SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October, 2010
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
laconic Energy, Inc.
TEA Fuel Additive
Prepared by:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Operated by
SOUTHERN RESEARCH JT
Legendary Discoveries. Leading Innovation. oOUtnGm ReSeaTCh iDStltUTG
Under a Cooperative Agreement With
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( ETV ) Organization
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
Taconic Energy, Inc.
TEA Fuel Additive
Prepared By:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
5201 International Drive
Durham, NC 27707
Telephone: 919-282-1050
Reviewed By:
Taconic Energy
Transportation Research Center
Central Hudson Gas & Electric
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
-------
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( ETr ) Organization
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
Taconic Energy, Inc.
TEA Fuel Additive
This Test and Quality Assurance Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Greenhouse Gas
Technology Center Project Manager and Center Director, the U.S. EPA APPCD Project Officer, and the
U.S. EPA APPCD Quality Assurance Manager.
Tim A. Hansen 29 October 2010
Director
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Lee Beck 28 September 2010
APPCD Project Officer
U.S. EPA
Butch Crews 29 October 2010
Project Manager
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Robert Wright 29 October 2010
APPCD Quality Assurance Manager
U.S. EPA
Eric Ringler 29 October 2010
Quality Assurance Manager
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
-------
(this page intentionally left blank)
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 ADDITIVE DESCRIPTION 3
1.3 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION PARAMETERS 3
1.4 ORGANIZATION 5
1.5 SCHEDULE 7
2.0 VERIFICATION APPROACH 8
2.1 INTRODUCTION 8
2.2 LABORATORY TEST SEQUENCE OVERVIEW AND STEP-BY-STEP TEST
PROCEDURES 9
2.3 TEST EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENT DESCRIPTION 14
2.3.1 Emissions Chassis Dynamometer & Test Chamber Descriptions 14
2.3.2 Emissions Constant Volume Sampler (CVS) and Analyzer Descriptions 15
2.4 ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND RELEVANT CALCULATIONS 16
2.5 POLLUTANT AND GHG EMISSIONS 18
3.0 DATA QUALITY 19
3.1 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 19
3.2 DYNAMOMETER SPECIFICATIONS, CALIBRATIONS, AND QA/QC
CHECKS 20
3.3 CVS SAMPLING SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS, CALIBRATIONS, AND
QA/QC CHECKS 23
3.4 EMISSIONS ANALYZER SPECIFICATIONS, CALIBRATIONS, AND QA/QC
CHECKS 24
3.5 TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS 26
3.6 FUEL ECONOMY GRAVIMETRIC CROSS CHECKS 28
3.7 INSTRUMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE 29
3.8 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES 29
3.9 REPEATABILITY CRITERIA 29
4.0 DATA ACQUISITION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING 30
4.1 DATA ACQUISITION AND DOCUMENTATION 30
. 1 Data Acquisition System 30
.2 Vehicle and Engine Documentation 30
.3 Test Fuel Composition 31
.4 QA/QC Documentation 31
4. .5 Field Test Documentation 31
4. .6 Corrective Action and Assessment Reports 31
4.2 DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION 32
4.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES RECONCILIATION 33
4.4 ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS 33
4.4.1 Project Reviews 33
4.4.2 Technical Systems Audit 33
4.4.3 Audit of Data Quality 34
4.5 VERIFICATION REPORT AND STATEMENT 35
4.6 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS 36
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
4.7 HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 36
5.0 REFERENCES 37
APPENDIX A 38
FUEL ECONOMY CHANGE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE 38
FUEL ECONOMY CHANGE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL 41
REFINEMENT OF FUEL ECONOMY CHANGE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL AND
NUMBER OF REQUIRED TEST RUNS 41
APPENDIX B 43
CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER QA/QC CHECKLIST 43
CVS SYSTEM QA/QC CHECKLIST 44
EMISSIONS ANALYZER QA/QC CHECKLIST 45
TEST FUEL ANALYSIS REVIEW 46
CARBON BALANCE AND GRAVIMETRIC CROSS CHECKS 47
TEST SEQUENCE TRACKING FORM 48
APPENDIX C 49
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS FOR FUEL PROPERTIES 49
APPENDIX D 51
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT 51
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Organization 5
Figure 2: EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Driving Schedule 9
Figure 3: EPA New York City Cycle Driving Schedule 9
Figure 4: CVS System Schematic 15
Figure 5: Fuel Economy Calculation Conceptual Flow 18
Figure 6: Driver's Trace Allowable Range 22
Figure 7: External Fuel Rig 28
Figure 8: Confidence Interval Decrease Due to Increased Number of Test Runs 42
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Project Task Timelines 7
Table 2: Procuring, Preparing, and Testing Action Steps 10
Table 3: Test Fuel Properties 13
Table 4: Equipment Calibrations Summary 14
Table 5: Emissions Chassis Dynamometer Description 14
Table 6: Emissions Chassis Dynamometer Test Chamber Description 14
Table 7: Constant Volume Sampler (CVS) Description 15
Table 8: Analyzer Bench Description 16
Table 9: Chassis Dynamometer Specifications and DQI Goals 20
Table 10: Chassis Dynamometer QA/QC Checks 21
Table 11: CVS Specifications and DQI Goals 23
Table 12: CVS System QA/QC Checks 23
Table 13: Emissions Analyzer Specifications and DQI Goals 24
Table 14: Emissions Analyzer QA/QC Checks 25
Table 15: Test Fuel Properties 27
Table 16: T-distribution Values 39
Table 17: Sample Data T-test Results Summary 40
Table 18: F005Distribution 40
Table 19: Sample Data Confidence Intervals 41
Table 20: Chassis Dynamometer QA/QC Checklist 43
Table 21: CVS System QA/QC Checklist 44
Table 22: Emissions Analyzer QA/QC Checks 45
Table 23: Test Fuel Specifications 46
Table 24: Carbon Balance and Gravimetric Cross Checks 47
in
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Taconic Energy
James Ketcham
William Acker
Transportation Research Center
Walter Dudek
U.S. EPA
Lee Beck
Southern Research Institute
Tim Hansen
William Crews
Eric Ringler
Austin Vaillancourt
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Richard Drake
Joseph Wagner
Central Hudson Gas & Electric
James Valleau
IV
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C
CFR
CFO
CFV
CO
CO2
cov
cP
CVS
CWF
DQI
DQO
EPA-ORD
ETV
°F
FTP
g/mi
GHG
HwFET
Hz
ISO
Kg/L
Lbf
LHV
mpg
NIST
NO
NO2
NOX
NYCC
QA
QA/QC
QMP
RH
SAE
SCFM
SG
SOP
SRI
SRM
TEA
THC
TRC
TQAP
VETS
VEZ
U.S. EPA
degrees Centigrade
Code of Federal Regulations
critical flow orifice
critical flow venture
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
coefficient of variation
Centipoise
constant volume sampling
carbon weight fraction
data quality indicator
data quality objective
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development
Environmental Technology Verification
degrees Fahrenheit
Federal Test Procedure
grams per mile
greenhouse gas
Highway Fuel Economy Test
Hertz
International Organization for Standardization
kilograms per liter
pounds force
lower (or net) heating value
miles per gallon
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Nitric Oxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Blend of NO, NO2, and other oxides of nitrogen
New York City Cycle
quality assurance
quality assurance / quality control
Quality Management Plan
Relative Humidity
Society of Automotive Engineers
standard cubic feet per minute
specific gravity
standard operating procedure
Southern Research Institute
standard reference material
Taconic Energy Additive
total hydrocarbons (as carbon)
Transportation Research Center
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
Vehicle Emissions Testing System
vehicle emission zero (gas)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
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 ETV program's goal
is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of improved
and innovative environmental technologies. Congress funds ETV in response to the belief that there are
many viable environmental technologies that are not being used for the lack of credible third-party
performance data. 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 Greenhouse Gas Technology Center (GHG Center) is one of six ETV organizations. EPA's partner
verification organization, Southern Research Institute (SRI), manages the GHG Center. The GHG Center
conducts verification testing of promising GHG mitigation and monitoring technologies. It develops
verification protocols, conducts field tests, collects and interprets field and other data, obtains independent
peer-review input, and reports findings. The GHG Center conducts performance evaluations according to
externally reviewed verification Test and Quality Assurance Plans (Test Plan) and established protocols
for quality assurance (QA).
Volunteer stakeholder groups guide the GHG Center's verification activities. These stakeholders advise
on specific technologies most appropriate for testing, help disseminate results, and review Test Plans and
technology Verification Reports. National and international environmental policy, technology, and
regulatory experts participate in the GHG Center's Executive Stakeholder Group. The group also
includes industry trade organizations, environmental technology finance groups, governmental
organizations, and other interested parties. Industry-specific stakeholders peer-review key documents
prepared by the GHG Center and provide verification testing strategy guidance in those areas related to
their expertise.
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 Energy (Taconic) has developed the TEA fuel additive for gasoline passenger vehicles and has
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
(1).
Taconic's TEA additive is 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 plans to verify the fuel economy performance
1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
attributable to the TEA additive in a minivan with greater than 10,000 miles and less than 50,000 miles on
the odometer. Verification tests will take place at TRC (Transportation Research Center) in East Liberty
Ohio, and will consist of repeated fuel economy tests as described below.
This Test Plan specifies the TEA additive verification parameters and the rationale for their selection. It
contains the verification approach, data quality objectives (DQOs), and Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) procedures, and will guide test implementation, document creation, data analysis, and
interpretation.
The technology developers, TRC, and the EPA QA team have reviewed this Test Plan. Once approved,
as evidenced by the signature sheet at the front of this document, it will meet the requirements of the
GHG Center's Quality Management Plan (QMP) and thereby satisfy the ETV QMP requirements. The
GHG Center will post the final Test Plan on their Internet site at www.sri-rtp.com and the ETV program
site at www.epa.gov/etv.
The GHG Center will prepare a Report and Verification Statement (report) upon field test completion.
The same organizations listed above will review the report, followed by EPA-ORD technical review.
When this review is complete, the GHG Center Director and EPA-ORD Laboratory Director will sign the
Verification Statement, and the GHG Center will post the final documents as described above.
The following section (1.2) describes the TEA additive technology and the verification parameters to be
quantified. Section 1.0 concludes with a discussion of key organizations participating in this verification,
their roles, and the verification test schedule. Section 2.0 describes the technical approach for verifying
each parameter, including sampling and analytical procedures. Section 3.0 identifies the data quality
assessment criteria for critical measurements, states the accuracy, precision, and completeness goals for
each measurement, and outlines QA/QC procedures. Section 4.0 discusses data acquisition, validation,
reporting, and auditing procedures.
It should be noted that this test and verification program is not intended to meet the requirements of the
U.S EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign or California Air Resources Board for listing as a verified
emissions reduction technology. Also, although similar test procedures are used, the protocol specified is
not intended to fully meet all requirements of the U.S. EPA's Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device
Evaluation Program. It is solely designed to independently verify the fuel economy impacts of the
Taconic Energy additive using a rigorous test procedure, and results do no t constitute certification or
approval by any entity.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
1.2 ADDITIVE DESCRIPTION
The laconic Energy fuel economy additive designated TEA-037 and intended to be sold under the
product name "Mileage Pro Green" has been registered with the EPA in accordance with the regulations
found in 40 CFR Part 79 of the Federal Register. Gasoline containing this registered material retains their
EPA baseline fuel designation. The active ingredient of this technology serves primarily as a friction
modifier ameliorating the in-cylinder friction losses in a gasoline engine. Taconic Energy has completed
development and rigorous testing of TEA-037 in a variety of vehicles. The additive typically improves
fuel economy in passenger vehicles by 1-5% and provides associated emission reductions.
The additive has been shown (1) to have an almost immediate effect on fuel economy, with no break-in
period required. A slight increase in improvement over time is also observed (1). Finally, 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.
TEA-037 consists of an active material and a solvent package to improve handling. The physical
properties are primarily determined by the solvent package. Below is a summary of the properties of the
active material as well as those of TEA-037 (the full additive package being tested).
Physical Properties of the active material in TEA-037
Appearance (@ 20°C):
Color:
Odor:
Density (@ 20°C):
Flash Point:
Explosive properties:
Boiling Point:
Physical Properties of TEA-037
Appearance (@ 20°C):
Color:
Odor:
Density (@ 20°C):
Flash Point:
Explosive properties:
Boiling Point:
Solid
White to slightly yellow.
Pungent.
0.98
>200°F (87.2°C)
Material does not have explosive properties
423 °F (217°C)
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 PARAMETERS
The GHG Center will verify the fuel economy change (A or "delta") due to TEA additive use. Delta will
be the primary performance parameter as quantified by the following equation:
A = Mean Fuel Economy Add-Mean Fuel Economy R(
'efFuel
(Eqn. 1)
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Where:
A = fuel economy change, mpg
Mean Fuel Economy Add = average fuel economy with additized fuel, mpg
Mean Fuel Economy Ref Fuel = average fuel economy with reference fuel, mpg
Once the fuel economy change is established, a percentage fuel savings will be determined relative to the
reference fuel. See the following equation.
Percentage fuel Savings =
Mfftm Fuel Economy^ Ftal (Eqn 2)
The laconic additive is considered primarily an immediate effect additive. Based on previous tests by the
vendor, the claimed fuel economy improvement is observed almost immediately after additive dosing
occurs. The proposed test plan is 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. Because of the short
duration of the test program (approximately 750 miles accumulation during test), concerns of vehicle
performance drift over long operating periods are minimized. A return to baseline conditions after
candidate testing (BCCB or BCBC test sequence), which is a common test sequence may not be valuable.
To compound the issue, the additive vendor has noted a small fuel economy improvement which results
from residual additive or carryover after the additive dosing is stopped. Although not the primary driver
for fuel economy changes, this effect does potentially prevent a return to baseline conditions immediately
after stopping dosing. As a result, to return to baseline conditions and eliminate the residual impacts, the
vendor has indicated that over 1000 miles of operation on baseline fuel would be required. That being
said, the verification will consist of a series of fuel economy tests where the general test sequence will be:
Preparation of vehicle for testing;
o Option 1: Return vehicle and procure second vehicle;
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);
o Option 2: Additized fuel economy test 1A (HwFET);
Additized fuel economy test 2 (NYCC);
Subtraction of the average reference fuel test results from the average additized fuel test results will yield
the fuel economy change attributable to additized fuel as shown in Eqn. 1. This will be completed
specific to each test condition (HwFET and NYCC)
Each fuel economy test run will conform to the widely accepted Highway Fuel Economy Test (HwFET)
and the New York City Cycle Test (NYCC). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40 Part 86,
"Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Highway Vehicles and Engines" (2), § 86.115, and Part 600,
"Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles" (3), § 600.109, are the HwFET and NYCC source documents.
Test personnel will operate the test vehicle on a chassis dynamometer located within the laboratories of
TRC (Transportation Research Center) in East Liberty, OH according to the load profiles specified in the
HwFET and NYCC. The GHG Center will use the fuel economy to determine the fuel economy change
for each driving schedule.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Verification testing will be completed operating over controlled duty cycles in a laboratory environment
on a chassis dynamometer. Emissions and fuel consumption will be measured over the duty cycle
gravimetrically and also by monitoring the tailpipe exhaust emissions.
Southern will ensure that the test facility calibrates and maintains all emissions equipment to the
guidelines of the CFR and will implement additional procedures to try to reduce test to test variability to
obtain an observable fuel economy change at a level of approximately 1%. These additional procedures
include but are not limited to, an increased number of test runs at each condition, a more stringent vehicle
preconditioning process, and a rigorous QA/QC protocol.
The vehicle tests will also quantify pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions (CO, CO2, NOX, and THC).
Although these parameters are not part of the primary verification, they are of interest to the GHG
stakeholder community. The marginal cost of their measurement and reporting, in conjunction with the
fuel economy test runs, is minimal. The verification Test Report will also include these results.
1.4 ORGANIZATION
APPCD QA Manager APP
Robert Wright
U.S. EPA/ORD
1 I
1 Project 1 IJechnoIogy V
1 Stakeholders and | | William Ac
.technical Reviewers. . laconic Ene
CD Project Officer
Lee Beck
J.S. EPA/ORD
endorl Test F
rgy j Walt I
Researc
ETV GHG Center Director
Tim Hansen
Southern Research
Project Manager
Butch Crews
Southern Research
1
1
"acility
Manage
3udek
ortation
i Cente
Field Team Leader
& Analyst
Austin Vaillancourt
Southern Research
Southern Research
Figure 1: Project Organization
Tim Hansen is the ETV GHG Technology Center Director. He will:
Ensure manpower and material resources are available to complete the demonstration
Oversee staff and provide management support
Contribute technical expertise and provide guidance to the development and implementation of
the demonstration plan, analysis of the data, and reporting of results
Interact with stakeholders, vendors and contractors to ensure goals and milestones are met and
maintain effective communications between all participants
Review and submit progress reports and required documents to EPA
Review the TQAP, Verification Report and Statement, QA Audit Reports, and publication or
outreach materials to ensure they conform to ETV guidelines and principles and submit these
reports to EPA-ETV
Butch Crews serves as the Project Manager. He will:
Manage day to day project activities and track the project schedule and budget
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Ensure that manpower and material resources are effectively deployed to achieve project
activities
Assist in the preparation of progress reports
Ensure that the TQAP, Verification Report and Statement, QA Audit Reports, and publication or
outreach materials conform to ETV guidelines and principles and verify that project data and
other files are properly collected and stored
Verify that collected data are regularly reviewed and validated as required and that any problems
are identified and effectively addressed
Ensure that data analyses are properly conducted in a timely manner and that uncertainties in the
data are quantified or adequately characterized and fully reported
Ensure that corrective action is initiated for all issues identified, that problems are resolved and
that the impact on data quality is assessed and reported
Austin Vaillancourt serves as the Field Team Leader and Analyst/Engineer. He is responsible for:
Designing measurements and tests necessary to achieve performance objectives
Drafting technical and analytical sections of the TQAP
Reviewing and validating test data and initiating corrective actions if problems are identified
Conducting data analysis and reporting results
Quantifying or characterizing uncertainties in the data
Assessing overall system performance on an ongoing basis and making recommendations for
improvements or adjustments
Providing field support for activities related to all measurements and data collected
Monitoring and observing the installation and operation of measurement instruments by the Test
Facility in accordance with the TQAP;
Ensuring that QA / QC procedures and documentation requirements are adhered to
Identifying any problems and initiating corrective actions
The GHG Technology Center QA Manager, Eric Ringler, is administratively independent from the GHG
Center Director and the field testing management. Mr. Ringler will:
Ensure that all measurements and testing are performed in compliance with the requirements of
this plan
Review test results and ensure that applicable internal assessments are conducted
Assess whether overall data quality is sufficient to satisfy each performance objective
Conduct or supervise a technical systems audit
Conduct or supervise an audit of data quality
Document all audit results and submit these to the Project Manager and Principal Investigator
Ensure that the impact on data quality of any problems is properly assessed, documented and
reported
Review and approve the demonstration plan and final reports
EPA-ORD will provide oversight and QA support for this verification. The Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Division (APPCD) Project Officer, Mr. Lee Beck, is responsible for obtaining final Test Plan and
Report approvals. The APPCD QA Manager, Mr. Bob Wright, will review and approve the Test Plan and
the Report to ensure they meet the GHG Center QMP requirements and represent sound scientific
practices.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
1.5 SCHEDULE
The tentative schedule of activities for the TEA additive verification testing is outlined in Table 1:
Project Task Timelines, below.
Table 1: Project Task Timelines
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Task Name
Verification Strategy Development
Application Review and Test Strategy
Internal Discussion and Modification
Contract signature
Stakeholder Panel Activities
Addition of New Participants
Panel Consultation and Conferences
Verification Plan Development
Internal Draft Development
Taconic Review/Revision
Stakeholders Review/Revision
USEPA QA Review/Revision
Final Draft Posted
Verification Testing & Analysis
Testing Mobilization
Testing
Data Validation & Analysis
Verification Report Development
Internal Draft Development
Preliminary Data Assessment Report (non-verified)
Taconic Review/Revision
Stakeholders Review/Revision
USEPA QA Review/Revision
Final Draft Posted
Outreach*
Articles, Presentations, Announcements
Dates
May 1 - June 15, 2010
May 1- June 15,2010
May 1 -June 30, 2010
June 15, 2010
June - October 30, 2010
June 1 -June 30, 2010
June 1 - September 30, 2010
May 1 - October 20, 2010
June 1 -August 13, 2010
August 13 - August 20, 2010
August 20- September 15, 2010
September 15 - October 15, 2010
October 20, 2010
October 25 - November 29, 2010
October 2 1,2010
October 25 - October 29, 2010
October 29 -November 29, 2010
November 1 - December 29, 2010
November 1 - December 29, 2010
December 19
November 29 - December 4, 2010
December 8 - December 19, 2010
December 23 - January 13, 201 1
January 12, 2011
June 1- May 30, 2011
June 1- May 30, 20 11
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
2.0 VERIFICATION APPROACH
2.1 INTRODUCTION
As previously discussed, the GHG Center in collaboration with TRC will perform a series of controlled
dynamometer tests on a specific test vehicle. For a passenger car with an average fuel efficiency of 16
mpg a total of 6 tests at each condition will be required in order to determine significant differences in
fuel efficiency between the additive and reference fuel (See Appendix A).
For a more detailed in depth discussion of these concepts as well as a methodology for selecting the
number of tests runs to be conducted, please see Appendix A and Section 3.1.
The following subsections discuss in more detail, the test sequence, laboratory equipment, and the
analytical approach.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
2.2 LABORATORY TEST SEQUENCE OVERVIEW AND STEP-BY-STEP TEST
PROCEDURES
Throughout the testing procedure two types of EPA driving schedules will be examined, the Highway
Fuel Economy Test Driving Schedule (HwFET) and the New York City Cycle Driving Schedule
(NYCC). In the HwFET a total 10.26 miles are traveled over a time period of 765 seconds with an
average speed of 48.3 mph, representing highway driving conditions under 60 mph. The HwFET is
depicted below in Figure 2: EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Driving Schedule (2).
EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Driving Schedule
Length 765 seconds - Distance = 10.26 miles - Average Speed = 48.3 mph
cN*-
to M>
Test Time, sees
Figure 2: EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Driving Schedule
In the NYCC a total 1.18 miles are traveled over a time period of 598 seconds with an average speed of
7.1 mph, representing low speed stop-and-go traffic conditions. The NYCC is depicted below in Figure
3: EPA New York City Cycle Driving Schedule (2).
30 -r
i25"
,20 -
.S 10 -
j=
a
* 5-.
0
New York City Cycle Driving Schedule
Length 598 seconds - Distance =1.18 miles - Average Speed = 7.1 mph
Test Time, sees
Figure 3: EPA New York City Cycle Driving Schedule
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
See, Table 2: Procuring, Preparing, and Testing Action Steps below for a summary of the test
procedure steps.
Table 2: Procuring, Preparing, and Testing Action Steps
Steps
Procure vehicle from
rental agency
Prepare vehicle for
Baseline - NYCC
Baseline - NYCC
Prepare vehicle for
Baseline - HwFET
Baseline - HwFET
Prepare vehicle for
Additive - HwFET
Additive - HwFET
Prepare vehicle for
Additive - NYCC
Additive - NYCC
Details
Conduct a chassis dynamometer setup for the vehicle,
driver practice.
Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles
Precondition with 2 HwFET's and then run 4 HwFET's
Evaluate data for repeatability.
*Option 1: Return vehicle and procure second
vehicle
Perform vehicle alignment and brake rotor run-out
Setup vehicle for measuring gravimetric fuel
consumption.
Setup vehicle for recording engine oil temperature.
Fill vehicle with baseline fuel.
Perform an engine oil double flush.
Condition vehicle with 5 NYCC's and soak overnight
Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles
Preondition vehicle with 5 NYCC's.
Run 8 (3 Sample + 2 Warm-Up + 3 Sample) NYCC's
and evaluate data for repeatability
Condition vehicle with 5 HwFET's and soak overnight
Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles
Precondition vehicle with 5 HwFET's.
Run 8 (3 Sample + 2 Warm-Up + 3 Sample) HwFET's
and evaluate data for repeatability
Switch to additized fuel and flush fuel lines.
Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles
Precondition vehicle with 5 HwFET's.
Run 8 (3 Sample + 2 Warm-Up + 3 Sample) HwFET's
and evaluate data for repeatability & comparison
Option 2: Additive 2 - HwFET (2nd set of additive
tests)
Condition vehicle with 5 NYCC's and soak overnight
Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles
Precondition vehicle with 5 NYCC's.
Run 8 (3 Sample + 2 Warm-Up + 3 Sample) NYCC's
and evaluate data for repeatability & comparison.
Day
1
la
2
3
4
4a
5
10
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Testing will begin with procurement of a suitable test vehicle that is representative of the population of
interest. Based on laconic Energy's desired target fleet, the test vehicle will be a high volume selling
minivan. Previous experience indicates it is important to obtain a vehicle with greater than 10,000 miles
and less than 50,000 miles on the odometer. This ensures that the engine is properly broken in and still
within reasonable range of the manufacturer's warrantee. The test vehicle will be rented by TRC from a
local rental agency.
The test vehicle choice will be approved by Taconic prior to acquiring the vehicle for testing. Prior to
testing, the vehicle will be checked for on board diagnostic (OBD) issues. If any OBD problems are
found Southern project management will discuss with Taconic on how to proceed with these issues.
When technicians have set up the chassis dynamometer and mounted the vehicle on it, the driver assigned
to this test program will familiarize himself with the vehicle's operation by conducting multiple HwFET
and NYCC dynamometer test sequences previously shown in Figure 2 & Figure 3. This "practice" stage
will continue until the driver is comfortable with operating the vehicle and can repeatedly follow the
dynamometer driving trace according to 40 CFR § 86.115 specifications. The upper limit is 2 mph higher
than the highest point on the trace within 1 second of the given time. The lower limit is 2 mph lower than
the lowest point on the trace within 1 second of the given time (See Figure 6). The same individual will
operate the vehicle during all test runs.
The engine oil will then be conditioned on the dynamometer at a steady speed of 55 mph for 70 miles. To
verify that the vehicle will show the repeatability needed for the test program, it will be preconditioned
over 2 HwFETs then immediately tested over 4 HwFET cycles using the non-additized fuel. Based on the
repeatability criteria (see Section 3.9) the results will be reviewed by Southern and the testing laboratory
to decide whether the subject vehicle will be used for the test program. In past experience, it has been
observed that some vehicles, for no particular reason, do not produce repeatable data. Therefore, it is
important that the vehicle is proven to be repeatable prior to moving on throughout the test program. If
this vehicle is not chosen it is understood that additional charges may be incurred for selection and
preparation of a second vehicle. When a vehicle is selected for the test program, it will undergo further
examination, a front end alignment, and verification of brake rotor run-out. Also, the vehicle's alternator
will also be disabled. An external charging system will be set up to power the vehicle's electrical system
during tests and fuel lines will be configured to accept fueling from a secondary fuel tank. Prior to testing
the vehicle's fuel tank and the external fuel rig (see Section 3.6) must be flushed and filled with the non-
additized fuel and an engine oil flush will be performed. The vehicle will then be conditioned with 5
NYCC's and soaked overnight.
After the vehicle has soaked overnight, the engine oil will be conditioned on the dynamometer at a steady
speed of 55 mph for 70 miles followed by 5 preconditioning NYCC's. Immediately following the
preconditioning cycles the vehicle will be tested and sampled over 6 NYCC's. Because 6 back-to-back
iterations are not possible since normal sampling setup is limited to 4 bags maximum, 3 NYCC's can only
be performed with the subsequent analyses at a time. After the initial 3 tests are performed the vehicle
will undergo 2 warm-up NYCC's and the remaining 3 NYCC's performed in the same manner. After the
completion of testing the test results of the 6 NYCC's will be reviewed by Southern for fuel economy
repeatability (see Section 3.9). The vehicle will then be conditioned with 5 HwFET cycles and soaked
overnight.
After the vehicle has soaked overnight, the engine oil will be conditioned on the dynamometer at a steady
state speed of 55 mph for 70 miles followed by 5 HwFET preconditioning cycles. Immediately following
the preconditioning cycles the vehicle will be tested and sampled over 6 HwFET cycles. Because 6 back-
11
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
to-back iterations are not possible since normal sampling setup is limited to 4 bags maximum, 3 HwFET
cycles can only be performed with the subsequent analyses at a time. After the initial 3 tests are
performed the vehicle will undergo 2 HwFET warm-up cycles and the remaining 3 HwFET test cycles
performed in the same manner. After the completion of testing the test results of the 6 HwFET cycles will
be reviewed by Southern for fuel economy repeatability (see Section 3.9).
After the completion of the baseline testing the fuel lines will be flushed and the fuel cart will be switched
to additized fuel. The engine oil will be conditioned on the dynamometer at a steady state speed of 55
mph for 70 miles followed by 5 HwFET preconditioning cycles. Immediately following the
preconditioning cycles the vehicle will be tested and sampled over 6 HwFET cycles. Because 6 back-to-
back iterations are not possible since normal sampling setup is limited to 4 bags maximum, 3 HwFET
cycles can only be performed with the subsequent analyses at a time. After the initial 3 tests are
performed the vehicle will undergo 2 HwFET warm-up cycles and the remaining 3 HwFET test cycles
performed in the same manner. After the completion of testing the test results of the 6 HwFET cycles will
be reviewed by Southern for fuel economy repeatability and for fuel use reductions (see Section 3.9). If
the repeatability criteria are not met there is an option to retest the additized fuel the following day. The
testing will be performed in the same manner as the Additive 1 Test. It is assumed that every set of
baseline tests up to this point will produce repeatable data. Since another variable (additized fuel) will be
introduced for this set of tests, it was decided to allow an option for supplemental testing as a
precautionary measure. The vehicle will then be conditioned with 5 NYCC's and soaked overnight.
After the vehicle has soaked overnight, the engine oil will be conditioned on the dynamometer at a steady
state speed of 55 mph for 70 miles followed by 5 preconditioning NYCC's. Immediately following the
preconditioning cycles the vehicle will be tested and sampled over 6 NYCC's. Because 6 back-to-back
iterations are not possible since normal sampling setup is limited to 4 bags maximum, 3 NYCC's can only
be performed with the subsequent analyses at a time. After the initial 3 tests are performed the vehicle
will undergo 2 warm-up NYCC's and the remaining 3 NYCC's performed in the same manner. After the
completion of testing the test results of the 6 NYCC's will be reviewed by Southern for fuel economy
repeatability and for fuel use reductions (see Section 3.9).
TRC will receive certification-grade test fuel in 55-gallon drums. Each lot delivered for testing includes a
manufacturer supplied certificate of analysis (COA) for fuel properties (See Appendix C). Using the
COA, values for the carbon content and net heating value of this fuel will be used in the calculation of
fuel economy (See Section 2.4). Fuel additive will be supplied by Taconic to the test facility, including
an MSDS, and directions for blending the additive with the test fuel.
Anytime the fuel system must be flushed, technicians will perform this task in accordance with 40 CFR §
86.113-94 specifications. The field team leader will review the test fuel analysis to ensure that the
methods and results conform to the test fuel properties specified in Table 3.
12
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Table 3: Test Fuel Properties
QA/QC Check
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
When
Performed /
Frequency
Prior to being
put into
service
Expected or
Allowable Result
87 minimum
7.5 minimum
0.050g/U.S. gal
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
8.0to9.2psi
10 % maximum
35 % maximum
remainder
Response to
Check Failure or
Out of Control
Condition
Repeat analyses to
confirm results.
Reject fuel and use
a different batch
meeting CFR
requirements.
Prior to testing, TRC and the Field Team Leader will verify that all equipment calibrations are current
according to the schedules in 40 CFR § 86.116. Table 4 summarizes the relevant calibrations, Title 40
CFR citations, and their frequencies. Section 3.0 discusses calibrations and QA/QC checks in more
detail.
13
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Table 4: Equipment Calibrations Summary
Equipment Description
CO analyzer
CO2 analyzer
HC analyzer
NOX analyzer
Chassis dynamometer
CVS system
Title 40 CFR Procedure
§86.122
§86.124
§86.121
§86.123
§86.118
§86.119
Calibration Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Weekly
Following test site calibration verifications and driver practice sessions, the GHG Center will authorize
initiation of the fuel economy test protocol.
2.3 TEST EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENT DESCRIPTION
This verification's test equipment falls into four major groups:
Chassis dynamometer
CVS system
Emissions analyzers
This subsection briefly describes the test equipment, while Sections 3.2 through 3.4 summarize the
relevant specifications, calibrations, and QA/QC checks.
2.3.1 Emissions Chassis Dynamometer & Test Chamber Descriptions
Table 5: Emissions Chassis Dynamometer Description
Manufacturer / Type
Maximum Inertia Simulation
Repeat Tolerance of Inertia and
Road Simulation
Maximum vehicle wheel width
Maximum vehicle Axle Weight
AVL 48" Roll Dual Axle 2WD/4WD Dynamometer
12,000 Ibs. in AWD
8,000 Ibs. in 2WD mod
Maximum Vehicle Speed:
125 MPH
< 1%
107 in (2725mm)
10,000 Ibs. per axle
Table 6: Emissions Chassis Dynamometer Test Chamber Description
Maximum Temperature
Minimum Temperature (during driving)
Nominal Temperature with Humidity
Control
Humidity Control
Chamber Ceiling Clearance Height
Chamber Depth
Chamber Width
Vehicle Cooling Fan Max Airspeed at vehicle
125°
20°F
75°F
35% to 75% RH
±5%RH
9 Feet
40 Feet
28 Feet
32mph at 0.5 m2
discharge
14
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
The dynamometer control unit commands a power converter which delivers regulated alternating current
to an electric motor connected to the dyno roll. This electric motor exchanges power with the roll (and
the vehicle). Based on feedback from roll torque measurement and velocity sensors, the power exchange
motor acts as both a power source and absorber to control the forces exerted on the test vehicle's tires. A
preprogrammed road load curve, specific to the test vehicle, is the basis for the required force during each
second of the driving schedule.
2.3.2 Emissions Constant Volume Sampler (CVS) and Analyzer Descriptions
Table 7: Constant Volume Sampler (CVS) Description
Manufacturer / Type
Dilution Tunnel
Cyclonic Separator
Nominal Flow Rate
Calibration Method
Sample System
Horiba Analytical
12" Diameter
Yes
200, 350, or 550 SCFM
Laminar Flow Element (LFE)
Continuous Dilute or Tedlar Bag
' Method.
Figure 4 is an example of a CVS system schematic.
~- TO METHANOL SAMPLE
" TO FORMALDEHYDE SAMPLE
FLOW APPROACH
VENfURI ORIFICE
CVS COMPRESSOR UNIT
CVS SAMPLER UNIT
SYMBOL LEGEND
H.OW CONTaOL WIV6
MLECTIW VALVE
ftUITeunTJ Witt
KMf
?
m
Figure 4: CVS System Schematic
15
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Test technicians first connect the vehicle exhaust pipe to the CVS inlet. While the vehicle operates on the
dynamometer, an adjustable-speed turbine blower dilutes the exhaust with ambient air. This dilution
prevents the exhaust moisture from condensing and provides controllable sampling conditions. A sample
pump and a control system transfers diluted exhaust aliquots to several different Tedlar bags during
specific phases of each NYCC and HwFET test run. A regulating needle valve maintains a constant
sample flow rate into the bags.
Table 8: Analyzer Bench Descrii
Manufacturer / Type
AIA-220 Non-Disperse Infrared Analyzer CO2
AIA-220 Non-Disperse Infrared Analyzer CO (Low)
AIA-220 Non-Disperse Infrared Analyzer CO (High)
CLA-220 Chemiluminescent NOx Analyzer
FIA-220 Flame lonization Detector (THC)
GFA-220 CH4 Gas Chromatography Analyzer
Dtion
Horiba 9000 Series
0-2 & 6%
0-25, 50, 250 ppm
0-500, 1000, 3000 ppm
0-25, 50, 100 ppm
0-10,30,300, 1000 ppmC
0-5,10 ppm
A Horiba analytical bench equipped with a 9000-Series instrumental analyzer will determine CO, CO2,
THC, and NOX concentrations in the dilute exhaust. Sample pumps transfer the dilute exhaust from the
sample bags to each analyzer as commanded by the control system.
2.4 ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND RELEVANT CALCULATIONS
During each fuel economy test run, the vehicle will operate over specified cycles which represent city and
highway driving conditions. The chassis dynamometer will simulate road, aerodynamic, and vehicle
inertial loads during acceleration, deceleration, and at varied velocities. As previously discussed two
types of EPA driving schedules will be examined, the Highway Fuel Economy Test Driving Schedule
(HwFET) and the New York City Cycle Driving Schedule (NYCC). The change in fuel economy
attributable to the TEA additive will be examined for both the HwFET and NYCC driving schedules.
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 COA (See Appendix C), 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. Dimensional analysis is as follows:
mj/gal(ormpg) =
o carbon,/uel /
/gal
5 carbon,emissions /
/mi
(Eqn. 3)
The calculation relies on measured CO, CO2, and HC mass emission rates (in grams per mile or g/mi), the
measured test fuel carbon weight fraction, fuel specific gravity, and net heating value. The COA for fuel
properties provides TRC with the necessary information using the following test methods:
Specific gravity - ASTM D 4052
Carbon weight fraction - ASTM D 5291
Net heating value (Btu/lb) - ASTM D 240
16
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
From 40 CFR § 600.113, the NYCC or HwFET fuel economy will be:
(5174*104)*CW*£G
+ + .2. + ' '
Where:
mpg = Miles per gallon
CWF = Carbon weight fraction in the fuel
SG = Fuel specific gravity
HC = Hydrocarbon emission rate, g/mi
CO = Carbon monoxide emission rate, g/mi
CO2 = Carbon dioxide emission rate, g/mi
LHV = Fuel lower (or net) heating value, Btu/lb
The overall average fuel economy (to be used as input to Equation 1) for either the baseline or additized
fuel will be:
Mean Fuel Economy = V (Eqn. 5)
i n
Where:
Mean Fuel Economy = Average of all test runs (HwFET or NYCC specific), mpg
n = Number of test runs
Referring to Equation 3, the exhaust emission rates in g/mi are the result of the dilute exhaust bag sample
instrumental analyses correlated with the CVS dilute exhaust volume, miles traveled on the dynamometer,
ambient barometric pressure, ambient pollutant concentrations, etc. 40 CFR § 86.144 contains the
detailed calculations. They need not be repeated here. The following figure, however, illustrates how the
measurements contribute to the train of calculations. Each of the measured values shown in Figure 5 have
associated instrument specifications and QA/QC checks which Section 3.0 discusses in greater detail.
17
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
(
1FUEL ECONOMY (mpg) |
^^ t
NOx not A 1
£ ^v lit
HC CO, C02, NOx Fue, Specific F
Mass Emission Gravity* Hea
Rates (g/mi) ASTMD1298 AST
uel Net Fuel Carbon
ing Value* Weight Fraction*
M D 3338 ASTM D 3343
A
Distance | ^t, (HC> ^ NO*) ^etSncTntra^n
1
Dynamometer
Roll Counts
CVS
I emperature '
CVS
Pressure '
1 CVS ^1 ^
I Coefficients.!""^
i 1
Pressure
< Temperature ..-"""..
JNOx and CO*t
''.. °°'y .'
*»
t
Ambient HC, CO, CO2, NOx
<- Dilution Factor < Ambient
Calculation Concentration
1
HC, CO, C02, NOx
^ Sample
Concentration
< F'HH'<~ ^
^ Ratio """"
1 1 Intermediate calculations ^ Pnmary contribution or function
O Coefficients; measured or .< Secondary contiibution 01 function
from first principles
I 1 * Measured once per fuel lot
| | Measured values
Figure 5: Fuel Economy Calculation Conceptual Flow
To interpret Figure 5, consider humidity as an example. Humidity measurements, combined with the
CVS operating coefficients, CVS temperature, CVS pressure, ambient temperature, and ambient
barometric pressure, contribute to the dilute exhaust sample volume determination. Humidity
measurements also contribute to NOX and CO net concentration correction factors. The dilute exhaust
sample volume, in turn, contributes to the mass emission rate calculation for each pollutant and GHG gas.
The vehicle emissions test system integrates the measured CO, CO2, and HC mass emission rates into
Equation 2 to determine the fuel economy for each dynamometer test phase, and then employs Equation 3
to calculate the test run's composite fuel economy.
TRC will also determine fuel economy by gravimetric method as a cross-check against the carbon balance
method. The gravimetric method correlates the weight of gasoline consumed, its specific gravity, and the
dynamometer distance traveled to yield mpg. Section 3.6 discusses this QA/QC check in more detail.
2.5 POLLUTANT AND GHG EMISSIONS
Section 1.3 indicated that the vehicle tests will also quantify pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions (CO,
CO2, NOX, and THC). Although these parameters are not part of the primary verification, they are of
interest to the GHG stakeholder community.
18
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Section 2.4 showed the relationship of pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions measurements with the
fuel economy determination. Pollutant and GHG emissions in g/mi are an intermediate determination.
The instrument description in Section 2.3, therefore, applies to these measurements as well. Although
NOX values do not contribute to the mpg results, the NOX instrumentation and measurement techniques
are integrated with the other analyses so the marginal cost of reporting NOX emissions is negligible.
Section 3.0 summarizes the relevant instrument specifications and QA/QC checks.
3.0 DATA QUALITY
3.1 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
The GHG Center selects methodologies and instruments for all verifications to ensure a stated level of
data quality in the final results. The GHG Center specifies DQOs for each verification parameter before
testing as a statement of data quality.
This verification's DQO will be the fuel economy change's desired confidence level. Appendix A
discusses the achievable confidence intervals based on sample data. For this verification, the DQO
statement is as follows:
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 (4), 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 (5), 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 I percent should be detectable for a target vehicle with mean
fuel economy of 16 mpg.
Recalling that the expected fuel economy change will be small this DQO represents the most
economically feasible DQO goal for the expected A range which corresponds to the lowest number of test
runs (6) to meet the 60 percent target. While this DQO is adequate to demonstrate the significance of fuel
economy changes expected by Taconic Energy, statistical significance of fuel economy changes less than
0.12 mpg may not be demonstrable under this Test Plan.
The test site, sampling and analytical methodologies, and test procedures will all adhere to Title 40 CFR
Part 86, (2) and Part 600 (3) requirements. To achieve the DQO, additional procedures will be followed,
including but not limited to, an increased number of test runs at each condition, a more stringent vehicle
preconditioning process, and a rigorous QA/QC protocol. If all testing meets the CFR specifications and
the mean fuel economy change confidence interval is within the range stated above, then the DQO will be
achieved.
Each CFR testing, sampling, and analytical method will produce results that contribute to the overall fuel
economy change determination. If each contributing measurement conforms to the applicable method
specifications, then the GHG Center will conclude that the data and the resulting confidence interval
calculation are valid.
19
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
The CFR methods associate specific accuracy determinations, QA/QC, or analytical procedures with each
contributing measurement. These quantitative or qualitative protocols will constitute this verification's
DQI goals. The GHG Center will compare the achieved DQIs - most often stated in terms of
measurement accuracy, precision, repeatability, completeness, etc. - with the DQI goals outlined below.
Achievement of the DQI goals will imply that the contributing measurement conforms to the applicable
method specifications and its use in calculating the achieved DQO is valid.
TRC Inc. is registered to the 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. Environmental Protection Agency and associated ISO and SAE Procedural Specifications.
3.2 DYNAMOMETER SPECIFICATIONS, CALIBRATIONS, AND QA/QC CHECKS
Table 9 summarizes the dynamometer's specifications.
Table 9: Chassis Dynamometer Specifications and DQI Goals
Measurement
Variable
Speed
Load
Operating
Range
Expected in
Field
0 to 60 mph
0 to 500 Ibf
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.
TRC and the manufacturer verified the speed and torque sensor accuracies during initial installation and
startup. The QA/QC checks outlined in Table 10 are daily operational checks which confirm that the
dynamometer is functioning properly. If the daily QA/QC checks conform to these specifications, then it
is reasonable to conclude that the dynamometer measurements achieve the specified accuracy. Re-
verification or recalibration of the speed and load sensors occurs only when the daily QA/QC checks
suffer consistent and repeatable failures. In that event, recalibrations serve as diagnostic troubleshooting
tools. The Field Team Leader will monitor TRC's QA/QC check performance. See Table 20 located in
Appendix B for the appropriate log form.
20
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Table 10: Chassis Dynamometer QA/QC Checks
QA/QC Check
Road load horsepower calibration
Dyno calibration certificate inspection
Parasitic friction verification
Dyno warmup verification
Roadload and inertia simulation check
Valid driver's trace
When Performed /
Frequency
Before initiating test
program
Once during the test
program
Before initiating test
program
Before initiating test
program
55-45 coast down at end
of each FTP test run
End of each test run
Expected or Allowable
Result
Triplicate coastdown checks
within + 2.0% of target curve
Sensor accuracies conform to
Table 9 specifications
+ 2.2 Ibf 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
Failure or Out of
Control Condition
Repeat road load
horsepower calibration
Recalibrate or verify dyno
sensor performance
Perform new parasitic loss
curve
Identify cause of any
problem and correct.
Identify cause of any
problem and correct.
Repeat test if
dynamometer equipment
fault.
Repeat test
Prior to each day's testing the operator will verify that the daily dynamometer coast down has been
performed. This is an automated check built into the dyno's control computer. It will be completed each
day prior to testing.
The road load horsepower calibration will occur before the first test run. This calibration's purpose is to
determine dynamometer settings based on actual road load data. TRC will conduct an iterative vehicle
coast down process to establish the dyno settings which best simulate the vehicle's road load data. When
calibrated, the dyno must impose forces on the vehicle that are within ± 2.0% of the actual road load
curve over three separate coastdown runs.
Test operators will perform a dynamometer parasitic friction before initiating the test program. Roll
friction measurements at several speeds serve as input to generate a third-order parasitic loss curve. All
forces must be within ± 2.2 Ibf at every point on the curves.
Following each test run, the dyno control computer will print a test summary sheet. This printout will
contain the average positive and negative simulation errors recorded during testing. These errors should
be no more than ±0.3 percent average over the entire driving sequence.
The test summary report also validates the drivers' ability to follow the trace according to CFR
provisions. Title 40 CFR § 86.115 specifies the tolerances within which the driver must conform to the
required dynamometer speed. In general, for a given time t, the speed must be within 2 mph of that
required for t minus one second or t plus one second. Figure 6 illustrates the concept (2). The upper half
is typical of dynamometer traces with a steadily increasing or decreasing speed. The lower half is typical
for those portions of the trace which include a maximum or minimum value.
21
-------
I
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
AllOW ABLE
RANGE
TIME
Figure 6: Driver's Trace Allowable Range
If the driver's trace exceeds the tolerances, the test summary report will flag the starting time, ending
time, and duration. If this occurs, the Field Team Leader will declare the run void and TRC will repeat it.
As an additional QA/QC check, the Field Team Leader will inspect the most recent dynamometer speed
and load sensor installation calibrations.
22
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
3.3 CVS SAMPLING SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS, CALIBRATIONS, AND QA/QC
CHECKS
Table 11 summarizes the Horiba Analytical CVS system specifications.
Table 11: 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
ftVmin
Instrument
Description
Horiba
Analytical
Constant
Volume
Sampler
Range
0-150 psia
0-600 °C
200, 350, or
550 scfm
Measurement
Frequency
IHz
DataC
Accuracy
+ 0.2 % full
scale
+ 0.05%
resistance
versus
temperature
Calculated
)uality Indicator Goals
How
Verified /
Determined
Pressure
yearly,
temperature
every 6
months
Completeness
100 %
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 12 are daily operational checks which
confirm proper CVS function. If the daily QA/QC checks conform to specifications, then it is reasonable
to conclude that the CVS measurement variables achieve the specified accuracy. CVS sensor re-
verification or recalibration occurs only during troubleshooting of consistent and repeatable failure of the
daily QA/QC checks. As an additional QA/QC check, the Field Team Leader will inspect the most recent
CVS sensor calibrations.
Table 12: CVS System QA/QC Checks
QA/QC Check
New propane tank composition verification
CVS critical flow orifice calibration
certificate inspection
Propane injection check
Flow rate verification
Sample bag leak check
When Performed /
Frequency
Prior to placing new
propane tank in service
Lifetime calibration
Daily
Daily
Before each test run
Expected or Allowable
Result
Verify against supplier
analysis
NA
difference between injected
and recovered propane
< + 2.0%.
+ 5 cfm of appropriate
nominal set point
Maintain 10 " Hg vacuum for
10 seconds
Response to Check
Failure or Out of
Control Condition
Reject new propane tank;
obtain and verify another
NA
Identify cause of any
problem and correct; if no
problems are identified,
recalibrate CVS
Verify temperature and
pressure measurement
Identify cause of any
problem and correct;
replace bag if necessary
The Field Team Leader will monitor TRC's QA/QC check performance. See Table 21 located in
Appendix B for the appropriate log form.
Test operators will compare each new propane cylinder against the provided supplier analysis before
releasing the new cylinder for CVS calibrations.
23
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
TRC will verify CVS calibration and proper function with a daily injection test that conforms to 40 CFR
§ 86.119 specifications. Technicians will inject a known quantity of propane into the CVS system over a
specified time period. A calibrated THC analyzer will measure the total hydrocarbon concentration, as
diluted and injected into a sample bag. The propane mass recovered and reported by the CVS (and Data
Acquisition System) must be within ± 2.0 percent of the mass injected. This procedure will also verify
the CVS flow rate because it and the sample dilution ratio are part of the propane mass recovery
calculation.
TRC will check the sample bags for leaks prior to each test. The test operator will evacuate each bag to a
vacuum of at least 10" Hg. Each bag must maintain the achieved vacuum for at least 10 seconds. The
technician will discard and replace bags which do not meet the specification.
Prior to starting each test run, the operator will visually confirm the indicated CVS flow rate to ensure
that the system is operating at the desired set point.
3.4 EMISSIONS ANALYZER SPECIFICATIONS, CALIBRATIONS, AND QA/QC
CHECKS
Table 13: Emissions Analyzer Specifications and DQI Goals
Measurement
Variable
Low CO
CO
CO2
NOX
THC
Expected
Operating
Range
0-200
ppm
0 - 1000
ppm
0 - 2.0 %
(vol)
0- 100
ppm
0-250
ppm
(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 1 1
points evenly
spaced
throughout
span
(including
zero)
Completeness
100 %
*The most stringent accuracy specification applies for each calibration point.
TRC will verify each analyzer's performance through a series of zero and calibration gas challenges.
Each zero and calibration gas must be NIST-traceable. Table 14 summarizes the applicable QA/QC
checks. If all calibration gases and QA/QC checks meet their specifications, then TRC and the GHG
Center will infer that the emissions analyzers meet Table 13 's accuracy specifications.
24
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Table 14: Emissions Analyzer QA/QC Checks
QA/QC Check
NIST-traceable calibration gas verifications
Zero-gas verification
Gas divider linearity verification
Analyzer calibrations
Wet CO2 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 NIST SRM
concentration
HC < 1 ppmC
CO < 1 ppm
CO2<400ppm
NOX<0.1 ppm
O2between 18 and 21%
All points within + 2% of
linear fit
FS within + 0.5% of known
value
All values within + 2% of
point or + l%ofFS;
Zero point within + 0.2% of
FS
CO 0 to 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
Identify cause of any
problem and correct;
discard bottle and replace
if necessary
Discard bottle and replace
Identify cause of any
problem and correct;
replace gas divider if
necessary
Identify cause of any
problem and correct;
recalibrate analyzer
Obtain gases with current
certificates
Zero and span the affected
analyzer again and read
the BACKGROUND and
SAMPLE bags again.
TRC will verify all new Standard Reference Material (SRM) or other NIST-traceable reference gas
concentrations with an emissions analyzer that has been calibrated within the last 30 days. The operator
will first zero the analyzer with a certified zero grade gas and then span it with a NIST SRM (or
equivalent) three times to ensure stability and minimal analyzer drift.
The operator will then introduce the new reference gas into the analyzer and record the concentration,
followed by reintroduction of the NIST SRM to ensure that the analyzer span point does not drift more
than ± 0.1 meter divisions. The operator will repeat these last two steps until three consistent values are
obtained. The mean of these three determinations must be within one percent of its NIST SRM
concentration. TRC will then consider the reference gas as suitable for emissions analyzer calibrations.
TRC will verify each new working zero air (or N2) cylinder's impurities to ensure that it is suitable for
emissions analyzer zero checks. Comparisons between a certified Vehicle Emission Zero (VEZ) Gas (or
equivalent) and the candidate zero gas will serve this purpose. TRC will employ an emissions cart (or
suite of instruments) that has been calibrated within the last 30 days for this procedure. The operator will
zero the analyzers with certified VEZ gas and span them with NIST-traceable reference gases to ensure
stability and minimal analyzer drift. The operator will then introduce the candidate cylinder's zero gas to
25
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
the sample train and record the HC, CO, CO2, and NOX values. The results must fall within the ranges
given in Table 14 for the zero gas to be deemed suitable for instrumental analyzer calibrations.
Prior to the monthly exhaust emission analyzer calibrations, TRC will verify the calibration gas divider
linearity with an HC analyzer known to have a linear response and an HC span gas. The operator will
first zero and then span the instrument such that the span occupies 100 meter or chart divisions. The
operator will operate the divider in each of its settings in descending order and compare the observed
results with a linear scale. The difference between the commanded and observed concentrations must be
within ±2.0 percent of the commanded concentration. Also, this difference must be less than ±0.5
percent of the span value.
NIST-traceable calibration gases, in conjunction with a verified gas divider and zero gas, will create
individual gas concentrations with which to challenge each instrumental analyzer. The gas divider will
generate 11 concentrations in 10 percent increments from 0 to 100 percent of each analyzer's span (the
CFR requires 7 points). Analyzer response at each point must be within ±2.0 percent of the
concentration or ± 1.0 percent of span, whichever is more stringent. Zero gas response must be within ±
0.2 percent of span (the CFR requires ±0.3 percent). If any point is outside these limits, operators will
generate a new calibration curve.
The CO analyzer wet CO2 interference check will occur quarterly. This procedure determines the
analyzer's response to water vapor and CO2. The operator will turn the analyzer on, allow it to stabilize,
and challenge it with 14-percent CO2 in N2 bubbled through water. Analyzer response to the interference
gas must be < 3 ppm for spans below 300 ppm; response must be < 1.0 percent of span for higher ranges.
The NOX analyzer CO2 interference (quench) check will occur in conjunction with the monthly
calibration. CO2 can quench the analyzer's NO response. A verified gas divider will dilute NIST-
traceable CO2 (concentration of 80 to 100 percent of the maximum range expected during testing) by 50
percent with NIST-traceable NO. The operator will calculate the expected dilute NO concentration and
record the analyzer's actual response to this challenge. The difference between the calculated NO and
measured NO concentrations must be < 3.0 percent.
NOX analyzer converter efficiency checks will occur monthly. This procedure will use a NOX generator
which dilutes NIST-traceable NO with air. An ozone generator then converts a quantitative portion of the
air's oxygen to O3 which, in turn, converts the same proportion of NO to NO2. This will create a NOX
blend (NO plus NO2) of known concentration. The difference between the analyzer's NO response and
NOX response will be the measure of the NOX to NO converter efficiency. TRC will require that the NOX
converter efficiency be > 95 percent (the CFR requires 90 percent).
The Field Team Leader will review certificates for all calibration and zero gases used during the test
program. All certificates must be current and the cylinder tag concentrations must match those on the
applicable certificate. He will also monitor TRC's QA/QC check performance. See Table 22 in
Appendix B for the appropriate log form.
3.5 TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS
The test gasoline must conform to 40 CFR § 86.113 specifications. TRC will receive certification-grade
test fuel in 55-gallon drums. Each lot delivered for testing includes a manufacturer supplied certificate of
analysis (COA) for fuel properties (See Appendix C). No additional analysis beyond the provided COA
will be performed. Table 15 lists the expected or allowable results. TRC will reject fuel lots for testing
26
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
which do not conform to these requirements. The Field Team Leader will obtain a copy of the
manufacturer's certification and compare it with the Table 15 specifications.
The Field Team Leader will review the analysis results during the test program. See Table 23 located in
Appendix B for the appropriate log form.
Table 15: Test Fuel Properties
QA/QC Check
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
When
Performed /
Frequency
Prior to being
put into service
Expected or Allowable
Result
87 minimum
7.5 minimum
0.050 g/U.S. gal 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
Response to
Check Failure or
Out of Control
Condition
Repeat analyses to
confirm results.
Reject fuel and use
a different batch
meeting CFR
requirements.
27
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
3.6 FUEL ECONOMY GRAVIMETRIC CROSS CHECKS
TRC and the GHG Center will cross check the carbon balance method fuel economy results with separate
gravimetric fuel economy determinations. The external fuel rig allows vehicle operation from one of two
external tanks (5 gal DOT containers). The fuel rig operates from its own fuel pump, adjustable pressure
regulator and power source. Fuel supply can be "hot switched" between tanks via electronic control pad,
thus providing the ability to segregate an "On-Test" fuel tank for accurate gravimetric measurements. The
fuel rig is designed to work with ISO-B quick disconnects. See Figure 7 for a schematic of the fuel rig.
Figure 7: External Fuel Rig
After each set of 3 test runs at each testing condition, the Field Team Leader will calculate and compare
the carbon balance and gravimetric means and COVs. It is expected that the two methods will have some
degree of bias. This difference in measurements, with respect to each test condition, will be monitored.
If the bias does not remain consistent throughout testing, the Field Team Leader will declare a testing
halt. Testing will not recommence until all possible problems are diagnosed and solved. The Field Team
Leader may require that individual test runs be invalidated or repeated
Differences between paired determinations in excess of 0.2 mpg will be investigated for a cause of
systematic bias that might compromise the accuracy of the carbon mass balance results. Specific to each
test condition, a carbon balance method COV which is more than 0.3 percent greater than that determined
via the gravimetric method will indicate that the CFR test method's variability is more than should be
reasonably expected. In this case, the Field Team Leader will declare a testing halt. Testing will not
recommence until all possible problems are diagnosed and solved. The Field Team Leader may require
that individual test runs be invalidated or repeated. Based on previous experience (5), a systematic bias
between gravimetric and carbon balance mpg results may occur. If this difference is consistent run to run
within each test condition (COV less than 0.3 percent), the difference may be attributed to method bias
and the carbon balance results will be reported.
Table 24 in Appendix B contains a log form with which the Field Team Leader will track the carbon
balance and gravimetric fuel economy results. They also provide space for COV calculations and
comparisons.
28
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
3.7 INSTRUMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE
GHG Center personnel, the Field Team Leader, and/or TRC will subject all test equipment to the QC
checks discussed earlier in Sections 3.2. Before tests commence, operators will assemble and test all
equipment as anticipated to be used in the field. They will, for example, operate and calibrate all
controllers, flow meters, computers, instruments, and other measurement system sub-components per the
specified test methods and/or this Test Plan. Test personnel will repair or replace any faulty sub-
components before starting the verification tests. Test personnel will maintain a small amount of
consumables and frequently needed spare parts at the test site. The Field Team Leader, Project Manager,
and/or TRC management will handle major sub-component failures on a case-by-case basis (e.g., by
renting replacement equipment or buying replacement parts).
3.8 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES
TRC Calibrations will employ EPA Protocol 1 gases supplied either by a gas-divider dilution system or
directly from cylinders. Per EPA protocol gas specifications, the actual concentration must be within ± 2
percent of the certified tag value. Copies of all EPA protocol gas certifications will be available on-site.
TRC test fuel lots will be analyzed by the supplier and all certificates validating this analysis will be
available on-site.
Fuel additive will be supplied by Taconic to the test facility, including an MSDS, and directions for
blending the additive with the test fuel.
3.9 REPEATABILITY CRITERIA
Given a target vehicle with a minimum fuel economy of 16 mpg (4), detecting a 2 percent change in fuel
economy requires that a fuel economy difference of 0.32 mpg (2 percent of 16 mpg) between baseline and
candidate tests must be determined with statistical confidence. Using the approach outlined in Appendix
A (standard student's V statistics for the difference between two means at 95% confidence level) it can be
determined that, to meet this criteria, the standard deviation of a set of fuel economy determinations under
replicate conditions must be no more than 0.14 mpg. This assumes a sample size of 3. For larger samples,
larger standard deviations can be tolerated without loss of statistical significance. For a sample size of 6,
the standard deviation must be less than 0.25 mpg to yield acceptable results. Since six test runs at each
condition are planned, field acceptance criteria for repeatability of 0.14 mpg sample standard deviation
for each set of test runs is conservative.
29
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
4.0 DATA ACQUISITION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING
4.1 DATA ACQUISITION AND DOCUMENTATION
Test personnel (responsible parties are noted below in parentheses) will acquire the following types of
data and generate the following documentation during the verification:
Fuel economy and emissions data (TRC)
Manually acquired parameters and printed output data from the Data Acquisition System
such as dynamometer operating traces, CVS sampling rates, exhaust gas analyzer
concentration, ambient pressure, exhaust gas pressure, temperature, and ambient
conditions (TRC)
Documents which describe the vehicle, engine, tire pressures, and cold soak
temperatures. (TRC)
Documents such as fuel composition and density certifications traceable to the test fuel
lot and NIST-traceable calibration gas certificates (TRC)
QA/QC documentation as described in Section 3.0 (TRC, GHG Center)
Field test documentation (GHG Center)
Corrective action and assessment reports (GHG Center)
TRC will submit copies of all test-run printed outputs, calibration forms, fuel analyses, certificates, etc. to
the Field Team Leader as each test run is completed. These submittals must be complete prior to the
Field Team Leader's departure after the final test run.
TRC will prepare and submit a letter report in printed and electronic (Microsoft Word) format to the GHG
Center Field Team Leader within three weeks of the field activities' completion. The report will describe
the test conditions, document all QA/QC procedures, and include copies of calibrations, calibration gas,
and the verification test results. The report will include a signed certification which attests to TRC's
conformance with all QA/QC procedures and the accuracy of the results. TRC will attach all relevant test
data as appendices.
The following subsections discuss each of these items and their role in the test program. The GHG
Center will archive all electronic data, paper files, analyses, and reports at their Research Triangle Park,
NC office in accordance with the QMP.
4.1.1 Data Acquisition System
The Data Acquisition System will collect dynamometer data continuously. It will compute and log
instantaneous or averaged values as needed. During field testing, the Field Team Leader will review and
validate the electronically collected data at the end of each test run. After the sixth test run for each fuel
condition, he will determine the mean mpg and confidence interval and apply the statistical tests
described in Appendix A.
4.1.2 Vehicle and Engine Documentation
TRC will document the applicable vehicle and engine specifications. Documentation will generally
conform to 40 CFR §600.005-81 and will include information such as:
30
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Vehicle, engine, drive train, fuel system, emission control system components, exhaust
after-treatment device specifications, vehicle weight, and statement of
representativeness with respect to the fleet from which the vehicle was selected
Odometer mileage prior to the reference and additized fuel tests.
A description of the mileage accumulation procedures and a detailed mileage
accumulation log for the reference and additized fuel which will include the
operator(s) name(s), dates, and times
Overnight cold-soak temperature synopsis
Tire pressures prior to each test run
4.1.3 Test Fuel Composition
TRC will receive certification-grade test fuel in 55-gallon drums. Each lot delivered for testing includes a
manufacturer supplied certificate of analysis (COA) for fuel properties (See Appendix C). The COA for
the test fuel used will be reviewed to ensure it's within compliance with 40 CFR §86.113-04 and §86.113-
94.
4.1.4 QA/QC Documentation
Upon completion of the field test activities, TRC will provide copies of calibrations, pre-test checks,
system response time, NO2 converter efficiency, and other QA/QC documents to the Field Team Leader.
Calibration records will include information about the instrument being calibrated, raw calibration data,
calibration equations, analyzer identifications, calibration dates, calibration standards used and their trace
abilities, calibration equipment, and names of participating staff. These records will provide source
material for the Verification Report's Data Quality section, and will be available to the QA Manager
during audits.
4.1.5 Field Test Documentation
The Field Team Leader will obtain copies of all manually and digitally logged data. He will take site
photographs and maintain a Daily Test Log which will include the dates and times for setup, testing,
teardown, and other activities. He will use the Test Sequence Tracking Form located in Appendix B to
ensure the sequence of events are occurring as planned.
The Field Team Leader will record test run information and observations in the Daily Test Log and on the
log forms in Appendix B. The Field Team Leader will submit digital and paper data files, TRC test
results, and the Daily Test Log to the Project Manager.
4.1.6 Corrective Action and Assessment Reports
A corrective action will occur when audits or QA/QC checks produce unsatisfactory results (as defined by
the DQO or DQIs) or upon major deviations from this Test Plan. Immediate corrective action will enable
quick response to improper procedures, malfunctioning equipment, or suspicious data. The corrective
action process involves the Field Team Leader, Project Manager, and QA Manager. The GHG Center
QMP requires that test personnel submit a written corrective action request (CAR) to document each
corrective action (See Appendix D).
31
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
The Field Team Leader will most frequently identify the need for corrective actions. In such cases, the
Field Team Leader will immediately notify the Project Manager. He will then, in collaboration with the
QA Manager and other project personnel, take and document the appropriate action.
Note that the Project Manager is responsible for project activities. He is authorized to halt work upon
determining that a serious problem exists. The Field Team Leader is responsible for implementing
corrective actions identified by the Project Manager and is authorized to implement any procedures to
prevent a problem's recurrence.
4.2 DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION
The Project Manager will initiate the data review, validation, and analysis process. At this stage, analysts
will classify all collected data as valid, suspect, or invalid. The GHG Center will employ the QA/QC
criteria specified in Section 3.0 and the associated tables. Source material for data classification include
factory and on-site calibrations, maximum calibration and other errors, audit gas analyses results, and lab
repeatability results.
In general, measurements which:
meet the specified DQIs and QA/QC checks,
were collected when an instrument was verified as being properly calibrated,
are consistent with reasonable expectations (e.g., manufacturers' specifications,
professional judgment)
will form the basis for valid data.
The Verification Report will incorporate all valid data. Analysts may or may not consider suspect data, or
it may receive special treatment as will be specifically indicated. If the DQI goals cannot be met due to
excessive data variability, the Project Manager will decide to continue the test, collect additional data, or
terminate the test and report the data obtained.
Data review and validation will primarily occur at the following stages:
On site ~ by the Field Team Leader
Before writing the draft Verification Report - by the Project Manager
During draft Verification Report QA review and data audit ~ by the GHG Center QA
Manager
The Field Team Leader's primary on-site function will be to monitor TRC's activities. He will be able to
review, verify, and validate certain data (i.e., Emissions & MPG data, QA/QC check results, technical
system audits, etc.) during testing. He will plan to be on-site during all test activities. This will provide
the best opportunity to conduct site audits, manage the test program's progress, and perform other data
validation and/or review. Log forms in Appendix A provide the detailed information he will gather.
The QA Manager will use this Test Plan and documented test methods as references with which to review
draft Verification Report. He will review and audit the data in accordance with the GHG Center's QMP.
For example, the QA Manager will randomly select raw data (generated mpg's) and independently
calculate the verification parameter. The comparison of these calculations with the results presented in
the draft Verification Report will yield an assessment of the GHG Center's QA/QC procedures.
32
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
4.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES RECONCILIATION
A fundamental component of all verifications is the reconciliation of the collected data with its DQO. As
discussed in Section 4.2, the Field Team Leader and Project Manager will review the collected data to
ensure that they are valid and are consistent with expectations. They will assess the data's accuracy and
completeness as they relate to the stated DQI goals. Section 3.0 discussed the verification parameter and
each contributing measurement in detail. Section 3.0 also specified the required field procedures for each
measurement which would ensure achievement of all DQIs. If the test data show that DQI goals were
met, and the resulting fuel economy change confidence interval conforms to the specifications in Section
3.1, then analysts will conclude that DQO was achieved; DQIs and the DQO will therefore be reconciled.
4.4 ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
The Field Team Leader, Project Manager, QA Manager, GHG Center Director, and technical peer-
reviewers will assess the project and the data's quality as the test program proceeds. The Project Manager
and QA Manager will independently oversee the project and assess its quality through project reviews,
inspections if needed, and an ADQ.
4.4.1 Project Reviews
The Project Manager will be responsible for conducting the first complete project review and assessment.
Although all project personnel are involved with ongoing data review, the Project Manager must ensure
that project activities meet measurement and DQO requirements.
The QA Manager will perform the second review. He is responsible for ensuring that the project's
management systems function as required by the QMP. The QA Manager is responsible for verifying that
QA requirements are met.
The GHG Center Director will perform the third project review. The Director is responsible for ensuring
that the project's activities adhere to the ETV program requirements and stakeholder expectations. The
GHG Center Director will also review all activities to ensure that the Field Team Leader has the
equipment, personnel, and resources to complete the project and to deliver data of known and defensible
quality. The Director is the GHG Center's final reviewer.
TRC and selected GHG Center stakeholders and/or peer reviewers will then review the report.
Technically competent persons who are familiar with the project's technical aspects, but not involved
with project activities, will function as peer reviewers. The peer reviewers will provide written comments
to the Project Manager.
The GHG Center will submit the draft report to EPA QA personnel, and the Project Manager will address
their comments as needed. Following this review, the Verification Report and Statement will undergo
EPA management reviews, including the GHG Center Program Manager, EPA ORD Laboratory Director,
and EPA Technical Editor.
4.4.2 Technical Systems Audit
The Field Team Leader will perform a technical systems audit (TSA) of the following test components:
33
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Chassis dynamometer equipment, calibrations, and setup
CVS equipment, calibrations
Instrumental analyzer system, calibrations
Fuel delivery system (including volumetric and gravimetric measuring equipment) and
calibrations.
During the ISA, the Field Team Leader will verify that the equipment and calibrations are as described in
this Test Plan. Note that the "Calibration and QA/QC Audit Checklist" forms in Appendix B will serve
for gathering TSA calibration information.
4.4.3 Audit of Data Quality
The ADQ is an evaluation of the measurement, processing, and data analysis steps to determine if
systematic errors are present. During the ADQ, the QA Manager, or designee, will follow each data
stream leading to a final result or verification parameter from raw data collection through calculation of
final results and uncertainties. The ADQ's scope is to verify that the data-handling system functions
correctly and to assess the quality of the analysis.
The QA Manager will report the ADQ results to the Project Manager for review, comments, and possible
corrective actions. Project records will document the results. The Project Manager will take any
necessary corrective action needed and will respond by addressing the QA Manger's comments in the
final verification Report.
34
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
4.5 VERIFICATION REPORT AND STATEMENT
The Project Manager will coordinate preparation of a draft Verification Report and Statement within 8
weeks of completing the field test, if possible. Preliminary data will be delivered after a short QA/QC
period. The Verification Report will summarize each verification parameter's results as discussed in
Section 2.0 and will contain sufficient raw data to support findings and allow others to assess data trends,
completeness, and quality. The report will clearly characterize the verification parameters, their results,
and supporting measurements as determined during the test program. It will present raw data and/or
analyses as tables, charts, or text as is best suited to the data type. The report will also contain a
Verification Statement, which is a 3 to 4 page summary of the TEA additive technology, the test strategy
used, and the verification results obtained.
The Project Manager will submit the draft Report and Statement to the QA Manager and Center Director
for review. A preliminary outline of the report is as follows:
Preliminary Outline
Verification Statement
Section 1.0: Verification Test Design and Description
Description of the ETV program
TEA Additive and test vehicle description
Overview of the verification parameters and evaluation strategies
Section 2.0: Results
Fuel Economy Change
Emissions Performance
Data Quality
Additional Technical and Performance Data (optional) supplied by vendor
Section 3.0:
Section 4.0:
References
Appendices: Raw Verification and Other Data
35
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
4.6 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS
The GHG Center's project manager has performed numerous transportation emissions testing programs
for the U.S. EPA and other clients and has previously managed mobile source emission testing
laboratories. He is very familiar with the requirements mandated by the EPA and GHG Center QMPs.
The QA Manager is an independently appointed individual whose responsibility is to ensure the GHG
Center's activities are performed according to the EPA approved QMP. He has been providing QA
services for the ETV program for many years and is familiar with the requirements.
The GHG Center's field team leader is a degreed chemical engineer with experience in the design and
execution of technology testing and evaluation programs, including direct measurement of flows,
temperatures, pressures, and other parameters. He is familiar with the requirements of all of the test
methods and standards that will be used in the verification test and quality assurance procedures. His
efforts will be supported by the project manager and GHG Center Director, both of whom have extensive
experience in vehicle emissions and fuel economy testing, to ensure that he receives adequate training in
mobile source emissions testing prior to completing the verification test program.
4.7 HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
This section applies to GHG Center personnel only. Other organizations involved in the project have
their own health and safety plans - specific to their roles in the project.
GHG Center staff will comply with all known host site, state/local and Federal regulations relating to
safety at the test facility. This includes use of personal protective gear (e.g., safety glasses, hard hats,
hearing protection, safety toe shoes) as required by the host and completion of site safety orientation (i.e.,
site hazard awareness, alarms and signals).
36
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
5.0 REFERENCES
1. Application for Testing, Taconic Energy Inc., Southern Research Institute, Greenhouse Gas
Technology Center. Durham, NC. 2010.
2. 40 CFR Part 86, Control of Emissions from New andln-Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, Federal
Register, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC. Feb. 18,
2000.
3. 40 CFR Part 600, Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles, Federal Register, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC. Aug. 3, 1994.
4. Fuel Economy Guide, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2010.
5. Test and Quality Assurance Plan, ConocoPhillips Fuel-Efficient High Performance SAE 75W90 Rear
Axle Gear Lubricant, Southern Research Institute, Greenhouse Gas Technology Center. Durham, NC.
March 2003.
6. Statistics Concepts and Applications, D.R. Anderson, D.J. Sweeney, and T.A. Williams. West
Publishing Company. St. Paul, MN. 1986.
7. A Modern Approach to Statistics, R.L. Iman and W. J. Conover. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY.
1983.
37
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
APPENDIX A
FUEL ECONOMY CHANGE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Fuel economy change (Eqn. 1), will be the difference between the reference fuel and additized fuel mean
mpg results. Each mean value is the result of a limited number of test runs. Statistical theory (6, 7)
shows that the variability between test runs determines how accurately the mean characterizes all possible
fuel economy values within a fuel type (i.e. reference fuel or additized fuel). If each individual test run
result is very close to the mean value, or if variability is small, the mean can be sharply characterized.
The difference between two such means would also be sharply characterized, and small differences would
be statistically significant.
Large run-to-run variabilities can, however, exist. In these cases, the mean "spreads out" over a larger
range of possible values. For example, it could be not statistically significant to report a "0.2 mpg" fuel
economy change if the reference fuel mpg was 16.12 ± 0.2 mpg while the additized fuel mpg was 16.32 ±
0.2 mpg. The difference between two such means may not be statistically significant if the reference fuel
mean falls within the additized fuel confidence interval (stated here as " ± 0.2 mpg").
The GHG Center will therefore evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the baseline
fuel and additized fuel by the following hypothesis test:
H0: |A-^| = 0
HI: |//!-//2|>0
Where:
H0 = Hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in fuel economy
HI = Hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference in fuel economy
(j,i = Mean fuel economy for the population of vehicles operated with additized fuel
02 = Mean fuel economy for the population of vehicles operated with reference fuel
Rejection of H0 allows the reader to conclude that the fuel economy difference is significant and that it is
useful to calculate the difference's confidence interval. However, if the test is unable to reject H0, the
conclusion will be that the additized fuel does not show a significant fuel economy change. Note that this
is a "two-tailed" hypothesis test which means that the fuel economy change could be either an increase or
a decrease.
Analysts will test the hypothesis by first calculating a test statistic, ttest, and then comparing it with the
Student's T distribution value with (ni + n2 - 2) degrees of freedom as follows (6):
(Eqn. 6)
-IX
38
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Where:
Xi = Mean fuel economy with additized fuel
X2 = Mean fuel economy with reference fuel
Ui - 02 = Zero (H0 hypothesizes that there is no difference between the population means)
ni = Number of repeated test runs with additized fuel
n2 = Number of repeated test runs with reference fuel
s^ = Sample standard deviation with additized fuel, squared
s22 = Sample standard deviation with reference fuel, squared
sp2 = Pooled standard deviation, squared
Selected T-distribution values at a 95-percent confidence coefficient appear in the following table (6).
Table 16: T-distribution Values
D!
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
n2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Degrees of Freedom, DF (n1+n2-2)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
to.025. DF
2.776
2.447
2.306
2.228
2.179
2.145
2.120
The decision rule for the hypothesis test is:
Do not reject H0 ifttest < t0.025,DF- Conclude that the data cannot show a statistically significant
difference. The report will show that there is no statistically significant fuel economy difference
between additized fuel vs. the reference fuel.
otherwise,
Reject H0 ifttest > to.o2s,DF- Conclude that a significant fuel economy difference exists between the
additized fuel vs. reference fuel. The report will show the difference and its confidence interval.
This concept is best understood with the following example. Provided below is fuel economy data from a
series of 12 different engine lubrication oil tests. Three test runs were conducted (36 total) and reported
mean mpg and sample standard deviation for each lube oil condition. Means were around 16.12 mpg,
fuel economy changes were approximately 0.29 mpg (or 1.8 percent of the mean value), and sample
standard deviations ranged between 0.02 and 0.18 mpg, or approximately 0.12 to 1.12 percent of the
mean values. The sample standard deviation divided by the mean and multiplied by 100 (the 0.12 to 1.12
percent cited here) is also known as the coefficient of variation (COV). It is helpful to consider the COV
as a "normalized" standard deviation.
Based on this data set, 99 percent of all sample standard deviations will fall between 0.054 and 0.129
mpg. If we assume that the verification test results happen to show the higher standard deviation, the
following table summarizes the t-test results for increasing numbers of test runs.
39
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Table 17: Sample Data T-test Results Summary
Ref. fuel mean fuel
economy, mpg
Additized fuel mean
fuel economy, mpg
Ref. fuel Std. Dev., mpg
Additized fuel Std.
Dev., mpg
Test runs, each
Sp2
to.025. DF
Hest
Significant difference?
(reject H0?)
16.12
16.41
0.129
0.129
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.0166
2.776
2.753
No
2.447
3.179
Yes
2.306
3.554
Yes
2.228
3.894
Yes
2.179
4.206
Yes
2.145
4.496
Yes
2.120
4.769
Yes
Table 17 shows that with three test runs each, the difference between the reference fuel and additized fuel
mpg is not statistically significant. The difference between the two is significant for 4 or more test runs
each, and the resulting change in fuel economy is meaningful.
The assumption that the reference fuel and additized fuel test run results have similar variability is
fundamental to this process. The ratio of the sample variances (sample standard deviation squared)
between the two fuels is a measure of this similarity and falls somewhere on an F distribution (6).
Analysts will calculate an Ftest statistic according to Eqn. 8 and compare the results to the values in Table
18 to determine the degree of similarity between the sample variances according to Eqn. 8.
j-, max
test ~ 9
S min
(Eqn. 8)
Where:
Ftest = F-test statistic
s2max = Larger of the reference fuel or additized fuel sample standard deviations, squared
s2mm = Smaller of the reference fuel or additized fuel sample standard deviations, squared
The number of test runs for each fuel and the acceptable uncertainty (a; 0.05 for this verification)
determine the shape of the F distribution. Table 18 (6) presents selected F005 distribution values for the
expected number of test runs.
Table 18: F0.o5 Distribution
s2mill number of
runs
4
5
6
7
s2max number
of runs
Degrees of
Freedom
3
4
5
6
4
3
9.28
6.59
5.41
4.76
5
4
9.12
6.39
5.19
4.53
6
5
9.01
6.26
5.05
4.39
7
6
8.94
6.16
4.95
4.28
If the F-test statistic is less than the corresponding value in Table 18, then analysts will conclude that the
sample variances are substantially the same and the hypothesis test for statistical significance and
confidence interval calculations are valid approaches. If the F-test statistic is equal to or greater than the
Table 18 value, analysts will conclude that the sample variances are not the same and will consequently
40
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
modify the confidence interval calculation according to Satterthwaite's approximation (6).
Satterthwaite's approximation describes how to use a modified Student's T-distribution value in the
confidence interval calculation for samples with unequal variances. This is unlikely based on the sample
data set considered here. The Verification Report will discuss Satterthwaite's approximation if the actual
test data indicate that it must be applied.
FUEL ECONOMY CHANGE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
If hypothesis H0 can be rejected, it becomes meaningful to calculate the confidence interval. The test
results will provide an estimate of the fuel economy change based on a limited sample. Ninety-five
percent of the time, the true fuel economy change will be within a certain range of values centered on the
test results. This range is known as the 95-percent confidence interval. A narrow confidence interval
implies that the fuel economy change is sharply characterized. Conversely, a large confidence interval
implies that the data spread across a wide range and the resulting mean fuel economy change could have
limited utility.
The half width (e) of the 95 percent confidence interval is (6):
(Eqn. 9)
TRC and the GHG Center will calculate and state the mean fuel economy change as:
A Fuel Economy (Equation 1) ±e (Equation 9)
For example "fuel economy changed by 0.29 ± 0.17 mpg."
REFINEMENT OF FUEL ECONOMY CHANGE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL AND NUMBER
OF REQUIRED TEST RUNS
As the number of test runs increase, the resulting confidence interval decreases. The following table
continues the example given in Table 17 by showing the 95-percent confidence intervals in absolute units
and as proportions (percent) of the mean fuel economy change.
Table 19: Sample Data Confidence Intervals
Mean fuel economy
change, A, mpg
Test runs, each
sn2
to.025. DF
95 % confidence
interval, mpg
Confidence interval as
percent of mean fuel
economy change
0.29
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.0166
2.776
+ 0.29
+ 100.8
2.447
+ 0.22
+ 77.0
2.306
+ 0.19
+ 64.9
2.228
+ 0.17
+ 57.2
2.179
+ 0.15
+ 51.8
2.145
+ 0.14
+ 47.7
2.120
+ 0.13
+ 44.5
This table also provides a different way of understanding why three test runs each do not yield
statistically significant results. The confidence interval is slightly larger than the mean fuel economy
change itself.
41
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
The confidence interval width shrinks quickly between 4 and 7 test runs, but more slowly thereafter.
Figure 8 is a graph of the relationship.
o 40%
o
567
Number of Control and Test Condition Runs, Each
Figure 8: Confidence Interval Decrease Due to Increased Number of Test Runs
Based on this analysis, the GHG Center plans to conduct 6 samples at each test point with an option to
test additional samples with the additized fuel if the results show a consistent trend in one particular
direction.
42
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
APPENDIX B
CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER QA/QC CHECKLIST
Table 20: Chassis Dynamometer QA/QC Checklist
Southern Research Project Number:
QA/QC Check
Dyno Cal Cert.
Review
Road load
horsepower
calibration
Parasitic friction
verification
Dyno warmup
verification
Roadload and
inertia simulation
check
Valid driver' s
trace
When
Performed /
Frequency
Once during
the test
program
Before
initiating test
program
Before
initiating test
program
Before
initiating test
program
55-45 coast
down at end of
each FTP test
run
End of each
test
Expected or Allowable
Result
Sensor accuracies
conform to Table 9
specifications
Triplicate coastdown
checks within + 2.0% of
target curve
+ 2. 2 Ibf 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
Initials
TRC
QA/QC
Check
Date
GHG
Center
Audit Date
OK?
(")
13134
Audit Data Source
(personal observation,
data/document review,
interview, etc.)
43
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
CVS SYSTEM QA/QC CHECKLIST
Table 21: CVS System QA/QC Checklist
Southern Research Project Number:
QA/QC
Check
Propane
critical orifice
cal. cert.
review
CVS cal. cert.
inspection
Propane
injection check
Flow rate
verification
Sample bag
leak check
When
Performed /
Frequency
Prior to
placing new
propane tank
in service
Lifetime
calibration
Daily
Daily
Before each
test run
Expected or
Allowable Result
Verify against
supplier analysis
NA
Difference between
injected and
recovered propane <
±2.0%
+ 5 cfm of
appropriate nominal
set point
Maintain 10 " Hg
vacuum for 10
seconds
Initials
TRC QA/QC
Check Date
GHG Center
Audit Date
OK?
(*)
13134
Audit Data Source
(personal observation,
data/document
review, interview, etc.)
44
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
EMISSIONS ANALYZER QA/QC CHECKLIST
Table 22: Emissions Analyzer QA/QC Checks
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| Southern Research Project Number:
QA/QC Check
NIST-traceable
calibration gas
verifications
Zero gas
verification
Gas divider
linearity
verification
CO, CO2, NOX,
THC Analyzer
calibrations
Wet CO2
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 NIST
SRM
concentration
HC < 1 ppmC
CO < 1 ppm
CO2 < 400 ppm
NOX<0.1 ppm
O2 between 18 anc
CO
CO2
NOX
THC
21%
All points within + 2%
of linear fit
FS within + 0.5% of
known value
All values within
+ 2 %of point or
+ l%ofFS;Zero
point within + 0.2
%ofFS
CO
CO2
NOx
THC
CO 0 to 300 ppm,
interference < 3 ppm
CO > 300 ppm,
interference < 1% FS
CO2 interference <
3%
NOX converter
efficiency > 95%
Certs, must be current;
concentrations
consistent with cylinder
tags
Post-test zero or span
drift shall not exceed ±
2.0% full-scale
Initials
TRC
QA/QC
check
Date
GHG
Center
Audit
Date
OK?
(")
13134
Audit Data Source
(personal observation,
data/document review,
interview, etc.)
45
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
TEST FUEL ANALYSIS REVIEW
Obtain a copy of the test fuel lot analysis.
Review all analysis results and test method documentation.
Test gasoline properties and test methods must conform to the specifications
given in the following table.
Audit Date:
Fuel Lot ID:
Signature:
Date Received:
Date Analyzed:
Table 23: Test Fuel Specifications
Southern Research Project Number:
Description
Research Octane*
Sensitivity (Research
Octane minus Motor
Octane)
Organic Lead
Distillation Range:
IBP
10 % point
50 % point
90 % point
Endpoint
Sulfur
Phosphorous
Reid Vapor Pressure
Hydrocarbons:
Olefms
Aromatics
Saturates
Specific Gravity
Spec.
Value
87 Octane
minimum
7.5 Octane
minimum
0.05 g/gal,
maximum
75 - 95 °F
120- 135 °F
200 - 230 °F
300 - 325 °F
4 15 °F max.
0.10wt%
maximum
0.005 g/gal,
maximum
8.0-9.2psia
10% max.
35 % max.
Balance
Approx. 6.1
Ib/gal
Analysis
Value
13134
OK?
(*)
*Reference value only
Notes:
46
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
CARBON BALANCE AND GRAVIMETRIC CROSS CHECKS
Table 24 is an exported table from an excel spreadsheet where this information will be entered as it is
generated. See below and Appendix A for the appropriate equations related to the following table.
Table 24: Carbon Balance and Gravimetric Cross Checks
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H Southern Research Project Number:
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
C
Test
Date
Start
Time
End Time
Standard Deviation
ov
Average
Fuel Container Weight (Ibs)
Start
End
Average
Standard Deviation
COV
MPG
(Carbon Balance)
13134
MPG
(Gravimetric)
MPG
Difference
Specific Gravity of Fuel (Ibs/gal):
Average Difference in MPG
Difference in COV's
47
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
TEST SEQUENCE TRACKING FORM
Test Sequence Tracking Form
Southern Research Project Number: 13134
STEP
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
DATE & TIME
INITIALS
DESCRIPTION
D Conduct a chassis dynamometer setup for the vehicle, driver practice.
D Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles.
D Precondition with 2 HwFET's and then run 4 HwFET's
D Evaluate data for repeatabliity
D * Option 1 : If data is not repeatable return vehicle and procure
second vehicle. If data is repeatable, proceed to step 8.
D Conduct a chassis dynamometer setup for 2nd vehicle.
D Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles.
D Precondition vehicle with 2 HwFET's and then run 4 HwFET's
D Evaluate data for repeatability.
D Perform vehicle alignment and brake rotor run-out.
D Setup vehicle for measuring gravimetric fuel consumption.
D Setup vehicle for recording engine oil temperature.
D Fill vehicle with baseline fuel.
D Perform an engine oil double flush.
D Condition vehicle with 5 NYCC's and soak overnight.
D Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles.
D Precondition vehicle with 5 NYCC's
D Run 8 (3 Sample + 2 Warm-Up + 3 Sample) NYCC's and evaluate
data for repeatability.
D Condition vehicle with 5 HwFET's and soak overnight.
D Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles.
D Precondition vehicle with 5 HwFET's.
D Run 8 (3 Sample + 2 Warm-Up + 3 Sample) HwFET's and evaluate
data for repeatability
D Switch to additized fuel and flush fuel lines.
D Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles.
D Precondition vehicle with 5 HwFET's.
D Run 8 (3 Sample + 2 Warm-Up + 3 Sample) HwFET's and evaluate
data for repeatability & comparison.
D *Option2: Additive 2 - HwFET (2nd set of additive tests)
D Condition vehicle with 5 NYCC's and soak overnight
D Run vehicle at 55 mph for 70 miles
D Precondition vehicle with 5 NYCC's.
D Run 8 (3 Sample + 2 Warm-Up + 3 Sample) NYCC's and evaluate
data for repeatability & comparison.
48
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
APPENDIX C
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS FOR FUEL PROPERTIES
Chevron
Phillips
ti9m**temfm?itt
Shipped To: TRANSPORTATION
10320 STATE RTE
EAST LIBERTY' OH
USA
Recipient:
Fax:
Product: UTG 98, 54 GAL DRUM
Material Code: 1C2 1686
Lot Number 08BPJ9601
Property
3pecif ic ^3rawity 60/60
API "3rayity
Qbixoeicci \ 5 hrs sj £OO
Existmt '3Lnic, Wachsd
aulEuz
Iffi^cr Pressure
IfsA
FhoBrpfeoruE
Efc^rcgm
Chxton
CSrb^n Density
CSldajti-n Stability
MS J*a£ of Ctntoucticci
Szrasitivity
oictilldtkxi - IBF
Dxctillatkxi - S*
DiEtilldtioci - let
Distill^iiaa - 2C4
QiEtillat.i3a - 301
CdEtillatiaci - 4C4
Dictillatisa - SC*
DLBtilldtian - SO*
Distillation - 7pi
DiEtillaticn - art
Distillatioa - 9Ci
CiEtillatiaei - 9E*
Certificate of
RESEARCH CENTER
347 BLDG #
43319-0367
Test Method
ASTM C-40E1
ASTH C-40S2
ASM D-13C
ASM C-JS1
ASIM C-=4B:=
ASTM E~S191
I<3>.'OB3
KP/OG3
AETM C-52S1
ASIM C-B2S1
Caloilatsd
AEIH D-S25
ASM C-240
Cil'iulaJicd
ASIM C^&S
AETO C-SS
ASIM C-8
ASTM I>£S
ASIM C-SS
ASTM C^S-S
ASIM c-es
AEIM D-SS
AEIM C-S>£
ASTM D-SS
ASTM C^8S
AETM OSS
Page 1
CoA Os:e: 37,-33fj3c,c
Repeal pnnloa:
Analysis
INC PO #: 058214
CPC Deli₯ery *: 87874D91
Ship Date: D6/1B.'2009
Package/Mode: 64 GAL DRUM
Quantity: 22 EA
Certification Date: 06/11/2009
Transportation ID: 1360009252
Shelf Life: Undetermined
Specification Value Unit
0.7343 - 0.7440 0.7413
SB .7 - 61.2 SB.?
1A
»:- 5.0 4.£ mg/UftL
15.0 - 40.0 2E.2 ppn
3. 7 - S.2 9.0 FBI
:- O.OC50 t 0.0003 3>'3=1
i- o.ocs < o.ooi a/gal
12 . 6 WTi
87 . 2 WTl
2,401 - 2.441 24JB 9/9=1
. 1,440 1440 min
16,283 - 13,633 1BSB1 ETJ/lE
.. 7.5 -3.5
7E - SB SS ESH
110 fJH
120 - 135 120 ESH
13S ESH
ill F3H
154 F5!H
203 - 230 220 FSiH
233 EBH
24* FSH
267 ESH
300 - 32S 313 FSH
345 ESH
Of 2
49
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Chevron
Phillips
n_hfn__flv
CO A Dais: 07,'03.'2Q03
0=C Dei very S: 3787i03'
PC- *: 053211
Certificate of Analysis
=h)diict: ITG 38, 54 GAL DRUM
Material Code: 1021689
Cdstillatim - I&ZE
Distillatioi - Hesidue
Artnatics
GleEinc
Satirratts
Ez3-ar:fci Ortsnt Buifcer
MDtcr 'DctsnE ^funt^r
STti-Krodc Index
Asm D-3S
fiSOT D-3S
ASIM C-9S
ASM D-1313
ASM P-1313
ASM C-131.9
ASTO C-2«S9
ASIM E-ZTCO
Chranatcgiaphy
3SS
o.a
i.o
31. S
St .E
96.2
67.7
92.0
0.0
C-.73
HL
ML
LVt
LVt
LVt
LVt
LVt
Th= caia set fcr'h herein nave been carefully compiled by Chevron Phillips Chemical Company _P.
However, there is no warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, applicable lo its use, and the user
assumes all risk and liability in connection therewith.
Ken Inkrott
Qialiiy, App.ica:ions and Technical Service Manager
Far CoA ouesiions cantac: Kim Lindley at 808-275-657'
Page 2 or
50
-------
APPENDIX D
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-49
October 2010
Verification Title:
Verification Description:,
Description of Problem:_
Originator:,
Date:
Investigation and Results:,
Investigator:
Date:
Corrective Action Taken:
Originator:_
Appro ver:_
Date:.
Date:
Carbon copy: GHG Center Project Manager, GHG Center Director, SRI QA Manager, APPCD Project Officer
51
------- |