N
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
HatiMul Teetotal iRfematiM Senfice
PB80-121551
Characterization of Sulfates, Odor,
Smoke, POM and Particulates from
Light and Heavy Duty Engines - Part IX
Southwest Research Inst, San Antonio, TX
PwpowJ for
Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Ml Emission Control
Technology Div
Jun 79
J
-------
Untied States Office of Mobiie Source Air Pollution Control EPA-460/3-79^007
Environmental Protection Emission Control Technology Oivision June 1979
Ag*ncy 2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
Air
Characterization of Sulfates, Odor,
Smoke, POM and Particulates From
Light and Heavy Duty Engines -
Part IX
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Imtiniehau on the rerene before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-460/3-79-007
title ano Subtitle
Characterization of Sulfates, Odor, Smoke, POM and
Particulates From Light and Heavy Duty Engines-Part IX
5. REPORT OATE
June 1979
6. PERFORMINO ORGANIZATION COOE
ai< i Homsi
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION RtPORl NO.
Karl J. Springer
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 782T4
. SPONSORING AGENCV NAME ANO AOORESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OMSAPC-ECTD
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
•s ACCESSION NO.
'I£NT? ACCES
PD C )
12155b
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2417
13. T.VPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREO
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
..Supplementary notes
.. abstract
This report expands EPA's data base on regulated and unregulated emissions from
Diesel powered cars and trucks. To the extent possible, comparisons were made to
similar vehicles powered by gasoline fueled engines. Emissions, fuel economy and
general performance of a pair of gasoline-and Diesel-powered Volkswagen Rabbit and
Oldsmobile Cutlass cars are discussed. Characterization of heavy-duty engines in-
cluded a Mack ETAY(B)673A and a Caterpillar 3208, both Diesels, and a Chevrolet 366
gasoline fueled engine. A pair of Daimler-Benz Diesels, one turbocharged and the
other not, were used to evaluate the effect of turbocharging. A high pressure
injection system was tried with the Mack engine and compared to the standard system.
A Caterpillar 3406 Diesel was used to investigate the effect of injection timing,
combustion system and exhaust gas recirculation on exhaust particulate and other
emissions.
KEY wonos ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Exhaust Emissions
Diesel Engines
Gasoline Engines
Particulate
Nitrogen Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENOEO TERMS
Heavy Duty Vehicles
Light Duty Vehicles
Emission Test Procedures
Particulate Control
Emissions Characterizatidn
c. COSATi held/Group
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
21. NO. OF PAGES
5>3
22 PRICE p£,
jUi
A Form 2220-1 (»-73)
-------
EPA-460/3-79-007
CHARACTERIZATION OF SULFATES, ODOR,
SMOKE, POM AND PARTICULATES FROM
LIGHT AND HEAVY DUTY ENGINES - PART IX
by
Karl J. Springer
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas
78284
Contract No. 68-0* 241?
EPA Project Officer: T.M. Baines
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
June 1979
-------
This repon is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of
interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available free of charge to Federal
employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited
quantities - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service. 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the linvironmental Protection Agency by Southwest
Research Institute, 6220 Cuiebra Road, San Antonio, Texas, in fulfillment of Contract
No. 68-03-2417. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from
Southwest Research Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. liPA-460/3-79-007
-------
FOREWORD
This project was conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the Department of Emissions Research, Automotive Research
Division of Southwest Research Institute. The EPA Project Officer was
Mr. Thomas M. Baines.
This project was under the overall direction of Mr. Karl J. Springer,
Director of the Department of Emissions Research, who served as Project
Manager. Mr. Terry L. Ullman. was responsible for the experimental
laboratory evaluations of part lb dealing with particulate-engine effects.
The project began July 7, 1976 and was authorised by Contract No. 68-03-2417.
It was known within Southwest Research Institute as Project No. 11-4623
and constituted Part IX of a long-range investigation of Diesel emissions
begun in 1966.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report expands EPA's data base on regulated and unregulated emis-
sions from Diesel-powered cars and trucks. To the extent possible, comparisons
were made to similar vehicles powered by engines that use gasoline as a fuel.
For example, one part of the report is a comparison of the emissions, fuel
economy, noise and acceleration characteristics of a pair of Volkswagen Rabbit
and a pair of Oldsmobile Cutlass passenger cars. Each pair included a
vehicle powered by a Diesel engine and a vehicle powered by a gasoline engine.
Emissions characterization of heavy-duty engines included a Caterpillar 3208
with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), and a Mack ETAY(B)673A (both Diesels)
and a Chevrolet 366 Heavy-Duty Gasoline (HDG) engine. The effect of jveral
engine parameters on particulate and sulfate emissions is also discussed, A
Caterpillar 3406 Heavy-Duty Diesel (HDD) engine was operated at several
timings, with EGR, and in am open chamber (direct injected) as well as pre-
chamber configuration. A pair of Daimler-Benz 0M-352 HDD engines, one turbo-
charged and one not, were used to evaluate the effect of turbocharging. An
American Bosch APS high pressure fuel injection system was compared to the
standard system using the Mack ETAY(B)673A HDD engine. The passenger car
studies were based on recognized transient chassis dynamometer driving cycles
for city, congested freeway, and highway type operation. The HDD engines wore
operated by mainly the 13-mode Federal cycle, or short versions thereof,on a
stationary dynamometer. Emissions of major interest were unburned hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfate, particulate,
smoke, odor, various aldehydes and specific hydrocarbons, benzo(a)pyrene, and
particle size distribution. In all cases, vehicle tu»l economy or engine fuel
efficiency was obtained and reported.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES X
I. SUMMARY 1
A. Heavy-Duty Engine Characterization 1
B. Engine Effects on Particulate/Sulfate 2
C. Evaluation of Passenger Cars Equipped with Diesel
and Gasoline Engines 4
II. INTRODUCE-tON 6
A. Background 6
B. Objective 6
C. Publication/Presentation 7
D. Acknowledgement 7
III. DESCRIPTION OF ENGINES, VEHICLES, FUELS, AND PROCEDURES 8
A. Heavy-Duty Engines 8
B. Light-Duty Vehicles 10
C. Test Fuels and Lubricants 12
D. Test Plans 15
E. Procedures and Analysis • 17
F. Weighting Factors - HD Engines 42
IV. RESULTS OF HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE CHARACTERIZATION 46
A. Gaseous Emissions 46
B Smoke Results 53
C. Particulate.' and Sulfate Results 56
D. Elemental and Metal Analyses 76
E. Benzo(a)pyrene Analyses 79
F. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses 84
G. Aldehydes 94
H. Specific Hydrocarbons 97
V. SULFATE AND PARTICULATE CHARACTERIZATIONS 101
A. Effect of Timing, EGR and Combustion System 102
B. Effect of Turbocharging 136
C. Effect of Injection System 148
D. Effect of Fuel Residue 165
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Page
VI. RESULTS OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE EVALUATION
169
A. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy
B. Smoke Results
C. Particulate
D. Sulfate
E. Carbon-Hydrogen-Nitrogen
F. Metals
G. Odor Ratings and Related Analysis
H. Aldehydes
I. Specific Hydrocarbons
J. Polynuclear Aromatics
K, Noise
L. Performance
169
173
178
181
185
186
186
191
198
198
202
202
LIST OF REFERENCES
205
APPENDICIES
A. Experimental 23-Mode Test Procedure for Engines in
Heavy-Duty Motor Vehicles
B. Chemical-Analytical Procedures
C. Emissions Characterization Data for Mack ETAY(B)673B
Caterpillar 3208 w/EGR and Chevrolet 366 Heavy-Duty Engines
D. Sulfate and Particulate Characterization
E. Computer Reduced 1975 FTP, SET and FET Gaseous and Fuel
Economy Data for Four LD Vehicles
F. Unregulated Emissions for Four LD Vehicles
vi
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Stationary Test of Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline
Engines 19
Speed Versus Time Traces of FTP, HFET, and SET-?
Driving Cycles 21
Oldsmobile and Volkswagen Diesel- and Gasoline-
Powered Passenger Cars Under Test 22
Schematic of One Cycle of Federal Smoke Compliance
Test Engine Speed Versus Time 24
Smoke and Odor Measurement Equipment 25
Gaseous Emissions Measurement Instruments and Apparatus 32
Schematic Section of Dilution Tunnel for Diesel
Particulate Sampling 34
Particulate Measuring Equipment (HD Engines) 36
LDV Particulate Sulfate and Noise Measurement Equipment 38
Caterpillar 3208 with Automatic EGR 50
Comparison of Gaseous Emissions and Specific Fuel
Consumption of Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366
Engines (23-Mode EPA Test) 54
Particulate Emission Rates from Mack ETAY(B)67 3A Truck
Engine. Based on 47 mm Glass Filters 63
Sulfate (S0^ ) Emission Rates from Mack ETAY(B)673A
Truck Engine, Based on 47 mm Fuloropore Filters
Power Output, Fuel and Air Rates from Mack ETAY(B)673A
Truck Engine 65
Particulate Emission Rates from Caterpillar 3208 and
Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines Based on 47 mm Glass Filters 68
Sulfate (SO = ) Emission P.atos from Caterpillar 3208 and
Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines, Based on 47 mm Fluoropore
Filters 69
vii
-------
17
18
19
20
21
21;
22
23
24
2")
26
27
28
29
30
31
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.)
Page
Power Output, Fuel and Air Rates from Caterpillar
3208 EUR and Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines 72
Comparison of Cycle Weighted Particulate and Sulfate
Emission Rates - Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 75
Cycle Composite BaP Comparison Caterpillar 3208 EGR
and Chevrolet 366 83
Mack ETAY(B)673A Engine Diesel Odor Intensity by
Trained Panel 88
Caterpillar 3208 EGR Engine Diesel Odor Intensity by
Trained Panel 89
"D" Odor Ratings Versus TIA Mack ETAY
-------
32
13
34
35
36
37
38
39
39,
40
41
42
43
44
4*~
46
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.)
Page
Particulate and Sulfate Moda1 Rates for Caterpillar
3406 DI Open Chamber and IDI Prechamber 133
Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Daimler-Benz
OM-352 and OM-352A Diesol Engines 141
Particle Size Distribution by "Means" for Daimler-Benz
OM-352, via Impactor 145
Effect of Turbochar^ing on TIA, Daimler-Benz OM-352A
and OM-352 Engines i
Simplified Schematic of APS Pump Setup 1
American Bosch APS Pump Installed on Mack ETAY(B)673A 150
Injection Pressure Photos for Mack ETAY(BJ673A Diesel
with A. Bosch APS High-Pressure Injection System 152
Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Mack ETAY(B)673A
with APS and Standard Pumps 158
Particle Size Distribitions by "Means" for
ETAY(B)G73A, via Impactor 160
Typical f>ld'?mobi le Cutlans Diesel "Cold Start"
Smok<> Trai 17(>
Typical Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel "Cold Start"
Smoke Trao 177
Particulate Emission Rates for Diesel- and Gasoline-
Powerea Passenger Cars 180
Sulfate Emission Rates for Diesel- and Gasoline-
Powerod Passenger Cars 183
Average Odor Ratings for Cutlass Diesel Car 189
Average Odor Ratings for Rabbit Diesel Car 190
TIA by DOAS Versus "D" Odor Rating by Trained Panel
for Two Diesel Cars at Two Dilution Levels 19 3
TIA of Various Driving Cycles for Diesel-Powered
Passenger Cars 194
Aldehyde Emission Rates for Diesel- and Gasoline-
Powered Passenger Cars 197
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Description of Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines 9
2 Description of Light-Duty Tost Vehicles 11
3 Description of Test Fuels 13
4 "National Average" Properties from Fuel Surveys 14
5 Odor Test Conditions - HD Engines 28
6 Odor Test Conditions 29
7 EPA 23-Mode Weighting Factors and Short Cycle Weighting
Factors Derived Therefrom 43
8 13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors and Short Cycle Weighting
Factors Derived Therefrom 44
9 EPA 23-Mode and 13-Mode FTP Gaseous Emissions Rates 47
10 Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Emission Limits 48
11 Federal Smoke Test Results for Mack ETAY(B)673A and
Caterpillar 3208 EGR Diesel Engines 55
12 Smoke Measured During Modal Testing (Caterpillar 3208
with EGR) 57
13 Caterpillar 3208 EGK Left and Right Bank Smoke Levels 1>H
14 Summary of Particulate and Sulfate Emission Rates
(Based on 47 mm Fiberglass and Fluoropore Samples) Vi
15 Summary of Engine Operating Conditions 47 mm Glass and
Fluoropore Filter Tests 62
16 Exhaust Backpressure Schedules - Caterpillar 3208 EGR 66
17 Brake and Fuel Specific Cycle Composite Particulate and
Sulfate Rates 73
18 Elemental Analysis of Filter Collected Particulate
(Percent by Weight based on 47 mm Fiberglass Filter
Samples) 77
x
-------
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)
Metals Analysis of Filter Collected Particulate
(Percent by Weight Based on Fluoropore Filter
Samples) 78
Summary of Particulate, BaP and Organic Solubles From
8 x 10 Size Glass Filter Samples 80
Summary of Engine Operating Conditions During 8 x 10
Size Glass Filter Tests 81
Composite BaP Rates 82
Average Odor Panel Ratings, 100:1 Dilution 85
Average Engine Operating Data Taken Simultaneously
With Odor Ratings 86
Average Exhaust Analyses Taken Simultaneously With
Odor Ratings 90
DOAS Results - Caterpillar 3208 EGR 93
Cycle Composite Aldehyde Rates 96
Cycle Composite Specific Hydrocarbons Rates 98
Methane Fraction of Exhaust Hydrocarbons 100
Evaluation Matrix 101
Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity Caterpillar 3406 102
Steady-State Smoke Percent Opacity Caterpillar 3406 If13
Gaseous Emissions bv 13-Mode FTP and 21-Mode EPA
Caterpillar 3406 104
Sulfate and Particulate Emission Rates (Based on
13-Mode Cycle) Caterpillar 3406 105
BaP and Organic Soluble Fraction of Particulate Collected
on 8 x 10 Filter, 7-Mode Test Caterpillar 3406 106
Carbon and Hydrogen Content of Particulate 107
Caterpillar 3406
xi
-------
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)
Page
DOAS Results for Caterpillar 3406 Diesel 111
Brake and Fuel Specific Aldehyde Rates Caterpillar 3406 112
Brake and Fuel Specific Hydrocarbon Rates Caterpillar
3406 113
Federal Transient Smoke Cycle Opacity Daimler-Benz
OM-352 and OM-352A 137
Steady-State Smoke Percent Opacity Daimler-Benz
OM-352 and OM-352A 13-Mode FTP Steady-States 138
Gaseous Emissions by 21-Mode EPA and 13-Mode FTP
Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A 139
Particulate and Sulfate Emission Rates (Based on
13-Mode Cycle) 140
Summary of Particulate, BaP and Organic Solubles From
8 x 10 Size Glass Filter Samples Daimler-Benz OM-352
and OM-352A Engines 142
DOAS Results for Daimler-Benz Engines 144
Brake and Fuel Specific Aldehydes Rates Daimler-Benz
OM-352 NA and OM-352A TC 147
Brake and Fuel Specific Hydrocarbon Rates Daimler-Benz
OM-352 NA and OM-352A TC 148
Mack ETAV(B,*673A With High-Pressure Injection System 151
Steady-State Smoke Percent Opacity Mack ETAY(B)673A
with APS Pump 153
Gaseous Emissions By 21-Mode EPA and 13-Mode FTP
Mack ETAY(B)673A with APS Pump 155
Mack ETAY(B)671A Sulfate and Particulate Emissions
Rates - APS Pump Configuration (Based on 13-Mode Cycle) 155
Summary of Particulate, BaP and Organic Solubles From
8 x 10 Size Glass Filter Samples Mack ETAY(B)673A Engine 157
xii
-------
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)
Page
DOAS Results for Mack ETAY(B)673A With Various
Injection Systems 161
Cycle Composite Aldehyde Rates Hack ETAY(B)673A 162
Cycle Composite Specific Hydrocarbon Rates
Mack ETAY(B)673A 164
Properties of the Five Test Fuels, Contract 68-02-1777 166
Comparison of Gum and Boiling Range for EM-239-F and
Special Distilled Cuts of EM-239-F Diesel Fuel 167
Federal Light-Duty Emission Standards 169
Average HC, CO, NO , and Fuel Results for Diesel- and
Gasoline-Powered Oldsmobile Cutlass Cars 171
Average HC, CO, NOx, and Fuel Results for Diesel- and
Gasoline-Powered Volkswagen Rabbit Cars 172
Average Exhaust Smoke Opacity Recorded During Replicate
1975 FTP Cycles 174
Average Particulate Emission Rates for Diesel and
Gasoline Passenger Cars 179
Diesel- and Gasoline-Powered Car Particulate Rate
Comparison 181
Average Sulfate Emission Rates for Diesel- and Gasoline-
Powered Passenger Cars 182
Comparison of Percent Sulfur in Fuel Converted to
Sulfate by Gasoline and Diesel Cars 184
Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen Content of Filter
Particulate, Percent by Weight 185
Metal Content of Particulate Samples (Percent of
Particulate) 186
Listing of Average Odor Panel Ratings for Diesel-
Powered Passenger Cars 188
Rough Comparison of Light-Duty Vehicle "D" Odor Ratings 187
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Page
70 DOAS Results of Diesel Cars During Steady-State Odor
Tests and Transient Cycles 192
71 Exhaust Analyses of Diesel Cars During Steady-State
Odor Tests 195
17 Aldehydes Obtained During Steady-State Odor Tests
and Transient Cycles 196
73 Detailed HC Analysis During Steady-State Odor Tests
and Transient Cycles 199
74 Methane Fraction of Exhaust HC During Steady-State
Odor Tests and Transient Cycles 200
75 BaP Content in Diesel Car Particulate Matter 201
76 Summary of Sound Level Measurements - dBA Scale 20 3
77 Average Acceleration Times for Diesel- and Gasoline-
Powered Passenger Cars 204
xiv
-------
I. SUMMARY
Though long appreciated by those who operate heavy-duty engines in
trucks, buses, locomotives, and ships, the efficiency of the Diesel engine is
also an undeniable advantage in passenger cars. Certain engine emissions
from Diesels such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are low relative to
the uncontrolled gasoline engine. Certain other byproducts of combustion
are greater than from the gasoline engine such as smoke, odor and particulate.
This project was performed in three segments, two of which dealt with
heavy-duty enqines used in trucks and the third with passenger cars equipped
with Diesel and gasoline; engines. Each segment is briefly summarized as
follows.
A. Heavy-Duty Enqine Characterization
Three truck engines were subjected to a series of tests to determine
emission rates of unburned hydrocarbons (HQ, carbon monoxide (CO), oxides
of nitroqen (NOx), aldehydes, sulfate, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), particulate and
smoke. For the two Diesel engines, odor was measured by trained panel as well
as the Diesel odor analytical system (DQAS). The two Diesel engines were a
1977 Hack ETAY(B)67 3A, used in large intercity tractor trailer trucks and a
1977 Caterpillar 3208 equipped with an automatic exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) used in larqe intracity delivery trucks. A 1977 gasoline fueled Chevrolet
366 heavy-duty engine, used in the same size delivery truck as the 3208, was
included for comparison. Both the Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 were con-
trolled to meet California emission levels. Emissions and brake specific fuel
consumption were measured using the 13-mode Federal cycle as well as a 2 3-mode
test cycle. Each comprises various combinations of engine speeds and loads and
were performed on stationary engine dynamometers.
While the Mack results add to the data base of previously characterized
enqinps, the Caterpillar 3208/EGR Diesel could be directly compared to the
Chevrolet 366 gasoline. Some of the highlights were:
Regulated Gaseous Emissions - Based on the 23-mode EPA cycle composites,
the Diesel CO emission rate was about one-eighth the gasoline CO emission rate.
The HC emission rate was about half that of the gasoline while the NOx emis-
sions of the Diesel enqine were about ten percent higher than the N0X emis-
sions of the gasoline enqine. Neither the Caterpillar 3208/EGR or Chevrolet
%6 were equipped with an oxidation catalyst.
Specific Fuel Consumption - The 23-mode cycle brake specific fuel con-
sumption (BSFC) of the Caterpillar 3208/EGR Diesel was about two-thirds that
of the Chevrolet 366 gasoline engines tested under comparable conditions.
Smoke - The Caterpillar 3208/EGR exhaust smoke opacity was lower by the
Federal Test method than during several part power conditions of the 13-mode
i
-------
test such as 75 anci 50 percent power at 2800 rpm. This was due to the EGR
rate scheduling (some EGR at part load) while no exhaust is recirculated during
the full power mode, the major condition simulated by the Federal smoke test.
Particulate - Like smoke, the Caterpillar 3208/EGR particulate rate was
found to be quite sensitive to the EGR rate with part load particulate rates
far above those at full power. This resulted in a 13-mode composite parti-
culate rate of 2.96 g/kw-hr, some 3.6 times that of the Mack ETAY(B)673A and
substantially higher than a two-stroke cycle GM 6V-71 HDD bus engine. Corrpared
to a previously tested Caterpillar 3208 without EGR, the Caterpillar 3208/EGR
emitted over three times the particulate. On a 13-mode brake specific particu-
late basis, the Caterpillar 3208/EGR produced about 12 times the particulate
produced by the Chevrolet 366 HDG engine which used gasoline containing 6.06 q/£
(1.6 g/gal) of lead as the fuel.
Sulfate - Both Mack and Caterpillar Diesels continue to convert about on
the order of 1 to 2 percent of the fuel sulfur to what is analyzed as sulfate
by the barium chloranilate (BCA) method. The fuel sulfur conversions, though
seeminqly negligible, are based on a Diesel fuel with "National Average" sulfur
content about eight times that of the "National Average" sulfur level in gaso-
line. Because of the presence of the lead and its byproducts of combustion,
it was not possible to obtain reliable or repeatable sulfate values by the BCA
method for the Chevrolet 366 engine. An alternative procedure will be necessary
in the event there is continued interest in sulfate from non-oxidation catalyst
equipped engines burning leaded gasoline.
Elemental Analysis - Whereas Diesel particulate is principally carbonaceous
or hydrocarbon derived matter, the gasoline particulate is composed of lead and
its byproducts of combustion, sulfuric acid mist and more or less carbonaceous
matter, dependinq on combustion.
Benzo(a)Pyrene - Except for the full power-1200 rpm and a 2 percent
power-2 300 rpm conditions, negligible levels of BaP were measured from the
Chevrolet 366 HDG engine. These two modes were sufficient, however, to makf
the Chevrolet 366 rate (abbreviated 23-mode cycle) to be slightly higher than
the Caterpillar 3208/EGR (3.0 vs 2.5 pg/kw-hr). Difficulties were experienced
using the dilution tunnel method in obtaining sufficient sanple from the Chev-
rolet 366 engine for extraction and analysis. More experimentation is needed
with this and other HDG engines to confirm the trend indicated.
Aldehydes - The Chevrolet 366 engine emitted more aldehydes overall than
the Caterpillar 3208/EGR. Benzaldehyde, crotonal and formaldehyde were sub-
stantially higher.
Hydrocarbons - Compared to the Caterpillar 3208/EGR, the Chevrolet 366
emitted much more methane, benzene, and toluene. Accordingly, the non-methane
hydrocarbons from the Caterpillar 3208/EGR Diesel are higher than the Chevrolet
366 gasoline enqine. Methane is generally considered to be non-reactive from a
photochemical point of view.
B. Engine Effects on Particulate/Sulfate
Several HDD were evaluated in various configurations to determine their
2
-------
effect on particulate and sulfate. The highlights are given for each
experiment•
Effect of Timing
The direct injected, open chamber. Caterpillar 3406 was evaluated
at three fuel injection settings; standard, 5 degrees advanced and 10
degrees retarded from standard. The major effect was to increase particulate
with retarded timing. This is consistent with the well-known effect of timing
retard on increasing visible smoke and reducing oxides of nitrogen. No major
or obvious effects were noted on sulfate, particle size distribution, DOAS,
or specific hydrocarbons. faaP and aldehydes were lowest at standard timing,
highest at 5 degrees advanced timing and in between at the 10 degree retarded
timing setting.
Effect of EGR
This experiment involved substantial exhaust gas recirculation
directly into the inlet of the turbocharged Caterpillar 3406 engine, in the
direct injected configuration. Criteria was to halve NOx without exceeding
15 percent smoke in any mode. Like retarded timing, EGR increased greatly
the total mass of particulate emitted by the engine while decreasing NOx.
Smoke was increased, CO was doubled and HC was halved with use of EGR. While
particulate was increased by 2.7 times, sulfate appeared unaffected. BaP,
with EGR, was cut in half while the organic soluble fraction was about the
same. Particle size distribution with EGR shifted to indicate an even finer,
lighter material than the same engine run in standard configuration.
Effect of Combustion System
The Caterpillar 3406 engine is produced in both the conventional
open chamber, direct injected, as well as the indirect injected, prechamber,
version. Thus, the experiment involved back-to-back tests on the same basic
engine in the DI and prechamber configurations. The prechamber version
resulted in about a 20 percent reduction in exhaust particulate, lower visible
smoke and about a 40 percent increase in sulfate. The increase in sulfate is
noteworthy in that this is the only such occurrence found in all experiments
with this engine. CO and NOj were halved and substantial reductions in
13-mode FTP HC were noted. Odor ratings by the Diesel Odor Analysis System
(DOAS) and specific low molecular weight hydrocarbons were also lower com-
pared to the standard DI engine, ft 7.5 percent increase in brake specific
fuel consumption was found with the prechamber engine. The results of this
experiment were directionally correct in light of previous experience.
Effect of Turbocharging
The pair of Daimler-Benz engines, one turbocharged and the other
not, were quite similar. All turbocharged engines, however, include one or
more other changes and adjustments to the engine so that the effects measured
cannot be solely attributed to the turbocharger. Smoke and particulate were
substantially less with the OM-352A turbocharged engine under the steady-
state conditions evaluated. Particulate was about 40 percent less with the
3
-------
turbocharged engine, and essentially no change in sulfate was found. The
turbocharged engine had lower CO and HC and higher NOj with slightly better
cycle BSFC (about 3 percent). This behavior was anticipated from previous
experience with turbocharged Diesels. No effect on particle size distribution
was found. It is interesting to note that the TC engine resulted in slightly
higher DOAS values of LCO, LCA and TIA. The turbocharged engine exhibited
slightly higher combined low molecular weight HC, while the reverse was
indicated by the 13-rnode FTP HC value.
Effect of Injection System
For this experiment, the American Bosch APS high pressure injection
system was compared in a back-to-back test series with the standard Robert
Bosch fuel injection system. The test plan utilized the Mack ETAY(B)673A
engine in its standard configuration after the 1000 hour EPA durability test,
with the APS pump, and finally with a new R. Bosch standard system installed.
Sulfate was little affected and a 50 percent reduction in total particulate
was found. Major reductions in visible smoke and particulate were noted at
50, 75, and 100 percent power, giving essentially a "flat" smoke and parti-
culate response versus power. NO, expressed as N02, was increased by 45
percent with the high pressure system, while HC and CO were little affected.
Brake specific fuel consumption was improved by 4 percent. The particulate
is indicated to be finer in size with the high pressure system. The sub-
stantial reduction in gross particulate by the high pressure system illustrates
the need for a greater understanding of fuel injection parameters as they
affect particulate production.
Effect of Fuel Residue
A brief study was made of the residual matter, common to most dis-
tillate fuels, as a cause for part of the Diesels" exhaust particulate. There
is no known fuel composition parameter that defines the trace materia-, which
has a very extended boiling range, insofar as exhaust particulate formation
characteristics is concerned. A systematic and extensive laboratory/engine
project is indicated to investigate and define suc.i a relationship.
C. Evaluation of Passenger Cars Equipped with Diesel and Gasoline Engines
A fairly extensive series of evaluations were performed on a pair of
Oldsmobile Cutlass and a pair of Volkswagen Rabbit passenger cars. Each pair
consisted of a 1977 model powered by an emission controlled gasoline engine
and a similar vehicle powered by a passenger car Diesel engine derived from a
conventional gasoline engine. The Diesel, without use of an oxidation catalyst
or EGR system, emits HC, CO, and N0K that are reasonably close to 1977 standards.
Fuel Economy - Fuel economy was higher with both Diesel cars, com-
pared to the gasoline engine counterparts. In the case of the Cutlass, fuel
economy was improved by 33 percent and the Rabbit Diesel by 60 percent, based
on the combined city/highway estimates. The improvements in fuel economy by
the Diesel Rabbit were remarkable, with a 42.7 rnpg city (+74%) and a 53.7 mph
highway (+31%) estimate obtained.
4
-------
Smoke and Odor - Although smoke was relatively low, it wa= noticeable
for both Diesel-powered vehicles under certain driving conditions. Both
vehicles tested emitted easily noticeable smoke during accelerations, although
the duration was relatively brief. Odor levels of "D"-2.5 to 4.0 by the
trained panel, at a 100:1 dilution level, represent easily noticed exhaust
odor that is distinctively Diesel in character. In SwRI's opinion, this ranyo
of odor intensity would be expected to trigger substantial public reaction in
the event a large number of such odor sources were to be in use in the U.S.
Particulate - Even though most of the time the two Diesel cars tested
emitted smoke at or near the limit of visibility, there remains a substantial
amount of particulate, on the order of 54 (Cutlass) to 82 (Rabbit) times as
much as the paired vehicles powered by gasoline engines. Assuming this small
sample of cars is indicative of the Diesel-to-gasoline relationship in general,
then the advent of large numbers of Diesel cars may jeopardize sone national and
regional control strategies for reducing Total Suspended Particulate, (TSP).
Sulfate - The Diesel engines tested converted only 1 to 2 percent of their
fuel sulfur content to sulfate. The vehicles equipped with oxidation catalysts
and gasoline engines converted a much wider proportion of its fuel sulfur to
sulfate, on the order of 1 to 17 percent, depending on the test sequence. Type
2-D Diesel fuel, according to the latest 1976 survey, is about 0.25 percent by
weight sulfur. The sulfate emission test values for the experimental Diesel
Cutlass were lower (10.3 versus 13.0 mg/km) and the Diesel Rabbit higher (4.0
versus 1.0 mg/km) than their gasoline engine powered counterparts.
Other Emissions - A wide variety of other unregulated emissions were
measured and summarized to give information that might be used as part of a
study on the potential ad' ntages and disadvantages of the Diesel. Among the
findings, the nominal 3 1 2 percent by volume methane content of the total
Diesel hydrocarbons as contrasted with the nominal 35 ± 20 percent by volume
methane content of the gasoline engine hydrocarbons was interesting. Also, the
inability of the dilution tunnel-glass fiber filter method to collect BaP from
the two gasoline-powered cars illustrates the need for additional study.
Noise - The Cutlass equipped with the Diesel engine was noticeably louder
and noisier than its gasoline engine powered counterpart. This was found
during most conditions, such as the SAE J-986a driveby, as well as the exterior
idle sound level measurements. When all accessories, such as the ventilation
blower, were off the interior noise levels were higher for both Diesel powered
cars during idle, acceleration, and cruise modes.
Performance of both Diesel cars was judged in terms of the times to ac-
celerate at maximum rate from zero to 40 or 60 mph. The time to accelerate
from 0 to 40, 0 to 60, and 20 to 60 mph was longer (the Diesel car was slower)
by 20 to 27 percent as compared to the gasoline-powered Rabbit. The Cutlass,
equipped with the experimental 350 cubic inch displacement (CID) Diesel engine,
was 7 to 11 percent slower than the Cutlass powered by a 260 CID gasoline
engine.
5
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
The Diesel engine is considered by many as a potential alternative to
the conventional spark-ignition engine for automobiles. Use of Diesel
engines in large cars is claimed by the auto industry to be necessary to
meet Congressionally mandated fleet fuel economy standards if the family size
car is to be offered. In recent years, a renewal of interest in mid-range
Diesels, for use in urban delivery trucks of less than 10,886 kg (24000 lbs)
gross vehicle weight, has been evident. The basic reason given has been the
superior fuel economy. For many years, the Diesel engine has dominated
intercity trucking and both intercity and intracity bases.
A. Background
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1965 were specific in expressing concern
over odor and smoke from Diesel-powered vehicles. This legislation prompted
a long-range investigation of Diesel emissions which begem in 1966 at South-
west Research Institute's Emissions Research Department on behalf of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The long-range project resulted in a
large number of reports and papers on the subject.(1-20)* a number of other
studies regarding Diesel emissions were made by SwRl on behalf of EPA under
separate projects.(21-34)
The original project was concerned with visible smoke and noticeable
odor, both classed as "nuisance" emissions which interferred with the general
welfare. Much was learned in how to measure oJor and smoke and the types of
conditions which would result in obvious discharges. In the intervening years,
a steady broadening of this activity included unburned hydrocarbons (HC),
carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) (now regulated emissions),
methods of control and procedural development.
During the last few years, an increasing variety of non-regulated materials
in Diesel exhaust have come under scrutiny.(35) Measurement of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and several other emissions have been investigated in an attempt to
quantify emissions for which little data was available.
It is important to know as much as possible about the advantages and dis-
advantages of an alternative to the conventional gasolina engine as well as to
document the emission rates from Diesel engines and Diesel-powered vehicles.
B. Objective
The project had several tasks but with one objective—to characterize arrl
compare exhaust emissions from a variety of vehicles and engines. One task
dealt with three heavy-duty engines, (two Diesels, and one conventional SI
powerplant). One of the Diesel engines was a mid-range size to which the
*
Superscript numbers in parentheses designate References at end of this report
6
-------
gasoline engine could be more directly compared.
Another task was investigation of major engine changes on particulate and
sulfate emissions from Diesel engines. Such engine variables as fuel injection
timing, turbocharging, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), direct versus indirect
injection, and injection characteristics were studied.
The final task was to evaluate and compare Diesel-powered passenger cars,
derived from gasoline engines for a wide variety of unregulated exhaust emis-
sions. Also, the regulated emissions, fuel economy, noise and acceleration
performance was obtained and compared.
C. Publication/Presentation
Section VI of this report deals with the emissions evaluation of four
passenger cars, two Diesel-powered and two gasoline-powered. This portion of
the project was summarized in Society of Automotive Engineers Paper No. 770818
titled "Emissions Prom Diesel Versions of Production Passenger Cars."It
was presented during the September 26-30, 1977 Passenger Car Meeting in Detroit,
Michigan. On May 18, 1978, a presentation titled "What You Always Wanted to
Know About Diesel Particulate (but were afraid to ask)," was made by Karl
Springer at the EPA Symposium on Diesel Particle Emissions Measurement and
Characterization held in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This presentation included emis-
•sion rates for both light-and heavy-duty engines from this project.
D. Acknowledgement
The Environmental Protection Agency selected and furnished the four LDV's
evaluated. The cars were provided to EPA for the SwRI test program through
the courtesy of the respective manufacturers. They were Volkswagen of America
and Oldsmobile Division of General Motors. Appreciation is also expressed to
Caterpillar Tractor Company, Mack Trucks, Inc., American Bosch Corporation, and
General Motors Corporation for use of engines and experimental hardware during
the heavy-duty engine evaluations. Without the assistance, guidance and co-
operation of staff members of these companies, this project could not have
been performed.
7
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF ENGINES, VEHICLES, FUELS, WO PROCEDURES
This section describes the test engines and vehicles, fuels and their
selection, test plan arid procedures followed.
A. Heavy-Duty Engines
Table 1 lists particulars that describe the six heavy-duty engine
configurations studied.
1. Three Engine Characterization
The first three engines listed on Table 1 (Mack, Caterpillar,
and Chevrolet) were used for emissions characterization. The Mack
KTAY(B)673A and Caterpillar 3208 were both HDD engines that has already
performed a 1000 hour durability test as a part of the EPA gaseous and
smoke emission certification program. As such, the engines were prototype
1977 models.
The Mack engine features a 1900 rpm rated speed (instead of 2100
rpm) for improved fuel economy, a rated power of 235 kw (315 hp) with peak
torque at 1450 rpm. Since Mack desired to perform some laboratory analysis
of the fuel injection lines from the 1000 hour durability engine, new fuel
lines were furnished and installed. Also, at Mack request, the fuel injec-
tors were removed, inspected, and bench tested to assure their satisfactory
operation and then replaced in the engine. Otherwise, no changes were made.
The Mack engine used an air-to-air interconler for cooling the turlm-
charger compressor output air flow prior to its entering the engine. The
cooling air was blown over the heat exchanger by means of a tip-turbine
powered by compressor bleed air. This is the first heavy-duty production
Diesel engine to use this method of increasing charge density.
The Caterpillar 3208 engine was rated at 149 kw (200 hp) at 2800 rpm.
It was a prototype of 1977 California production and featured a modulated
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system to meet the 1977 California nitric
oxide (NO) expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) plus hydrocarbon (HC) standard
of 6.7 g/kw-hr (5 g/bhp-hr). This is the first production Diesel engine to
utilize EGR as an emission control method.
The Chevrolet 366 engine was selected to represent a popular, alter-
native type of powerplant used in 2-axle trucks of 7258 - 10,886 kg (16,000 -
24,000 GVW) and urban type 2-axle tractors. In many such applications, the
Chevrolet 366 or comparable size gasoline heavy-duty engines are used, with
a mid-range Diesel, of the Caterpillar 3208 size, offered as an alternative.
Therefore, the Chevrolet 366 and Caterpillar 3208 results can be directly
8
-------
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINES
Engine Make
Mack
Caterpillar
Chevrolet
Caterpillar
Daimler-Benz
Daimler-Ben;
Engine Model
ETAY(B)67 3A
3208
366
3406(d)
OM—352
OM-352A
Engine Serial No.
6F4310
1A6076
19645-72C
1A5484
(935-10-125488)
S/N935-10-0
Strokes/cycle
4
4
4
4
4
4
Cylinder arrangement
1-6
V-8
V-8
1-6
1-6
1-6
Displacement, liters
11.01
10.42
6.0
14.63
5.67
5.67
cubic inches
672
636
366
893
346
346
Compression ratio
14.99
16.5:1
7.6:1
14.5:1(16:1)
17.
16.0
Type Aspiration
TC(a)
NA
TC(a)
NA(a>
TC (<*)
Rated Speed, rpm
1900
2800
4000
2100
2800
2800
Power at rated speed, kw
235
149
138(c)
242
96
108
hp
315
200
185(c)
325
129
145
Peak Torque Speed, rpm
1450
1400
2800
1200 (1400)
2000
1800
Peak Torque, N-M
1423.8
617
394(c)
1375 (1319)
361
415
lb-ft
1050
455
290(c)
1011 (970)
266
306
Typical Application
j jib)
U
U(b>
IC(b)
U(*>)
U(b)
Typical Fuel Type
DF-2
DF-2
Gasoline
DF-2
DF-2
DF-2
(a) TC-Turbocharged, NA - Naturally Aspirated
(b) IC-Intercity Truck,Tractor, U - Urban Truck and Truck-Tractor
(c) Single Exhaust Version
(d> I turn, in ( > are for tho IDI PC configuration
-------
compared.
The* specific Chevrolet 366 evaluated was the California version. It
featured EGR and air injection but no oxidation catalyst. It was intended to
operate on regular grade leaded motor gasoline.
2. Sulfate/Particulate Study Engines
Table 1 also describes three Diesel engines used, along with the Mack
engine, in the investigation of engine parameters on sulfate and particulate.
The Mack ETAY(BJ673A engine was used in standard and high pressure fuel injec-
tion configurations. The Caterpillar 3406, a turbocharged engine, •> run as
a direct injected open chamber and as an indirect injected, prechaaber, com-
bustion configuration. In addition to varying start of injection timing, EGR
was performed using a manual control system as a part of the range of variables
investigated. The two Daimler-Benz engines are as close to being identically
designed engines as available with the major difference one of turbocharging.
It should be recognized that there is no such thing as running an engine with
and without turbocharger and have the resulting engine operation indi e
of normal design. Invariably, the injection pump curve and fuel deli-* iy
characteristics are modified even when the compression ratio and maximum power
are undisturbed.
An example of such turbocharger application was the turbo-kit for
Cummins NH 250 naturally-aspirated engines. This retrofit kit was intended
to reduce visible smoke and by lightly turbocharging, was effective in doing so.
A fleet test of three such conversions is described in Reference 13. The
maximum fuel rate and maximum power was unchanged yet the pump had a different
torque curve (fuel rate versus speed) to match the turbocharger.
The OM-352 and 352A are described in Table 1. Both 6-cylinder engines
have identical 97 mm bore, 128 nun stroke and displacement of 5.67 litres (346
CID). The compression ratio was lower for the OM-352A, the engine fitted with
a turbocharger. Although both engines have identical rated speeds, the rated
power was a bit higher and the peak torque speed lower for the OM-352A. Use
of these two engines was not necessarily the best way to determine the effect
of turbocharging but was the best selection available to this project within
the time and funding available.
B. Light-Duty Vehicles
The four light-duty test vehicles are described on Table 2. The cars are
grouped in pairs, a Diesel- and gasoline-powered Oldsmobile Cutlass and a
Diesel- and gasoline-powered Volkswagen Rabbit. Note that the Oldsmobile
Diesel was an experimental engine derived from a 350 cubic inch displacement
(CID) or 5.74 litre gasoline engine. Please refer to References 37-39 for
additional description of the VW Rabbit Diesel. References 40 and 41 describe
the Diesel version of the Oldsmobile 350 engine.
For comparison purposes, a 4.26 litre (206 CID) gasoline engine was used.
This vehicle was subject to the 1977 Federal Emissions Standards. This
smaller displacement engine was selected to give a comparison based on a more
10
-------
TABLE 2. DESCRIPTION OF LIGHT-DUTY TEST VEHICLES
Cutlass
Rabbit
Diesel
Model Year
Vehicle ID
Vehicle Size
Number of Doors
Number of Passengers
Odometer, km
Number of Cylinders
Displacement, litres
Bore, mm
Stroke, mm
Compression Ratio
Output Power, kw
at rpm
Transmission Type
Speeds
Rear Axle Ratio
Tire Size
Vehicle Weight, kg
Empty (Scale)
Test (Inertia)
Road Load, kw<*>>
at 80.5 km/hr
Catalyst Equipped
Air Injected
EGR Equipped
Fuel Injected
1976
3J29R6M181269
Mid-Size
2
5
21988
V-8
5.74
103.0
85.98
22.7:1
(a)
Auto
3
2.41:1
ER78-14
1955
2041 (4500 lbs)
9.47
No
No
No
Direct
Gasoline
1977
3J57F7R115286
Mid-Size
2
5
4562
V-8
4.26
88.9
86.0
8.0:1
82.1
3400
Auto
3
2.73:1
ER78-14
1814
2041 (4500 lbs)
9.47
Yes
No
Yes
No
Diesel
1977
1763188714
Subcompact
2
4
3686
1-4
1.47
76.5
80.0
23.5:1
35.8
5000
Man
4
3.90
155SR13
885
1021 (2250 lbs)
5.45
No
No
No
Direct
Gasoline
1977
1763096846
Subcompact
2
4
7020
1-4
1.59
79.5
80.0
8.2:1
53.0
5600
Man
4
3.90
155SR13
885
1021 (2250 lbs)
5.45
Yes
NO
Yes
Manifold
(a) not available
(b) no air conditioning allowance in Road Load
(c) Bosch K-Jetronic
-------
equivalent power to vehicle weight basis. The gasoline-powered 1977 Rabbit
was the manifold fuel injected version and incorporated emission control tech-
nology to meet the 1977 California standards.
C. Test Fuels and Lubricants
Table 3 lists the inspection results of two Diesel and two gasoline test
fuels used.
1. Heavy-Duty Engine Test Fuels
The Mack ETAY(B)673A engine was tested using EM-239-F, a commercially
available name brand Diesel fuel. The Caterpillar 3208 engine was tested on
EM-272-F, a newer batch of the same type 2D Diesel fuel as used with the Mack
engine. The fuel properties of both fuels are fairly similar as may be noted
from Table 3. The properties of both test fuels compare well with the arith-
metic average of the 1973 Bureau of Mines Survey(42) and the arithmetic average
of the 201 samples included in the five region 1976 survey by the Energy Re-
search and Development Administration (ERDA) listed in Table 4.
Note that the Bureau of Mines fuel properties are not sales-weighted
due to the unavailability of such information. Therefore, they must be used
with caution if a true national average is to be obtained from the data.
Although fuel survey data for 1973 (published in 1974) were used as
the basis in searching for a "National Average" No. 2 fuel, data in Table 4
show that no major shifts in properties occurred between the 1973 and 1976
fuels surveyed. In general, the more r-_^ent fuels show slightly higher
iensity, sulfur, cetane, and boiling range. Comparing the No. 2 fuel survey
results to EM-239-F and EM-272-F shows no significant differences between them.
The sulfur content in both EM-239-F and EM-272-F fuels were increased
by adding ditertiary butyl disulfide. The EM-239-F fuel was adjusted to 0.23
percent value consistent with the then available 1973 survey results of 0.228
percent by weight. The later batch, EM-272-F, was adjusted to essentially the
same level, 0.235 percent by weight, to be consistent with EM-239-F.
Incidentally, EM-239-F was used in two other major projects for EPA.
One such contract (68-02-1777) was a five-fuel, two-engine (HDD) emissions
characterization.(35) The other contract was a five-fuel, 2-passenger car
(LDD) characterization of emissions^44' for EPA which was a companion project
to 68-03-1777.
All oth~r HDD engines (Caterpillar 3208 EGR, 3406, Daimler-Benz OM-'t5;>
and 352A engines) were run on EM-272-F. Operation of the Mack ETAY(B)67 3A
engine with and without the high pressure injection system was made with
EM-272-F.
The Chevrolet 366 engine was run on EM-275-F, the last fuel listed on
Table 3. At the request of the Project Officer, a leaded regular grade com-
mercial gasoline of lead content of 1.5 to 2 g/qal (preferrably near 1.5), was
used. Survey data of 10 name brand gasolines in the San Antonio area, performed
12
-------
TABLE 3. DESCRIPTION OF TEST FUELS
Property
ASTM
Diesel Fuels
Gasolir.- Fuels
Source
Type
Code
Gravity, "API
Density, g/ml (lb/gal)
Viscosity @ 100°F
Kinematic, CS
Sulfur Content, wt. %
Cetane Number
Distillation Temp., "C
Vol. Recovered
IBP
10%
50%
90%
End Point
FIA, %
Aromatics
Olefins
Saturates
Flash Point, "C !8F>
Lead, g/1 (g/gal)
Phosphorus, g/1 (g/gal)
RVP, kPa (psi«)
Research Octane
= F)
D287
D445
D1266
D976
D86
D1319
D93
D3237
D3231
D323
D656
Gulf
2-D
EM-2 39-F
36.1
0.844(7.043)
2.66
0.23
48.7
186(366)
216(421)
257(4943
303(578)
337(640)
21.6
0.8
77.6
87(189)
Gulf
2-D
EM-272-F
37.0
0.840(6.933)
2.50
0.235
50.2
164(328)
211(411)
259(499)
303(578)
338(641)
23.0
1.14
75.8
68(155)
Gulf
Unleaded
EM-237-F
59.9
0.738(6.154)
0.031
32(89)
52(125)
103(217)
170(338)
211(412)
26.4
2.9
70.7
<0.0189(<0.005)
0.0034(0.0009)
62. 74 I •?. 1!
92.0
Howell
Leaded
EM-275-F
54.2
0.7347(6.130)
0.030
37(98)
66(150)
104(220)
143(290)
171(340)
49.9
5.2
44.9
6.06(1.6)
0.004(0.0001)
51."' '".5)
91.5
-------
TABLE 4. "NATIONAL AVERAGE" PROPERTIES FROM FUEL SURVEYS
Property
Source
Type
Code
Gravity, "API
Density, g/ml (lbs/gal)
Viscosity @ 100°F
Kinematic, CS
SayboIt Univ., sec
Sulfur Content, wt *
Aniline Point, °C <°F)
C Residue on 10%, wt %
Ash, wt %
Cetane Number
Distillation Temperature, °C
Volume Removed
IBP
10%
501
901
End Point*.
®F)
ASTM
D287
D445
D88
D129
D1266
D611
D524
D482
D613
D86
BM Diesel Survey
1_W7 i976{4J)
2-D
36.4
2.67
34.9
0.228
(145.5)
0.102
0.001
47.9
189(373)
219(426!
257(495)
302(575)
127(020)
2-D
35.7
2.73
35.1
0.253
(145.2)
0.105
0.008
48.3
190(374)
222(431)
262C50J)
308(58b)
334 (ft U)
Flash Point, °C (°F)
D93
66(150)
14
-------
in the fall of 1976, indicated lead levels of 1.64 to 2.49 g/gal, most above
2 g/gal. A sample of one name brand taken on April 5, 1977 showed 2.49 g/gal
even though earlier data showed it to be within the desired range.
This experience indicated that the only way to obtain the desired
level of lead and octane was to obtain a special blended fuel from Howell
Hydrocarbons, a local refiner-blender. The sulfur level in this fuel was
adjusted to 0.03 percent by weight through the addition of thiophene. The
0.03 percent fuel sulfur level is taken to be the "National Average" for
regular grade gasoline.
2. Light-Duty Vehicle Test Fuels
Both LDD cars were evaluated using EM-239-F, the fuel used with the
initial series of Hack ETAY(B)673A tests. This fuel was discussed in the
previous subsection and its inspection data listed on Table 3.
Table 3 also lists the gasoline inspection data for the fuel used
with both gasoline-powered cars. EM-237-F is a regular grade, commercially
available unleaded motor fuel which had its sulfur content increased to
0.03 percent by weight by the addition of thiophene.
3. Lubricants
Each heavy-duty engine was filled with crankcase oil that met the
specifications of the engine manufacturer. Shell Rote11a T-30 wgt was used
in the Hack ETAY(BJ67 3A, while Texaco URSA Series 3 - 30WSAE was used in
both Caterpillar and both Daimler-Benz engines. Texaco Havoline 30SAE HD
was used in the Chevrolet 366 gasoline engine. All vehicle tests were run
using the oil that was in the crankcase as received.
D. Test Plans
The test plans are described briefly for each category of engines/vehicles
evaluated.
1. Heavy-Duty Engines
The HDD engines were operated on eddy current type stationary engine
dynamometers of 373 kw (500 hp) capacity. This permitted acquisition of
test data that may be related to the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for heavy-
duty Diesel engines by the 13-raode test for gaseous emissions and the Federal
smo!
-------
The test procedure followed was the EPA 23-mode experimental test
cycle (23-mode EPA), which includes the 11 different modes of the 13-mode
FTP for HD engines. This procedure is described in a later subsection.
Each series of tests began with the running of several, replicate,
23-mode EPA gaseous emission tests followed by several Federal smoke tests
in the case of the Diesel engines. From this, the general performance of
the engine could be assessed in terms of fuel consumption, air consumption
and power output. The engine's smoke level and HC + N02 level were then
compared to standards and to previous data run either at SwRl or by the
manufacturer. The next step in the series was to connect the exhaust to
the dilution tunnel via a suitable muffler so that only a portion of the
exhaust was diluted and the remainder vented. The dilution tunnel runs
were based on the 11 different modes of the 13-mode test and involved rep-
licate runs for 47 mm fiberglass and Fluoropore and 203 x 254 mm (8 x 10
inch) size fiberglass filters.
Sulfur dioxide, sulfate, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA),
as well as particulate emission rates, were then determined. The engine
exhaust was then connected to the SwRI odor sampling dilution system for
odor panel rating. During these replicate days of operation on each engine
configuration, odor panel ratings, Diesel Odor Analytical System (DOAS)
measurement, non-reactive hydrocarbons (NRHC) and aldehydes were measured
as well as HC, CO, N0X, CO2 and selected engine parameters. No odor mea-
surements were taken with the gasoline engine since the odor panel was only
trained to evaluate Diesel exhaust.
The test plan was somewhat abbreviated for the Caterpillar 3406,
the two Daimler-Benz engines, and the retesting of the Hack engine- The
major emphasis for these experiments was on sulfates, particulates, smoke
and regulated emissions and engine parameter effects.
2. Light-Duty Vehicles
The four cars were tested as a group in their as-received condition
beginning with replicate cold start urban driving cycle tests in accord with
the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP), sulfate emission test (SET) by the
congested freeway cycle, and then by the highway fuel economy test (FET).
Gaseous tailpipe emissions of unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (C(
and oxides of nitrogen (N0X) as well as fuel consumption/economy by the carbc
balance method were obtained. Measurement of detailed low molecular weight
hydrocarbons, aldehydes, and Diesel odorant groupings by the Diesel Odorant
Analytical System (DOAS) were* made during selected transient cycles.
Next, smoko tests wore made using the EPA full flow light extinct in
smokemeter of the two Diesel cars during repeat runs of the three transient
driving cycles used in the FTP, SET, and FET. The entire exhaust was then
directed into a dilution tunnel and a third series of FTP, SET, and FET
driving cycles performed to obtain emission rates of particulate and sulfate
A fourth series of tests were then made to obtain larger particulate quanti-
ties for indication of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP).
16
-------
The two Diesel-powered vehicles were then operated on a dynamometer
adjacent to the odor measurement room and replicate odor evaluations made
by the trained panel method. Aldehydes, DOAS, CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), HC,
and N0X measurements were obtained at the same time for correlation and
definition purposes.
Finally, all four vehicles were subjected to vehicle/engine sound
level measurements and a series of wide-open throttle (WOT) accelerations.
With the exception of odor and smoke, the two gasoline-powered vehicles were
evaluated in every category.
E. Procedures and Analysis
The test procedures and analysis systems used for each emissions category
are described in the following subsections. In every case possible, recog-
nized procedures published in the Federal regulations were employed. Instru-
ments, sampling and analysis, and other facilities adhered strictly to these
methods without exception. Where a Federal procedure did not exist, existing
procedures for HDD vehicles were modified or adapted as necessary for purposes
of this project. The advice and consent of the Project Officer was obtained
on those areas of substantial modification before proceeding.
In general, the procedures and analytical efforts are the same as that
used in previous projects in the long range Diesel emissions investigation.
The specific test and analytical procedures have been described in some detail
in earlier papers (4,9,17,18) an
-------
2. 13-Modt FTP HD Test
The 1974-1978 13-mode FTP is described iri Reference 49 as a 130-
minute long speed load map of 13 modes, 10 minutes per mode. In addition
to CO and NO by NDIR (According to SAE recommended practice J-177), air
rate must be measured continuously (according to SAE recommended practice
J-244). A Flo-Tron system was used to measure the net fuel consumption of
the engine. Exhaust hydrocarbons were measured by heated, 191°C (375°F),
flame ionization detector optimized in accord with SAE recommended practice
J-215. The procedure starts with low idle, then 2, 25, 50, 75, and 100
percent load at intermediate speed followed by low idle. Then speed is
increased to "rated" at 100 percent load with decreases to 75, 50, 25, and
2 percent. Another idle is then run. This procedure was used on the
Caterpillar 3406, Daimler-Benz OM-352 and 352A engine and evaluation of
the high pressure injection system on the Mack engine. Thirteen-mode FTP
emissions were also computed from the EPA 2 3-mode test modal results even
though the time in mode is shorter and the sequencing (history) is different.
The 13-mode test points were used as the basis for all particulate,
sulfate and related emissions for all HD engines tested. To this were added
the motoring modes for the Chevrolet 366 and Caterpillar 3208. Seven modes
of the 13-mode test were used for odor and BaP analyses. More on these
abbreviated test cycles will be discussed in later subsections. The impor-
tant feature is the modal testing nature of the HD engines being expanded or
abbreviated versions, basically, of the 13-mode FTP. In Figure 1 are photo-
graphs showing each of the six HD engines (five Diesel and one gasoline typo)
investigated. The air-to-air intercooler used with the Mack engine is shown
in the supper left photo. The EGR system for the Caterpillar 3208 is illus-
trated in the upper right photo. The 50 hp electric motor used for the
motoring modes is shown in the center left picture. The 50 hp dynamometer
is shown in several of the photos.
3. Light-Duty Vehicle Transient Cycles
The cold start 1975 FTP was the basic gaseous transient procedure
used for the four LDV's. It is essentially the same for both gasoline and
Diesel fueled cars. The basic gasoline fueled vehicle procedure was described
by Reference 50 and modified in more recent Federal Registers. The Diesel
procedure was originally described in Reference 51 and modified in later
Federal Registers. Hydrocarbon values for the two Diesels were obtained by
the continuous hot flame ionization analysis.In practice, two complete
23 minute urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS), the first from a cold
start and the second after a 10 minute soak, were performed. This allowed
sufficient sample time for particulate, sulfate, and other unregulated emis-
sions. No evaporative hydrocarbon tests were made.
Two other test cycles were utilized. Each represents a higher
average speed and overall power level. The congested freeway driving
schedule (CFDS)(52) j.s 21.7 km, 23.3 minute, procedure of 56.0 km/hr average
speed. It is run from a hot start and represents the type of driving con-
sidered typical of maximum sulfate emissions. Originally called the sulfate
emission test or SET cycle, this test cycle was employed with all four cars.
18
-------
Mack ETAY(B)673A
Caterpillar 3208/EGR
Daimler-Benz OM-352
Figure 1. Stationary Test of
Heavy
19
Daimler-Benz OM-352A
-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Engines
-------
The last of the three transient cycles was the highway fuel economy
test(53) or fet. This schedule is of 12.8 minutes length, is from a running
hot start, and is 77.6 km/hr average over a 16.48 km cycle, in practice,
the cold 23 minute UDDS was followed by the hot 23 minute UDDS and then by
an SET and finally an FET. A 10 minute soak (engine off) was observed between
each cycle. Figure 2 shows a speed-time trace for all three test cycles for
a general comparison.
In addition to the usual HC, CO, and NOx measurements, samples were
continuously taken and collected in reagents for wet chemical analysis or in
suitably packed traps for later odor analysis. These samples were withdrawn
in the stainless steel pipe section connecting the exhaust dilution point
(below the CVS filter box) and the CVS inlet. Several pre es were inserted
into this pipe section—one probe for the DNPH bubblers and one for each of
the three odor trapping systems for the Diesel Odor Analytical System (DOAS).
These probes were located adjacent to the probe used to obtain the
continuous HC sample. All sample lines and interfaces were heated as required
to maintain sample integrity for Diesels. HC sampling and Diesel odor analyti-
cal systems (DOAS) traps were taken at gas temperatures of 191°C (375°F).
Aldehyde samples were obtained by use of large glass bubblers immersed in ice
water
A digital integrator was used to integrate the time-concentration
signal from the Diesel HC analyzer, a flame ionization detector with linear
response. The other continuous samples depended on their absorbing materials,
reagent for wet collected samples, and chromosorb in the case of the Diesel
odor traps to integrate a total representative sample for the entire 1975 FTP.
In the case of wet collected and odor traps, the entire 23 minute
(Bags 1 and 2) and the third bag 505 second portion of the 1975 FTP were taken
in a single collector (bubbler or trap). This was necessary to obtain suf-
ficient sample for analysis and preclude the problem of switching after the
first 505 seconds of the run (cold start bag).
Figurr 3 also shows various views of the test set-up used with the
four cars tested by the three transient procedures. The driving aid strip
chart and variable inertia system are shown in the center left photo. The
engine coolii"; lan and chassis dynamometer are shown in the upper left and
center right photo. The lower two photos of Figure 3 are the two gasoline
cars under test. Note the CVS located behind the car in the lower right view.
4. Smoke Test Procedures
Smoke tests were performed on both heavy-duty and light-duty engines
as follows.
a. 1974 HDD Smoke* FTP - HD Engines Only
The Federal smoke test, promulgated in 1968(54), was the basic
smoke evaluation procedure utilized for the five HD engine configurations.
It was improved and more stringent standards adopted in 1972^0) for 1974
20
-------
TRANSIENT
PHASE
STABILIZED
PHASE
FTP
200
600
800
1000
1200
TIME, sec
SET
0
200
660
400
1000
1200
TIME, sec
HFET
200
0
4Q0
600
TIME, sec
Figure 2. Speed Versus Time Traces of FTP,
HFET, and SET-7 Driving Cycles
21
-------
1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Diesel-Powerc3
1977 Volkswagen Rabbit, Diesel- Fowero 1
1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass-Jasoline 1977 V lk'.wiqen Rab! it-Gasoline
Figure 3. Oldsmobile and Volkswagen Diesel- and
Gasoline-Powered Passenger Cars Under Test
-------
certification purposes. Replicate smoke tests were made using the Federal I
smoke test, shown in the Figure 4 schematic. It consists of an initial eng
acceleration from 150 to 250 rpm above the low idle speed to 85 to 90 perce
of rated engine speed in 5.Oil.5 seconds, a second acceleration from peak
torque speed (or 60 percent of rated speed, whichever is higher) to 95 to 1
percent of rated speed in 10.0i2.0 seconds, and (following this second accc
ation) a full-power lugdown from 95 to 100 percent of rated speed to the
particular intermediate engine speed (peak torque speed or 60 percent of
rated speed) in 35.0+5 seconds. Three of these sequences constitute one sm
test.
For each sequence, the average smoke opacity from the 15 higi
valued, one-half second intervals of the two accelerations determines the *\
factor, and the average opacity from the five highest-valued, one-halt secoi
intervals of the lugdown mode determines the "b" factor. The maximum value
allowed for "a" and "b" factors of 1970 through 1973 certification engines
were 40 and 20 percent opacity, respectively. For 1974, the "a" factor was
reduced to 20 percent opacity and the "b" factor was reduced to 15 percent
opacity. The peak or "c" factor, which is the average of the three highest
one-half second intervals per cycle, is determined from the "a" and "b" cha
readings. The three cycle "c" values are then averaged to determine the
factor for the test.
Smoke was also measured during full power and during the 13-
mode test sequence. These full-power and modal smoke values give additiona
insight on steady-state smoke performance and provide 13-mode smoke opaciti'
for possible correlation to 13-mode particulate results.
b. Transient Smoke Tests - LDV's Only
There is currently no recognized U.S. smoke test procedure ft
LD passenger car exhaust. Although the HD schedule of speed and load versu?
time can be used with the LD vehicle by a chassis dynamometer version of th<
test, it is uncertain whether this test is indeed representative of the way
the smaller, hitjher .speed Diesels operate. Specifically, engine rated si to
is considered higher than that normally encountered in passenger cars in url
use. The visible smoke emissions from trie two Diesel LDV's were continuous,'
recorded during operation of the vehicle over the three transient cycles (i ".
SET, FET) but with the CVS disconnected.
The two top photos of Figure 5 show the two Diesel cars as pr>
pared for the smoke tests. Note the short 0.61 meter (24 inch) exhaust pipe
extension of 50.8 mm (2 inch) exhaust pipe. The EPA smokemeter is mounted a
the end of this pipe so that the centerline of the light beam is 127 mm (5
inches) from the tip of the pipe. The usual LD water brake Clayton 50 hp
chassis dynamometer with belt drive inertia system was employed. The multi-
pen strip chart recorder was used to monitor smoke opacity, vehicle and/or
engine speed. The usual driving aid was used to drive the transient UDDS,
SET (CFDS), or FET speed versus time trace. The same type smokemeter was us.
with the exhaust from stationary operated HD Diesel engines with the exceptii
that the exhaust pipe diameter was larger, in accord with the Federal Registi
23
-------
certification purposes. Replicate smoke tests were made using the Federal I
smoke test, shown in the Figure 4 schematic. It consists of an initial eng
acceleration from 150 to 250 rpm above the low idle speed to 85 to 90 perce
of rated engine speed in 5.Oil.5 seconds, a second acceleration from peak
torque speed (or 60 percent of rated speed, whichever is higher) to 95 to 1
percent of rated speed in 10.0i2.0 seconds, and (following this second accc
ation) a full-power lugdown from 95 to 100 percent of rated speed to the
particular intermediate engine speed (peak torque speed or 60 percent of
rated speed) in 35.0+5 seconds. Three of these sequences constitute one sm
test.
For each sequence, the average smoke opacity from the 15 higi
valued, one-half second intervals of the two accelerations determines the *\
factor, and the average opacity from the five highest-valued, one-halt secoi
intervals of the lugdown mode determines the "b" factor. The maximum value
allowed for "a" and "b" factors of 1970 through 1973 certification engines
were 40 and 20 percent opacity, respectively. For 1974, the "a" factor was
reduced to 20 percent opacity and the "b" factor was reduced to 15 percent
opacity. The peak or "c" factor, which is the average of the three highest
one-half second intervals per cycle, is determined from the "a" and "b" cha
readings. The three cycle "c" values are then averaged to determine the
factor for the test.
Smoke was also measured during full power and during the 13-
mode test sequence. These full-power and modal smoke values give additiona
insight on steady-state smoke performance and provide 13-mode smoke opaciti'
for possible correlation to 13-mode particulate results.
b. Transient Smoke Tests - LDV's Only
There is currently no recognized U.S. smoke test procedure ft
LD passenger car exhaust. Although the HD schedule of speed and load versu?
time can be usod with the LD vehicle by a chassis dynamometer version of th<
test, it is uncertain whether this test is indeed representative of the way
the smaller, hitjher .speed Diesels operate. Specifically, engine rated si to
is considered higher than that normally encountered in passenger cars in url
use. The visible smoke emissions from trie two Diesel LDV's were continuous,'
recorded during operation of the vehicle over the three transient cycles (i"l
SET, FET) but with the CVS disconnected.
The two top photos of Figure 5 show the two Diesel cars as pr>
pared for the smoke tests. Note the short 0.61 meter (24 inch) exhaust pipe
extension of 50.8 mm (2 inch) exhaust pipe. The EPA smokemeter is mounted a
the end of this pipe so that the centerline of the light beam is 127 mm (5
inches) from the tip of the pipe. The usual LD water brake Clayton 50 hp
chassis dynamometer with belt drive inertia system was employed. The multi-
pen strip chart recorder was used to monitor smoke opacity, vehicle and/or
engine speed. The usual driving aid was used to drive the transient UDDS,
SET (CFDS), or FET speed versus time trace. The same type smokemeter was us.
with the exhaust from stationary operated HD Diesel engines with the exceptii
that the exhaust pipe diameter was larger, in accord with the Federal Regist.
23
-------
*
100
90
80
'O
o
0
a
w
01
c
*rt
Cr
c
w
*0
&
*>
fll
OS
c
0)
o
o
a.
First
Acceleration
60
Idle
!s*1.5 I
Lugdown
10±2
Time, seconds
Figure 4. Schematic of One Cycle of Federal Smoke Compliance Test
Engine Speed Versus Time
-------
Figuri >. Smoke and Odor Mc asunmc nt Equipment
-------
5. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses - HD and LDV Engines
This subsection includes evaluation of odor by trained panel—the
measurement of gaseous emissions and trapping-analysis of odor samples by the
DOAS simultaneously with odor measurements.
a. Evaluation by Trained Panel
The EPA (PHS) quality-intensity (Q/I) or Turk kit method of
evaluation of dilute samples of Diesel exhaust odor'55' was employed to
express odor judgments by the trained ten-person SwRl odor panel. The kit,
shown partially in Figure 5 (center left photo), includes an overall "D" odor
in Steps 1 through 12 (12 being strongest) that is made of four sub-odors or
qualities. These comprise burnt-smoky "B", oily "0", aromatic "A", and pungent
"P" qualities, each in a 1 through 4 intensity series (4 being strongest).
Special odor sampling, dilution, and presentation facilities'1-^) for Diesel
odor research were developed ten years ago using design criteria obtained in
field studies of atmospheric dilution of bus and truck exhaust.
From the Diesel odor opinion survey conducted in 1970<24,25)f
it was found that 58 percent found odor objectionable at "D"-2, 81 percent
found the odor objectionable at "D'*-4( and 89 percent found the odor objectionable
at the "D"-6 level.
Horizontal exhaust at bumper height from a city bus was found
to be diluted to a mini! am reasonable level of 100:1 before being experienced
by an observer. This dilution level was used in the odor test of both HD
engines and Diesel LDV's. As it is uncertain that this is the reasonable
minimum dilution level from a Diesel powered passenger car, a higher dilution
level (550:1) was also employed. References 1 and 4 describe the odor facility
and References 2, 3, and 4 describe the development of procedures and operating
conditions for research purposes.
b. Test Conditions
Both steady-state and transient vehicle operation were simulated
for odor evaluation.
(1) Heavy-Duty Engines
Odor measurements were made from the Diesel engines while
operated on a stationary dynamometer (see Figure la and lb). The same large
inertia wheels used in the Federal smoke test were employed to simulate vehicle
acceleration and deceleration.
Simulation of the seven steady-state conditions that
comprised each morning's odor test runs was as easily accomplished on the
stationary dynamometer as with the chassis dynamometer vehicles. The seven
conditions, a curb idle in neutral, 2, 50, and 100 percent of maximum power
at each of two speeds (intermediate and rated), are replicated three times in
random order for a total of 21 runs. Thus, most of the same conditions used
for gaseous emissions by the 13-mode test are used.
26
-------
The ternoon runs included three conditions, each repli-
cated four times in random order. The acceleration after a prolonged curb
idle is meant to represent the repetitive idle-acceleration of city buses and
the acceleration in a low gear of large trucks. It was simulated by using the
large inertia wheel without dynamometer preload and merely advancing the engine
fuel control to the "full-rack" or maximum power demand position. The panel
then rated the odor perceived during this rapid acceleration. Pretest investi-
gation revealed a specific time during the acceleration when maximum odor
levels were produced.
Table 5 lists the times and engine condition when the odor
was evaluated. The acceleration condition follows a brief cruise and is
intended to simulate the upshift of a vehicle into a higher gear. It was
performed at maximum "rack" or power position. The deceleration condition
investigated the odor levels produced during the "closed-rack", no fuel demand
position of the pump and simulates the deceleration of the vehicle from cruise.
In both the acceleration and deceleration conditions, inertia and a pretest
dynamometer load were used to simulate the vehicle operation.
A cold start condition was run at the start of each day's
testing and brought the total number of conditions up to eleven. In all tran-
sient runs, the odor measurement was at a predetermined point that produces
the most noticeable odor level. The transients along with the steady-state
"odor map" provide a comprehensive evaluation of the engine's exhaust odor.
The use of the trained panel was limited to the Mack ETAV(B)67 3a and the
Caterpillar 3208/EGR engines evaluated.
(2) Light-Duty Vehicles
The odor measurement procedures applied to the Diesel-
powered cars was in keeping with that used in 1974-1976(14-17,19) an
-------
TABLE 5. ODOR TEST CONDITIONS - HD ENGINES
Mack Caterpillar
ETAY{B)673A 3208/EGR
Steady-State Operation
Engine Speed, rpm
i, High
1900
2800
Inter
1450
1680
Idle
625
600
Kw @ High Speed,
100%
244
150.3
50%
122
75.2
2%
4.9
2.8
Kw # Inter Speed,
100%
226.7
116.9
50%
113.4
58.5
2%
4.5
2.1
Transient
Conditions
Idle-Accel, rpm start
625
600
end
1900
2800
Odor Test rpm
1200
1600
Accel time, sec
4
4.1
Accel range, rpm
start
1400
1600
end
1900
2800
Odor Test rpm
1800
2600
Accel time, sec
9.5
10.2
Decel range, rpm
start
1900
2800
end
625
600
Odor test rpm
1400
2000
Decel time, sec
7
5.2
28
-------
TABLE 6. ODOR TEST CONDITIONS
Condition
Parameter
Cutlass Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
Intermediate Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1400-0
Speed, Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 2.00-0.60
No Load Drive Gear N
2020-0
0.54-1.48
N
Intermediate Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1400-57.9
Speed, Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 4.31-0.61
Mid Load Drive Gear D-3
2020-53.1
2.54-1.50
4
Intermediate Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1400-41,8
Speed, Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 6,62-0.62
High Load Drive Gear D-3
High Speed, Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1920-0
No Load Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 3.27-0.90
Drive Gear N
2020-53.1
4.54-1.42
4
3360-0
1.32-2.45
N
High Speed, Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1920-86.9
Hid Load Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 8.89-0.90
Drive Gear D-3
3360-90.1
5.08-2.46
4
High Speed, Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 1920-82,1
High Load Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 14.51-0.90
Drive Gear D-3
3360-90.1
8.85-2.38
4
Idle
Engine rpm-Vehicle km/hr 630-0
Fuel kg/hr-Air kg/min 1.00-0.26
Drive Gear N
900-0
0.27-0.62
N
Idle- Vehicle km/hr, Start-End 0-40.2
Acceleration Odor Test rpm-km/hr 1900-32.2
Gear Driven In D-l
0-32.2
2300-24.1
1
Acceleration Vehicle km/hr, Start-End 40.2-80.5
Odor Test rpm-km/hr 1600-72.4
Gear Driven In D-3
48.3-80.5
2680-72.3
4
Deceleration Vehicle km/hr, Start-End 80.5-48.3
Odor Test rpm-km/hr 1310-56.3
Gear Driven In D-3
80.5-48.3
2150-56.3
4
29
-------
c. Diesel odor Analytical System
As one result of approximately five years of research, sponsored
under the CAPE-7 project of CRC APRAC, A. D. Little developed a prototype
liquid chromatograph for use in predicting Diesel exhaust odor. Called DOAS
for Diesel Odor Analytical System, the system provides two results—one being
an indication of the oxygenate fraction called LCO for liquid chromatograph
oxygenates and the other called LCA for liquid chromatograph aromatics. These
were found by earlier research by A. D. Little to represent the major odorants
in Diesel exhaust.(56_59) The A. D. Little studies had shown a correlation of
the TIA (total intensity of aroma) to sensory measurements by the A. D. Little
odor panel.TIA is equal to 1 + log^g LCO.
Both LCO and LCA are expressed in micrograms per litre of
exhaust using either the test fuel or a reference component for calibration.
The LCO is, by virtue of its use to express TIA, considered the most important
indication of Diesel exhaust by this method. An entire series of reports have
been published by A, D. Little describing their work with Diesel odor.(36-40)
Reference 40 describes the DOAS and its use, while Appendix C in this same
reference describes the sample collection procedure. For additional details
of the application of this instrument, please refer to the Part VII final
report.(16)
The sampling interface system, shown by the lower left photo in
Figure 5, follows good laboratory practice as applied to Diesel hydrocarbon
measurement. Most of the sampling system was housed in an oven held at 190T
(375°F). Each system, of which three separate ones are available, began with
a multiopening stainless steel probe located in the exhaust stack. This is
normal practice for HC measurement from HDD engines. The sample was then
transferred to the oven via a 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) diameter stainless steel line
0,75 b (30 inches) long covered by tubular exterior electrical heating sleeves
to maintain 190°C (375°F) sample gas temperature. Between the probe and
sample transfer line, a high temperature bellows type stainless valve was
placed for leak check purposes. Inside the oven, the sample passed through a
fiberglass filter, then into a square head welded metal bellows (stainless)
pump head mounted inside the oven.
Immediately as the flow exits the oven wall, the DOAS trap is
mounted so that it is accessible for change but is not located where the
sample could have intentionally cooled. Once the sample passes through the
trap, the sample goes through a drierite column, a glass tube flowmeter, and
then into a dry gas volume meter. The desiccant removes troublesome water
which condenses in the flowmeter and gas meter. The flowmeter allows monitorinn
of qas flow, by visual observation, during the test while the gas meter measure:
the total flow of gas during the test.run. The DOAS liquid chromatograph
analysis instrument is shown in the lower right photo of Figure 5. The syrin
-------
For a TIA value of 1.875, the "D" value would be 4, which is quite objection-
able by the opinion survey.{24) a, d. Little feels that the relationship is
TIA = 0.2 + »32"D"
For "D"-4, TIA is 1.48. Thus, for a quite objectionable level of "D"-4, the
corresponding TIA value might be between about 1.5 to 1.9.
d. Gaseous emissions
Gaseous emissions were also taken during the steady-state speed-
load odor maps. Measurements included HC by heated FID; CO2, NO, and CO by
NDIR; NO and N0X by chemiluminescence (CL); oxygenates; and various NRHC. The
seven conditions, in triplicate (21 runs), were repeated on two mornings
normally separated by one day for analysis and preparation. The upper left
photograph of Figure 6 shows the 13-mode Diesel emissions instrumentation also
used during the odor testing.
These measurements were intended to define the steady-state
performance and characterize emissions beyond that possible from the LDV tran-
sient procedures and the 1974 HD FTP 13-mode test. Also, the data would be
useful in comparison with and correlation to the odor panel ratings and other
measurements by the CAPE-7 DOAS instrument. Figure 6 (upper right view) shows
the gaseous emissions instruments for CVS collected bags. The center left
view of Figure 6 shows the entry to the CVS where the LDV hydrocarbon, DOAS
and other related materials were sampled during transient operation. The
center right photo shows the CVS, sample bags, and, in the background, the
heated FID for continuous HC measurement. The lower left photo of Figure 6
shows the HC instrument in more detail.
e. Partially Oxygenated Compounds - DNPH
The DNPH method, as described by the procedure in Appendix B
of Part VII Final Report(16), was obtained from Dr. Ronald Bradow of EPA-RTP.
Although wet collection traps are used, a GC is employed and there are many
intermediate steps in the preparation of the sample once collected. Seven
separate samples were obtained. Each sample contained the three replications
and represented 12 to 15 minutes of sample absorption in the glass bubbler
trap system with 4 to 5 minutes of trapping each run. The seven runs were
made on the first day of the 2-day sequence for each engine or vehicle.
Figure 6 (lower right photo) shows a partial view of the glass bubbler traps
with the cold bath removed.
f. Characterization of Specific Hydrocarbons
The measurement of a variety of hydrocarbons was performed using
a gas chromatograph procedure developed by EPA-RTP.This procedure uses
a single flame ionization detector with a multiple column arrangement and dual
gas sampling valves. The timed sequence selection valves allow for the base-
line separation of air, methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propy-
lene, benzene, and toluene. Only methane is generally considered nonreactive
in photochemical reactions. Ethane, propane, benzene, and acetylene are
considered reactive even though only to a small degree. Propylene, ethylene,
and toluene are known to react to form photochemical smog.
31
-------
Gaseous Emissions HD and LD Vehicles
I
CVS - Continuous Trap/Analysis
Hr by Heated FID
Aldehyde Collection Traps
Figure 6. Gaseous Emissions Measurement Instruments and Apparatus
32
-------
Samples were obtained directly from the bag samples of FTP, SET,
and FET transient LD cycles (as shown in Figure 6, right center and upper
photos) and 7 modes used during all odor testing and analyzed. Individual
values were determined for the bag or run. A detailed description of the
individual columns, temperature, flow rates, etc., may be found in Reference 61.
6. Particulate
The mass rate of emission of particulate from both HD engines and
LDV's was determined by collecting a known amount of particulate matter on a
preweighed glass fiber filter. The 47 mm diameter Gelman Type A glass fiber
media was the principal size and type of filter disc employed. Particulate
mass rates were also obtained using both an 8 x 10 size fiberglass filter for
polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compound analysis and by Fluoropore {Millipore
Corporation) 47 ram plastic filter media with 0.5 micron mean pore flow size.
The Fluoropore filters were used for sulfate collection.
The basic technique for sample collection was to dilute the exhaust
with pre filtered air much the same as the constant volume sampler does with
the exhaust in the LDV-FTP for gaseous emissions. The definition of particu-
late was in terms of the dilution and collection media and, importantly, the
temperature at the point of filtration. In keeping with EPA definition of
Diesel engine particulate from Reference 31, anything that was collected on
Type A glass fiber filter at a temperature not to exceed 51.7°C (125°F) and
not condensed water was considered l^esel particulate. The particulate thus
included aerosols and unburned fuel-like matter. Most tests were made at
lower average temperatures and depended on the exhaust volume, temperature,
and dilution level.
The nominal 0.457 m (18-inch) diameter by 4.88 m (16-foot) long
dilution tunnel used to dilute and cool the exhaust is shown in the Figure 7
schematic drawing. The pertinent dimensions, flows, velocities, and the
relationship of the various components which make up a particulate collection
system are indicated A microbalance, with 1 microgram accuracy and housed in
a special humidity-' 'crature controlled environment, was used to weigh the
filters before and a. r the test. The weighing box is supplied with pre-
filtered, scrubbed air at a constant 22.2^0.06°C (72il°F), 1Q.6±0.3 g/kg
(74+2 gr/lb dry air) humidity at 0.3 raVhr (10 cfm).
a. HD Engine Particulate
The large volumes of hot exhaust from the Diesel engines used
in trucks and buses preclude the practical dilution of all the exhaust in a
laboratory size dilution tunnel. This was recognized at the outset of SwRI's
initial efforts to characterize particulates for EPA under Contract No. 68-02-
1230 for RTF. In order to use the fairly standard EPA design 0.457 m (18-inch!
tunnel, an exhaust flow splitting system was devised whereby only a part of
the exhaust is used in the tunnel and the remainder vented to the atmosphere.
Obtaining a true split of the exhaust is a difficult job, and even more diffi-
cult is knowing how much of the exhaust is split and diluted by the tunnel.
With much care and attention to detail, this can be done with reasonable
accuracy and repeatability.
33
-------
r
610mm
(24in)
610mm
K" (24in)
4.88m (16ft)
840mm (33in) »
450mm
(17.7in)
DILUTION AIR
FILTER ENCLOSURE
76mm (3in) RAW
EXHAUST TRANSFER TUBE
230mm (9in)
MIXING ORIFICE
EXH.
HI-VOL
r
700mm 27.5in
SAMPLE
127mm
(5in) DIA
SAMPLE PROBE
OR 4 EA. l/2" ID ISOKINETIC
SAMPLING PROBE
)iluti':;i 1 II ! . ' i Die.' ! I arC i rulat <• San; 1 i mj
-------
After review of several possible flow splitters, it was deter-
mined that the vehicle exhaust muffler was the most realistic point to obtain
a split of the total exhaust that retained all of the properties and character-
istics of the bulk exhaust. Adjacent to the usual exhaust outlet from the
conventionally used stock muffler, a second but somewhat smaller outlet was
added. As with the stock muffler outlet, an open-ended tube with the same
length and wall perforations, diameter, and pattern was fabricated and inserted
inside of the muffler in a similar fashion to the stock outlet tube. By trying
several size tubes, the exhaust flow could be matched to the filter temperature
for given operating conditions of the test sequence. The use of a "sampling
tube" within the muffler of similar design to that for the stock outlet was
thought to give the exhaust a similar opportunity to flow out either tube and
thus preserve the integrity of the sample.
The use of a large gate valve on the vented exhaust flow
allowed the use of slight exhaust system backpressure so that some measure of
control was available. The exhaust backpressure was generally set at the
engine manufacturer's maximum allowable at rated speed and load, as in the 13-
mode FTP. At other speeds and loads, the backpressure was allowed to decrease
to a value consistent with lower engine speeds and exhaust flows without
adjustment of the preset restriction.
The exhaust sampling and dilution system was, for the HD
engines, identical to that described in References 16 and 31. It is shown
pictorially in Figure 8 for use with HD engines. The center right photo is of
the splitter and the tunnel used with all HD engines except the Caterpillar
3406 and shows the particulate and charcoal filtered intake system. A close-up
of the exhaust system and muffler-splitter arrangement is shown in the lower
left and right view of Figure 8. Notice the large gate valve used for back-
pressure and dilution level control. The tunnel photographs of Figure 8 show
the large truck muffler located vertically under the tunnel. Part of the
exhaust then enters directly into the tunnel and filter samples are taken
downstream.
The amount of exhaust that was eventually diluted and from
which the particulate samples were obtained was based on the difference
between the calibrated positive displacement pump (PDP) flow and the amount
of dilution air measured by a calibrated laminar flow meter. The difference
in two large measurements, each subject to error, can lead to larger than
usually desired errors in the difference. Thus, the most crucial part of the
system is the care and precision in obtaining both PDP and makeup or dilution
air flows. To assure a measure of quality control, the dilution tunnel was
treated as a CVS and subjected to the same number and stringency of checks to
include propane recoveries on a weekly basis and daily laminar flow meter -
PDP correlation tests.
Particulate and sulfate samples were obtained on all HDD
engines at each of the 11 different modes of the 13-mode FTP. Idle was only
sampled once. Those engines for which motoring was performed, samples were
also obtained under closed throttle operation. For BaP and organic solubles,
a 7-mode test consisting of idle and 2, 50, and 100 percent power at rated
and intermediate speeds was run.
35
-------
Dilution Tunnel
Exhaust Splitter Sample Filter
Figure 8. Particulate Measuring Equipment (HD Engines)
36
-------
b. LDV Particulate
The dilution tunnel was quite capable of handling the entire
exhaust from both Diesel and gasoline powered LDV's without exceeding the
51.2°C (125°F) samp.e temperature. The dilution tunnel nominal flow of 14.1
mVmin (500 cfm) was not excessive in overdiluting necessarily but is qreate
than would normally be used in a gaseous emissions test by conventional CVS
technique. The particulate tests were performed separately from the gas' >us
emission tests and used the same type tunnel as in the HD engine testing.
In order to achieve a sufficient sample and because there is
convenient means to switch particulate samples at the 505-second point in th
city driving schedule, all cold start FTP's were for the entire 23 minutes o
a given filter. The 10-minute soak period was ther. observed and then an
additional full 2 3-minute city driving cycle repeated from a hot start. The
other two transient driving cycles were from a hot start with the sample for
the SET and for the FET collected on separate filters.
The four sample systems permitted the collection of two each
particulate samples on 47 mm glass and two each sulfate samples on 47 mm
Fluoropore media. The testing sequence of cold-hot FTP, SET, and FET was
repeated on several successive days. This test sequence was then performed
with the high-volume sampler to obtain larger amounts of particulate for PNA
analysis using the 8 x 10 size glass filters.
The various photographs in Figure 9 show the dilucion tunnel
used with all four cars. The dilution tunnel was located alongside the car,
as shown in the upper left and right views. The positive displacement blew*?
and the four sampling filter systems are shown in the upper right views. Th
two center views illustrate the appearance of the 47 mm and 8 x 10 size fibe
glass filter media at the conclusion of a test.
7. Sulfate Analysis
The methods used to collect the samples of sulfate were discussed
the previous subsection. For analysis of sulfate, the BCA method was used
with both gasoline and Diesel engines. The BCA method for sulfate had been
widely used with gasoline-powered LDV's under EPA Contract 68-03-2118 and
during Part VII Diesel studies. A description of the BCA test procedure may
be found in Appendix B of this report. The lower left photo of Figure 9 she
the BCA analysis instrumentation.
One requirement of the project was to try and analyze sulfate froir
a leaded gasoline fueled HD truck engine. This experiment gave very confusi
results and not due to the well-known positive interference of lead combusti
products. The problem was extremely low readings during the initial analysi
Some nine weeks later, the solutions were reanalyzed and the values had
increased substantially. The reasons remain unknown.
In the case of Diesel engines, it is not certain what form the
sulfate is in whfn it exits the engine or vehicle. There is no evidence to
prove that it is in the form of sulfuric acid mist, as is the case with oxi-
dation equipped, gasoline fueled cars. In fact, the lack of an observable
-------
4- ran an3 X 10 size Filter Collected Parti j1
B :A-5ulf at Anal 1
t.DV ound L< vt 1 Meter
Figure . L»DV
Particulate Sulfate and Nois< Mtasun roent Equipment
38
Dilution Tunnel Particulate Measurement-iars.
-------
storage-purge characteristic of Diesels suggests that such may not be the
case. Until this issue is resolved, it is proper to refer to what is measured
as sulfate or, more correctly, sulfate by BCA.
8. Polynuclear Aromatic Matter (PNA)
PNA compounds as a class and as individual contaminants were of
interest in this project. Although there are several laboratory procedures
available for their analysis, the major difficulty was analysis of PNA
materials in Diesel exhaust and, of equal importance, the collection of a
sample in a form suitable for such laboratory analysis. This was amply
demonstrated by the difficulties encountered by Gulf Research and Development
under the CRC APRAC CAPE-24-72 project. It was further illustrated in the
degree of difficulty and inadequacy of available methods by the Southwest
Foundation for Research and Education (EwFRE) during the Part VII Diesel
workU6) and that for RTP under Contract 68-02-0123. Even the measurement of
benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) was highly questionable.
At the outset of this project, it was decided to continue using the
SwFRE method for BaP analysis until a better method could be obtained. Shortly
after completion of the Mack ETAY(B)673A HDD engine, it was agreed to forward
all subsequent filters to Dr. Robert Jungers, Chief of the Source, Fuels, and
Molecular Chemistry Section of the Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, for the soxhlet extractions and BaP analyses. This was done on all
subsequent HD engines. However, the Mack as well as the two Diesel and the
two gasoline cars were analyzed for BaP by SwFRE.
The Sawicki analysis procedure'62', for determination of BaP,
involved a thin layer chromatographic separation followed by fluorescence
measurement. This was the basic analytical method used by SwFRE. BaP is an
elementary PNA and is generally found in Diesel exhaust. It is considered ~.<
be a good indicator of the relative FNA content in that if it is high, otlm r
PNA emissions are also probably high. There was, at the time of its use ot
this project, still some unresolved questions regarding the sample collecti m
and especially the preparation of the sample for analysi For additional
description of the > tocedure, please refer to Appendix B.
The method used by EPA-RTP for BaP163' is also described in Appenoi x
B. Extractions of 8 x 10 filter halves produced samples for BaP analysis.
The extracts were concentrated and spotted on TLC plates, and the plates w>i«
scanned by a Perkin-Elmer MPF-3 fluorescence spectrophotometer. Excitation
was at a wavelength of 388 run, and emission was read at 430 nm.
The soluble extract of the filters was obtained using two different
solvents. In the case of the filters analyzed by SwFRE (all cars plus Mack
engine), benzene was used. Thus, the percent organic soluble of the total
filter weight is based on its use. Benzene was used as the solvent for the
Caterpillar 3406 DI with EGR and timing experiments. Cyclohexane was used
for the Caterpillar IDI configuration, both Daimler-Benz engines and the
Mack APS-standard pump comparisons.
39
-------
The measurement of Diesel BaP by the present method at EPA is con-
sidered an interim procedure. As soon as the high pressure liquid chromato-
graph (HP1C) method being developed by EPA is qualified, a powerful new tool
should be available to investigate a series of PNA materials and not just BaP.
Amonq the unresolved issues is the role of carbon in the exhaust am!
on the filter in the collection of PNA's by the dilution tunnel method. TIk
general lack of PNA's from oxidation catalyst equipped cars, as found in this
effort, may be attributed to the catalyst or to the fact that carbon content
in the exhaust was negligible. In the case of the non-catalyst HD gasoline
engine, two modes produced exceptionally high BaP levels and others were
negligible. The use of dilution tunnel sampling methods may be a desired
approach to laboratory testing but may produce inconsistent or low values due
to collection efficiency of the filter. Much more needs to be done to qualify
and validate the sample collection, extraction, and, of course, the HPLC
procedure.
9. Elemental Analyses
Determination of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen weight percentages in
Diesel particulate were also performed by Galbraith Laboratories. Carbon and
hydrogen were measured using ASTM method D-3178 and nitrogen was measured using
ASTM D-3179. The results were corrected for blank filter content, which was
reported to be very low.
Metals and other elements such as silica and sulfur were analyzed by
X-ray fluorescence. The improved precision, reduced detection limits, and the
even greater number of elements that could be analyzed by the X-ray instrument
at EPA-RTP prompted a change from the U.S. Army Fuels and Lubricants Laboratory
at Southwest Research Institute to the RTP laboratories. Thus, the four car 1
Fluoropore filters were analyzed by the Army Laboratory while all the HD
engines were performed by EPA-RTP. The analyses at EPA was arranged for
through the cooperation of Dr. Ronald L. Bradow.
10. Vehicle Noise - LDV's Only
This series of tests was intended to determine the maximum interior
and exterior sound levels, in
such that the front of the vehicle reached or passed a line 7.6 m (25 feet)
beyond the microphone line when maximum rated engine speed was reached. Th<
40
-------
equipment used was a precision sound level meter, a sound level calibrator,
and a calibrated wind screen. The test site was (as outlined in J-986a) a
flat open space, free of large reflecting surfaces (i.e., signs, hills,
buildings) within 30.5 m (100 feet) of the test track.
Measurements were made (as outlined in J-986a) 1,22 m (4 feet)
above ground level and at 15.24 m (50 feet) from the centerline of the vehicle.
This distance was considered adequate if the maximum noise level as measured
on the "A-weighted" scale with a "fast" meter response was 10 dB above the
ambient noise level. If this criterion could not be met, the measurements
were made at 7.6 m (25 feet) by subtracting 6 dB from the measured values to
extrapolate to an equivalent reading at 15.24 m (50 feet). If the level at
7.6 m (25 feet) was not 10 dB above ambient levels on a reasonably quiet day,
this point was noted as well as the measured level and ambient level. The
sound level for each side of the vehicle was the average of the two highest
readings which were within 2 dB of each other. These were made with all
windows fully closed and the vehicle accessories such as heater, air condi-
tioner, or defroster (radio excluded) in operation at their highest apparent
noise level.
Interior sound level determinations were the same as exterior
except that the microphone was located 0.152 m (6 inches) to the right side of
the driver's right ear. All other test procedures were as presented in J-986a.
The lower right photo of Figure 9 shows the hand-held meter adjacent to the
driver's right ear during the interior measurements.
b. Constant Speed Drive-By
The exterior noise level with the vehicle passing by the micro-
phone at a distance of 15.24 m (50 feet) was measured. The vehicle was in
high gear and driven smoothly at 48.3 km/hr (30 mph) ±5 percent. As in the
acceleration test, the measurement was made at 7.6 m (25 feet) if "fast" meter
response was not 10 dB above ambient noise level on the "A-weighted" scale.
Six dB was subtracted from the measured values to extrapolate to an equivalent
reading at 50 feet. Interior sound level determinations were made in the saw.»
manner as during the acceleration test. The sound level reported for this
test was obtained in the manner outlined in the acceleration test already
described.
c. Idle
This test included sound level measurements at 3.05 m (10 feet)
distances from the front, rear, left (street side) and right (curb side) of
the vehicle. The vehicle was parked and engine allowed to run at manufacturer's
recommended low idle speed with transmission in neutral for at least one minute.
Accessory items such as air conditioner or heater and defroster (radio excluded)
operated at their highest apparent noise level. The sound level meter was
positioned 3.05 m from each bumper midway between the sides of the car and
3.05 m from each side midway between the front and rear bumpers at 1.22 m (4
feet) height above the ground. The vehicle was then turned around and headed
in the opposite direction and measurements repeated. Interior measurements
were also obtained at the same single point used in drive-by tests. The test
course was identical to that employed in the earlier work and reported in
References 12, 14, 16, 21, and 22.
41
-------
F. Weighting Factors - HD Engines
Appendix A is the experimental 23-mode EPA HD engine test procedure.
Weighting factors are listed in paragraph 85.102, dynamometer operation cycle
of this procedure. These factors (relisted in Table 7) as well as the 13-mode
FTP weighting factors (listed in Table 8) formed the basis for most of the
calculations to determine omission rates and cycle weighted fuel consumption
of the HD engines. The need for various short cycle weighting factors was to
accommodate the many engines and the test plan for the varied nonregulated
emissions.
The 21-mode factors are shown on Table 7 to include the same modes as the
23-mode EPA test but without the closed throttles. The deletion of the closed
throttle weighting factors reduced the total to 82 percent of the time. Thus,
the remaining 21 modes weighting factors were increased by the ratio of 100/82.
The 13-mode test using factors derived from the 23-mode test involved
extension of the clossed throttle factors and adding the three separate idle
factors into a single factor. The remaining mode weights were distributed as
follows:
* 2% power represents 0 to 12.5% power; this range includes the
2% and 8% power points.
* 25% power represents 12.5% to 37.5% power; this range includes
the 18% and 25% power points.
* 50% power represents 37.5% to 62.5% power; this range includes
the 50% power point.
• 75% power represents 62.5% to 87.5% powerj this range includes
the 75% and 82% power points.
* 100% power represents 87.5% to 100% power; this range includes
the 92% and 100V power points.
The 11-mode test is merely the 13-mode factors less the two closed
throttles. The remaining modes were increased by 100/82 as with the 21-mode
test factors.
The 9-mode test is a short cycle that still includes the two closed
throttles and a single idle as in the 13-mode test. However, the remaining
2, 50, and 100 percent power points have increased weight due to the following
red istribution:
• 2% power represents 0 to 25% power; this range includes the
2%, 8%, 181, and half the 25* power points.
• 50% power represents 25% to 75% power; this range includes
half the 25%, the 50%, and half the 75% power points.
• 100% power represents 75% to 100% power; this range includes
half the 75%, the 82%, 92%, and 100% power points.
42
-------
NO^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TABLE 7. EPA 2J-NODE WEIGHTING FACTORS AND SHORT CYCLE WEIGHTING FACTORS DEPIVED THEREFROM
23-Mode EPA
21-Mode
13-
-Mode
11
-Mode
9-
-Mode
7-Mode
Engine
Pove r
Weight
Mode
Weight
ode
Weight
Mode
Weight
Mode
Weight
Mode
Weigh!
rpm
Factor,%
No.
Factor,%
No.
Factor,s
No.
Factor,%
No.
Factor,%
No.
Factor
Idle
0
7.0
1
8.5
Inter
2
6.0
2
7.3
1
12.0
1
14.6
1
18.5
1
22.5
Inter
8
6.0
3
7.3
Inter
18
5.0
4
6.1
Inter
25
3.0
5
3.6
2
8.0
2
9.8
Inter
50
6.0
6
7.3
3
6.0
3
7.3
2
7.5
2
9.2
Inter
75
0
7
0
4
4. i
4
4.9
Inter
82
4.0
8
4.9
Inter
92
0
9
0
Inter
100
0
10
0
S
0
5
0
3
4
3
4.9
Idle
0
7.0
11
8.5
6
22.
6
26.9
4
22.0
4
26.9
Inter
CT
12.0
7
12.0
5
12.0
High
100
2.5
12
3.2
8
8.0
7
9.7
6
14.5
5
17.6
High
92
5.5
13
6.7
High
82
3.5
14
4.3
High
75
6.0
15
7.3
9
9.5
8
11.6
High
50
6.o
16
7 3
10
6.0
9
7,3
7
9.0
6
11.0
High
25
0
17
0
11
6.5
10
7.9
High
18
6.5
18
7.9
High
8
0
19
0
High
2
0
20
0
12
0
8
6.5
7
7.9
Idle
0
8.0
21
9.8
11
0
High
CT
6.0
13
6.0
9
6
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-------
11U .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TABLE 8. 13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS AND SHORT CYCLE
WEIGHTING FACTORS DERIVED THEREFROM
13-Mode FTP
Engine Power Height
rpro % Factor, %
Idle 6,7
Inter 2 8.0
Inter 25 8-0
Inter 50 8.0
Inter 75 8.0
Inter 100 8.0
Idle — 6.7
High 100 8.0
High 75 8.0
High 50 8.0
High 25 8.0
High 2 8.0
Idle 0.7
100.0
7-Mode
Mode Weight
No. Factor, %
1 12
2 16
3 12
4 20
5 12
6 16
7 12
100
44
-------
The 7-mode test is a very short cycle that is the same as the 9-mode test
less the two closed throttles. The remaining modes were increased by 100/82
as with the 21- and 11-mode tests. The entire basis for all groupings and
redistributions is one of time or percent of operating time given to a specific
steady-state condition. Each condition is taken to represent all power output
halfway to the adjoining power point or points. The basically linear nature
of Diesel emissions with power output makes such an approach feasible. Thus,
as the number of modes decreases, each point represents more time in mode and
the mode represents a wider range of power.
Table 8 uses the same basis to derive the 7-mode weighting factors from
the HD 13-mode FTP. Specifically, one idle is run and the weighting factor is
20 percent. The remaining factors are based on the following redistribution:
• 2% power represents 0 to 25% power; this range includes
the 2% and half the 25% power points.,
~ 50% power represents 25% to 75% power; this range includes
half the 25% and 75% and the 50% power points.
• 100% power represents 75% to 100% power; this range includes
half the 75% and the 100% power points.
The short cycles and the weighting factors derived for their use in
gaining cycle weighted composite values were used with selected experimental
unregulated emissions data. For example, the difficult-to-analyze BaP was
restricted to a 7-mode cycle instead of a 13- or 23-mode test.
45
-------
IV. RESULTS OF HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE CHARACTERIZATION
This section summarizes the characterization emission data for the two
HDD and one HDG engines evaluated. The two were the Mack ETAY(B)673A
and the Caterpillar 3208 EGR. The gasoline engine, also described in Table 1,
was a Chevrolet 366 and was run for comparison with the Caterpillar 3208 EGR,
a midrange Diesel engine. The Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 engines arc
used in many identical truck applications, and therefore a direct comparison
is possible. More complete data relating to the characterization of these
three engines may be found in Appendix C.
A. Gaseous Emissions
Table 9 lists the results of replicate emission tests using the experi-
mental, multimode test designated 'he 23-Mode EPA test. Listed are the HC,
CO, and NOx rates as well as cycle weighted BSFC. This cycle and its weighting
factors were described in Section III. The 23 modes include the test points
of the 13-Mode Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for HDD, and therefore these values
are also listed on Table 9 as computed values. Nota that the Mack engine 23-
mode results are really for a 21-mode test since dynamometer limitations would
not allow operation under closed throttle (CT) motoring conditions. The
weighting factors for the remaining 21 modes were increased proportionally
and were discussed in Section III.
Table 10 lists the HDD emission limits for comparison purposes with the
Table 9 data. Note the 1977 California limits list an alternate standard with
HC and N02 limits specified separately. The manufacturer may certify either
way. The mixed metric, g/bhp-hr, units of expression are listed in parentheses
and are those currently listed in Federal and California regulations. For
purposes of discussion, the results will be described by engine make and model.
1. Mack ETAY(B)67 3A
A modified version of the 23-mode test, which deleted the two
motoring modes, was performed on the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine. In conversations
with the Project Officer, it was agreed at the meeting at SwRJ on November in,
1976, to attempt the motoring modes on this particular engine if capability
existed for doing so. The dynamometer facility on which this engine was
being tested had a 500 hp Midwest absorption unit, inertia capability, and up
to 50 hp belt driven motoring for special preselected speeds. Shortly after
the meeting, it was learned from Mack Trucks that the motoring power at 1900
rpm was 65 hp and at 1450 rpm approximately 45 hp. The 50 hp motor available
would not be able to run the 1900 rpm and only marginally able to run the 45 hp
conditions. It was confirmed by Mack that the fuel injection pump and injectors
feature positive shutoff of fuel, making measurements during closed throttle
motoring of negligible consequence, according to Mack.
46
-------
TABLE 9. EPA 23-MODE AND 13-MODE FTP GASEOUS EMISSIONS RATES
Brake Specific Emissions
Cycle BSFC
Type
Run
g/kw-hr (g-hp-hr)
kg/kw-hr
Engine
Test
No.
CO
HC
NO*
HC+NO*
(lbs/bhp-hr
Mack
21-Mode
1
2.157
0.674
7.965
8.639
0.240
ETAY(S)
EPA
2
2.143
0.635
8.047
8.683
0.247
67 3A
Average
2.150
0.655
8.006
8.661
0.247
(1.604)
(0.489)
(b.972)
(6.461)
(0.405)
13-Mode
1
2.173
0.592
8.691
9.283
0.24 i
FTP
2
2.084
0.683
9.038
9.721
0.242
Average
2.129
0.638
8.865
9.502
0.243
(1.588)
(0.476)
(6.613)
(7.088)
(0.399)
Cat.
23-Mode
1
7.798
1.857
5.186
7.043
0.288
3208
EPA
2
9.228
1.708
4.958
6.666
0.291
BOP.
Average
8.513
1.783
5.072
6.855
O. 290
(6.351)
(1. 330)
(3.784)
(5.113)
(0.470)
13-Mode
1
7.763
1. 594
5.027
6.622
0.28'.
FTP
2
8.856
1.524
5.019
6.543
0.28H
Average
8. 310
1.559
5.023
6.583
0.287
(6.200)
(1.163)
(3.747)
(4.911)
(0.472)
Chev.
23-Mode
1
73.50
3.31
4.41
7.72
0.462
366
EPA
2
74.01
3. 36
4.70
8.06
0.463
Calif.
Average
73.76
3.34
4.56
7.89
0.463
(55.00)
(2.49)
(3.39)
(5.88)
(0.761)
Note: NOx
is NO as
N02 by NDIR for
13-Mode FTP.
-------
TABLE 9. EPA 23-MODE AND 13-MODE FTP GASEOUS KMISSIONS HATES
Brake Specific Emissions Cycle BSFC
Type Run q/kw-hr (g-hp-hr) kg/kw-hr
Engine
Test
No.
CO
HC
NOx
HC+NOv
(lbs/bhp-hi
Mack
21-Mode
1
2.157
0.674
7.965
8.639
0.246
ETAY(B)
EPA
2
2.143
0.635
8.047
8.683
0.247
673A
Average
2.150
0.655
8.006
8.661
0.247
CI.604)
(0.489)
(5.972)
(6.461)
(0.405)
13-Mode
1
2.173
0.592
8.691
9.283
0.24 i
FTP
2
2.084
0.683
9.038
9.721
0.242
Average
2.129
0.638
8.865
9.502
0.243
(1.588)
(0.476)
(6.613)
(7.088)
(0.399)
Cat.
23-Mode
1
7.798
1.857
5.186
7.043
0. 288
3208
BPA
2
9.228
1.708
4.958
6.666
0.291
BGP.
Average
8.513
1.783
5.072
6.855
n.290
(6.351)
(1.330)
(3.784)
(5.113)
(0.471.)
13-Mode
1
7.763
1.594
5.027
6.622
0. 28 b
FTP
2
8.856
1.524
5.019
6.543
0.28H
Average
8. 310
1.559
5.023
6.583
0.287
(6.200)
(1.163)
(3.747)
(4.911)
(0.472)
Chev.
23-Mode
1
73.50
3.31
4.41
7.72
0.462
366
EPA
2
74.01
3.36
4.70
8.06
0.463
Calif.
Average
73.76
3.34
4.56
7.89
0.463
(55.00)
(2.49)
(3.39)
(5.88)
(0.761)
Note: NOx
is NO as
N02 by NDIR for
13-Mode FTP.
47
-------
TABLE 10. HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL AND GASOLINE EMISSION LIMITS
Units
CO
HC+N02
1973 California and
1974 Federal
g/kw-hr
(g/bhp-hr)
53.6
(40)
21.4
(16)
1975 California
1977 California
g/kw-hr
tg/bhp-hr)
q/kw-hr
(g/bhp-hr)
40.2
(30)
33.5
(25)
13.4
(10)
6.7
(5)
HC
N02
1977 California
(alternate)
g/kw-hr
(g/bhp-hr)
33.5
(25)
1.3
(1)
10.1
(7.5)
Note: NO measured by nondispersive infrared and expressed as N02.
The duplicate modified 23-modo tests resulted in computation of a
"13-mode" and "21-modu" composite emission rate. The "13-mode" result is b;i:;e
-------
development prior to its shipment to SwRI. This engine model, intended for
California, was the first midrange size production Diesel engine equipped with
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). The method used by Caterpillar was to install
a diverter valve at the outlet of the left engine exhaust manifold. Exhaust
would then be directed back to the inlet of the intake manifold on a predetermined
schedule. This is shown by the upper photo of Figure 10.
On completion of the initial replicate 23-mode gaseous emissions test
of the Caterpillar 3208 engine, it was found that HC, CO, CO2 and NO2 were non-
repeatable on certain modes and tnat certain modes were different from the
emissions data given to SwRI by Mr. Don Dowdall of Caterpillar. This caused a
great deal of concern by SwRI over the emissions data, especially since the
engine power, fuel, BSFC and Federal Smoke Tests correlated well with
Caterpillar's data. Smoke data will be described shortly.
After so-ne investigation, it was found that the EGR valve would stick
closed following operation at the full-power condition and that the general
operation of the valve when hot was sluggish and unrepeatable. This valve and
its positioning device is shown in the lower photograph in Figure 10 attached
to the left exhaust manifold outlet. The valve has three positions, namely, a
40 percent EGR opening for all power levels of 55-57 percent and less, a 15
percent EGR position for the 75 percent power mode, and a closed 0-percent EGR
position for power levels about 80t2 percent power. According to Mr. Jim
Turner of Caterpillar, the erratic behavior of the valve and its sticking was
attributed to a problem of the vendor of the item not finishing the valve per
drawing, and this was rectified when the engine was released for production.
In subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Turner and Mr. Bob
Adams of Caterpillar, it was agreed that we could try to operate the valve
manually by simulating the power demand. A system was devised so that the
valve would be positioned with toggle switches to the oil solenoid valves that
operate the valve. This approach was partially successful, except there still
remained a variability in results. By this time, the test cell was rigged for
smoke, as this was the quickest way to determine repeatability. After each
maximum power or closed EGR position, the valve was manually rotated open to
free it. A valve position arm was also added to visually check the valve
rotation and location. However, the general binding of the valve gave doubt
that the proper valve position was indeed regained each run. It was found that
a slight change in valve position greatly affected smoke and gaseous emissions
as well as BSFC. The most sensitive modes of the 13-mode test are the 50 and
75 percent power levels. The 82 percent point, required by the 23-mode test,
is supersensitive since this is at the transition from partly open (15 percent
EGR) to closed (0 percent EGR).
After extended attempts to operate the engine with the sticky valve,
it was agreed to obtain a new, production type valve so that the engine could
be run in its automatic mode. Mr. Bob Adams provided SwRI with such a valve.
It was installed and found to operate freely when hot and not to stick in the
closed position.
With the new valve installed, relatively high smoke was found at the
50 and 75 percent power points, on the order of 45 and 26 percent opacity at
2800 rpm and 12 and 13 percent opacity at 1680 rpm. Of major concern was the
49
-------
Overall View of EGR System Operating
On Left Bank of Engine (Viewed from Flywheel)
Close-up of EGR Valve and
Automatic Positioning Device
Figure 10. Caterpillar 3208 with Automatic EGR
50
-------
variability of smoke, i.e., smoke increasing with time as well as puffing,
occasional spikes and smoke excursions.
In an attempt to obtain as reportable data as possible, it was
decided to use the ±2 percent tolerance in power afforded by the procedurs and
run modes 16 and 17 of the 23-modu test at slightly lower i>ower yet within
specifications.
Although certain of the modal smoke values sec.-mi.-d inordinately high,
it was decided to start again and run the 23-mode gaseous <-inissions tests.
These results, though some modes were erratic and nonrepeatable as other modes,
were considered marginally satisfactory. It was not until the particulate
test series was complete that the engine emissions, as indicated by particulate
rate, had become intolerably erratic and the engine judged unsatisfactory for
further operation.
A variety of experiments were made to attempt to diagnose the
problem. The experiments included backpressure, inlet restriction, fuel, tu<1
delivery, and other engine parameters under automatic and manual EGR control.
Each time, the symptoms pointed to the new EGR valve which still was obstrv«d
to function properly and was found intact.
On May 31, 1977, Mr. Greg Garner of Caterpillar found the adjusting
lock nut on the EGR valve actuating arm mechanism had loosened and changed in
its setting. Once the adjustment was made to specification, the EGR valve
then opened per the intended schedule and functioned properly.
On June 1, 1977, replicate gaseous emissions and modal smoke readinqs
were obtained in Mr. Garner's presence* to demonstrate engine performance.
Table 4 lists these results. The third such series are considered to be
representative of tin- engine. Copies of the computer sheets are contained iii
Appendix C as T ible-s c-s through C-B. Tables 0-5 and C-6 arc the EPA 2'3-mod.
t e;u results ami Til !<• and C'-H ir« flu 13-mode results derived from ll
KPA 23-modi test. Tiu-s. results are quit< close to thom- reported by Cati n •'
at tile md of the 1 vio-hour test listed below.
CO HC _ NO,
g/kw-hr 9.85 1.6 5.16
g/bhp-hr 7.35 1.1) 3.85
Composite BSFC, kg/kw-hr 0.2U9
lbs/bhp-hr 0.476
In subsequent discussions with Mr. Garner and Mr. Don Henderson of
Caterpillar regarding these findings, it was learned that the replacement valvi ,
installed earlier to replace the sticky valve that was originally on the 1000-
hour engine, was removed from an e* jine under t< st at Cater;illar after 67
hours of operation. Tin replacement valve was, therefore, not shipped strai jht
from production. It was igreed, from the test results of the valve as received
and installed at SwRI and the results rej»rted in this report with the re-
adjusted valve, that the valve probably was not correctly set when received.
If it had, then the smoke, CO and other emissions at full power would have
agreed more closely than they did when first run at SwRI.
HC . NO
6.75
5.04
51
-------
It is speculated that the valve lever adjustrtv nt nut had already
loosened some prior to arrival at SwRI and that a slight amount of EGR was
occurring at full power. As the engine continued to operate at SwRI, the
adjustment continued to change so that more and more EGR was permitted, causing
higher and higher smoke and particulate. The adjustment nut is not easily
accessible once the valve is installed. Also, a special tool is needed to gage
the interior opening or gap between the butterfly valve and its housing.
3. Chevrolet 366 Gasoline Engine
This gasoline engine was run for data that may be compared to the
Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine. Pnor to running the gaseous emission tests on
this engine, Mr. Jim Feiten of Chevrolet was contacted to obtain tune-up
specifications for the 1977 California 366 engine. The following lists the
settings on the engine as received and as adjusted, with the knowledge and
consent of Mr. Feiten.
Item
Specification
Observed Adjusted to
Idle CO
Idle rpm
Initial timing
Throttle kicker rpm
0. ^0%. CO
700 rpm
8° BTDC .'J
1400 rpm
700 rpm
0.45
780
BTDC
1700
700
1400
While running the first preparatory test, it was found that the
Chemiluminescence (CL) instrument could not function in the NOx confid ration
at the 2 and 100 percent power modes. This was relayed to the Pro3ect
Officer and a full discussion of this phenomenon given by both Mr. Charles
'Jrban and Mr. Bob Srubar of SwRI. This has been observed before when using
a heated CL instrument witn raw exhaust from gasoline engines. For additional
background on this j-roblem, please refer to fages 17 and 18 of Reference 47.
As agri -d, thi CL instrument was operated in the NO in de during the 92 and 1
percent | ower moms and tt rraults reported as N0X. All ti >ther mod's w, r
run in the N0X confijur t: i.
!a xc, ' .'ii jjni w i i ¦: j; 1 . d r. , . -v
FTf inu tlu ri t | r 1 t* 1
Mr. Tom Baines ) I Mi . " . . t x ! Ct vrole' _i jti d i» -< ml r ,1
ayr< i-mi tit was found n < r . . i c m_ i.tr itions. U' 1 :,sum; tion j:ia w. t
out] ut wen lower it SwRI l., n r CIn vrc 1 -t .
ii ri ch< ckin'j t'n ingini >i r ition at ..JO r( in, HC wjs found mt i-
mittintly high at the high r ^ . irk t lug wire at thi s- ark plug anil
replaced. The audible misfire was c iiminated. A Sun ignition analyzer was
then connected to evaluate ignition variability for each cylinder. Considerabl
variability was found in the secondary j attern for each cylinder. This was
eliminated on the lnstallati >n f a new si t of Chevrolet spark : lug ignition
wires for this HL> ;g 11 . Th< wires on the engim , as received, were w 1] wr ii
On retesting the o[ ration of the engine during the higher |owe r
modes, a substantial variation in CO concentration from trial to trial was
noted during the 82, )2 and 100 percent power modes, but inly at 230C r| ra.
For examfJe, CO in the 130 |ercent 2300 rpm mode ranged from -.S to fa.4 | rci n
-------
depending on run. Visual inspection of the operation of the secondary venturi
throttle plate revealed that the secondary venturi plate was apparently opening
slightly and not to the same extent each time. The position could be changed
drastically by a small change in the opening of the throttle plate in the
primary Venturis. Only by monitoring the opening of the secondary throttle
plate very closely and by making small adjustments to the primary throttle
position could repeatable results be obtained during these three modes. The
load changes associated with the slight change in primary throttle position
were negligible, on the order of 1 percent of the observed power. This was
well within the ±2 percent load tolerance in the 23-mode procedure.
Listed on Table 9 are the results of the duplicate 23-mode test
results for the 1977 Chevrolet 366 engine (California version). Copies of the
computer printouts are included in Appendix C as Tables C-9 and C-10. The
9-mode FTP g/bhp-hr results given in the L. V. Faix letter of December 15,
1976, were 23.05 CO, 0.77 HC and 4.16 NOx. It is not possible to directly
compare these results due to the gross differences in procedure, including
loads, speeds, weighting factors and types of instruments for measurement.
4. Discussion
Figure 11 compares the average gaseous emissions and specific fu<1
consumption values for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR Diesel and Chevrolet 366
gasoline fueled engines. The comparison is on the same- 23-modt EPA cycl ar.d
therefore is a direct comparison. To the extent that both engines are com;>» t,~
tive in application, such as 2-axl vans, stakes and small t-axle tractors,
and to the extent both engines' emissions are fairly represented by the 23-modt
test, some interesting differences art apparent.
First, the Diesel engine CO is about 1/8 of the gasoline engine CO,
and the Diesel specific fuel consumption is about two-thirds of the gasolim
engine. Both these findings were expected and continue to illustrate the
superior fuel efficiency of the Diesel engine and its typically low CO emission-;.
Recall that the 1977 Chevrolet 366 (California version) was not equipped with
an oxidation catalyst. For that matter, neither was the Diesel engine.
In terms of HC, N02 and HC+N0_ , the differences ar- mainly in HC
being less with the Diesel engine, lie was about half the gasoline, while the
Diesel NO2 was slightly higher, about 10 percent, than the gasoline engine,
S.072 versus 4.36 g/kw-hr. It should be noted that the Caterpillar 3208 EGR
HC emission ratt < f 1.783 g/kw-hr is fairly high relative to other HDD t nqin*
and may have been du< ti the use of EGR.
B. Smoki Results
Table 11 is a summary listing f the "a" acc It ration, "I" lug-down an.i
"c" peak opacity results of the Federal Smoke T< st for HDD enjines. Both ti¦
Mack and Cateri illar engines wen sul )« -t< d to U -st t t; . Tin chovrf K t Hi.
engine, being gasoline fueled, was not. Shown at tin lott >m t f Tablt 11 art
the Federal limits for new engine certification beginning in calendar year
1970 and then reduced in 1974 with the addition f a peak limit.
53
-------
80
.1
CO
+
MO,
nc-
Cat.
3208 EGR
Chev.
366
PAT • Chevi. : :
32D8EGR' ' " : 366;
ssrc
Cat.
3208 EGR
Chev.
366
Figure 11. Comparison of Gaseous Emissions and Specific Fuel Consumption of
Caterpillar 320ft EGR and Chevrolet 366 Engines (23-Mode EPA Test)
-------
TABLE 11. FEDERAL SMOKE TEST RESULTS FOR MACK ETAY
-------
The modal smoke values obtained simultaneously with gaseous emissions;
are listed on Table 12. Note the 100 percent power smoke (no EGR) was 12 and
8.5 percent opacity at 1C80 and 2800 rpm, respectively. The 75 percent power,
modes 7 and 16, gave 8.3 and 17.3 percent opacity at 1680 and 2800 rpm,
respectively. The EGR valve was part open to give a 15 percent EGR rate. The
other modes of interest are modes 6 and 17, the 50 percent load points. At
1680 rpm the plume opacity was 5.3 percent, and at 2800 rpm the exhaust opacity
was 22.6 percent. This was the highest smoke measured during the modal tost
and represents the open, 40 percent EGR condition. The 40, 15 and zero EGR
rates are listed as defined by Caterpillar.
Usual operation of tlu dilution tunnel for particulate requires a
sufficient exhaust flow into the tunnel to give as high a particulate loading
as possible yet be below 125 degrees F at the filter face. On the assumption
that both banks of the V-8 engine ran the same, tb exhaust particulate
loadings would be the same. This might allow measurement of particulate from
just one bank at a time. To see if this approach would have merit, two smoke-
meters were used, one mounted on the left bank exhaust and the other on the
right bank exhaust. Identical mountings were made with 76 mm (3-inch) diameter
exhaust tubing at the ends of the exhaust.
Table 13 lists the results of a test made where exhaust backpressure
on both banks of the engine were identical. Note that during all full-power
operation, the left and right bank smoke is negligibly different, i.e., no
more than about 1 percent opacity in a 10 percent opacity reading. However,
when running at 75 or 50 percent power, the differences were dramatic. For
example, at 75 percent load, the difference was 12.^ percent opacity (14.5
versus 2.0 percent) at 1680 rpm and 11 percent opacity (18.5 versus 7.5 percent)
at 2800 rpm. The differences at 50 percent load were not as great but were
still sufficient to discontinue the single bank exhaust particulate approach.
In analyzing the results of this experiment, it appears that the
"recycle path" favors the left bank of the engine. Although the exhaust, as
it reenters the engine intake, is apparently free to mix and reenter both banks
of the engine, more may go to the left (EGR) side of the engine. If this is
the case, it is possible that more of the exhaust enters one or two cylinders
more than the others. Assuming this type of unequal distribution exists in
this engine, then this would exilain why the engine was so supersensitive t-
EGR.
Several yeir.s tatlicr, SwRl performed EGR experiments with an earlv
system design for a similar Caterpillar engine.Probably the most impottant
part of the design was the EGR-intake air mixer. As a result, the sensitivity
problems associated with the present experiments were not experienced excej t
when excessive levels of EGR were us< d. These results, though not a part of
the required test plan, are i rovidod to help partially explain why the extretr.el--
high and variable CO, smoke and HC were encountered earlier when the valve was
malfunctioning more or less.
C. Particulate and Sulfate Results
Particulate and sulfate results share a common sampling basis, the dilution
tunnel system. Table 14 is a summary listing of the particulate and sulfate
emission rates for the three HD engines tested. General methods of expressing
S6
-------
TABLE 12. SMOKE MEASURED DURING MODAI. TESTING
(Caterpillar 3208 with EGR)
Smoke, % Opacity
Mode
No.
Engine
Speed, rpm
Engi ne
Powe r,%
Rate,
EGR
%
Viilve
Position
Run
1
Run
2
Run
1
Idle
0
40
open
1.1
1.0
1.1
2
1680
2
40
open
1.0
1.0
1.0
3
1680
8
40
open
1.1
1.1
1.1
4
1680
18
40
open
1.2
1.5
1.4
5
1680
25
40
open
1.5
1.9
1.7
6
1680
50
40
open
5.0
5.5
5.3
7
1680
75
15
part
8.0
8.5
8.3
a<2>
1680
82
0
closed
1.2
2.1
1.7
9
1680
92
0
closed
2.8
3.9
3.4
10
100
0
closed
12.0
12.0
12.0
11
Idle
0
40
open
0.4
0.4
0.4
12
1680
CT
40
open
(5)
(5)
(5)
13
2800
100
0
closed
8.5
8.5
8.5
14
2800
92
0
closed
4.8
6.0
5.4
15(2)
2300
82
0
closed
3.3
4.5
3.9
16<3'
2800
73
15
part
15.0
19.5
17.3
1?(4)
2800
48
40
open
21.2
23.9
22.6
18
2800
25
40
open
9.5
10.5
10.0
19
2800
18
40
open
7.0
7.5
7.3
20
2800
8
40
open
4.5
4.1
4.3
21
2800
2
40
open
4.0
3.8
3.9
22
Idle
0
40
open
1.5
0.4
1.0
23
2800
CT
40
open
(5)
(5)
(5)
'''Position
(2)
to the
general
rotation of the
valve to preset
openings.
Achieved by manual signal to valve positioner to "closed" position since
82% load is transition point of automatic system.
• 'operated at 73% instead of 75% power to give less variable emissions.
• 'operated at 48% instead of 50% power to give less variable emissions.
'Smoke data not taken during closed throttle.
57
-------
TABLE 13. CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR LEFT AND RIGHT BANK SMOKE LEVELS
Smoke
Opaci ty,%
Baekpres.
,mm Hg
Mode
Engine
Power
Left
Right
Left
Right
No.
rpm
Percent
Bank
Bank
Bank
Bank
1
600
— —
0.5
0.5
1.3
1.3
2
1680
2
0.8
0.8
5,1
5.1
3
1680
25
0.6
0.4
5.1
5.1
4
1680
50
6.5
1.4
5.1
5.1
5
1680
75
14.5
2.0
7.6
7.6
6
1680
100
11.0
9.5
24.1
24.1
7
600
0.4
0.4
1.3
1.3
7a
1680
CT
0.0
0.0
5.1
5.1
8
2800
100
6.0
5.9
62.2
62.2
9
2800
75
18.5
7.5
27.9
27.9
10
2800
50
20.5
14.0
12.7
12.7
11
2800
25
9.0
7.0
10.2
10.2
12
2800
2
3.4
2.4
10.2
10.2
13
600
——
0.6
0.5
1.3
1.3
Maximum
Power
Curve
2800
6.0
5.5
62.2
62.2
2400
5.6
4.1
47.0
47.0
2000
7.1
6.5
36.8
36.8
1600
15.5
12.5
24.1
24.1
1200
25.0
24.0
12.7
12.7
Note: Left and right banks both set at 63.5 mm Hg (2,5 inches Hg) at
2800 rpm, 100% load. 13-mode cycle was run leaving left (EGR
side) restrictor at original setting and resetting right
restrictor to match the backpressure of the left bank.
58
-------
TABLE 14. SUMMARY OP PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
(Based on 47 mm Fiberglass and Fluoropore Samples}
Engine
tinq Make
tion Model
er
cd
*
d
Mack ETAY
Cat 3208
Chev 366
Alt
(1)
55-
III
23,04
52.42
20.41
Particulate Rates
10.57
16,16
1.72
2.28
4.15
0.40
hr kg fuel kw-hr
2.25
7.70
1.91
&
932.3
681.4
i:r>
2 36.7
Sulfate Rates
mg
hr
427.4
210.5
19. )
so4
Recov-
kg Fuel kw-hr ery %
mg
92.4
53.98
4.53
mg
90.9
100.24
1.31
0.77
22.13 0.50
or
ed
Mack ETAY
Cat 3708
Chev 366
Alt(1)
61.39 33.51
57.98 17.55
18.01 1.96
2.4H
2.14
0.31
0.58
0.62
0.18
4433.1
1559.7
0.97
188.9
2419.7
471.9
0.105
20.5
176.8
57.90
0.017
3.26
41.7
16.62
0.010
1.92
2.51
0.82
0.002
0.36
er
•ed
d
Mack ETAY
Cat 3208
Chev 366
Alt(1)
118.49
189.80
22.49
84.41
54.34
3.04
3.41
4.03
0. 36
0.75
0.96
0.14
6574.1
2975.0
2. 35
261.9
4689.6
852.9
0.317
35.3
189.0
63.31
0.037
4.16
41.3
15.02
0.015
1.64
2.69
0.90
0.004
0.40
:cr
?ed
id
Mack KTAY
Cat 3208
Chev 366
Alt
(1)
146.91
303.71
40.19
132.84
110.22
6.87
3.66
5.62
0.60
0.77
1.29
0.22
6993.0
3789.7
2.81
472.7
6343.1
1375.8
0.480
HO. 8
174.4
70.19
0.042
7.02
36.6
16.15
0.015
2.52
ft
2
1 . )
). )')
).
;er
:ed
)
id
Mack ETAY
Cat 3208
Chev 366
Alt
254.55
4f< i.01
49. SC.
260.76
215.83
10.07
5.40
8.43
0.6(1
1.11
1 .'JO
0.24
9576.3
3581.4
5.01
<>42, 1
9813.0
1600.3
3.770
I U.O
202.5
62.52
0.22"/
7.84
41.7
14. >7
0.090
3.12
Mack ETAY
Cat 3208
Chev 366
Alt«'>
13.8?
37.64
26.49
2.55
4.60
1.28
3,76
5. 11
0.53
948,9
1671.3
H.4-1
279.9
174.4
201.7
0.406
11.5
244. 3
237.72
0. 176
5. 3ft
¦ ¦1,
s. n
i -
: i-r
;ed
l
ttlo
Mack KTAY
Cat 3208
Chev 166
Altd)
This; modi; not run
66.7 3
30.79
21
1.
85
87
0.7';
805.7
46.06
309.2
264. 1
2.789
18.7
1.105
7.20
0. !2
:ih
_>ed
) ,
ad
Mack ETAY
cat 3208
"hev 366
Alt'1)
I 35.30
378.19
6 3.54
191.8
252.31
26.09
3.40
6.69
0.77
0.76
1.75
0. 30
8854.1
5232.7
211.44
1602.6
12554.5
3494.6
86.814
658.0
222.2
92.82
2.551
19.5
49.7
24.25
(1.991
7.49
S. i 3
] . 3
>.?7
2. 1<
21. Of.
0.70
0.63
6.21
0.25
65 . 6
3)52.7
682.54
I M)t,. i
80 3t . 6
1657.S
221.560
4HM.0
185.5
53.89
9.448
20.81
41.9
15. H8
3. 349
7. 36
,r 1
Alternate Chevrolet 366 sulfate results based on reanalyzed I FA solutions performed on
11/1/77, 9 weeks after initial analysis.
59
-------
TABLE 14(CONT'D). SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
(Based on 47 mm Fiberglass and Fluoropore Samples)
Engine
•rating Make
idition Model
mg
~nP~
Particulate Rates
hr kg "uel
9_ Mg_
kw-hr m-'
Sulfate Rates
wg
hr
wg
kg Fuel
_ss_
so.
Reeov-
kw-hr ery %
Ugh Mack ETAY 84.23 82.43 2.80 0.67 5985.5 5852.2 198.5 47.1 2.82
Speed Cat 3208 919.73 383.07 17.18 5.50 4152.8 1728.5 77.'-1 24.83 1.10
50% Chev 366 23.88 6.12 0.35 0.14 59.42 1.859 0.105 0.042 0.012
Load Alt*1) 603.0 154.4 8.73 3.46 0.97
•Ugh
Speed
25*
Load
Mack ETAY
Cat 3208
Chev 366
Alt
71.70
302.18
24.81
54.20
133.46
4.78
3.17
9.20
0.40
0.87 4371.9
3.69 3954.5
0.22
526.3
3304.15
1744.0
101.4
192.9
120.24
8.46
53.2
48.18
2.74
1.71
4.63 0.94
High
Speed
2
Load
Mack ETAY
Cat 3208
Chev 366
Alt
39.01
127.07
14,77
23.94
57.01
2.10
3.32
6.33
0.30
4.83 1378.5
20.36 1734.5
1.24
237.8
846.0
778.3
33.7
117.3 170.3 1.67
86.97 277.96 1.23
4.82
19.83 0.54
M i«!li
:;i I
I'Ut
u <) 11 L i.'
Mack I'TAY
Cat !:!»!!
("tiov Urn
Alt'1'
T1 ii. m<-«io not run
70..."; ?H.r»7 —
l(. 2.79 o.f.v
396.9
6H. 70
192. 3
161.1
7.614
21.3
1.781
4.95
based on reanalyzed II'A solutions performed on
I i ' I /7 t, ') wi-ck ; a ft < i initial ana 1 y:» i.
60
-------
the rate of emission for each contaminant are listed as follows: first, the
concentration, in mg/m^ or vq/m*, for particulate and sulfates; then a mass
per unit of time, g/hr, rate; then two specific mass emission rates, g or mg
per Kg fuel consumed and g or mg per kw-hr of work produced. These are commonly
known as "fuel specific" and "brake specific" emission rates. Also listed on
Table 14 are percent fuel sulfur converted to sulfate.
Table 15 is a summary of the engine o crating conditions measured during
the sampling for particulate and sulfate. The values are averaged for the
replicate tests and may be used to represent typical operation. For example,
the fuel rate or air flow rate may be used in determining emissions per day
given a usage factor, cycle of operation and the emission rates of Table 14.
For purposes of additional discussion, the results are graphed first for the
Mack and then for comparison of the Caterpillar 3208 EGR Diesel to the Chevrolet
366 gasoline.
1. Mack ETAY(B)673A
Figures 12 and 13 are graphs of average particulate and sulfate
rates, given in Table 14 for the Mack engine. The rates are plotted against
power level at the rated and intermediate engine speeds. From Figure 12, the
particulate rate, g/hr, increased linearly up to 75 percent of power. At full
power, the particulate rate increased at a higher than linear rate. The usual
g/hr behavior for particulate from Diesel engines is to increase linearly or
nearly so as power is increased.
Sulfate rates on Figure 13 show a similar trend, in mg/hr, to the
particulate. A nearly linear increase in sulfate is shown to 75 percent pow. r
and then a slightly increasing rate at 100 percent power. Sulfate from Diesels
has been shown to be mainly a function of the fuel consumed. The sulfur in
the sulfate, as a percent of the fuel sulfur burned, ranged from about 1.3 to
3.2 percent with an average of 2.4 percent based on the data in Table 14.
Figure 14 is a graph of the principal engine conditions of power
output, fuel rate and air flow of the Mack ETAY(B)b73A engine. These data art
from Table 15. They are averages of values observed during this series of
tests.
2. Caterpillar 3208 EGR
Knowing the extreme sensitivity of the EGR system to exhaust back-
pressure, it was decided to take special precautions when operating this engine
with the dilution tunnel. Recall that the dilution tunnel used in those tests
can only dilute a portion of the engine's exhaust, not the entire flow.
Normally, the flow obtained from tne exhaust muffler is regulated by adjusting
the backpressure on the muffler and engine to force more or less of the sample
out of the muffler and into the tunnel. For this engine, which has a limit of
63.5 mm Ug (2.5 inches Hg) at 2000 rpm, maximum power, the engine backpressures
measured during a 13-mode FTP arc shown i Table 16. All particulate samples
were obtained at engine backpressures adjusted in accord with the values listed
in Table 16.
This required the use of several size, diameter, muffler inserts to
be able to obtain sufficient sample at the very low backpressures at idle and
61
-------
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS
47 mm GLASS AND FLUOFDPORE FILTER TESTS
CWU* a on
Powr
Puwl
Air
it-ir
tnlwf
F.Kh.
Enyin* ' 11
•I"
'»at
Mi"
!>*»<»
k«i lu^l
Air
Rest
Loari 1
1
fcw
kg/hr
ta/Ptn
few hour
•,
mm llqi
"9 H 9
Intft * J
H.* k
IV
4,70
4.05
9.1
o.90>
?4
I". 1
2S.4
l>
2.10
i.m
G. 1
| ,H«.?
?*?
!?.»
5.1
i
0.9
4.4
J.?
4 n»^
'4
. 7
2.8
!nt«r .
H- >
1t '•
SB. '1
n.r
JO. 4
n.?M
74
12. 1
2?.9
jr-«i
28.4
«.IS
5.**
0.2»7
? 7
12.1
S.l
»K
i
10.7
*
2. ?
0. r*R >
4>
2* .*
2S.4
Ml! *
1 4
1IJJ
24.»
13.1
U. IIP
2*
!".<-
2h. 7
It
| M«
5h.«
M 4
S. S
11.C
4.2
'If*/
1
21 ,s
.r
2. »
>.
IR.O
s.e
Int "r
f1» k.
i -i «
17}.4
1# .4
ife.s
210
?e
/l.P
27.9
If
H n
«r>. 2
19. f
7 . .
. ? 10
in.q
fl.9
riK'v
i?-y
12. n
It.1-
1.4
(!,
"
.
7 .#•
Hio
H*rlt
I4'.r»
2 JS.4
4H. »
19.«
r>.205
2f-
31.r-
43.2
l ,1*
if HO
111.-?
?s.*
n.
0.22S
?»»
??.*
in.4
' hr ¦>
I
U- 1
1.!
r
42. "*
I .1"
N > fe
f>2A
1.0
i. f.«.
24
J.J
?S. 4
If
% JO
O.B
2.42
*n
3.0
k"'
no
----
2.5
1."
11.i
n.«
1 r«t t't ' "T
M.l> k
I450
Lai
| t.Rft
27
14.4
rhf»v
1200
2.5
1.2
19
19.1
0.3
llilh 1
m<-k
1 " >
252.2
5ft. ?
27,U
< .224
23
4* . 7
57.2
2*')t>
141. <*
3?.*
12.7
0. 2'»1
29
47.4
GI. J
< he"
2 * *»
>17. /
n.«
8.2
O,
IS
1.2
59.7
Hir<
« i *
i
I'M.4
4% 4
23.1
n.22?
2S
?<*.S
50.B
*»
/
1**1.4
1 ).f.
10.
in.
21. ?
34. )
Hr'J
1,5
to. 4
2*.S
*.s
tl, %^4
40
in. ¦-
30.1
Mights
*
1 '
124.5
29.^
18.
o. 2 J?
24
?7.a
40.fe
Cut
i«<«e
K9,*>
22,1
e.o
n. 120
U
20. s
22.9
h«-v
< rf
44.1
P.7
5. i
f». 1^7
44
19. '
22.2
1"»n »
62.1
! 7, ?
14. n
0.277
24
19.2
25.4
'"At
2ROO
36.2
14. 5
8.f>
0.4OI
2*
22.4
18.4
!»r>V
21.9
12.0
J.<»
O.MR
44
2B.S
8.9
Hlfjh/' 2
M
l«lor>
4,95
7.2
12.2
1.45
24
14.1
25.4
<~A*
J»8«0
2.0
8.9$
h,«»
3.7"
30
24. }
15.2
h' V
. 1 ¦¦
1.7
t.O
2.«
4.1*
IS
5.1
Hi |h/ "T
W-t ^
} -V
. . .
' X'
.' N° «
H. !
-
n
25.4
*1 V FT»(IIC "I'., t • •• h-vr«l.< »<<
-------
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS
47 mm GLASS AND FLUOROPORE FILTER TESTS
Condi I i"n
Kin t nr>
rowr
ru^i
Air
IKi'
Irtlrl
1
E*h.
C.r,in.
'hit
MK'
It'l f«|fl
Air
Prit
flest
Luad %
rj*i
Jkw _
kg/hr
fw/fri n
Vw hour
•/
•nm !lq
»2_»3
Int «*r • I
h.i k
ti'
4.?0
4,f>r»
9. 1
Et.VO >
."•4
1". 1
75.4
i>
2.10
*.-»n
0.1
1 .Hr-7
2?
17. <>
5.1
i
0.9
4.4
1.7
4 HP
14
17.7
2.8
M I1 »
11
SB.rj
U.'
10.4
2 '4
24
12.1
27.9
|r.»i
78.4
«. IS
V*
13.2«T
27
12.1
S.I
'hr x
10.7
»
2.2
4'
7' .«
2*>.4
Intff
Mv *
14
11).?
74. «
1 J. 1
~. 2lp
>f.
1 \l*
2#>. 7
' U
n 4
5. s
3.2J»-
2^
1! .<
4.2
|«"V
1
*.f-
2 , *
>. J'JS
1 '
lA.n
s.c
f! i k
11 '
l?3-4
M .4
tfe.S
<>.210
?e
71. P
27.<•
H «
«V J"
l«.f
7. »
' .2^0
?»
1r-.T
8.9
r i»«*v
!.'«>
12. n
ll.c.
1.4
ir-
*•
7.f:
l(i')
M*rit
14'"
23 S.4
4»*. i
19. H
0.20S
2f-
}|.f
43.2
< «t»
If hii
m.*
7r».#,
8.
0.22**
?«
18.4
».r •/
1?'*"
1"» "
u ¦>
1.1
. lip
r
, - *
1 «l«
fy *
oo
o.a
2.42
JO
3.0
' h«*v
?sn
—
2.5
1 „i»
4i"
11.2
fKfi
T
M,1. fc
14 V*
Cflt
—
'>.5
27
14.4
r hov
1J|»|
—
2.5
1.2
J9
>9.1
0. J
H*?h !
H*rk
1 « ¦>
252,2
5fi.?
27.0
s .224
23
4» . 7
57.?
JA'Ji*
} 7.^
12.7
0,2'»l
2^
4?.4
61.1
f
I' »fi
R7. i
31.«
0.2
O.
3S
1.2
59.7
Hi*fh
Hi *
I »'«
1*1.4
41 4
25,7
0.227
2S
?°».S
50.8
**
J <
l"4.4
» M.
10.
2'M
in
29. »
14.3
h«- •!
Hi
*»*.. 4
21.*.
o, 1M
40
1".^
38.1
Hiqh/*-
M<»r y
I »
124.S
29 .5
18.
0.217
24
77 .n
40.fc
VAX
2a<«?
72, 1
8.o
n. J2U
11
20. s
22.9
h«*v
'
44.1
17.7
5.1
n. ?97
44
11. »
22.7
V
r#»» *
67. 1
17.?
14.0
0.JI7
24
19.2
25.4
'"a*
7«on
16.7
14.<>
§.*
0.4«i
2*
?2.4
18.4
h«*v
JfKI
21. 9
12.1
J.9
o.u*
44
2". ®»
8.9
2
Hv k
4.95
7.2
12.2
1.45
24
14.1
75.4
?nno
2.8
8,95
h.o
l.?o
10
24. )
15.2
h« V
. I'M.
1.7
'.0
2-0
4.1»
<5
5.1
llllh/ T
V
1 .M,
--
_ -
..~(f »
H. 1
-
2?
/o.
25. 4
• » •<
' ' »
4. 1
?. '
-
4 "•
J". *
1.1
M, V ,,
\t tf }1 "U,. v
. | * *»
h«vi»l't •
-------
300
250
200
Jc 150
100
300
250
200
150
100
50
•f
Idle
2
25
50
75
1 10
PEI-'CENT OF POWKIi
Figure 12. Particulate Emission Rates from Mack ETAY(B)673A
Truck Engine, Based on 47 mm Glass Filters
63
-------
,000
!, 000
1,000
1,000
,000
,000
,000
0
iOO
250
200
150
100
50
0
12
10
i
o
I
Idle * 2S rt, 7S J00
Percent of Power
Figure 13, Sulfate (S04=) Emission Rates from Mack ETAY(B)67 3A
Truck Engine, Based on 47 mm Fluoropore Filters
04
-------
rdle .. as 50 75 100
I'l.RCKNT OF POWER
Figure 14. Power Output, Fuel and Air Pates from Hack ET.\Y(B)673A Truck Er.gi
6
-------
TABLE 16. EXHAUST BACKPRESSURE SCHEDULES - CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR
Engine Exhaust
Backpressure
Mode Engine Power 13 Mode FTPKL)
No.
rpm
Percent
mm Hg
in. Hg
1
600
...
0.8
0.03
2
1680
2
2.5
0.1
3
1680
25
5.1
0.2
4
1630
5 I
5.1
0.2
5
1680
75
7.6
0. 3
e
1680
100
17.8
0.7
7
600
0.8
r«"i
O
O
8
2800
100
63.5
J .
9
2800
75
35.6
1.4
1
280C
5(
22.9
. J
11
2800
25
20.3
0.8
12
2800
2
15.2
0.6
13
600
0.8
0.03
Based on preset 63.5 nan Hg { .1 inches Hy! at 2800 rpm and full load.
the 1680 rpm conditions. This cxtri care was essential to ensure that the
engine o(crated just th same as it would durina a normal 13-mode FTP gaseous
emissions test. The sulfate and j articulate results thus obtained are listed
n Table 14. They will be discussei in detail in a later subsection.
3. :h< vro!• t <
rhi w • i» • o|>| >rtjnjty to mea: ur< | jMi ilat and sulfatt
• mi - "ion from a ¦ n.ji: . Tin ¦ nqine wi :>{ i r it i w th fh« regular qra "it r; illar 3">
K enqini wi t mpl 1. It r iv< I a thorough cl arung ani recal ibrat i jn,
however, i rior t its u; on th< qa -• lint ngirn-. A now muffler of the tyj i
i wit:, a Chev olet "-r- i €-•' 1 ize truck was »btair >d and modified to
spli a suitabl -?ami . fr im tn«- muffler jutlet ;avitv.
A temperature not to exec-d 11 T at the filter face was maintained
in keepinq with the more volatile a ;p<;cts f gasoline engine exhaust
products and {articulate. It was f >una that the usual 10 to 20 minute sampling
period had to be greatly xtended to accumulate sufficient particulate on the
filter disc for analysis. This first test of the HDG engine particulate re-
quired substantial attent an to detnl to jain satisfactory results. The
results are listed in Table 14 and *re dis :ussed in the next subsection.
f.b
-------
4, Discussion of Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 Results
Figure 15 is a plot of the three particulate emission rates, g/hr,
g/m3, and g/kg fuel, for both engines. The first item of importance is the
quite different behavior of the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine at rated, 2800 rpm,
and intermediate, 1680 rpm. This is quite apparent by all three graphs or
ways of expressing the particulate emission rate.
For example, the increase in g/hr is smooth and continuous at 1680
rpm and not unlike Diesel engine behavior. At 2800 rpm, the particulate rate
increased very rapidly with power reaching a peak of 650 g/hr at 75 percent
power before decreasing to 252 g/hr at full power. Recall that no EGR is
scheduled at the 100 percent or full-power operating levei. For the Caterpillar
3208 EGR engine, data were also acquired under closed throttle (CT) conditions
of motor g at 2800 and 1600 rpm. The CT rates were very similar to the 2
percent power levels.
Compared to the Diesel, the Chevrolet 366 gasoline a'
increase n |ower.
Figure 16 is imilar to Figure 1 , exc |t it i a >m(ari n f ; •
sulfate emission rates for both engir . It is inter* tn j t ::ompar< tin
CattriiUir 3208 sulfate rates on Fiqur< 16 to tin : art j ;ulate rati n Figur<
15. At the 1680 rpm intermediate sjeed, the sulf tte ia' i'. reased s xr e t
with power level, mainly due to an increjase n the tu>l I urtau j r h jut r
fuel rate. At 2800 r|m, the increase with power (fue 1 ra» was :vidc-nt ly
ttn , 2s and 1 ,• ercont : >we-r joints. However, it l » - if the EGR and 1 u ;•
in -rcascs in total j articulate measured at 50 and 7 *vt
on Figure- 15) had the effect of reducing sulfate product i i. at those two point .
The sulfate levels measured dur ng cut thr ifc'M-. 7_-F , ti sulfite
I roduction of the Cate ij i 11 »r 3208 EGR was about 1.2 ; e re:e i t of fl sulfur n
the fuel on the averacie. The* re;coveri s ranged f re m c ut . ' 3.^"* j l i.
This is in keej ing with tr»- j revious findings
converted to that which i measured as sulfur in LI ulfat • »1 BCA j» lur
It is about half that of the Mack KTAY(B)673A enymc i rev usly iiscus
-------
4, Discussion of Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrolet 366 Results
Figure 15 is a plot of the three particulate emission rates, g/hr,
g/m3, and g/kg fuel, for both engines. The first item of importance is the
quite different behavior of the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine at rated, 2800 rpm,
and intermediate, 1680 rpm. This is quite apparent by all three graphs or
ways of expressing the particulate emission rate.
For example, the increase in g/hr is smooth and continuous at 1680
rpm and not unlike Diesel engine behavior. At 2800 rpm, the particulate rate
increased very rapidly with power reaching a peak of 650 g/hr at 75 percent
power before decreasing to 252 g/hr at full power. Recall that no EGR is
scheduled at the 100 percent or full-power operating levei. For the Caterpillar
3208 EGR engine, data were also acquired under closed throttle (CT) conditions
of motor g at 2800 and 1600 rpm. The CT rates were very similar to the 2
percent power levels.
Compared to the Diesel, the Chevrolet 366 gasoline a'
increase n |ower.
Figure 16 is imilar to Figure 1 , exc |t it i a >m(ari n f ; •
sulfate emission rates for both engir . It is inter* tn j t ::ompar< tin
CattriiUir 3208 sulfate rates on Fiqur< 16 to tin : art j ;ulate rati n Figur<
15. At the 1680 rpm intermediate sjeed, the sulf tte ia' i'. reased s xr e t
with power level, mainly due to an increjase n the tu>l I urtau j r h jut r
fuel rate. At 2800 r|m, the increase with power (fue 1 ra» was :vidc-nt ly
ttn , 2s and 1 ,• ercont : >we-r joints. However, it l » - if the EGR and 1 u ;•
in -rcascs in total j articulate measured at 50 and 7 *vt
on Figure- 15) had the effect of reducing sulfate product i i. at those two point .
The sulfate levels measured dur ng cut thr ifc'M-. 7_-F , ti sulfite
I roduction of the Cate ij i 11 »r 3208 EGR was about 1.2 ; e re:e i t of fl sulfur n
the fuel on the averacie. The* re;coveri s ranged f re m c ut . ' 3.^"* j l i.
This is in keej ing with tr»- j revious findings
converted to that which i measured as sulfur in LI ulfat • »1 BCA j» lur
It is about half that of the Mack KTAY(B)673A enymc i rev usly iiscus
-------
M
¦C
Iy
a
3
tp
M
X
Cn
In^ermofliatei Spegd i j
i " I
O Caxerpj,liar 3208. EGR Cies«l
' iQ ChjevroJjet 3f>6 Gapol in«
eta
1 K )
®-«T. ••• —~ _;^»©
® . —[pmtrf
I
Idle Cut
Throttle
25 50
Percent of Fow»r
1 i
Figure 15. Particulate Emission Rates from Cat r; ill it i i
Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines Based on 47 nun <".l s »1* r
68
-------
4000
3000 •
f , j~T"T~T~i intfe*»e$late' speed
itc^rpTillai 3208 86I^Diejjei
2000
L Chevrolet 366 Cfcsolipe
f> 1600
1200
¦
©«*
(0=2*1
-40" ~ *•--£>
Q—r?=3=
Idle cut 2
Throttle
25 50
Percent of Powi r
Figure 16. Sulfate (SO^~) Emission Rates from caterpill »' )U
and Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines, Based on 47 mm Kluoroi t ltei
69
-------
4000
I High Sp^ed'
f , j——j- intermediate' SpecpT r 1
3000
2000
3208 BGi{ ' J Til ...Lir
iQ: Chevrcllefc 366' G&solihe /r" T'! "t—'
x 1600
1200
$ ¦ : t
£0 crrl.-slr^-'— J*r.
: 50C
' —fb ^-r-rCp
Idle
Cut
Throttle
25 50
Percent of Powc r
Fiqure 16. Sulfate (S0^_) Emission Rates from Caterpillai )8
and Chevrolet 366 Truck Engines, Based on 47 mm Fluoroi • I- Itei
6
-------
problem was the difficulty of measuring sulfate from a gasoline engine operating
on leaded gasoline. This is not normally done and historically was not possible
due to positive interferences in the BCA analysis of the combustion products
of the lead scavenger compounds (chlorine and bromine based compounds). The use
of a silver nitrate column in the BCA analysis had remedied this and was not
the phenomenon experienced.
Following the normal sulfate collection on Fluoropore filters, the
filters were ammomated, weighted, put into the isopropyl alcohol (IPA) solution
and analyzed by the BCA procedure. The results wore, with only a few exceptions,
extremely low, so low that the detection peak was below the minimum needed to
trigger the computer to integrate the peak. These very, very low in tial
results were of great concern. The IPA solutions of one run were reanalyzed
with the same low results obtained.
About nine weeks later, it was decided to rerun not only the IPA
solutions which gave the very low values but to analyze the remaining du[lie.ite
Fluoroi>ore filters which had already been ammoniated but not put into the IPA
solution. This was done with the net effect of all values being much higher
and fairly repeatable. Such a result would cause suspicion of the initial
results. However, the initial results were performed properly, and, on re-
analyzing the strip charts, calibrations, range and calculations, nothing cou1d
be found to fault those initial values.
Discussions with Mr. Frank Black and Dr. Si 1vestre Tejeda of SPA, RTP,
wer. unable to result in reasons for the very low values or the apparent cnang< .
SwRl chemists were also unable to offer more than mere speculation. There i*
an a| parent lack of knowledge of how to use the BCA procedure wir.i leaded fu< .
N. arly all sulfatt testing has been with unleaded fuel. Thus, u -iystr rv coi.tii.ui.i
in t i ;oint md no "imj U oxj lanation seems possible at this time. In a jr- • mi i t
witn tin Project Officer, both sets of values will be r< or tod and documentici.
Table 14 lists two sets of aulfate data, the first set being an averac
of the two runs that gave the extremely low values. Excet tions to this wen
the high speed (2500 rpm) 75 and 100 i ercent load points where sulfate accounted
for 0.03 and 0.28 j rcent of the fuel sulfur, respective lv. The two cut tlmttle
conditions, with very low fuel rates, save 0.12 i rcent (intermedial speed)
nd ).194 jircent (high speed of 2300 rpm) sulfur conversion to sulfate. Tb
remaining idle and jowor conditions produced very low .sulfate levels, commonly
amounting to less than 0.01 percent of the fuel sulfur.
Listed below the initial BCA analysis is the average of the reanalysis
made on November 1, 1977, souw nine weeks after the initial bCA evaluations.
The reanalysis was made of tht original IPA solutions. These solutions had
been tightly capped and suitably stored for such eventuality. The averages
represent jood run-to-run repeatability, except a few conditions, and this i
surprising for a gasoline engine where sulfate is normally emitted as sulfuric
acid mist and is prone to storage and purge (release) from the exhaust system.
The average values, summarized on Table 14, arc substantially higher than tin-
initial analysis. Sulfate recovery, as a percent of the fuel sulfur, ranges
from 0.36 u) to 2.3) percent with an overall average of 0.91 percent.
It is not certain which set of analyses is proper since this is tin
first opportunity known to attempt the measurement of sulfate from a HOG
70
-------
engine operating on a fuel containing 1.6 g/gal lead. It can be argued that
the first set of measurements is correct, but obviously the BCA method is in-
appropriate for use with leaded fuels. The reanalysis of the original IPA
solutions, and their confirmation by analysis of the duplicate filter some
nine weeks after its collection and ammoniation, indicates that a non-negligible
level of sulfate, or what the BCA procedure indicates as sulfate, was collected.
Other evidence pointing to the possibility of the reanalyzed values being appro-
priate is the non-negligible initial rate obtained at 75 and 100 percent power,
2300 rpm.
For purposes of discussion and preliminary comparison, the reanalyzed
results from Table 14 alternate {1} for the Chevrolet 366 engine are plotted
on Figure 16. The rates are quite uniform and consistent, showing an increase
in mg/hr and lig/m^ with power for the 2300 rpm and only a slight increase for
the 1200 rpm speed. The higher speed condition, as expected, resulted in
higher mg/kg and concentration. The effect of speed on the mg/kg fuel was
negligible, meaning that the sulfate, or the BCA reanalyzed IPA solutions, was
essentially a common or constant rate of the amount of fuel consumed.
Table 14 contains the averages of the two runs, sometimes slightly
rounded, that are listed in Appendix C. Tables C-ll and C-12 are the particu-
late and sulfate tables for the Mack ETAY(B)67 3A engines. Tables C-13 and C-14
are the particulate and sulfate listings for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine.
Table C-15 lists the particulate rates for the Chevrolet 366 engine. The
sulfate rates are listed on Table C-16 for the initial analyses that were mostly
negligible, while Table C-17 gives the results of the reanalysis of the initial
IPA sulfate solutions. Also listed on Table C-17 are the results of the analysis
of the run 2, spare filter which was taken as backup during the original engine
operation. As a matter of routine, these filter samples were ammoniated and
placed in sealed plastic containers until they were placed in IPA solution for
BCA analysis.
Figure 17 illustrates the fuel rate, observed power output and »
flow of both the Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 engines. The Cater)ill r
test conditi ns were such as to produce nearly twici the power >utput as Ua-
of the Chevrol( t 366. The fuel rate was higher for the gasoline engine t r
unit of power produced, as mentioned earlier in the cycle BSPC v«ilur
gaseous emissions. For more complete engine data, s< <• Table 1
5- Cycle Compositf Particulate and Sulfate
The modal particulate and sulfate data pr. sented and described
earlier may be computed as a cycle composite value. Depending on what
weighting factors are used, the modal data can be used to simulate various
types of duty cycles. All engines were run on the eleven different modes f
the 13-mode FTP, and thus a 13-mode cycle composite may be comi uted using the
usual 13-mode FTP weighting factors. In addition, the Caterpillar 3208 EGR and
Chevrolet 1S6 ran two cut throttle modes permitting a cycle composite based on
weighting factors derived from the EPA 2j-mode procedure. The basis for these
weighting factors was described in Section III of this report.
Table 17 is a summary listing of the cycle composite values using
13-mode FTP weighting factors and factors derived from the 2 3-mode test. Both
71
-------
O Cat. 32Q8/SGH
O chev, J66
Hicjh Sp«ed
Intermediate, Speed
a, 50
M
SI
CP
M
01
3
Idle CT
25 50
PERCENT OF POWER
100
Fiqure 17. Power Output, Fuel and Air Rates from caters liar
3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366 Truck Enqines
72
-------
TABLE 17. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC CYCLE COMPOSITE
PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
Cycle
Engine Wt. Fact.
Mack 13 FTP
ETAY(B)673A
Particulate
Run g g
No. kw-hr kg fuel
1 0.845 3.628
2 0.796 3.429
Avg. 0.821 3.529
Sulfate
nig ng
kw-hr kg £uel
47.047 202.03
42.666 182.752
44.862 192.391
Cat 13 FTP 1 2.96 10.17 22.19 76.21
3208/EGR 2 2.95 10.15 22.64 78.03
Avg. 2.96 10.16 22.42 77.12
EPA 23(U 1 3.50 11.71 23.91 80.08
2 3.46 11.65 24.81 83.53
Avg. 3.48 11.68 24.36 81.81
Chev 366 13 FTP 1 0.260 0.583 1.377 3.085
2 0-239 0.532 0.540 1.202
Avg. 0.250 0.558 0.959 2.144
EPA 23(1) i 0.292 0.621 2.063 4.387
2 0.261 0.554 0.705 1.494
Avg. 0.277 0.588 1.384 2.941
13 FTP 1 4.952(2> 11.09412'
2 'i.720<2> 12.749<-J
Avg. 5.3K»(2) ll.'!22(2)
EPA 23^> 1 r*.922 j2? 12.594{2|
2 Q.5831 . 13.')r>9
Avg. 6. 2r>2 13.277
13 FTP 2 h.279C ' 1i.993l3)
EPA 23 2 7.480(3) 15.btiO(3)
Weighting factors derived from EPA 2 3-mode test for use with 11 modes
pj of 13-mode FTP and two cut-throttle modes.
(Reanalysis of IPA solutions nine weeks after initial analysis.
Backup spare filter originally animoniated, then placed into IPA
solution and analyzed on 10/28/77.
73
-------
particulate and sulfate results are computed on a brake specific (mass per
kw-hr) and a fuel specific basis (mass per kg fuel consumed).
Listed below are the emission rates based on a 7-mode test (weighting
factors derived from the 13-mode FTP) published in Reference 18.
Particulate Sulfate
g/kw-hr q/kg fuel mq/kw-hr mq/kg fuel
Cummins 855 TC 0.381 1.44 35.02 131.8'J
DDAD 6V-71 LSN60 1.90 4.43 21.16 70.87
DDAD 8V-71 TA 0.697 2.45 48.37 170.06
The Mack LTAY (B)673A engine results may bo compared to the Cunuiins
8S5TC, also a six-cylinder open chamber turbocharged Diesel engine. Particulit
rates were more than double the 855TC engine while sulfate was only about 25
percent higher. This gross difference in particulate may be attributed to one
or more differences in the fuel injection system or combustion systems, extent
or turbocharging, etc. The fairly similar sulfate data indicates that fuel
sulfur to sulfate conversion may be insensitive to such engine parameters.
The Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine particulate was some 3.6 times that
of the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine and was substantially higher than the 2-strok
Detroit Diesel 6V-71 engine. The Caterpillar 3208 particulate is higher mainly
because of the EGR system and is best compared to a similar Caterpillar 3208
but not EGR equipped. Such an engine was run under EPA Contract 68-02-1777
{Reference 35) and was found to produce 0.871 grams particulate/kw-hr and 28 ijkj
sulfate/kw-hr using a self-compositing 13-mode cycle. This means the EGR
equipped Caterpillar 3208 engine emitted over three times the brake specific
particulate as the standard, non-EGR equipped 3208 model. Sulfate, on the
other hand, was some 80 percent of the standard 3208 engine.
The next comparison of interest is the Caterpillar 3208 EGR and
Chevrolet 366 engines. This is depicted on Figure 18, a bar chart of the
average rates of Table 17. On a brake specific basis, the 3208 Diesel had some
12 times the 366 Chevrolet particulate rate. Based on fuel specific, the
Caterpillar 3208 particulate rate was almost 18 times higher than the Chevrol I
366 engine. Recall that the Chevrolet cycle weighted brake specific fuel con-
sumption is almost twice that of the Diesel and the reason for this can be
understood. In other words, for the same particulate rate, the less fuel
burned either modal or composite, the larger the fuel specific particulate
value. If the fuel rate is higher, as it is with the gasoline versus the
Diesel, the denominator is larger in the g/kg fuel expression, and thereby th<
differences between gasoline and Diesel engines can be explained.
For completeness sake, the Chevrolet 366 sulfate composites in
Table 17 are based on the initial, very low results and the reanalyzed filters
measured some nine weeks later. If the reanalyzed sulfate data are used for
comparison, the Chevrolet 366 produced on the order of one-fourth the sulfate,
on a mg/kw-hr basis, as the Caterpillar 3208 engine. This is shown on the
lower half of Figure 18. Please recall that the gasoline engine was run with
0.03 percent by weight sulfur in the fuel while the Diesel engine operated on
a fuel with 0.235 percent sulfur, an eightfold difference.
74
-------
Cat 3208 Chev 366 Cat 3208 Chev 366
23
Cat 3208 Chev 366 Cat 3208 Chev 366
Figure 18, Comparison of Cycle Weighted Particulate and
Sulfate Emission Rates - Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366
75
-------
In terms of mg of sulfate/kg fuel burned, the difference in sulfate
is (based on 13- or 2 3-mode weighting factors) over six times from the Cater-
pillar than the Chevrolet 366. Again, the difference in brake specific fuel con-
sumption, as with the previous particulate rate discussion, explains the greater
difference in fuel specific versus brake specific rates of the two engines.
The composites .summarized on Table 17 were from the measured grams
of particulate and itkj of sulfate per hour. Tallies C-18 and C-19 are provided
for the Mack engine, and Tables C-20 through C-23 are detailed listings for
the Caterpillar 3208 EGR. Tables C-24 through C-27 list the alternative sets
of sulfate data for the Chevrolet 366 as well as the particulate composites.
It is interesting to note, from Figure 18, the similar cycle con?>osite rates
of particulate and sulfate for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR and Chevrolet 366
engines when using 13-mode FTP versus weighting factors derived from the 23-
mode EPA test. The 23-mode EPA composites were consistently, though not
substantially, higher than the 13-mode FTP composites,
D. Elemental and Metal Analyses
Table 18 is a listing of the percent by weight values for carbon, hydrogen
and nitrogen. These elemental analyses were made using the 47 mm glass fiber
filter dilution tunnel collected samples. These same filters were used to de-
termine, by filter weight gain, the mass emissions of particulate per Table 14.
The operating conditions were defined by Table 15. The two Diesels had very
nearly the same carbon content at all loads except 75 percent at intermediate spe
The ;>ercent carbon content of the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine was higher
at the high speed operation at all load conditions. Recall that the Cater-
pillar 3208 particulate rate was substantially higher and nonlinear, ostensibly
due to the exhaust gas recirculation at the 2, 25, 50 and 75 percent power
levels. Hydrogen content was higher for the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine. In those
cases where carbon was lower, the hydrogen percentage will be higher.
The very low carbon content of the Chevrolet 366 gasoline engine is indica-
tive of this type of engine. Relative to the two Diesels, the particulate is
composed of materials other than represented by carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen.
The combined C+H for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR ranged from 61 percent at idle to
about 92 percent at 75 percent load, intermediate speed (1680 rpm) and 10( [>>rc<:ti
power, high speed (2800 rpm). For the Chevrolet 366, the C+H ranged from about
2.5 percent to 51.5 percent at intermediate speed (1200 rpm) and 100 percent loac
Aside from the mostly qualitative survey of the relative amounts of
carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, the "percent by weight" values may be used
directly with the particulate rates already discussed. For example, the mass
emission rates for particulate on Table 14 may be multiplied by the decimal
equivalent of the appropriate Table 18 i>ercent carbon to obtain an estimation
of the mass omission rate of particulate as carbon.
Table 19 lists the results of the metals analysis (Performed through
the cooperation of the EPA-Research Triangle Park Laboratories. The EPA-RTP
X-ray fluorescence metals analysis equipment has been found to be superior in
both the number of metals and analytical precision to laboratories available
to SwRi for this analysis. The analysis was made from particulate collected
76
-------
TABLE 18. ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FILTER COLLECTED PARTICULATE
(Percent by Weight based on 47 mm Fiberglass Filter Samples)
Condition
Speed/% Load
Element
Mack
ETAY(B)67 3A
Cat
3208/EGR
Chev
366
Inter/02
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
58.50
9.12
1.16
66.46
7.36
0.76
1.94
1.92
<0.1
Inter/25
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
70.40
4.79
1.62
70.04
5.80
0.56
2.00
0.77
<0.1
Inter/50
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
81.03
2,97
0.94
80.31
2.76
0.30
0.27
2.46
<0.1
Inter/75
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
78.54
2.06
0.82
89.82
1.75
0.24
4.39
0.92
0.93
Inter/100
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
88.09
2.15
0.78
87.74
1.15
0. 28
47.18
4.36
<0. 1
Idle
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
62.23
7.45
0.96
55.80
5.33
0.91
5.66
0.45
<0.1
Inter/CT
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
(1)
(1)
(1)
75.90
9.73
0.09
15.63
3.54
<0.1
High/100
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
67,33
2.43
1,04
90.47
1.28
0.45
1.46
1.07
>.44
High/75
Carbon
Hydroqen
Nitrogen
77.41
3.22
0.96
88.59
1.09
0.36
24.90
1.63
0. 25
High/50
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
68.67
3.21
1.24
82.27
1.45
0.21
1.12
0.21
<0. 1
High/25
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
69.18
5.55
1.14
82.51
3.24
0.47
- 0.1
2. 0G
<0.1
High/02
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
58.78
8.26
0.36
77.18
6.83
0.55
<0.1
2.41
<0.1
High/CT
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
(1)
(1)
(1)
78.35
10.17
0. 19
19.86
1.(7
0.1
(1) Condition not run
77
-------
TABLE 19. METALS ANALYSIS OF FILTER COLLECTED PARTICULATE
(Percent by Weight Based on Fluoropore Filter Samples)
Cond.
Speed/
EnglfMP^
(Detection Mmts)
uq/filtrr
Inter/ Hack
rat
Ch**v
02
-¦J
00
tn*er/
iS
Inter/
SO
tnt«*r '
7S
Inter/
100
Inter/
CT
Miqh/
20
Hlqh/
7S
Hack
<"*t
Ch*v
Hack
C*t
Chev
rhev
*ack
cat
<:h*v
Hack
Cat
Chev
Itock
Cat
Chcv
cat
fh*v
HS'k
Cat
ChfV
_£r_ 9\^ Hn
1.17 l.OS 2,42
Q.Jft
6* 4
0.61 0.11
89.0
'J. 11
71.4
O.IH O.IJ
0.0*, o.os
0.72 67.1
0,11 0,08
9.04 O.O?
24.8
1.8 S8.S
condition not run
45.5
J. I'#
O-yft SO.4
o.2«
55.1
2,f,9 O.ll
0.4n
O.OI
31.8 0.?O
O.OI
0.01
47.4 0.2"
0.0?
o. n
«2.8 0.O2
0.11
0.0?
42.9 0.01
0,02
O.OI
O.OI
0.2
o, |
O.02
o.o«>
0.2
0.03
O.oS
0.27
o.n
0.12
0.01
O.Of,
O.n?
Cd
fl.Ul
0.02
n.?
(J. >04
O.OOl
O.ol
0.007
0.02
Al
O.OI
o, I
o.41
U.0O7
0.2 O.W»
o.oo?
.i.f»4 0.0? O.V»
o.ooi
O.OI
0.001
r ')C? O.002
0.0? O,o6 0.19
o.oi 0.006
M.03 0.1 0.3
o.oos o.ooi
0.02 O.OI
0.00%
o.n
0.«N*2
0.1
0.20 0.53
2.9
1.0
o. is
4.60
1.64
0,2
2.62
1.29
J. 12
0.67
0.01
0.003
O.OO?
0.19
2.21
0.60
2.1
7. 13
O. 34
0,50
*..06
0.92
S. 16
0.41
0.27
J*9
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.00b
o.os
o.ooj
O.04
0.004
0.04
0.004
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.04
JC
0.06
0.04
0.009
O.OI
0.01
0.004
0.0)
o.ooi
12.1
0.O1J4
0.0O1
0.002
0.002
0.O04
0.01
n.oof
0.006
O.OOS
0.002
0.002
0.001
Cl_
0.21
0.09
11.?
Zn cu Ni
O.SO 2.05 O. 12
0.0?
0,«>8
O.09
O.Oi
0.«7
0.1
O.02 0.O4
fi.04
0.03
8.02
0.S1
0. OS
6 .tJf>
0.02
0.04
o.os a. vi
0.04
o. >1
0.04 O.02
e.BR
0,04
0.11
9.H8
O.OS
11 .P
0.27
0.23
0.02 0.18
0.1
O.S
&•»
O. |H
0.09
0.0?
o.Oi
.11
>.04
0.10
c*
0.19
0.2
U. I
3.1
0.>l4
0.08
0.O3
0,O2
«'.03
o.an
0.03
0.03
1.nj
O.OS
0.01
0.0*
0.06
0.01
0.03
O.CS
0.07
0,28
0.29
o.OS
n. 13
n. 04
O.OI
Hl1
't.O*
O.OG*
O.OI
O.OI
0.2
t .oft*
« I
*.64
0.63
1.90
0.90
2.Of
0.«3
0.01
0.006
O.OJ
0.006
0,003
0.004
0.001
0.009
0.004
0.OO4
0.03
0.02
8.99
O 01
I0.O
0.0J
< . t?
o.os
0.02
0.09
0.01 0.01
0,O* 0.47 n.09
O.OS
0. >s
o.os
0.06
r. 03
O.04
0.02
0.06
O.OS
.07
O.IO
HMk
r*t
"h»»v
jon tun
4? S
111 **'-k RTAY(lt>* Tlh, fst-t; 1 I Mr Hirt p», < h»vr< 1« t « r
-------
on the duplicate Fluoropore filter takers at the same time as the fluoropore
filter for sulfate analysis.
Only calcium was found in all samples from all engines. Phw--*• rus
and silica were the next roost popular elements in the particulate. Sodium,
iron, nickel, barium, chromium and copper were seldom found and at low levels
The two Diesels were not consistent in either the specific metal or its level
Sometimes the Caterpillar 3208 had less and sometimes more of a specific
element.
Comparing the Caterpillar ."<200 KGR and Chevrolet 366, major differ-
ences are noted. First, it is evident that the particulate from the gasoline
engine is th.»t of tetraethy 1 lead motor mix combustion products. These art-
indicated mainly by the lead percentages and to a lesser degree by the bromin
and chlorine values, the lead scavengers. One way of comparing the two enqir
is to sum the various percentages on Table 19. The Caterpillar Diesel had ar
average of 1.1 percent of the particulate reqresented by the elemental analy:
not counting carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, while the Chevrolet 366 averaged
98 percent. The lead plus chlorine plus bromine average percentage was 96
percent, with about 2 percent of the particulate attributed to the other mot.
and elements analyzed as listed on Table 19.
Another item of interest is the lower sulfur content of the Chevrolet
366 relative to the Caterpillar 3208. Only in two conditions was sulfur
reported for the Chevrolet 366 (in other modes the sulfur was apparently be
the minimum detectable), and the Chevrolet 366 was about 20 percent of the
sulfur from the Caterpillar 3208. A final comment relates to the several
Chevrolet 366 test conditions in which the combined lead, bromine and ;hloi
is greater than 100 percent. This is af parent during all four power .o- lit
at intermediate speed of 1200 rpm and during the high speed £5 percent mod<
The specific reason for this is unknown, although it may have to do with tl
specific location on the filter wnere the X-ray was taken. It is speculate
that maybe the lead and lead scavenger products mtv not distribute over t!»
47 mir ' inropore filter uniformly and thereby could result in their over-
statement rfhen ratijed t> the enti-e filter. The answer to this is not r»
available and the r< idt r should be cautioned when usinq Tal li' ly data in t
way.
E. benzo(a)Pyrem- Analvsi
Th< results cf the analysis of BaV, the polynuelear aromatic hydrocai
measured, art Jisri i on Tablt JO. Thes< analyse:; weri bas< d on the sam| li
collected by larger, 203 by ^S4 mm (H x 10 inch! fiberglass filters durii.
separate set of tests. Usually, the large filters were taken a« soon as
47 mm size filter runs were completed. Table 21 is a summary of pertinen
engine operating conditions observed during collection of the 8 x 1 i saim
for BaP. The conditions ar. quite similar to those listed o-. Table 15 fc
47 mm filters.
The BaP analysis of the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine was jerformed by Sou
Foundation for Research and Education. The Caterpillar 3208 and Chevrol
engine samples were extracted and analyzed through the cooperation of
Dr. Robert H. Jungers of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Labor.t
EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The repeated difficulties -
70
-------
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OP PARTICULATE, BaP AND ORGANIC SOLUBLES
FKOM 8 X 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES
Condition
Speed/Load, %
Engine
(1)
Particulate Rate
9
~KF
kg fuel kw-hr
nr
BaP Rate Organi
yg yg Solub
hr kg fuel kw-hr % *
yg
Inter/02 Mack 27.10 12.26 2.76 2.61 0.557 252.0 56.0 54.0 34.8'
Cat 86.30 26.53 6.631 12.631 0.147 45.1 11.3 21.5 16.96
Chev 13.90 1.17 0.266 1.300 Below Minimum Detectable 2.4C
Inter/50
Mack
112.61
81.36
3.25
0.71
0.647
481.0
18.0
4.0
Cat
188.16
53.70
3.920
0.945
0.116
33.1
2.4
0.6
Chev
13.22
1.79
0.217
0.088
O.OC-93
1.3
0.2
0.1
Inter/100
Mack
182.04
189.95
3.87
0.81
0.162
166.0
3.0
1.0
Cat
429.25
190.27
7.446
1.675
Below
Minimum Detectable
Chev
52.52
10.71
0.634
0.255
1.9138
390.2
23.2
9.3
Idle
Mack
17.88
3.23
2.28
(2)
0.441
80.0
62.0
(2)
Cat
41.45
4.88
5.417
(2)
0.210
23.9
27.0
(2)
Chev
14.95
0.72
0.289
(2)
Below
Minimum Detectable
Inter/CT
Mack
Condition not
run
Cat
91.17
17.90
(3)
(2)
0.119
31.9
(3)
(2)
Chev
18.17
1.10
0.393
(2)
0.0117
0.7
0.3
(2)
High/100
Mack
127.13
180.23
3.19
0.72
0.162
229.0
4.0
1.0
Cat
340.67
230,02
6.077
1.585
Below
Minimum Detectable
Chev
64.99
26.69
0.789
0.303
2.045
289.9
40.3
170.5
9.3
6.66
3.9C
3.
2.
2,
15.
8.
6.
5
7
0
5
1
0-
23.3
5.6
1.0
2.7
3. 9<
High/50
Mack
Cat
Chev
73.19
905.35
22.66
71.33
380.16
5.80
2.42
16.727
0.331
0.57
5.507
0.133
0.526
1.668
0.1082
514.0
700.2
27.7
17.0
30.8
1.6
4.0
10.1
0.6
6.3
2.1
2.6
High/02
Hack
Cat
Chev
27.75
116.92
20.39
16.95
53.47
2.89
2.20
5.875
0.402
2.91
15.276
1.700
0.494
0.193
0.0159
303.0
88.1
6.5
40.0
9.7
0.2
58.0
25.2
0.1
38.4
9.3
1.7
High/CT Mack Condition not run
Cat 72.14 33.83 (3) (2) 0.108 49.6 (3) (2) 23.<
Chev 30.25 3.35 0.769 (2) 0.0292 3.2 0.7 (2) 2.!
(1) Mack ETA*(B)673a, Caterpillar 3208 EGR, Chevrolet 366.
Brake specific not calculated since idle and CT produce no power output.
No fuel consumption measurable.
Determined as organic solubles in benzene, Chevrolet 366 by RTP and Caterpillar 3208
by RTP/SwRI.
-------
TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING 8 X 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER TESTS
Condition
Speed/Load *
Engine'*'
Engine
Speed
rpm
Power
Output
kw,obs
Fuel
Rate
kg/hr
Air
Rate
kg/min
BSFC
kg
kw-hr
Inlet
Air
®C
Inlet
Rest,
mm Hg
Exh.
Rest,
nm Hg
Inter/02
Mack
1450
4.7
4.4
8.99
0.936
24
9.90
25.40
Cat
1680
2.1
4.0
6.08
1.905
29
13.08
3.81
Chev
1200
0.9
4.4
1.68
4.889
38
32.46
3.81
Inter/50
Mack
1450
115.7
24.9
13.26
0.215
25
17.28
29.21
Cat
1680
56.8
13.7
5.49
0.241
31
11.25
3.81
Chev
1200
20.4
8.2
2.7
0.402
44
18.66
5.33
Inter/100
Mack
1450
236.0
49.3
20.07
0.209
25
33.35
44.45
Cat
1680
113.6
25.6
8.46
0.225
29
22.32
17.78
Chev
1200
42.1
16.9
4.08
0.401
42
0.58
14.86
Idle
Mack
0
1.5
3.66
24
2.81
26.67
Cat
0
0.9
2.33
29
2.99
0
Chev
0
2.5
0.96
37
30.82
0.76
Inter/CT
Mack
Condition
not run
Cat
1680
0
0
5.37
23
10.47
25.4
Chev
1200
0
2.8
1.21
33
39.06
0.70
High/100
Mack
1900
251.1
56.5
26.91
0.225
23
46.7
63.5
Cat
2800
152.2
37.9
12.93
0.249
27
47.36
62.3
Chev
2300
87.9
33.7
8.21
0.383
38
1.15
61.0
High/50
Mack
1900
125.4
29.5
18.79
0.235
25
27.56
44.45
Cat
2800
69.6
22.8
8.02
0.328
26
20.46
20.32
Chev
2300
43.7
17.6
5.12
0.403
44
19.38
24.13
High/02
Mack
1900
5.9
7.7
12.13
1.305
24
14.01
25.40
Cat
2800
3.5
9.1
9.01
2.600
29
24.47
12.70
Chev
2300
1.7
7. 3
2.83
4.294
39
35.59
4.70
High/CT
Mack
Condition
not run
Cat
2800
0
0
9.27
28
25.97
11.43
Chev
2300
0
4.4
2.21
39
41.05
0.96
<1J Mack ETAY(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208 EGR, Chevrolet 366
-------
BaP measurement experienced not only by SFRE but others prompted the decision
to send all such filters for BaP analysis to EPA-RTP. Dr. Jungers of EPA's
Analytical Chemistry Laboratory (EMSL) routinely performs BaP analysis of
similar 8 x 10 filters used in Hi-Vol atmospheric sampling. Accordingly, this
method was authorized by EPA for BaP analysis of engine collected samples until
a test procedure specific for several of the PNA's can be developed.
There is a difference between the BaP from the two Diesels (based on
concentration, brake and fuel specific) which may be due to the engine or the
method of analyses. One exception was the high speed, 50 percent power
condition. In this case, the Caterpillar 3208 engine had much higher BaP than
the Mack engine. In other power conditions, the Mack engine had higher BaP.
Some of the difference may be attributed to the extraction-analysis procedure
in use at SFRE as it was thought to give "higher" results. But the reversal
at the 50 percent high speed point may be coincident with the massive amount
of particulate at that point due to the EGR rate. The higher BaP might be due
to the air-fuel ratio change that occurred with EGR.
An even greater difference is seen between the BaP from the Chevrolet 366
and Caterpillar 3208 engines. In this case, the extractions and analyses were
performed by the same laboratory and may be directly compared. Except for the
two modes, the high-power intermediate-speed and the high-speed 2-percent-
power, the BaP from the Chevrolet 366 can be considered negligible and
approaching that or below the minimum detectable limit of Dr. Jungers' instrument.
This is not surprising in light of results under Phase II (discussed in Section
VI) of this project for the Diesel counterparts of production gasoline cars.
The two modes mentioned had substantially higher BaP rates, almost as >f each
condition w^s a purge of stored BaP.
Table 22 summarizes the cycle weighted composite BaP rates for this test
series. All engines were _ycle composited on a 7-mode basis using weightiny
factors derived from the 13-mode FTP and 23-mode EPA cycles. The Caterpillar
and Chevrolet engines also ran the two cut throttle modes of the 23-mode EPA
procedure. Thus, additional cycle composite 9-modes were computed using
weighting factors derived from the 23-mode test factors. As shown in Figure 19,
the composites indicate the difference between the gasoline and Diesel engine
under HD test conditions were small. The two high BaP modes of the Chevrolet
366 apparently brought the composites up to tho Caterpillar 3208 rates. In
TABLE 22. COMPOSITE BaP RATES
Brake Specific, uq/kw-hr Fuel Specific, yig/kq Fuel
7-Mode(1) 7-Mode(2) 9-Mode(2) 7-Mode(1) 7-Mode(2) 9-Mode(2)
Based on weighting factors derived from 13-mode FTP.
Based on weighting factors derived from 23-mode EPA.
Mack ETAY(B)673A 2.917 3.053 12.395 12.571
Cat ^208/EGR 2.658 2.314 2.494 9.591 7.648 8.483
Chevrolet 366 3.330 3.018 3.033 7.838 7.327 6.864
82
-------
weighting factors derived
'weighting factors derived
from 13-mode FTP
from 23-mode EPA
I'UllW'tl.'i
3ML_ ..
IrciinHBSffi:
10.0
Cat 3208
Chev 366
Cat 3208
Chev 366
Figure 19. Cycle Composite BaP Comparison
Caterpillar 3208 EGP. -ind Chevrolet 366
83
-------
terms of brake specific BaP, the Chevrolet 366 was higher regardless of cycle.
In terms of fuel specific, pg of BaP per kg fuel, the Chevrolet 366 was lower
than the Caterpillar 3208 EGR. The reason for this reversal is the gross
difference in brake specific fuel consumption for the two engines. The 7-mode
derived from the 13-mode FTP always gave the highest rates.
This was the first time such measurements have been attempted with a
gasoline HD engine running on a leaded regular grade gasoline (1.6 g/gal lead
and 91.5 RON). The engine did not have an oxidation catalyst in the exhaust.
Because the particulate levels were so low on the 8 x 10 size filters, dupli-
cate filters were obtained and Dr. Jungers advised to use both whole filters
in his analysis. Thus the extracts and BaP content as well as the benzene
organic extract, as a percent of the particulate weight, are based on the
combination extract of two separately obtained filters for each of the nine
conditions run. The absolute levels of BaP from the Chevrolet 366 engine are
far from verified at this time. More work should be done with other leaded
fueled gasoline engines to obtain insight into the BaP behavior and try to
understand why the BaP was apparently so high during the 100 percent, WOT,
power modes with the Chevrolet 366 engine. Was power valve fuel enrichment
at these modes the reason? Or, was there a purge-out of BaP matter from the
exhaust system?
Extracts for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR were returned by Dr. Jungers and
were dried and weighed, and the organic extract fraction was determined by
SwRI. It is interesting to compare the percent benzene organic extract of the
Chevrolet 366 to HDD engines in general and a Caterpillar 3208 eagine run
on a project for Dr. Bradow. The Chevrolet 366 results ranged from 2 to 6
percent while Diesels (4-stroke cycle) run from 5 to 20 percent and the
Caterpillar 3208 (not EGR) ranged from 12 to 18 percent.
The particulate content of the gasoline HD engine is expected to contain,
by weight, products of combustion of the TEL along with some C, H and N and
trace metals. Sulfate, as with the Diesel engine, is considered at a minor
level since only 0.4 to 2.3 percent of the fuel sulfur (0.03 percent by weight)
was converted to that which was measured as sulfate by the BCA procedure.
Please refer to Tables C-28 through C-30 for run-by-run BaP and 8 x 10
particulate data and organic solubles. Tables C-31 through C-37 list the
computations for 7- and 9-mode cycle composites.
F. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses
The Diesel engine exhaust odor mapping and related instrumental analyses
resulted in a substantial amount of data. As explained earlier, odor tests
were not made of the Chevrolet 366 gasoline engine.
1. Odor Ratings by Trained Panel
Table 23 summarizes the average odor ratings and Table 24 lists
pertinent engine data for the two engines tested. Each engine model is
discussed separately.
84
-------
TABLE 23. AVERAGE ODOR PANEL RATINGS, 100si DILUTION
Condition
Speed/Load %
Inter/02
Inter/50
Inter/100
High/02
High/50
High/100
Engine^
Mack
Cat
Mack
Cat
Mack
Cat
Mack
Cat
Mack
Cat
Mack
Cat
"D"
Composite
2.9
3.1
2.6
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
4.6
2.9
4.2
3.3
3.5
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.1
Oily Aromatic
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
Hp"
Pungent
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.6
Idle
Mack
Cat
3.5
3.5
1.0
1,2
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.6
Idle-Accel
Mack
Cat
3.1
3.5
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Accel
Mack
Cat
3.2
3.7
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
Decel
Mack
Cat
2.7
3.3
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
Cold
Start
Mack
Cat
4.4
4.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.7
(1)
Mack ETAY(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208 EGR
85
-------
TABLE 24. AVERAGE ENGINE OPERATING DATA TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS
Condition
Speed/Load,%
Engine'1'
Engine
Speed
rpm
Power
Output
kw,obs
Fuel
Rate
kg/hr
Air
Rate
kg/min
BSFC
k?
kg-hr
Inlet
Air
°C
Exh.
Temp
"C
Inlet
Rest,
nun Hg
Exh.
Rest,
mm Hg
Inter/02
Mack
1450
4.50
5.40
9.09
1.20
29
171
7.85
2.54
Cat
1680
2.09
5.00
5.86
2.39
30
263
12.14
7.62
Inter/50
Mack
„ 1450
113.4
24.54
12.73
0.216
31
437
14.57
5.08
Cat
1680
58.46
14.42
5.37
0.247
29
450
11.02
7.62
Inter/100
Mack
1450
226.7
49.99
19.82
0.221
29
527
32.32
15.24
Cat
1680
116.93
25.67
8.40
0.220
29
653
22.79
22.86
High/02
Mack
1900
4.90
8.94
12.06
1.824
30
246
13.08
3.81
Cat
2800
2.78
12.56
8.61
4.518
30
404
23.16
20.32
High/50
Mack
1900
122.0
30.03
18.60
0.246
29
396
26.34
10.16
Cat
2800
75.17
24.45
7.72
0.325
31
652
20.73
27.94
High/100
Mack
1900
244.0
57,11
25.55
0.234
30
529
46.70
22.86
Cat
2800
150.33
82.90
12.76
0.551
29
733
47.1
63.50
Idle
Mack
630
(2)
1.91
3.67
(3)
29
145
1.68
1.27
Cat
600
(2)
1.04
2.02
{3)
31
174
2.43
2.03
Mack ETAY(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208 EGR.
... No power observed.
Not calculated since no power output.
-------
a. Mack ETAY(B)673A
Figure 20 illustrates the "D" Diesel intensity as a function o
the six steady-state loads and speed conditions. Little effect is noticed
with average "D" odor intensities in the range of "D"-3±0.3. The bar chart
on the bottom half of Figure 20 compares the total "DM + "B" + "0" + "A" + "P
ratings for the same six steady-states, the idle, idle-accel, accel, decel
and cold start conditions. It is interesting to note that odor levels measur
during transients are about the same as during steady-states and that the col
start was the highest combined level observed. Tables C-38 through C-40 list
the detailed test and replicate odor data on which the summary trends are bas
b. Caterpillar 3208 EGR
Figure 21 shows the relationship of the observed odor intensit
"D" value versus power for bott speeds. As with the Mack engine (see Figure
a lack of effect is noted for the six steady states with "D" nominally 3±0.4
This odor level is noticeable and would be considered objectionable to most.
The lower part of Figure 21 shows that the 2 and 50 percent power at 2800 rpm
modes resulted in the highest combined odor perceived. The three transients
were within the range of the six steady-states. The cold start odor ranked
third from the highest for this engine. The high odor ranking at 2 to 50
percent load, 2800 rpm, was due to the higher quality ratings for B, 0, A and
P relative to other modes. The "D" or overall intensity, ao mentioned earlie
was essentially a constant or flat response for all loads and speeds. For
additional run-to-run (odor panel rating) detail, please refer to Tables C-41
through C-43.
2. Supplemental Gaseous Emissions
Table 25 lists the supplemental gaseous emissions taken at the same
time as the steady-state runs. NO was measured by both NDIR and CL while NO,,
(N0+N02) was measured by CL. The N02 portion of the exhaust, difference
between NOx and NO by CL, was about 25 ppm (12-49 ppm range) for the Mack
ETAY(B)673A engine. N02 for the Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine was about 9 ppm
average with a range of 4 to 19 ppm. Evidently, the Caterpillar 3208 produce
less N02 than the Mack engine as tested, even though at maximum power, where
no EGR is scheduled, the Caterpillar and Mack engines have fairly similar NOj,
leve1 . The differences in HC and CO between the two engines are consistent
with the 13-mode FTP data obtained earlier. In the case of the Mack engine,
the odor tests were run at an engine backpressure setting that was not arti-
ficially increased. The Caterpillar 3208 engine was run with the backpressur
and inlet restrictions set per the 13-mode FTP.
Appendix Tables C-45 through C-47 are tabulations of the modal run-
by-run gaseous emissions taken during the six steady state and it. _e odor test
Transient data were not obtained due to the very great technical difficulty
associated with raw exhaust analysis during very rapid accelerations and
decelerations. Tables C-48 through C-51 are similar
-------
4.0
: n:
>, 3.0
4J
•H
10
c
1)
4J
c
M
2.0
o
¦o
o
a
1.0
2
50
H
Percent of Power
9.0
8.0
a.
+
:i i
6.0
<
+ 5.0
O
4.0
+
CQ
+
a
1.0
2
50
100
2
50
100 Idle Idle- Accel Decel Co
Percent Power Percent Power Accel St.
1450 rpm 1900 rpm
Figure 20. Mack ETAY(B)673A Engine
Diesel Odor Intensity by Trained Panel
88
-------
6.0
(A
s
at
o
•o
o
2.0
100
Percent of Power
....
- ! ••
rr-
• i. .*
•
;
1. .
• j ,;-
j '
} '
• : ¦
1
j
... : .
•i:
':•! ¦:=
! ¦'
: '
... .j
- : ;
J
¦
rn*""
I-
— j—.
}
.;;
- r
1
,
:
1
j
i .
1
!
' 1
i
:
i..
i
i
i ¦
i
2 50 100 2 50 100 Idle Idle- Accel Decel Cold
Percent Power Percent Power Accel Start
1680 rpm 2800 rpm
Figure 21. Caterpillar 3208 EGR Engine
Diesel Odor Intensity by Trained Panel
89
-------
TABLE 25. AVERAGE EXHAUST ANALYSES TAKEN
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS
Operating
Condition
Engine
(1)
NDIR
HC CO C02 NO NO NOx LCA LCO
ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm yg/1 ug/1 TIA
Inter Speed Mack 222 226 2.1 213 170 206 14.5 7.0 1.9
2% Load Cat 397 434 3.1 171 158 169 46.3 21.7 2.3
Inter Speed
50% Load
Mack
Cat
126
378
200
556
7.0
10.4
922
253
843
251
865
256
10.8
58.7
5.1
24.1
1.7
2.4
Inter Speed Mack 61 373 9.0 1204 1075 1090 6.8 5.0 1.7
100% Load Cat 107 1231 11.7 1254 1184 1203 25.8 18.2 2.3
High Speed
2% Load
Mack
Cat
268
554
226
873
2.5
5.6
155
157
129
151
154
155
17.4
60.0
6.5
36.0
1.8
2.6
High Speed
50% Load
Mack
Cat
155
455
139
4066
5.9
11.9
551
189
471
181
488
186
15.6
42.1
6.8
32.0
1.9
2.5
High Speed
100% Load
Mack
Cat
41
30
294
1169
8.7
11.9
919
718
819
691
831
698
5.8
25.3
4.3
15.1
1.7
2.2
Idle
Mack
Cat
221
358
231
359
1.4
2,2
247
184
199
169
248
190
11.5
26 3
5.9
13.9
1.8
2.2
(1)
Mack ETAY(B)67 3A, Caterpillar 3208 EGR
90
-------
summarized on Table ^ in Vq/l of LCA and LCD. The LCO value is computed in
TIA units by the explosion
TIA = 1 + log10 LCO
The individual DOAS results for both engines are listed on Tables C-45 through
C-47 (Mack) and C-48 through "-51 (Caterpillar).
Recall that chemical traps are used to obtain the samples of exhaust
for analysis. Thus, only the steady-state engine conditions were sampled.
Figure 21a is a plot of the TIA versus "D" rating by trained panel for the
Mack ETAY(B)673A and Caterpillar 3208 EGR engines. It is interesting to note
that the average TIA for the Caterpillar was like the overall panel average,
higher than for the Mack engine "D" rating. This is summarized in the following
comparison based on the average six steady-state plus idle runs.
Mack ETAY Cat 3208
"D" by Panel 3.1 3.7
TIA by DOAS 1.78 2.37
It is difficult to say that the TIA and "D" ratings really correlate, although
the agreement seems better than previously reported data for other heavy-duty
engines.
In addition to the determination of the DOAS values for both engines,
a series of correlation experiments was performed in conjunction with Dr. Joe
Perez of Caterpillar Tractor Company. In essence, a two-lab cross-check on
DOAS analysis, including extraction of the sample from the trap, LC separation
and detection, as well as instrument calibration, was achieved.
Table 26 lists the results obtained during two days of testing of the
Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine. Traditionally, one trap sample is obtained per
run of which there are routinely 21 runs per odor measurement day, for steady-
states only. The requirement to use larger amounts of solvent during the trap
extraction step has decreased the concentration in the eluant by half. This
forced the use of the more, sometimes most, sensitive ranges of the DOAS
instrument, a condition to be avoided if at all possible. Several approaches
were available, such as to load more sample on the trap by running each mode
longer or sampling at a more rapid rate. The sampling rate was already near
the maximum recommended, and the longer sampling periods are not compatible
with the repetitive measurement of odor by the human panel.
The method desired as the best solution to maintain eluant concen-
tration was to load each of the repeated runs on the same trap. This allowed
three times the normal amount of exhaust to be passed through the trap and as
such represented a composite of the operating condition. Thus, there are two
types of DOAS trap sampling summarized on Table 26. On the top half of the
table, both 3-trap average and 3-run composite data are listed for LCA and
LCO in yg/£. and LCO in TIA units. The 3-trap average is based on the 21 indi-
vidual traps, one for each run. The 3-run composite was a single trap, on
which the three separate runs were collected. In practice, the trap would be
removed and capped between repeated runs.
91
-------
3.0
Caterpillar 320j> EGR
O 8/3/77 3*Run Merage O 2*
U-.j_.-j : [•• ; -•-[ Jr-
O 8/^/77 3+Run Amr^ge: , ( .€Ti?9».
jS~!e/j/77 3rRito "c^bii^E |"
jV 8/i/77 3fRun CBtU 1 ..
J4acJf ETAyIb)673A ; ' !' ,. j 0 'IrtiSSF
0.3-jfun cotiposit^ ayejr.rge ; |
i
2.5
2.0
"O-^ * 1 1 i:
1.5 f-
1.0
-i-
J u
1.0
2.0 3.0
"D" by Panel
4.0
5.0
Figure 21a. "D" Odor Ratings Versus TIA
Mack ETAY(B)673A and Caterpillar 3208 EGR
92
-------
TABLE 26. DOAS RESULTS - CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR
Engine
rpm
Power
%
3-Trap Average
(One Run/Trap)
3-Run
Composite (7 Traps)
SwRI
Caterpillar
LCA
LCO
TIA
LCA
LCO
TIA
LCA
LCO
TIA
8/03/77
Idle
24.85
12.39
2.08
20.52
11.77
2.07
1680
2
59.74
25.42
2.39
58.59
24.61
2.39
1680
50
55.66
23.06
2.35
15.83
11.04
2.04
1680
100
30.66
22.91
2.36
60.77
30.29
2.48
2800
2
64.42
36.19
2.56
53.83
29.02
2.46
2800
50
51.69
39.93
2.59
47.59
29.77
2.48
2800
100
33.84
18.68
2.25
83.86
37.08
2.57
Average
2.37
2.36
8/05/77
Idle
28.57
15.30
2.18
10.12
7.63
1.88
21.4
9.8
1.99
1680
2
32.81
17.87
2.25
35.99
17.75
2.25
35.5
15.3
2.18
1680
50
61.64
25.17
2.40
53.10
21.58
2.34
57.9
22.8
2.36
1680
100
20.89
13.50
2.11
23.02
14.71
2.17
22.1
12.2
2.09
2800
2
55.43
35,69
2.55
47.56
27.42
2.44
44.7
26.8
2.45
2800
50
32.44
24.09
2.33
39.32
30.77
2.49
35.9
24.8
2.39
2800
100
16.76
11.46
2.04
4.34
6.63
1.82
17.4
8.7
1.94
Average
2.27
2.20
2.20
LCA and ICO in pg/f,
TIA = 1 + log1Q LCO
93
-------
The extensive test series reported in Table 26 for both 8/03/7? and
8/05/77 by 3-trap average and 3-run composite data was performed to demonstrate
equivalency between the two methods. These experiments were necessary prior
to the adoption of the 3-run composite method of sampling for future DOAS use
with Diesel powered cars and trucks/buses. Note that the overall average of
the seven modes 3-trap average to 3-run composite TIA data was 2.37 versus
2.36 on 8/03/77 and 2.27 versus 2.20 on 8/05/77. The 3-run composite performed
by SwRl and Caterpillar on 8/05/77 shows a 2.2 TIA value (overall 7-mode
average). Not only were the overall values in complete agreement, but most of
the modal values were also in agreement.
Figure 22 indicates the degree to which both DOAS sampling/analysis
approaches (3-run composite versus 3-run average) agree. Note that the data
are fairly symmetrical about a 45-degree line and quite close to a 1:1
relationship, certainly as close as would be anticipated by the DOAS system
in general.
In summary of the Caterpillar 3208 DOAS data, it is clear that the
3-run composite gives equivalent or essentially equivalent results to that
from the average of three individual traps. Consequently, the 3-run composite
trap method is qualified and will be used on all future DOAS work. Another
very important finding was the excellent correlation between DOAS analysis by
Caterpillar and SwRI on 3-run composite samples, one for each of the seven
modes tested. These samples were identically taken, simultaneously, and serve
to validate the sample extraction, instrument calibration and use, as well as
final results.
G. Aldehydes
Table 27 lists the aldehydes measured by the DNPH procedure for all three
engines. In Section III, the DNPH procedure was described. The data on Table
27 are cycle composite rates based on the same seven test modes as used in the
odor testing. The Diesel samples were taken at the same time as odor ratings,
and test conditions were defined earlier in Table 24. The weighting factors
used with the seven modes were derived from the 13-mode FTP and 23-mode EPA
cycles. There is a substantial difference for several of the aldehydes
between the two Diesels, namely, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and
benzaldehyde, Isobutanal was substantially lower with the Caterpillar than
the Mack engine.
Another way to compare the two Diesels would be to just add the individual
rates without any additional weighting given to any aldehyde. These totals
are shown on the bottom of Table 27 and indicate the Caterpillar to have 2.8
times (mg/kg fuel) and 2.5 times (mg/kw-hr) the Mack's "total" aldehydes.
This is based on the factors derived from 13-mode FTP. From a review of this
data, it is safe to say that the Caterpillar produced more aldehydes than the
Mack engine.
A direct comparison of the Chevrolet 366 and Caterpillar 3208 engines may
be made from Table 27. In this comparison, the Chevrolet engine had more
formaldehyde, acetone, isobutanal, crotonal, hexanal and especially benzaldehyde.
Some, if not most, of the differences noted are due completely to the
differences in the fuels. The sum of the individual aldehyde rates for the
Chevrolet was some 3 1 times (mg/kg fuel) and 6.4 times (mg/kw-hr) the Caterpillar
94
-------
O woi/ii j _ i
a '
Qagot
mMm -» i ii i • — - -
1.5 2.0 2.5
TXA, Three Run Average
Figure 22. Comparison of TIA Values Based on 3-Run Average
and 3-Run Composite Samples - Caterpillar 3208 EGR
95
-------
TABLE 27. CYCLE COMPOSITE ALDEHYDE RATES
Wgt. mg/kw-hr _____ mg/kg fuel
Aldehyde
Fact.
Mack
Cat
Chev
Mack
Cat
Chev
Formaldehyde
(1)
16.59
49.
90
104.75
66.84
223.76
228.88
(2)
19.02
43.
,90
105.36
77.78
191.23
221.08
Acetaldehyde
(1)
0.94
21.
,85
18.09
3.78
97.98
39.53
(2)
0.88
19.
,25
21.27
3.43
83.85
44.64
Acetone
(1)
12.
,55
18.40
56.28
40.20
(2)
11.
58
24.09
50.43
50.54
Isobutanal
(1)
31.79
3.
,18
13.79
128.12
14.24
30.13
(2)
33.61
2.
,45
18.05
130.34
10.68
37.87
Crotonal
(1)
16.68
19.
.16
587.87
67.22
85.91
1284.55
(2)
19.03
17.
,76
810.01
73.80
77.37
1699.58
Hexanal
(1)
20.18
13.
,98
42.83
83.87
62.70
93.58
(25
24.47
14.
.46
38.18
94.89
62.98
80.11
Benzaldehyde
(1)
95.
.65
595.67
428.89
1301.59
(2)
85.
.28
578.38
371.50
1213.56
Total
(1)
(2)
86.81
97.01
216.
194.
,27
.68
1381.40
1595.34
349.83
376.24
969.76
848.04
3018.46
3347.38
Mack ETAY(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208/EGR, Chevrolet 366
Based on weighting factors derived from 13-mode FTP.
Based on weighting factors derived from 23-mode EPA,
96
-------
engine. Based on weighting factors derived from the 23-mode EPA cycle, the
ratios are 4.0 and 8.2. The difference in brake specific fuel economy of the
vwo engines explains the differences in fuel and brake specific composite
aldehyde rates.
For detailed results for each engine and test condition, please refer to
Tables C-52 through C-54. Although odor was not measured with the Chevrolet
engine, the same type of run conditions were measured as well as the two closed
throttle modes. The run conditions for the Chevrolet 366 were described
earlier on Table 21. For additional study and analysis, please refer to these
appendix tables in which modal concentrations, mg/hr, brake and fuel specific
individual aldehyde rates are listed.
H. Specific Hydrocarbons
Table 28 is a listing of the exhaust hydrocarbons, some of which are
considered to be more or less nonreactive in the atmosphere in terms of the
formation of photochemical smog. These measurements were made at each of the
seven steady state operating points used for odor measurement. The engine
operating data were previously listed on Table 24. For simplicity, the various
hydrocarbons were computed in terms of cycle composite rates, again using
weighting factors derived from the 13-mode FTP.
Ethylene and propylene were the two hydrocarbons with the highest brake
and fuel specific rates from the Mack engine. Propane, ethane and toluene
were the lowest rate hydrocarbons. The Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine had sub-
stantially higher rates than the Mack. Ethylene and propylene and methane
were the highest rates. Propane, ethane and toluene were the lowest.
The consistency between the two Diesel enqines, as far as high to low
ranking, is quite interesting even though the levels were quite different
between the two engines. A simple summation of the individual composites is
shown on Table 26. Note the Caterpillar engine was 4.1 times the Mack mg/kg
fuel and 3.8 times the Mack on a mg/kw-hr basis. These comparisons made use
of the composites calculated using weighting factors derived from the 13-mode
FTP.
The other important comparison to be made on Table 28 involves the Cater-
pillar and Chevrolet 366 engines. Methane was the hydrocarbon most plentiful
from the Chevrolet 366, with toluene and ethylene next in rate. Propane was
negligible. Compared to the Caterpillar, much more toluene, some 50 times
more than the Diesel engine on a fuel specific basis, some 100 times more on
the basis of mg/kw-hr, was emitted. Much more benzene as well as methane was
also emitted by the Chevrolet 366.
Comparing the two engines based on the total of the eight hydrocarbons'
individual rates shows the Chevrolet 366 to be some 3.6 times the Caterpillar
in terms of mg/kg fuel and 7.4 times the Caterpillar in terms of mg/kw-hr.
Using totals based on factors derived from the 23-mode EPA, the ratios are 4.8
and 9.9. The differences are consistent with the difference in brake specific
fuel economy of the two different engines. Recall that the Chevrolet 366
engine ran on leaded gasoline without an oxidation catalyst.
97
-------
TABLE 28. CYCLE COMPOSITE SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON RATES
Wgt.
mg/kw-hr
n»g/kg fuel
Hydrocarbon
Fact.
Mack
Cat
Chev
Mack
Cat
Chev
Methane
(1)
6.90
40.35
684.80
27.77
179.14
1498.70
ch4
(2)
8.49
35.46
836.60
32.83
152.04
1762.53
Ethylene
(1)
45.03
158.04
422.96
181.18
701.69
925.67
c2«4
(2)
51.05
136.66
491.27
197.48
585.89
1035. 'H
Ethane
(1)
0.68
3.50
35.02
2.74
15.56
76.6J
c2h6
(2)
0.67
3.00
41.81
2.60
12.84
88.09
Acetylene
(1)
2.79
22.83
149.04
11.24
101.35
326.18
C2H2
Propane
(2)
3.26
19.79
170.02
12.63
84.84
358.20
(1)
0.18
5.43
0.79
11.89
C3H8
Propylene
(2)
0.16
6.21
0.70
13.09
(1)
17.96
43.28
126.27
72.26
192.17
276.35
C3%
(2)
19.32
37.74
141.53
74.75
161.81
298.16
Benzene
(1)
4.48
21.93
297.26
18.01
97.36
650.55
C6H6
(2)
4.88
18.60
348.78
18.86
79.74
734.79
Toluene
(1)
0.78
4.85
459.44
3.15
21.54
1005.49
c7h8
(2)
0.85
4.17
498.09
3.30
17.86
1049.38
Total
(1)
78.62
294.96
2180.22
316.35
1309.60
4771.41
(2)
88.52
255.58
2534.31
342.45
1095.72
5339.25
Hack ETA¥(B}673A, Caterpillar 3208/EGR, Chevrolet 366
(1)
•2j Based on weighting factors derived from 13-mode FTP.
Based on weighting factors derived from 23-mode EPA.
98
-------
Table 29 lists the methane fraction of the exhaust HC for each engine by
test mode. The Mack ETAY(B)673A ranged from 0.78 to 2.8 percent with an
overall average of 2.5 ptrcent. The Caterpillar 3208 EGR engine ranged from
1.53 to 11.09 percent with an average of 3.5 percent. Note that the 11.09
percent methane fraction was at high speed, 2800 rpm, and half load. This
value is exceptional and substantially different from all other Caterpillar
and Mack methane percentages. Could it be that this specific point, where
particulate was maximum, was caused by the large level of EGR used? The data
point was carefully rechecked to verify that the methane value was right. It
was found that most of the hydrocarbons were higher as may be noted from
Table C-56.
The Chevrolet 366 methane fraction ranged from 0.31 at 1200 rpm closed
throttle to 19.9 percent with an overall average of 4.7 percent. One mode,
the 1200 rpm intermediate speed, was 19.9 percent methane. For additional
modal data for all eight hydrocarbons, please refer to Tables C-55 through
C-57,
99
-------
TABLE 29. METHANE FRACTION OF EXHAUST HYDROCARBONS
Condition
Speed, Load %
Inter/02
Inter/50
Inter/100
Inter/CT
High/02
High/50
High/100
High/CT
Idle
71)
Engine^
Mack
Cat
Chev
Mack
Cat
Chev
Mack
Cat
Chev
Chev
Mack
Cat
Chev
Mack
Cat
Chev
Mack
Cat
Chev
Chev
Mack
Cat
Chev
Exhaust
HC, ppmC
209
404
57
123
324
100
62
111
1515
10756
268
575
28
141
412
30
41
28
1044
1408
212
305
2781
Methane
PF"C
3.3
6.2
3.6
1.1
6.1
19.9
0.6
3.2
24.3
33.8
3.2
11.3
1.6
1.1
45.7
1.0
0.6
0.7
33.2
14.3
3.5
7.2
37.5
Methane
Fraction %
1.58
1.53
6.32
0.89
1.88
19.9
0.97
2.88
1.60
0.31
1.19
1.97
5.71
0.78
11.09
3.33
2.80
2.50
3.18
1.02
1.65
2.36
1.35
Mack ETAV(B)673A, Caterpillar 3208/EGR, Chevrolet 366
100
-------
V. SULFATE AND PARTICULATE CHARACTERIZATIONS
This section describes the results of a variety of experiments to investi-
gate, in a preliminary way, major engine changes on particulate and sulfate
emissions from HDD engines. Table 30 is an evaluation matrix of the five
effects of interest.
TABLE 30. EVALUATION MATRIX
Effect of Injection Timing
5° Advanced
Standard
10° Retard
Caterpillar 3406 DI
Effect of EGR
(Exhaust Gas Recirculation)
Effect of Combustioi: System
(at Standard Timing)
without EGR
with EGR
Direct injection
Indirect Injection
Caterpillar 3406 DI
(at Standard Timing)
Caterpillar 3406 DI
Caterpillar 3406 IDI
Effect of TC
(Turbocharge)
Effect of Injection Pump
with TC
without TC
Standard R. Bosch
APS A. Bosch
Daimler-Benz OM-352A TC
Daimler-Benz OM-352 NA
Mack ETAY(B)673A + Std.
Mack ETAY(BJ673A + APS
Each effect involved comparison of «=issxons ill the following categories.
Emission Measurements were obtained in the order listed, even though sulfate
a->d particulate effects were the aost important.
• Stoke - ~T*». 13-aode, power curve
• Gaseous emissions - 21-*ode EPA, 13-aode FTP
• Particulate - 11-aode
Sulfate - 11-aode
3aP. organic solubles
Hydrogen and carbon
fc.tals
- Particle siting
• DQAS
Aldehydes
Specific SC
101
-------
Except for a few instances where the test could not be performed, a full
matrix of emissions characterization data was obtained for each configuration
listed in Table 30. Common configurations, such as the Caterpillar 3406 DI at
standard timing, were tested only once.
A. Effect of Timing, EGR and Combustion System
These three effects were studied using the Caterpillar 3406 engine described
in Section III. For simplicity, all the results will be listed for the five
engine configurations and then, as subsections, the various effects will be
discussed. Tables 31 and 32 list the smoke results for transient smoke cycle
and steady state tests. Smoke was measured during every mode of the 13-mode
FTP as well as during a full-power performance test.
TABLE 31. FEDERAL TRANSIENT SMOKE CYCLE OPACITY
CATERPILLER 3406
Configuration
Run
Smoke
"a"
opacity
"b"
, %
"c"
Direct Injection
1
13.9
6.7
24.8
St? Jard Timing
2
13.0
6.8
23.3
28° BTC
Avg
13.5
6.8
24.1
Direct Injection
1
18.9
16.1
21.4
10° Retarded
2
18.8
15.9
21.8
18° BTC
Avg
1C.9
16.0
21.6
Direct Injection
1
10.4
3.3
22.9
5° Advanced
2
10.3
3.7
21.9
33° BTC
Avg
10.4
3.5
22.4
Indirect Injection
1
11.6
5.4
26.8
Standard Timing
2
12.2
5.3
30.5
BTC
Avg
11.9
5.4
28.6
Table 33 lists the results of the gaseous emissions tests by the 21-mode
EPA procedure, with a 13-mode FTP result computed from the 21-mode data. For
reference, the Caterpillar 3406 DI, as received from the manufacturer, had
completed a 125-hour durability test. Data supplied by the manufacturer showed
HC+NO2 of 9.41, CO of 3.1 and HC of 0.44 g/hp-hr. When converted to gA*-hr,
the agreement is considered quite satisfactory, especially the HC+N0X value of
12.6 g/km-hr (9.41 •=• 0.746} versus the 13.017 value on Table 33. The engine,
as received, was at 27 degrees BTC static timing and within the timing
toierances. The slightly higher SwRl value was at 28 degrees BTC and is
directionally correct, assuming the Caterpillar data were taken at 27 degrees
BTC. Appendix Tables D-l through D-17 are 21- and 13-mode computer printout
sheets for the five Caterpillar 3406 configurations evaluated.
102
-------
TABLE 32. STEADY-STATE SMOKE PERCENT OPACITY
CATERPILLAR 3406
Timing °BTC
Configuration
Direct Injection (PI)
28
Std.
28
EGR
10
18
' Ret.
33
5° Adv.
Indirect
Injection IDJ
Std. Timing*1*
13-raode FTP steady states
Mode
rpw
Power *
1
Idle
2.0
2.0
0.4
0.3
0.8
2
1260{3)
2
2.2
2.0
0.5
0.3
0.9
3
1260
25
2.5
9.0
2.9
1.7
1.0
4
1260
50
3.0
14.0
6.0
1.5
1.3
5
1260
75
3.5
15.0
8.0
2.5
3.0
6
1260 .
Idle
100
5.0
15.0
14.0
3.5
5.0
7
1.5
1.5
0.3
0.6
0.6
8
2100
100
6.0
15.0
7.5
1.4
1.9
9
2100
75
3.5
15.0
7.0
1.0
1.8
10
2100
50
3.5
11.0
6.8
0.8
1.7
11
2100
25
3.2
6.0
5.9
0.8
1.6
12
2100
(21
Idle1
2
2.3
3.5
3.0
0.6
1.5
13
2.0
2.0
0.4
0.6
0.6
maximum power smoke
rpm
2100
1900
1700
1500
1300
1260
1100
5.6
6.0
6.5
7.6
9.0
9.4
11.0
not
run
10.5
11.0
11.0
13.0
16.5
16.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
2.0
3.9
1.2
1.9
2.6
4.8
6.0
7.9
... 10° BTC Static Injection Timing
DI 700 rpm, IDI 600 rpm
' IDI Intermediate Speed 1400 rpm
103
-------
TABLE 33. GASEOUS EMISSIONS BY 13-MODE FTP AND 21-MODE EPA
CATERPILLAR 3406
Engine
Configuration Cycle
Run
Ho.
CO
Emission Rate, g/kW-hr
(I,
HC
W21
Direct Injection (DI)
HC+NO2
BSFC
kg/kW-hr
Avg 1.684 0.164
6.878
7.042
28" BTC
Standard
Timing
21
EPA
1
2
Avg
3.255
2.383
2.819
0.469
0.428
0.449
12.592
12.544
12.568
13.061
12.972
13.017
0.255
0.253
0.254
13
FTP
1
2
Avg
3.564
2.697
3 : 1
0.417
0.522
0.470
12.437
J 3.742
13.090
12.854
14.264
13.559
0.253
0.253
0.253
EGR (28° BTC)
21
EPA
NOT
RUN
13
FTP
1
6.434
0.229
7.345
7.574
0.268
18" BTC
(10° Retard)
21
EPA
1
2
Avg
2.279
3.713
2.996
0.477
0.515
0.496
7.121
6.968
7.044
7.598
7.482
7.540
0.275
0.275
0.275
13
FTP
1
2
Avg
2.431
3.896
3.164
0.404
0.447
0.426
6.904
7.127
7.016
7.309
7.574
7.442
0.273
0.273
0.273
33° BTC
(5° Advance)
21
EPA
1
2
Avg
5.049
4.692
4.870
0.628
0.623
0.626
18.564
18.162
18.363
19.192
18.794
18.993
0.261
0.261
0.261
13
FTP
1
2
Avg
5.872
5.395
5.634
0.540
0.526
0.533
19.100
17.969
18.534
19.640
18.495
19.068
0.263
0.262
0.262
Indirect Injection
(IDI)
Standard
Timing
21
EPA
1
2
Avg
2.049
1.413
1.731
0.234
0.193
0.214
7.059
6.830
6.944
7.292
7.022
7.157
0.275
0.275
0.275
13
FTP
1
2
1.428
1.939
0.153
0.17C
6.806
6.950
6.959
7.126
0.273
0.272
0.272
NOx as N02 by CL -
NO as NO2 by NDIR
21-mode EPA
- 1 3-ioode FTP
104
-------
Table 34 lists the particulate and sulfate rates for the Caterpillar 3406
experiments. These are brake specific and fuel specific results using the
13-mode test conditions. Tables D-18 through D-41 list the modal results for
each of the five configurations, as well as the brake specific and fuel specific
computation sheets. Percent conversion of fuel sulfur to that measured as
sulfate in the exhaust is also listed.
TABLE 34. SULFATE AND PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES
(BASED ON 13-MODE CYCLE)
CATERPILLAR 3406
Brake Specific Fuel Specific
Engine
Run
Particulate
Sulfate
Particulate
Sulfate
Configuration
No.
g/kW-hr
mg/kW-hr
g/kg fuel
mg/kg fuel
Direct Injection
1
0.464
28.09
1.824
110.47
Standard Timing
2
0.475
28.18
1.872
111.05
28" BTC
3
0.466
29.16
1.841
115.11
Avg
0.468
28.48
1.846
112.21
Direct Injection
1
1.232
28.14
4.600
105.09
EGR
2
1.229
27.30
4.598
102.09
28° BTC
3
1.272
30.58
4.770
116.46
Avg
1.244
28.67
4.656
107.88
Direct Injection
1
1.310
37.79
4.801
138.53
10° Retard
2
1. 379
37.23
5.066
136.76
18° BTC
3
1.400
36.63
5.137
134.38
Avg
1.363
37.22
5.001
136.56
Direct Injection
1
0.347
33.42
1.322
127.26
5° Advance
2
0.361
35.22
1.375
134.17
33° BTC
3
0.373
34.64
1.420
131.76
Avg
0. 360
34.43
1. 372
131.06
Indirect Injection
1
0.362
41.88
1.331
154.10
Standard Timing
2
0.374
40.04
1.383
147.97
10° BTC
Avg
0.368
40.96
1.362
151.04
Results of BaP and organic content of the 8 x
10 size filters,
reported
by Dr. Jungers of
EPA-
¦RTP, are listed
on Table 35
in terms of brake
and fuel
specific emission rtues. These rates used weighting factors derived from the
13-mode FTP and 21-mode EPA cycles applied to the seven individual modes sampled.
Appendix Table D-42 contains individual 7-nvode results while Tables D-43 through
D-47 are the composite rate calculations. The seven modes were idle, 2, 50
and 100 percent of power at 1260 and 2100 rpm.
Table 36 contains the carbon and hydrogen content of the 47 mm fiberglass
filter collected particulate. These analyses were performed on the same 7
modes used for BaP and organic extract. Table D-48 contains the results of
105
-------
TABLE 35. BaP AND ORGANIC SOLUBLE FRACTION OF
PARTICULATE COLLECTED ON 8 X 10 FILTER, 7-MODE TEST
CATERPILLAR 3406
Brake Specific Fuel Specific Cycle
Configuration Cycle BaP pg/kw-hr BaP, )xg/kq fuel Org. Sol.,%
Direct Injection, Open Chamber
Std. Timing
13
0.197
0.768
17.85
28° BTC
21
0.270
1.031
17.60
Std. Timing
13
0.105
0.399
19.48
+ EGR
21
0.136
0.501
21.08
10° Setard
13
0.690
1.993
19.15
18° BTC
21
0.958
3.093
21.19
5° Adv.
13
1.256
4.768
12.87
33° BTC
21
1.869
6.994
11.61
Indirect Injection,
Pre-chamber
Std. Timing
13
0.143
0.524
11.14
10° BTC
21
0.172
0.608
10.50
106
-------
TABLE 36, CARBON AND HYDROGEN CONTENT OF PARTICULATE
CATERPILLAR 3406
Condition
Speed/Load %
28
Std.
Direct Injection PI
28
EGR
18
10°Ret.
33
5° Adv.
Indirect
Injection
Std. Timing
1260/2
C
H
H/C
(1)
43.30
5.22
1.44
45.09
4.28
1.13
39.32
4.79
1.45
44.07
5.38
1.45
59.97
4.50
0.89
1260/50
C
H
H/C
63.84
2.92
0.55
84.43
0.70
0.10
91.45
1.64
0.21
51.62
46
57
57.33
2.66
0.55
1260/100
C
H
H/C
78.74
0.86
0.13
78.52
0.78
0.12
92.63
0.76
0.10
71.
<0.
0.
30
3
05
82.86
1.40
0.20
Idle
C
H
H/C
33.96
3.55
1.25
43.09
4.80
1.33
53.42
6.32
1.41
67.94
82
02
50.96
2.36
0.55
2100/100
C
H
H/C
68.76
1.37
0.24
83.93
0.82
0.12
85.40
1.14
0.16
53.64
99
44
48.29
1.27
0.31
2100/50
C
H
H/C
67.13
1.97
0.35
82.87
1.36
0.20
81.52
1.42
0.21
50.79
43
80
63.34
2.91
0.55
2100/2
C
H
H/C
47.24
6.49
1.64
69.40
3.54
0.61
74.18
4.40
0.71
49.73
6.70
1.61
71.
5.
30
63
0.94
(1)
H/C Mole Ratio
im
-------
the metals analyses performed by RTP for each Caterpillar 3406 configuration
tested. The plastic Fluoropore filters, representing each of the eleven
different modes of the 13 mode-test, were used for this analysis.
Table D-49 is an overall summary of the percent per stage of total partic-
ulate collected by an Anderson Model 50-810 impactor. For the Caterpillar
engine, the impactor assembly was located outside of the tunnel and a special
series of tests made using seven modes of the 13-mode schedule. Figure 23
shows several views of the Anderson impactor, while Figure 24 shows the various
filter stages. Preweighted, clean, stainless steel impactor discs were used
for collection of dilute exhaust particulate. The use of this 0.051 mm (0.002-
inch) thick stainless steel foil as the collecting stage was first employed
with Diesel exhaust in EPA Contract No. 68-03-2440.(44)
Impactor flow was maintained at approximately 0.021 m^/min (0.75 acfm)
during isokinetic tunnel sampling to provide individual-stage Effective Cutoff
Diameters (ECD) from 0.42 to 10.9 microns. The exhaust sample containing a
mixture of particle shapes and densities is fractionated and collected according
to its aerodynamic characteristics and is therefore aerodynamically equivalent
in size to the unit density calibration spheres (1 g/cc) collected on each
specific stage. The aerodynamic size of a particle gives information about its
physical size, shape, and density. It thus indicates how the particle will
behave in any environment.
Figures D-l through D-5 are plots of the particle size data, one figure
for each configuration. These plots illustrate the individual modal size
distributions.
Table 37 is a summary of DOAS values measured during a 7-mode cycle.
Brake and fuel specific results for the seven aldehydes by the DNPH procedure
are summarized for the 7-modt test on Table 38. Modal data are given in Tables
D-50 through D-54. Table 39 lists the specific hydrocarbon data in mg/km-hr
and mg/kg fuel burned using weighting factors derived from the 13-mode FTP.
This summary is based on the 7-mode test data contained in Tables D-55 through
D-59.
1. Effect of Timing
The static pump fuel injection timing was varied from the standard
28 degrees BTC to investigate the effect of this parameter on particulate,
sulfate and other emissions. These experiments were done with the engine in
the DI configuration.
a. Smoke
In general, advanced timing reduces visible smoke, while retarded
timing increases visible smoke emissions. This engine followed this well-
established relationship as shown by the Table 31 "b" "lug-down" smoke factor
and on Table 32 during the 13-mode and full-power opacity readings. The "b"
factors are compared below.
108
-------
Figure 23. Anderson Hark III In-Stack Sampler - Used for Diesel Particle Sizing
-------
tmmvc
Figure 24. Anderson Impactor Stage Collection
Foils and Back-up Filter
110
-------
TABLE 37. DGAS RESULTS FOR CATERPILLAR 3406 DIESEL
1260 rpci 600
-------
TABLE 38. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC ALDEHYDE RATES
CATERPILLAR 3406
Aldehyde
Sfed.Tim,
28° BTC
Direct Injection
EGR 10'Ret.
28•BTC 18"BTC
5° Adv.
33°BTC
Indirect Inj.
Standard Tim.
10* BTC
Formaldehyde, mg/kw-hr
25.
83
16.
77
34.
42
66.
28
18.
91
mg/kg fuel
96.
10
63.
45
124.
31
251.
5
68.
05
Acetaldehyde, mg/kw-hr
3.
49
0.
69
14.
71
9.
17
8.
47
mg/kg fuel
13.
00
2.
61
53.
10
34.
8
30.
47
Acetone, mg/kw-hr
2.
47
0.
06
3.
59
15.
02
2.
56
mg/kg fuel
9.
18
0.
21
12.
97
57.
0
9.
23
Isobutyraldehyde, mg/kw-hr
19.
87
18.
16
7.
93
15.
58
4.
74
mg/kg fuel
73.
93
68.
72
28.
64
59.
1
17.
07
Crotonaldehyde, mg/kw-hr
26.
26
38.
92
15.
98
93.
99
17.
31
mg/kg fuel
97.
70
147.
25
57.
70
356.
6
62.
29
Hexanaldehyde, mg/kw-hr
6.
27
19.
35
13.
88
76.
58
5.
74
mg/kg fuel
23.
35
73.
23
50.
13
290.
6
20.
67
Benzaldehyde, mg/kw-hr
13.
71
13.
00
74.
61
49.
70
49.
13
mg/kg fuel
51.
02
49.
17
269.
42
188.
6
176.
83
Total Aldehyde, mg/kw-hr
97.
90
106.
95
165.
12
326.
32
106.
86
mg/kg fuel
364.
28
404.
64
596.
27
1238.
2
384.
61
112
-------
TABLE 39, BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON RATES
CATERPILLAR 3406
Hydrocarbon
Std.Tim.
28° BTC
EGR
28"BTC
10°Ret.
18"BTC
5° Adv.
33"BTC
Indirect Inj
Standard Tim
10° BTC
Methane, mg/kw-hr
18.25
13.17
18.68
22.90
6.51
mg/kg fuel
68.95
49.83
67.29
86.88
23.45
Ethylene, mg/kw-hr
67.34
52.43
62.58
83.81
38.42
mg/kg fuel
254.48
198.38
225.98
318.01
138.28
Ethane, kg/kw-hr
1.16
0.96
1.33
1.60
0.12
mg/kg fuel
4.40
3.62
4.79
19.90
C .43
Acetylene, mg/kw-hr
6.58
6.60
5.96
8.46
4.65
mg/kg fuel
24.88
24.99
21.51
32.10
16.72
Propane, mg/kw-hr
BMD
BMD
0.09
0.06
0
mg/kg fuel
BMD
BMD
0.31
0.24
0
Propylene, mg/kw-hr
21.72
14.49
20.28
24.45
10.95
mg/kg fuel
82.08
56.33
73.22
92.76
39.40
Benzene, mg/kw-hr
7.22
7.62
11.45
8.32
4.28
mg/kg fuel
27.30
28.85
41.35
31.57
15.40
Toluene, mg/kw-hr
2.03
1.68
2.09
1.02
3.45
mg/kg fuel
7.69
6.36
7.53
3.87
12.41
Total Hydrocarbon, mg/kw-hr
124.30
96.95
122.41
150.62
68.38
mg/kg fuel
469.78
368.36
441.98
585.33
246.09
BHD: Below Minimum Detectable
113
-------
Static Timing
"b" Lug Down, % Opacity
5° Advanced 3.5
Standard Timing 6.8
10° Retarded 16.0
To the extent that full-power smoke can be related to engine
particulate, the mass emissions of particulate shown follow this trend. Partic-
ulate is produced under part-load conditions also, but the very low smoke
readings during the less than 100 percent power modes of the 13-raode FTP shows
the difficulty of using opacity readings to determine exhaust particulate.
b. Gaseous Emissions
The general effect of timing on NOx emissions is opposite to
that of smoke, and this was clearly shown by the timing data on Table 33. For
comparison, the average 13-mode results are listed below.
q/kw-hr
Static Timinq
CO
HC
NQ2
5° Advanced
5.6
0.53
18.5
Standard Timing
3.1
0.47
13.1
10° Retarded
3.2
0.42
7.0
The effect on CO is interesting but of no significan since CO
is already negligible. The effect on HC is considered very slight ii at all.
But, the effect on NO2 is large and quite consistent with other published data
for Diesel engines. Thus, a trade-off must be made between NO2 and smoke for
most Diesel engines for basic fuel injection timing. Standard timing, on this
engine, gave the best cycle BSFC with operation at either the advanced or
retarded settings resulting in increased fuel consumption. This is normal.
c. Particulate and Sulfate
The 13 mode-cycle is a quick way to summarize the effect of
timing. Using brake specific results from Table 34, the trends are consistent
in terms of particulate, namely an increase in particulate as timing was
retarded, just like visible smoke.
Particulate Sulfate
Basic Timing g/kw-hr mg/kw-hr
5° Advanced 0.36 34.4
Standard Timing 0.47 28.5
10° Retarded 1.36 37.2
This is illustrated in the lower half of Figure 25 for both brake and fuel
specific 13 mode-rates.
Sulfate emissions, plotted in the upper half of Figure 25,
demonstrated no such clear trend as did particulate, the results being somewhat
indicative of the BSFC trend, lowest sulfate at the standard timing, higher
114
-------
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW-hr
Brake Specific SC>4=, mg/kW-hr
,
<[>~©
\ \
w m
o o
50 50
<®
*0
ft *G
Fuel Specific Particulate g/kg fuel
Fuel Specific SO4", mg/kg fuel
-------
sulfate at advanced and retar^-id positions. The values are not so different,
however, to indicate any effect, considering the method of measurement.
A plot of particulate and sulfate mass rates from averages of
data in Tables D-18, D-19, D-28, D-29, D-33 and D-34 is given in Figure 26.
The 10° retard condition clearly resulted in the highest particulate rate of
three timings run. As timing was advanced, particulate decreased, with the !
degree advance condition producing the lowest particulate. These trends and
relationship of more particulate at higher power conditions are consistent.
Sulfate mass rate also increased with power level and fuel rate, as is typic;
since sulfate seems to be on the order of 1-2 percent of the fuel sulfur
burned. Above 50 percent power there appears to be some differences shown
versus timing setting, per Figure 26. The differences are not consistent.
For example, at 2100 rpm the 10-degree retard gave the highest and standard
timing the lowest rate.
The following summarizes the maximum, minimum and average sul:
conversion based on modal data listed in Tables D-19, D-29 and D-34.
Timinq, °BTC
Max.
Min.
Avg.
33 (5° Advanced)
5.27
1.22
1.86
18 (10° Retarded)
2.47
1.40
1.98
(1)Idle
The differences in average sulfate conversion are considered
small, almost negligible. The trend, if there is any, is somewhat consisten
with the mg/kw-hr sulfate, i.e., lowest at standard timing.
d. BaP and Organic Soluble Fraction
The effect of timing is highlighted by the following, from
Table 35, based on 13-mode weighting.
Cycle Composite
Timing BaP, pg/kw-hr Org. Sol., %
33° (5° Advanced) 1.26 12.9
28° (Standard Timing) 0.20 17.9
18° (10° Retarded) 0.69 19.2
From the above it is evident that 5-degree advanced timing gave the highest
brake s >ecific BaP rate and the lowest organic soluble fraction of the
particulate. An interesting inference from this is that increased BaP conte
is not necessarily a function of increased organic soluble fraction of the
particulate. Standard timing resulted in the lowest BaP level, with the 10-
degree retard giving a level halfway between. The computation of a cycle
composite, based on 7-mode results, is helpful in obtaining an overall value
for the partial map type data. Weighting factors are merelv applied to the
modal percent organic data to obtain a cycle weighted value.
116
-------
• 33° BTC <5P AdU.) . , ...J. , ,
©|s» BtC (S|tdi lliming) , j ?$°
0_^8". B"tc .110° .RjajtardJi. 1 1?60
4—4=14—I—i
Idle
25 50
Percent Power
75
100
i "~f
1 1
.j
j :"i
*"
/t
25 50
Percent Power
Figure 26. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Different
Static Injection Timings, Caterpillar 3406 DI
117
-------
e. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content
From data on Table 36, the computer hydrogen/carbon mole ratio
can be used to see if timing had an effect. The range as well as average
value obtained from elemental analyses of the 47 mm glass fiber filters are
listed below.
H/C Mole Ratio
Configuration
Max.
Min. Avg.
33° (5° Advanced)
1.61
0.05 0.85
28° (Standard Timing)
1.64
0.13 0.80
18° (10® Retarded)
1.45
0.10 0.61
The smaller the H/C ratio, the more carbon, or less hydrogen, content on the
filter. Even though the changes in timing did not make a large change in the
average H/C ratio, the retarded condition average of 0.61 is somewhat below the
other two conditions. This means that the increased gross particulate, with
retarded timing (discussed earlier), was due to an increase in carbonaceous
relative to hydrogen material on the filter. In reviewing the data on Table 3t,
it is interesting to note the change in H/C mole ratio increases? thus, the
minimum values listed above are for maximum power, and the maximum H/C values
are for light loads such as 2 percent power. For reference, Diesel fuel H/C
mole ratios are typically 1.6 to 1.7.
Looking at the metals analyses on Table D-48, it is evident
that phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine and calcium were most consistently found,
with some iron, silica, and trace of aluminum. It is difficult to attribute
t-he presence, absence or amount of these metals to a change in timing. The
sulfur values are of some interest but have already been commented on in terms
of sulfate by the BCA method.
f. Particle Sizing
Figure 27 illustrates the effect timing changes had on size
distribution. For simplicity, the arithmetic average of the seven modes
listed on Table D-49 was plotted to give an overal. view of trends, if any.
Each line on the graph represents the unweighted average of the modal size
distributions for that configuration. Standard and advanced timing show the
closest agreement as might be expected since the timing difference was only 5
degrees. Retarded timing shows a slight shift to the right indicating that
slightly smaller size particles were produced with this timing condition.
From this comparison it is evident that the timing changes had
no substantial effect on particle sizing, at least in the size range that was
measurable by the Anderson impactor. It is also very evident that the particle
sizes are, for the most part, very small. This is highlighted below.
118
-------
10.9
6.8
4.6
3.2
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42
-------
Particle Diameter ECD Cumulative Percent
Microns Smaller than ECD
less than 10 99.3-99.5
5 98.0 - 98.5
2 94.6 - 95.8
1 92.0 - 93.3
0.5 88.0 - 90.0
0.42 84.8 - 86.5
: is the very large 85 or so percent of the particulate less than 0.42 micron
ZD, caught on the backup filter in the impactor and not classified, that is
f interest. The 92-93 percent below one micron means that nearly all the
Lesel exhaust particulate, as sized by the Anderson method, is very light and
Lne and considered easily respirable.
For additional plots of the moaal results, please refer to
igures D-l, D-3 and D-4. These modal plots show some interesting trends such
> greater variability in the 2-micron-and-less size with mode for 5-degree
ivance, Figure D-4. But, in total, the size distribution lines are suffi-
Lently close to one another as to make it difficult to draw conclusions.
^member, these distributions represent only about 15 percent of the particulate
i the first place.
g. DOAS
Figure 28 is a plot of the TIA values from Table 37 versus power
;vel for both rated and intermediate speeds. Retarded timing appeared to have
>wer TIA values, but no overall trend to this effect is clearly evident. The
lly obvious trend is TIA decreased as power increased for most cases. In two
jses, the 28-degree, 2100 rpai and the 33-degree, 2100 rpm , the 50 percent
id 100 percent power TIA values were essentially the same.
As a simplified summary, the following compares LCO for each
Dnfiguration by simply averaging the 7 mode results and listing the maximum
id minimum. Also listed is the TIA computed from this average.
Static Timing, °BTC
33 (5° Advanced)
28 (Standard Timing)
18 (10° Retarded)
LCO,
Ug/litre
TIA
Max.
Min.
Avg.
Avg.
27.2
2.6
11.0
2.0
17.2
4.5
9.8
2.0
13.9
0.9
5.9
1.8
In terms of TIA, the differences in LCO between the 10-degree
2tard and the other two timing conditions disappear. The retarded timing did,
Dwever, result in lowest LCO and TIA of the three, and this is of some
iterost.
h. Aldehydes
One way to see if static fuel injection timing affects the
ldehydes is to add together the individual mg/kw-hr values on Table 38.
nese are shown below based on 7-mode test using weighting factors derived
rom the 13-mode FTP.
120
-------
std. is* BTC
330 BTC
191 vie
1.8
<
M
E-
1.6
1.0
0.8
100
Idle
2
50
Percent Power
Figure 28. Effect of Timing on TIA
Caterpillar 3406 DI Version
121
-------
Timing
Aldehydes LCA, Avg.
mgAw-hr yg/litre
33° BTC (5° Advanced) 326.3 16.4
28° BTC (Standard Timing) 97.9 12.8
18° BTC (10° Retarded) 165.1 13.7
The above indicate that standard timing produces the lowest aldehydes of the
three conditions. This is interesting since BaP, another intermediate com-
bustion product, was lowest at standard timing (see subparagraph d earlier in
this section). Sulfate seemed to have the same '.rend of lowest value at
standard timing, but there is no obvious reason for such a connection.
Aldehydes are, for the most part, odorous compounds, and such a
trend as shown above might also be shown by the DOAS results. It was not, how-
ever, in terms of LCO or TIA. In terms of LCA, the average values are listed
above and show that the average LCA was lowest at standard timing. Possibly a
connection exists between the liquid column aromatic fraction of the DOAS and
the aldehydes as measured by the DNPH method. From Table 38 it should be noteI
that the same trend of 33 degrees highest, 28 degrees lowest, and 18 degrees in
between was found for formaldehyde, acetone and hexanaldehyde. Although the 33-
degree and 18-degree values were not consistent as to which was highest, the 28-
degree timing was lowest except for isobutyraldehyde and crotonaldehyde. Tables
D-50, D-52 and D-53 provide individual mode data for further analysis.
i. Specific Hydrocarbons
As with the aldehydes, it is instructive to see if timing had
an effect on the eight different hydrocarbons as a group. The following
compares the sum of the brake specific rates from Table 39 (7-mode test using
weighting factors derived from 13-mode FTP).
Sum of Specific
Static Timing Hydrocarbons, mg/kw-hr
33° BTC (5° Advanced) 150.6
28° BTC (Standard Timing) 124.3
18° BTC (10° Retarded) 122.4
It is clear that the changes in timing had essentially no effect on the aggre-
gate of the eight specific hydrocarbons measured. A review of the individual
brake specific rates. Table 39, shows this to be pretty much the case
throughout. In some instances, such as ethylene and acetylene, the 5-degree
advance resulted in noticeably higher values than the other two timings.
Benzene was highest with the 10-degree retard conditions. More detailed study
of the specific hydrocarbons can be made from Table D-55, D-57 and D-58
j. Summary
The major effect of timing on the Caterpillar 3406 DI has been
to increase particulate with retarded timing. This is consistent with the
well-known effect of timing retard on increasing visible smoke and reducing
oxides of nitrogen, So major or obvious effects were noted on sulfate,
particle sizing, DOAS, or specific hydrocarbons. BaP and aldehydes were
122
-------
lowest at standard timing, highest at 5 degrees advanced timing and in between
at the 10-degree retarded timing setting.
2. Effect of EGR
Exhaust gas recirculation is a well-known technique for reduction of
oxides of nitrogen. It is typically applied to Diesel engines at output levels
less than full power to prevent an increase in maximum power smoke. A Cater-
pillar 3208 Diesel, with production EGR, was evaluated in Section IV of this
report. The Caterpillar 3208 sold in California is the only production HDD
engine with automatic EGR.
For purposes of this experiment to determine the effect of substan-
tial EGR on particulate and sulfate, a manual EGR system was fabricated and
installed. A large, 101.6 nun (4-inch) exhaust pipe connected to the engine's
127 mm (5-inch) exhaust pipe ducted hot exhaust directly into the turbocharger
air intake. A large, 76.2 nun (3-inch) gate valve was used to regulate the
amount of exhaust that was recirculated back into the inlet of the turbo.
Since the maximum smoke level under steady-state is 15 percent
opacity, this was used as the upper limit when setting the exhaust recircu-
lation level. The goal was to achieve a 50 percent reduction in N0X without
exceeding the 15 percent smoke level or large loss in maximum power of the
engine. The following lists the nominal percent EGR rates measured during a
13-mode smoke test.
Mode
Speed, rpm
Power, %
EGR Rate, %
1
700
0
47.2
2
1260
2
45.2
3
1260
25
31.3
4
1260
50
12.4
5
1260
75
10.4
6
1260
100
2.6
7
700
0
47.2
8
2100
100
6.5
9
2100
75
11.1
10
2100
50
18.6
11
2100
25
24.7
12
2100
2
41.6
13
700
0
47.2
The EGR rates were calculated from intake and exhaust C02 measurements by the
following equation:
« p/~d - Intake C02 - Background CO2 100 - Intake C02 v .nn.
Exhaust CO2 100 - Exhaust CO2
Note that at maximum power, modi. - 6 and 8, only a small EGR rate
could be used while, at light loads and idle, rates were greater than 40
percent.
123
-------
a. Smoke
Smoke was measured only at the 13-mode test conditions since
the manual EGR system precluded transient operation. A comparison of the smoke
results on Table 32 shows the gross increases in smoke when large amounts of
hot exhaust gas were used instead of air in the intake charge to the engine.
To obtain a 50 percent decrease in N0X, an engine with typically low smoke
levels was increased by a factor of 2.8.
b. Gaseous Emissions
The goal of "about half the standard engine NO^" was almost met
by application of the EGR to this engine. From Table 33, the 13-mode NO2 was
7.3 versus 13.1 g/kw-hr. EGR doubled CO from 3.1 to 6.4 g/kw-hr and halved HC
from 0.47 to 0.23. Brake specific fuel consumption was affected some, with an
increase from 0.253 to 0.268 kg/kw-hr because of EGR. This is not to say that
the application of EGR will invariably increase BSFC but only that some
increase was expected because some exhaust was recirculated at all conditions,
even maximum power. Maximum power at 2100 rpm was reduced from 248.8 to 232.8
kw and at 1260 rpm from 196.3 to 185.1 kw.
c. Particulate and Sulfate
Table 34 indicated that EGR increased the particulate from 0.47
to 1.2 g/kw-hr, an increase of 2.7 times. Sulfate, however, appeared
unaffected by EGR, with 28.5 mg/kw-hr standard engine versus 28.7 mg/kw-hr
for the standard engine plus EGR. Thus, the particulate increase was likely
due to increased carbonaceous or hydrocarbon-like matter rather than sulfate.
Figure 29 contains plots of particulate and sulfate mass rates
by speed and load condition. Although EGR resulted in more particulate at
maximum (100 percent) power, the greatest percent increase in particulate
occurred at 75 percent of power. This and the other part-load conditions <25
and 50 percent) resulted in nearly threefold increase in particulate rates.
Sulfate behavior was a bit curious in that, between 50 and 75
percent power, the effect of EGR was to produce more sulfate. This was most
pronounced at 2100 rpm on Figure 6. Below the crossover point, less than
50-75 percent power, EGR produced less sulfate. In most cases, the differences
were not large and apparently self-compensated when calculated as a composite
13-mode rate.
Tables D-19 and 0-24 list the sulfate emission rates for the
standard DI Caterpillar 3406 and the EGR versions of the engine. The average
fuel sulfur conversion to sulfur as sulfate was 1.86 percent with a ranqe of
1.32 to 4.13 percent in the standard 28-degree timing version. The 4.13
percent was computed at idle. The conversion to sulfate was an average 1.45
percent, range of 0.84 to 1.91 percent, for the EGR configuration.
Figure 30 is an attempt to see if there is a relationship
between visible smoke and particulate mass rate. The eleven different modes
of the 13-mode test are the basis for comparison. Although the standard
engine values might have some relationship to each other, it is evident that
124
-------
8000 f q 28<(
! E 28°/EGR
6000
4000
2000
-1260 rpm
*2100 rpm
Idle
Percent Power
100
300
200
-r
100
0 h - 9-—
Idle
2
25
50
75
100
Percent Power
Figure 29. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Caterpillar 3406 DI
With and Without EGR
125
-------
_r
16
14
12
!»
a
o
a>
O
6
to
|Q' 28° ^PCrT:
10. 28* BTC w/
wningI
t
p. a>
EGR
= 11 ¦
¦B-
!r
A
0 •
x
-it*-
¦i..
©
w
50 100 150 200
Particulate, g/hr
250
300
Figure 30. Modal Smoke and Particulate, Caterpillar 3406 DI
With and Without EGR
126
-------
I
with EGR there is no correlation. For example, particulate can range from 175
to about 275 g/hr, yet the smoke was the same, 15 percent opacity.
d. BaP and Organic Soluble Fraction
The following is a comparison of the BaP and organic soluble
fraction based on the 7-mode test using weighting factors derived from the 13-
mode FTP.
Cycle Composite
Configuration BaP, pgAw-hr Org. Sol., %
DI, Standard Timing 0.20 17.9
DI, Standard Timing + EGR 0.11 19.5
From this comparison, BaP was about half that of the standard Caterpillar 3406
when operated with a substantial level of EGR. Organic solubles seemed little
affected and again denote little relationship between BaP and the amount of
organic solubles in the particulate.
e. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content
The following compares the H/C mole ratio of the particulate
matter:
H/C Mole Ratio
Configuration Max. Min. Avq.
DI, Standard Timing 1.64 0.13 0.80
DI, Standard Timing + EGR 1.33 0.10 0.52
As with retarded timing, discussed earlier, EGR resulted in a large increase
in particulate. The above indicates that the content of the particulate
shifted substantially to greater carbonaceous matter relative to the hydrogen
content.
is helpful.
To illustrate the effect of EGR on the H/C ratio, the following
Condition Standard Engine Standard Engine + EGR
Speed/% Power H/C Ratio H/C Ratio EGR, %
1260/2 1.44 1,13 45.2
1260/50 0.55 0.10 12.4
1260/100 0.13 0.12 2.6
Idle 1.25 1.33 47.2
2100/100 0.24 0.12 6.5
2100/50 0.35 0.20 18.6
2100/2 1.64 0.61 41.6
Note the influence of EGR on decreasing H/C ratio through a shift in higher
C relative to H content. For example, 6.5 percent EGR at 2100 rpm/100 percent
load resulted in half the H/C ratio. Apparently particulate H/C ratio is
127
-------
quite sensitive to EGR rate. Metals found on the 47 mm Fluoropore filter
particulate are listed and compared on Table D-48 and show no obvious effect
of EGR.
f. Particulate Sizing
The average of the 7-mode sizing data for EGR was plotted on
Figure 27, discussed earlier. When using EGR, it appears that the average size
distribution line shifted to the right on Figure 27, meaning the particles with
EGR were even smaller than from the standard engine. The following compares
the two configurations.
Cumulative Percent
Particle Diameter ECD Smaller than ECD
Microns Standard Engine EGR
less than 10 99.3 99.7
5 98.5 99.4
2 94.8 96.7
1 92.0 94.4
0.5 86.5 89.3
0.42 84.6 87.3
This is an interesting observation that EGR, like retarded timing, results in
finer particles. The effects are negligible from the standpoint that only 15
percent of the particulate is known to be thus affected.
g. DOAS
TIA is plotted as a function of power output on Figure 31.
Generally, the highest TIA values were obtained at light load and idle with
mixed behavior or no change between 50 and 100 percent power. TIA values from
the exhaust gas recirculated engine were lower at all condition* except the
2-percent 2100-rpm condition.
To summarize this finding, the maximum, minimum and average LCO
and TIA are listed next.
LCO
yg/litre
TIA
Configuration
Max.
Min. Avg.
Avg-
DI, Standard Timing
17.2
4.5 9.8
2.0
DI, Standard Timing ~ EGR
11.9
1.2 5.2
1.7
It is apparent that DOAS results, TIA and LCO, were lower both in range as well
as average value for the EGR-equipped engine. The average values are slightly
lower than the 10-degree retarded timing LCO and TIA discussed earlier.
h. Aldehydes
Shown below is a summation of the individual aldehyde brake
specific rates given earlier in Table 38.
128
-------
2.4
<
w
E-1
Idle 2
50
Percent Power
100
Figure 31. Effect of EGR on TIA Caterpillar 3406 DI Version
129
-------
Aldehydes LCA, avg.
Configuration ug/kw-hr yg/litre
DI, Standard Timing 97.9 12.8
DI, Standard Timing + EGR 107.0 6.1
Little difference is seen overall, and this is borne out by an examination of
some individual aldehydes measured. Some were lower with EGR, such as formal-
dehyde, acetaldehyde and acetone, and some were higher, such as crotonaldehyde
and hexanaldehyde.
Although aldehydes and LCA seemed to be related during the
effect-of-timing discussion, such a connection seems remote when EGR was used.
Aldehydes were little affected overall by the use of EGR, but LCA, by the DOAS,
were halved per the above summary.
i. Specific Hydrocarbons
Compared to the standard engine, the sum of the eight hydro-
carbons measured was lower with EGR (97 versus 124 mg/kw-hr). Less methane,
ethylene, propylene and toluene were measured, while other HC were about the
same. What mechanism is at work when exhaust is introduced into the engine to
result in less of certain hydrocarbons is unknown. Table 39 and Tables D-55
and D-56 contain the detailed data for further study.
j. Summary
Like retarded timing, EGR as applied to the Caterpillar 3406
engine increased greatly the total mass of particulate emitted by the engine
while decreasing NOx. Smoke was increased, by intent, as a natural result of
achieving a substantial, almost 50 percent, NQX reduction. CO was doubled and
HC halved. While particulate was increased by 2.7 times, sulfate appeared
unaffected. BaP, with EGR, was cut in half, while organic soluble fraction
was about the same. Particle size distribution with EGR shifted to indicate
an even finer, lighter material than the same engine run in standard
configuration.
3. Effect of Combustion Chamber
The selection of the Caterpillar 3406 engine for this entire series
of experiments, timing and EGR, was because this is the only production HDD
engine offered in both a direct injection and an indirect injection version.
The indirect injection combustion chamber involves a prechamber, whereas the
direct injection version uses an "open" type combustion chamber. It has long
been known that a prechamber engine has inherently low N0X, and tests of an
earlier Caterpillar enginef®' illustrated not only low N0X but comparatively
low smoke, HC, CO and odor as well.
The prechamber tvoe engine, though universally used for smaller
high-speed Diesels used in cars, has never been as popular for buses and
trucks (HD applications) as the direct injection (DI) engine because of its
increased fuel consumption (higher BSFC). Accordingly, with the exception of
this one domestic model which has negligible sales, all engines in over-the-
road HDD applications use some version of an open chamber with direct fuel
injection.
130
-------
The conversion of the Caterpillar 3406 from DI to IDI was accom-
plished under the guidance and help of Mr. Ken Claar from Caterpillar using
parts furnished by Caterpillar for this purpose. The conversion was done on
March 22-24, 1978, and included changing of pistons, injector assemblies, and
the pump assembly. Following conversion, the engine started easily and
generated rated power at both rated and intermediate speeds. A pinging noise
was evident at light loads, but this was considered "normal" for this engine
configuration by the Caterpillar representative.
After the recommended break-in procedure, the series of smoke tests
and performance tests were performed. Then, during a 20-minute maximum-power
run to verify particulate tunnel temperatures, the engine suddenly lost power
and came to a stop. The engine was restarted but could noi. achieve rated
power. An abnormal amount of smoke was coming from the blow-by vent.
Following a step-by-step inspection at the direction of Caterpillar (via phone
conversations), it was found that the No. 5 cylinder's oil jet tube had broken
off. This oil jet tube is located in the vicinity of the crankshaft and
directs a jet of oil to the underside of the piston (one oil jet per cylinder).
Engine failure apparently occurred as a result of loss of cooling and lubri-
cation to No. 5 cylinder assembly, causing the piston to score the liner.
Piston metal deposits were apparent around the circumference of the liner and
ran the length of stroke. It is assumed that failure occurred immediately
after oil jet failure due to the lack of piston discoloration (no oil coking)
and the relatively good condition of the bearings. A new piston, injector
nozzle and liner were installed in cylinder No. 5. Following another break-in
procedure, the reassembled engine pulled rated load. Smoke data taken prior
to engine failure were verified and the test program resumed. At time of
failure the engine had accumulated 12 hours in the IDI configuration.
a. Smoke
Referring back to Tables 31 and 32, the IDI engine produced
slightly lower smoke on the Federal Transient Smoke Cycle, in terms of "a" and "b"
factors, and somewhat lower smoke under steady-state conditions. For example,
the smoke at 2100 rpm at 100, 75, 50 and 25 percent power was less, as was
smoke at 50, 2 5 and 2 percent, 1400 rpm. The smoke levels are all very low
and the differences normally considered negligible. Only maximum power at
1400 rpm produced enough smoke to be even faintly visible to the human eye.
Thus, this data can only be considered useful in a directional sense.
b. Gaseous Emissions
The following is a brief comparison of the 13-mode emissions
and BSFC.
q/kw-hr BSFC
Combustion System CO HC NO;? kg/kw-hr
DI, Open Chamber 3.13 0.47 13.09 0.253
IDI, Prechamber 1.68 0.16 6.88 0.272
True to form, the IDI (prechamber) version reduced emissions of CO by half,
HC to one-third, and NO2 by half while increasing cycle BSFC by 7.5 percent
relative to the DI version. Incidentally, the emissions and BSFC compared
131
-------
very favorably to engine data provided by Caterpillar on a similar engine.
Two differences between the engine's speed are that the IDI engine idle speed
is 600 instead of 700 rpm for the DI and the intermediate engine speed was
1400 instead of 1260 rpm. Both versions of the engine were run with identical
preset restrictions, 76.2 cm (30-inch) water inlet and 68.6 mm (27-inch) water
exhaust at rated speed and load.
c. Particulates and Sulfates
Figure 32 illustrates the modal behavior of the two combustion
systems evaluated on the Caterpillar 3406 engine. The IDI or prechamber engine,
at 2100 rpm, acted quite differently from the DI engine, with lower particulate
at each power point. Instead of particulate mg/hr increasing rapidly between
75 and 100 percent power, as is vual and was found with the DI version,
particulate was about the same as the 75 percent power point.
At intermediate speed, 1260 rpm for the DI and 1400 rpm for
the IDI, the two combustion systems had almost identical particulate mass rate
behavior. The IDI was slightly higher at 100 percent and somewhat higher at
75 percent power, but the difference in engine speed could account for this.
The brake specific particulate rates, given earlier on Table 34,
allow for a direct comparison as follows.
Particulate Sulfate
Combustion System g/kw-hr mg/kw-hr
DI, Open Chamber 0.47 28.5
IDI, Prechamber 0.37 41.0
Approximately 20 percent reduction in particulate, from 0.47 to
0.37 g/kw-hr, is not very encouraging for the use of a prechamber engine.
More difference had been expected. One reason for lack of a bigger change may
be because the DI version of this specific engine is already a fairly low
particulate emitter.
Sulfate trends on Figure 32 show higher mass emissions than the
open-chamber DI engine. At rated speed, the prechamber IDI engine was higher
at each test point except the 50 percent power. Intermediate speed (1260 rpm
DI and 1400 rpm IDI) gave higher sulfate at 50,75 and 100 percent of power,
but this could have been due to the higher speed and fuel rate.
The previous comparison from brake specific data in Table 34
indicates the prechamber enqine to produce on the order of 40 percent more
sulfate than the open-chamber engine. This is the only finding of significant
so far in terms of engine effects on sulfate and is noteworthy.
From Table D-39, the sulfate conversion can be summarized as
follows.
Fuel S measured as SOa=, %
Combustion System Max. Min. Avq.
DI, Open Chamber 4.13 1.22 1.86
IDI, Prechamber 4.78 1.25 2.18
132
-------
e DI 20° BTC I
0 ID1 10° BTC
Intermediate fjxgd
:— 2100 rpm _
12,000
g* 10,000
6,000
4,000 r
2,000
Idle
2
25
50
75
100
Percent Power
*¦4
XS
*
H
3
o
•H
u
<0
a«
9
Idle
25 50
Percent Power
100
Figure i2. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for Caterpillar 3406
DI Open Chamber and IDI Prechamber
133
-------
On the average, this is a 17 percent increase in fuel sulfur conversion.
However, the IDI engine uses slightly more fuel and some modes had a
substantial 2.91 percent conversion, such as 2100-rpm 75-percent power
d. BaP and Organic Solubles
The following is a brief comparison of the IDI to the DI
version of the Caterpillar 3106 engines' BaP and organic solubles on a 7-mode
cycle composite.
Cycle Composite
Combustion System BaP, yg/kw-hr Org. Sol¦, %
PI, Open Chamber 0.20 17.9
IDI, Prechamber 0.14 11.1
In keeping with the lower overall particulate values with the
IDI version, BaP and organic solubles were likewise lower. A 30 percent
reduction in BaP and a 38 percent reduction in organic solubles are generally
ill line with the 20 percent reduction in particulate discussed earlier.
Appendix Table D-47 contains the cycle composite calculations for further
analysis.
e. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content
The H and C elemental analyses for the IDI and DI versions of
the Caterpillar 3406 are listed on Table 36 for each mode. Taking the average
H/C mole ratio, little overall difference is seen in the two configurations as
summarized below.
H/C Mole Ratio
Combustion System Max. Min. Average
DI, Open Chamber 1.64 0.13 0.8
IDI, Prechamber 0.94 0.20 0.6
The range of H/C ratios was reduced by the IDI engine, and
these data suggest a drier particulate with less organics by the IDI engine.
From Table 36, H was the same or less on five of the seven conditions and C
was higher on four of the seven conditions with the IDI engine.
A review of the sulfur and metals found on the filter showed
little consistent difference between DI and IDI configurations. Sulfur content
on the IDI filters was consistently twice the DI engine at all power levels
at rated engine speed. Except at the 2 percent power, phosphorus and calcium
were also higher. For more details, refer to Tabic D-48.
f. Particle Sizing
The results of the particle sizing experiments, when averaged
for the seven test modes, coincide with the S-degree advance timing and arc
very close to the standard timing direct injection engine. Thus, the particle
size distribution ma/ be viewed from Figure 27 using the dotted line for 5-
degree advanced timing.
134
-------
In short, the prechamber had no effect on particle sizing as
measured by the Anderson impactor method. As with other configuration, little
is known about the 85 percent of the particulate mass collected on the backup
filter. The modal distributions are plotted in Figure D-5 for further
examination.
g. DOAS
Plotted on Figure 31 are the TIA values measured with the IDI
prechamber version of the Caterpillar 3406 engine. Compared to the direct
injection engine, the IDI engine had substantially lower TIA values under
every test condition. As with the DI engine, the TIA values were less at the
intermediate speed (1260 rpm fjr DI and 1400 rpm for the IDI) than at 2100 rpm
rated speed.
Combining the 7-ntode DOAS values from Table 37, the following
comparison can be made.
Combustion System
DI, Open Chamber
IDI, Prechamber
LCO,
pq/litre
TIA
Max.
Min. Avg.
Avg.
17.2
4.5 9.8
2.0
6.8
1.0 2.6
1.4
Note that the overall average LCO and TIA values are substantially less from
the prechamber engine. This is significant and is in qualitative agreement
with a Caterpillar 1604 prechamber engine evaluated many years earlier.
h. Aldehydes
The summation of the seven individual aldehyde brake specific
emission rates, listed on Table 38, is used to compare the IDI to the DI
configuration.
Aldehydes LCA, avg.
Combustion System mq/kw-hr pg/litre
DI, Open Chamber 86.9 12.8
IDI, Prechamber 106.9 3.6
The situation here is very similar to the EGR comparison, namely, little
change in aldehydes as a total yet a large decrease in LCA by the DOAS.
Individual aldehydes, such as formaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde and crotonaldehydc,
wore lower from the IDI version while acetaldehyde and benzaldehyde were higher.
i. Specific Hydrocarbons
Compared to the standard DI engine, the sum of the eight
specific hydrocarbons, listed on Table 39, was about half with the prechamber
IDI engine (68 versus 124 mg/kw-hr). Except for toluene, which was higher,
each of the other hydrocarbons measured was about half that of the DI engine.
This reduction in gaseous, low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons agrees quali-
tatively with the lower LCO and LCA via the DOAS and the lower 13-mode FTP
hydrocarbon rate.
135
-------
j. Summary
The prechamber indirect injection version of the Caterpillar
3406 engine tested resulted in about a 20 percent reduction in exhaust partic-
ulate, a 30 percent reduction in BaP and organic solubles, lower visible smoke,
and about a 40 percent increase in sulfate. The increase in sulfate is note-
worthy in that this is the only such occurrence found in all experiments with
the Caterpillar 3406.
CO and NO2 were halved, and substantial reductions in li-mode
FTP HC, LCA and LC0 by the D0AS, and specific low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons
were noted compared to the standard DI engine. A 7.5 percent increase in
brake specific fuel consumption was found with the prechamber engine, however.
In all, the results of this experiment were all directionally correct to
previous experience.'
B. Effect of Turbocharging
There is no way to evaluate the effect of a turbocharger alone on engine
operation or its emission characteristics. Invariably, the addition of a
turbocharger entails the modification of other essential items or adjustments
of the once naturally aspirated engine in order that the resulting engine
function satisfactorily.
Turbocharging in the minimum involves a change in injection pump re-
calibration and timing adjustments, as was the case for the Cummins NHC-250
engine tests in 1973.<13) unlike the Cummins turbocharger retrofit kit, most
installations involve a change in pistons and compression ratio as well as a
number of lesser but just as important engine changes. Thus, any such compar-
ison must be made with a turbocharged-equipped engine that has inherently
certain changes which in themselves have effects on emissions, even if the
turbocharger was not used.
For purposes of this study, Daimler-Benz OM-352 naturally aspirated and
OM-352A turbocharged (TC) engines were selected. Both engines were described
in detail in Section III of this report and are shown in Figure 1 ready for
test. Although both are considered small six-cylinder Diesels that would be
used in midrange applications, they were thought to be satisfactory selections
to indicate the gross differences in particulate and sulfate from a pair of
engines that are quite comparable except for turbocharging. Also, neither
engine had ever been characterized in the EPA's Long Range Diesel Emissions
Program.
1. Smoke-
Table 40 lists the Federal Transient Smoke Cycle results for both
engines. As is usual with turbocharged Diesels, the "b" factor, or maximum
power "lug-down" part of the cycle, is much lower than the naturally aspirated
Diesel engine. In this case, the "b" factor was less than half, 4.1 for TC
versus 10.9 percent opacity for the NA engine.
Incidentally, the OM-352 compared reasonably well with the 10.6 and
11.3 percent "a" and "b" factors obtained at SwRI in March 1972. The OM-352A
136
-------
TABLE 40. FEDERAL TRANSIENT SMOKE CYCLE OPACITY
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 AND OM-352A
Engine Model Run
OM-352 1
Naturally 2
Aspirated Avg
OM-352A 1
Turbo- 2
Charged Avg
Smoke Opacity, %
llgll ItJ^M Wg M
7.9 11.0 11.3
7.9 10.8 11.2
7.9 10.9 11.2
7.9 4.2 14.2
7.0 3.9 11.6
7.5 4.1 12.9
125-hour "a", "b" and "c" factors measured in March 1974 were 12.5, 6.0 and
23.6 percent, respectively.
Table 41 lists the steady state smoke measurements in the 13-mode
test and during a full-power test. Although part-load smoke levels are not
much different at full power, the NA engine is much higher than the TC, and
this is quite typical. Note the large difference in the opacity readings
during the maximum-power test. The differences were greatest at high speed
and diminished as the speed was decreased. The NA engine produced a constant
10-11 percent opacity, regardless of speed (2600 to 1600 rpm), while the TC
engine smoke increased as speed decreased (2200 down to 1600 rpm).
2. Gaseous Emissions
Table 42 is a summary of the 21- and 13-mode tests for regulated
gaseous emissions and BSFC. For more details, please refer to the computer
printouts included as Tables D-60 through D-67 in Appendix D. Gaseous
emission of HC+NO2 was lower for the NA version due to the lower NOj emission
from that configuration. HC emission from both configurations was almost the
same, with the TC version just slightly lower. Also, the emission rate of CO
was lower for the TC version. Fuel consumption for the TC configuration was
lower by about 3.5 percent (0.284 versus 0.294 kg/kw-hr). Turbocharged
engines typically have lower NO, as NO2, and better brake specific fuel
consumption. In regard to smoke, regulated emissions and BSFC, the differences
are typical and expected. For the record, the 125-hour test of the OM-352A
in March 1974 yielded 4.22 g/kw-hr CO, 2.49 g/kw-hr HC, 12.63 g/kw-hr NO2, and
HC+NO2 of IS.12 g/kw-hr by the prescribed 13-mode test. These values agree
very well with those reported on Table <2. Although this engine and the OM-352
engine had been in storage for some time, the smoke and gaseous emission values
agree well with earlier data and validate the operating condition of the
engines as used in this project.
3. Particulate and Sulfate
Table 43 lists the 13-mode composite particulate and sulfate results
for both engines in brake and fuel specific units. The particulate rates for
the naturally aspirated engine arc almost twice the rates emitted by the TC
137
-------
TABLE 41. STEADY-STATE SMOKE PERCENT OPACITY
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 AND OM-352A
13-MODE FTP STEADY-STATES
Engine Smoke Opacity, %
Mode Speed, rpm Power, % OM-352(NA) OM-352A (TC)
1 600 — 0,1 0.2
2 2000 2 0.2 0.2
3 2000 25 0.4 0.3
4 2000 50 0.7 0.7
5 2000 75 1.4 2.2
6 2000 100 11.0 4.0
7 600 0.3 0.4
8 2800 100 9.7 3.1
9 2800 75 3.1 2.4
10 2800 50 1.8 1.0
11 2800 25 1.7 0.1
12 2800 2 1.3 0.1
13 600 0,2 0.2
Maximum Power Smoke
2800 8.6 3 o
2600 lo.O 2.7
2400 io.6 2.9
2200 10.2 2.9
2000 10;3 3,8
1800 10.5 4,2
1680 io,6 5,1
1600 10.7 6,3
138
-------
TABLE 42. GASEOUS EMISSIONS BY 21-MODE EPA AND 13-MODE FTP
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 AND OM-352A
Emission, g/kW-hr Cycle BSFC
Test Run CO HC N02ta) HC + NO? kq/kW-hr
21-EPA
13-FTP
21-EPA
13-FTP
Turbocharged
(a!
NOx as N02 by CL - 21-mode EPA
NO as N02 by NDIR - 13-mode FTP
1
4.809
3.080
11.963
15.043
0.289
2
4.311
3.227
12.628
15.854
0.291
Avg
4.560
3.154
12.296
15.449
0.290
1
4.413
2.940
11.877
14.816
0.284
2
3.741
3.107
12.026
15.133
0.284
Avg
4.077
3.024
11.952
14.975
0.284
Natually Aspirated
1
7.010
3.410
10.766
14.175
0.295
2
6.510
3.446
10.369
13.815
0.298
Avg
6.760
3.428
10.568
13.995
0.296
1
7.252
3.198
10.064
13.262
0.293
2
6.740
3.210
9.903
13.112
0.294
Avg
6.996
3.204
9.984
13.187
0.294
139
-------
TABLE 43. PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
(Based on 13-Mode Cycle)
Brake Specific
Fuel Specific
Daimler-Benz
Run
Particulate
Su) fate
Particulate
Sulfate
Configuration
No.
g/kW-hr
mg/kW-hr
g/kg fuel
mg/kg fuel
OM-3S2A
1
0.755
19.41
2.681
68.95
Turbocharged
2
0.753
17.91
2.686
63.87
Avg.
0.754
18.66
2.684
66.41
OM-3r>2
1
1.314
18.54
4.490
63.33
Naturally
2
1. 341
19.53
4.590
66.86
Aspirated
Avg.
1.328
19.04
4.540
65.10
version. Sulfate rates from the NA version were essentially the saiue as the
TC configuration.
Figure 33 is a plot of the particulate and sulfate mass rates foe
the various load and speed conditions evaluated. These plots make use of
average ra*~s contained in Tables D-68 and D-69 (OM-352A) and D-72 and D-73
(OM-352). Incidentally, Tables D-70 and D-71 and Tables D-74 and D-75 conta
the 13-mode composite computations summarized in Table 44.
According to Figur- 33, particulate rates from the OM-352 engine
configuration were slightly higher than from the turbocharged configuration
low loads. At higher loads, particularly the 100 percent power modes, parti
ulate rates were much higher than for the turbocharged version. Sulfate mas
rates seemed to be fairly consistent, almost the same, except at the 75 and
100 percent, 1800 rpm points where the turbocharged engine produced higher
sulfate rates than the naturally aspirated engine. Recall that the turbocha
engine intermediate speed is 1800 rpm and the naturally aspirated intermedia
speed is 2000 rpm.
The percent of fuel sulfur conversion for the NA configuration ran
from 0.82 at 2000 rpm/100 percent to 2.61 percent at idle. Similarly, the
fuel sulfur conversion for the TC configuration ranged from 0.68 to 3.04
percent at 1800 rpm/25 percent and idle, respectively. The OM-352A TC engir
averaged 1.2 percent fuel sulfur-to-sulfate conversion, while the OM-352 NA
engine conversion was 1.1 percent.
4. BaP and Organic Solubles
Table 44 lists the results of the seven modes evaluated for BaP an
organic solubles using the 8 x 10 size filter. Particulate rates determined
by this larger size fiberglass filter are also listed. Note that BaP was
below minimum detectable at 100 percent power for both engines and engine
speeds. BaP was lower for the TC engine at al other points except intermed
speed/2 percent power.
140
-------
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
150
100
50
0
® Daimler-Benz^ OM-3,52. (iJa),
N DailmlerTBenz. OM-3.52A |TC)
Idle
2
25
50
75
100
Idle
2
25
50
75
100
Figure 33. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Hates
for Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A Diesel Engines
141
-------
TABLE 44. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, BaP AND ORGANIC SOLUBLF3
FROM 8 x 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 AND ON-352A ENGINES
Condit ion
Engine
Particulate Rate
BaP
Organic
rpta/loaa %
Configuration
5SL.
szbi
q/k
-------
The following lists the cycle brake specific BaP and organic soluble
percentages for both engines.
Cyclu Composite
Engine BaF, uq/kw-hr Org. Sol., %
OM-352 NA 1.43 34.2
OM-352A TC 1.17 29.2
The TC engine produced 18 percent less BaP and 15 percent less organic
solubles in the particulate than the OM-352 engine. These differences were not
as great as would be expected by the reduction in gross particulate through
turbocharging, namely, 1.328 to 0.754 g/kw-hr, or 43 percent. Apparently, the
turbocharged engine produced less carbonaceous type soot particulate while
organics were less affected. For modal and other details leading to the cycle
values, please refer to Tables D-76 and D-77.
5. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content
The following is a comparison of the elemental analyses of the
naturally aspirated OM-352 and turbocharged OM-352A Daimler-Benz engines.
Comparison of Carbon and Hydrogen
Content of Daimler-Benz OM-352 and OM-352A
Condition
Carbon
Hyc'roqen
H/C
(2)
Speed/toad
352
352A
352
352A
352
352A
Inter ^ 2
59.09
62.09
8.49
8.95
1.71
1.72
70.08
72.77
8.87
6.92
1.51
1.13
8f. 10
73.93
1.20
1.17
0.17
0.19
48.64
48.46
5.74
4.29
1.41
1.06
87.58
70.26
1.09
4.61
0.15
0.78
68.86
72.49
7.84
6.13
1.36
1.01
70.79
70.11
10.13
8.98
1.71
1.53
2000 rpm for OM-352 NA and 1800 rpm for OM-352A TC
Mole Ratio
Overall, there is essentially no change in either hydrogen, carbon or the H/C
mole ratio between engine versions. The average H/C mole ratio was 1.15 for
the naturally aspirated engine compared to a 1.06 average for the turbocharged
engine.
Metals and sulfur analyses for both engines are listed on Table D-78.
Phosphorus, sulfur and calcium were the most consistently found. The compar-
ison was very inconsistent in that sometimes the NA engine would be lower,
sometimes higher, and often the same or essentially the same. Quite a variety
of metals wers found compared to some engines.
6. Particle Sizing
The turbocharged OM-352A particle size distribution appears slightly
finer and lighter than the naturally aspirated OM-352 according to the plots
143
-------
on Figure 34. These are simple averages of the 7-mode data given on Table D-7
For similar distribution plots of each speed/load condition, refer to Figures
D-6 and D-7.
The particulate is, like the Caterpillar 3406 discussed earlier, ver
small, and the Anderson only classifies about 13 percent of the largest portic
of the exhaust particulate. The following illustrates this.
Particle Cumulative Percent
Diameter Smaller than ECD
ECD, Microns OM-3S2 NA OM-352A TC
less than 10 99.4 99.5
5 97.8 98.4
2 94.4 95.0
1 81,9 94.1
0.5 88.0 89.5
0.42 86.8 87.9
7. DOAS
Table 45 lists the DOAS results for the seven modes evaluated. The
TXA values are plotted on Figure 35. For the naturally aspirated engine
TABLE 45. DOAS RESULTS FOR DAIMLER-BENZ ENGINES
Intermediate ^rpm 2800 rpm
Engine DOAS (1) _2 50 100 Idle 100 SO _2
OM-352A TC LCA 59.5 57.7 56.9 52.7 33.9 63.4 57.8
LCO 22.7 16.0 23.7 20.3 24.0 18.2
TIA 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3
OM-352 NA LCA 61.2 76.3 12.2 47.7 8.8 58.2 75.7
LCO 22.6 20.1 6.7 12.6 3.4 21.5 21.8
TIA 2.4 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.5 2.3 2.5
* LCA a;td LCO in yg/litre
1800 rpm OM-352A TC, 2000 rpm OM-352 NA
{OM-352) the TIA decreased as power level increased. The turbocharged engin
(OM-352A) TIA values were relatively constant at all speeds and loads. To
summarize, the following comparison is offered.
LCO,
yg/litre
TIA
Engine
Max,
Min.
Avg.
Avg,
OM-352 NA
27.8
3.4
16.4
2.2
OM-352A TC
24.0
16.0
20.9
2.32
Overall, the TIA values reveal little difference between the two engines.
144
-------
10.9
8
4.6
2
2.0
1.03
Turbocharged
• . «- r. ; - vr i 1
Naturally Aspirated
0.63
0.42
20
40
70
60
BO
95
90
98 99
99.9
Cumulative Percent Smaller than ECD
Figure 34. Particle Size Distributions by "Means" for
Daimler-Benz OM-352, via Impactor
145
-------
rn termed latB~sp rett-
—i 2800 rpm ' ~
0 £H-352£ T »rb >?h irgfed
0:0H-*52:Sa Wijrul'i f Afcpijrated
2.0
M
100
50
Idle
2
Percent Power
Figure 35. Effect of Turbocharging on TIA,
Deimler-Benz OM-352A and OM-352 Engines
146
-------
8. Aldehydes
For quick comparison, the combined brake specific aldehydes are
listed below:
Aldehydes LCA
Engine mq/km-hr yq/litre
OM-352 NA 375 48.6
OM-352A 372 54.6
Although the LCO and TIA and LCA (from above) were a bit lower with the
naturally aspirated engine, the overall aldehyde values were unchanged.
Table 46 contains the seven individual aldehydes and indicates little
significant difference in any of them due to the engine. Isobutyraldehyde was
TABLE 46. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC ALDEHYDES RATES
DAIMLER-BENS
OH-352 NA AMD 0M-
352A TC
0M-
-352 NA
OM
-352A TC
Aldehyde
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg
fuel
Formaldehyde
91.62
309.90
98.88
352.
.46
Acetaldehyde
48.49
164.02
56.25
200,
.50
Acetone
25.28
85.49
31.64
112.
.78
Isobutyraldehyde
21.65
73,24
11.55
41,
.17
Crotonaldehyde
34.72
117.42
36.32
129,
.47
Hexanaldehyde
25.63
86.68
29.19
104,
.03
Benzaldehyde
127.58
431.51
107.86
384,
.47
Total Aldehydes
374.97
1268.26
371.69
1324.
.88
half the NA rato with the TC engine. For more details, please refer to Tables
D-80 and D-81 which contain modal rates for both engines.
9. Specific Hydrocarbons
Table 47 lists the eight specific hydrocarbons computed ">n a brake
specific basis using a 7-mode test. In this case, the naturally aspirated
engine produced less of certain low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons such as
methane, ethylene, propylene and benzene. Even though the NA engine produced
more methane, acetylene ar.d propane, the combined specific hydrocarbons from
the NA engine were lower than the TC engine (371 versus 437 mg/kw-hr). Further
details for the seven modes are given in Tables D-R2 and D-83.
10. Summary
Smoke and particulate wore substantially less with the OM-352A turbo-
charged engine under the steady state conditions evaluated. Although particulat
147
-------
TABLE 47. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON RATES
DAIMLER-BENZ
OM-352 NA AND 0M-
352A TC
OM
-352 NA
OM
-352A TC
Hydrocarbon
ma/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
Methane
29.65
99.99
23.31
83.09
Ethylene
217.10
7 34.28
260.17
927.37
Ethane
3.32
11.22
3.53
12.57
Acetylene
23.50
79.49
15.53
55.34
Propane
0.42
1.44
0.06
0.23
Propylene
66.77
225.84
100.98
359.95
Benzene
20.19
68.28
24.41
87.00
Toluene
9.96
33.69
8.74
31.16
Total Hydrocarbons
370.91
1254.23
436.73
1556.71
was about 40 percent less, essentially no change in sulfate was found. BaP
was less by about 18 percent from the TC engine. The TC engine also had lower
CO and HC and higher NO2 with slightly better cycle BSFC (about 3 percent).
This behavior was anticipated from previous experience of turbocharging Diesels.
No effect on particle size distribution was found.
It is interest- j to note that the TC enq.ne resulted in slightly
higher DOAS values of LCO, LCA and TIA as well as slightly higher combined low-
molecular-weight HC, while the reverse was indicated by the 13-mode FTP HC
va1uc.
C. Effect of Injection System
At the February 1977 SAE Congress, American Bosch presented a paper
describing a new type of injection system utilizing a high-pressure pump to
obtain much higher fuel injection pressures. A simple valve is used in the
pump, designated the APS pump, to each of three r lungers to distribute fuel
alternatively to f.wo cylinders of a six-cylinder truck size Diesel engine.
T'lese "shuttle" valves are moved hydraulically using the low-pressure fuel
upplied by the transfer pump.
Injection pressures up to 172,000 kPa (25,000 psi) at the nozzle holder
are reported to be obtainable with many possible wave pulse shapes possible.
For example, a nearly "square" pulse pressure pattern has been achieved that
is nearly flat at about 103,000 kPa (15,000 psi) nozzle pressure after the
nozzle opens. Much more descriptive material may be obtained from Reference 64.
Conversations in early March 1977 with Mr. Jack Kimberley of American
Bosch and subsequent discussions with Mr. Henry Doty (March 1977), Mr. Kimberley
(November 1977), and finally Mr. Lou Yumlu of Mack Trucks and Mr. Kimberley
(January 1978) led to the subsequent availability of the engine parts (Mack)
and APS fuel injection system (American Bosch) for evaluation. Throughout the
negotiations with Mack and American Bosch the Project Officer was kept informed
of the experimental hardware status.
148
-------
In conjunction with the Project Officer, American Bosch and Mack Trucks,
a plan of test was devised that utilized the same Mack ETAY(B)673A engine
characterized as part of Phase 1A and discussed earlier in Section IV. For a
description of this engine, please see Table 1 of Section III. The plan was
to convert the engine to the high-pressure system and determine particulate,
sulfate and the other emissions as with other engine effects already discussed
in this section. Then a new standard Robert Bosch pump and set of injectors
would be installed and particulate, sulfate and selected emissions measured.
Thus, particulate results can be compared from three configurations, namely,
(1) the standard engine with 1000 hours durability, (2) the same engine with
high-pressure injection system, and (3) the same engine wi*h new standard
injection system.
Mr. Jack Kimberley and Mr. John Cavanaugh of American Bosch arrived on
May 8, 1978, to supervise the engine conversion. Figure 36 illustrates the
basic setup used to supply fuel to the injection pump at approximately 90 psi.
ft/*tf>SL€£D
r JNJecrO/i BL£€Q
r/j#*
RCGULATO#
p/?£%su#e
ris I C, A- S i S"
— f-A/VWH
. I I
Moroz
pet ve*j
MM"
/Mecr/QAf
F/LT&*
Figure 36. Simplified Schematic of APS Pump Setup
The experimental installation was successfully completed after several
days of conversion, including installation of new timing gears in the engine
to operate the pump at crankshaft speed, installation of the APS pump, new
injectors and injection lines, as well as the items for fuel supply and
delivery to the APS pump. Figure 37 shows these items as installed on and
adjacent to the engine, A static injection timing of 10 degrees BTC was used,
which is retarded from the normal 21-degree BTC basic timing of the standard
R. Bosch pump.
Once the experimental system was installed, a series of preliminary
engine tests was made to assure the system was operating properly and to the
satisfaction of Mr. Kimberley and Mr. Cavanaugh. Preliminary smoke measure-
ments and injection line pressure traces indicated that the engine was
operating as expected. The experimental pump did not have internal governing
and smoke-limiting mechanisms. Due to the absence of the governing system,
the engine's maximum torque output at rated and intermediate speeds was
manually limited by fuel flow representative of previous tests, 55.3 kg/hr
149
-------
Fur* 1 Transfer Itoms APS Pump on Enqino
Fiqure 37. American Bosch APS Pump Installed
on Mack ETAY(B)67 3A
A. Bosch APS Pump
St'd. R. Bosch Pumj
150
-------
(122 lb/hr) at 1900 rpm/100 percent load arid 50 kg/hr (108 lb/hr) at 1450 rpm/
100 percent load. In addition, idle and intermediate speed/2 percent modes
required that the fuel supply pressure be reduced to 69 kPa (10 psi) and 414 kPa
(60 psi), respectively. This was done to minimize engine speed hunting. The
lack of a speed governor prevented operating the engine under the Federal
Transient Smoke Test. Figure 38 contains three injection pressure-time or
crank angle photographs. Each photo was of a different speed as described in
Table 48. Also listed are the measured opening and peak injection pressures.
TABLE 48. MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH HIGH-PRESSURE INJECTION SYSTEM
(Time
Fuel
Photo
rpm/
kPa/
base)
Opening
Peak
Start of
Supply
No.
Power
cm
deg/cm
Press,, kPa
Press., kPa
Injection
Press., kPa
1
700/
13,790
4.2
23,443
27,580
6.3°BTDC
69
No Load
(2,000)
(3,400)
(4,000)
(10)
2
1450/
27,580
8. 7
68,950
104,804
1.74 ° BTDC
621
100%
(4,000)
(10,000)
(15,200)
(90)
3
1900/
27, -j80
5.7
91,014
132,384
1.14°ATDC
621
100%
(4,000)
(13,200)
(19,200)
(90)
Values in parenthesis are in psig
The major problems encountered with the system were repeated injection
line failure and difficulty in running the low or curb idle mode. After two
hours of intermittent operation, an injector line cracked next to the injector
nozzle. Shortly after replacement of this line, another injector line cracked
at a similar location. After this second repair, the injection lines were
supported in order to reduce vibration. This sort of failure was experienced
on other fuel lines, and they were replaced each time by stainless steel
injection lines furnished by American Bosch. The low idle condition engine
instability was reduced, but not eliminated, by the reduced supply pressure.
This did not prevent testing at idle, although the engine speed wandered about
somewhat.
1. Smoke
Although the Federal Transient Smoke Test could not be run with the
ungoverned APS pump system, modal smoke (13-mode) and a full-power curve smoke
reading under steady state were obtained. They are listed in Table 49 along
with the 1000-hour engine full-power results from Section IV. Since particu-
late rates and gaseous emission results were quite similar for the standard
engine with 1000-hour pump and the new Robert Bosch pump, no .idcitional smoke
tests were run with the new Robert Bo ch pump.
The modal smoke values were all very low, with 2.1 percent maximum
recorded at 1450 rpm maximum power. The comparison to the 1000-hour standard
ll'l
-------
1. 700 rpm, 2( )0 psi/c.-m, (Tim< base) Di j'c.-m J.. ,
oponiny prt>ss. j'c.-m 1. 1 > (Max) rpm, 40 JO psi/cm, (Time base)
8.7, oppninq pross.(psi) 10,000 r \/ :m .7. ouoninq piess.(psi) 13,200
Figure 38. Injection Pressure Photos for Mack ETAY(B)673A
Diesel with A. Bosch APS High-Pressure Injection System
HRiRlJlttt.1l
Sm'jJNM
152
-------
TABLE 49. STEADY-STATE SMOKE PERCENT OPACITY
HACK ETAY(B)673A WITH APS PUMP
13-MODE FTP
STEADY-
-STATES
Engine
Power
Smoke
Mode
Speed,rpm
%
Opacity
1
650
...
0
2
1450
2
0,1
3
1450
25
0.5
4
1450
50
1.0
5
1450
75
1.9
6
1450
100
2.1
7
650
0.2
8
1900
100
1.4
9
1900
75
0.8
10
1900
50
0,7
11
1900
25
0.4
12
1900
2
0.3
13
650
0.1
MAXIMUM POWER SMOKE, %
APS High Standard Engine
rpiti Pressure System 1000 hr pump
1900
1.2
5.9
1700
1.4
7.6
1500
2.2
10.5
1450
3.2
11.6
1300
6.2
19.1
15 3
-------
engine is quite dramatic, as shown by the full-power smoke values at the
bottom of Table 49. With the APS system, exhaust smoke was about one-fourth
that of the standard engine. To the extent full-power smoke can be used to
predict particulate, a substantial reduction in particulate might be indicated,
2. Gaseous Emissions
The 21- and 13-mode gaseous emission composite values are listed in
Table 50 for the APS-equipped engine. The standard 1000-hour engine average
results from Section IV are listed for comparison. Similar tests for the new
Robert Bosch pump were not performed. HC+NO2 by either test procedure was
higher with the APS pump. NO2 was higher by about 45 percent. Normally,
retarding static injection reduces NO2 arK* increases smoke and particulate,
all other factors being equal.
However, the experimental high-pressure pump is completely different
so that the change in injection timing, a necessary requirement for the APS
pump to operate, cannot be directly related to NO2 or particulate by itself.
A more extensive test plan could have included several APS configurations,
producing a range of HON02. The limited scope of this project did not permit
such an evaluation. Consequently, the configuration, i.e., pressure-time
characteristic and timing, that was thought to have the greatest benefit on
particulate was selected by American Bosch at SwRl request.
It is interesting that the APS pump slightly decreased CO and
slightly increased HC from the 1000-hour baseline. Of major importance is the
small but positive 4-percent improvement (reduction) in brake specific fuel
consumption. This effect with the APS pump was somewhat unexpected since this
engine already has a very respectable cycle BSFC. For additional modal
results, please refer to Appendix Tables D-84 through 0-87, the computer
printout sheets for the APS experiments.
3. Particulate and Sulfate
A comparison of the particulate and sulfate 13-mode cycle composite
emission rates is listed on Table 51. Although sulfate was little affected by
the various injection systems, i.e., high pressure versus either old 1000-hour
pump or new standard pump, a major reduction in particulate was found. The
following indicates a 51 to 55 percent reduction in brake specific particulate,
depending on whether the old or new standard injection system is used as
reference.
APS vs 1000-hour pump °'82* ~2°'3" * 100% = 51%
APS vs new standard pump 0.-896 399 * 100% = 55%
APS vs average of 1000-hour 0.859 - 0.399
and standard pump 0.859
x 100% = 53%
Confirmation of the APS improvement is afforded by the two separate
experiments with the standard engine operated with a 1000-hour pump and
injector system and then, over one year later, with a new standard pump and
injector system. The repeatability of the cycle brake specific particulate
154
-------
TABLE 50. GASEOUS EMISSIONS BY 21-MODE EPA AND 13-MODE FTP
MACK ETAY(B)67 3A WITH APS PUMP
Test
21 EPA
13 FTP
Run
No.
CO
Gaseous Emissions g/kw-hr
HC
NO;U) HC + N02
Cycle BSFC
Kq/kw-hr
High-Pressure A. Bosch APS Configuration
1
2
Avg
1
2
Avg
1.782
1.733
0.802
0.763
1.758 0.782
1.685
1.671
0,699
0.677
11.745
11.574
11.660
12.130
11.997
12.547
12.337
12.442
12.829
12.674
21 EPA
13 FTP
1.678 0.688 12.064 12.752
Standard R. Bosch Configuration, 1000-hour
2.150 0.655 8.006 8.661
2.129 0.638 8.865 9.502
0.239
0.239
0.239
0.233
0.234
0.234
0.247
0.243
(a)
NOx as N02 by CL -
NO as N02 by NDIR
21-mode Er>A
- 13-mode FTP
TABLE
51.
MACK ETAY(B)673A SULFATE
AND PARTICULATE
EMISSION RATES -
APS PUMP CONFIGURATION
(BASED ON
13-MODE CYCLE)
Brake
Specific
Fuel
Specific
Engine
Run
Particulate Sulfate
Particulate
Sulfate
Configuration
NO.
g/kw-hr
mg/kw-hr
g/kg fuel
mg/kq fuel
High Pressure
1
0.398
42.73
1.722
184.86
A.Bosch Pump
2
0.400
42.82
1.725
184.50
10° BTC
Avg
0,399
42.78
1.724
184.68
Standard Pump
1
0.845
47.05
3.628
202.03
1000 hr
2
0.796
42.67
3.429
182.75
21° BTC
Avg
0.821
44.86
3.529
192.39
Standard Pump
1
0.886
47.34
3.698
197.50
New
2
0.906
50.22
3.782
209.48
21° BTC
Avg
0.896
48.78
3.740
203.49
155
-------
with old and new standard pumps in considered quite satisfactory. It is
interesting that the particulate from the 1000-hour pump and injectors was
essentially no different from the new pump. This indicates a lack of
deterioration in particulate rate with operation and is noteworthy.
Figure 39 is a plot of the eleven speed-load conditions in g/hr
(particulate) and mg/hr (sulfate). There is essentially no difference in
sulfate mass rate, as indicated earlier by the cycle specific values.
Particulate rates, shown on the lower half of Figure 39, were substantially
lower with the APS system at the 50, 75 and 100 percent power points. The
difference is much smaller at the 25 percent power point and virtually the
same at 2 percent power and at idle. Rather than the characteristic steep
increase between 50 and 100 percent power, especially on approach to 100
percent load, the APS particulate rate was almost linear with power and
relatively flat in comparison.
It may be argued that a 50 percent reduction in particulate is
promising, but it falls short of that desired or possibly needed. This is the
largest improvement yet found, however, with an engine change and is thought
to be very encouraging. The accompanying increase in oxides of nitrogen may
or may not be inherent in the system, but only additional parametric type
experimentation will tell. The 50 percent reduction in gross particulate
justifies substantial further study with injection systems since apparently
this could offer reduced exhaust particulate.
Please refer to Tables D-88 and D-95 for the modal results in terms
of concentration and various mass rates of both sulfate and particulate.
Tables D-88 and D-91 are for the APS p'.isnp, and Tables D-92 to D-95 are for
the new Robert Bosch standard system.
4. BaP and Organic Solubles
Table 52 is a summary listing of the mode-by-mode BaP and organic
soluble percentages for both the standard and the APS pumps. Combining the
modal data into cycle composites was done on Tables D-96 and D-97. The brake
specific 13-mode rates are compared below,
Cycle Composite
Engine Configuration BaP, yg/kw-hr Org. Sol., %
Standard Pump 0.229 16.31
APS Pump 0.084 16.93
The above indicates a vast difference in BaP rate as a result of th<-
pump. Referring to Table 52, it is evident that in only two of seven modes
(APS pump) and three of seven modes (standard) was the BaP value reported
above the minimum detectable. Thus, with only two data points of seven to
even compare, the cycle composite can be easily overestimated by just the
strength or inaccuracy of one point. Thus, the APS pump may indeed result in
lower BaP, but this finding should be verified and confirmed through additional
testing.
156
-------
TABLE 52. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, BaP AND ORGANIC SOLUBLES
FROM 8 x 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES
MACK ETAY(B)673A ENGINE
Condition Engine __ Particulate Rata Btf i*nic
tpm/load %
Configuration
m/mJ
9 fa*
g/kq fuel
9/k*-hr
V3/Si
W/hr
UgA9 fwl
gq/kw-hr
Soluhl*S
1450/2
Standard Pump
47.95
22.11
5.9R
5.15
0.086
39.87
10.70
9.27
APS Pump
61.07
27.65
6.01
3.84
BMD(1)
1450/50
standard Pump
119* 70
80.26
3.50
0.74
BHD
4. i?
APS Pump
53.64
35.48
1.43
0. 30
BHD
14.lf>
1450/100
Standard Pump
24^.56
254.13
5.41
1.17
BHD
/. 3M
APS Pump
71.09
72.56
1.4ft
0.31
BHD
12.57
Idle
Standard Pump
36. S3
?.li
7.11
0.166
32.33
32. 33
21.30
APS Pump
41.33
7.73
7,73
0.084
16.06
16.06
-----
23.69
1900/100
Standard Puap
132.46
180. m
3.26
0.75
BHD
9.15
APS Pump
56. 5C
75.64
1.37
0. 31
BHD
0
19O0/SO
Standard Pump
11.90
68.79
2.42
0,58
BHD
4.54
APS Pump
49.65
46.99
I .64
0.38
BHD
-----
9.72
1900/2
Standard Pump
45.63
57.84
4.16
6.47
0.135
82.88
12.28
19.13
3H.65
APS PUK»p
59.11
36.22
5. 31
6.97
0.068
41.56
6.11
7.99
21.00
Below Kininium Detectable
-------
16000 r
© APS 10° BTDC 1 I
El New R. Bosch SI* BTDC
A 1000-Hr R. Boiclj; 2l» BTTJC
14000
12000
Intermediate Speed
High Speed
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
Idle
2
25
50
75
100
300
¦I—••
200
100
0
Idle
2
25
50
75
100
Figure 39. Particulate and Sulfate Modal Rates for
Mack ETAY(B)673A with APS and Standard Pumps
158
-------
5. Hydrogen, Carbon and Metal Content
The modal elemental analysis for H and C and the computed H/C mole
ratio for the standard (new) pump and the American Bosch APS high-pressure
system are listed below.
Comparison of Carbon and Hydrogen Content of Mack. ETAY(B)67 3A
with Standard and High-Pressure Fuel Injection
Speed/Load
Carbon
Hydrogen
H/CtlJ
Std.
High Pres.
Std.
High Pres.
Std.
High Pres.
1450/2
46.40
43.45
6.35
6.19
.1.63
1.70
1450/50
75.36
51.07
2.63
3.98
0.42
0.93
1450/100
77.52
47.34
1.87
0.54
0.29
0.14
Idle
38.87
24.12
5.21
2.00
1.60
0.99
1900/100
62.33
44. 39
2.43
1.12
0.47
0.30
1900/50
68.34
50.87
3.75
4.22
0.65
0.99
1900/2
55.79
42.74
5.22
5.41
1.12
1.51
^ Mole Ratio
The high-pressure injection system had no overall effect on changing
the amount of carbonaceous, C, to the hydrocarbon, H, derived values. Some
modes were lower and some higher, but the arithmetic average of the seven modes
shows a H/C ratio of 0.88 for the standard pump versus 0.94 for the APS high-
pressure system.
Table D-98 lists the metals and sulfur analyses performed by EPA-RTP.
Sulfur and calcium values were reported for nearly every condition. Except
for the two 2-percent power points, the APS pump produced particulate at least
two and sometimes three times the stai dard pump. With the exception of the
same 2-percent points, calcium was notably higher with the APS pump. No good
reason for this behavior is apparent.
6. Particle Sizing
According to the plot of the "means" of the 7-mode particle size
results on Figure 39a, the high-pressure injection system resulted in finer,
lighter particulate than the standard engine. The new, standard Robert Bosch
pump and injectors were used for particle size distribution experiments.
For modal size distributions for each configuration, please refer to
Table D-99 and Figures D-8 and D-9. There appears to be a greater variation
mode to mode with the APS pump than the standard pump. Both configurations
appeared to have more modal effect than other engines similarly tested.
The following compares the two configurations.
159
-------
10.9
4.6
1.03
stjaa
-------
Particle Diameter
ECO, Microns
Cumulative Percent
Smaller than ECD
New 8. Bosch
A. Bosch APS
less than 10 99.6 99.7
5 98.6 98.6
2 97.0 96.
1 95.3 93.6
0.5 91.9 88.0
0.42 86.0 90.5
The Anderson sampler only classified about 15 percent of the particulate from
the standard engine and only about 10 percent of the particulate from the APS
configuration.
7. DOAS
The DOAS results for the Mack ETAY(B)67 3A engine with standard and
high-pressure pumps are given in Table 53. The average DOAS values listed
below indicate little or no effect due to the pump configuration.
DOAS Avq.
Configuration
LCA
LCO
TIA
A. Bosch APS Pump
18. 1
8.6
1.7
Standard R. Bosch Pump,
1000-hr
11.8
5.8
1.8
Now
13.6
6.3
1.7
There were some apparent differences between the LCA, i.e., lower
LCA with standard pump than with the APS pump, but otherwise the LCO and TIA
derived from the LCO were quite consistent.
TABLE 53. DOAS RESULTS FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A
WITH VARIOUS INJECTION SYSTEMS
Configuration DOAS
la)
1450 rpm
50
100
Idle
100
1900 rpm
50
APS High Press. LCA 25.2 16.1 4.2 20.1 5.0 15.1 40.7
Inject. System LCO 9.5 4.0 2.1 7.1 2.5 3.9 17.1
10° BTC TIA 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.6 2.2
1000-hr Std. LCA 14.5 10.8 6.8 11.5 5.8 15.6 17.4
Inject.System LCO 7.0 5.1 5.0 5.9 4.3 6.8 6.5
21° BTC TIA 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.8
New Std. LCA
Inject. System LCO
21" BTC TIA
20.7
7.4
1.9
19.7
8.4
1.9
2.6
1.4
1.1
14.2
6.7
1.8
4.6
3.4
1.5
11.
6,
1,
21.7
io. a
2.0
(l)
Diesel Odor Analytical System
161
-------
S. Aldehydes
The cycle composite aldehyde rates in mg/kw-hr and mg/kg fuel are
summarized on Table 54. In some cases, there is good agreement between new
and old standard pumps such as formaldehyde, 'aexanaldehyde and erotonaldehyde.
In other cases, the data does not agree at all nor is there a consistent trend
noticeable. The different pumps, run about one year apart, may have had some
effect on aldehydes. The procedure and analysis was the same, but its variabili
could have contributed.
TABLE 54. CYCLE COMPOSITE ALDEHYDE RATES
MACK ETAY(B)673A
Aldehyde
Rate
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Isobutyra1dehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Hexanaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
mg/kg fuel
A. Bosch APS
High Pressure
27.44
117.25
15.92
68.03
14.89
63.60
3.1K
13.47
9.60
41.04
33.99
145.22
74.67
319.03
R. Bosch
1000-hr Pump Hew Pump
16.59
66.84
0.94
3.78
31.79
128.12
16.68
67..2
20.18
83.87
17.05
72.65
8.17
34.90
12.13
-1.82
6.77
28.4 3
23.84
101.83
20. 59
87.97
134.92
76.46
Ajainst this variabl baseline data, comparison f t? APS ; uroj i
made difficult. Formaldehyde and hexanaldehyde were high« r while crotonaldi.-hy u
was Jower. If one wire to merely add the individual aldehyde rates togethtr,
an overall comj arisen could be made as follows.
Configuration
A. Bosch APS System
Standard R. Bosch System, 1000-hr
New
Aldehydes
mg/kw-hr
180
87
223
LCA
Ug/litre
18.1
11.8
13.6
162
-------
When compared to the new pump, the APS was about the same. The 1000-
hour standard pump was lower than either, just as the LCA from the DORS data
indicated. Recall that 13 FTP hydrocarbons were slightly higher with the APS
pump. The major reason for the large difference in new versus 1000-hour pumt
results was the absence of benzaldehyde in the original experiments with the
1000-hour engine. Benzaldehyde accounted for over half of the "total aldehydes".
Please refer to Tables D-100 and D-101 that list the modal results
for the APS and new Robert Bosch standard systems. These data, taken for seven
operating modes, were used in calculating the cycle composites using weighting
factors derived from the 13-mode test.
9. Specific Hydrocarbons
The various individual hydrocarbons listed on Table 55 show less
difference between Robert Bosch pumps (old and new) than the aldehyde values
previously discussed. The APS pump, in most cases, agreed best with the back-
to-back test with the new Robert Bosch standard pump. The APS pump values
weia, except for toluene, always higher than the new pump, and the new pump
values were, except for the negligible ethane rates, higher than the old 1000-
hour pump.
The following lists the "total" of the eight hydrocarbons measured
by adding together the values on Table 55.
Hydrocarbons
Configuration avq/kw-hr
A. Bosch APS System 12?
Standard R. Bosch System, 1000-Iir 79
New 102
As with aldehydes, the back-to-back (in time) American Bosch APS and Robert
Bosch (new) are high and the lOuO-hour engine is low. For modal values, ilease
refer to Tables D-102 and D-L03.
10. Summary
A 50-percent reduction in [articulate was found with the Robert Bosch
APS high-pressure injection system as compared to the standard Robert Bosch
system used on the Mack ETAY(B)673A engine tested. Major reductions in visible
smoke and particulate were found at 50, 75 and 100 percent power, giving
essentially "flat" response versus power level. Although HC and CO seemed
little affected, the APS system resulted in a 45-percent increase in NO
emissions. A 4-pe-rccnt imjrovement in fuel efficiency was noted. Particle
size distribution was shifted toward finer particles by the high-pressure
system. Aldehydes were fairly equivalent overall when compared to the now
Robert Bosch standard pump. The same was found for the specific hydrocarbons
in total. The major effect of the high-pressure APS system on reducing Diesel
exhaust particulate justifies substantial additional research in the general
area of fuel injection system characteristics as they may influence Diesel
particulate production.
16 3
-------
TABLE 55. CYCLE COMPOSITE SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON RATES
MACK ETAY(B)673A
Hydrocarbon
Rate
A.Bosch APS
High Pressure
R, Bosch
1000-hr Pump
New Pump
Methane
CH4
Ethylene
C2H4
Ethane
C2H6
Acetylene
C2H2
Propane
C,H_
3 8
Propylene
C.H,
3 6
Benzene
C6H6
Toluene
SH8
TOTAL
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
mgAg fuel
mg/kW-h r
mg/kg fuel
11.57
49.45
69.16
295.52
48
05
6.77
28.94
62
64
25.08
107.18
7,41
31.66
5.68
24.27
126.77
541.71
6.90
27.77
45.03
181.18
0.68
2.74
2.79
11.24
17.96
72.26
4.48
18.01
0.78
3.15
78.62
316.35
10.20
43.56
52.76
225.42
0.38
1.61
4.79
20.46
0.43
1.83
21.50
91.86
5.24
22.38
6.46
27.61
101.76
434.7
164
-------
D. Effect of Fuel Residue
The effect of fuel composition on particulate has been investigated on
both HDD engines01,35) antj ldd cars.(44) The method has been to simply
measure particulate and other emissions whil<» operating the engines/vehicles
on different fuels that are either commonly .. mailable or could be representative
of available fuels in the U.S. One such project included cetane and smoke
suppressant additives.^1) Statistical analyses were then performed to see if
particulate, sulfate and other fuel properties could be related to mass emission
rates.
Fuel sulfur content is directly related to that measured as sulfate in
the exhaust. No such single or even functional grouping of fuel parameters
has been, so far, related to particulate such that its removal or modification
would result in lower exhaust particulate. Thus, this project included, as
one of the variables of interest, the evaluation of a "special" or modified
fuel for reduced exhaust particulate. The study was hampered to a great extent
since the fuel property to be modified was not identified.
It was speculated that part of the Diesel particulate might be a direct
result of residual material in Diesel fuel which resembles microscopic-sized
tarry substances in solution. These tiny particles resist combustion and could
serve as nuclei for particle formation. Their boiling range is thought to be
so high, relative to Diesel fuel itself, as to only partially burn to form a
carbonaceous residue which is emitted as particulate.
To investigate this theory, a brief study of fuel properties that might
define this residual matter in the fuel was made. Steam jet yum ' .STM D-481)
is a possible indicator of the type of residue or matter in a di.tillate fuel
that could participate in the mechanism cf particulate formation. Namely, the
residue or unaccounted-for matter in an ASTM D-86 thermal distillation may be
an indicator of very heavy ends that really never completely burn or some of
which never burn during the combustion event and thereby exit the engine as
particulate. To try and describe the type of residue in terms of the
"unaccounted-for" part of the ASTM D-86 thermal distillation may be incorrect,
however.
Under Contract No. 68-02-1777 for EPA (Dr. Ron Bradow, Project Officer),
five different Diesel fuels were used to characterize a variety of emissions
from two HDD engines. Table 56 is a listing of fuel properties of the five
fuels to which has been added the steam jet gum determination. Note the
wide variation in this value, from 0.2 to 11.8 mg/100 mi. EM-293-F is the
"National Average" fuel used in this project, and it has 8.6 nvg/100 ml of
gum.
Thinking that distillation and steam jet gum are interrelated somehow, it
was decided to laboratory distill EM-239-F so as to eliminate the last 2 and
5 percent of the boiling range, determine the distillations for each 98 and
95 percent remainder fuels, and perform steam jet gum determinations on each.
Table 57 is a comparison of these findings, all with the same EM-2 39-F
base material. For ease of comparison, the distillation data from Table 56
for EM-239-F is retabulated on Table 57. Note the drastic reduction in steam
165
-------
TAULK
«*. PROPEKTIFS OK TllF FIVETFST FUFLS. CONTRACT 68-02-1 777
Fuel code
Kucl type
FM-23H-F
213 emissions
KM-239-F
"Nat'l. avg." No. 2
EM-240-F
"Jet A"
KM - 24 I - F
"mill, qual. " No. 2
FM-242-F
"premium" No. 2
Gum (D-481)
nig/100 ml
'>.9
8. *
0. 2
I I . 8
L. 2
Properties
Gravity, c/ml
0. 845
0.844
0.806
0. 861
0. 83 1
Gravity, "AFI
36. 0
36. 1
44. 1
32.8
38.7
Cetanc (D976)
48.6
48. 7
47. 4
41.8
53. 0
Viscosity, cs (D445)
2. 65
2. 66
1.41
2.44
2. 53
Flash point, *C fF)
94 (202)
87 (189)
48 (118)
68 (155)
66 (150)
Sulfur, wt, % (D1266)
0. 35
0. 23
0.04
0. 26
0. 26
FIA: aromatics, %
29. 8
21. 6
13.0
34. 6
12.4
olefins, %
1.6
0.8
2.4
1. 0
0. 8
saturates, It
68. 6
77. 6
83.6
64.4
86. 8
Distillation (D86)
IBP, *C ("F)
192 (378)
186 (366)
162 (324)
182 (360)
183 (362)
10".
213 (415)
216 (421)
181(358)
216 (4 20)
213 (416)
207.
223 (434)
229 (444)
186 (366)
227 (440)
223 (434)
3 0%
233 (45 1)
239 (462)
190 (374)
240 (464)
231 (448)
4 0?.
245 (473)
248 (479)
196 (384)
250 (482)
244 (472)
50%
257 (495)
257 (494)
201 (394)
258 (496)
254 (490)
60%
269 (5 17)
266 (51 1)
207 (405)
266 (510)
262 (504)
7 or.
281 (538)
275 (527)
214 (4 18)
277 (530)
271 (520)
SO'/.
293 (560)
286 (547)
224 (436)
292 (558)
287 (548)
90"A
3 12 (593)
303 (578)
238 (460)
301 (574)
301 (574)
9 5%
33 1 (626)
320 (608)
249 (481)
3 11 (59 2)
3 10 (590)
FP
34 9 (660)
337 (640)
268 (515)
327 (620)
327 (620)
recovery,
99
99
99
99.5
99. 0
residue, %
1
1
1
0.5
1. 0
loss, %
0
0
0
0. 0
0. 0
Carbon, wt. 7i
86.8
86. 8
86. 2
87.5
86. 3
Hydrogen, wt. %
12.9
13. 0
13.7
12. 3
13. 5
Nitrorcn, wt. %
0. 005
0.005
0.006
0. 024
0.008
-------
jet gum afforded by separating off the 2 percent of the material with the
highest distillation temperature. Additional removal, as shown by the last
column for 95 percent (5 percent separated), had essentially no effect on the
steam jet gum. Thus, it may be concluded that, if the highest boiling range
materials, say 2 percent of fuel with highest boiling temperature, were
removed, then a substantial reduction of steam jet gum could be expected, on
the order of 8.6 to 1.8 mg/100 m£, or approximately 80 percent reduction.
TABLE 57 . COMPARISON OF GUM AND BOILING RANGE
FOR EM-239-F AND SPECIAL DISTILLED CUTS
OF EM-239-F DIESEL FUEL
EM-239-F Special Distillations
"Nat'1 Avq."No. 2 98% 95%
Gum (D431)
mg/100 ml 8.6 1.8 1.6
Distillation (D86)
IBP, °C (°F)
196(366)
189(372)
188(371)
10%
216(421)
218(424)
219(426)
20%
229(444)
231(447)
230(446)
30%
239(462)
239(463)
239(463)
40%
248(479)
248(479)
248(478)
50%
257(494)
257(4955
256(493)
60%
266(511)
266(510)
264(507)
70%
275(527)
271(520)
273(523)
80%
286(547)
287(549)
284(543)
90%
303(578)
302(576)
299(571)
95%
320(608)
317(603)
314(598)
EP
337(640)
332(630)
329(625)
Recovery, %
99
98.8
98
Residue, %
1
1.2
2
Loss, %
0
0
0
The key question is: "Would such a change in fuel properties result in
lower particulate?" Another question is: "Is there some other property that
might influence exhaust particulate?" The answer to both questions is unknown
at this time. There are laboratory tests that evaluate residue type propertie:
of lubricating oils such as carbon residue by ASTM D-189 (Conradson) or by
ASTM D-524 (Ramsbottom). How well these tests might relate to the exhaust
particulate rate of a given engine is unknown but worthy of mention in passing
During a meeting with the Project Officer on November 10, 1976, it was
mentioned that a special fuel for laboratory testing might be the EM-239-f
distilled to remove the 2 percent fraction of highest boiling range. An
estimate of the cost to perform such a distillation on sufficient fuel for
full-size engine evaluation was obtained from a specialty refiner located near
167
-------
Houston, Texas. It was found that the fuel cost was beyond the scope of the
project, and further efforts were abandoned in favor of more complete evaluation
of other effects already discussed.
The area of fuel and lubricant effects, and especially fuel/lubricant
modification to achieve lower particulate, demands much more work. Clearly,
this area of study justifies a project or program of its own as was indicated
by the preliminary study made under this project. It is a difficult area of
study, yet the potential benefits may be much greater in reducing particulate
and organic matter than mechanical methods such as combustion system improvement
or exhaust after-treatment.
168
-------
VI. RESULTS OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE EVALUATION
The results of the four light-duty vehicles are described by emission
category. For description of test methods, procedures and equipment, please
refer to Section III.
A. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy
The transient test procedures known as the FTP, SET and FET were the
basis for measurement of gaseous emissions of HC, CO and N0X as well as fuel
economy.
1. Emission Standards
The contractural requirement to report all data arid results in
modernized metric units (SI) requires a statement of equivalent emission
standards for 1973 and later model year light-duty cars in grams per kilometer
(g/km) for understanding. Table 58 lists the HC, CO and N0X limits in g/km
with those published in appropriate Federal Registers in g/mile in parentheses.
The conversion was based on 1.609 km equal to 1 mile and were rounded to the
same number of decimals as the published limit. The metric equivalent levels
are approximately 62 percent of the mixed metric-English units.
TABLE 58.
FEDERAl,
LIGHT-DUTY
EMISSION STANDARDS
¥ear
Units
HC
CO
mK
1973-1974
g/km
2.1
24
1.9
(g/mile)
(3.4)
(39)
(3.0)
1975-1976
g/km
0.9
9.3
1.9
(g/mile)
(1.5)
(15)
(3.1)
1977-1979
g/km
0.9
9.3
1.3
(g/mile)
(1.5)
(15)
(2.0)
1980
g/km
0.25
4.35
1.3
(g/mile)
(0.41)
(7.0)
(2.0)
1981-1983
g/km
0.25
2.j(a)
0.62 W
(g/mile)
(0.41)
(3.4)
(1.0)
(a)
CO standard can be waived to 4.35 g/km <7.0 g/mile) for
1981-1982 by Administrator after Public Hearing.
NOx standard can be waived to 0.93 g/km (1.5 g/mile) by
Administrator for innovative technology.
169
-------
2. Emissions and Fuel Economy Results
Tables 59 and 60 are summaries of the gaseous emissions of HC, CO
and NOx (in g/km), fuel consumption (in 1/100 km) and the reciprocal of fuel
consumption, fuel economy in mpg. Table 59 lists the results for the gasoline
and Diesel powered Oldsmobilc Cutlass cars. Table 60 lists the results for
the gasoline and Diesel powered Volkswagen Rabbit cars. Each SwRl value is
the average of at least three replicates. In the case of the FTP results, two
complete 2 3-minute urban driving cycles were run producing four bag samples.
The first three bags were used to compute the 1975 FTP results; the first two
bags, taken during the first cold-start, 23-minute cycle, were used to compute
an FTP cold; and the last two bags, taken during the hot-start, second 23-
minute cycle, were used to compute an FTP hot.
A total of 11 replicate FTP hot runs were made over a three-day
period with the Oldsmobile Diesel car with excellent repeatability both run-
to-run and day-to-day. The standard deviation and coefficient of variation
statistics are also shown on Table 59. Prior to the Volkswagen Rabbit gasolir
car being shipped to SwRI, a test was made by the EPA Research Triangle Park
(RTP) Laboratories in North Carolina. These results are listed on Table 60
for comparison.
The four car results may be compared to Federal standards, listed ir
Table 58. The 0.25 g/km (0.41 g/mile) 1980-1983 limit for HC was met by the
Rabbit Diesel but exceeded by the experimental Oldsmobile 350 Diesel tested.
The 1981-1983 CO limit of 2.1 g/km (3.4 g/mile) was met by both Diesel cars,
while the 1981-1983 limit of 0.62 g/km (1.0 g/mile) NOx was not met by the
Oldsmobile 350 Diesel car. The 1980 limit of 1.3 g/km (2.0 g/mile) NOx was
achieved by both cars. Neither car achieved the 0.25 g/km (0.4 g/mile) NOx
research goal.
According to Table 59 1975 FTP results, it is evident that HC is
higher, CO and NOx about the same, and fuel consumption in il/100 kir. lower
(fuel economy in mpg higher) for the Diesel as compared to the gasoline-
powered Oldsmobile Cutlass. During the cold portion of the test, the CO from
the Diesel was half that of the gasoline engine, while during the hot part of
the run the CO from the gasoline was about half that of the Diesel. This is
an apparent indication of the effects of the oxidation catalyst equipped
gasoline Cutlass.
HC was consistently lower from the gasoline engine, and, as the
vehicle and engine continued to run, the difference became greater. The 0.06
ij/km HC during the FET was about 30 percent of the 0.21 g/km from the experi-
mental Diesel Cutlass. NOx from the Diesel decreased to 0.59 g/km during the
SET and FET, while NOx from the gasoline car stayed at or near the 0.85 g/km
of the 1975 FTP.
Fuel consumption of the Diesel Cutlass was consistently 26 to 29
percent less than the gasoline car regardless of the driving cycle. In terms
of fuel economy, the percent increase in miles per gallon, based on the gasol
car, was from 35 to 40 percent. In summary of the fuel economy results of
Table 59, the specific experimental Diesel Cutlass tested gave a 21.7 mpg cit
and 31.3 mpg highway estimates for a combined 25.2 mpg. The gasoline Cutlass
tested gave estimates of 15.6 mpg city and 23 mpg highway for a combined 18,2
170
-------
tabu: AVt KAia: iu\ i«>, n>>x ani> kuli,
FOR DIESEL- AND GASOLINE-POWERED OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS CARS
Cycle
1975
FTP
Vehicle
350 Diesel
_2iL
SwRI
Emission Rate, g/km
HC
0.47
(0.76)
CO
1.24
(2.00)
NO*
0.70
(1.13)
Fuel
Cons.
ay loo km
10.84
260 Gasoline
SwRI
EPA(a)
0.24
(0.39)
0.59
1. 34
(2.16)
6.6
0.85
(1.37)
2.0
15.11
FTP 350 Diesel 0.59 1.37 0.70 11.46
Cold CO.95) (2.20) (1.13)
260 Gasoline SwRI 0.39 2.35 1.02 15.92
(0.63) (3.78) (1.64)
FTP 350 Diesel SwRI 0.36 1.12 0.69 10.13
Hot (0.58) (1.80) (1.11)
Std. Dev. 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.33
('oof. of Vat., % 4.9 4.6 5,1 3.3
260 Gasoline SwRI 0.14 0.55 0.68 14.27
(0.22) (0.88) (1.09)
SET 350 Diesel SwRI 0.27 0.79 0.59 8.74
(0.43) (1.27) (0.95)
260 Gasoline SwRI 0.08 0.53 0.86 11.83
(0.13) (0.85) (1.38)
FET 350 Diesel SwRI 0.21 0.63 0.59 7.51
(0.34) (1.01) (0.95)
260 Gasoline 0.06 0.12 0.33 10.24
, , (0.10) (0.19) (1.42)
EPA
( ) values in parentheses are in graras/mile
(a) EPA 1977 Certification values for Family 730 H2Q
Pup 1
Econ.
_JK2_
21.7
15.6
15.5
20.5
14.8
23. 3
0.78
3.3
16. S
26. J
ll>. «
31. 3
23.!!
20.2
171
-------
TAM.K !.(>. AVKUAUK III", CO, NOx , ANO FUKl. KRUtl.T!: FOR
DIESEL- AND GASOLINE-POWERED VOLKSWAGEN RABBIT CARS
Fuel
Cons.
Fuol
Econ.
Cycle
Fuel
Bv
HC
CO
NO*
2/100 km
mpg
1975 ;tp
Diesel
SwRI
era(a)
0.23
(0.37)
(0.20)
0.49
(0.79)
(1.0)
0.54
(0.87)
(1.2)
5.51
42.7
39
Gasoline
SwRI
0.14
(0.23)
2.30
(3.70)
0.63
(1.01)
9.56
24.6
Gasoline
EPAtb)
EPA
-------
mpg. The combined values are based on 55 and 45 percent time weighting to
the city and highway estimates.
Except for the FTP hot test on Table 60, the Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel
HC v»ere always measurably higher than that from the gasoline-powered Rabbit.
The CO, although much less from the Diesel during the FTP, was higher than the
gasoline engine during the SET and FET. Apparently, the oxidation catalyst-
equipped gasoline Rabbit resulted in very low CO levels during the higher
average speed driving cycles. N0X was slightly less from the Diesel during
the FTP while NOx was lower, about half that of the gasoline Rabbit during the-
FET and SET.
Thus the comparison of emissions from the Diesel- and gasoline-
powered pair of Rabbits depends on driving cycle as it did for the pair of
Cutlass cars. The oxidation catalyst apparently is very effective in reducing
CO and HC to very low levels, lower than the Diesel during the higher average
speed and road load driving typified by the SET and FET. However, NOx is
higher from the gasoline cars during the FET and SET. The Diesel car emissions
may be considered to be somewhat stable for all three types of transient
cycles, while the gasoline-powered car emissions seem to be dependent on
driving cycle in their behavior.
The fuel consumption rates for the Diesel Rabbit were 42 percent
lower by the 1975 FTP, 39 percent lower by the SET, and 33 percent lower by the
FET relative to and based on the gasoline car fuel consumption in i/100 km.
In terms of fuel economy, the percent increase in miles per gallon for the
Diesel relative to and based on the gasoline data of Table 60 was 74 percent
by the 1975 FTP, 65 percent by the SET, and 4? percent by the FET.
In summary of the fuel economy results of Table 60, the Diesel-
powered Rabbit tested gave estimates of 42.7 mpg city and 53.7 mpg highway,
for a combined rating of 47.0 mpg. The gasoline-powered Rabbit gave estimates
of 24.6 mpg city and 36.1 mpg highway, for a combined rating of 28.7 mpg. It
is interesting to compare these values with those given for the Diesel Rabbit
in Reference 65 of 39 mpg city, 52 mpg highway, and 44 mpg combined. The
gasoline estimates also compare well with those given in Reference 65 of 24
mpg city, 37 mpg highway, and 28 mpg combined.
For additional detail please refer to Appendix E, tabulations for
each car and the computer printout results for each type of test. They are
grouped by car. Tables E-l through E-24 are for the Qldsmobile Diesel while
Tables E-25 through E-40 are for the Oldsmobile gasoline-fueled car. Tables
E-41 through E-56 are for the VW Rabbit Diesel. Tables E-57 through E-72
contain the detailed results for the gasoline-powered Rabbit.
B. Smoke Results
Visible smoke from Diesels used in heavy-duty vehicles has been regulated
since 1970 by the EPA. No Federal regulations or test for smoke applies to
Diesel cars. For purposes of this research, smoke was measured during replicate
cold start 1975 FTP, CFDS (SET), and FET cycles.
173
-------
1. 1975 FTP Smoke
Of the three transient cycles, operation over the urban driving
schedule, especially the first 505 seconds of the test, produces the most
noticeable smoke discharges.
Of importance are those types of operation that might produce the
maximum visible smoke during both cold and hot portions of the test. Table 61
lists the most important results of a visual analysis of the continuous smoke
traces obtained from both Diesel-powered cars. The initial cold start resulted
in a momentary peak value of 16 and 73 percent opacity for the Cutlass and
Rabbit Diesels, respectively. The cold idle, which occurs immediately after
engine start, produced a relatively low 4 to 5 percent opacity for the Cutlass
and Rabbit Diesels.
Next, the peak opacity during the first acceleration, to 90.1 km/hr
(56 mph), resulted in a noticeable peak of 21 percent for the Cutlass. The
second idle, at 125 seconds into the test, gave an average of 5 percent opacity
from the Cutlass and 0.5 percent opacity from the Rabbit.
TABLE 61. AVERAGE EXHAUST SMOKE OPACITY RECORfJD
DURING REPLICATE 1975 FTP CYCLES
Smoke Condition Cutlass Diesel P»hhit Diesel
Cold Start Portion of Cycle
Cold Start, Peak % 16.3 72.9
Cold Idle, Average %
(after start)
4.4
4.5
First Accel, Peak *
(after cold idle)
21.4
7.4
Idle at 125 sec, Average 1
> 5.2
0.5
Accel at 164 sec, Peak %
(to 90.1 km/hr)
19.4
39.4
Hot Start
Portion of Cycle
Hot Start, Peak *
7.8
27.4
Hot Idle, Average %
(after start)
4.1
0.4
First Accel, Peak %
(after hot idle)
7.5
3.0
Idle at 125 ;ec, Ave age 1
(during final 505 sec)
4.3
0.3
Accel at 164 sec, Peak %
(to 90.1 km/hr,
'• tring final 505 sec)
16.6
37.7
174
-------
Starting at 164 seconds of the urban cycle, the vehicle was acceler-
ated from rest to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph). This acceleration generally requires
maximum power or close to maximum power from most Diesel-powered cars. The
acceleration peak opacity was 19 percent for the Cutlass and 39 percent for
the Rabbit.
The results for the same part of the driving schedule but from a hot
start are listed on the lower half of Table 61. These may be directly compared
to the cold engine behavior. The Cutlass hot start and first acceleration
values were less than the cold start, while both idies, of 4 percent, opacity,
were about the same as the cold portion of the test. The acceleration to 90.1
km/hr was slightly lower.
The Rabbit Diesel exhibited a trend of substantially lower idle smoke
when the engine was warmed up with a negligible opacity measured. The acceler-
ation to 90.1 km/hr produced about the same opacity as measure I during the
cold portion of the test. To place this discussion of visible exhaust smoke
into perspective, it should be noted that 3 to 5 percent opacity by the EPA
smokemeter is at the limit of smoke visibility. Most of the time, both cars
operated in this area with brie , but noticeable, excursions during rapid
throttle movement and when accelerating at maximum or near maximum power.
Figures 40 and 41 are typical cold start idle-accel to 90.1 km/hr
{56 mph) for both Diesel cars. The trace represents the first 300 seconds of
cold start ana was considered typical. All traces were based on a chart speed
of 76.2 mm/min (3 inches/min) with zero opacity equal to 100 percent of chart.
The speed trace was calibrated at 96.5 km/hr (60 mph) equal to 100 pe cent of
chart and zero speed equal to zero on the chart. In the case of the Oldsmobile
Diesel, the trace is of the third test. The Rabbit Diesel chart. Figure 41,
was for the second test.
In analyzing the smoke traces on Figures 40 and 41, careful attention
must be paid the physical distance between recorder pens (offset) since a two-
pen overlapping recorder was used. Contrary to what soir.e charts show, acceler-
ation of the engine, vehicle, and smoke output occurred essentially at thi>
same time. Each major chart division from right (engine start) to left is
24.5 mm and is equal to 20 seconds.
Table F-l is i complete set of readings for the three runs for the
Cutlass Diesel and the two replicates for the Rabbit Diesel. Those data o
provided for additional run-to-run analysis of the highlights listed in Table
61.
2. SET and FET Smoke
Tables F-2 and F-3 list the visual evaluation made of -.he smoke
measured during the sulfate (SET) and highway economy (FET) cycles. The SET
and FET represent cycles of increasing average speed with fewer starts and
stops relative to the FTP. These cycles progressively reduce the effect of
vehicle inertia (weiqht) and increase the effect of road load. Thus, it would
be expected that more importance be given to cruise than to the accelerations,
as was the case with the FTP. The visual smoke readings listed in Table F-2
and F-3 are lower in level than that measured in Table 61 and are therefet of
less concern.
175
-------
Kxhaust SMokr
Id
tihj
*>f». S |*m»/h f VrMcl* Kp#<
-O
.Figure 40. Typical Oldsmobile Cutlass Diesel "Cold Start" Smoke Trace
-------
*0.1 liwtir |M
XL
Figure 41. Typical Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel "Cold Start" Smoke Trace
-------
Passenger cars equipped with Diesel engines should have an invisible
exhaust if they are to be equal in terms of exhaust opacity to vehicles powered
by gasoline-fueled engines. The data on Tables 61 and F-l through F-3 illus-
trate the overall low smoke tendencies of both Diesel cars and also point up
those areas or modes of operation in which the smoke is easily noticeable.
Cold operation and acceleration are those types of running that will result in
smoke discharges from these two cars that will be of concern.
As mentioned earlier, the limit of visibility by the EPA (PHS) smoke-
meter is taken at 3 to 4 percent opacity. Both vehicles produced average smoke
outputs (by visual estimation of the continuous traces) at this level (in the
case of the Oldsmobile) and slightly below this level (in the case of the W)
during the 1975 FTP. During the SET and FET, the overall estimates of the two
cars were essentially the same and both quite low in smoke.
C. Particulate
In order to achieve a sufficient sample and because there is no convenient
means to switch particulate samples at the 505-second point in the city driving
schedule, all cold start FTP'S were for the «?ntir»» 23 minutes on a given filter.
The 10-minute soak period was then observed and then an additional 23-minute
city driving cycle repeated from a hot start. The 1975 FTP is a weighted
combination of the cold and hot runs by the expression: 1975 FTP = 0.43 FTP
cold +0.57 FTP hot. The other two transient driving cycles were from a hot
start with the sample for the SET and for the FET collected on separate filters.
Table 62 lists the particulate emission rates of the four LDV's. These
rates are based on both duplicate fiberglass and duplicate Fluoropore filters
taken at the same time during FTP cold, FTP hot, FET and SET experiments. The
rates are in g/hr and g/ko fuel and g/km. The individual run results, on
which the Table 62 averages are based, are listed on Tables F-4 through F-7
for the four cars.
Figure 42 depicts the emission rates for both Diesel and gasoline cars
for each test procedure. The Diesel rates are reasonable and consistent with
prior results and indicate the Cutlass powered by an experimental Diesel engine
to have on the order of twice the particulate rate of the Rabbit.
The filters from the gasoline-powered Cutlass and Rabbit cars tested had
a negligible amount of exhaust particulate in comparison to the Diesel cars.
The appearance of the sample "ilters confirmed the absence of the black carbo-
naceous matter typical of Diesels and inferred that the particulate that was
collected was to some extent sulfate. Thus, the bar chart representation of
Figure 42 for the gasoline cars is very low relative to the Diesel.
To enable some general comparison, the ratio of Diesel to gasoline car
particulate rate was computed from Table 63 data. The results are listed in
Table 63 and indicate that the Cutlass experimental Diesel emits on the order
of 22 to 147 times the gasoline engine particulate, while the ratio ranged
from 41 to 101 times for the Diesel Rabbit compared to the gasoline Rabbit.
If the 1975 FTP, SET and FET ratios are simply averaged, an overall ratio
of 54 times the gasoline Cutlass particulate and 82 times the gasoline Rabbit
particulate was measured from their Diesel counterparts. These ratios indicate
178
-------
TABLE 62. AVERAGE PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES FOR
DIESEL AND GASOLINE PASSENGER CARS
Test
1975 FTP
Vehicle
Cutlass
Rabbit
Diesel
g/hr
18.00
5,68
Gasoline
g/hr
0.208
0.133
Diesel
g/kg fuel^
6.30
3.93
Gasoline
q/kg fuel^a*
0.050
0.059
Diesel
9/Hm
0.573
0.182
Gasoline
0.0056
0.0042
FTP Cold
Cutlass
Rabbit
20.07
6.35
0.263
0.156
6.58
4.23
0.071
0.068
0.628
0.202
0.0084
0.0050
*4
V0
FTP Hot
SET
Cutlass
Rabbit
Cutlass
Rabbit
16.43
5.17
20.16
9.19
0.167
0.095
0.544
0.091
6,09
3.70
4.86
4.22
034
043
111
030
0.523
0.165
0.360
0.161
0.0036
0.0030
0097
0017
FET
Cutlass
Rabbit
23.08
12.18
1.056
0.120
68
23
181
032
0.298
0.157
0136
0016
^ Mass per unit of fuel consumed based on average fuel
consumption by carbon balance for respective test cycle.
-------
9
M*
3
A
T>
m
rj
d, to
c> *
0»
c w
I—
I- ft
3 H-
o
I c
TJ M
% ft
ft
*1
ft w
a 3
H-
*0 Cn
0> »
rt
O
H Hv
(ft 0
O
c
K0
-4
Ol
¦H 33
-D >
DO
T1 O
H C
-O HI
O
O
I" 33
O >
03
| GASOLINE
DIESEL
GASOLINE
DIESEL
DIESEL
J GASOLINE
DIESEL
1 GASOLINE
S DIESEL
"0 -
x
O
_i >
03
O
CO -
m
-»
33
>
w
GASOLINE
MB§EL
GASOLINE
DIESEL
J GASOLINE
081
g/km
o
K>
n
o
u>
o
T
o
at
T
o
ON
o
«xl
"1
DIESEL 1
GASOLINE
n
c
>
CD
J GASOLINE
mm
MmL.
GASOLINE
-------
TABLE 63. DIESEL- AND GASOLINE-POWERED CkR
PARTICULATE RATE COMPARISON
Test
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
SET
FET
Diesel
q/fa"
0.573
0.628
0.523
0.360
0.298
(a)
Cutlass
Gasoline
0.0056
0.0084
0.0036
0.0097
0.0136
Ratio
-------
TABLE 64, AVERAGE SULFATE EMISSION RATES FOR
DIESEL-AND GASOLINE-POWERED PASSENGER CARS
Sulfate Emission
Rate
As % S
Test
Vehicle
mg/hr
mq/kq fuel
nvq/km
in Fuel
1975 FTP
Cutlass Diesel
313.0
108.6
9.962
1.57
Cutlass Gasoline
43.5
13.0
1.373
1.59
Rabbit Diesel
115.2
79.5
3.662
1.24
Rabbit Gasoline
1.3
0.6
0.041
0.06
FTP Cold
Cutlass Diesel
401.7
131.6
12.786
1.91
Cutlass Gasoline
2.5
0.7
0.079
0.07
Rabbit Diesel
138.5
92.2
4.395
1.34
Rabbit Gasoline
0.9
0.4
0.029
0.04
FTP Hot
Cutlass Diesel
246.1
91.2
7.832
1.32
Cutlass Gasoline
74.4
22.4
2.351
2.40
Rabbit Diesel
97.7
69.9
3.110
1.02
Rabbit Gasoline
1.6
0.7
0.051
0.08
SET
Cutlass Diesel
578.0
90.2
10.326
1.30
Cutlass Gasoline
728.0
148.8
12.994
16.00
Rabbit Diesel
244.2
114.2
4.362
1.66
Rabbit Gasoline
57.4
18.7
1.024
2.01
FET
Cutlass Diesel
662.4
134.2
8.541
1.94
Cutlass Gasoline
943.6
160.9
12.167
17.31
Rabbit Diesel
303.6
105.2
3.914
1.52
Rabbit Gasoline
231.0
61.8
2.979
6.64
182
-------
14
12
10
8 -
s:
(5
1*
ml co
co
_j
o
co
<
(5
Ui -J
o
CO
<
(9
O
<
cs
a
-J
a
CO
<
(9
LU
Z
UI
-------
very little sulfate from the gasoline cars compared to the Diesel. During the
sulfate emission test (SET>, the Cutlass gasoline car sulfate rate increased
markedly from the FTP hot run (which, in turn, was higher than the FTP cold).
This behavior of sulfate from gasoline-powered oxidation-catalyst-equipped
cars is not uncommon and has been demonstrated in a number of studies.
References 66 and 67 give typical data 'or comparison.
The gasoline-powered Rabbit, which also had an oxidation catalyst,
emitted more sulfate during the SET and more yet during the FET. Sulfate
during the FTP was negligible. In both gasoline-fueled cars, the low FTP
values are commonly attributed to "storage" of the sulfate in the exhaust
system. Both Diesel cars seemed less influenced by the type cycle with no
indication of sulfate "storage" during the FTP operation.
Based on the SwRl SET test, the Diesel Rabbit produced 4.3 times the
sulfate of the gasoline Rabbit, and the experimental Diesel Cutlass emitted
0.8 or 80 percent of the gasoline sulfate rate. Comparing the two Diesels,
the Cutlass emitted from 2.2 to 2.8 times the sulfate as the Rabbit. One
reason for this is the higher fuel consumption of the larger, heavier Cutlass
versus the Rabbit.
Another way to consider the sulfate results is in terms of percent of
fuel sulfur converted to sulfate. Table 65 is a comparison of this data for
both cars. While the Diesel conversion percentages all range from 1 to 2
percent of the fuel consumed, the gasoline-powered vehicles ranged from less
than 0.1 percent during the cold start to as high as 17.3 percent during the
FET test of the Cutlass. This car, equipped with catalyst but without air
pump, emitted far greater sulfate levels than similar size non-air catalyst
cars previously tested.The SET value of 16 percent is on the order of
that from an air pump catalyst-equipped car. The Volkswagen Rabbit, on the
TABLE 65. COMPARISON OF PERCENT SULFUR IN FUEL
CONVERTED TO SULFATE BY GASOLINE AND DIESEL CARS
Cutlass,
%
Rabbit, %
Test
Diesel
Gasoline
Ratio
Diesel
Gasoline
Ratio
1975 FTP
1.57
1.589
1.0
1.24
0.062
20.0
FTP Cold
1.91
0.072
26.5
1.34
0.038
35.3
FTP Hot
1.32
2.404
0.5
1.02
0.076
13.4
SET
1.30
15.999
0.1
1.66
2.009
0.8
FET
1.94
17.306
0.1
1.52
6.644
0.2
(a)
ratio
Diesel
gasoline
184
-------
other hand, had 2 percent conversion during the SET, a reasonable value for a
catalyst non-air equipped vehicle.
Based on the SET results, it may be concluded that the experimental Diesel
emitted slightly less sulfate than the gasoline-powered Cutlass, 10.3 versus
13.0 mg/km, while the Diesel-powered Rabbit emitted far more than the gasoline
Rabbit, 4.4 versus 1.0 mg/km. These comparisons are based on a sample of only
four cars using "National Average" fuel sulfur levels and all other test aspects
identical.
For additional individual test results, please refer to Appendix Tables
F-4 through F-7, Each table lists the emission rates for a given car and lists
percent sulfur converted to sulfate. This data indicates the run-to-run
repeatability of the two Diesels to be quite satisfactory.
E. Carbon-Hydrogen-Nitrogen
The percent carbon (C), hydrogen (H), and nitrogen (N) in the particulate
sample collected on the glass fiber filter was analyzed by ASTM method D-3178.
The results are listed on Table 66 and show little difference between the two
gasoline cars, ft substantial difference is shown between Diesel- and gasoline-
powered cars, however. Carbon content was expected to be much higher, but the
major differences in hydrogen and nitrogen will require further work to fully
explain. The different boiling ranges of the fuels could likely be a major
reason for the hydrogen differences, and the lack of carbon on the filter may
further explain the very low hydrogen values. Possibly, the difference in
fuels plus the lack of carbon on the filter is the reason Eor the lower
nitrogen values; however, this is speculation.
TABLE 66. CARBON, HYDROGEN, AND NITROGEN CONTENT
OF FILTER PARTICULATE, PERCENT BY WEIGHT
Cutlass Rabbit
Element
Cycle
Diesel
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
C
FTP
Cold
76.83
0.070
78.33
0.087
FTP
Hot
82.07
0.080
73.19
0.093
SET
78.49
0.076
73.22
0.078
FET
80.95
0.081
77.04
0.081
H
FTP
Cold
3.33
0.051
4.29
0.049
Ftp
Hot
3.79
0.052
4.80
0.050
SET
4.00
0.058
4.43
0.045
FET
4.89
0.055
3.85
0.049
N
FTP
Cold
0.54
0.0076
0.60
0.0064
FTP
Hot
0.54
0.0084
0.66
0.0076
SET
0.59
0.017
0.51
0.0072
FET
0.68
0.010
0.45
0.0075
185
-------
F. Metals
The particulate matter collected on the 47 mm Fluoropore plastic filters
were analyzed by X-ray fluorescence to determine the presence and amount of
lead, manganese, mercury, phosphorus, sodium, zinc, copper, calcium, vanadium,
iron, aluminum, silica, nickel, tin, and sulfur. Table 67 shows that only
iron, zinc, aluminum, and sulfur were detectable by the method used. Except
for sulfur, the results were not consistent for either Diesel or gasoline-
fueled cars. Some iron was found in all Rabbit Diesel filters. Note the
essential absence of sulfur (by this measurement method) from both gasoline
vehicles during the FTP cycle and its apparent purge and collection during the
SET and FET. This is in qualitative agreement with the data in Table 64 and
graphed on Figure 43.
TABLE 67. METAL CONTENT OF PARTICULATE SAMPLES
(PERCENT OF PARTICULATE)
Element
Cycle
Cutlass
Diesel
Gasoline
Rabbit
Diesel
Gasoline
Iron
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
SET
FET
0,35
(a)
12.4
0.7
1.2
0.46
0.26
Zinc
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
SET
FET
11.6
Aluminum
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
SET
FET
0.34
Sulfur
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
SET
FET
(a)
1.2
0.83
1.4
1.4
below detectable limit
6.2
30.6
28.0
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.3
9.0
18.3
G. Odor Ratings and Related Analysis
This section discusses the odor ratings by trained panel and DOAS as well
as the supplemental analyses obtained at the same time odor was measured.
186
-------
1. Odor Ratings by Trained Panel
Table 68 contains a summary listing of the odor ratings for both
Diesel-i*. red cars. The evaluations were made at both 10C:1 and at 550:1
dilution ratios. As expected, the odor was always lower at the higher
dilution level.
A direct comparison between the two Diesel cars during steady state
is not possible since the Volkswagen Rabbit mid and high loads were half and
maximum power (at 90.1 km/hr high gear, 3360 rpm, and at 53.1 km/hr high gear,
2020 rpm). The automatic transmission in the Cutlass severely limited the
power level at both 90.1 and 53.1 km/hr due to excessive-slip as power level
was increased. Accordingly, power levels were necessarily limited to that
capable by the vehicle.
Figures 44 and 45 are bar graph and "D" versus power plots of the
Appendix F data. The "D" odor intensity generally increased with power level.
Little change with power was noted at 550:1 for the Cutlass Diesel. The bar
graphs are a summation of each odor rating which gives about equal importance
to the "D" intensity value and the sum of the four quality ratings.
Table 69 is an overall summary of the two Diesel cars by type of
operation as well as dilution ratio. Both cars are found to have about the
same exhaust odor intensity with the only notable difference being the tran-
sients in which the Rabbit produced a higher "D" intensity than the Cutlass
experimental Diesel, on the order of "D"-3.5 versus "D"-2.7 at 100:1 dilution.
This difference was not as detectable at the higher 550:1 dilution level. If
100:1 is taken to be the minimum dilution level of Diesel exhaust, then both
Diesel cars had odor levels that would be easily noticed by most people. The
"D"-3 level, from the odor opinion study, was found objectionable to' 77 percent
of those surveyed.*24,25'
Appendix Tables F-8 through F-15 list the detailed rating summaries
for further study. This data lists the run-to-run results for the steady
states, in triplicate, and the transient tests, replicated four times.
TABLE 69. ROUGH COMPARISON OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE
"D" ODOR RATINGS
Dilution
Six Steady
Cold
Three
All Eleven
Diesel Car
Ratio
States
Idle
Start
Transients
Conditions
Oldsmobile
100:1
2.9
3.4
4.0
2.7
3 0
550:1
1.0
0.8
2.0
1.1
1.1
Difference
1.9
2.6
2.0
1.6
1.9
Volkswagen
100:1
3.1
3.6
4.0
3.5
3.3
550:1
1.1
1.2
2.4
1.0
1.2
Difference
2.0
2.4
1.6
2.5
2.1
187
-------
TAIjLK OH. LISTING OF AVERAGE ODOR PANEL hATINGS
FOR DIESEL-POWERED PASSENGER CARS
Q/I Odor Rating
Operating
Diesel
Dilution
"D"
"B"
no-
"A"
Hp*
Condition
Car
Ratio
Composite
Burnt
Oily
Aromatic
Pung«
Steady
State Results
Inter. Speed
Cutlass
100:1
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.2
0 Load
550:1
1.1
0.8
0.2
0.3
0
Rabbit
100:1
2.8
1.1
0.9
0.7
0,!
550:1
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.1
0
Inter. Speed
Cutlass
100:1
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.5
O.f
Mid Load
550:1
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.]
Rabbit
100:1
2.8
1.1
1.0
0.6
O.f
550:1
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.2
O.J
Inter. Speed
Cutlass
100:1
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
O.f
High Load
550:1
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.2
0
Rabbit
100:1
3.3
1.1
1.0
0.6
O.f
550:1
1.3
0.7
0.4
0.4
o.:
High Speed
Cutlass
100:1
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.'
0 Load
550:1
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
Rabbit
100:1
2.3
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.
550:1
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.2
0..
High Speed
Cutlass
100:1
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.
Hid Load
550:1
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.3
0
Rabbit
100:1
3.5
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.
550:1
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.1
0
High Speed
Cutlass
100:1
3.3
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.
High Load
550:1
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.
Rabbit
100:1
3.8
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.
550:1
1.3
0.9
0.5
0.2
0
Idle
Cutlass
100:1
3.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.
550:1
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.2
0
Rabbit
100:1
3.6
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.
550:1
1.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.
Transient Results
Idle-
Cutlass
100:1
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.
Acceleration
550:1
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.
Rabbit
100:1
3.5
1.2
1.0
0.7
1.
550:1
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.
Acceleration
Cutlass
100:1
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.
550:1
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
Rabbit
100:1
3. ~
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.
550:1
1.3
0,9
0.5
0.3
0.
Deceleration
Cutlass
100:1
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.
550:1
1.3
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.
Rabbit
100:1
3.3
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.
550:1
0.9
0.8
0,3
0.3
0.
Cold Start
Cutlass
100:1
4.0
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.
550:1
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.
Rabbit
100:1
4.0
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.
550:1
2.4
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.
188
-------
100:1 DILUTION
-- 550:1 DILUTION
HIGH SPEED
LOW SPEED
L^_JP|ED_ _ _H I_GH_ SPEED
J.
_L
NO
MID
LOAD
HIGH
€>-
O
c
o
IDLE- ACOEL DECEL C0L1
ACCEL STAI
NO
MID HIGH
NO
MID HIGH IDLE
LOAD,, 1400 RPM LOAD,, 1920 RPM
Figure 44. Average Odor Ratings for Cutlass Diesel Car
189
-------
r. 0
I. 0
.0
. 0
0
.0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
0
100:1 DILUTION
550:1 DILUTION
HIGH SPEED
LOW SPEED
LOW SPEED
"high" speed"
_L
NO
-L
MID
LOAD
HIGH
NO
MID HIGH NO
MID HIGH IDLE
LOAD.; 2020 RPM LOAD, 3300 RPM
IDLE- ACCEL DECEL COLD
ACCEL START
Figure 45. Average Odor Ratings for Rabbit Diesel Car
l')0
-------
2. Odor by DOAS
Listed in Table 70 are the average values obtained by the DOAS simul-
taneously with the odor panel ratings. Figure 46 is a plot of TIA versus "D"
level for both cars. It is interesting to note the clustering of data at the
100:1 and at the 550:1 dilution levels. At 550:1, all the "D" levels were
less than 1.3, which is a relatively low and light odor strength. There appears
to be some correlation with TIA at the usual 100:1 dilution level.
An attenpt was made to obtain DOAS values during various transient
driving cycles to see if there might be a correlation with the steady-state
data. Table 70 also lists the DOAS values for both Diesel cars, and Figure 47
illustrates the TIA values for the FTP, SET and FET cycles. These results would
predict the odor from both cars during the transient cycles to be essentially
the same, with the higher duty cycle FET odor the highest. Only with the Rabbit
Diesel was there a noticeable upward trend of odor with power (top half of
Figure 45).
3. Related Gaseous Emissions
Gaseous emissions, measured at the same time as the steady-state odor
tests, are summarized in Table 71. The averages thus listed are averages of the
replicate odor test days. These day-to-day sunanaries as well as individual run-
to-run emissions for each day for both Diesel cars are included as Tables F-16
through F-23. Also listed on these tables are the DOAS results in terms of LCA,
LCO and TIA values.
H. Aldehydes
Table 72 lists the various aldehyde results during the seven steady-state
and three transient cycles. Looking first at formaldehyde, the simplest and
most prevalent of the partially oxygenated compounds listed, the Cutlass
experimental Diesel was higher in raw exhaust concentration than the Rabbit
Diesel. The same general behavior was noted for acetaldehyde and acetone.
The GLC separation luups together in the acetone value not only acetone, but
acrolein and propanal. Isobutanal and benzaldehyde values were sometimes
lower and sometimes higher with one Diesel relative to the other, and no over-
all trend was evident by operating condition or vehicle.
The transient cycle data listed on the bottom of Table 72 is illustrated
on Figure 48. The ordinate is the sum of the individual aldehydes measured
in mg/km. In this way, a rough general conparison by car and test cycle can
be made. The experimental Diesel Cutlass produced more aldehydes than the
gasoline Cutlass regardless of test cycle.
The Diesel and gasoline Rabbits produced nearly identical amounts,
although a reversal in behavior occurred between the cold and hot ftp's. The
experimental Diesel Cutlass produced more aldehydes than the Rabbit Diesel,
on the order of two to three times, depending on cycle. Some of this differ-
ence is attributed to the difference in vehicle size, weight, power produced,
and fuel consumed.
191
-------
TABLE 70. DOAS RESULTS OF DIESEL CARS
DURING STEADY-STATE ODOR TESTS AND TRANSIENT CYCLES
Condition/Cycle
Vehicle LCA, yg/i
STEADY-STATE
LCO, \iq/l TIA
Intermediate Speed, Cutlass
No Load Rabbit
14.0
5.3
6.0
2.6
1.8
1.4
Intermediate Speed, Cutlass
Mid Load Rabbit
16.1
14.6
6.0
5.1
1.8
1.8
Intermediate Speed, Cutlass
High Load Rabbit
High Speed, Cutlass
No Load Rabbit
14.5
15.3
15.4
7.6
5.6
6.2
6.5
2.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
High Speed,
Mid Load
Cutlass
Rabbit
15.4
22.9
5.4
6.8
1.6
1.9
High Speed,
High Load
Idle
Cutlass
Rabbit
Cutlass
Rabbit
12.2
23.5
18.4
9.3
7.1
10.7
4.9
3.6
1.9
2.0
1.6
1.6
TRANSIENT CYCLES
FTP Cycle
SET Cycle
FET Cycle
Cutlass
Rabbit
Cutlass
Rabbit
Cutlass
Rabbit
6.1
3.8
5.5
3.3
7.8
4.9
1.8
1.2
1.7
1.1
2.6
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.2
192
-------
3.0 r
oCUTLASS DIESEL 100:1
~ CUTLASS DIESEL 550:1
A RABBIT DIESEL IOOjI
V RABBIT DIESEL 550:1
Ono load
©MID LOAD
• HIGH LOAD
OINTER SPEED
tJHIGH SPEED
AI OLE
owe A
W
V
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
"D" DIESEL ODOR RATING BY PANEL
5.0
Figure 46, TIA by DOAS Versus "D" Odor Rating by Trained
Panel for Two Diesel Cars at Two Dilution Levels
193
-------
-
-
CL
o
a.
a
b-
-J
~—
h-
_i
ul
o
O
LL.
o
o
X
o
X
IB,
in
IA
a.
a.
r*
Q-
a.
H
H-
as
h-
h-
Hi
UJ
0%
~—
h-
Ui
UJ
rH
u.
LL.
CO
LL.
H
u.
u.
v>
14.
DIESEL CUTLASS
DIESEL RABBIT
Figure 47. TIfl of Various Driving Cycles for Diesel-
Powered Passenger Cars
194
-------
TABLE 71. EXHAUST ANALYSES OF DIESEL CARS
DURING STEADY-STATE ODOR TESTS
Condition
Vehicle
HC
ppmC
CO
EES
NO-NDIR
ppm
NO-CL
ppm
NOx-CL
ppm
C02
%
Intermediate
Cutlass
139
319
84
79
79
2.0
Speed, No Load
Rabbit
66
257
69
65
65
2.0
Intermediate
Cutlass
102
299
198
175
175
4.7
Speed, Mid Load
Rabbit
69
181
298
270
270
5.4
Intermediate
Cutlass
91
316
251
222
222
7.0
Speed, High Load
Rabbit
87
344
314
296
296
12.5
High Speed,
Cutlass
147
335
88
79
79
2.3
No Load
Rabbit
52
231
115
102
102
2.3
High Speed,
Cutlass
92
308
263
231
231
6.5
Mid Load
Rabbit
129
336
400
373
373
7.5
High Speed,
Cutlass
85
548
290
263
263
10.6
High Load
Rabbit
93
2027
348
324
322
13.9
Idle
Cutlass
284
521
58
55
55
2.4
Rabbit
184
392
102
91
91
2.1
195
-------
TADIiv 72. ALDEHYDES OBTAINED WIRING STEADY-STATE
ODOR TESTS AND TRANSIENT CYCLES
Condition/Cycle
Vehicle
Form-
aldehyde
Aeet-
aldehyde
Ace-
tone
STEADY-STATES, Ug/»3
Iso-
butanal
Crot-
onal
Hex-
anal
Benz-
aldehyde
intermediate Speed,
No ixwid
Cutlass Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
0990
5922
2046
1613
1010
1200
793
908
591
622
Interpolate speed,
Hid Load
Cutlass Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
3005
1726
1656
777
754
523
582
447
460
497
Intermediate Speed,
High Load
Cutlass Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
1407
2028
1126
1800
1333
719
244
435
1052
279
1495
High Speed#
No Load
Cutlass Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
8581
1653
2543
433
1320
566
330
621
631
495
460
178
High Speed,
Mid load
Cutlass Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
2506
2137
1954
636
1642
443
1405
616
377
1490
High Speed,
High Load
Cutlass Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
3174
1241
205-6
1035
916
537
18
850
U)
V0
0*
Idle
Cutlass Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
12051
12 325
4071
3323
1346
1891
1181
924
1355
555
190
TRANSIENT CYCLES, xnq/ka
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
Cutlass Diesel
Cutlass Gasoline
Rabbit Diesel
Rabbit Gasoline
Cutlass Diesel
Cutlass Gasoline
Rabbit Diesel
Rabbit Gasoline
15,8
2.6
16.0
0.4
15.0
3.7
26.3
0.2
6.5
0.4
5.0
35-7
2.6
5.6
0.3
18,5
3.8
16.0
2.6
19.3
2.6
27.0
2.3
4.2
7.2
32.1
6.2
11.2
21.0
1.8
2.7
2.2
2.4
0.8
Cutlass Diesel
Cutlass Gasoline
Rabbit Diesel
Rabbit Gasoline
16.5
1.8
8.1
0.5
2.8
29.5
0.1
0.3
18*0
4.6
7.8
2.8
2.7
4.1
40.5
0.9
1.5
7.4
4.1
Cutlass Diesel
Cutlass Gasoline
Rabbit Diesel
Rabbit Gasoline
12.3
1.3
6.0
0.3
6.3
1.5
5.1
1.0
10.4
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.4
0*6
4.3
1.1
5.3
2.2
Cutlass Diesel
Cutlass Gasoline
Rabbit Diesel
Rabbit Gasoline
6.2
1.6
4. 3
0.5
3.0
1.1
3.3
0.5
2.7
8.9
6.5
3.3
6.4
1.2
3.7
0.8
1.0
Hdptple contaminated
-------
16T
ALDEHYDES, MG/KM
m
Isj
o
O
cn
o
00
o
o
o
o
H* C
VO H
-J -
VI
-n zd
H >
T> 03
O
-n C
Zj H
T? "
8 30
2 >
f, w
o
e
33
>
W
o
JO
>
03
o
G
50
>
W
DIESEL
GMfl*INE
DIESEL
GASOLINE
DIESEL
GASOLIHE
DIESEL
GASOLINE I
DIESEL
GASOLINE
DIESEL I
GASOLINE
DIESEL
DIE
gaI
iOLINE
EL
0LINE
GASOLINE
DIE:
EL
GAS(LINE
-------
I. Specific Hydrocarbons
Both steady-rtate and transient _ycle results are listed in Table 73.
One item of importance from this data is methane as a percent of the HC measured
by FID. Table 74 lists the methane and FID HC values from Tables 73 and 71,
respectively. Methane ranged from about 1 to 4 percent of the FID hydrocarbons
for both Diesel cars.
This range holds well for the transient cycle results listed at the bottom
of Table 74. The two gasoline cars, however, had methane fractions of the
exhaust hydrocarbons on the order of 14 to 58 percent. The highest percentages
were for the Rabbit gasoline ranging from 24 to 58 percent. The Cutlass gaso-
line ranged from 14 to 31 percent. Methane is generally considered nonreactive
in photochemical reactions; therefore, it is helpful to know how much of the
exhaust hydrocarbons are methane. The exhaust from the two Diesels tested
were a nominal 3±2 percent methane, while the two gasoline cars tested had a
nominal 35±20 percent methane.
Benzene was always higher, by about 30 percent, from the Oldsmobile 350
Diesel than the Rabbit Diesel except at high speed and load. During transient
testing, the difference in the two Diesel cars' benzene emissions was greater,
about 50 percent. Compared to their gasoline counterparts, the Oldsmobile
Diesel was much higher, about two times the gasoline Oldsmobile on the 1975
FTP. The Rabbit Diesel was, over all three cycles, about the same as the
gasoline Rabbit.
J. Polynuclear Aromatics
BaP was measured as an indicator of the polynuclear aromatic content of
the vehicle exhaust. The thin layer chromatography method described earlier
(16, 62) was used. An 8 x 10 size fiberglass filter was used to collect
sufficient particulate for BaP analysis.
Table 75 lists the emission rate of BaP for all four cars. In the case
of the two Diesel cars, emission rates of from about 2 to 5 (Cutlass Diesel)
and 1 to 5 (Rabbit Diesel) in terms of pg/km of BaP were found. The method
depends on the trapping of the BaP from the diluted exhaust on the particulate
coated glass fiber filter.
When this simple and rapid dilution tunnel method was used with the gaso-
line exhaust, little particulate was collected, just as in the case of the 47
mm filters. Recall that the two gasoline vehicles emitted on the order of 1/50
to 1/80 the particulate of the Diesel cars and that which was collected had a
negligible percentage of carbon per Table 66. In discussions with Dr. Ronald
Bradow of EPA Environmental Sciences Research Laboratories, it was mentioned
that BaP collection on fiberglass filters by the tunnel method may be dependent
on the carbon particulate. In the case of the Diesel, it is thought that the
carbon acts as the collecting media and this may explain why BaP values from
the two gasoline-powered cars were below detectable limits in all but two
instances.
198
-------
TABLE 71. or.TAlU-n MC ANALYSIS DURING STEAD* - STATE
nlp)H TESTS AND TRANSIENT CYCLES
Meth-
Eth-
Acety-
Prop-
Benz-
Ethy-
Propy-
Tolu*
Condi t ion/Cycle
Vehicle
ane
ane
lene
ane
ene
lene
lene
ene
n
TKADY-STATES
, pptn C
Intermediate Speed,
Cutlass Diesel
4.2
1.1
2. 3
0
2.6
17.4
5.3
0
No Load
Rabbit Diesel
0,6
0.3
0.8
O
0.9
13.4
4.2
0
Intermediate Speed,
Cutlass Diesel
4,0
1.1
2.2
0
3.1
IS.3
4.3
0
Hid Load
Babbit Diesel
2,2
0.5
1-1
0
2.3
12.5
4.0
0
Intermediate Speed,
Cutlass Diesel
3. 3
0.9
2.1
0
3.6
15.0
4.0
0
High Load
Rabbit Diesel
3.3
0.7
1.5
0
3.4
20.1
6.1
0,5
High Speed,
Cutlass Diesel
4.5
1.0
2.1
0
2. 3
16.9
5.9
0
No Load
Rabbit Diesel
0.9
0.4
0.8
0
0.9
9.5
2.8
0
High Speed,
Cutlass Diesel
2.5
0.7
2.0
0
2.4
14.8
4.1
0
Hid Load
Rabbit Diesel
2.2
3.2
6. 3
0
8.3
45.9
9.3
1.4
High Speed,
Cutlass Diesel
1.0
0.4
2.2
0
3.9
19.3
4.6
0
ilicfH Load
Rabbit Diesel
1.8
1.6
5.8
0
7.7
34.1
5.3
0.4
Idle
Cutlass Diesel
10.5
2.9
7.0
0
7.7
37.4
10,9
1.8
Rabbit Diesel
2.3
0.7
1.5
0
1.9
26.1
8.1
0.7
TivANSIEMT CYCLES. m§/km
1975 FTP
Cutlass Diesel
12.7
4.2
5.3
0.1
11.6
49.2
17.1
2.6
Cutlass Gasoline
29.S
14.8
1.1
0
5.6
18.2
8.2
13.9
kabbit Diesel
6.7
0.9
1.5
0
5.1
28.1
9.6
0.6
Rabbit Gasoline
33.0
6.4
2.6
0
9.1
15.2
4.0
12.3
SET
Cutlass Diesel
5.1
1.7
2.6
0
6.4
28.5
8.9
0
Cutlass Gasoline
24.2
9.2
0
0
2.7
6.3
0
2.4
Rabbit Diesel
3. 3
0.4
1.2
0
2.9
15.3
4.5
1.6
Rabbit Gasoline
17.4
2.4
0
0
0
1.1
0
1.2
FET
Cutlass Diesel
3.4
1.3
1.9
0
4,9
21.8
6.5
0.9
Cutlass Gasoline
18.4
6,7
0
0
0.8
2.9
0
1.4
Rabbit Diesel
4.7
0.6
1.7
0
3.2
15.1
4.5
0
Rabbit Gasoline
14.6
0
0
0
0.4
2.0
0
0.9
-------
TABLE 74. METHANE FRACTION OF EXHAUST HC DURING
STEADY-STATE ODOR TESTS AND TRANSIENT CYCLES
Condition/Cycle
Vehicle
Methane
HC
% Methane
STEADY-STATE
Intermediate Speed,
No Load
Cutlass Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
4.2 ppmC
0.6
139 ppmC
66
3.0
0.9
Intermediate Speed,
Mid Load
Cutlass Diesel 4.0
Rabbit Diesel 2.2
103
69
3.9
3.2
Intermediate Speed,
High Load
Cutlass Diese.1 3.3
Rabbit Diesel 3.3
91
87
3.6
3.8
High Speed,
No Load
Cutlass Diesel 4.5
Rabbit Diesel 0.9
147
52
3.1
1.7
High Speed,
Mid Load
Cutlass Diesel 2.5
Rabbit Diesel 2,2
92
129
2.7
1.7
High Speed,
Hi«,b Load
Cutlass Diesel 1.0
Rabbit Diesel 1.8
85
93
1.2
1.9
Idle
Cutlass Diesel 10.5
Rabbit Diesel 2.3
284
184
3.7
1.3
TRANSIENT CYCLES
1975 FTP
Cutlass Diesel
Cutlass Gasol.ne
Rabbit Diesel
Rabbit Gasoline
12.7 mg/km
29.5
6.7
33.0
47 g/km
21
.23
,14
2.7
14.0
2.9
23.6
SET
Cutlass Diesel 5.1
Cutlass Gasoline 24.2
Rabbit Diesel 3.3
Rabbit Gasoline 17.4
0.27
0 08
0.09
0.03
1.9
30.3
3.7
58.0
FET
Cutlass Diesel 3.4
Cutlass Gasoline 18.4
Rabbit Diesel i.7
Rabbit Gasoline L4.6
0 21
0.06
0.08
0.03
1.6
30.7
5.9
48.7
200
-------
TABLE 75. BaP CONTENT IN DIESEL CAR PARTICULATE MATTER
Vehicle
Test
BaP
mg/hr
Emission Rate
mqfkq fuel
yg/km
Organic Solubles
% of Particulate
Cutlass
1975 FTP
0.1427
0.0507
4.540
13.3
Diesel
FTP Cold
0.1170
0.0383
3.723
12.4
FTP Hot
0.1021
0.0600
5.157
14.0
SET
0.1385
0.0334
2.471
18.2
FET
0.1480
0.0300
1.908
19.0
Cutlass
FET
0.013
0.0022
0.168
10.7
Gasoline
Rabbit
1975 FTP
0.0839
0.0569
2.674
21.4
Diesel
FTP Cold
0.1540
0.1030
4.914
20.2
FTP Hot
0.0310
0.0221
0.985
22.3
SET
0.0865
0.0403
1.540
15.4
FET
0.1170
0.0406
1.512
13.0
Rabbit
FTP Hot
0.0053
0.0024
0.168
42.3
Gasoline'a'
BaP values
are considered conservative and should be
used
with caution due to inadequacies of sampling method.
201
-------
baf is present in gasoline engine exhaust and can be collected by methods
developed earlier.(&8<69) The intent of this effort was to obtain data on
both types of cars by the same method, and the methods used by Exxon were beyond
the scope of the effort. Thus, it may be concluded that the relatively simple
and rapid dilution tunnel filter method for collecting BaP and presumably other
polynuclear aromatic compounds has not yet been refined enough to be used
routinely for gasoline engine exhaust. Suitable filter media will have to be
developed.
Of some interest in Table 75 is the percent organic solubles in the
particulate. The values for the two Diesels ranged fr 12 to 22 percent,
indicating a relatively dry exhaust particulate, free -rem excessive unburned
fuel, oil, and aerosol-like matter that can (with some designs of Diesels)
increase the organic soluble fraction up to as. high as 50 percent.
Presumably, the remainder of the particulate is inorganic in nature and is
carbonaceous or some metallic compound.
K. Noise
Table 76 is a summary of the sound level measurements. The SAE driveby
exterior ratings show the Diesel Cutlass to be 6 dBA higher than the gasoline-
powered Cutlass, while the Volkswagen Rabbit had the same dBA measurement for
both powerplants. Interior measurements were slightly higher with the Diesel
for both makes during the SAE acceleration.
The exterior driveby at a constant 48.3 km/hr (30 mph) showed slightly
higher noise (exterior and interior) for the experimental Cutlass, while the
opposite trend was found for the gasoline Rabbit. Idle noise levels were
noticeably higher with the Diesel Cutlass and only slightly higher with the
Diesel Rabbit. Tables F-24 through F-27 are the detailed sound level measure-
ments from which the summary data on Table 76 are derived.
L. Performance
Table 77 is a listing of the wide-open throttle maximum acceleration
times for the four cars. The acceleration performance of the Rabbit powered
by the Diesel engine was poorer than that of its gasoline counterpart. The
times to accelerate from 0 to 64.6, from 0 to 96.5, and from 32.2 to 96.5
km/hr were increased by 20 to 27 percent with the lower powered Diesel engine
in the Rabbit. The Cutlass suffered less acceleration penalty with the
Diesel, namely, 7 to 11 percent. Note that the comparison was between the
260 CID V-8 gasoline-powered Cutlass and the experimental 350 CID V-8 Diesel
Cutlass. Using the smaller gasoline engine option for the Cutlass is probably
the reason the increase in acceleration times was no greater than about 10
percent.
202
-------
TABLE 76. SUMMARY OF SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS - dBA SCALE
Cutlass Rabbit
Gasoline Diesel Gasoline Diesel
SAE J986a
Accel Driveby
Exterior 68.8(c) 73.8(c) 71.0 71.5
Interior
Blower On*5 73.2(c) 74.2(c) 78.2 80.0
Off 68.8(c) 70.5(c) 76.5 79
48.3 km/hr Driveby
Exterior 58.8 61.2 60.5 58.5
Interior
Blower On 71.5 72.2 73.5 71.8
Off 60.5 64.0 70.5 68.0
Engine Idle
Exterior64.5 70.0 65.0(d) 67.0
72.5(e)
Interior
Blower On(a) 71.5 71.0 69.5 69.5
Off 48.5 51.5 58.0 62.5
windows up, fresh air blower on high
(b> at 3.05 m
accel in first gear
electric, radiator, cooling fan off
electric, radiator, cooling fan on
203
-------
TABLE 77. AVERAGE ACCELERATION TIMES
FOR DIESEL- AND GASOLINE-POWERED PASSENGER CARS
0-64.4 km/hr(a> 0-96.5 km/hr(b> 32.2-96.5 km/hr(c)
Vehicle time, sec time, sec time, sec
Rabbit Diesel 7.58 15.80 12.83
Rabbit Gasoline 6.33 12.48 10.45
Increase, %(d) 19.7 26.6 22.8
Cutlass Diesel 8.98 17.70 14.53
Cutlass Gasoline 8.08 16.13 13.53
Increase, %{d) 11.1 9.7 7.4
0-40 mph
J ' 0-60 mph
20-60 mph
Diesel time - gasoline time „
— r-*— X 100%
Diesel time
204
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Odor and Smoke - Part I," Final Report to the U. S. Public
Health Service, Contract 86-66-93, March 1967.
2. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "An Investigation of
Diesel Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke," National Petroleum
Refiners Association, FL 66-46 presented at the Fuels and Lub-
ricants Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1966.
3. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Odor and Smoke, Part II," Final Report, No. AR-644, Contract
PH-86-67-72, February 1968.
4. Stahman, Ralph C., Kittredge, George, and Springer, Karl J.,
"Smoke and Odor Control for Diesel-Powered Trucks and Buses,"
SAE Paper No. 680443, Mid-Year Meeting, Detroit, Michigan,
May 20-24, 1968. Also SAE Transactions.
5. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Odor and Smoke - Part III," Final Report to the U. S. Public
Health Service, Contract PH 22-68-23, October 1969.
6. Springer, Karl J. and Dietzmann, Harry E., "An Investigation
of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke - Part IV," Final
Report to the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract PH 22-
68-23, April 1971.
7. Springer, Karl J. and Hare, Charles T., "Four Years of Diesel
Odor and Smoke Control Technology Evaluations - A Summary,"
ASHE Paper No. 69-WA/APC-3, November 1969.
8. Dietzmann, Harry E., Springer, Karl J., and Stahman, Ralph C.,
"Diesel Emissions as Predictors of Observed Diesel Odor," SAE
Paper No. 720757, September 1972. Also SAE Transactions.
9. Springer, Karl J. and Dietzmann, Harry E., "Diesel Exhaust Hydro-
carbon Measurement - A Flame Ionization Method," SAE Paper No.
700106, January 1970.
10. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Emissions - Part V," Final Report AR-936 to Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Contract PH 22-68-23, April 1974.
11. Springer, Karl J., and Stahman, Ralph C., "Control of Diesel
Exhaust Odors," Paper 26 presented at New York Academy of
Sciences Conference on Odors: Evaluation, Utilization and Con-
trol, New York, October 1-3, 1973.
205
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.)
12. Springer, Karl J., "Field Demonstration of General Motors Environ-
mental Improvement Proposal (EIP! - a Retrofit Kit for GMC City
Buses," Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. PH 22-68-23, December 1972.
13. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Diesel Emission Control
Through Retrofits," SAE Paper 750205 presented at Automotive
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 24-28, 1975.
14. Springer, Karl J., "Emissions from Diesel and Stratified Charge
Powered Cars," Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. PH 22-68-23, EPA Report No. EPA-460/3-75-001-a,
December 1974.
15. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Emissions and Economy
of Four Diesel Cars," SAE Paper 750332 presented at Automotive
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 24-28, 1975.
16. Springer, Karl J., "Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Emissions -
Part VII," Final Report EPA-460/3-76-034 to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2116, February 1977.
17. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Diesel Car Emissions -
Emphasis on Particulate and Sulfate," SAE Paper No. 770254 presented
at SAE International Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition,
Detroit, February 28 - March 4, 1977.
18. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Unregulated Emissions from
Diesels used in Trucks and Buses," SAE Paper No. 770258 presented
at the International Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition,
Detroit, February 28 - March 4, 1977.
19. Springer, Karl J., "Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Emission:
VIII. Removal of Exhaust Particulate from Mercedes 300D Diesel Car."
Final Report EPA-460/3-77-007 to the Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. 68-03-2116, June 1977.
20. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "Removal of Exhaust Par-
ticulate from a Mercedes 300D Diesel Car," SAE Paper No. 770716
presented at the Off-Highway Vehicle Meeting & Exhibition, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, September 12-15-, 1977.
21. Springer, Karl J., "Emissions from a Gasoline- and Diesel-Powered
Mercedes 220 Passenger Car," Report No. AR-813, Contract No. CPA
70-44, June 1971.
206
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.)
22. Springer, Karl J. and Ashby, H. Anthony, "The Low Emission Car for
1975 - Enter the Diesel," Paper No. 739133, Intersociety Energy
Conversion Engineering Conference, August 1973.
23. Springer, Karl J. and Hare, Charles T., "A Field Survey to Determine
Public Opinion of Diesel Engine Exhaust Odor," Final Report to the
National Air Pollution Control Administration under Contract PH 22-
68-36, February 1970.
24. Hare, Charles T. and Springer, Karl J., "Public Response to Diesel
Engine Exhaust Odors," Final Report to the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency under Contract No. CPA 70-44, April 1971.
25. Hare, Charles T., Springer, Karl J., Somers, Joseph H,, and Huls,
Thomas A., "Public Opinion of Diesel Odor," SAE Paper No. 740214,
presented at the Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, Michigan,
February 25 - March 1, 1974.
26. "Guide to Reduction of Smoke and Odor from Diesel-Powered Vehicles,"
Office of Air Programs Publications No. AP-81, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, September 1971.
27. Springer, Karl J. and Ludwig, Allen C., "Documentation of the Guide
to Good Practice for Minimum Odor and Smoke from Diesel-Powered
Vehicles," Final Report prepared under Contract No. CPA 22-69-71,
November 1969.
28. Springer, Karl J., White, John T,, and Domke, Charles J., "Emissions
from Xn-Use 1970-1971 Diesel-Powered Trucks and Buses, SAE Paper
741006 presented at Automobile Engineering Meeting, Toronto, Canada,
October 21-25, 1974.
29. Kennedy, Gordon J., White, John T., Springer, Karl J., and Ingalls,
Melvin N., "Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Trucks Tested on a
Road Course and by Dynamometer," SAE Paper 750901 presented at
the Automobile Engineering Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, October 13-17,
1975.
30. Hare, Charles T. and Springer, Karl J., "Exhaust Emis-ions from Un-
controlled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion
Engines," Final Report Part V (Heavy Duty Farm, Construction, and
Industrial Engines) to the Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. EHS 70-108, EPA Report No. APTD-1494, October 1973.
31. Hare, Charles T., Springer, Karl J., and Bradow, Ronald L., "Fuel
and Additive Effects on Diesel Particulate Emissions - Development
and Demonstration of Methodology," SAE Paper No. 760130 presented
at the 1976 Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Feb-
ruary 23-27, 1976, Detroit, Michigan.
207
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.)
32. Hare, Charles T. and Montalvo, Daniel A., "Diesel Crankcase Emissions
Characterization," Final Report Task 4 prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2196, May 1977.
33. Hare, Charles T. and Baines, Thomas M., "Characterization of Diesel
Crankcase Emissions," SAE Paper No. 770719 presented at the Off-High-
way Vehicle Meeting & Exhibition, September 12-15, 1977.
34. Hare, Charles T. and Bradow, Ronald L., "Light-Duty Diesel Emission
Correction Factors for Ambient Conditions," SAE Paper No. 770717
presented at the Off-Highway Vehicle Heating & Exhibition, September
12-15, 1977.
35. Hare, Charles T., "Characterization of Diesel Gaseous and Particulate
Emissions," Final Report Tasks 1, 2, 4, and 6 prepared for the En-
vironmental Protection Agency under Contract No, 68-02-1777, Septem-
ber 1977. DRAFT ONLY.
36. Springer, Karl J.» and Baines, Thomas M., "Emissions from Diesel
Versions of Production Passenger Cars,"SAE Paper No. 770818 presented
at the Passenger Car Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, September 26-30, 1977.
37. Wadman, Bruce, "Automobile Diesel Development Progress . . . VW's
50 HP 1.5 Litre Diesel," Diesel and Gas Turbine Progress, December,
1976, pg. 10, 11.
38. Shanks, Andrew, "Diesel Golf," Autocar, September 25, 1976, pg. 25,26.
39. "Volkswagen Develops a Diesel," Automotive Engineering, Vol. 85,
Number 6, June 1977, pg. 62-68.
40. Simanaitis, Dennis J., "Oldsmobile Opts for Diesel Power," Automo-
tive Engineering, November 1977, pg. 24.
41. Schulz, Bob, "A 'Master' Plan at Stanadyne"s Hartford Division . . .
Fuel Injection System Products Meet Market Demand," Diesel and Gas
Turbine Progress, January 1978, pg. 18, 19.
42. Bureau of Mines Petroleum Products Survey No. 82 titled "Diesel Fuel
Oils, 1973" and dated November 1973.
43. Shelton, E. M., "Diesel Fuel Oils, 1976," Technical Information
Center, Energy Research and Development Administration, BERC/PPS-76/5,
November 1976.
44. Hare, Charles T., "Characterization of Gaseous and Particulate Emis-
sions from Light-Duty Diesels Operated on Various Fuels," Final Re-
port prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
No. 68-03-2440, April 1978. DRAFT ONLY.
208
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.)
32. Hare, Charles T. and Montalvo, Daniel A., "Diesel Crankcase Emissions
Characterization," Final Report Task 4 prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2196, May 1977.
33. Hare, Charles T. and Baines, Thomas M., "Characterization of Diesel
Crankcase Emissions," SAE Paper No. 770719 presented at the Off-High-
way Vehicle Meeting & Exhibition, September 12-15, 1977.
34. Hare, Charles T. and Bradow, Ronald L., "Light-Duty Diesel Emission
Correction Factors for Ambient Conditions," SAE Paper No. 770717
presented at the Off-Highway Vehicle Heating & Exhibition, September
12-15, 1977.
35. Hare, Charles T., "Characterization of Diesel Gaseous and Particulate
Emissions," Final Report Tasks 1, 2, 4, and 6 prepared for the En-
vironmental Protection Agency under Contract No, 68-02-1777, Septem-
ber 1977. DRAFT ONLY.
36. Springer, Karl J.» and Baines, Thomas M., "Emissions from Diesel
Versions of Production Passenger Cars,"SAE Paper No. 770818 presented
at the Passenger Car Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, September 26-30, 1977.
37. Wadman, Bruce, "Automobile Diesel Development Progress . . . VW's
50 HP 1.5 Litre Diesel," Diesel and Gas Turbine Progress, December,
1976, pg. 10, 11.
38. Shanks, Andrew, "Diesel Golf," Autocar, September 25, 1976, pg. 25,26.
39. "Volkswagen Develops a Diesel," Automotive Engineering, Vol. 85,
Number 6, June 1977, pg. 62-68.
40. Simanaitis, Dennis J., "Oldsmobile Opts for Diesel Power," Automo-
tive Engineering, November 1977, pg. 24.
41. Schulz, Bob, "A 'Master' Plan at Stanadyne"s Hartford Division . . .
Fuel Injection System Products Meet Market Demand," Diesel and Gas
Turbine Progress, January 1978, pg. 18, 19.
42. Bureau of Mines Petroleum Products Survey No. 82 titled "Diesel Fuel
Oils, 1973" and dated November 1973.
43. Shelton, E. M., "Diesel Fuel Oils, 1976," Technical Information
Center, Energy Research and Development Administration, BERC/PPS-76/5,
November 1976.
44. Hare, Charles T., "Characterization of Gaseous and Particulate Emis-
sions from Light-Duty Diesels Operated on Various Fuels," Final Re-
port prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
No. 68-03-2440, April 1978. DRAFT ONLY.
208
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.)
45. Urban, Charles M.f Springer, Karl J., and Montalvo, Daniel A.,
"Emissions Control Technology Assessment of Heavy Duty Vehicle
Engines," Final Report prepared for the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, EPA-460/3-74-007, under Contract No. 68-01-0472,
December 1973.
46. Springer, Karl J., "Baseline Characterization and Emissions Con-
trol Technology Assessment of HD Gasoline Engines," Final Report
prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, AR-844, under
Contract No. EHS 70-110, November 1972.
47. Urban, Charles M., "Heavy Duty Fuel Economy Program Phase II
Evaluation of Emission Control Technology Approaches," Final
Report prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-
460/3-7-010, under Contract No. 68-03-2220, July 1977.
48. "Survey of Truck and Bus Operating Modes in Several Citi ;s,"
Report No. GR 63-24, June 1963.
49. Bascom, R. C. and Hass, G. C., "A Status Report on the Develop-
ment of the 1973 California Diesel Emissions Standards," SAE
Paper No. 700671, National West Coast Meeting, Los Angeles,
August 24-27, 1970.
50. Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 40, February 27, 1971.
51. Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 151, Part III, August 7, 1973.
52. Somers, J. H., "Automotive Sulfate Emission - A Baseline Study,"
SAE Paper No. 770166, February 1977.
53. "Fuel Economy Regulations and Test Procedures for 1977 and Later
Model Automobiles," Federal Register, Vol. 41,No. 100, May 21,
1976.
54. Federal Register, Vol. 33, No. 108, June 4, 1968.
55. Turk, Amos, "Selection and Training of Judges for Sensory Evalu-
ation of the Intensity and Character of Diesel Exhaust Odors,"
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service, 1967.
56. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine
Exhaust, Final Report under CRC Project CAPE-7-68, HEW Contract
PH 22-68-20, July 1969.
57. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine
Exhaust, Final Report under CRC Project CAPE-7-68, HEW Contract
No. CPA 22-69-63, June 1970.
209
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.)
58. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine
Exhaust, Final Report under CKC Project CAPE-7-68, EPA Contract
No. EHSD 71-18, June 1971.
59. Analysis of the Odorous Compounds in Diesel Engine Exhaust, Final
Report under CRC Project CAPE 7-68, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0087,
June 1972.
60. Levins, P. L. and Kendall, D. A., "Application of Odor Technology
to Mobile Source Emission Instrumentation," CRC Project CAPE-7-68,
Contract No. 68-02-0561, September 1973.
61. Black, F. M., High, L. E. and Sigsby, J. E., "Methodology for As-
signment of a HyJrocarbon Photochemical Reactivity Index for Emis-
sions from Mobile Sources," Final Report to the Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Report No. EPA-650/2-75-025, March 1975.
62. Sawicki, E., Corey, R. C., and Dooley, A. E., :Health Lab Sci.
(Suppl. 1), 56-59, 1970.
63. New Benzo-a-Pyrene Analytical Method, source: Dr. Robert Jungers,
EPA Research Triangle Park Laboratories, in: Contract No. 68-02-
1777, Tasks 1, 2, 4 and 6. Appendix B, Septembt- 1977.
64. Voss, J. R. and Vanderpoel, R. E., "The Shuttle stributor for a
Diesel Fuel Injection Pump." Paper 770083 presen ed at SAE
Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, February 28 - March 4, 1977.
65. "1977 Gas Mileage Guide," Federal Energy Administration, Environmental
Protection Agency, FEA/D-76/378, September 1976.
66. Ingalls, M. N. and Springer, K. J-, "Measurement of Sulfate and Sulfur
Dioxide in Automotive Exhaust." Final Report EPA-460/3-76-015 to
the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2118,
August 1976.
67. Irish, D. C. and Stefan, R. J., "Vehicle Sulfuric Acid Level Characteri-
zation." Paper 760037 presented at SAE Automotive Engineering
Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 23-27, 1976.
68. Gross, G. P., "The Effect of Fuel and Vehicle Variab)es on Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Phenol Emissions." Paper 720210 presented
at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, January 10-14, 1972.
69. Gross, G. P., "Automotive Emissions of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons."
Paper 740564 presented at SAE National Combined Farm, Contstruction &
Industrial Machinery and Fuels and Lubricants Meetings, Milwaukee,
September 10-13, 1973.
210
-------
APPENDIX A
EXPERIMENTAL 23-MODE TEST PROCEDURE
FOR ENGINES IN HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES
-------
5 85.100
are weighted and used to calculate the grams of
each pollutant emitted per brake horsepower hour.
(d) When an engine is tested for exhaust emissions or
is operated for durability testing on an engine
dynamotjeter, the complete engine shall be used
with all standard accessories which might reasona-
bly be expected to influence emissions to the
atmosphere installed and functioning.
A- 2
-------
5 85.101 Fuel Specifications
"(a) For exhaust emission testing of gasoline fueled engines,
fuel having specifications as shown in the table in
5 85.71(a), or substantially equivalent specifications
approved by the Administrator shall be used,
(b) For durability testing of gasoline fueled engines, fuel
hiving specifications as shown in the table in § 85.71(b),
or substantially equivalent specifications approved by
the Administrator, shall be used. The octane rating of
the fuel used shall be in the range recommended by the
engine manufacturer. The specifications of the fuel to
be used shall be reported in accordance with < R5. R1 (h) f .**}
(c) For exhaust emission testing of engines which use diesel
fuels, fuel having specifications as shown in the table
-i I 85.121(b), or substantially equivalent specification:
approved by the Administrator shall be used.
(d) For durability testing of engines which use diesel fuels,
fuel having specifications as shown in the table in
S 85.121(c), or substantially equivalent specifications
approved by the Administrator,' shall be used. The octane
rating of the fuel used shall be in the range recommended
by the engine manufacturer. The specifications of the
fuel to be used shall be reported in accordance with
I 85.51(b)(3).
A- 3
-------
5 85.102 Dynamometer Operation Cycle
•(a)(1) The following twenty three mode cycle shall be
used in dynamometer operation tests of heavy
duty engines.
MODE ENGINE PERCENT WEIGHTING
NO. SPEED* LOAD FACTOR
1 Idle 0 7
¦2 Intermediate 2 6.0
3 " 8 6.0
4 " 18 5.0
5 " 25 3.0
6 " 50 6.0
7 ,l 75 0
8 " 82 4.0
9 " 9 2 0
10 " 100 0
11 Idle 0 s—(r 7
12 Intermediate C.T. 12
13 High 100 2.5
14 " 92 5.5
15 " 82 3.5
16 " 75 6.0
17 " 50 6.0
IS " 25 0
19 " " .18 6. S
20 " 8 0
21 " 2 0
A- 4
-------
) 53. J. U £
mode engine prrcent weighting
NO, SPEED* LOAD FACTOR
22 Idle 0 &
23 High C.T. 6
* Engine Speed Definition:
Engine Type
SpaTk Ignition Compression Ignition
MHiMRPVMMMMWWariKMIMWMMMVPMII
Intermediate 1200 rpm Peak torque speed or
60% of rated, whichever
is higher.
High 2300 rpm Rated speed
(2) For each mode the engine dynamometer shall be
operated at a constant speed within ± 50 r.p.m. of
the specified speed and at the specified torque
within ± 2 percent of maximum torque at that speed.
For example, the torque for mode six (6) shall be
between 48 and 52 percent of maximum torque.measured
at the intermediate test speed.
(b) The following equipment shall be used for emission
testing of engines on engine dynamometers.
(1) An engine dynamometer with adequate characteristics
to perform the test cycle described in 5 85.102(a)
(2) An engine cooling system having sufficient capacity
A-5
-------
5 85.102
to maintain the engine at normal operating
temperatures during conduct of the prescribed
engine tests.
(3) A chassis-type exhaust system or substantially
equivalent exhaust system.
A- 6
-------
S 8S.104 Sampling and Analytical Systems for Measuring
Exhaust Emissions
(a) Two separate sampling and analytical systems are
used for emission testing under the regn.1 ations in
this pait. One system is used for the detenu, tation
of hydrocarbon concentrations. The other system is
used for the determination of the concentrations of
nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide.
The system used foi determining hydrocarbon concen-
trations includes a heated sampling line and a heated
flame ionization detector analyzer (FID). When emission
tests involve gasoline fueled cr.gir.es, the sssplc line
and analyzer are maintained at a temperature of 160*F
± 5° F to prevent the water vapor in the sample stream
from condensing out and collecting in the system. When
emission tests involve engines which use diesel type
fuels, the temperature is maintained at 350° F ± 10°F
to inhibit the accumulation of the lighter weight
hydrocarbons in the system as a result of condensation
and adsorption effects. Means" are provided for purging
the system with air when measurements are not being made.
The system used for determining the concentrations of the
other pollutants includes:
(1) a water concending trap which is maintained at
36° F t 4 °F ,
A-7
-------
S 8S.104 Sampling and Analytical Systems for Measuring
Exhaust Emissions
(a) Two separate sampling and analytical systems are
used for emission testing under the regn.1 ations in
this pait. One system is used for the detenu, tation
of hydrocarbon concentrations. The other system is
used for the determination of the concentrations of
nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide.
The system used foi determining hydrocarbon concen-
trations includes a heated sampling line and a heated
flame ionization detector analyzer (FID). When emission
tests involve gasoline fueled cr.gir.es, the sssplc line
and analyzer are maintained at a temperature of 160*F
± 5° F to prevent the water vapor in the sample stream
from condensing out and collecting in the system. When
emission tests involve engines which use diesel type
fuels, the temperature is maintained at 350° F ± 10°F
to inhibit the accumulation of the lighter weight
hydrocarbons in the system as a result of condensation
and adsorption effects. Means" are provided for purging
the system with air when measurements are not being made.
The system used for determining the concentrations of the
other pollutants includes:
(1) a water concending trap which is maintained at
36° F t 4 °F ,
A-7
-------
104
(2) a chenilurainescence (CL) NO analyzer,
(3) a nondispersive infrared (N'DIR) CO analyzer and,
(4) a nondispersive (NDIR) CO2 analyzer.
A converter is used upstream of the chemiluminescence
analyzer to convert any NO2 in the sample stream to NO.
A bypass system is provided to permit the periodic
checking of the converter efficiency. Means are pro-
vided for back flushing the cooling coil and sample
line and for introducing air or NO and O2 mixtures
(for converter efficiency testing) into the analytical
system.
Other types of analyzers may be used if they yield
equivalent results and if they are approved by the
Administrator.
Schematic drawing. The following (Fig. 6} is a
schematic drawing of the exhaust gas sampling and
analytical system which shall be used for testing
under the regulations in this subpart.
Component description. The following components will
be used in the exhaust gas analytical system for testing
under the regulations of this part.
(1) Flowmeters (FL1, FL2, and FL3) to indicate the
sample flow rate through the analyzers.
(2) Analyzers to determine hydrocarbon, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitric oxide
concentrations.
-------
S 85.104
(3) A converter to convert any N02 present in the
samples to NO.before analysis.
(4) Flow control valves (HI, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6,
N 7, N8, N9, N1 0 , Nil, N13, and N14) to regulate
the gas flow rates,
(5) Recorders (Rl, R2, R3, and R4) or digital printers
to provide permanent records of calibration, spanning,
and sample measurements. In those facilities where
computerized data acquisition systems are incor-
porated, the computer facilities printout may be
used.
(6) Manifold (Ml) to collect the expelled gases
from analyzers.
(?) Pump (P2) to transfer expelled gases from the
collection manifold to a vent external to the
test room (optional).
(8) Selector valve (V8) to direct purge air through
the HC analytical system.
(9) Selector valves (VI, V2, V5, V6) to direct
sanples, span gases, or zeroing gas to the
analyzers.
(10) Selector valves (V3 and V4) to allow the
sample, span, calibrating, or zeroing gases
to bypass the converter.
A-9
-------
I 85. 104
(11) Pur.p (!' 1) to transfer samples from sample
probe to analyzers.
(12) Filters (HI and F2) to remove particulate
matter.
(13) Selector valve (V9) to direct NO/O2 mixtures 1
the converter for efficiency checks.
(14) Selector valve (V7) to backflush cooling coi1
with air.
(15) Cooling Coil (CI) to condense water vapor
from sample.
(16) Refrigerated water bath to maintain cooling
coil at 32 -
(17) Thermometer for indicating bath temperature.
(18) Valve (N12) to drain water from cooling coil.
(19) Sample probes U extract exhaust gas sample
downstream of muffler.
A-10
-------
§ 85.105 Information
The following infornation shall be recorded:
(a) General
(1) Test number
(2) Date and time of day
(3) Instmraent operator
(4) Engine operator
(5) Engine Identification - Date of manufacture -
Number of hours of operation accumulated on
engine - Epgine family - engine displacement -
timing - maximum observed torque at specified
test engine speeds - idle r.p.ro,
(6) All pertinent instrumentation information such
as model name and serial numbers.
(7) Recorder charts. Identify zero traces -
Calibration or span traces for each test mode -
Start and finish of each test.
(8) Ambient temperature in dynamometer testing room.
(9) Engine intake, air temperature, and humidity.
(10) Barometric pressure.,
(11) Observed entitle torque for each mode.
(12) Other data as required by the Administrator.
(b) Spark ignition engines
(1) Number of carburetors and number of carburetor
Venturis or fuel injection system types.
ft-11
-------
(2) Advertised horsepower.
(3) Fuel consumption in gms/hr during each mo
Compression ignition engines
(1) Advertised rated and peak torque speeds.
(2) Exhaust pipe diameter.
(3) Exhaust system back pressure.
(4) Air aspiration system type.
(5) Air inlet rest riction.
(6) Fuel injection system.
(7) Exhaust flow in c.f.m., or intake air
flow in c.f.m. and fuel consumption in
pounds per hour, for each mode.
A-12
-------
106 Calibration and Instrument Checks
Calibrate the analytical assembly at least once every
30 days. Use the same flow rate as when analyzing
samples•
(1) Adjust analyzers to optimize performance.
(2) Zero the hydrocarbon analyzer with zero grade air
and the carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and oxides
of nitrogen analyzers with zero grade nitrogen.
The allowable zero gas impurity concentrations
should not exceed 1 p.p.m. equivalent carbon
response, 1 p.p.m. carbon monoxide, 300 p.p.m.
(0.03 mole percent) carbon dioxide, and 0.1 p.p.m.
nitric oxide.
(3) Set the CO and C02 analyzer gains to give the
desired ranges. Select the desired attenuation
scale of the HC analyzer and set the capillary flow
rate by adjusting the back pressure regulator, to
give the desired range. Select the desired scale
of the N0X analyzer and adjust the phototube high
voltage supply to give the desired range.
(4) Calibrate the HC analyzer with propane (air diluent)
gases having nominal concentrations equal to 50 and
100 percent of full scale. Calibrate the CO
analyzer with carbon monoxide (nitrogen diluent) gas£
and the C02 analyzer with carbon dioxide (nitrogen
diluent) gases having nominal concentrations equal
to 10, 25, 40, 50, 60, 70, 85, and 100 percent of fu*
scale. Calibrate the N0X analyzer with nitric oxide
a-13
-------
(nitrogen diluent) gases having nominal con-
centrations equal to 50 and 100 percent of full
scale. The actual concentrations should be
known to within + 2 percent of the true values.
Compare values obtained on the CO and CO2
analyzers with previous calibration curves. Any
significant change reflects some problem in the
system. Locate and correct problem, and re-
calibrate. Use best judgment in selecting curves
for data reduction.
Check the N02 to NO converter efficiency by the
following procedure:
(i) Fill a plastic bag with air (or oxygen) and
NO span gas in proportions which result in a mix
in the operating range of the analyzer. Provide
enough oxygen for substantial conversion of NO
to H02.
(ii) Knead bag and immediately connect the bag to
the inlet at valve N13. Turn selector valve
N7 as required and close valve V8. Alternately
measure the NO and N0X concentration at 1-minute
internals by alternately passing the sample thro
the converter and the bypass (close valves N6
and N9 to minimize pump down rate of bag).
After several minutes of operation, the recordin
of NO and N0X will resemble Figure lc, Section
A-14
-------
S 85.106
85.84, if the converter is efficient.
Even though the amount of N02 increases
with time, the total N0X (NO ~ NO2) remains
constant. A decay of N0X with tine indicates
the converter is not essentially 100 percent
efficient and the cause should be determined
before the instrument is used.
(iii) The converter efficiency should be checked
at least once weekly and preferably once daily
(b) HC, CO, C02, and N0X measurements: Allow a minimum
of 20 minutes warraup for the HC analyzer and 2 hours
for the CO, C02» and N0X analyzers. (Power is normally
left on infrared and chemiluminescence analyzers; but
when not in use, the chopper motors of the infrared
analyzers are turned off and the phototube high voltage
supply of the chemiluminescence analyzer is place in
the standby position.) The following sequence of
operations should be performed in conjunction with each
series of measurements;
(1) Zero the analyzers. Obtain a stable zero on each
amplifier meter and recorder. Recheck after tests.
(2) Introduce span gases and set the CO and C02
analyzer gains, the HC analyzer sample capillary
flow rate, and the N0X analyzer high voltage supply
to match the calibration curves. In order to avoid
corrections, span and calibrate at the sane flow
A-15
-------
106
rates used to analyze the test samples. Span
gases should have concentrations equal to
approximately 80 percent of full scale. If gain
has shifted significantly on the CO or CO2 analyzers,
check tuning. If necessary, check calibration.
Recheck after test. Show actual concentrations
on chart.
(3) Check zeros; repeat the procedure in subparagraphs
(1) and (2) of this paragraph if required.
(4) Check flow rates and pressures.
(5) Measure HC, CO, CO2, and N0X concentrations of
s ssp 1 ?s « roshould bg sxsrciscd *e prevent
moisture from condensing in the sample collection
bag.
(6) Check zero and span points.
For the purposes of this section, the term "zero grade
air" includes artificial "air" consisting of a blend
of nitrogen and oxygen with oxygen concentrations between
18 and 21 mole percent.
A-16
-------
i 85.107 Test Run
'ta) The temperature of the air supplied to the engine
shall be between 68°F and 86° F. The observed
barometric pressuie shall be between 28.5 inches
and 31 inches Hq. Higher air temperature or lower
barometric pressure nay be used, if desired, but no
allowance will be made for possible increased
emissions because of such conditions.
(b) The following steps shall be taken for each test:
(1) Install instrumentation and sample probes
as required.
(2) Start cooling system.
(3) Start the engine, warm it up and precondition
it by running it at the lower specified test speed
and maximum horsepower for 10 minutes or until
all temperatures and pressures have reached
equilibri um.
(4) Determine by experimentation the maximum torque
at the specified test engine speeds and calculate
the torque values for the specified test modes.
(5) Zero and span emission analyzers.
(6) Start the test sequence of § 85.102(a). Operate
the engine for ten minutes in each mode as follows:
A-17
-------
.107
Minut e
Mode Test Sequence
1st
Complete engine speed and load
changes
2nd through 7th
Pass air through sample lines
and analyzers
8th through 10th
Pass exhaust sample through the
i ines and analyzers and continui
record analyzer response.
(7) Read and record the data required for S 85.105
during the last five minutes of each test mode.
(8) Check and reset the zero and span settings of
the emission analyzers at the end of the first
CT mode (mode # 12) and at the end of the test
or more often if required. If a change of over
two percent of full scale response is observed,
make necessary adjustments to the analyzers and
repeat all test modes since the last zero and
span.
(9) Back f1ush condensate trap and replace filters
as required.
A-18
-------
1 OS Chart Reading
Locate the last sixty seconds of each mode and
determine the average chart reading for HC, CO,
C02 > and NO over the one minute period.
Determine the concentration of HC, CO, C02, and
during each mode from the average chart readings
and corresponding calibration data.
A-J.9
-------
Figure 6
Exhaust Gas Analytical System
Open to Atmosphere-
AIR
N13
Exhaust Pipe a
V8
F2
rp-zi_n
Dotted Lines - Heated
VI r
R1
:E
N2
L
HC-FID
(includes pump)
1
V? i F1
Thermometer
Refrigerated
Ice Bath
Converter
Test Gas
or Air
<» <*"»»«»«> COS
Zeroing Gas
N5
[>T<1 N'° Span ^or Calibrating) Gas
N4 1V2 N6
Zeroing Gas
"A"
BYP SS
V3
Converter'
R3
R4
C02
NDIR
CO
NDIR
*
' FL1
Ml
R2
V
V4
NO*
CL
J
FL2
FL3
V6 n8
— CO2 Span {or Calibrating) Gas
N9
Zeroing Gas
N10 To Outside Vent
-------
Office of A1r Programs
Ann Arbor, Mlchl^pn *8105
AFAE March 27,
Corrections to the Experimental Heavy-Duty Tost Procedure
Presently Utilized at Southwest Research Institute and the
Bureau of Kir.es
Dr. Jose L. Bascunams
Chief, Highway Vehicles Section, CCDB
In Section 85.102(a)(1) the v.-eightlng factors for mode numbers
1» 11, and 22 are revised to read as*follows:
Mode No, Engine Speed % Load Weighting Factors
1 Idle 0 7
11 Idle 0 7
22 Idle 0 8
In Section 85.107 paragraphs (6) and (7) are revised to read
as follows:
(6) Start the test sequence of 35.102(a). Operate the engine
for at least three minutes in each mode, conpictir.g the enqine speed
and lC2d charges during the first ninuta.
(7) if additional tire 15" required to read ar.d record the data
specified in Section 85,105, each mode may be extended to a F.axir.'jQ
of ten minutes.
In Section 85.198 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
(a) Locate the third minute of each node and determine the
average chart reading for HC, CO, C0£ and ."10 over th* one minute
period.
John Sozek
Chief, Heavy Duty Section
Procedures Developnent Uranch
AFAE::Jj:!cFadden/J2ozelc:1pm 209, 340, 3/27/79
FILE
A-21
-------
APPENDIX B
CHEMICAL - ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
-------
OXYGENATED COMPOUNDS IN AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST-GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHIC PROCEDURE
Fred Stump
1. Principles and Applicability
1. 1 This method is applicable for the characterization of oxygenated
compounds in automobile exhaust.
Aldehydes have been shown (1) to be about as photochemically reactive
as olefins. The aldehydes are believed to be contributors to eye irritation
as well as odors that are common in polluted atmospheres.
Analysis of exhaust samples from catalytic and non-catalytic cars
show that formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone/acrolein/propionaldehyde,
crotonaldehyde and benzaldehyde are consistently present in vehicle emis-
sions withiso-butyraldehyde and hexanaldehyde being intermittently observed.
With the present analytical equipment setup acetone, acrolein, and prop-
ionaldehyde have the same chromatographic relative retention time. Since
the components in this time zone are not resolved, all effluents occuring at
this retention time are calculated as acetone.
1.2 The vehicular exhaust is first diluted in a constant volume
sampler system and then a portion of this dilute exhaust is pulled through a
manifold sampling system. The sample is taken through two impingers
in series each of which contains 40 ml of absorbing reagent. The absorbing
reagent is a solution of 2, 4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine in 2N HC1. The carbonyl
compounds present in the sample stream react with the absorbing reagent
forming soluble and insoluble derivatives which are removed by filtration
and extraction techniques. These separated derivatives are then dried,
and the soluble and precipitated portions are recombined prior to analysis.
A single gas chromatographic analysis is then made to characterize the
combined sample.
2. Range and Sensitivity
The mechanics of the method (sampling volumes, extraction tech-
niques, and analytical procedure) were designed around the established
dilution (CVS) system and then set-up manifold sampler. The analytical
procedure has been shown to have a total recover/ of better than 95% when
the effluent concentrations are in the range of 0.01 to 30 parts per million.
The limits of detectability as well as the range can be easily ad-
justed to satisfy all measurement conditions that have been encountered
up to the present time.
B-2
-------
3.
Interferences
No significant interferences in the method have been detected.
4. Precision, Accuracy and Stability
4, 1 Precision
Data obtained from 5 repetitive injections of standard derivatives
in benzene has shown the maximum deviation to be 0. 8% for benzaldehyde
and a minimum deviation of 0, 3% for formaldehyde.
4. 2 Accuracy
The data obtained from a standard mix of derivatives in absorbing
reagent solution {to simulate actual sample recovery conditions) indicate
a recovery in excess of 97%.
4. 3 Stability
Data from standard mixes indicate that no significant concentration
changes occurred when the solution was left standing for a period of 5 days.
5. Apparatus
5. 1 Hardware
A. Perkin-Elmer 900 Gas Chromatograph with dual columns
and flame ionization detectors with a single differential amplifier.
B. Perkin-Elmer PEP - 1 Data Systems for peak area retention
time and area integration.
C. Electronik 19 Model Honeywell recorder for chromatographic
display.
D. Dual column 24 x 1/8 inch O. D. (0.093) stainless steel
tubing packed with 6.7% Dexsil (polycarboranesiloxane) 300 GC on Chromo-
sorb G 60/80 mesh, DMCS treated and acid washed.
E. 100 ml capacity impinger type scrubbers. Ace Glass
# 7530-07.
F. 125 ml capacity vacuum and volatile liquid flasks.
G. Calibrated rotometers capable of measuring at least
3 liters per minute.
B-3
-------
H. Three fritted glass filters porosity "D", ASTM 10-20 microns
pore size. Ace Glass Company
I. Separatory funnels 125 and 250 ml capacity.
J. Separatory funnel shaker, Wrist-Action ® type with appropriate
funnel holders.
K. Nitrogen manifold or explosion proof constant temperature
vacuum oven.
L. Volumetric dispensing flasks, wash bottles, graduated cylinders,
and 1 dram vials.
M. Ring stands, labels, holders, tubing, fittings and clamps needed
for equipment manipulation.
N. Pump, Gast Model 0211-P103A-G8C.
O. Heated manifold, See Figure 2.
6. Reagents
6. 1 Pentane, Spectroquality
6.2 2, 4-Dinitrophenytydrazine (2, 4-DNPH).
6. 2. 1 A 2N HC1 solution of reagent grade 2, 4-DNPH,
saturated at 0°C is prepared as follows:
A. To a 1 -liter volumetric flask containing about 500 ml
of distilled water, add 163 ml of concentrated HC1 and 2. 5 grams of the
2, 4-DNPH crystals.
B. Dissolve crystals using either an ultrasonic generator
bath or an automatic stirrer with a teflon coated stirring bar,
C. If reagent is not to be used immediately, store the
stoppered flask in a refrigerator as near to 0°C as possible. The storage
period should not exceed 10 days. Discard solution if crystals begin to
form before this ten day period expires.
6. 2. 2 Due to contamination present in both the pentane and
2, 4-DNPH reagents it is more expedient to obtain a background by per-
forming at least duplicate extractions on the absorbing reagent in the same
manner as samples are treated. Since the contaminants vary in concentratio
from lot to lot it will be necessary to obtain a background when new lots
or batches of reagents are introduced. These background values have been
found to be extremely vital in correcting sample concentrations.
B-4
-------
6, 3 Sodium Bicarbonate
7. Procedure
7, 1 Calibration
7. 1. I Anthracene functions as the internal standard and is
presently prepared at a concentration of 0.041580 mg/ml. The anthracene
is dissolved in spectroquality Benzene and two ml of this prepared solution
is used to dissolve the dried oxygenate derivatives prior to analysis.
7. 1,2 Response factors for the individual carbonyls are
determined from standard concentrations of pure 2, 4-DNPH derivatives
in spectroquality Benzene. The purity of the synthesized derivatives
must be checked by a melting point (2) determination before derivatives
are used to obtain the response factors. Typical response factors and
concentration repeatability for the hydrazone derivatives normally found
in exhaust are shown in Table I. The response factors for each carbonyl
is calculated from the following equation:
^ Anthracene Area mg/ml Derivative
Response Factor (F) = -=;—:— X —°-t—r-x—rr
r Derivative Area mg/ml Anthracene
7.2 Oxygenate collection and recovery
7. 2. 1 Sar.*ple Collection
A. Pipette 40 ml of reagent solution into 6 impingers.
B. The two impingers are connected in series for each
bag so that the collection efficiency can be calculated.
C. Place the assembled impingers in an ice bath.
D. Collect the samples noting the flow rate, room temp-
erature, barometric pressure and total sampling time.
E. The sample is taken through a heated manifold system
connected into the dilution system and collected under the conditions
described in the Federal Register » Volume 37, Number 221, Part II,
Wednesday, November 15, 1972, New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicles Engines.
F. The manifold collection system is electrically slaved
to the CVS dilution system so that the impinger sampling time corresponds
to Federal Cycle run times.
B-5
-------
G. Disconnect the impingers from the manifold. Partially
remove the impinger tube assembly until the stem is above the liquid and
wash any precipitates and reagent from both the internal and external
surfaces of the stem with a few milliters of distilled water. Allow the
excess water to drain from the stem and remove the impinger tube from
the absorber bottle. Let sample set at room temperature at least one hour
before proceeding to the filtration and extraction steps.
7. 2. 2 Samples containing precipitates
A. Attach the side arm of a 125 ml vacuum flask containing
a fritted glass filter to a vacuum line and apply vacuum.
B. Transfer the contents of the absorber to the fritted glass
filter assembly and rinse absorber with small portions of distilled water.
C. Wash the precipitate on the fritted filter with a few ml
of distilled water.
D. Shut off vacuum and transfer contents of vacuum flask to
a 125 ml separatory funnel. Rinse vacuum flask with small volumes of
distilled water until rinse is essentially colorless.
E. Remove filter with precipitates and put a second filter
on the flask and apply vacuum. Repeat steps B through D for each suc-
ceeding sample.
F. Dry filters under a steam of nitrogen or in a vacuum oven
at 50°C and 18" water vacuum. Set the filters with the dried precipitate
until the filtrate has been processed then proceed to step G.
G. When precipitate is dry place the filter on a dry 125 ml
vacuum flask.
H. Pour 15 ml of methylene chloride over the precipitate and
let set for approximately 30 seconds until the precipitate has dissolved.
Apply vacuum and pull the solution through the filter. Add a second 15 ml
of methylene chloride to the filter and gently swirl around to wash the
filter funnel as well as to dissolve any residual materials. Apply vacuum
to pull this second volume of methylene chloride into the vacuum flask.
I. Transfer the d. ssolved hydrazines with a 15 ml washing
of methylene chloride to the 125 ml gas tight flask, containing the dried
extract corresponding to this precipitate.
J. Repeat steps A through I for each sample containing a
precipitate.
B-fi
-------
7, 2. 3 Samples With No or Removed Precipitates
A. Transfer contents of absorber or vacuum flask to a
125 ml separatory funnel washing the absorber bottle or flask with
small volumes of distilled water.
B. To the separatory funnel containing the absorbing
reagent, add 40 ml of pentane (the background of which has been
determined). Stopper the funnel and then put it into the automatic
shaker holder. Vent the funnel. Start the shaker and let it shake
for 5 minutes,
C. Stop shaker and vent funnel. Allow the two-phase
system to separate, collecting the lower phase in a second separatory
funnel. Transfer the remaining pentane extract portion to a 250 ml
separatory funnel. Add a second 40 ml of pentane to the already once
extracted sample solution. Repeat steps B and C.
D. Repeat steps B and C a third time.
E. To the 250 ml separatory funnel containing the 120 ml
of pentane extract drain off the absorbing reagent which had been trans-
ferred with the pentane.
F. Add 25 ml of distilled water to the funnel, then approx-
imately 1/4 to 1/2 grams of sodium bicarbonate. Wash lip of funnel
free of material, put stopper in funnel and then manually shake for 30
seconds.
G. JLet phases separate and drain the wash water from
the funnel, and again add 25 ml of distilled water and repeat the snaking.
After the phases have separated, drain off the water, insuring that all
traces are removed, as the presence of water will now extend the time
required to evaporate the extract to dryness.
H. Wipe lip of funnel with a dry paper towel and transfer
the contents to a clean, dry 125 ml air tight flask. The flasks can cither
be placed in a vacuum oven at 50°C and 18 inches of water vacuum or
under a steam of dry nitrogen until the pentane has been removed and
only the dried derivatives remain.
I. Repeat steps A through H for each sample.
J. When the samples have come to dryness, remove from
oven or nitrogen steam and set aside until the precipitates have been
processed.
B-7
-------
K. After the precipitates have been dried and dissolved
in methylene chloride add this solution to the flasks containing the
dried extracted portion of the sample. This solution is then taken to
dryness under the conditions in step H above.
L. Pipette into each of the 125 ml gas tight flasks con-
taining the dried 2, 4-DNPH derivatives (extract and precipitate) 2 ml
of the Internal Standard (Anthracene in Benzene) Solution and place the
flask in a sonic bath until the residue has dissolved. Visually examine
the bottom of the flasks, by holding up to a light area, to insure that
all of the residue has completely dissolved.
M. Transfer the solution from step L to a labeled 1 dram
vial in preparation for gas chromatographic injection.
7. 3 Analysis
7. 3. 1 Optimization of Parameters
A. Prior to calibration and determination of response
factors the hydrogen, helium (carrier), and air flows must be optimized
using a standard mix in benzene. This flow-response calibration pro-
cedure can be found in most gas chromatographic books.
B. The conditions presently in use were obtained by first
optimizing the hydrogen-air flows at low, medium, and high helium
carrier rotometer settings. A number of injections were made at each
of the above conditions using different sample sizes. The best chroma-
tographic conditions, flow rates measured at detector, were found to be
at a helium flow rate of 40. 0 cc/min. , hydrogen flow rate 45. 5 cc/min.,
and air at a flow of 600 cc/min. with a sample si/.e of 15 microliters.
7.3.2 Technique
A. Condition the chromatograph column with a 15 microliter
portion of either a standard mixture or sample prior to obtaining concen-
tration data. A conditioning process should be repeated whenever samples
are not analyzed for an hour or more.
B. The injection is on-column using a 25 microliter syring
Before injection, at least 3-25 microliter portions of the sample is used
to condition the syringe. A 25 microliter portion is then taken into the
syringe and syringe laid on a clean paper towel. The chromatograph lid
is raised and a wrench is used to remove the column tee cap. The tee is
a 3-way fitting shaped the capital "T" and is situated such that the vertical
B-8
-------
section of the "T" is on the horizontal plane. A cap is placed on one aide
of the "T" top and the column of the other side. The carrier gas enters
the side arm and exits through the column side of the "T", The syringe
is then taken up and the volume adjusted from 25 to 15 microliters. The
syringe tip is wiped free of any liquid and then inserted through the "T"
into the column and the plunger firmly pushed in. The syringe is removed
and a cold cap put on the tee, tightened, and then the lid closed. When the
chromatograph responds to the benzene solvent the GC programmed start
button is pressed simultaneously with the inject data systems interface
initiator. The syringe is then washed several times with clean benzene
in preparation for the next injection.
C. The GC temperature is programmed from 130°C to
300°C at a rate of 6°C per minute. Injection block temperature is 240°C
and the manifold temperature held at 300°C.
D. See Figure I for a typical exhaust chromatogram of a
non-catalytic automobile.
8. Calibrations
8. 1 Absorber Inefficiency-Series Impingers
8. 1. 1 Using a Programmable Calculator
Corrections for absorber inefficiency for an infinite number
of absorbers is based on the material balance concept. This method
for determining the total concentration of carbonyl compounds using two
absorbers in series has been verified within experimental error using
a multiple impinger train.
These calculations are essential for an accurate determination
of, particularly, the acetaldehyde and acetone concentrations. The percent
of acetaldehyde passing through the first absorber is about 7. 5% of the
material present in the absorber and for acetone/a crolein/propionaldehyde
is in the order of 20% of the material in the first absorber.
Calculations for series impingers are made by using the
following equations:
First using the formula
Rn = Ao + Ai £ Ri
when Rn = Concentration in each absorber
N-l
^ Rj = sum of individual absorber concentrations
B - 9
-------
The concentrations present in the aeries absorbers are used
to d«>J«»rmim> llu- *-«ii>KiaiiI * A(, and Aj,
The constants Aq and A j are then used to calculate the total
uncorrected concentration by equation.
Cq = AQ a „ A0 „ where:
K AlVs
Ay = material removed from
sample stream by first absorbers.
Ai = material removed by second
and succeeding absorbers.
V s = sample volume
K = Constant
The value of Cq is then corrected by a background subtraction.
For example:
Since the material balance concept dictates that the quantity, of
material absorbed by each of the absorbers in a train is related, then the
linear regression equation can be used to determine the values of the slope
and intercept of any two absorbers in series. Know these two constants
for any two absorbers the total concentration can then be calculated for
the sample steam.
Example:
Absorber in train Concentration in Absorber
1st . 1600
2nd . 0800
3rd .0400
4th .0200
Data Points:
N-l
Kn (y) £Rj ( x )
. 1600 0
. 0800 .1600
.0400 .2400
. 0200 .2800
When calculated for an infinite number of absorbers.
B-10
-------
Co
.ajl
. 16
. 50
32
8. 1. 2 Alternate Method
An alternate method for doing the calculations if a programmable
calculator is not available would be run two absorbers in series and then
based on this information a per cent of the material passing through the
first impinger could be determined. This per cent could then be applied to
any number of hypothetical absorbers and then summed to give a total con-
centration.
After sufficient data has been obtained on series absorbers then
only one absorber can be run and calculations made, with confidence, to get
a total concentration.
8. 2 Carbonyl Concentration
r . . . , r „ \ ,, T r F 2 I.S. x 103
Carbonyl (ppm) = Ci X v X X —WX
PoV0
C J = Co corrected for background
Vs = Sample volume in liter
Tr = Room temperature, 0 K
Pr = Room pressure, mm Mercury
F - Response factor for individual carbonyl
MW = Molecular weight of carbonyl derivative
1, S. = Internal Standard Concentration, mg/ml
T0 - Temperature at Standard Conditions
PD = Pressure at Standard Conditions
VQ = Volume at Standard Conditions
B-ll
-------
TABLE 1. STANDARD MIXTURE OF 2,4-DNPri DERIVATIVES FOB TfiE
CALIBRATION OF THE CHROMATOGRAPHIC SYSTEM
2,4-DNPH
Derivative
Number of
Dete rminations
Concent ration
mg/ ml
Ratio
Anthracene to
2,4-DNPH
X Standard
Deviation
F-Factor
Formaldehyde 5
Acetaldehyue 5
Acetone 5
Iso-Butyraldehyde 5
C rotonaldehyde 5
Hexanaldehyde 5
Benzaldehyde 5
0. 098%
0. 10395
0.08040
0.02840
0.04487
0.01497
0.06550
1.0851
0.9181
1.0498
2.9385
2.0720
5.3590
1. 3593
0.0032
0.0028
0.0049
0.0127
0.0096
0.0144
0.0104
2.5293
2.2481
1.9926
1.9653
2.1902
1.8898
2,0972
B-12
-------
Procedure Used by SFRE for BaP Analysis
The analytical procedure used for this work followed
that described by Sawicki et at. (Healtn Lab. Sci. 7 (1)
Suppl., Jan., 1970) with some minor irodifications. In
general, the procedure is as follows:
1. Prewash Soxhlet equipment by refluxing benzene for
1 hour
2. Extract filter by Soxhlet method with benzene (dis-
tilled in glass) for 4 hours. (3" x 10" filter di-
vided into measured sections of 4" x 5" to facili-
tate extraction process. Each filter portion was
placed in a separate Soxhlet apparatus and the ex-
tracts combined after completion of the process).
3. Evaporate the solvent to a few ml volume and quan-
titatively transfer to a preweighed vial (this step
allows separation of filter fiber residue from the
sample). Evaporate the solvent and reweigh the vial
to determine the weight of extractable material.
4. Add exactly 1 ml of solvent to the vial and redis-
solve the residue.
5. Spot j.0 yl of this solution on a thin layer plate
(alumina or silica qel) and develop with 19:1 hexane
ether.
6. Scrape the plate in the region where the BxP sepa-
rates using a high concentration marker as a guide,
7. Dissolve the adsorbed material and quantitatively
filter to remove the insoluble particles.
8. Evaporate the filtrate to dryness and add 1 ml f^SG^
9. Read the fluorescence intensity with excitation at
470 nm and emission at 540 nm.
10. Known quantities of B»P spotted on TLC and extracted
were used as comparison standards.
B-l 3
-------
NEW BF-NZ a PYRENE ANALYTICAL METHOD
(Copy of report reference 63)
Equipment and Apparatus
A. Fluorescence Spectrophotometer (Perkin-Elmer Model MFP-3) with the
Thin Layer Plate Scanning Attachment
B. Digital Integrator (Perkin-Elmer Model 048)
C. Recorder (Hitachi Model QPD-33)
D. Kudna Danish Concentrator, 10 ml concentrator tube with 250 ml flask
E. Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) Plates, Analtech 8" x 8" (250 n) 20%
acetylated cellulose.
F. Plate Sc -ing Apparatus, Schoffel
G. AIS TLC plate multispotter with 100 pi teflon coated blunt syringes
H. Soxhlet Extraction Apparatus, s 35 x 45.
I. Soxhlet Extraction Thimbles, Whatman Cellulose (33 x 94)
J. Filter, Kodak Yellow Chrome II
X. Hot Plate
. Chemicals
A. Cyclohexane, triple glass distilled, source: Burdick & Jackson
B. Benzene, Spectroquality, source: Fisher Scientific
C. Benzene, ACS grade, source: Fisher Scientific
D. Ethanol, Spectroquality, source: Fisher Scientific
E. Methylene Chloride, Spectroquality, soui.ee: Fisher Scientific
F. Benzo-a-Pyrene - Recrystalized three times, source: Dr. Eugene Sawiki
in EPA, ESRL/RTP.
B-14
-------
jxi. Calibration
Calibration standards of Benzo-a-Pyrene are prepared in the following
concentration sets.
SO ng BaP/50 pi cyclohexane
25 ng BaP/50 HI cyclohexane N
20 ng BaP/50 14 cyclohexane
15 ng BaP/50 pi cyclohexane
10 ng BaP/50 Ifl. cyclohexane
5 ng BaP/50 UL cyclohexane
1 ng BaP/50 PI cyclohexane
Prepare a large enough batch to make several sets and freeze. Use either
one fresh set or one thawed set daily. After one day's use, discard.
IV. Procedure
Note: For routinizing purposes we perform the analysis over a three-day
period.
A. Day No. 1
A-l. Quarterly Composites of 1" x 8" glass fiber filter strips from
an NASN site are received by the laboratory. [Five (5) to
eight (8) strips constitute a valid quarterly composite.J
A-2. Samples are coded and logged into a laboratory notebook with
all pertinent information, i.e., air volumes, site ID, year
and quarter, number of strips, date received, etc.
A-3. Filter strips are rolled into units containing no more than
three strips per unit. Up to three units may be stacked in
one soxhlet extraction thimble.
Note: The thimbles are prewashed prior to use by refluxing
for one hour in spectroquality benzene.
A-4, The composite strips are refluxed for six hours in 100 milli-
liters of cyclohexane.
A-5. Allow the soxhlet to cool, remove the extract and keep it in
the dark or under yellow light until used during the second
day.
B. Day No. 2
B-l. Place extracts in Kudna Danish Concentrators which are in a
water bath maintained at 50°C. Blow extract down to 7 ml under
a stream of dry nitrogen filtered through a molecular sieve
(5A) trap.
B-15
-------
B-2. Wash the sides of the concentrators with 10 ml fresh cyclo-
hexane. Reconcentrate to 7 ml. The volumes are carefully
brought to 10 ml with cyclohexane and the samples are trans-
ferred to 15 ml Teflon capped glass vials and stored in the
dark and under 34°F refrigeration until used during the third
day.
C. Day No. 3
C-l. Samples and calibration standards are removed from the refrig-
erator and freezer and allowed to warm to room temperature.
C-2. Using an AIS multispotter 50 Jil of the samples, standards,
blanks and spiked blanks are spotted on a TLC plate in 18 one
cm channels scored by a Schoffel plate scoring device. Spot-
ting time is approximately thirty (30) minutes.
Syringes (100 pi) with teflon blunt tips jure loaded to the 90
pi mark and the plunger moved to the 80 pi mark. The 50 pi
sample is measured from 80 pi to the 30 pi mark and the plate
is removed from the spotter.
C-3. Plates are developed in TLC tanks to the 19 cm line in a sol-
vent mixture of 100 ml ethanol and 50 ml methylene chloride.
The plates are removed and allowed to air dry prior to scan-
ning.
C-4. The plates are scanned using a Perkin-Elmer MPF-3 fluorescence
spectrophotometer for benzo-a-pyrene using an excitation wave-
length of 388 nm and read at an emission wavelength of 430 run.
The plates are then scanned at 434 nm ex and 470 nm em for an-
thanthrene.
C-5. The results are presented in both strip chart recordings and
digital integrator readings.
Note: Recovery studies based on spiked blanks show an average recovery
of 98.9 + 5%.
All work is carried out under Kodak yellow chrome light.
Limit of detection based on the standard of a peak being 2 x
the background noise is 0.1 ng.
Calculation
Where:
S = concentration of standard in nanograms
C = sample integrator counds
Cs = standard integrator counts
200 = spotting fraction, 50 pi spot from a 10 ml sample or 1/200
b- 16
-------
n ¦= number of strips used per 10 ml sample
7 = total active area, in2, of one strip
63 = total active area, in^, of a whole filter
F = air flow through filter,
(S) (C) (200)
— = nanograms BaP/n
(S)(C)(0.2) ,
— = micrograns BaP/n
(S) (0) (0.2) (63) . _ _ ....
(Cs) (n) (7) BUcr°9rams BaP/fliter
(S) (C) (1.8) .
—(Cs) = micrograms BaP/filter
U9 BaP/filter . 3
1000 x —2 nanograms BaP/H
B -1 7
-------
FOE DISCUSSION AIHJ REVIEW DULY
EOT FOE RELEASE
Determination of Soluble Sulfates: Automated Method
1. Principle and Applicability
1.1 This method is for the determination of water-
soluble sulfates from diluted automobile exhausts
collected on Fluoropore filters. The method is
quite general and may be used for trace sulfate
. -analysis of any sample from.which sulfates can be
leached out with water or aqueous alcoholic solutions.
There are interferences from some anions and methods
for minimizing or eliminating these are still being
worked out. The method as written is applicable to
sulfate analysis of exhaust emissions from cars run on
non-leaded gasoline.
< 1.2 Auto exhaust is mixed with air in a dilution tunnel and
sampled through isokinetic probes. SOg reacts with
available moisture in the exhaust to form K^SO^ aerosols
and is trapped on Fluoropore*-filters with 0.45 n pore
size. The filter is extracted with 60/40 isopropyl
alcohol/water solution (i.e. 60 ml isopropyl alcohol
(IPA) + 40 ml water). The extract is fed by a high
pressure liquid (chromatographic) pump through a
column of cation exchange resin to remove cationic
interferences and then through a column of solid
barium chloranilate where BaSO^ precipitates out.
• An eouivalent amount of reddish colored acid chlor-
1 0
anilate icn is released and is measured colori-
3 i
metrically at 310 om. To use this method for
aqueous sulfate solutions, four parts by volume of
the solution are mixed with six parts of IPA before
feeding through the columns. Manual method or a
dynamic sampling system can be used.
~Registered trade mark. Obtainable from Millipore Corp.
-------
R_-_h,-iiici F rn_2_i r i v i t"_v
Working conc-eni r.iriun rmi^o ;uhI :uun. It Lv i. t y t!rj>tfiul on
size. A sensitivity better than 0.f> SO^ per ml in
60% IPA and working range of 0 - 25 ng/ral were obtained
using a 0.5 ml external sampling loop injection system in
conjunction with a du Pont liquid chromatograph UV detector.
Sensitivity may be further increased by increasing the
alcohol content of the solvent, as this would further
decrease the solubility of BaSO, and barium chloranilate.
' 4
This, however, requires a much tighter control of the
water/IPA ratio in the sample and In the mobile phase. To
minimize spurious results arising from water imbalance, It
is reconaaended that both the extracting solvent and the
mobile phase for analytical runs be taken from the same
stock solution. Sample size as large as 1.5 ml has been
successfully used.
Interferences
Cations interfere negatively by reacting with the ocid
chloranilate to form insoluble salts. These, however, are
conveniently removed by passing the sample through a cation
exchange resin In the acid form. Some anions such as
Cl", Br", F", P0| interfere positively by precipitating
out as barium salts with subsequent release of acid
2-5
chloranilate ions. Some buffer systems are reported
to minimize anion interference. These systems are being
investigated for possible incorporation in the present
procedure. Alternative clean-up methods are also under
consideration. Fortunately, for non-leaded exhaust samples
collected on filters, ionic interference is minimal.
Interference from aromatic compounds is minimized by using
a 300 mu cut-off filter in the optical path of the detector
system.
B-19
-------
3
4. Precision. Accurrcv, and Stability
4.1 Precision
With an external sampling loop of about 1.5 ml,
photometer attenuation set to read .04 absorbance
units full scale, standard deviation of 0.05 ug
S0//tnl was obtained for a sample containing 4.0 |ig
SO^/ral.
4.2 Stability
4.2.1 Sulfuric acid standards containing 10 and
100 p.g SO^/ml in 60% IPA are stable for at
least one month when stored in tightly capped
volumetric flask which has been cleaned with
1:1 nitric acid and copiously rinsed with
deionized water. Alternative storage container:
are capped polyethylene reagent bottles.
4.2.2 The cation exchange resin and the barium
chloranilate columns as described in apparatus
section last for over two months. For samples
known to contain cations, it is advisable to
remove these cations by external treatment
with cation exchange resin prior to injection
into the sampling loop.
4.2.3 As the barium chloranilate column is depleted
each time sulfate samples are fed through, it
is good practice to run sulfuric acid standards
before and after the sample.
4.2.4 Exposure of alcoholic samples, standards, and
solvents to the atmosphere should be minimized,
since IPA solution picks up atmospheric water
on standing.
B-20
-------
AppnraCur
A schematic ot l lu* |>i ineip.il ccunponiMit .. *»I tlx- .lul uinai <•
-------
5
5.2 Principle of Operation
Solvent (607. I?A) in reservoir (LR) is continuously
fed through cation exchange (CX) and barium chloranila
columns at flow rates of about 3 ml/min. by a high
pressure liquid pump (LP). Background absorbance is
continuously measured by a UV detector (D) at 310 mix
and visually monitored in a strip chart recorder.
A solenoid actuated air operated switching valve (SV)
is used for filling the external sampling loop (L)
with samples in conjunction with an automatic sampler
(AS) and peristaltic pump (PP) and injecting thesampl
Into the columns. At CX cations are removed and at
BC, color reaction takes place. The BaSO^ precipitate
Is retained in the column while the acid chloranilate
is carried by the solvent through the detector system
for colorimetric measurement.
For an automated sampling system such as shown in
Figure 1, both SV and PP are electrically coupled to
AS by electric relays such that both are activated
whenever AS is sampling (i.e. L is being filled and
mobile phase bypasses L). At the end of the sampling
cycle, PP and AS stop and SV switches to the injection
mode (i.e. mobile phase passes through L and carries
sample through CX and BC columns).
For manual operation SV may be retained or replaced
by a similar switching valve equipped with an extended
handle for manual switching. Samples may be introduce
into the sampling loop by syringe injection or by
peristaltic pump system similar, to the one used in
the automated system.
B-22
-------
Regents
6.1 Isopropyl alcohol (TpA) spectroquality grade or
equivalent. Volatile solvent, safety class IB.
6.2 60% IPA, Add four parts water to six parts IPA
by volume. Store in tightly capped bottle.' About
three liters are needed for a 12 hour operation.
6.3 Barium chloranilate, suitable for sulfate analysis.
6.4 Dox«?ex 50l!-X2 cation exchange resin, hydrogen form,
100-200 mesh.
6.5 Hydrochloric acid (4N). Add 30 ml concentrated
hydrochloric acid to 60. ml deionized water. (Danger,
strong acid.)
6.6 Standard sulfuric acid (IN), Dilute to the mark
2.S ml of concentrated sulfuric acid with deionized
distilled water in a liter volumetric flask which
has been washed in 1:1 nitric acid and copiously
rinsed with deionized distilled water. Standardized
against accurately weighed sodium carbonate to get-
exact normality. 0.1K is equivalent to 4800
Ug/SO^/ml. (Danger, strong acid.)
6.7 Standard sulfate solution (1000 y.g S0^=*/ml). Dissolve
1.4787 gra sodium sulfate which has been heated up to
105°C for four hours and cooled in a dessicator and
dilute to 1000 ml.
Procedure
7.1 Column preparation
7.1.1 Barium chloranilate column (BC). In order to
prepare a full column with minimum dead volume
connect two lengths of standard 1/4" 0. D.
stainless steel tubings as shown in Figure 2.
b «= 2", a = 5". Connect a small funnel to
open end of B with a Tygon tubing sleeve.
-------
7
Till the funnel "half way with barium
chloranilate and use a vibrator (i.e. electric
' pencil engraver) to pack the solid in column.
Continue operation until B is about half filled,
*^=^?Remove funnel, plug empty space with glass wool,
and cap the end with a 1/4" to 1/16" reducer.
Plumb column B directly to SV in Figure 1.
Connect a Tygon tubing at A and direct tubing
to waste, reservoir. Activate liquid pump, set
flow controller at pressure drop of about 600
psi. Let solvent flow for 20 minutes. Deactivate
pump, disconnect column from SV. Disconnect
column A from column B. Connect a glass wool-
plugged 1/4" to 1/16" reducer to uncapped ena
of column A.
7.1.2 Cation exchange resin column (CX). Add cation
exchange resin, 100-200 mesh, Dowex 50W-X2
to 80 ml of 4N HC1 in a 150 ml beaker until a
wet volume equivalent to 20 ml has settled at
•the bottom. Let soak for at least three hours
with occasional stirring using a glass rod.
Decant the acid, add 100 ml deionized distilled
water, stir and slowly, decant the liquid as
soon as most of the solid has settled down at
the bottom. Repeat rinsing procedure several
times until rinse liquid gives a neutral reaction
to pH paper.
Connect two standard 1/4" 0. D. stainless
steel tubings as in 7.1.1 with b ~ 5" and
a =¦ 10". Connect a small funnel to open end
of B with Teflon or Tygon tubing sleeve.
Clamp composite tube vertically and connect .
B-24
-------
8
open end of A to v.icuua line equipped with
liquid trap. Fill funnel with deionized
distilled water and turn on vacuum slowly until
composite tube is completely filled with water.
Add water until funnel is half-filled, stop
vacuum and add slurry of freshly washed resin.
Let resin settle by gravity until resin top
Is seen above E. Turn on vacuum slowly, keep
adding resin slurry until composite tube is
completely filled. Proceed as in 7.1.1
beginning with sentence: "Remove funnel-» plug
empty space..." . "
7.2 Priming System for Analytical Run
Connect the cation exchange and barium chloranilate
columns v?ith 1/4" union packed with glass wool as
shown in Figure 1. Fill solvent reservoir (LR) with
60% IPA, activate liquid pump, detector, recorder,
switching valve, sampler, and peristaltic pump.
Allow to cycle normally to clean out all components.
For this initial operation, dip the sampling probe
In at least 100 ml of 607. IPA. Set liquid flow rate
at about 3 ml/min. Let run for at least 30 minutes.
Deactivate switching valve, sampler, and peristaltic
pump. Leave other components in operating mode.
When background is stable at attenuation of .01
absorbance units full scale, system is ready for
analysis.
7.3 Preparation of Calibration Standards #
Either sulfuric acid or sodium sulfate standards ma)*
be used.
Add 200 ml of 0.1 N H^SO^ aqueous stock solution to
300 ml 1007. IPA in 500 ml volumetric flask. (Note:
There is a volume decrease of about 2.77. when these
8-2 5
-------
9
proportions of water and IPA are mixed.) Dilute
to the mark with 60% IPA. This is equivalent to
1,920M-g S0^=/ml in 60% IPA. Prepare from this
alcoholic stock solution calibration standards in
the range 0.5 - 25 S0^= /ml by dilution of appropriate
aliquots with 60% IPA.
7.4 Extraction of Soluble Sulfates from Fluoropore Filters
"* Place filter in one 02. polyethylene bottle, add 10 ml
60% IPA and cap tightly. Shake until filter collapses
and is completely immersed in liquid. let stand
overnight.
7.5 Analysis
Set instrument in operating mode, remove sampling probe
from holder, an'd dip in 100 ml 60% IPA. Let it run .
at flow rate of 3 ml/min until stable background is
obtained, then remount sampling probe to holder.
In the meantime, fill sample cuvettes with sample
extract and blank solutions (60% IPA) and place
on turntable. Sampling pattern is blank, blank,
sample, blank, blank at .the rate of about six minutes
per sample or blank. Blanks are used to xiash out
system between samples arid minimize sample overlap.
One blank between samples is adequate for dilute samples.
(See also 5.2.)
A series of standards (see 7.3) is run, preferably
before sample runs and calibration curve, peak height
vs. concentration, is plotted. A control standard
may also be placed after every ten samples as a
quality check on the stability of the system.
The plot of peak height (detector response) vs.
concentration (p.g SQ^=/ml) is non-linear in the low
concentration end as would be expected from solubilities
and kinetics consideration. Non-linearity is also
observed at the upper end of the curve.
B- 26
-------
10
8. Calculations
Calculate the concentration of sulfate as M-g S0^»/ml
using the calibration curve. Total soluble sulfates
[SO^lp *-n filter is then given by:
[S04-]F » (ixg S0^»/m) x Vo x d
where: Vo = total volume of original sample extract
d =¦ dilution factor
Example: Suppose 10 ml 60% IPA was used to extract the
soluble sulfates in the filter and that 2 ml of this was
diluted further to 6 ml with 607. IPA to bring detector
response within calibration i^ange. Suppose that the.
concentration of the diluted sample was found to be
5 ng/ral. Then, g
[S0^M 3F - (5 Mg/ml) x 10 ml x 7 - 150 ng.
B-27
-------
10
8. Calculations
Calculate the concentration of sulfate as M-g S0^»/ml
using the calibration curve. Total soluble sulfates
[SO^lp *-n filter is then given by:
[S04-]F » (ixg S0^»/m) x Vo x d
where: Vo = total volume of original sample extract
d =¦ dilution factor
Example: Suppose 10 ml 60% IPA was used to extract the
soluble sulfates in the filter and that 2 ml of this was
diluted further to 6 ml with 607. IPA to bring detector
response within calibration i^ange. Suppose that the.
concentration of the diluted sample was found to be
5 ng/ral. Then, g
[S0^M 3F - (5 Mg/ml) x 10 ml x 7 - 150 ng.
B-27
-------
References
1. R. J. Bertolacini and J. E. Barney II, "Colorimetrie
Determination of Sulfate with Barium Chloranilate,"
Anal. Chem. 29, 281 (1957).
2. Ibid, "Ultraviolet Spectrophotometry Determination
of Sulfate, Chloride and Fluoride with Chloranilic
Acid," Anal. Chem. 30. 202 (1958).
3. H. N. S. Schafer, "An Improved Spectrojjhotometrie
Method for the Determination of Sulfate with Barium
Chloranilate as Applied to Coal Ash and Related
Materials," Anal. Chem. 39, 1719 (1967).
4. S. C. Barton and H.' G. McAdie, "An Automated Instrument
for Monitoring Ambient l^SO^ Aerosol" in Proceedings
of the Third International Clean Air Congress,
Dusseldorf, Federal Republic of Germany, 1973,
VDl-Verlag GmbH, 1973, p. C25.
5. M. E. Gales, Jr., W. H. Kaylor and J. E. Longbottom,
"Determination of Sulphate by Automatic Colorimetric
Analysis," Analyst 93, 97 (1968).
B-28
-------
FIGURE 1
FLOW. SCHEMATJCJOR AUTOMATED SULFATE J NSTRUMENTj1
RECORDER
TO WASTE
-------
FIGURE 2 :
CONFIGURATION FOR LOADING COLUMN
—
TtiT-.i¦
Sl
1/4" UNION
1/4" TO l/16h, REDUCER
GLASS WOOL
%
jii.. — **** m—mfiff fjijjjjjjj |
1 II ¦ l ¦*—wSj Ml
L
r^rJ
&
-------
APPENDIX C
EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION DATA
FOR MACK F.TAY (B) 67 3A
CATERPILLAR 3208 w/EGR
AND CHEVROIJST 366
HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES
-------
ip
¦Ztili-i— 'Ziits-z —1
'¦I 1
is I
' " 3
liti
till
: 11
I ! !
5 PI
e ft i i
s tV
: ?!:
* — »
- i ;
nil
§ f-i
ill!
I
£
,
>5=
fs;;s=iiss^isritms
= = s = s = css = cs5ss.rssorr
lit
• ^ w
«•* r r s s » «
zii~iiii£££ii-
3
,57
s??::f;
ftznz zr::2izz
« i a
- * r s c # ~
Ztz" ZZiZi'--1i~
«1
i
t ;
lfr!cH
- fc r - * * «
5 5 s 11 s 1 r f 1 £ S S i
r = r «• S
i
s r ¦ - ji - sr
-""12
hi* an*'1*
1 :
- s
-
?iE
?.
15;;;;;
t r v t 0 r »
immmw
'* |i i~~~ ' ssis;
\l 11\z.'.*\*!!W'A{
i— io — «I'i«6fes «#»•»*• c ~ s c c
' t | ~ -
i!!£;;:!-s:sis5 nf£ass|;|
s
I
I
r. #»
r- •> at
%i-
tii
222
o o m
:s»
III
II
"J
i-'*- + ---"- ~ fir?
j;:;
! ? < = 5-S--»> ;;i'r
•2 l\ SS58J
! d
i I
| I HH^=~5f£^^H£i?=si||s lis
s f]a=5sSsSH5s5« = S==«:"X;" Hf
J ^ c son
—|f*
1
:zz-
:s
? i
I if
¦k • .
Uh J
- W I — ^ s,
S I 1 ~ c
! llirsr
S JI!2£3
I'll
I
v=;-
iill
;zsf=i'.z7Z?
iiiiiz'ziiz
* J * z *c ~
liZ'-Ziitzzi
iiiiii-'iiii
9 * *W - ~
imm-nuizm
<%>*. 0 •» S *> z * » m 9
m. v r r >* s
niavizii
- e ~ r * s
•V 4 » —
HiiiviU;
«r «< • *• »* s
* Ml ^
lllliinlllliliv
r-
Islf
.zz
C-2
-------
lABl*: '-3. r * I 5 510'< Cf£U
o:f*u r
\S«\I |\
cos'lCueifiON
•ieffi *a
-r.i-
. =¦-*. l
i.
fiU
project
li»*b23~
•;:c
V IZ'-t
Fuu
*!*
fc *•** J5T
P{f,1
FO>.*
HO*
HO.i
4fR
It?-
•« i *
< /
*G/VJ *
RATIO
*10
*,t»
,n?l
l.fctf
3.7«l
,0Pb
2
l«ST
A , 1
*. '
«G>*
*,?»
«. IS
,ro*
i**?
l»*.l
«>3|
If,'?
ic,?n
«ft?2
*
:*so
til,«
i 1,*0
i*,3i
.051
i"SO
lit*.#
.**0
l>.70
I*. 12
,03S
» *
I'SC
22'.*
?uu
,P3*
7
fj.o
c.u
3.U
i, i«
,00k
:*?o
UVM
2*',2
,^k
2t-,«i
27.7?
,03k
a
*21.1
1*3,2
21,'2
i*,il
,0 JO
15
.*r3
1>2. 3
,» *5
I*,**
I*. *
.02*
11 '
i % )Q
i<**.2
bC,"
.2"
i*,e?
1*..*
.o:»
:?
. *
2;,*
*,3
.11?
n.*s
12 „ * ?
,30*
13
• C5
3."3
«El *
j.bi
3,11
,ocs
»-ooc
*C
CO*
NO**
WEIGHTED
8S»«C
BSCO*
B3«oe**
mjM,
"ittl
KPW
*PH
PPW
**
C/*k h9
G/«« h3
C/Kir nR
G/XC
I
^0
301
m
3,00
n
b
P
I'.b
2
;ak
in
i*.i»
33,ii
S3,8i
U,b
I
N*
in
• lb
1.5*
i.?t
?,0l
8,f0
13,4
1
188
in
5>i
l.U
«bb
1 t b 1
il.k
s
10
33b
8«3
11.b?
l.k^>
7,S»
ii,i
11
33*
131
.l1*
Ji.ll
i»,73
IS , 8b
13,3
1)
li 8
?3l
o,co
a
3
n
11,1
CYCLE CCPOJIU
bshc ¦
«t>63
HR
U5C0* *
<,C8
tabu: c-4. i wr
uC-F'a*s5J C'EiU »*GW I «• SU
£if 1 i". i i 11- -1-7% *il«| V"-?'
i. C*Cl>
-t'j rcNricu-nits-inr«n *«r ct*T encim
«-r PrfnjfO U-Wl-091
S.'£
f ftO luf.
TC-i«€
•» $.fm*
Al«
a *h/>ust
fui.1
K&OE
«c
CU*
NO**
»Clt»NTCO
»SmC
8S:c»
dS^C.2**
rigH.
rub
1
#»2
1*3
21*
U.OCf
*
R
12,1
?
!¦»*-
13»H
*. *
.J?l
«.»«
.CC3
i
?* 0
31*
I ? 7
.37
13,80
35. **
33.27
H.«
3
l^SO
1 '
. ^ 30
11«, "•»
i .»?
3
23b
its
*S8
«,y
1.2^
2 . Ci
».2l
12.1
•
i 1 *,?
.'Jl
11.
.*.1 »
.031
*•
188
21*
73b
**r»s
.b*
1.73
8. '8
11.*
S
IUS.I
ib**. ~
,b«S
13.*5
. 1* lb
s
<0
li«
822
13, SS
.28
2.ID
1, 34
11.b
t»
1*SQ
1 "• *."•
.b?|
*1 ,?*
b.
*•»
*1?
lOSb
18.08
• 1 3
2.*7
*.82
11.*
*
*
3.0
.,rt
,y^Q
.00b
7
1 "8
Ill
11*
o,no
k
R
R
12.1
s
i
1?
?* 3.»
??.ss
.33b
• «
Sb
231
?l5
l^.^C
.11
i.ii
».»o
12.*
1- V
I . <»
?i.-b
It
.030
«
b<*
162
b28
1* « b2
.25
i.-i
?.q8
;i.*
is
: ¦ i
b.^.S
i?i .s
1«,I3
.0?b
10 -
12*
lut
* ^ 7
*.75
.,4'
7 , b?
11.b
11
lv« **
l^,y3
,020
11
2u5
in
2*b
*,•7
1„*<
1 * *0
b,«S
11.2
li
!"•• j
?i,7
1 , 7
,1U
11.81
.CO*
12-
2«b
2*1
11?
.38
21.7*
3*.ai
28,11
11.*
13
i-^o
fi.C
,G
.*I£
3.b*
3,b»
.005
n
?28
2?S
221
(1.00
t*
M
11.2
ctctc cwosm
8SHC =
BSCO* •
h3N02*»*
8S*02**«
SSFC t
.s*2
2.1*3
8.b*l
II?
Sfc**/**
&MAC/K*
,2%3KG/*» h<
* COWvffitlO TO b£T BASIS
~ ~ COsvcPTfo TO *£T 6*515 *HO COSRCCTCo To 10.? »¦ IIItC»*mS
«*Ufi PfP *6 QRY 4JP
-------
14 % ll-«UOI »*A llf DlfHl frril
wtjFCit i i-ikil-mu ff»i i>* f f *uu J
i*Gf*ffC*U*l>JU*B |*H* • /tCft«S/*SiitSJ**4B '. *
.0
*11.1
l
•
.1 »*
¦ . b S
. n?o
*«ni»
*.s
I
B
, 1 ill
•.*1
«.hk
.11M
Mill
n.n
n
u
.om
l.l 1
^.11
.0 in
*i
**»|M
0.0
o
»«M
I. >h
.¦in*
TAHU <. *>. ii*"«bi Mfau f*cu
*tOlfCttll-i|.*J-(Hil IIS! D* !C bij* 2
IW6IH* tCM(N?Itl*N 1108 «/lCR,S/Ni'OSJ*'M *Uf I tI*-* >*-'
*0"t
CNClHt
B(J-C"
run
MB
t VHAII9 1
*U£l
$«ro
no*
f to«
*1B
W9<«
N I M
M
Kl-./MfK
"* 1 to
Mill
0,0
O.fl
.011
*. * 1
».**
.nok
*
IwiM
II. *
*. 1
.Ofcl
~ .1*
K. S
.fit I
|I>«M
W.I
«.*
fc."4
k. 1 i
.on
tt-l'l
11*. 1
*0.4
. I I*
k.Ml
~ »M«
IKBlf
IM.l
.M»
«.•%
.0*1
«**,«
.***
s.s»
^ . »»«
.oil
i**.!
»%.*
. >1 1
fc. Jfc
,'IH
Ulu
4**.1
*1.1
¦
.010
»~'ill
%*!.%
im.i
.1"
». i<»
*.»>
.«1%
IM
l*.«n
I«V.»
l i ».b
i. Ik
*. J1
,l»Si
1
kflll
ft.o
n.n
.<11»
*.ll
*.M
.00k
1*
1 Mo
n.n
n.«i
,imii
S. »«•
S.
.ion
1
i*l,«
411,«
.^'1
1 I.Ofl
U>*
.an
|1
?*'tn
1M.B
iM.h
1?.*#
H.i*
.011
ts
**tw
ll1*.li
.%1 1
I*.«l
11.1*
„mn
lb
*•¦111
l«k.|
Sf»«.«
.^Hl»
III. nit
in,no
,*SQ
1
*Bnii
*J>.i
»,<»¦
¦«ll
.ui;
1"
*««M»
l*J.i
Ik.*
.Ilk
• .**
«.^i
.0)0
1*
t ¦!! 1
•o.*
**».»
.*!»
• . i*>
.0*k
#«
*BOM
*0.1
11.1
.IV
*. i«
*.%k
.11*1
*1
«»>IMI
«.*
#.*
.1^11
*.« i
8.S»
.m*
*.»
t-ltn
U.Q
n.n
.Pi'»
?,n?
l.ni
.Oft>
* 1
o.n
«».n
.*»l »
D . )«,
¦.'k
.nfli
HC
HPw
CO*
*E1C«IC0 6ShC
VP* i
&Sni
l?%
i.ai
*.%«
1.0%
1.SI
l*
4
111
i*k
1««
.Of
I.0>
4.11
I.*4*
i*
b
4*0
101
110
i.«i
l.t*
I.I*
*,*k
I*
7
•10
)«k
kl?
0.00
1
r
!
a
1
**0
1 IS
10IQ
».?!
.•1
.H
'.!•
i*
1
HI
**•»
1(1*0
n.oit
1
i
I
i*
sn
*n
«lk
MO
0.10
t
i
1
i*
ti
*k«
If k
Ml
o.no
M
3
It
i*
l*
*1
i
fl.no
W
ii
R
i*
ii
too
ins 1
k|?
i."
.*?
%.kk
i*
!•»
Ik*
• 4*
knt
>« ii
.11
«.**
t.Bl
if
1%
n*
Ml
ift
*. M
1. Ik
1 »#k
»»
i*
Ik
?ik
*•*)
l)k
k.lb
. >1
io.^t
l.*l
i*
1 >
Sll
10«?
Ml
i, I ¦
*.0i
i-».k«
I »**
i*
II
1 70
U1
O.no
I
i
1
1*
% It
• 0*
1*1
1 .»*
i,«k
IS.10
I *
*0
Ml
kll
IM
n.flO
I
1
1
1*
*1
klk
?0*
ino
n,oo
i
1
1
I*
II
*ii
"•0%
ID
n.oo
M
B
fl
I?
* i
*tii
JS
J
0.00
K
A
a
1*
c*cie
Cft*»09!Vt
B3HC *
i.tf?
CBitt/Rh
M»r
©SCO* *
CtfAN/RW
MB
BS«C
AS*OI««*
rsno?**s
f»$rc «
i.itk e««N/RM
>,M1 CB*H/*M
,*8»*G/*« «*
t CON*tHT|0 in Bf f fusts
~ ~ CnN*|»ffO TU *Ff «*sis 4NO CU«RCC*tf> lo ic.r *uug«*ws
K*tf* Bf B Kf» OB* * J B
*001
«c
cu«
1
-ric^Tto
UShC
SSfO*
tlSNOII*
«tVM.
NILL1
ri»*
PP*
KM
G/k» hB
C/KW Mtf
C/K* hM
C/K&
1
*i*
*SI
IM
o.eo
R
B
6
11.)
*
1M
1*1
101
.11
It .SO
>J.11
1*1 .IS
11.1
1
SI*
«*k
l*»
.ss
lk.il
>.P?
t*.l
*
SI*
911
ISt
1 .0*
».»l
?.kk
1.18
II. i
V
Ikl
Ikk
lift
.11
1,1?
l.kn
i*. i
fc
Slk
*IS
IM
l.'l
I .SI
I.k8
i.ii
i*.i
7
Sll
MS
S>*
Q.10
1
1
1
il.)
•
i*o
II*
HI
IJI
.Ik
kk
8. I>
ii.i
Ml
*S I
*kl
0.00
t
1
1
ii.i
10
*0»
*f!l
MS
0.00
1
1
!
ii.i
11
III
Ik*
o.no
H
fl
B
ti, J
1*
11
1*
1
o.no
M
B
ti
ii. i
1)
>k
10k?
Ml
i.il
.11
*,•*
S.V8
ii.)
»»
lib
^11
. 1*
s.sn
S . . 10
i.H
11.*
Ik
i n
fblk
IM
k.l*
,$l
is.*s
l.US
ll.k
M
Slk
ISkS
Ik*
1.18
1.8U
M.ll
1.**
11.k
It
is*
lOiO
iki
o.no
1
I
1
ll.k
1«
Slk
8^0
Ik
i.'*
1.8'
Ik.M
"•.*«
ll.k
*0
k»*
ktl
110
o.no
1
i
1
1 l.fc
*i
fii
>*•
• 8
0.A0
1
I
1
ll.k
**
101
11
Q.PO
W
B
R
11.%
*i
in
in
*
O.no
W
B
M
ll.k
CUtf COMBOS1U
8Sh£
1. >ot
MB
PlfO*
Mil
GNft*t/N«
mB
BSNO*««
i.HI
hB
8SHC .
k.kkk
SDIN/M
H f>
e»K
.I11BC/KH HB
CO«v(ffTtO
10 «(1 fMSIS
»«
ffl Ml
t m*ii•
»np> rn»a«rifn Id
fl.f M!41
-------
tabi£ c-/. rr»>r«*c uesrt, ruisrow c*clr.
puojfcun-^h*i-nnj if*ii o*ff *>!/?? #«j* «
IM6t%CiC*Tfi:»UbM v»*
Cr*CT«WT IROUBlCSHOOTl* f»W CCD)
r«jrt e*-???-*
MOOf
c*si->r
IJwUUE
Ptimth
f uEt.
Alfl
Exhaust
FUEL
Hooe
HC
cot
N0«»
•CICMfftt
BSHC
nsco*
U5l»0?«*
HUN.
utrij
ao*»
ftBw
TLOW
AIR
NlLLI
P»«*
»J * *
< 4
k ;/«*!n
nc/*i«
KG/*t*i
RATIO
prtt
PM
w
ft If
c/km «r
Q/K* MR
6/KM hR
C/KC
WJ
O.P
'l.'f
.«u
?.!«
?.fO
.08?
i
isb
110
111
0.00
k
U
R
11.1
1
!*«>«
n.i
?.l
.0**
b,«1?
b.U
.010
t
Sll
in
bb
,1?
<11,18
11.SB
H.l
)
|h«-l
ibi.i
.in
S.Bfc
S.**
.0?)
i
MI
lib
IBS
f.?J
l.OS
S.?l
i.n
l?.l
UNO
1??.*
Sk.l
,«n
f.k)
s.is
• BH
i
S?0
101
**1
1,1*
l.U
1,1?
?.SB
11.1
s
iHtin
»•«.?
s*.?
.in
b.f?
?.is
.01b
i
1?0
lib
bbl
b.BI
l.Of
1.1?
s.u
11. i
b
lbB»
bSS.#
11"?, 1
.Ml
I.»
,611
*
??1
lib
mo?
i,;i
.SI
>.*s
u.i
?
b>u
0.*
3.D
,011
?.lb
?.u
,06?
}
HR
Sib
lb?
0.00
R
R
i?.i
1
fiito
"~18.5
l**.l
,>?<
1#.M
il.Sb
.on
1
100
IBS!
b1*
ii.b*
.??
S.bb
l.'l
it.i
*
ISt.l
i«n.»
,'fl*
ifl.l*
10.bS
. 01K
n
IBS)
Sbi
t.is
10.^S
l.SU
u.l
IB
*ina
?1?.1
b*.b
.17?
• .01
¦ .10
,01b
IB
in
?6*?
i«*
I.S)
l.OS
11 .b«
1,1)
K.i
li
? Km
in,'
»«•.?
.?Ǥ
1.11
«.b*
11
* ?a
m
i??
*.w
9.?7
13. it
* .ul
t?.l
I?
?fi»Q
*.*
?.•
150
• -Si
l.bb
.OH
It
tth
70?
.??
bl.B*
l?b.S*
?>. H
11,1
11
b?li
1.0
OH
?.u
?.is
.00k
11
til
10S
in
0.00
H
R
R
11,1
CTCLC
composite
BSHC a
l.SM
CRAH/RW
HN
BSCO* •
?.?bl
CRAr«/KU
r*R
BSMO?*»«
S,0??
CRam/kh
ff>
BSNC «
BSNO?«t«
b.b?2
CRam/ru
hs
,?I5KG/KN Mfc
~ CONVEKTCO 10 «f BASIS
*~ CONVCHfCO TO WEI-BASIS AWO CORRECTED TO 10.9 MJUI0*A«S
KAIER PC* AC PftT AIR
TABLE C-8, U-HfiMl etCSEi. emission c*cu
PROJCOM l-»b*VBllJ TrS* |)*Tf b/l/?? R
1
1 bi
Sbb
£0*.
?.??
?.l?
I."*/
i.l?
i?.i
ihtn
(>•.1
.??b
S.S.
(,H
.U11
1
Sll.
IH
??b
1*11
1.1?
l.bl
?.bb
ll,)
IbAK
1 ¦* . 1
VS.?
.Ml
b.?b
?.ni
.Bib
s
ill
IIS
bSb
b.t?
1.?*
?. 11
S.l*
u.i
b
b«S. ?
i I l.b
B.s^
1.?*
,osi
b
101
10?
If!
.lb
1.0S
?.«*
li* 1
3
•»»>!
U,0
0.b
10b?
b?8
11.51
.li
S.I?
b.OO
u.i
ISb.l
111,1
, sou
in.no
10.SO
.oso
*
i?b
Ib)l
IIP
i.n
.a
ll.i]
1,11
i'«i
IB
?•'»'!
?1?.1
*4.b
.1J1
7.1*
s.u
.01?
10
Sib
m!
11U
s.s?
1 .1(1
1?.?^
?.lb
it.i
11
f Sl'.f
l?l.1
lb.?
.lib
S.?^
t.si
,016
11
IS?
ion
1?0
I.*0
1.10
11.**
1.00
u.i
W
i at
-------
TABLE C-9. MASS EMISSIONS HY 23 «OOE PROCEDURE
E»
-------
TABLE C-10. MASS EMISSIONS BY 83 MODE PROCEDURE
ENCINE-3bt>TEST-123 RUN-2 REGULATED GASEOUS EMISSIONS ONLY
TO
HV FUEL
A/F
DRY CONCENTRATION
HOOE
SPEED
N-h
KH
KM KG/HR RATIO
HC
CO
C02
NOX
1
700
0.0
0
111
2.S
22.b
2781
.397
8.91
21
2
1200
8.9
1
111
1.1
21.7
S 7
.131
9.95
S3
a
1200
28. S
1
399
s.o
21.2
82
• 1 SS
10.1b
73
i
1200
b2 . 3
8
358
S.b
20.h
82
.1SS
10. -»B
129
s
1200
87.2
11
330
b . 2
19.9
108
.223
10.80
73
b
1200
17*.5
22
211
8.7
17.7
100
• S 7 7
11.81
110
7
1200
2b 1 • 7
33
122 12.2
15.8
198
1. 181
12.7b
IIS
8
1200
eat.8
3b
81 12.9
IS.8
181
1.233
12 . b 1
bio
9
1200
320,1
*0
28 11.3
15.7
22b
1.179
12.52
710
10
1200
3*3,b
13
3 lb.H
13.9
ISIS
1.510
10.b9
2b0
XI
700
0.0
0
132
2 • b
21.3
1050
.397
9.71
IS
18
1200
0.0
0
531
2.7
25.1
9850
.177
7.2b
11
13
2300
3b 3 • 2
97
3 3*. 2
13.1
1011
b . 120
9.51
150
11
2300
3*0.0
62
HI 27.7
1S.1
bb
1.110
12.89
bOO
IS
2300
301.1
73
81 21.9
15.8
5b
• 9*0
13.01
710
lb
2300
277.7
b7
122 23.0
IS.8
55
.88*
13.13
bOO
1?
2300
1 8b . 9
IS
239 17.b
1 b . b
30
.128
13.2b
390
18
2300
91 .1
23
3bb 12.b
17.1
29
• ObB
12.bl
158
19
2300
b 7 . b
lb
39b 10.8
18.2
27
.072
12.05
12S
20
2300
32.0
8
139
8.1
20.5
31
.102
10.58
110
21
2300
8.9
2
IbS
7.5
21.b
28
.092
10.05
77
22
700
0.0
0
10b
2.1
23.2
5189
.110
8,3b
3
23
2300
0.0
0
533
1. B
2b « 9
1112
.102
7.80
10
CALCULATED GRArt/HR
HT.
E.
UNITS
SPECIFIC GRAM/ KN-HR
MODE
HC
CO
NOX
FAC.
TO FC
HC CO
NOX
1
73.S
212
1.8
.070
0
S.b
R
R
ft
2
2.5
lib
7 . b
.ObO
7
S.b
2.19
101.1
b . 8
3
1.0
1S3
11.8
.ObO
21
11.1
1.12
12.7
3.3
1
1.1
lbb
2 2 • b
• 050
lb
12.1
.5b
21.1
2.9
5
b.l
2S3
11.b
.030
bl
13.7
.ss
23.1
1.3
b
7.0
81S
9S.1
.ObO
129
19.1
.32
37.2
1.3
7
17,3
208S
120.1
o.ono
193
2b. 9
.S3
b3.1
3.7
B
lb.8
2318
IBS.5
. 0 * L
210
28.5
.17
b 1. 8
5.3
S
23.0
3011
2*0.2
o.ono
23b
31.S
• S 7
75. b
b.O
lu
lbl. 7
9 7 9Q
92. 1
O.GOG
253
3b.2
3.75
22b.7
2.1
11
2b. S
202
1.3
.070
0
5.7
R
R
R
12
313.0
11*
1.2
. 120
0
5 . S
R
R
R
13
22b.S
2 b H 21
108.0
.025
2b8
75.1
2.59
30b.b
1.2
if
12. 7
5519
3H5.9
.055
2S1
bl . 1
.lb
b 7 .1
1.7
IS
10.1
33R8
*39. *
.035
225
SI.9
.1*
lb.2
b.l)
lb
. *
't
;!
. uoU
bU . «
• it
* ~ H
I?
*. o
It.
1ST. 7
. ObO
13 B
38.7
.09
7.5
3.8
IB
2.9
IBS
SI.9
O.OUO
70
27.7
.13
5.9
2.3
IS
1 S 1
37. i
.ObS
SO
c?3.*
.15
d « u
2. d
21)
lb *
2R.8
0 .000
21
lH.b
.31
21.2
3.7
21
2.1
1 3 H
19.0
o.ono
7
lb.b
.98
bl.S
8.9
22
131.8
P I 0
.1
.080
0
5.2
R
R
R
23
85.1
1
-------
TABLE C-ll. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM MACK ETAY(B)673A
(Based on 47 mm Glassfiber Filters)
Engine
rpm load%
Date
Run
Ho.
Concentration
roq/M3
Particulate Rate
g/hr
g/kg Fuel g/kw-hr
1450
12/08/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
24.23
21.84
23.04
11.08
10.05
10.57
2.46
2.09
2.28
2. 36
2.14
2.25
1450
12/08/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
62.78
60.00
61.39
34.36
32.66
33.51
2.55
2.40
2.48
0.60
0.55
0.58"
1450
12/08/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
122.58
114.40
118.49
85.07
83.75
84.41
3.52
3.30
3.41
0.78
0.71
0.75
1450
12/08/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
156.68
137.14
146.91
137.07
128.61
132.84
3.84
3.48
3.66
0.81
0.73
0.77
1450
12/21/76
01/03/77
2
3
Avg.
254.05
255.04
254.55
254.54
266.97
260.76
5.31
5.48
5.40
1.08
1.14
1.11
Idle
12/07/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
12.36
15.30
13.83
2.29
2.80
2.55
1.91
2.13
2.02
(a)
(a)
la)
1900
12/22/76
01/03/77
2
3
Avg.
143.78
126.81
135.30
205.55
178.05
191.80
O.dl
0.71
0.76
1900
12/22/76
01/03/77
2
3
Avg.
103.01
92.22
97.61
125.82
114.40
120.11
2.91
2.63
2.77
). <>5
0.61
0.63
1900
12/07/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg.
89.73
78.72
84.23
87.02
77,8"*
02. Ai
2.96
2.63
2.80
0.71
0.62
0.07
1900
12/07/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg.
74.43
f>8.96
71.70
55.56
52.83
54.20
3.31
hSS.
3.17
O.'M)
0.84
0.87
1900
(a)
12/07/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg.
36.33
41.68
39.01
22.25
25.63
23.94
3.13
3.51
3.32
no power output observed during idle and closed throttle
4.73
4.93
4.83
C-8
-------
TABLE C-ll. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM MACK ETAY(B)673A
(Based on 47 mm Glassfiber Filters)
Engine
rpm load%
Date
Run
Ho.
Concentration
roq/M3
Particulate Rate
g/hr
g/kg Fuel g/kw-hr
1450
12/08/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
24.23
21.84
23.04
11.08
10.05
10.57
2.46
2.09
2.28
2. 36
2.14
2.25
1450
12/08/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
62.78
60.00
61.39
34.36
32.66
33.51
2.55
2.40
2.48
0.60
0.55
0.58"
1450
12/08/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
122.58
114.40
118.49
85.07
83.75
84.41
3.52
3.30
3.41
0.78
0.71
0.75
1450
12/08/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
156.68
137.14
146.91
137.07
128.61
132.84
3.84
3.48
3.66
0.81
0.73
0.77
1450
12/21/76
01/03/77
2
3
Avg.
254.05
255.04
254.55
254.54
266.97
260.76
5.31
5.48
5.40
1.08
1.14
1.11
Idle
12/07/76
12/21/76
1
2
Avg.
12.36
15.30
13.83
2.29
2.80
2.55
1.91
2.13
2.02
(a)
(a)
la)
1900
12/22/76
01/03/77
2
3
Avg.
143.78
126.81
135.30
205.55
178.05
191.80
O.dl
0.71
0.76
1900
12/22/76
01/03/77
2
3
Avg.
103.01
92.22
97.61
125.82
114.40
120.11
2.91
2.63
2.77
). <>5
0.61
0.63
1900
12/07/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg.
89.73
78.72
84.23
87.02
77,8"*
02. Ai
2.96
2.63
2.80
0.71
0.62
0.07
1900
12/07/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg.
74.43
f>8.96
71.70
55.56
52.83
54.20
3.31
hSS.
3.17
O.'M)
0.84
0.87
1900
(a)
12/07/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg.
36.33
41.68
39.01
22.25
25.63
23.94
3.13
3.51
3.32
no power output observed during idle and closed throttle
4.73
4.93
4.83
C-8
-------
TABLE C-12. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S04 FROM MACK ETAYCBJ673A ENGINE
(Based on 47 mtn Fluoropore Filters)
Engine
gg».
1450
Enq ine
Load f %
25
1450
1450
145)
Idle
1900
50
1903
1900
19 30
10C
7$
50
Date
12/08/76
12/21/76
12/08/76
12/21/76
12/08/76
12/21/76
12/08/76
12 '21/76
12 21'76
01 03 77
12 07/76
12/ 21/ 76
12/22/76
01/03'77
12/22/76
">1/03/77
12/07/76
12/22/76
12/07/76
12/22/7*
12 07/76
12 22 76
Kun
NO.
1
Avq
1
Avq
1
2
Avq
1
-»
Avq
3
Avq
I
Avq
Cone.
>*q/«3
1060.39
803.78
932. 34
4464.26
4401. <34
4433.05
6455.16
6632.95
6574.06
6816.74
7169,16
6992.95
941Q.86
9733.75
9576.31
*69.83
928.02
948.9 3
Sulfate Rate
aqAq fuel mg/fcw hr
9583.56
8124.67
8854,12
7501.*8
5669,43
6535.56
1 >29.54
2 5041.51
Avq 5985.51
3
Avq
I
Avq
1
2
Avq
1
2
Avq
46 >.44
4143.33
4371.89
1217.71
1539.28
1378.50
434.96
369.81
427.39
244 3. 5<
2395.79
2419.65
4479.63
4899.55
4689.59
596 3.
6723.
6343.07
9436. >2
10189.09
9813.01
179.36
169.02
174.44
13701.00
11407.98
12554.49
*162.19
6911.Jl
49J*.60
6719.87
4984.4 3
5852.15
3434.20
3174.10
3304.15
745.64
946.2?
845.96
107.77
77.04
92.41
185.11
192.90
189.01
167.03
181.70
174.37
195.79
209.22
202.51
149.4"
141.27
145.17
24 2.
201.91
222.21
228. '
168.19
198.48
2)4.42
iai.3d
192.90
105.02
129.62
117.12
103.18
78.68
90.93
42.94
40.54
41.74
41.06
41.45
41.26
3*.<
37.92
36.56
39.92
43.49
41,71
id)
id,
I*}
54.26
45.18
49.72
47.23
36.59
41.91
54.72
39.53
47.13
55.93
50.54
53.24
158.65
181.98
SO4 as %
Fuel S
1,53
1.09
1.31
2.52
2.50
2.51
2.63
2.74
2.69
2.37
2.58
2.48
2.?8
2.97
2.88
2.06
3.44
2.86
3.15
3. n
2.25
2.63
3.24
2.39
2.32
2,90
2.57
2.74
1.49
1.94
1.67
No i ower output ofcserv*«; lur ir.q id
1 »ei »-hfc t*
C-9
-------
TABLE C-13. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM CAT 3200/EGR ENGINE
tBASED ON 47 sm GLASSFIBER FILTERSJ
Run
Concentration
Particulate Rate
rpn Load,
t
Date
NO.
»g/m3
g/hr
g/kq Fuel
q/kw-hr
16<#U 02
24/77
1
47.34
14.62
3.75
6.9f
6/24/77
2
57.46
47,69
4.S4
8.42
Average
52.40
16.16
4.15
7.69
1680 25
6/23/77
1
58.23
17.69
2.16
0.62
6/23/77
2
57.7 3
17.40
2.14
0.61
Average
57.98
17.55
2.15
0.62
1680 SO
6/22/77
1
209.75
60.53
4.42
1.07
6/23/77
2
169.94
48.14
3.65
0.85
Average
189.80
54. 34
4.04
0.96
1680 75
6/22/77
1
328.17
118.19
6.00
1.39
6/22/77
2
279.24
102.24
5.24
1.20
Average
303.71
110.22
5.62
1.30
1660 1
to/17/77
1
463.27
207.69
8.11
1.83
6 17/77
2
502.78
223.96
8.75
1.97
Average
483.03
i15.83
8.43
1.90
Idle
6/24,7?
1
42.28
5
5.80
u>
6'24/77
2
32. *-,«
3.97
4.96
la>
Average
37,64
4.60
5.38
(a)
1680 C?
6/27/77
1
60.92
n.s5
ifci
6,27 77
2
72.53
3.84
tbJ
(a)
Average
66.73
21.85
ih)
ial
2800 100
6/16/77
1
405.59
267.55
7.1
i .$7
6/17/77
-
350,79
237.07
6. 31
1.63
Average
378.19
252.31
6.71
1.75
2800 t*
6/17 77
1
1221.32
647.87
:i.n
o..
6 1V77
2
1244.32
h49. 12
21,01
6.22
Average
K32.32
648.50
21.09
6.22
28 0 50
6/20/
L
875. **¦1
367.44
16.64
...
6/2C/77
2
963.72
3 >8.29
17.70
5,^2
Average
9)9.73
38 3.07
17.17
5.51
23 25
* 22 '11
;
297,C2
131.42
i.li
3.63
22 77
307.J4
I 35.49
>.28
3.74
Aver jge
302.18
*;il.46
•. '1
2s 2
ft 77
1
131,
<
6.13
19. 4
77
2
122.23
59. :2
6.56
21.CS
Average
127.07
57,"U
6. J*
20..%
2900 :T
4/2^ 77
I
63.71
*'o.22
bS
1 *
4/ 29/ "r"T
2
-6.79
31.12
ib)
(a)
Averaqe
70.25
28.67
ib>
-------
TABLE C-14. SUmXR: OF EXHAUST SO| FROM CATERPILLAR 3208/EGR ENGINE
(BASED ON 47 ma FLUOROPORE FILTERS)
Engine
Engine
Ran
Cone.
Sulfate Rate
sof as %
rp*
Load, %
Date
So.
aq/a3
nq/hr
m/kq fxml
¦g/kv-hr
Fuel S
1680
2
6/24/77
1
774.1
239.20
62.29
113.90
0.883
6/24/77
2
S88.6
181.78
46.85
86.56
0.664
Average
681,4
210.49
54.57
100.23
0.774
1680
25
6/23/77
1
1536.1
466.48
56.96
16,43
0.808
6/23/77
2
1583.2
477.23
58.92
16.80
0.835
Average
1559.7
471.85
57.94
16.61
0.822
1680
50
6/22/77
1
3265.1
944.85
69-02
16.63
0.979
6/23/77
2
2684.9
760.93
57.78
13.40
0.819
Average
2975.0
852.89
63.40
15.02
0.899
1680
75
6/22/77
1
3907,0
1407.07
71.94
16.51
1.020
6/22/77
2
3672.4
1344.51
68.84
15.78
0.976
Average
3789.7
1375.79
70.39
16.15
0.998
1680
100
6/17/77
1
3492.9
1565.89
61.14
13.76
0.867
6/17/77
2
3669.9
1634.73
63.86
14.40
0.906
Average
3581.4
1600.31
62.50
14.08
3.887
Idle
6/24/77
1
1706.8
206.60
'32,13
(a)
3.292
6/24/77
2
1635.7
196.68
223.50
(a)
3.169
Average
1671.3
201.79
227.82
(a)
3.231
1680
CT
6/24/77
1
740.0
241-7
Cb)
(a)
(b)
6/27/77
2
871.4
286.4
(a)
fa)
(b)
(*j No power output observed during idle and closed throttle
No fuel consuaed, therefore no emission rate calculated
Oil
-------
TABLE C-1S. SUMNUK OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM CHEVROLET 366 ENGINE
(BASED ON 47 mm GLASSFIBER FILTERS)
Engine
rpo
Engine
Load.*
Date
Run
No.
Concentration
ra?r/®3
Particulate
g/hr g/kg Fual
Rate
g/fcw-hr
1200
02
3/29/77
1
19.04
1.60
0.36
1,78
R/29/77
2
21.78
1.83
0.43
2.03
Average
20.41
1.72
0.40
1.91
1200
25
8/29/77
1
17,36
1.89
0.30
0.18
8/29/77
2
18.66
2.03
0.32
0.18
Average
18.01
1.96
0.31
0.18
1200
50
8/29/77
1
21.28
2.87
0.34
0.13
8/30/77
2
23.69
3.20
0.38
0.15
Average
22-49
3.04
0.36
0.14
1200
75
0/30/77
1
44.53
7.61
0.67
0.24
8/30/77
2
35.84
6.12
0.53
0.19
Average
40,19
6.87
0.60
0.22
1200
100
8/19/77
1
48.33
9.86
0.59
0.23
8/19/77
2
50.38
10.28
0.61
0.25
Average
49.36
10.07
0.60
0.24
Idle
8/26/77
1
27.06
1.30
0.52
(a)
8/26/77
2
25.92
1.25
0.54
JaJ.
Average
26.49
1.28
0.53
(a)
1200
CT
8/30/77
1
33.47
2.03
0.81
8/30/77
2
28.11
1.70
0.68
Average
30.79
1.87
0.75
2300
100
8/19/77
1
65.37
2*.84
0.79
0.30
8/19/77
2
61.70
25.33
0.75
0.29
Average
63.54
7.6,09
0.77
0.30
2300
75
8/19/7?
1
53.13
18.87
0.81
0.29
8/19/77
2
42.42
13.77
0.59
0.21
Average
50.28
16.32
0.70
0.25
2300
50
8/19/77
1
23.49
6.02
0.34
0.14
8/19/77
2
24.26
6.21
0.35
0.14
Average
23.88
6.12
0.35
0.14
2300
25
8/22/77
1
25.24
4.86
0.41
0.22
8/22/77
2
24.38
4.70
0,39
0.21
Average
24.81
4.78
0.40
0.22
2300
02
8/23/77
1
15.48
2.20
0.31
1.29
8/23/77
2
14.05
2.00
0.29
1.18
Average
14.77
2.10
0.31
1.24
2300
CT
8/23/77
1
25.92
2.87
0-67
8/23/77
2
24.40
2.70
0.63
Average
rsn*
7779
Ca> No
power output observed during
idle and closed
throttle
C-12
-------
TABLE C-16. SCfftlAftY OF EXHAUST SULFA1T FRO* CHEVROLET 366 ENGINE
(BASED ON INITIAL ANALYSES OF 4? am FLUORQFORE FILTERS)
Engine
Engine
Run
COBCV
Sulfate Rate
so4" as
rpo
Load, %
Date
HO.
uq/m
aq/hr
agAg-foei
nqAW-hx
% Fuel S
1200
2
8/29/77
3
m
(a)
8/29/7?
4
ND
...
—....
Average
ND
— — —
— (a)
———
1200
25
9/29/77
3
ND
.....
9/29/77
4
1.94
0.2103
0.0334
0.0197
0.0036
Average
0.97
0.1052
0.0167
0.0099
0.0018
1200
50
8/30/77
3
4.70
0.6346
0.0744
0.0295
0.0081
8/30/77
4
NO
........
.......
—
Average
2.35
0.3173
0.0372
0.0148
0.0041
1200
75
8/30/77
3
ND
.. ..
8/30/77
4
5.62
0.9597
0.0845
0.0296
0.0092
Average
2.81
0,4799
0.0423
0.014b
0.0046
1200
130
8/19/77
3
10.01
7.5405
0.4529
0.1791
0.0493
8/19/77
4
ND
.......
—.....
......
—...—
Average
5.01
3.7703
0.2265
0.0896
0.0247
Idle
8/26/77
3
ND
..
.......
.
8/26/ 77
4
16.87
0.8111
0.3511
......
0.0382
Average
3.44
0.4056
0.1756
0.0191
1200
CT
3/30/77
3
74.12
4.4889
1,7673
(a)
0.1924
8/30/77
4
17.99
1.0898
0.4430
0.0482
Average
46.06
2.7894
1.1052
(a)
0.1203
2300
100
8/19/77
3
ND
.......
.......
......
.... —
8/19/77
4
422.88
173.6270
5.1022
1.9809
0.5553
Average
211.44
86.8135
2.5511
0.9905
0.2777
2300
75
8/19/77
3
} 365.07
443.1192
18.8963
6.6987
2.0567
8/19/77
4
ND
—....
.......
......
Average
682.54
221.5596
9.4482
3.3494
1.0284
2300
50
8/19/77
3
116.14
3.0279
0.1707
0.0679
0.0186
8/19/77
4
2.70
0.6903
0.0390
0.0155
0.0043
Average
59.42
1.8591
0.1049
0.0417
0.0115
2300
25
8/22/77
3
SD
8/22/77
4
ND
—
Average
ND
2300
2
8/23/77
3
SD
8/23/77
4
ND
Average
ND
•
——
2300
CT
8/23/77
3
67.13
7.4313
1.7363
(a)
0.1890
8/23/77
4
70.43
7.7969
1.8260
0.1988
Average
68.78
7-6141
1.7012
— (a)
0.1937
ND MOt
detected.
<0.3 jg/»3, remaining values meaningless
i a} No power output observed during idle and closed throttle
C-13
-------
TABLE C-17. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE FROM CHEVROLET 366 ENGINE
(BASED
ON RE-ANALYZED SOLUTIONS td)
AND BACK-
UP 37 on FILTERStb))
Enqine
Engine
Run
Coac.
Sulfate Rate
SO4" as
ron
Load, v
Date
No.
aq/hr
mgAg-fuel
mq/kw-hr
% Fuel S
i:oo
:
8/29/77
1
241.2
20.302
4.614
22.558
0.3126
8/29/77
2
2 32.1
19.530
4.439
21.700
0.4932
Average
236.7
19.916
11.527
22.129
0.5029
a/:9/77
:bu
0
16.831
3.825
18.701
0.4250
o
o
25
8/29/7 7
1
191.9
20.850
3.310
1.949
0.3677
8/29/77
2
185.9
20.195
3.206
1.887
0.3562
Average
188.9
20.523
5.258
1.918
0.3620
8/29/77
2BU
170.9
18.575
2.948
1.736
0.3276
1200
50
8/30/77
1
25 .3
?4.869
4.102
1.622
0.4557
8/30/77
2
265.4
35.821
4.214
1.666
0.4682
Average
261.9
35.345
4.158
1.644
0.4620
8/30/77
2BU
273.0
36.8S3
4.336
1.714
0.4617
1200
75
8/30/77
1
479.7
81.944
7.126
2.561
0.7917
8/30/77
2
465.7
79.651
6.918
2.486
0.7628
Average
472.7
80.798
7.022
2.524
0.7773
8/30/77
2BU
346.5
59.179
5.146
1.849
0.5717
1200
100
8/19/77
1
565.6
US.342
6.907
2.746
0.7674
8/19/77
2
719.1
146.649
8.781
3.492
0.9756
Average
642.4
130.996
7.844
3.119
0.8715
8/19/77
2BU
608.2
124.024
7.427
2.953
0.82S1
Idle
8/26/77
1
284.9
13.701
5.480
0.6188
2300
100
8/19/77
1
965.6
396.465
11.730
4.S10
1.3032
8/19/77
2
2239.5
919.S22
27.205
10.461
3.022S
Average
1602.6
657.994
10.468
7.486
2.1629
8/19/77
2BU
3086.S
1267.278
37.493
14.417
4.16S5
2300
75
3/19/77
1
1969.3
639.261
27.203
9.627
3.0223
8/19/77
2
1042.9
338.557
14.407
5.099
1.6006
Average
1506.1
488.909
20.805
7.363
2.3115
8/19/77
2BU
967.0
313.896
13.1S7
4.727
1.4840
2300
SO
8/19/77
1
S56.4
142.SOS
8.051
3.195
0.8945
8/19/77
2
649.5
166.347
9.398
3.730
1.0441
Average
603.3
1S4.428
8.725
3.463
0.9693
8/19/77
2BU
464.1
118.849
6.715
2.66S
0.7460
2300
25
8/22/77
1
562.0
108.245
9.020
4.943
1.0021
8/22/77
2
490.5
94.4S9
7.872
4.313
0.8746
Average
526.3
101.3S2
8.456
4.628
0.9384
8/22/77
2BU
333.8
64.283
S.3S7
2.935
0.5952
2300
2
8/23/77
1
277.6
39.356
S .622
23.151
0.6246
8/2 3/77
2
197.9
28.OSS
4.008
16.503
0.4453
Average
237.8
33.706
4.81S
19.827
0.S3S0
8/23/77
2BU
72.9
10.341
1.477
6.083
0.1641
2300
CT
8/2377
1
199.3
22.068
S.132
(c)
0.5702
8/2 3/77
2
272.2
30.128
7.006
(c)
0.7784
Average
235.8
26.098
6.069
(c)
0.6743
8/23/77
2BU
192. 3
21.290
4.9S1
(c)
0.SS01
Re-analysis of IPA solutions performed 11/1/77, 9 weeks after initial analysis
(i>) Back-up space filter originally asnomated and placed into IPA solution on 10/28/77
and analyzed 10/28/77
(c)
No power output observed during idle and closed throttle
C-14
-------
7A9LE C-18. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
MACK ETAY(B)673A, RUN 1
(13 MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS)
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
Part.
so4"
wgt.
Power
fuel
Part
s°4"
rpm
Load,%
kW
kg/hr
g/ftr
oq/hr
Fact.
ktf
kq/hr
q/hr
®g/hr
Idle
---
1-2
2.29
If9.36
0.067
0.080
0.15
12.02
1450
2
4.7
4.5
11.08
484.96
0.08
0.376
0.36
0.89
38.30
1450
25
56.9'
13.5
34.36
2443.50
0.08
4.552
1.08
2.75
19S.48
1450
50
109.1
24.2
35.0?
4479.63
0.08
8.728
1.94
6.81
358.37
1450
75
169.4
35.7
137.07
5963.14
0.08
13.55
2.86
10.97
477.05
1450
100
236*4
48.2
254.54
9436.92
0.08
18.91
3.86
20.36
754.95
Idle
1.2
2.29
179.36
0.067
—
0.080
0.15
12.02
1900
100
252.5
56.5
205.55
13701.0
0.08
20.2
4.52
16.44
1096.03
1900
75
194.0
43.2
125.32
9162.19
0.08
15.52
3.46
10.07
732.98
1900
50
122.8
29.4
87.02
6719.87
0.08
9.82
2.35
6.96
537.59
1900
25
61,4
16.8
55.56
3434.20
0.08
4.91
1.34
4.44
274.74
1900
2
4.7
7.1
22.25
745.64
0.08
0.37
0.57
1.78
59.65
Idle
1.2
2.29
179.36
0.067
0.080
0.15
12.02
96.94
22.58
81.92
4561.75
ake Specific Particulate, g/KW-hr
tel Specific Particualte, g/kg fuel
0.845
3.628
Brake Specific S04", ag/kw-hr 4?.05
Fuel Specific S04», »g/kg fuel 202.03
TABLE C-19 .CYCLE CQHPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
HACK ETAV(B)67 3A, RUN 2
(13 MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS)
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
Part.
SO4"
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part
S04ffi
Mode
tpm
Load,%
kff
kg/ft r
q/hr
ag/hr
Fact.
ktf
kg/hr
q/hr
sag/ h:
Idle
...
1.2
2,30
169.52
0.067
0.080
0.19
li.lfe
2
1450
2
4.7
4.8
10.05
369.81
0.08
0. 376
0.384
0.80
29.io
J
1450
25
59.1
13.6
32.66
2395.79
0.08
4.728
1.088
2.61
19i.66
4
1450
50
118.2
25.4
83.75
4899.55
0.08
0.45C
2.032
6.70
391.96
3
1450
75
177.3
37.0
128.61
6723.0
0.08
14.131
2.96
10.29
537.54
6
1450
100
234.3
48,7
266.97
10189.09
0.08
18.744
3.896
21.36
315.13
7
Idle
1.2
2.80
*69.52
0.067
-
0.08C
0.19
11.36
3
1900
100
252.2
56.5
178.05
1U07.98
0.08
20.176
4.52
14.24
912.64
9
1900
75
188.9
43.5
114.40
6911.01
0.08
15.112
3.48
9.15
552.88
10
1900
50
126.1
29.6
77.83
4984.43
0.08
10.088
2.37
6.23
398.75
11
1900
25
62.8
17.5
52.83
3174.10
0.08
5.024
1.40
4.23
253.93
12
1900
2
5.2
7.3
25.63
946.27
0.08
0.416
0.58
2.05
75.70
13
Idle
—
1.2
2.80
169.52
0.067
0.080
0.19
11. 36
98.301
22.950
78.23
4194.15
Srake
Specific
Particulate,
, g/kw-hr
0.796
Brake Specific SO4*,
sag/kw-hr
42.606
Fuel Specific
Particulate,
g/kg fuel
3.429
Fuel Soecific SC>4-, ng/kg fuel
182.752
C-15
-------
TABLE C-20. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
CATERPILLAR 3208/BGR, Run 1
(13-node FTP Weighting Factors)
Node
Engine Engine
Power
Wo.
rp*
Load,%
m
1
Idle
0
2
1680
2
2.1
3
1680
25
28.4
4
1680
50
56.8
5
1680
75
85.2
6
1680
100
113.8
7
idle
0
8
2800
100
143.0
9
2800
75
104.4
10
2800
so
69.6
11
2800
25
36.2
12
2800
2
2.8
13
Idle
0
Fuel
kg/hr
Weighted
Wgt. Pwtr Fuel Part. so4"
Fact. kW kg/hr q/hr xi/hr
0.060
206.6
0.067
14.63
0.168
0.312
239.2
0.08
17.69
2.272
0.656
466.5
0.08
60.53
944.8
4.544
1.096
4*84
0.08
118.19
1407.1
0.08
6.816
209.69
125.3
1565.9
9.104
2.048
16.62
206.6
0.067
272.3
267.55
21.40
3403.1
0.08
11.440
647.87
1546.7
8.352
51.83
137.7
367.84
1721.4
S.568
29.43
131.42
1656.6
0.08
2.900
1.152
10.51
SS.O
786.1
0.08
0.224
206.6
0.067
0.060
14. H4
1140
152.13
Brake specific particulate, g/kW-hr
Fuel specific particulate, g/kg fuel
2.96
10.17
Brake specific SQ^m
Fuel specific SO4"
ag/Jdf-hr 22.19
ng/kg fuel 76.21
TABLE C-21. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RESULTS
CATERPILLAR 3208/EGR, Run 2
(13-Hode FTP Weighting Factors)
Hode
Engine Engine
Power
Fuel
Part.
Ho.
rptt
Load,*
kW
ker/hr
I
Idle
0
0.8
3.97
2
1680
2
2.1
3.9
17.69
3
1690
25
28.4
8.1
17.40
4
1680
50
56.8
13.2
48,14
5
1680
75
85.2
19.5
102.24
6
1680
100
113.6
25.6
223.96
7
Idle
0
0.8
3.97
8
2800
100
145.1
37.6
237.07
9
2800
75
104.4
30.9
649.12
10
2800
50
69.6
22.S
398.29
11
2800
25
36.2
14.6
135.49
12
2800
2
2.8
9.0
59.02
13
Idle
0
0.8
3.97
SO.
196.7
181.8
477.2
760.9
1344.5
1634.7
196.7
3586.0
1768.3
1735.5
1831.3
770.4
196.7
Miahtad
Wgt.
Power
Putl
Fait.
Fact.
kW
kq/hr
0.067
0
0.054
0.27
0.08
0.168
0.312
1.42
0.08
2.272
0.648
1.39
0.08
4.544
1.056
3.85
0.08
6.816
1.560
8.18
0.08
9.088
2.048
17.92
0.067
0
0.054
0.27
0.08
11.608
3.008
18.97
0.08
8.3S2
2.472
51.93
0.08
5.568
1.80
31.86
0.08
2.896
1.168
10.8
0.08
0.224
0.720
4.72
0.067
0
0.054
0.27
51.542
14.954
151.85 :
13.2
14.5
38.2
60.9
107.6
130.8
13.2
286.9
141.5
138.8
146.5
61.6
13,2
1166.9
Brake specific particulate, g/fc#-hr 2.95
Fuel specific particulate, gAg fuel 10.15
Brake specific S04" , ag/tti-hr 22.64
Fuel specific S04« , wjA9 fuel ?8-03
C-16
-------
TABLE C-22. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AM) SULFATE RATES
CATERPILLAR 1208/BGR, RON 1
(WEIGHTING FACTORS DERIVED FROM EPA 23-HODE TEST)
Weighted
Engine Engine
Power
Fuel
Part.
SO4"
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
SO4*
rpn
Leid, *
kW
kg/hr
9/hr
mg/hr
Fact.
kti
kg/hr
g/hr
¦g/hr
Idle
- —
0.9
5.22
206.6
0.22
0.198
1.15
45.45
1680
2
2.1
3.9
14.62
239.2
0.12
0.252
0.468
1.75
28.70
25
28.4
8.2
17.69
466.5
0.08
2.272
0.656
1.42
37.32
50
56.8
13.7
60.53
944.8
0.06
3.408
0.822
3.63
56.69
75
85,2
19.7
118.19
1407.1
0.04
3.408
0.788
4.73
56.28
100
113.8
25.6
207.69
1565.9
0
——
CT
0
0
19.85
241.7
0.12
2.38
29.00
2800
100
143*0
37.7
267.55
3403.1
0.08
11.440
3.016
21.40
272.25
75
104.4
30.6
647.87
1546.7
0.095
9.918
2.907
61.55
146.94
50
69.6
22.1
367.84
1721.4
0.06
4.176
1.326
22.07
103.28
25
36.2
14.4
131.42
1656.5
0.065
2.353
0.936
8.54
107.68
2
2.8
8.9
55.0
786.1
0
—...
CT
0
0
26.22
111.1
0.06
1.57
6.67
37.227
11.117
130.19
809.26
Brake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 3,50 Brake Specific SO ", mg/TM hr 23.91
Fuel Specific Particulate, gAg fuel 11,71 Fuel Specific S04", agAg fual 80.08
TABLE C-23, CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULPATE RATES
CATERPILLAR 3208/EGR, Run 2
tWEIGHTING FACTORS DERIVED FROM EPA 23-l
-------
TABLE C-24. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
CHEVROLET 366, RUN 1
(13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS)
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
Mode
rpm
Load, %
kW
kq/hr
1
Idle
2.5
2
1200
2
0.9
4.4
3
1200
25
10.7
6.3
4
1200
50
21.5
8.5
5
1200
75
32.0
11.4
6
1200
100
42.1
16.6
7
Idle
2.5
8
2300
100
88.3
33.6
9
2300
75
66.3
23.5
10
2300
50
44.6
17.7
11
2300
25
21.9
11.9
12
2300
2
1.7
7.0
13
Idle
2.5
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr
Fuel Specific Particulate, gAg fuel
Brake Specific SOq*, mg/kW-hr
Fuel Specific SO4™, mgAg fuel
Weighted
Part.
so4=
S04=(a)
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
!!
O
m
S04'
g/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
ray/hr
nig,
1.30
0
13.701
0.067
0.17
0.087
0
0
1.60
0
20.302
0.08
0.065
0.35
0.128
0
1
1.89
0
20.850
0.08
0.856
0.50
0.151
0
1
2.87
0.635
34.869
0.08
1.72
0.68
0.230
0.051
2
7.61
0
81.944
0.08
2.56
0.91
0.609
0
6
9.86
7.541
115.342
0.08
3.37
1.33
0.789
0.603
9
1. 30
0
13.701
0.067
0.17
0,087
0
0
26.84
0
396.465
0.08
7.06
2.69
2.147
0
31
18.87
443.12
639.261
0.08
5.30
1.88
1.510
35.45
51
6.02
3.028
142.508
0.08
3.57
1.42
0.482
0.242
11
4.86
0
108.245
0.08
1.75
0.95
0.389
0
8
2.20
0
39.356
0.08
0.14
0.56
0.176
0
3
1.30
0
13.701
0.067
0.17
0.087
0
C
26.39
11.78
6.872
36.346
13C
0.260
0.583
1.377 4.952(a)
3.085 11.094(a)
(a)
Re-analysis of IPA solution nine weeks after initial analysis
-------
6T>D
2£
n i
T 5
e »
•0 *«
•<
» •
« 0
s"
n
•u m
li
w
O ®
I*
I
it
'I
»¦% t
S ?
2?
"if
JUio*8)9>ftwuA It N-
popo<~*joopooo
S"U*00 0«AM»N
A«(h-4^Ch£^OT'Ml]t
OOOOOi
O O !
~ O Si -J w
»- w
ft
r* at
— O O o
»-» M
*- —• Jk <1* W
*• 0 p
W M i" M
£ P
•» *
•<
O A £ w
*J O M sO
N) vD nJ M -J W
t/> O O W
MWN
^ vO w
W O 9 M
O w w m
* ?
3" i-
* 3
3 i-
ir*
¦2. sr
ft »-
3 ft
Q» 3
ft
3 *<
Ki U*
OOOOOu
CD b b
•¦» Mi
000
h |
OOOO
m b
2 «
* •,
A k!
<0 O
ft* ft*
*¦» O " iA
n u< vl< A u« ig
N- A
w Ch SO
w b b
Jk VB
KJ w*
JO O « w
® •- yi w
M jfl W N
|J
a" -
« »
i
U4
**j "* »_ ~ £ 0>
* O * (B w ^
- w w a a> K.
* * (&*<£.*
kj •-» w >a It vO
w u» »- -»
»
000000
000000
7> OS CO 05 « 0
1 U 94
I w y>
1 A V#>
~ 0 0 j
^ b 0 1
w^jj t
si
m
?
W
X
•ol
r
O O O »~ »- K»
P r p
0 p p p
P
CD
j y; i A ® li
— v* b
W
ff> l/l W I-
sr
O O O O p o o
boob
III1
n
—» -e
= 9
i "
833
™3i
388
t» r* •*
«5s
if 3|
a
s
a c
**1
> fci
''CDM^wO^tS^uiCD >
*ojk/08?iau>jffiH
*^*o»a)^MWAi
O^u(DMW(BMA|0l
-------
TABLE C-26. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
CHEVROLET 366, RUN 1
{WEIGHTING FACTORS DERIVED FROM EPA 23-MODE TEST)
Weighted
Engine
rpm
Engine
Load, %
Power
kW
Fuel
kg/hr
Part,
g/hr
S04=
mg/hr
so4=
mg/hr
Wgt.
Fact.
Power
kW
Fuel
kg/hr
Part,
g/hr
SO4*
mg/hr
Idle
2.5
1.30
0
13.701
0.22
— —
0.55
0.29
0
1200
2
0.9
4.4
1.60
0
20.302
0.12
0.108
0.53
0.19
0
1200
25
10.7
6.3
1.89
0
20.850
0.08
0.856
0.50
0.15
0
1200
50
21.5
8.5
2.87
0.635
34.869
0.06
1.29
0.51
0.17
0.038
1200
75
32.0
11.4
7.61
0
81.944
0.04
1.28
0.46
0.30
0
1200
100
42.1
16.6
9.86
7.541
115.342
0
1200
CT
2.6
2.03
4.489
20.400
0.12
0.31
0.24
0.539
2300
100
88.3
33.6
26.84
0
396.465
0.08
7.06
2.69
2.15
0
2300
75
66.3
23.5
18.87
443.12
639.261
0.095
6.30
2.23
1.79
42.096
2300
50
44.6
17.7
6.02
3.028
142.508
0.06
?,.S8
1.06
0.36
0.182
2300
25
21.9
11.9
4.86
0
108.245
0.065
1.42
0.77
0.32
0
2300
2
1.7
7.0
2.20
0
39.356
0
2300
CT
4.3
2.87
7.431
22.068
0.06
0.26
0.17
0.446
20.99
9.87
6.13
43.301
so4-(
rogA
2.4
31.7
60.7
8.5
7.0
1.3
124.3
Brake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 0.292
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 0.621
Brake Specific SO^=, mg/kw-hr 2.063
Fuel Specific SO4-, mg/kg fuel 4.387
5.922
^ He-analysis of IPA solutions nine weeks after initial analysis
-------
'"ft
« «?.
«f I
i n 9 ^ i P4lr»*
i «IN«t
il
I fN - (S fN I
— O © I -< ® O V
dodo© j d«ooood
ifl O N N Ifl I V I
r» rv vD 0* v I c •"* •*« f<* O I «
N « « (H i n q m w m t
©0000 1 o ttl &> p-
< cc tst tv
* 1*1 \t> *9
•4) .
«c *© o
0. n III
(*] f- 1-.
I- U) «
M J u
woo
2tk
> w
65g
a" I
(Nin^rlnfNir>«T»ir m so v «s f>*
(N it
C ©
i g
9, «
« C
i-VsDCCLnOunp-^O1
f- ifs ty> ®
<1
H
i °
c •
£S
N m O wi O o tfv O «mn
rxkAr-ojuof-iff* |-
IMVNN
5#
§
-------
TABLE C-28.PARTICULATE AND BaP RATES FROM HACK ETAY(B)673A
(Based on 8 x 10 Size Fiberglass Filter Samples)
Particulate Rates BaP Rates
Engine
Engine
mg
9
<3
g
9
mg
mg
mg
Organic
rpm
Load,%
Date
Run
m*
hr
kg fuel
kw-hr
hg
kw-hr
kg fuel
Solubles
1450
2
12/06/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg
28.83
25.36
27.10
13.04
11.48
12.26
2.96
2.55
2.76
2.77
2.44
2.61
0.557
252.0
54.0
56.0
34.84
1450
50
12/06/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg
100.18
125.04
112.61
69.69
93.02
81.36
2.94
3.56
3.25
0.62
0.79
0.71
0.647
481.0
4.0
18.0
9.3
1450
100
12/06/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg
175.21
188.87
182.04
186.13
193.77
189.95
3.75
3.98
3.87
0.79
0.82
0.81
0.162
166.0
1.0
3.0
3.5
Idle
12/22/76
01/03/77
2
3
Avg
17.23
18.53
17.88
3.11
3.34
3.23
2.59
1.96
2.28
(1)
(1)
(1)
0.441
80.0
62.0
15.54
1900
100
12/06/76
12/22/76
1
2
Avg
120.12
134.13
127.13
171.01
189.45
180.23
3.02
3.35
3.19
0.68
0.75
0.72
0.162
229.0
1.0
4.
1.02
1900
50
12/06/76
01/03/77
1
2
Avg
78.34
68.04
73.19
76.10
66.55
71.33
2.62
2.21
2.42
0.62
0.52
0.57
0.526
514.0
4.0
17.0
6.32
1900
2
12/22/76
01/03/77
1
2
Avg
27.15
28.34
27.75
16.65
17.24
16.95
2.16
2.24
2.20
3.20
2.61
2.91
0.494
303.0
58.0
40.0
38.46
^ No power output observed
-------
TABLE C-29. PARTICULATE ANU BaP RATES FROM CAT 3208 EGN
(Based on 8 x 10 Sice Fiberglass Filter Sample*)
Particulate Rates BaP Rates organic
Engine
Engine
*9.
9
9
9
m
M9
M9
iig
Solubles
rpm
Load,%
Date
Run
IS*
hr
kq fuel
kw-hr
m*
hr
kg fuel
kw-hr
*
1680
2
6/27/77
6
90.67
27,90
6.975
13.286
0.152
46.9
11.7
22.3
21.72
6/24/77
?
81.92
25.15
6.288
11.976
0.141
43.2
10.8
20.6
12.24
Avq
86.30
26,53
6.631
12.631
0.147
45.1
11.3
21.5
16.9ft
u>ro
SO
6/21/77
6
188.25
53.96
3.939
0.950
0.169
48.5
3.5
0.9
8.01
6/21/77
7
188.06
53.43
3.900
0.941
0.062
17.6
1.3
0.3
5.31
Avq
188,16
53.70
3.920
0.945
0.116
33.1
2.4
0.6
6.66
1680
100
6/16/77
6
413,53
183.09
7.180
1.606
Below
minimum
detectable
2.51
6/16/77
7
444,96
197.44
7.713
1.7*4
Below
minimum
detectable
2.93
Avq
429.25
190.27
7.446
1.675
2.72
Idle
6/27/77
6
37.64
4.41
4.900
(1)
0.221
24.3
27.0
U)
ft. 17
6/27/77
7
45.25
5.34
5.933
<11
0.199
23.4
r*,o
(H
8.21
Avq
41.45
4.88
5.417
(1)
0.210
23.9
27.0
(1)
8.19
n
1680
CT
5/03/77
4
116.01
30.96
(2)
(1)
0.167
44.5
(2)
U)
32.19
i
KJ
Ui
5/05/77
5
66.33
17.90
<21
(1)
0.071
19,3
<2)
u>
14.47
Avq
91.17
24.43
(2)
(1)
0.119
31.9
<2J
(I)
23.33
2800
100
6/16/77
6
338.45
229.19
6.031
1.575
Below
minimum
detectable
2.52
6/16/77
7
342.88
230.84
6.123
1.594
Below
minimum
detectable
2.90
Avq
340.67
230,02
6.077
1.585
2.71
2800
50
6/21/77
6
773.97
324.99
14.192
4.669
1.946
817.3
35.7
11.7
2.13
6/21/77
7
1036.73
435.33
19.262
6.345
1.389
583.1
25.8
8.4
2.23
Avq
905.35
380.16
16.727
5.507
1.668
700.2
30.8
10.1
2.18
2800
2
6/21/77
6
114.69
52.40
5.758
14.971
0.190
86.7
9.5
24.8
6.86
6/21/77
7
119.15
54.53
5.992
15. SKI
0.196
89.5
9*8
25.u
11.91
Avq
116.92
53.47
5.875
15.276
0.193
88.1
9.7
25.2
9.39
2800
CT
6/27/77
6
73.32
33.66
(2)
(1)
0.112
51.3
(2)
u>
16.31
6/27/77
7
Avq
70.95
72.14
33.08
33.38
121
(2)
-------
TABLE C-30. PARTICULATE AND BaP RATES FROM CHEVROLET 366
{Based on 8 x 10 Sice Fiberglass Fllt«r Samples)
Particulate Rates
Engine
TfM
Engine
load,*
Date
Run
f , ,
hr
g
kg fuel
kw-hr
1200
2
8/25/77
1
13.4
1.13
0.257
1.256
8/25/77
2
14.3
1.21
0.275
1.344
Avg
13.9
1.17
0.266
1.300
1200
50
8/25/77
1
13,64
1.84
0.222
0.090
8/25/77
2
12.80
1.73
0.211
0.085
Avg
13.22
1.79
0.217
0.088
1200
100
8/18/77
1
52.58
10.72
0.634
0.255
B/ie/ee
2
52.45
10.70
0.633
0.254
Avg
52.52
10.71
0.634
0.255
Idle
8/24/77
1
14.89
0.72
0.300
U)
8/25/77
2
15.00
0.72
0.277
(I)
Avg
14.95
0.72
0.289
U>
1200
CT
8/26/77
1
18.06
1.09
0. 389
(If
8/26/77
2
18,27
1.11
0.396
<11
Avg
18.17
1.10
0.393
-------
TABLE
C-31.
BRAKE AND FUEL
SPECIFIC
BaP RATES
- 7-MODE
CYCLE
Mack ETAY(B)763A
W, F.
Derived
fro* 13-«iode FTP
W, F.
Derived
fron 23-«odc» EPA
Mode
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
BaP
Hgt
Power
Fuel.
BaP
Wgt
Power
Fuel
RaP
Mo.
tpm
load,*
few
kg/hr
Ug/hr
Fact
kit
kg/hr
ug/hr
Fact
kM
kg/hr
Iig/hr
1
1450
2
4.7
4.5
252.0
0.12
0.564
0.540
30.24
.225
1.058
1.013
56.700
2
1450
50
US.2
26.1
481.0
0.16
18.912
4.176
76.96
.092
10.874
2.401
44.252
3
1450
100
236.4
48.7
166.0
0.12
28.368
5.844
19.92
.049
11.584
2.386
8.134
4
Idle
1.3
80.0
0.20
0.260
16.00
.269
0.350
21.520
5
1900
100
252.2
56.4
229.0
0.12
30.264
6.768
27.48
.176
44.387
9.926
40.304
6
1900
50
127.5
30.2
514.0
0.16
20.400
4.832
82.24
.110
14.025
3.322
56.540
7
1900
2
5.2
7.6
303.0
0.12
0.624
0.912
36.36
.079
0.411
0.600
23.9J7
99.132
23.332
289.20
82.339
19.998
251.387
Brake Specific BaP, ug/kW-hr
2*917
1.053
Fuel specific
BaP, ug/kg fuel
12.395
12.571
tabu;
C-32»
BRAKE AND FUEL
SPECIFIC
BaP RATE ¦
- 7-MODE CYCLE
Cat 3208/EGR (Run
1)
W. F. Derived
fron ! 3-*ode FTP
ti. F,
, Derived
iron 23-
•Bode EPA
Mode
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
BaP
Wgt
Power
Fuel
BaP
Wgt
Power
Fuel
Bap
No,
rpm
load,%
ktf
kg/hr
Ug/br
Fact
kW
kg/hr
yg/hr
Fact
k*
kg/hr
pg/hr
1
1680
2
2,1
4.0
46.9
0.12
0.252
0.480
5,628
0.225
0.473
0.900
10.553
2
1680
50
56.8
13.7
48.5
0.16
9.088
2,192
7.760
0.092
5.226
1.260
4.4*2
3
1680
100
114*0
25.5
0.12
13.680
3.060
—
0.049
5.586
1.250
4
Idle
0
0.9
24. J
0.20
0.18
4.860
0.269
—
0.242
6.537
5
2800
100
145.5
38.0
0.12
17,460
4.560
0.176
25.608
6.688
6
2800
50
69.6
22.9
817.3
0.16
11.136
3.664
130.768
0.110
7.656
2.519
89.901
7
2800
2
3.5
9.1
86.7
0.12
0.420
1.092
10.404
0.079
0.277
0.719
6.849
52.036
15.228
159.420
44.826
13.578
118.304
Brake Specific BaP, ug/k#-hr
3.064
2.639
Fuel
Specific BaP, ugAg fuel
10.469
8.713
-------
TABLE
C-33.
BRAKE AND
FUEL
SPECIFIC BaP RATES
- 7-MODE
CYCLE
Cat 3208/EGR (Run
2)
W.
F. Derived
from 13
mode FTP
W. F.
Derived
from 23-
-mode EPA
Mode
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
BaP
Wgt
Power
Fuel
Bap
Wgt
Power
Fuel
Bap
No,
rpm
load,%
kw
kg/hr
Mg/hr
Fact
kW
kg/hr
yg/hr
Fact
kW
kg/hr
Ug/hr
1
1680
2
2.1
4.0
43.2
.12
0.252
0.480
5.184
0.225
0.473
0.900
9.720
2
1680
50
56.8
13.7
17.6
.16
9.088
2.192
2.816
0.092
5.226
1.260
1.619
3
1680
100
113.2
25.6
.12
13.584
3.072
0.049
5.547
1.254
4
Idle
0.9
23.4
.20
0.18
4.680
0.269
0.242
6.295
5
2800
100
144.8
37.7
.12
17.376
4.524
0.176
25.485
6.635
6
2800
50
69.6
22.6
583.1
.16
11.136
3.616
93.296
0.110
7.656
2.486
64.141
7
2800
2
3.5
9.1
89.5
.12
0.420
1.092
10.74
0.079
0.277
0.719
7.071
51.856
15.156
116.716
44.664
13.496
88.846
Brake Specific BaP, Wg/kW-hr
Fuel Specific BaP, Ug/kg fuel
2.251
7.701
1.989
6.583
-------
r- eo l
<*r r- i
*o *e i
r* vE> oo
ia i © * a> i
O Is ifl O O* •-« O
. . . . o • » *
05 *S 0*
H fl
*•* <*
!j
o
3
•00000000
hcooocoqqqo
u fl
II
||1
« g
?1
M
is
•* u.
O M O I <6 I 9> to 8
H" CT* ."•! t «-l 1 t~- »¦* sO
-« m rt I r"i I V CD to
00 a> i-
CT» «» r*
•h r» o o
r- f fN 1
« M 9 1
•* O * I
0* O CD I *0 <¥ ® I
C0 « N » Q> *> (H I
m r* iA I fl» N w |
O1AIAOOMO1A
OOOOOOOOO
W I H Ifl BJ
{HOMO
t . . . <
O ci ^
H CO
> . . . (
n sq t*%
1 0 o H o 0 I-
«A O U o lA u
5 s
i"
its
o-S
«r O
H CO w w w
*o UD *0 *0 <0
OOOOOO
(OfflOQgO
r< fM
k <* lA tO Is- CO
-------
TABLE C-36. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATES - 7-MODE CYCLE
Chev 366
W. F. Derived from 13-mode FTP
W, F. Derived from 23-mode EPA
Mode
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
BaP
Wgt
No.
rpm
load,%
kW
kg/hr
yg/hr
Fact
1
1200
2
.12
2
1200
50
20.4
8.3
1.3
.16
3
1200
100
42.1
16.8
390.2
.12
4
Idle
.20
5
2300
100
88.5
34.0
289.9
.12
6
2300
50
43.7
17.6
27.7
.16
7
2300
2
1.7
7.2
6.5
.12
Power
kW
264
052
Fuel
Kg/hr
10.620
6.992
0.204
26.132 11.104
328
016
080
816
864
BaP
mMil.
0.208
46.824
34.788
4.432
0.780
87.032
Wgt
Fact
Power
kW
,225
,092
,049
,269
,176
,110
,079
1.
2,
15,
4.
0.
877
063
576
807
134
Fuel
kg/hr
0.764
0.823
984
936
569
24.457 10.076
BaP
* q/hr
0.120
19.120
51.022
3.047
0.514
73.823
Brake Specific BaP, Ug/kW-hr
Fuel Specific BaP, ug/kg fuel
TABLE C-37.
3.330
7.838
BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATES - 9-MODE CYCLE
Chevrolet 366
3.018
7.327
Weighted
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
BaP
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
BaP
rpm
Load, %
kW
kg/hr
Ug/hr
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
Ug/hr
Idle
.220
1200
2
.185
1200
50
20.4
8.3
1.3
.075
1.530
0.623
0.098
1200
100
42.1
16,8
390.2
.040
1.684
0.672
15.608
1200
CT
2.8
0.7
.120
______
0.336
0.084
2300
100
88.5
34.0
289.9
.145
12.83 3
4.930
42.036
2300
50
43.7
17.6
27.7
.090
3.933
1.584
2.493
2300
2
1.7
7,2
6.5
.065
0.111
0.468
0.423
2300
CT
4.4
3.2
.06
0.264
0.192
20.091
8.877
60.934
Brake Specific BaP, Mg/kW-hr 3.033
Fuel Specific BaP, ug/kg fuel 6.864
-------
TABLE C-38. COMPARISON OF ODOR RATINGS - MACK ETAY(B)673A
Operating
Condition
Date
"D"
Composite
"B"
Burnt
"0"
Oily
"A"
Aromatic
«pM
Punge
Inter. Speed
2/01/77
2.7
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.4
2% Load
2/03/77
3.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.5
Average
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.5
Inter. Speed
2/01/77
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.3
50% Load
2/03/77
2.5
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.4
Average
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.4
Inter. Speed
2/01/77
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
100% Load
2/03/77
3.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
Average
3.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
High Speed
2/01/77
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.5
2% Load
2/03/77
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
Average
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
High Speed
2/01/77
2.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
50% Load
2/03/77
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
Average
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.5
High Speed
2/01/77
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
100% Load
2/03/77
3.4
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
Average
3.3
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
Idle
2/01/77
3.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
2/03/77
3.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
Average
3.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
Idle-Accel
2/01/77
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
2/03/77
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.8
Average
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
Acceleration
2/01/77
3.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
2/03/77
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
Average
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
Deceleration
2/01/77
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
2/03/77
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
Average
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
Cold Start
2/01/77
4.6
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
2/03/77
4.1
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
Average
4.4
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
C-29
-------
TABLE C-39. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Hack ETAY(B)673A
Run Operating "D"
No. Condition C opposite
6. Inter.Speed 2.7
14. 2% Load 2.5
18. 2^
2.7
2. Inter.Speed 2.8
9. 50% Load 2.3
11. 2Ji
2.6
S. Inter.Speed 3.3
16. 100% Load 3.0
21. 3a
3.1
3. High Speed 3.3
12. 2% Load 2.9
20. ^5
3.2
8. High Speed 2.8
15. 50% Load 2.8
17. 2^
2.8
1. High Speed 3.3
7. 100% Load 3.1
i0. 3j_3
3.2
4. Idle 2.9
13. 2.8
19. M
2.9
23. Idle-Accel. 2.8
26. 2.S
29. 2.8
33. 3^4
2.9
22. Acceleration 2.8
24. 2.6
30. 4.0
32. 3^2
3.2
25. Deceleration 1.9
27. 2.8
28. 2.b
31. 2^9
2.6
Cold Start 4.6
Date: February 1, 1977
"B"
"O"
"A*
Hp*
Burnt
Oily
Aromatic
Pungent
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.1
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.5
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
C-30
-------
TABLE C-40. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Mack ETATf(B)673A
Run Operating *0"
No, Condition composite
1. Inter.Speed 2.6
14. 2* Load 3.3
19. 3^0
3.0
4. Inter.Speed 2,1
7. 50% Load 3.0
11. 2^3
2.5
10. Inter.Speed 3.S
16. 100% Load 3.S
21- iii
3.3
8. High Speed 3.0
12. 2% Load 2.9
17. 2U3
3.1
3. High Speed 2.5
15. 50% Load 3.4
20. 2^8
2.9
2. High Speed 3.0
5. 100% Load 3.0
6. 4^3
3.4
9. Idle 3.1
13. 3.8
18. 2^
3.6
23. Idle-Accel 2.9
26. 3.4
30. 3.5
32. sa
3.2
25. Acceleration 3.0
27. 3.0
29. 3.1
33. LI
3.1
22. Deceleration 2.8
24. 2.3
28. 3.6
31. 2.5
2.8
Cold Start 4.1
Date: February 3, 1977
"B"
"0*
•A"
mpm
Burnt
oily
Arcmatic
Pungent
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.4
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.8
O.f
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.3
L0
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.4
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
03
1.0
1.0
0.8
",8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.4
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
u.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
C-31
-------
TABLE C-41, COMPARISON OF ODOR PANEL RATINGS - CATERPILLAR 3208 EGt
Operating
"D"
•B»
-0"
"A"
•P"
Condition
Date
Cooposite
Burnt
Qiiy
Aroaatic
Pungent
Inter. Speed
8/1/77
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.5
0.4
2% Load
8/3/77
3.2
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.5
8/5/77
2.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.3
Average
3.1
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.4
Inter. Speed
8/1/77
3.2
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.4
50% Load
8/3/77
3.9
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
8/5/77
3.6
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
Average
3.6
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.5
Inter. Speed
8/1/77
3.1
1.1
1.0
0,7
0.3
100% Loax*
8/3/77
3.6
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.7
8/5/7?
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.3
Average
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.4
High Speed
8/1/77
5.0
l.j
1.2
0.9
1.1
2% Load
8/3/77
4.4
1.6
1.1
0.7
0.8
8/5/77
4.S
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.9
Average
4.6
1.6
1.1
0.8
0.9
High Speed
8/1/77
4.1
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.9
50% Load
8/3/77
4.3
1.7
1.0
0.8
0.8
8/5/77
4.2
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.8
Average
4.2
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.8
High Speed
8/1/77
3.8
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.7
100% Load
8/3/77
3.4
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
8/5/77
3.3
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.5
Average
3.5
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
Idle
8/1/77
3.2
i.i
0.9
0.7
0.5
8/3/77
3.7
1.2
•» M
0.7
0.6
8/5/77
3.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.6
Average
3.5
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
Idle-
8/1/77
3.6
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.6
Acceleration
8/3/77
3.7
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.7
8/5/77
3.5
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.8
Average
3.5
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.7
Acceleration
8/1/77
3.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.8
8/3/77
3.7
1.2
1.0
0*6
0.8
8/5/77
3.7
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.7
Average
3.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.8
Deceleration
8/1/77
3.7
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.5
8/3/77
3.4
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
8/5/77
2.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.4
Average
3.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
Coid Start
8/1/77
4.4
1.6
1.0
0.6
0.6
8/3/77
4.1
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.6
8/S/77
3.9
1.3
0.9
0.?
0.6
Average
4.1
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.7
C-32
-------
TABLE C-42. SNGINE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine; Caterpillar
3208/EGR
Date:
August 1. :
Run
Operating
«D»
"O"
"A"
Hp*
No,
Condition
Composite
Burnt
Oily
Aroaatic
Pungent
5.
Inter.Speed
3.1
1.2
1.1
0.6
0.3
12.
2% Load
3.1
1.2
1.0
0.2
0.6
18.
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.3
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.5
0.4
1.
Inter.Speed
3.1
1.0
1.0
0,7
0.2
7.
50% Load
2.6
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.3
15.
3.9
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.8
3.2
1-1
0.9
0.7
0.4
6.
Inter Speed
3.1
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.3
13.
100% Load
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.2
20.
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.4
3.1
1.1
1.0
0,7
0.3
8.
High Speed
4.9
1.7
1.3
0.7
1.0
14.
2% Load
S.2
1.8
1.2
0.8
1.3
21.
5.0
1.6
1.2
1.1
0.9
5.0
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.1
2.
High Speed
3.7
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.6
11.
50% Load
4.4
1.4
0.9
0.6
1.2
19.
4.3
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
4.1
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.9
4.
High Speed
4.0
1.4
1.1
0.7
0.6
10.
100% Load
3.8
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.7
17.
3.6
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
3.8
1.2
1,0
0.8
0.7
3.
Idle
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.4
9.
3.6
1.2
0.9
1.0
0,3
16.
3.1
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.7
3.2
1.1
0,9
0,7
0.5
24.
Idle-Accel
3.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
0,7
27.
3.9
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.7
29.
3.4
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.4
31.
3.6
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.4
3.6
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.6
23.
Accel
3.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.8
25.
3.5
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
28.
3.9
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.8
32.
3.8
1.3
1,0
0.8
0.9
3.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.8
22.
Qecei
3.2
1.2
0,8
0.7
0.7
26.
3.9
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.2
30.
3.7
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.6
33.
3.9
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
3.7
1.2
1.0
0,8
0.5
Cold Start
4.4
1.6
1.0
0.8
0.6
C-33
-------
TABLE C-43. ENGINE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine; Caterpillar 3208
Date: Auguat 3, 197?
Run
No.
1.
11.
15.
Operating
Condition
Inter. Speed
2% Load
-0"
Composite
3.1
3.3
3.2
3.2
Burnt
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
*0-
2A2X
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
•A"
Aronatic
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.6
-p.
Ptangent
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.5
3. Inter.Speed
10. 50% Load
17.
3.5
3.8
4.3
3.9
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.5
0,8
0.6
5. Inter.Speed
12. 100% Load
20.
3.8
3.5
3.6
3.6
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
4.
8.
19.
High Speed
2% Load
4.9
3.5
4.7
4.4
1.8
1.2
1.8
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.8
6. High Speed
13. 50% Load
21.
4.2
3.5
5.1
4.3
1.5
1.2
1.7
1.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.4
hi
0.8
2.
9.
16.
High Speed
100% Load
3.2
3.8
3.1
3.4
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
7.
14.
18.
Idle
3.5
3.9
3.8
3.7
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
O.S
0.6
24.
26.
28.
32.
Idle-Accel
3.4
3.6
4.0
3.7
3.7
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
TTT
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
o?T
0.4
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.7
22.
27.
30.
33.
Acceleration
3.0
4.1
3.7
4.0
3.7
0.9
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
23.
25.
27.
31.
Deceleration
3.1
3.4
4.1
3.1
3.4
1.0
1.0
L.4
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.6
Cold Start
4.1
1.5
1.0
0.7
C-34
-------
TABEL
C-44. ENGINE
ODOR
EVALUATION
SUKHARY
Engine: Caterp i1lar
3208
August 5,
Run
Operating
**D"
'B-
-o*
"A"
"P-
Mo.
Condition
Composite
durnt
oily
Arcotatic
Ponownt
4.
Inter.Speed
2.8
i.O
0.9
0.5
0,3
11.
2% Load
3.0
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.4
19.
2.7
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.3
2.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.3
1.
Inter.Speed
1.5
l.C
1.0
0.9
0.4
12.
50% Load
3.8
1.3
1.0
0.5
0,9
17.
3.4
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.5
3.6
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
3.
Inter.Speed
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.4
7.
100% Load
2.8
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.3
13.
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.2
2.9
1.0
0.9
0,5
0.3
2.
High speed
4.3
1.4
1.0
0.6
1.0
8.
2% Load
4.2
1.3
0.9
0.B
0.8
IS.
5.1
1.8
1.1
0.7
1.0
4.5
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.9
6.
High speed
4.0
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.7
14.
50% Load
4.3
1.4
1.1
0.6
0.8
21.
4.2
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
4.2
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.8
5.
High Speed
3.5
1.1
1.0
0.6
o.:
10.
100% Load
2.8
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.2
18.
3.5
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
3.3
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.5
9.
Idle
3.7
1.3
0.9
0-5
0.8
16.
3.3
1.1
0.9
0.5
0,5
20.
3.6
1.3
0.8
0.7
0.6
3.5
1.2
0.9
0,6
0.6
22.
Idle-Accel
3.9
J.2
0.9
0.7
0.8
27.
3.6
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
29.
3.2
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.7
31.
3.4
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.8
3.5
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.8
24.
Acceleration
4.0
1.3
0.9
0,7
0.7
26.
3.9
1.2
0.9
0.6
1.0
28.
3.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.4
32.
3.6
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
3.7
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.7
23.
Oeceleration
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.3
25.
2.7
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.3
30.
2.5
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.4
33.
2.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.6
2.8
1.0
0,9
0.6
0.4
Cold Start
3.9
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
C-35
-------
TABLE C-45. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS, MACK ETA*(B)673A
NDIR
C.
L.
Operating
HC,
CO,
co2
NO,
NO,
NQ„,
LCA,
LCO,
Condition
Date
ppm
ppm
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
}ig/£
M9A
TIA
Inter. Speed
2/1/77
209
217
1.9
223
177
210
13.0
6.3
1.8
2% Load
2/3/77
235
235
2.2
203
162
202
15.9
7.6
1.9
Average
222
226
2.1
213
170
206
14.5
7.0
1.9
Inter. Speed
2/1/77
123
207
6. 3
945
862
887
11.9
5.3
1.7
50* Load
2/3/77
129
193
7.6
899
823
843
9.7
4.8
1.7
Average
126
200
7.0
922
843
865
10.8
5.1
1.7
Inter. Speed
2/1/77
62
363
8.8
1215
1087
1104
6.4
4.7
1.7
100% Load
2/3/77
59
382
9.1
1193
1062
1076
7.1
5.2
1.7
Average
61
373
9.0
1204
1075
1090
6.8
5.0
1.7
High Speed
2/1/77
268
235
2.4
160
127
157
17.5
6.6
1.8
2% Load
2/3/77
267
217
2.5
149
130
151
17.2
6.4
1.8
Average
268
226
2.5
155
129
154
17.4
6.5
1.8
High Speed
2/1/77
141
132
5.6
573
488
503
13.4
6.2
1.8
50% Load
2/3/77
169
146
6.1
528
453
473
17.8
7.4
1.9
Ave rage
155
139
5.9
551
471
488
15.6
6.8
1.9
High Speed
2/1/77
41
282
8. 3
924
835
848
6.4
4.7
1.7
100% Load
2/3/77
40
306
9.1
914
803
813
5.2
3.8
1.6
Average
41
294
8.7
919
819
831
5.8
4. 3
1.7
Idle
2/1/77
212
231
1. 3
255
208
253
11.1
5.7
1.8
2/3/77
229
231
1.4
239
190
242
11.9
6.1
1.8
Average
221
231
1.4
247
199
248
11.5
5.9
1.8
C-36
-------
TABLE C-46. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
ENGINE: MACK ETAY(B)673A DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1977
(rating
Run
HC,
CO,
co2.
idition
No.
PPm
PPm
%
sr. Speed
6
180
212
2.0
.oad
14
236
226
1.9
18
212
212
1.9
209
217
1.9
sr. Speed
2
132
183
6.4
Load
9
120
226
6.2
11
116
212
123
207
6.3
sr. Speed
5
62
368
9.1
s Load
16
44
354
8.9
21
80
368
8. j
62
363
8.8
l Speed
3
264
226
2.4
>oad
12
262
226
2.5
20
278
254
2.4
268
235
2.4
l Speed
8
126
155
5.6
Load
15
182
113
5.7
17
116
127
5.4
141
132
5.6
l Speed
1
48
268
8.3
k Load
7
44
283
8.3
10
32
296
8.2
41
282
8.3
.
4
218
226
1.3
13
212
226
1.4
19
206
240
1.2
212
231
1.3
C.
L.
DOAS
Results
NO,
NOx,
LCA,
LCO,
ppm
ppm
Vg/l
TIA
190
220
.3
6.0
1.8
165
205
1_.6
6.6
1.8
175
205
13.2
6.2
1.8
177
210
13.0
6.3
1.8
887
925
12.1
4.5
1.7
820
840
10.1
6.0
1.8
880
895
13.6
5.3
1.7
862
887
11.9
5.3
1.7
1087
1112
7.4
5.5
1.8
1100
1125
4.8
3.8
1.6
1075
1075
7.0
4.8
1.7
1087
1104
6.4
4.7
1.7
125
155
18. 3
7. 3
1.9
130
157
20.4
8.4
1.9
125
160
13.9
4.2
1.6
127
157
17.5
6.6
1.8
480
495
11.0
5.6
1.8
465
490
18. 3
7.7
1.9
520
525
10.9
5.2
1.7
488
503
13.4
6.2
1.8
850
875
9.2
5.4
1.7
830
835
4.6
4.6
1.7
825
835
5.5
4.2
1.6
835
848
6.4
4.7
1.7
210
260
11.0
4.9
1.7
215
255
10. 3
5.8
1.8
198
245
12.0
6.5
1.8
208
253
11.1
5.7
1.8
NDIR
NO,
ppm
239
215
215
223
976
914
945
945
1221
1221
1204
1215
156
168
156
160
555
555
610
573
945
929
899
924
251
263
251
255
C-37
-------
TABLE C-47.
ENGINE: MACK ETAY(B)673B
GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 197?
Operating Run
Condition No.
Inter. Speed I
2% Load 14
19
Inter. Speed 4
50% Load 7
11
Inter. Speed 10
100* Load 16
21
High Speed 8
2% toad 12
17
High Speed 3
50% Load 15
20
High Speed 2
100% Load 5
6
Idle 9
13
18
HC,
CO,
co2.
PPm
ppm
%
224
240
2.1
246
226
2.4
236
240
2.0
235
235
2.2
128
226
7.8
122
183
8.0
138
169
7.0
129
193
7.6
80
368
9.2
52
397
9.1
46
382
9.0
59
382
9.1
254
212
2.4
272
226
2.8
276
212
2.4
267
217
2.5
134
169
5.4
204
127
7.0
170
141
5.9
169
146
6.1
48
283
8.3
36
311
9.4
36
325
9.7
40
306
9.1
240
226
1.4
218
226
1.6
228
240
1.3
229
231
1.4
NDIR
c.
L.
NO,
NO,
NOx,
ppm
ppm
ppm
203
165
200
215
160
200
191
160
205
203
162
202
884
795
884
840
870
929
835
845
899
823
843
1170
1037
1037
1187
1075
1090
1221
1075
1100
1193
1062
1076
156
135
155
156
125
149
134
130
150
149
130
151
528
460
480
528
445
460
528
455
480
528
453
473
929
795
805
899
810
815
914
805
820
914
803
813
239
190
245
251
190
240
227
190
240
239
190
242
DOAS
Results
LCA,
LCO,
mil
mil
TIA
11.9
4.6
1.7
18.6
9.4
2.0
17.3
8.8
1.9
15.9
7.6
1.9
10.8
5.0
1.7
8.3
3.5
1.5
10.0
5.8
1.8
9.7
4.8
1.7
11.6
8.0
1.9
4.4
3.7
1.6
5.2
3.8
1.6
7.1
5.2
1.7
21.7
9.0
2.0
16.8
7.5
1.9
13.1
2.6
1.4
17.2
6.4
1.8
10.5
4.9
1.7
26.6
11.2
2.1
16.3
6.2
1.8
17.8
7.4
1.9
7.9
4.7
1.7
3.9
3.2
1.5
3.7
3.6
1.6
5.2
3.8
1.6
13.0
5.3
1.7
11.2
6.4
1.8
11-5
6.5
1.8
11.9
6.1
1.8
-------
TABLE C-48. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS, CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR
Operating
Condition
Date
HC,
ppm
CO,
ppm
co2
%
NDIR
NO,
ppm
C.
NO,
ppm
L.
NOx,
ppm
LCA,
\iq/l
LCO,
Uq/l
TI/
Inter. Apeed
8/1/77
411
446
3.2
144
158
170
2% Load
8/3/77
404
432
3.0
155
142
157
59.7
25.4
2.i
8/5/77
376
423
3.2
213
175
180
32.8
17.9
2.:
Average
397
434
3.1
171
158
169
46.3
21.7
2.:
Inter. Speed
8/1/77
405
564
10.4
215
267
269
50% Load
8/3/77
324
549
10.2
281
253
260
55.6
23.0
2.1
8/5/77
404
554
10.6
262
233
238
61.7
25.2
2.i
Average
378
556
10.4
253
251
256
58.7
24.1
2.t
Inter. Speed
8/1/77
123
1224
12.0
1185
1191
1216
100% Load
8/3/77
111
1140
11.2
1219
1133
1146
30.7
22.9
2.'
8/5/77
88
1328
12.0
1357
1229
1246
20.9
13.5
2.1
Average
107
1231
11.7
1254
1184
1203
25.8
18.2
2.:
High Speed
8/1/77
575
826
5.5
123
143
147
2% Load
8/3/77
575
952
5.6
147
149
151
64.4
36.2
2. i
8/5/77
511
840
5.7
202
162
168
55.5
35.7
2.i
Average
554
873
5.6
157
151
15o
60.0
36.0
2 . i
High Speed
8/1/77
515
3038
11.6
154
177
185
50% Load
8/3/77
412
4156
11.9
201
183
186
51.7
39.9
2. (
8/5/77
437
5004
12.3
211
183
187
32.4
24.1
2.:
Average
455
4066
11.9
189
181
186
42.1
32.0
2.\
High Speed
8/1/77
25
1173
11.9
680
677
690
100% Load
8/3/77
28
1155
11.9
722
692
694
33.8
18.7
2.:
8/5/77
37
1178
11.8
75 3
703
710
16.8
11.5
2.:
Ave rage
30
1169
11.9
718
691
698
25. 3
15.1
2.;
Idle
8/1/77
399
368
2.2
158
1S7
190
8/3/77
305
318
2.1
184
172
190
24.9
12.4
2.:
8/5/77
369
391
2.2
209
178
189
28.6
15. 3
2.;
Average
358
359
2.2
184
169
190
26.8
13.9
2.:
C-39
-------
TABLE C-49.
GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Eng ine: Caterpillar
3208
Date:
August 1,
NDIR
C.L.
Operating
Run
HC,
CO,
co2,
NO
NO
NOx
Condition
Mo.
EES.
Ppm
_%
PP«
PPM
EEE_
Inter.Speed
5
424
474
3.2
182
165
175
2% Load
12
408
391
3.2
99
150
160
18
400
474
3.2
151
160
175
411
446
3.2
144
158
170
Inter Speed
1
428
391
9.8
226
230
230
50% Load
7
376
756
11.1
226
325
333
15
412
544
10.4
193
245
245
405
564
10.4
215
267
269
Inter Speed
6
144
1283
11.8
1185
1162
1175
100% Load
13
124
1105
11.9
1132
1175
1187
20
100
1283
12.2
1239
1237
1287
123
1224
12.0
1185
1191
1216
High Speed
8
588
812
5.6
130
130
140
2% Load
14
592
854
5.4
99
138
142
21
544
812
5.5
140
160
160
575
826
5.5
123
143
147
High Speed
2
576
2668
11.1
172
180
190
50% Load
11
482
2886
11.8
140
175
180
19
488
3559
11.8
151
175
185
515
3038
11.6
154
177
185
High Speed
4
28
1214
11.9
732
680
700
100% Load
10
28
1160
11.9
661
675
680
17
20
1146
12.0
647
675
690
25
1173
11.9
680
677
690
Idle
3
412
363
2.2
172
160
200
9
404
377
2.3
151
150
175
16
380
3C3
2.2
151
160
195
399
368
2.2
158
157
190
C-40
-------
TABLE C-50. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
ENGINE: CATERPILLAR 3208 DATE: AUGUST 3, 1977
NDIR
L.
C.
DO AS
Results
Operating
Run
HC,
CO,
co2,
NO,
NO,
N°x«
LCA,
LCO,
Condition
No.
ppm
ppm
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
pg /%
Vg/l
TIA
Inter. Speed
1
432
488
3.3
145
140
160
108.0
36.1
2.6
2% Load
11
380
418
2.9
200
150
170
34.9
20.0
2.3
15
400
391
2.9
121
135
140
36.3
20.2
2.3
404
432
3.0
155
142
157
59.7
25.4
2.4
Inter. Speed
3
332
572
10.6
283
260
265
48.4
18.9
2.3
50% Load
10
324
488
10.0
305
253
260
47.6
18.2
2.3
17
316
586
10.0
255
245
255
70.9
32.0
2.5
324
549
10.2
281
253
260
55.6
23.0
2.4
Inter. Speed
5
108
1350
12.1
1282
1250
1250
28.9
19.2
2.3
100% Load
12
96
1077
11.7
1383
1200
1212
35.0
24.9
2.4
20
128
994
9.8
992
950
975
28.1
24.6
2.4
111
1140
11.2
1219
1133
1146
30.7
22.9
2.4
*High Speed
4
548
1036
5.7
186
160
160
61.6
34.2
2.5
2% Load
8
576
924
5.5
141
138
142
66.9
35.1
2.5
19
600
896
5.5
115
150
150
64.8
39.2
2.6
575
952
5.6
147
149
151
64.4
36.2
2.5
High Speed
6
432
3978
11.8
186
173
175
36.6
28.9
2.5
50% Load
13
372
4263
12.3
241
195
200
78.2
55.0
2.8
21
432
4227
11.5
176
180
183
40.4
35.9
2.6
412
4156
11.9
201
183
186
51.7
39.9
2.6
High Speed
2
32
1146
11.9
736
705
712
60.6
27.7
2.5
100% Load
9
24
1105
11.9
744
665
665
22.5
14.2
2.2
16
28
1214
11.8
687
705
705
18.4
14.2
2.2
28
1155
11.9
722
692
694
33.8
18.7
2. 3
Idle
7
340
336
2.2
193
190
210
31.7
16.2
2.2
14
272
309
2.2
248
190
210
22.2
11.8
2.1
18
304
309
1.8
111
135
150
20.7
9.2
2.0
305
318
2.1
184
172
190
24.9
12.4
2.1
C-41
-------
TABLE C-51. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
ENGINE: CATERPILLAR 3208 DATE: AUGUST 5, 1977
NDIR
L.C.
DO AS
Results
Operating
Run
HC,
CO,
co2,
NO,
NO,
NOx,
LCA,
LCO,
Condition
No.
ppm
ppm
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
U9/1
UgA
TIA
Inter. Speed
4
396
418
3.2
213
175
180
31.2
15.6
2.2
2% Load
11
368
460
3.3
200
170
175
32.3
17.5
2.2
19
364
391
3.2
227
18u
185
35.0
20.5
2.3
376
423
3.2
213
175
180
32.8
17.9
2.2
Inter. Speed
1
368
405
10.3
276
255
260
62.3
23.6
2.4
50% Load
12
412
699
10.9
255
225
225
66.0
27.4
2.4
17
432
558
10.6
255
220
228
56.7
24.5
2.4
404
554
10.6
262
233
238
61.7
25.2
2.4
Inter. Speed
3
108
1255
11.8
1331
1212
1225
20.9
15.4
2.2
100% Load
7
64
1445
12.1
1357
1237
1250
10.3
8. 3
1.9
13
92
1283
12.1
1383
1237
1262
31.4
16.8
2.2
88
1328
12.0
1357
1229
1246
20.9
13.5
2.1
High Speed
2
592
812
5.6
186
160
165
71.6
38.5
2.6
2% Load
8
472
840
5.7
206
160
170
41.7
29.6
2.5
15
468
868
5.8
213
165
170
53.1
39.0
2.6
511
840
5.7
202
162
168
55.5
35.7
2.6
High Speed
6
392
4627
12.2
213
190
195
16.9
14.3
2.2
50% Load
14
392
4554
12.3
213
185
190
22.3
15.9
2.2
21
528
5832
12.4
206
175
175
58.1
42.1
2.6
437
5004
12.3
211
183
187
32.4
24.1
2.3
High Speed
5
40
1228
11.8
753
710
715
14.9
11.4
2.1
100% Load
10
40
1187
11.8
753
690
695
8.2
7.2
1.9
18
32
1118
11.9
753
710
720
27.3
15.8
2.2
37
1178
11.8
753
703
710
16.8
11.5
2.1
Idle
9
360
391
2.2
200
180
195
29.8
15.8
2.2
16
376
391
2.2
213
180
193
33.4
16.8
2.2
20
372
391
2.2
213
173
180
22.5
13.2
2.1
369
391
2.2
209
178
189
28.6
15.3
2.2
C-42
-------
TABLE C-53. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3208 EGR ENGINE
1680 rpm 2800 rpro
Load % Load *
Aldehyde
Rate
2
50
100
2
50
100
Idle
Form
W/m3
3888
...
909
10954
28215
5
3858
Aldehyde
mg/hr
1569
545
6510
15470
8
525
mg/kg fuel
303
21
510
640
0
526
mgAw-hr
751
5
2340
210
0
Ace tane
pg/m3
672
___
66
2637
5443
1112
Aldehyde
mg/hr
588
82
3380
6450
327
mgAg fuel
114
3
260
270
327
mg/kw-hr
281
1
1220
90
Acetane
Ug/m3
327
42
16
1587
1095
33
459
mg/hr
492
60
32
3500
2230
113
233
mg/kg fuel
95
4
1
270
90
3
233
mg/kw-hr
236
1
0
1260
30
1
Iso-
ug/m3
441
97
butonal
mg/hr
1510
306
mg/kg fuel
120
13
mg/kw-hr
540
4
Crotonal
lig/m3
411
68
509
1198
942
67
663
mg/hr
909
137
1662
3890
2830
330
493
mg/kg fuel
176
10
64
300
120
9
494
mg/kw-hr
435
2
14
1400
40
2
Hexanol
yg/m3
86
168
367
194
245
150
mg/hr
357
1131
2430
1190
2440
228
mg/kg fuel
25
44
190
50
70
227
mg/kw-hr
6
10
870
20
20
Benz
pm/m3
664
1323
737
3039
738
854
Adlehye
mg/hr
3077
9870
5460
20760
• 8230
1449
mgAg fuel
213
380
430
860
220
1452
mg/kw-hr
53
80
1960
280
50
C-43
-------
TABLE C-52. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A ENGINE
Aldehyde
Rate
1450 rpm
1900 rpm
Idle
Load %
Load %
2
50
100
2
50
100
Form
yg/m3
2425
1896
1403
1858
1626
1310
1877
Aldehyde
mg/hr
1497
1664
1980
1538
2106
2343
470
tag/kg fuel
282
69
40
174
70
41
247
mg/kw-hr
333
15
9
314
17
10
Acetane
M/m3
38
265
145
Aldehyde
mg/hr
474
106
78
mgAg fuel
54
4
41
mg/kw-hr
97
1
Acetane
yg/m3
-
___
-
—
mg/hr
ing/Xg fuel
mg/kw-hr
—
Iso-
yg/m3
489
497
516
1020
520
450
559
butonal
mg/hr
1734
2505
4184
4855
3870
4627
804
mg/kg fuel
327
104
84
549
129
81
422
mg/kw-hr
385
22
19
991
32
19
Crotonal
yg/m3
337
321
492
369
254
631
mg/hr
1137
2478
2226
2611
2482
863
mg/kg fuel
214
50
252
87
43
453
mg/kw-hr
253
11
454
21
D
Hexanol
yg/m3
395
89
53
409
72
mg/hr
6205
821
762
8144
202
mgAg fuel
124
93
25
142
106
mgAw-hr
27
167
6
33
Benz
yg/m3
—-
Aldehyde
mg/hr
___
mgAg fuel
mgAw-hr
C-44
-------
TABLE C-54. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CHEVROLET 366 ENGINE
1200 rpm 2300 rpm
Aldehyde
Rate
«
Load
%
Load
Idle
2
50
100
CT
2
50
100
CT
Form-
ug/m3
1888
545
40861
15999
21396
aldehyde
mg/hr
211
99
11417
3661
9195
4956
1400
rog/kg fuel
47
12
705
1345
266
1041
551
mg/kw-hr
171
5
264
105
0
Acet-
ug/m3
156
2191
1348
4170
aldehyde
mg/hr
38
1325
1974
1676
2357
590
mg/kg fuel
9
82
725
49
495
232
mg/kw-hr
31
31
0
19
0
0
Acetone
Ug/m3
481
471
481
26
_
988
1756
mg/hr
199
243
502
938
248
2106
995
427
mg/kg fuel
45
28
31
345
33
61
209
168
mg/kw-hr
161
11
12
0
128
24
0
0
Iso-
Ug/m3
198
239
101
30
1
473
835
butanal
mg/hr
127
249
162
412
358
0
1563
499
314
mg/kg fuel
29
29
10
151
48
0
45
105
123
mg/kw-hr
103
11
4
0
185
0
18
0
0
Crotonal
ug/m3
5620
5876
992
411
589
3268
170424
mg/hr
3431
5790
1514
1927
4767
1095
10266
2192
60927
mg/kg fuel
772
672
94
708
637
63
297
460
23986
mg/kw-hr
2789
265
35
0
2471
25
117
0
0
Hexanal
ug/m3
418
1845
233
56
75
228
465
mg/hr
519
3708
727
1651
930
284
1460
1591
338
mg/kg fuel
117
430
45
607
124
16
42
334
133
mg/kw-hr
422
170
17
0
482
6
17
0
0
Benz-
ug/m3
3002
4629
11881
234
449
5319
8262
aldehyde
mg/hr
4180
10401
41357
18248
4102
1892
38091
25687
6734
mg/kg fuel
940
1207
2554
6705
548
108
1102
5393
2651
mg/kw-hr
3397
477
955
0
2126
42
434
0
0
-------
TABLE C-55. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, MACK ETAY(B)673A
Hydrocarbon
Hate
1450 rpm
1900 rpm
Idle
% Load
% Load
2
50
100
2
50
100
Methane
yg/m3
2198
733
400
2131
733
400
2331
ch4
mg/hr
1001
481
403
1280
692
524
425
mg/kg fuel
186
20
8
143
23
9
223
mg/kw-hr
223
4
2
261
6
2
Ethylene
ug/m3
6292
6525
5418
7050
5418
6467
7224
C2H4
mg/hr
2866
4280
5463
4234
5114
8472
1316
mg/kg fuel
531
174
109
474
170
148
691
mg/kw-hr
637
38
24
864
42
35
Ethane
ug/m3
125
312
125
62
187
C2H6
mg/hr
57
205
75
59
34
mg/kg fuel
11
8
8
2
18
mg/kw-hr
13
2
15
1
Acetylene
Mg/m3
325
217
541
487
162
541
433
c2h2
mg/hr
148
142
545
292
153
708
79
mg/kg fuel
27
6
11
33
5
12
41
mg/kw-hr
33
1
2
60
1
3
Propane
vig/m3
C3H8
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
— — —
Propylene
U g/m3
2330
3263
1806
2622
2797
2039
2505
c3h6
mg/hr
1061
2140
1821
1575
2639
2671
456
mg/kg fuel
197
87
36
176
88
47
240
mg/kw-hr
236
19
8
321
22
11
Benzene
is g/m3
505
674
786
562
506
674
730
CeHg
mg/hr
222
426
763
325
459
850
128
mg/kg fuel
41
17
15
36
15
15
67
mg/kw-hr
49
4
3
66
4
4
Toluene
U9/m3
164
219
110
110
219
C7H8
mg/hr
108
131
103
143
40
mg/kg fuel
4
15
3
3
21
mg/kw-hr
1
27
1
1
C-46
-------
TABLE C-56. SPECIFIC HYUROCAKBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3208/EGR
1680 rpm
% Load
Hydrocarbon
Rate
2
50
100
Methane
lag/m3
4129
4062
2131
ch4
mg/hr
1208
1147
925
mg/kg
fuel
242
80
36
mg/kw-
•hr
578
20
8
Ethylene
ug/m3
18119
20159
24179
c2h4
mg/hr
5300
5692
10503
mg/kg
fuel
1062
395
409
mg/hw-
¦hr
2536
97
90
Ethane
ug/m3
312
499
187
C2"6
mg/hr
91
141
81
mg/kg
fuel
18
10
3
mg/kw-
•hr
44
2
1
Acetylene
yg/m3
1516
1786
2652
C2H2
mg/hr
443
504
1511
mg/kg
fuel
89
35
45
mg/kw-
-hr
212
9
10
Propane
pg/m3
59
C3H8
mg/hr
17
mg/kg
fuel
1
mg/kw-
-hr
0
Propylene
pg/m3
5884
10312
5011
c3h6
mg/hr
1721
2912
2177
mg/kg
fuel
345
202
85
mg/kw-
-hr
824
50
19
Benzene
yg/m3
1854
5168
4213
c6h6
mg/hr
522
1405
1761
mg/kg
fuel
105
97
69
mg/kw
-hr
250
24
15
Toluene
yg/m3
493
603
384
C?Hg
mg/hr
144
170
166
mg/kg
fuel
29
12
7
mg/kw-
-hr
69
3
1
2300 rpm
Idle
% Load
2
50
100
7525
30434
466
4795
3285
12220
311
487
262
500
8
467
1182
163
2
24470
106037
2564
17071
10680
42567
1712
1734
850
1741
46
1663
3842
566
11
562
2684
437
245
1078
44
20
44
43
88
14
5413
15265
1191
1191
2360
6121
794
121
188
250
21
116
849
81
5
115
115
49
12
— — — -
2
1
——
12
10953
23188
350
5477
4781
9309
233
557
381
381
6
534
1720
124
2
3371
13033
786
2753
1416
5036
506
269
113
206
13
258
509
67
3
712
3726
548
310
1492
56
25
61
53
112
20
C-47
-------
TABLE C-57. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CHEV 366 ENGINE
1200 rpa 2300 rpm
Hydrocarbon
Rate
% Load
%
Load
tdle
_J
50
100
CT
a
50
*-
0
0
6t
Methane
_q/B3
2531
13785
215 368
22509
1132
799
237944
9523
2104*.
C«4
aq/hr
211
1354
44875
1348
159
202
102670
1C52
1027
fuel
4?
215
2771
495
21
12
2951
221
Q
aq/lw-hr
171
35
1037
0
83
5
1171
0
<04
Ethylene
uq/B3
£623
28723
140644
141402
3729
125496
6898
52611
C2H4
tng/hr
718
3863
29299
3467
524
54141
7617
2566
sag/kg fuel
162
448
1809
3111
70
1556
1599
1010
ng/kw-hr
584
177
677
0
272
617
0
0
Ethane
-ig/a3
437
1124
11549
15232
——
...
10925
.....
5306
-2H6
aq/hr
36
151
2407
913
—-
4715
259
319/k.q fuel
8
18
149
335
136
102
ag/iw-hr
30
7
56
0
54
0
Acetylene
uq/nJ
2761
6929
54780
22572
1353
43142
5359
18621
C2H2
ag/hr
230
931
11399
1350
190
...
18590
591
907
aq/kq fuel
187
43
263
0
99
...
212
0
357
aq/kw-hr
52
108
704
496
25
—
534
124
0
Propane
uq/B3
144
1903
14185
—.
1384
3560
1499
C3h8
aq/hr
21
420
899
632
404
77
rag/kg fuel
2
26
330
18
85
0
og/kw-nr
1
10
0
7
0
Propylene
ug/B3
2447
6933
48008
35354
524
34258
39443
22081
cjh6
aq/hr
204
932
10C01
5111
74
14779
4355
1077
aq/kg fuel
46
108
618
1878
10
...
425
914
424
aq/kw-hr
166
43
231
0
38
—
169
Q
Beniene
5261
14606
10370S
289541
1629
112
32357
78481
48538
C6HS
aq/hr
423
1891
20793
16687
221
27
38347
8340
2279
oq/kq fuel
>5
219
1284
4131
30
2
11G2
1751
397
mf/kw-hr
344
87
460
0
114
1
437
0
0
Toluene
uq/B3
8659
19674
191968
1379999
1206
...
104999
302063
157443
c?h8
a<3/hr
719
2639
29881
8240?
169
45172
33261
7659
ag/kq fuel
162
306
2463
30279
23
1298
6983
3015
og/kw-hr
585
121
921
0
88
515
0
0
e-48
-------
APPENDIX D
SULFATE AND PARTICULATE CHARACTERIZATION
-------
Table D-l. 21 -houe Ep* exp oiksel emission ctcu
C*T£H?Ill«h JiUh DlfiStt ENGINE OlKEd INJECTION <>* DEG.BTOC n/O ecu
TEST 1 MH 1 FUEL* Zn-i?i-r PROJECT! U-tt,23-l>m TEST 0*T£ U-1-J?
MQOE
FNi»ii*t
iosque
POxtK
fuel
Al«
exhaust
fuel
Moue
*c
Cm*
wOt*
«£iariita
6ShC
batu*
oSrt02++
.1PCEO
FLQd
FLO*
Putin
AIR
ti?n
NX*
KG/*I*
*G'*IN
kg/nlH
SUTIO
PP n
PPM
HPH
KM
G/Kn Krt
to/M* MK
o/KW rtK
1
?»IU
o.p u.o
.030
5.17
5 . 5U
,00b
i
222
7i1
151
u.uu
H
H
if
2
l2bU
30.1
1.1
,07?
1.11
1,11
.HO*
2
23b
587
230
. *tl
lb. 85
53.81
3
libit
1X8. ?
15. ?
,111
1.88
1.11
.nil
3
181
171
112
1.11
3,12
l ?. >2
2S.0b
1
l2bU
2b8.3
3S.1
.172
in.m
1 li. 18
.»1?
1
17U
321
?82
2.1b
1.1*
S , Jb
2;.13
5
12b.»
1 ?U. 3
18.1
.215
10.17
10.31
5
ib2
2b1
SHb
l.Vb
1 . U"J
*1.
11.1b
b
1 2bU
7l ?. B
18.7
.37b
11.12
11.80
. U 3 3
b
112
256
1U81
?.20
• 1*
l.>1
12.31
7
l2b»
1122.1
118,1
.SSI
13,12
13,b?
.•112
7
100
S22
1 2b1
i». uu
1
I
I
8
12bU
122?.3
lbl.1
#S18
13.11
11.UH
.Cill
8
>8
bl8
1123
7.13
.2«»
J.i2
10,In
i
12b»
1371,2
18?,U
,*71
11.21
11,1b
.01?
1
lb
B 3 ?
1 3b1
ti.uu
1
1
1
10
iebu
llBb.l
llb.l
.?33
11.H5
15.bl
.Oil
10
32
183
1375
U.oQ
1
I
1
u
?|IU
a.u
0,U
.030
5.31
5.3?
• Uub
11
128
278
3 (JO
fl.UO
h
K
K
12
iH IW
1132*1
2l1.U
,1b1
23.73
21.?U
.1111
12
51
3 30
1130
7.1?
.lb
l.Hy
lU.bd
13
2 iUU
10Sl,fe
231.2
, 81B
22.15
23.85
.1)31
13
12
283
1132
15.11
• 1 J
1 . b1
11.12
11
2inu
112.1
2U7.2
• bUI
21 .t»5
22.1b
. 03 7
11
13
2bl
1113
8.11
.11
I .o**
11.11
15
2iuu
8bl.7
18H.5
• ?11
2U.1l
21. b«
.035
15
15
236
1012
13.83
.15
1.58
11.3b
lb
am
57b.1
12b,8
.535
18.1?
11. ill
.021
lb
52
211
?11
1.2b
.2*
!U.b2
1?
a i uu
2 81.b
b J . 7
• 33b
lb.11
lfe.?1
.U21
1?
bb
215
528
O.UQ
1
1
I
ia
if l HO
208,1
15,1
.281
15.11
lb.22
.tug
18
81
21b
153
3 . b 3
.8b
»,u?
15,25
i°
2 IUH
15,u
20.1
«2Ub
15.50
15. ?U
. «il 3
11
105
311
32?
U.UU
1
1
1
eo
2 luti
21.1
1.7
• lb3
15.3?
15.51
.iUl
20
128
37?
23b
U.uo
1
i
i
21
?iju
u.o
(l«U
.U3U
5.5b
5.51
• U05
21
12?
381
110
0.00
N
ri
*
CTCU
COHHOSlTfc
BSrtC s
~ Ibl
&RAH/H*
Hn
dSCO* 3
3.255
CirtAH/Krt
rtfi
8SNQi++*
12.512
0*U*/K«
hh
bSrtC *
B3N02t*»
13.Obi
GftAH/K*
HK
63FC I .iSSKC/KW HK
* CONVERTED TO WCT BASIS
~ t CONVERTED TO *€T &ASIS AND tORRECIED TO lu.J r. Ill 1 GRAM
**!£« PEtf KC DRY AIR
-------
Table D-2. 2J-*0D£ FP* Exh oicstt EMISSION c*CU"
C*1ERPILI.*K ¦"tub DIESEL CNtolNR DIHECT IHJECIIPH it UEU.SIOC */U EGH
test i .iuf. i fuels cH-ae-f PHOJEcn n-ibei-oiu iest u*it
mat
CNlilNK
SM|-£t>
1 QxytJC
H0*6k
FUgi.
FLO*
AIk
FLU*
tXMAUbJ
FLO«
FUtL
A IH
*QUt
HC
Cut
N0+*
wfcTiSnHO
M3«C
B»CU4
03*02**
nun.
HltLI
»ilM
N X *
**
KG/HIN
Kb/HJM
KG /MIN
wtm
PPM
PPN
Kh
(,/Kh ItH
ti/KH HH
fc/Jt* HK
6/HC
i
?mi
u.u
il.tt
* U 30
S. 3S
S.3fl
.UQb
1
lb«
SI 1
144
il.OO
r*
K
n
3, .
2
I2h»i
JO. 1
4. t
.0?b
S.«i2
s.su
.IH18
2
1 80
131
228
. J«
12.73
bO« b<4
S2.bi
3.7
i
I2b«
118. 7
IS. ?
.U?S
s.se
1(1.uu
• tin 8
3
Ibi
302
111!
1 .11
3. US
1 1. iS
21.37
J, ?
4
I2b»
2b6. i
3S.1
. 1 ?U
1U.U1
lit. 114
-ill 7
4
118
11?
?? 3
2.«b
1 .2-i
2.4$
21.18
3.7
%
l*b»l
^70. 3
t8»S
,?1?
in. ib
10. 30
• U2 1
5
1 32
S?
Sib
1 . fb
.«2
l.fO
1S.13
3.?
b
J 2hU
?su.2
s<4,u
, J7b
11 . il
11.??
.*133
h
lib
lflU
lOlg
?. 22
.to
.©S
11.8?
3.7
>
I2b»
ii2u.s
.SlS
1 3.OR
1 3 . b 3
.012
?
He
3?8
1 1^1
ii, an
1
I
i
3.?
1 2 toU
122i.?
lb2,2
. ssa
1 3.M
l<« .01
.HIS
¥
7H
i?t
12?0
?.H3
.2*'
2. 3b
10.41
3. ?
S
iebu
1??b.S
1*1.7
.b?2
14.2S
ll , Sb
.01?
*
Sb
iilS
1 32 8
O.UU
1
1
1
3.?
lu
1 2bU
11HS.4
isb.t
.733
14.87
15.bU
• Ml H
1 U
3b
bUb
1 344
l». Ull
i
i
1
3.?
ti
700
u.u
u.u
• U 30
S.41
S.I?
. 11Gb
1 1
112
l?b
2b?
u.uu
n
#
K
3 . b
i?
a i >iu
1190.11
*48.5
Sbl
2J.H7
2i .83
,01U
i«?
bW
e-^3
ix)U
7.HS
. 2«>
I , bl
10. ?b
3 . b
l J
21tM>
iOSb,4
*32.3
.*•00
2 3 . OH
23.sn
.»3S
i 3
1 ?
23b
1112
IS.Sb
.14
1 .11
11 .21#
I.!
41
21U0
S3?. ?
eub.a
» if U i
2 1 . b I
22.13
.03?
11
*1
213
1113
li.b?
.11
1 . '***
11.S3
3. b
IS
2 Itlu
8S ?.U
188.4
,?3?
2i.u2
21. ?**
.(135
is
IS
ISO
lasi
13,7o
. 1 s
l.c?
li.H
3.b
lb
2llttt
S?b.S
12b.H
.Sab
la. 38
ih.«2
.«2S
lb
Sd
M2
7S1
S,
.2b
1 ,8b
10.70
3 , b
I 7
2 lift)
2*s.b
b3.?
, 33b
1 b. 4 2
lb. ?S
.02 U
i?
73
220
S31
u.aa
*
I
I
i.l
18
^ 1 (111
2oti.s
IS.'I
.?8U
1S.S*
( h . 2 3
.1118
18
dO
21b
4bS
3.t»3
.Br
S.h*
15#fc3
3.b
is
am
«0, 2
is.a
.2ui
IS.ib
IS.bfe
.013
IS
lb*
2SS
33?
O.oO
1
I
1
3.*
*u
2 tUti
21.4
4,?
. Ib3
45,31
IS.5(1
.1111
20
12?
32b
2SI
u.uo
i
1
I
3 . b
21
JllU
u.u
u,»
,"3U
S.S?
S.btJ
«ti as
21
131
iSS
208
O.UU
*
H
U
i.l
C1TCLE
CUNP0S1IC
B3HC
s
.120
Hfi
83C0t
9
2.483
Gn*h/rh
HM
a$«02*t
Z
12.S14
MK
H3HC *
8$M02*+
=
12.HV2
GUAM/
B3FC s , MR
» CONVERTEO 10 «T BASIS
~ ~ COUVCHTEU TO ..ft 8*SU *N0 CUHKECTtl) lu ID.? «I|.LI6K*M
KAlER PCf) «6 BUY Aid
-------
Table D-3. I'-snoi feoe»*i oifskl emission c*c:u
;iTEHP!Li*i; ll'Ob DIESEL t NU IHE , 01RECT 1NJEC T ItlN, OF « EGH
TEST I HUM 1 FiJEl PHUJEtl! 11-1I.2J-001 1ESI I14TE ll-t-7?
40UE ENGINE IOKu.lt PO*E«
SPEf.O
RPM M * «• KH
FUEL * 1 k Exhaus? Fjifc'1
Ft.UK FLO" FLO" ft IR
KG/HIN KG/NIN KG/"lh »8T[0
1
?!*»!
U.1I
U . CI
• UJIJ
5,17
s.su
. 'tub
2
I2M»
10. 1
1.1
« U 7 ?
<*. Ml
M.<*q
.UO*
3
i2bu
170. 3
18 , ^
.215
ID.1?
HI. 31
.'*21
1
12HU
?*?.§
*8,7
, 3?b
U.H?
11,80
,1
23.73
21. 711
,1111
*,
si
16. bl
3.7
*
112
253
UJ2?
?,*<*
.1*
I,
i H
11,7U
3. 7
%
inu
522
1250
11,
.2?
2.
7^
1U.M8
3.7
b
32
H83
112b
IS,*8
.^7
* ,
bS
10. b?
3.7
7
128
278
?3?
n.un
K
i?
ft
1.7
8
Si
3 30
12Ul
IS.^2
.1*-
1.
11,37
J, 7
IS
238
1 111
IS.lb
.IS
1 .
SB
12.1U
J. 7
Hi
S2
211
?bl
10,1b
.2*
2,
u ^
1U#«U
3.7
1 i
h8
2M*
SS2
s.ur.
,5rJ
1 .
13,02
J, 7
1?
126
377
251
, 38
12. 32
72,
37
7T.H1
i. 7
13
127
381
20b
o.uo
K
R
N
3. 7
CYCLE
CU*POS!TE
6$MC
s
.117
Mh
A8C0*
s
3.SHI
GMAn/ *««
hP
HSN02**
5
12.137
«»¦'
HShC ~
0SMO2***
12,«5»
CttAM/nn
rtt«
03FC
S
.2S3HG/KH HH
~ CONVCRTEO TU *E T BASIS
co«ve«rio 10 *tT nasi* *mu cuPiiEcttu m uj.?
NAUR PMi KG DRY AJ*
-------
Table D-4 • 13-lODE FEOEK»L 0IE3EL EMISSION C'tLt
C*TEHPILL*K 1*Ub OltSEt IHUImE.OIkECT INJEC I ll)N, *9 OEU OfOC»*/U EGK
rE#r i sun i fuel tn-m-e psojEcn n--»hi»-tun test uaie u-i-??
HOD E
CNttint:
SP zto
fUnUUC
POwtit
fuel
FLU*
a!k
M.0*
fc*H*UiJT
FLOP*
FUgL
A IK
HOOE
«C
Ci#*
NOt *
wt1Urticu
b$ic
D 3 C i» ~
tfbHUc~~
rig*.
hlLlI
ft t H
KH
KC/aiN
KG/MIN
kg/*im
HATJi!
fph
FPn
FPU
An
G/KW r»n
0/f" Hrf
U/Kk nn
(./KG
i
7HU
U. 0
U, il
. oiu
S.3S
^.30
.ilUb
1
Ibb
SI 1
i b3
(J.UI)
It
H
i.7
i
l?hO
3U.H
1, 1
• U 7b
n.8*
• MUd
e
iSu
131
esi
.si
ie. ?3
SH.7b
J • 7
3
i*bo
3 70. 3
1H.M
.ili
1 li . 1 b
1U.30
.0*1
3
i id
3?
1US£
3. HI
• «e
l.CU
3d. Kb
3.?
*
l^bii
?so.a
SS.tl
.37b
11.us
11.??
.U13
1
11*
10U
i*n
?.<
8
b6
ens
tei*
IS. B8
l.bl
U.SJ
3.b
«*
a liiii
es?.o
lRa.t
.737
ei.ua
*1 . 7b
• It 3 S
*1
IS
ISU
me
lS.Uti
.IS
i.C?
lrf.3*
3. b
1U
inu
S?b.H
1 ib . 8
. S 3b
IK. Jd
jn.ie
. Of?*!
1M
So
n?
*Ui?
111. IS
.*s
1 . *>b
11. !*•
i.b
U
.b
crcte
COHPOSITk
BSHC *
.see
&k*M/K*
»*H
ti$CO* S
e.bi?
nft
C»SM0£t4S
13.>1*
GHAft/Km
nn
ItbHC *
BSwOetts
n.NAN3
KATE* fEH Ki, OH? * IN
-------
Table D-5 . u-hooe federal oiesel emission c*CLE
C*IERPILL*R 3'Ub OIESEL ENGINE,DIRECT INJECTION,21
project: n-ib2i-noi fuel Eh-2?2-f
OEG.BTOC,*/EGR
MOOE ENGINE icmuue PQ*£R fuel
AIR
E*M*UST fuel
HUDE MC
COt
NO** KEIGMIEO BSmC
BSCOt
0
1
cr\
SPEED
FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
AIR
R»M
N * H KN
KG/HIN
KG/HIN
KG/MIN
RAT 10
1
?OU
0.0 0.0
,021
2.12
2.IS
.012
2
12bU
.411.1
i.i
,0?1
1.21
1.21
.018
3
12bU
3?0.3
1B.1
.230
1.21
1.11
.OSS
*
12bO
?1?,B
SB.?
,101
8.SI
8.11
.01?
V
12bO
1122.1
lis. I
.bOI
11.30
11.10
.053
b
l2bU
1103.0
m.t
,?18
13. bO
11.32
, OS 3
7
70U
u.o
0.0
.021
2.12
2.15
,012
a
a ion
lusu.a
212.8
,11?
11.8?
20.82
.0*8
i
2iuu
Bbl. 7
181.S
.802
lb.22
17.U2
.011
10
2100
S?b,1
I2I>,I
.551
13,21
13,80
,012
n
2iou
28?,2
H.2
.m
1. b I
i.lb
,03?
18
2 lull
i 3,7
S.2
.ibi
?,0?
J.23
.021
11
?uo
n.o
0,0
.021
2.12
2,15
.012
83N02»* H
H
PPH
PPH PPH KN
G/KH MR
G/KN MR
G/KR hR
1
210
Sit 208 0.00
K
R
H
2
208
Sb3
182
. 33
b. J?
31, 3b
18.2?
3
2S0
8(11
288
3,11
,bb
1.2?
2. SO
1
70
112b
?08
7.81
,18
?.»?
b.nt
S
10
28bl
110
11.85
,02
13.33
b,1?
b
51
Ibli
1113
11,81
.11
?,2b
8,12
7
210
S11
208
0,00
n
R
R
8
Ik
532
1Q3S
18, b2
,o»
2, ?fe
8,81
1
20
?1*
(1?
If.lb
,01
1.13
?,2S
10
b8
?5b
523
10,15
,22
1. 77
S.11
11
lib
311
10*
S.OS
,b?
l.bS
b, Ob
12
111
SSI
131
,"•2
l.kU
11,11
1 ?, b8
13
210
S11
2U1
0,00
H
K
R
CfCLE
COMPOSITE
BSMC «
.221
GHAM/KN
MR
B3C0t s
b ¦ 131
GNAH/KH
MR
3SN02»»=
7.31S
gram/km
HR
flSHC t
BSN02tt:
7.S71
grah/km
HH
8SFC =
• 2b8KG/KM III'
~ CONVERTED TO MET HASH
~ ~ CONVERTED TO *£T BASIS »ND CuHlttcH.u iu iu./
IUTER PER KG.DRV AIR
-------
Table D-6 . 21 --(CDC EP4 l*P DIESEL ImISSIUK CCIE
Ctl*-'"ILL-x 1"'. "IS-SF.L F.Mt.l'lf ,lili'hcr 1 >:JfC I I(K, 1 S Dt'G. hTSC
[til i 1 t-J'.L KSUJfcCl! iJ-ltU*I
v* • «
y ,'J
, f11 A
S,*i2
S.fc*
."Ub
2
?y.s
3.H
.u?3
«#SS
9.S2
.nu»
i
i c ti 0
) 11.<5
15.li
.Hi?
*.7i
9.?2
»«t 11
<*
lifi
3« , i
,ltb
% 7
• CHS
i-J
l^>-'i
1*17.i
1 8 ? . U
.7*2
IS.73
IS.*7
. usu
1 1
?u"
U.O
O.'J
, 0?b
S. J9
*.22
,on$
l*
? t •• n
?«?8. i
.
2* .**
2^. **
i
is
2lu U
m»K*
211.*
»«in3
23. i*
2-* .'it
.U3«l
l*
C/KW
G/Kfc H«<
*
L
1
112
30
iiii
U.UU
n
M
.
I r
?
2b8
lll»
i 3*»
.27
n,*b
17,
33.
. »l
1^
3
219
11?
cl%
1.1U
*.71
IK
i ?
a •
2ub
120
31S
2.UU
1.77
c.r'J
t,
t
S
1»H
171
iiS
i.
1.17
2.i i
?.
i«
fa
i if D
118
h,
.*3
.Ml
t.
* ~
i»
i
bl
<*St
7*7
•I.LiU
1
1
i
i«
u
bU
f 77
7.^8
.13
?.&«~
b.
* 7
2b
bfll
^22
U.UU
1
I
I
1U
12
b2ir
Ut2
U.U'J
1
I
1
li
1 IK
h«i
1^1
O.uu
H
If
-
17
b"2
7.10
.Ob
2« ;<*
w
3"»
1
13
1*
t 3a
bUl
1 *.lb
.Ob
2 , b 7
b.
Si
1
!«~
20
2 tin
S ^ ?
li . 1 (J
.0?
1 ,«U
fc.
1
IS
23
cUU
Sir
12. S*
.ott
1 • t ?
b.
•s
1
Ih
}
o,uo
I
I
I
l
2U
1HR
1 7t*
1 ?2
o.uu
1
1
I
1
21
132
107
IbS
0,00
K
H
•?
1
cycle
COMPOSITE
BSHC =
.*77
GRAM/Kh
HM
BSCV» s
£ ,2 7*1
GHAM/Kw
MM
HSli02* ~ =
7,121
GHAH/k^
mK
BSHC *
B5N02»*=
7,b^b*
GWah/k.,
Mk
BSfC - .nsm/'.i Hk
~ CONVEHIEO TO «£t tt»SI3
*» CONVERTED 10 «f.T H*S1!> A'lU UUHRfcCTEO 10 10,? Mlu.it.Hi
WATER PEH KU tlllT »1 •<
-------
Table D-7. 21 -*Cuf CP* F»p DIt:iEL E~2SSIUN C*CLE
C*TE»»lLl*rf ItHh OlESEl E*GInF,9HECT INJECTIU«, I P PEG. ()T."C
TfST I -iuN g fitti PROJECT: ttST Jiff
MODE f.N'.-IsE TUH'juE P0«EH ft'St. AlK ElHi.JSI TUEi
SPUu
flo*
HO*
rio*
A J f?
nam
KG/HI*.
Mi/HJN
KG/mIN
H* 11 0
I
?uu
n#»
,U3i
S.Sb
s,s<*
,01)%
if
12bU
2*.5
3.a
, II 73
<«,bb
<*, 7*
,UOR
3
12b»J
lib. 3
IS.3
«112
<1,87
<1, 3 8
,011
*
i2VJ
£ b 1 , I
3*.S
,170
«.*S
10.12
.01 7
S
I ? hll
3b3.2
17,1
• 217
1II * 25
1 (I . h b
.021
b
12bO
7?l,u
MS.S
.378
11.HS
11,83
.033
?
i2bu
10b7,2
1*3,1
, SbO
13,21
13.77
.r>*2
8
i?bu
il8?.|)
1S b , b
, b 1 U
13,78
11,39
, 0**
H
it'b-j
1331.8
175.7
,b*l
1*.31
1*,«<9
.0*8
III
12*9
1H31.S
1 8 9 , **
,7*8
1*.82
lS.Sb
• US1
!1
?nu
0,0
0,11
,U27
5,27
5.2*
, iiuS
1?
210U
ll)*?, 1
22«*,2
,**6
21,23
25,23
,011
19
21UU
,*
211,1
, 8*i8
23,if
2* .08
, II 3«»
1*
21110
US?,11
188,1
, 7 «l«l
21.b*
2?,*9
,m?
15
^UHI
785,8
1?2,8
Cx.lb
21.90
.035
lb
2iuu
522, 3
111,8
,S?S
18.31
18,83
,1121
1?
eiuu
ebi.i
S?,s
,3 3b
lb.22
ib.Sb
.1121
18
21HU
18?.s
*1.2
, 28S
lS.7«i
lb.0?
.018
1 **
2100
83,1
18,3
• 21S
IS. 3*?
IS.bU
.011
20
21HII
21,*
7
.172
H.9S
15,12
~ ail
21
'ou
». u
o.n
,02b
5,31
S.3b
• litis
-lb-??
MODE "C CQt '<0»» '.EIG«irO ti5"C H3C!/» mj
«ll
PHM PPM PPM «» C/Kli hK G/M. h» ti/-» — a
1
171
1 31
177
U.UQ
1*
a
12
2
272
223
1 ib
,27
20.Si
33.
„ I , ,
12
3
23*
2*1
212
1,12
1. * 3
1 •,
12
*
?1S
2*1
Hi*
2,10
1,8*
*.ii
: ,5.
12
5
1 *7
2Sb
31 u
1,73
i.2*
i.f*
12
b
lib
2bb
512
b » ^ 7
• *2
1 »'*!
12
7
S2
SS8
713
11,00
1
1
12
8
3b
b* 3
752
7 , b 7
,1U
.1.^^
13
N
20
7S?
?*b
o,uo
i
I
13
10
7
813
809
U,Uu
I
I
13
11
113
108
1BU
o.uu
w
H
li
12
1*
*82
blO
7,33
.nb
3 • Uti
b.35"
13
13
23
*13
s<**
1* , lb
,UH
2.^2
- • ^ *
13
11
2S
*71
Sh 3
8,10
3.2b
13
IS
30
179
511
12.bl
.11
3.V2
12
lb
Si
373
J 78
8. 48
,2b
3,b*
s.-;
ie
1?
101
35b
2U?
U. JU
1
I
1c
18
ISO
312
191
3,2b
1.7U
7.71
11
1*
1*0
373
1*S
0,00
i
(
1J
20
228
3b*
lib
0,00
I
I
11
21
1 b 3
117
lb8
o,uo
k
K'
i;
CYCLE COMPOSITE
03HC s
• SIS
Gr( A.H/Ri»
H«
RSCO* S
3,713
URAM/K*
Nf
n$Hoe**s
b,tb8
G«AH/K^f
HH
HSHC ~
HSN02**=
7.182
orah/k«
HH
HSFC =
• 275KG/K* HH
~
CONVERTED
TO *ET HASI5
• ~ CONVERTED TO nF.T BASIS *NQ CORRECTED TO 10.? cllLl'-'-: :
*»IEH HEH KG OR* *1W
-------
Table D-8. m-mo Jc ~'tt-tW-'.l. alf.Sct £«JSS1U» C*CUf
cate»"*it-'-a^ J"ib tiiesEL fc'JU!-i£, yi-Ecr iHjncnnN, ib •jcg. ^".'C
ItSI 1 HUN I f IJH. : f.-tfi-f PKfiJtCli 1 t-th'3-UUl !£5T O'.rf li-li'77
ftuut*
£ 'Jy I *'f.
Wits
r 'JH-M't
f*o»en
no «
All'
PLOW
EXHAUST
FLOM
"JFL
'»Ot)e
MC
El'*-
NQ« +
ȣ1GHTE0
ysi-c
B$CO»
oSNoat*
hu;*
nit
*>P M
U A •'
K *
K
x i y
Sb*
?.5?
.-ii
.
b.hM
15
s
J ?b«>
m.i
l?.«*h
13. Si
s
lr*
~ 5*
?3<4
i 1 • JO
»l»
«i.5?
•s,?*
15
*1
!?5«i
1*1?,?
m.M
i?.?b
13.5U
.U5I?
b
1?
bl?
7<*U
. ni
?, 5b
15
7
?th»
ti.fi
U.li
. *J
-------
Table D-9. i.-mudf. fel> m.i jIEStt E"iss cctt
CAI£«»Mt.i.A» "mi. B'CSEL t -M.l'iE, UI«£CT l.\J£CT I0M, IK ItU. -true
Jc5I I 4>s:t 5 Putt: EM-f5J-F CliClJECT! 1 l-'.hSJ-ltlll TES! DATc 1?
nUUt fUMQUE POnfc*« FUEL Aid EXHAUST MIEL
Efe'U
f lu*c
KLUW
fte*
MR
n x m
~.*
KS/M{N
Kii/ni,*;
ku/'un
HAT in
1
flit'
t).*l
u. a
• «3I
S,5*
5.55
,UUb
4
IShii
ee.s
3.a
,U?H
M.hb
7*
.(108
3
iebu
3b*.e
*?.<*
.*17
io.es
If).lb
.uei
*
i?b»
7e«*.u
. 378
U.iS
11.33
.1133
5
Ic-bU
106?.?
i*3.h
. ShtJ
13.ei
1?. ?7
.tue
b
IPb'J
i*n,5
1 R8 . <1
» 7i8
i*.B?
IS.Sb
.usi
?
7iJ«
Q • 0
U.li
~ oe?
5.e?
s.e*
. U U 5
8
a i uu
1(1*2.1
ee^.e
3*,?3
es.ei
.0*1
q
21UU
7bS.8
172,9
. ?18
ei,jb
ei .^o
.035
1U
emo
sea. 3
11 * . 8
.ses
ie.il
13.83
,ue«i
11
iiQL
ebi. i
5?,*
,33b
ib.?e
Ib.Sb
.oei
1 i
eiUU
ei.*
*,7
• 17?
1*.*S
is.ie
.ui i
13
?uo
u.n
n.y
.o^b
S . 3*
5. 3b
. U05
lh-T7
«Ul>E 1C CL. 'EIGMTEO fsS*C iJStl'* bVlOf"
PPM
PHM
PF"
K"
c;/k*
U/Kh HH
G/Krt M>
1
m
m
le'
O.kO
*
A
«
e
e?e
e?3
lie
.30
eo.Si
33. "5
3
1M7
est
irb
3.83
i.e*
S.e'*
7.10
*
lib
?bb
s$e
?.b*
,ie
l.Nl
b.87
s
se
sse
3*3
11.
.lb
3.11
b. 8U
b
i
81 3
del
15.1J
.Oe
3.h8
b.**
7
113
ICS
1<*2
O.UD
n
X
K
n
1*
tee
bc'<
18.33
.Ob
3.UK
b.bO
-------
Table D-10. 21-*ooe £"« t*» oiesti emission c»cle
C4IECPRL4H s»»h niESEl E'iUInE, OlMECI INJECTION, 31 ,)E6,BT0C
TEST 1 HUN I FuCli f.n-171'f PKoJtCT: lESf out
MODE
E*Gl*£
TU«UU£
f U*E«
FUEL
*1*
E
fuel
SPEED
FLO*
HOn
FLO"
AIR
PP*
h * n
*«
KG/«I*
K&/MJN
HATJO
1
?un
0.0
o.n
.031
5.3$
5.31
,UOh
2
iefau
28.s
3.a
.071
1,2 7
1.35
.008
3
12bO
101.2
I*.*
.110
i. 3b
1. * 7
.012
•»
12bO
2lb.1
32. b
.172
l.bO
1.77
.HI a
5
i2bo
3i 1. 8
15.1
• 21$
1.fa8
1,111
.022
fa
iefau
b83.7
10,2
# lb*
10.hb
1 1.02
.H 3^
?
12b0
i*2S,5
135.3
.522
12.15
12.b7
.m 3
R
12bO
1120.5
1*7.8
.Sbl
12.51
13.*18
.0*5
1
I2b0
less.?
lfafc.il
,bifa
13.55
li.ll
.018
10
12bO
137b.1
181.7
.722
1 * . * 8
15.20
• 050
11
>110
o.o
0,0
.02*
s.rn
5.0b
* .005
12
210(1
una.b
213.3
,1b8
22.27
23,2*
.0*1
13
aioo
1035,0
22?,H
.883
21.*1
22.37
.1)11
li
21 oo
123.i
2H3. 1
.800
20.55
21.35
.031
IS
21 no
8*5.1
m.a
.731
11.73
20.17
.037
lb
2100
5b2,b
123,'
.533
17. i*
17. bfe
.031
1?
2100
282,5
b2 . 1
,33^
15.55
15.81
.022
SB
2100
2*»1 .8
1* . *
.283
15.13
15. *1
.011
1*1
2 IliO
10.2
H.8
, 208
H.ife
11.b?
.011
20
21 HQ
21. i
i. ?
,lb5
li ,1 7
Ai#h3
.011
21
700
0.0
0.0
.02b
5.52
5.55
.005
,-77
NullE "C CU» «0»» "EI&ITEO M»HC «SCU« M$Nue»» I
PpH
PPM
pp*
&/<*
U/Km h«
G/*#
1
330
111 2
ilfc
o.ua
n
H
»<
2
27i
qq-»
252
.27
11.81
113.50
51.b8
3
2b(i
751
H*»
1.05
1.17
28,51
30,17
•»
2*5
3i»
1215
1.11
Mi
b.Ob
3i,72
5
2ib
231
15?b
l.b2
1.5?
3,Ui
32,15
b
131
305
17H1
b.58
.IB
2.1b
20.11
7
*b
112
1 ?*«*
u.UO
i
I
1
8
h 7
1 3b2
1M1
7.21
.17
b.H
13.b*
q
<*q
182**
1512
0.00
I
!
i
10
27
2H0
11 h 2
0.00
1
1
I
11
3ib
1221
15
0.00
W
k
H
12
51
378
lhN?
7,t»Q
• lb
2.U1
15.32
13
18
3b3
170b
15.25
.1*
2.U?
15.17
li
*5
355
1 b58
8. 73
• 1*
2.1b
ifa.bO
15
51
310
157b
13.57
.lb
2,17
lb.53
lb
bN
2b 3
135b
1, u3
.28
2,18
18,
17
88
251
10b2
0.00
i
I
1
18
1H
217
87U
3.51
,11
5,11
28.71
11
135
131
Sbl
0.00
1
I
1
?n
1 ?l
581
380
0.00
1
1
i
21
211
1 lb 7
111
o.uu
M
i<
U
£*CU
COMPOSITE
BS«C
s
• b28
G»*a«/km
H»
ascu*
s
5.UH
Gxai/km
ri*
8SWQ2*»
s
18.Sbl
&MA«/«*
BSHC ~
8S*02**
s
11.H2
GRAm/kh
HK
BSFC - .£blKG/KK H*
~ coNvtxrti) to bet a«sis
~ ~ COMVEhTEO TO »ET BASIS »M0 CORBECTEO 10 10. J «I|.UI6H*«S
•UTEH PER KG OR* AIM
-------
Table 0-11. 21-HOUt IP* £*C DlEStL EMI5SIUX cycle
C«IEPPILL*H Stub OUSEL ENGINE, D1»ECT INJECTION, 33 OEG.BTUC
test i »un i Futit tproject: u-*<>a3-uui test o*te
*ODE
engine
TOMQUE
PU«Eri
FUEL
AlN
EXHAUST
FUEL
$*EED
FLO*
FLO*
FLO"
AIR
«Pm
NUN
K*
KG/*i*
HC/MXN
RATIO
»•
1
7oo
o.o
0.0
.0 30
5.15
5.18
.00b
2
1 2bO
28.s
3.8
.071
*.h1
<*.??
.1108
3
12bU
10s!.?
I*,*
.112
1. 75
1.8b
.011
*
12b0
2*b,1
32. b
.1^5
1.87
in.os
* 01R
s
12bO
3**.2
*5.*
.215
1.15
10.17
• 022
b
i2bo
HPh.l
10.5
. 3b2
11.0*
11.*0
.033
7
12b0
10 111, 3
1 35.9
• 52 3
12.**
12.1b
.0*2
8
l2bll
1132. *
1*1.*
.575
12.81
1 3.*b
.o*s
1
iebu
i?b5.3
lbb.1
,b50
13.70
1*. 35
.0*?
IU
12bO
1381.b
182.3
.?23
1*. 7b
15.*8
#4.uw
li
7110
0,0
o.n
.030
5.05
5.08
.OUb
12
2100
1125,2
2*7.*
.IS*
22.71
23. bb
.0*2
I*
21 uO
1031.8
228.b
.8*18
21.13
22.82
.0*0
1*
21UU
*2*.8
203.b
,8ii2
20.1b
21.77
.038
IS
2 ioo
8*7.5
18b.*
.?3«
2U.30
21.0*
.l»3H
lb
2UIU
StiS.O
12*.2
• 53b
17.13
!».*?
.030
1 7
2 11HJ
28*.1
ha.b
.331
15.8*
lb. 18
.021
18
2100
2ft*»2
H*.1
.28*
15.5b
15.8*
.018
11
2l»U
0(1.2
n.R
.207
15.00
15.21
.01*
ao
2 inn
11.0
*.2
.173
15.00
iS.l?
.012
21
700
0.0
0.0
. U 3b
5.51
5.55
.007
it-??
«Q0E
MC
Cut
HO**
*EIG»T£0
8S*C
ISS*02**
PPm
P#>M
PPM
i*/*m rtH
G/KK Mk
G/ft* rt*
1
JbH
112b
15
0.00
H
H
H
2
308
lObS
21?
.«?7
23.il
lbO.bS
52.*b
3
27*
815
*2 7
1.05
5.*b
32. J*
27.80
*
250
3**
1015
1 .SI
2.?*
b . 1 *
32.1?
5
232
285
15* H
1.63
l.bl
3.70
33.00
b
1*11
3*0
1808
b.bl
.51
2.*8
21.bl
7
70
s* 3
1 b 70
0.00
1
1
t
8
*1
12*2
1SS1
7.32
.11
b.*1
13.38
1
2*
1 b 7U
1« 3b
0.00
1
1
I
10
**
1873
1*30
0.00
i
I
I
11
372
*5
• 11
1.71
lb. 23
15
*0
277
1*88
13.oU
• 1 4
l.bl
lb.00
lb
5b
225
I2bl
1, u7
.2*
1.***
17.8b
17
77
221
1017
0.00
1
1
I
18
8b
230
811
3.55
.8b
*.?!
27.25
11
12R
318
538
O.UO
1
1
1
211
173
*bO
351
0.00
I
I
i
21
382
10b1
11
0.00
n
ti
H
CYCLE
COMPOSITE
BShC
= • b 32
GkAM/*«
mW
RSCQ*
- * « b12
t;«AH/KM
HH
BS*02**
s 18,lb2
BSHC ~
6SN02**
s 18.71*
GHAH/K*
n*
BSFC = .ibJKG/K* HN
~ CONVERTED TO *ET BASIS
.. CONVERTED TO *ET BASIS AND C.QRUECTEO 10 10.7 MILLIGRAM
hATEH PE* KG QRY *IH
-------
Table d-12. u-"ode rioE»*L diescl emission ctcie
C*TE»PIlL*« J^Oh DIESEL ENGINE, DIRECT INJECTION, }i OEG. HTOC
test i hun i Futi: pkojeci: test o*it
"ODE ENGINE TQBIJUE PO«E» FUEL *I» E»N*uST FUEL
SPEEU
flcm
FLO*
FLO*
M*
RPn
N X t*
K«
KC/MlN
KG/*1N
H*TIO
m—m
1
1
1
1
1
«
1
1
1
1
•
I
•
1
?nu
0.0
O.n
,031
5.35
5.3*
.noh
2
12b0
28 »S
3.8
»o?s
*.27
*,35
.008
3
*2b0
3*1.8
*5.1
.2 IS
*.b «
*„*0
.022
*1
mo
bH3, 7
90. 2
,3b*
10. bb
11,02
.0 3*
s
lib 0
ni25.s
13%. 3
.522
12.15
12.b7
.0*3
b
i2bo
I3?b,q
181.7
.722
1 * . * 8
IS.20
-U*0
?
700
0,0
0.0
.0**
5.01
£,llb
• 005
fl
2ino
1108.b
2*3.8
,*b8
22.27
23.2*
.0* 3
*
*100
8*S.l
18%. 8
.731
1*. 7 3
2u „ * 7
,037
10
2100
5b2.b
1*3.7
.533
17.13
17.bb
, *0 3*1
11
2100
2*2. s
fe2.1
• 33*
15.5S
IS,8*
.022
1*
2100
21.*
* . 7
.IbS
1*.*?
1 * • b 3
.on
13
?uo
u.o
0,0
,02b
5*52
5.55
.005
"OOF. HC CO* NO* ~ KEIGnTEO bShC »JlCu* BSN02* *
**vn
PMM KN
G/K* «lR
Q/nm nfe
fi/KW H
mmmm-
1
33U
11*2
mi o.uo
K
*
*
2
27*
SMH
.Jo
!*.»*
1*3.50
58,08
3
2*b
23*
loBb },bi
1.57
3,w*
35.2*
*
13*
30%
11H* l.ii
.*8
2.1b
21.*5
5
bb
H**
IBi» 10.«
.2 *
5,3*
lb. 31
b
27
21*0
lSb>» Xt.SJ
.07
10.if
12.51
7
3*b
1221
It 0.00
*
H
k
8
5*
378
1831 11.SO
• lb
2,0*
lb,b2
-------
Table D-13. il-nuOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
CATERPILLAR J*Ub OICSEL ENGINE, DIRECT INJECTION, 3) OEG. H!DC
TEST 1 HUN I FOIL! PROJECT: H-tkJJ-noi TEST OATE
MODE ENGINE rONQUC POx£« FUEl AIR E»hauST Fuel
SPEEU FLO« FLO* FLO* AIR
BP« N * N KH KG/HIN KG/HIN KG/M1N RATIO
1
?UU
n,n
n.i)
• 0 30
5.15
S.18
• 00b
~ f
leto
28.S
3.8
.0?*
l.bl
i,??
.008
3
12b0
3**.2
*S. *
-215
1.15
l»,i?
• 022
*
12bU
b8b.l
*0.5
,3b2
11.0*
11.HO
.031
5
X?bU
10)0,9
135.1
.523
12.**
12.
.0*2
b
12bU
1301.b
182,3
• '23
l*.?b
15.*8
.0*«»
7
?U0
u.o
0.0
, U30
5.US
5,08
•unb
8
2100
lies, i
22. ?1
23.bb
.0*2
1
am
B*?.S
iBb,*
.?31
20. 30
21.0*
• 03b
IU
2 i UiJ
SbS.P
i 2*.2
.Sib
1?.U
18.*?
11
2inu
28*.i
b2.b
.339
IS. 8*
lb.18
.n?i
12
2ion
11.0
*•2
.1?3
is.nri
15.1?
.U12
13
7on
o.n
O.il
.03b
5.51
5.55
.00?
"QUE *C CO* NO** «EI6«T£0 BS«C 8SCU* HSNO?«*
PPM
ppn
PPM
K"
G/Kft MH
(,/*« HH
G/A* Ml
wmmmmmmi
1
3bB
112b
bS
o.uu
H
M
k
?
308
10b5
112
.30
23.31
lbO.bS
* ? . 5*
3
232
28S
155*
3.el
i.Sl
3 , ?U
JJ.iS
H
1H0
3*0
1?K2
?, 2*
• 51
2.*a
21.3?
s
?0
1
K
8
32
32?
1 ?S5
1*1, ?1
.0**
l.bl
IS.*8
q
*0
2??
155?
l*.1i
.li
l.bl
Ib.'S
iu
Sfc
225
13*0
<1,1*
.2*
l.M
IB.Itl
11
??
229
10S*
5.U1
.5*
3.*3
JS.IJ
12
1?3
*bfl
132
,i3
18.2*
1b.b2
13
382
10bl
88
O.UO
H
H
CYCLE
COMPOSITE
BShC 2
.52b
G
H«
8SC0* =
5.3^5
UK*H/K«
HK
BSNU£t*s
17.1b*
gram/km
HR
BShC ~
asNU2»*s
18.*15
GMAM/KH
MR
8SFC s
«2b?ftG/K* HK
~ CONVERTED TO *ET BASIS
*~ CONVERTEO TO WET BASIS AND CORRECTtD 10 10.7 MILLIGRAM
KATER PER KG OR* *10
-------
Table D-14. 21-*ooe epa e*p ousel emission c»cli
PROJECT I li-HJl-BOl TESt OATE TEST *0,1
ENOIXEl CATE*PIU.A* JlOfc INDIRECT INJECTION Putt EN>»*-P
m*mmm
mmmmmmmm
mm * mmmmmm
mmmmmm
HOOt
EMi!*€
T0»QU£
POw£R
FUEL
AJR
£*N*USI
fuel
5*flD
FLOW
FLO *
FLO*
MR
RPm
N * w
Kir
KG/*!*
KG "I"
***10
•
•
*
¦
•
mmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmm
m+mmmm
1
bOO
0.0
0,0
,02b
*•21
*»2b
.Job
i
1*00
2b.1
1,8
.00?
10,00
10.10
.010
3
1*00
I0b,8
IS.?
.1?*
1,8?
10.1111
,013
1
1*00
n«,fi
3S.1
,18b
10. IS
10.1*
,018
s
1*00
ii*,?
**.1
,228
10.1b
10,si
.022
b
1*30
bb?, 1
17,8
, 38*
ii.n
12,10
,013
7
1*00
1001,8
l*b.*
,S8b
1* , bb
1S.2S
,0*0
8
1*00
10**.*
IbQ.*
. b* *
IS.*?
lb.12
.0*2
4
1*00
122?.1
l»ts
• ?2b
lb.*8
1?,12
.0*%
io
1*00
13*3.b
1«?.0
.812
1 ?,28
18,0*
,0* ?
ii
bOO
0.0
0.0
• 02b
*.?b
*.?*
.005
12
2100
1113.*
2M.I
1.03?
2* . * 1
2S.**
,0*2
11
2 100
1010.1
22b.S
,H3
21.3?
2*.13
,0*1
1*
2100
*18. ?
202.0
. 8S8
21.b?
22.S3
,0*0
IS
21OQ
8*0.*
18*,f
,???
20,b2
21,*0
,038
lb
2100
Sb0.2
121.2
.5*1
lb.75
1?.2*
,032
1?
2100
240.1
bl,b
.11?
l*,bS
1*.**
.023
18
2100
!«*,*
*1.8
,28?
1* , 2*
1».S1
,020
11
2100
12.1
20.*
»2H
13.81
l*.Ob
• 01b
20
2100
i*,0
*.2
,1??
11,83
1*,01
.013
21
bOO
0.0
0.0
,031
*# ?b
*•?*
.00?
mooc
MC
CO*
NO**
HIISHTCO
6SNC
83C0*
89N02"
MUM.
«!Lf
l>f»N
Pp*
KK
C/Hf MR
G/K* Xft
G/KM hR
G/i
mmwmrnmmm
mmmt
i
120
*11
82
9.00
fi
R
tf
2
1*8
*b*
? 3
,28
11.3b
?0,*b
18.2*
3
112
*33
13S
i.l*
2,08
lb, 03
8,23
fc.
*
?2
2b0
301
2.1*
, b2
*,**
8.**
b.
S
Sb
1?3
*11
1.??
. 3S
2.1?
8,S3
*.
b
28
11*
* ?2
?.l*
,10
,83
S.bS
fc.
?
12
1**
SOS
O.QO
2
1
1
b.
e
30
221
533
?,8b
.0*
1,2*
§,10
b.
q
*
32?
sso
0,00
t
I
I
b,
10
b
3??
561
0.00
1
I
1
b.
11
b8
**b
*3
0,00
K
0
k
b.
12
2*
lbb
b**
7,83
.0?
l.UO
b«*2
b.
13
2*
Ibb
700
IS* 18
• 08
1.0*
?.lb
b.
1*
32
lb?
bso
1."
.10
1,08
b,*Q
fc.
IS
*0
1*0
bOO
13.**
.13
.**
b , bl
b.
lb
12
as
S13
8,0*
.OS
.**
?,12
b*
1?
28
lib
*28
0.00
1
I
I
b.
18
32
1*S
33?
3,*b
• 31
2,?*
10.b2
%.
1*
•»*
20*
208
0,00
1
1
I
b.
20
bO
2*2
1*1
0,00
1
1
I
b,
21
Ob
382
b*
0.0O
*
a
R
b.
CYCLE
COMPOSITE
8SHC *
.23*
G*A*/*N
HR
83C0* *
2.0**
GfUM/K»
MR
89NQ2*««
?.0S*
G8&M/K*
MR
6SMC ~
8SN02**«
?.2*2
dHkH/tm
HR
83FC •
,2?S*G/HW MR
~ CON¥£*TfO TO KIT IASIS
~ ~ CONVERTEO TO WET BASIS ANO CORHECTEO To 10,> HIUIGBaaS
hater PER *S OK* AIR
-------
t X J\ «
« SNO •
I * * t
• •
I •
• ~ or «
• ~ i i i
I *v •
• O XI
• * tf I
• XI
• 0 U •
J4JOOOO
*'or********
• a » o«u o r MtiMMoe
«*
¦0 ¦* j» M e* *
• COno« r>» •
«aioj»ooo^»n«onoe<
I 19 X I
• 0 N I
• (9 I
• •
» a i
I teJ I
IX I
> • NUMBS
• t ~ ~
I ~ »j»fW^>b«t ~ ~
• ~ * ~ ¦* iv
IO a. I uooou
IX & I ZUZXlk
• I «•»>}•)«
ft mmmm m
• •
to & 1 ¦ •« •< H««ivnw u
in m
•» n c
« £ O. I
» > I4»
* * *-
OOl
UUK
•
i
Ik.
I
o
•
•
-J
at •*
•
O f" w
O fW r
r>»
¦3 m — v m f» 0 o jn J
)T
c
W
I
O
I'M A
*¦
# »¦
#
o 0 0 m m m t%i nu -4-*o
fW
1
z>
<* «c
t
o
o o o
o a
O
c o
oooeoooooooo
m
a
«k
at
•
» •
1
•
i
A* X
•
•
• 1*1
a
•»
w
o
•
m
X
t
_l
X -4
i
3
X •>+
•
0
i* r* *
rv
»*¦ »¦
nw
¦ ««ntA¦
•- 3
i
T
J X
u
» te.
M
*. O
*
# o o
~V
V*
t/i
tel
•
Itt
X
•
x
•
•
o
*
i
t
O
•
X
•
«*
«
M -*
•
*J
«V k»
o
•»
M »-
i
at
O X
•
*
• V fl
*w
*
* v » or* j#
U
i
_l -V
I
•
•
X
• w
i
1*. IS
I
#
fro
o
r
0 0 a j* 0 + m m 0
4*1
ui
«rrv«r »r>i*icr »
_J X
«
o
o -« -«
nyi m
«»
ooir CMi»mito^«o
O
«• ft
o •«
»
•
*•
M. «s
•
•
* * •
•
*
•
• *
*
• • . • • • » » »
a
o
*
M
*- *
•
kU
9%
•
or
•
w
»
btf
X
o
*#»#<•««
s*
tft
¦m m
*
JCDHIVO
•
X
*
1
• • •
• a
«
ft.
Jt
•
o
•
o
<"K«tA
«r
a»
ifi o
w
o
#
«
>
ft.
i
•
-« «¦*
0
taJ X
i
•
IU
1
1
H
•s
O ll
* X
ft. w
•
i
•
n
o
X
•
t
n* m +
**
Jft
fs
<0 r
OT
I-
D-16
-------
Table D-16.
u-«ooe rtoE»»t. oiestL (mission c»cle
P10JECT1 J-OOJ test o»te test no.i
encinEi c»te»cill»r i*Ok Indirect injection run. E«-ji<-r
«ooi ensile To»oue po*i* ruEL «ir e*»*usi rust
3»EEQ
fLO*
*10«
*LQ"
AIR
RP*
H x n
KM
K6/*IN
flit JO
i
*00
0.0
0,0
,02b
Ml
*.2b
,00b
2
HOG
2*.l
3.8
,o«?
10.00
10.10
.010
3
1*0*J
13*. >
•*. I
,228
10,3b
10»S*
,022
%
MOO
*7,8
.38*
11.*1
1#. 10
.033
$
MOO
1001.H
l«b,*
,S8b
l*.bb
1S.2S
.0*0
b
i«*oo
1**3.b
n?,o
»81•<
••••••••«
•»•••»•«»•«¦•
1
uo
*11
b 3
0.00
R
R
w
b. 2
*
118
»b»
b 3
.31
11.3b
70.«b
1%. 7 3
b.?
3
lb
l?l
*JS
3.*3
.31
2.1?
8, R*
b#2
*
28
11*
SI 7
',82
.10
• 83
b.l«
b.2
S
i i
1"*
112
11, ?S
,0*
1.1?
*. ?s
b.2
b
%
377
bib
IS.'b
.02
2.U1
5.*?
b.b
7
bS
**b
83
0,00
N
R
N
b,fc
8
Ibb
7 IS
i«.si
,0?
i.to
7,2?
b.b
*
*0
1*10
bU
1*. ?8
.13
b,?*
b.?
10
a
8$
si?
«,8b
.OS
.bR
b.M
b.»
H
28
lib
*#3
.20
1 . b*
R,bO
1*
bO
2*2
lit
.33
s.tb
Sb, *2
37,80
*.*
13
*b
388
*s
0*00
H
R
0
C*CLE
COMPOSITE
89HC
a
,i?b
G8AM/K*
MR
®9C0*
¦
1,131
GRAM/KM
MR
89«02*«>
b.*SO
»ft AH/KM
MR
B3HC ~
89N02**"
7.1?b
GRAM/KM
MR
B9FC
a
•2?2KG/K« H*
~ CO*VtRTE0 TO met 8A9I9
~ ~ CONVERTED TO wit 6*919 AND COKUCCHO *0 10.7 «ILLIGR**5
*A?€R PER kg OR* AIR
-------
Table D-16.
u-«ooe rtoE»»t. oiestL (mission c»cle
P10JECT1 J-OOJ test o»te test no.i
encinEi c»te»cill»r i*Ok Indirect injection run. E«-ji<-r
«ooi ensile To»oue po*i* ruEL «ir e*»*usi rust
3»EEQ
fLO*
*10«
*LQ"
AIR
RP*
H x n
KM
K6/*IN
flit JO
i
*00
0.0
0,0
,02b
Ml
*.2b
,00b
2
HOG
2*.l
3.8
,o«?
10.00
10.10
.010
3
1*0*J
13*. >
•*. I
,228
10,3b
10»S*
,022
%
MOO
*7,8
.38*
11.*1
1#. 10
.033
$
MOO
1001.H
l«b,*
,S8b
l*.bb
1S.2S
.0*0
b
i«*oo
1**3.b
n?,o
»81•<
••••••••«
•»•••»•«»•«¦•
1
uo
*11
b 3
0.00
R
R
w
b. 2
*
118
»b»
b 3
.31
11.3b
70.«b
1%. 7 3
b.?
3
lb
l?l
*JS
3.*3
.31
2.1?
8, R*
b#2
*
28
11*
SI 7
',82
.10
• 83
b.l«
b.2
S
i i
1"*
112
11, ?S
,0*
1.1?
*. ?s
b.2
b
%
377
bib
IS.'b
.02
2.U1
5.*?
b.b
7
bS
**b
83
0,00
N
R
N
b,fc
8
Ibb
7 IS
i«.si
,0?
i.to
7,2?
b.b
*
*0
1*10
bU
1*. ?8
.13
b,?*
b.?
10
a
8$
si?
«,8b
.OS
.bR
b.M
b.»
H
28
lib
*#3
.20
1 . b*
R,bO
1*
bO
2*2
lit
.33
s.tb
Sb, *2
37,80
*.*
13
*b
388
*s
0*00
H
R
0
C*CLE
COMPOSITE
89HC
a
,i?b
G8AM/K*
MR
®9C0*
¦
1,131
GRAM/KM
MR
89«02*«>
b.*SO
»ft AH/KM
MR
B3HC ~
89N02**"
7.1?b
GRAM/KM
MR
B9FC
a
•2?2KG/K« H*
~ CO*VtRTE0 TO met 8A9I9
~ ~ CONVERTED TO wit 6*919 AND COKUCCHO *0 10.7 «ILLIGR**5
*A?€R PER kg OR* AIR
-------
a * .
• 3 •
• X ]
•
• ~
• *
•
• o
I M
I m
» «b
i
«
i
• ~
at i
i « «<
o »
*
>44004'
t ***¦*> +
»o »¦©¦#••
ivi ^ fw rv r m
X l«n«r
* *r * »t
«•*# \ \ x \ #
X «* ZXXIX
o m w m *• '¦
ttfi or » ri
l ~
* ~
• o
i i
x i # #«r w«r
a a nriAi/i * +
«* <
a
o o
o o o
o
O 3 O
o o c
o
m
•
it.
ar
a
$
*
a
* w
1
•
• w
•
*-
a
Ikl
o
•
•>
V
a
-J
* -j
1
33
*
•
#
•¦v
• W» i#»
« iS> o
41
u
ttJ
•
<
o r
a
# m
kit m ft>
*1*
IW
~ m
«*»
>.
»- "J
1
1
_» N.
a
u
¦» k
•
X
u. u
a
• «r
on***
m
*»/».*
fs. + «%
•
w
*
a
*
•
a
a
ar
a
a
o
1
*
«n
1
S •*
a
» r>- m
O %f» I%t *¦
« -H IV
«*
• t»
1
a
o s
a
# »
«
* m
-• X
•
•
Jt
Ik4
1 *¦•
»
•
•
*
i
a
¦*
•
_j
*
o «#>
r am
+
r m*.
m w es
9
Wi
•
w
O x
a
r*i «
mr bi
mt
rw m f*>
«r B»
>- Ml
3
_1 V
«
O © «* ** %*
m
o o *
m -+
O
o
< «
o +*
i
Ik
i*. a
a
a
• *
• • •
*
' -J *
* * *
•
J
o
I
«c
H *
a
a
ar
ft *-•
•
ar
hJ
M
I
w
V
a
e *.-»
* «w
Q
1
?
#»• ^
o
O
•
s
«
1*1
M
•
©
a
O ">
Ai on
o
i j
•
ar
mt
a
•V
"I.N O
*/*
a »n
i* m *i
n
m _j
¦
o
»* « ©
ft fV
*** «¦*
A (k.
# or
• Ml
¦
•
•
w
ar
a
a
i
r
o
a
O o
o o o
o
o o o
o o o
o
4T
•
m r
a
o o
o o o
o o o o
o o o
o
h
U
•
o wa
a
^ •
# ~ #
J» -• r if
7
1
*
o -• m
or x
•
o
a
•9
& M
a
*
•
D-18
-------
TABLE D-18. SUMMARY Or EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM CATERPILLAR 3406
28*
(STANDARD TlttlNG)
Engine
Concentration
Particulate
Sate
rpm/load %
Rot.
mg/m3
g/fcr
g/kg fuel
g/kv-hr
1260/02
1
25.
,86
12.
.80
3.37
2.84
2
24.
.17
12.
.00
3.16
2.73
3
22.
.56
11.
.16
2,94
2.54
Avg
24.
.20
11.
.99
3.16
2.70
1260/25
1
26.
,91
13.
.95
1.08
0.28
t
4.
25.
.50
13.
.26
1.03
0.27
3
25.
.16
13.
,04
1.01
0.26
Avg
25.
.86
13.
.42
1.04
0.27
1260/50
1
42.
.64
24,
.90
1.10
0.25
2
40.
,79
23,
.76
1.06
0.24
3
42.
.89
24.
.53
1.10
0.25
Avg
42.
,11
24,
.40
1.09
0.25
1260/75
1
61.
.36
40,
.86
1.25
0.28
2
67.
. 34
44.
.70
1.36
0. 30
3
62.
,80
41.
.85
1.28
0.28
Avg
63.
.83
42.
.47
1.30
0.28
1260 '10
1
132.
.75
99,
.48
2.34
0.52
2
132.
.94
101,
.69
2.35
0.52
i
124.
.49
94,
.90
2.20
0.49
Avg
110,
.06
98,
.69
2.30
0.51
I-le
!
29.
.55
?.
.81
5.-1
2
31.
.76
8
.40
5.60
—-
i
23.
.90
~.92
5.28
Avg
33,
.40
8.04
5,36
21 0'1 ;
1
o9
.88
.64
1.91
.44
2
84.
.63
1 1.
.69
1.73
C.42
3
85.
.10
10J.
.76
1.77
0.41
Avg
66.
.55
101,
.70
1,82
0.42
2100/75
1
57.
,63
.46
i. 39
0.33
2
57.
.53
So,
.70
1.4
0.33
1
59.
.93
63,
.31
1,47
0.34
Avg
58.
.40
61,
.49
1.42
0. 33
2100/50
1
66.
.19
65,
.05
2.04
0.52
*>
71.
.61
71,
.47
2.23
. 5 h
67.
.41
69.
.48
2.18
0-56
Avg
66.
.40
6S.
.67
2.15
a «;;;
2100/2$
1
56.
.85
42.
.92
2.15
0.69
57.
.72
47
.05
2.35
0.76
1
52.
.64
46
.28
2.31
0.75
Avg
-5.
,74
45.
.42
2.27
3,73
1
34.
.24
25
.56
2.*«
4, «
_
41.
.98
3:
.20
22
i
44
. 36
32.
.97
>.40
6,34
AV<3
40.
. 1?
.91
3.0-*
5.75
D-
19
-------
TABLE D-19. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE
CATERPILLAR 3406, 28* (STANDARD TIMING)
Engine
rpa/t Load
Concentration
«l/hr
mg/kg fuel
oAH-hr
% Sulfur
Recovery
126C/2
3
Avg
813.8
394-9
799.4
836.0
402.71
444,27
395.S6
414.18
89.49
100.97
89.90
93.45
105.98
116.91
104.09
10S.9*
1.27
1.43
1.27
1.32
1260/25
1
2
3
Avg
3290.6
3524.8
3407.7
1706.48
Filter Lost
1826.44
1766.46
132.29
134.13
133.21
34.47
36.90
35.69
1.88
1.90
1.89
1260/50
1
2
3
Avg
4349.2
4669.9
4717.3
4578.8
2540.11
2720.20
2696.71
2652.34
112.39
120.90
121,56
118.28
25.74
27.56
27.34
26.88
1.59
1.71
1.72
1.67
1260/75
1
2
3
Avg
4760.7
4056.2
3952.2
4256.4
3169.88
2692.56
2633.94
2832.13
96.64
82.09
80.55
86.43
21.49
18.25
17.82
19.19
1.37
1.16
1.14
1.22
1260/100
1
2
3
Avg
5066.1
5448.0
5014.1
5176.1
3796,54
4167.37
3822.18
3928.70
89.31
96.47
88.48
91.43
19.98
21.70
19.88
20.52
1.27
1.37
1.25
1.30
Idle
1
2
3
Avg
1694.8
1455.4
1804.9
1651.7
447.83
384.71
478.07
436.87
298.55
256.47
318.71
291.24
4.23
3.64
4.52
4.13
2100/100
1
2
3
Avg
4935.2
4866.7
4943.8
4915.3
5965.28
5844.24
5853.36
5887.63
104.65
102.53
103.05
103.41
24.35
23.85
23.94
24.05
1.48
1.45
1.46
1.46
2100/75
Avg
4009.o
4231.4
4769.3
4336.8
4202.54
4460.92
5038.81
4567.42
96.61
103,02
11C-.9I
105.51
22.86
24.:
2~.43
24.86
1.37
1.46
1.66
1.50
2100/50
3
Avg
4800.1
4537.8
4472.1
4603.3
4717.55
4528.57
4608.98
4618.3 7
147.89
141.52
144.48
144.63
2.10
2.01
2.05
2.05
2100/25
1
2
3
Avg
2793.9
3125.5
3558.0
3155.8
2269.53
2547.68
2896.62
2571.28
113.48
127.38
144.83
128.56
36.55
41.02
46.64
41.40
1.61
1.81
2.OS
1.82
2100/2
3
Avg
1712.4
2099.9
1914.0
1908.8
1249.32
1560."3
1422.64
1410.90
128.80
160.90
146.66
145.45
240.25
300.14
271.58
271.32
1.83
2.28
2.08
2.06
D-20
-------
TABLE D-20. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
CATERPILLAR 3406 DI 28° (Run 15
(13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
rpm
% Load
Power
kw
Fuel
kg/hr
Part,
g/hr
so4=
mg/hr
Wgt.
Fact.
Power
kw
Weighted
Fuel Part.
kg/hr g/hr
so4=
mg/hr
700
—
—
1.8
7.81
447.83
0.067
—
0.121
0.523
30.01
1260
2
3.8
4.5
12.80
402.71
0.08
0.304
0.360
1.024
32.22
1260
25
49.5
12.9
13.95
1706.48
0.08
3.960
1.032
1.116
136.52
1260
50
98.7
22.6
24.90
2540.11
0.08
7.896
1.808
1.992
203.21
1260
75
147.5
32.8
40.86
3169.83
0.08
11.800
2.624
3.26
253.59
1260
100
189.5
42.5
99.48
3796.54
0.08
15.16
3.40
7.9S
303.72
700
—
—
1.8
7.81
447.83
0.067
—
0.121
0.52
30.01
2100
100
244.5
57.0
108.64
5965.28
0.08
19.56
4.56
8.69
477.22
2100
75
183.7
43.5
60.46
4202.54
0.08
14.70
3.48
4.83
336.20
2100
SO
124.2
31.9
65.05
4717.55
0.08
9.936
2.552
5.20
377.40
2100
25
62.1
20.0
42.92
2269.53
0.08
4.968
1.600
3.43
181.56
2100
2
5.2
9.7
25.56
1249.32
0.08
0.416
0.776
2.04
99.95
700
__
—
1.8
7.81
447.83
0.067
—
0.121
0.52
30.01
88.70
22.555
41.139
2491.62
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr 0.464
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 1.824
Brake Specific S04=, mg/kw-hr 28.09
Fuel Specific S04", mgAg fuel 110.47
D-21
-------
TABLE D-21. CKCLf COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AMD SULFATE RATES
CATERPILLAR J406 01 28* BTDC (Run 2)
JlJ-Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
Weighted
1
Power
Fuel
Part.
SO *
mhr
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
so4*
rpn>
Load
Kw
kq/hr
g/hr
Fact.
kw
kq/hs
0.121
q/hr
m/hr
700
...
1.8
3.40
384.71
0.067
0.563
25, 70
1260
2
3.8
4.4
12.00
444.2?
0.08
0.304
0.352
0.960
35.54
1260
25
49.5
12.9
13.26
0.08
3.96
1.032
1.061
1260
50
98.7
22.5
23.76
2720.20
0.08
7.90
1.80
1.901
217.62
1260
75
147.5
32. a
44.70
2692.56
0.08
11.80
2.624
3.576
215.40
1260
100
192.0
43.2
101.69
4167.37
0.08
15.36
3.456
9.135
333,39
700
—
1.3
8.40
384.71
3.067
0.121
0.563
25.78
2100
100
245.0
57,0
101.69
5844.24
0.08
19.6
4.56
8.135
467.54
21C0
75
183. 7
43.3
60.7
4460.92
0.08
14.70
3.464
4.856
356.87
2100
50
124.2
52.1
71.47
4528.57
0.08
9.94
2.568
5.718
362.29
2130
25
62.1
20.0
47.05
2547.63
0.08
4.97
1.600
3.764
203.81
2100
2
5.2
9,7
31.20
1560.73
0.08
3.42
0.776
2.496
124.86
too
1.8
8.40
384,71
0.067
88.95
0.121
22.595
0.563
42.291
25.78
2394.66
3r«e Specific Particulate, q/kw-hi 0.475 Srake Specific So.-, aj/kH-hr 28.18
Fuel specific Particulate, q/taj fuel 1.472 Fuel Specific SO4 . »«A4.90
3822.18
0.08
15.37
3.457
7.59
305.77
700
—
1.3
7.92
478.07
0.067
0.121
0.531
32.03
2100
100
244.0
56.8
100.76
5853.36
0.08
19-52
4.544
3.061
468.27
21C0
75
183.6
43.1
63.31
5038.81
0.08
14.69
3.443
5.064
403.10
2100
50
124.2
31.9
69.48
4608.98
0.08
9.94
2.552
5.558
368.72
2100
25
62.1
20.0
46.28
2896.62
0. ,38
4.97
1.60
3.702
231.73
2100
2
5.2
9.7
32.97
1422.64
0.03
0.42
0.776
2.638
113.81
700
...
i.a
7.92
478.07
0.067
0.121
0.531
32.03
88.894
22.516
41.452
2591.71
3ra*e Specific kw-fcr 0.466 Brake Specific S04*, ing/kW-fir 29.16
Fuel Specific Pareuul-ite, j tue, i.»41 F-jel Specific so4", "ig/kg fuel 115.U
D-22
-------
TABLE 3-23.
NUMMARY Of EXHAUST PARTICULATE - CATERPILLAR 3406 01
28V6GR
Engine
gpm/load *
Concentration
mq/w3
Particulate Rate
5/hr
q/kq fuel q/kw-hr
1260/02
2
3
Avq
26.58
23.ai
21.77
24-05
i,2?
1.22
1.14
1.24
1260/25
1
2
3
Avq
175.39
203.62
189.51
48.90
57.00
52.95
1.00
1.17
1.09
1260/50
1
2
3
Avq
300.531
309.154
272.758
441.252
133. *4
135.81
121.15
130.30
1.36
1,38
1.23
1.32
1260/75
1
2
3
Avq
319.688
340.02?
427.Q7Q
362,26
199.53
200.60
2S1.49
213.8?
1.2S
1.35
1.7Q
1.44
1260/100
1
2
3
Avq
247.10
260.07
215.76
240.98
178.61
186.00
156.54
L73.72
0.96
1.01
0.84
0.94
Idle
1
2
3
Avq
23.04
25.10
24.50
24.21
2.80
3.06
2.98
2.95
2100/100
1
2
3
Avq
268.60
2 32.32
22?.57
242.83
266.11
239.57
2 35.63
247.12
2100/75
1
3
Avq
300-29
214.32
31G.20
308.2?
157.96
266.54
262.33
262.24
2100/50
1
2
3
Avq
174.20
193.44
237.51
201.72
110.32
132.26
164.27
138.78
2100/25
1
2
3
Avg
214.31
210.38
227.88
217.69
106.53
105.79
113.33
108.57
2100/02
1
3
Ave
83.97
78. ""3
33.04
91.68
30.2 3
27.50
28.55
28.76
D-23
-------
TABLE 0-24. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE
CATERPILLAR 3406, 28#/EGR
Engine
rpm/i Load
1260/2
3
Avg
Concentration
lig/m*
891.1
1218.7
1515.6
1208.5
Sulfates
188.62
256.66
325.04
256.77
wq/kq Fuel mg/kW-hr
42.37
58.23
73.87
58.36
46.01
62.60
79.28
62.63
% Sulfur
Recovery
0.63
0.84
1.05
0.84
1260/25
1
2
3
Avg
4597.3
4178.3
4387.8
1281.5'/
1169.59
1225.58
97.09
67.28
92.19
26.21
23.92
25.06
1.38
1.24
1.31
1260/50
1
2
3
Avg
5455.2
4122.6
4863.0
4813.6
2430.68
1811.03
2160.03
2133.91
101.28
75.15
89.63
88.69
24.63
18.35
21.66
21.62
1.44
1.07
1.27
1.26
1260/75
1
2
3
Avg
4902.7
4463.4
6178.3
5181.5
2906.50
2633.28
36 38.13
3059.30
80.51
73.15
102.48
85.38
19.63
17.79
24.56
20.66
1.15
1.04
1.45
1.21
1260/100
1
2
3
Avg
5262.7
5515.1
5461.8
5413.2
3717.70
3943. 12
3962.62
3874.48
85.86
°1.49
<>2.15
89.83
19.90
21.31
21.25
20.82
1.25
1. JO
1.31
1.29
Idle
1
2
3
Avg
2048.0
1625.4
1951.5
1875.0
249.51
198.30
2 36.70
228.17
146.77
116.65
139.24
134.22
2.09
1.66
1.97
1.91
2100/100
3
Avg
7204.3
7569.3
6905.3
7226.3
7137.44
7805.38
7151.28
7364.70
125.00
136.22
126.13
129.12
31.14
33.37
30.80
31.77
1.78
1.93
1.80
1.84
2100/75
3
Ave
6614.5
6519.8
6781.2
6638.5
5681.32
5528.74
6984.85
•3064.97
118.36
114.94
145.22
126.1;
29.
29.18
36.86
32.01
1.68
1.60
2.05
1.78
2100/50
1
2
3
Avg
5213.7
5362.9
7014.6
5864.1
3586.14
3667.29
4851.60
4035.08
106.74
109.15
143.12
119.67
28.31
28.92
38.26
31.63
1.51
1.55
2.0d
1.71
2100/25
4850.9
3676.4
2412.30
1844.25
114.33
87.82
38.17
29.18
1.63
1.25
2100/2
Avg
1
4263.7
2523.5
2363.
2782.3
2556.3
2128.28
908.52
832.71
956.42
899.22
101.08
33.68
174.72
177.17
199.2S
182.71
1.* 4
1. Si
i .21
1.41
1. 31
D-24
-------
TABLE D-25. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICIPATE AND SULFATE RATES
CATERPILLAR 3406 28VEGR (Run 1)
(13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
-im
% load
Power
kw
Fuel
jtg/hr
Part,
g/hr
SO,
Wgt.
mq/hr Fact.
Power
kw
Weighted
Fuel
kg/hr
Part.
g/hr
SO
nig.
A
700
1260
1260
1260
1260
1260
700
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
700
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
4.1
98.7
148.1
186.8
229.
189.
126.
63.
5.
1.7
4.4
24.0
36.2
43.3
1.7
57.1
48.0
33.6
21.1
9.8
1.7
2.80
5.63
133.94
189.53
178.61
2.80
266.11
257.86
119.82
106.58
30.23
2.80
249.51 0.067
188.62 0.08
2430.
2906.
3717,
249,
7137,
5681,
3586,
2412,
908,
249,
68 0.08
50 0.08
0.08
0.067
0.08
0.08
34 0.08
30 0.08
52 0.08
51 0.067
70
51
44
32
0.33
7.90
11.85
14.94
18. 34
15.16
10.14
06
42
0.11
0.35
1.92
2.90
3.46
0.11
4.57
3.84
2.69
1.69
0.78
C.ll
0.19
0.45
10.72
15.16
14.29
0.19
21.29
20.63
9.59
8.53
2.42
0.19
16.
15.
194.
232.
297.
16.
571.
454.
286.
192.
72.
16.
2367,
84.14 22.53 103.65
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr 1.232
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 4.600
Brake Specific S04=, mg/kw-hr 28.14
Fuel Specific S04=, mg/kg fuel 105.09
D-25
-------
TABLE D-26. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
CATERPILLAR 3406 DI 28VEGR (Run 21
(13-Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
700
1260
1260
1260
1260
1260
700
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
700
load
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
Power
kw
4,1
48,9
98.7
148.1
185.0
233.6
189.5
126.3
63.2
4.7
Fuel
kq/ht
1.7
4.4
13.2
24.2
36.
43.
1.
57,
48
33.
21.
9
1.
Part.
i/nr
3.06
5.01
48.90
13S.81
200.60
186.00
3.06
239.57
266.54
132.26
105.79
27.50
3.06
SO4* Wat.
»q/hr Fict.
198.30
2S6.66
1281.57
1811.03
2633.28
3943.12
198.30
7805.38
5528.74
3667.29
1844.25
832.71
198.30
0.067
0.08
0.38
0.08
O.08
0.08
0.06?
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.067
Power
kw
0.33
3.91
7.90
11.35
14.30
18.69
15.16
10.14
5.06
0.38
88.22
Weighted
Fuel Part.
kg/hr g/hc
0.11
0,35
1.06
1.94
2.88
3.45
0.11
4.58
3.as
2.69
1.68
0.78
0.11
23.59
0.21
0.40
3.91
10.86
16.05
14.88
0.21
19.1?
21.32
10.58
3.46
2.20
0.21
so4"
wq/hr
13.29
20.53
102.53
144.88
210.66
315.45
13.29
624.43
442.30
293.38
147.54
66.62
13.29
108.46 2408.19
Brake Specific Particulate* g/kw-hr
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel
1.229 BraXe Specific SO4-, tag/kW-Hr
4,598 Fuel Specific SO4-, mg/kg fuel
27. 30
102.09
TABLE 0-27. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
CATERPILLAR 3406 DI 28VEGR {Run 31
(13-Mode FTP weighting Factor#3
Weighted
%
Power
Fuel
Part.
S04"
wgt.
Power
Fvel
Part.
SO4*
rpa
Load
kw
fcq/hr
ag/hr
Fact.
kw
k< £hr
g/hr
fcg/hr
700
1.7
2,98
236.70
0.067
0.11
0.20
15.86
1260
2
4.1
4.4
4.67
325.04
0.08
0. 33
0.35
0,37
26.00
1260
25
48.9
13.4
57.00
1169.59
3.08
3,91
1.07
4.5£
93.5?
1260
5G
98.7
24.1
121.15
2160.03
3.08
7.90
1.93
9.69
172.80
1260
75
148.1
35.5
251.49
3638.13
0.08
11.35
2.84
20.12
291.05
1260
100
136.5
43.0
156.54
3962.62
0.08
14.92
3.44
12.52
117.01
700
1.7
2.08
236.70
0.067
0.11
0.20
15.86
2100
100
232.2
56.3
235.68
7151.28
0.08
18.58
4.54
18.85
572.10
2100
75
189.5
48.1
262.33
6984.85
0.08
15.16
3.85
20.99
558.?9
2100
50
126.8
33.9
164.27
4851.60
0.08
10.14
2.71
13.14
388.13
2100
25
63.2
21.0
113.33
0.08
5.06
1.68
*.07
2100
2
4.8
3.7
29.55
956.42
0.08
0. 38
0.78
2.28
76.51
700
1.7
2.3 a
236.70
O.067
0.11
0.20
15.86
88.23
23.52*
112.19
2543,54
3ra*s Specific Particulate, g/kw~hr
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/g/kg fuel 116.46
D-2f>
-------
TABLE D-28. SUMMARY OP EXHAUST PARTICULATE - CATERPILLAR 3406
18* <10* RETARD)
Engine Concentration Particulate Rate
rpw/ioad % Run wg/o3 q/hr g/kg Fuel g/kw-hr
1260/2 1 26.29 12,66 2,88 3,33
2 17.48 8-61 1.79 2.27
3 24.18 11.90 2.S3 3.SO
Avg 22.65 11.06 2.40 3.03
2160/25 1 9 3.96
2 97.82
3 100.79
Avg 97.52
1260/50 1 NO
2 150.76
3 131,90
Avg 151.33
1260/75 1 273.97
2 272.26
3 281.29
Avg 27S.84
1260/100 1 374.90
2 434.88
3 436.86
Avg 415.SS
Idle 1 19.86
2 20.?a
3 2 3.36
Avg 21.31
2100/100 1 338.17
2 189.50
3 179.32
Avg 202.3J
2100.'75 1 184.62
2 177.29
3 172.64
Avg 178.18
2100/50 1 154.43
2 165.72
3 167.27
Avg 162.4?
2100/25 I 142.24
2 139.53
3 142.56
Avg 141.44
2100/2 1 72.73
2 79.6J
1 31.20
AVQ 77.84
49.83 3.86 1.03
SI.26 3.97 1.06
73.17 5.38 1.51
58,09 4.40 1,20
ND ND ND
90.23 3.96 0.93
89.83 4.03 0.95
90.03 4.00 0.94
184.99 5.62 1.31
184.87 S.64 1.31
189.81 5.79 1.34
186.56 5.68 1.32
294.52 6.62 1,59
339.62 7.68 1.85
339.29 7.66 1.85
324.48 7.32 1.76
5.76 2.88
6.02 2.87
6.79 3.23 ~
6,19 2.99
294.35 5.12 1,32
239.50 4.09 1.03
226.38 3.8b 0.97
253.41 4.36 1.11
202.26 4.55 1,16
194.87 4.32 1.10
189.74 4.23 1.08
135.62 4.37 1.11
147.46 4.61 1,26
159.13 4.97 1,36
161.19 5.OS 1.29
155.93 4.98 1.34
121.08 5,96 2.09
119.19 5.84 2.06
120.67 5.94 2.08
120.31 5.91 2.06
56.39 "" .47 13.43
61.64 6.04 14.68
62.85 6.16 14.96 •
60.29 5.89 14.16
D-27
-------
TABLE D-29. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE
CATERPILLAR 3406, 18* (10* RETARD)
Engine
rpm/Load %
Run
Concentration
,,
Sulfate Rate
a»g/hr mg/kg fuel aqAW-hr
% Sulfur
Recovery
1260/2
1
2
3
Avg
975,8
1146.2
1077.3
1066.4
469.97
564,32
530.16
521.48
106.81
117.57
112,80
112.39
123.63
148.51
155.93
142.71
1.51
1.67
1,60
1.59
1260/25
1
2
3
Avg
3702.9
3897.4
3990.2
3863.5
1963,58
2042.10
2896.84
2300.84
151.04
158.30
213.00
174.11
40.74
42.28
59.85
47.62
2.14
2.24
3.02
2,47
1260/50
1
2
3
Avg
7982.4
5919.4
5695.4
6532.4
4780.36
3542,72
3368.20
3897,09
209.66
155.38
151.04
172.03
49.18
36.49
35.72
40.46
2.97
2.20
2. .4
2.44
1260/75
1
2
3
Avg
7725.0
6287.5
6092.1
6701.5
5216.10
4269,35
4110.95
4532.13
137.63
130.16
125.33
131.04
36.92
30.28
29.05
32.06
1.95
1.85
1.77
1.86
1260/100
1
2
3
Avg
5719.6
5537.9
5581.7
5613.1
4493.36
4324.75
4335.07
4384.39
100.97
97.85
97.86
* 98.89
1,43
1,39
1.39
1.40
Idle
1
2
3
Avg
1034.5
1240.0
1124.7
1133.1
300.23
359,45
326.99
328,89
150.12
171.17
155.71
159.00
2,13
2.43
2.21
2.26
2100/100
1
2
3
Avq
5580.3
6540.9
6060.0
6060.4
6896.68
8266.69
7650.60
7604.66
31,01
35.65
32.89
33.18
1.70
2.00
1.85
1,85
2100/75
1
2
3
Avg
5659.5
6186.4
5619.0
5821.6
6200.05
6799.60
6175.77
6391.81
35,49
38.55
35.01
36.35
1.92
2.14
1.95
2.00
2100/50
1
2
3
Avg
4512.25
4526.45
4423.73
4437.48
141.01
141.45
138.67
140.38
38.43
38.56
38.14
38.38
2.00
2.01
1.97
1.99
2l( )/25
1
I
Avg
3335.0
1498.5
3634.4
3656.0
3264.48
2988.44
3076.38
3109.77
160.81
146,49
151.55
152.95
56.38
51.61
53.13
53.71
2.28
2.08
2.15
2.1?
2100/2
1
2
3
Avg
1206.62
1 300.fal
1 378.78
1295.34
118.30
127.51
135.17
126.99
1.68
1.81
1.92
1.80
D-28
-------
TABLE D-
30. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
CATERPILLAR 3406 DI 18° (Run 1)
(11-Mode FTP Weighting Factors)
Weighted
Power
Fuel
Part.
S04=
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
S04=
rpm
% load
kw
kg/min
9/hr
mg/hr
Fact.
kW
kg/min
g/hr
mg/hr
700
—
2.0
5.76
300.23
0.067
0.134
0.386
20.12
1260
2
3.8
4.4
12.66
469.97
0.08
0.30
0.35
1.013
37.60
1260
25
48.2
12.9
49.83
1963.5b
0.08
3.86
1.03
3.986
157.09
1260
50
97.2
22.8
ND
4780.36
o.oa
7.78
1.82
382.43
1260
75
141.3
32.9
184.99
5216.10
0.08
11.30
2.63
14.799
417.29
1260
100
185.3
44.5
294.52
4493.36
0.08
14.82
3.56
23.562
359.47
700
2.0
5.76
300.26
0.067
0.134
0.386
20.12
2100
100
222.4
57.5
294.35
6896.68
0.08
17.79
4.60
23.548
551.73
2100
75
174.5
44.6
202.26
6200.05
0.0P
13.96
3.57
16.181
496.00
2100
50
117.4
32.0
147.46
4512.25
0.08
9 39
2.56
11.797
360.98
2100
25
57.9
20.3
121.08
3264.48
0.08
4.63
1.62
9.686
261.16
2100
2
4.2
10.3
56.39
1206.62
0.08
0.34
0.82
4.511
96.53
700
2.0
5.76
300.26
0.067
0.134
0.386
20.12
84.17
22.96
110.241
3180.64
Brake
Specific Part
iculate.
g/kw-hr
1.310
Fuel
Specific
Partiuclate, g/kg fuel
4.801
Brake Specific SO4*, mg/kw-hr 37.79
Fuel Specific bO^-, my/kg fuel 138.53
D-20
-------
TABLE D-51. CYCLE COHPOSITE * ARTICULATE AMD SULFATE RAWS
CATERPILLAR J406 01 18* (Run 2)
(13-Hode FTP Weighting Factors)
Power Fu«l
rpa % load kw kg/am
700
1260
1260
1260
1260
1260
700
:ioo
2100
2100
2100
2100
70C
2
25
50
75
100
100
75
50
25
2
3.3
48.3
*7,1
141.0
183.8
231.9
176.4
117.4
57.*
4.2
2.1
4.8
12.9
22.d
32.8
44.2
2.1
58.6
45.1
1.2.0
20.4
10.2
2.1
Weighted
Part. SO4* wgt. Power Fuel Part.
g/hr ag/hr Fact. kw kq/ain c/hr
6.02
8.61
51.26
90.23
184.87
339.62
6.02
239.50
194.87
159.13
119.19
61.64
6.02
359.45
564.32
2042.10
3542.72
426?.35
4324.75
359.45
8266.69
6799.uO
4526,45
2988.44
1300.61
359.45
0.067
0.08
0.38
0.08
C. 08
0.08
0.067
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
^ 08
0.067
0.141
0.30
3.86
7.77
11.28
14.70
18.55
14.11
3.39
4.63
0.34
. 3a
.03
.82
.62
.54
.141
.69
3.61
2.56
1.63
0.82
0.141
0. 103
0.689
4.101
7.218
14.789
27.170
0.403
19.160
15.590
12.730
9.535
4.931
0.403
SOT
ag/hr
24.08
45.15
1€3.37
283.42
341.55
345.98
24.08
661.34
543.97
362.12
239.08
104.05
24.08
84.93 23.123 117.149 3162.2?
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/*g sue!
1.3?9
5.066
Brake Specific SO4*
Fuel Specific SO4 ,
wq/ kw-hr
ag/kg fuel
37.23
136.76
TABLE D-32. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE SATES
CATERFILLAJt 3406 DI La* (Run 3)
tl3-Kode FTP Weighting Factors)
Weighted
?ower
fuel
Part.
504°
wge.
Power
Fuel
Part.
S04*
ZjM
% load
¦
20.3
120.6?
3076.38
3.08
4.63
1.62
9.654
246.11
2100
>
4.2
10.2
62.85
1378.78
.08
0.34
J.32
5.028
110.30
700
2. j
6.79
* >Q
0.06?
0.13
0.455
21.91
94.6?
23.08
118.551
3101.46
Brake Specific
Part
irulate,
9/kw-hr
1.40
Brake
Specific SO4",
*g/kv-hr
36.63
Fuel
Specific
Parti.
rulate*g/kg fuel
5.13?
Fuel s!
pacific SO4*, ag/kg fuel
134.38
D- 30
-------
TABLE D-33. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM CATERPILLAP 34C6
33* TIMING (BASED ON 47 at. GtASSFIBEK FILTERS)
Engine
rg»/ % load
Concentration
&g/m3
Particulate Rat«
a£H_
gAt fuel g/kH-ftr
1260/2
2
5
Avq
39.
S >,13
47.46
45.5*
18.83
24.^
23.55
22.35
4.01
4.49
4.61
4.44
4.96
,4-f
6.2Q
5.93
1260/25
1
2
3
Avq
46.52
50.40
48.21
48. 3»5
1.76
1.93
1.8 j
1.S0
0.50
.56
Q. 53
0. S3
3
Avg
1. J
1. 3
1.36
1.13
. j:
0.32
0.32
126 /7S
3
Avg
61.76
56. "*€
J7.3*
1.*
i.:6
1.15
.23
.27
0,29
D.26
1.6 1
3
Avq
Avg
i
<52.88
35. 7
3?.lfe
B9.'i4
4 .-1
44. it
47.82
44..-3
48,
•3.!, 44
3, **
65.4*
"6,2fr
• S . Jr
a . 5i
13.73
12.fcl
1.45
, 7f
.4"
?-,«-4
* .82
1.1
1.13
1.11
. 34
0.41
J "¦
.24
21 /?:
21 j/
Av-i
44.
^ 1. -*?
i. 12
Avg
.4.4
21. 7*>
».. 4»*
- 77*
D-31
-------
TABLE D-34. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SULFATE
CATERPIUAR 3406, 33* TIMING (EASED ON 4? mm FLUOROPOR£ FILTERS)
Engine
rpa/% Load
1260/2
1260/25
1260/5
1260 75
1260'1
:il*
'1
*1
-1 S
a
Run
Ho,
1
2
3
Avg
Concentration
^g/»3
1871.3
2596.5
3443.9
2303.9
Sulfaf Rate
mg/ht
901.38
1277.99
1212.44
1130.77
agAg Fuel mg/hw-hr
191.89
232.36
247.44
223.90
237.34
336.31
319.06
297.57
% Sulfur
Recovry
2.72
3.29
2.51
1.17
1 3387.1 1693.22
2 3651.2 1992.24
3 3544.5 1821.93
hvq 3594.3 1835.80
1 7115.3 3995.20
6401,6 3621.23
3 <>558. 3 3771 ,Q5
Avg 6691.7 2795.84
1 5038.4 3327.95
2 6397.4 41S4.62
3 W7.8 402''.*'?
Avg 5«47.9 3846.72
1 5937."' 4516.57
2 6811.4 524 .9
i 6131.3 4714.03
Avg 6283.5 4323.83
126.76 36.26 1.80
147.57 42,48 09
139.08 39.01 1.97
137.80 39.25 1.95
179.16 42.32 2.54
161.Co 18.69 2.29
169,11 40.33 2.40
169.9% 4 . 2.33
101.46 23.45 1.44
13 .7? 29.83 1.85
124.31 28.67 1.76
118.85 27.32 1.68
103.3 - 24.23 1.47
119.93 27,53 1.70
108.37 25.36 1.54
110*55 25.81 1.57
1 24-2. 697.25
2 3 75.1 872.64
3093.1 388.34
A'ti 2880-1 819.41
ab4.» 7013.
' 3.4 6^. '
I 6068.3 72il.^3
Avg 5368.6 7907.45
I * 87." *44",4
4"'".* <-« 3.
•> 4152.- 4 370.03
Avg 4671.5 4973.77"
1 4 ZS.4 * 45.38
2 454 .0 4262.19
J 4480.6 4152.15
Avg 4460.m 4153.24
1 3138.4 2570.3'
.918.1 2425.11
3374.1 2745.26
Ave '*31. >580.22
I Is* 4.-> 106 .18
312.4»
1224. n 3
Ava !:>' r . 1202..
332. .. 4.71
379.4 ----- S. *8
403.7? -.73
371.74 5.27
12 3.4" 28. 1 .
118.4* -.7.55 ,.68
123.45 29.95 1.82
123.47 28.74 1.75
122.6* 2'J. 4 1 74
114.=* 27. fee ,t>3
99. 32 23.97
112.32 27.06 ..59
125.24 32.*4
134. 3 35 1.^0 -
130.16 34.2 3 1.85
•29.Hi 34. * I,»;4
126.62 42. 1.80
120.6 4 . l.-l
136.5? 45.30 1.94
127.9! 4Z.4< 1.62
104. *.»"*. 4J l.J»
132. - JU.
t:0.Q(- . ,?v,
119.1 * . ..6)
D-32
-------
it
it;
pi
o a It;
is
„•
If
n i!
a
i
5?
. C Or M *» •
<* ® i *
l.'f
In r*
Ifc?
*1
jr -v
I
s I
9 w MM »•
t H *m |< vd (b >
» o j» *j a> a» »
[lis
a s
{4 U
=.-52
2 X £
m *o
•H U t*
•J J '*4
:*£
e k 3
i" I
?sr
- i
2
S
*
u
-j
S a
m
»* »
S if
CM 4- »J »->
, « k& o *
| I /.**»*>! U*» .
• #. O p 4 V W »- o» •« v> i
t «bK
VT » "
I * V" ~- '
. s* i O # *"* <
m
, j. 4* «. a.
, i/> i/. w l I :r
P*
& o
>jWhO
i-J®'
a»|*> «4 »
«8
V- i'ks;'V4 issiii;
Pt
rift I
as,
5i|
** r3
St H d
5-3 3
IJs
a
i
'i
If
*» 4. * t
"m- * <*»»~*
i7'C;i)iG4 oJ'^utStt-»P
sl«B «A «J w <*4 <1M Ji W H
•.t-WWkOMvlKAKjKlO)^
U»®OOfwO u« *V» ~- If 9> ^ u « "
, I *|4>
N
I* **
fes
P-'
OOOOOOOOOOOO |« ® fl*
«0 W 4» -J w I
5I
?
K *>l -* S'KjCiutD^WwMff'H^
Kl
8.
0 8
558
311,
as,
us
H • H
«si
m
n:
-------
TABLE D-38. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM
CATERPILLAR 3406 IDI ENGINE
(Based on 47 mm Glassfiber Filters)
Engine Concentration Particulate Sate
rpm/% load Run mq/m3 q/hr q/kg fuel g/kw-hr
1400/2 1 22.57 11.54 1.96 3.04
2 23.09 11.73 2.06 3.09
Avg 22.83 11.64 2.01 3.07
1400/25 1 21.31 11.23 0.84 0.23
2 21.35 11.28 0.84 0.23
Avg 21.33 11.26 0.84 0.23
1400/50 1 31.14 19.37 0.83 0.20
2 34.32 21.26 0.91 0.22
Avg 32.73 20.32 0.87 0.21
1400/75 1 81.57 62.63 1.79 0.43
2 79.72 60.74 1.73 0.41
Avg 80.65 61.69 1.76 0.42
1400/100 1 109.38 101.49 2.06 0.50
2 123.06 113.89 2.31 0.57
Avg 116.22 107.69 2.19 0.54
Idle 1 20.83 4.65 2.91
2 17.85 3.99 2.49
Avg 19.34 4.32 2.70
2100/100 1 37.34 4b.45 0.75 0.19
2 38.00 47.30 0.77 0.20
Avg 17.64 46.88 0.76 0.20
2100/75 1 51.25 53.50 1.16 0.30
2 46.77 50.08 1.05 3.27
Avg 49.01 51.79 1.11 0.29
2100/50 1 35.92 31.32 0.97 0.26
2 37.72 32.61 1.01 0.26
Avg 36.82 31.97 0.99 0.26
2100/25 1 40.67 29.91 1.50 0.50
2 47.52 35.)5 1.73 0.56
Avg 44.10 32.48 1.62 0.53
2100/2 1 32.44 22.49 2.16 4.79
2 34.86 24.18 2.35 5.14
Avg 33.65 23.34 2.26 4.97
D-34
-------
TABLE D-39. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S04= FROM CATERPILLAR
3406 IDI ENGINE
{BASED ON 47 mm FLUOROPORE FILTERS)
Engine
rpm/% load
Run
NO,
Concentration
ltq/m3
Sulfate Rate
mg/hr mg/kg fuel iag/kW-hr
S04" as %
Fuel S
1400/2
1
2
Avg
1020.8
985,3
1003.3
521.9
500.8
511.4
131.8
1 .25
1.25
1.25
1400/25
1
2
Avg
2667.1
2286.0
2476.6
1404.R
1207.6
1306.2
104.8
90.1
97.5
28.6
24.6
26.6
1.49
1.28
1.39
1400/50
1
2
Avg
4880.0
5685.0
5282.5
3034.3
3521.8
3278.1
129.7
151.2
1-10.5
30.9
35.9
33.4
1.84
2.14
2.04
1400/75
1
2
Avg
7547.2
5857.1
6702.2
5794.4
4462.9
5128.7
146.4
39.4
30.3
34.9
35
2. >
1400/100
1
2
Avg
5904.2
5965.3
5934.8
5478.4
5520.6
5499.5
111.1
112.2
111.7
27.2
27.5
27.4
1.58
1.59
1.59
Idle
1
2
Avg
1012.2
1081.8
1047.0
226.0
254.2
240.1
141.3
141.2
141.3
2.00
2.00
2.00
2100/100
1
2
Avg
6210.8
6473.1
6342.0
7726.4
8061.3
7893.9
126.2
131.3
128.8
32.3
33.6
33.0
1.7^
1 .8
1.73
2100/75
1
2
Avg
9258.1
9376.9
9267.5
9664.1
9933.4
9798.8
210.1
209.1
209.6
53.7
53.1
53.4
2. 1
2.9(
2.91
2100/50
1
2
Avg
3726.6
4376.2
4051.4
3221.5
3790.8
3506.2
99.7
117.4
108.6
25.9
30.5
28.2
1.41
l.f.C
1.54
2100/25
1
2
Avg
5471.7
5202.6
5310.2
4023.3
38 38.4
3930.9
202.2
189.1
195.7
67.1
61.8
64.5
2.80
2.62
2.71
2100/2
1
2
Avg
5497.1
4683.0
5090.1
3812.8
3265.2
3539.0
370.2
311 .0
340.6
811.2
694.7
753.0
5.25
4. 31
4.78
D-35
-------
TABLE D-40. CYCLE iTOMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND .LFATE RATES
CATLPPILLAS 3406 101 ENGINE RUN 1
U3-MOOE FTP WEIGHTING fACTORS)
Weight«d
Engine
Power
Fuel
Particulate
so4-
wgt.
Power
Fuel
Pert.
S04"
rpm/% load
*w
kq/hx
3/hr
wq/ht
Fact.
kW
kg/Hr
9/hr
wq/hz
Idle
—
1.6
4.65
226.0
0.067
0.11
0.31
15.14
1400/2
3.3
5.3
11.54
521.9
0.3d
0.30
0.4?
0.32
41.75
1400/25
49.1
13.4
11.23
1404.9
0
J.93
1.07
0.90
112.38
1400/50
98.1
23.4
19.37
3034.3
0.08
'.35
1,87
1.55
342.74
1400/75
147.2
35 .0
•52.63
5794.4
0.08
11.78
2.80
5.01
463.55
1400/100
201.2
49,3
101.49
5470.4
0.09
16.10
3.94
8.12
438.27
Idle
1.6
4.65
226.0
3.06?
0.11
0.31
15.14
2100/100
243.3
62.3
46.45
7726.4
0.08
19.50
4.98
3.72
618,11
2100/75
180.1
46.0
53.5
9664.1
J. 08
14.41
3.68
4.28
733.13
2100/50
122.1
32,2
31.32
3221.5
0.08
9.71
2.58
2.51
257.72
2100/25
60.3
19.9
>9.91
4023.3
0.08
4.30
1.59
2. 39
321.86
2110/ 2
4.7
10.4
22.49
1812.8
0.08
0.38
0.83
1.80
305.02
Idle
1.6
4.65
226,0
0.067
™
9,11
0.31
15.14
03.32
24.14
32.13
3719.95
Stake Specific Particulate gAW-ftr 0.362 9ra*e Specific S04", ag/kW-hr 41 as
Fuel Specific Particulate, gAg fuel 1.331 fuel Specific S04«, mg/kg fuel 154.10
TABLE 3-41. rYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
CATERPILLAR 3406 IDX ENGINE iUIK 2
13-HODE FT? WEIGHTING FACTORS J
Weighted
Snaine
r?»/* load
Power
kw
Fuel
r
1.6
Particulate
:/hr
so4*
!fig/hr
Wqt.
ract.
Power
kW
Fuel
kg/hr
Part.
?/hr
S04*
trw/hr
'die
J.
,99
254.2
..067
0.11
0.
.2?
1-.03
1400/2
3. S
5. T
11.
.73
500.8
0.08
0.30
0.46
Q.
94
40.06
1400/25
49.1
13.4
U.
.28
1207,6
^.08
3.93
1.07
0.
,90
96.61
1400/50
98.1
23.3
21.
.26
3521.a
0.08
7.85
1.36
1.
.70
281.74
1400/75
147.2
35.1
00,
.74
4462.9
0.08
11.78
2.31
4.
.86
357.03
1400/100
200.6
49.2
113.
,89
5520.9
0.08
16.05
3.94
9.
.11
441.65
Idle
™
1.6
1,
.39
254.2
0.067
—
0,11
0.
.27
17.03
2100/100
240.5
61.3
47.
.30
3061.3
0.08
19.24
4,90
3.
,78
644.90
2100/75
136.9
47.5
50.
.^8
9933,4
0.08
14.95
3.80
4.
.01
794.67
2100/50
124.2
32.3
32
,61
3790.8
0.08
9.94
2.58
2.
.61
303,26
2100/25
62.1
20. 3
35.
.05
1838.4
0.08
4.97
1.62
2,
.80
307.0?
2100/2
4.7
10. 3
24.
,13
3265.2
0.08
0.38
0.32
1.
.93
261.22
Idle
1.6
3.
,99
254.2
0.067
0.11
0.
.27
17.03
89.39
24.19
33.
.45
3579.30
Brake Speci
fie Particulate.
gA'W-nr 0.
374
Brake
Specific
SO4*. flig/kW
-hr
40.04
Fuel Specif
ic Parti
culat*.
-------
TABLE D-42. SUMMARY Of PARTICULATE, B&P AND ORGANIC SOLUBLES
FROM 8 X 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES
CATERPILLAR 3406
rpm
Condition
CI)
Engine
/load % Configuration
Particulate Rate
1260/2
01 28*
DI 28VEGR
DI 18*
DI 33*
IDI 10*
¦3
-------
TABLE D-43, BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
CATERPILLAR 3406 DI, 28° BTC TIMING
D
I
oa
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
BaP
Org.
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
BaP
Org.
Mode
rpm
load, %
kW
kg/hr
Pg/hr
Sol., %
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
pg/hr
Sol., '
W.F.
Derived From 13-Mode
FTP
1
1260
2
4.1
4.4
29.94
4.87
0.12
0.49
0.53
3.59
0.58
2
1260
50
98.0
22.4
4.04
23.88
0.16
15.68
3.58
0.65
3.82
3
1260
100
192.5
43.5
30.06
0.12
23.10
5.22
3.61
4
Idle
1.6
34.29
31.02
0.20
0.32
6.86
6.20
5
2100
100
243.3
57.1
21.36
0.12
29.20
6.85
2.56
6
2100
50
120.1
31.0
2.96
0.16
19.22
4.96
0.47
7
2100
2
4.7
9.6
52.16
5.08
0.12
0.56
1,15
6.26
0.61
88.25
22.61
17.36
17.85
Brake Specific BaP
, pg/kW-hr
0.197
Fuel
Specific BaP,
yg/kg fuel
0.768
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, *
17.85
W.F. Derived from 21-Mode EPA
0.225
0.92
0.99
6.74
1.10
0.092
9.02
2.06
0.37
2.20
0.049
9.43
2.13
1.47
0.269
0.43
9.22
8.34
0.176
42.82
10.05
3.76
0.110
13.21
3.41
0.33
0.079
0.37
0.76
4.12
0.40
75.77
19.83
20.45
17.60
Brake Specific BaP, ug/kW-hr
Fuel Specific BaP, ugAg fuel
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, %
0.270
1.031
17.60
-------
TABLE D-44. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
CATERPILLAR 3406 DI, 28° BTC TIMING, WITH EGR
Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Wgt. Power Fuel BaP
Mode rpro load, t kW kg/hr yg/hr Sol., % Fact. kW kg/hr uq/hr
Org.
Sol.
W.F, Derived from 13-Mode FTP
1
1260
2 4.1
4.4
21.99
18.08
0.12
0.49
0.53
2.64
2.17
2
1260
50 97.4
22.9
16.99
0.16
15.58
3.66
2.72
3
1260
100 192.3
44.0
13,19
0.12
23.08
5.28
1.58
4
Idle
2.0
6.09
27.70
0.20
0.40
1.22
5.54
5
2100
100 233.3
56.9
23.97
0.12
28.00
6.83
2.88
6
2100
50 127.9
33.7
22.15
0.12
20.46
5.39
3.54
7
2100
2 5.2
9.7
45.17
8.76
0.16
0.62
1.16
5.42
1.05
0.12
88.23
13.25
9.28
19.48
Brake
Specific BaP
, yg/kw-hr
0.105
Fuel
Specific BaP,
yg/kg fuel
0.399
Cycle
Specific Organic Solubles, %
19.48
w.F. Derived from 13-Mode
FTP
0.225
0.92
0.99
4.95
4.07
0.092
8.96
2.11
1.56
0.049
9.42
2.16
0.65
0.269
0.54
1.64
7.45
0,176
41.06
10.01
4.22
0.110
14.07
3.71
2.44
0.079
0.41
0.77
3.57
0.69
74.84
20.29
10.16
21.08
Brake Specific BaP pgAW-hr 0.136
Fuel Specific BaP, ugAg fuel 0.501
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 21.08
-------
TABLE D-4S. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
CATERPILLAR 3406 DI, 18° BTC TIMING
Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Wgt, Power Fuel BaP 0.g.
Mode rpm load, % kW kg/hr Mg/hr Sol., % Fact. kW kg/hr ug/hr Sol., %
W.F. Derived from 13-Mode FTP
1
1260
2
4.4
4.6
118.37
38.48
0.12
0.53
0.55
14.20
4.50
2
1260
50
97.7
22.9
23.90
0.16
15.63
9.66
3.82
3
1260
100
182.3
43.7
0.59
0.12
21.88
5.24
0.07
4
Idle
1.9
91.34
6.52
0.20
0.38
18.29
1.30
5
2100
100
222.6
57.3
22.64
0.12
26.71
6.88
2.72
6
2100
50
114.3
31.3
45.74
27.59
0.16
18.29
5.01
7.32
4.41
7
2100
2
4.2
9.9
148.53
19.44
0.12
0.50
83.54
1.19
28.91
17.82
57.63
2.33
19.15
a
i
O
Brake Specific BaP, ugAW-hr 0.690
Fuel Specific BaP, tig A 9 fuel 1.993
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 19.15
W.F. Derived fror 21-Mode EPA
0.225
0,99
1.04
26.63
8.66
0.092
8.99
2.11
2.20
0.049
8.93
4.02
0.03
0.269
0.51
24.60
1.75
0.176
39.18
10.08
3.98
0.110
12.57
3.44
5.03
3.03
0.079
0.33
0.78
11.73
1.54
70.99
21.98
67.99
21.19
Brake Specific BaP, yg/kW-hr 0.958
Fuel Specific BaP, WgAg fuel 3.093
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 21.19
-------
TABLE D-46. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
CATERPILLAR 3406 DI, 33° BTC TIMING
0
1
•d
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
BaP
Org.
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
BaP
Mode
rpm
load, %
kW
kg/hr
ug/hr
Sol., %
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
Ug/hr
W.F. Derived from
13-Mode
FTP
1
1260
2
3.8
4.7
118.93
9.29
0.12
0.46
0.56
14.27
2
1260
50
94.6
22.6
34.10
14.70
0.16
15.14
3.62
5.46
3
126
100
184.5
43.4
1.51
0.12
22.14
5.21
4
Ic.*e
2.1
378.78
8.28
0.20
0.42
75.76
5
2100
100
244.0
56.8
8.28
0.12
29.28
6.82
6
2100
50
123.7
32.1
17.55
0.16
19.79
5.14
7
2100
2
4.2
10.2
117.74
31.39
0.12
0.50
1.22
14.13
87.31
22.99
109.62
Brake Specific BaP
, yg/kW-hr
1.256
Fuel
Specific BaP,
ugAg fuel
4.768
Cycle
Specific Organic Solubles
, %
12.87
Org.
So 1., %
1.11
2.35
0.18
1.66
0.99
2.81
3.77
12.87
W.F. Derived from 21 -Mode EPA
0.225
0.86
1.06
26.74
2.09
0.092
8.70
2.08
3.14
1.35
0.049
9.04
2.13
0.07
0.269
0.56
101.89
2.23
0.176
42.94
10.00
1.46
0.110
13.61
3.53
1.9."
0.079
0.33
0.81
9.30
2.4E
75.48
20.17
141.07
11.63
Brake Specific BaP, ugAW-hr
Fuel Specific BaP, Mg/kg fuel
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, %
1.869
6.994
11.61
-------
TABLE D-47. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
CATERPILLAR 3406 IDI ENGINE
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
BaP
Org.
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
BaP
Org.
lode
rpm
load, %
kw
kg/hr
pg/hr
Sol., %
Fact.
kw
kg/hr
pg/hr
Sol.,
W.F.
Derived
From 13-
-Mode FTP
1
1400
2
3.8
5.5
19.38
12.94
0.12
0.46
0.66
2.33
1.55
2
1400
50
98.5
23.3
BMD
4.53
0.16
15.76
3.73
0.72
3
1400
100
199.6
49.1
BMD
5.09
0.12
23.95
5.89
0.61
4
Idle
—
1.7
12.58
9.88
0.20
0.34
2.52
1.98
5
1900
100
238.0
60.5
BMD
0.84
0.12
28.56
7.26
0.10
6
1900
50
122.1
32.2
BMD
11.66
0.16
19.54
5.15
1.87
7
1900
2
4.7
10.5
65.69
35.88
0.12
0.56
1.26
7.88
4.31
88.83
24.29
12.73
11.14
i Brake Specific Bap, pg/kw-hr 0.143
~j Fuel Specific BaP, gg/kg fuel 0.524
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 11.14
W.F. Derived From 21-Mode EPA
0.225
0.86
1.24
4.36
2.91
0.092
9.06
2.14
0.42
0.049
9.78
2.41
0.25
0.269
0.46
3.38
2.66
0.176
41.89
10.65
0.15
0.110
13.43
3.54
1.28
0.079
0.37
0.83
5.19
2.83
75.39
21.27
12.93
10.50
Brake Specific BaP, pg/kw-hr 0.172
Fuel Specific BaP, lag/kg fuel 0.608
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 10.50
BMD - Below Minimum Detectable
-------
o
o
O
c
o
C
o
o
t-,
o
a
o
1
r-. o
o a w
•
M
*"•
w
r-i
*"*
w
»-
w
fo
Kj
w
_
ki
~a
IsJ
w
©
O
CD
w
CD
®
0>
w
®
CD
CD
»
CD
CD
03
3D
09
03
03
o
o
o
o *
•
•
O e
o O
55
a
X
\
«
CS
a
3
w
X
r»?
a
»
cn
8
s
\
tn
a
»
o o o o
W w O o »-
1^1 UD
N I
«C A. !
9»(MwOO>
-J w O ® »a
O o
b o
ooooo
o o o o
b W o o
~j O i y
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
bi-obi-
ooooo ooooo
V)
ha
to
n
m
w
-------
TABLE 0-49. PERCENT PER STAGE OF TOTAL PARTICULATE COLLECTSD BY
ANDERSON IMP AC TOR FOR CATERPILLAR 1406
Sta?a ECO, 1260 rpe 2100 cm
No. micron Z\ 50% 100% tdl« 100% 50% 2%
Direct Injection 28°BTC Timing
*.
ic.9
1.2
0.93
0.73
0.22
0.69
0.28
3»*2
2
6.8
0 .of*
1.2
0.63
0.38
0.86
0.24
0,37
3
4.o
1.3
1.3
0.75
0.59
1.6
0.24
0.S1
4
3.2
2.2
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.56
1.3
5
2.
3."
2.0
2.5
1-3
1.7
0.V6
1.5
6
1. JJ
2..
Z. 7
4.3
o.ai
3.2
2.5
1,3
0,63
i.l
i.l
7.3
1.3
4.3
3.2
1.3
3
0.42
3.1
3.8
7.a
3.7
5.3
2.4
2.2
Ttltmr
<0.42
82.7
33, 1
74.3
*0.1
91.4
89.8
90.7
Dtrecc Injection 23*3TC EGR
1
10.3
3.18
0.19
0.1?
0.36
0.32
0.09
0.12
2
6.3
0.13
0.19
0.09
J.43
0,58
0.31
0.15
3
4.6
0.24
0.42
0.65
0.58
0.63
0,43
0.31
4
3.2
0.18
0.94
0.96
1.2
1.1
0.95
0.54
2.0
0.48
2.4
1.7
1.0
2.6
1.4
0.81
fe
1.03
1.4
2.1
2.9
1.4
3.3
2.6
1,5
**
3.63
l.a
3.0
6.0
2.7
3.9
3.1
1.3
3
0.42
5,5
3.5
9.9
3.9
2.7
3.7
1.3
Filter
<9.42
30,1
97, 3
78.7
88.4
84.3
37.5
94.0
Direct
Injection
18*STC
10* Retarded
1
10. 9
1.4
0.19
0.41
0.47
0.26
0.34
0,35
2
b.8
C. 28
~ . 15
0.64
0.79
0.31
0.55
0.54
3
4.0
1,0
0.39
l.i
0.63
0.78
0.59
0.52
4
3.2
J. 76
0.62
1.2
0.95
1.1
0,59
i.l
5
2.-"
o.n
i.8
2.1
1,3
2.4
1.9
1.2
6
1.03
2.2
2.2
2.9
1.1
3.2
2.8
2.1
7
0.63
4.4
2.8
4.5
1.7
1.9
2.5
3.0
a
0.42
5.2
2.7
5.9
2.4
3.8
3.6
2.7
Filter
<0.42
84.1
39.1
81.2
90.7
34.2
87.0
88.5
Direct
Injection
3 3°8TC
5* Advanced
I
I .9
.34
0.60
0.51
0.b9
0.45
0. 35
0.70
2
¦5.a
1.4
1.1
0.54
0.57
0.63
0.74
0.60
i
4.6
. :s
1.5
1.1
0.32
0.79
0.">4
0.38
4
3.«.
.<34
2.2
L.O
0.28
0.67
1,2
0.35
5
2.0
1.4
3.6
1.9
0.92
1*8
0.79
0.77
S
1.03
1.2
5.3
4.2
1.2
3.1
3.0
0.70
**
-.63
I . 3
4.2
7.3
1.9
4.1
1.6
0.70
*
0.42
6.2
4.2
8.7
6.4
4.4
2.0
0.66
rtiter
.42
*5,3
??, 3
74.3
87.3
34.1
89.6
35.1
Indirect Injection 10*BTC Prechaisber
1
10. ?
1. ¦*
3.13
0.40
0.52
0.45
3.52
0.25
2
6.t)
1,2
1.1
0. 34
1.0
0.34
0.74
0.18
3
4. 6
1. 3
J.81
1.3
0. m
0.52
0.86
0.74
4
J.2
1.2
-.96
0.77
*.. 7
3.76
l.l
i. 3
S
2.
2.3
1.2
i.a
2.7
1.6
I.J
1.1
6
1.33
2.o
2.7
4.3
1.6
2.7
2.0
2.2
1
0.63
2. 5
3.6
s.o
3.2
2.6
2.6
2.2
a
0.42
3.1
4.3
6.1
1.4
2.5
3.5
2.7
Filter
<0.42
34.3
35.4
80.1
85.8
98.6
87.4
89.3
D-
44
-------
TABLE 0-50. ALDEHYDES
BY DNPH FOR CAT
ERP1LXAR
3406, 28
0 BTC
1260 rpm
2100 rpa
Aldehyde
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Form-
ug/m3
1626
2639
1933
4693
2816
1608
2546
aldehyde
mg/hr
1053
2002
1923
1637
4408
2030
2611
mg/kg fue1
234
90
44
779
76
61
251
mg/kW-hr
277
21
10
18
16
622
Acet-
Ug/m3
252
1406
151
aldehyde
mg/hr
353
— -
1060
3
mg/kg fuel
78
—
505
32
mgAw-hr
93
80
Acetone
Mg/m3
126
624
mg/hr
4*5
808
mg/kg fuel
11
385
mg/kW-hr
2
Iso-
Ug/m3
559
163
283
660
210
221
473
butanal
mg/hr
2080
710
1620
1322
1885
1605
2790
mg/kg fuel
462
32
37
630
32
48
268
mg/kW-hr
547
7
9
8
13
664
Crotunal
Ug/m 3
421
262
452
916
294
405
SOB
mg/hr
1489
1085
2459
1747
3462
2792
2B4(
mg/kg fuel
331
49
57
832
60
83
274
mg/kW-hr
392
11
13
14
23
678
Hexanal
ug/m3
56
75
145
56
92
mg/hr
401
832
562
782
1048
mg/kq fuel
89
19
267
2 j
101
mg/tW-hr
106
4
6
25'
Benz-
ug/m3
27
427
187
40
113
4
aldehyde
mg/hr
217
5291
813
771
1782
47
mg/kg fuel
43
122
387
13
53
5
mg/kw-hr
57
28
3
14
11
D-45
-------
TABLE D-51. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3406, 28" BTC WITH EGR
1260 rpm 2100 rpm
Aldehyde
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Form-
Mg/ra3
1357
1440
1765
3708
1394
2927
2630
aldehyde
mg/hr
387
869
1683
658
1318
4063
1206
mg/kg fuel
88
38
39
337
23
123
127
mg/kW-hr
102
9
9
6
32
232
Acet-
tig/m3
460
221
aldehyde
mg/hr
284
219
mg/kg fuel
64
23
mg/kw-hr
75
42
Acetone
Ug/m3
39
mg/hr
41
mgAg fuel
9
mg/kW-hr
11
Iso-
Ug/m3
299
621
213
458
310
481
442
butanal
mg/hr
490
2153
1169
467
1687
3813
1166
mg/kg fuel
111
94
27
239
29
116
122
mg/kW-hr
129
22
6
7
31
224
Crotonal
Ug/m3
877
1143
472
1297
857
909
1547
mg/hr
1366
3768
2459
1259
4429
6846
3879
mg/kg fuel
310
164
57
645
77
208
407
mg/kW-hr
360
39
13
19
55
746
Hexanal
Ug/m3
56
75
1149
450
56
mg/hr
177
505
2253
6919
284
mg/kg fuel
40
22
1155
210
30
mg/kW-hr
46
5
56
55
Benz-
Ug/m3
2 37
654
158
aldehyde
mg/hr
524
7701
904
mg/kg fuel
269
133
95
mg/kW-hr
33
174
D-46
-------
TABLE D-52. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3406, 18° BTC
1260 rpm 2100 rpa
Aldehyde
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Form-
yg/m1
1227
1347
5185
2602
1896
2416
8651
aldehyde
mg/hr
3356
1039
1275
967
3116
3051
9014
mq/kq fuel
725
47
29
576
53
97
887
mg/kW-hr
818
11
7
14
27
1918
Acet-
yg/m3
2 308
927
2535
aldehyde
mg/hr
3228
745
5708
mg/kg fuel
698
444
562
mg/kW-hr
787
1215
Acetone
yg/m3
325
262
___
285
mg/hr
780
362
1102
mg/kg fuel
169
216
109
rag/kw-hr
190
235
ISO-
pg/m3
155
146
105
351
___
59
163
butanal
mg/hr
576
647
626
750
428
2175
mgAg fuel
124
29
14
447
14
214
mg/kW-hr
140
7
3
38
463
Crotonal
yg/m3
386
34 3
102
472
234
72
496
mg/hr
1365
1446
531
959
2099
498
2824
mgA^ fuel
295
65
13
571
36
16
278
mgAW-hr
333
15
3
9
4
601
Hexanal
yg/m3
246
36
56
110
344
37
72
mg/hr
1774
313
647
454
1324
5x6
4002
mgAg fuel
383
14
15
270
23
16
394
mg/kW-hr
433
3
3
6
5
851
Benz-
pg/m3
3526
227
1028
185
19
516
509
aldehyde
mg/hr
28431
2182
2490
857
372
8126
6602
mg/kg fuel
6145
99
56
510
6
260
650
mg/kW-hr
6934
23
13
2
72
1405
D-47
-------
TABLE D-53. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3406, 33° BTC
Aldehyde
Rate
1260 rpm
Idle
2100 rpm
2
50
100
100
50
2
Form-
Ug/m3
4339
2184
2267
40263
3559
3559
3800
aldehyde
mg/hr
2864
1688
2353
15092
5679
4439
3923
mgAg fuel
601
76
54
7233
100
139
376
mg/kW-hr
754
18
13
23
36
835
Acet-
Ug/m3
618
3701
351
aldehyde
mg/hr
882
2999
782
mg/kg fuel
185
1437
75
mgAW-hr
232
166
Acetone
Ug/m3
177
386
3
3333
—
-
327
mg/hr
435
1107
13
4640
1254
mg/kg fuel
91
50
0
2224
120
mg/kW-hr
115
12
0
267
Xso-
Ug/m3
249
246
70
1261
74
72
438
butyr-
mg/hr
946
1091
417
2717
683
515
2601
aldehyde
mgAg fuel
199
49
10
1302
12
16
249
mg/kW-hr
249
12
2
3
4
553
Crotonal
gg/m3
718
2888
829
1464
1210
1750
2349
mg/hr
2590
12204
4703
2999
10552
11926
13249
mg/kg fuel
544
548
108
1437
185
375
1270
mg/kW-hr
682
130
25
43
98
2819
Hexanal
Ug/m3
86
990
467
411
987
664
478
mg/hr
636
8526
5400
1718
17545
9234
5499
mg/kg fuel
134
383
124
824
308
290
527
mgAW-hr
167
91
29
72
76
117C
Benz-
pg/m3
701
35
3289
92
184
aldehyde
mg/hr
5764
341
15359
___
1433
2372
mgAg fuel
1210
15
7361
45
227
mgAW-hr
1517
4
12
505
D-48
-------
TABLE D-54. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR CATERPILLAR 3406, IDI ENGINE
STANDARD TIMING
, 10°
BTC
1400 rpm
2100
rpm
Aldehyde
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Form-
yg/m3
9915
0
976
2674
920
966
2156
aldehyde
mg/hr
6638
0
1175
805
1542
1115
1983
mgAg fuel
1100
0
24
467
25
34
177
mgAW-hr
1897
0
6
6
9
381
Acet-
yg/m3
2648
101
0
1431
25
0
315
aldehyde
mg/hr
3832
181
0
931
91
0
627
mg/kg fuel
635
8
0
540
2
0
56
mg/kW-hr
1095
2
0
0
0
121
Acetone
yg/m3
0
68
68
498
29
0
68
mg/hr
0
209
303
557
181
0
231
mg/kg fuel
0
9
6
323
3
0
21
mgAW-hr
0
2
2
1
0
45
Iso-
pg/m3
923
0
0
0
0
0
0
butyr-
mg/hr
3554
0
0
0
0
0
0
aldehyde
mg/kg fuel
589
0
0
0
0
0
0
mgAW-hr
1015
0
0
0
0
0
0
Crotonal
yg/m3
0
63
321
432
452
472
464
mg/hr
0
288
2114
711
4142
2978
2334
mg/kg fuel
0
12
42
413
66
90
208
mg/kW-hr
0
3
11
17
24
449
Hexanal
yg/m3
158
39
42
72
42
42
42
mg/hr
1182
360
559
242
779
536
428
mg/kg fuel
196
15
11
141
12
16
38
mg/kW-hr
338
4
3
3
4
82
Benz-
yg/m3
906
335
361
461
406
335
445
aldehyde
mg/hr
7562
3462
5415
1729
8473
4813
5105
mg/kg fuel
1253
146
109
1003
135
146
456
mgAW-hr
2160
35
27
35
39
982
D-49
-------
TABLE D-55. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406 28° BTC
1260 rpm 2100 rpm
Hydrocarbon
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Methane
yg/m3
4328
2265
1398
5860
799
1598
3996
ch4
mg/hr
2092
1281
1038
1525
933
1505
3057
mg/kg fuel
465
57
24
726
16
45
294
mgAW-hr
550
13
6
4
12
728
Ethylene
Mg/m3
14099
6234
4311
19867
6001
6642
13983
C2H4
mg/hr
6812
3527
319*
5168
7007
6255
10695
C. H
mg/kg fuel
1514
158
74
2461
121
187
1029
mg/kW-hr
1793
36
17
29
51
2546
Ethane
Ug/m3
250
187
499
62
125
187
C2H6
mg/hr
121
106
130
73
118
143
mgAg fuel
27
5
62
1
4
14
mg/Kw-hr
32
1
0
1
34
Acetylene
pg/m3
1245
595
433
1895
758
541
1407
C2H2
mg/hr
601
336
321
492
884
509
1075
4.
mgAg fuel
134
15
7
234
15
15
103
mgAW-hr
158
3
2
4
4
256
Propane
Wg/m3
c3»8
mg/hr
—
mgAg fuel
mgAW-hr
Propylene
Mg/m3
3845
2447
1224
5710
2039
2622
4137
C H
mg/hr
1858
1384
908
1485
2381
2469
3164
J O
mg/kg fuel
413
62
21
707
41
74
304
mg/kw-hr
489
14
5
10
20
753
Benzene
Mg/m3
1124
1236
674
1573
674
955
1124
C6H6
mg/hr
522
673
481
394
758
866
827
O Q
mgAg fuel
116
30
11
188
13
26
80
mgAW-hr
137
7
3
3
7
197
Toluene
yg/m3
438
164
55
877
110
219
438
C7H8
mg/hr
211
93
41
227
128
206
334
/ O
mg/kg fuel
47
4
1
108
2
6
32
mgAW-hr
56
1
0
1
2
80
D-50
-------
TABLE D-56. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406
28° BTC WITH EGR
Hydrocarbon
Rate
1260 rpm
Idle
2100 rpm
2
50
100
100
50
2
Methane
Ug/m3
3130
4395
1066
3130
599
2198
4129
ch4
mg/hr
666
1979
758
414
423
2261
1413
mg/kg fuel
151
87
17
212
7
69
148
mg/kw-hr
175
21
4
2
18
272
Ethylene
yg/m3
13925
11303
4137
12060
6700
9438
15265
C2H4
mg/hr
2961
5088
2941
1596
4727
9707
5223
£. H
mg/kg fuel
671
221
68
818
82
295
548
mg/kw-hr
779
53
16
20
78
1004
Ethane
Ug/m3
187
375
312
187
312
C2H6
mg/hr
40
169
41
193
107
mgAg fuel
9
7
21
6
11
mg/kW-hr
10
2
2
21
Acetylene
Ug/m3
1678
1732
433
1462
704
1083
2382
C H
mg/hr
356
779
308
193
496
1112
814
4. Z
mg/kg fuel
81
34
7
99
9
34
85
mg/kW-hr
94
8
2
2
9
157
Propane
Ug/m3
—
C H
mg/hr
i o
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
—
Propylene
Ug/m3
3437
3146
990
3088
2214
2913
3787
C,H
mg/hr
731
1416
704
409
1562
2996
1296
i O
mgAg/ fuel
166
62
16
209
27
91
136
mg/kW-hr
192
15
4
7
24
249
Benzene
Ug/m3
1292
2416
674
1292
786
1517
1910
CAHft
mg/hr
264
1046
461
165
534
1501
629
6 D
mg/kg fuel
60
46
11
84
9
46
66
mg/kW-hr
70
11
2
2
12
121
Toluene
Ug/m3
329
438
55
384
110
384
493
C7H8
mg/hr
70
197
39
51
77
393
168
t O
mg/kg fuel
16
9
1
26
1
12
18
mg/kW-hr
18
2
0
0
3
32
D-51
-------
TABLE D-56. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406
28° BTC WITH EGR
Hydrocarbon
Rate
1260 rpm
Idle
2100 rpm
2
50
100
100
50
2
Methane
Ug/m3
3130
4395
1066
3130
599
2198
4129
ch4
mg/hr
666
1979
758
414
423
2261
1413
mg/kg fuel
151
87
17
212
7
69
148
mg/kw-hr
175
21
4
2
18
272
Ethylene
yg/m3
13925
11303
4137
12060
6700
9438
15265
C2H4
mg/hr
2961
5088
2941
1596
4727
9707
5223
£. H
mg/kg fuel
671
221
68
818
82
295
548
mg/kw-hr
779
53
16
20
78
1004
Ethane
Ug/m3
187
375
312
187
312
C2H6
mg/hr
40
169
41
193
107
mgAg fuel
9
7
21
6
11
mg/kW-hr
10
2
2
21
Acetylene
Ug/m3
1678
1732
433
1462
704
1083
2382
C H
mg/hr
356
779
308
193
496
1112
814
4. Z
mg/kg fuel
81
34
7
99
9
34
85
mg/kW-hr
94
8
2
2
9
157
Propane
Ug/m3
—
C H
mg/hr
i o
mg/kg fuel
mg/kW-hr
—
Propylene
Ug/m3
3437
3146
990
3088
2214
2913
3787
C,H
mg/hr
731
1416
704
409
1562
2996
1296
i O
mgAg/ fuel
166
62
16
209
27
91
136
mg/kW-hr
192
15
4
7
24
249
Benzene
Ug/m3
1292
2416
674
1292
786
1517
1910
CAHft
mg/hr
264
1046
461
165
534
1501
629
6 D
mg/kg fuel
60
46
11
84
9
46
66
mg/kW-hr
70
11
2
2
12
121
Toluene
Ug/m3
329
438
55
384
110
384
493
C7H8
mg/hr
70
197
39
51
77
393
168
t O
mg/kg fuel
16
9
1
26
1
12
18
mg/kW-hr
18
2
0
0
3
32
D-51
-------
TABLE D-57. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406 18° BTC
1260 rpm 2100 rpm
Hydrocarbon
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Methane
Ug/m3
4195
2531
666
2464
732
2397
4329
CHi
mg/hr
2026
1456
516
683
898
2259
3365
4
mgAg fuel
438
66
12
407
15
72
331
mgAW-hr
494
15
3
4
21
716
Ethylene
Mg/m3
12293
6991
4137
6118
5710
7690
12002
C->H^
mg/hr
5934
4021
3206
1696
7000
7244
9327
2 4
mg/kg fuel
1283
181
72
1011
119
231
918
mg/kW-hr
1447
43
17
31
64
1985
Ethane
Ug/m3
375
187
187
62
187
250
C2:I6
mg/hr
181
108
52
77
176
194
<£ O
mgAg fuel
39
5
31
1
6
19
mgAW-hr
44
1
0
2
41
Acetylene
3
pg/m
1245
650
217
595
433
866
1245
C H
mg/hr
600
373
168
165
530
815
966
2 2
mgAg fuel
130
17
4
98
9
26
95
mg/kW-hr
146
4
1
2
7
206
Propane
Ug/m3
115
C3H8
mg/hr
59
j o
mgAg fuel
13
mgAW-hr
14
Propylene
Ug/m3
4370
2447
1457
2156
1806
2680
4428
C3H6
mg/hr
2109
1407
1129
598
2214
2524
3441
¦j D
mgAg fuel
456
64
26
356
38
81
339
mgAW-hr
514
15
6
10
22
732
Benzene
, 3
Mg/m
1348
1629
506
1011
618
1404
1573
C6H6
mg/hr
626
902
377
270
729
1273
1176
o o
mgAg fuel
135
41
9
161
12
41
116
mgAW-hr
153
10
2
3
11
250
Toluene
Mg/m3
438
274
110
329
164
274
493
C7H8
mg/hr
211
157
85
91
201
257
382
mgAg fuel
46
7
2
54
3
8
38
mgAW-hr
51
2
0.5
1
2
81
D-52
-------
TABLE D-58. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406 33° BTC
1260 rpm 2100 rpm
Hydrocarbon
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Methane
Mg/ra3
6859
3729
1798
8524
666
1132
3663
ch4
mg/hr
3378
2151
1392
2384
793
1053
2821
mg/kg fuel
709
97
32
1142
14
33
270
mg/kW-hr
889
23
7
0
3
9
600
Ethylene
3
yg/m
26626
8273
3554
30180
6292
4311
15265
C2H4
mg/hr
13108
4771
2751
8438
7489
4011
11752
4 H
mg/kg fuel
2752
214
63
4044
132
126
1126
mg/kW-hr
3450
51
15
0
31
33
2500
Ethane
yg/m3
437
437
562
125
250
C2H6
mg/hr
215
252
157
116
192
mg/kg fuel
45
11
75
4
18
mg/kW-hr
57
3
0
1
41
Acetylene
yg/m3
2382
1245
379
2273
650
487
1678
2 2
mg/hr
1171
717
293
635
772
453
1290
mgAg fuel
246
32
7
304
14
14
124
mg/kW-hr
308
8
2
0
3
4
275
Propane
Ug/m3
58
C3H8
mg/hr
35
j O
mg/kg fuel
2
mg/kW-hr
—
0
Propylene
3
yg/m
6700
2913
1049
7865
2097
1806
3904
C3H6
mg/hr
3299
1680
812
2199
2496
1680
3005
O V
mg/kg fuel
693
75
19
1054
44
53
288
mg/kW-hr
868
18
4
0
10
14
639
Benzene
ug/m3
1854
1854
674
2022
843
562
1011
mg/hr
878
1029
502
544
965
503
749
o
mg/kg fuel
184
46
12
261
17
16
72
mg/kW-hr
231
11
3
0
4
4
159
Toluene
3
yg/m
438
219
—-
767
—
C7H8
mg/hr
215
126
214
t a
mg/kg fuel
45
6
103
mg/kW-hr
57
1
0
D-53
-------
TABLE D-59. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, CATERPILLAR 3406
IDI, STANDARD TIMING 10° BTC
1400 rpm 2100 rpm
Hydrocarbon
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Me thane
Ug/m3
2704
433
333
2158
286
693
1332
CH.
A
mg/hr
1350
268
299
484
358
596
914
**
mg/kg fuel
224
11
6
281
6
18
82
mg/kW-hr
386
3
2
2
5
176
Ethylene
3
Ug/m
15457
1981
2610
8955
5675
3088
4515
C2H4
mg/hr
7719
1227
2344
2010
7093
2658
3099
<£. H
mg/kg fuel
1279
52
47
1166
113
81
277
mg/kW-hr
2205
12
12
29
22
596
Ethar.e
, 3
Ug/m
106
6
0
19
0
12
12
C2H6
mg/hr
53
4
0
4
0
11
9
mg/kg fuel
9
0
0
2
0
0
1
mg/kW-hr
15
0
0
0
0
2
Acetylene
Ug/m3
1618
162
395
942
628
466
752
C H
mg/hr
807
101
354
211
784
400
516
Z. mL
mg/kg fuel
134
4
7
123
13
12
46
mg/kW-hr
231
1
2
3
3
99
Propane
Ug/m3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C H
mg/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J O
mg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
mg/kW-hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Propylene
Ug/m3
4719
711
559
2226
1468
1066
1258
C3H6
mg/hr
2357
440
502
500
1835
918
864
O
mg/kg fuel
391
19
10
290
29
28
77
mg/kW-hr
673
4
3
8
7
166
Benzene
3
Ug/m
1275
404
393
753
646
466
556
C6H6
mg/hr
613
241
340
163
777
387
367
D D
mg/kg fuel
102
10
7
94
12
12
33
mg/kW-hr
175
2
2
3
3
71
Toluene
yg/m3
1545
745
575
236
27
203
482
C7H8
mg/hr
770
460
515
53
34
174
330
/ o
mg/kg fuel
128
19
10
31
1
5
30
mg/kW-hr
220
5
3
0
1
64
D-54
-------
TW»LK D-60. g 1-Htin» f.f* {*1* lllf ;»L F.'M r*t;Lfi
DAIMLER-BENZ DIESEL ENGINE 0M-152-AB S/N 909-10-01-9653 125 HR. EMISSION ENGINE
!£SI I SUN 1 F'JF.L: m-gfP-r PHdJt.CT I I<5 r iidTf I - 1- JR
none
VHlltHt
SPKf.l)
rnrfQUF
P't**. a
miFL
FL«*
* I »
H.H*
F.< n
199.1
. ' "»H
h. im
h,?1
. Hph
b
5bCI
?0$
h»b
? . ?H
?. »<«
1.^3
10.«3
7
i*mu
. *
55.5
. ^ i
•». mi
b, * 1
;
1 ?n
9H3
n.on
1
I
I
8
IPS.?
HI «
. «* M
> *
?.«M
.11^*
9
1?0
lb9
lnp*
1.00
!.*«»
1.13
1 1 .H?
9
i «ti«i
IbS.b
b«. 4
.•"M
7.1*
?.**
,111b
g
38*»
lb«
1 1 b 1
n.on
J
I
1
in
189. 3
M.*
.«>?J
7. IK
',* 3
."3fl
1U
3b*
?23
1 198
n.on
1
1
1
i
Kill)
O.rt
n.M
t .»*
« .**
.•in?
ii
9?f»
S?5
79
n.on
K
u
P
15?
?*i»n
*51 . *
1 •»!.«»
.*15
1 39
1?.*U
.HIS
i?
ISb
MS
98?
1.31
3.5?
11.b*
J 9
3??.9
9*. ?
. *0«?
11."**
l*.?"l
.HI*
i«
388
*•~3
951
b. 3*
l."»b
3.*?
11.71
1*
?«lMI
?8*.h
. *b%
I 1 .?9
! 1 .h*
,111?
i»
1??
39f1
R
„?»9
•*„*»
In.tlS
.I!?*
1*»
*81)
313
b 1 3
*.*1
?.b*«
3.*9
11. ?s
1 ?
8 ?.s
n.«
. lb?
8. 78
„MJ«1
i >
5R*
H5b
188
n.on
I
I
1
1»
?8i|*|
bb.S
i*.
. I«l*
a.5|
«.b»
• Ml B
1«
b 3?
«Rb
31*
i .**
8.19
ie.s*
13.3*
19
?ann
2b.I
. *?*
9. *1
R „ *b
.•US
1*»
?ao
599
2?*
11. MO
1
i
I
2ti
?«iin
9.5
•a.M
, 1 i»*
«.?I1
0.^1
.HI?
?b*
b01
181
0.00
1
i
I
bun
(I.li
n. ii
. It t ^
1 . 71
i ,an
.i»n?
?3b
525
13*
n.uo
¥
R
k
CfClf
COMPOSITE
RSHC
s 3^080
ghah/km
MR
nsco*
s *.809
QRAH/KM
HR
R9NQ2+*
= 11•9b 3
UN4H/KW
HW
BSHC * HSN0?»*= iS.0»S r,R*«/Kii H»
nsrc « .as
-------
TABLE D-M. 31*«*ih» n M"»M r*T|l
DAlHLO?-BO*2 DIESEL ENGINE 0M-3S2-AB S/N 909-10-01-9653 125 HR. EMISSION ENGINE
Ttsr i ? fuels rrsi j - ?m
MOUK"
PNRfNt
1PFF*»
THMQI't
P^H| U
ri rn
A\u
H IM
F*HAI|ST
Ftnw
n»FL
«0D£
Mt
cu*
N0*»
ni- iUHien
nsMc
M5CU»
8SN0? *~
h i 'i
K '<
« ^ /M | '<
Hr./Mpj
wat in
HMH
PPM
PPM
r;/H*
h«
G/K*» H*
i
mm
O.M
II,M
.mi
1 . Wi»
1.«1
.«n7
I
Rifl
H^s
I*«*
ii.imi
k
fif
V
1 hum
?.i
1 . '
H.SII
.'Mil
?
S|?I
isn
. i n
RH . b5*
1PS.U1
«
1 7
.in*;
H
hi. 9
1i»7
30b
.
», «»•
1?.73
«»
l Onn
¦tq. ?
iq.
S.hJ
.'It 7
7|?
*n?
3*3
.bH
»>. 3^
il.**
h
1 Mmii
i«,H
. ' '»*
•». M
. 'IPV.
S
M n
PS 7
KPb
c?. 7m
?. Qli
?.*~»
in. *i*
7
l«r|ii
SS.1
.PIS
. hii
»%,S|
.i»^3
7
SHI
??S
*I^S
1
I
I
*
l«l»M
«?*.?
HI.'
H.I?
i *
. <1
fl
«;h«i
1^7
1 fjR 7
>,01)
1
1.33
1 •?. 08
<*
l«u«
IH.r*
Kfl s
7. 1?
7. 1*
.ink
Q
«iH»
11H7
n.iin
J
1
I
HI
1 a'M»
H«, 1
. »?
7.
,H ?
il.uu
I
1
1
1
il.il
H.n
. " 1«®
1 . >1
t , ®H
. 'Ill 7
l i
HllH
JS«i
IH5
n.cin
H
w
a
I*
i hm«i
'S3. 7
M 1. >
I f>.**
lP.a#l
i?
inn
1S|
lfl?«i
i# J?
i.lM
i.lR
i?. ii
1 )
P*iMi
3«*S.?
1S,«
,»»>
1 1 . V
IP.IP
,«n<;
u
H« J
iOlS
h* 3M
l.?l
3. ^ S
l
q, ®?
l*>
17b
??H
b 7 7
3.81
?. hi
l?,i3
*7
P*IIM
PS.*
**. i
, 1h4
q. m
a.**
I'
hnR
?88
•il 7
ii. mi
i
I
1
li
MlIU
HI.?
is. i
, i»a
.ni n
1«
K9K
317
i?q
I.<3
P.b*
H.7?
1*
P8.S
B *
. tpi
«.<»!
». n
I"
7BH
37b
?37
«i.im
1
!
1
?»
« . 1
.hi?
«. 1 *
».?p
.!»t 9
?n
PHQ
* 33
1 Pi
n.oo
1
I
I
?r
Kflll
n.ii
II II
1 . »1
. Mlt7
3S3
1«*K
n.iin
N
w
R
ctr.LF.
COMPOSITE
*SHC S
l,*?7
GrfAM/K*
Mp
«SCO* S
* . 3 J 1
GRAM/Kri
M»
l*.b9H
PRAM/KM
HP
8SHC ~
«SNoa*»=
GM AM / k «<
MW
t = •
-------
TAW.E D-62, U-NOOt PirV.L £*1*510'! C»tl f
DAIMLER-BENZ DIESEL ENGINE 0M-352-AB S/H W-10-01-9653 12S Hfi, EMISSION ENGINE
TEST t bun i FUCt: pwnjtci I irii n*U 1-j-js
HOOE
engine
SPCFU
festal'?
puxf;^
FUFU
Ft***
* IN
FLOW
F »H#-JST
FLO*
fufl
*I«
*i)OE
HC
CO*
NO**
WCIGrttf0
BSHC
BSCu*
tlSNyl?**
RPH
N X M
*w
*G/MI*
KR/wfh
Kfi/HI*
»A1 10
PPN
PPM
t*P*
KM
G/K* HR
r./Kw Htf
G/KM rtW
1
t*n»i
n.n
n.n
#H|?
i .«?
1 ,«3
t
?sb
**n
i?a
n.on
H
H
i
l*oo
1. 3
.tisl
s.-s
*» . Ml
. IMS 4
?
ti*H
t
.11
?b.lb
n
51.73
%
I* i»n
'iq, ?
IH.S
Jim
1
%<««>
3?S
an
1. 5n
S. !*
b.VR
9.qj
i
3?.h
. » ^*a
*•«?3
.U?b
*
5K0
?M|
b«*.18
n.n
i i
?*«!»
fO, H
.lb?
«, b?
e. ?>»
.ftf *
ii
SB*
e.uK
S.RO
ifK.OO
*» ?. 1 3
n
bni»
n.n
II ,n
,01?
1 .
! .
.nit?
13
?3b
n. Ci"
H
«
CfCtF
COMPOSITE
B8HC
s
GRaH/kn
Mk
«3CO*
-
HHah/kn
H»»
nSNf1LLIGR*NS
k«TE» per *G OBf MR
-------
TA8U; D-6J. I)HSH SI "n { * {{
DAIML£R-B£N2 DIESEL ENGINE OM-352 AB S/N 909-UQ-01-9653 125 HR. O'.TSION ENGINE
TPS T i *M
»4 * M
». ri
KG/-I*-
n G / »I»
* <; / m I *i
»* t\n
PPM
PPH
Pt*M
Km
G/Kw HR
G/K •« HW
G/-V- HH
i
Sf»'t
0.11
fi. a
.Mil
1 . fin
i ,pi
.imi?
!
(It II
* IS
??
n.oo
H
e
i
i flllH
?. 1
1 . 3
."SI
, itnq
?
??f»
S?i
'~n
.1J
iP^.un
aS.S(!
3
I flau
q«», ?
t H . 0
. rt 'in
S.N ?
s. ??
• 01?
3
?l?
i.sn
b. 3b
?. J«
1 • 38
«~
I flmi
*B.»I
. !**
*•.1 *
,!>?«¦¦
*
K?l!
3.uh
?.**»
e,
»-»•». ?
SS . *1
. ^ 1S
h .M*
K^H |
.nil
s**
??s
1 ,?t»
l . 3n
i i , S 3
?
Mim
O.fi
II. II
,nte
t.?'1
1 „°l>
. Mil ?
7
MflR
>SH
P.Otl
u
¥
P
3M. ?
imt?
1 ? . * **
1 ? . ® '4
. n it.
M
Ti*
<~* i
iui*>
*. jm
i. it"
i?.n3
S
**nu
,?***>.«*
.
1 n.
1 1 .?*
,n M
q
3*1?
Hi h
*i.e*
i •fc*
r . iS
il.Hi
io
1 ™.n
# ?•» M
?
q „ 0 ?
.
1 n
4 ?h
?ep
h«h
*. i*
?,•**
1^.30
11
?«nn
**. 1
. • **fl
o. iq
a. s*.
, tl?(i
I 1
h'lg
?8U
^.00
b.o1*
s. ?U
1 i.H
ip
?y.ui
?. i
X. 4
. Mi?
«. J ?
®. ?*•
.~Ml
1 ?
*M
IS!
.4?
<« <4 ^ H <«
13
ban
ii.«
n„i»
. •' J *
1 . *"•
J . ?«.
.»M J
1 *
3Si
inS
0.00
H
P
fa
tffLE
co«posnf.
1SHC
s
3.10#
Gham/r*
Hfc
ssto«
s
3. ?*i
GRAH/K*
HP
flSNO?**
s
l?.0?h
Oh»H/Kr
HR
BSHC ~
=
IS.l33
HK
*Sf C = .eiKKfc/KM H*
•» CnNVCPTCO 1U f»E T nAS I S
CONVENED to WET BASIS ANU -OR»tCTED ^0 10.7 WILLIG*U*S
MATER PER KG DRY ft {ft
-------
TABLE D-64. 2 1-MOOt. EPA £*~* 01F.SEL EMI 33 I ON CVCLE
ROJECTt U-*b23-OI)l TEST i)AlE 3-31-78 RUN NO.l
XCINEl DAIMLER-BENZ MODEL OM-352 N/A DI SERIAL NO. 12468
ODE
F.NGINE
IHHUUf
Pl)»EH
fuel
AIR
EXHAUST
fuel
SPEED
FLOH
FLO*
FLO"
AIR
RPH
N X M
KH
KC/MIN
KG/min
KG/min
RATIO
bOO
0.0
n.n
.0) 1
1 .81
1.10
.00b
201111
'.1
1.5
.»5b
b. 13
b.lB
.1)1)1
2onu
2b.1
5.5
.llbS
h. 15
b . 2 1
.1)11
2001)
si.3
1?.*
.1)83
b.lll)
b.DH
.01*
2oun
07.8
IB.*
. lnl
h.Ub
b. Ih
.1)17
20(111
l»l).»
37.8
. IbO
b.llft
b.2*
. 02b
20011
25B.R
5*. e
.el5
b.l)0
b • 22
. 1) 3 b
20110
28*. <1
51. 7
.23?
5.9(1
b . 22
.0*0
20IIU
315.7
bb.l
.21.5
5.9b
b • 22
. n**
2nijo
3*1.8
71 ,b
.203
5.89
b. 11
.1150
bllO
ii. n
D.I)
.013
1.85
1.8b
.007
28nti
31 S . 7
12.b
.*11
8.1)0
8.41
.051
28110
212.11
85 . b
.372
8.02
8.31
.0<»b
2800
2bl .1
7h.b
.327
0.1)4
8. 37
.011
2801)
237. *
bl.b
.297
B.nb
D. 3b
.037
280U
151.1
*b.b
.211
8.13
B.3S
.027
2B0U
83.1
2*.*
.151
8.10
8. 2b
.020
28UU
s 7. n
lb.7
.13b
8.09
8.22
.017
28110
2h • 1
7.7
.112
8.07
B.1B
.01*
^ 8II11
7.1
2.1
.011
B.nb
B. lb
.012
bUO
0.0
o.n
.013
1.90
1.11
.007
OOE
E MC
CO*
N0»»
MEIGMTED
BSHC
0SCO +
B3N02**
HUM.
NILLI
PPM
PPM
PPM
K»
G/KM HR
G/KN HR
G/KM HR
G/KG
718
lb*
131
0.00
M
R
R
11.0
700
517
1*1
.11
8*.*3
12*.20
55. bl
11.0
712
S12
180
.*0
23.5*
35.72
H.*3
11.0
821
Sbb
2b 3
.7b
11.73
lb.U?
12,2*
11.0
832
53b
338
.bb
8.11
10.*1
10. 79
11.0
800
118
b9l
2. 7b
3.85
*.00
10. 8B
11.0
b 80
383
9S8
o.uo
I
I
I
11.0
S 7b
* 33
1017
2.12
1.75
2.bl
10.1)9
11.0
HO
bBS
10*7
0.00
I
I
I
11.0
220
1*0 3
10*2
O.UO
I
I
I
11.0
82*
1 b 3
13b
O.UO
R
R
»
11.0
2*
1*7*
100S
2.1b
.Ob
7.77
8 . b 9
11.0
120
108*
99b
5.7*
.3*
b.lb
9. 30
11.0
3UB
b 1 3
9bB
3.21
. IB
3.88
10.08
11.0
*Sb
* b?
121
5.08
1.51
3.21
10.53
11.0
b28
*71
bbS
3.*0
3.27
*.89
11.33
11.0
7*0
SbO
3b3
0.00
I
I
I
10.3
792
591
270
1.32
11.3*
lb.87
12.bb
10.1
821
b21
US
0.00
I
I
I
10.1
821
b2 3
lSb
O.PO
I
I
I
10.1
880
520
15
o.ro
R
R
R
10.1
YCLE COMPOSITE
BSHC »
3.*10
gram/km
HR
BSCOt *
7.010
gram/km
HR
B3ND2+*®
10.7bb
GRAM/KM
HR
BSHC ~
BSN02*»c
1 * • 1 75
gram/kn
HR
BSFC *
.29SKG/KM HR
~ CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
~ ~ CONVERTED TO met BASIS AND CORRECTED to 10,? MILLIGRAMS
MATER PER K6 ORV AIR
-------
TABLE D-f.5, 2 l-MOOl EP» EXP 0IE3EL Emission CYCLE
JJECTI U-*b21-001
TEST
0*»E ?
-11-78
RUN N0,2
UNEt
BAIMLER-BEHZ MODEL OH-352
N/A DI
SERIAL NO
. 124B8
BE
engine
1 OHJUL
PO*l»
FUEL
AIR
EXHAUST
FUEL
SPEEO
FLO*
FLO*
FLO*
AIR
RPM
Nam
RW
kg/min
KG/HJN
KG/HJH
RATIO
1
boil
0.11
<1,0
."11
1.81
Kin
.00b
2
2noo
1.5
2.0
.055
b.10
h.lS
.001
1
21100
28. S
"i.U
,01.8
H.12
b. 18
.011
*
21100
bl. 7
12.1
.087
b. 12
••.20
.111*
S
2ooo
85. 5
1 7.1
, 100
b • 05
b. 15
.nib
b
2000
182,8
18.1
. lb 1
b , 0 3
h. 11
.02 7
7
2000
258.R
5*.2
,215
b.Ol
fe.22
• 0 3b
8
20110
280.1
SB. 7
.211
S.lb
h.n
.031
1
21100
IIS. 7
bh, 1
,2bb
5.11,
b.21
.0*S
0
2noo
1*1.8
71. b
.213
5.1b
b.2b
.0*1
1
hno
o.n
o.n
.011
1.8*
l.Sfc
.nob
.2
28(10 •
lis.J
N2.b
.*IU
8.HI
8.*?
.051
,3
2800
212.0
85.b
. J70
8,02
8.J1
. 0* b
I*
2«nn
2b 1. 1
7h.b
.130
8.08
H.1!!
.0* 1
IS
280!!
237.*
hl.b
.110
8.11
8.**
.018
ib
2800 (
¦ lb 1,*
*7. 1
.221
8.11
8 . * 2
.028
17
2*on
80.7
21.7
• i i b
8. 1*
8. 30
.011
18
2800
57.0
Ib.7
.138
8.21
8.1?
.01 7
1«*
2800
28.S
8.*
.111
8.07
8.11
.01*
2o
2800
7.1
2.1
.01b
S.Ofc
8. IS
.012
21
bOO
O.U
0.0
.01*
1.81
1.82
.008
mmmm-mmmm
<00E
HC
CO*
NO**
WEIGMTEO
BSHC
BSCO*
B3M02* *
.*
12
2*
1 3b2
171
2.1b
.Ob
7.18
B.*t
1.*
13
120
1112
1b1
5,7*
.1*
b. 12
i.n*
'.*
1*
288
bbb
12 7
1.21
.12
*.2*
1,b°
*.*
15
*2*
S*0
831
5.0 8
1,50
1.80
l.feu
'.*
lb
mo-
*18
b2*
l.«S
3.10
S.l*
10.57
*.*
17
rn
blS
l*b
0.00
1
1
I
*.*
18
7»b
fell
2b7
1.12
11. bO
17.17
12.7*
«.*
H
8*8
b22
112
0.00
1
t
1
«.•>
20
880
b2S
155
0.00
1
1
1
2i
8B0
*12
107
0.00
R
R
6
*.b
CYCLE
COMPOSITE
BSHC *
3 » * * b
GRAM/KM
HR
BSCO+ x
b.SlO
GRAM/KW
HR
BSN02***
10,3b1
GRAM/KN
HR
BSHC ~
BSN02***
11.81S
GRAM/KW
HP
BSFC * .218KG/K* HR
~ CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
~~ CONVERTED TO MET 8*913 AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
KATER PER KE DRY AIR
-------
U-HOOt FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CVCLE
• CTi ii-«b2i-nni nsi oate 3-n-?* hum no.i
£l DAIMLER-BENZ MODEL OH-352 HI A Ot SERIAL HO. 12438
ENGINE
towout
PQ*FR
FUEL
AIR
EXHAUS1
FUEL
SPEEO
FLO*
FLO*
FLOW
AIR
RPM
N » M
KM
kg/nin
KG/NIN
kg/nin
RATIO
bnn
n.a
II.u
.011
1.81
1.10
.not.
2onti
?.i
1.5
,05b
b.11
b.l*
."01
e«on
8?.B
IB.*
.1111
b.0»>
b.lk
.01?
?nu»
180.*
17.a
. 11.0
b. 118
b,2*
.02b
211011
258.H
5*.2
.215
fc.nn
1..22
.11 lb
innti
I*l.B
?i.b
.211
s.ei
b.H
.050
bllll
li.0
0.0
.011
l.*5
l.Bb
.no?
28oo
31%. 7
12.b
.*11
8.on
B.*l
.051
2*no
21?.*
bl.b
.2"'
fl.nb
B.Jb
.01?
aanu
151, 1
*b.b
.?l'
8.11
8.15
.02?
i mm
81.1
2*.*
.in
».m
8.21.
.020
2800
?.l
2.1
.01"!
8.0b
8.1b
.01?
fcun
0.0
n.n
.»u
l.m
1.11
.00?
MODE HC CO* NO** WEIGHTED BSMC BSClJ* BSN02** HUH.
NULI
PPM PPN PPM KM G/KN MS G/K* MR G/KN M» C/KG
1
7*8
<•(.*
110
0.00
R
R
R
11.0
f
?00
51?
120
.12
8* . * 3
12*.20
* ? . 2 ?
11.0
i
832
51b
28?
1.*?
8.11
10.*1
1.1«>
11.0
*
800
*18
b5?
1.02
1.85
*.00
10.3*
11.0
5
b80
381
120
*.3*
2.2?
2.55
10.05
11.0
b
220
1*03
15b
S.?3
• SS
?.U3
?.i?
11.0
?
¦ 2*
*fel
100
0.00
H
K
R
11.0
B
2*
1*?*
<181
?.*1
,0b
?.??
8.SI
11.0
*51.
*1.2
<102
5.5?
l.si
3.21
10.32
11.0
10
b2B
*?1
bS*
J.?l
3.2?
*.81
11.15
11.0
11
?*0
5b0
3b1
1.15
?.10
11. U1
11.11
10.1
12
82*
l>21
1*?
.1?
U.bl
1*1.21
S*.b8
10.1
11
880
520
81
Q.UO
ft
R
H
10.1
CVCLE
COMPOSITE
BSHC •
1.118
GRAM/Kn
NR
BSCO* s
?.2S2
GRAN/KM
MR
BSN02***
10.0b*
GRAN/KM
MR
BSMC ~
BSN02**»
11.21.2
gran/kh
HR
BSFC » ,I13KG/KK MR
~ CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
~ ~ CONVERTED TO NET basis and CQMICTED 10 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
MATER PER KG DRY AIR
-------
TABLT n-67. I )-HOI>| FEDERAL OUSft EMISSJtlN CYCLE
JECT1 II-lbiJ-IltH TEST 0*1E J-31-3H BUN NO.2
I HE I DAIMLER-BENZ MODEL OM-352 N/A DI SERIAL NO. 12488
ENGINE
TORQUE
POWER
FUEL
AIR
F.xhaUST
FUEL
SPIED
FLON
FLON
FLOW
AIR
RPN
N * H
KM
KG/MIN
KG/MJN
KG/MIN
RATIO
biin
o.n
O.n
,011
1.8*
l.*0
.nob
211 III)
*,5
2.0
.055
b. 10
•>.15
.11111
2iwn
85.5
13.*
. 100
fa.ns
b.lS
.01b
J ciim)
inj.fl
38, 3
b.UJ
b.i*
.02 3
2HIIU
258.fl
5*.2
.215
b.ll 1
• 03b
aim ii
3*1.8
31.1.
,2*3
¦».*».
b.2b
.{11*
bnil
11.n
il.O
.011
1.8*
1.8h
.nob
2inu
31S, 3
*2.b
,*10
».ni
8,*2
.051
28oo
111.*
b*.b
.310
8.13
8.**
.038
2«uu
lbl.*
*3.1
,22*
8.1*
8.12
.028
28nu
•0.3
21.3
,15b
8.1*
8.3(1
.018
2"(I0
'.1
2.1
.O^b
R.tlb
8.1b
.012
bIJU
0.(1
o.n
,ni*
l.m
1.8?
.no«
*****
1
1
f
¦********¦
*********
t
t
1
t
1
I0DE
MC
CO*
N0+ +
WEIGHTED
BSHC
B3CU*
BSN02**
HUM.
MILL!
PPM
PPM
PPM
KM
G/KW MR
g/kh hk
G/Kw HR
t/KG
>•*.***
*****
1
f
*********
t
1
•
1
1
•
•
1
BSb
*08
10*
0.00
k
R
R
10.8
2
310
* 33
13*
.lb
bb . fa 1
71, bH
*0,*0
10.8
J
82*
3*1*
23*
l.*3
8.2*
3.*b
8.*3
10.8
*
BOO
25*
bSS
3.0b
3.3b
2.38
10.08
10.8
5
30*
222
85*
*. J*
2.35
1 . *8
*.*0
10.8
b
212
1332
*5*
5.33
.5*
fa.35
3.>)8
*.*
3
• 5b
323
lis
o.uo
K
R
H
*.*
I
2*
1 3b2
**0
3,*1
,0b
3.18
t.l*
*.*
*
5*0
8b5
5.53
l.SO
3.80
10.00
*.*
10
bOO
*<*8
b3J
3.3
-------
TABLE D-68.SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A
(BASED ON 47-mnt GLASSFIBER FILTERS)
Engine Run Concentration Particulate Rate
rpm/% load No. mg/m3 g/hr g/kg fuel g/kW-hr
1800/02 1 40.57 11.21 3.74 8.62
2 44.49 12.00 «.14 9.23
Avg 42.53 11.61 3.94 8.93
1800/25 1 34.78 10.18 1.73 0.56
2 35.72 10.08 1.71 0.53
Avg 35.25 10.13 1.72 0.55
1800/50 1 72.99 22.56 2.43 0.60
2 62.54 19.12 2.06 0.51
Avg 67.77 20.84 2.25 0.56
1800/75 1 60.11 20.70 1.57 0.36
2 52.55 17.58 1.36 0.32
Avg 56.33 19.14 1.47 0.34
1800/100 1 105.30 39.97 2.37 0.54
2 106.73 40.14 2.39 0.54
Avg 106.02 40.06 2.38 0.54
Idle 1 44.89 4.16 4.62
2 46.08 4.33 6.19
Avg 45.49 4.25 5.41
2800/100 1 84.27 53.68 2.01 0.50
2 84.00 52.25 1.96 0.49
Avg 84.14 52.96 1.99 0.50
2800/75 1 64.85 36.32 1.75 0.46
2 62.24 35.05 1.68 0.44
Avg 63.55 35.69 1.72 0.45
2800/50 1 83.44 41.69 2.71 0.77
2 91.34 45.75 2.97 0.84
Avg 87.39 43.72 2.84 0.81
2800/25 1 138.41 61.82 6.06 2.28
2 134.30 59.82 5.86 2.21
Avg 136.36 60.82 5.96 2.25
2800/02 1 93.61 38.17 6.58 18.18
2 103.77 42.34 7.30 20.16
Avg 98.69 40.26 6.94 19.17
D-63
-------
TABLE D-69. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SO. FROM
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A
(BASED ON 47 nun FLUOROPORE FILTERS)
Engine
rpm/% load
Run
No.
Concentration
Sulfate Rate
gg/hr mg/kg fuel tngAW-hr
SO. as %
Fuel S
1800/2
1
2
Avg
987.9
1020,6
1004.4
272.9
275.2
274.1
90.96
94.90
92.93
209.
211,
210.8
1.29
1.35
1.32
1800/25
1
2
Avg
926.0
1031.8
978.9
270.9
291.2
281.1
45.92
49.36
47.64
14.80
15.17
14.99
0.65
0.70
0.68
1800/50
1
2
Avg
2443.7
2435.8
2439.8
755.0
744.7
749.9
81.18
80.08
80.63
20.08
19.81
19.95
1.15
1.14
1.15
1800/75
1
2
Avg
2036.7
1729.7
1883.2
701.8
578.1
640.0
53.17
44.86
49.02
12.29
10.43
11.36
0.75
0.64
0.70
1800/100
1
2
Avg
2308.9
2264.6
2286.8
876.5
851.7
864.1
52.17
50.70
51.44
11.80
11.56
11.68
0.74
0.72
0.73
Idle
1
2
Avg
1948.4
1697.3
1822.9
180.5
159.3
169.9
200.56
227.57
214.07
2.84
3.23
3.04
2800/100
1
2
Avg
2677.6
2239.4
2458.5
1705.5
1392.9
1549.2
63.88
52.17
58.03
15.81
13.03
14.42
0.91
0.74
0.83
2800/75
1
2
Avg
1928.3
1653.6
1791.0
1079.8
931.3
1005.6
52.16
44.56
48.36
13.57
11.58
12.58
0.74
0.63
0.69
2800/50
1
2
Avg
2346.
2198.
2272.5
1175.0
1098.5
1136.8
76.30
71.33
73,82
21.64
20.23
20.94
1.08
1.01
1.04
2800/25
1
2
Avg
2342.2
2155.9
2249.1
1043.3
962.9
1003.1
102.28
94.40
98.34
38.50
35.53
37.02
1.45
1.34
1.40
2800/2
1
2
Avg
1438.1
1667,3
1552.7
586.4
680.3
633.4
101.10
11 <.
109.2
279.24
323.95
301.6
1.43
1.66
1.55
D-64
-------
TABLE D-70.CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A ENGINE (RUN 1)
(13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS)
Weighted
fine
*
Power
Fuel
Part.
so4=
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
23
£
u
25L
Load
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
ag/hr
lie
0.9
4.16
180.5
0.067
0.06
0.28
12.09
J00
2
1.3
3.0
11.21
272.9
0,08
0.10
0.24
0.90
21.83
300
25
18.3
5.9
10.18
270.9
0.08
1.46
0.47
0.81
21.67
300
50
37.6
9.3
22.56
755.0
0.08
3.01
0.74
1.80
60.40
300
75
57.1
13.2
20.70
701.8
0.08
4.57
1.06
1.66
56.14
300
100
74.3
16.9
39.97
876.5
0.08
5.94
1.35
3.20
70.12
Sle
0.9
4.16
180.5
0.067
0.06
0.28
12.09
S00
100
107.9
26.7
53.68
1705.5
0.08
8.63
2.14
4.29
136.44
300
75
79.6
20.7
36.32
1079.8
0.08
6.37
1.66
2.91
86.38
800
50
54.3
15.4
41.69
1175.0
0.08
4.34
1.23
3.34
94.00
800
25
27.1
10.2
61.82
1043.3
0.08
2.17
0.82
4.95
83.46
800
2
2.1
5.8
38.17
586.4
0.08
0.17
0.46
3.05
46.91
die
0.9
4.16
180.5
0.067
0.06
0.28
12.09
36.76
10.35
27.75
713.62
irake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 0.755
'uel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 2.681
irake Specific SO4-, mg/kK-hr
'uel Specific S04=, mg/kg fuel
19.41
68.95
-------
TABLE D-71.CYCLE COMPOSITE, PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A ENGINE (RUN 2)
(13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS)
Weighted
gine
%
Power
Fuel
Part.
S°4=
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
SO4-
rpm
Load
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
die
...
0.7
4.33
159.3
.067
0.05
0.29
10.67
800
2
1.3
2.9
12.00
275.2
.08
0.10
0.23
0.96
22.02
800
25
19.2
5.9
10.08
291.2
.08
1.54
0.47
0.81
23.30
800
50
37.6
9.3
19.12
744.7
.08
3.01
0.74
1.53
59.58
800
75
55.5
12.9
17.58
578,1
.08
4.44
1.03
1.41
46.25
800
100
73.7
16.8
40.14
851.7
.08
5.90
1.34
3.21
68.14
die
0.7
4.33
159.3
.067
0.05
0.29
10.67
800
100
106.9
26.7
52.25
1392.9
.08
8.55
2.14
4.18
111.43
800
75
80.4
20.9
35.05
931.3
.08
.43
1.67
2.80
74.50
800
50
54.3
15.4
45.75
1098.5
.08
4.34
1.23
3.66
87.88
800
25
27.1
10.2
59.82
962.9
.08
2.17
0.82
4.79
77.03
800
2
2.1
5.8
42.34
680.3
.08
0.17
0.46
3.39
54.42
die
0.7
4.33
159.3
.067
0.05
0.29
10.67
36.65
10.28
27.61
656.56
irake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 0.753
'uel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 2.686
irake specific SO4-, mg/kW-hr
'uel Specific S04", tag/kg fuel
17.91
63.87
-------
TABLE D-72. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE
FROM DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE
(BASED ON 47 mm GLASSFIBER FILTERS)
Engine rpm. Run Concentration Particulate Rate
% Load No. mg/ro g/hr g/kg fuel g/kW-hr
2000/2 1 47.99 14.53 9.69 4.40
2 50.07 15.12 10.08 4.58
Avg 49.03 14.83 9.89 4.49
2000/25 1 98.90 30.72 5.12 1.72
2 107.24 33.04 5.60 1.85
Avg 103.07 31.88 5.36 1.79*
2000/50 1 76.25 23.71 2.55 0.54
2 81.34 25.32 2.72 0.59
Avg 78.80 24.52 2.64 0.57
2000/75 1 99.06 30.48 2.33 0.56
2 100.91 31.51 2.46 0.58
*.vg 99.99 31.00 2.42 0.57
2000/100 1 277.77 85.96 4.88 1.19
2 283.69 87.96 5.00 1.22
Avg 280.73 86.96 4.94 1.21
Idle 1 46.05 4.27 5.34
2 45.30 4.19 5.24
Avg 45.68 4.23 5.29
2800/100 1 372.91 154.75 6.39 1.71
2 354.21 146.68 5.94 1.60
Avg 363.56 150.72 6.17 1.65
2800/75 1 126.79 53.66 2.95 0.76
2 122.57 51.74 2.86 0.74
Avg 124.68 52.70 2.91 0.75
2800/50 1 101.78 42.92 3.18 0.91
2 100.71 42.37 3.14 0.90
Avg 101.25 42.65 3.16 0.91
2900/25 1 140.05 58.20 6.33 2.49
2 156.49 65.55 7.05 2.80
Avg 148.27 61.88 6.69 2.65
2800/2 1 99.37 40.77 7.15 19.41
2 121.10 49.60 8.86 23.62
Avg 110.24 45.19 8.01 21.52
D-67
-------
TABLE D-73. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SO.= FROM
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE
(BASED ON 47 mm FLUOROPORE FILTERS)
Engine
rpro/% load
2000/2
Pun
No,
1
2
Avg
Concentration
767.0
854.1
810.6
232.2
258.0
245.1
Sulfate Rate
mg/hr ag/kg fuel mg/kW-hr
70.37
78.18
74.28
154.8
172.0
163.4
SO as %
Fuel S
0.98
1.11
1.05
2000/25
1
2
Avg
1186.5
1236.5
1211.5
365.5
379.8
372.7
61.95
62.26
62.11
20.42
20.64
20.53
0.88
0.88
0.88
2000/50
1
2
Avg
1878.1
2349.2
2113.7
584.0
731.2
657.6
62.80
78.62
70.71
15.87
19.87
17.87
0.89
1.11
1.00
2000/75
1
2
Avg
1127.8
1874.7
1501.3
352.2
582.1
467.2
27.52
45.83
36.68
6.50
10.74
8.62
0.39
0.65
0.52
2000/100
1
2
Avg
1881.6
2206.0
2043.8
579.9
684.0
632.0
33.33
38.86
36.10
8.11
9.49
8.80
0.47
0.55
0.51
Idle
1
2
Avg
1400.5
1749.8
1575.2
129.8
164.1
147.0
162.25
205.13
183.69
2.30
2.91
2.61
2800/100
1
2
Avg
4080.0
2694.2
3387.1
1693.0
1115.7
1404.4
69.96
45.17
57.57
18.71
12.15
15.43
0.99
0.64
0.82
2800/75
1
2
Avg
3153.4
2554.9
2854.2
1334.4
1078.5
1206.5
73,32
59.59
66.46
18.98
15.34
17.16
1.04
0.84
0.94
2800/50
1
2
Avg
2535.5
2859.1
2697.3
1069.3
1202,7
1116.0
79.21
89.09
84.15
22.61
25.43
24.02
1.12
1.26
1.19
2800/25
1
2
Avg
1892.0
2440.1
2166.1
786,3
1022.0
904.2
85.47
109.90
97.69
33,46
43.68
38.57
21
56
1.39
2800/2
1
2
Avg
944.3
1664.3
1304.3
387.4
681.6
534.5
67.96
121.71
94.84
184.50
324.57
254.54
0.96
1.73
1.35
D-68
-------
TABLE D-74. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE
{13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS) RUN 1
Weighted
Engine
%
Power
Fuel
Part.
S04=
Wgt.
rpm
Load
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Fact.
Idle
0.8
4.27
129.8
0.067
2000
2
1.5
3.3
14.53
232.2
0.08
2000
25
17.9
6.0
30.72
365.5
0.08
2000
50
36.8
9.3
23.71
584.0
0.08
2000
75
54.2
12.8
30.48
352.2
0.08
2000
100
72.0
17.6
85.96
579.9
0.08
Idle
0.8
4.27
129.8
0.067
2800
100
90.5
24.2
154.75
1693.0
0.08
2800
75
70.3
18.2
53.66
1334.4
0.08
2800
50
47.3
13.5
42.92
1069.3
0.08
2800
25
23.5
9.2
58.20
786.3
0.08
2800
2
2.1
5.7
40.77
387.4
0.08
Idle
0.8
4.27
129.8
0.067
Power
Fuel
Part.
so4=
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
0.05
0.29
8.70
0.12
0.26
1.16
18.58
1.43
0.48
2.46
29.24
2.94
0.74
1.90
46.72
4.34
1.02
2.44
28.18
5.76
1.41
6.88
46.39
0.05
0.29
8.70
7.24
1.94
12.38
135.44
5.62
1.46
4.29
106.75
3.78
1.08
3.43
8S.54
1.88
0.74
4.66
62.90
0.17
0.46
3.26
30.99
0.05
0.29
8.70
33.28
9.74
43.73
616.83
Brake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 1-314
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 4.490
Brake Specific SO,j*
Fuel Specific S04=i
, mgAW-hr
mg/kg fuel
18.54
63.33
-------
TABLE D-75. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE
(13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS) RUN 2
Weighted
Engine
%
Power
?uel
Part.
SO4"
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
SO4"
rpm
Load
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
q/hr
mg/hr
Idle
0.8
4.19
164.1
0.067
0.05
0.28
11.00
2000
2
1.5
3.3
15.12
258.0
0.08
0.12
0.26
1.21
20.64
2000
25
17.9
5.9
33.04
379.8
0.08
1.43
0.47
2.64
30.38
2000
50
36.8
9.3
25.32
731.2
0.08
2.94
0.74
2.03
58.50
2000
75
54.2
II.8
33 .51
582.1
0.08
4.34
1.02
2.52
46.57
2000
100
72.1
17.6
87.36
6S4.0
0.08
5.77
1.41
7.04
54.72
Idle
0.8
4.19
164.1
0.067
0.05
0.28
11.00
2800
100
91.8
24.7
146.68
1115.7
0.08
7.34
1.98
11.73
89.26
2800
75
70.3
18.1
51.74
1078.5
0.08
5.62
1.45
4.14
86.28
2800
50
47.3
13.5
42.37
1202.7
0.08
3.78
1.08
3.39
96.22
2800
25
23.4
9.3
65.55
1022.0
0.08
1.87
0.74
5.24
81.76
2800
2
2.1
5.6
49.60
681.6
0.08
0.17
0.45
3.97
54.53
Idle
0.8
4.19
164.0
0.067
0.05
0.28
11.00
33.38
9.75
44.75
651.86
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW-hr 1.341
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 4.590
Brake Specific SO4", mg/kW-hr 19.53
Fuel Specific SO4*, mgAg fuel 66.86
-------
TABLE D-76. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-3S2 NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE
Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org.
Mode rpm load, % kW kg/hr pg/hr Sol., %
1
2000
2
1.5
3.4
14.99
37.34
2
2000
50
35.8
9.0
55.49
57.24
3
2000
100
71.3
17.9
BHD
7.13
4
Idle
0.8
54.77
17.07
5
2800
100
95.4
25.1
BMD
7.40
6
2800
50
50.8
13.9
120.71
51.59
7
2800
2
2.1
5.9
66.16
59.14
D
-li Brake Specific BaP, pg/kW-hr 1.425
1-1 Fuel Specific BaP, pg/kg fuel 4.840
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, * 34.15
Brake Specific BaP, pg/kW-hr 1.407
Fuel Specific BaP, pg/kg fuel 4.575
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 30.25
BMD - Below Minimum Detectable
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
BaP
Org.
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
pg/hr
Sol., '
W.F.
Derived
From 13-
-Mode FTP
0.12
0.18
0.41
1.80
4.48
0.16
5.73
1.44
8.88
9.16
0.12
8.56
2.15
0.86
0.20
0.16
10.95
3.41
0.12
11.4S
3.01
0.89
0.16
8.13
2.22
19.31
8.25
0.12
0.25
0.71
7.94
7.10
34.30
10.10
48.88
34.15
W.F.
Derived
From 21-Mode EPA
0.225
0.34
0.77
3.37
8.40
0.092
3.29
0.83
5.11
5.27
0.049
3.48
0.88
0.35
0.269
0.22
14.73
4.59
0.176
16.79
4.42
1.30
0.110
5.59
1.53
13.28
5.67
0.079
0.17
0.47
5.23
4.67
29.66
9.12
41.72
30.25
-------
TABLE D-77. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A TURBOCHARGED ENGINE
Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org, Wgt. Power Fuel BaP Org.
Mode rpm load, % kW kg/hr ug/hr Sol,, % Fact, kW kg/hr Ug/hr Sol., %
W.F. Derived From 13-Mode FTP
1
1800
2
1.3
2.9
19.86
28.86
0.12
0.16
0.35
2.38
3.46
2
1800
50
37.6
9.3
83.24
37.81
0.16
6.02
1.50
13.32
6.05
3
1800
100
72.5
16.8
8.11
0.12
8.70
2.02
0.97
4
Idle
0.6
32.62
17.48
0.20
0.12
6.52
3.50
5
2800
100
106.2
26.5
7.70
0.12
12.74
3.18
0.92
6
2800
50
54.3
15.5
96.99
39.74
0.16
8.69
2.48
15.52
6.36
7
2800
2
2.1
6.1
43.01
66.36
0.12
0.25
0.73
5.16
7.96
36.56
10.38
42.90
29.22
O
Brake Specific BaP, yg/kW-hr 1,173
Fuel Specific BaP, yg/kg fuel 4,133
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 29.22
W.F. Derived From 21-Mode EPA
0.225
0.29
0.65
4.47
6.49
0.092
3.46
0.86
7.66
3.48
0.049
3.55
0.82
0,39
0.269
0.16
8.77
4.70
0.176
18.69
4.66
1.36
0.110
5.97
1.71
10.67
4,37
0,079
0.17
0.48
3.40
5.24
32.13
9.34
34.97
26.03
Brake Specific l-*', UgAW-hr 1.088
Fuel Specific BaP, pg/kg fuel 3.744
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 26.03
-------
TABLE D-78. METALS ANALYSIS OF FILTER-COLLECTED PARTICULATE
(PERCENT BY WEIGHT BASED ON FLUOROPORE FILTER SAMPLES)
DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 ENGINE
Condition
Speed/% Load
Configuration
Mg A1
Si
P
S
CI
K Ca Fe
2n
Inter/02
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.04 0.01
0.01
0.10
0.04
0.62
0.82
0.06
0.06
0.04 0.14
Inter/25
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.02
0.47
1.0
0.04
0.09
0.06
Inter/50
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.01
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.91
1.4
0.27
0.11
Inter/75
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.18
0.06
1.5
1.4
0.39
0.13
Inter/100
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.08
0.05
0.44
1.0
0.04
0.23
0.11
0.10
Idle
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.05
1.4
1.0
0.07
High/100
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.002
0,01
0.27
0.67
0.06
0.94 0.04
0.32
NO Uaufl
High/75
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.51
0.17
1.7
1.3
0.04
1.2
0.39
0.69
High/50
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.01
0.03
0.24
0.14
1.3
1,3
0.49
0.25
0.31
0.17
High/25
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.01
0.07
0.06
0.49
0.56
0.12
0.11
0.09
High/02
OM-352
OM-352
NA
TC
0.03
0.49
0.52
0.09
0.10
-------
TABLE D-79. PERCENT PER .STAGE OF TOTAL PARTICULATE COLLECTED BY
ANDERSON IMFACi'OK i-\JK DAIMLER-BENZ OM-JNA ANU UM-JjJA "iV
Stage
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Filter
ECD,
micron
10.9
6.8
4.6
3.2
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42
<0.42
(1)
Intermediate Speed
2* 50* 100*
Idle
OM-352 Naturally Aspirated
0.61 0.41 0.59 0.54
0.47
0.36
0.18
0.29
0.83
1.2
1.6
94.5
0.54
0.81
1.2
1.7
1.4
1.9
2.1
90.0
0.80
1.8
2.1
2.7
3.5
3.4
3.5
81.5
0.63
0.49
0.83
0.39
0.92
1.2
3.9
91.0
100*
0.60
0.92
3.2
3.8
4.3
6.2
5.5
4.0
71.3
2800
so*
0.48
0.60
1.9
1.3
2.0
2.5
2.5
3.3
85.3
2*
0.76
0.31
0.67
0.90
0.81
0.90
1.0
1.9
92.7
OM-352A Turbocharged
10.9
6.8
4.6
3.2
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42
0.83
1.5
0.61
0.67
1.2
2.3
1.4
2.8
Filter <0.42 88.7
0.44
0.55
0.55
0.85
0.55
1.8
3.0
4.2
88.0
0.52
0.40
0.57
1.2
1.8
1.6
2.9
3.4
87.7
0.28
0.28
0.17
0.45
0.48
0.41
1.1
4.2
92.6
0.59
1.4
2.4
2.3
3.5
3.7
6.9
5.3
74.0
0.20
0.59
0.47
0.26
0.68
1.9
2.5
5.3
88.1
0.16
0.31
0.39
0.49
0.49
0.65
1.0
0.47
96.0
(1)
2000 rpm OM-352, 1800 rpm OM-352A
D-74
-------
TABLE D-80. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352 NATURALLY
ASPIRATED ENGINE
2000 rpm 2800 rpm
Aldehyde
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2_
Form-
yg/m3
11885
1570
1626
16642
985
9431
14997
aldehyde
mg/hr
4830
644
664
1996
544
5248
8133
mg/kg fuel
1420
71
38
2445
22
399
1379
mgAW-hr
3220
18
9
6
114
3873
Acet-
yg/m3
4035
378
586
4067
0
1911
3481
aldehyde
mg/hr
3545
335
517
1054
0
2298
4079
mgAg fuel
1042
37
29
1291
0
175
692
mgAW-hr
2363
9
7
0
50
1943
Acetone
yg/m3
1886
0
0
1959
0
208
1050
mg/hr
2847
0
0
873
0
430
2114
mgAg fuel
837
0
0
1069
0
33
359
mgAW-hr
1898
0
0
0
9
1007
Iso-
Mg/m3
815
31
0
745
0
326
559
butyr-
mg/hr
1903
73
0
514
0
1042
1741
aldehyde
mgAg fuel
559
8
0
629
0
79
295
mgAW-hr
1269
2
0
0
23
829
Crotonal
yg/m3
1012
103
274
948
298
544
774
mg/hr
2247
231
611
622
899
1653
2293
mgAg fuel
660
25
35
761
36
126
389
mgAW-hr
1498
6
8
10
36
1092
Hexanal
yg/m3
314
78
0
211
161
225
308
mg/hr
1422
356
0
282
993
1396
1864
mgAg fuel
418
39
0
346
40
106
316
mgAW-hr
948
10
0
11
30
888
Benz-
yg/m3
1017
598
872
1238
356
975
1046
aldehyde
mg/hr
5150
3056
4437
1851
2449
6759
7068
mgAg fuel
1514
337
251
2267
99
514
1199
mgAW-hr
3434
85
62
27
147
3366
D-75
-------
TABLE D-81. ALDEHYDES BY DNHI FOR DAIMLER-BEN/. OM-3rj2A TURBOCHARGED ENG1NI-:
1600 rpm 2800 rpn
Aldehyde
Rate
2_
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Form-
yg/m3
4525
1610
2369
13957
11931
5770
15927
aldehyde
mg/hr
1646
669
1230
1775
9954
3905
8862
mg/kg fuel
568
72
71
2541
373
252
1477
mgAW-hr
1266
18
16
92
72
4923
Acet-
Ug/m3
2207
303
731
8828
2163
1759
2661
aldehyde
mg/hr
1735
272
820
2427
3900
2573
3200
mgAg fuel
599
29
47
3474
146
166
533
mg/kW-hr
1335
7
11
36
47
1778
Acetone
yg/n3
411
358
2138
213
2999
mg/hr
555
690
1010
535
6198
mg/kg fuel
192
40
1446
35
1033
mg/kw-hr
427
9
10
3443
Iso-
pg/m3
322
450
741
butanal
mg/hr
673
329
2370
mgAg fuel
232
471
395
mg/kW-hr
518
—-
—
-—
1317
Crotonal
jjg/m3
920
357
2829
mg/hr
640
1628
8602
mg/kg fuel
916
61
1433
mg/kW-hr
15
4779
Hexanal
yg/m3
167
72
89
450
125
239
453
mg/hr
676
335
514
638
1163
1803
2809
mg/kg fuel
233
36
30
914
44
116
468
mg/kW-hr
520
9
7
11
33
1561
Benz-
ug/m3
453
561
751
1310
379
999
aldehyde
mg/hr
2347
3629
1190
13614
3199
6924
mgAg fuel
252
209
1704
510
206
1154
mg/kW-hr
62
47
126
59
3847
D-76
-------
TABLE D-82. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352
NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE
2000 rpm 2800 rpm
^carbon
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
_2
ane
ug/m3
3863
2464
5594
4262
499
2930
4528
mg/hr
1171
754
1704
381
206
1216
1832
mg/kg fuel
344
83
96
467
8
92
311
mgAW-hr
780
21
24
2
27
872
lene
Ug/m3
21440
20275
54708
18353
1340
25985
27034
mg/hr
6499
6201
16660
1642
552
10783
10934
mg/kg fuel
1910
684
942
2011
22
820
1854
mgAW-hr
4333
173
231
6
235
5207
me
Ug/m3
387
325
400
518
0
512
462
5
mg/hr
117
99
122
46
0
213
187
mg/kg fuel
35
11
7
57
0
16
32
mg/kW-hr
78
3
2
——
0
5
89
tylene
yg/m3
2057
1786
5846
1895
1191
2761
2652
2
mg/hr
623
546
1778
169
490
1144
1072
rag/kg fuel
183
60
101
207
20
87
182
mg/kw-hr
415
15
25
5
25
510
pane
Ug/m3
58
58
0
98
0
58
58
'8
mg/hr
19
19
0
9
0
25
25
rag/kg fuel
5
2
0
11
0
2
4
mgAW-hr
12
1
0
0
1
12
spy lene
yg/m3
7982
8157
7574
6700
0
9555
10196
*6
mg/hr
2420
2495
2307
599
0
3965
4124
mg/kg fuel
711
275
130
734
0
301
699
mg/kW-hr
1613
70
32
0
86
1964
nzene
yg/m3
2247
1966
6292
2359
404
1966
1966
%
mg/hr
656
579
1844
203
160
785
765
mg/kg fuel
193
64
104
249
6
60
130
mgAW-hr
437
16
26
2
17
364
luene
yg/m3
2685
1260
471
1370
203
932
1206
h8
mg/hr
812
384
143
122
83
386
486
mgAg fuel
239
42
8
150
3
29
82
mgAW-hr
541
11
2
1
8
232
D-77
-------
TABLE D-83. SPECIFIC HVUkOCARBON EMISSION RATES, DAIMLER-BENZ OM-352A
TURBOCHARGED ENGINE
Hydrocarbon
Rate
1800 rpm
Idle
2800 rpm
2_
50
100
100
50
2_
Methane
Ug/m3
3796
1598
1332
4262
1998
1931
4395
CH
tng/hr
1030
496
516
404
1244
975
1825
H
mg/kg fuel
355
53
30
579
47
63
304
mg/kW-hr
792
13
7
11
18
1014
Ethylene
Ug/m3
22314
10312
24645
23072
48416
22140
29830
C2H4
mg/hr
6053
3197
9540
2189
30129
11175
12380
•C H
mg/kg fuel
2088
344
548
3133
1128
721
2063
mg/kW-hr
4657
84
125
278
206
6878
Ethane
pg/m3
375
187
312
499
499
375
375
c?Hfi
mg/hr
102
58
121
47
311
189
156
£ o
mg/kg fuel
35
6
7
68
12
12
26
mg/kW-hr
78
2
2
3
3
86
Acetylene
yg/m3
1678
812
758
1949
2490
1407
2273
C_H
mg/hr
455
251
293
185
1548
710
942
mgAg fuel
157
27
17
264
58
46
157
mg/kW-hr
350
7
4
14
13
524
Propane
pg/m3
—
___
115
___
C3H8
mg/hr
12
J O
mg/kg fuel
17
mg/kW-hr
—
Propylene
ug/m3
7924
4078
11944
8215
16546
10079
11012
C3H6
mg/hr
2150
1264
4623
779
10297
5087
4570
J D
mg/kg fuel
742
136
266
1116
386
328
762
mg/kW-hr
1653
33
60
95
94
2539
Benzene
ug/m3
2022
1067
2135
3034
3034
2022
3202
C6H6
mg/hr
528
318
795
2*?7
2793
982
1279
o o
mg/kg fuel
182
34
46
396
105
63
213
mgAW-hr
406
8
10
26
18
711
Toluene
Ug/m3
384
329
877
1041
1754
712
986
mg/hr
104
102
338
99
1088
359
408
/ o
mg/kg fuel
36
11
19
141
41
23
68
mg/kW-hr
80
3
4
10
7
227
D-78
-------
tabu: D-W. I I--OOE PEr>E»»L Oir.lft CISSION cycle
*ACK-|TAVb?|*APS CHI6H PRESSURE Pi|MP| CON* IGgRATION S/N fcMJIO
TEST I RUN 1 «•!$•?* FIJll EM-32«-F PROJECT ll»*b23>nni
wm + wi
"00E
ENGINE
TORQUE
POwf B
rnr l
tjl
exhaust
puet
SPIED
now
FLOW
HO*
AIR
RPM
H * M
KM
KG/»t*
KG/MIN
RATIO
•»<«• m
mmmmwmmmm:
1
• ?50
0.0
n.o
.011
*.?«
*.?5
.00?
i
1*S0
H.l
1,0
.nun
".*1
«,*<(
.oo*
I
10(0
JIM
5«.l
.22*
10.*2
10. b5
.021
*
1*50
??3,*
11?.5
,*i«
l».3*
13.11
'.Oil
5
1*50
111.3, J
l'b.b
.b0«
l'."l
l?.b2
.01b
b
i*5r»
153R.3
m.h
1*.">1
20,?3
.0*1
?
?so
0.0
0.0
,o3n
*,Ob
*,01
.00?
I
l«00
lt1».*
2*5.b
.Hi
fh.RO
2?»?2
.03*
1
, 1100
VB.2
1**.?
, ? 0?
f3.05
n.n
,031
in
' 1«00
bl?,2
122.«
.1DP
18,b5
1', 1 3
,02k
n
1100
108.b
bl.*
• fin
l*.*"
15.1'
.oil
if
1100
bl,8
It.'
.UR
12.35
12,*1
.011
if
>50
0.0
0.0
.030
3,1«>
*.02
.001
D
I
-4
«C
t*00C MC CO* NO»t HEICHTEO BSHC BSCO* BS*02*+
PPM PPM PPM KM G/KW MR G/K» HP G'Kft MP
1
200
235
2 35
0.00
R
R
R
2
3b«
*33
15b
. ?2
11.0*
2b, »b
15,1.*
1
2*»
1 ?2
b?3
*.'3
1.28
1,80
11,5b
*
in
113
10i*
"<,*0
,bb
.??
12.1*
5
11!
1*0
12?f
1* . 1 3
.13
1J.0*
b
bb
??*
1*20
IB.bS
.1?
l.*l
12.00
?
1"»?
1??
320
n.no
R
R
R
B
5(i
1*0
1123
I'.bS
.10
.12
12,0?
*
10*
11*
*3*
1*.??
.31
.*5
11.*5
10
13b
115
?3b
1.R2
»b2
l,o*
10. *2
11
220
202
*?1
*."1
1.58
2,81
11,2?
11
*e*
*bO
203
1.10
11.25
2*.3*
1 ? , bO
1)
in.
Z3ii
351
0.00
H
H
R
CYCLE
COMPOSITE
BSHC »
.fell
gram/km
NR
BSCO* *
l,b8S
GRam/kh
MR
BSN02+**
12.130
CRAM/KH
HR
BSHC ~
BSN02**"
12.i?"
GRAM/kh
HR
ssrc ¦
,2J3*G/K* HR
~ CONVIRTEO TO WET BASIS
~ ~ CONVIRTEO TO WIT BAStS ANO CORRECTED TO 10.? "IUIGRANS
WATER PER KG DRY AIR
-------
TABLE D-85. U-MOOE »fn€»»(. OIISFI t"ISSION CYCLE
WACK-ETAY b7)A *AP3 (HIGH PBESSURE PU»P1 CONF1GUBATION
TEST t HUN1 *.15.7* FUEL PROJECT li-»b?J-npl
mmmmm
• ••••••••I
"ODE
ENGINE
TORQUE
PO*E B
fMl
*JR
EXHAUST
HIFL
SPEED
*10*
FLO*
PLO*
AIR
RPM
H * M
KH
Kr./*jN
«R/«JN
KG/MJN
RATIO
mmmmmwwm
i
•
I
1
«
1
¦
1
1
7sn
P,0
o'.o
,02i.
J,*#
*,ni
.00t>
2
i*io
l«,b
8,3
.07*
".*3
1.51
,bn*
3
l**o
381.3
51.1
,211
10.1.7
10,«0
, OPS
*
i*sn
Jf.1.1
11S.0
.*n
12.H
11.3?
,nu
5
l»?n
1111,1
17*.*
.Hlf
lb,78
l*.»fl
,Q]|>
k
l*5n
1511,2
J«,S
l",k«
20,*b
.0 *2
7
75n
0,0
n,o
.021
*.?!
*.7*
,00h
¦
l«oo
12J1.2
?*b,5
.If*
2H.7S
IT, fc5
,031
<1
1*00
"M.B
IR»,2
.>01
22.«1
ll.il
.031
to
I'OO
bl».2
»22.«
IS.flb
1».5$
,027
11
1*00
311,0
bl,*
,2«1
1*,«8
IS.lb
,ni«
12
1«00
bb,S
13,?
.138
12.k3
18.77
.011
13
?so
0.0
0.0
.030
*.2«
*,27
,no7
O
bf*310
MODE «C CO* NO** "EIGHTEO BSHC BJCO* BSNO
PPM PPM ppx KM G/XM MR Q/Km MR S/KO MR
¦ ••••«
**«••••
1
21b
177
217
O.PO
B
P
B
2
31*
*Ok
lbs
,kb
12,82
2b,«8
18,*0
3
2*»
172
kB*
».n
1.31
1.8*
12.01
*
18*
113
107*
*.3*
,bl
.75
11.b«
5
Ilk
13"
1131
13,18
.3*
.80
12,b!
b
»a
2*»i
l*bl
18,t.0
.12
1.2b
12.31
7
<•00
178
288
0.00
R
R
R
a
50
lt>8
lObl
11,72
,1b
I.OR
11.33
q
10
11*
All
1*,7*
.33
.8*
11,I*
10
13k
11*
717
1,82
,b0
1,00
10,bO
11
aoo
201
*57
*,">5
l.»J
2.8b
10.b7
12
• It.
*5?
200
1,0b
11,t.1
25,57
18,*1
13
20*
235
322
0,00
R
R
B
CVCLE
COMPOSITE
BSMC »
,b77
gsam/ki*
HR
BSCO* •
l.bH
GRAM/KW
MR
BSN02**»
11,<">7
GRAM/KK
MB
BSHC ~
8SN02**a
12,k7*
GRAM/kh
MR
8Src * ,2J*KG/K* MB
~ CONVERTED TO WET 8*313
*~ CONVERTED TO *ET 8A3I3 AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
WATER PER KG DRV AIR
-------
TABLE D-86. ? 1-MODr IP* EXP OIUFL CISSION CYCLE
*ACK«ETAYb71A+APS (HJCH PRESSURE PU"P) CONFIGURATION S/N
TEST 1 PUN 1 <-!*.?« FllEl €"-12*-* PROJECT ll-*b*3.001
"ODE ENGINE TORQUE POWER FUEL
a
I
03
SPEED
FLO*
RP*
N * M
KW
«5/*IN
wmmmwrnw*
I
750
0.0
n.O
.031
2
1*»0
5*. 3
1.0
,08n
i
1*50
125.8
l*.l
,112
*
1*50
2RH.1
*2.5
.178
5
1*10
38*, 3
«*.l
,22*
b
mo
773.*
117.5
.*1*
7
1*50
11b 3.2
17b.b
,b0*
9
1*10
1270.0
1*2.8
,bb5
<1
i*5n
1*2*,1
217,0
.71*
10
1*50
11*8.3
213.b
.81*
11
750
0.0
0.0
.030
12
1100
123*,*
2*5,b
.*21
13
1*00
113*.7
225.7
»R3*
I*
1*00
10)1,1
?"1.2
.758
IS
1*00
*21,2
1**,7
.707
lb
1*00
bl 7,2
122.*
.*8*
17
1*00
3n8,b
bl.*
.280
18
1*00
220,8
*3.*
.227
1*
1*00
102.1
20.3
,1b*
20
1*00
b8,8
13.7
• 1 38
21
750
0.0
0.0
.010
M» EKHIUST
rtow '10"
KG/MJN KS/UJN
*.'2
¦>.*1
*.*?
*,71,
10,*?
13.3*
I'.nj
1'."
J*.**
1 *, * I
»,Ph
2b,eo
?5,r*
2*.3*
2 3,05
18,bS
1*,8*
I*,10
12.*3
12,35
I,""
*,7S
1,**
*,58
*,**
10,«.S
u.m
i?.b?
ir,*s
20.«5
an.?i
*,o*
27,72
2b,73
25,15
21, 7b
l*.11
15.17
1*,33
13,10
12,**
*,02
FUEL
A IP
RATJ0
.no 7
,00*
,012
,018
,021
.031
,03b
,037
,01*
.0*1
,007
,03*
,032
,031
.031
,02b
.01*
.Olb
,013
,011
,008
MOOE HC
CO* N0»* WEIGHTED BSHC BSCO* BSNO?**
PPM
PP*
PPM
KW
G/KH MR
G/K« MR
G/K* MM
• ••«•
I
1
1
1
»
•
•
mmmmmmmw
mmmmmmmmm ¦
•
•
1
1
c
1
200
235
23*
0,00
a
R
R
2
3b0
*33
i«b
,bb
11,0*
2b.*b
l*,bB
3
312
175
32*
1.1*
*.55
10,*0
IS,*8
*
2bO
230
b02
2,5*
1.77
3,11
11,*0
5
J**
172
738
2.13
1,2*
1.80
12.bb
b
1*2
113
lO"?
8,58
.bb
.77
12,27
7
112
1*0
1300
0.00
!
1
I
8
108
2H
1327
*.*5
.30
1.53
12,08
7b
2*8
1380
o.no
I
I
1
10
bb
27*
1*27
0,00
I
I
I
11
1*2
177
33*
n.oo
R
R
R
12
5b
1*0
100*
7,8b
.18
.*2
10,13
13
8?
1*1
*80
15.13
,28
.*7
11,OS
1*
11*
11*
*05
R.hS
.*1
.82
10,77
15
10*
11*
87*
13.*8
,3*
.85
10,71
lb
13b
115
bb?
8,*b
¦ b2
1,0*
*,*0
17
220
202
*22
0,00
I
I
I
18
30*
2bO
375
3,*7
2.8*
*,*2
11, bS
1*
372
• 03
22*
0,00
I
I
I
20
*2*
«bO
l*b
0,00
I
1
I
21
l*b
23b
327
0,00
R
R
R
CYCLE
COMPOSITE
¦ SMC «
,802
GRAM/KM
MS
¦SCO* *
1,782
GRAM/KH
MR
8SN0?**b
11,7*5
GRAM/km
MR
SSHC *
MN02*»»
12.5*7
QRAM/Kh
MR
BS*C »
,23**G/Kll MR
~ converted to wet basis
~~ CONVERTED TO WET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
HATER PER KG DRY AJR
-------
TABIX D-87. 2l."00E FPA E*P niESEt EMISSION C*CLE
-»C«-ET** t>7 JA ~ APS (MICN PRESSURE PU"P) CONFIGURATION S/N
TEST
i RUN I
5-15-7R
*UEl
CM.JfV.F
PROJECT
"OOE
ENGINE
*TOP
-------
TABLE D-88. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM
MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH A. BOSCH APS SYSTEM
(BASED ON 47-mm GLASSFIBER FILTERS)
Engine Run Concentration Particulate Rate
rpm/% load Ho. roq/m3 q/hr q/kq fuel gAW-hr
1450/2 1 60.70 27.36 5.70 3.30
2 64.31 29.10 6.06 3.51
Avg 62.51 28.23 5.88 3.41
1450/25 1 35.62 18.86 1.39 0.32
2 38.24 20.29 1.47 0.34
Avg 36.93 19.58 1.43 0.33
1450/50 1 60.84 41.53 1.67 0.35
2 61.82 42.08 1.68 0.36
Avg 61.33 41.81 1.68 0.36
1450/75 1 69.43 59.85 1.62 0.34
2 66.45 57.67 1.55 0.33
Avg 67.94 58.76 1.59 0.34
1450/100 1 70.24 72.70 1.49 0.31
2 69.69 72.22 1.47 0.31
Avg 69.97 72.46 1.48 0.31
Idle 1 34.26 6.58 5.98
2 46.66 8.82 8.02
Avg 40.46 7.70 7.00
1900/100 1 65.86 88.18 1.59 0.37
2 64.49 86.99 1.57 0.36
Avg 65.18 87.59 1.58 0.37
1900/75 1 38.52 44.80 1.07 0.24
2 38.65 45.13 1.08 0.24
Avg 38.59 44.97 1.08 0.24
1900/50 1 43.21 40.14 1.41 0.33
2 45.32 38.32 1.34 0.31
Avg 44.27 39.23 1.38 0.32
1900/25 1 53.01 39.18 2.39 0.64
2 48.46 35.65 2.12 0.58
Avg 50.74 37.42 2.26 0.61
1900/2 1 55.64 34.07 5.01 5.98
2 58.95 36.16 5.24 6.95
Avg 57.30 35.12 5.13 6.47
D-83
-------
TABLE D-89. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S04= FROM
MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH A. BOSCH APS SYSTEM
(BASED ON 47 ton FLUOROPORE FILTERS)
igme
'% load
Run Concentration
No. pg/m3
Sulfate Rate
S04~ as %
roq/hr mg/kq fuel mg/kW-hr Fuel
>0/2
1
2
Avg
1121.25
1164.99
1143.12
507.23
522.80
515.02
105.67
108.92
107.30
61.86
62.99
62.43
46
51
1.49
50/25
1
2
Avg
3287.24
3826.07
3556.66
1740.35
2029.71
1885.03
127.97
148.15
138.06
29.45
34.34
31.90
1.77
2.05
1.91
50/50
1
2
Avg
8180.14
6728.50
7454.32
5487.12
4581.55
5034.34
221.25
183.26
202.26
46.42
38.76
42.59
.07
.54
2.81
50/75
1
2
Avg
8755.39
7028.26
7891.83
7580.28
6099.28
6839.78
204.87
164.40
184.64
42.83
34.46
38.65
84
28
2.56
50/100
1
2
Avg
5974.49
7496.67
6735.58
6183.79
7767.44
6975.62
125.43
158.20
141.82
26.24
32.95
29.60
1.74
2.19
1.97
lie
1
2
Avg
1082.03
1188.25
1135.14
207.23
221.43
214.33
172.69
221.43
197.06
2.39
3.07
2.73
>00/100
1
2
Avg
9421.21
9824.64
9622.91
12655.80
13154.44
12905.12
228.43
227.87
228.15
52.02
54.70
53.36
3.17
3.16
3.17
J00/75
1
2
Avg
6225.43
6387.46
6306.45
7240.26
7758.28
7499.27
173.63
185.60
179.62
39.20
42.00
40.60
2.41
2.57
2.49
300/50
6643.55
6727.37
6685.46
6170.25
5688.40
5929.33
216.50
198.20
207.35
50.25
46.32
48.29
00
75
2.88
900/25
1
2
Avg
4024.33
3946.40
3985.37
2974.43
2904.10
2939.27
180.27
173.90
177.09
48.44
47.30
47.87
50
41
2.46
900/2
1
2
Avg
1294.43
1454.94
1374.69
793.85
898.43
846.14
113.41
130.21
121.81
152.66
172.78
162.72
1.57
1.80
1.69
D-84
-------
TABLE D-90. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE SATES
MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH A. BOSCH APS SYSTEM
(13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS), RUN 1
Weighted
Engine
rpm/% load
Power
kW
Fuel
kg/hr
Particulate
g/hr
so4=
mg/hr
Wgt.
Fact
Power
kW
Fuel
kg/hr
Part.
g/hr
so4=
mg/hr
Idle
..
1.1
6.58
207.23
0.067
0.07
0.44
13.88
1450/2
8.2
4.8
27.36
507.23
0.08
0
.66
0.38
2.19
40.r 3
1450/25
59.1
13.6
18.86
1740.35
0.08
4
.73
1.09
1.51
139.23
1450/50
118.2
24.9
41.53
5487.12
0.08
9
.46
1.99
3.3""
438.97
1450/75
177.0
37.0
59.85
7580.28
0.08
14
.16
2.96
4.79
606.42
1450/100
235.7
49.0
72.70
6183.79
0.08
18
.86
3.92
5.82
494.70
Idle
—
1.1
6.58
207.23
0.067
-
0.07
0.44
13.88
1900/100
240.5
55.3
88.18
12655.8
0.08
19
.24
4.42
7.05
1012.46
1900/75
184.7
41.7
44.80
7240.26
0.08
14
.78
3.34
3.58
579.22
1900/50
122.8
28.5
40.14
6170.25
U 08
9
.82
2.28
3.21
493.62
1900/25
61.4
16.4
39.18
2974.43
0.08
4
.91
1.31
3.13
237.95
1900/2
5.7
6.8
34.07
793.85
0.08
0
.46
0.54
2.73
63.51
Idle
—
1.1
6.58
207.23
0.067
0.07
0.44
13.88
97
.08
22.44
38.65
4148.30
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kW-hr 0.398
Fuel Specif'c Particulate, g/kg fuel 1.722
Brake Specific S04=, mg/kW-hr 42.73
Fuel Specific SO4". mg/kg fuel 184.86
D-85
-------
TABLE D-91. CYCLE COMPOi TE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
MACK ETAY(B)673A ..'ITH A. BOSCH APS SYSTEM
(13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS), RUN 2
Weighted
Engine
Power
Fuel
Particulate
S04=
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
S04"
?m/% load
kW
Kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Fact
kw
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Idle
1.1
8.82
221.43
0
067
0.07
0.59
14.84
1450/2
8.2
4.8
29.10
522.80
0
08
0.66
0.38
2.33
41.82
1450/25
59.1
13.8
20.29
2029.71
0
08
4.73
1.10
1,62
162.38
1450/50
118.2
25.0
42.08
4581.55
0
08
9.46
2.00
3.37
366.5?
1450/75
177.0
37.1
57.67
6099.28
0
08
14.16
2.97
4.61
487.94
1450/100
235.7
49.0
72.22
7767.44
0
08
18.86
3.92
5.78
621.40
Idle
—
1.1
8.82
221.43
0
067
—
0.07
0.59
14.84
1900/100
241.0
55.3
86.99
13154.44
0
08
19.28
4.42
6.96
1052.36
1900/75
184.7
41.8
45.13
7758.2°
0
08
14.78
3.34
3.61
620.66
1900/50
122.8
28.7
38.32
5688
0
08
9.82
2.30
3.07
455.07
1900/25
61.4
16.8
35.65
2904 *0
0
08
4.91
1.34
2.85
232.33
1900/2
5.2
6.9
36.16
898.43
0
08
0.42
0.55
2.89
71.87
Idle
—
1.1
8.82
221.43
0
067
—
0.07
0.59
14.84
97.08
22.53
38.86
4156.87
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr 0.400
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 1.725
Brake Specific J04=, mg/kW-hr 42.82
Fuel Specific S04=, mgAg fuel 184.50
D-86
-------
TABLE D-92. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST PARTICULATE FROM
MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH STANDARD R. BOSCH SYSTEH - MEW
(BASED ON 47-mm GLASSFIBER FILTERS)
Engine
Run
Concentration
Particulate
rpm/% load
So.
mg/rn-'
g/hr
gAg fuel
1450/2
1
37.16
17.22
4.42
2
32.75
15.25
3.91
Avg
34.96
16.24
4.17
gAW-hr
4.00
3.55
3.78
1450/25 1 56.17
2 64.32
Avg 60.25
1450/50 1 116.66
2 123.91
Avg 120.29
1450/75 1 163.08
2 156.08
Avg 159.59
1450/100 1 271.72
2 285.07
Avg 278.40
Idle 1 44.46
2 43.24
Avg 43.85
1900/100 1 140.61
2 144.79
Avg 142.70
1900/75 1 86.29
2 87.14
Avg 86.72
1900/50 1 87.44
2 85.61
Avg 86.53
1900/25 1 62.83
2 64.65
Avg 63.74
1900/2 1 41.60
2 47.98
Avg 44.79
30.44 2.36 0.56
34.88 2.68 0.64
32.66 2.52 0.60
80.54 3.44 0.75
84.27 3.56 0.78
82.41 3.50 0.77
142.05 4.00 0.88
136.10 3.85 0.84
139.08 3.93 0.86
272.95 5.83 1.26
285.17 6.08 1.32
279.06 5.96 1.29
8.72 6.71
8.5C 6.07
8.61 6.39
192.75 3.48 0.81
198.71 3.59 0.83
195.73 3.54 0.82
102.55 2.47 0.57
104.26 2.51 0.58
103.41 2.49 0.58
83.38 2.94 0.70
81.61 2.88 0.69
82.50 2.91 0,70
47.88 2.80 0.78
49.30 2.88 0.80
48.60 2.84 0.79
25.55 3.81 5.94
29.45 4.33 6.85
27.50 4.07 6.40
D-87
-------
TABLE D-93. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST S04" FROM
MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH STANDARD R. BOSCH SYSTEM - NEW
(BASED ON 47-nm FLUORQPORE FILTERS)
Engine
•pro/t load
1450/2
Run
So.
1
2
Avg
Concentration
Mg/m3
712.3
921.6
817.0
Sulfate Rate
mg/hr ng/kg fuel mg/kW-hr
331.6
424.4
378.0
85.0
108.8
96 9
77.1
98.7
87.9
S04= as
Fuel S
1.18
1.51
1.35
1450/25
1
2
Avg
4194.8
4098.7
4146.8
2287.5
2206.1
2246.8
177.3
173.7
175.5
42.3
40.8
41.6
2.46
2.41
2.44
1450/50
1
2
Avg
5737.5
5875.9
5806.7
3960.7
3996.1
3978.4
169.3
168.6
169.0
36.6
37.0
36.8
,35
34
2.34
1450/75
1
2
Avg
7775.7
7590.3
7683.0
6772.6
6636.2
6704.4
190.8
186.9
188.9
.64
.59
2.62
1450/100
1
2
Avg
10861.3
10403.5
10632.4
10865.
10386.
10625.8
231.7
221.5
226.6
50.2
48.0
49.1
3.21
3.07
3.14
Idle
650 rpm
1
2
Avg
1546.6
1657.0
1601.8
303.8
326.0
314.9
217.0
232.9
225.0
3.01
3.23
3.12
1900/100
1
2
Avg
9657.7
11411.4
10534.6
13239.7
15661.0
14450.4
239.0
282.7
260.9
3.31
3.92
3.62
1900/75
1
2
Avg
6209.4
6613.2
6411.3
7405.3
7937.6
7671.5
178.9
191.3
185.1
2.48
2.65
2.57
1900/50
1
2
Avg
5965.1
6295.8
6130.5
5667.8
6025.2
5846.5
201.0
213.7
207.4
2.79
2.96
2.88
1900/25
1
2
Avg
3434.6
3542.3
3488.5
2619.3
2703.9
2661.6
153.2
158.1
155.7
42.7
44.0
43.4
2.12
2.19
2.16
1900/2
1
2
Avg
1203.1
1368.1
1285.6
738.3
838.3
788.3
171.7
195.0
183.4
108.6
125.1
116.9
2.38
2.70
2.54
D-88
-------
TABLE D-94. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH STANDARD 8 BOSCH SYSTEM
(13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS), RUN 1
Weighted
Engine
Power
Fuel
Particulate
S04=
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
S04=
rpm/% load
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Fact
kw
kg/hr
q/hr
mg/hr
Idle
1.3
8.72
303.d
0.067
0.09
0.58
20.35
1450/2
4.3
3.9
17.22
331.6
0.08
0.34
0.31
1.38
26.53
1450/25
54.1
12.8
30.44
2287.5
0.08
4.33
1.02
2.44
183.00
1450/50
108.1
23.4
80.54
3960.7
0.08
8.65
1.87
6.44
316.86
1450/75
162.2
35.6
142.05
6772.6
0.08
12.98
2.85
11.36
514.81
1450/100
216.3
46.9
272.95
10865.1
0.08
17.30
3.75
21.84
869.21
Idle
—
1.3
8.72
303.8
0.067
—
0.09
0.58
20.35
1900/100
239.0
55.4
192.75
13239.7
0.08
19.12
4.43
15.42
1059.18
1900/75
178.8
41.5
102.55
7405.3
0.08
14.30
3.32
8.20
592.42
1900/50
119.0
28.4
83.38
5667.8
0.08
9.52
2.27
6.67
453.42
l«J00/25
61.4
17.1
47.88
2619.3
0.08
4.91
1.37
3.83
209.54
1900/2
4.3
6.7
25.55
738.3
0.08
0.34
0.54
2.04
59.06
Idle
—
1.3
8.72
303.8
0.067
—
0.09
0.58
20.35
91.79
22.00
81.36
4345.08
Brake Specific Particulate, gAW-hr 0.886
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 3.698
Brake Specific SO4*, mgAW-hr 47.337
Fuel Specific S04", mgAg fuel 197.504
D-89
-------
TABLE D-95. CYCLE COMPOSITE PARTICULATE AND SULFATE RATES
MACK ETAV(B)673A WITH STANDARD R BOSCH SYSTEM
(13-MODE FTP WEIGHTING FACTORS), RUN 2
Weighted
Engine
Power
Fuel
Particulate
SO^
Wgt.
Power
Fuel
Part.
S04=
rpm/% load
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Fact
kW
kg/hr
g/hr
mg/hr
Idle
«...
1.4
8.50
326.0
0.067
0.09
0.57
21.84
1450/2
4.3
3.9
15.25
424.4
0.08
0.34
0.31
1.22
33.95
1450/25
54.1
12.8
34.88
2206.1
0.08
4.33
1.02
2.79
176.49
1450/50
108.1
23.7
84.27
3996.1
0.08
8.65
1.90
6.74
319.69
1450/75
162.6
35.6
136.10
6636.2
0.08
13.01
2.85
10.89
530.90
1450/100
216.3
46.9
285.17
10386.5
0.08
17.30
3.75
22.81
830.92
Idle
—
1.4
8.50
326.0
0.067
—
0.09
0.57
21.84
1900/100
239.0
55.4
198.71
15661.0
0.08
19.12
4.43
15.90
1252.88
1900/75
178.8
41.4
104.26
7937.6
0.08
14.30
3.31
8.34
635.01
1900/50
119.0
28.3
81.61
6025.2
0.08
9.25
2.26
6.53
482.02
1900/25
61.4
17.1
49.30
2703.9
0.08
4.91
1.37
3.94
216.31
1900/2
4.3
6.8
29.45
838.3
0.08
0.34
0.54
2.36
67.06
Idle
—
1.4
8.50
326.0
0.067
—
0.09
0.57
21.84
91.82
22.01
83.23
4610.75
Brake Specific Particulate, g/kw-hr 0.906
Fuel Specific Particulate, g/kg fuel 3.782
Brake Specific S04=, mg/kW-hr 50.215
Fuel Specific S04=, mg/kg fuel 209.484
D-90
-------
TABLE D-96. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
MACK ETAY(BJ673A ENGINE - STANDARD PUMP
Engine
Engine
Power
Fuel
BaP
Org.
¦lode
rpm
load, %
kW
kg/hr
pg/hr
Sol., <
1
1450
2
4.3
3.7
39.87
32.50
2
1450
50
108.1
22.9
BMD
4.92
3
1450
100
217.7
46.8
BMD
7.38
4
Idle
1.0
32.33
21.30
5
1900
100
240.9
55.4
BMD
9.15
6
1900
50
118.5
28.4
BMD
4.54
7
1900
2
4.3
6.7
82.28
38.65
a
jo Brake Specific BaP, ygAW-hr 0.229
Fuel Specific BaP, yg/kg fuel 0,964
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 16.31
Brake Specific BaP, yg/kW-hr 0.312
Fuel Specific BaP, yg/kg fuel 1.279
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, * 19.01
wgt.
Power
Fuel
BaP
Org.
Fact.
kW
kg/hr
yg/hr
Sol., '
W.F.
Derived
From 13-Mode FTP
0.12
0.52
0.44
4.78
3.90
0.16
17.30
3.66
0.79
0.12
26.12
5.62
0.89
0.20
0.20
6.47
4.26
0.12
28.91
6.65
1.10
0.16
18.96
4.54
0.73
0.12
0.52
0.80
9.87
4.64
92.33
21.91
21.12
16.31
W.F.
Derived
From 21-
¦Mode EPA
0.225
0.97
0.83
8.97
7.31
0.092
9.95
2.11
0.45
0.049
10.67
2.29
0.36
0.269
0.27
8.70
5.73
0.176
42.40
9.75
1.61
0.110
13.04
3.12
0.50
0.079
0.34
0.53
6.50
3.05
77.37
18.90
24.17
19.01
BMD - Below Minimum Detectable
-------
TABLE D-97. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC BaP RATE - 7-MODE CYCLE
HACK ETAY(B)673A ENGINE - APS PUMP
Engine Engine Power Fuel BaP Org. Wgt. Power Fuel BaP Org.
Mode rpm load, % kw kg/hr pg/hr Sol., % Fact. kW kg/hr yg/hr Sol., %
W.F. Derived From 13-Mode FTP
1
1450
2
7.2
4.6
BMD
36.19
0.12
0.86
0.55
4.34
2
1450
50
117.1
24.8
BMD
14.10
0.16
18.74
3.97
2.26
3
14S0
100
235.0
49.0
BMD
12.57
0.12
28.20
5.88
1.51
4
Idle
1.0
16.06
23.69
0.20
0.20
3.21
4.74
5
1900
100
243.7
55.1
BMD
0
0.12
29.24
6.61
0
6
1900
50
122.8
28.6
BMD
9.72
0.16
19.65
4.58
1.56
7
1900
2
5.2
6.8
41.56
21.00
0.12
0.62
0.82
4.99
2.52
97.31
22.61
8.20
16.93
jo Brake Specific BaP, pgAW-hr 0.084
Fuel Specific BaP, pg/kg fuel 0.363
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, * 16.93
W.F. Derived From 21-Mode EPA
Brake Specific BaP, pg/kW-hr 0.094
Fuel Specific BaP, pgAg fuel 0.392
Cycle Specific Organic Solubles, % 19.16
0.225
1.62
1.04
8.14
0.092
10.77
2.28
1.30
0.049
11.52
2.40
0.62
0.269
0.27
4.32
6.37
0.176
42.89
9.70
0
0.110
13.51
3.15
1.07
0.079
0.41
0.54
3.28
1.66
80.72
19.38
7.60
19.16
BMD - Below Minimum Detectable
-------
TABLE D-98. METALS ANALYSIS OF FILTER-COLLECTED PARTICULATE
(PERCENT BY WEIGHT BASED ON FLUOROPORE FILTER SAMPLES)
MACK ETAY(B)673A
Condition
Speed/% Load
Configuration
Si P
S
CI
Ca
Ti
Fe
Zn
Inter/02
Std
APS
pump
pump
1.6
1.4
0.15
0.07
Inter/25
Std
APS
pump
pump
2.7
4.8
0.16
Inter/50
Std
APS
pump
pump
0.06
2.5
7.1
0.02
0.13
Inter/75
Std
APS
pump
pump
0.05
1.8
6.7
0.02
0.26
0.18
0.14
Inter/100
Std
APS
pump
pump
1.6
5.0
0.08
0.04
0.19
Idle
Std
APS
pump
pump
0.12
1.3
2.7
0.18
High/100
Std
APS
pump
pump
0.09
0.30
4.0
7.3
0.20
1.0
0.16
0.60
High/75
Std
APS
pump
pump
0.05
0.12
3.9
8.8
0.09
0.29
0.02
0.27
High/50
Std
APS
pump
pump
0.09
2.6
8.7
0.04
0.24
High/25
Std
APS
pump
pump
2.6
4.9
0.07
0.09
High/02
Std
APS
pump
pump
1.8
1.7
-------
TABLE D-99- PERCENT PER STAGE OF TOTAL PARTICULATE COLLECTED BY
ANDERSON IMPACTOR FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A
Stage
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Filter
ECD,
micron
with A.
10.9
6.8
4.6
3.2
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42
< 0.42
with
10.9
6.8
4.6
3.2
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42
< 0.42
1450
2%
50%
100%
650
Idle
1900
100%
50%
2%
Bosch APS High Pressure Injection System
0.20
0.20
0.45
0.37
0.29
0.20
0.20
0.61
97.5
0.26
0.30
0.72
0.64
0.68
1.6
2.6
3.9
89.3
0.27
0.60
0.98
0.82
1.5
2.6
4.9
6.8
81.6
0.30
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.30
0.85
0.80
0.30
96.2
1.1
1.1
1.8
2.0
2.6
3.3
3.4
4.4
80.2
0.21
0.10
0.21
0.21
0.47
1.0
2.2
2.0
93.5
R. Bosch (New) Standard Injection System
0.38
1.1
1.2
0.70
1.7
1.3
1.6
2.0
90.0
0.12
0.34
0.46
0.61
1.2
2.2
3.0
4.8
87.2
0.17
0.38
0.80
0.91
2.0
5.2
8.7
9.8
72.1
0.23
0.15
0.34
0.42
0.54
0.58
1.2
0.84
95.7
0.19
0.28
0.79
1.71
2.1
4.8
7.9
8.1
74.1
0.07
0.14
0.25
0.46
0.95
0.74
1.3
2.7
93.4
0.29
0.15
0.29
0.18
0.26
0.95
0.55
1.3
96.0
0.81
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.5
1.5
1.5
89.0
D-94
-------
TABLE D-100. ALDEHYDES BY Df.PH FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH
A nnsoil ..PS SYSTEM
1450 rpm 1900 rpm
Aldehyde
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
2
Form-
pg/m3
4535
883
1143
1338
1069
1031
13780
aldehyde
mg/hr
2849
871
1718
402
2026
1374
11815
mg/kg fuel
722
35
35
239
37
49
1649
mg/kw-hr
606
7
7
—
9
11
2514
Acet-
Pg/m3
1747
0
0
1072
0
0
5006
aldehyde
mg/hr
2372
0
0
695
0
0
9277
mg/kg fuel
601
0
0
414
0
0
1295
mg/kw-hr
505
0
0
0
0
1974
Acetone
Pg/m3
4648
0
0
0
0
0
353
mg/hr
10848
0
0
0
0
0
1124
mg/kg fuel
2749
0
0
0
0
0
157
mg/kw-hr
2308
0
0
0
0
0
239
Iso-
Pg/m3
93
0
0
0
0
0
446
butanal
mg/hr
336
0
0
0
0
0
2199
mg/kg fuel
85
0
0
0
0
0
307
mg/kw-hr
72
0
0
0
0
0
4*8
Crotonal
Pg/m3
548
79
127
413
0
48
563
mg/hr
1880
428
1043
677
0
347
2640
mg/kg fuel
476
17
21
403
0
12
368
mg/kw-hr
400
4
4
——-
0
3
562
Hexanal
Pg/m3
292
281
378
11
292
292
297
mg/hr
2044
3087
6333
37
6167
4332
2841
mg/kg fuel
518
124
128
22
114
155
397
mg/kw-hr
435
26
27
—
26
36
605
Benz-
Pg/m3
746
0
682
1260
851
61
1136
aldehyde
mg/hr
5839
0
12783
4711
20110
1006
12132
mg/kg fuel
1430
0
257
2807
371
36
1693
mg/kw-hr
1242
0
54
85
8
2581
D-95
-------
TABLE D-1Q1. ALDEHYDES B* DNPH FOR MACK ETAY(B)673A WITH
STANDARD R. BOSCH SYSTEM - NEW
1450 rpm 1900 rpm
Aldehyde
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
_2
Form-
. / 3
pg/m
2332
950
781
2462
1626
1784
2732
aldehyde
mg/hr
1466
937
1173
739
3084
2376
2342
mg/kg fuel
371
38
24
440
37
85
327
mg/kw hr
312
8
5
13
20
498
Acet-
/ 3
ug/n
586
246
0
1539
164
132
1204
aldehyde
mg/hr
796
524
0
998
672
381
2232
mg/kg fuel
202
21
0
595
12
14
311
mg/kw-hr
170
4
0
3
3
475
Acetone
. 3
lig/m
0
0
0
489
1025
39
430
mg/hr
0
0
0
545
7222
191
1371
mg/kg fuel
0
0
0
325
133
7
191
mg/kw-hr
0
0
0
30
2
292
Iso-
wg/m3
89
74
74
334
89
78
244
butyr-
mg/hr
322
418
637
576
973
594
1205
aldehyde
mg/kg fuel
82
17
13
343
18
21
168
mg/kw-hr
69
4
3
—-
4
5
256
Crotonal
ug/n3
369
397
460
548
369
361
524
mg/hr
1267
2139
3781
898
3824
2628
2454
mg/kg fuel
321
86
76
535
71
94
342
mg/kw-hr
270
18
16
16
22
522
Hexanal
lig/m3
95
0
300
131
392
39
114
mg/hr
662
0
5029
437
8282
578
1089
mg/kg fuel
168
0
101
260
153
21
152
mg/kw-hr
141
0
21
35
5
232
Benz-
ug/n3
775
503
235
166
348
108
672
aldehyde
mg/hr
1692
26921
10661
2414
34492
10933
7178
mg/kg fuel
429
1085
215
1439
636
391
1002
mg/kw-hr
360
226
45
145
90
1527
D-96
-------
TABLE D-102. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, MACK ETAY(B)673A
W ,H A. PAPCH APS £V£TRN
Hydrocarbon
Rate
1450 rpm
Idle
1900 rpm
2
50
100
100
50
2
Methane
ug/m3
4608
939
493
2770
453
633
4941
CH4
mg/hr
2160
691
553
620
641
629
3161
mg/kg fuel
547
28
11
370
12
23
441
mg/kw-hr
460
6
2
3
5
673
Ethylene
yg/m3
14734
4323
9328
4224
10295
3152
21440
C2H4
mg/hr
6906
3182
10459
946
14561
3132
13711
£. 4
mgAg fuel
1750
128
211
563
268
112
1913
mg/kw-hr
1469
27
44
61
26
2917
Ethane
, 3
yg/m
262
6
0
125
0
0
331
c2«6
mg/hr
123
5
0
28
0
0
212
mi* w
mg/kg fuel
31
0
0
17
0
0
30
mg/kw-hr
76
0
0
0
0
45
Acetylene
3
Ug/m
1359
244
1272
314
1039
211
2008
C H
mg/hr
636
179
1425
70
1468
210
1283
£
-------
TABLE D-103. SPECIFIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES, MACK ETAY(B)673A
WITH STANDARD R. BOSCH SYSTEM-NEW
1450 rpci 1900 rgm
Hydrocarbon
Rate
2
50
100
Idle
100
50
Methane
Mg/m3
3276
959
479
2977
666
872
CH
mg/hr
1536
706
538
667
942
867
*4
nig/kg fuel
389
29
11
379
17
31
mg/kw-hr
327
6
2
4
7
Ethylene
Ug/m3
7551
6695
5762
7149
7283
5716
C H
mg/hr
3539
4927
t>461
1600
10301
5678
£
mg/kg fuel
897
199
130
954
190
203
mg/kw-hr
753
41
27
43
47
Ethane
Ug/m3
144
50
0
144
12
19
C2H6
mg/hr
67
37
0
32
18
19
£ V>
mg/kg fuel
17
2
0
19
0
1
mg/kw-hr
14
0
0
0
0
Acetylene
Mg/m3
785
254
698
574
996
211
C2H2
mg/hr
367
187
782
128
1407
210
£ £
mg/kg fuel
93
8
16
76
26
8
mg/kw-hr
78
2
3
6
2
Propane
ug/m3
0
0
0
0
231
0
c3h8
mg/hr
0
0
0
0
345
0
mg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
6
0
mg/kw-hr
0
0
0
0
2
0
Propylene
yg/m3
2558
3560
1987
2738
2231
3146
C H
mg/hr
1199
2620
2228
613
3156
3126
J V
mg/kg fuel
304
106
45
365
58
112
.r.g/kw-hr
255
22
9
13
26
Benzene
ug/m3
1180
534
747
635
837
478
C6H6
mg/hr
532
378
806
137
1140
457
D D
mg/kg fuel
135
15
16
82
21
16
mg/kw-hr
113
3
3
5
4
Toluene
yg/m3
1896
833
641
2636
641
553
C7H8
mg/hr
886
611
717
589
904
548
/ O
mg/kg fuel
225
25
14
351
17
20
mg/kw-hr
189
5
3
4
5
D-98
-------
10.9
6.8 -
4.6
3.2
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42 •
_12j iQ
12' >0
2110
:tior Tn ajig
r—1TDC
20 40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than CCD
"1.9
Figure D-l. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor
Direct Injection, 28° BTC Standard Timing
D-99
-------
10.9
[joad, %
I£l
12. i£L
12< >C
6.8
10):
6
Injection' Tilling .
28° 'irrae--gTt:r-Bcr
2
o
T"
1.03
0.63
0.42
20
40
60 70
80
90
95
99.9
98
99
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD
Figure D-2. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor
Direct Injection, 28° BTC with EGR
D-100
-------
10.9
51
6.8
103
4.6
In je rtio i Ti nine
2
STOC
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42
99.9
95
99
90
96
60 70
80
20
40
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD
Figure D-3. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor
Direct Injection, 18° BTC (10° Retard)
D-101
-------
10.9
-Li Ae —cpnu-
4. —126 X
2_ | 126Q
3 ! 126i)
T~:~:— ~Tair
, ?i n ).
50
6.8
100
nrf
V)
c
0
u
o
Injection Timing
—
•H
B
Q
2.0
0
u
•H
•P
Vi
Ifl
0u
0.63
4M
•Alt .
0.42
—4.
20 40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD
Figure D-4. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor
Direct Injection, 33° BTC (5° Advance)
D-102
-------
aiui
. -_0— =ms4-b«J 1400
1400
,1400
Xtfli
ZlQJi
direcft Xi
10° B
:io»
r
40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD
99.9
Figure D-5. Particle Size Distribution for Caterpillar 3406, via Impactor
Indirect Injection, 10° BTC
D-103
-------
Mode
Line
rp*n
2000
2000
2000
Idle
2800
2800
2800
Mercedes OM352
Naturally Aspirated
E
40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD
Figure D-6. Particle Size Distribution
for Daimler-Benz OM-352 NA, via Impactor
D-104
-------
10.9
TT~
4.6
u
«
2.0
u
-------
10.9
6.8
4.6 s--
3.2
2.0
1.03
0.63
0.42
¦M
40 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD
Figure D-8. Particle Size Distribution for Mack ETAY(B)673A + APS, Pump
via Impactor
D-106
-------
10.9
m- .iii tttt , : i .: i i : 1—: 1111, *tt
: : :
1.03
0.63
0.42
60 70 80 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percent, Smaller than ECD
99.9
Figure 0-9. Particle Size Distribution for Mack ETAY(B)673A + Standard Pump
via Impactor
D-107
-------
APPENDIX E
COMPUTER REDUCED 1975 FTP, SET AND FET
GASEOUS AND FUEL ECONOMY DATA FOR
FOUR LD VEHICLES
-------
TABLE E-l. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY-1976 OLDS CUTLASS DIESEL
(Transient Cycles)
Cycle
Date
Test
No.
Run
Emission Rate,
HC CO
g/km
NOx
Fuel Cons
1/100 km
Fuel
Icon
mpg
•75 FTP
10/19/76
1
1
0.49
1.29
0.70
11.02
21.35
10/20/76
2
1
0.47
1.23
0.67
10.88
21.63
10/21/76
3
1
0.45
1.21
0.73
10.63
22.14
Average
0.47
1.24
0.70
10.84
21.71
(0.756;
(1.995)
(1.126)
FTPC
10/19/76
1
1
0.61
1.42
0.70
11.68
20.15
10/20/76
2
1
0.59
1.35
0.68
11.55
20.37
10/21/76
3
1
0.56
1.33
0.73
11.14
21.12
Average
0.59
1.37
0.70
11.46
20.53
(0.949)
(2.204)
(1.126)
FTPh
10/19/76
1
1
0.40
1.21
0.70
10.44
22.54
2
0.37
1.14
0.65
10.24
22.97
3
0.36
1.15
0.72
10.38
22.67
4
0.37
1.16
0.67
10.39
22.65
5
0.36
1.13
0.70
10.23
23.00
10/20/76
2
1
0.37
1.13
0.69
10.33
22.78
10/21/76
3
1
0.37
1.14
0.73
10.30
22.84
2
0.35
1.06
0.75
9.80
24.01
3
0.33
1.09
0.68
10.06
23.39
4
0.35
1.03
0.64
9.38
25.09
5
0.35
1.07
0.65
9.87
23.85
Average
0.36
1.12
0.69
10.13
23.25
(0.579)
(1.802)
(1.110)
Standard Deviation
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.33
0.78
Coefficient of Variation,
% 4.9
4.6
5.1
3.3
3.3
SET
10/19/76
1
1
0.29
0.83
0.63
8.85
26.59
10/20/76
2
1
0.26
0.77
0.60
8.45
27.85
10/21/76
3
1
0.25
0.78
0.55
8.91
26.41
Average
0.27
0.79
0.59
8.74
26.92
(0.434)
(1.271)
(0.949)
FET
10/19/76
1
1
0.23
0.64
0.61
7.76
30.32
10/20/76
2
1
0.22
0.62
0.55
7.34
32.06
10/21/76
3
1
0.18
0.64
0.62
7.43
31.67
Average
0.21
0.63
0.59
7.51
31.33
(0.337)
(1.014)
(0.949)
' 'values in parentheses are in grams/mile
E-2
-------
table e-2 vehicle emission nesults
l
-------
table e-j
VEHICLE
EMISSION RESULTS
t««»S LIGHT
DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO,
TEST NO, 1 DATE 10/H/7b
mfGR, CODE -1
VEHICLE -OOF.L OLOS OIESfL CTLS ENGINE
5,7* LITRE 8
CTL, TEST «T,
20*1
TEST T*P£
3J21RbMl¦ 12b1 COMMENTS
1«7$ FTP 2
BAG COLO
B*RO"FTER
>*»,*7 I
«M OF HG.
*ET BULB TEMP
' lb, 7
OR* BULB
TEMo,
!*.* OFG. C
ABS. HUMIOITV 8,
REL. MU"IOITt
*5 PCT,
E
-------
usiE e-4 vehicle emission results
J«?S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
r NO. TEST »'0, I
ICLC "OOEL f>L0S D!f 5F.L CUS
r type
3METEB ?>».?! mm or HC,
BULB U»P. i ),"> Of G, C
, HUMIDITt »1 OCT,
AUST EMISSIONS
BLOwEH OIF. e»ESS,, C-l, 10»,* mm, H?0
Mm 1 0*Tt IP/l'/'h
ENGINE <;,?» LITRE « C'L.
COMMENTS 197S fTP I BIG HOT
MfGH. CODE -0 *», IR'b
TEST «T, ?0»1 KG "0*0 LOAD
1,5 Kii
WET BUIR TEMP 15,b OEG. C
IPS. HU*IO!T¥ 7,7 M|LLTGB*«S/kG
BLOKEB INLET PBESS., Gl 2bb,7 MM, M?0
BLOWEB INLET TEMP, *1 OFG, C
BAG
RESULTS
BAG
NO,
1
?
1
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
7SIS
1?01»
7525
HC
SAMPLF MfT£R
DEADINf./SCALF
lb,7/3
1*,1/*
1 b , 7/ 3
HC
SAWPLF PPM
b?
Sb
b*
HC
BAC*GPO «FT?B
BEADING/SCALE
1.2/1
1,»/1
1,2/1
HC
BAC 500 bpm
5
7
5
CO
SAMPLE METER
R|AOING/SCALE
»S,1/«
JP,l/«
~S.R/*
CO
SAmplf ppm
RH
7*
If)
CO
BACKGRO MfTER
reading/scale
,S/»
,b/»
,S/»
CO
BACKGRO PPM
1
1
1
C02
SAMP(,r MfcTEB
REAOING/SCALE
*b,J/2
2fe,b/2
lb,3/2
CO?
SAMPLE percent
1.55
l,n«
1.55
CO?
BAC*GRD "ETEB
REAOINC/SCALE
1.5/2
l.R/2
1.5/2
CO?
BAC*GPO PEBCENT
.OS
.0?
,05
NO*
Sample METER
READING/SCALE
»0,b/2
2?,*/2
»0,b/?
NO*
SAMPLE ppm
»0,b
?7,»
»0,b
NO*
BACXGBD METER
READING/SCALE
.8/2
,(>/?
.8/2
NO*
BACKGPO PPM
.8
.fc
.8
HC
CONCENTBATJON
PPM
t>?
SO
b?
CO
CONCENTRATION
PPM
"3
?b
<13
CO?
CQNCENTPATion
PCT
l.SO
1,02
1.50
NO*
CONCENTRATION
PpM
3R,
-------
t ABLE
E-S
n?s
VEHICLE emission results
light duty emissions test
UNIT NO. TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MOOEL OLDS DIESEL CTLS
TEST TYPE
Run J DATE lO/ll/7b
ENGINE 5.7t LITRE 8 CYL.
COMMENTS 1975 FTP Run 2 2 Bag Hot
MFGR. CODE -0
TEST wT. 20*1 KG
TR, l
RAG RESULTS
BAG NO,
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
1
?sns
2
12840
3
7505
HC
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
15»b/3
13.0/3
15.h/3
MC
SAMPLE
PPM
b2
52
b2
HC
BACKGRD
ME TER
HEADING/SCALE
1.5/3
1.1/1
1.5/1
HC
BACKGRD
PPM
b
«
b
CO
SAMPLE
N*TER
REAPING/SCALE
*1.8/*
lb.2/*
13.8/*
CO
SAMPLE
PSH
4 3
75
<* 3
CO
BACKGRD
MF TER
HEAOING/SCALE
,5/«
,*/»
.5/«
CO
8ACKGMD
PPM
I
1
1
C02
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
3b.3/2
2b.3/2
lb.3/2
C02
sample
PERCENT
1.S5
1.0?
1.55
C02
BACKGRO
METER
READING/SCALE
2.1'2
2.0/2
2.1/2
C02
BACKGRO
PERCENT
.08
.0?
,08
NO*
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
31.2/2
2b.b/2
3*.2/2
NO*
sample
PPM
3S.2
2b. b
3*.2
NOX
bacxcro
METER
BEADING/SCALE
.J/2
.fc/2
.7/2
NOX
BACKGRD
PPM
.7
• b
.7
HC
CONCENTRATION
PPH
5 7
*i
57
CO
concentration
PPM
88
72
88
C02
CONCENTRATION
PCT
1 .*8
1.00
l.»8
NO*
CONCENTRATION
PPM
38, b
2b,0
38.0
MC
MASS CRAMS
1,85
2.k?
1.85
CO
MASS GRAMS
S.7»
8.03
5,7»
C02
MASS GRAMS
152?#15
177*.*2
1527,15
NO*
MASS GRAMS
3.b3
* . 21
l.bl
HC
MASS Mi
1.85
2.k?
1.85
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEISKTtO MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NO*
.J? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.1» GRAMS/KIUJHtTHE
273,5<» GKANS/KILONfTRE
.bS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION * 10.2* LITRES PER HONORED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW s 2118.2 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE E-6
117S
VEHICLE EMISSION results
LIGHT OUIV EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, IE8T NO, 1
VEHICLE "OOEL OLDS DIESEL OLS
TEST TYPE 3J?1RbMl81?b1
BAROMflER 7*5.7* mm OF HG.
oh* bulb temp. ?*,* oeg. c
REL. HUHIOIT* *& PCI,
EXMAUST EMISSIONS
blower OIF. PRESS., G?, 30*.g MM, H?0
l)ATE 10/H/7b
ENGINE 5.71 LITRE 8 CYL.
COMMENTS 1975 FTP 2 IM« Hot
MFGR. CODE -0
TEST «T. mm KG
NEI BULB TEMP lb.? DEU. C
abs. humidiir *.? milligrams/kg
BLOKER INLET PRESS,, G1 ?5*,0 MM, H?0
BLOXER Inlet TEMP, *1 OEG. C
»R, H7b
*0A0 L0A0 1.S *«
W
-------
T ABLE E-7 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST
I NO, TEST NO. J Run 4 DATE in/H/7b MFBR, CODE -0 *». I'H
IICLE MODEL OLDS OIESEL CTLS ENGINE 5, 7* LITHE B CYL. TEST wT. 00*1 KG HOAD LOAU 1.5 K*
IT TYPE 3J2lRbMiai?b1 COMMENTS 197% rrr 2 nj1
1,?*
CO
MASS grams
5.87
8.18
5.87
COi
MASS GRAMS
1531.15
1817.*7
1531,*5
NOX
MASS GRAMS
3 » b 3
*.*1
3.t>3
MC
MASS MG
1.7*
J.b*
1.7*
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTEO MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED M»SS
hc ,|7
CO 1.1b
C02 277.51
NOX ,fc?
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CRAMS/KlLOMETBE
CRAMS/KILOMETRE
CRAMS/KILOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE fUEL CONSUMPTION s 10.31" LITRES PER HUNDREO KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS PLOW s 208.7 STD. CU. METRES
-------
T ABLE
E-fl
1 **75
VEHICLE (MISSION RESULTS
LIGHT 01m EMISSIONS UST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL OLDS DIESEL CTLS
TEST TYPE 3JllRbMl»l?b*
BAROMETER 7*5.*"< *N OF HG.
DRt BULB TEMP, 21.7 DIG. C
BEL. HUMIDITY *1 PCT,
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOwER dif. PRESS., Gl, SO*.8 MM, H?Q
Run 5 DATE 10/l«l/7b
ENGINE S.J* LITRE 8 CTL,
COMMENTS 1975 FTP 2 Bay Hot
MFGH, CODE -0
TEST WT 10*1 KG
WET BUL6 TEMP 15.0 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY B.O MILLIGBAMS/XG
TR. 117b
KQAO LOAD
1.5 Kw
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
blower inlet temp.
G1 lbb.7 MM. M?0
*3 DEG. C
RAG
RESULTS
RAG
NO.
1
1
3
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
7SnS
unto
7505
«C
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
15.0/3
11.1/3
15.0/3
HC
sample
PPM
hO
52
bO
HC
BACKGRD
METER
REAOINU/SCALE
1.7/3
1.3/3
1.7/3
MC
BACKGRO
PPM
7
5
7
CO
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
*3,8/*
3b.P/«
*3.8/«
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
13
7*
<<3
CO
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
1.0/»
• 3/*
1.0/»
CO
BACKGRD
PPM
1
1
1
coi
SAMPLE
METER
reading/scale
3b,*/!
lb.0/1
3b.*/?
CO?
sample
PERCENT
1.5b
1 .Ob
1.5b
COf
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
1.0/I
I."/?
1.0/?
COf
BACKGR0
PERCENT
.07
.07
.07
NOX
SAMPLE
METER
REAOING/SCALE
*0.5/1
17.*/?
*0.5/1
NOX
sample
PPM
*0.5
17.*
*0.5
NOX
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
,8/1
.7/?
.8/1
NOX
BACKGRD
PPM
. R
.7
.8
mC
CONCENTRATION PPM
5*
*7
5*
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
117
71
87
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCT
I.**
.11
l.*1
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
31,8
lb.8
31.8
HC
MASS GRAMS
1.7*
l.bO
1.7*
CO
MASS GRAMS
5.b7
7.<11
S.b7
CO!
MASS GR'MS
1537.1*
1751.11
1537.1*
NOX
MASS GRAMS
3,«1
*.S1
3.11
HC
MASS MG
1.7*
?.bO
1.7*
WEIGHTED MASS MC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO!
WEIGHTED MAJS NO*
,1b GRAM/KILOMETRE
1.11 6RAMS/KJL0METRE
271,18 eUAMi/KILOMETRE
,70 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION i lP.il LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW * JOB.5 STO. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE E-' EXHAUST EMISSIONS FRO* SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE TIME -n MRS,
MODEL l"
-------
TABLE E-10 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FMn« SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBE*
DATE 10/11/?b 1INE -U MRS.
MODEL H7b OLDS DIESEL CTLHFEt
DRIVER DT 1EST Ml. ?0*1 KG.
WET BULB TEMP IS C OR* BULB TE"P ?* C
SPEC. MUM, 7.0 GRAM/KG BARO, 71S.7 mm HG,
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 5.7 HIRE V g C*L.
GVW 0 KG
REL» HUM. J7.5 PCT
MEASUREO FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN OURATION 12.77 MINUTES
RLOXER INLET PRESS. ?bh. 7 mm. H?0
BLOWER Dir. PRESS. 10*.8 MM M?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP. of OEG, C
DVNO REVOLUTIONS 2*111
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 11387
BLOWER CU, CM /REV. B*01
BAG RESULTS
HE
sample
meter READING/SCALE
?l,*/3
KC
sample
PPM
8b
HC
BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
1.8/3
HC
BACKGRO
PPM
7
CO
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
51.5/*
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
lib
CO
BACKGRD
METER REAOING/SCALE
.*/•
CO
BACKGRO
PPM
1
CO?
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
*<*.*/?
C02
SAMPLE
PERCENT
?.?S
CO?
B*CKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
?.n/?
CO ?
BACKGRD
PERCENT
.07
NOX
SAMPLE
METE* READING/SCALE
?l.b/?
NO*
SAMPLE
f'PM
71. b
NOX
BACKGRD
METER R€A01NG/SCALE
.1/2
NOX
BACKGRO
PPM
.1
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
80
CU
CONCENTRATION PPM
101
cog
CONCENTRATION pct
?.11
NO*
CONCENTRATION PPM
70,1
308
COCENTRAUON PPM
0.0
HC
MASS (GRAMS)
3.8?
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
10.51
CO?
MASS (GRAMS)
3 351.1*
NOX
MASS (CRAMS)
10.0b
SO?
MASS (GRAMS)
0.00
HC
GRAMS/KILQNETRE
.?!
CO
grams/kilometre
.b*
CO?
grams/kilometre
?0 3
NOX
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
• bl
SO?
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00
HC
GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
3.55
HC
GRAMS/M1N
CO
GRAMS/KC OF FUEL
t.8
CO
GRAMS/HJN
.8
CO?
GRAMS/KG of fuel
3111
CO?
GRAMS/MIN
?b?
NO*
GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
1.3*
NOX
GRA*S/hin
. 7*
SO?
GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
0.00
SO?
GRAMS/MIN
0.1(0
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION a 7.7h LURES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE
E-ll
1175
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIOMT duty EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO, 2
VEHICLE MODEL OLDS DIESEL CTLS
TEST TYPE 3J21Rb*1812b1
DATE 10/20/?b
ENGINE 5.7* LITRE 8 CYL.
COMMENTS COLD-LA-*
HfGR. CODE -0
TEST XT. 20*1 KG
Yd. 117b
HOAD LOAO
BAROMETER 7*3.*b MM OF MG.
DRY BULB TEMP, 2J.3 DEG.
REL. HUMIDITY 27 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.• G2, 10*.B MM. H20
MET BULB TEMP 12.0 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY «.« MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOMER INLET PRESS.r G1 251.0 MM. H20
blower inlet temp, *b deg. c
RAG
RESULTS
BAG
NO.
1
2
1
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
7sn*
12110
7501
HC
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
17,0/*
7.0/*
15.b/3
HC
sample
PPM
lib
5b
b]
HC
backgrd
METER
READING/SCALE
.3/*
.7/*
1.1/1
HC
BACKGRD
PPM
2
b
*
CO
SAMPLE
METER
REAOING/SCALE
bl.7/«
3b.l/»
**.!/»
CO
sample
PPM
117
75
13
CO
8ACKGR0
METER
REAOING/SCALE
,b/«
,S/«
.1/«
CO
BACKGRD
PPM
1
1
2
C02
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
**.1/2
27,1/2
3b.7/2
C02
sample
PERCENT
1.1b
1.11
1.57
*1
C02
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
2.2/2
2,*/2
l.k/2
1
C02
BACKGRD
PERCENT
.08
.01
.Ob
VJ
NO*
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
*7.0/2
27«*/2
**.b/2
NOX
sample
PPM
*7.0
27.*
**.b
NOX
BACKGRO
METER
REAOING/SCALE
1,0/2
.5/2
.5/2
NOX
BACKGRD
PPM
1.0
.5
.5
HC
CONCENTRATION
PPM
11*
SI
51
CO
CONCENTRATION
PPM
130
72
BB
C02
CONCENTRATION
PCT
1.81
1.01
1.52
NOX
CONCENTRATION
PPM
*k.l
2b,1
**.2
HC
MASS GRAMS
*.28
2.71
1.97
CO
MASS GRANS
B. 3b
7,11
5.hi
CO?
MASS GRAMS
it22.se
1711.05
15*b.*5
NOX
MASS GRAMS
*.10
*.12
3.12
HC
MASS MG
*,28
2.71
1.87
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MA#S CO
WEIGHTED MAS# C02
WEIGHTED MA8S NO*
.17 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
l.il GRANS/KILOMETRE
240.** 6RAN8/KIL0HETRE
,b7 6RAMS/«IL0MfTRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION * 10.BB LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOtAL CVS FLOW » 20b.0 STO, CU. METRES
-------
TABLE
E-12
J«7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, TEST NO, 2
VEHICLE "(JOEL OLDS OIEStL CTLS
TEST TvP£ IJ29RbMtfli?b<»
BtROMETEfi 7*3,*b «« 0* *6,
OR* BULB TEMP, t3.1 OEG. C
RIL, HU*I01T* 27 PCT,
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOmER OIF. CRESS., G2, 30*.* "N, *20
DATE 10/?0/7b
ENGINE 5.7* LITRE « C*L.
COMMENTS 1975 FTP 2 PAG COLO
MfG*. CODE -0 *R, l<>7b
TEST «T, 20*1 *G ROAO L0*0
1,5 **
kET BULB TIMP 12,B OfG, C
ABS. HUMIOtt* *,9 mjllIGRAMS/kG
BLOWER INLET CRESS., GX 25*,0 mm, x?0
BLOWER INLET T£MP, «b DEG. C
BAG
RESULTS
BAG
NO,
1
2
1
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
750*
ifjn
750*
HC
SAMCLE
meter
RE*OING/SC*LE
17.0/*
7,0/*
17,0/*
HC
SAMPLE
PCM
lib
5b
lib
HC
BAC*GRO
M£TfR
READING/SCALE
• 3/*
,7/*
,3/*
HC
SAC*GRO
PPM
2
b
2
CO
SAMPLE
METER
RfAOING/SCALE
f.1,7/.
lb,}/*
bl,7/»
CD
SAMCLE
PPM
117
75
13 7
CO
BACkCRO
METER
REAOING/SC*LE
,b/«
,S/»
,b/«
CO
BACKGRO
PCM
1
1
1
CO?
SAMPLE
METER
reading/scale
**.1/2
17,1/2
**,1/2
CO?
SAMCLE
PEKCENT
1,9b
1,11
1,9b
C02
BACKGRO
METER
REAOINp/SCALE
2,2/2
2,*/2
2,2/2
CO?
BACKGRO
PERCENT
.08
.09
,01
NO*
SAMCLE
MfTER
REAOINg/SC*LE
*7,0/2
27.*/a
*7,0/2
NO*
SAMCLE
PPM
*7,0
27,*
*7,0
NO*
BACKGRO
METE"
SrA0ING/3C*LE
1.0/2
,S/?
1,0/2
NO*
BACKGRO
PP*
1,0
.5
1.0
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
13*
51
13*
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
130
7?
130
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCT
1,89
1.03
l.i*
NO*
CONCENTRATION PPM
*b,l
2b,9
*b,l
HC
MASS GRAMS
* , ?8
2.71
*.28
CO
MASS CRAMS
8.3b
1,1b
CO?
MASS GR*«3
1«?2.58
1799,PS
1922.58
NO*
MASS GRA«S
»,10
*,1?
*.10
HC
MASS *G
*.?a
2,79
*.28
HEISHTEO «*SS MC
WEIOHTFO "ASS CO
KIIGHTEO "ASS CO?
WEIGHTED »AiS NO*
,59 GR*MS/K ILCETRE
1.3S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
308,*0 GRAM/KltOWETRE
,(>¦ GRA*S/KILOBITRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION ¦ 11.55 LITRES PFR HUNOREO KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLO" » 20b.0 STO. CU. METRES
-------
o ¦»
-* 3D
*p» 9
f O
Z
CI o c* o
X X X X
0 o o o
1 X Z {
x o n x z o r» x
xoooooooo
O K IV K ru
ZXXXOOOCI
¦m *-*>*>»> o a> o a
•» tin
1 Ctu -4-I-4
22Zznor>ftnnnni x % x mi
oooooaooooocononr- i
KXMX^IUIVIV O I
X
rw
QD0DCn(«QBa>aiiCaCDatl(ACogDa3U>O»3D
r*o x £ r» o x x«"» o x £ r» n e t *
xxvv*xv-exMvvxxvvm
««irr«cirronrrnrirr<
oo oo oo oo r
X V
O m
• Cfl
K fl S l»
x c •< a
»• o
c ax
» X C rn
C f -4
ISM
JB
X © -*
**«-«r»i u
CA -# 5 «
tfl < J> VM
O O O O O O
£-«X"BX?XVXV£7
c
X -*
fflW z
(M X W
fV
A
XJ 3
or f~
s a
-
m
O O O o
.* •-« *-4 _t
x -~
EiS
V -4 L
-«
* -•
£ -4
£ -• O
o»
4 O
*- o
f-
MC fU
o o a a
m
m r»
n*
(1
m
ru
m
rw
m «z>
ti ""I
rtiH-i
n»
zzzz
»
» m am a
s
9
»
9 (A
•
fl o
or mm
a o
X
Z
m
-4 m x
A9»U>
tr o
"O t> tl
a
S -4
V
TO
9
JO
a
£
• a t*
m -4
• z
(V
¦o o u T&
m
ft
f»»
m
m
-*?
• •
r-
a &
•a
x -• x »:
•»
i»
)»
»
t"
t*
ifc
ft»
•W
X
c
t* •—
o
9
9
o
O
a
3
O
*
o
o o
to x
• • • •
—4 •
-4•*
r * *- w
z
Z
Z
z
z
z
Z
z
laf
f-
O -4
41 *- ut "«J
a
ST»
o
o
o
o
CI
o
w
(A fV
• »¦«•
"S„
V
"S
V,
s
\
¦v
-*
o
O O O O
m
co
ca
M
»
u>
•
m
n z
SSIIS
r»
o
o
r»
n
n
n
n
a
B
c
*» * »* »
to>
*»
»»
a»
i»
•»
»>
»
r-
• m
X X X X
UMMCI
r-
m
r-
m
f
r*i
r-
m
r
r*
m
r*
r*i
r-
f*i
X
X
pr
o o o o
X * * X
WWf""!
X
o
»
ui >ft Ufi +* * •-
¦ • • • 0 m
¦ A A tt 09 • (ilOBt/i
ni #ai v>w<
• • • • 3<
Ifff1 I
¦w *a m jo \
•s. v
ru •
X
¦u '
Q
o m o
w
o z »
x n -«
X *-~
r-
t»i r
Z HI *-
o
-4 3
X
co v
•- M
ft#
»»
llf IT
If* o
o
•
«r • a •-
*- • %t
c
w sr *-
JO M \l
-4
V
•v
^ 4R r
-c
%u
w
U""
r-
r« <
•n »-•
* m
-4 -«
I
x) a
Cfl —
m
60 O
»-• r-
OB
a m
a:
£
»~ r»
to m
e> •«
S
r-
—•
~- #*#
X*
m u»
»¦»
ru *
o
to v.
•
•- Al
-4
M Mt
r r-xin/n
•- vw wn •— ¦# •—
• • • • • # •
a A^icrv* giain
%• «r •* a ^runisi a
« «¦ »
• • • • o ¦
an %r a- or v i
•» tr gi
- r • o v
• 4P •— ui ar •—
3D m
X
r~ r
a» m
oo
33 -4
X X
m r»*
to
• 3)
a a
C
HI X
x r-
r*i
C 9»
to
-------
TABLE E-14 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 10/20/7* IIHE -0 MRS.
"OOEL H7t> OLOS DIESEL CTLSET-7
driver or test *t. an*i kg.
NET BULB TEMP 13 C 0R» BULB TEMP 22 C
SPEC. HUM. S.b GRAM/KG BARO. >*3.5 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITRE * 8 CVL.
GVW 0 KG
«EL. HUM. 3*.2 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION £3.2$ MINUTES
blower inlet press, 2S*.o mh. mo
BLOWER DIF. PRESS. 30*.B MM H2Q
RLOWER INLET TEMP. *B OEG. C
OVNO REVOLUTIONS 32000
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 20731
BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 8*08
PAG RESULTS
HC
SAMPLE
METER REAOING/SCALE
15.0/3
HC
SAMPLE
PPM
b8
HC
BACKGRO
METER READING/SCALE
»*/3
HC
BACKGRO
PPM
«
CO
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
*7.2/*
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
101
CO
BACKGRO
METER REAOING/SCALE
l.l/«
CO
BACKGRD
PPM
2
COI
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
*0.5/2
cog
SAMPLE
PERCENT
1.77
C02
BACKGRD
METER REAOING/SCALE
l.2/<
C02
BACKGRD
PERCENT
.0*
NO*
SAMPLE
METER REAOING/SCALE
S3.5/2
NOX
sample
PPM
53.5
NO*
BACKGRO
METER REAOING/SCALE
.8/a
NOX
BACKGRO
PPM
.8
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
b5
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
IS
C02
CONCENTRATION PCT
1.73
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
52. B
SO?
COCENTRATION PPH
0.0
HC
MASS (GRAMS)
S.hb
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
lb.(.7
C02
MASS (GRAMS)
•SOB.55
NOX
MASS (GRAMS)
13.08
S02
MASS (GRAMS)
0.00
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,2t>
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .7?
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 221
NO* GRAMS/KILOMETRE .1.0
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
3.bb
HC
GRAMS/KIN
CO
GRAm$/KG
OF
fuel
10.8
CO
GRAMS/MIN
.7
CO?
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
3101
CO?
GRAMS/MIN
207
NO*
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
NOX
GRAHS/MIN
.5b
SO?
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEI
n.no
SOi
grahs/hin
n.on
.2
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION > 8.*5 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE e-15 EXHAUST EMISSIONS F80M SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE I0/20/7b tlHI -0 MRS.
model I'm olds oiesel ctlfet
DRIVER DT TEST NT, 20*1 KG,
MET BUL8 TEMP 1? C DRT BULB 1EMP 22 C
SPEC, HUM, *.8 CRAM/KG MARO. 7*3.5 MM MG.
TEST NO, 2
engine s.7 litre » s ctl.
GVM 0 KG
BEL. HUM. 28.3 PCT
MEA3URE0 FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION 12.77 MINUTES
(!LO*ER INLET PRESS. 21.1, b MM. H2Q
RLO*ER DIF, PRESS. 312.* mm H20
BLOKER INLET TEMP. *8 OEG. C
0 * NO REVOLUTIONS 2*110
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS 11187
BLOKER CU. CM /REV. 83*7
BAG RESULTS
MC
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
20,h/3
HC
SAMPLE
PPM
83
MC
BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
2.3/3
MC
backgro
PPM
9
CO
sample
METER READING/SCALE
S1.1/»
CD
sample
PPM
112
CO
BACKGRO
METER REAOING/SCAlE
,1/«
CO
backgrd
PPM
2
C02
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
*7.2/2
C02
sample
PERCENT
a. 13
C02
backgro
METER REAOING/SCALE
l.b/a
C02
BACKGRD
PERCENT
.Ob
NO*
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
b8.8/?
NOX
sample
PPM
be.8
NO*
BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
.i/a
NOX
BACKGRO
PPM
,
-------
U-3
nsooo
mmxt*
C JO
I < C
. i m *
CO X
HI O
»>* o
HI
c a» x
o
•4 »
m * •* m
x o o x Ulb
o r» o
o
-o •
2
o«* «* o
¦
a
m*-» jp
m £
m
I X I X
m z
33
m
£ 3 -4
o
< ®
-4-4-4-4
£ £ X £ O
onn
ODCEC»<*aPGBtA<0a)«KCRC*a3CB
o» » o
m
X
HHiiiy
o
C* *>•
m m m m
t *¦*>*¦»¦ O
a o o
»a»i» »•*»>»»»
¦»
•»>»»»
t>
» •
(A
O
i>
o r»
tiocioz
XXX
omm osmni]
TO
rn
^ » *
•¦*1
-n o
(A
•
z -v
» o
% f»i
(0(oii to
£ 3» s V B -t
o o o o o o
o o
V
t/i
JT f-
WVIUtf
CI S» •» ®> » B
Has
c
XI
~ X
xa
* •*>
££££»>
"O
X-OX-QXOXV
X
IB
£ -O £
£ -4
c
^ IV «
»- o»
c
inn i
M (A (« U) -4
—• HI HI
-o
m
"O
m ib r*
V
rn
s»
n*
X
C
id i-
o o o o
O
o o
o
r»
r* o
U) *
• • • •
HI •
-4 *>
^•<4 «
X X X X
X
X X
ar
u»
r*
a *4
U# X 9 X>
« r* rt r%
o
r» m
o
J0
9
c
»•»>»»
i» »> » w>
a»
a» »
f-
• •
X £ X X
f- r- t- r-
f-
r- r~
f-
X
m
»(•«•(•
fi ni in m
m
m m
m
X
*~-
NSN V
in. M
mo
X X X X
-4-
X
A JL
» «•
rrr p
*1
¦*4 0t
fW u»
o o o a
o
n m o
III
CA
t txx
a * »
f-
m m m fi
X o -•
•-«
-4 -4 -4 -4
Xnm
f
-4
JO JO X S
rm *
*•*
9
rt fi f f*i
•m
X**%
€i
m
SB
-4 3
X
ce
00 X
H
««Aja«4
*•
« # ft- 4B
if
M <4
fW
u
• • • • •
n» m •
M
n •
r*» co
m
• • « m • or
•
or (T * *!• dr
tfl »-
ar «
o
4B
«/* <#* ¦* as rf* •
Jv #
• • • o• o«
• •» •
tit
• AM
r-
-4 ++
x>
or m or ¦%# »-
as r
dr
r v^is^^nio
n>
(M
tfioni
01
Jl
o
O
m
\ \ N \
N,
X X
X
as a>
z
(A
ft# *v nt
•
» #
4E
r- i-
.# ^ (/I I
•# * *- ui
m «u * »- •
-------
TABLE
£-17
1«7S
VkMICLt EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT MO. TEST NO, 3
VEHICLE MODEL OLOS OUSEL CTLS
TEST T»PE 1J2*biiM|b 1 ?*»B
B*BOM£TER 7»7.52 mm 0* MG.
OUT bulb temp, 22,2 DEC, c
PEL, MU*IOm 51 "CT,
exhaust EMISSIONS
SLOwES 01', PUfSS., G2, 30».» mm. mo
BAG RESULTS
Bit, NO,
OA Tk 10/?l/7k
ENGINE 5,7* LITRE « C*L,
COMMENTS 1»75 'TP l BAG COLO
MFGP, CODE -0
TEST nT, 20*1 «G
¥B, 117b
BOAO LOAD
0,5 *«
m
I
BLOntti REVOLUTIONS
*C
SAMPLE
M£TFR
REAOING/SC*Ll
MC
Si«PLF
PPM
MC
BACGBO
METER
BEADING/SCALE
MC
8AC*6B0
PpM
CO
SAMPLf
METER
»EADING/SC*LE
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
CO
BACKGBO
M£TEB
beaoing/scale
CO
BACKCBD
PPM
C02
SAMPLE
METER
BEADING/SCALE
C02
SIMPLE
PERCENT
C02
BACKGBO
METER
BEAOING/SCALE
C02
BAC*GBO
PERCENT
NOX
SAMPLE
METER
BE'OING/SCALE
NO*
sample
PPM
NOV
BAC*GSO
METER
R£ AOINC SCALE
NOX
BACKGBD
PPM
MC
CONCENTRATION
PPM
CO
CONCENTBATION
PPM
C02
CONCENTBATION
RCT
NO*
CONCENTBATION
PPM
MC
MASS G»AMS
CO
MASS grams
CO?
MASS GBAMJ
NOX
MASS GBAms
MC
MASS mg
1
'Sib
ib,8/»
115
,«/»
7
50.B/*
112
,5/*
1
*2,1/2
1,85
2,*/2
,0"
*2,2/2
*2.?
,b/f
• b
128
12*
I."
*1,?
*,lb
8,13
1*3?,03
*,23
*,lb
WET BULB TEMP lb.1 OEG, C
ABS, HU*IOm 1,0 millI&bams/kc
BLOkER INLET PRESS,. G1 25*.0 »«, M20
BLOWER INLET TEMP, *1 OEG, C
2
12M3
b,»/*
5S
i.e/i
10
15,5/*
73
.2/*
0
2b,?/2
1,07
?,?/?
,08
2b,7/1
lb, 7
,b/2
• b
*b
70
2b,1
e,s»
7.fib
175b,7«
*,5b
2.57
3
751b
lb.8/*
135
7
5«.8/»
132
,5/*
1
*2,1/2
1,85
2,*/2
.09
*2,2/2
*2,2
,b/2
, b
128
12*
1."
*1.'
*, lb
8,13
1832,03
* • 21
*,lb
WEIGHTED MASS *C
KEICMTEO mass CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
¦SIGHTED "ASS NCX
,5b GRAMS/KlLOMETRi
1,3 3 GRAMS/kILOMETBE
»«7.*0 G»AM$/KltOMtTRE
,71 GH»M»/«ILO"ETBfc
CABfON BALANCE *UEL CONSUMPTION » 11,1* LITRES PER muNOBEO KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLO* « 208,k ST0, CU. METRES
-------
61-3
hi r>
o »•
-4 »
s * a *
* n r> x mm
X
* r z r» o o r>
onn
o
X X
I I CD ® U
cr
m
m m rn (A
xo 3or>ooor»
aooooooaoooooo
O o |-
^ a»
tr
r• o
»-•««*»«• **
n*iv jm r%t
X
W K K
«V "V PW
Offl0
o
z-
o o o o
m
31
n
X X X x
m
2 13
m
< CD
X X X innnn
«SM(iia}VC«MaiilSMUt3P(E
s
u* ¦»
m m m m
X>«»t»»3030
¦»
» ¦» •»
¦»
¦»
•»
c» ¦»
» a»
• W
t~
o o o o
»>(/>&»«*<« z z z 2
nn x con x coo
X
coo
X X »
C
o
•n *
wwwwwnnnn
*
Xt> V
X
* "0 * *
D
o
X X
V X> m
r-
*-•
r~ z
tier
w» (timmm
o
prroorroorr
o o i- r- <
H
•n
O r>
»»!»•»>
onoozzzz
XJ
n m m
o
q m m
O m
o xt
m r* o
v»
¦
ai m
WMma)
o
o
o a
o o
o o
f-
U) V 14 W
7> »•
C
V
« m
X £ C C *• » » »
U
k't 1
X)
C Q Z
i
f
-o
X
o X
O X HI
X)
c
*nn i
utcncoc/i-4-«Hi-4
¦o
mom
m
m m m
¦D
m
xt m
X) m
m
m
o o a r»
X
-• c h
s
•H JB H
jj
-*
X
HI
« HI
C -H O
M
f-
*< »w
O o o o
m m
o
mom
m
m
m
m x
»
m
1 7Z 2
30 30
m
o m 30
s
JD
x>
30 U»
m
3 n
z
z:
*
i» o
¦o T» © X>
XI »
HI
3D -• 30
X)
TO
U
• <£
flnn a
m m
ti m
m
m
rn
•»
¦» i»
t»
»»
ffct
c
wn i-
o a
O O
o
o
o
3
«•
08 X
M «-»*
-* TJ
•* a *- ~
2T Z
z z
z
*
*
X
y#
O H
Ut nt *
o o
en o
T>
m>
»> »>
» »
»>
S»
e*
i»
• »
XXXI
m
r-
m
r-
rf»
r-
m
f
m
MM
X »•
WW
m o
* * * *
-«»
X
tD «*>
r- r- r- r-
A#
m o
o o oo
o
«s•
V t t E
r-
m m m m
HI -» H —1
-•
SSS8
XI
m
m m
«/»
c/»
*»«*- «**-4c fr-
« *
»— w
•— >J
"O
it ••••#¦• «
*w r%i •
or
#
ru
IM
X
ir « a
X
X
a» ru
»V IV
»
*
UW
c
*
o
a
m
C
X
Ml
*—
r-
o
ar
(N»
x
*w * ¦* m m f%i
ru fu
"U
rr.
• •••¦• <*i •
J» OB
•
•-* 4
•
•
jl • 3
X)
« M»V 3 •» « A *-
4>
a m si
a ar o m
•>-
*
XI 1*1
r dw
m
x "s,
\ \
V
X
X
X
CB 09
u*
fit
i\i r\<
•
»
u»
r- r-
IV T kT
• T • *- «
a «w ar * so
oo
X X
rn m
r jd
H D
m jd
X
x> 01
o •*»
m ,/>
O *
X
r\»
O
m » o •»
H < C
m m *» i>
mm x
X r < x>
«• X *-•
o
H
c m x
O
09 X C rr*
— r- z
hi c r* h
< m o
X u m
x> •
r« «-• o
m x
XO H
O
« m rn ^
o
a -i I «
*0 m
U)< Q v
u r-
fW
O Ml
zr fw
xi a
<*
t r-
~ X
x o
* ^ t
*- ce
¦M •
33
uv O
•- O
V -w
r%» +* M
o a
t m m
H m I
O W
• en w
>
CD
50
m
C
""
t ,
4>
P5
ti
i-»
O rr o
•J*
oc
o z t>
x a -•
X ~ m
r-
m z
t-t
ar m »-
o
¦H O
X
\l M
««
•a » T
<
wn
i—
m
<
"fl
C
-I X
x r
m
r-
C 0B
o» o
-4
X
HI x>
tf*
M -4
o m
3
«HI X
HI O
HI U
» o
-<
c
nu
g*
a
«
•
-------
Ta«lE E-19 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1**5 LIGHT OUT* {MISSIONS TUT
UNIT NO, TEST NO, 1
VEHICLE MOntL nLDS OIESlt. CILS
TEST t*PC S^^PhM!*!?!***
BJiRO«F TER 1*7,If »- 0* NC,
OR* BULB T£mi>, 11,0 01U, C
R£L, wgwiOIT* Sfi "CT,
f«H«UST E»ISJinx5
date in/?i/7t.
INGI Nfc 5.'» LITRl 8 C YLi
COMMENTS JOTS ftp ? BAG M0T RUN I
"FOR, CUDt -0
TEST wT, ?0
PLOkIR REVOLUTIONS
•>*1%
l?"U«
7»*
PP«
8
7
8
» J,»/»
CO
S»MP(.F
mftER
Bf «OINf,/srALE
*!,<•/*
33,8/*
CO
SAMPtf
PPM
87
b«
87
CO
HACKGRD
MfTER
WE'OING'SCALC
,b/«
,S/«
,b/«
CO
backgbo
PPM
1
1
1
CO?
SAMPLE
METER
RE ADING/SCALE
3**0/?
?»,b/?
3*,8/?
CO?
sample
PERCENT
l,»8
i,»8
CO ?
1AC«G»D
MfTER
»f aj>ing/sc*le
l.»/?
».S/*
CO?
BAc*r.or>
PERCENT
.05
.OS
.05
NO*
SAMPLE
METER
REAOING'SCALE
»?,S/?
?«,?/?
'?,%/?
NO*
sample
opu
»?,s
?8 , 3
'?.*
NO*
BAC*GRO
M£TE»
heading/scale
,«/?
,8/?
,R/?
NO*
8AC*5R0
opu
,8
HC
CONCENTRATION
PPM
*»
5*
CO
concentration
PPM
8?
bb
8?
CO?
concentration
PC T
l.*3
.«*
1,»3
NO*
concentration
PPM
i?,b
»!.'
HC
mass GRAMS
I,IS
?, *8
l.'S
CO
MASS G«A"J
J,»k
S, 38
CO?
MASS G«*ms
l«7g,o<;
lb71,Sb
1«78,*%
wo*
MASS GRAMS
*.?1
»,en
*.?!
MC
MASS »G
1,«
e,»p
KtJGHTfO WA8S HC
HEIGHTEO *ASS CO
HtlSHTCO HISS CO?
MClGHTCO "ASS NO*
,iS r.B*»S/«ILO»tTHE
1,01. GRAMJ/K H.O"t TRE
?fcl,7» GRA««i/KILOHET«E
,7% GRA»3/*lL0*f TRf
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION » *,80 LITRES P£P wUNORfO *ILOMET»ES
TOTAL CVS »L0« « ?P«.» Str>, CU, METRES
-------
TARlF K-JO V(H(CLi fvISSION BE3UI.TS
l«7S LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS UST
UNIT so. TtST NO, 1 OAU in/?l/7k MfGO, cnoe -0 VR, 1«'*
VEHICLE "00ft PLCS »IESEL Cits ENGINE S. " lP»f M C»L, T| ST »T. ?()»! T. »0*0 LOAO « . S «»
TEST Tt»E U?«»"l ¦ I »s« COMMENTS 1«"i FTP t RA(. HOT BUN 3
«4B0Mrt(-B >«>,?' uv Of MG,
D»» UutB Tt»o, fi,n OFG, c
»Et. hUm|0|tv #1 PCT,
E*MAUST f"{SS10NS
BLOkEB 01*. »8fss,, G?, M?0
*ET BULB UWP 1?,« OfC, c
abs, MU"ion* ».i ¦>in.iGM4Ms/Kr;
BLOot" INLET MMtSS,, gi #S» .0
HLOWfB INLET TE"", «s oeg, c
HfO
w
i
~a
RAG
BtSULTI
BSC
*0.
1
?
J
blp»e« evolutions
'SIB
l#H«n
'¦llH
HC
$*»»LC
Vf Tf B
<-£AOING/SC*Lfc
IS.1/3
I?.3/3
15,1/3
»c
SA"<"LE
UPM
t>u
• «
Ktt
HC
BSCkGoq
Mf Tf 0
BE «OlMf./SCALE
#.l/l
1,*/'
#.1/3
"C
4AC*G»0
PPM
p
«
9
CO
SAwOlf
"lTf»
BfAOING/SCALF
»1. h/«
3S,l/«
»l,h/«
CO
SAMPLE
ppv
87
??
f 7
CO
HAC*GB<5
"f T£B
K( «OI»JG/SC*Lf
,%/•
,
#os
NO*
SA"°LE
ff fFB
BfAOING/SCALF
•1,0/#
0 , fl /?
13.0/?
NO*
SAMPLE
PPM
» 3,0
0,H
» J,P
NO*
8*C«GB0
Mf Tf B
BEADING/SCALE
,»/#
,8/#
,«/?
NO*
BAC*GPO
PPM
.*
• s
HC
CONCENTRATION PPH
43
»#
CO
CflNCEMBATION PP»
S*
hi
CO#
CnxCE* TBATTO* PC
1,»3
l.no
1»* 3
NO*
CONCEKTBATION PPM
»#,3
30,1
»?. 3
MC
MASS C,V*»S
l.'l
?, 3 3
l.'l
CO
"ASS C.«2«s
70
%,»%
CO?
"ASS GtA^S
1»'I.R0
1771.3R
1«'1.«0
NO*
"ASS GBA^S
3.'?
»,s*
3,'#
HC
"ASS ^G
l.'l
?.S1
i.'l
¦EJG*Tfo "ASS "Z
wtlGNTRO "A3S CO
¦tlGMTCO "ASS CO?
KEIGHTJO *ASS NO*
,33 GBA»s/*lLOuETHl
1.01 GB**s/*ILOM£!RE
JhH.'i GB»«S/*I10mETRF
,fc» GBAI'S/KllOHTPt
C»B»OS BALANCE fUEL CONSUMPTION • 10.0k LITRES PER MUNQOfr> « IL.I-E TSt 5
total Cvs flo« « #n»,i Sto, cu. »rtbes
-------
TABLE
K-21 VE«ICU EMISSION BESULtS
1«?S LIGHT OUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, TEST hf>, J
VEHICLE MODEL "LOS DIESEL CTLS
TEST T*»f
B4BU-E TEH >»?,S? »« OF WG.
ORt 0ULB T|«P. ?(,.! OEG. C
BEL, muhjDIT* ?J OCT,
E*H»UST EMISSIONS
BlOkE" OIF, PRESS., G?, 11)".« mm, h?0
OATE IQ/im*. MfCB, CODE -0
ENGINE S,7» LITBE 8 C*L, TfST AT. ?0»1 *G
COMMENTS 117S FTP I RAG HOT BUN *
Yti. |«Jb
HOAO LOAD «,!> »«
WFT BULB TtMP 13,« DEC. C
ABS, MUMIDI T» »,R MILLir.B**5'KG
RLOXEB INLET P«ESS., G1 ?¦;0
BL0OER INLET TEMP. »J DEC. C
w
N>
«AG RESULTS
PAG NO,
«LO«£B bEVOLU
hc S»"PLf
SiwPLf
f)«C3
?.s/3
10
*0,?/•
BS
,»/»
1
11,8/?
l.*3
J,5/?
. OS
»!,?/?
*1,?
i.o /?
1.0
?
i?r«?
n,s/3
s»
?,i/3
t>7
.«'•
f
i»,l/?
?,1/?
.OR
??.i/?
?',i
.«/?
i
'%"b
IS,7/1
n
?,S/3
10
*0.?/*
?s
,8/»
1
33,H/?
1,»3
1,5/?
.OS
'1.?/?
»1.?
1,0/?
1.0
nC
CONCENTRATION PPM
s*
»¦;
%*
CO
CONCENTBATION PPM
#1
b»
81
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCT
1, «8
,10
1,38
NO*
CONCE NT 8 A TI ON PPM
*0. 3
?b , 3
*0, i
HC
"ASS GR*M5
l.'«
?.S?
1.1*
CO
MASS GRA"S
S.J1
?.lt»
S, 31
CO?
"ASS GRAMS
1SOB.10
1»?*,S8
NO*
MASS GRAMS
1,t>3
o.OT
1,1.3
Hf.
MASS MG
l.'»
?,5?
1.'*
xEISHTEO «*SS MC
WEIGMTRO X4SS CO
"ElGMTfC "ASS CO?
«tlG"TfD "ASS NO*
.3S GR#Ms/KlLO*ETtt
1.03 GR*«S/«UO»£TRE
?S1.»P GB»MS/«IL0M£T*t
,d» GP*mS/kIlOMET»E
CAPBON BALANCE *UfL CONSUMPTION * o.JB LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRE?
TOTAL CVS FLU* ¦ in*.1 STO, CU, "fTBES
-------
TABLE
E-J2
1«>S
Vl-ICLf EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT OUT* Ewt SSIONS TEST
NIT NO. TEST NO, 1
EHICLE "OOfL Otns OlEStL CTLS
EST TyPE JJi'OSt.xiKmi
»»o«etir mm or ho,
RY 0UL8 TEMP. a.» PEG, C
EL, humjOITy IS PCT,
*MAUST EMISSIONS
rlo>»er Dir. p«f ss., r,?, io».» mm, h?o
DATE 10/?1/Jb
ENGINE 5,7* LITRE 8 CTL.
COMMENTS l«J5 f TP i BAG HOT RUN V
MFGR, CODE *0
TEST WT, ?0*1 KG
TH. JUb
ROAD LOAD
*ET BULB TEMP 12,8 OtG, C
IBS, HUMJOITY * ,b M|LLIGR*«S/KG
BLOwER INLtT PRFSS., Gl 25*.0 mm, kJU
BLO*E» INLET TEMP, »3 OtG, C
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO,
BLOhER REVOLUTIONS
HC
SAMPLE
METER
RE*OING/SC»LE
HC
Sample
PPW
HC
BACKGOD
MFTFR
BEADING/SCALE
HC
BACKG9D
PPM
CO
Sample
METER
PEAOING'SCILt
CO
Sample
PPM
CO
BAC*G»0
M£TE «
#E*OING/SC»LE
CO
BACKGRO
PPM
CO?
SAMPLF
METER
BfAOING/SCALE
co?
SAMPLf
TRCfcNT
co?
BACKGRO
MFTFR
READING/SCALE
co?
BACKGOD
PERCENT
NO*
SAMPLE
METER
RE*OING/SC*l.E
NO*
Sample
PPM
NO*
BAC*GRD
METER
»e*ding/$cale
NO*
backsrd
PPM
1
7508
15.?/3
•>1
e.s/s
10
»o,a/*
R*
,e/»
i
33,8/?
l.*1
i,«/?
,07
3«,»
,«/?
t
iiiii
13.*/3
5»
1.1/1
*
}~,»/«
71
.'/*
1
?b,?/?
1.0?
i.i/i
,ns
«i,*/?
?«.»
.i
3
noc
15,?/3
hi
2,5/3
10
*0.1/*
B*
,8/*
1
31,8/?
I.*3
l.*/?
,05
II.1/1
31,'
.«/?
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
5?
*ii
5?
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
80
bB
80
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCT
1.3b
."»«
1,3b
NO*
CONCENTRATION PPM
38,1
?8.b
38.1
HC
MASS GRAMS
1 , b8
8.55
l.b8
CO
MASS grams
5.?*
'.b«
5,2*
co?
MASS GRA"S
1*13,5*
l?b?,05
1*11,5*
NO*
MASS GRAMS
3,»1
*.»1
».»"<
HC
MASS *G
l.bS
2,55
I,b8
WEIGHTED MASS hc
¦EI6HTED -«SS CO
"IICMTEO mass co?
"ElBMTfO M4SS NO*
,15 GR*«S/>*,5 STO. CU, METRES
-------
TABLE E-2J KXHAUS1 MISSIONS fh|JM single PAG SAMPLE
• f.MlCLE NUMRfH
OATE lll/?l/?b 1 IHE -II MRS. TEST NO, 3
MOnfcL l"7b ULOS DIESEL CTLSE1 7 ENGINE S.7 LITRE 1 CY|_.
ORl*EH DT 1FST ml. ?ti»l KG. GVK 0 KB
*E1 Hiail ttxp 13 C usr BULR TEMf ?» C REL. HUM. ?*,8 PCT
Spfc, hum. *.(, gkam/kg dako, 7*7,s h* hg. measured Fuel n.on kg
PUN DURATION ?3.«7
PLOHER Cli. C /REV. nil?
RAG RESULTS
MC
S*M«LF
METER RF.AOING/SCALE
17.S/3
MC
Sample
7n
MC
b«c*gro
METfM SkAOING/SC*LE
?. 3/3
HC
HACKGi'O
PPM
q
CO
sample
MfTER RtAUiSU/SC*LE
*?.(!/«
cu
SAhPLt
PPM
100
CO
It*CKG«i)
MflfH HEAOIN«/SC*LF
,H/«
cu
BAC*G><1>
PPM
1
cu?
sample
MF TEW READING/SCALE
»?.?/?
CU?
sample
PERCENT
1,85
CO?
nAc*Gi»n
METER READING/SCALE
?,n/a
CO?
HAc»r.Hu
PERCENT
.0?
NO*
SAMPLE
MFTEK READING/SCALE
'•¦'.3/?
NO*
SAMPLE
PPM
»«, 3
NO*
MCKGHu
MFTER RhACING/SCALE
1 .0/?
NU*
bachgrd
PPM
1.0
HC
CONCENTRATION
to?
CO
CUNCENfAl I UN PPM
IS
CO?
CONCEmIRaTION PCT
1.7"
NO*
CONCENTH*!ION PPM
*B,»
SO?
CucEmtration fPM
n.o
HC
MASS (GlAMS)
S.S?
CO
MASS (liXAMS)
H>,«B
CO?
MASS (G«*MS)
5073.83
NO*
MASS (GRAMS)
11.87
so?
MASS (GRAMS)
0.00
HC GmAMS/KILuME TRE ,?5
CO GRAMS/KIUOMEIRf .78
CO? BRAMS/fclLOMEIRE 813
NO* GRAMS/KILll«EIKE .S">
SO? GRAMS/KILOH£TRF O.OH
HC
URaMS/KG
(If
FUEL
3.3B
MC
RRAKS/MIN
CO
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
lH.t
CO
r-BAKS/MJN
.7
CO?
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUFL
311"
CO?
GRAMS/MIN
?1B
NO*
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
NO*
GAAHC/MJN
.51
SO?
GRAMS/KG
IJF
FUI-L
n.nr
so?
G»AMf!/i«IN
n.no
CAPHON HALANCt FUEL C'INSUKPIIUW = 4.11 tlTRfS PER HUNDRED ~ iLUMf T »t S
-------
TABLE E-2J KXHAUS1 MISSIONS fh|JM single PAG SAMPLE
• f.MlCLE NUMRfH
OATE lll/?l/?b 1 IHE -II MRS. TEST NO, 3
MOnfcL l"7b ULOS DIESEL CTLSE1 7 ENGINE S.7 LITRE 1 CY|_.
ORl*EH DT 1FST ml. ?ti»l KG. GVK 0 KB
*E1 Hiail ttxp 13 C usr BULR TEMf ?» C REL. HUM. ?*,8 PCT
Spfc, hum. *.(, gkam/kg dako, 7*7,s h* hg. measured Fuel n.on kg
PUN DURATION ?3.«7
PLOHER Cli. C /REV. nil?
RAG RESULTS
MC
S*M«LF
METER RF.AOING/SCALE
17.S/3
MC
Sample
7n
MC
b«c*gro
METfM SkAOING/SC*LE
?. 3/3
HC
HACKGi'O
PPM
q
CO
sample
MfTER RtAUiSU/SC*LE
*?.(!/«
cu
SAhPLt
PPM
100
CO
It*CKG«i)
MflfH HEAOIN«/SC*LF
,H/«
cu
BAC*G><1>
PPM
1
cu?
sample
MF TEW READING/SCALE
»?.?/?
CU?
sample
PERCENT
1,85
CO?
nAc*Gi»n
METER READING/SCALE
?,n/a
CO?
HAc»r.Hu
PERCENT
.0?
NO*
SAMPLE
MFTEK READING/SCALE
'•¦'.3/?
NO*
SAMPLE
PPM
»«, 3
NO*
MCKGHu
MFTER RhACING/SCALE
1 .0/?
NU*
bachgrd
PPM
1.0
HC
CONCENTRATION
to?
CO
CUNCENfAl I UN PPM
IS
CO?
CONCEmIRaTION PCT
1.7"
NO*
CONCENTH*!ION PPM
*B,»
SO?
CucEmtration fPM
n.o
HC
MASS (GlAMS)
S.S?
CO
MASS (liXAMS)
H>,«B
CO?
MASS (G«*MS)
5073.83
NO*
MASS (GRAMS)
11.87
so?
MASS (GRAMS)
0.00
HC GmAMS/KILuME TRE ,?5
CO GRAMS/KIUOMEIRf .78
CO? BRAMS/fclLOMEIRE 813
NO* GRAMS/KILll«EIKE .S">
SO? GRAMS/KILOH£TRF O.OH
HC
URaMS/KG
(If
FUEL
3.3B
MC
RRAKS/MIN
CO
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
lH.t
CO
r-BAKS/MJN
.7
CO?
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUFL
311"
CO?
GRAMS/MIN
?1B
NO*
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
NO*
GAAHC/MJN
.51
SO?
GRAMS/KG
IJF
FUI-L
n.nr
so?
G»AMf!/i«IN
n.no
CAPHON HALANCt FUEL C'INSUKPIIUW = 4.11 tlTRfS PER HUNDRED ~ iLUMf T »t S
-------
TABLE E-J* E«»AIIST missions mm SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
UMICLE NUWHU.
DATE IU/ai/7*. T1»E -» hHS. TEST NO. 3
xnoEL 1«"> "lOS oiesf.l cam engine s.? lithe b cyl.
drive# dt usr .r. ?im *g. r,*w n kg
wet HDLR TfNp IB C I>W» BULB TEMP ?m.1 mh. m?0
RLn»t» OIF. PMFSS, J|?,» MM H?0
BLOWER INLET 1E*P. SI DIG. C
nvhc RtviiLininNS t>nih«
BtUHtB REVOLUTIONS u«i>h
BLOxtR CU. C" /REV. •»?»?
HAG RESULTS
«C
Sample
mete* READING/$CALE
HC
SAMPLE
PPM
71
MC
BACKGMi)
METER RfcAIHW/SCALE
7/1
HC
BACKGH0
PPM
11
CO
SAMPLE
METER «E»!H»iG/SCALE
5».t/»
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
118
CO
(jACKGHU
METER RE Ail lf.'G/$C ALE
.»/«
CO
HAC*GHa
PPM
1
CO?
Sample
METER REAUING/SCALE
>«8,o/e
CO?
SAMPLE
PFRCFNt
?.17
CO?
tUCKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
i.o/e
CO?
HACKGWO
PERCENT
.07
NOX
SAMCLt
METER REAIUNG/SCALE
bS.t/i
NO*
SAMPLE
ppm
hS.?
NOX
BACKGXD
METER REAUlNtt/SCALE
1.1/2
NUX
BACKGRO
PHM
1.1
MC
CONCENTRATION PPM
fa?
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
110
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCT
?.ll
NOX
CONCENTRATION p»»«
fe*. J
so?
cncENTMATION PPM
n.o
HC
MASS (f.PAMS)
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
10, s«
CO?
MASS tG«A*S)
3?0*1,?B
MO*
HASS (GRAMS)
io. at
SO?
MASS (GKAMS)
u.oo
MC
GRAMS/K1L0ME TRE
.11
CO
GRANS/KILOMETRE
.b*
CO?
GRAMS/KIL0H£1«F
NO*
CRAMS/KILOMETRE
,h?
so?
GRAMS/MLOMETRE
n. no
MC
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
a.»b
mC
GRAMS/m J n
CO
grams/kg
'JF
fuel
CO
GR'mS/m In
.8
CO?
G«*»s/m;
OF
FUEL
ii i?
CO?
GRAMS/mIN
251
NO*
GRA^t/HQ
UF
FUEL
o. «<,
no*
G««mS/m|n
.80
SO?
GRAMS/. "n
so?
GRSKS/min
n.nn
ftoijON ()*L»NCC FUFL < (UN - 7.13 I IT-if. 5 PE » MUNf>«ED KlLUME'RtS
-------
TABLE E-25. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1977 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS (GASOLINE)
(YRANSIENT CYCLES)
Test Emission Rate, q/km
Fuel Cons.
Fuel Econ.
Cycle
Date
No.
HC
CO
NO*
fc/100 km
npg
1975 FTP
12/29/76
1
0.27
1.27
0.82
14.87
15.82
12/30/76
2
0.23
1.26
0.87
15.64
15.04
1/3/77
3
0.22
1.48
0.85
14.81
15.89
Average
0.24
1.34
0.85
15.11
15.58
(0.39)
(2.16)
(1.37)
FTPC
12/29/76
1
0.41
2.41
1.02
15.73
14.96
12/30/76
2
0.40
1.86
1.02
16.49
14.27
1/3/77
3
0.37
2.79
1.02
15.55
15.13
Average
0.39
2.35
1.02
15.92
14.79
(0.63)
(3.78)
(1.64)
FTPh
12/29/76
1
0.18
0.31
0.61
13.85
16.99
12/30/76
2
0.11
0.78
0.72
14.36
16.38
1/3/77
3
0.14
0.55
0.72
14.59
16.13
Average
0.14
0.55
0.68
14.27
16.50
(0.22)
(0.88)
(1.09)
SET
12/29/76
1
0.07
0.23
0.84
11.57
20.34
12/30/76
2
0.07
0.59
0.87
11.96
19.67
1/3/77
3
0.09
0.76
0.86
11.97
19.66
Average
0.08
0.53
0.86
11.83
19.89
(0.13)
(0.85)
(1.38)
FET
12/29/76
1
OA 5
0.10
0.84
9.92
23.72
12/30/76
2
0.0'
0.17
1.00
10.44
22.54
1/3/77
3
0.06
0.09
0.79
10.38
22.67
0.06
0.12
0.88
10.24
22.98
(0.10)
(0.19)
(1.42)
( ) Values in parentheses are in grams/mile
E-26
-------
UN I I NO. *15
VEHICLE MUDfL
TEST NU. 1
OLUS GAS CUTLAS9
TABLE E-20 VEHICLE EMISSION results
IM75 light OUTt EHISSIONS TEST
TP OATE l?/29/7b MFGR. COOE -0
ENGINE *.2b LITRE 6 CURB * T. 101* KG
T«.
GVH
19 7?
0 KG
0AROMFIE.R 7*2.19 mh OF HG«
ORr ttULrt !E«P. 25.0 DFG. C
PEL. HUMlDUr 3b PCI.
MET BULB TEMP 15.b DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 7,2 GRAMS/KG
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
W
I
to
-j
BLOWER INLET PRESS.r G1 59*.* HH.
*2 DEG. C
H?0
BLO*fcR OIF. PRESS.
G2, 5*1
.B MM. H0O
8L0HER
INLET TEHP.
BAG
results
BAG
NO.
1
2
3
BLUhER h'EVULUl I(IMS
Hoasb
b 981 7
10798
MC
SAMPLE
HE TEN
READING/SCALE
U.H/3
10.2
2
*b.b/2
HC
SAMPLE
PPM
lit
18
*;
MC
BACKG>
sample
PPM
71.0
12.9
to.*
NOX
backgrd
METER
READING/SCALE
. b/ 2
.b
2
.5/2
NOX
rtAC KGrtO
PPM
. b
.b
• 5
S02
sample
METER
REAOInU/SCALE
-0.0/*
• 0.0
•
-0.0/*
302
sample
PPM
•0.0
-0.0
-0.0
302
BACKGRO
METER
REAOING/SCAlE
-o.o/*
•0.0
ft
•0.0/*
SOS
OACKGHO
PPM
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
HC
CONCENTRATION
PPM
10*
3b
CO
CONCENTRATION
PPM
30b
0
*1
C02
CONCENIHATION
PC T
1.**
.92
1.23
NOX
CONCENTRATION
PPM
70.5
12.3
39,9
so;
CONCENTRATION
PPM
0.0
0.0
0.0
HC
MAS3 GRAMS
*.b7
.33
1. b2
CO
MASS SHAHS
2 7.82
1.27
3.?*
co
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
HE'CHTEO MASS
CO
1.2'
grahs/kIlometre
KEIGnTEO MASS
CO 2
3*5.7B
grams/kilometre
mEIGiTEO MASS
NOX
.82
GRahS/KIlOMETRE
mEICHTEO mass
so;
0.00
GRAHS/KILOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL COnSUMPIION = 11.87 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FlO* = 209.0 STD. CU. nETRES
-------
T ABLE E-27
UN If NU. *15
VEHICLE MOokL
iesi nu. i
iilus gas cutl»ss
barometer 3*2.h «h of mg.
DRY BULb TE«P. ?S.O OEG.
REL. HUHIUJIY ih PCT.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1/7b HFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE *,2b LITRE B CURB *T, 181* KG
KFI BULB TEMP lS.b OEG. C
ADS. HUMIOITT 3.2 GRAMS/KG
*R.
GVM
1«177
0 KG
C*HAUSI EMISSIONS
BLU-tW C1F, PRESS
RAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
8L0»tR REVOLUTIONS
, G2, SH.B MM, M?0
BLUMER INLET PRESS., Gl S
-------
TABLE E-2B VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT MO. *1S TEST NO. i FTP Hot OME ii/gt/Jb MFGR, CODE -0 VR. 1««7 7
VEHICLE MODEL OLUS G*S CUTLASS ENGINE *.2b LITRE 8 CURB NT. HI* *G GVM U KG
BAROMFTER 7*2.11 mm Of *6. "ET BULB TEMP 13,J DEC, C
our a UL3 'EMP. ?S,b OEG, C ABS. HUMI01 TY *,S GRAMS/KG
RtL. HUMDJTf 22 pCT.
e*haust emissions
BLUWE* INLET PRESS., G1 bOl.b MM. H?Q
RLO»EH OIF. Mhtss.,
1 li?, 1.07.1 MM. H?0
BLOWER
INLET TEMP.
RAG
RESULtS
HAG
NO.
1
?
3
BLOftE* KEVULUflONS
*0718
7000*
*0718
Ht
SAMPLE
Mt TEH
RIAOI .G/SCAlE
»b.b/2
tb.e/e
*fe.b/2
HC
sample
PPM
*7
17
*7
HC
H*C*G><0
METER
REAOING/SCAlE
.5/2
• »/2
.5/?
NO*
B*CkGRU
PPm
,5
.*
.4
SO?
SAMPLE
METER
MEAOING/SCALE
-0.0/*
-o.o/»
-0.0/*
SO?
sample
PPM
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
so?
BAC*GMO
METER
READING/SCAlE
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
-0,0/*
so?
BACKGHO
PPM
-0,0
-0.0
-0,0
HC
CUNCENTHAIION PPM
3b
7
3b
en
CONCENTRATION PPM
*1
0
*1
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCT
1.23
.87
1.23
NO*
CONCENTRATION PPM
31,1
11.?
31, 1
SO?
CONCENTRATION PPm
0.0
0.0
0.0
MC
MASS GRAMS
l.bl
.52
l.bl
CO
MASS GRAMS
3,75
.0?
1.75
CO?
mass GRAMS
178b,Ob
21*1.37
|7Sb.0b
NO*
MASS GRAMS
*,1S
i.31
*,15
so?
MASS uHAMS
0.00
0.00
0.00
WEIGHTED mass hC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS MO*
McIGnTCO MASS SO?
.IB GRAMS/KI LOME TRE
.31 GRAmS/KIlOMETRE
3?3•b3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,bl GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GwahS/KIL0M£ THE
CAPflON HAlanCE FUEL CONSUMPI[0n s 13.85 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAi. C»5 fLi>» « 281.4 STO, Cu. METRES
-------
TABLE E~20 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEMIfLE NUM8E* »IS
DATE l?/?1/?fc I1ME -U HNS.
MODEL 11?? OH»S GAS CU'lASSE!-?
DNIVER DT IEST *r, ?o»l KG.
»f,T BULB TEMP 1* C twr BULB TE«H if C
SPFC, HUM. S.J CHAH/KG BAKU, ?1?,? MM HG.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE »,3 LITRE 8
GVN 0 KG
R£L. HUM. ?3.8 PET
measured fuel o.oo kg
RUU DURATION ?3.?b MINUTES
BLOwER inlet PHESS. hOJ.l MM. H?0
RLOkER OIF. PRESS. hO?,l MM M?0
RtO«ER INLfcT TEMP. -to OEG. C
0*N0 REVOLUTIONS 3111 «i
BLO"ER DEVOLUTIONS
rlobeh cu. lm /re*. ??jo
BAU RESULTS
»c
SAMPLE
METER HEADING/SCALE
??, 1/?
HC
sample
PPM
??
hC
BACKGRO
METER REAUINU/SC»LE
10.*/?
nC
8ACKGXO
PPM
10
CO
SAMPLE
METER REAOlNG/SCALf
? 3.?/•
CO
Sample
PPM
??
CO
backgko
METER READING/SCALE
l.S/A
CO
BACKGRO
PPM
1
CO?
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
B?,«t/3
CO?
SAMP i
PERCENT
1.53
coe
BAL. ii«U
METER READING/SCALE
3.Ml
CO?
BACKGRJ
PERCENT
.Ob
NO*
SAMPLt
METER REAPInU/SCALE
S3.0/1
NO*
SAMPLE
PPM
53.0
NO*
BACKGWD
meter REAOING/SCALE
• fa/?
NO*
BACKGKO
PPM
• fa
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
11
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
80
CO?
CONCENTRaTION PLT
1.1S
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
s?.s
SO?
COCENtRATlON PPM
0.0
HC
MASS CGMAMS)
l.b3
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
»,"!?
CO?
MASS (GRAMS)
S8?U.31
NOX
MASS (GRAMS)
18.35
so?
MASS (GRAMS)
U.00
MC
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.0?
CO
(.RAMS/KILOMETRE
• ?3
CO?
GRANS/KILOMETRE
??0
NO*
CRAMS/KILOMETRE
.8*
SO?
C.RAMS/KILUMETRE
n.nii
HC
(.RAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
,RR
MC
GRA»S/«IN
.0?
CO
GRAmS/KG
OF
Fufct
?.b
CO
GRAMS/-IN
.?
CO?
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
31K?
CO?
GRAM3/HIN
?5?
NO*
GRAMS/KG
OF
FijFL
1.80
NO*
GRAMS/MIN
.?¦<
SO?
GRAMS/KSf
OF
fuel
u.nn
so?
GRAMS/MIN
n.no
-------
TAdte E-JO E*hauS! EMISSIONS FROM S1NGLF H*r, SAMHLE
VEHICLE "UMBER *1S
HATE lint -0 mUS. TEST NO. 1
MOPtL 1"»?? OLDS GAS CUTlASKEI ENGINE »„3 LITRE «
DRIVER DT IEST »T. ?n? SiR*MS/*ILO«£TKi i3i
NO* GRAMS/KILDM£TR£ ,8*
SO? GR*MS/KILO«ETRE II. OU
MC
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
.b?
HC
r.HAMS/Wt»
.lib
co
CRAMS/KG
OF
fuel
1. *
CO
f.RAMS/cIN
. 1
CO?
GRAMS/HG
OF
FUEL
Jib*
CO,?
GRAMS/Mlh
N JY
GRamS/kG
OF
fuel
u.»*
NU*
GtiAMS/crN
1 -»8
so?
G9AMS/KG
OF
fufl
U.HH
SO?
URA»S/»t"l
U.IKI
C»p»un halance fuel ECnmiM* - lures *fr wunorei' *Iliime tf,r
-------
UN IT SO. »IS
VlHIClE MUOtl
It SI NU. 2 75 FTP
ULDS GAS CUlL»S3
1AMLE E-31 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DME 1?/30/7b MFGR. COOE -0
engine t.eb litre b curb lm* kg
YR.
U»M
H77
0 KG
BAROMMER 71b.bU MM OF HG.
Oh* rtt'Lrt TE'tP. 8*. t OEG.
RtL. Hoi101T Y PC T.
MET BULB TEMP lb.l OEG. C
ABS. HUM 10 IT Y V.S GNAHS/KG
exhaust EMISSION
3L0MER
INLET
PRESS.
RUOwtR DlF. PRESS.,
&
Mfc TEH
Rfc AUINb/scale
? • 1 / 3
?. 0/ 3
lb.*/?
HC
8AC*GR0
PPM
?1
?0
lb
CO
SAHPLt
Mfc TEH
HEAOINU/SCAlE
b*.l/*
?.?/*
51. >/*
CO
SAHPLE
PPK
?b?
?
11?
CO
BAC«G*0
Mfc TER
HEADINU/SCALE
.*/•
.?/•
• 7/*
CU
6AC*G*D
PPM
1
1
1
CO?
sample
MF. TER
READINU/SCALE
88.b/3
58.5/3
75•b/3
CO*
SAfiPLE
PERCENT
l.bS
1.03
1.38
CO?
bACKGnO
METER
Mfc A L> ING/SC ALE
3.5/3
3.9/3
3*8/3
cue
BACkGKD
PfcRCfcNT
• OS
• Ob
• Ob
NOX
SAMPLt
METER
HtAUlNG/SCALE
b9.I/?
1*#0/?
**.8/?
w
NOX
sample
PPM
b9.1
1*.0
**.8
NOX
UACKG^U
Mfc It*
REAOINU/SCAlE
R/?
• ?/?
• 7/?
u>
to
NOX
BACKG^O
PPK
~ 0
. 7
• 7
so?
SAMPLt
Mfc' FE
REAOING/SCALE
-11.0/*
-o.u/*
-0,0/*
so?
SAMPLE
PPM
• 0.0
-0.0
-0.0
so?
BACKGrtO
ME TER
REAOING/SCAlE
-o.o/*
-0.0/*
•0.0/*
so?
BACKGKO
P^M
-0.0
-0.0
o
0
1
HC
concentration
PPM
10?
s
2?
CO
v. OSCEN T R A T I ON
PPM
?*9
?
10b
CU?
COnCEnTRaTion
PCI
l.bO
• ^8
1.33
NOX
concen r«A tiun
PPM
b8 . *
1 3 • *
** .?
SO?
COnCENTRaTion
PPM
0.0
0.0
0.0
HC
HASS GRAMS
*.*9
• 35
• 9b
CO
HASS GKAHS
??.?«
« ? 3
9.**
CO?
masS GRAMS
? ?ss•e 3
? 3b1.5b
18b?.13
NOX
MASS GRAMS
9.?5
1,10
5.9b
su?
MASS GRAMS
0.00
0.00
0.00
OEG. C
WEIGHTED MASS hc
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS SO?
.a uhams/kilometre
l.?b gmAmS/KIlOMETRE
3b*.03 GKAMS/KILOKETRE
.87 GKAmS/KIlOMETRE
O.OU GrfAMS/KIlOMETRE
CAB30N BALANCE FUEL COnSUHPIIUN s 15.b» LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CvS Fluh = 201.3 STO. CU. METRES
-------
ee-a
» O <9
r* x
r- -< »
< c
f* 2
T ~
X
*
X
X X
X
o» x n o
X
u» 2 o n x
(A C0 (A
m m
f~»
coccococcr»
C C C
C C
O C
o c c © o o
a c
c
n
r.
rt
n r-
»
>
r*
—
C
r- -i
."•"i
O
r*
c
M
*—
fV K >« ru
"V IV IV
nu k
M
M.
Ml
IV IV -V
rv
o o o c
X
a. m
g
y»
c
ci o
>
»
m
MM
X
X
r
T
3
2 3
X
rr
2
X
fr
X
C
-4
C-
<
ac
-i
—« -4
-4
a * x x
X
n n r» r» o
SrQ(A(AOSU
wa a w cn s
tr
Cfl
(A Qi 7 (A
w x o
m
X
m—
•-*
m
o
*
*»
m
fl
m
* » >» >
o o e
c c
> »- »
» ^
>
>
>
»» «~ >
»
j»
>
»
>
>
>
>
cn
o
c o
c
U) (A (A (A (A
X ? 2
2 2
n o x
x rt n
X
TP.
nn.t
X
n
r.
X
inn
3
a
X
c
O
V.
•<
T or
r-
vm
*n
«~
T>
»
>
X
x:
j*
>
X
X
r-
r-
2
Jl
JE
X X
X
rn m m
m m
a or-
r tn
or
romrr
3^
c.
tr
r-
c-
r
r*
<
-4
~i
c
(T
r>
*~
» >
»
C 'f f c* c
2 2
X X3 tr
fT« Jg
X f**
rr
XXI*"
f*
X
X
m
f
X
X
c
C/i
c
*
r»»
Cn
«»
ifi
(A
» » » a»
r«
XXX
JD *
c
X
IV .T
o
u
"«
X X X X
X
a» a» i»
»> »-
t> X "C
X "O
X
"0
X
"0 X XJ
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
—4
X
4 X
Cfl
c
tn
2
rt r
X
(A WUl
y»
•HI
13 ^ 13
m -0 er
m
mem
t
ft
X
X
m
m
•V
«
m
O
o
o o
n
Ml
X -« x
-» X
—~
X
-h
X -H X
—4
X
—4
X
X
—4
X
•m
o
(A
¦* c
r~
IV
K
IV
coo
o o
m
m
m
rt m m
m
m
rr»
-r>
2
40
X
*
»
—i
n»
2 2 2
2 2
X
X
X
X
m X f.
X
X
X
X
X
cn
•
r>
o
90
r\
2 2
-*
**» X
O!
O
"O "D "0
"0 Tt
X
30
X
X
-4 X -«
X
X
X
X
JO
•
o o
n
•
IM
"0*0 0
t) U
m
f»1
m
in
ft
m
m
m
f"!
m
« *
c
U">
cn
m
XX-*
X X
>>
»
>¦
«»
iw>
>
>
»
IV
2
c
c
»-•
ru »-
O
o
a
c
o
C*
c
c
c
c
*
r*
r-
C
U)
1
•
a»
ts
o
o
or 39
¦*
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
cr
c
—¦
o
•V
uj or
c
C
O
C.
c.
«*.
C
C.
«r
C
C
¦«
«/
*»
*
o
o
O
o O
c
trt
s.
(A
N,
C0
\
Cn
S
(A
V
(A
\
in
N.
tr.
N.
Cfl
N.
»>
»> a»
J»
»>
»
»
a»
*»
*
>
>
l»
i.
x
X
(A
j; x
Co Co
Jl
00
r-
r-
m
F-
m
r
m
r-
m
r-
m
r*
m
r-
m
f
r-
r»>
X
X
2
O O O O O
X 2 X X X
m rn m r* m
x a as 3D 3D
z
0>
O IV 33 M
O lA UJ 4
i T —
OB< «V
Jl C 4 O JD A>
I I I I
j* »—
O M (8 IV 4 * * V ¦* O
0IHw4i)040i)IV
o o o o •
*¦> »— •— tf* M J)
4 4* Ml • QD IV ft» Ul OS
* • o » o • » «tv»iv«o *
a >*
o
a m
3D a
>• •
X
c® n
N.
X
z
IV
o
-------
1»HU C- >)
gt,u NU. »IS fE5» Nil, > FTI' Hot
vt«ICLt "UUI.L ULI.'S G»5 cull »sa
?1h,h>l N« OF mG,
0*» BlIL* 1FMU, 2S.II UEG. C
MIL. huMIUITi te ^Cf.
vF"ICLE EMISSION MESULIS
1«»?S LIGHT „uir EMISSIONS 11ST
U».T> 12/ 30/ ?b MfGH, CUOE -1)
ENGINE *,2b LITWf 8 CORH *1, 181* KG
«E! BULH T£M» lb.? OiG. C
*83. HUHI01TT 8.b GR4MS/KG
UVM
It??
0 Mi
i*H*usi t«l'>sim»s
HL(»»e» 0I> . f«( ss.
»*G litSULlS
m
i
«, (>*1).? MH, HJO
mowtM inlei mress,
ULOwEN INLEI IfMP,
RLO*fc« «?e¥litUf iONS
*»S Bi
bbbis
*os8*
HC
sa*pl*
Nf lf»
RtAlUNU/SCAtc
n.s/e
3b.f/e
HC
SA^^LP-
ppH
9b
i*
3b
MC
H*C*Gfcl>
Ht \ t*
Rt AtHfiU/SCAte
ib.*/a
iS.Q/S
lb,*/5
HC
HAC*Ui*0
PPM
IN
IS
lb
CO
SAl'.Ptt
Mt UN
'JtiOlUVf/SCALE
51.>/*
i.e/*
Si.?/*
CO
P>*M
lie
i
lie
CO
H*C*S*U
Mfc Tt H
»it AOIN t/SCAtfc
. ?/*
.?/*
.>/*
Co
rtAC*G"0
PPM
1
i
i
coe
SA«r»tt
rt*
adinu,scau
?5,b/3
S ?.*/3
?S.b/3
cos
SAK*lfc
PfcRCEN*
1. 38
1 .01
1.38
cos
BAC*G*0
wtrt*
Hfc AUINU/SCALE
3.9/1
J.*/3
3.0/3
cue
8AC *G*0
PfcWCfcNT
.Ob
.Ob
,0b
NO*
SA^lt
AUIwy/SCAtE
**.8/?
15.8/*
**.8/e
NU*
Sa^^lE
PPM
«• "•. P
i?.8
H* . 8
NO*
hac*g*o
*E T£W
^EADINu/3CalE
.t>/e
,?/e
NU*
dAL«*i»*0
PP*
. ?
.b
. ?
sue
SAKPtt
Mfc TfcM
RiAUlNb/SCAtE
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
soe
SA-.^Lt
PPM
-0.il
-0.0
-0,0
so?
BAC*G*U
METEM
READlNU/SCAtE
•0*0/*
-o.o/*
-0.0/*
so?
BACAGHu
PPM
•0.0
-0.0
-0.0
til b80, ? MM, M?0
»1 OEG, C
HC
CONCENfHAl[UN PMM
SB
b
ee
Cu
CUnCEnJ^AIJON PPw
10b
0
10b
C 02
C0NC€HT«AIION PCT
1.^1
.^b
1.33
NO*
CONCE^MAT ION PPM
iS.S
*1.5
80?
CONCENTRATION PPM
0.0
0.0
0.0
HC
MASS U»4AMS
.^s
.*0
CO
MASS 6*AM$
^.*0
.00
*.10
CO?
MASS (^RamS
IBS*.*8
ei^o.3b
IBS*.*8
NO*
MA S3 GNAMS
b. 01
b.Ol
su?
MASS >a^AMS
o.ou
0.00
0.00
KEIGHTFD mass HC
WEIGHTED m4S5 CO
»t iGMitu m»ss coe
mEIGmTEO M*SS NO*
"EIG-iTEO m*SS SM
.11 G««MS/KILQMEIME
. ?a GK*HS/*iLO*£TH£
335.S3 G«»M3/KlLOMET«E
.J? GH»MS/<1L0M£TH£
n.clU G**m5/KIL0K£TH|
C»»BO-< K*L»SLE FUEL CO'.SU-CI IUn s H.3b LITRES PfH >
-------
T ABL E k *"*»>$' EMISSIONS rKgi SINGLE BAg SAMPLE
vtHiCte NU»BE* tts
o*te ia/io/>i, u«e -n nhs.
MOOEL l*1t ULOS G*S CulL»SitI-J
ORKffcR 01 tESI -T. ?ri» i KG.
«EI BULB !EMfc 1? C U«t BULK !E«P ?b C
SPEC. hum. H.» tJAMO. ?Jb.>) hm MG.
TEST NO. 2
kMGINE ¦>.} LITHE 8
Gvm a KG
HtL. HUM, *u,0 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 *£
RUN UllB* I 1<'N ? J.?S "1NUTF S
«LO«k"« INLtl PMESS. bBS.B UN. M?o
RLl'«E» 01*. PHESS. t.Rn.7 mm HeP
RLO«£R INLH IkMP. *J 0£G. C
OVNO REVOLUTIONS ji;»s
BL'J«£R RE»ULuT IO'iS 11 a3U0
SLOxFR CU. t« /r,k» . ????
RAG «ESULI.H
MC
SAMPLE
MlTk« StAUING/S^ALE
?*.*/?
"C
SAMPLE
PPM
?S
HC
BAC«G*0
MkltN HEA01NU/SLAIE
13.8/?
nC
rt*C*G»«Q
PPM
1*
CU
SAMPLE
MktEB REAUING/SCAlE
SB.b/'
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
5b
CO
8*C*G^0
me ie» at aoing/scale
!.?/•
CO
PPM
1
CO?
SAMPLE
Mfc TER REAOING/SCALE
8J.O/3
co?
Sample
PEHCENI
l.b?
CO?
bac«g«o
ME It" READING/SCALE
3. ?/3
co?
h*c«gi/?
NO*
BACKGKQ
PPM
.7
MC
C0NCEM"»T !0N PP"
13
CO
CGNCE^TKAIION PPH
S3
CO?
CONCENtM*IION PC'
1.S7
NO*
Cn*iC£NT»*I JON ppm
$U.»
so?
CQCENTRATJOn PPM
0.0
MC
MASS (GKAMS)
1 .b?
CO
MASS (GrfAMS)
12.88
co?
MASS (GMAMS)
SOSb.b*
NO*
MASS (GBA*S)
18.S3
SO?
MASS (GHAMS)
n.oo
MC
G8AMS/KUo"ETHE
,n >
CO
GRAMS/KILQME t«e
.St
CO?
GOAMS/KILOmeTRE
??">
NO*
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.»?
so?
GRAMS/KILOMETRF,
o.no
HC
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
• 8*
»C
GRAMS/MIN
,11 7
CO
GRAxs/KG
OF
Fuel
h. J
CO
GRAM5/«1n
.ft
ctl?
GRAMS/KG
OF
F lit L
CO?
GR»ms/min
ih 0
NO*
URams/kG
lir
FUEL
81
N0»
GRAMS/MJN
.81
SOP
G-<«h3/kg
UF
FUEL
n. ii n
SO?
&ram^/«In
0.011
CAPrtON HALANtE <*UE< FC vn-t = 11,"b lll«u PIH mundREO
-------
TAftlE e-K l-XHUUSI EMISSIONS MIIH SiNliU «»C S*Ht»Lt
VtHlCLt HUM-4fN <1S
D*1E It'/Hi/Zb UMh -tl H»S. f 6SI MO. I
MOntL II" 0LI1S G«S ClHtAS^ E1 ENGINE *.J (.UNI 1
QHItrt* Of USt w t » Jim *r,. GV» II KG
+f I dULh tt«t» 1J C 0t»* BilLH l£H>> ,»i. C »EL. hu*. <~}.? PCI
SMi-C. 1U«, <>.1 C.>.'*«/>iG n*HU. 75I..* Xf Hb. "EASIIWEO HIEL D.un KG
(Hit. UIIIU104 l?.?h MINMHS
IWLt- 1 P»C3S. hfil.? mm. H?0
OIF. M«fc SS. (iPll. ¦> «M M^O
INLET TfcrtP. «e OEG. C
P»N«J «E*>1LUUC«S i3*b?
HLOMtft NEVMLUflllNS blhJ»
HLD«E" CM, CH zttEl. ftM
MAG KESUL'S
*C
SAhPt.E
Mf H# «f ADlNtf/3f ALf
<»
«c
SWli
P»-*
r»L
hac*g*d
Mfcft* «FAUlNU/SL*Lk
13.^/a
MC
HAC«G*0
PPM
i *
Cu
s amPU
nf Tfc* Wf ADlNU/SC*ti
i/»
Cli
SAHPLt
Pkm
e*
cu
MCxftKD
"EU* «tAulNG/SC*t£
i. */•
CO
«4CrGRi>
PPH
i
c«e
SAMPLE
ME TEH RF.ADING/SCALE
C»Ji?
SAnPU
PtRCtNf
I
c *ie
baogwu
wfTF.tf MEADING/SCALE
i .*>/*
cu*
HAC*G»D
percent
.»*
NDX
S A«PU
HETtW HEAOINU/SCALE
NO*
SAhPLk
PP*
?«*.b
HClt
8AC*G«U
ME?E« «EADlNG/SCAtE
• p/e
NO*
8AC*G*0
PPM
.*
hC
CONCEnTHa!ION PP*
lb
CU
CONCEN f * A I iflN PPM
ei
Cn?
CONCPNTKATION PC f
i
NO i
CUNC£NT*aTION PPM
7H.9
SU^
C0C£N1HAIion PPM
tl.lt
hC
MASS (G»AMS)
t .1!^
Cu
MASS (G*A*S)
cue
MASS COHANS)
1 «l 1 S • 8 3
NO*
HASS (G"A*S)
lb.SI
SOS
*1*5$ (GWAMSJ
«C GMA*$/> ILUMUSt ,u»
CO <,*A*S/KlLU«E1Rf ,1?
en? Grt*N3/KIi_OMETf?E
NO* G»*«3/»IL0"EI«lE 1 .CIO
nw GX*MS/niLOi£i!ie ii.nn
«C ch»ms/kg ur Kmi. .»? hc r,«»Ms/MjN .us
CO GX«HS/kr, of ~ ut l f. i CO r,0«HS/"lN . t
OV r,»«*s/i
-------
UNIT Mil.
VtHlCLc lUtltL
TEsr so. i
OLOS GAS ClilL'SS
lArttf VEHICLE EMISSION K£SUL»S
i°JS LIGHf uu!» EMISSIONS ICS*
rn" u*u, 1/ 3/j? *n;w. code -a
£*u!N£ t.Jh LH«E 8 CURB w 1. 181* KG
»R,
1«!
0 KG
8«HnwfIf w 7»i.1S Of «G,
OR* BUlrt I£hp, ti.l OtG. C
BEL. Muliullr 31 CLf,
»E1 BULB TEN* li.8 DEG. C
Art 3. HUHIOIK S . * GfiAKS/KG
w
I
u
•J
js* emissions
HLO-ER
INLET PfUSS,
BlU*Ert OIF- PMfeSS.,
. G?» h*?.? MM, Mgn
ttLO«E»
1NLEI T£HP.
PAG
NgSULTS
RAG
NO,
1
3
PIU*E« REVOLUTIONS
7
b?731
*Qbl 1
MC
SAK^tt
MfTf«
*M«>lNu/5C*LE
10,3/*
lb , 3/?
J* . * / 2
MC
S*Hl>LE
PP*
109
lb
3*
NC
HAC*G*D
MfeTtrf
REAIUNWSCALE
10.8/?
1 .*/3
10.*/?
HC
flAC^GMO
PPM
11
1*
10
CO
SAKPLt
Mt T F. *
*«t AOINU/SCALE
m.o/»
* , if*
fe8.0/*
Cu
SAMPLE
PPM
38b
<*
bb
CO
hac*gho
MtTf ft
"k AC t Mb/SCALE
.8/*
1 ."~/*
CO
t*AC*G*U
PPM
i
1
CO?
Sample
ME TEW
«kAi,iNb/SC AlE
8* .S/3
S"».^/3
1/3
cu?
SftrtPtE
pehcent
1 ,«b
.^b
1.3S
CO i
m*l^GRO
METE*
mauing/scale
3,*/J
3.*/3
3. ?/ 3
C Mi
iUC*G**0
PEttCENl
• OS
.US
• OS
nC*
SAHPLt
METE*
utADlNb/SCALE
?%,u/i
i* ,n/a
*7.3/?
NH,b
13 • S
*b« *
s&
S.b*
cne
MASS GRamS
2lb§,0^
IBS*.^3
NU>
MASS GHAmS
w„*«f
e.8*
s.^o
so*
MASS UttAMS
0,00
o.uu
0,00
Gl b»J.7 «H,
»0 DEG. C
»50
¦tIGHTEO -»SS MC
»ElG"TtO H*SS CO
¦EI&MIEO MASS CO?
»£1G«I£0 MASS NOi
*E1G"TE0 MASS Sag
.ee grams/*ilo«« tup.
l.»8 G*t|_i)",f- 1HE
U.OU S«A»S/«IL "f i ->E
CAWBUN BALANCE FUEL COHSufPl Iut. s li.si ; ; S Pf * hun.i^Lu *1L0«EI»E5
IOIAl C*S fi«« * id".li Slu. CU. -I -
-------
lAtlLF K- 37
UNIT MU,
vtHICLt HOOF(.
IESI NO. 1
OLOS GAS CillLtSS
B*ROMF1E« 71?.*!. mm Of HG,
o«» «m.fl 22.2 oeg, c
REL. MUMIOIt» 3? I'd.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT Out r EMISSIONS TEST
FTP Cold OATF. 1/3/?? MFGR. CODE -0
ENf.lNE *.2b LITRE 8 CURB 181* KG
MET BULB TEMP 12.8 OEG. C
ABS. MUMlOITr S.i GRAMS/KG
KB.
GVM
1*??
0 KG
EXMAUSt EMISSIONS
HLiMER OIF. PRESS., b«7.7 MM, HJO
PAG MtSULIS
s«G no.
BLO»t« EVOLUTIONS
BLOKEfi INLE1 PRESS., HI b*7.7 HH. H20
blower inlet temp. »u oec. c
PI
I
mC
SAMPLE
M[ Tt H
RtAOINU/SCALE
MC
SakPLE
PPK
ML
H*C*6><0
METER
REaOING/SHAlE
hC
ti»C*G"U
PPM
CO
SAMPLt
METER
READING/SCALE
cu
SamPlE
PPM
cu
»AC*GRO
MEIER
REAOlNb/SCALi
Cl.'
«AC«G«0
PPM
cw
SAMPLE
MtTEN
Rk AO ING/SCA|,£
CW
SaiPlE
PEKCENT
CO?
bAC<\G«D
METER
RbAOING/SCALE
CO?
«Ac*a«o
PERCENT
MUX
SAMPtt
MF II M
wf aIUNG/SCAlE
NO*
sample
PPM
NUX
BaCKGRO
METER
READING/SCALE
NO*
(JACRUHO
PPM
S02
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
SO?
Sample
PPM
so?
HACKG>)0
METER
REA01nG/SCalE
so?
UACKGRU
PPM
I
*0827
10.3/3
103
10.8/2
II
83.0/*
38b
. 7/ •
2
St.5/3
'l.Sb
3.*/3
.05
75,0/2
75.0
.1/?
, *
•0.0/*
-0.0
-0.0/*
-0.0
2
b 7 7 31
lb.3/?
lb
1 ,*/3
1*
*.?/*
*
.8/*
2
5*,«/3
.lb
3.1/3
.US
l*.0/2
l'.n
.5/2
.5
-0,0/*
-0.0
-0.C1/*
-0.0
3
*0827
10.3/3
103
10,8/2
11
83.0/*
38b
.7/*
2
8*.5/3
l.Sb
3.1/3
.05
75,0/2
7S.0
.¦»/2
-0.0/«
-0.0
-0.0/*
-0.0
Ht
CONCENIRaTION PPM
13
3
t3
CO
CllsCSNTrfAT ION PPM
3bS
2
3b8
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCI
1.52
."*1
1.52
NO*
CONCe«TNATION PPM
71.b
13.5
7*.b
so?
CONCENTRATION PPM
0.0
0.0
0.0
MC
MASS GRAMS
.25
* . 1 *
CO
MASS grams
33.35
.27
33.35
CO?
mass grams
21b«.9s
21b5.02
21b^.9S
NO*
mass GRAmS
<1.**
2.81
502
mass GRAMS
o.oo
0.00
0.00
fccIGHTfU MASS HC
•EIGMIEG MASS CO
KciCMlEC MASS CO?
*£1G1TE0 MASS NO*
wEIGIIEd MASS S02
.37 GW»"S/KlLDMt TWE
2.71 GKAkS/KIlOME fRE
353.23 GRAMS/K1L0MEIRE
1.02 GWAMS/KILOMFIRE
O.OU G«AMS/nILO«ETRE
-------
table E-}B
UNIT MO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST Nit. 3
Olds gas cutlass
BAROMETER ?»?.SS mm of HG.
ORT tfULB ?3.J UEG. c
RtL. HUMIOITf 3U PCI.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
it?S LIGHT OUT* EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 1/ 3/7? HFGR, CODE -0
ENGINE '.?b LITRE 8 CURB XT. 181* KG
Kit BULB TEMP 13.J OEG. C
ABS, MUMIOIT* S.S GRAMS/*C.
*H. 1«?
GVM 0
Exhaost fMissinMs
RLOwfR OIF. fWES.*..
SAG MtSOLTS
B*G NO.
BLOmER REVOLUTIONS
M
u>
VO
r,?( h»J. > MM. M?0
MC
MC
HC
MC
CO
CO
Cu
CO
CO?
CO?
CO*
CO?
NO*
NO*
NO*
NUX
SO?
sue
SO?
502
SAMPLE
SAMPLt
ME UK RKAiUNG/SCALE
PPM
UACKGMO meter READING/SCALE
RACKGMD PM
Sample
SAC.PLt
MEIER REaDINWSCAlE
PPM
HACKGKO METER READING/SCALE
QAChGkO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRO METFR REAOINU/SCALE
8ACKGR0 PERCENT
mETE« RE ad IMG/SC ALE
5»".PLE
SAMPLE
PPM
BACKGHO MfcTER READING/SCALE
8ACKUH0 PPM
sample
sample
MEIER RE«OlNG/SCALE
PPM
HACKGRO METER REAOING/SCALE
BacrGRO PPM
1
H tit. I 7
J»
10.*/?
10
b8.0/«
bb
1.*/#
1
7».l/3
1.3S
3.1/3
.OS
*7,3/?
*'.3
.S/?
.5
-0.0/*
-0.0
-0.0/*
-0,0
BLUWER INLET PRESS.
BLO*£R INLET TEMP.
?
b<)faS1
ib.b/?
17
10.1/2
10
8.?/»
8
l.S/«
?
5*.8/3
.*b
3.1/3
.05
13,3/*
13,1
.S/?
.5
-0.0/«
-0.0
-0.0/«
-0,0
3
*Obl?
3'.'/?
3»
10.*/?
10
b8.0/«
bb
1,*/*
1
?*.l/3
1.3$
3.3/3
.OS
*J.3/2
17.3
»S/2
.5
-0.0/*
-0.0
-0.0/»
-0.0
G1 b*?.7 MM. m?0
37 OEG. C
MC
Cui.'CEnIRaTION PPM
?s
7
? s
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
b?
b
b?
CU?
CONCENTRATION PCT
1.30
1.30
NO*
CONCENTRATION PPM
*b,*
12.8
*b,<«
SO?
CONCENTRATION PPM
0.0
0.0
0.0
HC
MASS GRAMS
1.1?
• 5b
1.1?
CO
MASS GRAMS
S.b5
. «»3
S.bS
cu?
MASS GRAMS
ISbS.ib
??*>.<»?
18b&.lb
wo*
MASS GRAMS
S.«»S
?.?<<
5.<15
SO?
MASS grams
0.00
o.oo
0.00
MEIGMTEO MASS MC
xEIGmTEO MASS CO
NEIGMTEO M«SS CO?
kEIGhTRO MASS NO*
WEIGHTED MASS SO?
.1* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.Si GRAMS/KIlOMETRE
3*0.** GRAkS/KIlOMEIRE
.?? GRAMS/RILOMEIRI
O.OU GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CAR#On balance FUEL CONSUMPUUN S 11.S* LITRES per HONORED KILOMETRES
total Cvs Flu» = ?«q.o sru, cu. metres
-------
Ofr-a
in 7. o o I
O O O O f~1
'VJ X f\J
c.--
c-
(. >
(.>
0
j.
4.-
j>
t«
t»
j»
>
>
/:
i
:<
:»
0
CO
in
cn
v»
r-
\
\
\
\
X
r>
*
;*•
C")
O C>
X X Xj T3 X>
> > > > >
J 1 3 ^ 3
C/> cy> C/> c/»
* >
0 c o o o
1 :* -C 2 z
to x.
f~i O T Cn Z o O
o o n o o o o
nj nj x ^
iz i- ^ z n o n o r> n n
nocooooooooo
x, x x xrv»forU'V»
.t :r. :* j: 'i n n n n
>>>>>ocoo
W Cn W (/) w n 7 z r
t/>cncncnt/>rnnnn
Z m (Ti rn
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ -h jr r 2
CT C- (7> G "; z; —i —: —¦
X. Xj XI X X
O (X
c >
z n
o
m x? x x u
a" C/> cn j: d (/> oi o; j yi
>>>>>>>>>>
n t :: n n t: i n n .t
* X) X? .* ^ ti d * ^ u
o r r c,") o r r c q r
3, T' rn t 1. m rr> j; xj rn
O OO o Cj
03 i n t
O ri o o o
u) a a co co rn
>>>*»> c/>
rt n n ^ * c.
XI 31 * XI X l~
f~ C~J C) l~ l~ —1
r» z x n» n- c/>
Z
O
2
0
"U
m
X)
c.
t>
3»
-T)
O
D
D
D
T>
Tl
—i
»—4
0
—i
r-
r-
-<
r-
r-
r~
c
f—.
<.
rr-
m
O
CJ
Z
O
O
c
»
a.
n-1
f-
2
i
O
X
2
j
c.
m
rn
rn
n
rr
2
r-
x:
T)
Xt
rn
*¦
J)
12
T:
%
J3
•s.
0
X.
<
C
t—
>
•
- <
O
VJ
UJ
c
rr
0
~—
7
-H
rr
—<
VJ
\
•
<
r-
-p
r~
•—4
.t
VJ
O
c
•
rr
c
'C
c
VJ
0
1—
-H
—
1/1
r—
•Y'
m
m
m
rn
i*
>
>
t>
t>
>
>
>
>
X)
2 XJ
.c
XJ
.c
XI
jC
XJ
XJ
X t;
t;
I
—1
O -<
XI
0
*
c/>
c" ¦»! "n
¦*'
•n
—i
—<
—i
-*
—H
J
7Z
-X
It
t~4
—i
—H
-4
x:
rr,
rn
rn
ni
n
'^1
XI
rri
XJ
r** x
r»*
XJ
rn
s
? r-
X'
X"
(¦
M' •'.. c.
c
C.".
c.
u
j:
Xj
X)
Jt
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
O
HI
l~4
»—«
-< .<•
—i
XJ
—H
X)
—4
s
—i
2
-H . £
—H
c
—i
X)
cr .1
TTi
i"n
Ci
(.">
J— -»•>
rn
rn
m
n\
m
rn
ni
m
w
v_/
v^
v^
2"
O
O
O
c
rr
m
0
r^i
0
n*.
¦n
."n
fT>
m
•"*1
s
u
cn
r- f-
r"
1—
r
T3
?
r
z
z
XJ
Xj
m
7.
X)
m
u
0
X
J.-
X)
<.
cn
•
co
u.
t>
in
ri
X'
U
T>
V
T3
X
XJ
—i
-c
—i
V
X'
u
T?
0
\
n
x •
C I* J" 1/' • o
-< X- u, (T *
v> ^ o r> x
^ "i ^ 1
i X) O TI XJ
J —1 3 3
Z
CI
O O (
x ru
•7> C"> C» r» > t» >
3 3
CO C©
•i. r j
r\, »— ~— * <• H,
r\. — \j m l
"j U ID ^ ' • •
«r> uj t x \j ->j nj
ru
ai
o <¦ r. z
m .* _s »—
c; — 'j. -
ji m '*1 -.
< en -« 7.
X -*
z —
2
c J.
*
Z S_ Z
C 3
Z Zi
o
jt
•— to ~—
ocoirtriMOJiH tnto ~-to
• 1 « • 1 • lU 1 -<:-£¦ Ixl • t-H
a r tu -f ~ o < an - • • • • a • 1r\ •
c >— >— vj »— **
Ixl
2 T) t~ % I mi:
m c o
O 2 o -f •
7 uu
C
m ru
1- a-
o
• "0
o n
o
-------
Tfr-3
n u%
t> o
% "V
a
e
7 X
»
31 A
f %
» »
* C»
n
p c
z o n x
o o o r%
0 .T C*. «*
» X S X)
» X» » fr
1 i i x
o o c ©
Tl T> T» Y»
H T» ^ 1)
c c c
r r r r~
O 3 UJ
• • ~» »» •
I W IT » xJ
r IT Oj CD
(flinm
o o o o o
ru K 'U
c> n fi o p
« « S 9 £
» » » fr fr
X 2 2 i X
o» W d v» w
\ \ \ \ s
* * A X *
It
i- w z nn i
0 o o O © o
• ry M
U/
is P O P O O
1.9 VII
r o o » > »
»- J J 1 3 X
-« V) U> (AU) CO
t N S N N \
"* t T J J I
Z Z Z £ Z.
T)
m
o •»*
1 * < w •
c o © *- • o
Z Q fU U »• OD
©
X
05 2
C C'
Oj K
o o
c o
f>J
Iwznnj
o o o o o o
x fVi
o o o o ©
* 2 2 * X
n pi m
H >4 <4 •< -«
JU I i 2) b
XX XX X O <
t> » » » » o<
tn n
(/)(/)(/>(/> m rt i
Zl
r r ^ ^ ^ a
o o
X x
c> c
X> X
2 2 7 /nnnnnnnnj j j
oooooooccoooooo
M KM M rb ru (\i
»»»»»»»»»>»»»»»
n n j xrrn j xnn ji x o n x
* T)
ror-ronrrc^orr-c-. c r
i if* ft« i. in-'t t J nifT> * t jt-
« © © « « ^ <-
» » » > » ^
© ©
c c
x *
o o
2)
(/) r
»
f*"- (T| w w W W
c c
A «r
o o o o
© O C ©
7 2 7 7
nnnr.
f*» pi m pi
/ 7 / 7 -
C. *, -i -«-« — © O
* » x x r x
TXOX^XVXtXVlt2^ :
tffl ®n»nir'>n»fT t *
X «* X -« X -4 X -» C -« I ^ I -« .X H
f ffl fl P| o ffl ffl p» pi
S ^ P> m Z3 £ b x %
2 7
9 X ^ X -• X t I c *.
fT| m pj f n pt ffi »• t«
©ooooocc.
22ZZ2277
ci ci c> c c c z c
N N \ \ N \ N N
nnnnnnnn
x «
(P o
W 2
T>
X
© © o o
7 7 7 2
T) "V V V
"V n x x
X <-4 x x
»—
n
o
Of
9"
K>
o
a*
H"
•
•
•
•
•
•
>i
•
o
.0
3
•
m
o
a)
0*
M
S
V
V
V
X
V
X
V
M
IM
(V
ru
•
•
ru
- c
& *
n x.
C t"
• «.
o
o r
t c
X •—
*< •
f+s .*
9 99 9 C
«< #- r r c
ZOOC2
c a x a
P»P»PIC
S I £ £C
V (A if
•(/!(/>
r
©
x
(A « O I o
t PI I) »
• » ¦• r
C X
i r -
w ® *- *
: «
• 4 i; ^ w
p- - %j v
^ U/ 4 4 ••
fV 7 IT M v fb
•- 9 OS « • •
3 T i/l ^ >t V >i
: t
x
C X 2 X
hi x x *•
o • x
• c
3 X «H
n 'w pi
© G On
*. f
to
<
a c — '
> ippi'
* -* Ui •
C -* I
» ®
C 9
f x
SJ 1 •
<#
Oj -I
« pi rv
X 2 3
T *
2 «~
2
fU *
<# O
X •
o
J JO CI "> n
n m < z pi
*» r * cj (a
co • w H
C 2
» X Pi 2
pt c e
© x © * •
• •
T> 7 Ul
c c*.
pi a> c
r gs
pi (/*
I O
C 7
X tft
w
pi
2
* ¦
P
X
T)
Z
-------
TABLE E-41. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1976 VW DIESEL RABBIT
(TRANSIENT CYCLES)
Test Emission Rate, g/km Fuel Cons.
Cycle Date No. HC CO NOv &/100 km
1975 FTP 12/20/76 1 0.23 0.51 0.58 5.44
12/21/76 2 0.23 0.48 0.52 5.59
12/22/76 3 0.24 0.49 0.53 5.50
Average 0.23 0.49 0.54 5.51
(0.37) (0.79) (0.87)
FTPC
FTPh
12/20/76
1
0. 38
0.59
0.57
5.22
12/21/76
2
0.36
0.54
0.52
5.87
12/22/76
3
0.40
0.57
0.53
5.79
Average
0.38
0.57
0.54
5.63
(0.61)
(0.92)
(0.87)
12/20/76
1
0.13
0.45
0.58
5.41
12/21/76
2
0.15
0.43
0.52
5.19
12/22/76
3
0.10
0.43
0.54
5.16
Average
0.13
0.44
0.55
5.25
(0.21)
(0.71)
(0.89)
SET
12/20/76
1
0.11
0. 35
0. 55
4.52
12/21/76
2
0.08
0.34
0.48
4.50
12/22/76
3
0.08
0. 34
0.48
4.50
Average
0.09
0.34
0.50
4.51
(0.15)
(0.55)
(0.81)
FET
12/20/76
1
0.09
0.32
0.54
4.43
12/21/76
2
0.08
0.32
0.51
4.41
12/22/76
3
0.06
0.30
0.52
4. 32
Average
0.08
0.31
0.52
4.39
(0.13)
(0.50)
(0.84)
( ) Values in parentheses are in grams/mile
Fuel Econ.
MP9
43. 3
42.1
42.8
42.7
45.1
40.1
40.6
41.9
43.5
45.3
45.6
44.8
52.1
52.3
52.3
52.2
53.1
53.4
54.5
53.7
E-42
-------
ArtLE '¦
IT . tit EST so.
.tht, - - v« : IEsE. wahhT
TtST 17b318S711
A «* 7% . I
• E ~ I Cl E EMISSI .N
111 S31ONS 1ES1
OATE 1?'? '•
ENGINE !.»¦ LITRE * CTL.
COMHfNlS «>5 FTP i tJAG COLD
ESUITS
MFGR. CODE -0
TEST XT. 1030 KG
r«. i«)?b
kOAD LOAD S.t Kk>
flAP-flfW 718.7S H- OF HG.
OhY iiiLi T£Mp. ?1.7 OEG. C
REl. "UMI I) I T T 21 PCT.
exhaust emissions
RlOmER OIF. PMESS. , G2, 301.8 HH, M?(J
he r bulb te*p
AdS. MUMIOITY
10.b DEG. C
3.3 MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOHER INLET PRESS., G1 2bl.b MM.
«lo»er inlet tehp. ho oec. c
n2U
P3
I
u>
B»G RESULTS
BAG NO.
RLOmER REVOLUTIONS
HC
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
HC
SAMPLE
PPh
HC
BAC*G«D
METER
REAOINti/SCALE
HC
BAC«GRO
PPM
ru
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
CO
3AC«GRD
METER
READING.SCALE
co
P.acrGRO
PPM
CO?
SAMPLE
METER
REAOING/SCALE
C02
3AHPLE
PERCENT
CO?
BACNGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
CO?
BACKGRD
PERCEi
MT
mOX
SAMPLE
meter
READING/SCALE
NOX
SAMPLE
PPM
NO x
flACKGRO
me TER
READING/SCALE
NOX
6ACKGR0
PPM
7515
S.t/*
i?»
1.5/3
b
fab.*/*
.*•/•
1
H2.1/3
.72
I . "/ 3
.03
3b.0/2
3b.fl
.5/2
.5
2
le^on
"f.8/3
1 .«»/3
R
28.b/«
2?
.5/*
U
3S.5/3
.58
3.1/3
.05
25.2/2
25.2
.H/2
3
7511
?.b/3
30
1.3/3
5
H3.8/«
»1
. 7/«
X
HS.3/3
.85
2.8/3
.0*
37.2/2
37.2
.5/2
.5
HC
CONCENTRATION PPH
UK
12
2b
Cl!
CONCENTRATION PPm
t<2
2b
*0
I 0?
CONCENTRATION PCT
.b<«
.53
.01
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPm
3b. 3
2».8
3b. 7
HC
MASS GRamS
3.W*
. b 7
.8«f
CO
mass grams
4. 1H
2.SH
2 . b 2
CU2
MASS GRams
72» . S"»
S5b.8b
852.b3
NOX
MASS GRAMS
3. 1«»
3.7»
3.22
r«C
mass mg
3. P*
. b 7
.8«f
KtlGHTEO «*SS
»fcIGnTEO MASS
WEIGHTED HAS8
mE IGnTEO "ASS
HC .23
CO .51
CO2 1*5.39
NOX .5*
GHAhS/KILOMEIPF
i;t
-------
v £I c i» * t «I 3 b 11 • n '•< E S 'J T s
:<;;% ¦¦ • •"ISSlysS 'EST
\. .
• - V
*• U • i
ffG». CODE -U
Ik. l°?b
. - °
•'' . «' " J I * " : ..
- a r ** I T
£ N J I *.; i . - - l
:;»t » c*l. i
EST *T. 1020
Kli t< 0 a D L 0*^
1 7 - 3 1 W ^ ? 1 •
CLi-wrv.Ti:
r T P 1 3 u C G L v UlE'O
OSCE
r 7 * •«
SS.7Q »•- •>' -
«£ I d'JLb TE^P lfJ. b
DEG. C
• - L "
ri. ? .;£
* . C
A3S.
humIOITY 3.3
MILL IGRAMS/KG
--Mi
^:tt ?: -"i\
.
S * £
-:ss;c%s
3L 0"Efi
INLET PRESS..
G1 2 b1•b MM. H 2 0
" • <*
j:?.
'•.* ? / ?' - u . *
s L 0 is E S
InlET TErP.
*0 DE.G. C
- : ; " S
^ i t*
i
S
3
*L'i-
r • £ V 0 L u T i V. C-
?s i s
12 "OP
7515
-'C
.S •'• *'¦ "¦ L £ w £ T r ¦*
¦*: - V I \ o / S C a l £
a . / b
*.?/3
S.^/b
$ A - ~ _ £ 3k-
; ?•*
1 1
12H
" t " i ^
*'£aC'I,«',-»/SCA^£
1 .s/ 3
1 .°/3
1.5/3
ri A C « S~ 3 pa-
n
5
b
c '•
S a * ^ l £ M£Ti-r
5£ajI-.G/SCAl£
h h . ¦* ^ •
2 R . i / »
bb. ¦~/•
c -•
SAMPL£ p^-
*
2'
b"
To
n A C F> G ¦* J ^ E T r. *>
3c ADI%t*/SCALt
. r> / *
.^/»
. b/o
r.:<
SAC«G*3
1
:>
1
CO?
S a * ? l £ *£T£*
9EaDI^^/SCal£
*2.1/3
3 * . 5 / 3
*2.1/3
Cu?
S A K P l £ Pt^Ct'
T
. '?
.5?
.?2
CO?
3*C^G^i/ k £ T £ k
RP. adInG/SC^lE
1 . s / 3
3.1/3
1.8/3
cu?
nAQ*G*D piuC£sT
. P 3
. 13 b
.03
MO*
S A K.PL £ H£ T -. •*
P£adIni»/SCAlE
3b.H/8
25.2/2
3b.8/2
sux
SAKPlE
jb . ¦*
25.2
3b. 8
~;G*
ftiCKGwD HETE^
^ £ AD I^^/SCalE
.5/8
• */2
.5/2
~; j *
B a C ^ G 3 D P ? "
. S
."»
.5
^•-*
C -'*CE n ' 3 a T I
1 1 5
18
113
C':
C[,.%CE s T k a T ! On
PP v
be
?b
b 2
CO?
CONCENTRATION
PCT
. S*
.53
.b«
k;-J *
CGnCEnTjatIOn
3PM
3b. 3
a-*. 0
3b. 3
~c
-ASS G»AHS
3 . -9
.b?
3.89
r l-
MaS3 GSAnS
» . 1 H
s.1»
* . 1 *
r ?
-ASS GKii£
JJv.m
ISb.85
72*.5*
s 0 *
a S S G* * *$
3 . '• 5
3. '*
3.1°
M c
MASS MG
3.qi
.b?
3.89
S. * K>
:IGhT£0 ~'ASS hC
::g-teo mass cc
::g^t£o i*ss co£
.:WED haSS NC<
,3B GRAmS/KILO*ETP?
."5^ G3 amS/K I lCE T ^ E
1 3^.33 Gf*.',.5/ a w i ^ C E f L1 E L C ^'* S J w p ^ I u *•
' ' 11 _ L V S * L 0 * — 2 i 2 . n S 7 J . C'-
S.2 2 L;T:;,Ei 3;_ * ^LADREU KILOMET»h3
-------
* -
- * \
*-~f i
? / J " / 7 h
-'•*
" " : " *
: :
- = : T
t *•'' I
• * c
~ ~ m
• ; „ 3 • - i
7 ; .
C 1'
• 5 i 3 ? i
'm * • £
3 4 «i # T5 »¦
' t
¦ L-
7 £ ^
^ « ™
" •,
• V •
- - ^ '
•
5* -
" ! 5 S T '' "
** U '' s
r - ^: - . -
-="* = •
» " r
, ) « ? <4 V V #
¦;
= : c; - <
" •.
' m » ^
- - ^
1
mi
--
^ 1 " •* '
•• : - t ^
- = •
• | ','•,/ 5!*
">.<•/j
S i -
-
.4^1 2 "
t ; -
-' :.
" i *. r-7 s r - -f
i . it 5
« i ^ ^ ^
- - ..
C"
S • V r . '
•'r T ; v
-r -
i * * r*' ""w*
i • v - C
?3 '
» 1
C~.
- i:- -3 '
•'?•!¦.¦
- r -
* i *. r»/ sr -1.:
. '/~
r
^ 0 V
1
Z~<>
~ i •'y ¦_ '"
•' ~ " I ~
2S 1
") i * ^ r* / s c -«.:.
-=>.3/3
C V
5 i v - <_ z
•.;
: c.
r ?
- i r < *
•*r *r;
- ? -
" ; '*r« ' S' ?
?. = /3
c r ?
;:r«;,s
T
. f'"»
»
5 A
VP T fc C
i*C *
.~!\r./?CA l:
37.2/?
\ ~ *
> i v L.f
3'.?
l-C"
¦iiC^-2 ¦
vf T (
SF i
"*• I ^ f- / 5 C » L ?
.5/?
K* t
¦j> r *
, c.
M -
r r; * r » • T «
• T •
^ u V
2h
c r-
C' • Cr'' T a
.*. * •
m Z <
r ¦_* •>
Ct^-1 'y
•T|u
:m
.?!
u *
C ~''Z *' *y
.
?:v
3b.'
•' t <; <; c - a
. B 3
cc
"i5;. r.si
V c
^. t-r
Cr<»
v i ^ r.~t
V ?
3 -i . 7 ?
» ^ s
M & S S ~ ~ i
V c
?.?C1
"i?s
.93
* i * *»
M * J V » 5, Q
,13 r, n a v s / *•
I j. G••'L7»e.
> e :
- U r v A s .s
r r-
,nci r, d a 5 / k I L 0 • •' t T G t
'¦ f i r.
h7 c 7 •' .• - <;
?
i *
~ coavc/a
I:. O'-'c ''- r.
rs : ! r.
«• T f »> • • S C
1
.SO
I L 0 *•' r * " F
? ' •
Z 7
s
.Mrrir.».- = s
"i :.:':
r q z; ? w
* A _
^ ^ c •.
=
' r. ^
S T ^ • C' v'
T -: 5
" ILL IGWA^S/KG
RLOfcR INLfcT S-fSS.
?LC»• E u I NLt T TE'-'P.
r. i
* 2
?bK, 7 ¦<>*,
IJEG, C
h?0
i
J
'511
» . ~>/3
' . b / 3
1"
3H
1,3/3
i . J/3
S
S7,"/»
»3.B/.
?h
•*1
. '/•
. '/*
1
1
3P.S/3
. 3/3
.5*
.«5
?.t-/3
?.P/3
.0»
.0*
?5. 3/2
3'.2/?
^5.3
3'.2
.»/?
.»
1*
»r
.5P
.HI
2» . f
3b,'
\J
TO
,fli
2 . 5P
?. KT
^ . e b
auc.'d
3.?»
3 , ? 0
. 'P
.93
I LOMf 1 3f. S
-------
T ABLE » ->A.9I f " I S S ; . '<'• f *QM SINCLf SAMPLE
.t«lCi-F NUMB£K
0«TE ^^/^0/?b
h ' El l"b «"
OT
«CT o TE*P
SPFC. hum. 5,
I IHfc -II HWS.
• I«S£L »AO«tJ>EJ-7
I ESI -1. jn?o nr.,
11 . -Rt HULh TEmh i« C
i <;«&-/- o»»r. y»«.H mm hg.
TEST NO.
ENGINE l.S lJT«E h CYL.
GVn U «G
HEL. hum. 39.q PC T
MEASURED PuEl u.un KG
Miltv.t 51.738 ¦'
fuel r»7.i g/litpe fuel mc ««tjo i.s-.*
O N t/OHA'ION S3.16 MINUTES
RlO"ER InlET PRESS. Sfel.b mm. MJO
»L0*ER OIF. PfcE SS. 30*. P mm h?0
SLO-E* INLET TtMR. «. OEG. C
Dt'-l REVOLUTIONS 31bS»
HL<"tR REV0LUT1'. 2f>7bs
»lOnE» Cu. Cm /HE'. 8»3P
f»A& htSULTS
*C
SAHPLE
Mtim RE AO INWSCALE
7.5/3
MC
SAMPLE
PPM
3n
MC
HAC*G<40
MfcT-x "t»9InG/SCalE
1.1/9
"C
SACKGmO
PPM
H
C<»
sample
METER REaO!m>/SCALE
•~7.1/*
CO
sample
PPM
>» >~
CO
BACKG«o
METER REaDInG/SCalE
.5/«
CO
BAC«G*D
PPM
n
CO?
Sample
MfcTfcH WEAOlNU/SCALE
5».b/3
co?
Sample
PERCENT
• <»h
co?
bac*g«o
meTE" READING/SCALE
2.7/3
cos
flAC*GRO
PERCENT
.U»
NU*
Sample
ME IE* REAOING/SCALE
*7.h/?
NO*
sample
PPM
•»7.b
NO*
Bac*GRo
METER READING/SCALE
. /?
NO X
0aCkG«O
PPM
.b
«C
CONCENTRATION PPM
?b
Ci
CONCEnTRaT JON PPM
* 3
CO?
CONCENTRaIION PCT
.<»?
NO*
CONCENTRATION ppm
H7.0
so?
COCENIHATION ppm
n.ti
MC
MASS (GRamS;
?. 33
CO
MASS (GAa"S)
7.b<»
CO?
MASS (GRAMS;
?fc?l.?fi
NO*
MASS (GRAMS)
11.85
so?
MASS (6RAMS)
o.on
MC 6RAM3/KIL0*E TRE .11
CO GPAHS/KILOmE TRE .35
CO? CPAnS/KILOMETOE 1S1
NO* GRAMS/KILOMETRE .55
sn? GRahS/*1LOmETRE U.no
mc G»amS/*G °p f'utL ?.7s
Co 6oahs/«g op * >l <«.?
COS ..RamS/iG op f -L 31S
no* gwamS/kG OF (¦ El l».?»
S ? •J » m S / « G of '
-(C GRAMS/*In
ry r;sAMS/Mjs .9
CU«» I.PAMS/' !'• 119
r»Ox 1.0AMS/T .51
S0<> G«»"S/M'* i.o
CAP- n BALANCE f~- >. ••S "• 'I ¦ s ».5? LlT'fcS PfJ HjNppt KI ME ' • t S
-------
T
, ;
w-r b
Si'P.-
S»».. - •
-:f T» if
• >- •
*l - .
• - . )•.
t ; • r * t * ' ' 1.
¦ u(r |,5 lll'i » CVL.
US* 10* 0 *G
"-•> a .• Iff .S
w M^r*
* ' * *
- "wC f» -•
*• >•
¦ e». c
* * * «•
• 3* . * * * *
1 l o»
- ' . w *<* • .
i> • g -i
fc \ . 4. t K ' C
—
t"' cr * * w
"f tnJ' C./SC tkc
P. 1/ ?
-
- a *- t •>- *•
H
.. ;d* *:
4-1 .-.
/SC4^t
•< "
•ftC* •="* ap'*
i
3d ,a-r vc'ta
«?» ;• -
/SC »L»
S7.P/.
r
%A**Q^b PP»»
- 6 r * o "(tii;
-J f " r./S""£'_*
. ?/•
c
^&C«(iO' apM
Q
c ?
94^C>l.F •£**«
tfr t* r./5C4i.F
??.0/1
c ?
SA"°Lh PF.cCt
T
J.3U
rn?
»* 5 ~" w * 0 ^ 'F *FU
-•P. 4 '!• '
/ST4..t
l.o/l
: e
* a C * "•0 etPfE*
T
. »
S * f
Sflvo^p vfxrw
«4or-.
^SC4ut
oH.*/?
\ " *
S 4 M ° L P pom
b9.»
' f
: "P Tf «
=£4-i\r./sc«w'.
.b/?
' t
* .r * ;o"» po"
. *
£ 4 ^ 1 * * ' *«
-n
f~
C "*,<"*• T*M* • ,
PF v
c. 5
?
C**rF'.TwaT •
PC'
1 .*S
1
^-.rp.roftTj »,
Op v
K».°
s *
rn^* %TpftT; PPV
0.0
1.*"
c
•4SS rGoe^S
5.1°
C 3
V-4SS r;u4"S
i«sn.»»
-AS* f-3#»S)
b.H?
s *
'4 <;S rHH'"
*
' ' Mp t9f
,na
3A
••<5 /* ', '»i ut
. i?
J T vf *ar
1 1«
1 OA
.S»
i* T
o. no
, •
«/< , f e t _
e.
>¦' GC4<-S/VI
• -
'(«> , ~r .
B."
C Gh4"5/vi
•
• - I
••«¦». ( « - .
' J '.BVS/V
lc
• » -
* - / . , ( c c
« .a»«-s '•¦;
. >
. Ji
i ( :
SI? «(•• ¦•¦••'
„
- •. ¦ . t . r
J r
; • - * . » 1 " ' -
• .
. 1
-------
table E-47 VEHICLE emission results
Xh?5 Lir.HT 0"TY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT nil. J J ; TtST NO. 2
VEHICLE MODEL VW DIESEL RABBIT
TEST TTPE 17b31BR71-»
BAROMfTErt 751.8* MM 0* HG.
DRY flllLH TEhP. 25.0 OEG. C
rel. HUHiuirr iu pct.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
OATE l2/81/7h
ENGINE I.>*8 LITRE >» C YL.
COMMENTS 1975 FTP 3 BAG COLO
MFGR. CODE -0
TEST *T. 102U KG
YR. 19 7b
kOAD LOAD
Sc* K*
m
i
CO
*ET BULB TEMP l".b OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 1.9 MILLIGRAMS/KG
HLUMEfi INLET PRESS., G1 8bb.7 MM. HcfU
••3 OEG. C
PLO«tR OIF. PRESS.,
r,S, 3U-».H MM. HJO
BlOHER
INLET TEMP.
"At;
HESULTS
naG
to.
1
8
3
pLOwt'R REVOLUTIONS
7530
12B87
75*1
HC
SAMPLE
meter
READING/SCALE
3.8/b
7.3/3
B.b/3
HC
SAMPLE
PPM
1S 3
39
3*
HC
BACKGHO
METER
READING/SCALE
3.9/3
H.l/3
1.8/3
HC
BACKGRD
PPM
lb
lb
7
CO
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
b2.*/*
S9.0/*
HS. 7/*
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
Ml
87
*0
CO
BACKGRD
meter
READING/SCALE
1.9/*
8.1/*
1.7/*
CO
BACK5R0
PPM
S
2
8
cos
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
55.1/3
33.H/3
* 7.b/3
cos
SAMPLE
PERCENT
."7
.5b
.M2
cos
dACKGRU
MEIER
READING/SCALE
3.8/3
2.H/3
3.5/3
cos
BACKGRD
PERCENT
.05
.U*
.05
*ox
SAMPLE
meter
READING/SCALE
3*.B/2
2*.0/8
3*.5/2
NOX
sample
PPM
3*.8
2*.It
3*.5
NOX
BACKGRD
meter
READING/SCALE
.7/8
.5/2
.b/2
NUX
BACKGRD
PPM
.7
.5
.b
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
108
13
27
CO
CONCEnTMATIun PPM
57
25
38
CU8
CONCENTRATION PCT
.93
.58
.77
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
3*.8
23.5
33.9
HC
MASS GRAMS
3.55
.75
.89
CO
MASS GRAMS
3.77
2.BO
8.50
C02
MASS GRAMS
9b1.08
931 .bl
BOS.5*
MOX
MASS GRAMS
3.B7
3.39
2.8b
mC
MASS MG
3.55
.75
.R9
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
mEIGHTEO mass
HC .83
CO . " 8
COS 119.50
NO* .58
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
6RAM3/KIL0METRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
C&cdON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 5.59 LITRES PER HONORED KILOMETRES
TOTAL IVS FlUH = 810.B STO. CU. METRES
-------
TAMLE
unit no. test no. 2
ViMICLfc "OOEL »« OIESEL RABBIT
TEST TYPE 17b318H71'4
E-<18
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
OATE 13/31/7b
ENGINE 1.*R LITRE H CYL.
COMMENTS )975 FTP 3 BAG COLO
MFGR. CODE -0
TEST HI. 10S0 KG
DIED ONCE
YR. 19 7b
KOAO LOAD
S.H K *
BAROMETER 751. 8* mm OF HG.
DRY WlO TEMP. 25.0 DEG. C
REl. HUMIDITY 10 PCI.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
PLO"ER OIF. PRESS., G3» 30>».8 MM. H20
HET BULB TEMP 10.b UEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 1." MlLLlGRAMS/KG
BLOHER INLET PRESS., G1 3bb.7 MM. H30
BLUHER InLET TEMP. «~ 3 OEG. C
W
I
•c*
vO
SAG
results
RAG
NO.
)
S
3
PLOKER REVOLUTIONS
7530
1SB87
7530
HC
SAMPLE
METER
REAOING/SCALE
3. R/b
7.3/3
3.8/b
HC
SAMPLE
PPM
1S 3
39
1 S 3
HC
BACKGRO
Mt TfR
REAOING/SCaLE
3.9/3
"».l/3
3.9/3
HC
BACKGRO
PPM
lb
lb
lb
ro
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
bS."»/*
39.0/*
bS . "~/ *
CU
SAMPLE
PPM
bO
37
bO
CO
hackgro
METER
REAOING/SCALE
1.9/*
3.1/*
1.9/*
CO
BACKGRO
PPM
S
S
3
CO?
bAMPLE
METER
REAOING/SCALE
SS. 1/3
33.H/3
55.1/3
cos
SAMPLE
PERCENT
.*7
. 5h
."'7
cos
BACKGRO
METER
REAOING/SCALE
3.3/3
S.H/3
3.5/ 3
cos
BACKGRO
PERCENT
.ns
• OH
.05
NOX
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
3H.8/S
s» .n/s
3*.8/3
NOX
sample
PPM
3».»
3*.0
3*.8
NOX
BACKGRO
METER
READIt 'J/ SCALE
.7/3
.s/s
.7/3
NOX
BACKGRO
PPM
. 7
.5
.7
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
1UB
13
108
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM '
57
35
5 7
CO?
CONCENTRA1 ION PCT
.13
.52
.93
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
3*. 3
33.5
3*. 2
HC
MASS GRAMS
3.55
.75
3.55
CO
MASS GRAMS
3.77
3.80
3.77
CO?
MASS GRAMS
9bl.08
931.bl
9bl.08
NOX
MAS9 GRAMS
S.R7
3.39
3.87
HC
MASS MG
3.55
.75
3.55
WEIGHTED MASS
nEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
HflGHTEO MASS
HC .3b
CO .5*
COS lSb.BH
NOX .S3
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
grams/kilometre
GRAMS/KILOHETRF
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CAPHOii BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 5.87 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAl CVS FLO* = 310.7 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TAHLE K-41 VEHICLE EMISSION HESULTS
light duty emissions test
unit »iu. ;;; test nij. 2 oate hfgh. code -0 i*.
VEHICLE HOOF.L V* DIESEL HAHHIT ENUlNF l.»8 LITRE » CYL. TEST WT. 1081) KG kOAD LOAIJ S. * UK
TEST T fME 17h3l8R71'» COMMENTS 1975 FTP ? BAG HOT
BAROMprm 7S1.R* MM ()F hR.
ORY BUL« TEMP. S3.9 OEG.
REL. HUMIDITY 10 "CI.
EXMAIIRT EMISSIONS
ftLOwER CIF. PRESS, t 0?, 3tlH. B mm. H?i)
HEf BULB TEMP 10.0 OEG. C
AttS. HUMIDITY 1.9 MILL IliRAMS/KG
BLUHER IMLET PRESS.r G1 ?bb.7 MM. M?0
blower inlet temp. hb oeg. c
MAG
results
rag
NO.
1
?
3
mlo«er revolutions
7SH 1
1 ?90 3
7S»1
HC
SAMPLE
ME TEW
READING/SCALE
8.5/3
5.7/3
R.5/3
MC
SAMPLE
PPM
3»
? 3
3»
HC
hackc.hd
mf. TER
Rt Al> ING/SC 4 LE
1 .9/3
l.P/3
1.8/3
MC
HACKT.HD
PPM
7
7
7
ro
SAMPLE
METf R
READING/SCALE
H?.?/*
?7.3/«
•»?.7/«
CO
sample
PPM
in
?5
HO
ro
hackgrd
METER
READING/SCALE
1.7/*
1 .b/*
1.7/*
ro
rackgnd
PPM
?
?
e
CO?
S'iPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
»?.b/3
3?.3/3
H7.H/3
CO?
SAMPLE
PERCENT
.R?
.5*
.82
CO?
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
3.5/3
3.»/3
3.S/3
CO?
hackghd
PERCENT
.05
.05
.05
NOX
sample
Mf TER
READING/SCALE
3-1.5/?
? 3.9/?
3* .5/?
NOX
sample
PPM
3*.5
Bi.*
3*.b
NO*
BACKGND
METER
READING/SCALE
.b/?
.b/?
.<>/?
NOX
BACKGHD
PPM
.b
.b
HC
concentraTion
PPM
? 7
lb
? 7
CO
CONCENTRATion
PPM
38
?•~
38
CO?
CONCENTRATION
PCT
.77
• H9
.77
NO*
CONCENTRATION
PPM
33.9
? 3 . 3
33.
HC
MASS GRAMS
• R9
.9n
.89
CO
MASS grams
?.sn
?.b8
? . 50
CO?
MASS GRAMS
80S.5H
870.b"
805.5H
NOX
MASS GRAMS
?.8b
3. 3b
2. 8b
HC
MASS MG
.89
.<*0
.89
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
weighteo mass co?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.IS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.<~3 GR*MS/KILOMETRE
138.90 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.52 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 5.19 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOH = ?11.0 3TD. CU. METRES
-------
TAULfc B-5i t
-------
TArtLE E-51 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLF BAC< SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE l?/?l/7b TIHE -u MRS. TEST NO. 5
MOOEL 197b V* DIESEL K ABB TF E T ENGINE l.S LITHE •» CVL.
OR IVER DT 1F.ST *T. |0«i» KG. GVh 0 KG
»ET »ULH TEMP II C DRY BULB T*mP ?3 C PEL. HUM. 17.b PCT
SPFC. HUM. 3.? GWAM/KG dARO. 7*>>.B mm HG. MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
OISTANCE 1 b • h 7b KM hUEL 8*7.3 G/LI THE FUEL HC WATIO l.8ft
RUN DURATIUN 12.75 MIMITtS
BLOhEK INLET PRESS. ?bb.7 MM. H?0
BLOWEH OIF. PRESS. 30*.8 MM H?0
BLUHfcR INLET TEMP. *j DEG. C
OYNO REVOLUTIONS ?3S3U
BLUWtR REVOLUTIONS 11375
BLOWER CU. CM /RF V. R * * 5
BAG RESULTS
HC
SAMPLE
MF.TEH Rt AU1NG/3CALE
7.R/3
MC
SAMPLE
PPM
31
HC
BACKGkO
MF TEH HEAOING/SCALE
.9/3
MC
HACKGRO
PPM
*
CO
sample
meter REAOING/SCALE
59.1/*
CO
sample
PPM
57
CO
HACKGHD
METER REAOING/SCALE
l.b/«
CO
BACKGHO
PPM
?
COS
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
70 . •>/ 3
COS
SAMPLE
PERCENT
l.?8
CO?
BACKGHO
METER READING/SCALE
3.0/3
CO?
BACKGRD
PERCENT
.05
NOX
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
bf.5/2
NOX
SAMPLE
PPM
bf. 5
NOX
BACKGHO
METER READING/SCALE
.fe/2
NO*
BACKGHO
PPM
.b
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
?R
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
53
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCT
1.23
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
b*.0
so?
COCENTRATION PPM
0.0
HC
MASS (GRAMS)
1.37
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
5.3?
CO?
MASS (SRAMS)
l
-------
1975 LIGHT DU1Y EMISSIONS TEST
unit no. ;;; tf.st no. 3
VEHICLE HUOEL VH DIESEL BABBIT
TEST TYPE 17b318fl7H
BAROMETER 7»b.25 hm OF HG.
dry bulb temp. 22.b oeg. c
PEL. HUM 101 T Y 211 PCT.
EXHAUST emissions
BLOWER OIF. PwESS., G2, 30*.8 MM. H20
DATE 12/22/7b
ENGINE l.*» LITRE » CYL.
COMMENTS 197S FTP 3 BAG COLO
MFGR. COOE -0 YR. 19?b
TEST HT. 1020 KG *OAD LO*t>
5.* KH
HET bulb TEMP 11.1 OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.* HlLLlGRAMS/KG
ULUHER inlet PRESS., G1 2S4.0 HM. H20
BLUhER INLET TEMP. »3 OEG. C
FJ
I
cn
u>
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
RLOmER hevolutigns
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
C02
C02
NO*
NOX
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGH0 PERCENT
sample METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
UACKGKD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
1
7521
1/b
112
2.S/3
10
b8.2/*
bb
2.7/*
3
5*.5/3
.15
2.8/3
.0»
35.3/2
35.3
.5/2
.5
2
1290b
b.n/3
2*
2.5/3
10
28.2/*
2b
1.2/*
1
33.H/3
.5b
2.7/3
.0*
23.2/2
23.2
• »/2
3
7535
7. b/3
30
2.5/3
10
"~1.1/*
39
1.1/*
1
H7.H/3
.82
3.9/3
.Ob
3*.5/2
3* . 5
• */2
hC
CONCENTRATION PPM
123
1*
21
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
b2
25
37
C02
CONCENTRATION PCT
.91
.52
,7b
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
3*.8
22.8
3* . 1
HC
MASS GRAMS
3.99
.80
.b9
CO
MASS GRAMS
*.0R
2. 78
2.»b
C02
MASS GRAMS
9H7.2H
918.90
789.52
NOX
MASS GRAMS
3.03
3.»0
2.97
HC
MASS MG
3.99
.80
,b9
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,2» GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.»9 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1»7.1S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.S3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION s 5.50 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOh s 2119.•» STO. CU. METRES
-------
unit no. ;;; test no. 3
VEHICLE MODEL VH DIESEL RABBIT
TEST TYPE 17b318871H
BAROMFTER 7Hb.2S hm OF HG.
OHY BULB TEMP. 22.8 OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 20 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
TABLE E"53 VEHICLE EMISSION KESULTS
1<»7S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 12/22/7b MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 1. H 8 LITRE H CYL. TEST NT. 1020 KG
COMMENTS 197S FTP 2 SAG COLD DIED ONCE
YR. 197b
KOAD LOAD
5.H Kw
WET BULB TEMP 11.1 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3 • H NlLLlCRAMS/KG
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2, 30H.8 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET PRESS., G1 25H.0 MM. H20
blower inlet temp. hs deg. c
BAG RESULTS
w
I
tn
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
7521
1290b
7S21
HC
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
H.l/b
b.0/3
H.l/b
HC
sample
PPM
132
2H
132
HC
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
2.5/3
2.5/3
2.5/3
HC
BACKGRD
PPM
10
1U
10
CO
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
b8.2/«
28.2/*
b8.2/*
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
bb
2b
bb
CO
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
2.7/*
1.2/*
2.7/*
CO
BACKGRD
PPM
3
1
3
C02
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
5H.5/3
33.H/3
5H.5/3
C02
SAMPLE
PERCENT
.95
.5b
.15
C02
BACKGRD
METER
READInG/SCALE
2.8/3
2.7/3
2.8/3
C02
BACKGRD
PERCENT
• OH
• OH
• OH
NOX
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
35.3/2
23.2/2
3S.3/2
NOX
sample
PPM
35.3
23.2
35.3
NOX
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
.5/2
. H/ 2
.5/2
NOX
BACKGRD
PPM
.5
• H
.5
HC
CONCENTRATION
PPM
123
1H
123
CO
CONCENTRATion
PPM
b2
25
b2
r.02
CONCENTRATION
PCT
.91
.52
.11
NUX
CONCENTRATION
PPM
3H.8
22.8
3H.8
HC
MASS GRAMS
3.99
.an
3.99
CO
MASS GRAMS
H . 08
2. 7B
H.08
C02
MASS GRAMS
SH7.SH
918.90
9H7.2H
NOX
MASS GRAMS
3.03
3.HO
3.03
HC
MASS MG
3.99
. 8 J
3.99
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.HO grams/kilometre
.5? GRAMS/KILOMETRf
15*.b* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.53 GRAMS/KIlOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION s 5.79 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 209.3 3TD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE E-54 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
19 75 Lir.HT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NU. ;i; fESl NO. 3
VEHICLE MODEL VW DIESEL RABBIT
TEST TYPE 17b318871*
BAROMETER 7>»b.25 MM OF HG.
DRY BUlB TEMP. 23.9 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY lb PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G2, 30*.H MH. H20
DATE 12/22/7b
ENGINE l.»8 LITRE « CYL.
COMMENTS 1975 FTP 2 BAG HOT
MFGR. CODE -0 YR. 197b
TEST WT. 1020 KG kOAD LOAD
5.* KW
HE I BULB TEMP 11.1 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.0 MlLLlGVAMS/KG
BLUWER INLET PRESS., G1 2bb.7 MM. H20
BLOhER InlET TEMP. *3 DEG. C
M
I
Ln
tn
BAG kESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
hC
CU
CO
CO
CO
CO?
C02
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
sample
SAMPLE
meter READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE
sample
METFH HEADING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKEND METER READING/SCA|_E
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
1
7535
7 . b/ 3
30
2.5/3
10
»1.9/*
39
1.1/*
1
H7.H/3
.82
3.9/3
.Ob
3*.5/2
3* .5
. */2
2
12918
5.1/3
21
2.8/3
11
27.b/*
2b
1.5/*
1
32.9/3
.55
3 . b / 3
.Ob
2».f/2
2».f
.*/2
3
7535
7.B/3
30
a.5/3
10
*1.9/*
39
1.1/*
1
*7.*/3
.82
3.9/3
.Ob
3*.5/2
3* .5
.»/2
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
21
10
21
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
37
2*
37
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCT
.7b
.*9
.7b
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
3* . 1
2"».0
3».l
HC
MASS GRAMS
. b8
• Sf
. b8
CO
MASS GRAMS
2 . * b
2.b9
2.»b
C02
MASS GRAMS
788.1b
878.35
788.Hb
NOX
MASS GRAMS
2.93
3.53
2.93
HC
HASS MG
. b8
.5*
,b8
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.10 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.*3 grams/kilometre
138.12 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.S* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 5.1b LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 209.3 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE E-55
tXHAUST EMISSIONS F«UM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE l2/22/7b TIME -0 HKS.
MODEL H7b VW DIESEL RABBTSET-7
DRIVER DT fEST HT. 1020 KG.
WET BULB TEMP 12 C ORT BULH 1EMP ?»*
RUN DURATION 23.28 MINUTES
blower inlet press. 2bt.7 mm. h?o
SLOWER DIF. PRESS. 30"».8 MM H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
-------
TABLE E-56 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VtrtlCLE NUMBER
DATE 12/22/7b IIMt -0 HRS.
hODEL 1^7b VH DIESEL RABBUET
DRlvtH OT fF.ST wT. 1020 KG.
HET BULB TEMP 12 C URY BULB TEMP 22 C
SPEC. HUM. H.fl GKAM/KG tJAKU. 7»b.3 MM HG.
DIS1ANCE lb.*76 KM FUEL B»?.3 G/LITRE
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE l.S LITRE » CYL.
GVH U KG
REL. HUM. 28.2 PCT
MEASUREO FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL HC RATIO 1.8»»
RUN DURATION
slower inlet p*ess.
BLOrfER DIF. PRESS.
PLOHER INLET TEMP.
DVNU REVOLUTIONS
BLOMER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REv.
12.7? MINUTES
2bb.7 MM. H20
312.1 MM H£0
*5 OEG. C
23H33
113S7
8*2 3
RAG RESULTS
HC
sample
METER READING/SCALE
8.H/3
HC
SAMPLE
PPM
3*
hC
BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
3.3/3
HC
BACKGRO
PPM
13
CO
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
55.9/*
CO
sample
PPM
53
CO
BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
.fc/*
CO
BACKGRD
PPM
1
C02
sample
meter reading/scale
70.b/3
C02
sample
PERCENT
1.20
CU2
BACKGRD
METER heading/scale
3.H/3
CU2
BACKGRD
PERCENT
.Ob
NOX
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
b3.5/2
NOX
SAMPLE
PPM
b3 . 5
NOX
BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
.5/2
NOX
BACKGRO
PPM
.5
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
2?
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
51
C02
CONCENTRATION PCT
1.22
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
b3 • 0
S02
COCENTRATION PPM
0.0
HC
MASS (GRAMS)
1.05
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
5.02
C02
MASS (GRAMS)
1903.02
NOX
MASS (GRAMS)
8.53
S02
MASS (GRAMS)
0.00
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CO GRAMS/KILOHETRE
CO? GRAH3/KIL0METRE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
SOa GRAMS/KILOMETRE
11:
.Ob
.30
I
.52
0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.7*
co grams/kg of fuel a.3
CO? GHAMS/KG OF FUEL 315*
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL l"».l*
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MlN .H
C02 GRAMS/MIN 14 9
NOX GRAMS/HIN .b7
S02 GRAMS/MIN p.nu
CAPBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPUON s 4.32 LITRES PfcH HUNOREO KILUMETKES
-------
TABLE E-57. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1977 VW RABBIT (GASOLINE)
(TRANSIENT CYCLES)
Test
Emission Rate,
g/km
Fuel Cons.
Fuel Ecc
Cycle
Date
No.
HC
CO
NO*
H/100 km
mpg
1975 FTP 12/29/76
1
0.14
2.01
0.62
9.69
24.28
12/30/76
2
0.14
2.56
0.61
9.47
24.85
1/3/77
3
0.14
2.32
0.65
9.51
24.74
Average
0.14
2.30
0.63
9.56
24.62
(0.23)
(3.70)
(1.01)
Final
Test (RTP)
(0.17)
(2.0 )
(0.84)
21.3
FTPC
12/29/76
1
0.21
3.31
0.68
10.22
23.02
12/30/76
2
0.23
4.15
0.69
10.24
22.98
1/3/77
3
0.09
1.14
0.64
9.27
25.38
Average
0.18
2.87
0.67
9.91
23.79
(0.30)
(4.62)
(1.08)
FTPh
12/29/76
1
0.09
0.98
0.60
8.98
26.20
12/30/76
2
0.08
1.47
0.55
8.90
26.44
1/3/77
3
0.18
3.36
0.65
9.96
23.62
Average
0.12
1.94
0.60
9.60
25.42
(0.19)
(3.12)
(0.96)
SET
12/29/76
1
0.03
0.13
1.02
7.41
31.75
12/30/76
2
0.03
0.29
1.03
7.45
31.58
1/3/77
3
0.02
0.14
0.98
7.42
31.71
Average
0.03
0.19
1.01
7.43
31.68
(0.05)
(0.30)
(1.62)
FET
12/29/76
1
0.03
0.02
1.19
6.43
36.59
12/30/76
2
0.03
0.05
1.24
6.54
35.98
1/3/77
3
0.02
0.02
1.22
6.61
35.60
Average
0.03
0.03
1.22
6.53
36.06
(0.05)
(0.05)
(1.96)
Final
Test (RTP)
34.5
( )
Values in parentheses
are in grams/mile
E-58
-------
UNIT HO. bSi!
VEHICLE "ODEL
TEST M3,
V* CIS RaHBIT
BAROMETER ^.bn mm IF wG.
OB* BULB TE«P, ?s,u OfG. C
REL. HUWJOITV 10 PCT.
TaplF E-58 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
1 75 FTP DATE l?/?q/7b MFGR, CODE
-0
ENGINE l.SQ LITRE >»
CURB »T. set KG
kET BULB TEMP 12.8 OEG . C
ABS. HUMIOITY ».0 GRAMS/KG
VR.
GVH
1977
0 KG
EXHAUST EmISSIOS
SLOPES OIF'. PRESS., G?, Sqq.4 mm, *20
HAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOnER REVOLUTIONS
m
I
cn
to
1
*0b J q
HC
SAMPLF METE"
RE«niNG/SC4LE
55.5/?
18.7/2
HC
Sample PPV
ss
11
HC
BACKGPO MFTF"
READING/SCALE
11.0/?
13.2/2
HC
BACKGPD P°w
11
13
cc
SAMPLF MfTE"
READING/SCALE
80.0/*
b».2/*
CO
SAMPLF PPM
3b3
b2
cn
HACKGRD MF TFR
RE«DING/SC«LE
?.«>/~
2.1/*
CO
BACKGPD PPM
q
b
CO?
Samplf "ETER
beADING/SCALf
5b.2/3
3R.5/3
CO?
SAMPLF PERCENT
,qq
.b7
C02
BACGPO METER
RE«DING/SC*LE
* .0/ 3
».3/3
CO?
backkpo pfrcfnt
.Ob
.07
NO*
SAmplf MfTfp
READING/SC4LE
*7.*/2
13.1/?
NO*
Sample p°"
*7.1
13.1
NO*
backgpo mFtER
REAOINg/SC«LE
.7/2
1.1/2
NO*
BACKCD ppm
.7
1.1
S02
Sample METE®
PE«DING/SC'LE
-0.0/«
-0.0/*
SO?
SAMPLF PPM
• 0.0
-0.0
S02
BACKGRD MgTER
READING/SCALE
-0,0/*
-0.0/*
SO?
BACKGpD ppm
-0.0
•0.0
HC
concentration
PPM
»5
b
CO
concentration
PPM
3*b
SS
C02
concentration
PCT
.93
. bl
NO*
concentration
PPM
»b.8
12.1
S02
concentration
PPM
0.0
0.0
HC
mass gr#ms
2.03
.*8
CO
MASS GR»mS
31.35
B.Sb
CO?
mass grams
1330,87
1*92.30
NO*
MasS CR'MS
5.bR
2.S3
SO?
mass grams
0,00
0.00
BLOWER INLET PRESS./ G1 bOH.S MM, H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »0 OEG. C
2 3
70002 *0708
28,3/2
28
18.0/2
13
50.1/*
»?
5.1/*
5
*7, 7/3
.82
3.1/3
.05
37.0/2
37.0
.8/2
.8
•0,B/»
•0.0
-0.0/*
-0.0
11
12
.78
3b.2
0.0
.51
3.7*
1115.08
».»2
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
*EIGHTE0 mass CO?
WEIGHTED miss NO*
WEIGHTED M«SS SO?
.1* G»4ms/«IL0METRE
2.01 GPAms/KIiOHETRE
223.7b GRAMS/kILOMETRE
,b? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GRA"S/MLOMETRE
CARBON balance FUEL CONSUMPTION s a.bl LITRES PER MUNORED KILOMETRES
TOTAL Cvs FLnw * ?aq.b STp. 'U. "ETRES
-------
UN t T NO. t»« '
VEHICLE MUOEL
IESI NO• 1
\n G»S haHHIT
TABLE B-59 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
IS75 LIGHT OUTV EMISSIONS TEST
FTP Cold DATE l?/29/7b MFGR. COOE -0
ENGINE 1.59 LITHE » CUR8 «T. 88* KG
YR.
GVM
197?
0 KG
SAROMFffw 7"»l.bN
0«T BULrt TE.
RfcL. MONJOITT
HH OF mG.
25.* OEG.
I" PCI.
WET BULB TEMP 18.9 OEG. C
ABS. HUNIOITV ».0 GRAMS/KG
E*HAUJI EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G?, 599.* mm. H?0
BAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOwfcrt REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER INLET PRESS., G1 bOI.5 HH. H20
BLOHEfl inlet TEMP. *0 OEG. C
W
I
o*
o
MC
SAMPLE
Mt TEH
RE ADING/SCAlE
MC
SAfiPLfe
PPH
MC
hACXGHI)
Mt TE"
REAOINo/SCALE
MC
tiACRGHi)
PPM
ro
SAM'Lt
Mt TEH
READING/SCALE
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
Cu
UACkGHO
MtTER
RtAOINU/SCALE
CO
flACKGHl)
PPM
CO?
sample
me tfr
RE ADING/SC*lE
C02
SAMHLt
PtRCtNT
C02
tJACKGNU
METER
RtAOING/SCALE
CO?
HACKGHU
PERCENT
NOX
SAMPLt
METER
READING/SCALE
NO*
SAMPLE
PPM
NO*
BACKGHD
METER
READING/SCALE
NOX
AACKGKD
PPM
so?
SAMPLE
MEIER
re ading/scale
S02
sample
PPM
S02
oackgho
METER
reaoing/scale
SO?
BACKGRO
PPM
1
< (lb 19
55.5/?
55
11.0/2
n
BO. 0/*
Bb 3
2.9/*
9
5b.2/3
.99
».0/3
.Ob
*7.1/2
*?.»
.7/?
.?
~0.U/*
-0.0
-0.0/*
-0.0
?
70002
18.7/2
19
13.2/2
13
b».2/*
b?
2.1/*
b
39.5/3
. b 7
* . 3/ 3
.07
13.1/2
13.1
1.1/2
1.1
-0.0/*
-0.0
-0.0/*
-0.0
3
*0bl9
55.5/2
55
11.0/2
11
80.U/*
3b 3
2 . 9/»
9
5b.2/3
.99
».0/3
.Ob
»7.»/2
. ?/2
.7
-0.0/*
-0.0
-0.0/*
-0.0
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
*5
b
*5
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
3*b
55
3Hb
C02
CONCENTRATION Pf.T
.93
. b 1
.93
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
lb.8
12.1
lb • 8
S02
CONCENTRATION PPM
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mt
MASS GRAMS
2.03
• 18
2.03
CO
MASS GRAMS
31.35
8.5b
31.35
C02
MASS GRAMS
1330.87
1192.30
1330.8?
NOX
MASS GRAMS
S.b9
2.53
S.b9
302
MASS GHAMS
0.00
0.00
0.00
fcClGHTED MASS HC
MEIGhTEU MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
NEIGhTEC MASS NO*
NEIGHTEO haS3 S02
.21 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
3.31 GHAM3/KIL0METRE
233.95 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.b8 GRAhS/KlLUMETRE
0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CrNSUMP TI ON z 10.22 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVT) Fu>« = 2B9.5 STl>. CU. METRES
-------
UNIT NO. b*n
VEHICLE *«OOF.L
TEST NO.
V- GAS RABHIT
PARO«ETER 7*1.bo mm OF HG.
OPT BULB TEmp< ?*.* DEG. C
BEL. HUMIOIT* if PCT.
TABLE F.-60
FTP Hot
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE l?/?9/7b MFGR, CODE -0
ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB WT, 88* KG
MET BULB TEMP i*,» OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY b.2 GRAMS/KG
YR.
GVM
1977
0 KG
PJ
I
CTv
EXHAUST FMISSIONS
plo*er oif; t>
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
RLOwER REvnLU
HC SAmPLF
HC S»"Ple
HC HACKGPD
HC 8ACKGR0
CO Samplf
CO Samplf
CO hackgro
CO BAC"GoO
CO? Samplf
CO? 3AMPLF
CO? PACfGPO
CO? HACKGRO
NO* Samplf
NO* SAMPLE
NO* qtcKRRO
NO* Aac^GpO
SO? Samplf
SO? Samplf
SO? 9AC*GRO
SO? BACKGRO
BESS., G?, b0?.0 mm. HfO
TIONS
MFTER PE«OING/SC«LE
PPM
«ETF.R PE»OINg/SC«LE
PPM
«FTER RE«OINg/SC«LE
PPM
MFTER ®E*01Ng/SC®LE
PPM
MFTER RE«OINg/SC«LE
PERCENT
METER REAOING/SCLE
PERCENT
MFTER PEA0ING/SC«LE
PPM
METER REAOINg/SCALE
PPM
MFTER RE«OING/SC*LE
PPM
METER RE40ING/3C«LE
PPM
BLOWER INLET PRESS.. G1 b0?,0 MM. H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP. *1 OEG, C
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NO* CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC mass grams
CO ma33 GRAMS
CO? MASS GR«MS
NO* Masg r.R«M3
90? mass GR*mS
I
*0708
?8,3/?
?8
18.0/?
18
50,l/«
<~ 7
5.1/*
5
*7.7/3
.8?
3.1/1
.05
37,0/?
37.0
,8/?
.8
-o,o/*
•o.o
-o,o/«
-0.0
II
*?
.78
lb.?
0.0
.SI
3.'7
111*.10
* . 70
0.00
"ElQHTeo mass HC
NEIGHED mass CO
WEIGHTEO mass CO?
WEIGHTED mass NO*
WEIGHTEO mass SO?
.09 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.9f GRAms/kILOMETRE
?08.7? GRAMs/KlLOMETRE
,bO grams/kilometre
0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
?
b9899
?5,*/?
?5
19,0/?
19
58 ,?/*
5b
?,8/«
3
37,1/3
,b?
3,b/3
.Ob
11.9/?
11.«
.b/?
,b
'-0,0/«
•0.0
'0,0/*
-0,0
7
5?
.57
11.3
0,0
.5b
8,07
1*0*.bb
?. 5?
0,00
3
*0708
?8,3/?
?8
18.0/?
18
50.1/*
»7
5,1/*
5
*7,7/3
,8?
3,1/3
,05
37,0/?
17,0
,8/?
,8
-0.0/*
•0,0
-0,0/«
•0.0
11
*?
,78
3b,?
0.0
,51
3.77
Ul*,10
*,70
0,00
CARBON 9AL&NCE fuel CONSUMPTION » B.op LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRE3
total CVS flow s ?R°. 3 STO. CU. MfTcES
-------
TABLE U-61 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE 0AG SAMPLE
VtHICLE NUMBER b50
UATE 12/29/7b
MODEL 1177 VW CAS RABBIT
OR IVER DT
HET HULB 1EHP 1* C
SPEC. HUM. *.q GRAM/KG
UME -0 HRS.
SET-7
I EST NT. 1020 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?b C
BARO. 7*1.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 1. b LITRE "»
GVH 0 KG
REL. HUM. 22.9 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUM DURATION
23.25
minutes
BLOWER 1NL11 PRESS.
599.it
MM. H20
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.
39b.9
MM H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
* 1
DEG. C
pYNO REVOLUTIONS
3095b
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
11225
3
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
223*
BAG K
IE3ULTS
HC
SAMPLE
METER 3EA0
ING/SCALE
2b.2/2
HC
SAMPLt
PPM
2b
MC
BACKGkD
METER RE AO
ING/SCALE
22.0/2
HC
BACHtjKD
PPM
22
CO
SAMPLt
MtTER RE AO
ING/SCALE
1H.1/*
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
13
CO
BACKGRD
METER READ
ING/SCALE
1. 7/»
CO
BACKG^D
PPM
2
CO?
SAMPLt
METER read
ing/scale
Sb.3/3
C02
SAMPLE
PERCENT
.99
C02
BACKGRO
METER READ
ING/SCALE
2. b/3
C02
backgrd
PERCENT
.OH
NOX
SAMPLE
METER RE AO
ING/SCALE
bH.b/2
SOX
SAMPLE
PPM
b"».b
NOX
BACKGRO
METER RE AO
ing/scale
.5/2
NOX
BACKGKD
PPM
.5
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
b
co
CONCENTRATION PPM
11
C02
CONCENTRATION PCT
.95
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
bH.l
S02
COCENTRATIQN PPM
0.0
HC
MASS (GRAMS)
.72
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
2.8b
C02
MASS (GRAMS)
3 7b3 .1)2
NOX
MASS (GRAMS)
22.12
302
MASS (GRAMS)
o.uo
HC
GRAHS/K
ILOMETRE
.03
CO
GRAMS/K
ILOMETRE
.13
C02
GRANS/K
ILOHETRE
173
NOX
GRAMS/K
ILOMETRE
1 .02
SO?
GRAMS/K
ILOMETRE
0.00
HC
gkams/kg
OF
FUEL
.bl
HC
GRAMS/MIN
.03
CO
GRAMS/kG
OF
FUEL
2.»
CO
GRAMS/MlN
. 1
CO?
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
31b*
CO?
GRAMS/MIN
1 b2
NOX
grams/kg
UF
FUEL
18. bO
NOX
GRAMS/MIN
.15
so?
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
0.00
S02
GRAMS/MIN
o.no
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 7.H1 LITP^S PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE E-62 tXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER bSO
DATE l?/?S/7b
MODEL 1S77 VN GAS RABBIT
DRIVER DT
NET BULB TEMP 1<» C
SPF.C. HUM. 5.8 GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HRS.
FET
TEST NT. 10?(J KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?b C
bARO. 7H1.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE l.b LITRE *
GVN 0 KG
REL. HUM. ?7.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
PUN (JURATION l?.7b MINUTES
BLOWER iNLtl PRESS. b0?.0 MM. H?0
BLONER OIF. PRESS. b0?.0 MM M?0
BLONER INLET TEMP. HI DEG. C
DYNO REVOLUTIONS -0
BLONER REVOLUTIONS blS*?
BLONER CU. CM /REV. 2235
BAG RESULTS
HC
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
33.8/3
HC
sample
PPM
3*
HC
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
30.0/?
HC
BACKGRD
PPM
30
CO
sample
METER
REAUING/SCALE
7.7/*
CO
sample
PPM
7
CO
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
5.8/*
CO
backgru
PPM
b
CO?
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
bb.7/3
CO?
sample
PERCENT
l.?0
CO?
bACKGRU
METER
READING/SCALE
3.7/3
CO?
BACKGRD
PERCENT
,0b
NOX
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
3H.0/3
NOX
SAMPLE
PPM
10?.0
NOX
backgnd
METER
READING/SCALE
.?/3
NOX
BACKGRD
PPM
.b
HC
CONCENTRATION
PPM
b
CO
CONCENTRATION
PPM
? •
CO?
concentration
PC T
1.15
NOX
CONCEN fWA T ION
PPM
1U1.S
so?
COCENTRATION PPM
0.0
HC
MA3S (GRAMS)
.*<•
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
.29
CO?
MASS (GRAMS)
?H7B.*3
NOX
MASS (GRAMS)
19. b3
30?
MASS (GRAMS)
0.00
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .03
CO 6RAMS/KIL0METRE .02
CO? 6RAMS/KIL0METRE ISO
NO* GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.1 «*
SO? GRAM^/KILOMETRE (1.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
CO GRAHS/KG OF FUEL
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
SO? GHAM5/KG UF FUEL
CARBON BALANCE FUFL ECONOMY
.Sb
HC GRAMS/MIN
.03
CO GRAMS/MlN
.0
3 1 b 7
CO? GRAMS/MIN
1 9*
5.OR
NO* GRAMS/MIN
1.5H
P.OU
SO? GRAMS/MIN
O.OU
NljMY =
b.H3 LITRES PE
R HUNl;HEO
-------
UNIT NO. b5tl
VEHICLE. MUOEL
TEST NO. 2
v« G»S RABbIT
TAbLE E-63 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
19 75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
75 FTP DATE 12/30/7b MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CUR8 WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
19 77
0 KG
BAROMETER 735.3a MM OF hG.
DRY BULB IEMP. S3.9 OEG.
REL. HUMIDITY *B PCI.
MET BULB TEMP lb.7 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 9.1 GRAMS/KG
M
I
<7>
JST EMISSIONS
blower
inlet
PRESS.
BLOWER 01F. PRESS.,
GS, bbO.* MM. HSO
blower
inlet
TEMP.
BAG
results
BAG
NO.
1
2
3
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
*0589
bb8*5
*0b02
HC
SAMPLE
MFTER
REAOINU/SCALE
b7.3/2
21.5/2
2*.0/2
HC
sample
PPM
b 7
21
2*
HC
HACKGHO
METER
READING/SCALE
1*.5/2
lb. 1/2
15.9/2
HC
6ACKGK0
PPM
1*
lb
lb
CO
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
SI.8/*
78.8/*
b 7.8/*
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
"~58
78
bb
CO
BACKGHU
METER
READING/SCALE
.*/*
.1/*
1.0/*
CO
BACKGRO
PPM
1
0
1
cos
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
57.*/3
*0.2/3
**.9/3
COS
SAMPLE
PERCENT
1.01
. b 8
.77
cos
BACrfGKD
METER
READING/SCALE
3.3/3
3.1/3
2.7/3
cos
backgrd
PERCENT
.05
.05
.0*
NOX
SAMPLE
ME TEW
RE AO ING/3CALE
>~3.1/2
11.8/2
30.S/S
NO*
SAMPLE
PPM
"~3.1
11.8
30.2
NOX
BACKGHD
METER
READING/SCALE
.9/2
.7/2
.7/2
NOX
BACKGKu
PPM
.9
.7
.7
SOS
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
-0.0/«
SOS
SAMPLE
PPM
-0.0
-o.n
-0.0
SOS
BACKGWO
METER
READInG/SCAlE
-0.0/*
-o.o/*
-0.0/*
SOS
BACKGhD
PPM
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
*2 OEG. C
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
5*
b
9
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
*<~1
75
b3
cos
CONCENTRATION PCT
.9b
• b*
.73
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
*2.3
11.1
29.5
SOS
CONCENTRATION PPM
0.0
0.0
0.0
HC
MAb3 GRAMS
2.37
.*5
.*0
CO
MASS GRAMS
39.08
10.9b
5.57
COS
MAS3 GRAMS
13*9.51
I*b2.b9
1022.38
NOX
MASS GRAMS
S. 8*
2.53
*.09
SOS
MASS GRAMS
0.00
0.00
0.00
ME1GHTE0 MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
HC .1*
CO 2.5b
COS 217.59
NO* .bl
SOS o.ou
GHAMS/KILOMETRE
grams/kilohetre
GRANS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPIIOn s 9.*7 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
total cvs flow = 277.2 std. cu. metres
-------
UNIT NO. hSu
VEHICLE MUOEL
TEST N(J,
VN RABUlT GAS
BAROMETEH 735.33 MM OF MG.
DRY HULB TEHP. 83.9 OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY tit PCT.
TABLE E-64 VEHICLE EHISSIUN RESULTS
1S7S LIGHT OUTY EMISSIONS TEST
2 FTP Cold OATE 18/3t)/7b MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB HT. 88* KG
HET BULB TEMP lb.? OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 9.1 GRAMS/KG
TR.
197?
0 KG
EXHAUS1 EMISSIONS
RLUHER DlF. PRESS., G8,
RAG RESULTS
I
Ln
bbO.* MM. H80
BLOWER INLET PRESS., G1 bbO.* MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. *2 OEG. C
PAG
NO.
1
8
3
BLOWER KEVOLUTIONS
*05B9
bb8HS
*0589
HC
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
b 7.3/8
81.S/2
b?.3/8
HC
sample
PPK
b?
21
b 7
HC
Backghd
Mt TEH
READING/SCALE
1H.S/8
lb.1/2
1 * . S/8
HC
BACkGHO
ppy,
1*
lb
1*
CO
SAKPLt
METER
HEADING/SCALE
91.8/*
78.8/*
91.B/*
CU
sample
PPM
*58
78
*58
CO
HACKGHD
ME TEH
READING/SCALE
.*/*
.if*
.*/*
CO
dACRGKD
PPM
1
0
1
C08
SAMPLE
ME7EH
READING/SCALE
57.»/3
*0.8/3
5 7.*/3
C08
SA'ifLE
PERCENT
I.01
. b 8
1.01
C08
BACKGnO
METER
HEAOING/SLALE
3.3/3
3.1/3
3.3/3
C08
BACKGkD
PEKCENT
.05
. OS
.05
NOX
SAMPLk
METER
HEADING/SCALE
*3.1/8
11.8/8
*3.1/8
NOX
SAMPLE
PPM
*3.1
11.8
*3.1
NOX
BACKGrtD
meteh
READ ING/SCALE
.9/8
.7/2
.9/2
NOX
BACKGKD
PPM
.9
.7
.9
S08
SAMPLE
MtTER
READING/SCALE
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
SOS
SAMPLE
PPM
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
soe
BACKGKD
Mfc TEH
REAOING/SCAlE
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
S08
BACKGKD
PPM
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
HC
CONCENTRATION
PPM
s*
b
5*
CO
CONCENTRATION
PPM
**1
75
**1
CO?
CONCENTRATION
PCT
.9b
.b*
.9b
NOX
CONCENTRATION
PPM
*8.3
11.1
*2.3
S08
CONCENTRATION
PPM
0.0
O.U
0.0
HC
MASS GRAMS
8.37
.*5
2.37
CO
MASS GRAMS
39.08
10.9b
39.08
C08
MASS GRAMS
13*9.SI
I*b2.b9
13*9.SI
NUX
MASS GRAMS
5.8*
2.S3
S.Bt
S08
MASS GRAMS
0.00
0.00
O.OD
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
weighteo mass soe
.83 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
*.15 GHAMS/KILOMETHE
833.0* GRAMS/KILOME TRE
,b9 GRAMS/KILOHETPE
o.oo GRamS/kilomethe
CAPHUN BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 10.8* LITRES PER HUNDREO KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLUH = 877.1 STU. CU. METHES
-------
UNIT NO. bSCJ
VEHICLt MOOEL
TEST NU.
VN KAHblT GAS
BAROMETEH 735.33 MM OF HG.
DRr BULB TEMP. 8*.* DEG. C
REL. HUMIUITT *5 PCT.
1 ABLE E-65 VEHICLE EMISSION NESULTS
1975 LIGHT OUTY EMISSIONS TEST
> FTP Hot date 12/30/7b HFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB wT. 881 KG
WET BULB TEMP lb.7 DEG. C
AUS. HUMIDITt 8.1 GRAMS/KG
W
JS T EMISSIONS
BLOWER
inlet
PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.,
GS,
b7 3.1 MM. HSO
BLOWER
inlet
TEMP.
BAG
RESULTS
RAG
NO.
1
2
3
blower revolutions
HUbOS
b9bl0
H0b02
HC
sample
meteh
READ
ING/5CALE
3*.0/3
25.1/2
2H.0/2
HC
sample
PPM
2*
2b
2H
HC
bACKGHD
METEH
READ
ING/SCALE
is.1/2
11.3/2
15.1/2
HC
BACKGHD
PPM
lb
11
lb
C'J
sample
METEH
READ
ING/SCALE
b7 . 8/*
83.2/*
b 7.8/*
CO
sample
PPM
bb
83
bb
CO
bACKGHD
METER
READ
ING/SCALE
1.0/*
,H/«
1.0/*
CO
8ACKGHD
PFM
1
0
1
COS
SAMPLE
MtTER
READ
InG/SCALE
HH.1/3
31.2/3
H H.9/3
COS
SAMPLE
PERCENT
.77
.bb
.77
COS
BACKGHD
METEH
READ
ING/SCALE
3.7/3
3.H/3
2.7/3
COS
BACKGHD
PERCENT
.OH
.05
.0*
NOX
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
30.2/3
ll.H/2
30.S/S
NOX
SAMPLE
PPM
30. 3
11.H
30. S
NOX
BACKGHD
Mk TEH
HEADING/SCALE
.7/2
.5/2
.7/3
NOX
6ACKGKU
PPM
.7
.5
.7
SOS
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
-0.0/«
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
SOS
sample
PPM
-0.0
-0.0
•0.0
SOS
BACKGHD
METER
READ
ING/SCALE
-0.0/*
—0.0/*
-0.0/*
SOS
BACKGHD
PPM
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
*2 OEG. C
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
1
8
S
CO
CONCEN(RATION PPM
b3
8U
b 3
COS
CONCENTRATION PCT
.73
. b 1
.73
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
21.5
10.9
29.5
SOS
CONCENTRATION PPM
0.0
0.0
0.0
HC
MASS GRAMS
.HO
.57
.HO
CO
MASS GRAMS
5.57
12.1H
5.57
COS
MASS GRAMS
1020.H7
1H b 8 . 18
1020.H7
NOX
MASS GRAMS
H . OS
2.57
H .05
SOS
MASS GRAMS
0.00
0.00
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
MC .08
CO l."»7
cos sob.es
NOX .56
SOS 0.00
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GHAMS/KILOMETRE
GKAMS/KILOMETRE
CAP0ON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPIION s 8.3U LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
total cvs flu* = sss.i stu. cu. metres
-------
TABLE E-66 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER b50
DATE 12/30/7h
MODEL 197? VW RABBIT GAS
DRIVER DT
WET BULB TEMP 17 C
SPEC. K'IM. 8. t GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HHS.
SET-7
TEST NT. 1020 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
BARO. 73b.1 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE l.b LITREI *
GVN 0 KG
REL. HUM. HO.O PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURAiTON 23.30 MINUTES
BLOHER INLET PRESS. bbS.5 MM. H20
SLOWER DIF. PRESS. bbS.O MM H20
9L0*ER INLET TEMP.
-------
TABLE E-67 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VtHICLE NUMBER bStl
OATE 12/3(l/7b
MODEL 1S77 vw RABBIT GAS
DRIVER DT
HET BULQ TEMP 18 C
SPEC. MUM. 1.8 GRAM/KG
I I ME -D HHS.
FET
TEST WT. 1020 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 8b C
bARO. 735.8 HM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE l.b LlTREI "~
GVN 0 KG
REL. HUM. fb.S PCT
MEASUREO FUEL 0.00 KG
PUN DURATION 12.7b MINUTES
BLOHER INLET PRESS, b73.1 MM. HSO
BLOHER DIF. PRESS. b73.1 MM HSO
BLOHER INLET TEMP. *2 OEG. C
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 23S8b
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS blS7?
BLOHER CU. CM /REV. 2830
BAG RESULTS
MC
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
38.b/3
HC
SAMPLE
PPM
39
hC
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
35.3/?
HC
BACKGRD
PPM
35
CO
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
b.3/»
CO
SAMPLE.
PPM
b
CO
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
.2/*
CO
BACKGRD
PPM
0
C02
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
b8.5/3
COS
sample
PERCENT
1.23
COS
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
3.3/3
C02
BACKGRD
PERCENT
.05
NOX
sample
METER
READING/SCALE
Sb.»/2
NOX
sample
PPM
Sb.»
NOX
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
• b/2
NOX
BACKGRD
PPM
.b
HC
CONCENTRATION
PPM
7
CO
CONCENTRATION
PPM
b
COS
CONCENTRATION
PCT
1 . IS
NOX
CONCENTRATION
PPM
S5.S
S02
COCENTRATI ON PPM
0.0
HC
MASS (GRAMS)
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
.7b
C02
MASS (GRAMS)
2517.**
NOX
MASS (GRAMS)
20.50
S02
MASS (GRAMS)
0.00
HC GRAMS/KIL0METRE .03
CO GRAMS/KIlOMETRE .05
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 153
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.2*
302 6RAMS/KIL0METRE 0.00
HC
GRAMS/^G
OF
FUEL
.55
HC
GRAMS/MIN
.03
CO
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
1.0
CO
GRAMS/MIN
.1
COS
grams/kg
OF
FUEL
31 bb
COS
GRAMS/MIN
IS?
NOX
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
S5. 78
NOX
GRAMS/MIN
l.bl
SOS
GRAMS/KG
OF
FUEL
0.00
SOS
GRAMS/MIN
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONUMY = b.SH LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
UNIT NO. hSIl
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NU.
VN RABBIT GAS
TABLE E-68 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1*75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
3 75 FTP DATE 1/ 3/77 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 1.5LITRE » CURB wT. 88* KG
YR.
GVM
1S 7 7
0 KG
BAROMETER 7*2.SS MM OF hG.
DRY BULB IEMP. ?5.0 DEG. C
REL. HUM 10 IT Y 3b ?CT.
MET BULB TEMP lS.b DEG C
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.2 GRAMS/KG
EXHAUSl EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. CRESS.,
BAG RESULTS
D
I
(T>
vO
G?, b 7 3.1 MM. HJO
BLOWER inlet PRESS., G1 b?3.1 MM. H20
BLOHER INLET TEMP. *1 DEG. C
SAG
NO.
1
?
3
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
tObtb
b9510
f ObH 5
HC
sample
ME TER
READING/SCALE
?S.l/?
18.2/2
*1.7/2
HC
sample
PPM
25
18
SU
HC
hackgrd
METER
READING/SCALE
11.S/2
12.8/?
11.5/2
HC
BACKG'D
PPM
1?
13
11
CO
SAMPLc
METKR
REAUING/SCale
bt.U/*
5S.5/«
78.2/*
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
b?
57
351
CO
backgrd
ME TE«
READINU/SCALE
1.1/*
• b/*
.?/*
CO
6ACKGRD
PPM
1
1
2
CO?
SAMPLE
MtTER
READING/SCALE
50.0/3
38.1/3
53.0/3
CO?
SAMPLE
PE.RCEI
*4 T
.87
.b
-------
UNIT NO. hSO
VEHICLE aUDEL
TEST NO.
VH RABBIT GaS
TABLE E-69 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DOTY EMISSIONS TEST
3 FTP cold qaTE 1/ 3/77 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB WT. 8B* KG
YR.
GVM
1977
0 KG
BAROMETER 7*2.95
DRY BULB TEMP.
REL. HUMIDIT1
mm OF hG.
55.0 DEG.
3b PC T .
WET BULB TEMP 15.b DEG. C
ABS. HUHIOITY 7.8 GRAMS/KG
W
I
--J
O
JST EMISSIONS
BLOWER
INLET
PRESS.
BLOWER DlF. PRESS.,
G2/ b?3.1 MM. H20
BLOWER
INLET
temp.
BAG
RESULTS
A AG
NO.
1
2
3
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
*0b*b
b9510
*0b*b
HC
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
25.1/2
18.2/2
25.1/2
HC
SAMPLE
PPM
25
18
25
HC
uackgko
METER
READING/SCALE
11.9/2
12.8/2
11.9/2
HC
BACKGKD
PPM
12
13
12
CO
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
b*.0/*
59.5/*
b*.0/*
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
bS
57
b2
CO
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
1.1/*
.b/*
1.1/*
CO
BACKGRD
PPM
1
1
1
C02
SAMPLE
METE*
READING/SCALE
50.0/3
38.1/3
SO.0/3
C02
sample
PERCEN
IT
.87
.b*
.87
C02
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
3.1/3
3.*/3
3.1/3
coe
BACKGRD
PERCENT
.05
.05
.05
NOX
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
38.1/2
12 . */2
38.1/2
NO*
SAMPLE
PPM
38.1
12.*
38.1
NOX
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
. */2
• */2
• */2
NO*
BACKGRD
PPM
.*
.*
.*
S02
SAMPLE
METER
READING/SCALE
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
S02
SAMPLE
PPM
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
S02
BACKGRD
METER
READING/SCALE
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
-0.0/*
so?
BACKGRD
PPM
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
*1 DEC. C
HC
CONCENTRATION
PPM
1*
b
1*
CO
CONCENTRATION
PPM
59
55
59
C02
CONCENTRATION
PC T
.82
.59
.82
NOX
CONCENTRATION
PPM
37.7
12.0
37.7
S02
CONCENTRATION
PPM
0.0
0.0
0.0
HC
MASS GRAMS
. b2
• * b
. b2
CO
MASS GRAMS
5.29
8.**
5.29
C02
MASS GRAMS
lib*•*B
1*35.10
lib*.*8
NOX
MASS GRAMS
*.98
2.71
*.98
S02
MASS GRAMS
0.00
~ .00
0.00
WEIGHTED HASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
wEIGnTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS 502
.09 GRAMS/KILOMtTRE
1.1* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
215.*2 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.b* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
O.0U GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CAR8UN BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION s 9.27 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FlUN = 285.b STU. CU. METRES
-------
UNIT MO. KSU
VEHICLE MUOEL
TEST MO.
VH RABBIT gas
TABLE E-70 VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
IS75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
3 FTP Hot DATE 1/ 3/77 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 1.59 LITRE * CURB WT. 88* KG
YR.
liVM
IS 7 7
0 KG
BAROMETER 7HJ.SS mm OF HG.
DRY BULrt IEMP. 2*.* OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 32 PCT.
HET BULB TEMP 1H.H DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY b.2 GRAMS/KG
EXHAUS? EMISSIONS
BLUrftiR DIP. PRESS
RAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOhER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRO METER
HC oACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLt METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO bACKGKU METER
CO flaCKG«L) PPM
CO? SAMPLt METER
CO? SAMPLE PERCE
COS BACKG«D METER
CO? BACKGRO PERCE
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGhD METER
NOX dACKGRO PPM
SOS SAMPLE
SO? SAMPLE
SO?
H
I
•-J
, G?. bbS.5 MM. H?0
REAUING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
REAlMNG/SCALE
READING/SCAlE
NT
READING/SCALE
NT
READING/SCALE
BLOWER INLET PRESS., G1 bbS.S MM. H?0
BLOHER INLET TEMP. HI OEG. C
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
METER
PPM
SO? BACKGRD PPM
I
H0bH5
HS.7/2
so
il.S/2
II
78.2/*
351
.7/*
2
53.0/3
.S3
3.H/3
.OS
HO.b/2
10.b
.b/2
.b
-0.0/*
-0.0
-O.P/*
-0.0
2
bS 7 8 3
I7.S/2
18
12.0/2
12
70.S/*
bS
.7/*
2
38.S/3
.bb
2.b/3
• OH
12.H/2
12.H
.H/2
• H
-0.0/*
-0.0
-o.o/*
-0.0
3
H0bH5
HS.7/2
SO
ll.S/2
11
78.2/*
351
.7/*
2
53.0/3
.13
3.H/3
.05
HO.b/2
HO.b
.b/2
.b
-0.0/*
-0.0
-0.0/*
-0.0
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
3S
b
3S
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
33S
bb
33S
CU2
CONCENTRATION PCT
.88
. b2
.88
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
HO.O
12.0
HO.O
SO?
CONCENTRATION PPh
0.0
0.0
0.0
HC
MASS GRAMS
1.73
.SO
1.73
CO
MASS GRAhS
30.HI
10.11
30.HI
CO?
MASS GRAMS
12H ?.H 7
1507.27
12H2.H7
NOX
MASS GRAMS
S.1H
2. bS
S.1H
S02
MASS GRAHS
0.00
0.00
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WcIGHTED ma33
WE IGhTEO MASS
WEIGnTEO MASS
HC .18
CO 3.3b
C02 227.8b
NOX .bS
S02 o.no
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
car30n balanle fuel consumpiion = s.sb litres per hunoreo kilometres
total CVS Flow S ?8b.H STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE E-71 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER b50
DATE 1/ 3/??
MOOEL 1177 V« RABbIT CAS
DRIVER OT
NET BULH TEMP l* C
SPEC. HUM. s.b GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HRS.
SET-?
TEST NT. lOSl) KG.
DRY BULB TEMP S«f C
bARO. 7H3.2 MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE l.b LITRE *
GVh 0 KG
REL. HUM. 28.S PCT
MEASURED FUEL O.OO KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS. b?3.1
BLOwER DIF. PRESS. b?3.1
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
PLUrtER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.30 MINUTES
MM. H20
MM H20
HI DEG. C
312b9
112*00
3227
BAG RESULTS
HC
sample
meter reaoing/scale
17.7/2
nC
SAMPLE
PPM
1
-------
'ABLE E-72 EXHAUST EM13SI0NS FROM 3 INGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMflF.H bSO
OATE 1- 3/7?
MODEL i977 Vrt RABBIT GAS
ORIVEP OT
WET BW.S TEMP ih C
SPEC. mjM. b.O GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HNS.
FET
TEST NT. 1020 KG.
ORY BULB TEMP ?S C
BARO. 713.2 MM HG.
TE3T NO. 3
ENGINE l.b LITRE *
GVtt U KG
REL. HUM. 29.8 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00
RUN DURATION
BLO«ES INLET PRESS. b?3.l
BLOKES OIF. PRESS. b?3.l
BLO*E« INLET TEMP.
DYNO EVOLUTIONS
BLO«E* REVOLUTIONS
BLO«E» CU. CM /REV.
12.7b MINUTES
MM. H20
MM H20
¥0 DEC. C
23900
bl52S
2225
BAG oeSULTS
HC
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
23.3/2
HC
sample
PPM
23
HC
4ACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
1°.5/2
NC
3ACKGR0
PPM
IS
CO
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
H . 8/*
CO
SAMPLE
PPM
S
cu
dACKGKD
METER REDOING/SCALE
1.7/*
CO
BACKGHD
PPM
2
C02
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
b8.4/3
CO?
sample
PERCENT
1.23
C02
BACKG«ro
METER READING/&CALE
3.3/3
C02
0ACKGRD
PERCENT
.05
NOX
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
3t.9/3
NOX
SAKPLE
PPM
104.7
NOX
BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
.3/3
NO*
rtACKGHD
PPM
.9
HC
CONCENTRATION PPM
b
CO
CONCENTRATION PPM
3
CO?
CONCENTRATION PCT
1.19
MO*
CONCENTRATION PPM
10 3.9
SO?
C'tCENTHAT ION PPM
0.0
HC
MASS (UKArfS)
.38
CO
MASS (GRAMS)
.HI
CO?
MASS (GRAMS)
2SH b.bO
NOX
MASS (GRAMS)
20.07
SO?
MASS (GRAHS)
U.00
HC «;«AmS/KIj.OMETRE .02
CO GRAKS/KILOHETRE .02
CO? G^AMS/KILUMETRE 1SS
NOX G«AMS/KILOMETRE 1.22
SO? GrtAMS/KILUMETRE 0.00
HC GHAMS/KG OF FUEL •*7
CO G*AmS/KG OF FUEL .5
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b7
NOX G^AriS/KG OF FUEL 2*.9b
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.OO
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY s
HC
GRaMS/MIN
.03
CO
GRAMS/MlN
.0
C02
GRAMS/MIN
?00
NOX
GRAMS/MIN
1.57
S02
GRAMS/min
0.00
b.bl LITRES PER HUNDREO KILOMETERS
-------
APPENDIX F
UNREGULATED EMISSIONS
FOR
FOUR LD VEHICLES
-------
TABLE F-l. SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SMOKE OPACITY RECORDED
DURING 1975 FTP WITH TWO DIESEL POWERED CARS
Olds Cutlass VW Rabbit
Smoke Condition Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Avg. Run 1 Run 2 Avg.
Cold Start, Peak % 19.2 18.0 11.7 16.3 70.0 75.7 72.9
Cold Idle, Avg. %
(after start) 4.2 5.5 3.5 4.4 6.0 3.0 4.5
1st Accel, Peak %
(after cold idle) 23.8 21.5 18.8 21.4 7.8 7.0 7.4
Idle at 125 Sec. Avg.% 5.7 5.5 4.5 5.2 0.5 0.5 0.5
Accel at 164 Sec.Peak %
to 90.1 km/hr (56mph) 19.0 24.2 14.9 19.4 34.7 44.0 39.4
Hot Start, Peak % 8.8 6.7 7.8 28.0 26.8 27.4
Hot Idle, Avg. %
(after start) 4.3 3.9 4.1 0.2 0.6 0.4
1st Accel, Peak %
(after hot idle) 5.9 9.0 7.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
Idle at 125 Sec. Avg. %
(during final 505 sec) 4.6 4.0 4.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Accel at 164 Sec. Peak%
to 90.1 km/hr (56mph)
(during final 505 sec) 17.0 16.2 16.6 34.3 41.0 37.7
F-2
-------
TABLE F-2.SUMMARY OF EXHAUST SMOKE OPACITY RECORDED DURING
SULFATE EMISSION TEST CYCLE WITH TWO DIESEL POWERED CARS
Olds Cutlass VW Rabbit
Smoke Condition
Run 1
Run 2
Avg.
5.6
Run 1
Run 2
Avg.
Hot Start, Peak %
6.0
7.2
38.7
N.D.
38.7
Idle, Avg. %
(after start)
3.8
3.9
3.9
0.1
0.3
0.2
1st Accel, Peak %
to 26.1 km/hr
9.8
6.7
8.3
3.3
5.3
4. 3
Accel at 189 sec, Peak
from 16.1 km/hr to
90.9 km/hr
%
15.0
13.4
15.2
6.0
5.3
5.7
Accel at 527 sec, Peak
from 0 km/hr to
57.1 km/hr
%
4.7
14.8
9.8
14.0
27.4
20.7
Accel at 638 sec, Peak
from 15.6 km/hr to
91.7 km/hr
%
11.3
11.3
11.3
6.3
4.5
5.4
Accel at 944 sec, Peak
from 22.5 km/hr to
90.9 km/hr
%
8.0
6. 5
7.3
4.0
8.0
6.0
TABLE F-3.SUMMARY OF
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
EXHAUST SMOKE i
TEST CYCLE WITH
OPACITY RECORDED DURING
TWO DIESEL POWERED CARS
Olds Cutlass
VW Rabbit
Smoke condition
Run 1
Run 2
Avg.
Run 1
Run 2
Avg
Hot Start, Peak %
6.0
11.0
8.5
46.5
27.5
37.
Idle, Avg.,%
(after start)
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.4
0.3
0.
1st Accel, Peak %
to 79.6 km/hr
9.0
10.0
9.5
5.0
5.0
5.
Accel, Peak %
to 94.9 km/hr
9.8
13.0
11.4
5.2
6.5
5.
-------
TABLE F-4.PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
1977 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS DIES'EL
Test
Date
Run
Particulate Rate
g_
hr
kg fuel
g
km
52.
hr
Sulfate Rate
mg
(2)
kg fuel
52.
km
as % S
in fuel
1975
FTP ^ ^
10/26/76
10/27/76
10/28/76
Average
1
2
3
17.382
17.272
19.330
17.995
6.074
6.042
6.792
6.303
0. 5bJ
0. 550
0.616
0.573
320.000
306.005
313.003
111.126
106.118
108.622
10.185
9.739
9.962
1.61
1.54
1.57
FTP,
FTP,
i
SET
10/26/76
1
19.917
6.529
0.634
405.527
132.9
12.907
1.93
10/27/76
2
19.559
6.406
0.622
397.880
130.4
12.664
1.89
10/28/76
3
20.745
6.808
0.661
Average
20.074
6.581
0.628
401.703
131.6
12.786
1.91
10/26/76
1
15.469
5.732
0.492
255.480
94. 7
8.132
1.37
10/27/76
2
15.546
5.767
0.495
236.697
87.8
7.533
1.27
10/28/76
3
18.263
6.781
0.582
Average
16.426
6.093
0.523
246.088
91.2
7.832
1.32
10/26/76
1
20.089
4.848
0.359
576.544
90.0
10.301
1.30
10/27/76
2
19.932
4.807
0.356
579.441
90. 4
10.350
1.31
10/28/76
3
20.453
4.929
0.365
—
Average
20.158
4.861
0.360
577.992
90. 2
10.326
1.30
FET
10/26/76
10/27/76
10/28/76
Average
22.269
24.386
22.575
23.077
4.526
4.935
4.573
4.678
0.288
0.314
0.291
0.298
711.882
612.880
662.381
144. 2
124.2
134.2
9.179
7.903
8.541
2.09
1.80
1.94
(1) 1975 FTP = 0.43 FTPC + 0.57 FTPh
(2) Based on average fuel consumption
FTPC = 11.46 Z/100 km
FTPh = 10.13 Z/100 km
SET = 8.74 1/100 km
FET = 7.51 Z/100 km
-------
TABLE f-5.PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Gasoline
Particulate Rates
Sulfate Rates
mg
mg
as % S
Test
Date
Run
mg/hr
kg fuel(^)
mg/km
mg/hr
kg fuel*2'
mg/km
in fuel
1975 FTPU)
12/20/76
1
132. 78
9. 55
1. 08
..
12/21/76
2
197.76
57.43
6. 43
34.038
10.081
1. 065
1. 416
12/22/76
3
294.43
82.66
9. 37
52.900
15.985
1.682
1.762
Average
208.32
49. 88
5.63
43.469
13.033
1.373
1.589
FTP Cold
12/20/76
1
51.84
14. 04
1.65
12/21/76
2
270.20
73.18
8.60
2. 376
0.646
0. 076
0. 069
12/22/76
3
468. 14
126.78
14. 90
2.577
0.697
0. 082
0.075
Average
263.39
71.33
8. 38
2.476
0.672
0.079
0.072
FT P Hot
12/20/76
1
193.85
6.17
0.65
_ _
• _
12/21/76
2
143.14
45. 56
4.80
57.907
17.200
1. 812
1.849
12/22/76
3
163.38
49.36
5. 20
90.875
27.519
2.889
2.959
Average
166.79
33. 70
3. 55
74.391
22.360
2.351
2.404
SET
12/20/76
1
330.30
67. 56
5. 90
- _
_ _
— m
12/21/86
2
663.40
135.69
11. 85
542.050
110.647
9.663
11.897
12/22/76
3
638.20
130.54
11. 40
913.911
186.930
16.325.
20.100
Average
543.97
111. 26
9.72
727.980
148.789
12.994
15.999
FET
12/ 20/76
1
418. 78
71.43
5. 40
_ _
12/21/76
2
523.48
89. 29
6. 75
1023.125
174.510
13.192
18. 764
12/22/76
3
2225.78
379.66
28. 70
864.038
147.379
11.141
15.847
Average
1056.01
181.13
13.62
943.582
160.944
12.167
17.306
(1)1975 FT P
= 0. 43 FT Pc
+ 0.
57 FTPh
(2)Based on
average fuel consumption:
FT Pc =
15.92
1/1 00 km
FT Ph =
14.27
1/ 100 km
SET =
11. 83
1/ 1 00 km
FET =
10. 24
1/ 100 km
-------
TAilLE F-6.PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
1977 VW RABBIT DIESEL
Test
Date
Run
Particulate Rate
2_
hr
T2r
kg fuel
g
km
IDS.
hr
mg
Sulfate Rate
U)
kg fuel
mg
km
as % S
in fuel
1975
FTP(1)
11/29/76
11/30/76
12/1/76
Average
5.934
5.707
5. 387
5.676
4.109
3.932
3.751
3.930
0.189
0.186
0.172
0.182
115.645
114.833
115.239
79.859
79.076
79.468
3.681
3.644
3.662
1.15
1.33
1.24
FTP,
11/29/76
11/30/76
12/1/76
Average
6.284
7.024
5.747
6. 352
4.192
4.675
3.836
4.234
0.200
0.223
0.183
0.202
137.884
139.062
138.473
92 .0
92 .3
92 .2
4.388
4.402
4.395
1.33
1. 34
1.34
FTP>.
I
ffi
11/29/76
11/30/76
12/1/76
Average
5.671
4.714
5.116
5.167
4.046
3. 372
3.687
3.702
0.180
0.150
0.164
0.165
98.868
96.555
97.712
70 .7
69 .1
69.9
3.147
3.073
3.110
1.02
1.00
1.02
SET
11/29/76
11/30/76
12/1/76
Average
9.106
9.210
9.241
9.186
4.266
4.082
4.318
4.222
0.163
0.156
0.165
0.161
262.534
225.837
244.186
122 .7
105.6
114.2
4.690
4.034
4.362
1.78
1.53
1.66
FET
11/29/76
11/30/76
12/1/76
Average
1
2
3
12.095
11.923
12.511
12.176
4.194
4.140
4.355
4.230
0.156
0.154
0.162
0.157
299.797
307.309
303.553
103 .9
106.5
105 .2
3.866
3.962
3.914
1.50
1.54
1.52
(1) 1975 FTP = 0.43 FTP„ + 0.57 FTP,
Based on average fuel consumption
FTPC = 5.63 A/100 km
FTPh = 5.2 5 A/100 km
FET =4.51 A/100 km
SET =4.39 A/100 km
-------
TABLE f-7.PARTICULATE AND SULFATE EMISSION RATES
1977 VW Rabbit Gasoline
i
-j
Particulate Rates
Sulfate Rates
mg
mg
as % S
Test
Date
Run
mg/hr
kg fuel(2)
mg/km
mg/hr
kg fuel(2)
mg/km
in fuel
1975 FTPt1)
12/20/76
1
118.29
52. 02
3. 76
..
__
__
12/21/76
2
--
-
0.70
0.318
0. 022
0. 034
12/22/76
3
148.44
65. 53
4.72
1.88
0.835
0.060
0. 090
Average
133.36
58. 78
4. 24
1.29
0.576
0.041
0.062
FTP Cold
12/20/76
1
182. 23
79. 28
5.80
• —
_ -
_ _
12/21/76
2
97.40
42.37
3.10
0.391
0. 178
0.013
0. 019
12/22/76
3
186.94
81. 33
5.95
1.408
0.615
0.045
0. 066
Average
155.52
67.66
4.95
0.900
0.396
0.029
0. 043
FTP Hot
12/20/76
1
70.06
31. 46
2. 23
_
_ -
_ -
• •
12/21/76
2
0.937
0. 423
0.030
0. 045
12/22/76
3
119.39
53. 62
3.80
2. 233
1.001
0.071
0. 108
Average
94.72
42. 54
3.01
1.585
0. 712
0.051
0.076
SET
12/20/76
1
83.97
27. 35
1.50
- _
• —
.. _
12/21/76
2
33.59
10.94
0.60
59.117
19.252
1.056
2.070
12/22/76
3
97.97
31.90
1. 75
55.561
18.086
0.992
1.947
Average
71.84
23. 40
1.28
57.339
18.669
1.024
2.009
FET
12/20/76
1
46.53
12.45
0.60
• «•
12/21/76
2
217.685
58.229
2.807
6.261
12/22/76
3
193. 88
51. 86
2.50
244.259
65.334
3.150
7.026
Average
120. 20
32.16
1.55
230.972
61.782
2.979
6. 644
U)i975 FTP = 0. 43 FTPc + 0. 57 FTPh
(2)]3a8ed on average fuel consumption: FTPc =
FTP h =
SET =
FET =
9. 91 1/100 km
9.60 1/100 km
7.43 1/100 km
6. 53 1/100 km
-------
TABLE F-8. COMPARISON OF ODOR PANEL RATINGS
VEHICLE: Oldsmobile Diesel
Car
Operating
Dilution
"D"
"B"
"O"
"A"
«ip it
Condition
Date
Ratio
Composite
Burnt
Oily
Aromatic
Punqe
Inter Speed
11/29/76
100:1
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.3
0 Load
12/01/76
100:1
2.2
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.3
Average
100:1
2.5
1.0
1.0
0. 6
0.3
12/03/76
550:1
1.1
0.8
0.2
0.3
0
inter Speed
11/29/76
100:1
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
Mid Load
12/01/76
100:1
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.5
Average
100:1
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.6
12/03/76
550:1
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.1
Inter Speed
11/29/76
100:1
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
High Load
12/01/76
100:1
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.4
Average
100:1
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
12/03/76
550:1
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.2
0
High Speed
11/29/76
100:1
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0 Load
12/01/76
100:1
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
Average
100:1
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
12/03/76
550:1
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
High Speed
11/29/76
100:1
3.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Hid Load
12/01/76
100:1
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.8
Average
100:1
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.7
12/03/76
550:1
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.3
0
High Speed
11/29/76
100:1
3.5
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.7
High Load
12/01/76
100:1
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
Average
100:1
3.3
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
12/03/76
550:1
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.1
Idle
11/29/76
100:1
3.8
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.6
12/01/76
100:1
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
Average
100:1
3.4
1.2"
1.0
0.8
0.6
12/03/76
550:1
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.2
0
Idle-Accel
11/29/76
100:1
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
12/01/76
100:1
2.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
Average
100:1
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.5
12/03/76
550:1
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
Acceleration
11/29/76
100:1
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
12/01/76
100:1
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
Average
100:1
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
12/03/76
550:1
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
Deceleration
11/29/76
100:1
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
12/01/76
100:1
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
Average
100:1
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
12/03/76
550:1
1.3
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.1
Cold Start
11/29/76
100:1
4.9
1.7
1.0
1.0
0.7
12/01/76
100:1
3.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
Average
100:1
4.0
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
12/03/76
550: 1
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.2
F-8
-------
TABLE F-9. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Oldsraobile Diesel Cor
Dilution Ratio
H
O
O
H
Date:
November 29,
1976
Run
Operating
"D"
"B"
"O"
"A"
"p"
No.
Condition
Composite
Burnt
Oily
Aromatic
Pungent
9
Inter Speed
3.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
14
0 Load
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.1
19
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.3
or
ITo
O"
0.6
O"
1
Inter Speed
4.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
8
Mid-Load
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.4
18
-LJ
-LA
-2x3
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
5
Inter Speed
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
12
High Load
3.6
l.i
1.0
0.9
0.7
20
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
3
High Speed
3.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
11
0 Load
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
21
3.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
4
High Speed
4.3
1.6
1.0
0.9
1.0
13
Mid-Load
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.4
17
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.4
3.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
7
High Speed
3.9
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.6
10
High Load
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.9
16
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.6
3.5
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.7
2
Idle
4.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.7
6
3.4
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.6
15
3.9
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.6
3.8
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.6
22
Idle-Accel
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
27
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
31.
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.4
33.
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.4
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
23
Accel
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
26
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
29
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.4
32
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.4
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
24
Decel
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
25
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.4
28
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
30
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
Cold Start
4.9
1.7
1.0
1.0
0.7
F-9
-------
TABLE F-10. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car
Date: December 1, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
Operating
"D"
"B"
"O"
hA"
Ho.
Condition
Composite
Burnt
Oily
Arooat]
3
Inter Speed
2.2
1.0
0.9
0.4
8
0 Load
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.6
13
2.1
1.0
0.9
0.4
2.2
1.0
0.9
0.5
4
Inter Speed
2.2
1.0
0.9
0.4
14
Mid-Load
2.3
0.9
1.0
0.3
21
2.4
1.0
0.9
0.3
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.3
2
Inter Speed
2.4
1.0
1.0
0.3
10
High Load
1.9
1.0
0.9
0.3
17
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.4
1
High Speed
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.4
11
0 Load
2.4
0.9
0.7
0.7
19
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.6
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
5
High Speed
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
9
Mid-Load
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
18
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.4
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.4
6
High Speed
3.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
12
High Load
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.6
15
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.6
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
7
Idle
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.3
16
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.6
20
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.6
22
Idle-Accel
1.6
0.9
0.6
0.3
24
2.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
28
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.6
33
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.7
2.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
23
Accel
2.1
1.0
0.9
0.4
26
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
29
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
32
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.4
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
25
Decel
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.6
27
2.1
1.0
1.0
0. 3
30
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.7
31
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.4
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.5
tipn
Punqant
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
Cold Start
3.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
F-10
-------
TABLE F-ll. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car Dilution Ratio: 550:1
Date: December 3, 1976
Run
Operating
"D"
"B"
"O"
"A"
"P"
No.
Condition
Composite
Burnt
Oily
Aromatic
Pungent
9
Inter Speed
1.0
1.0
0.2
0
0
14
0 Load
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.5
0
19
1.2
0.9
0.2
0.3
0
m
0.8
0.2
0.3
0
1
Inter Speed
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
8
Mid-Load
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
18
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.3
0
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.1
5
Inter Speed
0.8
0.8
0.3
0
0
12
High Load
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.2
0
20
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.3
0
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.2
0
3
High Speed
0.8
0.7
0.3
0
0
11
0 Load
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.2
0
21
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.3
0
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
4
High Speed
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
13
Mid-Load
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.4
0
17
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.3
0
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.3
0
7
High Speed
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
10
High Load
0.9
0.9
0.2
0
0
16
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.1
2
Idle
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.2
0
6
0.8
0.8
0.3
0
0
15
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.3
0
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.2
0
22
Idle-Accel
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.2
0
27
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.2
31
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.2
0
33
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
0
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
23
Accel
1.1
0.9
0.2
0.2
0
26
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.2
0
29
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.2
0
32
1.4
1.0
0.4
0.2
0
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
24
Decel
1.4
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.2
25
1.2
1.0
0.4
0.2
0
28
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.2
0
30
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.2
0
T71
0.9
0.5
075
0.1
Cold Start
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.2
F-ll
-------
TABLE
F-12. COMPARISON OF ODOR
PANEL
RATINGS
VEHICLE: VW
Rabbit
Operating
Dilution
"D"
"B"
"0"
"A"
tipu
Condition
Date
Ratio
Composite
Burnt
Oily
Aromatic
Punqen
Inter Speed
12/13/76
100:1
3.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.7
0 Load
12/15/76
100:1
2.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.3
Average
100:1
2.8
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
12/17/76
550:1
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.1
0
Inter Speed
12/13/76
100:1
3.1
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
Mid Load
12/15/76
100:1
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.4
Average
100:1
2.8
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
12/17/76
550:1
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.1
Inter Speed
12/13/76
100:1
3.5
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.8
High Load
12/15/76
100:1
3.1
1.1
1.0
0.5
0.7
Average
100:1
3.3
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.8
12/17/76
550:1
1.3
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
High Speed
12/13/76
100:1
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.3
0 Load
12/15/76
100:1
2.2
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.2
Average
100:1
2.3
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.3
12/17/76
550:1
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
High Speed
12/13/76
100:1
3.8
1.3
1.0
0.6
1.0
Mid Load
12/15/76
100:1
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.5
0.8
Average
100:1
3.5
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.9
12/17/76
550:1
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.1
0
High Speed
12/13/76
100:1
3.8
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
High Load
12/15/76
100:1
3.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.9
Avorage
100:1
3.8
1.2
1.1
0.8 •
0.9
12/17/76
550:1
1.3
0.9
0.5
0.2
0
idle
12/13/76
100:1
3.7
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
12/15/75
100:1
3.4
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.7
Average
100:1
3.6
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
12/17/76
550:1
1.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.1
Idle-Accel
12/13/76
100 il
3.4
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.1
12/15/76
100:1
3.5
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.9
Average
100:1
3.5
1.2
1.0
0.7
1.0
12/17/76
550:1
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.1
Acceleration
12/13/76
100:1
3.6
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
12/15/76
100:1
3.7
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.9
Average
100:1
3.7
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.9
12/17/76
550:1
1.3
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.2
Deceleration
12/13/76
100:1
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
12/15/76
100:1
3.3
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.7
Average
100:1
3.3
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
12/17/76
550: 1
0.9
0.8
0. 3
0.3
0.1
Cold Start
12/13/76
100:1
4.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
12/15/76
100:1
3.7
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.7
Average
100:1
4.0
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.9
12/17/76
550:1
2.4
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.3
F-12
-------
TABLE F-13. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: VW Rabbit Diesel Car
Date: December 13, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 100«1
Run
Operating
i'D"
"B"
"0"
"A"
No.
Condition
Composite
Burnt
OiljL
Arocnat
9
Inter Speed
3.3
1.2
1.0
0.7
14
0 Load
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
19
2.7
1.0
0.8
0.5
3.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
1
Inter Speed
3.7
1.3
1.0
1.0
8
Mid-Load
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.3
18
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.7
3.1
1.1
1.0
0.7
5
Inter Speed
3.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
12
High Load
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.7
20
3.5
1.2
1.0
0.3
3.5
1.1
1.0
0.7
3
High Speed
2.3
1.0
1.0
0.3
11
0 Load
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
21
1.8
1.0
0.7
0.3
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.4
4
High Speed
4.5
1.5
1.0
0.8
13
Mid-Load
4.0
1.3
1.0
0.7
17
3.0
1.2
1.0
0.3
3.8
1.3
1.0
0.6
7
High Speed
4.3
1.3
1.2
0.8
10
High Load
3.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
16
3.8
1.2
1.0
1.0
3.8
1.2
1.1
0.9
2
Idle
3.5
1.0
0.8
1.0
6
3.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
15
4.2
1.3
1.0
0.8
3.7
1.1
0.9
0.9
22
Idle-Accel
3.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
24
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.7
28
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.8
33
3.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
3.4
1.1
1.0
0.7
23
Accel
3.7
1.3
1.0
0.7
26
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
29
3.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
32
3.8
1.3
1.0
0.7
3.6
1.2
1.0
0.8
25
Decel
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
27
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
30
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.8
31
3.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
Cold Start
4.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
npn
Pungent
0.7
1.0
0.3
0.7
o.e
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
1.0
F-13
-------
TABLE F
-14. VEHICLE
ODOR
EVALUATION
SUMMARY
Vehicle: VW Rabbit
Diesel Car
Dilution Ratio:
100:1
Date:
December 15,
1976
Run
Operating
"D"
"B"
"0"
-A"
HpM
No.
Condition
Composite
Burnt
Oily
Aromatic
Pungtnl
7
Inter Spqrjd
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.4
11
0 Load
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.4
18
1.4
0.6
0.6
0^
2.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.3
5
inter Speed
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
8
Mid-Load
2.3
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.3
21
Juufl
U2
aa
Qui
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.4
1
Inter Speed
3.4
1.3
0.9
0.4
0.7
13
High Load
7.7
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.6
17
1x1
JL&
0.6
2x1
3.1
l.l
1.0
0.5
0.7
3
High Speed
2.3
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.3
14
0 Load
2.1
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.1
16
2x1
Ixfi
Ixfi
2x4
SUX
2.2
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.2
2
High Speed
3.3
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
12
Mid-Load
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
19
iui
l^L
Ixfi
2xi
2x2
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.5
0.8
6
High Speed
3.7
1.3
1.0
0.9
1.0
9
High Load
3.4
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.9
20
ia
Sx2
3x2.
3.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.9
4
Idle
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.9
10
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.3
15
4x1
lxi.
LA.
2x2
lx£
3.4
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.7
23
Idle-Accel
3.3
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.9
25
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.9
27
3.6
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.9
30
lx£
U1
2x2
2x2
3.5
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.9
24
Accel
3.4
1.1
0.9
0.6
1.0
26
3.7
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
29
4.0
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.9
31
XJ.
LA.
1x0
sua.
0x2
3.7
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.9
22
Decel
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.4
28
3.?
' .1
0.9
0.9
0.9
12
3.4
.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
33
UL
-JL
u:
0x2
3.3
1.1
1.0
U.8
0.7
Cold start
3.7
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.7
F-14
-------
TABLE F-15. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: VW Rabbit
Date: December 17, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 550:1
Run
No.
4
9
14
Operating
Condition
Inter Speed
0 Load
"C"
Composite
0.7
0.6
1.4
0.9
"B"
Burnt
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.7
"O"
Oily
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
"A"
Aromatic
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Mp«l
Pungent
0
0
0
0
8
13
16
Inter Speed
Mid-Load
0.9
1.7
0.7
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0
0.2
0.1
0.1
2
10
20
Inter Speed
High Load
0.8
2.6
0.6
1.3
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.4
0.3
O.o
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
1
18
21
High Speed
0 Load
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
3
7
19
High Speed
'lid-Load
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.1
O"
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
6
12
15
High Speed
High Load
1.3
1.8
0.8
1.3"
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.1
03
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0
0.1
0
0
5
u
17
Idle
1.0
1.9
0.8
1.2
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
24
26
29
32
Idie-Aceel
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0
0
0.1
22
25
28
31
Accel
1.7
1.1
1.4
0.9
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
0.2
23
27
30
33
Decel
1.2
0.8
0.9
0.6
oTS
0.9
0.6
3.9
0 6
0.8
.3
0.4
0. 3
0.1
O
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0^
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
oTT
CoId Start
2.4
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.3
F-15
-------
TABLE F-16. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSION
Oldsmobile Diesel Car
NDIR
CL
DQAS
Results
Operating
HC.
CO,
co2.
NO.
NO,
NO*
LCA,
LOO,
Air Flow
Condition
Date
PPnK-
EE®
J
PF»
PP"»
EE®
uq/t
uq/e
TIA
kg/min
Inter Speed
11/29/76
119
330
1.9
103
82
82
14.3
6.7
1.8
0.61
0 Load
12/01/76
149
3 30
2.1
63
—
13.6
5.3
1.7
0.61
Average
134
330
2.0
83
82
82
14.0
6.0
l.B
0.61
12/03/76
14H
297
2.1
86
76
76
0.59
3-day Avg
139
319
2.0
84
79
79
0.60
Inter Speed
11/29/76
87
302
4.6
214
177
177
16.7
6.1
1.8
0.61
Mid-Load
12/01/76
107
311
4.8
187
15.4
5.9
1.8
0.62
Average
97
307
4.7
201
177
177
16.1
6.0
1.8
0.62
12/03/76
111
283
4.7
194
173
173
0.60
3-day Avg
102
299
4.7
198
175
175
0.61
Inter Speed
11/29/76
80
339
6.8
276
221
221
13.6
5.1
1.7
0.62
High Load
12/01/76
88
311
6.9
221
15.3
6.1
1.8
0.62
Average
84
325
6.9
249
221
221
14.5
5.6
1.8
0.62
12/03/76
105
297
7.3
256
222
222
0.63
3-day Avg
91
316
7.0
251
222
222
0.62
High Speed
11/29/76
128
359
2.3
105
80
80
14.2
6.5
1.8
0.92
0 Load
12/01/76
147
354
2.2
73
16.6
6.5
1.8
0.90
Average
138
357
2.3
89
80
80
15.4
6.5
l.B
0.91
12/03/76
167
292
2.3
85
77
77
0.89
3-day Avg
147
335
2.3
88
79
79
0.90
High Speed
11/29/76
80
339
6.4
274
232
232
13.4
5.0
1.5
0.91
Mid-Load
12/01/76
91
292
6.5
246
17.3
5.8
1.7
0.91
Average
86
316
6.5
260
232
232
15.4
5.4
1.6
0.91
12/03/76
106
292
6.6
268
230
230
0.88
3-day Avg
92
308
6.5
263
231
231
0.90
High Speed
11/29/76
77
540
10.4
305
263
263
13.2
7.2
1.9
0.91
High Load
12/01/76
92
564
10.6
270
11.1
6.9
1.8
0.91
Average
85
552
10.5
288
263
263
12.2
7.1
1.9
0.91
12/03/76
8S
539
10.9
296
263
263
0.88
3-day Avg
85
548
10.6
290
263
263
0.90
Idle
11/29/76
257
549
2.4
64
56
56
19.7
4.7
1.5
0.26
12/01/76
269
511
2.4
53
17.0
5.1
1.7
0.25
Average
263
530
2.4
59
~56
56
18.4
4.9
1.6
0.26
12/03/76
326
502
2.4
58
53
53
0.26
3-day Av
-------
TABLE F—17. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
ehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car
ate: November 29, 1976
NDIR
CL
DOAS
Results
tun
Operating
HC,
CO,
co_,
NO,
NO,
NOy
LCA,
LCO,
Air Flow
lo.
Condition
ppmC
ppm
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
yg/2.
Vg/l
TIA
kg/min
9
Inter Speed
116
311
2.0
95
80
80
11.5
4.2
1.6
0.61
.4
0 Load
122
340
2.0
99
80
80
16.0
8.7
1.9
0.62
.9
120
340
1.7
115
85
85
15.3
7.2
1.9
0.60
119
330
1.9
103
82
82
14.3
6.7
1.8
0.61
1
Inter Speed
84
297
4.8
206
175
175
24.2
7.8
1.9
0.62
8
Mid Load
84
283
4.4
222
175
175
10.9
4.1
1.6
0.60
L8
94
325
4.5
214
180
180
14.9
6.4
1.8
0.61
87
302
4.6
214
177
177
16.7
6.1
1.8
0.61
5
Inter Speed
68
368
0.9
280
210
210
11.6
4.0
1.6
0.63
L2
High Load
86
325
7.0
272
230
230
10.4
3.2
1.5
0.62
>0
86
325
6.5
276
225
225
18.9
8.0
1.9
0.61
80
339
6.8
276
221
221
13.6
5.1
1.7
0.62
3
High Speed
120
368
2.2
91
75
75
14.3
5.4
1.7
0.93
LI
0 Load
132
340
2.2
95
80
80
13. 3
5.4
1.7
0.92
21
132
368
2.5
130
85
85
15.0
8.8
1.9
0.92
128
359
2.3
105
80
80
14.2
6.5
1.8
0.92
4
High Speed
78
369
6.7
280
230
230
8.3
0.6
0.8
0.91
L3
Mid Load
66
325
6.3
276
235
235
16.7
7.7
1.9
0.91
L7
96
325
6.2
267
235
235
15.2
6.8
1.8
0.90
80
339
6.4
274
232
232
13.4
5.0
1.5
0.91
7
High Speed
80
511
10.4
301
250
250
5.4
5.7
1.8
0.92
LO
High Load
60
540
10.4
313
270
270
16.4
6.8
1.8
0.90
16
92
568
10.4
301
270
270
17.7
9.2
2.0
0.90
77
540
10.4
305
263
263
13.2
7.2
1.9
0.91
2
Idle
232
554
2.4
60
54
54
13.2
4.1
1.6
0.26
6
268
540
2.4
60
55
55
16.5
1.0
1.0
0.26
15
272
554
2.3
72
60
60
29.5
9.0
2.0
0.25
257
549
2.4
64
56
56
19.7
4.7
1.5
0.26
F-17
-------
TABLE F-18. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car
Date: December 1, 1976
NDIR
DOAS
Results
Run
Operating
HC,
CO,
C02'
NO,
LCA
LCO
Air Flow
No.
Condition
ppmC
ppm
%2
ppm
yg/£
yg/£
TIA
kg/min
3
Inter Speed
126
325
2.1
49
13.9
5.8
1.8
0.61
8
0 Load
168
311
2.0
68
14.5
5.5
1.7
0.61
13
152
354
2.1
72
12.5
4.6
1.7
0.62
149
330
2.1
63
13.6
5.3
1.7
0.61
4
Inter Speed
102
311
4.7
158
15.1
5.6
1.8
0.62
14
Mid Load
98
311
4.6
186
13.0
5.2
1.7
0.62
21
120
311
5.2
218
18.2
7.0
1.9
0.61
107
311
4.8
187
15.4
5.9
1.8
0.62
2
Inter Speed
96
340
7.1
202
22.3
8.4
1.9
0.62
10
High Load
88
311
6.9
226
13.2
4.6
1.7
0.62
17
80
283
6.6
235
10.3
5.3
1.7
0.63
88
311
6.9
221
15.3
6.1
1.8
0.62
1
High Speed
142
397
2.2
52
22.0
7.1
1.9
0.90
11
0 Load
152
354
2.2
76
13.9
6.0
1.8
0.91
19
148
311
2.2
91
13.9
6.3
1.8
0.89
147
354
2.2
73
16.6
6.5
1.8
0.90
5
High Speed
94
311
6.7
243
20.6
4.0
1.6
0.90
9
Mid Load
108
297
6.4
243
22.5
8.5
1.9
0.91
18
72
268
6.3
251
8.9
4.8
1.7
0.91
91
292
6.5
246
17.3
5.8
1.7
0.91
6
High Speed
140
626
11.2
259
12.9
8.2
1.9
0.90
12
High Load
72
511
10.3
276
12.0
7.6
1.9
0.91
15
64
554
10.4
276
8.5
4.9
1.7
0.92
92
564
10.6
270
11.1
6.9
1.8
0.91
7
Idle
292
540
2.5
38
17.4
4.2
1.6
0.25
16
212
454
2.3
53
13.0
4.1
1.6
0.25
20
302
540
2.4
68
20.7
7.1
1.9
0.25
269
511
2.4
53
17.0
5.1
1.7
0.25
F-18
-------
TABLE F-19. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Diesel Car
Date: December 3, 1976
NDIR CL
Run
Operating
HC,
CO,
CO-
NO,
NO,
N°x
Air Flow
No.
Condition
ppmc
EJED.
%
PPm
EEjn
EEE
kg/min
9
Inter Speed
144
297
2.1
87
80
80
0.60
14
0 Load
160
297
2.1
87
75
75
0.59
19
140
297
2.1
87
72
72
0.59
148
297
2.1
86
76
76
0.59
1
Inter Speed
122
268
4.8
186
170
170
0.61
8
Mid Load
108
283
4.8
194
180
180
0.59
18
104
297
4.5
202
170
170
0.60
111
283
4.7
194
173
173
0.60
5
Inter Speed
108
283
7.5
239
220
220
0.63
12
High Load
116
311
7.0
267
220
220
0.63
20
92
297
7.4
263
225
225
0.62
105
297
7.3
256
222
222
0.63
3
High Speed
156
254
2.3
84
80
80
0.89
11
0 Load
176
283
2.2
87
75
75
0.89
21
170
340
2.4
84
80
80
0.88
167
292
2.3
85
77
77
0.89
4
High Speed
124
283
6.9
251
230
230
0.88
13
Mid Load
106
311
6.4
280
230
230
0.88
17
88
283
6.4
272
230
230
0.88
106
292
6.6
268
230
230
0.88
7
High Speed
96
511
11.4
284
270
270
0.88
10
High Load
60
597
10.8
292
260
260
0.87
16
98
511
10.6
313
260
260
0.88
85
539
10.9
296
263
263
0.88
2
Idle
310
497
2.4
52
52
52
0.26
6
284
468
2.5
64
55
55
0.26
15
384
540
2.4
57
52
52
0.26
326
502
2.4
58
53
53
0.26
F-19
-------
TABLE F-20.
Operating
HC,
CO,
Condition
Date
ppmC
PEEL
Inter Speed
12/13/76
90
301
0 Load
12/15/76
56
245
12/17/76
53
226
Average
66
257
Inter Speed
12/13/76
92
197
Mid Load
12/15/76
63
178
12/17/76
51
169
Average
69
181
Inter Speed
12/13/76
65
278
High Load
12/15/76
103
373
12/17/76
94
382
Average
87
344
High Speed
12/13/76
61
245
0 Load
12/15/76
49
226
12/17/76
45
221
Average
52
231
High Speed
12/13/76
137
349
Mid Load
12/15/76
161
378
12/17/76
89
282
Average
129
336
High Speed
12/13/76
109
1806
High Load
12/15/76
97
1778
12/17/76
73
2497
Average
93
2027
Idle
2/13/76
180
383
2/15/76
216
445
2/17/76
157
349
Average
184
392
COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS
VW Rabbit Diesel Car
NDIR
CL
DOAS
Results
co_,
NO,
NO,
NOx
LCA ,
LCO,
Air Flow
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
yg/£
Vg/Z
TIA
kg/min
2.0
86
73
73
8.2
3.5
1.5
1.50
2.0
53
63
63
2.4
1.7
1.2
1.46
1.9
67
58
58
1.48
2.0
69
65
65
5.3
2.6
1.4
1.48
6.6
301
262
262
19.2
5.8
1.8
1.49
6.6
292
282
282
10.0
4.4
1.7
1.51
6.0
301
266
266
1.49
6.4
298
270
270
14.6
5.1
1.8
1.50
11.9
326
325
325
15.8
6.1
1.8
1.42
12.7
301
285
285
14.8
6.2
1.8
1.43
13.0
315
277
277
1.41
12.5
314
296
296
15.3
6.2
1.8
1.42
2.4
127
107
107
9.3
3.1
1.5
2.43
2.3
104
100
100
5.8
2.5
1.4
2.44
2.3
115
98
98
2.48
2.3
115
102
102
7.6
2.8
1.5
2.45
7.7
425
385
385
26.9
7.9
1.9
2.44
7.5
386
378
378
18.8
5.7
1.8
2.52
7.4
389
357
357
2.41
7.5
400
373
373
22.9
6.8
1.9
2.46
14.2
364
328
322
24.4
10.3
2.0
2.37
13.9
346
330
330
22.5
11.1
2.0
2.39
13.6
334
315
315
2.38
13.9
348
324
322
23.5
10.7
2.0
2.38
2.2
114
93
92
8.1
3.4
1.5
0.63
2.1
82
87
87
10.5
3.7
1.6
0.61
2.1
110
93
93
0.63
2.1
102
91
91
9.3
3.6
1.6
0.62
-------
TABLE F-21. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: VW Rabbit
Date: December 13, 1976
Run
Operating
HC,
o
o
«»
c°2»
No.
Condition
ppmC
£pm
%
9
Inter Speed
104
268
2.0
14
0 Load
124
368
2.0
19
42
268
1.9
90
301
2.0
1
Inter Speed
156
183
7.2
8
Mid Load
56
197
6.4
18
64
212
6.2
92
197
6.6
5
Inter Speed
84
254
11.7
12
High Load
56
268
11.4
20
56
311
12.6
65
278
11.9
3
High Speed
56
226
2.4
11
0 Load
80
240
2.4
21
48
268
2.4
61
245
2.4
4
High Speed
168
340
7.9
13
Mid Load
136
368
7.4
17
108
340
7.7
137
349
7.7
7
High Speed
84
2229
14.1
10
High Load
140
974
13.5
16
104
2214
15.0
109
1806
14.2
2
Idle
180
397
2.2
6
112
283
2.2
15
248
468
2.2
180
383
2.2
CL
DOAS
Results
NO,
NOx
LCA,
LCO,
Air Flc
ppm
ppm
yg/K,
\iq/i
TIA
kg/mir
65
65
12.7
4.7
1.7
1.52
80
80
10.2
4.0
1.6
1.49
75
75
1.8
1.8
1.3
1.50
73
73
8.2
3.5
1.5
1.50
260
260
28.2
7.6
1.9
1.49
265
265
15.1
4.6
1.7
1.45
260
260
14.4
5.1
1.7
1.52
262
262
19.2
5.8
1.8
1.49
395
395
22.1
8.1
1.9
1.41
290
290
17.8
5.3
1.7
1.42
290
290
7.6
5.0
1.7
1.42
325
325
15.8
6.1
1.8
1.42
105
105
4.6
2.4
1.4
2.48
110
110
13.7
3.0
1.5
2.40
105
105
9.5
4.0
1.6
2.40
107
107
9.3
3.1
1.5
2.43
385
385
31.2
9.5
2.0
2.47
380
380
22.5
6.2
1.8
2.47
390
390
2.39
385
385
26.9
7.9
1.9
2.44
320
310
24.3
11.2
2.1
2.35
335
330
35.9
11.8
2.1
2.37
330
325
13.0
7.9
1.9
2.39
328
322
24.4
10.3
2.0
2.37
95
95
7.6
3.3
1.5
0.64
95
95
5.6
2.7
1.4
0.62
90
85
11.2
4.1
1.6
0.63
93
92
8.1
3.4
1.5
0.63
-21
NDIR
NO,
PPm
76
99
84
86
318
292
292
301
334
326
318
326
130
130
122
127
425
421
430
425
343
390
360
364
119
115
107
114
F'
-------
TABLE F-22. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: VW Rabbit Diesel Car
Date: December 15, 1976
NDIR
CL
DOAS
Results
Run
Operating
HC,
CO,
CO.,
NO,
NO,
NOx
LCA,
LCO,
Air Flc
No.
Condition
ppmC
ppm
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
ug/«<
yg/J,
TIA
kg/mil
7
Inter Speed
52
254
2.0
49
65
65
3.0
1.7
1.2
1.47
11
0 Load
68
268
1.9
53
65
65
2.4
1.6
1.2
1.50
18
48
212
2.0
57
60
60
1.8
1.7
1.2
1.41
56
245
2.0
53
63
63
2.4
1.7
1.2
1.46
5
Inter Speed
88
183
6.7
284
290
290
13.0
4.8
1.7
1.56
8
Mid Load
50
169
7.0
292
285
11.1
4.8
1.7
1. 50
21
50
183
6.0
301
270
270
5.9
3.6
1.6
1.48
63
178
6.6
292
282
282
10.0
4.4
1.7
1.51
1
Inter Speed
88
482
12.7
292
280
280
20.6
7.1
1.9
1.41
13
High Load
60
240
11.4
318
290
290
11.0
4.5
1.7
1.43
17
160
397
14.1
292
285
285
12.8
7.1
1.9
1.46
103
373
12.7
301
285
825
14.8
6.2
1.8
1.43
3
High Speed
56
212
2.2
107
105
105
4.8
2.5
1.4
2.45
14
0 Load
36
226
2.3
107
100
100
9.0
2.9
1.5
2.43
16
56
240
2.3
99
95
95
3.7
2.0
1.3
2.44
49
226
2.3
104
100
100
5.8
2.5
1.4
2.44
2
High Speed
160
397
7.4
360
390
390
23. 5
6.8
1.8
2.47
12
Mid Load
192
397
7.6
403
375
375
19.1
5.6
1.8
2.55
19
132
340
7.4
395
370
370
13.8
4.7
1.7
2.54
161
378
7.5
386
378
378
18.8
5.7
1.8
2. 52
6
High Speed
108
1326
13.5
352
350
350
19.4
10.9
2.0
2. 39
9
High Load
120
1718
14.3
334
310
310
36.1
14.0
2.2
2.43
20
64
2291
13.8
352
330
330
11.9
8.3
1.9
2.34
97
1778
13.9
346
330
330
22. 5
11.1
2.0
2.39
4
Idle
224
454
2.1
68
90
90
11.9
4.5
1.7
0.61
10
144
340
2.2
103
90
90
6.0
1.8
1.3
0.61
15
280
540
2.1
76
80
80
13.7
4.8
1.7
0.62
216
445
2.1
82
87
87
10.5
3.7
1.6
0.61
F-22
-------
TABLE F-23. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: VW Rabbit
Date:
December 17
, 1976
NDIR
CL
Run
Operating
HC,
CO,
CO 2
NO,
NO,
NOx
Air Flov
No.
Condition
ppmC
ppm
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
kg/min
4
Inter Speed
64
254
1.9
68
60
60
1.45
9
0 Load
56
226
1.9
60
55
55
1.48
14
40
197
1.9
72
60
60
1.50
53
226
1.9
67
58
58
1.48
8
Inter Speed
50
155
5.7
301
275
275
1.49
13
Mid Load
52
183
6.2
301
265
265
1.50
16
52
169
6.2
301
260
260
1.47
51
169
6.0
301
266
266
1.49
2
Inter Speed
100
368
12.6
288
275
275
1.43
10
High Load
140
397
12.9
297
275
275
1.39
20
44
382
13.6
360
280
280
1.41
94
382
13.0
315
277
277
1.41
1
High Speed
72
226
2.3
107
98
98
2.53
18
0 Load
34
226
2.2
115
95
95
2.46
21
28
212
2.4
122
100
100
2.44
45
2.3
115
98
98
2.48
3
High Speed
104
282
7.8
360
345
345
2.45
7
Mid Load
68
282
6.7
395
375
375
2.35
19
96
282
7.8
412
350
350
2.44
89
282
7.4
389
357
357
2.41
6
High Speed
72
2352
12.6
334
325
325
2. 36
12
High Load
72
2786
14.1
334
310
310
2. 37
15
76
2352
14.1
334
310
310
2.40
73
2497
13.6
334
315
315
2. 38
5
Idle
212
425
2.1
103
90
90
0.63
11
128
282
2.1
115
100
100
0.64
17
132
340
2.1
111
90
90
0.63
157
349
2.1
110
93
93
0.63
-------
TABLE F-24. OLDS, CUTLASS, DIESEL, NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
DATE: 1/7/77
WIND: 6.4 km/hr Northerly
Acceleration Teat (1st Gear)
AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45 After Test 42-45
Pass
Exterior at 15.24m^
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
73.5
73.0
71.0
73.5
2nd
73.0
72.5
70.0
74.0
3rd
74.0
73.0
69.0
74.5
Constant Speed 48.3 km/hr Driveby
AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45 After Test 42-45
Pass
Exterior at 15.24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
61.0
61.5
62.0
72.5
2nd
60.0
61.0
63.0
72.0
3rd
59.5
61.0
65.0
71.5
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
AMBIENT: Before Test
After Test
Test 1
Direction A (L-R)
Interior 50.5 (70.5 Blr. On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 69.0 60.5 66.5 69.0
Arithmetic
Average
73.8
73.2
70.5
74.2
Arithmetic
Average ^
60.5
61.2
64.0
72.2
Test 2
Direction B (R-L)
51.5 (71.0 Blr. On)
Front Rear Left Right
7.00 61.5 69.0 69.5
Max
Reading
71.0
70.0
^According to SAE J-9R6a.
(2)Average of the two highest readings that
are within 2dB of each other.
F-24
-------
TABLE F-25. OLDS, CUTLASS, GASOLINE, NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
DATE: 1/7/77
WIND: 6-4 tan/hr Northerly
Acceleration Test (1st Gear)
AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45
After Test 42-45
Pass
Exterior at 15.24m^-'"^
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
68. 5
67.0
68.0
73.0
2nd
69.0
68.5
69.0
73.5
3rd
68.0
68.0
68.5
72.0
Constant Speed 48.3 km/hr Driveby
AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45 After Test 42-45
Pass
Exterior at 15.24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
58.5
58. 5
61.0
72. 0
2nd
58.5
59.0
59.0
71.0
3rd
58.0
58.5
60.0
70.5
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
AMBIENT: Before Test 42-45 After Test 42-45
Test .1
Direction A (L-R)
Interior 48.5 ( 71.5 Blr. On)
Front Rear Lo ft Right
Exterior 64.5 60.0 62.5 62.5
Arithmetic
Average
68.8
68.2
68.8
73.2
Arithmetic
Average ^2 ^
58.5
58.8
60.5
71.5
Test 2
Direction B (R-L)
48.5 (70.5 Blr. On)
Front Rear Left Right
63.5 60.0 62.5 62.0
Max
Reading
71.5
64. 5
^ ^ ^ According to SAF J-986t».
d)Average of the two highest readings that
are within 2dB of each other.
F-25
-------
TABLE F-26. VW RABBIT DIESEL, NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
DATE: 1/7/77
WIND: 3»° ^in/hr Northerly
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45
Pass
Exterior at 15. 24m^
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
71.0
70.5
79.0
80.0
2nd
71.5
70.0
79.5
80.0
3rd
71.5
71.0
79.5
80.0
Constant Speed 48.3 km/hr Driveby
AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45
Pass
Exterior at 15.24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
59.0
59.0
67.5
71.5
2nd
58.0
57.5
68.0
72.0
3rd
58.0
57.5
68.0
71.5
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45
Test 1
Direction A (L-R)
Arithmetic
Average
71.5
70.8
79.5
80.0
Arithmetic
Average
(2)
58.5
58.2
68.0
71.8
Interior 59.5 ( 69.5 Blr. On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior
Test 2
Direction B (R-L)
62.5 (68.0 Blr> 0n)
Front Rear Left Right
66.0 58.5 63.0 63.0 67.0 59.0.62.5 64.0
Max
Reading
69.5
67.0
(1)
According to SAE J-986a.
(^Average of the two highest readings that
are within 2dB of each other.
F-26
-------
TABLE F-27. VW RABBIT, GAOLINE, NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
DATE: 1/7/77
WIND: 3-° km/hr Northerly
Acceleration Test (
Gear)
AMBIENT:
Before Test 43-45
After l^st 43-45
Pass
Exterior at 15.24m^
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
71.0
69.5
75.0
77.0
2nd
71.0
69.5
77.0
78.0
3rd
70.5
70.0
76.0
78.5
Constant Speed 48.3 km/hr Driveby
AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test43"45
Pass
Exterior at 15.24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr Off
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
60.5
59.0
70.0
73.0
2nd
60.5
60.0
69.5
72.5
3rd
60.5
60.5
71.0
7-1.0
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
AMBIENT: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45
Test 1
Direction A (L-R)
Interior 58.0 (69.5 Blr. On)
Front Roar Left Right
Arithmetic
Average
71.0
69.8
76.5
78.2
Arithmetic
Average
(2)
60.5
60.2
70.5
73.5
Test 2
Direction B (R-L)
58.0 (69.5 Blr. On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 62.0 65.0 63.5 62.0
Elect.Fan On
(cppling Fan)72.1 65.5 66.0 64.0
v 'According to SAE J-986a.
(2)Average of the two highest readings that
are within 2dB of each other.
61.5 64.5 63.5 62.0
71.0 65.0 66.0 64.0
Max
Reading
69.5
65.0
73. 5
F-27
------- |