Coach
Fuel No. 2
- — - -— ——- -—- - Ma1adjusted Configuration
T [ SI NU.U11—q RUN
F E-1M fJ0FL 1’ CUM 1. iS Y(8903 DATE 2/27/fiG_________________________________
fMC1 1..2 L(903. (.10) V— TIME 01:53 _____________
C S t C. 10 DYNO NO. 5
- AQPPE1I Mr HG 29.3B IN HG) RELATiVE HUfS )DITY 40. PCT
PQY BULP TE’P. 25.0_DEC ( .117.0 DEC F) ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.0 GM/KG( 56.1 GRAINS/LB)
PROJEcT NO. 11—5044—001
UL L EM—406—F
BAG CART NO. I
( (OX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
BAG (sESUL IS
PAC- 1 2 3 4 -____________
C [ SC l’rTIC -rs NYNE LANF LAF NYNF
PLC).F ’ DIE P M . H2O(l1 . 11/0) 762.0 (30.0) 762.0 (30.0) 762.0 130.0) 762.0 (30.0)
PLD ’F I 5 LFT P MM. H2 tIh. 1120) 655.3 (25.8) 655.3 (25.8) 655.3 (25.8) 655.3 (25.8)
PLC UP (NIP I TI P. DIG. C(OEG. I-) 48.9 (120.0) 48.9 (120.0) 48.9 (120.0) 48.9 (120.0)
— PL0 F .I (LUTIi]N3 t175 — 6262. 6368. 6196
TIME 5FCd’ F5 — 2959 — 300 0 305 0 2969
TOTAL FL’ ’. 510. CU. tIITRISISIF) • 293.4_(10363.3 297.5 (10509.) 302.6 110687.) 294.4. (10399.)
HC SAl 7LT MFIER/EANGE/PPM 19.4/22/ 91. 32.4/22/ 162. 57.2/22/ 286. 23.7/22/ 119.
11€ PCKG t 1/RANGE/PPM 7.1/1/ 7. 6.7/ 1/ 1. -
7.3/ 1/ 7.
6.8/l/7 .________
- CU SAMPLE 1/iANu(/P (’M — 34.5113/ 31. 35.0/13/ 32. 51.0/13/ 48. 25.6/13/ 23.
CO C
-------
TABLE B-3 (Cont’d). ENGINE 1)-li SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cutnmins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Maladj usted O33ftguratio lk --___________
13—MCUE FEDLRAL CIESEL EMiSSION CYCLE 1919
IPV1t—903 rALFUNC1ION +.004 AND EDOSI BLEEC OF 41N.HG _____ ____
U 1 Mi. FOIL: H —40e—E PRUJECI:11—5428—OC1 DATE: 3/03J8C
1C LLL PC Ih I-OIL 61k INluKE NIX YEASURED ___________________CALCULATEU____
CI [ SPEI-D ms CBS I-LOW FLOW HUMID CORN 84C CC CC2 NOX GRAMS / HCUR MCCE
FL1 (Ut L I 61 . X P’ tcW KO/MIN Ico/rIN C/KG FACT PPM PPM PCI PPM BC CC sOX
- L1 .L I M i. U. - .0 .02? 5.06 4 0 .880 56g. 318. 1.14 53. 83.70. 17. 1
.‘ ikT / 15 )0. 20. 3.2 .C96 12.1 4.0 .884 1136. 252. 1.68 63. 314. 166 . 60. 2
- 1N1 - I P uC. 40.8 .12 1 .4i 4.0 .892 4C8. 119. 3.80 218. 139. 80 . 213. 3
‘IE / 1 ’UO. 8” . 63.1 .333 13.07 4.0 .901 608. 145.5.9? 555.211. 97.548. 4
5 1; F I ’ / i - o. /,3. 121.4 .446 13.39 4.0 .909 1138. 278. 7.80 1005. 409. 191. 1022. 5
ICC I’ .T F / 1 tJ0. /77. 153.4 .020 13.74 4.0 . 922 432. 1030. 0.51 1455. 180. 807. 1715. 6
7 IF Lr / ‘C. 0. .0 . .022 5.06 4.0 . 880 8CC. 265. 1.10 99. 00. 60. 32. 7
8 lc2 ; i o / 2100. Mi&. 190.9 .770 20.95 4.0 . 913 616. 278. 7.711167. 390. 335. 2096. 8
S / 5 i AiIF) / dUO. 132.7 .571 19.45 4.0 .905 976 . 199. 5.98 110. .517. 227. 1198. 9
IP Mi 86111 ; I 2100. 44:. 98.4 .472 18.90 4.0 .901 656. 185. 5.04 465. 319. 208. 769. 10
II 15 ITE [ ; / • 1L0. 1 . 34.3 .280 17.95 4.0 .891 488. 159. 3.07 162. 268. 173. 257. 11
2 t1tI I 1CC. 19. 4.2 .197 17.26 4.0 .887 136. 212. 2.13 87. 397. 229. 136. 12
F 1 / ‘ . .0 .C 5.08 4.0 .880 464. 186. 1.10 56. 53. 43. 18 . 13 _____
— CALCULATIU F/A V/A - WET BC 1-/A F/A POWER BSFC PCCAL ___________
- DRY “PhI CORk PCI _____ CORN CERN WEIGHT MODE
I—C F •.L> I-C - cc 6L- MEAssTo ç _ FAc _çAL FAçT_ J_KW —hR _ ç ___________
1 .i5F t7 f .i-c **# ** *#4$$ “ ** .0044 .0695 .064 .969.C058 31.4 . 999 $*$*$ .067 1
2 -- ‘-3 /i 1C.1 ’11o. 53.99 16. / .0081 .0695 .117 .985 .0C86 5.8 1.014 1.819 .080 2
lc.c 5 • 0 11.1? 3.43 1.97 5.26 .0171.0895 .246.96?.0180 5.3 1.018 .308 .C80 3
4 1C.’ ’ 4.t’ .‘7.4/ 2.5 1.17 0.6C .0256_.0695 . 368 . 950.0280 9.6 1.021 .235 .080 4
S i 5 ai 1.12 38.1? 3.37 1.5/ .41 .G334__.0695 .481 .936.0366 9.3 - 1.025 .215 .080 5 .
4.-’- 21.71 Mi.12 1.it 5.26 11.18 .0453 .0895 .652 .923 .0441 —2.6 1.030 . 2)5 •C80 6
7 I-.c /3.9/I- 4 * *4* $ .0044 .0695 .06 __.9r9__.0C57 29.2 1.004 .ctl 7
R 6 J— — I 11 IL 56 0369 CoYS — 31 93’ C 1 59—2 8 1 069 227 C80 8
S 1 .84 -.€4 34.9 4. ,4 1.71 9.02 .0295 .0695 .42’ . .950 .0283 —4.0 1.063 .243 .C80_____ 9
- 13.31 1.35 27.1’. 2.12 /.81 .t?51 .O6- 5 .3b1.957_. 238 —5.0 1.055 .273 .C80 10
• i i -- is.cc 12.32 15.2/ /.d/ 5 /.48 .0156 .0695 .225 .973 .C 141 — 6.0 1.045 .468 .C80 11
- 33.31 i i .’ . 11.81 35.16 84.74 3 .51 - .0114.0695 .164 - .981 .C105 —8.3 1.041 2.712 .C80 12 ________
1’ 0.28 3 .’5 14.C’ #4*44 .0043 .0695 .062 .989 .0C55 27.2 1.000 **$** •067 13
C rCL6 CL PCSITE USING 13—MODE WEIGHT FACTORS -
- O)t L - 4.C55 GRAM/KW—I-R 3.025 GR6 /BI-P—H5I_______________________________________
- - - - - I-SOD 3.064 GRAM/KW—I-R 2.300 GRAM/B P—HR) _____________________________________________
13 5 1 ’UX 9.300 GKAM/I(W—t1R_______ I 6.962 GRAM/BI-P—HR I .
F SHC 1 SNLX j3.4i4GRAM/KW-I R ( iO.OO7GRM /BI PHR I .
. _i •______ —uiI_ .._- - . - .tkr. PSIC — . 270 KG/KW—BR 1 .444 LBS/8H88R I . -
-------
TABLE B-3 (Contd). ENGINE D—1l SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cummins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
_______________________________________ PROJECT NO . 11—5044—001
- - Maladjusted Configuratio 1 —____
El’ ,) ) r) - -- l )ST NO.U11—9 ) UN____________________________________________________________________
FNCI”i r L ? (U ’MIE.S VTB’403 0811 2/27/80 ________________
INt;IM l ) ’ j, LID) V—8 TIP ) DIESEL fM—408—F
(‘VS )q. 1&’ DYND NO. 5 BAG CART NO. 1
Pn t1 - - PELATIVEHU# 1 01Ty431 — _____ ________
P Y ( LL ’ Tf P. 3•, DEC Ct 15.0 OE.G F) _____ ABSOLUTE hUMIDITY 8.1 GM/KG( 56.5 GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
BAG RESLI1S I
F t 2 ________ 3 _________ 4 - iJ
PESC11?TIr .yr - LANE _________ LAF
OLCb4L DIE F MM. H2D(j . H21)) 762.0 (30.0) _______ 762.0 (30.0) 762.0 (30.0) 762.0 ( 30.0 )
HLC)’EP 1 L1T ,‘ ‘. H/L()N. I-IlL) 655.3 (25.8) 655.3 (25.8) 655.3 ( 25.8) 655.3 (25.8)
P IPW [ ? !cLFT T (- p . DEL. C(DEG. F) —- - 48.9 4 1?O.0) - 1,8.9 (120.0) 48.9(120.0) 48.9 120.0 )
LCb F ’ L [ VfLu1IJ 5 - 6177. ____________ 6261. 6368 . 61.98.
TI SFCO 1iS - 29 e.o 300.0 -- ______ 305.0 ________ 297.0 T i
TOTAL ELP STU. CU. 1 )FE5( CF) - 293.1__(10353.) 297.1(10493.) 302.2 (10673.) 294.1. (10388. )
F -C SM’t 1’ Fl ) ’ /i A”iCL/PPM ____ 15.0/22/ 75. 30.0/22/ 150. 40.8/22/ 204. 14.6/22 ! 73. __________
HC PCKGRt) r! 111/RANGE/PPM - 9.7/ ti io. _______9. [ iJTho. 10.8/1/11 . 9.7/ 1/10. Ti
C C 5 MPL - L /1ANLE/ ?pM 24.2/13/ 22. 32.3/13/29. 46.0/13/ 43. 22 5/13/ _ 0 .
CD PC ( ’. ’ 1T/pI 1.8/13/2. _____ i.1T13/ 1. 1.4/13/ 1 . 1.9/13/ 2. ______________
CL? S ’PL T I / ARiC1 IPCT 18.8/ 3/ .30 26.2/ 3/ .43 59.5/ 3/ 1.05 19.1/ 3/ .31 _______________
CL? FCkG’ ) ) IF - 8” ,,i / ‘ 1 - — — 2 /3/ 042 8/ 3/04 26/3/04 2 8/3/ 04 I
‘ H PLI rr i /L -- 4.8/13/ - 14. ______ 9.8/13/ 30. ______ 33.0/13/ 99. 5.3/13/ 16 .
-. .9/2/1. .9/2/1. .9/2/ 1. .8/2/1. I
[ OILUTI I I. l - . - 1,3 9 30.02 12.44 42.4 _________
(-c (‘N.) e )J! 1 / M tE. ________ 1 ,41. 194. 63 .
CO 1fl C IIIJNPP$ - 2O . 28 _________________ 40 _________________ 18 I
CC? C UNI tTION PCI . 26 . 39 1.02 .26
PPM ____ 13.4 28.6 98.3- 15.2
F-C 55 GR — 11.11_ 24.14 33.82 10.77 -. Ti
CU SS GRAHS ______________ ________ 6.13 9.61 _______________ 14.22 6.20 _________________
CC? MASS - —_______ 2106 4 5625 0 14250 _______
S - - - - — 7.53 ______1 .l8 56.83 - — — 8.56 _______
— FLtL ‘U (LI) - - ‘ +46 ( 98) — 686 ( —— 1 51) 1 796 (3 96) 458 4 1 01) 1
- HR (F-P F-k) - 1.30 1.75) 2.23 3.00) 7.32 ( 9.81) 1.27 I 1.70 )
USHC 1 ,/KW I -i (C/HP HR) 8.53 4 6.36) 10.804 8.06) ______ 4.62 (3.45) 8.50 1 6.34 )
— P5CC C/EW F-fr (G/HP FIR) - — 5 171 386) 4 30 (3 21) 1 94( - 145) 4 89 3 65) _______
PSI )? ( f l .. )4F- )U/)IPtij ) 1063.82 (793.2’ ) 942.83 ( 703.07) 766.64 (573.18) 1125.10 ( 838.99 )
PS’ , ,) LIE. H (c/HP IH. ,) — 5 18 ( 4 31.) 7 29 ( 5 43) 7 77(5 79) 6.16(5 04) I
PS C EcC/K E+? () ,t ’/I-IP R) .343 ( .564) - . 307 1 .505) . 245 1 . 403) .362 (.595 ) _______
— — ——- — _____ ____________ ____
TOTAL TF.ST R I SUITS 4 8805 _____________ PARTICULATE_DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS -
- — - -_ - - I -- ____ -
TOTAL K). H (HP HF) 12.12 ( 16.25) 90MM fILTER ________
P5H _ (;IKh (-ul (G/I1p HF) 4.91) __________________ SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF) ____________ . 919 ( 32.44) . 1
CU 1./K). E/ (C/HP H ”) 3.03 I 2./H) _______ MULTIPLIER FOR GuEST - 1.292
PSCC2 £/x _____ _____ MULTIPLIER FOR 0/NW HR (G/HP )IR) .1O 6 ( .0795) .
PSPCX C /K). HF (0/HP HF) 7.36 ( 5.49) MULTIPLIER FOR 0/KG FUEL (0/LB FUEL) .3814 1 .1730 )
[ BSFC KG/Kb’ HR (LB/HP HR) .279 C ‘.T9) ______ —— - —— -
20 X 20 FILTERS ___________
- - — SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF) 80 93 (2858.5) 1
1 AB4JCGN. 80 /C ii üusio CY81 NiT CENTE 5N113 CY—176
-------
TABLE B-3 (Cont’d). ENGINE D-1l SUMM7i RY OF RESULTS
1979 Cuxnxnins VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Maladjusted Configuration
e J Jf-(.3 U)1. 1E—i —UL 1
F’C)NE ;C .Ui 1
ENGINE 00fL 74 CUMMINS 916 103
NC.1NE 14.6 L(903. CI ’ )) V—8
CYS ND. 10
HAQCMETI 73 .MU) HG (29.09 IN HG)
C Y UL0 IF ’ ?. ?).3 DEC C(74. ) DEC F)
TEST N O.11—ID RU
DATE 2/28/80
T IME
DYNO NO. 5 - -
CILUTIDN F ’CT(i ’
HC CUNC.T9ATIflN PPM
CO Cr)NCI.F TkAT10N PPM
CO? CI1NCFNTFATION PCT
NDX.C0NCENT ATION PPM
( ‘C MASS C9AMS
CD P P. 55 GRAMS
(02 SASS GPA S
60K MASS ClAMS
FUEL MG (LP)
Kl t-1 (HP HP)
I
NYNE
736.6 (29.0)
4O.1 (2.2)
48.9 (120.01
8180.
246.0
290.8 (10271.)
35.76
103.
30.
.32
17.9
17.19
10.04
1716.3
9.93
.558
1.39
2
LANF
736.6 (29.0)
640.1 (25.?)
46.9 (120.0)
6262.
300.0
294.7 (10407.)
27.00
165.
30.
. 44
27.1
26.04
10.42
2362.6
15.28
.770
2.22
3
LAF —
736.6 129.0)
640.1 (25.2) —
48.9 (120.0)
6370. -
305.0
299.7 (1O5 7.)
50.93
11 • 59
6170.6
54 • 70
1.986 1
- 7.34
4
N V N F
736.6 (? .u)
f4i.1 (/ .c )
120.0)
6191.
91.1(l03C).)
- -
5. ./ 1/
23. 1/13/
1.6/13/
19.3/ 3/
2.7/ 3/
5. /13I
1.0/ 2/
41.4
ioc.
19.
- .21
15.5
18.36
6. ‘*1
1439 • 6
8.6 1
4.38) .471 1
4.6 4) 1.27
I .U .
I • /0)
TOTAL TFST OFSULTS 4 PAGS
PA, T1CULATF DATA, TOTAL FOP 4 BAGS
FAG )FSULTS
FAG NUM 0 F
CE SCFIPTIP#
PLFP I lIF P P. HZ’J(IN. H ?))
6LC. E 1’ LET P ‘P. H/LAIN. H?L)
ELC - FP. INLET TtJ P. OEU. C(F)tG. F)
t LCWEP YCLUTIUMS
TIME SUCONCS
T(’TAI FLU); STU. CU. MFTRES(SCF
DIESEL EM—408—F
- BAG CART M C. 1
RELATIVE HUMIUITY 45. PCI -
AESOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.3 GM/KG( 57.8 GkAINS/L8) NOXHUMIDUYC.F-. 1.0000
98
1
10
(IC
5A’ PL1
ML1E ./PANGF/PPM
21.6/22/
34.1/22/ 170.
59.9/22/ 299.
(IC
ICVCRU)
T [ ,?/RANCEJPPN
5.9/ 1/
6.
5.6/ 1/ P.
5.7/ 1/ 5.
CU
SA PLE
MLTFF/’ANGf/PPM
33.9/13/
31.
34.5/13/ 32.
55.7/13/ 53.
CC
HCKG0
MfT1P/ .ANGU/PP
.7/13/
1.
.6113/ 1.
1.0/13/ 1.
CC?
St.: PLF
‘LTt /RANGE/PCT
22.3/ 3/
.36
28.9/ 3/ .48
64.8/ 3/ 1.16
CL?
CPG’ .0
rIk/kAN E/PCT
2.6/ 3/
.04
•
2.6/ 3/ .04
2.5/ 3/ •J4
NE;X
r UY
SA PLF
PCuG O
wFTi 1PANG1IPPM
MFT p/kA ,( , [ /pp
6.3/13/
1.0/ 2/
19.
1.
9.4/13/28.
1.0/ 2/ 1.
32.1/13/ 96.
1.0/ 2/ 1. —
6.
21.
Ii
10.
1.
11.22 —
245.
50.
1 • 12
95.4
FSHC G/ W HR (C/HP (IR)
85CC C/MW H (C/HP OR)
)4SCIJ? G/V I hR (‘)/h (‘P )
FSN()Y C/NW HP (G/O ’ lILA
PSFC KG/MA (IN (LP/OP HP)
1.23)
1.86)
9.23) -
5.39)
1 920.95)
5.33)
.660)
12.37
7.23
1235.01
7.15
.401
1.10)
2.97)
9.43)
3.51)
194.86)
( ¶‘.14)
.571)
12 • 65
4 • 70
1065.93
6.90
.348
TDTf.L .(W Ul
1)1?
‘ )
12.21
PSHC
r , / ,< -
(ID
(C/H?
(49)
9.36
(
HSCU
G/Y
(‘P
(U/HP
Ilk’)
3 . / 4
(
PSC )]2
C/Ks
( II
(C/HP
HP)
961.
I
SN0Y
BSFC
G/KW
KG/MW
HR
HR
(U/HP
(LB/HP
0 ?)
HP)
1.25
.310
(
1
- 6.9’.
2.40
841.19
7 • ‘ s I
.271
16. 37)
7.00)
2.72)
714. I
5.41)
.509)
5.18)
1 1.79)
627.27)
5.56)
1 .445)
--
S •
11 ().‘ ;
0 • 31
.3,,
10.91)
I N •/LA5i
I ‘- . LA)
.611)
90 )16 FILTER
SAMPLE PLOW
VULTIPLItP FD)
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE F-LOW
S CII (SCF
C/TEST
G/KW HR LG/HP HP)
C/KG FUEL IG/LE FUEL)
.878 31.’)’))
1.31
1008 I .0-si ?)
I .1E .08)
SCM( SCF
F ,O.13 (283C .))
-------
DILIJTIN, FACTO¼
H O C9NCr T* ATIflN PPM
CO CO’ .CFNTkAT1Os PPM
C02 C(1NCI ’JTMt ,TlIiN PCT
5.EI) CONCFP TQAflON PPM
(- ‘C ‘lASS ( U’S
CO P’ASS G’ A ” ’
C02 MASS G AS
Mix ? 8SS OPA S
FUEL VG (LE)
Kb. HR (NP H ..)
‘.1.27
74.
19.
.21
It,. £
1? • 36
6.45
1410.7
8. 9 i
.454
1.30 1
2
LANF
731.5 (28. )
652.8 (25.7)
45.9 4 120.0)
6284.
300.0
294.5 4 10403.)
27. 79
137.
27.
.43
31.0
23.2’.
-
229’. • 7
17.47
1.00) .74’.
1.75) - 2.23
90MM FILTER
— - SAMPLE FLOW —
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
M’JLTIPLIEP FOR
DIESEL LM-’0B—F
BAG CAST NO.
NOX HUMIDITY C.-. 1.0000
- 3-- --- 4
LAF
731.5 (28.5) 731.5 (?P. . )
652.8 (25.7) -- _ss .s 2.1
‘*8.9 (120.0) 45.9 (1/0.0)
6370. 6201.
305.0 297.0
299.5 (10519.) 291.6 (10i99. )
41.6/221 20”.
10.6/ 1/ 11. 9.Oi 1/
52.3/13/ 50. 23.0/13/
5.1/13/ 4.
63.11 3/ 1.12 16.5? 3/
2.7/ 3/ .0’. 2.U/ 3/
36.4/13/ 109. 5.9/13/
.5/ 2/ _1. . -/ 21
11.65
196. 62.
44. 17.
1.09 .25
105.9 17.1
1
TABLE B-3
ENGIrF 50.911
FKGINI f 1 JFL 79 CU”MI .S VTB9OJ
ENGINE 14.6 L(903. LID) 4 —8
Cs’S 50. 10
5A 0r(-TFF 7 ) ’LttN 50(24.0915 NC)
D Y bULB 1I P. ?3.3 LEG C(74.o OEG F)
BAG RESULTS
bAG NU PF
1)1 SCRIPT Iflt
PL [ , P )Jf P . 14201P.. 071))
9L0 ,FR INLFT P t- . H/)(IN. 1/9)
8LDWE ’ ISLET TF ’P. LEG. C(JEG. F-)
PLC .4FP VCLUTIL ’.S
T1’ F SECC’ LS
TUTt -L FL’) . STO. CU. MFTFS(SCF)
(Cont’d). ENGINE D-ll SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1979 Cuinrnjns VTB-903 Coach
Fuel No. 2
Maladjusted Configuration
TEST N(J.11—10 RUN
LATE 2/2d 180
TI ME
DYNO NO. S
PILt.TIVE hUMIDITY ‘ .5. PCI
ABSOLUTE hUMIDITY 8.3 GM/KG( 57.8 GRAINS/UI)
PROJECT NO. 11—50’’ .—U ,)1
I
NYNI
731.5 125.8)
652. (25.fl
48.9 (120.0)
6178.
295.9
290.5 (10260.)
(-C
N C
CC
CO
CA?
CU?
“ox
5A”PIE
D Ck G ’G
S 6 P L F
P C ’ G D
SAMPLE
F C’ GPO
SAMBL ’
P.0< G 0
P ’} r1 /RA’ .GE/ppt . .
r I TI / ¼ 9Gt / PPM
MITE R/ ANGC/PpP ’
“OTLE/RAtIGE /PCT
LIF /RANG [ /PCT
1 TI R/RAIa,i /PPM
M I Tt-R/RANGE/PPM
Q
17.5/22/
14.2/ 1/
48 • 2/13/
29.0/ 13/
19.4/ 3/
3.1/ 3/
5.6/13/
.8/ 2/
88.
14.
45.
26.
.31
.05
17.
1.
29.3/22/ 141.
10. // 1/ 10.
‘.1.8/13/ 39.
12.6/13/ 11.
25.2/ 3/ .46
2.6/ 3/ .04
10.6/13/ 32.
_•71 2/ 1.
71.
9.
21.
3.
39
.0 ’ .
18.
- Ti
iiIiL
Ii- i1J
1
_j
1
-
. 96.)
1. 1,))
9 • ‘ .9
‘..98
IO i 3.65
6 • 90
.350
FSNC G/Ki (-IQ (C/OF’ HP)
SCO C/V. t’ ’ (C/NP Nb.)
PSCO2 C/k . 5¼ ((./HP )-I , )
PSE.1’X G/’<-. (-1¼ ( G/ ’ P HF I
i
-------
TABLE B—4. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES
FROM CUMMINS VTB-903 IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
1500 rpm 2100 rpm
Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Methane g/rn 3 2030 1170 a 886 a 1570 a 979 a 959 a 1450 a
CR 4 mg/hr 1260 777 650 401 1120 968 1280
mg/kg fuel 222 41 19 227 25 40 168
mg/kW—hr 495 10 4 —- 6 10 307
Ethylene pg/rn 3 7430 711 2500 3580 2070 1010 4100
C 2 H 4 mg/hr 4600 474 1840 915 2370 1020 3620
mg/kg fuel 812 25 54 517 53 42 475
mg/kW—hr 1810 6 11 —— 12 11 866
Ethane pg/rn 3 137 0 a 44 56 56 0 a 81
C 2 H 6 mg/hr 85 0 32 14 64 0 72
mg/kg fuel 15 0 1 8 1 0 9
mg/kW-hr 34 0 0 - 0 0 17
Acetylene pg/rn 3 49 5b 11 b 22 b 11 b 11 b
c 2 u 2 mg/hr 30 4 8 6 12 11 27
mg/kg fuel 5 0 0 3 0 0 4
mg/kW—hr 12 0 0 — 0 0 7
Propane pg/rn 3 156 oa oa 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a
C 3 H 8 mg/hr 102 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kg fuel 18 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kW—hr 40 0 0 0 0 0 0
propylene pg/rn 3 3500 274 1180 1590 1090 454 1780
C 3 H mg/hr 2160 182 867 406 1240 459 1570
6 mg/kg fuel 382 10 25 230 28 19 207
mg/kW—hr 852 2 5 - 6 5 377
Benzene pg/rn 3 691 0 332 1430 2050 2950 2750
C H 6 mg/hr 412 0 234 352 2250 2860 2340
6 mg/kg fuel 73 0 7 199 50 117 307
mg/kW—hr 162 0 2 — 12 31 559
Toluerle pg/rn 3 1080 0 a 0 a 718 0 a 0 a 767
C 7 H 8 mg/hr 666 0 0 183 0 0 676
mg/kg fuel 118 0 0 103 0 0 89
mg/kW-hr 262 0 0 - 0 0 162
asample concentration lower than background concentration
buncertain due to minimal detection
B—21
-------
TABLE 3-5. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES
FROM CUMMINS VTB-903 IN MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATION
1500 rpm 2100 rpm
Hydrocarbon Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Methane pg/rn 3 2730 872 a 1520 a 2120 2160 1010 a 2040
CH 4 mg/hr 1690 582 1070 536 2310 970 1750
mg/kg fuel 276 29 29 378 50 35 161
mg/kW—hr 526 7 7 — 12 10 452
Ethylene pg/rn 3 18500 5660 40300 7950 53400 10200 12800
C 2 H 4 mg/hr 11400 3780 28500 2000 57000 9840 11000
mg/kg fuel 1870 189 775 1420 1240 356 1010
mg/kW—hr 3560 45 187 — 296 100 2830
Ethane pg/rn 3 318 100 687 156 1270 181 212
C 2 H 6 mg/hr 197 67 485 39 1360 175 182
mg/kg fuel 32 3 13 28 30 6 17
mg/kW-hr 61 1 3 - 7 2 47
Acetylene pg/rn 3 119 43 b 179 54 217 54 97
C 2 H 2 mg/hr 73 29 126 14 231 52 84
mg/kg fuel 12 1 3 10 5 2 8
mg/kW-hr 23 0 1 - 1 1 22
Propane pg/rn 3 75 0 0 0 121 0 0
C 3 H 8 mg/hr 49 0 0 0 137 0 0
mg/kg fuel 8 0 0 0 3 0 0
mg/kW-hr 15 0 0 0 1 0 0
Propylene pg/rn 3 9050 2810 15600 3530 24000 5450 5910
C 3 H 6 mg/hr 5590 1880 11000 890 25600 5260 5080
mg/kg fuel 913 94 300 629 559 190 467
mg/kW—hr 1740 23 72 — 133 53 1310
BenzeneC pg/rn 3 702 270 2500 236 4580 197 a 1060
C 6 H mg/hr 417 173 1700 57 4700 182 874
6 mg/kg fuel 68 9 46 40 103 7 80
rng/kW-hr 130 2 11 — 24 2 225
Toluenec pg/rn 3 1290 a 4690 14700 2840 0 12500 6900
C 7 H 8 mg/hr 797 3120 10300 714 0 12000 5910
mg/kg fuel 130 156 283 504 0 434 543
mg/kw-hr 248 38 68 — 0 122 1520
aSample concentration lower than background concentration
buncertajn due to minimal detection
cBenzene and toluene traces show signs of severe interference
during processing samples and standards
B—2 2
-------
TABLE B-6.
SUMMARY OF TRANSIENT INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM CUMMINS VTB—903
Any background methane concentration of
Chromatographic interference - indeterminate
2.54 ppm was higher than the sample
Methane Ethylene Ethane Acetylene Propane Propylene
Configuration
Units
mg/test
0 0 a
1230
30.9
6.4
72.2
593
0.0
0.0
0.0
Baseline Cold 1
Baseline Cold 2
mg/test
39.3
1140
0.0
6.4
0.0
503
0.0
Avg
mg/test
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg—fuel
19.6
1.60
5.65
1185
97.0
343
15.4
1.26
4.45
6.4
0.52
1.84
36.1
2.95
10.4
548
44.8
158
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
148
523
Baseline Hot 1
mg/test
00 a
24.6
0.0
0.0
372
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Baseline Hot 2
mg/test
0.0
795
16.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Avg
mg/test
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg—fuel
0.0
0.0
0.0
770
63.1
236
20.4
1.67
6.20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.8
115
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
95.6
358
Maladjusted Cold 1
Maladjusted Cold 2
mg/test
mg/test
87.9
58.5
2480
2340
66.5
81.2
12.8
12.8
14.4
7.2
1250
1220
38.4
._b
38.4
58.2
58.2
Avg
mg/test
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg—fuel
73.2
6.02
20.2
2410
198
664
73.8
6.07
20.4
12.8
1.05
3.52
10.8
0.89
2.99
101
339
3.16
10.6
4.78
16.0
321
1077
Maladjusted Hot 1
Maladjusted Hot 2
mg/test
mg/test
00 a
0.0
2170
2400
30.9
24.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1130
1270
57.6
122
89.8
64.7
64.7
Avg
mg/test
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg—fuel
0.0
0.0
0.0
2285
188
657
27.6
2.27
7.94
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.9
346
7.40
25.9
5.33
18.6
302
1056
-------
TABLE B—7. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FROM CUMMINS VTB—903
IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
1500 rpm 2100 rpm
Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Formal- pg/rn 3 24 b 823 1880 1250 278 93 1040
dehyde mg/hr 15 547 1370 318 316 93 920
mg/kg fuel 3 29 40 180 7 4 121
mg/kw-hr 6 7 9 - 2 1 220
Acet- pg/rn 3 0 71 0 382 261 0 141
aldehyde mg/hr 0 47 0 97 297 0 124
mg/kg fuel 0 3 0 55 7 0 16
mg/kw-hr 0 1 0 - 2 0 30
Acetone pg/rn 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kg fuel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kW-hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Isobutyr— pg/rn 3 161 a 0 0 278 792 459 1200
aldehyde mg/hr 99 0 0 71 900 461 1050
mg/kg fuel 17 0 0 40 20 19 138
mg/kW-hr 39 0 0 - 5 5 252
Methyl pg/rn 3 0 0 0 33 b 0 0
Ethyl mg/hr 0 0 0 8 0 0 30
Ketone mg/kg fuel 0 0 0 5 0 0 4
mg/kW-hr 0 0 0 - 0 0 7
Croton— pg/rn 3 a 0 0 0 0 0 0
aiLdehyde mg/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kg fuel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kW-hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
uexan— pg/rn 3 0 36 b 106 b 0
aldehyde mg/hr 0 24 78 0 44 0 38
mg/kg fuel 0 1 2 0 1 0 5
mg/k W-hr 0 0 1 0 0 0 g
Benz— pg/rn 3 0 a 98 b 0 a 351 227 89 b 567
aldehyde mg/hr 0 65 0 89 258 89 499
mg/kg fuel 0 3 0 50 6 4 66
mg/kW—hr 0 1 0 - 1 1 119
aBackground higher than sample
buncertain due to low concentration
B—2 4
-------
TABLE B-S. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FROM CUMMINS VTB903
IN MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATION
1500 rpm 2100 rpm
Aldehyde Rate 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Form— pg/rn 3 0 2490 559 7280 8420 5560 9300
aldehyde mg/hr 0 1650 393 1830 8950 5350 7980
mg/kg fuel 0 83 11 1290 195 193 732
mg/kW—hr 0 20 3 — 47 54 2060
Acet— pg/rn 3 0 84 58 1340 508 781 1580
aldehyde mg/hr 0 56 41 338 540 751 1360
mg/kg fuel 0 3 1 238 12 27 125
mg/kW—hr 0 1 0 — 3 8 350
Acetone pg/m 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kg fuel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kW—hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Isobutyr— pg/rn 3 326 a 197 a 338 1430 0 0 1750
aldehyde mg/hr 201 131 238 360 0 0 1500
mg/kg fuel 33 7 7 255 0 0 138
rng/kW—hr 63 2 2 — 0 0 386
Methyl pg/rn 3 0 47 b 0 184 31 b 146 233
Ethyl mg/hr 0 31 0 46 32 140 199
Ketone mg/kg fuel 0 2 0 33 1 5 18
mg/kW—hr 0 0 0 — 0 1 51
croton- pg/rn 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
aldehyde mg/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kg fuel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kW-hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexan— pg/rn 0 132 0 160 222
aldehyde mg/hr 0 24 0 33 0 154 190
mg/kg fuel 0 1 0 23 0 6 18
mg/kW-hr 0 0 0 - 0 2 49
Benz— pg/m 3 64 a,b 170 a 37 a,b 2350 566 355 616
aldehyde mg/hr 40 113 26 590 600 341 526
mg/kg fuel 7 6 1 417 13 12 48
mg/kW—hr 12 1 0 3 4 135
asample concentration lower than background
buncertain due to minimal detection limits
B—2 5
-------
TABLE B-9.
SUMMARY OF TRANSIENT ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FROM CUMMINS VTB—903
Background sample higher than sample
Uncertain due to minimal detection
Configuration
Units
mg/test
Formal-
dehyde
651
Acetal-
dehyde
1040
Acetone
663 b
Isobutyr-
aldehyde
00 a
Ethyl
Ketone
194
Crontal-
dehyde
0.0
Hexanal-
dehyde
0.0
Banzal-
dehyde
1280
Total
Baseline Cold 1
Baseline Cold 2
mg/test
824
1100
0.0
149 b
42.6
0.0
0.0
361
Avg
mg/test
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg—fuel
737
60.4
213
1070
87.6
310
33.2 b
2 • 72 b
9.61
b
610 a,
21 • 6 a,b
118
9.6
34 • D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
820
67.1
237
234
825
Baseline Hot 1
Baseline Hot 2
mg/test
mg/test
0.0
606
240
181
0.0
0.0
92 • 3 b
00 a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
755
42.6
Avg
mg/test
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg—fuel
303
24.8
92.9
211
17.2
64.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.1 b
3 • 78 a,
142 a,b
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
398.8
32.7
22
78.5
294
Maladjusted Cold 1
Maladjusted Cold 2
mg/test
mg/test
619
721
221
141
0.0
0.0
0 • 0 b
21.2
15.4
27.2
0.0
0.0
°• 0 b
34.3
49 7 b
315
Avg
mg/test
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg—fuel
670
55.1
185
181
14.9
49.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6 b
1 • 12 b
3.75
21.3 B
L 75 b
5.87
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2 b
1.41k
4.74
182 • 4 b
15 °b
50.3
89.3
300
Maladjusted Hot 1
Maladjusted Hot 2
mg/test
mg/test
396
1080
85.2
123
0.0
31.96
0.0
0.0
°•°b
18.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22 4 b
690
Avg
mg/test
mg/kW—hr
mg/kg—fuel
738
60.8
213
104.1
8.58
30.0
16.0 b
1 • 32 b
4.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
b
°• 78 b
2.71
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
356 b
29.3
103 b
101
-------
TABLE B-b. PHENOLS FROM CUMMINS VPB—903 IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
1500 rpm 2100 rpm
Phenol Rate 2 50 Idle 100 50
Phenol Pg/rn 3 101 0 233 0 0
mg/hr 62.6 59.7
mg/kW-hr 24.7 —
mg/kg fuel 11.1 33.7
Salecyl- Pg/rn 3 31 0 0 0 0
aldehyde— mg/hr 19
mg/hw_hr 7.6
mg/kg_fuel 3.4
in—Cresol + Pg/rn 3 0 0 0 0 0
p—cresol mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg- fuel
p-ethl— Pg/rn 3 354 0 112 0 5
2—isopropyl- mg/hr 219 28.7 5
methyl- rng/]cw-1-ir 86.6 -- 0.05
mg/kg fuel 38.9 16.2 0.2
2,3,5—tn— Pg/rn 3 0 0 0 0 0
methyl- mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg-fuel
2,3,5,6-tetra— Pg/rn 3 0 0 0 0 0
methyl- mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg- fuel
2-n-propyl- Pg/rn 3 230 0 0 0 0
mg/hr 142
mg/kW-hr 56.3
mg/kg-fuel 25.3
B—2 7
-------
TABLE B-li. PHENOLS FROM CUMMINS VTB903 IN MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATION
1500 rpm 2100 rpm
Phenol Rate 2 50 Idle 100 50
Phenol jig/rn 3 0 0 173 0 81
mg/hr 43.7 78
mg/kW-hr -- 0.59
mg/kg—fuel 30.9 2.8
Salecyl— jig/rn 3 0 0 0 106 0
aldehyde— mg/hr 113
mg/kW-hr 0.59
mg/kg-fuel 2.5
m-Cresol + pg/rn 3 0 0 0 0 0
p-Cresol mg/hr
mg/kw-h r
mg/kg-fuel
p-ethl— jig/rn 3 0 0 1160 0 887
2-isopropyl— mg/hr 294 857
methyl- mg/kW-hr -- 8.71
mg/kg—fuel 208 31.0
2,3,5-tn— pg/rn 3 0 0 0 0 0
methyl- mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg-fuel
2,3,5,6—tetra- pg/rn 3 0 0 0 27000 0
methyl— mg/hr 29000
mg/hW-hr 150
mg/kg-fuel 630
2-n-propy l- pg/rn 3 0 40 1040 0 544
mg/hr 26.7 263 525
mg/kW-hr 0.32 -— 5.34
mg/kg—fuel 1.34 186 19.0
B—2 8
-------
TABLE B-12. SUMMARY OF TRANSIENT PHENOLS FROM CUMMINS VTB—903
p-ethylphenol
m—cresol 2—isopropyl— 2,3,5,6
Saucy- and phenol,2,3 2.3,5-trimethyl tetrarnethyl 2—n-
Configuration Units Phenol aldehyde p-cresol rnethylphenol phenol phenol propyiphenol
Baseline Cold 1 pg/m —— 12
Baseline Cold 2 pg/rn 3 99 218
Avg pg/ in 50 6.0 109
mg/test 59 7.1 129
rng/kW-hr 4.8 0.58 10.5
mg/kg—fuel 17 2.0 37.2
Baseline Hot 1 pg/rn —— 10 12 22
Baseline Hot 2 pg/rn 3 88 13 —— 163 9
Avg pg/rn 44 12 6.0 82 16
mg/test 52 14 7.1 96 19
mg/kW—hr 4.2 1.2 0.53 7.9 1.5
0 mg/kg-fuel 16 4.3 2.2 29.5 5.8
Maladjusted Cold 1 pg/m 150
Maladjusted Cold 2 a pg/rn —-
Avg pg/rn 150
mg/test 177
mg/kW-hr 14.5
mg/kg-fuel 48.8
Maladjusted Hot 1 pg/rn —— 7.0 20 71
Maladjusted Hot 2 a pg/rn 3 —- —- -— --
Avg pg/rn -- 7.0 20 71
mg/test —— 8.0 24 84
mg/kW—hr -- 0.7 1.9 6.9
mg/kg—fuel —- 2.0 6.8 24
a 0 results, sample voided
-------
TABLE B-13. SUMMARY OF MODAL PARTICULATE FROM
CUMMINS VTB-903 IN BASELINE CONFIGURATIONa
Engine Concentration Particulate Rate
rprn/% load mg/rn 3 g/hr g/kg fuel g/kW-hr
1500/2 43.99 27.56 5.06 8.59
1500/25 27.54 17.86 1.99 0.43
1500/50 33.68 22.87 1.28 0.28
1500/75 29.01 20.00 0.74 0.17
1500/100 39.00 27.92 0.82 0.18
Idle 22.58 6.01 3.40 ——
2100/100 25.81 28.85 0.65 0.15
2100/75 23.67 24.57 0.70 0.17
2100/50 24.82 26.32 1.01 0.27
2100/25 30.47 29.66 1.68 0.86
2100/2 45.55 39.57 4.96 10.20
aparticulate rate based on 90 mm Paliflex with back—up filter
B—3 0
-------
TABLE B-14. SUMMARY OF MODAL PARTICULATE FROM
CUMMINS VTB-903 IN MALP DJUSTED CONFIGUBATIONa
Engine Concentration, Particulate Rate
rpm/% load mg/rn 3 g/hr g/kg fuel g/kW-hr
1500/2 100.28 63.65 11.70 16.73
1500/25 38.96 25.79 2.35 0.64
1500/50 44.74 30.75 1.47 0.37
1500/75 44.70 30.71 1.16 0.25
1500/100 66.45 48.05 1.32 0.31
Idle 56.80 15.60 11.10 ——
2100/100 40.55 45.15 0.99 0.24
2100/75 44.12 44.97 1.31 0.34
51.96 51.78 1.90 0.53
2100/25 47.76 43.97 2.69 1.28
72.10 64.53 7.91 27.03
aparticulate rate based on 90 mm Pailfiex with back-up filter
bpartjculate rate based on average of 90 mm, 20x20, and 2 runs of
47 mm Paliflex, filter efficiency applied uniformly
B—3 1
-------
TABLE B-15. SUMMARY OF MODAL SULFATE FROM
CUMMINS VTB—903 IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
Engine Run Concentration, Sulfate Rate SO 4 as %
rprn/% load No. pg/rn 3 mg/hr mg/kg fuel rng/kw-hr Fuel S
1500/2 1 1218 763 140 238 1.67
2 1055 661 121 206 1.44
Avg. 1137 712 131 222 1.56
1500/25 1 1926 1249 139 30 1.65
2 2449 1588 177 38 2.11
Avg. 2188 1419 158 34 1.88
1500/50 1 5447 3699 206 44 2.45
2 5011 3403 190 42 2.26
Avg. 5229 3551 198 43 2.36
1500/75 1 5544 3822 140 31 1.67
2 5578 3845 141 32 1.68
Avg. 5561 3834 141 32 1.68
1500/100 1 6519 4662 137 29 1.63
2 5588 3996 117 25 1.39
Avg. 6054 4329 127 27 1.51
Idle a 1 346 92 52 0.62
2 955 254 144 1.71
Avg. 651 173 98 1.17
2100/100 1 5812 6496 146 33 1.74
2 5586 6243 140 32 1.67
Avg. 5699 6370 143 33 1.71
2100/75 1 5936 6162 174 42 2.07
2 5852 6075 172 42 2.05
Avg. 5894 6119 173 42 2.06
2100/50 1 3905 4141 159 42 1.89
2 4680 4963 190 50 2.26
Avg. 4293 4552 175 46 2.08
2100/25 1 2794 2720 154 79 1.83
2 2690 2619 148 76 1.76
Avg. 2742 2670 151 78 1.80
2100/2 1392 1209 151 312 1.80
2 590 513 64 132 0.76
Avg. 991 861 108 222 1.28
aRuns were not repeatable--possible filter holder leak due to problems with
Fluoropore filter plugging
bFluoropore filter plugged
B—3 2
-------
TABLE B-16. SUM1 1ARY OF MODAL SULFATE FROM
CUMMINS VTB9O3 IN MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATION
Engine Run Concentration, Sulfate Rate ________ S04 as %
rpm/% load No. ig/m 3 mg/hr mg/kg fuel mg/kW-hr Fuel S
1670 1060 195 279 2.32
2 585 371 68 98 0.81
Avg. 1128 716 132 189 1.57
1500/25 1 1638 1084 99 27 1.18
2 2234 1479 135 37 1.61
Avg. 1936 1282 117 32 1.40
1500/50 1 4849 3333 159 40 1.89
2 3915 2691 128 32 1.52
Avg. 4382 3012 144 36 1.71
1500/75 1 4498 3090 116 25 1.38
2 5006 3439 130 28 1.55
Avg. 4752 3265 123 27 1.47
1500/100 1 4948 3578 98 23 1.17
2 4489 3246 89 21 1.06
Avg. 4719 3412 94 22 1.12
Idlea 1 921 253 180 2.14
2 579 159 113 1.34
Avg. 750 206 147 1.74
2100/100 1 5156 5741 126 31 1.50
2 4382 4880 107 26 1.27
Avg. 4769 5311 117 29 1.39
2100/75 1 4754 4846 141 36 1.68
2 4450 4536 132 34 1.57
Avg. 4602 4691 35 1.63
2100/50 1 4780 4764 175 48 2.08
2 3793 3780 139 38 1.65
Avg. 4287 4272 157 43 1.87
2100/25 1 1358 1250 77 36 0.92
2 1842 1696 104 49 1.24
Avg. 1600 1473 91 43 1.08
1 1229 1100 135 461 1.61
2 406 363 44 152 0.52
AVg. 818 732 90 307 1.07
aRUfl5 were not repeatable--possible filter holder leak due to problems
with Fluoropore filter plugging
bFluoropore filter plugged
B—3 3
-------
TABLE B-l7. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
FROM CUMMINS VTB-903 IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
(13—Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW-hr
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel
Brake Specific SO 4 , mg/kW—hr
Fuel Specific S0 41 mg/kg fuel
dParticulate rate based on 90 mm Pallflex filter sample taken over two runs.
bSulfate rate based on separate 47 mm Fluoropore filter samples from
two runs, then averaged
Weighted
Engine
rpm/% load
Power
kW
Fuel
kg/hr
Part.a
g/hr
504 —b
mg/hr
Wgt.
Fact.
Power
kW
Fuel
kg/hr
Part.
g/hr
so (
g/hr
Idle
——
1.8
6.01
173
0.067
11.6
1500/2
3.2
5.4
27.56
712
0.08
57.0
1500/25
41.3
9.0
17.86
1419
0.08
113.5
1500/50
80.9
17.9
22.87
3551
0.08
284.1
1500/75
121.4
27.2
20.00
3834
0.08
306.7
1500/100
159.3
34.2
27.92
4329
0.08
346.3
Idle
——
1.8
6.01
173
0.067
11.6
2100/100
195.4
44.5
28.85
6370
0.08
509.6
2100/75
145.5
35.4
24.57
6119
0.08
489.5
2100/50
98.4
26.1
26.32
4552
0.08
364.2
2100/25
34.3
17.7
29.66
2670
0.08
213.6
2100/2
3.9
8.0
39.57
861
0.08
68.9
Idle
——
1.8
6.01
173
0.067
11.6
70.6
18.2
22.41
2788.2
0.3
3.3
6.5
9.7
12.7
15.6
11.6
7.9
2.7
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.7
1.4
2.2
2.7
0.1
3.6
2.8
2.1
1.4
0.6
0.1
0.40
2.20
1.43
1.83
1.60
2.23
0.40
2.30
1.97
2.11
2.37
3.17
0.40
13—mode 7-mode
0.32
1.23
39.5
153.2
0.33
1.30
38 . 9
152.0
8—34
-------
TABLE B-18. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
FROM CUMMINS VTB-903 IN MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATION
(13—Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW—hr
Fuel specific Particulate, g/kg fuel
Brake Specific S0 4 , mg/kW-hr
Fuel Specific S0 4 =, mg/kg fuel
aparticulate rate based on 90 mm Pallflex filter sample
bsulfate rate based on separate 47 mm Fluoropore filter
cparticulate rate based on average of 90 mm, 2Ox20, and
samples.
taken over two runs.
samples from two runs.
two 47 mm particulate
Weighted
Engine
Power
Fuel
Part.a
SO4
wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
SO 4
m/% load
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Idle
——
1.4
15.60
206
0.067
——
0.1
1.05
13.8
1500/2
3.8
5.4
63.65
716
0.08
0.3
0.4
5.09
57.3
1500/25
40.5
11.0
25.79
1282
0.08
3.2
0.9
2.06
102.6
1500/50
83.1
21.0
30.75
3012
0.08
6.6
1.7
2.46
241.0
1500/75
121.4
26.5
30.71
3265
0.08
9.7
2.1
2.46
261.2
1500/100
153.4
36.4
48.05
3412
0.08
12.3
2.9
3.84
273.0
Idle
——
1.4
15.60
206
0.067
——
0.1
1.05
13.8
2100/100
192.4
45.6
45.15
5311
0.08
15.4
3.6
3.61
424.9
2100/75
132.7
34.3
44.97
4691
0.08
10.6
2.7
3.60
375.3
2100/50
98.4
27.2
5L78
4272
0.08
7.9
2.2
4.14
341.8
2100/25
34.3
16.3
43.97
1473
0.08
2.7
1.3
3.52
117.8
2100/2
2.4
8.2
64 • 53 c
732
0.08
0.2
0.7
5.16
58.6
Idle
——
1.4
15.60
206
0.067
——
0.1
1.05
13.8
68.9 18.8 39.09 2294.9
13-mode 7-mode
0.57
2.08
33.3
122.1
0.60
2.21
34.0
124.8
B—3 5
-------
TABLE B-19. SUMMARY OF COLD-HOT START TRANSIENT SULFATE RESULTS
FROM CUMMINS VT8903 IN BOTH BASELINE AND MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATIONS
Engine
Configuration
Run Sulfate
No. mg/test mg/kW-hr mg/kg
SO 4
fuel of
as
Fuel
%a
S
Baseline 1
Cold Start 2
Avg.
446
395
421
36.5
32.3
34.4
125
110
118
1.48
1.31
1.40
Baseline 1
Hot Start 2
Avg.
441
515
478
36.1
42.2
39.2
131
153
142
1.56
1.83
1.70
Baseline Composite
470
38.4
139
1.65
Maladjusted 1
Cold Start 2
Avg.
656
558
607
53.9
45.9
49.9
181
154
168
2.15
1.83
1.99
Maladjusted 1
Hot Start 2
Avg.
380
361
371
31.3
29.8
30.6
110
104
107
1.30
1.24
1.27
Maladjusted Composite
405
33.4
116
1.37
aFuel Used: SwRI EM—408-F,
No. 2—D Fuel with 0.28 wt. % S
B—3 6
-------
APPENDIX C
EMISSION RESULTS FROM THE DDAD 6V-71N IN
BASELINE AND MALAD3USTED CONFIGURATIONS
-------
TABLE C-i. NOTES CONCERNING HOT START TRANSIENT TESTING
DURING MALADJUSTMENT OF BASELINE ENGINE
Maladj ustment
Hot Start
C-2 Six 50,000 mile injectors were substituted into the
baseline engine. Racks were adjusted to specification.
Injection timing was maintained same as baseline.
Passed statistical requirements. HC and NOx were taken
by bag only.
C-3 Injection timing was retarded by 0.020 inch on each
injector for a retard of approximately 2.8 crank angle
degree. Passed statistical requirements. HC and NOx
were taken by bag only.
C-4 Adjustments to throttle delay were made in order to
null the effect of the mechanism. Passed statistical
requirements. HC and NOx were taken by bag only.
C-5 Intake air restriction was increased from 17 in. H 2 O
to 25 in. H 0 as measured during maximum power
conditions. Passed statistical requirements. HC
and NOx were measured and were reported as taken by
bag and by continuous on-line instrumentation.
C-2
-------
HG SAMPLE
HC DCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRIJ
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRP
DILUTION FACTOR
HG CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
MDX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (ID)
KU HR (HP HR)
TEST NO.028-7 RUN1
DATE 5/22/81
TI ME
DYNO NO. 5
1
NYNF
228,6 C 9,0)
180.3 ( 7.1)
48.9 (120,0)
3326.
296.0
158.2 ( 5588.)
31,59
13.
71,
.37
34,7
1 .23
13.12
1072,3
10.51
.346
.97 (
LANF
228.6 C 9,0)
180.3 C 7.1)
48.9 (120.0)
3371.
300.0
160.3 ( 5663.)
21.17
26.
88.
.58
46.0
2.37
16.41
1706.5
14,12
.549
1.50
DIESEL EM—465-F
BAG CART NO.
3
LAF
228.6 ( 9,0)
180,3 ( 7,1)
48.9 (120.0)
3427.
305,0
163.0 ( 5757.)
8,38
49.
203.
1 .53
117.4
4,59
38.48
4577, 1
36.60
1.467
4,84
4
NYNF
228.6 ( 9,0)
180.3 ( 7.1)
48.9 (120,0)
3337,
297.0
158,7 ( 5606.)
31.22
34,
64.
.38
35.8
3.11
11.92
1094.7
10.87
.354
.90 (
ENGINE
ENGINE
ENGINE
CVS NO,
NO.028
MODEL 78 DOAD 6V—71COACH
7.0 1(426, CID)
10
+50,000 MILE INJECTORS
TABLE C—2. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H—TRANS
PROJECT NO. 05—5830—008
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—42, PCI , CVS-62. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,8 GM/K6( 75,6 GRAINS/LB)
BAROMETER 737.62 MM 146(29,04 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 28.9 BEG C(84.0 BEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER IIIF P MM. H20(IN. 1420)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. 1420)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. BEG. C(DE6. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RAN GE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX HUMIDITY C ,F. 1.0000
23.7/ 2/
10.6/ 2/
75. 8/13/
1.4/13/
25,4/ 3/
3,0/ 3/
35.3/ 2/
.6/ 2/
36.5/ 2/
11.4/ 2/
91,2/13/
1.3/13/
36.9/ 3/
2.7/ 3/
46,5/ 2/
.5/ 2/
58,9/ 2/
11,5/ 2/
88. 0/12/
.7/12/
85.0/ 3/
3.0/ 3/
39,3/ 3/
.2/ 3/
59,
12.
215.
1.
1,57
.05
118.
1.
45,4/ 2/
11.8/ 2/
69,4/13/
1,3/13/
25.6/ 3/
2.8/ 3/
36.2/ 2/
.4/ 2/
24.
11.
74,
1.
.41
.05
35,
1.
.76)
1,30)
.94)
10,06)
822.10)
8.06)
.585)
37,
11.
92.
1.
.62
.04
47,
1.
1.21)
2.01)
1+18)
8.18)
850.40)
7.03)
.603>
BSHC 6/KU HR (6/HP HR)
BSCO 6/KU HR (G/HF ’ fIR)
BSCO2 61KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSNOX 6/KU HR (6/lIP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
45,
12,
67.
1.
.42
.04
36.
0.
.78)
1,20)
2,58)
9.90)
909,23)
9,03)
.649)
1.26
13.49
1102.45
10.80
* 351,
TOTAL
BSHC
RSCO
BSCO2
BSNOX
BSFC
KU HR (HP
6/KU HR
6/KU HR
6/KU FIR
6 1KW HR
KG/KU HR
1.58
10.96
1140.41
9,43
.367
FIR)
(6/HF HR)
(6/HP HR)
(6/HP HR)
(6/HP FIR)
(LB/HF’ HR
8.21
1.38
9,74
1030.
8.79
.331
3.23)
6,49)
.71)
5.93)
705.43)
5,64)
.499)
.95 (
7,95
946.00
7.56
.303
11.00)
1.03) Bag
7.26)
768.)
‘ ng
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
3.46
13.28
1219.29
12.11
.395
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 1LTERS
SAHftE FLOW
SCM(BCF)
.820 C
28.97)
6/TEST
.781
6/KU HR (C/HP fIR) .0951
( .0709)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 0.94 (0.70)
SCM(SCF)
0.00 C 0.0)
-------
ENGINE NO.1 128
ENGINE MOtIEL 78 DDAB 6V-71COACH
ENGINE 7,0 L(426. CID)
CVS NO, 10
BAR0METEU 737,07 Nil HC(29.05 IN HG)
[ fRY BULB TEMP. 28,9 DEC C(84.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
[ ‘ISCRIPTION
BLOWER ItIF P MM, H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET F’ Nil. H20(IN. H2O)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW SIt ’. CU, METRES(SCF)
HE SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HE DCNCRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO RCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
CD? BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PET
NOl’ SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCIcGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C)
, DILUTION FACTOR
Hr CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C C ) ’ CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
Hr MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CC)? MASS CRAMS
NOX MASS CRAMS
FUEL NO (ID)
NW HR (HP HR)
BSHC 6/KU HR (6/HP HR)
RSCO 6/NW HR (C/HP UR)
1 1 5CC)? 6/NW HR (G/h’P bR)
BSNOX ( 1/NW HR (6/HF’ HR)
BSFC NO/NW HR (LB/HF HE’)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL NW HR (HP bR)
DSHE 6/NW HR (6/HF bR)
RSCO S/NW HR (6/HF HR)
BSCO7 C/NW HR (6/HP Un)
BSNOX 6/NW HR (C/Hr HE’)
[ ISFC NO/NW HR (LB/HF fIR)
8.08
1.41
12.76
1065,
6.82
.344
PA T. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 1.34 (1.00)
+ TIMING RETARD
TABLE 03 ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H—TRANS
TEST NO.D28-8 RUNI
DATE 5/22/81
TIME 11140
DYNO 140. 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
1.39 2.57
12.92 21.07
1097.9 1738.4
8.45 10.99
.354 ( .78> .561
.92 ( 1,24) 1.46
1.51 1 1.13) 1.76
14,00 ( 10,44 14.44
1109,02 ( 887,25) 1191,53
9.16 6.83) 7.53
.384 ( .631) .385
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
DIESEL EM-465—F
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT 140, 05—5830—008
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1,0000
ENGINE—40,
v
10.3 GM/KG( 71.9
, CVS-60, PCI
GRAINS/LB)
1
2
NYNF
LANE
3
4
228.6 ( 9.0)
LAF
NYNF
180,3 ( 7.1)
( 9.0)
228.6 1 9.0)
228,6 1 9.0)
48,9 (120,0)
( 7.1)
180.3 ( 7,1)
180.3 1 7,1)
3326.
48.9 (120.0)
3371.
48.9 (120,0)
48.9 (120,0)
296,0
300.0
3428.
3337.
150.3 ( 5590,)
160.4 ( 5666,)
3 05.u
163,1 ( 5761.)
297.0
158.3 ( 5608.)
26.3/ 2/ 26.
40.4/ 2/ 40.
11,4/ 2/ 11.
13.3/ 2/ 13.
2/ 60.
45.2/ 2/ 45,
73.9/13/ 72.
.4/13/ 0.
54.4/12/ 117.
.3/12/
13,2/ 2/ 13.
71.6/11/ 305,
14,2/ 2/ 14,
81.0/13/ 80.
25.3/ 31 .41
1.
37,0/ 3/
.4/11/ 1.
.7,13/ 1.
2.3/ 3,’ .04
2.1/ 3/
86.4/ 3/ 1.60
24.9, 3/ .41
28.4/ 2/ 20.
.5/
36.3/ 2/ 36.
2.3/ 3/ .04
88.8/ 2/ 89,
2.4/ 3/ .04
27.4/ 2/ 27.
31.72
21.01
15.
8.18
32.04
70.
113,
49.
31.
.38
.59
289.
78.
1.57
.37
1.24)
1.96)
1.31)
10.77)
888.53)
5.62)
.632)
FOR 4 BAGS
54,82
14.33
4696,3
1076.9
27,49
8.15
1.513 ( 3,34)
4.00 ( 6.44)
.350 1 .77)
.90 1 1,20)
.96 ( .71)
3.21 1 2.39)
11,42 ( 8.52)
15,96 1 11.90)
978.20 ( 729,45)
1199,49 1 894.46
5.73 ( 4.27)
9.07 ( 6.77)
10.84)
1,05) Bag
9,52)
795,)
5.08) Ba
.565)
SCM(SCF)
6/TEST
C/NW HR (6/HP HR)
6/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
.840 1 29.66)
.763
.0944 ( .0704)
.2746 ( .1246)
SCM(SCF)
0.00 ( 0.0)
-------
+ NO THROTTLE DELAY
tABLE C—4. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H —TRANS.
PROJECT NO. 05—5830—008
ENGINE NO.D28
ENGINE MODEL 78 ODAtI 6V-71COACH
ENGINE 7.0 1(426, CID)
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 736.35 MM H6(28.99 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 30.6 DIG C(87.0 DIG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H2O(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DIG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 5Th. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CD BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE IFCT
C02 CKI3RD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCK6RD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
U’ HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PF’M
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KU HR (HP HR)
BSHC 6/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSCO 6/KU HR (6/HP HR)
BSCO2 6/KU HR (6/HP HR)
RSNOX 0/KU HR (0/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KU HR (HP HR)
BCHC 61KW HR (6/HP 1 (R)
BSCO G/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSCO2 6/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSNOX 6/KU HR (6/HF HR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP HR)
TEST NO ,D289 RUN1
DATE 5/22/81
TIME
DYNO NO. 5
1
NYNF
226.6 ( 9.0)
180.3 ( 7,1)
48.9 (120.0)
3326.
296 • 0
157.9
26.4/ 2/
11.1/ 2/
92. 0/13/
.7/13/
25.5/ 3/
2.6/ 3/
28.5/ 2/
.5/ 2/
4,50
56.67
4674.5
27.67
1,507
4,89
.92
11.59
956.28
5.66
.308
2 • 94
14,38
1099.0
8,43
.357
.90 (
3q28
16.02
1224.06
9,39
.398
.856 ( 30.24)
.747
.0906 ( .0675)
.2670 ( .1211)
0,00 ( 0.0)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—35. PCT , CVS —57. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9.9 GM/KG( 69.3 GRAINS/LB) NOX
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
HUMIDITY C,F, 1,0000
LANF
LAF
NYNF
228.6 ( 9.0)
228.6 ( 9.0)
220.6 ( 9,0)
180.3 ( 7,1)
180.3 ( 7.1)
180.3 ( 7.1)
48.9 (120.0)
48.5’ (120.0)
48,9 (120.0)
3370.
299,9
3428,
305.’)
3338.
297.0
5652.)
162.8 ( 5749.)
158.5 ( 5598.)
5578.)
160.0 (
26.
37,9/ 2/ 38.
11.21 2/ 11.
58.5/ 2/ 59.
12,1/ 2/ 12.
43.7/ 2/ 44.
11.9/ 2/ 12.
11.
148.
73.2/11/ 315.
81.5/13/ 81.
93.
.4/12/ 1.
.3/11/ 1.
.9/13/ 1.
1.
.42
38.5/ 3/ .65
86,6/ 3/ 1.61
25.8/ 3/ .42
3/ .04
2,9/ 3/ .04
2.9/ 3/ .04
.04
37.1/ 2/ 37.
89,3/ 2/ 89,
28.1/ 2/ 28.
29.
.5/ 2/ 1.
.3/ 2/ 0.
31.31
16.
90,
.38
28,0
20.06
27 *
143.
.61
36.8
8.16
48.
299.
1.57
88.9
30.89
32,
78.
* 38
27.8
1.43 2,52
16.51 26.58
1092,8 1781.1
8,46 11.27
.354 .78) .578
.94 ( 1,25) 1.52
1,52 ( 1.14) 1.65
17.65 ( 13.16) 17.47
1168.44 ( 871,31) 1170.73
9,05 ( 6.75) 7,41
.379 ( .623) .380
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL
1,27)
2,04)
1,23)
13.03)
873.01)
5,52)
.624)
FOR 4 BAGS
3.32)
6,56)
.69)
8,65)
713.10)
4,22)
.507)
‘79)
1.20)
2.44)
11.95)
912.78)
7.00)
* 654)
8,24 ( 11.05)
SCM(SCF)
1.38 ( 1.03)
13.85 ( 10.33)
Bag
SAMPLE
MULTIPLIER
MULTIPLIER
FOR
FOR
6/TEST
6/KU HR (0/HP HR)
1049. ( 782.)
6.77 ( 5.05)
.339 ( .558)
Ba
•
MULTIPLIER
20 X 20 FILTERS
FLOW
FOR
6/KB FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
SCM(SCF)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 1.45 (1.08)
-------
INCREASED AIR RESTRICTION
+
TABLE
C—5- ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
ENGINE NO.028
TEST NO.1)28-i RUN!
ENGINE MODEL 78 DriAri 6V—71COACH
DATE 5/25/81
ENGINE 7,0 L(426, CIII)
CVS NO. 10
TIME
DYNO NO. 5
DIESEL EM-465—F
BAG CART NO. 1
BAROMETER 736.09 MM 1(6(28,98 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ENGINE-50. PCI
CVS—50. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 26,7 DEC C(30.0 DEC F)
ABSOLUTE HuMIrIITY
11.3 GM/NG 79.3
GRAINS/LR) NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1.0000
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
1
2
3
DESCRIPTION
NYNF
LANF
LAF NYNF
BLOWER 1 1ff P MM. H2OIN. H20
241.3 9.5
241.3 ( 9.5)
241.3 ( 9,5) 241.3
BLOWER INLET P MM. H2CHIN, H20)
182.9 ( 7.2)
182.9 ( 7.2)
182.9 ( 7.2) 182.9 ( 7.2)
BLOWER INLET TEMF. DEG, C(DEG. F)
48.9 (120.0)
48.9 (120.0)
48,9 (120.0) 48.9 (120.0)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
3326,
3371.
3428, 3337.
TIME SECONDS
296.0
300.0
305.0 297.0
TOTAL FLOW Sill, CU. METRES(SCF)
157,5 ( 5564.)
159.7 ( 5639.)
162.4 ( 5734J 158.0 ( 5582.)
MC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
10.8/23/
14.6/23/ 73.
22.7/23/ 113. 16.7/23/ 84.
MC BCNGRII METER/RANGE/PPM
6.8/ 2/
6.3/ 2/ 6.
7.0/ 2/ 7. 7,0/ 2/ 7.
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
95.7/13/
70.1/12/ 160,
79,7/11/ 360. 91,5/13/ 92.
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
1.6/13,’
.8/12/ 1.
.8/11/ 2. 1.9/ 3/ 2.
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANCE/FCT
25,7/ 3/
30.1/ 3/ .64
07.8/ 3/ 1,63 26,0/ 3/ .43
C02 BCKGRII METER/RANGE/PCi
3.0/ 3/
3,2/ 3/ .05
3.1/ 3/ .05 2.6/ 3/ .04
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
10,6/13/
14.2/13/ 42,
33.5/13/ 100. 10.9/13/ 33.
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.5/ 2/
.4/ 2/ 0.
1,5/ 2/ 2.
47,
93,
.38
31.2
DILUTION FACTOR
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
WOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP FIR)
BSHC 0/NW HR (0/HP HR)
BSCO 0/NW HR (6/HP 1(R)
BSCO2 61KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSP4OX G/KW HR (0/HP KR)
BSFC KG/KU HR (LB/HP FIR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
20.14
67,
154.
.60
42.1
54,
7,
97,
1.
.42
.05
32,
1.
.78)
1,24)
3,48)
13.84)
875.09)
7,59)
.631)
7,99
107,
341.
1 .59
99,1
30.29
77.
88,
.39
32,0
4,31
17.13
1082.9
9.40
‘354
.92
4.67
18.56
1173,52
10,18
• 384
6.19
u +
1742.5
12.86
.570
1.52
4.07
10.77
1145.41
8.45
.375
10.04
64.48
4729.5
30.78
1,534
4.88
2.06
13.22
970,00
6,31
.315
1 .26)
2,04)
3.03)
13,99)
854,13)
6.30)
.616)
7,01
16.26
1119,0
9.67
+368
.90
7,80
18,11
1246,31
10.78
.410
3.38)
6.54)
1.54)
9.86)
723.33)
4,71)
.517)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
PART.
G/KW-HR
(G/HP-HR)
1.45
(1.08)
BSHC
G/KW-HR
(G/HP-HR)
1.38
(1.03)
Bag
BSNOX
G/KW-HR
(G/HP-HR)
6.89
(5.14)
Bag
.81)
1 .20)
5.82)
13.51)
929.38)
8.04)
.674)
TOTAL
NW HR
-------
TABLE C—6. 1a.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE jq q
(Nr,INF, ODAD 6V—71 COACH NO.1 DIESEL • RASELINE RAPOMETER 2 ,iR
IE T NO, 01.01 FUE1I EM— ’nQ.F PROJECT,Ij .593 0. 0 09 DATE* Os/ip/R I
_
FNGPJF TORQUF POWEP FUEL AIR INTAKE NOX MEASURED CALCULATED
SPEED flRS 0135 FLOW Flow HUMID CORP HC Co COP NOX GRAMS / HOUR MODE
PCI CONT) / RPM N K U KM KC/MIN KC/MIN G/KG FACT PPM PPM PCI PPM HC CO NOX
see
1 TI)LE / ‘400, fl .0 ,01’l 3. 148 7.1 •qçq pep, ioi, .73 130, 23, 22, ‘ I I, 1
2 2 INTER / 124 ,0, 15. 2,0 .063 i?,nq •qsq 272, 1*4 ,, 1.05 100, qb, 103, 110, 2
1 25 INTER / 1260, 116, 211,5 .128 12.02 7,1 ,qçq 2118, in, 2.18 215, 88, 56, 237, 3
co INTEP / 1?bO 373. * .? •?03 1?,oP 7,1 •q 5 q 2 ’ 48, bj, 3,67 380, 911, 110, 3q11, 11
; ‘5 INTER / 1?b0, 5 çq , 73.7 •?qP jj,q 7,1 ,q 5 2611, j q, 5,311 S6S, 110, 1011, 580, s
4, INTER / t?bfl, k. 119,11 • ‘ lb 11.83 7,1 •qt5g pj4,, 5775, 7,25 8?fl, 711, 3703, 822, 4,
IDLE / ‘400. 0, .0 .0111 3 11b 7,1 •11511 224, 101, ,71 13%, 214, 22, ‘46, 7
R [ ‘JO RATEr) / 2100, 5 q;• 131,2 .5116 18.115 7,1 , 1 159 316, 11311, 6.63 8110, 177, 1212, 13117, •
q ç RATfD / 2100. ‘4*9. 118,4 .1471 18, O 7.1 ,1159 328, 173, s, q soo, 186, lii , iso,
10 50 PATF ) / 230 , p118. 65.6 .3*11 1R ;3 7.1 .11511 328, qo. 3,q 335, 190, 116, 5511, in
11 25 RATED / 2IiI0 1’411. 32,8 .242 18 .1,1 7,1 •qsq aeo 113, 2,66 215, 101. 101, 365, 11
12 2 RF 1Fr5 / 2100, I?. 2,7 •153 18 .75 7,j .q;q 336, 103, 1.68 120, 193. 111, 202, 12
IDLE / ‘4110, 0. ,0 .0111 1,;? 7,1 •qsq 232, 11’4, ,l1 160, 23, 2?, ‘4’4, 13
eee.e..es ness. •esae.•.. 5e. eee..e as .. eseese eeesn.seee
eOn... Seeeeee ee o C.. . . en.....a.e ..neee. a 5eseeeeeoe 5 eo .e. •eseeesose.s, OeflWeSeoee.e
CALCULATED F/A F/A MET HC F/A F/A POWER BSFC NODAL
MOof GRAMS/KG_F uEL GPAMS/KW.HR DRY ‘PHI” CORP PCI CORP CORP WEIGHT MODE
NC CO NfJX NC CO NOX MEAS STOICH FACT CALC MEAS FACT KG/KW.HR FACTOR
a__s e.e_.e. _. e.e.ee.. *Seefleseeee.e fl.eee • Ssaeeees. .. e.e.c Sseae .See p.
I. 27.51’ ?b,79 s ,q , *** * *a ** ***** .00311 ob 97 ns7 .1111? .0036 .7,6 •qql **.e. ,O4,7 1
? ?ç ,2u 2b,119 29,113 *9.74 52,21 55,38 .0053 .01,87 ,077 •qOq .0052 .1,5 1,011 1,111 ’ 4 .090 2
3 11.45 7.211 3 ’ ,l ,8 3,4,0 2,211 11,1,5 ,OjflR .ob87 • 1 57 .11711 ,01D4 .2.5 1,011 ,311 ,C1 10 3
‘4 4,,114 3 ,l41 3,71 .82 8,00 ,01 ,0 •flb87 •2117 •11bS .01711 2,0 1,011 ,P 1 1 ’ 4 ,090 ‘ 4
S 5.14 , ,q 1’ 13,1? 1.22 1,42 7,96 ,0P’4b ,0b87 3S9 ,115 1 .0252 2,1 1,010 .235 .090 5
2 , 5 **k** 32.1111 . 37,62 8,35 •nJg ’ 4 fl1,87 4516 .1132 .0365 3.1 1,011 •8 51 .080 1,
7 211,4,2 ?I’J,73 55,113 ****** ****** ***** .00110 • 1,87 •058 •q112 ,003b .8,0 .1107 ***** ,067
33.11? q•ra i , s q,p 4 10,65 .0325 ,nl ,87 ,117’4 .1140 .031% —3,1 1,049 .260 .080 8
3 6.57 l .bb 3fl ,10 j•pq 1.111 8,611 ,0 5b ,n697 •3 3 ,q p .02115 —‘4,3 1,01111 ,2711 , 0 8 0 q
11 9,511 * ,sp p1’,1,11 2.,* 1,’4 1, 9.52 .01110 •ol, 7 •27b .1163 ,0187 .1,7 1,01111 ,30 1 1 ,080 10
11 1P, ’4h 4,,q’4 25.1? 5, 1 3,1)7 11.11 .0131 .04,87 •jqj .117* .0129 .2,3 1,050 , ‘421 .090 11
1? 111,112 12,05 p1,119 4, q11 ‘41,114 75,38 . flR2 .0697 .120 .qBl •oo p a,; 1,051 3,263 .080 It
13 2 ,72 27 ,23 511,114 ****** ****** ***** ,fl(33q •ob 7 ,057 .11111 ,00 ’ 4P 3,5 ,qon ***** .067 13
• eaeeesse .e.nna.e . .a._._ sees....
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING 13.MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC —.—.... z 2,11111 GRAM/KM —HR C 1,801 GRAM/BHP—HR )
B SCO — .e.e q,117j GRAM/KM.HP ( 7, ’ 4311 GRAM/BHP.HR )
B$NOX ——. .—— 11,73? GRAM/KM—HR C 7,260 GRAM/RHP.HR )
RSHC + ASNOX I ?,j’44, GRAM/KM —HR ( q, 01,3 GRAM/BMP.HR
CoRP. ASEC — “ ,? 1 16 KG/Kw.HR C ,1187 Ll3S/6HP.HR
-------
TABLE C—7. 13.MODE FE!)ERAL OIESEL EMISSION CYCLE 1979
N(;1NEj 1 AD NV—fl COACH NO,t
lisT NO. 1 01 fUELi FM —4nfl—F
eq__ c. S S•.e.q •qe •••
ToROUL POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE NOX MEASURED CALCUL.ATED
SPEFP OHS OHS FLOW flnw HUMID CORN P lC Co C02 NOX GRAMS / HOUR MODE
PC CoNr / ppt x M KW KO/MIN Kfl/MIN S/KS FACT PPM PPM PCT PPM NC CD NOX
IDLE / 400, 0, sO .fll’+ ,.ss 6,1 ,q*o iq , u , ,B1 160, iq. ii, *8, 1
2 IN1ER / 3?b0 8 +4, 1,8 ,063 t ,nq 6,1 .9*0 260, 1*6 . 1,18 130, 82, 9?. 326 , 2
3 ? INTER / 1?h0 . lRb. 214.5 .128 12,n9 6,1 , *1 236, 80, 2.23 235, 82, 55, 2*8, 3
‘) T TE / l2bI’ , 473, *9.2 .203 12.nq b,1 , ‘p2 236, 58, 3,60 390, 82, 39, +05, ‘4
S INTF / 1 ?bfl• 559. 73,7 ,?92 12,n2 6.1 .9*3 252, 159, 5.3 1p 575. 86, 10*, 581, 5
mu INTPR / L?N0, h. 98,14 , ‘# IN Il q ’ 4 b,i ,9 ’4 14 216, 5735, 7,16 830, 714, 372a 830, 6
7 I0I.E / 4( 0 , 0. ,0 ,D1* 3 514 6,1 •q14a 220, 98, .69 130, 2S , 22, *6, 7
1110 RATEp / ?+0O 549, 131.8 •5qb 18.s7 6,1 ,9*’4 312, 1126, 6,72 820• 173, 1183, 1327, B
c RATED / flUO , 98.7 .1471 18,61 6,1 •9 ’ 43 32*, 159, 5,3* +70, 179, 168, 765,
It, c i i kATE [ ) / 2II1n 300. 65,9 •3*q 18,65 6 ,1 , *2 328, 88, 3,92 330, 180, 9*, S141 10
Ii S RATED / flUO, 1* , 32.8 .2*? +8.63 6,1 • *1 32$, 93, 2,66 210, 181, 101, 150, 11
2 RATEO / ?1or+ I ?. 2,7 ,1S3 18,7* 6,1 • *j 328, 101, 1,68 115, 178, 10 190, 12
IDLE / 400, (1, ,0 ,OLl+ 3,5? 6,1 • *o 236, 106, .81 165, 23, 21 13
_ •_•••_•,
CALCULATED F/A F/A
MOpf GRAMS/K —F1IFL GRAM5/K W.Hp DRY ‘PHI’
HC C’ ) NOX
I 2 .1i3 ?R•5S cR•q t
‘ 21,57 ?4 I 3 2•qa
3 1(1,6? ? I+ 32,211
4 h,73 3.22 33.33
ç ‘(, 2 5.96 33,1?
h ?.Rg *I*** 33.??
7 30.71 27.40 55.76
4,84 43,30 37,1?
q 3? 5,95 27,08
10 R,s4 4 ,+R jS,814
ii 12.45 b•94 ? .fl9
1 lq, b 11,83 20.68
13 29,2125,34 bfl,51
—
CYCLE COMPOSITE 4 1 5 1N0 13 .MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
cc..... 2.33* GRAM/K .HR C 1.7+1 GRAM/BHP.HR
BSCO —.—.—.. 9,872 GRAM Kvd.HR C 7,365 GRAM/BHP.HR
Ns, nx ..... 9,1458 GRAM/KW.HR C 7,055 GRAM/BHP.HR
RSHC + RSNOX s 11,792 GRAM/KN.HR C 8.797 GRAM/BHP.HR )
CORN, BSFC . •297 Kr, /Kw—HR C ,*B9 t.88/BHP .HR )
DIESEL , BASELINE
PROJECT+ 11 ’ .5830—OflS
BAROMETER 29,18
DATEi 05/12/81
F/A
PlC CO NOX
Sees Se CS S —
**, t**
3.35
1 • Nb
1,1!
• 7b
*** k**
1.31
1.81
2.73
5 . 5I
Nb • 39
51.37
2,2*
•80
I ,*
37,81
** *** *
8,9?
I • 70
1,42
3,07
*0,56
70,20
10, 12
8,23
7,88
8,143
10,06
7.75
8,23
10,65
70,90
WET MC F’A
CORK PCT
MEAS STOICH FACT CAL.C 145*3
•003q •nbB7 •00*0 4,1
,0053 ,0b87 ,0058 10,2
,01fl7 ,0687 ,0107
.0169 •0bB7 .0171 1.5
,0p ie .0687 ,O?5? 3,0
,0350 p0687 .0361 2,9
,0039 ,0687 •0D3* .10,9
,0323 ,0b87 .031 .1.1
•0255 ,ns,87 •0252 .1,0
.0188 ,0b87 ,U187 .1,0
,0131 •flbBJ ,O I2B .2,1
.0082 .0687 ,0082 .,5
•0019 ,flb87 ,00*fl 3,8
,OSb J 91
.077 •988
•15b ,978
.2*5 .966
.356 ,9S1
,510 p933
.056 •9q2
,*70 .939
.371 ,qs1
,27*
,190 .975
.120 ,983
,0 7 .qql
POWER B SFC
CORK CORK
FACT KG/K WePIR
‘.rc . . . .. .eqq u ce
•989 *****
1,007 2 .11*
1,005 .313
1,005
1,005 .236
1,00* .252
.982 ***a*
1,0*14 ,26O
1,014* .305
1 ,0*6
1,0*6 3,277
,98b *****
MODAL
WEIGHT MODE
FACTOR
,0b7 3
,O80 2
,0U0 I
,080 *
,080 S
.080 6
,0 67 7
,08 0 8
,0$0 9
,080 10
,080 11
.080 12
,Db7 13
-------
TABLE C—8. 13.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE q q
Et’ GTNE, ODAD bVe7t COACH NO.1 DIESEL. MALFUNCTION CONFIG, BAROMETER 214,05
TESTI 02.01 FUELs EM.*nn.F PROJECTsOS.5 *28.oo l DATES 5/27/81
a Cs * 5S 5 S
Pfl FR E’J INE TDROUE POWER FUEL AIR INTAKE NOX MEASURED CALCULATED
MODE 3 P r IBS OBS FLOW FLnW HUMID CORP HC CO CO? NOX GRAMS / HOUR MODE
PCT CONI) / PPM N X N KM KG/MIN KG MIN 6/KG FACT PPM PPM PCT PPM MC CD NOX
• •S•a•• sflsseoees.—e e.... s 5e.ass . .SeS 0 500s0s0e
1 IDLE / 400, 0. .0 ,O1 * 3.*7 11,2 1,121 IbA, 133, .85 130, Ib, 23. 1414. 1
2 2 INTER / I2bO, 114. 1,8 •0b7 ll,.h ? 12,7 1,IOb ? 8, 2114, 1,18 qo, B ?, 117, lOb, 2
PS INTER / 121,0, j *. 22 ,14 .123 11.41 11,5 1 ,Obb 220, 127, 2,28 155, 73, 81, 177, 3
ie ;n INTER / l?bO. 3 14g. ‘4b.O .1 14 11,k? 11.5 1.05% 1%, 133, 3.54 235, b$ , 140, 271, 14
5 7 INTER I 1?bO, 522, bP,14 .2142 11,42 11,5 1,014? 2214, SOb. 5,114 3’4S, 7k, 18?, 382, 3
b 1(10 INTER / 1?bfl, 1, q • 142,0 .1423 11 ’4? 11.5 1,023 lIb• 81014, b ,814 520, 141. S IBb , 577, b
!DLF / won, 0. ,0 ,tll * 3p148 11.5 1.078 j*14, lOb, .81 135. 1, 21, ‘47, 7
8 iflU RATED / 2100, 51,14, 1214,1 .bIl 17,83 12,5 1,0141 lb ’ 4, 1,14b, b,148 520, 814. ?b145 , 1400, 8
q 75 RATED / 2100. 1423. 143,1 •1414t5 17,83 12,5 1,053 200, sq, s.73 qo, 107. 571, 14
10 50 RATED / ?100. ‘0P. b2 O .358 17,R3 12,7 1,07% 232, 127, ,12 200, 123, 11?, lbb, 10
J1 S RATED / flofl, 141. 11,0 •P’4b 18.02 12,0 1,0b14 ibli, lOb, 2,77 130, 1 c, 112, 2140, 11
12 2 RATED / 2100, 11. 2,14 .137 1R,o2 12.0 1,078 280, 1114, 1,73 80, 152, 123, 151, 12
13 IDLE / 1400, 0. .0 ,0114 3.’ 7 11,5 1,078 1142, 1114, .814 120, 17, 20, 18, 11
seSeeseflOe_sefl• eSe.sSeeOeeSfl.SSSeSSe efl .5 ___ .ee . . . . .aflS 0555.5. .Se .SeeSS.es e . an... .s..e.s.. ...sese ..u en...n
ees 5 .se .. ..eS s. ees n e .sees 5.eeS .. 5•eSSe. OS Oe asssS.sn e.n..... ... 5 e•.,e5...s.•
CALCULATED F/a /A WET NC T/A F/A POWER BSFC MODAL
MODF GpAM S/KG. .FLJEL GRAMS/KW.HR DRY ‘PH! ’ CORR PCT CORR CORP WEIGHT MODE
fit CO NOX HC Co NOX MEAS STOICH TACT CALC MU$ FACT KG/KW.HR FACTOR
sSssC .es.es..e.ess.ssnese .se.ssesseesse 50 a .s 5 5 5e 50e 5 5 Cs SflSesSflCese eesSefl 5505555555505 •e.s.e.es.s
I l .3Q 30•*q 5 ,51 ****e* ***. .00140 ,obB7 ,058 •qpq • o*j 3,7 ,14q5 ***** .01,7 1
2 20.147 3 .25 ?b.t ’9 ‘45,(,* 07 ,%p 314,1414 ,0 058 , b87 ,0814 .1401, ,00514 1,0 1 O114 2,187 ,O80 2
q. 73 11.07 23.51 3.20 3,b14 7,71 .01014 ,n1,87 ,1514 •1477 .0110 .5 1.018 .123 •fl8O 3
‘4 5.48 ,51 ? ,Rb 1 ,’I 1, S 5,143 ,fl173 ,nb 0 7 ,2 52 ,Ibb ,OlbB .2,7 1,018 ,2SS •0$O 14
5 14.35 21,81 2 1 .814 1,11 5,5* 5,55 ,025 •flb Ol .370 ,1450 •O?514 a,? 1,017 •25O .080 S
4 1,1,1 ***** 22,71) , ‘ 5 58,5* hI?! •0375 ,o1,8! ,S 1 4b .1433 .03514 .‘4.1 1,018 .271 ,0B0 1,
7 2S.b? 57.141 ** * *‘**** ***** ,oo*n .ns,e7 .058 .14140 ,00*O .8 •qq ***** , Ob T 7
8 2.4? 73.514 24.55 . 21.7? 7.25 ,03147 oh07 .505 .143% .0337 .2.7 1 ,Ob S .277 ,080 P
q 1.b14 1 q, 141 17.32 1,13 4,13 5.147 ,02 8 ,n687 .1405 .14145, .0271 .2,3 1.Obb .2% q
10 3.81 b ,17 17,014 2,nl 2,13 %•814 .0203 • ,87 •?14b ,14b0 ,0114S —3,7 1,01 , •1?* .080 10
11 14•53 7.1,? lb,11 4 ,g! 3,b? 7,75 .0138 • 1,87 .201 ,147? ,0133 .3,7 1, 0b7 .080 11
I? 14,3? 13,00 lb,O5 1,3,7? s1,3q b3,*S .0088 ,o 1 ,87 ,1214 .1482 ,008 1 4 .14,7 1,OhB 1,703 .080 12
13 ?1,fl ‘4,qq ‘44.27 ****** ****** ***** .00140 •nbR7 ,OSR ,qpq •Ofl*14 10,8 ,14143 ***** ,017 1!
SeSS eSeSOSSSSeOsSsSeee SSS Sfl S nSS sSOeee• see eaeS0eS5SS05flSS0es5 5e5a 5See 5e S5SSSSS5SCeCSCSSS 50SeoefleSses a.seasa
CYCLE COMPOSITE tJSTwG 13—MODE WEIGHT FACTORS
B 54C e—— .—.— U 1,023 GRAM/KW.HR C 1,35,0 GRAM/BHPsHR
R9CO U 17,1401 CQAM/KW.HR (13,141* GRAM/BHP.HR
R3NOX b,14b1 GRAM,K45.HR C 5,11414 GRAMIBHP.HR
BSHC + ASNOX • R,78b CP*M /KW.HP ( 4,554 GRAM/B l IP —HP
CgRR, R FC e $ ,3J1, KG/KWSHR C ,520 LBS/BHP.HR )
-------
TABLE C9. 13.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE jq,q
EN ( TNEs (lOAD 6V.7i COACH wO ,1 DIESEL, MALFUNCTION CONFIG. BAROMETER 2q,03
TESTI 02.02 FUELI EM—’loO.F PR OJECT,os .3 1 12 8.oo1 DATEp 3/27/81
••e .••. __ _ _____ _
POWER ENGINE ToPQlJ POWER FUEL A lp INTAKE NOX MEASURED CALCULATED
MOOF SPEED 08$ FLOW FLOW HUMID CORR MC CO C02 NOX GRAMS / HOUR MODE
PCT - COND / PPM N x N KM KG/M!P4 KG N C/KG FACT PPM PPM PCI PPM MC Co NOX
C eee.n .e .a .____ e
I IDLE / 11(10, 0. ,0 .016 3 *j 11,7 1,07* P16, 00, .05 130, 21. 1*. 50, 1
2 2 INTER / 1260, P6. 1.8 •o6c 11.76 11.7 1.07? 25?, 15* , 1,18 q , 82, qq• 10?, 2
3 25 INTER / 1?bfl j7*, 22,q .11* 11, , 11.7 1,06* 216, 111, 2.21 156. 7). 711,
SO INTER / i?bO• 3*q. *6•O .1111 1i , 7 11.7 j,o;’. 216, q3, 3.60 2115, 7*, h2 , 2, . 11
ç pç INTFR / 12b0 522. 68,11 •?q3 11 ,ç7 11,7 1,0*2 2211, 386, ,3* 1*5, 77, 1011, 3811, 5
1, 11)0 INTER / 1?bfl, 1,117• 112,0 . 1422 11,37 11,7 i .0 2c 11b 810*, 6,011 620, *1, 3366. 576, 6
7 ‘OLE / 110(1, 0. ,O .016 3, *Q 11,7 1,07* 1*11, 106, .81 113, 17, 211, 5l , 7
R 1 1 )0 RATED / Q Ofl , 5611, 12*,! ,605 12,3 1.036 160, 25117, 7,07 525, 83, 2%88• ORb, 8
75 RATED / 2)00, 623, 113 ,j •*113 11.5 1,031 1112, 612, 3.73 2115, 103, 1,28, q
1(1 51) RATED / 2)00. 2R?. 62.0 .3311 17,86 12.3 1.058 236, 1b. 11,1* 20%, I2S. 150, 3614, 10
11 s RATED / 2100, 1111. 31,0 .2148 1R,n* 12,3 1,060 21,0, 106, 2,08 113, 137, iO 2*2, 11
6 ? 2 RATED / 2100, 11 2,11 .156 1R,n* J ?,3 1,077 28*, lOb, 1,79 96, 11111, 110, 155, 1?
IDLE / 600, 0, .0 .016 a , o 12,3 1,003 176, 08, ,R11 1!!, 18, I I , So, 13
-
0 5 ssSSSsCsee • sn •n . .e.s.s....
CALCULATED F/A F/A WET NC F/A F/A POWER BSFC MODAL
GRAMS/KG_FUEL GRAMS/KW.HR DRY ‘PHI” CORP PCT CORP CORP WEI9HT MOD!
NC - CO NOX NC CO NOX MEAS STOICH FACT CALC MEAS FACT KG/KW.HP PACTOR
•O .s es 5fl .fl SSSsese 5flSeefls 5 5ee., .
20,21 52,32 ****** ****** •**** ,00*7 ,0611 • o .00*1 .io, .qqo ***** ,Ob7
25,116 26’.03 1 1c.b1 55,118 56,73 .0036, fl687 .001 .1101, •O0Se 11.1 1,02) 2,130 .080 2
q,q 3.17 3.21 7.711 .0107 ,0687 ,1SS • 177 •01o7 .7 1.021 .110 , 0 0 0 3
5,17 23.112 1,p ,O 1,316 6,07 .017* , kR7 ,2 53 .q s .0171 .1,1 1,021 •j S* logo *
21.81 21.03 6.11 5,57 6,58 .0236 ,o607 .37* • co ,0?S* .1,1 1,021 .230 .000 8
•**** 22.75 .11* çR,lq 6,26 ,0375 .0687 .5*6 .1133 .03511 •*,? 1,02? .2611 .000 6
2 5,6, S .1b **** * ****a .00167 , bR7 .0611 ,qqg ,oa* .13,6 ,qqo *..*e .067
71,3* 211.38 .6,8 p0,81, 7,j3 .03*6 n1,87 ,50* ,113* •O3*j s ,* 1,070 .273 .090 P
Pl ,?ç t7,P 1.11 6,75 3,118 .0282 b07 ,*10 11*7 •027J .3,7 1,0 ,0 .211? 11
6,117 16,811 ? .tlP 2,112 5,01, .0103 •n6,87 .2116 .111,0 •oi .i,3 1.072 ,3 2 * ,0 10 £0
7 ,33 1.6.28 *.*O 3,S2 7,81 .01311 •n1,87 .203 .1171 ,O130 .,9 1 073 .‘+*7 ,000 11
11,71, 16,56 62,30 116,03 611.85 ,0087 .0687 ,127 .1181 ,0086 •1,0 1,07* 3,6*5 •090 12
lq,3 0 c? ,çq **l*** ****** ***** .00*7 •fl607 ,0b11 •qgq ,00** .7,3 ,111111 ***** .067 13
1 22.511
2 263.113
3 q ,77
11 6,16
S ‘6,35
6 1,6,1
17.112
8 p .33
11 3,1111
0 S,R1
It q 8
1? iç,11 1
6 .3 611.11?
C S...... S
CYCLE COMPOSITE USING j3.MOD( WEIGHT FACTORS
BSHC •——.. .s 1,021 GRAM/KM—HR C 1,358 GRAM/BNP.Hp
R$CO .—..... 17.68? GRAM/KM—HR (13,1111 GPAM/RHP.Hp
RSNOX •—•— .— S b,11QO GRAM/KM—HR C 3,215 ORAM/BHp.pffi
BSHC + RSNOX • 8,011 GRAM,KW.MR C 6,573 GRAM/RHPsHR )
CORP. BSFC .315 KG/KM—HR C •Sjq LBS/BHP.HP
-------
TABLE C-lO. NOTES CONCERNING TRANSIENT TEST OPERATION OF THE
DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
Cold Start
c—li Failed statistical requirements. Power std. error (SE)
was 13%, slope (M) was 0.839 and R 2 was 0.7926. Torque
SE was 13%, M was .757 and R 2 was 0.7429. Cycle work
was 23% below command cycle work of 11.91 hp-hr. Results
used for emissions. Bag NOx was 10.82 g/kw-hr.
C—12 Failed statistical requirements. Power slope was 1.084
and torque slope was 1.049. Cycle work was 25% below
command cycle work of 11.91 hp-hr. Results used for
emissions. Bag NOx was 11.20 g/kw-hr.
Hot Start
C—13 Failed statistical requirements. Power slope was 1.038
(0.8% too high). Results used for emissions. Bag NOx
was 9.46 g/kw-hr.
c—14 Failed statistical requirements. Power slope was 1.062.
Torque slope was 1.034. Results used for emissions.
Bag NOx was 10.00 g/kw-hr.
c- 15 Failed statistical requirements. Power slope was 1.050.
Results used for emissions. Bag NOx was 9.92 g/kw-hr.
c—l6 Failed statistical requirements. Power slope was 1.075.
Torque slope was 1.041. Results used for emissions.
Bag NOx was 9.79 g/kw-hr.
Bus Cycle
C—l7 Failed statistical requirements. Power - SE was 10%,
M was 0.863, and R 2 was 0.8289. Torque — M was 0.757
and R 2 was 0.7985. Cycle work was 23% below command
cycle work of 5.79 hp-hr. Results used for emissions
Bag NOx was 10.80 g/kw-hr.
c— 18 Failed statistical requirements. Power - SE was 10%,
R 2 was 0.8473. Torque slope was 0.802 and R 2 was 0.8180.
Cycle work was 23% below command cycle work of 5.79 hp-
hr. Results used for emissions. Bag NOx was 11.25
g/kw-hr.
c —li
-------
TABLEC—lO (Cont’d). NOTES CONCERNING TRANSIENT TEST OPERATION OF THE
DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
Return to Baseline
Cold Start
C— 19 Failed statistical requirements. Cycle work was 17%
below command cycle work of 11.91 hp-hr. Results used
only for reference.
Return to Baseline
Hot Start
C—20 Passed statistical requirements. Results used only for
reference.
Return to Baseline
Bus Cycle
c—21 Failed statistical requirements. Speed slope was 0.5%
too high. Cycle work was 20% below command cycle work
of 5.79 hp—hr. Results used only for reference.
C—l 2
-------
TABLE c—11.ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C—TRANS.
PROJECT NO, 05—5830—008
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
4OX MACC CRAMS
FUEL KG (LD)
KW HR (HP HR)
TEST NO,D28-1 RUN1
DATE 5/13/81
TIME 10:43
[ ‘YNO NO. 5
1
NYNF
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 0.8)
50.6 (123.0)
3326,
296.0
176,5 ( 6235.)
39.71
19.
26.
.29
33.6
1,97
5.38
947,6
11,34
.304
.42
LANF
274.3 (10,8)
223.5 ( 8,8)
50.6 (123.0)
3370.
300.0
178.9 ( 6318,)
31.21
27.
21.
.39
36.2
2.78
4,32
1275.2
12.40
.407
.65 (
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO.
3
LAP
274,3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8,8)
50,6 (123.0)
3427.
305,0
181.9 ( 6425.)
9 • 26
84.
116.
1.39
123.0
8,86
‘)A L)
LT Lit
4637 .5
42,78
.90) 1.404
.07) 4,84
4
NYNF
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8.8)
50.6 (123.0)
3337.
297.0
177,1 ( 6256.)
36,93
28.
30.
.32
38.0
2,91
6,10
1033.4
12,86
.332
.91 (
ENGINE NO.1128
ENGINE MODEL 78 DOAB 6V-71COACI4
ENGINE 7.0 L(426. CID)
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 739.14 MM H6(29.10 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25,6 BEG C(78.0 PEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM, H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STIj. CU. METRES(SCI)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—48. rcT , CVS-70. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10,1 GM/kG( 70.8 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
(. )
HC
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
30.1/22/
30.
40.1/22/
40.
13,2/ 2/
13.
FIC
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
11.0/ 2/
11.
13.6/ 2/
14.
12.8/ 2/
56.7/12/
13.
123.
33.5/13/
31.
CO
CO
C02
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PET
29,6/13/
.3/13/
20,6/ 3/
27.
0,
.33
23.7/13/
.3/13/
25.9/ 3/
22.
0.
.42
.3/12/
77.9/ 3/
1.
1.43
.04
.5/13/
22.0/ 3/
2,5/ 3/
0.
.36
.04
C02
NOX
DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
2.6/ 3/
11,4/13/
.6/ 2/
.04
34.
1.
2.3/ 3/
12.2/13/
.5/ 2/
.04
37.
1.
41.1/13/
.1/ 3/
123.
0.
12.8/13/
.3/ 2/
38.
0,
BSHC G/KW FIR (6/HP HR)
BSCO C/NW HR (C/HP FIR)
BSCO2 C/NW HR (C/HP HR)
BSNOX 0 1KW HR (C/HP HR)
BSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HP NR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
.67)
.57)
3.46)
9.46)
(1666.62)
19.94)
1,177)
4,65
12.68
2234.98
26.74
.716
TOTAL
BSHC
BSCO
14 5C02
BSNDX
DSFC
NW HR (HP
61KW HR
6/NW HR
6/NW HR
6/NW FIR
KG/NW HR
4,28
6,66
1966. 66
40 1’
I
.626
flR.
(C/lW FIR)
(C/HF FIR)
(C/HP HR)
(C/HP FIR)
(LB/HP FIR)
3.19)
4.96)
(1466,54)
14.26)
1,032)
6.82
2,42
5,93
1157.
11.64
.370
1 07
£ t U,J
5,09
958.49
8.84
.307
9,15)
1,01)
4,42)
663.)
0,63)
.609)
.73)
1.22)
2,38)
5.00)
846.56)
10,54)
.599)
3,27)
6.49)
1.37)
3,79)
714.75)
6,59)
.504)
.882
.810
.1188
.3208
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM IILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCI)
MULTIPLIER FOR C/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR C/NW HR (C/lW HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/NC FUEL (C/LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE rLOW
3.19
6,70
1135.26
14,13
365
31,13)
.0886)
.1455)
PART G/K —HR (G/HP-HR) 0.87 (0.65)
SCM(SCF)
81.39 (2674,8)
-------
lADLE C—12. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
C-TRANS.
TEST NO.L’20-2 RUN1
DATE 5/14/81
TIME 9:45
LtYNO NO, 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
4DSOLUTE HUMIDITY
PROJECT NO. 05-5030—008
DIESEL EN —465—F
BAG CART NO, 1
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
ENGINE-45. rcr
9.1 GM/KC( 63.8
, CVS 39, PCT
GRAINS/LD)
1
NYNF
274.3 (10.0)
2
LANE
274.3 (10.8)
3
LAF
274,3 (10.8)
4
NYNF
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8.8)
40,9 (120.0)
3326.
296,0
177.7 C 6275,)
223.5 C 8.0)
40,9 (120.0)
3370,
300,0
180.0 C 6358.)
223,5 ( 8,8)
48,9 (120.0)
3427.
305.0
223.5 C 8.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3336,
297.0
27.0/22/ 27.
9.5/ 2/ 10.
26.5/13/ 24.
.1/13/ 0.
37.1/22/ 37.
8.2/ 2/ 8.
21.7/13/ 20.
.2/13/ 0.
C 6465.)
93,0/22/ 93.
8,1/ 2/ 8.
59.8/12/ 131.
.1/12/ 0.
178,2 ( 6294,)
38,3/22/ 38.
8.0/ 2/ 8.
28.5/13/ 26.
.1/11/ 0.
20.2/ 3/ .33
26.1/ 3/ .43
77.0/ 3/ 1441
22.3/ :/ .36
2.7/ 3/ .04
2.6/ 3/ .04
3.0/ 3/ .05
2.9/ 3/ .04
10.9/13/ 33.
11.8/13/ 35.
41.4/13/ 124.
12.3/13,’ 37.
ENGINE NO.D25
ENGINE MODEL 78 DF’AD 6V 71COACH
ENGINE 7.0 L(426, CII )>
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 743.46 MM HC(29.27 IN HG>
DRY BULD TEMP. 25.0 [ ‘CC C(77.0 DEC F>
BAG RESULTS
846 NUMBER
DESCRIrTION
BLOWER PIF P th. 120(IN. H2O)
BLOWER INLET F’ MM. H2O(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. BEG. CCDEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRESCSCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CU BCKGRI ’ METER/RANGE/PPM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANCE/PCT
C02 BCKCRI’ METER/RANGE/PET
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/ppM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/ppM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS CRAMS
NOX MASS CRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
NW HR (HP HR)
BSHC C/NW HR (C/HP HR)
BSCO 6/NW HR (C/HF’ HR)
85C02 C/NW HR (6/HP HR)
BSNOX 6/NW HR (6/HP HR)
BSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HF’ HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL NW HR (HP HR) 6.70 C 8.98)
BSHC C/NW HR (6/HP HR) 2.54 ( 1.90)
BSCO 6/NW HR (6/HP fiR) 6.13 C 4.57)
BSCO2 6/NW HR (6/HP fiR) 1169, ( 071,)
BSNOX 6/NW HR (6/HP fiR) 11.75 C 8.76)
DSFC NC/NW HR (LB/HP fiR) .374 ( .615)
40.59
30.99
10,
29.
24.
19.
.28
32,3
.39
34,9
1.82
3.03
4,5’1
4.02
926,5
1280.1
10.98
12.01
.296
(
.65)
.409
9,37
86.
126.
1.37
123,5
9,05
26.79
4581.3
43,26
.90) 1.467
.85) 4.80
1,89
5.58 (
954,26 C
9.01 C
.306
36.48
31,
26,
.32
36.5
3.14
5,30
1036,9
12.44
.333
.87 (
3,59
6.08
1187, 93
14.26
.391
3.23)
6.44)
1.41)
4.16)
711.59)
6.72)
.502)
4.71 ( 3.51) 4,76 C 3,55)
12.70 ( 9.47) 6.33 ( 4.72)
2396,66 (1787.19) 2012.91 (1501.03)
28,40 C 21.18) 18,89 ( 14,09)
.767 1 14261) .643 ( 1.057)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SANFLE FLOW SCM(SCF
MULTIPLIER FUR C/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR C/NW HR (6/HP fiR)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
‘73)
1.17)
2.68)
4,53)
895,84)
10.63)
.627)
.949 C 33452)
.757
.1131 C .0844)
.3023 1 .1371)
PART.G/KW—HR (G/HP-HR) 0.85 (0.63)
20 X 51 SCM(SCF)
80.47 (2842.2)
-------
ENGINE NO.028
ENGINE MODEL 78 OBAII 6V—71COACH
ENGINE 7.0 L(426. CID)
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 738.89 MM 116(29,09 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEC C(78.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTI ON
BLOWER DIF F MM. H20(1F4. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. c(t’EG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANCE/PFM
NC BcKcRr’ METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANCE!PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
? DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (ID)
NW HR (HP HR)
BSHC 6/KU HR (6/HP HR)
OSCO G/KW HR (6/HP KR)
BSCO2 6/NW HR (6/HP KR)
BSNOX C/NW HR (C/HP KR)
BSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HF I-jR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL NW HR (lIP KR)
BSHC 6/KU HR (C/HP FIR)
BSCO 6/KW HR (6/HP KR)
BSCO2 6/NW HR (8/HP HR)
BSNOX 6/NW HR (6/ISP KR)
BSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HP KR)
TABLE C—13. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H -TRANS.
TEST NO.028-i RUN1
DATE 5/13/81
TIME 11:25
DYNO NO. 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
2.51 4.10
5.56 11.09
950.5 1524.4
11.26 12.12
.305 C .67) .490 ( 1.08)
1,00 ( 1,34) 1.42 ( 1,91)
2.52 ( 1,80) 2,88 ( 2,15)
5.57 ( 4.15) 7.80 ( 5,82)
952.82 ( 710.52) 1072.36 ( 799.66)
11.29 ( 8,42) 8.53 ( 6.36)
.306 ( .503) .345 C .567)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 RAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR C/NW KR (6/HP KR)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
PROJECT NO, 05--5830-008
DIESEL EM-465—F
BAG CART NO. 1
ENCINE49. PCT , CVS 62. PET
10,3 GM/N6C 72,4 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1,0000
NYNF
LANF
LAF
P4YNF
274.3 (10.8)
274.3 (10.8)
274.3 (10.8)
274.3
223.5 ( 8.8)
223.5 ( 8.8)
223.5 ( 0.8)
223.5 ( 8.8)
(120.0)
48,9 (120.0)
48,9 (120.0)
48,9 (120.0)
3326.
3370.
3427,
3336.
299.9
305.0
297.0
6250.)
179.3 ( 6333.)
182.3 ( 6440.)
177.5 ( 6269.)
177.0 (
43.3/22/ 43.
39.7/22/ 40.
2/ 16.
53.1/22/ 53.
14.0/ 2/ 14.
99.3/22/ 99.
13.2/ 2/ 13.
12,8/ 2/ 13.
28.
57,7/13/ 55.
69,2/12/ 157.
37.4/13/ 35.
30.4/13/
.3/13/ 0.
.4/13/ 0.
.3/12/ 1.
.6/13/ 1.
3/ .33
30,3/ 3/ .50
76.2/ 3/ 1.39
22.0/ 3/ .36
3/ .04
2.5/ 3/ .04
2.5/ 3/ .04
2.8/ 3/ .04
11.2/13/ 34.
.3/ 2/ 0.
11.9/13/ 36.
.4/ 2/ 0.
40.6/13/ 122.
.2/ 3/ 1.
12.6/13/ 38,
.5/ 2/ 1.
36.87
39.38
25.
26.19
40.
9,46
88.
31.
53.
149.
33.
.29
.46
1.36
.31
35,3
121,3
37.3
9.21
31.66
4531,2
42.30
1.454
5.13
1.80
6.18
884.12
8.25
.284
8,47
2.24
6.52
948.
9.25
.304
3.16
6,87
1021,0
12,68
.329
.92 (
3,43
7,44
1106.44
13.74
.356
3.21)
6,87)
1,34)
4.61)
659.29)
6,15)
.466)
11.35?
1.67.
4.86)
707.)
6.90)
.50 1)
.72)
1 .24)
2.56)
5,55)
825.07)
10.24)
.585)
.935 ( 33.02)
.766
.0905 ( .0675)
.2971 ( .1348)
81.84 (2890.5)
PART G/KW—HR (G/HP-HR) 0.70 (0.52)
-------
ENGINE
ENGINE
ENC I NE
CVS ND.
BAROMETER 743,71 MM HG(29.28 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 PEG C(77,0 PEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER nir P MM, H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DCC, C(DEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW GTE ’. CU. METRES(SCF)
HE SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGR [ I NETER ’RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PET
C02 BCK6RD METER/RANGE/PET
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
NW HR (HP HR)
BSHC C/NW HR (6/HF’ HR)
BSCO 6/NW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO2 61KW HR (C/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (0/HP HR)
BSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW JIR (UP HR)
BSHC 6/NW HR (C/HP HR)
BSCO 6/NW HR (6/HF HR)
BSCO2 6/NW HR (6/HP UR)
BSNOX 6/NW HR (6/HP HR)
DSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HP HR)
2,84 4.23 9.48
5.60 9,87 22,00
973.7 1652,7 4350.7
12.20 16.02 43.85
.313 ( .69) .530 ( 1.17) 1.393
.89 ( 1,19) 1.40 C 1.87) 4.95
3.20 ( 2,39) 3.03 ( 2.26) 1.92
6.32 ( 4.71) 7.07 ( 5.27) 4.44
1099.75 ( 820.09) 1183.35 ( 882.43) 878.83
13.87 ( 10.35) 11,47 C 8.55) 8,86
.353 C .581) .380 C .624) .281
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE now SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR C/NW HR (6/HP HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/NC FUEL (0/LB FUEL)
3,44
7.20
1034,8
10.00
.333
.90
3,83
8.02
1152.53
11,14
.371
.929 C 32.80)
.774
.0952 ( .0710)
.3013 ( .1367)
NO. 028
MODEL 78 PLIAD 6V-71COACH
.0 L(426. CID)
10
TAPLE c—i : .. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H -TRANS.
TEST NO.8282 RUN1
DATE 5/14/81
TINE 10:25
DYNO NO. 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
DIESEL EM-465--F
BAG CART NO. 1
ENGINE—49. PCT , CVS-41. PCT
9.8 611/KG( 68.8 GRAINS/LB)
NYNF
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3326,
296.0
177,7 ( 6275.)
2
LANF
274.3 (10.8)
223,5 ( 8,8)
48.9 (120.0)
3370.
300.0
180.0 C 6358.)
35,
8 .
28.
0.
.35
.05
36,
0.
PROJECT NO. 05—5830-008
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
4
NYNF
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 C 8.8)
48,9 (120.0)
3336.
297.0
178.2 ( 6294,)
40.3/22/ 40.
7,0/ 2/ 7.
38.7/13/ 36.
.6/13/ 1.
22.0/ 3/ .36
2.6/3/ .04
9.8/ 3/ 30,
.2/ 2/ 0.
36 • 88
33,
35,
.32
29.3
35.1/22/
7.6/ 2/
30.4/13/
.4/13/
21.4/ 3/
3.1/ 3/
12.1/13/
.2/ 2/
38.10
28.
27,
430
36.1
49,
8.
48.
0.
.55
.05
47,
1.
3
LAF
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8.8)
48,9 (120,0)
3427,
305 • 0
183.0 ( 6465,)
96.4/22/ 96.
7.3/ 2/ 7.
50,8/12/ 108.
.3/12/ 1.
73,6/ 3/ 1.34
2.9/ 3/ .04
41.9/13/ 126.
.2/ 3/ 1.
9,87
90.
103.
1.30
125.2
48. 6/22/
8.2/ 2/
51. 3/13/
.3/13/
33.1/ 3/
3.4/ 3/
15, 8/13/
.3/ 3/
23.89
41,
47,
.50
46.5
8.13
2.46
5,49
905.
10.10
.316
10.90)
1.83)
4.10)
735.)
7,53)
.519)
3,07)
6.64)
1.43)
3.31)
655.35)
6.61)
.462)
‘74)
1,20)
2.86)
5.98)
859.44)
8 ,30)
.610)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-Hp) 0.71 (0.53)
SCM(SCF)
80.26 (2834.7)
-------
ENGINE NO.020
ENGINE MODEL 78 DDAD 6V—71COACH
ENGINE 7.0 L(426. dO)
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 743.97 MM HG(29.29 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 28,9 DEG C(84.0 BEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET F. MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 510. CU. METRES(SCF)
FIC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RA NGE/PCI
CO2 DCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
t CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LD)
KW HR (HP HR)
RSHC 61KW HR (G/HP HR)
BSCO O/KW HR (G/HP HR)
RSCO2 6/KW HR (6/HP HR)
BSNOX 61KW HR (5/HP HR)
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HP FIR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL KW HR (HP FIR) 8,13
BSHC 6/KW HR (6/HP FIR) 2.60
BSCO G/KW HR (G/HP FIR) 5.65
BSCO2 61KW HR (6/HP HR) 997.
BSNOX 6/KW HR (6/HP HR) 10.28
BSFC KG/KW HR (LB/HF HR) .320
TABLE C—15. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
TRANS.
TEST NO.028-3 RUN1
DATE 5/14/81
TIME 11:10
DYNO NO, 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
10.90)
1 • 94)
4.21)
744,)
7.67)
.526)
DIESEL EM—465—F
RAG CART NO. 1
3.58
5 • 98
1030.1
12.35
.331
.89
4,05
6.76
1163.43
13.95
.374
PROJECT NO. 05-5830—008
ENGINE-38. PCI , CVS-39. PCT
9.7 GM/KG( 67.7 6RAINS/LD)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
NYNF
LANF
LAF
NYNF
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 1 8.8)
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 1 8,8)
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8,8)
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 1 8.8)
48,9 (120.0)
48.9 (120.0)
48.9 (120.0)
48.9 (120.0)
3326.
3370.
3427.
3337.
296.0
177.5 ( 6270.)
299.9
179.9 ( 6352.)
305.0
182.9 ( 6460.)
297.0
178.1 ( 6290.)
20.2/23/ 101.
8.3/23/ 42.
7.3/23/ 36.
7,0/ 2/ 7.
33.1/13/ 31.
10.2/23/ 51.
7.6/ 2/ 8.
51.9/13/ 49.
7,3/ 2/ 7.
54.6/12/ 117.
7.0/ 2/ 7.
32.4/13/ 30.
.6/13/ 1.
.6/13/ 1.
.4/12/ 1.
.5/13/ 0.
21.5/ 3/ .35
31.8/ 3/ .53
75.2/ 3/ 1.37
22.1/ 3/ .36
2,6/ 3/ .04
11.7/13/ 35.
.7/ 2/ 1.
2.7/ 3/ .04
15.6/13/ 47.
.6/ 2/ 1.
2.7/ 3/ .04
41.7/13/ 125.
.1/ 3/ 0.
2.8/ 3/ .04
12.2/13/ 37.
.4/ 2/ 0.
30.
44.
94.
35,
29.
47.
112.
29.
.31
.49
1.33
.32
34.3
46.2
124,8
36.3
3,04 4.55 9.97
6,08 9.94 23.90
1002.9 1608,1 4466.9
11.66 15.91 43.66
.322 C .71) .517 ( 1.14) 1.431 ( 3.15)
.90 ( 1,20) 1.41 ( 1.89) 4.94 1 6.62)
3.38 ( 2.52) 3.23 ( 2.41) 2,02 1 1.51)
6.77 C 5,05) 7,06 ( 5,26) 4.84 1 3.61)
1117.01 ( 832.96) 1141.23 ( 851.02) 904.58 C 674.54)
12.9? ( 9,69) 11.29 ( 8.42) 8.84 ( 6,59)
.359 C .590) .367 C .603) .290 ( .476)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 RAGS
.0MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR C/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR G/KW HR (6/HP FIR)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/NC FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
‘73)
1.19)
3.02)
5.04)
867.57)
10.41)
.615)
.925 ( 32.68)
.776
.0955 C .0712)
.2984 ( .1354)
79,45 (2806.1)
PART. G/KW—HR (C/HP-FIR) 0.71 (0.53)
-------
- DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HE MASS GRAMS
CO MASS CRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
NW HR (Hf’ FIR)
I
NYNE
274,3 (10.8)
223+5 ( 8.8)
48,9 (120,0)
3326,
296 • 0
177.5 ( 6270.)
37.29
30.
32,
.31
35 • 4
3.07
6.67
1010.0
12,01
.325
.91
LANF
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8.8)
48,9 (120.0)
3370,
299,9
179,9 ( 6353.)
24,92
43,
47,
‘49
46,4
4,51
9,95
1598.5
15,98
.514
1.43
3
LAF
274,3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8.9)
48.9 (120.0)
3427,
305 • 0
182,9 ( 6461.)
9,81
95,
113.
1.30
124.1
10.02
24.14
4363,7
43.42
1.398
5.01
SCM C SEE)
6/TEST
6/NW HR (C/HP FIR)
6/KG FUEL (C/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
274,3 (I0 8)
223,5 ( 8,8)
48.9 (120.0)
3336,
297.0
176.1 C 6289.)
36.72
35,
31.
.32
38,7
3,44
6.52
1039.7
13.18
.335
.89
.930 C 32.84)
.773
.0937 C .0699)
.3004 ( .1363)
TABLE c— ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS.
TEST NO.D28-4 RUN1
DATE 5/14/81
TIME 1fl50
[ ‘YNO NO, 5
ENGINE NO.020
ENGINE MUrIEL 78 hOAr’ 6V 71COACU
ENGINE 7,0 L(426, UD)
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 744.22 MM HC(29.30 IN 116)
ORY BULB TEMP. 28.3 DEC C(83.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER hII P MM. H20(IN. 1120)
BLOWER INLET P Mh. }I20(IN, 1120)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. PEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW Sill. CU. (IETRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—38, PCI , CVS-38, PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9,4 Gi1/NG( 65.5 GRAINS/LB)
PROJECT NO, 05-5830-008
DIESEL EN- 465—F
BAG CART NO. 1
NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1.0000
HE
BCNGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
7.7/
CD
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/PPM
36.
CO
BCNCRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
C82
SAMPLE
METER/RANCE/PCT
C02
BCNGRD
HETER/RANGE/r- ’cT
21.9/ 3/
NOX
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/PPM
3/
NOX
IICKGRII
METER/RANGE/PpM
10. 2/23/
8,0/ 2/
51,9/13/
.6/13/
31.8/ 3/
2.9/ 3/
15, 6/13/
.4/ 2/
20.3/23/ 102,
7.3/ 2/ 7.
55.0/12/ 118.
.4/12/ 1.
73.9/ 3/ 1.34
3.0/ 3/ .05
41.5/13/ 125.
.2/ 3/ 1.
8,4/23/
6.9/ 2/
35.5/13.’
.9/13/
22.1’ 3/
2.1- 3/
13.( :13/
.3/ 2/
37,
8.
33,
1 .
.35
.04
36.
0.
.72)
1.22)
2,51)
5.46)
827.3?)
9.84)
.587)
51,
8.
49,
1.
• 53
.04
47,
0.
1.13, 1
1.92)
2.34)
5.17)
831.23)
0.31)
.599)
BSHC C/NW HR (C/LIP UR)
BSCO C/NW HR (6/LIP FIR)
BSCO2 C/NW HR (C/HP HR)
BSNQX F/NW FIR CC/HP FIR)
BSFC K S/ NW HR (LB/HI HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
42,
7,
33.
1.
.36
.04
39,
0.
74)
1.19)
3.07)
5,49)
875,65)
11.10)
& .622)
3.37
7.33
1109.51
13.19
.357
3.14
6.94
1114.70
11.14
358
3,08)
6.72)
1.49)
3,59)
649.13)
6.46)
.459)
2.00
4.81
870.49
8.66
.279
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
TOTAL
HR
8.24 ( ii,05)
90MM
BSHC
C/NW
HR
(6/HF FIR)
2.58 1.92)
HILTER
BSCU
6/NW
HR
(6/HE ’ FIR)
5.74 4.28)
SAMPLE FLOW
RSCO2
C/NW
HR
(6/LW FIR)
972. ( 725.)
MULTIPLIER
FOR
RSNOX
6/NW
HR
(C/HP FIR)
10.26 7.65)
MULTIPLIER
FOR
BSrc
KG/NW
HP
(LB / HP FIR)
.312 C .513)
FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
4.11
7,36
1174.27
14.86
.37 5 ’
PART . G/KW_HR (G/HP-HR) 0.68 (0.51)
SC?i(SCF.
79,28 (2600,2)
-------
ENGINE NO.1)20
ENGINE MODEL 78 OPAL’ 6V-71COACH
ENGINE 7.0 L 426. CID)
CV 6 NO. 10
‘ 1ETER 73G , 8 riM HG(29.07 IN 116)
L’f y f:yIj TEMP. 20.3 tIED C(83.O PEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER OW P MM, H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLE1 TEMP. PEG. C(DEG. F)
SLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW Sit’, Cu. METRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC OGNORI’ NEIER/RANGE/PrM
CO SAMPLE ME1ER/RANGE/PPM
E0 BCKGRII METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCNGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
I ’IOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
)40X BCNGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
MDX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS CRAMS
CO MASS CRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (IB)
NW HR (HP fIR)
BSHC 6/KU HR (6/HF’ fIR)
BSCO 61KW HR (C/HF’ fIR)
BSCO2 6/KU HR (6/HP fIR)
BSNOX 6/KU HR (6/HF HR)
BSFC NC/NW HR (LB/HP fIR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 DAGS
TOTAL NW FIR (HP FIR) 3.33 1
BSHC 6/KW HR (6/NP FIR? 2.70
BSCO 6/NW HR (1/HF’ FIR) 4,65 ’
BSCO2 6/KU HR (6/HP FIR) 1060.
BSNOX 6/KW FIR (6/HP HP) 10,30
DSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HP FIR) .339
lADLE C.17. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H—TRANS.
TEST NO.028-i RUN1
DATE 5/13/81
TIME 1:50
DYND NO, 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
20 X 20 FILTERS
SANPL.’ FLOW
2 • 90
3,24
1040.7
9.92
.333
‘95
3,06
3,42
1098.16
10.47
.351
.597 ( 21.09)
.831
.2495 ( .1861)
.7356 ( .3337)
PROJECT NO. 05—5830-008
DIESEL EM-465—F
BAG CART NO. 1
ENGINE—40. PCT , CVS—60. PCI
9, 5 6H/K6( 68.7 SRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C,F. 1.0000
274.3 (10.8)
274,3 (10.0)
269.2 (10.6)
223,5 C 0.0)
223.5 ( 8.8)
223.5 ( 8.8)
48.9 (120.0)
48.9 (120.0)
48.9 (120.0)
3066,
3235.
3067.
272,9
287.9
273.0
162,4 ( 5734.)
171.3 C 6050.)
162.5 ( 5740.)
43.1/22/ 43.
13.3/ 2/ 13.
19.6/13/ 18.
45.3/22/ 45.
12.9/ 2/ 13,
51.6/13/ 49.
44.5/22/ 44.
13.9/ 2/ 14.
20.5/13/ 19.
1.1/13/ 1.
1,1/13/ 1,
1.2/13/ 1.
23.9/ 3/ .39
30.2/ 3/ .50
23,8/ 3/ .39
2.8/ 3/ .04
2,4/ 3/ .04
2.5/ 3/ .04
10.4/13/ 31.
15.4/13/ 46.
11,0/13/ 33.
.7/ 2/ 1.
.9/ 2/ 1.
1.2/ 2/ 1.
33.96
30.
26,35
33.
34.09
31.
16.
46.
17.
.35
.46
.35
45.4
31.9
2.03 3.25
3.10 9,27
1031,5 1455.5
9,52 14.86
.330 ( .73) .467 C 1,03)
.89 ( 1.19) 1.50 ( 2.01)
3.19 ( 2.38) 2.17 ( 1,62)
3,50 C 2.61) 6,19 C 4,62)
1165.11 ( 868.82) 972.65 ( 725.31)
10.76 C 8,02) 9.93 ( 7.41)
, 72 C .612) .312 ( .513)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90MM 1ILT R’
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/NW HR (6/HP FIR)
MULTIPLIER FOR C/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
‘73)
1.27)
2.28)
2.55)
818.90)
7.80)
.577)
4.46)
2.01)
3,50)
790.)
7,68)
.558)
SCM(SCF) 54,99 (1942.1)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 0.76 (0.57)
-------
ENGINE NO.1128
ENGINE MODEL 78 DDAD 6V 7ICOACH
ENGINE 7.0 L(426, CI I ))
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 737.87 MM 116(29.05 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.7 DEC C(8O.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF F MM, H20(IN. 1120)
BLOWER INLET P MM, H20(IN. 1120)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEC. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW SID. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCK6RD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCK6RD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRFI METER/RANGE/FPM
c DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
0 CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HG MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS CRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LEI>
NW HR (HP HR)
BSHC C/NW HR (C/HP HR)
BSCO 61KW HR (C/HP FIR)
RSCO2 6/ NW HR (6/HP HR)
BSNOX &/KW HR (6/HP UR)
BSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HI HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
T’))Ar NW HR (HP HR) 3.30
BSHC 6/KW HR (6/HF 2.75
BSCO 6/NW HR (6/HP HR) 4.60
BSCO2 6/NW HR (C/HP HR) 1054,
BSNOX 6/NW HR (6/HP HR) 10.25
DSFC NO/NW HR (LB/HP :1R .337
[ C—18 ENGINE UiI I0H LSUL ’
H TRANS.
TEST NO.D20-2 l )Ni
DATE 5/13/81
TIME 2:30
DYNO NO. 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ARSOLLITE HUMIDITY
20 X 20 FILTERS
.SAMF’t F F [ OW
[ IIESEL EM 4ó5—
BA [ CART NO, 1
2.96
3.02
1043.2
9,74
.334
.92
3.21
3.27
1130.56
10.56
.361
.652 ( 23.02
.760
.2300 ( .1715)
.6816 1 .3092)
ENGINE 44. PCI . CVS—57. PCI
9. ’ G11/NC( 69,4 GRAINS/LB)
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8.C
50.0 (122,0)
3066.
272,9
161.9 ( 5720.)
43.5/22/ 43,
13.0/ 21 13.
20.6/13/ 19.
.8/13/ 1.
23.8/ 3/ .35 ’
2.7/ 3/ .04
10.6/13/ 32.
1.5/ 2/ 2.
34.10
31.
18.
‘35
30.2
274.3 (10.8)
223.5 ( 8.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3235.
288.0
171.1 C 6043,)
45.5/22/ 46.
13.0/ 2 13.
49.4/13/ 47.
i47, 4
.1/i ..,, i•
29.6/ 3/ +4?
2,6/ 3/ .04
15.6/13/ 47.
1,6/ 2/ 2.
26.93
33,
45,
.45
4 .
3
274.3 (10, )
223.5 ( S.8
48,9 120 .0)
3067.
273.0
162.2 1 5729.)
44,3/22/ 44,
13.0/ 2! 1 .
19.0/13/ l/
1.0113/ 1.
23.8/ 3/ .39
2.4/ 3/ .04
10.9/13/ 33.
1.4/ 2/ 1.
34.11
32.
16.
.35
31.4
Pf 1)JEC1 NO, 05-5830-OOS
NOX HwlIrJITy C.F. 1.0000
.74)
1.24)
2.40)
2,44)
643.05)
• 137)
.594)
2.88 3.25
3.32 8.87
1028.2 1410.?
9.36 14.76
.329 ( .72) .453
.90 C 1.20) 1.48
3,21 ( 2,39) 2.19
3.69 ( 2.75) 5.90
1145.24 ( 854.01) ?5u.77
10.42 ( 7.77) 9.95
.366 C +o02) .305 C
PARTICULATE DATA. TOTAL rUP
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR C/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR 6/NW HR (G/ , ff )
MULTIPLIER FOP 6/NC FUEL (G/LD FUEL)
1 .00)
1,99)
1.64)
4.46)
708.99)
7.42)
.501)
3 BAGS
C
4,43)
2,05)
3,43)
786,)
7.64)
+555)
SCN(SCF) 54.65 (1930.1
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 0.90 (0.67)
-------
ENGINE N0,D28
ENGINE MOtIEL 78 r ’DAr 6V-7 ICOACH
ENGINE 7.0 L(426. c i i ’ >
CUS NO. 10
BAROMETER 735.58 MM HC(28.96 IN HG)
J1RY BULB TEMP. 26,? DEG C(80.0 PEG F)
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (ID)
NW HR (HF HR)
BSUC 6/NW HR (6/HP HR)
BSCO 0/NW HR (C/HP HR)
BSCO2 6/KU HR (6/UP HR)
BSNOX 6/KU HR (6/HP HR)
BSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HP UR)
TOTAL KU HR
(HP
HR)
BSHC
6/NW
HR
(C/HP
HR)
BSCO
6/NW
HR
(6/HF’
HO)
BSCO2
0/NW
HR
(6/HP
HR)
BSNOX
0/KU
HR
(U/HP
HO)
r ir C—19.rwf TNr FMTSSIflN RESULTS
C TRANS
TEST NO.D284 RUNt
DATE 6/10/81
TIME 10U5
DYNO NO. 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-66. PCI , CVS-57. F’CT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 15.0 GH/KG(l05.3 GRAINS/LB)
1
NYNF
215.9 C 8.5)
165.1 C 6.5)
48.9 (120.0)
3337.
297,0
158.8 ( 5610.)
31.26
18.
30.
.38
36.6
1.69
5.50
1093.3
11.11
.349
.76 C
LANF
215.9 C 0.5)
165.1 ( 6.5)
48.5’ (120.0)
3371.
300.0
160.5 C 5667.)
21.82
30.
26.
.56
43,3
2.80
4.86
1635.1
13.31
.521
1.08
3
LAF
215.9 C 8.5)
165.1 C 6.5)
48,9 (120.0)
3428.
305.0
163.2 C 5763,)
8 • 57
73,
106.
1.49
112.7
6.87
20.07
4457 .3
35.17
1,423
4.65
SCM(SCF)
0/TEST
C/NW HR (6/HP HR)
6/KG FUEL (G/LD FUEL)
PROJECT NO. 05—5830—008
4
NYNF
215.9 C 8.5)
165.1 C 6.5)
48.9 (120.0)
3337,
297.0
158.8 C 5610.)
31,70
32.
37,
.36
36,7
2.93
6.92
1032.9
11,14
.332
.91 C
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER [ ‘IF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. Cr ’EC , F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW GTE ’. CU, METRES(SCF)
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
NOX HUMIDITY C,F. 1,0000
HC
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
4,9/23/
24.
2/
9.
10.1/ 2/
10.
11.5/ 2/
12.
HC
BCNGRE ’ METER/RANGE/PPM
6.2/ 2/
6.
52.3/12/
112.
42.2/13/
39.
CO
CO
C02
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
BCIcGRI ’ METER/RANGE/PPM
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
33.2/13/
.1/13/
25.9/ 3/
31.
0.
.42
29,3/13/
.1/13/
36,2/ 3/
3/
0,
.61
.05
.4/12/
83.6/ 3/
3.9/ 3/
1.
1.54
.06
1.1/13/
25.4/ 3/
4.0/ 3/
1.
.41
.06
C02
BCNGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
3.2/ 3/
.05
14.6/13/
44.
37.9/13/
114.
12.6/13/
38.
NOX
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
12.4/13/
37.
2/
1.
.4/ 3/
1.
1.2/ 2/
1.
NQX
BCIcCRD METER/RANGE/PPM
.7/ 2/
1.
.6/
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
1.45)
6,24)
1.22)
1.02)
2.23 (
1.66)
2.58
4,48
C
C
1,92)
3.34)
1,48 C 1.10)
4.31 ( 3.22)
3.22 ( 2,40)
7,60 ( 5.67)
7,23 (
5.39)
1507.20
(1123,92)
958,30 ( 714.60)
1134.72 ( 846,16)
1437.33 (1071.82)
9.15)
7.56 C 5,64)
12.24 C 9,12)
14,60 C
10.89)
12,26
.306 ( .503)
.365 ( .600)
7,41
1.93 1
5.04
1110.
9,55
.354
9,93)
1.44)
3.76)
827.)
7.12)
.503)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
HULTIF’LIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
.820
.782
.1055
.2970
28,97)
.0787)
.1351)
0,00 C 0,0)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 0.86 (0.64)
-------
11,02)
1.27)
4,39)
722,)
7 • 07)
.510)
TEST NO.020-6 RUN1
DATE 6/10/81
TIME 10:55
DYNO NO. 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
1
NYNF
218.4 ( 8.6)
165.1 ( 6,5)
48,9 (120.0>
3326.
296.0
158,3 ( 5590.)
5.5/23/ 27.
8.9/ 2/ 9.
42.3/13/ 39.
.1/13/ 0.
25.1/ 3/ .41
3.8/ 3/ .06
13.2/13/ 40.
.6/ 2/ 1.
32.22
19.
38.
.35
39.1
LANE
218.4 ( 8.6)
165.1 ( 6.5)
48.9 (120.0)
3370.
300.0
160.3 ( 5663.)
8,5/23/ 43,
9,7/ 2/ 10.
67.6/13/ 66.
.1/13/ 0.
36,0/ 3/ +60
3.3/ 3/ .05
17,4/13/ 52,
.6/ 2/ 1.
21.80
33,
63,
.56
51,7
DIESEL EM-465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
3
LAF
218,4 ( 8.6)
165.1 C o.5)
48.9 (120.0)
3428.
305.0
163.1 ( 5761.)
16.5/23/ 83.
11.6/ 2/ 12.
58.6/12/ 128,
.7/12/ 1.
80,5/ 3/ 1.48
3.5/ 3/ .05
41.3/13/ 124.
.3/ 3/ 1.
8.93
72.
120.
1.43
123.1
3.02)
6+ 51)
1.05)
3.51)
657.77)
5.91)
.464)
4
NYNF
218.4 ( 8.6)
165.1 ( 6.5)
48.9 (120,0)
3337,
297.0
158.8 ( 5608.)
8.0/23/ 40,
14,1/ 2/ 14.
42.0/13/ 39.
1,9/13/ 2.
2 ,8/ 3/ .42
‘ ,7/ 3/ .07
1J ,2/13/ 40.
.9/ 2/ 1.
31+ 21
26,
36.
‘35
38,7
2,39
6.72
1022.3
11 , 75
.328
.91
2.63
7,38
1123.00
12.91
.360
LADLE C—20. ENGINE EMISSION f ESULTS
H-TRANS
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-008
ENGINE-57. PCT CVS-73. FCT
15,3 GM/KG(107.0 CRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1+0000
ENGINE NO.r’20
ENGINE MODEL 78 BOAr 6V--71COACH
ENGINE 7.0 L426. CII I)
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 735.58 MM H6 (28 ,96 IN HG)
DRY RUIR TFMP, 29,4 DEC C(85,0 BEG F)
RAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCR IPTI ON
BLOWER DJF P MM, H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET F’ MN. H20(IN, f 120)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME ‘SECONrtS
TOTAL. FLOW STB, CU. METRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HE BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCNGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CU? SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PET
C02 BCKGRII METER/RANCE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PF’ti
WOX BcKGRr’ METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PF’M
C02 CONCENTRATION PET
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
P4OX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HP)
BSHC 6/NW HR (6/HP HP)
BSCU G/KW HR (C/HF’ HP)
BSCO2 G/KW HR (6/lIE’ HP)
BSNOX C/KU HR (C/HF’ HP)
RSFC NC/NW HR (LB/HF’ HP)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL NW HR (HP HP) 8.22
BSHC C/NW HR (0/HF’ HP) 1.71
BSCO 0/KW HP (6/1*’ HP) 5.88
DSCO2 6/NW HR (C/HF’ HP) 968,
PSNOX 6/KU HR (6/HF’ HP) 9.40
BSFC KG/NW HP (LB/lIP I ’IR) .310
1,72 3.09 6.80
7.03 11,79 22.81
1022.6 1631.9 4278.8
11.84 15.66 38.42
.328 C .72) .524 ( 1.15) 1.368
.99 C 1.32) 1.47 C 1.97) 4.85
1.75 ( 1.30) 2.10 C 1.57) 1,40
7.14 ( 5.32) 8.01 ( 5.98) 4,70
1038.08 C 774.09) 1109.07 ( 827.03) 882.08
12,02 C 8.96) 10,78 ( 8.04) 7.92
.333 ( .547) .356 ( .585) .282
F’ARTICLJLATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 RAGS
90MM FILTER
SAM?LE FLOW SCN(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR C/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOP 0/NW fIR (6/HP fIR)
MULTIPLIER FOR C/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
.72)
1 .22)
1 .96)
5.50)
837,42)
9.63)
‘593)
.837 ( 29.56)
.765
.0931 ( +0694)
.3005 C .1363)
PART. G/Kw-HR (G/HP—HR) 0.81 (0.60)
0.00 ( 0.0)
-------
T48LE C—21.ENGIN [ EMISSION r ESULTS
RUS CYCLE
PROJECT NO, 05-5830-008
OAROMCTER 735,58 MM H8 28,96 iN HG)
OPY PULP TEMP. 27,5 DES C(82,O TIES F)
DILUTION FACTOR
? NC CONCENTRATION PPM
t CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HF MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL NC (LB)
NW HR (HF’ HR)
BSHC C/KU HR (0/HF’ HP)
BSCO 0/NW FIR (0/NP HR)
85C02 C/KU HR (6/HF’ HP)
DONOX 6/NW HR (0/HP HR1
RSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HF’ II )
TOTAL TEST RESUlTS 7 BAGS
TEST NO.0283 PUN1
[ ‘ATE 6/10/81
TIME 11:35
TIYNO O. 5
210,4 ( 8.6)
[ 67.6 6.6)
48.9 (120.0)
3078.
274.0
146.4 ( 5171,)
31.78
20.
24.
.37
33 * 6
1,66
4 • 04
985.0
10.80
.314
.96
1.72
4.21
1025.83
ii. .25
7 ’•)
218.4 C 8.6)
167.4 6,6)
48,7 C120.0)
3236.
200.0
153.9 ( 5437.)
22.55
22.
69.
.53
51.7
2.00
12.
1497.3
, ‘)7
.480
1.60
3
218.4 C 8.6)
167.6 ( 6.6)
48.9 (120 ,0
3062,
272 • 9
145.6 ( 5144.)
30.49
19.
23.
.38
38,0
1.60
3,70
1014.6
10.60
.324
+91 (
SCM(SCF)
6/TEST
6/NW FIR (8/HF’ HP)
6/KS FUEL (6/LR FUEL)
.580 ( 20.40’
.769
.2219 ( .1655)
.6078 ( .3120)
0,00 C 0,0)
MG I NE
F NC I NE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
NO. 1128
MOna 70 BOAD 6V71COACH
7,0 L(426, CID)
I I)
RAG RESULTS
RAG NUMBER
BLOWER [ lIE F MM, F [ 20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H2 [ J(IN. Ff20)
01 OWER INLET TEMP. BEG. C(TIEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 5Th. CU. M [ TRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE—65. PCI • CVS-72. F’CT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 15.8 3M/K0(110.8 ORAINS/LB)
tIIESEL EM -465-F
BAG CART NO. I
Hr SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC [ ICKORII METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/P pM
SO BCNGRt’ METER/RANGE/PPM
r02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PET
C02 EICNGRD METER/RANGE/ICT
NOX SAMPLF METER/RANGE/PPM
9.6/ 2/
23.3/13/
1.7/13/
25.5/ 3/
3,3/ 3/
13.0/13/
.4/ 2/
10.
26.
2.
.42
.05
39.
0.
11.0/ 2/
74.7/13/
2.1/13/
34.9/ 3/
3,6/ 3/
17,4/13’
.5/ 2/
11.
73.
2.
.58
.06
52.
1.
13.0/ 2,’
28.2/13/
2,4/13/
26.5/ 3/
3.6/ 3/
12.9/13/
.6/ 2/
13.
26.
2.
+43
.06
39.
1.
NOX HUMI [ IITY C.F. 1.0000
.71)
1.22)
1,31)
3.20)
831.16)
0.68)
.584)
.69)
1.29)
1.29)
3.14)
764.96)
8,39)
.530)
1 .06)
2.14)
.93)
5,78)
699,54)
7.12)
.495)
t ,
7,75
938.0?
7,54
.301
1 .76
4,29
1114 + 60
11,64
.355
PARTICULATE IiATA. TOTAL r R 3 BAGS
TOTAL NW HR (HP
HP)
SAMF’LE r .OW
RSHC
RSCO
BSCO2
OSNOX
‘3/NW HR
S/NW HR
S/NW FIR
6/NW HR
(0/HP
(6/HP
(0/HF’
(6/HF’
i-fR)
HP)
FIR)
HP)
1.52
5.86 (
1009. (
10.57 C
(
4.37)
752.)
7.88)
.530)
MULTIILIEF
MULTIPLIER
MULTIPLIER
FOR
FOR
FOR
[ ISFE
KG/NW FIR
(LB/HP
HP)
20
X 20 IILICRE
SAMPLE Hut.)
PART. G/KW-IIR (G/HP-HR) 1.04 (0.78)
-------
TABLE 0-22. NOTES CONCERNING TRANSIENT TEST OPERATION OF THE
DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE IN MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATION
Cold Start
0—23 Passed statistical criteria
0—24 Passed statistical criteria
Hot Start
0—25 Passed statistical criteria
C—26 Passed statistical criteria
C—27 Passed statistical criteria
C—28 Passed statistical criteria
0—29 Failed statistical criteria. Power slope
0.6 percent too high (1.036)
Bus Cycle
C—30 Passed statistical criteria
0—31 Passed statistical criteria
C—24
-------
DILUTiON FACTOR
HG CONCENTRATION PFN
CO CONCENTR TIDN F’PM
C02 CONCENTR4TIQN PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PF’H
NC MASS GRAMS
cc’ ss CRAMS
C02 MACS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
NW HR (HP FIR)
BSHC C/ NW HR (C/HP HP)
BSCO 0/NW HR (0/Hf’ HP)
RSCO2 6/NW HR (6/HP H P)
U1S14flX 0/NW HR (6/HP fIR)
RSFI NC/NW HR (LB/HP H P)
DSHr:
0/NW
HR
(6/HF
OSCO
0/NW
FIR
(0/HF’
36C02
C/NW
HR
(C/HP
FIR’)
BSNOX
6/NW
HR
(6/HF
I- FR)
RSFC
TEST NO . 02 8-I RUNt
DATE 6/ 2/01
lIME 20:35
t ’YNO NO. 5
V N F
2E.6 ( 9.0)
177.8 7.0)
48,9 (120.0)
3326,
296 ,0
170.2 ( 6293.)
28.41
24,
165.
438
30.7
2.46
34. 16
1250,0
10,45
.414
1.06
LANE
228.6 9,0)
177.0 ( 7.0)
48,9(120,0)
3 71
100.0
180.6 ( 6378 .i
20.09
3-,
195.
58
36.0
3,77
42.0?
1912,4
13.13
.627
e r
j_ . ,.1,J (
3
LAF
228.6 ( 9.0)
177,8 ( 7,O
40,9 (120.0>
3428,
305.0
103.6 ( 6485.)
8.42
78,
377,
1 .48
96.0
B “3
Go.
497 9,5
30.20
1.619
4,98 C
4
NYNF
228.6 ( 9.0
177.8 ( 7,0)
48,9 (120.0)
3337,
297,0
178,7 ( 6313.)
31.71
25.
86.
‘33
27.6
2.57
17,95
1086.0
9,45
‘354
.94 (
.760 ( 26.85
.949
.1114 ( .0831)
.3148 ( .1428)
ENC I NC
[ (‘JO I NE
ENCINE
r c :.
N O .020
0DEL 78 [ ‘ [ tAn 6V - -71COACH
.0 L(426. cir
0
T4E ,LE C—23 ENCItJ [ [ MISSION LCSULE
C- TRANS
RAPOM [ TE9 738.38 MM fI6(29,07 IN HG)
r’r s P TFNr. 25. ’. rir 0(78,0 DEC F)
HAL ECtIi
HAL NUMBER
r ’F S C RIrTT ON
BLOWER DIr MN. N20.IN, (‘120)
I:Lfl T1 ,’ INLET F Mci , :-f20 rN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. 8(0CC, F)
Bt OWEC REVOLUTIONS
TINE SECONDS
IOTA) FLOW CI I’. CU. NETRES(CCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ENGINE-60, CT • CV -7 65. PET
AIC3OLUT [ HUMIDITY 12.7 GM/N6 89.1 C8AI JS/L [ ’
PROJECT ND, 05-5830 00
DIESEL EM 465- i
t AC CARl NO. 1
(‘JOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1.0000
HE
DCNGR [ t
NCTER/RANQE/ [ ’PN
,6/23/
CO
SAMPLE
METER/RANGE/ppM
14.5/ 2/
E:O
BCKCFI ,
73,9/12/
C02
SAMPLE
METER/RAIJCE/F’PM
.5/12/
C02
PCKCRD
METER,’RANCE/F’CT
)IETEP/RANCE/pcT
27.5/ 3/
NOX
SAMPLE
4.6/ 3/
NOX
METER/RANGE/ppM
10,4/13/
10,0/23/
14.4, 2/
84.4/12/
.5/12/
38.l ’ 3/
4,4/ .3/
12.9/13i
.6/ 2/
18, 3/23/
15.8/ 2/
84.7/11/
.5/11/
83.6/ 3/
4,7/ 3/
2 8 .9/13/
.8/ 2/
8.4/23/
17,8/ 2/
92,0/13/
4.6/13/
25,1/ 3/
5.2/ 3/
9.5/13/
.9/ 2/
38.
is,
171.
1.
‘45
.07
31,
1 .
.91)
1.42)
1.73)
24.031
C 879,43)
C 7.35)
.642)
50,
14,
203,
64
.0?
39,
1.
1 .30)
2.07)
C.-’
19.81)
922.25)
6.33)
.o67)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
92,
16,
390,
1.
1 .54
.07
87,
1.
3,5?)
6.67)
1.23)
12.0?)
746.30)
4,53)
. 535)
2. 3’
32.23
1179.34
9,86
.390
42,
18.
9,: .,
4,
.41
.08
29.
1.
,78)
1.25)
2.05)
14.31)
665.92)
7.53)
.622)
_,4 , -
. .j, JQ
1236.75
8,49
.406
3.52 C 11.42)
2.00 C 1,47)
20.39 15.21)
1083, ( 800,)
7.42 ( 5,54)
.354 C .582)
1.65
16.18
1000,60
6.07
.325
PARTiCULATE DATA. TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
2.75
19.19
1161 .22
10.10
‘379
90MM FILTER
SACSL [ FLOW
MULTIr’LIER lO P
MULTIOLIER FOR
PICJLT1FLJEC ro
20 X 20 rILTERS
SAMrLI r 1IW
SCM(SCI)
C/TEST
C/NW HR (0/UP HP)
C/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
PART. G/KW—J.q (G/I-jp-HR) 2.05 (1.53)
79.96 (2024.2>
-------
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
FUEL KG (LB)
NW HR (HP FIR)
TECT No.1282 RUNt
DATE 6/ 3/81
TIME 11:15
[ IYNO NO. S
NYNF
226.1 0.93
172.7 ( 6.8)
48,9 (120.0)
3326.
296,0
177.8 1 6280.)
29 • 08
29.
161,
.39
30,1
3,01
33,34
1266.7
10.23
.419
1.07
LANE
226.1 ( 8.9)
172,7 ( 6.8)
48,9 (120.0)
3371.
300.0
180.2 ( 6365,)
20.61
44,
189.
.58
38.3
4,57
39,68
1902.3
13,21
.624
1.55
3
LAF
226.1 ( 8.9)
172.7 ( 6.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3428.
305,0
183,3 C 6472.)
8,56
87.
381.
1,46
89.3
9.17
81.33
4910,5
31.29
1.598
5.00
SCM(SCF)
C/TEST
0/NW HR (0/HP FIR)
C/hG FUEL (C/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
226,1 ( 8.9)
172.7 ( 6.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3337,
297,0
170.4 C 6301,)
32,74
35,
92.
‘33
27,9
3.58
19.05
1092.5
9,53
.358
.94
.556 ( 19.65)
1 .293
.1512 ( .1127)
.4312 ( .1956)
ENU I NE
ENGINE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
NO.1 128
MODEL 78 DuAl ’ 6V-7 ICOACH
7.0 L’426. CII I)
10
lADLE C— . - ENGINE [ MISSION RESULTS
C- TRANS
BAROMETER 736.85 MM HC(29.01 IN HG)
[ :RY RUL1 TEMP. 26.1 [ iFS [ (79,0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
[ ‘ESCRIrTION
OLOWER DIr P MM, H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG, F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
PROJECT ND, 05—5830-008
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE —52. PET , CVS-68. 1 [ T
AE’SOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.4 GM/N0( 79.7 GRAINS/LB)
DIESEL EM- 465—F
BAG CART NO. I
NOX HUMIDITY C.r. 1,0000
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
7.9/ 2/
8.
7,8/ 2/
18.8/23/
94,
0.5/23/
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/pPM
72,8/12/
167.
82.7/12/
8.2/ 2/
8.
8.1/ 2/
CO EiCKGRD METER ’RANCE/PpM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANCE/PCT
.7/12/
26.9/
1.
1.0/12/
2.
85.6/11/
1.3/11/
405,
4.
97.0/13/
4.7/13/
C02 [ ICKORD METER/RANGE/PCI
3.5/ 3/
.05
37.2/ 3/
3.4/
.63
82,3/ 3/
1.52
.4.3/ 3/
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
10.3/13/
31.
13.0/13/
4.0/ 3/
.06
.1/ 3/
NOX DCK6RI’ METER/RANGE/PPM
.9/
30.1/13/
90.
1.6/13/
BSHC 0/NW HR (C/HP FIR)
BSCO GIKW HR (6/HP FIR)
BSCO2 6/NW HR (6/UP FIR)
BSNOX 0/NW HR (G/FIP FIR)
BSFC NO/NW HR (LB/HP FIR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL NW HR (HP FIR)
BSHC C/NW HR (0/HP FIR)
8 5CC C/NW HR (C/HF FIR)
89C02 G/KW HR (0/HF FIR)
BSNOX 6/NW HR (0/HF FIR)
RSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HP FIR)
8.55
2.38
20.27
1072.
7.51
.351
43,
8.
99,
4,
.40
.06
29,
1.
.79)
1.25)
2.86)
15,19)
871,07)
7.60)
.629)
.92)
1.44)
2,09)
23,18)
680.80)
7.11)
.642)
2.81
31.09
1181.18
9,54
.391
1 .38)
2.07)
2.20)
19,14)
917,39)
6.37)
.664)
2.95
25.66
1230.24
8.54
.404
11.47)
1.77)
15.12)
800.)
5.60)
.576)
3,52)
6.71)
1.37)
12.13)
732.29)
4.67)
.525)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
1.83
16,26
982,01
6.28
.320
3.83
20.37
1168.13
10,19
.382
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SANOLE FLOW
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP—HR) 1.82 (1.38)
SCM 8Cr I
79.51 (2808.4)
-------
IAEsLE C— 2 5. [ NCINE EMISSION RESULTS
H--TRANS
[ [ ST NO. 028 -i RUN1
DATE 6/ 1/81
TIME 1:45
IIYNO No. 5
ENGiNE Nu.112b
ENGINE MODEL 70 BrAD 6V-71COACH
ENGINE 7.0 L(426. CII I)
CVS NO. 10
BAROMETER 739.14 MM H6(29.10 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMF ’. 30,0 DEG C(86.0 BEG F)
E AG RESULTb
BAG NUMBER
DESCR I PT ION
BLOWER IIIF 1’ MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET F MM. H20(IN. 1120)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. PEG. C(DEG. 1)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW STO. CU. METR [ S(SCF)
PROJECT NO. 05-5830—008
DiESEL EH-465-F
BAG CART NO. I
RELATIVE HUMIDITY , ENGINE-47. PCT CVS —68. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 12.9 CM/KG( 90.3 GRAINS/LEn
NYNF
226,1 ( 0.9)
177.8 ( 7.0)
48.9 (120.0)
3326.
296.0
178.2 ( 6293.)
NC
t IC
Cc
CO
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
SAMPLE
BC N CR B
SAMPLE
BCKCRD
SAMPLE
BC KG R B
SAMPLE
BC NC R ii
METER,’RANCE/PI’N
METER/RANGE/F ’FM
METER/RAN6E/FPM
MET ER/RANGE/PPM
fiElER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANOE/FCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
LANF
LAF
NYNF
226.1 ( 8.9>
226.1 ( 8.9)
226.1 ( 0.9)
177.8 ( 7,0)
177.8 7.0)
177.8 ( 7.0)
48.9 (120.0)
48.9 (120.0)
48,9 (120,0)
3371.
3428.
3337,
300.0
305.0
297.0
180.6 ( 6378.)
183.6 ( 6485.)
178.7 ( 6313.)
7,0/23/
11.3/ 2/
96. 3/13/
.9/13/
22.8/ 3/
3*4/ 3/
8.2/13/
.2/ 2/
35,
11.
98.
1.
‘37
.05
25.
0.
11.1/ 2/
11.
12.8/ 2/
13.
12.6/ 2/
13.
69.5/12/
158.
79.5/11/
359.
84.8/13/
05.
.5/12/
34.7/ 3/
1.
.58
.7/11/
81.4/ 3/
2.
1.50
1.9/13/
23.4/ 3/
2.
.38
3,6/ 3/
11.5/13/
.06
35.
3.5/ 3,
28.9/13/
.05
87.
3.3/ 3/
8.7/13/
.05
26.
.2/ 2/
0.
.5/ 2/
1.
.5/ 2/
1.
DILUTION FACTOR
24.
42.
83.
29.
NC
CO
CO2
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
PPM
PPM
PCi
94.
.32
24.3
152.
.53
34.4
339.
1.45
86.4
80.
.33
25.6
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LO)
NW HR (HF HR)
85 1-IC C/NW HR (6/HP HR)
BSCO fl/NW HR (0/HF I-IRs
89C02 6 1KW HR (C/HP HR
BONOX 0/NW HR (6/HF FiR)
EISFC KG/NW HR (LB/HF HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
2.47
19.54
1040.5
8.29
.340
.96
2,57
20.35
1003.64
8.63
.354
.75)
31.90
72.43
16,75
1744.5
4880.2
1002.8
11.87
30.34
8,74
.570 (
1.26)
1,584 (
3.49)
.353 (
.78)
1.29)
1.55 (
2.07)
4.94 (
6.62)
.92 (
1.24)
(
1,33)
3,29 (
2.45)
C
(
1,92)
15,18)
2.81
20.63 (
2,10)
15.38)
14.67 (
10.94)
18,15 (
13.54)
(
C
(
008.07)
6.44)
.583)
1128.22 (
7,68 (
.369 C
841.31)
5.73)
.606)
988.28 (
6.14 (
.321 C
736.96)
4,58)
.527)
1173.47 (
9.47 (
.382 (
875.06)
7.06)
.629)
PARTICULATE DATA. TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
TOTAL NW HR
(HP
FiR)
SAMPLE rLOW
BSHC
BSCO
ELSCO2
BSNOX
6/NW
6/NW
6/NW
6/NW
HR
HR
HR
HR
(0/HP
( 8/ N T ’
(U/HP
(6/Ni’
FiR)
FiR)
HR)
FiR>
2.23 C 1.66)
16.81 C 12.53)
1046. ( 780.)
7.00 C 5,28)
.559)
MULTIPLIER
MULTIPLIER
MULTIPLIER
FOR
FOR
FOR
BSFC
NO/NW
HR
(LB/HF’
HR)
.340
20 X 20 FiLTERS
SAMF’LC FLOW
SCM(SCF)
6/TEST
0/NW HR (6/HF’ FIR)
6/KG FUEL (C/LB FUEL)
SCM(SCF)
.823 C 29,08)
.876
.1047 ( .0780)
.3075 ( .1395)
78.94 (2788.2)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 1.56 (1.16)
-------
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
Co CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LD)
NW HR (HP HR)
N YNF
221,0
172,7 ( o.0
48.9 (120.0)
.332o ,
296,0
178.5 ( 6306,)
33.03
25.
90,
.33
27,7
2.55
18.66
1092.9
c .47
.357
.96
LANF
221,0 ( 8.7)
172,7 ( 6.8)
48.9(120.0)
300,0
180,9 C 6391.)
21.83
40.
154.
‘54
37,4
4.14
32.53
1785,7
12.94
.583
1,55
3
LAF
221.0 ( 8.7)
172,7 ( 6.8)
48,9 (120.0)
3428.
305.0
184,0 ( 6499.)
8.84
80 .
326.
1 • 42
89.1
8.48
69.88
4801,4
31,35
1.558
4,93
SCM(SCF)
6/TEST
C/NW HR (6/HP FIR)
6/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
221.0 C 8.7)
172 ,7 ( 6.8)
48.9 (120,0)
3337,
296.9
179.1 C 6326.)
33,41
28.
81.
‘33
28.6
2,90
16,92
1098 .8
9,80
.358
.92
.749 ( 26.45)
.965
.1155 ( .0861)
.3380 ( .1533)
TABLE C— t’. [ UG1N [ I 12N r u ‘,uLT
1E T NO.828-2 RUNI
PATE 6/ 2,’Bl
TIME 11:15
EIYNO NO, S
ENGINE NO.028
ENGINE MODEl 78 EIDA [ i 6V ‘71COACH
ENGINE 7.0 L(426. CID)
CVO Nfl, 10
BAROMETER 738.38 MM H6(29.07 IN 46)
RU) B T [ MF. 28.9 I’E12 C 84.0 PEG F)
BAG RESULTE
RAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. 1-120)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN, 1-120)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. tIEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW OTt’. CU. METRES(SCF)
PC’GJEIT NO, 05-5530-005
RELATIVE HUMIDITY • ENCINE-49, PCI CVS’65. PCI
ABSOLUTE tUMIDITY 12.o GM/NO( 88.3 GRAINS/LB)
DIESEL EM- 465 r
BAG CART NC.
I - IC
NC
CO
CO
C 02
C02
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
8 EN CR1’
SAMPLE
BC r GR Ta
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
r cKcRr ’
NOX :-IuMIraIIy C.F. 1.0000
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/rpM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PET
METER/RANGE/PCI
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
7.6/23/
13.8/ 2/
92.0/13/
17’
SJ/ .L , /
23.6/ 3/
3,3/ 3/
9.4/13/
.6/ 2/
10.6/23/
14.0/ 2/
70.5/12/
.6/12/
35,4/ 3/
3,7/ 3/
12. 7/13/
.3/ 2/
18.7/23/
93.
8.6/23/
14.
15.3/ 2/
15.
15.i/ 2/
161.
77.6/11/
345,
85.4/13/
1.
.8/11/
2.
2.0/13/
.59
80.2/ 3/
1.47
23,9/ 3/
.06
3.6/ 3/
.06
3.6/ 3/
30.
30.0/13/
90.
9.8/13/
38.
14.
93,
0.
.38
.05
28,
1.
.77)
1.29)
1.98)
14.49)
848.74)
7,36)
.610)
I SHC 0/KU HR (6/HP HP)
BOCO 6/NW HR (6/HF’ HP)
BSCO2 6/NW HR (6/HP HP)
BSNOX 6/NW HR (6/HP HR)
rasrc NO/NW -(P (LB/HP HP)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TOTAL NW HR (HP NR a
RSHC 6/NW HR (6/HP HP)
BSCO 0/NW FIR (6/HP FIR)
BSCO2 6/NW HR (6/HF’ liP)
PSNOX 0/NW HR (0/HP IR)
BSFC KG/NW HE: (LB/HF HP)
8.35 ( 11.20k
2.16 C 1.61)
16.52 ( 12.32)
105i. C 784,.
7.61 5,67)
.342 ( .562)
43,
I C-
8 5.
.39
.06
29.
1.
.79)
1.24)
2.34)
13.67)
887.92)
7.92)
.638)
2.66
19.43
1130.18
9.86
.371
1.29)
2• 07)
2.00)
15,69)
861,16)
6.24)
.620)
2.60
21.04
1154.83
8.37
.377
3,43)
6.61)
1.28)
10.58)
726.90)
4,75)
.520)
1.72
14.19
974.79
6,36
.316
F ’ARTI [ U ATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 RAGS
3.14
18.34
1190,72
10.63
.388
9Cir’ rILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
.0 :20 FILTERS
‘SAMPLE FLOW
PART. G/KW-Hp (G/HP-HR) 1.75 (1.31)
SCM(SCF)
80.36 (2838.3)
-------
ENG I NE
FNGINE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
m DILUTION FACTOR
,!.. NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
Co MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS CRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
NW HR (HP HR)
BSHC 0/NW HR (6/HP HR)
BSCO C/KU HR (6/HP HR)
BSCO2 6/NW FIR (6/HP HR)
RSNOX C/KU HR (6/HP HR)
DSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HF’ I-fR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 SAGS
TEST No.0263 RUN1
DATE 6/ 2/81
TIME 11:55
rimo NO. 5
1
NYNF
228.6 ( 9.0)
177.3 ( 7.0)
48.9 (120.0)
3326.
296.0
170,0 ( 6209.)
33,5.9
22,
88.
33
27.2
2.30
10.34
1064.6
9,28
.347
.96
LANF
226.6 ( 9.0)
177,8 ( 7.0)
48.9 (120.0)
3371.
300,0
100.5 ( 6374.)
22.12
37,
148.
.53
37,4
3,05
31.04
1737.0
12.91
.567
1,53
DIESEL EM 465- r
DAG CART NO.
3
LAF
228.6 ( 9.0)
177,8 ( 7.0
48.9 (120.0)
3428.
305.0
103.5 ( 6481.)
8,92
79,
326.
1.41
90.1
0.32
69.67
4739.5
31.63
1.538
4,91
SCM(SCF)
U/TEST
C/NW HR (C/HF’ HR)
GINO FUEL (6/LB FIJEL)
scr I
4
NYNF
228.6 ( 9.0)
177.8 ( 7.0)
48.9 (120.0)
3337.
297.0
178.6 ( 6309.)
33,54
24.
83.
* 33
29.3
2.46
17.28
1095.0
10.02
.356
.94 (
NO. [ ‘20
MODEL 70 ODAII 6V-71COACH
7,0 L(426. CU’)
10
TABLE C—27 ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H TRANS
BAROMETER 738.36 MM H6C79 .07 IN HG)
DRY BULl’ TEMP. 29.4 lIEU C(85.0 IEC F)
SAC RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER r’IF F, MM. H20(IN. H20)
r LOWER INLET F MM. H20(IN. 1-120)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. PEG, C(L’EG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 510. CU. METRES(SCF)
1- ’ROJELT NO. 05- 5830--SOS
RELATIVE h’UMIIIIlY ENGIN [ -48. PCT , CVS 62. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 12.0 GM/KG( 09,4 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C,F. 1.0000
NC SAMPLE SIETER/RANGEJPPM
1W BCKGRII METER/RAN6E/F ’F ’M
CO SAMF’LE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCNCRr ’ METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCNGRI ’ METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
15.3/ 2/
91.0/13/
.0/13/
23.5/ 3/
3.7/ 3/
9,4/13/
1.1/ 2/
15.
92.
1.
.38
.06
28.
1.
15.0/ J
68,4/12/
1,2/12/
35.0/ 3/
4,1! 3/
12.7/13/
.8/ 2/
16.
155.
2.
.59
.06
38.
1.
18.1/ /
77.6/11/
1.0/ill
79.5/ 3/
3.6/ 3/
30.5/13/
1.4/ 2/
18.
345.
3.
1.46
.06
91.
1,
18.4/
87,7/13/
2.8/13/
23.0/ 3/
3.5/ 3/
10.0/13/
.8/ 2/
88.
3.
.39
.05
30.
1.
.77)
1.29)
1.78)
14.25)
826.82)
7,21)
.594)
2.39
19.10
1108.78
9,66
.362
1.25)
2.06)
1,87)
15.09)
844.51)
6.28)
.608)
2.51
20.24
1132.51
9.42
.370
TOTAL NW I-fR
(HF’
UR)
2.03 ( 1.51)
BSHC
6/NW HR
(6/HF’ HR)
16.34 ( 12,19)
BSCO
BSCO2
C/NW
6/NW
FIR
HR
(C/HF’
(6/HP
HR)
NR)
1035. ( 772,)
7.65 ( 5.71)
DSNOX
6/KU
HR
(6/HF’
.337 ( .553)
3,39)
6.59)
1.26)
10,57)
719.34)
4.80)
.515)
1.69
14.18
964.66
6.44
.313
PARTICULATE DATA. TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
.79)
1.25)
1.96)
13.78)
873.11)
7.99)
.626)
90M i FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTII’LIER FOR
MUL’IPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
cAPlF’LC rL0
2.63
18.48
1170.06
10.72
.301
26,49)
.0859)
.1552)
.750
.961
.1152
.3422
79.50 (2808.0)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 1.69 (1.26)
-------
HC MASS CRAMS
CO MASS CRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS CRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
NW HR (HP HR)
ff51 NO.1 128 -4 RUNI
ElATE 6/ 2/81
TIME 1235
rYNO NO. 5
NYNF
22 .1 ( 8,9)
177.0 ( 7.0)
48.9 (120.0)
3326,
296.0
177.5 ( 6268.)
34.57
25.
91.
‘p
28,0
2 • 59
18,76
1053.2
9,51
.344
.96
LANF
226.1 ( 8.9)
177.0 ( 7.0)
48.9 (120,0)
3370.
300.0
179.8 ( 6351,)
22.12
39,
151.
‘54
37,5
4,01
31.52
1774,7
12,91
.579
1 .55
3
LAF
226.1 ( 8.9)
177.0 ( 7.0)
48.9 (120,0)
‘ . 1, 1 —u
305 .0
182.9 ( 6460.)
8,89
81.
327.
1.42
89.1
8.59
69.60
4744, 7
31.18
1.540
4.93
SCM(SCF)
C/TEST
0/NW FIR 6/HF’ FIR)
6/NC FUEI (C/LB FUEL)
4
NYNF
226.1 ( 8.9)
177.8 ( 7.0)
48.9 (120.0)
3337,
297,0
178.0 ( 6288.)
34.12
29.
87.
.33
28.9
2,99
17,98
1073.7
9.86
.351
.94
.714 ( 25,23)
1,005
.1201 ( .0896)
.3573 C .1621)
T4FIL [ C—2 ENS) NE E 1S5ION LESUL’ S
H TRANS
ENEINE NO.D29
ENGINE MOlES 70 triAl 6V 71COACH
ENGINE 7.0 L(426 , CIII)
1.VS NC. 10
BAROMETER 737.67 MM 1:8(29.05 IN FIG)
DRT’ BULB TEMP. 25.6 [ ICC 6(78.0 DEC F)
RAC RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
[ 1ESCRIPTION
BLOWER tIlE P MM. H20(IN, H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H2O(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECON [ ’S
TOTAL FLOW SIP, CU. METRES(SCF)
FRUJECT NO. ‘)5-5830-OOE
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ENGINE-SO. PCI • CUS 62. PET
AFISOLUTIT -IIJMIDITY 12.3 GM/NC( 86.0 GRAINS/LB)
DIESEL EM -465 - -r
BAG CART NO. I
HE
HE.
(TO
CO
C02
CO2
NOX
NOX
SAM ft C
F ICNGRD
SAMPLE
t:CKGRD
SAMPLE
I4CN CR I ’
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
NOX FIUMIIITY C.1. 1.0000
METER fRANCE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE /F’CT
METER/RANGE/PET
METER fRANCE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
7.5/23/
12.5/ 2/
93.2/13,’
1.0/13/
23.1/ 3/
3,4/ 3/
9.5/13/
.6/ 2/
n DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
o CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PET
NOX CONCENTRATION PM
10.0/23/
12.0/ 2/
69,1/12/
.7/12/
35.0/ 3/
3.2/ 3/
12. 8/13/
.8/ 2/
50.
12.
157.
1.
.59
05
30.
1.
18, 5/23/
12.3,’ 2/
77.6/11/
.7/11/
79.0/ 3/
3.6/ 3/
30, 1/13/
1.4/ 2/
92.
345,
2.
1.47
.06
90.
1.
8.1/23/
12.0/ 2/
90.2/13/
1,8/13/
23 4/ 3/
34/ 3/
9.9/13/
.9/ 2/
37,
13.
94,
1.
‘37
05
2?.
1.
.76)
1,29)
2.01)
14.57)
817,97)
7,39)
.589)
BSHC 6/NW HR (C/HF’ HR)
BSCO 0/NW HR (G/FIP HR)
BSCO2 6/NW HR (C/HP HR)
riSNOX C/NW HR (0/HP UR
BSFC k G/NW HR (LB/HP FIR
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
41.
12,
91,
38
.05
30.
1.
.77)
I ‘)
A
2.38)
14,34)
856,00)
7.86)
.616)
2,70
19,54
1096.92
9,91
358
TOTAL
BSHC
FISCO
BSCO2
BSNOX
BSFC
NW HR (lIP
0/NW HR
C/NW HR
C/NW HR
C/NW HR
KG/NW HI?
1.28)
2,07)
1,94 1
15,20)
855.84)
6.23)
.616)
2.60
20,38
1147, 70
8.35
.375
HI?)
(U/HI’ HI?)
(8/HR HI? ’
(0/HF’ FIR)
(6/HF HI?)
(LB/HF’ HR)
8.37
2.17
16.46
1033.
7 • 58
.336
fl ,22)
1,62;
12.29)
771.)
( 5,66)
.553)
3,39)
6.61)
1.30)
10,54)
718.31)
4.72)
.514)
1.74
14.13
963, 27
6.33
.313
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
3.15 ’
19.23
1148,02
10.54
.375
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
70 X 20 llTCRS
S. itiF ’L1 FLOW
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 1.68 (1.25)
55M56r I
77,36 (2732,2)
-------
ENGINE
ENGINE
ENGINE
CVS NO.
DILUTION FACTOR
., F tC CONCENTRATION PFiI
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
KW HR (HP HR)
EISHC 5/ NW HR (6/HP HR)
RSCO 51KW FIR (5/HP FIR)
RSCO2 6/KU HR (5/HP HR)
BSNOX G/KW HR (0/HF HR)
BSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HF lIR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 4 BAGS
TAEILE C—2 ) ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
HIRANS
TEST NO.1128-5 RUN1
hATE 6/ 3/81
TIME 1155
DYNO NO. 5
1
NYNF
223.5 ( 8.8)
175.3 ( 6.9)
48.9 (120.0)
3326.
296.0
177.5 ( 6268.)
33,93
28.
95,
‘34
28.8
2.83
19.58
1100.3
9,79
.360
.97 C
LANF
223.5 ( 8,8)
175.3 C 6.9)
48,9 (120.0)
3371.
300.0
179.9 ( 6353.)
21.49
43,
158.
.55
38.5
4.48
33.11
1810.2
13.26
.592
1.55
DIESEL EM-465- F
BAG CART NO.
3
LAF
223.5 C 8.8)
175.3 ( 6.9)
48.9 (120.0)
3427.
305.0
182.9 ( 6459.)
8.97
87.
331.
1 .40
91.5
9.19
70.48
4704.4
32.01
1.528
4,95
PROJECT NO. 05—5830—0O8
4
NYNF
223.5 C 8.8)
175.3 ( 6.9)
48,9 (120.0)
3338.
297.0
178.1 ( 6291.)
7A ‘V)
.JT
30.
87,
‘33
29.1
3.13
18,09
1063.6
9,91
.348
.94 (
NO.1128
MODEL 78 OIIAD 6V-71COACH
7,0 L(426. CIII)
10
BAROMETER 736.60 MM HG(29,00 IN HG)
DRY BULB TENF ’. 27.2 DEC C(81,O BEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
I lESCR I PT I ON
BLOWER IIIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. 1120)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. tIES. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 5Th ’. CU. METRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY • ENCINE-52. PCT , CVS—65. PCI
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 12.2 OM/KC( 85.2 ORAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1,0000
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HE BCKGRII METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SANFLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO OCKORD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCNCRD METER/RANGE/PPM
10.6/ 2/
97,1/13/
1.4/13/
23,5/ 3/
2.9/ 3/
9.8/13/
.5/ 2/
11.
99.
1.
,38
.04
29.
1.
11.6/ 2/
72.0/12/
.9/12/
35.9/ 3/
3,6/ 3/
13.1/13/
.3/ 2/
12.
165.
2.
.60
.06
39.
1.
12.7/ 2/
78.3/11/
.8/11/
79.1/ 3/
3.4/ 3/
30.8/13/
1.1/ 2/
13.
350.
2.
1,45
.05
92.
1.
14.1/ 2/
91.8/13/
3,2/13/
23.3/ 3/
3.5/ 3/
10.0/13/
.9/ 2/
14.
93.
3.
.38
.05
30,
1.
1,30)
2.07)
6.64)
1.25)
1.86 C
1.38)
3.34
2.49)
2.91 ( 2.17)
20.13 C 15.01)
2.90 ( 2,16)
21.41 ( 15.97)
14.24 ( 10.62)
19.35 C 14.43)
1131.21 ( 843.55)
1170.71 ( 873.00)
950.28 ( 708.62)
1137.20 ( 848.01)
10.07 ( 7.51)
.370 ( .608)
8.58 C 6.40)
.383 C .629)
6.47 ( 4.82)
.309 ( .507)
10,60 C 7,90)
.372 C .611)
TOTAL KU HR
( III’
h’R)
C 1.74)
BSHC
BSCO
USCO2
5/NW
6/NW
6/KU
HR
HR
HR
(6/HP
(5/HP
(6/HP
HR)
HR)
FIR)
2.34
16.31 C 12.53)
1033. ( 770.)
5.77)
BSNOX
BSFC
6/NW
KG/KU
Ilk
FIR
(6/HP
(LU/HF’
Ilk)
FIR)
7.73
.336 C .553)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 4 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
MULTIPLIER FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW
6/TEST
1,229
6/KU HR (6/HF’ fIR) .1462
6/NC FUEL (5/LB FUEL) .4346
( .1090)
( .1971)
SCM(SCF)
78.31 (2766.0)
PART G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 1.62 (1.21)
-------
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION P I ll
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LB)
NW HR (1W HR)
BSHC 61KW HR (C/HF HR)
BSCO 61KW HR (C/HP 11R)
BSCO2 6/NW HR (6/HP HP)
BSNOX C/NW HR (C/HP HR)
E’SFC KG/KU HR (LB/Hf HP)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
226.1 ( 8.9)
172.7 ( 6.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3067,
273 • 0
164.4 ( 5807,)
29.33
32.
103.
.40
29.0
3.02
19,63
1194.5
9.12
.390
1.06
226.1 ( 8.9)
172,7 ( 6,8)
48.9 (120,0)
3236,
288.0
173.5 ( 6127.)
23. 16
32.
196.
.51
36.1
3.16
39.61
1632.6
11.99
.538
1.67
3
226.1 ( 8.9)
172.7 ( 6.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3066.
272 • 9
164.4 ( 5805.)
30,29
31.
98.
.39
28.4
2.94
18.68
1169.7
8.93
.381
1.06
SCM(SCF)
6/TEST
6/NW HR (6/HF HP)
6/KG FUEL (6/LB FUEL)
.590
.851
.2245
.6504
ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
N-TRANS
TEST NO.828-i PUll
BATE 6/ 1/81
TIME 2:25
tIYHO NO, S
ENGINL NLI.L12C
ENGINE MODEL 78 LiliAn 6V-71COACH
ENGINE 7,0 L(426. Clii)
CVS NO, 10
BAROMETER 738,12 MM H6C29.06 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 28.9 DEC C(84.O BEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF P MM, H2O(Itd. H20)
BLOWER INLET F MN. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 1 1CC. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TIME SECONDS
TOTAL FLOW 511’. CI I. METRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY • ENCINE -51. PCT • CVS68, PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 13.2 GM/NG( 92.1 GRAINS/LB)
PROJECT NO. 05-5830-008
[ IIESEL EN—465-F
BAG CART NO. 1
NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1.0000
HC
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/ppM
8.1/23/
40,
HC
BCKCRD METER/RANGE/PPM
8.0/23/
40,
7,9/23/
40.
CO
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/ppM
8.8/ 2/
50.3/12/
9.
8.8/ 2/
9.
8.8/ 2/
9.
CO
E:CKGRI, METER/RANGE/PpM
04.7/12/
204.
48.3/12/
102.
C02
CO2
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
BCKGRIi METER/RANCE,’FCT
27.0/ 3/
1.
.44
.7/12/
33,3/ 3/
1.
.55
.6/12/
26.2/ 3/
1.
.43
lOX
SAMPLE METER/RANGE/rpM
3.1/ 3/
9.9/13/
.05
2,8/ 3/
.04
2.7/ 3/
.04
NOX
ICKGRP METER/RANGE/ppM
12.2/13/
37,
9.7/13/
29.
.86)
1.42)
2.12)
13.81)
940.30)
6.42)
.604)
2.85
13.52
1126.97
8.61 (
.367
1.19)
2.24)
1.41)
17.67)
720.56)
5,35)
.529)
1.89
23.70
977.02
7.17
.322
.84)
1.42)
2.07)
13.14)
822.93)
6,28)
.591)
2.78
17.63
1103.57
8,42
.360
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
TOTAL
NW HR
(HF
HP>
3 ?9 ( 5.08)
BSHC
6/NW
HR
(6/Hf’
HP)
2.41 C 1,79)
FILTER
BSCO
6/NW
HR
(6/HI’
HP)
20.55 C 15.33)
SAMPLE FLOW
‘SCO2
C/NW
HR
(C/HF’
HP)
1054, ( 786,)
MULTIPLIER
FOR
BSNOX
C/NW
HR
(C/HP
HP)
7,92 ( 5,91)
MULTIPLIER
FOR
BSFC
KG/NW
HR
(LB/HI
HP)
.345 ( .567)
MULTIPLIER
FOR
20 X 20 FILTERS
20.84)
.1674)
.2950)
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP—HR) 1.94 (1.45)
SCM(SCF)
55.71 (1967.8)
-------
ENGINE NO.1128
ENGINE MODEL 70 DOAD 6V-71COACH
ENGINE 7,0 1(426. CIII)
EVE NO. 10
SAROMETER ?36.i?5 MM EIG(25 ’.Ol IN fIG)
[ lRr IftILB TENP, 27.0 DEC C(82.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
FlAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIE F’ MM. :- 120(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET F’ MM. H20(IN. H20)
[ ‘LOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DCG. F)
BLOWER REVOL LIT IONS
TINE SECONDS
1OTAL FLOW Sill, CU. METRUS(SCF)
HG SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO 8CKCRII METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANCE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NDX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
? DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO IIASS GRAMS
C02 MASS CRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
FUEL KG (LI I)
NW HR (lIP HR)
BSHC 6/NW HR (6/HP HR)
[ ‘8CC 6/NW HR (C/HP HR)
BSCO2 0/NW HR (0/HP HR)
[ ‘SNOX 6/NW HR (6/lIP HR)
BSFC KG/NW HR (LB/HP HR)
TOTAL TEST RESULTS 3 BAGS
TOTAL NW HR (HF HR)
[ ‘SHE G/KW HR (6/Hr OR)
FISCO 6/NW HR (C/HF OR)
[ ‘SCO2 6/NW HR (0/HP FIR)
[ ‘SNOX 6/NW HR (C/HF OR)
BSFC KG/NW 1W (LB/HP HR)
226.1 (0,9)
172.7 ( 6.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3067.
273 ,0
164.0
8.4/23/
8,7/ 2/
51,0/12/
.4/12/
26.3/ 3/
2.6/ 3/
9.9/13/
.4/ 2/
30.11
34,
104.
.39
29.4
226.1 ( 8.9)
172.7 ( 6.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3236.
288,0
173.1 C 6113.)
0.4/23/ 42.
8.8/ 2/ 9,
86.1/12/ 208.
.4/12/ 1,
33,6/ 3/ .56
2,7/ 3/ .04
12.4/13/ 37.
.4/ 2/ 0.
22 • 92
34,
201.
.52
36.7
3
226.1 C 8.9)
172.7 C 6.8)
48.9 (120.0)
3067,
273 • 0
164.0 ( 5793.)
8.4/23/ 42,
9.5/ 2/ 10.
49.2/12/ 104.
.5/12/ 1.
26.3/ 3/ .43
2.8/ 3/ .04
9.9/13/ 30.
.4/ 2/ 0.
30.14
33.
100.
.39
29,4
3.12
19.08
168 • 2
9.21
.381
1.07
2.91
17.80
1089.31
8,59
.355
.84)
1.44)
2.17)
13.27)
812.30)
6.41)
.584)
.624 ( 22.04)
.803
.2112 ( .1575)
.6134 C .2782)
TAI )LEC—31. ENGINE EMISSION RESULTS
H-TRANS
TEST NO.D28 2 RUNI
ElATE 6/ 1/81
TIME 3:05
IIYNO NO, 5
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ENCINE-54, PCI
ADSOLIJT [ HUMIDITY 13.1 GN/KG( 91,5
PROJECT NO, 05 -5830—008
DIESEL EM—465--F
BAG CART NO. 1
CVS-68. PCI
GRAINS/LB) NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0000
5793.)
42,
9,
108.
1+
‘43
.04
30.
0.
3. 1 10
2.54
20,91
1051. (
11.04
.344
3.20 3.35
19,94 40.49
1177,1 1650.7
9,21 12.14
.384 ( .85) .544 C 1.20)
1.06 ( 1.42) 1,67 ( 2,24)
3.02 C 2.25) 2.01 C 1.50)
18.81 ( 14.03) 24.23 ( 18.07)
1110,58 C 828.16) 987.88 C 736.66)
13,69 ( 6.40) 7.26 ( 5.42)
.363 C .596) .326 C .535)
PARTICULATE DATA, TOTAL FOR 3 BAGS
90MM FILTER
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
MULTIPLIER FOR C/TEST
MULTIPLIER FOR C/NW FIR (C/HF’ HR)
MULTIPLIER FOR C/KG FUEL (C/LB FUEL)
20 X 20 FILTERS
SAMPLE FLOW SCM(SCF)
5.10)
1.90)
.1.1 . J
703.)
5,99)
.566
PART. G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR) 1.99 (1.48)
55.32 (1954.0)
-------
TABLE C-32. SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Cycle Type Units Methane Ethylene Ethane Acetylene Propylene Benzene Toluene “ Total ”
Baseline mg/test 790 410 63 1300
Cold mg/kw/hr 120 60 9.2 190
Start mg/kg fuel 320 160 25 500
Baseline 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
Maladjusted mg/test 94 1200 71 570 72 2000
Cold mg/kw/hr 11 140 8.3 67 8.5 230
Start mg/kg fuel 31 400 23 190 24 670
Maladjusted mg/test 14 1100 36 50 500 1700
Rot mg/kw/hr 1.7 130 4.3 6.0 60 200
Start mg/kg fuel 5.0 380 13 18 180 600
Note: No propane was detected.
-------
• TABLE C-33. SUNMARY OF INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM MODAL OPERATION
Q THE DDAD 6V ’7J.N COACH ENGINE IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
Test Condition, rpni/load, %
1260 1260 1260 2100 2100 2100
Hydrocarbon Units 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Methane mg/hr 350 -- 63 -- 110
mg/kWuhr 3.6 0.48 41
mg/kg fuel 14 1.8 12
Ethylene mg/hr 3200 1100 7300 730 15000 3400 2100
mg/kW—hr 1800 22 74 —— 110 52 780
mg/kg fuel 850 90 290 870 420 160 230
Ethane mg/hr - - -- 460 - - 300 79
mg/kW ’hr 4.7 2.3 29
mg/kg fuel 18 8.4 8.6
Acetylene mg/hr 240 -— -— 780
mg/kW -br 130 5.9
mg/kg fuel 63 22
propylene mg/hr 1300 460 2900 490 6800 1500 1000
mg/kW—hr 730 9.4 29 —— 52 23 370
mg/kg fuel 340 38 120 580 190 72 110
Benzefle mg/hr 560 —— 730 -— 1300 -— 200
mg/ W- ’ ir 310 9.9 74
mg/kg fuel 150 29 36 22
Toluefle mg/hr —— -— 630 —- 1000 —- 430
ing/kw-’hr 6.4 7.6 160
mg/kg fuel 25 28 47
No propane was detected
C—35
-------
TABLE C—34. SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL HYDROCARBONS FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE IN MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATION
Test Condition, rpnVload, %
1260 1260 1260 2100 2100 2100
Hydrocarbon 2 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Methane mg/hr 260 390 2900 80 4400 —— 43
mg/kW—hr 150 8.5 31 —— 35 —— 18
mg/kg fuel 66 33 110 83 120 —— 4.6
Ethylene mg/hr 3700 1400 8700 410 7000 3600
mg/kW—hr 2100 31 94 —— —— 110 1500
mg/kg fuel 930 120 340 430 — — 330 380
Ethane mg/hr —— —— 390 —— 540 170
mg/kW—hr —— —— 4.2 —— 4.3 2.7
mg/kg fuel —— —— 15 —— 15 8.1
Acetylene mg/hr 350 —— —— 150 —— 250 320
mg/kW—hr 200 —— —— —— —— 4.0 130
mg/kg fuel 88 —— —— 160 —— 12 34
Propane mg/hr -- —— —— —— -- - - 131
mg/kW-hr -- -- -- -- -- -- 55
mg/kg fuel — — -— - —- 14
Propylene mg/hr 1600 —— 3600 —— —— 3800 1600
mg/kW—hr 900 —— 39 —— —— 60 670
mg/kg fuel 400 —— 140 — — —— 180 170
Benzene mg/hr 240 — — 480 —— -— 92
mg/kW—hr 130 —— 5.1 —— —— —— 38
mg/kg fuel 61 —— 19 —— — — -— 9.8
No toluene was detected.
C—3 6
-------
TABLE D-3 5. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM TRP NSIENT OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Transient Isobutyr-
Configuration Cycle Units Formaldehyde aldehyde Benzaldehyde
Baseline Cold Start mg/test 190 180 33
mg/kW—hr 27 25 47
mg/kg 76 70 13
Hot Start mg/test 170 44
mg/kW—hr 21 54
mg/kg 67 17
Bus mg/test 40
mg/k W-hr 12
mg/kg 36
Maladjusted Cold Start mg/test 240 43
mg/kWhr 28 5.0
mg/kg 79 14
Hot Start mg/test 300 79
mg/kWhr 36 9.5
mg/kg 13.0 28
Bus mg/test
mg/k W-hr
mg/kg
Note: No acetaldehYde
C—37
-------
TABLE C-36. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE IN BASELINE CONFIGURATION
Test Condition, rpm/load, %
1260 1260 1260 2100 2100 2100
Aldehyde Units 2 _ 50 100 Idle 100 50 2
Formaldehyde g/m 3 exh. 1600 960 2100 480 4700 870 760
mg/hr 970 590 1300 85 4500 820 720
mg/kW—hr 540 12 13 —— 34 12 270
mg/kg fuel 260 48 52 100 130 39 78
Acetaldehyde pg/rn 3 exh 220 230 150 —— 820
mg/hr 130 140 92 — — 780
mg/kW—hr 73 2.9 0.93 — 5.9
mg/kg fuel 34 11 3.7 —— 22
Isobutyraldehyde pg/rn 3 exh. 340 360 -- -— -- -- 210
mg/hr 210 220 —— —— —— —— 200
mg/kW —hr 12Q 4.5 —— ——
mg/kg fuel 56 18 —— - — 22
No Benzaldehyde was noted for the baseline configuration.
C—38
-------
TABLE C-37. SUMMARY OF ALDEHYDES FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE IN MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATION
Test Condition, rpm/load, %
Aldehyde
Units
Formaldehyde .ig/m 3 exh.
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
Acetaldehyde g/m 3 exh
mg/hr
mg/k W-hr
mg/kg fuel
IsobutyraldehYde Lg/m 3 exh.
mg/hr
mg/k*-hr
mg/kg fuel
Benzaldehyde was emitted only
level of 53 mg/hr
1260
1260
1260
2100
100
2100
2100
2
2
50
100
Idle
50
3100
800
2300
940
1500
1300
910
1800
470
1400
160
1400
1].
1200
19
340
1000
10
15
——
88
450
39
55
170
38
1300
——
500
——
300
400
370
180
160
760
——
290
—-
280
430
——
3.1
——
2.2
5.9
67
190
——
11
——
17
17
——
500
——
——
150
380
2400
——
290
——
——
140
340
2200
——
6.3
——
——
1.1
5.4
920
during 1260 rpm/50 percent load at a
C—39
-------
TABLE C—38. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (FILTERED) FROM TRANSIENT OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Salicyl— m—cresol+ 2,3,5—tri-
cycle Type Unit Phenol aldehyde p—cresol 5 a methyiphenol 2 , 3 , 516 b 2rl , c
Baseline mg/test 130
Cold mg/kW-hr 19
Start mg/kg fuel 15
Baseline mg/test 540
Hot mg/kW-hr 64
Start mg/kg fuel 210
Maladjusted mg/test 5.6 94
Cold mg/kW-hr 0.66 11
Start mg/kg fuel 1.9 31
0
Maladjusted mg/test —— 2400 650 17 15 160
Hot mg/kW—hr —— 290 78 2.0 1.8 19
Start mg/kg fuel —— 850 230 5.9 5.3 56
ap....ethylphenol, 2-isopropylphenol, 2, 3—xylenol, 3, 5-xylenol,
2’4’5’ 6—tetramethyiphenol
2—n—propy lpheno l
-------
TABLE C-39. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (FILTERED) FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V- lN COACH ENGINE IN’ BASELINE CONFIGURATION
Test Condition, rpm/load, %
1260 1260 2100 2100
Phenol UnitS _ . _ 2 50 Idle 100 50
Phenol hg/rn 3 exh. 92
mg/hr 88
mg/kW-hr 0.67
mg/kg fuel 2.5
Salicyl— pg/rn 3 exh. 320 120 110 270 65
aldehyde mg/hr 190 73 19 260 61
mg/kW—hr 110 1.5 —— 2.0 0.93
mg/kg fuel 50 6.0 23 7.3 2.9
m—cresOl + pg/rn 3 exh.
P—cresOl mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
pg/rn 3 exh. 6.1
mg/hr
mg / kWhr 2.1
mg/kg fuel 0.98
2,3,5—tn— pg/rn 3 exh. 12 25 16 30
methyl mg/hr 7.3 15 2.8 29
phenol mg / kW-hr 4.1 0.30 -- 022
mg/kg fuel 1.9 1.2 3.3 0.81
2356 b pg/rn 3 ex1 .
mg/hr
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
2 flppC pg/rn 3 exh. 240 59 87 130 59
mg/hr 150 36 15 120 56
84 0.73 —— 0.91 0.85
mg/kg fuel 40 3.0 18 3 4 2.7
ap_ethylphenol,2s0ProPYll1e 0s 2, 3—xypenol, 3, s-xyienoi,
2,4, 6_trirnethY1P 110l
3,5
C 2 _n_propy lphenol
C—41
-------
TABLE C-40. SUMMARY OF PHENOLS (FILTERED) FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE IN MALADJUSTED CONFIGURATION
Test Condition, rpm/load, %
1260 1260 2100 2100
Phenol Units 2 50 Idle 100 50
Phenol Pg/rn 3 exh.
mg/hr
mg / kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
Salicyl— pg/rn 3 exh. 240 300 160 130 21
aldehyde mg/hr 140 180 27 120 19
rng/kW—hr 79 3.9 —— 0.95 0.30
mg/kg fuel 35 15 28 3.3 0.90
m-cresol + pg/rn 3 exh. 20
P—cresol mg/hr 12
mg/kw-hr 6.7
mg/kg fuel 3.0
pg/rn 3 exh. 20 —- 6.6
mg/hr 12 -— 6.0
mg/kW—hr 6.7 — - 0.05
mg/kg fuel 3.0 —— 0.16
2,3,5—tn— Pg/rn 3 exh. 38 44 41 4.4 4.7
methyl mg/hr 22 26 7.0 4.0 4.3
phenol mg/kW—hr 12 0.57 —— 0.03 0.07
mg/kg fuel 5.6 2.2 7.3 0.11 0.20
2 , 31516 b pg/rn 3 exh. —— 390
mg/hr -- 230
mg/kw-hr -- 5.0
mg/kg fuel —— 19
2 nppC pg/ rn 3 exh. 870 1000 410 260 74
mg/hr 510 590 70 240 67
mg/kW—hr 290 13 — — 1 ,9 1.1
mg/kg fuel 130 49 73 6.6 3.2
ap_ethylphenol, 2—isopropylphenol, 2, 3-xypenol, 3, 5—xylenol,
b 2 ’ 4 6—trirnethyiphenol
2’ 3,5 ,6—tetraxnethylpheno].
2-n--propylpheno l
C—A 2
-------
TABLE C—41. SUMMARY OF TIA FROM TRANSIENT OPERATIONa OF
THE DDAD 6V-7 iN IN BOTH TEST CONFIGURATIONS
Test Transient LCA TIAb LCO TIAc
Configuration Cycle _____ LCA ì g/9 LCO
Baseline 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
Maladjusted Cold 58.9 1.64 3.36 1.53
Hot 72.1 1.70 3.54 1.55
Composite 70.2 1.69 3.51 1.55
aMeasurement during transient operation requires 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 pg/2 )
CTIALCO = 1.0 ÷ log LCO pg/P .s
Note: Highest value of TIA is generally taken to be representative of
relative odor intensity.
C—4 3
-------
TABLE C-42. SUMMJ RY OF TIA FROM MODAL OPERATION OF THE
DDAJ) 6V-71N IN BOTH TEST CONFIGURATIONS
Test LCA TIAa LCO TIAb
Test Condition Configuration _____ LCA }4g/2 LCO
rpm/load, %
1260/2 Baseline 62.9 1.66 1.04 0.92
Maladjusted 110. 1.83 5.18 1.70
1260/50 Baseline 71.3 1.70 0.78 0.79
Maladjusted 115. 1.84 4.85 1.68
1260/100 Baseline 5.76 0.93 1.55 0.92
Maladjusted 49.5 1.59 1.96 1.29
Idle Baseline 26.4. 1.39 1.49 1.17
Maladjusted 37.7 1.50 0.55 0.81
2100/100 Baseline 69.4 1.69 4.56 1.66
Maladjusted 64.0 1.66 4.66 1.67
2100/50 Baseline 74.2 1.71 3.17 1.50
Maladjusted 35.3 1.48 2.16 1.33
2100/2 Baseline 103. 1.81 2.93 1.47
Maladjusted 103. 1.81 3.50 1.53
7—Mode Baseline 43.9 1.55 1.58 1.20
Composite Maladjusted 63.1 1.66 2.45 1.39
a rIALCA = 0.4 + 0.7 (log LCA, ig/9 )
bTIALCO = 1.0 + log LCO, pg/9.
Note: Highest value of TIA is generally taken to be representative
of relative odor intensity.
C—4 4
-------
TABLE C-34. SUMMARY OF MODAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM THE DDAD 6V-71N
Test Condition Test Particulate Rate
rpm/load, % Configurat12P mg/rn 3 exh. g/hr g/kW-hr g/kg fuel
1260/2 Baseline 12.45 7.54 4.21 2.00
Maladjusted 11.48 6.72 3.78 1.70
1260/50 Baseline 22.27 13.59 0.28 1.12
Maladjusted 25.67 15.08 0.33 1.26
1260/100 Baseline 161.46 98.93 1.01 3.96
Maladjusted 661.88 389.60 4.20 15.40
Idle Baseline 8.64 1.53 1.82
Maladjusted 6.17 1.05 1.09
2100/100 Baseline 74.89 71.27 0.54 1.99
Maladjusted 224.56 205.40 1.63 5.63
2100/50 Baseline 42.37 39.97 0.61 1.91
Maladjusted 31.32 28.40 0.45 1.34
2100/2 Baseline 19,72 18.57 6.88 2.02
Maladjusted 18.70 16.94 7.09 1.81
Composite of 7-modes
Brake Specific, Fuel Specific,
g/kW .-hr g/kg fuel
Baseline 0.70 2.27
Maladjusted 1.84 5.61
C—4 5
-------
TABLE C—44. SULFATE EMISSION SUMMARY FROM TRANSIENT FTP
OPERATION OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Test Sulfate Rate SO( as %
Config. Cycle Type mg/test mg/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
Maladjusted Cold 190 22 63 1.2
Hot 150 18 54 1.0
Transient
Composite 160 19 55 1.1
aNo 1 Diesel fuel has 0.18 percent by weight sulfur
C—46
-------
TABLE C-45. SULFATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY FROM MODAL OPERATION
OF THE DDAD 6V-71N COACH ENGINE
Sulfate Emission Rates
Test Condition Pest mg/rn 3 SO 4 as %
rpm/load, % configuration ExhaUst mg/hr mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel of Fuel sa
1260/2 Baseline 0.40 240 130 63 1.2
Maladjusted 0.43 250 140 63 1.2
1260/50 Baseline 1.4 880 18 72 1.3
Maladjusted 1.3 800 17 67 1.2
1260/100 Baseline 2.4 1500 15 60 1.1
Maladjusted 2.9 1700 18 67 1.2
Idle Baseline 0.56 100 120 2.2
Maladjusted 0.49 84 88 1.6
2100/100 Baseline 2.8 2700 21 76 1.4
Maladjusted 2.3 2100 17 58 1.1
2100/50 Baseline 2.5 2400 36 110 2.0
Maladjusted 2.2 2000 32 94 1.7
2100/2 Baseline 0.70 630 230 69 1.3
a1adjuSted 0.59 530 220 57 1.1
Composite of 7-modes
Brake Specific, Fuel Specific,
mg/kW-hr mg/kg fuel
Baseline 24.8 80.6
Ma ladjSUted 23.0 69.9
aNo. 1 Diesel Fuel has 0.18 percent by weight sulfur.
C—4 7
-------
TABLE c—46. SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC FRACTION
FROM THE DDAD 6V-71N
Test Modal Soluble Organic Fraction
Condition Baseline Maladjusted
rpm/load, % % SOP 1 SOF/hr % SOP g SOF/hr
1260/2 83.3 6.28 78.9 5.31
1260/50 53.0 7.20 54.5 8.22
1260/100 14.5 14.3 3.37 13.1
Idle 56.4 0.864 •52.4 0.550
2100/100 20.9 14.9 7.85 16.1
2100/50 35.2 14.1 40.8 11.6
2100/2 69.5 12.9 60.0 10.1
C—if 8
-------
APPENDIX D
DISCUSSION OF FILTERED AND UNFILTERED
BUS CYCLE AND EMISSION RESULTS FROM
THREE GMC RTS II TYPE 4 BUSES
-------
ATTACHMENT D—1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL FRQT CT (UN AG NLY
OArI May 27, 1983
SUL ECT New York Bus Cycle
qo Frank Black (MD- .46)
ro Tom Baines
EPA, Ann Arbor
As discussed during our recent telephone conversation, MSERB is examining
emissions from heavy duty truck and buses at SWRZ using chassis transient
test procedures. Harry Dletzmann suggested we consider testing the buses
using a transient cycle that. you provided for one of the AA projects at
.SWRI. After examining the cycle, we question whether a bus can follow the
rapid speed fluctions.
We have developed a process permitting examination of the
acceleration-deceleration characteristics of a cycle and Smoothing to the
limits of the vehicles being examined. The process requires examination of
actual vehicle speed-time traces to determine the frequencies associated
with meaningful vehicle speed changes. The speed-time data is examined in
the frequency domain by using available Fourier Transform techniques. With
the meaningful frequencies Identified, all higher frequencies in the cycle
Transform listing are filtered (set to zero), and the reverse Transform
generated to define the “smoothed° cycle. Examples of this process are
attached. Figure 1 illustrates the original bus cycle. There is a great
deal of speed “dlther,’ near impossible for a bus to follow. Attached to
this figure Is an Illustration of acceleration values (+) and deceleration
values (-) as a function of speed associated with this cycle. Only integer
values appear, not at all typical of real driving. Figure 2 Is a smoothed
version of this cycle filtered at 0.15 Hz. The distance traveled and
average speed are the same as the original cycle, but the acceleration—
deceleration characteristics are dramatically changed.
Figure 3 illustrates acceleration—deceleration rates as a function of time
for both versions of the cycle. The original cycle requires the driver to
go from wide—open throttle to Stand—on-the-brake and back again, very often,
in very short periods of time. Buses aren’t driven this way, obviously.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the speed—time traces for the original and
smoothed cycles with the permitted speed tolerances of the original cycle.
The smoothed cycle speeds are within the permitted range of the original
cycle speeds.
If we examine emissions with this cycle in the SWRI project, I would be
inclined to use a smoothed version. Do you have any of the original bus
speed time data on which the cycle was based? An alternative would be to
use an actual bus over-the—road schedule.
Your corrinents would be appreciated.
Enclosures
f PA Fam )320.o R.v. 3.76) D—2
-------
NEW YORK BUS CYCLE — FREEWAY/NONFREEWAY
1
STD. DEV.
MEAN
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
RANGE
I SAMPLES
IIILAGE
=
V
9.48
8.77
36.88
0.00
36.80
1191.80
2.90
50
MPH
(.J
-------
S
MPH/SEC NEW YORK BUS CYCLE — FREEWAY/NONFREEWAY
•1—— ++ ———— —
- p — I. •1-—
+ -I --F + •+ + I. 4.41 ‘P1-I- + * — -P + + —4 .p -p .p — p — — — I —1—
I 50
MPH ,
-------
NEW YORK BUS CYCLE — FREEWAY/NONFREEWAY (FILTERED
0.15)
STD. DEV.
MEAN
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
RANGE
1 SAMPLES
NILAGE
50
MPH
V
9.46
8.73
36.02
0.08
36.02
191.00
2.89
I
$200
-------
S
MPH/SEC NEW YORK BUS CYCLE — FREEWAY/NONFREEWAY (FILTERED 9. $5)
+
.t_+ i:-+ —
•1•
— 1-
—
++
+
++
+ — — •1-
1w;..-
1•
+ —
— +
4 pI—. __++_
+++ Z+ •!;1 !;;; •pt f +_
+
+
50
MPH
.4.
-------
TEST NO. 1 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RISII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
TABLE D—1. C—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. IBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 738.89 MM HG(29.D9 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 39. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG C(72 .O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 6.6 GM/KG
NYNF
2
LAN F
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
NYNF
.93
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
256.10 ( 9042.9)
3.24 (114.3)
.04 ( 1 .25)
1098.0 ( 38771.)
285.0
255.37 ( 9017.2)
3.24 (114.3)
.04 ( 1.25)
1228.6 ( 43381.)
267 .0
255.39 ( 9017.9)
3.24 (114.3)
.04 ( 1.25)
1151.1 C 40644.)
262.0
255.32 ( 9015.5)
3.24 (114.3)
.04 ( 1.25)
1129.2 ( 39872.)
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 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
9.6/21/ 4.82
6.5/ 1/ 3.25
27.3/13/24.94
1.1/13/ .97
70.6/13/.1443
20.9/13/.0384
35.5/ 1/10.55
.3/ 1/ .08
91 .04
1 .60
23.60
.1063
10.47
1.016
30.172
2136.77
20 .4 72
686.87
.827 ( .514)
98.15 ( 2.397)
9.7/21/ 4.83
6.0/ 1/ 3.00
21.5/13/19.50
1.1/13/ .97
76.9/13/ • 1592
20.7/13/.0380
43.1/ 1/12.81
.4/ 1/ .11
82.93
1 .86
18.25
.1216
12.70
1.319
26.097
2736.12
27.787
873.37
1.901 (1.182)
54.29 C 4.333)
13.7/21/ 6.85
5.5/ 1/ 2.75
10.4/13/ 9.31
1.1/13/ .97
78.6/12/.3371
11.6/12/.0393
99.6/ 1/29.62
.8/ 1/ .23
39.56
4 • 17
8.19
.298 8
29.40
2.7 67
10 .981
6297.82
60.244
1985.77
5.457 (3.391)
43.01 C 5.469)
8.6/21/ 4.31
5.0/ 1/ 2.50
18.2/13/16.44
1.1/13/ .97
59 .7/13/.1 197
19.8/13/.0362
36.6/ 1/10.88
.7/ 1/ .20
110.08
1 .84
15.25
.0838
10.68
1 • 196
20.04 1
1732.20
21.474
555.02
.873 ( .542)
75.18 ( 3.129)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO2 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
C—IRAN
.70
9.64
1424 .57
14.35
COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.12)
15.51)
(2292.13)
(23.09)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS / KM
GRAMS/MILE
16. 142
3.94
1 .78
2.87
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
-J
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
1.23 ( 1.98)
.69 C 1.12)
.51 C .82)
1.37 C 2.21)
36.48 ( 58.70)
13.73 C 22.09)
2.01 ( 3.24)
22.97 ( 36.96)
2583.5 (4156.8)
1439.1 (2315.6)
1154.2 (1857.0)
1985.3 (3194.4)
24.75 ( 39.83)
14.62 ( 23.52)
11.04 ( 17.76)
24.61 ( 39.60)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
9.0 57
4.101
53.52
C 5.63)
9.043)
4.40)
FILTER EFF. 87.80
-------
TABLE D—1.
C—IRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 738.89 MM HG(29 .09 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 39. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG C(72.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 6.6 GM/KG
NYNF
2
LAN F
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .93
3
LAF
4
NYNF
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X2O RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. ALIX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
254 .0
256.10 ( 9042.9)
3.24 (114.3)
.04 ( 1.25)
1098.0 ( 38771.)
285.0
255.37 ( 9017.2)
3.24 (114.3)
.04 C 1.25)
1228.6 C 43381.)
267.0
255.39 ( 9017.9)
3.24 (114.3)
.04 ( 1.25)
1151.1 ( 40644.)
262.0
255.32 ( 9015.5)
3.24 (114.3)
.04 ( 1.25)
1129.2 ( 39872.)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METERIRANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
9.6/21/ 4.82
6.5/ 1/ 3.25
27.3/1 3/24.94
1.1/13/ .97
70.6/13 1.1443
20.9/131.0384
11.8/12/11.85
.3/ 1/ .08
91 .04
9.7/21/ 4.83
6.0/ 1/ 3.00
21.5/13/19.50
1.1/13/ .97
76.9/13/.1592
20 .7/131. 0 380
14.7/12/14.70
.4/ 1/ .11
82.93
13.7/21/ 6.85
5.5/ 1/ 2.75
10.4/13/ 9.31
1.1/13/ .97
78.6/12/.337 1
11.6/12/.0393
33.5/1 2/33.49
.8/ 1/ .23
39.56
8.6/21/ 4.31
5.0/ 1/ 2.50
18.2/13/16.44
1.1/13/ .97
59.7/13/.1197
19.8/13/.0362
12.1/12/12.09
.7/ 1/ .20
110.08
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
1 .60
23.60
.1063
11.77
1.016
30.172
2136.77
23.00 5
686.87
.827 C .514)
98.15 ( 2.397)
1 .86
18.25
.1216
14.59
1.319
26.097
2736.12
31.919
873.37
1.901 (1.182)
54.29 ( 4.333)
4 • 17
8.19
.2988
33.27
2.767
10 .981
6297 .82
68.174
1985.77
5.457 (3.391)
43.01 ( 5.469)
1 .84
15.25
.0838
11 .89
1.196
20 .04 1
1732.20
23.909
555.02
.873 ( .542)
75.18 ( 3.129)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
NC
GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1.23 ( 1.98)
.69 C 1.12)
.51 ( .82)
1.37 C 2.21)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
36.48 ( 58.70)
13.73 C 22.09)
2.01 ( 3.24)
22.97 ( 36.96)
CO?
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
2583.5 (4156.8)
1439.1 (2315.6)
1154.2 (1857.0)
1985.3 (3194.4)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
27.81 C 44.75)
16.79 ( 27.01)
12.49 ( 20.10)
27.40 ( 44.09)
CONTINUOUS
C—TRAM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
.70
( 1.12)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
9.64
( 15.51)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1424.57
(2292.13)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
16.23
(26.12)
9.0 57
4.101
53.52
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
5.63)
( 9.043)
C 4.40)
16. 142
3.94
1 .78
2.87
FILTER EFF. 87.80
-------
TABLE D—2. C—IRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608, KG(30000 . LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 743.20 MM H6(29.26 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 32. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DRY BULB TEMP. 18.3 DEG C(65.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.3 GM/KG
NYNF
2
LANF
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
NYN F
.90
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
255.73 ( 9029.9)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 C 1.26)
1096.6 C 38720.)
285.0
255.64 ( 9026.5)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.26)
1230.0 ( 43430.)
265.0
257.69 ( 9099.0)
- 3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.26)
1152.7 ( 40702.)
262.0
255.55 C 9023.3)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 C 1.26)
1130.3 ( 39911.)
I -IC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METERIRANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
10.0/21/ 5.02
7.0/ 1/ 3.50
21.9/13/19.87
.6/13/ .53
66.4/13/. 1346
20.9/13/.O384
35.6/ 1/10,58
.61 1/ .17
97.74
11.3/21/ 5.66
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
16.8/13/15.15
.6/13/ .53
75.2/13/.1551
20.9/13/.0384
45.4/ 1/13.50
1.0/ 1/ .29
85.27
17.0/21/ 8.50
8.0/ 1/ 4.00
8.6/131 7.68
.6/13/ .53
77.4/12/.3306
11.8/12/.0400
31.9/ 2/31.90
.5/ 2/ .50
40.34
12.4/21/ 6.18
8.5/ 1/ 4.25
14.1/13/12.68
.4/13/ .35
59.3/13/.1188
20.6/13/.037 8
37.8/ 1/11.24
‘.6/ 1/ .17
111 .05
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 L/100KN (MPG)
1.55
19.09
.0966
10.41
.982
24.376
1940.23
19 • 554
622.26
.822 ( .511)
89.52 C 2.628)
1.95
14.43
.1171
13.21
1 .385
20.662
2637.97
27 .826
839.93
1.871 (1.163)
53.06 C 4.433)
4.60
7.04
.29 16
31.41
3.0 60
9.448
6153.43
62 .0 03
1939.97
5.402 (3.357)
42.45 ( 5.542)
1 .97
12.17
.08 13
11 .07
1 .285
16 .0 12
1683.36
21,422
537.78
.855 C .532)
74.31 ( 3.165)
C—IRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
.75 C 1.21)
7.88 C 12.67)
1387.24 (2232.08)
14.62 (23.52)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
17 .826
4.52
1 .99
3.20
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MiLES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (IB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
8.949 C 5.56)
3.940 C 8.688)
52.03 C 4.52)
NC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.20 ( 1.92)
.74 C 1.19)
.57 ( .91)
1.50 ( 2.42)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
29.67 ( 47.74)
11.04 ( 17.77)
1.75 ( 2.81)
18.72 C 30.12)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
2361.6 (3799.8)
1410.0 (2268.6)
1139.2 (1833.0)
1968.1 (3166.7)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
23.80 C 38.30)
14.87 C 23.93)
11.48 C 18.47)
25.05 C 40.30)
NC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
FILTER EFF. 95.66
-------
TABLE D—2. C—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d).
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 U 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 743.20 MM HG(29.26 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 32. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DRY BULB TEMP. 18.3 DEG C(65.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.3 GM/KG
NYNF
2
LANF
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
NYNF
.90
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCEM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
254.0
255.73 ( 9029.9)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.26)
1096.6 ( 38720.)
285.0
255.64 ( 9026.5)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 C 1.26)
1230.0 ( 43430.)
265.0
257.69 C 9099.0)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.26)
1152.7 ( 40702.)
262.0
255.55 C 9023.3)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 C 1.26)
1130.3 ( 39911.)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
10.0/21/ 5.02
7.0/ 1/ 3.50
21.9/13/19.87
.6/13/ .53
66.4/13/. 1346
20.9/13/.O384
11.0/12/11.00
.6/ 1/ .17
97.74
1.55
19.09
.0966
10.83
.982
24.3 76
1940.23
20. 3 35
622.26
.822 ( .511)
89.52 C 2.628)
11.3/21/ 5.66
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
16.8/13/ 15.15
.6/13/ .53
75.2/13/.1551
20.9/1 3/.O384
13.9/12/ 13.89
1.0/ 1/ .29
85.27
1 .95
14.43
.1171
13.61
1 .385
20.662
2637.97
28 .661
839.93
1 .871 (1 • 163)
53.06 C 4.433)
17.0/21/ 8.50
8.0/ 1/ 4.00
8.6/13/ 7.68
.6/13/ .53
77.4/ 12/.3306
11 .8/12/.0400
33.7/12/33.69
.5/ 2/ .50
40.34
4.60
7.04
.29 16
33.20
3.060
9.448
6153.43
65. 537
1939.97
5.402 (3.357)
42.45 C 5.542)
12.4/21/ 6.18
8.5/ 1/ 4.25
14.1/13/12.68
.4/13/ .35
59.3/13/.1188
20.6/13/ .0378
11.2/12/11.16
.6/ 1/ .17
111.05
1 .97
12.17
.0813
10.99
1.285
16.012
1683.36
21.267
537.78
.855 C .532)
74.31 ( 3.165)
MC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LA)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
8.949 C 5.56)
3.940 C 8.688)
52.03 ( 4.52)
I-
0
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
MC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
C—IRAN
COMPOSITE RESULTS
MC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
.75
( 1.21)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
7.88
C 12.67)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1387.24
(2232.08)
CONTINUOUS NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
15.17
(24.42)
1.20 ( 1.92)
.74 C 1.19)
.57 ( .91)
1.50 C 2.42)
29.67 ( 47.74)
11.04 ( 17.77)
1.75 C 2.81)
18.72 C 30.12)
2361.6 (3799.8)
1410.0 (2268.6)
1139.2 (1833.0)
1968.1 (3166.7)
24.75 C 39.82)
15.32 ( 24.65)
12.13 C 19.52)
24.86 ( 40.01)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
17.8 26
4.52
1.99
3.20
FILTER EFF. 95.66
-------
TABLE D—3. H—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 1 1/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 739.39 MM HG(29.11 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 42. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG C(72.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.2 GM/KG
NYNF
2
LAN F
MDX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
NYNF
.94
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
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
254.0
255.28 ( 9013.9)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 ( 1.23)
1094.6 ( 38649.)
8.8/21/ 4.42
5.0/ 1/ 2.50
21.7/13/19.69
.6/13/ .53
59.6/13/.1195
20.1/131.0368
34.5/ 1/10.26
.5/ 1/ .14
109.98
285.0
255.27 ( 9013.7)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 ( 1.23)
1228.1 ( 43366.)
10.1/21/ 5.03
5.5/ 1/ 2.75
15.7/13/14.14
.5/13/ .44
70.7/13/.1445
19.9/13/ .0364
42.8/ 1/12.72
.5/ 1/ .14
91.54
267.0
255.34 C 9016.0)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 C 1.23)
1150.9 C 40637.)
14.3/21/ 7.15
6.0/ 1/ 3.00
8.4/13/ 7.50
1.0/13/ .89
75.2/12/.3187
11 .3/121.0382
94.9/ 1/28.22
1.3/ 1/ .38
41 .85
262.0
255.25 ( 9012.8)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 ( 1.23)
1128.9 ( 39862.)
10.1/21/ 5.06
6.5/ 1/ 3.25
14.7/13/13.22
.9/13/ .80
56.8/13/.1133
19.7/13/.0360
34.1/ 1/10.14
1.1/ 1/ .32
116.39
HG 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)
1 .94
18.85
.0830
10.12
1 .227
24 • 024
1662.98
19.917
535.28
.866 C .538)
73.03 ( 3.221)
2.31
13.48
.108 5
12.59
1 .634
19 .269
2438.90
27 .802
776.98
1.894 (1.177)
48.48 ( 4.853)
4,22
6.50
.28 14
27.85
2.799
8 • 709
5929.32
57.661
1868.97
5.476 (3.403)
40.34 ( 5.831)
1 .83
12.24
.0776
9.82
1 • 194
16 .0 82
1604.01
19 .94 1
512.81
.891 C .554)
68.02 ( 3.458)
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/I E ST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
14.7 43
3.99
1 .62
2.60
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
9.128 C 5.67)
3.694 C 8.145)
47.83 C 4.92)
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW Sb. CU. METRES(SCF)
NC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.42 C 2.28)
.86 ( 1.39)
.51 C .82)
1.34 ( 2.16)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
27.73 ( 44.62)
10.17 C 16.37)
1.59 C 2.56)
18.05 C 29.04)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1919.6 (3088.6)
1287.5 (2071.5)
1082.8 (1742.2)
1800.1 (2896.3)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
22.99 ( 36.99)
14.68 ( 23.61)
10.53 C 16.94)
22.38 ( 36.01)
H—IRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
.75 ( 1.21)
7.46 ( 12.00)
1274.73 (2051.04)
13.73 (22.09)
FILTER ElF. 91.79
-------
TABLE D—3. H—IRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A-3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 1 1/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 739.39 MM HG(29.11 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 42. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG C(72.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.2 GM/KG
NY N F
2
LAN F
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
NYN F
.94
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AtJX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
254.0
255.28 ( 9013.9)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 ( 1.23)
1094.6 ( 38649.)
285.0
255.27 ( 9013.7)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 ( 1.23)
1228.1 ( 43366.)
267.0
255.34 ( 9016.0)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 ( 1.23)
1150.9 ( 40637.)
262.0
255.25 ( 9012.8)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 ( 1.23)
1128.9 ( 39862.)
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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
8.8/21/ 4.42
5.0/ 1/ 2.50
21.7/13/19.69
.6/13/ .53
59.6/13/.1 195
20.1/13/.0368
10.1/12/10.15
.5/ 1/ .14
109.98
10.1/21/ 5.03
5.5/ 1/ 2.75
15.7/13/14.14
.5/13/ .44
70.7/13/. 1445
19.9/ 131.0364
13.3/12/13.29
.5/ 1/ .14
91.54
14.3/21/ 7.15
6.0/ 1/ 3.00
8.4/13/ 7.50
1.0/13/ .89
75.2/12/.3187
1 1.3/12/.0382
3 1 • 1 / 1 2/3 1 • 1 2
1.3/ 1/ .38
41.85
10.1/21/ 5.06
6.5/ 1/ 3.25
14.7/13/13.22
.9/13/ .80
56.8/13/.1133
19.7/13/.0360
10.4/12/10.44
1.1/ 1/ .32
116.39
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
1 .94
18.85
.0830
10.01
1.227
24 .0 24
1662.98
19 .705
535.28
.866 C .538)
73.03 C 3.221)
2.31
13.48
.1085
13.15
1 .634
19 .269
2438.90
29.048
776.98
1.894 (1.177)
48.48 ( 4.853)
4.22
6.50
.28 14
30.75
2.799
8.709
5929.32
63 .6 54
1868.97
5.476 (3.403)
40.34 ( 5.831)
1 .83
12.24
.0 776
10.13
1 .194
16.082
1604.01
20.562
512.81
.891 ( .554)
68.02 ( 3.458)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/NILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1.42 C 2.28)
27.73 C 44.62)
1919.6 (3088.6)
22.75 ( 36.60)
.86 ( 1.39)
10.17 ( 16.37)
1287.5 (2071.5)
15.33 ( 24.67)
.51 ( .82)
1.59 ( 2.56)
1082.8 (1742.2)
11.62 ( 18.70)
1 .34
18.05
1800.1
23.08
2.16)
29.04)
(2896.3)
37.13)
CONTINUOUS
NC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/NI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
H—IRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
.75 ( 1.21)
7.46 ( 12.00)
1274.73 (2051.04)
14.57 (23.44)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
14.743
3.99
1 .62
2.60
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
9.128 ( 5.67)
3.694 ( 8.145)
47.83 ( 4.92)
FILTER EFF. 91.79
-------
TABLE D—4. H—IRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NYNF
254.0
256.36 ( 9052.2)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.27)
1099.2 ( 38814.)
9.2/21/ 4.62
6.5/ 1/ 3.25
19.9/13/18.01
1.0/13/ .89
57.2/13/.1142
20.4/13/.0374
35.7/ 1/10.61
1.8/ 1/ .53
115.09
2
LAN F
285.0
256.40 ( 9053.4)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.27)
1233.6 ( 43557.)
11.1/21/ 5.56
7.0/ 1/ 3.50
13.8/13/12.40
1.0/13/ .89
67.5/13/. 1371
20.9/1 3/.0384
43.3/ 1/12.87
2.1/ 1/ .62
96.47
3
L AF
267.0
256.45 ( 9055.3)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.27)
1155.9 ( 40814.)
15.8/21/ 7.90
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
7.1/13/ 6.33
1.1/13/ .97
71.9/12/.3013
11.41 12/.0386
98.5/ 1/29.30
2.1/ 1/ .62
44.27
4
NYN F
262.0
256.44 ( 9054.9)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.27)
1134.2 ( 40049.)
11.5/21/ 5.77
8.0/ 1/ 4.00
13.0/13/11 .67
.9/13/ .80
56.0/13/ • 1116
20.4/13/.037 4
36.4/ 1/10.82
2.2/ 1/ .65
118.27
1 .40
16.84
.0771
10.09
.887
21.554
1552.09
19.380
498.89
.829 ( .515)
71.11 ( 3.308)
2.09
11.32
.0991
12.26
1 .490
16 .2 60
2239.19
26 .4 34
712.64
1.826 (1.135)
46.12 ( 5.100)
4.24
5.26
.2636
28.69
2.823
7.08 1
5577 .67
57.953
1757.77
5.387 (3.348)
38.57 ( 6.100)
1 .80
10.70
.0 74 5
10.18
1.180
14. 122
1546.91
20.175
493.90
.848
68.80
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/MILE
13.277
3.83
1 .49
2.40
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
8.891 ( 5.53)
3.463 ( 7.636)
46.04 ( 5.11)
FILTER EFF.
96.40
BAROMETER 743.20 MM HG(29 26 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 46. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPT ION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCEM)
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
DRY BULB TEMP. 16.7 DEG C(62.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.5 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTIONPACTOR
.91
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1.07 ( 1.72)
25.99 ( 41.83)
.82 ( 1.31)
8.90 ( 14.33)
.52
1.31 (
2.11)
1871.9 (3011.9)
1226.1 (1972.9)
1035.4 (1665.9)
H—IRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
.72 ( 1.15)
6,64 ( 10.68)
1227.76 (1975.46)
13.94 (22.43)
.527)
3.419)
2.24)
26.78)
(2933.7)
38.26)
1 .39
16.65
1823.3
23.78
-------
TABLE D—4. H—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 IC 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 743.20 MM HG(29.26 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 46. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPT ION
DRY BULB TEMP. 16.7 DEG C(62.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.5 GM/KG
NYN F
2
LANF
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
N YN F
.91
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
256.36 C 9052.2)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 C 1.27)
1099.2 ( 38814.)
285.0
256.40 ( 9053.4)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.27)
1233.6 ( 43557.)
267.0
256.45 ( 9055.3)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 C 1.27)
1155.9 C 40814.)
262.0
256.44 C 9054.9)
3.26 (115.3)
.04 ( 1.27)
1134.2 ( 40049.)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
9.2/21/ 4.62
6.5/ 1/ 3.25
19.9/13/18.0 1
1.0/13/ .89
57.2/13/.1142
20.4/13/.0374
10.8/12/ 10.77
1.8/ 1/ .53
115.09
1 .40
16.84
.077 1
10.25
.887
21.554
1552.09
19.686
498.89
.829 C .515)
71.11 ( 3.308)
11.1/21/ 5.56
7.0/ 1/ 3.50
13.8/13/12.40
1.0/13/ .89
67.5/13/. 1371
20.9/13/ .0384
13.9/12/ 13.89
2.1/ 1/ .62
96.47
2.09
11.32
.0991
13.28
1 .490
16 .260
2239.19
28.635
712.64
1.826 (1.135)
46.12 ( 5.100)
H—TRAM COMPOS 1TE RESULTS
.72 ( 1.15)
6.64 C 10.68)
1227.76 (1975.46)
14.92 (24.01)
15.8/21/ 7.90
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
7.1/13/ 6.33
1.1/13/ .97
71.9/12/.3013
11 .4/12/.0386
32.0/12/31,98
2.1! 1/ .62
44.27
4.24
5.26
.2636
31.38
2.823
7.081
5577.67
63.380
1757.77
5.387 (3.348)
38.57 ( 6.100)
11.5/21/ 5.77
8.0/ 1/ 4.00
13.0/13/11.67
.9/13/ .80
56.0/13/.1116
20.4/1 3/.O374
11.2/12/11.21
2.2/ 1/ .65
118.27
1 .80
10.70
.074 5
10.57
1 • 180
14.122
1546.91
20 .95 1
493.90
.848 ( .527)
68.80 ( 3.419)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
8.891 ( 5.53)
3.463 C 7.636)
46.04 ( 5.11)
V
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1.07
25.99
1871.9
23.74
1.72)
41.83)
(3011.9)
38.20)
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CONTINUOUS NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
.82 ( 1.31)
8.90 ( 14.33)
1226.1 (1972.9)
15.68 ( 25.23)
.52 ( .84)
1.39 ( 2.24)
1.31 C 2.11)
16.65 C 26.78)
1035.4 (1665.9)
1823.3 (2933.7)
11.77 C 18.93)
24.69 ( 39.73)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST 13.277
GRAMS/KG FUEL 3.83
GRAMS/KM 1 .49
GRAMS/MILE 2.40
FILTER EFF• 96.40
-------
TABLE D—5. BUS
F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 738.89 MM HG(29.09 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 37. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEG C(74 .O DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 6.8 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.93
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS F
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
NC 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
NC 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/IOOKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1193.1
171.39 ( 6051.7)
3.26 (115.1)
.04 ( 1.24)
3473.5 (122651.)
6.8/22/ 6.83
3.6/ 2/ 3.60
4.8/13/ 4.27
.5/13/ .44
68.1/131.1385
19.2/131.0350
45.9/ 1/13.65
.5/ 1/ .14
95.98
3.27
3.77
.1038
13.51
6.547
1 5 • 260
6602 .36
83 .7 27
2087.29
4.775 (2.967)
51.67 ( 4.553)
1.37 ( 2.21)
3.20 C 5.14)
1382.8 (2224.9)
17.54 ( 28.21)
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
CRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
5.625
2.70
1.18
1.90
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
4.775 ( 2.97)
2.087 C 4.602)
51.67 ( 4.55)
UI
BUS F COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.37 C 2.21)
3.20 C 5.14)
1382.78 (2224.89)
17.54 (28.21)
FILTER EFF. 78.82
-------
TABLE D—5. BUS F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738 KG(36900. LAS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 738.89 MM HG(29.09 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 37. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEG C(74.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 6.8 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.93
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS F
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCNM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
NC 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
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
I -IC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY Lf100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1193 • 1
171.39 ( 6051.7)
3.26 (115.1)
.04 ( 1.24)
3473.5 (122651.)
6.8/22/ 6.83
3.6/ 2/ 3.60
4.8/13/ 4.27
.5/13/ .44
68.1/13/.1385
19.2/13/.0350
15.2/12/15.17
.5/ 1/ .14
95.98
3.27
3.77
.1038
15.03
6.547
15 .260
6602.36
93.174
2087 .29
4,775 (2.967)
51.67 ( 4.553)
1.37 ( 2.21)
3.20 ( 5.14)
1382.8 (2224.9)
19.51 ( 31.40)
BUS F COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.37 ( 2.21)
3.20 ( 5.14)
1382.78 (2224.89)
19.51 (31.40)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/NI LE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY LI100KM (MPG)
0 ’
CONTINUOUS
NC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
4.775
2.087
51.67
2.97)
4.602)
( 4.55)
5.625
2.70
1.18
1.90
FILTER EFF. 78.82
-------
TABLE 0-6. BUS
F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 1( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. IRS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. 1(0(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. 1(M( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 742.95 MM HG(29.25 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 31. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.0 DEG C(68.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.7 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.90
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS F
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. MiX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
MC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGEIPCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTiON FACTOR
tIC 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)
1197.4
171.30 ( 6048.6)
3.26 (115.0)
.04 C 1.28)
3484.3 (123030.)
14.6/21/ 7.29
7.3/ 1/ 3.65
4.6/13/ 4.09
.5/13/ .44
67.7/13/ • 1376
20.3/131.0372
49.2/ 1/14.63
1.7/ 1/ .50
96.60
3.68
3.60
.1008
14.14
7.385
14 .619
6428.27
84.848
2033.14
4.768 (2.963)
50.40 ( 4.667)
1.55 C 2.49)
3.07 C 4.93)
1348.3 (2169.4)
17.80 C 28.63)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 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/MILE
4.225
2 • 08
.89
1.43
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
Ii ,
H
-J
BUS F COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.55 ( 2.49)
3.07 ( 4.93)
1348.26 (2169,35)
17.80 (28.63)
4 • 768
2.033
50.40
C 2.96)
C 4.483)
C 4.67)
90.58
FILTER EFF.
-------
TABLE D—6.BUS
F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Conttd)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738 . KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. IBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619, KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 742.95 MM HG(29.25 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMiDITY 31. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.0 DEG C(68.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.7 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS F
.90
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
PlC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGPD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
PlC 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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO2 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1197.4
171.30 ( 6048.6)
3.26 (115.0)
.04 ( 1.28)
3484.3 (123030.)
14.6/21/ 7.29
7.3/ 1/ 3.65
4.6/13/ 4.09
.5/13/ .44
67.7/1 3/.1376
20.3/131.0372
15.1/12/15.12
1.7/ 1/ .50
96.60
3.68
3.60
.1008
14.62
7.385
14 .619
6428,27
87.777
2033.14
4.768 (2.963)
50.40 C 4.667)
1.55 ( 2.49)
3.07 ( 4.93)
1348.3 (2169.4)
18.41 C 29.62)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
4.225
2.08
.89
1 ,43
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
4.768 C 2.96)
2.033 ( 4.483)
50.40 ( 4.67)
PlC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.55
( 2.49)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
3.07
( 4.93)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1348.26
(2169,35)
CONTINUOUSNOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
18.41
(29.62)
FILTER EFF. 90.58
-------
TABLE D-7.
BUS UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 18.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 731.87 MM HG(29.05 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 41. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.8 GM/KG
BUS UN
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.95
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCUM (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/RAN(3E/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
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1198.4
170.28 ( 6012.7)
3.21 (113.5)
.03 C .90)
3465.8 (122378.)
13.7/21/ 6.86
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
34.4/13/31.70
.5/13/ .44
77.9/13/.1616
19.6/13/.0 358
50.1/ 1/14.90
.4/ 1/ .11
81.01
3.15
30.15
.1262
14.79
6.298
124.073
8009 .20
93 .093
2582.50
4.815 (2.993)
63.39 C 3.711)
1.31 C 2.10)
25.77 C 41.46)
1663.3 (2676.2)
19.33 C 31.11)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KU
BUS UN
1.31
25.77
1663.28
19.33
COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.10)
41.46)
(2676.22)
(31.11)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
1 7 • 899
6.93
3.72
5.98
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
(GRAMS/Mu LE)
(GRAMS/Mu LE)
(GRAMS/Mu LE)
(GRAMS/Mu LE)
4.815
2.582
63.39
( 2.99)
5.694)
3.71)
FILTER EFF. 100.00
-------
TABLE D—7 0 BUS UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 737.87 MM HG(29.O5 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 41. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.8 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.95
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS UN
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)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RAWGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
1198.4
170.28 ( 6012.7)
3.21 (113.5)
.03 ( .90)
3465.8 (122378.)
13.7/21/ 6.86
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
34.4/13/31.70
.5/13/ .44
77,9/13/. 1616
19.6/13/.0358
15.7/12/15.74
.4/ 1/ .11
81.01
3.15
30.75
.1262
15.63
6.298
124 .0 73
8009.20
98.410
2582.50
4.815 (2.993)
63.39 ( 3.711)
NC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
1.31 ( 2.10)
25.77 ( 41.46)
1663.3 (2676.2)
20.44 ( 32.88)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY LI100KM (MPG)
4.815 ( 2.99)
2.582 ( 5.694)
63.39 ( 3.71)
t
0
CONTINUOUS
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.31
( 2.10)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
25.77
( 41.46)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1663.28
(2676.22)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
20,44
(32.88)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
17 .8 99
6 • 93
3.72
5.98
FILTER EFF. 100.00
-------
TABLE D-8. BUS
UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 742.44 MM HG(29.23 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 23. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(7O.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.7 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.89
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS UN
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/RANGEIPPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGEIPCT
CO2 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
NC 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)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO2 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1197.0
173.00 C 6108.5)
3.25 (114.9)
.03 ( .94)
3516.7 (124174.)
12.7/21/ 6.37
6.8/ 1/ 3.40
28.5/13/26.07
.3/13/ .27
75.2/13/ .1551
9.8/13/.O362
50.9/ 1/15.13
.6/ 1/ .17
84.65
3.01
25 • 54
.1193
14.97
6 • 104
104. 5 54
7680 .29
89. 203
2469.39
4.764 (2.961)
61.27 ( 3.840)
1.28 ( 2.06)
21.95 ( 35.31)
1612.3 (2594.1)
18.73 ( 30.13)
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/MILE
15 .0 52
6.10
3.16
5.08
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
4.764 ( 2.96)
2.469 ( 5.445)
61.27 ( 3.84)
I— ,
BUS UN COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.28 ( 2.06)
21.95 ( 35.31)
1612.25 (2594.12)
18.73 (30.13)
FILTER EFF. 98.22
-------
TABLE D—8. BUS UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738 . KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 742.44 MM HG(29.23 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 23. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(70.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3,7 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.89
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS UN
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AIJX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC RCKGRD 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
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
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)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
1 197.0
173.00 ( 6108.5)
3.25 (114.9)
.03 ( .94)
3516.7 (124174.)
12.7/21/ 6.37
6.8/ 1/ 3.40
28.5/13/26.0 7
.3/13/ .27
75.2/13/.1551
19.8/13/.O362
15.8/12/15.83
.6/ 1/ .17
84.65
3.01
25.54
.1193
15.66
6 • 104
104.5 54
7680.29
93 .3 58
2469.39
4.764 (2.961)
61.27 ( 3.840)
1.28 ( 2.06)
21.95 C 35.31)
1612.3 (2594.1)
19.60 C 31.53)
4.764 C 2.96)
2.469 C 5.445)
61.27 ( 3.84)
7
MC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.28
C 2.06)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
21.95
C 35.31)
CO2
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1612.25
(2594.12)
CONTINUOUS NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
19.60
(31,53)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
15 .0 52
6.10
3.16
5.08
FILTER EFF. 98.22
-------
TABLE D—9 IDLE
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RISII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
6VW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 737.62 MM HG(29.04 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 41. PCT
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.8 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.95
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
IDLE
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)
NC 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 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900 • 0
86.05 C 3038.4)
3.23 (114.1)
.03 C 1.00)
1339.6 ( 47303.)
18.4/21/ 9.18
6.5/ 1/ 3.25
4.6/13/ 4.09
.8/13/ .71
7 7.2/13/.1599
24.1/131.0447
68.4/ 1/20.34
2.5/ 1/ .74
83.11
5.97
3.33
.1157
19.61
4.608
5.197
2837 .77
47 .7 33
898 • 26
.001 ( .000)
****** ( .002)
******
******
****** (******)
*****
IDLE COMPOSITE RESULTS
***** (*****)
******
*******
*****
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/ 100KM (MPG)
.001 C .00)
.898 ( 1.981)
****** ( .00)
FILTER EFF.
85.43
El,
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
1 .402
1 .56
-------
TABLE D—9. IDLE VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900 . LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 737.62 MM HG(29.04 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 41. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75..O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.8 GM/KG
IDLE
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.95
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCUM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCUM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC 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
r NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 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)
900.0
86.05 C 3038.4)
3.23 (114.1)
.03 ( 1.00)
1339.6 C 47303.)
18.4/21/ 9.18
6.5/ 1/ 3.25
4.6/13/ 4.09
.8/13/ .71
77.2/13/. 1599
24. 1/13/.0447
21.7/12/2 1.71
2.5/ 1/ .74
83.11
5.97
3.33
.1157
20.98
4.608
5.197
2837.77
51 .070
898.26
.001 C .000)
( .002)
****** (******)
******
******
*****
CONTINUOUS
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
*****
(*****)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
******
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
*******
(*******)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
*****
(*****)
TOTAL
DISTANCE
KM (MILES)
.001
C .00)
FUEL
CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
.898
( 1.981)
FUEL
ECONOMY
L/100KM (MPG)
******
( .00)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST 1.402
GRAMS/KG FUEL 1.56
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
FILTER EFF. 85.43
-------
TABLE D—10 0 IDLE VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5426-001
TEST NO. 2 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 741.93 MM HG(29.21 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 29. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEG C(69.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.4 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.90
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
IDLE
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTE 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT 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
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
u CO2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
ui 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 L/100KM (MPG)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.1
86.56 ( 3056.6>
3.25 (114.8)
.03 ( .96)
1347.8 ( 47590.)
20.3/21/10.17
8.5/ 1/ 4.25
4.2/13/ 3.73
.4/13/ .35
71.7/131.1468
19.8/13/.0362
68.9/ 1/20.49
1.1/ 1/ .32
90.42
5.96
3.34
.1110
20.17
4.635
5.24 1
2738.79
46.668
867.23
.001 ( .000)
****** C .002)
******
*ft****
******
***** (******)
NC 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/MI LE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
.001 C .00)
.867 C 1.912)
C .00)
IDLE COMPOSITE RESULTS
***** (*****)
******
*******
*****
1 .294
1 .49
FILTER EFF. 84.16
-------
TABLE D—1O. IDLE VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. dO) V—5
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900 . LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 741.93 MM HG(29.21 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 29. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEG C(69.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.4 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .90
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
IDLE
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X2O RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
CO2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO2 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
900.1
86.56 C 3056.6)
3.25 (114.8)
.03 C .96)
1347.8 C 47590.)
20.3/21/10.17
8.5/ 1/ 4.25
4.2/13/ 3.73
.4/13/ .35
71.7/13/. 1468
19.8/13/.0362
2 1.7/12/21.69
1.1/ 1/ .32
90.42
5.96
3.34
.1110
21.38
4.6 35
5.24 1
2738.79
49 .4 54
867.23
•001 C .000)
( .002)
****** (******)
******
****** (******)
***** (******)
.001 C .00)
.867 ( 1.912)
C .00)
CONTINUOUS
IDLE
COMPOSITE RESULTS
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
*)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
******
(******)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
*******
(*******)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
*****
(*****)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST 1 .2 4
GRAMS/KG FUEL 1.49
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
FILTER EFF. 84.18
-------
TABLE D—11. 12.5SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. I RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78,3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 736.85 MM HG(29 .O1 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 43. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG C(73.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDiTY 7.7 GM/KG
12 .5SS
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.95
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW 510. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKI3RD 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
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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/NILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.0
85.96 ( 3035.1)
3.23 (113.9)
.03 ( .94)
1338.1 C 47250.)
32.5/21/16.27
11.0/ 1/ 5.50
6.3/13/ 5.61
.5/13/ .44
61 .8/12/.2503
12.8/ 12/.0436
92.9/ 1/27.63
1.1/ 1/ .32
53.08
10.88
5.08
.207 5
27.32
8.392
7.912
5084.35
66 .229
1608.84
5.128 (3.187)
37.08 ( 6.344)
1.64 C 2.63)
1.54 C 2.48)
991.4 (1595.2)
12.91 C 20.78)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
12.5SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.64 ( 2.53)
1.54 ( 2.48)
991.41 (1595.18)
12.9! (20.78)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
2 • 574
1 .60
.50
.81
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
5.128 ( 3.19)
1.609 C 3.547)
37.08 ( 6.34)
-4
FILTER EFF. 83.55
-------
TABLE D—1l. 12.5SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
RUN 1
1983 GMC RTSII 04
552. CID) V—6
3
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 736.85 MM HG(29.O1 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 43. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG C(73.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.7 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.95
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
12.5SS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW Sb. 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 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.0
85.96 ( 3035.1)
3.23 (113.9)
.03 ( .94)
1338.1 ( 47250.)
32.5/21/16.27
11.0/ 1/ 5.50
6.3/13/ 5.61
.5/13/ .44
61.8/12/.2503
12.8/12/.0436
30.6/1 2/30.58
1.1/ 1/ .32
53.08
10.88
5.08
.207 5
30.26
8.392
7.912
5084.35
73 • 374
1608.84
5.128 (3.187)
37.08 ( 6.344)
1.64 ( 2.63)
1.54 C 2.48)
991.4 (1595.2)
14.31 C 23.02)
12.5SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.64 ( 2.63)
1.54 ( 2.48)
991.41 (1595.18)
14.31 (23.02)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL
ENGINE 9.0 L(
TRANSMISSION A—
GVW16738 . KG(36900. LBS)
CONTINUOUS
NC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
5.128
1 .609
37.08
3.19)
( 3.547)
( 6.34)
2.574
1.60
.50
.81
FILTER EFF. 83.55
-------
TABLE D—12. 12.5SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGtNE 9.0 1( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO 0 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 741.43 MM HG(29.19 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 27. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(70.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.2 GM/KG
12..5SS
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.89
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)
N)
HC SAMPLE METERIRANGE/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 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 L/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.1
86.51 C 3054.7)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 C .96)
1346.9 ( 47560.)
29.8/21/14.89
8.0/ / 4.00
6.2/13/ 5.52
.4/13/ .35
60.4/12/ .2435
11 .2/ 12/.0379
30.3/ 2/30.30
.5/ 2/ .50
54.58
10.97
5.10
.2063
29.81
8.5 18
8.005
5087.04
68 .6 59
1609.85
5.222 (3.245)
36.44 ( 6.456)
1.63 C 2.62)
1.53 ( 2.47)
974.2 (1567.4)
13.15 ( 21.16)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 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/MI LE
2 • 750
1.71
.53
.85
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (L8)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
5.222 ( 3.25)
1.610 ( 3.550)
36.44 ( 6.46)
12.5SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.63 ( 2.62)
1.53 ( 2.47)
974.16 (1567.43)
13.15 (21.16)
FILTER EFF. 87.47
-------
TABLE D—12. 12 .5SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A-3
GVW!6738 . KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 741.43 MM HG(29.19 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 27. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(70.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.2 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.89
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
12.5SS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 2OX2O 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/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
°OILUTION 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 L/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900 • 1
86.51 ( 3054.7)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 ( .96)
1346.9 ( 47560.)
29.8/21/14.89
8.0/ 1/ 4.00
6.2/13/ 5.52
.4/13/ .35
6 0.4/12/.2435
11.2/12/.0379
3 1.5/12/31.47
.5/ 2/ .50
54.58
10.97
5.10
.2 063
30.98
8.518
8.005
5087.04
71.350
1609.85
5.222 (3.245)
36.44 ( 6.456)
1.63 C 2.62)
1.53 C 2.47)
974.2 (1567.4)
13.66 C 21.98)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
12.5SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.63 ( 2.62)
1.53 ( 2.47)
974.16 (1567.43)
13.66 (21.98)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
2.7 50
1.71
.53
.85
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL C0NSUMPT 0N KG (IB)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
5.222 ( 3.25)
1.610 ( 3.550)
36.44 ( 6.46)
FILTER EFF. 87.47
-------
TABLE D—13. 25 MPH VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A-3
GVW16738 , KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CYS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 736.60 MM HG(29.OO IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 60. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(7O.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 9.7 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .98
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
25 MPH
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCNM (SCFt4)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFN)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
MC 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 RCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILuTION FACTOF(
10 NC’ I 1 tAT I cri PP:4
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAt4S/MILE
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.0
85.93 ( 3034.3)
3.22 (113.9)
.03 C .94)
1337.8 C 47237.)
36.8/21/18.42
12.0/ 1/ 6.00
7.6/13/ 6.78
.6/13/ .53
82.8/12/ .3606
11 .7/12/.0396
36.8/ 2/36.80
.1/ 2/ .10
12.58
6.10
.3220
36.70
9.7 03
9.4 93
7886.84
92. 166
2490.94
(6.366)
28.74 ( 8.184)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
002 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/MI LE
4.716
1.89
.46
.74
t TAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL EC3NOMY L/ 100KM (MP )
( 6.37)
2.391 ( .493)
28.74 ( 8 .18)
I i ,
t )
.95
.93
77:) ;)
9.00
1.52)
1.49)
(1239.0)
14.48>
25 MPH COMPOSITE RESULTS
.95 C 1. 52)
.93 ( 1.49)
770,02 (12 .58.97)
9.00 (14.48)
FILTER EFF, 87.70
-------
TABLE D—13. 25 MPH VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RISII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMiSSION A—3
GVW16738 . KG(36900 . LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/29/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 75.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 736.60 MM HG(29.OO IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 60. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(70.O DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 9.7 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.98
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
25 MPH
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)
MC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
I-IC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
I-lOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
I-lOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE 1KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
MC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
MDX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.0
55.93 ( 3034.3)
3.22 (113.9)
.03 ( .94)
1337.8 ( 47237.)
36.8/21/18.42
12.0/ 1/ 6.00
7.6/13/ 6.78
.6/13/ .53
82.8/12/.3606
1 1.7/12/.O396
39.3/12/39.33
.1/ 2/ .10
36.91
12.58
6.10
.3220
39.23
9.703
9.4 93
7886.84
98.5 14
2490.94
(6.366)
28.74 ( 8.184)
.95 ( 1.52)
.93 ( 1.49)
770.0 (1239.0)
9.62 ( 15.48)
25 MPH COMPOSITE RESULTS
.95 C 1.52)
.93 C 1.49)
770.02 (1238.97)
9.62 (15.48)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
( )
M
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CONTINUOUS NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
2.49 1
28.74
6.37)
C 5.493)
C 8.18)
4.7 16
1.89
.46
.74
FILTER EFF. 87.70
-------
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSI I 04
ENGINE 9,0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738_ KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 741.43 MM HG(29.19 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 23. PCI
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X2O RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
Co BCKGRD METER/RANGE/ppM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGEIPPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
MDX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
TABj E D-14.. 25
SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO.
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP , 21.1 DEG C(70.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.7 GM/KG
25 SS
900.1
86.47 ( 3053.4)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 C .95)
1346.4 C 47541.)
35.1/21/17.56
9.0/ 1/ 4.50
7.5/13/ 6.69
.3/13/ .27
81 .9/12/,3555
1 1.2/12/ ,0379
39.2/ 2/39.20
.3/ 2/ .30
37.44
13.18
6.34
.3 186
38.91
10 .23 1
9.935
7854.17
88.804
2481.43
(6.387)
28.54 ( 8.243)
TEST WEIGHT 13608, KG(30000 . LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.89
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1.00 ( 1.60)
.97 C 1.56)
764.3 (1229.7)
8.64 C 13.90)
MC GRAMS/KM
Co GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
25 SS
1.00
.97
764.27
8.64
COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.60)
1,56)
(1229.71)
(13.90)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAM S/KM
GRAMS/MILE
4.7 98
1.93
.47
.75
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
2.48 1
28.54
( 6.39)
( 5.472)
8.24)
FILTER EFF. 89.83
-------
TABLE D—14. 25 SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738 . KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2162
DATE 11/30/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—597—F
ODOMETER 88619. KM( 55065. MILES)
BAROMETER 741.43 MM HG(29.19 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 23. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(7O•0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3,7 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.89
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
25 SS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X2O 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
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
002 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)
900.1
86.41 ( 3053.4)
3.25 (114.7)
.03 ( .95)
1346.4 ( 47541.)
35.1/21/17.56
9.0/ 1/ 4.50
7.5/13/ 6.69
.3/13/ .27
81.9/12/.3555
1 1.2/12/.0379
40.9/12/40.91
.3/ 2/ .30
37.44
13.18
6.34
.3 186
40.62
10 .231
9.935
7854 • 17
92 .701
2481.43
(6.387)
28.54 ( 8.243)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MI LE)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS 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/MI LE
4.7 98
1.93
.47
.75
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
( 6.39)
2.481 C 5.472)
28.54 C 8.24)
1.00 C 1.60)
.97 ( 1.56)
764.3 (1229.7)
9.02 ( 14.51)
25 SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.00 ( 1.60)
.97 ( 1.56)
764.27 (1229.71)
9.02 (14.51)
FILTER EFF. 89.83
-------
TABLE D_15,C—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/ppM
NC 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
U.’
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MiLE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
P4OX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
NYNF
254.0
257.21 ( 9081.9)
3.28 (115.9)
.04 C 1.28)
1102.9 C 38943.)
8.7/21/ 4.37
5.0/ 1/ 2.50
6.5/13/ 5.79
.1/13/ .09
59.1/13/.1184
21.4/13/.0394
24.9/ 1/ 7.40
.5/ 1/ .14
112.26
1 .89
5.61
.0793
7 • 26
1.200
7. 198
1602.02
13.7 79
510.69
.731 ( .455)
85.98 ( 2.736)
2
LAN F
28 5.0
257.20 ( 9081.8)
3.28 (115.9)
.04 ( 1.28)
1237.5 ( 43695.)
10.1/21/ 5.03
5.4/ 1/ 2.70
7.6/13/ 6.78
.3/13/ .27
69.2/13/.14 10
21.4/13/.0394
33.3/ 1/ 9.90
.7/ 1/ .20
94.24
2.36
6.40
.1021
9.70
1.681
9.224
2312.48
20.657
736.53
1.847 (1.148)
49.11 ( 4.790)
3
LAF
267.0
257.25 ( 9083.5)
3.28 (115.9)
.04 C 1.28)
1159.5 ( 40943.)
15.7/21/ 7.85
5.8/ 1/ 2.90
11.9/13/10.67
1.2/13/ 1.06
71.8/12/.3008
12.9/12/.0439
76.3/ 1/22.69
1.9/ 1/ .56
44.29
5.01
9.43
.2578
22.15
3.35 1
12.725
5473.29
44.190
1738.12
5.281 (3.282)
40.53 C 5.804)
4
NYNF
262.0
257.09 C 9077.9)
3.28 (115.9)
.04 C 1.28)
1137.1 ( 40152.)
10.6/21/ 5.30
6.2/ 1/ 3.10
6.1/13/ 5.43
.1/13/ .09
56.7/13/.1131
21.9/13/.0404
30.5/ 1/ 9.07
1.4/ 1/ .41
117.37
2.23
5.25
.073 1
8.66
1.462
6.9 55
1521.61
16.947
485.43
.857 C .533)
69.72 ( 3.374)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KU
NOX GRAMS/KM
C—TRAN
.88
4.14
1251.53
10.96
COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.42)
6.66)
(2013.72)
(17.64)
5.42)
7.653)
4.80)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
10 .4 98
3 • 02
1 .20
1 .94
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION 1—3
GVW16738 . KG(36900. LBS)
BAR 4ETER 747.01 MM HG(29 .41 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 46. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCUM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X2O RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
DRY BULB TEMP. 13.9 DEG C(57 .O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.6 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .90
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 L/100KM (MPG)
9.84 ( 15.83)
4.99 C 8.04)
1.71 C 2.74)
2190.2 (3524.0)
1252.1 (2014.7)
3.88
8.11 ( 13.05
18.84 C 30.31)
(1667.5)
1774.7 (2855.6)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
8.7 17
3.47 1
49.03
FILTER EFF. 92.61
-------
TABLE D—15. C—IRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
NYNF
254.0
257.21 ( 9081.9)
3.28 (115.9)
.04 ( 1.28)
1102.9 ( 38943.)
8.7/21/ 4.37
5.0/ 1/ 2.50
6.5/13/ 5.79
.1/13/ .09
59.1/13/.) 184
21 .4/13/.0394
8.0/12/ 7.99
.5/ 1/ .14
112.26
1 .89
5.61
.0 793
7.85
1.200
7.198
1602.02
14.906
510.69
.731 ( .455)
85.98 C 2.736)
2
LANE
285.0
257.20 C 9081.8)
3.28 (115.9)
.04 C 1.28)
1237.5 C 43695.)
10.1/21/ 5.03
5.4/ 1/ 2.70
7.6/13/ 6.78
.3/13/ .27
69.2/13/. 1410
21 .4/13/.0394
10.1/12/10.11
.7/ 1/ .20
94.24
2.36
6.40
.1021
9.91
1.681
9.224
2312.48
21.097
736.53
1.847 (1.148)
49.11 C 4.790)
C—IRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
.88 C 1.42)
4.14 C 6.66)
1251.53 (2013.72)
11.57 (18.61)
8.717 ( 5.42)
3.471 C 7.653)
49.03 ( 4.80)
3
LAF
267.0
257.25 ( 9083.5)
3.28 (115.9)
.04 ( 1.28)
1159.5 C 40943.)
15.7/21/ 7.85
5.8/ 1/ 2.90
11.9/13/10.67
1.2/13/ 1.06
71 .8/12/.3008
12.9/12/.0439
23.2/12/23.19
1.9/ 1/ .56
44.29
5.01
9.43
.2 578
22.65
3.351
12.725
5473.29
45. 189
1 738.12
5.281 (3.282)
40.53 C 5.804)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAM S/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
4
NYNF
262.0
257.09 C 9077.9)
3.28 (115.9)
.04 C 1.28)
1137.1 C 40152.)
10.6/21/ 5.30
6.2/ 1/ 3.10
6.1/13/ 5.43
.1/13/ .09
56.7/13/.1 131
21 .9/13/.0404
10.4/12/10.44
1.4/ 1/ .41
117.37
2.23
5.25
.073 1
10.04
1 .462
6.955
1521 .61
19 .642
485.43
.857 C .533)
69.72 C 3.374)
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION 1—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 747.01 MM HG(29.41 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 46. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X2O RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTS AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW Sb. CU. METRES(SCF)
DRY BULB TEMP. 13.9 DEG C(57.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.6 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KMC 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .90
t j:i
a’
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
I -IC 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)
MC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
1.64 C 2.64)
.91 (
1.46)
.63
1,02)
( 13.05)
9.84 C 15.83)
4.99 (
8.04)
2.41 (
3.88)
2190.2 (3524.0)
1252.1 (2014.7)
1036.4 (1667.5)
1774.7
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
10 .4 98
3.02
1 .20
1.94
92.61
FILTER EFF.
-------
TEST NO. 2 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CUD) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/ppM
tIC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/pci
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/pci
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
VEHICLE P40. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
NYN F
254.0
262.43 ( 9266.6)
3.36 (118.7)
.04 ( 1.28)
1125.4 ( 39736.)
10.7/21/ 5.33
5.5/ 1/ 2.75
6.6/13/ 5.88
1.0/13/ .89
61.1/13/.1228
21.6/13/.0398
27.1/ 1/ 8.05
.8/ 1/ .23
108.16
2.60
4.92
.0834
7.83
1.690
6.4 50
1717.76
14 • 893
547.36
.746 ( .464)
90.37 C 2.603)
2
LANF
285.0
262.35 ( 9263.6)
3.36 (118.7)
.04 ( 1.28)
1262.3 ( 44572.)
11.6/21/ 5.81
6.2/ 1/ 3.10
6.0/13/ 5.34
.3/13/ .27
69.1/131.1408
20,7/13/.03 60
35.1/ 1/10.43
1.1/ 1/ .32
94.43
2.74
5.00
.1032
10.12
1.997
7.345
2385.15
21.597
758.87
1.836 (1.141)
50.90 C 4.621)
3
LAF
267.0
262.39 ( 9264.9)
3.36 (118.7)
.04 ( 1.28)
1182.7 C 41762.)
17.4/21/ 8.68
6.9/ 1/ 3.45
10.2/13/ 9.13
.2/13/ .18
72.0/12/.30 18
12.4/12/.042 1
83.0/ 1/24.68
2.6/ 1/ .77
44,14
5.31
8.78
.2606
23.94
3.622
12. 092
5643.36
47 .8 70
1791.78
5.347 (3.323)
41.27 C 5.700)
4
NYNF
262.0
262.34 C 9263.3)
3.36 (118,7)
.04 ( 1.28)
1160.4 ( 40973.)
12.4/21/ 6.21
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
5.8/13/ 5.16
.1/13/ .09
54.8/13/.1090
21.5/13/.0396
31.8/ 1/ 9.45
2.3/ 1/ .68
121 .71
2.49
5,00
.0697
8.78
1 .667
6.751
1481,35
17.231
472.82
.871 C .541)
66.84 C 3.519)
tIC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
8.799 C 5.47)
3.571 C 7.874)
49.97 C 4.71)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/NI LE
11.051
3 • 09
1 .26
2.02
TABLE D—16 . C—IRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—00 1
BAROMETER 760.22 MM HG(29,93 IN HG)
RELATIVE HtJMIDITY 41. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AIJX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
DRY BULB TEMP. 11.7 DEG C(53.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3,5 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000 . LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 WC 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .88
t
(..J
- 1
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1.09 C 1.75)
.68 C 1.09)
1.91 C 3.08)
8.65 C 13,91)
4.00 ( 6.44)
2.26 C 3.64)
7.75 C 12.47)
2302.9 (3705.4)
1299.2 (2090.4)
1055.5 (1698.3)
1700.5 (2736.1)
C—IRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.02 C 1.64)
3.71 C 5.97)
1275.95 (2053.01)
11.55 (18.58)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MULES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
FILTER EFF. 90.63
-------
(Cont ‘d)
TABLE D—16.C—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2)26
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BARGMETER 760.22 MM HG(29.93 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 41. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPT ION
DRY BULB TEMP. 11.7 DEG C(53..0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.5 GM/KG
NYN F
2
LANF
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
NYNF
.88
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 SN4PLE 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
I NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
254.0
262.43 ( 9266.6)
3.36 (118.7)
.04 { 1.28)
1125.4 ( 39736.)
10.7/21/ 5.33
5.5/ 1/ 2.75
6.6/13/ 5.88
1.0/13/ .89
61 • 1/13/.1228
21 .6/131.0398
8.7/12/ 8.73
.8/ 1/ .23
108.16
2.60
4.92
.0 834
8.50
1 .690
6.4 50
1717.76
16.180
547.36
.746 ( .464)
90.37 ( 2.603)
285.0
262.35 ( 9263.6)
3.36 (118.7)
.04 ( 1.28)
1262.3 ( 44572.)
11.6/21/ 5.81
6.2/ 11 3.10
6.0/13/ 5.34
.3/13/ .27
69.1/131.1408
20.7/1 3/.0380
11.6/12/11.57
1.1/ 1/ .32
94.43
2.74
5.00
.1032
11.25
1.997
7.345
2385.15
24 .0 23
758.87
1.836 (1.141)
50.90 ( 4.621)
267.0
262.39 C 9264.9)
3.36 (118.7)
.04 ( 1.28)
1182.7 C 41762.)
17.4/21/ 8.68
6.9/ 1/ 3.45
10.2/13/ 9.13
.2/13/ .18
72.0/12/.30 18
12.4/12/.0421
24 .4/12/24 .38
2.6/ 1/ .77
44 • 14
5.31
8.78
.2606
23.63
3.622
12.092
5643.36
47.258
1791.78
5.347 (3.323)
41.27 C 5.700)
262.0
262.34 C 9263.3)
3.36 (118.7)
.04 ( 1.26)
1160.4 ( 40973.)
12.4/21/ 6.21
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
5.8/13/ 5.16
.1/13/ .09
54.8/13/.1090
21.5/13/.0396
10.5/12/10.50
2.3/ 1/ .68
121 .71
2.49
5.00
.0697
9.83
1.667
6.7 51
1481.35
19. 282
472.82
.871 ( .541)
66.84 ( 3.519)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
MC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
2.27 C 3.65)
1.09 ( 1.75)
.68 C 1.09)
1.91 ( 3.08)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
8.65 ( 13.91)
4.00 C 6.44)
2.26 C 3.64)
7.75 ( 12.47)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
2302.9 (3705.4)
1299.2 (2090.4)
1055.5 (1698.3)
1700.5 (2736.1)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
21.69 ( 34.90)
13.09 ( 21.05)
8.84 ( 14.22)
22.13 ( 35.61)
CONTINUOUS
MC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
C-TRAN
COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.02
C 1.64)
3.71
C 5.97)
1275.95
(2053.01)
12.13
(19.52)
8.799
( 5.47)
3.571
49.97
C 7.874)
( 4.71)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/NILE
11.051
3.09
1 .26
2.02
FILTER EFF. 90.63
-------
TABLE D—17.
H—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSI1 04
ENG 1NE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION 4—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 747.78 MM HG(29.44 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 43. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPT ION
DRY BULB TEMP. 15.0 DEC C(59.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.6 GM/KG
PJYNF
2
LAN F
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
LAF
4
NYN F
.90
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/pp,4
HC BCKGRD METER/RAt4GE/ppN
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
Co BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
254.0
257.32 ( 9086.0)
3.31 (117.0)
.04 ( 1.25)
1103.5 ( 38964.)
11.7/21/ 5.87
6.2/ 1/ 3.10
7.3/13/ 6.51
.1/13/ .09
54.7/13/.1088
21 .1/13/.0388
26.8/ 1/ 7.96
.6/ 1/ .17
121 .84
2.79
6 • 32
.0703
7.80
1 .777
8.119
1420.15
14.810
454 29
.831 C .516)
67.36 ( 3.492)
285.0
257.28 ( 9084.7)
3.31 (117.0)
•04 ( 1.25)
1238.0 ( 43714 )
13.5/21/ 6e77
6.6/ 1/ 3.30
6.0/13/ 5.34
.1/13/ .09
63.7/13/.1286
21.1/13/.0388
33.3/ 1/ 9.90
.7/ 1/ .20
103.27
3.50
5.17
.0902
9.70
2 • 500
7 • 450
2043.41
20.674
651 .50
1.837 (1.141)
43.69 C 5.385)
267.0
257.33 ( 9086.5)
3.31 (117.0)
.04 ( 1.25)
1160.0 ( 40961.)
17.9/21/ 8.93
7.1/ 1/ 3.55
10.0/13/ 8.95
.8/13/ .71
68.9/12/.2858
12.6/12/. 0429
74.9/ 1/22.27
1.7/ 1/ .50
46.60
5.45
8.09
.2438
21.79
3.647
10.925
5178.66
43.511
1644.48
5.324 (3.309)
38.03 C 6.185)
262.0
257.27 C 9084.1)
3.31 (117.0)
.04 C 1.25)
1138.0 C 40)84.)
14.0/21/ 6.98
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
6.8/13/ 6.06
.8/13/ .71
53.3/1 3/. 1057
21 .3/13/.0392
27.3/ 1/ 8.11
1.2/ 1/ .35
125.21
3.26
5.27
.0669
7.77
2.139
6.984
1393.09
15.2 18
445.54
.859 C .534)
63.89 C 3.682)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
2.14 ( 3.44)
9.78 ( 15.73)
1709.9 (2751.3)
17.83 ( 28.69)
1.36 ( 2.19)
4.06 C 6.53)
1112.6 (1790.2)
11.26 C 18.11)
.68 C 1.10)
2,05 ( 3.30)
972.6 (1564.9)
8.17 C 13.15)
2.49 C 4.01)
8.13 ( 13.09)
1622.2 (2610.2)
17.72 ( 28.51)
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
9 • 098
2.85
1 .03
1 .65
RUN TINE SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMP4 (SCEM)
TOT. 20X2O RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
I -p
HC c ONCENTRAT ION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
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/IOOKM (MPG)
H—TRAM COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.14 ( 1.83)
3.78 ( 6.09)
1133.89 (1824.44)
10.65 (17.13)
TOTAL
DISTANCE
KM (MILES)
8.850 C 5.50)
FUEL
CONSUMPTION KG
(18)
3.196 C 7.047)
FUEL
ECONOMY L/IOOKM
(MPG)
44.47 ( 5.29)
FILTER EFF. 92.39
-------
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
Co SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
Co BCKGRO 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
MC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
NYN F
254.0
257.32 ( 9086.0)
3.31 (117.0)
.04 ( 1.25)
1103.5 ( 38964.)
11.7/21/ 5.87
6.2/ 1/ 3.10
7.3/13/ 6.51
.1/13/ .09
54.7/13/.1088
21.1/131.0388
9.1/12/ 9.07
.6/ 1/ .17
121 .84
2.79
6.32
.0703
8.90
1.777
8.119
1420.15
16.911
454.29
•831 ( .516)
67.36 ( 3.492)
2.14 ( 3.44)
9.78 ( 15.73)
1709.9 (2751.3)
20.36 ( 32.76)
2
LAN F
285.0
257.28 ( 9084.7)
3.31 (117.0)
.04 C 1.25)
1238.0 C 43714.)
13.5/21/ 6.77
6.6/ 1/ 3.30
6.0/13/ 5.34
.1/13/ .09
63.7/13/.1286
21.1/13/.0388
11.5/12/1 1.47
.7/ 1/ .20
103.27
3.50
5.17
.0902
11.27
2.500
7.4 50
2043.41
24.022
651.50
1.837 (1.141)
43.69 ( 5.385)
1.36 ( 2.19)
4.06 ( 6.53)
1112.6 (1790.2)
13.08 ( 21.05)
3
L AF
267.0
257.33 ( 9086.5)
3.31 (117.0)
.04 C 1.25)
1160.0 ( 40961.)
17.9/21/ 8.93
7.1/ 1/ 3.55
10.0/13/ 8.95
.6/13/ .71
68.9/12/.2858
12.6/1 2/.0429
24.6/12/24.6 5
1.7/ 1/ .50
46.60
5.45
8.09
.2438
24.16
3.647
10 .925
5178.66
48.2 50
1644.48
5.324 (3.309)
38.03 C 6,185)
.68 C 1.10)
2.05 ( 3.30)
972.6 (1564.9)
9.06 C 14.58)
4
NYNF
262.0
257.27 ( 9084.1)
3.31 (117.0)
.04 C 1.25)
1138.0 ( 40184.)
14.0/21/ 6.98
7.5/ 1/ 3.75
6.8/13/ 6.06
.8/13/ .71
53.3/13/.1057
21.3/13/.0392
9.3/12/ 9•34
1.2/ 1/ .35
125.21
3.26
5 • 27
.0669
9.00
2.139
6.984
1393.09
17.627
445.54
.859 C .534)
63.89 C 3.682)
2.49 C 4.01)
8.13 ( 13.09)
1622.2 (2610.2)
20.53 C 33.03)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
8.850 ( 5.50)
3.196 C 7.047)
44.47 ( 5.29)
FILTER EFF.
92.39
TABLE D—17.H—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
(Cont’d)
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 747.78 MM HG(29.44 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 43. PCI
BAG RESULTS
BAG N(IMBER
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)
DRY BULB TEMP. 15.0 DEG C(59.0 DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.6 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .90
0
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEl. ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.14
(
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MiLE)
3.78
(1824.44)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1133.89
TE RESULTS
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
9.098
2.85
1 .03
1.65
-------
TABLE IJ-18.
H—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LES)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608, KG(30000, LSS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KN( 9662!, MILES)
BAROMETER 760.46 MM HG(29 .94 IN HG)
RELATIVE HIi4IOITY 39. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DRY BULB TEMP. 12.8 DES C(55.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.5 GM/KG
NYNF
2
LAN F
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3
L AF
4
NYNF
.88
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCF!4)
TOT• 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT, AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
254.0
262.51 C 9269.3)
3.38 (119.4)
.04 ( 1.28>
1125.8 ( 39751.)
285.0
262.48 C 9268.3)
3.38 (119.4)
.04 ( 1.28>
1263.0 C 44598.)
267.0
262.54 ( 9270.2)
3.38 (119.4)
.04 ( 1.28)
1183.5 ( 41790.)
262.0
262.47 ( 9267.8)
3.38 (119.4)
•04 ( 1.28)
1161.0 ( 40996.)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUT ION FACTOR
13.0/21/ 6.52
6.0/ 1/ 3.00
6.0/13/ 5.34
.1/13/ .09
54.1/13/.1075
20.6/1 3/.0378
28.2/ 1/ 8.38
.9/ 1/ .26
123.35
15.3/21/ 7.65
7.3/ 1/ 3.65
5.2/13/ 4.63
.1/13/ .09
63.7/13/.1286
21 .2/ 1 3/.0390
34.9/ 1/10.37
1.3/ 1/ .38
103.25
19.7/21/ 9.87
8.7/ 1/ 4.35
9.4/13/ 8.40
.4/13/ .35
67.9/12/.2807
12.9/12/.0439
80.7/ 1/24.00
2.8/ 1/ .83
47.44
14.8/21/ 7.42
10.0/ 1/ 5.00
5.0/13/ 4.45
.7/13/ .62
52.8/1 3/.1046
21.6/13/.0398
29.5/ 1/ 8.77
2.2/ 1/ .65
126.62
I-IC 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)
3.54
5.18
.0700
8.12
2,30 1
6.787
1442.07
15 • 463
461 .07
.857 C .532)
66.28 C 3.549)
4.04
4.47
.0900
10.00
2.942
6.574
2080.21
2 1 • 354
663.13
1.785 (1.109)
45.75 5.142)
5.61
7.91
.2377
23.19
3.829
10,901
5149.78
46.408
1635. 53
5.402 (3.357)
37.29 ( 6.309)
2.46
3.78
.0652
8.13
1 .646
5.104
1385.73
15 .9 53
441.79
.861 ( .535)
63.20 ( 3.722)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
2.69 C 4.32)
7.92 C 12.75)
1683,3 (2708.5)
18.05 C 29.04)
1.65 ( 2.65)
3.68 C 5.93)
1165.4 (1875.2)
11.96 ( 19.25)
.71 ( 1.14)
2.02 ( 3.25)
953.4 (1534.0)
8.59 ( 13.82)
1.91 ( 3.08)
5.93 ( 9.54)
1609.8 (2590.2)
18.53 ( 29.82)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
H—TRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.20 ( 1.94)
3.30 ( 5.31)
1129.58 (1817.50)
11,14 (17.92)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
8.049
2.51
.90
1.45
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
8 • 904
3,202
44.28
( 5.53)
C 7.059)
5.31)
FILTER EFF, 91.56
-------
TABLE 0—18. H—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
UAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
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 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NYNF
254.0
262.51 C 9269.3)
3.38 (119.4)
.04 C 1.28)
1125.8 ( 39751.)
13.0/21/ 6.52
6.0/ 1/ 3.00
6,0/13/ 5.34
.1/13/ .09
54.1/13/. 1075
20.6/131.0378
9.0/12/ 8.96
.9/ 1/ .26
123.35
3.54
5.18
.0 700
8.70
2.301
6.787
1442.07
1 6 .559
461 .07
.857 ( .532)
66.28 ( 3.549)
2
LANF
285.0
262.48 C 9268.3)
3.38 (119.4)
.04 ( 1.28)
1263.0 C 44598.)
15.3/21/ 7.65
7.3/ 1/ 3.65
5.2/13/ 4.63
.1/13/ .09
63.7/13/.1286
21 .2/13/.0390
11.6/12/11.57
1.3/ 1/ .38
103.25
4.04
4.47
.0 900
11.20
2.942
6.5 74
2080.21
23 .9 08
663.13
1.785 (1.109)
45.75 ( 5.142)
3
LAF
267.0
262.54 C 9270.2)
3.38 (119.4)
.04 C 1.28)
1183.5 C 41790.)
19.7/21/ 9.87
8.7/ 1/ 4.35
9.4/13/ 8.40
.4/13/ .35
6 7.9/12/.2807
12,9/12/,0 439
24.2/12/24.22
2.8/ 1/ .83
47.44
5.61
7.91
.2 377
23.41
3.829
10 .901
5149.78
4 6.840
1635.53
5.402 (3.357)
37.29 ( 6.309)
4
NYNF
262.0
262.47 ( 9267.8)
3.38 (119.4)
.04 C 1.28)
1161.0 ( 40996.)
14.8/21/ 7.42
10.0/ 1/ 5.00
5.0/13/ 4.45
.7/13/ .62
52.8/13/.104 6
21.6/13/.0398
9.4/12/ 9.40
2.2/ 1/ .65
126.62
2.46
3.78
.0652
8.76
1 .646
5.104
1385.73
17.190
441,79
.861 ( .535)
63.20 ( 3.722)
H-IRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.20 ( 1.94)
3.30 ( 5.31)
1129.58 (1817.50)
11.74 (18.88)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
8.904 C 5.53)
3.202 C 7.059)
44.28 C 5,31)
FILTER EFF.
91.56
BAROMETER 760.48 MM HG(29.94 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 39. 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. 12.8 DEG C(55.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.5 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.88
HC cONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
CONTINUOUS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
2.69 ( 4.32)
1.65 (
2.65)
.71
5.93 C
9.54)
7.92 ( 12.75)
3.68 C
5.93)
2.02 C
1609.8
(2590.2)
1683.3 (2708.5)
1165.4 (1875.2)
953.4 (1534.0)
19.97 ( 32.13)
19.33 ( 31.10)
13.39 C
21.55)
8.67 C
13.95)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
S • 049
2,51
.90
1.45
-------
TABLE D-19 0 8US
F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A-3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EN—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 748.03 MM HG(29.45 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 47. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 14.4 DEG C(58.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.9 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.90
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS F
RUN T1ME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT, MIX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STO. C l i, 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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
H ONCENTRAT ION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1194.4
173.28 ( 6118.4)
3.31 (116.9)
.04 ( 1.28>
3516.0 (124150.)
16.6/21/ 8.29
7.7/ 1/ 3.85
5.1/13/ 4.54
.7/13/ .62
63.0/13/.1270
21.2/13/.0390
38.3/ 1/11.39
.8/ 1/ .23
104.47
4.48
3.85
.0884
11.16
9.074
15 .7 70
5689 • 90
67 • 798
1813.76
4.561 (2.834)
48.97 ( 4.803)
1.99 ( 3.20)
3.46 C 5.56)
1247.6 (2007.4)
14.87 C 23.92)
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
GRAM S/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
4.168
2.30
.91
1.47
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100XM (MPG)
BUS F COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.99 C 3.20)
3.46 ( 5.56)
1247.59 (2007.37)
14.87 (23.92)
4.561
1 .814
48.97
( 2.83)
3.999)
4.80)
FILTER EFF. 82.30
-------
(Cont’d)
TABLE D—19. BUS F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03-5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400--F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAR IETER 748.03 MM HG(29.45 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 47. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 14.4 DEC C(58.O DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.9 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.90
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS F
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AIJX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW 510. 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/PCI
CO2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
,NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTI0N FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
I-IC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO2 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1194.4
173.28 C 6118.4)
3.31 (116.9)
.04 C 1.28)
3516.0 (124150.)
16.6/21/ 8.29
7.7/ 1/ 3.85
5.1/13/ 4.54
.7/13/ .62
63.0/13/.1270
21 .2/13/.O39O
11.9/12/11.94
.8/ 1/ .23
104.47
4.48
3.85
.0884
11.71
9.074
15 .7 70
5689.90
7 1 • 1 38
1813.76
4.561 (2.834)
48.97 C 4.803)
1.99 ( 3.20)
3.46 C 5.56)
1247.6 (2007.4)
15.60 ( 25.10)
BUS F COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.99 C 3.20)
3.46 C 5.56)
1247.59 (2007.37)
15.60 (25.10)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
4.561 ( 2.83)
1.814 ( 3.999)
48.97 ( 4.80)
NC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CONTINUOUS NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
4.168
2.30
.91
1.47
FILTER EFF. 82.30
-------
TABLE D—20. BUS
F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—00 1
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTStI 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738_ KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 760.48 MM HG(29.94 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 30. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 15.6 DEG C(60.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.3 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.88
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS F
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCV4M (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/PeT
C02 BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
j’DILUT10N 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 L/tOOKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1188.3
177.18 ( 6256.1)
3.38 (119.4)
.04 ( 1.28)
3576.7 (126292.)
16.9/21/ 8.44
8.5/ 1/ 4.25
4.0/13/ 3.55
.4/13/ .35
63.0/13/.1270
2 1.4/13/.0394
39.2/ 1/11.65
.8/ 1/ .23
104.53
4.23
3.16
.0 880
11.43
8 • 726
13.172
5762.43
68 • 854
1835.02
4.615 (2.868)
48.96 C 4.804)
1.89 C 3.04)
2.85 C 4.59)
1248.6 (2009.0)
14.92 ( 24.01)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
3.720
2.03
•81
1.30
BUS F
COMPOSITE
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.89
( 3.04)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
2.85
( 4.59)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1248.61
(2009.02)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
14.92
(24.01)
4.615
1 .835
48.96
C 2.87)
4.046)
4.80)
FILTER EFF. 93.56
-------
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSI 1 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. 1<6(36900. LBS)
BAR iETER 760.48 MM HG(29.94 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 30. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
TABLE D—20. BUS F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 2126
TE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 15.6 DEC C(60.0 DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.3 GM/KG
BUS F
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000 . LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.88
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMPA (SCFM)
TOT. MIX. 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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS CRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
tIC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
MDX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1188.3
177.18 C 6256.1)
3.38 (119.4)
.04 C 1.28)
3576.7 (126292.)
16.9/21/ 8.44
8.5/ 1/ 4.25
4.0/13/ 3.55
.4/13/ .35
63.0/13/.1270
21.4/13/.0394
12.0/12/12.00
.8/ 1/ .23
104.53
4.23
3.16
.0880
11.77
8 • 726
13.172
5762.43
70. 922
1835.02
4.615 (2.868)
48.96 C 4.804)
189 C 3.04)
2.85 C 4.59)
1248.6 (2009.0)
15.37 C 24.73)
BUS F COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.89 ( 3.04)
2.85 ( 4.59)
1248.61 (2009.02)
15.37 (24.73)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
4.615 ( 2.87)
1.835 ( 4.046)
48.96 C 4.80)
‘O
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CONTINUOUS NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
3.720
2.03
.81
1.30
FILTER EFF. 93.56
-------
TABLE D-21.
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 747.52 MM HG(29.43 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 44. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCF!4)
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/pp,4
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/ppM
C02 SAMPLE P4ETER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD I4ETER/RANGE/PCT
MDX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
BUS UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 15.6 DEG C(60.0 DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4 9 GM/KG
BUS UN
1188.7
172.34 C 6085.5)
3.30 (116.5)
.03 ( .95)
3480.3 (122890.)
16.9/21/ 8.46
7.8/ 1/ 3.90
9.6/13/ 8.58
.8/13/ .71
68 • 4 / 13/ • 1392
20.9/131.0384
40.6/ 1/12.07
.7/ 1/ .20
95.12
4.60
7.75
.1012
11.87
9.225
31.397
6448.80
71 • 458
2061 .32
4.610 (2.865)
55.06 C 4.272)
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(3OOO0 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
DOMETER 155495. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .90
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
PAMS/MI LE
6 • 636
3.22
1.44
2.32
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
4.610 ( 2.87)
2.061 ( 4.545)
55.06 ( 4.27)
V
-3
2.00
6.81
1398.8
15.50
3.22)
C 10.96)
(2250.7)
24.94)
BUS UN COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.00 C 3.22)
6.81 C 10.96)
1398.80 (2250.66)
15.50 (24.94)
FILTER EFF• 92.12
-------
TABLE D—21
BUS UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
(Cant ‘d)
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A-3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MIlES)
BAROMETER 747.52 MM HG(29.43 N HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 44. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 15.6 DEG C(6O.0 DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.9 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.90
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS UN
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. C li. METRES(SCF)
MC 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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO2 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
188.7
172.34 ( 6085.5)
3.30 (116.5)
.03 C .95)
3480.3 (122890.)
16.9/21/ 8.46
7.8/ 1/ 3.90
9.6/13/ 8.58
.8/13/ .71
68.4/13/. 1392
2O.9/13/.0384
12.6/12/ 12. 57
.7/ 1/ .20
95.12
4.60
7.75
.1012
12.38
9.225
31.397
6448.80
74 .4 92
2061.32
4.610 (2.865)
55.06 ( 4.272)
2.00 ( 3.22)
6.81 ( 10.96)
1398.8 (2250.7)
16.16 ( 26.00)
MC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
BUS UN
2.00
6.81
1398.80
16.16
COMPOSITE RESULTS
3.22)
10.96)
(2250.66)
(26.00)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
6 • 636
3.22
1 .44
2.32
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY LJ100KM (MPG)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
4.6 10
2 • 061
55.06
C 2.87)
4.545)
C 4.27)
FILTER EFF. 92.12
-------
TABLE D—22,BUS
UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO, 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. dO) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. IBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. I
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 760.48 MM HG(29.94 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 27. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 16.1 DEG C(61.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.1 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.88
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS UN
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 2OX20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. Cli. I4ETRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1189.2
176.44 ( 6230.3)
3.35 (118.4)
.03 C .96)
3564.2 (125850.)
15.4/21/ 7.70
8.3/ 1/ 4.15
8.1/13/ 7.23
.3/13/ .27
69.1/131.1408
21 .1/131.0388
42.9/ 1/12.75
.9/ 1/ .26
94.18
3.60
6.89
.1024
12.50
7.389
28. 579
6683.69
74.7 69
2132.27
4.729 (2.939)
55.52 ( 4.237)
1.56 ( 2.51)
6.04 C 9.72)
1413.3 (2273.9)
15.81 ( 25.44)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
BUS UN
1 .56
6.04
1413.25
15.81
COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.51)
9.72)
(2273.93)
(25.44)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
5.639
2.64
1 • 19
1.92
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
V
‘p
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
4.7 29
2.132
55.52
( 2.94)
( 4.702)
( 4.24)
FILTER EFF. 96.27
-------
TABLE D-22.
BUS UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900 . LBS)
BAROMETER 760.48 MM HG(29.94 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 27. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. MiX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW Sb. 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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 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)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO.
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 16.1 DEG C(61.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.1 GM/KG
BUS UN
1189.2
176.44 ( 6230.3)
3.35 (118.4)
.03 ( .96)
3564.2 (125850.)
15.4/21/ 7.70
8.3/ 1/ 4.15
8.1/13/ 7.23
.3/13/ .27
69. 1/13/ . 1408
21 .1/13/.0388
13.7/12/13.68
.9/ 1/ .26
94.18
3.60
6.89
.1024
13.43
7.389
28.579
6683.69
80 • 325
2132.27
4.729 (2.939)
55.52 C 4.237)
TEST WEIGHT 13608. kG(30000 . LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .88
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1.56 ( 2.51)
6.04 C 9.72)
1413.3 (2273.9)
16.98 C 27.33)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
BUS UN
1.56
6.04
1413.25
16.98
COMPOSITE RESULTS
C 2.51)
9.72)
(2273.93)
(27.33)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
5.639
2.64
1 • 19
1 .92
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
U ’
0
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
4.729
2. 132
55.52
C 2.94)
4.702)
4.24)
FiLTER EFF. 96.27
-------
TABLE D—23. CBO
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. 1 (5(36900. IBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. I
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 746.00 MM HG(29.37 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 26. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DES C(76.O DES F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.0 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.91
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
C e O
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SC 4M (SCFt4)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW 510. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
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
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
579.2
86.93 C 3069.4)
3.27 (115.4)
.03 C .93)
870.9 C 30752.)
32.0/21/16.01
10.0/ 1/ 5.00
37.3/13/34,50
.6/13/ .53
82.5/12/.3589
12.2/121.0414
36.2/ 2/36.20
.5/ 2/ .50
36.83
11.15
33.46
.3 186
35.71
5 • 598
3 3.928
5079.83
53 • 884
1626.63
3.233 (2.010)
61.95 C 3,797)
1.73 ( 2.79)
10.49 ( 16.88)
1571.1 (2527.8)
16.67 C 26.81)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (18)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
( ii
I- ,
CBD
COMPOSITE RESULTS
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.73
( 2.79)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
10.49
( 16.88)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1571.06
(2527.84)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MiLE)
16.67
(26.81)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/NI LE
3.233
1 .627
61.95
2.01)
3.587)
3.80)
5.628
3.46
1 .74
2.80
FILTER EFF. 95.08
-------
TABLE D—23.
CR0 VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSH 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION f —3
GVW16738 . KG(36900 . LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
fl TER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAR ETER 746.00 MM HG(29.37 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 26. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.0 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.91
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
CBD
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)
NC 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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC 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/IOOKM (MPG)
HG GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
579.2
86.93 ( 3069.4)
3.27 (115.4)
.03 C .93)
870.9 C 30752.)
32.0/21/16.01
10.0/ 1/ 5.00
37.3/13/34.50
.6/13/ .53
82.5/12/.3 589
12.2/12/,0414
39.3/12/39.31
.5/ 2/ .50
36.83
11.15
33.46
.3186
38.82
5.598
33.928
5079.83
58.5 72
1626.63
3.233 (2.010)
61.95 ( 3.797)
1.73 ( 2.79)
10.49 ( 16.88)
1571.1 (2527.8)
18.11 C 29.15)
CBD COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.73 C 2.79)
10.49 C 16.88)
1571.06 (2527.84)
18.11 (29.15)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
3.233 C 2.01)
1.627 ( 3.587)
61.95 C 3.80)
CONTINUOUS
HG GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
5.628
3,46
1.74
2.80
FILTER EFF. 95.08
-------
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552, CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A-3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 758.44 MM -4(3(29.86 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 19. PCI
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
TABLE D—24.
CBD VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 2126
flATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. I
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEG C(7O.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.0 GM/KG
CBD
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.88
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFP4)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT, AUX. SAMPLE PATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/pPM
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/pPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
576 • 7
175.68 ( 6203.3)
3.38 (119.3)
.03 ( .95)
1721.3 ( 60779.)
22.5/21/11.27
11.2/ 1/ 5.60
16.7/13/15.06
.1/13/ •09
95. I/13/ .2079
22.1/13/.0408
65.1/ 1/19.36
1.4/ 1/ .41
63.65
5.76
14.82
.1678
18.96
5.7 19
29 .697
5287.82
54 .696
1690.34
3.226 (2.005)
64.53 ( 3.645)
NC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MILE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
1.77 ( 2.85)
9.21 ( 14.81)
1639.2 (2637.5)
16.96 ( 27.28)
CBD COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.77 C 2.85)
9.21 C 14.81)
1639.23 (2637.52)
16.96 (27.28)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
3.226 ( 2.00)
1.690 ( 3.727)
64.53 ( 3.65)
V
U,
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/NI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
5 • 536
3.27
1 .72
2.76
FILTER EFF, 91.36
-------
ThBLE D—24. C D
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 IC 552. dO) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW1613R. KG(36900. IRS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. I
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 18.3 HP>
DIESEL £M—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAR METER 758.44 MM HG(29.86 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 19. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.1 DEC C(70.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.0 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.88
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
CR D
01
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCP4M (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCP4M (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC 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
?40X BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
576.7
175.68 C 6203.3)
3.38 (119.3)
.03 C .95)
1721.3 C 60779.)
22.5/21/11.27
11.2/ 1/ 5.60
16.7/13/1 5.06
.1/13/ .09
95.1/13/.2019
22.1/13/.0408
21.2/12/21.22
1.4/ 1/ .41
63.65
5.16
14.82
.1678
20.82
5.7 19
29 .6 97
5287.82
60 • 078
1690.34
3.226 (2.005)
64.53 C 3.645)
1.77 C 2.85)
9.21 ( 14.81)
1639.2 (2637.5)
18.62 1 29.97)
NC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
PARTICULATE RATE
CRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
5.536
3.27
1 .72
2.76
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB>
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
3.226 C 2.00)
1.690 C 3.727)
64.53 C 3.65)
CBD COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.77 C 2.85)
9.21 ( 14.81)
1639.23 (2637.52)
18.62 (29.97)
FILTER EFF. 91.36
-------
TABLE D-25.
TEST NO. 1 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A-3
GVW16738 . KG(36900. LBS)
IDLE VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 121 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 747.27 MM HG(29.42 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 44 PCI
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 15.6 DEG C(60.O DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.9 GM/KG
IDLE
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.90
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW SID. CU. METRES(SCF)
MC SAMPLE METER/RAN3E/ppM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCIcGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS CRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
900.1
87.53 ( 3090.6)
3.30 (116.5)
.03 ( .95)
1363.0 ( 48126.)
24.1/21/12.03
8.5/ 1/ 4.25
4.0/13/ 3.55
.1/13/ .09
65.2/13/.1319
20.9/13/.0384
56.0/ 1/16.65
.8/ 1/ .23
100.39
7.82
3.41
.0939
16.42
6.148
5.4 07
2343 .69
38.7 15
748.96
.001 ( .000)
( .002)
******
******
******
***** (******)
IDLE COMPOSITE RESULTS
***** (*****)
******
******* (**** **)
***** (*****)
.001 ( .00)
.749 ( 1.651)
( .00)
t i,
U,
MC GRAMS/KM
CD GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST 1.064
GRAMS/KG FUEL 1.42
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
FILTER EFF. 79.11
-------
TABLE D—2 .
IDLE VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
(Cont ‘d)
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 747.27 MM HG(29.42 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 44. PCT
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 15.6 DEG C(6O.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.9 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.90
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
IDLE
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFN)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STO. CII. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
CO2 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 L/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.1
87.53 ( 3090.6)
3.30 (116.5)
.03 ( .95)
1363.0 ( 48126.)
24. 1/21/12.03
8.5/ 1/ 4.25
4.0/13/ 3.55
.1/13/ .09
65.2/13/. 1319
2O .9/13/.O384
17.3/12/17.26
.8/ 1/ .23
100.39
7.82
3.41
.0939
17.03
6.148
5 • 407
2343.69
40 • 1 54
748.96
.001 ( .000)
****** ( .002)
******
******
******
***** (******)
IDLE COMPOSITE RESULTS
***** (*****)
******
*******
***** (*****)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
.001 C .00)
.749 C 1 .651
C .00)
FILTER EFF.
79.11
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CONTINUOUS NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST 1.064
GRAMS/KG FUEL 1.42
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
-------
TABLE D—26.IDLE
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 It 552. CID) ‘1—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW )6738 . KG(36900. IBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. I
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496, KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 759.97 MM HG(29.92 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 27. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 16.1 DEG C(61.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.1 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.88
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
IDLE
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20x20 RATE SCt4M (SCFM)
TOT. MIX. SAMPLE RATE S MM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW SID. C l i, METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METERIRANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATiON PPM
NC 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/M 1LE)
P4OX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900 • 1
88.85 ( 3137.1)
3.38 (119.4)
.03 ( .97)
1384.0 ( 48869.)
22.9/21/11.45
8.1/ 1/ 4.05
3.6/13/ 3.20
.1/13/ .09
64.1/)3/.1295
20.5/13/.0376
57.9/ 1/17.22
1.3/ 1/ .38
102.36
7.44
3.07
.0922
16.84
5.9 34
4.9 53
2336.80
39.129
746.35
.001 C .000)
C .002)
******
******
*** ** (******)
*****
IDLE COMPOSITE RESULTS
***** (*****)
****** (** ***)
*******
*****
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
.001 ( .00)
.746 C 1.646)
( .00)
(J’
—1
MC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
.913
1.22
* *** * *
FILTER EFF. 75.82
-------
TABLE D-26.
IDLE VEHiCLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738 . KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. I
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 759.97 MM HG(29.92 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 27. PCI
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
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/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 PCI
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
DRY BULB TEMP. 16.1 DEG C(61.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.1 GM/KG
IDLE
900.1
88.85 C 3137.1)
3.38 (119.4)
.03 C .97)
1384.0 ( 48869.)
22.9/21/11.45
8.1/ 1/ 4.05
3.6/13/ 3.20
.1/13/ .09
64.1/13/.1295
20.5/13/.O376
17.2/12/17.20
1.3/ 1/ .38
102.36
7.44
3.07
.0922
16.82
5.934
4.9 53
2336.80
39.085
746.35
.001 ( .000)
( .002)
******
****** (******)
****** (******)
***** (******)
IDLE COMPOSITE RESULTS
*****
******
****$**
*****
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
01
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .88
.913
1.22
* *** **
CONTINUOUS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
.001
.746
****** C
.00)
1.646)
.00)
FILTER EFF. 75.82
-------
TABLE D—27. 12.5SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 746.51 MM HG(29.39 IN HG>
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 37. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 18.9 DEG C(66 .0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.1 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.91
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
12.5SS
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 BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 RCKGRD 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
HO 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)
900.1
86.85 C 3066.8)
3.27 (115.5)
.03 ( .93)
1352.4 C 47754.)
34.7/21/17.36
10.0/ 1/ 5.00
10.0/13/ 8.95
3.8/13/ 3.38
97.8/13/.2 162
21 .5/13/.0396
76.6/ 1/22.78
1.0/ 1/ .29
61.23
12.44
5.52
.1773
22.50
9.701
8.695
4390.64
52.7 79
1400.57
5.049 (3.138)
34.16 ( 6.886)
1.92 ( 3.09)
1.72 ( 2.77)
869.7 (1399.3)
10.45 ( 16.82)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
12.5SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.92 ( 3.09>
1.72 ( 2.77)
869.68 (1399.32)
10.45 (16.82)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAM S/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
2.655
1.90
.53
.85
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES>
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG RB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
U’
5 • 049
1.401
34. 16
C 3.14)
( 3.088)
( 6.89)
FILTER EFF. 94.44
-------
TABLE D-27.
12.5SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 Ic 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 746.51 MM HG(29.39 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 37. PCT
VEHiCLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 18.9 DEG C(66.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.1 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. IBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.91
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
12.5SS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFP4)
TOT FLOW SID. 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 NETER/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
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HG MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
HG GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900 • 1
86.85 ( 3066.8)
3.27 (115.5)
.03 ( .93)
1352.4 ( 47754.)
34.7/21/17.36
10.0/ 1/ 5.00
10.0/13/ 8.95
3.8/13/ 3.38
97.8/13/.2 162
21.5/13/.0396
24.3/12/24.35
1.0/ 1/ .29
61.23
12.44
5.52
.1773
24.06
9.70 1
8.695
4390.64
56 .46 1
1400.57
5.049 (3.138)
34.16 ( 6.886)
MC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
12.5SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.92 ( 3.09)
1.72 ( 2.77)
869.68 (1399.32)
11.18 (17.99)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
2.6 55
1 .90
.53
.85
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
5.049 ( 3.14)
1.401 ( 3.088)
34.16 ( 6.89)
1.92
1 .72
869 • 7
11.18
( 3.09)
( 2.77)
(1399.3)
( 17.99)
FILTER EFF. 94.44
-------
TABLE D—28 .12.5SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 U 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVWI6738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
8AR 4ETER 759.46 MM HG(29.90 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 27. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 17.8 DEG C(64 .O DEG F)
ABS. HUMiDITY 3.3 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCNM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCEM)
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/pci
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
12.55 S
900.1
89.19 ( 3149.4)
3.36 (118.8)
.03 ( .97)
1388.9 ( 49042.)
37. 1/21/18.56
10.7/ 1/ 5.35
6.8/13/ 6.06
.1/13/ .09
99.1/13/.2204
22.6/13/.04 18
79.0/ 1/23.49
1.7/ 1/ .50
60.13
13.30
5.90
.1793
23.00
10. 6 49
9.535
4560.57
53 • 880
1455.60
5.058 (3.144)
35.44 ( 6.638)
2.11 ( 3.39)
1.89 ( 3.03)
901.6 (1450.7)
10.65 C 17.14)
MC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
MOX GRAMS/KM
12 .5SS
2.11
1.89
901 .62
10.65
COMPOSITE RESULTS
3.39)
1 3.03)
(1450.70)
(17.14)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
IMS/M I LE
2.295
1.58
.45
.73
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (L8)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
7
I- .
.88
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
5 • 058
1.456
35.44
C 3.14)
C 3.210)
( 6.64)
FILTER EFF. 90.29
-------
TABLE D—28.
12.5SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 759.46 MM HG(29.90 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 27. PCT
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 17.8 DEG C(64.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDiTY 3.3 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .88
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
12.5SS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCEM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. MIX. 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/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
M DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MiLE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.1
89.19 C 3149.4)
3.36 (118.8>
.03 ( .97)
1388.9 ( 49042.)
37.1/21/18.56
10.7/ 1/ 5.35
6.8/13/ 6.06
.1/13/ .09
99.1/13/.2204
22.6/13/.04 18
25.1/12/25.12
1.7/ 1/ .50
60.13
13.30
5.90
.1793
24.63
10. 6 49
9.535
4560.57
57 • 682
1455.60
5.058 (3.144>
35.44 C 6.638)
2.11 C 3.39)
1.89 1 3.03)
901.6 (1450.7)
11.40 C 18.35)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOx GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAM S/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
2 • 295
1.58
.45
.73
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
12.5SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.11 1 3.39)
1.89 1 3.03)
901.62 (1450.70>
11.40 (18.35)
5.0 58
1.456
35.44
1 3.14)
1 3.210)
6.64)
FILTER EFF. 90.29
-------
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
6VW16738. KG(36900. LBS>
BAR 4ETER 746.00 MM HG(29.37 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 39. PCI
TABLE D—29. 25 SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. I
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 17.8 DEG C(64.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.0 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 13608, KG(30000. LBS)
CTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KN( 96621. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.91
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCUM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCUM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCUM (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/RANGEIPCT
C02 BCKGRO METER/RANGEIPCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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 1/100KM (MPG)
MC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
25 SS
900.2
86.66 C 3060.0)
3.27 (115.6)
.03 ( .95)
1349.7 ( 47660.)
41.0/21/20.52
10.0/ 1/ 5.00
11.0/13/ 9.85
2.4/13/ 2,13
74.4/121.3145
12.5/121.0425
30.2/ 2/30.20
.5/ 2/ .50
42.21
15.64
7.62
.27 30
29.71
12.174
11.969
6745.44
69.501
2148.31
(6.244)
26.33 C 8.934)
1.21 ( 1.95)
1.19 ( 1.92)
671.4 (1080.3)
6.92 C 11.13)
MC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KU
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
25 SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.21 C 1.95)
1.19 ( 1.92)
671.39 (1080.27)
6.92 (11.13)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
4 • 639
2.16
.46
.74
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES>
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
*** ( 6.24)
2.148 ( 4.737)
26.33 ( 8.93)
FILTER EFF.
95.86
-------
TABLE D—29. 25 SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
(Cont’d)
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 5/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 746.00 MM HG(29.37 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 39. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 17.8 DEC C(64.O DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.0 GM/KG
25 SS
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .91
RUN TINE SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 2OX2O RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT• MIX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CII. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
UNOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/NILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.2
86.66 ( 3060.0)
3.27 (115.6)
.03 ( .95)
1349.7 ( 47660.)
4 1.0/2 1/20. 52
10.0/ 1/ 5.00
11.0/13/ 9.85
2.4/13/ 2.13
74.4/12/.3 145
12.5/12/.0425
31.4/12/31.45
.5/ 2/ .50
42.21
15.64
7.62
.2730
30.96
12.174
11 .969
6745.44
72 .4 22
2148.31
(6.244)
26.33 ( 8.934)
1.21 ( 1.95)
1.19 ( 1.92)
671.4 (1080.3)
7.21 ( 11.60)
25 SS
1 .21
1 • 19
671 .39
7.21
COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.95)
1.92)
(1080.27)
(11.60>
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAM S/TE ST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/NILE
4.6 39
2.16
.46
.74
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LA)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
CONTINUOUS NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
2 • 148
26.33
( 6.24)
( 4.737)
( 8.93)
FILTER EFF. 95.86
-------
TABLE D—30.
25 SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(369OO LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MILES)
BAROMETER 758.95 MM HGC 29.88 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 21. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEG C(69.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.2 GM/KG
25 SS
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .88
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/PCI
CO2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/pOT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.1
88.96 ( 3141.2)
3.37 (118.9)
.03 ( .96)
1385.5 ( 48921.)
40.7/21/20.37
11.9/ 1/ 5.95
8.6/13/ 7.68
.1/13/ .09
74.5/12/.3 150
13.3/12/.0454
31.0/ 2/31.00
.7/ 2/ .70
42.17
14.56
7.50
.2707
30.32
11.629
12.09 1
6866.50
70 • 663
2186.06
(6.236)
26.83 ( 8.769)
1,16 ( 1.86)
1.20 ( 1.94)
684.3 (1101.0)
7.04 C 11.33)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
25 SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.16 ( 1.86)
1.20 ( 1.94)
684.29 (1101.02)
7.04 (11.33)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/N I LE
4 • 120
1.88
.41
.66
0 ’
IJ’
TOTAL
DISTANCE
KM
(MILES)
( 6.24)
FUEL
CONSUMPTION
KG
(LB)
2.186 ( 4.820)
FUEL
ECONOMY L/100KM
(MPG)
26.83 C 8.77)
FILTER EFF. 90.57
-------
TABLE D-30.
25 SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LAS)
VEHICLE NO. 2126
DATE 12/ 6/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 155496. KM( 96621. MiLES)
BAR 4ETER 758.95 MM HG(29.88 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 21. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEC C(69.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.2 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.88
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
25 SS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW Sb. CU, METRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC 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
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 L/IOOKM (MPG)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.1
88.96 ( 3141.2)
3.37 (118.9)
.03 ( .96)
1385.5 C 48921.)
40.7/21/20.37
11.9/ 1/ 5.95
8.6/13/ 7.68
.1/13/ .09
74.5/12/.3 150
13.3/12/.0454
32.7/12/32.67
.7/ 2/ .70
42.17
14.56
7.50
.2707
31.98
11 .629
12.091
6866.50
74 .5 52
2186.06
(6.236)
26.83 ( 8.769)
1.16 ( 1.86)
1.20 C 1.94)
684.3 (1101.0)
7.43 C 11.95)
NC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
25 SS
1 • 16
1.20
684.29
7.43
COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.86)
1.94)
(1101.02)
(11.95)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
4 • 1 20
1,88
.41
.66
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LA)
FUEL ECONOMY L/ 100KM (MPG)
( 6.24)
2.186 ( 4.820)
26.83 C 8.17)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
FILTER EFF. 90.57
-------
TABLE D-31.
( ‘—IRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428-00 1
TEST NO 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE. 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. IRS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223346. KM(138781. MILES)
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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NYNF
254.0
251.40 ( 8877.1)
3.17 (112.0)
.03 ( 1.22)
1077.9 ( 38059.)
2 1.4/21/10.72
11.2/ 1/ 5.60
15.5/13/13.9 6
.4/13/ .35
64.0/13/. 1292
24.6/1 3/.0457
19.6/ 1/ 5.82
.7/ 1/ .20
101.77
5.17
13.32
.0839
5,62
3.213
16 .7 10
1656.39
11.618
534 • 59
.753 ( .468)
87.37 C 2.692)
4.26 ( 6.86)
22.18 ( 35.68)
2198.4 (3537.2)
15.42 C 24.81)
2
LAN F
285.0
251.35 C 8875.3)
3.17 (112.0)
.03 C 1.22)
1209.2 ( 42696.)
23.8/21/1 1.90
11.6/ 1/ 5.80
16.2/13/14.60
.6/13/ .53
75.7/131.1563
23.9/13/.0443
27.2/ 1/ 8.08
.5/ 1/ .14
84.33
6.17
13.77
1125
7.94
4 • 300
19.379
2489.74
18 .4 09
800. 17
1.837 (1.142)
53.63 ( 4.386)
2.34 C 3.77)
10.55 C 16.97)
1355.2 (2180.5)
10.02 C 16.12)
3
LAF
267.0
251.39 C 8876.6)
3.17 (112.0)
.03 ( 1.22)
1133.0 C 40005.)
29.7/21/14.83
11.8/ 1/ 5.90
26.9/13/24.56
.8/13/ .71
77.3/12/.3 300
13.3/12/.04 54
60.9/ 1/18.11
.7/ 1/ .20
40.13
9 • 08
23 • 26
.2858
17.91
5.931
30. 683
5928.51
38 • 893
1893.37
5.366 (3.335)
43.45 C 5.414)
1.11 C 1.78)
5.72 C 9.20)
1104.9 (1777.7)
7.25 C 11.66)
4
NYN F
262.0
251.37 C 8875.9)
3.17 (112.0)
.03 C 1.22)
1111.7 C 39253.)
20.0/21/10.00
11.5/ 1/ 5.75
13.5/13/12.13
.3/13/ .27
60.3/13/.1210
21 .5/13/.O396
24.8/ 1/ 7.37
.7/ 1/ .20
108.77
4.31
11.61
.08 18
7.17
2 • 760
1 5 • 030
1664.81
15.277
535.96
.871 C .541)
75.77 C 3.105)
3.17 ( 5.10)
17.25 C 27.76)
1911.1 (3074.9)
17.54 C 28.22)
BAROMETER 733.81 MM 1-16(28.89 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 58. 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. 23.3 DEG C(74.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.8 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.00
0•’
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
MDX 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
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTiON KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
C—TRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.84 ( 2.95)
9.27 C 14.91)
1329.86 (2139.74)
9.54 (15.35)
8.828 ( 5 49)
3.764 C 8.300)
52.51 C 4.48)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAM S/KM
GRAMS/NI LE
28.5 66
7.59
3.24
5,21
FILTER EFF. 95.35
-------
TABLE 0—31. C—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738 . KG(36900 . LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000 . LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223346. KM(138781. MILES)
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
CO2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NYNF
254.0
251.40 ( 8877.1)
3.17 (112.0)
.03 ( 1.22)
1077.9 ( 38059.)
2 1.4/21/10.72
11.2/ 1/ 5.60
15.5/13/13.96
.4/13/ .35
64.O/13/.1292
24.6/13/,0457
6.8/12/ 6.80
.7/ 1/ .20
101.77
5.17
13.32
.0839
6.60
3.213
16.710
1656.39
13.642
534 • 59
.753 ( .468)
87.37 ( 2.692)
2
LAN F
285.0
251.35 ( 8875.3)
3.17 (112.0)
.03 ( 1.22)
1209.2 ( 42696.)
23.8/21/1 1.90
11.6/ 1/ 5.80
16.2/1 3/14.60
.6/13/ .53
75.7/13/.1563
23.9/13/.0443
8.4/12/ 8.39
.5/ 1/ .14
84.33
6.17
13.77
1125
8.25
4.300
19.379
2489.74
19.112
800.17
1.837 (1.142)
53.63 ( 4.386)
3
L AF
267.0
251.39 ( 8876.6)
3.17 (112,0)
.03 ( 1.22)
1133.0 ( 40005.)
29.7/21/14.83
11.8/ 1/ 5.90
26.9/1 3/24.56
.8/13/ .71
77.3/12/.3300
13.3/12/,0454
19, 1/12/19.09
.7/ 1/ .20
40.13
9.08
23.26
.2858
18.90
5.93 1
30.683
5928.51
41.027
1893.37
5.366 (3.335)
43.45 ( 5.414)
4
NYN F
262.0
251.37 ( 8875.9)
3.17 (112.0)
.03 ( 1.22)
1111.7 ( 39253.)
20.0/21/10.00
11.5/ 1/ 5.75
13.5/13/12.13
.3/13/ .27
60.3/13/.1210
21.5/13/.0396
7.4/12/ 7.36
.7/ 1/ .20
108.77
4.31
11.61
.0818
7.17
2.760
15.030
1664.81
15.266
535.96
.871 ( .541)
75.77 ( 3.105)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
C—IRAN
1.84
9 • 27
1329.86
10.09
COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.95)
14.91)
(2139.74)
(16.23)
8.828
3.764
52.51
5.49)
8.300)
4.48)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAM S/KM
GRAMS/MILE
21.566
7.59
3.24
5.21
BAR ’IETER 733.81 MM HG(28 .89 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 58. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. MiX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEG C(74.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.8 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.00
V
0• ’
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
22.18 ( 35.68)
10.55 ( 16.97)
3.17 ( 5.10)
2198.4 (3537.2)
1355.2 (2180.5)
5.72 ( 9.20)
17.25 ( 27.76)
18.11 C
1104.9 (1777.7)
1911.1 (3074.9)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/10 0IKM (MPG)
FILTER EFF• 95 35
-------
TEST NO 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
TABLE D— 32 .H_TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. 1 (0(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223346, KM(138781. MILES)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
MC 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 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NYNF
254.0
252.42 ( 8912.9)
3.17 (111.9)
.04 ( 1.24)
1082.1 C 38210.)
18.9/21/ 9.44
9.8/ 1/ 4.90
16.3/13/14.6 9
.7/13/ .62
59.2/13/.1 186
21 .O/13/ .O386
23.5/ 1/ 6.98
.7/ 1/ .20
110.78
4.58
13.78
.0803
6.78
2,8 60
1 7 • 354
1591 .83
1 4 • 326
514.17
.843 C .524)
75.12 C 3.132)
2
LANF
285,0
252.34 ( 8910.2)
3.17 (111.9)
.04 C 1.24)
1213.8 ( 42861.)
22.1/21/11.04
11.6/ 1/ 5.80
14.2/13/12.77
.8/13/ .71
69.3/13/ . 14 13
22.O/13/.0406
27.3/ 1/ 8.11
.7/ 1/ .20
93.31
5.30
11.80
.1011
7.92
3.711
16.676
2247.44
18 .7 48
721 .72
1.857 (1.154)
47.86 ( 4.916)
3
LAF
267.0
252.42 ( 8912.9)
3.17 (111.9)
.04 C 1.24)
1137.5 C 40166.)
28.8/21/14.40
13,4/ 1/ 6.70
20.9/13/18.94
.9/13/ .80
71.1/12/.2971
12.6/12/.04 29
56.6/ 1/16.83
.9/ 1/ •26
44.61
7.85
17.71
.2552
16.58
5.149
23. 449
5315.17
36.792
1695.31
5.326 (3.310)
39.20 ( 6.001)
4
NYN F
262.0
252.33 ( 8909.8)
3.17 (111.9)
.04 ( 1.24)
1115.8 C 39400.)
23.2/21/1 1.60
14,9/ 1/ 7.45
13.0/13/11.67
.9/13/ .80
57.5/13/. 1149
22. 1/13/.0408
22.6/ 1/ 6.72
.7/ 1/ .20
114.38
4.21
10.65
.0745
6.52
2.7 10
13.8 32
1520.97
14. 189
489.89
.850 C .528)
70.99 C 3.314)
BAROMETER 733.04 MM HG(28.86 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 59. 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. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.8 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.02
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
20.59 C 33.13)
8.98 (
.97 1.56)
3.19 ( 5.13)
1888.5 (3038.5)
1210.1 (1947.1)
4.40 C 7.08)
16.28 C 26.19)
17.00 C 27.35)
998.0 (1605.8)
1789.8 (2879.8)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
H—TRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.63 ( 2.62)
8.03 ( 12.93)
1202.76 (1935.24)
9.47 (15.24)
8.876 C 5.52)
3,421 C 7.544)
47.47 ( 4.96)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
20.606
6.02
2.32
3.74
FILTER EFF. 96.09
-------
TABLE D—32.N—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V —6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223346. KM(138781. MILES)
BAROMETER 733.04 MM HG(28.86 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 59. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.8 GM/KG
NYNF
2
LAN F
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.02
3
LAF
4
NYNF
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
252.42 C 8912.9)
3.17 (111.9)
.04 ( 1.24)
1082.1 C 38210.)
285.0
252.34 ( 8910.2)
3.17 (111.9)
.04 C 1.24)
1213.8 ( 42861.)
267.0
252.42 ( 8912.9)
3.17 (111.9)
.04 ( 1.24)
1137.5 ( 40166.)
262.0
252.33 ( 8909.8)
3.17 (111.9)
.04 ( 1.24)
1115.8 ( 39400.)
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
CO2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
18.9/21/ 9.44
9.8/ 1/ 4.90
16.3/13/14.69
.7/13/ .62
59.2/13/.1 186
21 .0/13/.0386
6.5/12/ 6.52
.7/ 1/ .20
110.78
4.58
13.78
.0803
6.32
2.8 60
17 • 354
1591.83
13,347
514.17
.843 ( .524)
75.12 ( 3.132)
22.1/21/11.04
11.6/ 1/ 5.80
14.2/13/12.77
.8/13/ .71
69.3/13/.1413
22.0/13/.04O6
8.2/12/ 8.19
.7/ 1/ .20
93.31
5.30
11.80
.1011
7 • 99
3.711
16 .676
2247.44
18.918
721 .72
1.857 (1.154)
47.86 ( 4.916)
28.8/21/14.40
13.4/ 1/ 6.70
20.9/13/18.94
.9/13/ .80
71 • 1/12/.2971
12.6/12/.042 9
18.3/12/18.28
.9/ 1/ .26
44.61
7.85
17.71
.2 552
18.03
5.149
23.449
5315.17
40 .0 18
1695.31
5.326 (3.310)
39.20 C 6.001)
23.2/21/11.60
14.9/ 1/ 7.45
13.0/13/11.67
.9/13/ .80
57.5/13/.1 149
22.1/13/.0408
6.6/12/ 6.60
.7/ 1/ .20
114.38
4.21
10.65
.074 5
6.40
2.710
13.832
1520.97
13.928
489.89
.850
70.99
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECQNOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
Q
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 L/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
3.39 C 5.46)
20.59 ( 33.13)
1888.5 (3038.5)
15.83 ( 25.48)
H—TRAN
COMPOSI
HC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1.63
C 2.62)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
8.03
C 12.93)
C02
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
1202.76
(1935.24)
CONTINUOUS NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
9.71
(15.63)
2.00 ( 3.22)
8.98 C 14.45)
1210.1 (1947.1)
10.19 ( 16.39)
TE RESULTS
.5 28)
3.314)
5.13)
26.19)
(2879.8)
26.37)
3.19
16.28
1789.8
16.39
.97 ( 1.56)
4.40 C 7.08)
998.0 (1605.8)
7.51 C 12.09)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
8 • 876
3.421
47.47
5.52)
C 7,544)
C 4.96)
20.606
6.02
2.32
3.74
FILTER EFF. 96.09
-------
TABLE D—33.H—TRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 2
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 IC 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738 . KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KM(138871 . MILES)
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 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NYNF
254.0
251.05 ( 8864.4)
3.14 (110.7)
.03 ( .92)
1076.1 ( 37999.)
22.5/21/11.25
12.1/ 1/ 6.05
14.0/13/12.58
.9/13/ .80
58.6/13/.1173
20. 1/13/.0368
23.8/ 1/ 7.07
.4/ 1/ .11
112.03
5.26
11.47
.0808
6.96
3 • 262
14.376
1591.56
14.696
513.01
.850 C .529)
74.28 C 3.167)
2
LAN F
285.0
250.88 ( 8858.5)
3.14 (110.7)
.03 ( .92)
1206.7 C 42608.)
23.5/21/11.77
13.0/ 1/ 6.50
14.1/13/12.68
2.1/13/ 1.86
68.5/13/.1394
20.0/13/.0366
27.8/ 1/ 8.26
.5/ 1/ .14
94 • 48
5.34
10.53
.1032
8.12
3.717
14.795
2279.73
19 • 226
730.99
1.840 (1.144)
48.92 C 4.808)
3
L AF
267.0
250.97 ( 8861.8)
3.14 (110.7)
.03 ( .92)
1130.9 ( 39932.)
29.7/21/14.83
13.8/ 1/ 6.90
22. 1/13/20.06
4.3/13/ 3.82
71.0/12/.2966
11 .7/1 2/.0396
56.0/ 1/16.65
.5/ 1/ .14
44.66
8.09
15.80
.2578
16.51
5.273
20.807
5338.32
36.63 1
1701.43
5.346 (3.322)
39.19 C 6.002)
4
N YN F
262.0
250.90 ( 8859.1)
3.14 (110.7)
.03 ( .92)
1109.4 ( 39173.)
23.5/21/11.76
13.8/ 1/ 6.90
15.5/13/13.96
3.4/13/ 3.02
56.4/13/.1125
20.2/13/.0 370
22.8/ 1/ 6.77
.5/ 1/ .14
116.54
4.92
10.66
.0758
6.64
3.148
13 .7 72
1538.78
14.438
495.93
.859 C .534)
71.12 C 3.308)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
H-TRAN
1.73
7.17
1208.36
9.55
COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.79)
11.53)
(1944.25)
(15.37)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
19 • 967
5.80
2.24
3.61
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MPG)
BAROMETER 730.76 MM HG(28.77 IN HG)
RELATIVE HLR4IDITY 77. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT• 2OX20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEG C(69.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.1 GM/KG
1
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
- 1
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO cONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
16,90 C 27.20)
8.04 C 12.94)
3.89 C 6.26)
1871.3 (3011.0)
1239.0 (1993.6)
998.6 (1606.7)
25.80)
17.28 C 27.80)
10.45 C
(2883.2)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
8.8 95
3.44 1
47.64
C 5.53)
C 7.588)
C 4.94)
FILTER EFF, 95.24
-------
TABLE D—33. HTRAN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 2
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RISII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738 . KG(369OO LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KM( 138871. MILES)
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 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY 1/100KM (MPG)
NYNF
254.0
251.05 C 8864.4)
3.14 (110.7)
.03 C .92)
1076.1 ( 37999.)
22.5/21/11.25
12.1/ 1/ 6.05
14.0/13/ 12. 58
.9/13/ .80
58.6/13/.1173
20.1/13/.0368
6.5/12/ 6.52
.4/ 1/ .11
112.03
5.26
11.47
.0 808
6.41
3.262
14. 376
1591.56
13. 5 29
513.01
.850 ( .529)
74.28 ( 3.167)
2
LANE
285.0
250.88 C 8858.5)
3.14 (110.7)
.03 C .92)
1206.7 C 42608.)
23.5/21/11.77
13.0/ 1/ 6.50
14.1/13/12.68
2.1/13/ 1.86
68.5/13/. 1394
20.0/13/.0366
8.1/12/ 8.13
.5/ 1/ .14
94 • 48
5.34
10.53
.1032
8.00
3.717
14.7 95
2279.73
18.924
730.99
1.840 (1.144)
48.92 ( 4.808)
H—IRAN COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.73 ( 2.79)
7.17 C 11.53)
1208.36 (1944.25)
9.64 (15.52)
8.895 ( 5.53)
3.441 ( 7.588)
47.64 ( 4.94)
3
LAP
267.0
250.97 C 8861.8)
3.14 (110.7)
.03 C .92)
1130.9 C 39932.)
29.7/21/14.83
13.8/ 1/ 6.90
22.1/13/20.06
4.3/13/ 3.82
7 1.0/12/.2966
11.7/12/.0396
17.7/12/17.74
.5/ 1/ .14
44.66
8 • 09
15.80
.2 578
17.61
5.273
20.807
5338.32
39 .0 53
1701 .43
5.346 (3.322)
39.19 ( 6.002)
4
NYN F
262 • 0
250.90 C 8859.1)
3.14 (110.7)
.03 C .92)
1109.4 C 39173.)
23.5/21/11.76
13.8/ 1/ 6.90
15.5/13/ 13.96
3.4/13/ 3.02
56.4/13/.1125
20.2/13/.037 0
6.7/12/ 6.71
.5/ 1/ .14
115.54
4.92
10.66
.0758
6.57
3.148
13 • 772
1538.78
14.28 7
495.93
.859 C .534)
71.12 ( 3.308)
BAROMETER 730.76 MM HG(28.77 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 77. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM CSCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW SID. CU. METRES(SCF)
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.6 DEG C(69.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.1 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
S :I
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
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)
3.84 ( 6.17)
16.90 C 27.20)
1871.3 (3011.0)
15.91 C 25.60)
CONTINUOUS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
2.02 C 3.25)
8.04 C 12.94)
1239.0 (1993.6)
10.28 C 16.55)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/Mt LE)
(GRAMS/Mt LE)
(GRAMS/Mt LE)
3 • 67
16.04
1791.9
16.64
5.90)
25.80)
(2883.2)
26.77)
.99 C 1.59)
3.89 C 6.26)
998.6 (1606.7)
7.31 C 11.75)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
G ’AMS/M I LE
19. 967
5.80
2.24
3.61
FILTER EFF. 95.24
-------
TABLE D-34.
BUS F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03-5428—001
TEST NO. I RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RISII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738 , KG(36900, LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LRS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223346, KM(138781 . MILES)
BAROMETER 732.28 MM HG(28.83 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 73. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C(71.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.3 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BUS F
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOTE AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. UETRES(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 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 L/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1193.5
169.16 ( 5973.2)
3.14 (111.0)
.03 C 1.23)
3428.2 (121049.)
29.8/21/14.92
T5.4/ 1/ 7.70
8.7/13/ 7.77
.5/13/ .44
68.3/13/.1390
24.4/13/.0453
30.2/ 1/ 8.98
.7/ 1/ .20
94.89
7.31
7.14
.0941
8,78
14.442
28 .498
5905.89
59 .2 57
1893.65
4.594 (2.855)
50.76 C 4.635)
3.14 C 5.06)
6.20 C 9.98)
1285.4 (2068.3)
12.90 C 20.75)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 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
9 • 784
5.17
2.13
3.43
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
4.594 C 2.86)
1.894 ( 4.176)
50.76 C 4.63)
V
BUS F COMPOSITE RESULTS
3.14 C 5.06)
6.20 ( 9.98)
1285.45 (2068.29)
12.90 (20.75)
FILTER EFF. 94.15
-------
TABLE D—34.BUS F VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 U 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
TE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO, 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223346, KMH38781. MILES)
BAR *4ETER 732.28 MM HG(28.83 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 73. PCI
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 PEG C(71.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.3 GM/KG
BUS F
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW 510. C l i. 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/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1193.5
169.16 ( 5973.2)
3.14 (111.0)
.03 ( 1.23)
3428.2 (121049.)
29.8/21/14.92
15.4/ 1/ 7.70
8.7/13/ 7.77
.5/13/ .44
68.3/13/. 1390
24.4/13/.0453
9.0/12/ 9.02
.7/ 1/ .20
94.89
7.31
7.14
.094 1
8.83
14.442
28 .498
5905.89
59.584
1893.65
4.594 (2.855)
50.76 ( 4.635)
3.14 ( 5.06)
6.20 C 9.98)
1285.4 (2068,3)
12.97 C 20.87)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
BUS F
3.14
6 • 20
1285.45
12.97
COMPOSITE RESULTS
5.06)
9.98)
(2068.29)
(20.87)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
9.7 84
5.17
2.13
3.43
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
1 ’
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
4.5 94
1 .894
50.76
C 2.86)
C 4.176)
( 4.63)
FILTER EFF. 94.15
-------
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 731.77 MM HG(28.81 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 69. PCI
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
TABLE D—35.BUS UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428-001
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG C(72.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.1 GM/KG
BUS UN
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
“TUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223346. KM(135781 . MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT FLOW Sb. C li. METRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/Pp I
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/ppM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/ppM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD MEIER/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 L/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1196.1
168.63 ( 5954.2)
3.14 (111.0)
.03 C .92)
3424.8 (120929.)
25.4/21/12.71
11.8/ 1/ 5.90
21.6/13/19.59
.3/13/ .27
75.0/131.1546
2 1.7/13/.0400
3 1.6/ 1/ 9.39
.4/ 1/ .11
84 • 93
6.88
18.84
.1151
9.28
13. 592
75 • 1 20
7217.62
62.332
2330.18
4.710 (2.927)
60.92 C 3.861)
2.89 C 4.64)
15.95 ( 25.66)
1532.4 (2465.6)
13.23 C 21.29)
NC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/Ku
BUS UN
2.89
15.95
1532.40
13.23
COMPOSITE RESULTS
4.64)
25.66)
(2465 • 62)
(21.29)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
18 .4 35
7.91
3.91
6.30
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
t
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
4.7 10
2 • 330
60 • 92
2.93)
5.138)
3.86)
FILTER EFF. 97.41
-------
TABLE D-35.
BUS UN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’c3)
PROJECT 03—5428—00)
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW 16738. KG(36900 . LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223346. KM(138781. MILES)
BAROMETER 731.77 MM HG(28.81 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 69. PCI
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG C(72.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.1 GM/KG
BUS UN
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X2O RATE SCNM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT 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
C02 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 PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/1O KM (MPG)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
1196.1
168.63 ( 5954.2)
3.14 (111.0)
.03 ( .92)
3424.8 (120929.)
2 5.4/2 1/12.7 1
11.8/ 1/ 5.90
21.6/13/ 19. 59
.3/13/ .27
7 5.0/13/. 1546
21 .7/13/.0400
9.7/12/ 9.66
.4/ 1/ .11
84.93
6.88
18.84
.1151
9.55
13. 592
75.120
7217.62
64 • 095
2330.18
4.710 (2.927)
60.92 ( 3.861)
2.89 ( 4.64)
15.95 ( 25.66)
1532.4 (2465.6)
13.61 C 21.90)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
BUS UN
2.89
15.95
1532.40
13.61
COMPOSITE RESULTS
4.64)
25.66)
(2465.62)
(21.90)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
18 .435
7.91
3.91
6.30
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
4.710
2.3 30
60.92
2.93)
( 5.138)
3.86)
FILTER EFF. 97.41
-------
TABLE D-36.
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RISII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552, CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 731.52 MM HG(28.80 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 73. PCI
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
CBD VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/64
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C(71 ,O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.3 GM/KG
CBD
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000 . LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KP4( 138871. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCFM)
TOT. 20X20 RATE 50MM (SCFM)
TOT. AUX. SAMPLE RATE SCMP4 (SCFM)
TOT FLOW STD. CU. 14ETRES(SCF)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/ppM
NC 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
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
582.4
168.77 ( 5959.1)
3.13 (110.4)
.03 ( .96)
1668.8 ( 58924.)
28.2/21/14.09
11.1/ 1/ 5.55
34.0/13/31.32
.3/13/ .27
98 • 7 / 13/ • 2191
21 .0/13/.0386
47.6/ 1/14.15
.4/ 1/ .11
59.94
8 • 64
30.19
.1812
14.04
8.3 10
5 8.6 56
5535.34
46.160
1785.47
3.299 (2.050)
66.65 ( 3.529)
2.52 ( 4.05)
17.78 ( 28.61)
1678.0 (2699.9)
13.99 ( 22.52)
NC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
C BD
2.52
17.78
1678.02
13.99
COMPOSITE RESULTS
4.05)
28.61)
(2699.93)
(22.52)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
12.931
7 • 24
3.92
6.31
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
3.299
1.785
66 • 65
( 2.05)
( 3.937)
( 3.53)
FILTER EFF. 96.61
-------
TABLE D—36 ,
CBD VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RISII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KM(138871. MILES)
BAROMETER 731.52 MM HG(28.80 IN HG)
RELATIVE HLIMIDITY 73. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C(71.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.3 GM/KG
CBD
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
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 BCKGRf) METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/pPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/pPM
W DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO2 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
582.4
168.77 ( 5959.1)
3.13 (110.4)
.03 ( .96)
1668.8 ( 58924.)
28.2/21/ 14.09
11.1/ 1/ 5.55
34.0/13/31.32
.3/13/ .27
98.7/13/ .2 191
21.0/131.0386
14.6/12/14.64
.4/ 1/ .11
59.94
8.64
30.19
.1812
14.53
8.310
58.656
5535.34
47. 7 53
1785.47
3.299 (2.050)
66.65 ( 3.529)
2.52 ( 4.05)
17.78 ( 28.61)
1678.0 (2699.9)
14.48 ( 23.29)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
C BD
2.52
17.78
1678.02
14.48
COMPOSITE RESULTS
4.05)
28.61)
(2699.93)
(23.29>
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
12.931
7.24
3.92
6.31
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
3.299
1.785
66.65
( 2.05)
( 3.937)
( 3.53)
FILTER EFF. 96.61
-------
TABLE D—37.
IDLE VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KM(138871. MILES)
BAR J4ETER 731.01 MM HG(28.78 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 78. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG C(73.O DEG F)
ABS• HUMIDITY 14.1 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.07
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
IDLE
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/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF F(JEL BURNED GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/JOOKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.1
84.85 ( 2995.9)
3.13 (110.6)
.03 ( .93)
1320.2 ( 46617.)
38.3/21/19.16
12.6/ 1/ 6.30
6.3/13/ 5.61
.7/13/ .62
69.3/1 3/. 14)3
21.3/1 3/.0392
45.5/ 1/13.53
.3/ 1/ .08
93.24
12.93
4.86
.1025
13.45
9 • 840
7.4 67
2477.54
36. 183
795.95
.001 ( .000)
C .002)
******
****** (******)
******
*****
IDLE COMPOSITE RESULTS
*****
******
******* (*******)
*****
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
.001 ( .00)
.796 ( 1.755)
C .00)
5,
-4
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
1.963
2.47
* *** * *
FILTER EFF. 91.02
-------
TABLE D—37. IDLE
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KM(138871. MILES)
BAROMETER 731.01 MM HG(28.78 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 78, PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG C(73 .O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 14,1 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.07
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
IDLE
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
NC 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
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC 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)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
900.1
84.85 ( 2995.9)
3.13 (110.6)
.03 ( .93)
1320.2 ( 46617.)
38.3/21/19.16
12.6/ 1/ 6.30
6.3/13/ 5.61
.7/13/ .62
69.3/13/.1413
21.3/1 3/.0392
14.2/12/14.16
.3/ 1/ .08
93.24
12.93
4.86
.1025
14,08
9.840
7.467
2477.54
37 .8 79
795.95
.001 ( .000)
( .002)
******
****** (******)
****** (******)
*****
.001 ( .00)
.796 ( 1.755)
( .00)
CONT INUOUS
IDLE
COMPOSITE RESULTS
NC
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MiLE)
*****
(*****)
CO
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
******
(******)
CO2
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
*******
(*******)
NOX
GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MILE)
*****
(*****)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST 1.963
GRAMS/KG FUEL 2.47
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
FILTER EFF, 91.02
-------
TEST NO. 1 RIJN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
BAROMETER 730.76 MM HG(28.77 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 69. PCI
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
TABLE D—38.
12.5SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
RAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG Cu2.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.1 GM/KG
12.5SS
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KM( 138871. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOTE 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
NC BCKGRD METERfRANGEfpp14
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/ppM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/ppM
CO2 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PpM
DILUTION FACTOR
NC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO2 CONCENTRATION PCI
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
I-IC 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)
NC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.0
84.65 C 2989.0)
3.12 (110.2)
.03 C .93)
1317.0 C 46503.)
48.0/21/24.00
13.8/ 1/ 6.90
13.1/13/11.76
.6/13/ .53
56.1/12/.2229
11.7/12/.0396
61.2/ 1/18.20
.5/ 1/ .14
59.17
17.22
10.94
.1840
18.06
13. 0 74
16. 7 73
4435.35
46 • 649
1422.07
5.131 (3.189)
34.13 ( 6.893)
2.55 ( 4.10)
3.27 ( 5.26)
864.4 (1390.8)
9.09 C 14.63)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/NI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
12.5SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.55 C 4.10)
3.27 ( 5.26)
864.40 (1390.82)
9.09 (14.63)
PARTICIJLATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/NI LE
5 • 369
3.78
1 .05
1 .68
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
5.131 ( 3.19)
1.422 ( 3.136)
34.13 ( 6.89)
I — .
FILTER EFF. 95,27
-------
TABLE D—38.12.5Ss VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428-001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
0VW16738 . KG(36900• LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KM(138871. MILES)
BAR IETER 730.76 MM HG(28.77 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 69. PCI
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG C(72.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.1 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
12.5SS
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
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
002 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)
900.0
84.65 ( 2989.0)
3.12 (110.2)
.03 ( .93)
1317.0 ( 46503.)
48.0/21/24.00
13.8/ 1/ 6.90
13.1/13/1 1.76
.6/13/ .53
56. 1/12/.2229
11.7/12/.0396
20. 1/12/20.10
.5/ 1/ .14
59.17
17.22
10•94
.1840
19.96
13 .0 74
16 .773
4435.35
51.550
1422.07
5.131 (3.189)
34.13 ( 6.893)
2.55 ( 4.10)
3.27 ( 5.26)
864.4 (1390.8)
10.05 ( 16.16)
12.5SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.55 C 4.10)
3.27 C 5.26)
864.40 (1390.82)
10.05 (16.16)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MILE
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
5.131 C 3.19)
1.422 ( 3.136)
34.13 C 6.89)
CONTINUOUS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
5.369
3.78
1.05
1.68
FILTER EFF. 95.27
-------
TABLE D—39.25 SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 1< 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO. 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KM(138871. MILES)
BAROMETER 730.76 MM HG(28.77 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 73. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C(71,O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.3 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
25 SS
RUN TIME SECONDS
TOT. BLOWER RATE SCMM (SCF!4)
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/PCT
CC)2 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCI
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)
MC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.1
84.81 ( 2994.7)
3.11 (109.8)
.05 ( 1.83)
1319.8 ( 46600.)
50.0/21/25.00
13.8/ 1/ 6.90
19.6/13/ 17. 74
.9/13/ .80
76.8/12/.3273
11.8/1 2/.0400
78.6/ 1/23.37
.5/ 1/ .14
40.42
18.27
16.45
.2883
23.24
13. 902
25. 27 1
6966 • 49
60. 4 22
2226.45
(6.253)
27.25 ( 8.632)
1.38 ( 2.22)
2.51 ( 4.04)
692.4 (1114.1)
6.01 ( 9.66)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
25 SS COMPOSITE RESULTS
1.38 ( 2.22)
2.51 ( 4.04)
692.40 (1114.07)
6.01 ( 9.66)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAMS/KM
GRAMS/MI LE
5.175
2.32
.51
.83
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FIIEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
C 6.25)
2.226 ( 4.909)
27.25 ( 8.63)
FILTER EFF. 97.29
-------
T1 BLE 0—39. 25 SS VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS (Cont’d)
PROJECT 03—5428—001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 1983 GMC RTSII 04
ENGINE 9.0 L( 552. CID) V—6
TRANSMISSION A—3
GVW16738. KG(36900. LBS)
VEHICLE NO 1934
DATE 12/12/84
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 4
CVS NO. 11
TEST WEIGHT 13608. KG(30000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 58.4 KW( 78.3 HP)
DIESEL EM—400—F
ODOMETER 223491. KM(138871. MILES)
RAR 4ETER 730.76 MM HG(28.77 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 73. PCT
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C(71.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.3 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
25 SS
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)
NC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCI
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
4 DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
NC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
MASS OF FUEL BIJRNEF) GRAMS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE>
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
900.1
84.81 ( 2994.7)
3.11 (109.8)
.05 ( 1.83)
1319.8 C 46600.)
50.0/21/25.00
13.8/ 1/ 6.90
19.6/13/17.74
.9/13/ .80
76.8/12/.3273
11.8/12/.0400
2 4.4/12/24.37
.5/ 1/ .14
40.42
18.27
16.45
.2883
24.23
13.902
25 .27 1
6966.49
62. 9 97
2226.45
(6.253)
27.25 C 8.632)
1.38 C 2.22)
2.51 C 4.04)
692.4 (1114.1)
6.26 ( 10.07)
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
CO2 GRAMS/KM
CONTINUOUS NOX GRAMS/KM
25 SS
1.38
2.51
692.40
6.26
COMPOSITE RESULTS
2.22)
4.04)
(1114.07)
(10.07)
PARTICULATE RATE
GRAMS/TEST
GRAMS/KG FUEL
GRAM S/KM
GRAMS/MILE
5.175
2.32
.51
.83
TOTAL DISTANCE KM (MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KG (LB)
FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
( 6.25)
2.226 C 4.909)
27.25 C 8.63)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
(GRAMS/MI LE)
FILTER EFF. 97.29
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read In Lructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
460/3—85—001
3. RECIPIENT S ACCESSIOT fNO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION OF HEAVY-DUTY
DIESEL AND GASOLINE ENGINES AND VEHICLES
5. REPORT DATE
May 1985
6.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONCODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Terry L. Uliman
Charles T. Hare
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORG NI2ATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68—03—2706
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (9—20—78 thru 12—20—84)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Laboratory emissions evaluations were performed on heavy—duty diesel and gasoline
engines and vehicles. Results from using water injection (unstabilized macro—
emulsion formed in the injection pump) on a heavy—duty diesel engine showed major
reductions in particulate and NO emissions, except during idle and light load
conditioos. Emissions of some species of hydrocarbons, aldehydes and the organic
fraction of the total particulate increased during idle and light load conditions.
Test work carried out on the heavy—duty gasoline engine running at high load
confirmed that BaP emissions did exist, but that the levels emitted were low,
and that they decreased with leaner f/a ratio. Selected maladjustments (simulating
wear of inadequate maintenance) of the Cummins VTB—903 substantially increased HC,
smoke and particulate emission levels. Maladjustments of the Detroit Diesel
6V—7lN coach engine resulted in lower HC and N0 emission levels, but higher CO
emissions, smoke, and particulate. Emissions over various chassis test cycles
from three in—service transit buses proved to be highly variable from one bus to
another. In addition, emissions from each bus were very test cycle—sensitive.
17. KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution Transient Test
Water Injection Federal Test Procedure
Heavy—Duty Exhaust Emissions Emissions
Pa rticulate
Bus Emissions
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
.
Release Unlimited
19,SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
343
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. TITLEANDSUBTITLE
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.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and yeal. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approve!, dale 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.
9. 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) (Reverse)
------- |