PB86-131349
Emissions from a Light-Duty Diesel
Ambient Temperature and Fuel Effects
(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC
Oct 85
I
DcfMrtfiMNit of Commerce
Niliml Techwcal kfomitxii Sennet
-------
EPA/600/D-85/272
October 1985
Emissions from a Light-Duty Diesel:
Ambient Temperature and Fuel Effects
Peter Gabele, William Karches and Hilliam Ray
Mobile Source Emissions Research Branch
Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
and
Ned Perry
Northrop Services Inc.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pttate read Instructions on the reverie before completing]
1. R£POBT NO.
EPA/600/D-85/272
3. RECIPIENT
S ACC
131
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EMISSIONS FROM A LIGHT-DUTY DIESEL
TEMPERATURE AND FUEL EFFECTS
AMBIENT
S. FfePOBT DATE
October 1985
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
>?. AUTMOHIS)
Peter Gabele, William Karches, and William Ray, USEPA
Ned_Perry, Northrop Services
8. **ERPOHMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Atmospheric Sciences Research Laborat iry
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
AQYAtf./m -4Q77 fFY-85l
It. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory-RTF,NC
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13, TYPE OF REPORT AND t»E«»0O COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/bOO/09
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Exhaust emissions from a diesel passenger car were characterized and
measured to examine the effect of ambient temperature on emissions performance.
The vehicle was tested at three temperatures on a chassis dynamometer located
within a cold cell. Three driving cycles and three fuels of varying quality were
used. The effort included measurements of regulated exhaust gases and particles,
participate organic fractions and their molecular-weight distributions, participate
fractions under 2 microns in diameter, trace metal contents, and fuel economy.
Results indicate that reductions in ambient temperature had little effect on
emissions or fuel economy in this study. In some cases, statistically significant
increases in NO emissions were measured with decreases in ambient test temper-
ature. Other differences related to temperature effects occurred more frequently
with the lower quality fuels.
17,
KKV WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
l>. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSAT1 FidiVGroup
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«», 4-77} PKfjvious EDITION i
19. SECURITY CLASS JTIiii Keporri
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. Of PAGES
31
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tliispagel
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Exhaust emissions from a diesel passenger car were characterized and
measured to examine the effect of ambient temperature on emissions perfor-
mance. The vehicle was tested at three temperatures on a chassis dynamometer
located within a cold cell. Three driving cycles and three fuels of varying
quality were used. The effort included measurements of regulated exhaust
gases and particles, particulate organic fractions and their molecular-weight
distributions, particulate fractions under 2 microns in diameter, trace metal
contents, and fuel economy. Results indicate that reductions in ambient
temperature had little effect on emissions or fuel economy in this study. In
some cases, statistically significant increases in NO emissions were measured
X
with decreases in ambient test temperature. Other difference? related to
temperature effects occurred more frequently with the lower quality fuels.
-------
UNDER SECTION 202 PART A OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required by law to establish
standards regulating emissions from new motor vehicles. In carrying out this
mandate, emissions from motor vehicles are examined under a variety of driving
conditions, ambient temperatures, and transient or steady-state speeds.
Effects related to the use of different fuels are also examined. Emission
factors obtained in these studies enable prediction of the impact of specific
pollutants on the public health.
Pursuant to the need for obtaining additional emission factor
information, the central thrust of this study was directed at an examination
of the sensitivity of light-duty diesel emissions to ambient temperature.
Because previous temperature studies (1-4)* had left the fuel and driving
cycle parameters unexplored, an addition?.! objective was to investigate
temperature sensitivity by including these parameters.
Results obtained in the low temperature studies cited above have led to
the general conclusion that regulated gas emissions, including hydrocarbons
(HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides (NO ), are net nearly so
X
temperature dependent as those from conventional spark-ignition engines.
Particulate matter emissions appear more sensitive to temperature; however,
their precise trends are not well understood. For example, in experiments run
by Braddock (3) in which the temperature of the cold soak (pretest
conditioning), exhaust dilution air, and test run approximated local winter
ambient conditions, particulate emission rates increased with decreasing
temperatures. The opposite trend was noted in tests by Seizinger et al. (4)
^Numbers in parentheses designate references at end of paper.
-------
in which cold soak and run temperatures were maintained at near constant
preset level and room air (70°F) was used to dilute exhaust gases for
samp!ing,
In this stud '.he vehicle was soaked and run in a temperature-controlled
cell similar to U-* used by Seizinger. Therefore, temperatures could be set
and closely control.-d to near constant levels throughout the cold soak and
emissions test. Ex! .-st gases were diluted in room air maintained around
72°F.
The emissions -iaract^ri zation included regulated diesel automobile
pollutants HC, CO, N1" , and particulate matter, particulate soluble organic
fractions (SOF), par" "ulate fraction under 2\\ mass median diameter (HMD), SOF
molecular weight dr..'.ributions, and particulate elemental emissions. Samples
have also been . 'lected for deterni nation of SOF polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon conte' and Ames bioassay activity. However, results are not
available for inclusion in thir paper.
-------
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
VEHICLE SELECTION~-Resource limitations permitted examination of only one
vehicle. The selected car, a 1984 Oldsmobile 98 Regency, was equipped with a
5.7-1, V-8 diesel engine, A more complete description of the vehicle is given
in Tab!e 1.
The Oldsmobile was a consumer-owned vehicle loaned to EPA for the
duration of the study. It was selected from a group of vehicles owned
by Raleigh, N.C., residents who had been solicited for participation in the
diesel emissions project. Selection of the Oldsmobile was predicated on the
desire to test a large, rear wheel-drive vehicle because such vehicles
generally display better run-to-run repeatability on a chassis dynamometer.
Both cj?seous and participate matter emission rates were found to be highly
repeatable.
TEST FUELS--Three fuels were examined in the study: (1) "baseline", (2)
"high quality", and (3) "low quality" (see Table 2), Both the low quality and
high quality fuels were specially blended diesel fuels provided by the
Coordinating Research Council, Inc. (CRC) following their use in the
..CAPE-32-80 project at .the Southwest Research Institute ,(S). The high quality,
fuel was characterized by high cetane number and low aromatic content; the low
quality fuel by low cetane number and high aromatic content. The boiling
ranges of both fuels were intentionally similar. Because only small
quantities of these fuels were available, testing at low temperatures was
limited to the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS).
The baseline fuel was a No. 2 diesel fuel obtained from a local vendor.
It was used in preliminary tests to qualify sampling and analysis systems and
temperature effects for a variety of transient cycles. It was the only fuel
for which emissions data were obtained at each of the three temperatures and
test cycles examined.
4
-------
TEST PROCEDURES
DRIVING CYCLES--Most of the tests were conducted using the EP.Vs UDDS,
which is divided into three phases: cold transient (Phase 1), stabilized
(Phase 2), and hot transient (Phase 3). A 10-min soak interval is included
between the stabilized and hot transient phases, during which time no exhaust
emissions are generated.
Tests were also run using the highway fuel economy test (HFET) and the
New York City cycle (NYCC). The HFET is the driving cycle used to determine
highway fuel economy ratings (6,7), and the NYCC is used to simulate slow,
stop-and-go city driving. Descriptions of all test cycles conducted in this
study are given in Table 3.
FACILITY DESCRIPTIONAll emission tests were conducted with a chassis
dynamometer for vehicle road load simulation. The dynamometer simulated road
load by means of a DC electric motor-generator directly coupled to the front
rolls of the dynamometer. The rear rolls were coupled during tests to the
f»~ont rolls through engagement of a clutch located on the front shaft.
Exhaust gases from the test vehicTe were directed via a 7.6-cm
(3-in.) diameter, flexible, stainless steel line to a 20.3-cm (8-in.) diameter
dilution tunnel (Figure 1). Within the tunnel, raw exhaust gas was thoroughly
mixed with filtered dilution air, and the diluted mixture was ther, drawn
through the system by a positive displacement pump located downstream.
Temperature of the diluted gas varied slightly but was generally around 100°F;
flow rates within the constant volume system (CVS) were maintained at 620
scfm. Gas and particulate matter samples were collected using probes inserted
in the diluted exhaust gas within the tunnel.
-------
Low temperatures were simulated using a refrigerated cell that enclosed
trie vehicle on the dynamometer. Test temperatures were held constant in Lhe
cell during the test and during the cold soak period immediately before it.
Temperatures were monitored using thermocouples located in the engine's
crankcase oil and coolant and in the cold cell.
Before each UDDS, the vehicle was conditioned (soaked) at the test
temperature for 8 h. After warming up tne dynamometer, the vehicle was pushed
onto the dynamometer rolls and testing proceeded.
During the UDDS and NYCC. temperatures inside the test cell hovered
within two degrees of the temperature set point. The largest temperature
deviation (+7°F) occurred during HFETs at the 20°F set point. Temperatures
monitored in the engine's oil sump are plotted as a function of test time in
Figure 2 for each of the test cycles and test temperatures examined. These
graphs indicate that ambient temperature has its greatest influence on engine
and oil temperature at the beginning of each test and that it continues to
influence temperatures even after the engine is fully warmed up. This finding
is contrary to results reported by Braddock. (3), probably because tests in
this study were conducted in a temperature-controlled cold coll.
The testing sequence and the sampling effort.summary is shown in Table 4. ;
The vehicle was first tested using the baseline fuel to identify conditions
that were sensitive to ambient temperature changes. Because HFET and NYCC
emissions did not appear to be affected by low temperature operation, these
cycles v/ere excluded from the 20°F and 50°F tests with the low and high
quality fuels.
-------
GASEOUS AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS METHODS--Emissions of HC, CO, CO-, NO ,
C. A
and total particulate mass were measured according to Federal Register
procedures. Conventional hot flame ionization detection procedures were used
for HCs, nondispersive infrared procedures for CO and C0~, and
chemi1uminescence procedures for NO . Total particulate emission rates were
A
measured by sampling the diluted exhaust flow with four parallel 20 x 20-in
filters (8). Individual test phase and composite FTP particulate emission
rates were measured with 47-mm filters (9). Particulate SOF was determined
using previously described filtration-gravimetric and solvent-extraction
procedures (10). The fractions of particles with less than 2u MMD (2y cutoff)
were determined using a cyclone size-selective sampling procedure of John and
Reischl (11). Pallflex T60A20 Teflon-coated glass fiber filters were used for
all particulate filtration, with the exception that Fluoropore FA Teflon
membrane filters were used to collect particles for elemental analysis by
x-ray fluorescence (12). Molecular weight distributions of the particulate
organics in the C,? to C range were determined by gas chromatography
according to the procedure of Black and High (10).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REGULATED AND PARTICULATE SOE EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY TRENDS--Averages
and standard deviations of the test results for the emissions of HC, CO, NO ,
A
particulate matter, and SOF and for fuel economy are presented for each of the
three test temperatures in Tables 5 and 6. In general, emissions differences
due to temperature changes are small. Statistically significant differences
that do occur are most frequent with the low quality fuel and least frequent
-------
with the high quality fuel.
For the basel'ne and low quality fuels, UDDS Phase I HC emissions are
higher at the 20°F temperature. Such elevated levels art reasonable to expect
during this cold start portion when unburned HCs are more readily quenched on
cold cylinder surfaces. However, for the HFET and NYCC, HC emissions are
actually lower Ot the 20°F test. Since both are warm-start tests, cold
quenching is reduced and an increase in engine volumetric efficiency due to
the intake of cooler, more densely packed charges of air, becomes the
controlling mechanism in reducing HC emissions. Increases in volumetric
efficiency also affect CO emissions, which show a slight tendency to 'decrease
with cooler temperatures in a warmed-up engine, particularly with th? low
quality fuel (see Table 5). Increased NO emissions with decreases in test
temperature were the most consistent and significant temperature effects
noted. These trends were observed with all fuels and test cycles examined.
For the UDDS, NO emissions increased an average of 33 percent from the 75°F
to the 20°F test temperature. These increases largely resulted from increased
engine load at low temperatures due to greater friction losses in the engine,
drivetrain, and tires. Fuel economy trends, which reflect engine loading,
also fell slightly with a decrease in temperature. An average drop of 9% was
observed in the UDDS when the temperature was reduced from 75°F to 20°F.
Significant drops in fuel economy with decreased temperatures can be seen in
the UDDS Phase I data which best reflect cold-start and warm-up conditions.
Emission of particulate matter decreases slightly with lowered temperature
when using low quality fuel. Otherwise, particulate matter and SOF do not
appear to be significantly affected by temperature in this study. Since gas
phase adsorption is a temperature-dependent process, this observation could be
biased by not using cold dilution air.
-------
with the high quality fuel.
For the baseline and low quality fuels, UOOS Phase I HC emissions are
higher at the 20°F temperature. Such elevated levels are reasonable to expect
dur-ng this cold start portion when unhurried HCs are more readily quenched on
cold cylinder surfaces. However, for the HFET and NYCC, HC emissions are
actually lower at the 20°F test. Since both are warm-start tests, cold
quenching is reduced and an increase in engine volumetric efficiency due to
the intake of cooler, more densely packed charges cf air, becomes the
controlling mechanism in reducing HC emissions. Increases in volumetric
efficiency also affect CO emissions, which show a slight tendency to decrease
with cooler temperatures in a warmed-up engine, particularly with the low
quality fuel (see Table 5). Increased NO emissions with decreases in test
A
temperature were the most, consistent and significant temperature effects
noted. These trends were observed with all fuels and test cycles examined.
For the UDDS., NO emissions increased an average of 33 percent from the 75°F
to the 20DF test temperature. These increases largely resulted from increased
engine load at low temperatures due to greater friction losses in the engine,
drivetrain, and tires. Fuel economy trends, which reflect engine loading,
also fel1 slightly with a decrease in temperature. An average drop of 9% was
observed in the UDDS when the temperature was reduced from 75°F to 20°F.
Significant drops in fuel economy with decreased temperatures can be seen in
the HODS Phase I data which best reflect cold-start and warm-up conditions.
Emission of particulate matter decreases slightly with lowered temperature
when using low quality fuel. Otherwise, particulate matter and SOF do not
appear to be significantly affected by temperature in this study. Since gas
phase adsorption is a temperature-dependent process, this observation could be
biased by not using cold dilution air.
-------
Emission differences due solely to fuel effects are apparent in Tables 5
and 6. Differences in HC, CO, and SOF emissions are significant, while those
for NO and participate matter are not. The Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule HC emissions with the low quality fuel were about four times higher
than those with the high quality fuel. Comparable differences were also
observed in HFET and NYCC tests. This tendency for large increases in
HCs with increase in fuel aromatic content was also observed in the CRC, CAPE
32-80 project (5). Test results in that project with a 1982 Oldsmobile
operating on the same low and high quality fuels indicated a five fold
increase in HCs with the low quality fuel. Carbon monoxide emissions were
also sensitive to fuel type but emission differences were not so pronounced as
those noted with HCs. For the UDDS, CO increased about 40? when operating on
the low quality fuel. Particulate matter emissions were not significantly
affected by fuel tyoe, but particulate SOF (extractables) was substantially
lower for the high quality fuel.
A comparison of emission rates and trends observed in this study with
those observed in the CRC study mentioned previously is shown in Figure 3.
Both studies contain an examination of identical high and low quality fuels,
but the CRC data are for a 1982 Oldsmobile. In general, comparison between
fuel effect trends in both studies is good. Hydrocarbons, CO, and SOF
increase with use of the low quality fuel; total particulate matter mass
emissions remain almost, unchanged.
TRACE ELEMENT, MOLECULAR WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION, AND PARTICULATE SIZE
TRENDS--Particulate matter emissions were examined for trace element content
using an x-ray fluorescence technique. Results from these examinations are
given in Table 7. Values represent content as a percent of t>e total trace
element content. Trace elements comprised about 3% of the total particle
-------
weight, which is in close agreement with results in other studies (14, 15).
Neither fuel nor test temperature appears to have any effect on particulate
trace element content in this study.
The molecular weight distribution of the particulate organic extract was
examined for shifts due to temperature effects with the low quality and high
quality fuels. Results graphically depicted in Figure 4 illustrate that
shifts in the distribution fail to occur in the UODS regardless of temperature
or fuel effects. The median carbon number of the molecular weight
distribution histograms, which is defined as the carbon number value equally
dividing the total area of the bars, is approximately Cpp at all temperatures
for both fuels. Results contrary to these reported in a previous study (3)
indicate a pronounced shift occurring toward lower molecular weight compounds
at low ambient temperature. Because dilution air for the exhaust gas sampling
system was at ambient temperature in that study, the shift at low ambient
temperature might be attributed to phenomena associated with low temperature
gas phase adsorption of low molecular weight organic compounds.
The effect of ambient temperature and fuel usage on the fraction of
particles less than 2u in diameter is shown in Figure 5. Considering the
magnitude of the standard deviations depicted, neither ambient temperature nor
fuel usage appear to have any significant effect on the 2p fraction. Again it
should be pointed out that the exhaust particles were being transported in
diluted exhaust at roughly 100°F before collection and analysis. Therefore,
the fate of the particles after tailpipe exit would likely be different in a
10
-------
real-world situation in which they would be immediately subjected to low
ambient temperatures.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Sensitivity of exhaust emissions to ambient temperature was examined from
a 1984 Oldsmobile Regency Diesel while varying fuel and driving cycle
parameters. Testing at ambient temperatures of 75°F, 50°F, and 20°F generally
had little effect on emissions and fuel economy for any of the fuels and
driving cycles examined. However, effects noted occurred more frequently and
to a greater extent with the lower quality fuels. Sensitivity to temperature
was also most apparent during Phase I of the UDDS, which represents the
cold-start and warm-up phase of engine operation. Hydrocarbon and CO
emissions tended to increase with decrease in ambient temperature during Phase
!, while the opposite trend, if any, was observed for cycles representing
hot-start or warmed-up engine operating conditions.
Conclusions specific to the Oldsmobile tested in this study are follow:
1. Increase in NO emission with decrease in ambient temperature was the
only consistently significant temperature effect observed.
2. Hydrocarbon and CO emissions increased at low temperature during the
cold-start Phase I of the UOOS with lower quality fuels, but they showed
either no change or decreases for other test phases and cycles simulating
warmed-up engine operation.
3. Particulate matter emission rates decreased slightly at low
temperature with the low quality fuel.
4. Decreases in fuel economy at low ambient temperature, though not
significant in the HFET and NYCC, were apparent in Phase I of the UDDS's.
11
-------
REFERENCES
1. M. Ostrouchov, "Effect of Cnld Weather on Motor Vehicle Emissions and
Fuel Consumption--!!." SAE Paper 790229, February 1979.
2. G.A. Karim and S. Kahanna, "The Effect of Very Low Air Intake Temperature
on the Performance and Exhaust Emissions Characteristics of a Diesel Engine."
SAE Paper 740718, September 1974.
3. J.N. Braddock, "Impact of Low Ambient Temperature on Diesei Passenger Car
Emissions." SAE Paper 820278, February 1982.
4. D.E. Seizinger, T.M. Naman, W.F. Marshall, C.R. Clark, and R.O.
McClellan, "Diesel Particulates and Bioassay Effect of Fuels, Vehicles, and
Ambient Temperatures." SAE Paper 820813, June 1982.
5. C.T. Hare, "Study of the Effects of Fuel Composition, and Injection and
Combustion System Type and Adjustment, on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty
Diesels," Final Report Project CAPE-32-80, Prepared for the Coordinating
Research Council, Inc., April 1985.
6. R. Kruse and D. Paulsell, "Development of a Highway Driving Cycle for
Fuel Economy Measurements," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974.
7. T. Austin, K. Hellman, and D. Paulsell, "Passenger Car Fuel Economy
During Non-Urban Driving," SAE Paper 740592, August 1974.
8. P. Killough and J. Watson, "Filter-Type, High Volume Particulate Sampler
for Automotive Diesel Emission Studies." Northrop Services, Inc. Research
Triangle Park, NC, December 1979.
9. Federal Register, "Standard for Emission of Particulate Regulation for
Diesel-Fueled Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks," Volume 45, March
1980.
12
-------
10. F. Black and L. High, "Methodology for Determining Participate and
Gaseous Diesel Hydrocarbon Emissions." SAE Paper 790422, February 1979.
11. W. John and G. Reischl, "A Cyclone for Size-Selective Sampling of Ambient
Air." J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 30(8), 872-876, 1980.
12. J. Wagman, R.L. Bennett, and K.T. Knapp, "Simultaneous Multiwavelength
Spectrometer for Rapid Elemental Analysis of Participate Pollutants." In
"X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Environmental Samples," pp. 35-55, Ann Arbor,
Mi: Ann Arbor, Mi: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1977.
13. C.T. Hare, "The Effects of Diesel Fuel Properties on Particulate
Emissions," Presented at the Second U.S.-Dutch International Symposium:
Aerosols, Mil 1iamsburg, Va, May, 1985,
14. C.T. Hare and T.M Baines, "Characterization of Participate and Gaseous
Emissions from Two Diesel Automobiles as Functions of Fuel and Driving Cycle."
SAE Paper 790424, February, 1975.
15. P.A. Gabele, P.M. Black, F.G. King, Jr., R.B. Zweidinger, and R.A.
Brittain, "Exhaust Emission Patterns from Two Light-Duty Diesel Automobiles."
SAE Paper 810081, February, 1981.
13
-------
Table 1. Vehicle Description
Type
Model year
Vehicle size
Number of doors
Passenger capacity
Odometer (miles)
Number of cylinders
Displacement, CID(l)
Transmission type
Test inertia (Ibs)
50 mph road load (HP)
Emission controls
Oldsmobile 98 Diesel
1984
Full-size
4
6
18,000
8
350 (5.7)
Automatic 3-spd
4500
10.8
E6R
14
-------
Table 2. Fuel Description
Baseline
High Quality
Low Quality
Aromatic
Cetane No
101 BP (°
50« BP (°
90% BP (°
Flash Poi
APT Gravi
Viscosity
Vo1uriie(%)
F)
F)
F)
nt (TCC)
ty (60CF)
(C$TMOQ0F)
42.1
428
509
597
161°F
33.9
2.71
24.0
46.8
375
456
535
133°F
41.6
1.80
51.8
32.0
373
463
537
139°F
33.4
1.73
15
-------
Tab1e 3. Test. Cycle Description
Test
Cycle
Cold Avg.
Start Speed
Stops
per mile
Total
Distance
(mile)
Duration Percent
(minute) idle
UDDS
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Yes
Yes
No
No
21.3
25.7
16.2
25.7
2.40
1.70
3.08
1.70
11.1
3.6
3.9
3.6
31.3
8.4
14.5
8.4
19.0
10.6
18.0
20.6
HFE1
No
48.2
0.20
10.2
12.7
NYCC
No
7.1
9.32
1.2
10.0
40.2
16
-------
Table 4. Test Sequence and Sampling Effort
Data
Acquisition
Activity Effort *
I. Baseline Fuel
A. 75°F Tests UDOS A,B,C,D,E.
Phase I A,B
Phase II A,B
Phase III A,B
HFET A.B.E
NYCC A,B,E
B. 50°F Test Same as A.
C. 20°F Test Same as A.
II. Low and High Quality Fuels
A. 75°F Tests Same as I.A.
B. 50°F Tests UDDS A,B,C,D,E
Phase I A,B
Phase I! A,B
.. Phase III A,6
C. 20°F Tests Same as II.B.
*Key:
A- Regulated emissions
B- 47mm Pallflex filters
C- 2Q-x20-in. filters
0- 47-mm Teflon filters
E- 2p Cyclone
17
-------
Table 5. Regulated Exhaust Gas Emission Trends
UDDS
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
HFET
NYCC
UODS
Phase I
Phase 2
Phase 3
HFET
NYCC
UDDS
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
HFET
NYCC
75°F
0.15
0.20
0.13
0.13 -.
0.07 .
0.37 :
0.78
0.80 i
0.78 i
0.70 t
0.41 i
1.71 -
1.84 t
1.55 ±
2.07 i
1.65 t
1.11 i
3.76 ±
.02
.02
.02
.02
.01
.02
.04
.05
.02
.06
.02
.08
.02
.07
.05
.08
.04
.20
BASE FU
50°
0.15 i
0.21
0.14 :
0.14 :
0.06 :
0.35 -
0.80 -
0.86 i
0.83
0.72 ±
0.42
1.69 i
2.24 -
1.98 f.
2.55 i
1.82 ,t
1.32 i
4.57 ±
EL
F
.00
.02
.01
.81
.01
.03
.03
.11
.04
.06
.03
.10
.04
.15
.04
.18
.17
.57
20C
0. 15
0.?5 '
0.13
0,12
0,05
0.25
0.85
1.08
0.82
0.72 '
0.41 i
1.61 :
2,41 ,'
2.12 i
2.71 *
2.04 ;
1.32
4.51 -
'F
.01
,00
.01
.01
.01
,05
.04
.09
.03
.05
.03
.02
.17
.17
.21
.16
.14
.47
7
HC
0.29
0.49
0.21
0.28
0, 12
0.5fl
0.99
1.06
0.97
0.98
0.51
2.07
1.83
1.66
1.93
1 .77
1.04
3.68
LOW
5°F 50"
EMISSIONS (g/mi)
.04 0,20
,10 0.47 -
. ,03 0.12
.03 0.16
.01
.03
CO EMISSIONS
- .04 0.8ft '
: .10 0.98
-. .03 0.87 .
.08 0.83
.03
' ,07
NOx EMISSIONS
' ,32 2.14
' .06 ?.C.
.3; 2.35 '
.47 1.82
.15
.46
QUALITY FUEL
F 20CF
.02 0,24 .06
.07 0.67 .03
.01 0.1? .01
.01 0.16 .03
-
-
(j/m t )
.01 0.90 .03
.03 1.02 ! .06
02 0.90 .04
.01 0.82 t .02
-
-
(g/mi )
.08 2.62 « .03
.05 2.47 * .05
.13 2.93 * .05
.05 2.14 ' .04
-
-
75'
0.07 .
0.09 .-
O.O7 .'
0.08 '
0.04
0.15 '
0.70
0.72 t
0.72 i
0.66 i
0.40 i
1.32 ±
1.86 '
1.62 .*.
2,06 '
1.65 '.
1.09 i
3.78 t'
JilELSMLL!
'F 50"F
.01 0.07 - .01
.01 0.08 1 .02
.01 0.06 t .01
.01 0.06 .01
.01
.04
.03 0.70 .04
.03 0.73 : .04
.05 0.73 i .05
.02 0.64 : .02
.01
.01
.05 1.95 .02
.07 1.80 .07
.06 2.20 ' .01
.03 1.70 .05
.04*
.16
Y FUEL
20°F
0.08 i .01
0,09 . .01
0.07 i .01
0.07 ± .01
-
-
0.69 : .01
0.76 t .05
0.69 i ,02
0,62 i .02
-
-
2.35 t .15
2.11 t .11
2.68 ± .18
1.90 : .14
-
-
-------
Table 6. Trends for Particulate Emissions and Fu«l Economy
BASE FUEL
UOOS
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
HFET
NYCC
75°F
0.32 ±
0.4?
0.29 i
0.26 t
0.17 i
0.51 ±
.04
.09
.02
,06
.01
.04
50'
0.36 i
0.5? t
0.30 t
0.32 t
0.19 i
0.66 i
F
.01
.04
.01
.00
.03
.20
20°
0.35 i
0.56 i
0.30 ±
0.35 i
0.18 i
0.66 t
F
.02
.09
.02
.08
,02
,19
75
pTfJTf
0.32 i
0.45 i
0.29 i
0.28
0.18 ±
0,46 t
°F
ICULAT
.03
. 10
.01
.03
.01
.04
LOW
50
E MATTER
0.2? i
0.40 ;
0.21 :
0.24 i
PARTICULATE
UDDS
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
HFET
NYCC
UDDS
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
HFET
NYCC
21.5 i
18.5 ±
21.4 ±
25.6 i
32.0 ±
19.6 i
22.6 ±
23.2 ±
22.3 i
23.0 t
35.5 ±
12.1 ±
2,7
2.1
4.0
3.5
2.2
3.5
0.8
0.7
0.8
2.1
0.9
0.4
18.5
16.2 :
17.2 -
24.0 i
29.2 ±
22.7 t
21.4 i
20.4 t
20.6 ±
24.6 t
34.6 ±
11.8 ±
2.6
2.1
3.0
3.3
9.5
7.2
1.3
1.2
0.5
4.3
0.6
0.2
17.8 t
16.5 t
16.5 ±
21.5 t
-
-
20.0 ±
17,4 i
20.8 ±
20.9 i
34.2 i
11.4 ±
2.0
3.5
1.6
2.9
0.6
0.8
1.8
1.4
2.4
0.9
20.9 i
19.5 ±
17.9 ±
27.2 i
30.5 i
16.0 >
21.5 ±
21.3 i
22.1 ±
20.8 t
34.8 i
11.5 ±
2. 1
1.9
2.4
2.8
3.2
2.0
FUEL
0.7
0.4
0,8
1.3
.07
0.4
18.7 l
18.9 i
16.2 i
23.2 i
-
-
ECONOMY
22.0 i
20.9 l
22.1 i
22.8 i
-
-
QUALITY FUEL
°F 20°F
EMISSIONS (g/mi)
.03 0.26 ; .01
.04 0.41 .04
.02 0.22 ' .02
,02 0.21 i .04
-
-
SOF (?)
1.5 22.2 t 2.8
.07 20.9 i 4.9
2.5 19.6 i 2.5
1.5 30.6 i 9.2
-
-
(MPG)
0.8 20.8 t 0.7
0,5 18.9 ± 1.2
1.2 20.9 i 0.9
0.6 22.3 i 0.8
-
-
0.27
0.31
0.26
0.25
0.16
0.41
14.4
14.1
13.1
19.1
24.0
11.4
22.5
21.7
22.2
23,8
35.2
12,4
75"F
i .06
.- .16
± .03
i .04
± .02
± ,02
± 2,1
± 7.3
± 1.8
± 2.2
i 2.6
i 2.8
t 0.5
± 0.8
i 0.5
i 0.9
± 0.7
± 0.8
HIGH QUALITY FUEL
50°F 20°F
0.35 ± .13 0.27 i .01
0.45 ± .14 0.39 i .03
0.31 i .11 0.24 ± .01
0,33 .16 0.25 ± .01
'
.
16.9 ± 5.2 13.8 ± 0.6
16.5 ± 7.7 10.1 ± 0.6
18.9 ± 10.7 13.6 i 1,5
15.0 ± 6.1 18.4 ± 0.1
-
-
21.5 ± 0.6 20.6 ± 1.4
19.9 ± 0.8 19.8 ± 0.6
2! .5 ± 1.0 20.0 ± 2.2
23.1 i 1.0 23.0 ± 0.5
-
_
-------
Table 7. Elemental Analyses Results
Fuel T
Low
Qual i ty
High
Quality
Test
emp. (°F)
20
50
75
20
50
75
A
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
.9
,1
.9
.4
.1
,1
P
2.0
1,9
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.0
S
64.
65.
67.
58.
62.
61.
5
2
1
0
8
5
Ca
1.5
1.5
1.7
1,6
1.7
1.8
F
26
26
22
29
27
27
e
.0
.3
.2
.7
.0
.5
Cu
1.4
0.8
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
In
3.8
3.0
4.4
4.4
4.4
3.8
20
-------
Figure 1
AUTO EXHAUST SAMPLING SCHEME
PARTICLE SAMPLES FOR
GRAVIMETRIC ANALYSIS
PARTICLE SiZING
FLOW CONTROLLERS
FLOW
CONTROLLERS
47 mm FILTERS
x
ir.rq
PARTICLE SAMPLE
FOR X-RAY ANALYSIS
20 x 20-in PARTICULATE FILTERS
COLD CELL
CHASSIS
DYNAMOMETER
FILTER
t
DILUENT
-------
Figure 2a. Oil Sump Temperature vs. Time For UDDS
T
E
H
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
I
N
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
-» -7C/20F
*----« I0C/S0F
* ...... -# 24C/75F
'i rrT"fT [' I" v i T-rn"TT
0246
rTT~r~r~r~r
18 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
UDDS TIML IN MINUTES
-------
Figure 2b, Oil Sump Temperature vs. Time for HFET
PO
OJ
T
L
M
P
r
R
^
u
R
F
I
N
0
E
G
R
E
E
S
C
1 ors
1 1 0 '
1 00 -
90-
80-
70-
60 H
50-1
40 -
30-
20-
10-
0-
41 "fr * "fr "'
j* . » *
,..-# " ..--r- _,
^ » -7C/20F
t- h 1 0C/50F
# #24C/7SF
r i r ~~r" r ' ' r " i i t t ' " i " i
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12131
HFET TIME IN MINUTES
-------
Figure 2c, Oil Sump Temperature vs. Time for NYCC
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
I
N
0
E
G
R
E
E
S
C
!20-
1 1 0 _
100^
r 4i..., ji.... . .,
r ^p «- ^ *--.
&Q^
,~^*- .-^ _ ^ _^ »- -» ,
, ' *^ w ~ - «» ',
704^"
60-
50-
40-J
30-
20-
1 0
0-
-10-1
-20-
* ^ -7C/20F
i- ^ 10C/50F
* *24C/75F
I i i i i i i " "t " ' r 1
1 2 3 4 & 6 7 8 9 I
riYCC ITHL JiJ MINUTES
-------
D LOW QUALITY FUEL
O HIGH QUALITY FUEL
Figure 3
FTP EMISSIONS COMPARISON - CRCvsEPA
u./
.= 0.6
E
X
w 0.5
Z
2
CO
<2 0.4
UJ
Z
0 0.3
m
0 n >
o 0.2
oc
Q
I 0,1
0.0
D 2.5
_
'§ 2.0
X
3
CO
I 1'5
CO
CO
2 1.0
UJ
O
U
O 0.5
*
1 L_ _0.0
2.0
a _
._
X
2 1.5
CO
Z.
o
o m w 1.0
S5
« i
UJ
x 0.5
O
2.
I 1 1 o.O.
^*
E
O)
0.4
U)
f 2
O
- w 0 3
D uj
0 ^0.2
_j
"3
y 0.1
oc
n
1 1 n.n.
- 8 " ^30
S)
««,
1 20
*-*
X
£ 10
UL
O
CO
I J 0
-
D m
A "^
w
o
i i
IT)
CM
CRC EPA
CRC EPA
CRC EPA
CRC EPA
CRC EPA
-------
Figure 4a
FTP LOW QUALITY FUEL AT 75 50 AND 20
75 F
20 F
16-1
50 F
12-
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
8-
6-
4-
2-
0
-------
ro
p
E
N
T
16-
14-
10-
Figure 4b
FTP HIGH QUALITY FUEL AT 75 50 AND 20 F
75 F
28 F
50 F
f^'l" "T
-------
Figure 5. PERCENTAGE OF PARTICLES LESS THAN 2 MICRONS MMD.
PERCENTAGE MEAN
± STD. DEvlAlTONr 50 °F
20 °F
CO
I
CO
UJ
_J
_l
<
O
O
UJ
O
<
z
UJ
O
tr
UJ
a.
90
80
70
60
50
BASELINE
FUEL
LOW QUALITY
FUEL
HIGH QUALITY
FUEL
------- |