United States Air and Radiation EPA420-R-02-033
Environmental Protection November 2002
Agency
vxEPA Mobile Source
Observation Data (MSOD)
Database Update
> Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
EPA420-R-02-033
November 2002
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
EPA Contract No. 68-C-OO-l 12
Work Assignment No. 2-06
NOTICE
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions.
It is intended to present technical, analysis of issues using data that are currently available.
The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
technical information and, to inform the public of technical developments which
may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position, or regulatory action.
-------
Mobile Source
Observation Data (MSOD)
Database Update
INTERIM REPORT
REVISION 2
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
October 31,2002
-------
ERG No.: 0136.02.006.001
EPA Contract No.: 68-C-OO-l 12
Work Assignment No.: 2-06
Mobile Source Observation Data (MSOD) Database Update
INTERIM REPORT
REVISION 2
EPA Contract No. 68-C-OO-l 12
Work Assignment No. 2-06
Prepared for:
Kitty Walsh
Project Officer
Constance Hart
Work Assignment Manager
Prepared by:
William Gerber
Patience Henson
Eastern Research Group
5608 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78731-4947
October 31,2002
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Inspection and Maintenance Programs 2
2.1 Overview 2
2.2 Arizona Car Care 5
2.3 British Columbia AirCare 9
2.4 Colorado Air Care 14
3.0 Special Studies 18
3.1 Overview 18
3.2 California Air Resources Board 20
3.3 Coordinating Research Council 21
3.4 Environment Canada 23
3.5 New York Instrumentation Protocol Assessment 25
3.6 North Carolina State University 27
3.7 University of California CE-CERT 29
3.7.1 Comprehensive Modal Emissions Model 29
3.7.2 CE-CERT Ammonia Study 31
3.8 West Virginia University 32
4.0 Other Possible Sources of Data for Future Collection 38
4.1 Overview 38
4.2 Coordinating Research Council 38
4.3 Environment Canada 40
4.4 West Virginia University 41
4.5 University of California CE-CERT 45
4.6 University of Texas 47
Appendix A Fields for MSOD 48
-------
List of Tables
Table 2-1: I/M Program Details 2
Table 2-2: Coverage ofDatasets 2
Table 2-3: Model Year Groupings 3
Table 2-4: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type for All Three I/M Programs 3
Table 2-5: Number of Tests for Mileage Groupings for All Three I/M Programs 4
Table 2-6: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type Used from All Three I/M Programs 5
Table 2-7: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type 6
Table 2-8: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type 6
Table 2-9: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type 7
Table 2-10: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields 8
Table 2-11: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type 9
Table 2-12: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type 10
Table 2-13: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type 11
Table 2-13: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type (Continued) 11
Table 2-13: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type (Continued) 13
Table 2-14: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields 13
Table 2-15: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type 14
Table 2-16: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type 15
Table 2-17: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type 16
Table 2-18: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields 17
Table 3-1: Population of Special Studies 18
Table 3-2: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type from Special Studies 18
Table 3-3: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping from Special Studies 19
Table 3-4: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type from Special Studies 19
Table 3-5: Number of Vehicles for each Vehicle Type 20
Table 3-6: Number of Vehicles for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type 20
Table 3-7: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields 21
Table 3-8: Vehicle Summary (Two Vehicles of Each Model) 22
Table 3-9: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields 22
Table 3-10: Bus Characteristics 24
Table 3-11: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type 24
Table 3-12: Number of Tests for each Vehicle Type 25
Table 3-13: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type 26
Table 3-14: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields 26
Table 3-15: Vehicles used in NCSU Study 27
Table 3-16: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type 28
Table 3-17: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields 28
Table 3-18: Number of Test for Each Vehicle Type 30
Table 3.-19: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type 30
Table 3-20: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields 30
Table 3-21: Vehicles Used In Ammonia Study 31
Table 3-22: Testing Activity at Each Site 33
Table 3-23: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type Tested 33
Table 3-24: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type Used 34
-------
Table 3-25: Number of Tests for Each Drive Cycle Used 35
Table 3-26: Drive Cycles Used During Testing (Continued) 36
Table 4-1: Targeted Vehicles for Testing [2] 39
Table 4-2: Description of Test Vehicles [3] 39
Table 4-3: Vehicles Description [1] 41
Table 4-4: Test Sites 42
Table 4-5: Number of Tests Performed on Each Vehicle Type 43
Table 4-6: Number of Tests on Each Fuel Type 44
Table 4-7: Number of Tests for Each Drive Cycle 45
Table 4-8: CE-CERT Studies 46
-------
1.0 Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of creating a
new mobile source emissions modeling system entitled the Multi-Scale Motor Vehicle and
Equipment Emission System (MOVES). This new model will generate emissions factors in units
of grams per second. This is a marked difference from previous models, such as MOBILE6,
which were based on factors in grams per mile. Much of the new factor development will be
based on the vehicle testing information contained within EPA's Mobile Source Observation
Database (MSOD).
The goal of this project is to augment the data currently in the MSOD with data collected
by other entities such as research groups and industry organizations. Towards this end, ERG
staff have contacted numerous vehicle-testing organizations and investigated the availability of
vehicle testing data. This investigation focused on tests that recorded second by second
emissions results with emphasis placed on greenhouse gas exhaust emissions, i.e CO2, CH4, and
N2O. Appendix A contains a description of the type of vehicle test information that is targeted
for this project.
Each of the different data sources were questioned by EPA or ERG staff to determine
what type of vehicle test data they have that could be included in the EPA MSOD and made
available for public access. The available data can be generally grouped as stemming from either
an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, or a special study. This report presents a review
of the different datasets that are of interest and are being considered for inclusion into the
MSOD. In some instances only a sample of the data was available for review at the time that this
report was written and the statistics presented should be taken as only an example of the type of
information that is available.
Also included in this report is a brief discussion of other datasets that have been
determined to be available outside of the time frame of this project. These datasets will be
discussed briefly and highlighted for possible examination in the future.
-------
2.0 Inspection and Maintenance Programs
2.1 Overview
Test data from three inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs were highlighted for
collection and inclusion into the MSOD. The selected programs were the Arizona Car Care
program, British Columbia AirCare program, and the Colorado Air Care program. All three
programs use centralized testing facilities operated by a primary contractor with tests
administered by trained technicians. A summary of the program details appears below in Table
2-1.
Table 2-1: I/M Program Details
State
Arizona
Colorado
British
Columbia
Cities
Phoenix
Denver
and
Boulder
Network
Type
Test Only
Test Only
Test Only
Test Type
81-95: IM 147
<81 : Loaded
Idle 96+: OBD
82+: IM240
<82: 2 speed
Idle
<=1991 ASM
>1991 IM240
Evap
Tests
pressure
Gas Cap
Gas Cap
pressure
Gas Cap
Frequency
Annual 1967-80
Biennial 1981 +
82+: Biennial
<82 Annual
1992+ : Biennial
<1 992 Annual
Vehicle
Types
LDGVs,
LDGTs,
HDBVs,
MC
LDGVs,
LDGTs,
HDGVs
LDGV,
LDGT,
HDGT,
Dliesel
Model Years
1967+<4
exempt
All except <4
exempt
All except <2
exempt
Start
Date
Jan-95
Jan-95
Sep-92
OBD
testing
pass/fail:
1/02
MIL fail
only
Different amounts of data were available from each of the programs as detailed in Table
2-2 below. At the time this report was written only a one month sample set of data was available
from the Colorado I/M program. The table below lists both the sample set and the estimates for
the full Colorado data set.
Table 2-2: Coverage of Datasets
Program
Arizona
Colorado Sample
Colorado Full Set Estimates
British Columbia
Start Date
January 1, 2002
January 1, 2002
January 1, 1999
January 1, 2001
End Date
June 30, 2002
January 31, 2002
September 1 , 2002
June 3, 2002
Number of Tests
317,192
128,682
3,000,000
1,414,356
The vehicles in each dataset have been categorized by model year into groupings of
similar technologies or standards for summary purposes. Since there is not a strict correlation
between model year and technology used, this grouping should be viewed as a generalization
only. The model year ranges used are shown in Table 2-3.
-------
Table 2-3: Model Year Groupings
Model Year
Pre-1975
1975-1980
1981-1985
1986-1993
1994-2000
2001-2003
2004 and newer
Technology Grouping
Non-Catalyst
Oxidation Catalyst
3-Way Catalyst
TierO
Tier 1
NLEV
Tier 2
In each of the following sub sections there will be a brief discussion of the I/M program
followed by summary statistical data for each program. In the following three tables that
summary data is shown for all three I/M programs combined.
Table 2-4: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type for All Three I/M Programs
Vehicle Type
LDV
LOT
HOT
DIES
Missing
Grand Tota
Model Year Group
Non-catalyst
20018
6134
1408
75
1074
28709
Oxidation
catalyst
33843
6193
16925
1101
2539
60601
3-way
catalyst
127936
40554
15153
5825
7737
197205
TierO
632126
285659
24912
8937
38000
989634
Tierl
311815
230207
13794
6718
13478
576012
NLEV
3403
2704
349
6
13
6475
Missing
1526
1526
Grand
Total
1129141
571451
72541
22662
64367
1860162
-------
Table 2-5: Number of Tests for Mileage Groupings for All Three I/M Programs
Mileage
Mileage < 50K
Vehicle
Type
LDV
LOT
HOT
DIES
Missing
Mileage < 50K Total
Mileage > 50K
LDV
LOT
HOT
DIES
Missing
Mileage > 50K Total
Missing
LDV
LOT
Missing
Missing Total
Grand Total
Model Year Group
Non-
catalyst
5226
1690
300
11
242
7469
14778
4433
1108
64
742
21125
14
11
90
115
28709
Oxidation
catalyst
5012
1628
2536
74
325
9575
28804
4543
14389
1027
2134
50897
27
22
80
129
60601
3-way
catalyst
9503
4087
1698
123
418
15829
118110
36231
13455
5702
7124
180622
323
236
195
754
197205
TierO
28657
11799
1600
195
7220
49471
602024
273242
23312
8742
30089
937409
1445
618
691
2754
989634
Tierl
97016
55850
3521
1320
5281
162988
214096
173757
10273
5398
7571
411095
703
600
626
1929
576012
NLEV
3350
2573
338
5
10
6276
53
131
11
1
2
198
1
1
6475
Missing
1526
1526
1526
Grand
Total
148764
77627
9993
1728
13496
251608
977865
492337
62548
20934
47662
1601346
2512
1487
3209
7208
1860162
-------
Table 2-6: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type Used from All Three I/M Programs
Fuel
Alcohol
Butane
Compressed Natural Gas
Diesel
Diesel-Butane
Diesel-Natural Gas
Diesel-Propane
E85
Gasoline
Gasoline-Alcohol
Gasoline-Electric
Gasoline-Natura IGas
Gasoline-Propane
LNG
LPG
M85
Multi-fuels
Natura IGas
Other
Propane
Propane-Natural Gas
Missing
Grand Total
Non-
catalyst
4
83
3
27687
3
2
51
58
1
8
358
451
28709
Model Year Group
Oxidation
catalyst
1148
54733
5
1
252
269
1
7
74
2712
1
1398
60601
3-way
catalyst
1
2
1
6128
1
181772
8
5
549
308
7
106
3999
4318
197205
TierO
2
16
83
9213
1
950137
36
11
2096
1881
4
18
1
12
178
3
10224
8
15710
989634
Tierl
1
12
772
7439
7
1
3
1
560465
19
19
540
336
2
15
2
379
12
2198
2
3787
576012
NLEV
2
148
6
6141
2
1
164
11
6475
Missing
1526
1526
Grand
Total
8
32
1004
24017
8
2
6
1
1780935
71
40
3488
2852
7
48
1
14
746
15
19655
11
27201
1860162
2.2 Arizona Car Care
Arizona has been conducting an enhanced vehicle-testing program in Phoenix since 1995.
As part of this program most light duty gasoline vehicles with model years 1981 through 1995
undergo an JJVI147 test on a biennial basis. Arizona has provided the results of all JJVI147 tests
performed from January through June 2002 for inclusion into the EPA MSOD [1, 2, 3].
Summary statistics for the Arizona data appear in the tables below.
-------
Table 2-7: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDT1
12
12
10355
49144
29875
30
89428
LDT2
10
32
4900
14122
13292
573
32929
LDV
28
54
21095
119113
54466
79
194835
Grand Total
50
98
36350
182379
97633
682
317192
Table 2-8: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type
Mileage
Mileage < 50K
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Mileage < 50K Total
Mileage > 50K
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Mileage > 50K Total
Missing
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Missing Total
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDV
2
2
2834
11015
6716
60
20629
12
25
17938
106653
47047
19
171694
14
27
323
1445
703
2512
194835
LDT1
3
1189
4037
2242
23
7494
3
6
9013
44652
27214
7
80895
6
6
153
455
419
1039
89428
LDT2
1
4
727
1501
1688
488
4409
4
12
4090
12458
11423
85
28072
5
16
83
163
181
448
32929
Grand Total
6
6
4750
16553
10646
571
32532
19
43
31041
163763
85684
111
280661
25
49
559
2063
1303
3999
317192
-------
Table 2-9: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type
Fuel
Butane
Model Year Group
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Butane Total
Compressed Natural Gas
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Compressed Natural Gas Total
Gasoline
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Gasoline Total
Other
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Other Total
Propane
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Propane Total
Missing
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Missing Total
Grand Tota
Vehicle Type
LDV
1
1
2
1
24
214
17
256
14
27
20769
117625
53225
52
191712
2
5
7
1
17
318
10
346
14
27
323
1445
703
2512
194835
LDT1
7
7
36
73
6
115
6
6
10200
48618
29362
19
88211
5
5
2
28
16
5
51
6
6
153
455
419
1039
89428
LDT2
1
2
3
7
465
123
595
5
14
4807
13929
12450
299
31504
1
2
3
2
10
21
194
149
376
5
16
83
163
181
448
32929
Grand Total
1
8
1
2
12
1
67
752
146
966
25
47
35776
180172
95037
370
311427
3
12
15
2
13
66
528
164
773
25
49
559
2063
1303
3999
317192
-------
Table 2-10: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields
f Variable
Model Year
Cylinders
Displacement (L)
Ambient Humidity (%)
Ambient Pressure
Ambient Temperature (F)
Horsepower
Curb Weight (Ibs)
Inertia Weight (Ibs)
Odometer (in thousands)
Count
317,192
0
0
317,192
317,192
317,192
317,192
0
317,192
313,193
Missing
0
317,192
317,192
0
0
0
0
317,192
0
3,999
MIN
1967
0.00
27.08
1.85
7.30
1750
0
MAX
2003
99.92
30.76
121.97
33.90
6000
255
MEAN
1991
25.43
28.65
75.58
14.57
3510.20
110.03
STD
3.84
13.82
0.23
14.53
3.41
662.03
50.05
Documentation rating: A. Fully Documented
Information on the Arizona Car Care program can be found on their web site at:
http://www.ev.state.az.us/environ/air/vei/index.html (last verified October 24, 2002). Multiple
documents exist for the Arizona's Car Care program detailing the entire I/M program. The
program has been audited both internally and externally and the reports are readily available.
Some of the reports of interest are:
1. Profiling and Prediction of Individual Arizona Vehicle IM 147 Pass/Fail Results, prepared by
Eastern Research Group (ERG) for Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, June 27, 2002.
2. Analysis of Arizona I/M Program Repair Data, prepared by Eastern Research Group (ERG)
for Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, June 28, 2002.
3. Baseline Analysis of Enhanced I/M Compliance, prepared by Eastern Research Group (ERG)
for Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, June 28, 2002.
Completeness rating: C. Missing Data
The Car Care program did not record all of the data fields listed as being of interest in Appendix
A. The fuel parameters were not included and all tests were conducted with the fuel that was in
the vehicle when it arrived at the testing facility (tank fuel).
Contact:
John Walls
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Phone: 602-207-7027
E-mail: walls.john@ev.state.az.us
-------
2.3 British Columbia AirCare
A vehicle inspection and maintenance program entitled AirCare was started in British
Columbia, Canada, in 1992. This program originally used centralized testing facilities to
perform ASM 2525/idle test procedures. In 2000 the program was reviewed and modified into
AirCare II. In the new program EVI240 tests were used for vehicle model years over 1991. Data
from the AirCare from January 2001 through June 2002 program has been made available for
inclusion into EPA's MSOD [1, 2, 3].
Summary statistics for the AirCare data appear in the tables below.
Table 2-11: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
0. Missing
Grand Total
Vehicle Ty
LDGV
18462
31159
101581
484229
227074
43
862548
LDGT
4818
3377
21669
207237
164508
123
401732
HDGT
1252
16200
14233
22015
9343
4
63047
pe
DIES
75
1101
5825
8937
6718
6
22662
Missing
1074
2539
7737
38000
13478
13
1526
64367
Grand Total
25681
54376
151045
760418
421121
189
1526
1414356
-------
Table 2-12: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type
Mileage
Mileage < 50K
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Mileage < 50K Total
Mileage > 50K
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Mileage > 50K Total
Missing
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Missing
Missing Total
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDGV
4512
4048
5430
14072
79843
40
107945
13950
27111
96151
470157
147231
3
754603
862548
LDGT
1130
454
1131
3833
44853
120
51521
3688
2923
20538
203404
119655
3
350211
401732
HDGT
224
2198
1278
840
2216
4
6760
1028
14002
12955
21175
7127
56287
63047
DIES
11
74
123
195
1320
5
1728
64
1027
5702
8742
5398
1
20934
22662
Missing
242
325
418
7220
5281
10
13496
742
2134
7124
30089
7571
2
47662
90
80
195
691
626
1
1526
3209
64367
Grand
Total
6119
7099
8380
26160
133513
179
181450
19472
47197
142470
733567
286982
9
1229697
90
80
195
691
626
1
1526
3209
1414356
10
-------
Table 2-13: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type
Fuel
Alcohol
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Alcohol Total
Butane
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Butane Total
Diesel
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Diesel Total
Diesel-Butane
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Diesel-Butane Total
Diesel-Natural Gas
3. 3-way catalyst
5. Tier 1
Diesel-Natural Gas Total
Diesel-Propane
1 . Non-catalyst
5. Tier 1
Diesel-Propane Total
Gasoline
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Gasoline Total
Gasoline-Alcohol
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Gasoline-Alcohol Total
Vehicle Type
LDGV
1
1
2
1
2
7
10
3
3
1
1
18357
30659
100896
482607
226489
41
859049
3
5
7
21
9
45
LDGT
4
4
2
4
6
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
3
4604
3139
20665
200259
162877
122
391666
1
11
8
20
HDGT
1
1
1092
13737
11106
16653
8681
4
51273
2
2
DIES
75
1101
5825
8937
6718
6
22662
Missing
2
2
4
4
8
47
303
276
721
1355
2
2
2
2
639
1040
3541
23741
10463
12
39436
2
2
4
Grand
Total
4
1
2
1
8
1
8
11
20
83
1148
6128
9213
7439
6
24017
1
7
8
1
1
2
3
3
6
24692
48575
136208
723260
408510
179
1341424
3
5
8
36
19
71
Table continued on next page.
Table 2-13: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type (Continued)
Fuel
Model Year Group
Vehicle Type
Grand Total
11
-------
Gasoline-Electric
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Gasoline-Electric Total
Gasoline-Natural Gas
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Gasoline-Natural Gas Total
Gasoline-Propane
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Gasoline-Propane Total
Multi-fuels
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Multi-fuels Total
Natural Gas
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Natural Gas Total
Propane
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Propane Total
LDGV
1
5
5
17
1
29
24
80
142
379
124
749
8
28
49
77
13
175
9
2
11
5
18
23
52
177
1
276
64
369
456
1077
232
2198
LDGT
3
2
1
6
11
7
121
1196
307
1642
25
13
64
949
231
1282
5
25
57
115
202
172
213
793
4757
958
6893
HDGT
1
1
2
4
12
150
262
465
95
984
24
204
178
764
71
1241
3
48
52
58
79
240
119
2059
2635
4066
417
9296
DIES
Missing
1
1
4
15
24
56
14
113
1
24
17
91
21
154
3
3
3
6
11
8
28
3
69
102
258
63
495
2
1
5
11
19
2
40
51
252
549
2096
540
3488
58
269
308
1881
336
2852
12
2
14
8
74
106
178
379
1
746
358
2710
3986
10158
1670
18882
Table continued on next page.
12
-------
Table 2-13: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type (Continued)
Fuel
Propane-Natural Gas
Model Year Group
2. Oxidation catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Propane-Natural Gas Total
Missing
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
0. Missing
Missing Total
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDGV
862548
LDGT
2
2
4
401732
HDGT
1
5
6
63047
DIES
22662
Missing
1
1
419
1341
3744
13554
2182
1
1526
22767
64367
Grand Total
1
8
2
11
419
1341
3744
13554
2182
1
1526
22767
1414356
Table 2-14: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields
Variable
Model Year
Cylinders
Displacement (L)
Ambient Humidity (%)
Ambient Pressure
Ambient Temperature (C)
Horsepower
Curb Weight (Ibs)
Inertia Weight (Ibs)
Odometer (in thousands)
Count
1,412,830
1,391,475
1,411,148
1,288,987
1,313,681
526,522
1,391,588
1,411,146
1,391,589
1,411,147
Missing
1,526
22,881
3,208
125,369
100,675
887,834
22,768
3,210
22,767
3,209
MIN
1901
1
0.10
11.70
18.66
-3.10
1.20
1
1000
-1
MAX
2002
12
91.20
97.20
34.49
34.60
34.70
24860
8000
999
MEAN
1990
5.37
3.03
60.96
29.98
13.55
14.05
1398.03
3395.31
145.12
STD
6.18
1.52
1.46
13.89
0.35
5.39
3.56
386.48
725.79
85.18
Documentation rating: A. Fully Documented
Multiple documents exist for the AirCare project detailing the entire project. The program has
been audited both internally and externally and the reports are readily available. Supporting
documentation can be downloaded at their web site http://www.aircare.ca (last verified October
24, 2002). Some of the reports of interest are as follows:
1. S. J. Stewart, D. J. Gourley, and J. Wong, AirCareฎ Results and Observations Relating to the
First Eight Years of Operation (1992-2000). Copies available at http://www.aircare.ca.
2. Review of the British Columbia AirCare Program. Prepared by Rob Klausmeier, De La Torre
Klausmeier Consulting, Inc. for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Air Resources
Branch. September 15, 2000.
13
-------
3. Review of Air Quality and Motor Vehicle Technology Issues Pertaining to the Design of
AirCare II. Prepare by Sierra Research, Inc. for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. July
1998.
Completeness rating: C. Missing Data
The AirCare program did not record all of the data fields listed as being of interest in Appendix
A. The fuel parameters were not included and all tests were conducted on whatever fuel was in
the vehicle when it arrived at the testing facility (tank fuel).
Contact:
Mr. David Gourley
The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, also known as "TransLink"
Phone: 604-453-5170
E-mail: davegourley@translink.bc.ca
2.4 Colorado Air Care
Colorado's inspection and maintenance program, titled Air Care, was started in January
of 1995. All 1982 and newer vehicles in Denver and surrounding effected areas are required to
have an I/M240 emissions test every two years at one of the 15 Air Care testing stations. The
test facilities are operated by Envirotest Systems Corp., a subsidiary of Environmental Systems
Products, Inc. (ESP). Vehicles older then 1982 are only required to pass an idle emissions test
annually and can be taken to any Envirotest Air Care center or to any licensed independent
testing center [1].
At the time this report was written only a one-month sample set of data was available
from the Colorado I/M program for tests run in January of 2002. The full dataset is expected
from Colorado in early November 2002.
The summary tables below show the results of analysis from the one month sample.
Table 2-15: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Grand Total
Vehicle Ty
LDGV
1528
2630
5260
28784
30275
3281
71758
LDGT1
648
1177
2865
10078
11848
768
27384
LDGT2
646
1595
765
5078
10684
1210
19978
pe
HDGT1
62
244
766
2260
3254
219
6805
HDGT2
94
481
154
637
1197
126
2689
Grand Total
2978
6127
9810
46837
57258
5604
128614
14
-------
Table 2-16: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type
Mileage
Mileage < 50K
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Mileage < 50K Total
Mileage > 50K
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Mileage > 50K Total
Grand Total
Vehicle Ty
LDGV
712
962
1239
3570
10457
3250
20190
816
1668
4021
25214
19818
31
51568
71758
LDGT1
279
527
790
1465
3473
756
7290
369
650
2075
8613
8375
12
20094
27384
LDGT2
277
643
250
963
3594
1186
6913
369
952
515
4115
7090
24
13065
19978
pe
HDGT1
37
107
342
606
877
213
2182
25
137
424
1654
2377
6
4623
6805
HDGT2
39
231
78
154
428
121
1051
55
250
76
483
769
5
1638
2689
Grand Total
1344
2470
2699
6758
18829
5526
37626
1634
3657
7111
40079
38429
78
90988
128614
15
-------
Table 2-17: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type and Vehicle Type
Fuel
Compressed Natural Gas
Model Year Group
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
CNG Total
E85
5. Tier 1
E85Total
Gasoline
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Gasoline Total
Liquefied Natural Gas
2. Oxidation catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
LNG Total
LPG
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
LPG Total
M85
4. TierO
M85Total
Missing
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Missing Total
Grand Total
Vehicle Ty
LDGV
2
5
1
8
1522
2625
5245
28686
29993
3271
71342
3
1
4
4
1
5
1
1
6
5
15
88
275
9
398
71758
LDGT1
3
1
4
1
1
647
1173
2863
10073
11844
768
27368
1
2
2
5
1
3
2
6
27384
LDGT2
5
9
1
15
645
1592
765
5059
10644
1208
19913
1
3
9
6
19
5
25
1
31
19978
pe
HDGT1
6
3
9
62
243
762
2252
3249
219
6787
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
6
6805
HDGT2
2
2
94
478
153
635
1188
126
2674
3
1
2
7
13
2689
Grand Total
16
20
2
38
1
1
2970
6111
9788
46705
56918
5592
128084
1
4
2
7
1
7
7
18
15
48
1
1
7
8
15
93
302
10
435
128614
16
-------
Table 2-18: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields
Variable
Model Year
Cylinders
Displacement (L)
Ambient Humidity (%)
Ambient Pressure
Ambient Temperature (F)
Horsepower
Curb Weight (Ibs)
Inertia Weight (Ibs)
Odometer
Count
128,614
128,614
128,614
80,529
80,529
80,529
88,773
0
88,773
128,614
Missing
0
0
0
48,085
48,085
48,085
39,841
128,614
39,841
0
MIN
1901
0
0.00
6.41
23.47
-43.13
3.80
1500
0
MAX
2003
14
93.40
99.39
25.68
79.67
28.70
6500
999999
MEAN
1992
5.76
3.48
34.41
24.59
6.40
10.01
3291.07
88117.33
STD
6.73
1.58
1.86
13.61
0.27
7.31
2.78
723.31
72437.84
Documentation rating: A. Fully Documented
Multiple documents exist for Colorado's Air Care project detailing the entire project. Supporting
documentation and information can be downloaded at the program web site
http://www.aircarecolorado.com (last verified October 24, 2002) as well as the Colorado
Department of Health and Environment web site at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/aphom.asp
(last verified October 24, 2002). One of the reports of interest is:
1. Report to the Colorado General Assembly on the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program. Submitted to the Colorado General Assembly by the Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission on July 1, 2002.
Completeness rating: C. Missing Data
The Air Care program did not record all of the data fields listed as being of interest in Appendix
A. The fuel parameters were not included and all tests were conducted with whatever fuel was in
the vehicle when it arrived at the testing facility (tank fuel).
Contact:
Mr. James Sidebottom
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Phone: 303-692-3149
E-mail: James.Sidebottom@state.co.us
17
-------
3.0 Special Studies
3.1 Overview
Along with the state I/M programs, we have contacted several labs throughout the US
and Canada that perform vehicle emissions testing for a variety of different purposes and studies.
While many of the studies were confidential to the clients that they were performed for, there
was still a wide range of data that could be made available for public release. All publicly
available data that contains second by second emissions testing was examined for possible
inclusion into the MSOD. The following four tables show summary information and analysis for
data received from all of the special studies.
Table 3-1: Population of Special Studies
Source Description
California Air Resources Board
University of California CE-CERT
Coordinating Research Council
Environment Canada
North Carolina State University
New York IPA
West Virginia University
Grand Tota
# Vehicles
42
344
12
5
7
6897
130
7437
# Tests
51
878
510
47
787
18038
2128
22439
Table 3-2: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type from Special Studies
Vehicle Type
LDV
LOT
HOT
Bus
Missing
Grand Total
Model Year Group
Non-catalyst
24
6
30
Oxidation
catalyst
27
7
34
3-way
catalyst
1152
169
1321
TierO
9268
1929
11197
TieM
5733
1805
47
7585
NLEV
99
36
135
Missing
142
1342
640
4
2128
Grand Total
16303
4094
1342
687
4
22430
18
-------
Table 3-3: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping from Special Studies
Mileage
Mileage < 50K
Vehicle
Type
LDV
LOT
Mileage < 50K Total
Mileage > 50K
LDV
LOT
Mileage > 50K Total
Missing
LDV
LOT
HOT
Bus
Missing
Missing Total
Grand Total
Model Year Group
Non-
catalyst
11
4
15
13
2
15
30
Oxidation
catalyst
15
3
18
12
4
16
34
3-way
catalyst
63
15
78
1089
154
1243
1321
TierO
611
138
749
8657
1791
10448
11197
Tier 1
3388
853
4241
2344
945
3289
1
7
47
55
7585
NLEV
99
36
135
135
Missing
142
1342
640
4
2128
2128
Grand
Total
4187
1049
5236
12115
2896
15011
1
149
1342
687
4
2183
22430
Table 3-4: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type from Special Studies
Fuel
CNG
GASOLINE
LSD
rosco
ULSD
GAS (Sulfur modified)
CARB
CECD1
CNG
Diesel #1
Diesel #2
ECD
FT
Gasoline
LNG
M100
MG
MG50D250
ULSD1
Missing
Grand Tota
Model Year Group
Non-catalyst
30
30
Oxidation
catalyst
34
34
3-way
catalyst
1321
1321
TierO
11197
11197
TieM
8
7028
6
4
14
510
15
7585
NLEV
135
135
Missing
479
127
157
14
536
402
35
26
129
42
44
54
83
2128
Grand Total
8
19745
6
4
14
510
479
127
157
14
536
402
35
26
129
42
44
54
83
15
22430
19
-------
3.2 California Air Resources Board
As part of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) development of the Emission
Factor (EMFAC) model, they have developed adjustments to EPA's Unified Cycle (UC). These
adjustments, entitled Unified Correction Cycles (UCC) are based off of route specific driving
data representative of driving within the Los Angeles area in 1992. CARB then updated the
UCC's in 1996 to account for changes in driving patterns. After developing 8 new driving
cycles, they conducted an emissions testing program to generate new factors for their EMFAC
model.
For this emissions testing program they recruited approximately 81 vehicles from the
general fleet population and tested them using the 8 new UCCs, an FTP, and an UC test. Only a
portion of the testing data was available for inclusion into the MSOD. Each vehicle's fuel tank
was emptied and refilled with Phase I summertime gasoline fuel prior to preconditioning and
testing. Second by second data was collected for the UCC and UC tests only [1,2].
Summary statistics for CARB data appear in the tables below.
Table 3-5: Number of Vehicles for each Vehicle Type
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDGV
1
1
7
21
2
32
LOT
2
6
1
9
MDV
1
1
Grand Total
1
1
9
27
4
42
Table 3-6: Number of Vehicles for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type
Mileage
Mileage < 50K
Model Year Group
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Mileage < 50K Total
Mileage > 50K
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
Mileage > 50K Total
Grand Tota
Vehicle Type
LDGV
3
2
5
1
1
7
18
27
32
LOT
4
1
5
2
2
4
9
MDV
1
1
1
Grand Total
7
4
11
1
1
9
20
31
42
20
-------
Table 3-7: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields
Variable
Model Year
Cylinders
Displacement (L)
Ambient Humidity (%)
Ambient Pressure
Ambient Temperature (F)
Horsepower
Curb Weight (Ibs)
Inertia Weight (Ibs)
Odometer
Count
42
42
42
0
0
0
42
0
42
42
Missing
0
0
0
42
42
42
0
42
0
0
MIN
1973
2
1.14
5.60
2250
22085.00
MAX
1994
8
5.73
15.90
5500
332391.00
MEAN
1988
5.19
2.83
8.80
3369.05
87786.90
STD
4.55
1.53
1.16
2.45
670.57
54091.94
Documentation rating: A. Fully Documented
This project is documented by two main papers, which are shown below. General information
about the California Air Resources Board can be found at
url:http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm (last verified October 24, 2002).
1. Development of Unified Correction Cycles written by Robert Gammariello and Jeffrey R.
Long, submitted to the Sixth CRC On-Road Vehicle Emissions Workshop in March 1996.
2. Memorandum: Unified Correction Cycles Test Plan. Written July 19, 2995 by Mark Carlock
to Raphael Susnowitz.
Completeness rating: C. Missing Data
This program did not record all of the data fields listed as being of interest in Appendix A. The
test program did not record any OBD data and the only fuel information is Phase I summertime.
Contact:
Jeff Long
Phone: (626)450-6140
California Air Resources Board; Analysis Section
9528 Telstar Ave.
El Monte, C A 91731 USA
E-mail: jlong@arb.ca.gov
3.3 Coordinating Research Council
The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) conducted studies in 1997 to determine the
effects of sulfur levels in fuel on vehicles. They used approximately 12 vehicles as shown in
Table 3-8. Each vehicle was first tested with approximately 10,000 miles on the odometer. The
catalysts were then rapidly aged to the equivalent of over 100,000 miles and retested. To
investigate the effects of sulfur, they varied the amount of sulfur in two base fuels by adding the
21
-------
Auto/Oil 3-component sulfur mixture. They used Federal RFGbase fuel with 40, 100, 150, 330,
and 600 ppm Sulfur as well as California Phase 2 RFG with 40 and 150 ppm sulfur [1, 2, 3].
Summary statistics for CRC data appear in the tables below.
Table 3-8: Vehicle Summary (Two Vehicles of Each Model)
Vehicle Model
1997 Ford Taurus
1997 Ford Escort
1997 Honda Civic
1997 Nissan Sentra
1997 Toyota Camry
1997 Geo Metro
Emission Level
C LEV
C LEV
C LEV
C LEV
C LEV
C LEV
Inertia
3625 Ib.
3000 Ib.
2750 Ib.
2750 Ib.
3375 Ib.
2375 Ib.
HP Dynamometer
5.9hp
6.3 hp
7.5 hp
6.7 hp
7.4 hp
7.3 hp
Table 3-9: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields
Variable
Model Year
Cylinders
Displacement (L)
Ambient Humidity (%)
Ambient Pressure
Ambient Temperature (F)
Horsepower
Curb Weight (Ibs)
Inertia Weight (Ibs)
Odometer
Count
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
0
510
509
Missing
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
510
0
1
MIN
1997
4
1.30
31.48
97.76
70.20
5.90
2375
1066
MAX
1997
7
3.00
57.95
99.36
78.60
7.50
3630
15075
MEAN
1997
4.34
1.96
44.53
98.51
73.92
6.83
2983.73
10825.06
STD
0
0.76
0.56
4.38
0.29
1.28
0.60
421.34
2113.76
Documentation rating: B. Can be documented
A full project report detailing the test methods and analysis was not found for the E-47 and E-42
at the time this report was published. Documentation appears in the test records and subsequent
analysis. The CRC main web site is at http://www.crcao.com/ (last verified October 24, 2002).
Some of the documentation that was available is as follows:
1. AAMA / AIAM Study on the Effects of Fuel Sulfur on Low Emission Vehicle Criteria
Pollutants. December 1997.
2. ReadMe file included with the data entitled CRC Project E-47 Sulfur Reversibility Program
CD-ROM Description.
3. ReadMe file included with the data entitled CRC Certified-LEV Vehicle Fuel Sulfur Effects
Emissions Program.
22
-------
Completeness rating: C. Missing Data
This program did not record all of the data fields listed as being of interest in Appendix A. OBD
parameters are not available from this project.
Contacts:
Mr. Brent Bailey.
Phone: 678-795-0506
Coordinating Research Council
E-mail: bkbailey@crcao.com
3.4 Environment Canada
The Environmental Technology Centre (ETC) at Environment Canada has been
conducting a wide range of vehicle testing for many years on both heavy and light duty vehicles
and has been collecting second by second data during the vast majority of tests. We have been in
discussions with the staff of ETC to determine which of their data sets could be added to the
MSOD. At the time this interim report was written, these discussions were still on going and
only a very small portion of the potential data had been delivered for use. This section will
discuss the data from the two studies that have already been delivered. While it is likely that
additional data will be delivered in time for inclusion in this project, all other data is discussed
further in Section 4.3 as data for future collection.
The two studies that Environment Canada has already provided for use in the MSOD
examined emissions from 40 foot Orion V transit buses from the New York City Transit
Authority. The first study examined the emissions from 3 buses, all of which use compressed
natural gas. The buses were tested at Environment Canada's testing facility and exhaust
emissions were measured while the buses were operated over the Central Business District
(CBD) and New York Bus (NYBUS) cycles [1].
The second study examined the performance and durability of continuously regenerating
particulate filters for diesel-powered buses. In this study 25 New York City transit buses were
equipped with continuously regenerating diesel particulate filter systems for 9 to 12 months. As
part of this study, two of the buses were selected for in-depth exhaust emissions testing before
and after the particulate filter systems were in use. The buses were tested operating over the
CBD and NYBUS cycles and were tested operating on New York standard diesel fuel #1 (300
ppm sulfur) as well as ultra low sulfur diesel (<30 ppm sulfur) [2].
Details of the buses used in both studies appear in Table 3-10 and 3-11. No data is
available for the ambient test conditions.
23
-------
Table 3-10: Bus Characteristics
Detail
Model - CNG
Model - Diesel
Chassis
Displacement
Type
Power (hp)
Configuration
Value
1 999 DDC Series 50 G
1 999 DDC Series 50
New Flyer CLF 40
8.5L
4-Stroke
275
Inline 4 cylinder
Table 3-11: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type
Fuel
Compressed Natural Gas
Low Sulphur Diesel
TOSCO (Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel)
Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel
Missing
Grand Total
Number of Test
8
6
4
14
15
47
Documentation rating: A. Fully Documented
Two main papers, as shown below, document the projects. Additional information about
Environment Canada can be found at http://www.etcentre.org/etchome_e.html (last verified
October 24, 2002).
1. Determination of Exhaust Emissions from Three New York City Transit CNG Buses. ERMD
Report #01-34. Prepared by Environmental Technology Centre, Emissions Research and
Measurement Division in 2001.
2. Chatterjee, et al. Performance and Durability Evaluation of Continuously Regenerating
Particulate Filters on Diesel Powered Urban Buses at NY City Transit - Part II. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc. Report number 2002-01-0430, written in 2002.
Completeness rating: C. Missing Data
This program did not record all of the data fields listed as being of interest in Appendix A. None
of the ambient test conditions were recorded.
Contacts:
Environmental Technology Centre
Environment Canada
335 River Road South,
Gloucester, ON
Kl A OH3
24
-------
Tel. (613)991-5633
Fax. (613)998-1365
3.5 New York Instrumentation Protocol Assessment
New York State runs a decentralized inspection and maintenance (I/M) program that does
not use the EPA standard IM240 protocol, but instead uses a New York Transient Emissions
Short Test (NYTEST) testing program and equipment. To support this substitution in testing
programs, New York has been performing a comparison study between the NYTEST and IM240
emissions test. This study is entitled Evaluation of Simultaneous Emissions Test Data Derived
From the NYTEST Instrumentation/Protocol Assessment Pilot Study. The study is referred to as
the IPA. This study began as a pilot study in 1998 and has been carried on yearly ever since.
During the IPA study, vehicles are simultaneously tested using both the NYTEST and
EVI240 equipment. The composite results are then analyzed for equivalency. All tests were
performed by TESTCOM contractors at one testing facility. The vehicles used during the testing
were recruited from the general vehicle fleet population and were roughly followed the
distribution fleet age distribution. Tank fuel (gasoline) was used for all vehicles. Second by
second data has been made available for all years of the IPA program for the EVI240 testing [1,2,
3].
Summary statistics for the New York IPA program data appear in the tables below.
Table 3-12: Number of Tests for each Vehicle Type
Model Year Group
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDV
3
1089
9004
4424
99
14619
LOT
0
121
1772
1490
36
3419
Grand Total
2
1210
10776
5914
135
18038
25
-------
Table 3-13: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type
Mileage
Mileage < 50K
Model Year Group
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
6. NLEV
Mileage < 50K Total
Mileage > 50K
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Mileage > 50K Total
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDV
3
111
686
36
836
0
118
1661
804
2583
3419
LOT
55
536
2166
99
2856
3
1034
8468
2258
11763
14619
Grand Total
58
647
2852
135
3692
3
1152
10129
3062
14346
18038
Table 3-14: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields
Variable
Model Year
Cylinders
Displacement
Ambient Humidity
Ambient Pressure
Ambient Temperature
Horsepower
Curb Weight
Inertia Weight
Odometer
Count
18,038
18,038
0
18,038
0
0
18,038
0
18,038
18,038
Missing
0
0
18,038
0
18,038
18,038
0
18,038
0
0
MIN
1,980
0
0
1
1,750
239
MAX
2,001
8
92
27
6,000
1,255,864
MEAN
1,992
5
35
14
3,323
91,199
STD
4
1
13
3
583
52,486
Documentation rating: A. Fully Documented
The program is fully documented in several reports. Some of the primary reports are as follows:
1. Evaluation of Simultaneous Emissions Test Data Derived From the NYTEST
Instrumentation/Protocol Assessment Pilot Study, Regression and Residual Analysis of NYTEST
andlM240 Composite Emission Test Results. Prepared by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Division of Air Resources Bureau of Enhanced Inspection and
Maintenance & the Automotive Emissions Laboratory, May 2000.
2. Amendments 1 and 2 Project Summary Report (Emissions Data Collected in 1999 and 2000),
prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Air
Resources Bureau of Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance & the Automotive Emissions
Laboratory, January 2002.
26
-------
3. IP A Amendment #3 Project Summary Report. Prepared by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Division of Air Resources Bureau of Enhanced Inspection and
Maintenance & the Automotive Emissions Laboratory, July 2002.
Completeness rating: C. Missing Data
This program did not record all of the data fields listed as being of interest in Appendix A. OBD
and fuel parameters are not available from this project.
Contacts:
CeliaShih, (518)402-8337
Data Analysis Section, Bureau of Enhanced I/M
Division of Air Resources, NYSDEC
2nd Fl, 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-3257
cxshih@gw.dec. state.ny.us
3.6 North Carolina State University
In 2001 Dr. Christopher Frey from the Department of Civil Engineering at North
Carolina State University headed a team to investigate the emissions reductions that could be
achieved through improvement in traffic management. They used the portable exhaust gas
analyzer, OEM-2100, from Clean Air Technologies International, Inc. to collect on-road
vehicle emissions. This instrumentation was attached to a small number of vehicles that were
then repeatedly driven on predefined routes.
Two main sites were used for the study, Chapel Hill Road and Walnut Street in North
Carolina. The vehicles used at each site appear in Table 3-15. A small number of drivers were
used to ensure repeatability in the driving behavior. Regular unleaded gasoline was used for all
vehicle runs and no further fuel information is available from the study [1].
Summary statistics for the North Carolina data appear in the tables below
Table 3-15: Vehicles used in NCSU Study
Vehicle
1999 Ford Taurus
1998 Chevrolet Venture Minivan
1998 Toyota Camry
1998 Dodge Caravan
1997 Jeep Cherokee
1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass
Chapel Hill Road
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Walnut Street
Primary
(not used)
Secondary
Secondary
(not used)
Primary
27
-------
Table 3-16: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type
Mileage
Mileage < 50K
Mileage > 50K
Missing
Model Year Group
5. Tier 1
5. Tier 1
5. Tier 1
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDV
592
592
LOT
77
111
7
195
Grand Total
669
111
7
787
Table 3-17: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields
Variable
Model Year
Cylinders
Displacement (L)
Ambient Humidity (%)
Ambient Pressure
Ambient Temperature (F)
Horsepower
Curb Weight (Ibs)
Inertia Weight (Ibs)
Odometer
Count
787
0
767
671
0
745
0
727
0
780
Missing
0
787
20
116
787
42
787
60
787
7
MIN
1996
0.30
20.00
28.00
1063
30875
MAX
1999
4.00
97.00
95.00
5357
83260
MEAN
1998
2.80
48.46
61.12
4495.97
41397.46
STD
1.25
0.56
21.07
15.96
741.67
10395.85
Documentation rating: A. Fully Documented
The project is well documented in its final report. The report and additional information can be
downloaded from NCSU's website http://www4.ncsu.edu/~frey/ (last verified on October 24,
2002).
1. Frey, et. al. Emissions Reduction Through Better Traffic Management: An Empirical
Evaluation Based Upon On-RoadMeasurements. Prepared for the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, December 2001.
Completeness rating: C. Missing Data
This program did not record all of the data fields listed as being of interest in Appendix A.
project used regular unleaded gasoline and did not record any further fuel parameters.
Contacts:
H. Christopher Frey
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7908
Telephone: (919) 515-1155
E-mail ^rey^eos.ncsu.edu
The
28
-------
3.7 University of California CE-CERT
Researchers at the University of California College of Engineering-Center for
Environmental Research and Technology (CECERT) have been conducting a variety of vehicle
test programs for several years. After discussions with the CE-CERT staff, data from two of
their test programs were submitted for inclusion into the MSOD. These two test programs are
discussed below. Several other studies performed at CE-CERT appear to be of interest but were
not available within the time frame of this project and are discussed further in Section 4.5.
3.7.1 Comprehensive Modal Emissions Model
Data was collected by CECERT for the modal emissions model development program.
This program can best be described through the following excerpt taken from the report NCHRP
Project 25-11 Development of a Comprehensive Modal Emissions Model final Report written by
Matthew Earth and associates in April 2000.
In August 1995, the College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research
and Technology (CECERT) at the University of California-Riverside along with
researchers from the University of Michigan and Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, began a four-year research project to develop a Comprehensive
Modal Emissions Model (CMEM), sponsored by the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP, Project 25-11). The overall objective of the
research project was to develop and verify a modal emissions model that
accurately reflects Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV, i.e., cars and small trucks)
emissions produced as a function of the vehicle's operating mode. The model is
comprehensive in the sense that it is able to predict emissions for a wide variety
of LDVs in various states of condition (e.g., properly functioning, deteriorated,
malfunctioning). The model is now complete and capable of predicting second-
by-second tailpipe emissions and fuel consumption for a wide range of
vehicle/technology categories. In creating CMEM, over 350 vehicles were
extensively tested on a chassis dynamometer, where second-by-second
measurements were made of both engine-out and tailpipe emissions of carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon dioxide. CMEM itself
runs on a personal computer or on a UNIX workstation. The model and the
emissions database are both available on a CD [1].
The vehicles used in the study were typically tested with three test cycles: 3-bag Federal
Test Procedure (FTP), US06 cycle (bag 4 of the supplemental FTP), and a second by second
emissions cycle developed by CECERT entitled the Modal Emission Cycle (MEC). The MEC
was designed to cover a range of driving modes including steady-state cruise, accelerations,
decelerations, and idle. All vehicles were recruited out of the general vehicle population and
whatever gasoline that they had in their tanks was used during testing.
Summary statistics for the NCHRP data appear in the tables below.
29
-------
Table 3-18: Number of Test for Each Vehicle Type
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDV
23
23
56
243
205
550
LOT
6
7
46
151
118
328
Grand Total
29
30
102
394
323
878
Table 3.-19: Number of Tests for Each Mileage Grouping and Vehicle Type
Mileage
Mileage < 50K
Model Year Group
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Mileage < 50K Total
Mileage > 50K
1 . Non-catalyst
2. Oxidation catalyst
3. 3-way catalyst
4. TierO
5. Tier 1
Mileage > 50K Total
Grand Total
Vehicle Type
LDV
11
15
8
72
119
225
12
8
48
171
86
325
550
LOT
4
3
12
23
88
130
2
4
34
128
30
198
328
Grand Total
15
18
20
95
207
355
14
12
82
299
116
523
878
Table 3-20: Statistics for Numerical Data Fields
Variable
Model Year
Cylinders
Displacement
Ambient Humidity
Ambient Pressure
Ambient Temperature
Horsepower
Curb Weight
Inertia Weight
Odometer
Count
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
. 0
878
878
Missing
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
878
0
0
MIN
19
3
0
0
0
0
0
1750
96
MAX
1999
8
8
88
30
93
29
8000
228988
MEAN
1966
5
2.55
48.33
23.40
67.79
9.18
3333.86
67774.06
STD
219
2
1.90
24.01
11.25
21.72
6.78
778.19
47422.64
30
-------
Documentation rating: A. Fully Documented
The project is well documented in its final report cited below. Additional information can also
be found on their web site at http://www.cert.ucr.edu.
1. Matthew Barth, et. al. NCHRP Project 25-11 Development of a Comprehensive Modal
Emissions Model Final Report April 2000.
Completeness rating: C. Missing Data
This program did not record all of the data fields listed as being of interest in Appendix A. The
project used whatever fuel was in the vehicle at the time of recruitment (tank fuel) and did not
record any OBD information.
Contacts:
Dr. Matthew Barth
Director of Transportation Systems & Vehicle Technology Research Laboratory
Phone: 909-781-5782
E-mail : barth@cert.ucr.edu
3.7.2 CE-CERT Ammonia Study
In 2001 CE-CERT conducted a study to examine the factors that influence ammonia
emissions from light-duty cars and trucks. During this study they tested 39 vehicles on the FTP
driving cycle. The manufacturer of these vehicles is shown below in Table 3-21. All of these
tests were performed with whatever gasoline was in the vehicle tank at the time that the vehicle
was procured. During each test they recorded the standard exhaust measurements along with
utilizing Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to measure the ammonia emissions. They also
performed additional testing on five vehicles using the US06, the New York City Cycle (NYCC),
and a high-speed freeway cycle in order to determine effects of driving patterns on ammonia
emissions. Finally, two vehicles were tested using gasoline with 30 and then 330 ppmw sulfur
levels to investigate the effects of fuel sulfur levels.
Table 3-21: Vehicles Used In Ammonia Study
Manufacturer
GM
Ford
Chrysler
Honda
Toyota
Nissan
Other
LDV (car)
3
4
3
6
2
2
1
LOT
9
5
1
0
2
0
1
31
-------
Documentation rating: Undetermined
At the time this report was written CE-CERT was still in the process of submitting their data. A
final determination will be made once the data has been transferred and reviewed. The above
discussion was taken from the following reports:
1. Thomas D. Durbin, Ryan D. Wilson, Joseph M. Norbeck, J. Wayne Miller, Tao Huai, Sam H.
Rhee, Estimates of the emission rates of ammonia from light-duty vehicles using standard
chassis dynamometer test cycles. Atmospheric Environment 36 (2002) 1475 1482. Accepted
December 2 2001
Completeness rating: Undetermined
A full determination of the completeness of the data could not be made because the actual data
had not been received by the time this report was written.
Contacts:
Dr. Matthew Earth
Director of Transportation Systems & Vehicle Technology Research Laboratory
Phone: 909-781-5782
E-mail : barth@cert.ucr.edu
3.8 West Virginia University
In 1992 West Virginia University (WVU) developed two transportable chassis
dynamometer laboratories for testing heavy duty vehicles. Each dynamometer is set up on a flat-
bed trailer and is designed to allow a heavy duty truck or bus to be driven onto it and tested. The
rollers of the dynamometer are free rotating and are not used to absorb any load. Instead, power
is taken directly from the drive wheels through an adapter which couples it to a flywheel, which
simulates inertial load, and eddy current power absorbers, which simulate road load. The
exhaust gas is ducted to a dilution tunnel and from there sample pipes bring the exhaust into the
analyzers [1,2].
WVU has used this equipment to conduct numerous studies for both private and public
organizations. At the time that this report was written EPA was in the process of procuring part
of this data from three testing sites for inclusion into the MSOD and only summary information
was available for this data. The following tables show a review of the type of testing performed
at the three different sites. The remainder of the data collected from WVU is either confidential
or outside the time frame of this project to procure and is summarized in Section 4.4.
Summary statistics for WVU data appear in the tables below.
32
-------
Table 3-22: Testing Activity at Each Site
Site
Ralph's Grocery
Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority
West Virginia University
Abbreviatio
n
RAGRO
WMA
WVU
Grand Total
Vehicles
85
10
35
130
Tests
1098
97
933
2128
Table 3-23: Number of Tests for Each Vehicle Type Tested
Vehicle Type
Beverage Truck
box truck
Chassis Bus
Flat Bed
Fuel Cell Bus
Fuel Truck
Hybrid Elec Transit Bus
Pick-Up Truck
Refuse Truck
School Bus
Suburban
Tractor
Tractor Truck
Transit Bus
truck
VAN
Missing
Grand Tota
Facility
RAGRO
6
62
4
65
16
284
57
40
469
91
4
1098
WMATA
97
97
WVU
43
118
42
68
128
70
239
219
2
4
933
Grand Total
6
105
118
4
42
65
16
68
412
57
70
40
708
407
2
4
4
2128
33
-------
Table 3-24: Number of Tests for Each Fuel Type Used
Primary Fuel ID
CARB
CECD1
CNG
D1 Diesel
D2 Diesel
ECD
FT
GSLN
LNG
M100
MG
MG50D250
ULSD1
Facility
RAGRO
479
119
35
11
402
10
16
26
Grand Total 1098
WMATA
14
83
97
wvu
8
122
525
25
10
103
42
44
54
933
Grand Total
479
127
157
14
536
402
35
26
129
42
44
54
83
2128
34
-------
Table 3-25: Number of Tests for Each Drive Cycle Used
Cycle full name
14 Peak Cycle
14 Peak Route
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Arterial Cycle
CARB HHDDT Transient Mode
Central Business District Cycle
Central Business District Route
City Cycle
City Suburban Cycle
City Suburban Route
Coast Down
Cold Start Extended CBD Cycle
Cold Start William H. Martin Cycle
D Cycle
Double CSHVR Route
Double Length 5Miles Cycle
Double Manhattan Cycle
Double New York Garbage Truck Cycle
Double Test D with Warmup
Double Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
Double Washington DC Metro Transit Bus
Cycle
Double WHM Cycle
Federal Test Procedure
FIGE
FTP-75
Georgetown University TS
Hiway Cycle
Idle State Cycle
Lug Down
Manhattan
Modified WVU Truck Cycle (Route)
Morgantown On-road Cycle
New York Bus Cycle
Orange County Refuse Truck Cycle
Orange County Transit Authority Bus Cycle
Steady State Cycle - 20MPH
Steady State Cycle - 30MPH
Steady State Cycle - 40MPH
[CDC
Facility
RAGRO
5
314
29
143
103
6
48
18
5
34
36
12
62
27
WMA
8
24
WVU
12
24
1
1
27
15
256
5
1
5
59
2
5
38
4
11
4
1
59
4
3
19
2
34
19
2
4
6
10
6
Grand Total
12
24
1
1
27
15
261
5
1
5
373
2
8
5
67
143
107
6
48
18
5
24
11
4
1
59
4
37
55
2
12
34
19
2
62
27
4
6
10
6
Table continued on next page.
35
-------
Table 3-26: Drive Cycles Used During Testing (Continued)
Cycle full name
Test D Route
Triple CBD No Warm up
Triple Length CBD
Triple New York Bus Cycle
Unknown
US06
Viking Freight Adhoc Cycle
Washington DC Metro Transit Bus Cycle
WHM Cycle
WVU 1 Peak Cycle
WVU Truck Cycle (5 Peak)
Yard Cycle
Grand Total
Facility
RAGRO
12
174
17
38
15
1098
WMA
19
46
97
WVU
2
28
197
4
35
4
20
4
933
Grand Total
2
12
221
17
235
4
15
46
35
4
20
4
2128
Documentation rating: Undetermined
At the time this report was written EPA was still in final negotiations to procure the data from
WVU. A final determination will be made once the data has been transferred and reviewed. The
above discussion was taken from the following reports:
1. Ramamurthy, Clark, Atkinson, and Lyons. Models for Preedicting Trnasient Heavy Duty
Vehicle Emissions, SAE Technical Paper Series number 982652, Reprinted from Diesel
Emissions (SP-1397), 1998.
2. Clark, Prucz, Gautam, and Lyons. The West Virginia University Heavy Duty Vehicle
Emissions Database as a Resource for Inventory and Comparative Studies. SAE Technical
Paper Series number 2000-01-2854, Reprinted From Diesel Aftertreatment (SP-1561), 2000.
Completeness rating: Undetermined
The actual data had not been received by the time this report was written and so a full
determination of the completeness of the data could not be made.
Contacts:
Ralph D. Nine
Program Coordinator
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Morgantown, WV 26506-6106
Phone: (304) 293-3111 ext. 2463
E-mail: Ralph.Nine@mail.wvu.edu
36
-------
37
-------
4.0 Other Possible Sources of Data for Future Collection
4.1 Overview
During the course of this investigation there were several collections of data that
appeared highly desirable for inclusion into the MSOD but were unavailable given the time
frame of this project. Several of the data sources mentioned above in this report were able to
provide only a portion of their data for this project and would most likely be able to provide
additional data given more time and funding. These additional data collections are briefly
discussed below for possible future review and investigation.
4.2 Coordinating Research Council
The Coordinating Research Council is currently conducting several studies that would
most likely be highly beneficial for inclusion into the MSOD upon their conclusion. Each of
these studies collects second by second data. Below is a brief summary of each study.
E-55 Heavy Duty Vehicle Chassis Dynamometer Testing For Emission Inventory
This study evaluated the Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck (HHDT) cycle developed by
ARB for representativeness and repeatability. After the evaluation, CRC made
recommendations for modifications and the creation of a new schedule. This new schedule was
then used by staff from West Virginia University (WVU) to test two class 8 tractors of different
model years and manufacturers (Ford and Mack). New test procedures were developed during
the course of their testing and a final set of tests were performed using the finalized procedures.
The emission results from the tests were then used to review and assess the accuracy of
emissions factors used in mobile source inventory models [1].
E-60 Ammonia Emissions From Late Model Vehicles
This project will examine the effects of the use of ultra-low sulfur fuel on exhaust
emissions of ammonia. The project will test 12 vehicles that have at least 10-20,000 miles of
customer driving only in California. The targeted vehicles for testing are shown in table 4-1
below.
38
-------
Table 4-1: Targeted Vehicles for Testing [2]
MY
2000
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
OEM
Chrysler
Ford
Olds
Chevy
Ford
Jeep
Buick
Dodge
Acura
Toyota
Honda
Nissan
Model
Sebring Conv.
Taurus
Alero
Silverado
Windstar
Grand Cherokee
Le Sabre
Neon
3.2 TL
Camry
Accord
Sentra CA
Certification
LEV
LEV
LEV
LEV
ULEV
LEV
ULEV
ULEV
ULEV
ULEV
SULEV
SULEV
Displacement
2.5 L
3.0 L
2.4 L
5.3 L
3.8 L
4.7L
3.8 L
2.0 L
3.2 L
2.2 L
2.3 L
1.8L
Engine Family
?
XFMXV03.0VGC
XGMXV02.4027
XGMXA05.3183
YFMXT03.82JC
?
YGMXV03.8901
YCRXV0122V40
YHNXV03.2GL4
YTYXV02.2JJB
YHNXV02.3NL5
YNSXV01 .85BA
Each vehicle will be repeatedly tested using the standard FTP and US06 test procedures,
with additional steps taken to measure ammonia emissions. All testing will be performed using
California Phase 2 base gasoline with sulfur levels of 1, 30 and 150 ppm [2].
E-61 Impact of Engine Oil Properties on Emissions
The following excerpt was taken from the final report of this project and describes the
intent of the project as well as the type of testing performed [3]. Table 4-2 below, also taken
from the final report, shows the vehicles that were used in this project.
The objective of the present program was to determine whether sulfur
levels in engine oil could have a measurable impact on vehicle emissions. For this
study, the emissions impact of oil sulfur was evaluated for 4 ultra-low-emission
vehicles (ULEVs) and 2 super-ultra-low-emission vehicles (SULEVs) using oils
with sulfur contents ranging from 0.01% to 0.76% and a gasoline with a 0.2
ppmw sulfur content. Vehicles were configured with aged catalysts and tested in
triplicate over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and at idle and 50 miles per hour
(mph) cruise conditions. In addition to the regulated emissions and modal engine-
out and tailpipe emissions, engine-out SO2 was measured in near real-time using
a novel approach with a differential optical absorption spectrometer (DOAS) [3].
Table 4-2: Description of Test Vehicles [3]
MY
2001
2001
2001
2001
2000
2001
OEM
Ford
Buick
Dodge
Toyota
Honda
Nissan
Model
Windstar
LeSabre
Neon
Camry
Accord
Sentra CA
Certification {Displacement
ULEV 3.8 L
ULEV
ULEV
ULEV
SULEV
SULEV
3.8 L
2L
2.2 L
2.3 L
1.8L
Mileage
20,407
16,308
17,769
20,678
10,548
5,237
Engine Family
1FMXT03.82JX
1GMXV03.8044
1CRXV0122V40
1TYXV02.2JJA
YHNXV02.3NL5
1NSXV01.852A
39
-------
References:
1. Gautam, Clark et all. Final Report, Qualification of the Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck
Schedule and Development of Test Procedures. CRC Project No. E-55-2. Submitted by West
Virginia University Research Corporation. March, 2002.
2. Draft Scope of Work, CRC Project No. E-60, Ammonia Emissions from Late Model Vehicles.
August 30, 2000.
3. Dubin et all. Final Report, Impact of Engine Oil Properties on Emissions, CRC Project No.
E-61. Prepared for the Coordinating Research Council. Submitted August 2002.
4.3 Environment Canada
As discussed in Section 3.4 above, we were unable to procure the majority of data that is
of interest from the Environmental Technology Centre (ETC) at Environment Canada by the
time this report was written. Much of the data will require additional work by the ETC staff to
reformat it for public use. A list of some of the studies of interest along with the year that they
were performed appears below.
1994 Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Light Duty Vehicles - Phase 1
1994 The Effects of Aged Catalysts and Cold Ambient Temperatures on Nitrous
Oxide Emissions
1995 Evaluation of Biodiesel in an Urban Transit Bus Powered by a 1988
DDC6V92 Engine
1995 Evaluation of Biodiesel in an Urban Transit Bus Powered by a 1981
DDC8V71 Engine
1995 Evaluation of Tall Oil Biodiesels on Diesel Engine Exhaust Emissions
1996 Study of HD Vehicle Exhaust Emissions from a Modified CNG Bus Fueled
with Hythane
1998 Investigation of Potential exhaust emission Reductions through the use of
Biodiesel used in Conventional Diesel Engines.
1998 Evaluation of Emissions and Fuel Economy of the Hybrid Nova Bus
1998 HD Diesel Engine Exhaust Emissions of Diesel Fuels Derived from Oil
Sands and Conventional Crude Oil
1999 Evaluation of Emissions & Fuel Economy of the Hybrid Nova Bus
1999 Evaluation of Emissions & Fuel Economy of the Hybrid Nova Bus - Phase
II
2000 Exhaust Emissions Testing of a DDC Series 50 Urban Bus Engine
Operating Diesel and PuriNOx
2000 Electric Hybrid Bus Exhaust Emissions Study - Part 111
40
-------
2001 Emissions Testing of an Orion Hybrid-Electric Bus installed with Emission
Control Devices and Low Speed Bias
2001 Measurement and Evaluation of Exhaust Emissions of Urban Transit Buses
with Retrofit Exhaust Aftertreatment Equipment
The first two studies on the list above are of particular interest for this project since they
were directly examining the factors effecting nitrous oxide emissions from light duty vehicles.
The vehicles used in the aged catalyst study appear in Table 4-3 below. Testing was performed
with summer and winter grade gasoline [1].
Table 4-3: Vehicles Description [1]
MY
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1990
1991
1993
1993
1993
1993
Model
Ford Taurus
Chevrolet Beretta
Honda civic Sedan
Toyota Corolla
Chevrolet Astro Van
Honda Civic Hatchback
Mazda 626
Chevrolet Cavalier
Mazda 323
Toyota Corolla
Cherolet Blazer
Dodge Dakota
Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera
Ford Probe
Displacement L
3
2.8
1.5
1.6
4.3
1.5
2.2
2.2
1.6
1.6
4.3
3.9
3.3
2
Cylinders
6
6
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
4
Transmission
A4
A5
A4
A5
A4
A5
A4
A3
A5
A5
A4
A4
A4
A5
Mileage
71883
75167
19583
33016
47152
85420
20986
21889
30545
32144
2279
2365
2395
2561
References:
1. Barton and Simpson. The Effects of Aged Catalysts and ColdAmbioent Temperatures on
Nitrous Oxide Emissions. Unpublished MSED Report #94-21, 1994.
4.4 West Virginia University
West Virginia University has testing data available from approximately 40 different
testing sites only three of which were readily available for inclusion into the MSOD during this
project. While not all of the data can be made publicly accessible due to confidentiality
agreements or lost records, there still remains a large amount of valuable heavy duty vehicle
testing that could be gathered and added into the MSOD. The following tables briefly
summarize the different testing performed by WVU.
41
-------
Table 4-4: Test Sites
Testing Site
Aq Processing, Inc. Total
Arco Total
Bl-State Development Agency Total
Brooklyn Natural Gas Union Total
Chicago Transit Authority Total
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Total
Denver Regional Transit District Total
Desert Sands Unified School District Total
EEA Total
Flint Mass Transit Authority Total
Greater Peoria Mass Transit District Agency Total
Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority Total
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Total
Johnson Power Systems Total
Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority Total
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Total
Mayflower Transit Total
Metro Council Transit Operations Total
Metro Dade Transit Agency Total
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Total
Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority Total
Miami Valley Regional Transit Agency Total
New York City Command Bus Company Total
New York City DEP Mobile Systems Units Total
Northrop Advanced Technology Transit Bus Program Total
Orange County Transportation Authority Total
Paul Revere Transportation LLC Massport Total
Phoenix Transit System Total
Pierce County Public Transportation Total
Port Authority of Allegheny County Total
Queens Surface Corp. Total
Raley's Distribution Center Total
Rhone Poulenc of Mexico, S. A. Total
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority Total
Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon Total
Wood County Schools Bus System Total
Grand Tota
# Vehicles
12
8
11
35
7
16
17
15
50
9
16
4
11
17
12
12
6
27
26
14
20
7
75
8
2
14
17
18
24
12
2
14
12
11
17
5
583
# Tests
208
80
177
306
66
122
123
154
611
57
335
30
176
258
67
94
25
394
301
87
140
32
639
45
22
103
211
239
192
106
37
201
92
54
156
17
5957
42
-------
Table 4-5: Number of Tests Performed on Each Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type
Articulating Transit Bus
Basin Cleaner Truck
Box Truck
Bus
Cable Truck
Coca-Cola Truck
Dump Truck
Experimental Transit Bus
Flatbed Truck
Fuel Truck
Hybrid Bus
Parcel Delivery Truck
Pick-up Truck
Pump Truck
Refuse Truck
Salt Truck
School Bus
Service Truck
Sewer Cleaner Truck
Snow Plow Truck
Street Sweeper
Tanker Truck
Tire Truck
Tour Bus
Tractor Truck
Transit Bus
Trolley Bus
Utility Truck
Grand Tola
Count
44
11
112
22
10
68
41
37
12
86
6
12
10
9
652
9
221
27
22
100
12
16
47
37
932
3317
29
56
5957
43
-------
Table 4-6: Number of Tests on Each Fuel Type
Primary Fuel ID
BD
BD20
BD35
BD50
CAD
CARB
CD
CNG
D1
D1-LS
D2
E100
E93
E95
ECD
FT-MG
FT-SMD
FT-SMD50/CAD50
GSLN
JP4
LNG
LPG
M100
MG
OXYD1
OXYD2
Grand Tola
Count
87
57
52
5
74
37
6
1352
1370
9
1620
66
24
309
43
13
37
21
10
8
377
22
308
13
24
13
5957
44
-------
Table 4-7: Number of Tests for Each Drive Cycle
Drive Cycle Used
14 Peak Route
Arterial Cycle
Business Arterial Cycle
Central Business District Cycle
Central Business District Route
City Suburban Route
Coast Down
Commute Cycle
D Cycle
Double CSHVR Route
Double Length 5Miles Cycle
Double Orange County Refuse Truck
Cycle
Idle State Cycle
Kern Cycle
Lug Down
Manhattan
Modified WVU Truck Cycle (Route)
New York Bus Cycle
New York Composite Cycle
New York Garbage Truck Cycle
New York Truck Cycle
NYC Street Sweeper Cycle
Route22
Route 7 7
Snap Test
Steady State Cycle - 20MPH
Steady State Cycle - 30MPH
Steady State Cycle - 40MPH
Steady State Cycle - 60MPH
Test D Route
Triple Length CBD
Triple New York Garbage Truck Cycle
Unknown
WVU Truck Cycle (5 Peak)
Grand Tola
Count
19
50
75
3640
1
88
54
40
79
13
18
17
10
3
8
27
725
136
38
146
8
12
20
11
39
110
7
34
2
143
40
16
2
326
5957
4.5 University of California CE-CERT
The University of California CE-CERT has performed numerous studies of interest that
have been pursued during this project for inclusion into the MSOD. Unfortunately, none of the
45
-------
data was available for review in this report. Table 4-8 below shows a listing of the studies that
are of most interest and includes any pertinent references for each study that was available.
Table 4-8: CE-CERT Studies
Study Name
Effect of payload on emissions of light
& heavy duty vehicles
Particulate Measurement Techniques
and instrument characterization
OBD II evaluation study
Biodiesel blends analysis for light
heavy duty trucks
ARCO EC-D diesel particulate study
EPA NH3 Sulfur study
Lubricant Sulfur Analysis
EPA NH3 Modeling
NH3 from light duty vehicles
Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Study
Study for Extremely Low Emitting
Vehicles
Date
Oct-99
1-Oct
2-Mar
2-Aug
2-Jul
2-Mar
2-Aug
2-Oct
2-Dec
on going
on going
Cycles
FTP, ST01 , CD-
arterial
FTP
FTP, IM240, ASM
FTP
FTP
FTP, STO1 , US06
FTP, steady state
FTP hot bag 1 ,
MEC01 NYCC
FTP, NYCC,
US06, highspeed
GARB HDDT
cycle, modal cycle
FTP, US06,
MEC01
Comments
s-b-s CO, HC, NOx, C02, fuel
s-b-s CO, HC, NOx, C02, fuel, PM
s-b-s CO, HC, NOx, CO2, fuel
5 fuels
s-b-s CO, HC, NOx, CO2, fuel, diesel
PM
2 sulfur levels, CO, HC, NOx, CO2, fuel,
NH3
s-b-s CO, HC, NOx, C02, fuel, SO2
s-b-s CO, HC, NOx, C02, fuel, NH3
s-b-s CO, HC, NOx, C02, fuel, NH3
s-b-s CO, HC, NOx, C02, fuel
s-b-s CO, HC, NOx, C02, fuel
Ref.
1
2,3
4
5,6
7
8
9
References:
1. Durbin, Norbeck, Wilson, Galdamez. Effect of Payload on Exhaust Emissions from Light
Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Trucks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 4708-4713.
2. MoosMuller et all. Time Resolved Characterization of Diesel Particulate Emissions. 1.
Insturments for Particle Mass Measurements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 781-787.
3. MoosMuller et all. Time Resolved Characterization of Diesel Particulate Emissions. 2.
Insturments for Elemental and Organic Carbon MEasurements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35,
1938-1942.
4. Durbin, Norbeck, Wilson, Smith. Final Report, Evaluation of the Effectiveness of On-Board
Biagnostics II (OBDII) in Controlling Motor Vehicle Emissions. May 2001, Sponsored by
South Coast Air Quality Management District Technology Advancement Office and The US
EPA. 01-VE-22854/20984-001-FR.
5. Durbin, Collins, Norbeck, and Smith. Final Report, Evaluation of the Effects of alternative
Diesel Fuel Formulations on Exhaust emission Rates and Reactivity. Contract No. 98102,
Submitted to South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1999. 99-VE-RT2P-001-FR.
46
-------
6. Durbin, Cocker, Collins and Norbeck. Final Report, Evaluation of the Effects of Biodiesel
and biodiesel Blends on Exhaust Emission Rates and Reactivity - 2. Contract No. 99120.
Submitted to south Coast Air Quality Management District. August 2001. 01 -VE-20998-001 -
FR.
7. Durbin and Norbeck. Final Report for: Comparison of Emissions for Medium-Duty Diesel
Trucks Operated on California In-Use Diesel, ARCO's EC-Diesel, and ARCO EC-Diesel with a
Diesel Particulate Filter. Submitted to National Renewable Energy Laboratory under contract #
ACL-1-20110-01 and For Motor Company on July 2002. 02-VE-59981-03-FR.
8. Huai, Burbin, Rhee, Miller and Norbeck. The Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Levels on Vehicle
NH3 and N2O Emissions. Bourns College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Research
and Technology (CE-CERT), University of California, Riverside, CA 92521.
9. Durbin, Miller, Pisano, Sauer, Rhee, Huai, MacKay. Final Report, Impact of Engine Oil
Properties on Emissions, CRC Project No. E-61. Prepared for Coordinating Research Council.
Submitted August 2002. 02-VE-59971-02-DFR.
4.6 University of Texas
The University of Texas at Austin is currently conducting a study for the Texas
Department of Transportation on the use of new fuels in heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The primary
purpose of the study is to evaluate new fuels with regard to changes in emissions, maximum
power, and fuel economy. Particular types of vehicles being used in the study are dump trucks,
wheeled loaders, and telescoping boom excavators. Data of interest to the MSOD consists of
activity data and dynamometer emissions data. Second-by-second activity data has been
collected on two single axle dump trucks (four weeks total), two tandem axle dump trucks (four
weeks total), a telescoping boom excavator (one week), and a wheeled loader (one week) during
their normal work activity. Logged quantities include vehicle speed (dump trucks only), RPM,
percent torque, and accelerator position. The activity data will be used to build chassis dyno test
cycles for the single axle and tandem axle dump trucks and to build engine dyno test cycles for
the excavator and loader. The chassis and engine test cycles will then be used to generate
second-by-second HC, CO, and NOx emissions data for eight dump trucks and for two diesel
engines, respectively.
47
-------
Appendix A Fields for MSOD
48
-------
Data Source Documentation
EPA Contract Number 68-C-00-112
Work Assignment Number 2-06
Appendix B : Data Quality and Completeness Criteria
Revision 1 July 18, 2002
Background
Mobile emission source (both engine and vehicle) measurement data collected by testing
programs is often used for a variety of purposes, some not anticipated by the original program
plan. Often it is critical that certain information about the sources tested or the testing
procedures be known in order for the data to be used. For this reason, it is prudent that emission
data collection efforts include any incremental observations and measurements that might make
the data useful for purposes other than the original intentions of the testing program.
Below are the data observation and measurement fields and testing documentation that
EPA OTAQ's Assessment and Standards Division (ASD) considers critical for general use in
development of emission inventory modeling. While all fields are not critical for any specific
analysis, the total combination of fields allows cross checking of the observation and
measurement results, which can be used to identify problems in the data and improve data
quality. For this reason, ASD considers the collection of these data fields and the documentation
that supports this data critical in determining the quality of the data collected.
Measurements and Observations
Certain measurements and observations should be made during any collection of data for
use in emission inventory development. The critical data fields are divided into four groups:
Source Description
(*)Engine/Vehicle type
(*)Test weight
(*)Curb weight (highway only)
(*)Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) (highway only)
(*)Vehicle identification number (VIN)/engine serial number
(*) A, B, C Dynamometer Coefficients
(*)Body style (aero-dynamic issues) (highway only)
(*)Number of tires (highway only)
(*)Emission standard (model year, engine family, evap family)
(*)Age (build date, model year, rebuild)
(*)Engine size (number of cylinders)
(*)Transmission type (highway only)
(*)Mileage/hours of operation
49
-------
(*)Fuel type (gas, diesel, CNG, electric, hybrid, etc.)
(*) Test date
Fuel delivery technology
Catalyst technology
EGR system (yes/no)
Secondary air system
Closed loop fuel control (yes/no)
Aspirated/turbo-charged (yes/no)
OBD parameters (e.g. A/C flag, RPM, exhaust volume flow, engine coolant temperature,
air fuel ratio, etc.)
Pollutants (exhaust only; engine out and/or tailpipe - measured second-by-second, sbs)
(*)CO2
(*)CH4
(*)N2O
THC/NMHC
CO
NOx (NO, NO2)
SOx
NH4
HAPs
PM10, 2.5, 1.0 (size and number distributions also)
Fuel Parameters
(*)Diesel sulfur content
(*)Gasoline sulfur content
(*)Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
(*)Gasoline oxygenate content/type (ETOH,MTBE,ETBE,TAME)
Gasoline aromatic content
Gasoline olefin content
Gasoline Benzene content
Gasoline vapor percentage at 200 degrees F
Gasoline vapor percentage at 300 degrees F
Activity
(*)Speed at time of measurement (highway only)
(*)Ambient temperature at time of measurement
Ambient conditions (RSD and PEMS data); ie sunny or overcast, rain, snow, ice, etc
(*)Soak time before engine start
Humidity during operation
Driving/operation cycle/schedule
-------
Road grade at time of measurement (vertical acceleration) (highway only)
Air conditioning status at time of measurement (on/off)
Other high load devices (i.e., large stereo)
Number of occupants
Key on (engine start)/key off times
Barometric pressure/altitude
Variable load (cargo, passengers, auxiliary systems, road grade, etc.)
MIL (malfunction illumination light?) (on/off) (highway only)
(*) Indicates high priority parameters for this work assignment.
Ideally, the content and format of each data field will match precisely the content and
format of the EPA Mobile Source Observation Database (MSOD) data input format. This would
allow these fields to be used to directly populate the MSOD data input format and subsequently
added to the MSOD itself for future analysis by EPA. Plans for future data collection efforts
should consider adopting the MSOD data input format as a method of storing measurements and
observations for ease in providing the data to EPA for analysis. The precise definition and
content of each of these data fields is described in the MSOD data input format documentation.
Ideally, each of these fields would be available in every data source from direct
observations and measurements. However, it is often possible for some information that could
be obtained and recorded by direct observation (i.e., body style) that can instead be derived from
other available information (i.e., VEST). This fact allows for the observations and measurements
to be checked against each other to determine and improve the quality of the data. This fact can
also be used to populate fields that were not directly measured or observed. Fields derived from
other fields should not be considered as measurements or observations for purposes of planning
future data collection efforts. Whenever possible, direct measurements and observations should
be used to fulfill these data completeness criteria.
Documentation
It is not possible to determine the quality of data based solely on the measurement values
themselves. The critical test program data documentation is:
-------
Statement of Work. The objectives of the test plan must be clear. The procedures for
selection of engines/vehicles must be described in enough detail to discern the
representativeness of the sample.
Quality Assurance / Quality Control process. The test plan must include procedures that
assure proper measurement, proper maintenance of instrumentation and proper handling
of data. This should include instrument calibration sheets or other evidence of proper
calibration during testing.
Program reports. The results of testing must be summarized and compared against the
goals of the test plan. Running changes in the initial test plan must be described.
Problems which occurred during testing must be documented.
Instrumentation description. The instrumentation used to make measurements must be
described in sufficient detail to determine the appropriateness of the tools used.
Measurement uncertainty. The quality of the instrumentation must be demonstrated.
Instrument minimum detection limits must be documented. Reproducibility of data
should be demonstrated.
This documentation can be contained in a single document or as a series of documents.
The information can be contained in summary reports and tables or exist as forms and sheets
produced during testing. In any event, this information must be able to be made available to
anyone intending to use the data. Without access to this documentation, the relevance of the data
to a specific study cannot be fully determined.
EPA Data Quality and Completeness Criteria
For purposes of evaluation of the quality and completeness of data for use in inventory
model development, EPA has developed criteria for documentation and completeness. From this
information it will be possible to make a determination of data quality for the purpose of
inventory model development.
Documentation Criteria
A) Fully documented :
B) Can be documented :
C) Cannot be fully documented
Completeness Criteria
A) Fully measured :
All desired documentation exists and is available
upon request.
All desired documentation can be derived from
testing records and charts.
Some desired documentation is unavailable and
necessary information was not recorded.
All critical fields measured and available.
-------
B) Fully complete : All critical fields are either measured or can be
derived from other fields available in the data.
C) Missing data : Some critical fields were not measured and cannot
be derived from other fields available in the data.
The critical list of pollutants will vary from program to program, but the list of source
description, fuel and activity parameters are needed to properly characterize and cross check the
data.
------- |