PROCEEDINGS OF THE
EPA/INDUSTRY
QUALITY CONTROL SYMPOSIUM
DYNAMOMETER QUALITY CONTROL
CALIBRATION AND CHARACTERISTICS
JUNE 29, 1977
9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
HELD AT
EPA LABORATORY
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105
-------
SUMMARY REPORT
EPA/INDUSTRY QC SYMPOSIUM
DYNAMOMETER CALIBRATION AND CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
This report is a narrative synopsis of the proceedings, information, and
presentations made at a Quality Control Symposium at the EPA Laboratory
on June 29, 1977. This symposium was a joint effort by EPA and the
automotive industry to discuss dynamometer calibration and characteristics
and related quality control subjects. Approximately 40 technical repre-
sentatives from the automotive industry and EPA participated in the
symposium. The symposium was an informal exchange of technical informa-
tion related to calibration procedures and dynamometer characteristics
and their effects on emissions.
During introductory remarks to the symposium it was emphasized by
Don Paulsell, Quality Control Manager for EPA, that the presentations
need not be formal; informal comments relating to common problems and
potential solutions in the area of dynamometer calibration and quality
control are valuable to all. A general outline attached in the appendix
to this report was used to structure the general flow of information and
to assure complete coverage of the topics related to dynamometer quality
control. This general format is anticipated for two other symposiums
which are planned for the near future. The first section of this report
will present an overview of the symposium. Following this synopsis a
narrative description of the detailed presentations that were made will
be reconstructed from the notes that were taken. The appendix of this
report contains copies of formal submissions made by many of the people
who gave presentations.
Synopsis of Symposium
The first three hours of the symposium were spent listening to general
descriptions of the calibration procedures used at Ford, GM, Chrysler,
and AMC. The presentations generally covered the type of instrumentation
used to calibrate dynamometers, data collection and processing techniques
and the types of calibration curves used, plus any monitoring techniques
which have been implemented. Quality control criteria which are used to
judge the acceptability of calibration data were emphasized. Each
presentation prompted questions from the audience and related issues
were discussed and explored as part of the calibration presentations.
Subjects such as automatic control circuits, power absorber curves,
bearing friction, temperature control, and transient response charac-
teristics were part of those subjects covered. Following the lunch
break EPA presented a general description of their calibration procedure
and described some developmental techniques which are being investigated
using a new instrumentation package.
-------
-2-
The remainder of the afternoon session dealt with specific presentations
on dynamometer characteristics and their effects on emission. Represen-
tatives from Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz, Honda, Ford, Mobile Oil Co.,
Clayton Mfg., ERDA, and EPA presented specific data quantifying the
effects on emissions as related to dynamometer loading and friction.
Data were presented to quantify the differences between belt drive and
direct drive dynamometers as well as water brake and eddy current type
power absorber units. Several techniques for the verification or
translation of road load power absorber curves from on road measurements
were discussed. The effects on emissions from inertia or horsepower
changes were also quantified. Plots were presented which showed the
effect of rear axle load, tire size, and restraining cable force on the
torque required to drive the dynamometer. Measurements made from torque
instrumented vehicles were also presented to compare power absorber
curves of eddy current versus water brake type absorbers.
In the following paragraphs the essence of each presentation will be
described. These descriptions will hopefully be accurate, but if the
reader has a specific question, he is encouraged to contact the specific
individual who made the presentation. While a great deal of information
was exchanged during this symposium, two particular aspects of dynamo-
meter usage were highlighted. First, there is a lack of understanding
regarding the treatment of the front roll to real roll slip characteristic
on a Clayton dynamometer. The basic question involves which roll speed
is used to reference the horsepower which is to be set for an emissions
test. The second point, which was highlighted, was that more information
must be collected regarding the power absorber curve shape. Dynamometers
are set for a test horsepower at 50 miles an hour but data presented
indicated that power absorber curve shapes differ between dynamometer
types and this difference can have an effect on emissions and fuel
economy.
Descriptions of Presentations:
Ford
The dynamometer calibration procedure used by Ford Motor Company was
presented by Mr. Bruce Gardner. Attachment 1 of the Appendix illustrates
many of the points covered in the presentation. It was stated that
the time required to run five data points on each of the -eleven inertia
weights required approximately eight hours. This procedure was done
on a monthly basis. Specific inertia weights are checked on a weekly
basis to verify the frictional horsepower for each individual inertia
wheel. Instrumentation that is used to collect the calibration data
consists of a fifth wheel which is jesting on the front roller, a timing
mechanism that has a resolution of - 0.1 seconds and the indicated
horsepower is read at 50 mph steady state. Ford compared the linearity
-------
-3-
of calibration curves obtained by referencing front roll and rear roll
fifty mile per hour speeds. As can be seen on the plots in the attachment,
the use of rear roll 50 mph to set the indicated horsepower results in
increased wheel slippage at higher horsepower settings causing a non-
linearity in the curve. The general consensus at the symposium was that
front roll speed should be the only parameter used for performing
coastdown calibrations. Ford states that they are using Clayton CTE 50
dynamometers in the manual mode of operation. They have studied the
differences between the automatic and manual modes of operation and
claim that the exponents of the power absorber curves are different.
General Motors
The General Motors dynamometer calibration activities were presented by
John McLeod of the GM Proving Grounds. GM uses CTE 50 Clayton dynamometers.
They use automatic roadload control on all certification sites. They
also have a Burke Porter electric for their high altitude test cell.
All calibrations are done in the automatic mode. General Motors has
converted from panel meters to digital readouts. They have incorporated
a thumbwheel horsepower selection switch to independently perform the
inertia setting and horsepower selection. GM has also improved the
roundness of the+dynamometer rollers by spray welding and grinding the
rollers to 8.65 - .002" roll diameter. They incorporate an optical
endcoder pickup with an output of 160 pulses per revolution on both the
front and rear rollers. Their coastdown timer uses this digital pulse
train in a phase lock comparator to trigger at 55 and 45 mph. The
resolution of the timer is - .01 seconds. Three calibration data points
are generated at each inertia weight. One point is the Federal Register
set point and the end points are - 50% of the Federal Register set
point. Three coastdowns at each point must agree within - .3 seconds.
A linear least squares fit is performed to generate the calibration data
line for that inertia weight. All points must lie witin - .3 horsepower
of the line. All voltages, gains, and dead bands are checked on a
monthly basis. Dead bands are maintained at .2 horsepower at zero and
.4 horsepower at 50.
General Motors also runs a complete FTP in the manual mode of+operation
to assure that it will hold the horsepower and repeat within - .2
horsepower. Drift problems have been detected in the automatic roadload
control circuit. The problem was diagnosed and corrected by redesign of
the power supply circuits. For the monthly horsepower check, the 5500
lb. inertia is checked at all three points. The slope of this line must
agree within 3% of the slope of the previous calibration curve. Then
each of the other inertia weights is checked at th^ Federal Register
test point. The actual horsepower must be within - .4 from the Federal
Register value. GM has also characterized the roll slippage factor and
stated that it was between .5 and 1 mph at 50. All horsepower measure-
ments made at General Motors are made from the front roll speed signal.
However the driver's trace is driven from the rear roll tach signal.
The horsepower set by the automatic control circuit is referenced
-------
to the front roll. The driver verifies the horsepower by switching the
digital readout to front roll speed and switches back to rear roll for
the driving test. Setting horsepower by the use of front roll speed
tends to load the vehicle higher than in the case of using rear roll
thus increasing the emissions. The slippage factor will vary with
inertia weight, horsepower setting, tire type, and the restraining force
used to tie down the vehicle. This concluded GM's presentation of
calibration procedure. Mr. McLeod answered several questions from the
floor regarding other studies that General Motors has performed.
Regarding GM's efforts to balance and true the roll diameter, they
stated that they had found variances in the "out of roundness" on the
order of 60 thousandths. GM had used a fifth wheel with a one foot
circumference to measure roll diameters by turn ratios, but found that
the method was unacceptable because of fifth wheel bounce caused by a
seam in the roller. A question was asked about the difference in PAU
curves and transient response comparing the manual and automatic modes
of operation. Mr. Juneja of GM said the hysteresis between the accel
and decel modes in the manual operation was severe. In the automatic
mode the power absorber curve is electronically forced to second order
and the hysteresis was reduced by 70%. Figure 1 illustrates the tests
that were performed and the hysteresis curve that was generated on an XY
plotter using the different accel/decel rates. The initial overshoot
FI&0&6. 1
Aoro —
MODS*
A»44Hp
IMiTlAl
OVt**fe0T
TfcA*JSl£lsiT
STEADY
3P£fcf>
VAluC.
So 60 O to
£F£onT &6LL)
flCEt/D6efc«. gATCS of 1,3,S
Automatic. coA/rrtot- Reevce? Hrsrenesis.
-------
-5-
from the zero mph speed Is caused by the transient redistribution of
water in the power absorber unit. It was mentioned that this transient
can be reduced if the heat exchanger is cleaned. Mr. Berg from Mercedes
Benz said that the hump is not apparent on the Schenk eddy current type
of dynamometer. During the discussion of hysteresis phenomena, temperature
control was mentioned as a major cause of hysteresis, GM had also
conducted studies in the manual mode looking at hysteresis with the same
amount of water and varying the temperature. They found that increasing
the temperature causes the power absorber load to go up but did not
necessarily decrease the amount of hysteresis. Mr. Hasegawa from
American Honda claimed that the elimination of flow control on the heat
exchanger cooling water produced a critically damp response to a transient
change in speed. Figure 2 illustrates the characteristics reported for
PIS0R.6 Z.
TMaoc- v» T£MPe«eATwite, /flooj
different temperature conditons. GM was asked if they had ever.tried to
quantify bearing friction for each individual flywheel and what they
found across all their dynamometer sites. Mr. Juneja said they did not
see a cumulative effect, and that it varies among all their dynamometers.
A Ford participant reiterated that they had seen the same thing.
-------
-6-
However, Mr. Hasegawa from Honda said they can plot bearing friction
versus the number of bearings that have been engaged. Mr. Juneja
claimed that bearing friction is about 60% due to the windage effect, in
other words, the shear drag on the flywheel, and that 40% could actually
be attributed to the bearing itself. Mr. Meyers from Clayton commented
that they are changing to a low friction bearing which has a looser fit
in their new 125 lb. inertia weight package. Mr. Paulsell from EPA
stated that if the torque measurement during the coastdown interval is
integrated, it has a significant effect on the precision of the data.
Data illustrating this effect were presented in a later talk. It was
also stated that the exponent of the power absorber unit remains closer
to three and more consistent from dyno to dyno in the automatic mode
than it did in the manual mode. The question of setting the horsepower
based on front roll speed resulted in a lengthy discussion about the
effect of using front or rear roll speed as a reference signal for the
horsepower setting. Clayton has incorporated a vehicle adjustment
potentiometer on their new unit to allow the operator to select either
front or rear roll speed as the reference signal.
Chrysler
Following a ten minute break the Chrysler calibration procedure was
presented by Frank Johnson and Bob Rice.
Chrysler is in the process of converting to digital meters and digital
thumbwheel horsepower selectors. They use the automatic mode for the
Federal Register horsepower values. However, they have added potentiometers
to decrease the sensitivity of setting these values. For any special
horsepowers the manual mode is used. The dynamometer is calibrated
in the automatic mode. All data signals are t^ken on line by a PCS
computer system with a timing device that has - .2 second resolution.
Chrysler uses the CTE 50 direct drive dynamometers. All speed signals
are calibrated using a master strobotach. Chrysler claimed that
they didn't care for the use of a fifth wheel but rather had developed
an optical light beam sensor with a light and dark timing tape.
Chrysler calibrates dynamometers on a monthly basis at the Federal
Register set p^int. Each calibration check must agree within - .1 of a
horsepower or - .1 of a second whichever is greater. For special
horsepowers a 4 point line is generated in the manual mode. The Clayton
tachometer signals are fed to the PCS computer and set points for 55 and
45 are trimmed. This timing tape, which is an alternating yellow and
black, is placed on the roll and has a resolution of 14 pulse^ per rev
as a square wave. The set point voltages must be set within - two
millivolts. A short discussion followed with a man from the Allen Park
-------
-7-
Ford test lab on the use of a single pulse per rev to trigger a time
base generator for doing coastdown calibrations. It seemed that he had
relatively good success using this method. Chrysler performs a 3 point
dead weight at 15, 25 and AO foot lbs. Hysteresis is nulled by tapping
the PAU with a rubber mallet. For the emissions test they use the rear
roll signal for setting the horsepower. In addition to the calibration
presentation some additional data were submitted by Chrysler and can be
found in the Appendix.
AMC
The last presentation of the morning was by Mr. A1 Morris from the
American Motors Corporation.
AMC performs monthly calibrations using 4 points - 6, 12, 18 and 24
indicated horsepower. Like Chrysler, they also use a strobotach for
setting speeds with an optical sensor and four reflective strips. This
optical signal is passed to an amplifier where the 55 and 45 mgh set
points are triggered. Their timing device is a resolution of - .1
seconds. They run+4 points per inertia weight and 2 runs per setting
must agree within - .3 seconds. On the monthly horsepower check, they
perform one 12 horsepower coastdown across all inertia weights. If the
coastdown differs from theoretical by more than - l+second, the calibration
is repeated. Changes can be detected at levels of - .5 seconds based on
quality control monitoring data. AMC uses the automatic roadload
control feature of the Clayton dynamometer. They also use a grooved
front roll which consists of cross-hatched one inch spiral grooves that
are machined into the roller surface. They claim that this pattern does
not completely eliminate the slip but it does reduce it. They restrain
the vehicle loosely with a cable winch on each side.
In response to a question about the use of the new Clayton digital
readouts for visually triggering the coastdown calibration, Mr. Dave
Stevenson of Clayton claimed that the new Weston's have a gate time of a
tenth of a second. This would effect the accuracy of visual triggering
at the 55 and 45 mph set points. Based on the presentations given it
would appear that visual triggering of a coastdown timer does not permit
the achievement of the desired precision and accuracy. Automatic
triggering would be the preferred mode of operation.
EPA
The final presentation on calibration procedures was made by Don Paulsell
for EPA.
EPA uses Clayton ECE 50's and all are operated in the automatic road
load control mode. Individual potentiometers on the Clayton design
have been replaced by Kelvin Varley thumbwheel precision dividers to
permit independent selection of inertia and horsepower values. EPA's basic
-------
-8-
calibration procedure consists of performing coastdowns at 3 indicated
horsepower settings for each inertia weight. The settings used are 4,
8, and 14 HP. At least squares regression line is fit through the 3
points and the slope and intercept are calculated for each inertia.
These values are printed in the calibration tables. A copy of this
table is illustrated in the appendix. It was pointed out that the
slopes for the inertia weights vary from about .85 for a low inertia
weight to .95 for the 5500 lbs. This is significant in light of recent
developments at EPA which have shown that the slopes of the lines should
be equal to 1. This aspect was discussed later in the presentation.
The calibration data sheet is shown in the appendix and is divided into
7 basic parts. All the calibration data about the dynamometer are
entered on the first line of the data sheet. The next three sections
quantify the front and rear tach generator calibrations, the load cell
linearity with the voltage to frequency conversion factor, and the shape
of the power absorber curve by counting steady state torque/speed data.
A typical calibration data set is shown in the appendix. The final
three sections of the calibration data sheet are used for entering the
torque, speed, and time data for the three indicated horsepower values.
Each line is used for an inertia weight.
EPA's dynamometer calibration instrument consists of a voltage comparator
which has precision set points for 55 and 45 miles per hour. The
front roll tach voltage is fed to the comparator at a nominal value
of 5 volts equals 50 miles per hour. This voltage is trimmed using
a synchronous (1800 rpm) strobotach at 46.3 miles per hour. The voltage
comparator gates three counters — a timer that has a capacity of 99.999
seconds and two six digit counters, one for integrating torque and
one for integrating speed. The torque voltage is passed through a
voltage frequency converter and the speed signal comes from a mag
pick up and 60 tooth gear that is externally coupled to the outboard
shaft of the front roller. The accuracy of the set point comparator
is plus or minus .1% and the precision of the entire system based
on repeative ramp measurements is plus or minus ten milliseconds.
It was pointed out that the use of integrated torque and integrated
speed greatly improves the precision and the accuracy of the calibration
data used in the regression equations.
The next view graph which is also illustrated in the appendix presented
some of the reduced calibration data. One notes in the far right column
that the data very closely fit the regression line with the average
percent of point deviation being less than a .1%, the maximum value
is about one quarter of a percent. Based on these typical deviations,
EPA uses a plus or minus 1% of point criteria for assessing the validity
-------
-9-
of the curve fit. In the calibration table the frictional horsepower is
also printed out for each inertia weight. One will also note that 150
lbs. has been subtracted from the total inertia. This is done to account
for the absence of the rear roll inertia in the coastdown measurement.
As one can see in the general equation, the slope of the inertia calibra-
tion line is very close to 1.0000, averaging .9973. If the actual
horsepower is the sum of the Indicated horsepower plus the friction due
to bearings then one would conclude in theory that this slope should be
1.0, since there is no explanation as to why frictions should increase
simply by increasing the power absorber setting. Using this method of
analysis, frictional horsepowers for each inertia weight were compared
across all six dynamometers used by EPA for certification testing. The
next table in the appendix illustrates these data. As one can see from
the table, the frictional horsepowers are relatively consistent from
dynamometer to dynamometer, maximum difference being about .3 horsepower.
The calibration procedure also assesses the rear roll frictional horse-
power and the exponent of the power absorber curve. One can see that
the typical rear roll frictional horsepower is about .14 and that the
exponent of the Clayton power absorber unit averages 3.05 plus or minus
about 3%. The next plot in the appendix shows the effect of deleting
the 150 lbs. in the inertia calculation and makes the intercept of the
calibration line equal to the frictional horsepower of the inertia
weight. The representative from Clayton pointed out that the actual
inertia of a rear roll ECE-50 dynamometer is 154 lbs. This value also
varies depending upon the dynamometer type.
In order to assess whether the frictional horsepower can be assigned to
the engagement of the specific inertia wheels a special analysis was
performed on the data presented in the preceding table. Differences
in total friction were subtracted to come up with a composite value for
each of the five inertia wheels. These data are summarized in the table
in the appendix. One can observe that the frictional values per inertia
wheel are consistent within each dynamometer and are relatively uniform
across dynamometers. The magnitude of the values increase with increasing
inertia, this being attributed to the weight of the wheel or the aerodyna-
mic drag which would be associated with the size of the wheel. Mr. Juneja
of General Motors claimed that their analysis showed that about 60% of
the total frictional horsepower could be attributed to aerodynamic drag.
Since the analysis only provided one estimate for the frictional horse-
power of the 1750 lb. trim assembly, a'best estimate approach was used
by taking the average values obtained for each wheel and going through a
summation process by deleting these from the total friction. The next
table in the appendix illustrates the extremely good uniformity of this
type of analysis. The average frictional horsepower was on the order of
1.2 with a coefficient variation that did not exceed 5%. The analysis
also showed that in most the single point estimate will be within about
1% of the best fit estimate for the trim frictional horsepower. The
final exercise in this breakdown of friction by bearing involved counting
the number of bearings engaged for each inertia configuration. This
analysis is also presented in a table in the appendix and showed that
the average frictional horsepower per bearing was approximately .HHp.
-------
-10-
Following. the formal presentation of the EPA calibration procedure, the
discussion turned to the subject of front to rear roll slippage and
which rollers should be used for setting the horsepower. Mr. Paulsell
said that EPA presently sets the horsepower based on rear roll speed and
that the horsepower check at a steady 50 miles an hour showed that the
automatic control system was controlling within .25 horsepower of the
thumbwheel set. value. GM asked for clarification on the point of using
automatic roadload control which is typically driven from the front roll
speed signal. It was explained that the thumbwheel is trimmed at 10
horsepower at a rear roll speed of 50 miles, an hour. Since this value
is near the middle of the Federal Register table,, the values below 10
are slightly higher than they would be if they were set by front roll 50
and the values above 10 are slightly lower- However,, as stated previously,
these values are within .25 horsepower of the thumbwheel set value which
seems to be acceptable for the total system! precision. GM representatives
stated that the front roll speed signal is- used for calibrating the
dynamometer as well as setting the horsepower for the test. The dyna-
mometer set up has a switch for transferring to front roll speed for
setting the horsepower and then back to rear roll speed for driving the
trace. It was agreed that the use of front or rear roll speed signals
was a subject of major impact on the use of dynamometers and that the
resolution and specification of the preferred method would be undertaken
by the EPA Laboratory. This concluded the formal presentations and the
discussions of dynamometer calibration procedures. After a short break,
the remainder of the symposium was. devoted to specific presentations on
various studies which had been performed to quantify the effects on
emissions of different dynamometer characteristics.
Dyno Characteristics - Effects on Emissions
»
The first speaker was Henrich Schlumbohm from Volkswagen. He presented
a short synopsis of an SAE paper (No. 770139) entitled "Torque Measure-
ments and Mechanized Driver for Correlating, Exhaust Emission Test
Facilities." The paper deals with the use of a torque instrumented
vehicle to compare torque versus speed curves of different dynamometers.
The essence of the paper points to the fact that although dynamometers
can be set to the same value at 50 miles an hour, the shape of the power
absorber curve off of the set point can vary considerably from dyno to
dyno. VW recommends that EPA have a master dynamometer or a typical
power absorber exponent and that any other dynamometer be adjusted to
match this exponent within limits'.
The effect of curve exponent on emissions was discussed briefly. It was
noted that the LA4 consumes about 65% of the work performed in driving
the inertia. The other 35% is absorbed as roadload horsepower.
Mr. Juneia from General Motors stated that a one horsepower error at 50
miles an hour has an effect of approximately 1/2% for CO2 and NOx
emissions. A 10% error in horsepower was shown to produce a 4% difference
on NOx and a 2% difference on CO2 for the FTP on one vehicle. For the
-------
-11-
highway cycle, a 10% error leads to approximately a 4% change in CO-
emissions. It was also stated that a 10% error in the inertia weight
setting translates to approximately an 11% change in NOx emissions and
a 3-1/2% change in C0„ emissions. These numbers were quoted from
another SAE paper written by Mr. Juneja, (No. 770136) entitled "A Treatise
on Exhaust Emission Test Variability."
The next presentation came from Mr. Jim Chase of the Bartlesville Energy
Research Development Center. He presented some data showing the differ-
ence in power absorber curve shapes between the direct drive dynamometer
versus the belt drive. It was clarified that the belt drive dyno is the
older style with the single pulley sheath and not the variable speed
dynamometer. Two curves presented are shown in the appendix. These are
for 4,000 lbs. and show that the belts produce a higher horsepower above
50 and a lower power below 50. He concluded that the direct drive
dynamometer curve simulates the roadload curve closer. He stated that
their new direct drive dynamometer produced a lower fuel economy value
for the highway fuel economy cycle on a vehicle that they have been
testing for several years. The belt drive produced an average of 21.6
miles per gallon while the direct drive yielded an average of 19.8 mpg.
He also stated that they saw no difference in the LA 4 test using bag 2
as their comparator.'
The third speaker for the afternoon was Wolfgang Berg from Mercedes-
Benz. Mercedes has also built a vehicle and instrumented it with torque
wheels. The presentation of Mr. Berg's has been translated into English
and has been included in its entirety in the appendix. He discussed
several projects that have been performed with this instrumented car.
The comparison of two Schenk dynamometers, one with a water brake power
absorber, and one with an eddy current power absorber was made. They
also studied the effect on the torque required to drive the dynamometer
as a function of rear axle load. He also stated the tire type has a
dominant effect on the required torque. They tested several tire sizes
at different speeds and the data are shown in the presentation in the
appendix. One study of specific interest to anyone testing vehicles and
using cables as restraining devices is the quantification of the effect
of cable force on drive line torque. This instrumented vehicle is also
used to compare two different types of dynamometer power absorbers.
Both comparisons are shown in Fig. H on a Schenk dynamometer. The water
brake power absorber had a roll spacing of 17.7 while the eddy current
power absorber had a roll spacing of "21.7. The vehicle was also used to
compare the effects of start-up break away torque on the road measurements
to the dynamometer measurements. This is shown on Fig. E in the appendix.
It was stated that the cable winch used for the test of cable restraining
force effect was the same style winch used at EPA. Six hundred pounds
of force are transmitted by two ratchet clicks of the winch and this
translates to approximately a 10% change in axle drive torque.
The next presentation was made by Jerry Meek of Ford Motor Co. One of
the special studies Ford is performing is doing continuous dynamometer
coastdowns and looking at the force versus deceleration equation for the
-------
-12-
power absorber curve. This report is included in the appendix. Basically
they found that frictional torque follows a first order function with an
intercept value of .7 to 1.3 at 0 speed and values of 2.5 to 7.5 at 50
miles per hour.
The final presentation, made by Mick Leiferman of EPA, was basically a
briefing on a contract study that EPA is funding for the feasibility/
testing of a flatbed dynamometer. Two different vehicles, a 4500 lb.
and a 2200 lb. inertia weight, with three different tire types, will be
studied on this dynamometer. He emphasized that the project is several
months away from the starting date and that they considered the project
to be very preliminary in nature.
This concluded the presentations in the afternoon session on dynamometer
characteristics. The chairman thanked everyone for their attendance and
very worthwhile presentations. It was announced that these seminars
would be conducted monthly and that the second seminar would be scheduled
for July 27, 1977 and would deal with the subject of calibration gas
management and traceability. The symposium was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
and several of the attendees stayed for a short tour of the laboratory.
John Meyers from Clayton Manufacturing discussed some of the differences
between their new equipment and the older style control systems at one
of the new installations in the EPA laboratory. This dynamometer is
being characterized by the EPA Quality Control Development Staff and a
report will be released when this study is completed.
This summary was written by Don Paulsell, acting chairman for the
symposium, and reflects data taken from notes made during the session.
Formal submissions are shown in the Appendix.
-------
APPENDIX
SUBMISSIONS TO SYMPOSIUM
-------
EPA/INDUSTRY QC SEMINAR
DYNAMOMETER CALIBRATION AND CHARACTERISTICS
JUNE 29, 1977
9 A.M. - 4 P.M.
GENERAL OUTLINE
I. Introduction
II. Calibration Procedures
A. General Description
B. Instrumentation
C. Data Collection and Processing
D. Calibration Curve Use and Monitoring
E. QC Criteria
III. Discussion of Calibration Procedures
A. Automatic Control Circuits
B. Power Absorber Curves
C. Bearing Friction
LUNCH 12-1
IV. Dynamometer Characteristics and Effects on Emissions
A. Inertia Sensitivity
B. Horsepower Sensitivity
C. PAU Exponent Effect
D. Restraining Force
E. Roll Spacing/Surface Finish
F. Speed Calibration and Front/Rear Slip Effects
G. Roll Revs. Statistics
V. Summary Comments
-------
ATK.noAHce. Rosrte. 6>c symposium oa) oyuos.
HE-t-D €. BPA UR-& ~ c^£DW£SDAVy J"0»s)e. Z1, tin
Frank E. Johnson
Chrysler
12800 Oakland
Highland Park, Mich. 48203
956-6285
Ken Takahashi
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
560 Sylvan Ave.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
201-871-3555
Arnold T. Weibel
Chrysler
12800 Oakland
Highland Park, Mich. 48203
956-2036
Mark Oleszkowica
Ford Motor Co.
Allen Park Test Lab
1500 Enterprise Dr.
Allen Park, Mich. 48101
322-4486
V. J. Potochnik
Chrysler
12800 Oakland
956-5060
Jim 0. Chase
E.R.D.A. Energy Research Center
P. 0. Box 1398
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74003
918-336-2400
D. F. Sougstad
GM Proving Grounds
Milford, Mich. 48042
685-5176
Alan A. Morris
American Motors
14250 Plymouth Road
Detroit, Mich. 48232
493-2960
J. F. Meek
Ford Motor Co.
Room 1049, Bldg. 5
P. 0. Box 2053
Dearborn, Mich. 48127
322-3197
A1 Papay
Mercedes-Benz
One Mercedes Dr.
Motvale, New Jersey 07645
201-573-2642
Robert E. Rice
Chrysler
Chelsea Proving Grounds
Chelsea, Michigan
475-8651 X381
Carlo Cucchi
Fiat
Parklane Tower, West 1 Parklane Blvd.
Dearborn, Michigan 48126
336-3515
William G. Mears
Mobil Research & Development Corp.
Paulsboro, New Jersey 08066
609-423-1040 X2442
A1 Roddan
AESI
7300 Bolsa Ave.
Westminster, Calf. 92603
714-897-0333
-------
Art C. Bodeau
Ford Motor Co.
17000 Oakwood Blvd.
Allen Park, Mich.
313-323-3221
Hienrich W. Sohlumbohm
Volkswagen of America
818 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
201-894-6522
S. Hasegawa
American Honda
3947 Research Park Drive
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104
994-8441
R. Wass
Burke Porter Machinery
730 Plymouth Road
Grand Rapids, Mich. 49505
616-459-2061
Wolfgang Berg
Daimcer-Benz
7 Stuttgart-60 Mercedesstr.
711-302-3717
Ramesh Panchal
Burke Porter Machinery
730 Plymouth Road
Grand Rapids, Mich. 49505
616-459-9531
Jim Groat
J. Lee Hackett
23550 Haggerty
Farmington, Mich.
478-0200
Robert Coff
Ford Motor Co.
17000 Oakwood . Blvd.
Allen Park, Mich.
322-4197
Bruce R. Gardner
Ford Motor Co.
21500 Oakwood Blvd.
Dearborn, Mich, 48124
322-5227
N. E. March
Chrysler
P. 0. Box 118
Detroit, Mich. 48288
956-4892
Jon R. McLeod
GM Proving Ground-Vehicle Emission Lab
Milford, Mich. 48042
685-6084
James Henry
Subaru Technical Center
3132 W. Adams
Santa Ana, Calif. 92704
714-751-0344
Dave Stevenson
Clayton Manufacturing
4213 N Temple City Blvd.
El Monte, Calif. 92173
213-443-9381
Reg Rice
Clayton Manufacturing
P. 0. Box 189
Southfield, Mich. 48037
354-2220
-------
John D. Myers
Clayton Manufacturing
24750 Swanson Rd.
P. 0. Box 187
Southfield, Mich. 48037
313-354-2220
K. Sakai
Toyota
1012 Pontiac Trail
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48105
769-1350
M. N. Pearsall
EPA
Bob Gilkey
EPA
Glen Thompson
EPA
Doug Berg
EPA
T. Hosaka
Honda
-------
P££S£is)T£D BV g&oce. GAADNB&
Po&D MOTO/Z OOMPANY
EPA/lNDPSTRY QUALITY CONTROL SEMINAR - DYNAMOMETERS
AEFEO Multiple Inertia Dynnmometer Calibration Technique
Formerly coastdovms at each inertia and horsepower setting were used.
This was possible since there were only "Cookbook" horsepowers.
Track coastdown values now can be applied to dynamometer tests. The
need now is for a broad spectrum of actual horsepowers for each inertia
setting.
AEFEO has chosen to run Clayton CTE-50 dynamometers in the manual mode.
One coastdown at each of five indicated horsepowers are run at each
inertia (Display 1).
A linear regression is run on each set of five data points, relating
indicated horsepower to actual dynamometer horsepower (5500 + is the
same as 5500).
The resulting curves (Display 2) are applied by the operator.
The analysis (Display 3) includes a goodness of fit criteria (± 0.3
calculated vs. measured).
A comparison is made to the previous calibration on the basis of friction
horsepower (far right column), and the T test on regression slopes.
Weekly coastdovms use t 0.5 HP limits. These also apply to the friction
horsepower.
Comparing with the EPA procedure shows this technique to be a better
fit of ¦Uie data (Display 4).
Comparison to using front roll speed to set indicated horsepowers, shows
that some non linearity is explained by the slippage between front and
rear rolls (Display 5)«
FKM/maj 6/28/77
-------
T
IjAh..'
1
Ik
LH£E ^
5bOOf
till)
>500
VM)
5000
1351
I35Z
/35~3
/35Y
1359
Z-4~'0'\735^
isoo I (3f>7
2-3*1") i 1352
+000
~ S"^ }
35^ '.
3000
-$-4 )
>750
3-4)
2500
v 2.-3^
2250
2-3)
2000
1351
/36{
13&
13&S
12>^
UM.
I3i£
13d?
128}
!376>
131/
/??2
:o
(A)
\ <3W
AfeOxpyi:c:oastto'cj c/xi^^.Tj :::
"n " '
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA.
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA.
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
K'iUJF:.js;;T I.D.-+
a.', v . .-1
MM 3D YY
Jx l Jri"». -> v ,l'
Cr-j.ili
"¦¦rc-24- •
<£' ¦> [/£' 7VI "> I / ^1/''-'
INDICATED HP 1I0MTI
VALUE
21*.0 HP 20.0 HP 16.0 HP .12.0 HP 8.0 rTP
H 'E553 -OE33 EZZ3^[~H3zi
1LL
24-x
1J /^> z. 11 2^.6 LI 2/2
JZZII3, DEE
-zo-
//>/ IJ /5 V
JSLd,
^ -
/#, j' l ,\ [2,3
/ ?j , ~~~
> I 19/ l.-i ,-?->/
.M.
£3
-
/<£-
IViL:
zzz
rr
18.0 HP' 15.0 EP 12.0 HP 9-0 HP ¦' .'6.0 HP
1L
/5~"
!2t-
9..
//J
JM_
/fr,? - 2C./
JSL
r
-
J2.-W 9-
9.T IJ JAZ [ J JS,3 \ |/t<-g I, I 22.9
>
2Z9
>
6y--
JJL
L-z-
/£".
9.7
/2.-
icz.-rJ.rzz
JAL
M.& 1,r*fr? !Em. ®
n™. 1 5?,2-1 //»V i I I 3.91,1 Icsm Tr-
V~Wi>'\ ran CmZI-EZo
/j.o
r^v " L/^ti 1 /i7? Lf/^^
IMD. HP
CSTl). -TIM
SJ3.Q j J no] Jl£
-------
DISPLAY 2
LIGHT VEHICLE DYNAMOMETER 50 MPH HORSEPOWER CALIBRATION
CELL 1 DATE 6/16/77
inertia
WITHOUT
ACTUAL HP
AC FACTOR
INDICATED
WITH
HP ACTUAL HP
AC FACTOR
INDICATED
REGRESSION
HP SLOPE INTR
1750
7.7
5.3
8%5
6.0
0.8709
1.4
pon-':
7.5
5.2
8.3
5.8
0.8536
1.2
20
8.3
5.8
9.1
6.6
0.8536
1.2
2'->50
8.8
6.1
9.7
6.9
0.8739
1.6
250 P
9.4
6.6
10.3
7.4
0.8532
1 .4
2750
9.9
7.1
10.9
8.0
0.8520
1.3
300!'
10.3
7.3
11.3
8.2
0.9030
2.0
3500
11.P
7.7
12.3
8.7
0.9224
2.6
4 0 O'
12.0
9.0
13.2
10.t
0.9142
2.0
4500
12.7
9.2
14.0
10.3
0.8941
2.1
son'-
13.4
9.fl
14.7
11.0
0.8936
2.2
5r.on
13.9
9.8
15.3
11 .0
0.8R29
2.5
14.4
10.4
15.8
It.7
0.8006
2.3
-x'rG^SS
ION: (50
MPH
INDICATED
HP) =• (50 MPH
ACTUAL HP)
X (SLOPE) - '(INTR)
-------
OYNAMOMETER 50 MPH IIORSEPO/ER CALIBRATION EVALUATION
CELL 1
PRESFNTCALIBRATION 6/16/77 PREVIOUS CALIflRATION 5/21/77
1 2 3
REGRESSION
CORREL
STD ERR
IND HP
FROM
CURVE
RFGPESSION
CORREL
STD ERR
T-RATIO
FRICTION HP
INERTIA
SLOPE INTR
COEF
SLOPE
MAX
MIN
N-EAN
' SLOPE
INTR
COEF
SLOPE
ON SLOPE
PRESENT
PREVIOUS
DIFF
1750
0.A70O 1.4
1
nnn
0.017
i
0.1
-0.0
0.0
n.fwn
1.1
1 .Onn
0.014
1 .670
2.4
2.3
0.1
?oor<
n.B5.V> 1.9
1
non
n'.nift
-n.i
O
•
0
1
-0.0
r.flui7
1.2
1 .000
0.015
0.540
2.3
2.4
-0.1
??xa
0.R739 1.6
1
ooo
n.niQ
0.1
0.0
0.0
O.R5n6
1.4
1 .000
0.017
0.589
2.7
2.7
0.0
?5nn
fl'.BSS? 1 .*»
1
nnn
n.niR
-0.1
-n.o
-o.n
n.B699
i .A
i .onn
o.ni9
-0.642
2.8
2.8
o.n
2750
0,RR?n its
1
ooo
O.Olft
0.1
1-0.0
o.n
n.fl
-0.1
-o.n
-0.0
n'.flqoi
2.5
1 .non
n.n2t
0.913
3.5
3.8
-0.3
uonn
0.Q14? ?.n
1
nnn
n.n?i
-0.1
n.o
-n.o
r.ftonn
2.1
1 .onn
0.02?
0.53S
3.n
3.4
-0.3
uson
n'.R941 9.1
1
non
n'.nift
n.i
n.o
-o.n
0.B496
1 .ft
l.Onn
o.nis
1.902
3.5
3.8
-0.3
sonn
n.fi 936 9.9
1
nnn
n". n i ft
-0.1
-0.0
n.o
n.BBOft
2.3
1.000
0.019
0.152
3.6
3.8 "
"-0.2
5PM
n.Aw><> p.r
1
noo
n'.n
n.3
-o.rf
n.n
n.«60i
?. S
i .non
0.019
0.«2ft
4.1
*.4
-n.3
5r,on+
n.nnnft ?'.n
1
nor>
n.nift
-n.?
n.o
-o.n
0.9033
2.ft
i .Q.m
n.^2?
-0.799
4.0
4.2
-0.2
~ INDICATES SIGNIFICANT SHIFT
IN CALIBRATION.
NOTE
ANY DYNO RFPATRS/RFPLACEMFNTS
.
1 . BASED ON MFAS'.JRFD
50
MPH
IfJO HP DIFFERENCES
FROM
REGRESSION
?. PAsrn cn ooniFn s"
F.
Oe PREVIOUS *
PRESENT
PFGRF5SI0N SLOPFS» T
-CRITTAL IS 3.
1ft2 FOR OF
- 3 AT 95*
CONFIDENCE" ~
3. FRICTION HP TA^FN
FOR
STO
LT VFHICLE ACTUAL
50 VPH 'IP
MEASURED VS CALCULATFD
50 MPH
INDICATED HORSEPOWER
IHFRTIA
i7sn
poor.
??5n
?5nn
2750
300 H
35nr.
uooo
45nn
5000
5500
550(1 +
XFAS'JRFn
i .V. n
1 3
.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
1P..0
ih.o
IS. 0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
INDICATED 11.0
11
>
11.0
10.9
in.9
15.0
15.0
15.0
20.n
20.n
20.0
20.0
HORSEPOWFR O.n
q
.0
<5.0
9.0
9.0
i?.n
12.0
12.0
" 16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
7.n
ft
.9
7.0
6.9
7.0
9.0
".0
9.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
5.n
5
.0
4.9
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
CALCUi ATEO 13.1
1 3
.0
13.0
13.0
13.1
in. i
1ft.0
lfl.0
24.1
24.1
24.1
24. J
IHOICATFO
i n.o
1 1
. 1
11.1
11 .0
in.ft
15.0
14.9
15.0
19.9
19.9
20.0
19. &
HORSEPOWER O.fl
A
.9
ft.9
ft.9
n.9
11 .9
12.1
12.0
16.0
15.9
15.7
15.9
7.0
ft
,9
7.0
6.9
7.1
9.0
9.0
9.1
12.0
12.0
11.9
12.0
5.n
5
.0
4.9
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.9
6.0
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.1
difference -n.i
0
'.n
O.n
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.0
-0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0.1
rn
.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
n.o
0.1
o.n
C.l
0.1
-o.n
0.2
0.0
' n
.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.0
0...
0.1
0.3
0.1
-o.n
-0
.0
0.0
-O.C
-n. 1
-O.n
-0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.0
0.1
0.0
-o.ft
-0
.0
-o.o
-0.0
-o.n
-0.0
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.1
^kjte: max allowable difference is n.3 hp w
DONE ~ £
Hi
-------
DISPLAY
h
I: rT Y"1 Road Load Linearity Study "" V
:TT'Cell 2 At 400Q LBS Inertia * ' yr
Set Using Rear Roll Speed --.'...t'::
•••¦• 4*^ * « « • «• # a
: : i" .
r ¦
t. * "1" 1"" T
K-:----3d
Linear Least Squares-Fit: -Y=A+BX
Two Segment ; A
B
'R2
1.076
0.998
1.143
0.999
1.112
0.999
'1.114
1 ."OOO
.V AEFEO Calibration
.ifI:1'-."::- Tor X=6 to 10 1.5
^y?.Ii-^i.and One Segment
~ For x=3 to 30 1.5
u-v <¦ ELD Calibration -,
XP3 to 15 1.922 1.067 1.000
Data point with +0.5\HP limits -
B >1-10;>12. 1^ . 16 --18--20 22:-2hr 26 28- 30
.rrlNDICATED DYNAMOMETER HORSEPOWER iX)[ \
^•^^::-~I_":--'S?t .Using .Rear Roll Speed
t— -
r - : - C " 'f
. fr irv:-u
^5-2^1-77:
-------
DISPLAY 5
-------
SUBMITTED 8V A^rtOLDT. U)£iB£l
£*1»S5ipis) t>£velopm£ht TESTlNJG-
CHAVS^£/e
-------
Attachment 1
AUTOMATIC
ROAD LOAD
ABSORBED HORSEPOWER
INERTIA
INDICATED
H.P.
5/13/77 5/16/77 5/23/77
5000
16.0
14.0
6.0
18.52
15.82
8.25
18.52 18.52
15.98 15.82
8.39 8.34
4000
16.0
12.0
4.0
18.69
14.46
6.13
18.40 18.40
14.12 14.29
6.10 6.23
3500
14.0
11.2
4.0
16.61
13.45
6.04
16.34 16.35
13.28 13.63
5.87 6.07
2125
10.0
8.0
4.0
12.17
10.08
5.87
12.17 12.41
10.08 10.08
5.76 6.03
MANUAL ROAD LOAD
INERTIA
INDICATED/ABSORBED HORSEPOWER
5/14/77 5/17/77 5/26/77
5000
16.1/19.22
13.9/16.15
5.8/8.21
16.1/18.98
13.5/16.15
6.0/8.39
16.0/19.46
13.4/16.5
5.9/8.34
4000
16.1/18.98
12.0/14.81
4.0/6.13
16.7/19.28
12.4/14.63
4.0/6.20
16.1/19.28
12.2/15.0
4.0/6.20
3500
13.9/16.87
11.0/13.28
4.0/5.94
14.0/16.87
11.4/13.80
4.0/6.04
14.1/17.14
11.3/13.98
4.0/5.94
2125
10.0/12.65
8.4/10.94
4.0/5.81
10.1/12.65
8.0/10.41
4.1/6.15
Dept. 5140
ATW
7/5/77
-------
ROLL
DATE
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
ROLL
DATE
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
Dept
ATW
Attachment 2
5-20-77
Manual/Auto
8.88 9.00
10.69 10.75
11.34 11.35
6-20-77
Manual/Auto
8.41 8.8
9.19 9.5
10.06 10.4
10.31 10.9
10.82 11.6
11.06 11.8
6-24-77
Manual/Auto
8.26 8.5
9.13 9.1
10.0 10.0
10.53 10.8
11.03 11.4
11.33 11.6
22 23 25 26
6-29-77 6-21-77 6-17-77 6-14-77
Manual/Auto Manual/Auto Manual/Auto Manual/Auto
8.26
8.25
8.80
9.30
-
8.70
8.7
9.49
10.0
-
10.01
10.0
10.60
10.8
10.04
10.5
10.46
10.49
10.3
10.96
11.3
10.58
11.3
10.92
10.86
10.9
11.48
11.8
10.95
11.3
11.72
11.02
11.0
11.72
12.0
10.55
11.5
11.79
10.4
10.9
11.7
11.9
-------
Attachment 3
FRONT/REAR ROLLS SPEED COMPARISON
A. Speed Difference versus Roll Speed
lb. Inertia -
- Book H.P.
w/AC
Rear
Front
Diff.
55.0
53.8
1.2 MPH
50.0
49.1
0.9
45.0
44.2
0.8
40.0
39.4
0.6
35.0
34.5
0.5
30.0
29.6
0.4
20.0
19.8
0.2
B. Speed Difference versus PAU Load
Rear Rolls = 50 MPH
Indicated H.P.
Dial H.P.
Front Speed
MPH
Front
Rear
5
49. 2
0.8
4.8
4.8
10
49.0
1.0
9.5
9.6
15
48.8
1.2
13.8
14.1
20
48.6
1.4
18. 2
18.7
25
48.2
1.8
22. 3
23.2
C. Speed Difference versus Tire Pressure
4000 lb. Inertia - Book H.P. w/AC
Rear Rolls = 50 MPH
Tire Pressure Front Rolls Speed
25 PSI 48.7 MPH
35 48.8
45 48.9
Dept. 5140
ATW
7/5/77
-------
EPA CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
AND DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
VIEWGRAPHS DISCUSSED BY DON PAULSELL
-------
i —
s
-a
XH
.z
Ho:
£«
h-j/j
ujq:
Sid
P
Li>
si
Ouj
Hh
22
x3
-------
DYNAMOMETER CALIBRATION DATA SHEET
DYNO 1
SITE
DYNO
EPA PID
CALIBRATION
MODE
CALIB. DATE
MM DD YY
CALIB. TIME
HH MM SS
OPERATOR
EPA I.D.
COASTDOMN
SPEED RANGE
P.A.U.
INERTIA
REAR ROLL
55-45 At
1
T - -
3 : :
3 ~ -
~ n n
X X
01
COMME
NTS: 10 15
20 25 30
35
40 45 50 55 60 65
70 75
8C
:: :i
0|2
SPEED CALIBRATION
TORQUE CALIBRATION
P.A.U. CURVE
SPEED
MTR
MPH
TRONT
TACH
VDC
REAR
TACH
VDC
TRUE
SPEED
RPM
FORQUE
MTR
FT-LBS
LOAD
CELL
VDC
TORQUE
COUNTS
CPS
SPEED
MPH
SPEED
COUNTS
T
C
OF
OIJ
QUE
NTS
TIME
SECS
J
0
3
i
0
J
0
5
,
0
6
T III
0
7
0
6
'
0
1
j
1
0
'
1
1
J
1
2
1 1
1 1
1
III
1
3
05 10 15
COASTDOUN CALIBRATION DATA
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
INERTIA
LBS.
1 TORQUE 1 SPEED
COUNTS 1 COUNTS
1 AT
| SECS
TORQUE
COUNTS
SPEED
COUNTS
AT I TORQUE
SECS | COUNTS
SPEED
COUNTS
at
SECS
r~
|
i
fi
_4
1
I I
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
l
!:
i
r.
i #
i|
if
1 11
t
-J
^j
LIE
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1
—
1 u
-1
i
¦
:
|
LHJ
u
n
M
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
_4
—4
1 11 1
n
j
LIU
~
u
n
~
u
M
M
U
U
M
M
U
LU
M
2
—1
I 11
2
3
|
LltJ
U
U
~
~
M
M
M
U
u
LM
M
U
~
~
2
—
i
t
ni
2
7
:
j
i
n
-4
-4
L_
run
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
2
1
-------
dynamometer calibration instrument
— r
WI6H SET
SS.o mpH
0
FKoMT
R.OU-
TACH
VOUT AGE
ComPARATcR
So = ST.OO VDC
LOU) SET
*f*5.0 MPH
ACCURACY
PRECIS |ONJ
XX. XXX
TIMER. CSECS>
xxxxxx
TO&QU£ CooaJTS
V/f 1-ToKaUE.
1 VPC.
X7OOOCX
60 T00TH
+ MA€» P/U
Speed Counts
± . I %
± 10 Ms
-------
•••»•«•»• ppoCESSEOS JUL 7~ 1977 AT 10S40S29
OVNAMOMETEH sitej DO01
t)YN>0 f PA PTDS
CALIBRATION MOOE: AUTO
CALIBRATION PATE: 4/26/77
CALIBRATION TIME: OS 0: 8
OPERATOR IDS 13925
SPEED RANGES 55.00-45.00 MPH
REAR POLL FHP:
AVG. RR DELTA T<
0.143 HP
63,75
««««»«
»«•«
• «»»
«»»» COASTDOWN
DYNAMOMETER CALIBRATION AND
DATA ANALYSIS
•««»
«»»»
DDDDDD
DD DD
OD DO
DD DD
DDDDDD
000000
00 00
0 0
00 00
000000
COMMENTS: SPEED CALIBRATION FROM 4-22-77 /BAD 115 VAC PLUG
000000
00 00
0 0
00 00
000000
lull
11 11
11
11
11111111
•••• SPEED METER CALIBRATION ••••
••• POWER MTW CALIBRATION
POWER ABSORPTION CURVE DATA
FROLL
MTR
REAR
REAR
FRONT
FRONT
MTR
TORO
TORO
TORO
AVG
AVG
PAU
PAU
SPEED
RDG
TACH ,
VOC%
TACH
VDC"*
RDG
TORO
VDC*
HZ*
MTR*
SPEED
TORQ
SPEED
TORO
CALC
CURV
CURV
IMPH)
mph
V-OC
DIFF
V-DC
DIFF
FTL>'
V-DC
OIFF
DIFF
DIFF
CNTS
CNTS
sees
MPH
FTLB
I HP
I HP
•OIFF
10.04
10.0
2.?5
0.20
1 .42
0.33
^.0
0.287
-1.55
-1 .78
0.0
3957.
641.
9.924
10.26
1.11
0.08
0.10
-13.26
15.16
15.0
3.41
l.?4
2.15
0.b9
10.0
0.574
-1.55
-1.61
0.0
6026.
1480.
10.232
15.16
2.46
0.28
0.31
-8.98
20.12
20.0
4.54
1 .09
2.84
0.07
15.0
0.873
-0.18
-0.41
0.0
7776.
2637.
9.842
20.33
4.60
0.69
0.73
-4.74
24.88
25.0
5.61
-0.07
3.51
0.02
£
20.0
1.164
-0.18
-0 . .12
0.0
9944.
4156.
10.214
25.05
6.99
1.30
1.34
-3.59
29.70
30.0
6.73
-0.10
4.21
0.53
§
25.0
1.455
-0.18
-0.20
0.0
11621.
6073.
9.946
30.07
10.48
2.33
2.30
1.49
34.33
35.0
7.77
-1.14
4.85
0.18
30.0
1.752
0.17
0.22
0.0
13270.
8093.
9.867
34.61
14.08
3.61
3.48
3.72
39.48
40.0
8.95
-0.36
5.56
-0.12
K
40.0
2.330
-0.09
-0.15
0.0
15568.
10702.
10.050
39.86
18.28
5.39
5.27
2.32
44.47
45.0
10.13
0.15
6.28
0.14
a
„50.4
2.920
0.17
0.24
0.80
17541.
12908.
10.057
44.88
22.04
7.32
7.47
-2.07
49.33
50.0
11.25
0.20
6.97
0.19
60.0
3.480
-0.52
-0.41
0.0
19327.
15826.
10.030
49.59
27.09
9.94
10.02
-0.80
54.22
55.0
12.40
0.40
7.62
-0.34
75.2
4.380
0.17
0.25
0.27
21444.
19125.
10.186
54.18
32.24
12.92
13.00
-0.62
58.65
60.0
13.45
-0.17
8.26
-0.13
91.0
5.260
0.24
0.22
1.11
23013.
22305.
10.044
58.96
38.13
16.64
16.68
-0.28
FRONT
VDC =
0.1410
• MPH
C 7.05
P 50)
HERTZ
= 58.
2392 • FT
-LBS
PAU CURVE FOR
4000. IW<
I HP
B K •
REAR
VOC =
0.2246
• MTR
(11.23
*> 50)
vnc
= 0.
0583 • FT
-LBS
BETWEEN
25 AND
60 MPH
K
« 0.1025E-03
VOC
= 2.
62J7 « 45
FT-LBS
M
b 2.9434
I
POWER AHsOPBTION CALIBRATION DATA ••••••••••••••••••••••••
WT
LBS
TORO
CNT*
ROLL
CNTS
DELTA
T
AVG
TORO
AVG
S
MEAS
A HP
MFAS
IHO
CALC
FHP
CALC
I HP
%
DEV
1750.
11836.
13355.
14110.
36544.
20386.
12365.
18.872
10.538
6.389
1".77
21.76
37.92
49.*3
49.78
49.80
5.63
10.09
16.63
3.97
6.02
13.98
1.66
2.07
2.66
3.97
8.02
13.97
0.042
-0.035
0.008
2000*
13169.
15131.
16129.
40485.
23125.
14097.
20.907
11.950
7.285
10.82
21.74
38.02
40.83
49.80
49.«0
5.81
10.16
16.67
3.99
8.01
14.01
1 .82
2.15
2.66
3.99
8.01
14.01
-0.069
0.057
-0.013
2250.
14587.
16946.
18211.
44986.
25785.
15888.
23.214
13.312
8.212
10.79
21 .86
36.08
49.H7
49.84
49.79
5.89
10.26
16.64
3.98
8.06
14.03
1.90
2.20
2.61
3.98
8.07
14.03
0.099
-0.083
0.020
-------
WT
TORO
ROLL
DELTA
AVG
AVO
ME AS
MEAS CALC
CALC
%
LPS
CNTS
CNTS
T
TORO
S
AHP
IHP FHP
I HP
DEV
2500.
15795.
48602.
25.095
M.R1
49.84
6.05
3.99 2.06
3.98
0.234
18509.
28396.
14.670
21.66
4^.81
10.35
7.99 2.36
8.00
-0.196
200*8.
17567.
9.082
37.92
49.78
16.72
13.97 2.75
13.96
0.045
2750.
17460.
53417.
27.544
10.88
49.91
6.06
4.02 2.04
4.02
-0.004
20514.
31445.
16.228
21.71
49.86
10.29
8.01 2.28
8.01
0.003
22183.
19401.
10.013
36.04
49.86
16.68
14.04 2.64
14.04
-0.001
3000.
18633.
57250.
29.543
10.83
49.87
6.17
4.00 2.17
4.00
-0.080
22171.
33875.
17.*88
21.77
49. K5
10.42
8.03 2.39
8.02
0.065
24081.
21062.
10.877
3H.01
49.83
16.75
14.02 2.73
14.02
-0.015
3500.
20682.
63580.
32.821
111.82
49.85
6.48
3.99 2.48
3.99
-0.078
25209.
38453.
19.869
21.79
49.80
10.70
8.03 2.67
8.02
0.066
27726.
24249.
12.531
37.99
49.HO
16.96
14.00 2.96
14.00
-0.015
4000.
24802.
764*9.
39.439
10.80
49.89
6.16
3.99 2.17
3.99
-0.095
29745.
45335.
23.4(13
21.82
49.85
10.38
8.05 2.33
8.04
0.080
32389.
28412.
14.676
37.89
49.82
16.55
13.97 2.58
13.97
-0.019
4500.
26B47.
82028.
4?.343
1".89
49.85
6.45
4.02 2.44
4.01
0.036
32585.
49824.
25.724
21.75
49. H4
10.62
8.02 2.60
8.02
-0.029
35926.
313*7.
16.199
38.08
49. eo
16.87
14.03 2.84
14.03
0.007
5000.
20789.
87771.
45.281
10.92
49.88
6.71
4.03 2.68
4.02
0.233
35512.
54165.
27.951
21.82
49.87
10.86
8.05 2.81
8.07
-0.195
39583.
34660.
17.888
38. 00
49.86
16.98
14.02 2.96
14.01
0.045
5500.
30232.
92539.
47.718
1 u .88
49.90
7.00
4.02 2.98
4.02
-0.081
38040.
58022.
29.953
21.81
49.H5
11.15
8.04 3.11
8.04
0.067
427O0.
37159.
19.188
3d.21
49.rt3
17.41
14.09 3.32
14.09
-0.015
1
1
1
1
1 FRICT10NAL HP
DATA 1
1 VEHICLE 1
WITHOUT
A/C 1
WITH
A/C
GENERAL 1
REGRESSION
1
1
1 INERTIA |
VALUES 1
VALUES
EQUATION I
COEFFICIENT 1
1
OIF FROM 1
OIFF AS 1
I SETTING 1
ACT
INO 1
ACT
INO
INO. =
M«ACT. ~ B 1
1 FHP
\
PREVIOUS »
* OF 1
1 LBS
| —————
1
HP.
HP. I
HC.
HP.
- M -
- B - 1
1
1
CALIB 1
AHP 1
1 1750
• 1
7.70
5.85 1
8.50
6.SH
0.9093
1 -1.1514 |
1.00000
1 1.85
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 2000
• I
8.30
6.29 1
9.10
7.01
0.9223
1 -1.3673 1
1.00000
1 2.01
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 2250
• I
8.80
6.70 1
9.70
7.54
0.9344
1 -1.5227 1
1.00000
1 2.10
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 2500
• |
9.40
7.11 1
10.30
7.95
0.9360
1 -1.6868 1
1.00000
1 2.29
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 2750
• I
9.90
7.64 1
10.90
8.5*
0.9435
1 -1.7009 I
1.00000
1 2.26
1
jf8?o i
0.0 1
1 3000
• 1
10.30
7.91 1
11.30
8.86
0 • 94t>8
1 -1.8393 1
1.00000
1 2.39
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 3500
• 1
1 1.20
8.50 1
12.30
9.55
0.9543
1 -2.1860 1
1.00000
1 2.70
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 4000
• 1
12.00
9.60 1
13.20
10.7S
0.9605
1 -1.9260 1
1.00000
1 2.40
I
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 4500
• 1
12.70
10.02 1
14.00
11.27
0.9616
1 -2.1919 1
1.00000
1 2.68
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 5000
• 1
13.40
10.53 1
14.70
11.80
0.9730
1 -2.5051 1
1.00000
1 2.87
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 5500
• 1
13.90
10.70 1
15.30
12. 0*
0.9678
1 -2.7537 1
1.00000
1 3.20
t
0.0 1
0.0 1
1 5500
• ~ 1
14.4
11.2 1
lb.8
12.5
. 0.9678
1 -2.7537 1
-------
SUMMARY OF FPICT lONai. HOWSEPn-fKM D'*TA FO^ DnOl - u/?^m
AVFHaGt" FhH
CO-'PftTCTFf)
AVi:^Ar,F
f-"MP
I.w.
N
A V'j
SK.I'A
*c. <>
N
AVG
SI IjM A
*Cv
e»»»
«»*
»*«•»*
»»»»»•
»»»»•»»
««»
»»~»~»
*»»«««
««»«««
2000(1)
4
P. 565
0.037
6.^4
4
O.SftS
(1.037
6. S4
1000
5
o.si4
0.033
6.";?
5
0.514
(1.033
t^.S2
500
5
0.325
0.020
f>. Hi
5
0.32S
0.020
6.30
250
3
0.118
0.034
17."7
1
0.1 Mm
0.034
17. ->7
TRIM
1
1.205
0.0
O.c
1
1.20S
0.0
0.0
HPUCFSSED: Jul ZHt 1977 08105:58
FF.OL^I.
reristfh
F HP
INTERCEPT FHP
'¦I
AVIt
SIGMA
%CV
N
AVG
SIGMA
*CV
out
««««»«
«-»»««»
«««»««
• «»
«•«»•»
••••••
t*
O.S/2
0.033
5.77
4
0.574
0.067
11.66
5
0.517
0.033
6.4ft
5
0.532
0.045
8.45
5
0.333
0.021
6.31
5
0.310
0.052
16.82
3
O.ldS
0.031
16.69
3
0.173
0.039
22.83
1
1.W2
0.0
0.0
1
1.151
0.0
0.0
-------
DYNAMOMEThR CALIRRA rI ON TAHLK«
4-26-77
OODDOO OOOOOO 000000 1111
DD
DD
00
00
00
00 11
1
DD
DO
0
0
0
0
1
DD
DD
00
00
00
00
1
DDDDDD 000000 000000 1111111 1
VEHICLE
WITHOUT A/C
t WITH
A/C
1 general
INERTIA
VALUES
1 VALUES
1 EQUATION
SETTING
act
IND
1 ACT
IND
1 IND. =
ACT. ~ B
LBS
HP.
HP.
1 HP.
HP.
1 - M -
- R -
1750.
7.7
5.9
f B.S
6.6
1 0.9093
1 -1.1514
2000.
8.3
6.3
1 9.1
7.0
~ 0.9223
1 -1.3673
2250.
8.8
6.7
1 9.7
7.5
1 0*9344
• -1.5227
2500.
9.4
7.1
1 1»• 3
8.0
1 0.93oO
1 -1.6868
2750.
9.9
7.6
1 10.9
8.6
1 0.9435
1 -1.7009
3000.
10.3
7.9
1 11.3
8.9
| 0.94h8
1 -1.8393
3500.
11.?
8.5
1 12.3
9.6
1 0.9543
1 -2.1860
4000.
12.0
9.6
1 13.2
10.8
t 0.9605
1 -1.9260
4500.
12.7
10.0
1 14.0
11.3
1 0.9616
1 -2.1919
5000.
13.4
10.5
1 14.7
11.8
1 0.97JO
1 -2.5051
5500.
13.9
10.7
1 15.3
12.1
1 0.9678
1 -2.7537
5500
14.4
11.2
1 15.8
12.5
1 0.9678
1 -2.7537
NOTE J 5500.* SETTING IS FOR INERTIA WTS. AROVF. 5751 LBS.
SET THE SPECIFIED INERTIA WEIGHT. CHECK THF (ACT HP.)
REQUESTED ON THh TEST CATA SHEtT. LOCATE THIS NllMPER IN
THE (W/0 A/C) 0* (WITH A/C) COLUMN. SFT THE "DJACFNT
VALUE (INH HP. » 50 MPH) ON THE DYNU HP. METES' RECORD
THIS VALUE ON THE DPIVFR'S TRACE.
NOTE! IF THF REQUESTED VALUE DOES NOT AGREE WITH FITHER
COLUMN. VERIFY THE VALUE WITH THE REQUFSTOR AND
USE THE GENERAL EQUATION TO CALCULATE THE (IND HP.)
REQUIRED.
-------
-------
LINL »mO. O.
tvtal- If:. _ .
tucKm !(-isb)
pSo
cPOOO
cWSO
JTco
p?75c3
3QOO
vSs'^D
^5"oD
Soco
o'i'OO
'-¦ i
I60O
125c?
7-1 OO
"ZZCo
! 2 too
i 2250
33SO
US So
43 5o
4$So
$3 ?Q
! Rea<*.
>!; Roll.
I: FHP
j
SI
!! EXP*
. I
Pool
1.11
1.31
I 5/
/.73
.1.72-
).£7
2.7 2-
1.^5?
2-26
^ ¦'I t
.145
Z.W
Poo2~
132.
t,&0
1.64
|.*7
|.3o
z.oz
2.34-
2,23
2.SZ
2.£?
2.«?4
.160
Pc©3
/,/0
J.zS
132-
1.55
I.5S.
1.65
1.5??
I
2.o/
2.*7
2,5?
. I*H
Z.'JS* 3.05*
pool i £YcS
/.36
1,5*
/.6*
I.W-
1.21
l.M
7.50
M1
2.2.8
ZM
2 .?l
.OS 3
3.170
| |VALUe^. .
FHp FoiC EPA CBi2.T#FtcAT70*>
t>v#£ 4T&P f*j Auto m«>£..
pata pda AHp P6&s A)flrr
iric.L-ut>e. Rfi* tAj&er/*.
AvW. *3o5
138
-------
FHp
U)H£EU
' :i 2-000 .
5500-3500
5coo ~ 3 o&x?
^oo " 25CO
jf&oo - £ooo
/W0 - "^OOO
~5Soo - 3oo&
ISoO ~~£oco
2250 ~H5o
ASI6 FHP
¦! 25b
~3tD0'2J73O
25tt?-Z25o
2.ooo - n^o
m fhp
TKMY\ FHP
6ASEP OA/ PL-Yrtfieeu £N&flGEJUE.itT
/\J0M3^:SL
.
Dool
0-GO
o.sl
o.SS
0,S<*
,
X>o 02-
O.loO
C.(d£
0 «6S
O.U> 3
.Poo 3
0. 7c?
<5.&a
0,M6»
0.40
¦
Doo"f-
o.si
o.M7
d).^
OAS
P005
0'(f3
0.6,5*
<0.(^
Poo6
O.SJL
6.5D
0.*4M
0.4q
All.
O'bO
<5.5^
0.S*S*"
o.sn
o.(f3
O.CoO
CM1
C).(e3.
£.4$
^>.56
o.S(?
0.5/
0,41
0.M
0S2>
O.Mol
0.4b
<5.47
0.H3
0.54
0.31
o.<38
0.37
0,S3
O.M7
0.4k
o.4S
O.HS"
o.4/
OM'A
CM O
0,5$
4M&
o.m£"
0'M(»
0,21
0.4O
o-H3
^.MS"
o.M/
0'5)
OAS
0.40
OA!
o.Ht
O.Mi
0 .*&,
0.31
Q.IS
0• 3H
o.zz
o.tf '
0.3|
O.sl
o.&
O.-l?
0. '3
0. iff
0.^7
0,c5S
0-2&
O.^t
0.3)
OOO
0.33
O.Jo
o.z*>
O.ci^
d).JO
O.^S"
O.iA
^.^»3
6.ao
013(*
0.4&
0 .¦)(*
ad7
0»3M
o.tf
0.3)
0,
O.S3
0..57
o.iS
o.sa
0,10
0,2 3
o-a3
0.3$
0i 13
o. n
0J&
0.13
o.lk
OJ*
o.ao
0.17
o.ib
o,i 3
o.n
©,1*
0,9O
O.If
/•/?
0.<5S"
/.3J
6J U
I.IO
0,11 ' i
!.3
/./f
O.ll
LOG,
0.1%
1.ZD
-------
TcrTM-
l,W.
5500
5000
fi'DOO
Btsr £s
^ § § §
In VS
n
i~fooo jx
X a **
X XX
x x. Ix
i'
35 00
2ooo
:2"?5o
250c?
Z.2^o
2.000
A15o
;x x * j
jx X
I X
j,XX
*
x
>W6; FHP
'
%cv
! %A
TIMAT E_ Ff>rj "TRlMCnto) Rh(P
PYmo MuweEK.
Doo| i
PD02~
D3
;
£fce>4-
¦ ~ 7
PaoS
9
DbCfe"
I.zi ;
!.£>
1. I/
t.Ofc
;./t ;
J.35
1.0 Jl
>.33
/,/21 .
L5S-
/.«
/.J*/
/, /£
|.07
I.Z6 ;
».33
l,l(c
/.3&
/./?
I.OS
1.17 :
1.35-
US'
A 37
/.^
I.Cfl
/.20
1.55"
|./a
/.37
/.cdi
1.0?
i.n
1.33
hlO
/¦3(d
111
A(X>
;,iB^;
/.2H3
1.10*
/.3S&
1.113
1,0
.OIU
.0/16=
O.O'ttS
.0/71
0,0/^
0.6507
J.-fo
.S4>3
/< «?(n
/,<3S*
/.9V
- JbZ .
1.7/2.
.SIX
-.2f*5
.251
.376
-------
ESTIMATED SE.AR IM6- FHP
)•? So
I NEfc.TI A- T«.l(v\
TOTAL F HP 1.2 O
•#• 8Mi«.IN6'5 ; O
FHP/bea*in
-------
51IP .VS Nrrt4 .HP t
^0£SO
STCAtyy zP££t>s:§
;8MS 77/?£S ! :j
P207;n^s^7^D #j
II 7lr/yT7:
11 $111 if
R6~Ai^ ROU-. SP£l£LD
-------
-------
DAIMLER-BENZ
SUBMISSION NO.2 TO EPA
"Tnvi\s fcl Rations about influencing
parameters on chassis dynamometer
roatl load adjustment."
6-27-1977
VIMA bg
-------
Table of Contents
Subject Page
1 . Introduction 2
2. Daimler-Benz's chassis dynamometer description 3
3. Parameters under investigation h
3.1 Restraint force h
3.2 Rear axle load 5
3.3 Tire pressure 6
3.^ Tire temperature 7
3.5 Tire dimension 8
1.6 Break loose torque on road and chassis 9
dynamometer
. Actual Road Load for MB cars 10
5. Comparison of Schenck water brake and 11
Scbenck eddy current brake dynamometers
(1. Summary and conclusions 12
-------
Introduction
Following our submission no. 1, dated February 27» 1977>
Daimler-Benz, herewith, provides information about
further investigations on the subject of road load
determination and the corresponding chassis dynamo-
meter adjustment.
With increasing knowledge on parameters, effecting
power determination, power dissipative losses and
power simulation on twin roll dynos, need for in depth
studies seemed imperative.
In this respect, tires turned out to be one of the
most important, yet critical and complex part of
the system.
For these reasons, the target of determining the
influence of different chassis dynamometer adjustments
on exhaust emissions and fuel economy was postponed
until
- the necessary basic knowledge of the surrounding
problems was considered to be sufficient
- the complete DB model mix was reliably measured
for exact road load determination
-------
-3-
2. Daimler-Benz's Chassis Dynamometer Description
Today, Daimler-Benz operates the following dynamometers:
Total no,
of Dynos
Dyno
Type
Power
Range
Inertia
Range
Schenck
Water Brake
direct drive
0 - 180 HP
1500 - 5000 lbs.
500 lbs.increments and
250 lbs.increments
(l dyno)
Schenck
Eddy Current
Brake
direct drive
0 - 60 HP
1750 - 5625 lbs.
125 lbs. increments
Schenck
Water Brake
direct drive
0 - 180 HP
1750 - 5500 lbs.
250 lbs. increments
Schenck
Water Brake
direct drive
0 - 180 HP
1500 - 5375 lbs.
125 lbs. increments.
For certification purposes, DB will install additionally:
3 Clayton ECE-50 0 - 50 HP 1750 - 55OO lbs.
Water Brake 125 lbs. increments
with RLPC roll dia. 8.65 in.
direct drive roll space 17.25 in.
For research and development work, DB intends to order:
1 Schenck DC 0-75 HP 1500 - 10 000 lbs.
with fly- 125 lbs. increments
wheels
The Schenck dynos have a roll diameter of: 1U.3 in. (36k mm)
and a roll spacing of: 21.65 in.(550 mm).
-------
- k-
3. Parameters under Investigation
3.1 Restraint Force
During exhaust emission testing on chassis dynamometers,
the vehicle is normally secured by means of safety
cables, winches etc. hooked to the bumper or any other
adequate point of the vehicle,in order to avoid rocking
of the car.
By avoiding rocking of the vehicle, additional rolling
resistance might be caused depending on the force with
which the drive wheels are pressed to the free running
rear roll of the dynamometer. This fact can void the
assumption that driving on a twin roll simulates automati-
cally front wheel rolling resistance.
For investigation purposes, the restraint forces were
divided into three steps according to the notches of
the winch (the winch was purchased in the US and is of
the same configuration as used in EPA's laboratory Ann Arbor):
Position Restraint Force (kp) ( N )
0
1st notch
2nd notch
0 ( O )
150 ( U72)
300 ( 2943)
The angle between the horizontal plane and the cable was
a 12 degrees, and the vertical component of the restraint
force (causing increased rear axle loading) was neglected
in this evaluation.
Diagram A shows the rolling resistance increase (total
torque increase) depending on the restraint force for a
given vehicle weight/tire combination.
In position 0 (safety cable "loose"), the vehicle can
climb up onto the front roll, thereby reducing flexing
resistance on the rear roll. In position 1 and 2, the
tire is pressed more and more to the rear roll increasing
rolling resistance (measured as torque) from 16.2 mkp
(117.2 ft.lb.) to 18 mkp (13O.2 ft.lb.) at the adjustment
point of 80 km/h (50 mph).
-------
5-
3.2 Rear Axle Load
A Daimler-Benz vehicle code A was positioned on the
chassis dynamometer and lifted stepwise from the rolls
in order to achieve different rear axle loadings.
A force measurement device was installed between lift,
hook and vehicle.
The original rear axle load of 98^ kp (96.53 N) was
reduced in steps of 100 kp (?81 N) until a rear nx.l e
load of k80 kp ('»709 N) was reached.
Diagram B shows the effect, of rear axle load on
the rolling resistance for the given weight/tire
combination for two different vehicle speeds: '40 and
80 km/h (23 and 50 mph) measured as torque.
An extrapolation of the curves to O axle load loads
to the resistance necessary to overcome the dynamometer's
HP setting (including dissipat.i.ve losses of drive train
and drive wheels).
A similar measurement, however, with "no load" TIP sotti.ng
and the dynamometer motoring the vehicle would deliver
dissipative losses of drive train and drive wheels
as outlined in "Li.gJit Duty Truck Rond Load Dotermina I. i on"
by Glenn Thompson (US-EPA) , dated September 1f->76.
-------
-i-
3.3 Tire Pressure
It is very difficult to separate the influence of
tire pressure and tire temperature on rolling resistance,
if no device is used to keep the tire pressure constant
at a specified level.
After several trial runs we succeeded, however, in
keeping the tire surface temperature almost constant
at about fO °C (158 °F) for these tire pressure comparison
tests. (While reaching the 70 °C starting from room
temperature, the tire pressure increased from 3«0 bar
initial adjustment to 3*8 bar).
At «£ 70 °C tire surface temperature, the tire pressure
was varied from 2.8 to ^.3 bar.
Diagram C shows the decreasing rolling resistance
(measured as torque) with increasing tire pressure
for vehicle speeds of ^0 and 80 km/h (25 and 50 mph).
-------
-7-
"}.b Tire Temperature
The fact that tire (surface) tempnmturo vnrioF nvo-r
a wide rnn^e before and during exhaust. omission t.est.n
and since it is impracticable to control that 1".einpf»i-a I urr-,
only an estimation of its effect on rolling resistance
can be fjiven.
Tire temperat.ura depends on
- configuration of dynamometer (roll space, roll ii.inmrl.oc)
- speed level for a ftiven time
- tire pressure
- axle load
- number of load changes etc.
To achieve a basis for above investigations, the following
steps vera performed:
a) dynamometer and vehicle were warmed tip,
b) the \^heels (tires) were changed against, wheels ( I ires)
witli room temperature,
c) immediate acceleration to SO km/h (rnph), which is
then kept constant,
d) recording of torque chanpe until a constant level
was reached.
Table 1 shows mainly the effect of increasing tire
temperature (additional effects of increased tire
pressure could, however, not be fully eliminated).
The tests were made foijdifferent tire dimensions;
index 1 represents the be^innin^, index 2 the end
of the test (=torque stabilized).
-------
^ 8
3.5 Tire Dimensions
Different tire dimensions were tested under the same
axle load and showed substantial differences in rolling
resiatance (measured as torque).
This study is of limited practical value, since a given
car weight predetermines (or at least narrows the range
of) the tires which must be used for this vehicle.
It might, however, influence decision making processes
related to vehicle weight and tire selection questions.
The results of the comparison arc shown in diagram D.
-------
-3-
3.6 Break-Loose Torque on Road and Chass.i.. Dynamometer
Since static measurements (at constant speed stops) nre
only one portion of exact dynamometer adjustment, Daimler-
Benz has in the past and will continue in the futuro
to evaluate means for dynamic comparisons of actual road
load conditions with chassis dynamometer behaviour.
One of the many tests made in this respect deal with the
different break-loose forces on road and dynamometer.
The engine rpm of the test vehicle was adjusted to 1200 rpm
and the brakes applied. Then the transmission was shifted
into "D" position. After that, the brakes were released
so that the vehicle could accelerate.
Diagram E shows the difference obtained from torque
measurements on road and dyno.
Due to the fact that the dynamometer is a "flexible"
unit compared to the road, the torque in position "D"
differs.
When the brakes are released, the vehicle accelerates
immediately on the street, whereas there occurs n certain
swinging on the rolls before tlio car pains speed (due to 1-iir p I rn
in the dyno system).
The torque peak at the beginning of acceleration was
slightly higher (56:60.5 mkp = ^05:^37.6 ft.lb.) on the
dynamometer for this vehicle/tire combination.
-------
-10-
k. Actual Road Load for MB Cars
DB*s application for the use of torque measurements for
MY 1979 certification is not yet complete, since some
vehicles still have to be road tested under the necessary
good weather conditions.
However, two cars shall be compared in this submission,
showing that the difference between Federal Register TabJo
and actual road load varies from car to car. This resul t.s
in the necessity of carefully measuring each individual
car on the road exactly in its sales execution (weight,
tires etc.).
Diagram F (vehicle code: A) shows only slight di Pfereucos
between Federal Register Table and actual, road load condi-
tions, so that no separate curve for actual road load v;is
plotted.
Diagram G (vehicle code;fl) shows, however, n difforoncr
which has to be considered when the dynamometer is adjusted.
Since the difference between Federal Resistor Table and
actual road load varies from () IIP to anprox. '] HP depend in,"-
on vehicle type, some comparison tests were performed in
order to obtain an estimate of t.he load influence on "i;i i ss i one
and fuel economy.
The vehicle (code B) was tested with the following dynamomeler
load settings:
a) according to Federal Register ('l^OO lbs. class)
b) Federal Register value minus 2.5 NT.
The influence on emissions and fuel economy during a IHM'TT
was pJ/
NO
FE
v
-0,,? g/m
+1,0 mpg
This result is, however, based oti n limited nnrihor ol' I "si
(r) tests for each setting) and has to be backed up l>v mo-re
testing i.n order to achieve the necessary sta t i st ' oa 1
confidence.
-------
- Ih
5. Comparison of Schenck water brake and
Schcnck eddy current brake rlyn.anoinotcrs.
During Part I (MY 78) revision, DE was asked by EPA to.
submit comparison curves for its vnter broke and eddy current
brake type dynamometers.
The dynamometers vore adjusted to the same HP setting at
80 km/h (50 mph) and constant speeds were run in 20 km/h
steps from 20 to 100 km/h (^12 to «* 62 mph).
The characteristics are shown in diagram H.
-------
-/2-
(¦>. Summary and Conclusions
According to the aforementioned findings, tlie following
can be stated:
a) rofid load calculation for DB vehicles according to
the previously proposed formula (§86.129-79) resultb in
substantially higher power settings for the chassis
dynamometer. (This formula, however, has been with-
drawn by EPA in the meantime).
b) The presently valid Federal Register Table still results
in a too high chassis dynamometer power sotting for some
of our vehicles.
Daimler-Ben1/:, therefore, intends to use - starting with
MY 1979 - HP settings for its dynamometers as derived
from actual road load (torque) measurements in the cases
under b).
Further investigations will concentrate on establishing
oxnet road load for all DB vehicles, evaluating the
dynamic behaviour of different chassis dynamometers,
on the adjustability of the chassis dynamometer's load
curve exponent and on the influence of all important
parameters on exhaust emissions and fuel economy. The
corresponding findings will be reported to EPA on the
already applied successive basis.
Daimler-Benz AG
Certification Department
V1MA
June 27, 1977
-------
-------
-------
-------
T a b 1 f> 1
Influence of Tire Temperature on RoJlinf Resistance
'ire Dimension
Tire Pressure
(bar)*-)
Tire Tern]
( °c)
)erature ' Torque on Dri
( °F) (mkr>)
ve Wheels
(ft.lb.)
P P
1 2
T1 T2
T T MM
1 2 d1 d2
Md1 Md2
175 SR 14
>05/70 HR 14
215/70 VR 14
3,2 3,7
3,2 3,7
3,2 3,7
23 62
23 68
23 80
7 3,4 143,6 | 16,4 15.0
73,4 154,4 18,0 16,8
73,4 176 1 22.4 20.8
;
i , - . - .
118.6 108.5
130.2 121.5
162.0 150.4
< v '
stabilized stabilized
condition condition
*) 3,2 bar = 46,4 psi
3,7 bar = 53,6 psi
t
I
-------
TSib±4
-------
Comparison of_Jgflftk_Lopa*
Torque on Road ajid Chaaals
Dyrtanene ter
-------
SfctUlL^
-------
i :
.J...
i
j*H
to-
IQ-
fJUbs.
W
ISO
-too
so
i ¦¦¦
•¦11
X
i
Jo
2p j(0 40 \ SO \ w
10
hi*
:2t;
¦*
W
>30
&
(HQ A«
HI
r
/
ft ; iO
ac
d;
rc(
~i*0
Sal A
rm
R. ll«ad S«t
i ! •
¦¦ 4- ¦ -4- }--
tlja} STQ^di lp$fl
Q
ad
¦0
so; m
60
......
«ad
-}:•¦<
&it»4*uC;
¦;olft
at JO
VI
yjk
*1T'
itua I
mpti
..i..
"T"
fcp/f*
-l_„
X:
—t
4-
-------
-------
/97S /OJLy3/3-d/o
^ /LS
Dte£T*.7~- Of*"Z.
9
BBSS
]/cM/e- , /&/>#
S"u bm itteo BV Criftse.
BAA-rcesviu-e., Oklahoma
a
8
O A
& £/e c
-------
a a as?!?
Submitted sy CtiAls£- 6/^/77
8Af^TUC.SVlU-e/ OKC^/^CAl/1
^ /e cl_
-------
Inter Office Communication
• CAR ENGINEERING GROUP
Mr. A. S. Myint
cc P. Bandoian
G. A. Byberg
T. J. Cavanaugh
H. F. Copp
M. H. Goamer
W. E. Jaokson
G.
R.
Jones
C.
w.
LaPointe
N.
E.
Prochaska
R.
A.
Rousos
B.
H.
Simpson
September 8, 1976
BY:
3: f. meck
PofcO (*itnoR CeMPArtY
Subject: Clayton Chassis Dynamometer Friction Survey
Objective
To determine the average friction level of the Clayton CTE-50 (emissions testing)
chassis dynamometer so the dynamometer system can be modeled for use in the
Test Operations Fuel Economy Projection (TOFEP) program.
Background
Vehicle operation on a Clayton chassis dynamometer can be modeled to predict fuel
economy if the vehicle tire operating on the dynamometer and the dynamometer itself
can be modeled. Studies have been made and are continuing to determine the tire/
roll interface model.
In addition to the tire reaction on the dynamometer, the basio characteristic of
the dynamometer must be determined. This includes the dynamometer friction and
the characteristic curve of the power absorption unit (P.A.U.).
This report describes the friction characteristics of the dynamometer system. The
friction results from the bearings that support the front and rear dynamometer rolls.
Also a portion of the friction results from the inertia weight system friction (and
windage). The dynamometer friction at 50 mph is normally determined during cali-
bration and the P.A.U. level is set to make the total dynamometer horsepower (friction
horsepower plus P.A.U. horsepower) equal to a value prescribed by the EPA. This
prescribed value is commonly referred to as the "cookbook hp". As a result the
dynamometer absorption characteristics at 50 mph are defined, but allowed to "fall
where they may" at other speeds.
Summary of Results
Six of the Emission Laboratories Department Clayton CTE-50 chassis dynamometers
were involved in this test. All the dynamometers were equipped with 8.65 inch
-------
- 2 -
diameter rolls spaced on 17.25 inch centers. The systems tested were:
Dynamometer Cell Number Location
8 ETL
13 ETL
1l+ ETL
16 ETL
28 APTL
29 APTL
The dynamometer friction levels were tested at 2500, 3000, 1+000, and 5500 inertia
weight settings on all dynamometers except numbers 28 and 29. These dynamometers
were tested at all inertia settings (1750, 2000, 2250, 2500, 2750, 3000, 3500, 1+000,
1+500, 5000, and 5500).
Based on regression analysis the dynamometer friction is a linear function of
dynamometer speed. The variation in dynamometer front roll/inertia system friction
at zero speed was small, ranging from .9 ft-lb to 1.7 ft-lb of friction torque.
At 50 mph the friction variation was larger. As an example, at 2500 lb inertia
weight the friction varied from a low of 2.5 ft-lb on cell 16 to a high of 7»5 ft-lb
on cell 28.
The friction characteristics for the individual dynamometers are presented on page
6 . This includes the constants from the regression analysis plus the calculated
friction at 50 mph. The regression equation is as follows:
T„ = A + BV
where: T^. = friction torque; ft-lb
V = roll speed, mph
A St B = constants
The test results from which the regression analysis was made are tabulated on page
10 through 22.
In addition to the data for individual dynamometer cells, a typical dynamometer
friction level was developed for each inertia weight class. Using the general
equation for dynamometer friction, the friction characteristics for each inertia
class are shown below. These are graphically shown on page 8 .
Inertia
Equation Constants
Friction Torque
Class
A
B
at 50 mDh. ft-lb
1750
.76
.0585
3.68
2000
.81
.0691
1+.26
2250
.81+
.0738
^.53
2500
.89
.081+1+
5.11
2750
.89
.0765
1+.72
3000
.0&71
5.30
3500
1.02
.1021+
6.11+
1+000
.99
.0926
5.62
1+500
1.07
.1079
6.1+6
5000
1 .12
.1106
6.65
5500
1.20
.1259
7.50
Rear Rolls
.361
.0091
.82
-------
- 3 -
The effects of the dynamometer friction variation on the EPA fuel economy tests
were evaluated using TOFEP. The dynamometers are calibrated at 50 mph so the
friction effects at 50 mph are taken into account, but at other speeds the friction
variations will effect the dynamometer load. The fuel economies for two different
inertia weight class vehicles were projected using the lowest and highest dyna-
mometer friction levels. The results are as follows in miles per gallon:
2500 I.W. Vehicle 5500 I.W. Vehicle
E.P.A.
2.3L Engine
lf60 CID Engine
Test
Seauenoe
High
Friction
Low
Friction
Diff.
High
Friction
Low
Friction
Diff
CVS-CH
23.1*0
28.7k
.34
9.39
9-^3
.05
HWFET
36.11
36.22
.11
14.1*5
.03
M-H
31.^2
31.68
.26
11.13
11.18
.05
Test Method
The dynamometer friction was determined by the coast down method which is commonly
used to calibrate this type of dynamometer. The dynamometer is "warmed-up" prior
to the friction test by operating a vehicle on it at 50 mph for at least fifteen
minutes. After warm-up the vehicle speed is increased to somethingin excess of
60 mph and then the vehicle is lifted off the dynamometer with an air jack. The
dynamometer is allowed to coast down. During the coast down the front and rear
roll speeds and P.A.U. torque are continuously recorded on an oscillograph. The
total torque on the dynamometer at a given instant of time is determined from the
deceleration rate at that point in time and the mass being decelerated. The
deceleration rate is determined from the slope of the time/speed recorded trace.
The P.A.U. torque is subtracted from the total torque determined and the remainder
is friction torque. In the instance of the rear roll there is no P.A.U. torque
and therefore the total torque is the friction torque.
Discussion
Although most readers have an understanding of the Clayton dynamometer inertia
system, it may be of value to review the system. The inertia system consists of
five rotating weights which are direct driven by the front roll of the dynamometer.
One of the weights is a trim weight which is permanently attached to the system
to bring the minimum system inertia to 1750 lb. The other four weights represent
inertia values of 250 lbs, 500 lbs, 1000 lbs and 2000 lbs. These inertia weights
are each supported on separate bearings and each weight has its own clutch to connect
it to the front roll. These clutches are engaged in various combinations to provide
inertia simulation up to 5500 lbs. The combinations of weights for each inertia
value are as follows:
-------
- If -
Total Inertia Welghta-lb
Inertla-lb 250 500 1000 2000
1750
2000 X
2250 X
2500 X X
2150 X
3000 X X
3500 XXX
1*000 X X
^500 XX X
5000 X XX
5500 XXX X
Although the casual observer may expect that dynamometer friction increases with
inertia load, this does not necessarily happen. Typically the dynamometer friction
at the 2750 lb setting maybe less than at the 2500 lb setting and the friction at
the JfOOO setting may be less than at the 3500 lb setting. Although the friction
level increases with the size of the weights, the friction level also increases
with the number of weights used for a given inertia setting. As seen on the
above chart the 2750 lb inertia setting requires one weight and the 2500 lb inertia
setting requires two weights and the MDOO lb inertia setting requires two weights
and the 3500 lb inertia setting requires three weights. Individual friction levels
for each of the four system inertia weights was developed from the data and that
is how the typical dynamometer friction level data on sheet 2 was developed. The
equation for each weight is as follows:
Inertia
Weight Wt.
Equation Constants
A B
Friction Torque
at 50 mDh. ft-lb
FHp
<®So s
J. 365
Minimum
(1750)
-76
.0585
3.69
0
LfN
CM
.05
.0106
.58
.2 H-
500
.08
.0153
.85
.31 +
1000
• 13
.0180
1.03
.3*1
2000
.18
.0235
1.36
.503
The above data is shown
graphically ondieet
9 .
-------
- 5 -
Some problems were encountered in the data analysis. Although tests were con-
ducted on six Clayton chassis dynamometer systems a complete data analysis was
only reported for five systems. The calculated friction on the front roll of
the dynamometer in cell number 13 appeared to be unreasonably low. Subsequent
investigation found the load cell system malfunctioning. The front roll data
from cell number 13 was not used in any of the analysis. The rear roll friction
data for cell number 8 was not used in the analysis. The roll friction was quite
high (up to 1.50 ft-lb at 50 mph) and quite variable. The friction torque at
50 mph varied from a low of .87 ft-lb up to 1.50 ft-lb. It was suspected that
something may have been dragging on the roll, but this was never verified.
The rear roll configuration for all the dynamometers was not the same. The left
and right rolls are connected together with a shaft in cells 28 and 29. The left
and right rolls were not connected together in the other cells. (At the time the
tests were conducted a project had been implemented to connect the rolls together).
In the instance where the rear rolls were not connected together the friction was
measured on one roll and then multiplied by two to get the total rear roll friction.
Although not a part of the planned test program, the shape of the P.A.U. torque
absorption curve was examined. A paper published in February 1976 by M. W. Feiferman
of the EPA indicates the P.A.U. absorbed torque is a function of the speed to the
1.83 power. A regression analysis of the P.A.U. torque data from the dynamometer
friction tests was aad9 for each of the five dynamometers evaluated. The exponents
for the P.A.U. torque curves were as follows:
Dynamometer
Cell No.
Exponent
8
11+
16
28
29
2.25
2.00
2.35
2.10
2.20
Average
2.18
J. F. Meek
Advanced Methods & Technology Dept.
-------
- 6 -
FRONT ROLL FRICTION
Regression
Cell No.
8
ft
16
28
29
Inertia
Wt
Class
Equation
Constants
A B
Standard
Error
Estimate
Correlation
Coefficient
Friction
Torque ft
@ 50 mrti
2500
1.3^6
.1109
.398
.988
6.89
3000
1.1+72
.109!+
.165
.998
6.94
1*000
1.533
.1137
.377
.989
7.22
5500
I.69I+
.1555
.295
• 996
9A7
2500
1.1+1+5
.0332
.090
• 992
3.11
3000
1.397
.03I+O
.207
.961
3.10
1+000
1.5^3
.021+2
• 370
.817
2.75
5500
1.1+1+3
.0797
.369
.978
5 A3
2500
1.21+6
• 0257
.237
.922
2.53
3000
1.082
.0326
.216
.957
2.71
1+000
1.296
.0381
.220
.969
3.20
5500
1.11+1
.0862
.201+
.99!+
5^5
1750
1.171
.0801
.372
.979
5.18
2000
1.298
.0951
.286
.990
6.05
2250
1.129
.111+5
.518
.980
6:1+6
2500
1.275
.1250
.532
.984
7-53
2750
.831+
.1366
.798
.967
7.66
3000
1.137
.1395
.718
.97!+
8.11
3500
1.105
.1661
1.077
.960
9.1+1
1+000
1.237
.1331
.621
• 979
7.89
1+500
1.1+02
.1515
.679
.980
8.98
5000
1.063
.1785
.931
.971*
9-99
5500
1.373
.1893
.875
.979
10.81+
1750
.760
.0585
.172
.991
3.69
2000
1.136
.056I+
.183
.988
3.20
2250
.869
.0761+
.226
.990
I+.69
2500
1.017
.0851
.173
.995
5.27
2750
1.009
.0720
.137
.996
I+.61
3000
.960
.0909
.252
.992
5.51
3500
1.126
.1076
• 313
• 992
6.51
1+000
.95^
.0885
.211
.99^
5.38
1+500
.9^6
.1021+
.3to
.989
6.07
5000
.923
.1117
.21+1+
.995
6.51
5500
1.003
.13^6
.252
.996
7.73
Continued
on sheet 7
-------
- 7 -
REAR ROLL FRICTION
Standard
Friction
Regression
Error
Torque ft-lb
Constants
Estimate
Correlation
@ 50 nph
Cell No.
A
B
ft-lb
Coefficient
ft-lb
13
.191
.0102
.052
• 970
•70
14
M6
-.0003
•039
.122
16
.1*11
.0102
.061
• 959
.92
23
.606
.01U0
.081*
.961
1.31
29
.171
.0113
.0k2
.982
•lb
-------
- 8 -
!Typjaal ' Chytoa) \c.TtrSO
\ bYHt, HO r& \ FA /c t/o a/
¦ For \THt-- K+A'/pus ///£* TM
¦¦ wa/bkr cc/fZ-^3
/ SSto ^
. /
/750 w.
7?T
6
2d 3r> jfo
Rou. -
-------
- 9 -
-------
- 10 -
JM08F
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
FRONT ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 8
TEST DATE: JUNE 7, 1976
NOMINAL C.D.* C.D.* TOTAL TOTAL PAU FRICTION
SPEED SPEED TIME TORQUE HP TORQUE TORQUE
MPH MPH SEC FT-LB FT-LB FT-LB
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
2500
60
65-55
9.2
41.9
18.62
33.3
8.58
55
60-50
11.0
35.1
14.27
27.7
7.3 2
50
55-45
13.2
29.2
10.81
22.2
6.97
40
15-35
20.4
18.9
5.60
13.6
5.26
30
34-26
26.9
11.5
2.55
7.2
4.27
20
23-17
36.0
6.4
0.95
3.0
3.43
10
12- 8
48.6
3.2
0.23
0.5
2.68
5
6- 4
35.0
2.2
0.08
0.0
2.20
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
3000
60
65-55
1 1.2
41.8
18.54
33.6
8.17
55
60-50
13.2
35.4
14.42
27.9
7.54
50
55-45
15.8
29.6
10.95
22.6
7.01
40
45-35
24.2
19-3
5.72
13.6
5.68
30
34-26
31.8
11.8
2.61
7.2
4.52
20
23-17
43.0
6.5
0.97
3.0
3.53
10
12- 8
58.0
3-2
0.24
0.5
2.68
5
6- 4
43.0
2.2
0.08
0.0
2.18
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
4000
60
65-55
14.7
43.0
19.09
34.4
8.59
55
60-50
17.2
36.7
14.95
28.5
8.24
50
55-45
21.3
29.7
10.98
22.9
6.77
40
45-35
32.2
19.6
5.81
13.6
5.98
30
34-26
43.2
11.7
2.60
7.2
4.55
20
23-17
58.0
6.5
0.97
3.0
3.54
10
12- 8
76.0
3.3
0.25
0.3
3.03
5
6- 4
56.0
2.3
0.08
0.0
2.26
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
5500
55
60-50
22.7
38.7
15.74
28.4
10.29
50
55-45
27.0
32.5
12.03
22.7
9.78
40
45-35
40.8
21.5
6.37
13.7
7.83
30
34-26
53.0
13-3
2.94
7.3
5.96
20
23-17
69.0
7.6
1.13
3.1
4.54
10
12- 8
88.0
4.0
0.30
0.6
3.34
6
7- 5
57.0
3.1
0.14
0.2
2.93
DONE
SCR * c.D. means "Coast Down"
-------
RUN
JM14F
- 11 -
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
FRONT ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 14
TEST DATE: JUNE 16, 1976
NOMINAL C.D. C.D. TOTAL TOTAL PAU FRICTION
SPEED SPEED TIME TORQUE HP TORQUE TORQUE
MPH MPH SEC FT-LB FT-LB FT-LB
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
2500
60
65-55
9.9
39.0
17.30
35.7
3.32
55
60-50
11.4
33.8
13.77
30.5
3.34
50
55-45
13.6
28.4
10.49
25.3
3.07
40
45-35
20.2 .
19.1
5.65
16.2
2.90
30
34-26
26.3
11.7
2.60
9.3
2.43
20
23-17
34.6
6.7
0.99
4.5
2.19
12
14-10
45.5
3.4
0.30
1.6
1.79
9
10- 8
31.0
2.5
0.17
0.8
1.69
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
3000
60
65-55
11.9
39.3
17.45
35.7
3.61
55
60-50
13.9
33.7
13.70
30.7
3.01
50
55-45
16.6
28.2
10.43
25.3
2.88
40
45-35
24.5
19.1
5.65
16.1
3.00
30
34-26
31.4
11.9
2.65
9.4
2.57
20
23-17
41.4
6.8
1.00
4.6
2.18
12
14-10
55.0
3.4
0.30
1.7
1.70
9
10- 8
36.0
2.6
0.17
1.0
1.60
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
4000
60
65-55
16.3
38.8
17.21
36.4
2.37
55
60-50
18.6
34.0
13.83
31.0
2.93
50
55-45
22.1
28.6
10.58
25.6
3.00
40
45-35
3W
1V .0
1:'
J.04
30
34-26
42.9
11.8
2.62
9.4
2.39
20
23-17
55.5
6.8
1.01
4.7
2.08
11
13- 9
81.0
3.1
o.;i5
1.5
1.62
8
9- 7
55.0
2.3
0.14
0.8
1.55
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
5500
60
65-55
20.0
43.9
19.49
38.2
5.66
55
60-50
23.2
37.9
15.41
31.5
6.41
50
55-45
28.2
31.1
11.52
25.5
5.69
40
45-35
43.0
20.4
6.04
15.9
4.52
30
34-26
54.2
13-0
2.88
9.4
3.61
20
23-17
68.0
7.7
1.15
4.7
3.00
11
13- 9
93.5
3.8
0.31
1.5
2.26
8
9- 7
59.0
3.0
0.18
0.8
2.23
DONE
SCR
-------
RUN
JM16F
12 -
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
FRONT ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 16
TEST DATE: JUNE 19, 1976
NOMINAL
SPEED
MPH
C.D. C.D.
SPEED TIME
MPH SEC
(iw-wYv'O
550 At " 135. If
TOTAL TOTAL PAU FRICTION
TORQUE HP TORQUE TORQUE
FT-LB FT-LB FT-LB
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS
- 2500
60
65-55
9.7
39.8
17.66
37.1
2.67
55
60-50
11.6
33.3
13.53
30.7
2.51
50
55-45
14.3
27.0
9.98
24.5
2.48
MO
15-35
22.5
17.1
5.07
14.7
2.45
30
34-26
30.5
10.1
2.25
7.6
2.47
20
23-17
43.6
5.3
0.79
3.5
1.81
10
12- 8
63.5
2.4
0.18
1.1
1.33
8
9- 7
38.0
2.0
0.12
0.8
1.23
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
3000
60
65-55
11.5
MO.7
18.06
37.3
3.33
55
60-50
14.0
33.4
1,3.60
30.9
2.52
50
55-45
17.1
27.4
10.12
24.7
2.61
40
45-35
27.4
17.1
5.05
14.6
2.42
30
34-26
37.3
10.0
2.23
7.7
2.28
20
23-17
53.0
5.3
0.78
3.6
1.75
10
12- 8
79.0
2.4
0.18
1.0
1.32
8
9- 7
46.0
2.0
0.12
0.7
1.33
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
4000
60
65-55
15.4
41.0
18.22
37.7
3.34
55
60-50
18.4
34.3
13.98
30.9
3.50
50
55-45
22.5
'28.1
10.39
24.5
3.59
40
45-35
36.2
17.5
5.17
14.5
2.91
30
34-26
48.7
10.4
2.30
7.6
2.73
20
23-17
69.0
5.5
0.81
3.5
2.00
10
12- 8
96.0
2.6
0.19
1.0
1.58
9
10- 8
53.0
2.4
0.16
0.8
1.63
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
5500
60
65-55
20.0
43.9
19.49
37.7
6.16
55
60-50
23.7
37.1
15.08
30.8
6.26
50
55-45
29.4
29.9
11.05
24.7
5.22
40
44-36
36.8
19.1
5.65
14.5
4.59
30
33-27
46.1
11.4
2.54
7.6
3.78
20
22-18
56.5
6.2
0.92
3.5
2.72
10
11- 9
56.5
3.1
0.23
1.1
2.01
8
9- 7
66.0
2.7
0.16
0.8
1.91
DONE
SCR
-------
- 13 -
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
FRONT ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 23
TEST DATE:
JUNE 4, 1976
NOMINAL
SPEED
MPH
C .D . C«D*
SPEED TIME
MPH SEC
TOTAL TOTAL PAU FRICTION
TORQUE HP TORQUE TORQUE
FT-LB FT-LB FT-LB
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS
- 1750
60
65-55
6.7
39.2
17.40
33.2
5.98
55
60-50
8.0
32.8
13.36
27.5
5.38
50
55-45
9.3
28.2
10.45
22.6
5.69
40
45-35
14.3
18.4
5.44
13.9
4.50
30
34-26
19.3
10.9
2.42
7.9
3.03
20
23-17
27.0
5.8
0.86
3.4
2.44
10
12- 8
36.0
2.9
0.22
0.7
2.24
5
6- 4
30.0
1.8
0.06
0.0
1.75
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS
- 2000
55
60-50
8.8
34.5
14.04
27.7
6.77
50
55-45
10.5
28.9
10.70
22.7
6.18
40
45-35
16.1
18.9
5.58
13.9
4.94
30
34-26
21.2
11.5
2.54
7.7
3.75
20
23-17
29.2
6.2
0.92
3.2
2.99
10
12- 8
38.2
3.2
0.24
0.6
2.55
5
6- 4
30.5
2.0
0.07
0.1
1.89
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS
- 2250
60
65-55
8.2
42.0
18.66
33.4
8.67
55
60-50
9.7
35.5
14.46
28.0
7.55
50
55-45
11.7
29.5
10.90
22.8
6.67
40
45-35
18.0
19.2
5.67
14.1
5.09
30
34-26
23.7
11.6
2.58
7.4
4.26
20
23-17
32.4
6.4
0.9^
3.5
2.89
10
12- 8
41.4
3.3
0.25
0.7
2.65
6
7- 5
29.0
2.4
0.11
0.1
2.28
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS
- 2500
60
65-55
9.0
42.9
19.03
33.5
9.40
55
60-50
10.6
36.4
14.81
28.0
8.36
50
55-45
12.7
30.4
11.24
22.8
7.58
40
45-35
19.5
19.8
5.86
14.3
5.52
30
34-26
25.4
12.2
2.70
7.8
4.34
20
23-17
33.8
6.8
1.01
3.4
3.40
10
12- 8
41.1
3.8
0.28
0.8
2.98
5
6- 4
33.0
2.3
0.09
0.0
2.29
2
3- 1
48.0
1.6
0.02
0.0
1.61
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS
- 2750
60
65-55
9.8
43.6
19.33
33.2
10.33
55
60-50
11.8
36.2
14.72
27.9
8.23
50
55-45
14.3
29.8
11.04
22.7
7.10
40
45-35
21.4
19.9
5.90
14.1
5.88
30
34-26
28.7
11.9
2.64
7.9
4.04
20
23-17
38.4
6.7
0.99
3.5
3.13
10
12- 8
49.5
3.4
0.26
0.7
2.72
6
7- 5
37.0
2.3
0.10
0.0
2.26
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS
- 3000
60
65-55
10.7
43.7
19-41
33.2
10.50
55
60-50
12.6
37.1
15.11
27.9
9.19
-------
U I 1L U I
- lU
FRONT >TOCC3r'- CELL NUMBER 28 (CONTINUED)
NOMINAL C.D. C.D. TOTAL TOTAL PAU FRICTION
SPEED SPEED TIME TORQUE HP TORQUE TORQUE
/MPH MPH SEC FT-LB FT-LB FT-LB
50
55-45
15.5
30.2
11.17
22.8
7.39
MO
45-35
23.2
20.2
5.97
14.1
6.05
30
34-26
30.0
12.5
2.77
7.8
4.72
20
23-17
40.4
6.9
1.03
3.4
3.55
10
12- 8
49.5
3.8
0.28
0.8
3.00
6
7- 5
37.5
2.5
0.11
0.0
2.50
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
3500
* 60
65-55
11.9
46.2
20.52
33.7
12.50
55
60-50
14.1
39.0
15.87
28.1
10.87
50
55-45
17.5
31.4
.11.63
22.9
8.48
40
45-35
26.0
21.2
6.26
14.7
6.46
30
34-26
33.6
13.1
2.91
7.8
5.33
20
23-17
44.0
7.5
1.11
3.6
3.86
10
12- 8
52.5
4.2
0.31
0.7
3.46
6
7- 5
38.0
2.9
0.13
0.0
2.89
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
4000
60
65-55
14.4
43.9
19.48
34.0
9.94
55
60-50
17.2
36.7
14.95
27.9
8.81
50
55-45
20.5
30.8
11.41
23.0
7.79
40
45-35
31.6
20.0
5.92
14.2
5.79
30
34-26
40.9
12.4
2.74
7.8
4.55
20
23-17
53.2
7.1
1.05
3.6
3.49
10
12- 8
67.5
3.7
0.28
0.7
3.02
6
7- 5
48.0
2.6
0.12
0.0
2.58
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
4500
60
65-55
15.8
45.2
20.06
34.0
11.15
55
60-50
18.5
38.6
15.71
28.5
10.08
50
55-45
22.1
32.3
11.95
23.4
8.89
40
45-35
33.8
21.1
6.25
14.3
6.87
30
34-26
43.0
13.3
2.95
8.4
4.89
20
23-17
55.5
7.7
1.14
3.6
4.08
10
12- 8
69.5
4.1
0*30
0.8
3.33
6
7- 5
48.0
3.0
0.13
0.0
2.98
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
5000
60
65-55
16.8
47.4
21.04
34.4
12.96
55
60-50
19.8
40.2
16.36
28.8
11.40
50
55-45
24.2
32.9
12.17
23.6
9.28
40
45-35
35.9
22.2
6.56
14.9
7.24
30
34-26
45.3
14.1
3.12
8.4
5.62
20
23-17
56.0
8.5
1.26
4.6
3.97
10
12- 8
61.0
5.2
. 0.39
1.7
3.47
6
7- 5
43.0
3.7
0.16
0.8
2.9 3
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
5500
60
-65-55
18.3
48.0
21.31
34.2
13.75
55
60-50
21.7
40.5
16.47
28.3
12.20
50
55-45
26.0
33.8
12.50
23.3
10.50
40
45-35
39.5
22.2
6.58
14.2
8.02
30
34-26
50.5
13.9
3.09
7.9
6.06
20
23-17
63.5
8.3
1.2 3
3.7
4.56
10
12- 8
74.6
4.7
0.35
. 0.9
3.79
7
8- 6
47.0
3.7
0.19
0.1
3.59
-------
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
- 15 -
FRONT ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 29
TEST DATE: MAY 27, 1976
NOMINAL C.D. C.D. TOTAL TOTAL PAU FRICTION
SPEED SPEED TIME TORQUE HP TORQUE TORQUE
MPH MPH SEC FT-LB rT-LB FT-LB
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
1750
55
60-50
7.4
35.5
14.44
31.5
3.99
50
55-45
8.8
29.8
11.04
25.9
3.95
40
45-35
13.7
19.2
5.67
16.2
2.92
30
3^-26
18.8
11.2
2.48
8.9
2.28
20
23-17
27.3
5.8
0.85
3.9
1.87
10
12- 8
39.8
2.6
0.20
1.2
1.44
5
6- 4
29.5
1.8
0.07
0.6
1.13
2
3- 1
35.0
1.5
0.02
0.6
0.90
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
2000
55
60-50
8.6
35.3
14.37
31.2
4.06
50
55-45
10.1
30.1
11.12
25.8
4.27
40
45-35
15.6
19.5
5.76
16.2
3.27
30
34-26
20.9
11 .6
2.58
8.9
2.72
20
23-17
29.1
6.3
0.93
3.9
2.36
10
12- 8
4 1.6
2.9
0.22
1.2
1.72
5
6- 4
30.5
2.0
0.07
0.6
1.39
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
2250
55
60-50
9.3
37.1
15.08
31.7
5.37
50
55-45
1 1.2
30.8
11.39
26.1
4.68
40
45-35
17.3
19.9
5.90
16.2
3.7 3
30
34-26
23.3
11.8
2.63
8.9
2.9^
20
23-17
33.2
6.2
0.92
4.0
2.23
10
12- 8
46.5
3.0
0.22
1.2
1.72
5
6- 4
33.5
2.1
0.08
0.6
1.46
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
2500
55
60-50
10.2
37.8
15.39
32.0
5.82
50
55-45
12.2
31.6
11.70
26.2
5.42
40
45-35
18.9
20.4
6.04
16.2
4.21
30
34-26
25.4
12.2
2.70
8.8
3.35
20
23-17
35.1
6.6
0.98
3-9
2.69
10
12- 8
47.7
3.2
0.24
1.2
1.98
5
6- 4
35.5
2.2
0.08
0.6
1.52
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
2750
55
60-50
11.5
37.1
15.10
32.0
5.11
50
55-45
13.9
30.7
11.36
26.3
4.41
40
45-35
21.1
20.2
5.99
16.2
4.03
30
34-26
28.9
11.8
2.62
8.7
3.06
20
23-17
40.5
6.3
0.94
3.9
2.42
10
12- 8
S8.0
2.9
0.22
1.2
1.74
5
6- 4
42.5
2.0
0.07
0.6
1.41
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
3000
55
60-50
12.2
38.3
15.61
32.0
6.35
50
55-45
14.8
31.6
11.69
26.4
5.21
40
45-35
22.5
20.8
6.15
16.2
4.59
30
34-26
30.5
12.3
2.72
8.7
3.52
20
23-17
42.9
6.5
0.97
• 3.9
2.64
10
12- 8
59.1
3.2'
0.2fl\
1.2
1.92
5
6- 4
43.0
2.2
0 8
0.6
1.58
-------
JM29K - 16 -
FRONT ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 29 (CONTINUED)
NOMINAL C.D. C.D. TOTAL TOTAL PAU FRICTION
SPEED SPEED TIME TORQUE HP TORQUE TORQUE
iMPH MPH SEC FT-LB FT-LB FT-LB
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
3500
60
65-55
11.7
47.0
20.87
38.9
8.10
-55
60-50
13.9
39.6
16.10
32.5
7.06
,50
55-45
16.8
32.7
12.11
26.5
6.23
'40
45-35
25.7
21.4
6.33
16.2
5.20
. 30
34-26
34.2
12.9
2.86
8.8
4.06
' 20
23-17
46.6
7.1
1.05
3.9
3.18
10
12- 8
62.3
3.5
0.26
1.2
2.2d
5
6- 4
43.0
2.6
0.09
0.6
1 .96
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
4000
60
65-55
13.8
45.8
20.33
39.3
6.45
55
60-50
16.4
38.5
15.68
32.7
5.84
50
55-45
19.8
31.9
11.81
26.4
5.52
40
45-35
31.1
20.3
6.01
16.1
4.22
30
34-26
41 .7
12.1
2.69
8.8
3.32
20
23-17
58.0
6.5
0.97
3.9
2.64
10
12- 8
78.5
3.2
0.24
1.2
1.97
5
6- 4
57.0
2.2
0.08
0.6
1.57
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
4500
60
65-55
14.0
5 1.0
22.64
43.5
7.51
55
60-50
16.7
42.8
17.40
36.0
6.76
50
55-45
20.5
34.8
12.89
29.2
5.58
40
45-35
31.3
22.8
6.75
17.7
5.06
30
34-26
42.4
13.5
2.99
9.7
3.72
20
23-17
59.0
7.3
1.07
4.5
2.76
10
12- 8
82.0
3.5
0.26
1.4
2.08
5
6- 4
58.0
2.5
0.09
0.7
1.76
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
5000
60
65-55
18.7
42.6
18.90
34.7
7.83
55
60-50
22.2
35.9
14.59
28.7
7.11
50
55-45
26.7
29.8
11.03
23.2
6.62
40
45-35
41.1
19.4
5.73
14.2
5.17
30
34-26
54.0
11.8
2.62
7.9
3.89
20
23-17
72.3
6.6
0.98
3.6
3.01
10
12- 8
93.6
3.4
0.25
1.2
2.15
5
6- 4
65.0
2.4
0.09
0.7
1.75
INERTIA
WEIGHT
CLASS -
5500
60
65-55
15.7
55.9
24.83
46.7
9.19
55
60-50
18.9
46.5
18.91
37.7
8.72
50
55-45
23-1
38.0
14.07
30.4
7.62
40
45-35
35.9
<''4.5
7.24
18.2
6.21
30
34-26
48.2
14.6
3.24
9.9
4.68
20
23-17
65.3
8.1
1.19
4.5
3.57
10
12- 8
91.6
3.8
0.28
1.4
2.44
6
7- 5
60.0
2.9
0.13
0.9
2.08
DONE
SCR
-------
c-£t-jmo8r
APP-JMTEMP
- 17 -
RUN
JM08R
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
REAR ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 8
TEST DATE: JUNE 7, 1976
NOMINAL
COAST DOWN
C.D.
FRICTION
SPEED
SPEED
TIME
TORQ
HP
MPH
MPH
SEC
FT-LB
65.9
70.8-61.0
20
1.20
0.58
54.8
61.0-48.7
20
1.50
0.61
12.6
48.7-36.5
20
1.49
0.47
31.6
36.5-26.7
20
1 .20
0.28
22.2
26.7-17.7
20
1.10
0.18
13.5
17.7- 9.2
20
1.04
0.10
5.2
9.2- 1.1
20
0.99
0.04
66.9
70.5-63.3
20
0.88
0.44
59.9
63.3-56.5
20
0.83
0.37
53.0
56.5-49.5
20
0.86
0.34
45.9
49.5-42.3
20
0.88
0.30
39.0 '
42.3-35.7
20
0.81
0.23
32.3
35.7-29.0
20
0.82
0.20
25.7
29.0-22.3
20
0.82
0.16
19.3
22.3-16.3
20
0.73
0.10
13.5
16.3-10.7
20
0.69
0.07
8.1
10.7- 5.4
20
0.65
0.04
2.7
5.4- 0.0
20
0.66
0.01
68.4
72.4-64.5
20
0.97
0.49
60.7
64.5-56.9
20
0.93
0.42
52.9
56.9-48.9
20
0.98
0.38
45.2
48.9-41.4
20
0.92
0.31
38 .1,
41.4-34.7
20
0.82
0.23
31.3'
34.7-27.9
20
0.83
0.19
24.5 .
27.9-21.0
20
0.84
0.15
17.6
21.0-14.2
20
0.83
0.11
11.0 ;
14.2- 7.7
20
0.80
0.06
4.9-
7.7- 2.1
20
0.69
0.02
57.8 #
62.1-53.6
20
1.04
0.45
49.3 •
53.6-45.1
20
1.04
0.38
41.3
45.1-37.6
20
0.92
0.28
33.9
37.6-30.2
20
0.91
0.23
26.6
30.2-22.9
20
0.89
0.18
19.5
22.9-16.0
20
0.84
0.12
12.6
16.0- 9.3
20
0.82
0.08
6.4
9.3- 3.6
20
0.70
0.03
DONE
SCR
-------
RUN
JM13R
- 18 -
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
REAR ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 13
TEST DATE: JUNE 8, 1976
NOMINAL
COAST DOWN
C.D.
FRICTION
NOMINAL
COAST DOWN
C .D .
FRICTION
SPEED
„ SPEED
TIME
TORQ
HP
SPEED
SPEED
TIME
TORQ
HP
MPH
MPH
SEC
FT-LB
MPH
MPH
SEC
FT-LB
63.0
66.0-60.0
20
0.73
0.34
10.5 .
11.8- 9.2
20
0.32
0.02
57.1
60.0-54.1
20
0.72
0.30
8.1
9.2- 7.0
20
0.27
0.02
51.4
54.1-48.7
20
0.66
0.25
6.0
7.0- 5.0
20
0.24
0.01
46.1
48.7-43.5
20
0.64
0.22
4.2
5.0- 3.3
20
0.21
0.01
41.2
43.5-38.8
20
0.58
0.18
2.6
3.3- 1.9
20
0.17
0.00
36.5
38.8-34.2
20
0.56
0.15
1.4
1.9- 0.9
20
0.12
0.00
32.1
34.2-30.0
20
0.51
0.12
0.5
0.9- 0.2
20
0.09
0.00
28.0
30.0-26.0
20
0.49
0.10
66.1
69.8-62.3
20
0.92
0.45
24.0
26.0-22.1
20
0.48
0.08
59.2
62.3-56.1
20
0.76
0.33
20.2
22.1-18.3
20
0.46
0.07
53.1
56.1-50.1
20
0.73
0.29
16.7
18.3-15.0
20
0.40
0.05
47.3
50.1-44.5
20
0.69
0.24
13.5
15.0-12.0
20
0.37
0.04
42.0
44.5-39.4
20
0.62
0.19
10.5
12.0- 9.0
20
0.37
0.03
36.9
39.4-34.4
20
0.61
0.17
7.7
9.0- 6.4
20
0.32
0.02
32.1
34.4-29.7
20
0.58
0.14
5.3
6.4- 4.2
20
0.27
0.01
27.6
29.7-25.5
20
0.51
0.10
3.2
4.2- 2.3
20
0.23
0.01
23.5
25.5-21.5
20
0.49
0.09
1.6
2.3- 0.9
20
0.17
0.00
19.7
21.5-17.9
20
0.44
0.06
64.7
68.0-61.5
20
0.80
0.38
16.2
17.9-14.6
20
0.40
0.05
58.7
61.5-55.8
20
0.70
0.30
13.1
14.6-11.6
20
0.37
0.04
53.0
55.8-50.2
20
0.69
0.27
10.4
11.6- 9.1
20
0.31
0.02
47.6
50.2-44.9
20
0.65
0.23
7.9
9.1- 6.7
20
0.29
0.02
42.5
44.9-40.0
20
0.60
0.19
5.7
6.7- 4.6
20
0.26
0.01
37.7
40.0-35.4
20
0.56
0.16
3.8
4.6- 3.0
20
0.20
0.01
33.2
35.4-31.0
20
0.54
0.13
2.3
3.0- 1.6
20
0.17
O.OO
29.0
31.0-26.9
20
0.50
0.1 1
1.2
1.6- 0.7
20
0.11
0.00
25.0 ,
26.9-23.0
20
0.48
0.09
0.4
0.7- 0.0
20
0.09
0.00
21.2 .
23.0-19.3
20
0.45
0.07
17.7
19.3-16.1
20
0.39
0.05
14.5
16.1-13.0
20
0.38
0.04
11.6
13.0-10.3
20
0.33
0.03
8.6 '
10.3- 7.0
20
0.40
0.03
6.4
7.0- 5.9
20
0.13
0.01
4.9
5.9- 4.0
20
0.23
0.01
3.2
> 4.0- 2.5
20
0.18
0.00
2.0
¦ 2.5- 1.4
20
0.13
0.00
1.0
1.4- 0.5
20
0.11
0.00
66.4
70.0-62.7
20
0.89
0.44
59.6
62.7-56.5
20
0.76
0.33
53.6
56.5-50.7
20
0.7 1
0.28
47.8
50.7-45.0
20
0.70
0.25
42.3
45.0-39.6
20
0.66
0.21
37.1
39.6-34.6
20
0.6 1
0.17
32.3
34.6-30.0
20
0.56
0.13
27.8
30.0-25.6
20
0.54
0.11
23.5
25.6-21.5
20
0.50
0.09
19.7
21.5-17.9
20
0.44
0.06
16 .2
17.9-14.6
20
0.40
0.05
13.2
1*4. 6-11.8
20
0.34
0.03
-------
nuw
JM14R
- 19 -
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
REAR ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 14
TEST DATE: JUNE 16, 1976
NOMINAL
COAST DOWN
C.D.
FRICTION
SPEED
SPEED
TIME
TORQ
HP
MPH
MPH
SEC
FT-LB
67.6
70.1-65.0
30
0.42
0.21
62.1
65.0-59.1
30
0.48
0.22
56.5
59.1-53.9
30
0.42
0.18
51.4
53.9-48.8
30
0.42
0.16
46.2
48.8-43.5
30
0.43
0.15
11.1
43.5-38.6
30
0.40
0.12
36.2
38.6-33.7
30
0.40
0.11
31.1
33.7-28.6
30
0.42
0.10
26.0
28.6-23.5
30
0.42
0.08
20.7
23.5-17.8
30
0.46
0.07
14.9
17.8-12.0
30
0.47
0.05
8.9
12.0- 5.8
30
0.51
0.03
65.2
68.0-62.3
30
0.46
0.22
59.7.
62.3-57.0
30
0.43
0.19
54.6
57.0-52.2
30
0.39
0.16
49.8
52.2-47.5
30
0.38
0.14
45.1
47.5-42.7
30
0.39
0.13
40.5
42.7-38.3
30
0.36
0.11
36.1
38.3-33.8
30
0.37
0.10
31.6
33.8-29.4
30
0.36
0.08
27.2
29.4-25.0
30
0.36
0.07
22.6
25.0-20.2
30
0.39
0.07
17.7
20.2-15.1
30
0.42
0.05
12.5
15.1- 9.9
30
0.42
0.04
7.2
9.9- 4.5
30
0.44
0.02
DONE
-------
- 20 -
RUN
JM16R
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
REAR ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 16
TEST DATE: JUNE 19,1976
NOMINAL
COAST DOWN
C.D.
FRICTION
SPEED
SPEED
TIME
TORQ
HP
MPH
MPH
SEC
FT-LB
63.9
70.1-57.7
30
1.0 1
0.48
52.1
57.7-46.5
30
0.91
0.35
41.5
46.5-36.5
30
0.82
0.25
31.9
36.5-27.3
30
0.75
0.18
23.0
27.3-18.7
30
0.70
0.12
15.0
18.7-11.2
30
0.61
0.07
3.1
11.2- 5.0
30
0.51
0.0 3
2.9
5.0- 0.9
30
0.33
0.01
62.5
68.8-56.1
30
1.04
0.48
51 .0
56.1-45.9
30
0.83
0.31
HO.3
45.9-34.7
30
0.9 1
0.27
30.1
34.7-25.5
30
0.75
0.17
21.2
25.5-16.9
30
0.70
0.11
13.3
16.9- 9.6
30
0.60
0.06
6.7
9.6- 3.7
30
0.48
0.02
2.0
3.7- 0.3
30
0.28
0.00
57.7
63-7-51.7
30
0.98
0.4 2
46.3
51.7-40.9
30
0.88
0.30
36.0
40.9-31.1
30
0.80
0.21
2 6.7
31.1-22.2
30
0.72
0.14
18.2
22.2-14.2
30
0.65
0.09
10.9
14.2- 7.6
30
0.54
0.04
5.0
7.6- 2.4
30
0.42
0.02
DONE
-------
- 21 -
RUN
JM28R
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
REAR ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 28
TEST DATE: JUNE 4, 1976
NOMINAL
COAST DOWN
C.D .
FRICTION
SPEED
SPEED
TIME
TORQ
HP
MPH
MPH
SEC
FT-LB
64.6
70.7-58.5
20
1.49
0.71
53.0
58.5-47.5
20
1.35
0.53
42.5
47.5-37.4
20
1.24
0.39
32.8
37.4-28.3
20
1.1 1
0.27
24.2
28.3-20.0
20
1.02
0.18
16.2
20.0-12.5
20
0.92
0.11
9.5
12.5- 6.4
20
0.75
0.05
4.2
6.4- 2.0
20
0.54
0.02
63-3
69.1-57.5
20
1.42
0.66
52.2
57.5-47.0
20
1.28
0.50
42.2
47.0-37.3
20
1.19
0.37
32.8
37.3-28.3
20
1.10
0.27
24.2'
28.3-20.2
20
0.99
0.18
16.5
20.2-12.7
20
0.92
0.11
9.7
12.7- 6.6
20
0.75
0.05
4.4
6.6- 2.1
20
0.55
0.02
66.9
73.3-60.6
20
1.55
0.77
55.0
60.6-49.3
20
1.38
0.56
44.2
49.3-39.0
20
1.26
0.41
34.2
39.0-29.5
20
1.16
0.29
25.2
29.5-20.9
20
1 .05
0.20
17.0
20.9-13-1
20
0.95
0.12
10.0
13.1- 6.8
20
0.77
0.06
4.4
6.8- 2.1
20
0.58
0.02
62.8'
69.0-56.7
20
1.50
0.70
51.1
56.7-45.5
20
1.37
0.52
40.4
45.5-35.3
20
1.25
0.37
30.7
35.3-26.0
20
1.14
0.26
21.7'
26.0-17.5
20
1.04
0.17
13.9
17.5-10.3
20
0.88
0.09
7.4
10.3- 4.5
20
0.7 1
0.04
2.6
4.5- 0.7
20
0.46
0.01
66.8
72.5-61.1
20
1.39
0.69
56.0
6 1.1-50.9
20
1.25
0.52
46.1
50.9-41.3
20
1.17
0.40
36.8
41.3-32.3
20
1.10
0.30
2o .2
32.3-24.1
20
1 .00
0.21
20.2
24.1-16.4
20
0.94
0.14
13.1
16.4- 9.7
20
0.82
0.08
7.0
9.7- 4.3
20
0.66
0.03
2.5
4.3- 0.7
20
U.44
0.01
DONE
SCR
-------
RUN
JM29R
CLAYTON DYNAMOMETER FRICTION STUDY
REAR ROLLS - CELL NUMBER 29
TEST DATE: MAY 27, 1976
NOMINAL
COAST DOWN
C.D.
FRICTION
SPEED
SPEED
TIME
TORQ
HP
MPH
MPH
SEC
FT-LB
59 *8
65.7-53-9
30
0.96
0.43
49.3
53.9-44.7
30
0.75
0.27
40.7
44.7-36.7
30
0.65
0.20
33.1
36.7-29.5
30
0.59
0.14
26.3
29.5-23.1
30
0.52
0.10
20.2
23.1-17.3
30
0.47
0.07
14.8
17.3-12.3
30
0.4 1
0.04
10.1
12.3- 8.0
30
0.35
0.03
6,2
8.0- 4.5
30
0.29
0.01
59.1
64.3-53.8
30
0.86
0.37
49.5
53.8-45.1
30
0.7 1
0.26
41.3
45.1-37.5
30
0.62
0.19
34.0
37.5-30.5
30
0.57
0.14
27.5
30.5-24.4
30
0.50
0.10
21.7
24.4-18.9
30
0.45
0.07
16.5
18.9-14.1
30
0.39
0.05
12.0
14.1- 9.9
30
0.34
0.03
8.1
9.9- 6.4
30
0.29
0.02
5.1
6.4- 3.7
30
0.22
0.01
2.7
3.7- 1.7
30
0.16
0.00
1 .0
1.7- 0.3
30
0.1 1
0.00
62.4
67.7-57.1
30
0.86
0.40
52.8
57.1-48.6
30
0.69
0.27
44.8
48.6-41.0
30
0.62
0.21
37.6
41.0-34.2
30
0.55
0.15
31.1
34.2-28.1
30
0.50
0.11
25.3
28.1-22.6
30
0.45
0.08
20.1
22.6-17.6
30
0.4 1
0.06
15.4
17.6-13.1
30
0.37
0.04
11.2
13.1- 9.3
30
0.31
0.03
7.7
9.3- 6.1
30
0.26
0.01
4.8
6.1- 3.5
30
0.2 1
0.01
2.6
3.5- 1.6
30
0.15
0.00
0.9
1.6— G.2
30
0.1 1
0.00
55.8
60.4-51.2
. 30
0.75
0.31
47.2
51.2-43.3
30
0.64
0.23
39.7
43.3-36.1
30
0.59
0.17
32.9
36.1-29.7
30
0.52
0,13
26.7
29.7-2 3.8
30
0.4 8
0.10
21.2
23.8-18.5
30
0.4'S
0.07
16.2
18.5-13.8
30
0.38
0.05
11.7
13.8- 9.6
30
0.34
0.03
8.0
9.6- 6.3
30
0.27
0.02
4.9
6.3- 3.6
30
0.22
0 .0 1
2.6
3.6- 1.6
30
0.16
0.00
0.8
1.6- 0.1
30
0.12
0.00
NOMINAL COAST DOWN
SPEED
SPEED
MPH
MPH
67.2
73.0-61.3
56.5
61.3-51.7
47.7
51.7-43.7
40.1
43.7-36.5
33.2
36.5-30.0
27.0
30.0-24.1
21.4
24.1-18.7
16.4
18.7-14.1
12.1
14.1-10.1
8.4
10.1- 6.6
5.2
6.6— 3.8
2.7
3.8- 1.7
1.0
1.7- 0.3
C.D.
FRICTION
TIME
TORQ
HP
SEC
FT-LB
30
0.95
0.47
30
0.78
0.33
30
0.65
0.23
30
0.59
0.17
30
0.53
0.1*3
30
0.48
0.10
30
0.44
0.07
30
0.38
0.05
30
0.33
0.03
30
0.29
0.02
30
0.23
0.01
30
0.17
0.00
30
0.11
0.00
-------
m# iu A IU IU 1-1/4 INLH • / X 1(1 .NT I If'
KEUFFEL ft CSSER CO •mhinuw
46 0620
SO0MITT£D By BILU A1£A«-S 6/29/77
Moeic- «.£¦se.4e.cti 4 pe.vei.oP/vteAJT co&-pe£AT/o^
! I
/30
OLD CVAY.Tdrr CT.ko6\ Who
3elr aj'f? 1 v/r.m F^- /!- /" I SYztlh
"I
1
A/EW CLA9, rJ>r£ kc£j\:> ortjo
_ w. G. W r a
V/fctcr 7^/T/i//: /z/w/.-'. .< - s/bra >-1
70
1&-O—
-------
CO-2?9 13-7 I) V
Mobil Research and Development Corporation
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FOR _ Schematic CLAYrarj
LOCATION (- C- V f / ^ Y* hi C
JOB No..
PAGE.
SUBJECT-
OL'D 0fTLT-Dl?ivt>l 5Y5TI t-l
ADJOZTAQir. Fl YWHI U5 Pf- F Ro M SHAFT,
QZAR^GS TUf?r! <~\ Ft-VwHP f l I S hJdT E> ICA C L L,
DATE £ 8;// rf
¦v
reference
/tVJOSTASll ft.ywHfEi.5
S^SPENPCO FRfiM
FMrte. 1
ee.^iN6$ i
TVKisi ONLY
uiri&si
FvfwHtet-
IS
£tJ6A6EJ>
ME'w "Dinner Dxii'L
-------
lit-
> I M
¦HzS:
sre/1
_ i i ¦ ¦
ILL J._:
o.i. 0-2
u^5Pr'E o zco^'A /?./
w>.-
"6\
TTD
_c.z.//r;^r: cn^ob ..ABsoagrfi i^Jirn ucht l o/:^ rakgot erhcce
V
(\IBa j ClA y\ ^ I ~£q£! jaTja" € $!/?£.'
-tt*-
'P.JpJI.th! Cf^Ct-\ 4.Q LjL C ' ^ i-
• V
L
..... \~~L2jpAD... /df ,< .frwLi'l
Ql'qJIcJ ~SiftuL fTelSZLl
Mf&K*
<:il :dj.l ~c£\Sb k../Ts:i-H.\72iXQ.J
-------
CO-2.23 (5-71)!
Mobil Research and Development Corporation
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
rop rAAYTnhl h i? IC. 17 oH C A [ i KAHbtA JOBno
i fir.ATinN CLP. CT~ 2co ujrn-J (3 t LT O^'ij/iri pL.y / / c ( page_.
ci m icrT A f' "< f Ip'J l V, U> 7 , /?'/ X A. 0 I i< ¦ A4- L. n ATF I I'JT' H2
- C.C> A^T Do^t\ "J^>A 7 'A
ry 'a j ' £>-ZS'/'/
REFERENCE
/4z.c ^'7/- TArffrt Uunr NYDRA'Juc /] 3SQi?er /i At d H P at oOfir-j-j,
SSOO
4ooc
Z :::)¦¦
5t COHP5
Fofl- IOHPH
5 Pr e 0
PfC^C/1
F UV c^!-i f 1 :
ruf/. g v. c
1 /fi"
&0
/ 2.3. <3*
! - /9-fi
So
?0.//
24.6
4-0
7'JJ
32&
30
SS//5'
S
lisii
! //-/
so
/&.z
4-0
73M>
I. ..J4:0
30
5SJfc
w
(e 0
/19 it
17.4
_
9677
ISO
-------
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
1 I
12
13
14
1 5
t 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Mobil Research and Development
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
forrLAfroht rri c.alip,pavtori JOBNo
i r><-ATir)M jNIFkJ ftCE. S" 0 L*J)TH JJ/1 I V - PAGE
SUBJECT—f' Z.. r^7^ 7-y-f~,"Z
J?oLLSJ Ub LB^ roAZTDou,! 'PA'!A by /a. 6. V'V
£qjm, ujT.
Tu7Jl i~S
/r/5~o
"sj'O O
O ¦"» A
_ ^ CTO
/¦. a
SECt>tlpS
Fort. & lb MftJ
(p. t>
6. S
1L 3 __
JG-7
G. 5"
.A3
/ 7- 3
J6.Z
2 3,4"
5/.3
4i?.6
_2_3.6
3 A 5
4 fa
6.?
.'.I..1..
/J.b
7 ?
/c •
.7
/2 2-
MG MM
furl
(s> £>
sq_
4o
Zo
Co
S'o
,.4o
20
Cfi o
jT-o
4 6
~ 6
Cs> o
ASl
2_6
G o
.-so_
4 b
20
Lp Cj
¦ f,
4 o
/6:r
r- ' ¦
i* ^
f-iyptl** a c-
/-jP/rSrCMPtf
/6,Q
(o-.
/o.J
Total
Tsrcf 4 Fontr,
Lft
//2.
<£6.36
M'9t
4*5-'
11 2._S5_
G2.L9
42. 4-b
J3i-lS
/o*. 1-
76-0 2
SS\ 75
t?f. js~
/oZA_o_
77,52
.5~.fr, -50
J 22. St
93. /z
7o.6 2
4S:iS_
i
Vo./7
4 9. SI
/ 2i.lAA
*7 7- v 7
Vi db
£-0.3 2
FLyvtittis. (=rlG/)6
Z5-£>
Soo
or IE
~
/A6t
-------
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t 1
I 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
t e
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3 1
32
33
34
Mobil Research and development
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
C I A^/TOf-l F/? / £7'/ Qi-( d. A t.l Pj [¦? A r I0t( JOB No
. t.^k. jMf LCI. SO t*jnH Z>nucT '/¦>/<*' page
CI ip in r / £'/ CiA'* /-. /I /•'/¦'a a /" T. (p L/l U. U/7~, (?{ A Yl ntTF ~Da T_A .1: -f~ /T
RuLLS , roASTDou,! U/n A by (l V'V ,,JL
Eqjn. U>T
TjUL Lfi
4 ^ o
SCCbHPS
foiI A 16 M/V
.WS- NW
/"&/t
/3.2
/ 7- 2
22,6
32. /
4?^
7 7./
f ^ 7
2?J
4/. 3
-;5.j
Zip
/<3.6
;T c
^
/I. 5
Ti'F
/../
7- 7
r_
£ 6
jO.
4 6
_3 d
6
<5~"6
/lypfi'ui I <-
Aliso/l * i 'l
HP/t&MW
Total
'EslCt L F»t'CF t
Lfi
/A/
I3Z.ZZ
yoz,zr
77,/3
Y*7 7
/.25"
>5", 6
/ c,.::
/o, 0
ZAl2±
7 S-C 0
7.2.£>(
/£.2Z
r)L.\ 'I,
SG,C: '
4 2. rs
3 0.12.
/ Z 'S. L •¦•.
7 2.ee
"lzK
47,62
_n±:AL.
/. / ^
cp.yi
y 2 > . L- i
/C.f.31
/ / 5", 76
V-T -j
2sf. :¦
/ 7?
4 ?, A" *
/rt,y^HCFts. BflCAiS
Z.T6
.5*00 /oefi
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
lO
1 I
1 2
13
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3 1
32
33
34
Mobil Research and Development Cori
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
fi?icT/>t caupjpa not I
^iftw £Cf 5*0 u>nH "Outre r u/ii1 /-Vo/ I 0 Oi V. U/T, /Pf J /? ...
5, /40 ^ rcjAClPMJ>! T>AiA BY 1 ^
JOB
PA
DATE
2ECt>UPS
fo/L A lt> HPlJ
/7>JT
3
HC5/^
23 ^
3 J J
~/ 2. r
Lla-
?3,S
: h
//'0
Total
IsVCl L Ffttcr,
l~i3
/
^ V i
r
7
/of.6/
_/3A-lS-„
96.Sc>
73.2?
J~o.SZ
/2C.4 7
/C.J
(J v^. ^
4C.72-
ft,ywncet.& /E
Z.5"6
M 6 ~/£
5oa
-------
CO<225 (s-7l)
Mobil Research and development Corporation
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FOR ClL/. - ' l "> r-l CI T 3(3 T^y-lO JOB No
/ 3
LOCATION -AlQAIs F0 ' ' T'orZ •' /J,/. // ¦ /, / PAGE
¦jiiniFfT /: /Tj. . /G? tv ^r / C- : 1 r>atf 6> - rf
lo/tt>in& ef/AMcreeisTics &%"Du>euLs „v u, J?
RCFCRCNCC
1 //7J,
^p/_j , 1st r* 1 A£l.±s/>0
V \
H P
/rfca'A :A Loa V
f t
AV6
HP
U.t
TKSCT.
rrr
76
zs~.6>
2^0
2 S.I
I34AG
60
So
/6.9
/C.9
/6.6~
!C.<
IU15*
/-M.IZ.
fo> 3
A>.3
/£-/ | /o.l
/o.Z.
76 o"o
to
6>x
C.o
s.y
•
S,4
S.77S
>w'
3.0
*? 7
• f
-
> ^ 0 /. ¦ . /! /
"i- /aC */•¦-' C' i. / .¦ L
^ - fc»icrx (Mm)'
Ct-tr-<-'' ' ' f
Const = 0.3661
b - A+/6
r* = 0.9 76
Cbn$r * 0-37/6
£ « /•
r* = Olbt
FeA 10-+Z0MM
ft* (>6+26 MFH
TSATA TA X C <1
/o-3o~ 73
STEADY 3TATF,
-------
CO 225 { 5-7 0
Mobil Research and Development Corporation
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FOR _ dAAyjcoji
LOCATION- i IC /I
SUBJECT 'L OA rl &
<5o D ft I 6
&J2jL/¦ ~ ni- '/ Urli 'T'
C/fAftAC- / /' 57 !C ^
JOB NO. .
PAGE.
7Y
Sjj,' "O/A fcoLL
filFERENCC
!
rr
LE rr
t.z rr
UH
PAU CHAUC-'rti ST'C. Cw^r
h r*
^fO
1
' A-/W
<
JoaQ'jt:
\
peer
La/ v
T° r
t
L 04 t.
A v &
E V
TrtACr '
nr r r«'! ;
Te/c-. rrf
tf. Cc/.r..-
4,: ^ t<3 " (Con v r vc (h /°h)'3
¦L/.-'Ipi( C»lr. T T
HiH,
L C> &
4>c
i-.c
..
//• /3
. AS
\_^5~o
. _3X)
3.0
£.35" -
Co^ST
¦ 0.6 3"V£f
•fo
2
,?.o
z.a •
SS'i
b '
* /. 2?7
LC'O
AS
as
/.sr
f-'1
rz
0, ?3£
' ~ 0
o>9
/.o
o,9S
2.01
20s
;>oj
Ql
"zoS'
S7. yj •
• -- ¦ —
13.S
12. f.
t?,.S
>. *4 1
Cor-157
r 0. 0 0 3 72 xl
. 4 J
£).Cj
as .
S.2?
2!i. %
b
r ZJ2J
4.6
Z.C,
/j r '
4, /r
//.&3
SS'/
rz
¦ O. ??Q
/0
L a
4-L c : A-y. o
r -
j a w-. _ -
4-/. ¦ '_'^8
Cot-arr- 0.21&/O
Ac. !
IGS :
ri c
^ -
Z . /2
a-
O - j
f
/ •
¦/¦ -.
¦ i
rQ
C. ? '
V
Corr.T
= $.$'?¦
7' 3
V. . :
r,
CT. 1 ' ^
2i
1 '/ .c
', ^r.sy
b
2.12.
-f
J- -
/3.S
//-"
; n:;i
•| 33.2(:
r
0. ? •:
' ;
j57^r
- - '7
j /XSC, _
??/¦ w."/ Y7
~Zi71 /¦ is j SI A 1 t_.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
I 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
-------
420-S-77-105
------- |