SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
SRI/USE PA-GHG-VR-49
April 2013
Final Version
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
laconic Energy, Inc.
TEA Fuel Additive
Prepared by:
SOUTHERN RESEARCH
INSTITUTE
SEPA
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Operated by
Southern Research Institute
Under a Cooperative Agreement With
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
&EPA
SOUTHERN RESEARCH
Legendary Discoveries. Leading Innovation.
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: Vehicle Fuel Additive
APPLICATION: Gasoline Passenger Vehicles
TECHNOLOGY NAME: TEA Fuel Additive
COMPANY: Taconic Energy, Inc.
LOCATION: Saratoga Springs, NY
WEB ADDRESS: http://www.taconicenergy.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (EPA-ORD) operates
the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program to facilitate the deployment of innovative
technologies through performance verification and information dissemination. The goal of ETV is to
further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and innovative
environmental technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed
data on technology performance to those involved in the purchase, design, distribution, financing,
permitting, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups that
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters, and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of technologies by developing test
plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests, collecting
and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance
with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are
generated and that the results are defensible.
The Greenhouse Gas Technology Center (GHG Center), operated by Southern Research Institute
(Southern), is one of six verification organizations operating under the ETV program. One sector of
significant interest to GHG Center stakeholders is transportation - particularly technologies that result in
S-l
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
fuel economy improvements. laconic Energy (laconic) has developed the TEA fuel additive for gasoline
passenger vehicles and requested that the GHG Center independently verify its performance. The GHG
Center verified the fuel economy performance attributable to the TEA additive at the Transportation
Research Center (TRC) in East Liberty Ohio in October 2010.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Taconic Energy has registered with the EPA three products within the TEA additive technology family in
accordance with the regulations found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 79 of the Federal
Register. Gasoline containing any of these registered materials retains their EPA baseline fuel
designation. The additive family TEA-037, 037E, and 037M differ in the types and amounts of solvent
systems. The active ingredient of this technology serves primarily as a friction modifier ameliorating the
in-cylinder friction losses in a gasoline engine.
The following technology information is provided by Taconic and does not represent verified
information. Taconic Energy has completed development and rigorous testing of this active ingredient
in a variety of vehicles. According to Taconic, the additive typically improves fuel economy in passenger
vehicles by 1-5% and provides associated emission reductions. Taconic claims that the additive has been
shown to have an almost immediate effect on fuel economy with no required break-in period, a slight
increase in improvement over time, and impacts of the additive are not immediately eliminated when
the additive is removed. There is a carryover effect that requires accumulation of significant mileage to
return to the original equipment condition. The physical properties of the three products within the TEA
additive technology family are governed by the amount and type of solvent used in formulation.
VERIFICATION DESCRIPTION
Details on the verification test design, measurement test procedures, and quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures are contained in two related documents. Technology and site specific
information can be found in the document titled Test and Quality Assurance Plan (TQAP) - Taconic
Energy, Inc. TEA Fuel Additive. The TQAP describes the system under test, project participants, site
specific instrumentation and measurements, and verification specific QA/QC goals. The TQAP was
reviewed and revised based on comments received from peer and stakeholder reviews, and the EPA
Quality Assurance Team. The TQAP meets the requirements of the GHG Center's Quality Management
Plan (QMP) and satisfies ETV QMP requirements.
The primary performance parameter for this technology was the fuel economy change (A or "delta") due
to TEA additive use. The GHG Center performed a series of controlled dynamometer tests on a
representative vehicle (2008 Chrysler Town and Country passenger van). Once the fuel economy change
was established, a percentage fuel savings was determined relative to the reference fuel. The test plan
was designed to evaluate the immediate effect of the additive by comparing a set of baseline and
candidate test runs occurring over a very short test period. Each fuel economy test run conformed to
the widely accepted Highway Fuel Economy Test (HwFET) and the New York City Cycle Test (NYCC).
All tests were conducted on a chassis dynamometer at the laboratories of TRC. GHG Center personnel
ensured that the test facility equipment specification and calibrations conformed to the method criteria
during all tests. Emissions and fuel consumption were measured over the duty cycle gravimetrically and
also by monitoring the tailpipe exhaust emissions. The vehicle tests also quantified pollutant and
greenhouse gas emissions (CO, CO2, NOX, and THC) as secondary verification parameters. Testing was
conducted during the period of October 26 through 28, 2010 with six replicate test runs conducted at
each test condition.
S-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Quality assurance (QA) oversight of the verification testing was provided following specifications in the
ETV QMP. The GHG Center's QA manager conducted an internal technical systems audit (an audit of the
testing and measurement systems used by TRC) and an audit of data quality on the data generated
during this verification and a review of this report. Data review and validation was conducted at three
levels including the field team leader, the project manager, and the QA manager.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
Results of the verification testing for fuel economy using baseline and additized fuels and the HwFET
vehicle duty cycle are summarized in Table S-l. The table summarizes test results obtained using both
the carbon balance and gravimetric analyses for each fuel, and summarizes the statistical delta analysis
comparing results from the baseline and additized fuels tests. Due to unfavorable results of the first set
of additized fuel tests on the HwFET cycle, the verification testing was modified to deviate from the
planned sequence. Specifically, the vendor requested that the analysts run the same sequence of HwFET
tests on a second lot of additized fuel before moving on with further NYCC duty cycle testing. When
results of the second lot of additized fuel confirmed results of the first, further testing of additized fuel
(on the NYCC duty cycle) was cancelled. The rationale for this decision was that demonstrating a
statistically significant delta would be even more difficult on the NYCC duty cycle where baseline fuel
economy was 8.5 mpg less than it was on the HwFET cycle. Therefore the testing was aborted to
minimize unnecessary vendor testing costs and no further testing was conducted.
Table S-l. Statistical Analysis of Test Results (Delta)
Statistical Parameter
Average Fuel Economy (mpg)
Difference from Baseline (mpg)
Difference from Baseline (%)
'test
F, 0.05, DF
Equal Variance?
Pooled Standard Deviation - Sp
ttest
DF
T, 0.05, DF
Statistical Significance?
+ Confidence Interval
Confidence Interval of Mean Fuel
Economy Change (%)
Additized Fuel - Lot 1
Carbon
Balance
32.03
0.20
0.62
4.00
5.05
Yes
0.16
2.12
10.0
2.23
No
0.21
105.0
Gravimetric
31.06
0.09
0.29
4.61
5.05
Yes
0.15
1.04
10.0
2.23
No
0.20
214.7
Additized Fuel - Lot 2
Carbon
Balance
31.88
0.05
0.26
1.66
5.05
Yes
0.18
0.47
10.0
2.23
No
0.24
475.6
Gravimetric
31.14
-0.03
-0.09
1.25
5.05
Yes
0.18
-0.27
10.0
2.23
No
0.24
-815.3
Results of the analysis show that there was no statistically significant change in vehicle fuel economy
between the baseline and additized fuels on the HwFET duty cycle. As a secondary verification
parameter, engine emissions of pollutant and greenhouse gases (CO, CO2, NOX, and THC) were also
determined during each test. Table S-2 summarizes the average emission rates for each pollutant under
each HwFET test series. Emissions of NOx, THC, and NMHC were very low for all test periods. Although
S-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
statistical analyses were not performed on the CO and CO2 emissions, the additive did not appear to
have a measureable impact on engine emissions.
Table S-2. Summary of Engine Emissions
Pollutant
NOx
THC
NMHC
CO
C02
Average Measured Emission Rate (grams/mile)
Baseline Fuel
0.018
0.004
0.001
0.207
276
Additized Fuel - Lot 1
0.021
0.007
0.005
0.188
275
Additized Fuel
-Lot 2
0.023
0.008
0.005
0.227
276
Signed by Cynthia Sonich-Mullin
(6/10/2013)
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin
Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Signed by Tim Hansen
(4/25/2013)
Tim Hansen
Director
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Notice: GHG Center verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. The EPA and Southern Research
Institute make no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that
a technology will always operate at the levels verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any
and all applicable Federal, State, and Local requirements. Mention of commercial product names does not imply
endorsement or recommendation.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
S-4
-------
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification (ETY ) Organization
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49
April 2013
Environmental Technology Verification Report
laconic Energy, Inc.
TEA Fuel Additive
Prepared By:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
5201 International Drive
Durham, NC 27712 USA
Telephone: 919-282-1050
Under EPA Cooperative Agreement R-82947801
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA
EPA Project Officer: Lee Beck
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2. TACONIC ENERGY TEA FUEL ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION 1-2
1.3. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW 1-3
2.0 VERIFICATION RESULTS 2-1
3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT 3-1
3.1. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 3-1
3.2. DATA QUALITY INDICATORS 3-1
3.3. FUEL ECONOMY GRAVIMETRIC CROSS CHECKS 3-5
3.4. AUDITS 3-5
4.0 REFERENCES 4-1
Figure 1-1
Table 1-1
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 2-5
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 3-5
Table 3-6
Table 3-7
Appendix A
Appendix B
LIST OF FIGURES
Test Vehicle Emission Control Information.
Page
... 1-3
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Summary of Test Runs and Conditions 1-5
Summary of Baseline HwFET Fuel Economy Tests 2-1
Summary of Additized Fuel HwFET Fuel Economy Tests (Lot 1) 2-1
Summary of Additized Fuel HwFET Fuel Economy Tests (Lot 2) 2-2
Statistical Analysis of Test Results (Delta) 2-2
Summary of Engine Emissions 2-3
Chassis Dynamometer Specifications and DQI Goals 3-2
Chassis Dynamometer QA/QC Checks 3-2
CVS Specifications and DQI Goals 3-2
CVS System QA/QC Checks 3-3
Emissions Analyzer Specifications and DQI Goals 3-3
Emissions Analyzer QA/QC Checks 3-4
Test Fuel Specifications 3-5
Test Data and Statistical Analyses
Corrective Action Reports
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
2WD
4WD
°C
CFR
CO
C02
COA
COV
CVS
DF
DOJ
DQO
EPA
EPA-ORD
ETV
°F
F
FS
FTP
GHG
Hg
HwFET
Hz
ISO
Lbf
Lbs
mpg
mph
NMHC
NIST
NOX
NYCC
O2
Pbar
ppm
ppmC
QA
QA/QC
QMP
RH
SCFM
SRI
SRM
THC
Two-wheel drive
Four-wheel drive
degrees Centigrade
Code of Federal Regulations
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
certificate of analysis
coefficient of variation
constant volume sampling
degrees of freedom
data quality indicator
data quality objective
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development
Environmental Technology Verification
degrees Fahrenheit
F Statistic
full scale
Federal Test Procedure
greenhouse gas
elemental Mercury
Highway Fuel Economy Test
Hertz
International Organization for Standardization
pounds force
pounds
miles per gallon
miles per hour
non-methane hydrocarbons
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Blend of NO, NO2, and other oxides of nitrogen
New York City Cycle
Oxygen
picobar
parts per million
parts per million (carbon)
quality assurance
quality assurance / quality control
Quality Management Plan
Relative Humidity
standard cubic feet per minute
Southern Research Institute
standard reference material
total hydrocarbons(as carbon)
in
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
TQAP test and quality assurance plan
TRC Transportation Research Center
ISA technical systems audit
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
IV
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
The U.S. EPA-ORD operates the ETV program to facilitate the deployment of innovative technologies
through performance verification and information dissemination. The goal of ETV is to further
environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and innovative
environmental technologies. With performance data developed under this program, technology buyers,
financiers, and permitters in the United States and abroad will be better equipped to make informed
decisions regarding environmental technology purchase and use.
The GHG Center is one of six verification organizations operating under the ETV program. The GHG
Center is managed by EPA's partner verification organization, Southern, which conducts verification
testing of promising greenhouse gas mitigation and monitoring technologies. The GHG Center's
verification process consists of developing verification protocols, conducting field tests, collecting and
interpreting field and other data, obtaining independent stakeholder input, and reporting findings.
Performance evaluations are conducted according to externally reviewed verification TQAPs and
established protocols for quality assurance.
The GHG Center is guided by volunteer groups of stakeholders. The GHG Center's Executive Stakeholder
Group consists of national and international experts in the areas of climate science and environmental
policy, technology, and regulation. It also includes industry trade organizations, environmental
technology finance groups, governmental organizations, and other interested groups. The GHG Center's
activities are also guided by industry specific stakeholders who provide guidance on the verification
testing strategy related to their area of expertise and peer-review key documents prepared by the GHG
Center.
One sector of significant interest to GHG Center stakeholders is transportation - particularly
technologies that result in fuel economy improvements. Considering the magnitude of annual fuel
consumption, even an incremental improvement in fuel efficiency would have a significant benefit on
fleet and business economics, foreign oil imports, and nationwide air quality. Small fuel efficiency or
emission rate improvements are expected to have a significant beneficial impact on nationwide
greenhouse gas emissions.
Taconic developed the TEA fuel additive for gasoline passenger vehicles and requested that the GHG
Center independently verify its performance. Throughout development of the additive Taconic has been
supported by internal funding and funding from the New York State Energy Research & Development
Authority. The development process involved a series of controlled in-use tests operating vehicles over
a 32 mile cycle on the Taconic Parkway in upstate New York. During these tests, using a variety of
vehicles (model years 2008 to 2010), a fuel economy increase of 1-5% was observed.
Taconic's TEA additive was determined to be a suitable verification candidate considering its potentially
significant beneficial environmental quality impacts and ETV stakeholder interest in verified
transportation sector emission reduction technologies. The GHG Center determined the fuel economy
performance attributable to the TEA additive at TRC in East Liberty Ohio in October 2010.
1-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Details of the verification test design, measurement test procedures, and quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures are contained in two related documents. Technology and site specific
information can be found in the document titled Test and Quality Assurance Plan (TQAP) - Taconic
Energy, Inc. TEA Fuel Additive [1]. It can be downloaded from the GHG Center's web-site (www.sri-
rtp.com) or the ETV Program web-site (www.epa.gov/etv). This TQAP describes the system under test,
project participants, site specific instrumentation and measurements, and verification specific QA/QC
goals. The TQAP was reviewed and revised based on comments received from peer and stakeholder
reviews, and the EPA Quality Assurance Team. The TQAP meets the requirements of the GHG Center's
Quality Management Plan QMPand satisfies ETVQMP requirements.
The remainder of Section 1.0 describes the technology and outlines the performance verification
procedures that were followed. Section 2.0 presents test results, and Section 3.0 assesses the quality of
the data obtained.
1.2. TACONIC ENERGY TEA FUEL ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Taconic Energy has registered with the EPA three products within the TEA additive technology family in
accordance with the regulations found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 79 of the Federal
Register. Gasoline containing any of these registered materials retains their EPA baseline fuel
designation. The additive family TEA-037, 037E, and 037M differ in the types and amounts of solvent
systems. The active ingredient of this technology serves primarily as a friction modifier ameliorating the
in-cylinder friction losses in a gasoline engine.
The following technology information is provided by Taconic and does not represent verified
information. Taconic Energy has completed development and rigorous testing of this active ingredient
in a variety of vehicles. According to Taconic, the additive typically improves fuel economy in passenger
vehicles by 1-5% and provides associated emission reductions. Taconic claims that the additive has been
shown to have an almost immediate effect on fuel economy with no required break-in period, a slight
increase in improvement over time, and impacts of the additive are not immediately eliminated when
the additive is removed. There is a carryover effect that requires accumulation of significant mileage to
return to the original equipment condition.
The physical properties of the three products within the TEA additive technology family are governed by
the amount and type of solvent. Below is a summary of the properties of the active material as well as
those of the material diluted with the most volatile solvent.
Physical Properties of the active material in TEA-037 family of additives
• Appearance (@ 20 °C): Solid
• Color: White to slightly yellow
• Odor: Pungent
• Density (@ 20 °C): 0.98
• FlashPoint: >200°F (87.2 °C)
• Explosive properties: Material does not have explosive properties
• Boiling Point: 423 °F (217 °C)
1-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Physical Properties of TEA-037M (contains lowest flash point solvent)
Appearance (@ 20 °C):
Color:
Odor:
Density (@ 20 °C):
Flash Point:
Explosive properties:
Boiling Point:
Clear liquid
White to slightly yellow
Pungent
>0.79
54°F(12°C)
Material has explosive properties above 54 °F (12 °C)
148°F(65°C)
1.3. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW
In collaboration with TRC, the GHG Center performed a series of controlled dynamometer tests on a
representative vehicle. The test vehicle used for this verification was a 2008 Chrysler Town and Country
passenger van rented by TRC from a local rental agency. This vehicle was equipped with a 3.8 liter
gasoline engine and automatic transmission and had an accumulated prior use of approximately 25,000
miles. The vehicle has an EPA fuel economy rating of 16,18, and 23 miles per gallon (mpg) for city,
combined, and highway driving conditions, respectively. The emission control information tag for the
test vehicle selected is shown in Figure 1-1. This test vehicle was approved by Taconic prior to esting and
was checked for on board diagnostic issues. The vehicle also underwent a complete inspection for any
other mechanical problems, the front end alignment was checked, and tires were properly inflated and
checked before each day's testing began. Marks were placed in the floor so that the vehicle could be
placed on chassis dynamometer in the exact place from test to test. The vehicle was cross tied onto the
dynamometer and the ties equally torqued to prevent unnecessary down force on the vehicle.
VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION
CONF-
ORMS TO REGULATIONS: 2008 MY
U.S.EPA:T2B51DT OBD: _FJ_ FUEL: Gasoline
Certified to optional useful life per EPA 86.1805-04 (b)
DaimlerChrysler Corporation,
3.8 Liter
GROUP: 8CRXT03.8NEO
EVAP: 8CRXR0150GNA
TWC,H02S(2).EGR,SFI
No Adjustments Needed
LIFORNIA: 0BD: N/A FUEL: MA
No! for sale in states with California emissions standards.
04881014AB
Figure 1-1. Test Vehicle Emission Control Information
For fuel control, a dedicated lot of fuel was stored in an isolated fuel storage and conditioning room at
approximately 50 °F for baseline and additive testing. Mixing took place immediately before the TEA-
037 additive tests began and about 3 ounces was added to a 50 gallon drum, which is less than 0.047 %
additive in the fuel. The GHG Center verified the fuel economy change (A or "delta") due to TEA additive
use. Delta was the primary performance parameter as quantified by the following equation:
A = Mean Fuel Economy Add - Mean Fuel Economy KefFuei (Eqn. 1)
Where:
A = fuel economy change, mpg
Mean Fuel Economy Add = average fuel economy with additized fuel, mpg
1-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Mean Fuel Economy Ref.FUei = average fuel economy with reference fuel, mpg
Once the fuel economy change was established, a percentage fuel savings was determined relative to
the reference fuel.
Percentage Fuel Savings =
Mean Fuel EconomyRgf
(Eqn.2)
The test plan was designed to evaluate the immediate effect of the additive by comparing a set of
baseline and candidate test runs occurring over a very short test period. Each fuel economy test run
conformed to the widely accepted HwFET and the NYCC [2]. The verification consisted of a series of fuel
economy tests where the general test sequence was:
• Preparation of vehicle for testing;
• Reference fuel economy baseline test 1 (NYCC);
• Reference fuel economy baseline test 2 (HwFET);
• Removal of reference fuel; preparation for additized fuel economy test (HwFET);
• Additized fuel economy test 1 (HwFET);
• Removal of first batch additized fuel; preparation for second batch additized fuel economy test
(HwFET);
• Additized fuel economy test 2 (HwFET (2))
Due to preliminary results of the first set of additized fuel tests on the HwFET cycle, this test sequence
was modified to deviate from the plan. Specifically in that the additized fuel was not tested under the
NYCC test cycle. Instead, a second batch of the same formulation of additized fuel was prepared and the
vehicle was retested under the HwFET cycle. Testing of the second batch of additized fuel under the
HwFET cycle confirmed results from the first round of tests, and the NYCC duty cycle testing was
aborted. More detail regarding the test results and rationale for aborting the NYCC cycle testing is
provided in Section 3.0 of this report.
All tests were conducted on a chassis dynamometer at the laboratories of TRC. GHG Center personnel
ensured that the test facility equipment specification and calibrations conformed to the method criteria
during all tests. Emissions and fuel consumption were measured over the duty cycle gravimetrically and
also by monitoring the tailpipe exhaust emissions. The vehicle tests also quantified pollutant and
greenhouse gas emissions (CO, CO2, NOX, and THC) as secondary verification parameters. Testing was
conducted during the period of October 26 through 28, 2010 with six replicate test runs conducted at
each test condition. The test periods and conditions are summarized in Table 1-1. The detailed rationale,
approaches, and methodologies for the verification testing are provided in the TQAP and not repeated
here.
Table 1-1. Summary of Test Runs and Conditions
Test Condition
Baseline NYCC
Baseline HwFET
Additive HwFET-1
Additive HwFET-2
Valid
Replicates
6
6
6
6
Date (time)
10-26-10 (1201-1428)
10-27-10 (1032-1240)
10-27-10 (1608-1813)
10-28-10 (1159-1405)
Average Dynamometer Ambient Conditions
Temp ( °F)
71.8
72.1
72.0
72.0
RH (%)
51.2
49.8
47.8
45.0
Pbar(in.Hg)
28.25
28.64
28.59
28.91
1-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
As specified in the test plan, the fuel economy determination stems from the carbon in the emissions
measured during the two driving cycles correlated with the known amount of carbon in the fuel, based
on the Certificate of Analysis (COA) and the distance driven on the dynamometer. This determination
method, as specified in 40 CFR § 600.113, is known as the "carbon balance" method. Carbon mass in
the fuel per unit volume divided by carbon mass in the emissions yields the fuel economy in mpg.
To further validate test results, TRC and the GHG Center cross checked the carbon balance method fuel
economy results with separate gravimetric fuel economy determinations. After each set of test runs at
each testing condition, analysts calculated and compared the carbon balance and gravimetric means and
Coefficient of Variations (COVs).
1-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
2.0 VERIFICATION RESULTS
Results of the verification testing for fuel economy using baseline and additized fuels and the HwFET
vehicle duty cycle are summarized in Tables 2-1 through 2-4. Tables 2-1 through 2-3 summarize test
results using both the carbon balance and gravimetric analyses for each run, and Table 2-4 summarizes
the statistical delta analysis comparing results from the baseline and additized fuels tests. Supporting
data and statistical analyses for each set of tests are presented in Appendix A.
Table 2-1. Summary of Baseline HwFET Fuel Economy Tests
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run5
Run 6
Average
Standard Deviation
COV
Fuel Economy (mpg)
Carbon Balance
Method
31.80
32.00
32.10
31.60
31.60
31.90
31.83
0.21
0.65
Gravimetric
31.17
31.47
31.31
30.92
31.08
31.06
31.17
0.20
0.63
Difference
0.63
0.53
0.79
0.68
0.52
0.84
0.66
0.13
0.02
Table 2-2. Summary of Additized Fuel HwFET Fuel Economy Tests (Lot 1)
Fuel Economy (mpg)
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run5
Run 6
Average
Standard Deviation
COV
Carbon Balance
Method
32.00
32.10
32.20
31.90
32.00
32.00
32.03
0.10
0.32
Gravimetric
31.32
31.30
31.32
31.31
31.08
31.25
31.26
0.09
0.29
Difference
0.68
0.80
0.88
0.59
0.92
0.72
0.77
0.12
0.03
2-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Table 2-3. Summary of Additized Fuel HwFET Fuel Economy Tests (Lot 2)
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run5
Run 6
Average
Standard Deviation
COV
Fuel Economy (mpg)
Carbon Balance
Method
31.70
31.70
31.90
31.90
32.00
32.10
31.88
0.16
0.50
Gravimetric
30.99
31.16
30.92
31.16
31.38
31.25
31.14
0.17
0.54
Difference
0.71
0.54
0.98
0.74
0.62
0.85
0.74
0.16
0.04
Table 2-4. Statistical Analysis of Test Results (Delta)
Statistical Parameter
Average Fuel Economy(mpg)
Difference from Baseline (mpg)
Difference from Baseline (%)
'test
F, 0.05, DF
Equal Variance?
Pooled Standard Deviation - Sp
ttest
DF
T, 0.05, DF
Statistical Significance?
± Confidence Interval
Confidence Interval of Mean Fuel
Economy Change (%)
Additized Fuel - Lot 1
Carbon
Balance
32.03
0.20
0.62
4.00
5.05
Yes
0.16
2.12
10.0
2.23
No
0.21
105.0
Gravimetric
31.06
0.09
0.29
4.61
5.05
Yes
0.15
1.04
10.0
2.23
No
0.20
214.7
Additized Fuel - Lot 2
Carbon
Balance
31.88
0.05
0.26
1.66
5.05
Yes
0.18
0.47
10.0
2.23
No
0.24
475.6
Gravimetric
31.14
-0.03
-0.09
1.25
5.05
Yes
0.18
-0.27
10.0
2.23
No
0.24
-815.3
Results of the analysis show that there was no statistically significant change in vehicle fuel economy
between the baseline and additized fuels on the HwFET duty cycle. As shown in Table 1-1, baseline fuel
testing was completed on the NYCC and HwFET duty cycles first. After treating a first lot of fuel with
additive, the HwFET testing was repeated. After careful review, validation, and analysis of these data, it
was determined that a statistically significant delta was not measured. The vendor requested at that
point that analysts run the same sequence of HwFET tests on a second lot of additized fuel before
moving on with further NYCC duty cycle testing. When results of the second lot of additized fuel
2-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
confirmed results of the first, further testing of additized fuel (on the NYCC duty cycle) was cancelled.
The rationale for this decision was that demonstrating a statistically significant delta would be even
more difficult on the NYCC duty cycle where baseline fuel economy was 8.5 mpg less than it was on the
HwFET cycle. Therefore the testing was aborted to minimize unnecessary vendor testing costs and no
further testing was conducted.
As a secondary verification parameter, engine emissions of pollutant and greenhouse gases (CO, CO2,
NOX, and THC) were also determined during each test. Table 2-5 summarizes the average emission rates
for each pollutant under each HwFET test series. Emissions of NOx, THC, and NMHC were very low for all
test periods. Although statistical analyses were not performed on the CO and CO2 emissions, the
additive did not appear to have a measureable impact on engine emissions.
Table 2-5. Summary of Engine Emissions
Pollutant
NOx
THC
NMHC
CO
C02
Average Measured Emission Rate (grams/mile)
Baseline Fuel
0.018
0.004
0.001
0.207
276
Additized Fuel - Lot 1
0.021
0.007
0.005
0.188
275
Additized Fuel
-Lot 2
0.023
0.008
0.005
0.227
276
2-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
3.1. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Under the ETV program, the GHG Center specifies Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for each verification
parameter before testing commences as a statement of data quality. This verification's DQO was the
fuel economy change's desired confidence level, as stated in the test plan:
The data quality objective is to determine a statistically significant fuel economy improvement of 2
percent or better (1 percent is desirable). For the desired target vehicle with a minimum fuel
economy of 16 mpg, this corresponds to detecting a mean fuel economy improvement of 0.32 mpg
with a 95 percent confidence interval of less than ± 0.32 mpg.
Based on previous experience, statistically significant mean fuel economy improvements as low as
0.12 mpg should be detectable using the procedures and methods in this plan. That is, fuel economy
improvements of less than 1 percent should be detectable for a target vehicle with mean fuel
economy of 16 mpg.
Results of the testing show consistently repeatable results over each set of test condition replicates.
Standard deviations on the average 31.5 mpg test results ranged from approximately 0.1 to 0.2 mpg.
The resulting 95 percent confidence interval was approximately 0.22 and the absolute delta mpg
changes were all 0.20 mpg or less. Therefore, even though the confidence interval DQO was met,
changes in fuel economy were demonstrated as statistically insignificant.
3.2. DATA QUALITY INDICATORS
TRC Inc. is registered to the International Standards Organization (ISO) 9001 Quality and ISO 14001
Environmental Quality Standards. Within the emissions laboratory, the quality control measures
employed on a daily, weekly, and yearly basis closely follow the equipment, calibration, and precision
specifications to the governing inherent to the U.S. EPA and associated ISO and Society of Automotive
Engineers Procedural Specifications. Measurement Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) and QA/QC checks
specified in the Test Plan for the dynamometer, Constant Volume Sampling (CVS) system, and emissions
analyzers were documented throughout the testing and are summarized below. Supporting
documentation of all of the QA/QC checks conducted during this verification is maintained at the GHG
Center.
TRC and the manufacturer verified the speed and torque sensor accuracies during initial installation and
startup. The QA/QC checks outlined in Table 3-2 are daily operational checks which confirmed that the
dynamometer was functioning properly during the verification.
3-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Table 3-1. Chassis Dynamometer Specifications and DQI Goals
Measurement
Variable
Speed
Load
Operating
Range
Expected in
Field
OtoSOmph
0 to 500 Lbf
Instrument
Manufacturer/
Type
AVL 48" Roll Dual
Axle 2WD/4WD
Dynamometer
Instrument
Range
0 to 125
mph
± 8,OOON
Measurement
Frequency
10 Hz with
reporting at 1
Hz
Data Quality Indicator Goals
Accuracy
± 0.02% FS
±0.1%FS
How Verified/
Determined
Sensors
calibrated and
verified during
original
installation.
Table 3-2. Chassis Dynamometer QA/QC Checks
QA/QC Check
Road load horsepower
calibration
Dyno calibration certificate
inspection
Parasitic friction verification
Dyno warmup verification
Road load and inertia simulation
check
Valid driver's trace
When Performed
Before initiating test
program
Once during the test
program
Before initiating test
program
Before initiating test
program
55-45 mile per hour
coast down at end of
each FTP test run
End of each test run
Expected or Allowable Result
Triplicate coast down checks
within ± 2.0% of target curve
Sensor accuracies conform to
Table 3-1 specifications
± 2.2 Lbf from existing settings
Daily vehicle-off coast down at
6,000 Ibs within + 2 Ibf
+ 0.3 second average over the
entire FTP driving sequence
No deviation from tolerances
given in 40 CFR§ 86.115
Response to Check
All QA/QC checks were
within the expected or
allowable criteria
Table 3-3 summarizes the Horiba Analytical CVS system specifications.
Table 3-3. CVS Specifications and DQI Goals
Measurement
Variable
Pressure
Temperature
Volumetric
Flow Rate
Operating
Range
Expected
in Field
950 to
1050
millibar
20 to 45
°C
350 to
500 scfm
Instrument
Description
Horiba
Analytical
Constant
Volume
Sampler
Range
0-150
psia
0-600
°C
200,
350,
or
550
scfm
Measurement
Frequency
IHz
Data Quality Indicator Goals
Accuracy
+ 0.2 % FS
+ 0.05%
resistance
versus
temperature
Calculated
How
Verified /
Determined
Pressure
yearly,
temperature
every 6
months
Completeness
100 %
3-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Similar to the chassis dynamometer, TRC and Horiba verified the CVS sensor accuracies during initial
installation and startup. The QA/QC checks outlined in Table 3-4 are daily operational checks which
confirm proper CVS function and were documented during the verification.
Table 3-4. CVS System QA/QC Checks
QA/QC Check
CVS critical flow orifice
calibration certificate
inspection
Propane injection check
Flow rate verification
Sample bag leak check
When Performed /
Frequency
Lifetime calibration
Daily
Daily
Before each test run
Expected or Allowable Result
NA
difference between injected
and recovered propane
< ± 2.0 %.
+ 5 scfm of appropriate
nominal set point
Maintain 10 in. Hg vacuum
for 10 seconds
Response to Check Failure or
Out of Control Condition
NA
All QA/QC checks were within
the expected or allowable
criteria
The Horiba Analytical CVS system specifications are summarized in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5 - Emissions Analyzer Specifications and DQI Goals
Measurement
Variable
Low CO
CO
C02
NOX
THC
Expected
Operating
Range
0-200
ppm
0-1000
ppm
0-2.0 %
(vol)
0-100
ppm
0-250
ppmC
(carbon)
Instrument
Manufacturer
/Type
Horiba 9000
Series
Instrument
Range
0-25, 50,
250 ppm
0-500,
1000, 3000
ppm
0-2 & 6 %
0-25, 50,
100 ppm
0-10,30,
300, 1000
ppmC
Measurement
Frequency
Monthly
Data Quality Indicator Goals
Accuracy
+ 1.0 % FS
or + 2.0%
of the
calibration
point
How
Verified /
Determined
Gas divider
with
protocol
calibration
gases at 11
points
evenly
spaced
throughout
span
(including
zero)
Completeness
100 %
TRC verified each analyzer's performance through a series of zero and calibration gas challenges. Each
zero and calibration gas was verified National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable.
Table 3-6. summarizes the QA/QC checks conducted during the verification.
3-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Table 3-6. Emissions Analyzer QA/QC Checks
QA/QC Check
NIST-traceable
calibration gas
verifications
Zero-gas verification
Gas divider linearity
verification
Analyzer calibrations
WetCO2 interference
check
NOX analyzer
interference check
NOX analyzer converter
efficiency check
Calibration gas
certificate inspection
Bag cart operation
When
Performed/Frequency
Prior to being put into
service
Prior to being put into
service
Every 2 Years
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
Once during testing
Prior to analyzing each
bag
Expected or Allowable Result
Average of three readings must be
within + 1% of verified NISTSRM
concentration
HC< IppmC
CO< Ippm
CO2<400ppm
NOx<0.1ppm
O2 between 18 and 21%
All points within + 2% of linear fit
FS within +0.5% of known value
All values within + 2% of point or +
1% of FS;
Zero point within +0.2% of FS
CO 0-300 ppm, interference < 3 ppm
CO > 300 ppm, interference < 1% FS
CO2 interference < 3 %
NOX converter efficiency > 95%
Certificates must be current;
concentrations consistent with
cylinder tags
Post-test zero or span drift shall not
exceed +2% full-scale
Response to Check Failure
or Out of Control
Condition
All QA/QC checks were
within the expected or
allowable criteria
The Field Team Leader obtained certificates for all calibration and zero gases used during the test
program, which are maintained in the GHG Center verification archives. All certificates were current and
the cylinder tag concentrations matched those on the applicable certificate.
The verification utilized certification-grade test fuel to complete all testing, with an associated COA for
fuel properties to ensure that the fuel conformed to 40 CFR § 86.113 specifications. Table 3-7
summarizes results of the fuel analysis and demonstrates conformance with test specifications.
3-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Table 3-7. Test Fuel Specifications
Parameter
Octane, Research
Sensitivity (Research
Octane minus Motor
Octane)
Lead
Distillation Range
Initial Boiling Point
10 pet. Point
50 pet. Point
90 pet. Point
End Point
Sulfur
Phosphorus
Reid Vapor Pressure
Hydrocarbon composition
Olefins, max. pet
Aromatics, max. pet
Saturates
Expected or Allowable
Result
87 minimum
7.5 minimum
0.050 g/U.S. gallons
maximum
75 to 95 °F
120 to 135 °F
200 to 230 °F
300 to 325 °F
415 °F maximum
0.10 wt. percent
maximum
0.005 g/US gallon
maximum
8.0 to 9. 2 psi
10% maximum
35 % maximum
remainder
Ana lysis Value
96.1
7.9
<0.001
93 °F
122 °F
225 °F
302 °F
365 °F
0.00003
<0.001
8.9
1.8%
32.7%
65.5%
3.3. FUEL ECONOMY GRAVIMETRIC CROSS CHECKS
TRC and the GHG Center cross checked the carbon balance method fuel economy results with separate
gravimetric fuel economy determinations. Results of these cross checks are summarized with the test
results in Tables 2-1 through 2-3 of this report. The gravimetric method did show a consistent bias in
reporting results approximately 2.3 percent lower than the results of the carbon balance method. The
bias was extremely consistent though with an average COV in the two methods' measured mpgs of 0.03
mpg. The statistical analyses of results presented in Table 2-4 verify the utility of using the two different
methods and serve to confirm test findings.
3.4. AUDITS
A Technical Systems Audit (TSA) was conducted during the verification testing by the GHG Center field
testing leader which included an audit of the following test system components:
• Chassis dynamometer equipment, calibrations, and setup
• CVS equipment, calibrations
• Instrumental analyzer system, calibrations
• Fuel delivery system (including volumetric and gravimetric measuring equipment) and
calibrations.
3-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
During the ISA, the Field Team Leader verified that the equipment and calibrations were as specified in
the Test Plan. A Calibration and QA/Q.C Audit Checklist form was used to document TSA calibration
findings and is maintained in GHG Center archives.
The auditor's main findings were several minor issues relating to the operation of the chassis
dynamometer that varied somewhat from the test plan specifications. Each issue was considered minor
and appropriate corrective action was taken and documented. Copies of each of the corrective action
reports are provided in Appendix B.
Southern's QA manager also conducted an Audit of Data Quality. This consisted of verifying
computations and traceability from the raw data collected through final results reported and verifying
that all required QA/Q.C checks were conducted and documented. The audit found the results to be of
acceptable quality.
3-6
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
4.0 REFERENCES
[1] Southern Research Institute, "Test and Quality Assurance Plan - Taconic Energy, Inc. TEA Fuel
Additive", SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49, www.sri-rtp.com, Greenhouse Gas Technology Center,
Southern Research Institute, Durham, NC, August 2010.
[2]. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40 Part 86, "Control of Emissions from New and In-Use
Highway Vehicles and Engines", § 86.115, and Part 600, "Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles" (3), §
600.109
4-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Appendices
Appendix A -Test Data and Statistical Analyses
Appendix B - Corrective Action Reports
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Appendix A - Test Data and Statistical Analyses
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Carbon Balance and Gravimetric Cross Checks - Baseline HwFET
Southern Research Project Number
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
Test
Baseline HwFET- 1
Baseline HwFET- 2
Baseline HwFET- 3
Baseline HwFET- 4
Baseline HwFET- 5
Baseline HwFET- 6
Date
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
Total Mileage of Test 1
Total Mileage of Test 2
Total Mileage of Test 3
Total Mileage of Test 4
Total Mileage of Test 5
Total Mileage of Test 6
10.262
10.26
10.258
10.256
10.259
10.252
Start Time
10:32
10:46
11:00
11:59
12:13
12:27
End Time
10:45
10:59
11:13
12:12
12:26
12:40
Fuel Container Weight (Ibs)
Start
23.725
22.27
21.615
21.695
20.26
19.595
End
21.695
20.26
19.595
19.65
18.225
17.56
Net
2.03
2.01
2.02
2.045
2.035
2.035
Average
Standard Deviation
% COV
MPG
(Carbon
Balance)
31.80
32.00
32.10
31.60
31.60
31.90
31.83
0.21
0.65
Specific Gravity of Fuel (Ibs/gal):
Average Difference in MPG
Difference in % COV's
2.08%
13134
MPG
(Gravimetric)
31.17
31.47
31.31
30.92
31.08
31.06
31.17
0.20
0.63
MPG
Difference
0.63
0.53
0.79
0.68
0.52
0.84
6.166
0.66
0.02
Carbon Balance and Gravimetric Cross Checks - Additive HwFET (Batch 1)
Southern Research Project Number
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
Test
Additive HwFET- 1
Additive HwFET- 2
Additive HwFET- 3
Additive HwFET -4
Additive HwFET- 5
Additive HwFET- 6
Date
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
Total Mileage of Test 1
Total Mileage of Test 2
Total Mileage of Test 3
Total Mileage of Test 4
Total Mileage of Test 5
Total Mileage of Test 6
10.259
10.255
10.26
10.257
10.259
10.262
Start Time
16:08
16:22
16:35
17:33
17:47
18:01
End Time
16:21
16:34
16:48
17:46
18:00
18:13
Fuel Container Weight (Ibs)
Start
32.715
33.13
33.615
30.695
31.11
31.595
End
30.695
31.11
31.595
28.675
29.075
29.57
Net
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.035
2.025
Average
Standard Deviation
% COV
MPG
(Carbon
Balance)
32.00
32.10
32.20
31.90
32.00
32.00
32.03
0.10
0.32
Specific Gravity of Fuel (Ibs/gal):
Average Difference in MPG
Difference in % COV's
2.40%
13134
MPG
(Gravimetric)
31.32
31.30
31.32
31.31
31.08
31.25
31.26
0.09
0.29
MPG
Difference
0.68
0.80
0.88
0.59
0.92
0.75
6.166
0.77036894
0.030424043
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Statistical Analysis -Carbon Balance (Batch 1)
Calculation
Average MPG - X2, Xj
Standard Deviation - s2, Sj
% Difference vs. Reference
Ftest
F, 0.05, DF
Equal Variance
Pooled Standard Deviation -
SP
n1 - (Additized Fuel)
n2- (Baseline Fuel)
ttest
DF
t, 0.05, DF
Statistically Significant
Difference
± Confidence Interval
Confidence Interval as
percent of mean fuel
economy change
Baseline Fuel
31.83
0.21
Additized Fuel
32.03
0.10
0.62%
4.00
5
05
Yes
0
16
6
6
2
12
10.00
2
23
No
0.21
105.0%
Statistical Analysis - Gravimetric (Batch 1)
Calculation
Average MPG - X2, Xj
Standard Deviation - s2, Sj
% Difference vs. Reference
Ftest
F, 0.05, DF
Equal Variance
Pooled Standard Deviation -
SP
n1- (Additized Fuel)
n2- (Baseline Fuel)
ttest
DF
t, 0.05, DF
Sta ti s ti ca 1 1 y Si gn i f i ca n t
Difference
± Confidence Interval
Confidence Interval as
percent of mean fuel
economy change
Baseline
Additized Fuel
Fuel
31.17 31.26
0.20 0.09
0.29%
4.61
5.05
Yes
0.15
6
6
1.04
10.00
2.23
No
0.20
214.7%
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Carbon Balance and Gravimetric Cross Checks - Additive 2 HwFET (Batch 2)
Southern Research Project Number
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
Test
Additive HwFET 2- 1
Additive HwFET 2- 2
Additive HwFET 2- 3
Additive HwFET2-4
Additive HwFET 2- 5
Additive HwFET 2- 6
Date
10/28/2010
10/28/2010
10/28/2010
10/28/2010
10/28/2010
10/28/2010
Total Mileage of Test 1
Total Mileage of Test 2
Total Mileage of Test 3
Total Mileage of Test 4
Total Mileage of Test 5
Total Mileage of Test 6
10.253
10.257
10.255
10.257
10.256
10.263
Start
Time
11:59
12:13
12:27
13:25
13:39
13:53
End Time
12:12
12:26
12:39
13:38
13:52
14:05
Fuel Container Weight (Ibs)
Start
29.135
28.745
26.25
26.985
26.715
24.205
End
27.095
26.715
24.205
24.955
24.7
22.18
Net
2.04
2.03
2.045
2.03
2.015
2.025
Average
Standard Deviation
%COV
MPG
(Carbon
Balance)
31.70
31.70
31.90
31.90
32.00
32.10
31.88
0.16
0.50
Specific Gravity of Fuel (Ibs/gal):
Average Difference in MPG
Difference in % COV's
13134
MPG
(Gravimetric)
30.99
31.16
30.92
31.16
31.38
31.25
31.14
0.17
0.54
MPG
Difference
0.71
0.54
0.98
0.74
0.62
0.85
6.166
0.74
0.04
1 1 1 1 1 II
Statistical Analysis - Carbon Balance (Batch 2)
Calculation
Average MPG - X2, Xj
Standard Deviation-s2, Sj
% Difference vs. Reference
Ftest
F, 0.05, DF
Equal Variance
Pooled Standard Deviation - sp
nj - (Additized Fuel)
n2- (Baseline Fuel)
ttest
DF
t, 0.05, DF
Statistically Significant
Difference
± Confidence Interval
Confidence Interval as percent
of mean fuel economy change
Baseline Additized
Fuel Fuel
31.83
0.21
31.88
0.16
0.16%
1.66
5.05
Yes
0.18
6
6
0.47
10.00
2.23
No
0.24
475.6%
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Statistical Analysis - Gravimetric (Batch 2)
Calculation
Average MPG - X2, Xj
Standard Deviation - s2, Si
% Difference vs. Reference
Ftest
F, 0.05, DF
Equal Variance
Pooled Standard Deviation -sp
nj- (Additized Fuel)
n2- (Baseline Fuel)
ttest
DF
t, 0.05, DF
Sta ti s ti ca 1 1 y Si gn i f i ca n t
Difference
± Confidence Interval
Confidence Interval as percent
of mean fuel economy change
Baseline Additized
Fuel Fuel
31.17 31.14
0.20
0.17
-0.09%
1.35
5.05
Yes
0.18
6
6
-0.27
10.00
2.23
No
0.24
-815.3%
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Appendix B - Corrective Action Reports
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
Verification Title: SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
Verification Description:_Taconic Energy Fuel Additive Testing
Description of Problem: No recommended fuel pump pressure setting for external fuel cart.
Originator: Austin Vaillancourt
Date: 10/25/2010
Investigation and Results: Need to match the external fuel pump with the teat vehicle's internal
fael pump which operates at ~60psig.
Investigator: Austin Vaillancourt
Date: 10/25/2010
Corrective Action Taken: Will now operate external fael pump pressure at ~60psig.
Originator: Austin Vaillancourt
Approver:
Date: 10/25/2010
Date:
Carbon copy: GHG Center Project Manager, OHO Center Director, SRI QA Manager, APPCD Project Officer
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
Verification Title: SR1/USEPA-GHG-OAP-49
Verification Description: laconic Energy Fuel Additive Testing
Description of Problem: Did not consider what dQjo_about^igine_eyaps_and_fiiel_an_Yaits.
Originator: Austin Vaillancourl Date: 10/25/2010
Investigation and Results: Need to be vented to atmosphere or out of dyno cell to avoid
background contamination during testing.
Investigator: Austin yaillancourt
Corrective Action Taken: Tied into a suction vent to the roof.
Originator: Austin Vaillancourt
Approver:
Date: 10/25/2010
Date: 10/25/2010
Date:
Carbon copy: GHG Center Project Manager, OHO Center Director, SRI QA Manager, APPCD Project Officer
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
Verification Title: SRl/USEFA-tjHG-QAF-49
Verification Description: Taconic F.ncrgv Fuel Additive Testing
Description of Problem: Referring to Table 20. The following QA/QC checks have been altered to
better describe the internal calibration methods used at TRC. "Road 1-oad 1 lorsepower Calibration"
& "Dvno Warm-up Verification".
Origjnator: Austin Vaillancourt
Investigation and Results: TRC's dynamometer operates differently where this QA/QC check
specifically is not necessary. TMaltemativfeinethod needs to be verified that it does not affect data
quality.
Investigator: Austin Vaillaucourt
Pate: 10/25/2010
Corrective Action Taken: Both of the OA/OC checks are now verified via a coastdowndonc_cvcry
morning prior to testing. A force is calculated where three coefficients (A. B & C1 are fit to a curve
(y^A+Bx+Cx2) where x is set to 40mph. If the value docs not vary more than ±2.2lbf from test to
test, it will not affect the data quality (See Daily Coast Downs').
Originator: Austin yailjancourt
Approver;
Date:Jft25/2flifi
Date:
Carton copy: GHC Center Projea Manager, OHO Center Director, SRI QA Manager, APPCD Prqjecl Officer
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
Verification Title: SSI/1ISEPA-GHG-QAP-49
Verification Description: Taconic Energy Fuel Additive Testing
! Description of Problem: CVS system Cannot handlejnoreJianisonswutrvejaniElfiL-Currcrit tesl
I Plan has vehicle repeatability testing occurring with 4 consecutive sampics.
Investigation and Results: Need to change sequence to accommodate the system & not affect data
quality.
Investigator Austin Vaillancourt
Date: 10/21/2010
Corrective Action Taken: Changed test plan. Will now run 2 preconditioning HwFET's. 2 sample
HwFET. 2 warm-up HwFET's. and 2 sample HwFET's.
Originator: Austin Vaillancourt
Approver:
Date: 10/21/2010
Date:
Carton copy: OHO Caiiu Pnijw.1 Moruicer, OHO C«nier Dirtaor. SRi QA Mansger, APPCD Projea Oflter
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
Verification Title: SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
Verification Description: Taconic Energy Fuel Additive Testing
Description of Problem: Referring to Table 21. The following QA/QC checks have been altered to
better describe the internal calibration methods used at TRC. "Propane critical orifice cal. cert.
Originator: Austin Vaillancourt
Date: 10/25/2010
Investigation and Results: TRC CVS system operates differently where this QA/QC check
specifically is not necessary. The alternative method needs to be...verified that it docs not affect data
quality.
Investigator:^ustin.Yaillancourt_
Date: 10/25/2010
Corrective Action Taken: TRC uses a bomb method, where propane injected is verified by weight
as well. This measurement is cross checked with the computers propane injection value & cannot
deviate more that ±2%.
Originator: Austin Vaillancourt
Approver:
Date: 10/25/2010
Date:
Carbon copy: GHG Center Project Manager, CMC Center Director, SRI QA Manager, APPCD Project Officer
10
------- |