Evaluation of Biodiesel in an Urban Transit Bus
Powered by a 1981 DDCSV71 Engine
A Joint Project with the National Biodiesel Board
MSED REPORT #95-26713-2
Prepared By: Peter Howes 8~
Greg Rideout
I+1
Envirotmement Environnement
Canada
Ccinada
NOTICE
This report has not undergone detailed technical review by
the Technology Development Directorate the content does
not necessarily reflect the views and policies of
Environment Canada.
Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement for
use.
This unedited version is undergoing a limited distribution
to transfer the information to people working in related
studies.
This distribution is not intended to signify
publication and if the report is referenced. the author should
cite it 3s an unpublished report of the Directorate indicated
below.
Any comments concerning its content should be directed to:
Environment Canada
Technology Development Directorate
Environmental Technology Centre
Ottawa Ontario KIA OH3
Table of Contents
Page
1.0
Abstract
3
2.0
Background
4
3.0
Vehicle Description
4
4.0
Facility and Equipment Description
5
Gaseous Emissions Measurement and Analytical Techniques
Chassis Dynamometer Description
Driving Cycles
5.0
Test Procedure
9
6.0
Results
10
Regulated Emissions
7.0
Discussion
14
8.0
Summary
20
MSED Report
+%-16743-Z
List of Tables
Table 1.
Vehicle Specifications
Table 2.
Aldehyde - Ketone Target Compound List
Table 3.
Target Compounds of Light Hydrocarbon Analysis
Table 4.
Target Compounds of Detailed Hydrocarbon Analysis
Table 5.
Exhaust Emission Test Cycles
Table 6.
Ls Diesel Results, Central Business District Cycle, g/mile
Table 7.
LS Diesel Results, Arterial Cycle, g/mile
Table 8.
LS Diesel Results, New York Bus Composite Cycle, g/mile
Table 9.
820 Results, Central Business District Cycle, g/mile
Table 10.
820 Results, Arterial Cycle, g/mile
Table 11.
B20 Results, New York Bus Composite Cycle, g/mile
Table 12.
820 Results with Catalyst, Central Business District Cycle, g/mile
Table 13.
B20 Results with Catalyst, Arterial Cycle, g/mile
Table 14.
B20 Results with Catalyst, New York Bus Composite Cycle, g/mile
Table 15.
B20 Results with Timing Retard, Central Business District Cycle, g/mile
Table 16.
B20 Results with Timing Retard, Arterial Cycle, g/mile
Table 17.
B20 Results with Timing Retard, New York Bus Composite Cycle, g/mile
Table 18.
B20 Results with Catalyst and Timing Retard, CBD Cycle, g/mile
Table 19.
B20 Results with Catalyst and Timing Retard, Arterial Cycle, g/mile
Table 20.
B20 Results with Catalyst and Timing Retard, NYBComp Cycle, g/mile
Table 21.
Percentage Change in Emissions from the Baseline Tests, %
List of Figures
Figure 1.
NOx Emissions, g/mile
Figure 2.
Particulate Emissions, g/mile
Figure 3.
NOx/Particulate Ratio
Figure 4.
Particulate Composition
Figure 5.
Hydrocarbon Emissions, g/mile
Figure 6.
Carbon Monoxide Emissrons, g/mile
Figure 7.
Average Formaldehyde Emissions, g.mile
2
#95-36743-2
MSED Report
1.0 Abstract
The exhaust emission rates of regulated, as well other unregulated components of the
exhaust, were determined for an urban transit bus which was operated on commercial
low sulphur diesel, and also a twenty percent blend of methyl soyate with the base
diesel. In addition to comparing the fuels further tests were conducted to examine the
effect of ignition timing and catalytic exhaust aftertreatment.
The exhaust emission tests were conducted on a heavy duty chassis dynamometer
capable of simulating the inertia weight and road loads that urban buses are subjected
to during normal on-road operation. The emissions of total hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbonyls, and total particulate were
determined for the bus over various transient chassis dynamometer driving cycles. In
addition to these emission components the exhaust hydrocarbons were analysed for 55
individual hydrocarbons, while the particulate samples were soxhlet extracted to
quantify the soluble organic fraction of the material. The test cycles included in the
project were the Central Business District (CBD), the New York Bus Composite
(NYBCOMP), and Arterial cycles.
#95-26743-Z
3
MSED Report
2.0 Background
The emissions from urban transit buses have been considered a significant source of
pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides for several years. These
vehicles are visible to the urban population and hence their emissions of smoke and
other odorous compounds are perceived as obvious contributors to urban air quality
problems. In recent years stringent emission standards have been introduced which
limit the emission rates from new engines, while for the in-service engines emission
limiting legislation was implemented in the United States in 1994.
Engine manufacturers have been investigating a number of options in the areas of
engine design, fuel management, exhaust aftertreatment, and alternative fuels to reduce
emissions from new engines to the levels dictated by legislation. However, this activity
does not provide a solution to the numerous in-use diesel engines, particularly those
that operate in densely populated areas such as urban centers where the emissions have
a widespread effect on the general public. For the in-use segment of the heavy duty
engine applications, the potential emission reduction opportunities which have been
investigated include retrofit exhaust aftertreatment systems such as diesel catalytic
converters and particulate traps, and the conversion of the diesel engine to alternative
fuels.
In this study, the Mobile Sources Emissions Division of Environment Canada,
conducted exhaust emission tests on an urban transit bus which was operated on
conventional diesel fuel, and also a blend of the base diesel with twenty percent methyl
soyate. The tests were conducted under a joint program with the National Biodiesel
Board. The objective of the test program was to determine the potential emission
reductions of the Biodiesel, and also to optimise the engine to realise further emission
reductions. The optimisation portion of the project included a timing retard and also
the application of a flow through catalyst. The following report describes the
procedures and results of the emissions testing program.
3.0 Vehicle Description
The test vehicle was an in-use city transit bus powered by a conventional, diesel fuelled
engine typical of the year of manufacture. The chassis was a forty foot Flexbl bus
operated by the South West Ohio Regional Transit Authority equipped with a 1981
DDC 8V71 engine. Table 1 provides further details of the vehicle and engine.
The diesel fuel used during the testing was a low sulphur fuel purchased from the
Petro Canada refinery located in h4ontreal Quebec.
#95-267-13-Z
4
MSED Report
Table 1. Vehicle Specifications
Test Vehude
S.W Oh10 Reg. T.A
Model year
1989
Engme Type
DDC 8V71
Number of cylinders
8
Exhaust Aftertreatment
None (baseline)
Engelhard CMX
Transmissmn
Automatic, 3 speed
AU intake
Turbocharged
Test Inerha Weight (pounds)
30,320
Test Road Load Horsepower
88.05 (@ 50 mph)
4.0 Facility and Equipment Description
Gaseous Emissions Measurement and Analvticai Techniques
Gaseous and particulate emissions were obtained using a large single dilution constant
volume sampler, which utilised a stainless steel tunnel ten inches in diameter, and one
hundred inches in effective length, coupled to a secondary dilution tunnel which
enabled particulate collection in accordance with accepted test procedures (“), The flow
rate in the main tunnel was 1500 SCFM during the studies. The raw exhaust from the
vehicle was transferred from the exhaust pipe of the bus to the dilution system through
a flexible stainless steel pipe 20 feet in length and 4 inches in diameter.
The gaseous sampling zone of the dilution system was equipped with three probes.
One sample probe was used to draw sample from the tunnel into tedlar bags for
analysis. The other probes directed samples of the dilute exhaust through heated lines
(191OC) to silica gel cartridges which had been treated prior to testing with 2,4
dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) for carbonyl collection, and then through tenax
cartridges to another set of small tedlar bags. A dedicated heated probe upstream of
this zone was used for continuous sample collection for total hydrocarbon and nitrogen
oxides measurement. A second probe in the same area of the heated probe, was used to
direct a sample from the main tunnel to the secondary tunnel, where a second dilution
occurred and sample was drawn through 70mm teflon coated glass fiber filters for
particulate collection. The soluble organic fraction of the particulate sample was
determined following the test through soxhlet extraction using methylene chloride.
The emission rates of CO, C02, as well as THC and NOx, were also determined by
collecting a proportional sample of the dilute exhaust in tedlar bags and analysing the
contents of the bag using nondispersive Infrared instruments for CO and C02,
c h e m i l u m i n e s c e n c e i n s t r u m e n t f o r NOx. a n d f l a m e lonisation detector for
#95-26743-Z
5
MSED Report
hydrocarbons. A second set of bag samples were analysed for the concentrations of
these components in the background dilution air.
The carbonyls in the dilute exhaust were collected on the DNPH coated cartridges.
This method measures the phenylhydrzone derivatives, which are formed by the
reaction of the DNPH solution and the carbonyls, and are a function of the carbonyl
concentration in the dilute exhaust. Measurement of the derivatives was determined
using High Performance Liquid Chromatography. The following Table outlines the
target compounds for this analysis
Table 2. Aldehyde - Ketone Target Compounds
Formaldehyde
Proplonaldehyde
Methyl ethyl ketone
Acetophenone
Acetaldeyde
Methoxyacetone
Benzaldehyde
m&p-Tolualdehyde
2-3 Butandlone
Crotonaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Acroleln
Methacroleln
Tnmethylacetaldehyde
Pinacolone
Acetone
Iso - & butyraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Hexanaldehye
During each of the tests, samples of the dilute exhaust were directed through a tenax
cartridge. The cartridge traps the hydrocarbons with seven or more carbon atoms, with
the remaining sample, the Cl to C6 hydrocarbons collected in separate tedlar bags
which were connected in series with the tenax. These samples were subjected to
analysis by gas chromatography to quantify the amount of methane and selected
non-methane hydrocarbons.
The light hydrocarbon (LHC) method employs a Hewlett Packard 5890 Series II gas
chromatograph with an FID. The instrument is controlled and data is acquired and
analysed via the Hewlett Packard 3365 Series II DOS ChemStation. A manually
controlled valve injection of the gas sample is made directly on-column using a Valco 6
port heated valve is used.
The target species for the LHC method are summarised in Table 3. The method is
calibrated between 15 and 0.15 ppmV for each component, except Methane which is
calibrated in the range 0.15 to 300 ppmV. The detection limit for the C,-C, compounds
is approximately 0.03 ppmC and for Methane is 0.09 ppmC.
Table 3. Target Compounds of Light Hydrocarbon Analysis
Methane
Propylene
Ethylene
Propane
Acetylene
Ethane
Propyne
n-Butane
The detailed hydrocarbon speciation analysis is accomplished using cryogenic
concentration followed by high resolution GC-FID separation and detection. The
instrumentation consists of the ENTECH L a b o r a t o r y A u t o m a t i o n a u t o m a t e d V O C
preconcentrator Model hf2000, a Hewlett Packard model 5890 Series II gas
if95-26743-2
6
MSED Report
chromatograph and the Hewlett Packard model 3365 Series II DOS ChemStation
instrument control, data acquisition and analysis software.
The ENTECH concentrator uses a two-stage cryogenic trapping technique to selectively
retain the hydrocarbon species in a packed trap and to allow N, 0, and Ar to pass
through. A known volume of sample gas (in the present case, 50 mL) is passed through
a length of nickel tubing packed with glass beads and an adsorbent held at sub-ambient
temperatures (-168°C). During this step the VOC’s are selectively retained on the
cryogenic trap. A second trap made of deactivated fused silica tubing (0.53 mm i.d.) is
cooled to -190°C and the first trap is heated quickly to 200 “C to transfer the VOC’s to
the second trap. This second stage serves to focus the sample into a very small volume
(CO.01 mL) for injection onto the analytical column. The focusing trap is then heated
very quickly (600 “C/min) to perform the injection of the sample. A nafion membrane
dryer is also used to selectively remove water vapour from the sample stream before
injection.
The VOC method is calibrated for 55 C2-C,, hydrocarbon species. The table below
provides a complete list of target species. The method was developed for speciation of
gasoline fuelled vehicle exhaust samples, and as such emphasises the lighter
compounds. This list accounts for approximately 80% of the total mass emissions of
gasoline exhaust samples. With heavier fuels (diesel, etc.) the fraction of total mass
emissions accounted for decreases. The laboratory is currently extending the mass
range of the analysis.
Table 4. Target Compounds of Detailed Hydrocarbon Analysis
ethylene
acetylene
ethane
propylene
i
i?$jEe
isobutylene
I-butene
1,3-butadiene
n-butane
t2-butene
22-dm-propane
1 -butyne
$95-26743-2
cyclopentane
dt4m2-pentene
2m-pentane
3m-pentane
2ml-pentene/l-hexene
n-hexane
Ghexene
2m2-pentene
t3mZ-pentene
c2-hexene
c3m2-pentene
m-cyclopentane
1 m-cyclopentene
benzene
d-butene
cyclohexane
3ml-butene
Zm-butane
2ml-butene
I-pentene
2-butyne
n-pentane
Gpentene
c2-pentene
2m2-butene
22dm-butane
cyclopentene
4ml-pentene
7
cyclohexene
iso-octane
n-heptane
m-cyclohexane
toluene
1 m-cyclohexene
n-octane
e-benzene
m&p-xylene
o-xylene
n-nonane
124-trnbenzene
n-decane
MSED Report
Chassis Dvnamometer Descrintion
The chassis dynamometer used in the study was a Clayton Heavy Duty Vehicle
Emission Dynamometer with twin rolls (split) 8.65 inches in diameter, 120 inches in
length, and 20 inches between roll centers. Inertia simulation was selected through
mechanical flywheels with electric compensation, while Road Load was simulated by
an 300 horsepower electric DC motor. Maximum inertia and road load of the system is
45000 pounds, and 150 horsepower at 50 miles per hour.
The rotating speed of the dynamometer rolls during a vehicle emissions test is
measured by a pulse counter, which communicates this information to a
microprocessor controller. The controller translates the pulses into the linear speed of
the vehicle and it is displayed on a video screen as a cursor. The vehicle driver then
uses the cursor to follow a selected speed versus time trace. In this way, the vehicle
may be operated over a selected transient operation or driving cycle.
The chassis dynamometer testing procedures followed for this type of emissions testing
are outlined in a USEPA report entitled “Recommended Practise for Determining
Exhaust Emissions from Heavy Duty Vehicles Under Transient Conditions” (‘). The
exhaust sampling and vehicle set-up procedures were similar to those described for
light duty emissions certification(3’ . The electronic programming feature of the
dynamometer controller allows for a speed-power curve for each test vehicle. To
calculate the curve the following equation was applied (?
RLP= F * 0.67 * (H - 0.75) * W * (V/5O)3+ 0.00125 * LVW * (V/50)
where:
RLP = Road Load Power in Horsepower
F
= 1.00 for tractor trailers, 0.85 for urban buses
H
= Average maximum height in feet
‘CY
= Average maximum width in feet
LVW= Loaded Vehicle Weight in Pounds
V
= Vehicle Speed (mph)
According to the procedure recommended by the US EPA, the inertia setting for the
bus should be equal to the sum of the empty bus weight, half passenger load and the
drover at 150 pounds each, and the equivalent inertia of the non-rotating wheel
assemblies.
8
#95-26743-2
MSED Report
Driving Cvcles
The driving cycles for the exhaust emissions testing were the Central Business District
(CBD), the New York Bus Composite Cycle (NYBUS), and the Arterial Cycle.
Table 5 provides details of the test cycles while graphical representations of the speed
versus time data for these driving cycles have been enclosed in the appendices of the
report.
TABLE 5. Exhaust Emission Test Cycles
Test
Duration (seconds)
Distance (miles)
Average Speed mph
CBD
600
2.06
12.37
New York Bus Comp
1,030
2.51
8.77
Artenal
373
2
19.3
5.0 Test Procedure
The test procedures which were followed for the exhaust emission testing of the heavy
duty vehicle were outlined in the US-EPA report entitled “Recommended Practise for
Determining Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles Under Transient
Conditions”. The calculations of exhaust emissions and fuel economy were performed
in accordance with the US-EPA Code of Federal Regulation, Schedule 40, Part 86.
The bus was located on the dynamometer with the drive wheels cradled between the
twin rolls of the dynamometer. Wheel chocks were placed in front of the vehicles
steering wheels, and chain restraints located in the test cell floor were attached to the
rear frame assembly of the vehicle as a safety precaution. The exhaust outlet pipe of the
vehicle was connected to a heated, 4 inch diameter 20 feet in length, flexible stainless
steel pipe, which was also connected to the inlet of the dilution tunnel. Fans were
located in the vicinity of the drive wheels to create air flow across the tires and remove
the heat generated ,by the tire to dynamometer roll contact
During each of the test days the vehicle was brought to operating temperature by
operating the vehicle at various steady state speeds. Following the warm-up the
emission tests were conducted as hot starts. Driver variability was eliminated from the
results by using the same technician for all of the vehicle testing. In general three
repeats of each driving cycle were conducted in series, with a 3 minute “soak” between
each repetition. Where it was identified that additional tests were required on a
particular cycle, additional tests were conducted after an engine warm-up.
The bus was first tested using low sulphur diesel. This was accomplished by plumbing
both a supply and return line into a barrel of test fuel located beside the bus in the test
cell. The results of this testing were to be considered as the baseline emissions of the
bus and weye compared to data obtained from other vehicles of the type to ensure the
9
#?5-267G-3
MSED Report
proper operation of the engine. At the conclusion of the baseline testing the bus was
prepared for emissions testing on the Biodiesel fuel by replacing the baseline fuel with
a barrel of the blended fuel, and purging the vehicle of any remaining baseline fuel.
The following is a timetable of the test configurations which were examined in the
project;
i)
Baseline testing on low sulphur diesel
ii)
Biodiesel testing
iii)
Biodiesel testing with exhaust aftertreatment
iv)
Biodiesel testing with engine timing retard
v)
Biodiesel testing with exhdust aftertreatment and engine timing retard.
6.0 Results
Exhaust emission tests were conducted on an urban transit bus over various transient
driving cycles. The following section provides the summarised results of this testing
while the complete body of results are enclosed in the appendices of the report
Regulated
.._...
. - . . .._...... _ .Emissions
. . . . . . .._..........
Tables 6, through 20 list the emission rates of the regulated emissions (THC, CO, NOx,
and particulate matter), and carbon dioxide over each of the tests conducted in the
study. The formaldehyde (HCOH) and total aldehyde (RCOH) are presented in
milligrams per mile while the other mass emission rates are in grams per mile.
The percent soluble organic fractions @OF%) are also presented as well as the fuel
economy in miles per U.S. gallon. The fuel economy was calculated using carbon
balance.
The arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the three tests in each vehicle/fuel
configuration are presented in the Tables to provide an indication of the test
repeatability. The differences between the configurations will be examined in the
Discussion.
10
ti95-26743-2
USED Report
Table 6. Ls Diesel Results
Cl Itrill
_ _ _ _ Blllsiness Dislricl E/mi
rust I Trst 2__ rest 3
;tDev
r
Table 8. LS Diesel Results
N.Y Bus ( jmpc
1s#ite C cle ii
wA
rest 1 rest 2 Test 3 Mean $lDev
Table 7. LS Diesel Red Is
Ari ‘rid < rcle f mi
1rest i rest 2 Test 3 Mean SitDev
Tl IC
2.71
2.79
3.23
2.91
0.23
TI IC
2.71
2.52
2.48
2.57
CO
43.77
11.11
45 07
43.31
1.65
co
21 .oo
21.26
23.91
22.07
NOX
32.79
28.31
26 74
29.28
2.56
NOx
24.61
24.84
28.45
25.97
CO2
2,8h?
2,786
2,875
2,841
39
co2
2,556
2,601
2,645
2,600
Phi
0.91
O.YY
0 86
0.92
0.05
PM
2.01
1.24
1.12
1.46
SOFZ
40.5
54.9
56.5
50.6
7.2
SOP%
71 .-I
49.4
36.5
52.4
HCOH
0.1 1
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.02
dCOH
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
RCOF T
0.19
0 25
0.22
0.22
0.03
7COH
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.21
hlPG
3.46
3.56
3.44
3.49
0.05
MPG
3.92
3.85
3.78
3.85
mi
&De\
THC
317 h-a 11 hsirle: ss Di St rict 1
rest I __1 ‘cst 2 1rest 3 Tdean
1.98
2 01
1.99
1.97
0.03
CO
36.71
uI.12
32.83
35.89
2.24
NOx
32.08
32.52
13.78
32.59
0.45
NOx
co2
2,729
1,792
2,789
2,770
28
Phf
0.68
0.65
0.64
0.65
SOFX
34.9
33.1
51.3
FICOH
0.11
0.13
RCOH
0.12
Ic11=c;
3.64
Table 9. B20 Results
L
Table 10. B20 Results
Arterial Cvcle g/mi
_I
0.1 1
THC
3.14
3.23
3.94
3.44
0.36
1.31
co
15.79
16.71
19.54
17.35
1.61
1.76
NOx
36.84
36.35
32.37
35.19
2.01
36
co2
2,755
2,758
2,839
2,784
39
0.39
PM
0.67
0.67
1.41
0.91
0.35
17.5
SOFZ
46 1
54.5
54.9
51.8
4.9
0.01
HCOH
0.15
0.13
0.18
0.16
0.02
0.03
RCOH
0.22
0.23
0.29
0.24
0.04
0.06
MPG
3.65
3.64
3.53
3.61
0.05
Table 11. B20 Results
NYBus ComDosite
C vc
/ :le g
1
7i
Test
1blear
jtDev
3.25
3.26
3.28
0.03
16.41
15.47
14.39
15.42
0.83
30.65
31.01
30.43
30.71
0.24
2,860
2,884
2,823
2,856
24
1.18
1.94
1.27
1.23
1.48
0.32
53.5
49.1
76.5
68.7
71.4
72.2
3.2
iCOH
0.07
0.08
0.21
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.02
0.04
KIOH
0.14
0.14
0.32
0.27
0.26
0.28
0.03
004
MPG
3.85
3.86
3.51
3.49
3.56
3.52
0.03
T
rest 1 Test 2
Test 1
rest 2
THC
1.81
1.64
co
18.99
18.81
14.14 17.31
32.31
33.56
31.15 32.34 0.98
co2
2,605
2,601
2,497
0.02
PM
1.45
39.8
8.2
jOF%
0.12
0.12
0.01
0.19
0.18
0.16
3.56
3.57
3.59
3.32
11
#95-26743-2
2,568
50
-I-
MSED Report
‘I’nhle 12. IS20 -Catalyst
cc!I1 lral I Isine!jS Di;t
-_
Test
-_1 TM 2 rest 3
Results
2 g/ m i
--
Table 13. 1120 -Catalyst Results
Art rial C de g/ mi
Tt1C
1.18
I.lb
0.98
1.11
0 09
THC
0.83
CO
1448
Y.32
9.92
11.24
2.31
c o
NOX
2b.71
28.4Y
27.34
27.51
0.74
CO2
3,164
3,l b7
3;t 54
3,162
I’M
1.14
0.93
0.09
S@F%
19.1
37.1
I(‘01 I
0.07
<cotf
hfPC
&De1
0.73
0.77
0.04
TIIC
1.99
1.97
I.11
0.86
I .19
0.31
c o
3 31
NOx
25.15
25.41
25.55
0.41
NOx
5
co2
2,887
2,952
2,953
54
co2
1 .O2
0.09
PM
1.22
1.04
1.15
0.07
PM
30.2
28.8
7.4
?-OF%
32.b
24.2
28.2
3.4
SOFX
0 07
0.05
0.06
001
3COH
0.0-l
0.03
0.04
0.01
HCOH
0.1 1
0.1 2
0.08
0.11
0.02
<co1 1
0 07
O.Ob
0.07
0.01
RCOH
3.19
3.19
3.21
3.21
0.01
AjPC
3.52
3.44
3.44
0.07
MPG
‘
rahlc I5. B20-Timing Retard Results
Ct ltral Business District g/mi
T&l Test 2
lest , Ts
Mean
Mean
;tDev
Table 14. B20 -Catalyst Results
NYBus Composite Cvcle z;/mi
‘Table 16. B20-Timing Retard Results
Arterial ( 3Vde g mi
Test;
Test 1
&De\
1.93
1.9b
002
3.85
1.66
3.94
0.56
32.36
32.22
32.06
32.21
0.12
3,104
3,147
3,138
3,130
18
0.88
O.8b
0.94
0.89
0.03
49.7
48.7
4b.5
48.3
1.3
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.01
0.18
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.02
3.27
3.22
3.23
3.24
0.02
_
I
’
Table 17. B20-Timing Retard Results
NYBus Comnosite Cvcle g/mi
rest 2 Test 3 Mear
THC
2 51
241
TkIC
2.09
1.86
1.71
1.89
THC
co
33.lh
33.27
c o
17.b7
21.18
22.55
20.47
c o
NOx
23.15
21 82
NOx
20.48
20.72
22.62
21.27
NOx
co2
2,x29
2,755
co2
2,363
2,628
2,688
2,559
co2
Phi
2.23
1 .b2
PM
3.28
1.78
1.56
2.21
PM
iOF%
54.8
41.2
?OF%
bb.8
42.9
38.5
49.4
SOF%
KOH
0.17
0.1-I
1COH
0.1 b
0.11
0.11
0.13
KOH
KOH
0 2’)
0.21
KZOH
0.28
0.18
0.22
0.23
RCOH
h/l PG
3.52
3.62
MPG
4.24
3.82
3.73
3.93
MPG
12
#95-26743-2
Mean
Test 1
rest i
cz rcsl
3.16
3.Ob
3.11
ll.b3
9.73
12.31
26.78
25.77
26.33
2,791
2,759
2,756
1.91
1.31
1.44
66.X
70.8
63.5
0.19
0.1 b
0.16
0.36
0.26
0.29
3.61
3.66
3.bS
1
MSED Report
Table 18. PO-CXalyst with
Timing Retard Results
Table 20. B20-Catalyst with
Timing Retard Results
NYBus Composite Cl f(:le dmi
Table 19. B20-Catalyst with
Central Busmess District E/mi
Trst 2 rest 3 Mem SLDcv
1.02
0.98
1.11
0.14
Timing Retard Results
Arterial ( 27rcle 1 ’ mi
rest 1 rest 2 rest 3 Mea11
‘
M.hJ
THC
0.91
0.76
0.73
0.81
0.08
1093
11.66
10.86
0.69
c o
0.84
0.97
0.86
0.89
0.06
33.51
34.99
31.43
4.05
NOx
32.53
33.04
32.62
32.73
0.22
2,980
3,069
3,048
49
co2
2,586
2,666
2,597
2,616
35
1.31
1.26
1.36
0.11
PM
2.03
1.39
1.03
1.41
0.41
27.8
22.9
30.1
6.9
SOF%
-10.1
24.4
24.4
29.6
7.4
0.07
0.07
0.0x
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.04
0.1
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.02
3 39
3.29
3.32
0.05
HCOH
RCOH
MPG
3.93
3.81
3.91
3.88
0.05
13
#95-26743-2
Test 1
Test Test1
Mea11
1.87
THC
1.71
co
4.39
5.63
NOx 30.72 37.09
c o 2 2,683 3,081
Phi
1.33
1.11
SOFZ 56.1
38.4
-ICOH 0.13
0.1
XCOH 0.22 0.18
AVG
3.77
3.29
‘
;tDev
1.77
1.78
0.07
3.65
4.56
0.82
35.13
34.31
2.66
3,009
2,925
173
0.92
1.12
0.17
53.9
49.4
7.9
0.1
0.11
0.02
0.17
0.19
0.03
3.37
3.48
0.21
MSED Report
7.0 Discussion
In this study three strategies for reducing the vehicle emissions were examined. First,
the fuels effect on the engine out emissions was investigated by blending conventional
diesel with methyl soyate. Second, the ignition timing was retarded to quantify the
effect on the engine out emissions, and thirdly, catalytic exhaust aftertreatment was
introduced and the effect on the tallpipe emissions was determined. While these three
strategies were investigated separately, the interrelation between the biodiesel and the
effectiveness of the oxidation catalyst must be considered.
In the following Table the percentage change in the emission rates from the baseline to
the other test cotigurations are presented. A minus sign indicates that the emissions
were lowered, while a positive sign indicates an increase.
Table 21. Percentage Change in Emissions from the Baseline Tests
820
B20 - CMX
820 - CMX - 8.5
B20 - 8.5
CBD -HC
CBD - CO
-31.5
-17.3
-61.9
-74.1
-62.3
-74.9
-16.5
-22.1
CBD - PM
CBD - SOF
-29.0
-21.5
10.9
43.2
47.7
-40.7
95.0
-13.1
ART ART ART ART -
-21.5
24.3
-14.6
5.09
-94.6
-1.6
-19.8
46.2
-68.1
-95.9
26.0
-3.3
-43.5
-24.9
-7.2
-18.1
5‘4.2
-5.8
CBD - NOx
CO
NOx
PM
SOF
11.3
-6.0
7.4
-25.0
The primary target pollutants of the study were the particulate matter and nitrogen
oxides. This was largely because of the contribution of these pollutants from urban
buses to urban air quality pollutant inventories, and also the current regulatory climate
for new and in use heavy duty diesel engines in the United States. Whenever control
measures for particulate are examined, an important consideration is the
interrelationship between particulate and NOx emissions, also referred to as the
NOx/particulate trade off. In general, techniques used to decrease NOx normally result
in an increase of particulate while the opposite is also true. For example, retarding the
ignition timing of the diesel engine has been widely reported as a technique for NOx
reduction, however this is accompanied by a particulate increase.
The composition and quality of the fuel has aiso been demonstrated to have a direct
effect on the exhaust emissions although the cause of these effects can be very complex
and are not well understood. Coupled with the complexity of fuel effects is the scarcity
of data in this area which examine the fuels effects over transient driving cycles
representative of tvpicai urban bus operation.
13
#?5-26743-T
MSED Report
The following paragraphs provide a general discussion of the overall test results.
Nitrogen Oxides and Pnrticulnte Emissiorls
The following Figures compare the emission rates of nitrogen oxides and particulate
matter over the three test cycles.
Figure 1. NOx Emissions, Grams per Mile
1
i
f?iJ
CBD
0
ART
NYcomp
L
LSD
B20-10 deg
B20-8.5 deg
BZO-cat-10 deg B20-cat-83 deg
Figure 2. Particulate Emissions, Grams per Mile
LSD
B20-10 deg
B20-8.5 deg
BZO-cat-10 deg B20cat-8.5 deg
i
In Figures 1 and 2, the fuel effect of the biodiesel can be examined by the first two sets
of data points; the low sulphur diesel (LSD) and the biodiesel blend (B20). These tests
were conducted with the original ignition timing and without exhaust aftertreatment.
With respect to NOx emissions there was an increase during the CBD and Arterial
driving cycles when operating on the 820 fuel blend in comparison to the baseline LSD.
However, NOx emissions were reduced when operating during the NYComp cycle
using B20 in comparison to the LSD. The particulate emissions were lowered by 29
percent with the introduction of the methyl soyate over the CBD cycle, and 14.6 percent
over the Arterial cvcie. Conversely, the particulate emissions increased sigmficantly,
bl.9 %, over the NYComp drlvmg cycle.
15
$9526743-2
MSED Report
In combining the cycles for an equally weighted average emission rate, the percentage
change in the NOx emission rate was found to be an increase by 5.7 percent, and the
particulate emissions were increased by 2.8 percent. If the Arterial cycle is given a
double weighting due to its large percentage of acceleration and cruise time, this
percentage change in the emissions was a 9.9 percent increase for NOx, and a 2.6
percent decrease for particulate.
The effect of the ignition timing retard on the NOx emissions is clearly evident in the
previous Figures. A decrease in NOx was observed during the B20 tests with the timing
set at 8.5 degrees without the catalyst installed over all three transient test cycles in
comparison to tests with the timing set at 10 degrees. However when the timing was
retarded from 10 degrees to 8.5 degrees and the catalyst was installed, there was an
increase in NOx emissions observed during all three test cycles. Some tests of oxidation
catalysts have reported an increase in NOx emissions, possibly as a result of complex
chemical reactions in the catalyst however this phenomena appears to be temperature
dependent.
The equally weighted average of NOx over these three test cycles when retarding the
timing from 10 degrees to 8.5 degrees yielded a decrease of 27.3 percent without the
catalyst, and an increase of 15.5 percent with the catalyst installed. A similar trend in
the NOx emissions are observed when the Arterial cycle is given a double weighting.
The particulate emissions followed the expected NOx/particulate trade-off where NOx
was decreased by retarding the timing and the particulate increased without the
catalyst installed. With the introduction of exhaust aftertreatment the mass emission
rate of the particulate was increased for all test cycles when the timing was retarded.
On average the biodiesel particulate increased by 65.7 percent when the timing was
retarded without exhaust aftertreatment. With exhaust aftertreatment installed,the
particulate emissions increased by 29.1 percent when the timing was retarded to 8.5
degrees.
The catalyst effectiveness is evident when comparing the tests conducted with or
without exhaust aftertreatment at the same ignition timing. In this comparison the
catalyst produced an average reduction of particulate from the untreated exhaust by 8.6
percent at the original timing, and by 28.8 percent at the 8.5 degree retard. The lowest
overall particulate emission rate was produced by the following combination; original
ignition timing, biodiesel, with Engelhard catalyst. The lowest overall NOx/Particulate
ratio was found to occur with the catalyst in combination with the ignition timing
retard, while the highest was with the B20 fuel blend, as shown in the following Figure.
16
#95-26743-I?
MSED Report
APPENDIX
A.
Regulated Emissions Test Results
Al
Baseline Diesel Tests
#95-26743-I
23
USED Report
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grow
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S. W Ohio Reg. T A
DDC 8V7 1
9.3 L V8
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Soluble Organic Fraction
Carbonyls
voc
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
yes
yes
yes
0 15538
0.157
0.00162
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
31 82
8 62
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
192 66
2 69
NOs Sample (ppm)
NOr Ambient (ppm)
92.20
1.60
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 84
0 05
Fuel Consumption
mi/USgal
1
3.46
I
Figure 3. NOx/Particulate Ratio
B20 8 5 deg
B20
LSD
B20 cat 8 5 deg
B20 ca
The direct effect of the catalyst on the tailpipe emissions is most evident on the gaseous
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. However, another target of the catalyst is the
hydrocarbons which have condensed onto the particulate in the engine and exhaust
system. These condensed hydrocarbons comprise the soluble organic fraction of the
material. The following Figure compares the average mass of the non-SOF particulate
material to that of the SOF.
Figure 4. Particulate Composition, grams
LSD
B20
B20CMX
B20CMX8 5
B20 8.5
In the tests, the SOF of the particulate was slightly increased when the methyl soyate
was blended with the baseline fuel. This would be expected due to the composition of
the blending agent which are primarily esters containing from 16 to 18 carbon atoms.
The carbonaceous particulate core provides an excellent site for the condensation of
these long chain hydrocarbons. The installation of the catalytic converter results in
significant reductions of the SOF while the remaining particulate matter was largely
unaffected. With the ignition delay the non SOF component of the exhaust was shown
to increase while any increase in the SOF was negated by the activity of the catalvst.
17
#95-36743-2
MSED Report
Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide Emissiom
The hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions are the result of incomplete
combustion of the fuel. Therefore the emission rates are a function of the driving cycle
and the corresponding operation of the engine. In general the THC emissions were
greatest over the NYComp cycle followed by the CBD and the Arterial cycles and CO
emissions were greatest over the CBD cycle. With the installation of the oxidation
catalyst the emissions were significantly reduced, however when the timing was
retarded in combination with the catalyst the CO emission rate was shown to increase,
The following Figures illustrate the trends in these emissions over the various test
cycles.
Figure 5. Hydrocarbon Emissions, Grams per Mile
q
CBD
0
ARTERIAL
n
B20
B20 cat
B20 cat 8 5
NYEKZOMP
B208 5 deg
Figure 6. Carbon Monoxide Emissions, Grams per Mile
B20
B20 cat
B20 cat S 5
CBD
G
ARTERIAL
B20 8 5 dep
18
#95-76743-Z
ml
MSED Report
Aldehyde / Kefolle Emissions
Total aldehyde/ketone emissions over the three test cycles was the highest over the
New York Bus Composite test cycle. The primary constituent of the total
aldehyde/ketone emissions being formaldehyde. In Figure 7, the highest average
formaldehyde emission rates were observed during the NYBComp test cycles. The
configuration which yielded the highest average formaldehyde emissions as well as
total aldehyde emissions was conducted using the biodiesel blend without exhaust
aftertreatment and the timing retarded to 8.5 degrees.
Figure 7. Average Formaldehyde Emissions, Grams per Mile
B20
B20 cat
B20 cat 8 5
B20 8.5 deg
8.0 Summary
#95-26743-Z
19
MSED Report
8.0 Summary
The Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada performed heavy duty
chassis dynamometer emissions testing on a standard forty foot urban transit bus while
operating on diesel, and also on a blend of diesel with methyl soyate. The testing was
conducted in support of a demonstration program involving the National Biodiesel
Board. The objective of the emissions test program was to determine and compare the
emissions from the bus while in the standard diesel configuration, and while operating
with the biodiesel. Other parameters which were investigated included the effect of
ignition timing and exhaust aftertreatment with an oxidation catalyst.
Biodiesel uersus Baseline Diesel
In comparing the biodiesel fuel and baseline diesel produced emissions, the biodiesel
had its most significant impact on the emissions of carbon monoxide and total
hydrocarbon during the Arterial cycle tests. This cycle has a higher percentage of time
at acceleration and cruise than the other cycles and therefore may better illustrate the
effect of the fuel composition at higher vehicle load. During the CBD test cycles
particulate matter and SOF exhibited the largest reduction in emissions. If a double
weighting is applied to the Arterial emission rates when averaging the three cycles, the
percent change decrease in particulate was 2.6 percent, while NOx was increased by 10
percent. An equal weighting of the cycles yields a percentage decrease of 2.8 percent for
particulate, and a 5.8 percent increase in NOx.
Catalyst Effect
With the installation of the Engelhard catalyst there were significant decreases in HC,
CO, and particulate mass over each cycle. In addition, the soluble organic fraction of
the particulate was also reduced over the test cycles. These results were to be expected
due to the oxidation activity of the exhaust after-treatment device.
In the tests conducted with the ignition retarded the NOx emissions decreased as
expected, however this was accompanied by an increase in the particulate over all three
test cycles. Interestingly, the SOF content of the particulate was lowered over the CBD
and Arterial cvcles. With the catalyst in place the NOx emissions were not significantly
changed from-the baseline LSD tests.
20
*95-16743-7
XISED Report
References
1.
USEPA Urban Bus Engine Reburld/Retrofit Regulation
2.
France, C. J., Clemmens. W., Wysor, T.Recommended Practise for Determining
Exhaust Emissions from Heaw Dutv Vehicles Under Transient Conditions.
EPA Technical Report SDSB-79-08, PB80-17914-6, February 1979
3.
US EPA Code of Federal Regulations, Schedule 40 Part 86
4.
Urban, C.M. Dvnamometer Simulation of Truck and Bus Road Horsepower for
Transient Evaluations
SAE Report 840349, SAE Transactions Volume 93,1984
5.
Urban, C.M. Calculation of Emissions and Fuel Economv When Using
Alternative Fuels
EPA Report EPA 460/3-83-009
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the work of Gail Mosher, Karen McCuaig,
Stephanie Bourgeau, and Stephen Brown who conducted the emission tests and
performed the analysis required for the speciation of the exhaust components.
The participation and co-operation of Mr. John VanGerpen of the National Biodiesel
Board has been greatly appreciated.
21
#95-26743-2
MSED Report
APPENDIX
A.
Regulated Emissions Test Results
Al
Baseline Diesel Tests
A2
B20 Tests
A3
B20 with Engelhard Catalyst
A4
B20 with Engelhard Catalyst and Ignition Timing Retard
A5
B20 with Ignition Timing Retard
B.
Aldehyde - Ketone Emissions Analysis - All Tests
C.
Soluble Organic Analysis All Tests
D.
Emission Test Cycles
22
#95-26743-2
MSED Report
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grow
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S. W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
2
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
1
~~
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.1518
0 15361
0 00181
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
31.51
7.21
‘CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
187 32
175
NOx Sample (ppm)
iNOx Ambient (ppm)
86 52
2.44
CO2
0 s1
0 06
Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grout
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S W Ohio Reg T.A
DDC SV71
93LV8
Diesel
1
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15077
0.15231
0 0015-l
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
37.62
10
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
200.2 1
1 95
NO+ Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
78.15
1.95
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 SJ
0 05
Fuel Consumption
mi/US~al
3 44
1
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Eogioe
Engine Cycle
95-86
S. W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V7 1
9.3 L vs
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
1
j
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15128
0 15516
0.00388
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
47.61
6 88
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
161.91
3 06
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOs Ambient (ppm)
147 21
5.8-I
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1.30
0 08
Mobile Sources
Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Owner I Operator
Initial Filter Mass (9)
Final Filler Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
95%
SW Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
93LVS
0 15146
0 15391
0.00245
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
47.18
9 02
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
166 81
3 s5
NOs Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
119 16
5 53
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1.31
0 08
1
IDate
/Cell #
( July 18195 1 ITest
2
L W (lbs.)
1
30320
1 IExhaust Aftertreatment
1
I
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
1
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.1482
0 15039
0.00219
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
47 83
10.22
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
189 54
1 92
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
176 46
9 04
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1.10
0.10
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grow
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S. W Oho Reg T.A
DDC 8V71
93LVS
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15324
0 15461
0 00137
TEC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
26 98
88
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
16 s-1
0.29
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
70.38
I.73
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (?h)
0 56
0 05
J
J
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
Date
1 J u n e 28/95 1 /Test L W (lbs.)
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
r
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
)
S. W Oho Reg. T A
0.15272
0.1541
0.00138
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
28 36
9 63
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
50 02
0.91
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
69 59
1.71
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 05
0 56
Fuel Consumption
I
30320
1
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
95-86
Owner I Operator
S. W Ohio Reg T.A
DDC XV71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Soluble Organic Fraction
Carbonyls
voc
Total DPS Volume (scf)
Particulate Volume (scf)
Dilution Volume (scf)
Dilution Factor
Distance cmi.‘l
25130
51.4
30.13
21.899
2 465
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (9)
0 15113
0.15407
0 00293
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
30 62
7 26
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
60 12
2 06
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
75 90
3 68
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 60
0.07
yes
yes
ves
A.
Regulated Emissions Test Results
A2
B20 Tests
34
#95-26743-Z
MSED Report
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
IVehicle Number
Owner / Operator
‘Engine Model
Engine
~Engine Cycle
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15288
0.15419
0.00131
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
27.23
9 1-l
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
1712
2.71
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
87 34
2 04
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 85
0.05
Par&late (g/mi.)
0 675-i
I,
m
95-86
SW Ohlo Reg T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L vs
Diesel
1
No Exhaust Aftertreatment
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grout,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
I
/ J u n e 29/95 1 ITest L W (lbs.)
30320 1
( T e s t HP@SOmph 1 85.05 ]
95-86
SW Oh10 Reg. T.A
DDC 8V7 1
93LV8
Diesel
No Exhaust Aftertreatment
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
0 15388
0.1551
0.00122
THC Ambient (ppm)
27 27
9 72
CO Ambient (ppm)
17751
3 36
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOr Ambient (ppm)
85 36
2 25
I
0 86
0 05
\Particulate (timi.)
0 64%
1
1
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grout,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
~Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
~Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
S. W Oh10
g5-86
Reg. T A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
I
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15422
0.15535
000113
ITHC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
27 15
Y 58
ICO Sample (ppm)
‘CO Ambient (ppm)
152.22
107
NOm Sample (ppm)
NOn Ambient (ppm)
88.85
2 11
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0.85
0 05
Particulate (timi.
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
lVehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
95-86
S W OIuo Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Dtesel
0 15376
0.15661
0.00288
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
34 53
6 78
CO Sample (ppm)
CO hmbient (ppm)
150 25
1.72
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOr Ambient (ppm)
202 66
2.31
CO.2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (9~)
1.35
0 05
I
m
Test Cycle
Fuel Type
ICell
#
1,
No Exhaust Aftertreatment
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
Inilial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
95-86
S.W Oh10 Reg T A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
0.15053
0.15288
0 00235
TEC Sample (ppm)
TIlC Ambient (ppm)
33 62
8 69
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
118.6
2.46
NOa Sample (ppm)
NOr Ambient (ppm)
205 72
6.02
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%1
c
Date
Test Cycle
Fuel Type
Cell #
1.31
0 06
Fuel Consumption
mi/USgal
3 86
No Exhaust Aftertreatment
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research GrouD
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
95-86
Owner I Operator
SW Ohlo Reg T A
DDC 8V71
93LVS
Diesel
11
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15357
0.15558
0.00201
THC Ambient (ppm)
33 49
8 45
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
111.42
2.95
NOr Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
187 US
6.02
1.28
0 06
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S. W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
IE;ye
1 INo E x 1 h a Bz”
u s t
Diesel
A f t e r t r e a t m e n t
,
11
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
11
~1
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 1547
0 15861
0.00391
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
2-i 99
5 92
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
36.04
0 33
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
68 57
0 91
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 57
0 04
IFuel Cnnsumntion
3 51
mi/USgal
1
1
I
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research GrouD
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
c
Date
Test Cycle
Fuel Type
Cell #
95-86
Owner I Operator
S. W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V7 1
9.3 L V8
Diesel
(Bar. Pressure (in. HG)
Cell Temp. (deg. C)
Dew Point Temp. (deg. C)
KH Factor
29 93
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.14533
0.14795
0.00262
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
25 11
6.06
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
46.25
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOs Ambient (ppm)
71.86
I 17
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 73
0.59
0 05
1
Test LW (lbs.)
Test HP@SOmph
30320
85.05
No Exhaust Aftertreatment
(Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
1
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research GrouD
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
95-86
S.W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
0 11662
0.11915
0 00253
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
2177
5 73
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
42 55
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOs Ambient (ppm)
68 82
CO?. Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 57
0.05
041
130
No Exhaust Aftertreatment
A.
Regulated Emissions Test Results
A3
B20 with Engelhard Catalyst
25
#95-26713-2
NSED Report
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Qcle
95-86
SW Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V7 1
93LV8
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
I
Al
Soluble Organic
Carbonyls
~~
rInitial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.152 12
0.15421
0.00212
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
15.75
53
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
66 62
0 97
NOs Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
93 30
2.24
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (96)
0 96
0 05
Fraction
I
yes
yes
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grout
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
~Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cpcle
95-86
S. W Oluo Reg. T.A
DDC 8V7 1
93LV8
Diesel
Test LW (lbs.)
Test HP@Omph
Exhaust Aftertreatment
CMX Installed
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 1516
0 1537
0.002 1
THC Sample (ppm)
ITHC Ambient (ppm)
15 03
1.94
CO Sample @pm)
ICO Ambient (ppm)
12 21
0.55
NOr Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
98 52
2 12
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0.95
0 05
30320
85.05
1
I
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grout
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S.W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V7 1
9.3 L V8
Diesel
IBar. Pressure (in. HG)
Cell Temp. (deg. C)
Dew Point Temp. (deg. C)
KH Factor
29 647
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15112
0 15629
0 00187
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
13 92
5 29
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
46 12
1 17
NOr Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
98 84
1.71
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 96
0 05
Emrhaust Aftertreatment
CMX Installed
1
INon-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
I
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
SW Oh10 Reg T.A
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Diesel
CMX Installed
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
<I
Soluble Orgauic Fraction
Carbonyls
voc
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15365
0.15595
0.0023
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
16.83
5 75
CO Sample @pm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
12 53
0 50
NOr Sample (ppm)
155.66
NOx Ambient (ppm)
3 58
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1 52
0 06
Fuel Consumption
3.36
mi/USgal
yes
yes
“es
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Owner / Operator
95-86
S WOhioReg. TA
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Diesel
Exhaust Aftertreatment
CMX Installed
2
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15204
0.15381
0 0018
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
16 72
5 21
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
9 76
0 10
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
14 19
1 97
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 62
0 Oi
Par&late &hi.)
0 8761
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
SW Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15564
0 15798
0 00234
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
17.71
5.76
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
8.61
0 23
NOr Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
149 53
3.91
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1 17
0 06
Fuel Consumption
mi/USgal
3.52
I
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Groun
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S. W Oh10 Reg. T A
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Diesel
cI
Date
Test Cycle
Fuel Type
Ceil #
July 7195
NYCOMP-3
B20
2
Test LW (Ibs.)
Test HP@>Omph
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15307
0 15502
0.00195
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
16.72
5 43
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
13 97
0 18
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOr Ambient (ppm)
77.16
2 01
lCO2
0 63
0 05
Sample (%)
‘CO2 Ambient (%)
30320
85.05
A.
Regulated Emissions Test Results
A4
B20 with Engelhard Catalyst and Ignition Timing Retard
26
#95-26743-Z
MSED Report
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research GrouD
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S.W Ohio Reg T.A
DDC 8V7 1
9.3 L V8
Diesel
CMX Installed
Timing Retarded
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
11
Soluble Organic Fraction
Carbonyls
voc
~1
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 14858
0 15132
0.00274
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
18.23
7.06
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
45 63
1.21
NOa Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
90 06
3 92
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0.94
0.06
yes
yes
yes
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grout,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S.W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L vs
Diesel
CMX Installed
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Iuitial Filter Mass (s>
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15297
0.15532
0.00235
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
15.64
7.06
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient @pm)
19 35
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
115 06
3.92
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1.21
0 89
0 nh
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S.W Ohlo Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Diesel
CMX Installed
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 11984
0 1521
0.00226
THC Sample (ppm)
lTHC Ambient (ppm)
15.25
7 06
CO Sample (ppm)
ICO Ambient (ppm)
52 39
1 24
,NOs Sample (ppm)
NOr Ambient (ppm)
119 58
3.92
CO2 Sample (%)
lCO2 Ambient (%)
0 92
0 06
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grout,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
July 12195
ART-l
B20
2
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15466
0 15858
0.00392
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
19.79
6 43
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
78
161
NOa Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
195 78
6.63
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1.30
0 06
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner! Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
SW Ohio Reg T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
CMX Installed
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
3
~~
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15088
0.15359
0.00271
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
17 63
6 13
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
8.9
161
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
202 11
6 63
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1.36
0 06
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Groun
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
95-86
Owner / Operator
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (p)
S W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V7 1
93LVS
Diesel
0 14966
0 15166
0.002
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
17 06
6 13
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
8 03
NOx Sample (ppm)
202 41
6 63
NOx Ambient (ppm)
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (“/a)
161
1.32
0.06
Fuel Consumption
mi/USeal
3 91
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
r
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
SW Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L vs
Diesel
Date
Test Cycle
Fuel Type
ICell
#
1
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (9)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15129
0 15101
0 00275
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
18 16
161
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
1158
1 70
NOs Sample (ppm)
NOs Ambient (ppm)
75.60
3 61
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 56
0 06
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Owner / Operator
95-S
S W Oh10 Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Diesel
c
Date
Test Cycle
Fuel Type
Cell #
Test LW (lbs.)
Test EP@5Omph
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15274
0 15501
0.00227
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
17 47
7.61
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
18.21
1.70
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOa Ambient (ppm)
87.95
3 61
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0.63
0 06
30320
85.05
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Groun
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
SW Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L vs
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15524
0 15711
0 00187
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
17 61
7 61
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
12 19
1.70
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
83 13
3 61
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0.6 1
0.06
Regulated Emissions Test Results
A5
B20 with Ignition Timing Retard
27
895-26743-2
,MSED Report
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grow
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
SW Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
IExhaust Aftertreatment
ITiming Retarded 1
[Bar. Pressure (in. HG)
Cell Temp. (deg. C)
Dew Point Temp. (deg. C)
29.741
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.1535
0.15757
0 00407
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
28 28
6 18
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
151.19
3 12
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
82.22
3.25
CO2 Sample (%)
iCO2 Ambient (%)
0 86
0 06
1
INon-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
I
I Soluble Organic Fraction
yes
1
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Grout,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Soluble Organic Fraction
Carbonyls
voc
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Fitter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
CO Sample (ppm)
0.15269
0.15566
0.00297
28 4
7 1-i
CO Ambient (ppm)
15-I 61
6 08
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOs Ambient (ppm)
81.66
4.5 1
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 85
0.07
Fuel Consumption
mi/USgal
3.62
yes
yes
“es
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle
Owner
Engine
Engine
Engine
Number
/ Operator
Model
Cycle
95-86
S. W Ohio Reg. T A
DDC 8V7 1
93LVS
Diesel
me
Timin Retarded
Non-Regolated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15195
0.15471
0 00279
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
28 61
7 82
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
159 72
6 46
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
76 71
3.96
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0.85
0 07
THC (g/mi.)
CO (g/mi.)
NOx (p/m;.)
CO2 (g/mi.)
Particulate (g/mi.)
32.;1
20 87
2817 16
1.5421
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research GrouD
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
SW Oluo Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Diesel
IDate
) July 14/95 ) ITest L W (lbs.)
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.1521
0.15845
0.00635
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
38.93
7.52
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
137.5
3 49
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOn Ambient (ppm)
12-i 02
7 68
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1.23
0 10
Fuel Consumption
4.24
milZTSga1
1
30320
1
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Groun
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S W Ohto Reg. T.A
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Dtesel
IDate
1 July 14195 1 ITest
A
~
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15
0 15338
0 00338
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
35 74
8.53
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
162 1
6 08
NOr Sample (ppm)
NOr Ambient (ppm)
123 34
8.76
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
133
0 10
IFuel Cnnsumntion
mi/USgal
1
3 82
LW
(lbs.) (
30320
1
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Owner I Operator
95-86
S. W Ohio Reg T.A
DDC 8V71
93LV8
Diesel
c
Date
Test Cycle
Fuel Type
Cell #
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
/Total DPS Volume (scf)
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 15208
0 1551
0.00302
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
35 13
10 52
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
180 29
8 89
NOs Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
143.35
13 86
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
1.41
0.12
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner I Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
/Date
( July 13/95 1 ITest
L W
(lbs.)
S. W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V7 1
93LVS
Diesel
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
11
~~
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15575
0.15969
0.00394
!THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
25 01
6 43
ICO Sample (ppm)
‘CO Ambient (ppm)
36.13
2 17
NOa Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
62 51
2 89
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0.57
0 06
1
30320
1
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Group,
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner / Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S.W Ohio Reg T.A
DDC 8V71
9.3 L V8
Diesel
Timing Retarded
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0 13616
0 13881
0 00268
THC Sample (ppm)
THC Ambient (ppm)
25 18
78
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
30 24
NOx Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
61.03
3.17
CO2 Sample (%)
CO2 Ambient (%)
0.57
0 06
191
Fuel Consumption
3.66
miAJSgal
Mobile Sources Emission Division of Environment Canada - Emissions Research Groue
Heavy Duty Chassis Dynamometer Emission Results
Vehicle Number
Owner! Operator
Engine Model
Engine
Engine Cycle
95-86
S. W Ohio Reg. T.A
DDC 8V7 1
9.3 L V8
Diesel
e
Exhaust Aftertreatment
I
Non-Regulated Emission Sampling Required
Initial Filter Mass (g)
Final Filter Mass (g)
Total Particulate Mass (g)
0.15123
0.15123
0 003
THC Ambient (ppm)
26 32
8 09
CO Sample (ppm)
CO Ambient (ppm)
38 1
2 98
NOs Sample (ppm)
NOx Ambient (ppm)
61.92
3.06
0.33
CO2 Ambient (%)
0 06
B.
Aldehyde - Ketone Emissions Analysis - All Tests
25
#95-26743-2
MSED Report
I
:
F
F
r
C.
Soluble Organic Analysis - All Tests
29
$95-26743-2
MSED Report
0’1001
0'9L6
0’ 196
0’926
0’ LO6
0’9L8
0’198
0.928
0’108
0 9LL
0‘ LSL
0’92L
O.LOL
0’9L9
0’ 199
0’929
0’109
0’9L9
0’1%
0.92s
0’10s
0’9LP
O’ISP
-
-
0’9Zt
0’ COP
0’9LE
0’1%
0.92s
O’LOE
O’SLZ
0’ 1sz
3’922
3’LOZ
3’9L 1
3’lSL
3’9ZL
3’101
i?
3’9L
1’1s
3’92
3’1
:
8
$
.Fif!
D.
Emission Test Cycles
30
#S-26743-2
MSED Report
1
J
I
qdtu paads
0'009
O’SLS
t
om
am
r
:. i
,
t
am
.
.
,
.
am
3al
am
.
3 !3
nm
,
I
3 17